Wakilii

Rugurika and Others v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi (Application No.9 of 2019)

East African Court of Justice · [2021] EACJ 7 · 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. 16 of 2019 concerning alleged unlawful seizure of properties
Decision
Application for interim injunction denied; main Reference No. 16 of 2019 to proceed to full 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 Court held that while the Applicants established a prima facie case with serious triable issues concerning alleged violations of Treaty provisions and Burundian law in the seizure of their properties, they failed to demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable injury that could not be adequately compensated by damages. The balance of convenience favoured the Respondent, as the properties were under lawful custody and the Applicants resided outside Burundi. The application for interim orders was dismissed in its entirety, with costs to abide the outcome of the main Reference.

Outcome

Application for interim injunction denied; main Reference No. 16 of 2019 to proceed to full hearing

Facts

The Applicants, 18 individuals including Bob Rugurika, alleged that their movable and immovable properties were unlawfully seized by agents of the Respondent (Attorney General of Burundi) pursuant to orders issued on 15 May 2019 by the President of the Supreme Court and the Prosecutor General. The seizure occurred while criminal case RMPG 697bis/MA/BV/NTH was still pending. The Respondent contended that the Applicants were involved in insurrectional activities and attempted coup d'état, that criminal proceedings had been instituted, and that the Applicants fled Burundi to escape justice. The Respondent stated that the properties were seized to compensate victims of the alleged crimes and to prevent deterioration of abandoned property. The Applicants were subsequently convicted in absentia and sentenced to life imprisonment in case LPC100, with notification effected through formal channels for persons without known residence. All Applicants declared on 11 February 2021 that they were in Brussels, Belgium.

Issues

  1. Whether the Reference raises triable issues warranting interim relief.
  2. Whether the Applicants would suffer irreparable injury if interim orders are not granted.
  3. Where the balance of convenience lies between the parties.

Orders

  • Application for interim orders dismissed in its entirety.
  • Costs to abide the outcome of Reference No. 16 of 2019.

Rules and key headnotes

Interim Orders — Test for Grant of Interlocutory Injunctions
An applicant seeking an interlocutory injunction must satisfy three sequential conditions: first, demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success; second, show that irreparable injury would be suffered which would not be adequately compensated by damages; and third, if the court is in doubt, establish that the balance of convenience favours the grant of the injunction.
Interim Orders — Prima Facie Case — Standard of Proof
When considering whether there is a prima facie case with a probability of success, the court is not mandated to inquire into the controversies of the evidence and facts that support the case of either party nor to decide difficult questions of law which call for detailed argument. The court need only be satisfied that the claim is not frivolous or vexatious but rather presents a serious question to be tried.
Interim Orders — Irreparable Injury — Adequacy of Damages
An interlocutory injunction will not normally be granted unless the applicant might otherwise suffer irreparable injury which would not adequately be compensated by an award of damages. If damages in the measure recoverable would be an adequate remedy and the defendant would be in a financial position to pay them, no interim injunction should normally be granted, however strong the plaintiff's claim appeared to be at that stage.
Interim Orders — Balance of Convenience — Status Quo
The conditions for granting interlocutory injunctions are sequential, so that the second condition can only be addressed if the first condition is satisfied, and when the court is in doubt, the third condition (balance of convenience) is then addressed. If factors are evenly balanced, the court should consider maintaining the status quo. The primary purpose of interim injunctions is to preserve the status quo until the question to be investigated can be finally disposed of.
Treaty Violations — Serious Triable Issues
Within the context of East African Community law, a cause of action demonstrating the prevalence of a serious triable issue exists where the reference raises a legitimate legal question under the Court's legal regime as spelt out in Article 30(1) of the Treaty; more specifically, where it is in contention that the matter complained of violates the Partner State law and the Treaty.

Legislation cited (11)

  • 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(1)(a)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 8(5)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 27(1)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 30
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 39
  • East African Common Markets Protocol Section 15(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rules 1(2), 21, 22, 23, 84, 85
  • Constitution of the Republic of Burundi Articles 36, 38, 40
  • Law No.1/08 of 7th March 2005 Articles 133, 134

Cases cited (11)

  • Geilla v Cassman Brown [1973] EA 358
  • Francis Ngaruko v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi (Application No. 3 of 2019)
  • East African Civil Society Organisation Forum v Attorney General of Burundi and 2 Others (Application No. 5 of 2015)
  • Prof. Anyang' Nyong'o and 10 Others v Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya and 3 Others (Reference No. 1 of 2006)
  • American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
  • The Democratic Party and Another v Secretary General EAC and Attorney General of Uganda [2015-2011] EACJLR 370
  • British American Tobacco (U) Ltd v Attorney General of Uganda (Application No. 13 of 2017)
  • Timothy Kahoho V SG- EAC
  • Kenya Commercial Finance Co. Ltd v Afraha Education Society [2001] EA 86
  • Timothy Kahoho v Secretary General EAC [2012-2015] EACJLR 181
  • Noormohamed Jan Mohamed v Kassamali Virji Madhani (1953) EACA 8

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rugurika and Others v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi (Application No.9 of 2019) [2021] EACJ 7 (8 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.