Slippery Business: COMESA Court Invalidates Mauritius’ Edible Oil Tariff

By: Matthew Freer (African Antitrust)

In this article for African Antitrust, author Matthew Freer examines a pivotal ruling by the First Instance Division (FID) of the COMESA Court of Justice (CCJ) in Agiliss Ltd v. The Republic of Mauritius and Others (Reference No. 1 of 2019), delivered on 4 February 2025. The case scrutinized the legality of a safeguard measure imposed by Mauritius on edible oil imports from COMESA member states, raising critical issues surrounding trade remedies, due process, and adherence to the COMESA Treaty and its subsidiary legislation.

This landmark judgment provides key clarifications on the procedural and substantive requirements for implementing safeguard measures under the COMESA Treaty and the COMESA Regulations on Trade Remedy Measures, 2002. It reinforces the principle that such measures cannot serve as arbitrary trade barriers but must comply with due process, including proper investigation, consultation, and notification.

Background

The Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) is a regional economic bloc established in 1994 to drive economic integration and development across its 21 member states, including Kenya, Egypt, Zambia, and Ethiopia. COMESA aims to promote intra-regional trade by eliminating tariffs and harmonizing customs procedures. Under Article 46 of the Treaty, member states are obligated to remove customs duties and equivalent charges on goods eligible for Common Market tariff treatment, fostering a unified economic space that enhances competitiveness and sustainable development.

Agiliss Ltd, a Mauritius-based importer and distributor of staple foods, sources pre-packaged edible oils from Egypt, a fellow COMESA member. The edible oil segment constitutes approximately 30% of Agiliss Ltd’s business (para 11). In 2018, in response to rising edible oil imports, the Mauritian government invoked Article 61 of the Treaty to introduce a 10% customs duty on edible oil imports from COMESA nations, citing the need to shield the domestic industry from economic disruptions (para 12).

However, Agiliss Ltd contested the measure, arguing that it had been imposed without the requisite notification, consultation, or investigation, contravening COMESA’s legal framework. After unsuccessful attempts to engage with the government, Agiliss Ltd brought a Reference before the CCJ, challenging the measure’s legality and seeking an order to prevent its enforcement…

CONTINUE READING…