basic rights for duties and related matters;14 and the Applicants’ failure to pursue that remedy makes the Application inadmissible as it is premature. * 48. The Applicants refute the Respondent States claim that some of their grounds of appeal are inadmissible because they should have filed a Constitutional Petition. They observe that this claim has been rejected by this Court on previous occasions. Citing the case of Kijiji Isiaga v. Tanzania, the Applicants contend that this Court has held that Applicants are only required to exhaust ordinary judicial remedies, and that filing a constitutional petition “is an extraordinary remedy which the Applicant was not required to exhaust prior to filling his application.” 49. It is also the Applicants’ contention that, as this Court has previously held, local remedies are exhausted once an Applicant has gone through the required criminal trial process up to the Court of Appeal, which is the highest Court in the Respondents State. 50. The Applicants further aver that the Respondent State’s submission that they failed to file an application for review of the Court of Appeal’s judgment, is manifestly incorrect, since a copy of their’ application for review pursuant to Rule 66(1)(a) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules 2009 was filed at the Respondent State’s sub-registry at Bukoba on 20 December 2012. Additionally, a copy of the application for review was also annexed to the Application before this Court, and served on the Respondent State. 51. The Applicants surmise that they exhausted ordinary judicial remedies before applying to this Court, and therefore, their Application is admissible. *** “if any person alleges that any of the provisions of sections 12 to 29 of the constitution has been, is being or is likely to be contravened in relation to him, he may without prejudice to any other action with respect to the same matter that is lawfully available, apply to the high court for redress”. 14 15