BONAVENTURE GASUTWA & 2 OTHERS v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF BURUNDI

This Application, pursuant to a Notice of Motion filed by the Applicants on 5^th September, 2014 under Article 39 of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community (“the Treaty”) and Rule 73(1) and (2) of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 (“the Rules”) had sought to obtain interim ex-parte orders or directions, that:-

1. Pending the hearing and determination of the Reference,   this Honourable Court be pleased to grant an interim Ex-    Parte order to stay the decision of the Minister for Home     Affairs dated on 11^th July, 2014, forbidding the Central Committee of UPRONA to hold its meeting.
2.       An order that pending the hearing and determination of     the matter Inter-Partes, this Honourable Court be pleased   to grant an interim Ex-Parte order that the UPRONA Party is     legally authorized to hold the meeting of its Central      Committee elected in 2009.
3. An order that pending the hearing and determination of this matter Inter-Partes, this Honourable Court be pleased to grant an Interim Ex-Parte order that from now up to the final judgment all the decisions and resolutions adopted by the State General  of UPRONA are nullified.
4.            The costs of this application be met by the Respondent.
5.            This Honourable Court be pleased to order such further or                               other orders as it deems fit.
6. On 19^th September, 2014, Mr. Horace Ncutiyumuheto, learned Counsel for the Applicants appeared before us in pursuance of the Notice of Motion. He sought to be heard ex-parte and be granted the interim ex-parte orders listed or being sought in the Notice of Motion.  He had argued that there was an urgency to obtain the said orders because of the need to convene a meeting of the UPRONA Central Committee in order to make preparations for the forthcoming General Elections to be held in May, 2015.  He contended that his clients, the Applicants, had tried in vain to convene the said meeting because the Minister for Home Affairs had forbidden the same to be held.  However, this Court, after due consideration declined to proceed to hear the Application ex-parte.  First, the Court was not well convinced on the alleged urgency of the matter as advanced by the Applicants’ learned Counsel. Secondly, the said learned Counsel did not sufficiently prove or demonstrate that the Applicants will, suffer “irreparable injustice” as envisaged under Rule 21(2) of the Rules.   Thirdly, in terms of Rule 73(2) of the Rules, the Court was not satisfied to exercise its discretion to grant the sought orders ex-parte.  Fourthly, the Court found out that some of the orders sought by the Applicants, if granted will render the Reference redundant or disposed of.  Therefore, the Court ordered the Applicants to serve upon the Respondent the Notice of Motion so as to afford him an opportunity to respond and that the same be heard inter-partes in November, 2014.  Having been served, the Respondent on 23^rd October, 2014 filed an affidavit in reply to the Notice of Motion opposing the same.
7. We hasten to point out that having declined to hear the application ex-parte, in our considered view, the only remaining prayer listed in the Notice of Motion that was worth to be heard inter-partes was Prayer No.2 which stated as follows:-

“An order that pending the hearing and determination of the matter inter-partes, this Honourable Court be pleased to grant an Interim Ex-Parte order that the UPRONA PARTY IS LEGALLY AUTHORISED TO HOLD THE MEETING OF ITS CENTRAL COMMITTEE ELECTED IN 2009”.

On 13^th November, 2014, when the application was before us for Inter-parte hearing, we guided the parties that the said prayer was the one that the Court will concentrate upon.