42. The Respondent State also submits that observance of time-limits is part of processes that the Court should oversee, monitor and enforce in dealing with applications before it. * 43. The Applicant did not respond to the Respondent State’s objection. *** 44. The Court notes that under Rule 44(3) of the Rules “where a party is unable to comply with any time limit prescribed in these Rules, the President may grant an extension of 30 [days] upon Application being made, giving reasonable explanation for the inability to comply”. 45. It follows that the Court has discretion to grant extension of time to file pleadings, having regard to the circumstances of each case. 46. In the instant case, the Court notes that reminders were sent to the Applicant and, on two occasions, he was granted, suo moto, an additional extension of 30 days to file his Reply to the Respondent State’s submissions, that is, on 18 June 2019 and 28 August 2019. The Court received the Applicant’s Reply on 10 September 2019, which was within the additional time. 47. The Court further recalls that, in the instant case, it also granted the Respondent State, suo moto, on 22 March 2019, an additional extension of 30 days to file its Response to the Application. 48. The Court considers that in the interest of justice, extension of time is an exceptional but necessary practice, provided that it does not hamper the proper administration of justice. Moreover, the principle of equality of arms is safeguarded in the instant case, since both Parties were granted an extension of time. 10