00033 1 to be met, the remedies that should be exhausted must be ordinary judicial remedies.T ln this regard, in the Matter of Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania and other similar cases filed against the Respondent State, this Court has further held that in the Tanzanian judicial system, the procedure for review of the Court of Appeal's judgments is an extraordinary remedy and Applicants are not required to exhaust this remedy before seizing this Court.s 41.|n the instant case, the Court notes from the file that, before filing their Application in this Court, the Applicants went through the trial and appellate proceedings for their criminal cases up to the Court of Appeal, which is the highest court in the Respondent State. The Applicants have further attempted to pursue the review a procedure at the Court of Appeal, but this application was declared inadmissible due to being filed out of time. Considering that the review procedure in the Court of Appeal is an extraordinary remedy, the Applicants were neither required to pursue it nor seek an extension of time to file their petition for the same. The Court therefore finds that the Applicants have exhausted local remedies available in the Respondent State. 42.Accordingly, the Court dismisses the objection of the Respondent State that the Applicants did not exhaust local remedies. ii) Objection based on the ground that the Application was not filed within a reasonable time o 43.The Respondent State contends that, should the Court find that the Applicants have exhausted local remedies, it should reject the Application on the basis that it was not filed within a reasonable time after local remedies were exhausted. ln this Alex Thomas v Tanzania Judgment, S 64; See also Application No. 006/2013, Judgment of 1810312016, Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and 9 Others v. United Republic of Tanzania, $ 95. 8 lbid; See also Mohamed Abubakariv Tanzania Judgment, $$ 66-68; Application No. 032/2015. Judgment of 2110312018, Kijiji lsiaga v United Republic of Tanzania (hereinafter referred to as"Kjiji lsiaga v Tanzania Judgment"), SS 46-47. 7 14 .I Y