|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| March 2025 |
|
|
|
7 March 2025 |
|
|
7 March 2025 |
|
|
7 March 2025 |
|
Stay refused because a dismissal order without operative relief is not capable of execution under rule 87.
Civil procedure – Stay of execution – Rule 87 EACJ Rules – Appeal does not automatically stay execution – stay requires an executable positive order; Dismissal orders without operative relief are not capable of execution – Inherent powers (Rule 4) cannot be used to circumvent express rules – Costs follow the event.
|
6 March 2025 |
|
Bifurcation and premature jurisdictional ruling denied fair hearing; Reference remitted for full evidentiary determination.
Procedure — Bifurcation — Discretion to control proceedings — Where prior rulings require jurisdictional issue to be decided after evidence, separate premature hearing or determination constitutes procedural irregularity and may deny fair hearing; remedy is remittal for full evidentiary hearing. Rule of law — fair hearing — equality of arms and adequate opportunity to present evidence.
|
4 March 2025 |
|
Court refused to strike out late amended Record of Appeal, finding delay excusable and each party to bear own costs.
Procedural law – Appeal – Strike out of record of appeal for late filing or defective amendment – Rule 91; admissibility of affidavit by counsel; discretion on costs.
|
3 March 2025 |
|
Applicant failed to show new decisive evidence or an error apparent on the record to justify review.
Administrative law – Review of judgment – Article 35(3) Treaty and Rules 83/123 – scope of review; newly discovered evidence; error apparent on face of record; finality of judgments; distinction between appeal and review.
|
3 March 2025 |
| February 2025 |
|
|
Reference dismissed as time‑barred under Article 30(2); cause of action accrued at national court decision, not Ombudsman letter.
* Treaty jurisdiction – Article 30(2) – two‑month limitation period – strict interpretation and legal certainty.
* Jurisdiction – ratione temporis – cause of action accrual tied to national judicial decision, not subsequent Ombudsman letter.
* EACJ scope – not an appellate court over national courts; temporal compliance is jurisdictional.
* Remedies – unavailable where Reference is time‑barred.
* Costs – general rule that costs follow the event; awarded to respondent.
|
28 February 2025 |
|
|
25 February 2025 |
| November 2024 |
|
|
Reference challenging pregnancy‑related school policy dismissed as time‑barred; statement deemed manifestation of earlier policy.
Article 30(2) Treaty – ratione temporis – strict two‑month limitation; manifestation of pre‑existing policy; District Commissioner’s statement as reinforcement of 2002 Regulations and 2017 pronouncements; no revival of stale claims; costs in public interest matter (each party to bear own costs).
|
29 November 2024 |
|
Court had jurisdiction and a cause of action but dismissed the Reference as moot after the DRC's accession to the EAC.
* Treaty interpretation and application – jurisdiction ratione materiae under Articles 23, 27 and 30 of the EAC Treaty. * Cause of action – alleged infringement of Treaty provisions as basis for Reference. * Mootness – doctrine of overtaken by events where State accession renders relief academic. * International law – pacta sunt servanda and binding effect of treaties only upon parties. * Remedies – dismissal of Reference when principal reliefs become academic; leave to sue newly acceded State.
|
29 November 2024 |
|
Substantively identical intervention applications arising from the same electoral dispute can be decided jointly and the ruling adopted across files.
* Civil procedure – intervention – leave to intervene under Article 40 of the Treaty and Rule 59 – whether intervener required when Attorney General represents state interests
* Civil procedure – consolidation/joint determination – overlapping applications arising from same cause of action – balancing judicial economy and procedural fairness
* Electoral law – participation of electoral management body in judicial review of electoral conduct and results
|
28 November 2024 |
|
An electoral commission may seek to intervene procedurally, but intervention denied where interest is not distinct and would duplicate the Attorney General.
Intervention — Article 40 Treaty & Rule 59(4) — Distinction from Article 30 References — Legal personality of state organs — Threshold for intervention: direct, immediate, non-duplicative interest — Dismissal where interest tangential and representation adequate by Attorney General.
|
28 November 2024 |
|
Regional Court may assess Treaty-compliance of national courts' conduct but cannot act as an appellate court over apex judgments.
Treaty interpretation and compliance – Jurisdiction to review Partner State organs’ conduct for Treaty compliance (Articles 6, 7, 23, 27, 33) – No appellate merit review of national apex court judgments – Doctrine of separability/severance – Interim conservatory relief limited by jurisdictional boundaries.
|
28 November 2024 |
|
Estate unlawfully deprived of long-held land; repossession breached domestic law and EAC Treaty — damages and costs awarded.
