118 Kabumba/Application of African Union (human rights) law in Uganda including the EAC Treaty;190 and that article 123 of that Treaty was pertinent to the rule of law and democracy.191 According to him, the Treaty had also established the EACJ as a means of ensuring ‘adherence to the law in the interpretation, application and compliance with the treaty’.192 On this basis, he rejected the notion that Uganda was not bound by EACJ decisions.193 In his view, and specifically invoking the EACJ’s decision in Hon. Sitenda Sebalu v The Secretary General of the EAC, the Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda, Hon. Sam Njuba and Electoral Commission of Uganda,194 Judge Opio Aweri stressed that all member states of the EAC were ‘bound by the decisions of the EACJ in respect of the articles of the Treaty such as article 123’.195 As such, the Anyang’ Nyongo case was ‘not only binding but also very persuasive’.196 He then proceeded to rely on the Anyang’ Nyongo decision as authority for the proposition that a cause of action under common law, as stipulated in the Auto Garage case, was distinct from that created by Statute or other legislation.197 Judge Opio Aweri also referred to EACJ case law in the Toolit case.198 After describing the EAC Treaty as one of the ‘most relevant’ international treaties relating to democracy, which had to be borne in mind together with national law, he stressed the importance of article 123 of the Treaty in terms of its democracy-related obligations.199 To this end, and again citing the EACJ cases of Anyang’ Nyongo200 and Sitenda Sebalu,201 he opined that the institution of the EACJ under the terms of the EAC Treaty had been intended to promote the adherence to law.202 The jurisprudence of that body was therefore a relevant guide to the Court. EACJ case law was similarly applied in the 2013 High Court case of Betty Nalima and 4 Others v Sebyala Moses Kiwanuka and 4 Others.203 In that matter, the court cited with approval the decision of the EACJ First Instance Division in Mbidde Foundation Ltd and Another v Secretary General of the East African Community and Another204 as authority for the proposition that, in considering a grant of a temporary injunction, the applicant had to show ‘real prospects’ for 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 At 5-6. At 6. As above. As above. EACJ Ref 1 of 2011. As above. As above. As above. n 67. At 7. n 187. n 194. As above. High Court Misc Appln 396 of 2013, arising from High Court Civil Suit 209 of 2013 (Ruling of Judge Monica K Mugenyi). East African Court of Justice (First Division) Applications 5 & 10 of 2014.