Uganda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Uganda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page: 1 court collection
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 03:53 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

30 Mar 2023

Civil Procedure [2023] AfCHPR 5

Noudehouenou v Burkina Faso (Application No. 010/2021)

Noudehouenou v Burkina Faso (Application No. 010/2021) [2023] AfCHPR 5 (30 March 2023)

Court: African Court on Human and Peoples Rights
Case number: Application No. 010/2021
Judge: Aboud P, Anukam J, Bensaoula J, Kioko J, Mengue J, Ntsebeza J, Tchikaya VP

The Court found that Reckya Madougou had issued a mandate ad litem to the main applicant, Houngue Éric Noudehouenou, who was already defending her interests in the principal proceedings. The rights alleged by the Requestor in her intervention request were the same as those raised in the main application. The entitlement to intervene is reserved for persons whose interests are not represented in the main case. Since Madougou's interests were already being defended, she could not simultaneously intervene as a third party. The Court therefore deemed it unnecessary to examine the requirements for…

Source excerpt

Intervention
Admissibility Of Application
Locus Standi
Third Party Rights

Read case analysis

4 Jul 2019

Administrative Law [2019] AfCHPR 25

Chrysanthe v Rwanda (Application No. 001/2018)

Chrysanthe v Rwanda (Application No. 001/2018) [2019] AfCHPR 25 (4 July 2019)

Court: African Court on Human and Peoples Rights
Case number: Application No. 001/2018
Judge: Aboud J, Anukam J, Ben Achour J, Bensaoula J, Chizumila J, Eno R, Kioko VP, Matusse J, Mengue J

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 b…