remedies is abnormally prolonged.* The Court also notes that an applicant is only required to exhaust ordinary judicial remedies.® 38.The Court recalls that “in ordinary language, produces the expected result ... the being effective refers to that which effectiveness of a remedy is therefore measured in terms of its ability to solve the problem raised by the Applicant.”® The Court further recalls that a remedy is available if it can be pursued by the Applicant without any impediment.” 39. The Court notes that in 1995, the Respondent State enacted the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement duties set out in Act which permits litigants to enforce the basic rights and Chapter One (1), Part Ill of its Constitution. Under this Act, the High Court has the power to “make all such orders as shall be necessary and appropriate to secure [an applicant] the enjoyment of the basic rights, freedoms and duties ...”. 40.In considering the powers of the High Court under the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the Respondent State’s Court of Appeal in Attorney General v Mtikila, held that it did not have the power to nullify any constitutional provisions.® Specifically in respect of article 41(7) of the Respondent State’s Constitution, the Court also takes judicial notice of the decision of the Respondent State’s High Court in Augustine Lyatonga Mrema v Attorney General? in which it held that article 41(7) in unambiguous language has ousted the jurisdiction of courts to inquire into the election of the president once the Electoral Commission has declared the results. According to the High Court, if parliament had intended for courts to have the power to inquire into the election of 4 The Beneficiaries of Late Norbert Zongo and others v. Burkina Faso (preliminary objections) (2013) 1 AfCLR 197 § 84; Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (2015) 1 AfCLR 465 § 64 and Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (2016) 1 AfCLR 507 § 95. 5 Oscar Josiah v. United Republic of Tanzania, A{CHPR, Application No. 053/2016, Judgment of 28 March 2019 (merits) § 38 and Diocles William v. United Republic of Tanzania, Af(CHPR, Application No. 016/2016. Judgment of 21 September 2018 (merits and reparations) § 42. 6 The Beneficiaries of Late Norbert Zongo and others v. Burkina Faso (merits) (2014) 1 AfCLR 219 § 68. 7 Lohe Issa Konate v. Burkina Faso (merits) (2014) 1 AfCLR 314 § 96. 8 The Honourable Attorney General v. Reverend Christopher Mtikila, Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2009. 8 [1996] TLR 273 (HC). 11