Wakilii

Chrysanthe v Republic of Rwanda (Application No. 022-2015)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2018] AfCHPR 8 · 2018 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 violations of rights under the African Charter and international covenants arising from dismissal from public service
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 on Human and Peoples' Rights held that it had jurisdiction but declared the application inadmissible on the ground that the applicant failed to exhaust local remedies. The applicant did not appeal the High Court judgment to Rwanda's Supreme Court as required by domestic law before bringing the matter to the regional court.

Outcome

Application declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies

Facts

Rutabingwa Chrysanthe was recruited as an Audit and Evaluations Expert at the Privatisation Secretariat under the Ministry of Finance by Decision of the Council of Ministers dated 17 September 1999. On 27 February 2001, he was dismissed by Decision No. 116/PRIV/BR/RU for disclosure of confidential documents. The applicant filed a civil suit before the Kigali Court of First Instance in May 2002 seeking compensation for improper dismissal and was awarded 2,474,727 RWF on 30 July 2003. In January 2006, he filed another civil suit before the Kigali High Court seeking annulment of the dismissal decision. On 21 July 2006, the High Court declared that application inadmissible as not in conformity with the law. The applicant did not appeal to the Supreme Court. He initially filed an application with the African Court in April 2013 (Application No. 003/2013) but requested withdrawal in April 2014 following discussions with Rwanda about amicable settlement. The Court struck that case off its list on 14 May 2014. The applicant filed a new application on 10 November 2014 (Application No. 022/2015) alleging violations of the African Charter and international covenants arising from his dismissal.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the application
  2. Whether the application is inadmissible under Rule 67 of the Rules on the ground that the Court had previously struck out an earlier application by the same applicant
  3. Whether the applicant exhausted local remedies before bringing the application to the African Court

Orders

  • Declared that the Court has jurisdiction
  • Dismissed the Respondent State's objection based on Rule 67 of the Rules
  • Ruled that the objection on non-exhaustion of local remedies is founded
  • Declared the Application inadmissible
  • Ruled that each Party shall bear its own costs

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Requirement to Appeal to Highest Domestic Court
An application to the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights is inadmissible where the applicant has not exhausted local remedies by appealing a High Court judgment to the Supreme Court, which is the highest court with jurisdiction to hear such appeals under domestic law.
Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Exhaustion of Remedies — International Human Rights Mechanisms
The requirement to exhaust local remedies before bringing a matter to an international human rights body is founded on the principle that a State must be given the opportunity to repair violations of its human rights obligations through internal mechanisms before such violations are brought before an international body.
Human Rights — Admissibility — Striking Out and Re-filing — Distinction from Review of Judgment
Where an applicant voluntarily requests that an application be struck off the Court's cause list and the Court accedes to that request, a subsequent new application filed by the same applicant on the same subject matter is not a review of the earlier order and is not governed by the rules on review of judgments under Article 28 of the Protocol and Rule 67 of the Rules.
Human Rights — Admissibility — Cumulative Conditions — Effect of Failure to Meet One Condition
The admissibility conditions under Article 56 of the African Charter are cumulative, and where any one of them has not been met, the entire application cannot stand and must be declared inadmissible.

Legislation cited (17)

  • 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 4
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 15
  • 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 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 22
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 28(2)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 28(3)
  • 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)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 14(1)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 26
  • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Article 7(a)
  • Constitution of Rwanda Article 10
  • Constitution of Rwanda Article 11
  • Organic Law No. 03/2012 of 13 June 2012 on the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Article 28

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Chrysanthe v Republic of Rwanda (Application No. 022-2015) [2018] AfCHPR 8 (11 May 2018)
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.