ACHPR African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rigr)~s Human Rights our Collective Responsibility 79. Given the appellate courts' or~er dismissing It~eComplainants~ appeal. against government, the Counter Claim for alt~rna:tive accommodation agamst the Government is considered to have been dktermined with finality. What is left of the suit is the Eviction Application brdught by the trustees as the private owners of the property. Based on this fac~,theCommission holds the view that the Complainants have exhausted local remedies against the Respondent State in line with the requirement of Article 56(5), considering that the pending Eviction Application has no bearing on the responsibility of government to provide, at the very least, temporary alte native accommodation to address the Complainants' housing situation. <i"'~J~i"!"~:;::').,.> /(';/ '"' ,j ":\, 80. The Commission further holds the view tbaffn,tl;l,e Res ' shown that there is any other practic~t,:~?~~~~~,>re ,,'y available to the Complainants other than the referenc~B':'Evi~ti<)~RrR,l1 " .cW,,~.h has been found to be insufficient. To this ~avirig\~9btaiH~~0);~maJ_jtJq~ginentin respect of the co~nter-applic.at.i~2/~the/~~~?on~~t}t.State l1:*~;!(~ot ..demonstrated how the Complamants may I~l~:f~~e anotH~r",~ctH?n in the dOI\l~,~p.c court, based on the same claims and relie£$j;~d~$h,t in ~Be';~pi:tnter-applicati~A~ without being estopped from doing so,)J,ased on>f1l." 0~tririg(6f:res judicata (which means, the matter has already beE;~'~~djudicated )1 by a cOq}p~t~Ptcourt) . ~n;~~' .(:f)'P·::(~::,1::;iL, " < \;:<" ".: ' 81. The above view.of :tRe <S(?,~.p.)i.~IOn al " ten~~...to the contention by the Respondent State that th~<,,:.a~.legedi u~~pe living conditions of the Complainants, which is being 'rek!~~ up In as~bne of the bases for the alleged violations, has pot been dealt witR~~~Y';,.tts domestic courts. This is not quite the case. In the de~~stonof the High Cou:t"," ;r exure B attached to the Complaint), it ~an be seen l{tat, the issue of t~~,liYmg conditions and the urgent need for alfEl~~.~tive accommodation for t£¢/ComFlainants was duly raised and formed the q~.Si~:~8f_!he co{iht~i 'c1~i~.:fl.sljlldicate~upon by the courts up to finality on appea,lj::;h,'"~H:J;;:;;:~.~J:?' >: ;~" . . .' " , 82. In this re<g9-r,<arthe"CQ~issionfinds that the Respondent State has not shown ·,.T,"" """, how the '<g:pmplainap.tsmay solely litigate this cause-of-action against the municipal g'9yernment, without being estopped by the courts on the basis that it falls within 1i'~1iP'atter which has alreadyl been exhaustively dealt with by the courts. In any-event, the Commission finds that this contention will fail to the extent that it has observed from the text lof the decisions of the national courts which were provided by the Complainal1ts, that there were ample references to the Complainants' living conditions, in the context of the absence of 'provision of essential services to them. 1 83.