the granting of leave by the Court of Appeal to file an application for review of its decision is based on specific grounds7 and is granted at the discretion of the Court. 8 64. The Court is persuaded by the reasoning of the African Commission in Southern African Human Rights NGO Network v Tanzania9 , where it stated that, the remedies that need to be exhausted are ordinary remedies. 65. In view of this, the Court finds that the Respondent's assertion that the Applicant should have filed a Constitutional Petition to challenge the delay in the hearing of the application for Review, 7 See Section 66 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules of the Court of Appeal of Tanzani:1 which provides: "The Court may review its judgment or order, but no application for review shall be entertained except on the following grounds (a) the decision was based on a manifest error on the face of the record resulting in the miscarriage of justice; or (b) a party was wrongly deprived of an opportunity to be heard; (c) the court's decision is a nullity; or (d) the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the case; or (e) the judgment ws procured illegally, or by fraud or perjury." 8 Karim Karia v Republic] Criminal Application N[umber] 4 of 2007 Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Dodoma quoting the case of Tanzania Transcontinental Co. Ltd v Design Partnership Ltd (Civil) Application N[umber] 62 of 1996. 9 Communication 333/2006 281h Activity Report November 2009- May 2010. paragraph 64. The Commission held that: "Furthermore, the 'remedies' referred to in Article 56(5) include all judicial remedies that are easily accessible for justice. The Commission in INTERIGHTS and Others v Mauritania, declared: 'The fact remains that the generally accepted meaning of local remedies, which must be exhausted prior to any communication/complaint procedure before the African Commission, are ordinary remedies of common law that exist in jurisdictions and normally accessible to people seeking justice." 27