The defense of the Respondent was that the Armed Forces Act has procedures for internal complaint mechanism as provided for by the rules to which the Applicants were to avail themselves of but failed to comply and therefore they ought not to be heard before this Court. The principle of fair hearing requires that parties involved in the proceedings must be given an opportunity to be heard. This is a derivative from the principle of audi alteram partem which requires the other side must be heard and includes:  The Right to be heard before an independent, competent tribunal  The Right to be represented by Counsel of your choice To violate the principle of fair hearing in any tribunal or proceedings or decisions will have the consequences of making such decisions that may emanate from such hearing null and void of no legal effect. Therefore failing to observe the Right to fair hearing will amount to a breach. In the instant case the manner in which the dismissal of the Applicants were done clearly speak to the fact that the Respondent were in breach of the right of the Applicant to fair hearing. Especially so when the Applicant maintained that they were de-kitted, their identity cards withdrawn from them, their guns were withdrawn and then chased out of the barracks without given them any opportunity to be heard or paying them their arrears of salaries, allowances and end of service benefits. Under these conditions the Applicants left the services hurriedly and arbitrarily without them being given the opportunity to be heard. The issue here is whether in the circumstances as explained by the Applicants they were bound to refer to the internal complaint settlement mechanism in accordance with the Section of the Armed Forces Act to which the Respondent is seeking to rely on as a defense. The Court notes that the Applicant in their bid to reach an amicable settlement engaged the services of the lawyer who wrote to the Army Chief about their complaint but there was no response. On this note even though it is mandatory that the Applicants must comply with the internal rules they are at liberty to come before this Court for the violation of their human rights because they took advantage of the proceedings and wrote a letter of complaint but there was no response. So therefore the defense by the Respondent that the Applicants failed to comply with the internal rules of procedure cannot hold because they did not admit/deny the receipt of the letter in their defense. 14