Wakilii

Thomas v Tanzania (Application No. 005-2013)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2019] AfCHPR 63 · 2019 Application Partly Allowed — Reparations Awarded AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for reparations following judgment on merits finding violations of fair trial rights
Decision
Reparations awarded for moral prejudice to Applicant and certain family members; material damages and legal fees claims dismissed; publication of judgments ordered

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 awarded pecuniary reparations for moral prejudice to the Applicant and certain family members following violations of fair trial rights established in an earlier judgment. The Court awarded TZS 2,000,000 to the Applicant, TZS 1,500,000 to his mother, and TZS 1,000,000 each to three siblings. Claims for material damages and legal fees were dismissed. The Court ordered publication of both judgments as a measure of satisfaction but declined to order the Applicant's release as he had already been released.

Outcome

Reparations awarded for moral prejudice to Applicant and certain family members; material damages and legal fees claims dismissed; publication of judgments ordered

Facts

The Applicant was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to thirty years imprisonment following a trial conducted partly in his absence and without legal representation. In a judgment of 20 November 2015, the African Court found violations of the Applicant's fair trial rights under the African Charter and ICCPR. The Court ordered the Respondent State to remedy the violations and directed the parties to file submissions on reparations. The Applicant sought pecuniary reparations for material loss and moral prejudice for himself and family members, restitution of liberty, and measures of satisfaction. The Respondent State contested the claims. By the time of this reparations judgment, the Applicant had been released from prison on 2 June 2018 after completing his sentence.

Issues

  1. What pecuniary reparations should be awarded to the Applicant for material loss and moral prejudice arising from violations of his fair trial rights?
  2. What pecuniary reparations should be awarded to indirect victims (family members) for moral prejudice?
  3. Should the Applicant be released from prison as a form of non-pecuniary reparation?
  4. What measures of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition should be ordered?
  5. What costs and legal fees should be awarded?

Orders

  • Does not grant the Applicant's prayer for material damages for loss of income and life plan.
  • Does not grant the Applicant's prayer for damages for moral prejudice to his son, Emmanuel Alex Mallya and wife as indirect victims.
  • Awards Tanzanian Shillings Two Million (TZS 2,000,000) to the Applicant for moral damages.
  • Awards Tanzanian Shillings One Million, Five Hundred Thousand (TZS 1,500,000) to the Applicant's mother, Ester Marmo Maley.
  • Awards Tanzanian Shillings One Million (TZS 1,000,000) each to the Applicant's sisters, Flora Amos Mallya and Anna Elinisa Swai and brother John Thomas Mallya.
  • Orders the Respondent State to pay the amounts indicated free from taxes, effective six (6) months from the date of notification of this Judgment, failing which it will pay interest on arrears calculated on the basis of the applicable rate of the Central Bank of the United Republic of Tanzania throughout the period of delayed payment until the amount is fully paid.
  • Does not grant the Applicant's prayer for his release from prison as this is moot.
  • Does not grant the Applicant's prayer for an order regarding non-repetition of the violations.
  • Orders the Respondent State to publish, as a measure of satisfaction, this judgment on reparations and the judgment of 20 November 2015 on the merits of the case within three (3) months of notification of the present judgment on the official websites of the Judiciary and the Ministry of Constitutional and Legal Affairs and ensure that the judgments remain accessible for at least one (1) year after the date of such publication.
  • Orders the Respondent State to submit to it within six (6) months of the date of notification of this judgment, a report on measures taken to implement the orders set forth herein and thereafter, every six (6) months until the Court considers that there has been full implementation thereof.
  • Does not grant the Applicant's prayer related to legal fees, costs and other expenses incurred in the proceedings before this Court.
  • Decides that each Party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Reparations — Pecuniary Reparations — Material Loss — Burden of Proof
For material prejudice to be compensable, there must be a causal link between the established violation and the alleged prejudice, and the applicant bears the burden of providing evidence to justify the claim.
Reparations — Pecuniary Reparations — Moral Prejudice — Presumption in Favour of Applicant
Moral prejudice need not be proven; presumptions are made in favour of the applicant and the burden of proof shifts to the respondent state.
Reparations — Indirect Victims — Standing and Proof Requirements
Spouses, children and parents may claim status as indirect victims entitled to reparation, but must produce marriage certificates, birth certificates, or equivalent proof of their relationship to the direct victim.
Reparations — Currency of Award — General Principle
Damages should be awarded, where possible, in the currency in which loss was incurred, but the court may determine the quantum and currency of the award taking into account fairness and the need to protect the applicant from adverse currency fluctuations.
Reparations — Non-Pecuniary Reparations — Guarantees of Non-Repetition
Guarantees of non-repetition are generally relevant in cases of systemic violations but may also apply in individual cases where violations will not cease, are likely to reoccur, or are structural in nature.
Reparations — Measures of Satisfaction — Publication of Judgment
A judgment per se can constitute sufficient reparation, but the court may order further measures of satisfaction such as publication of the judgment to emphasise the state's obligations and raise awareness, thereby enhancing implementation.
Reparations — Legal Fees — Pro Bono Representation Under Court Legal Aid Scheme
Where an applicant is represented on a pro bono basis under the court's legal aid scheme, claims for reimbursement of legal fees are unjustified and will be dismissed.

Legislation cited (11)

  • 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(1)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 30
  • Rules of Court Rule 8(2)
  • Rules of Court Rule 30
  • Rules of Court Rule 63
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 1
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)(a)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)(c)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)(d)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 14(3)(d)

Cases cited (11)

  • Alex Thomas v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 005/2013)
  • Mohamed Abubakari v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 007/2013)
  • Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v Republic of Rwanda (Application No. 003/2014)
  • PCIJ, Chrozow Factory Case, Germany v Poland, Jurisdiction, Determination of Indemnities and Merits 26/7/1827, 16/12/1927 and 13/9/1928, Rec. 1927, p.47
  • Reverend Christopher R. Mtikila v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 011/2011)
  • Lohé Issa Konaté v Burkina Faso (Application No. 004/2013)
  • Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) Case of Aloeboetoe et al v. Suriname, Judgment of 10 September 1993, (Reparations and Costs)
  • IACtHR Case of Loayza-Tamayo v Peru, Judgment of 17 September 1997
  • Norbert Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso (Application No. 013/2011)
  • Communication No. 334/06, Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and Interights v Arab Republic of Egypt, Views 01/03/2011
  • Armand Guehi v. Tanzania (Merits and Reparations)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Thomas v Tanzania (Application No. 005-2013) [2019] AfCHPR 63 (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.