Property law – land ownership and transfer – validity of sale by concessionaire; International/Regional law – Treaty Articles 6(d) and 7(2) – rule of law and good governance; Jurisdiction – locus standi of an estate before EACJ; Expropriation – deprivation of property without just and prior compensation contrary to domestic law and Treaty obligations; Remedies – declaration of ownership, entitlement to compensation, general damages and costs.
|
28 November 2024 |
|
Court affirmed Treaty jurisdiction but dismissed interim relief for failure to show irreparable harm.
Jurisdiction – Articles 27(1) and 30(1) of the Treaty – Court has ratione materiae jurisdiction where an allegation of Treaty infringement is raised; Exhaustion of local remedies – not mandatory; Interim relief – trifold test (serious triable issue, irreparable injury, balance of convenience) – serious issue found but irreparable harm not established; Abuse of process – attempting to stay taxation/enforcement of non-existent bills of costs; Application dismissed, costs to abide Reference.
|
26 November 2024 |
|
EACJ lacks jurisdiction over claims under the African Charter and dismisses the time-barred references.
* Jurisdiction – ratione materiae – EACJ confined to interpretation, application and compliance with the Treaty; instruments outside the Treaty (African Charter/African Commission) are not within EACJ jurisdiction.
* Jurisdiction – ratione temporis – Article 30(2) two-month limitation; no recognition of continuing breaches to avoid time bar.
* Domestic incorporation of international instruments does not expand EACJ’s treaty-based jurisdiction.
* Civil procedure – consolidation – cannot be decided where Court lacks jurisdiction.
|
26 November 2024 |
| October 2024 |
|
|
Reference dismissed as time‑barred—filed one day after the two‑month limit under Article 30(2) of the EAC Treaty.
* Treaty law – Article 30(2) EAC Treaty – two-month limitation for instituting proceedings – jurisdiction ratione temporis.
* Interpretation – computation of months – Laws of the Community (Interpretation) Act, 2004 (section 63) and corresponding‑date rule.
* Administrative law – final administrative decision as cause of action (finality of URA decision of 31 January 2020).
* Procedural consequence – court lacks jurisdiction where time limit is not met; no power to extend time; dismissal for being time‑barred.
* Costs – Court exercised discretion and ordered each party to bear own costs.
|
11 October 2024 |
|
Reference challenging geothermal project dismissed for being incompetent due to defective supporting affidavit and lack of authority.
• Procedural law – Court rules – Rule 19(5) (corporate representation by authorised officer/resolution) and Rule 25(3) (mandatory supporting affidavit) – Lack of authority to represent organisation renders affidavit defective.
• Evidence – Affidavits are evidence and not amenable to amendment to cure incurable defects.
• Administrative/constitutional litigation – Competence of proceedings challenging State actions contingent on compliance with procedural affidavit requirements.
• Costs – Costs follow the event where procedural non-compliance causes dismissal.
|
10 October 2024 |
| March 2024 |
|
|
Post-judgment, unproven allegations of bias do not satisfy the reasonable apprehension test; recusal denied and costs awarded.
Judicial recusal – Reasonable apprehension of bias test; presumption of judicial impartiality; duty of judge to sit versus duty to recuse; lateness and abuse of process in post-judgment recusal applications; costs follow the event.
|
27 March 2024 |
|
Court held Tanzania’s 2019 amendments do not breach EAC Treaty where they are clear, necessary and proportionate.
EAC Treaty — Review of national legislation — Three‑part test (clarity/prescribed by law; pressing and substantial objective; proportionality) — Legality of amendments regulating companies, NGOs, societies and film industry — Public participation and Certificate of Urgency — Safeguards and avenues of redress (appeals, judicial review).
|
27 March 2024 |
|
Applicants failed to prove Special Court breached Treaty or that claimed land was lawfully acquired; reference dismissed.
* Treaty law – Articles 6(d) & 7(2) – Alleged breach by national court – procedural fairness and rule of law; * Procedure – admissibility of late filings – Court discretion where no prejudice shown; * Civil procedure – preliminary questions v merits – Article 5 (joinder) and Article 58 (preliminary questions) reconciled; * Land law – customary acquisition recognised but registration required under 2011 Land Code; burden of proof on claimant; * Remedies – failure to prove rights results in denial of reliefs.
|
27 March 2024 |
|
Reference challenging a dredging project dismissed as time-barred under Article 30(2); Court lacked jurisdiction ratione temporis.
