the title deed wrongfully allocated to Mr. Kafwa.
The Complaint
15. The Complainant submits that in the light of the above mentioned facts, the Respondent State has
violated Articles 3, 7 and 14 of the African Charter.
16. The Complainant further requests the Commission to:
• Declare judgement No. RCR/C019 of 28th November 2003 null and void following the requested
disqualification of the right of Mr. KAFWA to the disputed property; recognise the right of Mr. NOCA
Lucio, and, by extension, his sole heir, Mr. Dino NOCA to the said property.
• Award to Mr. Dino NOCA as compensation for occupation and deprivation of use of property for 28
years a minimum amount of USD 400,000, including legal fees.
The Procedure
17. The Complaint was submitted on 12 February 2004 to the Secretariat of the Commission, which
acknowledged receipt of it the same day.
18. At its 35th Ordinary Session held from 21 May to 4 June 2004 in Banjul, The Gambia, the Commission
decided to be seized of the Communication and requested that the interested Parties be informed. The
Secretariat informed the Parties of the Commission's decision and requested them to submit their written
arguments on admissibility.
19. The Complainant submitted its written arguments on the admissibility of the Communication to the
Secretariat of the Commission during the deliberations of the 35th Ordinary Session. The Secretariat
submitted a copy of the complaint and the arguments of the Complainant to representatives of the
Respondent State present at this Session.
20. By an additional submission on the admissibility of the Communication forwarded on 6 December 2004,
the Complainant informed the Secretariat of the Commission about the replacement of Mr. NYABIRUNGU
Mwene SONGA by Mr. FATAKI wa LUHINDI D®fi Augustin, a Lawyer at the Bar of Kinshasa/Gombe to
pursue his interests at the Commission.
21. The Commission considered the Communication at its 36th, 37th, 38th, 39th, 40th, 41st 42nd and 43th
Ordinary Sessions and at every session deferred its decision for lack of arguments from the Respondent
State on admissibility.
22. The Secretariat informed the parties to the Communication of the Commission's decision by requesting
at each time that the Respondent State should submit its written observations on the admissibility of the
Communication.
23. A Note verbale as a reminder had been forwarded to the Respondent State on 23 March 2006 with a
copy of the arguments of the Complainant Party attached to it.
24. In another note verbale dated 4 October 2007, the Secretariat reminded the Respondent State that the
Commission's decision on deferment was firm on the submission of its written arguments within a period of
one month. In this regard, the Secretariat reminded the Respondent State that if it failed to present its
arguments, the Commission would proceed with the consideration of the case on the basis of the facts in
the file.
25. At its 44th Ordinary Session held in Abuja, the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Commission declared
the Communication ADMISSIBLE on the basis of the information in its possession.
26. By note verbale and letter dated 19 December 2008, the Secretariat of the Commission informed the
parties that it had declared the Communication admissible and invited them to submit on the merits of the
case before the 45th Ordinary Session scheduled for 13 to 27 May 2009 in Banjul, The Gambia.
27. By note verbale and letter dated 24th April, 2009, the Secretariat of the Commission advised the parties
to file their submissions on the merits of the Communication at the 45th Ordinary Session scheduled for 13th
to 27th May, 2009 in Banjul, the Gambia.
2