Uganda Case Law

African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v Republic of Kenya; Kilel and Others v Kenya (Application No. 006/2012)

African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v Republic of Kenya; Kilel and Others v Kenya (Application No. 006/2012) [2019] AfCHPR 43 (28 November 2019)

Court

African Court on Human and Peoples Rights

Case number

Application No. 006/2012

Judge

Aboud J, Ben Achour J, Bensaoula J, Chizumila J, Eno R, Matusse J, Mengue J, Mukamulisa J, Orè P, Tchikaya J

The African Court dismissed an individual application to intervene in reparations proceedings, holding that its rules permit intervention only by States Parties.

• Jurisdiction Of Regional Courts
• Intervention In Proceedings
• Personal Jurisdiction
• African Charter Rights
• Intervention-in-proceedings
• Personal-jurisdiction

African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Republic of Kenya (Application No. 006/2012)

African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Republic of Kenya (Application No. 006/2012) [2019] AfCHPR 22 (4 July 2019)

Court

African Court on Human and Peoples Rights

Case number

Application No. 006/2012

Judge

Aboud J, Anukam J, Ben Achour J, Bensaoula J, Chizumila J, Matusse J, Mengue J, Mukamulisa J

The African Court held that two intervention applications by private individuals were inadmissible because the Protocol allows intervention only by States, and the filing was late.

• Intervention In Proceedings
• Admissibility Of Applications
• Third Party Rights
• Procedural Timeliness
• Intervention-in-proceedings
• Admissibility-of-applications

Mbidde v Attorney General of Burundi and Another (Application 6 of 2018)

Mbidde v Attorney General of Burundi and Another (Application 6 of 2018) [2018] EACJ 77 (24 April 2018) (First Instance Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Application 6 of 2018

Judge

Jundu JA, Lenaola JA, Mugenyi JA

The Court held that Rule 36(2)(e) of the Rules of Procedure requires an application for intervention to contain a statement of interest, but does not mandate that it be a separate document; it is sufficient if the interest is clearly set out in the body of the application. The applicant's interest as a Member of EALA who participated in the impugned election was adequately stated in the application. The affidavit in reply by the First Respondent was expunged for being incurably defective, as it failed to disclose sources of information for matters not within the deponent's personal knowledge.…

Source excerpt

• Intervention In Proceedings
• Joinder Of Parties
• Quorum Requirements Eala
• Statement Of Interest
• Representation By Counsel

Union Trade Center Limited v A.G. of Republic of Rwanda (Application 4 of 2017)

Union Trade Center Limited v A.G. of Republic of Rwanda (Application 4 of 2017) [2017] EACJ 17 (22 September 2017) (First Instance Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Application 4 of 2017

Judge

Lenaola JA

The Court found that the doctrine of res judicata did not bar the present application because the previous application (No. 9 of 2014) was struck out on technicalities and not decided on its merits. The applicants demonstrated a direct and substantial interest in the outcome of Reference No. 10 of 2013 as minority shareholders whose interests could be adversely affected. The Court exercised its discretion under Rule 36 of the Rules and Article 40 of the Treaty, determining that the applicants met the mandatory requirements for intervention. Their participation is limited to statements and sub…

Source excerpt

• Intervention In Proceedings
• Res Judicata
• Minority Shareholder Rights