[2015] EACJ 105
The Court held that the Respondent was required to give 7 days' notice of the preliminary objection after receiving the Applicant's witness list on 9th June 2015. The Respondent had three months to serve such notice before the hearing but failed to do so. The purpose of Rule 41(2) is to prevent trial by ambush and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] EACJ 105
- Parties
- Applicant: Rt. Hon. Margaret Zziwa; Respondent: The Secretary General, East African Community
- Court
- East African Court of Justice
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Reference 17 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Reference / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- preliminary_objection_dismissed
- Judges
- Mugenyi JA
- Legal Topics
- Preliminary Objection, Notice Requirements, Trial by Ambush
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Rt. Hon. Margaret Zziwa
Applicant
The Secretary General, East African Community
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Reference / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Respondent's preliminary objection was properly before the Court in light of the notice requirements under Rule 41(2) of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure.
- 2 Whether the Respondent was required to give 7 days' notice of the preliminary objection after receiving the Applicant's witness list.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that the Respondent was required to give 7 days' notice of the preliminary objection after receiving the Applicant's witness list on 9th June 2015. The Respondent had three months to serve such notice before the hearing but failed to do so. The purpose of Rule 41(2) is to prevent trial by ambush and ensure fairness in proceedings. As the Respondent did not comply with the notice requirements, the preliminary objection was deemed improperly before the Court and was accordingly dismissed.
Court Disposition
preliminary_objection_dismissed
Orders
- The Respondent's preliminary objection is dismissed as improperly before the Court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
IN THE EAST AFRICAN COURT OF JUSTICE AT ARUSHA
**FIRST INSTANCE DIVISION**
(Coram: Monica K. Mugenyi, PJ; Isaac Lenaola, DPJ; Faustin Ntezelyayo J; Fakihi A. Jundu, J and Audace Naive J.)
## **REFERENCE NO. 17 OF 2014**
RT. HON. MARGARET ZZIWA ....................................
## **VERSUS**
THE SECRETARY GENERAL,
EAST AFRICAN COMMUNITY ....................................
## **RULING OF THE COURT**
- 1. The above Reference was scheduled for hearing of oral evidence on $8<sup>th</sup>$ and $g^{th}$ September 2015. However, on $8^{th}$ September 2015, the Respondent raised a preliminary point of law premised on Section 20 of the East Africa Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act; the gist of which was that the Applicant and her witnesses were members and/ or officers of the East Africa Legislative Assembly but had not secured leave from the Assembly to adduce evidence before this Court. - 2. Rule $41(2)$ of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure provides for a Respondent to raise a preliminary objection by giving notice therefor before the Scheduling Conference. Such notice shall entail 'not less that
REFERENCE NO.17 OF 2014
Page 1
grounds for the objection.
- 3. We do realize that the Respondent had no notice of the witnesses the Applicant intended to call and therefore could not have given notice of this particular objection before Scheduling. However, the spirit of Rule 41 is to avert trial by ambush and the attendant delays to proceedings before this Court as has transpired in this matter. - 4. Therefore, we take the considered view that the Respondent should have endeavoured to give 7 days' notice to the Court and the Applicant of his intended preliminary objection. In this regard, we note that the Respondent was given the list of witnesses on 9<sup>th</sup> June 2015. This would have given the Respondent three (3) months within which to serve due notice of the preliminary objection within reasonable time before today's hearing. - 5. In the result, we find that the Respondent's preliminary objection is improperly before this Court. We so rule.
Dated at Arusha this 8<sup>th</sup> day of September 2015.
Methogeny
Hon. Lady Justice Monica K. Mugenyi
PRINCIPAL JUDGE
Hon. Justice Isaac Lenaola
DEPUTY PRINCIPAL JUDGE
Tun
**Hon. Justice Faustin Ntezilyayo**
**JUDGE**
Hon. Justice Fakihi A. Jundu
**JUDGE**
Hon. Justice Audace Ngiye
**JUDGE**
REFERENCE NO.17 OF 2014
Page 3