The court found that while there was inordinate and unexplained delay by the appellant in prosecuting the appeal, the legal framework under Order 42 Rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires that directions must first be given before an appeal can be dismissed for want of prosecution. In this case, there was no evidence that directions had been taken or that the registrar had issued the requisite notice. Although the appellant's conduct indicated a lack of diligence, the grounds of appeal appeared weighty and the respondent would suffer prejudice if the appeal was dismissed at this stage. The court exercised its discretion to disallow the application for dismissal, instead granting the appellant a final opportunity to file and serve the record of appeal within a set timeline, failing which the appeal would be automatically dismissed. Costs were ordered to be in the cause.