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 African Court dismissed provisional-measures requests seeking Ghazi Chaouachi’s release and removal of obstacles to his presidential candidacy in Tunisia.
The application is inadmissible because the applicants did not exhaust domestic remedies; their appeal against the indictment and continued detention was still pending before the national Court of Cassation at the time of filing. The Court therefore cannot consider the merits or order interim measures.
Source excerpt
Applicants failed to demonstrate the urgency, extreme gravity, and irreparable harm required for provisional measures. The alleged harms are not proven to be imminent or irreparable, and ongoing proceedings before the national Supreme Court may provide adequate remedy. Granting the requested measures would prejudge the merits.
Source excerpt
The application is inadmissible because, at the time of filing, the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies, as their appeal to the Court of Cassation was still pending. The Court has material competence, but the exhaustion requirement is not met, making it unnecessary to consider the merits or other admissibility criteria.
Source excerpt
The petitioners were required by law to exhaust available statutory remedies, specifically judicial review, before instituting a constitutional petition. The failure to do so rendered the petition incompetent. The statutory provisions requiring exhaustion are mandatory, not discretionary.
Source excerpt
The African Court found Tanzania violated Articles 1, 4 and 5 by maintaining a mandatory death penalty and hanging, but rejected the other claimed violations.
The application is inadmissible because the applicants failed to exhaust available, effective, and satisfactory local remedies before the Constitutional Court, and did not substantiate claims of undue delay or lack of impartiality.
Source excerpt
The African Court dismissed Brahim Belguith’s application to intervene in Salaheddine Kchouk v. Tunisia, finding no sufficient interest and no basis for intervention.
The Respondents published false and unsubstantiated statements about the Petitioner, which were defamatory, intentional, malicious, and not justified or privileged. The Respondents failed to provide evidence supporting the truth of their allegations or to offer the Petitioner a right of reply. The publications caused significant harm to the Petitioner's reputation and emotional well-being, warranting substantial compensatory and general damages, an apology, and an injunction against further defamatory publications.
Source excerpt
The mandatory imposition of the death penalty under Tanzanian law and the prescription of hanging as its mode of execution violate the right to life (Article 4) and the right to dignity (Article 5) of the African Charter. The applicants' other claims regarding non-discrimination, equality before the law, fair trial, and freedom of expression were unsubstantiated and thus rejected.
Source excerpt
Explore more
