132. The Respondent did not address this point in its Response of 7 March, that 2013. the However, matter the Court takes the view from the pleadings commenced in the High Court in 2003 and was finalised in 2005 by the conclusion of a consent judgment between the parties. In the opinion of the Court, the merits of the case was determined in 2005, and what took the claimants back to Court was the execution of the Deed of Settlement. 133: From the pleadings before this Court, it is clear that since 2003 when the case began in the domestic Courts, and especially after the signing of the Deed of Settlement in 2005, the delay in the process has been occasioned by internal bickering Their Reply to the Respondent's this conclusion. Response, among the paragraph claimants. 18 supports They submit that “ ...in fact, for reasons below...we would come to the conclusion explained that bearers of payroll 3A, under the umbrella Ernest Karata and six others are subject to factor of undue prolong delay, and one would wonder whether our honourable Government had no hand on this”. 134. There is no indication that proceedings at any stage of the case have been unduly prolonged in the domestic Courts, and the Applicants did not adduce any evidence to prove collusion between the Respondent procedure’. and When had generated, the Justice of the Court of Appeal List 3A to ‘prolong the realised the tension the case it invoked its power under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act to intervene, and when Court, claimants Twaib the case was disposed of referred back to the High it within two weeks, and t