p..CHP/t ,/~;"~~> R Al'frl'c\aCn'comHnll'SS'IPon on Human Hights our ((' • Human and Peoples' Bights Collective Responsibility that in the ordinary course of events, the Complainant's case if initiated as a normal application would move through appeals if need be, from the High Court to the Supreme Court and then the Constitutional Court. As noted earlier herein, in that hierarchy of courts the Complainant has only approached two courts, the High Court and the Constitutional Court. 52. In the High. Court, the Complainant's prayer was that "the application be enrolled and heard as an urgent application" for it to be heard on merits, which is a special procedure providing for deviation from normal court rules pertaining to setting down of applications. The High Court refused that application through an Order that states that, "having considered the documents filed on record and having heard counsel, the matter is struck off the roll, for lack of urgency." 53. Similarly, the Constitutional Court, .when approached by the Complainant had to rule on his urgent application for dir.ectaccess before hearing the merits of his case. In that regard, the Constitutional Court r-u,Iedthrough -an Order that reads a~ follows: "the ConstitutionalE:o.prt has con~~,W~red th~ u~gel1t application for direct access. It has concluded that the apphca.tlOn be dismissed because a case for direct access has not been made out. The~EO.urthas decided not to award costs. The application for direct access is dismissed." I -: --r ,j" 54. As the Respo 'dent State correctly argues, the perusal of those court Orders clearly indicate tat the High Court and the Constitutional did not hear the Complainant's case on merits and they did not pronounce themselves on issues at the heart of his applications, because he did not satisfy the standards/ tests required for the procedures through which he wanted to access the two courts for his case to be heard. Althougfi not heard by local courts, as the courts ruled against the procedure through which he brought his applications, the Complaincilit~1~,~,:now submitted the same issues at the heart of his applications to the Commis$lon through this Communication, which is an alleged violation of his right to Citizenship or the entitlement thereof, and related orders sought. 55. The Complainant argues that he has exhausted local remedies as required in terms of Article 56 (5) of the African Charter by approaching the High Court and the Constitutional Court, which is the highest Court in the land, both having dismissed his cases on the basis of procedure, but the Respondent State rebuts that contention. The rebut is on the ground that the local courts were never given an opportunity to hear the merits of the matter, pertaining to the violation of his rights to citizenship and his entitlement thereof, to provide redress to th~ Complainant within the domestic judicial system - an option that he s.Jtj!i~}:ju~:-., not us. ed - which goes against the principles of primacy of don;~~ 1i:fJIci.~'~4r .()<'c.~.\ Ano '9"':oflhe A ncan f (ti~~, Union ~1'~ 0. It J~ <:<\) f The African Commission o0;~mar{~~~,~?P~'s' an ~s 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo NO~I£Di~ri~' Wesf Coas~ .RI. 'gion i; Phone: (220) 2:<l{~4~ ax: (2i~~)Y~~{J4 " Email: all-ba.:[l~jU.It@@~ riGa~rfioj!.:o{-g// \. '" c . ~A-·RICP-II"''(:. ~""'1/ r\(t~p,:/achpr.au,j,nlfd»o ..,~---"., ,"".::-", f.1[ El 01:. -.......).(:C'J;}~",.~ hi'