[2018] AfCHPR 8

[2018] AfCHPR 8

The Court found that the applicant failed to exhaust local remedies as required by Article 56(5) of the Charter. Although the applicant had brought two cases before domestic courts, he did not appeal to the Supreme Court of Rwanda, which is the competent authority for such matters. The applicant provided no justification for this omission. Since the exhaustion of local remedies is a cumulative and mandatory admissibility requirement, the failure to meet it rendered the entire application inadmissible. The Court also dismissed the respondent's objection under Rule 67, finding that the present application was a new matter and not a request for review of a previous decision. Having found the...

Citation
[2018] AfCHPR 8
Parties
Applicant: Rutabingwa Chrysanthe; Respondent: Republic of Rwanda
Court
African Court on Human and Peoples Rights
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
11 May 2018
Case Number
Application No. 022/2015
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Application / Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed as inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Exhaustion of Local Remedies, Right to Work, Right to Fair Hearing, Non Discrimination
Source Language
English
Employment and Labour Constitutional Law Unfair Dismissal Exhaustion of Local Remedies Right to Work Right to Fair Hearing Non Discrimination

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rutabingwa Chrysanthe

Applicant

Republic of Rwanda

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's dismissal from public service was illegal and unconstitutional.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant exhausted all available local remedies before approaching the African Court.
  3. 3 Whether the application is admissible under Article 56 of the Charter.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicant failed to exhaust local remedies as required by Article 56(5) of the Charter. Although the applicant had brought two cases before domestic courts, he did not appeal to the Supreme Court of Rwanda, which is the competent authority for such matters. The applicant provided no justification for this omission. Since the exhaustion of local remedies is a cumulative and mandatory admissibility requirement, the failure to meet it rendered the entire application inadmissible. The Court also dismissed the respondent's objection under Rule 67, finding that the present application was a new matter and not a request for review of a previous decision. Having found the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed as inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies

Orders

  • The Court has jurisdiction.
  • The objection based on Rule 67 of the Rules is dismissed.