123. They have appeared before the Courts in Tanzania under one suit — Suit No. 95/2005 since 2005. The division of the claimants at the domestic level into two groups does not mean that the claimants in the two lists were not part of the same case. The cause of action remained the same, the parties remained the same and the reliefs sought were identical. 124. the The Applicants acknowledged Respondent's Response in paragraph 7 of their Reply to that the division was as a result of internal bickering. For reasons of proper administration of justice the Court classified the two groups as List 3A and List 3A1, one case. For all intents and purposes, this Court but within holds that the Applicants are, and continue to be, part of Suit No. 95/2003. 125. This Court observes that the Applicants do not show proof of an end of the action before domestic Courts. Even if this Court were to accept their arguments that they are a separate group and have a different claim from the other claimants in Suit 95/2003, there is no indication that they have exhausted local remedies. They argue that although they appeared together before Justice Twaib, the latter's ruling of 23 May 2011, “only dismissed the new payroll list delivered to him by Applicants on List 3A...", suggesting that the Judge did not rule on the claim by claimants on List 3A1. 126. Even if this assertion is true, the Court is of the view that while employees listed as List 3A have applied for leave to appeal to the —-—~ Court of Appeal, ex-employees listed as List 3A1, who are pentcantt— 4 Rs By \