Tanzania Case Law

centre for human rights and others v united republic of tanzania application no 0192018 2025 afchpr 4 5 february 2025

Court

TANZLII

The Court found that Tanzania violated the rights of persons with albinism by failing to take sufficient measures to prevent, investigate, and punish attacks, killings, and discrimination; by failing to provide adequate education and health services; and by not ensuring the best interests of children with albinism. The State’s legislative and policy measures were found insufficient, and the violations were attributable to the State due to lack of due diligence and effective remedies.

Source excerpt

• Non-discrimination
• Right to life
• Prohibition of torture
• Right to dignity
• Effective remedy
• Rights of the child

Read case analysis

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

Court

TANZLII

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

augustino et autre c republique unie de tanzanie fond et reparations requete 0152016 2024 afchpr 19 3 septembre 2024

Court

TANZLII

The Court found that the mandatory imposition of the death penalty without judicial discretion violates the right to life and fair trial under the African Charter. Failure to inform the applicants of their right to consular assistance and to provide interpretation services violated their fair trial rights. Prolonged pre-trial detention, extended time on death row, and poor detention conditions amounted to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The Court found no violation regarding discrimination or the effectiveness of legal assistance, as the evidence did not support these claims. The Court…

Source excerpt

• Right to life
• Prohibition of torture
• Right to fair trial
• Death penalty
• Non-discrimination
• Consular assistance

Read case analysis

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

Court

TANZLII

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.

Source excerpt

• Expedited procedure
• Right to effective remedy
• Right to life
• Right to dignity
• Prohibition of torture
• Right to education

Read case analysis

mahiri v united republic of tanzania 2022 afchpr 1 24 march 2022

Court

TANZLII

The African Court struck out Magweiga Mahiri’s application after he failed to pursue the case and could not be located for legal assistance.

• Right to life
• Death penalty
• Equality before the law
• Prohibition of torture
• Fair trial
• Judicial independence

Read case analysis

desmond nunugwo v nigeria communication 653 of 2017 2020 achpr 3 17 august 2020

Court

ACHPR

The complainants failed to demonstrate that they had exhausted available domestic judicial remedies or that such remedies were unavailable, ineffective, or unduly prolonged. The Commission found that Nigerian courts provide avenues for judicial review and enforcement of fundamental rights, which the complainants did not pursue or show to be unavailable. Therefore, the communication does not meet the admissibility requirements under Article 56(5) and (6) of the African Charter.

Source excerpt

• Right to life
• Prohibition of torture
• Right to liberty and security
• Presumption of innocence
• State obligation to investigate deaths in custody
• Exhaustion of domestic remedies

Read case analysis

fadhl al mawla husni ahmed ismail and 19 ors represented by freedom and justice party of egypt v arab republic of egypt communication 670 of 2017 2020 achpr 1 9 s

Court

ACHPR

The Commission found that the Freedom and Justice Party of Egypt, having been dissolved by a final court order in 2014 and not shown to exist in any other jurisdiction, lacked legal existence and thus locus standi to bring the communication. As a result, the communication failed to meet the requirement of Article 56(1) of the African Charter, rendering it inadmissible. Other admissibility criteria were met, but locus standi is a threshold requirement.

Source excerpt

• Right to life
• Right to fair trial
• Prohibition of torture
• Death penalty
• Admissibility of communications
• Locus standi

Read case analysis

luchagula c republique unie de tanzanie requete n0392016 2020 afchpr 19 25 septembre 2020

Court

TANZLII

The application was declared inadmissible because it was not filed within a reasonable time after exhaustion of domestic remedies, as required by Article 56(6) of the Charter and Article 40(6) of the Rules. The applicant failed to provide sufficient justification for the delay of over six years after the relevant date, and did not prove indigence or other circumstances warranting an exception.

Source excerpt

• Right to fair trial
• Exhaustion of domestic remedies
• Reasonable time for application
• Non-discrimination
• Right to life
• Prohibition of torture

Read case analysis

sarni and another represented by european alliance for human rights v arab republic of egypt communication 574 15 2018 achpr 139 22 february 2018

Court

ACHPR

The African Commission struck out Communication 574/15 because the complainants failed to file admissibility submissions within the time allowed.

• Right to life
• Prohibition of torture
• Right to fair trial
• Discrimination
• Enforced disappearance
• Death penalty

Read case analysis

spilg and others v botswana communication 277 of 2003 2011 achpr 81 1 december 2011

Court

ACHPR

There was no violation of Articles 2, 3, 4, or 7 as the law was applied equally, due process was followed, and the death penalty was imposed for a most serious crime. However, Botswana violated Article 5 by failing to give notice of the date and time of execution to the victim and his family, depriving them of closure and dignity, which constitutes cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

Source excerpt

• Death penalty
• Right to life
• Right to fair trial
• Prohibition of torture
• Equality before the law
• Discrimination

Read case analysis