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 ordered Tunisia to stay implementation of a decree-law and dismissal decree affecting judicial officers, pending the merits of the case.
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 held that the review application raised no new facts or evidence and declared it inadmissible, while confirming its personal jurisdiction.
The African Court held that the applicants had not exhausted local remedies before filing, so it declared their application inadmissible.
The African Court held that Tanzania did not violate the Applicant’s rights to work, fair trial, equality, or non-discrimination, and dismissed reparations.
The African Court dismissed claims by former Urafiki Textile Mills employees that Tanzania violated their rights to work and non-discrimination over subsistence allowances.
The applicant failed to present any new facts or evidence unknown at the time of the original judgment; all arguments relate to contesting the Court's reasoning or conclusions, which does not meet the threshold for revision under Article 28(3) and Rule 78. The Court retains competence for the revision application as it relates to a case filed before the respondent's withdrawal of declaration took effect.
Source excerpt
The Court found that the applicant provided sufficient evidence of serious health issues and that failure to access medical care and his medical file could result in irreparable harm. The respondent did not contest the existence of the applicant's medical records at the CNHU. Therefore, the Court ordered the respondent to remove all obstacles to the applicant's access to medical care and to provide him with a copy of his medical file. Other requested measures were denied due to lack of evidence, lack of urgency, or because they had already been addressed in previous orders.
Source excerpt
The applicants failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove entitlement to additional subsistence allowance or to establish discrimination. The respondent's actions did not violate the right to work or the right to non-discrimination under the African Charter.
Source excerpt
Only Kouadio Kobena Fory is the proper applicant as his wife and children are indirect or vicarious victims and do not have standing as applicants in this case.
Source excerpt
Explore more
