Wakilii

Chrysanthe v Rwanda (Application No. 001-2018)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2019] AfCHPR 25 · 2019 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of judgment of 11 May 2018 dismissing original application for inadmissibility
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 African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights dismissed an application for review of its 11 May 2018 judgment. The applicant failed to provide new evidence within the meaning of Rule 67(1) of the Rules of Court. The information submitted did not constitute evidence of which the Court was unaware at the time of the original judgment. The application for review was declared inadmissible.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed as inadmissible

Facts

The applicant was dismissed from employment on 27 February 2001 by the Executive Secretary of the Privatisation Board. He filed an application before the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights on 10 November 2014 alleging violations of his rights. On 11 May 2018, the Court declared his application inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies. On 11 July 2018, the applicant filed an application for review of that judgment, attaching a letter dated 26 February 2014 and challenging the Court's findings on exhaustion of local remedies. He argued that the Court incorrectly applied laws enacted after his dismissal and that he had exhausted local remedies. The respondent state did not appear or respond to the review application.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant provided new evidence justifying review of the Court's judgment of 11 May 2018 under Rule 67(1) of the Rules of Court.

Orders

  • Declares that the information submitted by the Applicant does not constitute new evidence.
  • Declares that the Application for the review of Judgment of 11 May 2018 is inadmissible and is dismissed.
  • Decides that each Party shall bear its costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Review of Judgment — Requirements for New Evidence
An application for review of a judgment under Rule 67(1) of the Rules of Court requires the applicant to demonstrate the discovery of new evidence which was not within the knowledge of the party at the time judgment was delivered, and such application must be filed within six months after the party acquired knowledge of the evidence.
Review of Judgment — Burden of Proof
The onus is on an applicant seeking review 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.
Review of Judgment — What Does Not Constitute New Evidence
Information that merely challenges the reasoning or conclusions of a judgment, or that was available to the applicant at the time of the original judgment, does not constitute new evidence justifying review under Rule 67(1) of the Rules of Court.

Cases cited (1)

  • Rutabingwa Chrysanthe v Republic of Rwanda (Application No. 022/2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

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