Share
A.G of Republic of Rwanda v The Union Trade Centre (Application 15 of 2018) [2019] EACJ 6 (19 March 2019) (First Instance Division)
- Citation
- [2019] EACJ 6
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- East African Court of Justice
- Panel
- Mugenyi JA
- Case number
- Application 15 of 2018
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- East African Court of Justice
- Panel
- Mugenyi JA
- Case number
- Application 15 of 2018
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court granted the stay of proceedings as the application was conceded by the Respondent. On costs, the Court exercised its discretion under Rule 111(1) of the Rules of Procedure and ordered that each party bears its own costs, interpreting the Applicant's revised instructions as such. The Court also clarified that parties must communicate with the Court only through formal pleadings or submissions, not by letter, to maintain proper judicial process.
Court disposition
Application for stay of proceedings granted; each party to bear its own costs.
Orders
- Proceedings in Reference No. 10 of 2013 are stayed pending determination of Appeal No. 2 of 2018.
- Each party shall bear its own costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Attorney General of the Republic of Rwanda
ApplicantUnion Trade Centre (UTC)
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether proceedings in Reference No. 10 of 2013 should be stayed pending determination of Appeal No. 2 of 2018.
- 02
Whether costs should be awarded and, if so, to whom.
- 03
Whether parties may communicate their position to the Court by letter rather than formal pleadings or submissions.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Applicant sought a stay of proceedings in Reference No. 10 of 2013 pending the outcome of Appeal No. 2 of 2018. Initially, the Applicant requested that costs abide the outcome of the appeal, but at the hearing, counsel changed instructions and requested that neither party bears costs.
- Respondent
- The Respondent conceded to the application for stay of proceedings but contested the issue of costs. The Respondent communicated its position by letter, which the Court found procedurally improper.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure
The Court may only be addressed by parties through pleadings or submissions, oral or written, and not by letter.
- 02
Rule 111(1), East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure
The Court has discretion under Rule 111(1) to determine the allocation of costs in applications before it.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court granted the stay of proceedings as the application was conceded by the Respondent. On costs, the Court exercised its discretion under Rule 111(1) of the Rules of Procedure and ordered that each party bears its own costs, interpreting the Applicant's revised instructions as such. The Court also clarified that parties must communicate with the Court only through formal pleadings or submissions, not by letter, to maintain proper judicial process.
Obiter and limits
- The Court deems it necessary to address the undesirable practice of parties communicating their position on pending matters by letter, which is not permitted.
- For avoidance of doubt, the Court may only be addressed by parties through pleadings or submissions, oral or written, and not by letter.
Court disposition
Application for stay of proceedings granted; each party to bear its own costs.
- Proceedings in Reference No. 10 of 2013 are stayed pending determination of Appeal No. 2 of 2018.
- Each party shall bear its own costs.
Source and reliance status
East African Court of Justice
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
East African Court of Justice
Judgment
IN THE EAST AFRICAN COURT OF JUSTICE AT ARUSH
FIRST INSTANCE DIVISION
(Coram: Monica K. Mugenyi, PJ; Fakihi A. Jundu; Audace Ngiye; Charles O. Nyawello & *Charles Nyachae, J J)*
> APPLICATION NO. 15 OF 2018 (Arising from Reference No. 10 of 2013)
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF RWANDA ...................................
VERSUS
THE UNION TRADE CENTRE
(UTC) ....................................
19<sup>TH</sup> MARCH, 2019
Application No. 15 of 2018
Page 1
beech
RULING OF THE COURT
- 1. This is an Application by the Attorney General of the Republic of Rwanda ('the Applicant') for stay of the proceedings in this Reference pending the determination of Appeal No. 2 of 2018 by the Appellate Division of this Court. Having carefully listened to both Parties, it is clear that the Application is conceded by the Respondent, save for the question of costs. - 2. We do, however, deem it necessary to address an undesirable practice that appears to be stealthily finding its way into this Court's This is the practice of parties purporting to judicial processes. communicate their position on a matter pending before the Court by letter, as was done by the Respondent herein. For avoidance of doubt, we hereby state clearly that this Court may only be addressed by parties through pleadings or submissions, oral or written, and not by letter. - 3. Turning to the issue of costs before us, we note that whereas the Applicant did vide its pleadings seek that the costs of the present Application abide the outcome of Appeal No. 2 of 2018, at the hearing thereof learned Counsel for the Applicant affirmed that his instructions had since changed abd sought that 'neither party bears' costs.' We construe these new instructions to mean each Party bear its own costs. We do therefore exercise our discretion under Rule 111(1) of this Court's Rules of Procedure to order that each Party herein bears its own costs. - 4. It is so ordered.
Application No. 15 of 2018
Page 2
realy
Dated, signed and delivered at Arusha this 19<sup>th</sup> day of March, 2019.
rele Mu
HON. LADY JUSTICE MONICA K. MUGENYI
PRINCIPAL JUDGE
HON. JUSTICE FAKIHI A. JUNDU
$\cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots$
JUDGE
HON. JUSTICE AUDACE NGIYE
JUDGE
HON. DR. JUSTICE CHARLES O. NYAWELLO
JUDGE
HON. JUSTICE CHARLES NYACHAE
JUDGE
Application No. 15 of 2018
Page 3
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.