His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 21 February 2002 and was rejected on 14 March 2002 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman.

His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 11 July 2002 and was rejected on 16 July 2002 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman.

His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 24 January 2001 and was rejected on 1 February 2001 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman.

Both he and the woman asked the regional court for permission to marry in prison, but this was refused on the grounds that they had become “acquainted illegally in prison” and their relationship had been

The applicant challenged that ground as being discriminatory, arguing that the law made no provision for a similar restriction where the beneficiary was a woman.

It was not acceptable that a woman had to give her vagina to a man to show him she loved him.

  3 of the Convention that she ran the risk of being subjected to FGM if expelled to Nigeria and that relying on an internal flight alternative and moving to another part of Nigeria as a single woman

    A woman of 60 years or more who continued to work would not be required to pay any NICs on her earnings. 13.

The applicant contended that a woman in his position would have received a Widow’s Payment and a Widowed Mother’s Allowance. 2.

    Widow’s Payment Under Section 36 of the 1992 Act, a woman who has been widowed is entitled to a widow’s payment (at the material time, a lump sum payment of GBP   1,000) if: (i)  

If the applicant were a woman, he could look forward to entitlement to a Widow’s Pension in the future, when he would no longer be entitled to the Widowed Mother’s Allowance. 4.

If the applicant were a woman, he could look forward to entitlement to a Widow’s Pension in the future, when he would no longer be entitled to the Widowed Mother’s Allowance. 4.

On 16 January 2002 he was informed that his claim had been disallowed as he was not a woman. On 7   February 2002 the applicant made a request for reconsideration.

On 4 May 2000 the applicant was informed that his claim had been disallowed as he was not a woman.

On the same day the applicant was informed that his claim had been disallowed as he was not a woman.

On 26 May 2000 the applicant was informed that his claim had been disallowed as he was not a woman.

On 20 September 2001 the applicant was informed that his claim had been disallowed as he was not a woman.

On 13 June 2001 the applicant was informed that his claim had been disallowed as he was not a woman.

On 18 October 2010 the applicant was additionally charged with raping the woman. In May 2011 the applicant was indicted.

On 5 December 2000 the applicant was informed that his claim had been disallowed as he was not a woman. By a letter of 7 December 2000 the applicant requested that his application be reconsidered.