Jurisdiction ratione temporis; Article 30(2) EAC Treaty — two-month limitation period; computation starts when act is first effected (MoU); no power to extend or condone Treaty time limits; Reference time-barred and dismissed; costs discretionary — no order as to costs.
|
26 March 2024 |
|
The court held the applicant’s claim time-barred and non-justiciable because the impugned acts predated respondent’s EAC accession.
* Treaty law – jurisdiction ratione temporis – non-retroactivity – EAC Treaty not applicable to acts before State accession.
* Limitation – Article 30(2) – two-month rule and "came to the knowledge" exception; pleading and evidentiary support required.
* Civil procedure – preliminary objection on jurisdiction – must be determined at outset.
* Costs – court discretion to depart from rule that costs follow the event where party/counsel conduct warrants it.
|
26 March 2024 |
| February 2024 |
|
|
State cancelled a land title without required domestic forensic/special procedure; cancellation breached Treaty and matter remitted for correct remedy.
• Treaty law – Article 6(d) (rule of law and right to property) – cancellation of title deeds for alleged fraud requires cogent proof and compliance with domestic special procedure; forensic examination where appropriate. • Jurisdiction – ratione temporis and Appellate Division jurisdiction (Article 35A) upheld. • Civil procedure – ultra petita: Trial Court erred by awarding more than claimed. • Remedies – matter remitted to First Instance Division to determine precise extent of claimant's entitlement.
|
27 February 2024 |
| November 2023 |
|
|
Court dismissed Treaty challenge to pre-Treaty statutes for lack of temporal jurisdiction and non-retroactivity.
Treaty jurisdiction – Article 30(2) – strict two-month time limit; ratione temporis; non-retroactivity of the EAC Treaty; challenges to domestic statutes enacted before Treaty entry; no recognition of continuing violations for time computation.
|
30 November 2023 |
|
Reference dismissed for being time-barred under Article 30(2) of the EAC Treaty; Court lacked jurisdiction.
* Constitutional/Treaty law – limitation – Article 30(2) EAC Treaty – two‑month filing requirement; time runs from knowledge of the act. * Civil procedure – preliminary objections – Mukisa Biscuits principle; points of law decided within four walls of pleadings. * Jurisdiction – lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis where claim is time-barred. * Costs – Rule 127(1): costs follow the event.
|
29 November 2023 |
|
Appeal allowed and Reference remitted for de novo hearing after trial court failed to consider evidence and misapplied burden/standard of proof.
Procedure – Evaluation of evidence – duty to consider affidavits and expert reports – Court must give reasons for disregarding evidence; Procedure – Court power to summon or require production of documents under Rule 66(3) and inherent powers – use to prevent ambush and secure ends of justice; Standard of proof – civil matters require balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt; Remedies – matter remitted for de novo hearing on whether evictions occurred inside national park and whether Treaty provisions were violated.
|
29 November 2023 |
|
Reference dismissed for failure to file required documentary evidence with the Statement of Reference.
Civil procedure — Court rules compliance — Rule 24(3) (2013 Rules) — requirement to accompany Statement of Reference with documentary evidence — meaning of 'documentary evidence' — effect of belated filing — Reference improperly before Court — dismissal on procedural grounds; refusal to consider merits.
|
29 November 2023 |
|
Applicant has standing but the Reference was dismissed as time-barred under the Treaty’s strict two-month limit.
Administrative and regional law – Article 30(2) EAC Treaty – strict two-month time limit for institution of proceedings; jurisdiction ratione temporis; locus standi of a corporate applicant; interpretation of 'month' under Laws of the Community (Interpretation) Act; no power to extend or condone Treaty time-limits.
|
28 November 2023 |
|
Consent decree lacking proper judicial sanction is a nullity; Trial Court rightly set it aside and appeal dismissed.
• Civil procedure – consent judgments – requirement that a consent decree be sanctioned by a properly constituted court under Rules 62 and 69; a decree lacking proper judicial quorum is a nullity.
• Review – Court’s powers to set aside an improperly recorded consent decree; slip rule cannot cure incurable nullities.
• Standing – Partner State’s locus standi to seek review of allegedly invalid consent judgment.
• Legal representation – change of advocate; Rule 21 requirements are protective, not penal.
|
27 November 2023 |
|
An appeal is incompetent and subject to strike out where the Record of Appeal lacks the mandatory Notice of Appeal.
