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 applicant did not exhaust available domestic remedies as required by Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, since he could have pursued further judicial actions under national law. The application is therefore inadmissible.
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 Respondent State violated Articles 4, 7(1)(a), 16, 24, and 9(1) of the African Charter by failing to prevent the dumping of toxic waste, inadequately investigating and prosecuting those responsible, failing to provide effective remedies and compensation to all victims, not ensuring adequate medical care and information, and not fully remediating the environmental damage. The State’s actions and omissions breached its obligations to respect, protect, and fulfil the rights to life, health, environment, information, and effective remedy. The compensation programme and remedial measures were…
Source excerpt
The African Court found Côte d’Ivoire violated the Applicants’ rights to a fair hearing in reasonable time and to enforcement of a compensation judgment.
The State violated the applicants’ right to be judged within a reasonable time and to the execution of a judicial decision by failing to ensure timely enforcement of the compensation judgment. Other alleged violations (right to information, dignity, equality, non-discrimination) were not established as the applicants had access to information, were ultimately compensated under the law, and did not demonstrate differential or degrading treatment.
Source excerpt
The High Court upheld section 9(b) of the Media Services Act, finding no proof that it violated constitutional rights to information or fair hearing.
The African Court held that Benin violated judicial independence, national consensus, information, development, and peace rights in adopting constitutional revision law.
Respondent State violated the Applicant's rights to defence, prohibition of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, right to life, and right to family under the African Charter. The Applicant was denied adequate facilities for defence, subjected to threats and deprivation in detention, and denied reasonable communication with family. The Court awarded pecuniary and non-pecuniary reparations, including compensation and an order for independent medical assessment.
Source excerpt
The Court found that the process of constitutional amendment in Benin violated the principle of national consensus as required by Article 10(2) of the CADEG, and that the independence of the Constitutional Court was not guaranteed due to the renewable nature of judges' mandates without clear criteria. The Court also found violations of the right to information, the right to development, and the right to peace and security. However, the Court found no violation of the right to an impartial tribunal, as the applicant failed to provide credible evidence of actual bias. The Court awarded symbolic…
Source excerpt
The Court found violations of the applicant's rights to defence, to life, to be free from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and to family, based on credible evidence of deprivation of medical care, inadequate food, restricted family contact, and threats in detention. The Court rejected claims regarding legal assistance and impartial tribunal due to insufficient proof, and awarded pecuniary and non-pecuniary reparations.
Source excerpt
Explore more
