Tanzania Case Law

mwombeki c republique unie de tanzanie requete n 0302018 2024 afchpr 26 13 novembre 2024

Court

TANZLII

The applicant failed to demonstrate any manifest error or violation of his rights in the domestic proceedings; the evidence was corroborated, the courts considered all arguments, and no substantiated proof of inhuman treatment or denial of equal protection was provided. Thus, no violation of Articles 3(2), 5, or 7(1) of the African Charter was established.

Source excerpt

• Right to a fair trial
• Right to equal protection of the law
• Right to dignity
• Exhaustion of domestic remedies
• International jurisdiction
• Compensation for human rights violations

Read case analysis

keita and others v republic of mali application 0052019 2023 afchpr 31 5 september 2023

Court

TANZLII

The African Court held that Mali did not violate former workers’ rights to fair hearing, equality, non-discrimination, impartial tribunal, or judicial independence.

• Right to non-discrimination
• Right to equality before the law
• Right to equal protection of the law
• Right to a fair hearing
• Right to be tried within a reasonable time
• Judicial independence

Read case analysis

mwita and another c republique unie de tanzanie requete n 0072016 2023 afchpr 9 13 juin 2023

Court

TANZLII

The applicants failed to demonstrate differential treatment or manifest error in the application of law or evidence by national courts. The burden of proof was correctly applied, and the applicants had access to remedies. No violation of Article 3 of the African Charter was established.

Source excerpt

• Right to equality before the law
• Right to equal protection of the law
• Fair trial
• Appeal rights
• Burden of proof

Read case analysis

keita et autres c republique du mali requete n 0052019 2023 afchpr 31 5 septembre 2023

Court

TANZLII

The Court found that the applicants had access to national courts, exhausted all remedies, and that the duration and conduct of proceedings were justified by the complexity and number of parties. No evidence was provided of discrimination, unequal treatment, or lack of judicial independence or impartiality. The Court concluded that the respondent state did not violate any of the applicants’ rights under the African Charter.

Source excerpt

• Right to non-discrimination
• Right to equality before the law
• Right to equal protection of the law
• Right to a fair hearing
• Right to access to courts
• Right to be tried within a reasonable time

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

kone c republique du mali requete n 0012021 2021 afchpr 12 2 decembre 2021

Court

TANZLII

The applicant failed to provide evidence of discriminatory treatment or denial of a fair trial. The domestic courts examined the facts and legal issues thoroughly, and the applicant had access to all available remedies. No manifest error or procedural unfairness was established. Therefore, no violation of the applicant's rights under the Charter was found.

Source excerpt

• Right to equality before the law
• Right to equal protection of the law
• Right to a fair trial
• Dénonciation calomnieuse (false accusation)
• Civil and criminal liability

Read case analysis

kaunda and others c republique du malawi requete n 0132021 2021 afchpr 44 11 juin 2021

Court

TANZLII

The applicants failed to demonstrate that the holding of the by-election would cause irreparable harm; urgency was established due to the imminent election date, but the alleged harms (financial loss, reputational risk, legal costs) are inherent to electoral and legal processes and do not meet the threshold for irreparable harm required for provisional measures.

Source excerpt

• Provisional measures
• Right to equal protection of the law
• Right to a fair hearing
• Right to participate in public affairs
• Judicial review of electoral decisions

Read case analysis

sandwidi v burkina faso and others requete no 0172020 2020 afchpr 36 15 juillet 2020

Court

TANZLII

The applications are directed against the same respondent States, arise from similar facts and legal qualifications, and seek the same reliefs; therefore, joinder is appropriate in fact and law to ensure good administration of justice.

Source excerpt

• Joinder of proceedings
• Right to equal protection of the law
• Right to dignity
• Right to be heard
• Right to property

Read case analysis

selemani c republique unie de tanzanie requete n 0422019 2020 afchpr 57 20 novembre 2020

Court

TANZLII

The applicant's request to amend the pleadings was made before the close of pleadings, specified the parts to be amended, and was thus in conformity with Rule 47(1) and (2) of the Rules of Court. The Court therefore grants the request.

Source excerpt

• Right to equal protection of the law
• Right to dignity
• Right to defence
• Amendment of pleadings

Read case analysis

ajavon v benin application no 0132017 2019 afchpr 12 29 march 2019

Court

TANZLII

The African Court found multiple human rights violations in Sebastien Germain Ajavon v. Republic of Benin, including fair trial, property, equality, and judicial independence breaches.

• Right to fair trial
• Right to property
• Right to liberty and security
• Right to dignity and reputation
• Non bis in idem
• Equality before the law

Read case analysis