that the application is still pending to date. In view of these circumstances, the Applicant submits that, the seven (7) months it took him to seize this court constitute reasonable time and prays the Court to dismiss the Respondent State’s objection. *** 52. Pursuant to Article 56(6) of the Charter, as restated in Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules, in order for an application to be admissible, it must be “submitted 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”. 53. In the present case, the Court notes that between the date that the Court of Appeal dismissed the Applicant’s appeal on 23 February 2016 and when the Applicant filed the Application on 1 September 2016, a period of six (6) months and nine (9) days elapsed. 54. The Court further notes that Article 56(6) of the Charter, as restated in Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules, does not set a fixed time limit within which it must be seized. However, the Court has held that “the reasonableness of the time limit for referral depends on the particular circumstances of each case and must be determined on a case-by-case basis”.24 55. From the record, the Court notes that the Applicant claims that he is a lay and indigent person, that he has been incarcerated since 2011 with only limited access to information, including information about this Court. Considering these circumstances, the Court finds that the Applicant’s filing of his Application after six (6) months and nine (9) days, is within reasonable limits. 24 Beneficiaries of late Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (merits) (28 March 2014) 1 AfCLR 219, § 92; Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (21 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 218, § 56; Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 73. 16