Wakilii

Chalula v United Republic of Tanzania (003-2018)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2025] AfCHPR 7 · 2025 Application Partly Allowed 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 violations of rights arising from domestic criminal conviction and mandatory death sentence
Decision
Death sentence vacated and applicant removed from death row pending new sentencing hearing without mandatory death penalty provisions

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 Tanzania violated the applicant's right to life by imposing a mandatory death sentence and violated his right to dignity through the method of execution by hanging. The Court ordered vacation of the death sentence, a new sentencing hearing without mandatory death penalty provisions, and payment of moral damages. The Court dismissed claims of discrimination, inequality before the law, and unfair trial violations.

Outcome

Death sentence vacated and applicant removed from death row pending new sentencing hearing without mandatory death penalty provisions

Facts

On 31 March 1991, the Applicant and a friend murdered Selemani Abdulla Rai with a machete during a robbery while travelling to Kanyega goldmines. The Applicant was arrested and charged with murder. His co-accused was released two years later after the prosecution filed a nolle prosequi. On 7 March 1995, the High Court of Tanzania sitting in Sumbawanga convicted the Applicant of murder and sentenced him to death. The Applicant appealed to the Mbeya Court of Appeal, which on 10 June 1999 rejected the appeal and upheld both the conviction and death sentence. The Applicant remained incarcerated on death row in Uyui Central Prison, Tabora, awaiting execution. He filed this Application before the African Court on 19 February 2018, alleging violations of his rights under the African Charter arising from the domestic proceedings and the mandatory nature of the death sentence.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court has material jurisdiction to adjudicate the Application
  2. Whether the Court has temporal jurisdiction to examine the Application
  3. Whether the Applicant exhausted local remedies before filing the Application
  4. Whether the Application was filed within a reasonable time
  5. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to non-discrimination under Article 2 of the Charter
  6. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law under Article 3 of the Charter
  7. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to life under Article 4 of the Charter by imposing a mandatory death sentence
  8. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to dignity under Article 5 of the Charter through the method of execution by hanging
  9. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to a fair trial under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter

Orders

  • Dismissed the objection to material jurisdiction
  • Declared that it has jurisdiction
  • Dismissed the objections to admissibility based on non-exhaustion of local remedies and failure to file within reasonable time
  • Declared the Application admissible
  • Held that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant's right to non-discrimination under Article 2 of the Charter
  • Held that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant's right to equality before the law and equal protection under Article 3 of the Charter
  • Held that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant's right to a fair trial under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter
  • Held that the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to life under Article 4 of the Charter by reason of mandatory imposition of the death penalty
  • Held that the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to inherent dignity under Article 5 of the Charter in relation to the method of execution by hanging
  • Dismissed the prayers for reparations for material prejudice
  • Dismissed the prayers for reparation for moral prejudice suffered by indirect victims
  • Ordered the Respondent State to pay the Applicant Three Hundred Thousand Tanzanian Shillings (TZS 300,000) as reparation for moral prejudice suffered
  • Ordered payment to be made tax-free within six months of service of the Judgment with default interest at the Central Bank of Tanzania rate
  • Dismissed the Applicant's prayer for release
  • Ordered the Respondent State to vacate the death penalty imposed on Applicant and remove him from death row
  • Ordered the Respondent State to take all necessary measures within one year to retry the case in a procedure which does not provide for mandatory death penalty and upholds judicial discretion
  • Ordered the Respondent State to expunge from its criminal code the imposition of mandatory death penalty within six months
  • Ordered the Respondent State to expunge hanging as method of enforcing the death penalty within six months
  • Ordered the Respondent State to publish the judgment on the websites of the Judiciary and Ministry for Constitutional and Judicial Affairs within six months
  • Ordered the Respondent State to submit reports on implementation within six months and thereafter every six months until full implementation
  • Ordered that each Party bears its own costs

