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 3A 1. 10. The Applicants aver that in the High Court, the Respondent challenged the Statement of Claim submitted by the two groups under the pretext that the stated amount had already been paid to them . They claim that their Counsel refuted these assertions by the Respondent, noting that only transport allowances , of the entire 15 items in the Deed 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. The Applicants claim further that in December 2010 , Justice Utamwa dismissed the case ig ~ ~ rapidly conducted trial, on the grounds that it was incompetent.. =~~;;;::;:::::;~-~~- ~- -= ~ 6 s JjfY @__~ / q::-:<.9