omar and ors v ag republic of kenya and ors application 4 of 2011 2011 eacj 12 1 december 2011

omar and ors v ag republic of kenya and ors application 4 of 2011 2011 eacj 12 1 december 2011

The Court held that the alleged Treaty violations, including detention, are continuous in nature and cannot be subjected to mathematical computation of time. Therefore, the Reference is not time-barred and is properly before the Court.

Citation
omar and ors v ag republic of kenya and ors application 4 of 2011 2011 eacj 12 1 december 2011
Parties
Applicants: Omar Awadh Omar and 6 Others; 1st Respondent: Attorney-General, Republic of Kenya; 2nd Respondent: Attorney-General, Republic of Uganda; 3rd Respondent: Secretary-General, East African Community
Court
EACJ
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
1 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Application (preliminary Objection) Arising From Reference / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Limitation of Time
Outcome
Preliminary objection disallowed; Reference No. 4 of 2011 is properly before the Court.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Limitation of Actions, Continuing Violations, Detention, Treaty Interpretation
Source Language
English
International Law Human Rights Law Regional Integration Law Jurisdiction Limitation of Actions Continuing Violations Detention Treaty Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Omar Awadh Omar and 6 Others

Applicants

Attorney-General, Republic of Kenya

1st Respondent

Attorney-General, Republic of Uganda

2nd Respondent

Secretary-General, East African Community

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application (preliminary Objection) Arising From Reference / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Limitation of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Reference No. 4 of 2011 is time-barred under Article 30(2) of the EAC Treaty
  2. 2 Whether the alleged Treaty violations constitute a continuing violation not subject to the two-month limitation period

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the alleged Treaty violations, including detention, are continuous in nature and cannot be subjected to mathematical computation of time. Therefore, the Reference is not time-barred and is properly before the Court.

Court Disposition

Preliminary objection disallowed; Reference No. 4 of 2011 is properly before the Court.

Orders

  • Objection on limitation of time is disallowed.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.