285/04 Communication 285/2004: Mr Kizila
Watumbulwa/ Democratic Republic of the Congo
Summary of the Facts:
1. The complaint was filed at the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Commission) by
Professor Nyabirungu Mwene Songa, a Lawyer at the Kinshasa Bar, on behalf of Mr Kizila Watumbulwa
against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (the DRC or the Respondent State).
2. The communication is about a dispute that was settled by the Supreme Court of the Democratic Republic
of the Congo over a building situated at N° 13 Avenue de la Cathédrale in the city of Bukavu, South Kivu
Province, and recognized as the property of Mr Lucio Noca, an Italian national residing in Bukavu.
3. The building was the residence of the Complainant, Mr Kizila, who at the time of the incident, was the
Regional Director of the Interdisciplinary Centre for Development and Continuing Education (CIDEP), a
higher education institute, who concluded a lease agreement with Mr Eug?ne Kasilembo Kyakenge, who
presented himself as the buyer of the property which was formerly managed by the state-owned National
Insurance Company (SONAS).
4. The Complainant alleges that he was surprised to receive a summons to appear before the Bukavu High
Court for a matter brought against him by Mr Kafwa Kasongo who claimed to be the new owner of the
building and requested for an eviction order to be issued.
5. The judge granted the request which was executed in an inhuman, humiliating and degrading manner.
The Complainant's furniture and belongings were scattered on the street and he was only able to recover
them with the help of his neighbours and some passers-by.
6. The Complainant lodged an appeal which was dismissed by both the High Court and the Supreme Court.
Articles alleged to have been violated
7. The Complainant alleges that Articles 3 and 7 of the African Charter have been violated.
Procedure
8. The complaint was received at the Secretariat of the Commission on 12 February 2004, and the latter
acknowledged receipt on the same day.
9. 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 the Secretariat to inform the relevant parties of
its decision.
10. By a letter and a note verbale dated 18 June 2004, the Secretariat of the Commission informed the
parties of the Commission's decision and requested them to submit their written observations on the
admissibility of the communication.
11. The Complainant submitted his written observations on the admissibility of the communication to the
Secretariat of the Commission during its 36th Ordinary Session. The Secretariat provided the
representatives of the Respondent State present at the session with a copy of the complaint and the written
submissions.
12. At its 37th, 38th, 39th and 40th Ordinary Sessions, the Commission considered the communication and,
due to the lack of submissions from the Respondent State, decided to defer its consideration on
admissibility.
13. By letters and notes verbales sent on 23 December 2004, 28 June 2005, 10 October 2005, 30
December 2005, 23 March 2006, 1 July 2006 and 23 April 2007, the Secretariat of the Commission
constantly informed the parties to the communication of the decisions of the Commission. In each note
verbale sent, the Secretariat always reminded the Respondent State to submit on admissibility.
14. At its 41st Ordinary Session held in Accra, Ghana, from 16 to 30 May 2007, the Commission, due to the
lack of a response from the Respondent State, considered the communication on the basis of the facts in
its possession and declared it admissible.
15. By a letter and a note verbale dated 20 June 2007, the parties were informed of the decision of the
Commission and requested to submit on the merits of the communication.
1