i,.CHP� J 6�!j,Ef1 1, 't <mw · Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility Hurnam v N Devat and others) by motion in 2012, initially with the assistance of an attorney. When it came up for hearing the attorney had since passed away. The question arose as to whether the Complainant could continue prosecuting as opposed to instituting the case in person following the demise of his attorney. The Judge declared his motion instituting the proceedings irreceivable on the ground that he could not act in person as his attorney had since passed on. He attempted to seize the JCPC by what is termed a leap frog appeal. However, on 12 July 2013 the JCPC declined jurisdiction as "the issue of the right to litigate in person ought to be considered by the Court of Appeal in Mauritius before any consideration by the JCPC; and the petitioner [had] not sought to have this done." 23. In yet another instance, the Complainant was a defendant in a contempt of court case brought against him by the Director of Public Prosecutions. In terms of the relevant law, he made an application for leave to summon two judicial officers to give evidence in the contempt case (Ex parte Devendranath Hurnam). The application for leave was made without recourse to an attorney and it contained an express prayer that he should be allowed to prosecute it without an attorney. The Judge in chambers set aside the application on the point in limine litis that the Complainant could not lodge and proceed with the application in person, citing the 1 July 201 1 ruling as authority for that proposition. He appealed against the judge's ruling to the Court of Civil Appeal, which he once again invited to depart from the 1 July 201 1 ruling and to revisit the decision of the judge in Devendranath Hurnam v N Devat and others (above). 24. By a judgment of 7 November 2013, the Court of Civil Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the motion for leave to summon judicial officers to the court a quo with a direction that the Complainant be allowed to proceed without an attorney. The Court reasoned that in instituting the motion the Complainant was acting as a respondent to the contempt proceedings, and respondents are not covered by the 1 July 201 1 ruling. The Complainant states that in its ruling, the Court of Civil Appeal completely ignored his arguments to revisit the 1 July 2 decision of the judge in Devendranath Hurnam v N Devat and othe ·� q 10tv <- 4Frt1C r,.,,. · V\tf f.l -=- - Page 6 of 45 African Commis:iion on Human and Peoples' Rights 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District. West Coast Region Gambia Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04 Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org https:/achpr.au.invO O a