112. In the Applicants’ Application dated 16 submit that “the decision [of Justice Utamwa by the Applicants. generated was The plainly January they ] was not well received heat, anger, mistrust reflected in public the 2012, and frustration statements to it the media”. 113. Acting under section 4(3) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Cap 141 R.E. 2002, the Court of Appeal called for the records of the High Court on the case, “in order to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the findings or orders of the learned High Court Judge or as to the regularity of the proceedings”. The Court of Appeal considered the case as Civil Revision No. 10 of 2010. 114. After hearing counsel for Respondent and Plaintiffs, the Court of Appeal “quashed that part of the High Court ruling striking out the application and ordered the substantive application to be heard on merit as soon as possible but by another Judge... All said and done, we find and issue a hold that the Certificate under High Court s.16 of had the been Act. properly The moved learned to Judge therefore, erred in law in failing to exercise his jurisdiction to hear and determine the application order striking out the on merit. That is why we did set aside his application for being incompetent and we restore it and ordered that it be heard and determined forthwith by another Judge”. It is important to state here did not examine the merits of the case. thatthe Court of Appeal =