Wakilii

Milaad v Republic of Tunisia (Application No. 032-2018)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2025] AfCHPR 21 · 2025 Application Partly Allowed 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 the right to a fair trial and the right to property arising from domestic court proceedings concerning an auction sale
Decision
Application partly allowed; violation of right to fair trial established; applicant awarded moral damages of TDS 600; respondent state ordered to publish judgment and report on implementation

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 Tunisia violated the applicant's right to a fair trial by failing to deliver two judgments in open court, as required by Article 7(1)(a) of the African Charter read with Article 14(1) of the ICCPR. The Court found no violation of the right to property, as the applicant never owned the disputed property. The Court dismissed the applicant's claim that domestic courts erred in applying auction law, holding that it does not intervene in domestic court decisions absent manifest irregularity resulting in denial of justice.

Outcome

Application partly allowed; violation of right to fair trial established; applicant awarded moral damages of TDS 600; respondent state ordered to publish judgment and report on implementation

Facts

The applicant, a Tunisian national and shareholder, participated in an auction for a 60,000 square-meter plot of land on 15 August 2008. His bid was higher than that of Aqariat Elsharie Real Estate Company (AEREC), a subsidiary of Société Tunisienne de Banque, by more than one-sixth, triggering a re-auction under Tunisian law. During the re-auction, the applicant challenged AEREC's participation, arguing it did not meet legal requirements. The District Court of Ben Arous dismissed the objection on 15 October 2008 and the property was sold to AEREC. The applicant challenged this decision through the Court of First Instance, Court of Appeal, and Cassation Court. The Cassation Court initially quashed the Court of Appeal's judgment and remanded the matter. On remand, the Court of Appeal reversed the sale to AEREC. AEREC then appealed to the Cassation Court, which on 4 December 2017 quashed the Court of Appeal's judgment without remand, effectively ending the domestic proceedings in AEREC's favour.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to a fair trial under Article 7(1)(a) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights by reason of erroneous application of the law by domestic courts.
  2. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to a fair trial by failing to deliver judgments in open court.
  3. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to property under Article 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.

Orders

  • Application for amicable settlement dismissed.
  • Objection to jurisdiction dismissed.
  • Court has jurisdiction.
  • Objections to admissibility dismissed.
  • Application declared admissible.
  • Respondent State did not violate the Applicant's right to property under Article 14 of the Charter.
  • Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to a fair trial under Article 7(1)(a) of the Charter read jointly with Article 14(1) of the ICCPR regarding failure to deliver decisions in open court.
  • Prayer for reparation of material prejudice dismissed.
  • Applicant awarded Six Hundred Tunisian Dinars (TDS 600) for moral prejudice.
  • Respondent State ordered to publish this judgment within three months on the websites of the Judiciary and the Ministry of Justice, and to ensure the text remains accessible for at least one year.
  • Respondent State ordered to report on implementation within six months.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Fair Trial — Public Delivery of Judgments — Obligation to Deliver Decisions in Open Court
The right to a fair trial under Article 7(1) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, read jointly with Article 14(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, requires that all judicial decisions be delivered in open court, and failure to comply with this obligation constitutes a violation of international human rights law.
Human Rights — State Responsibility — Unity of the State — Responsibility for Acts of Domestic Courts
The principle of the unity of the State is a well-established rule of international law; accordingly, the conduct of any organ of a State, including its judiciary, must be regarded as an act of that State, and the State bears international responsibility for breaches of international obligations by its courts.
Human Rights — Jurisdiction of International Courts — Scope of Review — Manifest Irregularity Standard
The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights does not act as an appellate body over domestic courts but will examine domestic proceedings to determine compliance with Charter standards; the Court intervenes in factual findings and decisions of domestic courts only in the event of a manifest irregularity resulting in a denial of justice.
Property Law — Right to Property — Elements of Ownership — Usus, Fructus, Abusus
The right to property as guaranteed by Article 14 of the African Charter includes the right to use one's property (usus), the right to enjoy its fruits (fructus), and the right to dispose of it, including the right to sell it (abusus); a person who has never acquired ownership cannot claim violation of the right to property.

Legislation cited (11)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)(a)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 14
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 14(1)
  • 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 27(1)
  • 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)
  • Tunisian Code of Civil and Commercial Procedures Article 442
  • Tunisian Code of Civil and Commercial Procedures Article 444
  • Tunisian Code of Civil and Commercial Procedures Article 425
  • Tunisian Code of Civil and Commercial Procedures Article 121
  • Constitution of the Republic of Tunisia 2014 Article 108

Cases cited (29)

  • Ghannouchi and Others v Republic of Tunisia (Application No. 004/2023)
  • Thomas v United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (2015) 1 AfCLR 465
  • Onyachi and Njoka v United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (2017) 2 AfCLR 65
  • Amir and Mangaya v United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (2019) 3 AfCLR 629
  • Mabomba v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 017/2017)
  • Umuhoza v Republic of Rwanda (jurisdiction) (2016) 1 AfCLR 562
  • Noudehouenou v Republic of Benin (Application No. 003/2020)
  • Fory v Republic of Côte d'Ivoire (merits and reparations) (2021) 5 AfCLR 682
  • Abdelhafid v Republic of Tunisia (jurisdiction and admissibility) (2021) 5 AfCLR 193
  • CPJI, Vapeur Wimbledon, Germany v. France and others, Serie A, No 1, 25, 17 August 1923
  • ICJ, LaGrand (Germany v. United States), 27 June 2001
  • Difference relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1999 (I), P. 87
  • ECHR, Grand Chamber, IIascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia (Application no. 48787/99), Judgment
  • Bazil v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 027/2018)
  • African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Republic of Kenya (Application No. 006/2012)
  • Jonas v United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (2017) 2 AfCLR 101
  • Isiaga v United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (2018) 2 AfCLR 218
  • African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Republic of Kenya (merits) (2017) 2 AfCLR 9
  • Ajavon v Republic of Benin (merits) (2019) 3 AfCLR 130
  • Rajabu and Others v United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (2019) 3 AfCLR 539
  • Rashidi v United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (2019) 3 AfCLR 13
  • Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso (reparations) (2015) 1 AfCLR 258
  • Gihana and Others v Republic of Rwanda (merits and reparations) (2019) 3 AfCLR 655
  • Mtikila v United Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (2014) 1 AfCLR 72
  • Konaté v Burkina Faso (reparations) (2016) 1 AfCLR 346
  • Umuhoza v Republic of Rwanda (reparations) (2018) 2 AfCLR 202
  • Jonas v United Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (2020) 4 AfCLR 545
  • Legal and Human Rights Centre and Another v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 039/2020)
  • Augustino and Abdulkarim v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 015/2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Milaad v Republic of Tunisia (Application No. 032-2018) [2025] AfCHPR 21 (26 June 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.