Wakilii

Mtikila v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 011-2011)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2011] AfCHPR 53 · 2011 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for reparations following judgment finding violations of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights
Decision
Application for reparations partly granted; declaratory relief and publication orders made; monetary claims dismissed

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 Court held that its judgment of 14 June 2013 finding violations of the African Charter constitutes sufficient reparation for non-pecuniary damages. The Applicant's claims for pecuniary damages and legal costs were dismissed for lack of proof. The Court ordered Tanzania to report within six months on measures taken to comply with the 2013 judgment and to publish the judgment summary in English and Kiswahili in the official gazette and a national newspaper, and the full judgment on an official website for one year.

Outcome

Application for reparations partly granted; declaratory relief and publication orders made; monetary claims dismissed

Facts

Following a judgment on 14 June 2013 in which the African Court found Tanzania violated Articles 2, 3, 10, and 13(1) of the African Charter by prohibiting independent candidates from standing for Presidential, Parliamentary, and Local Government elections, the Applicant sought reparations. The Applicant claimed he was forced to join political parties and establish his own party (the Democratic Party) to participate in elections, incurring substantial costs. He also claimed moral damages from stress, police searches, and loss of opportunity to participate in public affairs. The Applicant sought pecuniary damages totaling 4,168,667,363 TZS for party formation and litigation costs, moral damages of 831,322,637 TZS, and attorney's fees of US$60,250. Tanzania contested the claims, arguing the Applicant failed to prove damages, that his Democratic Party was refused registration due to his own non-compliance with law, and that the current constitutional review process constitutes sufficient reparation.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to pecuniary damages arising from violations of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
  2. Whether the Applicant is entitled to non-pecuniary (moral) damages for stress, harm, and loss of opportunity to participate in public affairs.
  3. Whether the Applicant is entitled to reimbursement of legal costs and attorney's fees incurred in litigation before the African Court.
  4. What measures of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition should be ordered to remedy the violations found in the Court's judgment of 14 June 2013.

Orders

  • The Judgment of 14 June 2013 constitutes per se a sufficient form of reparation for non-pecuniary damages.
  • The Applicant's claims for pecuniary damages are dismissed.
  • The Applicant's claims for legal costs are dismissed.
  • The State is ordered to submit to the Court, within six months from the date of this Ruling, a report on measures taken in compliance with the Judgment of 14 June 2013.
  • The State is ordered to publish the official English summary of the Judgment of 14 June 2013, translated to Kiswahili, once in the official gazette and once in a national newspaper with widespread circulation, within six months.
  • The State is ordered to publish the Judgment of 14 June 2013 in its entirety in English on an official website and keep it available for one year, within six months.
  • Within nine months of the date of the Ruling, the State shall submit a report describing the measures taken under the compliance order.
  • Each Party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Reparations — Burden of Proof — Causal Nexus
A finding that a State has violated provisions of the African Charter is not sufficient per se to establish material damage; the applicant must prove both the existence of damages and a causal nexus between the violations declared and the damages claimed.
Human Rights — Reparations — Pecuniary Damages — Evidentiary Requirements
Claims for pecuniary damages require sufficient evidentiary elements including receipts and documentation to establish that the damages directly arose from the facts of the case and the violations declared; failure to produce such evidence results in dismissal of the claim.
Human Rights — Reparations — Non-Pecuniary Damages — Declaratory Relief as Satisfaction
A judgment finding violations of human rights can constitute per se a sufficient form of reparation for non-pecuniary (moral) damages, including suffering, distress, and loss of opportunity, where the applicant has failed to produce evidence of the seriousness and magnitude of such damages.
Human Rights — Reparations — Legal Costs — Pro Bono Representation
Where counsel acted for an applicant on a pro bono basis and the applicant fails to develop arguments relating evidence to facts under consideration or provide probative documents justifying claimed attorney's fees, the claim for legal costs will be refused.
Human Rights — State Compliance — Guarantees of Non-Repetition — Reporting Requirements
Where a State maintains that a court's judgment finding violations of the African Charter was wrong and fails to report on measures taken to comply with the judgment, the court may order the State to report within a specified period on implementation of the judgment as a guarantee of non-repetition.
Human Rights — Reparations — Measures of Satisfaction — Publication of Judgment
As a measure of satisfaction for human rights violations, a court may order a State to publish the official summary of the judgment in the official gazette and a national newspaper in both English and the national language, and to publish the full judgment on an official website for a specified period.
Human Rights — International Law — State Responsibility — Obligation to Make Reparation
It is a principle of international law and customary norm that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the obligation to provide adequate reparation, which may include restitution, compensation, satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition.

Legislation cited (17)

  • 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
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 30
  • 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
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 10
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 13(1)
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania Article 21(1)
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania Article 39
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania Article 67
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania Article 77
  • Local Authorities (Elections) Act 1979 s.39
  • Local Authorities (Elections) Act No.7 of 2002
  • Political Parties Act s.10(b)
  • Political Parties Act s.10(c)
  • Election Expenses Act

Cases cited (19)

  • Germany v Poland (Factory at Chorzow)
  • Sudan Human Rights Organisation and Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) v Sudan (Communications 279/03 and 296/05)
  • Gabriel Shumba v Zimbabwe (Communication 288/04)
  • Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and Interights v Egypt (Communication 334/06)
  • Malawi African Association and Others v Mauritania (Communications 54/91, 61/91, 96/93, 98/93, 164/97, 196/97 and 210/98)
  • Bàmaca Velàsquez v Guatemala (Reparations and Costs) Series C No. 91
  • Garcia Cruz and Sânchez Silvestre v [State] (Merits, Reparations and Costs) Series C No. 273
  • Villagran Morales et al v Guatemala (Street Children Case) (Reparations and Costs) Series C No. 77
  • Bonisch v Austria (1987) 13 EHRR 409
  • Weeks v United Kingdom (1988) 13 EHRR 435
  • Perks and Others v United Kingdom (2000) 30 EHRR 33
  • United Kingdom v Albania (Corfu Channel Case) [1949] ICJ Rep 4
  • Garrido and Baigorria v Argentina (Reparations and Costs) Series C No. 39
  • Chaparro Alvarez and Lapo v [State] (Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs) Series C No. 170
  • Neira Alegría et al v Peru (Reparations and Costs) Series C No. 29
  • Miscellaneous Civil Cause No. 5 of 1993
  • Christopher Mtikila v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Civil Cause No. 10 of 2005)
  • Attorney General v Christopher Mtikila (Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2009)
  • Tanganyika Law Society and The Legal and Human Rights Centre v The United Republic of Tanzania; Reverend Christopher R. Mtikila v The United Republic of Tanzania (Consolidated Applications Nos. 009 and 011 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mtikila v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 011-2011) [2011] AfCHPR 53 (30 September 2011)
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.