Mwanakwerekwe District Court for the latter to decide whether he should be placed in remand or granted bail pending deportation. The Applicant was represented by Counsel Khamis who prayed for bail and that the Applicant be allowed to remain in the Respondent State for three months so as to finalise his transactions. 50. On 1 February 2002, the District Court made a ruling, granting the Applicant cash bail at Tanzanian Shillings Fifty-Thousand (TZS 50,000) and allowed the Applicant to remain within the territory of the Respondent State for three months and to report to the police station every Monday. He was also informed of his right to appeal. 51. The Court observes that between 1 February 2002 and 5 June 2002, a period of four months elapsed during which the Applicant, who was on bail, could and should have appealed the decision of the District Court granting him bail for three months and confirming his deportation. Nevertheless, the Applicant did not provide reasons as to why he did not challenge his deportation order while he was on bail. 52. As regards the PI status making it impossible for the Applicant to seize the courts of the Respondent State, the Applicant does not demonstrate that he tried to file cases in the Respondent State through a legal representative and was denied the same and is therefore casting aspersions on the Respondent State. 53. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Applicant failed to exhaust local remedies, so that the Application does not comply with Article 56(5) of the Charter as restated in Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules. 54. Having found that the Application does not satisfy Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, the Court does not need to rule on the admissibility requirements set 13