Wakilii

Anudo v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 012-2015)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2021] AfCHPR 2 · 2021 Reparations Awarded AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for reparations following judgment on merits finding violations of human rights
Decision
Reparations awarded to Applicant and indirect victims; Respondent State ordered to restore Applicant's citizenship, allow his return, amend legislation, and publish judgments

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 awarded reparations to the Applicant following its earlier finding that Tanzania violated his right to nationality, arbitrarily expelled him, and denied him the right to be heard. The Court awarded TZS 146,200,000 for lost employment income, TZS 10,000,000 for loss of business, TZS 3,000,000 for vehicle damage, and TZS 20,000,000 for moral prejudice to the Applicant. The Court also awarded TZS 40,000,000 to his four children and TZS 10,000,000 to his parents for moral prejudice as indirect victims. Non-pecuniary measures included orders for Tanzania to restore the Applicant's citizenship, allow his return, amend legislation to provide judicial remedies for citizenship disputes, and publish the judgments.

Outcome

Reparations awarded to Applicant and indirect victims; Respondent State ordered to restore Applicant's citizenship, allow his return, amend legislation, and publish judgments

Facts

The Applicant, a Tanzanian national, was arrested on 31 October 2013, detained, had his passport confiscated, was declared an illegal immigrant, and was expelled from Tanzania to Kenya. He was subsequently removed from Kenya and lived in a no-man's land between Tanzania and Kenya for approximately four years in difficult conditions before becoming a refugee in Uganda. At the time of his expulsion, the Applicant was employed as Director of an NGO and Coordinator of a water project, earning TZS 3,400,000 monthly. He also owned a sawmill business and a secondary school, owned two houses under construction, two motor vehicles, and a motorcycle. The African Court found in its judgment on merits of 22 March 2018 that Tanzania violated the Applicant's right to nationality under Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, arbitrarily expelled him, and violated his right to be heard under Article 7 of the African Charter and Article 14 of the ICCPR. The Applicant filed submissions on reparations on 1 June 2018.

Issues

  1. What pecuniary reparations should be awarded to the Applicant for material prejudice suffered as a result of violations of his human rights?
  2. What pecuniary reparations should be awarded to the Applicant for moral prejudice suffered as a result of violations of his human rights?
  3. What pecuniary reparations should be awarded to indirect victims (family members) for moral prejudice?
  4. What non-pecuniary reparations should be ordered to remedy the violations found?
  5. Should costs be awarded to either party?

