Tanzania Case Law

shaibu and others v united republic of tanzania application no 0462020 2025 afchpr 16 28 2025

Court

TANZLII

Given the complexity and potential broader impact of the issues arising from the 2020 Tanzanian elections, and in the interests of justice, the Court exercises its discretion to reopen pleadings and allow additional submissions. The expertise of RFK and IHRDA in electoral disputes is deemed beneficial, justifying their admission as amici curiae.

Source excerpt

• Right to participate in public affairs
• Electoral violations
• Amicus curiae intervention
• Reopening of pleadings

Read case analysis

slimane v republic of tunisia ruling application no 0072024 2024 achpr 5 3 october 2024

Court

ACHPR

The African Court held that one request for provisional measures in Hasna Ben Slimane v Tunisia was moot and dismissed the remaining requests as touching the merits.

• Provisional measures
• Right to participate in public affairs
• Non-discrimination
• Implementation of court judgments
• Electoral process integrity
• Provisional-measures

Read case analysis

fathi et autres c republique tunisienne requete n 0012023 2023 afchpr 3 17 mars 2023

Court

TANZLII

Applicants failed to demonstrate the required urgency, extreme gravity, or irreparable harm for suspension of the decree-law. The request to postpone elections was moot as the elections had already occurred before the application was filed. Both requests for provisional measures were rejected.

Source excerpt

• Provisional measures
• Right to participate in public affairs
• Non-discrimination
• Freedom of association
• Elections
• Separation of powers

Read case analysis

wangwe et legal and human rights centre c republique unie de tanzanie requete n 0112020 2023 afchpr 14 13 juin 2023

Court

TANZLII

The Court held that the absence of prescribed qualification criteria for the appointment of the Director of Elections and Returning Officers under articles 6(1), 7(2), and 7(3) of the NEA violates Article 13(1) of the African Charter, as it fails to ensure the independence, impartiality, and competence required for such positions. However, restricting eligibility to public servants does not, in itself, violate the Charter. The Court found no violation of Articles 2 or 3 regarding non-discrimination and equality before the law, nor of Article 13(1) in relation to the mere fact of presidential…

Source excerpt

• Right to participate in public affairs
• Equality before the law
• Non-discrimination
• Independence of electoral bodies
• Constitutional remedies

Read case analysis

kaunda et autres c republique du malawi requete n 0132021 2023 afchpr 29 5 septembre 2023

Court

TANZLII

The Court found that the Supreme Court of Malawi acted within its competence in annulling the election and ordering a new one based on evidence of irregularities, and that the applicants failed to demonstrate any manifest error, discrimination, or denial of fair hearing. The respondent State did not violate the applicants’ rights under Articles 3(2), 7(1), 7(1)(a), or 13(1) of the African Charter.

Source excerpt

• Right to equal protection of the law
• Right to a fair hearing
• Right to effective remedy
• Right to participate in public affairs
• Electoral dispute resolution

Read case analysis

kchouk c republique tunisienne requete n 0062022 2023 afchpr 20 30 aout 2023

Court

TANZLII

The applicant does not meet the requirements for intervention as he lacks sufficient legal interest and neutrality; the request is not admissible under the Court's rules.

Source excerpt

• Intervention
• Amicus curiae
• Non-discrimination
• Equality before the law
• Freedom of expression
• Right to participate in public affairs

Read case analysis

soglo c republic of benin requete n0112021 2023 afchpr 36 7 novembre 2023

Court

TANZLII

The application is inadmissible because the applicant failed to exhaust available and effective domestic remedies regarding both the administrative and criminal proceedings, as required by Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules. The applicant did not provide proof of exhausting administrative remedies and did not appeal the criminal conviction, despite the possibility to do so through legal representation.

Source excerpt

• Right to fair trial
• Right to life and integrity
• Right to participate in public affairs
• Exhaustion of domestic remedies
• Admissibility of application

Read case analysis

abbes v tunisian republic application no 0262028 2022 afchpr 64 23 june 2022

Court

TANZLII

The Applicant failed to pursue his case with due diligence by not responding to repeated requests for supporting documents and replies, justifying the striking out of the application under Rule 65(1)(b) of the Rules of Court.

Source excerpt

• Right to participate in public affairs
• Right to equality before the law
• Right to a fair trial
• Judicial impartiality
• Admissibility of application
• Procedural diligence

Read case analysis

belghuith v tunisian republic aplication no 0022022 2022 afchpr 67 23 june 2022

Court

TANZLII

The African Court joined a request for provisional measures with the merits because the interim relief sought overlapped with the substantive claims.

• Right to self-determination
• Right to participate in public affairs
• Independence of judiciary
• Separation of powers
• Provisional measures
• Provisional-measures

Read case analysis

belghuith c republique tunisienne requetes n 0022022 2022 afchpr 68 23 juin 2022

Court

TANZLII

The Court found that the provisional measures requested by the applicant are identical to the substantive claims and could prejudge the merits; therefore, it decided to consider the request for provisional measures together with the merits of the case.

Source excerpt

• Right to self-determination
• Right to participate in public affairs
• Judicial independence
• Separation of powers
• Provisional measures

Read case analysis