Sign in
Tanzania Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Tanzania Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Tanzania decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Human rights law democratic republic of the congo v republic of rwanda application no 0072023 2024 afchpr 6 7 march 2024

democratic republic of the congo v republic of rwanda application no 0072023 2024 afchpr 6 7 march 2024

The African Court dismissed DRC’s request for expedited procedure, holding it could not abridge defence-related time limits, but listed the case for priority handling.

  • Expedited procedure
  • Right to effective remedy
  • Right to life
  • Right to dignity
  • Prohibition of torture
  • Right to liberty
Read case analysis
Human rights law letuya et autres c republique du kenya requete 0102024 2024 achpr 10 16 octobre 2024

letuya et autres c republique du kenya requete 0102024 2024 achpr 10 16 octobre 2024

The Court lacks personal jurisdiction because Kenya has not deposited the Article 34(6) Declaration, making the application inadmissible regardless of alleged violations.

  • Jurisdiction
  • Indigenous rights
  • Right to property
  • Right to dignity
  • Right to non-discrimination
  • Right to development
Read case analysis
International law republique democratique du congo c republique du rwanda requete n0072023 2024 afchpr 6 7 mars 2024

republique democratique du congo c republique du rwanda requete n0072023 2024 afchpr 6 7 mars 2024

The Court rejected the request for expedited procedure because the respondent did not expressly waive its right to the 90-day response period, and the complexity of the case did not justify shortening the deliberation period. However, the Court decided to give priority to the examination of the application due to the seriousness of the alleged violations.

  • Expedited procedure
  • Right to effective remedy
  • Right to life
  • Right to dignity
  • Prohibition of torture
  • Right to education
Read case analysis
Human rights law african commission on human and peoples rights v republic of kenya application no 0062012 2022 afchpr 18 23 june 202

african commission on human and peoples rights v republic of kenya application no 0062012 2022 afchpr 18 23 june 202

The Court held that the Republic of Kenya violated multiple Charter rights of the Ogiek, including property, culture, religion, development, and non-discrimination, and ordered comprehensive reparations including material and moral compensation, restitution of ancestral lands through delimitation, demarcation, and titling, recognition of Ogiek as indigenous people, guarantees of consultation and non-repetition, and establishment of a community development fund, rejecting prayers for public apology and monument as the judgment itself suffices for satisfaction.

  • Reparations
  • Right to property
  • Non-discrimination
  • Right to culture
  • Right to religion
  • Right to development
Read case analysis
Constitutional law xyz v benin application 10 of 2020 2020 afchpr 3 27 november 2020

xyz v benin application 10 of 2020 2020 afchpr 3 27 november 2020

The African Court held that Benin violated judicial independence, national consensus, information, development, and peace rights in adopting constitutional revision law.

  • Judicial independence
  • Impartial tribunal
  • National consensus
  • Right to information
  • Right to development
  • Right to peace and security
Read case analysis
Constitutional law xyz c republique du benin requete n 0102020 2020 afchpr 3 27 novembre 2020

xyz c republique du benin requete n 0102020 2020 afchpr 3 27 novembre 2020

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…

  • Judicial independence
  • Impartiality of courts
  • Constitutional amendment
  • Right to information
  • Right to development
  • Right to peace and security
Read case analysis
Human rights law xyz c republique du benin application for provisional measures requete n0582019 2019 afchpr 65 2 decembre 2019

xyz c republique du benin application for provisional measures requete n0582019 2019 afchpr 65 2 decembre 2019

The applicant failed to demonstrate urgency, extreme gravity, or irreparable harm personally suffered as a result of the decree. The request for provisional measures is therefore rejected.

  • Provisional measures
  • Right to life
  • Right to dignity
  • Right to fair trial
  • Freedom of movement
  • Right to property
Read case analysis
Human rights law african commission on human and peoples rights v kenya application no 0062012 2017 afchpr 2 26 may 2017

african commission on human and peoples rights v kenya application no 0062012 2017 afchpr 2 26 may 2017

The African Court found Kenya violated the Ogiek community’s rights by evicting them from the Mau Forest, except for the right to life claim, and reserved reparations.

  • Right to property
  • Non-discrimination
  • Right to culture
  • Right to development
  • Freedom of religion
  • Indigenous rights
Read case analysis
Human rights law african commission on human and peoples rights c republique du kenya requete n 0062012 2017 afchpr 2 26 mai 2017

african commission on human and peoples rights c republique du kenya requete n 0062012 2017 afchpr 2 26 mai 2017

The Court found that the Ogiek are an indigenous population entitled to special protection. Kenya violated their rights under Articles 1, 2, 8, 14, 17(2) and (3), 21, and 22 of the African Charter by failing to recognize their status, forcibly evicting them from ancestral lands without consultation or compensation, denying them access to cultural and religious sites, and excluding them from development processes. The Court held that these actions were not justified by public interest or environmental protection and ordered Kenya to take remedial measures.

  • Indigenous rights
  • Right to property
  • Non-discrimination
  • Cultural rights
  • Right to development
  • Religious freedom
Read case analysis
Human rights law commission africaine des droits de lhomme et des peuples c republique du kenya requete n 0062012 2017 afchpr 62 26 mai 2017

commission africaine des droits de lhomme et des peuples c republique du kenya requete n 0062012 2017 afchpr 62 26 mai 2017

Kenya violated the Ogiek’s rights under Articles 1, 2, 8, 14, 17(2) and (3), 21, and 22 of the Charter by failing to recognize their indigenous status, denying access to ancestral lands, expelling them without consultation or compensation, and restricting their cultural and religious practices. The violations were not justified by public interest or proportionate to environmental aims. The Court orders Kenya to remedy these violations and report on implementation.

  • Indigenous land rights
  • Discrimination
  • Right to property
  • Cultural rights
  • Freedom of religion
  • Right to development
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

Tanzania decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.