|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| October 2025 |
|
|
Application struck out for failure to pursue proceedings and lack of instructions; restoration possible on good cause.
Striking out – Rule 65(1)(b) and (c) – failure to pursue proceedings – counsel unable to obtain instructions – inactivity after presidential pardon – discretion to strike out – restoration possible under Rule 65(3).
|
9 October 2025 |
| September 2025 |
|
|
The Court reopened pleadings to admit the respondent state's post-pleadings submission, including recently enacted electoral legislation.
* Procedure – Reopening of pleadings – Court’s discretion under Rule 46(3) and Rule 46(4) – Inherent power under Rule 90 – Admission of post-pleadings submission and recent domestic legislation (Act No. 2 of 2024). * Human rights – Alleged violations of equality, equal protection and hearing rights arising from electoral and constitutional provisions (subject to further adjudication).
|
15 September 2025 |
| August 2025 |
|
|
Court exercised discretion to reopen pleadings for additional evidence, dismissed applicants’ request for an extraordinary-session decision.
Procedure – Reopening pleadings; Rule 46(3) Rules of Court – Court’s discretion to reopen pleadings; Rule 90 – inherent powers to meet ends of justice; Elections – allegations of electoral malpractice and discrimination; Procedural timetable for additional submissions and replies.
|
5 August 2025 |
| June 2025 |
|
|
Court finds jurisdiction and admissibility: extraterritorial jurisdiction established; local remedies waived given alleged massive violations.
• Human rights jurisdiction – material jurisdiction need not depend on proof of a pre-existing inter-State dispute; alleged violations under ratified human-rights treaties suffice.
• Territorial jurisdiction – Court may exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction where a State’s organs act outside its territory; finding of direct Respondent State involvement internationalised the conflict.
• Admissibility – preliminary regional or AU political dispute-resolution requirements do not bar proceedings before this Court; abuse of process and media-based objections dismissed; exhaustion of domestic remedies waived in face of massive/ongoing violations.
• Lis pendens/res judicata – pending proceedings before another regional court did not establish inadmissibility where subject-matter and remedies differ.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Defaulting State’s reliance on a final domestic default conviction justified removal from voters’ register; no Charter violations found.
* Human rights – Electoral law – Removal from voters’ register – Lawful reliance on final domestic default judgment with certificate of non-opposition – No violation of presumption of innocence.
* Human rights – Participation in government – Restriction by law must be legitimate, necessary and proportionate – Electoral integrity justification upheld.
* Jurisdiction and admissibility – State default – exhaustion of local remedies and reasonable time complied with.
* Burden of proof – Applicant failed to demonstrate unequal treatment, denial of access to public service, or infringement of voting rights.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Mandatory death sentences and hanging violated the applicant’s rights to life and dignity; impartiality and equality claims dismissed.
Human rights — Criminal procedure — Jurisdiction of the African Court to examine national proceedings and order remedies; Admissibility — Exhaustion of local remedies and reasonable time to file; Fair trial — Alleged assessor bias and impartiality; Equality — Claim dismissed for lack of proof; Death penalty — Mandatory sentencing violates Article 4 (right to life); Method of execution — Hanging is cruel, inhuman and degrading under Article 5; Reparations — Revocation of death sentence, legislative reform, rehearing of sentencing, publication and reporting obligations.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Application declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies; Court rendered judgment in respondent's default.
Human rights — Admissibility — Exhaustion of local remedies; Default judgment — Rule 63(1) Rules of Court; Jurisdiction — Effect of withdrawal of Article 34(6) Declaration; Prohibited Immigrant status — alleged impediment to access to domestic remedies; Fair trial and property rights alleged but not adjudicated due to inadmissibility.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Failure to deliver judgments in open court violated the applicant’s fair‑trial rights; no property right violation was found.
