Wakilii

Dabule and Others v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (Appeal 1 of 2018)

East African Court of Justice · [2020] EACJ 42 · 2020 Appeal Allowed — Matter Remitted 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 which dismissed a reference alleging Treaty violations arising from frozen bank accounts
Decision
Judgment of the First Instance Division quashed and matter remitted for fresh hearing on all agreed issues

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 Appellate Division allowed the appeal, holding that the First Instance Division erred by introducing and deciding the case on the issue of cause of action without giving parties an opportunity to address it, when that issue was not raised at the Scheduling Conference or pleaded. The court held that the Trial Court wrongly invoked inherent powers to decide on an unpleaded issue, and committed a procedural irregularity by failing to determine the agreed issue of whether the reference was time-barred. The matter was remitted to the First Instance Division for hearing on all issues agreed at the Scheduling Conference.

Outcome

Judgment of the First Instance Division quashed and matter remitted for fresh hearing on all agreed issues

Facts

Following the overthrow of President Idi Amin in 1979, Uganda enacted the Banking Act Amendment Statute No. 18 of 1980 which empowered the Minister to freeze bank accounts of persons associated with the regime. The Minister issued Legal Notices freezing the appellants' accounts and the Bank of Uganda took over the funds. In 1995, the Minister instructed banks to defreeze the accounts. The appellants filed Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 2004 seeking defreezing orders and compensation, which was dismissed by the Constitutional Court in 2007. Their appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed in 2015. The appellants then filed a reference in the East African Court of Justice alleging that Uganda's continued refusal to release their funds violated Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the EAC Treaty. The First Instance Division dismissed the reference for lack of cause of action.

Issues

  1. Whether the First Instance Division erred in law in finding the reference was not properly before it for want of cause of action.
  2. Whether the First Instance Division committed a procedural irregularity in failing to determine whether the reference was time barred.
  3. Whether the appellants are entitled to costs.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs.
  • Judgment of the Trial Court dated 28th November 2018 quashed.
  • Dismissal order set aside.
  • Reference remitted back to the Trial Court with directions to proceed with hearing by considering all issues raised at the Scheduling Conference held on 11th September 2017.
  • Appellants granted costs in the Trial Court incurred up to 28th November 2018.
  • Costs in the Trial Court to be taxed after determination of the remitted Reference.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Duty of Court to Decide on Issues Pleaded and Agreed
A court is duty bound to decide a case on the issues on record and if there are other questions to be determined they must be placed on record by amendment. It is not open to a court to disregard pleadings in order to reach a conclusion without affording the parties an opportunity to be heard.
Civil Procedure — Natural Justice — Audi Alteram Partem — Right to Be Heard
The audi alteram partem rule of natural justice requires a court to adjudicate over a matter by according the parties a full hearing before deciding the matter in dispute. Where a court raises a new issue not pleaded or agreed upon at the Scheduling Conference, it must notify the parties and give them an opportunity to address the court on that issue.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers of Court — Limits on Exercise
The inherent powers of a court under Rule 1(2) of the Court Rules enable it to make orders necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process. However, inherent powers can only be exercised if it is necessary to do so to meet the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process, and must not be exercised in a manner inconsistent with express provisions of the rules or against the intention of the legislature.
Civil Procedure — Scheduling Conference — Binding Nature of Agreed Issues
Issues agreed upon by parties at a Scheduling Conference and approved by the court must be determined by the court. Failure to consider and determine an agreed issue constitutes a procedural irregularity.
Civil Procedure — Cause of Action — Definition in Treaty Context
A cause of action in respect of a Treaty exists where there is a contention that the matter complained of violates the national law of a Partner State or infringes any provision of the Treaty. This differs from a cause of action at common law where persons seeking relief must demonstrate a right or interest that has been violated and the liability of the defendant.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion of Court — Costs Follow the Event
The general rule is that costs follow the event and the successful party should not be deprived of costs except for good cause. A successful litigant can only be deprived of costs where their conduct has led to litigation which might have been averted. The award of costs is at the discretion of the court.
Civil Procedure — Appellate Jurisdiction — Powers of Appellate Division
The Appellate Division of the East African Court of Justice does not have concurrent jurisdiction with the First Instance Division. The Appellate Division cannot take up issues not considered during the hearing of a reference and resolve them on appeal.

Legislation cited (21)

  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 6(d)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 7(2)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 23(3)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 27
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 30(1)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 30(2)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 35A
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 35A(c)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 1(2)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 24(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 24(2)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 24(3)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 41(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 43(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 68(5)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 111(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2019 Rule 120
  • Banking Act Amendment Statute No. 18 of 1980 s.26A
  • Banking Act Amendment Statute No. 18 of 1980 s.26B
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 36
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights

Cases cited (21)

  • Prof. Peter Anyang' Nyong'o v Secretary General of the East African Community & Others (EACJ Reference No. 1 of 2010)
  • British American Tobacco (BAT) v Attorney General of Uganda (EACJ Application No. 13 of 2017)
  • Auto Garage v Motoko [1971] EA 514
  • Alcon International v Standard Chartered Bank & Others (EACJ Appeal No. 2 of 2011)
  • Legal Brains Trust (LBT) Limited v Attorney General Uganda [2012-2015] EACJ LR 237
  • East African Civil Society Organization Forum v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi & 2 Others (EACJ Appeal No. 4 of 2016)
  • Republic of Rwanda and Union Trade Centre Limited (UTC) and Succession Makuza Desire & Others (EACJ Appeal No. 2 of 2018)
  • Lever Brothers Ltd v Bell [1931] KB 557
  • Mire Artan Ismail v Sofia Njati (Court of Appeal of Tanzania Civil Appeal No. 75 of 2008)
  • Hadmor Productions v Hamilton [1982] 1 All ER 1042
  • Blay v Pollard & Morris [1930] 1 KB 628
  • Farrel v Secretary of State [1980] 1 All ER 166
  • Ram Chand and Sons Sugar Mills v. Kanhayalal [1966]
  • K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palaanisamy, [2011]
  • Kiska Ltd v De Angelis (1969) EA 6
  • Devram Manji Daltani v Danda (1949) EACA 35
  • Hussein Janmohamed & Sons v Twentsche Overseas Trading Co. Ltd [1967] EA 287
  • Supermarine Handling Services Limited v Kenya Revenue Authority (Court of Appeal of Kenya Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2006)
  • Alcon International Ltd v Standard Chartered Bank of Uganda and Others [2012-2015] EACJ LR 430
  • Ismail Dabule and two Others v Attorney General and Bank of Uganda (Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 2004)
  • Appeal No. 3 of 2007 (Supreme Court of Uganda)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Dabule and Others v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (Appeal 1 of 2018) [2020] EACJ 42 (25 February 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.