16. In accordance with Rule 49(1) of the Rules, “the Court shall conduct preliminary examination of its jurisdiction … of an Application in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and the Rules.” 17. On the basis of the above-cited provisions, the Court must, in every application, preliminarily, conduct an assessment of its jurisdiction and dispose of objections thereto, if any. 18. In the present Application, the Court notes that the Respondent State has raised an objection to its material jurisdiction. The Court will thus, first, consider the objection to its material jurisdiction before assessing other aspects of its jurisdiction, if necessary. A. Objection to material jurisdiction 19. The Respondent State contends that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear this Application as it raises issues of fact and law which have been determined with finality by its Court of Appeal. The Respondent State avers that, through this Application, the Court is being called upon to act as an appellate court. 20. Relying on Rule 29 of the Rules5 and the Court’s Ruling in the case of Ernest Francis Mtingwi v. Republic of Malawi, the Respondent State also contends that this Court lacks jurisdiction to quash the conviction, set aside sentences and order the release of the Applicant from prison as the decision to convict and sentence the Applicant was affirmed by its highest court. 21. Furthermore, the Respondent State asserts that the Applicant is also asking the Court to sit as a Court of first instance and adjudicate on matters, which were never raised before the municipal courts. In this regard, the Respondent State submits that the Applicant’s allegations relating to him being denied bail, that he was condemned without being given the 5 Rule 26 of the Rules of Court (2010). 6