00062 3 37.The Applicant contends that his case at the domestic courts ended on 1g June 2013, referring to the civil procedure of taxation of his bill of costs vide receipt No. 50456103. He points out that the Application before this Court was filed on 23 November 2015 and believes the time lapse was only two years. 38.The Court notes that the Respondent State contests the admissibitity of the Application on the basis of not having been filed within a reasonable time after exhaustion of local remedies. The Court observes however, that it is incumbent on the Court to first satisfy itself that local remedies have been exhausted before determining the requirement of filing within a reasonable time after exhaustion of the said remedies. This is because an adverse finding as to the exhaustion of local remedies would render the exercise of determining whether the Application was filed within a reasonable time superfluous. Therefore, the Court will decide whether the Applicant exhausted local remedies. 39.The Court recalls its jurisprudence that an Applicant is only required to exhaust ordinary judicial remedies so as to be in compliance with Rule 40(5) of the Rules where such remedies are available and not unduly prolonged.s ln this regard, the Respondent State has submitted previously to this Court that it has a mechanism where aggrieved parties can challenge violations of human rights. The Respondent State has stated that it enacted the Basic Rights and Duties Act to empower the High Court with jurisdiction over petitions of human rights violations.6 40.|n the instant Application, the Court notes that the Applicant filed a civil case concerning breach of contract in the High Court in Civil Case 163 Of 2000 on 1g August 2008. The Applicant further filed an appeal against the High Court's decision to the Court of Appeal on 21 September 2010. The case was reverted to the High Court for assessment of damages and the High Court on 4 April 201 1 made an award of six (6) million Tanzanian shillings (Tzs 6,000,000) in favour of the Applicant. 5 6 See Mtikila v Tanzan la (Merits) 982. 1 ; A/ex Thomas v Tanzania (Merits) g 64 Armand Guehi v Tan zanra (Merits Reparation 4, Kennedy lvan v Tanzania (Merits and Repara s37 t2 f,\{