Wakilii

Karatta and Others v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 002-2017)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2021] AfCHPR 26 · 2021 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 the African Charter and ICESCR arising from Tanzania's failure to pay terminal benefits to former East African Community employees following the EAC's dissolution in 1977
Decision
Application dismissed on the merits; no violations found

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 and that the Application was admissible. On the merits, the Court found that Tanzania had not violated the Applicants' rights under Articles 2, 3(2), 14, or 15 of the African Charter. The Court held that the Applicants failed to substantiate their claims of discrimination and unequal protection, and that the domestic courts had fairly considered their claims for terminal benefits arising from the dissolution of the East African Community in 1977. The Court dismissed all claims for reparations.

Outcome

Application dismissed on the merits; no violations found

Facts

The Applicants were 1747 former employees of the East African Community (EAC), which dissolved in 1977. They claimed unpaid terminal benefits. In 2003, they sued Tanzania in the High Court. In 2005, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement (Deed of Settlement) agreeing to pay TZS 117 billion in terminal benefits, which was endorsed as a consent judgment and decree. Tanzania commenced payments. In 2010, some beneficiaries alleged discrepancies between amounts paid and amounts ordered. The Applicants applied for a certificate of order for the balance. The High Court dismissed the application in 2010. The Court of Appeal quashed this decision and ordered a rehearing. On rehearing in 2011, the High Court again dismissed the application. The Applicants appealed. In January 2016, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for lack of merit, holding that the Applicants could not reopen negotiations after agreeing to the Deed of Settlement and receiving payments for five years.

Issues

  1. Whether the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights has material jurisdiction to examine the Application.
  2. Whether the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights has temporal jurisdiction to examine the Application.
  3. Whether the Applicants exhausted domestic remedies before filing the Application.
  4. Whether the Application was filed within a reasonable time after exhaustion of domestic remedies.
  5. Whether Tanzania violated the Applicants' right to non-discrimination under Article 2 of the African Charter.
  6. Whether Tanzania violated the Applicants' right to equal protection of the law under Article 3(2) of the African Charter.
  7. Whether Tanzania violated the Applicants' right to property under Article 14 of the African Charter.
  8. Whether Tanzania violated the Applicants' right to work under equitable and satisfactory conditions under Article 15 of the African Charter and Articles 6 and 7 of the ICESCR.

Orders

  • Objections to jurisdiction dismissed.
  • Court declared it has jurisdiction.
  • Objections to admissibility dismissed.
  • Application declared admissible.
  • Tanzania has not violated Article 2 of the African Charter (right to non-discrimination).
  • Tanzania has not violated Article 3(2) of the African Charter (right to equal protection of the law).
  • Tanzania has not violated Article 14 of the African Charter (right to property).
  • Tanzania has not violated Article 15 of the African Charter (right to work).
  • Applicants' prayers for reparations dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

African Court Jurisdiction — Material Jurisdiction — Interpretation of Charter and Human Rights Instruments
The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights has jurisdiction to examine any application alleging violations of rights protected by the African Charter or any other human rights instrument ratified by the respondent State, and in doing so the Court does not sit as an appellate body over national courts but examines whether domestic proceedings comply with Charter standards.
African Court Jurisdiction — Temporal Jurisdiction — Continuing Violations
The African Court's temporal jurisdiction is established if, at the time the alleged violation occurred or continued, the respondent State was a party to the African Charter and the Protocol, and had deposited the Declaration under Article 34(6) accepting the Court's jurisdiction to receive cases from individuals.
Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Bundle of Rights in Labour Disputes
Where an alleged human rights violation occurs in the course of domestic judicial proceedings concerning a labour dispute, domestic courts are afforded an opportunity to pronounce on possible human rights breaches because the alleged violations form part of the bundle of rights related to or forming the basis of the domestic proceedings, and it would be unreasonable to require applicants to lodge a new application before domestic courts to seek relief for such claims.
Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Extraordinary Remedies
An applicant is not required to exhaust extraordinary remedies such as constitutional petition procedures under a Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act; only ordinary judicial remedies that are available, effective, and sufficient must be exhausted.
Right to Non-Discrimination — Burden of Proof — Requirement to Specify Grounds and Comparator
To establish a claim of discrimination under Article 2 of the African Charter, the burden lies with the person alleging discrimination to specify the ground of discrimination and identify a comparator group in a similar situation that has been treated more favourably, before the respondent is required to justify the discriminatory conduct.
Right to Work — Right to Remuneration — Consent Judgments and Settlement Agreements
The right to remuneration is a critical component of the right to work under Article 15 of the African Charter, but where parties have entered into a consent judgment settling a claim for terminal benefits and payments have been made pursuant to that agreement, a subsequent claim for additional payment not forming part of the original agreement amounts to an attempt to reopen negotiations and does not constitute a violation of the right to work.

Legislation cited (15)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 2
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3(2)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 14
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 15
  • 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
  • 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)
  • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Article 6
  • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Article 7
  • East African Community Mediation Agreement of 1984
  • Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act
  • Government Proceedings Act

Cases cited (26)

  • Andrew Ambrose Cheusi v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 004/2015)
  • Urban Mkandawire v Malawi (Application No. 001/2013)
  • Ernest Francis Mtingwi v Malawi (Application No. 001/2013)
  • Kalebi Elisamehe v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 028/2015)
  • Armand Guehi v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 001/2015)
  • Nguza Viking and Johnson Nguza v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 006/2015)
  • Kenedy Ivan v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 025/2016)
  • Tanganyika Law Society and Others v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 009/2011)
  • Jebra Kambole v Tanzania (Application No. 018/2018)
  • Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v United Republic of Rwanda (Application No. 003/2014)
  • African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Republic of Kenya (Application No. 006/2012)
  • Jibu Amir and Another v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 014/2015)
  • Alex Thomas v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 005/2013)
  • Kennedy Owino Onyachi and Another v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 003/2015)
  • Beneficiaries of Late Norbert Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso (Application No. 013/2011)
  • Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and Others v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 006/2013)
  • Oscar Josiah v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 053/2016)
  • Diocles William v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 016/2016)
  • Mohamed Abubakari v Tanzania (Application No. 007/2013)
  • Anudo Ochieng Anudo v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 012/2015)
  • Actions pour la Protection des Droits de l'Homme v Republic of Cote d'Ivoire (Application No. 001/2014)
  • George Kemboge v Tanzania (Application No. 004/2015)
  • Beneficiaries of Late Norbert Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso (Application No. 013/2011)
  • Minani Evarist v Tanzania (Application No. 005/2015)
  • Dino Noca v Democratic Republic of Congo (Communication No. 286/2004)
  • Majuru v Zimbabwe

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Karatta and Others v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 002-2017) [2021] AfCHPR 26 (30 September 2021)
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.