Vi. 2y. CONSIDERATIONS As regards the OF THE COURT ON THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION Respondent’s Response which the Applicants request to be expunged from the current procedure, the Court first notes that the said Response was forwarded to it by email on 17 December 2014, following the two emails which the Registrar addressed to the Respondent on 18 September and 20 November 2014, respectively. 28. The Court notes that the letter dated time limit for the submission 18 September of the response, whereas 2014, did not provide for any the letter dated 12 November 2014, filled that gap by setting 30 days’ time limit for the Respondent Response. It should be noted that a copy of the same to submit its letter was forwarded to the Applicants for information. 29. The Court notes that the Respondent received the Registry’s letter on 17 November 2014, and as such had up to 17 December 2014 to submit its Response. The Court finds within in this regard that the Respondent has submitted its Response the prescribed time limit. 30. Moreover, the Court holds that, in the instant case, the fact that it forwarded to the Applicants a letter dated 6 January 2015, transmitting the Respondent's Response does not mean that the Respondent submitted its Response out of time. 31. For these submitted reason, the Court and consequently holds that the Respondent's Response dismisses the preliminary objection was grounded validly on non- compliance with the time limit. 12| pte ca A Phe