their sum to get a single sum, and that was done. To that effect, the lawyers of the two sides prepared a joint affidavit and proceeded to other measures’. 9. The presiding Judge in the High Court named the two groups of the ex-employees, 5,598 in number, as List 3A and List 3A1. The Applicants belong to List 3A1. 10. The Applicants challenged the aver that in the High Court, Statement of Claim submitted under the pretext that the stated amount them. the Respondent by the two groups had already been paid to They claim that their Counsel refuted these assertions by the Respondent, noting that only transport allowances, items in the Deed of the entire 15 of Settlement had been paid. They argue further that the Respondent could not show proof of any other payments made. 11, According to the Applicants, Justice Mwaikugile later recused himself from the case, and Justice Utamwa was appointed to handle the case, and to make a decision on the possibility of issuing the Applicants with a Certificate of Payment, on the payments which they had to receive from the Respondent. that in December 2010, The Applicants claim further Justice Utamwa dismissed the case ii rapidly conducted trial, on the grounds that it was a ~ 7 a x7 ae NE JB ee,