Communication 515/15 & Communication 527/15 - Peter Ngoge & Julius Anyango v. The Republic of Kenya

ACHPR Decision

Type of Document

Keywords

Case Head Notes: The Commission ruled the communication inadmissible on account of Article 56(3), (5), and (6). Regarding 56(3), the Commission stated that the Complainant made ad hominem attacks against the State and the judiciary, which the Complainant did not sufficiently substantiate. They state that the Complainant does not only describe their emotions, but that they also seem to take aim at the Respondent State and its institutions, by casting aspersions on the integrity of the judiciary. The Commission stated that such expressions are not within the bounds of normal criticism. Regarding Article 56(5), the Commission maintains its position that a general statement, regarding the non-independence of the judiciary, does not relieve Complainants of their obligation to exhaust local remedies. Further the Commission stated that the failure of the Complainant to receive the desired remedy from non-judicial Kenyan institutions does not exempt them from the obligation to exhaust judicial remedies. The Commission also stated that findings of the existence of corruption in the judiciary does not prevent the Complainant from appealing the final decisions of domestic cases to higher courts. Regarding 56(6), the Commission stated that, since local remedies had not been exhausted, the Communication was submitted prematurely.

Country

Duration of Procedure

Country Geolocation

Latitude: -0.023559

Longitude: 37.906193

Primary Documents