exercised by the Applicant, the Tanzanian lmmigration Act is silent on whether or how the Minister's decision can be challenged in a court of law. 52.With regard to the Respondent State's contention that the Applicant could have challenged the Minister's decision in the High Court by way of judicial review, this Court notes that at the time the Applicant was in a position to exercise the said remedy, he had already been expelled from Tanzania and was no longer in the territory of the Respondent state. ln the circumstances, it would have been very difficult for him to exercise the review remedy. 53. Consequently, the Court dismisses the Respondent State's objection to the admissibility of the Application on grounds of failure to exhaust local remedies. B. Objection on the ground that the Application was not filed within a reasonable time 54.The Respondent State alleges that the Application was not filed within a reasonable time in conformity with Rule 40 (6) of the Rules of court, arguing that the Applicant seized the Court nine (9) months after the publication of the "prohibited immigrant" notice, a period it considers unreasonable. 55.1n his Reply, the Applicant notes that the Minister's letter in response to his appeal was signed in December, 2014, and that he filed his Application before this court in May, 2o1s; meaning that only five (5) months had elapsed between the Minister's final decision and the filing of the matter in this Court. 56.The Court notes that Rule 40 (6) of the Rules which in substance reproduces Article 56 (6) of the Charter speaks simply of "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." ) 13 /'o) 9 E