Wakilii

African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v Republic of Kenya (Application No. 006-2012)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2019] AfCHPR 46 · 2019 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of the Court's Order of 4 July 2019 dismissing an application for intervention in ongoing reparations proceedings
Decision
Application for review dismissed as inadmissible

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court dismissed the application for review as inadmissible. The Applicants failed to demonstrate that the evidence submitted was not within their knowledge at the time of the Court's Order of 4 July 2019, and failed to show that the application was filed within six months of discovering such evidence. The evidence submitted was generically similar to evidence previously filed in the intervention application. The Court found no merit in the contention that the absence of a public hearing violated the right to be heard.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed as inadmissible

Facts

On 26 May 2017, the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights delivered judgment finding that Kenya had violated the rights of the Ogiek Community of the Greater Mau Forest. The Court reserved determination on reparations. On 16 April 2019, Wilson Barngetuny Koimet and 119 others, residents of Amalo, Ambusket and Cheptuech, filed an application to intervene in the reparations proceedings. On 4 July 2019, the Court dismissed the intervention application as inadmissible. On 29 August 2019, the Applicants filed an application for review of the 4 July 2019 Order, alleging the Court erred in dismissing their intervention application on grounds of delay and procedural technicalities. The Applicants submitted evidence including maps, letters from land registrars, archival documents, and a research paper, claiming this proved that three land sections forming part of Olenguruone are not part of the Mau Forest Complex.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicants satisfied the requirements for review under Article 28(3) of the Protocol and Rule 67 of the Rules by demonstrating discovery of new evidence not within their knowledge at the time of the original Order.
  2. Whether the Court erred in dismissing the intervention application on grounds of delay and procedural technicalities.

Orders

  • Declared that the information submitted by the Applicants does not constitute new evidence.
  • Dismissed the Application for Review.
  • Ordered that each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Requirements for Review Application
An application for review under Article 28(3) of the Protocol to the African Charter and Rule 67 of the Rules requires the applicant to demonstrate the discovery of evidence which was not within the knowledge of the party at the time the judgment was delivered, and the application must be filed within six months of the party acquiring knowledge of the evidence.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Burden of Proof
The onus is on the applicant in a review application to demonstrate in the application the discovery of new evidence of which he had no knowledge at the time of the Court's judgment and the exact time when he came to know of this evidence.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Finality of Judgments
An application for review cannot be used to undermine the principle of finality of judgment enshrined in Article 28(2) of the Protocol, which provides that judgments decided by majority shall be final and not subject to appeal.
Civil Procedure — Right to Hearing — Written Proceedings
The Court is not obliged to hold public hearings in each and every application; the procedure before the Court may consist of written proceedings, and the absence of a public hearing does not mean that a party's case has not been heard where the Court disposes of the application on the basis of written pleadings.

Cases cited (3)

  • Urban Mkandawire v Malawi (Review and Interpretation) (2014) AfCLR 299
  • Thobias Mang'ara Mango and Shukurani Masegenya Mango v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 002/2018)
  • Rutabingwa Chrysanthe v Republic of Rwanda (Application No. 001/2018)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v Republic of Kenya (Application No. 006-2012) [2019] AfCHPR 46 (24 October 2019)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.