a. The Ogieks have litigated their case for 15 years in the domestic courts, including the High Court of Kenya. Most of the cases (which are quoted) are either still pending, or the Respondent has not complied therewith or sought to resolve the Ogieks’ complaints. The Applicant urges the Court to find that the domestic procedure has been unduly prolonged, thus exempting the applicant from the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies; b. Rule 40 does not require the Court to carry out a preliminary examination of its competence and the admissibility of the case. In any event, the case meets all the admissibility requirements under Article 56, and the Court has manifest jurisdiction over the matter in accordance with Articles 3 and 5(1) of the Protocol; c. Effective remedies, while available in theory, have not been practically available as: i. The Respondent has ignored an order of certiorari, and three cases, the earliest one of which dates back to 1999, are still pending before the Courts; ii. Even if orders under judicial review and constitutional jurisdictions of the High Court were in theory available, they were not effective or sufficient as the Respondent either flagrantly violated them or they were inordinately delayed; iii. While the onus is on applicants/claimants to initiate cases, the management thereof including the setting of dates for hearing, granting motions and decisions is squarely within the ambit of Judges in accordance with Kenya’s Civil Procedure Rules (Rule 3(2)). The general delay in the handling of cases by the Kenya judiciary, and the non-respect of Court processes by the Respondent’s lawyers are well documented. As a result, the majority of cases brought by the Ogieks remain pending; iv. It is untrue that relief under judicial review and constitutional jurisdictions do not require oral hearings and is therefore expeditious as Rules 3(1), 4 and 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules of Kenya and Rule 20 of the High Court