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 found Tanzania violated John Mwita’s rights to liberty and free legal assistance, but not his rights to be heard or to equality.
The respondent violated the applicant's right to legal assistance by failing to provide free counsel to an indigent accused facing a serious charge, and violated the right to liberty by statutory exclusion of judicial discretion for bail in armed robbery cases. No violation was found regarding equality, non-discrimination, or the right to have his cause heard, as national courts properly evaluated evidence and provided fair proceedings.
Source excerpt
The Court lacks jurisdiction ratione temporis to entertain the Reference because the impugned statutory provisions were enacted before the Treaty came into force and the Reference was not filed within the two-month period prescribed by Article 30(2) of the Treaty. The Treaty does not apply retroactively, and there is no power to extend or waive the time limit.
Source excerpt
Section 148(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act violates Articles 1, 2, and 7 of the Charter by imposing blanket restrictions on bail, causing discrimination, denying judicial discretion, and violating the presumption of innocence and right to be heard. The Respondent State must amend the law to align with the Charter.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed a criminal appeal, quashed a 30-year sentence, and ordered release after finding the guilty plea and conviction unsafe.
The African Court found Tanzania violated Joseph John’s rights to liberty and defence by failing to inform him of bail rights and provide free legal assistance.
The High Court dismissed a constitutional petition as res judicata, holding that the challenge to bail-related detention had already been decided in earlier proceedings.
The High Court at Mbeya granted bail pending trial in an economic crimes case, but imposed strict statutory and surety conditions because of the high alleged loss.
Section 148(5)(e) of the Criminal Procedure Act is unconstitutional as it deprives personal liberty without a meaningful procedure prescribed by law, is overly broad, and does not fit within the derogation clauses of Article 30(2)(b). It is null and void to the extent of its inconsistency with Article 15(2)(a).
Source excerpt
Section 148(5)(e) of the Criminal Procedure Act is unconstitutional as it deprives accused persons of bail without adequate procedural safeguards and is overly broad, failing to fit within the derogation clauses of Article 30(2)(b) of the Constitution. It is therefore null and void.
Source excerpt
Explore more
