Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

CONDITION PRECEDENT TO DETERMINING JURISDICTION

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Dictum

In Hissein Habre v. Republic of Senegal; ECW/CCJ/APP/07/08 & ECW/CCJ/03/10, this Court held that in determining whether it has jurisdiction, it shall consider: • If the issues submitted before it deals with a right which has been enshrined for the benefit of the human person; • Whether it arises from international or community obligations of the state complained of, as Human Rights to be promoted, observed, protected, and enjoyed; • Whether it is the violation of that right which is being alleged. See also Private Alimu Akeem v. Federal Republic of Nigeria ECW/CCJ/ RUL/05/11, pg. 119 affirming the same condition precedent.

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

EXPERT IS PERMITTED TO GIVE AN OPINION BASED ON HEARSAY

Para. 40: “It is common knowledge that an expert’s opinion is usually based on his training and experience. In law an expert is permitted to give an opinion on the basis of hearsay information, provided that it relates to specific matters of which he does have personal knowledge. Thus a doctor can give evidence of what he was told by a patient about his condition for the purpose of evaluating his diagnosis; though his testimony is inadmissible to show what symptoms were actually being experienced by the patient; see R. V. Bradshaw (1985) 82 Cr. App. R. 79, CA.”

— Saidykhan v GAMBIA (2010) – ECW/CCJ/JUD/08/10

Was this dictum helpful?

DESPERATE SITUATIONS CALL FOR DESPERATE MEASURES – JUMP BAIL

Para. 35: “Counsel for the defendant also submitted that the fact that the plaintiff’s brother secured his bail with an expired passport and the fact that plaintiff jumped bail throw the plaintiff’s character into doubt so the court should not believe him. This argument too is untenable. Desperate situations call for desperate measures. Who would not have acted the way the plaintiff did given the situation that he found himself in? Even if he had succeeded in escaping from the National Intelligence Agency detention centre without bail he would have been justified. The court rejects the call to declare the plaintiff as a person of bad character since he was justified in using every reasonable means to secure his freedom and flee for safety.”

— Saidykhan v GAMBIA (2010) – ECW/CCJ/JUD/08/10

Was this dictum helpful?

ONE WITNESS CAN TESTIFY – IT ALL DEPENDS ON CREDIBILITY & EVIDENCE ADDUCED

Para. 29: “The plaintiff testified on this issue by himself. No witness was called. Before we proceed the court has to state that failure to call a witness does not derogate from the evidence adduced by one person only, nor does it prevent the court from accepting and relying on the evidence of a sole witness. It all depends on credibility and the nature of the evidence adduced. And also as decided in the case of Morrow v. Morrow (1914) 2 I.R. 183 in a civil case where such testimony is unimpeached the court should act on it.”

— Saidykhan v GAMBIA (2010) – ECW/CCJ/JUD/08/10

Was this dictum helpful?

GRANT OF AMICUS CURIAE BEFORE THE ECOWAS COURT

60. This Court has severally granted leave for intervention as amicus curiae on the grounds that the said amicus is not a party to the suit and has no proprietary interest in the said claim. The intervention must simply be an objective assistance into the research exercise necessary in the adjudication of the claim/s before the Court. 61. The present applications for leave to intervene as amicus and the submissions by the amici curiae has been considered by this Court and the same is granted.

— SERAP v FRN (2022) – ECW/CCJ/JUD/40/22

Was this dictum helpful?

MERE ALLEGATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION TRIGGERS THE COURT JURISDICTION

Para. 46: “Mere allegation of Human Rights violation as opposed to the veracity of the claim has been held by this Court in decided cases, to be sufficient enough to trigger its jurisdiction to adjudicate on allege violation of Human Rights provided for in the African Charter on Human Rights.”

— Ogwuche Esq. & Anor. v FRN (2018) – ECW/CCJ/JUD/31/18

Was this dictum helpful?

ONLY PARTIES TO TREATISES CAN BE BOUND AND HELD RESPONSIBLE

Para. 24: “Before proceeding to analyze the facts of this case, the Court must first address the capacity of the 2nd to 4th Respondents who are the agents of the 1 st Respondent – The Republic of Liberia. It is trite law that only parties to treaties can be bound and held responsible for their implementation. This Court has held on several occasions that agents of member state of the ECOWAS treaty are not proper persons capable of being sued before this Court for the violation of the said treaty or other relevant international Human rights instruments signed by member state of the ECOWAS.”

— Boley v Liberia & Ors. (2019) – ECW/CCJ/JUD/24/19

Was this dictum helpful?

Load More
No more related dictum to show.

Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry

Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Telegram

Humongouz Empire

© 2025

designed by Humongouz Ztudio. 

TO – 278 | UO – 0 | GO – 250 | BO – 28

External link(s)

BOOK: First 2-years as a Law Student: Experiences and Lessons.