001087 against the Minister of Home Affairs challenging his detention. application before the High Court at Dar-es-Salaam. Two He filed a similar (2) of the first three (3) applications were struck out on 30 April 2015. The third was dismissed by the High Court at Bukoba, which found that the Applicant's detention was lawful as he was awaiting deportation. The Applicant himself withdrew the application before the High Court in Dar-es-Salaam on the ground that the same petition was already before the High Court at Bukoba. According to the Respondent State, when the last application was dismissed, the Applicant could have appealed to the Court of Appeal but failed to do so. 54.The Respondent State further contends that if the Applicant felt aggrieved by the detention order, he was and still is legally entitled to apply for judicial review to quash the order on grounds of procedural irregularity, by invoking the Law Reform Act which provides for remedies to persons aggrieved by the actions of State administrative bodies or authorities. 55.Refuting these assertions by the Respondent State, the Applicant significant efforts had been made to exhaust all available remedies. he refers to the case Commission on Commission’) of Sir Dawda Human and Jawara Peoples’ v. The Rights submits that In this regard, Gambia, wherein the African (hereinafter referred to as “the held that all domestic remedies that need to be exhausted should be available, effective, adequate and sufficient. 56. The Applicant submits that it is an established fact in international human rights law that a domestic hindrance; remedy is considered available if it can be exercised without is effective if it offers the prospect of success; and is sufficient, if it is capable of remedying the violations raised. He also avers that “no appeal has ever prospered in favour of the Applicant in the United Republic of Tanzania”. 5