Wakilii

Kouma and Another v Republic of Mali (Application No. 040-2016)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2018] AfCHPR 79 · 2018 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 violation of fair trial rights and failure to conduct thorough investigation
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 the applicants failed to exhaust local remedies as required under Article 56 of the African Charter. The Court found that the delay in domestic proceedings was partly attributable to the applicants' failure to produce medical evidence, and that the applicants had not demonstrated that available remedies were ineffective. The application was declared inadmissible.

Outcome

Application dismissed as inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies

Facts

In January 2014, Mariam Kouma sold a monkey to Boussourou Coulibaly for 9,000 CFA Francs. The next day, Boussourou attempted to return the monkey but Kouma refused. On 13 February 2014, Boussourou attacked Kouma with a machete, striking her repeatedly on the head and feet until she fell unconscious. Ousmane Diabaté, Kouma's son, was also wounded when he came to his mother's rescue. Boussourou was arrested and charged with inflicting simple bodily harm. The Court of First Instance of Bamako District V sentenced him to one year imprisonment on 27 February 2014 but reserved ruling on civil damages pending production of medical evidence. The Court of Appeal referred the matter back to the trial court on 24 March 2014 to decide on civil damages. As of 1 July 2016, when the applicants brought the case to the African Court, proceedings were still pending before the Court of First Instance regarding the civil claim.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants exhausted local remedies before bringing the application to the African Court.
  2. Whether the domestic procedure was unduly prolonged such that the requirement to exhaust local remedies should be waived.
  3. Whether the available domestic remedies were effective and sufficient to address the applicants' claims.

Orders

  • Declared that it has jurisdiction.
  • Upheld the objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies.
  • Declared that the Application is inadmissible.
  • Declared that each Party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Burden of Proof
An applicant must exhaust or at least attempt to exhaust local remedies before bringing a case to the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights, and it is not sufficient to cast aspersion on the ability of domestic remedies based on isolated incidents.
Civil Procedure — Undue Delay — Assessment — Party Contribution
In determining whether a domestic procedure has been unduly prolonged, the Court must assess the circumstances on a case-by-case basis, including the complexity of the case, the behaviour of the parties, and whether the judicial authorities have been passive or negligent. Where a party contributes to delay by failing to produce required evidence, they cannot rely on that delay to invoke the exception to the exhaustion requirement.
Civil Procedure — Admissibility — Effectiveness of Remedies — Premature Assessment
It is premature to prejudge the inefficiency of an appellate remedy before the trial court has rendered its decision on the matter referred back to it. An applicant must await the outcome of domestic proceedings before claiming that available remedies are ineffective.

Legislation cited (13)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 5
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 15
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 16
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 17
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa Article 3
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa Article 6
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa Article 14
  • African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child Article 11
  • African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child 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 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)

Cases cited (6)

  • Beneficiaries of The Late Norbert Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso (Application No. 013/2011)
  • Matter of Dobbertin v. France, Judgment of 25 February,1993, Série A, No. 256-D
  • Frank David Omary and Others v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 001/2012)
  • Peter Joseph Chacha v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 003/2012)
  • ACHPR Communication No. 263/02: Kenyan Section of the International Commission of Jurists, Law Society of Kenya and Kituo Cha Sheria v. Kenya
  • ACHPR, Communication No.299/05 Anuak Justice Council v. Ethiopia

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kouma and Another v Republic of Mali (Application No. 040-2016) [2018] AfCHPR 79 (21 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.