ECOWAS Court Rules against Liberia in Ganta’s Land Dispute

The ECOWAS Court of Justice has ordered the Liberian government to pay a total sum of US$30,000 to Sekou Sanoe, an administrator of the late Nyama Sanoe’s Estate in Nimba County, as compensation for violation of his rights in a disputed land saga in Ganta, Nimba County. 

The regional court said the amounts of US$25,000 and US$5,000 are compensations meant for the violation of Sanoe’s right to property pursuant to Article 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (ACHPR ).

Sanoe (the second applicant) and the Ganta Support Group (the first applicant), a non-governmental organization, filed a joint suit against the Respondent, accusing it of violating the human rights of the Mandingo people of the county in breach of several fundamental human rights treaties.

The court also ordered Liberia to take all necessary steps to restore the applicants’ rights to their ancestral home and to ensure that, in the future, a similar occurrence is avoided in compliance with Article 1 of the ACHPR, which guarantees the rights of its citizens.

In the judgment, a three-panel judge of the court led by Justice Gberi -Be Ouattara mandated the government to submit to the court within a period of six months from the date of the notification of the judgment a report on the measures taken to implement the orders.

"There are in evidence some details provided by way of title deeds of the owner showing how much the property was acquired,” Ouattara ruled. 

According to him, the court holds the view that the second applicant, who submitted evidence of title indicating how much the property was acquired, should be considered for compensation.

 "This is so because, in the instant case, the property of the second applicant was acquired for US$30 in the year 1959." the judgment added. "The court, therefore, notes the evidence of the title deed, which bears the consideration at which it was acquired, as sufficient information that will aid its decision with respect to the determination of the quantum of compensation; and in the absence of a valuation certificate, taking into consideration also the monetary exchange value at the time of purchase, the title deed is persuasive evidence.

“The court finds that the second applicant produced evidence of a property right to the land, which enabled it to reach a decision that his property interest was breached and resulted in a violation. Consequently, the court orders that the respondent pay US$25,000 to the second applicant as compensation for the violations of his property rights."

On the contention of the first applicant, the court said, "It finds that the first applicant, representing the Mandingo people, failed to provide a detailed list of names of persons whose properties were alleged to have been occupied by agents of the respondent, including addresses of the properties so far occupied, but referred to them as a tribal unit, this will make an itemized form of compensation difficult if not impossible."

This does not mean the right to property was not violated. What it means is that the court cannot award monetary compensation individually.

"In circumstances such as these, the court will order the respondent to take all necessary steps to restore the applicants to their ancestral home, especially when there is evidence that the respondent has identified and listed most of the illegal occupants and has paid compensation to them."

According to the court, the wrongful act is attributed to the respondent, who is obligated to promote and safeguard the rights of its citizens, which include the right to property.

"The court consequently finds that the respondent failed in its obligation to promote and protect the applicants' right to property,” the ECOWAS Court judgment said.

On the issue of providing an effective remedy, the general principle of law, the judgment said, postulates that where there is injury, there must be a remedy.

"The right to a remedy is one of the fundamental principles of international law enshrined in various human rights treaties, such as Article 2(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 14 of the Convention against Torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, and also affirmed by various international and regional courts," the judgment noted.

“The facts and evidence of the present case show that the respondent cannot be absolved of liability with respect to its obligation. In consequence, therefore, the court finds that by failing to take further remedial action with respect to the applicants, the respondent is in breach of its international obligations pursuant to Article 1 of the ACHPR."

The court, having found that the respondent did not challenge the applicants' rights to the ownership of properties that were occupied by its agents, views such occupation as illegal and therefore amounts to a violation of the applicants' property rights pursuant to Article 14, and recalling that the applicants have sought compensation for the violations claimed, herein the court will now determine whether they are entitled to compensation, " adds the court judgment.

In suit no: ECW/CCJ/APP/20/18, the applicants, through their Counsel, Mr Femi Falana, and three other lawyers, alleged that they were filing the application jointly on behalf of eight hundred and twenty-three displaced and victimized family heads of the Mandingo people of Nimba County. 

They further accused the government of violating the rights to property, life, personal integrity, privacy, freedom of movement and residence, security, development, and peace of the 823 families.

The government, however, argued that Ganta is one of eight locations in Nimba County where the Mandingo people have been the owners of land and properties there since time immemorial. 

They again alleged that the Mandingo people had to flee from their homes after the first civil war broke out on December 24, 1990.

They further alleged that the civil wars lasted between 1989 and 1997 and from 1999 to 2003, during which the landed properties of the Mandingo people were taken over by the respondent, who allocated them to some of its agents.