Wakilii

Nzambimana Edouard Estate v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi (Refererence No.23 of 2019)

East African Court of Justice · [2024] EACJ 16 · 2024 Reference Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference challenging decision of Special Court of Lands and other Property of Burundi
Decision
Reference allowed; Applicant declared lawful owner of land; general damages of USD 5,000,000 awarded; costs to 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 the decision of Burundi's Special Court of Lands to dispossess the Applicant of 207 hectares of land purchased from Ruzizi Company in 1990 violated Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the EAC Treaty. The Court found that Ruzizi Company was the lawful owner with government-approved rights to sell the land, and the Applicant lawfully acquired ownership after paying all required fees and taxes. Taking the land without compensation contravened Burundi's Constitution Article 36 and principles of good governance and rule of law under the Treaty. The Court awarded the Applicant general damages of USD 5,000,000 and costs.

Outcome

Reference allowed; Applicant declared lawful owner of land; general damages of USD 5,000,000 awarded; costs to Applicant

Facts

In 1990, the late Nzambimana Edouard purchased 207 hectares and 60 ares of land from Ruzizi Company, which had held the land since 1932 and 1947 under certificates of title from the colonial government of Ruanda-Urundi. Ruzizi Company obtained approval from Burundi's Cabinet in October 1990 to sell the land to offset debts, with the condition that the new owner exploit it for agricultural purposes. The Applicant paid all required fees and taxes and took possession. In 2019, Burundi's Special Court of Lands, in decision RSTBA 0280, cancelled the sale agreements and returned the land to the State without compensation, finding that Ruzizi lacked authority to sell and that the Applicant had not complied with agricultural use conditions. The Applicant's representative, Mrs Francoise-Romaine Bibwana, filed this Reference in the East African Court of Justice challenging the decision as violating the EAC Treaty.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has locus standi to refer the Reference before this Court
  2. Whether the Applicant is the legal owner of the land comprised in an area of 207 hectares and 60 ares purchased from the Ruzizi Company
  3. Whether the Judgement RSTBA 0280 rendered by the Appellate Division of the Special Court of Lands and other Property violated the Treaty for the establishment of the East African Community, especially in its Articles 6(d) and 7(2)
  4. Whether the Parties are entitled to the remedies sought

Orders

  • This Court has jurisdiction to determine the merits of the Applicant's Reference.
  • The Applicant is the lawful owner of the suit property which is a piece of land measuring 207 hectares and 60 ares bought from Ruzizi Company in 1990 and which the Respondent's agent returned to the State of Burundi.
  • The Applicant is entitled to just compensation by the Respondent of the value of the land and its development, in case the Respondent desires to continue possessing it.
  • The Applicant is entitled to general damages to the tune of US $5,000,000.00.
  • The Respondent to pay the Applicant costs for this Reference.

Rules and key headnotes

Jurisdiction — Locus Standi — Standing of Estate Representatives
Where a party has been accorded locus standi in domestic proceedings giving rise to a reference, it is against the tenets of justice for the East African Court of Justice to deny that party standing before it when challenging the decision of those same proceedings.
Land Ownership — Sale of Land — Government Approval
Where a company holds land under certificate of title and obtains Cabinet approval to dispose of the land to offset debts, and the purchaser pays all required fees and taxes with government knowledge, the purchaser acquires lawful ownership of the land.
Expropriation — Compensation — Constitutional Requirements
Taking away a party's land without compensation contravenes constitutional provisions requiring just and prior compensation for deprivation of property, even where the State claims the land was held under concessionary terms.
Treaty Violations — Breach of National Law as Treaty Violation
A Partner State's contravention of its own constitutional and statutory laws amounts to a contravention of the EAC Treaty, particularly Articles 6(d) and 7(2) concerning good governance and rule of law.
Natural Justice — Audi Alteram Partem — Cancellation of Title
It is a breach of natural justice for a court to cancel title deeds originally issued to a third party on grounds of illegality without making that third party a party to the proceedings or calling them to testify.
Judicial Overreach — Courts as Parties to Disputes
It is not the duty of a court of law to fetch pieces of land and give them to whomever they desire. Courts constitute a breach of law when they constitute themselves as parties to a dispute rather than umpires of matters brought by parties.
General Damages — Deprivation of Property — Assessment
Where a party has been unlawfully deprived of land that was their source of livelihood, an award of general damages is justified to atone for the loss suffered, even where specific damages cannot be precisely quantified due to insufficient proof.

Legislation cited (18)

  • 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 23
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 27
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 30
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 24(2)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 24(3)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 24(4)
  • East African Community Court of Justice Rules of the Court 2019 Rule 136
  • East African Community Court of Justice Rules of the Court 2019 Rule 127(1)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Burundi Article 36
  • Land Code of Burundi Article 21
  • Land Code of Burundi 1986 Articles 407 to 433
  • Civil Code Book III of Burundi Article 63
  • Civil Code Book III of Burundi Article 21
  • Code for Civil Procedures Book 3 Article 276
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 Article 17
  • African Charter on Human and People's Rights Article 14

Cases cited (10)

  • Alcon International Limited v Standard Chartered Bank of Uganda and Others (EACJ Appeal No. 3 of 2013)
  • Owners of the Motor Vessel 'Lilian' v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Limited (1989) KLR 1
  • Eric Kabalisa Makala v Attorney General of the Republic of Rwanda (EACJ Reference No. 1 of 2017)
  • Inspectorate of Government v Geofrey Kazinda & Another (EACJ Application No. 23 of 2022)
  • Le Forum Pour Le Renforcement de la Societe Civile (Forsc) & 4 Others v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi & Another (EACJ Reference No. 12 of 2016)
  • Plaxeda Rugumba v Attorney General of Rwanda (EACJ Reference No. 8 of 2010)
  • Baranzira Raphael & Another v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi (EACJ Reference No. 15 of 2014)
  • Francis Ngaruko v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi (EACJ Reference No. 9 of 2019)
  • Attorney General of Rwanda v Union Trade Centre Ltd (UTC) & 3 Others (EACJ Appeal No. 10 of 2020)
  • Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi v Secretary General of the East African Community & Another (EACJ Appeal No. 2 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nzambimana Edouard Estate v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi (Refererence No.23 of 2019) [2024] EACJ 16 (28 November 2024)
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.