47. In relation to the first limb of the Respondent State’s objection that the First
Applicant should have filed an application for review of the Court of Appeal’s
decision, the Court recalls that in several cases involving the Respondent
State, it has repeatedly stated that the remedies of review available before
the Court of Appeal, as framed in the Respondent State’s judicial system, is
an extraordinary remedy that an Applicant is not required to exhaust prior
to seizing this Court.16 Consequently, in instances where the Applicant has
gone through the judicial system up to the Court of Appeal, which is the
highest court in the Respondent State, it should be considered that local
remedies have been exhausted.17
48. The Court notes that in the present Application, the Applicants’ appeals
were determined through a judgment rendered on 5 November 2009 by the
Court of Appeal, which is the highest judicial authority of the Respondent
State. Given that a petition for review is an extraordinary remedy that the
First Applicant is not compelled to use, it must therefore be considered that
domestic remedies were exhausted in the present matter.
49. Consequently, the Court dismisses the first limb of the Respondent State’s
objection on the failure to file an application for review.
50. Regarding the second limb of the objection that the lack of legal
representation is being raised before this Court for the first time, the Court
observes that the alleged violation occurred in the course of the domestic
judicial proceedings. They, accordingly, form part of the “bundle of rights
and guarantees” that were related to or were the basis of their appeals,
which the domestic authorities had ample opportunity to redress even
though the Applicants did not raise them explicitly.18 It would, therefore, be
James Wanjara and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania (judgment) (25 September 2020) 4 AfCLR
673, § 43; Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 65 and Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of
Tanzania (merits) (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 599, §§ 66-70.
17 Hamis Shaban alias Hamis Ustadh v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No.
026/2015, Judgment of 2 December 2021, § 51 and Abubakari v. Tanzania (merits), ibid, § 76.
18 Kennedy Owino Onyachi and Another v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 September 2017)
2 AfCLR 65, § 54; Mussa and Mangaya v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 37 and Wanjara
and Others v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 45.
16
13