901083 Court of Appeal and the date of seizure of this Court, there was a time lapse of two (2) years, eight (8) months and twenty-eight (28) days. The Court however, notes that between 2013 and 2015, the Applicant filed four habeas corpus applications before the High Court at Bukoba and at Dar es Salaam, to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. The Court is of the view that the Applicant cannot be penalised for attempting these remedies. Taking all these facts into consideration, the Court thus considers that the time frame of two (2) years, eight (8) months and twenty-eight (28) days in filing the Application has been explained and is reasonable in terms of Rule 40 (6) of the Rules. 70. The Court therefore dismisses the Respondent State’s objection that the Application was not filed within a reasonable time. B. Conditions of admissibility not in contention between the parties 71.The Rules Court notes that compliance are not in contention, with sub-rules and that 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 of Rule 40 of the nothing on record indicates that the requirements of the said sub-rules have not been complied with. 72.\n view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the admissibility conditions have been met, and hence, the Application is admissible. Vil. MERITS 73. The Court notes that the instant Application raises two main issues: first, whether or not the right of the Applicant to Tanzanian nationality has been violated; and second, whether or not his arrest and detention were in conformity with the Charter. i. ff Alleged violation of the Applicant’s right to Tanzanian nationality