Wakilii

Ololosokwan Village Council and Others v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania

East African Court of Justice · [2018] EACJ 128 · 2018 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for interim orders pending determination of Reference No. 10 of 2017 concerning alleged unlawful evictions from land bordering Serengeti National Park
Decision
Formal Application No. 15 of 2017 dismissed; interim orders granted on informal application pending determination of Reference No. 10 of 2017

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 struck out Application No. 15 of 2017 as unsustainable due to false affidavits equating individual deponents to village councils. However, the court granted interim orders on an informal application, restraining the respondent from evicting residents from disputed land bordering Serengeti National Park and from harassing applicants pending determination of Reference No. 10 of 2017, finding serious triable issues, risk of irreparable injury to access to justice, and balance of convenience favouring the applicants.

Outcome

Formal Application No. 15 of 2017 dismissed; interim orders granted on informal application pending determination of Reference No. 10 of 2017

Facts

Four village councils in Ngorongoro District, Tanzania, legally registered owners of land bordering Serengeti National Park, faced eviction following government re-mapping of boundaries in August 2017. Residents were directed to remove cattle and homesteads from areas allegedly within the National Park. The applicants alleged forceful evictions, destruction of property, confiscation of livestock, and arbitrary arrests. They filed Reference No. 10 of 2017 seeking permanent halt to evictions and reparations, and Application No. 15 of 2017 seeking interim orders. A subsequent informal application alleged ongoing harassment and intimidation of village officials and residents by police to secure withdrawal of the legal proceedings. The respondent contended evictions were lawful, conducted outside registered village boundaries within the game reserve, and denied burning homesteads or destroying property within the villages.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavits in support of Application No. 15 of 2017 contained falsehoods warranting their expungement from the court record.
  2. Whether Application No. 15 of 2017 could survive the striking out of all supporting affidavits.
  3. Whether the informal application dated 6 June 2018 was properly before the court.
  4. Whether the applicants had established a serious triable issue in Reference No. 10 of 2017 warranting interim orders.
  5. Whether the applicants would suffer irreparable injury absent interim orders.
  6. Where the balance of convenience lay in granting or refusing interim orders pending determination of the Reference.

Orders

  • Application No. 15 of 2017 dismissed as unsustainable.
  • All four affidavits in support of Application No. 15 of 2017 struck out from the court record.
  • Interim order issued restraining the respondent and persons acting on his behalf from evicting applicants' residents from the disputed 1,500 sq km of land in the Wildlife Conservation Area bordering Serengeti National Park, destroying their homesteads, or confiscating their livestock until determination of Reference No. 10 of 2017.
  • Interim order issued restraining the office of the Inspector General of Police from harassing or intimidating the applicants in relation to Reference No. 10 of 2017 pending its determination.
  • Costs to abide the outcome of Reference No. 10 of 2017.
  • Reference No. 10 of 2017 to be fixed for hearing forthwith.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — False Statements — Striking Out
An affidavit containing obvious falsehoods, such as equating an individual deponent to a village council or a village council to a village, defeats the purpose of evidence on oath and constitutes an abuse of court process warranting expungement of the entire affidavit from the court record.
Civil Procedure — Applications — Formal Applications — Mandatory Requirements
A formal application filed in the East African Court of Justice must be supported by affidavits deposed by persons having knowledge of the facts. Where all supporting affidavits are struck out, the application contravenes the mandatory provisions of Rule 21(5) and is incompetent and unsustainable.
Civil Procedure — Interim Orders — Informal Applications — Admissibility
An application for interim orders may be made informally by consent of all parties under Rule 21(7)(b) of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, and the reference in that Rule to applications being made by letter is not a mandatory requirement.
Civil Procedure — Interim Orders — Serious Triable Issue — Test
In determining an application for interim orders, the court need only be satisfied that there is a serious question to be tried on its merits, not that the applicant has established a prima facie case with probability of success. It is sufficient that the claim is substantial and not frivolous, vexatious, or misguided.
Civil Procedure — Interim Orders — Irreparable Injury — Adequacy of Damages
Damages are inadequate recompense where the wrong is irreparable, such as loss of the right to access justice. A forced withdrawal of a reference could decisively avert an applicant's access to justice and constitutes irreparable injury for purposes of granting interim orders.
Civil Procedure — Interim Orders — Balance of Convenience — Weighing Competing Interests
In determining the balance of convenience, the court must weigh the risk of doing an injustice to one side or the other. Where the factors are not evenly balanced, the court should grant interim orders in favour of the party that stands to suffer significantly more injustice should the orders be refused.
Human Rights — Access to Justice — Harassment and Intimidation — Protection
Harassment and intimidation of litigants and their representatives by state officials with a view to securing withdrawal of legal proceedings violates the right to access justice and warrants interim orders restraining such conduct pending determination of the substantive matter.

Legislation cited (17)

  • 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 27(1)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 30
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 39
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 137(1)
  • Protocol on the Establishment of the East African Community Common Market Article 15(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 1(2)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 21
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 21(5)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 21(7)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 22
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 23
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 47(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 84
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 85
  • Local Government (District Authorities) Act (Tanzania) s.3(1)

Cases cited (15)

  • Democratic Party and Another v Secretary General of the East African Community and Another (Application No. 6 of 2011)
  • Secretary General of the East African Community v Rt. Hon. Margaret Zziwa (Application No. 12 of 2015)
  • Kakooza v Electoral Commission and Another (Election Petition No. 11 of 2007)
  • Bombay Flour Mill v Chunibhai M. Patel (1962) EA 803
  • Chandrika Prashad Singh and Others v Hira Lal and Others (1924) AIR 312
  • Noormohammed Janmohamed v Kassamali Virji Madhani (1952) 20 EACA 8
  • British American Tobacco (U) Ltd v Attorney General of Uganda (Application No. 13 of 2017)
  • FORSC and Others v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi and Another (Application No. 16 of 2016)
  • American Cyanamid Company v Ethicon Limited (1975) AC 396
  • East African Industry v True Foods (1972) EA 420
  • Prof. Peter Anyang' Nyong'o and 10 Others v Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya and 3 Others (Application No. 1 of 2006)
  • Timothy Alvin Kahoho v Secretary General of the East African Community (Application No. 5 of 2012)
  • The Siskina (1979) AC 210
  • Garden Cottage Foods v Milk Marketing Board (1984) AC 130
  • Cayne v Global Natural Resources PLC (1984) 1 All ER 225

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ololosokwan Village Council and Others v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania [2018] EACJ 128 (25 September 2018)
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.