39. Regarding, the requirement that an Application be filed within a reasonable
time, Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules, which in substance restates Article 56(6) of
the Charter, stipulates that, an Application should be filed within: “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 with the matter.”
40. As the Court has established in its constant jurisprudence, the
reasonableness of the period for seizure of the Court depends on the
particular circumstances of each case and must be determined on a caseby-case basis.8
41. In the instance case, the Application was filed on 22 October 2018, that is,
one month and 18 days after the Court of Appeal rendered its decision on 4
September 2018. Consequently, the Court finds the period of one month
and 18 days to be manifestly reasonable.
42. Furthermore, the Court finds that the Application does not concern a case
which has already been settled by the Parties in accordance with the
principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the Constitutive Act of the
African Union, the provisions of the Charter or of any legal instrument of the
African Union in accordance with Rule 50(2)(g) of the Rules.
43. The Court, therefore, finds that all the admissibility conditions have been
fulfilled and, the Application is admissible.
VIII.
MERITS
44. The Applicant alleges the violation of the right to have one’s cause heard in
that, there were contradictions in the evidence filed by the Prosecution
8
Anudo Ochieng Anudo v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (22 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 248, § 57;
Shija Juma v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 028/2016, Judgment of 13 June
2024.
10