| Case Number | APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2018 |
| Summary | This is an Appeal against the Judgment of this Court’s First Instance Division (“the Trial Court”) dated 29’h March 2018 in Application NO.1 of 2018 arising from Reference No. 10 of 2013 whereby the Trial Court declined to strike out the Second Amended Reference and ordered each party to bear its own costs. The Appellant (who was the Applicant in the Application in the Trial Court) is the Attorney-General of the Republic of Rwanda. He was represented in the Appeal by Mr. Nicholas Ntarugera and Miss Specioza Kabibi, both of whom are Senior State Attorneys. The Respondent is a duly incorporated Limited Liability Company in the Republic of Rwanda. It was represented in the Appeal by Mr. Isaac Bakayana, Advocate, duly instructed by the firm of Mis Acadia Advocates of Kampala, Uganda. The Interveners are natural persons who are Residents in the Republic of Rwanda. They did not appear at the hearing of the Appeal, but did in a letter dated 7’h August 2018 addressed to the Registrar of the Court express disinterest in the Appeal and stated that they stood to be guided by the decision of the Court in relation |
| Respondent | Union Trade Centre Limited (UTC) and 1. Succession Makuza Desire 2. Succession Nkurunziza Gerard 3. Ngofero Tharcisse |
| Complainant | The Attorney General of The Republic of Rwanda |
| Date filed | |
| Countries | Rwanda |
| Keyword | |
| Treaty Article |
First Instance Judgment
| Verdict | In the instant case, the Reference largely gravitated around issues of State responsibility for the conduct of decentralised or devolved governance entities. Those issues are of great importance to the Community and Partner States, and have not previously been adjudicated before this Court. Conclusion In the final result, we do hereby dismiss the Reference and order each Party to bear its own costs. It is so ordered. |
| PDF document | Download the decision as PDF |
| Date delivered | November 27, 2014 |
| Quorum |
Appeal Judgment
| Verdict | From all the foregoing, it is crystal clear that the Appellant has failed to establish any error of law or procedure on the part of the Trial Court and consequently this Appeal is destined to be dismissed. As regards who should bear the costs of the Appeal, we see no good reason to depart from the usual rule, namely, that costs follow the event. The Respondent having successfully resisted the Appeal, it is entitled to its costs. The upshot of our consideration of this matter is that we order that the Appeal be, and is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondent. And to avoid any further back and forth of this matter at the interlocutory stage, we order that those costs shall be taxed after the determination of the substantive Reference in the Trial Court. It is so ordered. |
| PDF document | Download the decision as PDF |
| Date delivered | May 29, 2019 |
| Quorum |