Tanzania Case Law

east africa law society v attorney general of the united republic of tanzania and another appeal 2 of 2021 2022 eacj 30 31 august 2022

Court

EACJ

Article 24(1) of the Treaty provides two disjunctive criteria for judicial appointment: either qualified for high judicial office in the Partner State or a jurist of recognized competence. The Treaty does not require public participation or stakeholder involvement in the nomination process, nor does it obligate the Secretary General to investigate nominations. The process followed by Tanzania and the Secretary General complied with the Treaty. Allegations of opacity, lack of transparency, and bias were not substantiated. The retirement age under Tanzanian law does not bar appointment under th…

Source excerpt

• Judicial appointments
• Treaty interpretation
• Good governance
• Public participation
• Judicial independence

Read case analysis

east africa law society v attorney general of united republic of tanzania and another reference 1 of 2019 2020 eacj 16 25 november 2020

Court

EACJ

The Court held that Article 24 of the Treaty provides two alternative routes for judicial appointment: either fulfilling national conditions for high judicial office or being a jurist of recognized competence. Justice Mjasiri qualified under the latter. The Treaty does not prescribe a uniform nomination process, leaving it to Partner States' discretion. No Treaty violation occurred as the required qualifications were met and the process did not breach Articles 6 or 7. The Second Respondent's obligation was limited to verifying qualifications under Article 24, and there was no obligation to es…

Source excerpt

• Judicial appointments
• Treaty interpretation
• Sovereignty of states
• Transparency and accountability
• Public participation

Read case analysis

ochieng and anor v ag of uganda reference 11 of 2013 2015 eacj 39 7 august 2015

Court

EACJ

The Applicants failed to prove that the President of Uganda refused to appoint judges as prescribed by law or that such refusal occurred. There was no evidence of a Parliamentary Resolution increasing the number of High Court judges to 82, and the ongoing appointment process did not violate the principles of rule of law or good governance under Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty. The Court found no breach of the Treaty and dismissed the Reference.

Source excerpt

• Judicial appointments
• Separation of powers
• Rule of law
• Good governance
• Treaty interpretation
• Human rights

Read case analysis

ochieng and anor v ag of uganda appeal 4 of 2015 2015 eacj 99 7 august 2015

Court

EACJ

The EACJ Appellate Division dismissed an appeal challenging Uganda's failure to appoint judges, holding the appellants had not shown an error of law, jurisdiction, or procedure.

• Separation of powers
• Judicial appointments
• Treaty interpretation
• Public interest litigation
• Judicial-appointments
• East-african-community-treaty

Read case analysis