decision delivered on 191h March 2013, remitting the Applications back to the High Court for consideration of preliminary objections'. The Respondent submits therefore that 'this allegation is frivolous and vexatious and should be dismissed'. iv. On the allegation that the Applicants' right to own property has been violated, the Respondent states that Article 24( 1) of the 1977 Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania guarantees the right to own property. The Court added that 'any properties found to be lawfully owned by the Applicants shall be duly returned to them upon finalization of their cases. v. On the alleged violation of the Applicants' right to freedom , the Respondent states that the right to personal freedom is guaranteed in Article 15(1) of the Constitution, adding that the detention is lawful and the Applicants are facing unbailable offences and have ongoing cases within the local jurisdiction. vi. On the alleged violation on the right to work, the Respondent states that the right to work is guaranteed in Article 22(1) of the Constitution, and added that this being the case, 'the allegations are misconceived , without merit and should be duly dismissed'. vii. On the alleged violation of the Applicants' right to be tried within a reasonable time, the Respondent submits that 'there is no specific time frame for the completion of trials in the United Republic of Tanzania, (and] that any delay in the cases against the Applicants has been of their own doing as they opened various applications, including Criminal Application 16 of 2006 ... and Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2011 ... '. viii. On the Applicants' request to be awarded reparations with regard to claims and allegations made in the Application, the Respondent prays the Court to dismiss this in its entirety". 33