final court, has the last word its two judgments, on what the correct national law is. It has, in said that the Applicant did not state the claim as a separate cause of action. It is important to note that the Applicant was not barred from pursuing wrong procedure, his claims, but merely told that he was adopting a In fact, the High Court had advised him to get the assistance of a lawyer to help him, but he declined. Findings of the Court 40.It is clear from the foregoing summary of the judgments that, as at the time the Applicant lodged his application: 40.1. The avenue to claim damages for alleged wrongful dismissal and the avenue to challenge in the High Court the judgment of the Industrial Relations Court which had ruled that his dismissal was fair and lawful, were still avenues. open to the Applicant; however, he did not use these It was open for him to argue before the High Court against the judgment of the Industrial Relations Court and, if he did not succeed, to argue on further appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal. As a result of his failure to do so, the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal have not had the opportunity to deal with the merits of the claim for wrongful dismissal, as determined by the Industrial Relations Court. 40.2. There has not been any undue delay in the disposal of Applicant’s cases before the highest judicial institution in Malawi; namely, the Malawi Supreme Court of Appeal. A case number allocated to a case {23]