Wakilii

Mathias v Attorney General of Burundi (Application No.2 of 2020)

East African Court of Justice · [2021] EACJ 3 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for interim orders arising from Reference No. 24 of 2019
Decision
Application dismissed; underlying reference to proceed to hearing

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 dismissed an application for interim orders to restrain execution of a Burundian land judgment. The Court held that while the applicant established a serious triable issue, no irreparable harm would result because a ministerial circular already stayed execution pending review. The status quo was maintained without need for court intervention.

Outcome

Application dismissed; underlying reference to proceed to hearing

Facts

The applicant, heir of late Nikobamye Mathias, sought interim orders to prevent execution of Judgment RSTBA 0344 of the Burundian Special Court of Lands and Other Property. The judgment ordered demolition of buildings, destruction of crops and trees, and removal of structures from disputed land within three months. The property contained tombs of the deceased and his son. The applicant had filed both a review application with the Burundian Minister of Justice and Reference No. 24 of 2019 before the EACJ alleging violation of Article 20 of the Burundian Land Code. A ministerial circular dated 11 July 2019 prohibited execution of judgments subject to ministerial review. The respondent opposed the application, asserting no execution steps had been taken and the circular already stayed enforcement.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant established a serious triable issue warranting interim orders.
  2. Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable injury if interim orders were not granted.
  3. Where the balance of convenience lies in the application for interim orders.

Orders

  • Application No. 2 of 2020 disallowed.
  • No order as to costs.
  • Reference No. 24 of 2019 to be fixed for hearing forthwith.

Rules and key headnotes

Interim Orders — Test for Grant — Serious Triable Issue
For an applicant to establish a serious triable issue in the East African Court of Justice, the substantive suit must disclose a cause of action under Article 30(1) of the EAC Treaty, namely that the matter complained of violates national law of a Partner State or infringes a provision of the Treaty, without requiring the court to investigate the merits beyond establishing that the claim has substance and reality.
Interim Orders — Irreparable Injury — Existing Stay of Execution
Where execution of an impugned judgment is already stayed by operation of national law or administrative directive, an applicant cannot establish irreparable injury for purposes of obtaining interim orders, as no harm will ensue while the existing stay remains in force.
Interim Orders — Status Quo — Definition and Application
The relevant status quo for purposes of interim orders is the state of affairs existing during the period immediately preceding the issue of the claim for permanent relief, or if there is unreasonable delay between issue and the motion for interim orders, the period immediately preceding the motion.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 39
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 30(1)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 23(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 21(2)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 73
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 73(1)
  • Constitution of Burundi Article 7
  • Burundian Land Code Article 20

Cases cited (5)

  • Giella v Cassman Brown & Co Ltd [1973] EA 358
  • American Cyanamid Company v Ethicon Limited [1975] AC 396
  • Forum pour le Renforcement de la Société Civile & Others v Attorney General of Burundi & Another (EACJ Application No. 16 of 2016)
  • British America Tobacco v Attorney General of Uganda (EACJ Application No. 13 of 2017)
  • Garden Cottage Foods v Milk Marketing Board [1984] AC 1305

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mathias v Attorney General of Burundi (Application No.2 of 2020) [2021] EACJ 3 (7 October 2021)
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.