East African Court of Justice Arusha, 24th September 2014:
The East African Court of Justice First Instance Division today dismissed a case against the Attorney General of the Republic of Rwanda. The case was filled in 2012 by Mr Theoneste Niyitegeka a Rwandan citizen who alleges that the failure or refusal by the Respondent to accept his application for review of a judgment by the Gacaca Court of Gihuma Cell in Nyamabuye Sector, Muhanga District Southern Region, Republic Of Rwanda on 5th February, 2008 condemning him to custodial sentence for complicity of murder is a violation of Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty on the principles of the rule of law, good governance and human rights. He further sought the Court’s declaration that the Rwandan Authorities are in breach of the fundamental principles of the EAC.
When the matter came for hearing, only the Respondent counsel appeared before the Court. Counsel for the Applicant was not present neither did he make any official communication of his failure to appear. The Respondent counsel made an application before the Court for dismissal of the case under Rule 61 of the Court Rules of Procedure on reasons that the Applicant does not indicate any interest of following up the matter. He submitted that, the Applicant has failed to adhere to Court orders as directed during a scheduling conference and despite knowing that the matter was coming up for hearing he has not communicated any reason for his failure to appear. He further requested the Court to award the Respondent costs because he has been incurring costs coming regularly for the hearing of the case. It was his submission that, the Applicant being in prison should not be a reason for him being exempted to pay costs.
The Court upon hearing the application by the Respondent dismissed the case. The reasons being that the case was scheduled for hearing twice and despite notice of hearing having been served to both parties, the Applicant had not appeared on both occasions neither had he furnished the Court any official notice for his failure to appear. The Court further stated that the Applicant was given sixty days to file written submissions and other translated documents but to date he has not complied with the Court orders. Consequently in accordance with Rule 61 (2) of the Court Rules of Procedure, the Court dismissed the case and ordered the Applicant to bear the costs of the Respondent as per rule 111 (1) of the Court Rules of Procedure.
The Respondent was represented by Mr Aimable Malala, Principal State Attorney while the Applicant was not represented. Appearance was before a full bench of the First Instance Division.
For editors
Rule
61(2) If on the day fixed for hearing the claimant or applicant does not appear and the respondent appears, the claim or application may be dismissed and any counterclaim may proceed, unless the Court sees fit to adjourn the hearing. Where the claim or application is so dismissed or a counterclaim so proceeds, the Court may, on application by the claimant or applicant, restore the claim or the application for hearing and may re-hear the counterclaim, if satisfied that the claimant or applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing.
111(1) cost in any proceedings shall follow the event unless the Court shall for good reasons otherwise order.
-ENDS-
For more information, please contact:
Ms. Geraldine Umugwaneza Deputy Registrar
Email: umugwaneza@eachq.org
Owora Richard Othieno, Head of Department;
Corporate Communications and Public Affairs;
Tel: +255 784 835021; Email: othieno@eachq.org