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 found that the provisional measures requested by the applicant were identical to the relief sought in the main application and would prejudge the merits of the case. Therefore, the conditions for granting provisional measures were not met.
Source excerpt
The Court found that the applicant's rights under Article 7(1) of the African Charter and related instruments were not violated. The applicant had access to appellate review, was convicted based on evidence assessed by national courts, had the opportunity to challenge prosecution evidence, was presumed innocent until proven guilty, was properly notified of charges, and received reasoned judicial decisions. No manifest arbitrariness or denial of justice was established.
Source excerpt
The African Commission struck out Femi Falana’s communication against Cameroon for lack of diligent prosecution after no admissibility submissions were filed on time.
The High Court declined to vary bail conditions in a criminal application involving a holding charge pending transfer to Zambia, leaving the original security requirement intact.
The Court found that the ongoing procedure to annul the applicant's passport presents a situation of urgency and risk of irreparable harm, justifying an order to suspend the annulment process until a final decision on the merits.
Source excerpt
The Court found that the Respondent violated the Applicants' rights under Articles 1, 6, and 7(1), and 7(1)(c) of the African Charter by arbitrarily re-arresting them after acquittal, failing to provide legal aid at the appellate stage, conducting a procedurally flawed identification parade, and delaying provision of judgment copies, thereby denying fair trial and effective remedies. The Court dismissed claims regarding extradition, incommunicado detention, and general allegations for lack of jurisdiction or substantiation.
Source excerpt
The Court found that the applicants' right to a fair trial was violated due to irregularities in the identification process, lack of legal aid at the Supreme Court, and unjustified delay in providing judgment copies. The applicants' right to liberty was violated by their arbitrary re-arrest and detention after acquittal on the same facts. The Court found no violation of Articles 3 or 5 due to lack of substantiation. The respondent was ordered to take measures to eliminate the consequences of the violations, including possible release of the applicants.
Source excerpt
The Court found that the applicants' right to a fair trial under Article 7(1) was violated due to irregularities in identification procedures, denial of legal representation before the Court of Appeal, and unjustified delay in providing judgment copies, which impeded their ability to seek review. The Court also found violation of Article 6 due to arbitrary re-arrest and new charges after acquittal. No violation was found regarding Article 3, Article 5, or Article 7(2), as the conviction and sentence were based on laws in force at the time of the offense and no discrimination or inhuman treatm…
Source excerpt
The Reference was time barred because the acts complained of, including detention, were capable of being located in time and the two-month limitation period began when the acts were first effected. The EAC Treaty does not recognize continuing violations as an exception to the limitation period, nor does it empower the Court to extend or waive the prescribed time limit. Legal certainty requires strict application of Article 30(2).
Source excerpt
Explore more
