Wakilii

Malengo v United Republic of Tanzania

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2020] AfCHPR 35 · 2020 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of the Court's ruling of 4 July 2019 dismissing the applicant's initial application for failure to exhaust local remedies
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 the application for review, holding that the supporting documents submitted did not constitute new evidence that was unknown to the applicant at the time of the original ruling. The Court found that the applicant merely restated allegations already examined and advanced detailed submissions stemming from the same factual basis, which only sought to substantiate previous allegations rather than introduce genuinely new evidence.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed as inadmissible

Facts

The applicant, a Tanzanian tobacco farmer, filed an application for review of the Court's ruling of 4 July 2019, which had dismissed his initial application for failure to exhaust local remedies. The applicant alleged that the Court erred in its ruling and that he had exhausted local remedies through Civil Case No. 163 of 2000 in the High Court and Civil Cases No. 108/2009 and 76/2011 in the Court of Appeal of Tanzania. The applicant's initial application concerned a contractual dispute with a cooperative society, allegations of trivial damages, wrongful dismissal of his defamation claim, and unlawful confinement in the Regional Crimes Officer's office for eight hours. The application for review was filed on 4 December 2019, five months after the original ruling.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court should review its judgment of 4 July 2019 on the basis of new evidence.
  2. Whether the supporting documents submitted by the applicant constitute new evidence that was not within his knowledge at the time the ruling was delivered.
  3. Whether the application for review was filed within the prescribed six-month time limit.

Orders

  • Declares that it has jurisdiction.
  • Declares that the Application was filed within the prescribed time-limit of six (6) months.
  • Declares that the supporting documents submitted by the Applicant do not constitute new evidence.
  • Declares that the Application for Review of the Ruling of 4 July 2019 is inadmissible and is dismissed.
  • Decides that each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Applications for Review — Requirements for New Evidence
An application for review of a court's judgment must be based on the discovery of 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 that party acquired knowledge of the evidence so discovered.
Civil Procedure — Applications for Review — Burden of Proof
The onus is on an applicant to demonstrate in his application for review the discovery of new evidence of which he had no knowledge at the time of the court's judgment and the time when he came to know of this evidence.
Civil Procedure — Applications for Review — What Constitutes New Evidence
Evidence that is required for review is evidence that exerts influence on the court's initial decision; further evidence in support of previous allegations does not qualify as new evidence that would not have been in the applicant's knowledge at the time of filing the initial application.
Civil Procedure — Applications for Review — Exceptional Grounds
An application for judicial review must be based on important facts or situations that were unknown at the time the judgment was delivered, such as documents whose existence was unknown, documentary or testimonial evidence later found to be false, prevarication, bribery, violence, fraud, or facts subsequently proven to be false.

Cases cited (6)

  • Andrew Ambrose Cheusi v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 004/2015)
  • Urban Mkwandawire v Malawi (2014) 1 AfCLR 299
  • Thobias Mang'ara and Shukrani Mango v Tanzania (Application No. 002/2018)
  • Chrysanthe Rutabingwa v Republic of Rwanda (Application No. 001/2018)
  • Frank David Omary and others v Tanzania (2016) 1 AfCLR 383
  • Alfred Agbesi Woyome v Republic of Ghana (Application for Review No. 001/2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Malengo v United Republic of Tanzania [2020] AfCHPR 35 (15 July 2020)
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.