005062 77. The Applicant insists that the Application was filed within a reasonable time after the exhaustion of local remedies since the decision of the Ordinary Bench of the Supreme Court was delivered on 14 June 2013 and the judgment of the Review Bench of the Supreme Court was rendered on 29 July 2014, whilst the Application before this Court was filed on 5 January 2017. 78. Furthermore, the Applicant contends that before seizing this Court he had to engage with the Commission of Inquiry into inordinate payments satisfaction of judgment debts. made from public funds in He avers that he appealed against these findings before the Court of Appeal in June 2016"®on the grounds that neither he nor his lawyer were invited to appear before the Commission to be heard before the determination of the matter. 79. The Applicant submits that he did not “sleep on his rights”. He avers that in considering what constitutes reasonable time the Court must take cognisance of the fact that the Charter does not define what constitutes reasonable time and submits that the abovementioned reasons are adequate justification for the delay in filing the matter before this Court and in the interest of justice and fairness, the Court should admit and consider the Application. kkk 80.The Court recalls its jurisprudence tn the matter of Norbert Zongo v. Burkina Faso, where it established the principle that “the reasonableness of a time limit of seizure will depend on the particular circumstances of each case and should be determined on a case-by-case basis’"” '6 Alfred Woyome v Attorney General Case No. H1/42/2017 (Court of Appeal, page 11, Vol. attachment AAW). ‘7 Norbert Zongo v. Burkina Faso (Merits), § 92. VI |