|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| March 2025 |
|
|
|
7 March 2025 |
|
|
7 March 2025 |
|
|
7 March 2025 |
|
A dismissal order without executable relief cannot be stayed pending appeal; stay application dismissed and costs awarded to respondent.
* Civil procedure – Stay of execution – Rule 87 EACJ Rules – appeal does not automatically stay proceedings; applicant must satisfy rule 87(3) conditions. * Executability – Dismissal orders that grant no positive relief are not capable of execution and cannot be stayed. * Inherent powers – Court cannot invoke inherent powers to override or circumvent express procedural rules. * Costs – Costs follow the event under Rule 127.
|
6 March 2025 |
|
A trial court’s bifurcation and premature ruling on jurisdiction without full evidence amounts to procedural irregularity; matter remitted for hearing.
Procedure – interlocutory relief – bifurcation of proceedings; jurisdictional objections as mixed questions of law and fact requiring evidence; fair hearing and rule of law; remittal for full evidentiary hearing.
|
4 March 2025 |
|
Court refused to strike out amended record of appeal, finding omissions procedural and explanations satisfactory.
Civil procedure – Appeals – Striking out record of appeal under Rule 91; Amendment of record – scope and form of amendments; Affidavits sworn by counsel – when permissible; Court’s discretion to preserve appeals raising important treaty questions; Costs – rule 127, costs follow the event but court may order otherwise.
|
3 March 2025 |
|
Applicant failed to prove newly discovered evidence or an apparent error warranting review; application dismissed with costs.
* Judicial review of judgments – Article 35(3) Treaty & Rules 83/123 – requirements for review: newly discovered evidence, due diligence, decisive influence on judgment, or error apparent on the face of the record. * Distinction between review and appeal – review not a backdoor to re‑argue merits. * Land/title disputes – effect of civil and criminal judgments on title cancellation and ownership. * Error apparent on face of record – high threshold, self‑evident and not requiring extensive reasoning.
|
3 March 2025 |
| February 2025 |
|
|
Reference was time-barred under Article 30(2); EACJ lacked jurisdiction and appeal dismissed.
• Treaty law – Article 30(2) – two-month limitation for instituting References – commencement when cause of action crystallises or complainant acquires knowledge. • Jurisdiction – ratione temporis – effects of time-bar on admissibility; EACJ not a general appellate body over national courts. • Remedies – unavailable where Reference is time-barred. • Costs – costs follow the event; award to successful respondent.
|
28 February 2025 |
|
|
25 February 2025 |
| November 2024 |
|
|
Challenge to mandatory pregnancy testing and expulsions dismissed as time‑barred under Article 30(2).
Jurisdiction – ratione temporis – Article 30(2) EAC Treaty – strict two‑month limitation; Education law – G.N. No. 295 of 2002 (expulsion of pregnant pupils); Statement vs policy – later statement as manifestation of pre‑existing policy; Continuing violations – no extension of time limit; Public interest – costs each party bears own costs.
|
29 November 2024 |
|
Court had jurisdiction and cause of action but dismissed the Reference as moot after DRC joined the EAC; costs follow the event.
• Jurisdiction – EACJ jurisdiction under Article 27(1) to interpret and apply the Treaty; cause of action under Article 30(1).
• Mootness – Admission of a state during proceedings can render challenges to admission overtaken by events.
• International law – Pre-accession acts by a non-party state are not governed by the Treaty (pacta sunt servanda).
• Remedies – Claims against a state not yet a Party must be pursued once it becomes a Partner State; costs follow the event.
|
29 November 2024 |
|
Court treated two identical intervener applications as one, rendering a unified decision under Application No. 47 and adopting it in No. 45.
* Electoral law – intervention – application by electoral commission to intervene in challenge to presidential election processes – overlap of interlocutory applications. * Civil procedure – consolidation – when overlapping applications arise from same cause of action; judicial economy vs procedural fairness. * Representation – adequacy of Attorney General to represent independent constitutional body’s interests in electoral disputes.
|
28 November 2024 |
|
An electoral commission may seek intervention under Article 40 but must prove a distinct, indispensable interest.
