The court found that the applicant was not to blame for the delay in filing the memorandum and record of appeal, as the delay was caused by the court registry's prolonged preparation of certified proceedings and judgment. The applicant had acted diligently in applying for the necessary documents and serving the notice of appeal within the prescribed time. Although the applicant subsequently failed to utilize the full period available after the issuance of the certificate of delay, this did not warrant penalizing him by denying the extension, especially given the fundamental nature of the land dispute and the applicant's long-standing occupation of the property. The court exercised its discretion in favor of the applicant, balancing the interests of justice and the right to be heard, and found that any inconvenience to the respondents could be compensated by an award of costs.