1. Court & Citation
Court of Appeal of Tanzania
Case: Jebra Kambole v Attorney General
Appeal No.: Civil Appeal No. 236 of 2019
Coram: Kihwelo, JA
Judgment Date: 15 June 2022
Citation: [2022] TZCA 377
Source: TanzLII Judgment
⸻
2. Legal Issue / Principle
Whether the mandatory imposition of the death penalty under Section 197 of the Penal Code violates constitutional rights, including the right to life, dignity, equality, and fair trial protections.
3. Case Summary (Facts)
Jebra Kambole, a Tanzanian advocate, filed a constitutional petition challenging the mandatory death penalty for murder as prescribed under Section 197 of the Penal Code. He argued that this provision infringed upon several constitutional rights, notably:
- Right to life (Article 14)
- Right to equality and non-discrimination (Article 13(1))
- Right to dignity (Article 12(2))
- Right to a fair trial (Article 13(6)(a))
- Freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 13(6)(e))
The High Court dismissed the petition, citing the doctrine of res judicata, referencing the precedent set in Mbushuu v Republic (1994), which upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty. Kambole appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal.
4. Key Holding / Ratio
The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision, affirming that the matter was res judicata, as the constitutionality of the death penalty had been previously addressed in Mbushuu v Republic. The Court reasoned that the challenge to the mandatory nature of the death penalty did not present new issues distinct from those settled in Mbushuu.
5. Outcome
- Appeal Dismissed: The Court of Appeal dismissed Kambole’s appeal, maintaining the constitutionality of the mandatory death penalty.
- No Orders as to Costs: Each party was to bear its own costs.
6. Significance / Notes for Practice
This decision reinforces the precedent that the mandatory death penalty is constitutional in Tanzania, limiting avenues for challenging it on constitutional grounds. Legal practitioners should note the Court’s reliance on the doctrine of res judicata, emphasizing the finality of constitutional interpretations unless compelling new arguments or evidence are presented.
However, it’s important to recognize that this stance contrasts with evolving international human rights jurisprudence, where several jurisdictions have moved towards abolishing or limiting the mandatory death penalty, citing concerns over human rights violations.