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Right to Life — Mandatory Death Penalty — Violation of Article 4 of the African Charter
The mandatory imposition of the death penalty without judicial discretion in sentencing constitutes a violation of the right to life guaranteed under Article 4 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
Human Rights — Right to Dignity — Method of Execution — Hanging
Hanging as a method of executing the death penalty constitutes a violation of the right to inherent dignity as guaranteed under Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
Human Rights — Jurisdiction — Material Jurisdiction — Appellate Function
Although the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights is not an appellate body with respect to decisions of national courts, this does not preclude it from examining proceedings of national courts to determine whether they were conducted in accordance with the standards set out in the Charter or any other human rights instruments ratified by the State concerned.
Human Rights — Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Extraordinary Remedies
An application for review of a judgment of the Court of Appeal is an extraordinary remedy that an applicant is not required to exhaust prior to seizing the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights.
Human Rights — Admissibility — Reasonable Time — Incarcerated Applicants
In assessing whether an application was filed within a reasonable time, the Court considers the specific circumstances of the case including whether the applicant was incarcerated, on death row, had limited mobility and access to information, was lay in law, had not received legal assistance, and had no knowledge of the existence of the Court.
Human Rights — Reparations — Release — Conditions for Ordering Release
The African Court can order release only if an applicant sufficiently demonstrates or if the Court by itself establishes from its findings that the applicant's arrest or conviction is based entirely on arbitrary considerations and that continued detention would occasion a miscarriage of justice.
Human Rights — Reparations — New Sentencing Hearing — Mandatory Death Penalty
Where a violation of the right to life arises from the mandatory nature of a death sentence, the appropriate remedy is to order a new sentencing hearing in a procedure that does not provide for the mandatory death penalty and upholds the discretionary power of the judge.

Legislation cited (12)

  • 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 4
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 5
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)(c)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 6(2)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 27(1)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 30
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 34(6)
  • Constitutive Act of the African Union Article 3(h)

Cases cited (37)

  • Andrew Ambrose Cheusi v United Republic of Tanzania (26 June 2020) 4 AfCLR 219
  • Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania
  • Umalo Mussa v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 031/2016)
  • Nguza Viking and Johnson Nguza v United Republic of Tanzania (23 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 287
  • Armand Guehi v United Republic of Tanzania (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 477
  • Evodius Rutechura v United Republic of Tanzania (26 February 2021) 5 AfCLR 7
  • Mtikila v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits)
  • Kennedy Ivan v United Republic of Tanzania (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 48
  • Beneficiaries of Norbert Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso (21 June 2013) 1 AfCLR 197
  • Urban Mkandawire v. Malawi
  • Peter Joseph Chacha v. Tanzania
  • Christopher Jonas v United Republic of Tanzania (28 September 2017) 2 AfCLR 101
  • Mgosi Mwita Makungu v. United Republic of Tanzania
  • African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v. Kenya (merits)
  • Mohamed Aboubakari v. Tanzania
  • Igola Iguna v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 020/2017)
  • Chrizostom Benyoma v United Republic of Tanzania (30 September 2021) 5 AfCLR 360
  • Amini Juma v United Republic of Tanzania (30 September 2021) 5 AfCLR 431
  • Sijaona Chacha Machera v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 035/2017)
  • Yassin Rashid Maige v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 018/2017)
  • Sadick Marwa Kisase v United Republic of Tanzania (2 December 2021) 5 AfCLR 728
  • Kennedy Owino Onyachi and Charles John Mwanini Njoka v United Republic of Tanzania (28 September 2017) 2 AfCLR 65
  • Ally Rajabu and Others v United Republic of Tanzania (28 November 2019) 3 AfCLR 539
  • Gozbert Henerico v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 056/2016)
  • Kijiji Isiaga v United Republic of Tanzania (21 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 218
  • Norbert Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso (5 June 2015) 1 AfCLR 265
  • Reverend Christopher R. Mtikila v United Republic of Tanzania (13 June 2014) 1 AfCLR 72
  • Christopher Jonas v United Republic of Tanzania (25 September 2020) 4 AfCLR 545
  • Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v Republic of Rwanda (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 202
  • Lucien Ikili Rashidi v United Republic of Tanzania (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 13
  • Minani Evarist v United Republic of Tanzania (21 September 2018) 2 AfCLR 402
  • Mgosi Mwita Makungu v United Republic of Tanzania (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 550
  • Dominick Damian v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 048/2016)
  • Crospery Gabriel and Another v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 050/2016)
  • Nzigiyimana Zabron v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 51/2016)
  • Romward William v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 030/2016)
  • Deogratius Nichlaus Jeshi v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 017/2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Chalula v United Republic of Tanzania (003-2018) [2025] AfCHPR 7 (5 February 2025)
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.