Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages

Hussein Ally Fundumu vs United Republic of Tanzania

On May 10th, 2018, Mr. Hussein Ally Fundumu (the Applicant) filed an application instituting proceedings against the United Republic of Tanzania (the defendant State) before the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights (the ACHPR or the Court) for alleged violations of the African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Charter) in its articles 2, 3 and 7.

Mr. Hussein Fundumu was accused of committing an armed robbery on August 1st, 2004 in the village of Misha, seriously injuring victims. The complainant and his co-accused were tried by the Tabora District Court. He was the only one to be sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment. This judgment was successively confirmed by the High Court of Tanzania on August 31st, 2007 and the Court of Appeal on June 18th, 2011. At the time of filing this application, the applicant was being held in Uyui Central Prison.

On November 21st, 2019, the Republic of Tanzania deposited the instruments of withdrawal of the Court’s declaration of jurisdiction to receive applications from individuals and non-governmental organizations. In issuing its decision on September 22nd, 2022, the Court has been faithful to its consistent jurisprudence of dealing with all cases enrolled in the Registry before the date of entry into force of the withdrawal of the declaration. 

The defendant State raised objections to jurisdiction and inadmissibility of the Application. After examining the pleas in law, the Court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the case. It examined in turn all the criteria listed in Rule 50 of the Rules of Court and concluded that the application was inadmissible as it was lodged 6 years 10 months and 22 days after the exhaustion of domestic remedies, which does not constitute a reasonable time in the light of the facts of the case.

Judgment of 22-09-2022.pdf

This summary is provided for informational purposes only, does not involve the responsibility of Dome and should in no way be used as a substitute for a careful reading of the judgment and order of the case.