Uganda Case Law

Dabule and Others v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (Appeal 9 of 2022)

Dabule and Others v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (Appeal 9 of 2022) [2023] EACJ 6 (22 May 2023) (Appellate Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Appeal 9 of 2022

Judge

Kayobera P, Mjasiri VP, M'lnoti JA, Mugeni JA

The Appellate Division held that the Reference No. 5 of 2016 was time barred under Article 30(2) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community. The cause of action—the refusal by the Government of Uganda to release funds held in frozen accounts—was known to the appellants at least by April 2004, when they filed Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 2004 in Uganda. The Reference was filed in September 2016, well beyond the two-month limitation period prescribed by the Treaty. The Court reaffirmed the strict interpretation of Article 30(2), rejecting arguments that the continued…

Source excerpt

• Limitation Periods
• Jurisdiction Of Regional Courts
• Right To Property
• Rule Of Law Obligations
• Fair Hearing
• Treaty Interpretation

Dabule and Others v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda

Dabule and Others v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (Reference No.5 of 2016) [2022] EACJ 14 (21 June 2022) (First Instance Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Reference No.5 of 2016

Judge

Masara PJ, Ngiye DPJ, Nyachae J, Nyawello J, Wejuli J

The East African Court of Justice held that this reference was time-barred under Article 30(2) of the Treaty and dismissed it without costs.

• Limitation Periods
• Right To Property
• Rule Of Law Obligations
• Access To Court
• Eacj
• Limitation-periods

Dabule and Others v Attorney General of Uganda

Dabule and Others v Attorney General of Uganda [2018] EACJ 125 (28 November 2018) (First Instance Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Judge

Jundu JA, Mugenyi PJ, Ngiye JA, Ntezilyayo DPJ, Nyawello JA

The Court found that the Applicants' Reference was premised on a false assertion that national courts had clarified the legal position on the unfrozen accounts. Neither the Constitutional Court nor the Supreme Court of Uganda made a determination entitling the Applicants to payment; instead, they recommended that the matter be addressed by ordinary courts. The Applicants failed to establish any contravention of Ugandan national law or Treaty obligations by the Respondent. The letter of August 2016, which formed the basis of the Reference, was rooted in a misdirection of law and did not give r…

Source excerpt

• Freezing Of Bank Accounts
• Right To Property
• Rule Of Law Obligations
• Treaty Compliance
• Statute Of Limitations