LEGAL BRAINS TRUST LIMITED v ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

Case Number APPEAL NO. 4 OF 2012
Summary

Following conflicting interpretations of Article 51 (1) of the Treaty Establishing the East African Community, the Rt. Honorable the Speaker of the Parliament of Uganda requested the Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda to seek an Advisory Opinion from the East African Court of Justice. The Attorney General did not seek the Advisory Opinion but gave a written legal opinion to the effect that Article 51 (1) prescribed a limit of two terms of 5 years each for every elected Member of the East African Legislative Assembly. Subsequently, the Applicant/Appellant lodged a “Reference” in the First Instance Division of this Court, seeking that Court’s interpretation of Article 51 (1).

Being aggrieved by the decision of the First Instance Division, the Appellant lodged this appeal.
RespondentATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
ComplainantLEGAL BRAINS TRUST LIMITED
Date filedDecember 14, 2011
CountriesEALA , Uganda
KeywordAdvisory opinions , Cause of action , EALA , Locus standi
Treaty ArticleArticle 30 , Article 36 , Rule 1 , Rule 24 , Rules of Procedure 2010

First Instance Judgment

VerdictThe court dismissed the reference and ordered the parties to bear their own costs.
PDF documentDownload the decision as PDF
Date deliveredMarch 30, 2012
Quorum

Appeal Judgment

Verdict
  1. The question raised in the instant case before this Court, was clearly hypothetical, academic, abstract, conjectural and speculative. It should not have been entertained by the Court below.
  2. The Applicant/Appellant’s case lacked all the basic material requirements of lodging a reference under Article 30 of the Treaty;
  3. The Applicant/Appellant being a “legal/natural” person, lacked the standing to seek an Advisory Opinion under Article 36 of the Treaty.
  4. The matter 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.
  5. There was no proper reference under Article 30 nor a request for an Advisory Opinion under Article 36; nor is any real dispute in this matter, the judgment of the Court below was vacated as being moot.
PDF documentDownload the decision as PDF
Date deliveredMay 19, 2012
Quorum