Wakilii

Rabah v Mauritania (Communication 197 of 1997)

African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2004] ACHPR 55 · 2004 Communication Upheld AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Communication to the African Commission alleging violation of the African Charter arising from domestic court decisions in a property dispute
Decision
Communication upheld; Mauritania found to have violated Article 14 of the African Charter and recommended to restore the complainant's rights

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 Commission found the communication admissible after the complainant exhausted domestic remedies through the Mauritanian courts. The Commission held that dispossessing the complainant of part of his mother's heritage through a donation without well-substantiated reasons violated Article 14 of the African Charter, which protects the right to property. The Commission noted that while slavery had been formally abolished in Mauritania, its consequences persisted, and accepting that a mother would deprive her children of their inheritance for a third party without specific reason was not consistent with property rights protection.

Outcome

Communication upheld; Mauritania found to have violated Article 14 of the African Charter and recommended to restore the complainant's rights

Facts

In November 1975, four years after his mother's death, Bah Ould Rabah and his family were expelled from their ancestral home by Mohamed Ould Bah, who claimed the property on grounds that Rabah's mother had been his slave and the property therefore belonged to him. To circumvent Mauritania's ban on slavery, Mohamed Ould Bah claimed the property was donated to him by Rabah's mother. Rabah challenged this through the Mauritanian courts, producing a certificate of occupancy dated April 1971 in his mother's name, while his opponent produced a certificate dated November 1972. The District Court, Regional Court, and Supreme Court all ruled in favour of Mohamed Ould Bah. Rabah then filed a communication with the African Commission in April 1997, alleging violations of multiple provisions of the African Charter.

Issues

  1. Whether the communication was admissible under Article 56.5 and 56.6 of the African Charter.
  2. Whether the dispossession of the complainant from his mother's property through a donation without well-substantiated reasons constituted a violation of Article 14 of the African Charter.

Orders

  • Communication declared admissible.
  • The dispossession of the plaintiff of part of his mother's heritage through a donation without well-substantiated reasons constitutes a violation of Article 14 of the African Charter.
  • The Government of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania is recommended to take appropriate steps to restore the plaintiff his rights.

Rules and key headnotes

African Charter — Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies
A communication is admissible under Article 56.5 of the African Charter where the complainant has exhausted all local remedies by pursuing the matter through competent national courts up to and including the Supreme Court, and the respondent state confirms that local remedies have been exhausted.
Property Rights — Right to Inheritance — Donation Without Substantiated Reasons
To accept that a mother can deprive her own children of their inheritance for the benefit of a third party with no specific reason is not in conformity with the protection of the right to property under Article 14 of the African Charter.
Slavery — Lingering Consequences — State Obligations
Where the consequences of slavery persist in a state despite formal abolition, and persons act in ways that perpetuate those consequences, the state has an obligation to control and eliminate all offshoots of slavery and to ensure that property rights are not undermined by practices rooted in slavery.

Legislation cited (12)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 2
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 4
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 5
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 6
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 8
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 9
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 11
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 14
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56.5
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56.6

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rabah v Mauritania (Communication 197 of 1997) [2004] ACHPR 55 (4 June 2004)
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.