* Constitutional commissions – intervention under Article 40 of the Treaty – distinction between substantive References under Article 30 and procedural intervention under Article 40; * Civil procedure – Rule 59(4) EACJ Rules – Court’s satisfaction threshold for intervention; * Legal personality – state organs may, in principle, seek leave to intervene but must show a distinct and immediate interest; * Intervention – duplication of existing party’s defence and prejudice to fairness are valid grounds to refuse joinder.
|
28 November 2024 |
|
EACJ can review Treaty compliance by state organs but cannot conduct appellate merit review or stay apex court judgments.
Jurisdiction — EACJ may assess Partner State compliance with Treaty obligations but lacks appellate/merit review of national apex court decisions; Treaty interpretation and supremacy; Interim relief — triable issue, irreparable harm, balance of convenience; Limits on staying execution of national apex court judgments; Leave to amend pleadings; Costs in the cause.
|
28 November 2024 |
|
Repossession of purchased land without compensation violated domestic law and Treaty rule-of-law protections; Applicant awarded damages and costs.
• Jurisdiction — locus standi of an estate represented by administratrix before the EACJ; • Property law — validity of sale from a titled concessionaire and long possession; • Administrative/constitutional law — repossession without compensation violates national law and rule of law; • Treaty law — contravention of Treaty Articles 6(d) and 7(2) where domestic action breaches rule of law and property protection; • Remedies — entitlement to compensation, general damages and costs where repossession without compensation occurs.
|
28 November 2024 |
|
Court has jurisdiction to hear alleged Treaty infringements but refused interim stay for lack of irreparable harm.
• Jurisdiction – Articles 27(1) and 30(1) – Court empowered to interpret and apply the Treaty and determine alleged infringements by Partner States or their organs.
• Admissibility – No mandatory exhaustion of domestic remedies required under Article 30(1).
• Interim relief – Trifold test (serious triable issue; irreparable injury; balance of convenience) applies.
• Interim relief refused where irreparable harm not established; staying taxation of non-existent costs is speculative and abuse of process.
|
26 November 2024 |
|
Court lacks jurisdiction over claims rooted in the African Charter and dismisses the Reference as time-barred.
* Jurisdiction – ratione materiae – limits of EACJ jurisdiction to interpretation and application of the Treaty; matters under African Charter/African Commission fall outside scope.
* Jurisdiction – ratione temporis – Article 30(2) two-month time limit; no recognition of continuing breach to avoid time bar.
* Domestic incorporation of international instruments does not expand regional court’s treaty-based jurisdiction.
* Consolidation – cannot be ordered where the Court lacks jurisdiction; costs follow the event.
|
26 November 2024 |
| October 2024 |
|
|
Reference dismissed as time-barred for being filed one day after the Treaty’s two-month limitation expired.
East African Community law – Time limits – Article 30(2) Treaty – computation of months – Laws of the Community (Interpretation) Act, 2004 – corresponding date rule (calendar months, "less one") – jurisdiction ratione temporis; Procedural bar – failure to file within Treaty-prescribed period deprives Court of jurisdiction; Merits not reached – Rules of Origin and preferential treatment issues reserved.
|
11 October 2024 |
|
Reference challenging geothermal project dismissed for lack of an authorised supporting affidavit; costs awarded to the respondent.
* Procedure – Rule 19(5) EACJ Rules 2019 – corporate parties must be represented by an authorised officer (resolution under seal) or by an advocate.
* Procedure – Rule 25(3) EACJ Rules 2019 – references challenging legality must be accompanied by a supporting affidavit.
* Evidence – affidavits are evidence and cannot be amended to cure incurable defects once struck off.
* Judicial administration – references unsupported by mandatory evidentiary requirements are incompetent and liable to be dismissed.
* Costs – costs follow the event absent good reason to depart.
|
10 October 2024 |
| March 2024 |
|
|
Late, unsubstantiated recusal application dismissed for failure to demonstrate reasonable apprehension of judicial bias.
