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 EACJ Appellate Division held that Mironko Francois Xavier’s Reference was time-barred under Article 30(2) of the Treaty and dismissed the appeal.
The Applicant, as the estate of Nzambimana Edouard, had locus standi and lawfully acquired the suit property from Ruzizi Company with government approval. The Respondent's repossession of the land without compensation contravened Burundi's Constitution and the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community, specifically Articles 6(d) and 7(2), which enshrine good governance and rule of law. The Special Court's decision was invalid as it disregarded the Applicant's rights and failed to provide compensation.
Source excerpt
The Court found that the impugned Act passed the three-part test: the limitations were prescribed by law and clear, the objectives were pressing and substantial, and the measures were proportionate to the objectives. The Applicants failed to prove that the Act violated the Treaty or Protocol. Therefore, the challenged provisions do not contravene the cited Treaty or Protocol articles.
Source excerpt
The EACJ dismissed a land and Treaty reference by the heirs of Nikobamye Mathias, finding no proven Treaty violation or lawful basis to grant the claimed reliefs.
The EACJ Appellate Division dismissed Tanzania’s appeal, holding the Trial Court did not err in finding parts of the Political Parties Amendment Act inconsistent with the Treaty.
There were no contradictions or inconsistencies between the criminal and civil judgments; both resulted in cancellation of the certificate of title and restoration of property to the original owner. The Minister's decision did not violate the Treaty, Protocol, or African Charter. Res judicata was not established. The Appellant was not entitled to remedies. Costs awarded to the Respondent.
Source excerpt
The EACJ dismissed a challenge over Mau Forest evictions, finding jurisdiction and a valid cause of action, but holding the applicant failed to prove education-rights violations.
Article 24(1) of the Treaty provides two disjunctive criteria for judicial appointment: either qualified for high judicial office in the Partner State or a jurist of recognized competence. The Treaty does not require public participation or stakeholder involvement in the nomination process, nor does it obligate the Secretary General to investigate nominations. The process followed by Tanzania and the Secretary General complied with the Treaty. Allegations of opacity, lack of transparency, and bias were not substantiated. The retirement age under Tanzanian law does not bar appointment under th…
Source excerpt
The EACJ partly allowed a challenge to Tanzania’s Political Parties (Amendment) Act 2019, striking down several provisions for violating Treaty principles.
The Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the Reference because the impugned acts occurred before South Sudan became a member of the East African Community, and the Reference is time barred under Article 30(2) of the Treaty. The principle of non-retroactivity of treaties and strict time limitation apply.
Source excerpt
Explore more