Human rights jurisdiction; admissibility—exhaustion of local remedies and timely filing; limits of sovereignty and responsibility for acts of domestic courts; fair trial—requirement to deliver judgments in open court; manifest misapplication of domestic law and denial of justice standard; property rights—scope and proof of ownership; remedies—moral damages, publication and reporting orders.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Court finds police brutality, ineffective legal assistance, undue delay, and unlawful mandatory death penalty; orders remedies and law reform.
Criminal procedure; jurisdiction and admissibility; police brutality and State’s duty to investigate; right to effective legal assistance when counsel conflicts; unreasonable delay in criminal proceedings; mandatory death penalty violates right to life; hanging constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; reparations and structural remedies.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Request for provisional suspension of prosecutorial summons dismissed for lack of demonstrated urgency and irreparable harm.
* Provisional measures – Article 27(2) of the Protocol – requirements: extreme gravity, urgency, irreparable harm; * Prima facie jurisdiction – Charter and Protocol ratification and Article 34(6) Declaration; * Delay and lack of imminence – effect on urgency; * Burden of proof on applicant to demonstrate necessity of provisional measures.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Application declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies despite Court’s jurisdiction and respondent’s default.
Default judgment – Rule 63(1) – requirement of notification and failure to respond; Jurisdiction – material, personal (Article 34(6) Declaration), temporal and territorial; Admissibility – exhaustion of local remedies in the face of ongoing criminal investigations and pending appeals; Costs – each party to bear own costs.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Applicants failed to establish discrimination or denial of fair hearing in contested internal police promotion regularization.
* Human rights – Equality before the law and non-discrimination – Application of objective statutory criteria for internal promotion – burden to prove discriminatory treatment.
* Judicial review – Jurisprudential reversal – Courts may evolve or reverse precedent where reasons justify the change.
* Right to have one’s cause heard – procedural time-limits and service of judgment – absence of proof of service may keep appeal period open and preclude denial of justice.
* Admissibility – exhaustion of local remedies and reasonable time satisfied where final domestic decisions were rendered.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Court has prima facie jurisdiction but dismisses provisional measures because they would prejudge the merits.
Provisional measures – prima facie jurisdiction – extreme gravity, urgency and irreparable harm – request prejudging merits – refusal where provisional measures mirror relief on merits.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Application alleging post‑election killings and unlawful amnesty declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies.
* Human rights – Jurisdiction of African Court – Court is not an appellate body but may review national proceedings for compliance with the African Charter; may order reparatory measures including repeal of law when appropriate.
* Admissibility – Exhaustion of local remedies – Applicants must pursue available and effective constitutional remedies before national Constitutional Court; prior abstract review does not bar subsequent constitutional challenge.
* Procedure – Abuse of process and multiple filings do not by themselves establish inadmissibility; anonymity does not preclude standing to bring objective litigation.
* Costs – Each party bears its own costs.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Application dismissed as inadmissible for failure to exhaust effective domestic remedies; Court finds jurisdiction.
Admissibility — Exhaustion of local remedies — Rule 50(2)(e) and Article 56 — Constitutional Court as available and effective remedy — Exceptions to exhaustion require proof — Timing of domestic decisions relevant.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Court limited jurisdiction to States that ratified the Protocol and deposited the Article 34(6) declaration; struck out NGO lacking observer status.
• Jurisdiction – personal jurisdiction limited to States party to the Protocol and having deposited Article 34(6) declaration.
• Standing – NGOs without observer status before the African Commission cannot be Applicants under Article 5(3)/34(6).
• Effect of withdrawal – withdrawal of Article 34(6) declaration effective one year after deposit affects subsequent jurisdiction.
• Court procedure – invocation of Rule 90 to strike parties suo motu for judicial efficiency.
• Admissibility – striking out parties and renaming Application where necessary.
|
17 June 2025 |
|
Court exercised discretion to reopen pleadings, deem late Response filed, and granted the Applicant 30 days to reply.
* Reopening of pleadings – Court’s discretion under Rule 46(3) and inherent powers under Rule 90 – extension of time for filing pleadings.
* Late filing – deeming a Response duly filed where extension granted and no objection from Applicant.
* Procedure – service of Response on Applicant and thirty-day period to file Reply.
