also be cited as the reason for the undue delay in disposing of Civil Appeal No. 266 of 2008. 54. Thus in summary, it is the Commission's findings that: (a) Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 22 of 2004 was initially delayed by the Chief Justice; (b) the Complainant's challenge to opposing counsel (the so called side show) did not delay Miscellaneous Civil Application No 22 of 2004 as (i) the High Court dismissed the challenge and proceeded to deal with the preliminary objections to substantive matter, and (ii) the challenge did not prevent the courts from proceedings with Miscellaneous Civil Application No 22 of 2004, including when it became Civil Appeal No. 266 of 2008; (c) in the circumstances the delays are attributable to the Respondent State which (d) does not offer a convincing or any justification for the delays. Consequently, the procedures for local remedies are unduly prolonged. This applies to clai1n_s "(a), "(b)", "(c)", "(e)", "(g)", and "(h)" as enumerated at paragraph 16 above1jn respect of which }:le sought to present his grievances for adjudication. 55. The undue prolongation does not apply to c;laim " (d)" pertaining to the imprisonment for contempt of court. The C_o mplainant does not state that he made any attempt to challenge the imprisonment by way of appeal, or in separate subsequentproceedings, or, indeed in Miscellaneous Civil Application No 22 of 2004- as a violation of his ri~hts. TheComplainaiit does not suggest that it was impossible to do so. Accordingly, the Complainant did not exhaust, let alone attempt, local remedies regarding his imprisonment for contempt of court. This pal'ticular claim cannot be admitted on .the pretext that procedure for local . ' . remedies was unduly prolonged, for no procedure was engaged. 56. On the other hand, the complaints about the High Court's decision permitting a private la-w:yer to intervene and raise preliminary objections to his substantive case, and the Court's refusal to grant him leave to appeal against that decision (claim "(f)" at para. 16 above), are admissible because the Complainant ultimately exhaust~d local remedies. Notably the High Court's refusal of leave to appeal gave rise to Court ofAppeal Civil Application No. NAI 260 of2007 in which sought the leave from the Court of Appeal. This application stalled for 4 years and 4 months before it was heard on 23 February 2012 and a decision rendered on 20 April 2012. Had the Complainant submitted the present Communication in the intervening period, a case could probably have been made about the procedure being unduly prolonged. He did not. He waited. More importantly, when the Court of Appeal rendered its ruling on 20 April 2012, he pursued the issue further by lodging Petition No. 2 of 2012 in the Supreme Court, e'il< Hu~-;: · cRETAR judicial body for the Respondent State. The Supreme Court dismisse · -----=---- . . "'o -<) ' r r:;, \ :~ 8 \ ·.c - l ~ ?? "' _Cl J ,__ .r <:J . c.,--, I . u ,, -'lf'1?,cA1N\'o O , 'v"' ' 0,);,Iv c.,\§v ~, 7£' ET DES I'"~ ~~ ........