Wakilii

Mulindahabi v Republic of Rwanda (Application No. 009-2017)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2019] AfCHPR 20 · 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 violations of human rights instruments
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 but declared it inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies. The applicant alleged violations of his right to property and work after his vehicle was confiscated by Rwandan authorities. The Court found that the applicant pursued only non-judicial remedies and failed to file an appeal before domestic courts within a reasonable time, without establishing any valid exception to the exhaustion requirement.

Outcome

Application dismissed as inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies

Facts

On 21 March 2009, a police officer in Rwanda seized the applicant's vehicle for lacking a motor vehicle license and spare tyre. The applicant was fined RWF 20,000 and his vehicle registration card was seized as security. He paid the fine on 23 March 2009 but the registration card was not returned. The applicant alleged that both his driver and the police claimed to have lost relevant documents. Despite efforts to obtain a duplicate registration card and appeals to various political and administrative authorities including the President, the vehicle was auctioned on 6 April 2011. The applicant did not pursue judicial remedies, claiming that involvement of Presidential Guard soldiers would render court proceedings futile and that the deadline for filing an appeal had lapsed.

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.
  • Declared that local remedies have not been exhausted.
  • Declared that the application is inadmissible.
  • Declared that each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Requirement to Pursue Ordinary Judicial Remedies
Only ordinary judicial remedies must be exhausted before bringing an application to the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights, and non-judicial remedies pursued before administrative and political authorities are not considered material to the exhaustion of local remedies.
Civil Procedure — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Exceptions to Exhaustion Requirement
The requirement to exhaust local remedies may be dispensed with only if the remedies are unavailable, ineffective, insufficient, or if domestic procedures to pursue them are unduly prolonged, and general statements without supporting evidence are insufficient to establish such exceptions.
Civil Procedure — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Concurrent Pursuit of Judicial and Non-Judicial Remedies
Nothing prevents an applicant from pursuing non-judicial avenues before administrative and political bodies at the same time as pursuing judicial remedies, and failure to exercise judicial remedies while pursuing non-judicial avenues does not satisfy the exhaustion requirement.
Civil Procedure — Admissibility — Cumulative Nature of Admissibility Conditions
The conditions for admissibility under Rule 40 of the Rules of the African Court are cumulative, and where one condition is not satisfied, the Court will not proceed to examine the remaining conditions.

Legislation cited (13)

  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 22
  • 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)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3(1)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 5(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)
  • 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)
  • Rwandan Law No. 34/1987 of 17/9/1987 Article 40
  • Law No. 18/2004 of 26/6/2004 Article 339

Cases cited (9)

  • Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v Rwanda (Application No. 003/2014)
  • Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v Rwanda (Application No. 003/2014)
  • Beneficiaries of late Norbert Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso (Application No. 013/2011)
  • Mohamed Abubakari v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 007/2013)
  • Alex Thomas v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 005/2013)
  • Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and 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. 004/2013)
  • Rutabingwa Chrysanthe v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 022/2015)

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. 009-2017) [2019] AfCHPR 20 (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.