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 IS NOT AN APPELLATE COURT

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

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?

SHARE ON

ecowas

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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

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?

No more related dictum to show.