Hamma Hiya and Another v Republic of Mali (ECW/CCJ/APP/09/18; ECW/CCJ/JUD/05/21) [2021] ECOWASCJ 30 (9 March 2021)

CO'vf.\,JUN!TY COURT Of JUSTICE. ECOWAS (OUR Ill' .fUSTICI· l)F. LA COM\f l'NATI:. f'F OEAO l'R IHC,AL J)I, . IL'STIC/1 I),\ CO.\ l.\ ll''\fl)A DE. C'l· D:~·\0 No. IO DAR ES SAl,AAM CRESCENT Off AMIN(; KANO CRESCENT. WUSE II. i\RUJA-NIGERIA. PMB 567 GARKl, AilUJA TEL: 234 -9-71\ 22 801 Website: invwcvurtecoh·a.'i org lN THE COl\·fMUNITY COURT OF . JUSTICE OF THE f:CONOl\'IJC COMJ\1UNITY OF WEST AFRICAN STATES (ECO\>VAS) ln the l'vfattcr of HAI\IIMA Hl\'A & ANOR V REPURLIC OF J\,fALl Application No: ECW/CCJIAPP/09/18 Judgment NO. ECWICCJIJUD/05/2 1 JUDGJl1. ENT ABUJA 9 lvfar:::h 2021 HAIVIMA HTY A & J\,fADA!\'1 BlNTOU ALASSANE IVIAIGA APPLICANTS v. REPUBLIC OF MALI RESPONDENT C0~1POSITION OF THE COURT: Hon. Justice Gberi-Ile OUATT ARA - Presiding Hon. Justice Dupe ATOKl - Member/Judge Rapporteur Hon. Justice Janumia T. Silva Moreira COSTA - Member ASSISTED BY: Nlr. Tony ANENE- NWDOH - Chief Registrar REPRESE1VTATTON OF PARTIES: Maitrc Moussa Maiga Magatte A. Scye Balla Seye ivlr YoussoufDiarra, Director General, Counsel for Applicants State Litigations Depmtment - Counsel for the Respondent /. JUDG/.1. ENT: 1. This is the judgment of the Court read virtually in open coutt pursuant to Article 8( I) of the Practice Directions on Electronic Case l\lfanagement and Virtual Court Sessions, 2020. fl DESCRIPTION OP THE PARTIES: 2. The Applicants, IWr Hamma Hiya and Madam Bintou Alassane l\ilaiga (hereinafter referred to as the "Fir::,t Applicant" and the "Second Applicant" respectively and jointly as "the Applicants"), are Malian nationals domiciled in Gao Mali. 3. The Application is brought agai:ist the Republic of Mali (hereinafter referred to as "the Respondent"), a member State of the ECO\VAS and signatory to the ECO\VAS Treaty. Ill. TNTRODUCTJON 4. The su~ject matter of the Application arose (iom the Applicants' allegation that the Respondent violated their rights to property, by compulsorily acquiring their land without informing them prior to the acquisition or paying them any compensation. TV. PROCEDURE BEFORE TJIE COURT 5. The Jnitiating Application was filed on 22 January 20 l 8 and served on the Respondent on 7 February 2018. 6. Having fai led to file a response within the set time limit, the Respondent filed an Application for extension of time on 7 l\tlarch 2018. On 14 May 2019, the Court gave the Respondent two weeks to file its defence d uring its hearing oftbc Application. 7. The Respondent's response to the Application was filed on 31 May 2019 and served on the Applicants, who then filed their reply on 24 June 2019. The reply was served on the Respondent on 28 June 2019. 8. The Court held hearings on the case on 28 June 2019 and 9 December 2019. On the latter date, the Court relyir.g on Article 58 of the Rules of Court, on measures on inquiry, proceeded under A11icle 45 of its Rules. 1t ordered the Registry of the Coult to appoint an expert in the field of estate valuation to carry out a valuation of the property in contention and subm it a report of same to the Court in two months. 9. The Real Estate Valuation Expe1t was appointed on 10 January 2020, and his valuation report was submitted to the Registry of the Court on 29 January 2021. V. APPLICANT'S CASE a) Summary of facts 10.!n their submission tiled on the 5th of February 2018, the first Applicant avered that he owns a plot of land under Land Title No 1788 or Cercle de Gao, measuring l ha 2a 76ca. The second Applicant owns a plot of land registered under Land Title No 1787 of Cercle de Gao measuring I ha 2a 76ca. These two plots of land are adjacent to each other and arc located at Quartier Chateau EST in the town of Gao. 11. The Applicants, who are traders, stale that they have designed development projects to be implemented on the two plots. They allege that as they were preparing to develop the said plo1s, they noticed that the United Nations Mission in l\'lali, that is, the United Nations Nlultidimensional Integrated Stabilisation l\1ission in Mali (tvITNUST\.-1A), was carrying out construction works on the plots of land. 12. They immediately infonned the Government Department, the Court Bailiff at Gao, to take official notice of the occupation of the t,vo plots or land. The Bailiff accompanied by an officer of l'insitut Geographique du Mali, officially visited the land and noticed that the development being carried out by MlNUSMA had encroached on a surface area of 39a 22ca or land belonging to the first Applicant. 