Applicant should have waited for the 5 June 2009* Notice of Motion to Review the Court of Appeal’s decision in Criminal Appeal Number 230 of 2008 to be heard. The Respondent further states that the Applicant could have also instituted a Constitutional Petition before the High Court of Tanzania vide the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, 1994, regarding the alleged violation of his rights, which form the basis of his application before this Court. 54. The Applicant avers that local remedies were fully exhausted when the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, the highest court of the land, finally and in its entirety, dismissed his appeal on 29 May 2009. 55. The Applicant avers that one need not file an application for review so as to exhaust local assertion of the Respondent remedies. He also states that the State that the Applicant should have filed a constitutional petition to challenge the delay in the hearing of the review is both unnecessary. and redundant as it imposes a requirement to utilise a procedure that falls outside the scope of the rule requiring exhaustion of local remedies. 56. On the preliminary objection that the Applicant did not exhausi local remedies, the Court finds that the Applicant went through the required criminal trial process up to the highest Court in the land and finally applied for review to the Court of Appeal. In a case involving the Commission, Respondent State before the African the 3 The Notice of Motion for Review in the matter of Criminal Appeal Number 230 of 2008 in the Court of Appeal of Tanzania. It was signed by the Applicant by way of thumbprint on 5 June 2009 and lodged in the Registry at Dar es Salaam on 10 June 2009. Me We, (Lo