Previous 7 / 46 Next

i,.CHP� J 6�!j,Ef1 1, 't <mw · Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility Hurnam v N Devat and others) by motion in 2012, initially with the assistance of an attorney. When it came up for hearing the attorney had since passed away. The question arose as to whether the Complainant could continue prosecuting as opposed to instituting the case in person following the demise of his attorney. The Judge declared his motion instituting the proceedings irreceivable on the ground that he could not act in person as his attorney had since passed on. He attempted to seize the JCPC by what is termed a leap frog appeal. However, on 12 July 2013 the JCPC declined jurisdiction as "the issue of the right to litigate in person ought to be considered by the Court of Appeal in Mauritius before any consideration by the JCPC; and the petitioner [had] not sought to have this done." 23. In yet another instance, the Complainant was a defendant in a contempt of court case brought against him by the Director of Public Prosecutions. In terms of the relevant law, he made an application for leave to summon two judicial officers to give evidence in the contempt case (Ex parte Devendranath Hurnam). The application for leave was made without recourse to an attorney and it contained an express prayer that he should be allowed to prosecute it without an attorney. The Judge in chambers set aside the application on the point in limine litis that the Complainant could not lodge and proceed with the application in person, citing the 1 July 201 1 ruling as authority for that proposition. He appealed against the judge's ruling to the Court of Civil Appeal, which he once again invited to depart from the 1 July 201 1 ruling and to revisit the decision of the judge in Devendranath Hurnam v N Devat and others (above). 24. By a judgment of 7 November 2013, the Court of Civil Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the motion for leave to summon judicial officers to the court a quo with a direction that the Complainant be allowed to proceed without an attorney. The Court reasoned that in instituting the motion the Complainant was acting as a respondent to the contempt proceedings, and respondents are not covered by the 1 July 201 1 ruling. The Complainant states that in its ruling, the Court of Civil Appeal completely ignored his arguments to revisit the 1 July 2 decision of the judge in Devendranath Hurnam v N Devat and othe ·� q 10tv <- 4Frt1C r,.,,. · V\tf f.l -=- - Page 6 of 45 African Commis:iion on Human and Peoples' Rights 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District. West Coast Region Gambia Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04 Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org https:/achpr.au.invO O a

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 459/13 - Devendranath Hurnam v. Mauritius

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Equality
Equality Before the Law
Functioning and Independence of the Judiciary
Right to be Heard before a Competent Court

Case Head Notes: The Complainant is a lawyer, who, in the midst of dealing with charges that were brought against him, wished to represent himself without the services of an attorney. The Respondent State denied this possibility. The Commission found a violation of Article 3 stating that the right to litigate one's own case is protected under the African Charter, and because, otherwise, those who are unable (because of financial or other reasons), or unwilling, to use the services of an attorney will be deprived of their right to be heard by the Court. The Commission also noted that the right to litigate in person is not refused to the representatives of the State, so to deny that right to the other party is unequal. The Commission found a violation of Article 7 stating that, given that the Complainant was refused the opportunity to present his case in front of the Supreme Court and the Judicial Committee, the Complainant was denied the opportunity to appeal to a competent national organ, and, therefore, denied the right to have his case heard. The Commission further states that no substance would be left to the right to defence if it meant that individuals, whose rights are infringed, can only pursue justice through the services of a third party. The Commission asserted that the right to be defended by counsel of their choice is an entitlement and not a requirement. The Commission found no violation of Article 26 stating that the Complainant submitted a series of allegations which could not be sufficiently substantiated and cannot be considered as solid evidence. They also state that they do not have a reason to conclude that the Respondent State has not allowed the establishment and improvement of appropriate national institutions entrusted with the promotion and protection of human rights, as required by Article 26 of the Charter. The Commission requested the Respondent State to take all necessary measures to ensure the reopening of the proceedings, as requested by the Complainant, and to allow him to be self-represented if he desires. The Commission also requested the Respondent State to ensure that its laws and statutes, regarding access to courts, are in line with its obligations under the Charter and to provide the Complainant with financial compensation.

Country

Mauritius

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: May 23, 2023

Rights Alleged to be Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 26 : Duty to Guarantee Independence of Courts
ACHPR 3: Right to Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of the Law

Rights Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 7.1: Right to be Heard
ACHPR 3: Right to Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of the Law
ACHPR 7.1.a: Right to Sue for Remedy before a Competent Tribunal
ACHPR 7.1.c: Right to Defence

Rights Not Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 26 : Duty to Guarantee Independence of Courts

Duration of Procedure

Sep 18, 2013 ~ May 23, 2023

Country Geolocation

Latitude: -20.348404

Longitude: 57.55215200000001

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): Mauritius

Primary Documents

Devendranath Hurnam v Mauritius.pdf
English
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

Communication 459/13 - Devendranath Hurnam v. Mauritius

Primary Documents

Notifications