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 petitioners were required by law to exhaust available statutory remedies, specifically judicial review, before instituting a constitutional petition. The failure to do so rendered the petition incompetent. The statutory provisions requiring exhaustion are mandatory, not discretionary.
Source excerpt
The African Court struck out Henry Masanja’s application after he failed to provide requested details and evidence or file reparations submissions.
Requested provisional measures (halting elections, annulling acts, compelling medical examination) are not sufficiently linked to alleged rights violations and would prejudge the merits; urgency and irreparable harm not established.
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 African Court reopened proceedings on reparations, admitted Tanzania’s late response, and directed the applicants to file a reply within 30 days.
The High Court dismissed a constitutional petition by a death-row prisoner, holding it was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process after review remedies were exhausted.
The Court, in the interest of justice and good administration, exercised its discretion to reopen the proceedings and admit the respondent's late submissions.
Source excerpt
The Court found that the revision of the Constitution of Benin was not based on national consensus as required by Article 10(2) of the ACDEG, rendering the revision and related laws inconsistent with Benin’s international obligations. The Court also found that the Inter-Ministerial Decree prohibiting issuance of official documents to persons wanted by courts violated the presumption of innocence and the right to equality of access to public services. The Court dismissed other alleged violations as moot or unsubstantiated.
Source excerpt
The facts, alleged violations, and requested reparations in both cases are similar, and the respondent is the same; therefore, joinder is appropriate for the proper administration of justice under Article 54 of the Rules of Court.
Source excerpt
Joinder is appropriate because the facts, alleged violations, remedies sought, and respondent are similar across all four cases, ensuring efficient administration of justice.
Source excerpt
Explore more
