Tanzania Case Law

zorgati v republic of tunisia application no 0162021 2024 afchpr 32 13 november 2024

Court

TANZLII

The Court found that the Tunisian people participated indirectly in the drafting and adoption of the 2014 Constitution through their elected representatives, so the absence of a referendum did not violate Article 20. However, the Respondent State violated Article 26 by interfering in the independence of the judiciary through Decree-Law No. 2022-11 and failing to establish the Constitutional Court, and violated the independence of the legislature by suspending and dissolving the Assembly of People’s Representatives and assuming legislative powers for an extended period.

Source excerpt

• Self-determination
• Judicial independence
• Separation of powers
• Admissibility
• Jurisdiction
• Reparations

Read case analysis

rahmani and others v republic of tunisia ruling application no 0082024 2024 achpr 7 3 october 2024

Court

ACHPR

The African Court ordered Tunisia to stay implementation of a decree-law and dismissal decree affecting judicial officers, pending the merits of the case.

• Judicial independence
• Separation of powers
• Fair trial
• Right to work
• Non-discrimination
• Provisional measures

Read case analysis

Tanzania Women Lawyers Associatiojn vs Hon Minister for Legal Constituion Affairs Another Misc Civil Application No 32 of 2023 2024 TZHC 1246 2 April 2024

Court

TZHC

The High Court had already determined the legality of the Minister's public notice and the government's compliance with court orders in Mary Barnaba Mushi v AG. Re-litigating the same issues renders the court functus officio and without jurisdiction. The application for judicial review is therefore dismissed as the matter is res judicata and the court is barred from entertaining it.

Source excerpt

• Judicial review
• Functus officio
• Rule of law
• Separation of powers
• Compliance with court orders
• Minimum age of marriage

Read case analysis

joran lwehabura bashange vs minister for constitutiona legal affairs anotherl 2024 tzhc 774 13 march 2024

Court

TZHC

Section 44(1) and (2) of the Law of Limitation Act are void to the extent of their inconsistency with the Constitution, as they confer judicial powers on the Executive, lack procedural safeguards, deny the right to be heard, are discriminatory, arbitrary, and create legal absurdity. These provisions violate Articles 13(1), (2), (3), (6)(a), 26(1), and 29(1) of the Constitution, as well as domesticated international human rights instruments. The absence of procedural fairness, right of appeal, and the potential for bias render the provisions unconstitutional.

Source excerpt

• Separation of powers
• Judicial review
• Equality before the law
• Due process
• Right to be heard
• Extension of limitation periods

Read case analysis

zorgati c republique tunisienne requete n 0162021 2024 afchpr 32 13 novembre 2024

Court

TANZLII

The Court found no violation of the right to autodetermination regarding the 2014 Constitution, as the Assembly was elected by universal suffrage and the Charter does not mandate a referendum. However, the Court found violations of judicial independence due to the executive's interference in magistrate discipline and legislative independence due to prolonged suspension and dissolution of the legislative body, breaching the separation of powers.

Source excerpt

• Autodetermination
• Judicial independence
• Separation of powers
• Constitutional process

Read case analysis

Hon

Court

TANZLII

The High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the petition because the acts complained of—namely, the suspension of the petitioner from Parliament—were conducted within the jurisdiction of the National Assembly under the Parliamentary Standing Orders and did not contravene any mandatory constitutional provisions. Article 100 of the Constitution and Section 5 of the Parliamentary Immunities, Powers, and Privileges Act bar the Court from questioning such parliamentary proceedings. The petition did not specifically challenge the constitutionality of any provision of the Standing Orders but rath…

Source excerpt

• Parliamentary privilege
• Separation of powers
• Judicial review
• Constitutional remedies
• Standing orders
• Jurisdiction

Read case analysis

mary barnaba mushi vs attorney general 2023 tzhc 18309 14 june 2023

Court

TZHC

There is no confusion regarding the minimum age of marriage for a girl child, which is 18 years as declared by the Court of Appeal. The ongoing nationwide consultations by the executive are not the correct approach and undermine the judiciary's authority. Sections 13 and 17 of the Law of Marriage Act, having not been amended within the one-year period directed by the court, are redundant and no longer have legal effect. However, the court declined to make a declaration of contempt or halt the consultation exercise, instead directing the Attorney General to comply with the court decisions with…

Source excerpt

• Minimum age of marriage
• Judicial authority
• Separation of powers
• Contempt of court
• Legislative process

Read case analysis

paul emmanuel kilasa kisabo vs the attorney general 2023 tzhc 15914 7 march 2023

Court

TZHC

The Court held that Article 118(2)(c) of the Constitution, when read together with Articles 110A and 120A and relevant legislation, provides an adequate and constitutionally compliant procedure for the removal of the Chief Justice. The President's power to remove the Chief Justice is not absolute or arbitrary but is subject to constitutional safeguards applicable to justices of appeal. The applicant's fears of abuse are speculative and do not warrant judicial intervention or constitutional amendment. The petition was found to lack merit and was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Removal of chief justice
• Separation of powers
• Security of tenure
• Presidential powers

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

mpale kaba mpoki vs attorney general 2022 tzhc 15676 1 december 2022

Court

TZHC

The High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain petitions challenging the harmonization of constitutional articles unless expressly empowered by the Constitution; such matters are for Parliament. The preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction is meritorious.

Source excerpt

• Separation of powers
• Independence of judiciary
• Appointment of judicial officers
• Jurisdiction
• Locus standi

Read case analysis