Mustafa v Republic of Malawi (Application No. 008-2023)
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 has prima facie jurisdiction but dismissed the request for provisional measures. While the conditions of urgency and extreme gravity were met, the applicant failed to demonstrate with evidence that she would suffer irreparable harm if the Supreme Court of Appeal's decision was not stayed, as she provided no proof that the properties would be sold and any compensation would be the responsibility of the Respondent State, not the decree holder.
Outcome
Request for provisional measures dismissed; main application to proceed to determination on merits
Facts
Flora Mustafa, the third widow of the late Seleman Mustafa, was evicted from matrimonial property SAL 176 and business property SAL 177 by the deceased's second wife, Emily Mustafa. The applicant filed a complaint with the District Commissioner and claimed to have found a will bequeathing the properties to all children equally. Emily Mustafa filed a case at the High Court claiming the deceased died intestate and that she was sole owner of the properties through joint acquisition. The High Court held the deceased died intestate and appointed an administrator. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeal agreed the deceased died intestate but reversed the administrator appointment, holding that Emily Mustafa became sole owner of properties SAL 176 and 177 through survivorship as joint owner. The applicant's application for review was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 14 July 2021 without reasons being provided. The applicant then filed an application before the African Court alleging violation of her right to a fair trial.
Issues
- Whether the Court has prima facie jurisdiction to hear the request for provisional measures.
- Whether the conditions of extreme gravity and urgency are met to warrant the grant of provisional measures.
- Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable harm if the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal is not stayed pending determination of the main application.
Orders
- The Court has prima facie jurisdiction.
- The request for provisional measures is dismissed.
Rules and key headnotes
Cases cited (3)
- Komi Koutche v Republic of Benin (Application No. 003/2019)
- Houngue Éric Noudehouenou v Republic of Benin (Application No. 04/2020)
- Ajavon Sebastien v Republic of Benin (Application No. 062/2019)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.