Previous 18 / 46 Next

r,r) 6�!:tEB p,.CHP� Human R:ghts our Collect,ve Re::;ponsibility Human and Peoples' Rights 75. The Supreme Court also has civil and criminal appellate jurisdiction,8 and for this purpose it has two divisions which constitute the Court of Civil Appeal and the Court of Criminal Appeal. 9 Judges of the Supreme Court are also judges of the Courts of Appeal.1° Appeals to the Supreme Court sitting as Court of Civil Appeal lie from: the Supreme Court constituted by a single judge dispatching original civil jurisdiction, and other courts subordinate to the Supreme Court.11 Except as may be expressly provided otherwise in an enactment, appeals to the Supreme Court sitting as a Court of Appeal are heard before at least two (2) judges.12 The Court of Civil Appeal Act is categorical in stating that the Court of Civil Appeal shall be constituted by two (2) or three (3) judges as the Chief Justice shall in any case direct, but shall not include the judge from whose decision the appeal is made." 13 76. Further, appeals from the Supreme Court and the Courts of Civil and Criminal Appeal lie to the Judicial Committee of Privy Council (JCPC) established by the Judicial Committee Act 1 833 of the United Kingdom as amended from time to time. 14 An appeal does not lie from the Supreme Court exercising original jurisdiction to the JCPC if the appeal lies to the Court of Appeal as of right.15 The JCPC may also grant special leave to appeal directly from any court in any civil or criminal matter. 16 77. From the foregoing, it follows that the trajectory for exhausting local judicial remedies is in normal circumstances as follows: (a) from a subordinate first instance court to the Supreme Court in which case the latter sits as a Court of Appeal; (b) from the Supreme Court dispatching original (first instance) jurisdiction to the Supreme Court sitting as a Court of Appeal; (c) from the Supreme Court sitting as a Court of Appeal to the JCPC; ( d) with special leave from any court to the JCPC. The JCPC is accordingly the apex judicial appellate body for the Respondent State. s Id, s. 69(1) 9 Constitution of the Republic of Mauritius 1968 (Rev. 2011) (the Constih1tion), Art. 80(1) 10 Id, Art. 80(3) 11 Courts Act 1945, n 4 above, s. 69(1) 12 Id, s. 70 , 13 Court of Civil Appeal Act of Mauritius, Section 2(3) u The Constitution, Art. 81(1) as red together with Art. 111 ( I) ..., 1s Id, proviso to Art.81(1) � ,u 16 Id, Art. 81(5) ; :::! � :·\I Page 17 of45 Afi�n' 1 Union, � f �' J H an and Peoples' Rights " ut, Kombo North District, est Coast Region Gambia 0 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04 Email: au-banjul@africa-Lrnion.org htlps:iachpr.au.int,O O a

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 459/13 - Devendranath Hurnam v. Mauritius

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Equality
Equality Before the Law
Functioning and Independence of the Judiciary
Right to be Heard before a Competent Court

Case Head Notes: The Complainant is a lawyer, who, in the midst of dealing with charges that were brought against him, wished to represent himself without the services of an attorney. The Respondent State denied this possibility. The Commission found a violation of Article 3 stating that the right to litigate one's own case is protected under the African Charter, and because, otherwise, those who are unable (because of financial or other reasons), or unwilling, to use the services of an attorney will be deprived of their right to be heard by the Court. The Commission also noted that the right to litigate in person is not refused to the representatives of the State, so to deny that right to the other party is unequal. The Commission found a violation of Article 7 stating that, given that the Complainant was refused the opportunity to present his case in front of the Supreme Court and the Judicial Committee, the Complainant was denied the opportunity to appeal to a competent national organ, and, therefore, denied the right to have his case heard. The Commission further states that no substance would be left to the right to defence if it meant that individuals, whose rights are infringed, can only pursue justice through the services of a third party. The Commission asserted that the right to be defended by counsel of their choice is an entitlement and not a requirement. The Commission found no violation of Article 26 stating that the Complainant submitted a series of allegations which could not be sufficiently substantiated and cannot be considered as solid evidence. They also state that they do not have a reason to conclude that the Respondent State has not allowed the establishment and improvement of appropriate national institutions entrusted with the promotion and protection of human rights, as required by Article 26 of the Charter. The Commission requested the Respondent State to take all necessary measures to ensure the reopening of the proceedings, as requested by the Complainant, and to allow him to be self-represented if he desires. The Commission also requested the Respondent State to ensure that its laws and statutes, regarding access to courts, are in line with its obligations under the Charter and to provide the Complainant with financial compensation.

Country

Mauritius

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: May 23, 2023

Rights Alleged to be Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
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 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 7.1: Right to be Heard
ACHPR 3: Right to Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of the Law
ACHPR 7.1.a: Right to Sue for Remedy before a Competent Tribunal
ACHPR 7.1.c: Right to Defence

Rights Not Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 26 : Duty to Guarantee Independence of Courts

Duration of Procedure

Sep 18, 2013 ~ May 23, 2023

Country Geolocation

Latitude: -20.348404

Longitude: 57.55215200000001

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): Mauritius

Primary Documents

Devendranath Hurnam v Mauritius.pdf
English
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

Communication 459/13 - Devendranath Hurnam v. Mauritius

Primary Documents

Notifications