The East African Court of Justice (EACJ) on Monday, February 24, commenced its appeal hearings in a case challenging the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) project, which involves Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania. The case is the first of 19 to be heard during the court’s two-week sitting in Rwanda. Every year the court temporarily relocates its staff and operations from Arusha, Tanzania, each of the eight member states of the East African Community (EAC). ALSO READ: East African court to hear about 20 cases in Kigali this month The EACOP project has been the subject of legal challenges initiated by four civil society organizations, the Africa Institute for Energy Governance (AFIEGO), Centre for Food and Adequate Living Rights (CEFROHT), Natural Justice, and the Centre for Strategic Litigation. In November 2020, these groups filed a case against the governments of Uganda and Tanzania and the Secretary General of the EAC, arguing that the 1,400-kilometre pipeline, which seeks to transport crude oil from Uganda’s Lake Albert oilfields to Tanzania’s Tanga port, violated human rights and environmental standards. In November 2023, the EACJ’s First Instance Division dismissed the case on procedural grounds, ruling that it had been filed beyond the prescribed time limit. The organizations subsequently appealed the decision in December 2023. During a preliminary hearing in November 2024, the Appellate Division of the EACJ rejected Tanzania’s request to dismiss the appeal, allowing the case to proceed. The court instructed the appellants to provide additional records, emphasizing the case’s public interest significance. The appellants argue that the EACOP project poses substantial environmental, social, and economic risks, including the displacement of communities and threats to ecologically sensitive areas. They also contend that the project violates multiple international agreements, such as the Paris Climate Agreement and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. During Monday’s session, the Appellate Division of the EACJ formally opened the appeal hearing in Kigali, with both parties presenting their arguments. The court has completed its proceedings. A ruling will be delivered in due course after a review of the submissions. Meanwhile, among the 19 cases being heard in Kigali, another case involves François Xavier Mironko versus the Government of Rwanda. A judgment in this case is expected on Friday, February 28. The case revolves around a contractual dispute dating back to the early 1990s. Mironko, who represents two companies – International Industries SA and MIRONKO EURAFRICA SPRL—claims that between 1993 and 1994, these firms supplied military equipment to then-Rwandan government under a confidential agreement. He asserts that the total payment, amounting to 47,990,000 Belgian Francs, was never remitted, despite the companies fulfilling their obligations. After unsuccessful attempts to resolve the matter in Rwandan courts—including a declined request for review by the Ombudsman in April 2018—Mironko filed a reference with the EACJ on June 4, 2018, saying the government had violated the EAC Treaty. The government of Rwanda has challenged the case on multiple grounds, arguing that the claim, originating in 1994, is time-barred under Article 30(2) of the EAC Treaty, which requires cases to be filed within two months of an alleged infringement. Furthermore, the government contends that the EACJ lacks appellate jurisdiction over national court decisions and that the case does not constitute a violation of the EAC Treaty. In April 2022, the EACJ’s First Instance Division dismissed Mironko’s claim, agreeing with the government’s position that it was time-barred and beyond the court’s jurisdiction. However, Mironko appealed the decision. The Appellate Division will deliver its ruling on February 28, in Kigali. The EACJ serves as the judicial arm of the East African Community, tasked with interpreting and enforcing the EAC Treaty. Its jurisdiction includes disputes between member states and the EAC, human rights violations, environmental protection issues, and contractual disputes.
