Uganda Case Law

Mseto and Another v Attorney General of Tanzania

Mseto and Another v Attorney General of Tanzania (Reference 7 of 2016) [2018] EACJ 44 (21 June 2018) (First Instance Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Reference 7 of 2016

Judge

Jundu JA, Lenaola JA, Mugenyi JA, Ngiye JA, Ntezilyayo JA

The Court found that the Minister's order banning Mseto was issued without adequate reasons, failed to establish how the publication specifically violated public interest, peace, or good order, and did not afford the Applicants a reasonable opportunity to respond. The order was found to be arbitrary, disproportionate, and not anchored in law as required by both the EAC Treaty and international human rights standards. The Court held that while freedom of expression and press freedom are not absolute, any restriction must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate. The Respondent failed to demonst…

Source excerpt

• Freedom Of Expression
• Press Freedom
• Administrative Action
• Good Governance
• Rule Of Law
• Human Rights

Media legal Defence Initiative and Ors. v Ssembuusi and Anor (Application 4 of 2015)

Media legal Defence Initiative and Ors. v Ssembuusi and Anor (Application 4 of 2015) [2016] EACJ 119 (28 June 2016) (First Instance Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Application 4 of 2015

Judge

Mugenyi JA

The East African Court of Justice allowed media and rights groups to join as amici curiae in a challenge to Uganda’s criminal defamation laws.

• Amicus Curiae
• Freedom Of Expression
• Criminal Defamation
• Press Freedom
• Amicus-curiae
• Freedom-of-expression

FORSC and Others v Burundian Journalists Union and Another (Application 2 of 2014)

FORSC and Others v Burundian Journalists Union and Another (Application 2 of 2014) [2014] EACJ 137 (15 August 2014) (First Instance Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Application 2 of 2014

Judge

Lenaola JA, Mkwawa JA, Ntezilyayo JA

The Court held that the admission of amici curiae is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously, considering the interests of justice and the facts presented. Despite the Applicants not filing individual documents of interest or constitutions, the Court accepted the statement of interest by their representative, an officer of the Court, and noted the absence of any challenge to their existence or relevance. The Court recognized the Applicants' expertise and international standing in press freedom matters, and found that their participation would benefit the Court's jurisprudence without…

Source excerpt

• Amicus Curiae Admission
• Freedom Of Expression
• Press Freedom
• Judicial Discretion
• Media Regulation
• Treaty Interpretation

Article 19 v State of Eritrea (Communication 275 of 2003)

Article 19 v State of Eritrea (Communication 275 of 2003) [2007] ACHPR 79 (30 May 2007)

Court

African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights

Case number

Communication 275 of 2003

The African Commission found that the incommunicado detention without trial of 18 journalists by Eritrea, and the ban on the private press, constituted violations of multiple provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. The Commission held that the requirement to exhaust local remedies did not apply because such remedies were unavailable, ineffective, and insufficient in the circumstances, given the executive's control over the judiciary, the lack of access to courts, and the State's failure to act despite ample notice. The Commission rejected Eritrea's justification based…

Source excerpt

• Human Rights Violations
• Arbitrary Detention
• Freedom Of Expression
• Press Freedom
• Right To Fair Trial
• Judicial Independence

Constitutional Rights Project v Nigeria (Communication 140 of 1994; Communication 141 of 1994; Communication 145 of 1995)

Constitutional Rights Project v Nigeria (Communication 140 of 1994; Communication 141 of 1994; Communication 145 of 1995) [1999] ACHPR 6 (15 November 1999)

Court

African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights

Case number

Communication 140 of 1994 ; Communication 141 of 1994 ; Communication 145 of 1995

The African Commission found Nigeria violated the African Charter by proscribing newspapers, blocking court review, detaining people without charge, and sealing media premises.

• Freedom Of Expression
• Right To Property
• Arbitrary Detention
• Access To Court
• Press Freedom
• Ouster Clauses

Constitutional Rights Project and Another v Nigeria (Communication 102 of 1993)

Constitutional Rights Project and Another v Nigeria (Communication 102 of 1993) [1998] ACHPR 2 (31 October 1998)

Court

African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights

Case number

Communication 102 of 1993

The African Commission held that Nigeria’s annulment of the 1993 election, detentions of activists and journalists, and seizure of publications breached the Charter.

• Right To Participate In Government
• Arbitrary Detention
• Freedom Of Expression
• Ouster Clauses
• Press Freedom
• Right To Remedy