Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Tanzania decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court lacks jurisdiction to hear applications against entities that are not States parties to the Protocol, such as the African Union and its Commission.
Source excerpt
Given the complexity and potential impact of the case, the Court exercises its discretion to reopen proceedings and allow additional submissions, including intervention by amici curiae.
Source excerpt
The amendment of Article 6 by Law 2021-13 of 20 December 2021 now allows both parents to choose the child’s surname, achieving the aim of the application and rendering the claim moot.
Source excerpt
The African Court ordered Tunisia to stay implementation of a decree-law and dismissal decree affecting judicial officers, pending the merits of the case.
The applicants failed to establish that they are in the custody of the respondents; there is no sufficient proof of detention by the police. Therefore, the court cannot order their production or release under habeas corpus at this stage. However, the court directs the police to investigate the applicants' whereabouts due to the seriousness of the allegations and the state's duty to protect citizens.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that the first and second defendants unlawfully denied access to a hunting block, and awarded general damages for false imprisonment and denial of access.
The African Court dismissed a request to reopen pleadings and hold a hearing, finding the proposed grounds either previously raised or irrelevant to the application.
The mandatory imposition of the death penalty under Tanzanian law deprived the judicial officer of discretion to consider the circumstances of the crime and the offender, violating the applicant’s right to life and dignity. The applicant’s prolonged pretrial detention and time spent on death row constituted inhuman and degrading treatment. The respondent failed to inform the applicant of his right to consular assistance, violating international obligations. The applicant’s right to fair trial was violated regarding timely trial but not in respect of legal representation or translation.
Source excerpt
The Court held it has jurisdiction to entertain the Reference as allegations of Treaty infringement were raised, and exhaustion of local remedies is not required. However, the Applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm that could not be compensated by damages, and sought to stay non-existent orders (taxation of costs yet to be filed), amounting to an abuse of process. Therefore, the application for interim orders was dismissed.
Source excerpt
The applicant's grounds for reopening either have already been presented or lack sufficient connection to the subject matter of the application. No new relevant elements were provided. The request is unfounded and is rejected.
Source excerpt
Explore more
