Wakilii

Makala v Attorney General of the Republic of Rwanda (Reference No.1 of 2017)

East African Court of Justice · [2020] EACJ 23 · 2020 Reference Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference challenging termination of employment and subsequent domestic court decisions as violations of the EAC Treaty
Decision
Reference dismissed with partial costs to the Applicant

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 held that it had jurisdiction to hear the Reference under Articles 27(1) and 30(1) of the EAC Treaty, as the matter challenged the legality of a Partner State's judicial decisions for alleged Treaty violations. However, the Court found that the Applicant failed to adduce fully conclusive evidence demonstrating that Rwanda's domestic court decisions constituted a clear and notorious injustice or violated the rule of law principle under Article 6(d) of the Treaty. The Reference was dismissed with one-third costs to the Applicant.

Outcome

Reference dismissed with partial costs to the Applicant

Facts

The Applicant, Eric Kabalisa Makala, was employed by Rwanda Utilities Regulatory Authority (RURA) as Personnel Administration Officer. Following a government restructuring policy implemented through Prime Minister's Order No. 139/03 of 19 October 2011, RURA conducted performance evaluations of all staff. The Applicant was suspended on 14 November 2011 and dismissed on 31 May 2012 after his position was not retained in the restructured organisation. He challenged his dismissal in Rwanda's High Court (Case No. RAD 0153/12/HC/KIG) and Supreme Court (Case No. RADA 0034/13/CS), both of which upheld the legality of his termination. He unsuccessfully sought review of the Supreme Court decision (Case No. RS/REV/AD 0001/16/CS). Dissatisfied, he filed this Reference before the East African Court of Justice, alleging that his dismissal and the subsequent domestic court decisions violated Rwandan law, the EAC Treaty, and international conventions.

Issues

  1. Whether the East African Court of Justice has jurisdiction over the matter.
  2. Whether the acts complained of by the Applicant are in contravention of Article 6 of the EAC Treaty.
  3. Whether the Applicant is entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Reference dismissed.
  • One third (1/3) of costs awarded to the Applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Jurisdiction of the East African Court of Justice — Ratione Personae and Ratione Materiae
Under Articles 27(1) and 30(1) of the EAC Treaty, the East African Court of Justice has jurisdiction to interpret and apply the Treaty where a resident of a Partner State challenges the legality of an act of a Partner State or Community institution as an infringement of Treaty provisions. A Partner State has ratione personae before the Court and can be held internationally responsible for the conduct of any state organ, including judicial organs, under international law.
Jurisdiction — Domestic Law Violations as Treaty Violations
The East African Court of Justice has ratione materiae to adjudicate matters where a Partner State's violation of its domestic laws constitutes a Treaty violation. Where the complaint is that an action was inconsistent with internal law and thereby breached a Partner State's obligation under the Treaty to observe the rule of law, the Court must consider the internal law of that Partner State in determining whether the conduct amounts to a Treaty violation.
Judicial Review of Domestic Court Decisions — Standard of Proof
When an international court reviews decisions of a Partner State's apex court, the applicant bears the burden of adducing fully conclusive evidence demonstrating a clear and notorious injustice visible at a mere glance. The international court does not set aside the domestic decision but scrutinizes it to ascertain compliance with the state's international Treaty obligations and makes consequential declarations.
Rule of Law — Definition and Application
The rule of law principle under Article 6(d) of the EAC Treaty refers to governance according to which all persons, institutions, and entities, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced, and independently adjudicated. It requires adherence to principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability, fairness in application, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness, and procedural and legal transparency.
Termination of Employment — Restructuring and Downsizing
Where an employee's position is not retained in a government restructuring policy implemented through lawful ministerial orders, the employer is not obliged to retain that employee. The fact that other staff with similar or lesser qualifications were retained does not necessarily amount to unequal treatment in contravention of constitutional equality provisions, absent evidence of the retained staff's performance appraisals and job designations.
Right to be Heard — Applicability to Employment Termination
A constitutional provision guaranteeing the right to be informed of charges and the right to defense at all levels of proceedings before administrative, judicial, and decision-making organs applies to judicial, quasi-judicial, or disciplinary proceedings that prefer charges. It does not necessarily apply to termination of employment resulting from a national restructuring policy where no charges are preferred.
Costs — Discretion to Depart from General Rule
While costs ordinarily follow the event, a court may exercise discretion to depart from this general rule where parties succeed evenly on substantive issues, or where factors such as hardship, earning capacity, conduct of parties, and the fact that a party was self-represented without legal advice warrant such departure. Where an applicant propagated his case personally without advocacy services he was unable to afford, the court may award partial costs despite dismissing the reference.

