[2019] AfCHPR 17

[2019] AfCHPR 17

The Court found that the Applicants, except for the First and Seventh Applicants regarding the legality of their sentences, failed to exhaust available domestic remedies as required by Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 40(5) of the Rules. The Applicants could have challenged the exercise of the presidential prerogative of mercy and related statutory provisions through a constitutional petition in the High Court of Tanzania, but chose not to do so, rendering their claims inadmissible. For the First and Seventh Applicants, the Court held that the minimum sentence for armed robbery has been thirty years since 1994, and their sentences were imposed in accordance with the law. The Court...

Citation
[2019] AfCHPR 17
Parties
Applicant: Shukrani Masegenya Mango; Applicant: Ally Hussein Mwinyi; Applicant: Juma Zuberi Abasi; Applicant: Julius Joshua Masanja; Applicant: Michael Jairos; Applicant: Azizi Athuman Buyogela; Applicant: Samwel M Mtakibidya; Respondent: United Republic of Tanzania
Court
African Court on Human and Peoples Rights
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
26 September 2019
Case Number
Application No. 008/2015
Procedural Posture
Application / Judgment (merits and Reparations)
Outcome
Application dismissed in part; admissible only as to the legality of the armed robbery sentences for the First and Seventh Applicants; all substantive claims dismissed; no reparations awarded; each party to bear its own costs.
Legal Topics
Presidential Prerogative of Mercy, Minimum Sentences, Armed Robbery Sentencing, Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies, Fair Trial Rights
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Presidential Prerogative of Mercy Minimum Sentences Armed Robbery Sentencing Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies Fair Trial Rights

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 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shukrani Masegenya Mango

Applicant

Ally Hussein Mwinyi

Applicant

Juma Zuberi Abasi

Applicant

Julius Joshua Masanja

Applicant

Michael Jairos

Applicant

Azizi Athuman Buyogela

Applicant

Samwel M Mtakibidya

Applicant

United Republic of Tanzania

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application / Judgment (merits and Reparations)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent State's exercise of the presidential prerogative of mercy discriminates against prisoners serving long-term sentences.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicants failed to exhaust domestic remedies before approaching the Court.
  3. 3 Whether the sentences of thirty years for armed robbery imposed on the First and Seventh Applicants were lawful and constitutional.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Applicants, except for the First and Seventh Applicants regarding the legality of their sentences, failed to exhaust available domestic remedies as required by Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 40(5) of the Rules. The Applicants could have challenged the exercise of the presidential prerogative of mercy and related statutory provisions through a constitutional petition in the High Court of Tanzania, but chose not to do so, rendering their claims inadmissible. For the First and Seventh Applicants, the Court held that the minimum sentence for armed robbery has been thirty years since 1994, and their sentences were imposed in accordance with the law. The Court...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed in part; admissible only as to the legality of the armed robbery sentences for the First and Seventh Applicants; all substantive claims dismissed; no reparations awarded; each party to bear its own costs.

Orders

  • The Court dismisses the objections on lack of jurisdiction and declares it has jurisdiction.
  • The Application is inadmissible in relation to all Applicants regarding the exercise of the presidential prerogative of mercy for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.