Download this publication - PULP

More documents

Recommendations

Info

144 Mike Campbell (Pvt) Limited and Another v Zimbabwe (2007) AHRLR 141 (SADC 2007) during the hearing of the application. Regarding the application, it is observed that the respondent’s agent did not oppose it. He only concentrated on the issue relating to exhaustion of local remedies. He submitted that in terms of article 15(2) of the Protocol, the applicants have not exhausted local remedies. The text provides: No natural or legal person shall bring an action against a state unless he or she has exhausted all available remedies or is unable to proceed under the domestic jurisdiction. [13.] According to the respondent, it was argued, the applicants have not complied with <strong>this</strong> provision. The agent submitted that the applicants have a matter pending before the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe in which the relief sought is similar to the one that they are seeking from the Tribunal. The respondent’s agent said that the matter referred to is awaiting judgment by the Supreme Court. The applicants’ agent does not disagree. The respondent’s agent therefore argued that the application cannot be brought before the Tribunal. [14.] The respondent’s agent also argued that if the applicants wanted protection pending the decision of the Supreme Court, they should have approached the domestic courts but they have not done so. Regarding the latter point, the applicants’ agent contended that section 16B(3)(a) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe oust the jurisdiction of the courts in matters concerning land acquisition. [15.] Referring to the issue of failure to exhaust local remedies by the applicants, we are of the view that the issue is not of relevance to the present application but that it may only be raised in the main case. It may not be raised in the present case in which the applicants are seeking an interim measure of protection pending the final determination of the matter. Thus the Tribunal need not consider the issue of whether or not the applicants have exhausted local remedies. In the circumstances, the contention relating to exhaustion of local remedies is unsuccessful. [16.] We have observed above that the respondent did not oppose the present application. We have also alluded to the criteria advanced by the applicants’ agent which should be applied in determining applications of <strong>this</strong> nature. We agree with the criteria. In the present application there is a prima facie right that is sought to be protected, which involves the right to peaceful occupation and use of the land; and there is anticipated or threatened interference with that right; and the applicants do not appear to have any alternative remedy thereby tilting the balance of convenience in their favour. [17.] Accordingly, the Tribunal grants the application pending the determination of the main case and orders that the Republic of Zimbabwe shall take no steps, or permit no steps to be taken, directly or indirectly, whether by its agents or by orders, to evict from or African Human Rights Law Reports
Mike Campbell (Pvt) Limited and Another v Zimbabwe (2007) AHRLR 141 (SADC 2007) 145 interfere with the peaceful residence on and beneficial use of the farm known as Mount Carmell of Railway 19, measuring 1200.6484 hectares held under Deed of Transfer no 10301/99, in the District of Chegutu in the Republic of Zimbabwe, by Mike Campbell (PvT) Limited and William Michael Campbell, their employees and the families of such employees and of William Michael Campbell. [18.] The Tribunal makes no order as to costs. SADC Tribunal
Page 1 and 2:
AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REPORTS 20
Page 3:
CONTENTS Editorial User guide Abbre
Page 6 and 7:
USER GUIDE The cases and findings i
Page 8 and 9:
Nigeria Internet Law Reports www.ni
Page 10 and 11:
x Table of cases Nigeria Inspector-
Page 12 and 13:
SUBJECT INDEX This index is divided
Page 14 and 15:
xiv Subject index Presumption that
Page 16 and 17:
xvi Subject index Environment Inter
Page 18 and 19:
xviii Subject index No legal remedi
Page 20 and 21:
xx International instruments referr
Page 22 and 23:
xxii International instruments refe
Page 24 and 25:
xxiv International instruments refe
Page 26 and 27:
xxvi International instruments refe
Page 28 and 29:
INTERNATIONAL CASE LAW CONSIDERED U
Page 30 and 31:
xxx International case law consider
Page 32 and 33:
xxxii International case law consid
Page 35:
UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS TREATY
Page 38 and 39:
4 Abbassi v Algeria (2007) AHRLR 3
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
22 Njaru v Cameroon (2007) AHRLR 21
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
30 Titiahonjo v Cameroon (2007) AHR
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
36 El Dernawi v Libya (2007) AHRLR
Page 72 and 73:
38 El Dernawi v Libya (2007) AHRLR
Page 74 and 75:
Prince v South Africa (2007) AHRLR
Page 76 and 77:
42 Prince v South Africa (2007) AHR
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Ben Salem v Tunisia (2007) AHRLR 54
Page 90 and 91:
56 Ben Salem v Tunisia (2007) AHRLR
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 105:
AFRICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN AND PEO
Page 108 and 109:
74 Article 19 v Eritrea (2007) AHRL
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129: 94 Article 19 v Eritrea (2007) AHRL
Page 130 and 131: Chinhamo v Zimbabwe ZIMBABWE (2007)
Page 132 and 133: 98 Chinhamo v Zimbabwe (2007) AHRLR
Page 134 and 135: 100 Chinhamo v Zimbabwe (2007) AHRL
Page 151: SUB-REGIONAL COURTS 117
Page 154 and 155: 120 Katabazi and Others v Secretary
Page 166 and 167: 132 Essien v The Gambia and Another
Page 176 and 177: 142 Mike Campbell (Pvt) Limited and
Page 181: DOMESTIC DECISIONS 147
Page 184 and 185: 150 Waweru v Republic (2007) AHRLR
Page 200 and 201: 166 Luboya and Another v State (200
Page 214 and 215: 180 Inspector-General of Police v A
Page 224 and 225: 190 Dzvova v Minister of Education,
Page 226 and 227: 192 Dzvova v Minister of Education,
Page 228 and 229:
194 Dzvova v Minister of Education,
Page 230 and 231:
196 Dzvova v Minister of Education,
show all

Download this publication - PULP

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?