22. At its 26th Ordinary Session held in September, 2012, the Court considered the request by the Applicant to adjourn the matter indefinitely, and decided that the request for adjournment should be served on the Respondent as well as on PALU, and they should be given thirty (30) days within which to respond; 23. By separate letters of 24 September, 2012, the Respondent, as well as PALU, were served with copies of the Appltcant's request, and were given 30 days within which to respond. They were due to respond by 24 October, 2012, 24. The Court further decided that it would take a decision on the way forward regarding the Application during its 28th Ordinary Session in March, 2013, if the Applicant has still not provided any information; 25. At its 27th Ordinary Session, the Court noted that the Applicant had not made any additional submission, and neither had the Respondent nor PALU. 26. As at the 15th of March, 2013, the Applicant had not reacted to the Respondent's request and neither the Respondent nor PALU had Responded to the Registry's letter; Now Therefore: 1. The Court finds that the Applicant has failed to file its Reply within the extended time, that is, 31 August, 2012, and instead has tried to pre?empt that order by requesting an indefinite extension of time by its letter of 28 August, 2012, 2. The Court, consequently, finds that the Applicant has failed to pursue the Application which was filed on 3 March, 2011. 3. The Court also finds that the Applicant has failed to respond to the Respondent's request to have the case dropped, which request has been served on the Applicant. For these reasons, THE COURT, acting by its inherent power, unanimously ORDERS that the Application herein be and the same is HEREBY struck out. Done in Arusha, this fifteenth day of March in the year Two Thousand and Thirteen, in English and French, the English text being authoritative. Signed: Sophia A.B. AKUFFO, President Robert ENO, Registrar 3

Select target paragraph3