Portée du principe de la représentation obligatoire par avocat devant la Cour Commune de Justice et d’arbitrage (CCJA) à l’aune de la pratique jurisprudentielle

Abstract

The law of the Organization for the Harmonization of Business Law in Africa (OHADA) enshrines the principle of compulsory representation by lawyer before its High Court, the Common Court of Justice and Arbitration (CCJA). It follows from this principle that any appeal before the CCJA and any related procedural document such as the reply or replication, not signed by a lawyer belonging to a Bar in the OHADA geographical area, are to be declared inadmissible. Notwithstanding the explicit consecration of this principle in OHADA law, the CCJA has been called upon on many occasions to define its contour. This paper examines the interpretation of this principle by this court. It first notes the scope of this principle as defined by the CCJA in relation to the criteria retained for the exercise of the ministry of counsel before its jurisdiction. Finally, it dwells on its jurisprudence concerning the form and statements of the special mandate to be given to the lawyer, on the one hand, and on the legal consequences attached to it, on the other hand. It concludes by pointing out that OHADA law, and the High Court in its jurisprudential practice, are more flexible and better adapted to the obligation of representation by a lawyer than the law of certain OHADA member states.