vi. Alleged undue delay of the decision on the review application 85.The Applicant decision 09 alleges ... regarding January 20137 that “the Court of Appeal (his) Application which although constitutional ...delayed to review its (he) made to the court since and appellate jurisdiction Act allow (him) to do so.” RR 86. The Respondent State submits that Rule 66(2) to (6) of the Court of Appeal Rules sets conditions for the review of its judgment, one of them being the filing of the motion of appeal within six (6) months after the decision sought to be reviewed. The Respondent State alleges that in accordance with the Applicant’s March submissions, 2014”, that the notice of motion is, sixteen (16) months for review was after the Court filed on 21 of Appeal’s judgment was delivered on 26 July 2013. The Respondent State maintains that the Applicant did not submit a copy of the said notice of motion of review. 87. The Respondent State further submits that the Applicant ought to have filed a constitutional petition before the High Court to seek remedies for the alleged violations of his rights. eK 88.The Court notes that there are two issues arising for determination. One concerns the delay by the Court of Appeal to decide on the application for review allegedly filed by the Applicant, and the other is on the filing of a constitutional petition regarding the alleged violation of the Applicant's rights which the Respondent State claims the Applicant ought to have filed. 89.Concerning the constitutional petition, the Court is of the view that this question was examined under the admissibility of the Application and it was deemed to be immaterial to the requirement 22 The Applicant mistakenly indicated 9 January 2019. 3 The correct date alleged by the Applicant is 9 January 2013. 23 of compliance with the