|
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 over individual claims; statute of limitations inapplicable to individual human rights actions; torture in custody – elements and burden of proof; presumption and evidentiary weight of injuries occurring in State custody; State obligation to investigate and prosecute; reparations and compensation.
|
3 December 2024 |
|
Default judgment: media-trial claims dismissed; prolonged interdiction violated the Applicant's right to work; US$10,000 awarded.
Human rights—jurisdiction and admissibility of default judgment; media trials and State attribution; presumption of innocence; lawfulness of interdiction pending investigation; right to work and reparations for prolonged employment deprivation.
|
3 December 2024 |
| November 2024 |
|
|
Court grants default judgment, finds re-arrest and detention after charge withdrawal arbitrary, awards USD 10,000 damages.
* ECOWAS Court jurisdiction – human rights violations under A/SP.1/01/05; * Default judgment – requirements of notice, admissibility, formalities and well-foundedness; * Right to liberty (Article 6 African Charter) – lawfulness, reasonable suspicion, 48-hour presentation rule; * Arbitrary re-arrest and detention – failure to inform detainee of reasons; * Fair hearing, freedom of movement, equality/non-discrimination – burden of specific proof; * Reparations – monetary compensation for arbitrary detention/deprivation of liberty.
|
22 November 2024 |
|
|
22 November 2024 |
|
|
22 November 2024 |
|
Default judgment denied where allegations of torture lacked sufficient identity verification and probative evidence.
Human rights — Allegation of torture and ill-treatment by State security agents; default judgment — jurisdiction, admissibility and procedural formalities satisfied but insufficient evidence (identity verification and unclear injury photos) precluded grant of default judgment.
|
14 November 2024 |
|
Maintenance and enforcement of loitering laws violate non-discrimination, equality and freedom of movement under the African Charter.
* Human rights – Vagrancy/Loitering laws – Criminalising status vs conduct – Discriminatory impact on poor and vulnerable groups.
* African Charter – Articles 2 and 3(1) – Equality and non-discrimination – Status-based criminalisation constitutes unequal application of the law.
* African Charter – Article 12(1) – Freedom of movement – Vagueness, lack of legality, disproportionality and unnecessary restrictions.
* Article 1 obligation – Duty to amend or repeal domestic laws incompatible with Charter rights.
* Admissibility – NGO standing in public interest actions; no requirement to exhaust local remedies before this Court.
|
7 November 2024 |
|
ECOWAS Court finds jurisdiction over continuing human-rights abuses in detention, dismisses limitation and appellate objections, but strikes off NGOs for lack of standing.
Human rights jurisdiction – Article 9(4) – Continuing violations in detention; Limitation period – Article 9(3) not applicable to human-rights actions; Admissibility – distinction between assessing national judicial processes for rights-compatibility and exercising appellate review; Standing – NGOs lacking authorization or public-interest basis struck off.
|
7 November 2024 |
| October 2024 |
|
|
Court dismisses case for lack of temporal jurisdiction despite rejecting limitation defence; investigation duty ancillary to substantive violation.
* Human-rights jurisdiction – ratione temporis – non-retroactivity of Protocol; critical date 19 January 2005.
* Limitations – Article 9(3) Supplementary Protocol – not applicable to human-rights enforcement (no statute-bar for human-rights claims).
* Obligation to investigate/prosecute – ancillary to substantive right; cannot be adjudicated absent finding of substantive violation.
* Continuing violations doctrine – cannot extend Court’s temporal jurisdiction where substantive acts predate mandate.
|
17 October 2024 |
|
Default judgment: State violated two applicants' right to security of person; awarded damages and ordered investigation.
Human-rights jurisdiction; admissibility of direct vs. successor-in-title claims; default judgment for non-appearance; excessive use of force — violation of right to security of person; State duty to investigate and prosecute; compensation awarded.
|
14 October 2024 |
| September 2024 |
|
|
|
25 September 2024 |
| July 2024 |
|
|
Court lacked jurisdiction over extraterritorial disappearance claims but found a violation of the right to information and ordered disclosure.
Human rights jurisdiction – territorial limits of Article 9(4) – extraterritorial obligations and effective control; admissibility – indirect victim status and representative capacity; right to information – state duty to disclose public records and limits of confidentiality; remedies – disclosure as adequate reparation.
|
12 July 2024 |
|
|
10 July 2024 |
|
Court dismisses fair-trial and property claims for lack of evidence and absence of applicant's ownership.
