asemie v the kingdom of lesotho communication 43512 2014 achpr 8 29 july 2014

asemie v the kingdom of lesotho communication 43512 2014 achpr 8 29 july 2014

The Commission found that the language used by the complainant was not disparaging within the meaning of Article 56(3), as it reflected honest perceptions and was supported by evidence. However, the complainant failed to exhaust local remedies as required by Article 56(5), since he had access to courts, was able to initiate proceedings even from abroad, and some matters were still pending domestically. The circumstances did not render local remedies unavailable or ineffective.

Citation
asemie v the kingdom of lesotho communication 43512 2014 achpr 8 29 july 2014
Parties
Complainant: Eyob B. Asemie; Respondent State: Kingdom of Lesotho
Court
ACHPR
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
29 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Communication / Admissibility Decision
Outcome
Communication declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies.
Legal Topics
Exhaustion of Local Remedies, Disparaging Language in Pleadings, Nationality and Statelessness, Right to Property, Right to Family, Due Process
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Exhaustion of Local Remedies Disparaging Language in Pleadings Nationality and Statelessness Right to Property Right to Family Due Process

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eyob B. Asemie

Complainant

Kingdom of Lesotho

Respondent State

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Communication / Admissibility Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the complaint contains disparaging or insulting language under Article 56(3) of the African Charter
  2. 2 Whether the complainant exhausted local remedies as required by Article 56(5) of the African Charter

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission found that the language used by the complainant was not disparaging within the meaning of Article 56(3), as it reflected honest perceptions and was supported by evidence. However, the complainant failed to exhaust local remedies as required by Article 56(5), since he had access to courts, was able to initiate proceedings even from abroad, and some matters were still pending domestically. The circumstances did not render local remedies unavailable or ineffective.

Court Disposition

Communication declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies.

Orders

  • Communication declared inadmissible for failure to comply with Article 56(5) of the African Charter.
  • Decision to be notified to the parties in accordance with Rule 107(3) of the Rules of Procedure.