Civil procedure — Appeals — Notice of Appeal is jurisdictional prerequisite — Record of Appeal must include Notice of Appeal (Rule 98) — Service of Notice and affidavit of service mandatory (Rule 89) — Rule 91 permits strike out of incompetent appeals at any time — Rule 109 preliminary objection requirement does not preclude Rule 91 application.
|
23 November 2023 |
|
Reference dismissed as filed outside Article 30(2)’s two‑month limitation, depriving the Court of jurisdiction.
Treaty law – Article 30(2) – strict two‑month limitation; jurisdiction ratione temporis; border closure/diversion allegations; admissibility and bona fides of supplementary/expunged affidavits; applicants’ awareness of impugned act.
|
15 November 2023 |
| May 2023 |
|
|
Quorum (ministerial representation) is distinct from membership (including Attorneys General); absence of Attorneys General did not void the Council meeting.
Constitution of Council – membership v quorum – Article 13 (membership) distinct from Article 15(2) (power to determine procedure) – Rules of Procedure (Rule 11) validly prescribe quorum as Partner State ministerial representation; amendment of Article 13 intended to secure Sectoral Council composition, not mandatory attendance at all Council meetings; inconsistency between pre-existing Rule 3(1) and amended Treaty relates to membership wording and requires amendment but did not invalidate the impugned meeting.
|
31 May 2023 |
|
An Article 31 employment claim was time‑barred under Staff Rules Regulation 104; appeal dismissed, costs each party.
Employment law; EAC Treaty Articles 30 & 31; jurisdiction ratione temporis; Regulation 104 EAC Staff Rules (2006) — 12‑month limitation on retrospective allowances; expired contract cannot sustain late Article 31 claim.
|
30 May 2023 |
|
Appellate court dismissed challenge, upholding that specified amendments unduly limited Treaty‑protected political rights.
* Treaty interpretation – consistency of national legislation with Treaty principles – use of the three‑tier (proportionality) test.
* Constitutional / administrative law – limitations on political rights, freedom of association, intra‑party democracy and civic education regulation.
* Evidence – sufficiency of affidavit evidence to discharge onus; shifting evidential burden to State to justify limitations.
* Remedies – dismissal of appeal; obligation to bring national law into conformity; costs follow event but denied in public interest matters.
|
26 May 2023 |
|
A Reference under Article 30(2) must be filed within two months from the pleaded cause of action; otherwise the Court lacks jurisdiction.
Treaty law – Article 30(2) two‑month limitation; cause of action determined from pleadings; time runs from decisive act (not subsequent administrative responses); scheduling conference issues bind parties and Court; no extension of treaty time‑limits.
|
24 May 2023 |
|
Reference dismissed as time-barred under Article 30(2); trial court correctly declined merits; each party bears own costs.
• Treaty law — Article 30(2) — two-month limitation: time runs from occurrence of act or knowledge thereof; strict application required.
• Jurisdiction — time bar deprives Court of jurisdiction to determine merits.
• Continuing tort/ongoing breach argument — not accepted to evade Article 30(2) limitation.
• Costs — courts may depart from rule that costs follow event in appropriate circumstances.
|
22 May 2023 |
| February 2023 |
|
|
Court allowed six‑day extension, deeming Record of Appeal filed on time due to proximate excusable procedural lapse.
Civil procedure – Extension of time under Rule 5 – "Sufficient reason" standard – Delay of six days – Pro se litigant’s unfamiliarity with rules – Failure to serve request for proceedings – Procedural slips and incorrect rule citation not fatal – Court may overlook technicalities to do substantive justice.
|
27 February 2023 |
|
Appellate Division lacks jurisdiction over single-judge denial of amicus curiae; remedy lies to full First Instance Division.
Procedure — Amicus curiae — Application under Rule 60(2) — Single-judge decision not necessarily a First Instance Division judgment appealable to Appellate Division; Quorum and interlocutory matter distinction under Rule 69; Remedy for dissatisfied party under Rule 69(3).
|
24 February 2023 |
|
Appellate Division lacks jurisdiction to hear appeals from single-judge decisions; full bench review required.
Jurisdiction – Appellate Division lacks jurisdiction to hear appeals arising from single-judge decisions of the First Instance Division; Rule 60 – amicus curiae requests may be decided by President or Principal Judge as single judge; Rule 69(3) – remedy against single-judge decisions is application to full bench for variation, discharge or reversal; Appealability – only full Court judgments/orders form basis for appeals to Appellate Division; Locus standi – challenges to single-judge decisions must follow Rule 69(3) procedure.
|
24 February 2023 |
|
Appeal dismissed: criminal and civil judgments both annulled the title, Minister lawfully refused review, costs awarded to respondent.
