Kazinda seeks Shs148m in legal costs from IGG

J ailed former principal accountant in the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) Geoffrey Kazinda is seeking $40,000 (about Shs148m) from the office of Inspector General of Government (IGG) as legal costs in a case before the East African Court of Justice in Arusha, Tanzania.

The regional court had fixed November 14 to hear Kazinda’s bill of costs application before Registrar Christine Tumura. However, this did not take place because the IGG or her representatives were a no-show because they were not served with a hearing notice.

This forced the presiding registrar to adjourn the hearing to a later date. The application for a bill of costs arose late last year after a five-member panel of judges of the East African Court of Justice led by Principal Judge Yohane B Masara dismissed with costs the application that the IGG had filed against Kazinda. Core to the ruling of the court was that the ombudsman is not an institution of the East African Community (EAC) as envisaged under Article 30 (1), nor is she an organ of the Community as stipulated under Article 9(1) of the Treaty to be given audience to come as a party in a court case against Kazinda.

“The actions of the applicant (IGG) can, therefore, only be challenged in this court through the Attorney General as the applicant does not personally fall within the purview of the Treaty. She cannot be joined as a respondent to any proceedings before this court and the court has no jurisdiction over her in that context,” the regional court ruled last year while dismissing the IGG’s application.

Adding: “Having determined that the IGG has no locus standi [the right or capacity to bring an action or to appear in a court] to appear in the capacity that she seeks to do in this court and that the court has no jurisdiction over them in that regard, the court cannot proceed beyond this point.”

The other justices were Charles O Nyawello (deputy principal judge), Charles A. Nyachae, Richard Wabwire Wejuli, and Leonard Gacuko. Court documents that were supported by the affidavit of deputy IGG, Ms Patricia Achan Okiria, stated that the ombudsman investigated Kazinda on allegations of amassing wealth and went ahead and prosecuted him for illicit enrichment.

The Anti-Corruption Court had in 2022 found Kazinda culpable of the aforementioned offences. But Kazinda filed a reference at the regional court, seeking to annul the decision of the Anti-Corruption Court that had, among others, ordered the confiscation of his property.

He had argued that the order to grab his property was unlawful and infringed on the East African Community Treaty that requires the partner states to abide by good governance, including adherence to principles of democracy, rule of law, and accountability.

But the IGG applied to join and rebuttal Kazinda’s reference on grounds that the Attorney General was not well conversant with the facts of the case. But during the hearing, Kazinda who was representing himself, raised a preliminary objection of how the regional court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine an application filed by the IGG on grounds that she is neither a “legal” nor a “natural person” within the meaning of the Treaty. To support his argument, Kazinda cited the court’s decision in Central Bank of Kenya Vs Pontrillas Investments Limited, EACJ application no. 6 of 2022 in which the court held that the Central Bank of Kenya was not the proper party over which the court can exercise its jurisdiction.

In their analysis, the justices of the regional court agreed with Kazinda and held that the IGG of Uganda had no locus standi to appear before the regional court, and that also the court had no jurisdiction over the IGG. “The court would be acting outside its mandate if it attempted to address the arguments raised regarding the 2nd respondent’s respective mandates under the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda,” ruled the justices. They added: “The preliminary objection raised by the 1st respondent (Kazinda) is upheld.”

While condemning the IGG to costs, the justices reasoned that public institutions should strive to act in harmony and that this particular case is a typical example of how public bodies waste taxpayers’ money.