in 2010. It ended on 16 November 2010. It was in the Court for about eleven (11) months, before it was struck out. [*]Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 47 of 2010: It commenced in 2010 and ended on 14 December 2010, when it was struck out. It was in the High Court for a total of about one (1) year. [*]Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 78 of 2010: It commenced in 2010 and ended on 18 May 2011, when it was withdrawn. The application remained in the High Court for about one (1) year and five (5) months. [*]Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 80 of 2010. It was commenced on 29 December 2010. It ended with a withdrawal on 18 May 2011. The application was in the High court for less than six (6) months. [*]Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 16 of 2011: The matter was commenced on 19 May 2011. The application was withdrawn on 26 March 2012. It was in the High Court of a total of less than nine (9) months. 148. The Court observes that the majority of the applications were pending in the High Court for periods of between less than six (6) months and one (1) year (about four (4) applications). The duration of the other three was two years and two months, in the case of Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 7 of 2007 followed by Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 54 of 2009 which lasted one (1) year and seven (7) months and lastly Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 78 of 2010 which remained in Court for one (1) year and five (5) months. It must be borne in mind that in the year 2010 alone, the Applicant filed four (4) out of the seven (7) applications and that had some effect on the progress of the Applicant's cases. The total time that all the applications, dealt with separately, took to conclude, was five (5) years. Given the number of applications the Applicant filed, being seven (7) in total, and the average duration each took to conclude, which did not exceed two (2) years and two (2) months, it is the opinion of the Court, that the proceedings were not unduly prolonged. It is therefore the view of this Court that the exception to the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies does not apply in the present case. 149. On the material before this Court, Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 16 of 2011 required the empanelling of a High Court Bench of three Judges to hear the matter. There is evidence that on two occasions, on 29 June 2011 and 14 November 2011. the Applicant wrote to the Registrar of the High Court at Arusha to put in place the required three-Judge Bench to consider the application, but he received no response. The records at the Court show that the Application was withdrawn by the Applicant, which fact he disputes. He denies that he withdrew the request and contends that the failure by the Court to constitute a panel of three Judges to hear his application amounts to exhaustion of local remedies. 151. In terms of Rule 1(3) the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009, apply in the High Court. In this regard therefore, following the failure of the Registrar of the High Court at Arusha to empanel the three-Judge Bench, the Applicant ought to have applied to a Judge in Chambers for a decision in that regard in accordance with Rule 14(10) of those Rules. 152. The Applicant has not stated anywhere that his attempt to access the special Court in the High Court was intended to give him access to the Court of Appeal. Both in his oral and written pleadings the Applicant does not express the desire to access the Court of Appeal. When asked, during cross-examination, why he did not make an attempt to access that Court, he stated that he did not do so because he thought that the result would be the same. There is no reason for this Court to say that the Court of Appeal of the United Republic of Tanzania, which has inherent powers to ensure justice, does not constitute an effective remedy: consequently, the applicant has failed to exhaust a local remedy which was at his disposal. 153. It is the conclusion of this Court that the Applicant did not exhaust local remedies before submitting his Application before this Court. That the Application has not been filed within a reasonable time 154. The Respondent contended that, in the alternative, the Application is not admissible since it has not been filed within a reasonable time. 155. Since the Court has ruled that the application is not admissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies, the issue of whether or not it was filed within a reasonable time is moot and merits no further consideration, save to restate the position of this Court in the matter of Application 009/2011 Tanganyika Law Society and The Legal and Human Rights Centre v the United Republic of Tanzania and Application 011/2011 Reverend Christopher Mtikila v the United Republic of Tanzania (Consolidated Applications). In that matter, this Court stated that there was no fixed period within which to seize it; each case would be decided according to its own facts and circumstances. 156. For the reasons stated above the Court finds that the Application 1s not admissible. 20