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

Yusuph Hassani vs Republic of Tanzania Case

On November 23rd, 2015, the applicant, Mr Yusuph Hassani, filed with the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Court) an application instituting proceedings against the United Republic of Tanzania concerning alleged violations of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Charter).

Indeed, Mr. Hassani, a Tanzanian national, was serving a 30-year sentence at the time of the initiation of the proceedings after being convicted of armed robbery on August 31st, 2006. On January 05th, 2007, he appealed this decision successively before the Resident Tribunal and the Tanga Court of Appeal. Both dismissed the appeal. On April 05th, 2010, Mr. Hassani claims to have filed an application for review of the judgment.

The applicant contended that he had been unjustly deprived of the right to have his case heard throughout the proceedings before the national courts. 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 30th, 2021, 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.

Tanzania raised objections relating to the lack of jurisdiction of the Court and inadmissibility of the application. After examining the pleas in law, the Court declared that it had jurisdiction to hear the case. With regard to admissibility, it examined in turn all the criteria listed in article 50 of the Rules of Court and concluded that the application had not been lodged within a reasonable time and was therefore not admissible.

Judgment of 30-09-2021.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.