1 / 10

A Brief Note on NYAMUMA HUMAN RIGHTS CASE IMPLICATION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

A Brief Note on NYAMUMA HUMAN RIGHTS CASE IMPLICATION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION Presented by Legal and Human Rights Centre-LHRC 12 th February 2009. BACKGROUND In 1993 a portion of land in the Serengeti District was registered as Nyamuma Village.

salome
Download Presentation

A Brief Note on NYAMUMA HUMAN RIGHTS CASE IMPLICATION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Brief Note on NYAMUMA HUMAN RIGHTS CASE IMPLICATION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION Presented by Legal and Human Rights Centre-LHRC 12th February 2009

  2. BACKGROUND • In 1993 a portion of land in the Serengeti District was registered as Nyamuma Village. • In 1994 a big chunk of the village was taken to make Ikorongo Game Reserve • By an order of the District Commissioner, 12th October, 2001 the villagers residing in the remaining Nyamuma were forceful evicted and their properties set on fire after a four (4) days notice broadcasted through a loudspeakers. • LHRC and 135 villages filed complaint in the CHRAGG against DC of Serengeti, OCD of Serengeti and AG.

  3. The commission investigated the matter including interviewing 138 witnesses for the complainants and 20 for the respondents. • On the 13th of Dec, 2004 gave its decision that;- • Government violated the rights of the complainants • Complainants must be resettled at their native land • Government to pay compensation of more than 800 million

  4. THE GOVT REACTION • Since the Commission establishment in 2001, this was the first dispute to be addressed extensively and the outcome to be a precedent. • Recommendations from the Commission were forwarded to the government for implementation. • However, on the 18th May, 2005 government through AG responded in writing to the Chairman of the Commission that;- • The Government has conducted its own investigation and there was no human rights violation committed by the respondents. • The CHRAGG pursuant to S. 28(3) of the Act, recommended LHRC on behalf of 135 villagers to file a suit to the High Court of Tanzania (HC).

  5. AT THE HIGH COURT • LHRC filed a suit for enforcement in the HC (Main Registry) for claim of compensation and HC (Land Division) for resettlement of villagers to their native land. • At the HC both cases were dismissed on the ground that the court lack jurisdiction to enforce the recommendations by the Commission • On September 2006, LHRC filed appeal to the Court of Appeal.

  6. AT THE COURT OF APPEAL • On the 2nd January, 2009 the Court of Appeal delivered the judgment giving big victory to LHRC starting clearly;- • HC made an error in not considering the matter on merit. • It was proper for LHRC to file an application to the HC for enforcement of the Commission Decision after being refused to be complied by the Government. • The legal status of the recommendation of the commission

  7. AT THE COURT OF APPEAL ……… • The matter be referred to the HC before another judge to be considered on merit. • Complainants (135 villagers) be joined as applicants. • Further suggested, the Commission should advise the Minister to make regulations which will provide procedure for enforcement of recommendations.

  8. LESSONS LEARNT The decision has set a legal foundation of the the Commission that;- • The decision of the Court of Appeal has set a precedent on the status of the recommendations of the Commission and remedies incase of failure of government to enforce. • LHRC can apply to the High Court to enforce the recommendations of the Commission. • Decision will give a big boost and morale to the Commission in its mandate of investigation and determination.

  9. WAY FORWARD According to the decision of the Court of Appeal, LHRC is now directed to go back to the HC to enforce the decision of the Commission.

  10. THANK YOU!!!!!

More Related