[2017] AfCHPR 11

[2017] AfCHPR 11

The Court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate exhaustion of local remedies as required by Rule 34(4) of the Rules of Court. The judgments submitted by the applicant did not show that he was a party to the proceedings or that his claims had been adjudicated by the domestic courts. The evidence provided was therefore insufficient to establish compliance with the admissibility requirements. As a result, the application was found to be non-compliant with the Rules and was dismissed.

Citation
[2017] AfCHPR 11
Parties
Applicant: Fidèle Mulindahabi; Respondent: Republic of Rwanda
Court
African Court on Human and Peoples Rights
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
28 September 2017
Case Number
Application No. 008/2017
Procedural Posture
Application / Preliminary Objection; Admissibility
Outcome
application dismissed for failure to exhaust local remedies
Judges
Ben Achour J, Bensaoula J, Bossa J, Chizumila J, Eno R, Guissè J, Kioko VP, Matusse J, Mengue J, Mukamulisa J, Niyungeko J, Orè P
Legal Topics
Exhaustion of Local Remedies, Right to Property, Admissibility Requirements
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Exhaustion of Local Remedies Right to Property Admissibility Requirements

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fidèle Mulindahabi

Applicant

Republic of Rwanda

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application / Preliminary Objection; Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant exhausted local remedies as required by Rule 34(4) of the Rules of Court.
  2. 2 Whether the application is admissible in light of the evidence provided regarding exhaustion of local remedies.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate exhaustion of local remedies as required by Rule 34(4) of the Rules of Court. The judgments submitted by the applicant did not show that he was a party to the proceedings or that his claims had been adjudicated by the domestic courts. The evidence provided was therefore insufficient to establish compliance with the admissibility requirements. As a result, the application was found to be non-compliant with the Rules and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed for failure to exhaust local remedies

Orders

  • The application is dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 34(4) of the Rules.
  • The application is struck off the cause list.