Magoti and Another v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania (Reference No.2 of 2020)
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 temporis. The Court held that where a statute enacted by a Partner State is challenged as violating the Treaty, the two-month limitation period under Article 30(2) runs from the date of enactment, not from the date of application. The impugned statutes were enacted in 1984 and 1985, decades before the Reference was filed in 2020. The Court further held that the Treaty, which came into force in 2000, cannot be applied retrospectively to statutes enacted before its entry into force.
Outcome
Reference dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Facts
The Applicants, Tanzanian citizens, were arrested in December 2019 and charged with economic crimes and money laundering. Under Section 148(5)(v) of Tanzania's Criminal Procedure Act, bail was not available for money laundering offences, and the Applicants were detained at Segerea Prison from 24 December 2019. The Applicants alleged they were held in solitary confinement without access to lawyers or family. They filed a Reference in the East African Court of Justice in February 2020, challenging the constitutionality of the statutory provisions denying them bail and alleging violations of Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the EAC Treaty. The impugned statutes—the Criminal Procedure Act and the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act—were enacted in 1985 and 1984 respectively, before the EAC Treaty came into force in 2000.
Issues
- Whether the Court has jurisdiction to declare Section 148(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Section 36(2) of the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act, Cap. 200 are in violation of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community.
- Whether the challenged actions and cited sections of the laws are a violation of Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty.
- Whether the parties are entitled to the remedies sought.
Orders
- This Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the Reference and the same is dismissed.
- The costs of the Reference are awarded to the Respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (19)
- 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)
- Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 30(2)
- East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 24
- East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 127(1)
- Criminal Procedure Act Cap. 20 RE 2002 s.148(5)(v)
- Economic and Organized Crimes Control Act Cap. 200 RE 2002 s.36(2)
- Economic and Organized Crimes Control Act Cap. 200 RE 2002 s.57(1)
- Economic and Organized Crimes Control Act Cap. 200 RE 2002 s.60(2)
- Cyber Crimes Act No. 14 of 2015 s.10(1)(a)
- Anti Money Laundering Act 2006 s.12(d)
- Anti Money Laundering Act 2006 s.13(c)
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 6
- Universal Declaration on Human Rights Article 9
- Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Article 28
- Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Article 31
Cases cited (10)
- Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania v African Network for Animal Welfare (EACJ Appeal No. 3 of 2011)
- Owners of the Motor Vessel Lillian S v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd (1989) KLR 1
- Eric Kabalisa Makala v Attorney General of the Republic of Rwanda (EACJ Reference No. 1 of 2017)
- Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya v Independent Medical Legal Unit (EACJ Appeal No. 1 of 2011)
- Nebec v EC Commission (Case 24/69) [1975] ECR 145
- Ferriera Valsabbia Spa v EC Commission (Case 209/83)
- Rashid Salim Ady and 39,999 Others v Attorney General of Zanzibar and Two Others (EACJ Reference No. 9 of 2016)
- The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda & Another vs. Omar Awadh & 6 Others
- Emmanuel Mwakisha Mjawasi and 748 Others v Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya (EACJ Appeal No. 4 of 2011)
- Alcon International Ltd v Standard Bank of Uganda and 2 Others (EACJ Appeal No. 3 of 2013)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.