Tanzania Case Law

fory c republique de cote divoire requete en revision n 0012022 2022 afchpr 47 1 decembre 2022

Court

TANZLII

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

• Revision of judgment
• Right to fair trial
• Right to property
• Right to work
• Procedural admissibility

Read case analysis

malengo c republique unie de tanzanie requete en revision n 0012019 2020 afchpr 35 15 juillet 2020

Court

TANZLII

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

• Revision of judgment
• Exhaustion of domestic remedies
• New evidence
• Admissibility

Read case analysis

woyome v republica do gana pedido de revisao n 0012020 2020 afchpr 40 26 junho 2020

Court

TANZLII

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

• Revision of judgment
• Admissibility
• New evidence
• Non-discrimination
• Equality before the law
• Interim measures

Read case analysis

chrysanthe c republica do ruanda processo n 0012018 2019 afchpr 25 4 julho 2019

Court

TANZLII

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide new evidence unknown at the time of the original judgment and thus did not meet the requirements for revision under Article 67(1) of the Rules. The information submitted did not constitute new proof, and the Tribunal declined to address the six-month time limit as no new evidence was presented.

Source excerpt

• Exhaustion of local remedies
• Non-retroactivity of laws
• Revision of judgment

Read case analysis

mango and another c republique unie de tanzanie requete n 0022018 2019 afchpr 87 4 juillet 2019

Court

TANZLII

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

• Revision of judgment
• Fair trial
• New evidence
• Procedural irregularities

Read case analysis

omary et autres c republique unie de tanzanie requete 0012012 revision 2016 afchpr 36 3 juin 2016

Court

TANZLII

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

• Revision of judgment
• Exhaustion of domestic remedies
• New evidence
• Irreceivability of application

Read case analysis

peter josephat mulumba vs baji shomari another 2015 tzhc 2280 19 june 2015

Court

TZHC

The trial court delivered judgment on 22/2/2011 in the presence of both parties, and there was no material irregularity or confusion regarding the date of delivery to warrant revision.

Source excerpt

• Revision of judgment
• Procedural irregularity
• Delivery of judgment

Read case analysis

20110913 TZHC Dar es Salaam

Court

TZHC

The District Court erred in reversing the conviction as the issue of land ownership had already been settled and the respondents admitted to trespass; however, the original sentence was excessive and should be reduced to three months' imprisonment.

Source excerpt

• Trespass
• Land ownership
• Sentencing
• Revision of judgment

Read case analysis

mahamoud m madenge vs victor sungura toke 2011 tzhc 2048 9 june 2011

Court

TZHC

The High Court refused to extend time for revision, holding that the applicant had long known of the appeal and judgment and gave no sufficient excuse for delay.

• Extension of time
• Stay of execution
• Revision of judgment
• Land dispute
• Extension-of-time
• Stay-of-execution

Read case analysis

20080905 TZHC Dar es Salaam

Court

TZHC

The appeal was premature because the appellant failed to apply for revision of the Industrial Court's judgment under Section 28(1) before lodging the appeal, as required by law.

Source excerpt

• Unlawful termination
• Redundancy
• Appeal procedure
• Revision of judgment

Read case analysis