Previous 23 / 31 Next

123. II conclut que dans le cas d'espece, l'Etat du Cameroun ne prevoit aucun mecanisme de recours contre les decisions de justice irregulieres de la Cour Supreme du Cameroun a telle enseigne que les decisions de cette Cour sont insusceptibles de tout recours. Violation alleguee de !'article 7 (1) (d) 124. Le Plaignant indique que la loi numero 92/008 du 14 aout 1992 fixant certaines dispositions relatives a !'execution des decisions de justice modifiee par celle numero 97/018 du 07 ao0t 1997 dispose en son article 2 (1) qu' « en matiere non repressive, l'exercice d'une voie de recours , a !'exception du pourvoi devant la Cour Supreme suspend !'execution de la decision de justice attaquee ». 125. II soutient que selon le legislateur camerounais, toute demande de sursis a execution devant la Cour Supreme du Cameroun est de droit admise pour examen et ne saurait faire l'objet de refus de depot. 126. II allegue cependant que l'Etat du Cameroun n'a prevu aucune voie de recours en cas de refus d'enregistrer une requete de ce genre au greffe de la Cour Supreme, alors qu'il s'agit d'une garantie fondamentale pour le droit a un proces equitable. 127. Le Plaignant indique que les victimes ont saisi la CCJA apres la decision de la Cour Supreme de declarer irrecevable la premiere demande de sursis a execution. Selon le Plaignant, c'est ala suite de la decision de rejet et savamment motivee de la CCJA s'agissant du sursis a execution des decisions rendues par l'Etat partie que les victimes ont saisi de nouveau la Cour Supreme pour les memes fins. 128. II allegue que la Cour Supreme n'a meme pas daigne enregistrer ladite requete pour en donner une chance d'etre examinee pour se rendre compte de !'element nouveau dans la procedure. II allegue en outre que le zele subi par les conseils des Plaignantes tant du service du Greffe de la Cour Supreme que du service de Protocole du Premier President de la Cour Supreme du Cameroun, constitue une attitude manifestement illegale, abusive et irreguliere faisant obstacle au droit une voie de recours. a 129. II indique que par une telle abstention, l'Etat du Cameroun ne garantit justiciables un droit a un proces equitable, violant par cette dispositions de !'article 7 de la Charte Africaine des Droits de l'Ho Peuples. I <tz \~ , .....,.___ 0 1 t< " ci I :r ..., , ,,,.. .q •~IC p.1tl~ ~" E El 0~$ 9~ "'' •

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 739/20 Nchankou Ndjindam (representing SARL METIS and the Estate of the late Madame Etouman Hélène Adèle) v. Republic of Cameroon

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Equality
Functioning and Independence of the Judiciary
Right to Fair Trial

Case Head Notes: The communication arose from the eviction of SARL METIS and Madame Etouman Hélène Adèle from commercial premises following domestic court proceedings in Cameroon. Although the OHADA Common Court of Justice and Arbitration (CCJA) later quashed the national appellate decision ordering the eviction, the complainants alleged that officials of the Supreme Court of Cameroon refused to register a second application for a stay of execution and unreasonably delayed affixing the executory formula to the CCJA judgment. They argued that these actions denied them access to justice and prevented them from obtaining the benefit of the favourable CCJA judgment. On the merits, the African Commission held that Cameroon violated Article 7(1)(a) by denying the complainants effective access to justice through the refusal to receive and process their application, and violated Article 7(1)(d) because the executory formula for the CCJA judgment was not issued within a reasonable time. As a consequence of these violations, the Commission also found a violation of Article 1 of the African Charter. However, it declined to find separate violations of Articles 25 and 26, and did not determine a violation of Article 3. The Commission recommended that Cameroon provide appropriate reparations, with the assessment of monetary compensation to be undertaken by the national courts.

Country

Cameroon

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: Jul 30, 2025

Rights Alleged to be Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7.1: Right to be Heard
ACHPR 1: General Obligations
ACHPR 25: Duty to promote and ensure respect of the rights and freedoms contained in the Charter
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 1: General Obligations
ACHPR 7.1.a: Right to Sue for Remedy before a Competent Tribunal
ACHPR 7.1.d: Right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial Court

Rights Not Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 25: Duty to promote and ensure respect of the rights and freedoms contained in the Charter
ACHPR 26 : Duty to Guarantee Independence of Courts
ACHPR 3: Right to Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of the Law

Duration of Procedure

Dec 30, 2019 ~ Jul 30, 2026

Country Geolocation

Latitude: 7.369721999999999

Longitude: 12.354722

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): Cameroon

Primary Documents

Nchankou Ndjindam (representing SARL METIS and the Estate of the late Madame Etouman Hélène Adèle) v. Republic of Cameroon.pdf
French
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

Communication 739/20 Nchankou Ndjindam (representing SARL METIS and the Estate of the late Madame Etouman Hélène Adèle) v. Republic of Cameroon

Primary Documents

Notifications