Share
Ayed v Republic of Tunisia (Application No. 008/2019) [2022] AfCHPR 79 (7 June 2022)
- Citation
- [2022] AfCHPR 79
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- African Court on Human and Peoples Rights
- Panel
- Aboud P, Anukam J, Bensaoula J, Chizumila J, Kioko J, Mengue J, Mukamulisa J, Ntsebeza J, Sacko J, Tchikaya VP
- Case number
- Application No. 008/2019
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- African Court on Human and Peoples Rights
- Panel
- Aboud P, Anukam J, Bensaoula J, Chizumila J, Kioko J, Mengue J, Mukamulisa J, Ntsebeza J, Sacko J, Tchikaya VP
- Case number
- Application No. 008/2019
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court determined that, in the interest of justice and given the crucial nature of the Respondent State's submissions, it was appropriate to exercise its discretion under Rule 46(3) to reopen the pleadings. The Court found that the Respondent State's response, though filed after repeated reminders and apparent procedural delays, contained substantive matters that warranted consideration. The Court also invoked its inherent powers under Rule 90 to ensure that both parties had a fair opportunity to address all relevant issues. Consequently, the Court ordered the reopening of pleadings and granted the Applicant forty-five days to file a reply to the Respondent State's response, thereby ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to the principles of justice.
Court disposition
Order for reopening of pleadings and direction for Applicant to reply within forty-five days.
Orders
- The reopening of pleadings in Application No. 008/2019 Ibrahim Ayed v. Republic of Tunisia is ordered and the Respondent State’s Response is deemed properly filed.
- The Applicant is ordered to submit the Reply to the Respondent State’s Response within forty-five days of receipt thereof.
02
Material facts
Parties
Ibrahim Ayed
Applicant Counsel: Self-RepresentedRepublic of Tunisia
Respondent Counsel: Mr. Ali ABBÈS03
Procedural history
Posture
Application / Order on Reopening of Pleadings
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to reopen pleadings after closure to allow the Applicant to reply to the Respondent State's late response.
- 02
Whether the Respondent State's response should be deemed properly filed despite procedural delays.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Applicant indicated that the Court has discretion to determine whether or not to reopen the pleadings in accordance with Rule 46(3) of the Rules.
- Respondent
- The Respondent State submitted that it had filed its Response on 2 April 2021 and 30 November 2021, and sought for its submissions to be considered by the Court.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 46(3) of the Rules of Court
The Court has discretion to determine whether or not to reopen pleadings.
- 02
Rule 44(2) of the Rules of Court
After the Respondent State has filed its Response, the Applicant may file a Reply within forty-five days.
- 03
Rule 90 of the Rules of Court
The Court retains inherent power to adopt procedures or decisions necessary to meet the ends of justice.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court determined that, in the interest of justice and given the crucial nature of the Respondent State's submissions, it was appropriate to exercise its discretion under Rule 46(3) to reopen the pleadings. The Court found that the Respondent State's response, though filed after repeated reminders and apparent procedural delays, contained substantive matters that warranted consideration. The Court also invoked its inherent powers under Rule 90 to ensure that both parties had a fair opportunity to address all relevant issues. Consequently, the Court ordered the reopening of pleadings and granted the Applicant forty-five days to file a reply to the Respondent State's response, thereby ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to the principles of justice.
Obiter and limits
- The Court notes that nothing in the Rules limits its inherent power to adopt procedures necessary to meet the ends of justice.
- The attention of both parties is drawn to the procedure applicable under Rule 46(3) as read together with Rule 44(2) of the Rules.
Court disposition
Order for reopening of pleadings and direction for Applicant to reply within forty-five days.
- The reopening of pleadings in Application No. 008/2019 Ibrahim Ayed v. Republic of Tunisia is ordered and the Respondent State’s Response is deemed properly filed.
- The Applicant is ordered to submit the Reply to the Respondent State’s Response within forty-five days of receipt thereof.
Source and reliance status
African Court on Human and Peoples Rights
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
African Court on Human and Peoples Rights
Judgment
| | | | | --- | --- | --- | | UNION AFRICAINE |  | UNION AFRICAINE | |  | UNIÃO AFRICANA | | AFRICAN COURT ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES’ RIGHTS COUR AFRICAINE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME ET DES PEUPLES | | |
THE MATTER OF
IBRAHIM AYED
V.
