199/97 : Odjouoriby Cossi Paul / Benin
Summary of Facts
1. [The] Complainant is a national of Benin who alleges violation of his rights by the judiciary of his
country.
2. It is alleged that the Appeal Court of Cotonou refused to restore his rights in a case pending before
the said court since 1995 which sets him up against Mr Akitobi Honoré whom he accuses of having
despoiled him of his real estate property with the complicity of some judges.
3. The Complainant considers that the attitude of the Appeal Court constitutes a denial of justice.
Complaint
4. The Complainant alleges violation of Articles 7 and 14 of the [African] Charter on Human and
Peoples’ Rights (‘African Charter’).
Procedure
5. The Secretariat of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (‘African Commission’)
th
acknowledged having received the communication on 8 April 1997.
nd
6. The African Commission was seized of the communication at its 22 Ordinary Session and
rd
deferred its decision on admissibility to its 23 Ordinary Session scheduled for April 1998.
th
th
7. During its 23[/sup]rd[/sup] Session held from 20 to 29 April 1998 in Banjul, The Gambia, the
African Commission declared the communication admissible and deferred consideration of the merits
th
st
of the case to its 24 Ordinary Session. 8. On 1 June 1998, a note was sent to the Government of
Benin informing them that the communication had been declared admissible by the African
Commission, pursuant to Article 56.1, and that the [African] Commission would rule on the merits
th
during its 24 Ordinary Session scheduled for October 1998. A letter with the same message was sent
also to the Complainant.
th
9. During the 28 Ordinary Session, the African Commission heard both parties. Through its
representative, the Respondent State asked the African Commission to review its decision on
admissibility as the Complainant had not exhausted local remedies.
10. The African Commission, noting that the Complainant had not put his case across logically,
advised some NGOs to assist him. To this end, the case was entrusted to INTERIGHTS and to the
Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa on behalf of the Complainant.
11. In any case, the African Commission took note of the undue delay of the Complainant’s case
before the courts.
12. From the submissions, it became apparent that in a civil case like this one, the conduct of
proceedings is the responsibility of the parties in the case. The appeal filed against the judgment of
th
the court of first instance is dated 19 September 1995 and the [African] Commission was seized of the
th
case on 8 April 1997, that is 20 months after the filing of the appeal. It appears from the practice of
the Appeal Court accepted by the Supreme Court that average period ranges between 4 and 5 years.
13. The African Commission upheld its decision on admissibility and deferred its decision on the
th
th
th
merits to the 30 Ordinary Session held in Banjul, The Gambia, from 13 to 27 October 2001.
14. The communication was deferred on several occasions because the Complainant was not very
familiar with the procedures of the African Commission.
th
15. The African Commission considered this communication at its 35 Ordinary Session held in
Banjul, The Gambia and decided to deliver its decision on the merits.
Law
Admissibility
16. Article 56 of the [African] Charter provides, among other things, that communications shall be
considered by the [African] Commission if they “are sent after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless
it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged”.
17. Odjouoriby Cossi Paul (the Complainant) claims that the case opposing him to Mr Akitobi Honoré
th
has been pending before the Appeal Court of Cotonou since 19 September 1995 and that up to now
the Court has delivered no judgment.
18. And yet, it is obvious that the local proceedings will remain in impasse as long as the Appeal
Court has not made any ruling on the appeal pending before it.
19. The African Commission has moreover established the evidence of silence of the State of Benin
to all the notifications and other requests for clarification addressed to it through its Secretariat.
20. This situation has led the African Commission to rule on the admissibility of the communication
submitted to it on the basis of the facts brought to its attention by the Complainant.
21. In accordance with the provisions of Article 7.1.d of the African Charter and its previous
decisions, (see in particular communication 39/90 Annette Pagnoulle on behalf of A.
1
Mazou/Cameroon ), the [African] Commission considered that the waiting period before the Appeal
Court of Cotonou had been unduly prolonged and on these grounds, it had declared the
communication admissible.
22. Details brought later to the case file by INTERIGHTS and the Institute for Human Rights and
Development as well as by the Government of Benin indicate that:
•
•
•
Following an appeal lodged by the two parties, the case was the subject of a joinder by
th
interlocutory decision dated 9 March 1996.
After several adjournments due mainly to non attendance by one or the other party at the
th
hearings, the court gave judgment by default on 5 August 1999 indicating that non production
of the disputed decision and conclusions by the parties causes damage to the smooth
administration of justice.
Mr Akitobi Honoré, the opponent of Mr Odjouoriby, lodged an appeal against this decision and
Mr Yansunnu, counsel of Mr Odjouoriby, submitted further pleadings in defence before the
th
chamber of the Supreme Court on 27 June 2001.
23. But the African Commission maintains that in any case, the State of Benin remains the guarantor
of a good administration of justice on its territory and for the[se] reasons, the African Commission
upholds its decision on admissibility.
Merits
24. The African Charter stipulates in Article 7.1.d that “every individual shall have the right to have his
cause heard. This comprises...the right to be tried within a reasonable time”.
th
25. On 19 September 1995, the plaintiff lodged an appeal against judgment No. 75/95 4° CCM
th
delivered on 7 August 1995 by the civil chamber of the court of first instance of Cotonou in its
provisions on damages granted to him by the said court.
26. On his part, Mr Honoré Akitobi (the opponent of Mr Odjouoriby) filed a cross-appeal in reply to the
principal appeal and as pointed out earlier, the proceedings pending before the appeal court are
unduly prolonged.
27. Accordingly, the African Commission observes that the case before the Appeal Court has been
unduly prolonged.
28. The African Commission is of the view that this undue prolongation of the case at the level of the
Appeal Court is contrary to the spirit and the letter of above-mentioned Article 7.1.d.
29. Concerning the allegations of the plaintiff of violation of his right to property, the [African]
Commission recalls that the right to property is recognised and guaranteed by the African Charter of
which Article 14 stipulates that this right may be encroached upon only “in the interest of public need
or in the general interest of the community and in accordance with the provisions of appropriate laws”.
30. The African Commission, however, is of the opinion that to the extent that there has been no
definitive decision in this case, it cannot substitute itself to the national courts to appreciate violation of
the enjoyment of the right to property of the plaintiff.
Holding
For these reasons the African Commission,
Finds the Republic of Benin in violation of Article 7.1.d of the African Charter;
Requests the Republic of Benin to take appropriate measures to ensure that the Complainant’s
appeal is determined by the Court of Appeal as quickly as possible; and
Urges the Republic of Benin to take the necessary steps to pay appropriate compensation for
damages suffered by Mr Odjouoriby Cossi Paul due to the unduly prolonged proceedings in the
processing of his case.
Footnotes
1. Communication 39/90 Annette Pagnoule (on behalf of Abdoulaye Mazou)/Cameroon.
The victim had unsuccessfully initiated many proceedings both non-contentious and contentious. The [African]
Commission felt then that local remedies had been exhausted.