R U L I N G
Objection has been taken by Mr. Muthoga on behalf of the respondent by way of a preliminary objection, notice whereof was duly given, that the application is misconceived, incompetent and an abuse of the process of the Court and ought to be struck out on the ground that the application had already been heard and determined by a single Judge of this Court in Civil Application No. NAI.200 of 1995 (the former application) and no application was made to the Court to vary, discharge or reverse the decision of the single Judge pursuant to rule 54 of the Rules of this Court.
By the former application, the applicant had applied for an extension of time to file an appeal and for an order with the record of appeal used in the previous appeal (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1989) be the record in the intended appeal. As is readily clear the former application is not the same as the present one. The former application was for an extension of time to file the record of appeal whereas the present…