East African Court of Justice Kigali-Rwanda, 28th February 2025: The East African Court of Justice Appellate Division upheld the decision of the First Instance Division (Trial Court) dismissing a case filed by MIRONKO Francois Xavier, a business man in Rwanda, challenging the government over alleged claim of payment for supplying military equipment in 1993 and 1994 through a public tender. The Appellant claimed that following certain payments made by the Respondent, there remained an unpaid balance, in respect of the delivered goods amounting to BF 7,100,000 (Seven Million, One Hundred Thousand Belgian Francs).
On 6th April 2022, the Trial Court dismissed Mironko’s case (Reference No. 11 of 2018) for having been filed out of time in terms of Article 30(2) of the Treaty and directed each party to bear its own costs. The Appellant (Mironko) was aggrieved and lodged an appeal which has been dismissed and Court ordered Mironko (the Appellant) to bear the costs of the appeal.
Back in 1993 and 1994, through a public tendering process, the Appellant was awarded a tender by the Respondent State to supply various military equipment. The Appellant filed a number of complains in the Court of Judicature of the Respondent from the Commercial High Court up to the Supreme Court and the latter declined to entertain a review and its final decision was delivered on 6th April 2017 as per the impugned Judgement of the Trial Court.
In its decision the EACJ Appellate Division said that, the Court has been very careful when it is called to interpret the provision of Article 30(2) of the Treaty on the time require to access the Court in order to avoid legal uncertainty and confusion, not only to the actual and future litigants, but also to the Partner States, to the Organs and Institutions of the EAC and most importantly, to the implementation of the agenda of the Community.
The Court further ruled that from the foregoing, the Court is not persuaded that Reference was filed within the prescribed of two months provided for under Article 30(2) of the Treaty. The cause of action in the case arose, not following the letter of the Ombudsman, but after the decisions of the national judiciaries of Rwanda. “We bear in mind that from the laws of the government (Respondent), the Ombudsman had no appellate power over the Supreme Court of Rwanda.” Said Court
In regard to the Appeal, the Judges took into account the conduct of Appellant (Mironko) of trying to pursue a matter that has been overtaken by event many years ago through the backdoor and under the guise of a claim against the Ombudsman’s refusal to review the decision of the Supreme Court of the Respondent’s State. “In those circumstances we are satisfied that there is no good reason to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event. Accordingly, we award to the Respondent costs of this Appeal and costs of the Reference in the Trial Court.” ordered the Appellate Division
The Court before tackling the very issue before it, as to whether the Trial Court erred in law in dismissing Reference No.11 of 2018 for having been filed out of time contrary to the provisions of Article 30(2) of the Treaty, it was imperative to consider the argument by Lawyer of the Attorney General of Rwanda (Respondent) saying that this Appeal was not properly before the Court. In essence, appeals to this Court are governed by the provisions of Article 35A of the Treaty which provides that: an appeal from the judgment or any order of the Trial Court of the Cout shall lie to the Appellate Division on –
(a) point of law;
(b) grounds of lack of jurisdiction; or
(c) procedural irregularity.
The Appellate Division held that, from its scrutiny of the whole record of the Trial Court, the submissions by the parties, the authorities and jurisprudence available, it is crystal clear that the Reference was filed out of the time limitation of two months and as a consequence the Trial Court did not err holding that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain the Refence.
Appearing in Court to receive the Judgment, the Appellant (Mironko) was represented by Mr. Joel Kimutai Bosek, Advocate and Ms. Claire Namakangala Kituyi, Advocate, while the Attorney General of Rwanda was represented by Counsel Nicholas Ntarugera. The judgment was delivered by a bench of the EACJ Appellate Division.
About the EACJ
The East African Court of Justice (EACJ or ‘the Court’), is one of the Organs of the East African Community established under Article 9 of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community. The Court was established in November 2001, its key mandate is to ensure the adherence to law in the interpretation and application of and compliance with the EAC Treaty. Arusha is the temporary seat of the Court until the Summit determines its permanent seat. The Court’s sub-registries are located in the capitals of the following Partner States: Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda and United Republic of Tanzania.
For more information please contact:
Christine Mutimura
Ag. Registrar,
East African Court of Justice.
Arusha, Tanzania
Tel: 255-27-2162149
Email: cmwekesa@eachq.org