Wakilii

Centre for Food and Adequate Living Rights (CEFROHT) and Others v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda and Others (Reference No.39 of 2021)

East African Court of Justice · [2023] EACJ 15 · 2023 Reference 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 and omissions of Respondents regarding the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) Project, dismissed on preliminary objection for being time barred
Decision
Reference dismissed for being time barred; Court lacks jurisdiction ratione temporis

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 on the ground that it was time barred under Article 30(2) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community. The Court held that the Applicants had knowledge of the Inter-Governmental Agreement in 2017 when it was signed, and the Reference filed in November 2020 was well beyond the two-month limitation period. The Court lacks jurisdiction ratione temporis to entertain a Reference filed outside the prescribed timeframe, and has no authority to extend, condone, waive or alter that timeframe.

Outcome

Reference dismissed for being time barred; Court lacks jurisdiction ratione temporis

Facts

Four civil society organizations filed a Reference challenging the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) Project, alleging that Uganda and Tanzania proceeded without proper environmental approvals and in breach of human rights obligations. The Applicants contended the project would impact forest reserves, water bodies, wetlands, conservation sites, wildlife and food security. The Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) was signed on 25 May 2017 between Uganda and Tanzania. The Applicants filed their Reference on 6 November 2020, claiming it was based on the Host Government Agreement (HGA) signed on 11 September 2020. The Respondents raised preliminary objections that the Reference was time barred in respect of the IGA and premature in respect of the HGA.

Issues

  1. Whether the Reference raises matters for the interpretation of the Treaty in line with Articles 23(1) and 27 of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community.
  2. Whether the Reference has been brought within time as required under Article 30(2) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community.
  3. Whether the pleadings are properly verified in accordance with Rule 46 of the East African Court of Justice Rules of the Court, 2019.

Orders

  • Reference dismissed.
  • Costs awarded against the Applicants, jointly and severally.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Nature and Requirements — Pure Points of Law
A preliminary objection consists of a point of law which has been pleaded, or which arises by clear implication out of pleadings, and which if argued as a preliminary point may dispose of the suit. Examples are an objection to jurisdiction of the Court or a plea of limitation. Once there is a contest over any fact warranting evidence to be adduced to prove the assertion, then it is a matter of fact and not a point of law and should be heard on the evidence and merits.
Civil Procedure — Limitation — Treaty Provisions — Article 30(2) of the EAC Treaty — Two-Month Time Limit
Article 30(2) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community requires that proceedings be instituted within two months of the enactment, publication, directive, decision or action complained of, or in the absence thereof, of the day on which it came to the knowledge of the complainant. Time starts reckoning from the date the applicant acquired knowledge of the impugned act.
Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Limitation Periods — Strict Application — No Power to Extend Time
The East African Court of Justice does not have authority to extend, condone, waive or alter the prescribed timeframe for filing a Reference under Article 30(2) of the Treaty. The two-month limitation period is a legal bar that must be strictly adhered to by the Court.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Lack of Jurisdiction — Effect on Proceedings
Where a court has no jurisdiction, there would be no basis for a continuation of the proceedings pending other evidence. A court of law downs tools in respect of the matter the moment it holds that it is without jurisdiction.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Parties Bound by Their Pleadings — Establishing Common Ground
Parties are bound by their respective pleadings. Where an applicant's own pleadings and supporting affidavits establish the date of knowledge of an impugned act, the applicant cannot depart from that position. Common ground on pivotal issues is established by the pleadings on record.

Legislation cited (7)

  • 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)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of the Court 2019 Rule 46
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of the Court 2019 Rule 127(1)
  • Protocol for Sustainable Development of the Lake Victoria Basin
  • Companies Act No.15 of 2013 (Zanzibar)

Cases cited (6)

  • Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda and Another v Omar Awadh and Six Others (EACJ Appeal No. 2 of 2012)
  • Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya v Independent Medical Legal Unit (EACJ Appeal No. 1 of 2021)
  • Vithalbhai PVT Limited
  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
  • Secretary General EAC v Margaret Zziwa (EACJ Appeal No. 7 of 2015)
  • Alcon International Ltd v Standard Chartered Bank of Uganda (EACJ Appeal No. 2 of 2011)

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 (CEFROHT) and Others v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda and Others (Reference No.39 of 2021) [2023] EACJ 15 (29 November 2023)
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.