The court found that although the delay in filing the appeal was inordinate, the applicant had provided a satisfactory explanation supported by documentary evidence, including a letter requesting the judgment and proceedings and a certificate of delay. The court exercised its discretion to allow the application for extension of time, noting that the applicant had not acted in bad faith and that the respondent would not suffer prejudice if the application was granted, provided that the decretal sum was secured. The court further held that the Memorandum of Appeal would be deemed duly filed upon payment of the requisite court fees within the stipulated period, and that the interests of justice would be served by allowing the application subject to conditions safeguarding the respondent's interests.