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