000831 46. Accordingly, the court finds that the Applicant exhausted local remedies as envisaged under Article 56(5) of the charter and Rule 40(5) of the Rules and, therefore, dismisses the Respondent state's objection in relation to non- exhaustion of local remedies. ii. 47. objection relating to failure to file the Application within a reasonable time The Respondent State submits that the period of five (5) years and six (6) months that the Applicant took to file this Application, after the court of Appeal delivered its judgment, is unreasonable within the meaning of Rule 40(6) of the Rules. ln support of its argument, the Respondent State refers to the decision of the African commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (hereinafter "the commission") in Michael Majuru v. Republic of Zimbabwe and prays the court to declare the matter inadmissible 48. The Applicant contends that the Application must be considered to have been filed within a reasonable time given the circumstances of the matter and his situation as a lay, indigent and incarcerated person. 49. The Court notes that Article 56(6) of the Charter does not set a limit for the filing of cases before it. The Court also notes that Rule 40(6) of the Rules simply refers to 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..." without prescribing any specific period of time. 50. As the Court has held "the reasonableness of a time limit of seizure will depend on the particular circumstances of each case and should be determined on a case by case basis." I A non-exhaustive list of circumstances that the court has considered in determining the reasonableness of time before the filing of an 8 Beneficiaries of the Late Norbert Zolgo, Abdoutaye Nikiema a/las Ablasse, Ernest Zongo, Blaise llboudo and Mouvement Burkinabe de Droits de I'Homme et des Peuptes v Burkina Faso liretiminary Objections) (2014) I AfCLR 197 S 121. t2 e-