* Judicial recusal – alleged bias and conflict of interest – test of reasonable apprehension of bias by a fair‑minded, informed member of the public
* Presumption of judicial impartiality – burden on applicant to prove disqualifying facts
* Duty of a judge to sit – judges should not recuse on unsupported speculation
* Timing and abuse of process – late recusal applications raised after adverse decisions may be dismissed
* Costs – costs follow the event under Rule 127(1)
|
27 March 2024 |
|
Court held Tanzania’s amendments regulating NGOs, companies and societies do not violate the EAC Treaty or Common Market Protocol.
EAC Treaty — National legislation review — Written Laws (Misc. Amendments) (No.3) Act, 2019 — Alleged restrictions on formation/operation of companies, NGOs and societies; applicability of three‑part proportionality test (clarity; pressing/substantial objective; proportionality); public participation; Certificate of Urgency; safeguards and judicial review.
|
27 March 2024 |
|
Reference dismissed: no Treaty breach found, and applicants failed to prove lawful customary title to the land.
* Regional law (EAC Treaty) – Articles 6(d) & 7(2) – allegations that national court procedure violated principles of good governance and rule of law – held unfounded.
* Procedure – Special Court law Article 58 and Code of Civil Procedure Article 5 – preliminary objections may be joined with merits; separate hearing not mandatory.
* Evidence and property law – customary acquisition and communal possession certificates recognised but claimant bears burden to prove legal title; insufficient proof defeats remedy.
* Court practice – late/non‑compliant filings may be admitted where no prejudice shown.
|
27 March 2024 |
|
Reference challenging a dredging project was time-barred under Article 30(2), so the Court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed it.
Jurisdiction — Article 30(2) EAC Treaty — two-month limitation for References; starting date is when the action is first effected (not when it ends); no power to extend, condone or waive the time limit; Reference time-barred for challenges to a project grounded in a Memorandum of Understanding; Court lacks jurisdiction ratione temporis; discretionary refusal to award costs despite prevailing party.
|
26 March 2024 |
|
The Court dismissed the Reference for lack of jurisdiction and as time-barred under Article 30(2) due to non‑retroactivity.
* Treaty jurisdiction (ratione temporis) – Article 30(2) two-month limitation – claimant’s knowledge exception requires support in pleadings/affidavit; * Non-retroactivity – Treaty does not apply to acts before State’s accession; * Institutional competence – Court lacks jurisdiction over acts preceding membership; * Costs – Court may depart from rule that costs follow event where conduct warrants.
|
26 March 2024 |
| February 2024 |
|
|
Appellate court affirmed Treaty breach where title was cancelled without required forensic procedure, but remitted overbroad award to trial court.
• Constitutional/regional law – Treaty obligations – Article 6(d) and 7(2) – protection of property rights and rule of law.
• Administrative/judicial procedure – Cancellation of land title – presumption of authenticity of title deeds; burden on State to prove forgery.
• Evidence – necessity of forensic investigation and special procedure under domestic law before annulling title for alleged fraud.
• Appellate procedure – jurisdiction of Appellate Division under Article 35A; limits of appeal (point of law, lack of jurisdiction, procedural irregularity).
• Relief – ultra petita error; remittal to trial court to determine precise relief; costs follow event but court ordered each party to bear own costs.
|
27 February 2024 |
| November 2023 |
|
|
Court dismissed treaty challenge to pre-Treaty statutes for lack of temporal jurisdiction and non-retroactivity; costs awarded to respondent.
* Treaty jurisdiction – Article 30(2) – strict two-month limitation; time runs from enactment or knowledge. * Non-retroactivity – Treaty does not bind acts occurring before entry into force; pre-2000 statutes cannot be invalidated under the Treaty. * Ratione temporis – lack of temporal jurisdiction bars meritorious consideration. * Costs follow the event.
|
30 November 2023 |
|
The applicant's challenge to pipeline-related agreements was dismissed as time-barred under Article 30(2), leaving the Court without jurisdiction.
