Wakilii

Kalijo v United Republic of Tanzania (Application 026-2017)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2023] AfCHPR 39 · 2023 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 violations of rights during domestic criminal proceedings
Decision
Application declared inadmissible for failure to file within a reasonable time after 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 on Human and Peoples' Rights held that it has jurisdiction to examine applications alleging violations of rights protected by the African Charter, even where the applicant seeks orders that would affect domestic court decisions, provided the Court is not sitting as an appellate body. However, the Court found the application inadmissible because it was filed six years, two months and two days after exhaustion of local remedies, which was not a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 56(6) of the Charter.

Outcome

Application declared inadmissible for failure to file within a reasonable time after exhaustion of local remedies

Facts

The Applicant, a Tanzanian national, was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to thirty years imprisonment by the District Court of Nzega on 21 September 2005. The conviction arose from a robbery on 10 April 2004 in which the Applicant and two others broke into a shop, stole cash and goods at gunpoint, and shot the owner. The Applicant's appeals to the High Court and Court of Appeal were dismissed, with the Court of Appeal rendering its final judgment on 29 June 2011. The Applicant filed an application to the African Court on 31 August 2017, alleging violations of his rights to non-discrimination, equality before the law, and fair trial under the African Charter.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court has material jurisdiction to examine the Application and grant the relief sought.
  2. Whether the Application was filed after exhausting local remedies.
  3. Whether the Application was filed within a reasonable time after exhaustion of local remedies.

Orders

  • Objection to jurisdiction dismissed.
  • Court has jurisdiction.
  • Objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies dismissed.
  • Application was not filed within a reasonable time.
  • Application declared inadmissible.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Admissibility — Reasonable Time — Incarceration
An applicant who is incarcerated must demonstrate how their personal situation prevented them from filing an application in a timelier manner; it is insufficient to simply plead incarceration, lay status, or indigence without providing compelling arguments and sufficient evidence showing that these circumstances prevented more timely filing.
Human Rights — Admissibility — Reasonable Time — Six Year Delay
A delay of six years, two months and two days between exhaustion of local remedies and filing an application before the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights is not a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 56(6) of the African Charter, even where the applicant was incarcerated and claimed lack of awareness of the Court's existence.
Human Rights — Jurisdiction — Material Jurisdiction — Appellate Function
The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights is not an appellate body with respect to decisions of national courts, but this does not preclude it from examining relevant proceedings in national courts to determine whether they are in accordance with the standards set out in the Charter or any other human rights instruments ratified by the State concerned.
Human Rights — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Bundle of Rights
Where an alleged violation of the right to legal aid occurred during domestic judicial proceedings and forms part of the bundle of rights relating to fair trial which was the basis of appeals, domestic judicial authorities have ample opportunity to address the allegation even without the applicant having raised it explicitly, and it would be unreasonable to require a new application to a lower court after the highest court has ruled.
Human Rights — Withdrawal of Declaration — Retroactive Effect
The withdrawal of a State's declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol accepting the Court's jurisdiction to receive applications from individuals does not have retroactive effect and has no bearing on matters pending prior to filing of the instrument of withdrawal or new cases filed before the withdrawal takes effect twelve months after deposit of the notice.

Legislation cited (21)

  • 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 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 2
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3(1)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3(2)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(1)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(2)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(3)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(4)
  • 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)
  • Rules of Court Rule 9(2)
  • Rules of Court Rule 32(2)
  • Rules of Court Rule 49(1)
  • Rules of Court Rule 50(1)
  • Rules of Court Rule 50(2)

Cases cited (18)

  • Andrew Ambrose Cheusi v United Republic of Tanzania (Application 004-2015)
  • Kalebi Elisamehe v United Republic of Tanzania (Application 016-2017)
  • Diocles William v United Republic of Tanzania (Application 016-2016)
  • Armand Guéhi v United Republic of Tanzania (Application 001-2015)
  • Ernest Francis Mtingwi v Republic of Malawi (Application 003-2012)
  • Kennedy Ivan v United Republic of Tanzania (Application 002-2017)
  • Rajabu Yusuph v United Republic of Tanzania (Application 036-2017)
  • Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v United Republic of Rwanda (Application 003-2014)
  • Beneficiaries of late Norbert Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso (Application 013-2011)
  • African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Republic of Kenya (Application 006-2012)
  • Alex Thomas v United Republic of Tanzania (Application 005-2013)
  • Beneficiaries of late Norbert Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso (Application 013-2011)
  • Kijiji Isiaga v United Republic of Tanzania (Application 032-2015)
  • Nguza Viking and Johnson Nguza v United Republic of Tanzania (Application 006-2015)
  • Layford Makene v United Republic of Tanzania (Application 028-2017)
  • Jean Claude Roger Gombert v Côte d'Ivoire (Application 022-2016)
  • Dexter Eddie Johnson v Republic of Ghana (Application 016-2017)
  • Abdallah Sospeter Mabomba and Others v United Republic of Tanzania (Application 017-2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kalijo v United Republic of Tanzania (Application 026-2017) [2023] AfCHPR 39 (7 November 2023)
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.