4 13. On 20 September Applicants and their Respondent State on registered at the High 2005, a Deed of Settlement was agreed upon between the co-applicants at the time, on the one hand, and the the other. On 21 September 2005, the said deed was Court of Tanzania in Dar es Salaam. 14. In terms of Article 3 of this agreement, the Respondent State promised to pay the amount owed the Applicants and to do this between 20 September 2005 and 28 October 2005. In terms of Article 2 of this agreement, it also promised to consider any other request for compensation within six (6) months, as from 28 October 2005. 15. In their application, the Applicants stated that: “the Respondents on 21/9/2005 started to pay the applicants only one item (passage). (...) Doing this shows that by paying only one item in the total of 15 the defendants contravened the out of Court settlement” (see their letter of 16 January 2012). 16. On 15 October 2010, the Applicants were of the view that the amount paid by the Respondent State was insufficient, and once again seized the High Court of Tanzania. 17. On 23 May 2011, the High Court of Tanzania dismissed the Applicants’ application for the issuance of a Certificate of payment by this Court. On page 17 of his Ruling, Judge Fauz Twaib endorsed the interpretation of the Deed of Settlement made by Judge Orlyo in 2008 and 2009; it was the latter judge who registered the Deed of settlement through a decision dated 21 September 2005. Judge Twaib referred in particular to the following paragraphs of the two decisions taken by Judge Orlyo. 18. In his decision of 19 September 2008, Judge Orlyo noted that: “Looked at from an objective angle, by Clause 2, the (Defendant) undertakes to pay all the (Plaintiff's) claims as enumerated at page 3 thereof. But the undertaking by the (Defendant) to pay is qualified and restricted. Whereas the claim in the plaint and at page 3 of the Settlement Deed are general, it was agreed by the parties that their payments are to be made on the basis of the individual record of each employee (...)” (emphasis added). 19. In his second decision dated 30 January 2009, he noted that: “There is no dispute on the content of paragraph 8 (,..) and on the rights of the Applicants stated therein. However, the contents of paragraph 8 are not to be taken in isolation of the rest of the paragraphs of the Deed of Settlement. Further, and of cardinal importance, is that the contents of paragraph 8 and the whole Deed of Settlement are subject to the relevant laws”.