The East African Court of Justice (EACJ) Appellate Chamber on Friday, February 28, dismissed businessman François-Xavier Mironko's appeal against the Government of Rwanda and ordered him to bear the costs of the lawsuit. The case originated from a contractual dispute dating back to the early 1990s and was ruled time-barred and beyond the court’s jurisdiction. Mironko, representing two companies—International Industries SA and MIRONKO EURAFRICA SPRL—claimed that between 1993 and 1994, the firms supplied military equipment to the then Rwandan government under a confidential agreement. ALSO READ: Habyarimana's role in planning, implementing 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi He argued that despite fulfilling his contractual obligations, the government failed to pay the remaining 7,100,000 Belgian francs out of the agreed payment of 47,990,000 Belgian Francs of the tender. ALSO READ: Kigali: East African court begins appeal hearing of regional oil pipeline case After unsuccessful attempts to resolve the matter through Rwandan courts, including a declined request for case review by the Ombudsman on April 4, 2018, Mironko filed a reference with the EACJ on June 4, 2018. He alleged that Rwanda had violated the East African Community (EAC) Treaty, specifically Articles 6(d) and 7(2), which pertain to good governance and adherence to the rule of law. The government challenged the case on several grounds. Firstly, they argued that the claim was time-barred under Article 30(2) of the EAC Treaty, which requires cases to be filed within two months of an alleged infringement. Secondly, they asserted that the EACJ lacked appellate jurisdiction over national court decisions. Lastly, they maintained that the actions in question did not constitute a violation of the EAC Treaty. In April 2022, the EACJ's First Instance Division dismissed Mironko's claim, agreeing with the government that the case was time-barred and outside the court's jurisdiction. Undeterred, Mironko appealed the decision, leading to the ruling by the Appellate Chamber. The appellate court’s verdict Delivering the ruling on Friday, the presiding judge emphasized that the reference (case number 11 of 2018) was filed beyond the two-month limitation period stipulated in Article 30(2) of the EAC Treaty. Consequently, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the case. The court reaffirmed that jurisdiction is a fundamental prerequisite for judicial proceedings, stating that “without jurisdiction, a court cannot even take the first step in its judicial journey to hear and dispose of a case.” The court also dismissed Mironko’s argument that the refusal to honour the contractual obligation violated principles of good governance under the EAC Treaty. It clarified that while good governance and rule of law are fundamental principles, the court lacks the mandate to engage with such issues outside its jurisdictional framework. The court ruled to assign costs to Mironko, noting that “a successful party is entitled to costs, and the losing party bears them unless there are good reasons to depart from this general rule.” The court reasoned that Mironko had persistently pursued a case that had long been overtaken by events, incurring unnecessary legal expenses for the government. Following the ruling, senior state attorney Nicholas Ntarugera expressed satisfaction with the outcome, emphasizing that the government had incurred costs defending the case. “We have been dragged into court for years, using taxpayer money to argue a matter that was time-barred. The court found it reasonable to award us costs,” he said. Ntarugera also noted that Mironko exhausted all legal avenues within Rwanda, including the Commercial Court, the High Commercial Court, the Supreme Court, and the Ombudsman’s office, before turning to the EACJ. He reiterated that the rules were clear regarding the two-month filing deadline, and Mironko and his legal team had the opportunity to assess EAC Treaty provisions before proceeding. “After losing at the First Instance Division, Mironko could have stopped there, especially since no costs were awarded at that stage. However, he insisted on appealing, which required us to continue responding at considerable expense,” Ntarugera added, explaining that the financial burden incurred by the government, included travel costs to EACJ premises in Arusha, Tanzania, for hearings. “These are taxpayer funds we’ve been using, and it was only fair that the court recognized the unnecessary expenses we had to bear.”
