Wakilii

Fam and Others v Egypt (Communication 661 of 2017)

African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2018] ACHPR 137 · 2018 Communication Not Seized AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Communication to the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights alleging violations of property rights arising from Egyptian rent control laws imposed since 1952
Decision
Communication not seized due to failure to meet admissibility requirements

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 Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights declined to be seized of a communication alleging violations of property rights arising from Egyptian rent control laws. The Commission found no prima facie indication that complainants exhausted domestic remedies and that the communication was not brought within a reasonable time, given violations commenced in 1952 and cases were filed before Egyptian courts in 1996-1997.

Outcome

Communication not seized due to failure to meet admissibility requirements

Facts

The complainant alleged that following the 1952 military coup in Egypt, successive rental reductions were imposed without compensation to landlords: 15% in 1952, 20% in 1955, 1958 and 1961, and 35% in 1965. Rent assessment committees fixed rentals at very low rates. Landlords were forbidden from evicting tenants at the end of contractual periods and rental contracts were extended for generations. Rental amounts fixed 65 years prior remained at 36-180 EGP annually despite dramatically increased operational costs. Landlords could not increase rents, sell properties except to tenants at fractions of market value, or evacuate tenants for renovation or personal use. The complainant alleged that over 400 buildings collapse annually due to deterioration, that 16 million units remain vacant, and that constitutional cases filed in 1996-1997 and 2008 remain unresolved. The complainant sought cancellation of rent control laws and compensation for 65 years of alleged violations.

Issues

  1. Whether the Commission should be seized of the communication given the failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
  2. Whether the communication was brought within a reasonable time given that the alleged violations commenced in 1952 and the military regime ended in 1981.

Orders

  • The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights decides not to be seized of this Communication because it does not fulfil the criteria for seizure provided under Rule 93(2) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Admissibility — Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies — African Commission Procedure
Before the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights will be seized of a communication, the complainant must provide prima facie indication that domestic remedies have been exhausted or provide grounds alleging the impossibility or unavailability of such remedies as required by Rule 93(2)(i) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure.
Human Rights — Admissibility — Reasonable Time — Delay in Filing Communication
A communication alleging violations that commenced in 1952 and where domestic court cases were filed in 1996-1997 will not be seized by the African Commission where it is brought decades later without explanation as to why the submission is within a reasonable time as required by Rule 93(2)(h) read with Article 56(6) of the African Charter.

Legislation cited (10)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 14
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 21
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(6)
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 1
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 7
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 8
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 17(1)
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 17(2)
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 25(1)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Fam and Others v Egypt (Communication 661 of 2017) [2018] ACHPR 137 (6 March 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.