Haye v Gambia (Communication 90 of 1993)
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 declared the communication inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies. The complainant failed to appeal to the Court of Appeal of The Gambia against the Supreme Court's decision refusing leave to appeal. The Commission found no new grounds raised in the complainant's request for review and reaffirmed its decision of inadmissibility.
Outcome
Communication dismissed as inadmissible
Facts
In November 1987, the complainant hired attorney Edward Gomez to register a company and paid D7,150 in fees, but the company was never registered. In March 1990, complainant sued Mr. Gomez for return of the money. Mr. Gomez filed a counterclaim. On 2 October 1991, complainant's minivan was seized to satisfy a default judgment entered on 28 May 1991 in favour of Mr. Gomez after complainant allegedly failed to appear in court. Complainant stated he never received notification of the 28 May court date. He filed a motion for leave to appeal to the Gambia Court of Appeal, which was heard and denied by the same judge who made the original judgment. Complainant then brought a communication to the African Commission alleging violation of his right to a fair hearing.
Issues
- Whether the complainant exhausted domestic remedies before bringing the communication to the African Commission.
- Whether the complainant's right to have his cause heard under Article 7 was violated.
Orders
- Communication declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies.
- Previous decision reaffirmed.
Rules and key headnotes
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.