Case Number APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2013
Summary

This Appeal arose from Reference No. 6 of 2010 wherein the Appellant / Applicant sought inter alia interpretation of the Treaty and the Common Market Protocol with respect to cross border trade disputes between persons emanating from the Partner States. After a lengthy process, the Reference was heard on its merits and the First Instance Division found that: there was, no cause of action against the Attorney General of Uganda; that the Common Market Protocol could not apply retroactively to acts that took place before 1st July, 2010; that the Court lacked jurisdiction to determine those matters and thus addressing the other issue would be an academic exercise. Each party was to to bear its own costs.

Being dissatisfied by the judgment, the Appellant lodged this appeal alleging several errors in law.

In Cross-Appeal, the Respondents contended that the Trial Court erred in law by declining to award costs to the Respondents and in deciding that each party should bear its own costs.

RespondentTHE STANDARD CHARTERED BANK OF UGANDA, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF UGANDA, THE REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF UGANDA
ComplainantALCON INTERNATIONAL LTD
Date filed
CountriesUganda
KeywordDoctrine of mootness , jurisdiction ratione materiae - jurisdiction ratione personae , Retroactive application
Treaty ArticleArticle 104 , Article 27 , Article 30 , Article 54 , Article 55 , Article 76 , Protocol on the Establishment of the East African Community Common Market

First Instance Judgment

VerdictThe Court ordered that the Reference is improperly before the Court as against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents and that it is not necessary to go into the other grounds raised by the parties or tackle the remaining objections, as the finding alone sufficiently and conclusively disposes of the Reference. The Reference was struck out with costs.
PDF documentDownload the decision as PDF
Date deliveredAugust 23, 2011
Quorum

Appeal Judgment

Verdict
  1. Under Article 30 of the Treaty, the only proper Respondent to References by legal and natural persons are Partner States or Institutions of the Community the legality of whose Acts, regulations, directives, decisions or actions are brought into question of the Treaty. Thus the Bank and the Registrar were improperly brought before the Court.
  2. While Article 54 (2) of the Common Market Protocol provides that Partner States guarantee that any person, whose rights and liberties which are recognized by the Protocol have been infringed, has the right to redress, the duty to protect cross-border investments is on Partner States. Only within national institutions can any Partner
    State guarantee the adjudication of disputes by aggrieved persons through the State’s competent judicial, administrative or legislative authority or any other competent authority. The Protocol did not entrust the redress of non-inter-state State Common Market complaints to the EACJ therefore the Trial Court lacked jurisdiction ratione materiae to entertain the Reference.
    1. A Partner State is the only proper Respondent to an action by a legal or natural person under the provisions of the Common Market Protocol. A challenge against the actions or omissions of public officials acting in their official capacity, must be lodged against the Partner State and not the officials.
    2. There could not be a cause of action against the Attorney General of Uganda founded on his alleged omission to see to it that the Claimant’s rights under the Protocol were protected. Therefore there was no inter- party dispute for resolution by the Court.
    3. In denying the Respondents their costs, the Trial Court exercised its discretion improperly. Thus the Cross-Appeals were allowed with costs to the Respondents.
PDF documentDownload the decision as PDF
Date deliveredJuly 27, 2015
Quorum