appealed
again before
the same
High Court
and
the same
Supreme
Court
of
Appeal?
15. The subtile distinction between
an action
contract
of employment
of the contract
unlawful
dismissal
seems
in terms
based
to endorse
on
the
(paragraph
rules
for unlawful
termination
itself,
and
an
of the
action
of natural
justice,
which
the
40(1)), is not weighty
enough
compared
for
Court
to the
general impression drawn from the handling of this matter by local Courts, and
the
acceptance
exhausted,
Under
have been
basis
by
taken
the
Respondent
these
State
circumstances,
into account
for its conclusion
that
such
by a human
for a matter
as
local
remedies
had
been
technical
subtility
should
rights Court as the sole and
serious
as
the
admissibility
not
only
of the
application.
16, Lastly, it seems to us that the Court, having taken the initiative of treating
the issue of exhaustion of local remedies, it should have examined all its facets
and ensure especially that the remedies it was referring the Applicant to, were
still available and
effective.
parties
the Court
and
since
However,
since
itself raised
the issue was
no
questions
on
not discussed
the
matter,
by the
no
one
knows, legally speaking, whether recourse to the High Court is still possible for
the Applicant.
effective,
Be it as it may,
especially
as
the
there is no guarantee
Supreme
Court
that this remedy
of Appeal
had
decided
will be
in
its
judgment of 2007 that the principle of res judicta would applied to the case of
the Applicant on unlawful dismissal’,
17. The African Court therefore took its decision without any certainty on the
availability of
remedies and on their effectiveness. In our opinion, under the
circumstances,
it should
at least have,
pursuant
to Rule
41
of the Rules
of
Court, requested parties to provide more information on the exhaustion of local
The 11 October 2007 judgment; “We shall now deal with the first ground of appeal which is
that his employment was unlawfully terminated. Upon regarding the judgement of this Court
which
was
delivered
are satisfied that
on
12 July
2004
which
the issue for determination
we
have
partly cited earlier in this judgement,
and the parties to the appeal
very clear that this case falls into a classio definition of res judicata".
6
are the same,
ie
we
It is