The African Court has recently decided on merits its first socio-economic rights case – ‘the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v Republic of Kenya’. The Court applied aspects of the teleological approach to interpretation to interpret socio-economic rights in question. The article examines the Court’s application of the teleological approach in its emerging socio-economic rights jurisprudence. The analysis shows that, although the Court found the respondent State in violation of a wide range of socio-economic rights, there are still some shortcomings in its application of the teleological approach. The African Court did not extensively exhaust all the interpretative tools within the African Charter that are in line with the teleological approach. Consequently, the interpretative potential embedded in these aspects of the teleological approach for effective interpretation of socio-economic rights in the African Charter is restricted. The Court also applied the tenets of the teleological approach inappropriately and interpreted some rights relevant to socio-economic rights based on a narrow textual approach. The mixing of the interpretative approaches leads to jurisprudential inconsistencies. If the Court certainly adopts and appropriately apply the teleological interpretation, it will contribute in advancing effective promotion and protection of these rights in the Continent.

非洲法院最近就其首个社会经济权利案件——“非洲人权和人民权利委员会诉肯尼亚共和国”的案情作出裁决。法院将目的论方法的各个方面应用于解释以解释所讨论的社会经济权利。本文研究了法院在其新兴的社会经济权利判例中应用目的论方法。分析表明，尽管法院认定被诉国侵犯了广泛的社会经济权利，但其在适用目的论方法上仍存在一些不足。非洲法院并未广泛穷尽《非洲宪章》中符合目的论方法的所有解释工具。最后，旨在有效解释《非洲宪章》中社会经济权利的目的论方法的这些方面所蕴含的解释潜力受到限制。法院还不适当地应用了目的论方法的原则，并基于狭隘的文本方法解释了与社会经济权利相关的一些权利。解释方法的混合导致法理上的不一致。如果法院确实采纳并适当应用目的论解释，它将有助于在欧洲大陆有效促进和保护这些权利。法院还不适当地应用了目的论方法的原则，并基于狭隘的文本方法解释了与社会经济权利相关的一些权利。解释方法的混合导致法理上的不一致。如果法院确实采纳并适当应用目的论解释，它将有助于在欧洲大陆有效促进和保护这些权利。法院还不适当地应用了目的论方法的原则，并基于狭隘的文本方法解释了与社会经济权利相关的一些权利。解释方法的混合导致法理上的不一致。如果法院确实采纳并适当应用目的论解释，它将有助于在欧洲大陆有效促进和保护这些权利。