as well. That Article 30 should be interpreted to bring persons who commit
misfeasance and who infringe the provisions of the Treaty, within the ambit of
Article 30, to account for their actions. This is what the Court said:‐
“With due respect to Counsel for the Applicants, it appears to us that
enjoining the 2nd, 5th and 6th Respondents to the reference was under a
misconception. A reference under Article 30 of the Treaty should not be
construed as an action in tort brought by a person injured by or through
the misfeasance of another. It is an action to challenge the legality
under the Treaty of an activity of a Partner States or of institutions of
the Community. The alleged collusion and connivance, if any, is not
actionable under Article 30.”
The preliminary objection was upheld and the said Respondents were struck off
the reference with costs.
In the case of Modern Holdings (supra), Court once again upheld an objection
where the Respondent was not an institution or a Partner State of the
Community. Similarly in this case, we are satisfied that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th
Respondents were wrongly joined to the Reference and we order that they be
struck off with costs.
4
Cause of Action Against the 5th Respondent
8