delivery since all emails forwarding his application were copied to him and he received them immediately and within working hours of 15th April 2014. 18. The applicant contended that the 2nd Respondents reply claiming it was wrongly enjoined in the suit, was without merit so long as it was actively involved and eventually benefited from the appointment process that is being challenged as well as the fact that the remedy sought will directly affect its operations. 19. It was his position that the entire process leading to the appointment of the 2nd to 8th interested parties as members of the 2nd Respondent’s board cannot stand the tests of legality, rationality and procedural propriety warranting the granting of the orders sought. 20. It was submitted on behalf of the applicant that the 1st Respondent by failing to observe strict adherence to the statutory timelines in the process of appointing the 2nd to 8th interested parties as members of the 2nd Respondent’s Board failed to abide by the rule of law hence the entire recruitment and appointment process was tainted with illegality and irrationality due to the use of a server with insufficient capacity that led to unjustified disregard of the ex parte applicant’s application. 21. To the applicant the said action violated his right to dignity and realisation of his potential. It was further submitted that the 1st respondent’s appointment process fell short of integrity and violated the principle of accountability under Article 10 of the Constitution. 22. It was submitted that under Article 35(3) of the Constitution, the 1st Respondent was under a duty to publicise the persons nominated by the Selection Panel to the Board in compliance with the principle of accountability and transparency under Article 10 of the Constitution. By unfairly excluding the applicant due to malfunctioning of the 1st respondent’s server, it was contended that the recruitment process violated the applicant’s entitlement to fair administrative action. Further, despite the applicant through the CAJ seeking reasons from the 1st respondent, no such reasons were furnished. 23. According to the applicant the 1st Respondent failed to adhere to the provisions of section 6B as read with section 41 of the said Amendment Act with respect to adherence to specific timelines. The failure to adhere to the said timelines, it was contended rendered the entire appointment process void ab initio. 24. On the issue of the joinder of 2nd Respondent, it was submitted that since it was the beneficiary of the flawed process it stood to be directly affected by the orders sought hence was a proper party to the proceedings. 25. By failing to address the issues raised by the CAJ, it was contended that the applicant was justified in seeking the order of mandamus as sought. 26. To the applicant the issue of holidays falling in between the timelines does not arise since the last day did not fall on the excluded days as contemplated under section 57 of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act, Cap 2 Laws of Kenya. 27. Apart from citing various constitutional provisions, the applicant relied on PLO Lumumba and Louis Franceschi, The Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and Petition No. 337 of 2013 – Hon. Mr. Justice Joseph Mbalu Mutava vs. The Attorney General and Another. 1st Respondent’s Case.