Wakilii

Boateng and Others v Republic of Ghana

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2020] AfCHPR 10 · 2020 Application Dismissed — Lack of Jurisdiction 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 violations of the African Charter arising from compulsory land acquisition
Decision
Application dismissed for lack of temporal jurisdiction

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 held that it lacked temporal jurisdiction to hear the application. The Court found that the compulsory acquisition of the Twifo Hemang Community lands through five successive laws enacted between 1974 and 1992 constituted instantaneous acts that were completed before Ghana became a Party to the Protocol in 2005 and deposited the Declaration in 2011. The Court distinguished these concrete, specific laws from abstract constitutional provisions of general application, holding that the laws targeted a specific community and resolved a specific land dispute, and their operation ceased upon implementation. The Court dismissed the application without examining admissibility.

Outcome

Application dismissed for lack of temporal jurisdiction

Facts

The Applicants, 352 members of the Twifo Hemang Community in Ghana's Central Region, claimed indigenous ownership of community lands. In 1884, boundary disputes arose with the Morkwa Community. The Applicants alleged that in 1894, the Gold Coast Colonial Court ordered their Chief to pay 250 pounds compensation, and when unable to pay, the land was auctioned and fraudulently purchased by the Morkwa Chief for 100 pounds, who then sold it to the J. E. Ellis and Emmanuel Wood families in 1896. Following petitions by the Community Chief in 1964 and 1972, Ghana's Attorney General investigated in 1974 and found no evidence of a court decree authorising the auction. The Attorney General recommended confiscation. Between 1974 and 1992, Ghana enacted five successive laws compulsorily acquiring the Twifo Hemang lands, with the final 1992 law barring judicial remedies. The Applicants alleged they remained on the land but were denied property rights, development, and access to courts.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over individuals (J. E. Ellis and Emmanuel Wood families and the Morkwa Chief) who are not State Parties to the Protocol.
  2. Whether the Court has material jurisdiction to consider alleged violations of Articles 14 and 22 of the African Charter.
  3. Whether the Court has temporal jurisdiction to hear allegations of violations arising from laws enacted between 1974 and 1992, before Ghana ratified the Protocol and deposited the Declaration under Article 34(6).
  4. Whether the compulsory acquisition of the Twifo Hemang Community lands constitutes an instantaneous or continuing violation for purposes of temporal jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Upholds the Respondent State's objection to the temporal jurisdiction of the Court.
  • Declares that it lacks jurisdiction.
  • Decides that each Party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Jurisdiction — Personal Jurisdiction — Respondents Before the African Court
The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights has jurisdiction only over State Parties to the Protocol; individuals who are not State Parties cannot be brought as respondents before the Court, as the Court's jurisdiction is premised on the principle that States bear primary responsibility for human rights and are the principal duty bearers.
Jurisdiction — Material Jurisdiction — Specificity of Alleged Violations
The African Court has material jurisdiction over an application as long as the rights allegedly violated are protected by the African Charter or any other human rights instrument ratified by the State concerned, and the Court retains discretion to qualify the claims of the parties accordingly.
Jurisdiction — Temporal Jurisdiction — Instantaneous vs Continuing Violations
The African Court lacks temporal jurisdiction over acts of human rights violations that occurred before a State became party to the Protocol and deposited the Declaration under Article 34(6), except where the violations are continuous in character; instantaneous acts are those occasioned by an identifiable incident that occurred and was completed at an identifiable point in time.
Compulsory Acquisition — Temporal Jurisdiction — Nature of Acquisition as Instantaneous Act
The promulgation of laws for compulsory acquisition of land constitutes an instantaneous act where the laws are concrete and specific in scope, targeting a well-identified group to resolve a specific land dispute, and their operation ceases upon implementation; such laws are distinguishable from abstract constitutional provisions of general application that remain in force until repealed.

Legislation cited (10)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 14
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 22
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 5
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 34(6)
  • State Lands-Hemang Acquisition Instrument 1974 (Executive Instrument 61)
  • Hemang Acquisition Instrument 1974 (E.I 133)
  • Hemang Lands (Acquisition) Decree 1975 (NRCD 332)
  • Hemang Land (Acquisition) (Amendment) Law 1982 (PNDC Law 29)
  • PNDC Law 294 - Hemang Lands (Acquisition and Compensation Act) 1992

Cases cited (9)

  • Femi Falana v African Union (Application No. 001/2011)
  • Atabong Denis Atemnkeng v African Union (Application No. 013/2011)
  • Peter Joseph Chacha v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 003/2012)
  • Beneficiaries of Late Norbert Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso (Application No. 013/2011)
  • Tanganyika Law Society and Others v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 009/2011)
  • Jebra Kambole v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 018/2018)
  • Blečić v Croatia (Application No. 59532/00)
  • Michelot Yogogombaye v Senegal (Application No. 001/2008)
  • African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Kenya (Application No. 006/2012)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Boateng and Others v Republic of Ghana [2020] AfCHPR 10 (27 November 2020)
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.