Uganda Case Law

Ngoge and Associates Advocates v Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya (Application No.37 of 2022)

Ngoge and Associates Advocates v Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya (Application No.37 of 2022) [2024] EACJ 10 (26 November 2024) (First Instance Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Application No.37 of 2022

Judge

Gacuko J, Kasanda J, Masara PJ, Muhumuza J, Wejuli J

The East African Court of Justice dismissed an application and underlying reference for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the African Charter and African Commission issues fell outside the Treaty.

• Jurisdiction Of Regional Courts
• Time Limitation Of Actions
• Treaty Interpretation
• State Responsibility
• Consolidation Of Proceedings
• Eacj-jurisdiction

Yayi v Republic of Benin (Application No. 023/2019)

Yayi v Republic of Benin (Application No. 023/2019) [2022] AfCHPR 27 (22 September 2022)

Court

African Court on Human and Peoples Rights

Case number

Application No. 023/2019

Judge

Aboud P, Anukam J, Ben Achour J, Bensaoula J, Chizumila J, Kioko J, Mengue J, Ntsebeza J, Sacko J, Tchikaya VP

The African Court struck out Thomas Boni Yayi’s application after he requested discontinuance, finding further consideration unwarranted under Rule 65(1)(a).

• Human Rights Violations
• Right To Life
• Right To Liberty
• Fair Trial
• State Responsibility
• Strike-out-order

Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya v Karua and Others (Appeal No.4 of 2021)

Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya v Karua and Others (Appeal No.4 of 2021) [2022] EACJ 18 (28 February 2022) (Appellate Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Appeal No.4 of 2021

Judge

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

The EACJ Appellate Division held that it does not exercise appellate jurisdiction over national courts, including the Supreme Court of Kenya, but is empowered to determine whether acts or omissions of Partner State organs, including judicial organs, violate the EAC Treaty. The Court found that the Reference was properly before it, as the impugned act was the Supreme Court's decision, and the Reference was filed within the two-month limitation period prescribed by Article 30(2) of the Treaty. The Court affirmed that access to justice and the rule of law are fundamental and operational principl…

Source excerpt

• Access To Justice
• Rule Of Law
• State Responsibility
• Judicial Review Of State Action
• Eac Treaty Interpretation
• Electoral Dispute Resolution

East African Civil Society Organisations Forum v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi and Others

East African Civil Society Organisations Forum v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi and Others (Reference 2 of 2015) [2019] EACJ 32 (3 December 2019) (First Instance Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Reference 2 of 2015

Judge

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

The East African Court of Justice held that its mandate to review domestic judicial decisions is strictly limited to assessing whether such decisions amount to internationally wrongful acts attributable to the state under the EAC Treaty. The Court distinguished its international review function from appellate review, emphasizing that it cannot quash or revise domestic court decisions but may only declare whether a Partner State has breached its Treaty obligations. Applying international law and the standards for state responsibility, the Court found that the decision of the Constitutional Cou…

Source excerpt

• Treaty Interpretation
• State Responsibility
• Rule Of Law
• Judicial Review International
• Separation Of Powers

Mallya v Tanzania (Application No. 018/2015)

Mallya v Tanzania (Application No. 018/2015) [2019] AfCHPR 41 (26 September 2019)

Court

African Court on Human and Peoples Rights

Case number

Application No. 018/2015

Judge

Anukam J, Ben Achour J, Bensaoula J, Chizumila J, Eno R, Kioko VP, Matusse J, Mengue J, Mukamulisa J, Orè P, Tchikaya J

The African Court found Tanzania violated Mallya’s rights to appeal, to be tried within a reasonable time, and to liberty after delaying access to case records.

