deniss v ag of burundi and ors reference 3 of 2017 2017 eacj 120 31 march 2017

deniss v ag of burundi and ors reference 3 of 2017 2017 eacj 120 31 march 2017

The Court has jurisdiction to determine the legality of Article 30(2) of the Treaty as it relates to the principles and objectives of the Treaty, and the Reference is not barred by res judicata. However, Article 30(2) does not violate Articles 6(d), 7(1)(a), or 7(2) of the Treaty, as it merely regulates the procedural framework for access to the Court and is consistent with international practice. The Court lacks jurisdiction to order amendments to the Treaty or to enlarge the limitation period. The process of introducing Article 30(2) was lawfully determined in Reference No. 3 of 2007 and cannot be re-litigated. No specific failure by the 6th Respondent was established. The Applicant is...

Citation
deniss v ag of burundi and ors reference 3 of 2017 2017 eacj 120 31 march 2017
Parties
Applicant: Steven De Niss; 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 United Republic of Tanzania; 5th Respondent: Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda; 6th Respondent: Secretary General of the East African Community
Court
EACJ
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
31 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Reference / Judgment
Outcome
Reference dismissed
Legal Topics
Treaty Interpretation, Access to Justice, Limitation Periods, Jurisdiction, Res Judicata
Source Language
English
Regional Integration Law International Law Administrative Law Treaty Interpretation Access to Justice Limitation Periods Jurisdiction Res Judicata

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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steven De Niss

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 United Republic of Tanzania

4th Respondent

Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda

5th Respondent

Secretary General of the East African Community

6th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Reference / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Reference and whether the dispute is admissible
  2. 2 Whether the process of introducing Article 30(2) of the Treaty was illegal and if the 6th Respondent should require Partner States to rectify it
  3. 3 Whether Article 30(2) denies access to justice or renders disproportionate access to justice against individuals in favour of Partner States

Ratio Decidendi

The Court has jurisdiction to determine the legality of Article 30(2) of the Treaty as it relates to the principles and objectives of the Treaty, and the Reference is not barred by res judicata. However, Article 30(2) does not violate Articles 6(d), 7(1)(a), or 7(2) of the Treaty, as it merely regulates the procedural framework for access to the Court and is consistent with international practice. The Court lacks jurisdiction to order amendments to the Treaty or to enlarge the limitation period. The process of introducing Article 30(2) was lawfully determined in Reference No. 3 of 2007 and cannot be re-litigated. No specific failure by the 6th Respondent was established. The Applicant is...

Court Disposition

Reference dismissed

Orders

  • Each party to bear its own costs