Wakilii

Eastern African Sub-Regional Support Initiative for Advancement of Women (EASSI) and Others v Attorney General of The Republic Uganda and Another (Reference No. 13 of 2019)

East African Court of Justice · [2023] EACJ 17 · 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 alleging Treaty violations arising from alleged border closure between Uganda and Rwanda
Decision
Reference dismissed on preliminary objection — Court lacked 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 dismissed the Reference on the ground that it was filed out of time. The alleged border closure occurred on 28 February 2019, but the Reference was filed on 21 June 2019, 52 days beyond the two-month limitation period prescribed by Article 30(2) of the Treaty. The Court rejected the Applicants' contention that they only became aware of the closure in May 2019, finding contradictions in the affidavit evidence and determining that the prayer to expunge and substitute affidavits was not made in good faith. The Court held it lacked jurisdiction ratione temporis to consider the substantive merits.

Outcome

Reference dismissed on preliminary objection — Court lacked jurisdiction ratione temporis

Facts

Three Ugandan non-governmental organisations filed a Reference alleging that Uganda and Rwanda violated the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community by closing border posts between the two countries, thereby denying citizens (particularly women) the right to engage in cross-border trade. The alleged border closure occurred on 28 February 2019. Uganda denied closing the border and asserted that Rwanda had closed it. Rwanda contended that heavy trucks were temporarily diverted from the Gatuna border post due to construction works, not a closure. The Reference was filed on 21 June 2019. The Respondents raised a preliminary objection that the Reference was time-barred under Article 30(2) of the Treaty, which requires proceedings to be instituted within two months of the complained act or of the day it came to the complainant's knowledge. The Applicants initially filed affidavits stating they knew of the closure in February and March 2019, but later sought to expunge those affidavits and filed a supplementary affidavit claiming they only learned of the closure in May 2019.

Issues

  1. Whether the Reference is time barred under Article 30(2) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community.
  2. Whether the border was closed by the Respondents.
  3. Whether the alleged action of closing the border posts and denying accessibility of traders and citizens from either State infringes the Treaty and the Protocol.
  4. Whether the alleged acts of border closure denied women the right of engaging in trade and infringes Articles 121 and 122(c) of the Treaty.
  5. Whether the parties are entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Reference dismissed for being filed out of time.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Time Limits — Strict Application of Statutory Limitation Periods
The two-month time limit prescribed by Article 30(2) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community demands strict application and cannot be extended by the Court. An applicant must institute proceedings within two months of the occurrence of the impugned act or decision, or within two months of the date on which the applicant became aware of it. If a reference is filed beyond the prescribed time, the Court is deprived of jurisdiction and cannot purport to extend it.
Judicial Review — Time Limits — Commencement of Limitation Period
The starting date of an act complained of under Article 30(2) of the Treaty is not the day the act ends, but the day it is first effected. The two-month limitation period starts to run from the day the impugned act or decision is made or takes effect, not from a later date when the applicant chooses to verify or confirm it.
Judicial Review — Time Limits — Continuing Violations
There is nothing in the express language of Article 30(2) of the Treaty that compels any conclusion that continuing violations are to be exempted from the two-month time limit. The Treaty does not recognise any continuing breach or violation outside the two-month period, nor is there any power to extend the time limit.
Judicial Review — Time Limits — Rationale for Short Limitation Period
The reason for the short two-month time limit under Article 30(2) of the Treaty is to ensure legal certainty among the diverse membership of the East African Community. This policy objective justifies the strict application of the limitation period.
Affidavits — Amendment and Substitution — Good Faith Requirement
Where an applicant seeks to expunge an affidavit and substitute it with a supplementary affidavit deponed by the same person that materially alters the cause of action or introduces new matters contrary to assurances given to the court and the opposing party, such conduct is not done in good faith. The court is entitled to examine the contents of the expunged affidavit to determine whether the substitution was a ploy to defeat a valid defence of limitation.
Limitation — Knowledge of Cause of Action — Affected Persons versus Representative Organisations
For the purposes of time limitation under Article 30(2) of the Treaty, the relevant knowledge is that of the person affected by the impugned action, not the knowledge of an organisation filing a reference on their behalf. Where women traders were directly affected by an alleged border closure, the cause of action accrues when they became aware of the closure, not when a representative organisation later learned of it or chose to verify it.

Legislation cited (33)

  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 5
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 6(b)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 6(d)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 7
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 8(1)(c)
  • 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 38(2)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 39(1)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 39(2)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 104(3)(c)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 104(c)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 105(1)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 105(1)(b)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 105(2)(b)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 110(d)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 121
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 122(c)
  • Protocol on the Establishment of East African Common Market Article 5
  • Protocol on the Establishment of East African Common Market Article 7(2)(b)
  • Protocol on the Establishment of East African Common Market Article 7(6)
  • Protocol on the Establishment of East African Common Market Article 7(7)
  • Protocol on the Establishment of East African Common Market Article 16(1)
  • Protocol on the Establishment of East African Common Market Article 16(2)
  • Protocol on the Establishment of East African Common Market Article 23
  • Protocol on the Establishment of East African Common Market Article 29
  • Protocol on the Establishment of East African Common Market Article 45(1)(b)
  • Protocol on the Establishment of East African Common Market Article 45(2)(b)
  • Protocol on the Establishment of East African Common Market Article 45(3)(n)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 1(2)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 24
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 38(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 47(1)

Cases cited (3)

  • Audace Ngendakumana v Attorney General of Burundi (EACJ Reference No. 11 of 2014)
  • Attorney General of Uganda v Omar Awadh and 6 Others (EACJ Appeal No. 2 of 2012)
  • Attorney General of Kenya v Independent Medical Legal Unit (EACJ Appeal No. 1 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Eastern African Sub-Regional Support Initiative for Advancement of Women (EASSI) and Others v Attorney General of The Republic Uganda and Another (Reference No. 13 of 2019) [2023] EACJ 17 (15 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.