• Right To Appeal
• Fair Trial
• Reasonable Time
• Arbitrary Detention
• State Responsibility
• Right-to-appeal

Nganyi and Others v Tanzania (Judgment - Reparations) (Application No. 006/2013)

Nganyi and Others v Tanzania (Judgment - Reparations) (Application No. 006/2013) [2019] AfCHPR 24 (4 July 2019)

Court

African Court on Human and Peoples Rights

Case number

Application No. 006/2013

Judge

Anukam J, Ben Achour J, Bensaoula J, Chizumila J, Eno R, Kioko VP, Matusse J, Mengue J, Mukamulisa J, Tchikaya J

The Court found that the Respondent State violated the Applicants’ rights to be tried within a reasonable time and to legal aid, but the violations did not fundamentally affect the outcome of the domestic proceedings for those convicted. Material damages were denied where insufficient evidence was provided, but limited compensation was awarded for proven medical expenses and legal fees. Moral damages were granted to both direct and indirect victims, with quantum determined by equity and proportionality, not by the standards of the Konaté case. The Court denied release of convicted Applicants…

Source excerpt

• Fair Trial Rights
• Legal Aid Entitlement
• Compensation For Unlawful Detention
• Reparations Quantification
• State Responsibility
• Procedural Delay

Basajjabalaba and Another v A.G. of Uganda (Application 9 of 2018)

Basajjabalaba and Another v A.G. of Uganda (Application 9 of 2018) [2019] EACJ 3 (27 March 2019) (First Instance Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Application 9 of 2018

Judge

Mugenyi JA

The East African Court of Justice declined interim injunctions in a challenge to Ugandan criminal proceedings, finding the request largely moot and no irreparable harm.

• Interim Injunctions
• Rule Of Law
• State Responsibility
• Fair Hearing Rights
• Interim-injunctions
• Mootness

Desire v A.G. of Burundi

Desire v A.G. of Burundi (Reference 8 of 2015) [2018] EACJ 124 (23 October 2018) (First Instance Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Reference 8 of 2015

Judge

Lenaola JA, Mugenyi JA, Ngiye JA

The Court found that the Reference was filed within the prescribed time limit, as the Applicant only received the Supreme Court judgment on 21st September 2015 and filed the Reference on 20th November 2015. The Court held that it has jurisdiction to review the actions of national courts for compliance with Treaty obligations, but not to exercise appellate jurisdiction over national court decisions. The Court recognized that the conduct of judicial organs is attributable to the State under international law, but state responsibility for judicial acts arises only in cases of clear and notorious…

Source excerpt

• Property Rights
• Judicial Review
• State Responsibility
• Treaty Interpretation

East African Civil Society Organizations' Forum v Attorney General of Republic of Burundi and Others (Appeal 4 of 2016)

East African Civil Society Organizations' Forum v Attorney General of Republic of Burundi and Others (Appeal 4 of 2016) [2018] EACJ 46 (24 May 2018) (Appellate Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Appeal 4 of 2016

Judge

Ugirashebuja P

The Appellate Division held that the Trial Court erred in disavowing jurisdiction to determine whether the impugned decision of the Constitutional Court of Burundi violated the EAC Treaty. The EACJ's mandate includes interpreting the Treaty and assessing whether actions of Partner States, including judicial decisions, are consistent with Treaty obligations. This does not amount to exercising appellate jurisdiction over national courts, but rather involves determining international responsibility and making declarations as to Treaty compliance. The Appellate Division found that the Trial Court…

Source excerpt

• Treaty Interpretation
• State Responsibility
• Judicial Review Limits
• Regional Court Jurisdiction
• International Obligations
• Public Interest Litigation

Okudra Joel v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 131 of 2006)

Okudra Joel v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 131 of 2006) [2018] UGHRC 19 (15 April 2018)

Court

Uganda Human Rights Commission

Case number

Complaint UHRC 131 of 2006

Judge

Dr. Katebalirwe Amooti Wa Irumba - Commissioner

The Tribunal found that VCCU operatives tortured the complainant and awarded UGX 8,000,000 in compensation against the Attorney General.

• Freedom From Torture
• Vicarious Liability
• Compensation For Human Rights Violations
• State Responsibility
• Freedom-from-torture
• Human-rights-compensation