Wakilii

Mango and Another v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 002-2018)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2019] AfCHPR 26 · 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 in Application No. 005/2015 before the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights
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. The Applicants sought review of the 11 May 2018 judgment on grounds that the Court of Appeal relied on misconceived findings and other procedural irregularities. The Court held that the information submitted did not constitute new evidence under Rule 67(1) of the Rules, as the Applicants merely restated allegations from their original application and the trial court records and Court of Appeal judgment were available to them when filing the merits application. The application for review was declared inadmissible.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed as inadmissible

Facts

The Applicants were convicted of armed robbery in Tanzanian courts. On 11 May 2018, the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights delivered judgment finding Tanzania violated Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter for failure to provide legal assistance and witness statements. On 6 November 2018, the Applicants filed an application for review, alleging the Tanzanian Court of Appeal relied on misconceived findings that contradicted trial court records regarding evidence such as who collected stolen money, where items were found, and confession statements. The Applicants claimed these contradictions demonstrated their conviction was based on mixed up and inverted evidence.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicants discovered new evidence not within their knowledge at the time of the judgment of 11 May 2018 that would warrant a review under Rule 67(1) of the Rules of Court.
  2. Whether the information submitted by the Applicants constitutes new evidence as envisaged under Rule 67(1) of the Rules.

Orders

  • Application for review of the judgment of 11 May 2018 declared inadmissible and dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Requirements for New Evidence
An application for review of a judgment may only be granted upon discovery of evidence which was not within the knowledge of the party at the time judgment was delivered, and the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate both the discovery of new evidence and the exact time when he came to know of such evidence.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Restatement of Original Grounds
Grounds that merely restate allegations considered in the original application on the merits cannot qualify as new evidence for purposes of review, even if the applicant provides additional substantiation that was available at the time of the original application.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Evidence Available at Time of Original Application
Information does not constitute new evidence where it could have been presented in the original application because the relevant records and judgments were available to the applicant at that time, and the applicant ought to have pointed out any discrepancies then.

Legislation cited (15)

  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 22
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 28(3)
  • Rules of Court Rule 8(2)
  • Rules of Court Rule 30
  • Rules of Court Rule 67(1)
  • Rules of Court Rule 67(2)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 1
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 2
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 5
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)(c)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 19
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 28
  • Penal Code of Tanzania s.285
  • Penal Code of Tanzania s.286

Cases cited (1)

  • Thobias Mang'ara Mango and Shukurani Masegenya Mango v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 005/2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mango and Another v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 002-2018) [2019] AfCHPR 26 (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.