5
10
15
20
25
hours. There is a Deputy Registrar as well, who takes care of the
Registrar’s duties during his absence. We find that their problem was
that instead of looking for the Registry, they seem to have spent time,
for some unexplained reason known to them, trying to look for and
access the Registrar personally. We think they should have known and
they do know the difference between the Registrar and the Registry.
We also are not convinced as to why the existence of a similar case in
the Tanzania High Court should have stopped Counsel from responding
to this Reference. They did not even show us the evidence of the case
in order for us to ascertain that it was in respect of a violation of the
Treaty or a similar issue. Even if it was, Counsel should have known
better whether there is a law that bars him from responding to the
Reference. The fact that there is a similar case in a Tanzania High Court
does not act as a bar. Any preliminary objections could have been
raised before this Court within the response. We also take judicial
notice of the fact that it is not the first time that the Attorney General
of Tanzania is appearing before this Court and that being the case; they
ought to know the very basics of the Rules of the Court. In the
circumstances, we find the Respondent’s reasons flimsy and lacking
merit. To that extent, we agree with Counsel for the Applicant.
Nevertheless, one of the factors considered by courts as sufficient
reason in applications of this nature is the importance of the matter to
public administration. We think that the subject matter of the
Reference before us is important and pertinent to the development of
the EAC in that the subject of election impinges on the very rubric of
the EALA, which is the legislative arm of the EAC. The manner of
electing its members is thus of paramount importance. Consequently,
while we would not otherwise have hesitated to dismiss this application
6