Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Tanzania decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The African Court reopened pleadings in Tembo Hussein v. Tanzania, accepting the State’s late response and allowing the Applicant 30 days to reply.
The African Court held that it had jurisdiction but declared the application inadmissible for failure to file within a reasonable time after local remedies were exhausted.
The African Court held that Mali did not violate former workers’ rights to fair hearing, equality, non-discrimination, impartial tribunal, or judicial independence.
The African Court found Tanzania did not violate equality rights but did violate the applicant’s right to free legal assistance and awarded 300,000 TZS.
The African Court found no violation of Article 3 of the Charter in a Tanzanian criminal appeal, upheld jurisdiction and admissibility, and dismissed reparations.
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
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
The Court found that the national courts properly evaluated the evidence, including the visual identification and the petitioner’s alibi, and there was no manifest error or miscarriage of justice. The petitioner was not denied a fair trial or equal protection of the law. The petition was filed within a reasonable time considering the petitioner’s incarceration and lack of legal assistance.
Source excerpt
The Applicant did not exhaust the available and effective remedy of civil appeal against the judgment of the Cotonou Court of First Instance. The presence of legal representation imposed a duty to pursue such remedies. The Application is therefore inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies as required by Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules.
Source excerpt
The Applicant failed to pursue his case with due diligence by not responding to repeated requests for supporting documents and replies, justifying the striking out of the application under Rule 65(1)(b) of the Rules of Court.
Source excerpt
Explore more
