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 held it lacked prima facie jurisdiction over XYZ’s request for provisional measures because it was not sufficiently linked to the main application.
There is no sufficient link between the request for provisional measures (regarding sanctions against Niger) and the original application (regarding alleged violations during Benin's 2021 presidential election); therefore, the Court lacks prima facie competence.
Source excerpt
The Court held that the declaration under Article 34(6) is a unilateral and optional act by States, grounded in the principle of sovereignty, and may be withdrawn at any time. The Court therefore lacks material jurisdiction to adjudicate the application challenging Benin's withdrawal of its declaration.
Source excerpt
The African Court dismissed two applicants’ request for provisional measures, finding no supporting evidence and noting the request overlapped with the merits.
The withdrawal by Rwanda of its Article 34(6) declaration does not suspend or affect the examination of pending cases before the Court.
Source excerpt
Withdrawal of Rwanda's Article 34(6) declaration is valid as a unilateral act, but requires a one-year notice period for legal certainty and does not affect pending cases before the Court.
Source excerpt
The withdrawal by Rwanda of its Article 34(6) declaration does not suspend or affect the Court's jurisdiction over cases already pending at the time of withdrawal.
Source excerpt
The Court unanimously held that Rwanda's withdrawal of its Article 34(6) declaration does not suspend or affect the examination of pending cases against Rwanda; the Court retains jurisdiction.
Source excerpt
The Court has jurisdiction to rule on the effects of Rwanda's withdrawal of its Article 34(6) declaration. The withdrawal is valid as a unilateral act under international law, but takes effect only after a one-year notice period to ensure legal certainty and protect third-party rights. The withdrawal does not affect pending cases before the Court.
Source excerpt
Explore more
