Mtega and Another v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 009-2019)
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. The Court held that it had prima facie jurisdiction despite Tanzania's withdrawal of its Declaration, as the withdrawal took effect on 22 November 2020 and did not affect applications filed before that date. However, the applicants failed to substantiate their request by demonstrating extreme gravity, urgency, or the necessity of avoiding irreparable harm as required under Article 27(2) of the Protocol.
Outcome
Request for provisional measures dismissed; main application remains pending
Facts
The applicants are Tanzanian nationals serving life sentences after being convicted of gang rape by the District Court at Ludewa on 2 September 2013. They were also sentenced to twelve strokes of the cane. Their appeal to the High Court at Iringa was dismissed on 18 September 2015, and their further appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on 3 August 2016. On 22 March 2019, they filed an application with the African Court alleging violation of their rights under Article 5 of the African Charter during domestic proceedings. On 23 May 2019, they requested provisional measures under Article 27 of the Protocol without providing particulars. Tanzania withdrew its Declaration accepting the Court's jurisdiction on 21 November 2019, with effect from 22 November 2020.
Issues
- Whether the Court has prima facie jurisdiction to hear the application for provisional measures given Tanzania's withdrawal of its Declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol.
- Whether the applicants have established extreme gravity and urgency necessitating the grant of provisional measures.
- Whether the applicants have demonstrated the necessity of avoiding irreparable harm.
Orders
- Request for provisional measures dismissed.
Rules and key headnotes
Cases cited (7)
- Andrew Ambrose Cheusi v United Republic of Tanzania (26 June 2020) 4 AfCLR 219
- African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Libya (25 March 2011) 1 AfCLR 17
- African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Kenya (15 March 2013) 1 AfCLR 193
- Komi Koutche v Republic of Benin (2 December 2019) 3 AfCLR 725
- Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v Republic of Rwanda (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 562
- Armand Guehi v United Republic of Tanzania (18 March 2016) 1 AfCLR 587
- Charles Kajoloweka v Republic of Malawi (27 March 2020) 4 AfCLR 34
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.