Kalidas (agreed facts - best practice) Tanzania

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, a citizen of Tanzania, sought asylum on the basis that her father threatened to kill her and her child, born out of wedlock in the UK. The Respondent refused the claim primarily on grounds that sufficient protection was available to the Appellant in Tanzania or that she could internally relocate within the country.

The appeal was initially considered by the First-tier Tribunal at a Case Management Review (CMR) hearing, where an agreement on certain facts was noted but not formally documented. At the substantive hearing, the Appellant gave evidence supported by statements, including one from her sister, but the First-tier Tribunal Judge ultimately found the Appellant’s evidence not credible and dismissed the appeal. The Appellant was granted permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on the basis that the First-tier Tribunal Judge had failed to properly consider the agreement reached at the CMR and had unjustly assessed credibility.

The Upper Tribunal reviewed the procedural history, including the conduct of the CMR, the substantive hearing, and the handling of agreed facts and concessions by the parties and the tribunal judges.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the First-tier Tribunal Judge erred in law by failing to properly give effect to the agreement reached at the Case Management Review hearing.
2. Whether the First-tier Tribunal Judge's assessment of the Appellant’s credibility was unfair, particularly in light of the agreed facts and concessions.
3. Whether the First-tier Tribunal provided adequate consideration to the issues of sufficiency of protection and internal relocation as alternative grounds for refusal of asylum.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The First-tier Tribunal Judge ignored the important agreement reached at the CMR and proceeded to assess credibility without reference to it.
• The Appellant’s statement was intended to provide complete information without altering the position agreed at the CMR.
• The judge should have put representatives on notice if he intended to reconsider agreed facts or credibility.
• The treatment of sufficiency of protection and internal relocation was superficial and influenced by an adverse credibility finding.
• The lack of submissions on the extent of police corruption relating to honour killings was acknowledged.
• The cumulative procedural errors led to an unfair outcome, despite no criticism of the judge's conduct during the hearing.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Home Office’s presentation at the hearing was not as focused as it could have been, which may have led to misunderstanding about the credibility issue.
• The judge might have failed to give fair notice to the Appellant that credibility was in issue, which could have affected perceptions of fairness.
• The brief treatment of sufficiency of protection and internal relocation was adequate on the decisive issues.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Upper Tribunal identified a series of procedural errors beginning at the CMR, where the parties and the judge failed to produce a clear, written record of agreed facts and concessions. This lack of clarity led to confusion about the scope of agreement and what issues remained live. The First-tier Tribunal Judge proceeded to assess credibility without clear notice to the parties that this was necessary, despite an earlier understanding that credibility was not in dispute. The judge’s determination briefly addressed sufficiency of protection and internal relocation only as hypothetical alternatives, rather than the central issues. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of clear communication and documentation of agreements at CMR hearings to avoid such unfairness. Due to these cumulative errors and the resulting unfairness, the Upper Tribunal concluded that no finding of the First-tier Tribunal could stand and that the case must be remitted for reconsideration on properly identified issues and agreed facts.

Holding and Implications

The Upper Tribunal SET ASIDE the First-tier Tribunal’s determination and REMITTED the case for a fresh hearing before a differently constituted First-tier Tribunal. The fresh hearing is to be conducted on the issues of sufficiency of protection and internal relocation only, starting from a joint minute precisely setting out agreed facts between the parties.

The decision underscores the critical procedural importance of clear agreements and concessions at Case Management Review hearings and ensuring that parties and judges have a mutual understanding of the issues to be decided. Although no new legal principles were established, the case serves as a cautionary example of how procedural shortcomings can lead to unfair outcomes and wasted judicial resources.