Wakilii

Omary and Others v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 001-2012)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2014] AfCHPR 47 · 2014 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 human rights arising from non-payment of pension and severance benefits and alleged police brutality
Decision
Application declared 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 on Human and Peoples' Rights held that it has jurisdiction ratione materiae to hear applications alleging violations of rights guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights where those rights are also protected by the African Charter or other human rights instruments ratified by the respondent state. However, the Court declared the application inadmissible because the applicants failed to exhaust local remedies with respect to both their claims for compensation and allegations of police brutality.

Outcome

Application declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies

Facts

The applicants are former employees of the defunct East African Community. Following the dissolution of the EAC in 1984, a Mediation Agreement required payment of pensions and benefits to ex-employees. In 2003, the applicants filed suit in the High Court of Tanzania. In 2005, the parties reached an amicable settlement through a Deed of Settlement covering 31,831 ex-employees. Disputes arose over implementation of the settlement. The applicants returned to the High Court in 2010 seeking a certificate of payment. The case was heard by multiple judges. Justice Twaib dismissed the application in May 2011, finding no outstanding amounts due. The applicants allege that following this dismissal, police used force to disperse them outside the court, causing injuries. The applicants then filed this application with the African Court in January 2012.

Issues

  1. Whether the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights has jurisdiction ratione materiae to hear an application based on alleged violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
  2. Whether the applicants have exhausted local remedies as required by Article 56(5) of the African Charter.
  3. Whether the application is admissible under Article 56 of the African Charter and Article 6(2) of the Protocol.

Orders

  • By majority of nine to one, the Court overruled the Respondent's objection to its jurisdiction.
  • By majority of nine to one, the Court declared that it has jurisdiction to hear the Application.
  • Unanimously, the Court declined the Applicants' request to expunge the Respondent's Response from the pleadings.
  • Unanimously, the Court overruled the Respondent's objection to admissibility based on the identity of the Applicants.
  • Unanimously, the Court overruled the Respondent's objection to admissibility based on incompatibility with the Constitutive Act and the Charter.
  • Unanimously, the Court overruled the Respondent's objection that the Application was based exclusively on mass media reports.
  • Unanimously, the Court sustained the Respondent's objection to admissibility due to failure to exhaust local remedies regarding claims for compensation.
  • Unanimously, the Court sustained the Respondent's objection to admissibility due to failure to exhaust local remedies regarding alleged police brutality.
  • The Court declared the Application inadmissible.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Jurisdiction of African Court — Universal Declaration of Human Rights — Ratione Materiae Jurisdiction
The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights has jurisdiction ratione materiae to hear applications alleging violations of rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights where those rights are also guaranteed in the African Charter or other relevant human rights instruments ratified by the respondent state, notwithstanding that the Universal Declaration itself is not a treaty requiring ratification.
Human Rights — Universal Declaration of Human Rights — Status in International Law — Customary International Law
Although the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly and not a treaty requiring ratification, it has attained the status of customary international law and a grund-norm, representing universal recognition that basic rights and fundamental freedoms are inherent to all human beings.
Civil Procedure — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Requirement for Admissibility — African Charter Article 56(5)
An application to the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights is inadmissible where the applicants have not exhausted local remedies. The remedies envisaged are judicial remedies that meet the criteria of availability, effectiveness and sufficiency. Where domestic proceedings remain pending or available appellate remedies have not been pursued, local remedies have not been exhausted.
Civil Procedure — Admissibility — Identity of Applicants — Amendment of Parties
Where an application is filed in the name of certain applicants but some of those named applicants subsequently dissociate themselves from the proceedings, the court may amend the name of the applicants to reflect only those who continue to pursue the application, and such amendment does not render the identity of the remaining applicants void or affect admissibility on grounds of identity.
Civil Procedure — Admissibility — Evidence Based on Mass Media — African Charter Article 56(4)
An application is not inadmissible on grounds that it is based exclusively on news disseminated through mass media where the applicants have submitted newspaper clippings only to support allegations made in the application, and have also provided other evidence including names of witnesses and victims and descriptions of the events in question.

Legislation cited (28)

  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3(1)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3(2)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 6(2)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 22
  • Protocol to the African Charter 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 4
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 15
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 60
  • Rules of Court Rule 8(2)
  • Rules of Court Rule 14(4)
  • Rules of Court Rule 26
  • Rules of Court Rule 30
  • Rules of Court Rule 34
  • Rules of Court Rule 35(2)(a)
  • Rules of Court Rule 35(3)
  • Rules of Court Rule 35(4)(a)
  • Rules of Court Rule 37
  • Rules of Court Rule 38
  • Rules of Court Rule 39(1)
  • Rules of Court Rule 40
  • Rules of Court Rule 60(5)
  • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Article 11
  • Appellate Jurisdiction Act Cap 141 R.E. 2002 s.4(3)
  • Appellate Jurisdiction Act Cap 141 R.E. 2002 s.16

Cases cited (1)

  • Tanganyika Law Society and the Legal and Human Rights Centre & Rev. Christopher Mtikita v United Republic of Tanzania (Consolidated Applications 009/2011 and 011/2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Omary and Others v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 001-2012) [2014] AfCHPR 47 (28 March 2014)
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.