|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| October 2025 |
|
|
Application struck out for prolonged failure to pursue proceedings and lack of instructions to counsel; restoration possible on good cause.
• Procedural law – Striking out – Rule 65(1)(b) & (c) – Failure to pursue case and where continuation no longer justified.
• Duty of diligence – Applicant’s obligation to maintain contact with counsel and pursue proceedings.
• Restoration – Struck-out applications may be restored on showing good cause under Rule 65(3).
|
9 October 2025 |
| September 2025 |
|
|
Court reopened pleadings and admitted the respondent’s late submission to consider newly enacted electoral legislation.
* Civil procedure – Reopening of pleadings – Court’s discretion under Rules 46(3), 46(4) and inherent powers (Rule 90) – Admission of late submissions after close of pleadings to consider subsequent domestic legislation.
* Human rights – Consideration of new electoral legislation (Independent National Electoral Commission Act No.2 of 2024) where relevant to pending Charter-based claims.
|
15 September 2025 |
| August 2025 |
|
|
Court exercised its discretion to reopen pleadings to admit additional evidence in a complex election-related human-rights application.
* Human rights – Elections – Alleged curtailment of rights to campaign and participate through appointment of electoral commissioners and discriminatory electoral practices.
* Procedure – Reopening pleadings – Court’s discretion under Rule 46(3) and inherent power under Rule 90.
* Evidence – Admission of additional submissions/evidence post-pleadings in interest of justice.
* Case management – Denial of extraordinary-session decision; imposed filing timelines.
|
5 August 2025 |
| June 2025 |
|
|
Court affirms jurisdiction and admissibility, including extraterritorial jurisdiction, over interstate human-rights claims arising from armed conflict.
Inter-state proceedings; jurisdiction under Article 3(1) Protocol – no ICJ-style prior dispute required; material jurisdiction if alleged rights protected by Charter or ratified instruments; extraterritorial jurisdiction where State involvement in armed conflict affects hostilities; admissibility – regional/AU preliminary political procedures do not bar Court proceedings; abuse of process requires manifest bad faith; mass-media evidence permissible if not exclusive; exhaustion of local remedies waivable for systemic/large-scale violations; lis pendens/res judicata require identical parties, subject-matter and prior decision.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Removal from voters’ register based on a final criminal judgment did not breach the applicant’s electoral or fair-trial rights.
* Human rights—elections—eligibility: removal from voters’ register based on an allegedly final criminal conviction—lawful if domestic judgment is final and requirements met.
* Fair trial—presumption of innocence: electoral and administrative bodies must respect finality of judicial decisions but may rely on judicial certificates of non-opposition.
* Limitations—political rights: restrictions on participation must be lawful, pursue a legitimate aim and be proportionate.
* Admissibility and jurisdiction: exhaustion of local remedies and timing; withdrawal of Article 34(6) Declaration has no retroactive effect on pending/applications filed before its effective date.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Mandatory death penalty and hanging violated the applicant’s rights to life and dignity; assessor-bias claim dismissed.
Jurisdiction — competence to examine national criminal proceedings for compliance with the Charter and to order remedies; Admissibility — exhaustion of local remedies and reasonable time; Fair trial — assessors’ role, impartiality and limits on cross‑examination; Equality before the law — burden of proof; Death penalty — mandatory sentencing violates right to life; Method of execution — hanging violates dignity and prohibits cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Application declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies despite Court’s jurisdiction.
* Human rights – admissibility – exhaustion of local remedies – applicant failed to demonstrate that domestic remedies were unavailable, ineffective or unduly prolonged. * Jurisdiction – respondent State’s withdrawal of Article 34(6) Declaration not retroactive; Court retains jurisdiction over cases filed before withdrawal’s effective date. * Default proceedings – Court may render judgment in default where State duly notified but fails to respond.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Failure to deliver appellate judgments in open court breached the Applicant’s fair trial right; no property violation found.
