the Court has taken into consideration include: imprisonment, being lay without the benefit of legal assistance, indigence and illiteracy.8 36. In the instant application, the Court observes that the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered on 10 March 2014 and the Applicant filed this application on 2 October 2017. The Court notes, in the circumstances, that three (3) years, six (6) months and twenty-three (23) days elapsed between the date of the Court of Appeal’s decisions and the filing of this application. The issue for determination, therefore, is whether the period that the Applicant took to file the application before the Court is reasonable. 37. The Court recalls its jurisprudence where it held that the period of five (5) years and one (1) month was reasonable since the Applicants were imprisoned, restricted in their movements and with limited access to information; they were lay, indigent, did not benefit from the assistance of a lawyer in their trials at the domestic court, and were illiterate.9 38. In the present case, the Applicant is incarcerated, restricted in his movements and with limited access to information. Taking into consideration these circumstances, the Court finds the period of three (3) years, six (6) months and twenty-three (23) days to be reasonable. 39. For this reason, the Court dismisses the objection relating to the failure to file the application within a reasonable time and finds that the application complies with Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules. 8 Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 73; Christopher Jonas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 September 2017) 2 AfCLR 101, § 54 and Amiri Ramadhani v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (11 May 2018) 2 AfCLR 344, § 83. 9 Jonas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 54; Ramadhani v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 50. 10