[34] We find that the circumstances of the present Petition are different from the circumstances of Assemblies of God case in that since the alleged offence was not continuous, the alleged contravention stopped being a continuing one and the Petitioner was not deprived of the right to file the Petition on time or apply for the leave of court to file it out of time. [35] This Court refers to Poole v The Government o{Seychelles & Drs (SCA 42 0{2013) [20151 SCCA 10 which held that the time limit set out in Rule 4 is a mandatory one. The court further cites the findings in Esparon v Electoral Commission Seychelles & Anor (MA 2912022 (Arising in CP 312(21)) [20221 seee 1 regarding lack of diligence on the part of the Petitioner. Rule 4 gives the Petitioners an opportunity to file a petition out of time subject to them adhering to procedure and providing sufficient reasons. The choice of the petitioner not to do so indicates a lack of diligence. We note that this is not the first time we observed such lack of diligence refer paragraph [28] herein. [36] The COUltdoes have the discretion to extend the time for filing the Petition under Rule (4) (4). However, this Court agrees with the submissions of the Respondents that such extension is not given as of course. In Darrel Green v Seychelles Licensing Authority and Government of Seychelles CA 4311997, Ayoola JA explained the workings of the erstwhile Rule 4 as follows: "Rule 4(3) permits a petition under rule 3, with leave of the Constitutional Court to be filed out of time; and, rule 4(3) empowers the Constitutional Court, for sufficient reason, to extend the time for filing a petition under rule 3. These provisions are straight forward and unambiguous in their terms. A person who alleges a contravention of a provision of the Constitution is as of right entitled to .file his petition within 30 days of the contravention. He is permitted to do so outside the prescribed period only if he obtains leave of the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court may grant such leave not as of course but only if the applicant shows sufficient reasons to justify an extension of time. Nothing in these provisions empowers the Constitutional Court to act suo motu and grant leave where none has been sought and where facts have not been deponed to before it showing "sufficient reasons" to 9