Wakilii

Nondo v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania (Reference No. 28 of 2020)

East African Court of Justice · [2026] EACJ 5 · 2026 Reference Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference brought under the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community challenging broadcasting content regulations
Decision
Reference 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 East African Court of Justice held that the challenged broadcasting content regulations did not violate the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community. Regulation 14 restricting adult content to a watershed period met the three-tier test of being prescribed by law, serving a pressing objective (child protection), and being proportionate. Regulation 37 was moot having been deleted. Regulations 45 and 47 were sufficiently clear and proportionate. The reference was dismissed.

Outcome

Reference dismissed

Facts

The Applicant, a Tanzanian national and human rights activist, challenged the Electronic and Postal Communications (Radio and Television Broadcasting Content) (Amendment) Regulations, 2020, gazetted on 26 June 2020. The amendments restricted the watershed period for adult content from 22h00-05h30 to 00h00-05h00 (Regulation 14), and imposed other content restrictions (Regulations 37, 45, 47). The Applicant argued these restrictions violated freedom of expression and principles of democracy, rule of law, accountability, transparency and good governance under the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community. During the proceedings, Regulation 37 was deleted by subsequent amendment (GN No. 135 of 2022).

Issues

  1. Whether the provisions of Regulations 14, 37, 45 and 47 of the Electronic and Postal Communications (Radio and Television Broadcasting Content) (Amendment) Regulations, 2020 are in violation of Articles 6(d), 7(2) and 8(1)(c) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community.
  2. What remedies are the parties entitled to.

Orders

  • Reference dismissed for want of merit.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Freedom of Expression — Limitations — Three-Tier Test for Assessing Restrictions
A limitation on freedom of expression must satisfy a three-tier test: (a) the limitation must be prescribed by law that is clear and accessible to citizens; (b) the objective of the law must be pressing and substantial; and (c) the state must have chosen a proportionate means to achieve its objectives.
Freedom of Expression — Broadcasting Regulation — Watershed Period for Adult Content
A regulation restricting broadcast of material suitable for adults to a watershed period between 00h00 and 05h00 is a proportionate limitation on freedom of expression where it serves the legitimate objective of protecting children from inappropriate content, and the concept of 'material suitable for adults' is sufficiently clear by reference to the opposite concept of material suitable for children.
Mootness — Deleted Legislation — No Live Dispute
Where a challenged regulation has been deleted by subsequent amendment before the court's determination, the matter is moot and presents no live dispute for resolution. Courts do not determine hypothetical, academic or speculative questions, and will not expend judicial resources on matters that are lifeless or spent.
Penal Provisions — Reference to Parent Legislation — Sufficiency of Clarity
A penal regulation that refers to a parent Act for the elements of offences and penalties is sufficiently clear where the parent Act provides the mental element (mens rea), actus reus, and penalties. Reference to another national legislation, especially a parent Act, is common and acceptable in legislative drafting.
Broadcasting — Rights Clearance — Sufficiency of Regulatory Language
A regulation requiring licensees to obtain 'necessary rights clearances' in respect of content being broadcast is sufficiently clear and proportionate where the specific clearances required necessarily depend on the type of content to be broadcast, and it is logically impossible to specify all kinds of clearance in advance.
Pleadings — Parties Bound by Pleadings — Amendment Required for New Issues
Parties to a dispute are bound by their pleadings. Where a matter is not pleaded and the other party has no opportunity to respond to it, the court will not determine it. A party seeking to raise a new issue must apply to amend the pleadings by leave of the court or consent of the other party.
Costs — Public Interest Litigation — Discretion to Depart from General Rule
Where a reference is filed for public interest, the court may exercise its discretion to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event and order that each party bear its own costs.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Articles 4, 6(d), 7(2), 8(1)(c), 27(1), 30(1)
  • Electronic and Postal Communications (Radio and Television Broadcasting Content) (Amendment) Regulations, 2020, GN No. 486 of 2020
  • Electronic and Postal Communications (Radio and Television Broadcasting Content) Regulations, 2018, GN No. 134
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 19(2), Article 19(3)
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania Article 18(a), Article 30(2)
  • European Convention on Human Rights Article 10(2)
  • UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child (1959)
  • Convention on the Rights of the Child Article 3(1)
  • Electronic and Postal Communications Act s.104

Cases cited (14)

  • Lohe Issa Konate v Burkina Faso (Application No. 004/2013)
  • Burundi Journalists Union v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi (EACJ Reference No. 7 of 2013)
  • R v Oakes (1986) 1 SCR 103
  • Plaxeda Rugumba v Attorney General of the Republic of Rwanda (EACJ Appeal No. 1 of 2012)
  • Media Council of Tanzania & 2 Others v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania (EACJ Reference No. 2 of 2017)
  • Attorney General of United Republic of Tanzania v African Network for Animal Welfare (EACJ Appeal No. 3 of 2014)
  • Alcon International Ltd v Standard Chartered Bank of Uganda and others (EACJ Appeal No. 3 of 2013)
  • Henry Kyarimpa v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (EACJ Reference No. 4 of 2013)
  • Managing Editor, Mseto and Hali Halisi Publishers Ltd v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania (EACJ Reference No. 7 of 2016)
  • Paul John Mhozya v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania (EACJ Application No. 13 of 2016)
  • Alice Nijimbere v Secretary General of the East African Community (EACJ Reference No. 7 of 2015)
  • Alice Nijimbere v Secretary General of the East African Community (EACJ Appeal No. 1 of 2016)
  • British American Tobacco (U) Ltd v Attorney General of Uganda (EACJ Reference No. 7 of 2017)
  • Hon. Dr Margaret Zziwa v Secretary General of the East African Community (EACJ Appeal No. 2 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nondo v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania (Reference No. 28 of 2020) [2026] EACJ 5 (31 March 2026)
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.