98. The Respondent alleges that it 1s after the dismissals and striking out of his petitions as well as his withdrawal of some of them that the Applicant decided to file the application to the African Court. The Respondent states that the subject matter of the Application before this Court is the same as that of Applicant's petitions to the High Court of Tanzania at Arusha, which he has withdrawn. That, it should therefore be infened that if the Applicant felt that he had no cause of action at the municipal level, he cannot assert that this Court is the appropriate forum to address his grievances. 99 The Respondent contends that the cnminal cases instituted against the Applicant are pending before the national courts and even after they are concluded, there are appeals procedures which the Applicant must exhaust; therefore, the Court should not consider the Application. The Application has not been filed within a reasonable time from the time local remedies were exhausted 100. Alternatively and without prejudice to the contention of inadmissibility of the Application for non-exhaustion of local remedies, the Respondent argues that the application has not been filed within a reasonable time from the period when local remedies were exhausted vis-a-vis Applicant's petitions to the High Court. Two of the petitions were dismissed and struck out nine months and sixteen days, respectively, before the Application was filed with the Court; also, the Applicant withdrew two petitions four months and twelve days and three months, respectively before filing the Application, The Respondent submits that the 'reasonable period' specified in the Charter for filing applications after exhaustion of local remedies should be set at six months and considering this, the Applicant filed his Application too late. 101. In the Reply to the Applicant's Reply referred to earlier, filed by PALU, the Respondent reiterated that the Applicant filed his Reply to the Respondent's Response out of time without requesting for an extension of time from the Court; therefore the Applicant's Reply should be considered as not having been filed, in accordance with the Court's Practice Direction Number 41. The Applicants response to the preliminary objections Preliminary objection onjurisdiction 102. The Applicant maintains that the Application complies with Rule 34 of the Rules and has specified the Charter rights that have been violated. 103. The Applicant states that, the fact that the Criminal Cases against him are pending does not preclude the Applicant from enforcing his constitutional rights and his Charter rights through filing an application with the Court 104 In the Reply filed by the Applicant's representative, PALU, to the Respondent's Response to the Application, it is contended that the Court has jurisdiction to deal with the matter since there have been violations of the Applicant's fundamental rights as provided for in the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania and the Charter, to which the Respondent is a State Party as well as to the Protocol and, furthermore, having made the declaration required under Article 34(6) thereto. 105. PALU reiterated the Applicant's pleadings and that there have been violations of his rights as guaranteed under the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania and also as enshrined in 3, 5, 6, 7(1), 14 and 26 of the Charter. Preliminary objection on admissibility 106. The Applicant states that Criminal Cases No. 712/2009, 716/2009 and 933/2007 (now Session No.3/2009) were instituted in the Arusha District Court in violation of the procedures of the Criminal Procedure Act and that Criminal Case Number 716/2009 is not at the hearing stage as alleged by the Respondent. Further, the Applicant states, that the Respondent has not responded to the Applicant 's allegations in respect of Criminal Cases No. 915/2007, 931/2007, 1027/2007, 1029/2007 and 883 of 2008 with which the Applicant has been charged and m connection with which the Applicant 's property has been 14