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 suit was filed in a court lacking territorial jurisdiction since the cause of action and defendants' business were at Kahama, which falls under the Shinyanga Sub-Registry, not Bukoba. Therefore, the High Court at Bukoba has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Source excerpt
The African Court found this human rights application inadmissible because the applicant had not exhausted local remedies, though it confirmed jurisdiction.
The African Court found Tanzania violated the Applicant’s right to free legal assistance in a rape case, but rejected claims about the conviction and sentence.
The African Court held it had jurisdiction but found the application inadmissible because the applicant did not exhaust local remedies, including cassation.
The application is inadmissible because the Applicant failed to exhaust available and effective local remedies as required by Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules; the Applicant could have pursued direct action before domestic courts under Tunisian law.
Source excerpt
The application was declared inadmissible because the applicant failed to exhaust local remedies as required by Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules. The applicant did not pursue available remedies before the Constitutional Court, and did not demonstrate that the appeal proceedings were unduly prolonged due to State conduct. The Court found it had jurisdiction but dismissed the application for non-exhaustion of local remedies.
Source excerpt
The African Court held that Harouna Dicko and Others v. Burkina Faso was within its jurisdiction, but declared the application inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies.
The African Court held that Moussa Doumbia’s application against Côte d’Ivoire was inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies, despite finding jurisdiction.
The Application is inadmissible because the Applicants failed to exhaust local remedies, as their cassation appeal was still pending before the domestic courts at the time of filing the Application.
Source excerpt
The African Court held that Lompo Bahanla’s application against Burkina Faso was inadmissible because he had not exhausted local remedies, especially a pending cassation appeal.
Explore more
