Wakilii

Abbes v Tunisian Republic (Application No. 026-2028)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2022] AfCHPR 64 · 2022 Application Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights challenging rejection of candidacy for 2014 Tunisian presidential election
Decision
Application struck out without prejudice to the applicant's right to file a new application in accordance with Rule 65(3) of the Rules

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights struck out the application from its cause list after the applicant repeatedly failed to submit required documents and file his reply to the respondent state's response despite multiple requests and extensions of time granted by the Registry over a period of more than two years.

Outcome

Application struck out without prejudice to the applicant's right to file a new application in accordance with Rule 65(3) of the Rules

Facts

The applicant, a Tunisian advocate, submitted his candidacy for the 2014 Tunisian presidential elections. On 29 September 2014, the Independent High Authority for Elections rejected his candidacy on the ground that it failed to garner the required number of endorsements under the Organic Law on Elections and Referendums. The applicant also filed four cases before domestic courts which he alleged the Tunisian judiciary failed to settle, and challenged the constitutionality of several organic laws and the continued membership of a Tunisian judge at the African Court. He filed an application before the African Court on 12 October 2018 alleging violations of his rights under the African Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant failed to pursue his case within the time limit provided by the Court under Rule 65(1)(b) of the Rules of Court.

Orders

  • Application struck out from the Court's Cause List.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Striking Out — Failure to Prosecute — Duty of Diligence
Parties to an application before the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights must pursue their case with diligence, and where they fail or indicate, implicitly or explicitly, their lack of interest to do so, the Court may strike out the application from its cause list under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Civil Procedure — Striking Out — Rationale — Conservation of Judicial Resources
The rationale behind Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is to save the Court's resources from being unnecessarily expended or wasted on matters the consideration of which will not serve the interests of justice, and the provision encourages parties to demonstrate some level of diligence in pursuing their case or else their application risks being struck out from the Court's cause list.
Civil Procedure — Striking Out — Failure to Comply with Court Directions — Multiple Reminders
Where an applicant repeatedly fails to comply with the Court's requests to submit required documents and file replies despite multiple reminders and extensions of time over a prolonged period, and provides no reasons justifying the inaction, the Court will conclude that the applicant has failed to pursue the case within the meaning of Rule 65(1)(b) and strike out the application.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 22
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 34(6)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 2
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 13
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 14
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 25
  • Tunisian Organic Law on Elections and Referendums No. 16 of 26 May 2014

Cases cited (2)

  • Abdallah Ally Kulukuni v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 007/2018)
  • Magweiga Mahiri v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 029/2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Abbes v Tunisian Republic (Application No. 026-2028) [2022] AfCHPR 64 (23 June 2022)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.