22. The Court further recalls its established jurisprudence that it is neither a trial
court nor an appellate body with respect to decisions of national courts”.5
However, “this does not preclude it from assessing whether domestic
proceedings were conducted in accordance with international standards set
out in the Charter and other international human rights instruments ratified
by the State concerned”.6 The Court would, therefore, not be sitting as an
appellate court if it were to consider the Applicant’s allegations. In view of
the foregoing, the Court holds that it has material jurisdiction to examine the
present Application.
23. In view of the foregoing, the Court holds that it has material jurisdiction to
examine the present Application.
B. Other aspects of jurisdiction
24. The Court notes that the Respondent State does not contest its personal,
temporal and territorial jurisdiction. Nonetheless, in line with Rule 49(1) of
the Rules,7 it must satisfy itself that all aspects of its jurisdiction are fulfilled
before proceeding to examine the present Application.
25. As regards its personal jurisdiction, the Court recalls, as stated in paragraph
2 of this judgment, that on 21 November 2019, the Respondent State
deposited with the Chairperson of the African Union Commission the
instrument of withdrawal of its Declaration made under Article 34(6) of the
Protocol. The Court has held that the withdrawal has no retroactive effect,
nor does it affect cases pending before the Court prior to the deposit of the
instrument of withdrawal of the Declaration, or new cases filed before the
withdrawal takes effect one (1) year after the deposit of the instrument of
withdrawal, in this case, on 22 November 2020.8 The instant Application
5
Ernest Francis Mtingwi v. Republic of Malawi (jurisdiction) (15 March 2013) 1 AfCLR 190, § 14.
Kennedy Ivan v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 48,
§ 26; Guéhi v. Tanzania, supra, §§ 33.
7 Formerly Rule 39(1) of the Rules of Court, 2 June 2010.
8 Cheusi v. Tanzania, supra, §§ 33-39; see also Umuhoza v. Rwanda, supra, § 67.
6
7