* Treaty law – Article 30(2) – limitation period for instituting References – two-month bar; applicants’ knowledge from 2017 held to start limitation period. * Jurisdiction – ratione temporis – Court lacks jurisdiction where Reference filed outside Treaty-prescribed time. * Preliminary objections – Mukisa Biscuits principle applied; points of limitation and jurisdiction are proper preliminary issues if determinable on pleadings. * Pleadings – material dates in pleadings and annexures govern computation of limitation and jurisdictional outcome. * Environmental/administrative challenge to pipeline agreements – substantive merits not reached once Reference found time-barred.
|
29 November 2023 |
|
Appellate court remitted eviction reference after trial failed to consider evidence and misapplied the civil standard of proof.
EAC Treaty — jurisdiction and access to Court; evaluation of affidavit and expert evidence; courts’ procedural and inherent powers to compel evidence (Rule 66(3), Rule 4); standard of proof in civil Treaty references — balance of probabilities; remittal for rehearing de novo; costs.
|
29 November 2023 |
|
The applicant’s Reference was dismissed for failing to file mandatory documentary evidence; late evidence was disregarded.
Procedure – Rule compliance – Rule 24(3) R.P.2013 requires documentary evidence to accompany a Statement of Reference; failure to file such evidence renders a Reference improperly before the Court; documentary evidence filed later is of no effect; Court’s inherent powers (Rule 4) cannot be used to cure mandatory Rule non-compliance absent good grounds.
|
29 November 2023 |
|
Reference dismissed as time-barred under Article 30(2) despite applicant having locus standi; each party bears its own costs.
Jurisdiction — Article 30(2) Treaty — strict two-calendar-month time limit and computation of months; Locus standi — corporate personality, continuation and estoppel; Procedural — Court lacks power to hear merits if Reference is time-barred; Costs — each party to bear own costs.
|
28 November 2023 |
|
A consent decree entered without proper judicial quorum is null; the applicant's challenge to reopen the matter was upheld.
Civil procedure — Consent judgment and compromise (Rule 62 EACJ Rules) — Court must satisfy itself of lawfulness and quorum; decree signed by Registrar without order is null and void; slip rule (Rule 81) cannot cure jurisdictional nullity; change of counsel may be validated where prior state counsel acted without mandate; extension of time is discretionary.
|
27 November 2023 |
|
Appeal struck out because the record lacked the mandatory notice of appeal and proof of service.
* Appellate procedure – Notice of appeal – Notice of appeal is a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite and must form part of the Record of Appeal (Rule 88, Rule 98(1)(g)).
* Appellate procedure – Service – Affidavit of service required after serving Notice of Appeal (Rule 89(1)-(2)); absence undermines claim of service.
* Appellate procedure – Filing timelines – Appeals must comply with Rules 88 and 96; filing under 96(1) displaces need to rely on certificate of delay under 96(2).
* Procedure – Strike out – Rule 91 permits striking out a notice or record of appeal at any time where essential steps were not taken.
* Procedure – Preliminary objections – Failure to give notice under Rule 109 does not preclude relief under Rule 91 where sufficient reasons exist.
|
23 November 2023 |
|
Reference dismissed as time‑barred under Article 30(2); Court lacked jurisdiction ratione temporis.
Treaty limitation — Article 30(2) two‑month time bar; strict application and lack of power to extend; knowledge vs date of occurrence; substitution of expunged affidavits and good faith; jurisdiction ratione temporis; dismissal for time‑bar.
|
15 November 2023 |
| May 2023 |
|
|
Court: Attorneys General need not attend for Council quorum; appeal dismissed; each party bears own costs.
Treaty interpretation – membership of Council vs quorum; Article 13 (membership) and Article 15(2) (power to determine procedure); Council Rules of Procedure (Rule 11 quorum defined as Partner State ministerial representation); Sectoral Council on Legal and Judicial Affairs; 2007 amendment to Article 13; validity of Council meeting and remedies.
|
31 May 2023 |
|
A claim based on an expired EAC employment contract was time-barred; Article 31 jurisdiction did not extend to revive it.
