|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| July 2025 |
|
|
Application to revise judgment dismissed for failing to produce a new, decisive fact as required by Article 27.
Revision of judgment – Article 27 Protocol – requirement of new and decisive fact unknown to Court and parties – admissibility – jurisdiction to entertain revision – legal grounds previously raised are not 'new facts' – res judicata and standing arguments considered in original judgment – costs awarded to successful respondent.
|
8 July 2025 |
|
Respondent failed to criminalize and investigate FGM, violating victims' rights; court ordered legislation, prosecution and compensation.
Human rights — Female genital mutilation (FGM) — State obligation to enact criminalizing legislation (Maputo Protocol Art.5; ACRWC Art.21) — Due diligence to prevent, investigate and prosecute private perpetrators — Right to effective remedy and security of the person — FGM as inhuman/degrading treatment; torture standard not met — Reparations and legislative and administrative measures ordered.
|
8 July 2025 |
|
Court found State liable for cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and physical integrity/health violations; awarded CFA 50,000,000.
Human rights jurisdiction; admissibility—no exhaustion requirement before ECOWAS Court; victim standing of parent for minor; torture vs cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; violation of physical integrity and right to health; damages and costs.
|
7 July 2025 |
|
Applicants' human-rights claims dismissed for lack of probative evidence despite default proceedings.
Human rights – ECOWAS Court jurisdiction over Member States; admissibility – legal personality requirement for applicant organisations; default judgment procedure; burden of proof and evidentiary requirement in human rights claims; State responsibility for non-state actors (militias); remedies and damages.
|
7 July 2025 |
|
Applicant’s unproven claim that failure to promote violated equality rights dismissed; promotions held discretionary, no damages awarded.
Human rights jurisdiction; admissibility of individual equality claims; promotion of magistrates; discretionary executive appointments; burden of proof in discrimination claims; refusal of damages for unproven violations.
|
2 July 2025 |
| May 2025 |
|
|
Court found arbitrary detention of several applicants under a 1976 decree, limited jurisdiction on historical plebiscite issues.
Human rights jurisdiction – scope of Court’s competence; admissibility and standing of NGOs; non-retroactivity v. continuing violations; review of national law only in context of concrete alleged violations; arbitrary detention – Article 6 ACHPR – burden of proof and time limits; self-determination claims – standing and people-centric requirement; reparations – compensation and release order.
|
16 May 2025 |
|
State violated presumption of innocence, reasonable‑time trial rights and caused arbitrary detention; awarded 30,000,000 FCFA.
* Human rights – Presumption of innocence – Prosecutorial public statements at a press conference undermining presumption of innocence.
* Human rights – Right to be tried within a reasonable time – Failure to respect statutory time-limits (Articles 294, 300 CCP) by investigative/judicial chambers and appellate delay.
* Human rights – Arbitrary detention – Continued pre‑trial detention beyond legal deadlines amounts to arbitrary detention.
* Remedies – Compensation, release, institutional measures to protect defense rights.
* ECOWAS Court jurisdiction and admissibility of individual human rights complaints.
|
16 May 2025 |
|
ECOWAS Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate contractual payment claims between a Member State and a private party.
ECOWAS Court jurisdiction; Article 9 Supplementary Protocol; contractual disputes between Member State and third parties; ratione materiae limits; inadmissibility of contractual claims; costs against unsuccessful applicant.
|
15 May 2025 |
|
Prolonged pretrial detention violated liberty, movement, fair trial rights and amounted to inhuman treatment; release and compensation ordered.
Human rights — Jurisdiction under Article 9(4) of the Protocol — Admissibility under Article 10(d) — Statute-bar under Article 9(3) inapplicable to human rights claims — Arbitrary arrest and prolonged pretrial detention violate right to liberty and freedom of movement — Excessive delay breaches right to fair trial within reasonable time — Prolonged pretrial detention can amount to inhuman or degrading treatment — Reparations: release and monetary compensation.
|
15 May 2025 |
|
Internet and social media shutdowns unlawfully restricted expression, access to information and the right to work.
* Human rights — Internet shutdowns — Lawfulness, necessity and proportionality of restrictions on freedom of expression and access to information.
* Standing — Juristic persons — Legal entities may have standing to claim violations of freedom of expression and access to information.
* Economic and social rights — Right to work — Impact of internet restrictions on digitally dependent livelihoods.
* Jurisdiction — Limits regarding non–human-rights regulatory instruments (ECOWAS Supplementary Act and UEMOA Directive).
