4. At its 27th Ordinary Session, the Court decided to amend the title of
the Application , by substituting the United Republic of Tanzania as
the Respondent for the Attorney General, who had originally been
cited by the Applicants as the Respondent. (See infra paragraph 35)
B. FACTS OF THE CASE AS PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT
5. According to the 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 the failure of the
Respondent to implement these commitments, they seized the High
Court of Tanzania, but on 20 September 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withdrawn after they concluded an amicable settlement, endorsed by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 each
group to prepare its payroll list, of which at the end they would
5
Q
ad~
~~Jv
~\--