On 28 November 2005 the Industrial Court delivered its decision in Amadou Oury Bah v. Libyan Embassy case' concerning immunities of diplomatic missions. The case raises a number of important legal issues not only on diplomatic immunity but also sovereign inmmunity. The importance of this case lies in the fact that the Court failed to take the opportunity to make a clear distinction between sovereign and diplomatic immunities. It used the two concepts interchangeably and treated them as referring to almost the same thing. As a result, the decision does not really provide clear guidance on the state of the law or the legal position on diplomatic innnunity in the country. This is particularly so when the case is compared with previous cases in the matter such as the Republic of Angola v. Springbok Investments (Ply) Ltd which dealt with sovereign immunity. The aim of this commentary is to examine and analyse the case in order to find out whether or not the case clearly articulates the legal position relating to diplomatic inmmnity and how the concept differs from sovereign or state immunity. Finally, it will be demonstrated that the two concepts; diplomatic immunity and sovereign immunity, although closely related are different and distinct both in law and practice.

Projects

Currently no objects available

Currently no objects available