Malek v Minister of Justice of the Republic of South Sudan and Another (Reference No.9 of 2017)
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 the President of South Sudan violated the Constitution of South Sudan and the Judiciary Act 2008 by removing the Applicant from judicial office without following the mandatory procedures requiring a recommendation from the Judicial Service Council and compliance with disciplinary processes. This violation of domestic law constituted a breach of the rule of law principle enshrined in Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community. The Court found no cause of action against the Secretary General of the East African Community.
Outcome
Reference allowed as against the First Respondent. Reference dismissed as against the Second Respondent.
Facts
The Applicant was a Justice of the Court of Appeal of South Sudan. He and other judges formed a Committee of Justices and Judges that led a strike demanding the resignation of the Chief Justice. On 12 July 2017, the President of South Sudan issued Republican Decree No.100/2017 removing the Applicant and other judges from office. The decree cited Article 134(2) of the Transitional Constitution and Section 61(a) of the Judiciary Act 2008 as authority. The Applicant contended that the President failed to follow mandatory constitutional and statutory procedures requiring a formal complaint, investigation by a Board of Discipline, recommendation by the Judicial Service Council, and an opportunity to be heard before removal.
Issues
- Whether the removal of the Applicant from the position of Justice of the Court of Appeal of the Republic of South Sudan vide Republican Decree No.100/2017 was lawful in respect to the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan 2011, the Judiciary Act 2008, the Judicial Service Council Act 2008, and Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community.
- Whether there is a cause of action against the Second Respondent.
- Whether the Applicant is entitled to the remedies sought.
Orders
- A declaration that the act of the President of the Republic of South Sudan of removing the Applicant from the position of Justice of the Court of Appeal vide Republican Decree No.100/2017 dated 12th July 2017 is in violation of the Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan and a violation of Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community.
- Costs awarded to the Applicant as against the First Respondent.
- Costs awarded to the Second Respondent as against the Applicant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (18)
- Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Articles 6(d), 7(1)(b), 7(2), 27(1), 29(1), 30(1)(2), 71(d)
- Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan 2011 Article 123(b)
- Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan 2011 Article 124(1)
- Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan 2011 Article 124(5)
- Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan 2011 Article 124(7)
- Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan 2011 Article 134(2)
- Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan 2011 Article 103
- Judiciary Act 2008 Section 7(b)
- Judiciary Act 2008 Section 48(1)(2)(3)
- Judiciary Act 2008 Section 53(6)(7)
- Judiciary Act 2008 Section 55
- Judiciary Act 2008 Section 61(a)
- Judicial Service Council Act 2008
- Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969
- East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 24(1)(2)(3)
- East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2019 Rule 127(1)
- East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2019 Rule 136
- African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights
Cases cited (11)
- Simon Peter Ochieng and Another v The Attorney General of Uganda (EACJ Reference No. 11 of 2013)
- East Africa Law Society v The Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi and Another (EACJ Reference No. 1 of 2014)
- Henry Kyarimpa v The Attorney General of Uganda (EACJ Appeal No. 6 of 2014)
- James Katabazi and 21 Others v The Secretary General of the East African Community (EACJ Reference No. 1 of 2007)
- Samuel Mukiri Muhochi v The Attorney General of Uganda (EACJ Reference No. 5 of 2011)
- Attorney General of Rwanda v Rugumba (EACJ Appeal No. 1 of 2012)
- Forum Pour Le Renforcement De La Societe Civile (FORSC) and Others v The Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi and The Secretary General of the East African Community (EACJ Reference No. 12 of 2016)
- Sitenda Sebalu v The Secretary General of the EAC and Attorney General of Uganda (EACJ Reference No. 1 of 2010)
- Democratic Party v The Secretary General of the East African Community and 4 Others (EACJ Reference No. 2 of 2012)
- East African Civil Society Organization Forum (EACSOF) v The Attorney General of Burundi and 2 Others (EACJ Appeal No. 4 of 2016)
- The Attorney General of Burundi v The Secretary General of the East African Community and Another (EACJ Appeal No. 2 of 2019)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.