Labour/employment law – jurisdiction ratione temporis – Article 31 vs Article 30 of Treaty – limitation under EAC Staff Rules Regulation 104 – expired contract cannot support retrospective claims.
|
30 May 2023 |
|
Appellate court upholds proportionality review and dismisses challenge to amendments limiting political party rights under the Treaty.
* Constitutional / Treaty review – consistency of national political parties legislation with Treaty principles – application of three‑tier/proportionality test to assess limitation of Treaty rights; burden of proof and evidential shift to State to justify limitations; role of affidavits as evidence; scope of appellate review under Article 35A; costs in public‑interest litigation.
|
26 May 2023 |
|
Two-month Treaty limitation runs from pleaded cause of action (district revocation); Reference time-barred and dismissed.
• Treaty law – Article 30(2) – two-month limitation for References; strict and non-extendable.
• Cause of action – must be gleaned from pleadings; determines when limitation runs.
• Remedies sought indicate the real respondent and time of crystallisation of claim.
• Civil procedure – scheduling conference issues binding; introducing new issues late prejudicial.
• Pleadings and appellate memoranda must comply with procedural rules.
|
24 May 2023 |
|
A Reference alleging Treaty breaches was time‑barred under Article 30(2), so the court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.
* Treaty law – Article 30(2) – two‑month limitation – interpretation and strict application; starting point when action occurred or when knowledge arose.
* Jurisdiction – time bar deprives Court of jurisdiction to consider merits.
* Limitation – continuing tort/detinue not sufficient to overcome Article 30(2) where claimant had earlier knowledge and domestic proceedings.
* Procedural irregularity – refusal to determine merits after finding time bar is not irregular where court lacks jurisdiction.
* Remedies and costs – inadmissible Reference yields no substantive relief; costs ordered each party to bear own.
|
22 May 2023 |
| February 2023 |
|
|
Court allowed extension where lay applicant’s six‑day late filing was excused by a procedural mistake, deeming the record filed on time.
Civil procedure — extension of time under Rule 5 — "sufficient reason" test; factors: length of delay, reason, prospects of success, prejudice; pro se applicant’s procedural mistake (failure to serve request for proceedings) can justify extension; minor citation errors not fatal to jurisdiction; courts favour substantive justice over technicalities.
|
27 February 2023 |
|
Appeal dismissed: Appellate Division lacks jurisdiction to hear single-judge refusal to admit amicus curiae.
Appellate jurisdiction – Appealability of single-judge decisions – Amicus curiae applications – EACJ Rules 2019: Rule 60(2) (leave to appear), Rule 69(1),(2),(3) (quorum and remedy) – Proper remedy: variation/discharge/reversal by Full Court.
|
24 February 2023 |
|
Appellate Division lacks jurisdiction to hear appeals arising from single-judge refusals to admit amicus curiae; full bench review required.
Procedural law – Appellate jurisdiction – Requests for admission as amicus curiae decided by a single judge under Rule 60 – Remedy against single-judge decisions lies to the full bench under Rule 69(3), not direct appeal to the Appellate Division – Extension of time to appeal arising from single-judge decisions is not competent before the Appellate Division.
|
24 February 2023 |
|
Appeal dismissed: no contradiction between criminal and civil judgments; Minister’s refusal to review lawful; costs awarded to the respondent.
* Civil procedure – consistency between criminal and civil judgments – differing standards of proof (beyond reasonable doubt v balance of probabilities). * Res judicata – requirements and non-application where no contradiction established. * Administrative review – Minister of Justice’s discretion to refer judgments for review and sufficiency of reasons. * Treaty obligations – no breach of EAC Treaty, Protocol or African Charter found. * Costs – costs follow the event; successful respondent awarded costs.
|
23 February 2023 |
|
Applicant failed to satisfy the narrow statutory grounds for review of a consented issue-addition; application dismissed with costs.
