93. The record before this Court shows that the trial and appellate courts exhaustively considered the evidence and allegations presented in the Applicant’s case. The Court, therefore, considers that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate and prove that the manner in which the trial and appellate proceedings were conducted or how the evidence was evaluated revealed manifest errors requiring this Court’s intervention. 94. The Court, therefore, dismisses the Applicant’s allegations and finds that the Respondent State did not violate his right to be heard, protected under Article 7(1) of the Charter. ii. Allegation that the Applicant’s application for review was unjustly denied 95. The Applicant claims that the Court of Appeal heard, but did not grant, the application for review of the judgment, which violated his rights. * 96. The Respondent State disputes this allegation and submits that his application for extension of time to file a revision was considered and dismissed in accordance with procedures established by law. The Respondent State, therefore, submits that this allegation lacks merit and should be dismissed. *** 97. From the record, the Court notes that the Respondent State’s Court of Appeal considered the Applicant’s application for extension of time to file an application of review of the Court of Appeal’s decision but dismissed it because it considered that the Applicant was “seeking for an extension of time […] not on genuine reasons under Rule 66(1) [of the Court of Appeal Rules] but as a disguised way to move the Court to sit on appeal over its own final judgment”.30 30 Deogratias Nicholaus and Joseph Mukwano v. The Republic, Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Bukoba, Criminal Application No. 1 of 2014, Ruling of 13 February 2015, page 8. 22