* Jurisdictional note – State withdrawal of Article 34(6) Declaration does not affect pending cases.
|
2 June 2025 |
| May 2025 |
|
|
Court reopens pleadings and orders Tanzania to file a response on electoral disenfranchisement allegations within seven days.
Election law; political participation – alleged disenfranchisement of prisoners, death‐sentenced persons and diaspora voters – procedural law; Court’s discretion to reopen pleadings under Rule 46(3) and inherent powers – limited reopening and seven‐day deadline.
|
20 May 2025 |
| February 2025 |
|
|
Court reopened pleadings and admitted amici curiae in applicants' electoral‑rights application against the respondent.
• Court procedure – Reopening pleadings – Rule 46(3) of the Rules – Inherent powers under Rule 90 – interests of justice.
• Civil procedure – Deeming additional submissions duly filed and ordering service with a 30‑day response period.
• Amicus curiae – Admission of organisations with electoral litigation expertise – submissions accepted.
• Electoral law – Allegations of mass and systematic violations in national elections – complexity and public interest.
|
28 February 2025 |
|
The Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the applicant's challenge against the AU and AUC because they are not State Parties to the Protocol.
* Jurisdiction – scope of Court’s jurisdiction – respondents must be State Parties to the Protocol; applications against international organisations that are not parties are outside jurisdiction. * Procedural law – Rule 49(1) preliminary examination of jurisdiction. * International law – applicability of Vienna Convention principles and Femi Falana jurisprudence to preclude treaty obligations on non‑party international organisations.
|
12 February 2025 |
|
Failure to provide automatic free legal aid violated the applicant’s right to defence; conviction was not overturned.
Human rights — Fair trial — Right to defence — Automatic free legal assistance for indigent persons charged with serious offences; Admissibility — exhaustion of local remedies — review procedure not required; Jurisdiction — Court may examine national proceedings and order remedies including legislative measures; Reparations — moral damages awarded and systemic remedy ordering amendment of Legal Aid Act 2017.
|
5 February 2025 |
|
Application inadmissible for failure to exhaust available cassation remedy; Court affirms jurisdiction and orders each party to bear own costs.
Human rights adjudication – jurisdiction under the Protocol – exhaustion of local remedies – cassation appeal availability – lack of counsel and ignorance not automatic exceptions – application inadmissible.
|
5 February 2025 |
|
Court had jurisdiction but declared the application inadmissible for failure to exhaust available domestic remedies.
Admissibility – exhaustion of local remedies – availability and effectiveness of domestic remedies under Tunisian Code of Criminal Procedure (Articles 36, 206) – material, personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction – allegations of violations of the African Charter and ICCPR.
|
5 February 2025 |
|
State failed to protect persons with albinism from discrimination, attacks, trafficking and inadequate health and education, warranting reparations.
Human rights – Persons with albinism – jurisdiction and admissibility of NGOs’ public-interest litigation – exhaustion of domestic remedies; substantive violations: discrimination, failure to protect right to life, torture/cruel/inhuman treatment, breach of dignity, trafficking and children’s best interests, inadequate health and education – reparations including compensation fund, legislative reform, national plan, awareness campaigns and reporting.
|
5 February 2025 |
|
Mandatory death penalty and hanging violate rights to life and dignity; court orders repeal and resentencing.
Human rights — Death penalty — Mandatory death sentence violates Article 4 (right to life); Method of execution (hanging) violates Article 5 (dignity); Jurisdiction — Court may examine conformity of domestic proceedings with Charter standards; Admissibility — local remedies exhausted; reasonable time assessed case-by-case; Reparations — moral damages, vacatur of mandatory sentence, resentencing, legislative reform and reporting obligations.
|
5 February 2025 |
|
Application dismissed as inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies despite default judgment.
Admissibility – exhaustion of local remedies; Default judgment – Rule 63(1) for failure to file Response; Jurisdiction – Article 3 Protocol; Temporal effect of Article 34(6) declaration withdrawal; Domestic appeal remedy available for first-instance decisions.
|
5 February 2025 |
|
Court finds jurisdiction but declares application inadmissible for failure to exhaust effective local remedies.
