Wakilii

Mhozya v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania (Application 14 of 2018)

East African Court of Justice · [2019] EACJ 29 · 2019 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of judgment in Reference No. 2 of 2016 which was dismissed as time-barred
Decision
Application for review dismissed

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 satisfy the requirements for review under Article 35(3) of the Treaty and Rule 72(2) of the Rules. No new evidence was discovered, and no error apparent on the face of the record was demonstrated. The grounds raised amounted to a challenge to the merits of the earlier decision rather than self-evident errors requiring correction through review jurisdiction.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed

Facts

The Applicant sought review of a judgment dated 27 June 2018 in Reference No. 2 of 2016, which had been dismissed as time-barred under Article 30(2) of the Treaty. The underlying Reference concerned a land dispute and alleged harassment, death threats, and the President's failure to respond to a legal ultimatum. The Applicant had unsuccessfully approached various government institutions to protect his property rights. The Court had dismissed the Reference on the ground that it was filed outside the prescribed time limit. The Applicant now sought review on grounds including alleged error in the Court's choice of context, failure to uphold its mission of administering justice, and misinterpretation of the Tanzanian Constitution.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has established any of the grounds to warrant an order of review of Reference No. 2 of 2016.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Review of Judgment — Grounds for Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record
An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and patent, not requiring a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. It must strike one on mere looking at the record without elaborate argument.
Review of Judgment — Distinction Between Review and Appeal
Review jurisdiction cannot be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merit. A review is not granted for fresh hearing or re-argument of the case. If the court reached a wrong conclusion of law, it is a ground for appeal but not for review, as the court cannot sit in appeal on its own judgment.
Review of Judgment — Requirements Under Treaty and Rules
To qualify for review under Article 35(3) of the Treaty and Rule 72(2) of the Rules, an applicant must prove discovery of new facts or evidence not within the knowledge of the party or the Court at the time of judgment, or demonstrate mistake, fraud, or error apparent on the face of the record, or show that an injustice has been done.
Time Limitation — Strict Application — Principle of Legal Certainty
The principle of legal certainty requires strict application of time limits prescribed in the Treaty. The Court has no power to extend, condone, waive, or modify prescribed time limits for any reason.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 35
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 30(2)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 6(d)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 7(2)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 72(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 72(2)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 72(3)

Cases cited (10)

  • Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda & Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya v Omar Awadh & 3 Others (EACJ Appeal No. 2 of 2012)
  • Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi v Secretary General of the East African Community (EACJ Reference No. 2 of 2018)
  • Anqella Amudo v Secretary General of the East African Community (EACJ Appeal No. 4 of 2014)
  • Independent Medico Legal Unit v Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya (EACJ Application No. 2 of 2012)
  • Smti Meera Bhanja v. Smti Nirmala Kumari (Choudrv) 1995 SC 455
  • Thugabhadra Industries Ltd v. The Government of Andra Pradesh 1964 AIR 1372; 1164 SCR (5) 174
  • Haridas Das v. Smt. Usha Rani Banik & Ors, Appeal (civil) 7948 of 2004
  • Sarala Mudqal vs. Union of India M. P. Jain, page 382, vol. I
  • Hoystead v, Commissioner of Taxation (LR 1926 AC 155 at 165)
  • Anqella Amudo v Secretary General of the East African Community (EACJ Application No. 4 of 2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mhozya v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania (Application 14 of 2018) [2019] EACJ 29 (6 December 2019)
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.