Wakilii

Malengo v Tanzania (Application No. 030-2015)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2019] AfCHPR 16 · 2019 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights alleging human rights violations arising from domestic civil proceedings
Decision
Application dismissed as 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 held that it had jurisdiction but the application was inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies. Although the applicant pursued domestic civil proceedings for breach of contract, he did not exhaust available judicial remedies for his human rights complaint concerning delay in proceedings. Petitioning the Chief Justice was administrative, not judicial relief.

Outcome

Application dismissed as inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies

Facts

In 1996 the applicant had an oral loan agreement with DIMON Tanzania Ltd. He sued for breach of contract in the High Court of Tanzania in 2000, claiming TZS 675,635,921 in damages. The High Court dismissed the suit in 2008. On appeal, the Court of Appeal found a contract existed and remitted the matter for assessment of damages. The High Court awarded TZS 6,000,000 with 10% interest. The applicant appealed this quantum in 2011 but the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on 20 December 2011. The applicant also complained that the High Court proceedings took nine years despite only three witnesses testifying, and that he was confined for eight hours in 1997. He filed this application before the African Court in November 2015 alleging human rights violations.

Issues

  1. Whether the African Court has material jurisdiction to hear the application
  2. Whether the application complies with the Constitutive Act of the African Union and the African Charter
  3. Whether the applicant exhausted local remedies before filing the application
  4. Whether the application was filed within a reasonable time after exhaustion of local remedies

Orders

  • Objection to material jurisdiction dismissed
  • Court declared it has jurisdiction
  • Objection on admissibility based on non-compliance with the Constitutive Act and Charter dismissed
  • Applicant declared to have failed to exhaust local remedies
  • Application declared inadmissible
  • Each party to bear its own costs

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies
An applicant must exhaust ordinary judicial remedies available domestically before bringing a human rights complaint to the African Court, unless such remedies are unavailable, ineffective, insufficient, or unduly prolonged.
Human Rights — Admissibility — Distinction Between Civil and Human Rights Claims
Where an applicant pursues only a civil contractual dispute through domestic courts without raising human rights violations through available judicial mechanisms such as constitutional petitions, local remedies for the human rights complaint have not been exhausted.
Civil Procedure — Administrative v Judicial Remedies — Petitioning Chief Justice
Petitioning the Chief Justice is an administrative remedy, not a judicial remedy, and does not constitute exhaustion of local remedies for purposes of admissibility before the African Court.
Human Rights — Material Jurisdiction — Right to Fair Trial
The African Court has material jurisdiction over an application alleging that domestic proceedings took nine years despite minimal witnesses, as this raises issues concerning the right to be tried within a reasonable time under Article 7(1)(d) of the African Charter.

Legislation cited (15)

  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3(1)
  • 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)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 22
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)(d)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56
  • Constitutive Act of the African Union Article 3(h)
  • Rules of Court Rule 8(2)
  • Rules of Court Rule 26(1)
  • Rules of Court Rule 30
  • Rules of Court Rule 39(1)
  • Rules of Court Rule 40
  • Rules of Court Rule 40(2)
  • Rules of Court Rule 40(5)
  • Rules of Court Rule 40(6)

Cases cited (11)

  • Alex Thomas v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 005/2013)
  • Frank David Omary and Others v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 001/2012)
  • Peter Joseph Chacha v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 003/2012)
  • Anaclet Paulo v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 20/2016)
  • Armand Guehi v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 001/2015)
  • Werema Wangoko v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 024/15)
  • Reverend Christopher Mtikila v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 011/2011)
  • Majuru v Zimbabwe (2008) ALHRLR 146
  • Collectif des anciens travailleurs du laboratoire ALS v Republic of Mali (Application No. 042/2016)
  • Mariam Kouma and Ousmane Diabaté v Republic of Mali (Application No. 024/2016)
  • Rutabingwa Chrysanthe v Republic of Rwanda (Application No. 022/2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Malengo v Tanzania (Application No. 030-2015) [2019] AfCHPR 16 (4 July 2019)
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.