Shirima v A.G. of The Republic of Burundi and Another (Reference 8 of 2016) [2019] EACJ 5 (20 March 2019) (First Instance Division)
Court
East African Court of Justice
Case number
Reference 8 of 2016
The East African Court of Justice granted withdrawal of the reference and held that, because the matter was public interest litigation, each party should bear its own costs.
National Medical Stores and Anor v Magezi (Consolidation Taxation Cause 8 of 2014) [2015] EACJ 100 (7 September 2015) (First Instance Division)
Court
East African Court of Justice
Case number
Consolidation Taxation Cause 8 of 2014
Judge
Umugwaneza JA
The court held that the applicants, though wrongly impleaded as interested parties, were entitled to costs following the withdrawal of the reference against them, as previously determined in the consolidated applications. The objection to National Medical Stores' representation was overruled, as proper documentation and compliance with court rules were demonstrated. Instruction fees claimed by both applicants were found to be excessive given the nature and complexity of the case, which did not proceed to full hearing and involved limited substantive work. Applying discretion and consistency w…
Quality Chemical Industries Ltd and Another v Magezi (Application 8 of 2014; Application 9 of 2014) [2014] EACJ 142 (19 June 2014) (First Instance Division)
Court
East African Court of Justice
Case number
Application 8 of 2014 ; Application 9 of 2014
Judge
Butasi JA, Lenaola JA, Mkwawa JA, Mugenyi JA, Ntezilyayo JA
The Court held that the Applicants and the Inspector-General of Government were wrongly impleaded as Interested Parties in a capacity unknown to the law of the East African Community. Upon withdrawal of the Reference against them, they had already incurred costs in responding to court notifications and preparing their defence. The absence of a provision for Interested Parties in the Rules does not preclude an award of costs, as the discretion to award costs is a judicial function and costs generally follow the event. The Court found that the Respondent's arguments were speculative and unreaso…