dealing with the nght not to be arbitrarily deprived of one's freedom. On 14 December 2010, this application was struck out for the reason that it had not been properly made since the Applicant brought it by way of Chamber Summons and Supporting Affidavit, whereas Section 5 of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, which governs the procedure for filing and determining applications under Part III of Chapter One of the Constitution, required that such application be brought by way of a Petition and Originating Summons. In addition, according to the High Court, the aforesaid Act required that such an application be determined by a three - Judge Bench and not a single Judge. 135. The Applicant filed against the Attorney General of the Respondent and the Police Officer in Charge of Arusha Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.78 of 2010, in the High Court of Tanzania at Arusha, originating from the Criminal Cases, on the basis of Articles 13(1) 15(1), (2) (a) and 30 (3) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania In support of the application, he alleged violation of his right to freedom and to live as a free person since the Second Respondent in that application had arrested, detained and interrogated him contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act and that therefore, the Criminal Cases against him were vitiated by these illegalities. The Applicant sought a decree under Part III of Chapter One of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania to this effect On 18 May 2011, the High Court issued an order that the application was withdrawn at the Applicant's instance. There is no record of the reasons for the withdrawal of the application. 136. The Applicant filed Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 80 of 2010, originating from the Criminal Cases, in the High Court of Tanzania in Arusha, alleging violation of his basic rights and freedoms guaranteed under Part Ill of Chapter One of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, specifically of Articles 24(1), (2) and 30(3) thereof on the right to own property. The application was against the Attorney General of the Respondent and the Police Officer in Charge of Arusha. The Applicant prayed the Court to order the Respondents in that application to restore his properties and any other relief it wished to grant. On 18 May 2011, the High Court issued an Order that the application was withdrawn at the instance of the Applicant. There is no record of the reasons for the withdrawal of the application. 137. Finally, the Applicant filed against the Attorney General of the Respondent, Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 16 of 2011, Originating from the Criminal Cases on the basis of Articles 13(1), 15(1) and 15(2) (a) and 30(3) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania. In that application, the Applicant alleged that the provisions and laws concerning his rights under Section 13(1)(a), (b), 13 (3) (a), (b) and (c), 32(1), (2) and (3), 33, 50(1), 52(1) and 52 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Articles 14(1) and 15(1}, and 15(2)(a) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania were violated by the Police. He therefore sought a decree under Part III of Chapter One of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania. The Respondent therein filed its response on 5 October 2011. The Applicant repeatedly urged for the empanelling of a three - Judge Bench of the High Court to hear this application. On 29 June 2011, the Applicant wrote to the Registrar of the High Court of Tanzania at Arusha requesting that the three Judge Bench be constituted to hear the application. He wrote again in this regard on 14 November 2011. On 26 March 2012, the application was recorded at the High Court as withdrawn, even though the same record indicates that the Applicant was absent from Court. 138. The Application filed in this Court is almost identical with the numerous Miscellaneous Criminal and Civil applications which the Applicant filed in the High Court in Arusha, in connection with the Criminal Cases. In the Miscellaneous Applications, the Applicant sought restitution of property which the Police seized from his house during his absence. In that regard, he also sought relief against violation of his basic right to own property and not to be unlawfully deprived of such property. Further, he sought withdrawal or dismissal of the Criminal Cases. These are basically the same claims and reliefs he is seeking from this Court. 139. The Court observes that some of the applications were dismissed by the High Court. For instance, Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 7 of 2007, in which the Applicant claims the restitution of his property which was allegedly seized by the Police unlawfully, was struck out for being premature. Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 54 of 2009 which sought the discharge or dismissal of criminal charges brought against the Applicant, was struck out by the High Court on the ground of procedural irregularity. Again, Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 6 of 2010 in which the Applicant sought the discontinuance of certain criminal cases commenced against him, was struck out for incompetence as it was brought under a repealed statute. 140. Then, in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 78 of 2010, in which the Applicant contended that he was unlawfully arrested, detained and interrogated and sought a decree to that effect under Part III of Chapter One of the Respondent's Constitution, was withdrawn by the Applicant. Similarly, Miscellaneous 18