Human rights jurisdiction; admissibility – timeliness and exhaustion of local remedies; non‑interference and State responsibility for judicial acts; fair trial – public delivery of judgments; limits on reviewing national courts’ factual/legal findings; property rights – requirement of ownership for protection; reparations – moral damages and publication/reporting measures.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Court finds violations of dignity, fair trial and life due to police brutality, ineffective legal aid, undue delay, mandatory death penalty and hanging.
Human rights — Jurisdiction and admissibility — exhaustion and reasonable time; Criminal procedure — fair trial — effective legal assistance; Article 7(1)(c) and (d); Police brutality and state duty to investigate — Article 5; Mandatory death penalty and method of execution — violations of Articles 4 and 5; Reparations — compensation, legislative reform, re-sentencing, publication and reporting.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Request to suspend summons and travel ban dismissed for lack of demonstrated urgency and irreparable harm.
Provisional measures — prima facie jurisdiction — criteria: extreme gravity, urgency and irreparable harm — burden on applicant to prove urgency and irreparable harm — delay undermines urgency — suspension of summons not granted.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Application dismissed as inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies; Court confirmed jurisdiction despite the respondent's default.
Human rights – admissibility – exhaustion of local remedies – application premature where domestic criminal investigations and appeals ongoing; Jurisdiction – Article 34(6) Declaration withdrawal no retroactive effect; Default judgment – Rule 63(1) requirements satisfied; Costs – each party to bear own costs.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Claims of unequal treatment and denial of hearing dismissed for lack of evidence and valid procedural grounds.
Administrative law – internal promotion in public service; Equality before the law – burden of proof for discriminatory treatment; Judicial review – permissibility of jurisprudential evolution; Right to have one’s cause heard – procedural service and appeal time‑limits; Admissibility – exhaustion of local remedies and reasonable time.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Court found prima facie jurisdiction but dismissed provisional measures as they would prejudice the merits.
* Human rights – Provisional measures – Requirement of extreme gravity, urgency and prevention of irreparable harm – urgency as real and imminent risk; irreparable harm requiring reasonable likelihood. * Jurisdiction – Prima facie jurisdiction where alleged violations fall under the African Charter and respondents have ratified the Protocol and deposited Article 34(6) Declaration. * Provisional measures – Cannot be granted where they would prejudice the merits (measures identical to relief on the merits). * Competence – Objections that matters concern WAEMU recognition/diplomatic acts dismissed at prima facie stage.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Failure to exhaust effective domestic remedies (Constitutional Court) renders application challenging an amnesty law inadmissible despite Court's jurisdiction.
Amnesty law; right to life and dignity; admissibility—exhaustion of local remedies; jurisdiction of African Court vis-à-vis domestic courts; power to order remedies (including repeal) where violations found; anonymity and multiple applications—abuse of process assessed on merits.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Applicant’s failure to exhaust effective domestic remedies rendered the application inadmissible despite Court’s jurisdiction.
• Human rights – Admissibility – Exhaustion of local remedies – Availability and effectiveness of constitutional review at domestic level.
• Jurisdiction – Temporal effect of State’s withdrawal of Article 34(6) Declaration – Applications filed before withdrawal takes effect.
• Proof required to excuse exhaustion – allegations of persecution or lack of judicial independence must be substantiated.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Court limited proceedings to States that ratified the Protocol and deposited the Article 34(6) declaration, striking out non‑qualifying parties.
Jurisdiction — Personal jurisdiction under Articles 3, 5 and 34(6) of the Protocol; NGO admissibility — observer status before the Commission as precondition for NGO applicants under Article 5(3); Effect of withdrawal — withdrawal of Article 34(6) declaration removes Court jurisdiction once effective; Rule 90 — Court’s inherent power to strike out non‑qualifying parties and reorganize proceedings for judicial efficiency.
|
17 June 2025 |
|
Court exercised discretion to reopen pleadings, deemed respondent’s late response filed, and allowed applicant 30 days to reply.
