Wakilii

Ochieng and Anor v A.G. of Uganda (Appeal 4 of 2015)

East African Court of Justice · [2015] EACJ 99 · 2015 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from the First Instance Division of the East African Court of Justice challenging dismissal of a reference alleging breach of the EAC Treaty arising from alleged failure to appoint judges in Uganda
Decision
Appeal dismissed for failure to establish grounds of appeal under Article 35A of the EAC Treaty

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 Appellate Division dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants failed to establish any error of law, lack of jurisdiction, or procedural irregularity as required by Article 35A of the EAC Treaty. The appellants merely reiterated factual submissions from the trial court without demonstrating how the trial court committed legal errors in finding that the President had not arbitrarily refused to appoint judges. The appeal did not meet the rigorous standards for appellate review.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed for failure to establish grounds of appeal under Article 35A of the EAC Treaty

Facts

The appellants, Simon Peter Ochieng and John Tusiime, filed a reference before the First Instance Division of the East African Court of Justice alleging that the President of Uganda had refused to appoint judges to the High Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court as required by Ugandan law, thereby breaching Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the EAC Treaty concerning the rule of law. The appellants contended that long-standing judicial vacancies existed, including the position of Chief Justice. The First Instance Division dismissed the reference, finding no evidence that the President had refused to effect judicial appointments. The appellants appealed to the Appellate Division, raising seven grounds of appeal consolidated into three issues. During the appeal hearing, the appellants conceded one issue concerning departure from pleadings.

Issues

  1. Whether the Trial Court erred in law in finding that the President had not arbitrarily refused to appoint judges of the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Uganda as required by law and consequently the actions of the President were not arbitrary or in breach of Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community?
  2. What remedies are the Parties entitled to?

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Each party to bear his own costs both in the Appellate Division and the First Instance Division.

Rules and key headnotes

Appellate Review — Scope of Appeal — Requirements under Article 35A of EAC Treaty
An appeal to the Appellate Division of the East African Court of Justice is restricted to points of law, grounds of lack of jurisdiction, or procedural irregularity as provided in Article 35A of the EAC Treaty and Rule 77 of the Court Rules. A party alleging an error of law must advance argument in support of the contention and explain how the error invalidates the decision. Mere reiteration of factual submissions made in the trial court does not meet the requirements for appellate review.
Appellate Review — Burden of Proof — Establishing Error of Law
A party alleging that a trial court committed an error of law must identify, establish, and explain what the alleged error is and how it invalidates the impugned decision. The appellate court is not tasked to undertake a rehearing de novo of questions of fact and law examined by the trial court. The right to appeal is restricted to the grounds specified in Article 35A of the EAC Treaty.
Appellate Review — Errors of Law — Definition and Examples
A court commits an error of law or procedural error when it: (a) misapprehends the nature, quality and substance of evidence; (b) draws wrong inferences from the proven facts; or (c) acts irregularly in the conduct of the proceeding or hearing leading to a denial or failure of due process, such as irregularly admitting or denying admission of evidence, denying a party a hearing, or ignoring a party's pleadings.
Appellate Review — Inadequate Submissions — Dismissal of Appeal
An appellate court cannot be expected to consider a party's submissions in detail if they are obscure, contradictory, vague, or suffer from other formal and obvious insufficiencies. Where an appellant fails to make submissions as to how the alleged error led to a miscarriage of justice and has not demonstrated that no reasonable trier of fact could have made the impugned finding, the appeal will be dismissed.
Costs — Public Interest Litigation — Discretion Not to Award Costs
In litigation involving public interest, the East African Court of Justice has consistently exercised its discretion not to award costs. Each party shall bear his own costs in such matters.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (8)

  • Prosecutor v Mitar Vasiljevic (ICTY Appeal Chamber Case No. IT-98-32-A of 2004)
  • Bittamann v ASIC (No.2) [2006] FCA
  • Angella Amudo v Secretary General of the East African Community (EACJ Appeal No. 4 of 2014)
  • Peters v Sunday Post (1959) EA 424
  • Ludovick Sebastian v R (CAT Criminal Appeal No. 318 of 2007)
  • Trevor Price & Another v Raymond Kelsal [1957] EA 752
  • Wynn Jones Mbwambo v Waadoa Petro Aaron [1966] EA 241
  • Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania v ANAW (EACJ Appeal No. 3 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ochieng and Anor v A.G. of Uganda (Appeal 4 of 2015) [2015] EACJ 99 (7 August 2015)
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.