RLR-V.1-2018

# RLR-V.1-2018

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Rwanda law reports - Date: 2018-01-30 - Collection: Supreme Court

## Text

## Page 1

REPUBLIC OF RWANDA SUPREME COURT P.o. Box. 2197 KIGALI www.judiciary.gov.rw

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Icyegeranyo V. 1 - 2018 Mutarama, 2018 Law Report, V. 1 - 2018 January, 2018 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 2

REPUBLIC OF RWANDA SUPREME COURT Po. Box. 2197 KIGALI www.judiciary.gov.rw

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Icyegeranyo V. 1 - 2018 Mutarama, 2018 Law Report , V. 1 - 2018 January, 2018 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 3

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO IKINYARWANDA

## Page 5

ISHAKIRO

ABAGIZE KOMITE Y‟UBWANDITSI ...................................iii KOMITE YEMEZA IMANZA ................................................. iv IRIBURIRO .............................................................................. vii IBIKUBIYE MURI IKI CYEGERANYO...............................viii INYITO ....................................................................................viii AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO .......................................... ix IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE ..................................................... xi AMAGAMBO MPINE ............................................................. xii AKARERE KA NYARUGENGE v. MUKANGEMANYI ....... 1 NYIRAROMBA v. NGIRINSHUTI ........................................ 21 WALTER RAFFO v. MUNYAMPIRWA ............................... 35 TELE 10 RWANDA Ltd v. IKIGO CY‟IMISORO N‟AMAHORO (RRA) .............................................................. 47 NSANZABERA v. BARIGANZA N‟ABANDI ...................... 69 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HABIMANA ................................... 87 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. UWIZEYE ....................................... 99

i

## Page 7

ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI

ITSINDA RY’ABANYAMATEGEKO BATEGUYE IMANZA

KAGABO U. Stephanie

KAVUTSE M. Claude

KUBWIMANA Jean Claude

MUJABI K. Naphtal

MWIHOREZE Claudine

NTIHEMUKA Emmanuel

UWIMANA Gisèle

iii

## Page 8

KOMITE YEMEZA IMANZA

MUGENZI Louis Marie : Perezida wa Komite Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw‟Ikirenga

Dr. MUHIRE G. Yves : Visi Perezida wa Komite Umwalimu muri Kaminuza y‟u Rwanda

RUTAZANA Angeline : Umwanditsi wa Komite Umugenzuzi w‟Inkiko

BAGABO Faustin : Avoka mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka

BWIZA N. Blanche : Umugenzuzi w’Inkiko

GIRANEZA Clémentine : Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze

HABARUREMA Jean Pierre : Umushinjacyaha ku Rwego rw’Igihugu

KALIWABO Charles : Perezida w’Urukiko Rukuru

Me KAYIHURA Didas : Avoka mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka iv

## Page 9

KIBUKA Jean Luc : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi

Major. MADUDU A. Charles : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare

MUREREREHE Saouda : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru

Prof. Dr. NGAGI M. Alphonse : Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw‟Ikirenga

RUBANGO K. Epimaque : Intumwa ya Leta

RUKUNDAKUVUGA F. Regis : Umugenzuzi Mukuru w’Inkiko UWANTEGE Yvette : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye

v ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI

## Page 11

IRIBURIRO Basomyi bacu, Nk‟uko iyi nimero ariyo itangiye umwaka, tuboneyeho kubifuriza umwaka mushya muhire wa 2018. Muri uyu mwaka, tuzakomeza kubagezaho Icyegeranyo cy‟Ibyemezo by‟Inkiko, kandi twizeye ko bizabafasha mu mirimo yanyu ya buri munsi. Muri iyi nomero murasangamo imanza zirindwi (7) zikubiyemo imanza ebyiri (2) z‟inshinjabyaha, rumwe (1) rw‟imbonezamubano naho imanza enye (4) zisigaye zikaba zerekeye imiburanishirize. Nk‟uko mumaze kubimenyera kandi, imanza ziri muri iki cyegeranyo ziboneka no ku rubuga rwa murandasi rw‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga ruborohereza kubona urubanza mukeneye mu buryo bwihuse, kuri http://decisia.lexum.com/rlr/kn/nav.do. Prof. RUGEGE Sam Perezida w‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga Perezida w‟Inama Nkuru y‟Ubucamanza

vii http://decisia.lexum.com/rlr/kn/nav.do.

## Page 12

IBIKUBIYE MURI IKI CYEGERANYO Iki cyegeranyo gikubiyemo imanza zaciwe n‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga zikoreshwa hakurikijwe inyito ivugwa hasi.

INYITO Imanza ziri muri iyi volime zikoreshwa muri ubu buryo: [2018] 1 RLR

viii

## Page 13

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO Itegeko Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo za 79, 80 na 81...................................................5 ingingo ya 28(7).............................................................73 Itegeko Ngenga N°51/2008 ryo kuwa 09/09/2008 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’inkiko, ingingo ya 91 n’iya 92...............................................................................................37 Itegeko N°27/2016 ryo ku wa 08/07/2016, rigenga imicungire y’umutungo w’abashyingiranywe, impano n’izungura, ingingo ya 79............................................................................................5 Itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburashirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo za 129, 162, 184, 186(3).....................................5 ingingo ya 93.................................................................89 ingingo ya 18(12o) n’iya 119.........................................25 ingingo ya 204...............................................................41 ingingo ya 168...............................................................49 Itegeko Ngenga Nº01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 76...........................100 Itegeko Nº01/2012 ryo ku wa 03/02/2012 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko Nº25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha, ingingo ya 9..................................50 Itegeko Nº74/2008 ryo kuwa 31/12/2008 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko Nº25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha, ingingo ya 7..................................50 ix

## Page 14

Itegeko No15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/04/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo za 93 na 108..................89 Itegeko-teka ryo kuwa 30 Nyakanga 1888, rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258...........................5 Amabwiriza ya Komiseri Mukuru Nº001/2014 yo ku wa 01/11/2014 agena uburyo bwo gucyemura ibibazo by’imisoro mu bwumvikane, ingingo ya 6...................................................50 Itegeko Nº22/99 ryo ku wa 12/11/1999 ryuzuza Igitabo cya mbere cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano kandi rishyiraho igice cya gatanu cyerekeye imicungire y’umutungo w’abashyingiranywe, impano n’izungura, ingingo ya 50 n’iya 70...............................................................................................73

x ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 15

IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE RRA v. SOCOMIE Ltd, RCOMAA0029/15/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 31/07/2015..................................50 RPAA0039/12/CS, Ubushinjacyaha v. Ntakiyimana na Mugirwanake, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 26/02/2016.................................................................................89 RPA0018/10/CS, Ubushinyacyaha v. Rubyiruko n’abandi rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 25/11/2011..................89 RPA0227/08/CS, Ubushinjacyaha v. Sibomana rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 19/02/2010.................................89 Ubushinjacyaha v. Angelique Lyn Lavalle (Angelique Lyn Lavalle contre sa majesté la Reine), Rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa Canada, 1990, 1 SCR 852. p.872.................100

xi

## Page 16

AMAGAMBO MPINE Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha – Indahiro y‟umuhanga – Agaciro ka raporo itabanjirijwe n‟indahiro y‟uwayikoze – N‟ubwo amategeko ateganya ko raporo ya muganga igomba kubanzirizwa n‟indahiro, ukutabaho kwayo kukagira raporo impfabusa, nta kibuza ko iyo nenge ijyanye n‟imyandikire aho kuba ijyanye n‟ireme ry‟igikorwa yabasha gukosorwa, nk‟igihe uwakoze raporo yahamagazwa mu Rukiko akabanza kurahira mbere yo kuyisobanura – Itegeko No15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/04/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n‟itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 93. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HABIMANA.........................87 Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza mbonezamubano – Urupfu rw‟umwe mu bashakanye aburana mu rubanza – Inshingano z‟umwe mu bashakanye zo gukomeza urubanza igihe uwo bashakanye wari umuburanyi mu rubanza apfuye – Iyo umwe mu bashakanye wari umuburanyi mu rubanza rushingiye ku mutungo apfuye, usigaye niwe ukomezo urwo rubanza kuko ku bw‟itegeko niwe wegukana umutungo wose – Itegeko No21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y‟imanza z‟imbonezamubano, iz‟ubucuruzi, iz‟umurimo n‟iz‟ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 129 – Itegeko No27/2016 ryo ku wa 08/07/2016, rigenga imicungire y‟umutungo w‟abashyingiranywe, impano n‟izungura, ingingo ya 76. AKARERE KA NYARUGENGE v. MUKANGEMANYI.........................................................1 xii

## Page 17

Inzitizi – Ibisabwa ngo ikirego cyakirwe – Inyungu – Inyungu urega agomba kuba afite kugira ngo ikirego cye cyakirwe, igomba kuba ari itaziguye kandi bwite, ku buryo rero abyemererwa gusa, ari uko inyungu zibangamiwe ari ize bwite, kandi n‟icyemezo cyazafatwa n‟Urukiko ari we ubwe cyagirira akamaro – Itegeko No21/2012 ryo ku wa 24/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y‟imanza z‟imbonezamubano, iz‟ubucuruzi, iz‟umurimo n‟iz‟ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 18(12o). NYIRAROMBA v. NGIRINSHUTI.............................21 Iyakirwa ry‟ikirego cy‟ingoboka – Iyo ikirego cy‟iremezo kitakiriho kuko kitakiriwe, n‟isuzuma ry‟ikirego cy‟ingoboka riba ritagishobotse – Itegeko No21/2012 ryo ku wa 24/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y‟imanza z‟imbonezamubano, iz‟ubucuruzi, iz‟umurimo n‟iz‟ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 119. NYIRAROMBA v. NGIRINSHUTI.............................21 Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imisoro – Igihe cyo kuregera urukiko ku musoresha wahisemo inzira y‟ubwumvikane – Umusoreshwa wahisemo inzira y‟ubwumvikane ariko ntibugerweho aregera urukiko mu gihe cy‟iminsi mirongo itatu (30) ibarwa ihereye igihe amenyeshejwe ko ubwumvikane butagishobotse – Itegeko Nº01/2012 ryo ku wa 03/02/2012 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko Nº25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y'isoresha, ingingo ya 9 – Itegeko Nº74/2008 of 31/12/2008 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko Nº25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y'isoresha, ingingo ya 7. TELE 10 RWANDA Ltd v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA)............................................................47 xiii AMAGAMBO MPINE

## Page 18

Amategeko agenga ububasha bw’Inkiko – Ububasha bw‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga – Gusubiramo urubanza ku mpamvu z‟akarengane – Ingaruka zo kutiyambaza inzira z‟ubujurire ziteganwa n‟amategeko mbere yo gushyikiriza ikirego ku rwego rw‟umuvunyi – Umuburanyi wari ufite uburenganzira bwo kwiyambaza izindi nzira z‟ubujurire zisanzwe n‟izidasanzwe ariko ntabikore mu gihe giteganyijwe n‟amategeko ntiyemerewe gusaba ko urubanza yatsinzwe rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z‟akarengane – Itegeko Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n‟ububasha by‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga, ingingo ya 81. AKARERE KA NYARUGENGE v. MUKANGEMANYI.........................................................1 Ububasha bw‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga – Gusubiramo urubanza ku mpamvu z‟akarengane – Icyemezo cya Perezida w‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga – Icyemezo cya Perezida w‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga gitegeka ko dosiye ivuye mu rwego rw‟Umuvunyi yandikwa mu gitabo cy‟ibirego, ntikibuza ko, mu iburanisha ry‟urubanza, haba izindi mpaka zishingiye ku bubasha bw‟Urukiko ndetse no ku iyakirwa ry‟ikirego, kandi inteko iburanisha ifite ububasha bwo gusuzuma niba ikirego cyaratanzwe mu rwego rw‟Umuvunyi mu buryo bukurikije amategeko – Itegeko Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n‟ububasha by‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga, ingingo ya 80. AKARERE KA NYARUGENGE v. MUKANGEMANYI.........................................................1 Icyemezo cyafatiwe mu mahanga gisabwa kubanza kwemezwa n‟inkiko zo mu Rwanda – Icyemezo cyafatiwe xiv ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 19

mu mahanga n‟inzego zibifitiye ububasha gisabwa kubanza kwemezwa n‟inkiko z‟u Rwanda ni ikigamije kuharangirizwa kandi icyo cyemezo kikaba giha uwagihawe uburenganzira ku buryo yakwitabaza ingufu za Leta mu kubona ibyo kimugenera – Itegeko Ngenga N°51/2008 ryo kuwa 09/09/2008 rigena imiterere, imikorere n‟ububasha by‟inkiko, ingingo ya 91 n‟iya 92 – Itegeko N°21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y‟imanza z‟imbonezamubano, iz‟ubucuruzi, iz‟umurimo n‟iz‟ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 204. WALTER RAFFO v. MUNYAMPIRWA....................35 Ububasha bw‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga – Igenwa ry‟agaciro k‟ikiburanwa – Ububasha bw‟urukiko ntibushingira ku gaciro k‟ibyagenewe buri muburanyi ahubwo harebwa akagenewe ikiburanwa – Itegeko Ngenga Nº03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n‟ububasha by‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga, ingingo ya 28(7). NSANZABERA v. BARIGANZA N’ABANDI............69 Amategeko agenga umuryango – Izungura – Itegeko ryashingirwagaho mu izungurwa ry‟umugore mbere y‟ishyiryaho ry‟Itegeko Nº22/99 ryo ku wa 12/11/1999 ryuzuza Igitabo cya mbere cy‟urwunge rw‟amategeko mbonezamubano kandi rishyiraho igice cya gatanu cyerekeye imicungire y‟umutungo w‟abashyingiranywe, impano n‟izungura – Na mbere y‟iryo tegeko nta cyabuzaga umwana w‟umukobwa kuzungura kuko, Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y‟u Rwanda ryo mu mwaka wa 1962, Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y‟u Rwanda ryo ku wa 20/12/1978 ndetse no mu Itegeko Nshinga ryo ku wa 10/06/1991, yemeraga ko abantu bose xv AMAGAMBO MPINE

## Page 20

bangana imbere y‟amategeko hatitawe ku bwoko, ku ibara ry‟umubiri, ku nkomoko, ku gitsina, ku idini (…). NSANZABERA v. BARIGANZA N’ABANDI............69 Izungura – Umugabane w‟uburushyi – Kuba umwana w‟umukobwa yaragenewe igiseke nk‟umugabane w‟uburushyi ntibivanaho uburenganzira bwo kuzungura abo akomokaho. NSANZABERA v. BARIGANZA N’ABANDI............69 Amategeko mpanabyaha – Ihohotera rishingiye ku gitsina – Ihohotera rikorewe umugore – Ubwicanyi – Igabanyagihano – Uburemere bw‟icyaha – Kwirengagiza uburemere bw‟icyaha cyakozwe no kutacyicuza bituma urukiko rutagabanya igihano – Ihohohotera ry‟abagore rishobora gutuma uwakoze icyo cyaha ahanwa by‟intangarugero – Itegeko Ngenga Nº01/2012 ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho Igitabo cy‟amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 76. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. UWIZEYE............................99 Indishyi – Igenwa ry‟indishyi – Indishyi zagenwe n‟Urukiko rubanza mu bushishozi bwarwo ntizahinduka mu gihe hatagaragajwe ko ari ikirenga. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HABIMANA.........................87

xvi ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 21

IMANZA ZEREKERANYE N’IMIBURANISHIRIZE Y’IMANZA

## Page 23

IMANZA ZEREKERANYE N’IMIBURANISHIRIZE Y’IMANZA Z’IMBONEZAMUBANO, IZ’UBUCURUZI, IZ’UMURIMO N’IZ’UBUTEGETSI

## Page 25

AKARERE KA NYARUGENGE v. MUKANGEMANYI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW‟IKIRENGA – RS/RV/INJUST/AD0001/16/CS – (Mukanyundo, P.J., Kayitesi R. na Rugabirwa, J.) 30 Kamena 2017] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza mbonezamubano – Urupfu rw’umwe mu bashakanye aburana mu rubanza – Inshingano z’umwe mu bashakanye zo gukomeza urubanza igihe uwo bashakanye wari umuburanyi mu rubanza apfuye – Iyo umwe mu bashakanye wari umuburanyi mu rubanza rushingiye ku mutungo apfuye, usigaye niwe ukomezo urwo rubanza kuko ku bw’itegeko niwe wegukana umutungo wose – Itegeko No21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 129 – Itegeko No27/2016 ryo ku wa 08/07/2016, rigenga imicungire y’umutungo w’abashyingiranywe, impano n’izungura, ingingo ya 76. Amategeko agenga ububasha bw’Inkiko – Ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga – Gusubiramo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane – Ingaruka zo kutiyambaza inzira z’ubujurire ziteganwa n’amategeko mbere yo gushyikiriza ikirego ku rwego rw’umuvunyi – Umuburanyi wari ufite uburenganzira bwo kwiyambaza izindi nzira z’ubujurire zisanzwe n’izidasanzwe ariko ntabikore mu gihe giteganyijwe n’amategeko ntiyemerewe gusaba ko urubanza yatsinzwe rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane – Itegeko Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 81. 1

## Page 26

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 2

Amategeko agenga ububasha bw’Inkiko – Ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga – Gusubiramo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane – Icyemezo cya Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga – Icyemezo cya Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga gitegeka ko dosiye ivuye mu rwego rw’Umuvunyi yandikwa mu gitabo cy’ibirego, ntikibuza ko, mu iburanisha ry’urubanza, haba izindi mpaka zishingiye ku bubasha bw’Urukiko ndetse no ku iyakirwa ry’ikirego, kandi inteko iburanisha ifite ububasha bwo gusuzuma niba ikirego cyaratanzwe mu rwego rw’Umuvunyi mu buryo bukurikije amategeko – Itegeko Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 80. Incamake y’ikibazo: Rwigara yareze Akarere ka Nyarugenge mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge avuga ko iyimurwa kamukoreye kubera inyungu rusange ritakozwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko agenga iyimurwa kuko atamenyeshejwe iryo yimurwa maze urwo Rukiko rwemeza ko yimuwe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko, kubera ko Akarere katabashije kugaragaza ibimenyetso bihamya ko imihango iteganywa n‟amategeko yiyimurwa ku mpamvu z‟inyungu rusanga yubahirijwe. Akarere ka Nyarugenge ntikishimiye imikirize y‟urubanza maze kandikira Urwego rw‟Umuvunyi gasaba ko urwo urubanza rwasubirishwamo ku mpamvu z‟akarengane, kubera ko nyuma y‟icibwa ryarwo kabonye inyandiko zigaragaza ko Rwigara yari azi neza iby‟iyimurwa kandi ko n‟irangizwa ryarwo ritari gushoboka.Urwego rw‟Umuvunyi rumaze gusuzuma ikibazo cy‟Akarere ka Nyarugenge, rwandikiye Perezida w‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga, rusaba ko urwo urubanza rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z‟akarengane.

## Page 27

3

Hagati aho Rwigara yitabye imana bityo asimburwa mu rubanza na Succession Rwigara Assinapol itegura n‟imyanzuro y‟ukwiregura aho yatanzemo inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego cy‟Akarere ka Nyarugenge ivuga ko kasubirishijemo urubanza ku mpamvu z‟akarengane mu buryo budakurikije Itegeko Ngenga rigena imiterere, imikorere n‟ububasha by‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga kuko hari inzira z‟ubujurire Akarere ka Nyarugenge kirengagije. Urukiko rushingiye ku ngingo ya 76 y‟Itegeko N°27/2016 ryo ku wa 08/07/2016, rigenga imicungire y‟umutungo w‟abashyingiranywe, impano n‟izungura, rwasanze kuba uwatangiye rubanza ari Rwigara kandi akaba yaritabye Imana yasimburwa n‟uwo bashakanye Mukangemanyi aho gusimburwa na Succession Rwigara ihagarariwe na Mukangemanyi, kuko Succession itagira ubuzimagatozi. Urukiko rwabanje gusuzuma inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego yatanzwe n‟uregwa, Akarere kiregura kavuga ko iyo nzitizi nta shingiro ifite, kubera ko ikibazo cyo kumenya niba urubanza rwasubirwamo cyangwa rutasubirwamo kuko rutajuririwe bisuzumwa n‟Urwego rw‟Umuvunyi, ko iyo rwohereje urubanza mu Rukiko rw‟Ikirenga, Perezida warwo agategeka ko rwandika mu bitabo by‟ibirego by‟urwo Rukiko, ikibazo kirebana n‟ububasha kitongera gusuzumwa, bityo iyi nzitizi yatanzwe impita gihe kuko ikirego cyamaze kwakirwa, icyo kibazo rero kikaba kitari mu bigomba gusuzumwa n‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga kandi ko haramutse haranabaye amakosa, asanga yarakosowe n‟izo nzego zombi. Uregwa asobanura avuga ko akarere ka nyarugenge kari gafite uburenganzira bwo kwiyambaza izindi nzira z‟ubujurire zisanzwe n‟izidasanzwe ariko ntikatigeze kajuririra uru urubanza, cyangwa se ngo karusubirishemo ingingo nshya, dore AKARERE KA NYARUGENGE v. MUKANGEMANYI

## Page 28

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 4

ko kavuga ko hari ibimenyetso katari gafite mu iburanisha ry‟urwo rubanza, ko ariko kaje kubona nyuma. Na none akomeza avuga ko Umuvunyi atari umuburanyi muri uru rubanza, kandi ko kuba Perezida w‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga yarafashe icyemezo gitegeka ko ikirego cyandikwa mu gitabo cy‟ibirego kugira ngo ruzaburanishwe, icyemezo cye gifatwa mu rwego rw‟ubuyobozi ariko ko bitavuga ko ababuranyi badashobora gusaba ko amategeko yubahirizwa, cyane cyane ajyanye n‟ububasha bw‟Urukiko kuko ari ndemyagihugu (d‟ordre public). Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Iyo umwe mu bashakanye wari umuburanyi mu urubanza rushingiye ku mutungo apfuye, usigaye niwe ukomezo urwo rubanza kuko ku bw‟itegeko niwe yegukana umutungo wose. Bityo Rwigara Assinapol asimbuwe muri uru rubanza n‟uwo bashyingiranywe Mukangemanyi. 2. Icyemezo cya Perezida w‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga gitegeka ko dosiye ivuye mu rwego rw‟Umuvunyi yandikwa mu gitabo cy‟ibirego, ntigikuraho ko mu iburanisha ry‟urubanza haba izindi mpaka zishingiye ku bubasha bw‟Urukiko ndetse no ku iyakirwa ry‟ikirego, kandi inteko iburanisha ifite ububasha bwo gusuzuma niba ikirego cyaratanzwe mu rwego rw‟Umuvunyi mu buryo bukurikije amategeko. 3. Umuburanyi wari ufite uburenganzira bwo kwiyambaza izindi nzira z‟ubujurire zisanzwe n‟izidasanzwe ariko ntabikore mu gihe giteganyijwe n‟amategeko ntiyemerewe gusaba ko urubanza yatsinzwe rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z‟akarengane, bityo kuba urega yivukije inzira zari gutuma ashobora kurenganurwa mu gihe yari amaze kubona ibimenyetso yita ko ari bishya yari atunze ubwe, ntabwo yemerewe gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z‟akarengane.

## Page 29

5

4. Igikorwa cyose cy‟umuntu cyangirije undi gitegeka nyirugukora ikosa rigikomokaho kuriha ibyangiritse bityo rero kuba urega yatanze ikirego mu buryo bunyuranyije n‟amategeko, bigatuma uregwa yiyambaza umunyamategeko umuburanira agomba guhemba ndetse no gukurikirana urubanza muri uru Rukiko agomba kugenerwa amafaranga y‟igihembo cya Avoka na y‟ikurikiranarubanza agenwe mu bushishozi bw‟Urukiko. Inzitizi yatanzwe yo kutakira ikirego ifite ishingiro. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n‟ububasha by‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga, ingingo za 79, 80 na 81. Itegeko N°27/2016 ryo ku wa 08/07/2016, rigenga imicungire y‟umutungo w‟abashyingiranywe, impano n‟izungura, ingingo ya 79. Itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburashirize y‟imanza z‟imbonezamubano, iz‟ubucuruzi, iz‟umurimo n‟iz‟ubutegetsi, ingingo za 129, 162, 184 na 186(3). Itegeko-teka ryo kuwa 30 Nyakanga 1888, rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258. Nta manza zifashishijwe.

AKARERE KA NYARUGENGE v. MUKANGEMANYI

## Page 30

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 6

Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rukomoka ku kirego cyatanzwe na Rwigara Assinapol mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, arega Akarere ka Nyarugenge, asaba “eviction de la parcelle 5860 Rugenge pour projet non révélé”, ku mpamvu y‟uko iyimurwa rye kubera inyungu rusange ritakozwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko agenga iyimurwa, kuko atamenyeshejwe iryo yimurwa, akabisabira n‟indishyi. Akarere ka Nyarugenge kireguye kavuga ko icyo kirego nta shingiro gifite kubera ko Rwigara yemenyeshejwe iryo yimurwa kuko yari mu nama y‟abaturage yavugiwemo iryo yimurwa ndetse nyuma yo kumenyeshwa agaciro kagenwe ku mutungo we, akaba yaranditse agaragaza ko atishimiye amafaranga y‟ingurane yagenwe ku mutungo we. [2] Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwaciye urubanza RAD0010/12/TGI/NYGE, ku wa 28/02/2013, rwemeza ko Akarere ka Nyarugenge kimuye Rwigara Assinapol mu buryo budakurikije amategeko, kubera ko rwasanze Akarere ka Nyarugenge katarashoboye kurugaragariza ibimenyetso bihamya ko imihango iteganywa n‟amategeko yiyimurwa ku mpamvu z‟inyungu rusanga, yubahirijwe. [3] Akarere ka Nyarugenge kandikiye Urwego rw‟Umuvunyi gasaba ko urubanza RAD0010/12/TGI/NYGE rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z‟akarengane, kubera ko nyuma y‟icibwa ry‟urubanza, kabonye inyandiko zigaragaza ko Rwigara Assinapol, n‟ubwo yaburanye avuga ko atari azi iby‟iryo yimurwa, yari azi neza iby‟iyimurwa, gasobanura kandi

## Page 31

7

ko n‟irangizwa ry‟urwo rubanza mu buryo rwaciwemo ritari gushoboka, ariyo mpamvu gasaba ko rusubirwamo kugira ngo imikirize y‟urubanza ihinduke. [4] Urwego rw‟Umuvunyi rumaze gusuzuma ikibazo cy‟Akarere ka Nyarugenge, rwandikiye Perezida w‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga, rusaba ko urubanza RAD0010/12/TGI/NYGE, rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z‟akarengane, kuko rwasanze ibyemejwe kandi bigategekwa n‟Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, ko Akarere ka Nyarugenge kagomba kwimura Rwigara Assinapol hubahirijwe amategeko agenga iyimurwa ku bw‟inyungu rusange, ishyirwa mu bikorwa ry‟icyo cyemezo ryaba rije impitagihe, bitewe n‟uko nk‟imwe mu mihango iteganywa n‟itegeko ijyanye no kungurana ibitekerezo n‟abatuye cyangwa abafite ibikorwa aho umushinga wo kwimura abantu uzakorerwa ari imihango ikorwa mbere y‟igikorwa cyo kwimura bene imitungo, uko kungurana ibitekerezo rero kukaba kutakorwa nyuma y‟uko kwimura abantu byarangije gukorwa. Byongeye kandi n‟umuhango wo gukora urutonde rw‟umutungo w‟uwimurwa ahazakorerwa ibikorwa rusange no kurutangaza nawo utakorwa kuko abantu bamaze kwimurwa, uwo muhango ukaba ntacyo waba umaze haba ku ruhande rwa Rwigara Assinapol cyangwa se ku ruhande rw‟Akarere ka Nyarugenge, kuko nk‟uko byasobanuwe haruguru, byaba bitubahirije amategeko. [5] Urwego rw‟Umuvunyi rushingiye ku ngingo ya 79, igika cya mbere, agace ka 3, iteganya ko urubanza rwaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma rushobora gusubirishwamo, iyo rudashobora kurangizwa ukurikije imikirize yarwo, rusaba ko urubanza RAD0010/12/TGI/NYGE rwasubirwamo kuko bigaragara ko kururangiza bidashoboka. AKARERE KA NYARUGENGE v. MUKANGEMANYI

## Page 32

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 8

[6] Mu myanzuro yo kwiregura, uhagarariye Succession Rwigara Assinapol yatanze inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego cy‟Akarere ka Nyarugenge avuga ko kasubirishijemo urubanza ku mpamvu z‟akarengane mu buryo budakurikije Itegeko Ngenga rigena imiterere, imikorere n‟ububasha by‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga. [7] Iburanisha ryo ku wa wa 21/03/2017 ryabereye mu ruhame, Akarere ka Nyarugenge gahagarariwe na Me Rubango Epimaque, Intumwa ya Leta, naho Succession Rwigara Assinapol ihagarariwe na Me Rwagatare Janvier. Uwo munsi iburanisha ryarasubitswe ryimurirwa ku wa 23/05/2017 kubera ko Me Rwagatare Janvier yitabye avuga ko ahagarariye Succession Rwigara Assinapol nayo ihagarariwe na Mukangemanyi Adéline, ariko Urukiko rushingiye ku ngingo ya 76 y‟Itegeko N°27/2016 ryo ku wa 08/07/2016, rigenga imicungire y‟umutungo w‟abashyingiranywe, impano n‟izungura, rusanga kuba uwatangiye uru rubanza ari Rwigara Assinapol kandi yarageze nyuma agapfa, yasimburwa n‟uwo bashakanye Mukangemanyi Adéline aho gusimburwa na Succession Rwigara Assinapol ihagarariwe na Mukangemanyi Adeline, kuko Succession itagira ubuzimagatozi. Urukiko rwasanze ariko Mukangemanyi Adéline atahamagarwa muri uru rubanza mu gihe atarugaragarije ko ariwe washakanye na nyakwigendera mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, bityo rutegeka ko urubanza rusubikwa kugira ngo Me Rwagatare Janvier azabanze arushyikirize icyemezo cy‟ubushyingiranwe (acte de mariage). [8] Hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 76 y‟Itegeko N°27/2016 ryo ku wa 08/07/2016, ryavuzwe haruguru, iteganya ko: “Abashingiranywe bafitanye amasezerano y‟ivangamutungo

## Page 33

9

rusange bazungurwa mu buryo bukurikira: 1° iyo umwe apfuye usigaye yegukana umutungo wose akubahiriza inshingano yo kurera abana n‟ab‟uwapfuye bemewe n‟amategeko”; urukiko rwasanze icyemezo cyo gushyingiranwa Mukangemanyi Adéline yarushyikirije kigaragaza ko Rwigara Assinapol yashyingiranywe na Mukangemanyi Adéline mu buryo bwemewe n‟amategeko kandi ko basezeranye ivangamutungo rusange, bityo rushingiye ku ngingo ya 129 y‟Itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburashirize y‟imanza z‟imbonezamubano, iz‟ubucuruzi, iz‟umurimo n‟iz‟ubutegetsi, rwemeza ko Rwigara Assinapol asimbuwe muri uru rubanza n‟uwo bashyingiranywe Mukangemanyi Adéline. [9] Me Rwagatare Janvier uhagarariye Mukangemanyi Adéline, yatanze inzitizi yo kutakira ibujurire bw‟Akarere ka Nyarugenge kubera ko hari ibyo katubahirije. II. IBIBAZO BYASUZUMWE N’ISESENGURA RYABYO 1. Kumenya niba hari inzira z’ubujurire Akarere ka Nyarugenge kibujije, bikaba byatuma ikirego katanze gisubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane kitakwakirwa. [10] Me Rwagatare Janvier asobanura ko ingingo ya 81, igika cya 2, y‟Itegeko N°03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012, rigenga imiterere, imikorere n‟ububasha by‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga, iteganya ko umuburanyi wari ufite uburenganzira bwo kwiyambaza izindi nzira z‟ubujurire zisanzwe n‟izidasanzwe ariko ntabikore mu gihe giteganyijwe n‟amategeko atemerewe gusaba ko urubanza yatsinzwe rusubirishwamo hakurikijwe AKARERE KA NYARUGENGE v. MUKANGEMANYI

## Page 34

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 10

ibiteganywa n‟ingingo zivugwa muri iki cyiciro, ko icyiciro iyi ngingo ivuga ari icyo “Gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z‟akarengane urubanza rwaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma”. Ko rero Akarere ka Nyarugenge katigeze kajuririra urubanza RAD0010/12/TGI/NYGE, cyangwa se ngo karusubirishemo ingingo nshya (recours en révision), dore ko ugahagarariye avuga ko hari ibimenyetso katari gafite mu iburanisha ry‟urwo rubanza, ko ariko kaje kubona nyuma. [11] Asobanura ko Akarere kari kemeye imikirize y‟urubanza kuko kari kishyuye amafaranga kaciwe muri urwo rubanza, ariyo mpamvu basanga Akarere ka Nyarugenge katari kemerewe gukoresha iyi nzira y‟ubujurire budasanzwe (voie de recours spéciale). Avuga ko Umuvunyi atari umuburanyi muri uru rubanza, kandi ko ibyo Akarere ka Nyarugenge kaburananisha ko kuba Perezida w‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga yarafashe icyemezo gitegeka ko ikirego cyandikwa mu gitabo cy‟ibirego kugira ngo ruzaburanishwe, icyemezo cye gifatwa mu rwego rw‟ubuyobozi ariko ko bitavuga ko ababuranyi badashobora gusaba ko amategeko yubahirizwa, cyane cyane ajyanye n‟ububasha bw‟Urukiko kuko ari ndemyagihugu (d‟ordre public). [12] Me Rwagatare Janvier abajijwe uko uwo aburanira yakwishyurwa indishyi n‟ingurane kubera iyimurwa mu mutungo we kubera inyungu rusange, uru rukiko ruramutse ruhaye ishingiro inzitizi atanze, asubiza ko badasaba ko bahabwa amazu ari muri icyo kibanza kuko atari we wayubatse, ko ibyo urubanza rutegeka Akarere bizwi, aribyo bikwiye gukorwa, kandi ko ubu hari urundi rubanza ruregera guhatira Akarere ka Nyarugenge gushyira mu bikorwa urubanza RAD0010/12/TGI/NYGE rusabirwa gusubirishwamo ku

## Page 35

11

mpamvu z‟akarengane, urwo rubanza rukaba rufite RAD0041/14/TGI/NYGE. Naho kuba uburanira Akarere ka Nyarugenge avuga ko hakoreshejwe équité, Me Rwagatare Janvier avuga ko niba Akarere ka Nyarugenge karasanze uru rubanza rudashobora kurangizwa, iyo équité kari kuyikoresha gasubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya, ariko ko équité itasimbura ububasha bw‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga. [13] Me Rubango Epimaque wari uhagarariye Akarere ka Nyarugenge mu nama ntegurarubanza yabaye ku wa 13/02/2017, yavuze ko iyo nzitizi nta shingiro ifite, kubera ko ikibazo cyo kumenya niba urubanza rwasubirwamo cyangwa rutasubirwamo kuko rutajuririwe, bisuzumwa n‟Urwego rw‟Umuvunyi, ko iyo rwohereje urubanza mu Rukiko rw‟Ikirenga, Perezida warwo agategeka ko rwandika mu bitabo by‟ibirego by‟urwo rukiko, ikibazo kirebana n‟ububasha kitongera gusuzumwa, bivuze ko iyi nzitizi abo baburana batanga ikirego cyaramaze kwakirwa babikoze igihe cyabyo cyararenze, ko rero icyo kibazo kitari mu bigomba gusuzumwa n‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga. [14] Asobanura ko ikibazo cyashyikirijwe uru rukiko kiri mu nzira zidasanzwe mu Rukiko rw‟Ikirenga, ko urubanza rusabirwa gusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z‟akarengane rwaciwe ku wa 11/01/2014, ko itegeko rivuga ko kugira ngo rwakirwe rugomba kuba rwoherejwe n‟Urwego rw‟Umuvunyi bigasuzumwa na Perezida w‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga, kandi ko ibyo byakozwe, ko haramutse haranabaye amakosa, asanga yarakosowe n‟izo nzego zombi (couvertes). Avuga ko kandi hari n‟ikibazo cyo gushyira mu gaciro (ibyo yise équité/equity) kuko niba urubanza rutarashoboraga kurangizwa nta yindi nzira AKARERE KA NYARUGENGE v. MUKANGEMANYI

## Page 36

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 12

yari gukoreshwa n‟umuburanyi usibye kurusubirishamo ku mpamvu z‟akarengane. [15] Akomeza avuga ko imikirize y‟urubanza RAD 0010/12/TGI/NYGE rwaciwe n‟Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rusabirwa gusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z‟akarengane rudashobora kurangizwa, ihura n‟ibiteganywa n‟ingingo ya 81, agace ka 3, kuko urukiko rwategetse ko Rwigara yimurwa ku buryo bukurikije amategeko, kandi ikibanza kiburanwa cyaramaze kubakwamo inzu ya RSSB (yahurijwemo icyahoze ari RAMA na Caisse Sociale), ariyo mpamvu hakurikijwe uko urubanza rwaciwe, kumubarira agaciro k‟ikibanza habarwa n‟ibitari ibye, ariyo mpamvu basaba ko uru rukiko ruvuze ko rufite ububasha, rwakwemeza ko Rwigara Assinapol yishyurwa amafaranga yari yagenewe icyo gihe ahwanye n‟ibyari muri icyo kibanza icyo gihe. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [16] Ingingo ya 79, igika cya 4, y‟Itegeko Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n‟ububasha by‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga, iteganya ko: “Iyo Urwego rw‟Umuvunyi rusanze uburyo urubanza rwaciwe birimo akarengane rwandikira Perezida w‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga rumusaba ko urubanza rwakongera kuburanishwa. Rumushyikiriza raporo ikubiyemo imiterere y‟icyo kibazo n‟ibimenyetso bigaragaza ako karengane”. Igika cya nyuma cy‟iyo ngingo iteganya ko “Ikirego gisaba gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z‟akarengane ntigikorerwa ibanzirizasuzuma”.

