Arusha, Tanzania
Website: www.african-court.org
Telephone: +255-272-510-510
JUDGMENT SUMMARY
courts and assessing their compliance with the Charter, the Protocol and other
international human rights instruments ratified by a State. In the present case, the Court
found that the rights alleged to have been violated are protected in the Charter to which
the Respondent State is a party and thus the Court’s material jurisdiction was established.
The Respondent State’s objection to the Court’s material jurisdiction was thus dismissed.
Although other aspects of its jurisdiction were not challenged by the Respondent State,
the Court nevertheless examined them pursuant to Rule 49(1) of the Rules of Court (“the
Rules”). Accordingly, the Court found that it has personal jurisdiction since, on 29 March
2010, the Respondent State deposited the Declaration provided for under Article 34(6) of
the Protocol, which allows individuals to file applications against it as per Article 5(3) of
the Protocol. The Court underscored that the Respondent State’s withdrawal of the said
Declaration, on 21 November 2019, did not affect this Application as the withdrawal took
effect on 22 November 2020, which was after this Application had been filed, on 19
September 2019.
The Court also found that it had temporal jurisdiction as the alleged violations occurred
after the Respondent State had become a party to the Protocol. Lastly, it found that it had
territorial jurisdiction given that the facts of the matter occurred within the territory of the
Respondent State. The Court thus held that it had jurisdiction to hear the Application.
The Court noted that pursuant to Article 6(2) of the Protocol, it must rule on the
admissibility of all cases filed before it. In the instant Application, the Respondent State
raised the objection that the Applicants had not exhausted the local remedies.
Specifically, the Respondent State argued that in addition to filing an appeal before the
Court of Appeal, the Applicant ought to have filed a petition under Article 30(3) of its
Constitution and section 4 of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act (BRDEA).
Regarding the Respondent State’s objection on non-exhaustion of domestic remedies,
the Court highlighted that under Article 56(5) of the Charter, whose provisions are
restated in Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, any application filed before it must fulfil the
requirement of exhaustion of local remedies unless the same are unavailable, ineffective
and insufficient or the domestic proceedings to pursue them are unduly prolonged. In
connection with the argument that the Applicant ought to have filed a constitutional
petition under the BRDEA, the Court, invoking its earlier decisions, held that this remedy,
2