1. This ruling is on an application dated 23rd September 2024 which seeks the following orders:
a. …………………Spent;
b. …………………Spent;
c. That the court be pleased to grant leave to the appellant / applicant to appeal out of time against the whole of the ruling made by Honorable Patricia May Vice Chairman the Business Premises Rent Tribunal in Mombasa BPRT case number 23 of 2021 on the 12th of June 2023;
d. That the draft Memorandum of Appeal attached herein be deemed duly filed upon payment of the requisite fees;
e. That the costs of this application be provided for.
2. The application is made on the ground that the applicant is aggrieved by the ruling in BPRT Case Number 23 Of 2021 delivered on 12th June 2023 and he wishes to appeal therefrom. According to him the delay in filing the appeal was occasioned by the time taken to get a certified copy of the ruling subject of this application and the intended appeal. It has been stated by the applicant that though the matter was fixed for a ruling on 4th May 2023 and rescheduled to 2nd June 2023 the same was not delivered as scheduled on the latter date and the applicant later learned from his advocates on record that the ruling was delivered virtually on 12th June 2023 without their knowledge and without notice. Thereafter, on various dates the applicants’ advocates on record wrote to the Secretary of the BPRT seeking a copy of the ruling but there was no response, and they had to resort to escalating the issue to the Office of the Judiciary Ombudsman on 6th September 2023 by lodging a complaint. The Judiciary Ombudsman responded on 4th October 2023 stating that the ruling would be shared vide an email address provided in the pleadings. It is stated that the respondent filed Kilifi Chief Magistrates Court Miscellaneous Application Number 1 of 2024 where he obtained ex parte orders enforcing the ruling of the BPRT made on 12th June 2023. The applicant avers that he was not served with process in respect of Kilifi Chief Magistrates Court Miscellaneous Application Number 1 of 2024 yet his motor vehicle has been attached in execution of the decree issued by the Kilifi Magistrate Court on 30th January 2024, enforcing the ruling subject of the appeal herein hence the need for protection by way of an order of stay of execution by this court.
3. The application is supported by the sworn affidavit of the applicant dated 23rd September 2024.
4. The respondent filed a replying affidavit dated 7th October 2024 in opposition to the application. He stated by a way of historical background to the application that the applicant stormed into his business premises and carted away goods worth Kenya shillings 1, 809, 944, broke his padlocks and put his own locks, and required him to vacate the premises. There is an ongoing criminal case against the applicant for malicious damage and threatening to kill the respondents’ employees.
5. The respondent filed a suit in the BPRT over the goods scattered away and he was awarded the decretal sum herein before mentioned. The Respondent commenced execution in January 2024 by filing a Miscellaneous Application before the Kilifi Court to adopt the ruling of the BPRT as a court order.
6. In terms of merit, the respondent avers that the applicant never took action to file an appeal from 4th October 2024; that it is 1 year since they were provided with the ruling and yet no appeal has been filed and the delay has not been explained. He attributes the application to bad faith. He maintains that the application for execution in the Kilifi court was served on the on the applicant. He also maintains that the proclamation of attachment was also served. He states that the applicant is a foreigner and that he is delaying the execution and he could easily leave the jurisdiction thus rendering it impossible for the respondent to execute his judgment. In the event that leave is granted to appeal out of time the respondent prays that the decretal amount and cost be deposited in court.
7. The application was disposed of by way of written submissions I have considered the submissions of the applicant dated 21st October 2024 and those of the respondent dated 6th January 2025 in the preparation of this ruling.
Analysis and determination
8. The question arising for determination is whether stay of execution should be granted and whether leave to appeal out of time should be granted. In considering whether or not to grant a stay of execution the court has unfettered discretion. three things come under sharp scrutiny by the court as held in Wasike V Swala [1984] KLR 591:
a) The merits in the proposed appeal;
b) That the extension of time to institute and/or file the appeal will not cause undue prejudice to the respondent; and
c) That the delay has not been inordinate.”
9. This court has perused the ruling delivered by the BPRT and the draft memorandum of appeal exhibited by the applicant. To this court, the proposed appeal lacks in merit.