* Remedies — General damages and prohibition of unlawful/ arbitrary internet restrictions.
|
14 May 2025 |
|
Court lacks jurisdiction to review challenged laws in abstract absent identifiable victims and concrete alleged violations.
Human rights jurisdiction — Article 9(4) Protocol — requirement of identifiable victims and factual allegations; Abstract review of domestic laws not permitted; Vagrancy/petty-offence laws challenge; Evidentiary threshold for prima facie jurisdiction; Reliance on generalized reports insufficient.
|
14 May 2025 |
|
Applicant's recruitment challenge dismissed for lack of evidence; Court upheld committee discretion and prioritized technical competence.
Administrative law; Staff disputes – jurisdiction under Article 9(1)(f); admissibility – exhaustion of internal remedies; recruitment – committee discretion, primary weight to technical competence; discrimination – burden to prove differential treatment with comparative evidence; equitable geographical distribution ancillary to efficiency; dignity/defamation claims not established by interview assessment.
|
13 May 2025 |
|
Default judgment: State liable for arbitrary detention and unlawful seizure of property; torture claim unproven; $20,000 awarded.
Human-rights jurisdiction; default judgment under Rule 90; arbitrary arrest and detention (Article 6 ACHPR); unlawful seizure and extortion — violation of right to property (Article 14 ACHPR); insufficient evidence of torture/inhuman treatment (Article 5 ACHPR); damages and costs awarded.
|
13 May 2025 |
|
Application alleging state human-rights violations dismissed as inadmissible for applicants' lack of locus standi despite Court's jurisdiction.
* Human rights — Alleged violations of the right to life, dignity, fair hearing and freedom of expression; duties to investigate and prosecute. * Jurisdiction — Article 9(4) of the Protocol: Court competence for human-rights violations in Member States. * Admissibility — Article 10(d) Protocol; locus standi for indirect victims; necessity of proving familial link or legal personality (letters of administration/probate) for estates. * Procedure — Application inadmissible for lack of standing; merits not determined; parties to bear own costs.
|
13 May 2025 |
|
Court admissible to hear human-rights IP-related complaints but dismisses claims as theft/passing-off outside its reparative remit.
* Human rights – Right to property (Article 14 ACHPR) – Distinction between deprivation of property and alleged theft/passing-off; competency limits of human-rights court to adjudicate IP and criminal matters.
* Human rights – Right to equality before the law (Article 26 ICCPR) – Claim must be properly pleaded and supported by facts demonstrating discriminatory treatment.
* Jurisdiction – Court competent for alleged human-rights violations but lacks competence to directly adjudicate claims under Berne Convention, WIPO Treaty or domestic constitutional provisions.
* Admissibility – Applicant identification and exclusivity of forum satisfied.
|
12 May 2025 |
|
Whether the respondent unlawfully prevented the applicant from leaving the country, violating freedom of movement.
Freedom of movement – Article 12(2) African Charter – lawfulness, necessity and proportionality of restrictions – burden of proof in human-rights allegations – admissibility and jurisdiction of ECOWAS Court – reparations and costs.
|
9 May 2025 |
|
Claim that gambling-advertising guideline discriminated against a celebrity dismissed for lack of evidence; state agency not a proper respondent.
Human rights – Non-discrimination (Article 2 ACHPR) – Allegation that prohibition on celebrity endorsements in gambling advertising discriminates based on social status; Jurisdiction – ECOWAS Community Court jurisdiction over Member States for human rights violations; Proper parties – State agency not a proper respondent before Court; Burden of proof – applicant must plead and prove differential treatment; Remedies – limits on ordering repeal affecting unidentified private parties.
|
8 May 2025 |
| April 2025 |
|
|
Non bis in idem not breached where successive prosecutions involved distinct facts; absence precluded counsel pleading in criminal trial.
Human rights jurisdiction; admissibility of individual application; non bis in idem (res judicata) — distinct facts and periods; right to defence — accused's presence required; damages and counterclaim dismissed; costs each party bears own costs.
|
12 April 2025 |
|
Court finds state blasphemy laws incompatible with freedom of expression and orders legislative reform.
Human rights – Freedom of expression – Limits on speech must be prescribed by law, pursue legitimate aims and be necessary and proportionate; vagueness invalidates restrictions; death penalty for blasphemy disproportionate; actio popularis admissible only for public rights.
|
9 April 2025 |
|
Applicant beaten by law enforcement; Court finds State violated right to be free from inhuman treatment and delayed investigation, orders damages and inquiry.
Human rights — State responsibility for acts of law enforcement — Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment — Right to be tried/ investigated within reasonable time — Admissibility and victim status — Remedies and reparations (monetary damages and investigative measures).
|
9 April 2025 |
|
Applicant failed to prove State violated right to health by obstructing access to a hospital-only medicine.
