ijue haki yako upate usalama wako

Dhamana(Bail) Dhamana uhuru wenye masharti apewao mtuhumiwa au mshitakiwa wakati shauri lake likiendelea kupelelezwa, likiendelea kusikilizwa mahakamani au likisubiri matokeo ya rufaa yake.  Misingi ya Dhamana Katiba ya nchi yetu inaeleza wazi kuwa kila mtu anastahili kuwa huru kwani binadamu wote wamezaliwa huru na wote ni sawa.  Katika nchi inayoongozwa na kuheshimu utawala wa sheria kuna ile dhana ya kuamini kwamba kila mtu ni hana kosa hadi hapo atakapothibitishwa na mahakama kuwa ni mhalifu.(pressumption of innocence)  Hii hali ya kuonekana kutokuwa na makosa mbele ya sheria inaleta msingi mwingine wa haki za asili za kimsingi ambazo zinasema mtu asihukumiwe bila ya kusikilizwa.  Vile vile kila mtu anastahili kutambuliwa na kuheshimiwa utu wake. Kwa kutambua kanuni hizi za msingi Katiba imeendelea kusisitiza yakuwa ili kuhakikisha watu wote wako sawa mbele ya 4 Dhamana sheria, mamlaka ya serikali inapaswa kuweka taratibu nzuri na ambazo zitazingat

Usalama wa Ajira  Hati ya Maandishi ya Ajira Sheria za kazi za Tanzanian zinataka mfanyakazi apewe hati ya maandishi ya majukumu yake ya kazi anapoanza kazi Taarifa hizo ni:  (a) jina, umri, anuani ya kudumu na jinsia ya mfanyakazi;  (b) mahali alipoajiriwa;  (c) kazi zake;  (d) tarehe ya kuanza;  (e) muundo na muda wa mkataba;  (f) kituo cha kazi;  (g) masaa ya kazi;  (h) ujira, njia ya ukokotoaji wake, na taarifa za mafao mengine au malipo ya vitu; na (i) na kitu kingine kilichotajwa. Kama taarifa zote hizi zilizotajwa zimeelezwa kwenye mkataba wa maandishi na mwajiri amempa mfanyakazi mkataba huo, mwajiri anaweza asitoe maelezo haya tena.(Sehemu ya 15 ya sheria ya kazi na mahusiano kazini, 2004).  Mkataba wa kazi wa kipindi maalumu  Kwa mujibu wa sheria za kazi za Tanzania, ni marufuku kuajiri mfanyakazi kwa kipindi cha muda maalumu ulio tajwa kwa kazi zenye asili ya kudumu.  Mkataba na mfanyakazi utakuwa wa aina kati ya zifuatazo- (a) mkataba kwa kipin

Uzazi na kazi sawa na sheria ya Ajira na Mahusiano Kazini Likizo ya Uzazi Mfanyakazi atalazimika kutoa notisi kwa mwajiri kuhusiana na kusudio lake la kuchukua likizo ya uzazi angalau miezi mitatu kabla ya tarehe tarajiwa ya kujifungua na notisi hiyo italazimika kuambatana na cheti cha kitabibu. Mfanyakazi anaweza kuanza likizo ya uzazi-  (a) muda wowote kutoka wiki nne kabla ya tarehe tarajiwa ya kujifungua;  (b) katika tarehe ya mapema kama tabibu atathibitisha kwamba ni muhimu kwa afya ya mfanyakazi au ya mtoto wake ambaye hajazaliwa.  Mfanyakazi hatatakiwa kufanya kazi ndani ya wiki sita baada ya kuzaliwa kwa mtoto wake, labda tabibu awe amethibitisha kuwa anaweza kufanya hivyo. Mfanyakazi mwanamke ana haki ya walau wiki kumi na mbili (siku 84) za likizo ya uzazi na kuendelea kupata mshahara wake. Atapata walau siku 100 za likizo ya uzazi endapo amejifungua watoto zaidi ya mmoja (mapacha). Pia ana haki ya kupata siku nyingine 84 za likizo hiyo endapo mtoto wake ataf

1.0 Introduction  The death penalty is a human right violation; it denies the most basic human right principle which is right to life. States are entitled to recognize right to life therefore imposing death penalty in their laws is violation of the principle of right to life. Under Article 3 of the Universal declaration of Human rights it has provided for right to life. This makes death penalty in state parties’ laws a violation of the principle of right to life. As long as the governments can extinguish right to life, it is easy for them to deny access to other rights because other rights might be breached also example the death penalty has been found to breach the prohibition of other rights example prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment  The second optional protocol to the international convention on human and people’s rights has the main objective of abolishing the death penalty and it is the only instrument which has provided for abolition of death penal

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Daudi Pete Court of Appeal (Nyalali C.J., Makame and Ramadhani JJ.A.): Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1990 May 16, 1991 Constitutional Law-fundamental rights-enforcement-whether Articles 30(3) and (4) of Constitution sufficiently confer original jurisdiction upon High Court to entertain proceedings in respect of actual or threatened violations of Basic Rights, Freedoms and Duties in absence of basic legislation for enforcement Constitutional Law-fundamental rights-enforcement- where specific provision under Constitution in article 30(3) and (4) concerning enforcement of Basic Rights and Duties, any proceedings for that purpose to be instituted under that specific article of Constitution. Constitutional Law-fundamental rights- bail- denial- one of two situations under which person may be denied or deprived of personal liberty -Article 15(a)- denial to be under certain circumstances and a procedure law must prescribe. Constitutional Law

IBRAHIM SANGOR  OSMAN.... .................PETITIONER  (ON HIS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF 1, 122 EVICTEES OF  MEDINA LOCATION, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF GARISSA)  ~VS~ THE HON MINISTER OF STATE FOR PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION & INTERNALSECURITY This Petition was filed on 23/2/2011 by the Petitioner on his behalf and on behalf of 1,122 persons (all hereinafter referred to as (“the Petitioners”) who were evicted from Bularika, Bulamedina, Sagarui, Naima, Bulanagali and Gesto (commonly known as “Medina location”) on 24th, 30th and 31st December 2010 by the officers of 1st and 2nd Respondents.  Those evicted included children, women and the elderly.  Some of the children were school-going.  The Petitioners were evicted from unalienated public land in respect of which title deeds have not been issued.  It had been occupied by the Petitioners since 1940s, initially as grazing land but in the 1980s they put up permanent and semi-permanent dwellings in which they were living prior to ev

Chisanga v Zambia (2005) AHRLR  34 (HRC 2005) Communication 1132/2002, Mr Webby Chisanga v Zambia Fact In the night of 15 November 1993, a grocery store was robbed by three men, one of whom was armed. The owner of the shop was shot in the thigh and brought to hospital. The author was identified as the armed man by the shop-owner, who knew Mr Chisanga. He was arrested on 17 November 1993 and identified by the shop-owner during the identification parade. The author denied being one of the robbers and claims to be innocent.   On 12 May 1995, the author was convicted by the Ndola High Court, for attempted murder (in violation of section 215 of the Zambian Penal Code), and aggravated robbery (in violation of section 294 (2) of the Penal Code). He was sentenced to death on the second count, but was not sentenced on the first count, as the trial judge considered that the facts of the case supported the second count. The author appealed his death sentence to the Supreme Court, on th