Legislation cited (25)

  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 6(d)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 9(e)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 23(1)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 27(1)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 30(1)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda Article 16
  • Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda Article 18(3)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda Article 96
  • Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda Article 141
  • Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda Article 200
  • Law No. 21/2014 relating to the Civil, Commercial, Labour and Administrative Procedures Article 6
  • Law No. 21/2014 relating to the Civil, Commercial, Labour and Administrative Procedures Article 69
  • Law No. 21/2014 relating to the Civil, Commercial, Labour and Administrative Procedures Article 148
  • Law No. 21/2014 relating to the Civil, Commercial, Labour and Administrative Procedures Article 186
  • Law No. 22/2002 on General Statutes for Rwanda Public Service Article 114
  • Law No. 15/2004 relating to evidence and its production Article 3
  • Law No. 15/2004 relating to evidence and its production Article 28
  • Protection of Wages Convention, 1949 Article 5
  • Protection of Wages Convention, 1949 Article 6
  • Protection of Wages Convention, 1949 Article 8
  • Protection of Wages Convention, 1949 Article 9
  • Protection of Wages Convention, 1949 Article 10
  • Law No. 86/2013 of 11/09/2013 Article 93(5)
  • Prime Minister's Order No. 139/03 of 19/10/2011
  • International Law Commission Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts Article 4(1)

Cases cited (24)

  • Modern Holdings Limited v Kenya Ports Authority (EACJ Reference No. 1 of 2008)
  • The Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania v Anthony Calist Komu (EACJ Appeal No. 2 of 2015)
  • The East African Civil Society Organisations Forum v The Attorney General of Burundi (EACJ Reference No. 2 of 2015)
  • Hon. Sitenda Sebalu v The Secretary General of the East African Community & Others (EACJ Reference No. 1 of 2010)
  • Prof. Peter Anyang' Nyong'o & 10 Others v The Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya & 2 Others (EACJ Reference No. 1 of 2006)
  • Plaxeda Rugumba v The Attorney General of Rwanda (EACJ Reference No. 8 of 2010)
  • Samuel Mukira Muhochi v The Attorney General of Uganda (EACJ Reference No. 5 of 2011)
  • Simon Peter Ochieng & Another v The Attorney General of Uganda (EACJ Reference No. 11 of 2013)
  • Henry Kyarimpa v The Attorney General of Uganda (EACJ Appeal No. 6 of 2014)
  • British American Tobacco (U) Ltd v The Attorney General of Uganda (EACJ Reference No. 7 of 2017)
  • Raphael Baranzira & Another v The Attorney General of Burundi (EACJ Reference No. 15 of 2014)
  • Ida Robinson Smith Putnam (USA) vs. United Mexican States, 1927, UNRIAA, vol. IV, p.151 at 153
  • The East African Civil Society Organisations' Forum v The Attorney General of Burundi & Others (EACJ Appeal No. 4 of 2016)
  • James Katabazi & 21 Others v The Secretary General of the East African Community (EACJ Reference No. 1 of 2007)
  • Schuller vs. Roback (2012) BCSC 8
  • Gold vs. Gold (1993) BCCA 82
  • Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1999, p.62 at pp. 87-88, paras. 62, 63
  • Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia & Herzegovina vs. Serbia & Montenegro), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2007, p.43
  • Military and para-military Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua vs. United States of America), judgment, ICJ Reports 1984, p.437, para. 101
  • Corfu Channel (United Kingdom vs. Albania), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1949, p.17
  • High Court Case No. RAD 0153/12/HC/KIG
  • Supreme Court Case No. RADA 0034/13/CS
  • Case No. RS/REV/AD 0001/16/CS
  • RADA/0006/12/CS

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 (Reference No.1 of 2017) [2020] EACJ 23 (18 June 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.