Human rights – Right to health – Availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality of health goods and services – State obligations to respect, protect and fulfill – Importation and supply of hospital-only medicines – Procedural compliance with Court Rules for preliminary objections – Burden of proof on applicant to establish denial of access.
|
7 April 2025 |
|
Applicant's claim of denial of safe abortion and related rights failed for lack of evidence; Court cannot review laws in the abstract.
* Jurisdiction – human rights – Court competent for concrete violations, but will not assess domestic laws in abstract.
* Procedure – preliminary objections must be filed separately under Article 87; non-compliance leads to dismissal.
* Evidence – applicant bears burden to produce minimum proof (medical records, reports) to substantiate allegations of rape and denial of services.
* Right to health & reproductive rights – analysis requires demonstrable State action/omission; absence of proof precludes findings of violation.
* Remedies – declaratory and monetary relief require established violations; claims rejected where facts not proven.
|
4 April 2025 |
| March 2025 |
|
|
State violated the applicant’s right to an effective remedy and dignity by failing to investigate sexual violence; reparations and reforms ordered.
Human rights jurisdiction of ECOWAS Court; default judgment procedure and requirements; State duty to investigate and preserve evidence in sexual-violence cases; right to effective remedy and access to justice; prohibition of torture/inhuman or degrading treatment; State obligations to prevent, prosecute and provide reparation and victim support.
|
20 March 2025 |
|
ECOWAS Court finds State liable for arbitrary detention, inhuman treatment, media defamation; orders investigation and CFA30,000,000 compensation.
Human rights jurisdiction; default judgment procedure; arbitrary arrest and detention; inhuman and degrading treatment; presumption of innocence; privacy, honor and reputation; reparation and investigation; costs against State.
|
17 March 2025 |
|
Historic discrimination claims on land rights dismissed as moot after repeal and reform of impugned land laws.
* Human rights law – Alleged discrimination in land rights of an internal ethnic community under the African Charter (Articles 2, 10, 12, 19). * Civil procedure – Default judgment standards: jurisdiction, admissibility, service/formalities, and whether claims remain well‑founded. * Constitutional/land law – Effect of subsequent national legislation (2022 National Land Commission Act and Customary Land Rights Act) on the justiciability and mootness of pre‑existing claims. * Reparations – requirement of proof for special damages and exercise of judicial discretion on general damages.
|
17 March 2025 |
|
Court: creating a new federated state is a domestic matter; no violation of equality or development rights found.
* Human rights jurisdiction – material jurisdiction under Article 9(4) of the Protocol – applicants may bring actio popularis for collective rights.
* Admissibility – standing – public interest litigation (actio popularis) for collective/peoples’ rights does not require mandate.
* Personal jurisdiction – NGOs domiciled outside ECOWAS lack ratione personae and may be struck off.
* Subnational territorial organisation – creation of states is primarily a domestic constitutional matter within State’s margin of appreciation.
* Alleged discrimination and right to development – failure to create additional federated unit does not ipso facto violate Article 19 or Article 22 of the African Charter.
|
17 March 2025 |
|
Arbitrary arrests and violent home entries to stop peaceful political activity violated multiple human rights; damages awarded.
Human rights — jurisdiction of Community Court in Member State human-rights claims; admissibility and joinder of related applications; refusal of expedited procedure without particular urgency; unlawful forcible entry and search of private homes; arbitrary arrest and detention for peaceful political activity; violations of freedom of assembly, expression and demonstration; denial of right to counsel and fair trial; award of moral damages and costs.
|
17 March 2025 |
|
Applicants' fair‑trial rights breached by unreasonable delay and denial of defense; detention and torture claims dismissed.
Human rights – jurisdiction of the ECOWAS Court; admissibility – expedited procedure (Article 59) refused; Criminal procedure – arrest under rogatory commission; Fair trial – violation found: unreasonable pre-trial delay and denial of defence (access to counsel and file); No violation found: arbitrary detention and torture/inhuman treatment; Compensation awarded (CFA 5,000,000 each).
|
14 March 2025 |
| February 2025 |
|
|
Court accepts jurisdiction over continuing failure to prosecute but dismisses application for lack of applicants’ standing.
Human-rights jurisdiction – continuing state obligations to investigate and prosecute – admissibility – standing/victim status under Article 10(d) – non-applicability of Article 9(3) limitation to human-rights claims – Court not an appellate forum over domestic courts.
|
28 February 2025 |
|
A retired ECOWAS staffer must exhaust internal remedies, including appeal to the Council of Ministers, before accessing the Court.
