Tanzania Case Law

juba airport city park limited v attorney general of the republic of south sudan reference no172020 2024 eacj 2 26 march 2024

Court

EACJ

The Court lacks jurisdiction over acts committed before South Sudan became a member of the EAC, and the Reference was filed outside the two-month limitation period prescribed by Article 30(2) of the Treaty. The Applicant was aware of the expropriation since 2011 and failed to file within the required timeframe.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction
• Limitation of actions
• Non-retroactivity of treaties
• Expropriation
• Land law

Read case analysis

adiy and others v attorney general of the revolutionary government of zanzibar and others reference 9 of 2016 2020 eacj 19 29 september 2020

Court

EACJ

The Court lacks jurisdiction ratione materiae and ratione temporis to entertain the reference because the acts complained of predate the Treaty and the reference is time-barred under Article 30(2); further, only the United Republic of Tanzania has locus standi as a Partner State, and no actionable conduct by it was established.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction
• Time limitation
• Non-retroactivity of treaties
• Sovereignty
• Locus standi

Read case analysis

umuhoza v republic of rwanda ruling on jurisdiction application 0032014 2016 afchpr 30 3 june 2016

Court

TANZLII

Withdrawal of Rwanda's Article 34(6) declaration is valid as a unilateral act, but requires a one-year notice period for legal certainty and does not affect pending cases before the Court.

Source excerpt

• Withdrawal of declaration
• Jurisdiction
• Notice period
• Non-retroactivity

Read case analysis

umuhoza c republique du rwanda requete 0032014 2016 afchpr 31 3 juin 2016

Court

TANZLII

The Court has jurisdiction to rule on the effects of Rwanda's withdrawal of its Article 34(6) declaration. The withdrawal is valid as a unilateral act under international law, but takes effect only after a one-year notice period to ensure legal certainty and protect third-party rights. The withdrawal does not affect pending cases before the Court.

Source excerpt

• Withdrawal of declaration
• Jurisdiction
• Non-retroactivity
• Sovereignty
• Preavis requirement

Read case analysis

etienne and anor v secretary general of the east african community application 8 of 2015 2015 eacj 33 30 october 2015

Court

EACJ

The EACJ declined interim orders halting recruitment of its Registrar, finding the relief neither judicious, necessary nor desirable pending the reference.

• Interim relief
• Recruitment process
• Treaty compliance
• Interim-relief
• Recruitment-process
• Treaty-compliance

Read case analysis

union trade centre ltd v ag of republic of rwanda reference 10 of 2013 2014 eacj 14 27 november 2014

Court

EACJ

The acts of the Kigali City Abandoned Property Management Commission are attributable to the State of Rwanda because the Commission was empowered by law to exercise governmental authority over abandoned property, a function of the State. The Reference was filed within the prescribed time limit. However, the Applicant failed to establish that the Commission’s actions contravened the relevant provisions of the Treaty, as the Court’s jurisdiction does not extend to determining compliance with Rwanda’s internal law absent a proven Treaty violation.

Source excerpt

• State responsibility
• Attribution of acts
• Jurisdiction of regional courts
• Limitation of actions
• Good governance
• Rule of law

Read case analysis

nyambura v attorney general of republic of uganda and others reference 11 of 2011 2014 eacj 1 24 february 2014

Court

EACJ

The Reference was filed outside the two-month limitation period prescribed by Article 30(2) of the Treaty. The Applicant was aware of the acts complained of by 18 September 2010 but filed the Reference on 30 December 2011. The Court has no jurisdiction to extend or waive the limitation period. Consequently, the Reference is time-barred and must be dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction of eacj
• Time limitation under treaty
• Interpretation of treaty provisions
• State obligations under eac treaty
• Human rights violations
• Role of lawyers

Read case analysis

alcon international limited v standard chartered bank of uganda and ors reference 6 of 2010 2013 eacj 57 2 september 2013

Court

EACJ

The Court lacks jurisdiction over the Reference because the 1st and 3rd Respondents are neither Partner States nor Institutions of the Community, and the acts complained of occurred before the coming into force of the Protocol, which does not apply retroactively. The Bank Guarantee ceased to exist after the Supreme Court of Uganda set aside the underlying arbitral and court decisions, leaving no live dispute or cause of action before the Court.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction of regional courts
• Non-retroactivity of treaties
• Cross-border investment protection
• Interpretation of treaties
• Bank guarantees
• Arbitration awards

Read case analysis

alcon international limited v standard charted bank of uganda and ors reference 6 of 2010 2013 eacj 6 2 september 2013

Court

EACJ

The 1st and 3rd Respondents are not proper parties under Article 30(1) of the EAC Treaty as they are neither Partner States nor Institutions of the Community. The Claimant has no cause of action as the bank guarantee and related judgments were set aside by the Supreme Court of Uganda, leaving no live dispute. The EACJ lacks jurisdiction over acts predating the entry into force of the Common Market Protocol, as the principle of non-retroactivity applies. The Reference is dismissed for lack of merit and jurisdiction.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction of eacj
• Non-retroactivity of treaties
• Cross-border investment protection
• Bank guarantees
• Arbitration awards
• Interpretation of eac treaty and protocols

Read case analysis

east african law society v secretary general of the east african community 2013 eacj 147 14 february 2013

Court

EACJ

The Court held that the dispute settlement mechanisms created under the Customs Union and Common Market Protocols do not exclude, oust, or infringe upon the interpretative jurisdiction of the East African Court of Justice. The impugned provisions of both Protocols are not in contravention of or in contradiction with the relevant provisions of the Treaty. The Court retains jurisdiction over interpretation and application of the Treaty, including its Protocols.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction of regional courts
• Interpretation of treaties
• Dispute resolution mechanisms
• Supremacy of community law

Read case analysis