Applicant’s failure to exhaust domestic remedies. While conceding that the Applicants did commence a case before the High Court (miscellaneous civil cause no. 17 of 2018) which was subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal (civil appeal no. 138 of 2019), it is the Respondent State’s contention that the Applicants are, before this Court, challenging section 4(1) of the NEA, which was never challenged before any domestic court. The Respondent State accordingly submits that “… this Application be declared inadmissible as the Application has failed to meet all the admissibility requirements.” * 43. The Applicants, for their part, submit that, in line with Article 56(5) of the Charter, their Application is admissible. They highlight the fact that they had filed a case before the Respondent State’s High Court challenging sections 6(1) and 7(1), 7(2), 7(3) of the NEA. They further point out that on the Respondent State’s appeal, the Court of Appeal found in the Respondent State’s favour. To substantiate their argument, the Applicants filed copies of the judgments of both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. 44. In their Reply, the Applicants reiterate that they exhausted domestic remedies. They point out that “it is not in dispute that sections 6(1), 7(1), (2) and (3) of the National Elections Act have no issue with the requirement for exhaustion of local remedies in the instant application according to the Respondents reply to the application.” The Applicants concede that the dispute, in relation to the admissibility of the Application, revolves around their claims concerning section 4(1) of the NEA. 45. The Applicants submit that “… although section 4(1) was not raised in the national courts, this does not warrant the Court to declare the whole application inadmissible.” In support of their position, they cite the Court’s decision in Kalebi Elisamehe v. Tanzania and pray the Court to invoke the bundle of rights and guarantees to find the Application admissible. *** 13