SKWEYIYA ADCJ [17] The Minister avers that the necessary advice and authorisation could not be secured in time because there was a misunderstanding on when the senior officials were to return from their festive-season vacation. Further, the notice that the request for a second extension had been declined came late to the attention of the State Attorney. The Minister‘s senior counsel was abroad and could not draft the application for condonation until his return. The Minister argues that he is not adopting an adversarial position and he does not oppose the confirmation of the order. However, he is of the view that the submissions will make a meaningful contribution to the debate and that the parties will suffer no prejudice if condonation is granted. [18] It is unacceptable that state parties continue to make light of the Rules of this Court and to disrespect other parties, the general public and the Court by failing to comply diligently with Court directions. The Minister had ample time to prepare submissions and the first request for an extension was granted to the very date that the Minister elected. It is to the great displeasure of the Court that unprofessional conduct of this nature continues to plague its proceedings. If it were not for the fact that the applicant‘s counsel is funded by the state, awarding costs against the Minister would have been an appropriate consideration. [19] Nevertheless, it is not in the interests of justice to refuse condonation in this instance as it would deprive the Court of submissions that are important to the determination of the matter. This is in the light of the absence of evidence of prejudice caused to the applicant or opposition to the grant of condonation. 11