|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| October 2025 |
|
|
Application struck out for prolonged failure to pursue proceedings and lack of instructions to counsel; restoration allowed on good cause.
Procedural law – Striking out applications – Rule 65(1)(b) and (c) – applicant’s failure to pursue proceedings and lack of instructions to counsel – discretion to strike out; restoration under Rule 65(3).
|
9 October 2025 |
| September 2025 |
|
|
Court reopened pleadings to admit respondent's late submission on newly enacted electoral legislation.
Procedure – Reopening pleadings – Court’s discretion under Rule 46(3) and limitation on additional evidence under Rule 46(4) – Inherent powers under Rule 90 – Admission of post-pleadings submission concerning newly enacted domestic electoral legislation (Act No. 2 of 2024) – Submission deemed properly filed.
|
15 September 2025 |
| August 2025 |
|
|
Court reopened pleadings to allow the State additional filings and denied applicants’ request for expedited decision.
Procedure – Reopening pleadings; Rules 46(3) and 90 – Court’s discretionary and inherent powers to manage process; Elections – relevance of new electoral laws to pending human rights application; Expediency – refusal of extraordinary-session decision where further submissions required.
|
5 August 2025 |
| June 2025 |
|
|
Court affirms jurisdiction and admits interstate human-rights claim alleging extraterritorial violations and waives exhaustion of local remedies.
Jurisdiction of African Court — no formal requirement of pre-existing 'dispute'; material jurisdiction where alleged violations implicate Charter or ratified human rights instruments; territorial/extraterritorial jurisdiction applies where State involvement internationalizes armed conflict; preliminary regional dispute settlement procedures do not bar access to Court; exhaustion of domestic remedies may be waived for massive or systemic violations; parallel proceedings do not automatically amount to abuse of process or inadmissibility.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Removal from the voters’ register based on an uncontested default conviction did not breach the Applicant’s Charter rights.
Electoral law; removal from voters’ register based on final/default conviction; presumption of innocence and finality of judgments; right to participate in government; admissibility and jurisdiction despite state’s withdrawal of Article 34(6) Declaration; default judgment procedure.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Mandatory death penalty and hanging breach the rights to life and dignity; assessors’ conduct did not vitiate trial fairness.
Human rights – Criminal procedure – Right to fair trial and impartial tribunal – role and conduct of assessors – Right to equality – Death penalty – Mandatory imposition violates right to life – Method of execution by hanging violates dignity and prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment – Reparatory and legislative remedies; publication and reporting obligations.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Application dismissed as inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies despite Court’s jurisdiction and Respondent’s default.
Default judgment – Respondent State duly served but failed to respond; Jurisdiction – Article 3 Protocol and Article 34(6) Declaration; Admissibility – Rule 50(2)(e)/Article 56(5) – exhaustion of local remedies; PI status alleged but not shown to make domestic remedies unavailable or ineffective; Costs – each party bears own costs.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Failure to deliver two appellate judgments in open court violated the applicant’s right to a fair trial.
Human rights — Fair trial — Public delivery of judgments — Article 7(1)(a) African Charter; Article 14(1) ICCPR; Jurisdiction and admissibility — State responsibility for acts of domestic organs; Auction procedure — alleged misapplication of law; Reparations — moral damages; Publication and reporting orders.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Applicant subjected to police brutality, ineffective legal aid and excessive delay; mandatory death penalty and hanging found unlawful.
Criminal procedure — jurisdiction and admissibility — police brutality and judicial failure to investigate — ineffective legal aid where counsel previously prosecuted the accused — unreasonable delay violating right to be tried within reasonable time — mandatory death penalty and hanging violate right to life and dignity — remedies: moral damages, annul sentence, legislative and procedural reforms, rehearing, publication and reporting.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Request for provisional suspension of summons dismissed for lack of urgency and failure to prove irreparable harm.
Provisional measures – requirements of extreme gravity, urgency and irreparable harm – burden on applicant to prove urgency – delay undermines urgency – travel ban/summons insufficiently shown to cause irreparable harm – prima facie jurisdiction established.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Application declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies despite the Court’s jurisdiction and the respondent’s default.
Default judgment; jurisdiction (material, personal under Article 34(6) declaration, temporal, territorial); inadmissibility for non-exhaustion of local remedies in pending criminal proceedings; withdrawal of Article 34(6) declaration has no retroactive effect.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Applicants failed to prove discrimination or denial of the right to be heard in police promotion proceedings.
Equality before the law – Internal promotion criteria under a decree – Applicants graduated after decree entry into force; burden of proof of discrimination on claimant; judicial evolution of jurisprudence permissible. Right to have one’s cause heard – Appeal time-limits and service of judgments – absence of proof of service keeps time-limits open; no denial of justice. Admissibility – local remedies exhausted; application filed within reasonable time.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Provisional measures dismissed because they would prejudice the merits and did not meet the strict urgency/irreparable-harm threshold.
* Provisional measures – prima facie jurisdiction under Protocol and Charter – requirements of extreme gravity, urgency and risk of irreparable harm – requests that duplicate or are identical to merits will be dismissed as prejudging the merits. * Competence and diplomatic recognition – Court may decline provisional relief where request addresses recognition/sovereign positions and would decide merits on same issues.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Application dismissed as inadmissible for failure to exhaust available and effective domestic remedies.
Jurisdiction – material and temporal – Court may assess domestic judicial acts for compliance with the African Charter; Admissibility – exhaustion of local remedies – Constitutional Court was available and effective; Abuse of process and standing – dismissal/moot pending merits; Remedies – Court may order repeal of law as appropriate reparation.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Application challenging order restricting official documents declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies.
