reasonableness of the time limit', it nevertheless noted certain facts that occurred between the date local remedies were exhausted and that of referral of the matter to the Court, such as the application for review*. The Court also noted that the Applicant was incarcerated, which would have restricted his movement and access to information. 5. This reasoning on the part of the exception made by the conferred on this Court to set time limit within which it shall the Court runs counter to the very logic of legislator as to the second prerogative a date as being the commencement of the be seized with a matter. 6. Indeed, whereas with regard to local remedies, the Court has held that Applicants are obliged to exercise only the ordinary remedies, there would be no contradiction with this position had the Court, based on the fact that the Applicant filed for extraordinary remedy which is application for review in the present case, retained the date of the remedy or the date of the decision as being the commencement of the time limit within which it shall be seized with the matter, instead period relying on the review remedy as a of determining the reasonable fact. 7. The Court ought to have justified this option in the following manner: “Notwithstanding the fact that it has considered that the local remedies have been exhausted as evidenced by the Court of Appeal Judgment of 29/07/2013, the Court, in the spirit of fairness and justice, would take as element of assessment, the date on which the application for review was filed, that is 13/09/2013”, which would have given a more reasonable time as it is shorter. 8. By ignoring the aforesaid date and simply citing? elements to justify reasonable time such as the Applicant being in prison, resulting in restriction of his movements and his access to information, allegations he never made, as well as his ignorance of the existence of the Court, especially as it is apparent from the judgment under reference that he defended himself before this Court 1 Paragraph 47 of the Judgment ? Paragraph 48 of the Judgment 3 Paragraph 48 of the Judgment

Select target paragraph3