13. The first Applicant also reported the matter to tv1INU SMA to complain about the encroachment on his land, requesting that they quit the location. In response, MThTUSMA handed over a letter No 0223/MDEAFP-SG dated 19 May 2014, from the Honourable l\'Jinister of Foreign Affairs, authorising the handing over of the plots of I.and to MINUSlvf A. 14. The Applicants argued that the approval of allocation of the undeveloped land belonging to the Applicants, to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the needs of MlNUSMA in GAO, is illegal and detrimental LO the ownership of private property. 15. They further claim that in June 2016, the construction works of MTNUSMA had covered the entire plots of land belonging to the Applicants and despite their protests, they have continued to occupy the plots of land. 16. The Applicants fi.1rther stated that since then, they have made several efforts to inform the Minister of Foreign A !Tai rs of this illegal occupation and requested reparation for the loss and prejudice they suffered. They also requested for compensatory remit:ance on their land in the form of rent. Despite undertakings made by the 1'v1inister of Foreign Affairs to take measures to ensure that something was done on the iSSLte, two years after, no step has been taken by the Respondent to compensate the Applicants. 17. The Applicants express their powerlessness as they realise that they have lost their land to the Government. They state that they have suffered moral, psychological, physical and financial torment, as well as true and serious prejudice, having been denied every form of compensation by the Respondent. b) Picas in law 18. TI,e Applicants relied on the following laws: 1. Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (lJDHR) and Article 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Charter), on the right co property. 11. Article 13 of the Constitution of Mali. m. Article 293 of the Malian Code Concerning State Owned and Privately Owned Lands. iv. Article 295 of the ~falian Code Concerning State Owned and Privately Owned Lands. c) Reliefs sought 19. The Applicants' prayers are as follows: 1. A Finding of the Court that the Respondent is in violation of their right to property; 11. An Order of Court for the Respondent to pay a compensation of three hundred and fifty CFA Francs (CFA 350,000,000 FCFA) to the first Applicant; 111. An Order of Court for the Respondent to pay compensation of three hundred and fifty Cf A Francs (CFA 350,000,000 FCFA) to the second Applicant; 1v. An Order of Cou1t that the Respondent bears the costs of the proceedings. VI. RESP01VDENT'S CASE a) Summary of facts 20. Tbe Respondent submits that on 1 July 2013, the Government of the Republic of Mali concluded an agreement with the United Nations regarding the status of its mission in l\1ali, that is, lvUNUStvfA. In furtherance of this agreement, the Government of:tvfali through its Ministry of Foreign Affairs allocated two plots of land to MTNUSl'vfA al GAO, for the purposes of building its headt:uaiters and other premises required for conducting its operational and administrative activities. 21 . The Respondent did not deny the fact that the land allocated to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the purposes of MIN1JSMA belongs to the Applicants and that they are the title owners of the land titles No. 1788 and 1789. 22. The Respondenl confirmed lhat they are aware that on 6 September 2016, the 1st Applicant wrote a complaint letter to the tvrinistry of foreign Affairs, asking for compensation for the expropriation of his land. 23 . However lhey stale that the issue originated from an e1Tor of demarcation of the land and not a willful occupation of privately owned propetty belonging to the Applicants, which can be resolved by a reco1maissance or the plols of ltmd at stake. 24. The Respondent contends that in any case, the matter is a dispute between Slate and individual citizens, which is not characteristic of a human rights violation and urges lhe Court to disrniss the case. 25. Regarding the claim for compensation made by the Applicanls, the Respondent argues that lheir claim of three hundred and ti fi:y million FCF A as compensation is not objective or reasonable. They state that when the Applicanls purchased the plots o~ land in 2011, they were sold for one million, three hundred and eighty seven thousand, two hundred and sixly fCF A (FCP A 1, 387,260) per plot of Janel. They further state that the plots of land are undeveloped and were not evaluated by the Applicants. 26. The Respondent concludes by praying the Court to dismiss the claims of the Applicants as unsubstantiated. VJL J(lRTSDTCTTOlV 27. The Respondent raised an objection on the jurisdiction of the Court on the ground that the case is not characteristic of a human rights violation, as it concerns a dispute betvveen the State and individual citizens. The Applicant on its part did not make any submission in regard to this objection. 