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 an application by Ogiek applicants against Kenya for lack of personal jurisdiction because Kenya has not filed the Article 34(6) declaration.
The African Court held that Reckya Madougou could not intervene in the case because her interests were already represented by an ad litem mandate to the applicant.
The Court held that Reckya Madougou, having given a mandate ad litem to the main applicant, is not a third party to the proceedings. Her interests are already represented in the main application, and thus she cannot be admitted as an intervenor under Rule 61. The application for intervention is therefore inadmissible.
Source excerpt
The Court found that the Respondent States did not individually or collectively violate the right to self-determination of the Sahrawi people under Article 20 of the Charter. The admission of Morocco to the AU was a decision of the AU Assembly, not attributable to individual States. There was no evidence of wrongful acts or omissions by Respondent States amounting to a breach of their obligations under the Charter. The Court held that the Respondent States' support for diplomatic efforts and lack of specific measures did not constitute a violation, and no causal link was established between t…
Source excerpt
The African Court granted Mauritius leave to intervene in Bernard Anbataayela Mornah’s case, finding a sufficient legal interest based on decolonization and self-determination.
The African Court dismissed an application by individual Ogiek members to intervene at the reparations stage, holding that the Rules do not allow individual intervention.
The African Court dismissed two intervention applications by landowners in the Ogiek reparations proceedings, holding that non-state third parties cannot intervene.
The applications concern similar facts, alleged violations, and measures requested against the same respondent state, justifying joinder for proper administration of justice under Rule 54.
Source excerpt
The African Commission struck out a human rights communication against Egypt after the complainants failed to file admissibility submissions within the deadline.
The Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case as the Respondent is not a State Party and has not deposited a declaration under Article 34(6); the Applicant has no standing. The Court cannot compel the Respondent to refer a communication.
Source excerpt
Explore more
