70. The above provisions show that the institution of Constitutional Petitions to redress human rights violations in Tanzania will only be entertained where other remedies are not available and that they are an extraordinary remedy. 71. With respect to review, Section 66 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Appeal of Tanzania provides that this remedy is brought before the Court of Appeal against a decision it has itself made; that the remedy must, as much as possible, be considered by the same judges who delivered the Judgment being appealed remedy may be exercised only in exceptional circumstances. against; and that the In this regard, paragraph 1 of the aforementioned Section provides as follows: "The Court may review its Judgment or Order, but no Application for review™ shall be entertained except on the following grounds: a) The decision was based on a manifest error on the face of the record resulting in the miscarriage of justice; or b) A party was wrongly deprived of an opportunity to be heard; c) The Court's decision was a nullity; or d) The Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the case; or e) The Judgment was procured illegally, or by fraud or perjury". 72. \t is clear from the above provision that review as a remedy is not common, that it is not granted as of right and that it can be exercised restrictive conditions set forth by the same certainty that the remedy law. only exceptionally and under the It can therefore or review is available in the Tanzanian be concluded legal system with as an extraordinary remedy that the Applicants are not obliged to exhaust before bringing a matter before this Court. As the Court noted in the case of Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania “an application for review is an extraordinary remedy because the granting of leave by the Court of Appeal to file an application for review of its decision is based on specific grounds and .... is granted at the discretion of the Court’"’. '! Ibidem, para 63. S 23 fe ME AR a oor RE eS