CHAPTER ONE

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

Cameroon has a unique legal system which is reminiscent of its colonial past. It is referred to as a bi-jural country because during the colonial administration, the French introduced Civil law and in what was then East Cameroon while the English introduced the Common Law in what was then West Cameroon: this alludes to the dual application of the French and English legal traditions. Justice is very accessible in Cameroon. It is free of charge for litigants. In Cameroon, the modern justice system includes preliminary investigation, full trial and execution of the court’s judgment. It is further broken into criminal, civil and commercial, civil status and administrative justice and so on. With criminal justice, the state prosecutes free and foots the bill of criminal matters up to execution of court judgments^[1].

The administration is the one who makes the laws sometimes, but can it be made liable for his actions under the law which it makes. The personnel in the administration, both make and implement the laws, and if they commit any negligence because of which harm is caused to any individual, then can he make a claim against the administration, under the law of the land[2].

Disputes in which the administration is a party can be decided by the ordinary courts, those which hear disputes between individuals: this is the system of the unity of the litigation retained in particular in the Anglo-Saxon countries[3]. France, for its part, has gradually instituted, since the 1789 Revolution, a specific system of control over the administration, the system of administrative justice whose existence apart is considered by doctrine to be logical and even beneficial, taking into account the peculiarity of public affairs: this the dual system of litigation. Cameroon has stuck to compromises borrowing a part of the unity of litigation consecrated in Anglo-Saxon countries and part of the duality of litigation system adopted in France by combining them in a national system of structural duality and functional separation[4].

Tracing the evolution of Administrative justice in Cameroon leads us to make a distinction between the period from the colonial era to the constitutional reform of 1996 and that dating from 1996 to the present. From its institution during the colonial period until the constitutional reform of 1996, administrative justice was marked by its centralization and its lack of autonomy. The Centralization of Administrative Justice manifests itself in the absence of decentralized administrative jurisdictions, as was the case until the constitutional reform of 1996[5]. The bicultural nature of Cameroon has largely influenced the development of administrative litigation. Indeed, under the Franco-British administration instituted by the regime of the mandate, then of the trusteeship, the rule of the unity of the litigation prevailed in the part of Cameroon entrusted to Great Britain: the common law judge was also an administrative judge. It was a different story in French Cameroon. France had extended there, from 1920, its jurisdictional dualism. A decree of April 14, 1920 created the first Cameroonian administrative jurisdiction, namely the Conseil du Contentieux Administratif (CCA) of Cameroon which took decisions liable to appeal to the French Conseil d’Etat sitting in Paris. The Conseil du Contentieux Administratif was replaced by the Tribunal d’Etat (TE) of Cameroon created by Decree No. 83 of June 4, 1959 and intended to hear administrative disputes first and last.

On the eve of its independence, French Cameroon set up its very first Supreme Court thanks to Order No. 59/86 of 17 December 1959 on the judicial organization of the State. But this reform will have no impact on administrative litigation which will remain unchanged until the law of June 20, 1961 which extended the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, making it also competent to hear appeals against decisions of the Tribunal d’Etat.

In favor of the reunification and creation of the Federal State, the organization of the administrative jurisdiction was adjusted. The advent of the Unitary State led to changes in Cameroonian administrative litigation. The Federal Court of Justice was replaced by a Supreme Court, composed in administrative matters of an Administrative Bench, judge of first resort and a Full Bench, judge of appeal. The new administrative Bench and the new Full Bench were all centralized in Yaoundé. This state of affairs made administrative justice very inaccessible to potential litigants who were in remote areas of the country[6].

The constitutional reform of 1996 brought substantial changes to administrative justice. The Administrative Bench is maintained, but it becomes a judge of second resort for decisions of the Administrative Courts, replacing the Full Bench, which has been abolished. In 2006, there was the enactment of Law No. 2006/022 of 29 December 2006 establishing the organization and functioning of the Administrative Courts in Cameroon. This law with Law N^o 2006/016 of December 29, 2006[7] repealed the previous texts in matters of Administrative litigation. The Law created in the capital of each of the ten regions of the country a competent Administrative Court.

• STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The main problem confronted in the administration of justice in Cameroon including Administrative justice is the problem of independence of the judiciary; the executive in Cameroon dominates the other arms of government. This domination of the judiciary by the executive makes it difficult to try administrative authorities as they can always influence the justice system and thus this makes in most cases adherence to the lay down procedure before the Administrative Court not to be followed.

Another problem faced in the administration of justice in Cameroon is the adoption of archaic statutes that were largely meant to nurture a colonial society among others which are now part of our laws even till date. For justice to be properly administered in the country there ought to be a strict application of the principle of separation of power. This unfortunately is not practice in Cameroon. The Minister of Justice has the power to stop at any time any proceeding going on in court through the Procureur General.

Another problem faced in administrative litigation in Cameroon is the problem of impunity. There is serious administrative impunity in the country as administrative authorities commit crimes and go scotch-free in most cases without any punishment.

There is equally the problem of access to justice as administrative courts are only found in regional headquarters. This makes it difficult for persons in remote areas to access the courts as most persons in remote areas do not even know that the administration can be held liable for their action or inaction.

• RESEARCH QUESTIONS
  • Main Research Question

What is the procedure before the Administrative Court?

• Specific Research Questions
• How are preliminary investigations conducted before trial in the Administrative Court?
• What are the conditions of filling matters before the Administrative Court?
• What is the procedure before the Administrative Court?
• What are the policy recommendations in order to improve on Administrative litigation in Cameroon?
• OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The objectives of this research are both general and specific.

1.4.1 General objective

The general objective of this work is to examine the procedure before the Administrative Courts in Cameroon.

1.4.2 Specific objectives

1. To analyze the pre-litigation stage before trial in the Administrative Court.
2. To examine the conditions of filling matters before the Administrative Court.
3. To critically assess the procedure before the Administrative Court.
4. To make policy recommendations in order to improve on Administrative litigation in Cameroon.