47. In the instant case, the Court notes from the record that the Court of Appeal,
the highest court in the Respondent State, dismissed the Applicants’ appeal
on 29 July 2013. Although the Second Applicant claimed to have lodged an
application for review of this decision, the procedure by which the Court of
Appeal upheld their conviction and sentence is the final ordinary judicial
remedy that was available to the Applicants in the Respondent State. In this
connection, the Court has previously held that the review procedure at the
Court of Appeal constitutes an extraordinary remedy, which an applicant is
not required to pursue before seizing the Court.12
48. Similarly, concerning the filing of a constitutional petition procedure at the
High Court, the Court has consistently held that this remedy in the
Respondent State’s judicial system is also an extraordinary remedy that
Applicants are not required to exhaust prior to bringing their matters before
this Court.13
49. With regard to the Respondent State’s contention that the Second Applicant
did not raise the issue of legal aid during domestic proceedings, the Court
is of the view that this alleged violation occurred in the course of the
domestic judicial proceedings that led to the Applicants conviction and
sentence to thirty (30) years’ imprisonment. The allegation forms part of the
“bundle of rights and guarantees” relating to the right to a fair trial which was
the basis of the Applicant’s appeals.14 The domestic judicial authorities thus
had ample opportunity to address the allegation even without the Applicant
having raised it explicitly. It would, therefore, be unreasonable to require the
Applicants to file a new application before the domestic courts to seek
redress for this claim.15
12
Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 64; Onyachi and Njoka v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 56;
Christopher Jonas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 September 2017) 2 AfCLR 101, § 44.
13 Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 599, § 72;
Onyachi and Njoka v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 56.
14 Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 60; Onyachi and Njoka v. Tanzania, § 68.
15 Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, §§ 60-65.
14