* 42. The Applicant contends that Rule 40(6) does not prescribe a specific timelimit for filing an Application before the Court and the Court has held that reasonableness of time is determined on a case-by-case basis. Nevertheless, he exhausted local remedies since his case was heard by the High Court and subsequently by the Court of Appeal, which is the highest court of the land. 43. In this regard, the Applicant cites the Court’s jurisprudence in Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso, where the Court considered seizure of the Court after more than three years as reasonable. Furthermore, he avers that in January 2012,10 while incarcerated on death row, he filed his “Notice of Motion for Review” and waited patiently for the Court to consider his application for review.11 44. The Applicant further avers that by 10 December 2015, after waiting for more than 4 years with no progress made, he could wait no longer and was therefore, left with no choice but to file this Application. The Applicant further submits that the time taken to file this Application before this Court was due to the conduct of the Respondent State and not his own. He cites the Court’s decision in Armand Guehi v. Tanzania, where it held that the time the Applicant took to file the application was reasonable. 45. He concludes that the time it took him to seize the Court cannot be considered as unreasonable. The Applicant further submits that when he filed the Application before this Court, he was unrepresented and did not possess any legal qualification or knowledge of the Rules of Court but simply did his best to navigate the procedures and to express why his rights were violated. *** 10 11 He does not provide the exact date. The Applicant did not submit a copy of the said “Notice of Motion for Review”. 13