Wakilii

Luc and Others v Attorney General of Republic of Uganda (Reference No. 18 of 2018)

East African Court of Justice · [2022] EACJ 33 · 2022 Reference Dismissed — Time Barred 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 arrest, detention, torture and deportation
Decision
Reference dismissed on preliminary grounds without determination on merits

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 held that it had jurisdiction ratione materiae to interpret and apply the Treaty where Treaty violations were alleged by residents of a Partner State. However, the Reference was dismissed as time barred under Article 30(2) of the Treaty, which requires proceedings to be instituted within two months of the action complained of. The Court found that the Reference was filed almost three months after the alleged deportations, exceeding the mandatory two-month limitation period, and therefore lacked jurisdiction ratione temporis to determine the matter on its merits.

Outcome

Reference dismissed on preliminary grounds without determination on merits

Facts

The Applicants are Rwandan citizens who resided in Uganda. They alleged that between 1 May and 27 May 2019, they were arrested by Ugandan security agents from different locations, detained and tortured in various detention facilities, and subsequently deported to Rwanda on 12 June and 29 June 2019. The Applicants claimed the arrests, detention, torture and deportation caused them physical injuries, permanent disabilities, terminal diseases and trauma, deprived them of their properties, and separated them from their families. They filed a Reference with the East African Court of Justice on 13 August 2019, alleging violations of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community and various international human rights instruments. The Respondent opposed the Reference, arguing inter alia that it was time barred under Article 30(2) of the Treaty.

Issues

  1. Whether the East African Court of Justice has jurisdiction to adjudicate this Reference under Article 27(1) and 30(1) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community.
  2. Whether the Applicants have locus standi in this matter.
  3. Whether the Reference is time barred.
  4. Whether the Applicants were arrested, detained, tortured and deported.
  5. Whether there was an infringement on the private property of the Applicants, as well as their rights to be accessed by their families.
  6. Whether the Respondent violated Articles 5, 9, 10, 12, 74, 76, 104 of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community and the Common Market Protocol and other International Treaties, Conventions and Instruments, as alleged.
  7. Whether the Applicants are entitled to the reliefs sought.

Orders

  • Reference dismissed for being time barred.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

East African Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Interpretation and Application of Treaty
The East African Court of Justice has jurisdiction ratione materiae to interpret and apply the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community where a resident of a Partner State alleges violation of Treaty provisions by another Partner State, and the Court's jurisdiction extends to considering violations of domestic law of a Partner State where such violations constitute breaches of the Treaty principle of rule of law.
East African Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Three Dimensions of Jurisdiction
The notion of jurisdiction before the East African Court of Justice has three dimensions: ratione personae (jurisdiction on account of the person concerned), ratione materiae (jurisdiction on account of the matter involved), and ratione temporis (jurisdiction on account of the time involved), and to succeed on a claim of lack of jurisdiction, a party must demonstrate the absence of any of these three types of jurisdictions.
East African Court of Justice — Limitation Period — Article 30(2) of Treaty
Article 30(2) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community requires proceedings to be instituted within two months of the action complained of or, in the absence thereof, of the day it came to the knowledge of the complainant, and this time limit demands strict application to ensure legal certainty among the diverse membership of the Community.
East African Court of Justice — Limitation Period — Commencement of Time
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, and there is no enabling provision in the Treaty to disregard the time limit or to recognize any continuing breach or violation outside the two-month period.
East African Court of Justice — Jurisdiction Ratione Temporis — Effect of Time Bar
Where a Reference is filed beyond the two-month limitation period prescribed by Article 30(2) of the Treaty, the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione temporis to deal with the Reference on its merits, and time limitation being a legal issue, a finding that the Reference is time barred disposes of the matter without consideration of the remaining substantive issues.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Articles 5, 6(d), 7, 27, 30, 71(1)(d), (e), (f), (p), (2), 74, 76, 104
  • EACJ Rules of Procedure 2013 Rules 1(2), 24, 127
  • Protocol on the Establishment of the East African Community Common Market Articles 3(2), 5, 7(2)(b), (c), (d), 7(3), 13, 14
  • African Charter on Human and People's Rights Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 12, 14
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights Articles 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 17
  • UN International Convention on Civil and Political Rights Articles 7, 12
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Sections 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, Article 119
  • Draft Articles on State Responsibility Articles 1, 2, 30(b), 31

Cases cited (15)

  • Democratic Party v Secretary General of the East African Community and 4 Others (EACJ Reference No. 2 of 2012)
  • James Katabazi and 21 Others v Secretary General of the East African Community and Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (EACJ Reference No. 1 of 2007)
  • Hon. Sitenda Sebalu v Secretary General of the East African Community and 3 Others (EACJ Reference No. 1 of 2010)
  • Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania v Anthony Calist Komu (EACJ Appeal No. 2 of 2015)
  • Prof. Peter Anyang' Nyong'o & 10 Others vs The Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya & 2 Others
  • Plaxeda Rugumba v Attorney General of Rwanda (EACJ Reference No. 8 of 2010)
  • Samuel Mukira Mohochi v Attorney General of Uganda (EACJ Reference No. 5 of 2011)
  • Simon Peter Ochieng and Another v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (EACJ Reference No. 11 of 2013)
  • Henry Kyarimpa v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (EACJ Appeal No. 6 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)
  • Independent Medical Legal Unit v Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya and 4 Others (EACJ Reference No. 3 of 2010)
  • Omar Awadh Omar and 7 Others v Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya and 2 Others (EACJ Application No. 4 of 2011)
  • Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya v Independent Medical Legal Unit (EACJ Appeal No. 1 of 2011)
  • Audace Ngendakumana v Attorney General of Burundi (EACJ Reference No. 11 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Luc and Others v Attorney General of Republic of Uganda (Reference No. 18 of 2018) [2022] EACJ 33 (30 November 2022)
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.