East African Court Rejects Pipeline Appeal, Leaving Thousands Affected

The East African Court of Justice (EACJ) has dismissed an appeal by four East African organisations challenging the legality of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), effectively closing the case on procedural grounds before any evidence could be heard.

The ruling denies thousands of families the opportunity to present their grievances in court.

The Court sided with the governments of Uganda and Tanzania, citing a narrow technicality: the case was filed beyond a 60-day time limit.

Key project agreements, however, were only made public years after they were signed. The judges did not consider when communities actually became aware of the project’s impacts, leaving the substantive claims unexamined.

Justin Semuyaba, a lawyer representing the NGOs, condemned the ruling stating that, refusing to hear this case, the Court has turned its back on families already harmed by EACOP.

“Land has been taken, livelihoods shattered, and people intimidated or arrested for speaking out – yet none of that will be heard in this courtroom. Documents were not made public for years, making it impossible to meet the Court’s deadline, and now that technicality is being used to deny justice. It sends a devastating message: even when your rights are violated, you can still be denied your day in court.”

EACOP, led by TotalEnergies, is a planned 1,443 km heated oil pipeline stretching from Uganda to the Tanzanian coast.

The Climate Accountability Institute has described it as a “carbon bomb,” projected to emit more carbon dioxide than Uganda and Tanzania combined. The project also threatens vital ecosystems, water sources, and the livelihoods of more than 100,000 people along its route.

The case, brought by CEFROHT, AFIEGO, Natural Justice, and the Center for Strategic Litigation, alleged that Uganda and Tanzania violated regional law by advancing EACOP without conducting the environmental and social impact assessments mandated under regional treaties, and without sufficient safeguards for affected communities and ecosystems.

The Court will now not consider these claims.

Rachael Tugume, a displaced Ugandan community member, said: “We came to this Court to be heard, but it chose not to listen to the people living with the real consequences of EACOP. We may have lost this battle, but as long as this pipeline threatens our homes and our future, we will keep fighting.”

Total’s Risky Gamble

The ruling comes amid mounting challenges for EACOP. The project is years behind schedule, has not reached full financial close, and its estimated cost has risen from US$3.5 billion to approximately US$5.6 billion.

With 43 commercial banks and over 30 insurers declining support, TotalEnergies, China’s National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), and other shareholders are now self-financing nearly 90% of the project through additional equity and shareholder loans.

Coleen Scott, Legal and Policy Associate at Inclusive Development International, said that the ruling is a blow for affected communities, but it doesn’t make EACOP any less of a reckless gamble.

“Having Total and its partners bankrolling almost the entire project themselves is virtually unheard of for a project of this size. Every new controversy or lawsuit – from Lake Albert to Paris – only makes EACOP harder to justify for any investor paying attention.”

Resistance to EACOP has grown into a transnational anti-fossil fuel movement, now supported by more than 260 organisations worldwide.

Campaigners have highlighted the project’s environmental and financial risks, persuaded dozens of banks and insurers to withdraw support, and initiated legal challenges from Uganda to France, with new litigation continuing at the EACJ.