[2015] EACJ 39

[2015] EACJ 39

The Court found that the applicants failed to prove the President of Uganda refused to appoint judges to the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, or High Court as required by law. There was no evidence of a formal Parliamentary Resolution increasing the number of High Court judges to 82, and the process of judicial appointments was ongoing, subject to internal administrative and financial procedures. The Court held that the executive's internal processes, including the use of certificates of financial implication and due diligence checks, were within the prerogative of the appointing authority and did not amount to a breach of the rule of law or good governance under Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of...

Citation
[2015] EACJ 39
Parties
Applicant: Simon Peter Ochieng; Applicant: John Tusiime; Respondent: Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda
Court
East African Court of Justice
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
7 August 2015
Case Number
Reference 11 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Reference / Final Judgment
Outcome
Reference dismissed. Each party to bear its own costs.
Judges
Jundu JA, Lenaola JA, Mugenyi JA
Legal Topics
Judicial Appointments, Separation of Powers, Rule of Law, Good Governance, Independence of Judiciary
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Judicial Appointments Separation of Powers Rule of Law Good Governance Independence of Judiciary

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Peter Ochieng

Applicant

John Tusiime

Applicant

Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Reference / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Reference raised a matter for interpretation by the East African Court of Justice under Article 30 of the Treaty.
  2. 2 Whether the Parliament of Uganda resolved to increase the number of High Court judges to 82 and if the President refused to appoint as prescribed.
  3. 3 Whether the President of Uganda declined to appoint judges of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court as required by law.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicants failed to prove the President of Uganda refused to appoint judges to the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, or High Court as required by law. There was no evidence of a formal Parliamentary Resolution increasing the number of High Court judges to 82, and the process of judicial appointments was ongoing, subject to internal administrative and financial procedures. The Court held that the executive's internal processes, including the use of certificates of financial implication and due diligence checks, were within the prerogative of the appointing authority and did not amount to a breach of the rule of law or good governance under Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of...

Court Disposition

Reference dismissed. Each party to bear its own costs.

Orders

  • The Reference is dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.