[2019] AfCHPR 25

[2019] AfCHPR 25

The Court found that the Applicant failed to provide any new evidence that was not within his knowledge at the time of the original judgment. The documents and information submitted did not constitute 'new evidence' as required under Rule 67(1) of the Rules of Court. The Applicant's arguments regarding the principle of non-retroactivity and exhaustion of local remedies were previously considered and did not alter the Court's conclusion. As the conditions for review were not met, the Application for review was declared inadmissible and dismissed. The Court further held that each party should bear its own costs, in accordance with Rule 30 of the Rules of Court.

Citation
[2019] AfCHPR 25
Parties
Applicant: Rutabingwa Chrysanthe; Respondent: Republic of Rwanda
Court
African Court on Human and Peoples Rights
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
4 July 2019
Case Number
Application No. 001/2018
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
application_dismissed
Judges
Aboud J, Anukam J, Ben Achour J, Bensaoula J, Chizumila J, Eno R, Kioko VP, Matusse J, Mengue J
Legal Topics
Exhaustion of Local Remedies, Review of Judgment, Non Retroactivity of Law, Admissibility of Application
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Exhaustion of Local Remedies Review of Judgment Non Retroactivity of Law Admissibility of Application

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rutabingwa Chrysanthe

Applicant

Republic of Rwanda

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicant provided new evidence justifying review of the judgment of 11 May 2018.
  2. 2 Whether the principle of non-retroactivity was violated by the application of laws enacted after the Applicant's dismissal.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant exhausted local remedies prior to approaching the Court.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Applicant failed to provide any new evidence that was not within his knowledge at the time of the original judgment. The documents and information submitted did not constitute 'new evidence' as required under Rule 67(1) of the Rules of Court. The Applicant's arguments regarding the principle of non-retroactivity and exhaustion of local remedies were previously considered and did not alter the Court's conclusion. As the conditions for review were not met, the Application for review was declared inadmissible and dismissed. The Court further held that each party should bear its own costs, in accordance with Rule 30 of the Rules of Court.

Court Disposition

application_dismissed

Orders

  • The information submitted by the Applicant does not constitute new evidence.
  • The Application for review of the Judgment of 11 May 2018 is inadmissible and is dismissed.