mtikila v ag of united republic of tanzania and anor reference 2 of 2007 2007 eacj 4 25 april 2007
The core issue raised by the applicant concerns the membership of the East African Legislative Assembly, which falls squarely within Article 52 of the Treaty and is the exclusive domain of the High Court of Tanzania. The East African Court of Justice has no jurisdiction to entertain the reference as it does not raise any issue of interpretation or application of the Treaty outside Article 52.
- Citation
- mtikila v ag of united republic of tanzania and anor reference 2 of 2007 2007 eacj 4 25 april 2007
- Parties
- Applicant: Christopher Mtikila; 1st Respondent: Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania; 2nd Respondent: Secretary General of the East African Community
- Court
- EACJ
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 25 April 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Reference / Preliminary Objection Ruling
- Outcome
- Reference dismissed for want of jurisdiction
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Regional Courts, Locus Standi, Election Petitions, Interpretation of Treaty Provisions
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Christopher Mtikila
Applicant
Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania
1st Respondent
Secretary General of the East African Community
2nd Respondent
Procedural Posture
Reference / Preliminary Objection Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the East African Court of Justice has jurisdiction to entertain the reference regarding the membership of the East African Legislative Assembly from Tanzania
- 2 Whether the applicant has locus standi to bring the reference
Ratio Decidendi
The core issue raised by the applicant concerns the membership of the East African Legislative Assembly, which falls squarely within Article 52 of the Treaty and is the exclusive domain of the High Court of Tanzania. The East African Court of Justice has no jurisdiction to entertain the reference as it does not raise any issue of interpretation or application of the Treaty outside Article 52.
Court Disposition
Reference dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Orders
- Preliminary objection allowed
- Reference dismissed with costs for one advocate for each Respondent
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment