The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights has published summaries [3] of seven recent judgments (two in French only at time of writing). Summaries currently available in English include:

App. No. 011/2015 – Christopher Jonas v. United Republic of Tanzania
Judgment on reparations arising from a merits decision in 2017 concerning violation of Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Charter) for failing to provide the Applicant with free legal assistance during his trial.

App. No. 033/2015 – James Wanjara and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania
Case relating to previous conviction of armed robbery and grievous harm and sentence of 30 years, alleging: (1) improper imposition of sentence under Article 13(6)(3) of Tanzania’s Constitution [held: no violation]; (2) a violation of Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Charter) for not providing the applicants with legal representation during the domestic proceedings [held: violation]; and (3) improper analysis by the domestic courts of the evidence that was relied upon to convict them [held: no violation].  

App. No. 010/2016 – Hamad Mohamed Lyambaka v. United Republic of Tanzania
Applicant is currently serving a 30-year sentence for armed robbery and a life sentence for rape and alleged that his right to a fair trial during domestic proceedings was violated. The Court found that the case was inadmissible due to non-compliance with filing deadlines.

App. No. 039/2016 – Chananja Luchagula v. United Republic of Tanzania
Ruling on jurisdiction and admissibility concerning an applicant who was released from prison following a Presidential Pardon for his conviction for murder and who now alleges violations of his right to freedom from discrimination, right to equality and equal protection of the law, the right to life and integrity of his person, right to dignity and freedom from torture and inhuman and degrading treatments, right to a fair trial and right to equality of people guaranteed under Articles 2, 3(1) and (2), 4, 5, 6, 7(1) and 19 of the Charter, respectively. The Court held that, though it has jurisdiction over the case, the admissibility requirement concerning to filing deadlines had not been respected and thus, the application was declared inadmissible.