Case Number APPEAL NO. 06 OF 2014
Summary

This is an Appeal by Henry Kyarimpa (“the Appellant”) against the Judgment of this Court’s First Instance Division (“the Trial Court”) dated 28th November, 2014 in Reference No. 4 of 2013 (“the Reference”) by which the Trial Court dismissed the Reference and ordered the Parties to bear their own costs.

The Appellant, who is a resident of Uganda, was the Applicant in the Trial Court. He described himself as a Procurement Consultant and Specialist operating and doing business in Uganda.

The Respondent is the Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda, and was sued in the Reference as a representative for and on behalf of the Republic of Uganda.

The Appellant was, both in the Trial Court and in this Court, represented by Mr. Mohamed Mbabazi, instructed by the firm of Nyanzi, Kiboneka and Mbabazi Advocates of Kampala, Uganda, and the Respondent was represented by Mr. Elisha Bafirawala, Senior State Attorney, Mr. Richard Adrole, State Attorney and Ms Susan Akello, State Attorney.

RespondentTHE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF UGANDA
ComplainantHENRY KYARIMPA
Date filed
CountriesUganda
Keyword
Treaty Article

First Instance Judgment

Verdict
PDF document
Date delivered
Quorum

Appeal Judgment

VerdictWe have held in Paragraph 84 that the Trial Court erred in law in finding that the selection and subsequent signing of the MoU between the Government of Uganda and Sinohydro was not inconsistent with and was not an infringement of Articles 6(c), and 7(2) and 8(1) (c) of the Treaty. In Paragraph 97, we have held that the Trial Court did not err in law in finding that the acts of the Government of Uganda in implementing the MoU between itself and Sinohydro after the filing of the Reference was not inconsistent with and was not an infringement of Article 38(2) of the Treaty. And in Paragraph 124, we held that the Appellant was entitled to the Declaration sought in Prayer (a) in the Reference, that he was not entitled to the enforcement orders sought in Prayer (b), and that each party should bear their own costs of the Reference and the Appeal. (126). In the result, the appeal is partially allowed and the Cross-Appeal is dismissed with Orders that: That part of the Judgment of the Trial Court refusing to issue a Declaration that the selection and subsequent signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Uganda and Sinohydro was inconsistent with and an infringement of Articles 6(c), 7(2), and 8(1) be, and is hereby, set aside. A Declaration be, and is hereby, issued that the selection and subsequent signing of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Uganda and Sinohydro was inconsistent with and an infringement of Articles 6(d), 7(2) and 8(1) (c) of the Treaty. That part of the Judgment of the Trial Court issuing an order of Declaration that the acts of the Government of Uganda in implementing the Memorandum of Understanding between itself and Sinohydro after the filing of the Reference was not inconsistent with or an infringement of Article 38(2) of the Treaty be, and is hereby, upheld. Each party shall bear their own costs here and below. It is so ordered.
PDF documentDownload the decision as PDF
Date deliveredFebruary 19, 2016
Quorum