Wakilii

Niyongabo and Another v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi (Application No.1 of 2022; Consolidated Application No.3 of 2022)

East African Court of Justice · [2022] EACJ 29 · 2022 Applications Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Consolidated applications for review of the Appellate Division judgment in Appeal No. 5 of 2020
Decision
Both applications for review dismissed; judgment in Appeal No. 5 of 2020 upheld

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 both consolidated applications for review. Application No. 1 of 2022 failed because the valuation reports constituted new evidence that should have been produced at first instance, not on review, and the USD 50,000 compensation awarded was for inconvenience and procedural violations, not for the value of the land itself. Application No. 3 of 2022 failed because the Attorney General did not submit on Issue No. 3 in the underlying appeal, and no error apparent on the face of the record was established. The decision in Appeal No. 5 of 2020 was upheld.

Outcome

Both applications for review dismissed; judgment in Appeal No. 5 of 2020 upheld

Facts

Niyongabo Theodore and Niyungeko Gerard had their land titles cancelled by the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Muha in Burundi. The First Instance Division of the EACJ found violations of the Treaty and the Appellate Division awarded each appellant USD 50,000 as compensation for inconvenience and deprivation of property without due process. Both parties filed applications for review: the appellants sought higher compensation based on post-judgment valuation reports valuing the properties at USD 183,754.79, USD 286,378.09, USD 246,103.37, and USD 429,835.78; the Attorney General argued the Court erred in finding he did not submit on Issue No. 3 and that awarding compensation was unjust.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court should entertain Application No. 1 of 2022
  2. Whether the Court should entertain Application No. 3 of 2022
  3. What remedies should the Court grant

Orders

  • Applications No. 1 of 2022 and Application No. 3 of 2022 are hereby dismissed.
  • The decision in Appeal No. 5 of 2020 of the Appellate Division rendered on 26th November 2021 is upheld.
  • Each Party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Review of Judgments — Grounds for Review — Discovery of New Evidence
An application for review based on discovery of new evidence will not succeed where the evidence was known to the party at the time of judgment and could have been produced with reasonable diligence. Valuation reports obtained after judgment to challenge the quantum of compensation do not constitute newly discovered evidence justifying review where the party could have obtained such evidence before judgment.
Appellate Jurisdiction — Introduction of New Evidence on Appeal
An appellate court has jurisdiction only over points of law, matters of jurisdiction, and procedural irregularity. New factual issues or new evidence cannot be introduced for the first time on appeal. Appeals are correctional in nature and not an opportunity for a party to take a second bite at the pie.
Compensation — Distinction Between Compensation for Inconvenience and Compensation for Property Value
Where a court awards compensation for inconvenience and deprivation of property without due process, such compensation is distinct from compensation for the market value of the property itself. The award is intended to remedy procedural violations and inconvenience suffered, not to replace the value of lost property.
Review of Judgments — Error Apparent on the Face of the Record
An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and not require detailed examination, scrutiny, or elaborate argument to detect. If detection of the error requires a long drawn-out process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent. A review cannot be sought merely for a fresh hearing or to correct an erroneous view taken earlier.
Scheduling Conference — Binding Nature of Agreed Issues
At a scheduling conference, all matters in controversy between parties are considered and reduced into issues for determination by the Court. A party cannot submit on an issue that was not framed and agreed upon at the scheduling conference. The Court will decline to consider submissions on issues not settled at the scheduling conference.
Compliance with Court Orders — Extension of Time
Where a party files submissions late without leave of court, the court will consider whether the delay caused prejudice to the other party and whether justice requires that the submissions be struck out. Technicalities should not block the administration of justice without justified reason. Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers and rules of procedure or technicalities of law cannot stand in the way of administration of justice.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 35(3)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 35A
  • East African Court of Justice Rules 2019 Rule 83
  • East African Court of Justice Rules 2019 Rule 123
  • East African Court of Justice Rules 2019 Rule 4
  • East African Court of Justice Rules 2019 Rule 63
  • East African Court of Justice Rules 2019 Rule 127(1)
  • Ministerial Ordinance No. 720/CAB/304/2008 (Burundi)

Cases cited (19)

  • Independent Medico Legal Unit v Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya (Application No. 2 of 2012)
  • Paul John Mhozya v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 14 of 2018)
  • Krishan Bhardwaj and others vs State of H.P and Others, Review Petition No. 39/2016 on 6 July 2017
  • Guiso-Gallisay vs Italy, Application NO. 58858/00, European Court of Human Rights, para. 90
  • Haridas Das vs Smt. Usha Rani Banik and others, the Supreme Court of India on 21 March 2006
  • Nyamogo & Nyamogo Advocates v Moses Kipkolum Kogo, Civil Appeal No. 322 of 2000
  • National Bank of Kenya Ltd vs Ndungu Njau, Court of Appeal, at Nairobi, the Republic of Kenya, Civil Appeal No. 211 of 1996
  • Earl Versus Sussex, ex parte McCarty [1924] 1KB 256, [1923] All ER Rep. 233
  • Anyang' Nyong'o and 10 Others v Attorney General and Others (Reference No. 1 of 2006)
  • Attorney General of Uganda and East African Law Society v Secretary General of the East African Community (Application No. 17 of 2014)
  • La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Co Ltd v Zhang Lan, HCMP page 585-586/2017 (14 March 2018; 5 March 2019)
  • Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi v Niyongabo Theodore and Niyungeko Gerard (Application No. 6 of 2022)
  • Godfrey Magezi v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (Appeal No. 3 of 2015)
  • Attorney General of the Republic of Tanzania v Africa Network for Animal Welfare (Appeal No. 3 of 2014)
  • Hon. Dr. Margaret Zziwa v Secretary General of the East African Community (Appeal No. 2 of 2017)
  • P.Parvatham vs The Secretary to Government, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme and Others, Application for Review (MD) No. 38 of 2016
  • Mr.N. Balakrishnan vs M/s.S. Prabha, Review Applications (MD) Nos 193 and 194 of 2018, High court of MADRAS
  • Margaret Zziwa v Secretary General of East African Community (Reference No. 17 of 2014)
  • James Alfred Koroso v Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya and Others (Reference No. 12 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Niyongabo and Another v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi (Application No.1 of 2022; Consolidated Application No.3 of 2022) [2022] EACJ 29 (31 August 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.