5. Posted to Egypt in 1969 in the same capacity, he had to leave his materials at the Embassy. In
1972, he demanded these materials, but was met with a refusal from the Government of Mali, the
latter challenging the ownership of the materials.
6. After several complaints in 1972, 1978 and 1989, the Government of Mali finally consented to
acknowledge the Applicant's ownership of the artifacts and to hand them over to him.
7. But as time went on, they became damaged by bad weather and exposure at the basement of
the Embassy.
8. That was why he asked for remedy from the State of Mali. The latter maintained total silence
and did not react to his request. He also had to approach the Judiciary of his country, to seek
reparation for the injury suffered.
9. Having taken note of the damage done to his materials, and faced with the tacit refusal of the
Government of Mali to grant him remedy, Moussa Léo Kéita decided to bring his case before the
Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court, by Application dated 19 April 1999.
10. The State of Mali believed it was not under an obligation to appear before this Court, in the
course of the preliminary procedure, and was ordered by the Judgment of 8 March 2001 to pay the
sum of 30 million CFA Francs as damages to the Applicant. Four years after the issuing of this
Order, Mali had not paid the amount ordered.
11. Rather, it contended having filed on 9 April 2001, before the Administrative Chamber, an
Application for revision of the Judgment ordering the payment of damages. By another Judgment
dated 21 October 2001, the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Mali reduced the
initial amount of 30 million CFA Francs to the sum of seven (7) million, for the following reasons:
That Mali, which had its own currency, joined the CFA Zone in 1985.
That there was also a devaluation of the CFA Franc in 1994.
12. Even then, the latter amount was not paid to the Applicant, who thought that he had to bring
his case before the Community Court of Justice for the purposes of remedying the wrongs caused
him.
13. Reacting to the Application of Moussa Léo Kéita, Mali's State Department for Disputes rejected
his allegations, claiming that if the items had remained in the basement of the Embassy of Mali, it
was because Moussa Léo Kéita did not possess an official document from the State of Mali for
repatriating his collection, whereas American legislation required such document for the movement
of the artifacts on its territory.
14. Moreover, the said State Department explains that in reality, the Applicant had abandoned his
collection in the basement of the Embassy and did not entrust it to anybody's care, not even to his
successor.
15. It was therefore by mere chance that the collection was discovered in 1971 during a mission of
the Inspectorate General of the Administrative, Financial and Economic Affairs, at Washington.
16. Thus, after an auditing, the administrative authorities handed over the said items to the
Applicant against an acknowledgement of receipt.
17. As regards the Application, the State Department for Disputes concluded its views that it
should be purely and simply rejected on the grounds that:
The Court of Justice of ECOWAS is incompetent to adjudicate on the case, having regard
to Articles 9 and 10 [sic] of the 2005 Supplementary Protocol on the said Court.
The defect of status of the Applicant.