The Reply of the Respondent on filing out of time limit 28. The Respondent replied that their statement of defence dated 9 March 2017 was sent electronically to the Chief Registrar of the Court, who acknowledged receipt on 10 March 2017 and that a copy of the printout of the email evidencing above averment was submitted to the Court, while the hard copy of the statement was dispatched to the Registry of the Court through DHL- a courier service on 14 March 2017. The Respondent further maintained that the date of dispatch is the relevant date of submission even though the Registry of the Court registered it on 14 March 2017. It therefore prayed to dismiss the Applicant’s objection declared the defence admissible. Issues for Determination 29. Based on the submissions of the Parties, the Court formulated the following issues for the determination: i) Whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the Application. ii) Whether the Objection of the Respondent State regarding the locus standi of the Applicant is valid; iii) Whether the Applicant’s objection that the Respondent State filed its defence out of time is valid; iv) Whether the Charter and the UHDR are applicable to the Applicant; v) if the answer re (iv) above is in the affirmative, Whether the Applicant’s right to property was violated by the Respondent State contrary to Article 14 of the Charter and Art 17 of the UHDR; vi) Whether the expropriation, confiscation and use of the Applicant’s properties without a fair and prior compensation violates the Applicant’s right to property. 10