[2019] AfCHPR 97

[2019] AfCHPR 97

The Court found that while it has prima facie jurisdiction to consider the application, the Applicant failed to provide evidence of extreme gravity, urgency, or irreparable harm that the implementation of the Decree could cause him personally. Additionally, the Applicant sought provisional measures for persons who...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] AfCHPR 97
Parties
Applicant: XYZ; Respondent: Republic of Benin
Court
African Court on Human and Peoples Rights
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Application No. 058/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Provisional Measures / Ruling
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
Aboud J, Anukam J, Ben Achour J, Bensaoula J, Chizumila J, Kioko VP, Matusse J, Mengue J, Mukamulisa J, Oré P, Tchikaya J
Legal Topics
Provisional Measures, Right to Documents, Due Process, Freedom of Movement
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Provisional Measures Right to Documents Due Process Freedom of Movement

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XYZ

Applicant

Republic of Benin

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Provisional Measures / Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the Court should order provisional measures to stay the implementation of Decree No. 023/MJL/DC/SGM/DACPG/SA/023SGG19 prohibiting the issuance of legal documents to persons sought by justice in Benin.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant demonstrated extreme gravity, urgency, or irreparable harm as required for provisional measures.
  3. 3 Whether provisional measures can be granted in favour of persons who are not parties to the case.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that while it has prima facie jurisdiction to consider the application, the Applicant failed to provide evidence of extreme gravity, urgency, or irreparable harm that the implementation of the Decree could cause him personally. Additionally, the Applicant sought provisional measures for persons who are not parties to the present case, which is not permissible. The Court emphasized that provisional measures are preventive and do not prejudge the merits, and may only be granted when strict conditions are met. As these conditions were not satisfied, the application for provisional measures was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for provisional measures is dismissed.