Akena & 3 Others v Uganda Communications Commission & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 84 of 2019)

Observed later treatment

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

Holding

Held that the High Court has discretion under Article 34 of the East African Community Treaty to refer questions for preliminary ruling to the East African Court of Justice, but exercises that discretion where it considers interpretation necessary to enable it to give judgment. The court found that the questions raised by the applicants concerning the compatibility of sections of the Uganda Communications Act 2013 with the EAC Treaty could be fully answered by the High Court itself. Reference to the EACJ was not necessary. Application dismissed with each party to bear their own costs.

Outcome

Application for leave to refer questions to the East African Court of Justice refused; applicants to proceed with main application

Facts

The applicants are four journalists, including Akena Patrick Rolex affiliated to Unity FM. They were suspended from work by the Uganda Communications Commission after covering corruption allegations. Their workplace Unity FM was closed by security agents on the directive of the 1st Respondent (UCC) and 2nd Respondent (Attorney General), citing sections 29, 31, 41 and Schedule 4 of the Uganda Communications Act 2013. The applicants filed Miscellaneous Cause No. 02 of 2019 seeking declaratory relief that the respondents' acts were contrary to international treaties to which Uganda is party. By this application, they sought leave to refer questions to the East African Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on whether the cited sections of the Uganda Communications Act comply with Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the East African Community Treaty, and for a stay of proceedings pending the reference.

Issues

1. Whether the applicants' matter should be referred to the East African Court of Justice to determine whether sections 29, 31, 41 and Schedule 4 of the Uganda Communications Act 2013 are consistent with the East African Community Treaty.
2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Each party to bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (10)

• Uganda Communications Act 2013 s.29
• Uganda Communications Act 2013 s.31
• Uganda Communications Act 2013 s.41
• Uganda Communications Act 2013 Schedule 4
• East African Community Treaty Article 6
• East African Community Treaty Article 7
• East African Community Treaty Article 8
• East African Community Treaty Article 27
• East African Community Treaty Article 33
• East African Community Treaty Article 34

Cases cited (2)

• Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda v Tom Kyahurwenda (Case No. 1 of 2014)
• Pretore di Salo v Persons Unknown (Case 14/86) [1987] ECR 2545

Cases citing this judgment (3)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Ddibya Ronald Kyagaba v Namatovu Olivia and 3 Others (Civil Appeal 9 of 2025)
• Uganda Communications Employees Union and Others v Uganda Telecom Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Application 189 of 2023)
• Vegol (U) Limited v Sentongo (Miscellaneous Application No. 72 of 2020)

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.