Wakilii

Attorney General of the Republic of Rwanda v Kalali (Application No.23 of 2020)

East African Court of Justice · [2020] EACJ 12 · 2020 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for Reference No. 2 of 2019 and Application No. 6 of 2020 to be heard by a full bench
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the Respondent

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court dismissed the application for a full bench to hear Reference No. 2 of 2019 and Application No. 6 of 2020. The Court held that a three-judge coram was sufficient under Rule 69 of the Court Rules, and that judicial economy and good governance principles did not warrant a full bench. The Court rejected the Applicant's attempt to influence the composition of the bench to include a judge from the Applicant State, holding that such conduct offended judicial independence principles and the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. The Court found no reasonable justification for a full bench determination of Application No. 6 of 2020, which was a routine extension of time application.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the Respondent

Facts

On 11 November 2019, a scheduling conference was held in Reference No. 2 of 2019, directing parties to file additional affidavits within specified timelines. The Applicant filed its affidavit within time but served it late; the Respondent filed its affidavits late in January 2020. The Respondent's Application No. 1 of 2020 seeking extension of time to file additional affidavits was dismissed. The Applicant then filed Application No. 6 of 2020 seeking to admit the rejected affidavit evidence. Before that application could be heard, the Applicant filed Application No. 23 of 2020 seeking to have Reference No. 2 of 2019 and all applications thereunder heard by a full bench on grounds of public importance and complexity of laws. The affidavit in support indicated the Applicant sought a full bench after the appointment of a Rwandan judge by the Summit. The Respondent opposed, arguing the application was brought in bad faith to delay proceedings and that the Applicant sought to influence the bench composition.

Issues

  1. Whether Reference No. 2 of 2019 and Application No. 6 of 2020 should be heard by a full bench of the Court on account of public importance and complexity of laws.
  2. Whether the composition of the bench should include a judge nominated by the Applicant State.

Orders

  • Application No. 23 of 2020 dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Court Composition — Full Bench — Discretion to Constitute
Under Rule 69(1) of the East African Court of Justice Rules 2019, the Court has discretion to direct a matter to be heard by a full bench having regard to the public importance of the matter or any conflict or complexity in the law applicable, but the mere availability of this procedural option does not warrant an automatic right to parties to access or obtain it.
Civil Procedure — Full Bench — Definition and Composition
A full bench of the First Instance Division of the East African Court of Justice, which is manned by six judges, comprises five judges, whereas the normal quorum under Rule 69(1) is three or five judges.
Administrative Law — Judicial Independence — Composition of Bench — Improper Influence
An attempt by a party to influence the composition of a court bench to include a judge from the party's own state offends the institutional independence of the judiciary as guaranteed by the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary and defeats the notion of a fair trial.
Administrative Law — Judicial Independence — Status of International Judges
Judges of the East African Court of Justice are international civil servants who serve at the behest and in the interests of the Community as a whole, representing no particular Partner State, and any bench constituted to determine a matter is reflective of that organ of the Community in its entirety.
Civil Procedure — Case Assignment — Internal Judicial Administration
The assignment of cases to judges within a court is an internal matter of judicial administration that should not be interfered with on flimsy grounds, in accordance with Basic Principle 14 of the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time Applications — Single Judge Jurisdiction
Applications for extension of time may be dealt with and determined by a single judge under Rule 69(2)(a) of the East African Court of Justice Rules 2019, such applications being neither complex nor novel, and there is no reasonable justification for their determination by a full bench.
Civil Procedure — Abuse of Process — Re-opening Trial at Final Stage
Re-constituting a full bench for a reference that is at its final stage, with the resultant cost in terms of time and resources, is an affront to the principle of good governance and constitutes an abuse of court process that courts are enjoined to avert under Rule 4 of the Court Rules.

Legislation cited (7)

  • East African Court of Justice Rules 2019 Rule 69
  • East African Court of Justice Rules 2019 Rule 79(2)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules 2019 Rule 4
  • East African Court of Justice Rules 2019 Rule 127(1)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 6(d)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 7(2)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 24(1)

Cases cited (6)

  • Application No. 22 of 2020
  • Advisory Opinion No. 1 of 2015: A Request by the Council of Ministers of the East African Community
  • Basaliabalaba & Another v Attorney General of Uganda (EACJ Reference No. 8 of 2010)
  • Human Rights Awareness & Promotion Forum v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda & Another (EACJ Reference No. 6 of 2014)
  • R (on the application of Corner House Research) vs. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, (2005) 4 All ER 1 at 36
  • Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi v Secretary General of the East African Community & Another (EACJ Appeal No. 2 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Attorney General of the Republic of Rwanda v Kalali (Application No.23 of 2020) [2020] EACJ 12 (26 November 2020)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.