61. Furthermore, the Court subordinate court, basic contravened, an application notes rights that are is made if in proceedings alleged to in have under the Basic a beer Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, to the High Court to be decided by a three — Judge Bench and an appeal therefrom lies to the Court of Appeal.® 62. In the instant case, once the Court of Appeal of Tanzania decided on the Applicant's appeal, it would have been unreasonable to require him to lodge a fresh application regarding his right to a fair trial, to the High Court, which is a court lower than the Court of Appeal of Tanzania. 63. Regarding the Respondent's contention that the Applicant should have pursued the application for review to its conclusion, the Court finds that this was neither necessary nor mandatory. The final appeal in criminal trials lies, as of right, to the Court of Appeal, which the Applicant has proved that he accessed. In addition, his appeal to the Court of Appeal was based on allegations of violations of his basic right to a fair trial, which the Court of Appeal also decided on®, therefore, it was not necessary for him to file a separate constitutional petition to the High Court vide, the procedure set out in the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement alleged violation of his basic right to a Act, based on the fair trial. The Court also finds that an application for review is an extraordinary remedy because 5 Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, Act Number 33 of 1994, Sections 9 and 10. 8 Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Arusha, Criminal Appeal Thomas v The Republic Judgment of 29 May 2009. Number 230 of 2008 Alex ME 26 We