By Matthew Freer

Introduction

On 4 February 2025, the First Instance Division (the “FID”) of the COMESA Court of Justice (the “CCJ”) delivered a landmark judgment in Agiliss Ltd v. The Republic of Mauritius and Others (Reference No. 1 of 2019). This case examined the legality of a safeguard measure imposed by Mauritius on edible oil imports from COMESA member states, raising fundamental questions about trade remedies, due process, and compliance with the COMESA Treaty and its subsidiary legislation.

The judgment is significant as it clarifies the procedural and substantive requirements for imposing safeguard measures under the COMESA Treaty (the “Treaty”) and the COMESA Regulations on Trade Remedy Measures, 2002 (the “2002 Regulations”). It reinforces the principle that such measures cannot be used arbitrarily or as disguised trade barriers but must follow due process, including proper investigation, consultation, and notification requirements.

Background

The Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (“COMESA”) is a regional economic organization established in 1994 to promote economic integration and development among its member states. It has a primary goal of creating a large, integrated economic area through the removal of trade barriers and the promotion of cooperation in areas such as trade, industry, and agriculture. COMESA comprises 21 member states, including countries like Kenya, Egypt, Zambia, and Ethiopia, and focuses on fostering intra-regional trade through the harmonisation of customs procedures and the elimination of tariffs between member states. Article 46 of the Treaty specifically states that Member States of COMESA are required “to eliminate customs duties and other charges of equivalent effect imposed on goods eligible for Common Market tariff treatment” (COMESA Treaty, Art 46). This common market was ultimately formed to enhance trade and economic stability within the region, improve competitiveness, and encourage sustainable development through collective economic policies and regional cooperation.

Agiliss Ltd, a Mauritian based, imports various basic commodities which includes pre-packaged edible oils, from Egypt, a fellow COMESA Member State. Agiliss Ltd is “principally an importer and distributor of staple food in the Republic of Mauritius with the edible oil segment representing some 30% of its business” (para 11). In 2018, the Government of Mauritius (the “Government”), after seeing an increase in edible oil imports, invoked Article 61 of the Treaty to impose a 10% customs duty on edible oils imported from COMESA countries (para 12). This safeguard measure was said to be necessary to protect Mauritius’ domestic edible oil industry from serious economic disturbances.

Agiliss, however, raised its concern that the measure was imposed without proper notification, consultation, or investigation, violating various COMESA legal frameworks. After unsuccessful engagements with the Government, Agiliss Ltd filed a Reference before the CCJ, challenging the legality of the safeguard measure and requesting an order to prohibit its enforcement.

Findings of the Court

In this case, Ms. Ramdenee, CEO of Agiliss Ltd, and her expert witness, Mr. Paul Baker, presented a case to challenging the decision by the Government to impose a safeguard measure on edible oil imports from Egypt, a COMESA Member State, using Article 61 of the Treaty (para 151). Article 61 of the Treaty states, “In the event of serious disturbances occurring in the economy of a Member State following the application of the provisions of this Chapter, the Member State concerned shall, after informing the Secretary-General and the other Member States, take necessary safeguard 79 measures” (COMESA Treaty, Art 61).

The central claim was that Government violated the Treaty and the 2002 Regulations by not adhering to required processes, particularly in terms of the investigation and consultations related to the imposition of the safeguard measure.

The key issue was whether the Government conducted the investigation required by the 2002 Regulations and the Treaty before imposing the safeguard measure. The Government’s report on “Investigation on Imports of Oil” was deemed insufficient and non-compliant (para 163). Although the report referenced Regulation 7.1 of the 2002 Regulations, which allowed for safeguard measures due to “serious injury” caused by increased imports, it failed to comply with the more detailed procedural requirements of Regulation 8 of the 2002 Regulations, which mandates that investigations must include public notice, hearings, and the opportunity for stakeholders to provide evidence (para 162). Ms. Ramdenee argued that her company, as a major importer, was not consulted, and that this lack of due process would severely impact her business (para 157).

Moreover, the investigation was criticized for not being thorough or adequately substantiated. Mr. Baker pointed out inaccuracies, such as the failure to compare oil prices internationally, and argued that the alleged “surge” in imports was not supported by data (para 165). He further noted that the report’s conclusions about the link between import increases and the domestic industry’s decline lacked comprehensive evidence, specifically disregarding other relevant factors affecting the industry. The Government did not provide rebuttal evidence to counter these criticisms (para 165).

Additionally, the Government’s failure to notify the COMESA Committee on Trade Remedies as required by Regulation 15 of the 2002 Regulations was a significant violation (para 168). Although the Government argued that the Trade Remedies Committee did not exist at the time, the Court found that the absence of the Committee did not absolve the Government from conducting the investigation as required by Regulation 8 of the 2002 Regulations, which was not dependent on the Committee’s existence (para 171).

Lastly, the Court examined whether the safeguard measures imposed were necessary and proportionate. The proposed safeguard measure, which included a 10% customs duty on oil imports above a 3,000-tonne quota, lacked justification. There was no explanation provided for why these specific thresholds were chosen, and Mr. Baker suggested that the 10% rate appeared arbitrary and unsupported by any modelling or analysis of the impact on imports (para 177). Furthermore, the application of a quota and tariff did not align with Regulation 10.1 of the 2022 Regulations, which demands a careful analysis of market conditions to ensure that safeguard measures are not overly restrictive (para 178).

Ultimately, the Court found that the investigation carried out by the Government did not comply with the provisions of the Treaty and 2002 Regulations, and the proposed safeguard measure was not justified by sufficient evidence or proper procedures. In the final analysis, the Court has issued several key orders. First, the decision of the Government to impose the safeguard measure, along with all consequential steps taken, is declared a nullity (para 227(a)). In terms of costs, the Court has ordered the Government to pay half of the Agiliss Ltd’s costs incurred in this Reference (para 227 (c)).

Key aspects of the case

This case marks a significant milestone for the COMESA Court of Justice due to its critical examination of safeguard measures within the context of Common Markets. The FID’s ruling highlights key aspects of trade remedy procedures, particularly emphasising the importance of compliance with the COMESA Treaty and the 2002 Regulations. The Court’s findings reinforce that safeguard measures cannot be applied arbitrarily; they must adhere to proper investigation, consultation, and notification processes.

Furthermore, the judgment serves as a reminder that such measures must be substantiated with sufficient evidence to avoid being used as disguised trade barriers. The ruling clarifies procedural expectations for all COMESA member states, ensuring that trade remedies are transparent, fair, and justifiable in line with regional economic integration goals. Although safeguards are a vital tool for shielding domestic industries, the ruling underscores that they must not be applied without the proper investigations and Member State consultation processes. This case establishes a key precedent for future trade disputes within COMESA and emphasises the Court’s essential role in upholding the rule of law and interpreting the Treaty and its related regulations.