Court throws out appeal challenging $4 billion Uganda–Tanzania crude oil pipeline project

Four civil society organisations from Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda lodged the appeal after their initial case was struck out on November 29, 2023, for being submitted outside the prescribed time limit.

The latest ruling, delivered on November 26, 2025, came from a five-judge bench led by the 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 filed by the Center for Food and Adequate Living Rights (CEFROHT), the African Institute for Energy Governance (AFIEGO), Natural Justice Kenya and the Center for Strategic Litigation Limited.

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.

The appeal had been filed against the Attorneys General of Tanzania and Uganda, as well as the Secretary General of the East African Community (EAC).

In their petition, the organisations argued that the signing of the Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) and Host Government Agreements (HGA) for the EACOP project violated provisions of the EAC 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, and that affected people had not been adequately compensated.

The appellants 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.

The First Instance Division had dismissed the original case with costs in November 2023, prompting the appeal.

The organisations contended that the IGA signed in May 2017 between Tanzania and Uganda breached several articles of the EAC Treaty. They asked the court to issue permanent orders stopping construction in protected areas and to compel authorities to carry out comprehensive environmental, human-rights and social-impact assessments with meaningful public participation before the project proceeds.

They also sought to overturn the earlier ruling, arguing that the First Instance Division erred in accepting the preliminary objection that the petition had been filed out of time.

Following the judgment, Noel Mdoe, an advocate from Tanzania’s Center for Strategic Litigation (CSL), said that while the appeal had been dismissed on technical grounds, the organisations 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,” he 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.”

Mr Mdoe added that the agreements between the host governments and project developers form the core framework guiding EACOP, but insisted that both the IGA and HGA were signed in ways that contravene national, regional and international legal standards.