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
Adelakoun and Others v Republic of Benin (Application No. 012/2021) [2022] AfCHPR 2 (24 March 2022)
The African Court dismissed an application for provisional measures after finding no sufficient proof of urgency, extreme gravity, or irreparable harm.
Xyz v Repubic of Benin [2020] AfCHPR 51 (3 April 2020)
The Court found that while it had prima facie jurisdiction and acknowledged the importance of the constitutional amendment, the applicant failed to provide evidence of extreme gravity, urgency, or a real and imminent risk of irreparable harm that would occur before the Court could render its final decision. The requirements under Article 27(2) of the Protocol were not met, as the applicant did not substantiate how the alleged constitutional changes would cause immediate and irreparable harm to himself or others. Consequently, the request for provisional measures was dismissed.
Source excerpt
Henerico v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 056/2016) [2016] AfCHPR 57 (18 November 2016)
The Court found that the Applicant, currently on death row, faces a situation of extreme gravity and a risk of irreparable harm to his rights protected under the African Charter if the death sentence were to be executed. The Court determined that, under Article 27(2) of the Protocol and Rule 51 of its Rules, it has the power to order provisional measures proprio motu to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm pending the determination of the main Application. The Court was satisfied that it had prima facie jurisdiction and that the circumstances warranted intervention to protect…
Source excerpt
Delta International Investments SA and Others v Republic of South Africa (Application No. 002/2012) [2012] AfCHPR 121 (30 March 2012)
The African Court struck out an application by Delta International Investments and others because South Africa had not made the Article 34(6) declaration accepting individual access.
Vitine v Cameroon (Communication 106 of 1993) [1994] ACHPR 8 (27 April 1994)
The African Commission declined to take up a communication by Amuh Joseph Vitine requesting protection from alleged persecution and assistance in seeking refugee status.
Amnesty International v Tunisia (Communication 69 of 1992) [1993] ACHPR 9 (7 April 1993)
The African Commission declared Amnesty International’s communication against Tunisia inadmissible under Article 56(7) of the African Charter because the matter had already been settled.
Civil Liberties Organization v Nigeria (Communication No. 045/1990) [1990] ACHPR 9 (4 October 1990)
The African Commission declared this communication inadmissible because Civil Liberties Organization had not exhausted local remedies before bringing the case.
Korvah v Liberia (Communication 1 of 1988) [1988] ACHPR 16 (26 October 1988)
The African Commission held that Frederick Korvah’s communication against Liberia was inadmissible because it was not properly addressed to the Commission and did not allege Charter violations.
