Wakilii

Mulindahabi v Republic of Rwanda (Application No. 006-2017)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2019] AfCHPR 88 · 2019 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 human rights violations in connection with urban transport licensing and vehicle confiscation
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 on Human and Peoples' Rights held that it had jurisdiction to hear the application because it was filed within one year of the effective date of Rwanda's withdrawal of its Article 34(6) declaration. However, the Court declared the application inadmissible because the applicant failed to exhaust ordinary judicial remedies available in Rwanda. The applicant's reliance on non-judicial remedies before administrative and political authorities did not satisfy the exhaustion requirement, and his claims that judicial remedies were not feasible were unsupported by evidence.

Outcome

Application dismissed as inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies

Facts

The applicant, a Rwandan national, worked in urban passenger transport. In June 2013, he applied for a transport licence but was refused because licences were granted only to companies, not individuals. He partnered with STELLA transport services agency to apply for a licence, but this was denied because the agency was not the bus owner. He then founded Simba Express Ltd. In November 2013, the Vehicle Control Authority issued him a ticket for pasting a telephone number on his vehicle's rear screen and impounded his yellow card. Despite paying the fine and making corrections, the documents were not returned. In February 2014, his vehicle was confiscated because it was parked near the presidential convoy's passage way. The Vehicle Control Authority cancelled his membership of Simba Express Ltd, preventing him from continuing his transport activity. The applicant contacted various administrative and political authorities but did not pursue judicial remedies, claiming they would be futile and that time limits had expired.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the application given Rwanda's withdrawal of its Article 34(6) declaration.
  2. Whether the application is admissible, particularly whether the applicant exhausted local remedies before approaching the Court.

Orders

  • Declared that it has jurisdiction to hear this case.
  • Declared that the application is inadmissible.
  • Ruled that each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Jurisdiction — Temporal Effect of Withdrawal of Article 34(6) Declaration
Where a State withdraws its declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol to the African Charter accepting the Court's jurisdiction to receive cases from individuals, the Court retains jurisdiction over applications filed within one year from the effective date of withdrawal as determined by the Court.
Human Rights — Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Ordinary Judicial Remedies Required
The local remedies to be exhausted before approaching the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights are ordinary judicial remedies. Non-judicial remedies pursued before administrative and political authorities do not satisfy the exhaustion requirement under Article 56 of the African Charter.
Human Rights — Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Burden of Proof for Exceptions
An applicant who claims that judicial remedies are not feasible or would be ineffective must adduce evidence in support of this allegation. Unsupported assertions that judicial proceedings would be futile are insufficient to invoke the exceptions to the exhaustion requirement.
Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Concurrent Pursuit of Remedies
Nothing prevents an applicant from exercising both judicial and non-judicial remedies concurrently. The pursuit of administrative or political remedies does not excuse the failure to exhaust available judicial remedies within prescribed time limits.

Legislation cited (10)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 1
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 14
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56
  • 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)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 2(3)(c)
  • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Article 6(1)
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 17(2)
  • Rwandan Code of Civil, Commercial, Social and Administrative Procedure Act No. 18/2004 Article 339

Cases cited (7)

  • Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v Rwanda (Application No. 003/2014)
  • Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v Rwanda (Application No. 003/2014)
  • Mohamed Abubakari v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 007/2013)
  • Alex Thomas v Tanzania (Application No. 005/2013)
  • Wilfred Onyango Ngani & 9 Others v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 006/2013)
  • Lohé Issa Konaté v Burkina Faso (Application No. 004/2013)
  • Peter Chacha v Tanzania (Application No. 003/2012)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mulindahabi v Republic of Rwanda (Application No. 006-2017) [2019] AfCHPR 88 (4 July 2019)
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.