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

Tike Mwambipile vs United Republic of Tanzania

On November 19th, 2020, Ms. Tike Mwambipile and the NGO Equality Now (together the Applicants) filed an Application instituting proceedings against the United Republic of Tanzania (the defendant State) before the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Court or the ACHPR) for alleged violations of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Charter) in Articles 1 and 17.

The Applicants challenged the defendant State’s prohibition on pregnant girls attending and being readmitted to public primary and secondary schools even after childbirth, which would constitute a violation of the right to education and the right to non-discrimination. The Applicants filed a request for the indication of provisional measures to order the respondent State to end the policy of excluding pregnant girls and young mothers from schools, inter alia, by repealing Regulation No. 4 on Education. The Court concluded that this request touched on the merits of the application. It therefore declined to take these measures.

Order of 29-11-2021.pdf

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 December 1st, 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 the matter had already been settled.

Judgement of 01-12-2022.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.