* Human rights — Jurisdiction and admissibility of applications under ECOWAS human-rights competence; * Fair trial — public hearing, equality of arms and discretion of administrative courts to rely on written procedure; * Impartiality — requirement of clear, unequivocal evidence to establish judicial bias; * Legal certainty — effect of revision remedies after judicial-organisational reform; * Property rights — distinction between allocation letter (use/right) and ownership by final concession.
|
10 July 2024 |
|
Procedural breaches in disciplinary process rendered summary dismissal unlawful; appeal suspends all sanctions including salary cessation.
• Administrative Law / Employment – ECOWAS Staff Regulations – disciplinary procedure – Article 69 – requirement to communicate specific allegations and provide adequate time and documents for defence.
• Employment Law – Summary dismissal – third-degree offences may warrant summary dismissal but must follow adversarial/due process safeguards.
• Appeals – Article 73(b) – invocation of appeal suspends all sanctions, including cessation of salary, pending Council determination.
• Remedies – reinstatement generally declined where relationship broken; monetary compensation and arrears appropriate where dismissal unlawful.
|
10 July 2024 |
|
Court found disproportionate use of force, torture and denial of effective investigation and remedy; awarded compensation and ordered fresh probe.
Human rights – Assembly and protests – Use of force by security forces – proportionality and necessity of force – Duty to investigate and provide effective remedy – Admissibility of amicus curiae intervention (Amnesty International).
|
10 July 2024 |
|
Application alleging human-rights violations from gas flaring dismissed for lack of evidence and causation.
• Environmental human-rights claims – gas flaring – alleged violations of ACHPR Articles 1, 4, 5, 16, 24.• Jurisdiction – mere prima facie allegation of human-rights violation triggers Community Court competence.• Admissibility – NGOs may bring actio popularis where rights are public, reliefs benefit the public and victims are envisagable.• Burden of proof – applicant must prove actual harm and causal link to State acts/omissions.• Evidence – unchallenged independent reports and domestic reforms relevant to merits and reparation.
|
4 July 2024 |
| June 2024 |
|
|
Application succeeds on fair-trial non-retroactivity ground; equality and right-to-work claims dismissed.
* Jurisdiction – Court’s competency under Article 9(4) of the Protocol – admissibility under Article 10(d).
* Human rights – administrative/disciplinary proceedings – fair hearing – prohibition of retroactive criminalisation (Article 7(2) African Charter).
* Equality – equal protection – burden of proof for unjustified differential treatment; insufficient evidence to show discrimination.
* Right to work – requirement to prove causal link between state measures and dismissal.
* Remedies – expungement of unlawful disciplinary measures; award of general damages.
|
6 June 2024 |
|
Application dismissed as inadmissible for lack of proof of parentage and thus lack of locus standi.
Human rights — Admissibility — Locus standi — Victim status (direct/indirect) — Requirement to prove family relationship by clear prima facie evidence — Court’s jurisdiction under Article 9(4) of the Protocol — Costs: parties bear own costs where defendant did not claim costs.
|
6 June 2024 |
|
Court found jurisdiction but dismissed the NGOs’ property claim for lack of locus standi; costs awarded to respondent.
* Jurisdiction – Article 9(4) Supplementary Protocol – mere allegation of human rights violation suffices to confer prima facie jurisdiction. * Admissibility – victim status (locus standi), non-anonymity, non-pendency required for human-rights claims. * Property rights – ownership/legitimate expectation must be established to claim violation under Article 14 ACHPR. * Bank–customer disputes may be tortious and fall outside human-rights competence if applicant lacks victim status.
|
6 June 2024 |
|
Delay in signing land deeds did not violate Article 14 where tribal certificates gave no title and state attribution for vandalisation was not proven.
Human rights jurisdiction – property rights (Article 14 African Charter) – corporate applicant's standing; Public Lands Law – Tribal Land Certificate as consent only; Title vests upon completion of statutory formalities and presidential signature; State responsibility – attribution and positive obligations to protect property; Admissibility – capacity and board resolution evidence.
|
6 June 2024 |
|
Court competent to interpret its judgments but refused application as inadmissible and cannot order national enforcement.
* ECOWAS Court – interpretation of judgments – Article 23 Protocol A/P.1/7/91 – competence to interpret when meaning or scope is in doubt.
* Admissibility – interpretation applications must identify specific operative provisions, words or passages and aim to facilitate execution, not re‑litigation.
* Enforcement – ECOWAS Court cannot order municipal courts to enforce its decisions; enforcement is for Member States/national competent authorities (2005 Additional Protocol, Article 24).
* Procedure – expedited procedure requires demonstrated urgency; default judgment triggers Court's duty to verify jurisdiction and admissibility.
|
6 June 2024 |
|
The Court lacks jurisdiction to directly enforce its judgments; enforcement follows national procedure and Commission sanctions mechanisms.
