50. In addition, for four of the allegations the Complainant makes cross-references to
other Communications
currently
before
the Commission.
In this regard,
the only
Communication which can be considered is Communication 432/12 Peter Odiwuor
Ngoge v Republic of Kenya, being the only cited case
admissible before the Commission. In this Communication
to engage with the argument that domestic remedies are
“serious breakdown of trust and professional etiquette,”19
that there had been undue prolongation of thi
attributable to the Respondent State. The fact that in this
of a prolongation of the processes by the pated is thus;not en
trend of prejudice. The Commission i
effective if it offers a prospect of suce
n
the Complainant, the allegations about
i
i
which has been declared
the Commission declined
not available owing to a
since it had already found
ic processes which were
ase there was evidence
to establish a general
that a remedy is
ce produced by
teand Hte@hbsidiaries
have denied him effective local remedies am
material basis.
Si.
] dices which he allegedly suffered at
the hands of the judiciary to the Judicial Service Commission, the Office of the Chief
Justice, the Office of the Attorney General and others, his complaints were dismissed
without inquiry into the serious allegations that they raise. The State was given an
opportunity to. respond to uns ai
y have not produced any evidence to the
ve been relevant on the merits to reach a
Hollins on prejudice
against ae Complainant on the side of state institutions, it is not
relevant in the context of exhaustion of local remedies as part of an admissibility
analysis. This is because the local remedies that have to be exhausted are judicial
remedies” and these actions were extra-judicial and thus cannot serve as justification
for why local judicial remedies do not have to be exhausted.
18 See para 59 of Communication 432/12 Peter Odiwuor Ngoge v Republic of Kenya.
2° Cudjoe v Ghana (2000) AHRLR 127 (ACHPR 1999) para 13.
12
BERICAL Coy,
52. The Complainant, in providing evidence about the present case focuses mainly on the
process before the High Court. One of the Complainant's allegations against the
judiciary is that his cases are dismissed without delving into the merits. In the current
case the constitutional petition was dismissed after a decision of lack of due diligence
and without delving into the merits, and the Notice of Motion to set aside this