Uganda Case Law

Pan African Lawyers Union (PALU) v Attorney General of the Republic of South Sudan

Pan African Lawyers Union (PALU) v Attorney General of the Republic of South Sudan (Reference No.26 of 2020) [2025] EACJ 1 (25 February 2025) (First Instance Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Reference No.26 of 2020

Judge

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

The East African Court of Justice dismissed PALU’s reference against South Sudan as time-barred, holding that the two-month limit under Article 30(2) had expired.

• Jurisdiction Ratione Temporis
• Time Limitation
• Treaty Interpretation
• Human Rights Violations
• Jurisdiction-ratione-temporis
• Time-limitation

Juba Airport City Park Limited v Attorney General of the Republic of South Sudan

Juba Airport City Park Limited v Attorney General of the Republic of South Sudan (Reference No.17 of 2020) [2024] EACJ 2 (26 March 2024) (First Instance Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Reference No.17 of 2020

Judge

Gacuko J, Masara PJ, Muhumuza J, Nyachae J, Nyawello DPJ

The Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Reference because the impugned acts occurred in 2011, before South Sudan became a member of the East African Community in 2016. The principle of non-retrospectivity of treaties precludes the application of the Treaty to acts predating membership. Furthermore, the Applicant was aware of the expropriation since 2011, as evidenced by its own pleadings and affidavit, and thus failed to file the Reference within the two-month limitation period prescribed by Article 30(2) of the Treaty. The Applicant's reliance on lack of knowledge was un…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction Of Regional Court
• Time Limitation
• Non Retrospectivity Of Treaty
• Expropriation Of Land
• Admission To Eac
• Procedural Compliance

Acuil v Attorney General of the Republic of South Sedan and Another

Acuil v Attorney General of the Republic of South Sedan and Another (Reference No.4 of 2018) [2021] EACJ 8 (8 October 2021) (First Instance Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Reference No.4 of 2018

Judge

Mugenyi PJ, Ngiye J, Nyachae J

The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Reference because the impugned acts occurred in 2014, prior to South Sudan's accession to the East African Community in April 2016. The principle of non-retroactivity of treaties precludes the application of the Treaty to acts or situations predating membership, and no contrary intention was established. Furthermore, the Reference was time barred under Article 30(2) of the Treaty, as it was filed more than two months after the acts complained of, and the Court has no power to extend the limitation period or recognize ongoing violatio…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction Of Regional Courts
• Non Retroactivity Of Treaties
• Time Limitation
• Rule Of Law Principles
• Bar Association Governance

Koroso v A.G. of Republic of Kenya and Anor

Koroso v A.G. of Republic of Kenya and Anor (Reference 12 of 2014) [2016] EACJ 111 (24 March 2016) (First Instance Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Reference 12 of 2014

Judge

Lenaola JA

The Court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the Reference under Articles 23, 27, and 30 of the Treaty, as the Applicant alleged violations of the Treaty by the Respondents. While some of the actions complained of were time-barred, the non-compliance with the Warrant of Arrest dated 9th July 2014 fell within the two-month limitation period, making the Reference partially within time. The Court found that the Respondents' failure to comply with the Warrant of Arrest before the stay of execution was granted constituted a violation of the principles of good governance and rule of law und…

Source excerpt

• Enforcement Of Judgments
• Treaty Interpretation
• Rule Of Law
• Good Governance
• Time Limitation
• Exhaustion Of Remedies

Ndayizamba v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi and Another

Ndayizamba v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi and Another [2014] EACJ 149 (28 February 2014) (First Instance Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Judge

Arach-Amoko JA, Mkwawa JA, Ntezilyayo J

The Court held that its jurisdiction is limited to interpretation and application of the Treaty, and does not extend to granting remedies concerning human rights or ordering release from detention, as the requisite protocol under Article 27(2) has not been operationalized. The Reference was found to be time-barred under Article 30(2) of the Treaty, as the Applicant was aware of the alleged infringement more than two months before filing the Reference. The Court rejected the Applicant's argument of a continuing violation, affirming that the time-limit is strict and cannot be extended or waived…

Source excerpt

• Treaty Interpretation
• Jurisdiction Of Regional Courts
• Time Limitation
• Detention Procedures
• Good Governance

Serugo v Kampala City Council and Another (Consitutional Petition 14 of 1997)

Serugo v Kampala City Council and Another (Consitutional Petition 14 of 1997) [1998] UGCC 2 (30 April 1998)

Court

Constitutional Court of Uganda

Case number

Consitutional Petition 14 of 1997

Judge

Manyindo, DCJ, Kato, JCC, Berko, JCC, Engwau,JCC, Twinomujuni, JCC

The Constitutional Court struck out Ismail Serugo’s petition on preliminary objections, finding no proper cause against the respondents, no constitutional-interpretation issue, and that the petition was out of time.

• Judicial Immunity
• Time Limitation
• Government Liability
• Fundamental Rights Enforcement
• Judicial-immunity
• Constitutional-petitions

Board of Governors & Anor V Phinson E. Odong

Board of Governors & Anor V Phinson E. Odong (Civil Appeal No. MG.2 of 1990) [1991] UGHC 1 (3 July 1991)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. MG.2 of 1990

The court held that the appeal was incompetent on three main grounds: (1) the appellants failed to extract and file the decree or order appealed from together with the memorandum of appeal, as required by section 232(1) of the Magistrates Courts Act and established case law; (2) the order appealed from was not one from which an appeal lies as of right under section 77(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and no leave to appeal was sought or granted; (3) the appeal was filed out of time, as the memorandum of appeal was lodged almost a year after the o…

Source excerpt

• Appeals Procedure
• Time Limitation
• Filing Requirements
• Cross Appeals
• Public Nuisance Actions