Wakilii

Omary and Others v United Republic of Tanzania (Application 001-2012)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2016] AfCHPR 35 · 2016 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of judgment rendered on 28 March 2014 declaring the initial application inadmissible
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 28 March 2014 judgment. The Court held that the documents produced by the applicants did not constitute new evidence within the meaning of Rule 67(1) of the Rules of Court, as they had either been previously submitted during the initial proceedings or could not have influenced the Court's original decision. The application for review was declared inadmissible.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed as inadmissible

Facts

The applicants, former employees of the East African Community, had filed an application in 2012 alleging non-payment of pension and terminal allowances by Tanzania violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. On 28 March 2014, the Court declared that application inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies. The applicants then sought review of that judgment, claiming to have discovered new evidence. They produced nine categories of documents including letters, newspaper articles, reports, and agreements as purported new evidence of exhaustion of local remedies and undue prolongation of proceedings. The respondent opposed the review application, arguing the documents did not constitute new evidence and that appeal procedures involving these matters remained pending in Tanzanian courts.

Issues

  1. Whether the documents produced by the applicants constitute new evidence within the meaning of Rule 67(1) of the Rules of Court sufficient to warrant review of the judgment of 28 March 2014.
  2. Whether the respondent's response was filed within the prescribed time limit.

Orders

  • Rules that the Application for Review dated 28 June 2014 does not meet the requirement regarding new evidence.
  • Declares the Application inadmissible, pursuant to Rule 67(1) of its Rules.

Rules and key headnotes

Review of Judgments — Requirements for Admissibility — New Evidence
An application for review of a judgment is admissible only if each of the conditions laid down in the Rules is satisfied, including the discovery of evidence which was not within the knowledge of the party at the time the judgment was delivered. If any one condition is not met, the application must be dismissed.
Review of Judgments — What Constitutes New Evidence
Documents that were previously submitted and analysed during the initial proceedings do not constitute new evidence for purposes of an application for review, even if resubmitted with additional context or explanation.
Review of Judgments — Evidence Must Be Capable of Influencing Decision
For evidence to warrant review of a judgment, it must be of such nature as to exert influence on the court's initial decision. Evidence that does not have the capacity to change the outcome of the original judgment does not constitute new evidence within the meaning of review provisions.
Time Limits — Compliance with Registry Directions
Where the Registry sets a time limit for filing a response and a party submits its response within that prescribed period, the response is validly submitted even if there were earlier communications that did not specify a time limit.

Cases cited (1)

  • El Salvador/Honduras v Nicaragua (ICJ, 18 December 2003)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Omary and Others v United Republic of Tanzania (Application 001-2012) [2016] AfCHPR 35 (3 June 2016)
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.