10. On the other hand, I find that the applicant failed to remit the decretal sum and the costs and enticed the respondent by way of a long period of inaction to believe that there would be no appeal against the decision of the Tribunal, such that he undertook the process of execution, which also incurred time and expense. It is the right of every judgment creditor to enjoy the fruits of his judgment and so the rights of a seeker of orders of stay of execution must be balanced against such a respondent’s right. Where there is no reasonable explanation for the delay in filing an appeal or lodging an application for stay of execution as in this case, the judgment holder is entitled to believe that there will be no appeal and such expectation leads him to initiate the process of execution. I find that it would be prejudicial for the respondent to be prevented from executing his judgment unless there is a good explanation for the delay in filing the appeal. The issue of delay is the next one I will address immediately herein below. I will therefore answer that question regarding potential prejudice to the respondent after dealing with the issue of whether the delay is inordinate as herein below.
11. In Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo v Paul Kipkorir Kibet [2018] KECA 701 (KLR) [9] the court stated as follows:
“I have considered the motion, the affidavits and the submissions of counsel. The power to extend time under Rule 4 of this Court’s Rules is an exercise of discretion and the factors to be considered were stated in Fakir Mohammed v. Joseph Mugambi & 2 others [2005] eKLR (Civil Application No. Nai. 332 of 2004 (Nyr. 32/04)) where it was held that:
“The exercise of this Court’s discretion under Rule 4 has followed a well-beaten path since the stricture of “sufficient reason” was removed by amendment in 1985. As it is unfettered, there is no limit to the number of factors the court would consider so long as they are relevant. The period of delay, the reason for the delay, (possible) the chances of the appeal succeeding if the application is granted, the degree of prejudice to the respondent if the application is granted, the effect of delay on public administration, the importance of compliance with time limits, the resources of the parties, whether the matter raises issues of public importance-are all relevant but not exhaustive factor.””
12. In Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo (supra) the court also stated as follows:
“[12] The law does not set out any minimum or maximum period of delay. All it states is that any delay should be satisfactorily explained. A plausible and satisfactory explanation for delay is the key that unlocks the court’s flow of discretionary favour. There has to be valid and clear reasons, upon which discretion can be favourably exercisable.”
13. In the case of County Executive of Kisumu v County Government of Kisumu & 8 others [2017] KESC 16 (KLR) the Supreme Court stated as follows:
“It is trite law that in an application for extension of time, the whole period of delay should be declared and explained satisfactorily to the Court. Further, this Court has settled the principles that are to guide it in the exercise of its discretion to extend time in the Nicholas Salat case to which all the parties herein have relied upon. The Court delineated the following as the under-lying principles that a Court should consider in exercise of such discretion:
1.Extension of time is not a right of a party. It is an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the Court;
2.A party who seeks for extension of time has the burden of laying a basis to the satisfaction of the court;
3.Whether the court should exercise the discretion to extend time, is a consideration to be made on a case to case basis;
4.Whether there is a reasonable reason for the delay. The delay should be explained to the satisfaction of the Court;
5.Whether there will be any prejudice suffered by the respondents if the extension is granted;
6.Whether the application has been brought without undue delay; and
7.Whether in certain cases, like election petitions, public interest should be a consideration for extending time.”
14. In the same case, the Supreme Court also stated as follows:
“The issue of delay of typed proceedings is well known in our legal system and on this basis; this Court has previously extended time and held that such a delay is not on part of the party but the court and that this issue consists of facts beyond a party’s reach. In Hassan Nyanje Charo v Khatib Mwashetani and 3 Others, eKLR [2014] this Court stated:
(27) Counsel for the applicant has stated that he has exercised all due diligence to get the proceedings from the Court of Appeal, but to no avail...
(28) Would it be in the interests of justice then to turn away an applicant who has, prima facie, exercised all due diligence in pursuit of his cause, but is impeded by the slow-turning wheels of the Court’s administrative machinery? We think not.”
However, we hasten to add that a ground of delay of getting typed proceedings is not a prima facie panacea for a case of delay whenever it is pleaded. Each case has to be determined on its own merit and all relevant circumstances considered. It is worth reiterating that in considering whether or not to extend time, the whole period of delay should be stated and explained to the satisfaction of the Court.