## Page 37

13

[17] Ingingo ya 80 y‟Itegeko Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012, iteganya ko “iyo Perezida w‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga asuzumye raporo y‟Ubugenzuzi Bukuru bw‟Inkiko akemeza ko urubanza rwongera kuburanishwa, yoherereza dosiye Umwanditsi Mukuru w‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga kugira ngo ayandike mu bitabo byabugenewe, akanagena kandi n‟itariki y‟iburanisha n‟inteko y‟abacamanza wabazaruburanisha. Agena kandi muri abo bacamanza uzakora raporo....” [18] Naho ingingo ya 81, igika cya mbere, agace ka 3, y‟Itegeko Ngenga No03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n‟ububasha by‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga, iteganya ko: “urubanza rwaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma rushobora gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z‟akarengane kubera impamvu zikurikira: iyo urubanza rudashobora kurangizwa ukurikije imikirize yarwo”, naho mu gika cya kabiri ikagira iti: “ Icyakora, umuburanyi wari ufite uburenganzira bwo kwiyambaza izindi nzira z‟ubujurire zisanzwe n‟izidasanzwe ariko ntabikore mu gihe giteganyijwe n‟amategeko ntiyemerewe gusaba ko urubanza yatsinzwe rusubirishwamo hakurikijwe ibiteganywa mu ngingo zivugwa muri iki cyiciro”. [19] Ku byerekeye kumenya niba icyemezo cya Perezida w‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga kibuza ko habaho izindi mpaka zishingiye ku bubasha bw‟Urukiko cyangwa ku iyakirwa ry‟urubanza rwoherejwe n‟Urwego rw‟Umuvunyi kugira ngo rusubirwemo ku mpamvu z‟akarengane, Urukiko rurasanga, hakurikijwe ibiteganywa n‟ingingo ya 80 y‟Itegeko Ngenga Nº03/2012/OL ryavuzwe haruguru, icyemezo Perezida w‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga afata cyo gutegeka ko ikirego cy‟ubujurire kivuye mu rwego rw‟Umuvunyi cyandikwa mu bitabo byabugenewe, ababuranyi badakwiye kubyuririraho AKARERE KA NYARUGENGE v. MUKANGEMANYI

## Page 38

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 14

bavuga ko ikibazo cy‟ububasha cyangwa cy‟iyakirwa ry‟ikirego cyarangiye gufatwaho icyemezo, kuko, icyemezo kiba cyafashwe atari icyo kwakira ikirego, ko ahubwo ari icyo kucyandika mu bitabo by‟Urukiko (enregistrer un appel); bityo ko, mu iburanisha ry‟urubanza, ubifitemo inyungu wese afite uburenganzira bwo gutanga inzitizi y‟iburabubasha bw‟Urukiko cyangwa iyo kutakira ikirego bushingiye ku biteganywa n‟ingingo ya 81 cyangwa n‟izindi z‟Itegeko Ngenga Nº03/2012/OL ryavuzwe haruguru, cyane cyane ko icyo cyemezo kiba cyafashwe undi muburanyi atabigizemo uruhare. [20] Urukiko rurasanga rero icyemezo cya Perezida w‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga gitegeka ko dosiye ivuye mu rwego rw‟Umuvunyi yandikwa mu gitabo cy‟ibirego, kidakuraho ko, mu iburanisha ry‟urubanza, haba izindi mpaka zishingiye ku bubasha bw‟Urukiko ndetse no ku iyakirwa ry‟ikirego, bityo inteko iburanisha ikaba ifite ububasha bwo kureba niba ikirego cy‟Akarere ka Nyarugenge cyaratanzwe mu rwego rw‟Umuvunyi mu buryo bukurikije amategeko. [21] Mu guca urubanza RAD0010/12/TGI/NYGE, Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwemeje ko kugira ngo iyimurwa ku nyungu rusange ribeho kandi byitwe ko ryubahirije amategeko, imihango iteganywa n‟amategeko igomba kubahirizwa, ko iyo itubahirijwe bifatwa ko iyimurwa ku nyungu rusange ryakozwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n‟amategeko, rwemeza ko iyimurwa rya Rwigara Assinapol ritakurikije amategeko kubera ko nta bimenyetso Akarere ka Nyarugenge katanze bigaragaza ko imihango iteganyijwe n‟amategeko yubahirijwe nko gukoresha inama imenyesha abagomba kwimuka uko bigomba gukorwa, no kuba nta kigaragaza ko

## Page 39

15

Rwigara Assinapol atishimiye amafaranga yagenewe n‟Akarere nk‟uko kabivuga . [22] Nk‟uko kabisobanuye mu nyandiko yohererejwe Urwego rw‟Umuvunyi, Akarere ka Nyarugenge kavuga ko umukozi ushinzwe ishyinguranyandiko (archives) ari nawe washoboraga kumenya aho inyandiko zigaragaza ko Rwigara Assinapol yariyaramenyeshejwe iby‟iyimurwa rye, n‟ubwo yaburanye asobanura ko atari abizi, yari yaragiye kwiga hanze y‟Igihugu1. [23] Urukiko rurasanga aho ziriya nyandiko zibonekeye, Akarere karatanze ikirego ku Rwego rw‟Umuvunyi gashingiye ku ngingo ya 79, y‟Itegeko N°03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 kavuga ko urubanza RAD0010/12/TGI/NYGE rurimo akarengane kubera ko irangizwa ryarwo ritashoboka

1 Ibyo bimenyetso bigaragaza neza ko Rwigara yari azi neza ndetse yakurikiranye ibijyanye n‟iyimurwa rye ni cyane cyane inyandiko mvugo ya Komisiyo y‟ubutaka yo ku wa 17/07/2010, iyo ku wa 23/08/2010, ibaruwa yo ku wa 17/07/2010 imumenyesha agaciro kahawe umutungo we kangana na 6.284.243Frw inamumenyesha ko niba atanyuzwe n‟ako gaciro yakoresha ihinyuzagaciro ( contre expertise) nk‟uko biteganywa mu ngingo ya y‟Itegeko ryerekeye kwimura abantu ku mpamvu z‟inyungu rusange hamwe n‟ibaruwa ye yo ku wa 02/08/2010 isubiza imaze kuvugwa isobanura ibijyanye n‟igenagaciro ryakorewe umutungo we. Inama idasanwe ya komisiyo y‟ubutaka n‟abaturage yo ku wa 17/07/2010, yari igamije kubamenyesha imyanzuro ya komisiyo y‟ubutaka y‟inama zabanje hagamijwe kubereka ibyavuye mu ibaruramutungo ryakozwe no kumva ibibazo byabo naho iyo ku wa 23/08/2010 igaragaza neza ko Komisiyo y‟ubutaka yize ku kibazo cy‟ihinyuzagaciro ryatanzwe na Rwigara ikanzura ko izabanza kugisha inama ku bijyanye n‟amazu yasenye yaramaze kwishyura ba nyirayo kandi itegeko ryerekeye kwimura abantu ku mpamvu z‟inyungu rusange rivuga ko iyo ugiye kubara umutungo ubara ibiri ku butaka ndetse n‟ubutaka kandi mu gihe habaga ibaruramutungo hakaba hari gusa ubutaka. AKARERE KA NYARUGENGE v. MUKANGEMANYI

## Page 40

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 16

harebwe uburyo rwaciwemo, gasaba ko Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga rwakwongera kuruburanisha ruhuza imiburanire ya Rwigara Assinapol muri urwo rubanza wavugaga ko atari azi iby‟iyimurwa rye n‟inyandiko zabonetse zigaragaza neza ko yari arizi, bityo imikirize y‟urubanza ihinduke hashingiwe kuri ibyo bimenyetso. [24] Ingingo ya 184 y‟Itegeko N°21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012, iteganya ko “gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya ni ugushaka ko urubanza rwaciwe burundu ruvanwaho hakongera gusuzumwa bundi bushya uko ibintu byagenze n‟uko amategeko abiteganya”. Naho ingingo ya 186, agace ka 3, y‟Itegeko Ngenga N°21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012, yo iteganya ko “kuva aho urubanza ruciriwe habonetse ibimenyetso bya kamarampaka bigaragaza neza akarengane katewe n‟urubanza rusabirwa gusubirwamo; icyo kimenyetso cyaba kiri mu nyandiko zatanzwe mu rubanza ariko urukiko ntirukibone cyangwa cyaragaragajwe nyuma”. [25] Kuba Akarere ka Nyarugenge kari kamaze kubona ibimenyetso biri muri dosiye kashyikirije Urwego rw‟Umuvunyi kavuga ko bigaragaza neza ko Rwigara Assinapol yari azi neza ndetse ko yanakurikiranye ibijyanye n‟iyimurwa rye bigizwe n‟inyandikomvugo y‟inama ya Komisiyo y‟ubutaka yo ku wa 17/07/2010, iyo ku wa 23/08/2010, ibaruwa yo ku wa 17/07/2010 imumenyesha agaciro kahawe umutungo we kangana na 6.284.243Frw inamumenyesha ko niba atanyuzwe n‟ako gaciro yakoresha ihinyuzagaciro (contre expertise) nk‟uko biteganywa mu ngingo ya 26 y‟Itegeko ryerekeye kwimura abantu ku mpamvu z‟inyungu rusange; ibaruwa ya Rwigara Assinapol yo ku wa 02/08/2010 isubiza imaze kuvugwa haruguru isobanura ibijyanye n‟igenagaciro ryakorewe

## Page 41

17

umutungo we, karagombaga gutanga ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza RAD0010/12/TGI/NYGE ingingo nshya hashingiwe ku biteganywa n‟ingingo ya 184 n‟iya 186 z‟itegeko rimaze kuvugwa haruguru. [26] Urukiko rurasanga rero nubwo urubanza RAD0010/12/TGI/NYGE rwaciwe n‟Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwarashoboraga kutarangizwa ukurikije imikirize yarwo nkuko bivugwa n‟uhagarariye Akarere ndetse bikaba byaranemejwe n‟Urwego rw‟Umuvunyi hashingiwe ku biteganywa n‟ingingo ya 81, igika cya mbere, agace ka 3, y‟Itegeko Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012, ibi bitaba impamvu yatuma ikirego cy‟Akarere ka Nyarugenge gisaba gusubirishamo ruriya rubanza ku mpamvu z‟akarengane cyakirwa n‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga, kuko nk‟uko byasobanuwe haruguru, Akarere kashoboraga gukoresha inzira y‟ubujurire iteganywa n‟ingingo ya 162 y‟Itegeko N°21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru, cyangwa iyo gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya iteganywa n‟ingingo ya 184 n‟iya 186 z‟Itegeko rimaze kuvugwa, ariko ntikazikoreshe, kuba rero kararangaye kivutsa inzira zari gutuma gashobora kurenganurwa mu gihe kari kamaze kubona ibimenyetso kita ko ari bishya kari gatunze ubwako, katemerewe gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z‟akarengane hashingiwe ku biteganywa n‟ingingo ya 81, igika cya 2, y‟Itegeko Ngenga No03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru. 2. Kumenya niba amafaranga Mukandimanyi Adéline asaba yayahabwa. [27] Me Rwagatare Janvier avuga ko ibyo Akarere ka Nyarugenge kakoze kajyana urubanza mu Rwego rw‟Umuvunyi ari ibintu byo kubatesha igihe (abus de procédure) kuko AKARERE KA NYARUGENGE v. MUKANGEMANYI

## Page 42

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 18

bagombaga kujuririra cyangwa gusubirishamo ingingo nshya urubanza rwaciwe n‟Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, ko rero asabira Mukangemanyi Adéline aburanira 2.000.000Frw y‟igihembo cya Avoka hamwe na 1.000.000Frw y‟ikurikiranarubanza. [28] Me Rubango Epimaque avuga ko nta bujurire Akarere ka Nyarugenge kakoze muri uru rukiko, ko ikirego cyaje giturutse ku rwego rw‟Umuvunyi kandi iyo nzira ikaba iteganywa n‟amategeko, ko rero indishyi basaba nta shingiro zifite. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [29] Ingingo ya 258 y‟Igitabo cya gatatu cy‟urwunge rw‟amategeko mbonezamubano iteganya ko Igikorwa cyose cy‟umuntu cyangirije undi gitegeka nyirugukora ikosa rigikomokaho kuriha ibyangiritse. [30] Urukiko rurasanga kuba Akarere ka Nyarugenge gatsinzwe no kuba karatanze ikirego mu buryo bunyuranyije n‟amategeko, byatumye Mukangemanyi Adéline yiyambaza umunyamategeko umuburanira agomba guhemba ndetse no gukurikirana urubanza muri uru rukiko, ariko kuba 2.000.000Frw y‟igihembo cya Avoka hamwe na 1.000.000Frw y‟ikurikiranarubanza Me Rwagatare Janvier amusabira nta bimenyetso ayatangira, uru rukiko rushingiye ku ngingo ya 258 imaze kuvugwa haruguru, rumugeneye mu bushishozi bwarwo 1.000.000Frw akubiyemo igihembo cya Avoka hamwe nay‟ikurikiranarubanza.

## Page 43

19

III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [31] Rwemeje ko inzitizi yatanzwe na Mukangemanyi Adéline ifite ishingiro. [32] Rwemeje ko ikirego cy‟Akarere ka Nyarugenge cyo gusubirishamo urubanza RAD0010/12/TGI/NYGE rwaciwe ku wa 28/02/2013 n‟Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge ku mpamvu z‟akarengane kitakiriwe. [33] Rwemeje ko ikirego cya Mukangemanyi Adéline gisaba amafaranga y‟ikurikiranarubanza n‟igihembo cya Avoka gifite ishingiro. [34] Rutegetse Akarere ka Nyarugenge guha Mukangemanyi Adéline, 1.000.000Frw, igihembo cya Avoka n‟ikurikiranarubanza. [35] Rutegetse Akarere ka Nyarugenge kwishyura amagarama y‟urubanza angana na 100.000Frw.

AKARERE KA NYARUGENGE v. MUKANGEMANYI

## Page 45

NYIRAROMBA v. NGIRINSHUTI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW‟IKIRENGA – RC0002/16/CS (Mugenzi, P.J., Gatete na Munyangeri, J.) 27 Mutarama 2017] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano – Inzitizi – Ibisabwa ngo ikirego cyakirwe – Inyungu – Inyungu urega agomba kuba afite kugira ngo ikirego cye cyakirwe, igomba kuba ari itaziguye kandi bwite, ku buryo rero abyemererwa gusa, ari uko inyungu zibangamiwe ari ize bwite, kandi n’icyemezo cyazafatwa n’Urukiko ari we ubwe cyagirira akamaro – Itegeko No21/2012 ryo ku wa 24/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 18(12o). Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano – Iyakirwa ry’ikirego cy’ingoboka – Iyo ikirego cy’iremezo kitakiriho kuko kitakiriwe, n’isuzuma ry’ikirego cy’ingoboka riba ritagishobotse – Itegeko No21/2012 ryo ku wa 24/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 119. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uru rubanza rukomoka ku birego hagati ya Nyiraromba na Ngirinshuti aho Nyiraromba arega Ngirinshuti kumuhuguza imirima akomora kuri nyina. Urukiko rw‟Akarere ka Kabagali rwemeje ko umurima urimo ikibanza Nyiraromba yubatsemo ari uwe naho indi mirima itatu iburanwa nta n‟umwe muri bo uyigaragariza ibimenyetso. Ababuranyi bombi bajuririrye icyo cyemezo, Nyiraromba avuga ko Urukiko rabanza rutitaye ku bimenyetso yatanze byerekana 21

## Page 46

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 22

ko iyo mirima iregerwa ayimaranye imyaka mirongo ine(40) naho Ngirinshuti akavuga ko Urukiko rubanza rwirengagije inyandiko yatanzwe na Nyiraromba igaragaza ingano y‟ikibanza uyu yahawe, igishushanyo cy‟ahaburanwa ndetse ngo rushingira ku ngingo zivuguruzanya. Anavuga kandi ko ngo rwirengagije ko iyo mirima yayitunze atarahunga aho ahungukiye akaba aribwo yasanze Nyiraromba yarayifashe. Urukiko rwajuririwe rwemeje mu rubanza RCA0935/05/TP/GIT-RCA0913/05/TP/GIT ko ikirego kitakiriwe kuberako ababuranyi badafite ububasha bwo kuburana umutungo w‟umuryango mu mazina yabo bwite. Rwanakuyeho kandi urubanza rujuririrwa kimwe n‟umwanzuro wa Komite y‟Abunzi kuko binyuranyije n‟amategeko ndemyagihugu. Nyiraromba ntiyarekeye aho ahubwo yongeye kuregera Urukiko rw‟Ibanze rwa Ruhango avuga ko umurima umwe yawuhawe na nyina naho indi ibiri akaba ari iy‟umuryango. Ngirinshuti we yireguye kuri iki kirego avuga ko imirima iregerwa yayihawe na Nyirabujangwe, uyu akaba ari nyirakuru akanaba nyina wa Nyiraromba. Mu rubanza RC0191/09/TB/RHGO, uru Rukiko rwemeje ko Nyiraromba ariwe ufite uburenganzira ku mirima iburanwa kuko ayikomora ku babyeyi be bitabye Imana bityo ibyo kuba Ngirinshuti yarayihawe bikaba nta shingiro bifite. Ngirinshuti yajuririye iki cyemezo mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Muhanga avuga ko Urukiko rubanza rwirengagije ibyategetswe mu mwanzuro wa Komite y‟Abunzi, ko rutabajije abagize umuryango kandi ko Nyiraromba yaregaga mu izina rye mu gihe nyamara mu bunzi yari yareze abagize umuryango wa Nyirabujangwe na Habuhazi.

## Page 47

23

Mu rubanza RCA0740/09/TGI/MHG rwo ku wa 19/03/2010, Urukiko rwemeje ko urubanza rujuririrwa rudahindutse, kuko Ngirinshuti atagaragaza ibimenyetso by‟uko yahawe imirima itatu iburanwa na nyirakuru Nyirabujangwe. Ngirinshuti amaze gutsindwa, yaje kurega Nyiraromba muri Komite y‟Abunzi, avuga ko imirima Nyiraromba yamutsindiye harimo inzu ze maze abunzi bafata icyemezo birengagije ko Nyiraromba yatsindiye imirima n‟ibiyirimo. Nyiraromba yaregeye umwanzuro w‟abunzi mu Rukiko rw‟Ibanze rwa Byimana, rwemeza mu rubanza RC0377/13/TB/BMN rwo ku wa 2/7/2013 rusobanurwa n‟urubanza RC0159/15/TB/BYM, ko inzu eshatu zubatse kuri ubwo butaka ari iza Ngirinshuti. Nyuma y‟icibwa ry‟izo manza zose, Nyiraromba yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw‟Ikirenga, asaba gukemura impaka ziri hagati y‟imanza RC0377/13/TB/BMA rwo ku wa 02/07/2013 rwasobanuwe n‟urubanza RC0159/16/TB/BYM rwo ku wa 23/12/2015 zaciwe n‟Urukiko rw‟Ibanze rwa Byimana n‟urubanza RCA070/09/TGI/MHG rwaciwe n‟Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Muhanga ku wa 19/3/2010 kuko zivuguruzanya. Yongeraho kandi ko Urukiko rw‟Ibanze rwa Byimana rutagombaga kwakira ikirego cya Ngirinshuti kandi yaratsindiye ubutaka n‟ibiriho, kandi ko rwishe amategeko kuko mu rubanza rusobanuza rwakiriye ikimenyetso cy‟umuburanyi umwe, rufata icyemezo we adahamagajwe, bityo asaba ko izo manza zavanwaho hakubahirizwa urubanza RCA0740/09/TGI/MHG na RC0191/TB/RHGO kuko nta rundi rwazikuyeho, hanyuma Ngirinshuti akamugenera indishyi z‟ibyakoreshejwe mu manza. Nsabiyaremye Protais yagobotse ku bushake muri uru rubanza avuga ko mu mirima iburanwa harimo ikibanza yaguze NYIRAROMBA v. NGIRINSHUTI

## Page 48

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 24

acyubakamo inzu none ubu akaba asabwa kuyikuramo mu rwego rwo kurangiza urubanza RC0377/TB/BYM rwo ku wa 07/07/2014 rwaciwe n‟Urukiko rw‟Ibanze rwa Byimana. Mu Iburanisha mu Rukiko rw‟Ikirenga, uruhande rwa Ngirinshuti rwazamuye inzitizi ebyiri. Iya mbere ni uko mu nzego zose ikirego cya Nyiraromba kitari gikwiye kwakirwa kubera ko yaburanaga imitungo y‟umuryango ayirega umuntu umwe. Iya kabiri yerekeranye no kuba Nyiraromba adafite inyungu n‟ububasha byo gutanga ikirego mu Rukiko rw‟Ikirenga kubera ko umutungo uburanwa waguzwe na Nsabiyaremye akaba ari nawe uwutunze, anawufitiye amasezerano y‟ubukode bwa burundu, ndetse yaratesheje agaciro imanza zose zaburanywe n‟irangizwa ryazo kuri uwo mutungo, bityo Nyiraromba akaba atakiwufiteho uburenganzira. Nyuma yo gusabwa ibisobanuro ku nzitizi yerekeranye no kuba ikirego kitari kuba cyarakiriwe mu nzego zose, Me Mberabagabo uhagaraiye Ngirinshuti yavuze ko iyo nzitizi bayiretse. Nyiraromba yiregura avuga ko afite inyungu ndetse n‟ububasha byo kurega, kuko uwo yagurishije umutungo atawufitemo amahoro, kandi akaba ari nawe uzi aho uherereye nk‟uwawuburanye akanawutsindira. Nsabiyaremye nawe avuga ko Nyiraromba afite ububasha n‟inyungu muri uru rubanza, kubera ko ariwe wabaye umuburanyi, akaba akeneye ko ibidasobanutse bisobanuka, kandi ntahozwe ku nkeke n‟uwo yagurishije, wabangamiwe mu burenganzira bwe nk‟uwaguze. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Inyungu urega agomba kuba afite kugira ngo ikirego cye cyakirwe, igomba kuba ari itaziguye kandi bwite, ku buryo rero abyemererwa gusa, ari uko inyungu

## Page 49

25

zibangamiwe ari ize bwite, kandi n‟icyemezo cyazafatwa n‟Urukiko ari we ubwe cyagirira akamaro. Ugaragaza inyungu muri ubwo buryo akaba ari nawe ugira uburenganzira bwo gusaba umucamanza kumuha ibyo aregera. Kuba rero urega asaba ko hakemurwa ivuguruzanya ry‟imanza yaburanyemo umutungo utimukanwa yamaze kugurisha, ikirego cye ntikigomba kwakirwa kuko nta nyungu bwite kandi itaziguye afite yatuma agira ububasha bwo kuwuregera. 2. Ibirego by‟ingoboka mu manza z‟abandi ntibyakirwa iyo bidafite ubusobekerane n‟ikirego cy‟iremezo, bityo iyo icy‟iremezo kitakiriho kuko kitakiriwe, n‟isuzuma ry‟ubwo busobekerane riba ritagishobotse, ibi kandi binahura n‟ihame ry‟uko ibishamikiye ku cy‟ibanze bigikurikira (l‟accessoire suit le principal), akaba ariyo mpamvu ikirego cyo kugoboka mu rubanza nacyo kitakiriwe. Inzitizi ifite ishingiro. Ikirego cy’ingoboka nticyakiriwe. Amagarama aherereye ku wareze. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko No21/2012 ryo ku wa 24/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y‟imanza z‟imbonezamubano, iz‟ubucuruzi, iz‟umurimo n‟iz‟ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 18(12o) n‟iya 119. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Inyandiko z’abahanga zifashishijwe: Mélina Douchy - Oudot, Procédure civile, 2ème édition, Paris, 2006, p.106, Nº127; p.108, Nº129. NYIRAROMBA v. NGIRINSHUTI

## Page 50

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 26

Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Mu Rukiko rw‟Akarere ka Kabagali, Nyiraromba yareze Ngirinshuti ko yamuhuguje imirima ayita iye avuga ko yayihawe na nyirakuru, mu rubanza RC0200/05/TD/KAB rwo ku wa 28/04/2005, Urukiko rwemeje ko umurima urimo ikibanza Nyiraromba yubatsemo ari uwe, kuko yawuhawe na Nyirabujangwe Sarah nk‟uko na Ngirinshuti abyemera, rwemeza ko indi mirima itatu iburanwa ntawe ugaragaza ibimenyetso by‟uko ari iye, runemeza ko ababuranyi bombi bagomba kuyiragirana kugeza igihe nyirayo azayigaragariza ikimenyetso. [2] Ababuranyi bombi barajuriye, Nyiraromba avuga ko ibimenyetso yahaye Urukiko bitanditswe, rukirengagiza ko imirima ari iye, akaba ayimaranye imyaka 40, Ngirinshuti, we avuga ko Urukiko rwirengagije inyandiko umuburanyi we yatanze igaragaza ingano y‟ikibanza Nyiraromba yahawe, ntirwita ku gishushanyo cy‟ahaburanwa, rukoresha ingingo zivuguruzanya kandi rwirengagiza ko iyo mirima yayitunze mbere y‟intambara, ariko ahungutse asanga Nyiraromba ayitunze. [3] Mu rubanza RCA0935/05/TP/GIT-RCA0913/05/TP/GIT rwo ku wa 18/09/2008, Urukiko rwemeje ko ikirego kitakiriwe kuko ababuranyi badafite ububasha bwo kuburana iby‟umuryango mu izina ryabo, rwemeza ko urubanza rujuririrwa ndetse n‟umwanzuro wafashwe na Komite y‟Abunzi ku wa 30/06/2005 bivanyweho kuko binyuranyije n‟amategeko ndemyagihugu.

