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 that Harouna Dicko and Others v. Burkina Faso was within its jurisdiction, but declared the application inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies.
The African Court held that Moussa Doumbia’s application against Côte d’Ivoire was inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies, despite finding jurisdiction.
The application is inadmissible because the applicants did not exhaust domestic remedies; their appeal against the indictment and continued detention was still pending before the national Court of Cassation at the time of filing. The Court therefore cannot consider the merits or order interim measures.
Source excerpt
The application is inadmissible because the applicants did not exhaust domestic remedies as required; they failed to raise the constitutionality of the law by way of exception before ordinary courts, as mandated by national law, instead seizing the Constitutional Council by direct action after promulgation, which is not an available remedy under the Constitution.
Source excerpt
The African Court found no violation of Article 3 of the Charter in a Tanzanian criminal appeal, upheld jurisdiction and admissibility, and dismissed reparations.
The African Court found Tanzania violated an indigent rape appellant’s right to free legal assistance, but rejected claims on equality and dignity.
The African Court held that Tanzania did not violate Umalo Mussa’s fair trial rights arising from a murder conviction based on a confession, delay claims, and counsel issues.
The application was declared inadmissible because it was not filed within a reasonable time after exhaustion of domestic remedies. The applicant failed to provide sufficient justification or evidence that his personal circumstances prevented timely filing. The delay of over six years was not reasonable under Article 56(6) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules.
Source excerpt
The request for interpretation was filed within the prescribed time and specified the dispositive points, but did not meet the requirement of facilitating execution of the decision, as the dispositive part of the judgment was clear and free of ambiguity. Since the conditions for admissibility are cumulative, failure to meet one renders the request inadmissible.
Source excerpt
The application was not filed within a reasonable time as required by Article 56(6) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules. The applicant failed to justify the delay of over six years after the respondent's declaration allowing individual applications. Therefore, the application is inadmissible.
Source excerpt
Explore more