In the present case, while there is indeed a certificate of delay from the Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal, this alone does not suffice for the Court to indulge the applicant and grant an extension. The proceedings were availed to the applicant on 4th December, 2015. It filed its application more than two months later. While it submits that it filed the application on 8th February, 2016, the record (from the receipt of payment and the stamp on the face of the application) shows that the application was in fact filed on 12th February, 2016. The question that begs for an answer is whether this ‘further’ delay after receipt of the typed proceedings has been explained?28. In an attempt to explain this further delay, the applicant, first invokes Order 50 Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and argues that time does not run between 19th December and 21st January. Secondly, it submits that due to the festive season, its counsel could not get instructions until the month of February.29. We do not find this explanation sufficient…”
15. It is trite in the present case that an appeal should have been filed within 30 days. That did not happen. The applicant thinks he has a good explanation for the delay. First, he states that the ruling intended to be appealed was not delivered on the date it was scheduled to be. Secondly, he blames the slow court processes that hampered his obtaining of a copy of the impugned ruling. He states that after the ruling was delivered virtually on 12th June 2023, he could not immediately get a copy and he had to seek the intervention of the Judiciary Ombudsman in order to get one.
16. The respondent does not see this as an application in which extension of time should be granted. He states in a submission that the application was filed 1 year and 4 months after the ruling and that filing was done only after he tried to execute against the applicant. He accuses the applicant of indolence and bad faith, an intention to frustrate the respondent from enjoying the fruits of its judgment. The respondent identifies the sole reason for the delay given by the applicant to be that the ruling of the court was obtained in October 2023; however, he charges that the applicants never took action until he lodged the present appeal on 24th September 2024. He relies on the case of Diplack Kenya Limited Versus William Muthama Kitonyi 2018 eKLR and Nicholas Kiptoo Korir Arab Salat Versus IEBC and Others 2014 eKLR where the principles applicable in an application for leave to appeal out of time were enunciated.
17. In the present case the ruling was delivered on 12th June 2023 while the present application was lodged on 24th September 2024. That is a period of approximately one year and three months.
18. In explaining the lengthy delay, the applicant started off with an explanation regarding the delay by stating that on 20th June 2024 he learned that the ruling had been delivered on 12th June 2023 in his absence and without notice. He proceeded to narrate his travails in his attempt to obtain a copy of the ruling including approaching the Office of the Judiciary Ombudsman, but his narrative trails of at the point where on 4th October 2023 the Judiciary Ombudsman responded by stating that the ruling would be shared with him through the email address provided in his pleading. Instead of stating clearly when that ruling was finally shared with him by email and providing proof, he draws a red herring across the trail in the form of another unnecessary narrative regarding the filing of another Case Malindi Miscellaneous Application Number 25 of 2023, by the respondent a totally needless tale and a waste of time. He then proceeds into another narrative regarding the filing of Kilifi Chief Magistrates Court Application Number 1 of 2024 for the enforcement of the orders made in the ruling intended to be appealed from. From this he moves on to another narrative regarding the attachment of his vehicle. None of these afford a good ground as to why the present application was not lodged in October 2023 immediately after he obtained the ruling. Nowhere in his supporting affidavit does this court find any express statement indicating the date on which he obtained the ruling. This court frowns on such an obfuscationist approach to the very quintessential issue upon which the extension of time that he seeks is predicated. This court is compelled to presume that the date on which the Judiciary Ombudsman promised the sharing of the ruling is the date on which the applicant obtained that ruling. That date is 4th October 2023. From that date till the date of filing of the present application is a period of almost 12 months. I have examined the application several times in vain for any explanation whatsoever as to why the application was not lodged immediately upon receipt of the ruling or as soon thereafter as was practicable. Chasing after an application for execution is not an excuse for failing to file an application for extension of time to appeal. Following up on a fresh suit filed by the respondent also does not afford a good ground that justifies the delay of almost 12 months. In the circumstances the question that I left pending herein before, that is the question as to whether the respondent would be occasioned prejudice if stay of execution were to be allowed, is answered in the positive by the finding of this court that the delay is unexplained and thus inordinate. Consequently, I find that the application dated 23rd September 2024 must fail for having been brought inordinately late and without any reasonable explanation. I therefore dismiss the same with costs to the respondent. For the avoidance of doubt all interim orders issued earlier are hereby vacated.
