Wakilii

Jogoo v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 014-2018)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2025] AfCHPR 20 · 2025 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 deportation and prohibited immigrant status
Decision
Application declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust 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 on Human and Peoples' Rights held that it had jurisdiction to hear the application because it was filed before Tanzania's withdrawal of its Article 34(6) declaration took effect. However, the Court declared the application inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies, finding that the applicant did not appeal the District Court's deportation order while on bail and did not demonstrate that he attempted to file cases through a legal representative after being barred from Tanzania.

Outcome

Application declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies

Facts

The applicant, a Mauritian national and director of Cimexpan Limited, entered into a concession contract with the Government of Zanzibar in 1999 for construction of a free zone park. In September 2001, the Government revoked the contract citing inability to secure funding and the applicant was deported to Kenya. He returned to Zanzibar, was arrested as an illegal immigrant, and his passport was stamped with a Prohibited Immigrant label. On 22 January 2002, he was arraigned before the Mwanakwerekwe District Court. On 4 February 2002, the District Court granted him bail for three months, after which he was to be deported to Mauritius. He was deported at the end of the three-month period. The applicant subsequently requested waiver of his Prohibited Immigrant status to recover his assets, but this was refused. In 2009, he filed a case before the SADC Tribunal, which dismissed it for failure to exhaust local remedies. He filed the present application in 2018, alleging violations of his rights to fair trial, property, and other rights under the African Charter.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the application given Tanzania's withdrawal of its declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol.
  2. Whether the application is admissible, particularly whether the applicant exhausted local remedies as required by Article 56(5) of the Charter.

Orders

  • Declares that it has jurisdiction.
  • Declares the Application inadmissible.
  • Orders each Party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Jurisdiction — Withdrawal of Article 34(6) Declaration — Temporal Effect
The withdrawal of a State's declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol to the African Charter does not apply retroactively and only takes effect one year after the notice of withdrawal has been deposited, and does not affect applications filed before the effective date of withdrawal.
Human Rights — Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Burden of Proof
The rule of exhaustion of local remedies aims at providing states the opportunity to resolve cases of alleged human rights violations within their jurisdiction before an international human rights body is called upon to determine the State's responsibility, and for local remedies to be exhausted, the applicant must have presented before domestic courts, at least in substance, the violations alleged before the international court.
Civil Procedure — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Failure to Appeal — Effect on Admissibility
Where an applicant is granted bail pending deportation and has the opportunity and time to appeal a deportation order but fails to do so without providing reasons, the applicant has failed to exhaust local remedies and the application is inadmissible.
Civil Procedure — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Prohibited Immigrant Status — Legal Representation
An applicant's prohibited immigrant status does not excuse failure to exhaust local remedies where the applicant does not demonstrate that he attempted to file cases through a legal representative and was denied the opportunity to do so.
Civil Procedure — Admissibility Requirements — Cumulative Nature
The admissibility requirements under Article 56 of the African Charter and Rule 50(2) of the Rules of Court are cumulative, and where an application fails to satisfy one requirement, the Court need not rule on the remaining requirements.

Legislation cited (18)

  • 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 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)
  • 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)
  • 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(1)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 9(1)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 14
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 16
  • 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)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(7)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 14
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 19
  • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Article 12
  • Tanzania Immigration Act, 1995

Cases cited (12)

  • Andrew Ambrose Cheusi v United Republic of Tanzania (26 June 2020) 4 AfCLR 219
  • Bernard Ambataayela Mornah v Republic of Benin and 7 Others (Application No. 028/2018)
  • Léon Mugesera v Republic of Rwanda (27 November 2020) 4 AfCLR 834
  • African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Libya (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 153
  • Ligue Ivorienne des Droits de l'Homme and Others v Republic of Côte d'Ivoire (Application No. 041/2016)
  • Peter Joseph Chacha v United Republic of Tanzania (28 March 2014) 1 AfCLR 398
  • Almas Mohamed Muwinda and Others v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 030/2017)
  • African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Republic of Kenya (26 May 2017) 2 AfCLR 9
  • Mariam Kouma and Ousmane Diabaté v Republic of Mali (21 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 237
  • Rutabingwa Chrysanthe v Republic of Rwanda (11 May 2018) 2 AfCLR 361
  • Collectif des Anciens Travailleurs du Laboratoire ALS v Republic of Mali (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 73
  • Gabriel Shumba v. Zimbabwe

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Jogoo v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 014-2018) [2025] AfCHPR 20 (26 June 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.