independent medical unit v ag of republic of kenya and ors reference 3 of 2010 2011 eacj 5 29 june 2011

independent medical unit v ag of republic of kenya and ors reference 3 of 2010 2011 eacj 5 29 june 2011

The Court has jurisdiction to interpret and apply the Treaty even if the reference includes allegations of human rights violations. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Respondents were wrongly joined as they are not Partner States or Community institutions. There is no cause of action against the 5th Respondent. Rule 24 was complied with after the claimant filed its registration certificate. The reference is not time barred as the alleged violations constitute a continuous chain of events.

Citation
independent medical unit v ag of republic of kenya and ors reference 3 of 2010 2011 eacj 5 29 june 2011
Parties
Claimant: Independent Medical Unit; 1st Respondent: Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya; 2nd Respondent: Minister for Internal Security of Republic of Kenya; 3rd Respondent: Chief of General Staff of Republic of Kenya; 4th Respondent: Commissioner of Police of the Republic of Kenya; 5th Respondent: Secretary General of the East African Community
Court
EACJ
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
29 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Reference / Ruling on Preliminary Objections
Outcome
preliminary objections partly upheld and partly dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Joinder of Parties, Cause of Action, Limitation Period, Interpretation of Treaty
Source Language
English
Public International Law Regional Integration Law Human Rights Law Jurisdiction Joinder of Parties Cause of Action Limitation Period Interpretation of Treaty

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Independent Medical Unit

Claimant

Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya

1st Respondent

Minister for Internal Security of Republic of Kenya

2nd Respondent

Chief of General Staff of Republic of Kenya

3rd Respondent

Commissioner of Police of the Republic of Kenya

4th Respondent

Secretary General of the East African Community

5th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Reference / Ruling on Preliminary Objections

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the reference involving human rights violations
  2. 2 Whether there was non-compliance with Rule 24 of the EACJ Rules
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Respondents were properly joined

Ratio Decidendi

The Court has jurisdiction to interpret and apply the Treaty even if the reference includes allegations of human rights violations. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Respondents were wrongly joined as they are not Partner States or Community institutions. There is no cause of action against the 5th Respondent. Rule 24 was complied with after the claimant filed its registration certificate. The reference is not time barred as the alleged violations constitute a continuous chain of events.

Court Disposition

preliminary objections partly upheld and partly dismissed

Orders

  • The Court has jurisdiction to handle the matter.
  • Rule 24 was complied with.