Wakilii

Collectif Des Anciens Travailleurs De La Semico Tabakoto v Republic of Mali

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2020] AfCHPR 12 · 2020 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application before the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights alleging violations of the African Charter and ICCPR arising from lead contamination of mine workers
Decision
Application declared inadmissible due to lack of valid mandate for representative

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 to hear the application under Article 5(3) of the Protocol, as individuals have the right to bring applications against States that have deposited the Declaration. However, the Court upheld the preliminary objection that the applicants' representative lacked a valid mandate to represent them before the Court, as the mandate granted was limited to representation before the Bamako Court and did not extend to the African Court. The application was declared inadmissible.

Outcome

Application declared inadmissible due to lack of valid mandate for representative

Facts

Forty-nine former workers of SEMICO TABAKOTO, a gold mining company operating in Mali since 2005, alleged high levels of lead contamination in their blood resulting from their employment. On 8 December 2016, the National Federation of Mines and Energy Workers filed a criminal complaint against SEMICO before the Bamako Public Prosecutor, alleging bodily harm and failure to assist persons in danger. The Public Prosecutor shelved the case on 13 February 2017, stating that criminal prosecution of legal entities was not provided for in Malian law. The workers filed an application before the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights on 20 February 2018, alleging violations of their rights under the African Charter and the ICCPR. The Republic of Mali objected to the Court's jurisdiction and challenged the mandate of the workers' representative.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court has personal jurisdiction to hear an application brought by an informal group of workers without legal personality.
  2. Whether the representative of the applicants held a valid mandate to bring proceedings before the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights.

Orders

  • Objection to lack of personal jurisdiction dismissed.
  • Court declares that it has jurisdiction.
  • Objection relating to the mandate of the Applicants' representative upheld.
  • Application declared inadmissible.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Standing — Individual Applications — Legal Personality Not Required
Article 5(3) of the Protocol to the African Charter permits individuals to bring applications against States that have deposited the Declaration, and an applicant's right to commence action is guaranteed by this provision regardless of whether the applicant is a formal legal entity.
Administrative Law — Legal Representation — Scope of Mandate — Special Mandate Required for Contentious Matters
Legal representation must take place within the scope of the terms agreed with the agent. Where a mandate is worded in general terms and is not precise, it does not give any powers to the agent except within the purview of management work. For acts of disposal such as contentious matters, a special mandate is required.
Administrative Law — Legal Representation — Mandate Limited to Specific Forum
A mandate authorising representation before one court does not extend to representation before another court. Where a representative is mandated to represent applicants before a domestic court, that mandate does not authorise the representative to bring proceedings before an international tribunal on behalf of the same applicants.

Legislation cited (12)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)(a)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 16
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 24
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 26
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56
  • Protocol to the African Charter on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3
  • Protocol to the African Charter on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 5(3)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 10(2)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 34(6)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 2(3)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 14(1)
  • Malian Penal Code Articles 207, 208, 220 and 221

Cases cited (1)

  • Collectif des anciens travailleurs du laboratoire ALS v Republic of Mali (Application No. 042/2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Collectif Des Anciens Travailleurs De La Semico Tabakoto v Republic of Mali [2020] AfCHPR 12 (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.