109. It is important to state here that by the time the matter went before Justice Mwaikugile, the claimants were already divided into two groups, due to internal differences. In paragraph 7 of their Reply to the Respondent's Response dated 4 April, 2013, the Applicants provide this Court with the cause of the division, stating that “while Karata Ernest and 6 others represented all the ex-EAC employees in Civil Case No. 95/2003, they did not have the mandate of such employees to negotiate a deed of settlement and withdraw Civil Case No. 95/2003, this means that the without the consent of all ex-EAC Deed of Settlement was employees. signed That is what caused the division of the complainants into two groups”. 110. The Applicants argue that there was a difference in the relief sought by the two groups. In view of this, Justice Mwaikugile, decided to name the two employees, Shillings groups with a (TZSH), as total and payroll claim payroll List 3A,comprising 2,681 of 416,166,090,304.30 Tanzanian List 2,917 3A1 comprising employees, with a total claim of 2,178,558,653,941TZSH. to the Applicants, underpayment, “while List 3A1 ex- claimants of List 3A were ex- According claiming were claiming their basic entitlements, what was paid by the Government was only one item, i.e. transportation”. 111. Following assigned heard the to Justice the mat incompetent. recusal Utamwa —and.on of Justice of the 9 November Mwaikugile, same 2010, Court. the Justice case was Utamwa struck it out as being