the course of proceedings before the domestic courts and the Respondent State cannot therefore claim that it became aware of the claim relating to legal assistance for the first time in this Court. 38. In light of the above, the Court dismisses the objection herein and holds that the Applicant has exhausted all the available domestic remedies. ii. | Objection based on failure to file the Application within a reasonable time 39. The Respondent State argues that the period of sixteen (16) months, from the time the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment, to when the Applicant filed this Application is way beyond the reasonable time of six (6) months suggested by the Commission in Majuru v. Zimbabwe (2008). 40.The Applicant does not make a specific response to this allegation but maintains that he filed the Notice of Motion for Review before the Court of Appeal on 9 January 2013, which the Respondent State dismisses by contending that, the Applicant failed to submit before this Court the copy of the said notice. ae 41. The Court notes that Article 56(6) of the Charter does not stipulate a precise time limit within which an Application shall be filed before the Court. Rule 40(6) of the Rules refers to a “reasonable time from the date local remedies were exhausted or from the date set by the Court as being the commencement of the time limit within which it shall be seized of the matter.” 42.The Court has established that the reasonable period to seize the Court in accordance with Article 56(6) of the Charter and depends determined on the on particular circumstances a case-by-case of basis.’° Among Rule 40(6) of the Rules each the case and must be relevant factors, the 10 Nobert Zongo v Burkina Faso (preliminary objections), § 121. See also Armand Guehi v United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (2018) 2 AfCLR 477, §§ 55-57; Werema Wangoko 12