Dated, signed and delivered at Malindi via electronic mail on this 2nd day of April 2025.
a. …………………Spent;
b. …………………Spent;
c. That the court be pleased to grant leave to the appellant / applicant to appeal out of time against the whole of the ruling made by Honorable Patricia May Vice Chairman the Business Premises Rent Tribunal in Mombasa BPRT case number 23 of 2021 on the 12th of June 2023;
d. That the draft Memorandum of Appeal attached herein be deemed duly filed upon payment of the requisite fees;
e. That the costs of this application be provided for.
2. The application is made on the ground that the applicant is aggrieved by the ruling in BPRT Case Number 23 Of 2021 delivered on 12th June 2023 and he wishes to appeal therefrom. According to him the delay in filing the appeal was occasioned by the time taken to get a certified copy of the ruling subject of this application and the intended appeal. It has been stated by the applicant that though the matter was fixed for a ruling on 4th May 2023 and rescheduled to 2nd June 2023 the same was not delivered as scheduled on the latter date and the applicant later learned from his advocates on record that the ruling was delivered virtually on 12th June 2023 without their knowledge and without notice. Thereafter, on various dates the applicants’ advocates on record wrote to the Secretary of the BPRT seeking a copy of the ruling but there was no response, and they had to resort to escalating the issue to the Office of the Judiciary Ombudsman on 6th September 2023 by lodging a complaint. The Judiciary Ombudsman responded on 4th October 2023 stating that the ruling would be shared vide an email address provided in the pleadings. It is stated that the respondent filed Kilifi Chief Magistrates Court Miscellaneous Application Number 1 of 2024 where he obtained ex parte orders enforcing the ruling of the BPRT made on 12th June 2023. The applicant avers that he was not served with process in respect of Kilifi Chief Magistrates Court Miscellaneous Application Number 1 of 2024 yet his motor vehicle has been attached in execution of the decree issued by the Kilifi Magistrate Court on 30th January 2024, enforcing the ruling subject of the appeal herein hence the need for protection by way of an order of stay of execution by this court.
3. The application is supported by the sworn affidavit of the applicant dated 23rd September 2024.
4. The respondent filed a replying affidavit dated 7th October 2024 in opposition to the application. He stated by a way of historical background to the application that the applicant stormed into his business premises and carted away goods worth Kenya shillings 1, 809, 944, broke his padlocks and put his own locks, and required him to vacate the premises. There is an ongoing criminal case against the applicant for malicious damage and threatening to kill the respondents’ employees.
5. The respondent filed a suit in the BPRT over the goods scattered away and he was awarded the decretal sum herein before mentioned. The Respondent commenced execution in January 2024 by filing a Miscellaneous Application before the Kilifi Court to adopt the ruling of the BPRT as a court order.
6. In terms of merit, the respondent avers that the applicant never took action to file an appeal from 4th October 2024; that it is 1 year since they were provided with the ruling and yet no appeal has been filed and the delay has not been explained. He attributes the application to bad faith. He maintains that the application for execution in the Kilifi court was served on the on the applicant. He also maintains that the proclamation of attachment was also served. He states that the applicant is a foreigner and that he is delaying the execution and he could easily leave the jurisdiction thus rendering it impossible for the respondent to execute his judgment. In the event that leave is granted to appeal out of time the respondent prays that the decretal amount and cost be deposited in court.
7. The application was disposed of by way of written submissions I have considered the submissions of the applicant dated 21st October 2024 and those of the respondent dated 6th January 2025 in the preparation of this ruling.
Analysis and determination
8. The question arising for determination is whether stay of execution should be granted and whether leave to appeal out of time should be granted. In considering whether or not to grant a stay of execution the court has unfettered discretion. three things come under sharp scrutiny by the court as held in Wasike V Swala [1984] KLR 591:
a) The merits in the proposed appeal;
b) That the extension of time to institute and/or file the appeal will not cause undue prejudice to the respondent; and
c) That the delay has not been inordinate.”
9. This court has perused the ruling delivered by the BPRT and the draft memorandum of appeal exhibited by the applicant. To this court, the proposed appeal lacks in merit.
