Previous 6 / 46 Next

- �CHP�_ ' . ACHPR ) African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility 19. Following the revelations relating to the conduct of the then CJ and the latter's decision provisionally permitting a suspended medical doctor to practice, the Complainant moved the Court in February 2012 that his application for re-opening the disciplinary proceedings should be re-called. Pending the determination of this application, he also sought an interim relief allowing him to practice as the CJ had done with the medical doctor. By the time the Complainant filed his submissions on admissibility in December 2013, the Supreme Court before whom he had made his application in February 2012 had not delivered any ruling on his request for interim relief. 20. Furthermore, the 1 July 2011 ruling kept on haunting him in several other cases which he had initiated in person. In 2013 the Complainant requested that a five member bench should be constituted to revisit the issue of litigants in person as decided in the 1 July 2011 ruling. He requested the issue to be revisited in lieu of six cases (D Hurnam v The State of Mauritius & KP Matadeen and 5 other cases) in which he sought to act in person. The request was based on: (a) the fact that the JCPC which is the highest court for Mauritius allows litigants in person to initiate their appeals; (b) the fact that after the 1 July 2011 ruling and subsequent proceedings in which the Complainant was acting in person, the CJ proposed an amendment to the relevant rules to seal any loopholes in the 1 July 2011 ruling, which imply that he had a valid point that persons can institute proceedings in person; and (c) the argument that the 1 July 2011 ruling breached the equality of arms and discriminated between plaintiff and defendant litigants as the latter are allowed to defend suits in person. He states that the five-member bench he had requested was necessary since it is only a bench of that composition that could overrule the legal position enunciated in the 1 July 2011 ruling of the full bench of the Supreme Court. 21. On 2nd May 2013 his request for a five-member bench was declined by a single judge on the grounds that the issue in question had already been settled by a five member bench of the Supreme Court as per the 1 July 2011 ruling; and that there did not appear to be such magnitude in the interests at stake or such importance or intricacy of the questions of fact or law involved, in terms of section 36 of the Courts Act. 22. The Complainant states that the July 1 , 201 1 ruling continued to be invok cases in which he sought to act in person. He instituted the case of Page 5 of 45 AG��· African Commission on Human and 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Komb West Coast Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: Email: au-banjul@ \ /

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