Omar Awadh and 6 Others Vs Attorney General of Uganda (Appeal)

Case Card

Case NumberAPPEAL No. 2 of 2012 Arising from {REF No. 4 of 2011}

The subject of the case is the arrest, and forcible removal of the complainants from Kenya through abduction between 22nd July and 17th September 2010, and handed over to Uganda where they are now illegally detained, without due process of extradition; and that their impending trial in Uganda is in violation of their fundamental rights, both under Kenyan and Ugandan Constitutions, under International law, and also under the Treaty establishing the East African Community (“the Treaty”).

RespondentAttorney General of Uganda
ComplainantOmar Awadh and 6 Others
Date filed
CountriesEast African Community , Kenya , Uganda
KeywordArrest & Detention , Human Rights
Treaty ArticleArticle 30

First Instance Judgment

PDF document
Date deliveredJune 15, 2011

Appeal Judgment

VerdictThe Court finds the Respondents’ argument that when the act complained of is a continuous detention, the starting date for computation of its limitation time is the day when it ceases is erroneous. It is erroneous in terms of the East African Community Treaty, and of the economic and social interests of the Community. Moreover, the principle of legal certainty requires strict application of the time-limit in Article 30 (2) of the Treaty. Furthermore, nowhere does the Treaty provide any power to the Court to extend, to condone, to waive, or to modify the prescribed time limit for any reason (including for “ continuing violations”). In light of all these considerations, the Court concludes
  1. that the starting date of an act complained of under Article 30 (2) (including the detention of a complainant), is not the day the act ends, but the day it is first effected;
  2. that the Respondents in the instant case filed their Reference out of the prescribed time; and
  3. that, consequently, the underlying Reference to this appeal is time barred for not complying with the provisions of Article 30 (2) of the Treaty.
PDF documentDownload the decision as PDF
Date deliveredApril 15, 2013

Comments are closed.