Tanzania Case Law

godwin v united republic of tanzania application 0372016 2023 afchpr 22 5 september 2023

Court

TANZLII

The Applicant exhausted local remedies and the Court has jurisdiction. The evidence shows the Applicant was informed of charges, properly identified, and given opportunity to call witnesses. Domestic courts evaluated evidence in accordance with fair trial standards. No violation of Articles 2, 3, or 7(1) of the Charter was established.

Source excerpt

• Right to fair trial
• Right to defence
• Right to be informed of charges
• Equality before the law
• Non-discrimination
• Exhaustion of local remedies

Read case analysis

godwin c republique unie de tanzanie requete n 0372016 2023 afchpr 22 5 septembre 2023

Court

TANZLII

The applicant was informed of the charges at arrest, had his case heard by national courts which properly evaluated the evidence and identification, and was not denied the right to call witnesses as he did not request to do so. No violation of Articles 2, 3, or 7(1) of the African Charter was established.

Source excerpt

• Right to fair trial
• Right to defence
• Right to be informed of charges
• Non-discrimination
• Equality before the law
• Exhaustion of domestic remedies

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

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