Coogia responses before considering his next step. He avers that, considering the extreme delays he had already experienced while awaiting the delivery of the judgment in civil case No. 118 of 2007, waiting a year before filing this Application should be found to be reasonable. 50. The Court notes that the High Court judgment in Civit Case No. 1 18 of 2007 that led to the issuance of the Notice of Prohibited lmmigrant and deportation of the Applicant was delivered on 2 January 2014, while the present Application was filed on 19 February 2015. The relevant question is whether the period of one (1) year and twenty-six (26) days that elapsed between the two events can be considered as reasonable within the meaning of Article 56(6) of the Charter and within the context of the instant case. 51. The Respondent State's consistent contention is that, based on the African commission's view in the Majuru case, a period of more than six (6) months should be considered as unreasonable. 52. The court considers that such contention is not well-grounded. First, the Respondent State's reliance on the decision in lhe Majuru Communication is partialas it is limited to paragraph 109 of the commission,s reasoning, which was merely demonstrative but not conclusive. As a matter of fact, the relevant portion of the decision, which is also the conclusive one, is paragraph 10g where the Commission took the view that : "Going by the practice of similar regional human rights instruments, such as the inter-American commission and court and the European court, six months seem to be the usual standard. This notwithstanding, each case rnusf be treated on its own merit. Where there is good and compelling reason why a complainant could not submit his/her complaint for consideration on time, the commission may examine the complaint to ensure fairness and justice." :;7 42 t t4 &