Wakilii

Rugo Farm Company v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi (Application No. 14 of 2022)

East African Court of Justice · [2023] EACJ 13 · 2023 Application Granted — Appeal Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out record of appeal for non-compliance with procedural rules arising from an appeal against a First Instance Division judgment
Decision
Appeal No. 7 of 2022 struck off

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 held that the respondent's appeal was fatally incompetent and struck it out because the record of appeal did not contain a copy of the notice of appeal, which is a mandatory prerequisite for the Appellate Court to exercise jurisdiction. The Court further held that although the appeal itself was filed within the prescribed 30-day period, the absence of the notice of appeal in the record rendered the appeal utterly incompetent despite the respondent's compliance with other procedural requirements.

Outcome

Appeal No. 7 of 2022 struck off

Facts

Rugo Farm Company filed Reference No. 14 of 2018 in the First Instance Division alleging violation of Treaty provisions by the Republic of Burundi through expropriation of its land. The Trial Court rendered judgment on 7 April 2022 finding violations but declining to award compensation for failure to prove value. The Attorney General of Burundi filed a notice of appeal on 6 May 2022 and subsequently Appeal No. 7 of 2022 on 25 May 2022. Rugo Farm Company applied to strike out the appeal on grounds that the Attorney General failed to comply with procedural requirements including failure to serve the notice of appeal within 14 days, failure to file an affidavit of service, and critically, failure to include a copy of the notice of appeal in the record of appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether Appeal No. 7 of 2022 was filed in violation of the Rules of Procedure.
  2. What remedies are the parties entitled to?

Orders

  • Appeal No. 7 of 2022 struck off as fatally incompetent for lack of a notice of appeal.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Notice of Appeal — Jurisdictional prerequisite
A notice of appeal is a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite before an Appellate Court can exercise jurisdiction to hear an appeal, and a record of appeal devoid of a notice of appeal is utterly incompetent and cannot form the basis of an appeal.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Record of Appeal — Mandatory contents
Under Rule 98(1)(g) of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, a record of appeal must contain a copy of the notice of appeal as a mandatory primary document, and failure to include it renders the appeal incompetent.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time limits — Computing time for filing appeal
An appeal must be filed within 30 days from the date of lodging the notice of appeal, not from the date of the judgment, unless the appellant has applied for copies of proceedings within 30 days from the date of decision and complied with the requirements for extension of time under Rule 96.
Civil Procedure — Service — Proof of service — Affidavit of service
Where a party is required by the Rules to serve a document and file an affidavit of service, bare assertions from the Bar that service was effected cannot substitute for the required affidavit, and in the absence of an affidavit of service there is no credible evidence that service was effected.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary objections — Alternative remedies — Application to strike out
An application to strike out a notice or record of appeal under Rule 91 can be made at any time and a party is not precluded from moving under Rule 91 merely because the party could have raised a preliminary objection under Rule 109; the Rules deliberately leave the choice of procedure to the parties.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Costs follow the event
Under Rule 127 of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, costs follow the event as a general rule unless the Court for good reason orders otherwise, and a successful party may only exceptionally be deprived of costs depending on particular circumstances such as conduct of parties, nature of litigants, nature of proceedings, or nature of success.

Cases cited (2)

  • Margaret Zziwa v Secretary-General of EAC (EACJ Appeal No. 2 of 2017)
  • Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & 7 Others [2014] eKLR

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rugo Farm Company v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi (Application No. 14 of 2022) [2023] EACJ 13 (23 November 2023)
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.