Orders

  • Dismisses the Applicant's prayer for reparation for material prejudice for loss of income from his school, Kihesa Mgagao Secondary School.
  • Dismisses the Applicant's prayer for reparation for material prejudice supposedly caused by the abandonment of two houses under construction.
  • Dismisses the Applicant's prayer for reparation for material prejudice allegedly resulting from the Applicant continuing to pay rent for a house to store his belongings.
  • Dismisses the Applicant's prayer for reparation for moral prejudice allegedly suffered by his sister, grandmother, companions and alleged fiancée.
  • Grants the Applicant's prayer for reparation for material prejudice for the loss of income from his employment and awards him the sum of One Hundred and Forty-Six Million Two Hundred Thousand Tanzanian Shillings (TZS 146,200,000).
  • Grants the Applicant's prayer for reparation for material prejudice from the loss of his Sawmill businesses and awards him a lump sum of Ten Million Tanzanian Shillings (TZS 10,000,000).
  • Grants the Applicant's prayer for reparation for material prejudice owing to damage caused to two motor vehicles and one motorcycle and awards him a lump sum of Three Million Tanzanian Shillings (TZS 3,000,000).
  • Grants the Applicant's prayer for reparation for moral prejudice he suffered due to the violations found and awards him the sum of Twenty Million Tanzanian Shillings (TZS 20,000,000).
  • Awards Ten Million Tanzanian Shillings (TZS 10,000,000) to each of his four children Lucas Anudo, Lightness Anudo, Nuru Anudo and Fatuma Anudo, that is, a total of Forty Million Tanzanian Shillings (TZS 40,000,000).
  • Awards Five Million Tanzanian Shillings (TZS 5,000,000) each to his father Achok Anudo, and mother Dorka Owuondo, that is, a total of Ten Million Tanzanian shillings (TZS 10,000,000).
  • Orders the Respondent State to pay the amounts stated above, free from taxes, effective six (6) months from the date of notification of this Judgment, failing which, it will pay interest on arrears calculated on the basis of the applicable rate of the Central Bank of the United Republic of Tanzania, throughout the period of delayed payment until the amount is fully paid.
  • Orders the Respondent State to take all the necessary steps to restore the Applicant's rights, by allowing him to return to the national territory, ensuring his protection and submitting a report to the Court within forty-five (45) days of notification of this Judgment.
  • Orders the Respondent State to amend its legislation to provide individuals with judicial remedies in the event of a challenge to their citizenship.
  • Orders the Respondent State to publish the Judgment on the merits of 22 March 2018 and this Judgment on reparations, on the website of the Judiciary, and the Ministry for Constitutional and Legal Affairs, and to ensure that these Judgments remain accessible for at least one (1) year after the date of the publication.
  • Orders the Respondent State to submit to it, within six (6) months of the date of notification of this Judgment, a report on measures taken to implement the orders set forth herein and thereafter, every six (6) months until the Court considers that there has been full implementation of the judgment.
  • Orders each Party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Reparations — Pecuniary Damages — Material Prejudice — Burden and Standard of Proof
To establish material prejudice, an applicant must demonstrate a causal link between the established violation and the harm suffered, and must prove the harm with documentary evidence; however, human rights courts must proceed on a case-by-case basis and are sensitive to difficulties victims may face in obtaining evidence due to the destruction or unavailability of evidence resulting from the human rights violations themselves, and may award reparations in fairness based on internal consistency, level of detail, and plausibility of applications where documentation is incomplete or non-existent.
Reparations — Pecuniary Damages — Moral Prejudice — Presumption
Moral prejudice is presumed in cases of human rights violations, and consequently the burden of proof shifts to the respondent state contesting claims of moral prejudice to prove the contrary.
Reparations — Pecuniary Damages — Employment Loss — Proof of Employment Relationship
While the relationship between an employee and employer is generally evidenced in a written employment contract, a contract may be oral or implied and still be valid; salary payment slips bearing the employer's name constitute sufficient evidence of an employment relationship where the applicant was expelled under difficult circumstances making it impossible to produce other documentary proof.
Reparations — Pecuniary Damages — Business Loss — Proof of Ownership and Investment
Certificates of business registration and tax certificates suffice to prove that commercial ventures belong to an applicant; while accounting records and balance sheets could prove profitability, the court can infer from the mere existence of registered businesses that the applicant made investments and logically expected income from them, particularly where the applicant was expelled under circumstances where the normal standard of material evidence cannot be applied strictly.
Reparations — Indirect Victims — Definition and Proof Requirements
Direct or close family members who have suffered physically or psychologically as a result of the victim's situation are indirect victims and can claim reparation; spouses, parents and children are automatically presumed to be indirect victims and to have suffered moral prejudice, but the applicant must produce marriage certificates or equivalent proof of filiation for spouses, birth certificates or equivalent evidence for children, and attestation of paternity or maternity for parents; for other persons such as siblings to be considered indirect victims, the applicant must demonstrate and prove with relevant documentation both the filiation and that he or she was responsible for their welfare such that the violations adversely impacted their social situation.
Reparations — Non-Pecuniary Measures — Publication as Satisfaction
Publication of judgments of international human rights courts as a measure of satisfaction is common practice; where violations involve arbitrary revocation of nationality and expulsion based on an illegal immigrant status label, and in view of the nature of violations and the need to emphasise the respondent state's obligations and required reparations, publication of both the judgment on merits and the judgment on reparations is necessary.
Reparations — Costs — Legal Aid Representation
Where an applicant was represented on a pro bono basis under the court's legal aid scheme and the court facilitated the representatives' incidental costs under that scheme, the applicant's prayer for reimbursement of costs is unjustified and each party shall bear its own costs.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 22
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 27(1)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 28(7)
  • Rules of Court Rule 9(2)
  • Rules of Court Rule 32(2)
  • Rules of Court Rule 70
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 15
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 14
  • Tanzania Employment and Labour Relations Act Chapter 366 s.14(2)

Cases cited (14)

  • Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v Rwanda (Application No. 003/2014)
  • Mohamed Abubakari v Tanzania (Application No. 007/2013)
  • Alex Thomas v Tanzania (Application No. 005/2013)
  • Lucien Ikili v Tanzania (Application No. 009/2015)
  • Beneficiaries of the late Norbert Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso
  • Lohé Issa Konaté v Burkina Faso
  • Amir Ramadhani v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 010/2015)
  • Christopher Mtikila v Tanzania
  • Reverend Mitikila v Tanzania
  • Wilfred Onyango v Tanzania
  • Prosecutor v Katanga (ICC-01/04-01/07)
  • Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v Colombia
  • Case of Plan de Sánchez Massacre v Guatemala
  • Anudo Ochieng Anudo v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 012/2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Anudo v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 012-2015) [2021] AfCHPR 2 (2 December 2021)
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.