|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| 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 |
|
|
10 July 2024 |
|
Applicant's allegations of unfair trial, bias and loss of property from administrative revision were dismissed for lack of evidence.
• Human rights jurisdiction – ECOWAS Court competence to hear alleged state violations; • Fair trial – equality of arms, public hearing and document-based administrative procedure; • Judicial impartiality – requirement of material and unequivocal evidence to establish bias; • Legal certainty/res judicata – revision procedure permissible where law provides; • Property rights – distinction between allocation letter/use and ACD (final title); • Remedies – damages only when a human-rights violation is established.
|
10 July 2024 |
|
Summary dismissal breached ECOWAS Staff Regulations; appeal suspends sanctions and salary cessation was unlawful.
Employment law – ECOWAS Staff Regulations – disciplinary procedure – adequacy and specificity of queries; right to fair hearing – Article 69 breaches; appeals under Article 73(b) suspend all sanctions including cessation of salaries; remedies: declaratory relief, payment of arrears and compensation; reinstatement and injunctions declined.
|
10 July 2024 |
|
Court found breaches of security, torture prohibition and assembly/expression rights; ordered compensation and fresh investigations.
Human rights — Jurisdiction and admissibility of human-rights claims; Protest and crowd control — legality, necessity and proportionality of use of force by State agents; Right to security of the person (Art.6 ACHPR); Prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (Art.5 ACHPR); Freedoms of expression, assembly and association (Arts.9–11 ACHPR); State duty to investigate and provide effective remedy; Reparations and compensation.
|
10 July 2024 |
|
Court found jurisdiction and admissibility but dismissed gas‑flaring human‑rights claims for lack of evidential proof.
Human‑rights jurisdiction; actio popularis and NGO standing; admissibility and pendency; environmental harm and burden of proof; causation in state responsibility for gas flaring; unchallenged evidence accepted.
|
4 July 2024 |
| June 2024 |
|
|
Retroactive application of a ministerial disciplinary order violated the applicant's right to a fair hearing under Article 7(2).
Human rights — Administrative discipline — Civil aviation regulatory action attributable to State; Jurisdiction under Article 9(4) of the Court's Protocol; Admissibility under Article 10(d); Equality and non-discrimination (Article 3 African Charter) — burden to prove unjustified selective treatment; Fair hearing (Article 7 African Charter) — prohibition of retroactive penalisation; Ministerial Order No. 033/2021/MTRAF applied retroactively; Right to work (Article 15 African Charter & ICESCR Article 6(1)) — causation and state responsibility for dismissal; Reparations — expungement and general damages.
|
6 June 2024 |
|
Application dismissed as inadmissible because applicant failed to prove familial relationship and thus lacked standing.
Human rights — Admissibility — Locus standi — Victim status (direct and indirect) — Proof of family relationship required to establish standing — ECOWAS Court jurisdiction to hear alleged violations by Member States.
|
6 June 2024 |
|
An NGO lacked locus standi to sue for a property right over funds belonging to its founder; claim declared inadmissible.
Human rights — Right to property (Article 14 ACHPR) — Locus standi and admissibility — Distinction between human rights violations and contractual/tortious banking disputes — Jurisdiction of ECOWAS Community Court under Article 9(4) — Consumer protection complaints vis-à-vis victim status.
|
6 June 2024 |
|
Delay in presidential signing of land deeds did not amount to state violation of property rights absent title or proven notice.
* Human rights jurisdiction – Court jurisdiction to hear alleged violations occurring in Member State; corporate applicants' standing (Dexter Oil exception) for property claims; * Property law – Tribal land certificates vs. formal title under Liberian Public Lands Law (§30, §52); title vests only upon completion of formalities and President's signed deed; * State responsibility – private actors' actions not attributable to State absent notice and failure to act; burden to prove notification; * Remedies – claims for specific performance and compensation dismissed where no violation found.
|
6 June 2024 |
|
Court refused to order enforcement and found interpretation request inadmissible for lack of specified ambiguous passages.
