Wakilii

Yusuph v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 036-2017)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2022] AfCHPR 7 · 2022 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 challenging conviction and sentence following exhaustion of domestic remedies in Tanzania
Decision
Application declared inadmissible for failure to file within a reasonable time

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 had jurisdiction to examine the application but declared it inadmissible because it was not filed within a reasonable time. The applicant filed the application seven years, seven months and ten days after the Court of Appeal dismissed his final appeal. Although the applicant was incarcerated and self-represented, the Court found he had not provided compelling evidence that his personal situation prevented him from filing more promptly. The Court dismissed the respondent state's objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies, holding that an application for review before the Court of Appeal is an extraordinary remedy not required to be exhausted.

Outcome

Application declared inadmissible for failure to file within a reasonable time

Facts

The applicant, a Tanzanian national, was arrested and charged with rape of a six-year-old minor. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the District Court of Tabora on 1 November 2005, when he was seventeen years old. His appeal to the High Court was dismissed on 27 June 2007. His further appeal to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania was dismissed on 28 October 2009, and he was ordered to pay compensation to the victim. The applicant filed an application to the African Court on 8 November 2017, alleging violations of his rights to equality before the law, to have his cause heard, and to legal representation. Tanzania deposited its Declaration accepting the Court's jurisdiction on 29 March 2010 and withdrew it on 21 November 2019, with effect from 22 November 2020.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court has material jurisdiction to adjudicate on the Application.
  2. Whether the Court has temporal jurisdiction over the alleged violations.
  3. Whether the Applicant exhausted local remedies before filing the Application.
  4. Whether the Application was filed within a reasonable time after exhaustion of local remedies.

Orders

  • Dismissed the objections to material jurisdiction.
  • Dismissed the objection to temporal jurisdiction.
  • Declared that it has jurisdiction.
  • Dismissed the objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies.
  • Found that the Application was not filed within a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 56(6) of the Charter and Rule 40(6) of the Rules.
  • Declared that the Application is inadmissible.
  • Ordered each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Admissibility — Reasonable Time — Incarceration and Self-Representation
An applicant who is incarcerated and self-represented must demonstrate how their personal situation prevented them from filing an application in a more timely manner; it is insufficient to simply plead incarceration, lay status, or indigence without providing compelling evidence of how these factors caused delay.
Human Rights — Admissibility — Reasonable Time — Assessment
The reasonableness of the time limit for filing an application depends on the particular circumstances of each case and must be determined on a case-by-case basis, considering factors such as incarceration, indigence, time taken to access documents, the recent establishment of the Court, and the need for time to reflect on seizing the Court.
Human Rights — Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Extraordinary Remedies
An application for review before the Court of Appeal is an extraordinary remedy which applicants are not required to exhaust; local remedies are deemed exhausted when the highest judicial organ of the state has determined the matter.
Human Rights — Jurisdiction — Material Jurisdiction — Reparations
The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights has jurisdiction under Article 27(1) of the Protocol to grant different types of reparations, including an order for release from prison, where it finds a violation of human or peoples' rights.
Human Rights — Jurisdiction — Material Jurisdiction — Appellate Function
The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights does not exercise appellate jurisdiction with respect to claims already examined by national courts, but retains the power to assess the propriety of domestic proceedings against standards set out in international human rights instruments ratified by the state concerned; in conducting this assessment, the Court does not thereby become an appellate court.
Human Rights — Jurisdiction — Temporal Jurisdiction — Continuing Violations
Where an applicant remains convicted on the basis of what they consider an unfair process, the alleged violations can be considered to be continuing in nature for purposes of temporal jurisdiction.
Human Rights — Jurisdiction — Personal Jurisdiction — Withdrawal of Declaration
The withdrawal of a Declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol does not have retroactive effect and has no bearing on matters pending prior to the filing of the instrument withdrawing the Declaration, or new cases filed before the withdrawal takes effect; any such withdrawal takes effect twelve months after the notice of withdrawal is deposited.

Legislation cited (10)

  • 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
  • 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 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 34(6)
  • Child and Young Offenders Act Cap 13 R.E. [2002] s.2
  • Court of Appeal Rules 2009 Rule 66(1)(b)

Cases cited (25)

  • Andrew Ambrose Cheusi v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 004/2015)
  • Ernest Francis Mtingwi v Republic of Malawi (Application No. 003/2012)
  • Peter Joseph Chacha v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 003/2012)
  • Alex Thomas v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 005/2013)
  • Kalebi Elisamehe v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 028/2015)
  • Bernard Balele v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 026/2016)
  • Mohamed Abubakari v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 007/2013)
  • Christopher Jonas v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 011/2015)
  • Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v Republic of Rwanda (Application No. 003/2014)
  • Armand Guehi v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 001/2015)
  • Werema Wangoko Werema and Another v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 014/2015)
  • Beneficiaries of late Norbert Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso (Application No. 013/2011)
  • Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v Republic of Rwanda (Application No. 003/2014)
  • African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Republic of Kenya (Application No. 006/2012)
  • Tanganyika Law Society and Others v Tanzania (Application No. 009/2011)
  • Diocles William v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 016/2015)
  • Nguza Viking and Johnson Nguza v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 018/2015)
  • Kijiji Isiaga v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 032/2015)
  • Layford Makene v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 028/2017)
  • Hamad Mohamed Lyambaka v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 010/2016)
  • Godfred Anthony and Another v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 015/2015)
  • Livinus Daudi Manyuka v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 020/2015)
  • Jean Claude Roger Gombert v Côte d'Ivoire (Application No. 022/2016)
  • Dexter Eddie Johnson v Republic of Ghana (Application No. 016/2017)
  • Abdallah Sospeter Mabomba and Others v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 017/2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Yusuph v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 036-2017) [2022] AfCHPR 7 (24 March 2022)
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.