00a22? 44. Consequently, the Court dismisses the Respondent State's objection to the admissibility of the Application for failure to exhaust the local remedies. il. Objection based on failure to file the Application within a reasonable time 45. The Respondent State contends that the Applicant did not file his Application within a reasonable time as prescribed by Rule 40(6) of the Rules. Citing the Commission's jurisprudence in Communication No. 308/05: Michael Majuru v. Zimbabwe before the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, the Respondent State argues that international jurisprudence considers reasonable time as being 6 months. Consequently, since the Applicant filed his Application two (2) years and eight (8) months after the Court of Appeal of Tanzania's Judgment of 5 August 2013, this Court has to consider this time frame as unreasonable and declare the Application inadmissible. 46.The Applicant refutes the Respondent State's argument and contends that despite the fact that he is a lay man in matters of law, he was not afforded legal representation before the domestic courts, and it was therefore impossible for him to have an idea as to the existence of this Court and of issues of procedure and deadlines. ln conclusion, he prays the Court to admit and hear his Application by virtue of the powers conferred on it. *** 47.The Court reaffirms that Article 56(6) of the Charter, like Rule 40(6) of the Rules, does not lay down any specific timeframe for seizure.o The Rules of Court simply stipulate that cases must be filed "within a reasonable time from the date local remedies v. United Republic of Tanzania (hereinafter referred to as "Christopher Jonas v Tanzania Judgment'). para. 44. 6 Christopher Jonas v. Tanzania Judgment. op. cit. para. 36 L2 \? s