Wakilii

Hope for Humanity Africa and Another v Honorable Minister of Justice-Attorney General of the Republic of South Sudan and Another (Reference No. 15 of 2019)

East African Court of Justice · [2026] EACJ 8 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference under Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community challenging alleged abduction, enforced disappearance, and extra-judicial killing of two South Sudanese nationals
Decision
Reference dismissed for lack of 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 as time-barred under Article 30(2) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community. The Court held that the two-month limitation period began to run in January 2017 when the alleged abduction and disappearance occurred and came to the applicants' knowledge, not from the date of the UN Panel report in April 2019. The Reference filed in July 2019 was therefore outside the prescribed period, depriving the Court of jurisdiction ratione temporis.

Outcome

Reference dismissed for lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis

Facts

On 23-24 January 2017, two South Sudanese nationals, Mr Dong Samuel Luak (a human rights lawyer) and Mr Aggrey Ezbon Idri (a political figure and refugee), disappeared in Nairobi, Kenya. Missing persons reports were filed with Kenyan police. Families instituted habeas corpus proceedings in the High Court of Kenya on 26 January 2017, which were dismissed on 22 February 2017 after the court found no evidence the men were in Kenyan custody. A UN Security Council Panel of Experts report published on 30 April 2019 revealed that South Sudan's Internal Security Bureau transported the subjects from Kenya to Juba on 27 January 2017 with assistance from the South Sudan Embassy in Nairobi, detained them at the National Security Service Headquarters, and allegedly tortured and killed them. The applicants filed this Reference on 2 July 2019 alleging violations of Treaty principles by both Kenya and South Sudan.

Issues

  1. Whether the Reference is time-barred under Article 30(2) of the Treaty
  2. Whether the Reference raises a cause of action against the 1st and 2nd Respondent States
  3. Whether the actions taken by the 1st and 2nd Respondent States meet the expectations of Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty and various national laws and international instruments
  4. Whether the parties are entitled to reliefs sought

Orders

  • Reference No. 15 of 2019 dismissed in its entirety for being time-barred.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Limitation Periods — Jurisdiction Ratione Temporis — Strict Compliance Required
The two-month limitation period prescribed by Article 30(2) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community is a strict jurisdictional requirement, not a mere procedural technicality, and non-compliance deprives the Court of jurisdiction ratione temporis. The Court has no power to extend, waive, or modify this limitation period.
Civil Procedure — Limitation Periods — Commencement of Time — Date of Action or Knowledge
Time under Article 30(2) of the Treaty begins to run from the date the impugned action is first effected or, in the alternative, from the date it came to the knowledge of the complainant. The relevant starting point is not the day the act ends, but the day it is first effected.
Civil Procedure — Limitation Periods — Continuing Violations — Doctrine Not Applicable
The doctrine of continuing violations cannot be invoked to defeat the strict temporal limits set by Article 30(2) of the Treaty. The fact that alleged violations may have continuing consequences does not alter the commencement date of the limitation period, which is determined by when the action was first effected and became known to the applicant.
Civil Procedure — Limitation Periods — Evidentiary Confirmation Distinguished from New Action
The publication of a report providing additional evidentiary detail concerning events already known to an applicant does not constitute a new action complained of within the meaning of Article 30(2) of the Treaty and cannot restart the limitation period. Legal certainty requires that time runs from knowledge of the impugned act itself, not from subsequent confirmation or elaboration of evidence.

Legislation cited (16)

  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 6(c)
  • 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 30
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 30(2)
  • 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 24(4)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 3(d)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules 2019 Rule 61
  • East African Court of Justice Rules 2019 Rule 127(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules 2019 Rule 136
  • South Sudan NGO Act 2016
  • 1951 Refugee Convention
  • 1969 OAU Convention
  • Convention Against Torture

Cases cited (5)

  • Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya & 4 Others v Independent Medical Legal Unit (EACJ Appeal No. 1 of 2011)
  • Hilaire Ndayizamba v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi & Another (EACJ Reference No. 3 of 2012)
  • Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda v Omar Awadh & 6 Others (EACJ Appeal No. 2 of 2012)
  • Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 28 of 2017
  • Judicial Review Application No. 193 of 2017

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Hope for Humanity Africa and Another v Honorable Minister of Justice-Attorney General of the Republic of South Sudan and Another (Reference No. 15 of 2019) [2026] EACJ 8 (25 March 2026)
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.