57.The Court has established in its previous Judgments that the reasonableness of the period for seizure of the Court depends on the particular circumstances of each case and must be determined on a caseby-case basis.a 58.|n the instant case, the Court notes that the Applicant did, as a matter of fact, file the instant Application on 24 May, 2015, whereas the Minister's letter in response to his appear was dated 3 December, 2014, thus representing a period of five (s) months and twenty-one (21) days between the two dates. For the Court, this period is reasonable, considering in particular the fact that the Applicant was outside the country. 59.The Court therefore dismisses the objection to the admissibility of the Application for non-submission of the same within a reasonable time. C. Admissibility conditions not in contention between the parties 60.The court notes that compliance with sub-rules 1 ,2,3,4 and 7 of Rule 40 of the Rules (see paragraph 39 above) is not in contention and that nothing on record indicates that the requirements of the said sub-rules have not been complied with. ln view of the aforesaid, the Court finds that the admissibility conditions have been met; and thus, that the instant Application is admissible. VII. THE MERITS 61. The Court notes that the instant Application invokes the violation of three fundamental rights: (i) the Applicant's right to nationality and the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality, (ii) the right not to be arbitrarily expelled and (iii) the right to have his cause heard by a court. 4 Application 005/2013, Judgment of 20 November 2015, Alex Thomas v. lJnited Republic of Tanzania, paragraph 73; Abubakai r1. United Republic of. T1n_zania, Application OOtt2O13),.tuogmeni of 3 June 2016, paragraph 91; and in Chistopher Jonas v. lJnited Republic"of Tanzania, Application d,ntzO,tS, Judgment 2d September 2017, S 52 q 74 @ 9