This is an Appeal brought before this Appellate Division of the East African Court of Justice [EACJ] by Manariyo Désiré [the”Appellant”] against the Judgment of the First Instance Division of this Court
(hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”) dated 2nd December, 2016, arising out of Reference No. 8 of 2015, by which the Trial Court dismissed the Reference and held that each party bear its own costs.
The Appellant, Manariyo Désiré sued the Respondent, the Attorney General of Burundi, in his capacity as the legal representative of the Republic of Burundi (hereinafter referred to as “Burundi”); before the Trial Court in respect of a Judgement of the Cassation of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Burundi in Case Number RCCB303 delivered on 24th June 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the
“impugned Judgement”).
The Appellant was represented by Mr Donald Omondi Deya, Advocate; and the Respondent by Mr. Nestor Kayobera, Principal State Counsel;

Date filed
Treaty Article

First Instance Judgment

VerdictHaving held as we have with regard to non-proof of the Applicant's purported property rights; we decline to grant Orders for the restoration of unproven rights or a progress report in respect thereof. With regard to the question of costs, we are mindful of Rule 111(1) of this Court's Rules that postulates that costs should follow the event unless the Court, for good reason, decides otherwise. In the instant case the Reference has not succeeded so ordinarily the costs thereof would be to the Respondent. However, we find that the matters that were canvassed herein were of grave importance to the advancement of Community Law. We therefore deem it just to order each party to bear its own costs. In the result, the Reference is hereby dismissed. Each Party shall bear its own costs. We so order.
PDF documentDownload the decision as PDF
Date deliveredDecember 2, 2016

Appeal Judgment

VerdictWe therefore come to the conclusion that Mr. Manariyo is not a "resident in" any of the EAC States and that this Court is disavowed of the jurisdiction ratione personae to deal with the case. Since we have no jurisdiction to entertain the Reference, we are precluded to rule on the merits of the Case. This Court has on numerous occasions followed the general rule that costs follow the event. However, for this particular case, the issue of jurisdiction which in the end determined the Appeal was raised suomoto by this Division and not the Parties, We therefore think that the just order to make is that each party should bear its own costs of the Appeal. In the final result, the Appeal is dismissed with each party bearing its own costs. It is Ordered accordingly.
PDF documentDownload the decision as PDF
Date deliveredNovember 28, 2018