[2019] AfCHPR 53

[2019] AfCHPR 53

The Court found that while it had prima facie jurisdiction to consider the application, the Applicant failed to provide evidence of extreme gravity, urgency, or a serious risk of irreparable harm as required for the grant of provisional measures under Article 27(2) of the Protocol. The Applicant's allegations regarding the neutrality of the COS and the potential impact on the electoral process were deemed to relate to the merits of the case, which would be addressed in due course. In the absence of substantiated evidence demonstrating imminent and irreparable harm, the Court concluded that the conditions for granting provisional measures were not met and therefore dismissed the application.

Citation
[2019] AfCHPR 53
Parties
Applicant: XYZ; Respondent: Republic of Benin
Court
African Court on Human and Peoples Rights
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
2 December 2019
Case Number
Application No. 059/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Provisional Measures / Ruling on Provisional Measures
Outcome
Application for provisional measures dismissed.
Judges
Aboud J, Anukam J, Ben Achour J, Bensaoula J, Chizumila J, Kioko VP, Matusse J, Mengue J, Mukamulisa J, Orè P, Tchikaya J
Legal Topics
Electoral Commissions, Right to Participate in Government, Equal Protection, Provisional Measures, Democratic Governance, Judicial Review
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Election Petitions Electoral Commissions Right to Participate in Government Equal Protection Provisional Measures Democratic Governance +1 more

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XYZ

Applicant

Republic of Benin

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Provisional Measures / Ruling on Provisional Measures

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the composition and functioning of the Orientation and Supervisory Council (COS) violates the Applicant's rights to participate in public affairs and equal protection of the law.
  2. 2 Whether the lack of opposition representation in COS undermines the neutrality and legality of the electoral process.
  3. 3 Whether the conditions for granting provisional measures—extreme gravity, urgency, and risk of irreparable harm—are met in this case.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that while it had prima facie jurisdiction to consider the application, the Applicant failed to provide evidence of extreme gravity, urgency, or a serious risk of irreparable harm as required for the grant of provisional measures under Article 27(2) of the Protocol. The Applicant's allegations regarding the neutrality of the COS and the potential impact on the electoral process were deemed to relate to the merits of the case, which would be addressed in due course. In the absence of substantiated evidence demonstrating imminent and irreparable harm, the Court concluded that the conditions for granting provisional measures were not met and therefore dismissed the application.

Court Disposition

Application for provisional measures dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for provisional measures is dismissed by a majority of 9 to 2.