Wakilii

Former Somadex SA Employees v Republic of Mali (Application No. 006-2018)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2021] AfCHPR 9 · 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 violations of the African Charter arising from employment dismissals and non-payment of bonuses
Decision
Application dismissed as 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 to hear the application but dismissed it as inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies. The Court found that the applicants, former employees of Somadex SA, had not appealed available domestic remedies including appeals to the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal of Mali. The objection based on identification of applicants was dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed as inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies

Facts

The applicants were 445 former employees of Somadex SA, a subcontractor at the Morila SA gold mine in Mali. They alleged that Somadex SA owed them 17 billion CFA francs in performance bonuses for exceeding production targets between 2000 and 2003, having paid only 350 million CFA francs. In June 2005, the union gave strike notice for 6-8 July 2005. Somadex SA deemed the strike illegal for insufficient notice and dismissed employees for abandoning their posts: 215 employees on 9 July 2005 and 311 employees on 31 July 2005. On 14 September 2005, two Somadex buses were set on fire and 32 former employees were arrested and detained. Somadex SA subsequently dissolved and restructured as Mars, then Gounkoto Mining Services. The applicants brought three separate actions in Malian courts between 2009 and 2014, all of which were dismissed or declared inadmissible.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicants were properly identified for purposes of admissibility under Article 56(1) of the African Charter and Rule 50(2)(a) of the Rules of Court.
  2. Whether the Applicants exhausted local remedies before bringing the application to the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights.

Orders

  • Declared that the Court has jurisdiction.
  • Dismissed the objection to admissibility based on the identification of the Applicants.
  • Upheld the objection to the admissibility of the Application on the ground of non-exhaustion of local remedies.
  • Declared the Application inadmissible.
  • Ordered that each Party bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Admissibility — Identification of Applicants — Group Applications
When a list of applicants is filed with the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights, the applicants are deemed to have been identified within the meaning of Rule 50(2)(a) of the Rules of Court, even where the application is brought on behalf of a group without separate legal personality.
Human Rights — Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Ordinary Judicial Remedies
Under Article 56(5) of the African Charter and Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules of Court, local remedies that must be exhausted are ordinary judicial remedies, including appeals to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, unless it is clear that the procedure for exhausting such remedies is unduly prolonged.
Human Rights — Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Failure to Appeal
Where applicants fail to lodge available appeals to higher domestic courts, including appeals in cassation to the Supreme Court against final judgments of the Court of Appeal, they have not exhausted local remedies and their application to the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights is inadmissible.
Administrative Law — Admissibility Requirements — Cumulative Nature
The admissibility requirements under Article 56 of the African Charter and Rule 50(2) of the Rules of Court are cumulative such that if one requirement is not met, an application cannot be admissible, and the Court need not consider the remaining requirements.

Legislation cited (14)

  • 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 6
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7
  • 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)
  • Labour Code of Mali Article L231
  • Labour Code of Mali Article L213
  • Labour Code of Mali Article L217
  • Labour Code of Mali Article 241
  • Code of Civil, Commercial and Social Procedure of Mali Article 424
  • ILO Convention No. 87 on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize

Cases cited (3)

  • Beneficiaries of the late Norbert Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso (Application No. 013/2011)
  • Collectif des anciens travailleurs du Laboratoire ALS v Republic of Mali (Application No. 45/2016)
  • Mariam Kouma and Ousmane Diabaté v Republic of Mali (Application No. 040/2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Former Somadex SA Employees v Republic of Mali (Application No. 006-2018) [2021] AfCHPR 9 (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.