The Applicants, South Sudan Supreme Airlines Co. Ltd and Pan African Law Chambers, LLP, allege that the Respondent, through the Ministry of Finance and Planning, entered into a binding settlement agreement acknowledging a debt of USD 1,053,936,749.853. The agreement required payment in 24 equal monthly instalments beginning 28th February 2025, with a 10% advocate’s fee payable directly to the second Applicant. Despite repeated demands, the Respondent failed to honour any payments. The Applicants contend that this failure breaches articles 5, 6(d), 7(2) and 8(1)(c) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community.

The Applicant alleges that the Respondent’s State through its decision of High Court in Nairobi Misc. Application No. 883 of 2007 against the Applicant of unlawfully blocking the Applicant from executing a decree contravenes Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community, Article 16 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the role of Lawyers and the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct.

The Applicant alleges that the Respondents State through the decision and decree issued by the Supreme Court of Uganda in Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2021 between the Attorney General and the Hon. Michael Andrew Kabaziruka and in particular orders (2), (3), (4) and (5) of the decree fall short of the fundamental and operational principles of the Community by failing to explicitly abolish the practice of trying civilians in military courts regardless of the circumstances and also failing to apply retrospective annulment and therefore an infringement of Articles 6(d), 7(2) and 8(1) (c) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African.

The Applicant alleges that the Respondent’s State decision through the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru in Case Number ELCMISC/3/2020 where the Court held that there was no material placed before it to demonstrate that the Taxing Officer exercised her discretion injudiciously and therefore dismissing the application for not being merited was incompetent, biased and violated Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community.

The Applicants ‘allege that the Respondent’s State retrospective application of the amendment introduced to the Parastatal Pensions Act No. 14 of 1078 by the Parastatal Pensions (Amendment) Act No. 25 of 2001 amending Section 26 (2)(a) and (b) of the Act and denial of the Applicants’ right to be heard is a violation of Articles 6(d), 7(2) and 8(1)(c) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community.

The Applicant alleges that the failure by the Respondents to establish the Monetary Union within the prescribed timelines, coupled with the continued existence of national currencies of the East African States and the lack of common East African currencies; the continued imposition of barriers and lack of full implementation of Protocol on Free Movement of Persons; failure to implement the Customs Union time frame of 4 years ; and failure to create a unified East African Defence Force that could protect Regional Security, particularly in the face of conflicts such as the M23 rebellion in Eastern DRC, Cooperative for Development of the Congo (CODECO) a militia group in DRC; Allied Democratic Forces, Lords Resistance Army, the killing of South African defence forces, including terrorist organisations in Somalia and the ongoing armed crisis in Sudan is a violation of Articles 6(d), 8(1), 23(1), 27(1) & 30(1) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community, Articles 2(4), 5(2), (c)(d)(e)(f) 6, 7, 10, 16(2), 24(1)(a)(c), 54(2) of the Protocol for the Establishment of EAC Common Markets; Articles 2, 3, 4, 6, & 8 Peace & Security; Articles 2(a)(b), 4(b)(h), 5(1)(a), 7, 8(c)(i), 11(1), 12(3), 18(1), 20(1)(2)(5) on the establishment of EAC Monetary Union. Articles 2(4)(a)(b)(c), 6(a), 7(1), 10(1), 11(1), 13(1), 15(b), 21(1), 22(2), 23(1) & 31(2)(3) of the Protocol of the Establishment of EAC Customs Union.

The Applicants allege that the Respondent’s State decision through the National Environment Management ​Authority (NEMA) orders requiring them to vacate their properties—occupied before the land was declared wetlands—without prior compensation is a violation of Articles 6(d), 7(2), and 8(4) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community and Articles 3, 5(3)(b), and 54(2) of the Protocol on the Establishment of the East African Community Common Market, which guarantee protection of cross border investments and that any person whose rights have been infringed upon shall have the right to redress before competent judicial administrative or legislative authority even where this infringement has been committed by persons acting in their official capacities.

The Applicants allege that the decision of the Respondent’s State through a ruling of the High Court of Uganda Civil Division in Consolidated Misc. Applications No. 548, 541, 549 & 536 of 2024 Uganda Muslim Supreme Council v. Bibirye Yudaya & Others wherein the reviewed orders of the High court for convening of Uganda Muslim supreme council general assembly on the ground the company by guarantee constitution contained an arbitration clause ousting high court jurisdiction and that the dispute would only be settled in Kampala and not any other High court of Uganda is unlawful and infringement on Articles 6(d) & 7(2) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community and provisions and principles enshrined in the Protocol on the Establishment of East African Community Common Market.

The Applicant alleges that the Respondents actions, processes and decisions through the Judicial Service Commission, Parliament and Executive which include dismissal, nominating, appointing persons subject of this Reference, denying the Applicant access to Parliament to present his objection, refusal to stamp the Applicants objection, failure to give the Applicant the opportunity to give evidence to Parliaments Appointment Committee, failure by Parliament to permit public participation, media participation and failure to debate and vote are unlawful and infringements on the fundamental principles of the Community guaranteed under Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community and in contravention of the principles and provisions enshrined in the Protocol on the Establishment of the East African Community Common Market

The Applicant alleges the Respondent’ State through its Court of Appeal in Bujumbura procedurally conducting proceedings in a case involving ECONET LEO undermines the principle of adversarial proceedings that is a violation of the mandatory provisions of the African Charter of Human and People’s Rights Article 1 and 7 read jointly, the constitution, Articles 33 and 36 of the Burundian civil Code, Articles 14, 15 & 16 paragraph 1 of the Burundian code of civil procedure and Articles 6, 7 & 27 of the Treaty for Establishment of the East African Community.