East African Court of Justice Arusha, 11th September 2014: The East African Court of Justice First Instance Division on 11th September 2014 delivered a ruling in an Application arising from a matter between the East African Law Society (Applicant), the Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (1st Respondent) and the Secretary General of the East African Community (2nd Respondent).
The subject matter of the case is the alleged violent disruption of peaceful demonstrations in Uganda on diverse dates as being in contravention of human rights and therefore violating the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community in particular Articles 3, 4, 6, 7(2), 9, 10 and 11. That the 2nd Respondent was aware of the said acts but did not take appropriate action under Article 29(1) and 71(1) (d) of the Treaty.
The Attorney General of Uganda had requested that before the main case proceeds for hearing the Court orders that a voir dire hearing (preliminary examination to test the competence of a witness of evidence) be conducted in respect of the admissibility of an affidavit by the Applicant’s witness as well as electronic evidence submitted to Court by the Applicant and secondly sought Court’s orders that the said affidavit and electronic evidence is inadmissible.
The Court in its Ruling stated that, the matter of production of additional evidence in a form of electronic format and documentation had adequately been dealt with in its Ruling dated 13th February 2013 and that the Appellate Division upheld its ruling on 9th May 2014. In both Rulings the Court accepted the production of the additional evidence by the Applicant and allowed the 1st Respondent to reply and rebut the same within twenty one day’s from the date they were served with the additional evidence. The 1st Respondent did not explore this avenue of replying or rebutting the new evidence instead he filled the Application seeking the above orders and requested that it be heard on 11th September, 2014 the same day that the main case had been scheduled for hearing. He served the other party one day before the hearing which is contrary to Rule 22(1) of the Court Rules of Procedure. It was the Court’s view that, the 1st Respondent ought to have filled evidence in rebuttal of the additional evidence as directed by the Court rather than filling the Application. The Court thus ruled that the Application cannot be entertained since it does not comply with the Court orders and Rules 22(1) and 23(1) of the Court. The Court therefore, struck out the Application with no cost.
The 1st Respondent being dissatisfied with the Court’s Ruling delivered on 11th September 2014, informed the court that he intends to appeal against the ruling and will be filing his Notice of Appeal within the time prescribed by the Rules of Procedure of the Court. He further prayed that the Court stay the proceedings in the main case until the appeal is disposed off.
The Applicant was represented by Mr Richard Onsongo and Mr Hamprey Mtui while the 1st Respondent was represented by Fredrick Mwaka, Charity Nabassa and Emelda Atongo and the 2nd Respondent was represented by Steven Angaba.
All appeared before Justice Jean Bosco Butasi (Principal Judge), Justice Faustin Nteziyayo (Judge) and Justice Fakihi A Jundu (Judge).
For editors
Rule 22(1) The applicant shall serve the notice of motion and copies of all affidavits on all affected parties not less than fourteen (14) days before the hearing.
Rule 23(1) Any person served with notice of motion under Rule 22 may lodge one or more affidavits in reply in not less than seven (7) days before the day of hearing and shall as soon as practicable serve a copy or copies thereof on the applicant.
-ENDS-
For more information, please contact:
Ms. Geraldine Umugwaneza Deputy Registrar
Email: umugwaneza@eachq.org
Owora Richard Othieno, Head of Department;
Corporate Communications and Public Affairs;
Tel: +255 784 835021; Email: othieno@eachq.org