first Respondent), started investment operations in Zanzibar by signing a concession contract with the Government of Zanzibar through a joint venture, thus establishing a new company named Cimexpan (Zanzibar) LTD (the second Respondent). In a letter dated 21 September 2003, the Government of Zanzibar informed the first Respondent that the contract was terminated. Subsequently, the Applicant deported the third Respondent, who left behind his family and the assets of the second Respondent. The third Respondent who represented the Respondents before the Tribunal alleged that when he returned to Zanzibar he was detained by immigration authorities and put in jail for one week where he was subject to ill treatment. He, however, conceded that he received the visit of a medical doctor on a daily basis. He was finally deported. The third Respondent further asserted that when the contract was cancelled, at 04:00 am, ten people came to his house with guns, knives, pangas and his family was beaten up. The Applicant contended that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the matter since the Respondents had not exhausted local remedies and had no standing to institute proceedings before the Tribunal. The Applicant further argued that the application does not disclose international delinquency so as to render the Applicant liable under international law. The third argument was to the effect that the Tribunal could not grant the order sought because the application in the main case does not accord with Articles 14 and 15 of the Protocol on Tribunal (the Protocol). We note that this Tribunal, as the SADC judicial institution, has the powers bestowed upon it by Article 16 of the Treaty of the Southern African Development Community (the SADC Treaty) and Articles 14 and 15 of the Protocol. Article 16 of the SADC Treaty states that: "1. The Tribunal shall be constituted to ensure adherence to and the proper interpretation of the provisions of this Treaty and subsidiary instruments and to adjudicate upon such disputes as may referred to it. 2. The composition, powers, functions, procedures and other related matters governing the Tribunal shall be prescribed in a Protocol, which shall, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 22 of this Treaty, form an integral part of this Treaty, adopted by the Summit (...)". Article 14 of the Protocol stipulates that: "The Tribunal shall have jurisdiction over all disputes and all applications referred to it in accordance with the Treaty and this Protocol which relate to: a) the interpretation and application of the Treaty; (...)". Article 15 of the Protocol provides as follows: "1. The Tribunal shall have jurisdiction over disputes between Member States, and between natural and legal persons and Member State. 2. No natural or legal person shall bring an action against a Member State unless he or she has exhausted all available remedies or is unable to proceed under domestic jurisdiction". The Tribunal is satisfied that the application is between legal persons and a natural person, on one hand, and a Member State of SADC, on the other. The question whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction must, therefore, be answered in the affirmative. The Tribunal must also be satisfied that the Respondents, being legal and natural persons, had exhausted all available remedies within the domestic jurisdiction. The principle of exhaustion of local remedies is not unique to the Protocol. It is a common feature of regional and international conventions. According to the principle, individuals are required to exhaust local remedies in the municipal law of the State before they can bring a case to a regional or international judicial body. This means that individuals should first go through the court system (from the court of first instance to the highest court of appeal) before they can bring the matter to this Tribunal (See Case SADC (T) No. 2/2007, Mike Campbell (PVT) Ltd. and others versus the Republic of Zimbabwe). Exhaustion of local remedies is, therefore, a pre-requisite for persons to institute proceedings before this Tribunal against a Member State. 2