upon the Court and other parties to the proceedings written Notice of the grounds upon which the Objection is premised. See Rule 41(2). 45. In the instant case, the Minutes that the Respondent now seeks to rely on were neither annexed to the Reference nor to the supporting affidavit. The Respondent could have furnished the said Minutes together with the Notice prescribed in Rule 41(2) but this, too, was not done. In the circumstances, the Respondent’s attempt to rely on them at the stage of submissions is, in our considered view, misconceived. It seems quite clear to us that Rule 39(1) is couched in mandatory terms and must be complied with. The rationale behind that Rule is to avert trial by ambush. Parties must be furnished with sufficient material by way of pleadings to enable them effectively respond to matters in contention between them. This cardinal rule of legal process was well articulated in the case of Captain Harry Gandy vs. Caspair Air Charter Ltd (1956) 23 EACA 139 as follows: “The object of pleadings is of course to ensure that both parties shall know what are the points in issue between them so that each may have full information of the case he has to meet and prepare his evidence to support his own case or to meet that of his opponent.” 46. We therefore find that the Minutes sought to be relied upon by the Respondent do not form part of the Court record and, consequently, shall not be relied upon by this Court in determining the issue of limitation of time. Accordingly, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we are satisfied that the Applicant got to know of the Commissions’ assumption of the UTC mall’s management on 2nd October 2013 vide a letter to that effect that was duly annexed to the Reference as Annexure G. Since the REFERENCE No. 10 OF 2013 Page 22