Share
Mahok v A.G. of The Republic of South sudan (Application 20 of 2018) [2019] EACJ 8 (6 March 2019) (First Instance Division)
- Citation
- [2019] EACJ 8
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- East African Court of Justice
- Panel
- Mugenyi JA
- Case number
- Application 20 of 2018
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- East African Court of Justice
- Panel
- Mugenyi JA
- Case number
- Application 20 of 2018
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicant's main ground for seeking ex parte interim orders—namely, that the subject was being held incommunicado—was no longer applicable, as conceded by counsel. In light of this change, and the applicant's willingness to proceed inter partes, the court determined that there was no justification for granting interim relief on an ex parte basis. The application was therefore dismissed, and the matter was ordered to be scheduled for hearing inter partes.
Court disposition
application dismissed; matter to be scheduled for inter partes hearing
Orders
- The ex parte application for interim orders is dismissed.
- The matter shall be scheduled for hearing inter partes.
02
Material facts
Parties
Garang Michael Mahok
Applicant Counsel: Mr. DeyaThe Attorney General of the Republic of South Sudan
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Ex Parte Application for Interim Orders
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the ex parte application for interim orders should be granted in light of the applicant's concession that the subject is no longer held incommunicado.
- 02
Whether the matter should proceed to be heard inter partes.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant initially sought interim orders on an ex parte basis, premised on the claim that the subject of the reference was being held incommunicado. However, counsel conceded that this situation had changed and expressed readiness to proceed with an inter partes hearing, subject to the availability of dates.
- Respondent
- The respondent was not present or represented, as the application was heard ex parte.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
General principles of civil procedure and interim relief.
Ex parte interim orders are granted only in exceptional circumstances where urgency or risk of injustice exists, and where the applicant demonstrates a continuing need for such orders.
- 02
General principles of fair hearing and natural justice.
Where the basis for ex parte relief no longer exists, the court should decline to grant such orders and direct that the matter be heard inter partes.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicant's main ground for seeking ex parte interim orders—namely, that the subject was being held incommunicado—was no longer applicable, as conceded by counsel. In light of this change, and the applicant's willingness to proceed inter partes, the court determined that there was no justification for granting interim relief on an ex parte basis. The application was therefore dismissed, and the matter was ordered to be scheduled for hearing inter partes.
Court disposition
application dismissed; matter to be scheduled for inter partes hearing
- The ex parte application for interim orders is dismissed.
- The matter shall be scheduled for hearing inter partes.
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.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
East African Court of Justice
Judgment
IN THE EAST AFRICAN COURT OF JUSTICE AT ARUSHA
FIRST INSTANCE DIVISION
(Coram: Monica K. Mugenyi, PJ; Faustin Ntezilyayo, DPJ; Fakihi A. Jundu; Audace *Ngiye & Charles Nyachae, JJ)*
APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2018 (Arising from Reference No. 19 of 2018)
GARANG MICHAEL MAHOK ....................................
VERSUS
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH SUDAN ....................................
6<sup>TH</sup> MARCH 2019
Application No. 20 of 2018
Page 1
Leccy
RULING OF THE COURT
- 1. We have carefully listened to Mr. Deya on this *ex parte* Application for Interim Orders. - 2. Learned Counsel conceded that the main premise for this *ex parte* Application was that the subject of the Reference was being held *in communicado*, but this has since changed. - 3. Indeed, Counsel categorically stated that subject to the availability of dates, he was willing and ready to have the Application heard inter partes. - 4. We therefore dismiss this Application and hereby order that it be scheduled for hearing *inter partes*. - 5. It is so ordered.
Application No. 20 of 2018
Page 2
nuch
Dated, signed and delivered at Arusha this 6<sup>th</sup> day of March, 2019.
nder
HON. LADY JUSTICE MONICA K. MUGENYI PRINCIPAL JUDGE
HON. DR. JUSTICE FAUSTIN NTEZILYAYO DEPUTY PRINCIPAL JUDGE
HON. JUSTICE FAKIHI A. JUNDU JUDGE
HON. DR. JUSTICE AUDACE NGIYE
JUDGE
HON. JUSTICE CHARLES NYACHAE JUDGE
Application No. 20 of 2018
Page 3
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.