Wakilii

Legal and Human Rights Centre and Another v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania (Reference No.19 of 2019)

East African Court of Justice · [2024] EACJ 5 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference challenging national legislation under Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community
Decision
Reference dismissed — impugned legislation held not to violate Treaty or Protocol

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 challenging Tanzania's Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No.3) Act, 2019. Applying the three-tier test from R v Oakes, the Court held that the impugned legislation passed all three tests: the limitations were prescribed by clear law; the objectives were pressing and substantial, addressing challenges in registration, coordination and regulation of entities and aligning with anti-money laundering recommendations; and the State chose proportionate means to achieve its objectives. The amendments did not violate the Treaty or Protocol.

Outcome

Reference dismissed — impugned legislation held not to violate Treaty or Protocol

Facts

On 27 June 2019, the Parliament of the United Republic of Tanzania enacted the Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No.3) Act, 2019 under Certificate of Urgency, amending the Companies Act, Non-Governmental Organizations Act, Trustees Incorporation Act, Societies Act and Film and Stage Plays Act. The President assented on 30 June 2019. On 19 June 2019, Parliament issued a public notice inviting stakeholder comments on the proposed Bill, with input due on 21 and 22 June 2019. The Applicants, Legal and Human Rights Centre and Tanganyika Law Society, challenged multiple sections of the Act, alleging they restricted formation of companies, NGOs, societies and trusts; contained unclear and ambiguous words; gave unfettered powers to registrars, ministers and the President; and violated Treaty principles of democracy, rule of law, accountability, transparency and good governance. The Respondent contended the amendments addressed challenges in registration, coordination and regulation of entities; cured problems from overlapping mandates; aligned with the Non-Governmental Organizations Policy of 2001; and complied with Financial Action Task Force recommendations on anti-money laundering.

Issues

  1. Whether Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 42, 44, 46, 51, 52, 53, 76 of the Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No.3) Act, 2019 violate Articles 6(d), 7(2) and 8(1)(c) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community and Article 16 of the Protocol on the Establishment of the East African Community Common Market.
  2. Whether the parties are entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • The Reference is dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Judicial Review of Legislation — Three-Tier Test for Validity Against Treaty Obligations
In determining whether national legislation violates a treaty, a court must apply a three-tier test: (1) whether the limitation is prescribed by law that is clear and accessible; (2) whether the objective of the law is pressing and substantial; and (3) whether the State has chosen proportionate means to achieve its objectives.
Statutory Interpretation — Clarity of Legislative Language — Ordinary Meaning of Words
In nearly every statute, words carry their ordinary meanings imparted by context. A word can be made to carry a technical meaning, but that meaning must be specified in the interpretive section of the legislation. Where a statute has an interpretive section defining technical words, and other words bear their ordinary English meanings, the provisions are sufficiently clear.
Administrative Law — Legislative Purpose — Pressing and Substantial Objectives
Legislation enacted to address challenges in registration, coordination and regulation of entities, to cure problems from overlapping mandates, to align with national policy, and to comply with international anti-money laundering recommendations constitutes a pressing and substantial objective important to society.
Constitutional Law — Proportionality — Innovation in Legal Systems
Where an existing legal regime is no longer adequate to address current issues, a State may innovate by enacting new legislation to cure problems, align with policy objectives, and meet international standards. Such innovation constitutes a proportionate means of achieving legitimate State objectives.
Constitutional Law — Public Interest Litigation — Costs
Where a public interest litigation is brought in good faith but the applicants fail to prove their claims, the court may exercise discretion to order each party to bear their own costs rather than awarding costs to the successful party.

Legislation cited (31)

  • 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 8(1)(c)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 27(1)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 30(1)
  • Protocol on the Establishment of the East African Community Common Market Article 16(1)
  • Protocol on the Establishment of the East African Community Common Market Article 16(5)
  • Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No.3) Act, 2019
  • Companies Act Cap. 212
  • Non-Governmental Organizations Act Cap. 56
  • Trustees Incorporation Act Cap. 318
  • Societies Act Cap. 337
  • Film and Stage Plays Act Cap. 230
  • 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 127(1)
  • Tanzania Parliamentary Standing Orders Order 80(4)
  • Tanzania Parliamentary Standing Orders Order 80(5)
  • Tanzania Parliamentary Standing Orders Order 80(6)
  • Non-Governmental Organizations Act Section 7
  • Non-Governmental Organizations Act Section 14
  • Non-Governmental Organizations Act Section 15
  • Non-Governmental Organizations Act Section 16
  • Non-Governmental Organizations Act Section 21
  • Non-Governmental Organizations Act Section 24
  • Societies Act Section 8
  • Companies Act Section 400
  • Companies Act Section 402
  • Film and Stage Plays Act Section 36
  • Law Reforms (Fatal Accidents and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Chapter 310
  • Non-Governmental Organization Code of Conduct GN No. 363 of 2008

Cases cited (12)

  • Burundi Journalist Union v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi (Reference No. 7 of 2013)
  • Media Council of Tanzania and 2 Others v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania (Reference No. 2 of 2017)
  • Freeman A. Mbowe and Others v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania (Consolidated Reference No. 3 & 4 of 2022)
  • R v Oakes [1986] 1 SCR 103
  • CORD v Republic of Kenya and Others (HC Petition No. 628 of 2014)
  • Konate v Burkina Faso (App No. 004/2013) (2014)
  • School of St. Jude Limited v Commissioner General Tanzania Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2018)
  • Julius Ndyanabo v Attorney General [2017] TLR 14
  • Rev Mtikila v Attorney General [1995] TLR 3
  • Rwenga Etienne and Another v Secretary General of EAC (Reference No. 7 of 2015)
  • Bahari Schools Limited v Registrar of Companies (Miscellaneous Commercial Cause No. 12 of 2022)
  • Media Council of Tanzania, Legal and Human Rights Centre and Tanzania Human Rights Defenders Coalition v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania (Reference No. 2 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Legal and Human Rights Centre and Another v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania (Reference No.19 of 2019) [2024] EACJ 5 (27 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.