Procedure – Reopening of pleadings – Court’s discretion under Rule 46(3) and inherent powers under Rule 90 – Late filing and extension of time – Service of respondent’s response and thirty-day period to reply – Jurisdictional note on State’s withdrawal of Article 34(6) Declaration not affecting pending cases.
|
2 June 2025 |
| May 2025 |
|
|
Court reopens pleadings permitting the respondent to answer applicants' claims of disenfranchisement of prisoners and diaspora.
* Human rights – Political participation and elections – Alleged disenfranchisement of prisoners, death-sentenced persons and diaspora citizens; * Constitutional law – Limits on judicial review – Article 74(12) and challengeability of National Elections Commission actions; * Procedure – Reopening of pleadings – Court’s discretion under Rule 46(3) and inherent powers under Rule 90; * Remedies – Time-limited reopening and final deadline to file response.
|
20 May 2025 |
| February 2025 |
|
|
Court reopened pleadings, accepted additional electoral submissions, and admitted RFK and IHRDA as amici curiae.
Procedure – Reopening pleadings under Rule 46(3); Court’s inherent powers and Rule 90; electoral rights litigation; admission of amici curiae (RFK, IHRDA); service and timetable for additional submissions.
|
28 February 2025 |
|
Court lacks jurisdiction to hear application against the AU and AUC because they are not State Parties to the Protocol.
Jurisdiction – African Court’s competence – Applications must be against State Parties to the Protocol; International organisations (AU/AUC) not subject to Protocol obligations – reliance on Falana v. African Union – Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
|
12 February 2025 |
|
Failure to provide free legal representation violated the Applicant’s right to defence; conviction otherwise not found manifestly unsafe.
Jurisdiction – material and temporal jurisdiction affirmed; Admissibility – exhaustion of local remedies; Fair trial – right to defence and free legal assistance for indigent accused facing severe penalties; Standard of review – intervention only for manifest error leading to miscarriage of justice; Reparations – moral damages awarded; order to amend Legal Aid Act 2017; publication and periodic reporting.
|
5 February 2025 |
|
Application declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust the cassation remedy; lack of counsel/ignorance not an automatic excuse.
Human rights – Fair trial rights – Exhaustion of local remedies – Cassation appeal as available and effective domestic remedy – Lack of counsel or ignorance of remedy not automatically excusing non-exhaustion – Admissibility.
|
5 February 2025 |
|
Application dismissed as inadmissible for failure to exhaust available domestic remedies despite Court's jurisdiction.
* Human rights jurisdiction – Material, personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction – Allegations under the African Charter and other ratified instruments.
* Admissibility – Exhaustion of local remedies – Availability and effectiveness of domestic criminal/civil remedies under national criminal procedure (Article 36 and Article 206 CCP).
* Admissibility – Prematurity of application where domestic avenues to request investigation or bring civil action were not pursued.
* Costs – Each party to bear own costs.
|
5 February 2025 |
|
State violated multiple Charter rights of persons with albinism by failing to prevent, investigate and remedy systematic attacks.
Human rights – Persons with albinism – State duty of due diligence to prevent, investigate and prosecute attacks – Non-discrimination, right to life, freedom from torture, dignity, health, education, children’s rights – Admissibility: NGOs’ locus standi and exceptions to exhaustion of domestic remedies – Reparations: fund, legislative reform, national plan, awareness campaigns, reporting.
|
5 February 2025 |
|
Mandatory death penalty and execution by hanging violate the Charter; Court orders vacatur, new sentencing hearing, reforms and damages.
Criminal law and human rights – jurisdiction of the African Court to assess domestic proceedings – admissibility (exhaustion of local remedies; reasonable time) – mandatory death penalty violates Article 4 (right to life) – execution by hanging violates Article 5 (dignity) – reparations: moral damages, vacatur of mandatory sentence, new sentencing hearing, legislative reform and reporting.
|
5 February 2025 |
|
Default judgment allowed; application inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
Procedure – Default judgment – Rule 63 – Service and failure to respond; Jurisdiction – Article 3 Protocol – material, personal, temporal, territorial; Admissibility – Exhaustion of local remedies – Rule 50(2)(e) – appeal against first‑instance dismissal; Costs – each party bears own costs.
|
5 February 2025 |
|
Court has jurisdiction over alleged Charter violations from contractual disputes but Application dismissed for non‑exhaustion of local remedies.
