4. At its 27" Ordinary Session, the Court decided to amend the title of the Application, by substituting the United Republic the Respondent for the Attorney General, who of Tanzania as had originally been cited by the Applicants as the Respondent. (See infra paragraph 35) B. FACTS OF THE CASE 5. According to the AS PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT Application, on 17 May 1984, following the dissolution of the East African Community (hereinafter referred to as the “EAC”), the Presidents of Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya signed a Mediation Agreement which required, among others, the payment of reparations on the assets and liabilities of the EAC, as well as the pensions and benefits of the ex-employees. 6. The Applicants allege that in 2003, due to Respondent to implement these commitments, Court of Tanzania, but on 20 September the failure of the they seized the High 2005, the case was withdrawn after they concluded an amicable settlement, endorsed by the Court, with the Respondent. 7. The Applicants argue that they repudiated this amicable settlement because it was not fully respected by the Respondent. 8. The Applicants also claim that after being seized of the matter following the repudiation of the amicable settlement, the High Court “found out that there were two groups of Applicants and advised mt group to prepare its payroll list, of which at the end they would ad 5 xy Ne ae LF ay | v oe &