Wakilii

Surl v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi (Application No.4 of 2023)

East African Court of Justice · [2025] EACJ 6 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of Appellate Division judgment in Appeal No. 4 of 2022 arising from Reference No. 10 of 2018
Decision
Application for review 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 Appellate Division dismissed an application for review of its earlier judgment. The Court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate discovery of new evidence that was unknown at the time of judgment and could not have been discovered with due diligence. The alleged newly discovered documents (contract LB 12.774 and certificate of title) were either within the applicant's knowledge or could have been discovered through reasonable diligence. The death of a party, though occurring before the appeal judgment, was discoverable and would not have had decisive influence on the outcome. The application was found to be an impermissible attempt to re-argue the merits rather than establish grounds for review under Article 35(3) of the Treaty.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed with costs to the Respondent

Facts

ISAT Surl purchased property in Burundi in 2004 through Maitre Augustin Mabushi, who claimed to represent the registered owner Ntisigana Antoine. The title was transferred to ISAT Surl. Ntisigana disputed the sale, asserting Mabushi had no authority. The Administrative Court of Bujumbura cancelled the transfer and certificate of registration in favor of ISAT Surl. Appeals followed through various Burundian courts. A criminal case alleging forgery resulted in acquittal of the accused parties. ISAT Surl filed Reference No. 10 of 2018 in the EACJ First Instance Division alleging Treaty violations, which was dismissed. Appeal No. 4 of 2022 to the Appellate Division was also dismissed. ISAT Surl then filed this application for review, claiming discovery of new evidence including contract LB 12.774 between the State of Burundi and Ntisigana, a certificate of title, and the death of Ntisigana on 11 March 2016.

Issues

  1. Whether this Court should review, interpret, correct, clarify or set aside its own Judgment dated 23rd February 2023 in Appeal No. 4 of 2022 arising from Reference No. 10 of 2018.
  2. What remedies are the parties entitled to?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Applicant to bear the costs of the Application.

Rules and key headnotes

Review of Judgment — Grounds for Review — Discovery of New Evidence
An application for review under Article 35(3) of the Treaty Establishing the East African Community requires the applicant to prove discovery of a fact which by its nature might have had a decisive influence on the judgment if known to the Court at the time, which fact was unknown to both the Court and the applicant, and which could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered before judgment was made.
Review of Judgment — Distinction from Appeal — Error Apparent on Face of Record
Review should not be an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected. An error apparent on the face of the record means an error which can be found at a glance and does not require a long process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two views. If a view held by the Court in the original record is a possible one, it cannot be an error apparent on the face of the record even though another view was also possible.
Review of Judgment — Due Diligence Requirement — Knowledge of Documents
Where an applicant admits knowledge of a contract containing a renewal clause referencing an earlier contract, the applicant cannot claim the earlier contract is newly discovered evidence, as reasonable diligence would have led to discovery of the referenced contract. A party seeking review must provide sufficient evidence of diligence in obtaining all available evidence.
Review of Judgment — Death of Party — Discoverable Facts
The death of a party to litigation, where correspondence from authorities was addressed to the deceased's estate and copied to the applicant, cannot constitute newly discovered evidence justifying review, as the applicant could have discovered the death through due diligence during the pendency of proceedings. Moreover, such fact must be shown to have potential decisive influence on the judgment.
Review of Judgment — Functus Officio — Finality of Judgments
Once a court delivers judgment it becomes functus officio and the matter becomes res judicata. Review of judgment will not be considered except where a glaring omission or patent mistake or grave error has crept into the judgment through judicial fallibility. To allow review on the basis of arguments thought of long after judgment was delivered would deprive litigation of finality.
Costs — Successful Party — Discretion of Court
Costs in any proceedings shall follow the event unless the Court for good reasons otherwise orders. A successful party is to be paid costs by the losing party. A successful party may only be deprived of costs in exceptional circumstances.

Cases cited (10)

  • Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra Wint Petition (Civil) 509 of 1997
  • Attorney General of Kenya v Prof Anyang' Nyong'o and 10 Others (Appeal No. 4 of 2009)
  • Independent Medico Legal Unit v Attorney General of Kenya (Application No. 2 of 2012)
  • Hoystead v. Commissioner of Taxation (LR [1926] A C 15 at 165)
  • Christopher Mutikila v Attorney General of Tanzania and Another (Appeal No. 8 of 2007)
  • Smti Meers Bhanja v. Smti Nirmada Kumari (Choudry) 1995 SC 455
  • Ariban Tuleshwar v. Arban [1979] 45 CCL 389
  • Lakhamshi Bros Ltd V. Raja & Sons [1966] EA 313
  • Bancroft & Anor v. City Council of Nairobi [1971] 1 EA 151
  • Margaret Zziwa v Secretary General of EAC (Appeal No. 2 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Surl v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi (Application No.4 of 2023) [2025] EACJ 6 (3 March 2025)
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.