Wakilii

Mkandawire v Republic of Malawi (Application No. 003-2011)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2014] AfCHPR 48 · 2014 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for interpretation and review of the Court's judgment of 21 June 2013
Decision
Both applications struck out 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 struck out the applicant's request for interpretation of its judgment of 21 June 2013, holding that the request failed to state clearly any point in the operative provisions requiring interpretation and that no execution was possible under the judgment. The Court declared the request for review inadmissible, holding that the applicant had not demonstrated the discovery of new evidence unknown at the time the judgment was delivered.

Outcome

Both applications struck out as inadmissible

Facts

The applicant had brought an application against the respondent which the Court dismissed on 21 June 2013 for failure to exhaust local remedies. On 16 August 2013, the applicant filed an application containing two requests: for interpretation of the Court's judgment and for review of the judgment. The applicant sought interpretation of eight points, none of which related to the operative provisions of the judgment. The applicant also sought review based on what he claimed were new pieces of information, which were in fact inaccurate quotations from the Court's judgment itself.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant's request for interpretation of the Court's judgment of 21 June 2013 satisfied the requirements of Article 28(4) of the Protocol and Rule 66 of the Rules.
  2. Whether the applicant's request for review of the Court's judgment of 21 June 2013 satisfied the requirements of Article 28(3) of the Protocol and Rule 67 of the Rules.

Orders

  • The application for interpretation of the judgment fails and is struck out.
  • The request for review of the Court's judgment of June 2013 is inadmissible and is struck out.
  • The Court will not go into the merits of the request.

Rules and key headnotes

Interpretation of Judgments — Scope and Requirements
An application for interpretation of a judgment under Article 28(4) of the Protocol and Rule 66 of the Rules can only be brought for the purpose of executing the judgment, and where the judgment imposes no positive obligation capable of being executed, no application for interpretation is possible.
Interpretation of Judgments — Operative Provisions Requirement
An application for interpretation must state clearly the point or points in the operative provisions of the judgment on which interpretation is required, and points that do not relate to the operative paragraphs of the judgment cannot be points for interpretation.
Review of Judgments — New Evidence Requirement
An application for review of a judgment under Article 28(3) of the Protocol and Rule 67 of the Rules requires the discovery of evidence which was not within the knowledge of the party at the time the judgment was delivered, and findings of the Court contained in its judgment do not constitute new evidence for purposes of review.
Review of Judgments — Finality of Judgments
The process of review under Article 28(3) of the Protocol must be without prejudice to Article 28(2), which enshrines the principle of finality of judgments, and may not be used to undermine that principle.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mkandawire v Republic of Malawi (Application No. 003-2011) [2014] AfCHPR 48 (28 March 2014)
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.