Respondent State deliberately permitted Justice Mary Angawa of the Nairobi High Court to strike-out or dismiss Mr. Njau's suit suo-mota contrary to the rules of justice and without a hearing on the merit of the land dispute. He alleges that this subjected Mr. Njau to discrimination and differential application of the law, deprived him of access to justice, fair trial, and protection of the law, and exposed his land to illegal interference. 11. The Complainant contends that Justice Angawa's views on the suit were incorrect, including her views that Civil Suit No. 1032 of 2005 filed by Mr. Njau was a continuation of Milimani CMCC No. 4404/2005, that there was an injunction issued against Mr. Njau in Milimani CMCC No. 4404/2005 on 22 April 2005, and that Mr. Njau was a party in Milimani CMCC No. 4404/2005. The Complainant argues that the referenced views of Justice Angawa were not based on evidence or facts. Therefore the dismissal of Mr. Njau's suit - Civil Suit No. 1032 of 2005, without according the same a fair hearing on merit was baseless. 12. The Complainant submits that despite lodging Nairobi Court of AppealCivil Appeal No. 69 of 2009 on 20 April 2009, to-date the Court of Appeal of Kenya has refused to hear and determine the appeal, thereby exposing Mr. Njau's land to illegal deprivation and interferences. The Complainant also avers that the Respondent State ultimately seeks to put his law firm out of business and that it is on a deliberate retaliatory mission to extinguish his legal career." II 13. In both Communications, the Complainant states that this Complaint was lodged because local remedies have been unduly prolonged by the Respondent State. The Complainant also avers that the local remedies are not practically or effectively available to him, owing to mistrust and lack of professional respect that exists between the Judiciary of the Respondent State and him as was held by the Vetting of Judges and Magistrates Board of The Respondent State on 25 April 2012, for which the Respondent State is solely to blame. 14. The Complainant also states that the Complaint has not been referred to any other international settlement body. 15. 3