before this Court, have not demonstrated what action they have taken or attempted to take to either have the High Court rule on their own claim or appeal to the Court of Appeal. In fact, Applicants do not seem of inclined paragraph‘ to approach the Court Appeal. On page 5, of their Reply to the Respondent's Response, they state clearly that “the present Applicants did not find it useful to revert to the Court of Appeal Moreover, through which had the Applicants found this Honourable Court previously ruled on the matter. it fit to resort to the African which, they believe is in the Union best position to see that justice is not only done but also seen to be done”. They add that “in another surprising turn of events, Karata Ernest have recently filed yet another Chamber Application (No. 165/2012) purporting to prolong the life span of Civil Suit No. 95/2003. What is even more intriguing is the fact that the Affidavit filed in support of Chamber Summons No. 165/2012 bears the reference to Civil Case No. 95/2003”. 127. The above statement moves this Court to draw two conclusions: if the Applicants are part of Suit No. 95/2003, the same is still pending before domestic Courts and as such have not been exhausted; 95/2003 pending local remedies if the Applicants are not part of Suit No. at the domestic Court, they have not taken their matter to the Court of Appeal, after the ruling of the learned Justice Twaib, on 23 May 2011. Their submission that they do not find it useful to revert to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that the Court previously ruled on the matter is wrong ‘ausé me Court of 2 fo a o. Appeal did not rule on the merits of the matter. Se RL A} had a @