THE African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights in one of its latest judgments has dismissed the case which Dadu Sumano Kilagela had filed against the United Republic of Tanzania.

The Applicant, Dadu Sumano Kilagela, a Tanzanian citizen, brought a case against the Respondent State before the Arusha-based Pan African Court, alleging that he had been wrongfully incarcerated at Uyui Central Prison in Tabora. Kilagela had been convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to thirty (30) years in prison.

Kilagela claimed that his rights were violated during the legal proceedings in the national courts. He argued that the Respondent State violated his rights under Articles 2, 3(2), 7(1)(a), and 7(1)(c) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the African Charter or the Charter) during the criminal proceedings in domestic courts.

The Court, in line with Article 3 of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Protocol), first had to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear the case.

The Court noted that the Respondent State had raised an objection to the Court’s material jurisdiction, arguing that the case effectively sought to have the Court sit as an appellate body to review matters of fact and law that had already been decided by its Court of Appeal.

In addressing this objection, the Court reiterated its established position: when allegations of human rights violations involve the way domestic courts assessed evidence, including the final sentence, the Court has the authority to assess whether the domestic proceedings were conducted in accordance with international human rights instruments to which the Respondent State is a party.

The Court emphasized that while national courts handle evidentiary matters, its role is to ensure that domestic proceedings align with international human rights standards set out in the African Charter and other instruments ratified by the Respondent State.

Accordingly, the Court rejected the Respondent State’s objection and ruled that it had material jurisdiction to hear the case.

Although the Respondent State did not challenge other aspects of the Court’s jurisdiction, the Court still examined all aspects of its jurisdiction, as required by Rule 49(1) of its Rules. The Court concluded that it had personal, temporal, and territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.