Zinsou and Others v Republic of Benin (Application No. 008-2021)
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 the applicants' request for provisional measures seeking suspension of an electoral process. The Court found it had prima facie jurisdiction but held that the applicants failed to demonstrate the existence of extreme gravity, urgency, or irreparable harm as required under Article 27(2) of the Protocol. The Court further noted that the applicants relied on decisions rendered in favour of third parties, which could not form the basis for granting provisional measures in their own application.
Outcome
Application for provisional measures dismissed without prejudice to jurisdiction, admissibility, or merits
Facts
The applicants, three nationals of Benin, filed an application alleging that the Republic of Benin failed to enforce decisions of the African Court rendered in favour of third parties, namely Sébastien Germain Marie Aïkoué Ajavon and an anonymous applicant. They sought provisional measures to suspend an ongoing electoral process, arguing it was being conducted in disregard of the Court's prior decisions. The Republic of Benin had withdrawn its declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol on 25 March 2020, but the Court had previously ruled that such withdrawal does not affect pending cases or cases filed before the withdrawal takes effect on 26 March 2021. The respondent State did not file any response to the application.
Issues
- Whether the Court has prima facie jurisdiction to entertain the request for provisional measures.
- Whether the conditions for granting provisional measures under Article 27(2) of the Protocol are satisfied.
- Whether the applicants have demonstrated extreme gravity, urgency, and risk of irreparable harm.
Orders
- Request for provisional measures dismissed.
Rules and key headnotes
Cases cited (5)
- Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v Republic of Rwanda (Order of 3 June 2016)
- Houngue Eric Noudehouenou v Republic of Benin (Application No. 003/2020)
- Ghati Mwita v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 012/2019)
- Sébastien Germain Marie Aïkoué Ajavon v Republic of Benin (Application No. 065/2019)
- Sébastien Ajavon v Republic of Benin (Application No. 062/2019)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.