31. The Respondent State raises an objection to the admissibility of the application alleging that it was not filed within a reasonable time. The Court will, therefore, consider the said objection before examining other conditions of admissibility, if necessary. A. Objection based on failure to file the application within a reasonable time 32. According to the Respondent State, the application was not filed within a reasonable time and should, therefore, be declared inadmissible as it does not comply with Rule 40(6) of the Rules6 and Article 56(6) of the Charter. 33. Citing the case of Reverend Christopher Mtikila v. Tanzania, the Applicant avers that there is no set time limit when applications should be filed before the Court. He further argues that, he only found out about the Court in 2017, when Abdallah Sospeter Mabomba filed his case before the Court. He, therefore, avers that given his incarceration and previous lack of knowledge of the Court, the Court should find that he filed his application within a reasonable time. *** 34. The Court notes that Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules, which in substance restates the contents of Article 56(6) of the Charter, requires an application to be filed within a reasonable time after exhaustion of local remedies 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. 35. As the Court has previously held “… the reasonableness of the timeframe for seizure depends on the specific circumstances of the case and should be determined on a case-by-case basis.”7 Some of the circumstances that 6 Rules of Court, 2 June 2010. Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (merits) (28 March 2014) 1 AfCLR 219, § 92. See also Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 73. 7 9