21. At its 25" Ordinary Session, the Court noted that the deadline given to the Applicant to submit its reply had not expired, and decided to wait for the expiration of the deadline before taking a decision; 22. At its 26" Ordinary Session considered the request indefinitely, and decided served on the by held in September, the Applicant that the Respondent request as well as on to 2012, the Court adjourn the matter for adjournment should be PALU, should be and they given thirty (30) days within which to respond; 23. By separate letters of 24 September, as PALU, 2012, the Respondent, as well were served with copies of the Applicant's request, and were given 30 days within which to respond. They were due to respond by 24 October, 2012; 24. The Court further decided that it would take a decision on the way forward regarding the Application during its 28" Ordinary Session in March, 25. 2013, if the Applicant has still not provided any information; At its 27" Ordinary not made Session, any additional the Court noted that the Applicant had submission, and neither had the Respondent nor PALU. 26. As at the 15" of March, Respondent's request and 2013, the Applicant neither Responded to the Registry's letter; the had Respondent not reacted to the nor PALU had