Overview:
The East African Court of Justice upheld an earlier ruling, throwing out a petition that challenged the EACOP pipeline's construction on technical grounds for being filed out of time.
ARUSHA, Tanzania — The East African Court of Justice on Wednesday dismissed an appeal that sought to stop the implementation of the $4 billion East African Crude Oil Pipeline project, ruling that the matter had been filed outside the prescribed time limit.
The judgment, delivered by a five-judge bench, upholds an earlier decision by the court’s First Instance Division that struck out an initial petition challenging the construction of the 1,443-kilometer pipeline, which is set to transport crude oil from Uganda’s Lake Albert region to the Port of Tanga in Tanzania.
The latest ruling, delivered Nov. 26, 2025, came from a bench led by court president Justice Nestor Kayobara, sitting with Justices Anita Mugeni, Kathurima M’Inoti, Cheborion Barishaki and Omari Makungu.
The appeal, No. 4 of 2023, was lodged by four civil society organizations from Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda after their original case was dismissed Nov. 29, 2023, for being submitted outside the time limit set by the court.
The organizations involved are the Center for Food and Adequate Living Rights, the African Institute for Energy Governance, Natural Justice Kenya and the Center for Strategic Litigation Limited. They had filed the appeal against the attorneys general of Tanzania and Uganda, as well as the secretary general of the East African Community.
The appellants argued that the signing of the Inter-Governmental Agreement and Host Government Agreements for the EACOP project violated provisions of the East African Community Treaty relating to good governance, environmental protection and human rights. They contended that the pipeline posed risks to communities, protected areas, biodiversity and food security, alleging that affected people had not been adequately compensated.
They further alleged that the pipeline route, from Hoima in Uganda to Tanga, breaches environmental and human-rights obligations by threatening forests, water sources, wetlands, international conservation sites, bird species, wildlife and broader ecological systems.
After reviewing submissions from both parties, the court upheld the earlier decision, confirming that the appeal was indeed filed out of time. It ordered each side to bear its own costs.
Noel Mdoe, an advocate from the Center for Strategic Litigation, said following the judgment that while the appeal had been dismissed on technical grounds, the organizations would continue exploring legal remedies.
“We will not stop here because our arguments are grounded in strong legal principles on human rights, climate change and environmental protection,” Mdoe said. “The journey continues. We will consult our partners and consider other legal avenues—whether at regional or international levels—in pursuit of the broader public interest and the wellbeing of our community.”
Mdoe added that the agreements between the host governments and project developers form the core framework guiding EACOP, but insisted that both the Inter-Governmental Agreement and Host Government Agreements were signed in ways that contravene national, regional and international legal standards.