are required to exhaust are ordinary judicial remedies5, unless they are nonexistent, ineffective and insufficient or the procedure for exercising them is unduly prolonged.® 42. Having filed regard to the facts of the case, the Court notes that the Applicant his complaint before the Court of First Instance, which dismissed it on 5 October 2009; he appealed against that decision to the Supreme Court, which, by judgment of4 November 2011, upheld the decision of 7 October 2011 delivered by the Court of First Instance. The Applicant filed an application for review of this decision, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court by decision of 15 October 2012. The Court concludes, therefore, that the Applicant exhausted the available local remedies. 43. With regard to the obligation to file the application within a reasonable time, the Court notes that Article 56(6) of the Charter does not set any time-limit for the filing of applications before it. Rule 40(6) of the Rules, which essentially restates the provisions of Article 56(6) of the Charter, simply requires the Application to "be filed within a reasonable time from the date local remedies were exhausted or from the date set by the Court as being the commencement of the time limit within which it shall be seized with the matter’. 44. It emerges from October 2012, therefore that calculating and the when date record the which assessing that local Supreme must the be remedies Court were delivered regarded reasonableness exhausted on its judgment. as the of the starting time, point within 15 It is for the meaning of Rule 40(6) of the Rules of Court and Article 56(6) of the Charter. 5 Mohamed Abubakari v. Tanzania (merits) (2016) 1 AfCLR 599 § 64. See also Alex Thomas v. Tanzania (merits) (2015) 1 AFCLR 465 § 64, and Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and Others v. Tanzania (merits) (2016) 4 AfCLR 507 § 95. § Lohé Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso (merits) (2014) 1 AfCLR 314 § 77. See also Peter Joseph Chacha v. Tanzania (admissibility) (2014) 1 AfCLR 398 § 40. 13