2 of 2006 and Criminal Application 16 of 2006''. During the public hearing of 21 May 2015, they elucidated that ''in Mise Criminal Application No. 16 of 2006 at the High Court concerning the kidnapping and abduction of the Applicants, the proceedings were unduly prolonged ... ". 120. To elaborate, they submit that when they filed the Application in the High Court of Tanzania on 19 June 2006, it was dismissed on 16 September 2008. The Application took about two years and three months to be finalized. They then appealed before the Court of Appeal in a Notice dated 30 September 2008 and the Court of Appeal delivered its ruling on 14 February 2011 . This took another period of two years and five months from the time the Application was dismissed by the High Court to the time the Court of Appeal delivered its Ruling. 121 . The Applicants then proceeded to seek leave for extension oftime to file their Appeal before the Court of Appeal, at which point the Respondent filed a preliminary objection to the effect that the Court ruled strictly on the merits and did not take into consideration the Respondent's preliminary objections. When the Respondent filed an appeal, the Applicants raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was based on an interlocutory order that cannot be appealed. 122. The Applicants' appeal was dismissed, and the matter was remitted back to the High Court and then progressed again to the Court of Appeal, which also held that indeed the trial court decided on the merits of the case without taking into consideration the preliminary objections raised by the Respondent, and again referred the case back to the High Court, at which point the Applicants decided to file this Application before the present Court. 123. In its Response dated 26 February 2014, the Respondent 11 Strongly refutes the allegations that it caused delay in Criminal case 16 of 2006, which [according to the Respondent], actually ceased to exist on 19 March 2013, after being quashed by the Court of Appeal". Respondent contends that 11the Applicants never complained about the progression of the Application as they themselves were vigorously pursuing their rights and seeking local