Judgment No. SC 12/18 Chamber Application No. SC 179/15 That application ought to have been made simultaneously with an application for condonation and extension of time within which to file its heads of argument in terms of r 26 which provides that: “At any time before or during the hearing of a matter a President or the Court may— (a) direct, authorise or condone a departure from any of these rules, including an extension of any period specified therein, where the President or Court is satisfied that the departure is required in the interests of justice, fairness and equity; (b) give such directions as to procedure in respect of any matter not expressly provided for in these rules as appear to the President of the Court to be just, expedient and equitable” In terms of r 33 the applicant had 30 days within which to make the above applications for relief in the court a quo. From the date it became aware of the so called judgment. This it not do. The so called judgment it seeks to impugn is dated 31 October 2012. It only approached this court for relief about two and a half years later on 15 March 2015. That delay in approaching this Court is lengthy and inordinate. It cannot be the kind of delay occasioned by a party who has the serious intention to prosecute its appeal. It appears to me that this Application was lodged as an afterthought, simply to circumvent the court a quo and throw spanners into the pending execution. The applicant could no longer approach the court a quo for relief as it was now woefully out of time. Approaching this Court was an ingenuous way of evading the natural consequences of its inordinate delay in approaching the court a quo for relief timeously. The applicant has not proffered any explanation for the inordinate delay of more than two and a half years before approaching this Court if it was sincere in its belief that the relief it seeks resides in this Court. In any case the applicant ought to have exhausted its 6