Wakilii

Dabule and Others v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (Reference No.5 of 2016)

East African Court of Justice · [2022] EACJ 14 · 2022 Reference Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to the East African Court of Justice following dismissal of constitutional petition and appeal in Ugandan courts, remitted for rehearing by the Appellate Division
Decision
Reference dismissed as time-barred; Court declined jurisdiction to determine substantive 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 East African Court of Justice dismissed the reference as time-barred. The applicants filed their reference more than twelve years after becoming aware of the government's refusal to release their frozen bank accounts, far exceeding the two-month limitation period prescribed by Article 30(2) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community. The Court held that the cause of action arose when the applicants became aware of the banks' refusal to grant access to their accounts following the defreezing order, not from subsequent correspondence with the Minister of Finance. Having found the reference time-barred, the Court declined jurisdiction to determine the remaining issues on the merits.

Outcome

Reference dismissed as time-barred; Court declined jurisdiction to determine substantive issues

Facts

Between 1982 and 1984, the Government of Uganda froze the bank accounts of 1005 applicants under legal notices issued pursuant to the Banking Act (Amendment) Statute 18 of 1980. On 3 February 1995, the Minister of Finance directed banks to defreeze the accounts. Despite this directive, the applicants were unable to access their funds. In 2003, their advocate wrote to the Bank of Uganda requesting implementation of the defreezing order. In April 2004, the applicants filed Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 2004 seeking a defreezing order and compensation, which was dismissed in September 2007. The subsequent Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2007 was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Uganda on 30 October 2015. On 5 and 8 August 2016, the applicants' lawyers wrote to the Minister of Finance demanding payment. On 6 September 2016, the applicants filed this reference to the East African Court of Justice alleging violation of Treaty provisions. The reference was initially dismissed in November 2018, but the Appellate Division remitted it for rehearing in February 2020 on the ground that the first instance judgment was based on a point of law not argued by the parties.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicants' Reference is time-barred under Article 30(2) of the Treaty.
  2. Whether the Applicants have locus standi.
  3. Whether the Government's alleged continued refusal to allow the Applicants access to their frozen funds or its equivalent is a violation of Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty.
  4. Whether the Government's alleged refusal to release the Applicants' documentation and account balances relating to their frozen funds is a violation of Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty.
  5. Whether the alleged violations by the Government of Uganda of the Applicants' rights to a fair hearing, right to property and freedom from discrimination are a violation of Uganda's obligations under Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty.
  6. Whether the Applicants are entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Reference dismissed for being time-barred.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Limitation — Treaty References — Two-Month Period under Article 30(2) of the EAC Treaty
Article 30(2) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community requires that references 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. This time limit must be strictly applied to ensure legal certainty among the diverse membership of the Community.
Limitation — Cause of Action — When Time Begins to Run
The cause of action under Article 30(2) of the Treaty is the enactment, publication, directive, decision or action complained of. The limitation period begins to run from the date the complainant becomes aware of the decision or action complained of, not from the date of subsequent correspondence or demands made after judicial proceedings have been instituted in national courts.
Costs — Discretion to Decline Costs Award Despite Success on Limitation Point
Where a reference is dismissed on a limitation point without determination on the merits, and where the applicants' underlying grievance remains unresolved despite a defreezing order, the Court may in its discretion decline to award costs to the successful respondent to avoid a travesty of justice.

Legislation cited (17)

Cases cited (7)

  • Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya v Independent Medical Legal Unit (EACJ Appeal No. 1 of 2011)
  • Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda and Another v Omar Awadh and Others (EACJ Appeal No. 2 of 2012)
  • Audace Ngendakumana v Attorney General of Burundi (EACJ Reference No. 11 of 2014)
  • Ismail Serogo v Kampala City Council and Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Attorney General v Major General D. Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Ismail Dabule and 2 Others v Attorney General and Bank of Uganda (Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 2004)
  • Constitutional Appeal No.3 of 2007

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 (Reference No.5 of 2016) [2022] EACJ 14 (21 June 2022)
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.