being the commencement of the time limit within which it shall be seized with the matter.” 59. As the Court has established, the reasonableness of the period for seizure depends on the particular circumstances of each case and must be determined on a case-by-case basis.19 In the present case, the Applicants filed their Application on 6 March 2020 while the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on 15 October 2019. A total of four (4) months twenty (20) days thus lapsed between the Court of Appeal’s judgment and the filing of the Application and it is this period that the Court must consider for purposes of determining reasonableness under Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules. Given the period at stake in this Application, the Court holds that the Application was filed within a reasonable period of time within the meaning of Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules. 60. The Court also observes that the Application does not deal with matters or issues previously settled by those States involved in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the Constitutive Act of the African Union or the provisions of the Charter. It thus holds that the Application complies with the requirements of Rule 50(2)(g) of the Rules. 61. Given all of the above, the Court holds that the Application, except in so far as it concerns section 4(1) of the NEA, meets all the admissibility requirements in Article 56 of the Charter which are reiterated in Rule 50(2) of the Rules and declares it admissible. VII. MERITS 62. The Court must determine whether or not sections 6(1), 7(1), 7(2) and 7(3) of the NEA violate the Applicants’ rights. Although the Applicants have framed four (4) separate violations, corresponding to the four (4) sections of 19 Anudo Ochieng Anudo v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (22 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 248, § 57. 17