Paul Sanga v. Attorney General, Civil Application No. 429/01 of 2020) whose determination was pending at the time the Applicants filed their Application. 37. The Respondent State argues that the petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeal judgment was on the constitutionality of Section 148(5) of the CPA and because its determination is pending, the Applicants have not exhausted all local remedies. 38. Furthermore, the Respondent State contends that the Court is proscribed from the consideration of this Application, given the fact that it is not a court of appeal as elucidated in the matter of Ernest Francis Mtingwi v. Malawi. 39. In light of the foregoing, the Respondent State prays the Court to dismiss the Application for failing to comply with the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies. 40. According to the Applicants, there are a number of cases decided by the Court which articulate that the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies is fulfilled through a final decision of the Court of Appeal of Tanzania and not a decision on review. To reinforce their argument, the Applicants cite the decision of the Court in the matters of James Wanjara and 4 Others v. Tanzania and Alex Thomas v. Tanzania. 41. The Applicants submit that one of the key elements of the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies is that there must be a final decision by the highest court in the Respondent State which can confirm or reverse the decision of the lower court. They buttress their submission with the decision of the Inter-American Court in Cantoral Benavides v. Peru that a petition for review of a judgment of a Supreme Court of Justice is extra-ordinary in character. 42. The Applicants accordingly aver that the Respondent State’s submission that filing a petition for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision is a 11