action of suspending the law without hearing all parties on the merits. There is also the question of jurisdiction raised by both Respondents and to swing the sword of justice one way at the interlocutory stage would be unjust and this Court declines the invitation to do so. 30. Regarding prayer ( c) of the Application, we understood the Applicants to be saying that in fact some land disputes are being handled by both the National Courts of Burundi and the National Commission on Land and Other Assets. But prayer (c) is specific; that pending the judgment in Reference No. 2 of 2014, “all litigious matters related to lands and other assets” should be entertained and be determined by the ordinary courts of Burundi. Upon considering the prayer above, we find tremendous difficulty in granting it at this stage. We say so, with respect, because the Commission is still a statutory institution under the laws of Burundi, despite displeasure expressed by the Applicants. One of the prayers in Reference No. 2 of 2014, is that Act No. 1/31 should be annulled and that therefore means that all land disputes would thereafter be handled by National Courts in Burundi. Suppose we grant prayer (c) now and in the Reference we decline to annul Act No. 1/31. What would be the effect of our decision? Obviously, the Court, as the 1st Respondent has argued, would have perpetuated a chaotic procedural and legal situation, a position we refuse to put ourselves in. As we have stated above, the Commission is functioning and has been for some years. It is best therefore that the situation as obtaining today should continue to obtain and the Court will render itself fully and finally on both Act No. 1/31 and its processes including the work of the 11