Wakilii

Centre for Food and Adequate Living Rights and Others v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda and Others (Appeal No. 4 of 2023)

East African Court of Justice · [2025] EACJ 19 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from the First Instance Division of the East African Court of Justice challenging dismissal of Reference No. 39 of 2020 on grounds of time-bar
Decision
Appeal dismissed with each party bearing own costs

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 Appellate Division dismissed an appeal challenging the dismissal of a reference concerning the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) project. The Court held that the Trial Court correctly found the reference time-barred under Article 30(2) of the EAC Treaty, as it was filed more than two months after the Inter-Governmental Agreement was signed in May 2017. The Court affirmed that the two-month limitation period is strict and inflexible, and that once a reference is time-barred, all claims founded on it cannot survive independently. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs given the public interest involved.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with each party bearing own costs

Facts

In May 2017, the Governments of Uganda and Tanzania signed an Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) to implement the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) project to transport crude oil from Hoima District in Uganda to Tanga District in Tanzania. In November 2020, four civil society organisations filed a reference in the East African Court of Justice challenging the IGA and a subsequent Host Government Agreement signed in April 2021, alleging violations of the EAC Treaty and environmental protocols. The appellants contended that the project proceeded without proper environmental approvals and would adversely impact human rights, the environment, and food security. The First Instance Division dismissed the reference as time-barred under Article 30(2) of the Treaty, which requires references to be filed within two months of the complained action. The appellants appealed, arguing that the Trial Court erred in upholding the preliminary objection on time-bar and that some claims should have been severed and heard on merit.

Issues

  1. Whether the Trial Court erred in law in finding that the Respondents had raised a proper Preliminary Objection
  2. Whether the Trial Court erred in law in holding that the Reference was filed out of time and therefore the Court had no jurisdiction
  3. Whether the parties are entitled to the Remedies sought

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs in the Appellate Division and in the Trial Court.

Rules and key headnotes

Preliminary Objections — Nature and Requirements — Pure Points of Law
A preliminary objection consists of a point of law which has been pleaded or arises by clear implication from the pleadings, and which if argued as a preliminary point may dispose of the suit. It raises a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct, and cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained. Examples include objections to jurisdiction and pleas of limitation.
Preliminary Objections — Distinction Between Pleadings and Evidence
Pleadings are documents in which parties set forth or respond to allegations, claims, denials or defences. Evidence is the means by which those averments are proved or disproved. While documents annexed to pleadings under the rules constitute evidence in support of pleadings, where facts stated in such documents are not disputed by the opposing party, a court may properly determine a preliminary objection on limitation without wading into disputed evidence.
Treaty Interpretation — Time Limits for Filing References — Article 30(2) EAC Treaty
Article 30(2) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community prescribes a strict and inflexible two-month time limit for instituting proceedings, calculated from the date of the enactment, publication, directive, decision or action complained of, or in the absence thereof, from the day it came to the knowledge of the complainant. The Treaty does not grant the Court power to extend, waive or modify this time-frame, and does not recognise any continuing breach or violation outside the two-month period. The time limit is designed to ensure legal certainty among the diverse membership of the Community.
Jurisdiction — Ratione Temporis — Effect of Time-Bar on Court's Jurisdiction
Where a reference is filed outside the time limit prescribed by Article 30(2) of the EAC Treaty, the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione temporis to entertain the reference. Once it is established that the Court has no jurisdiction on account of time-bar, the Court must down its tools and cannot proceed to determine the merits of the case, however manifest or gross the alleged violation may be.
Severance Doctrine — Inapplicability Where Entire Reference is Time-Barred
Once a reference is found to have been filed outside the prescribed time limit under Article 30(2) of the Treaty, all claims founded on that reference cannot survive independently for consideration. The severance doctrine does not apply to separate individual claims from a time-barred reference where all claims are founded on the same action or decision that occurred outside the limitation period. Any attempt to determine such claims would be a mere academic exercise.

Legislation cited (14)

  • Treaty for the Establishment of East African Community Article 23(1)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of East African Community Article 27
  • Treaty for the Establishment of East African Community Article 30(2)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of East African Community Article 71(1)(d)
  • Protocol for Sustainable Development of the Lake Victoria Basin
  • Protocol on Environment and Natural Resources Management
  • East African Court of Justice Rules 2019 Rule 25
  • East African Court of Justice Rules 2019 Rule 32
  • East African Court of Justice Rules 2019 Rule 37
  • East African Court of Justice Rules 2019 Rule 39(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules 2019 Rule 46
  • East African Court of Justice Rules 2019 Rule 63(1)(c)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules 2019 Rule 127(1)
  • EACOP (Special Provisions) Act 2021

Cases cited (17)

  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd (1969) EA
  • James Katabazi and 21 Others v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda and 2 Others (Reference No. 1 of 2007)
  • Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania v Africa Network for Animal Welfare (Appeal No. 3 of 2014)
  • Secretary General of the EAC v Rt Hon Margaret Zziwa (Appeal No. 7 of 2015)
  • Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya v Independent Medical Legal Unit (Appeal No. 1 of 2011)
  • Alcon International Ltd v Standard Chartered Bank of Uganda and 2 Others (Appeal No. 2 of 2011)
  • Union Trade Centre Limited v Attorney General of Rwanda (Appeal No. 1 of 2015)
  • Friendship Taxi (U) Limited v Adrana Matovu (High Court Miscellaneous Civil Revision No. 0003 of 2019)
  • Jani Properties Ltd v Dar es Salaam City Council (1966) EA 281
  • North Mara Gold Mine Limited v Khalid Abdallah Salum (Civil Appeal No. 463 of 2020) [2022] TZCA 1
  • Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania v Anthony Callist Komu (Appeal No. 2 of 2015)
  • Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda and Another v Omar Awadh and 6 Others (Appeal No. 2 of 2012)
  • Baranzira Raphael and Another v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi (Reference No. 15 of 2014)
  • Nyamoya Francois v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi and Another (Reference No. 8 of 2011)
  • Johannesburg City Council v Chesterfield House (Pty) Ltd 1952 (3) SA 809
  • Case 24/69 Nebec v. EC Commission [1975] ECR 145
  • Case 209/83 Ferriera VA Isabbia Sps v. EC Commission OJ C2009, 9.8.84 p.6

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Centre for Food and Adequate Living Rights and Others v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda and Others (Appeal No. 4 of 2023) [2025] EACJ 19 (26 November 2025)
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.