28. The competence of the Court is derived from Article 9(4) of the Supplementary Protocol, which deals with the jurisdiction of the Court. lt provides, "The Court has jurisdiction to determine cases of violation of human rights that occur in any lvlember Stare. " 29. The Court notes that the subject matter of the Application is an allegation of expropriation of the lands of the Applicants, which is within the remit of Article 14 of the African Charter. 30. The Court notes the asse1tion of the Respondent in its submission, wherein it states that the dispute is between individual citizens and the State and should not be characterised as a human rights violation. In regard to this assertion, the Court recalls its jurisprudence in which it has established that a mere invocation of the violation of human rights by an Applicant is sufficient to empower the Court to assume jurisdiction over the case. In KAREEl'vl ?v1EISSA WADE V. REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL, (2013) CCJELR PAGE. 259 PARAGRAPH 95(3), this Court held that: "Simply invoking a human riihts violation in a case suffices to establish the jurisdiction of the Court over that case. " See SF. RAP V. FRN & 4 OTHERS F. CWiCCJ/JlJDil6/ 14. See also RAKARE SARRE V MALI, (20 11) CCJ ELR PJ\(lF, 57 AND DR. G EORCF, s. ROLEY V THE REPUBLIC 01' LIRERIA & 3 ORS. ECW/CCJ!JUD/24/19. 3 1. Tn the i.nstant case, the Applicants alleged that the Respondent violated their rights to property. Based on the provisions or Article 9(4) of the Supplementary Protocol, these allegations being of human rights character sufficiently clothes the Court with jurisdiction to hear the Application. 32. Tn view of the above, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction to consider the Application and accordingly dism:sses the objection of the Respondent to that effect. Vlll. A. Dil1JSSIBI LITY 33. The Court holds that the Application is admissible. IX. 1\1ERITS On the alleged violation of the right to property Analysis of the Court 34. Atticle 14 of the Charter which regulates the right to property states as follows: "The right to property shall te J,ritaranteed. ft may only be encroached upon in the interest ~f public need or in the general interest of the community and in accordance with the provisions <~/appropriale laws.·· 35 . In order to put in ckar perspective the arguments of both parties, it is necessary at this point to define "Property". The European Cou1t of Human Right (ECHR) held that, "In considering the provisio11s o.fArticle I of-Protocol No. I <>Jthe European Court of Human Right;1· which is pari-material with Article 14 of the Charter, the concept of property or possession is very broadly interpreted. It covers a range of economic interests which include: movable or immovable property, tangible or intangible interests, such as shares, pa1en1s, an arbitration award, the entitlement to pension, the right to exercise a profession, a landlord"s entitlement to rent, the economic interests connected with the running l>/a business. " See CENTRO EUROPA 7 S. R. L. AND DI STEFANO V. ITALY (APPLICATION NO. 38433i09) JlJDUMENT STRASBOURG 7 JUNE 2012. This definition was also adopted in the case of REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF ASSOCIATION OF fOR!vfER TELECOM EMPLOYEES OF Nl<l ERIA V FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & ORS, ECW/CC.li.fl JDi20il 9 UN REPORTED. 36. Tn the instant case, the first Applicant pleaded that a land measuring I ha 2a 76ca was allocated to him and registered in the Lands Registry as Title No 1788 of Cercle de GAO. The second Applicant also pleaded an allocation of land equally measuring 1 ha 2a 76ca and registered under Land Title No 1787 of Cercle de GAO. These two plots of land are adjacent to each other and are located at Quaitier Chateau EST in the town of GAO. By the definition above, the subject matt-er being immoveable assets are within the contemplation of the meaning of property and are thus so classified. 37. Having established that the subject matter of the Applicants' claim is property, it is now necessary to analyse the provision and content of Article I 4 of the Charter viz a viz the fact3 presented by both parties. The import of Aiticle 14 is three fo ld; 1) It places obligation on State Parties to respect and protect the right to property of all and therefore ensure a peacefol enjoyment of this right. 2) However the right is not absolute, it accommodates interference by the State of the peaceful enjoyment of prope1ty based on recognised law - domestic or international. 