Wakilii

Wakabi v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania (Reference No. 14 of 2019)

East African Court of Justice · [2023] EACJ 18 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference filed under the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community challenging denial of entry and deportation
Decision
Reference dismissed on preliminary objection for non-compliance with procedural rules

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 on a preliminary objection. The Court held that the Reference was improperly before it because it was filed without the documentary evidence required by Rule 24(3) of the 2013 Rules of Procedure. Although the Reference was filed within the two-month limitation period under the Treaty, the failure to accompany it with documentary evidence at the time of filing rendered it non-compliant with the mandatory procedural requirements. Documents filed three months later could not cure the defect.

Outcome

Reference dismissed on preliminary objection for non-compliance with procedural rules

Facts

The 1st Applicant, a Ugandan citizen and Executive Director of CIPESA, was invited by the 2nd Applicant to participate in the Tanzania Human Rights Defenders' Day commemoration on 28 April 2019. On 25 April 2019, the 1st Applicant arrived at Dar es Salaam Airport from Entebbe. Upon arrival, he was interrogated by Tanzania Immigration Officers and denied entry into Tanzania. The Respondent's agents informed him his name appeared on a list but did not specify which list or why. The 1st Applicant was not accused of any crime. His belongings, including his phone and passport, were withheld and returned to him at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport on his way back to Uganda. The 1st Applicant alleged he was not informed why he was denied entry or declared a prohibited immigrant, and was denied the right to communicate with the Uganda High Commission. The Applicants filed a Reference on 24 June 2019 challenging the denial of entry and deportation. The documentary evidence supporting the Reference was filed on 18 October 2019, over three months after the Reference was filed.

Issues

  1. Whether the Reference was properly before the Court having been filed without accompanying documentary evidence as required by Rule 24(3) of the 2013 Rules of Procedure.
  2. Whether the denial of entry, alleged detention and deportation of the 1st Applicant violated Articles 6(d), 7(2), 8(1)(c) and 104 of the EAC Treaty and Article 7 of the Common Market Protocol.
  3. Whether the parties are entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Reference dismissed in its entirety.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — References to East African Court of Justice — Mandatory Requirements — Documentary Evidence
Rule 24(3) of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 requires that where a reference seeks the annulment of an act, regulation, directive, decision or action, the statement of reference shall be accompanied by documentary evidence at the time of filing. This is a mandatory requirement and the use of the word 'shall' entails that the rule must be complied with.
Civil Procedure — Documentary Evidence — Distinction from Affidavit
The term 'documentary evidence' in Rule 24(3) of the 2013 Rules refers to documents other than affidavits. Although the Rules use the word 'affidavit' at several instances, the deliberate use of 'documentary evidence' instead of 'affidavit' means the documents required are distinct from affidavits, though such documents may be annexed to an affidavit or statement of reference.
Civil Procedure — Defective Filing — Effect on Validity of Reference
A reference filed within the limitation period prescribed by Article 30(2) of the EAC Treaty but in violation of mandatory procedural rules requiring accompanying documentary evidence is improperly before the Court. Documents filed beyond the prescribed period cannot cure the initial defect and cannot be held to be part of the reference filed.
Civil Procedure — Cross-Reference to Documents — Insufficiency
A cross-reference in the statement of reference to documents that the applicant intends to rely upon does not satisfy the requirement that documentary evidence shall accompany the reference. The rule requires actual filing of the documents with the reference, not merely stating an intention to rely on them.

Legislation cited (27)

  • 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 8(1)(c)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 27
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 30(1)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 30(2)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 104
  • Protocol on the Establishment of the East African Community Common Market Article 7
  • Protocol on the Establishment of the East African Community Common Market Article 54
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 1(2)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 4
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 24
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 24(3)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 25(3)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 127(1)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 2
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 6
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 9
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 10
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 11
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 12
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 28
  • Constitution of Tanzania Article 15(1)
  • Constitution of Tanzania Article 15(2)(a)
  • Penal Code of Tanzania Section 18(A)
  • Immigration Act of Tanzania Section 23(1)

Cases cited (1)

  • Attorney General of Uganda & Anor v Omar Awadh & 6 Others (EACJ Appeal No. 2 of 2012)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Wakabi v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania (Reference No. 14 of 2019) [2023] EACJ 18 (29 November 2023)
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.