Wakilii

Legal and Human Rights Centre and Another v United Republic of Tanzania

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2020] AfCHPR 16 · 2020 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for provisional measures to stay elections pending determination of main application concerning non-implementation of earlier Court judgment
Decision
Request for provisional measures to stay elections dismissed; main application to proceed to determination on merits

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 dismissed the applicants' request for provisional measures to stay Tanzania's 2020 elections. The Court held that the applicants failed to demonstrate extreme urgency, having waited seven years after the original judgment to seek such measures despite the electoral cycles being publicly known. The Court also found that the applicants did not demonstrate that irreparable harm would result from holding elections under the current legal framework.

Outcome

Request for provisional measures to stay elections dismissed; main application to proceed to determination on merits

Facts

The applicants, two Ugandan NGOs, had successfully challenged Tanzania's electoral framework in 2011-2013, obtaining a judgment requiring Tanzania to amend its laws to allow independent candidacy. By October 2020, Tanzania had not implemented the judgment. The applicants filed a new application seeking to compel implementation and requested provisional measures to stay the October 2020 elections pending determination of their application. They argued that holding elections without allowing independent candidates would cause irreparable harm. Tanzania withdrew its declaration accepting the Court's jurisdiction in November 2019 but did not submit observations on the provisional measures request. The Court received the application on 16 October 2020, two weeks before the scheduled elections.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court should order provisional measures to stay council members, parliamentary and presidential elections scheduled for 2020 pending determination of the main application.
  2. Whether the Applicants demonstrated extreme urgency and irreparable harm sufficient to warrant provisional measures under Article 27(2) of the Protocol.

Orders

  • Application for provisional measures dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Provisional Measures — Extreme Urgency — Timing of Application
An applicant seeking provisional measures must demonstrate extreme urgency; where electoral cycles are established in law and publicly known, and seven years have elapsed since the original judgment, failure to seek provisional measures earlier undermines a claim of extreme urgency.
Provisional Measures — Irreparable Harm — Standard of Proof
To obtain provisional measures, an applicant must demonstrate that irreparable harm will result; general statements that grave consequences could follow from holding elections under the current legal framework do not suffice to establish a situation of extreme gravity necessitating provisional measures.
Jurisdiction — Withdrawal of Declaration — Retroactive Effect
The withdrawal of a State's declaration accepting the Court's jurisdiction under Article 34(6) of the Protocol has no retroactive effect and does not affect cases under consideration before the Court prior to the deposit of the instrument of withdrawal.
Prima Facie Jurisdiction — Provisional Measures
In ordering provisional measures, the Court need not satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction on the merits of the case, but simply needs to satisfy itself, prima facie, that it has jurisdiction.

Cases cited (5)

  • Tanganyika Law Society and Legal and Human Rights Centre & Reverend Christopher Mtikila v United Republic of Tanzania (Consolidated Applications Nos. 009/2011 and 011/2011)
  • African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Libya (Provisional Measures) [2013] AfCLR 145
  • African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Kenya (Provisional Measures) [2013] AfCLR 193
  • Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v Rwanda (Jurisdiction) [2016] AfCLR 562
  • Andrew Ambrose Cheusi v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 004/2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Legal and Human Rights Centre and Another v United Republic of Tanzania [2020] AfCHPR 16 (30 October 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.