Wakilii

Jonas v United Republic of Tanzania

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2020] AfCHPR 20 · 2020 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for reparations following a merits judgment finding violation of the right to legal assistance
Decision
Application for reparations partly allowed. Applicant awarded TZS 300,000 for moral prejudice. Claims for material damages, damages to indirect victims, non-repetition guarantees, publication and costs dismissed.

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 Court awarded the applicant TZS 300,000 for moral prejudice arising from Tanzania's violation of his right to legal assistance under Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter. The Court dismissed claims for material damages arising from conviction and incarceration, which had not been found unlawful. Claims for compensation to indirect victims, guarantees of non-repetition, publication of the judgment, and costs were also dismissed.

Outcome

Application for reparations partly allowed. Applicant awarded TZS 300,000 for moral prejudice. Claims for material damages, damages to indirect victims, non-repetition guarantees, publication and costs dismissed.

Facts

Following a judgment on merits dated 28 September 2017 in which the African Court found that Tanzania violated the applicant's right to legal assistance under Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter during his trial for armed robbery, the applicant sought reparations. He had been convicted and sentenced to thirty years imprisonment. The applicant claimed material loss from his inability to continue his street trading business at Kariakoo market, moral damages for himself and his family members, and sought non-pecuniary measures including guarantees of non-repetition and publication of the merits judgment. Tanzania argued that the merits judgment was sufficient reparation and opposed all claims.

Issues

  1. What pecuniary and non-pecuniary reparations should be awarded following the finding that Tanzania violated the applicant's right to legal assistance?
  2. Whether the applicant is entitled to compensation for material loss arising from his conviction and incarceration.
  3. Whether the applicant is entitled to compensation for moral prejudice arising from the violation of his right to legal assistance.
  4. Whether indirect victims (the applicant's mother and siblings) are entitled to compensation for moral prejudice.
  5. Whether the court should order guarantees of non-repetition and periodic reporting.
  6. Whether the court should order publication of the merits judgment as a measure of satisfaction.
  7. Whether the applicant is entitled to costs, legal fees and expenses incurred before the court.

Orders

  • Does not grant the Applicant's prayer for material damages due to his conviction and sentencing.
  • Does not grant the Applicant's prayer for damages for moral prejudice suffered by the indirect victims.
  • Grants the Applicant's prayer for damages for the moral prejudice he suffered and awards him the sum of Tanzanian Shillings Three Hundred Thousand (TZS 300,000).
  • Orders the Respondent State to pay the amount indicated 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 Tanzania throughout the period of delayed payment until the amount is fully paid.
  • Does not grant the Applicant's prayer regarding non-repetition of the violations.
  • Does not grant the Applicant's prayer regarding publication of the Judgment.
  • Orders the Respondent State to submit to this Court, within six (6) months from the date of notification of the present Judgment, a report on the 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 thereof.
  • Does not grant the prayer related to payment of the legal fees, costs and other expenses incurred in proceedings before this Court.
  • Decides that each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Reparations — Scope of Compensable Harm — Causal Link between Violation and Damage
Where a court finds a violation of the right to legal assistance but does not find the conviction and sentencing themselves unlawful, material damages arising from the conviction, sentencing and incarceration are not compensable as they lack the requisite causal link to the established violation.
Reparations — Moral Damages — Presumption and Assessment
Moral prejudice is presumed in cases of human rights violations and need not be proven. Quantum of moral damages is assessed based on equity, taking into account the circumstances of the case, with the court adopting the practice of granting a lump sum.
Damages & Quantum — Moral Damages for Denial of Legal Assistance — Award of TZS 300,000
In instances where legal aid was not provided by the State without any peculiar prevailing circumstances, the African Court awards an average amount of Three Hundred Thousand Tanzanian Shillings (TZS 300,000) as fair compensation for moral prejudice.
Reparations — Indirect Victims — Conditions for Award
Claims for moral prejudice by indirect victims (family members) based on the conviction, sentencing and incarceration of the applicant are not compensable where the conviction and sentence themselves were not found to be unlawful.
Reparations — Guarantees of Non-Repetition — Applicability in Individual Cases
Guarantees of non-repetition are generally aimed at addressing violations that are systemic and structural in nature rather than remedying individual harm. In individual cases, non-repetition orders apply only where there is a likelihood of continued or repeated violations. Where domestic proceedings have concluded and violations are not repetitive in nature, an order for non-repetition is not necessary.
Reparations — Measures of Satisfaction — Publication of Judgment
While a judgment per se may constitute sufficient reparation for an established violation, other measures such as publication of the decision can be ordered as circumstances warrant. Publication is not ordered where there are no peculiar circumstances and the respondent State has taken legislative measures to address the violation.

Legislation cited (7)

  • 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 34(6)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 1
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)(c)
  • Rules of Court Rule 8(2)
  • Rules of Court Rule 30

Cases cited (16)

  • Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v Republic of Rwanda (Withdrawal, Jurisdiction) (African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights No. 1 AfCLR 562 of 2016)
  • Andrew Ambrose Cheusi v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 004/2015)
  • Jebra Kambole v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 018/2018)
  • Mohamed Abubakari v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 007/2013)
  • Alex Thomas v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 005/2013)
  • Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and 9 Others v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 006/2013)
  • Lucien Ikili Rashidi v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 009/2015)
  • Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v Republic of Rwanda (Reparations) (African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights No. 2 AfCLR 202 of 2018)
  • Tanganyika Law Society and Legal and Human Rights Centre v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 009/2011)
  • Lohé Issa Konaté v Burkina Faso (Reparations) (African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights No. 1 AfCLR 346 of 2016)
  • Beneficiaries of Late Norbert Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso (Reparations) (African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights No. 1 AfCLR 258 of 2015)
  • Armand Guehi v United Republic of Tanzania (Merits and Reparations) (African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights No. 2 AfCLR 477 of 2018)
  • Werema Wakongo Werema and Another v United Republic of Tanzania (Merits) (African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights No. 2 AfCLR 520 of 2018)
  • Christopher Jonas v United Republic of Tanzania (Merits) (African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights No. 2 AfCLR 101 of 2017)
  • Minani Evaist v United Republic of Tanzania (Merits) (African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights No. 2 AfCLR 402 of 2018)
  • Anaclet Paulo v United Republic of Tanzania (Merits) (African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights No. 2 AfCLR 446 of 2018)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Jonas v United Republic of Tanzania [2020] AfCHPR 20 (25 September 2020)
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.