## Page 51

27

[4] Nyiraromba yongeye gutanga ikirego mu Rukiko rw‟Ibanze rwa Ruhango, aregera imirima itatu, akavuga ko umwe yawuhawe na nyina, indi ibiri ikaba ari iy‟umuryango, naho Ngirinshuti akavuga ko yayihawe na Nyirabujangwe, nyirakuru, akaba nyina wa Nyiraromba. Mu rubanza RC0191/09/TB/RHGO rwo ku wa 09/10/2009, Urukiko rwemeje ko Nyiraromba ariwe ufite uburenganzira ku mirima itatu iburanwa kuko ayikomora ku babyeyi be bitabye Imana, ko uguhabwa kwa Ngirinshuti nta shingiro gufite. [5] Ngirinshuti yajuririye Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Muhanga, avuga ko Urukiko rwamwambuye imirima ye itatu, rwirengagiza umwanzuro w‟abunzi kandi warafashwe bagiye ku kiburanwa, ntirwabaza abagize umuryango kandi rwirengagiza ko mu Rukiko Nyiraromba yareze mu izina rye kandi mu bunzi yari yareze abagize umuryango wa Nyirabujangwe na Habuhazi. [6] Mu rubanza RCA0740/09/TGI/MHG rwo ku wa 19/03/2010, Urukiko rwemeje ko urubanza rujuririrwa rudahindutse, kuko Ngirinshuti atagaragaza ibimenyetso by‟uko yahawe imirima itatu iburanwa na nyirakuru Nyirabujangwe, uyu nawe akaba abihakana mu nyandiko yageze kuri Kanto ya Murama ku wa 24/09/1990, bikanagaragara mu rubanza RCAA2505/07/HC/NYA, hakaba n‟inyandiko yo ku wa 03/10/1984 Nyirabujangwe yandikiye Nyiraromba ko amuhaye umurima ho ishimwe. Urubanza rwarangijwe n‟umuhesha w‟inkiko ku wa 09/05/2010. [7] Ngirinshuti Emmanuel yaje kurega Nyiraromba mu bunzi, avuga ko aho yamutsindiye harimo amazu ye, abunzi bafata icyemezo birengagije ko Nyiraromba yatsindiye imirima n‟ibiyirimo. Nyiraromba yaregeye umwanzuro w‟abunzi mu NYIRAROMBA v. NGIRINSHUTI

## Page 52

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 28

Rukiko rw‟Ibanze rwa Byimana, mu rubanza RC0377/13/TB/BMN rwo ku wa 2/7/2013 rusobanurwa n‟urubanza RC0159/15/TB/BYM, rwemeje ko amazu atatu yubatse kuri ubwo butaka bufite ubuso bwa 20m kuri 40m ari aya Ngirinshuti Emmanuel, nk‟uko bigaragazwa n‟inyandiko yo ku wa 15/6/1985 yerekana ko Nyirabujangwe Sarah yahamuhaye akahubaka akoresheje inguzanyo ya Banki. [8] Nyiraromba yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw‟Ikirenga, asaba gukemura impaka ziri hagati y‟urubanza RC0377/13/TB/BMA rwo ku wa 02/07/2013 rwasobanuwe n‟urubanza RC0159/16/TB/BYM rwo ku wa 23/12/2015 zaciwe n‟Urukiko rw‟Ibanze rwa Byimana bivuguruzanya n‟urubanza RCA070/09/TGI/MHG rwaciwe n‟Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Muhanga ku wa 19/3/2010, akibaza kandi niba Urukiko rw‟ibanze rwa Byimana rushobora kuvuguruza Urukiko Rwisumbuye. [9] Avuga kandi ko Urukiko rw‟Ibanze rwa Byimana rutagombaga kwakira ikirego cya Ngirinshuti kandi yaratsindiye ubutaka n‟ibiriho, Urukiko kandi rukaba rwarishe amategeko kuko mu rubanza rusobanuza rwakiriye ikimenyetso cy‟umuburanyi umwe, rufata icyemezo we adahamagajwe, asaba ko izo manza zavanwaho hakubahirizwa urubanza RCA0740/09/TGI/MHG na RC0191/TB/RHGO kuko nta rundi rwazikuyeho, hanyuma Ngirinshuti akamugenera indishyi z‟ibyakoreshejwe mu manza zingana na 900.000Frw. [10] Me Ndagijimana Viateur, mu mwanya wa Nsabiyaremye Protais, wagobotse ku bushake avuga ko mu haburanwa harimo ikibanza yaguze na Nyiraromba ku 650.000Frw, akaba afitemo inzu y‟agaciro ka 25.173.880Frw, ubu akaba asabwa gukuramo ibikorwa bye mu rwego rwo gushyira mu bikorwa urubanza

## Page 53

29

RC0377/TB/BYM rwo ku wa 07/07/2014 rwaciwe n‟Urukiko rw‟Ibanze rwa Byimana. Asaba kutavogerwa ku burenganzira afite ku kibanza No6818, akanagenerwa indishyi za 800.000Frw kubera gusiragizwa mu manza, 1.000.000Frw y‟igihembo cya Avoka. [11] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku wa 13/12/2016, Nyiraromba Marthe ahagarariwe na Me Kayirangwa Marie Grậce, Ngirinshuti Emmanuel ahagarariwe na Me Mberabagabo Balinda Richard. [12] Ku ruhande rwa Ngirinshuti bagaragaje inzitizi ebyiri, bavuga ko mu nzego zose ikirego cya Nyiraromba kitari gikwiye kwakirwa kubera ko yaburanaga imitungo y‟umuryango ayirega umuntu umwe, inzitizi ya kabiri ikaba yerekeranye no kuba Nyiraromba adafite inyungu n‟ububasha byo gutanga ikirego mu Rukiko rw‟Ikirenga kubera ko imitungo aburana yaguzwe, ikaba itunzwe na Nsabiyaremye. [13] Nyuma yo gusabwa ibisobanuro ku nzitizi yerekeranye no kuba ikirego kitari kuba cyarakiriwe mu nzego zose, Me Mberabagabo Balinda Richard yavuze ko iyo nzitizi bayiretse, Urukiko rukaba rugiye gusuzuma inzitizi yerekeranye no kumenya niba Nyiraromba yaba adafite inyungu n‟ububasha byo gutanga ikirego yashyikirije Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga. II. IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYACYO Kumenya niba Nyiraromba afite inyungu n’ububasha byo gutanga ikirego gisaba gukemura ivuguruzanya ryaba riri NYIRAROMBA v. NGIRINSHUTI

## Page 54

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 30

mu manza RC0377/13/TB/BMN rwo ku wa 02/7/2013 na RCA0740/09/TGI/MHGA rwo ku wa 19/03/2010. [14] Me Mberabagabo uburanira Ngirinshuti avuga ko ikirego cya Nyiraromba kidakwiye kwakirwa kubera ko nta nyungu n‟ububasha afite ku mutungo uburanwa, kuko nyuma yo kuwutsindira mu rubanza rwabaye itegeko, yawugurishije Nsabiyaremye, akaba nta burenganzira agifite bwo kuwuburana, ko ahubwo uwaguze uwo mutungo aramutse abangamiwe mu burenganzira bwe ariwe warega, maze akagobokesha uwo baguze. [15] Avuga ko Nsabiyaremye waguze uwo mutungo ariwe ufite amasezerano y„ubukode bwa burundu, akaba yaratesheje agaciro imanza zose zaburanywe n‟irangizwa ryazo kuri uwo mutungo, bikaba binaboneka mu mwanzuro wa Nyiraromba n‟uwa Nsabiyaremye, aho bombi bagaragaza ko umutungo uburanwa ari uwabo. [16] Me Kayirangwa avuga ko Nyiraromba aburanira afite inyungu ndetse n‟ububasha byo kurega, kuko uwo yagurishije umutungo atawufitemo amahoro, kandi akaba ari nawe uzi ahari uwo mutungo, nk‟uwahaburanye akanahatsindira. [17] Me Ndagijimana Viateur uburanira Nsabiyaremye nawe avuga ko Nyiraromba afite ububasha n‟inyungu muri uru rubanza, kubera ko ariwe wabaye umuburanyi, akaba akeneye ko ibidasobanutse bisobanuka, kandi ntahozwe ku nkeke n‟uwo yagurishije, wabangamiwe mu burenganzira bwe nk‟uwaguze.

## Page 55

31

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [18] Ingingo ya 18, agace ka 12, y‟Itegeko No21/2012 ryo ku wa 24/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y‟imanza z‟imbonezamubano, iz‟ubucuruzi, iz‟umurimo n‟iz‟ubutegetsi, iteganya ko ikirego kitakirwa ngo cyandikwe mu bitabo by‟Urukiko iyo cyatanzwe n‟utabifitiye ububasha (qualité), ubushobozi cyangwa inyungu (intérêt). [19] Urukiko rurasanga, nk‟uko bisobanurwa n‟abahanga mu mategeko, inyungu urega agomba kuba afite kugira ngo ikirego cye cyakirwe, ari itaziguye (direct) kandi bwite (personnel), ku buryo rero urega abyemererwa gusa, ari uko inyungu zibangamiwe ari ize bwite, kandi n‟icyemezo cyazafatwa n‟Urukiko ari we ubwe cyagirira akamaro1, ugaragaza inyungu muri ubwo buryo, akaba ari nawe ugira ububasha bwo kurega, bwumvikana nk‟uburenganzira bumwemerera kuba yasaba umucamanza kumuha ibyo aregera2. [20] Ku byerekeye Nyiraromba, wareze asaba ko hakemurwa ivuguruzanya ry‟imanza yaburanyemo imitungo itimukanwa, maze nyuma yo kuyitsindira no kuyihabwa mu irangizarubanza, akayigurisha Nsabiyaremye, nawe waje kuyibonera ibyangombwa by‟ubutaka, Urukiko rurasanga, hakurikijwe ibimaze gusobanurwa haruguru, inyungu Nyiraromba avuga, yo

1“Une personne ne peut saisir une juridiction que dans la mesure où elle souffre d‟une lésion de ses intérȇts propres et où le résultat de l‟action lui profitera personnellement”: Mélina Douchy - Oudot, Procédure civile, 2ème édition, Paris, 2006, p.106, Nº127. 2“A la qualité pour agir toute personne qui a un intérȇt à agir… l‟intérȇt donne au demandeur la qualité pour agir. …. Il est le titre qui donne la prérogative de demander raison au juge d‟une prétention”. Ibidem, p.108, Nº129. NYIRAROMBA v. NGIRINSHUTI

## Page 56

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 32

kuba uwo waguze abuzwa amahoro n‟abandi muri uwo mutungo, kandi ari we wawumugurishije nta shingiro ifite, kuko uwo mutungo utakiri uwe, kuba ashaka gufasha uwo yawugurishije kutawuhungabanywamo n‟abandi, nk‟uko abiburanisha, bikaba bitabonekamo inyungu ye bwite, itaziguye, yatuma agira ububasha bwo kurega. [21] Urukiko rurasanga rero, hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 18, agace ka 12 y‟Itegeko No21/2012 ryo ku wa 24/06/2016 ryibukijwe haruguru, ikirego cya Nyiraromba kitagomba kwakirwa ngo gisuzumwe, kuko adafite inyungu n‟ububasha byo kuregera ikemurwa ry‟ivuguruzanya ryaba riri mu manza RC0377/13/TB/BMN rwo ku wa 02/7/2013 na RCA0740/09/TGI/MHGA rwo ku wa 19/03/2010. [22] Urukiko rurasanga kandi, mu gihe ikirego cy‟ibanze cyatanzwe na Nyiraromba kitakiriwe, n‟icyo kugoboka cyatanzwe na Nsabiyaremye kidashobora kwakirwa, kuko ingingo ya 109 y‟Itegeko No21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryibukijwe haruguru, iteganya ko ibirego by‟ingoboka mu manza z‟abandi bitakirwa iyo bidafite ubusobekerane n‟ikirego cy‟iremezo, bikumvikana rero ko iyo icy‟iremezo kitakiriho kuko kitakiriwe, n‟isuzuma ry‟ubwo busobekerane riba ritagishobotse, ibi kandi bikanahura n‟ihame ry‟uko ibishamikiye ku cy‟ibanze bigikurikira (l‟accessoire suit le principal). III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [23] Rwemeje ko inzitizi yatanzwe na Ngirinshuti Emmanuel yo kutakira ikirego cya Nyiraromba Marthe ifite ishingiro;

## Page 57

33

[24] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Nyiraromba Marthe, kitakiriwe; [25] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyo kugoboka mu rubanza cyatanzwe na Nsabiyaremye Protais kitakiriwe; [26] Rutegetse ko amagarama y‟urubanza aherera kuri Nyiraromba Marthe.

NYIRAROMBA v. NGIRINSHUTI

## Page 59

WALTER RAFFO v. MUNYAMPIRWA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW‟IKIRENGA – RS/REV/INJUST/RCOM0002/16/CS (Mugenzi, P.J., Gakwaya na Mukamulisa, J.) 21 Mata 2017] Amategeko agenga ububasha bw’inkiko – Icyemezo cyafatiwe mu mahanga gisabwa kubanza kwemezwa n’inkiko zo mu Rwanda – Icyemezo cyafatiwe mu mahanga n’inzego zibifitiye ububasha gisabwa kubanza kwemezwa n’inkiko z’u Rwanda ni ikigamije kuharangirizwa kandi icyo cyemezo kikaba giha uwagihawe uburenganzira ku buryo yakwitabaza ingufu za Leta mu kubona ibyo kimugenera – Itegeko Ngenga N°51/2008 ryo kuwa 09/09/2008 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’inkiko, ingingo ya 91 n’iya 92 – Itegeko N°21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y‟imanza z‟imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 204. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uru rubanza rukomoka ku masezerano y‟ubugure bw‟imigabane muri Guest House Kibuye S.A yabaye hagati ya Walter Raffo na Munyampirwa Pascal. Leta y‟u Rwanda yaje kwisubiza iyo hoteli maze havuka ibibazo hagati yabo banyamigabane, bituma Walter Raffo wari waraguze arega Munyampirwa mu Rukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi asaba kwishyurwa imigabane yari afite muri iyo hoteli. Urukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi rwemeza yuko Munyampirwa agomba gusubiza Walter Raffo imigabane ye. Munyampirwa ntiyishimiye icyemezo cy‟Urukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi maze ajurira mu Rukiko rw‟Ikirenga, narwo rwemeza ko ubujurire bwe bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe. 35

## Page 60

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 36

Nyuma yaho Walter Raffo yongeye arega Munyampirwa mu Rukiko rw‟Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge asaba yuko yategekwa kubahiriza amasezerano bagiranye yo kuwa 25/08/2005 anasaba indishyi zitandukanye. Uru rukiko narwo rwemeza yuko iki kirego kitakiriwe kuko rwasanze ikiregerwa cyaraburanywe hagati y‟ababuranyi bamwe. Yajuririye mu Rukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi, narwo rwemeza ko ubujurire bwe nta shingiro bufite rushingiye ku mpamvu zimwe nk‟izashingiweho n‟urukiko rubanza. Walter Raffo yagejeje iki kibazo ku rwego rw‟umuvunyi avuga ko yarenganyijwe kuko yategetswe kwishyurwa umwenda Munyampirwa yari afite muri BCR kandi nta ruhare yagize mu kuwufata. Uru rwego narwo rwasabye Perezida w‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga ko urwo rubanza rwasubirishwamo ku mpamvu z‟akarengane. Walter Raffo yaje gupfa mbere yuko urubanza rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z‟akarengane rutaraburanishwa maze asimburwa n‟abazungura be. Mu iburanisha Munyampirwa yazamuye inzitizi zo kutakira ikirego, harimo yuko icyemezo kigaragaza ko Walter Raffo yapfuye kidashobora gushingirwaho n‟inkiko z‟u Rwanda kidakorewe ‟exequatur”, agasaba ko cyabanza kwemezwa n‟Urukiko Rukuru muri iyo nzira. Mu kwiregura kwabo, abazungura ba Walter Raffo, bavuga ko nta mpamvu Urukiko rwategeka ko hakorwa ‟exequatur”, kuko ikorwa ku manza n‟ibyemezo bigomba kurangizwa kandi muri uru rubanza, iki cyemezo cyatanzwe nk‟ikimenyetso, kikaba kitagomba kurangizwa. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Icyemezo cyafatiwe mu mahanga n‟inzego zibifitiye ububasha gisabwa kubanza kwemezwa n‟inkiko z‟u Rwanda nikigamije kuharangirizwa kandi icyo

## Page 61

37

cyemezo kikaba giha uwagihawe uburenganzira ku buryo yakwitabaza ingufu za Leta mu kubona ibyo kimugenera. Bityo icyemezo kigaragaza ko umuntu yapfuye ntikigomba kubanza kwemezwa n‟inkiko kuko kitagamije kwaka uburenganzira runaka mu buryo hakwitabazwa ingufu za Leta. Inzitizi nta shingiro rifite. Amagarama y’urubanza arasubitswe. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Ngenga N°51/2008 ryo kuwa 09/09/2008 rigena imiterere, imikorere n‟ububasha by‟inkiko, ingingo ya 91 n‟iya 92. Itegeko N°21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y‟imanza z‟imbonezamubano, iz‟ubucuruzi, iz‟umurimo n’iz‟ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 204. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Inyandiko z’Abahanga: Serge Guinchard, Thierry Debard, Lexique des termes juridiques, 23e édition, Paris, 2015-2016, p.463. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Kuwa 11/04/1999, Munyampirwa Pascal yagiranye na Walter Raffo amasezerano yo kugura igice cya Guest House WALTER RAFFO v. MUNYAMPIRWA

## Page 62

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 38

Kibuye S.A ku gaciro ka 250.000USD, bumvikana ko ibibazo bizavuka muri ayo masezerano bizakemurwa n‟inkiko zo mu Busuwisi. [2] Sosiyete Guest House Kibuye S.A yaje kugira ibibazo, Leta y‟u Rwanda iza kwisubiza iyo Guest House, hanyuma Walter Raffo arega Munyampirwa asaba kumwishyura agaciro k‟imigabane ye muri sosiyete Guest House Kibuye SA, maze ku wa 26/12/2010, Urukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi rwemeza, mu rubanza RCOM0094/09/HCC, ko Munyampirwa agomba gusubiza Walter Raffo imigabane ye muri sosiyete Guest House Kibuye SA ingana na 170.000.000Frw. [3] Munyampirwa yajuririye Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga, mu rubanza RCOMA0074/10/CS rwo ku wa 13/07/2012, rwemeza ko ubujurire bwe bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe, ko nta migabane agomba kwishyura Walter Raffo, ahubwo uyu ategekwa kwishyura indishyi zingana na 1.000.000Frw. [4] Walter Raffo yongeye kurega Munyampirwa mu Rukiko rw‟Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge, asaba ko yategekwa kubahiriza amasezerano bagiranye yo kuwa 25/08/2005, yateganyaga ko bombi bazafungura konti muri Banki ya Kigali, ikazanyuzwaho amafaranga na “Secrétariat de Privatisation” Leta yagombaga kwishyura, mu rwego rwo kwisubiza Guest House Kibuye SA, asaba n‟indishyi zitandukanye. Mu rubanza RCOM01158/14/NYGE rwo kuwa 31/01/2014, Urukiko rwemeza ko ikiregerwa cyaburanwe, hagati y‟ababuranyi bamwe, ku kiburanwa kimwe no ku mpamvu imwe, ko rero ikirego kitakiriwe. [5] Walter Raffo yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi, mu rubanza RCOMA0087/14/HCC rwo kuwa 28/03/2014,

## Page 63

39

rwemeza ko ubujurire bwe nta shingiro bufite, kuko icyo yaregeraga mu Rukiko rw‟Ubucuruzi cyari cyaraburanywe mbere, runavuga ko Walter Raffo adakwiye gusubizwa umugabane we wenyine, kandi ari umunyamigabane ku rwego rumwe na Munyampirwa, n‟abandi, bikaba bigaragara ko ayo mafaranga yishyuwe umwenda wa Guest House Kibuye SA muri BCR, bakaba bakwiye kugabana igihombo. [6] Walter Raffo, yagejeje ikibazo ku Rwego rw‟Umuvunyi, avuga ko yarenganyijwe, kuko yategetswe kugira uruhare mu kwishyura umwenda wa Munyampirwa muri BCR kandi ataragize uruhare mu kuwufata, urwo Rwego rusanga amasezerano y‟inguzanyo ya 158.217.605Frw yabaye hagati ya Munyampirwa na BCR igihe yaguraga Guest House Kibuye SA, atari akwiye kugira ingaruka kuri Walter Raffo, maze rusaba Perezida w‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga ko urubanza RCOMA0087/14/HCC rwo kuwa 28/03/2014, rwasubirishwamo ku mpamvu z‟akarengane, nawe arwohereza mu Bwanditsi bw‟Urukiko, kugira ngo rwongere kuburanishwa. [7] Ku ruhande rwa Munyampirwa, hatanzwe inzitizi zigamije gusaba ko ikirego kitakwakirwa ku mpamvu zinyuranye, zirimo ijyanye n‟ingwate y‟abanyamahanga mu gihe barega, iyo kuba hatagaragajwe abafite ububasha bwo gukomeza urubanza nyuma y‟urupfu rwa Walter Raffo, n‟iyo kuba mu gufata icyemezo mu rubanza RCOMA0087/14/HCC rusabirwa gusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z‟akarengane, harashingiwe ku rubanza RCOMA0074/10/CS, gusaba ko rusubirishwamo bikaba bigamije guhindurira urubanza mu rundi, ndetse ko urega ahindura ikirego kuko mu kirego avuga impamvu z‟akarengane ariko agasobanura urubanza mu mizi, WALTER RAFFO v. MUNYAMPIRWA

## Page 64

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 40

bikaba bitakwemerwa n‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga kuko undi muburanyi atabyemeye. [8] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame kuwa 7/02/2017, ku ruhande rwa Walter Raffo haburana Me Habimana Pie, naho Munyampirwa Pascal ahagarariwe na Me Bizimana Shoshi, uyu asaba ko habanza gusuzumwa ibyerekeranye no kumenya niba icyemezo cyagaragajwe cy‟uko Walter Raffo yapfuye, cyatangiwe mu mahanga cyashingirwaho n‟inkiko zo mu Rwanda, kitabanje kwemezwa mu nzira ya ‟exequatur ˮ, Urukiko rwemeza ko iyo nzitizi ariyo ibanza gusuzumwa. II. IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYACYO Kumenya niba icyemezo cyatanzwe n’ushinzwe irangamimerere mu gihugu cya Philippines kigaragaza ko Walter Raffo yapfuye, kigomba kubanza kwemezwa mu nzira ya ‟exequatur’’ mu Rwanda kugira ngo kibe cyashingirwaho mu rubanza. [9] Me Bizimana Shoshi, uburanira Munyampirwa, avuga ko icyemezo cyatanzwe n‟uruhande rwa Walter Raffo kigaragaza ko yapfuye, kidashobora gushingirwaho n‟inkiko z‟u Rwanda kidakorewe ‟exequatur”, kuko kwemeza abazungura hashingiwe kuri cyo biba ari uburyo bwo kugishyira mu bikorwa (éxécution), asaba rero ko cyabanza kwemezwa n‟Urukiko Rukuru muri iyo nzira. [10] Me Habimana Pie, ku ruhande rwa Walter, avuga ko asanga nta mpamvu Urukiko rwategeka ko hakorwa ‟exequatur”, kuko ikorwa ku manza zigomba kurangizwa, naho

## Page 65

41

ku byerekeye uru rubanza, ibyemezo bikaba byaratanzwe nk‟ikimenyetso, ariko nta kigomba kurangizwa. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [11] Ingingo ya 91 y‟Itegeko Ngenga N°51/2008 ryo kuwa 09/09/2008 rigena imiterere, imikorere n‟ububasha by‟inkiko nk‟uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu, iteganya ko “Urukiko Rukuru ruburanisha ibirego bisaba kurangiza mu Rwanda imanza cyangwa ibyemezo byafashwe n‟inkiko zo mu mahanga”, iya 92 y‟iryo Tegeko Ngenga igateganya ko “Inyandikompamo zifite ikigaragaza ko zanditswe n‟abategetsi bo mu mahanga, zishobora na zo kurangirizwa mu Rwanda n‟Urukiko Rukuru, iyo zujuje ibyangombwa…” biteganywa ku rutonde rugaragazwa muri iyo ngingo, naho ingingo ya 204 y‟Itegeko N°21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y‟imanza z‟imbonezamubano, iz‟ubucuruzi, iz‟umurimo n‟iz‟ubutegetsi ikagira iti “Uretse igihe haba hari amasezerano mpuzamahanga abivuga ukundi, imanza zaciwe n‟inkiko zo mu mahanga n‟inyandikomvaho zo mu mahanga zakozwe n‟ababigenewe ntizishobora kurangirizwa mu Rwanda zitabyemerewe n‟Urukiko rubifitiye ububasha”. [12] Urukiko rurasanga, nk‟uko byumvikana mu ngingo z‟amategeko zibukijwe haruguru, ibyemezo byafatiwe mu mahanga n‟inzego zibifitiye ububasha bigomba kubanza kwemezwa n‟Urukiko mu Rwanda, ari ibigamije kuharangirizwa nk‟uko ingingo z‟amategeko zibukijwe haruguru zibigaragaza (pour ȇtre éxécutoire au Rwanda). [13] Urukiko rurasanga, icyemezo kigamije kurangizwa (éxécutoire), nk‟uko abahanga mu mategeko babisobanura, ari WALTER RAFFO v. MUNYAMPIRWA

## Page 66

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 42

igiha uburenganzira uwagihawe, mu buryo yabasha kwaka ibyo kimugenera yitabaje ingufu za Leta, akaba atariko bimeze ku byerekeye icyemezo cy‟uko umuntu yapfuye nk‟icyagaragajwe ku byerekeye Walter Raffo, kuko kitagamije kwaka uburenganzira runaka mu buryo hakwitabazwa ingufu za Leta1, ahubwo kigamije kugaragaza ko atakiriho, maze bibe byashingirwaho ingaruka zinyuranye amategeko ateganya. [14] Urukiko rurasanga rero, icyemezo cy‟urupfu rwa Walter Raffo cyatanzwe n‟ushinzwe irangamimerere2 “certificate of death” mu gihugu cya Philippines, kidasaba kubanza kwemezwa n‟urukiko mu Rwanda kugira ngo kibe cyashingirwaho mu rubanza rwa Walter Raffo na Munyampirwa rwajuririwe muri uru Rukiko, bityo, inzitizi yatanzwe kuri icyo kibazo na Munyampirwa ikaba nta shingiro ifite. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [15] Rwemeje ko inzitizi yatanzwe na Munyampirwa Pascal ijyanye no kuba icyemezo cy‟urupfu rwa Walter Raffo cyatangiwe mu mahanga kigomba kubanza kwemezwa n‟Urukiko mu Rwanda, nta shingiro ifite;

1 “Exécutoire, signifie que celui auquel l'acte en question a reconnu un droit, peut faire procéder à son éxécution forcée par les soins d'un officier public qui a compétence pour requérir la force publique”: Serge Braudo, Dictionnaire de droit privé Français, 1996-2017, www.dictionnaire- juridique.com, consulté le 21 Avril 2017. -“Qui permet de procéder à l’exécution avec, au besoin, le concours de la force publique” Serge Guinchard, Thierry Debard, Lexique des termes juridiques, 23e édition, Paris, 2015-2016, p.463. 2 OFFICE OF THE CIVIL REGISTER GENERAL- Republic of the Philippines.

## Page 67

43

[16] Rutegetse ko iburanisha ry‟urubanza rizakomeza kuwa 13/06/2017; [17] Rutegetse ko amagarama y‟urubanza asubitswe.

WALTER RAFFO v. MUNYAMPIRWA

## Page 69

URUBANZA RWEREKEYE IMIBURANISHIRIZE Y’IMANZA Z’IMISORO

## Page 71

TELE 10 RWANDA Ltd v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA) [Rwanda URUKIKO RW‟IKIRENGA – RCOMAA0037/14/CS (Kanyange, P.J., Rugabirwa na Ngagi, J.) 29 Nyakanga 2016] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imisoro – Igihe cyo kuregera urukiko ku musoresha wahisemo inzira y’ubwumvikane – Umusoreshwa wahisemo inzira y’ubwumvikane ariko ntibugerweho aregera urukiko mu gihe cy’iminsi mirongo itatu (30) ibarwa ihereye igihe amenyeshejwe ko ubwumvikane butagishobotse – Itegeko Nº01/2012 ryo ku wa 03/02/2012 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko Nº25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y'isoresha, ingingo ya 9 – Itegeko Nº74/2008 of 31/12/2008 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko Nº25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y'isoresha, ingingo ya 7. Incamake y’ikibazo: Nyuma y‟uko TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd ikorewe igenzura ku myaka ya 2007, 2008, 2009 na 2010, RRA ikerekana ko hari umusoro w‟inyongera ungana na 124.891.684Frw ugomba gucibwa hejuru y‟uwari waramenyekanishijwe mu gihe gisanzwe cyo kumenyekanisha umusoro, yatakambiye Komiseri Mukuru wa RRA, maze isubizwa ko iryo takamba nta shingiro rifite. Nyuma yaho yandika ibaruwa kuwa 25/06/2013 isaba ko ikibazo gikemurwa mu bwumvikane, kuwa 20/12/2013, Komiseri Mukuru wa RRA ayisubiza ko ubwumvikane budashobotse kuko yanze kunyurwa n‟uburyo umusoro wabazwe. 47

## Page 72

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 48

TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw‟Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge, RRA itanga inzitizi yo kutacyakira ivuga ko yarengeje iminsi yo kurega kuko ngo yagombaga kubikora mu minsi 30 ibazwe guhera igihe yaboneye icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru ku bujurire yari yakoze. Urukiko rwemeje ko ikirego cya TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd kitakiriwe kuko yagombaga kujuririra icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru mu minsi 30. TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi, urwo Rukiko rwemeza ko ubujurire bwayo bufite ishingiro, rutegeka ko imikirize y‟urubanza rwajuririwe ivanwaho maze TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd ikemererwa kuba yakongera kurega kugira ngo ikirego cyayo gisuzumwe mu mizi ku rwego rwa mbere. RRA yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko rw‟Ikirenga ivuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi rwemeje ko ikirego cya TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd cyagombaga kwakirwa rwirengagije ingingo y‟Itegeko Nº01/2012 ryo kuwa 31/12/2008 ihindura kandi yuzuza ingingo ya 38 y‟Itegeko Nº25/2005 ryo 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y‟isoresha ivuga ko umusoreshwa utishimiye icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru ashyikiriza ikirego cye Urukiko mu minsi itarenze 30 uhereye igihe yagerejweho icyo cyemezo kandi TELE 10 RwandaLtd, yo ikaba yaratanze ikirego nyuma y‟icyo gihe. RRA ikomeza ivuga ko nubwo TELE 10 yari kurega nyuma y‟ubwumvikane, nabwo yagombaga kubahiriza igihe cy‟iminsi 30 giteganywa n‟Itegeko. TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd yireguye ivuga ko kujya mu Rukiko ku musoreshwa utishimiye icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru bifite inzira ebyiri bishobora kunyuzwamo, iya mbere ikaba aho umusoreshwa utishimiye icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru ahita aregera urukiko kandi akabikora mu gihe kitarenze iminsi 30, inzira ya kabiri ikaba aho umusoreshwa utishimiye icyemezo

## Page 73

49

cya Komiseri Mukuru ashobora kumusaba ko ikibazo gicyemurwa mu bwumvikane, kandi iyo impande zombi zitabashije gucyemura ikibazo mu bwumvikane, umusoreshwa ashobora kujuririra urukiko rubifitiye ububasha, ariko akaba agomba gutegereza ko ubwumvikane burangira kugira ngo atange ikirego, kandi ko nta gihe ntarengwa cyateganyijwe ku musoreshwa witabaje inzira ya kabiri. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Umusoreshwa wahisemo inzira y‟ubwumvikane aregera urukiko mu gihe ubwo bwumvikane ntacyo bwagezeho. Bityo kuba TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd yahisemo inzira y‟ubwumvikane, ntiyagombaga kuregera urukiko mu gihe kitarenze iminsi 30 ibarwa uhereye igihe yagejejweho icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru. 2. Umusoreshwa wasabye ubwimvikane nyuma ntibugire icyo bugeraho aregera urukiko mu minsi mirongo itatu (30) ibarwa ihereye igihe amenyeshejwe ko ubwumvikane butagishobotse. Bityo kuba TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd yaramenyeshejwe biciye mw‟Iposita ko ubwumvikane butagishobotse ku itariki ya 20 Ukoboza 2013, hanyuma ikaregera urukiko muri Werurwe 2014, bivuze ko yareze impitagihe, bityo ikirego kikaba kitaragombaga kwakirwa. Ubujurire bufite ishingiro. Ikirego ntikigomba kwakirwa. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y‟imanza z‟imbonezamubano, iz‟ubucuruzi, iz‟umurimo n‟iz‟ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 168. TELE 10 RWANDA Ltd v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA)

## Page 74

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 50

Itegeko Nº01/2012 ryo ku wa 03/02/2012 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko Nº25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y‟isoresha, ingingo ya 9. Itegeko Nº74/2008 ryo kuwa 31/12/2008 rihindura kandi ryuzuza itegeko Nº25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y‟isoresha, ingingo ya 7. Amabwiriza ya Komiseri Mukuru Nº001/2014 yo ku wa 01/11/2014 agena uburyo bwo gucyemura ibibazo by‟imisoro mu bwumvikane, ingingo ya 6. Imanza zifashishijwe: RRA v. SOCOMIE Ltd, RCOMAA0029/15/CS rwaciwe n‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga kuwa 31/07/2015. Inyandiko z’abahanga: Hakim Boularban, Olivier CAPRASSE, Georges DE LEVAL, Frédéric GEORGES, Pierre MOREAU, Dominique MOUGENOT, Jacques VAN COMPERNOLLE, Jean- François VAN DROOGHENBROECK, Droit judiciaire, Manuel de procédure civile, Tome 2, Larcier, p.794. SERGE GUINCHARD, Droit et Pratique de la Procédure Civile, 8è édition, 2014-2015, p.1513. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] TELE 10 RWANDA Ltd yakorewe igenzura ku myaka ya 2007, 2008, 2009 na 2010, RRA yerekana ko hari umusoro w‟inyongera ungana na 124.891.684Frw ugomba gucibwa hejuru y‟uwari waramenyekanishijwe mu gihe gisanzwe cyo

## Page 75

51

kumenyekanisha umusoro. Muri uwo musoro harimo umusoro ufatirwa ungana na 87.272.797Frw waciwe kuri produits TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd ivuga ko igura hanze mu buryo bw‟ikoranabuhanga, ikayigurisha abakiriya bayo, RRA yo ikavuga ko ari ugukodesha ubuhanga bwa MULTI CHOICE AFRICA kugira ngo ishobore kubona chaînes za DSTV. [2] TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd yatakambiye Komiseri Mukuru wa RRA isubizwa ko iryo takamba nta shingiro rifite, nyuma yaho yandika ibaruwa ku wa 25/06/2013 isaba ko ikibazo gikemurwa mu bwumvikane, ku wa 20/12/2013, Komiseri Mukuru wa RRA ayisubiza ko ubwumvikane budashobotse kuko yanze kunyurwa n‟uburyo umusoro wabazwe. [3] TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw‟Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge, RRA itanga inzitizi yo kutacyakira ivuga ko yarengeje iminsi yo kurega kuko ngo yagombaga kubikora mu minsi 30 ibazwe guhera igihe yaboneye icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru ku bujuriye yari yakoze. Urukiko rwemeje ko ikirego cya TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd kitakiriwe rubishingiye ku ngingo ya 32 y‟Itegeko Nº25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y‟isoresha nk‟uko ryahinduwe rikuzuzwa kugeza ubu, kuko yagombaga kujuririra icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru mu munsi 30. [4] TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi, ruca urubanza RCOMA0287/14/HCC kuwa 30/07/2014, rwemeza ko ubujurire bwayo bufite ishingiro, rutegeka ko imikirize y‟urubanza rwajuririwe ivanwaho maze TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd ikemererwa kuba yakongera kurega kugira ngo ikirego cyayo gisuzumwe mu mizi ku rwego rwa mbere. TELE 10 RWANDA Ltd v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA)

