Wakilii

Ajavon v Benin (Application No. 013-2017)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2019] AfCHPR 6 · 2019 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reparations judgment following merits judgment of 29 March 2019 in which the African Court found multiple human rights violations by the Respondent State
Decision
Application granted with substantial pecuniary and non-pecuniary reparations awarded to the Applicant and his family members

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 awarded the Applicant CFA Francs 36,330,444,947 in pecuniary damages for material prejudice including loss of profit, share devaluation, and loss of business opportunity in the oil sector. The Court awarded CFA Francs 3,000,000,000 for moral prejudice to the Applicant and additional sums to family members. The Court ordered non-pecuniary reparations including lifting of account seizures, reopening of media outlets, and amendment of domestic legislation to comply with international human rights standards.

Outcome

Application granted with substantial pecuniary and non-pecuniary reparations awarded to the Applicant and his family members

Facts

The Applicant, a Beninese businessman and politician who scored 23% in the 2016 presidential elections, was prosecuted for alleged international drug trafficking. He was acquitted by the Cotonou Court of First Instance in November 2016 but was subsequently retried and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment by the newly established Anti-Economic Crimes and Terrorism Court (CRIET) in October 2018. Following the proceedings, various administrative measures were taken against his businesses including suspension of his container terminal, closure of his media outlets, and seizure of bank accounts. In its merits judgment of 29 March 2019, the African Court found multiple violations of the Applicant's rights under the African Charter and ICCPR. This reparations judgment addresses the quantum and forms of relief due to the Applicant.

Issues

  1. What reparations are due to the Applicant for material prejudice arising from violations of his rights, including loss of profit, devaluation of shares, and loss of business opportunities?
  2. What reparations are due to the Applicant for moral prejudice suffered as a result of damage to his reputation and dignity?
  3. What non-pecuniary reparations should be ordered, including lifting of seizures, reopening of media outlets, and amendment of domestic legislation?

Orders

  • Dismisses the request for reimbursement of the cost of administrative processing of documents, lawyers' fees and travel expenses before domestic courts.
  • Dismisses the request for reparation of the losses suffered by JLR SA, SGI L'ELITE, CAJAF SA and IDEAL PRODUCTION SARL.
  • Orders the Respondent State to pay the Applicant the sum of thirty-six billion three hundred and thirty million four hundred and forty-four thousand nine hundred and forty-seven (36,330,444,947) CFA Francs.
  • Orders the Respondent State to pay fifteen million (15,000,000) CFA Francs to the Applicant's wife.
  • Orders the Respondent State to pay ten million (10,000,000) CFA Francs to each of the Applicant's children.
  • Orders the Respondent State to pay three billion (3,000,000,000) CFA Francs to the Applicant for moral prejudice.
  • Orders the Respondent State to lift forthwith the seizure of the accounts and property of the Applicant and those of members of his family.
  • Orders the Respondent State to lift forthwith the prohibition to carry out operations in the accounts opened in the name of AGROPLUS.
  • Orders the Respondent State to lift forthwith the suspension of SOCOTRAC SARL's container terminal and the closure Soleil FM radio station and SIKKA TV.
  • Orders the Respondent State to amend Sections 12 and 19(2) of Law No. 2018-13 of 2 July 2018, establishing CRIET in order to make them compliant with the provisions of Articles 3(2) of the Charter and 14(5) of the ICCPR.
  • Dismisses the Respondent State's counterclaim.
  • Rules that each party shall bear its own costs.
  • Orders the Respondent State to pay all net amounts within six (6) months from the date of service of this Judgment, failing which it will also have to pay default interest.
  • Orders the Respondent State to submit reports on implementation within specified timeframes.

