Wakilii

Basajjabalaba and Another v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (Reference No.8 of 2018)

East African Court of Justice · [2020] EACJ 22 · 2020 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to the East African Court of Justice challenging actions of the Ugandan Constitutional Court and state organs for alleged breach of Treaty provisions
Decision
Reference dismissed as an abuse of court process due to parallel proceedings in domestic appellate court

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 dismissed the reference, holding that where applicants challenge a domestic court decision both before the EACJ and simultaneously appeal to a domestic appellate court raising the same issues, the matters are improperly before the EACJ and constitute an abuse of process. The principle of good governance and judicial economy requires deference to pending domestic appellate proceedings. The Court found no breach of Treaty provisions where the Respondent State had made available appellate remedies and the rule of law was work in progress through the domestic judicial system.

Outcome

Reference dismissed as an abuse of court process due to parallel proceedings in domestic appellate court

Facts

The Applicants, Ugandan citizens, were charged with conspiracy to defeat tax laws and uttering false documents in January 2013. Following re-arrest and parallel proceedings in different courts, they filed Constitutional Petition No. 12 of 2013 which resulted in injunctive orders staying criminal proceedings. The Constitutional Court delivered judgment on 2 May 2018, more than three years after hearing, signed by only four of five judges. The Applicants challenged this delay and the validity of the judgment before the EACJ, alleging violations of Treaty provisions and the African Charter. Simultaneously, they appealed the Constitutional Court decision to the Supreme Court of Uganda raising substantially the same grounds.

Issues

  1. Whether the actions of the Government of Uganda through the Constitutional Court of delivering the judgment dated 2nd May 2018, 3½ years after the hearing of the Petition, signed by four out of the five justices is a violation of the rule of law and an infringement of Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty and Article 7(1)(d) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights.
  2. Whether the orders of the Constitutional Court of Uganda sanctioning the continued trial of the Applicants is in contravention of Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty and Article 7(1)(d) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights.
  3. Whether the actions of the Government of Uganda through its agents in summoning the Applicants for interrogation in view of a subsisting order of a temporary injunction by the Constitutional Court violate Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty and Article 26 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights.
  4. Whether there were omissions by the Government of Uganda through the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs to appropriately address the continuing persecution of the Applicants by the Police and the delay by the Constitutional Court to deliver judgment in the Applicants' Constitutional Petition No 12/2013 is a violation of Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty and Article 7(1)(d) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights.
  5. Whether the action of the Government of Uganda in elevating the Justices of the Constitutional Court who heard the Applicants' Petition to the Superior Courts or other courts and in allowing them to retire before delivery of the judgment in the Applicants' Constitutional Petition No 12/2013 constitutes a breach of the principles of rule of law and an infringement of Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty and Article 7(1)(d) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights.

Orders

  • The Court exercised its inherent powers under Rule 4 of the Court's Rules of Procedure to expunge suo moto all pleadings and submissions in respect of Issues 1, 2, 3, and 5 under Rule 47(1)(c) of the same Rules.
  • Issue No. 4 was answered in the negative.
  • The Amended Reference was dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Abuse of Process — Parallel Proceedings — Forum Shopping
Where a party challenges a domestic court decision before the East African Court of Justice and simultaneously appeals the same decision to a domestic appellate court raising substantially the same issues and seeking similar reliefs, the matters are improperly before the EACJ and constitute an abuse of court process.
Good Governance — Judicial Economy — Treaty Interpretation
The principle of good governance enshrined in Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the EAC Treaty requires the Court to manage its resources efficiently and avoid duplication of judicial proceedings. Deference to judicial economy is mandated by good governance and precludes parallel proceedings that would constitute forum shopping.
Exhaustion of Remedies — Premature Challenge
It is premature to indict a state for breach of the rule of law in respect of judicial proceedings where the same matters are pending before domestic appellate courts. The rule of law is work in progress through the due process of the domestic judicial system, and the right to a fair trial cannot be said to have been curtailed before the appellate court has heard the matter.
Separation of Powers — Judicial Independence — Ministerial Intervention
A Minister of Justice has no authority to intervene in the business of the Constitutional Court or to prevail upon it to deliver judgment. Such intervention would violate customary international law on the institutional independence of the judiciary and the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
Independence of Prosecutorial and Police Functions
The office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Uganda Police Force exercise their constitutional mandates independently and are not subject to ministerial direction or control. A Minister cannot be faulted for declining to intervene in the independent exercise of prosecutorial or investigative functions.
State Responsibility — Judicial Organs
Under international law, nation states can be held responsible for the actions of any of their state organs, including judicial organs or courts, as provided in Article 4(1) of the International Law Commission Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts.
Treaty Interpretation — Vienna Convention Principles
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. Supplementary modes of interpretation may be used to confirm the meaning or to determine the correct meaning where literal interpretation leaves the meaning ambiguous or leads to a manifestly absurd or unreasonable result.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Articles 5, 6(d), 7(2), 8(1)(c), 8(4), 23(1), 23(3), 27(1), 30
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rules 1, 24, 48(a)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2019 Rules 4, 47(1)(c), 127(1), 136
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights Articles 7(1)(d), 26
  • Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 Articles 31, 32
  • International Law Commission Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts Article 4(1)
  • Uganda Constitution Articles 28(1), 117, 120(3)(a), 120(3)(b), 120(4)(a), 120(6), 132(3), 137(2), 144(1), 211, 212, 212(b), 212(c), 213(3)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 33(1), Rule 33(3), Rule 33(5), Rule 33(6)
  • Penal Code Act s.351, s.392(a)

Cases cited (10)

  • Attorney General of Uganda v Tom Kyahurwenda (EACJ Case No. 1 of 2014)
  • Baranzira and Another v Attorney General of Burundi (EACJ Reference No. 15 of 2014)
  • Henry Kyarimpa v Attorney General of Uganda (EACJ Appeal No. 6 of 2014)
  • Sarah Kulata Basangwa v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2018)
  • Orient Bank v Fredrick Zaabwe and Another (Supreme Court Application No. 17 of 2007)
  • Brown v Stott [2003] 1 AC 681
  • American Cyanamid Company v Ethicon Limited [1975] AC 396
  • Eric Kabalisa Makala v Attorney General of Rwanda (EACJ Reference No. 1 of 2017)
  • Schuller v Roback [2012] BCSC 8
  • Attorney General of Burundi v Secretary General of the East African Community and Another (EACJ Appeal No. 2 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Basajjabalaba and Another v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (Reference No.8 of 2018) [2020] EACJ 22 (22 July 2020)
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.