Tanzania Case Law

kadumbagula and another v united republic of tanzania application no 0312017 2024 afchpr 11 4 june 2024

Court

TANZLII

The Respondent State violated the Second Applicant's right to defence by failing to provide free legal assistance during trial and appeals, contrary to Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter and Article 14(3)(d) ICCPR. The imposition of life imprisonment on a minor, without applying a more lenient penalty introduced by subsequent legislation, violated Article 15(1) ICCPR. The introduction of corporal punishment as an alternative sentence for minors violated Article 5 of the Charter. The sentencing failed to consider the best interests of the child as required by Article 17(3) ACRWC and Article 40(1)…

Source excerpt

• Right to defence
• Right to legal aid
• Retroactive application of criminal law
• Child sentencing
• Corporal punishment
• Fair trial

Read case analysis

kilagela c republique unie de tanzanie requete n 0172018 2024 afchpr 17 3 septembre 2024

Court

TANZLII

The Court found that the applicant failed to prove violations of non-discrimination and equal protection of the law, and that national courts properly assessed the evidence. However, the respondent State violated the applicant's right to free legal assistance under Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter, read with Article 14(3)(d) ICCPR, by not providing legal aid to an indigent person charged with a serious offence.

Source excerpt

• Right to fair trial
• Right to legal aid
• Non-discrimination
• Equality before the law
• Exhaustion of domestic remedies

Read case analysis

mwendesha c republique unie de tanzanie requete n 0322016 2023 afchpr 12 13 juin 2023

Court

TANZLII

The court found that the applicant's right to free legal assistance under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter, read with Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR, was violated because he was indigent, charged with a serious offence, and was not informed of or provided with free legal aid at trial or on appeal. The court found no violation of the rights to equality before the law or dignity, as the applicant failed to prove differential treatment or degrading treatment.

Source excerpt

• Right to fair trial
• Right to legal aid
• Equality before the law
• Dignity and prohibition of degrading treatment

Read case analysis

wambura et mkama c republique unie de tanzanie requetes n 0112016 requetes n 0122016 2023 afchpr 30 5 septembre 2023

Court

TANZLII

The Court found that the applicants' right to legal aid under Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter, read with Article 14(3)(d) ICCPR, was violated because they were indigent, charged with a serious offence, and not provided legal assistance at trial or on appeal. Other alleged violations (unreliable evidence, failure to consider alibis, imprecise law, discrimination, unreasonable delay) were not established, as national courts had properly assessed evidence, the law was sufficiently clear, and no discrimination or unreasonable delay was proven.

Source excerpt

• Right to fair trial
• Right to legal aid
• Non-discrimination
• Nullum crimen sine lege
• Reasonable time for trial

Read case analysis

kisiri c republique unie de tanzanie requete n 0272016 2023 afchpr 26 5 septembre 2023

Court

TANZLII

The respondent State violated the applicant's right to free legal assistance under Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter and Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR by failing to provide legal aid during criminal proceedings, given the seriousness of the charge and the applicant's indigence. No violation of equality before the law was established as there was no evidence of differential treatment or manifest error by national courts.

Source excerpt

• Right to fair trial
• Right to legal aid
• Equality before the law
• Remedies for human rights violations

Read case analysis

kisase c republique unie de tanzanie requete n 0052016 2021 afchpr 6 2 decembre 2021

Court

TANZLII

The Court found that the respondent State violated the applicant's right to free legal assistance as required under Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter and Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR, given the seriousness of the offense and the applicant's indigence. Other alleged violations, including denial of a fair hearing and equal protection, were not established due to lack of evidence or because the applicant's arguments were duly considered by national courts.

Source excerpt

• Right to fair trial
• Right to legal aid
• Equal protection of the law
• Exhaustion of domestic remedies
• Compensation for human rights violations

Read case analysis

goa alias vedastus v tanzania application no 0252015 2019 afchpr 40 26 september 2019

Court

TANZLII

The African Court found Tanzania violated the applicant's right to free legal aid in a serious rape conviction case, but rejected his other fair-trial and equality claims.

• Right to fair trial
• Right to legal aid
• Non-discrimination
• Equality before the law
• Exhaustion of local remedies
• Compensation for human rights violations

Read case analysis

nganyi and others v tanzania judgment reparations application 6 of 2013 2019 afchpr 24 4 july 2019

Court

TANZLII

The Court found that the applicants were entitled to limited pecuniary and non-pecuniary reparations for violations of the right to be tried within a reasonable time and to legal aid, but dismissed most material damage claims for lack of evidence. Moral damages were awarded to direct and indirect victims. Orders for release and non-repetition were denied as not justified. The Court ordered publication of the judgments and reporting on implementation. Each party to bear its own costs.

Source excerpt

• Right to fair trial
• Right to legal aid
• Reparations
• Non-material damages
• Material damages
• Procedural rights

Read case analysis

evarist v united republic of tanzania application no 0272015 2018 afchpr 75 21 september 2018

Court

TANZLII

The Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to defence under Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter by failing to provide free legal aid in a serious criminal case where the Applicant was indigent. Other alleged violations were not substantiated. The application was admissible as local remedies were exhausted and the filing time was reasonable given the Applicant's circumstances.

Source excerpt

• Right to fair trial
• Right to legal aid
• Equal protection of the law
• Exhaustion of local remedies
• Compensation for rights violation

Read case analysis

paulo v republique unie de tanzanie application no 0202016 2018 afchpr 74 21 september 2018

Court

TANZLII

The Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to defence under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter by failing to provide free legal assistance in a serious criminal case, causing non-pecuniary prejudice. Other alleged violations were not substantiated or were in accordance with law.

Source excerpt

• Right to fair trial
• Right to legal aid
• Right to liberty
• Equality before the law
• Non-discrimination

Read case analysis