Tanzania Case Law

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

Court

TANZLII

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.

Source excerpt

• Indigenous rights
• Right to property
• Non-discrimination
• Cultural rights
• Right to development
• Religious freedom

Read case analysis

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

Court

TANZLII

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.

Source excerpt

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

Read case analysis

african commission on human and peoples rights c republica do quenia processo n 0062012 2017 afchpr 2 26 maio 2017

Court

TANZLII

O Tribunal reconheceu os Ogieks como população autóctone, concluiu que o Estado Demando violou os direitos à terra, cultura, religião, desenvolvimento, propriedade e não discriminação, ao despejá-los da Floresta de Mau sem consulta, compensação ou justificativa objetiva, e sem garantir mecanismos adequados de proteção e reparação, em violação dos artigos 1, 2, 8, 14, 17(2)(3), 21 e 22 da Carta Africana.

Source excerpt

• Indigenous rights
• Land rights
• Discrimination
• Cultural rights
• Religious freedom
• Right to development

Read case analysis

prince v south africa communication 255 of 2002 2004 achpr 62 7 december 2004

Court

ACHPR

The African Commission found no violation in a complaint by a Rastafari attorney applicant challenging South Africa’s cannabis restrictions and refusal to register his community-service contract.

• Freedom of religion
• Right to dignity
• Right to occupational choice
• Cultural rights
• Limitation of rights
• Margin of appreciation

Read case analysis