## Page 76

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 52

[5] Mu gufata icyo cyemezo, Urukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi rwasesenguye ingingo ya 32 y‟Itegeko Nº25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 ryavuzwe haruguru, ingingo ya 9 y‟Itegeko Nº01/2012 ryo kuwa 03/02/2012 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko Nº25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 hamwe n‟ingingo ya 38 y‟iryo Tegeko, rusanga Umushingamategeko yaragennye ubwe igihe umusoreshwa wanyuze mu nzira y‟ubwumvikane ashobora kuregera inkiko, ko bikorwa iyo impande zombi zitabashije gucyemura ikibazo mu bwumvikane, ko rero kuregera urukiko bitakorwa mbere yo kumenya ibizava mu mishyikirano. [6] Rwasobanuye kandi ko kuba harateganyijwe imishyikirano mbere yo kurega, biri mu rwego rwo kugira ngo abafitanye ikibazo bajye bagerageza kugicyemura bitabaye ngombwa kwihutira kugana inkiko, ko kandi iyo nzira isanzwe ishyigikiwe mu ngeri nyinshi z„ubuzima bw‟igihugu, ari nayo mpamvu urukiko rusanga by‟umwihariko yarashyizwe mu mategeko agenga isoresha. [7] Rwasanze rero ikirego cyaragombaga kwakirwa mu Rukiko rw‟Ubucuruzi, maze rushingiye ku ngingo ya 171 y‟Itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y‟imanza z‟imbonezamubano, iz‟ubucuruzi, iz‟umurimo n‟iz‟ubutegetsi, rusanga kuba ikirego kitarakiriwe ku mpamvu y‟uko rwaregewe impitagihe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko, icyo cyemezo kikaba gihinduwe mu bujurire, TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd yemerewe kongera kuregera urukiko rwari rwanze kwakira ikirego kugira ngo noneho rugisuzume ku rwego rwa mbere. [8] RRA yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko rw‟Ikirenga ivuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi rwirengagije

## Page 77

53

imyiregurire yayo, rwemeza ko ikirego cya TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd cyagombaga kwakirwa rwirengagije ibyo amategeko ateganya. [9] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame kuwa 19/042016, 08/06/2016 na 20/07/2016 RRA ihagarariwe na Me Byiringiro Bajeni, TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd ihagarariwe na Me Twilingiyemungu Joseph. II. IKIBAZO KIRI MU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYACYO Kumenya niba hari ibyirengangijwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi mu kwemeza ko ikirego cya TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd cyagombaga kwakirwa. [10] Uburanira RRA avuga ko Urukiko rwirengagije imyiregurire yayo, rwemeza ko ikirego cya TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd gikwiye kwakirwa, rwirengagije ibivugwa mu ngingo ya 7 y‟Itegeko Nº74/2008 ryo kuwa 31/12/2008 ihindura kandi yuzuza ingingo ya 38 y‟Itegeko Nº25/2005 ryo 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y‟isoresha, ivuga ko umusoreshwa utishimiye icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru ashyikiriza ikirego cye Urukiko mu minsi itarenze 30 uhereye igihe yagerejweho icyo cyemezo, ko kandi TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd yamenye icyo cyemezo mbere y‟itariki ya 25/06/2013, itanga ikirego mu mwaka wa 2014, kikaba kitari gikwiye kwakirwa. [11] Akomeza avuga ko ingingo ya 32 y‟Itegeko Nº25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y‟isoresha yashingiweho n‟Urukiko itavuga ku bwumvikane, ahubwo ingingo ya 9 y‟Itegeko Nº01/2012 ryo ku wa 03/02/2012 TELE 10 RWANDA Ltd v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA)

## Page 78

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 54

yahinduye kandi ikuzuza ingingo ya 32 y‟Itegeko Nº25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 ryavuzwe haruguru, ari yo ivuga iby‟ubwumvikane, ko ariko iyo ngingo ya 9 itavanyeho ingingo ya 7 y‟Itegeko Nº74/2008 ryo kuwa 31/12/2008. [12] Avuga kandi ko ingingo ya 9 y‟Itegeko Nº01/2012 ryo ku wa 03/02/2012, igishya yazanye ari uko utishimiye icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru ashobora gusaba ubwumvikane, bwakwanga akaregera Urukiko, ariko ko idakuraho ko ikigomba kuregerwa ari icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru kandi bigakorwa mu gihe cy‟iminsi 30 kuva umusoreshwa abonye icyo cyemezo. [13] Asobanura kandi ko umusoreshwa yemerewe kubangikanya inzira zombi, ariko ko abanza kuregera icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru kugira ngo ibihe bitamurengana, ko kandi ibyo byumvikana kuko mu ibaruwa y‟ubwumvikane nta kintu cyo kuregerwa kiba kirimo, ahubwo ibyo kuregera urukiko biba bikubiye mu cyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru. [14] Akomeza avuga ko iby‟uko haregerwa icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru byemejwe mu rubanza RCOM0210/12/HCC rwajuririwe mu Rukiko rw‟Ikirenga narwo rukemeza ko iminsi 30 ibarwa guhera igihe umusoreshwa yaboneye igisubizo cya Komiseri Mukuru aho gutegereza icyemezo cy‟ubwumvikane. [15] Na none kandi ngo nubwo TELE 10 yari kurega nyuma y‟ubwumvikane, nabwo yagombaga kubahiriza igihe cy‟iminsi 30 giteganywa n‟Itegeko kuko ingingo ya 32 itavanyeho iya 38, ko kandi bitari ngombwa ko mu mabwiriza ya Komiseri Mukuru, hongera kwibutswa igihe cyo kurega kuko gisanzwe giteganyijwe n‟itegeko.

## Page 79

55

[16] Akomeza asobanura ko Komiseri Mukuru yasubije TELE 10 ko ubwumvikane butagishobotse mu ibaruwa yo ku wa 20/12/2013, ko rero igihe cy‟iminsi 30 cyo kurega cyagombaga kubarwa guhera igihe TELE 10 yayiboneye, ko kandi itavuga ko atari icyemezo mu gihe ariyo yatumye imenya ko ubwumvikane bwananiranye kandi ikaba itari kuregera igihe ishakiye. Asanga kandi RRA itararenze imbibi z‟icyajuririwe kuko ikiburanwa ari ibihe byo gutangira ikirego, ko rero itaba inzitizi ukwayo, ahubwo ari imyiregurire (moyen de défense) yiyongera ku bisobanuro batanze mbere. [17] Mu kugaragaza igihe TELE 10 yagombaga gutangira ikirego, RRA yatanze ikimenyetso cy‟aho Iposita yakiriye inyandiko zishinganye (liste des envois recommandés) hariho igenewe TELE 10, iyo nyandiko ikaba igaragaza ko yakiriwe mu Iposita ku wa 23/12/2013, ko kandi hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 5 n‟iya 6 z‟Itegeko Nº25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y‟isoresha, harebwa umunsi ibaruwa yakiriwe mu Iposita, ko kandi TELE 10 Rwanda itavuga ko itayibonye mu gihe yemera ko yareze nyuma yo kumenya ko ubwumvikane butashobotse [18] Uburanira TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd avuga ko nk‟uko urubanza rujuririrwa rwabisobanuye, kujya mu Rukiko ku musoreshwa utishimiye icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru bifite inzira ebyiri bishobora kunyuzwamo, iya mbere ikaba ari iteganywa n‟ingingo ya 38 y‟Itegeko Nº25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y‟isoresha, aho umusoreshwa utishimiye icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru ahita aregera urukiko kandi akabikora mu gihe kitarenze iminsi 30, ko inzira ya kabiri iteganywa n‟ingingo ya 9 y‟Itegeko Nº01/2012 ryo ku wa 03/02/2012 rihindura kandi ryuzuza TELE 10 RWANDA Ltd v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA)

## Page 80

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 56

Itegeko Nº25/2004 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 ryavuzwe, iteganya ko umusoreshwa utishimiye icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru ashobora kumusaba ko ikibazo gicyemurwa mu bwumvikane, ikanavuga ko iyo impande zombi zitabashije gucyemura ikibazo mu bwumvikane, umusoreshwa ashobora kujuririra urukiko rubifitiye ububasha, bivuze ko umusoreshwa agomba gutegereza ko ubwumvikane burangira kugira ngo aregere urukiko, kandi iyo bugeze ku mwanzuro nta mpamvu yo kurega. [19] Akomeza avuga ko TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd itashoboraga kuregera icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru mu minsi 30 kuko ubwumvikane yari yasabye bwamaze igihe kirekire butarafatirwa umwanzuro, ko rero ikirego kitari kuba kikiri mu rukiko kitaraburanishwa ko kandi atari cyo Umushingamategeko yashatse kuvuga kuko byaba bivuguruza ibindi yashyizeho biteganywa n‟ingingo ya 13 y‟Itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru, iteganya ko imanza zitagomba kurenza amezi atandatu mu nkiko zitaraburanishwa. [20] Ku bivugwa na RRA ko ikiregerwa mu rukiko ari ibikubiye mu cyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru, uburanira TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd asanga ntacyo bihindura ku bihe byateganyijwe kuko mu ngingo ya 6 y‟amabwiriza ya Komiseri Mukuru Nº001/2014 yo ku wa 01/11/2014 agena uburyo bwo gucyemura ibibazo by‟imisoro mu bwumvikane, ivuga ko iyo impande zombi zitabashije kumvikana mu gihe cy‟iminsi 60, icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru kigumana agaciro kacyo, bivuze ko icyo umusoreshwa azajyana mu Rukiko ari ingingo atishimiye zasuzumwe na Komiseri Mukuru mu gihe yamutakambiraga, ko ariko n‟amabwiriza ubwayo avuga ko ari mu gihe impande zombi zitashoboye kumvikana.

## Page 81

57

[21] Asobanura kandi ko igihe TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd yasabaga ubwumvikane, nta gihe cyari giteganyijwe haba kuri Komiseri Mukuru cyangwa ku musoreshwa, ko ku birebana n‟uwo aburanira, yasabye ubwumvikane ku wa 25/06/2013 asubizwa ku wa 20/12/2013, aregera Urukiko mu kwezi kwa gatatu 2014, ko kandi kuba ibihe byari bifunguye (open), kuri Komiseri Mukuru byari binafunguye ku musoreshwa kuko mu gihe yihaye iminsi 60 yo gusubiza ariko ntayihe umusoreshwa, ari we bigomba kugiraho ingaruka. [22] Ku birebana n‟ibaruwa yo ku wa 20/12/2013, avuga ko atari yo yaherwaho mu kubara igihe cyo kurega kuko Itegeko atariko ribiteganya kandi ikaba atari icyemezo cyaregerwa, ko kandi aho itegeko ridatandukanya ntawugomba gutandukanya (là où la loi ne distingue pas, on ne peut pas distinguer), bivuze ko niba Itegeko rivuze ibintu mu buryo bwa rusange ntawemerewe kuzanamo ibibujijwe (restrictions). [23] Akomeza asobanura ko ingingo ya 25 y‟Itegeko ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y‟isoresha, iteganya ko utishimiye icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru arega mu gihe cy‟iminsi 30, ariko ku bijyanye n‟ubwumvikane rikavuga ko umusoreshwa utishimiye icyemezo, ariko nta gihe kigomba kubahirizwa, ko kandi Komiseri Mukuru ari we wagombaga gutanga icyo gihe, ko rero hatakwitiranwa icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru kiregerwa mu minsi 30 n‟ibaruwa ivuga ko ubwumvikane butashobotse. [24] Ku birebana n‟urubanza RCOMA0179/12/CS RRA iburanisha, avuga ko rutashingirwaho kuko hari urundi rwaciwe nyuma yarwo rufite RCOMAA0029/15/CS rwemeje ko ikirego gitangwa mu rukiko nyuma y‟uko ubwumvikane butashobotse, ko kandi muri urwo rubanza hataburanwe igihe ikirego TELE 10 RWANDA Ltd v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA)

## Page 82

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 58

cyagombaga gutangirwa mu rukiko n‟ubwo bwose byahuriranye. Asanga no muri uru rubanza hakwiye kurebwa icyaburanyweho n‟icyajuririwe muri uru Rukiko kuko ibyo RRA ivuga bitari mu mbibi z‟icyajuririwe, hakaba hasuzumwa icyagiweho impaka kuva ku rwego rwa mbere kikanafatwaho icyemezo mu rubanza rwajuririwe kirebana n‟uko kurega bikorwa mu minsi 30 iherwa ku cyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru, kuko bitabaye ibyo, igiherwaho mu kubara icyo gihe (acte) cyaba gihindutse, ndetse n‟impaka (débats) zaba zihindutse. [25] Ku birebana n‟igihe TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd yaboneye ibaruwa yo ku wa 20/12/2013, uyiburanira avuga ko inyandiko yatanzwe na RRA itagaragaza ko iyo baruwa ari yo yajyanwe mu Iposita, ko kandi impamvu abishidikanyaho ari uko mu mikorere ya RRA (pratiques), umusoreshwa wasabye ubwumvikane ari we uba ufite inyungu yo kubikurikirana, hakaba hakwibazwa impamvu RRA yari kujyana iyo baruwa mu Iposita, kandi byari no kuyorohera kuyijyana kuri TELE 10 iri hafi yayo, ko n‟ubwo adahakana ko TELE 10 yabonye iyo baruwa, ariko atamenya umunsi nyawo yayiboneye. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [26] Ingingo ya 7 y‟Itegeko Nº74/2008 of 31/12/2008 y‟Itegeko Nº74/2008 ryo kuwa 31/12/2008 rihindura kandi ikuzuza ingingo ya 38 y‟Itegeko Nº25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y‟isoresha, iteganya ko “Umusoreshwa utanyuzwe n‟icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru ashobora kuregera inkiko. Ikirego cye agishyikiriza urukiko rubifitiye ububasha mu gihe kitarenze iminsi mirongo itatu (30) uhereye igihe yagejejweho icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru”.

## Page 83

59

[27] Ingingo ya 9 y‟Itegeko Nº1/2012 ryo ku wa 03/02/2012 rihindura kandi rikuzuza Itegeko Nº25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y'isoresha, iteganya mu gika cyayo cya kane ko “Umusoreshwa utishimiye icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru ashobora kumusaba ko ikibazo cye gikemuka mu bwumvikane”. Mu gika cya gatanu iyo ngingo iteganya ko, „‟Iyo impande zombi zitabashije gukemura icyo kibazo mu bwumvikane, umusoreshwa ashobora kujuririra urukiko rubifitiye ububasha”. [28] Ingingo z‟amategeko zivuzwe mu bika bibanza, zumvikanisha ko umusoreshwa utishimiye icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru afite inzira ebyiri ashobora gukoresha, inzira ya mbere yari isanzwe mu Itegeko ikaba ari iyo kuregera urukiko kandi bigakorwa mu gihe cy‟iminisi 30 kuva abonye icyo cyemezo, n‟inzira ya kabiri yashyizweho mu Itegeko Nº1/2012 ryo ku wa 03/02/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru (ingingo ya 9), yo kuba yasaba Komiseri Mukuru ko ikibazo gikemurwa mu bwumvikane, bitashoboka akaba ashobora kuregera urukiko. [29] Ku kibazo cyo kumenya igihe umusoreshwa atangira ikirego mu rukiko iyo yahisemo inzira y‟ubwumvikane, Urukiko rurasanga ibivugwa n‟uburanira RRA y‟uko muri icyo gihe umusoreshwa abanza kuregera urukiko kugira ngo iminsi 30 itamurengana, bitahabwa ishingiro kuko izo nzira zombi zitabangikanywa, kandi icyo kibazo kikaba cyarakemuwe mu buryo bwumvikana mu gika cya gatanu cy‟ingingo ya 9 y‟Itegeko Nº01/2012 ryo kuwa 03/02/2012 kuko ivuga ko iyo impande zombi zitumvikanye, ari bwo umusoreshwa ajuririra urukiko, bivuze rero ko ataregera icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru cya mbere y‟ubwumvikane ngo yongere arege nyuma y‟uko ubwumvikane butagezweho kuko urukiko rusanga TELE 10 RWANDA Ltd v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA)

## Page 84

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 60

ataricyo Umushingamategeko yateganyije mu gushyiraho inzira y‟ubwumvikane, ahubwo yashatse ko uwifuje kuyigana yajya mu rukiko mu gihe ntacyo ubwumvikane bwagezeho, kuko mu gihe bugezweho nta mpamvu iba igihari yatuma ajya kuregera urukiko. [30] N‟ubwo ibimaze kuvugwa ari nako byemejwe mu rubanza rwajuririwe kuko narwo rwagaragaje ko kuregera urukiko bikorwa nyuma y‟aho ubwumvikane butagize icyo bugeraho, hagomba no gusuzumwa igihe umusoreshwa agomba gutangira ikirego mu rukiko mu gihe ikibazo kitakemutse mu bwumvikane kuko uburanira RRA avuga ko muri icyo gihe nabwo umusoreshwa arega mu gihe cy‟iminsi 30, mu gihe uburanira TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd asanga nta gihe cyateganyijwe. [31] Urukiko rurasanga koko mu rubanza rwajuririwe icyo kibazo kitarasuzumwe kuko Urukiko rwagarukiye gusa ku kumenya niba haregerwa icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru cya mbere y‟ubwumvikane cyangwa niba ikirego gitangwa mu gihe ubwumvikane butagize icyo bugeraho, mu bujurire bwa RRA ikaba isaba ko nacyo cyasuzumwa mu gihe TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd isanga byaba ari ukurenga imbibi z‟icyaciriweho urubanza kikanajuririrwa. [32] Ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba ibisabwa na RRA bitasuzumwa mu bujurire, Urukiko rurasanga inzitizi yatanzwe mu Rukiko rw‟Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge yari igamije kutakira ikirego cya TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd kuko cyatanzwe nyuma y‟iminsi 30 iteganywa n‟Itegeko, urubanza rwaciwe kuri iyo nzitizi ruba ari rwo rujuririrwa mu Rukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi, hagibwa impaka ku bijyanye n‟igihe TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd yagombaga gutangira ikirego, niba ari nyuma

## Page 85

61

y‟icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru cyangwa nyuma y‟uko ubwumvikane bwasabwe butagize icyo bugera. [33] Kuba kuri uru rwego rw‟ubujurire, RRA yarakomeje kugaragaza ko umusoreshwa aregera Urukiko nyuma y‟icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru, ikanongeraho ko mu gihe byakwemezwa ko arega nyuma y‟uko ubwumvikane butagize icyo bugeraho, hakwemezwa ko n‟ubundi ikirego gitangwa mu minsi 30, Urukiko rurasanga nta cyabuza ko icyo kibazo gisuzumwa kuko icyo kigamije ari ukutakira ikirego cya TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd, nk‟uko n‟inzitizi yatanzwe ku rwego rwa mbere ari cyo yari igamije, bityo kubisuzuma bikaba bitafatwa ko ari ukurenga imbibi z‟icyaciriweho urubanza, ahubwo byafatwa nk‟ingingo nshya yo kwiregura ya RRA igamije kugera ku mwanzuro n‟ubundi yari igamije kugeraho ubwo yatangaga inzitizi, kandi ingingo nshya zikaba zemewe ku rwego rw‟ubujurire hashingiwe ku biteganywa n‟ingingo ya 168, igika cya gatatu, y‟Itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y‟imanza z‟imbonezamubano, iz‟ubucuruzi, iz‟umurimo n‟ubutegetsi. [34] Abahanga mu mategeko nabo bavuga ko mu bujurire hashobora gutangwa inyito y‟ibintu itandukanye n‟iyatanzwe ku rwego rwa mbere, ko muri icyo gihe bidafatwa ko hatanzwe ikirego cy‟inyongera, ahubwo bifatwa ko ari ugusobanura ikirego kimwe mu bundi buryo1. Ko mu gihe ikiburanwa

1 “Peut aussi être soumise à la juridiction d‟appel, une qualification nouvelle des faits ou des actes invoqués en première instance. Dans ce cas, aucune prétention supplémentaire n‟est formulée; on habille autrement la même demande”: Hakim Boularban, Olivier CAPRASSE, Georges DE LEVAL, Frédéric GEORGES, Pierre MOREAU, Dominique MOUGENOT, Jacques VAN COMPERNOLLE, Jean-François VAN DROOGHENBROECK, Droit judiciaire, Manuel de procédure civile, Tome 2, Larcier, p.794. TELE 10 RWANDA Ltd v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA)

## Page 86

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 62

kidahindutse, uwajuriye ashobora gutanga ibindi bisobanuro n‟impamvu nshya, n‟ubwo bwose bitaba byaragiweho impaka2. [35] Hashingiwe ku bimaze gusobanurwa, Urukiko rurasanga kuba umusoreshwa atanga ikirego nyuma y‟uko ubwumvikane yasabye butagize icyo bugeraho, bitavuze ko agitanga igihe ashakiye kuko niba agomba kuregera urukiko mu minsi 30 abonye icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru, impamvu yatumye hagenwa iyo minsi ntiyavanwaho n‟uko umusoreshwa ahawe ubundi buryo bwo kugira ngo ikibazo cye gicyemuke mu bwumvikane. Byongeye kandi, mu gihe ubwumvikane butagezweho, byumvikana ko haba hagumyeho icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru ari nacyo kiregerwa urukiko, bivuze ko no mu gihe habanje kubaho ubwumvikane, umusoreshwa agomba kuregera urukiko mu gihe cy‟iminsi 30 amenyeshejwe ko ubwumvikane butashobotse. [36] Ibivugwa n‟uburanira TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd ko igihe yasabaga ubwumvikane nta gihe cyari giteganyijwe Komiseri Mukuru yagombaga gusubiriza ngo kuko cyagiyeho mu mabwiriza Nº001/2014 yo kuwa 01/11/2014 kandi nabwo nticyahabwa umusoreshwa, akabishingiraho avuga ko nta n‟igihe ntarengwa umusoreshwa yagombaga gutangira ikirego, Urukiko rurasanga kuba ayo mabwiriza yarashyizeho igihe Komiseri agomba gufatamo icyemezo, bitavanaho igihe cyo kuregera urukiko giteganywa n‟Itegeko nk‟uko byavuzwe

2 “…Mais a contrario, et dans la mesure où la demande elle - même n‟est pas modifiée, l‟appelant peut présenter une argumentation et des moyens totalement nouveaux, même si ceux-ci changent le débat”: SERGE GUINCHARD, Droit et Pratique de la Procédure Civile, Huitième édition, 2014-2015, p.1513.

## Page 87

63

haruguru, kuko ikirebwa ku musoreshwa ari igihe ubwumvikane bwananiranye. Iby‟uko ikirego kigomba gutangwa mu minsi 30 nyuma y‟ubwumvikane byanemejwe kandi mu rubanza RCOMAA0029/15/CS rwaciwe n‟uru Rukiko ku wa 04/12/2015, aho narwo rwasobanuye ko mu gihe ubwumvikane butashobotse, ikirego kigomba gutangwa mu minsi 30 iteganywa n‟ingingo ya 38 y‟Itegeko Nº25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005. [37] Ku birebana n‟igihe Komiseri Mukuru yasubirije TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd ko ubwumvikane butagishobotse, ari naho ibara ry‟iminsi 30 yo kurega rigomba guhera, Urukiko rurasanga bigomba gufatwa ko ari ku wa 20/12/2013 kuko inyandiko yatanzwe na RRA igaragaza ko ari ho ibaruwa yagerejwe mu Iposita, hanashingiwe ku biteganywa n‟ingingo 6, igika cya kabiri, y‟Itegeko Nº25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y‟isoresha, iteganya ko “Iyo umusoreshwa cyangwa ubuyobozi bw‟imisoro bwakoresheje iposita mu kohererezanya ubutumwa bifatwa nk‟aho byujuje inshingano yabyo umunsi ubwo butumwa bwashyikirijwe iposita”, cyane cyane ko TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd nayo ivuga ko ibaruwa yo ku wa 20/12/2013 yayibonye, ariko ntigaragaze uburyo yaba yarayibonyemo butandukanye n‟ubwo RRA yatangiye ikimenyetso, ndetse mu iburanisha ryo ku wa 19/04/2016, uburanira TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd akaba yarivugiye ko Komiseri Mukuru yasubije kuwa 20/12/2013, ko icyo gihe ibihe byari bifunguye (open), anavuga ko bareze mu kwezi kwa gatatu 2014, ko impamvu bacyerewe ari uko hari andi mabwiriza bari bategereje. [38] Urukiko rurasanga rero, kuba ikirego cyarageze mu Rukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi ku wa 18/03/2014, bivuze ko TELE 10 RWANDA Ltd v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA)

## Page 88

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 64

cyatanzwe nyuma y‟iminsi 30 iteganywa n‟Itegeko, bityo kikaba kitaragombaga kwakirwa nk‟uko umucamanza wo ku rwego rwa mbere yari yabyemeje, usibye ko impamvu yashingiyeho itandukanye n‟imaze kugaragazwa, bityo urubanza rwajuririwe rukaba ruhindutse mu ngingo zarwo zose. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [39] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa RRA bufite ishingiro; [40] Rwemeje ko ikirego cya TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd kitagombaga kwakirwa ku mpamvu zasobanuwe; [41] Rwemeje ko urubanza RCOMA0287/14/HCC rwaciwe n‟Urukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi ku wa 30/07/2014 ruhindutse; [42] Rutegetse TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd gutanga amagarama y‟urubanza angana na 100.000Frw.

## Page 89

IMANZA ZACIWE MU MIZI

## Page 91

URUBANZA MBONEZAMUBANO

## Page 93

NSANZABERA v. BARIGANZA N’ABANDI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW‟IKIRENGA – RCAA0006/15/CS (Kanyange, P.J., Mukandamage na Ngagi, J.) 10 Gashyantare 2017] Amategeko agenga ububasha bw’Inkiko – Ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga – Igenwa ry’agaciro k’ikiburanwa – Ububasha bw’urukiko ntibushingira ku gaciro k’ibyagenewe buri muburanyi ahubwo harebwa akagenewe ikiburanwa – Itegeko Ngenga Nº03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 28(7). Amategeko agenga umuryango – Izungura – Itegeko ryashingirwagaho mu izungurwa ry’umugore mbere y’ishyiryaho ry’Itegeko Nº22/99 ryo ku wa 12/11/1999 ryuzuza Igitabo cya mbere cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano kandi rishyiraho igice cya gatanu cyerekeye imicungire y’umutungo w’abashyingiranywe, impano n’izungura – Na mbere y’iryo tegeko nta cyabuzaga umwana w’umukobwa kuzungura kuko, Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu mwaka wa 1962, Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo ku wa 20/12/1978 ndetse no mu Itegeko Nshinga ryo ku wa 10/06/1991, yemeraga ko abantu bose bangana imbere y’amategeko hatitawe ku bwoko, ku ibara ry’umubiri, ku nkomoko, ku gitsina, ku idini (…). Amategeko agenga umuryango – Izungura – Umugabane w’uburushyi – Kuba umwana w’umukobwa yaragenewe igiseke 69

## Page 94

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 70

nk’umugabane w’uburushyi ntibivanaho uburenganzira bwo kuzungura abo akomokaho. Incamake y’ikibazo: Bariganza na Muhawenimana bareze sekuru ariwe Nsanzabera mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu bavuga ko yavanze umutungo yashakanye na nyirakuru Bugenimana witabye Imana n‟uw‟umugore mushya Mukansoneye, batabanjekuzungura nyirakuru, kuko yagombaga gufata ½ cy‟umutungo bashakanye ikindi ½ kikabahereraho. Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwemeje ko ikirego cyabo nta shigiro gifite kuko nta burenganzira bafite bwo kuzungura umutungo wasizwe na nyirakuru Bugenimamawari warashakanye na Nsanzabera kandi ataribo buzukurube bonyine ndetse ko kubaNsanzabera akiriho abarega nta burenganzira bwo kumuzungura bafite kuko izungura ritangira umuntu amaze gupfa, maze rubategeka kwishyura igihembo cy‟Avoka n‟indishyi z‟akababaro. Bariganza na Muhawenimana bajuriye mu Rukiko Rukuru, urugereko rwa Musanze, rwemeza ko ubujurire bwabo bufite ishingiro kuko Bugenimana yitabye Imana asize abana babiri aribo Uwamahoro na Mukangoboka, hanyuma Nsanzabera nawe akongera agashaka kandi akaba nta mwana wa Bugenimana akirera, maze rutegeka ko abujuriye bazungura ¼ cy‟umutungo wa Nsanzabera na Bugenimanana mu mwanya w‟umubyeyi wabo Uwamahoro kuko aribo bareze bonyine. Nsanzabera yajuririye mu Rukiko rw‟Ikirenga avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, rwemeje izungura ridashingiye ku Itegeko ryariho ubwo Uwamahoro yitabaga Imana ku wa 19/09/1999, ko kandi rwirengagije ko yihaye akanagurisha umutungo we ndetse ko yari yaramugeneye

## Page 95

71

umugabane w‟uburushyi wafatwaga nk‟izungura mu muco w‟icyo gihe. Mbere y‟uko iburanisha ritangira mu mizi, Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga rwabanje gusuzuma inzitizi y‟iburabubasha yatanzwe na Bariganza na Muhawenimana bavuga ko agaciro k‟icyajuririwe katageze kuri 50.000.000Frw ateganwa n‟itegeko maze rwemeza ko rufite ububasha. Bariganza na Muhawenimana biregura bavuga ko hatashingiwe ku itegeko ritariho, kuko nk‟uko bigaragara muri dosiye y‟urubanzaUwamahoro yitabye Imana kuwa 05/07/2011 kandi itegeko ryashingiweho rikaba ari iryo mu mwaka wa 1999. Bakomeza bavuga kokuba yanahawe umugabane w‟uburushyi bitavanaho uburenganzira bwo kuzungura. Bariganza na Muhawenimana batanze ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi basaba guhabwa amafaranga y‟ikurikiranarubanza; ayo kubasiragiragiza mu manza n‟igihembo cy‟Avoka naho Nsanzabera avuga ko indishyi basaba nta shingiro zifite ahubwo ariwe ukwiye kugenerwa indishyi zo kumusiragiza mu manza. Incamake y’icyemezo:1. Ububasha bw‟urukiko ntibushingira ku gaciro k‟ibyagenewe buri muburanyi ahubwo harebwa akahawe ikiburanwa. Bityo kuba agaciro k‟ikiburanwa kanganana 70.000.000Frw nk‟uko byemejwe n‟Urukiko Rukuru, Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha ubujurire bwa Nsanzabera kuko karenze 50.000.000Frw ateganywa n‟itegeko. 2. Mbere y‟uko Itegeko Nº22/99 ryo ku wa 12/11/1999 ryuzuza Igitabo cya mbere cy‟urwunge rw‟amategeko mbonezamubano kandi rishyiraho igice cya gatanu cyerekeye imicungire y‟umutungo w‟abashyingiranywe, impano n‟izungura rijyaho, NSANZABERA v. BARIGANZA N’ABANDI

## Page 96

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 72

nta cyabuzaga ko umwana w‟umukobwa azungura ababyeyi be kuko, Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y‟u Rwanda ryo mu mwaka wa 1962, Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y‟u Rwanda ryo ku wa 20/12/1978 ndetse no mu Itegeko Nshinga ryo ku wa 10/06/1991, yemeraga ko abantu bose bangana imbere y‟amategeko hatitawe ku bwoko, ku ibara ry‟umubiri, ku nkomoko, ku gitsina, ku idini (…), bityo kuvuga ko Uwamahoro Béatrice nta burenganzira yari afite bwo kuzungura umubyeyi we ngo kuko ari umubobwa, bikaba nta shingiro bifite. 3. Kuba izungura rya Bugenimana ritarabaye kugeza igihe abazungura be Bariganza na Muhawenimana batangiye ikirego mu mwaka wa 2013, Itegeko Nº22/99 ryo ku wa 12/11/1999 ryuzuza Igitabo cya mbere cy‟urwunge rw‟amategeko mbonezamubano kandi rishyiraho igice cya gatanu cyerekeye imicungire y‟umutungo w‟abashyingiranywe, impano n‟izunguraryariho igihe ikirego cyatangiwe niryo ryagomba gukurikizwa. 4. Kuba umwana w‟umukobwa yaragenewe igiseke nk‟umugabane w‟uburushyi ntibivanaho uburenganzira bwo kuzungura abo akomokaho, bityo Bariganza na Muhawenimana bafite uburenganzira bwo kuzungura mu mwanya wa Uwamahoro ku uruhare akomora ku mubyeyi we Bugenimana kabone n‟ubwo yaba yarahawe igiseke na se. 5. Abarezwe bagenewe mu bushishozi bw‟Urukiko amafaranga y‟igihembo cy‟Avoka n‟ikurikiranarubanza kukobiyambaje Avoka kugirango ababuranire kandi bakaba baragize ibyo batanga mu gukurikirana urubanza. Ubujurire nta shingiro bufite. Urubanza rwajuriririwe ntiruhindutse.

