ERJB and Court Enforcement of Arbitral Awards

ERJB v Uwamariya is a useful Rwandan Commercial Court decision on the enforcement of arbitral awards, especially where the losing party is a public authority. The case is reported as ERJB v Uwamariya, Commercial Court, [2023] 1 RLR 49, RCOM 00269/2021/TC, judgment of 14 December 2021. The reported judgment identifies Rwigema, P.J., as the judge. Its value should be stated carefully. It is not a Supreme Court decision, so it does not carry the same weight as a higher court precedent. Even so, it gives a practical domestic answer to a recurring problem in arbitration: where does a successful claimant go when an administrative authority does not comply with an arbitral award?

The facts arose from a public procurement and construction relationship. E.R.J.B Ltd entered into a contract with the Government of Rwanda, acting through the Ministry of Education, for construction of classrooms and bathrooms. The reported contract value was 418,397,293 Rwandan francs. The contract provided that disputes would first be handled amicably and, if that failed, by arbitration. A dispute later arose because E.R.J.B Ltd said the Ministry had not paid for work performed. The dispute went to arbitration, and the arbitral tribunal ordered the Ministry to pay outstanding sums, interest, procedure and counsel fees, and the arbitrator’s costs.

After the award was made, E.R.J.B Ltd complained that the Government, through the Ministry of Education, had not complied with it. The company then brought proceedings in the Commercial Court against Uwamariya Valentine in her capacity as Minister of Education. It sought an order compelling enforcement of the award. The company also asked that Karake Charles, the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Education, be forced to intervene because, as the official responsible for the Ministry’s budget, he could affect payment of the amount ordered by the arbitral tribunal.

The Minister objected on jurisdictional grounds. The objection was that the Commercial Court was not the proper forum because the matter had originated in arbitration. The Minister relied on the argument that Article 184 of Law No. 22/2018 of 29 April 2018, relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, dealt with administrative cases and with the power of the court that issued a decision to summon an administrative authority to explain non compliance. Since the award had been made by arbitrators, the Minister argued that the Commercial Court was not the court that had issued the decision and could not summon the Minister for explanation.

E.R.J.B Ltd answered that the absence of a special enforcement route could not leave the award creditor without a remedy. The company’s position was that the dispute was commercial, that the claim was not an attempt to reopen the merits of the arbitration, and that the real issue was enforcement against a public authority that had not complied with an award. That distinction is important. The claimant was not asking the Commercial Court to decide whether the arbitrators had been right. It was asking the Court to give practical effect to what the arbitrators had already decided.

The Commercial Court rejected the jurisdictional objection. It held that it had jurisdiction to hear the claim concerning enforcement of the arbitral award. It also ordered the forced intervention of Karake Charles, the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Education. The immediate result was procedural rather than a final order disposing of every issue. The Court confirmed jurisdiction, brought the relevant budget official into the case, and set the matter down for continuation. That may sound modest, but in enforcement practice it is significant. A case cannot move toward payment if the court first denies power to hear it.

The rule emerging from ERJB v Uwamariya may be stated this way. Where an arbitral award arises from a commercial matter, including a public procurement related matter, and an administrative authority does not voluntarily execute it, the competent Commercial Court may hear a claim seeking to compel execution where no special arbitral procedure provides otherwise. Arbitration decides the dispute and produces the award. It does not necessarily remain the forum for every later enforcement problem, especially when the issue is the conduct of an administrative authority after the award has been made.

The decision matters because it separates the merits of arbitration from enforcement of the award. The Court did not treat the claim as an appeal against the arbitrators. It treated it as an enforcement question. That distinction keeps arbitration useful. If a tribunal makes an award but the successful party has no practical route against a public authority that refuses to pay, the award risks becoming a ceremonial document. On the other hand, if enforcement proceedings reopen the whole arbitral dispute, arbitration loses finality. ERJB tries to avoid both problems.

