Wakilii

Anta v Attorney General of Uganda and Others (Reference 6 of 2012)

East African Court of Justice · [2013] EACJ 3 · 2013 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference under Article 30 of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community challenging the legality of Rules of Procedure for election of members to the East African Legislative Assembly
Decision
Reference partly allowed — Rule 13(1) and (2) of Appendix B declared inconsistent with Treaty; 1st Respondent ordered to amend the Rule prior to next EALA elections; prayers for nullification of elections and gazettement issues dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

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.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The East African Court of Justice held that it had jurisdiction to determine the legality of Uganda's 2012 Rules of Procedure for electing members to the East African Legislative Assembly. The Court found that Rule 13(1) and (2) of Appendix B, which imposed consultations and consensus after voting, was inconsistent with Article 50(1) of the Treaty. However, the Court declined jurisdiction over gazettement issues and election nullification matters, holding these fell to Ugandan national institutions under Article 52 of the Treaty.

Outcome

Reference partly allowed — Rule 13(1) and (2) of Appendix B declared inconsistent with Treaty; 1st Respondent ordered to amend the Rule prior to next EALA elections; prayers for nullification of elections and gazettement issues dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Facts

Among A. Anita, a member of the Forum for Democratic Change and official party candidate for the 2012 East African Legislative Assembly (EALA) elections, challenged Uganda's Rules of Procedure for Election of Members of the EALA, 2012. The Parliament of Uganda had enacted these Rules on 18 May 2012 following this Court's earlier judgment in Democratic Party & Mukasa Mbidde (Reference No. 6 of 2011) which annulled the 2006 Rules. The 2012 Rules, particularly Rule 13(1) and (2) of Appendix B, provided for consultations and consensus by political parties after voting. Elections were held on 30 May 2012 under these Rules, with seventeen candidates nominated and nine elected. Nine interveners, all Uganda Representatives to the EALA, were granted leave to intervene. The Applicant contended the Rules did not guarantee representation for interest groups specified in Article 50(1) of the Treaty and were never properly gazetted.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court is vested with the jurisdiction to entertain this Reference.
  2. Whether the Rules of Procedure for the election of members of the EALA cited as the Rules of Procedure of Parliament 2012 particularly Rules 13(1) and (2) are in substance inconsistent with the Treaty and its application, specifically Articles 23(1), 27(1), 38(1) and 50(1).
  3. Whether or not the Rules were gazetted and if not whether the failure to gazette rendered them null and void.
  4. Whether in view of the Court's findings on issues (2) and (3), any acts, decisions made or elections conducted by the Parliament or Government of Uganda pursuant to the Rules are null and void.
  5. Whether the parties are entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Prayers (a), (b) and (e) disallowed, save for findings with regard to Rule 13(1) and (2) of Appendix B of the 2012 Rules of Procedure.
  • The 1st Respondent ordered to cause the amendment of Rule 13(1) and (2) of Appendix B of the 2012 Rules of Procedure to bring it into conformity with Article 50(1) prior to the next EALA elections.
  • Prayers (c), (d) and (f) disallowed.
  • Applicant awarded a quarter of the taxed costs to be borne by the 1st Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Treaty Interpretation — Vienna Convention — Good Faith and Ordinary Meaning
A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.
Jurisdiction of East African Court of Justice — Interpretation and Application of Treaty
The East African Court of Justice has jurisdiction to determine the legality of Partner State regulations and rules where such regulations are alleged to be unlawful or constitute an infringement of the Treaty, but has no jurisdiction over matters reserved to institutions of Partner States under the Treaty.
EALA Elections — Article 50(1) Requirements — Feasibility of Representation
Article 50(1) of the Treaty requires that the nine elected members of the East African Legislative Assembly represent as much as feasible the various political parties, shades of opinion, gender and other special interest groups, but does not mandate specific slots or guarantees of representation for any particular grouping where such representation is not feasible, the extent of feasibility being left to the discretion of the National Assembly.
EALA Elections — Electoral Process — Consultations and Consensus After Voting
A rule imposing consultations and consensus after voting in an election for members of the East African Legislative Assembly is unusual and alien to the spirit and requirements of Article 50(1) of the Treaty, as consultations and consensus-building are properly done in the earliest stages of the electoral process and not after voting.
EALA Elections — Questions of Membership — Article 52 Jurisdiction
Questions as to the membership of the East African Legislative Assembly, including the validity of elections conducted by a Partner State, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of institutions of that Partner State under Article 52 of the Treaty and not within the jurisdiction of the East African Court of Justice.
Gazettement of Rules — National Law — Jurisdiction
Questions arising from the gazettement of rules enacted by a Partner State's Parliament, governed by that State's Constitution and Interpretation Act, fall outside the jurisdiction of the East African Court of Justice and must be resolved by competent institutions of that Partner State.

Legislation cited (13)

  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 9(1)(f)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 23(1)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 27(1)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 30(1)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 33(2)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 50(1)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 52
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 6(d)
  • Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Article 31(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 77
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 78
  • Interpretation Act Cap 3 s.16
  • National Youth Council Act Cap 319

Cases cited (19)

  • Hon. Jacob Oulanyah v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (Constitutional Petition No. 28 of 2006)
  • Democratic Party & Mukasa Mbidde v Secretary General to the East African Community and Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (Reference No. 6 of 2011)
  • Modern Holdings (EA) Limited v Kenya Ports Authority (EACJ Reference No. 1 of 2008)
  • James Katabazi & others v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda and Secretary General of the East African Community (EACJ Reference No. 1 of 2007)
  • East African Law Society & 3 others v Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya & 3 others (EACJ Reference No. 3 of 2007)
  • Prof. Peter Anyang' Nyong'o & others v Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya & others (EACJ Reference No. 1 of 2006)
  • Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania v African Network for Animal Welfare (EACJ Appeal No. 3 of 2011)
  • Christopher Mtikila v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania and Secretary General of the East African Community (EACJ Reference No. 2 of 2007)
  • East African Centre for Trade Policy and Law v Secretary General of the East African Community (EACJ Reference No. 9 of 2012)
  • Abdu Katuntu v Attorney General of Uganda & Secretary General of the East African Community & 9 Interveners (Reference No. 5 of 2012)
  • R v Kent Justices ex parte Lye [1967] 2 QB 153
  • Union Transport Plc v Continental Lines SA [1992] 1 WLR 15
  • East African Law Society v Secretary General of the East African Community (EACJ Reference No. 1 of 2011)
  • Hon. Sitenda Sebalu Vs. The Secretary General of the East African Community & 3 others
  • Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya v Independent Medical Legal Unit (EACJ Appeal No. 1 of 2011)
  • Legal Brains Trust (LBT) Limited v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (EACJ Appeal No. 4 of 2012)
  • Interfreight Forwards (U) Ltd v East African Development Bank [1994] EA 117
  • Captain Harry v Caspar Air Charters Limited [1956] EACA 139
  • Calist Mwatela & 2 others v EAC (Application No. 1 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Anta v Attorney General of Uganda and Others (Reference 6 of 2012) [2013] EACJ 3 (29 November 2013)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.