Wakilii

Juba Airport City Park Limited v Attorney General of the Republic of South Sudan (Reference No.17 of 2020)

East African Court of Justice · [2024] EACJ 2 · 2024 Reference Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to the East African Court of Justice concerning alleged expropriation of land; Court raised preliminary issue of jurisdiction and time limitation
Decision
Reference dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and time bar

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 two grounds: first, it lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter because the alleged expropriation occurred in 2011, before South Sudan joined the East African Community in 2016, and the Treaty does not apply retrospectively; second, 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 complainant's knowledge thereof, and the Applicant was aware of the expropriation since 2011 but filed only in 2020.

Outcome

Reference dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and time bar

Facts

The Applicant, Juba Airport City Park Limited, was incorporated in 2006 and acquired three plots of land in Thumping, Juba, in 2006 or 2007. In 2011, the Government of South Sudan expropriated the land and allocated it to the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) without the Applicant's consent or compensation. The Applicant filed suit in South Sudanese courts against UNMISS, which failed due to immunity provisions. In June 2020, the Applicant filed a Reference before the East African Court of Justice alleging infringement of Treaty provisions and South Sudanese law. The Court raised a preliminary issue concerning jurisdiction and time limitation. South Sudan joined the East African Community in 2016, five years after the alleged expropriation.

Issues

  1. Whether the Reference was filed within the two-month time limit prescribed by Article 30(2) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community.
  2. Whether the Court has jurisdiction ratione temporis over acts that occurred before South Sudan became a member of the East African Community in 2016.

Orders

  • Reference dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Time Limitation — Article 30(2) of the EAC Treaty
Proceedings under Article 30 of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community must be instituted within two months of the complained act or, in the absence of publication, within two months of the day the act came to the knowledge of the complainant. The Treaty does not recognize any continuing breach or violation outside the two-month period after the relevant action comes to the knowledge of the claimant.
Administrative Law — Jurisdiction Ratione Temporis — Non-Retrospectivity of Treaties
A treaty cannot be applied retrospectively unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established. The East African Court of Justice has no jurisdiction over acts or omissions of a State that occurred before that State became a party to the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Preliminary Objections — Court's Duty to Raise Jurisdictional Issues Suo Motu
The objection of non-retrospectivity of a treaty is a fundamental issue that goes to the root of the case. The Court must determine it at the outset before dealing with any other issue, even where the parties fail to raise it. The objection of non-retrospectivity is interconnected with the question of jurisdiction.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion to Depart from the General Rule
While costs ordinarily follow the event under Rule 127(1) of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, the Court may depart from this principle for good reason. Where counsel for the successful party has exhibited ineptitude and disregard for court orders, the Court may exercise its discretion to order that each party bear its own costs.

Legislation cited (23)

  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 5(3)(g)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 6(d)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 7(1)(a)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 7(2)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 8(1)(a)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 8(1)(b)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 8(1)(c)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 8(4)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 27
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 30
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 30(2)
  • Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan Article 9(2)
  • Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan Article 9(3)
  • Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan Article 170(1)
  • Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan Article 170(2)
  • Land Act (Laws of South Sudan, 2009) s.8(1)
  • Land Act (Laws of South Sudan, 2009) s.8(2)
  • Land Act (Laws of South Sudan, 2009) s.12
  • Land Act (Laws of South Sudan, 2009) s.73(1)
  • Land Act (Laws of South Sudan, 2009) s.75
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, 2019 Rule 4
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, 2019 Rule 25
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, 2019 Rule 127(1)

Cases cited (7)

  • Emmanuel Mwakisha Mjawasi & Others v Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya (Reference No. 2 of 2010)
  • Kiir Chol Deng v Attorney General of the Republic of South Sudan (Reference No. 4 of 2018)
  • Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya v Independent Medical Legal Unit (Appeal No. 1 of 2011)
  • Alcon International Limited v Standard Chartered Bank of Uganda & 2 Others (Appeal No. 3 of 2013)
  • Hon. Sitenda Sebalu v Secretary General of the East African Community (Reference No. 8 of 2012)
  • Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda v Omar Awadh and 6 Others (Appeal No. 2 of 2012)
  • Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi v Secretary General of the East African Community & Another (Appeal No. 2 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Juba Airport City Park Limited v Attorney General of the Republic of South Sudan (Reference No.17 of 2020) [2024] EACJ 2 (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.