GAZETTE NOTICE NO. 9023

the following orders: 1. The Appeal be marked as settled in terms of the Respondent’s approval given at its 48th Meeting on 28th February 2013. 2. Each party to bear its own costs. Dated at Nairobi this 3rd day of April, 2013. ISEME, KAMAU & MAEMA, Advocates for the Appellant. MUENI MUTUNGA, Advocate for the Respondent. KTK Advocates for the Interestedpart”. As can clearly be seen, the proposed agreement is signed by the respective advocates for the appellant and for the respondent. It is not signed by the advocates for the Interested Party. According to the learned counsel for the Interested Party, her law firm for did not sign proposed agreement because it (the firm) needed to obtain its client’s authorization before doing so. If the proposed agreement had been signed by all the parties to the Appeal, we would just have recorded a consent order and it would not have been necessary to make this ruling. However, in our respectful view, the proposed agreement does not reflect an agreement between all the parties to the Appeal. Without an agreement between all the parties, no consent order can be recorded. However, we are of the view that the proposed agreement is not a worthless document and that it reflects a concluded agreement between the appellant and the respondent. We note that this Appeal was instituted by the appellant to complain against the respondent’s regulatory decision. The Interested Party was enjoined much later at the instance of Tribunal. In enjoining the Interested Party, the Tribunal reasoned that, ultimately, it is the Interested Party which will be called upon to implement the said regulatory decision. Quite obviously, it is the appellant and the respondent who are the principal protagonists in this Appeal. Now these principal protagonists have come before us and declared that they have agreed to settle the dispute between them on the terms contained in the proposed agreement. It seems to us that, on the basis of that declaration, the Appeal is entirely compromised. There is no further dispute left for us to resolve. Consequently, although we cannot record a consent order for the reasons stated hereinabove, we have to give due regard to the agreement between the appellant and the respondent. We therefore make the following orders: 1. The Appeal is marked as settled in terms of the respondent’s approval given at its 48 th Meeting on 28 th February 2013; 2. There will be no orders as to costs. Orders accordingly. Dated at Nairobi this day of 2013 MBAGE N. NG’ANGA, Chairman. NYAGA KAMUNDI, SHEM ARUNGU-0LENDE, Members. 28th June, 2013 THE KENYA GAZETTE