dabalorivhuwa patriotic front v republic of south africa communication 335 of 2006 2013 achpr 115 23 april 2013

dabalorivhuwa patriotic front v republic of south africa communication 335 of 2006 2013 achpr 115 23 april 2013

The Commission found that the distinction in pension payouts between the two privatisation schemes was based on objective, rational financial decisions made by the beneficiaries and not on any prohibited ground under Article 2. The State took reasonable steps to mitigate disparities and did not act arbitrarily or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
dabalorivhuwa patriotic front v republic of south africa communication 335 of 2006 2013 achpr 115 23 april 2013
Parties
Complainant: Mr. Tshifhiwa Samuel Makhale; Complainant: Dabalorivhuwa Patriotic Front (DPF); Respondent: Republic of South Africa
Court
ACHPR
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
23 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Communication / Final Merits Decision
Outcome
complaint dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Discrimination, Right to Equality, Right to Work, Pension Rights, Exhaustion of Local Remedies, Admissibility, Continuing Violation
Source Language
english
Human Rights Law Constitutional Law Labour Law Non Discrimination Right to Equality Right to Work Pension Rights Exhaustion of Local Remedies +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr. Tshifhiwa Samuel Makhale

Complainant

Dabalorivhuwa Patriotic Front (DPF)

Complainant

Republic of South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Communication / Final Merits Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the distinction in pension payouts between beneficiaries of the first and second privatisation schemes of the Venda Pension Fund violated Articles 2, 3, 13, and 15 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the Respondent State amounted to discrimination or denial of equal protection, political participation, or equitable labour conditions.

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission found that the distinction in pension payouts between the two privatisation schemes was based on objective, rational financial decisions made by the beneficiaries and not on any prohibited ground under Article 2. The State took reasonable steps to mitigate disparities and did not act arbitrarily or discriminatorily. The Complainants failed to substantiate how their rights under Articles 2, 3, 13, or 15 were violated. No evidence was provided that the differentiation impaired their dignity or enjoyment of Charter rights. The Commission held that no violation of the African Charter occurred.

Court Disposition

complaint dismissed