ECOWAS Staff law; jurisdiction under Article 9(1)(f) — dispute between Community and official; former/retired staff may remain "officials" for disputes arising from service; admissibility — requirement to exhaust internal administrative remedies under Article 73(2005 Staff Regulations) and Article 10(e) of the Court's Protocol; interpretation of "may" in Article 73(a) — contextual reading requires exhaustion including appeal to the Council of Ministers; exhaustion is an admissibility, not jurisdictional, issue.
|
28 February 2025 |
|
State agents’ killing found arbitrary; investigation ineffective; reparations and further prosecution ordered.
Human rights — Right to life (Article 4, African Charter) — Arbitrary deprivation by State agents; State duty to investigate — Effectiveness and publication of inquiry reports; Fair hearing (Article 7) — undue delay by national human rights mechanisms; Admissibility — victim/indirect victim status and evidentiary proof of familial relationship; Reparations — compensation and investigation/prosecution orders.
|
28 February 2025 |
|
ECOWAS Court lacks jurisdiction to review domestic court decisions; property disputes framed as appeals are inadmissible.
Jurisdiction — Human rights jurisdiction under Article 9(4) of the Supplementary Protocol; Property rights — allegations framed as challenge to national court judgments; Admissibility — ECOWAS Court not an appellate or cassation forum for domestic judicial decisions; Costs — unsuccessful applicant ordered to bear costs.
|
14 February 2025 |
|
Representative human-rights claim dismissed as inadmissible for lack of mandate and proof of victim status, despite Court's jurisdiction.
Human rights – Freedom of expression and peaceful assembly – Jurisdiction of ECOWAS Court – Admissibility – Representative actions – Requirement to demonstrate victim status or provide mandate/authorization from victims – Failure to prove mandate renders representative application inadmissible.
|
14 February 2025 |
|
Court had jurisdiction but dismissed public-interest suit for failing to identify envisaged victims; foreign NGO lacked capacity.
Human rights – Public interest litigation (actio popularis) – Locus standi for NGOs – Capacity of foreign-registered NGO – Admissibility requires rights to be public, reliefs for public benefit, and victims capable of being envisaged – Jurisdiction under Article 9(4) Supplementary Protocol.
|
14 February 2025 |
|
ECOWAS sanctions on Mali were lawful; Court has jurisdiction but claimant cannot recover damages for lawful Community acts.
• Jurisdiction – Article 9(1)(g) Supplementary Protocol – actions for damages against Community institutions.
• Procedure – default judgment under Article 90 of the Rules; admissibility and formalities.
• Substantive law – lawfulness of ECOWAS sanctions (Revised Treaty Art.77(3); Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance; Mechanism for Conflict Prevention).
• Liability – no liability for damages arising from lawful acts of a Community institution.
• Human-rights claims – Article 9(4) inapplicable against Community institutions in absence of appropriate treaty basis.
|
14 February 2025 |
|
Applicant's human-rights claims dismissed for lack of evidence attributing violations to the State; application admissible.
Human rights jurisdiction; admissibility of individual application; non-justiciability of purely national constitutional claims before the ECOWAS Court; State responsibility requires attribution of acts to the State; insufficient evidence and lack of attribution leads to dismissal of ACHPR-based claims; no reparations or injunctions awarded.
|
13 February 2025 |
|
|
13 February 2025 |
| January 2025 |
|
|
Court had jurisdiction but dismissed challenge to broadcasting-code enforcement for lack of standing and representative mandate.
Human-rights jurisdiction of ECOWAS Court; admissibility under Article 10(d) — locus standi, actio popularis conditions; corporate applicants and exceptions for freedom of expression; requirement of mandate for representative actions; challenge to enforcement of national broadcasting code dismissed for lack of standing and authorization.
|
27 January 2025 |
| December 2024 |
|
|
Court finds state liable for torture in custody, awards N5,000,000 and orders investigation and prosecution.
Human rights — Jurisdiction of ECOWAS Court in individual complaints; statute of limitation not applicable to human-rights claims; injuries in custody give rise to strong presumption of torture; State obligation to investigate and prosecute; reparations and compensation for torture.
|
3 December 2024 |
|
Default judgment: media-trial claims dismissed; prolonged interdiction violated the applicant's right to work, award $10,000.
* Jurisdiction – Court’s competence to hear alleged human-rights violations by Member States under Article 9(4).
* Admissibility and procedure – requirements for default judgment: service, opportunity to be heard, and well-founded claim.
