democratic party v secretary general of the east african community and ors appeal 1 of 2014 2015 eacj 97 28 july 2015

democratic party v secretary general of the east african community and ors appeal 1 of 2014 2015 eacj 97 28 july 2015

The EACJ has jurisdiction to interpret the Charter and Protocol only to the extent that they are referenced in the Treaty, but the delay by Uganda, Kenya, and Burundi in depositing declarations under Article 34(6) of the Protocol does not constitute a violation as no time frame is prescribed. The Secretary General fulfilled his supervisory role, and no costs or further remedies are warranted.

Citation
democratic party v secretary general of the east african community and ors appeal 1 of 2014 2015 eacj 97 28 july 2015
Parties
Appellant: Democratic Party; 1st Respondent: Secretary General of the East African Community; 2nd Respondent: Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda; 3rd Respondent: Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya; 4th Respondent: Attorney General of the Republic of Rwanda; 5th Respondent: Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi
Court
EACJ
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
28 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed with partial success
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Regional Courts, Interpretation of Treaties, Obligations Under International Instruments, Supervisory Role of Regional Secretariat, Costs in Public Interest Litigation
Source Language
English
International Law Regional Integration Law Human Rights Law Jurisdiction of Regional Courts Interpretation of Treaties Obligations Under International Instruments Supervisory Role of Regional Secretariat Costs in Public Interest Litigation

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Democratic Party

Appellant

Secretary General of the East African Community

1st Respondent

Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda

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 Burundi

5th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the East African Court of Justice has jurisdiction to interpret the African Charter, its Protocol, and other international instruments referenced in the EAC Treaty
  2. 2 Whether the delay by Uganda, Kenya, and Burundi in depositing declarations under Article 34(6) of the Protocol constitutes a violation of the Treaty, the Charter, or the Protocol
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary General of the EAC has a duty to supervise Partner States in complying with obligations under the Charter, Protocol, and Treaty

Ratio Decidendi

The EACJ has jurisdiction to interpret the Charter and Protocol only to the extent that they are referenced in the Treaty, but the delay by Uganda, Kenya, and Burundi in depositing declarations under Article 34(6) of the Protocol does not constitute a violation as no time frame is prescribed. The Secretary General fulfilled his supervisory role, and no costs or further remedies are warranted.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with partial success

Orders

  • The Appeal is dismissed except that the EACJ has jurisdiction to interpret the Charter and Protocol in the context of the Treaty.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs, both in this Division and in the First Instance Division.