B. Objection based on failure to file the Application within a reasonable time 42. The Respondent State submits that the Application was not filed within reasonable time in accordance with Rule 40(6) of the Rules of the Court15 on four (4) grounds. First, the Respondent State avers that the application for review “which was attached by the Applicant was not filed in the Court of Appeal Registry, no proof of service was shown by the Applicant, the application was not endorsed by the Registrar, no stamp to prove that the application was received by the Respondent State, further that the application number was not given by the Court”. Second, “the notice for application for review was filed after five (5) years contrary to Rule 66 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal, which prescribes that the notice of motion for review should be filed within sixty (60) days from the date of the judgment”. Third, the Application before the African Court was filed after seven (7) years, contrary to the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights’ (African Commission) decision in Majuru v. Zimbabwe, which establishes that filing an application after a period of six (6) months is unreasonable. Fourth, by virtue of filing the present Application, the Applicant proved that his incarceration did not impede his access to the Court. 43. In his Reply, the Applicant argues that there is no provision in the Rules of the Court on the time-limit for filing an application. Rather, reasonable time is determined on a case-by-case basis. The Applicant further contends that he filed the Application within reasonable time considering that his application for review is yet to be determined conclusively. He also avers that his incarceration on death row restricted his capacity to follow up on the hearing of the same and to access the Court of Appeal and this Court. *** 15 Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules of the Court, 1 September 2020. 13