Property law; national court decisions in criminal and civil proceedings—no contradiction where both annul title; res judicata not established; Ministerial review discretion; differing standards of proof (criminal v civil); costs follow the event.
|
23 February 2023 |
|
Applicant failed to prove grounds for review; consent addition of an issue was valid and application dismissed with costs.
* Review — Article 35(3) & Rule 83: limited to discovery of new evidence, mistake/fraud or error apparent on the face of the record, or miscarriage of justice.
* Inherent powers — Rule 4 cannot confer jurisdiction where substantive rule exists.
* Consent orders — parties' agreement adopted by Court binds parties; subsequent variance requires statutory grounds for review.
* Procedural competence — Rule 52 governs First Instance Division, not Appellate Division.
* Costs — follow the event; repeated, unmeritorious litigation justifies costs against the applicant.
|
22 February 2023 |
| December 2022 |
|
|
Registrar cannot waive Rule 96(1)(c) security for costs; Court validated appeal in interest of justice and ordered each party to bear own costs.
Procedure – Appeals – Rule 96(1)(c) requirement to deposit security for costs – Registrar’s purported waiver – Registrar lacks power to unilaterally dispense with Rule 96(1)(c) – Rule 131(1) vests exemption decisions in the Court – Court may, in interest of justice, validate filings made in reliance on registrar’s communication.
|
2 December 2022 |
|
A Partner State must notify and involve other EAC Partner States before pursuing trade agreements or related MOUs with third parties.
Trade law – Article 37 Customs Union & Common Market Protocols – meaning of "intend" and "proposed agreement" – negotiation documents (principles/objectives/scope) trigger notification duty; Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures – MOU on wheat certification can constitute a trade agreement/treaty under VCLT; Treaty obligations – Partner State duty to involve other Partner States and respect EAC precedence; Secretary General duties – duty to investigate, follow up and escalate under Articles 29 and 71; Jurisdiction – Reference admissible where allegations show legal nexus to Treaty infractions.
|
2 December 2022 |
|
|
2 December 2022 |
|
Appellate court dismissed appeal for lack of specified errors and reversed award of costs to the losing appellant.
* Treaty jurisdiction – ratione materiae and personae – First Instance Division correctly vested to entertain Reference under Articles 27 and 30.
* Appellate procedure – grounds of appeal under Article 35A and Rule 86 – requirement to specify point of law, lack of jurisdiction, or procedural irregularity.
* Procedural irregularity – definition and evidentiary burden; vague allegations insufficient.
* Costs – Rule 127(1) – costs normally follow the event; court may exceptionally depart but cannot award costs to losing party absent strong justification.
|
2 December 2022 |
| November 2022 |
|
|
Reference alleging arrest, torture and deportation dismissed as time-barred under Article 30(2) of the Treaty.
* EACJ jurisdiction – Article 27(1) – Court empowered to interpret and apply the Treaty where alleged infringements are pleaded; domestic law violations may constitute Treaty breaches. * Time limitation – Article 30(2) – strict two-month limitation for instituting proceedings; ratione temporis jurisdictional bar. * Procedure – where Reference is time-barred court lacks jurisdiction to determine merits; dismissal with no order as to costs.
|
30 November 2022 |
|
Salary and gratuity claims by drivers held time‑barred under Regulation 104; Court lacked temporal jurisdiction to hear them.
* Jurisdiction – ratione temporis – Article 31 Treaty v. Regulation 104 of EAC Staff Rules and Regulations – 12‑month limitation for retrospective claims.
* Employment law – arrears of salary and gratuity construed as 'other payments' under Regulation 104 and therefore time‑barred if not claimed within 12 months.
* Proof of subsisting employment – necessary to proceed under Article 31; absence may bar Article 31 claims.
* Remedy – claims dismissed for lack of temporal jurisdiction; each party to bear own costs.
|
29 November 2022 |
|
Application to join a private bank as third party dismissed for lack of EACJ jurisdiction ratione personae.
Jurisdiction — ratione personae — EACJ limited to Partner States and Community Institutions; Third party notices — Rule 55 — prospective third parties must be within the Court's jurisdiction; Procedural — Rule 55 ex parte considerations; Costs — unsuccessful application condemned.
|
28 November 2022 |