Tanzania Case Law

ajavon v benin application no 0132017 2019 afchpr 6 28 november 2019

Court

TANZLII

The Court found that the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s rights to a fair trial, presumption of innocence, property, and non bis in idem, among others, and that these violations caused material and moral prejudice. The Court held that the Applicant is entitled to pecuniary and non-pecuniary reparations, including compensation for loss of profit, devaluation of shares, loss of business opportunity, moral damages, and restitutionary measures. The Respondent State was ordered to amend domestic laws inconsistent with international obligations and to lift unlawful seizures and suspension…

Source excerpt

• Right to fair trial
• Right to property
• Non bis in idem
• Presumption of innocence
• Judicial independence
• Freedom of expression

Read case analysis

ajavon v benin application no 0132017 2019 afchpr 12 29 march 2019

Court

TANZLII

The African Court found multiple human rights violations in Sebastien Germain Ajavon v. Republic of Benin, including fair trial, property, equality, and judicial independence breaches.

• Right to fair trial
• Right to property
• Right to liberty and security
• Right to dignity and reputation
• Non bis in idem
• Equality before the law

Read case analysis

johnson v republic of ghana ruling application no 0162017 2019 afchpr 7 28 march 2019

Court

TANZLII

The African Court held that Dexter Eddie Johnson's application against Ghana was inadmissible because the same death-penalty complaint had already been settled by the UN Human Rights Committee.

• Death penalty
• Right to life
• Prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
• Right to fair trial
• Exhaustion of local remedies
• Admissibility of applications

Read case analysis

johnson c republica do gana processo no 0162017 2019 afchpr 7 28 marco 2019

Court

TANZLII

The application is inadmissible because the same parties and issues were previously resolved by the UN Human Rights Committee, fulfilling the non bis in idem principle under Article 56(7) of the African Charter. Admissibility requirements are cumulative; failure to meet one renders the application inadmissible.

Source excerpt

• Mandatory death penalty
• Right to life
• Prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
• Fair trial
• Exhaustion of local remedies
• Admissibility criteria

Read case analysis

ajavon c republica do benim processo n 0132017 2019 afchpr 12 29 marco 2019

Court

TANZLII

The Tribunal found that the applicant's rights to a fair trial, equality before the law, presumption of innocence, property, and judicial independence were violated by the respondent state. The CRIET lacked competence to retry the applicant as the prior acquittal had become final, thus violating the principle of non bis in idem. The applicant was denied access to case files, not properly informed of charges, and deprived of legal representation before the CRIET. The law establishing the CRIET created inequality between parties, and administrative actions against the applicant's companies viol…

Source excerpt

• Right to fair trial
• Judicial independence
• Non bis in idem
• Presumption of innocence
• Right to property
• Equality before the law

Read case analysis

johnson c republique du ghana requete n 0162017 2019 afchpr 7 28 mars 2019

Court

TANZLII

The application is inadmissible because the same matter—mandatory death penalty for murder in Ghana—was previously determined by the UN Human Rights Committee, which constitutes a settlement of the case under Article 56(7) of the African Charter. The fact that Ghana did not implement the Committee's findings does not affect the res judicata effect. The Court cannot examine a matter already settled by another international body with jurisdiction.

Source excerpt

• Death penalty
• Right to life
• Prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
• Right to fair trial
• Admissibility of applications
• Non bis in idem

Read case analysis

ajavon c republica do benim processo n 0132017 2019 afchpr 6 28 novembro 2019

Court

TANZLII

The respondent state violated the applicant's rights to fair trial, property, presumption of innocence, and non bis in idem, causing material and moral damages. The applicant is entitled to pecuniary and non-pecuniary reparations, including compensation for loss of business, loss of opportunity, moral damages, restitution of assets, and legislative amendments to ensure non-repetition. The respondent's counterclaim is unfounded.

Source excerpt

• Right to fair trial
• Right to property
• Non bis in idem
• Presumption of innocence
• Judicial independence
• Political rights

Read case analysis

ajavon c republique du benin requete n0132017 2019 afchpr 6 28 novembre 2019

Court

TANZLII

The Court found that the respondent State violated the applicant's rights to equal protection, fair trial, presumption of innocence, property, and political participation, and that these violations caused material and moral harm to the applicant and his family. The Court awarded pecuniary and non-pecuniary reparations, ordered the lifting of administrative and financial sanctions, and required legislative amendments to comply with international human rights standards.

Source excerpt

• Right to fair trial
• Presumption of innocence
• Non bis in idem
• Right to property
• Freedom of expression
• Judicial independence

Read case analysis

ajavon v republic of benin application no 0132018 2018 afchpr 18 7 december 2018

Court

TANZLII

The African Court ordered Benin to stay execution of a criminal judgment against Sebastien Germain Ajavon pending its final decision, finding extreme urgency and risk of irreparable harm.

• Provisional measures
• Right to fair trial
• Non bis in idem
• Judicial independence
• Due process
• Provisional-measures

Read case analysis

ajavon c republica do benim processo n 0132017 2018 afchpr 18 7 dezembro 2018

Court

TANZLII

Diante do risco de execução da sentença condenatória do CRIET antes da decisão definitiva do Tribunal, e considerando a possibilidade de danos irreparáveis ao requerente, estão preenchidos os requisitos de gravidade e urgência para concessão da medida cautelar de suspensão da execução da sentença.

Source excerpt

• Medidas cautelares
• Direito a processo equitativo
• Suspensão de execução de sentença
• Non bis in idem
• Duplo grau de jurisdição

Read case analysis