On the hearing date of the application, the Respondent raised two points of objection to the effect that: the application was incompetent or premature since it sought orders against the Respondent who was not a party in the proceedings before the High Court against which it was desired to appeal, without first taking essential steps to regularize formally the substitution of the Respondent, without leave of the judge. The so called “rejoinder to the counter affidavit” was legally invalid for having been lodged in court in contravention of rule 46(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1979, Subsidiary Legislation [Cap 141 R.E. 2002] (Rules).