83. Consequently, the Court finds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right under Article 7(1) of the Charter. B. Alleged violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable time 84. The Applicant alleges that by neither listing for determination nor determining the application of review of the Court of Appeal’s judgment, the Court of Appeal sitting at Bukoba violated his right to appeal protected under Article 7(1)(a) of the Charter corresponding “to Article 136(a) and 107(a) 2(b) of the Constitution of Tanzania, 1977”. The Applicant alleges his application for review at the Court of Appeal, which he filed on 10 March 2014, was still pending when he filed the Application before this Court on 8 June 2016, that is, a delay of more than two (2) years. 85. The Respondent State submits that the allegation lacks merit for three (3) reasons. Firstly, the notice of motion for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision was filed out of time, contrary to Rule 66(3) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal in Tanzania. Secondly, the Applicant does not prove that the Respondent State was served with the application for review. Lastly, the determination of applications for review depends on the court calendar and budget. *** 86. Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter provides for “the right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal.” 87. The Court refers to its decision in Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and Others v. Tanzania, where it held that “… there is no standard period that is considered reasonable for a court to dispose of a matter. In determining whether time is reasonable or not, each case must be treated on its own merits.”29 29 Nganyi and Others v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 135. 23