Lysongo v The Foreign And Commonwealth Office & Anor

An English court cannot adjudicate a claim dependent on treating acts within the United Nations trusteeship and decolonisation scheme as domestic wrongs where the relevant arrangements were not incorporated into English law and United Nations acts are immune from suit. Termination of a trusteeship under the United Nations scheme removed the administering State’s authority and did not create an enduring English-law trust or domestic cause of action. Alleged human rights violations do not, without more, remove State immunity for sovereign acts.

The claimant sought declarations and damages against the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Republic of Cameroon concerning the transfer of the former British Southern Cameroons from United Kingdom administration to Cameroon in 1961. He alleged that the trusteeship had been unlawfully terminated, that the transfer lacked adequate treaty guarantees, and that the United Kingdom owed trust-like obligations to the population.

The FCO applied to strike out the claim for want of jurisdiction. The issues included whether the claim disclosed a domestic cause of action, whether the court could adjudicate upon United Nations instruments and acts, whether the trusteeship created an English-law trust, and whether Cameroon was protected by State immunity.

1. Application and disposition. The FCO’s application was allowed. The claim was struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and CPR 11.
2. United Nations scheme. The termination of the trusteeship followed United Nations resolutions and processes. The legality of the plebiscite options and the absence of further constitutional guarantees could not create an English-law cause of action. The United Nations had immunity from suit and legal process under para 6 of the United Nations and International Court of Justice (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974, made under s.1 of the International Organisations Act 1968.
3. Effect of termination. The court adopted the reasoning in Case Concerning the Northern Cameroons (Cameroon v United Kingdom) Preliminary Objections [1963] ICJ Reports, p.15. Once the trusteeship was validly terminated, the trust disappeared and the United Kingdom became functus officio, without continuing authority or responsibility in the territory. The High Court could not revive the trusteeship or invalidate the union.
4. No English-law trust. “Trusteeship” in the United Nations instruments described an international relationship directed towards decolonisation. It did not establish a proprietary or fiduciary trust enforceable in the Chancery Division. Article 5(a)’s grant of powers of legislation, administration and jurisdiction did not preserve a right to bring proceedings in the High Court after termination.
5. State immunity. The allegations against Cameroon concerned sovereign acts, and their gravity did not alter their character as acta jure imperii. Cameroon was therefore immune under s.1 of the State Immunity Act 1978.