Angella-Amudo-Vs-Secretary-General.pdf - IN THE EAST AFRICAN COURT OF JUSTICE AT ARUSHA FIRST INSTANCE DIVISION(Coram Mary Stella Arach-Amoko DPJ John

Angella-Amudo-Vs-Secretary-General.pdf - IN THE EAST...

This preview shows page 1 - 4 out of 13 pages.

IN IN THE EAST AFRICAN COURT OF JUSTICE AT ARUSHA THE EAST AFRICAN COURT OF JUSTICE AT ARUSHA THE EAST AFRICAN COURT OF JUSTICE AT ARUSHA FIRST INSTANCE DIVISION FIRST INSTANCE DIVISION FIRST INSTANCE DIVISION (Coram: Mary Stella Arach-Amoko, DPJ, John Mkwawa, J, Isaac Lenaola, J.) APPLICATION NO. 15 OF 2012 (ARISING FROM REFERENCE NO.1 OF 2012) BETWEEN THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE EAST AFRICAN COMMUNITY………………………………………………………………APPLICANT AND ANGELLA AMUDO…………………………………………………….RESPONDENT DATE: 2 ND MAY 2013 RULING RULING 1. This is an Application brought by the Secretary General of the East African Community, seeking an order that the claim by Angella Amudo, the Claimant in Claim No. 1 of 2012 be declared as time- barred. The Application is expressed to be brought under Rule 21 of the Court’s Rules of Procedures and is supported by an Affidavit sworn on 6 th December, 2012, by one, Jean Claude Nsengiyumva,
Image of page 1
REFERENCE NO.15 OF 2012 Page 2 Deputy Secretary General (Finance and Administration) of the East African Community. 2. The Applicant’s case is that in the Statement of Claim, the Claimant (now the Respondent in the Application) stated that the actions complained of “took place in September, 2008” while the Claim was filed on 27 th September, 2012, a period of over four years. That, therefore, invoking Article 30(2) of the Treaty, it is his contention that the Claim was filed outside the two month’s limitation period prescribed by the said Article and is consequently time-barred and should be struck off. 3. In response, the Respondent filed a Replying affidavit sworn on 8 th March, 2013 and after detailing out the gist of her claim, which we deem unnecessary to reproduce in this Ruling, then stated at paragraph 14 of the said Affidavit: 14.THAT the Respondent’s application based on the limitation period provided under Article 30 of the Treaty is clearly misconceived and irrelevant to an employment dispute brought to Court under Article 31 of the Treaty. I am advised by my Advocate and I also genuinely believe that a Statement of Claim under Rule 25 cannot at the same time be a
Image of page 2
REFERENCE NO.15 OF 2012 Page 3 Reference under Rule 24 of the Rules of Procedure of this Court and vice-versa .” 4.Further, she has added in paragraph 15 of the Affidavit, the point that the; “ subject matter for determination of the court is substantially the import of the Staff Rules and Regulations notwithstanding that the authority under which they were made is the Treaty or that in determining the dispute, I shall refer to some provisions of the Treaty.” 5.In Submissions before us, Mr. Steven Agaba, Learned Counsel for the Respondent also argued that Article 31 flows from Article 30 and that any reference to a “ natural person ” in Article 30 must necessarily also refer to an “employee’’ of the Community who has raised a dispute under Article 31, aforesaid.
Image of page 3
Image of page 4

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 13 pages?

  • Spring '16
  • dickson chuma
  • Law

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes