61. The Court notes that the Applicant is indigent and lay in matters of law and
incarcerated as applicants in previous cases where the Court deemed
longer delays to be reasonable under similar circumstances.21 The Court
also acknowledges that the Applicant, prior to his sentence being commuted
to life imprisonment, was a convicted inmate on death row, isolated from the
general population with limited access to information and restricted
movements.
62. In light of the circumstances, the Court concludes that the Applicant’s delay
of one (1) year and seven (7) months is reasonable, as defined by Article
56(6) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules. Accordingly, the Court
dismisses the Respondent State’s objections to the admissibility of the
Applications based on failure to file the Application within a reasonable time.
C. Other conditions of admissibility
63. The Court notes that there is no contention regarding compliance with the
conditions set out in Rule 50(2)(a), (b), (c), (d), and (g) of the Rules. Even
so, the Court must satisfy itself that these conditions have been met.
64. From the record, the Court notes that, the Applicant is clearly identified by
name in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(a) of the Rules. The Court notes that the
claims made by the Applicant seek to protect his rights protected under the
Charter. It further notes that one of the objectives of the Constitutive Act of
the African Union as stated in Article 3(h) thereof is the promotion and
protection of human and peoples’ rights. Therefore, the Court considers that
the Application is compatible with the Constitutive Act of the African Union
and the Charter, and thus holds that it meets the requirement of Rule
50(2)(b) of the Rules.
took to file their applications was reasonable. See Cheusi v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 71; Thobias
Mangara Mango and Another v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (11 May 2018) 2 AfCLR 314, §
55; Jibu Amir (Mussa) and Saidi Ally (Mangaya) v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations)
(28 November 2019) 3 AfCLR 629, § 51; Ivan v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 53.
21 Ibid.
17