Download

Uganda Judgment

East African Court of Justice

Basajjalaba and Anor v A.G. of Uganda (Application 6 of 2018) [2018] EACJ 76 (24 April 2018) (First Instance Division)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Court declined to grant ex-parte interim restraining orders because the Applicants are already beneficiaries of broad protective orders issued by the Constitutional Court of Uganda in Petition No.12 of 2013, which prohibit the Respondent from prosecuting or initiating criminal proceedings against them in relation to the same subject matter. The Court found that the Applicants had not demonstrated that they would suffer irreparable injustice if ex-parte orders were not granted, as the existing orders from the Constitutional Court provide sufficient interim protection. The Court emphasized that ex-parte relief is only available where delay would cause irreparable injustice, and that the Applicants should instead seek enforcement of the Constitutional Court's orders. The application was therefore set down for inter-partes hearing, and no ex-parte orders were issued.

Court disposition

Ex-parte application for interim restraining orders dismissed; matter set for inter-partes hearing.

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 16th April 2018 and filed on 17th April, 2018 shall be served for hearing on 5th June, 2018.
  • Parties are at liberty to file and exchange skeletal written submissions before the hearing date.
  • No order as to costs.

02

Material facts

Parties

Hassan Basajjabalaba

Applicant

Basajjabalaba Muzamiru

Applicant

Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Application / Ex Parte Application for Interim Restraining Orders Prior to Inter Partes Hearing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The Applicants argued that they are at risk of arrest, prosecution, and being compelled to appear before the Criminal Investigation Department in relation to Criminal Case No.003 of 2018, despite existing protective orders from the Constitutional Court of Uganda. They contend that unless ex-parte restraining orders are granted, they may suffer irreparable injustice, including violation of their rights and interference with pending constitutional proceedings.
Respondent
The Respondent was not heard at this ex-parte stage, as the application was brought without notice. The Court noted that Rule 21(2) of the Rules of Procedure generally requires notice to the affected party, except in cases where delay would cause irreparable injustice.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Rule 21(2) of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure

    Ex-parte orders may only be granted where delay would or might entail irreparable injustice to the applicant.

  2. 02

    Petition No.12 of 2013, Constitutional Court of Uganda

    Applicants already benefiting from protective orders from a competent court should pursue enforcement of those orders rather than seek duplicative relief.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Court declined to grant ex-parte interim restraining orders because the Applicants are already beneficiaries of broad protective orders issued by the Constitutional Court of Uganda in Petition No.12 of 2013, which prohibit the Respondent from prosecuting or initiating criminal proceedings against them in relation to the same subject matter. The Court found that the Applicants had not demonstrated that they would suffer irreparable injustice if ex-parte orders were not granted, as the existing orders from the Constitutional Court provide sufficient interim protection. The Court emphasized that ex-parte relief is only available where delay would cause irreparable injustice, and that the Applicants should instead seek enforcement of the Constitutional Court's orders. The application was therefore set down for inter-partes hearing, and no ex-parte orders were issued.

Obiter and limits

  • The existence of protective orders from the Constitutional Court of Uganda is sufficient to safeguard the Applicants' interests at this stage.
  • It is immaterial that the Constitutional Court is partly the subject of the Reference before this Court; the orders remain operative until set aside or varied.

Court disposition

Ex-parte application for interim restraining orders dismissed; matter set for inter-partes hearing.

  • The Notice of Motion dated 16th April 2018 and filed on 17th April, 2018 shall be served for hearing on 5th June, 2018.
  • Parties are at liberty to file and exchange skeletal written submissions before the hearing date.
  • No order as to costs.

Source and reliance status

East African Court of Justice

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

East African Court of Justice

Judgment

[2018] EACJ 76

![](_page_0_Picture_0.jpeg)

IN THE EAST AFRICAN COURT OF JUSTICE AT ARUSHA FIRST INSTANCE DIVISION

![](_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg)

(Coram: Monica K. Mugenyi, PJ; Isaac Lenaola, DPJ, & Fakihi A. Jundu, J)

APPLICATION NO. 9 OF 2018 (Arising from Reference No. 8 of 2018)

1. HASSAN BASAJJABALABA 2. BASAJJABALABA MUZAMIRU. ......................................

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA...................................

