Wakilii

Ndorimana v A.G. of Burundi (Reference 2 of 2013)

East African Court of Justice · [2014] EACJ 83 · 2014 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to the East African Court of Justice challenging refusal to execute domestic court judgment as Treaty violation
Decision
Reference 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 East African Court of Justice held it lacked jurisdiction to order payment of damages where no final enforceable domestic judgment existed. The applicant's reference was dismissed for failing to disclose a cause of action under Article 30(1) of the EAC Treaty, as the underlying domestic judgment had been overturned on appeal and a review application remained pending before the Supreme Court of Burundi. The Court may interpret Treaty compliance but cannot grant substantive remedies falling within domestic court jurisdiction.

Outcome

Reference dismissed with costs to the Respondent

Facts

Benoit Ndorimana, a Burundian businessman, was arrested on 15 March 1989 and detained until 6 August 2002. His pharmaceutical enterprises were closed during detention. After release, he sued the Government of Burundi in the Administrative Court, which on 14 June 2004 awarded him BIF 1,000,300,000 plus 6% annual interest. The Attorney General appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 28 March 2012 overturned the Administrative Court judgment. Ndorimana applied for review of the Supreme Court decision (Reference RCC 21625), which remained pending. While that review was pending, he filed this reference to the East African Court of Justice on 8 April 2013, alleging the Government's refusal to pay the original award violated Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the EAC Treaty establishing principles of rule of law and good governance.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Reference.
  2. Whether the Reference is time-barred.
  3. Whether the Applicant is entitled to the orders sought.

Orders

  • Prayers (a), (b) and (c) disallowed.
  • Reference dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

East African Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Interpretation of Treaty versus Substantive Remedies
The East African Court of Justice has jurisdiction under Article 27(1) of the EAC Treaty to determine whether a Partner State's action infringes Treaty provisions, but lacks jurisdiction under Articles 23, 27 and 30 to grant substantive remedies such as ordering payment of damages or declaring vested property rights where such matters fall within the jurisdiction of domestic courts.
Cause of Action — Requirements for Invoking EAC Treaty Enforcement
A reference under Article 30(1) of the EAC Treaty must disclose a cause of action, defined as a set of facts or circumstances that in law give rise to a right to sue. Where no final and enforceable domestic judgment exists because the judgment relied upon has been overturned by a higher court and a review application remains pending, the reference fails to disclose a cause of action and cannot ground a Treaty violation claim.
Direct Access to Regional Court — Exhaustion of Local Remedies Not Required
A natural person resident in a Partner State has direct access to the East African Court of Justice under Article 30(1) of the Treaty and is not required to exhaust local remedies before bringing a reference to the Court.

Legislation cited (14)

  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 3(3)(b)
  • 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 8(4)
  • 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 27(2)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 30(1)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 30(2)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 30(3)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 1(2)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 24
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 53
  • Civil Procedure Code of Burundi Article 197

Cases cited (5)

  • Attorney General of the Republic of Rwanda v Plaxeda Rugumba (EACJ Appeal No. 1 of 2012)
  • James Katabazi and 21 Others v Secretary General of the East African Community and Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (EACJ Reference No. 1 of 2007)
  • Prof. Nyamoya Francois v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi and Secretary General of the East African Community (EACJ Reference No. 8 of 2011)
  • Prof. Peter Anyang Nyong'o and 10 Others v Attorney General of Kenya and 2 Others (EACJ Reference No. 1 of 2006)
  • Venant Masenge v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi (EACJ Reference No. 9 of 2012)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ndorimana v A.G. of Burundi (Reference 2 of 2013) [2014] EACJ 83 (28 November 2014)
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.