East African Court of Justice | |
---|---|
Swahili: Mahakama ya Haki ya Afrika Mashariki | |
Established | 30 November 2001 |
Jurisdiction | Eight member states of the East African Community |
Location | Arusha, Tanzania |
Composition method | Recommended by Member States and appointed by the Summit |
Authorized by | Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community. |
Judge term length | 7 years non-renewable |
Number of positions | 8 to 15 |
Website | www |
President | |
Currently | Nestor Kayobera |
Since | February 2021 |
Jurist term ends | February 2028 |
Vice President | |
Currently | Anita Mugeni |
Since | February 2021 |
Jurist term ends | February 2028 |
The East African Court of Justice (EACJ) is a treaty-based judicial body of the East African Community tasked to ensure adherence to law in the interpretation and application of and compliance with the East African Community Treaty of 1999. The Court is made up of two divisions: a First Instance Division and an Appellate Division. [1] Its Judges, a maximum of ten in the First Instance Division and of five in the Appellate Division, are appointed by the Summit, the highest organ of the community, from among persons recommended by the Partner States who are of proven integrity, impartiality and independence and fulfill the conditions required in their own countries for high judicial office, or are jurists of recognised competence.
The Court has jurisdiction over the interpretation and application of the Treaty and may have other original, appellate, human rights or other jurisdiction upon conclusion of a protocol to realise such extended jurisdiction. Reference to the court may be by Legal and Natural Persons, Partner States and the Secretary General of the community.
The basis upon which any resident in a Partner State may refer for determination by the Court, the legality of any Act, regulation, directive, decision or action of a Partner State or an institution of the Community is on the grounds that it is “unlawful” or an “infringement” of the provisions of the Treaty.
Jurisdiction of national courts is ousted wherever the Treaty confers it on the East African Court, as decisions of the Court on the interpretation and application of the Treaty have precedence over decisions of national courts on a similar matter.
It is mandatory the Court considers and determines every reference made to it pursuant to the Treaty in accordance with its rules and then deliver, in public session, a reasoned judgment that, subject to review, is final, binding, conclusive and not open to appeal.
An application for review of a judgment may be made to the Court. But, only if it is based upon the discovery of some fact which intrinsically might have had a decisive influence on the judgment had it been brought to the attention of the Court at the time the judgment was given, but which, at that time in question, was unknown to both the Court and the party making the application, and also which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been discovered by that party before the judgment was made, or on account of some mistake, fraud or error on the face of the record or because an injustice has been done.
The future of other regional courts with conflicting jurisdiction like the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, South African Development Community and the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights is thrown into serious doubts by virtue of these provisions.
Any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the Treaty or any of the matters referred to the Court cannot be subjected to any method of settlement other than those provided for in the Treaty. Where a dispute has been referred to the Court, the Partner States are enjoined to refrain from any action which might be detrimental to the resolution of or might aggravate the dispute further, a Partner State or the Council "must take", without delay, the measures required to implement a judgment of the Court.
Source. [2]
As illustrated above the EACJ has a much wider and comprehensive jurisdiction than the European Court of Human Rights, as there is no exhaustion of local remedies rule, and its human rights jurisdiction is based on the ACHPR and not the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR).
The International Court of Justice, or colloquially the World Court, is the only international court that adjudicates general disputes between nations, and gives advisory opinions on international legal issues. It is one of the six organs of the United Nations (UN), and is located in The Hague, Netherlands.
Jurisdiction is the legal term for the legal authority granted to a legal entity to enact justice. In federations like the United States, the concept of jurisdiction applies at multiple levels.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ), formally just the Court of Justice, is the supreme court of the European Union in matters of European Union law. As a part of the Court of Justice of the European Union, it is tasked with interpreting EU law and ensuring its uniform application across all EU member states under Article 263 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
The General Court, informally known as the European General Court (EGC), is a constituent court of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It hears actions taken against the institutions of the European Union by individuals and member states, although certain matters are reserved for the European Court of Justice. Decisions of the General Court can be appealed to the Court of Justice, but only on a point of law. Prior to the coming into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December 2009, it was known as the Court of First Instance.
