Mulindahabi v Republic of Rwanda (Application No. 008-2017)
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.
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 dismissed the application for failure to comply with Rule 34(4) requiring proof of exhaustion of local remedies. The applicant submitted judgments from Rwandan courts but failed to demonstrate he was a party to those proceedings, thus not establishing exhaustion of local remedies.
Outcome
Application dismissed and struck off the cause list for non-compliance with procedural requirements
Facts
The applicant alleged that on 18 May 2008, ATRACO impounded a vehicle belonging to Isaac Twumvibarura. The applicant claimed he handed over his own vehicle to Twumvibarura's transport agency for commercial use but received no proceeds and the vehicle was sold in Burundi. He alleged the State of Rwanda failed to protect his property rights. The applicant submitted two judgments from Rwandan courts in support of his claim of exhausted local remedies: one concerning a loan dispute between Banque Populaire du Rwanda and Twumvibarura, and another concerning an appeal by Twumvibarura against ATRACO. Neither judgment listed the applicant as a party to the proceedings.
Issues
- Whether the applicant exhausted local remedies as required by Rule 34(4) of the Rules of Court.
Orders
- Application dismissed for failure to comply with the requirements set forth in Rule 34(4) of the Rules.
- Application struck off the cause list.
Rules and key headnotes
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.