[2019] AfCHPR 18

[2019] AfCHPR 18

The Court held that it has material, personal, temporal, and territorial jurisdiction over the application, as the subject matter concerns alleged violations of rights protected by the Charter and the Protocol, the respondent state is a party to the Protocol and has made the necessary declaration, the alleged violations are continuous, and the facts occurred within the respondent state's territory. On admissibility, the Court found that the applicants had exhausted local remedies, as only ordinary remedies are required and the constitutional petition and review procedures are extraordinary. However, the Court determined that the application was not filed within a reasonable time, as five...

Citation
[2019] AfCHPR 18
Parties
Applicant: Godfred Anthony; Applicant: Ifunda Kisite; Respondent: United Republic of Tanzania
Court
African Court on Human and Peoples Rights
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
26 September 2019
Case Number
Application No. 015/2015
Procedural Posture
Application / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Admissibility
Outcome
application dismissed as inadmissible
Legal Topics
Exhaustion of Local Remedies, Reasonable Time Requirement, Right to Fair Trial, Right to Legal Assistance, Admissibility of Applications
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Exhaustion of Local Remedies Reasonable Time Requirement Right to Fair Trial Right to Legal Assistance Admissibility of Applications

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Godfred Anthony

Applicant

Ifunda Kisite

Applicant

United Republic of Tanzania

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the African Court has material, personal, temporal, and territorial jurisdiction over the application.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants exhausted local remedies as required under Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 40(5) of the Rules.
  3. 3 Whether the application was filed within a reasonable time as required under Article 56(6) of the Charter and Rule 40(6) of the Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that it has material, personal, temporal, and territorial jurisdiction over the application, as the subject matter concerns alleged violations of rights protected by the Charter and the Protocol, the respondent state is a party to the Protocol and has made the necessary declaration, the alleged violations are continuous, and the facts occurred within the respondent state's territory. On admissibility, the Court found that the applicants had exhausted local remedies, as only ordinary remedies are required and the constitutional petition and review procedures are extraordinary. However, the Court determined that the application was not filed within a reasonable time, as five...

Court Disposition

application dismissed as inadmissible

Orders

  • The Court dismisses the objections to its jurisdiction.
  • The Court declares that it has jurisdiction.