10. On the other hand, I find that the applicant failed to remit the decretal sum and the costs and enticed the respondent by way of a long period of inaction to believe that there would be no appeal against the decision of the Tribunal, such that he undertook the process of execution, which also incurred time and expense. It is the right of every judgment creditor to enjoy the fruits of his judgment and so the rights of a seeker of orders of stay of execution must be balanced against such a respondent’s right. Where there is no reasonable explanation for the delay in filing an appeal or lodging an application for stay of execution as in this case, the judgment holder is entitled to believe that there will be no appeal and such expectation leads him to initiate the process of execution. I find that it would be prejudicial for the respondent to be prevented from executing his judgment unless there is a good explanation for the delay in filing the appeal. The issue of delay is the next one I will address immediately herein below. I will therefore answer that question regarding potential prejudice to the respondent after dealing with the issue of whether the delay is inordinate as herein below.
11. In Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo v Paul Kipkorir Kibet [2018] KECA 701 (KLR) [9] the court stated as follows:
“I have considered the motion, the affidavits and the submissions of counsel. The power to extend time under Rule 4 of this Court’s Rules is an exercise of discretion and the factors to be considered were stated in Fakir Mohammed v. Joseph Mugambi & 2 others [2005] eKLR (Civil Application No. Nai. 332 of 2004 (Nyr. 32/04)) where it was held that:
“The exercise of this Court’s discretion under Rule 4 has followed a well-beaten path since the stricture of “sufficient reason” was removed by amendment in 1985. As it is unfettered, there is no limit to the number of factors the court would consider so long as they are relevant. The period of delay, the reason for the delay, (possible) the chances of the appeal succeeding if the application is granted, the degree of prejudice to the respondent if the application is granted, the effect of delay on public administration, the importance of compliance with time limits, the resources of the parties, whether the matter raises issues of public importance-are all relevant but not exhaustive factor.””
12. In Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo (supra) the court also stated as follows:
“[12] The law does not set out any minimum or maximum period of delay. All it states is that any delay should be satisfactorily explained. A plausible and satisfactory explanation for delay is the key that unlocks the court’s flow of discretionary favour. There has to be valid and clear reasons, upon which discretion can be favourably exercisable.”
13. In the case of County Executive of Kisumu v County Government of Kisumu & 8 others [2017] KESC 16 (KLR) the Supreme Court stated as follows:
“It is trite law that in an application for extension of time, the whole period of delay should be declared and explained satisfactorily to the Court. Further, this Court has settled the principles that are to guide it in the exercise of its discretion to extend time in the Nicholas Salat case to which all the parties herein have relied upon. The Court delineated the following as the under-lying principles that a Court should consider in exercise of such discretion:
1.Extension of time is not a right of a party. It is an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the Court;
2.A party who seeks for extension of time has the burden of laying a basis to the satisfaction of the court;
3.Whether the court should exercise the discretion to extend time, is a consideration to be made on a case to case basis;
4.Whether there is a reasonable reason for the delay. The delay should be explained to the satisfaction of the Court;
5.Whether there will be any prejudice suffered by the respondents if the extension is granted;
6.Whether the application has been brought without undue delay; and
7.Whether in certain cases, like election petitions, public interest should be a consideration for extending time.”
14. In the same case, the Supreme Court also stated as follows:
“The issue of delay of typed proceedings is well known in our legal system and on this basis; this Court has previously extended time and held that such a delay is not on part of the party but the court and that this issue consists of facts beyond a party’s reach. In Hassan Nyanje Charo v Khatib Mwashetani and 3 Others, eKLR [2014] this Court stated:
(27) Counsel for the applicant has stated that he has exercised all due diligence to get the proceedings from the Court of Appeal, but to no avail...
(28) Would it be in the interests of justice then to turn away an applicant who has, prima facie, exercised all due diligence in pursuit of his cause, but is impeded by the slow-turning wheels of the Court’s administrative machinery? We think not.”
However, we hasten to add that a ground of delay of getting typed proceedings is not a prima facie panacea for a case of delay whenever it is pleaded. Each case has to be determined on its own merit and all relevant circumstances considered. It is worth reiterating that in considering whether or not to extend time, the whole period of delay should be stated and explained to the satisfaction of the Court.