## Page 97

73

Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Ngenga Nº03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n‟ububasha by‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga, ingingo ya 28(7). Itegeko Nº22/99 ryo ku wa 12/11/1999 ryuzuza Igitabo cya mbere cy‟urwunge rw‟amategeko mbonezamubano kandi rishyiraho igice cya gatanu cyerekeye imicungire y‟umutungo w‟abashyingiranywe, impano n‟izungura, ingingo ya 50 n‟iya 70. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Bariganza Evangile na Muhawenimana Jean de Dieu ni abuzukuru ba Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim na Bugenimana Xavérine witabye Imana mu mwaka wa 1986, bakaba barabyawe n‟umukobwa wabo Uwamahoro Béatrice nawe witabye Imana mu mwaka wa 2001. Nyuma y‟uko Bugenimana Xavérine yitabye Imana, Nsanzabera yashatse undi mugore witwa Mukansoneye Amina CéciIe. [2] Bariganza Evangile na Muhawenimana Jean de Dieu bareze Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu bavuga ko ashaka kuvanga umutungo yashakanye na Bugenimana Xavérine n‟uw‟umugore mushya, kandi batarazungura nyirakuru, ko ahubwo yagombye gufata ½ cy‟umutungo yashakanye na Bugenimana Xavérine, ikindi ½ NSANZABERA v. BARIGANZA N’ABANDI

## Page 98

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 74

kigaherera kuri Bariganza Evangile na MuhawenimanaJean de Dieu. [3] Urukiko rwaciye urubanza RC0164/013/TGI/RBV ku wa 06/03/2014, rwemeza ko ikirego cya Bariganza Evangile na Muhawenimana Jean de Dieu nta shingiro gifite, ko nta burenganzira bafite bwo kuzungura umutungo wasizwe na nyirakuru Bugenimama Xavérine wari warashakanye na Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim, rubategeka kwishyura Nsanzabera 300.000Frw y‟igihembo cy‟Avoka n‟indishyi z‟akababaro. Icyo cyemezo rwagishingiye ku mpamvu y‟uko atari bo buzukuru bonyine bakomoka kuri Bugenimana Xavérine kuko yabyaye abakobwa babiri kandi abuzukuru bafite uburenganzira bungana bwo kuzungura umutungo w‟abo bakomokaho ku buryo bungana nk‟uko biteganywa n‟ingingo ya 50 y‟Itegeko Nº22/99 ryo ku wa 12/11/1999 ryuzuza Igitabo cya mbere cy‟urwunge rw‟amategeko mbonezamubano kandi rishyiraho igice cya gatanu cyerekeye imicungire y‟umutungo w‟abashyingiranywe, impano n‟izungura. Rwasobanuye kandi ko mu gihe Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim akiriho, abarega nta burenganzira bafite bwo kumuzungura kuko izungura ritangira umuntu amaze gupfa. [4] Bariganza Evangile na Muhawenimana Jean de Dieu bajuririye mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, ruca urubanza RCA0032/14/HC/MUS ku wa 20/01/2015, rwemeza ko ubujurire bwabo bufite ishingiro, ko bazungura ¼ cy‟agaciro k‟umutungo ugizwe n‟inzu iri mu kibanza Nº666/RUB/GIS. [5] Icyo cyemezo, Urukiko Rukuru rwagishingiye ku mpamvu y‟uko kuba Bugenimana Xavérine yaritabye Imana asize abana babiri (Uwamahoro na Mukangoboka), Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim akongera agashaka kandi akaba nta mwana wa Bugenimana Xavérine akirera, hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 70

## Page 99

75

y‟Itegeko Nº22/99 ryavuzwe haruguru, Bariganza Evangile na Muhawenimana Jean de Dieu mu mwanya wa Uwamahoro Béatrice, na Mukangoboka (kuko nta kigaragaza ko atakiriho), ari bo bagomba kuzungura ½ cy‟agaciro k‟umutungo ugizwe n‟inzu iri mu kibanza Nº666/RUB/GIS kuko Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim yivugiye ko yubatswe mu mwaka wa 1965, Bugenimana Xavérine ari umugore we. [6] Rwasobanuye kandi ko Bariganza Evangile na Muhawenimana Jean de Dieu, mu mwanya w‟umubyeyi wabo Uwamahoro Béatrice ndetse na Mukangoboka, bagomba na none kugabana mu buryo bungana ½ cy‟umutungo wavuzwe haruguru, ikindi ½ kigatwarwa na Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim, ariko kubera ko Bariganza Evangile na Muhawenimana Jean de Dieu ari bo bonyine bareze, bakaba bagomba kuzungura gusa ¼ cy‟agaciro k‟inzu yavuzwe haruguru. Rwasanze kandi ibyo Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim avuga ko batagomba kuzungura ubwa kabiri ngo kuko nyina (Uwamahoro Béatrice) yamugurishirije umurima, nta shingiro bifite kuko uretse kubivuga, nta bimenyetso yabigaragarije. [7] Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim yajuririye mu Rukiko rw‟Ikirenga avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, rwemeje izungura ridashingiye ku Itegeko ryariho ubwo Uwamahoro Béatrice yitabaga Imana ku wa 19/09/1999, ko kandi rwirengagije ko yihaye akanagurisha umutungo wa Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim ubwo yari mu buhungiro mu gihugu cya Uganda. [8] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku wa 10/01/2017, Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim aburanirwa n‟umuhungu we Mupole Ahmed nawe yunganiwe na Me NSANZABERA v. BARIGANZA N’ABANDI

## Page 100

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 76

Habonimana Jean-Baptiste, Bariganza Evangile yunganiwe na Me Ngabo Claude anahagarariye Muhawenimana Jean de Dieu. [9] Habanje gusuzumwa inzitizi y‟iburabubasha bw‟uru Rukiko yatanzwe n‟abaregwa mu bujurire, ishingiye ku ngingo ya 28, agace ka karindwi, y‟Itegeko Ngenga Nº03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n‟ububasha by‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga ngo kuko umutungo uburanwa wagenewe agaciro ka 70.000.000Frw ariko Bariganza Evangile na Muhawenimana Jean de Dieu bagenerwa ¼ cy‟ako gaciro, ari nacyo cyajuririwe muri uru Rukiko kandi kikaba kitageze kuri 50.000.000Frw ateganywa n‟ingingo imaze kuvugwa. [10] Ababuranira Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim bireguye bavuga ko ubujurire buri mu bubasha bw‟uru Rukiko kuko abo baburana ari bo bashyizeho agaciro k‟ikiburanwa ka 70.000.000Frw n‟ubwo karenze ayo mafaranga, ko kandi hatarebwa ¼ cy‟agaciro mu kugena ububasha bw‟Urukiko kuko Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim yajuririye umutungo wose kuko asanga n‟icyo ¼ cy‟agaciro kawo abaregwa batagikwiye kuko batagomba kuzungura. [11] Urukiko rwafatiye icyemezo mu ntebe kuri iyo nzitizi, rusanga hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 28, igika cya kabiri, agace ka 7º y‟Itegeko Ngenga Nº03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n‟ububasha by‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga, iteganya ko “Urukikorw‟Ikirenga rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha mu rwego rw‟ubujurire imanza zaciwe ku rwego rwa kabiri n‟Urukiko Rukuru (…), iyo izo manza zagenwemo n‟urukiko indishyi zingana nibura na miliyoni mirongo itanu z‟amafaranga y‟u Rwanda (50.000.000Frw) cyangwa se zifite agaciro kagenwe n‟umucamanza igihe habaye impaka, kangana nibura n‟amafaranga y‟u Rwanda miliyoni mirongo itanu

## Page 101

77

(50.000.000Frw)”, agaciro k‟ikiburanwa katagomba gushingira kubyagenewe buri muburanyi ahubwo kareberwa ku kiburanwa ari cyo inzu n‟ikibanza yubatsemo bifite agaciro ka 70.000.000Frw nk‟uko kemejwe n‟Urukiko Rukuru, bityo rwemeza ko ubujurire bwa Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim buri mu bubasha bwarwo. [12] Iburanisha ryakomeje hasuzumwa impamvu z‟ubujurire za Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim. II. IBIBAZO BIRI MU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO 1. Kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, rwarashingiye kuItegeko ritariho ubwo Uwamahoro Béatrice yitabaga Imana no kumenya niba yari yarahawe umugabane we. [13] Ababuranira Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim bavuga ko umucamanza yaciye urubanza ashingiye ku Itegeko Nº22/99 ryo ku wa 12/11/1999 ryuzuza Igitabo cya mbere cy‟urwunge rw‟amategeko mbonezamubano kandi rishyiraho igice cya gatanu cyerekeye imicungire y‟umutungo w‟abashyingiranywe, impano n‟izungura, kandi Uwamahoro Béatrice ushaka kuzungura Nsanzabera, yaritabye Imana ku wa 19/09/1999, bivuze ko iryo Tegeko ritariho icyo gihe, ko ahubwo mu mwaka wa 1992 Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim, ashingiye ku muco, yamuhaye isambu iri i Cyuve/Musanze, amwemerera kwiharika igice cy‟ikibanza ariko mbere y‟uko yitaba Imana akaba yarayigurishije n‟uwitwa Mukagatare. NSANZABERA v. BARIGANZA N’ABANDI

## Page 102

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 78

[14] Bavuga kandi ko Uwamahoro Béatrice yabonye umugabane w‟uburushyi (abandi bita igiseke), bikaba ari nk‟izungura hagendewe ku muco wagenderwagaho icyo gihe aho umubyeyi w‟umugabo yatangaga umutungo we kandi Uwamahoro Béatrice akaba yarawuhawe, ko rero umutungo usigaye ari uwa Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim afatanyije n‟umugore we. [15] Me Ngabo Jean-Baptiste na Bariganza Evangile bavuga ko hatashingiwe ku Itegeko ritariho ubwo Uwamahoro Béatrice yitabaga Imana nk‟uko abo baburana babivuga kuko “attestation de décès” iri muri dosiye igaragaza ko yitabye Imana ku wa 05/07/2011 kandi icyo gihe Itegeko Nº22/99 ryo ku wa 12/11/1999 ryavuzwe haruguru ryarakurikizwaga, bivuze ko izungura hagati y‟abakobwa n‟abahungu ryari ryemewe. [16] Basobanura kandi ko na mbere y‟Itegeko rimaze kuvugwa, abakobwa bazunguraga bitewe n‟ubushake bw‟ababyeyi babo, ko kandi Bariganza Evangile na Muhawenimana Jean de Dieu basabye kuzungura nyuma y‟uko sekuru yari amaze kuzana undi mugore akamwandikaho umutungo wose, bakaba basaba umugabane wasizwe na nyirakuru Bugenimana Xavérine kuko kugeza ubu atigeze azungurwa. [17] Ku byerekeye ikibanza ababuranira Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim bavuga ko yari yarahaye Uwamahoro Béatrice, bavuga ko atari ukuri kuko yanamureze mu Rukiko avuga ko yakihaye, aratsindwa kubera ko yivugiraga ko ari impano yahaye umukobwa we, nyuma aregera ko yamuzunguye nabwo aratsindwa, ko kandi izungura ritari kuba ku mwana umwe.

## Page 103

79

[18] Bavuga kandi ko n‟ubwo Uwamahoro Béatrice yaba yarahawe igiseke cyangwa umunani nk‟uko abo baburana babivuga, bitavanaho uburenganzira bwe bwo kuzungura umubyeyi we. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [19] Nk‟uko byibukijwe haruguru, Urukiko Rukuru, urugereko rwa Musanze, rwashingiye ku ngingo ya 70 y‟Itegeko Nº22/99 ryo ku wa 12/11/1999 ryuzuza Igitabo cya mbere cy‟urwunge rw‟amategeko mbonezamubano kandi rishyiraho igice cya gatanu cyerekeye imicungire y‟umutungo w‟abashyingiranywe, impano n‟izungura ryakurikizwaga urubanza rucibwa, iteganya uburyo abashyingiranywe bafitanye amasezerano y‟ivangamutungo bazungurwa, aho agace ka karindwi gateganya ko “Iyo nta mwanawa nyakwigendera uwapfakaye akirera, akongera gushaka, atwara ½ cy‟umutungo wose, ikindi ½ gihabwa abazungura ba nyakwigendera”. [20] Urukiko rurasanga mu miburanire ya Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim, adahakana ko yari asangiye na Bugenimana Xavérine umutungo Bariganza Evangile na Muhawenimana Jean de Dieu basaba kugiraho uruhare, akaba atanahakana ko nta mwana yabyaranye na Bugenimana Xavérine akirera, kandi akaba yarongeye gukora amasezerano yo gushyingirwa na Mukansoneye Amina Cécile ku wa 16/03/2013 nk‟uko icyemezo cyayo kiri muri dosiye kibigaragaza, bityo akaba ari nta mpamvu umucamanza atashoboraga gushingira ku Itegeko Nº22/99 ryo ku wa 12/11/1999 ryavuzwe haruguru, kuko n‟ubwo umubyeyi wa Bariganza Evangile na Muhawenimana Jean de Dieu yaba yaritabye Imana mbere y‟uko iryo Tegeko ritangira gukoreshwa, hagendewe ko yitabye Imana ku wa NSANZABERA v. BARIGANZA N’ABANDI

## Page 104

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 80

19/09/1999 (usibye ko muri dosiye harimo ikindi cyemezo kivuga ko yitabye Imana ku wa 05/07/2011), bitavanaho ko izungura rya Bugenimana Xavérine, ryatangiye akimara kwitaba Imana mu mwaka wa 1986 (ouverture de la succession), ritigeze rishyirwa mu bikorwa kuko umutungo yari asangiye na Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim ari we wawucungaga kugeza ubu. [21] Mu gihe rero Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim yari yongeye gushyingiranwa n‟undi mugore mu mwaka wa 2013, ari nabwo Bariganza Evangile na Muhawenimana Jean de Dieu batangiye ikirego, byumvikana ko hagombaga gushingirwa ku Itegeko ryakurikizwaga icyo kirego gitangwa kuko uruhare rwa Bugenimana Xavérine ku mutungo yari asangiye na Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim rutari rwarazunguwe kugeza icyo gihe. Byongeyekandi, usibye ko Itegeko Nº22/99 ryo ku wa 12/11/1999 ryavuzweharuguru, riteganya mu buryo bweruye ko abana b‟abakobwa n‟abahungu bazungura mu buryo bungana (ingingo ya 50), na mbere y‟aho nta cyabuzaga ko umwana w‟umukobwa azungura ababyeyi be kuko kuva mu mwaka wa 1962, Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y‟u Rwanda ryemeraga ko abantu bose bangana imbere y‟amategeko hatitawe ku bwoko, ku ibara ry‟umubiri, ku nkomoko, ku gitsina, ku idini (…), ibyo bibaka ari nako byemejwe mu Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y‟u Rwanda ryo ku wa 20/12/1978 ndetse no mu Itegeko Nshinga ryo ku wa 10/06/1991, bityo kuvuga ko Uwamahoro Béatrice nta burenganzira yari afite bwo kuzungura umubyeyi we ngo kuko ari umubobwa, bikaba nta shingiro bifite. [22] Ku birebana n‟uko Uwamahoro Béatrice yaba yaragenewe igiseke cyangwa umugabane w‟uburushyi nk‟uko ababuranira Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim babivuga, Urukiko

## Page 105

81

rurasanga bitavanaho uburenganzira bwo kuzungura umubyeyi we nk‟uko byavuzwe haruguru, kuko ibyo yaba yarahawe bitarebana n‟uruhare rwa Bugenimana Xavérine ku mutungo yari asangiye na Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim, nk‟abari barashyingiranywe. [23] Hashingiwe ku byasobanuwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga impamvu y‟ubujurire ya Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim nta shingiro ifite, bityo imikirize y‟urubanza rwajuririwe ikaba igomba kugumaho. 2. Kumenya ishingiro ry’indishyi zasabwe mu bujurire bwuririye ku bundi. [24] Mu bujurire bwuririye ku bundi, Bariganza Evangile na Muhawenimana Jean de Dieu basaba 2.000.000Frw y‟igihembo cy‟Avoka, 1.000.000Frw y‟ikurikiranarubanza na1.000.000Frw yo kubasiragiza mu manza. [25] Uburanira Nsanzabera avuga ko indishyi zisabwa nta shingiro zifite kuko nta bimenyetso abazisaba bagaragaje, harimo amasezerano bagiranye n‟Avoka ubaburanira, ikimenyetso cy‟uko bagiye batanga amafaranga mu gukurikirana urubanza, ko na 1.000.000Frw yo gushorwa mu manza ari menshi, ahubwo agereranyije yaba 100.000Frw. Asanga ahubwo abaregwa mu bujurire bategekwa guha Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim 2.000.000Frw kubera kumusiragiza mu manza.

NSANZABERA v. BARIGANZA N’ABANDI

## Page 106

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 82

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [26] Urukiko rurasanga amafaranga y‟igihembo cy‟Avoka n‟ikurikiranarubanza abarezwe mu bujurire basaba afite ishingiro kuko bagombye kwiyambaza Avoka kugira ngo ababuranire kandi bakaba baragize ibyo batanga mu gukurikirana urubanza, arikoingano y‟ayo basaba ikaba ari ikirenga, ahubwo mu bushishozi bw‟urukiko bakaba bagenewe 700.000Frw, naho amafaranga yo kubasiragiza mu manza bakaba batayagenerwa kuko usibye kuba Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim yarajuriye nk‟uko abyemererwa n‟amategeko, ntibagaragaza ubundi buryo yaba yarabasiragije. [27] Ku birebana na 2.000.000Frw asabwa na Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim kubera kumusiragiza mu manza, Urukiko rurasanga atayagenerwa kuko ubujurire bwe nta shingiro bufite. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [28] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim nta shingiro bufite; [29] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwa Bariganza Evangile na Muhawenimana Jean de Dieu bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe; [30] Rutegetse Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim guha Bariganza Evangile na Muhawenimana Jean de Dieu 700.000Frw y‟igihembo cy‟Avoka n‟ikurikiranarubanza kuri uru rwego;

## Page 107

83

[31] Rwemeje ko imikirize y‟urubanza RCA0032/14/HC/MUS rwaciwe n‟Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, ku wa 20/01/2015 idahindutse;

NSANZABERA v. BARIGANZA N’ABANDI

## Page 109

URUBANZA NSHINJACYAHA

## Page 111

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HABIMANA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW‟IKIRENGA – RPAA0321/10/CS (Mugenzi, P.J., Nyirinkwaya na Rugabirwa, J.) 18 Werurwe 2016] Amategeko agenga ibimenyetso – Indahiro y’umuhanga – Agaciro ka raporo itabanjirijwe n’indahiro y’uwayikoze – N’ubwo amategeko ateganya ko raporo ya muganga igomba kubanzirizwa n’indahiro, ukutabaho kwayo kukagira raporo impfabusa, nta kibuza ko iyo nenge ijyanye n’imyandikire aho kuba ijyanye n’ireme ry’igikorwa yabasha gukosorwa, nk’igihe uwakoze raporo yahamagazwa mu Rukiko akabanza kurahira mbere yo kuyisobanura – Itegeko No15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/04/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 93. Indishyi – Igenwa ry’indishyi – Indishyi zagenwe n’Urukiko rubanza mu bushishozi bwarwo ntizahinduka mu gihe hatagaragajwe ko ari ikirenga. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uregwa yakurikiranyweho kuba yarasambanyije umwana w‟imyaka 6, ubwo yari amuhawe na nyirakuru, bavanye gusenga akamusaba kumumugereza kwa nyina baturanye, bikavugwa ko mu nzira yanze ko umwana ajyana n‟umugabo baturanye, ahubwo amusambanyiriza haruguru y‟inzu. Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwamuhamije icyaha, rumuhanisha igifungo cy‟imyaka icumi (10) n‟ihazabu y‟amafaranga ibihumbi ijana (100.000Frw), agabanyirijwe ibihano kubera ko yari akiri muto, afite imyaka 25, runagenera nyina w‟umwana indishyi z‟akababaro zingana na 500.000Frw. 87

## Page 112

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 88

Yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru, narwo rwemeza ko ubujurire bwe nta shingiro bufite, rusobanura ko ibyo yireguza ko umwana yapimwe nyuma y‟iminsi itatu, na raporo ya muganga ikaba yanditse mu buryo budasobanutse nta shingiro byahabwa, kuko Urukiko rwasabye muganga gusobanura raporo yakoze, akagaragaza ko umwana yafashwe ku ngufu kandi gupimwa nyuma y‟iminsi itatu nabyo bikaba bidakuraho icyaha. Uregwa yajuririye Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga avuga ko yahamijwe icyaha nta bimenyetso bifatika bikimuhamya, kandi ko hatitawe ku kwiregura kwe aho yavugaga ko yagejeje umwana hafi y‟iwabo akamutungira agatoki, kandi ko n‟ubuhamya bwa mwarimu butatangiwe ibimenyetso ndetse na raporo ya muganga ikaba itagaragaza ko ariwe wasambanyije uwo mwana. Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko raporo ya muganga yakozwe atabanje kurahira koko ariko arangije yandika amazina ye aranasinya, ikaba itakwamburwa agaciro kayo kuko kuba hari ibitarubahirijwe byatewe n‟uko muganga atari umunyamategeko, kandi ko atari yo yashingiweho yonyine mu guhamya uregwa icyaha. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. N‟ubwo amategeko ateganya ko raporo ya muganga igomba kubanzirizwa n‟indahiro, ukutabaho kwayo kukagira raporo impfabusa, nta kibuza ko iyo nenge ijyanye n‟imyandikire aho kuba ijyanye n‟ireme ry‟igikorwa yabasha gukosorwa, nk‟igihe uwakoze raporo yahamagazwa mu Rukiko akabanza kurahira mbere yo kuyisobanura. Bityo rero, kuba ariko byagenze mu iburanisha ubwo muganga yarahiraga mu Rukiko mbere yo gusobanura ibikubiye muri raporo ye, bituma raporo ye ihabwa agaciro. 2. Indishyi zagenwe n‟Urukiko rubanza mu bushishozi bwarwo ntizahinduka mugihe hatagaragajwe ko ari ikirenga.

## Page 113

89

Ubujurire nta shingiro bufite. Urubanza rwajuririwe ntiruhindutse. Amagarama y’urubanza aherereye ku isanduku ya Leta. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko No21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y‟imanza z‟imbonezamubano, iz‟ubucuruzi, iz‟umurimo n‟iz‟ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 93. Itegeko No15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/04/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n‟itangwa ryabyo, ingingo za 93 na 108. Imanza zifashishijwe: RPAA0039/12/CS, Ubushinjacyaha v. Ntakiyimana na Mugirwanake, rwaciwe n‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga ku wa 26/02/2016. RPA0018/10/CS, Ubushinyacyaha v. Rubyiruko Sylvestre n‟abandi rwaciwe n‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga ku wa 25/11/2011. RPA0227/08/CS, Ubushinjacyaha v. Sibomana Nathanaël rwaciwe n‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga ku wa 19/02/2010. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Habimana Jean Claude yakurikiranyweho kuba ku wa 14/06/2008, yarasambanyije umwana w‟imyaka 6, Ugirimbabazi Yvette, ubwo yari amuhawe na nyirakuru, bavanye gusenga akamusaba kumumugereza kwa nyina baturanye, bikavugwa ko mu nzira yanze ko umwana ajyana UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HABIMANA

## Page 114

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 90

n‟umugabo baturanye, ahubwo amusambanyiriza haruguru y‟inzu. Mu rubanza RP0540/08/TGI/NYGE, rwaciwe ku wa 27/03/2009, yahamijwe icyaha, ahanishwa igifungo cy‟imyaka icumi (10) n‟ihazabu y‟amafaranga ibihumbi ijana (100.000Frw), agabanyirijwe ibihano kubera ko yari akiri muto, afite imyaka 25, Umumararungu Sylvie, nyina w‟umwana, agenerwa indishyi z‟akababaro zingana na 500.000Frw. [2] Habimana yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru, ruca urubanza RPA0440/09/HC/KIG, ku wa 18/02/2010 rwemeza ko ubujurire bwe nta shingiro bufite, rusobanura ko ibyo yireguza ko umwana yapimwe nyuma y‟iminsi itatu, na raporo ya muganga ikaba yanditse mu buryo budasobanutse nta shingiro byahabwa, kuko Urukiko rwasabye muganga gusobanura raporo yakoze, akagaragaza ko umwana yafashwe ku ngufu kandi gupimwa nyuma y‟iminsi itatu nabyo bikaba bitakuraho icyaha. [3] Rwasobanuye kandi ko imyiregurire y‟uko nta kigaragaza ko udukomere twari ku gitsina cy‟umwana twatewe no gusambanywa kandi ko na mwarimu wigishaga umwana watanze ubuhamya atatanze ibimenyetso, nta shingiro bifite, kuko nta kindi Habimana agaragaza cyaba cyarakomerekeje uwo mwana akaba kandi ariwe wamuhawe ngo amugeze iwabo, mwarimu akaba yaragaragaje uburyo umwana yagiye asiba kujya kwiga, hakiyongeraho ko na bashiki ba Habimana bagiye gushakira uwo mwana ku ishuri bakanasaba nyina ko yamubabarira. [4] Habimana yajuririye Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga avuga ko yahamijwe icyaha nta bimenyetso bifatika bikimuhamya, kandi ko hatitawe ku kwiregura kwe aho yavugaga ko yagejeje umwana hafi y‟iwabo akamutungira agatoki, kandi ko n‟ ubuhamya bwa mwarimu butatangiwe ibimenyetso ndetse na

## Page 115

91

raporo ya muganga ikaba itagaragaza ko ariwe wasambanyije uwo mwana. [5] Mu iburanisha ry‟urubanza, Habimana n‟umwunganira banavuze ko ikirego cy‟indishyi kitagombaga kwakirwa mu nkiko zabanje, kandi ko n‟indishyi nta bimenyetso zishingiyeho. [6] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku wa 05/10/2015 no ku wa 15/02/2016, Habimana Jean Claude yunganiwe na Me Habimana Adolphe, Umumararungu Sylvie, uregera indishyi atitabye ariko yarahamagajwe mu buryo bukurikiije amategeko, Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na Bunyoye Grậce, mu iburanisha ryo ku wa 15/02/2016 hitabye kandi muganga Rumanya Liliane. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO Kumenya niba Habimana Jean Claude yarahamijwe icyaha nta bimenyetso bishingiweho. [7] Habimana avuga ko yahamijwe icyaha nta bimenyetso Urukiko rushingiyeho kuko ubuhamya bwatanzwe na mwarimu butari buherekejwe n‟ibimenyetso, raporo ya muganga ikaba yari idasobanutse, ahubwo rukaba rwaragendeye ku magambo yavuzwe na nyina w‟umwana ko atagejeje umwana mu rugo ariko rwirengagiza ukwiregura kwe. [8] Asobanura ko ubuhamya bw‟umwarimu wavuze ko uwo umwana yasibaga ishuri zitaherekejwe n‟ibitabo abanyeshuri bahamagarirwagaho ngo byerekane koko ko uwo mwana atazaga kwiga, yongeraho ariko ko n‟iyo yari kuba ataza kwiga UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HABIMANA

## Page 116

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 92

bitari guhamya ko yasambanyijwe kandi ko uwamusambanyije ari Habimana. [9] Avuga ko ubuhamya bwa nyina w‟umwana busubira mu byo yabwiwe n‟umwana, uyu nawe n‟ubwo yavuze ko yamusambanyije, hakaba hatagaragazwa impamvu atahise abibwira nyina akigera mu rugo, ataranatabaje ubwo yasambanywaga, ndetse n‟umubyeyi we akaba atarahise amurega akibimenya kandi yari amuzi, ahubwo agategereza kumufatira mu nzira bahuye, abanje kumubeshya ko hari ikibazo amufasha gukemura kuri Polisi. [10] Habimana avuga kandi ko raporo ya muganga itari ikwiye gushingirwaho ngo ahamwe n‟icyaha kubera ko itubahirije ibiteganywa n‟amategeko kuko muganga atabanje kurahira, ikaba yarabonetse mu buryo budakurikije amategeko kandi ntisobanure ko udusebe (lésions) twabonetse ku mwana twaba twaratewe no gusambanywa, bikozwe na Habimana. [11] Avuga ko ingingo z‟imiburanire ye zitahawe agaciro kandi yaragaragaje ko yemeye ko yasabwe na Safi, umukecuru wabigishaga Bibiliya, kujyana umwana iwabo, hanyuma ageze hafi y‟iwabo amutungira urutoki, we aritahira, aza gutangazwa n‟uko yafashwe nyuma y‟iminsi itatu ari uko ahuye na nyina w‟umwana akamubeshya ko hari icyo ajya kumufasha kuri Polisi, kandi ko iyo agira icyo yikeka atari kujyayo. [12] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko raporo ya muganga yakozwe atabanje kurahira koko ariko arangije yandika amazina ye aranasinya, ikaba itakwamburwa agaciro kayo kuko kuba hari ibitarubahirijwe byatewe n‟uko muganga atari umunyamategeko, kandi ko atari yo yashingiweho yonyine mu guhamya Habimana icyaha. Avuga ko raporo nk‟iyi y‟aho

## Page 117

93

muganga atarahiye yahawe agaciro n‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga mu rubanza RPA0227/08/CS rwo ku wa 19/02/2010, Ubushinjacyaha buburana na Sibomana Nathanaël. [13] Avuga ko muganga atari we wemeza ko uregwa yasambanyije, ahubwo agaragaza ibyo abona ku mwana nk‟uko yavuze ko hari udusebe ku matako no ku myanya ndangagitsina kandi ko umwana atari isugi, ibi bikaba byahuzwa n‟imvugo z‟umwana, Urukiko akaba ari rwo rwemeza ko uregwa ahamwa icyaha. [14] Ku byerekeye ubuhamya bw‟umwarimu Mukakabego Judith wigishaga uwo mwana, uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko uwo mwarimu ativuguruje, kuko mbere atari yarabajijwe, ahubwo yahamagawe n‟Urukiko kandi ko Habimana yahawe umwanya wo kugira icyo avuga kuri ubwo buhamya, naho igitabo abanyeshuri bahamagarirwagaho akaba atarigeze agisaba. Avuga ko kuba umwana yaba yarasibishijwe n‟ubundi burwayi bivuguruzwa na raporo ya muganga yerekana ko umwana yagaragaje ibimenyetso by‟uko yasambanyijwe. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [15] Nk‟uko bigaragara muri dosiye, Habimana yemera ko yahawe umwana Ugirimbabazi bavanye gusenga ari ku mugoroba, ngo amugeze iwabo ariko ntamugezeyo, na nyina w‟umwana akavuga ko umwana yamugezeho yatinze gutaha, amubajije impamvu yatinze, amubwira ko yari kumwe na Habimana, hanyuma nyuma y‟iminsi ibiri, abona umwana afite ikibazo cyo kwicara no kugenda, amureba ku myanya ndangagitsina, abona ahafite udusebe, amubajije icyo yabaye umwana amubwira ko igihe batahanaga na Habimana, UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HABIMANA

## Page 118

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 94

yamukuyemo ikariso agafata “ikidudu cye agishyira mu gapipi” anamubwira ko nabivuga azamwica. [16] Ubuhamya bw‟umwarimu Mukakabego, wigishaga uwo mwana nabwo bugaragaza ko yabonye kuri uwo mwana ikibazo cyo gusiba ishuri, yanaza akaba yigunze atisanzuye uko bisanzwe, ndetse agaragaza ikibazo cyo kwicara, hanyuma atumaho umubyeyi we, aho aziye amubwira ko umwana yasambanyijwe, ko ikibazo kiri muri Polisi. [17] Raporo ya muganga yakozwe ku wa 15/06/2008, nyuma y‟iminsi 3 Habimana aherekeje Ugirimbabazi, yerekanye ko uwo mwana atakiri isugi, ko agaragaza udusebe ku matako no ku gitsina (lésions au niveau du cuisse, du vagin et de la vulve), ibi kandi akaba ari nabyo muganga yasobanuriye Urukiko ubwo yarwitabaga ku wa 15/02/2016, akongeraho ariko ko muganga atariwe wafata umwanzuro wo kwemeza ko umwana yasambanyijwe cyangwa se ko yasambanyijwe na runaka. [18] Habimana nawe kandi aburana ku ifunga n‟ifungurwa ry‟agateganyo1 yavuze ko mu masaha ya saa moya yari kumwe n‟uriya mwana yamuhawe na nyirakuru ngo amugeze iwabo ariko ntamugeze yo, anavuga ko Ugirimbabazi yashatse kujyana n‟umugabo baturanye akabimwangira, ahubwo bagahagararana nk‟iminota itanu bategereje undi muntu waza ngo amumuhe bajyane, ariko bikarangira atamujyanye ahubwo amutungiye agatoki ngo yijyane. [19] Urukiko rurasanga hari ibimenyetso byuzuzanya bigaragaza icyaha kuri Habimana, bigizwe no kuba

1 Inyandikomvugo y‟iburanisha ku ifunga n‟ifungurwa ry‟agatanyo ku wa 23/06/2008, kote ya 17.

## Page 119

95

Umumararungu nyina w‟umwana yarabonye uyu afite udusebe ku gitsina, maze umwana akamubwira ko yasambanyijwe na Habimana, raporo ya muganga nayo ikagaragaza ko umwana yasambanyijwe, bikubitiyeho ko igihe umwana avuga yasambanyijwe aribwo yari yahawe Habimana ngo amugeze iwabo, ariko ntahamugeze kandi bwari bunagorobye, ndetse Habimana akaba yarivugiye ko hari n‟uwashatse kuba yahamugeza ariko ntabimwemerere. [20] Urukiko rurasanga, ibyo bimenyetso birebewe hamwe, bigize impurirane y‟impamvu zihuye kandi zikomeye, zituma, hashingiwe ku biteganywa n‟ingingo ya 108 y‟Itegeko No15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/04/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n‟itangwa ryabyo, isobanura igihe ibimenyetso bicukumbuwe bihabwa agaciro2, uru Rukiko rwemeza nta gushidikanya ko icyaha Habimana aregwa cyo gusambanya umwana yagikoze3, bityo ubujurire bwe bukaba nta shingiro bufite. [21] Urukiko rurasanga imiburanire ya Habimana inenga ubuhamya bwa nyina w‟umwana n‟ubw‟umwarimu wamwigishaga nta shingiro ifite kuko itagaragaza ko baba bataravuze ukuri ubwo bemezaga ko umwana yagaragaje ko afite ikibazo anavuga ko yasambanyijwe, ahubwo raporo ya

2 Iyo ngingo ya 108 igira iti: “Ibimenyetso bicukumbuwe no gusesengura urubanza ni ibimenyetso bitacukumbuwe n‟amategeko, bicukumburwa n‟ubwenge n‟ubushishozi bw‟abacamanza. Abacamanza bagomba kwemera gusa ibyo bimenyetso iyo bikomeye, bisobanuye kandi bihuje”. 3 Ibimenyetso bicukumbuwe muri ubu buryo kandi byanashingiweho mu zindi manza zaciwe n‟uru Rukiko: Reba Urubanza RPAA0039/12/CS rwo ku wa 26/02/2016, Ubushinjacyaha buburana na Ntakiyimana na Mugirwanake, n‟urubanza RPA0018/10/CS rwo ku wa 25/11/2011, Rubyiruko Sylvestre n‟abandi baburana n‟Ubushinjacyaha. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HABIMANA

## Page 120

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 96

muganga ikaba yaraje yerekana ko uwo mwana yasambanyijwe koko. Habimana ntiyagaragarije Urukiko kandi icyari gutuma nyina w‟umwana amuhimbira icyaha atakoze, ahubwo mu ibazwa rye mu Bugenzacyaha yivugiye ko ntacyo bapfa. [22] Ku byerekeye raporo ya muganga, uregwa anenga kuba itagaragaza indahiro y‟uwayikoze nk‟uko biteganywa n‟ingingo ya 93 y‟Itegeko No15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye Ibimenyetso mu manza n‟itangwa ryabyo4, Urukiko rurasanga n‟ubwo iyo ndahiro koko iteganyijwe muri iyo ngingo isobanura ko ukutabaho kwayo kugira raporo impfabusa, nta kibuza ko iyo nenge ijyanye n‟imyandikire (vice de forme) aho kuba ijyanye n‟ireme ry‟igikorwa (vice de fond) yabasha gukosorwa5, nk‟igihe uwakoze raporo yahamagazwa mu Rukiko akabanza kurahira mbere yo kuyisobanura6, ari nako byagenze mu iburanisha ryo kuwa 15/02/2016, ubwo Muganga Rumanya Liliane yarahiraga mu Rukiko mbere yo gusobanura ibikubiye muri raporo ye.