• Jurisdiction – Material jurisdiction over alleged Charter violations even where disputes arise from contractual relations; Court may assess compliance of national judicial proceedings with Charter standards.
• Admissibility – Requirement to exhaust available, effective and satisfactory local remedies; undue prolongation assessed case‑by‑case.
• Remedies – Availability of Constitutional Court remedies in the Respondent State and consequences of failure to invoke them.
|
5 February 2025 |
| November 2024 |
|
|
Court exercised discretion to reopen pleadings and granted the respondent 30 days to file its Response.
Procedural law – Reopening pleadings and extension of time – Rule 46(3) and Rule 90 – Inherent powers to meet ends of justice – Effect of withdrawal of Article 34(6) Declaration on pending cases.
|
29 November 2024 |
|
Applicants failed to demonstrate urgency, extreme gravity or irreparable harm; provisional measures request dismissed.
• Provisional measures – Article 27(2) Protocol – requirements of extreme gravity, urgency and prevention of irreparable harm – burden of proof on applicant.
• Prima facie jurisdiction – reliance on ICCPR and State’s Article 34(6) Declaration.
• Domestic remedies – pending appeals may supply equivalent relief; risk of prejudging the merits.
• Evidence – causal link required between alleged harm and impugned measures.
|
20 November 2024 |
|
Mandatory death penalty and hanging violate the rights to life and dignity; no fair-trial breach found regarding conviction.
Criminal procedure – fair trial – credibility of evidence and appellate deference; Human rights – mandatory death sentence violates Article 4 (right to life); Human rights – execution by hanging violates Article 5 (dignity); Remedies – legislative repeal, resentencing, abolition of hanging, publication and reporting; Default judgment – State’s non-participation.
|
13 November 2024 |
|
Default judgment: Court finds no fair-trial violations and dismisses applicant’s claims, ordering each party to bear its own costs.
* Human rights – Fair trial – Article 7(1) African Charter – alleged violations: right to be heard, presumption of innocence, right to defence, notification of charges, reasoned judgment. * Judicial procedure – Default judgment – Rule 63(1): effect of State’s failure to respond after proper service. * Admissibility – exhaustion of local remedies and reasonable time. * Evidence – assessment of reliability and use of exhibits by domestic courts.
|
13 November 2024 |
|
Application alleging electoral‑participation violations inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
Electoral law amendments; right to participate in elections; admissibility—exhaustion of local remedies; Constitutional Council jurisdiction v ordinary courts; default proceedings for non‑responsive State.
|
13 November 2024 |
|
Challenge to father-only surname rule held moot after domestic law was amended to allow parental choice of child's surname.
* Human rights – Equality between men and women – National family law provision granting only father the right to give child's surname – Alleged violation of African Charter, Maputo Protocol, ICCPR and CEDAW. * Jurisdiction – African Court's material, personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction to examine compliance of domestic constitutional decisions with international human rights standards. * Admissibility – Requirement to exhaust local remedies and filing within reasonable time satisfied. * Mootness – Subsequent legislative amendment granting parental choice of child's surname renders application moot. * Reparations and costs – No reparations awarded; each party to bear its own costs.
|
13 November 2024 |
|
Mandatory death penalty and hanging violate the Charter’s rights to life and dignity; fair-trial claim dismissed.
Human rights — Criminal procedure — Fair trial and evaluation of circumstantial evidence; Death penalty — Mandatory death sentence violates right to life (Article 4); Method of execution — Hanging violates dignity and constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 5); Remedies — Moral damages, repeal of mandatory death penalty, removal of hanging, rehearing of sentence, publication and reporting obligations; Default judgment where State fails to respond.
|
13 November 2024 |
|
Mandatory death penalty and hanging violated the Applicant’s rights to life and dignity; Court ordered vacatur, rehearing and legal reform.
