his application for review of the Court of Appeal’s judgment in accordance with Rule 65(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules of 2009. 43. The Respondent State further stresses the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies by citing the jurisprudence of this Court in Urban Mkandawire v. Malawi and Peter Joseph Chacha v. Tanzania, as well in Peter Joseph Chacha v. Tanzania in which the Court dismissed the Applications for failure to the said requirement. 44. The Respondent State submits that the Applicant never attempted to exhaust local remedies prior to filing the present Application, and as such, did not provide the Respondent State with an opportunity to remedy the alleged violations. It therefore argues that it is inappropriate for the Applicant to raise these issues before this Court, as they could have addressed them in the national judicial system of the Respondent State. 45. It avers that such remedies are available to the Applicant and that there is no delay when using them. The Respondent State therefore prays the Court to dismiss the Application for non-exhaustion of local remedies. * 46. The Applicant on his part refutes the Respondent States argument and avers that local remedies were fully exhausted when the Court of Appeal, being the highest court of the Respondent State, dismissed his appeal. In support of his submission, the Applicant refers the Court’s decision in Nguza Viking v. Tanzania where the Court held that, “[t]he domestic judicial authorities thus had ample opportunity to address these allegations even without the Applicants having raised them explicitly. It would therefore be unreasonable to require the Applicants to file a new application before the domestic courts to seek redress for these claims.”10 10 Nguza Viking v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (23 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 287, § 53. 12