Wakilii

Okero and Others v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda and Others (Reference No.14 of 2020)

East African Court of Justice · [2025] EACJ 14 · 2025 Reference Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to the East African Court of Justice alleging Treaty violations arising from water release policies and flooding
Decision
Reference dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — time barred and moot

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 dismissed the Reference for lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis. The Court held that the Reference was filed outside the two-month limitation period prescribed by Article 30(2) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community. The Court further held that the Reference was moot because the water release policies alleged to have been violated (the Agreed Curve Policy and the EAC Water Release and Abstraction Policy) had ceased to exist before the Reference was filed in 2020.

Outcome

Reference dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — time barred and moot

Facts

The Applicants, residents of Kisumu County, Kenya, owned property on or near the shores of Lake Victoria. In March 2020, they experienced severe flooding which they attributed to water releases from Lake Victoria into the River Nile at Jinja by Eskom Uganda Limited at a rate of 1,500 cubic metres per second. The Applicants alleged that the flooding resulted from the 1st Respondent's failure to adhere to the Agreed Curve Policy (signed in 1954) and the EAC New Water Release and Abstraction Policy. They claimed violations of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community and sought declarations and compensation. The Respondents contended that both policies had ceased to operate before the alleged violations: the Agreed Curve Policy was abandoned in 2005, and the EAC Water Release and Abstraction Policy expired in 2016 after a conditional four-year approval period.

Issues

  1. Whether the East African Court of Justice has jurisdiction to entertain this matter.
  2. Whether the actions of the Respondents infringe on the Treaty provisions.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The Reference is dismissed in its entirety for being time barred and moot.
  • Each party bears its own costs for this Reference.

Rules and key headnotes

Jurisdiction — Time Limitation — Article 30(2) of the EAC Treaty
A reference to the East African Court of Justice must be instituted within two months of the action complained of, or within two months of the day it came to the knowledge of the complainant. The starting time of an act complained of is not the day the act ends, but the day it is first effected. The principle of legal certainty requires strict application of the time limit, and the Treaty provides no power to the Court to extend, condone, waive, or modify the prescribed time limit for any reason, including for continuing violations.
Jurisdiction — Burden of Proof — Time Limitation
The burden of proving that a reference was filed within the prescribed limitation period rests with the applicant. The applicant must satisfy the court that the respondent violated the Treaty and that such violation occurred within two months before filing, or that the applicant only became aware of the violation within that period.
Jurisdiction — Mootness — Academic Questions
A court will decline to decide a case which raises merely a hypothetical or abstract question. If the decision of the court will have no practical effect on the rights of the parties, the case is said to be moot. The function of courts is to contribute to justice in concrete disputes, not to give opinions on general hypothetical questions. A court must not deal in matters that are clearly lifeless, spent, academic, speculative or hypothetical.
Jurisdiction — Ratione Temporis, Ratione Materiae, Ratione Personae
Lack of jurisdiction ratione personae arises where one of the parties is devoid of the requisite capacity or locus standi. A court's ratione materiae may be questioned on the basis of the invoked subject matter. Ratione temporis refers to the time-frame prescribed for the institution of cases. Lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis strips the court of the legal basis to exercise its jurisdiction ratione materiae.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Articles 5, 6, 7, 8, 27, 30, 111, 112, 114, 123
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of the Court 2019 Rules 4, 25, 27, 127, 132, 133
  • Constitution of the Republic of Kenya 2010 Article 2(5)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights Articles 7(1), 14, 23, 24
  • Nile River Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12

Cases cited (12)

  • Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda v Omar Awadh & 6 Others (EACJ Appeal No. 2 of 2012)
  • Joseph Borowski vs Attorney General of Canada (1989) 1 SCR 342
  • Legal Brains Trust Ltd v Attorney General of Uganda (EACJ Appeal No. 4 of 2012)
  • Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya v Independent Medico Legal Unit (EACJ Appeal No. 1 of 2011)
  • Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania v African Network of Animal Welfare (EACJ Appeal No. 3 of 2011)
  • Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania v Anthony Calist Komu (EACJ Appeal No. 2 of 2015)
  • British American Tobacco (U) Ltd v Attorney General of Uganda (EACJ Reference No. 7 of 2017)
  • Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia & Herzegovina vs Serbia & Montenegro), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2007, p. 43
  • Military and para-military activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua vs United States of America)
  • Malcom Lukwiya v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda and Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya (EACJ Reference No. 6 of 2015)
  • Adam Kyomuhendo v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda & 6 Others (EACJ Reference No. 11 of 2020)
  • Alcon International Ltd vs The Standard Chartered Bank of Uganda and others

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Okero and Others v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda and Others (Reference No.14 of 2020) [2025] EACJ 14 (27 November 2025)
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.