52. In the instant case, the Applicant did not make any submissions as regards his filing of the application within a reasonable time. Conversely, the Respondent State submits that the Applicant did not seize the Court within a reasonable time. 53. The Court observes that while it emerges from the record that the Applicant was incarcerated, there is no proof that his incarceration constituted an impediment to the timely filing of the Application. As such, the Applicant has not justified as to why it took him seven (7) years, six (6) months and twentytwo (22) days to file the Application. 54. Furthermore, the Court notes, from the record, that the Court of Appeal decided the Applicant’s appeal on 7 March 2005 and he filed an application for extension of time to file his application for review on 7 September 2015, which is ten (10) years after his appeal had been dismissed by the same court. The Court notes that the Applicant has not given any reasons as to why he could not have seised the Court between 2010 and September 2015, before he filed an application for review. This period of time has not been accounted for. 55. While the Court should not penalise Applicants for attempting to use the review procedure, such an attempt should be done in accordance with the requirements of domestic law to justify the delay in seising of the Court. In this regard, the Rules of the Court of Appeal provide that an application for review of its judgment should be filed within sixty (60) days of the order sought to be reviewed.14 The Court notes that the Court of Appeal found that the Applicant had not adduced any cogent reasons as to why it took him ten (10) years to file an application for extension of time to file for review of its judgment. Consequently, the Applicant cannot rely on his own inordinate delay in the national courts to justify the delay in seizing this Court. 14 Rule 66(3) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules 2009. 14