By KT Reporter
The Appellate Division of the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) on Wednesday dismissed a petition filed by civil society actors opposed to the East African Crude Oil Pipeline project.
The actors, including the African Institute for Energy Governance, described it as a disappointing ruling in a high-stakes case challenging the development of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP).
The judges, in ruling delivered at EACJ headquarters in Arusha, upheld a decision made by the First Instance Division of the EACJ and dismissed a case filed by four East African civil society organisations(CSOs) in November 2020.
The CSOs that filed the case include the Africa Institute for Energy Governance (AFIEGO) from Uganda, the Center for Food and Adequate Living Rights (CEFROHT) from Uganda, Natural Justice (NJ) from Kenya, and the Centre for Strategic Litigation (CSL) from Tanzania.
The CSOs sought to stop the human rights, environmental, and climate impacts or risks associated with the EACOP project.
The judges observed that the First Instance Division did not err in ruling that the case by the CSOs was filed out of time. The judges, who include Justice Nestor Kayobera, the president of the Appellate Division of the EACJ, Justice Anita Mugeni, the Vice President of the court, and Justice Kathurima M’Inot, agreed with the First Instance Division, noting that the EACJ does not have jurisdiction to hear the main case. The other judges present in court included Justice Cheboriona Barishaki and Justice Omar Othman Makungu.
The judges, however, overturned the order issued by the First Instance Division, awarding costs to the governments of Uganda and Tanzania, as well as the Secretary General of the East African Community (EAC), the three parties against whom the CSOs filed the suit.
“Having answered issue NO.1 in the negative, the consequence is that the Appellants are not entitled to the remedies sought. As to costs, they ordinarily follow the event, but the court has discretion for good reason to depart from the general rule. Taking into account the public interest involved in the Appeal and the appellants’ public-spirited endeavor to ensure compliance with the treaty, we direct that each party shall bear their own costs in this court and in the trial, “reads the ruling
Justice Kayobera said: “We have carefully considered the pleadings of the parties … [and] from the chronology of events , any sane person would adduce that the reference … runs afoul of the time limitation provision [in] the EAC Treaty. The case is hereby dismissed.
By upholding the ruling of the First Instance Division, the judges dismissed an appeal case by the CSOs on a narrow legal technicality in EAC laws, which provides that cases filed outside a 60-day time limit are not heard by the court.
Worth noting is that key agreements related to the EACOP were made public only years after they were signed. The appeal by the CSOs was based on EACOP-related agreements such as the Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) and Host Government Agreement (HGA).
The appellants say the judges failed to consider when communities and CSOs actually became aware of the project’s impacts and the existence of the EACOP agreements, effectively shutting the door on the case without examining any of the evidence.
The ruling marks the end of the journey of a case that was filed in November 2020 by the four CSOs. Through the case, the CSOs sought to have the EACJ declare that the EACOP and its related agreements violate national and international laws, and that the execution of the project in legally protected areas contravenes the EAC Treaty.
The CSOs also sought a permanent injunction to halt the construction of the pipeline in protected areas in Uganda and Tanzania, as well as compensation for all project-affected persons (PAPs) for the losses they incurred due to land use restrictions imposed on their properties by the EACOP project developers.
In November 2023, the EACJ First Instance Division dismissed the case on the grounds that it was filed outside the time limit set under EAC laws. In December 2023, the four CSOs appealed the decision.
They argued that the First Instance Division erred in law and procedure when it ruled that the case was filed out of time. The appeal was subsequently heard at the EACJ in Arusha and Kigali, Rwanda, in November 2024 and February 2025, respectively, culminating in what the CSOs described as “In today’s disappointing decision.”
The courtroom was filled with the CSOs and their lawyers, EACOP project-affected people from Uganda and Tanzania, a lawyer representing the Ugandan government, members of the media, and others. The Attorney General of Uganda was represented by State Attorney, Ojambo Bichachi, who welcomed the court’s decision to uphold the ruling of the First Division Court.
Dickens Kamugisha, the Chief Executive Officer of AFIEGO, said the court’s decision is a setback for regional justice and the protection of vulnerable communities, as well as biodiversity and our shared climate.
“The decision has left over 331 million East Africans at the mercy of greedy corporations, which pillage and destroy important ecosystems that communities depend on.
The ruling is a travesty, but we remain determined to use all available strategies to protect people and nature,” he said.
Elizabeth Kariuki, Hub Director – Nairobi Hub, Natural Justice, noted, “This ruling is devastating for the very people whose lives have been upended by EACOP – the families that lost their land and livelihoods, and the communities watching their ecosystems disappear. Today, the court has closed its doors to them. But we will not give up. We will continue to fight alongside communities to ensure that their suffering is not ignored.”
MCosmas Yiga, a project-affected person from Uganda, added, “We have seen the oil curse. We, the PAPs, have been oppressed, and we don’t expect any gain from the oil industry. And, as far as I see, let not any ordinary Ugandan expect anything good from the oil industry, besides oppression. Today is a sad day,” said Yiga, who refused two million shillings offered to him as compensation for 58 mango trees.
The CSOs said they will hold various discussions in consultation with EACOP-affected people and communicate the next step. Unlike the country-level courts, the Appellate Court of EACJ is the final court.
-URN. Give us feedback on this story through our email: kamwokyatimes@gmail.com
