62. The Applicant refutes the Respondent State’s submissions and asserts that there is no fixed period to seize the Court, and each case is decided based on its facts and circumstances. He cites the Courts jurisprudence,24 where the Court upheld the same position. 63. The Applicant alleges that, the existence of this Court, the Charter, the Protocol to the Charter, its Rules and Practice Direction were unknown at Uyui Central Prison at Tabora before “May 2017”, where he is serving his custodial sentence. He states that there has never been an application lodged before this Court from this prison earlier than “13.06. 2017” and the same can be verified from the Registry records. He further notes that Application No. 017/2017 Abdallah Sospeter Mabomba and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania was the first such application and it was filed on “13.06. 2017”. 64. The Applicant argues that in the circumstances, his Application was filed within a reasonable time since he only became aware of the existence of this Court in May 2017. Subsequently, he filed his application before this Court on 31 August 2017, therefore the Court should find that the Application is admissible and complies with Rule 40(6) of the Rules. *** 65. The Court notes that neither the Charter nor the Rules specify the time frame within which Applications must be filed, after exhaustion of local remedies. Article 56(6) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules simply provide that Applications must be filed “…within 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”. 24 Application No. 009/2011, Tanganyika Law Society and Legal and Human Rights Centre v. United Republic of Tanzania and Application No. 011/2011, Reverend Christopher Mtikila v. United Republic of Tanzania. 18