Wakilii

Ololosokwan Village Council and Others v Attorney General of United Republic of the Tanzania (Reference No.10 of 2017)

East African Court of Justice · [2022] EACJ 25 · 2022 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 violation of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community and the Protocol on the East African Community Common Market arising from evictions conducted by the Respondent State
Decision
Reference dismissed for lack of merit

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 it had jurisdiction to hear the Reference under Article 27 of the Treaty. The Court found that the Applicants failed to discharge the burden of proving that the evictions were carried out outside the boundaries of the Serengeti National Park. The Court held that exhaustion of local remedies is not a prerequisite for filing a matter before the EACJ. The Reference was dismissed for lack of merit, with each party bearing its own costs.

Outcome

Reference dismissed for lack of merit

Facts

Four village councils in Tanzania held community land adjoining Serengeti National Park. From 2012, disputes arose over the exact location of the border between the National Park and the villages' land. In August 2017, the Respondent State required the Applicants to move, asserting they were within the National Park. The Applicants denied this, maintaining their villages were on legitimate community land outside the Park boundaries. When the Applicants declined to move, the Respondent gave written notice and proceeded to carry out evictions. The Applicants alleged the evictions were brutal and violated their rights. The Respondent maintained the evictions were lawful, conducted with dignity, and were from areas within the National Park.

Issues

  1. Whether the East African Court of Justice has jurisdiction to hear and determine the Reference
  2. Whether the Reference offends the principles of the National Land Policy which are the objectives of the Village Land Act Section 3(1) of the Village Land Act No.5 of 1999
  3. Whether the Applicants were evicted from the Serengeti National Park or from their respective villages
  4. Whether the acts, omissions and conducts of the Respondent violate Articles 6(c), 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty and Article 15(1) of the Protocol on the Establishment of the East African Common Market
  5. What remedies are the parties entitled to

Orders

  • The Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this Reference.
  • The Reference is dismissed for lack of merits.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

East African Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Interpretation and Application of Treaty
The East African Court of Justice has jurisdiction under Article 27 of the Treaty to interpret and apply the Treaty where a Reference alleges violation of Treaty provisions, notwithstanding that the subject matter may also fall within the jurisdiction of domestic courts.
East African Court of Justice — Locus Standi — Legal Persons Resident in Partner State
Legal entities established by law in a Partner State and resident within the East African Community have legal capacity under Article 30 of the Treaty to bring a Reference before the East African Court of Justice.
Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Not a Prerequisite for EACJ Jurisdiction
Exhaustion of local remedies is not a prerequisite for filing a matter before the East African Court of Justice. The Treaty provides no requirement for exhaustion of local remedies as a precondition for accessing the Court.
Land Disputes — Concurrent Jurisdiction — EACJ and Domestic Courts
Where a dispute touches on land matters but alleges violation of Treaty provisions, the East African Court of Justice has jurisdiction notwithstanding that domestic land dispute tribunals may also have jurisdiction over the subject matter under national law.
Burden of Proof — Party Making Claim Bears Burden
The party that makes a claim or allegation bears the burden of proving what they claim on a balance of probability. Where an applicant alleges evictions occurred outside a national park boundary, the applicant must prove the location of the evictions and the park boundaries.
Expert Evidence — Surveyor — Compliance with Statutory Requirements
Where an expert witness is a surveyor from another jurisdiction who purports to have conducted survey work in a Partner State, the expert must demonstrate compliance with the statutory requirements of that State for non-citizens to carry out survey work. Failure to do so fundamentally undermines the efficacy of the expert's evidence.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 6(c)
  • 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
  • Protocol on the East African Community Common Market Article 15(1)
  • Village Land Act No.5 of 1999 s.3(1)
  • Land Disputes Act Cap 216 s.3(1)
  • East African Community Act Cap 411
  • National Parks Ordinance Cap 412 s.4

Cases cited (5)

  • Martha Wangari Karua v Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya and 2 Others (Reference No. 20 of 2019)
  • Henry Kyarimpa v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (Appeal No. 6 of 2014)
  • Abba Ltd v Attorney General of the Republic of Rwanda (Reference No. 18 of 2018)
  • Attorney General of the Republic of Rwanda v Plaxeda Rugumba (Appeal No. 1 of 2012)
  • Niongabo Theodore and 2 Others v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi (Reference No. 4 of 2011)

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 United Republic of the Tanzania (Reference No.10 of 2017) [2022] EACJ 25 (30 September 2022)
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.