3) The right to interfere is equally not absolute as it provides two safeguards in its exercise as follows: a) The interference must be in the :nterest of the public or general interest of the community that is; the legitimacy of purpose and b) the interference must be in accordance with the !aw; that is the legality of the law. The application of the safeguards of legitimacy of purpose and legality of the la,v is cumulative, in other words the non-compliance of any amounts to the violation of Article l4. 38. In determini ng whether the Respondent violated this right, Lhe facts must establish the following: a) That the Appl icant has a proprietary interest or right over the said property. b) That there was an interference with the possession by the Respondent. c) Thal the inlerferencc was for public purpose. d) That the interference was in accordance with the appropriate laws. a) Proof of Applicants' proprietary interest. over the said property. 39. Thc hallmark of a violation of property is proof of o,vnership. Every applicanl whether a natural or legal person must be able to demonstrate the existence of a proprietary right over the prope1ty at stake in order to qualify as a victim under the Charter. 40. The pleadings or the Applicants clearly established with documentary evidence their proprietary intereslS and righl over the disputed property derived from the authority of the Respondent and confirmed by their registration in the Land Regis:ry of the Respondent. Tndeed, the Respondent did not deny the fact thal lhe Applicants are the legal holders of the lands with titles No 1788 and 1789. Since the proprietary rights of the Applicants is not dispulcd by tl".e Respondent, the Cou11 hastens to hold that same has been established in favour of the two Applicants who have demonstrated the existence of a right over the listed immoveable properties. b) Proof that there was an interference with the said property by the Respondent. 41. 'While the Court is satisfied that the Applicants have established their proprietary interests in the said property, they must also prove thal the Respondent interfered with the peaceful enjoyment of their rights denying them the use or the said lands. It is the case of the Applicants that they suddenly noticed the presence of \tfTNlJSMA on their property and when they were confronted, a letter from the Foreign Affairs Jvfinistry was produced showing the lands have been allocated to them (MINUSMA). It is instructive that the Respondent did not deny this fact. Rather, they ascribed the act to an error, which a re-demarcation will con-ect. The intrusion on the land by NIINUSJvlA is a clear de facto deprivation of the Applicants' peaceful enjoyment of their property. 42.ln addressing this point, the Cou1t aligns with the opinion of the ECHR below; "The essence of deprivation <.>f property is the extinction of the legal right of the owner, however, the Court will not only take into account whether there has been a formal expropriation or tran.~fer ~f ownership but will investigate to see whether there has been a de facto expropriation." (Righi io Property Under the European Convention on Human Rights- lfuman Rights 1-!andbook No JO). 43. The fact that construction work by another party was in progress on the Applicants' lands is evidence of an effective takeover of the property of the Applicants and is nothing short of a de facto interforence which hindered their quiet enj oyment of the lands. In essence, the Applicant was dispossessed of their immoveable property and prevented from putting up any construction of their choice. 44. Since this allegation of interference is uncontrovertcd by the Respondent, the Court holds that the Applicants have proved that the Respondent interfered with the quiet enjoyment of the possession of the said property and 1s therefore in violation of Article 14 of the Charter. c) ProoJ' that the interference was in accordance with the appropriate laws. 45. Even though the requirement for legality is stated as the last condition under the Article, it is imperative that interference with the right of property must first satisfy the requirement oflegality. 46. In addressing whether the Respondent acted in accordance wiU1 the Law when it confiscated the Applicants' property, it is necessary to reproduce again the provision or Article 14 of the Chai1er, which is pari-material with Atticle 1 7 of the UDHR upon which this Application is prcm.ised. Article 14 of the Charter prov.ides: "The right to property shall be guaranteed. ft may only be encroached upon in the interest ofpublic need or in the general interest <~/'the community and in accordance with the provisions of appropriate laws. " Emplut.