➥ CASE SUMMARY OF:
Moussa Leo Keita v The State of Mali (2007) – ECOWAS
by “PipAr” B.C. Chima
➥ COURT:
ECOWAS – ECW/CCJ/APP/03/07
➥ JUDGEMENT DELIVERED ON:
22nd day of March 2007
➥ AREA(S) OF LAW
Res Judicata.
Ratione materiae.
➥ NOTABLE DICTA
➥ LEAD JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY:
Hon. Justice Hanisne N. Donli;
Hon. Justice Awa Nana Daboya;
Hon. Justice Dirarou S. Sidibe.
➥ APPEARANCES
⦿ FOR THE CLAIMANT
⦿ FOR THE RESPONDENT
➥ CASE HISTORY
Moussa Leo Keita complains of being a victim of injustice committed by his State, and of the malfunction or poor running of the justice system of his country.
➥ ISSUE(S) & RESOLUTION
I. Whether the case is caught by Res Judicata?
RULING: YES; IN RESPONDENT’S FAVOUR.
Para. 26: “The Community Court of Justice is powerless: it cannot adjudicate upon the decisions of the national courts. Within the meaning of the aforementioned Article 10, the Community Court of Justice can only intervene when such courts or parties in litigation expressly so request it within the strict context of the interpretation of the positive law of the Community. Hence, the objection raised by the Defence regarding the ratione materae competence of the Court must be declared admissible.”
Para. 35: “The Court has already responded that it has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon decisions made by the domestic courts of Members States of the community.”
.
.
II. Whether the Applicant have the locus standi?
RULING: YES; IN CLAIMANT’S FAVOUR.
Para. 28 – 29: “Having regard to Articles 9 and 10 cited above, the persons qualified to appear before the Court of Justice of ECOWAS, in other words, the persons who have the status to bring cases before the court, are: The Member States of ECOWAS; The Institutions of ECOWAS; The Staff of ECOWAS; Individuals and corporate bodies in proceedings for the determination of an act or inaction of a Community official which violates the rights of the individuals or corporate bodies; Individuals and corporate bodies victim of violation of Human Rights; The national courts or the parties concerned, when the court has to adjudicate on preliminary grounds upon the interpretation of the Treaty, Protocols or Rules. Can Moussa Leo Keita justify his existence with respect to these persons and thereby enter into one of the above-mentioned groups? Yes, in the sense that Moussa Leo Keila is a natural person in Private Law.”
.
.
III. Whether the case is premised on a fundamental human right violation?
RULING: NO; IN RESPONDENT’S FAVOUR.
Para. 33 – 34: “The Court consequently affirms its competence to adjudicate upon questions dealing with the violation of Human Rights. All the same, should one specify the particular human right which has been violated? The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights has enshrined rights, which the International Community today agrees to classify into civil and political rights on one hand or economic, social and cultural rights on the other hand, not forgetting other rights regarded as being of the third and fourth generations. Each of these rights have been so described as to bring out clearly their content, import, and extent of enjoyment so that any act of their violation may be qualified or not as a Human Right violation. In the instant case, the Counsel for the Applicant does not pin point any given right; he does not specify the rights whose violation may have been committed by the State of Mali. At most, he talks of the behaviour and attitude of the said State.”
Para. 36: “Hence, even if the Community Court of Justice were competent to adjudicate in cases on Human Rights violation, the Applicant has not indicated any proof of a characteristic violation of a fundamental Human Right; and in the absence of any such violation, the Application must be declared inadmissible.”
.
.
.
✓ DECISION:
“Declares that it is incompetent to adjudicate upon the decision made by the Supreme Court of Mali, as to violation of Human Rights; Declares the Application inadmissible, in regard to an infringement which may be characterised as a fundamental Human Right violation; Exempts the Applicant from costs.”
➥ MISCELLANEOUS POINTS
➥ REFERENCED (STATUTE)
➥ REFERENCED (CASE)
➥ REFERENCED (OTHERS)
