Wakilii

M-S Quick Telecommunication Services v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania (Application No.7 of 2019)

East African Court of Justice · [2022] EACJ 9 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of judgment delivered in Reference No. 10 of 2016
Decision
Application for review dismissed; applicant to bear costs

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 application for review. The applicant failed to demonstrate any of the permissible grounds for review under Article 35(3) of the Treaty: discovery of new facts, fraud, mistake, error apparent on the face of the record, or injustice. The grounds raised amounted to dissatisfaction with the Court's merits decision and would be appropriate for appeal but not review. An error apparent on the record must be self-evident and patent, not requiring elaborate reasoning. The applicant sought re-argument and reconsideration, which is impermissible. Costs awarded to the respondent.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed; applicant to bear costs

Facts

The Applicant, a Tanzanian legal entity, sought review of the Court's judgment dated 3 July 2019 in Reference No. 10 of 2016 which had dismissed its claims against the Attorney General of Tanzania. The original reference concerned Land Civil Case No. 19 of 2012 and alleged irregularities by a trial judge and the Judges Ethics Committee of Tanzania. The Applicant claimed that the Respondent's actions had caused business collapse and suffering. The First Instance Division had found no violation of the Treaty. The Applicant now alleged that the judgment was reached with concealment of critical facts, substitution of its claims, failure to consider its submissions, and errors apparent on the record. The Applicant contended that scheduling conference notes dated 15 March 2018 were substituted with notes purported to be from 6 June 2017, and that the Court failed to adjudicate on the full scope of its claims.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has established any of the grounds to warrant an order of review of Reference No. 10 of 2016.

Orders

  • Application dismissed in its entirety.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Review Jurisdiction — Grounds for Review
To qualify for review under Article 35(3) of the Treaty and Rule 72 of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, an application must prove discovery of new facts or evidence not previously known to the party or the Court and which could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered, or establish mistake, fraud, or error apparent on the face of the record, or demonstrate that an injustice has been done.
Review Jurisdiction — Error Apparent on Face of Record Distinguished from Erroneous Decision
An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident, patent, and obvious, requiring no elaborate reasoning to establish. It is not sufficient that the decision may be wrong on the merits or that another judge might have reached a different conclusion. Such errors are proper grounds for appeal but not review, as the reviewing court cannot sit in appeal on its own judgment.
Review Jurisdiction — Scope and Limitations
A review is not a rehearing or re-argument of a case. The review jurisdiction cannot be exercised merely because a party is dissatisfied with the decision on the merits or wishes to present new arguments or versions of the law. Review does not provide a back door for unsuccessful litigants to re-argue their cases, as permitting this would lead to endless litigation.
Costs — Discretion to Award Costs
The general rule is that costs follow the event, but the award of costs is within the Court's discretion. A successful party may only exceptionally be deprived of costs depending on particular circumstances such as the conduct of the parties or their legal representatives, the nature of the litigants, the nature of proceedings, or the nature of the success.

Cases cited (10)

  • Christopher Mtikila v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania and Others (EACJ Application No. 8 of 2007)
  • Angella Amudo v Secretary General of the East African Community (EACJ Application No. 4 of 2015)
  • Hon. Margaret Zziwa v Secretary General of the East African Community (EACJ Appeal No. 2 of 2017)
  • Independent Medico Legal Unit v Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya (EACJ Application No. 2 of 2012)
  • Clive Ferreira and Others V. Powell Olives M. Levin & Others
  • Smti Meera Bhanja v. Smiti Nirmala Kumari (Choundry) 1995 SC 455
  • Thugabhadra Industries Ltd v. The Government of Andra Pradesh 1964 AIR 1372; 1164 SCR (5) 174
  • Handas Das v. Smt. Usha Rani Banik & Ors, Appeal (civil) 7948 of 2004
  • Sarala Mudqal v. Union of India M. P.Jain, page 382, vol. I
  • Hoystead v. Commissioner of Taxation (LR 1926 AC 155 at 165)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

M-S Quick Telecommunication Services v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania (Application No.7 of 2019) [2022] EACJ 9 (21 March 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.