<.is ours 47. The principle of legality .is inherent in the Charter as a whole and must be complied with, whichever of the other conditions of Article 14 applies. Th.is is more so that no action can survive on illegality, which is captured in the Latin phrase: Ex turpi causa non-oritur actio. 48. The Court will now proceed to address the requirement of legality of the law, which is whether the interference was in accordance with the law. The purpose of the phrase "in accordance with lhe law" is to ensure that domestic legislative or judicial authority limits the scope for arbitrary tampering with rights by the executive. In FESTUS A. O. OGWlJCHE V. FEOER/\L REPUBLIC 01' NIGERIA, ECW/CCJ/JUD/02/18, PAGE 23, the Court held that, " ... the principle (.}j1egality is aji.mdamental aspect ofall international human rights instruments and indeed !he rule of law in Keneral. ft is a basic guarantee against the state's arbitrary exercise of its powers. For this reason, any restriction on human rights must be "provided" or ··prescribed" by law." 49. In considering whether the alleged interference is in accordance with the Law, the Coult must first identify the law under which the Respondem acted. In this wise the Court notes that the Applicants placed before the Court three laws governing the expropriation of land in the Respondents State. l) Article 13 of the Constitution of Mali, which provides, "The right to property shall be guaranteed. Expropriation shall only take place fr.,r public utility purposes and against a jus/ and prior compensation." 2) Article 293 of the Malian Code Concerning State-Owned and Privately Owned Lands, which states that, "Expropriation fen· public utility purposes shaL! be carried out upon the dictates of the law. No one shall si!fjer expropriation save .for puhlic utility purposes and upon payment of a just and prior compensation. " 3) Article 295 of the same code, provides that, "Expropriation shall not be pronounced until the puhlic utility purpose is declared and 1aken note of in forms described in the following articles ... " 50. Indeed the combined effect of these Articles are as follows; expropriation shall only take place when; l) it is carried out upon the dictates or the law; 2) it is for public utili ty; 3) upon payment of just and prior compensation; 4) a declaration in the prescribed form of the intended public use. 51.lt is the contention of the Applicants that none of these conditions precedent was observed before the expropriation. They stated that Respondent did not inform them before entry upon their land. Tndeed it was their confrontation ofMINUMSA that elicited a letter No 0223/MDEAFP SG dated l 9 May 2014 w1itten by the Foreign Affairs l\1inistry granting them right to build their headquarters. Furthcnnore, the Applicants insist that no public purpose was declared in the prescribed 101111s and no compensation was paid prior to the expropriation. 52. The Respondent did not deny tl:at prior notice was not given to the Applicants nor that compensation was not paid, rather they queried the quantum of compensation claimed since no valuation of the property was carried out by the Applicants. 53. Tn view of the above, the Court finds that the Respondent has not established that it acted in accordance with the law, and therefore holds that the Respondent is in violation of Article 14 of the Charter. d) Proof tlutt the encroachment W(IS for public purpose or gefler{l/ i11terest of the comnumity. 54. Even though the requirement for legality is stated as the last condition under Article 14, the Cou1i has earlier stated that the application of the last two provisos in the Article is cumulative. That is, a violation of one is a violation of the entire provision. In this regard, the Court aligns itself with the opinion of the ECHR below which prioritises legality of the law over the other conditions, "Should the Courl establish that the inte,ference with the properly right was not in accordance ivith the Law, it does not need to consider legitimacy of'the state of?jectives or the issue of proportionality. In this case. there will aulomali::a/ly he a violation of Article I of Protocol 1 of the Convention which is (pari material with Article 14 of the Charle,~ and it will be unnecesswy for the Court 10 even consider whether such unlawfiil interferences pursued a legitimate purpose" (Right To Property Under The European Convention on Human Rights- Human Rights Handbook No 10 Page I 5). 