ants' allegations and 157. During the public hearing , the Respondent refuted the Applic Counsel, they were argued that "throughout the trials, the Applicants had Defence edings, there was able to afford Defence Counsel. This is documented in the proce ced will also show a Mr. Ojare and a Mr. Mwale and Judgments that we have produ Defence Counsel." that they were suitably and adequately represented by seasoned always had legal 158. The Respondent avers further that 'the Applicants have Legal Aid Criminal representation, they have never requested for legal aid vide the apply for legal aid Proceedings Act [Cap 21 RE 2002] , and are yet to request and Court to issue such vide the provisions of Cap 21 , therefore, it will be unfair for the to the Respondent a declaration , as the Applicants have not even made it known that they require legal aid and legal representation". Applicants have been 159. It would appear from the facts before this Court that ed . It is not clear represented all along by counsel which they or their relatives engag have provided them whether if they had not engaged counsel, the Respondent would at least up to when with counsel. What is important however is that they had counsel, that the Applicants their counsel deserted them. It is also clear from the pleadings them with counsel are not claiming that the Respondent should have provided to provide legal throughout the trial, and it is not correct to expect the Respondent aid to Applicants who already had counsel of their choice . ndent confirmed that 160. However, in its Response during the public hearing, the Respo No. 2 of 2006. it was "aware that Counsel withdrew himself in Criminal Case aggrieved by their However, as the Applicants did not complain that they were ndent did not take Advocates' departure and required legal assistance, the Respo ants to apply for any action . We reiterate that there was no attempt by the Applic 21 RE 2002]". legal assistance vide the Legal Aid Criminal Proceedings Act [Cap before this Court , they 161 . It should be noted that when Applicants filed this Application against them in the had been deserted by their counsel and still had cases pending Respondent's Courts. The Respondent was aware of the situation. 46