Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Tanzania decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The African Court dismissed Leonard Moses’s application as inadmissible, holding that although it had jurisdiction and local remedies were exhausted, the filing was not within a reasonable time.
The Court found that the Applicant's trial did not disclose any manifest error or miscarriage of justice regarding the charge sheet or the assessment of evidence. The charge sheet was corrected and the Applicant was convicted under the correct charge. The evidence, though the voir dire was not properly conducted, was corroborated by other witnesses. Therefore, there was no violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 7(1) of the Charter.
Source excerpt
The application is inadmissible because the applicant failed to exhaust available and effective domestic remedies regarding both the administrative and criminal proceedings, as required by Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules. The applicant did not provide proof of exhausting administrative remedies and did not appeal the criminal conviction, despite the possibility to do so through legal representation.
Source excerpt
The Applicant failed to pursue his case with due diligence by not responding to repeated requests for supporting documents and replies, justifying the striking out of the application under Rule 65(1)(b) of the Rules of Court.
Source excerpt
The African Court found the application inadmissible because it was filed eight years and three months after local remedies were exhausted, without sufficient justification.
The application was filed two years and nine months after exhaustion of domestic remedies, and the applicant was not subject to circumstances justifying delay; therefore, the application was not filed within a reasonable time as required by Article 56(6) of the Charter and Article 40(6) of the Rules, rendering it inadmissible.
Source excerpt
The Court found it had material, personal, temporal, and territorial competence as the application alleged Charter violations by a state party. The applicant had exhausted domestic remedies by appealing to the highest court. However, the application was not filed within a reasonable time, as the applicant failed to justify the delay of five years and six months after the state’s declaration under Article 34(6). The cumulative admissibility requirements were not met, rendering the application inadmissible.
Source excerpt
The applicant failed to exhaust available domestic judicial remedies as required by Article 56 of the Charter and Article 40 of the Rules. The reasons advanced for not doing so do not fall within the recognized exceptions. Therefore, the application is inadmissible.
Source excerpt
The application is inadmissible because the matter was previously settled by the ECOWAS Court of Justice on the same facts, parties, and legal issues, thus failing the requirement under Article 56(7) of the African Charter.
Source excerpt
The African Court dismissed Fidele Mulindahabi’s application against Rwanda because he did not prove exhaustion of local remedies, making the case inadmissible.
Explore more
