000622 Dissatisfied with the amount, the Applicant challenged the High court,s decision in a second appeal to the court of Appeal, which was dismissed on 20 December 20,11 Following these proceedings, the court observes that the Applicant seized the highest court of the Respondent state, however, the seizure was concerned only with a contractual dispute. 41. with regard to the alleged delay of the proceedings before the High court, the Applicant did not provide proof that he tried to exhaust the local judicial remedies; he only states that he petitioned the Chief Justice for him to provide a solution. The Court notes that petitioning the Chief Justice is not a judicial but administrative remedy.T Moreover, the Applicant did not aver that the remedies to be exhausted were unavailable, ineffective or insufficient and there is nothing on record to support such a finding. 42.The Court observes that the Applicant also has not shown how he exhausted local remedies with regard to the "false imprisonment" of 30 April 1997. Based on the records, the Court notes that the Applicant raised the issue of "false imprisonment as "malicious prosecution" in line with his submission of defamation in the High Court, that the false imprisonment made "co-villagers consider him fraudulent" and thus it was submitted not as a human rights violation but as a civil law matter. 43.1n light of the foregoing, the Court holds that the Applicant has not exhausted local remedies and thus failed to comply with Rule a0(5) of the Rutes. consequenly, the Application is inadmissible. 44.|n light of the Court's finding that the Application is inadmissible due to failure to exhaust local remedies, the Court finds that the issue as to whether the Application was filed within a reasonable time does not arise, in as much as the conditions of admissibility are cumulative. E Similarly, the Court does not need to deal with other conditions of admissibility enumerated in Rule 40 of the Rules. 1 Mtikila v Tanzania (merits) g 82.3. 8 See Application No. 042/2016. Ruli ng of 281312019 (Jurisdiction and Actmissibili ty), Collectit des anclens travailleurs du laboratoire ALS v Rep ublic of Mali, g 41; Application No. 0240201 6. Judgment of 2113t2018 (Admissibility), Mariam Kouma and Ousmane Diabatd v. Republic du Mali, g 63; Application No. 02212015 Judgment ol1 1 I 51201 I (Adm issibitity wa Ch nthe v. Republic of Rwanda, g 48 3 @