Wakilii

Noudehouenou v Republic of Benin (Application No. 032-2020)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2020] AfCHPR 7 · 2020 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for provisional measures to stay execution of domestic court judgment pending determination of merits
Decision
Application for provisional measures dismissed; merits application to proceed

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 an application for provisional measures to stay execution of a domestic judgment. The Court held that it had prima facie jurisdiction but found the applicant failed to establish urgency or risk of irreparable harm. The sixteen-month delay between the domestic judgment and filing the application undermined the claim of urgency. The applicant's submissions were based on speculation rather than demonstrating real and imminent risk as required by the Court's jurisprudence.

Outcome

Application for provisional measures dismissed; merits application to proceed

Facts

The applicant, a Beninese national, alleged that a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cotonou dated 5 June 2018 violated his property rights by denying him ownership and authorising third parties to occupy his land. The judgment was issued in proceedings in which he had voluntarily intervened but was allegedly never notified to him. On 15 October 2020, sixteen months after the domestic judgment, the applicant filed an application on the merits before the African Court together with a request for provisional measures seeking a stay of execution of the domestic judgment. The respondent State had withdrawn its declaration accepting individual access to the Court on 25 March 2020, but the withdrawal would not take effect until 26 March 2021.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court has prima facie jurisdiction to hear the application for provisional measures.
  2. Whether the conditions for granting provisional measures under Article 27(2) of the Protocol are satisfied, namely extreme gravity, urgency, and risk of irreparable harm.

Orders

  • Application for provisional measures dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — African Court Jurisdiction — Withdrawal of Declaration — Effect on Pending and New Cases
The withdrawal of a declaration filed under Article 34(6) of the Protocol to the African Charter has no retroactive effect and does not affect pending cases or new cases filed before the withdrawal takes effect one year after deposit of the instrument of withdrawal.
Administrative Law — Provisional Measures — Prima Facie Jurisdiction — Test
In matters pertaining to provisional measures, the Court need not satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction on the merits of the case, but merely that it has prima facie jurisdiction.
Administrative Law — Provisional Measures — Conditions for Grant — Extreme Gravity, Urgency, and Irreparable Harm
Provisional measures may be granted only in cases of extreme gravity and urgency when necessary to avoid irreparable harm. Urgency means a real and imminent risk before final judgment, excluding purely hypothetical risk. Irreparable harm requires a reasonable probability of occurrence having regard to the context and the applicant's personal situation.
Administrative Law — Provisional Measures — Delay in Filing — Effect on Urgency
A long delay between the event giving rise to the alleged harm and the filing of the application for provisional measures calls into question the existence of urgency. Where an applicant provides no explanation for a sixteen-month delay, such delay is sufficiently indicative of the absence of real and imminent risk.

Legislation cited (13)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 14
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3(1)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3(2)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 2
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)
  • 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 27(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(1)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 26
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 14(1)
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 8
  • Land Code Articles 523 et seq.

Cases cited (4)

  • Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v Republic of Rwanda (Jurisdiction) (03 June 2016)
  • Houngue Eric Noudehouenou v Republic of Benin (Application No. 003/2020)
  • Ghati Mwita v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 012/2019)
  • Sebastien Ajavon v Republic of Benin (Application No. 062/2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Noudehouenou v Republic of Benin (Application No. 032-2020) [2020] AfCHPR 7 (27 November 2020)
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.