55. Based on the above, and having held that the interference by the Respondent is not in accordance with the I ,aw and thus unlawful, the Court will accordingly not proceed to examine whether it meets the requirement of public purpose. \Vhether the expropr.iation of the Applicants' property without a fair and prior compensation violates the Applicants' right to property. 56. The case of the Applicants is that following the expropriation of their prope1ty no compensation was paid prior to and thereafter the act; consequently they claimed that the Respondent violated their right to property. The RespondenL did not controvert this claim. Analysis of tlte Court 57. The requirement or payment of compensation in cases of violation of the right to property when confiscation has been established LS a catch 22 for the Respondent because whichever way it swings, compensation is obligatory. In a situation where the intervention is lawful that is to say it meets the legality of the law and legitimacy of purpose, the Applicant is still entitled to compensation where restilutio in integrum is not possible. Conversely where the interference is unlawful, it goes without saying that compensation is imperative to remedy the loss on the developments carried out on the property and other cost associated with the action of the Respondent. 58.ln addition, when the State has found it necessary to compu lsorily acquire a property belonging to an individual or group, it is expected to give prior notice and offer compensation to such individual or group in a prompt manner. See African Cou1t on Human and Peoples' Rights' (AICJ-TI)R) decision in Afl{JCAN COMMISSION ON FIUMA~ /\ND PEOPLES' RIGHTS V KENYA, APPT. TCATION ~O. 006/2012, JUOGMENT OF 26 lv1AY 2017, wherein it stated "The Court holds that by expelling !he OKieks from their ancestral lands against their will, without p•·ior consultation and without respecting the conditions c?f expulsion in the interest c!f public need, 1he Respondent violated their riJihts to land as defined ahove and as guaranteed by Article 14 CJ/" the Charter. " 59. The Principles and Guidelines on ,he Implementation of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights captures the whole essence of botl1 the obligation of State and right of an applicant as it relates to ownership or a property and supports all the analysis proffered above by the Court.. The principles asselt that State Parties shall; a. Ensure peac~ful enjoyment of property and protection fi·om .fhrced eviction. This obligation implies tha1 1he State shall protec/ 1he enjoyment in all its.forms, from interference by third parties as well as its own agents. b. Define by law the terms and conditions .fcJr the acquisition. nationalisation or expropriation of property based on acting in the public interest at all times. c. Ensure !hat "public need or in the general interest of the community" as expressed under the Charter serves legitimme public interest objectives such as economic re.form or measures designed to achieve greater social }us/ ice. d. Ensure effective public parlicipation and transparency tn any acquisition process. e. Ensure that compensation .for public acquisition <?I' property fairly balances the rights of the individual and the wider inlerests (~fsociely. in general. compensation should be reasonably related to the market value of the acquired property. However, in certain circumstances public interest may require fess than market value compensation or, exceplionally, none at all" 60. Having found that no compensation was paid to the Applicant prior to or aner the encroachment of its property, the Coun bolds that fai lure of the Respondent to compensate the Applicants violates their right to propetty contrary to Article 14 of the Charter. X. REPARATJOlVS 61. The Applicants claim that following the denial of their right to property, they have suffered moral prejudice, that is, psychological, physical and financial torment. They then prayed the Court to award tlU"ee hundred and fifty million CF A Francs (CF A350, 000,000) each, for the hanns they have suffered. On the other hand the Respondent argued that the compensation claimed is neither objective nor reasonable. Analysis of the Court 62. Tt is an established principle of international law and the jurisprudence of this Court, that when a State has teen found in violation of the rights of an individual(s), it shall take measures to give effective remedies to the victim(s), these includes restitution and compensation. See DJOT Ui\ YJ TAT. BIA & ORS V l<'EDERA I. REPUBLIC Of NIGERIA & 3 ORS, SUIT NO ECWiC:CJ//\PP/ 10/06 (2004-2009) C:C. IELR, 267; and AFCHPR decision in REVEREND CHRISTOPHER R. MTIKILA V UNITED REPCBLIC OF TANZANIA (REPARATIONS)(2014) I AFCHPR 72. PARAGRAPH 29. 