REPUBLIC OF TUNISIA
APPLICATION NO. 008/2019
ORDER
(REOPENING OF PLEADINGS)
7 JUNE 2022
The Court composed of: Imani D. ABOUD, President; Blaise TCHIKAYA, Vice-President, Ben KIOKO, Suzanne MENGUE, M-Thérèse MUKAMULISA, Tujilane R. CHIZUMILA, Chafika BENSAOULA, Stella I. ANUKAM, Dumisa B. NTSEBEZA, Modibo SACKO - Judges; and Robert ENO, Registrar,
In accordance with Article 22 of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights (hereinafter referred to as "the Protocol") and Rule 9(2) of the Rules of Court (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), Judge Rafaâ BEN ACHOUR, a member of the Court and a Tunisian national, did not hear the Application.[[1]](#footnote-1)
In the Matter of:
Ibrahim AYED
Self-Represented
Versus
REPUBLIC OF TUNISIA
Representedby
Mr. Ali ABBÈS, State Litigation Department
after deliberation,
*renders this Order:*
THE PARTIES
Ibrahim Ayed (hereinafter referred to as "the Applicant") is a Tunisian national. He alleges that in 2014, he was scammed by an official who, after learning that the Applicant had obtained a university degree and was unemployed, promised to use his influence to appoint him as a secondary school teacher.
The Application is filed against the Republic of Tunisia (hereinafter "the Respondent State"), which became a Party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (hereinafter "the Charter") on 21 October 1986 and to the Protocol on 5 October 2007. On 16 April 2017, the Respondent State also deposited the Declaration provided for in Article 34 (6) of the Protocol, by virtue of which it accepts the jurisdiction of the Court to receive applications from individuals and Non-Governmental 0rganisations.
SUBJECT OF THE APPLICATION
It emerges from the Application that, the Applicant paid an amount of Two Thousand (2000) Tunisian Dinars to Al-fadhil ben Al amin Ali Al Obeidi, a public health nurse, for him to be assigned to the Ministry of Education as a secondary school teacher, after the latter had learned that he, Ibrahim Ayed, had obtained a Master's degree. According to the agreement between the two, in the event that the Applicant was not assigned as a teacher, Al Obeidi would be obliged to return the said amount, within two and a half months, which was recorded as a debt to the Applicant.
The Applicant avers that the said agreement having caused him harm, he filed two complaints before domestic courts, the first one with the Court of First Instance of Ariana on 14 July 2017 relying on Articles 87 and 291 of the Respondent State’s Criminal Code while the second complaint was filed with the Public Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal of Tunis on 8 March 2018. The case was pending at the time the Applicant brought the matter before this Court.
SUMMARY OF THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT
The Application was received by the Registry on 1 March 2019. On 17 May 2019, the Application was served on the Respondent State. On 24 June 2019, the Application was transmitted to the other entities provided for in the Rules.
On 6 August 2019, the Respondent State was reminded of the expiry of the time-limit granted to it to designate its representatives and to file its Response to the Application, and was granted an additional forty-five (45) days from the date of receipt of the notification to do so.
Thereafter, the Respondent State was reminded several times on 18 March 2020, 11 December 2020, 28 January 2021 to file the Response to the Application but it failed to do so.
On 29 October 2021, the Respondent State was granted a further forty-five (45) days to respond to the Application, failing which a default judgment will be rendered in the matter. The Respondent State did not respond.
Pleadings were closed on 11 March 2022 and Parties were duly informed.
On 5 April 2022, the Registry received a letter from the Respondent State indicating that, the Respondent State had filed by its Response on 2 April 2021 and 30 November 2021
On 26 May 2022, the Registry of the Court requested the Applicant's observations on the Respondent State's letter and on 30 May 2022, the Applicant indicated that the Court has discretion to determine whether or not to reopen the pleadings in accordance with Rule 46(3) of the Rules.
ON THE REASON FOR REOPENING OF PLEADINGS
The Court observes that Rule 46(3) of the Rules of Court provides that "[t] he Court has the discretion to determine whether or not to reopen pleadings". Furthermore, Rule 44(2) provides: ‘’[A]fter the Respondent State has filed its Response; the Applicant may file a Reply thereto within forty-five (45) days’’. The Court further notes that under Rule 90 of the Rules, "[n]othing in these Rules shall limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to adopt such procedure or decisions as may be necessary to meet the ends of justice”.
It emerges from the proceedings in the instant case, as summarised above, that the Respondent State’s Response entails crucial submissions on which the Court will be called upon to rule. Therefore, it is in the interest of justice that the attention of both parties be drawn to the procedure applicable under Rule 46(3) as read together with Rule 44(2) of the Rules.
In view of the foregoing, it is in the interest of justice to reopen the pleadings and allow the Applicant forty-five (45) days to reply to the Respondent State's response.
OPERATIVE PART
For these reasons,
The Court,
*Unanimously*
*Orders* the reopening of pleadings in Application No. 008/2019 *Ibrahim Ayed v. Republic of Tunisia* and deems in the interest of justice, that the Respondent State’s Response is properly filed.
*Orders* the Applicant to submit the Reply to the Respondent State’s Response within forty-five (45) days of receipt thereof.
Signed:
Imani D. ABOUD, President;
and Robert ENO, Registrar.
Done at Arusha, this Seventh Day of June in the year Two thousand and Twenty-Two, in the Arabic, English and French languages, the Arabic text being authoritative.
1. Rule 8(2) of the Rules of Court of 2 June 2010. [↑](#footnote-ref-1)
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.