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!

PENSION IS PROPERTY

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

✓ 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?

SHARE ON

ecowas, property

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?

IT IS ONLY SIGNATORIES TO THE ECOWAS TREATY WHO CAN BE SUED BEFORE THE ECOWAS COURT

✓ In the case of JOHNNY KING & 10 Ors V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & 9 Ors ECW/CCJ/RUL/06/19, the Court held that: “The Court has looked at the laws regarding its jurisprudence as well as precedents in this Court, and it is so clear that, it is only member states of ECOWAS who are signatories to the treaties can be brought before this Court for human rights violations and this Court has maintained that position in all its decisions.”
✓ In SERAP V. THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & Ors ECW/CCJ/RUL/07/10, The Court confirms that: “In the context and legal framework of ECOWAS, the court stands by its current understanding that only member States and Community Institutions can be sued before it for alleged violation of human right as laid down in Peter David v. Ambassador Ralph Uwechue delivered on 11 th day of June 2010”.

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?

THE REVISED TREATY MAY BE CALLED THE CONSTITUTION OF ECOWAS

“21. The Revised Treaty of 1993 is the supreme law of ECOWAS, and it may be called its Constitution. By Article 89 of the Revised Treaty, Protocols made pursuant thereto shall form an integral patt thereof.”

— Ukor v Laleye (2005) – ECW/CCJ/APP/01/04

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?

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?

No more related dictum to show.