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
Femi Falana v Republic of Cameroon (Communication 727/19) [2022] ACHPR 5 (9 November 2022)
The African Commission struck out Communication 727/19 for want of diligent prosecution after the complainant failed to file admissibility submissions within time.
Austrian Committee Against Torture v Burundi (Communication 26 of 1989) [2018] ACHPR 14 (7 September 2018)
The African Commission held that a communication against Burundi was inadmissible because Burundi was not a party to the African Charter at the time.
Capitao v Tanzania (Communication 53 of 1990) [2017] ACHPR 1 (13 July 2017)
The African Commission held that Alberto T Capitao’s communication against Tanzania was inadmissible because local remedies had not been exhausted.
Anuak Justice Council v Ethiopia (Communication 299 of 2005) [2006] ACHPR 69 (25 May 2006)
The African Commission found that the applicant did not exhaust local remedies as required by Article 56(5) of the African Charter. The Commission determined that the applicant's apprehensions regarding the independence and effectiveness of the Ethiopian judiciary were not substantiated by concrete evidence, and mere doubts or past incidents do not suffice to dispense with the exhaustion requirement. The respondent State demonstrated that cases related to the Gambella incident were pending before domestic courts, and the applicant did not attempt to pursue these remedies or show that they wer…
Source excerpt
Centre For Advancement of Democracy and Another v Nigeria (Communication 273 of 2003) [2005] ACHPR 65 (11 May 2005)
The African Commission closed this communication after the complainant failed to confirm withdrawal or pursue the case, finding no further interest to continue.
Interights and Another v Nigeria (Communication 248 of 2002) [2004] ACHPR 57 (4 June 2004)
The African Commission declared this communication inadmissible because the complainants did not show exhaustion of local remedies under Article 56(5) of the African Charter.
Egyptian Organisation For Human Rights v Egypt (Communication 201 of 1997) [2000] ACHPR 16 (11 May 2000)
The African Commission found this communication inadmissible because the applicant had not shown exhaustion of local remedies under Article 56(5) of the Charter.
Diakite v Gabon (Communication 73 of 1992) [2000] ACHPR 20 (11 May 2000)
The African Commission held Diakité’s communication against Gabon inadmissible because he had not exhausted available local remedies before seizing the Commission.
S.O.S. Esclaves v Mauritania (Communication 198 of 1997) [1999] ACHPR 3 (5 May 1999)
The African Commission declared this communication inadmissible because SOS-Esclaves had not shown that local remedies in Mauritania were exhausted.
Mouvement Des Refugies Mauritaniens Au Senegal v Senegal (Communication 162 of 1997) [1997] ACHPR 4 (11 November 1997)
The African Commission declared inadmissible a communication by Mauritanian refugees against Senegal for failure to exhaust local remedies and to identify Charter provisions violated.