• Jurisdiction – Article 3(1) Protocol – Court’s competence to assess compliance of national judicial procedures with Charter standards (not an appellate court).
• Admissibility – Article 56(5) Charter & Rule 50(2)(e) – exhaustion of local remedies; undue prolongation of proceedings.
• Domestic remedies – availability and effectiveness of Constitutional Court remedies.
• Admissibility – claims against state officials require exhaustion of national judicial remedies.
|
5 February 2025 |
| November 2024 |
|
|
Court reopened pleadings and granted the respondent 30 days to file a response under its discretionary power.
Procedure – Reopening pleadings – Court’s discretion under Rule 46(3) and inherent power under Rule 90; Extension of time granted to Respondent to file Response; Jurisdiction – withdrawal of Article 34(6) Declaration does not affect pending or newly filed cases filed before withdrawal effective date.
|
29 November 2024 |
|
Request for provisional measures dismissed for failure to prove extreme gravity, urgency and irreparable harm.
Provisional measures — Article 27(2) Protocol — Extreme gravity, urgency and irreparable harm — Burden of proof on applicant — Prima facie jurisdiction — Pending domestic remedies — Suspension of judicial/HJC decisions and presidential decrees.
|
20 November 2024 |
|
Mandatory death sentences and hanging violate the applicant’s rights to life and dignity; fair‑trial claim dismissed.
Criminal procedure – fair trial – evaluation of witness inconsistencies and appellate deference; Capital punishment – mandatory death sentence violates Article 4 (right to life); Method of execution – hanging violates Article 5 (dignity); Default proceedings – Court competence where State fails to respond; Remedies – legislative repeal, resentencing, abolition of hanging and publication/reporting orders.
|
13 November 2024 |
|
Court finds no fair-trial violations and dismisses applicant’s claims; respondent defaulted but jurisdiction and admissibility affirmed.
Human rights — Fair trial — Alleged violations including right to be heard, presumption of innocence, admissibility of evidence, right to challenge evidence, notification of charges, and reasoned judgments — Court finds no violations; default judgment due to State non-response; admissibility and jurisdiction affirmed.
|
13 November 2024 |
|
Application challenging electoral law amendments declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
* Human rights – Political rights – Right to participate in elections – Challenge to amendments of electoral law – Requirement to exhaust domestic remedies before regional adjudication.
* Procedure – Default – Court may render judgment suo motu where State is duly served but fails to defend its case.
* Admissibility – Availability, effectiveness and sequence of domestic remedies; inadmissibility for non-exhaustion.
|
13 November 2024 |
|
Challenge to paternal-only surname law held moot after domestic amendment granting parents equal surname choice.
Human rights — Equality between men and women — Transmission of surname; Jurisdiction — material, personal, temporal and territorial competence of the Court; Admissibility — exhaustion of local remedies and reasonable time; Mootness — effect of domestic legislative amendment on active remedy; Reparations and costs — no award where matter rendered moot.
|
13 November 2024 |
|
Mandatory death penalty and hanging breach rights to life and dignity; fair‑trial complaint on circumstantial evidence dismissed.
* Human rights — Criminal procedure — Fair trial — Evaluation of circumstantial evidence — Domestic courts’ margin of appreciation. * Death penalty — Mandatory sentence — Removal of judicial discretion — Violation of right to life (Article 4). * Methods of execution — Hanging — Degrading and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment — Violation of dignity (Article 5). * Reparations — Moral damages awarded; material damages not proven. * Default proceedings — Respondent's failure to file response and Court proceeding in default.
|
13 November 2024 |
|
Mandatory death sentence and hanging breach the Charter’s rights to life and dignity; other fair‑trial claims dismissed.
