128. The Court of Appeal simply “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 hold that the High Court had been properly moved to issue a Certificate under s.16 of the Act. The learned Judge therefore, jurisdiction to hear and erred in law in failing to exercise his determine the application on merit. That is why we did set aside his order striking out the application for being incompetent and we restore it and ordered that it be heard and determined forthwith by another Judge”. 129. It is clear from the above quotation that the Court of Appeal did not examine the merits of the case. 130. This Court therefore concludes that, either way, be it as part of Suit No. 95/2003 or separately, the Applicants have not complied with the requirement under Article 56(5) with respect to claims for process, the compensation. 131, On the question of undue prolongation of the Applicants allege that the process has been unduly prolonged at the domestic level. Response that They the claim Mediation in their Reply Agreement to for the the Respondent's payment of the defunct EAC ex-employees was signed_in-1984, and both Kenya and Uganda had since paid their citizens.