Complainant has not exhausted local remedies as the substantive matter is still pending before the domestic courts, the Respondent State suggests that the Complainant is responsible for delaying the disposal of the substantive matter as he abandoned it for a side show. The side show in question is his application challenging the legal representatives of the respondents to his case. 51. From the facts outlined at paragraphs 6 - 12 above, the Commission notes that the Complainant indeed took quite some measures that could have had the effect of stalling the progress on (1) Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 22 of 2004 when it was revived with the issuance of directions by the Chief Justice on 5 March 2007; and (2) Civil Appeal No 266 of 2008. 52. However, upon a dose examination, the Commission is not convinced that the Complainant's so called "side show" is responsible for the relevant delays. Even though the chamber summons filed on 8 October 2007 frustrated the hearing scheduled for 9 October 2007 (hearing of his response to the preliminary objections to the substantive matter), the High ~ourt dismissed the chamber summons the same day and rescheduled hearing of his response to the preliminary objections on 30 October 2007, Just about 21 days afterwards. Thus despite the chamber application of 8 October 2007, the court was able to dispose of the application and proceed with reasona~le expedition. Further, the injunction he f·sought by Civil .Application No NAI 261 of 2007 (UR 161 of 2007) to stop the High Court from proceeding with the hearing on 30 October 2007 was not granted. The_application has never been heard and determined to date. The High Court was thus not barred from proceeding. Indeed it was able to proceed with the hearing scheduled on 30 October 2007. Furthermore, Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 3200f 2007 (UR 221 of 2007) in which he sought to stay the ruling of the High Court dismissing the substantive matter, was and has never been heard . The respondent State does not offer any explanation for the courts' failure to determine this application despite its supposed urgency. As a result, the High Court's ruling dismissing Miscellaneous Civil Application 22 of 2004 remains in force. It is not suggested that the application for stay in any way impacted determination of Civil Appeal No. 266 of 2008 which was an appeal against the dismissal of Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 22 of 2004. 53. Moreover, whereas the Complainant pursued his challenge to opposing counsel by applying for leave to appeal on 23 October 2007 (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. NAI 260 of 2007), this application only came up for hearing on 23 February 2012, four years and four months after it was lodged with the Court of Appeal. There is no indication that hearing of Civil Appeal No. 266 of 2008 pending determination of Civil Appeal No. NAI 260 of 2007. In thi Appeal No. NAI 260 of 2007, termed a "side show" by the domestic ,,l<'~ Q, 1~.\ t!;I ;: I\ I j'~ ~ -&~i?J ~\Y'T-9' -;;.,;"'