urged the Court to take judicial notice that the Easter holidays were celebrated between 18th April 2014 and 21stApril 2014 and publishing the Gazette Notice described in the paragraph above was within the time stipulated by the law. The reason, according to him, why the Applicant's name did not appear in the Gazette Notice was because his application was not received as advertised. After successful interviews, the members of the Board of the 2nd Respondent were appointed vide a Gazette notice of dated 20th May 2014. 34. It was further deposed that as correspondence from the Commission on Administrative Justice ("CAJ") indicates that it was written on the 19th June 2014, it would have been impossible for the selection panel to review the ex parte applicant's case as their duties in the selection of the members of the board of the 2nd Respondent had already been concluded by the time CAJ wrote the letter annexed to the ex parte Applicant's Affidavit. He reiterated that any documents received past the deadline were not considered for the position. To him, at the very least, if the ex parte applicant had made a follow up telephone call, or visited the physical address provided in the advertisements on the Ministry's website, or sent his representative, the officers thereat would have ensured that his case would have been brought to the attention of the selection panel for consideration. 35. It was therefore his position that the application did not meet the basic tenets of a judicial review application as no illegality, irrationality, improper considerations or impropriety of procedure has been demonstrated by the ex-parte Applicant and the application should be dismissed. 2nd Respondents’ Case 36. In response to the application the 2nd Respondent filed a replying affidavit sworn by Francis Wangusi, its Director General on 9th December, 2014. 37. According to the deponent, the ex parte Applicant has failed to place before this honourable court any or any sufficient grounds upon which relief can be granted to it. 38. According to him, the 1st Respondent declared vacancies for the positions of members of the Board of the 2nd Respondent vide Gazette Notice No. 1781 published on 17th March, 2014 and invited applications from qualified candidates. A re-declaration of the vacancies was done vide Gazette Notice No. 2343 dated 3rd April, 2014 and the selection panel was indeed required to consider the various applications shortlist and publish the names and qualifications of all the Applicants within seven days of the expiry date of receiving the applications. The requisite qualifications are set out in Section 6A of the Kenya Information and Communications (Amendment) Act 2013, and were similarly set out in the advertisement for the vacancies. To him, the selection, short listing and appointment of members to the 2nd Respondent’s Board is entirely a function of the 1st Respondent herein, with respect to which the 2nd Respondent and the 2nd to 8th Interested Parties have no role to play. 39. It was therefore his view based on legal advice that that this application is misconceived and lacks legal and factual foundation, and no claim can lie against to 2nd Respondent as it had no role, statutorily or otherwise in the selection or short listing of candidates for the aforementioned positions. He prayed that this honourable court dismiss this application as against the 2ndRespondent with costs.