Jurisdiction and admissibility – exhaustion of local remedies; Evidence and fair trial – admissibility and weight of DNA and circumstantial evidence; Presumption of death; Mandatory death penalty incompatible with Article 4 (right to life); Hanging as execution method violates dignity (Article 5); Remedies – vacatur of mandatory death sentence, rehearing on sentencing, legislative reform and moral damages.
|
13 November 2024 |
|
Application dismissed as inadmissible for failure to exhaust available domestic remedies despite Court's jurisdiction.
• Admissibility – Exhaustion of local remedies – appeal to Cour de cassation required and available in Côte d’Ivoire; lack of counsel and ignorance do not excuse non‑exhaustion.
• Jurisdiction – material, personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction established; withdrawal of Article 34(6) Declaration has no retroactive effect on pending cases.
• Admissibility – requirements are cumulative; failure to exhaust local remedies renders application inadmissible.
• Costs – each party to bear its own costs.
|
13 November 2024 |
|
Application alleging unfair trial, torture and discrimination dismissed for lack of substantiated evidence; Court affirms jurisdiction and admissibility.
Criminal procedure – Review of domestic convictions – Scope of Court’s jurisdiction vis-à-vis national appellate courts; Admissibility – exhaustion of local remedies and timeliness; Fair trial – right to be heard and evaluation of evidence; Burden of proof – allegations of torture and discrimination must be substantiated.
|
13 November 2024 |
|
Mandatory death penalty and hanging violate the Charter; Court orders vacatur, compensation, rehearing and legislative reform.
Jurisdiction – material jurisdiction to examine domestic proceedings for Charter compliance; Admissibility – exhaustion of local remedies and reasonable time for incarcerated applicants; Merits – mandatory death penalty arbitrary under Article 4; hanging violates Article 5 (dignity); Evidentiary review – Court will not supplant domestic factual findings absent manifest error; Remedies – vacatur of death sentence, legislative reform, rehearing and reparations.
|
13 November 2024 |
|
Failure to hold a referendum did not breach self-determination, but executive interference violated judicial and legislative independence.
• Jurisdiction – Court competence to hear applications alleging violations of the Charter; admissibility – exhaustion of domestic remedies waived where remedies unavailable or ineffective; reasonable time.• Peoples’ right to self-determination (Art.20) – drafting and adoption of a constitution by an elected Constituent Assembly does not necessarily require a referendum under the Charter.• Judicial independence (Art.26) – failure to operationalise Constitutional Court; dissolution of High Judicial Council and presidential control over judges’ careers violates judicial independence.• Separation of powers – suspension/dissolution of legislature and executive assumption of legislative power breaches legislative independence.• Remedies – orders to operationalise Constitutional Court, repeal decree-law dissolving HJC and reinstate HJC; periodic reporting to Court.
|
13 November 2024 |
|
Court granted a 90‑day adjournment for respondent to file a compliance report, reserved costs, and adjourned sine die.
* Procedure – Adjournment of compliance hearing – Rule 54(6) and Rule 90 – Court’s inherent power to adopt procedures to meet ends of justice; * Implementation – Respondent ordered to file report on steps to implement merits and reparations within 90 days; * Reservation of costs; * Pending determination on allegations of continuing evictions (Ogiek in Mau Forest).
|
12 November 2024 |
| October 2024 |
|
|
Court suspended detention to allow urgent medical treatment after finding prima facie jurisdiction, urgency and irreparable harm.
Provisional measures; prima facie jurisdiction under the Protocol; urgency and extreme gravity of alleged torture; risk of irreparable harm to health; suspension of detention warrants pending merits; State reporting obligation within 15 days.
|
29 October 2024 |
|
Court exercised discretion to reopen pleadings and accept a late Response in a death‑penalty fair‑trial and equality claim.
Procedural law – reopening pleadings; discretion under Rule 46(3) and inherent powers under Rule 90 – late Response deemed filed; Human rights – alleged breach of right to fair trial (Article 7) and equality (Article 3) in death-penalty proceedings; provisional measures – stay of execution.
|
28 October 2024 |
|
Application dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction because the State had not deposited the Article 34(6) Declaration.