4 Iyo ngingo ya 93 iteganya ko raporo ishyirwaho umukono n‟abahanga bose. Umukono w‟abahanga kugira ngo utaba impfabusa ubanzirizwa n‟indahiro mu nyandiko iteye itya : “Jyewe …………….. ndahiye ko nakoze umurimo nashinzwe ntacyo nirengagije, nywukora uko ugomba gukorwa nta buhemu. Niba ntawukoze uko bikwiye nzabihanirwe n‟amategeko”. 5 Ingingo ya 93 y‟Itegeko No21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y‟imanza z‟imbonezamubano, iz‟ubucuruzi, iz‟umurimo n‟iz‟ubutegetsi iteganya ko ukutagira agaciro kw‟inyandiko y‟Urukiko kubera inenge y‟imyandikire bikurwaho no kubikosora nyuma iyo hari icyo bikimaze kandi kubikosora bikaba ntacyo byangije. 6 Reba urubanza RPA0227/08/CS rwo ku wa 19/02/2010, Ubushinjacyaha buburana na Sibomana Nathanaël.

## Page 121

97

Ku byerekeye indishyi zagenwe n’Urukiko Rukuru [23] Me Rwigema wunganira Habimana yavuze ko ikirego cy‟indishyi cyatanzwe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko kuko hareze umwana bikosorwa n‟Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, ku wa 01/10/2008 mu iburanisha kandi rudafite ububasha bwo guhindura ikirego cy‟umuburanyi, kikaba kitari gikwiye kwakirwa ngo gisuzumwe. Avuga ariko ko niyo cyari kwakirwa, indishyi zagenwe nta bimenyetso byagaragajwe n‟abarega. [24] Urukiko rusanga ibijyanye n‟iyakirwa ry‟ikirego cy‟indishyi byarafashweho icyemezo n‟inkiko zabanje, imyandikire y‟uburyo cyatanzwe igakosorwa, Habimana ntiyigera abijuririra, bityo, akaba atakwemererwa kubigarukaho muri uru rubanza. [25] Naho ku byerekeye ibimenyetso by‟indishyi Habimana avuga ko bitagaragajwe, Urukiko rurasanga, adasobanura ubwoko bw‟ibyari bikenewe, mu gihe indishyi zagenwe mu bushishozi ari iz‟akababaro, mu rugero rwa 500.000Frw, akaba atagaragaza ko zaba ari umurengera. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [26] Urukiko rwemeje ko ubujurire bwatanzwe na Habimana Jean Claude nta shingiro bufite; [27] Rwemeje ko urubanza RPA0440/09/HC/KIG rwaciwe n‟Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 18/02/2010 rudahindutse; UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HABIMANA

## Page 122

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 98

[28] Rutegetse ko amagarama y‟urubanza aherera ku Isanduku ya Leta.

## Page 123

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. UWIZEYE [Rwanda URUKIKO RW‟IKIRENGA – RPA0255/13/CS (Mutashya, P.J., Rugabirwa na Karimunda, J.) 21 Mata 2017] Amategeko mpanabyaha – Ihohotera rishingiye ku gitsina – Ihohotera rikorewe umugore – Ubwicanyi – Igabanyagihano – Uburemere bw’icyaha – Kwirengagiza uburemere bw’icyaha cyakozwe no kutacyicuza bituma urukiko rutagabanya igihano – Ihohohotera ry’abagore rishobora gutuma uwakoze icyo cyaha ahanwa by’intangarugero – Itegeko Ngenga Nº01/2012 ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 76. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uregwa yakurikiranyweho icyaha cy‟ubwicanyi, ubushinjacyaha bumurega kwica umugore we babanaga batarasezeranye, akaba yaraburanaga yemera icyaha. Urukiko Rukuru urugereko rwa Rwamagana rwasanze yiyemerera ko yari yarateguye kwica umugore we rumuhanisha igifungo cya burundu, anategekwa kwishyura amagarama y‟urubanza. Yajuririye Urukiko rw‟ Ikirenga avuga ko urukiko rubanza rwafashe ibintu uko bitari kuko atigeze agambirira kwica umugore we, ahubwo ko yasembuwe n‟ubusambanyi bwe akamwica abitewe n‟umujinya, atakambira uru urukiko asaba kugabanyirizwa no gusubikirwa igihano kugirango abone uko yajya kwita kuri nyina yari abeshejeho n‟abana be yasize bandagaye. Ubushinjacyaha bwo buvugako uregwa yari asanzwe afitanye amakimbirane n‟umugore we kuko yamukekeraga ubusambanyi, bugasaba urukiko kutita kubyo aburanisha by‟uko yahanishwa igihano gito kugirango ajye kwita kuri nyina 99

## Page 124

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 100

n‟abana be, ko uregwa atakwitwaza ingaruka mbi z‟icyaha yakoze agamije kuzungukiramo agabanyirizwa igihano. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Kutumva uburemere bw‟icyaha cyakozwe no kutacyicuza bigomba kwitabwaho mu kugena igihano. 2. Kuba icyaha cyakozwe kiri mu rwego rw‟ihohotera hagati y‟abashakanye, uregwa akaba ashaka kumvikanisha ko hari amakosa yakozwe n‟uwahohotewe yatumye yicwa, bikwiye gutuma ahanwa by‟intangarugero, kuko ihohohotera ry‟abagore rikwiye kwitabwaho mu kugena igihano. 3. Ubugome bukabije bwakoranywe icyaha butuma hatabaho kugabanya igihano. Ubujurire nta shingiro bufite. Nta gihindutse ku rubanza rwajuririwe. Amagarama aherereye ku isanduku ya Leta. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Ngenga Nº01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy‟amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 76. Imanza zifashishijwe: Angelique Lyn Lavalle v. Ubushinjacyaha (Angelique Lyn Lavalle contre sa majesté la Reine), Rwaciwe n‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga rwa Canada, 1990, 1 SCR 852. p.872

## Page 125

101

Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana, Uwizeye Eustache aregwa kuba kuwa 27/11/2012, yaricishije umuhoro umugore we witwa Uwineza Médiatrice babanaga batarasezeranye. Yamutemesheje umuhoro mu mutwe no ku kaboko, amaze kumwica abwira abaturanyi ko amuhoye kuba ari mwiza, ko ubwiza bwe bukwiye kumupfira ubusa. Uwizeye Eustache yaburanye yemera icyaha. [2] Mu rubanza RP0100/12/HC/RWG rwaciwe ku wa 21/12/2012, Urukiko rwasanze Uwizeye Eustache yiyemerera ko yari yarateguye kwica Uwineza Médiatrice, amutema inshuro eshatu mu ijosi ashaka kurivanaho. Urukiko rwamuhanishije igifungo cya burundu, anategekwa kwishyura amagarama y‟urubanza. [3] Uwizeye Eustache ntiyanyuzwe n‟icyo cyemezo, ajuririra mu Rukiko rw‟Ikirenga avuga ko Urukiko rubanza rwafashe ibintu uko bitari kuko atigeze agambirira kwica umugore we ahubwo ko uyu yamusembuye kubera ubusambanyi bwe, amwica abitewe n‟umujinya, akaba asaba kugabanyirizwa igihano kubera ko yemera icyaha kandi agisabira imbabazi, hanyuma igihano ahawe kigasubikwa mu nyungu zo kurengera abana be basigaye bandagaye no kugirango adakomeza kubera Leta umutwaro. [4] Iburanisha mu ruhame ryabaye ku wa 20/03/2013, Uwizeye Eustache yunganiwe na Me Mberabagabo Balinda UBUSHINJACYAHA v. UWIZEYE

## Page 126

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 102

Richard, naho Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na Habineza Jean Damascène, Umushinjacyaha ku rwego rw‟Igihugu. II. IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYACYO Kumenya niba Uwizeye Eustache yagabanyirizwa igihano kubera ko yemera icyaha akanagisabira imbabazi. [5] Uwizeye Eustache avuga ko yatonganye na Uwineza Médiatrice, wari umugore we, bapfuye ko umugore yari amubajije impamvu atatetse ibishyimbo, babiheraho baratongana. Yasobanuye ko atari abanye neza n‟umugore we kuko yari afite ingeso y‟ubusambanyi ndetse ko yigeze kumufata asambana ariko umusambane we aramucika. Asoza avuga ko yemera ko yakoze icyaha ndengakamere kandi ko agisabira imbabazi, ariyo mpamvu atakambira uru Rukiko ngo ruce inkoni izamba rumuvane ku gifungo cya burundu yahanishijwe n‟Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana kugira ngo abone uko yajya kwita kuri nyina yari abeshejeho n‟abana be yasize bandagaye. [6] Me Mberabagabo Balinda Richard, umwunganira, avuga ko nubwo Uwizeye Eustache atashoboye gufata umusambane w‟umugore we, iyo ngeso y‟umugore ariyo yamushoye mu cyaha yemera, asobanura uko yakoze kandi asabira imbabazi kuva yatangira gukurikiranwa n‟inzego z‟ubutabera kugeza imbere y‟uru Rukiko. Asoza asaba uru Rukiko kwita ku myitwarire y‟uwo yunganira, rukarengera inyungu z‟abana ba Uwizeye Eustache bandagaye, rukamugabanyiriza igihano kugeza ku myaka icumi y‟igifungo rushingiye ku ngingo ya 77, igika cya 3 n‟iya 78, igika cya 1, z‟Itegeko-Ngenga

## Page 127

103

No01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho Igitabo cy‟amategeko ahana. [7] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko Uwizeye Eustache yari asanzwe afitanye amakimbirane n‟umugore we kuko yamukekeraga ubusambanyi, amaze kwica umugore we ajya kwa Ugiriwabo Eugénie acyuzuyeho amaraso, amubwira ko ubwiza bwa Uwineza Médiatrice ntacyo buzamumarira kuko amaze kumwica. Asaba uru Rukiko kutita k‟ubyo Uwizeye Eustache aburanisha by‟uko yahanishwa igihano gito kugirango ajye kwita kuri nyina no ku bana be bandagaye kuko umurongo rwatanze mu rubanza Ubushinjacyaha bwaburanaga na Mpitabakana1 ari uko uregwa atakwitwaza ingaruka mbi z‟icyaha yakoze agamije kuzungukiramo agabanyirizwa igihano, bityo rukemeza ko nta gihindutse ku mikirize y‟urubanza rujuririrwa. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [8] Ingingo ya 76 y‟Itegeko-Ngenga No01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho Igitabo cy‟amategeko ahana, iteganya ko “Umucamanza ubwe aha agaciro impamvu nyoroshyacyaha, ari izakibanjirije, ari izagiherekeje cyangwa izagikurikiye. Kwemeza impamvu zoroshya uburemere bw‟icyaha bigomba gusobanurwa”. [9] Dosiye y‟urubanza igaragaza ko Uwizeye Eustache yavugiye mu Bugenzacyaha no Bushinjacyaha ko kuva muri 2006 bashakana, nta mahoro yigeze arangwa mu rugo rwabo

1 Reba urubanza RPA0129/10/CS rwaciwe n‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga ku wa 07/03/2014. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. UWIZEYE

## Page 128

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 104

kuko umugore yirirwaga azerera agataha mu gicuku, akaba ari we utekera abana, umugore agakunda kumutuka ko ari imbwa. Yasobanuye ko uretse rimwe yigeze kumufata amuca inyuma muri 2007 nta bundi yigeze amufata, ariko ko yakomeje kubimukekera. Yavuze ko yemera ko ku wa 27/11/2012, ari we wiyiciye umugore, amwubikiriye yicaye ku ntebe, amutemesheje umuhoro inshuro eshatu ku ijosi, yitura hasi, ahita apfa, ko akimara kumwica yahungiye kwa Ugiriwabo Eugénie, amubwira ko amaze kwica umugore we, uyu ahuruza abaturanyi na Polisi (cotes 5-7 na 22-24). [10] Dosiye y‟urubanza irimo kandi imvugo ya Ugiriwabo Eugénie wavugiye mu Bugenzacyaha ko Uwizeye Eustache yageze iwe yitwaje umuhoro mu ntoki, ujojobaho amaraso, amubwira ko arangije kwica umugore we, nawe akibyumva ahita ahuruza Sibomana Théophile waje amwaka uwo muhoro. Naho Sibomana Théophile avuga ko yasanze Uwineza Médiatrice arambaraye mu kirambi, amaraso atemba, abajije Uwizeye Eustache icyo amuhoye asubiza ko yari arambiwe kuko yahoraga amutesha umutwe, ko nta mugabo uzongera kumutereta kuko ubwiza bwe bumuhombeye, kandi ko abana b‟impanga asize bashatse babaho cyangwa nabo bagapfa (cotes 14 na 15). [11] Dosiye irimo na none imvugo za Iragena Jeannette wavugiye mu Bugenzacyaha ko Uwizeye Eustache yamubwiye ko kuva umugore we yajya gukora mu materasi y‟indinganire hashize ukwezi badahura, kandi ko hari umugabo bakorana uza iwe, umugore akamutekera bagasangira, ko rero ahisemo kumwica kugira ngo ubwiza bwe bumupfire ubusa. Naho Ndagijimana Jean Bosco yavuze ko yumvise induru ivugira mu rugo rwa Uwizeye Eustache, ahuruye asanga umugore we

## Page 129

105

arambaraye hasi yapfuye, yatemwe mu mutwe no ku kuboko kandi ko Uwizeye Eustache yavuze ko icyo ahoye umugore we ari uko yari amaze kumunanira kuko hari umugabo bakorana wazaga kumusura akamutekera (cotes 10-12). [12] Urukiko rurasanga imvugo ya Uwizeye Eustache imbere y‟uru Rukiko y‟uko yari yagambiriye kwica Uwineza Médiatrice kandi ko yamwicishije umuhoro yamutemesheje ku ijosi ihura n‟iyo yavugiye mu Bugenzacyaha, mu Bushinjacyaha n‟imbere y‟Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana, ihura kandi n‟ibyemejwe n‟abatangabuhamya babajijwe muri dosiye by‟uko icyo yahoye umugore we ari ukumufuhira, muri dosiye hakaba kandi harimo ifoto iri kuri cote ya 18 igaragaza nyakwigendera arambaraye mu kizenga cy‟amaraso mu ruganiriro rw‟inzu, iruhande rwe hari umuhoro nawo wuzuyeho amaraso, uwo muhoro kandi ukaba warafatiriwe n‟Ubugenzacyaha nk‟uko bigaragazwa n‟inyandiko-mvugo y‟ifatira yo ku wa 28/11/2012, byose byerekana ko, nk‟uko byemejwe n‟Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana mu rubanza rujuririrwa ku rupapuro rwa gatatu, Uwizeye Eustache yemera icyaha mu buryo budashidikanywaho. [13] Urukiko rurasanga cyakora nyuma yo kwica Uwineza Médiatrice, Uwizeye Eustache yaravuze ko amuhoye ubwiza bwe, imbere y‟uru Rukiko akaba yarongeye kuvuga ko yakekaga ko umugore we yamucaga inyuma nubwo atigeze amufata kandi ko umugore we yajyaga amutuka ngo ni imbwa ndetse akirirwa azerera akamusigira abana, icyo ashaka kumvikanisha akaba ari uko Uwineza Médiatrice yazize amakosa ye, iyi myumvire ikaba igaragaza ko Uwizeye Eustache atarumva uburemere bw‟icyaha yakoze kandi ko atacyicuza n‟ubwo avuga ko agisabira imbabazi, nabyo bikaba UBUSHINJACYAHA v. UWIZEYE

## Page 130

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 106

bigomba kwitabwaho mu kumugenera igihano gikwiranye n‟icyaha yakoze. [14] Urukiko rurasanga icyaha Uwizeye Eustache yakoze kiri mu rwego rw‟ihohotera hagati y‟abashakanye, na n‟ubu akaba agishaka kumvikanisha ko hari amakosa Uwineza Médiatrice yakoze yatumye amwica, ibi ubwabyo bikaba bikwiye gutuma ahanwa by‟intangarugero kugirango abagabo bagifite iyo myumvire bamenye ko umugore atari igikoresho cy‟umugabo ahubwo ari ikiremwamuntu gifite uburenganzira, agaciro n‟ubushobozi nk‟ubw‟umugabo bashakanye. [15] Urukiko rurasanga kandi iby‟uko ihohotera ry‟abagore rikwiye kwitabwaho mu kugena igihano, byaragarutsweho n‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga rwa Canada mu rubanza hagati ya Angélique Lyn Lavallee n’Ubushinjacyaha, urwo Rukiko rwibutsa ko imyumvire y‟uko umugabo afite uburenganzira bwo gukosora umugore we yashinze imizi mu miryango y‟abantu, bituma umugore ahora yumva ko ari igikoresho cy‟umugabo, akwiye guhanwa iyo atashoboye kumushimisha no kugumana nawe kugeza batandukanyijwe n‟urupfu. Iyi myumvire ikaba yaragiye ituma ihohotera rikorerwa abagore riba ubwiru kandi ridakurikiranwa ngo rihanwe bihagije n‟Inkiko, ndetse naho amategeko y‟uburinganire agiriyeho, rikaba rigikomeza mu duce tumwe na tumwe. Igishimishije cyakora akaba ari uko imyumvire y‟uko nta mpamvu n‟imwe yatuma umugabo ahohotera umugore igenda itera imbere.2

2 “La notion qu‟un homme a le droit de discipliner sa femme est profondément enracinée dans l‟histoire de notre société. L‟obligation de la femme était de servir son mari, de rester mariée à tout prix jusqu‟à ce que la mort les sépare et de subir toute punition pouvant lui être infligée pour défaut de plaire à son mari. Cette attitude a eu notamment pour conséquence que la

## Page 131

107

[16] Hashingiwe ku bimaze gusobanurwa hejuru, Urukiko rurasanga, n‟ubwo Uwizeye Eustache yemera icyaha mu buryo budashidikanywaho, avuga ko agisabira imbabazi, asaba ko yagabanyirizwa igihano kugirango ajye kwita kuri nyina hamwe n‟abana b‟imfubyi yasize, kuba atariyimbaje umuryango, inshuti, inzego z‟ubuyobozi cyangwa iz‟ubutabera kugirango zimukiranure n‟umugore we yakekeraga kumuca inyuma, akamwubikira yicaye ku ntebe, akamutemesha umuhoro ku ijosi inshuro eshatu zose agamije guhita amwica nk‟uko abyivugira, akabikora yirengagije inyungu zo kwirerera abana no kwita kuri nyina aburanisha imbere y‟uru Rukiko nyamara izo nyungu zarashoboraga gutuma yirinda kugwa mu cyaha yakoze, bigaragaza ubugome bukabije yakoranye icyaha bukwiye gutuma atagabanyirizwa igifungo cya burundu yahanishijwe n‟Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana kuko aricyo gikwiranye n‟uburemere bw‟icyaha yakoze. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [17] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Uwizeye Eustache bugamije igabanyagihano nta shingiro bufite;

violence faite aux femmes était rarement mentionnée, rarement rapportée, rarement poursuivi et encore plus rarement punie. Bien après que la société eut cessé d‟approuver officiellement la violence conjugale, on continuait, et on continue encore aujourd‟hui, à la tolérer dans certains milieux. Heureusement, on constate depuis quelques années une conscience accrue qu‟aucun homme n‟a, dans aucune circonstance, le droit de brutaliser une femme.”, Cour Suprême du Canada, Angelique Lyn Lavallee contre Sa Majesté la Reine, [1990] 1 SCR 852, at 872. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. UWIZEYE

## Page 132

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 108

[18] Rwemeje ko nta gihindutse ku mikirize y‟urubanza no RP0100/12/HC/RWG rwaciwe n‟Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana ku wa 21/12/2012; [19] Rutegetse ko amagarama y‟urubanza aherera ku Isanduku ya Leta.

## Page 133

RWANDA LAW REPORTS ENGLISH VERSION

## Page 135

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TEAM OF EDITORS ................................................................ iii MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE .............................. iv PREFACE ................................................................................. vi SCOPE OF THE REPORTS .................................................... vii CITATION ............................................................................... vii LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ viii LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED .............................................. x SUBJECT INDEX ..................................................................... xi NYARUGENGE DISTRICT v. MUKANGEMANYI .............. 1 NYIRAROMBA v. NGIRINSHUTI ........................................ 19 WALTER RAFFO v. MUNYAMPIRWA ............................... 33 TELE 10 RWANDA Ltd v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA) ............................................................... 45 NSANZABERA v. BARIGANZA ET AL .............................. 67 PROSECUTION v. HABIMANA ........................................... 83 PROSECUTION v. UWIZEYE ............................................... 95

i

## Page 137

TEAM OF EDITORS

LAW REPORTING TEAM

KAGABO U. Stephanie

KAVUTSE M. Claude

KUBWIMANA Jean Claude

MUJABI K. Naphtal

MWIHOREZE Claudine

NTIHEMUKA Emmanuel

UWIMANA Gisèle

iii

## Page 138

MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE

MUGENZI Louis Marie : President of the Committee Supreme Court Judge

Dr. MUHIRE G. Yves : Vice President of the Committee Lecturer in the School of Law/UR

RUTAZANA Angeline : Secretary of the Committee Inspector of Courts

Me BAGABO Faustin : Advocate at Rwanda Bar Association

BWIZA N. Blanche : Inspector of Courts GIRANEZA Clémentine : President of Primary Court

HABARUREMA Jean Pierre : Prosecutor at National Level

KALIWABO Charles : President of High Court

Me KAYIHURA Didas : Advocate at Rwanda Bar Association

iv

## Page 139

KIBUKA Jean Luc : Judge at Commercial High Court

Major. MADUDU A. Charles Judge at Military High Court

MUREREREHE Saouda : Judge at High Court

Prof. Dr. NGAGI M. Alphonse : Supreme Court Judge RUBANGO K. Epimaque : State Attorney RUKUNDAKUVUGA F. Regis : Inspector General of Courts

UWANTEGE Yvette : Juge at Intermediate Court

v

## Page 140

PREFACE Dear Readers, As this is our first volume in this year, let us take this opportunity to wish you a prosperous new year of 2018. As usual in this year, we will continue to publish the Law Reports and we hope that readers will benefit from it in their daily professional activities. This volume contains seven (7) cases; two (2) penal cases, one (1) civil case while the remaining four cases (4) are procedural ones. As you are accustomed, the published cases can easily be accessed on the website of the judiciary: http://decisia.lexum.com/rlr/en/nav.do. Prof. RUGEGE Sam Chief Justice

vi

## Page 141

SCOPE OF THE REPORTS These reports cover cases decided by the Supreme Court cited under the heading below:

CITATION The Reports in this volume are cited thus: [2018] 1 RLR

vii

## Page 142

LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, articles 79, 80 and 81..……………………………………….5 article 28(7)…………………………………………………..71 Law Nº27/2016 of 08/07/2016 governing matrimonial regimes, donations and successions, article 76.…………………………….5 Law No21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles 129, 162, 184 and 186(3)…………………………..5 articles 18(12o) and 119…………………………………….23 article 168…………………………………………………….48 article 93……………………………………………………...85 Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article 76.……………………………………………………..96 Law Nº01/2012 of 03/02/2012 modifying and complementing the Law Nº25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedure, article 9……………………………………………………………………….48 Law Nº74/2008 of 31/12/2008 modifying and complementing Law Nº25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedure, article 7……48 Law No15/2004 of 12/04/2004 relating to evidence and its production, articles 93 and 108…………………………………..85 Decree-Law 30/07/1888 relating to Contracts or obligations, article 258……………………………………………………………..5 Rules of Commissioner General Nº001/2014 of 01/11/2014 regulating amicable settlement in tax matters, article 6………48 viii

## Page 143

ix LIST OF STATUTES

Law N°22/99 of 12/11/1999 to supplement book one of the civil code and to institute part five regarding matrimonial regimes, liberalities and successions, articles 50 and 70………………...71

## Page 144

LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED RRA v. SOCOMIE Ltd, RCOMAA 0029/15/CS rendered by Supreme Court on 31/07/2015..................................................48 RPAA0039/12/CS, Prosecution v. Ntakiyimana and Mugirwanake, rendered by the Supreme Court on 26 February 2016...........................................................................................85 RPA0018/10/CS, Prosecution v. Rubyiruko et al rendered by the Supreme Court on 25 November 2011…………………………...85 RPA0227/08/CS, Prosecution v. Sibomana rendered by the Supreme Court, on 19 February 2010.......................................85 Angelique Lyn Lavalle v. Prosecution (Angelique Lyn Lavalle her majesty the queen), Supreme Court of Canada, 1990, 1 SCR 852, p.872..................................................................................97

x

## Page 145

SUBJECT INDEX Civil procedure – Death of one of the spouse who is a party to a case – The responsibility of one of the spouses to continue the proceedings in case one of them who was a party to the case dies – If one of the spouses who was a party in the case relating to the property dies, the surviving spouse shall continue the proceedings, because according to the law he/she is entitled to the entire property – Law No21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 129 – Law Nº27/2016 of 08/07/2016 governing matrimonial regimes, donations and successions, article 76. NYARUGENGE DISTRICT v. MUKANGEMANYI..1 Objection – Requirements for admissibility of a claim – Interest – A person can only seize a court when s/he suffers a prejudice of his own interests and where the result of the action will benefit him personally – Law No21/2012 of 24/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 18(12). NYIRAROMBA v. NGIRINSHUTI………………….19 Admissibility of the intervention claim – In case the main claim does no longer exist due to its rejection, the examination of an incidental proceeding is cancelled as well – Law No21/2012 of 24/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 119. NYIRAROMBA v. NGIRINSHUTI …………………19 xi

## Page 146

Criminal law – Penalty reduction – The gravity of an offence – The fact of not considering the gravity of the offence committed and the fact of not being remorseful must be considered in determination of the penalty – Organic Law No01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article 76. PROSECUTION v. UWIZEYE………………………95 Domestic violence – In determination of the penalty, violence against women needs to be considered. PROSECUTION v. UWIZEYE………………………95 Penalty reduction – The cruelty used in the commission of an offence – The cruelty used in the commission of an offense prevents the benefit of penalty reduction. PROSECUTION v. UWIZEYE………………………95 Damages – Award of damages – Damages awarded by the previous court in its discretion cannot be changed unless proven to be excessive. PROSECUTION v. HABIMANA ……………………83 Family law – Succession – The applicable law for succession of a woman before the promulgation of the Law N°22/99 of 12/11/1999 to supplement Book I of the civil code and to institute part V. regarding matrimonial regimes, liberalities and successions – Even before the enactment of that law, no provision prevented a female child to inherit from her parents because the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 1962, the Constitutions of the Republic of Rwanda of 20/12/1978 and that of 10/06/1991, provided that all persons are equal before the law without discrimination based on ethnic, race, origin, sex, religion(…). NSANZABERA v. BARIGANZA ET AL …………...67 xii RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 147

Succession – Descending partition – The fact that a female child was allocated a descending partition which was meant to be given to a daughter whose marriage failed; does not deprive her of the right to inherit from her ascendants. NSANZABERA v. BARIGANZA ET AL …………...67 Law determining jurisdiction of courts – Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court – The effects of failure to exercise remedies provided for by the law before submitting a claim to the office of the Ombudsman – The party entitled to ordinary and extraordinary remedies of appeal but who did not exercise this right within the time limit prescribed by the law shall not be allowed to make an application for review on the grounds of injustice of the case he/she lost – Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 81. NYARUGENGE DISTRICT v. MUKANGEMANYI..1 Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court – Application for review of the final decision due to injustice – Decision of the President of the Supreme Court – The decision of the President of the Supreme Court ordering to record in the relevant registry the claim from the Office of the Ombudsman does not prevent that during the hearing there shall be another debate concerning the jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility of the claim; and in addition to that, the bench has the power to examine whether the claim was lawfully submitted to the Office of the Ombudsman – Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 80. NYARUGENGE DISTRICT v. MUKANGEMANYI..1 xiii SUBJECT INDEX

## Page 148

Exequatur of foreign deeds – Foreign deeds issued by foreign officers for which prior approval by Rwandan courts is required for their enforcement, are those endowing the right to their holders, to the extent that the latter can seek government coercion for execution – Organic Law N°51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of Courts, articles 91 and 92 – Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 204. WALTER RAFFO v. MUNYAMPIRWA …………..33 Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court – Determination of the value of the subject matter – The jurisdiction of the Court shall not be relied on the value of what are awarded to each party, rather, on the value of the subject matter – Organic Law Nº03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 28(7). NSANZABERA v. BARIGANZA ET AL……………67 Law of evidence – Oath of an expert – The value of a report not preceded by an oath of its issuer – Although the Law provides that an expert‟s report must be preceded by an oath, failing to do so nullifies the report, nothing prohibits such a procedural error rather than substantial to be rectified, like when the issuer appears before the court and makes an oath before providing explanations thereof – Law No15/2004 of 12/04/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 93. PROSECUTION v. HABIMANA…………………….83 Tax procedure – Time limit for filing a claim to the court by the taxpayer who opted for the amicable settlement – A xiv RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 149

taxpayer who opts for the amicable settlement but fails to reach an agreement files a claim to the court within 30 days, counted from the time he/she was notified that the amicable settlement is not possible – Law Nº74/2008 of 31/12/2008 modifying and complementing Law Nº25/2005 of 04/12/2005 of tax procedure, article 7 – Law Nº01/2012 of 03/02/2012 modifying and complementing the Law Nº25/2005 of 04/12/2005 of tax procedure, article 9. TELE 10 RWANDA Ltd v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA).....................................................45

xv SUBJECT INDEX

## Page 151

PROCEDURAL CASES

## Page 153

CASE RELATING TO CIVIL, COMMERCIAL, LABOUR AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

## Page 155

NYARUGENGE DISTRICT v. MUKANGEMANYI [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/RV/INJUST/AD0001/16/CS – (Mukanyundo, P.J., Kayitesi and Rugabirwa, J.) June 30, 2017] Civil procedure – Death of one of the spouse who is a party to a case – The responsibility of one of the spouses to continue the proceedings in case one of them who was a party to the case dies – If one of the spouses who was a party in the case relating to the property dies, the surviving spouse shall continue the proceedings, because according to the law he/she is entitled to the entire property – Law No21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 129 – Law Nº27/2016 of 08/07/2016 governing matrimonial regimes, donations and successions, article 76. Law determining the jurisdiction of courts – Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court – The effects for failure to exercise remedies provided for by the law before submitting a claim to the office of the Ombudsman – The party entitled to ordinary and extraordinary remedies of appeal but who did not exercise this right within the time limit prescribed by the law shall not be allowed to make an application for review on the ground of injustice of the case he/she lost – Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 81. Law determining the jurisdiction of courts – Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court – Application for review of the final decision due to injustice – The decision of the President of the Supreme 1

## Page 156

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 2

Court – The decision of the President of the Supreme Court ordering to record in the relevant registry the file from the office of the Ombudsman does not prevent the conduct of debates concerning the jursdiction of the Court and the admissibility of the claim in subsequent hearings; and in addition to that, the bench has the power to examine whether the claim was lawfully submitted to the Office of the Ombudsman – Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 80. Facts: Rwigara sued Nyarugenge District at the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge, alleging that the expropriation for public interest carried out on his property was not conducted in compliance with the expropriation laws, because he was not informed of it. The Court held that the expropriation was unlawful because the District did not produce elements of evidence which prove that the procedures for the expropriation in the public interest which are provided by the law were respected. Nyarugenge District was not satisfied with the ruling and consequently wrote to the Office of Ombudsman requesting to review that judgment due to injustice, on the grounds that after deliberation, it got documents which demonstrate that Rwigara was well aware of that expropriation, and also that the execution of that judgment was impossible. After examining the issue raised by Nyarugenge District, the Office of Ombudsman sent the file to the President of the Supreme Court requesting to review that judgment due to injustice. Meanwhile, Rwigara passed away, and consequently he was replaced in that lawsuit by Succession Rwigara Assinapol

## Page 157

3

which prepared the defense submission, whereby it raised the objection for inadmissibility of the claim of Nyarugenge district alleging that it applied for review of the judgment due to injustice in violation of the Organic Law determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court because Nyarugenge District did not exercise other remaining remedies of appeal. Basing on article 76 of the Law Nº27/2016 of 08/07/2016 governing matrimonial regimes, donations and successions, the Court found that since the lawsuit was initiated by Rwigara who subsequently died, should be replaced by his spouse Mukangemanyi instead of being replaced by Succession Rwigara represented by Mukangemanyi because Succession does not have a legal personality. Firstly, the Court examined the objection for inadmissibility of the claim raised by the respondent, whereby the District upholds that the objection is groundless because the issue of determining whether the judgment should be reviewed or not because it was not appealed is examined by the Office of Ombudsman, that if it transfers the case to the Supreme Court and the President of the Supreme Court orders it to be recorded in the relevant registry of that Court, the issue of jurisdiction is settled and cannot be examined again. Therefore, this objection was belatedly raised because the claim has already been admitted. Consequently, that issue should not be included among the grounds to be examined by the Supreme Court and if there were irregularities then they were rectified by both institutions. The respondent explains that Nyarugenge District had option to seek other ordinary and extra ordinary remedies of appeal but it did not appeal or apply for the review of this judgment, since it alleges to have obtained the elements of evidence which it did NYARUGENGE DISTRICT v. MUKANGEMANYI

## Page 158

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 4

not have during the hearing of that judgment. She further reminds that the Ombudsman is not a party to this case, also the fact that the President of the Supreme Court decided the claim to be recorded in the relevant registry in order to be re- adjudicated, that decision is administrative in nature but this does not mean that parties would not pray for the laws to be abided with, especially those relating to the jurisdiction of the Court because they are of public order. Held: 1. If one of the spouses who was a party in the case related to the property passed away, the surviving spouse shall continue the proceedings, because according to the law he/she is entitled to the entire property. Therefore, Rwigara Assinapol is replaced in this lawsuit by his spouse Mukangemanyi. 2. The decision of the President of the Supreme Court ordering to record in the relevant registry the file from the office of Ombudsman does not prevent that during the hearing there shall be another debate concerning the jurisdiction of the Court and also about the admissibility of a claim; in addition to that the bench has the power to examine whether the claim of Nyarugenge District was lawfully submitted to the Office of Ombudsman. 3. The party entitled to ordinary and extraordinary remedies of appeal but who did not exercise this right within the time limit prescribed by law shall not be allowed to make an application for review due to injustice of the case he/she lost; therefore the fact that the appellant deprived himself of the right to remedies of appeal for getting justice after obtaining new element of evidence, he /she is not allowed to apply for review of a final decision due to injustice.