63.ln light of its r111ding that the Respondent Si.ale violated the rights of the Applicants to property, contrary to the Charter and UDHR, the Court holds that the Applicants are entitled t0 compensation. 64. Rcparntion for violation of the right of an applicant includes restitution and compensation amongst others. Restitution in this instance implies restoring the Applicants as far as possible to their status quo. In view of the fact that the prope1ties in question are already occ.upied by MlNUS.tvlA, such order has become otiose. The Court will instead seek to award compensation in value of the current market price of the property and a sum appropriate for moral prejudice suffered due lo lack of use of the property. 65.ln computing the compensation payable, the Court noted that the Respondent argued that the compensation claimed is neither objective nor reasonable. Additionally, that the Applicants did not provide a valuation report in suppo1t of the amount of three hundred and fifty million FCFA (350, 000,000 FCFA) claimed. In view of this lapse and in the interest of justice, the Court in exercising its power under Article 45 of the Rules of Court ordered the Registry on the 9th of December 2019 to appoint an expert to conduct a professional appraisal of the market value of the properties in question. 66. An Expett (El Hadj :Vfamdou Drame) to which both parties submitt.ed having carried out the Order or the Cou1t, submitted a report wherein the current value of each property is put al two hundred and eighty-eight million, four hundred and eleven thousand, two hundred FCFA (FCFA288 411 200). This is so because the sizes of both lands are the same, they therefore each attract the same value. 67. The Court hereby adopts the valuation report of the expert and accordingly orders the Respondent to pay each Applicant the sum of two hundred and eighty-eight million, four hundred and eleven thousand, two hundred . FCF A (FCF A288 41 l 200), commensurate to the current market value of the lands compulsorily acquired. 68. The Court equally awards the sum often million FCFA (10,000,000 FCFA) to each Applicant, as compensation for the moral prejudice they suffered as a result of loss of use of their property compulsorily acquired by the Respondent. XI. COSTS 69. Aiticle 66 (1) of the Rules provides, "A decision as to costs shall be given in the.final judgment or in the order, which closes the proceedings ... " 70. A.nicle 66 (2) of the Rules of Court provides, "The unsuccessful party shall he ordered to pay costs if they have been applied fhr in the success/id par1y's pleadings." 71. The Applicants prayed the Comt to order the Respondent to bear the costs of the proceedings. The Respondent on its part made no submission as to costs. 72. Pursuant to the provision of Article 66 (2) of the Rules, the Applicants ought to make an application regarding costs with foll details of expenses incu1Ted for the proceedings before the Court. In the instant case, the Applicants did not provide such details. However, the Court orders the Chief Registrar to assess cost payable. Xii. OPERATIVE CLAUSE For the reasons stated above the Court s itting m public after hearing both pa1iies: As to jurisdiction: 1. Declares that it has jurisdiction. As to admissibility: 11. Declares the application admissible As to merits: 111. Finds the violation of the Applicants' rights to property by the Respondent contrary to Article to Article 14 of the Charter; As to reparation: Orders 1v. The Respondent to pay the first Applicant the sum of two hundred and eighty-eight million, four hundred and eleven thousand, two hundred FCF A (FCF A 288 411 200), as compensation for violation of his right to prope1ty; v. The Respondent to pay the second Applicant the sum of two hundred and eighty-eight million, four hundred and eleven thousand, two hundred FCFA (fCF A 288 411 200), as compensation for violation of her right to property; v1. 111e Respondent lo pay the first Applicant, ten million FCF A (FCFA I 0,000,000), as compensation for moral prejudice caused to him; v11. The Respondent State to pay the second Applicant ten million FCFA (FCf A l 0,000,000), as compensation for moral prejudice caused to her. As to compliance and reporting viii. Orders the Respondent State to submit to the Court within three (3) months of the date of the notification of this judgment a report on the measures taken to implement the orders set-fo1th herein. ix. The Court hereby orders the Chief Registrar to assess cost payable. Hon. J ustice Gberi-Be OUATTARA lion, Justice Dupe ATOKI Hon. Justice Januaria T. Silva .l\'loreira COSTA Mr. Tony ANENE- MAJDOH Done in Abuja, this 91 1> Day of March 2021 in English and translated into French and Portuguese. 26