proceedings that resulted in his conviction. In these circumstances, domestic
remedies must be considered to have been exhausted. 9
51. With respect to whether the Applicant should have completed the review process
prior to filing the present Application, this Court has consistently held that, as it
applies in the judicial system of the Respondent State, such process is an
extraordinary remedy. It is therefore not a remedy that the Applicant is required to
exhaust in the meaning of article 56(5) of the Charter.'o
52. As a consequence of the above, the Court dismisses the Respondent State's
objections that the Applicant failed to exhaust local remedies by raising some issues
for the first time before this Court and not awaiting completion of the review process
before filing the present Application. The Court therefore finds that local remedies
have been exhausted.
ii, Objection based on the failure to file the Application within a
reasonable time
53. The Respondent State avers that this Application was filed eleven (11) months after
exhaustion local remedies, which is not reasonable as per the decision of Majuru v.
Zimbabwe" where the African Commission applied the six-month standard of the
European and Inter-American human rights conventions. The Respondent State
reiterated this argument during the public hearing.
54. The Applicant does not address this issue specifically in its written submissions. In
its oral submissions, the Applicant avers that the period of eleven (11) months should
be considered as a reasonable time if assessed by the Court's approach, which is to
deal with the issue on a case-by-case basis. He further contends that, even though
it is an extraordinary remedy, the Court should consider the fact that he tried to have
the Court of Appeal's judgment reviewed. Finally, the Applicant avers that the fact
See Alex Thomas v. Tanzania, op. cit., §§ 60-65; and Application 003/2015. Judgment of 28109/2017,
Kennedy Owino Onyachi and Charles John Mwanini Njoka v. United Republic of Tanzania (hereinaffer referred
to as "Kennedy Owino Onyachi and Charles John Mwanini Njoka v. Tanzania'), §. 54.
10 See Alex Thomas v. Tanzania, ibid; and Kennedy Owino Onyachi and Charles John Mwanini Njoka v.
Tanzania, op. cit., §. 56.
11 Michael Majuru v. Zimbabwe (2008) AHRLR 146 (ACHPR 2008).
9
15