[2015] EACJ 113

[2015] EACJ 113

The Court found that the 2nd Applicant was not properly before it due to lack of proof of authority and absence of a supporting affidavit. Regarding the 1st Applicant, the Court held that he failed to demonstrate sufficient interest in the outcome of the Reference or relevant expertise that would add value to the proceedings. The Applicant's submissions were deemed academic and remote from the issues at hand, and he did not provide materials or evidence of expertise. The Court emphasized that admission as amicus curiae is discretionary and must be justified by the applicant's ability to provide new, relevant, and useful legal arguments. As these conditions were not met, the application...

Citation
[2015] EACJ 113
Parties
Applicant: Dr. Ally Possi; Applicant: Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria; Respondent: Human Rights Awareness and Promotion Forum (HRAPF); Respondent: Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda
Court
East African Court of Justice
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
25 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Intervene as Amicus Curiae
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
Jundu JA, Lenaola JA, Mugenyi PJ, Ngiye JA, Ntezilyayo JA
Legal Topics
Amicus Curiae Admission, Court Discretion, Human Rights Jurisdiction, Interpretative Jurisdiction, Public Interest Intervention
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Amicus Curiae Admission Court Discretion Human Rights Jurisdiction Interpretative Jurisdiction Public Interest Intervention

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. Ally Possi

Applicant

Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria

Applicant

Human Rights Awareness and Promotion Forum (HRAPF)

Respondent

Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Intervene as Amicus Curiae

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dr. Ally Possi and the Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria should be admitted as amici curiae in Reference No. 6 of 2014.
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd Applicant is properly before the Court given the lack of affidavit and proof of authority.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicants have demonstrated sufficient interest, expertise, and relevance to be admitted as amici curiae.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the 2nd Applicant was not properly before it due to lack of proof of authority and absence of a supporting affidavit. Regarding the 1st Applicant, the Court held that he failed to demonstrate sufficient interest in the outcome of the Reference or relevant expertise that would add value to the proceedings. The Applicant's submissions were deemed academic and remote from the issues at hand, and he did not provide materials or evidence of expertise. The Court emphasized that admission as amicus curiae is discretionary and must be justified by the applicant's ability to provide new, relevant, and useful legal arguments. As these conditions were not met, the application...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Application No. 1 of 2015 seeking leave to intervene as amicus curiae in Reference No. 6 of 2014 is disallowed.
  • No order as to costs.