(2018) 2 African Human Rights Yearbook 4.2 115 170 The East African Community170 Like EU law, EAC law has also been frequently invoked before, and relied on by Ugandan courts in the context of both commercial and human rights-related litigation. It is noteworthy, in this respect, that a number of EAC laws have been domesticated, and thus strictly speaking, now apply as Ugandan law. These include: the East African Community Customs Management Act, 2004 (EACCMA); the East African Community Act (Commencement) Instrument, 2005; and the East African Community Customs Management Regulations, 2005.171 The EACCMA has, in particular, generated significant commercial litigation;172 and has in fact also created criminal liability.173 Interestingly, the EAC is also present in the judicial system in terms of 170 171 172 173 The East African Community has seven organs: i) the Summit; ii) the Council of Ministers; iii) the Coordinating Committee; iv) the Sectoral Committees; v) the East African Court of Justice; vi) the East African Legislative Assembly and vii) the Secretariat. It is important to note that the East African Development Bank (EADB) is not actually one of the organs of the current EAC. The Bank was formed in 1967 under the first East African Cooperation Treaty. When the community collapsed in 1977, the Bank was re-constituted in 1980 under a separate Charter. As such, we do not, in this article, refer to case law which has referred to the EADB. In addition, general statutes have begun to take the East African Community into account and to introduce accommodations in this regard. For instance, sec 12 (12) of the Trademarks Act of 2010 provides that a person who gives notice of an objection to a trademark may be required to furnish security for costs, but that this requirement does not apply to someone who resides or carries on business in the East African Community. For a general consideration of sec 12, see Purplemoon (U) Ltd v Numaa Industries Ltd High Court Misc Appln 1137 of 2016, arising from High Court Civil Suit 989 of 2016 (ruling of Judge Christopher Izama Madrama) at pp 18-22. See, for instance, Lumu Tonny v The Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority, High Court Civil Suit 361 of 2004 (decision of Judge Lameck N Mukasa) concerning, among others, the power to seize goods under the Act, which would be subject to forfeiture; Uganda Revenue Authority v Total Uganda Limited, High Court Civil Appeal 8 of 2010 (decision of Judge Christopher Izama Madrama), relating to export of goods under the Act; Uganda Development Bank v ABA Trade International Ltd and 3 Others, High Court Civil Suit 357 of 2010 (decision of Judge Christopher Izama Madrama), as to whether the term ‘owner’ under the Act included a consignee; Regal Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Maria Assumpta Pharmaceuticals Ltd, High Court Company Cause 20 of 2010 (decision of Judge Christopher Madrama), as to whether pharmaceutical products were restricted goods under the Act; and Messrs InCargo Freighters and Agents Ltd v The Commissioner of Customs URA High Court Civil Suit 513 of 2012 (Ruling by Judge Christopher Madrama Izama), establishing that imported goods are subject to customs control under the Act. There appear to have been prosecutions based on the provisions of the EACCMA. In this regard, the Court of Appeal in the 2014 case of Commissioner Customs, Uganda Revenue Authority v Fred Kirenga (Court of Appeal Misc Appln 91 of 2014, arising from Misc Appln 90 of 2014) noted, in terms of the background to those civil proceedings, that the respondent had on 5 August 2009 been charged and prosecuted for contravention of certain provisions of the EACCMA, before the Chief Magistrate’s Court in Nakawa vide Criminal Case No.884 of 2009. That Court had acquitted Mr. Kirenga of those charges, and ordered the Uganda Revenue Authority to release to him 160 drums of Ethanol, which it had confiscated. It was the failure of the Authority to comply with this order that set into motion the civil proceedings that led to the present miscellaneous application.