(2018) 2 African Human Rights Yearbook 107 references to the EU as such,103 and to the European Community (EC),104 as shown below, Ugandan courts have extensively referred to, and relied upon, various aspects of EU law. 103 104 See, for instance, the Judgment of Odoki CJ in Onyango Obbo (n 18) at 49 (‘The scope of the limitations imposed on freedom of expression has been considered by courts in various jurisdictions throughout the world including United Kingdom, Canada, India, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Nigeria, European Union and the United States’); Suffish International Food Processors (U) Ltd and Another v Egypt Air Corporation T/A EgyptAir Uganda Supreme Court Civil Appeal 15 of 2001 at 1 (relating to a consignment of fish exported to the European Economic Community, which was found by the authorities in the EEC to be unfit for entry into the Community and destroyed); Uganda Network of Toxic Free Malaria Control Ltd v Attorney General Constitutional Petition 14 of 2009 at 3, (in which one of the Petitioner’s contentions against the use of DDT to prevent malaria was recited as that ‘Uganda being an agricultural Country using DDT will continue to hurt the export market as some Ugandan exporters have already received warnings from the export buyers such as European Union, Japan and USA to reject their products if found contaminated with DDT’); Uganda Development Bank v ABA Trade International Limited and 3 Others High Court Civil Suit 357 of 2010 at 5 and 13 (in which one of the documents submitted by the Plaintiff, and referred to by Judge Christopher Madrama in his evaluation of the evidence on record, was a European Union Certificate of Origin/European Community Export Permit); Uganda Revenue Authority v Total Uganda Ltd High Court Civil Appeal 11 of 2012, arising from Tax Appeal Tribunal Case 9 of 2010 at 10 (‘The honourable Tribunal considered several other authorities from the European Union’); Paul K Ssemogerere and 2 Others v Attorney General Supreme Court Constitutional Appeal No.1 of 2002, Lead Judgment by Kanyeihamba JSC at 7475 (‘In Uganda, it is in the people and the constitution that sovereignty resides. However, even in the United Kingdom before the creation of the European Union of which that country is a member, it was always emphasized that Parliament was obliged to obey the constitutional rules which were prior to the exercise of its sovereignty’) and Pearl Fish Processors Ltd v Attorney General and Commissioner for Fisheries High Court Misc Appln 103 of 2007, arising from Misc Cause 92 of 2007, Ruling by Yorokamu Bamwine J at 5 (‘… the suit arose out of the withdrawal of an EAN (Establishment Approval Number) from the applicant … The closure resulted from the EU setting new standards relating to benzo (a) pyrene, a chemical secreted during combustion of any food product. While the withdrawal was in March 2006, the notification to the applicant of the need to comply and fit into the new regime of controls set by the European Union was in August 2006 … Annexture A10 specifically outlines the effect of the new changes in the European Union. The issue as I see it is whether the 2nd respondent was justified to withdraw the EAN before a dialogue with the applicants on the matter. I am of the considered view that in a substantial investment of this magnitude, it was imperative that the management of the applicant be given notice of any deficiency and a chance to correct it, and that a reasonable notice of withdrawal of EAN be given’). See Deepak K Shah and 3 Others v Manurama Ltd and 2 Others High Court Misc. Appln 361 of 2001, arising from High Court Civil Suit 354 of 2001, Judgment of James Ogoola at 3 (‘First, the initial practice of English Courts used to be dictated by the principle enunciated in the ancient case of Ebrard v. Gassier (supra), to the effect that the fact of a Plaintiff’s residence abroad was a prima facie ground for ordering him to pay security for costs. From that venerable principle, English courts have had to swing to a different position in cases involving European Community residents’) and at 4 (‘the East African Court of Justice … is similar to the Court of Justice of the European Community’).