shirima v ag of burundi and ors application 11 of 2016 2017 eacj 112 6 july 2017

shirima v ag of burundi and ors application 11 of 2016 2017 eacj 112 6 july 2017

The applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable injury or a prima facie case warranting an interlocutory injunction. The court has jurisdiction to interpret alleged violations of the Treaty, but the application did not meet the threshold for injunctive relief. The supporting affidavit's minor defect did not render the application incompetent. No restraining orders were justified as the EPA process was not imminent and the Summit had already paused further signatures.

Citation
shirima v ag of burundi and ors application 11 of 2016 2017 eacj 112 6 july 2017
Parties
Applicant: Castro Pius Shirima; 1st Respondent: Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi; 2nd Respondent: Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya; 3rd Respondent: Attorney General of the Republic of Rwanda; 4th Respondent: Attorney General of the Republic of South Sudan; 5th Respondent: Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania; 6th Respondent: Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda; 7th Respondent: Secretary General of the East African Community
Court
EACJ
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
6 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Treaty Interpretation, Jurisdiction of Regional Courts, Interlocutory Injunctions, Economic Partnership Agreements, Sovereignty of States, Cause of Action, Procedural Requirements
Source Language
English
International Law Regional Integration Law Administrative Law Treaty Interpretation Jurisdiction of Regional Courts Interlocutory Injunctions Economic Partnership Agreements Sovereignty of States +2 more

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Castro Pius Shirima

Applicant

Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi

1st Respondent

Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya

2nd Respondent

Attorney General of the Republic of Rwanda

3rd Respondent

Attorney General of the Republic of South Sudan

4th Respondent

Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania

5th Respondent

Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda

6th Respondent

Secretary General of the East African Community

7th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the East African Court of Justice has jurisdiction to entertain the application regarding the EPA signing process
  2. 2 Whether the application discloses a cause of action against the respondents, particularly the 5th Respondent
  3. 3 Whether the application meets the criteria for grant of an interlocutory injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable injury or a prima facie case warranting an interlocutory injunction. The court has jurisdiction to interpret alleged violations of the Treaty, but the application did not meet the threshold for injunctive relief. The supporting affidavit's minor defect did not render the application incompetent. No restraining orders were justified as the EPA process was not imminent and the Summit had already paused further signatures.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Order restraining the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th Respondents from signing the EPA is not granted.
  • Order directing the 2nd and 3rd Respondents to stay any pending procedures over the EPA is not granted.