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 application for review fails because the alleged new evidence (eviction notice) was issued after the original ruling and does not meet the statutory criteria for review. No error apparent on the face of the record or sufficient cause was established. The memorandum of review was defective for lacking grounds.
Source excerpt
The African Court dismissed a review application, holding that the submitted materials were not new evidence and that the case remained inadmissible.
The application for revision was rejected because the applicant failed to present new evidence unknown at the time of the original judgment; the documents submitted were either already considered or could have been presented earlier, and thus did not meet the requirements for revision under the Protocol and Rules.
Source excerpt
The applicant failed to present new evidence as required by Article 28(3) of the Protocol and Article 67(1) of the Rules. The agreement cited was public knowledge since 2005 and could have been presented earlier. The evidence did not relate to the grounds of the original judgment. Therefore, the request for revision is inadmissible, and the request for interim measures is moot.
Source excerpt
The African Court dismissed a request to review its 11 May 2018 judgment, holding that the applicants’ points were not new evidence under Rule 67(1).
The applicants did not provide new evidence unknown at the time of the original judgment; their arguments were reformulations of previously raised issues or based on information already available. Therefore, the revision application is inadmissible.
Source excerpt
The Court found that the documents submitted by the applicants as new evidence were either already presented during the initial proceedings or were not of such a nature as to affect the outcome of the original judgment. Therefore, the application did not meet the requirement of discovery of new evidence under Article 67(1) of the Rules, rendering the revision application inadmissible.
Source excerpt
Explore more