Whilst the House of Lords of the United Kingdom is the upper chamber of Parliament and has government ministers, for many centuries it had a judicial function. It functioned as a court of first instance for the trials of peers and for impeachments, and as a court of last resort in the United Kingdom and prior, the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of England.
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States decided on March 20, 1816. It was the first case to assert ultimate Supreme Court authority over state courts in civil matters of federal law.
The Court of Cassation is the supreme court for civil and criminal cases in France. It is one of the country's four apex courts, along with the Council of State, the Constitutional Council and the Jurisdictional Disputes Tribunal.
The Judicial Yuan is the judicial branch of the Republic of China. It runs the Constitutional Court and oversees all courts of Taiwan, including ordinary courts like the supreme court, high courts, district courts as well as special courts like administrative courts and disciplinary courts. By Taiwanese law, the Judicial Yuan holds the following powers:
The Supreme Court of Ireland is the highest judicial authority in Ireland. It is a court of final appeal and exercises, in conjunction with the Court of Appeal and the High Court, judicial review over Acts of the Oireachtas. The Supreme Court also has appellate jurisdiction to ensure compliance with the Constitution of Ireland by governmental bodies and private citizens. It sits in the Four Courts in Dublin.
The Caribbean Court of Justice is the judicial institution of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). Established in 2005, it is based in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago.
The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights, also known simply as the African Court, is an international court established by member states of the African Union (AU) to implement provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. Seated in Arusha, Tanzania, it is the judicial arm of the AU and one of three regional human rights courts.
The Supreme Court of Nepal is the highest court in Nepal. It is designated as the court of record by the Constitution of Nepal. It has appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the seven High Courts and extraordinary original jurisdiction. The court consists of twenty judges and a Chief Justice.
In most legal jurisdictions, a supreme court, also known as a court of last resort, apex court, and highcourt of appeal, and court of final appeal, is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are binding on all other courts in a nation and are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts. A supreme court can also, in certain circumstances, act as a court of original jurisdiction.
The Judiciary of Barbados is an independent branch of the Barbadian government, subject only to the Barbadian Constitution. It is headed by the Chief Justice of Barbados. Barbados is a common law jurisdiction, in which precedents from English law and British Commonwealth tradition may be taken into account.
The judiciary of Italy is composed of courts and public prosecutor offices responsible for the administration of justice in the Italian Republic. These offices are occupied by judges and prosecutors respectively, who are known as magistrates. Magistrates belong to the magistracy, that is to say a branch of the State that may only be accessed by Italian citizens who hold an Italian Juris Doctor and successfully partake in one of the relevant competitive public examinations organised by the Ministry of justice.
The Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) is a regional economic community in Africa with twenty-one member states stretching from Tunisia to Eswatini. COMESA was formed in December 1994, replacing a Preferential Trade Area which had existed since 1981. Nine of the member states formed a free trade area in 2000, with Rwanda and Burundi joining the FTA in 2004, the Comoros and Libya in 2006, Seychelles in 2009, Uganda in 2012 and Tunisia in 2018.
The judiciary of Belgium is similar to the French judiciary. Belgium evolved from a unitary to a federal state, but its judicial system has not been adapted to a federal system.
Opinion 2/13 (2014) is an EU law case determined by the European Court of Justice, concerning the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights, and more generally the relationship between the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights.
R v SS for Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] UKHL 23 is a UK constitutional law case, concerning judicial review.
Du Plessis and Others v De Klerk and Another is a 1996 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. Though arising from a defamation case in the law of delict, it had broad significance for the application of the Interim Constitution both to pre-constitutional conduct and to private disputes. The majority judgment was written by Acting Justice Sydney Kentridge and the leading dissent by Justice Johann Kriegler.