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.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Kchouk v Republic of Tunisia (Application 006/2022) [2023] AfCHPR 20 (30 August 2023)
The African Court dismissed Brahim Belguith’s bid to intervene in Kchouk v Tunisia, holding that he lacked the required legal interest and neutrality.
Juma v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 028/2016) [2023] AfCHPR 10 (13 June 2023)
The African Court dismissed Shija Juma’s application, finding no violation of his right to defence or fair trial in his rape conviction and no basis for reparations.
Iguna v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 020/2017) [2022] AfCHPR 42 (1 December 2022)
The Court found that the domestic courts properly evaluated the identification evidence and applied relevant jurisprudence, including guidelines for assessing witness identification. There was no manifest error or miscarriage of justice in the conviction of the applicant. The applicant failed to substantiate his claim of discrimination, and the record did not demonstrate any differential treatment or violation of Article 2 of the Charter. The applicant exhausted local remedies and filed the application within a reasonable time, considering his incarceration and lack of awareness of the Court.…
Source excerpt
Mwambipile and Another v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 042/2020) [2022] AfCHPR 38 (1 December 2022)
The Court found that the application was inadmissible because the issues raised had already been settled by the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACERWC) in Communication No: 0012/Com/001/2019, which addressed the same law, practices, and alleged violations concerning the expulsion and exclusion of pregnant and parenting girls from Tanzanian schools. Applying the cumulative criteria from its jurisprudence—identity of parties (both cases being public interest litigation against the same state), identity of subject matter (challenging the same regulations and…
Source excerpt
Baguian v Burkina Faso (Application No. 014/2019) [2022] AfCHPR 20 (22 September 2022)
The Court found that although it had jurisdiction over the matter, the application was inadmissible because the applicant had not exhausted local remedies as required by Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules of Court. The applicant's cassation appeal was still pending before the domestic courts at the time of filing the application, and there was no evidence that the proceedings were unduly prolonged. Since the exhaustion of local remedies is a mandatory and cumulative admissibility requirement, the failure to satisfy this condition rendered the entire application inadmi…
Source excerpt
Said v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 011/2019) [2021] AfCHPR 23 (30 September 2021)
The African Court held that Yusuph Said’s application was inadmissible because it was filed eight years and three months after local remedies were exhausted.
Luchagula v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 039/2016) [2020] AfCHPR 19 (25 September 2020)
The Court found that it had material, personal, temporal, and territorial jurisdiction to hear the application, as the subject matter concerned alleged violations of rights protected by the Charter and the respondent state had made the necessary declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol. The applicant had exhausted local remedies by appealing to the highest court, and was not required to pursue extraordinary remedies such as review or constitutional petition. However, the application was filed six years, three months, and fifteen days after the relevant declaration, and the applicant fa…
Source excerpt
Anthony and Another v Tanzania (Ruling) (Application No. 015/2015) [2019] AfCHPR 18 (26 September 2019)
The African Court held it had jurisdiction over the application but found it inadmissible because it was not filed within a reasonable time.
African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Republic of Kenya (Application No. 006/2012) [2019] AfCHPR 22 (4 July 2019)
The African Court held that two intervention applications by private individuals were inadmissible because the Protocol allows intervention only by States, and the filing was late.
Johnson v Republic of Ghana (Ruling) (Application No. 016/2017) [2019] AfCHPR 7 (28 March 2019)
The African Court held it had jurisdiction over Dexter Eddie Johnson’s case but found the application inadmissible because the same issues had already been settled by the UN Human Rights Committee.
