Kazinduka and Others v Secretary General of the East African Community (Reference No.8 of 2019)
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 for lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae. The applicants' employment contracts contained arbitration clauses requiring disputes to be resolved through arbitration. The Court held that parties to a contract with a written arbitration clause must have their disputes resolved through arbitration, not litigation. The Court declined to determine the validity of the arbitration clause, holding that such a question lies with the arbitral tribunal. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Outcome
Reference dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; matter to be resolved through arbitration
Facts
The applicants were former employees of the Financial Sector Development and Regionalisation Project (FSDRP I), a World Bank funded project at the East African Community Secretariat. Kazinduka and Bavugiruhoze were employed on 15 March 2011 and Cishahayo on 22 April 2013. The project was to end on 30 September 2016. The applicants alleged that a three-year work plan was approved for Additional Financing, which the World Bank approved on 29 September 2016. On 19 October 2016, the Deputy Secretary General informed them the World Bank had decided not to renew their contracts. Following a meeting on 1 November 2016, the Secretary General instructed them to continue working. The applicants were not given termination letters and were not paid salaries for March to May 2017. They sought payment of USD 63,000 in unpaid salaries, specific damages of USD 196,000 each, general damages, and costs.
Issues
- Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain this matter
- Whether the Reference discloses a cause of action against the Respondent
- Whether the Reference is time barred
- Whether the Applicants are entitled to the remedies claimed in the Reference
Orders
- Reference dismissed.
- Each party to bear its own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
- Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 30
- Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 71(h)
- Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 71(i)
- East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2019 Rule 39
- East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2019 Rule 127
Cases cited (11)
- Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya v Independent Medical Legal Unit (Appeal No. 1 of 2011)
- Venant Masenge v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi (Reference No. 9 of 2012)
- Union Trade Center (UTC) Ltd v Attorney General of Rwanda (Reference No. 10 of 2013)
- Emmanuel Mwakisha Miawasi & 748 Others v Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya (Reference No. 2 of 2010)
- Emmanuel Mwakisha Miawasi & 748 Others v Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya (Appeal No. 4 of 2011)
- Mary Ariviza & Another v Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya & Another (Application No. 3 of 2020)
- Owners of Motor Vessel Lilian v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KLR 1
- Eric Kabalisa v Attorney General of the Republic of Rwanda (Reference No. 1 of 2017)
- Alcon International Ltd v Standard Chartered Bank of Uganda & 2 Others (Appeal No. 3 of 2013)
- Henry Schein Inc. vs Archer and White Sales Inc, 2019
- Premium Nafta Products Limited & Others v Fili Shipping Company Limited & Others [2007] UKHL 40
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.