The court found that the appellant failed to obtain the requisite leave before filing the appeal against an order made on admission, rendering the appeal incompetent. Additionally, the appellant had not taken any steps to prosecute the appeal for over five years, and the delay was both inordinate and unexplained. The absence of any response or appearance by the appellant further supported the inference that the appellant had lost interest in the appeal. Consequently, the court allowed the respondent's application, striking out the memorandum of appeal and dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution, with costs to the respondent.