Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Alistedes v United Republic of Tanzania (APPLICATION No. 025/2018) [2025] AfCHPR 2 (5 February 2025)
The Court found Tanzania violated the applicant’s right to free legal assistance in a rape case, but upheld the conviction and sentence and refused release.
Mwendesha v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 032/2016) [2023] AfCHPR 12 (13 June 2023)
The African Court found Tanzania violated Hoja Mwendesha’s right to free legal assistance in a serious criminal case, awarding TZS 300,000, but rejected the other claims.
Ustadh v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 026/2015) [2021] AfCHPR 5 (2 December 2021)
The Court found that the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to a fair trial by failing to provide free legal assistance in a serious criminal case carrying a minimum sentence of thirty years. The absence of legal representation, without the Applicant having to request it, constituted a breach of Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter as read with Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR. However, the Court determined that the conduct of the proceedings at the Court of Appeal, including the handling of missing exhibits and the application for review, did not amount to a miscarriage of justice or vio…
Source excerpt
Kisase v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 005/2016) [2021] AfCHPR 6 (2 December 2021)
The Court found that the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to free legal assistance as protected under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter, interpreted in light of Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR, by failing to provide legal aid to an indigent accused facing a serious charge. The Court held that the duty to provide legal aid arises regardless of whether the accused requests it. The Court dismissed the Applicant's claims regarding the right to have his cause heard and equal protection of the law, finding that the Court of Appeal had considered his arguments and that the Applicant failed…
Source excerpt
Benyoma v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 001/2016) [2021] AfCHPR 27 (30 September 2021)
The Court found that the Respondent State violated the applicant's right to defence under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter, as read with Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR, by failing to provide free legal assistance during trial and appeals for a serious offence carrying a heavy penalty. The applicant was indigent and should have been promptly informed and provided with legal aid, regardless of whether he requested it. The Court dismissed claims regarding equality before the law, right to have one's cause heard, and trial within a reasonable time, finding no evidence of procedural irregularity or d…
Source excerpt
Isiaga v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 032/2015) [2021] AfCHPR 38 (25 June 2021)
The African Court awarded Kijiji Isiaga TZS 300,000 for moral prejudice after finding a violation of his right to free legal assistance. Other reparations claims were dismissed.
Rajabu v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 008/2016) [2021] AfCHPR 42 (25 June 2021)
The African Court found a fair-trial violation for failure to provide free legal assistance, but rejected claims about evidence, judgment in absentia, and delay.
Ramadhani v United Republic of Tanzania [2021] AfCHPR 34 (25 June 2021)
The African Court awarded Amir Ramadhani TZS 300,000 for moral prejudice after finding Tanzania failed to provide free legal assistance, but dismissed all other reparations claims.
Kulukuni v United Republic of Tanzania [2020] AfCHPR 28 (25 September 2020)
The African Court struck out Abdallah Ally Kulukuni’s application after he failed to respond to repeated requests for clarification and appeared not to pursue the case.
Jonas v United Republic of Tanzania [2020] AfCHPR 20 (25 September 2020)
The Court found that the applicant was entitled to moral damages as a direct victim of the violation of his right to legal assistance, as established in the judgment on the merits. The Court held that material loss claims were not warranted because the conviction and incarceration were not found unlawful. Claims for moral prejudice by indirect victims were dismissed for lack of causal link to the violation. The Court awarded the applicant a lump sum of TZS 300,000 as fair compensation for moral prejudice, consistent with its established practice in similar cases. Non-pecuniary reparations suc…
Source excerpt
