Wakilii

Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa v Republic of Malawi (Application No. 006-2025)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2025] AfCHPR 37 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for provisional measures before the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights
Decision
Application for provisional measures dismissed; main application to proceed to determination on merits

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 has prima facie jurisdiction to hear the application but dismissed the request for provisional measures. The Court found that the applicant failed to substantiate with concrete evidence that enforcement of the costs order would result in bankruptcy or irreparable harm, rendering the alleged risk hypothetical and speculative, insufficient to meet the cumulative requirements of extreme gravity, urgency, and irreparable harm under Article 27(2) of the Protocol.

Outcome

Application for provisional measures dismissed; main application to proceed to determination on merits

Facts

On 12 June 2020, the President of Malawi placed the Chief Justice and a Supreme Court Judge on administrative leave pending retirement. Human Rights Defenders Coalition (HRDC) and others filed a judicial review challenge in the High Court, which declared the President's actions unconstitutional and ordered the President and Secretary to the President and Cabinet to personally bear costs of MWK 69,507,461. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeal reversed this decision on 8 November 2024, finding the President and Secretary immune under section 91 of the Constitution, and ordered HRDC and others to reimburse those costs plus Supreme Court costs, totalling MWK 106,558,000. HRDC paid MWK 35,519,335.40, leaving MWK 71,038,664.60 outstanding. The Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa applied to the African Court seeking provisional measures to stay enforcement of the costs order, alleging it would cause HRDC's insolvency and violate multiple human rights provisions.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court has prima facie jurisdiction to hear the request for provisional measures.
  2. Whether the circumstances of extreme gravity and urgency exist to warrant the grant of provisional measures.
  3. Whether the enforcement of the costs order would cause irreparable harm to the applicant and related parties.

Orders

  • The Court has prima facie jurisdiction.
  • The request for provisional measures is dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Provisional Measures — Prima Facie Jurisdiction
When determining a request for provisional measures, the Court need not satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction on the merits of the case, only that it has prima facie jurisdiction.
Provisional Measures — Requirements for Grant
Provisional measures may be granted only where there is extreme gravity and urgency and where necessary to avoid irreparable harm to persons. These requirements are cumulative, so that if one is lacking, provisional measures cannot be ordered.
Provisional Measures — Standard of Proof
Urgency refers to imminent risk, extreme gravity means risk of serious damage, and irreparable harm is damage that cannot be sufficiently redressed through subsequent reparation. The risk must be real and not purely hypothetical. The burden rests on the applicant to demonstrate such risk with concrete and verifiable evidence.
Provisional Measures — Hypothetical and Speculative Risk
An assertion of impending bankruptcy, however grave in its potential consequences, remains insufficient to establish the threshold for provisional measures where it is unsubstantiated by concrete and verifiable evidence. Without such substantiation, the alleged harm constitutes a hypothetical and speculative risk.

Legislation cited (11)

  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3(1)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 27(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)
  • Rules of the Court Rule 49(1)
  • Rules of the Court Rule 59(1)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 1
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 9
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 10
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 14
  • Constitution of Malawi s.91

Cases cited (4)

  • Komi Koutche v Republic of Benin (Provisional Measures) (2 December 2019)
  • Charles Kajoloweka v. Malawi
  • Houngue Éric Noudehouenou v Republic of Benin (Application No. 004/2020)
  • Sebastien Germain Marie Aïkoue Ajavon v Republic of Benin (Provisional Measures) (17 April 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa v Republic of Malawi (Application No. 006-2025) [2025] AfCHPR 37 (4 December 2025)
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.