two similar legal situations be put side by side as to compare and find out whether an ill treatment was concretely meted out to either one or both of them”. 89. In the case AFRICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES' RIGHTS V. REPUBLIC OF KENYA APPLICATION No. 006/2012 JUDGMENT 26 may 2017, which deals with the violations of various rights of the indigenous people of Ogiek tribe in Kenya forest, the African Court on Human and Peoples Rights ruling on allegation of discrimination based on differential treatment of the tribe by the government of Kenya in comparison to other tribes in similar situation held as follows: “The Court accordingly finds that, if other groups which are in the same category of communities, which lead a traditional way of life and with cultural distinctiveness highly dependent on the natural environment as the Ogieks, were granted recognition of their status and the resultant rights, the refusal of the Respondent to recognize and grant the same rights to the Ogieks, due to their way of life as a hunter gatherer community amounts to 'distinction' based on ethnicity and/or 'other status' in terms of Article 2 of the Charter.” 90. The European Court of Human Rights in the case of RATZENBÖCK AND SEYDL v. AUSTRIA (Application no. 28475/12), in an action of discrimination for refusal to register a same sex marriage in Austria held as follows: “In order for an issue to arise under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (which is in pari-material with Article 14 of the ICCPR) there must be a difference in the treatment of persons in analogous, or relevantly similar, situations. An applicant must demonstrate that, having regard to the particular nature of his or her complaint, he or she was in a relevantly similar situation to others treated differently. However, not every difference in treatment will amount to a violation of Article 14. “ 91. In the instant case, the two similar legal situation before this court is the allegation of misconduct by judges of the Superior Courts. The similarity ends here as the records before the Court show that following the establishment of a prima facie case against the Applicants, they were given an opportunity to respond to the allegation. This undisputed fact is clearly distinguishable from the Agyei Twum case supra, where no prima facie case was made against the Plaintiff neither was he 33