of objections to the Complainant's chamber summons was filed and served on him on the same day it was heard, to wit, 9 October 2007 and he had not been afforded enough time to prepare his response to the objections. 8. On the same day, 9 October 2007, the High Court dismissed the Complainant's chamber application of 8 October 2007 because it was frivolous, vexatious, and scandalous, and amounted to abuse of court process. The Complainant sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of the chamber application. The court refused permission and decided to proceed on 30 October 2007 with further hearing on the preliminary objections to the substantive matter as raised by the respondents on 27 Ju:ne 2007. 9. In view of the High Court's refusal to granthim leave to appeal the ruling on his chamber application, the Complainant took two steps: :firstly, he applied by motion for leave from the Court of Appeal to appe'af againstthe High Court's ruling on his chamber application. The motion was lodged witli. the Court of Appeal on 23 October 2007 and ., registered as Court of Appeal Civil Application No . NAI 260 of2007 (UR 160 of20O7). Secondly, theComplainanh,n a'fe an application to the Court of Appeal for orders to stay the ruling of 9 October 2007 and thus restrain the High Court from proceeding with the further hearing then scheduled to proceed on 30 October 2007: Thi~ .s~condapplication was registered as Court of Appeal Civil Application No: NA1261 of 2007 (UR 161 of 2007). 10. Following the hearing on 30 October ,2007, on 7 December 2007 High Court dismissed Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 22 of 2004 based on the preliminary objectiqns raised by the respondents. The Complainant sought, and the High Court granted, leave to appeal to Court of Appeal against the High Court's ruling of:7 l)eceITlber 2007. He states that the Registrar did not provide him with the certifiec;lcopies of the record of the proceedings and the ruling in question, and as a result he only managed to lodge the appeal in the Court of Appeal on 18 December 2QOtt The appeal was registered as Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 266 of 2008. 11. Further, on 21 December 2007 he lodged an application before the Court of Appeal seeking orders staying the execution of the High Court ruling of 7 December 2007 which dismissed Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 22 of 2004. This application for stay of execution was registered as Court of Appeal Civil Application No. NAI 320 of2007 (UR 220 of2007). 12. The Complainant states that despite the urgency of Court of Appeal Civil J;.pt-6.tl-:-:::~-:--. . No. 266 of 2008, the Chief Justice stalled it until around 5 March 200~ 9/✓ //.~ ·~· ·E!Rh@":;~-~~,, .,,</ (J reluctantly allowed it to be set down for hearing on 9 June 2009. On rp;,e ,s-nw ~~--- . ~ \ .I ,·f 'j} J n ·t· ru' ge , ~, , ~' ~ ili 4 ~U-UA '5-6, p 1' .,,_13 ~ <1 'v-1 ~v· , b4" "'R1c41N£ oe <;.,' ~TDf.SP~e~