Criminal procedure; jurisdiction and admissibility; exhaustion of local remedies; evidential review by international court; mandatory death penalty violates Article 4 (right to life); hanging violates Article 5 (dignity); reparations include moral damages, vacatur of mandatory sentence, rehearing and statutory reform; publication and reporting obligations.
|
13 November 2024 |
|
Fair-trial claims dismissed as inadmissible for failure to exhaust effective domestic remedies; Court confirmed jurisdiction.
• Human rights – Fair trial: right of appeal, right to counsel, adversarial principle, reasoned judgment, proportionality and dignity.
• Admissibility – Exhaustion of local remedies: requirement to appeal to Cour de cassation in Côte d’Ivoire; lack of counsel or ignorance not excusing non-exhaustion.
• Jurisdiction – Material, personal (Declaration under Article 34(6)), temporal and territorial jurisdiction established.
|
13 November 2024 |
|
Court finds no violation of fair trial, equal protection or dignity and dismisses reparations; application admissible and jurisdiction affirmed.
Human rights — Jurisdiction of African Court over national criminal proceedings; admissibility (exhaustion of local remedies; reasonable time); fair trial — right to have cause heard (evaluation of witness credibility and sufficiency of evidence); allegations of ill-treatment and equal protection — burden of proof; reparations and costs.
|
13 November 2024 |
|
Mandatory death penalty and hanging violate the Charter; domestic evidence and torture claims were not upheld.
Human rights—Jurisdiction to examine domestic criminal proceedings for Charter compliance; admissibility—exhaustion of local remedies and reasonable time; fair trial—assessment of admissibility and probative value of confession; prohibition of torture—burden of proof; right to life—mandatory death penalty arbitrary; dignity—hanging incompatible with human dignity; State obligations under Article 1—legislative and practical measures required.
|
13 November 2024 |
|
The Court upheld jurisdiction and admissibility, rejected a self-determination claim over the 2014 Constitution, but found violations of judicial and legislative independence and ordered structural remedies.
Constitutional process – right to self-determination – adoption of constitution by elected Constituent Assembly without referendum not per se violation; Judicial independence – dissolution of High Judicial Council and executive control over judges’ careers violates Article 26; Separation of powers – suspension/dissolution of legislature and assumption of decree-law legislative powers breaches legislature independence; Admissibility – exhaustion of local remedies waived where domestic constitutional review unavailable; Reparations – structural remedies and implementation reporting ordered.
|
13 November 2024 |
|
Court adjourned compliance hearing, gave State 90 days to file implementation report, and reserved costs.
Compliance hearing — Adjournment — Court’s discretion under Rules 54(6) and 90 to adjourn hearings; State granted 90 days to file implementation report; question of continuing evictions to be determined at future hearing; costs reserved.
|
12 November 2024 |
| October 2024 |
|
|
Court ordered suspension of the applicants' detention to secure urgent specialised medical treatment pending merits.
Provisional measures – prima facie jurisdiction under Protocol and human rights instruments; urgency, extreme gravity and irreparable harm – medical evidence and prison health reports; suspension of detention warrants to permit specialised treatment; reporting obligation of Respondent State.
|
29 October 2024 |
|
Court exercised discretion to reopen pleadings and accepted the respondent’s late Response, allowing a thirty-day reply.
Procedural law – Reopening pleadings – Court’s discretion under Rule 46(3) – Inherent power under Rule 90 – Late pleadings under Rule 45(1) – Interest of justice – Capital case/provisional measures (stay of execution).
|
28 October 2024 |
|
Court dismissed the application for lack of personal jurisdiction because the State had not deposited the Article 34(6) declaration.
Access to Court – Personal jurisdiction – Article 34(6) declaration – Individuals cannot bring direct applications against a State that has not deposited Article 34(6) declaration; Preliminary examination of jurisdiction under Rule 49(1); New application vs. previously determined application.
|
16 October 2024 |
| September 2024 |
|
|
Court found jurisdiction but declared the application inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies; provisional measures denied.
