Niger CAPA Avocat common mistakes
Niger CAPA Avocat · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Reciting the conditions of a civil action (intérêt, qualité, capacité) in the abstract without applying them to the facts given in the case study, then concluding that the action is admissible without checking each condition against the named parties.
Candidates memorise the textbook list and treat it as the answer, so they stop reading the facts once they recognise the topic. The CAPA case study rewards application, not recitation, and a bare list earns only the recall marks.
What to do instead
After writing each condition, add one sentence naming the party and the fact that satisfies or defeats it (e.g. 'X, héritier, a qualité; son intérêt est né le jour du décès'). Practise by rewriting past case studies so that every legal rule is followed by a fact-specific sentence.
Confusing the délais de procédure with the délais de prescription and missing the point de départ: applying the right number of years but starting the clock from the wrong event (e.g. from the damage instead of from the consolidation of the injury, or from the breach instead of from the knowledge of it).
Time limits are learned as bare numbers in revision tables, detached from the triggering event. Under exam pressure the candidate grabs the number and invents a starting point.
What to do instead
Build a one-page table with three columns: rule, duration, point de départ, and add the interruption/suspension rules. For each entry write the fact pattern that triggers it. Redo the table from memory weekly until the point de départ is automatic.
Drafting a criminal procedure answer that mixes up the roles and powers of the parquet, the juge d'instruction and the chambre d'accusation (or their equivalents), for example attributing to the parquet an acte d'instruction that only the juge can order.
The phases of the procès pénal are studied as a narrative flow rather than as a map of competences, so the candidate remembers the sequence but not who does what at each stage.
What to do instead
Draw the procedural chain as a diagram with each authority in a box and arrows labelled with the acts it can perform. Then answer three past questions using only the diagram, checking each attribution before writing.
Qualifying the facts of a commercial dispute without first checking whether the act is commercial by nature or by form, and without checking the status of the parties (commerçant, artisan, société commerciale), which leads to the wrong court and the wrong set of rules.
Candidates jump to the substantive rule (e.g. solidarité, preuve libre) because it is the memorable part, skipping the preliminary qualification step that determines whether that rule applies at all.
What to do instead
Impose a fixed first paragraph in every commercial answer: nature of the act, status of each party, resulting court and rule of proof. Do not write anything else until that paragraph is complete.
Treating OHADA uniform acts as if they reproduced the French civil or commercial code, for example citing the French regime of the société à responsabilité limitée or of the redressement judiciaire instead of the AUSCGIE and the AUPC.
Most preparation material is French and the OHADA texts are learned late and superficially, so under pressure the candidate reverts to the familiar French rule.
What to do instead
For each OHADA topic, write a two-column sheet: 'règle OHADA' versus 'règle française correspondante', and note the article of the uniform act. In mock answers, cite the uniform act article number every time a rule is stated.
Answering a labour law question by stating the general rule of the code du travail while ignoring the collective agreement, the internal règlement and the hierarchy of norms, so the conclusion contradicts the conventional provision that the facts clearly invoke.
The hierarchy of sources is understood in theory but not operationalised; candidates treat the statute as the only source and skip the conventional layer.
What to do instead
Adopt a reflex checklist for every labour question: constitution and treaties, law, convention collective, accord d'entreprise, règlement intérieur, contrat. State explicitly which level governs and why the lower level is or is not more favourable.
In administrative law, arguing the legality of an administrative act on the merits (was the decision fair, was the sanction proportionate) when the question is one of compétence or of procedure, and thereby missing the ground that actually succeeds.
Candidates transpose the private-law reflex of substantive fairness and do not systematically run through the grounds of illegality in order.
What to do instead
Before writing, run the fixed sequence: compétence, forme et procédure, motivation, base légale, qualification des faits, buts et motifs, proportionnalité. Write one line per ground, even to eliminate it, before choosing the winning ground.
Confusing the content and effects of constitutional review with those of administrative review: attributing to the Constitutional Court the annulment of administrative acts or the awarding of damages, or describing the effects of a constitutional decision as if it were an individual remedy.
Institutional jurisdiction tables are memorised as names and article numbers without a functional description, so organs get blurred under exam stress.
What to do instead
Keep a jurisdiction matrix: organ, acts reviewed, grounds, effects of the decision, who may seize it. Test yourself by writing, for five random acts, which organ could review them and with what outcome.
In private international law, applying the substantive law of the forum without first resolving the conflict-of-laws question, or invoking the ordre public exception without identifying the foreign rule that would be contrary and the effect of that exception.
The method (règle de conflit, qualification, renvoi, ordre public, fraude) is abstract and candidates collapse it into a single-step answer because it feels faster.
What to do instead
Force a written four-step skeleton for every PIL question: qualification of the situation, identification of the règle de conflit, designation of the applicable law, then control by ordre public. Do not merge the steps in a single paragraph.
Writing a pleading or an acte that narrates the facts chronologically and only mentions the law at the end, without a demande formulated in precise terms (what is asked, of whom, on what legal basis, before which court), and without the mandatory mentions of the acte.
Candidates write as they would tell the story, because narrative is easier than structuring a claim, and they rely on memory for the formal mentions instead of checking them.
What to do instead
Use a fixed plan for every acte: faits qualifiés, prétentions chiffrées, moyens de droit articulés, dispositif. Keep a checklist of formal mentions and tick each one before finishing. Practise drafting the dispositif first, then build the body to support it.