by the Court of Appeal. The Respondent State contends that such period of time is not reasonable, and the Applicant being in prison was and is not a bar to access the Court. 47. The Applicant on his part refutes the Respondent State’s objection and cites, among others, the Court’s decision in Alex Thomas v. Tanzania where it was held that a period of three (3) years and five (5) months before filing the application was reasonable. He submits that he is lay, indigent and incarcerated with limited access to information. The Applicant argues that, in the alternative, the Court should take into account the fact that he is still incarcerated and thus every day suffers the consequences of the Respondent State’s ongoing violations of his human rights. 48. He submits that given this fact, the Court should rule that the true date marking the beginning of a reasonable period of time to submit his Application was not in fact 25 September 2013, but could be designated as any and every day while his incarceration continues. In his reply, the Applicant reiterates these arguments and asserts that his claims are not in respect of being barred from accessing the Court but rather that the circumstances necessitated him to be granted more time to prepare and file his Application. *** 49. As the Court has previously held, “… the reasonableness of the timeframe for seizure depends on the specific circumstances of the case and should be determined on a case-by-case basis.”18 Some of the factors that the Court has considered as relevant in assessing reasonableness include the fact that an applicant is incarcerated,19 lay in law,20 indigent;21 and needed 18 Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (merits), supra, § 92. See also Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 73. 19 Diocles William v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (21 September 2018) 2 AfCLR 426, § 52 and Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), ibid, § 74. 20 Christopher Jonas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 September 2017) 2 AfCLR 101, § 54 and Amir Ramadhani v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (11 May 2018) 2 AfCLR 344, § 83. 21 Nguza Viking (Babu Seya) and Johnson Nguza (Papi Kocha) v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (23 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 287, § 61 and Amir Ramadhani v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits), ibid, § 83. 14