the Court of Appeal Judges appointed to hear Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No . 266 of 2008 recused themselves and removed the urgency status of the matter. At the time of submitting tµe present Complaint to the Commission, Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 266 of 2008 had not been listed for any hearing thereby resulting in more of the reliefs he sought being rendered nugatory with the passage of time. He feels short-changed. 13. On the other hand, Court of Appeal Civil Application No. NAI 260 of 2007 (UR 160 of 2007) (application for leave to appeal), came up for hearing on 23 February 2012, 4 years 4 months after it was lodged with the Court of Appeal on 23 October 2007. Following that hearing, on 20 April 2012 the Court of Appeal dismissed the application thereby refusing permission to appeal. The Complainant states that the Court of Appeal's decision also effectively dismissed'some of the grounds of appeal in Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 266 of 2008 and further prejudiced Civil Application No. NAT 260 of 2007 (U~ l60of 200?) and Civil Application No. NAT 320 of2007 (UR 220 of2007 which were 5.till pending,_ on 20 April 2012. 14. The Complainant appealed as of rightto th~,,Supreme Court against the ruling of the Court of Appeal of 20 April 2012. The appeal was registered as Supreme Court Petition No 2 of 2012. He framed his appeal to the Supreme Court as a constitutional petition. In the appeal, ,he challenged the Court of Appeal's decision as a violation of various provisions of the Constitution guaranteeing his fundamental l;niJTian rights, including fair trial. The Respondents to the appeal then included theJawyer from private practice who had previously purported to represent Parliament (which wa,s not a respondent then), and Parliament as an institution. The lawyer in ques'.fro,n and Parliament respectively became the 5th and 6th respohdents to the appeal before the Supreme Court. 15. The respondents to the constitutional petition raised yet another set of preliminary objections to the effect that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal as the Complainant had not sought leave of the Court of Appeal. On 4 September 2012 the Supreme Court, constituted of two judges, upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed Supreme Court Petition No 2 of 2012 because it lacked jurisdiction. The Complainant states that the Supreme Court bench of two judges was not quorate in terms of domestic law when it dismissed Petition No 2 of 2012. He also avers that one of the two judges was a former member of the 9th Parliament which was a Respondent and therefore she sat as judge in her . . . . . ~ ~-..:. own cause m d1sm1ssmg his appeal. /4'('~1:cRf~;'-"·~, ,-✓' , ~~ /, ::v Alleged violations 16. The Complainant claims that:- ~c t¥ i. r ~ /1 ~ ~\ ;i t; f! VJ </, ~"" , C:i,1• iCA JNt 0€ , p go..~~ ,.C;, ~\Y