Mulindahabi v Republic of Rwanda (Application No. 007-2017)

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.

Holding

The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights held that it had jurisdiction to hear the application but declared it inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies. The applicant alleged violations of his property rights arising from the confiscation and auction of his vehicle by Rwandan authorities. The Court found that the applicant had pursued only non-judicial remedies before administrative and political authorities, not the ordinary judicial remedies required under the exhaustion rule. The Court rejected the applicant's claims that judicial remedies were not feasible or that time limits had elapsed, holding that he failed to demonstrate unavailability or ineffectiveness of domestic courts.

Outcome

Application dismissed as inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies

Facts

The applicant, a Rwandan national engaged in urban transport, alleged that his Toyota minibus was unlawfully impounded by Rawmagana police from 28 January 2009 to 7 May 2009. After release and compensation of 34,200 Rwandan Francs, the vehicle was again confiscated on 31 May 2009 by soldiers of the presidential guard, allegedly on fabricated charges. Despite complaints to the President and various authorities, the vehicle was sold by auction on 6 April 2011. In June 2015, the Senate offered him the auction value without further compensation. When he expressed dissatisfaction, he was imprisoned for allegedly insulting the President. The applicant pursued remedies before police, prosecution, multiple ministries, Parliament, Senate, the President, and the National Commission for Human Rights, but did not file a case before the national courts.

Issues

1. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the application.
2. Whether the applicant exhausted local remedies before bringing the application to the African Court.
3. Whether the application is admissible under Article 56 of the African Charter and Rule 40 of the Rules of Court.

Orders

• Declared that it has jurisdiction.
• Held that local remedies have not been exhausted.
• Declared that the Application is inadmissible.
• Ruled that each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (11)

• 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
• 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)
• 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)
• Rwandan Traffic Police Act No. 34/1987 Articles 24, 25 and 26
• 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)

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