body-container-line-1
21.05.2012 Africa

Court declines to entertain and adjudicate on EALA Members term in office matter

By East African Community (EAC)
Court declines to entertain and adjudicate on EALA Members term in office matterCourt declines to entertain and adjudicate on EALA Members term in office matter
21.05.2012 LISTEN

ARUSHA, Tanzania, May 21, 2012/African Press Organization (APO)/ -- The Appellate Division today declined to entertain and adjudicate the matter on the East African Legislative Assembly (EALA) Members' term of office. The Appeal by the Legal Brains Trust Limited (LBTL) represented by Mr. Dan Wandera Ogalo against the Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda, praying to the Court to strike out the decision of the First Instance which dismissed the a case seeking interpretation of “a further term of five years” Wording of Article 51 (1) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community, which provides EALA Tenure of office of the elected Members.

Appellate Court said that, the matter brought to the Court by the Applicant/Appellant, lacked all the basic material requirements of lodging a reference/matter under Article 30 of the Treaty; which provides that any person who is resident in a Partner State may refer for determination by the Court, the legality of any Act, regulation, directive, decision or action of a Partner State or an institution of the Community on the grounds that such Act, regulation, directive, decision or action is unlawful or is an infringement of the provisions of this Treaty.

The Applicant/Appellant being a “legal/natural” person, not only lacks the standing to seek an Advisory Opinion under Article 36 of the Treaty; but, indeed, did not contemplate nor even advert to the possibility of doing so. Article 36 of the Treaty only allows the Summit, the Council or a Partner State to seek or request the Court to give an advisory opinion regarding a question of law arising from this Treaty which affects the Community, and the Partner State, the Secretary General or any other Partner State shall in the case of every such request have the right to be represented and take part in the proceedings.

The Court added that, the matter also lacked any underlying factual situation capable of giving rise to any real dispute. For the Court to entertain any such matter, would amount to entertaining the academic, the abstract and the speculative – with all the attendant abuse of the court process.

The Court therefore found there was no any unlawful action or infringement of the Treaty hence determined as no real dispute before it. It therefore vacated the judgment of the First Instance as being Moot, made no orders as to the costs of the Appeal and those in the Lower Court.

Mr. Dan Wandera Ogalo Counsel for the Applicant/Appealant, Mr. Kasibayo Kosia State Attorney Counsels for the Attorney General Uganda appeared before Justices Harold Nsekela, President, Philip Tunoi, Vice President, Emillie R. Kayitesi, Laurent Nzosaba and James Ogoola.

body-container-line