24<sup>TH</sup> APRIL, 2018

Application No. 6 of 2018

meet:

RULING OF THE COURT

- 1. Before us is a Notice of Motion Application dated 16th April, 2018 and filed on 17th April, 2018 under certificate of urgency. It is premised principally on the provisions of Article 39 of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community as well as Rule 21 (1) and (2) of this Court's Rules of Procedure. - 2. The Applicants seek ex-parte restraining orders directed at the Respondent and his agents, specifically, the Ugandan Police, and any other security agency or department of the Government of the Republic of Uganda. The orders aforesaid include an order that the summons issued on 9th April 2018, requiring attendance by the Applicants before the Criminal Investigation Department to be interrogated or questioned in relation to Criminal Case No.003 of 2018, in which the Applicants are accused persons, should not be implemented until the hearing of Reference No.8 of 2018 pending before this Court. - 3. Other orders sought are in respect of restraining orders to stop the arrest of the Applicants, their being charged in any court and the reconstitution of any bench of the Constitutional Court of Uganda to refix for hearing de Novo or otherwise of Petition No.12 of 2013 pending delivery of Judgment by that Court. These orders arise from circumstances detailed out in the Reference and the supporting Affidavit of the 1st Applicant sworn on 16th April, 2018. - 4. We have heard Counsel appearing for the Applicants and taken their elaborate submissions into account. We have also perused Rule 21 (2) of our Rules of Procedure and specifically the edict that "no motion

Application No. 6 of 2018

shall be heard without notice to the parties affected by the application". The affected party in this case is the Respondent.

- 5. We have further noted that the proviso to Rule 21 (2) grants this Division of the Court discretion to entertain an application for ex-parte orders if it is "satisfied that the delay caused by proceeding in the ordinary way would or might entail irreparable injustice" and that any ex-parte orders granted may attract "such terms as to costs or otherwise. and subject to such undertaking, if any, as the Division deems just." - 6. In the above context, we note that the Applicants, on 8th May, 2013, obtained orders in Petition No.12 of 2013 before the Constitutional Court of Uganda, the import of which was inter alia that: - (I) Th Respondent therein (the present Respondent as well) was prohibited from using the processes of 'any court so as to initiate and prosecute [the Applicants] for any charges arising out of or in connection with ... " the issues forming the subject matter of Criminal Case No.003 of 2013. - (II) All pending Criminal charges and proceedings against the Applicants in Criminal case No.003 be stayed. - 7. In that regard, what triggered the present Application was the letter dated 9th April, 2018 requiring the Applicants to appear before the Criminal Investigations Directorate at Kibuli on 24th April, 2018 "to provide further information in the matter under investigation" and "to facilitated all the on-going preparations for the hearing of the .... Criminal case .. . " against the Applicants, being Criminal Case No.003 of 2013 aforesaid. To our minds the orders issued by the Constitutional

Application No. 6 of 2018

Court are broad enough to cover the Applicants' complaints before us at this ex-parte stage and it is their enforcement that the Applicants should pursue in the interim rather than seek a re-issuing of the same orders by this Court without hearing the Respondent. We say so guardedly and without in any way making a determinate finding on the merits of the Applicants' case at the inter-partes stage. We also say so to make the point that we see no irreparable injustice that the Applications may suffer if we do not grant any ex-parte orders as they are already the beneficiaries of protective orders issued by the Constitutional Court of Uganda. For avoidance of doubt it matters not that the said court is partly the subject of the Reference before us.

- 8. Having therefore looked at the Reference, the Motion before us and our Rules, we are not satisfied that the Applicants have made out a case to warrant the grant of any ex-parte orders in their favour and consequently, we decline the invitation to do so. - 9. In the circumstances, our orders and directions are that the Notice of Motion dated 16th April 2018 and filed on 17th April, 2018 shall be served for hearing on 5th June, 2018. Parties are at liberty to file and exchange skeletal written submissions before that date. - 10. As to costs, we make no orders to costs. - 11. Orders accordingly.

Dated, signed and delivered at Arusha this 24th day of April, 2018.

HON. LADY JUSTICE MONICA K. MUGENYI PRINCIPAL JUDGE

------------------------------------------------------------------------

HON. ISAAC LENAOLA DEPUTY PRINCIPAL JUDGE

HON. JUSTICE FAKIHI A. JUNDU JUDGE

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Application No. 6 of2018

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Petition No.12 of 2013, Constitutional Court of Uganda

Case cited

Article 39 of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Rule 21(1) and (2) of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this JurisAssist collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.