108. With the same understanding, the Court ruled in the case MR. CHUD
MBA VS. REPUBLIC OF GHANA, Judgment No ECW/CCJ/JUD/10/13
of 6th November 2013, in CCJLR, 2013, pag. 349, §51 that “As a general
rule, jurisdiction is inferred from the Plaintiffs claim and in deciding
whether or not this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present action,
reliance has to be placed on the facts as presented by the Plaintiff.”
109. In the instant case, the Applicant relied on the provisions of the law
that grants the Court jurisdiction in matters of human rights to
substantiate his case, citing Articles 9 (4) and 10 (d) of Additional
Protocol A/SP.1/ 05 of 2005 that amended Protocol A/P1/7/91, on the
Court, relying, to establish his cause of action, on facts, alleged to have
occurred between April 1993 to 22 December 1994 and in March 1996,
which he considers to be in violation of his human rights, as contrary to
the relevant provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples'
Rights and other international human rights protection instruments.
110. Thus, there is no doubt that the question posed by the Applicant to the
court falls in abstracto within the scope of its material competence.
111. Although, as understood by this Court, “A cause of action is a fact or
combination of facts which establishes or gives a right of action.” See
GABRIEL INYANG & ANOR V. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF
NIGERIA ECW/CCJ/JUD/20/18 @ pg 9.
112. Or further, as defined by this Court, the Cause of action “as a matter
for which an action can be brought, a legal right predicated on facts upon
which an action may be sustained. It is a right to bring a suit based on
factual situations disclosing the existence of a legal right.(…)” See
INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF FISCAL & CIVIL RIGHTS
ENLIGHTENMENT FOUNDATION V. FED REP OF NIGERIA & 2
ORS, ECW/CCJ/JUD/18/16 page 19.
19