## Page 159

5

4. Any act of man which causes damage to another obliges the person by whose fault it happened to repair it. Therefore, the fact that the appellant filed unlawfully a claim which led the respondent to hire a lawyer who followed up the judgment into this Court, he/she must be awarded counsel fees and procedure fees in the discretion of the Court. The objection of inadmissibility of the claim has merit. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, articles 79, 80 and 81. Law Nº27/2016 of 08/07/2016 governing matrimonial regimes, donations and successions, article 76. Law No21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles 129, 162, 184 and 186(3). Decree-Law 30/07/1888 relating to Contracts or obligations, article 258. No case referred to. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] This case originates from the suit initiated by Rwigara Assinapol in the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge requesting for “eviction de la parcelle 5860 Rugenge pour projet non NYARUGENGE DISTRICT v. MUKANGEMANYI

## Page 160

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 6

révélé” on the ground that the expropriation for public interest was not conducted in accordance with the expropriation laws, because he was not informed of that expropriation and requested for damages. In its defence, the District of Nyarugenge stated that the claim is groundless because Rwigara was informed of that expropriation because he was present in the residents‟ meeting in which that expropriation was announced and even after being informed of the value awarded to his property and he contested the compensation given for his property. [2] On 28/02/2013, the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge rendered a judgment RAD0010/12/TGI/NYGE, whereby it held that the District of Nyarugenge expropriated Rwigara Assinapol illegaly because it did not produce any evidence proving that procedures for the expropriation in public interest as provided by the law were respected. [3] The District of Nyarugenge addressed the claim to the Office of the Ombudsman requesting the review of the judgment RAD0010/12/TGI/NYGE due to injustice because after the delivery of the judgment, it obtained documents demonstrating that Rwigara Assinapol was aware of the expropriation even though he denied it. The district explains also that even its execution would be impossible and for this reason it applies for review due to injustice so that the rulings be reversed. [4] After examining the issue of Nyarugenge District, the Office of the Ombudsman wrote to the President of the Supreme Court requesting that the judgment RAD0010/12/TGI/NYGE be reviewed due to injustice because the implementation of the ruling of the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge that the District of Nyarugenge should expropriate Rwigara Assinapol in

## Page 161

7

accordance to the laws governing expropriation in public interest is time barred because one of the procedures provided for by the law consisting of consultation with the residents owning properties at the place where that expropriation will take place which done prior to the expropriation, cannot be carried out afterward. In addition, even the procedure of compiling the list of assets concerned by expropriatation and announcement cannot be performed because the expropriation was already carried out; therefore that procedure would be useless either on the part of Rwigara Assinapol or the Nyarugenge District since as explained above, it would be unlawful. [5] Basing on the 1st paragraph, litera 3 of article 79 which provides that a final judgment can be reviewed when the judgment cannot be executed due to its rulings, the Office of the Ombudsman requested the review of the judgment RAD0010/12/TGI/NYGE because it is evident that its execution is impossible. [6] In the defence submission; the counsel for Succession Rwigara Assinapol raised an objection for inadmissibility of the claim of Nyarugenge District arguing that it applied for review due to injustice in contravention of Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. [7] The hearing was held in public on March 21, 2017, whereby Nyarugenge District was represented by Rubango Epimaque, the State attorney, whereas Succession Rwigara Assinapol was assisted by Counsel Rwagatare Janvier. On that day the hearing was postponed to 23/05/2017 because Counsel Rwagatare Janvier appeared and declared that he was representing Succession Rwigara Assinapol which was also NYARUGENGE DISTRICT v. MUKANGEMANYI

## Page 162

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 8

represented by Mukangemanyi Adéline; but the Court, basing on article 76 of the Law Nº27/2016 of 08/07/2016 governing matrimonial regimes, donations and successions, found that since the lawsuit was initiated by Rwigara Assinapol, who later died, the latter should be replaced by his spouse Mukangemanyi Adéline, rather than Succession Rwigara Assinapol because Succession does not have a legal personality. However, the Court found that Mukangemanyi Adeline cannot be summoned in this case before proving that she was legally married to the de cujus. Therefore, the Court postponed the hearing for the Counsel Rwagatare Janvier to submit to the court the marriage certificate. [8] Pursuant to article 76 of the Law N°27/2016 of 08/07/2016, mentioned above which provides that “succession of spouses married under the community of property regime is done as follows: 1° if one of the spouses dies, the surviving spouse is entitled to the entire property and fulfils the duty to take care of their children and that of the legitimate children of the de cujus” the Court found that the marriage certificate submitted by Mukangemanyi Adéline indicates that Rwigara Assinapol was legally married to Mukangemanyi Adéline under the community of property regime. Therefore pursuant to article 129 of the Law No21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, it declared that Rwigara Assinapol has been replaced by his spouse Mukangemanyi Adéline in this case. [9] Counsel Rwagatare Janvier representing Mukangemanyi Adéline raised an objection for inadmissibility of the claim of Nyarugenge District on the ground of irregularity of procedures.

## Page 163

9

II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES 1. Whether there are remedies of appeal which were not exercised by Nyarugenge District likely to lead to inadmissibility of its application for review of the judgment due to injustice. [10] Counsel Rwagatare Janvier explains that article 81 paragraph 2 of the Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court provides that “the party entitled to other ordinary and extraordinary procedures to appeal who did not exercise this right within the time limit prescribed by law shall not be entitled to invoke the provisions of this section to apply for review of a decision of the case he/she lost”. The section mentioned in this article is that for the review of a final decision due to injustice. Thus, the Nyarugenge District never appealed nor applied for review of the judgment RAD0010/12/TGI/NYGE, especially that its representative states that it holds new elements of evidence which it did not have at the time of the hearing of the case. [11] He goes on explaining that the District had accepted the rulings of the judgment because it had begun executing the judgment, hence, for that reason, they find that Nyarugenge District was not allowed to exercise this extraordinary remedy. He argues that the Ombudsman is not a party to this case and also the arguments of Nyarugenge District that the order of the President of the Supreme Court to record the claim in relevant registry in order to be re-adjudicated; is considered as an administrative decision which does not prevents parties to request the respect of the law, especially the provisions NYARUGENGE DISTRICT v. MUKANGEMANYI

## Page 164

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 10

concerning jurisdiction of the Court because they are of public order. [12] Asked how his client would be paid damages and compensation resulting from the expropriation in public interest in case this Court sustains the objection he raised, Counsel Rwagatare Janvier replied that they do not request to be awarded houses which are on that plot because they were not constructed by her, rather, he further argues that orders against the district contained in that judgment are clear, therefore they must be executed and in addition to this, there is a case recorded on RAD0041/14/TGI/NYGE in which Nyarugenge District is forcefuly requested to execute the judgment RAD0010/12/TGI/NYGE which is the subject of review due to injustice. Regarding the allegations of the counsel for Nyarugenge District that it referred to the principles of equity, he argues that if Nyarugenge district realised that the execution of this judgment was impossible, it would have referred to fairness principles and apply for review of the case, but be it the case, in no case equity defeats the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. [13] Rubango Epimaque, the State Attorney for Nyarugenge district, argued during the pre-trial meeting of 13/02/2017 that the objection lacks merit since the issue of determining whether the case will be reviewed or not because it was not appealed, is examined by the Office of the Ombudsman, therefore once it is transferred to the Supreme Court whereby its president orders its record to be done in the relevant registry of that Court, the issue of the jursdiction ceases to be reexamined, which implies that the objection raised by his opponents after the claim was

## Page 165

11

already admitted is time barred. Therefore, that issue should not figure among those for determination by the Supreme Court. [14] He further explains that the matter submitted to this Court reached the Supreme Court through extra-ordinary way of appeal, that the judgment requested to be reviewed due to injustice was rendered on 11/01/2014, and that the law provides that in order to be admitted it must have been transferred by the Office of the Ombudsman and examined by the President of the Supreme Court, the procedures which were done. Therefore, he finds that if errors were committed, they have been rectified by those organs. He states in addition that, to be fair, since the judgment could not be executed, the party remained with no remedy other than reviewing that judgment due to injustice. [15] He goes on stating that the ruling of the judgment RAD0010/12/TGI/NYGE rendered by the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge for which the application for review due to injustice was applied which is impossible to be executed, is consistent with the provision of article 81 litera 3, because the court ordered the expropriation of Rwigara in compliance with the law and more especially after RSSB (former RAMA and Social security fund) has already constructed a house on the plot in litigation, the reason why according to this ruling, the determination of the value of his plot may lead to the inclusion of properties which do not belong to him. Therefore, they pray to this Court that in case it declares itself compentente to hear the case, it should also hold that Rwigara Assinapol be paid the amount he was awarded at that time which is equavalent to assets which were on that plot.

NYARUGENGE DISTRICT v. MUKANGEMANYI

## Page 166

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 12

FINDINGS OF THE COURT [16] Article 79, paragraph 4 of the Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, provides that “when the Office of the Ombudsman finds that the decision handed down is unjust, it shall send to the President of the Supreme Court a letter accompanied by a report on the issue and evidence of such injustice and request to re-adjudicate the case”. The last paragraph of that article provides that “application for review of a final decision due to injustice shall not be subject to screening”. [17] Article 80 of the Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 provides that “after considering the report of the General Inspectorate of Courts, the President of the Supreme Court shall decide that the case be re-adjudicated, he/she shall send the file to the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court for recording it in the relevant registry, and he/she shall set the date of hearing and determine the bench. He/she shall also designate from among the members of the bench a judge rapporteur…”. [18] Whereas article 81, paragraph 1, litera 3 of Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, provides that “the review of a final decision due to injustice shall only be applied for on any of the following grounds: when the judgment cannot be executed due to its rulings”, and paragraph 2 provides that “however, the party entitled to other ordinary and extraordinary procedures to appeal who did not exercise this right within the time limit prescribed by law shall not be entitled

## Page 167

13

to invoke the provisions of this section to apply for review of a decision of the case he/she lost”. [19] Concerning whether the decision of the President of the Supreme Court closes further debates on the jursidiction of the court or the admissibility of the claim relating to the judgment transferred by the Office of the Ombudsman in order to be reviewed due to injustice, the Court finds that according to the provision of article 80 of the Organic Law Nº03/2012/OL mentioned above, the decision taken by the President of the Supreme Court ordering to record in the relevant registry a claim from the Office of the Ombudsman, should not be relied on by parties to allege that the issue of jursidiction or admissibility of claim was already settled, because that decision does not relate to the admissibility of a claim, rather, it concerns its record in relevant registry. Thus, any interested party has, during the hearing, the right to raise an objection of lack of jurisdiction or that of inadmissibility of a claim basing on article 81 or other provisions of the Organic Law Nº03/2012/OL mentioned above, especially that the decision is made without the participation of the opponent. [20] Therefore, the Court finds that the order of the President of the Supreme Court to record in the relevant registry the application from the Office of the Ombudsman does not prevent further debates during the hearing on the jursdiction of the Court and even on the admissibility of the claim. Consequently, the bench is competent to examine whether the claim of Nyarugenge District was lawfully submitted to the Office of the Ombudsman. [21] In the trial of the judgment RAD0010/12/TGI/NYGE, the Intermidiate Court of Nyarugenge held that for the NYARUGENGE DISTRICT v. MUKANGEMANYI

## Page 168

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 14

expropriation in the public interest to be lawful, all procedures provided by the law must be respected, otherwise it will be considered unlawfully conducted. It decided that Rwigara Assinapol was unlawfully expropriated because Nyurugenge District failed to produce elements of evidence proving that the provided procedures were respected, such as consultative meeting with persons to be expropriated on the process and nothing proving that Rwigara Assinapol was just not satisfied with the compesation he was given by the District, as it alleges. [22] As elaborated in the letter submitted to the Office of the Ombudsman, whereby Nyarugenge District stated that its Archivist was in better position to know the whereabouts of the documents demonstrating that Rwigara Assinapol was informed about the expropriation, who though refuted it; had travelled abroad for studies.1

1 Those elements of evidence clearly demonstrating that Rwigara was well aware and even followed up the process of expropriation of his property, are especially the report of the land commission of 17 July 2010; that of 23 August 2010; the letter of 17 July 2010 informing him that 6,284,243Frw was the value of his property and that if he was not satisfied with that value, he may conduct a counter-expertise in accordance with article 26 of the law relating to expropriation in the public interest together with his letter of 02 August 2010 in response to the valuation of his property. The extraordinary meeting between the land commission and the residents convened on 17 July 2010 which was aimed at informing them of the resolutions of the land commission of the previous meetings with the purpose of demonstrating the outcome of the property valuation and receive their complaints whereas that of 23 August 2010 shows clearly that the land commission examined the issue of alternative value submitted by Rwigara whereby it decided that it will first seek advice about the houses it demolished after the payment of owners while the law relating to expropriation in public interest provides that the valuation takes into account the land as well as the property thereon; while in this case, there was nothing on the land at the time of valuation.

## Page 169

15

[23] The Court finds that after those documents were found, the District applied to the Office of the Ombudsman basing on article 79 of the Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 allegging that the judgment RAD0010/12/TGI/NYGE is unfair because considering its rulings, its execution is impossible; therefore, it requested the Supreme Court to re-adjudicate by taking into account the statements of Rwigara Assinapol in that case whereby he argued that he was not aware of the expropriation and the obtained documents which clearly demonstrate that he was aware of it and therefore reverse the ruling of judgment on the basis of those elements of evidence. [24] Article 184 of the Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 provides that “an application for review seeks to have a final judgment quashed and redecided on the facts and the law”. Whereas article 186, litera 3 of the Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 also provides that “since the time of rendering the judgment, it was evident that there was injustice due to the judgement for which the review is sought, whether an element of evidence was in the file but was not noticed by the court or was revealed later”. [25] Considering that Nyarugenge District discovered elements of evidence which are contained in the file it submitted to the Office of the Ombudsman on the basis of which it stated that they clearly demonstrate that Rwigara Assinapol was aware of the expropriation and also followed it up, namely the report of the meeting of the land commission of 17/07/2010, that of 23/08/2010, the letter of 17/07/2010 informing him that his property was valued at 6,284,243Frw and that if he was not contented with that value, he may conduct a counter-expertise as provided for by article 26 of the law relating to expropriation NYARUGENGE DISTRICT v. MUKANGEMANYI

## Page 170

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 16

in the public interest, the letter of Rwigara Assinapol of 02/08/2010 as a response to the one mentioned above concerning the valuation of his property; it should have applied for review of the Judgment RAD0010/12/TGI/NYGE in accordance with the provisions of article 184 and 186 of the law mentioned above. [26] Therefore, the Court finds that even though the execution of the Judgment RAD0010/12/TGI/NYGE rendered by the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge was impossible considering the state of its ruling as argued by the state attorney representing the District, the opinion adhered to by the Office of the Ombudsman basing on article 81 paragraph 1, litera 3 of the Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012, this does not constitute a ground for admissibility of Nyarugenge district‟s application for review of that judgment due to injustice before the Supreme Court, because as held above, Nyarugenge district should have lodged an appeal in accordance with article 162 of the aforementioned Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 or applied for review which is also provided by articles 184 and 186 of the same law, which it did not do. Consequently, the fact that it deprived itself of the remedies of appeal to get justice from the time it got new elements of evidence as it alleges; it is bared to apply for review of the judgment due to injustice basing on article 81 paragraph 2 of the Organic Law No03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 mentioned above. 2. Whether Mukangemanyi Adéline should be awarded damages she claims for. [27] Counsel Rwagatare Janvier argues that the fact for Nyarugenge district to have taken the judgment to the Office of the Ombudsman consists of an abuse of the process because it

## Page 171

17

should have lodged an appeal against or applied for review of the judgment rendered by the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge; therefore, on behalf of his client, he requests that Mukangemanyi Adéline be awarded 2,000,000Frw for Counsel fees and 1,000,000Frw for procedural fees. [28] Counsel Rubango Epimaque argues that Nyarugenge district did not lodge an appeal to this Court, given that the claim was submitted to this Court by the Office of the Ombudsman, which procedure is provided for by the law; therefore, damages they request for are groundless. FINDINGS OF THE COURT [29] Article 258 of the civil code book III provides that “any act of man which causes damage to another obliges the person by whose fault it happened to repair it”. [30] The Court finds that due to the fact that Nyarugenge district lost the case because it filed a claim which is inadmissible, this led Mukangemanyi Adéline to hire the service of an advocate and also followed up the case in this Court. Therefore, on the basis of article 258 mentioned above and in its discretion, she is awarded 1,000,000Frw of counsel and procedure fees because Counsel Rwagatare Janvier does not produce evidence in support of the amount of 2,000,000Frw for counsel fees and 1,000,000Frw for procedural fees he requests on her behalf.

NYARUGENGE DISTRICT v. MUKANGEMANYI

## Page 172

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 18

III. DECISION OF THE COURT [31] Decides that the objection raised by Mukangemanyi Adéline is sustained; [32] Rejects the application made by Nyarugenge district for review of the Judgment RAD0010/12/TGI/NYGE rendered on 28 February 2013 by the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge due to injustice; [33] Holds that the counter-claim of Mukangemanyi Adéline claiming for the procedural and counsel fees has merit; [34] Orders Nyarugenge district to pay to Mukangemanyi Adéline 1,000,000Frw for the Counsel and procedural fees; [35] Orders Nyarugenge district to pay the Court fees amounting to 100,000Frw.

## Page 173

NYIRAROMBA v. NGIRINSHUTI [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RC0002/16/CS (Mugenzi, P.J., Gatete and Munyangeri, J.) January 27, 2017] Civil procedure – Objection – Requirements for admissibility of the claim – Interest – A person can only seize a court when s/he suffers from a prejudice of his own interests and where the result of the action will benefit him personally – Law No21/2012 of 24/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 18(12). Civil procedure – Admissibility of the intervention claim – In case the main claim does no longer exist due to its rejection, even the examination of the incidental proceeding becomes impossible – Law No21/2012 of 24/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 119. Facts: This case is the result of actions that Nyiraromba and Ngirinshuti initiated against each other whereby Nyiraromba alleges that Ngirinshuti dispossessed her from farmlands she was given by her mother. The District Court of Kabagali decided that the farmlands on which Nyiraromba built the house belong to her while none of them produced reliable evidence for the remaining three farmlands. Both parties lodged appeal against the decision where Nyiraromba alleged that the previous Court disregarded elements of evidence she submitted indicating that she owned land in dispute 40 years ago whereas Ngirinshuti stated that the same Court disregarded the document produced by Nyiraromba indicating the size of the plot of land given to her and the 19

## Page 174

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 20

blueprint of the disputed land. He adds that this Court relied on inconsistent provisions of the law and that it disregarded that he owned those lands before he took refuge and that it is when he came back that he realized they were occupied by Nyiraromba. The appealed Court held in the judgment RCA0935/05/TP/GIT - RCA0913/05/TP/GIT that the claim is rejected because claimants are not entitled to personally seize the court for family property. In addition, this Court quashed the appealed judgment as well as the verdict of Abunzi Committee for their contradiction with the provisions of public order. Nyiraromba did not abandon as she rather seized the Primary Court of Ruhango alleging that one of the farmlands was granted to her by her mother and the remaining two belong to their family. Ngirinshuti responded that those farmlands were donated to him by Nyirabujangwe, his grandmother and mother to Nyiraromba. In the judgment RC0191/09/TB/RHGO, this honorable Court held that Nyiraromba is the owner of the disputed farmlands because she acquired them from her deceased parents therefore that the donation alleged by Ngirinshuti lacks merit. Ngirinshuti lodged an appeal to the Intermediate Court of Muhanga whereby he stated that the previous court disregarded the ruling of the verdict of Abunzi Committee, that it did not interrogate members of the family and that Nyiraromba seized the court in her own name while before the Abunzi Committee, she sued members of Nyirabujangwe and Habuhazi‟s family. In the judgment RCA0740/09/TGI/MHG of 19/03/2010, the Court upheld the appealed judgment due to the fact that Ngirinshuti does not produce evidence of his donation of three disputed farmlands by his grandmother Nyirabujangwe.

## Page 175

21

After Ngirinshuti lost the case, he sued Nyiraromba before Abunzi Committee alleging that among farmlands for which Nyiraromba won the case include his houses and this Committee decided on the issue disregarding the fact that Nyiraromba won the case for farmland and properties on it. Nyiraromba opposed the Abunzi Committee verdict before the Primary Court of Byimana, which held, in the judgment RC0377/13/TB/BMN of July 2, 2013 interpreted by the judgment RC0159/15/TB/BYM, that three houses erected on the said land belong to Ngirinshuti. After the trial of all these cases, Nyiraromba filed a case to the Supreme Court whereby she requested to resolve contradictions existing between the judgment RC0377/13/TB/BMA of July 2, 2013 interpreted by the judgment RC0159/16/TB/BYM of December 23, 2015 rendered by the Primary Court of Byimana and the judgment RCA070/09/TGI/MHG rendered by the Intermediate Court of Muhanga on March 19, 2010. She adds that the Primary Court of Byimana should not have admitted the claim of Ngirinshuti while she won the case on both plots of land and properties attached on it, and that the Court violated the provisions of the Law by admitting the element of evidence submitted by one party in the interpretation case and decided without summoning her to appear. She therefore prays this honorable Court to quash all those judgments and sustain the judgments RCA0740/09/TGI/MHG and RC0191/TB/RHGO because they were not reversed by any other judgment. She finally requests Ngirinshuti to pay her compensation for procedural expenses. Nsabiyaremye Protais intervened voluntarily in the case alleging that among plots of land in dispute include the plot he bought and built a house on it but that he is being requested to demolish NYIRAROMBA v. NGIRINSHUTI

## Page 176

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 22

it as part of the execution of the judgment RC0377/TB/BYM of July 7, 2014 rendered by the Primary Court of Byimana. In the course of hearing before the Supreme Court, counsel for Ngirinshuti raised two objections. The first relies on the fact that the claim of Nyiraromba should not have been admitted on all instances of proceedings because she claimed for family properties against one person. The second objection relies on the fact that Nyiraromba lacks interest and capacity to initiate a claim to the Supreme Court while the property in dispute was acquired by Nsabiyaremye, who was issued the related emphyteutic lease and won the case in which all judgments in relation to it as well as their execution were nullified. Therefore, Nyiraromba has no longer the right over it. After being requested to provide explanations relating the objection according to which the claim should not have been admitted on all level of proceedings, Counsel Mberabagabo for Ngirinshuti informed the court that they withdrew the objection. Nyiraromba defends that she has interest as well as status to sue because the buyer of her property is aggrieved and that she is the right person with relevant information since she won the case in respect of it. Nsabiyaremye holds that Nyiraromba had capacity and interest in this case because she had been a party who would like to seek the court to settle inconsistencies in order to avoid potential threat from the acquirer aggrieved in his right. Held: 1. A person can only seize a court when s/he suffers a prejudice of his own interests and where the result of the action will benefit him/her personally. Therefore, the person with interest is the one with the status to file a claim, which is understood as the prerogative to request the judge to reinstate

## Page 177

23

him in his right over the disputed property. Thus, the claim according to which the appellant prays the Court to resolve the issue of contradicting rulings over immovable property she already transferred should not be admitted because she lacks personal and direct interest vesting her with the status to sue for it. 2. Interventions shall be admissible only if they are interconnected with the main claim, which implies that in case the latter does no longer exist due to its rejection even the examination of the interconnected claim becomes impossible and this is in conformity with the principle which states that the accessory follows the principal. Therefore, the intervention claim is rejected as well. Objection sustained. Intervention rejected. Court fees to the Applicant. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: LawNo21/2012 of 24/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles 18(12o) and 119. No case referred to. Author cited: Mélina Douchy - Oudot, Procédure civile, 2ème édition, Paris, 2006, p.106, Nº127; p.108, Nº129.

NYIRAROMBA v. NGIRINSHUTI

## Page 178

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 24

Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] Nyiraromba initiated a claim before the Court of Kabagali District against Ngirinshuti alleging that the latter dispossessed her fields pretending to have been given them by his grandmother. The court decided in the judgment RC0200/05/TD/KAB of April 24, 2005 that the field in which Nyiraromba erected her house belongs to the plaintiff since she was awarded it by Nyiranjangwe Sarah as admitted by Ngirinshuti. It also decided that none of the parties managed to prove the ownership over three remaining fields in disputes; therefore both parties should jointly administer them until the owner produces the ownership evidence. [2] Both parties lodged appeal whereby Nyiraromba alleged that elements of evidence she produced to the Court were not considered and that her ownership over those fields was rejected while she owned them for 40 years. Ngirinshuti alleged that the court disregarded, the document produced by his opponent which indicate the dimension of the plot awarded to Nyiraromba, the blueprint of the land in dispute and it referred to contradicting provisions and disregarded the fact that he owned them before the period of war and that it is when he came back from asylum that he realized Nyiraromba occupied them. [3] In the Judgment RCA0935/05/TP/GIT- RCA0913/05/TP/GIT of September 18, 2008, the court rejected the claim due to the lack of status to file claims relating to

## Page 179

25

family property in their own names, therefore that the appealed judgment as well as the verdict of Abunzi committee of June 30, 2005 are quashed because of their inconsistency with provisions of public order. [4] Nyiraromba reinitiated the claim to the Primary Court of Ruhango whereby she claimed ownership over three fields, of which she was given one by her mother while the remaining two belong to her family. Ngirinshuti responds that he was given them by his grandmother named Nyirabujangwe who is also the mother to Nyiraromba. In the judgment RC0191/09/TB/RHGO of October 9, 2009, the court confirmed Nyiraromba to have the ownership right over three farmlands in dispute because she inherited them from her deceased parents, therefore that the donation to Ngirinshuti is baseless. [5] Ngirinshuti lodged an appeal to the Intermediate Court of Muhanga alleging that it dispossessed him from his three plots of land in disregard of the verdict of Abunzi Committee while it was rendered on the basis of the inquiry made to the field, that it did not interrogate family members and disregarded the fact that before the court, Nyiraromba initiated a claim in her names while before Abunzi Committee, she sued members of Nyirabujangwe and Habuhazi family. [6] In the judgment RCA0740/09/TGI/MHG of March 19, 2010, the Court upheld the appealed ruling on the basis that Ngirinshuti failed to produce evidence of his donation of three plots in dispute by his grandmother Nyirabujangwe; who refutes it in a written document which reached to the Court of Canton of Murama on September 24, 1990, and this is evident in the judgment RCAA2505/07/HC/NYA as well as the document NYIRAROMBA v. NGIRINSHUTI

## Page 180

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 26

written by Nyirabujangwe to Nyiraromba on October 3, 1984 in which she donated a land to her as an expression of gratitude. [7] Ngirinshuti Emmanuel pursued Nyiraromba before Abunzi Committee alleging that among plots she was awarded by the Court includes his houses; and this Committee decided in disregard of the fact that Nyiraromba was awarded both plots and all properties on it. Nyiraromba opposed the verdict of the Committee before the Primary Court of Byimana, which in the judgment RC0377/13/TB/BMN rendered on July 2, 2013 interpreted by the judgment RC0159/15/TB/BYM, decided that three houses erected on that plot measuring 20m out of 40m belong to Ngirinshuti Emmanuel as indicated by the document of June 15, 1985 proving that Nyirabujangwe Sarah donated it to him and that he funded the construction through a bank loan. [8] Nyiraromba filed a claim to the Supreme Court requesting to resolve contradictions between the judgments RC0377/13/TB/BMA of July 2, 2013 interpreted by the judgment RC0159/16/TB/BYM of December 23, 2015 rendered by the Primary Court of Byimana and the judgment RCA070/09/TGI/MHG rendered by the Intermediate Court of Muhanga on March 19, 2010. She also raised an issue regarding whether the decision of the Primary Court of Muhanga could contradict that of the Intermediate Court. [9] She states in addition that the Primary Court of Byimana should not have admitted the claim of Ngirinshuti while the case relating to the land and all properties on it, was ruled in his favour, and that this Court violated the provisions of the law where in the course of the interpretation of the judgment, it admitted the element of evidence of one of the sides by taking the decision without summoning her. Therefore, she requested

## Page 181

27

the court to quash those decisions and that the judgments RCA0740/09/TGI/MHG and RC0191/TB/RHGO be considered for execution as long as no other judgment reversed them and that Ngirinshuti should be ordered to pay her 900,000Frw in compensation for procedural expenses. [10] Counsel Ndagijimana Viateur for Nsabiyaremye Protais, who intervened voluntarily in the trial, alleges that the land in litigation includes the plot he bought from Nyiraromba on the amount of 650,000Frw where he owns a house worth 25,173,880Frw and that he is requested to remove all his assets in term of executing the judgment RC0377/TB/BYM rendered on July 7, 2014 by the Primary Court of Byimana. He in addition requests the court to prevent the violation of his right over the plot No6818 and to be paid 800,000Frw for being dragged into unnecessary lawsuits and 1,000,000Frw of Counsel fees. [11] The judgment was heard in open court on December 13, 2016 whereby Nyiraromba Marthe was represented by Counsel Kayirangwa Marie Grậce, Ngirinshuti Emmanuel being represented by Counsel Mberabagabo Balinda Richard. [12] The side of Ngirinshuti raised two objections whereby they state that the claim of Nyiraromba should not have been admitted on all instances on the reason that he sued one person for family properties, the second objection being the fact that Nyiraromba lacked status and capacity to initiate a claim to the Supreme Court because the disputed properties were sold to and owned by Nsabiyaremye. [13] After the request to provide explanations about the objection that the claim would not have been admitted on all NYIRAROMBA v. NGIRINSHUTI

## Page 182

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 28

instances of proceedings, Counsel Mberabagabo Balinda Richard stated that they withdraw it; therefore the Court is going to examine the objection relating to whether Nyiraromba lacked interest and status to file the claim initiated to the Supreme Court. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUE Whether Nyiraromba has interest and status to file a claim for deliberation on inconsistency between judgments RC0377/13/TB/BMN of July 2, 2013 and RCA0740/09/TGI/MHGA of March 19, 2010. [14] Counsel Mberabagabo for Ngirinshuti states that the claim of Nyiraromba should not be admitted because she lacks interests and status in relation to the disputed property, since after she won the case about it, she sold it to Nsabiyaremye, which means she no longer has the right to claim it; rather, it is up to the acquirer to seize the court if he is aggrieved and force the seller to intervene. [15] He adds that the emphyteutic lease title is registered on the names of Nsabiyaremye who bought the property, which replaced all related rendered judgments and this is clear in respective submissions of Nyiraromba and Nsabiyaremye who claim its ownership. [16] Counsel Kayirangwa argues that her client Nyiraromba has interest and status to initiate a claim because the buyer of her property is aggrieved and that she is the right person with relevant information since she won the case in respect of it.

