Wakilii

Traore v Republic of Mali

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2020] AfCHPR 27 · 2020 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 violation of human rights arising from unlawful dismissal from employment
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 the application was inadmissible because the applicant filed his application while local remedies were still pending before the Bamako Court of Appeal and had not been exhausted. The Court found that the applicant did not wait for the post-cassation ruling to be handed down before filing his application, and that the five-month period between the cassation judgment and the post-cassation judgment was reasonable and did not constitute undue prolongation of the procedure.

Outcome

Application dismissed as inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies

Facts

Yacouba Traore, a Malian national and former Chief Chemist at ALS Group Mali SARL, alleged that he was unlawfully dismissed on 31 August 2012 without the required prior authorisation from the Regional Director of Labour. He claimed that his dismissal followed reprisals for his claims for reclassification and salary adjustment. The Bamako Labour Court declared his dismissal unlawful on 7 January 2013. Following an appeal, the Bamako Court of Appeal reversed this decision on 25 July 2013. Traore appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 12 September 2017 reversed the Court of Appeal's decision and remitted the case back to the Court of Appeal. On 20 February 2018, before the post-cassation judgment was delivered, Traore filed an application with the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights alleging violations of his rights under the African Charter. The Bamako Court of Appeal rendered its post-cassation judgment on 1 March 2018.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant exhausted local remedies before filing the application with the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights.
  2. Whether the application is admissible under Article 56 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and Rule 40 of the Rules of Court.

Orders

  • Application declared inadmissible.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Timing of Application
An application to an international human rights court is inadmissible if filed while local remedies are still pending and have not been exhausted, unless the procedure is unduly prolonged.
Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Determination Date
The determination of whether local remedies are exhausted should be made on the date the case is brought before the international court.
Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Post-Cassation Proceedings
Compliance with the requirement to exhaust local remedies implies that the applicant must not only initiate but also await the outcome of internal remedies in the national courts, including post-cassation proceedings following a remittal by the supreme court.
Admissibility — Undue Prolongation — Reasonable Period
A period of five months and ten days between a cassation judgment and a post-cassation judgment constitutes a reasonable period and does not amount to undue prolongation of the procedure for local remedies.
Admissibility — Cumulative Conditions — Effect of Non-Compliance
The conditions of admissibility laid down in Article 56 of the African Charter and Rule 40 of the Rules of Court are cumulative, such that failure to comply with one condition is sufficient for the application to be declared inadmissible.

Legislation cited (8)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 4
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 15
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Labour Code of Mali Article L277

Cases cited (6)

  • Peter Joseph Chacha v United Republic of Tanzania (Admissibility) (28 March 2014)
  • Diakité v Republic of Mali (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) (28 September 2012)
  • Lohé Issa Konaté v Burkina Faso (Merits) (5 December 2014)
  • Baumann v France (Application No. 33592/96) (22 May 2001)
  • Jean Clayle Roger Gombert v Republic of Côte d'Ivoire (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) (22 March 2018)
  • Dexter Eddie Johnson v Republic of Ghana (Application No. 016/2017) (28 March 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Traore v Republic of Mali [2020] AfCHPR 27 (25 September 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.