Administrative order restricting access to official documents; admissibility—exhaustion of local remedies; availability and effectiveness of Constitutional Court remedies; allegations of persecution and judicial independence must be evidenced; exhaustion assessed as at filing date.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Court struck out a non-qualifying NGO and non-jurisdictional States; proceeding against six declarant States.
• Jurisdiction – Personal jurisdiction of the African Court – Effect of Article 34(6) declaration and State withdrawal thereof
• Admissibility – Individuals and NGOs – Requirement of observer status before the African Commission (Article 5(3), Article 34(6))
• Procedure – Use of Rule 90 to strike out non-qualifying parties for judicial efficiency
• Procedural consequence – Renaming and re-serving the Application after striking out non-jurisdictional parties
|
17 June 2025 |
|
Court reopened pleadings, deemed the respondent’s late Response filed, and allowed the applicant 30 days to reply.
* Procedure – Reopening of pleadings – Court’s discretion under Rule 46(3) and inherent power under Rule 90 – Extension of time for filing Response – Effect of applicant’s non-objection to late filing.
|
2 June 2025 |
| May 2025 |
|
|
Court reopened pleadings and ordered the State to file a response within seven days in a voting-rights case.
* Procedure – Reopening pleadings – Rule 46(3) Rules of Court – Court’s discretion to reopen closed pleadings in the interest of justice.
* Procedure – Inherent powers – Rule 90 – Court may adopt procedures necessary to meet the ends of justice.
* Elections and political participation – Alleged disenfranchisement of prisoners, persons sentenced to death, and diaspora voters; Article 74(12) challengeability.
* Time limits – Granting limited additional time (7 days) to Respondent after prolonged delay.
|
20 May 2025 |
| February 2025 |
|
|
Court exercised Rule 46(3) and Rule 90 to reopen pleadings and admitted RFK and IHRDA as amici curiae.
* Procedural law – Reopening pleadings – Rule 46(3) – Court’s discretion to reopen pleadings in the interest of justice.
* Procedural law – Inherent powers – Rule 90 – Court may adopt procedures necessary to meet the ends of justice.
* Amicus curiae – Admissibility and relevance of RFK and IHRDA submissions in electoral rights litigation.
* Electoral law – Allegations of systemic electoral malpractices and broader public interest in adjudication.
|
28 February 2025 |
|
The Court lacks jurisdiction to hear claims against the AU/AUC because they are not State Parties to the Protocol.
* Jurisdiction – Limits of the African Court’s jurisdiction – Applications must be filed against State Parties to the Protocol; international organisations not party to the Protocol fall outside jurisdiction.
* Procedural law – Preliminary examination of jurisdiction under Article 3, Article 34(6) of the Protocol and Rule 49(1) of the Rules.
* Precedent – Falana v. African Union applied: international organisations cannot be bound by a treaty to which they are not party.
|
12 February 2025 |
|
Failure to provide free legal aid breached the right to defence; conviction upheld; moral damages and legislative reform ordered.
Human rights – Fair trial – Right to defence and free legal assistance; Court jurisdiction – material, personal, temporal, territorial upheld; Admissibility – exhaustion of local remedies and reasonable time; Evidence review – no manifest error in domestic proceedings; Reparations – moral damages awarded; Legislative reform – Legal Aid Act 2017 to be amended.
|
5 February 2025 |
|
Failure to pursue the available cassation remedy rendered the fair-trial application inadmissible.
Human rights – Admissibility – Exhaustion of local remedies – Cassation as available and effective remedy in Côte d’Ivoire – Lack of counsel/ignorance not excusing non-exhaustion – Jurisdiction confirmed.
|
5 February 2025 |
|
Application declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust available domestic remedies despite Court’s jurisdiction.
Admissibility — Exhaustion of local remedies — Availability of remedies under domestic Code of Criminal Procedure allowing injured party to request investigation or bring civil action — Application premature; Material jurisdiction — Alleged violations fall within the African Charter and relevant international instruments.
|
5 February 2025 |
|
State violated multiple Charter rights of persons with albinism by failing to prevent attacks, investigate, prosecute and adopt protective measures.
Human rights — Persons with albinism — State duty of due diligence to prevent, investigate and prosecute attacks — Non‑discrimination, right to life, prohibition of torture, children’s rights, health and education — NGOs’ standing and exhaustion of local remedies — Reparations and structural measures ordered.
|
5 February 2025 |
|
Mandatory death sentence and hanging violate Articles 4 and 5; Court orders vacatur of mandatory death sentence, new sentencing hearing, and reforms.
Criminal law and human rights – jurisdiction of the African Court over domestic convictions – admissibility: exhaustion of local remedies and reasonable time – mandatory death penalty violates right to life (Article 4) – hanging as method of execution violates inherent dignity (Article 5) – remedies: annulment of mandatory death sentence, new sentencing hearing, repeal of mandatory death penalty and hanging, moral damages.
|
5 February 2025 |
|
Application declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies despite Respondent's default; Court retained jurisdiction.
* Default judgment – Rule 63(1) – Conditions for judgment by default satisfied where State duly served but failed to respond.
* Jurisdiction – Court confirmed material, personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction under Protocol and Charter.
* Admissibility – Exhaustion of local remedies required; first-instance decisions appealable under domestic law.
* Procedural law – In limine litis dismissal does not automatically negate availability of appeal absent proof.
|
5 February 2025 |
|
Court affirms jurisdiction over alleged Charter violations but declares application inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies.
Jurisdiction – material jurisdiction over alleged Charter violations even when underlying dispute arises from contract with a state-owned entity; Limits of Court’s role – not an appellate court but may assess conformity of national proceedings with human-rights standards; Admissibility – requirement to exhaust local remedies; unduly prolonged domestic proceedings must be demonstrated with evidence; availability of Constitutional Court remedy; claims unsupported by domestic proceedings are inadmissible.
|
5 February 2025 |