possi and another v human rights awareness and promotion forum and another 2015 eacj 113 25 november 2015

possi and another v human rights awareness and promotion forum and another 2015 eacj 113 25 november 2015

The applicants failed to demonstrate sufficient interest in the result of the Reference or relevant expertise to assist the Court. The 2nd Applicant was not properly before the Court due to lack of proof of authority and supporting affidavit. The application did not meet the conditions required for admission as amicus curiae under Rule 36 of the Court’s Rules.

Citation
possi and another v human rights awareness and promotion forum and another 2015 eacj 113 25 november 2015
Parties
Applicant: Dr. Ally Possi; Applicant: Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria; Respondent: Human Rights Awareness and Promotion Forum (HRAPF); Respondent: Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda
Court
EACJ
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
25 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Intervene as Amicus Curiae
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Amicus Curiae, Court Jurisdiction, Human Rights, Interpretation of Treaty
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Public Law Amicus Curiae Court Jurisdiction Human Rights Interpretation of Treaty

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. Ally Possi

Applicant

Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria

Applicant

Human Rights Awareness and Promotion Forum (HRAPF)

Respondent

Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Intervene as Amicus Curiae

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dr. Ally Possi and the Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria should be admitted as amici curiae in Reference No. 6 of 2014
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd Applicant is properly before the Court

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to demonstrate sufficient interest in the result of the Reference or relevant expertise to assist the Court. The 2nd Applicant was not properly before the Court due to lack of proof of authority and supporting affidavit. The application did not meet the conditions required for admission as amicus curiae under Rule 36 of the Court’s Rules.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for leave to intervene as amicus curiae is disallowed.
  • No order as to costs.