|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| February 2025 |
|
|
Applicants lacked standing to sue on behalf of the deceased absent proof of relationship or legal mandate.
Human rights jurisdiction — continuing state obligations — temporal jurisdiction; admissibility — victim status/standing under Article 10(d); not an invitation to exercise appellate jurisdiction over domestic courts; Article 9(3) limitation inapplicable to human rights cases.
|
28 February 2025 |
|
Failure to appeal to the Council of Ministers rendered the applicant's claim inadmissible.
ECOWAS Court jurisdiction — disputes between Community and officials; admissibility — mandatory exhaustion of internal remedies; Article 73(a) Staff Regulations — appeal to Council of Ministers required despite "may"; retired staff count as officials for Court access; dismissal for failure to exhaust remedies.
|
28 February 2025 |
|
State agents' use of lethal force and the State's inadequate investigation violated the victim's rights to life and fair hearing.
Human rights — Right to life (Article 4 African Charter) — State responsibility for lethal actions of security forces — Duty to conduct prompt, effective investigation and provide remedies — Right to fair hearing (Article 7) — Proof of victim status and admissibility.
|
28 February 2025 |
|
An application framed as a human-rights claim cannot compel the ECOWAS Court to review or set aside national court decisions.
ECOWAS Court jurisdiction – human rights – right to property – limits of jurisdiction – application as disguised appeal against national court decisions – inadmissibility for lack of competence – costs awarded to respondent.
|
14 February 2025 |
|
Representative applicant’s failure to produce mandate rendered EndSARS-related human-rights application inadmissible despite Court’s jurisdiction.
Human rights — Jurisdiction to hear alleged violations of freedom of expression and assembly; Admissibility — victim status and standing; Representative actions — requirement of mandate/authorization for actions on behalf of determinable victims; Failure to produce authorization renders representative application inadmissible.
|
14 February 2025 |
|
Court found jurisdiction but dismissed NGO’s public interest suit for inadmissibility due to failure to identify envisagable victims.
Human rights — jurisdiction under Supplementary Protocol Article 9(4) — admissibility of public interest litigation — NGO locus standi — actio popularis — requirement to envisage victim class — Dasin Hausa Dam flooding allegations.
|
14 February 2025 |
|
Court finds ECOWAS sanctions lawful, rejects damages claim and dismisses application as unfounded.
Community law – jurisdiction under Art.9(1)(g) for damages claims against Community institutions; admissibility and default judgment; sanctions and measures under Art.77(3) Revised Treaty and Democracy and Good Governance Protocol; legality vs arbitrariness of ECOWAS measures; no liability for lawful acts of the Community; limits of Art.9(4) human-rights jurisdiction.
|
14 February 2025 |
|
Court found jurisdiction and admissibility but dismissed claims for lack of evidence linking state agents to violations.
Human rights — Court jurisdiction over alleged violations in Member States; admissibility; limits on adjudicating purely national constitutional claims; state responsibility requires attribution of acts to the State; insufficient evidence dismisses claims for violations of ACHPR Articles 3, 6, 12(1), 14 and 21.
|
13 February 2025 |
|
|
13 February 2025 |