* Human rights – Pre-trial detention – Requirement to exhaust local remedies – Pending cassation appeal precludes admissibility.
* Jurisdiction – Sovereignty argument rejected where State has ratified relevant human rights instruments and deposited Article 34(6) Declaration.
* Provisional measures – Not granted where application declared inadmissible and domestic remedies pending.
|
3 September 2024 |
|
Court found violations of consular rights, interpretation, due process delays, police ill-treatment, and the mandatory death penalty; ordered remedies including vacatur and law reform.
Human rights court jurisdiction; admissibility and exhaustion; fair trial—consular notification, interpretation, legal assistance, trial within reasonable time; prohibition of torture—police brutality, failure to investigate; death penalty—mandatory sentencing, death-row phenomenon, method of execution (hanging); remedies including vacatur of death sentence, law reform and compensation.
|
3 September 2024 |
|
Application inadmissible for failure to exhaust a pending cassation appeal in domestic courts.
Human rights — Admissibility — Exhaustion of local remedies — Cassation appeal in Burkina Faso an available, effective and satisfactory remedy — Pending cassation appeal renders application inadmissible — Jurisdiction affirmed — Costs each party to bear own costs.
|
3 September 2024 |
|
Applicant’s conviction upheld on evidence, but failure to provide free legal assistance violated fair trial rights; modest moral damages awarded.
• Jurisdiction – material, personal, temporal and territorial – Court may review alleged violations of Charter rights despite national appellate findings.
• Admissibility – exhaustion of local remedies satisfied by appeals to High Court and Court of Appeal and review; filing within reasonable time.
• Fair trial – right to be heard: domestic courts’ factual assessments afforded margin of appreciation; no manifest error found.
• Right to legal assistance – indigent accused facing serious charges must be provided free legal assistance at trial and appellate stages (Article 7(1)(c) African Charter; Article 14(3)(d) ICCPR).
• Reparations – material loss unproven; award for moral prejudice TZS 300,000; implementation reporting required.
|
3 September 2024 |
|
Only the complaint against the applicant’s lawyers was admissible; the Court found no fair-trial violation and dismissed reparations.
• Jurisdiction — material, personal, temporal and territorial — established where applicant alleges violations under instruments ratified by State. • Admissibility — exhaustion of local remedies required; remedies must be available, effective and actually pursued. • Labour appeals — failure to file appeal submissions precludes exhaustion. • Police/criminal complaints — available criminal and civil remedies must be used (complaint to prosecutor, civil party action, direct summons). • Constitutional Court petitions — decline of jurisdiction may render domestic remedy exhausted for that issue. • Merits — no violation of right to a fair trial where Constitutional Court heard petition and remedies existed. • Reparations — dismissed where no violation found.
|
3 September 2024 |
| June 2024 |
|
|
Request to reopen pleadings and for a hearing dismissed for lack of relevance to the application's fair-trial claims.
Procedure – Reopening pleadings (Rule 46(3)) – Discretionary power conditioned on relevance to the subject matter; Relevance and new evidence required; Request to hold hearing dismissed as superfluous where reopening denied; Fair-trial complaints arising from domestic tax-contract litigation.
|
6 June 2024 |
|
Mandatory death penalty and hanging violate rights to life and dignity; rehearing and legal reform ordered.
• Human rights — Criminal procedure — Jurisdiction and admissibility — Reasonable time requirement for filing and exhaustion of local remedies.
• Fair trial — Right to be tried within reasonable time; right to defence (effective legal assistance and calling witnesses); presumption of innocence; impartial tribunal.
• Death penalty — Mandatory capital punishment — Arbitrary deprivation of life when judicial discretion to consider offence/offender is removed.
• Dignity — Execution by hanging may constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
• Remedies — Moral damages, vacatur of sentence, legal reform, rehearing, publication and periodic reporting.
|
4 June 2024 |