In the present case, while there is indeed a certificate of delay from the Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal, this alone does not suffice for the Court to indulge the applicant and grant an extension. The proceedings were availed to the applicant on 4th December, 2015. It filed its application more than two months later. While it submits that it filed the application on 8th February, 2016, the record (from the receipt of payment and the stamp on the face of the application) shows that the application was in fact filed on 12th February, 2016. The question that begs for an answer is whether this ‘further’ delay after receipt of the typed proceedings has been explained?28. In an attempt to explain this further delay, the applicant, first invokes Order 50 Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and argues that time does not run between 19th December and 21st January. Secondly, it submits that due to the festive season, its counsel could not get instructions until the month of February.29. We do not find this explanation sufficient…”
15. It is trite in the present case that an appeal should have been filed within 30 days. That did not happen. The applicant thinks he has a good explanation for the delay. First, he states that the ruling intended to be appealed was not delivered on the date it was scheduled to be. Secondly, he blames the slow court processes that hampered his obtaining of a copy of the impugned ruling. He states that after the ruling was delivered virtually on 12th June 2023, he could not immediately get a copy and he had to seek the intervention of the Judiciary Ombudsman in order to get one.
16. The respondent does not see this as an application in which extension of time should be granted. He states in a submission that the application was filed 1 year and 4 months after the ruling and that filing was done only after he tried to execute against the applicant. He accuses the applicant of indolence and bad faith, an intention to frustrate the respondent from enjoying the fruits of its judgment. The respondent identifies the sole reason for the delay given by the applicant to be that the ruling of the court was obtained in October 2023; however, he charges that the applicants never took action until he lodged the present appeal on 24th September 2024. He relies on the case of Diplack Kenya Limited Versus William Muthama Kitonyi 2018 eKLR and Nicholas Kiptoo Korir Arab Salat Versus IEBC and Others 2014 eKLR where the principles applicable in an application for leave to appeal out of time were enunciated.
17. In the present case the ruling was delivered on 12th June 2023 while the present application was lodged on 24th September 2024. That is a period of approximately one year and three months.
18. In explaining the lengthy delay, the applicant started off with an explanation regarding the delay by stating that on 20th June 2024 he learned that the ruling had been delivered on 12th June 2023 in his absence and without notice. He proceeded to narrate his travails in his attempt to obtain a copy of the ruling including approaching the Office of the Judiciary Ombudsman, but his narrative trails of at the point where on 4th October 2023 the Judiciary Ombudsman responded by stating that the ruling would be shared with him through the email address provided in his pleading. Instead of stating clearly when that ruling was finally shared with him by email and providing proof, he draws a red herring across the trail in the form of another unnecessary narrative regarding the filing of another Case Malindi Miscellaneous Application Number 25 of 2023, by the respondent a totally needless tale and a waste of time. He then proceeds into another narrative regarding the filing of Kilifi Chief Magistrates Court Application Number 1 of 2024 for the enforcement of the orders made in the ruling intended to be appealed from. From this he moves on to another narrative regarding the attachment of his vehicle. None of these afford a good ground as to why the present application was not lodged in October 2023 immediately after he obtained the ruling. Nowhere in his supporting affidavit does this court find any express statement indicating the date on which he obtained the ruling. This court frowns on such an obfuscationist approach to the very quintessential issue upon which the extension of time that he seeks is predicated. This court is compelled to presume that the date on which the Judiciary Ombudsman promised the sharing of the ruling is the date on which the applicant obtained that ruling. That date is 4th October 2023. From that date till the date of filing of the present application is a period of almost 12 months. I have examined the application several times in vain for any explanation whatsoever as to why the application was not lodged immediately upon receipt of the ruling or as soon thereafter as was practicable. Chasing after an application for execution is not an excuse for failing to file an application for extension of time to appeal. Following up on a fresh suit filed by the respondent also does not afford a good ground that justifies the delay of almost 12 months. In the circumstances the question that I left pending herein before, that is the question as to whether the respondent would be occasioned prejudice if stay of execution were to be allowed, is answered in the positive by the finding of this court that the delay is unexplained and thus inordinate. Consequently, I find that the application dated 23rd September 2024 must fail for having been brought inordinately late and without any reasonable explanation. I therefore dismiss the same with costs to the respondent. For the avoidance of doubt all interim orders issued earlier are hereby vacated.
Dated, signed and delivered at Malindi via electronic mail on this 2nd day of April 2025.