Wakilii

Ajavon v Republic of Benin (Application No. 027-2020)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2021] AfCHPR 11 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights alleging human rights violations arising from criminal proceedings and tax disputes in Benin
Decision
Application declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies

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 held that it had jurisdiction to hear the application but declared it inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies. The Applicant filed his application only four days after lodging a cassation appeal before Benin's Supreme Court, without awaiting its outcome. The Court rejected arguments that the Supreme Court was dysfunctional or lacked independence, finding no procedural impediment that would excuse premature filing. The requirement to exhaust local remedies is assessed at the date of filing and must be fulfilled unless the procedure is unduly prolonged, which was not the case here.

Outcome

Application declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies

Facts

The Applicant, a Beninese politician and company director, challenged tax and criminal proceedings against him and his company COMON SA. COMON SA was denied VAT refunds totaling over 13 billion CFA francs. After litigation, the parties reached a settlement approved by court judgment in February 2015, which became final. The State began refunding VAT credits but later ceased payments. In November 2017, the State filed new criminal charges against the Applicant based on the same facts underlying the settlement, alleging forgery and fraud. The proceedings were transferred to CRIET (Court for the Repression of Economic Offences and Terrorism). On 18 June 2020, the CRIET Appeals Chamber upheld a judgment referring the matter to trial. The Applicant filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court on 18 June 2020 and filed this application with the African Court four days later on 22 June 2020, without awaiting the Supreme Court's decision.

Issues

  1. Whether the African Court has material jurisdiction to hear allegations of human rights violations arising from domestic criminal proceedings and tax disputes.
  2. Whether the Applicant exhausted local remedies before filing the application with the African Court.
  3. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to a fair trial under Article 7(1)(a) and (c) of the African Charter.
  4. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to property under Article 14 of the African Charter.
  5. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to adequate housing under Articles 14, 16 and 18 of the African Charter.

Orders

  • Objections to material jurisdiction dismissed.
  • Court declared that it has jurisdiction.
  • Objection to admissibility based on non-exhaustion of local remedies upheld.
  • Application declared inadmissible.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Jurisdiction of African Court — Material Jurisdiction — Allegations of Human Rights Violations
For the African Court to have material jurisdiction under Article 3(1) of the Protocol, it is sufficient that the rights allegedly violated are protected by the African Charter or by any other human rights instrument ratified by the State concerned. The mechanical invocation of Charter articles without factual connection does not defeat jurisdiction where the application contains allegations of violations of rights protected by the Charter.
Jurisdiction of African Court — Appellate Jurisdiction — Review of Domestic Decisions
The African Court does not have appellate jurisdiction to consider appeals in respect of cases already determined by domestic courts. However, this does not preclude the Court from assessing whether domestic proceedings were conducted in accordance with international standards set out in the Charter and other international human rights instruments ratified by the State concerned.
Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Timing of Application
An applicant must not only initiate local remedies but also await their outcome before filing an application with the African Court. The requirement to exhaust local remedies is assessed, in principle, as at the date of filing the application. Filing an application only four days after lodging a cassation appeal, without awaiting the Supreme Court's decision, constitutes premature filing and renders the application inadmissible.
Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Effectiveness and Availability
Local remedies to be exhausted must be judicial in nature, available to the applicant without let or hindrance, and effective in the sense that they are capable of satisfying the complainant or remedying the situation at issue. An applicant seeking exemption from exhausting local remedies must demonstrate a procedural impediment or that the procedure is unduly prolonged.
Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Independence of Judiciary
The extension of a judge's retirement age pursuant to a law that is general and impersonal in nature does not, without more, constitute an infringement of the independence of the Supreme Court sufficient to excuse non-exhaustion of local remedies. An applicant must demonstrate how such extension specifically affects the effectiveness of the available remedy.
Admissibility — Cumulative Requirements — Effect of Non-Compliance
The admissibility requirements under Article 56 of the African Charter and Rule 50(2) of the Rules of Court are cumulative. When one requirement is not fulfilled, the Court need not rule on the other admissibility requirements, and the application cannot be admissible.

Legislation cited (16)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)(a)
  • 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 16
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 18
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 6(2)
  • 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)
  • Charter of the United Nations
  • Constitutive Act of the African Union
  • Code of Penal Procedure (Benin) Article 187
  • Code of Penal Procedure (Benin) Article 478
  • Law No. 2004-07 of 23 October 2007 (Benin)
  • Law No. 2019-12 of 25 February 2019 (Benin)
  • Law No. 2001-35 of 21 February 2003 (Benin)

Cases cited (13)

  • Houngue Eric Noudehouenou v Republic of Benin (Application No. 003/2020)
  • Franck David Omary and Others v United Republic of Tanzania (28 March 2014)
  • Peter Chacha v United Republic of Tanzania (28 March 2014)
  • Ernest Francis Mtingwi v Malawi (15 March 2013)
  • Alex Thomas v United Republic of Tanzania (20 November 2015)
  • Beneficiaries of the late Norbert Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso (5 December 2014)
  • Yacouba Traoré v Republic of Mali (Application No. 010/2018)
  • Komi Koutché v Republic of Benin (Application No. 020/2019)
  • Sébastien Germain Ajavon v Republic of Benin (Application No. 013/2017)
  • Mariam Kouma and Ousmane Diabaté v Republic of Mali (21 March 2018)
  • Rutabingwa Chrysanthe v Republic of Rwanda (11 May 2018)
  • Collectif des anciens travailleurs ALS v Republic of Mali (Application No. 042/2015)
  • Guzzardi v Italy (10 March 1977)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ajavon v Republic of Benin (Application No. 027-2020) [2021] AfCHPR 11 (2 December 2021)
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.