Wakilii

Union Trade Centre Ltd v A.G. of Republic of Rwanda (Reference 10 of 2013)

East African Court of Justice · [2014] EACJ 14 · 2014 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to the East African Court of Justice challenging the legality of actions by the Kigali City Abandoned Property Management Commission
Decision
Reference dismissed with each party bearing own costs

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 conduct of the Kigali City Abandoned Property Management Commission was attributable to Rwanda under international law principles of State responsibility, as the Commission was empowered by Rwandan law to exercise governmental authority in managing abandoned property. However, the Court found it lacked jurisdiction to determine whether the Commission's actions complied with Rwanda's internal laws, as its jurisdiction is restricted to Treaty interpretation. The Reference was dismissed as the Applicant failed to establish a Treaty violation attributable to the Respondent.

Outcome

Reference dismissed with each party bearing own costs

Facts

Union Trade Centre Ltd (UTC) was incorporated in Rwanda in 1997 to manage the UTC mall in Kigali. On 1 August 2013, the Kigali City Abandoned Property Management Commission requested information from UTC. On 2 October 2013, the Commission informed tenants to redirect rental payments to it rather than UTC. UTC filed a Reference alleging that Rwanda's actions through the Commission contravened the EAC Treaty provisions on good governance, rule of law, and protection of property rights. Rwanda contested, arguing the Commission had separate legal personality and that UTC had also filed a case in Rwandan national courts.

Issues

  1. Whether the acts complained of are acts of a Partner State or institution of the Community or whether the Attorney General of Rwanda was properly sued before the Court.
  2. Whether the Reference is time-barred and should be struck off the record.
  3. Whether the action of taking over the Applicant's mall by the Kigali City Abandoned Property Management Commission is inconsistent with and/or in contravention of Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Treaty.
  4. Whether the parties are entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Reference dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

State Responsibility — Attribution of Conduct — Organs Exercising Governmental Authority
Under international law, the conduct of an entity that is not a de jure organ of a State but is empowered by the law of that State to exercise elements of governmental authority shall be considered an act of the State, provided the entity is acting in that capacity in the particular instance.
State Responsibility — Decentralised Governance — Local Government Units
Where a State operates a decentralised form of governance and devolves governmental authority to local government units that lack separate international legal personality, the State remains responsible under international law for the conduct of those units when exercising governmental functions.
International Law Commission Articles — Applicability to Treaty Disputes
The ILC Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts constitute supplementary rules of customary international law that apply to enable a court to determine whether conduct alleged to contravene a treaty provision can be attributed to a Partner State, even in disputes brought by private juridical persons where the treaty expressly grants them standing.
Jurisdiction — East African Court of Justice — Limitation to Treaty Interpretation
The jurisdiction of the East African Court of Justice is restricted to the interpretation and application of the EAC Treaty and does not extend to determining whether a domestic entity's actions complied with the internal laws of a Partner State, such matters falling within the jurisdiction of national courts.
Preliminary Objections — Time Limitation — Evidence Requirements
Where a party raises a preliminary objection on limitation of time, documentary evidence relied upon must be annexed to the pleadings or furnished with the notice of preliminary objection; documents presented only at the stage of submissions that were not previously pleaded or annexed will not be considered by the Court.
Costs — Public Interest Litigation — Exceptions to General Rule
While costs ordinarily follow the event, in highly exceptional cases involving matters of public importance that have not previously been adjudicated, a court may order each party to bear its own costs even where one party is unsuccessful.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Articles 5(3), 6(d), 7(1), 7(2), 8(1), 27, 30
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rules 1(2), 24, 39(1), 41, 53
  • International Law Commission's Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts Articles 4, 5
  • Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 Articles 31(1), 31(4), 32
  • Rwanda Law No. 10 of 2006 Articles 2, 3, 6, 11
  • Rwanda Law No. 28 of 2004 Articles 3, 11
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 14
  • Universal Declaration on Human Rights Article 17

Cases cited (11)

  • Modern Holdings Limited v Kenya Ports Authority (EACJ Reference No. 1 of 2008)
  • Noble Ventures Inc. v Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/11, 2005)
  • Phillips Petroleum Co. Iran v Islamic Republic of Iran (Award No. 326-10913-2, 1989)
  • Helnan International A/S v Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB 05/19, 2006)
  • James Katabazi & 21 Others v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (EACJ Reference No. 1 of 2007)
  • Attorney General of Kenya v Independent Medical Legal Unit (EACJ Appeal No. 1 of 2011)
  • Samuel Mukira Muhochi v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (EACJ Reference No. 5 of 2011)
  • Captain Harry Gandy v Caspair Air Charter Ltd (1956) 23 EACA 139
  • Sutherland v Canada (Attorney General) (2008 BCCA 27)
  • Barclay (Guardian ad litem) v British Columbia (2006 BCCA 434)
  • British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v Okanagan Indian Band (2003 SCC 71)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Union Trade Centre Ltd v A.G. of Republic of Rwanda (Reference 10 of 2013) [2014] EACJ 14 (27 November 2014)
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.