Wakilii

Cholong v Attorney General of the Republic of South Sudan (Application No.20 of 2022)

East African Court of Justice · [2024] EACJ 3 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for interim orders arising from Reference No. 28 of 2022, dismissed on preliminary objection concerning time limitation
Decision
Application and underlying Reference dismissed as 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 Court held that the Reference was time-barred under Article 30(2) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community. The limitation period commenced when the Memorandum of Understanding was signed in July 2021, not when the dredging equipment arrived in June 2022. The arrival of equipment was merely a component of implementing the project, not a separate cause of action. The Court lacks jurisdiction to extend Treaty-prescribed time limits and dismissed both the Application and the underlying Reference.

Outcome

Application and underlying Reference dismissed as time-barred; Court lacks jurisdiction ratione temporis

Facts

The Applicant, a citizen of South Sudan, filed Reference No. 28 of 2022 challenging a river dredging project on the Naam River. The project arose from a Memorandum of Understanding signed between South Sudan and Egypt in July 2021, renewing an earlier 2006 agreement. The MoU provided for dredging and clearance of aquatic weeds in the Bahr el Ghazal Basin. On 3 June 2022, dredging equipment arrived in Unity State from Egypt. The Applicant filed the Reference on 10 June 2022, seeking to restrain the dredging on environmental and human rights grounds. The Respondent raised a preliminary objection that the Reference was filed outside the two-month limitation period prescribed by Article 30(2) of the Treaty, arguing that time ran from the signing of the MoU in July 2021, not from the arrival of equipment in June 2022.

Issues

  1. Whether the Reference underlying the Application was filed within the two-month limitation period prescribed by Article 30(2) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community.
  2. Whether the limitation period commenced on the date the Memorandum of Understanding was signed (21 July 2021) or on the date the dredging equipment arrived in Unity State (3 June 2022).

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Reference No. 28 of 2022 dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Limitation Periods — Computation of Time — Treaty-Prescribed Time Limits
Under Article 30(2) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community, proceedings must be instituted within two months of the enactment, publication, directive, decision or action complained of. The starting date of an act complained of is not the day it ends but the day it is first effected.
Civil Procedure — Limitation Periods — Continuing Breach — Treaty Does Not Recognise
The Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community does not contain any provision enabling the Court to disregard the two-month time limit set by Article 30(2), nor does that Article recognise any continuing breach or violation of the Treaty outside the two months. The Court has no power to extend, condone, waive, or alter the prescribed timeframe for filing References, even in cases of ongoing violations.
Civil Procedure — Limitation Periods — Cause of Action — Identification of Triggering Event
Where an impugned action comprises multiple stages or events, the limitation period commences from the foundational decision or agreement that sets the project in motion, not from subsequent implementation steps. The arrival of equipment to implement a project does not constitute a separate cause of action from the agreement authorising the project.
Administrative Law — Jurisdiction — Ratione Temporis — Effect of Time Bar
Jurisdiction is the foundation upon which the judicial edifice is constructed. Where a Reference is filed outside the limitation period prescribed by the Treaty, the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione temporis to entertain the Reference or any application arising from it.

Cases cited (4)

  • Kiir Chol Deng v Attorney General of the Republic of South Sudan & Secretary-General of the East African Community (Reference No. 4 of 2018)
  • Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya v Independent Medical Legal Unit (Appeal No. 1 of 2011)
  • Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda & Others v Omar Awadh & 6 Others (Appeal No. 2 of 2012)
  • Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania v African Network for Animal Welfare (Appeal No. 3 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Cholong v Attorney General of the Republic of South Sudan (Application No.20 of 2022) [2024] EACJ 3 (26 March 2024)
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.