Wakilii

Makala v Attorney General of the Republic of Rwanda (Appeal 4 of 2020)

East African Court of Justice · [2022] EACJ 36 · 2022 Appeal Dismissed; Cross-Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from the First Instance Division of the East African Court of Justice challenging the dismissal of Reference No. 1 of 2017
Decision
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed; each party to bear own costs

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 East African Court of Justice Appellate Division dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross-appeal. The Court held that an appellant challenging a First Instance Division decision must establish grounds on points of law, lack of jurisdiction, or procedural irregularity under Article 35A of the EAC Treaty and Rule 86 of the Court Rules. The appellant failed to demonstrate any error satisfying these requirements. The Court found unprecedented and without legal basis the First Instance Division's award of one-third costs to the losing party, and overturned that order, directing each party to bear its own costs.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed; each party to bear own costs

Facts

The Appellant, a citizen of Rwanda, was employed by Rwanda Utilities Regulatory Authority (RURA) from April 2009. Around 2013, following institutional restructuring and downsizing under Prime Minister's Order No. 139 of 19/10/2011, he was suspended for six months and then dismissed. He challenged his dismissal unsuccessfully in the Rwandan High Court (RAD 0153/12/HC/KIG), Supreme Court (RADA 0034/13/CS), and a review application. Dissatisfied, he filed Reference No. 1 of 2017 in the East African Court of Justice First Instance Division, alleging violations of Rwandan law, the EAC Treaty, and international conventions. The First Instance Division dismissed the Reference but awarded him one-third of the costs. The Appellant appealed, and the Respondent cross-appealed the costs order.

Issues

  1. Whether the First Instance Division exercised its jurisdiction properly.
  2. Whether the First Instance Division committed a procedural irregularity by not properly analysing the evidence tendered by the Appellant.
  3. Whether the First Instance Division of the Court exercised its discretion judiciously by awarding the Appellant one-third (1/3) of the costs.
  4. What remedies are the parties entitled to?

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Cross-appeal allowed.
  • Judgment of the First Instance Division upheld save for costs.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs both in the Reference and in the Appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Appeals — Appellate Jurisdiction — Grounds of Appeal — Article 35A of EAC Treaty and Rule 86 EACJ Rules
An appeal from the judgment of the First Instance Division to the Appellate Division may only be initiated on points of law, grounds of lack of jurisdiction, or procedural irregularity, and the appellant bears the burden to identify, establish, and explain the alleged error and how it invalidates the impugned decision.
Appellate Jurisdiction — Scope of Review — Rehearing
The Appellate Division is not tasked to undertake a rehearing de novo of questions of fact and law examined by the First Instance Division; its review is restricted to the grounds provided under Article 35A of the Treaty.
Procedural Irregularity — Definition
A procedural irregularity occurs where the court acts irregularly in the conduct of a proceeding or hearing leading to a denial or failure of due process, such as irregularly admitting or denying admission of evidence, denying a party a hearing, or ignoring a party's pleadings.
Costs — General Principle — Costs Follow the Event
Costs in any proceedings shall follow the event unless the court for good reasons exercises its discretion to otherwise order, meaning the successful party normally receives costs of the litigation.
Costs — Discretion of Court — Exceptional Circumstances for Depriving Successful Party of Costs
A successful party may exceptionally be deprived of costs depending on the particular circumstances of the case such as the conduct of the parties themselves or their legal representatives, the nature of the litigants, the nature of the proceedings, or the nature of the success.
Costs — Award to Losing Party — Unprecedented and Without Legal Basis
It is unprecedented and without legal basis for a court to deprive the winning party of costs and award costs to the losing party, whatever the proportion or percentage; such an order misapplies and misinterprets the principle that costs follow the event.

Legislation cited (23)

  • 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 9(e)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 27
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 27(1)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 30(1)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 30(3)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 30(4)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 35
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 35(1)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 35(2)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 35A
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of the Court, 2019 Rule 86
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of the Court, 2019 Rule 102(2)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of the Court, 2019 Rule 102(3)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of the Court, 2019 Rule 104(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of the Court, 2019 Rule 127(1)
  • Law No. 86/2013 of 11 September 2013 s.93(5)
  • Law No. 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 s.6(4)
  • Law relating to Civil, Commercial, Labour and Administrative Procedures s.186(2)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda (2003 as amended) Article 96
  • Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda Article 148
  • Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda Article 141(2)

Cases cited (13)

  • Simon Peter Ochieng and Others v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (EACJ Appeal No. 4 of 2015)
  • Angela Amudo v Secretary General of the East African Community (EACJ Appeal No. 4 of 2014)
  • Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania v African Network of Animal Welfare (EACJ Appeal No. 3 of 2011)
  • Peters v Sunday Post (1958) EA 424
  • Ludovick Sebastian v R (Criminal Appeal No. 318 of 2007)
  • Trevor Price and Another v Raymond Kelsal [1957] EA 752
  • Wynn Jones Mbwambo v Waadoa Petro Aaron (1966) EA 241
  • Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi v Secretary General of the EAC (EACJ Appeal No. 2 of 2019)
  • Mary Ariviza and Other v Attorney General of Kenya and Other (Reference No. 7 of 2010)
  • Secretary General of EAC v Rt Hon Margaret Zziwa (EACJ Appeal No. 7 of 2015)
  • Hon Margaret Zziwa v Secretary General of East African Community (EACJ Appeal No. 2 of 2017)
  • Attorney General of Tanzania v African Network for Animal Welfare (EACJ Appeal No. 3 of 2011)
  • Attorney General of Tanzania v Anthony Calist Komu (EACJ Appeal No. 2 of 2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Makala v Attorney General of the Republic of Rwanda (Appeal 4 of 2020) [2022] EACJ 36 (2 December 2022)
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.