* State responsibility – attribution of online and media speech; private speech vs acts attributable to the State.
* Freedom of expression – public interest reporting and limits on State obligation to censor private commentary.
* Presumption of innocence and fair trial – when interdiction/suspension is permissible pending investigation.
* Right to work – prolonged unresolved investigations and interdiction may violate the right to work; reparations.
|
3 December 2024 |
| November 2024 |
|
|
Default judgment: initial immigration detention lawful; re‑arrest and detention after charge withdrawal arbitrary; USD10,000 awarded.
* Human rights — Default judgment — jurisdiction and admissibility of human rights application against a Member State; * Right to liberty — arbitrary arrest and detention — lawfulness, procedural safeguards, 48‑hour requirement; * Immigration law — powers of arrest/detention under Immigration Act; * Fair hearing, freedom of movement, equality/non‑discrimination — evidentiary requirements for declaratory relief; * Reparation — monetary compensation for arbitrary detention.
|
22 November 2024 |
|
The re-arrest and detention of the foreign applicant after charges were dropped were arbitrary, and thus unlawful.
Human Rights – Liberty – Arbitrary Detention – Fair Hearing – Freedom of Movement – Non-Discrimination – Foreign National – Deportation.
|
22 November 2024 |
|
|
22 November 2024 |
|
Default judgment denied because evidence failed to establish applicant's identity and alleged torture.
Human rights — Allegations of torture and CIDT by State security agents — Default judgment — Requirements: jurisdiction, admissibility, compliance with formalities, and that the initiating application be well-founded on evidence — Burden and evidentiary standards where detained person alleges ill-treatment — Need for identity verification and probative medical/photographic evidence.
|
14 November 2024 |
|
Court held loitering laws vague, discriminatory, and incompatible with freedom of movement and Charter obligations.
* Human rights – Vagrancy/loitering laws – Criminalisation of status; vagueness and overbroad discretion.
* Non-discrimination and equality – Articles 2 and 3(1) African Charter – Disproportionate impact on poor and vulnerable persons.
* Freedom of movement – Article 12(1) African Charter – Legal clarity, necessity and proportionality required for restrictions.
* State obligations – Article 1 African Charter – duty to amend or repeal domestic laws incompatible with Charter rights.
* Admissibility – NGO standing for public interest action; exhaustion of local remedies not required under Court Protocol.
|
7 November 2024 |
|
ECOWAS Court may hear human-rights claims arising from national judicial processes; the NGOs lacked standing and were struck off.
* Human-rights jurisdiction – Article 9(4) ECOWAS Court Protocol – Court empowered to hear alleged human-rights violations by Member States.
* Limitation – Article 9(3) three-year rule – does not apply to human-rights actions under Article 9(4).
* Appellate competence – ECOWAS Court cannot act as an appellate body over national courts but may assess whether national judicial processes complied with international obligations.
* Standing – locus standi of NGOs – requirement for authorization, close relation, or public-interest character; NGOs struck off for lack of standing.
* Admissibility – application admissible and to proceed to merits.
|
7 November 2024 |
| October 2024 |
|
|
Court lacks temporal jurisdiction over alleged 1990 massacre; limitation objection dismissed but application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
* Human-rights jurisdiction – temporal limits – non-retroactivity of Supplementary Protocol A/SP.1/01/05 – critical date 19 January 2005. * Limitation periods – Article 9(3) – Court jurisprudence excluding human-rights enforcement actions from three-year statute of limitation. * Obligation to investigate/prosecute – ancillary to established substantive right; cannot be adjudicated in absence of jurisdiction ratione temporis. * Continuing violations doctrine – not applicable where substantive violation predates Court's mandate and is not before the Court.
|
17 October 2024 |
|
Default judgment: State violated two applicants’ right to security of person; ordered investigation and USD15,000 each.
Human rights jurisdiction – admissibility – successor/next‑of‑kin must prove relationship; default judgment – respondent’s failure to plead; use of force – right to security of person; obligation to investigate and prosecute; reparations – reduced compensation awarded.
|
14 October 2024 |
| September 2024 |
|
|
|
25 September 2024 |
| July 2024 |
|
|
Court lacked jurisdiction on disappearance claims but ordered disclosure for violation of the right to information.
Human rights jurisdiction – Article 9(4) Protocol – territorial limits and extraterritorial exceptions; enforced disappearance – jus cogens claim; admissibility – indirect victim status and representative capacity; right to information – obligations under African Charter Art 9(1) and ICCPR Art 19(2); remedies – disclosure as reparations.
|
12 July 2024 |
