TLS and Others v Tanzania (merits) (2013) 1 AfCLR 34 67 3. In wrestling with the above issue, as indeed with others from time to time, it is, admittedly, not only desirable but also necessary for this Court to learn from other international jurisdictions. At the same time though, it must be borne in mind that this Court is not only beginning, as it is entitled to and indeed obliged, to develop its own jurisprudence and practices. lt cannot therefore afford to compromise its own capacity to do so by enslaving itself to any form of rigidity or to any mechanical approach; things should not be cast in stone. Being pragmatic is a virtue. I would have grave reservations with a mechanical approach to, and Application of, the law. In my view, heavens would not fall merely because in a given matter, the Court started with admissibility and not with jurisdiction, or vice-versa. A further problem is that adherence to the rigidity sometimes gives rise to a secondary time-consuming debate, namely, whether a particular point falls under admissibility or jurisdiction. This happens when such a point appears to be overlapping. As I do not subscribe to any view that the Court must always start with the one and not the other, I discuss the matter no further. *** Separate opinion: NIYUNGEKO 1. I agree with the decision of the Court in the matter of Tanganyika Law Society and the Legal and Human Rights Centre & Rev. Christopher Mtikila v the United Republic of Tanzania as set out in paragraph 126 of its judgment of 14 June 2013. I however do not share its views on the two following issues: the order of treatment of the issues regarding the Court’s jurisdiction and the admissibility of the Application on the one hand, and the Court’ s grounds and reasoning in deciding whether or not, it had ratione temporis jurisdiction on the other. I. The order of treatment of issues relating to the jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility of the Application 2. After summarising the respective submissions of the parties on the admissibility of the Application and on the ratione temporis jurisdiction of the Court (paragraphs 80 and 81), the Court ruled in the same order on the two issues (paragraphs 82 to 88). In like manner, the Court presented its decisions on these issues, following the same order (paragraph 126 of the judgment). 3. lt should be noted that it is the first time in the practice of the Court that it is dealing with a matter by first considering the admissibility of the Application. In all its earlier decisions since 2009, it had always endeavoured to ensure in limine that it had jurisdiction to hear the matter, whether or not a party raised an objection in that regard.11 In the circumstances, one would have expected that, in the judgment on this matter, the Court would have explained, be it in passing, the 1 Decisions of the Court can be found on the Court’s website: www.african-court.org.