Rules and key headnotes

Reparations — Causal Link — Burden of Proof
In considering claims for compensation for prejudice resulting from human rights violations, the Court takes into account the principle that the State recognized as the perpetrator of an internationally wrongful act has the obligation to make full reparation of the consequences in a way that covers all the damage suffered by the victim. The existence of a causal link between the violation and the alleged damage is a principle, and the burden of proof rests on the Applicant, who must provide evidence to justify the claim.
Loss of Profit — Devaluation of Shares — Fair Trial Violations
Where a State's violation of an applicant's right to a fair trial leads to loss of business confidence, resulting in devaluation of the applicant's shareholding, the Court will grant reimbursement of the entire loss recorded, taking into account the situation of the applicant whose right to a fair trial has been violated, even where it cannot speculate on what the outcome would have been had the State complied with its obligations.
Loss of Business Opportunity — Compensation Principles
Loss of opportunity implies the deprivation of a potential with a reasonable probability and not a certainty. Where criminal proceedings violate an applicant's rights and cause a business partner to suspend a partnership agreement, thereby depriving the applicant of a real business opportunity that had reasonable probability of success, the applicant is entitled to compensatory relief for loss of real opportunity, assessed as a lump sum that cannot be equal to the entire expected gain but must take into account the applicant's financial capacity, business experience, and the inherent uncertainties of commercial activity.
Moral Prejudice — Presumption — Assessment
There is a presumption of moral prejudice suffered by an applicant when the Court finds that rights have been violated, such that it is no longer necessary to seek to establish the link between the violation and the damage. The assessment of amounts to be awarded as reparation for non-pecuniary damage should be made on an equitable basis taking into account the circumstances of each case.
Reparations — Family Members — Proof of Kinship
Members of the immediate or close family who have suffered physically or psychologically from a human rights violation may be entitled to reparation for moral prejudice. However, in order to award reparation to family members, they must show proof of kinship to the applicant.
Seizure of Bank Accounts — Non-Seizable Portion — Unlawfulness
A seizure of bank accounts that disregards the portion exempt from legal attachment, notwithstanding the reason, is clearly unlawful and places the account holder in a situation which prevents normal economic activities and deprives the family of means of subsistence, constituting real prejudice arising from violation of the right to a fair trial.
Guarantee of Non-Repetition — Amendment of Domestic Legislation
Where a State's domestic legislation is found to violate international human rights instruments ratified by that State, the Court may order the State to take necessary measures to review and amend the offending provisions to bring them into compliance with international human rights standards.

Legislation cited (13)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 5
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)(a)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)(b)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)(c)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 14
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 26
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 14(3)(d)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 14(5)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 14(7)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 27(1)
  • Law No. 2018-13 of 2 July 2018 (Benin) Section 12
  • Law No. 2018-13 of 2 July 2018 (Benin) Section 19(2)

Cases cited (15)

  • Beneficiaries of late Norbert Zongo v Burkina Faso (Reparation) (2015) 1 AfCLR 258
  • Lohé Issa Konaté v Burkina Faso (Reparation) (2016) 1 AfCLR 346
  • Reverend Christopher R. Mtikila v Tanzania (Reparation) (2014) 1 AfCLR 72
  • PCIJ Chorzow Factory, Germany v. Poland, Jurisdiction, Decision on compensation and the merits, 26 July 1927, 16 December 1927 and 13 September 1928, Rec. 1927
  • Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v Rwanda (Application No. 003-2014)
  • ECHR, Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine, Application No. 48553/99. Judgment of 02/10/2003
  • ECHR, Application No. 25444/94. Judgment of 25/3/1999, Pélissier and Sassi v. France
  • Société Benin Control SA v. State of Benin, Arbitral Award of 13 May 2014
  • ECHR, Application No. 42317/98. Judgment of 16/11/2004, Hooper v. United Kingdom
  • ECHR, Application No.45725/99. Judgment of 14/3/2002, Malveiro v. Portugal
  • IACHR: Cantoral Benavides v. Peru (Reparation) Judgment of 3/12/2001, Series C. No. 88
  • ACHPR, Communication No. 231/99. Lawyers without Borders v. Burundi, November 2000 (28th Session)
  • ACHPR, Communication No. 218/98. Civil Liberties Organization, Legal Defense Centre, Legal Defense and Assistance Project v. Nigeria, May 2001 (29th Session)
  • HRC, Suárez de Guerrero v. Colombia, 30/3/1982, CCPR/C/15/D/45/1979
  • HRC, Cesario Gómez Vázquez v. Spain, 11/8/2000, CCPR/C/69/D/701/1996

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ajavon v Benin (Application No. 013-2017) [2019] AfCHPR 6 (28 November 2019)
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.