Wakilii

Said v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 011-2019)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2021] AfCHPR 23 · 2021 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 the African Charter following conviction for murder and sentence to death in Tanzania
Decision
Application dismissed as inadmissible for failure to file within a reasonable time after exhaustion of 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 to hear the application as Tanzania's withdrawal of its declaration accepting individual applications took effect only on 22 November 2020, after this application was filed. However, the Court found the application inadmissible because it was filed eight years and three months after exhaustion of local remedies. The applicant provided no justification for this delay, and the Court held this period was not reasonable within the meaning of Article 56(6) of the African Charter.

Outcome

Application dismissed as inadmissible for failure to file within a reasonable time after exhaustion of local remedies

Facts

On 9 October 2003, the applicant and ten others were allegedly seen inflicting fatal injuries on Athumani Dadi with iron rods and clubs. On 26 October 2006, the applicant was charged with murder at the Resident Magistrate's Court with Extended Jurisdiction sitting at Kigoma. He was convicted on 20 May 2008 and sentenced to death. On 13 March 2009, he appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed his appeal on 30 June 2011. The applicant filed this application to the African Court on 22 March 2019, eight years and three months after exhausting local remedies. Tanzania did not file a response despite extensions of time.

Issues

  1. Whether the application was filed within a reasonable time after exhaustion of local remedies as required by Article 56(6) of the African Charter and Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules of Court.
  2. Whether the African Court has jurisdiction to hear the application given Tanzania's withdrawal of its declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol.
  3. Whether the applicant's rights to equality under Article 3(1) and (2) of the African Charter were violated.
  4. Whether the applicant's right to a fair trial under Article 7(1) of the African Charter was violated.

Orders

  • Declared that it has jurisdiction.
  • Declared the application inadmissible.
  • Ordered each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Admissibility — Reasonable Time — Filing After Exhaustion of Local Remedies
An application filed eight years and three months after exhaustion of local remedies is inadmissible where the applicant provides no clear and compelling justification for the delay, even where the applicant is incarcerated, as incarceration alone does not automatically justify such a lengthy delay.
Human Rights — Jurisdiction — Withdrawal of Declaration — Temporal Effect
The withdrawal of a State's declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the African Court to receive applications from individuals takes effect twelve months after deposit of the notice of withdrawal and does not apply retroactively to pending cases or cases filed before the withdrawal becomes effective.
Civil Procedure — Default Judgment — Conditions for Ruling in Default
A court may enter a ruling in default where three conditions are satisfied: the defaulting party has been duly notified of the application and all pertinent documents; one party has failed to appear or defend within the prescribed period; and the other party applies for default judgment or the court acts on its own motion.
Civil Procedure — Admissibility — Cumulative Conditions
The conditions of admissibility of an application are cumulative such that if one condition is not fulfilled the application becomes inadmissible regardless of whether other conditions are satisfied.

Legislation cited (13)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3(1)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3(2)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(6)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3
  • 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 22
  • 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)
  • Criminal Procedure Act of Tanzania s.256A
  • Criminal Procedure Act of Tanzania s.173(1)
  • Constitutive Act of the African Union Article 3(h)
  • Charter of the United Nations

Cases cited (16)

  • Andrew Ambrose Cheusi v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 004/2015)
  • Fidele Mulindahabi v Rwanda (Application No. 010/2017)
  • Fidele Mulindahabi v Rwanda (Application No. 011/2017)
  • African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Libya (2016)
  • Beneficiaries of late Norbert Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso (2013)
  • Mohamed Abubakari v Tanzania (2016)
  • Alex Thomas v Tanzania (2015)
  • Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and 9 Others v Tanzania (2016)
  • Lohé Issa Konaté v Burkina Faso (2014)
  • Peter Joseph Chacha v Tanzania (2014)
  • Christopher Jonas v Tanzania (2017)
  • Amiri Ramadhani v Tanzania (2018)
  • Werema Wangoko v Tanzania (2018)
  • Jebra Kambole v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 018/2018)
  • Godfred Anthony and Another v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 015/2015)
  • Dexter Johnson v Ghana (Application No. 016/2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Said v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 011-2019) [2021] AfCHPR 23 (30 September 2021)
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.