Wakilii

Anthony and Another v Tanzania (Ruling) (Application No. 015-2015)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2019] AfCHPR 18 · 2019 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights alleging human rights violations arising from criminal convictions in Tanzania
Decision
Application declared inadmissible for failure to file within a reasonable time

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights held that it has jurisdiction to examine alleged human rights violations arising from domestic criminal proceedings, but declared the application inadmissible because it was not filed within a reasonable time. The Court found that five years and four months elapsed between the date Tanzania deposited its Article 34(6) Declaration and the filing of the application, and the Applicants provided no material evidence justifying this delay.

Outcome

Application declared inadmissible for failure to file within a reasonable time

Facts

The Applicants were convicted in Tanzania of conspiracy to commit a felony and armed robbery in 1999. The first Applicant was initially sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment; the second Applicant was initially acquitted. On appeal to the High Court in 2003, the first Applicant's sentence was increased to 30 years under the amended Minimum Sentences Act, and the second Applicant's acquittal was overturned with a 30-year sentence imposed. The second Applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which upheld both convictions in 2004. Tanzania deposited its Article 34(6) Declaration allowing individual access to the African Court in March 2010. The Applicants filed their application before the African Court in July 2015, alleging violations of their rights under the African Charter.

Issues

  1. Whether the African Court has material jurisdiction to examine alleged human rights violations arising from domestic criminal proceedings.
  2. Whether the Applicants exhausted local remedies before filing the Application.
  3. Whether the Application was filed within a reasonable time after exhaustion of local remedies.

Orders

  • Objections to jurisdiction dismissed.
  • Court has jurisdiction.
  • Objection to admissibility based on non-exhaustion of local remedies dismissed.
  • Application was not filed within a reasonable time.
  • Application declared inadmissible.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Jurisdiction of African Court — Material Jurisdiction — Examination of Domestic Proceedings
The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights has material jurisdiction to examine alleged violations of rights protected by the African Charter, the Protocol, or any other international human rights instruments ratified by a respondent State, and this jurisdiction includes examining relevant proceedings in national courts to determine whether they accord with the standards set out in those instruments, without the Court arrogating to itself the status of an appellate court.
Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Extraordinary Remedies
An applicant before the African Court is only required to exhaust ordinary judicial remedies; constitutional petition procedures and review procedures at the highest appellate court are extraordinary remedies in the Tanzanian judicial system and are not required to be exhausted prior to filing an application before the African Court.
Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Incidental Consideration by Appellate Court
Where an applicant's matter has been addressed by the highest domestic court, albeit incidentally in the course of considering a co-accused's appeal, and any appeal the applicant could have filed would have been unlikely to result in a different outcome, the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies is satisfied for purposes of access to the African Court.
Admissibility — Reasonable Time — Factors for Determination
The reasonableness of the time taken to file an application before the African Court after exhaustion of local remedies depends on the particular circumstances of each case and must be determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration factors such as imprisonment, lack of legal assistance, indigence, illiteracy, lack of awareness of the Court's existence, intimidation, fear of reprisal, and the use of extraordinary remedies.
Admissibility — Reasonable Time — Burden of Proof
Where applicants have not asserted or provided proof that they are illiterate, lay, or had no knowledge of the existence of the African Court, and have not provided material evidence on the basis of which the Court can conclude that a delay of over five years was reasonable, the application fails to comply with the requirement that it be filed within a reasonable time after exhaustion of local remedies.

Legislation cited (23)

  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3(1)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 34(6)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 5(3)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 6(2)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 2
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(5)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(6)
  • Rules of Court Rule 8(2)
  • Rules of Court Rule 26
  • Rules of Court Rule 30
  • Rules of Court Rule 39(1)
  • Rules of Court Rule 40
  • Rules of Court Rule 40(5)
  • Rules of Court Rule 40(6)
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania Article 13(b)(c)
  • Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act (Tanzania) Chapter 3
  • Penal Code (Tanzania) Article 384
  • Penal Code (Tanzania) Article 285
  • Penal Code (Tanzania) Article 286
  • Minimum Sentences Act 1972 (Tanzania)

Cases cited (21)

  • Peter Joseph Chacha v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 003/2012)
  • Alex Thomas v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 005/2013)
  • Oscar Josiah v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 053/2016)
  • Ernest Francis Mtingwi v Republic of Malawi (Application No. 001/2013)
  • Kenedy Ivan v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 025/2016)
  • Armand Guehi v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 024/2015)
  • Nguza Viking and Johnson Nguza v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 006/2015)
  • Christopher Jonas v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 011/2015)
  • Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v Republic of Rwanda (Application No. 003/2014)
  • Mohamed Abubakari v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 007/2013)
  • Beneficiaries of the Late Norbert Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso (Application No. 013/2011)
  • Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and 9 Others v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 006/2013)
  • Diocles William v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 016/2016)
  • African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Republic of Kenya (Application No. 006/2012)
  • Kijiji Isiaga v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 023/2015)
  • Amiri Ramadhani v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 010/2015)
  • Association Pour le progress et la Defense des droit des Femme Maliennes v Republic of Mali (Application No. 046/2016)
  • Werema Wangoko v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 024/2015)
  • Alfred Agbes Woyome v Republic of Ghana (Application No. 001/2017)
  • Mariam Kouma and Ousmane Diabaté v Republic of Mali (Application No. 024/2016)
  • Rutabingwa Chrysanthe v Republic of Rwanda (Application No. 022/2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Anthony and Another v Tanzania (Ruling) (Application No. 015-2015) [2019] AfCHPR 18 (26 September 2019)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.