* ECOWAS Court jurisdiction – Interpretation of judgments under Article 23 – limited to clarifying meaning, not enforcement
* Enforcement – Execution of ECOWAS Court decisions is the responsibility of Member States/national competent authorities (2005 Additional Protocol, Article 24)
* Admissibility – Applications for interpretation must specify the operative provisions/words/phrases in doubt (Article 95 and case law)
* Default proceedings – Court must verify jurisdiction, admissibility and evidence before granting default relief
* Expedited procedure – granted only where particular urgency is demonstrated (Article 59)
|
6 June 2024 |
|
The Court lacks jurisdiction to order enforcement of its own judgments; enforcement follows prescribed national procedures.
* ECOWAS Court judgments – Enforcement – Article 24, Supplementary Protocol (A/SP.1/01/05) – writ of execution issued by Chief Registrar and enforcement under national procedure.
* Jurisdiction/competence – Court lacks authority to adjudicate enforcement of its own judgments.
* Locus standi – Individuals cannot directly litigate Member State non-compliance before the Court; recourse to national authorities or President of ECOWAS Commission under Supplementary Act on Sanctions (2012).
* Treaty obligation – Article 15(4) Revised ECOWAS Treaty: Member States bound to comply with Court decisions.
|
6 June 2024 |
|
Domestic military immunity cannot oust ECOWAS Court jurisdiction; exhaustion of local remedies is not required.
Human rights — Right to life (Article 4 African Charter) — Alleged extrajudicial killing by military personnel; Jurisdiction — Domestic military immunity (Section 239 Armed Forces Act) cannot oust international obligations; ECOWAS Community Court competence (Article 9(4)); Non-exhaustion of local remedies is not a bar to access (Articles 9(4), 10(d) Supplementary Protocol).
|
6 June 2024 |
| May 2024 |
|
|
The NGO lacked standing and the Court lacked temporal jurisdiction for some killings, so the application was dismissed as inadmissible.
Jurisdiction ratione temporis – non-retroactivity of the 2005 Additional Protocol; distinction between instantaneous and continuing human-rights violations; admissibility – NGO standing, actio popularis versus representative action, requirement of mandates/authorisation for claims on behalf of identified victims; failure to reach merits where jurisdiction or admissibility defects exist.
|
30 May 2024 |
|
Revision denied because applicants were negligent in discovering supposedly "new" criminal charges against the respondent.
Revision of judgment – Article 25 Protocol and Articles 92–93 Rules – requirements: timely filing, discovery of unknown facts, decisiveness, ignorance not due to negligence; diligence expected of applicants who initiated investigation; Staff Regulation Article 68 not applicable to events after termination.
|
30 May 2024 |
|
State’s summary annulment of authorizations violated a company’s property rights and caused undue judicial delay.
• International jurisdiction – ECOWAS Court – signature, provisional application and entry into force of Protocol A/SP.1/01/05 – State domestic law cannot negate international obligations.
• Admissibility – legal persons may sue for protection of property and related fundamental rights; shareholders’ reflective losses inadmissible unless distinct personal rights shown.
• Parties – only Member States/ECOWAS institutions are proper defendants for human-rights claims; individuals and private associations excluded.
• Human rights – arbitrary annulment of administrative authorizations violated Article 14 (right to property); undue delay in domestic proceedings violated right to a decision within a reasonable time (Article 7(1)(d)).
• Remedies – speculative future losses not awarded; equitable compensation and costs awarded against the State.
|
29 May 2024 |
| February 2024 |
|
|
State liable for unjustified police shooting: violations of security, torture and denial of effective remedy.
Human rights — Use of force by law enforcement — Live ammunition fired into crowd — Right to security of the person; Torture — deliberate, severe ill‑treatment by state agents — Convention against Torture; Right to effective remedy — obligation to promptly investigate, prosecute and provide redress; Reparations — compensation, medical costs, investigation and non‑repetition measures.
|
28 February 2024 |
| January 2024 |
|
|
Employment challenge dismissed as statute-barred; national human-rights claims not maintainable against ECOWAS institution.
* ECOWAS Community Court – Jurisdiction – Actions against Community Institutions – Three-year limitation under Article 9(3) of the Supplementary Protocol – time-barred claims.
* Human rights – Claims based on a Member State’s Constitution – Not maintainable against ECOWAS Institutions before the Community Court.
* Internal remedies and parties – Requirement to observe internal appeal procedures and proper defendants (institution vs. office-holder).
|
30 January 2024 |
