0009t5 2014 in civil case No. 118 of 2007, in implementation of which the relevant authorities issued the Notice of prohibited lmmigrant and proceeded to deport the Applicant as recounted above. The Court notes that the fact that neither the Minister of Home Affairs nor the High court responded to the Applicant's requests made it impossible for him to access the appeal remedy. The court thus finds that though the remedy of the appeal existed, the Applicant was unable to utilise it. This situation was compounded by the fact that the Applicant was no longer in the territory of the Respondent state. The court therefore deems it that local remedies have been exhausted. 46. As a consequence, the Court dismisses the Respondent State's objection to the admissibility of the Application for lack of exhaustion of local remedies. ii. Objection based on failure to fite the Application within a reasonable time 47. ln computing the time within which the Applicant filed his Application after exhausting local remedies, the Respondent State considers the period between the date of the High court judgment, which is 2 January 2014, and the filing of the present Application on 28 January 2015. The Respondent State avers that the said period, which is more than one (1) year, cannot be considered a reasonable time against the standard of six (6) months set out by the African commission in the case of Michaet Majuru v. Republic of Zimbabwe.. 48' While agreeing with the Respondent State on the dates to be taken into account and the period of time within which the Application was filed, as reflected above, the Applicant challenges the inference made by the Respondent State as to what constitutes a reasonable time as per Article 56(6) of the charter. lt is the Applicant's contention that, in line with the jurisprudence of this court, what constitutes a reasonable time should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. 49. 6 The Applicant argues that, after filing the two aforementioned requests to the Minister of Home Affairs and the High Court, he was obviously waiting to receive See Communication 308/2005 8) RLR 1 (ACHPR 2008) l3 t,..' '' &-