Wakilii

Kodeih v Republic of Benin (Application No. 006-2020)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2021] AfCHPR 25 · 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 right to a fair trial and property rights arising from domestic court proceedings in Benin
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 held that it has material jurisdiction to examine whether domestic proceedings meet Charter standards, but the application was inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies. The Court ruled that a cassation appeal to the CCJA under the OHADA Treaty is a local, ordinary, and effective remedy that must be exhausted before filing an application with the African Court, even though the CCJA is a supranational court common to seventeen States.

Outcome

Application dismissed as inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies

Facts

The applicant, a Beninese national and sole proprietor of a hotel company (SHRL), entered into loan agreements with a consortium of banks and the West African Development Bank to construct a five-star hotel. When the WADB cancelled its disbursement, the Société Générale de Banque (SGB) demanded repayment and initiated property seizure proceedings. The Cotonou Commercial Court rendered judgment on 19 December 2019 in first and last instance, ordering the auction of the mortgaged building. The auction took place on 30 January 2020. The applicant appealed to the Cotonou Court of Appeal on 31 December 2019 and filed a cassation appeal with the CCJA on 26 February 2020. However, the applicant filed this application with the African Court on 14 February 2020, before the CCJA cassation appeal was filed and before awaiting its outcome.

Issues

  1. Whether the African Court has material jurisdiction to hear an application seeking annulment of a domestic court judgment.
  2. Whether the applicant exhausted local remedies before filing the application, specifically whether a cassation appeal to the Common Court of Justice and Arbitration (CCJA) is a local remedy that must be exhausted.
  3. Whether the cassation appeal to the CCJA is an ordinary or extraordinary remedy.
  4. Whether the cassation appeal to the CCJA is an effective remedy.

Orders

  • Objection to jurisdiction dismissed.
  • Court declared it has jurisdiction.
  • Objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies upheld.
  • Application declared inadmissible.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

African Court Jurisdiction — Material Jurisdiction — Review of Domestic Proceedings
The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights has material jurisdiction to examine whether proceedings before domestic courts meet the standards prescribed by the African Charter or any other relevant human rights instrument ratified by the State concerned, and in doing so does not sit as an appellate court but acts within its material jurisdiction.
Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Supranational Courts — OHADA CCJA
A cassation appeal to the Common Court of Justice and Arbitration (CCJA) established under the OHADA Treaty is a local remedy that must be exhausted before filing an application with the African Court, notwithstanding that the CCJA is a supranational court common to seventeen States, because it has integrated into the judicial system of OHADA member States and replaces domestic supreme courts for matters governed by OHADA Uniform Acts.
Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Ordinary versus Extraordinary Remedies
A cassation appeal to the CCJA is an ordinary remedy, not an extraordinary remedy, where it is the only available remedy against appeal decisions and judgments not subject to appeal rendered in matters governed by OHADA Uniform Acts, and where the procedural rules designate other remedies (third party opposition and review) as extraordinary.
Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Effectiveness of Remedy — CCJA Power of Evocation
A cassation appeal to the CCJA is an effective remedy because the CCJA has the power, when it quashes a decision of a national court, to reconsider the case on its merits (power of evocation), thereby having the ultimate capacity to bring about a change in the situation of the appellant on the merits of the case.
Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Timing Requirement
Compliance with the requirement to exhaust local remedies presupposes that the applicant not only initiates the local remedies but also awaits their outcome before filing an application with the African Court, and where an applicant files an application before initiating or awaiting the outcome of an available local remedy, the application is inadmissible.

Legislation cited (9)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)(a)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)(d)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 14
  • 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)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56
  • OHADA Uniform Act Organizing Simplified Recovery and Enforcement Procedures Article 300
  • OHADA Treaty Article 14

Cases cited (13)

  • Houngue Eric Noudehouenou v Republic of Benin (Application No. 003/2020)
  • Alex Thomas v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 005/2013)
  • Ernest Francis Mtingwi v Malawi (Jurisdiction)
  • Kenedy Ivan v Tanzania (Application No. 25/2016)
  • Armand Guéhi v Tanzania (Merits and reparations)
  • Nguza Viking and Johnson Nguza v Tanzania (Merits)
  • Kalebi Elisamehe v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 028/2015)
  • Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (preliminary objections)
  • Yacouba Traoré v Republic of Mali (Application No. 010/2018)
  • Beneficiaries of the late Norbert Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso (Merits)
  • Mariam Kouma and Ousmane Diabaté v Republic of Mali (Jurisdiction and admissibility)
  • Rutabingwa Chrysanthe v Republic of Rwanda (Jurisdiction and admissibility)
  • Collectif des anciens travailleurs ALS v Republic of Mali (Application No. 042/2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kodeih v Republic of Benin (Application No. 006-2020) [2021] AfCHPR 25 (30 September 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.