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 found this human rights application inadmissible because the applicant had not exhausted local remedies, though it confirmed jurisdiction.
The application is inadmissible because the applicant failed to exhaust available domestic remedies, specifically the right to appeal the first instance judgment, as required by Article 56 of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules.
Source excerpt
The African Court dismissed provisional-measures requests seeking Ghazi Chaouachi’s release and removal of obstacles to his presidential candidacy in Tunisia.
The Court found that the impugned Act passed the three-part test: the limitations were prescribed by law and clear, the objectives were pressing and substantial, and the measures were proportionate to the objectives. The Applicants failed to prove that the Act violated the Treaty or Protocol. Therefore, the challenged provisions do not contravene the cited Treaty or Protocol articles.
Source excerpt
The Regional Commissioner did not invent or enact the guidelines but implemented directives issued by the central government ministries. Certiorari and mandamus cannot lie against an officer acting as agent of the state for duties owed to the government. The application is unmeritorious and dismissed.
Source excerpt
The EACJ Appellate Division dismissed Tanzania’s appeal, holding the Trial Court did not err in finding parts of the Political Parties Amendment Act inconsistent with the Treaty.
The African Court dismissed an application for provisional measures challenging Tunisia’s Decree-Law No. 2022-55 and seeking postponement of parliamentary elections.
High Court dismissed a judicial review challenge to a dismissal decision, holding that the disciplinary process was lawful and no grounds for certiorari were made out.
Applicants failed to demonstrate the required urgency, extreme gravity, or irreparable harm for suspension of the decree-law. The request to postpone elections was moot as the elections had already occurred before the application was filed. Both requests for provisional measures were rejected.
Source excerpt
The Respondent State violated Article 26 of the Charter by allowing executive dominance in the High Judicial Council, violated Article 410(3) of the Penal Code restricting freedom of expression, and violated Article 30 of the Protocol by failing to execute Court decisions. The Applicant is entitled to moral damages but not to lump sum interest or reimbursement of legal costs. Requests relating to constitutional amendment, Electoral Code, COS-LEPI, and judges' right to strike are moot.
Source excerpt
Explore more
