Tanzania Case Law

samiratou v republic of benin application 0542019 2023 afchpr 33 5 september 2023

Court

TANZLII

The Application was declared inadmissible because the Applicant failed to exhaust available and effective local remedies in Benin, as required by Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules. The Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence that local remedies were inaccessible or ineffective, nor did she attempt to pursue them before approaching the Court.

Source excerpt

• Right to life
• Freedom of assembly
• Non-retroactivity of criminal law
• Exhaustion of local remedies
• Jurisdiction of african court on human and peoples’ rights

Read case analysis

samiratou c republique du benin requete n 0542019 2023 afchpr 33 5 septembre 2023

Court

TANZLII

The application was declared inadmissible because the applicant failed to exhaust available and effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(e) of the Court's Rules.

Source excerpt

• Right to life
• Freedom of assembly
• Non-retroactivity of penal law
• Exhaustion of domestic remedies

Read case analysis

touray and others v republic of the gambia application no 0262020 2022 afchpr 76 24 march 2022

Court

TANZLII

The claim challenging Section 5 of the Public Order Act has already been settled by the ECOWAS Court of Justice in a public interest case with identical legal and factual basis; therefore, the application fails the admissibility requirement under Article 56(7) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(g) of the Rules.

Source excerpt

• Freedom of assembly
• Freedom of expression
• Exhaustion of local remedies
• Admissibility
• Public interest litigation

Read case analysis

touray et autres c republique de gambie requete n 0262020 2022 afchpr 76 24 mars 2022

Court

TANZLII

The Court found the application inadmissible because the legal issue regarding Article 5 of the Public Order Act had already been settled by the ECOWAS Court in a prior case involving public interest claims, thus satisfying the identity of parties and claims requirement for inadmissibility.

Source excerpt

• Freedom of assembly
• Freedom of expression
• Exhaustion of domestic remedies
• Public order legislation

Read case analysis

touray and others v republic of the gambia 2022 afchpr 9 24 march 202

Court

TANZLII

The application is inadmissible because the legal and factual issues regarding Section 5 of the Public Order Act were previously settled by the ECOWAS Court, fulfilling the res judicata requirement under Article 56(7) of the Charter. The parties are deemed identical for public interest litigation, and the claims are legally and factually the same. The Court therefore cannot entertain the matter.

Source excerpt

• Freedom of assembly
• Freedom of expression
• Admissibility
• Res judicata
• Forum shopping

Read case analysis

ihrda et autres c republique du burundi communication 63616 2022 achpr 1 9 novembre 2022

Court

ACHPR

The Commission found that Burundi violated Articles 1, 4, 5, 6, 11, 16, and 18(1) of the African Charter by failing to prevent and punish acts of violence, torture, and repression against protestors and their families, denying them effective remedies, and failing to provide adequate medical care and protection to victims and their families. The state is responsible for the acts of its agents and must provide reparations, public apologies, and guarantees of non-repetition.

Source excerpt

• Torture
• Right to life
• Freedom of assembly
• Right to health
• Right to family
• Non-discrimination

Read case analysis

george iyanyori kajikabi v arab republic of egypt communication 34407 2021 achpr 528 20 october 2021

Court

ACHPR

The African Commission found Egypt responsible for multiple Charter violations arising from the violent breakup of a Sudanese sit-in in Cairo.

• Right to life
• Prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment
• Right to liberty and security
• Freedom of assembly
• Right to property
• Right to health

Read case analysis

african freedom of expression exchange e 15 outros representados por foi attorneys v argelia e 27 outros communication 742 of 2020 2021 achpr 11 26 abril 2021

Court

ACHPR

The complaint was not accepted because it failed to meet the admissibility criteria, specifically the requirement to provide specific allegations and preliminary evidence of violations. The applicants' submissions were found to be vague, general, and lacking in substantiated facts or proof against the respondent States, preventing the Commission from inferring a prima facie violation of the African Charter.

Source excerpt

• Freedom of expression
• Internet shutdowns
• Freedom of association
• Freedom of assembly
• Admissibility of complaints

Read case analysis

munyandilikirwa c republique du rwanda requete n 0232015 2021 afchpr 3 2 decembre 2021

Court

TANZLII

The applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies as required by the relevant Rwandan law and the statutes of LIPRODHOR, specifically by not allowing the internal dispute resolution process to be completed and adopted by the general assembly before seizing national courts. As a result, the application is inadmissible before the African Court.

Source excerpt

• Freedom of association
• Freedom of assembly
• Freedom of expression
• Right to fair trial
• Non-discrimination
• Exhaustion of domestic remedies

Read case analysis

ajavon v republic of benin application no 0622019 2020 afchpr 5 4 december 2020

Court

TANZLII

Benin violated the right to strike, right to life, right to physical and moral integrity, right not to be subjected to torture, right of victims of post-electoral violence to have their causes heard, right to freedom of association, right to non-discrimination, right to participate freely in government, duty to establish independent and impartial electoral bodies, duty to guarantee independence of judiciary and Constitutional Court, and duty to ensure constitutional revision based on national consensus. Restrictions on expression, assembly, eligibility conditions (bond, tax clearance, age), a…

Source excerpt

• Freedom of expression
• Freedom of assembly
• Freedom of association
• Right to strike
• Right to life
• Non-discrimination

Read case analysis