24. The Complainant submitted his written arguments and evidence on admissibility on 10 April 2013. The Complainant's submissions were transmitted to the Respondent State. 25. The Respondent State submitted its written observations on Admissibility on 2 July 2013 and the same were transmitted to the Complainant who in turn presented his reply on 20 August 2013. 26. Consideration of the admissibility of the Communication was subsequently deferred until the present 18 th Extraordinary Session of the Commission. ADMISSIBILITY Complainant's submissions 27. The Complainant contends that this Communication .satlsfies Article 56(5) of the Charter because local remedies have been unduly prolonged, spanning a decade. I • He avers that the Respondent State deliberately: employed delaying tactics to prevent his grievance from being heard on the merits. In this regard he refers, first, to High Court Civil Application No 554 ·of 2003 and avers that instead of granting permission for the judicial review to issue, the judge argued the case for the state, refused ' to grant to leave, and imprisoned the Complainant for questioning tl:il-e judge's impartiality. 28. Secondly, he states that High Court Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 22 of 2004 was filed on 12 January 2004 and c;:ertified as urgent on 13 January 2004 when it was referred to the ·chief Justice for further directions in terms of domestic procedure. However, the Chief Justice purposely delayed until 6 June 2007 when he eventually appointed a bench of three judges to hear the case on 27 June 2007. By this date the next general elections were due in few months. The Complainant avers that this was a deliberate ploy to allow the Speaker whose election he was challenging to serve the entire term. , 29. Ii . Thirdly, he states that instead of hearing his originating summons on 27 June 2007, the three judges illegally permitted a private practicing attorney to intercept his case midway by raising preliminary objections on behalf of the National Assembly which was not a party to the case. On 7 December 2007 the preliminary objections were upheld and the case was dismissed without a hearing on the merits. ---- "t-: oN h_lJf, Jil.1\: 30. Fourthly, the Complainant states that despite the urgency of Civil A of 2008, the Chief Jm;tice once again stalled for time until around 5 when he allowed the matter to be set down for hearing on 9 June 2 ;, .~ . \\d. . . 1 ' . 0 ( ;,. 4-"R1CA\tl~ ~ •· £ ET DES? Vft.147