[2019] AfCHPR 41

[2019] AfCHPR 41

The Court found that the Respondent State violated the Applicant's rights under Articles 7(1)(a) and (d) and Article 6 of the African Charter. The Applicant was denied the opportunity to appeal his conviction and sentence for over fifteen years due to the State's failure to provide certified copies of the record of proceedings and judgment, despite his timely Notice of Appeal and repeated requests. This failure rendered the available remedy ineffective and unduly prolonged his detention, constituting a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time and his right to liberty. The subsequent quashing of his conviction and release did not absolve the State of responsibility for...

Citation
[2019] AfCHPR 41
Parties
Applicant: Benedicto Daniel Mallya; Respondent: United Republic of Tanzania
Court
African Court on Human and Peoples Rights
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
26 September 2019
Case Number
Application No. 018/2015
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Application / Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Application allowed; violations found; reparations and costs reserved for later ruling.
Judges
Anukam J, Ben Achour J, Bensaoula J, Chizumila J, Eno R, Kioko VP, Matusse J, Mengue J, Mukamulisa J, Orè P, Tchikaya J
Legal Topics
Right to Appeal, Fair Trial, Reasonable Time, Arbitrary Detention, State Responsibility
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Right to Appeal Fair Trial Reasonable Time Arbitrary Detention State Responsibility

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Benedicto Daniel Mallya

Applicant

United Republic of Tanzania

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Application / Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to appeal under Article 7(1)(a) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to be tried within a reasonable time under Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter.
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to liberty under Article 6 of the Charter.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Respondent State violated the Applicant's rights under Articles 7(1)(a) and (d) and Article 6 of the African Charter. The Applicant was denied the opportunity to appeal his conviction and sentence for over fifteen years due to the State's failure to provide certified copies of the record of proceedings and judgment, despite his timely Notice of Appeal and repeated requests. This failure rendered the available remedy ineffective and unduly prolonged his detention, constituting a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time and his right to liberty. The subsequent quashing of his conviction and release did not absolve the State of responsibility for...

Court Disposition

Application allowed; violations found; reparations and costs reserved for later ruling.

Orders

  • Court has jurisdiction to hear the Application.
  • Application is admissible.