to use was not apposite for the type of grievance he had. The High Court in declining jurisdiction expressed the view that a constitutional reference or petition under the Constitution was the appropriate procedure for the type of remedies the Complainant was seeking. 35. Respondent State further avers that the court dismissed Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 22 of 2004 because it was scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, irrelevant, contemptuous, an abuse of court process, and that it did not raise any violation of the Complainant's rights. According to the Respondent State, the court also opined that the heart of the application was the right to representation and found that the Complainant had no right to ,choose counsel for the other parties. 36. Furthermore, the Respondent State submits that in di?~riissing Court of Appeal Civil Application No 260 of2007 (UR 160/2O0'7)-the Court qfA:ppeal remarked that ,, . instead of pursuing the substantive matter in Miscelra1}-eQ,US Civil Appiication No. 22 of 2004 in which he was challenging the .election · qf the Speaker, the Complainant staged a frivolo'utrside show ch,,allenging the'legal representatives of the defendants thereby keeping_. the substantive matter pending before the court. It states that the ,ruling of H;te I-Iigh Court and the Court of Appeal were upheld by the Supreme Court. .·.·.· ' 37. The Respondent State maintains that by pursuing challenges to legal representatives for other parties tp · his case, the Complainant ignored the substantive matter ·which has not ,. been ~ealt with by any competent forum. Accordingly, it submits, the Complainant has not exhausted local remedies. In supporf of this submission, the Respondent State cites the Muzerengwa Case in which the Commission held that ... the Courts did not rule ort the merits of the case but on both instances dismissed the case on technzcalities. The reason the courts were not able to deal with the merits is because the courts were approached to rule on procedural matters and thus Jailed to raise the substantive issues before the domestic courts. 3 38. In light of its submissions, the Respondent State prays that this Communication must be declared inadmissible for failure to comply with Article 56(5) of the Charter relating to exhaustion of local remedies. Complainant's supplementary observations 39. In his reply, the Complainant insists that after his first attempt in High~ , ~ q ,{;;--;-...:: Application No 554 of 2003 failed, he sought to exhaust local remed· f'o jf-")" ' ,, 1, 0 3 d I ,para.73 ~ ..Cl !/'; .-( \1 ~ "i ~~ --~ ( i.-O 4-"J:(/CAir-1~ . ~-:~"11; ET c,£5 " . , ·::..._-- ··:: .--.:-:.. ~ · :