The Court also considered the nature of the underlying relationship. The contract concerned construction works and public procurement. The Court appears to have reasoned that if the parties had not gone to arbitration, the commercial and public procurement dimensions would have fallen within the Commercial Court’s competence. Once the arbitral tribunal had completed its task, the remaining problem was a domestic enforcement problem. The Court therefore filled a procedural gap without undermining the arbitration agreement. That is a careful point, and it is likely to matter in similar disputes involving ministries, public institutions and state payment obligations.

Another important aspect is the Court’s treatment of enforcement against the State. Ordinary execution rules do not simply allow seizure of State property in the same way as enforcement against a private debtor. The Court did not pretend otherwise. It looked at provisions concerning execution against government and administrative authorities, including the mechanism by which an authority may be summoned to explain non compliance with a final decision. The practical effect was to recognise that the State has a special position, but not a position that places it outside judicial accountability.

The reference to Article 54(3) of the ICSID Convention is also interesting, even though the dispute was between a Rwandan company and the Rwandan State rather than a classic foreign investor dispute. The Court used the broader idea that execution of arbitral awards is governed by the law on execution of judgments in the place where execution is sought. The point is useful because it reflects a common enforcement logic. An arbitral award does not enforce itself against a resisting public authority. It needs a domestic procedural channel, and that channel will usually be found in the law of the place of enforcement.

The forced intervention ruling is practical too. The Court accepted that the Permanent Secretary could be brought into the proceedings because his budgetary role could affect payment and because any enforcement order might touch his official functions. This does not mean that every official in a ministry must be joined whenever the State loses an arbitration. The better reading is narrower. A person who is not already a party may be forced to intervene where his or her legal or official position may be affected by the judgment and where participation helps avoid later obstruction or third party opposition.

For advocates, the case gives useful guidance on framing. A claimant seeking enforcement should identify the award, show non compliance, explain why the respondent is the relevant administrative authority, and demonstrate why the Commercial Court is the proper court for the enforcement problem. The pleading should avoid language that sounds like a rehearing of the arbitral merits. If a budget officer or other official has a direct role in payment, the claimant should explain why that person should be heard through forced intervention. A clear enforcement theory makes the application more persuasive.

For public authorities, the decision is a warning against passive non compliance. A ministry or public institution should not assume that, once arbitration ends, the award creditor is stranded. If the State loses an arbitral case, responsible officials may be called before a competent court to explain why payment has not been made. A more sensible institutional response is to create an internal process for dealing with arbitral awards, identify the budgetary route for payment, and raise any lawful objections promptly through the correct procedure. Delay without a legally acceptable explanation is risky.

The decision also connects with earlier Rwandan reasoning on enforcement against public bodies. The Commercial Court referred to CELA Company Ltd v Philip Cotton, where the Commercial High Court had ordered a responsible public official to take steps toward payment and imposed a daily penalty for continued non compliance. It also referred to Court of Appeal reasoning on forced intervention, which treats joinder as a way to bring into the case a person whose participation may be necessary to protect interests and prevent later opposition. ERJB applies those ideas in the arbitral award setting.

ERJB v Uwamariya should be used with care because it is a Commercial Court decision. A lawyer should not present it as though it were binding Supreme Court authority. Its strength lies in its reasoning, its publication in Rwanda Law Reports, and its practical fit with statutory enforcement logic. In argument, it should sit alongside the arbitration agreement, the award, the relevant statutory provisions, and any stronger appellate authority. Properly used, it is a helpful precedent for public procurement, construction and state payment disputes where arbitration has ended but compliance has not followed.

Source note. This article is based on ERJB v Uwamariya, Commercial Court, [2023] 1 Rwanda Law Reports 49, RCOM 00269/2021/TC, judgment delivered on 14 December 2021, with reference to Law No. 22/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, Law No. 005/2008 on arbitration and conciliation in commercial matters, and Article 54 of the ICSID Convention. It is prepared for public legal education only and should not be treated as legal advice for any specific arbitration or public procurement dispute.

Suggested citation

Ronald Serwanga, “ERJB and Court Enforcement of Arbitral Awards” East Africa Legal Insight (14 July 2026).