* Public international/ECOWAS Court jurisdiction – competence to enforce own judgments – Court lacks jurisdiction to order direct enforcement against Member States.
* Procedural law – Enforcement of Community Court judgments – writ of execution issued by Chief Registrar; execution by competent national authority under domestic rules (Article 24, Supplementary Protocol).
* Locus standi – Individual applicants lack standing to seek community sanctions; President of the Commission vested with enforcement/sanctions prerogatives (Supplementary Act on Sanctions).
* Interaction with domestic proceedings – domestic criminal processes and national enforcement rules govern execution of Community Court writs.
|
6 June 2024 |
|
Domestic military immunity and non-exhaustion of local remedies do not bar ECOWAS Court jurisdiction over alleged rights violations.
Human rights – Right to life – Alleged extrajudicial killing by military – Domestic military immunity (Armed Forces Act Section 239) cannot oust international obligations – ECOWAS Court jurisdiction under Article 9(4) of Protocol – Non-exhaustion of local remedies not required.
|
6 June 2024 |
| May 2024 |
|
|
ECOWAS Court lacked temporal jurisdiction for some killings and dismissed the NGO’s case for lack of standing.
• Jurisdiction (ratione temporis) – non-retroactivity of treaties – Protocol A/SP.1/01/05 – distinction between instantaneous and continuous violations.
• Admissibility – Article 10(d) of the 2005 Additional Protocol – victim status and locus standi for NGOs.
• Actio popularis and representative actions – requirements for NGO registration, mandate/authorization, and public-interest litigation.
• Obligation to investigate and prosecute – scope depends on Court’s ratione temporis jurisdiction.
|
30 May 2024 |
|
Revision refused: application inadmissible because applicants’ ignorance of the alleged new facts resulted from their negligence.
Administrative law – Revision of judgment – Article 25 Protocol and Articles 92–94 Rules – Requirements for revision: timeliness, new fact, ignorance not due to negligence, decisiveness – Duty to disclose by former staff – Admissibility test cumulative.
|
30 May 2024 |
|
ECOWAS Court finds State violated a company’s property and timely‑decision rights; awards CFA 40,000,000 and costs.
• International law – Jurisdiction of ECOWAS Court – Signature/provisional entry into force of Protocol A/SP.1/01/05 binds a State despite domestic non‑ratification objections.
• Admissibility – Legal persons may sue for violations of fundamental rights (property); shareholder claims for reflective losses are inadmissible absent distinct personal rights.
• State responsibility – Acts of state agents and organs attributable to the State; non‑state actors not proper parties before Court.
• Human rights – Article 14 African Charter (right to property) and Article 7(1)(d) (reasonable time) – annulment of permits violated property and reasonable‑time rights.
• Remedies – Award of fair compensation and costs to successful applicant.
|
29 May 2024 |
| February 2024 |
|
|
State liable for police shooting of protester—violations of security, torture and failure to provide effective remedy.
Jurisdiction and admissibility of human rights applications; State responsibility for police use of force; Right to security of the person (African Charter Article 6 / ICCPR Article 9); Definition and threshold for torture (African Charter Article 5 / ICCPR Article 7 / CAT Article 1); Duty to investigate, prosecute and provide effective remedies; Reparations including compensation and institutional measures to prevent recurrence.
|
28 February 2024 |
| January 2024 |
|
|
Court finds violations of Articles 5, 16 and 6 of the African Charter for detention and denial of health; 2004–2005 claims inadmissible.
• Human rights – jurisdiction ratione temporis – non‑retroactivity of Protocol extending Court's human‑rights mandate (no jurisdiction for 2004–2005). • Prohibition of torture – Article 5 African Charter – inhuman detention conditions and denial of minimum guarantees can prove torture absent full medical reports. • Right to health – Article 16 African Charter – denial of specialized care for detainee. • Liberty and security – Article 6 African Charter – procedural defects, secret detention and failure to inform reasons violate liberty safeguards. • Presumption of innocence – Article 7 African Charter – not established where no evidence of extrajudicial portrayal of guilt.
|
30 January 2024 |
|
Court lacked jurisdiction: claim time-barred under Article 9(3) and human-rights claims against ECOWAS Institution are impermissible.
• Jurisdiction – Article 9(3) Supplementary Protocol – three-year limitation for actions against Community institutions – effect of delay and continuing-violation exception.
• Human-rights claims – only States, not Community institutions, are proper defendants for domestic constitutional/human-rights violations before the Court.
• Procedural – failure to sue appropriate party and duplicative parties – suomoto dismissal of redundant defendant.
• Employment law – summary dismissal and alleged denial of fair hearing considered but not entertained due to lack of jurisdiction/time bar.
|
30 January 2024 |