000876 taken as a factor in the determination of reasonable time limit in Rule 40 (6) of the Rules.e ln this regard, the Court takes note that the Applicants filed their Application before this Court three (3) months after the dismissal of their application for review at the Court of Appealon 20 March 2015. 50. ln addition, the Court notes that the Applicants are lay, incarcerated, and without the benefit of free legal assistance. 51. Given the above circumstances, the Court considers that the delay of four years and two (2) months and twenty three (23) days taken to file the Application before this Court, after the judgment of the Court of Appeal, is reasonable in terms of Rule 40 (6) of the Rules and Article 56 (6) of the Charter. 52.Accordingly, the Court dismisses the objection of the Respondent State relating to the non-compliance of the Applicants with the requirement of filing the Application within a reasonable time after exhaustion of local remedies. B. Gonditions of admissibility not in contention between the parties 53.The Court notes that there is no contention regarding the compliance with the conditions set out in Rule 40, sub-rulesl , 2, 3, 4 and 7 of the Rules on, the identity of Applicants, the language used in the Application, compliance with the Constitutive Act of the African Union, the nature of the evidence adduced and the previous settlement of the case, respectively, and that nothing on the record indicates that these requirements have not been complied with. 54. The Court therefore finds that all the admissibility conditions have been met and that this Application is admissible. e See Armand Guehi v. Tanzania (Merits and Reparations), S 56; Application No. 0241201 5 . Werema Wangoko v United Republic of Tanzania (Merits and Reparations), g 49. 74