Mbidde Foundation Ltd and Another v Secretary General of the East African Community and Another
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 consolidated references challenging the procedure for removal of the Speaker of the East African Legislative Assembly constituted public interest litigation. The office of the Speaker is crucial to the integration process of the East African Community and its removal cannot be a private matter. The withdrawal was occasioned by changed circumstances beyond the applicants' control when EALA members withdrew their signatures from the motion. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Outcome
References withdrawn by consent with no order as to costs
Facts
On 20 March 2014, Mbidde Foundation Ltd filed Reference No. 3 of 2014 challenging the procedure for removal of the Speaker of the East African Legislative Assembly as infringing the EAC Treaty. On 21 March 2014, EALA members tabled a motion for the Speaker's removal. The Speaker, Rt. Hon. Margaret Zziwa, adjourned the Assembly sine die before the petition reached the Committee on Legal, Rules and Privileges, then filed Reference No. 5 of 2014 on 14 April 2014 challenging the removal procedure. The applicants sought interim orders to restrain EALA from investigating or removing the Speaker, which were dismissed on 29 May 2014. On 19 June 2014, the applicants withdrew the references after three Tanzanian EALA members withdrew their signatures from the motion, causing it to fall short of mandatory requirements under Rule 9 of the EALA Rules of Procedure. The parties agreed to the withdrawal but disputed whether costs should follow the event or whether each party should bear its own costs.
Issues
- Whether the consolidated references constituted public interest litigation such that each party should bear its own costs upon withdrawal.
- Whether the respondents were entitled to costs following the withdrawal of the references by the applicants.
Orders
- References Nos. 3 & 5 of 2014 are hereby marked as withdrawn by consent of the Parties.
- Each Party shall bear its own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (17)
- Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 4(3)
- Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 5(1)
- 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 9
- Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 30(1)
- Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 36
- Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 48(2)
- Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 49(2)
- Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 49(3)
- Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 53
- Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 53(3)
- East African Legislative Assembly Rules of Procedure Rule 8(1)
- East African Legislative Assembly Rules of Procedure Rule 9
- East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 51(2)
- East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 111(1)
- East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 111(2)
Cases cited (2)
- B.P. Singhal v Union of India & Anr (Petition No. 663 of 2004)
- S.P. Gupta v President of India and Others [1982] AIR SC 149
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.