(2018) 2 African Human Rights Yearbook 119 succeeding in the claim for a permanent injunction rather than ‘a strong prima facie case’ in this respect.205 In addition, in the 2016 case of Erasmus Masiko v John Imaniraguha and 2 Others206 the High Court relied on the EACJ First Instance Division decision in Sitenda Sebalu v Secretary General of the East African Community207 as a basis for the view that the offence of contempt of court could be founded upon the failure to comply with court orders.208 The above cases constitute instances in which Ugandan courts have been receptive to EACJ jurisprudence, with some decisions perhaps being too ‘EACJ-friendly’. For instance, while it might have been open to the court in Akidi to describe EACJ case law as ‘very persuasive’, it is difficult to find support, under Ugandan law, for the court’s assertion, in that case, that EACJ decisions are ‘binding’ on Ugandan courts. On the other hand, there have been a number of instances in which courts have been indifferent to EACJ case law. For instance, in the 2012 High Court case of Hon. Abdu Katuntu and Another v MTN Uganda Ltd and 6 Others209 counsel for the fifth defendant urged the Court ‘to find wisdom in the holding’210 of the EACJ Appellate division, in the matter of Legal Brains Trust (LBT) Ltd v Attorney General, with regard to the notion that a court of law was precluded from determining a moot or hypothetical question. Counsel for the Plaintiff, in urging the Court to disregard a number of preliminary objections to the suit, also pointed the Court to the decision of the EACJ in James Katabazi and 21 others versus Secretary-General of the East African Community and Another.211 According to counsel, the EACJ in Katabazi found that it would be inappropriate to uphold a preliminary objection, if to do so would involve the ascertainment of facts in issue before the Court. In dismissing the suit, however, the High Court did not rely on either of the decisions of the EACJ urged upon it by the parties. Similarly, in the 2014 High Court case of Tororo Progressive Academy Limited v DFCU Limited and Bank of Uganda212 counsel for the defendants cited the EACJ decision in East African Law Society v Attorney General of Burundi and the Secretary General of the East African Community213 as authority for the notion that an interlocutory order did not have the effect of completely disposing of the matter in issue, but rather left additional questions for determination by the 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 At 4, para 10 of the ruling. High Court Misc Appln 1481 of 2016, arising from High Court Civil Suit 125 of 2005 (Ruling of Judge Andrew K Bashaija). Reference 8 of 2012. At 11 (‘the East African Court of Justice … extensively considered the issue of contempt of court and held that …’). High Court Civil Suit No.248 of 2012 (ruling by Judge Christopher Izama Madrama). At 9. Reference 1 of 2007. High Court Civil Suit 398 of 2014 (Ruling of Judge Kainamura). Application No. 3 of 2014.