STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

ECOWAS COURT CANNOT ENTERTAIN A CASE ALREADY DETERMINED BY COMPETENT INTERNATIONAL COURT

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

In El Haji Mame Abdou Gaye v. Republic of Senegal ECW/CCJ/JUD/01/12 at Para 28 and 46, this Court held that: “The only limit to this jurisdiction is as prescribed in Article 10(d)(ii) of the supplementary Protocol on the Court, which bars it from entertaining a case which is already taken by another competent international Court”.

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

ecowas

BURDEN TO PROVIDE RECORDS OF PENSION IS ON GOVERNMENT

In the case of Registered Trustees of Association of Former Telecom Employees of Nigeria &17,102 Ors. V. Federal Republic of Nigeria & Ors; ECW/CCJ/JUD/20/19, when this court held that: “It follows therefore that once the claimant makes out a prima facie case of entitlement to pension, by proof of employment but lacks access to the key information needed to substantiate his claim same being in the control of Respondent, such claim cannot fail due to being unsubstantiated. It is a recognized fact that salary records and computations matrix are in the normal cause of events in the custody and preserve of the employer in this case the Respondent. The burden to provide records of the pension entitlement of the Applicant having shifted to the Respondent, the Applicants are exonerated from proving their entitlement.”

Was this dictum helpful?

PENSION IS PROPERTY

✓ Registered Trustees of Association of Former Telecom Employees of Nigeria &17,102 Ors. V. Federal Republic of Nigeria & Ors. ECW/CCJ/JUD/20/19 it held as follows. “In light of the above, the Court holds the view that pension is property which can be vested on an individual the denial of which therefore constitutes a violations of Right to property.”
✓ The United States Claim Tribunal in AMOCO INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION V. IRAN, Award No 310-56-3 (14 July 1987), 15 Iran-US C.T.R. 189- 289, held that: “Under the Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the concept of property is very broadly defined by reference to all the proprietary interests of an individual. It covers a range of economic interests: “movable or immovable property, tangible and intangible interests, such as shares, patents, an arbitration award, the entitlement to a pension, a landlord’s entitlement to rent, the economic interests connected with the running of a business and the right to exercise a profession…” (Protocol I of the ECHR is pari material with Article 14 of the ACHPR).
✓ In further support of the above opinion the ECHR has held in the case of BÉLÁNÉ NAGY v. HUNGARY (Application no.53080/13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 10 February 2015 @ 36 that: “Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 places no restriction on the Contracting State’s freedom to decide whether or not to have in place any form of social security scheme, or to choose the type or amount of benefits to provide under any such scheme. If, however, a Contracting State has in force legislation providing for the payment as of right of a welfare benefit whether conditional or not on the prior payment of contributions that legislation must be regarded as generating a proprietary interest falling within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 for persons satisfying its requirements.”

Was this dictum helpful?

ECOWAS COURT IS NOT AN APPELLATE COURT

An ancillary issue which the Court needs to address relates to the allegation of the status in law of the petitioner. The Supreme Court having ruled that the petitioner was duly registered and stricto senso not been a human right issues, this Court will not review the decision as it amounts to sitting on appeal on the decision of the national court. The court further reiterates that it is not an appellate court and will only admit cases from national courts where human rights violation are alleged in the course of the proceeding. See Private Alimu Akeem v. Federal Republic of Nigeria ECW/CCJ/RUL/05/11, Hissein Habre v. Republic of Senegal ECW/CCJ/RUL/03/10 and Messrs. Abdoulaye Balde & 5Ors. V. The Republic of Senegal ECW/CCJ/RUL/01/13. Jerry Ugokwe Vs Nigeria (2004-2009) CCJELR, Ocean King Vs Senegal ECW/CCJ/JUD/07/11, Bakare Sarres Vs Mali.

— Uuter Dery v Republic of Ghana (2019) – ECW/CCJ/JUD/17/19

Was this dictum helpful?

THE DOCTRINE OF EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW

In BADINI SALFO V THE REPUBLIC OF BURKINA FASO JUD NO: ECW/CCJ/JUD/13/12, the Court while relying in its judgment in CNDD v. COTE D’ IVOIRE (2009) Para 55, and PROF. ETIM MOSES v. REP OF GAMBIA, (2007) Para 31, held that: “Equality before the law presupposes that equal treatment is accorded people finding themselves in similar situations. Thus, examining the allegation of the violation of the principle of equality requires that, at least two similar legal situations be put side by side as to compare and find out whether an ill treatment was concretely meted out to either one or both of them”.

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?

ECOWAS COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ACT AS APPELLATE COURT

In LINDA GOMEZ & 5 ORS V. REPUBLIC OF THE GAMBIA, Suit No. ECW/CCJ/APP/18/12 at paragraph 27, where the Court stated as follows: “It is clear that the Court has neither jurisdiction to annul domestic legislations of ECOWAS Member States nor the jurisdiction to act as appellate Court over their domestic Courts”.

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.