kchou v republic of tunisia application 0062022 2023 afchpr 20 30 august 2023

kchou v republic of tunisia application 0062022 2023 afchpr 20 30 august 2023

The application was not admissible as the applicant lacked the requisite legal interest and the intervention would alter the purpose of the main application, failing to meet the requirements under Rule 61(2) of the Rules of Court.

Citation
kchou v republic of tunisia application 0062022 2023 afchpr 20 30 august 2023
Parties
Applicant for Intervention: Brahim Belguith; Applicant in Main Application: Salaheddine Kchouk; Respondent State: Republic of Tunisia
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
30 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Intervention in Human Rights Case / Order on Admissibility of Intervention
Outcome
Application for leave to intervene dismissed.
Legal Topics
Intervention, Amicus Curiae, Equality Before the Law, Freedom of Expression, Right to Fair Trial
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law International Law Intervention Amicus Curiae Equality Before the Law Freedom of Expression Right to Fair Trial

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brahim Belguith

Applicant for Intervention

Salaheddine Kchouk

Applicant in Main Application

Republic of Tunisia

Respondent State

Procedural Posture

Application for Intervention in Human Rights Case / Order on Admissibility of Intervention

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Brahim Belguith's application qualifies as an amicus curiae or intervention
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has sufficient interest to intervene in the main application
  3. 3 Whether the intervention would alter the purpose of the main application

Ratio Decidendi

The application was not admissible as the applicant lacked the requisite legal interest and the intervention would alter the purpose of the main application, failing to meet the requirements under Rule 61(2) of the Rules of Court.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to intervene dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for leave to intervene is dismissed.