Jurisdiction – Personal jurisdiction – Article 34(6) Declaration – Direct applications by individuals – Preliminary examination under Rule 49(1) – New application vs. previously determined application (res judicata/ancillarity).
|
16 October 2024 |
| September 2024 |
|
|
Failure to exhaust available domestic remedies rendered application alleging unlawful pre-trial detention inadmissible despite Court's jurisdiction.
* Jurisdiction – Material jurisdiction – Ratification of the African Charter, Protocol and Article 34(6) Declaration – Sovereignty cannot be invoked to evade international obligations.
* Admissibility – Exhaustion of local remedies – Domestic remedies must be available, effective and concluded at filing; pending cassation appeal rendered Application inadmissible.
* Provisional measures – Not granted where application is inadmissible and remedies are pending before domestic courts.
* Pre-trial detention – Allegation examined in context of admissibility but relief denied for non-exhaustion.
|
3 September 2024 |
|
Mandatory death penalty and multiple fair-trial and torture violations required vacatur, reform and reparations.
* Human rights / fair trial – jurisdiction and admissibility – exhaustion of local remedies and reasonable time for filing.
* Fair trial – consular assistance (VCCR Art.36), interpretation (ICCPR Art.14(3)(a)), trial within reasonable time, coerced statements, effective legal representation.
* Torture and ill-treatment – police brutality, failure to investigate, deplorable detention conditions, death-row phenomenon (Article 5).
* Death penalty – mandatory sentencing violates right to life (Article 4); hanging as method violates dignity.
* Remedies – vacatur of mandatory death sentence, sentencing rehearing, repeal of mandatory death penalty and hanging, moral damages and implementation reporting.
|
3 September 2024 |
|
Application declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust a pending cassation appeal; Court had jurisdiction.
Admissibility – exhaustion of local remedies – pending cassation appeal in Burkina Faso – cassation is available, effective and satisfactory unless unduly prolonged; Jurisdiction – material, personal, temporal and territorial; Alleged rights: access to courts (Art.7(1)(a)), right to life (Art.4), human dignity (Art.5).
|
3 September 2024 |
|
Court found no discrimination or hearing violation but held State liable for failing to provide free legal assistance; moral damages awarded.
Jurisdiction – material, personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction established; Admissibility – exhaustion of domestic remedies satisfied; Fair trial – right to legal assistance (Article 7(1)(c) Charter read with ICCPR Article 14(3)(d)) violated where indigent accused charged with serious offence was not provided free counsel; No violation of Article 2 (non-discrimination), Article 3(2) (equal protection) or Article 7(1)(a) (right to be heard) found; Reparations – moral damages awarded, material claims dismissed; Implementation reporting ordered.
|
3 September 2024 |
|
Most claims inadmissible for non-exhaustion; admissible claim against lawyers raised but no fair-trial violation found.
* Jurisdiction – material, personal, temporal and territorial – sufficiency of allegations of Charter and other ratified instruments. * Admissibility – exhaustion of local remedies – availability, effectiveness and requirement to actually pursue remedies. * Admissibility – reasonable time to file after domestic decision. * Merits – right to a fair trial – review of Constitutional Court's jurisdictional declinature. * Reparations – dismissed where no violation found.
|
3 September 2024 |
| June 2024 |
|
|
Request to reopen pleadings dismissed where proposed new grounds were already pleaded or irrelevant to the core fair‑trial claim.
Administrative law – Reopening of pleadings – Rule 46(3) discretion; Relevance and novelty of facts; Admissibility of post‑closure claims; Fair trial – domestic proceedings over tax contract; Requests for reparations and evidentiary showing required to reopen pleadings.
|
6 June 2024 |
|
Mandatory death penalty and hanging violate the applicant's rights to life and dignity; fair-trial complaints largely dismissed.
Human rights — Criminal procedure — Jurisdiction and admissibility — Reasonable time, right to defence, presumption of innocence, impartial tribunal — Death penalty — Mandatory sentencing arbitrary — Hanging violates dignity — Reparations and legislative reform ordered.
|
4 June 2024 |