JUDGMENT IN THE CASE BETWEEN KOMLAN RAYMOND KOUDO AND ECOWAS PARLIAMENT  –  ECOWAS Court Declares Application for Interpretation of Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/39/21 Inadmissible

The ECOWAS Court of Justice, on June 6, 2024, declared that the application for interpretation of the Judgment delivered by this Court in Case No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/39/21 was admissible.

The applicant, Komlan Raymond Koudo, a Senegalese citizen and former official of the ECOWAS Parliament, requested an order from this Court interpreting judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/39/21 delivered in his favour against ECOWAS Parliament. He also asked the Court not only to give effect to the judgment but to specify the amount to be paid to him by the Defendant, according to the right and interest accrued until May 24, 2022, when the Defendant paid a sum of $30,348.83 (Thirty Thousand Three Hundred Forty-Eight Dollars and Eighty-Three Cents).

Justice Ricardo Claúdio Monteiro Gonçalves, the Judge Rapporteur who delivered the judgment, said that the Court declared itself competent to interpret Judgment No. 39/21. However, it declared that it has no jurisdiction to order a municipal court to enforce Judgment No. 39/21 delivered by this Court in Case No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/39/21.

On September 30, 2020, the Applicant requested the ECOWAS Court of Justice for the payment of his entitlements. The Court ruled in his favor on October 27, 2021, ordering the Defendant to pay the Applicant his rights plus 5.5% interest on all sums owed. However, the Defendant refused to comply. Despite multiple reminders and a failed attempt to enforce the judgment in a national court, the Defendant only paid $30,348.83 on May 30, 2022. This amount significantly undercut the $3,297,904.00 calculated as owed by the Applicant.

Although duly served on 5th July 2022, the Defendant did not present its defense.

In its judgment, the Court found that it has ruled in many cases that the execution of its judgments does not fall within its jurisdiction. It added that the authority to enforce the

Court’s decisions cannot be given to a municipal court because, according to the 2005 Additional Protocol, this power was granted to the National Competent Authority.

It also found that the application for interpretation of Judgment No 39/21 in Case ECW/CCJ/JUD39/21) does not fulfill the conditions for admissibility of requests for interpretation of a judgment of the Court of Justice and is therefore inadmissible. The panel included Hon. Justice Dupe Atoki, presiding, and Hon. Justice Sengu Mohamed Koroma, Member.