Judicial review — scope of review under Article 35(3) and Rule 83 — review limited to new evidence, error apparent on face of record, or injustice; inherent powers (Rule 4) cannot confer jurisdiction; consented case management orders and addition of issues are not lightly reopened; review is not a substitute for appeal.
|
22 February 2023 |
| December 2022 |
|
|
Registrar lacked power to waive Rule 96(1)(c) security, but appeal was preserved in the interest of justice.
Civil procedure – Appeals – Rule 96(1)(c) (security for costs) – Registrar’s powers – Registrar has no authority to waive Rule 96(1)(c); only the Court may order security or exemption under Rule 131(1) – Inherent powers/interest of justice may validate procedural defects where a party reasonably relied on Court officer’s communication – Costs: each party to bear own costs.
|
2 December 2022 |
|
A Partner State breached EAC law by negotiating a bilateral trade deal and MOU without notifying Partner States; Secretary General failed to act.
* Treaty interpretation – Article 37 Customs Union & Common Market Protocols – "intend" and "proposed agreement" include negotiation documents (principles, objectives, scope).
* International law – VCLT applied to interpret EAC instruments.
* Institutional duties – Partner State obligation to notify Secretary General and involve Partner States in negotiations with third parties.
* Sanitary & Phytosanitary (SPS) – EAC SPS Protocol not fully operational; lack of ratification by others does not absolve a ratifying Partner State.
* Secretary General obligations – duty to investigate, verify and escalate potential Treaty infringements (Articles 29, 71); failure may amount to abdication.
|
2 December 2022 |
|
|
2 December 2022 |
|
Appellate Division affirmed jurisdiction, dismissed appeal for lack of specific errors, and allowed cross‑appeal correcting an improper costs award.
* Jurisdiction – EACJ ratione materiae and ratione personae – jurisdiction to entertain References alleging Partner State/domestic law violations under Articles 27 and 30 of the Treaty.
* Appeals – Article 35A and Rule 86 – appeals limited to points of law, lack of jurisdiction or procedural irregularity; requirement to specify and prove alleged errors.
* Procedural irregularity – definition and thresholds for demonstrating prejudice or denial of due process.
* Costs – Rule 127(1) – principle that costs follow the event; judicial discretion to depart only for good reasons; improper to award costs to losing party without justification.
|
2 December 2022 |
| November 2022 |
|
|
Reference alleging arrest, torture and deportation dismissed as time-barred under Article 30(2) of the Treaty.
Jurisdiction – Article 27(1) EAC Treaty – ratione materiae: Treaty and domestic-law based complaints justiciable before the Court; Time limitation – Article 30(2) EAC Treaty – strict two-month rule applies; Continuous violation exceptions require clear basis; Procedural disposition – time-bar is jurisdictional ratione temporis and is dispositive; Costs – discretionary refusal to order costs where matter not decided on merits.
|
30 November 2022 |
|
Claims for retrospective salary and gratuity were time‑barred under Regulation 104; Court lacked temporal jurisdiction.
• Jurisdiction ratione temporis – applicability of Regulation 104 (12‑month bar) to employment claims under Article 31 of the Treaty; • Interpretation of Regulation 104 – “allowances, grants or other payments” includes arrears of salary and gratuity; • Article 31 vs Article 30 – time limits in Staff Rules bind Article 31 claims; • Standing of former employees – may sue under Article 31 only within Regulation 104’s timeframe.
|
29 November 2022 |
|
Court lacks jurisdiction to join a private bank as third party under Rule 55 because it is not an EAC institution.
* Civil procedure – third party joinder under Rule 55 – requirement that intended third party be within Court's in personam jurisdiction (ratione personae) under the Treaty; * Treaty interpretation – Articles 9, 27, 30 and 31 – limitation of EACJ jurisdiction to Partner States, Community Institutions and persons/entities within Treaty scope; * Procedural requirement – Rule 55(2) ex parte application; * Costs – Rule 127, costs follow the event.
|
28 November 2022 |