Wakilii

Chacha v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 003-2012)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2014] AfCHPR 46 · 2014 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 violation of fundamental rights during criminal proceedings in Tanzania
Decision
Application declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies

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 held by a majority of six to four that the application was inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies. The Court found that the applicant had filed multiple applications in the High Court of Tanzania which were dismissed, struck out or withdrawn, and that he failed to appeal these decisions to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania. The Court rejected the applicant's argument that local remedies were unduly prolonged, finding that the applications took between six months and two years to conclude and that the total time was not unreasonable given the number of applications filed.

Outcome

Application declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies

Facts

The applicant, a Tanzanian national, was detained by police on 26 October 2007 when he went to enquire about his wife's detention. His wife had been arrested on 12 September 2007 in connection with an alleged robbery, and the applicant's property was seized on the same date without a search warrant or certificate of seizure. The applicant was held at the police station for fourteen days before being brought before a magistrate on 8 November 2007. He was subsequently charged with multiple counts of conspiracy, robbery, murder, armed robbery, rape and kidnapping in eight separate criminal cases between 2007 and 2009. The applicant remained in custody pending trial from October 2007 until his release on 3 May 2013, a period of approximately five and a half years. During this time, he filed seven applications in the High Court of Tanzania seeking enforcement of his constitutional rights, restitution of his property, and withdrawal of the criminal charges. These applications were dismissed, struck out for procedural irregularities, or withdrawn. The applicant was eventually acquitted in some of the criminal cases, while others were withdrawn or dismissed.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court has jurisdiction ratione materiae over the application where the applicant cited only provisions of the Tanzanian Constitution and domestic legislation.
  2. Whether the application is admissible where the applicant has not exhausted local remedies.
  3. Whether the application was filed within a reasonable time from the exhaustion of local remedies.
  4. Whether the applicant's arrest, detention, interrogation and charging violated his rights under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
  5. Whether the seizure of the applicant's property was lawful under Tanzanian law and the African Charter.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection on the lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae is overruled.
  • The preliminary objection on inadmissibility for incompatibility with the Charter of the Organisation of African Unity and the African Charter is overruled.
  • The preliminary objection on inadmissibility for non-exhaustion of local remedies is allowed.
  • The application is declared inadmissible.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Jurisdiction of African Court — Interpretation of Domestic Law — Compatibility with African Charter
The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights has jurisdiction to examine the compatibility of national legislation, including national constitutions, with the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. Where an application cites only provisions of domestic law, the Court will identify corresponding articles in the Charter and base its decision thereon, provided the rights allegedly violated are protected by the Charter or any other human rights instrument ratified by the State concerned.
Admissibility — Specification of Charter Provisions — Substance over Form
An application to the African Court need not specify the particular provisions of the African Charter alleged to have been violated. It is sufficient that the substance of the complaint relates to rights guaranteed by the Charter or any other human rights instrument ratified by the State concerned. The Court will consider whether there is prima facie evidence of a violation of human rights guaranteed by the Charter.
Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Burden of Proof — Effectiveness of Remedies
The requirement to exhaust local remedies before seizing the African Court is not a matter of choice but a legal requirement in international law. An applicant who is dissatisfied with the dismissal or striking out of an application in domestic courts has the liberty to appeal to higher courts. Where an applicant fails to appeal decisions dismissing or striking out applications, or withdraws applications without reinstituting them, the applicant has not exhausted local remedies.
Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Undue Prolongation — Assessment of Delay
The exception to the requirement to exhaust local remedies on grounds of undue prolongation applies only where the procedure is manifestly and unreasonably delayed. In assessing whether proceedings are unduly prolonged, the Court will consider the number of applications filed, the average duration of each application, and the total time taken. Where multiple applications are filed within a short period and each is concluded within one to two years, the proceedings are not unduly prolonged.
Expert Evidence — Discretion of Court — Domestic Law as Fact
The appointment of an expert witness falls within the discretion of the African Court. Where an expert is called by one party and the other objects, and the Court has not felt the need for an expert of its own accord, the Court may decline to hear the expert witness. The Court is not obliged to accept expert evidence on the interpretation of domestic procedural law where it does not consider such evidence relevant to the applicable law before it.

Legislation cited (30)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 5
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 6
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 14
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 26
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56
  • 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 6(2)
  • 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)
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania Article 13(1)
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania Article 15(1)
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania Article 15(2)(a)
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania Article 24(1)
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania Article 24(2)
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania Article 30(3)
  • Criminal Procedure Act (Tanzania) Chapter 20 s.13(1)(a)
  • Criminal Procedure Act (Tanzania) Chapter 20 s.13(1)(b)
  • Criminal Procedure Act (Tanzania) Chapter 20 s.32
  • Criminal Procedure Act (Tanzania) Chapter 20 s.33
  • Criminal Procedure Act (Tanzania) Chapter 20 s.38
  • Criminal Procedure Act (Tanzania) Chapter 20 s.50(1)
  • Criminal Procedure Act (Tanzania) Chapter 20 s.52
  • Criminal Procedure Act (Tanzania) Chapter 20 s.90(1)(c)(4)
  • Criminal Procedure Act (Tanzania) Chapter 20 s.91
  • Criminal Procedure Act (Tanzania) Chapter 20 s.98(a)
  • Criminal Procedure Act (Tanzania) Chapter 20 s.225(5)
  • Criminal Procedure Act (Tanzania) Chapter 20 s.357(a)
  • Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act (Tanzania) No. 33 of 1994 s.5
  • National Prosecution Act (Tanzania) No. 27 of 2008 s.31

Cases cited (17)

  • Tanganyika Law Society and The Legal and Human Rights Centre v United Republic of Tanzania; Reverend Christopher Mtikila v United Republic of Tanzania (Consolidated Applications 009/2011 and 011/2011)
  • Urban Mkandawire v Republic of Malawi (Application No. 003/2011)
  • Kenyan Section of the International Commission of Jurists v Kenya (Communication 263/02)
  • Anuak Justice Council v Ethiopia (Communication 299/05)
  • Sir Dawda K. Jawara v The Gambia (Communications 147/95 and 149/96)
  • Director of Public Prosecutions v Shida Manyama and Selemani Mabuba (Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 2012)
  • Alamgir v State of Delhi (2003) ISCC 21
  • Romesh Chandra Aggaraval v Regency Hospital Ltd (2009) 9 SCC 709
  • Prosecutor v Bagasora et al (ICTR-98-41-T)
  • Guerra and Others v Italy, § 44
  • Scoppola v Italy (No 2) [GC], § 54
  • Previti v Italy (Dec), § 293
  • Hilaire v. Trinidad and Tobago Case
  • Southern African Human Rights NGO Network v Tanzania (Communication 333/06)
  • Painagua Morales v Guatemala (Reparations, 2001) paragraph 71
  • Suarez Rosero v Ecuador (Merits), Inter-American Court of Human Rights 12 November 1997 Ser C No 35 paragraph 32
  • Loayza Tamayo v Peru (Reparations, 1998) paragraph 73

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Chacha v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 003-2012) [2014] AfCHPR 46 (28 March 2014)
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.