Tanzania Case Law

peter odiwuor ngoge ta op ngoge associates advocates v attorney general of republic of kenya application no 37 of 2022 arising from reference no12 of 2022 2024 ea

Court

EACJ

The Court lacks jurisdiction ratione materiae because the Applicant's claims pertain to the African Charter and the African Commission, which are outside the scope of the Treaty. The Court also lacks jurisdiction ratione temporis as the Reference was filed more than five years after the Applicant became aware of the alleged violation, exceeding the two-month limitation period under Article 30(2) of the Treaty.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction
• Time limitation
• Consolidation of proceedings
• Interpretation of treaty
• State responsibility

Read case analysis

possi and another v human rights awareness and promotion forum and another 2015 eacj 113 25 november 2015

Court

EACJ

The East African Court of Justice rejected an application by Dr. Ally Possi to join as amicus curiae in a treaty reference, finding no sufficient interest or relevant expertise.

• Amicus curiae
• Court jurisdiction
• Human rights
• Interpretation of treaty
• Amicus-curiae
• Court-jurisdiction

Read case analysis

magezi v ag of republic uganda appeal 3 of 2015 2015 eacj 90 14 may 2015

Court

EACJ

The Court held that the Reference was properly before it but found no breach of the Treaty by the IGG or Attorney General. The IGG and Attorney General acted within their legal mandates, and the IGG's letter and Attorney General's opinions did not violate the principles of good governance, rule of law, or accountability under the Treaty. The Court declined to make findings against QCIL as a non-party and found it lacked jurisdiction to determine the alleged financial loss or order recovery. All prayers were disallowed and costs awarded to the Respondent.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction of eacj
• Good governance
• Rule of law
• Accountability
• Interpretation of treaty
• Whistle-blower protection

Read case analysis

masenge vag of republic of burundi reference 9 of 2012 2014 eacj 11 18 june 2014

Court

EACJ

The EACJ held that Burundi’s failure to protect the applicant’s titled land violated the Treaty’s good-governance and rule-of-law principles, but it refused demolition and restitution orders.

• Jurisdiction of eacj
• Right to property
• Good governance
• Rule of law
• Interpretation of treaty
• Infringement of treaty provisions

Read case analysis

nyamoya v attorney general of the republic of burundi and another 2014 eacj 148 28 february 2014

Court

EACJ

The East African Court of Justice held that the Reference was filed outside the two-month limit under Article 30(2) of the Treaty and dismissed it as time-barred.

• Jurisdiction
• Time limitation
• Interpretation of treaty
• Human rights allegations
• Procedural compliance
• Time-limitation

Read case analysis

anta v attorney general of uganda and others reference 6 of 2012 2013 eacj 3 29 november 2013

Court

EACJ

The EACJ held Uganda’s 2012 EALA election rules were mostly valid, but Rule 13(1) and (2) of Appendix B had to be amended.

• Interpretation of treaty
• Election rules
• Jurisdiction
• Representation of interest groups
• Rule of law
• Treaty-interpretation

Read case analysis

attorney general of republic of kenya v independent medical legal unit appeal no 1 of 2011 2012 eacj 4 15 march 2012

Court

EACJ

The Reference was time-barred as it was filed more than two months after the claimant became aware of the alleged violations, and the Court has no power under the Treaty to extend the limitation period.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction
• Limitation of actions
• Human rights
• Interpretation of treaty

Read case analysis

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

Court

EACJ

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.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction
• Joinder of parties
• Cause of action
• Limitation period
• Interpretation of treaty

Read case analysis