## Page 183

29

[17] Counsel Ndagijimana Viateur for Nsabiyaremye states that Nyiraromba has status and interest in this case because she has been a party and would like to seek the court to settle inconsistencies in order to avoid potential threat from the acquirer who was aggrieved in his right. FINDINGS OF THE COURT [18] Litera 12o of article 18 of the Law No21/2012 of 24/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial labour and administrative procedure provides that a claim shall not be admitted and recorded in the court register in case the plaintiff lacks status, capacity and interest. [19] The court is of the view that as explained by Law Scholars, a person can only seize a court when s/he suffers a prejudice of his own interests and where the result of the action will benefit him personally1. Therefore, the person with interest is the one with the status to file a claim, which is understood as the prerogative to request the judge to reinstate him in his right over the disputed property2. [20] Concerning Nyiraromba who initiated a claim requesting for the settlement of inconsistency between judgments relating

1“Une personne ne peut saisir une juridiction que dans la mesure où elle souffre d‟une lésion de ses intérȇts propres et où le résultat de l‟action lui profitera personnellement”: Mélina Douchy - Oudot, Procédure civile, 2ème édition, Paris, 2006, p.106, Nº127. 2“A la qualité pour agir toute personne qui a un intérȇt à agir… l‟intérȇt donne au demandeur la qualité pour agir.…. Il est le titre qui donne la prérogative de demander raison au juge d‟une prétention”. Ibidem, p.108, Nº129. NYIRAROMBA v. NGIRINSHUTI

## Page 184

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 30

to immovable properties she was involved in and who, after she won the case, sold them to Nsabiyaremye who was issued their emphyteutic lease titles; the court finds that, pursuant to the stated reasons, the interest alleged by Nyiraromba, as a seller, that the acquirer is disturbed by third parties over the said property, lacks merit because this property does no longer belong to her; therefore her will to assist the acquirer in order to avoid third parties‟ disturbances does not reflect her personal and direct interest to file a claim. [21] The court finds therefore that in accordance with the provisions of article 18, litera 12o of the Law No21/2012 of 24/06/2016 stated above, the claim of Nyiraromba should not be admitted and examined given that she lacks status and interest to initiate a case for resolving contradictions arising between judgments RC0377/13/TB/BMN of July 2, 2013 and RCA0740/09/TGI/MHGA of March 19, 2010. [22] It further finds that given that the main claim of Nyiraromba was not admitted, even the intervention by Nsabiyaremye is rejected pursuant to the provision of article 109 of the Law No21/2012 of 14/06/2012 as stated above which provides that interventions shall be admissible only if they are interconnected with the main claim, which means that in case the latter does no longer exist due to its rejection even the examination of the interconnected claim becomes impossible and this is in conformity with the principle which states that the accessory follows the principal.

## Page 185

31

III. DECISION OF THE COURT [23] Sustains the objection raised by Ngirinshuti Emmanuel for inadmissibility of the claim initiated by Nyiraromba Marthe; [24] Rejects the claim initiated by Nyiraromba Marthe; [25] Rejects the intervention claim instituted by Nsabiyaremye Protais; [26] Orders Nyiraromba Marthe to bear related court fees.

NYIRAROMBA v. NGIRINSHUTI

## Page 187

WALTER RAFFO v. MUNYAMPIRWA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/REV/INJUST/RCOM0002/16/CS (Mugenzi, P.J., Gakwaya and Mukamulisa, J.) April 21, 2017] Law determining jurisdiction of courts – Exequatur of foreign deeds – Foreign deeds issued by foreign officers for which prior approval by Rwandan courts is required for their enforcement, are those endowing the right to their holders, to the extent that the latter can seek government coercion for execution – Organic Law N°51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of Courts, articles 91 and 92 – Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 204. Facts: This case originates from the sale contract of shares in Guest House Kibuye S.A concluded between Walter Raffo and Munyampirwa. The Government of Rwanda repossessed that hotel which caused disputes among the shareholders, and consequently Walter Raffo (the buyer) sued Munyampirwa before the Commercial High Court requesting to be refunded the value of his shares he had in that hotel. The Commercial High Court decided that Munyampirwa must refund those shares. Munyampirwa was not satisfied with the decision of the Commercial High Court, therefore appealed before the Supreme Court, that Court found the appeal with merit in part. Thereafter, Walter Raffo initiated another lawsuit against Munyampirwa before Nyarugenge Commercial Court, 33

## Page 188

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 34

requesting for performance of the contract concluded on 25/08/2005 and also claiming for various damages, the court rejected his claim on the ground that the same parties already litigated about the subject matter. He appealed to the Commercial High Court, which also found the appeal without merit on similar grounds as of those of the previous court. Walter Raffo referred this issue to the Office of the Ombudsman arguing that he suffered injustice because he was ordered to pay the loan that Munyampirwa owed to BCR while he was not involved in its conclusion. The Ombudsman requested the President of the Supreme Court that the concerned judgment be reviewed due to injustice. Walter Raffo died before the hearing of the case for the review of that judgment due to injustice and the deceased was replaced in the case by his heirs. During the hearing, Munyampirwa raised several objections of inadmissibility, namely that the death certificate of Walter cannot be relied on by Rwandan Courts before being subject to exequatur procedure before the High Court. In their defence, the heirs of Walter Raffo argue that there is no need to order for exequatur, because it is conducted on the judgments or decisions which have to be enforced in Rwanda while in this case, the certificate is an element of evidence, which does not require enforcement. Held: 1. Foreign deeds issued by foreign officers for which prior approval by Rwandan courts is required for their enforcement, are those endowing the right to their holders, to the extent that the latter can seek the government coercion to enforce it. Therefore, the death certificate does not require to first be approved by the Rwandan courts, since its purpose does

## Page 189

35

not consist of acquisition of any right to the extent that government coercion can be used for enforcement. The objection is overruled. Court fees suspended. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Organic Law N°51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of Courts, articles 91 and 92. Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 204. No case referred to. Authors cited: Serge Guinchard, Thierry Debard, Lexique des termes juridiques, 23e édition, Paris, 2015-2016, p.463. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] On 11/04/1999, Munyampirwa Pascal concluded with Walter Raffo a contract of sale and purchase of shares in Guest House Kibuye SA at a price worth 250,000USD, and agreed that disputes that would arise shall be resolved by Sweden Courts. WALTER RAFFO v. MUNYAMPIRWA

## Page 190

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 36

[2] The Guest House Kibuye SA had some difficulties and consequently the Government of Rwanda took it over. Thereafter, Walter Raffo sued Munyampirwa claiming to be compensated the value of his shares in the Guest House Kibuye SA. On 26/12/2010 the Commercial High Court rendered the judgment RCOM0094/09/HCC, whereby it ordered Munyanyampirwa to refund Walter Raffo his shares in the Guest House Kibuye SA worth 170,000,000Frw. [3] Munyampirwa appealed to the Supreme Court, and in its judgment RCOMA0074/10/CS of 13/07/2012, it found his appeal with merit in part, and held that he does not have to refund Walter Raffo any share, instead the latter was ordered to pay 1,000,000Frw in damages. [4] Walter Raffo initiated another lawsuit against Munyampirwa before Nyarugenge Commercial Court, requesting for performance of the contract concluded on 25/08/2005, which stipulated that they will jointly open a bank account in the Bank of Kigali, on which the Privatisation Secretariat should deposit the fund that the Government of Rwanda should pay to take over Guest House Kibuye, and also claimed for various damages. In the judgment RCOM01158/14/NYGE rendered on 31/01/2014, that court decided that the subject matter was litigated upon by the same parties and on the same grounds, therefore the claim is inadmissible. [5] Walter Raffo appealed to the Commercial High Court and in the judgment RCOMA0087/14/HCC rendered on 28/03/2014, it found the appeal without merit on the ground that the claim before the Commercial Court had already been decided, it also held that Walter Raffo should not be the only

## Page 191

37

one to be refunded his share, because he is a shareholder of the same category as of Munyampirwa and others, and it is also clear that the money was paid in refund of the debt Guest House Kibuye SA owed to BCR, therefore they have to share the loss. [6] Walter Raffo, referred his claim to the Office of the Ombudsman arguing the decision to order him to jointly pay Munyampirwa‟s debt in BCR while he was not involved in concluding it is unfair. The Office of the Ombudsman realised that the loan agreement of 158,217,605Frw concluded between Munyampirwa and BCR when he bought Guest House Kibuye SA, should not affect Walter Raffo and it requested the President of the Supreme Court that the judgment RCOMA0087/14/HCC of 28/03/2014 be reviewed due to injustice and the latter transferred it to the court registry, so that it can be heard again. [7] On the side of Munyampirwa, objections of inadmissibility based on various grounds were raised, inter alia, security deposits furnished by foreigners, the one relating to the right person to resume the proceedings after the death of Walter Raffo and the last one relating to the fact that in rendering the judgment RCOMA0087/14/HCC of which the review due to injustice is under examination the court based on the judgment RCOMA0074/10/CS, thus applying its revision would constitute the alteration of a judgment with another. In addition, the plaintiff changed the subject matter because in his claim he mentions the grounds of injustice while he explains the case in merits, which should not be admitted by the Supreme Court since the opponent did not admit it. [8] The case was heard in public on 07/02/2017, Counsel Habimana Pie representing Walter Raffo while Counsel WALTER RAFFO v. MUNYAMPIRWA

## Page 192

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 38

Bizimana Shoshi represented Munyampirwa Pascal who requested the Court to first examine whether the death certificate for Walter Raffo which was issued in a foreign country can be based on by the Rwandan Courts before being subject to the proceedings of exequatur. The Court decided to first examine that objection. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUE Whether the death certificate of Walter Raffo, issued by the civil status officer in Philippines has to first be approved through the exequatur procedure in Rwanda for it to be relied on by the court in this case. [9] Counsel Bizimana Shoshi representing Munyampirwa argues that the death certificate produced by Walter Raffo‟s side proving that he died cannot be based on by Rwandan Courts before subjecting it to exequatur procedure, since taking it into account to determine his heirs would consist of enforcement of the certificate, therefore he requests that it should first be subject to the mentioned procedure before the High Court. [10] On the side of Walter, Counsel Habimana Pie argues that there is no need for the court to order for the exequatur procedure because it is conducted on the judgments which have to be enforced, while for this case, the death certificate was produced as an element of evidence which is not meant for enforcement.

## Page 193

39

OPINION OF THE COURT [11] Article 91 of the Organic Law N°51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of Courts as amended and complemented to date provides that “The High Court shall hear complaints which require execution of cases and decisions taken by foreign Courts”. Article 92 of that Organic Law N°51/2008 provides that authentic deeds which have proof to have been written by foreign authorities may also be executed in Rwanda by the High Court if they fulfil requirements listed in this article, while article 204 of the Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that “Except where international agreements provide otherwise, judgments rendered by foreign courts and foreign deeds issued by foreign officials shall not be subject to execution in Rwanda, unless they are rendered enforceable by the competent Court”. [12] As demonstrated in the legal provisions mentioned above, the Court finds that the deeds issued by foreign officials which are likely to be subject to exequatur procedure in courts of Rwanda are those intended to be executed in Rwanda as demonstrated in the provisions mentioned above. [13] The court finds that, as explained by the Legal Scholars, the deed intended to be executed is that which endows the right to its holder to the extent that he can seek the government coercion to enforce it, which is not the case for the death certificate as this one produced in the case for Walter Raffo, since its purpose is not for acquiring any right to the extent that WALTER RAFFO v. MUNYAMPIRWA

## Page 194

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 40

government coercion can be applied1, instead its purpose consists of proving that he is no longer alive, so that it can be based on to determine the legal effects. [14] Therefore, the court finds that the death certificate of Walter Raffo issued by the civil status officer2 in Philippines, does not require to first be subjected to exequatur procedure by the Rwandan court, in order to be produced as an element of evidence in the case between Walter and Munyampirwa which was appealed before this court, therefore the objection raised by Munyampirwa on this issue is overruled. III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [15] It declares the objection raised by Munyampirwa Pascal relating to the death certificate of Walter Raffo issued in a foreign country to first be approved by the Rwandan Court, overruled; [16] It orders the hearing of the case to resume on 13/06/2017;

1 “Exécutoire, signifie que celui auquel l'acte en question a reconnu un droit, peut faire procéder à son exécution forcée par les soins d'un officier public qui a compétence pour requérir la force publique”: Serge Braudo, Dictionnaire de droit privé Français, 1996-2017, www.dictionnaire- juridique.com consulté le 21 Avril 2017. -“Qui permet de procéder à l’exécution avec, au besoin, le concours de la force publique” Serge Guinchard, Thierry Debard, Lexique des termes juridiques, 23e édition, Paris, 2015-2016, p.463. 2 OFFICE OF THE CIVIL REGISTER GENERAL- Republic of the Philippines.

## Page 195

41

[17] It decides that the court fees are suspended.

WALTER RAFFO v. MUNYAMPIRWA

## Page 197

CASE RELATING TO TAX PROCEDURE

## Page 199

TELE 10 RWANDA Ltd v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA) [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCOMAA0037/14/CS (Kanyange, P.J., Rugabirwa and Ngagi, J.) July 29, 2016] Tax procedure – Time limit for filing a claim to the court by the taxpayer who opted for the amicable settlement – A taxpayer who opts for the amicable settlement but fails to reach an agreement files a claim to the court within 30 days, counted from the time he/she was notified that the amicable settlement is not possible – Law Nº74/2008 of 31/12/2008 modifying and complementing Law Nº25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedure, article 7 – Law Nº01/2012 of 03/02/2012 modifying and complementing the Law Nº25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedure, article 9. Facts: After the tax assessment of TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd for the fiscal years 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, RRA indicated that there is another tax of 124,891,684Frw owed by TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd in addition to what was initially declared during the tax declaration period. TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd appealed to the Commissioner General and in response he informed it that the appeal lacks merit. Afterwards, on 25/06/2013 it wrote a letter requesting for amicable settlement, whereby the Commissioner General replied that the amicable settlement is not possible since TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd refused to admit how the tax was computed. Thereafter, TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd lodged a claim before Nyarugenge Commercial Court, whereby RRA raised a 45

## Page 200

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 46

preliminary objection of inadmissibility on the ground that the claim was filed beyond the prescribed time limit because it had to be filed within 30 days, counted from the day it received the Commissioner General‟s decision on its administrative appeal. The Court rejected the claim of TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd on the ground that it had to sue against the decision of the Commissioner General within 30 days. TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd appealed against the decision of the court in the Commercial High Court, and consequently that court found the appeal with merit, reversed the rulings of the appealed judgment so that TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd can be allowed to file again its claim and so that the case can be heard on merits at the first instance level. RRA appealed the judgment in the Supreme Court stating that the Commercial High Court held that the claim of TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd was admissible in disregard of the provision of the Law Nº74/2008 of 31/12/2008 of modifying and complementing article 38 of the law Nº25/2005 of 04/12/2005 relating to tax procedure, which provides that the taxpayer who is aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner General, has to file a claim within 30 days from the day he/she received that decision, while TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd filed the case beyond that time limit. It also went further to argue that even though TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd had to lodge that claim after the amicable settlement, still it had to do so within the time limit of the 30 days which is provided by the law. In its defence, TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd argues that the taxpayer who is not contented with the Commissioner General‟s decision has two options; the first one is whereby the taxpayer can directly file a claim to court, which has to be done within 30 days, the second one being whereby he can request the

## Page 201

47

Commissioner General for amicable settlement and when both parties fails to reach an amicable agreement, the taxpayer can file a claim to a competent court, but he/she has to wait for the conclusion of the amicable settlement before filing that claim and that there is no prescribed time limit for the taxpayer who opts for the second option. Held: 1. A taxpayer who opts for the amicable settlement procedure files a claim to a competent court after failing to reach a compromise. Therefore, the fact that TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd had opted for the amicable settlement procedure, it was not obliged to file a claim to court within 30 days counted from the time it received the decision of the Commissioner General. 2. In case parties to amicable settlement fail to reach a compromise, the taxpayer files a claim to the court within 30 days, computed from the time he/she was notified of the failure. Therefore, the fact that on 20 December 2013, TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd was notified through the Post Office that the amicable settlement is not possible and given that it filed a claim to the court in March 2014, that infers that the claim was filed beyond the time limit, therefore it was not supposed to be admitted by the court. Appeal has merit. The claim is rejected. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law Nº74/2008 of 31/12/2008 modifying and complementing Law Nº25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedure, article 7. TELE 10 RWANDA Ltd v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)

## Page 202

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 48

Law Nº01/2012 of 03/02/2012 modifying and complementing the Law Nº25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedure, article 9. Law Nº21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 168. Rules of Commissioner General Nº001/2014 of 01/11/2014 regulating amicable settlement in tax matters, article 6. Cases referred to: RRA v. SOCOMIE Ltd, RCOMAA0029/15/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 31/07/2015. Authors cited: Hakim Boularban, Olivier CAPRASSE, Georges DE LEVAL, Frédéric GEORGES, Pierre MOREAU, Dominique MOUGENOT, Jacques VAN COMPERNOLLE, Jean- François VAN DROOGHENBROECK, Droit judiciaire, Tome 2, Manuel de procédure civile, Larcier, p.794. SERGE GUINCHARD, Droit et Pratique de la Procédure Civile, 8e édition, 2014-2015, p.1513. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd was assessed for fiscal years 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. RRA concluded that there is a tax amounting to 124,891,684Frw that should be charged in addition to the one declared during tax declaration period. The

## Page 203

49

said tax includes withholding tax equivalent to 87,272,797Frw charged on a product which TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd argues that it buys online and sells it to its clients, while RRA argues that it consists of a lease of MULTI CHOICE AFRICA‟s technology in order to access DSTV channels. [2] Consequently, TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd appealed to Commissioner General of RRA and the latter replied that the appeal has no merit. Thereafter, on 25/06/2013 it wrote a request for amicable settlement of the matter and on 20/12/2013, the Commissioner General responded that the amicable settlement was impossible as long as TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd was unsatisfied with the computation of the tax. [3] TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd lodged a case in Nyarugenge Commercial Court, and RRA raised a preliminary objection of inadmissibility, arguing that the claim of TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd is time barred because it had to be lodged within 30 days counted from the time TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd received the decision of the Commissioner General in regard to its appeal. Basing on article 32 of the Law Nº25/2005 of 04/12/2005 relating to tax procedure as modified and completed to date, the Court ruled that the claim of TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd is inadmissible because it should have been lodged within 30 days. [4] TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd appealed to Commercial High Court and in the judgment RCOMA0287/14/HCC rendered on 30/07/2014 it found the appeal with merit and overturned the rulings of the appealed judgment, which allowed TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd to file its case at first instance level. [5] In taking that decision, the Commercial High Court, interpreted the provision of article 32 of the Law Nº25/2005 of TELE 10 RWANDA Ltd v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)

## Page 204

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 50

04/12/2005 mentioned above, article 9 of the law modifying and completing the Law Nº25/2005 of 04/12/2005 and article 38 of the same law whereby it found that the legislator provided for a period within which the taxpayer who opted for the amicable settlement procedure seizes the court, where it is done when parties fail to amicably settle the matter. Thus, filing the claim cannot be done before the outcome of the negotiation is known. [6] The Court also explained that the purpose of providing for negotiations before seizing the court is in the context of encouraging parties to try to resolve the matter themselves without necessarily going to court, and this being said, this mechanism is encouraged in various sectors of the government, the reason why the court finds that it was particularly provided in tax laws. [7] Therefore, the Court found that the claim should have been admitted in Commercial Court. In addition, pursuant to article 171 of the Law Nº21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, since the claim was rejected on ground that it was filed beyond the time limit, which is contrary to the provision of the Law, that decision being hereby overturned on the appeal level, TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd is allowed to file its claim to the same Court that had previously rejected it for trial. [8] RRA appealed against that judgment to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Commercial High Court disregarded its defence and the law by holding that the claim of TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd should have been admitted. [9] The case was heard in public on 19/04/2016, 08/06/2016 and on 20/07/2016; where RRA was represented by Counsel

## Page 205

51

Byiringiro Bajeni, TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd represented by Counsel Twilingiyemungu Joseph. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUE Whether there are some facts or laws disregarded by the Commercial High Court in ruling that the claim of TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd should have been admitted. [10] The Counsel for RRA argues that the Court disregarded its pleadings and ruled that the claim of TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd should be admitted, disregarding the provisions of article 7 of the Law No74/2008 of 31/12/2008 modifying and complementing article 38 of the Law Nº25/2005 of 04/12/2005 of tax procedure, which stipulates that the taxpayer who is aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner General may make a judicial appeal which must be brought before the competent authority within thirty (30) days after the receipt of the decision of the Commissioner General and TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd knew that decision before 25/06/2013 and appealed in 2014, thus it should not have been admitted. [11] He further argues that article 32 of the Law Nº25/2005 of 04/12/2005 relating to tax procedure, on which the Court based does not provide for amicable settlement rather it is provided for by article 9 of the Law Nº01/2012 of 03/02/2012 modifying and completing article 32 of the Law Nº25/2005 of 04/12/2005 mentioned above, which did not repeal article 7 of the Law Nº01/2012 of 3/02/2012. [12] He also argues that a new element brought by article 9 of the Law Nº01/2012 of 03/02/2012 is that any person not satisfied with the decision of the Commissioner General can TELE 10 RWANDA Ltd v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)

## Page 206

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 52

request for amicable settlement, and in case this fails, he can file a claim to court, but it does not remove the fact that the gist of action is the decision of the Commissioner General and which has to be initiated within 30 days from the day the taxpayer receives that decision. [13] He also explains that the taxpayer is allowed to concurrently use both procedures, but he must first file a claim against the decision of the Commissioner General in order to avoid time limit bar, and this is obvious since the amicable settlement letter does not contain a gist of action, rather it is contained in the decision of the Commissioner General. [14] He continues arguing that, the fact that the claim is filed against the decision of the Commissioner General has been decided upon in the judgment RCOM0210/12/HCC against which the appeal was lodged before the Supreme Court which also held that the computation of 30 days commences from the time the taxpayer receives the response of the Commissioner General, instead of waiting for the decision from the amicable settlement. [15] He goes on to urge that even though TELE 10 had to file a claim after the amicable settlement, it had to respect the time limit of 30 days provided for by the law because article 32 did not repeal article 38, and it was not necessary to remind the time limit to file a claim in the Commissioner General‟ rules while it is already provided in the law. [16] He continues explaining that the Commissioner General replied to TELE 10 that the amicable settlement is no longer possible in the letter dated 20/12/2013, thus the period of 30 days for filing a claim had to run from the time TELE 10

## Page 207

53

received that letter, and it cannot deny it to be a decision while it is through that letter that TELE 10 knew that the amicable settlement had failed and it could not file a claim at any time it wants. The Counsel for RRA finds also that RRA did not go beyond the scope of appeal since the subject matter consists of the time limit to file a claim to Court, thus this cannot be regarded as an objection on its own, rather, additional arguments of defense. [17] In proving the time limit within which TELE 10 had to file a claim to court, RRA produced a list of registered mails which include that of TELE 10, indicating that the Post Office received it on 23/12/2013. He further argues that basing on articles 5 and 6 of the Law Nº25/2005 of 04/12/2005 relating to tax procedure, what is considered is the date on which the letter was received by the Post Office, therefore TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd cannot deny that it received that letter while it admits that it filed the case after it knew the amicable settlement had failed. [18] The Counsel for TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd argues that as it is stated in the appealed judgment, the seizure of the Court by a taxpayer who is not satisfied with the decision of the Commissioner General is done in two ways. The first one is provided for by article 38 of the Law Nº25/2005 of 04/12/2005 of tax procedure, whereby the taxpayer who is not satisfied with the decision of the Commissioner General files a claim within 30 days, and the second one is provided for by article 9 of the Law Nº01/2012 of 03/02/2012 modifying and complementing law Nº25/2004 0f 04/12/2005 mentioned above which provides that the taxpayer who is not satisfied by the decision of the Commissioner General may request for an amicable settlement and it further provides that in case both parties do not reach an TELE 10 RWANDA Ltd v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)

## Page 208

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 54

amicable agreement, the taxpayer can make an appeal to a competent court, which implies that the taxpayer has to wait for the conclusion of the amicable settlement so that he can file a claim to court, and if they reach an agreement there is no need to file a claim to court. [19] He continues stating that TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd could not appeal against the decision of the Commissioner General within 30 days because the amicable settlement it applied for, took a long period without a response, thus the claim could not stay in court without a hearing and this was not the intention of the legislator because it would contradict the provisions of article 13 of the Law Nº21/2012 of 14/06/2012 mentioned above, which states that cases introduced to court shall be tried in a period not exceeding 6 months. [20] Regarding the statements of RRA that the subject matter of the claim is the content of the decision of the Commissioner General, the Counsel for TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd finds that, this does not have any impact on the time limit provided, because article 6 of the Commissioner General rules Nº001/2014 of 01/11/2014 determining the modalities of amicable settlement of tax issues, states that when both parties do not reach an amicable settlement within 60 days, the decision of the Commissioner General remains valid, meaning that the grounds of the taxpayer's claim before the court should be those examined by the Commissioner General for which he is not satisfied, and that even the rules state that, it is in case both parties did not reach an agreement. [21] He also explains that at the time TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd requested for amicable settlement, there was no time limit provided neither for the Commissioner General nor for the

## Page 209

55

taxpayer, and as far as the party he is representing is concerned, he requested for amicable settlement on 25/06/2013 and he was replied on 20/12/2013, and seized the court in march 2014, thus given that there was no time limit for the Commissioner General, this should apply also for the taxpayer because since he took 60 days to reply without giving this same time to the taxpayer, he should bear the consequences. [22] Regarding the letter dated 20/12/2013, he argues that it is not the one on which to rely the commencement of computation of time limit for filing the claim because that is not what is provided by the law and it is not a decision which cannot be subject to litigation and in addition, it is not allowed to distinguish where the law does not provide for distinction, because where the law provides for general provision, nobody should apply restrictions on it. [23] He continues explaining that article 25 of the Law of 04/12/2005 relating to tax procedure, provides that, if a person is not satisfied with the decision of the Commissioner General, he has to file a claim to court within 30 days while regarding the amicable settlement, it states that the taxpayer who is not satisfied with the decision, can appeal against it but there is no time limit to be respected, and the Commissioner General is the one who was supposed to provide that time limit, thus, there should be no confusion between the decision of the Commissioner General against which appeal is lodged within 30 days and the letter regarding the failure of amicable settlement. [24] Regarding the judgment RCOMA0179/12/CS RRA referred to by RRA, he adduces that it should not be based on, because there is a recent case RCOMAA0029/15/CS which held that the claim has to be filed after the failure to reach an TELE 10 RWANDA Ltd v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)

## Page 210

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 56

amicable agreement, and in that case the time limit of filing the claim was not subject of debate even though it was a result of coincidence. He finds that even in this case the issue for determination should be the subject matter and the appealed issue in this court, because the grounds of RRA are beyond the scope of appeal, therefore the scope of the issue to be examined should remain limited on the subject matter which was debated upon in the first instance and on which the decision was taken in the appealed judgment concerning the filing of the claim within 30 days for which the time runs from the decision of the Commissioner General, because if that is not the case, the starting point of computing that period would be altered as well as the relating debate. [25] Regarding the time of reception of the letter dated 20/12/2013 by TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd, its Counsel argues that the letter produced by RRA does not demonstrate whether it is the same letter it took to the Post Office, and he doubts about it because, in the practice of RRA; the taxpayer who applied for amicable settlement is the one who has interest to follow up, therefore, one may wonder why RRA took that letter to the Post Office whilst it was easy to deliver it to TELE 10 offices which is located nearby. Thus, even though he does not deny that TELE 10 received that letter, but he ignores the exact date of its reception. FINDINDS OF THE COURT [26] Article 7 of the Law Nº74/2008 of 31/12/2008 of modifying and complementing article 38 of the Law Nº25/2005 of 04/12/2005 of tax procedure provides that the taxpayer who is aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner General may

## Page 211

57

make a judicial appeal. The appeal is brought before the competent authority within thirty (30) days after the receipt of the Commissioner General‟s decision. [27] Article 9 of the Law Nº01/2012 of 03/02/2012 modifying and complementing the Law Nº25/2005 of 04/12/2005 of tax procedure, provides in paragraph 4 that the taxpayer who is not satisfied with the decision of the Commissioner General may request him/her for an amicable settlement, and the paragraph 5 of that article provides that in case both parties do not reach an amicable agreement, the taxpayer may appeal to competent court. [28] The provisions mentioned in the previous paragraphs, demonstrate that the taxpayer who is not satisfied with the Commissioner General‟s decision has two ways he may use, the first one which had already been provided by the Law, which entails filing a claim to Court within 30 days from the time he received that decision, the second was incorporated in the Law Nº01/2012 of 03/02/2012 mentioned above (article 9), which allows him to request the Commissioner General to settle the matter amicably, if this fails he can file a claim to Court. [29] On the issue of determining the time limit of filing a claim to Court by the taxpayer who had first opted for amicable settlement, the Court finds that the statement of RRA‟s Counsel that in that case, the taxpayer must first file a claim to court to avoid being barred by the time limit of 30 days has no merit because these two procedures cannot be used concurrently, and this issue was clearly resolved in article 9 of the Law Nº01/2012 of 03/02/2012, because it states that the taxpayer files a claim when both parties fail to reach an agreement. Therefore, he cannot file a claim against the decision of the Commissioner TELE 10 RWANDA Ltd v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)

## Page 212

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 58

General taken before the amicable settlement and file again a claim after the failure of the amicable settlement, because the Court finds that this was not the intention of the legislator by putting in place the amicable settlement process, rather, he wished that, in case someone opts for this procedure, he can seize the court if the amicable settlement fails, because in contrary, there is no reason to go to Court. [30] Even though the above explanations were also held in the appealed judgment which also demonstrated that filing a claim to the court is initiated after the failure of the amicable settlement, but it is also necessary to examine the time limit within which the taxpayer must file a claim to court when the matter has not been settled amicably, because the Counsel for RRA argues that even in that case the taxpayer has to file a claim within 30 days while the Counsel for TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd finds that there is no time limit provided. [31] The Court finds that it is true that this issue was not examined in the appealed judgment because the Court was merely determining whether the claim is filed against the decision of the Commissioner General taken before the amicable settlement or if it has to be filed after the amicable settlement has failed. RRA requests in its appeal that this issue should also be examined while TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd states that this would result in trying the case beyond the subject matter and the scope of appeal. [32] On the issue of determining whether the requests of RRA should not be examined in appeal, the Court finds that the objection raised in Commercial Court of Nyarugenge aimed at rejecting the claim of TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd on the ground that it was filed after the expiry of 30 days provided by the law, and

## Page 213

59

the judgment on that objection was the subject of appeal before Commercial High Court whereby the debate was about the time limit in which TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd should have filed the claim in order to know whether it is after the decision of the Commissioner General or after the failure of amicable settlement. [33] The fact that on this level of appeal, RRA persisted to establish that the taxpayer files a claim to court after the decision of the Commissioner General, and adds that in case it is held that the claim is filed after the failure of the amicable settlement, it should also be held that the claim should also be filed within 30 days; therefore, the Court finds no reason for disregarding the examination of this issue because it is aimed at rejecting the claim of TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd, which was also the aim of the objection raised at first instance level, therefore examining it, cannot be regarded as ruling beyond the scope of appeal, rather, it can be considered as new arguments of defence of RRA with the same objective of claim rejection when it first raised the objection, especially that pursuant to article 168, paragraph 3 of the Law Nº21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, new arguments are allowed at appeal level. [34] Law scholars also state that, in appeal, it is possible to review the qualification of facts contrary to the one made at first instance level, and in that case it cannot be considered as an additional claim, rather, a different way of explaining the same claim.1 Therefore, when the subject matter has not changed, the

1 “Peut aussi être soumise à la juridiction d‟appel, une qualification nouvelle des faits ou des actes invoqués en première instance. Dans ce cas, aucune prétention supplémentaire n‟est formulée; on „habille‟‟ autrement la même TELE 10 RWANDA Ltd v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)

## Page 214

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 60

appellant can state other explanations and new arguments even though they were not subject of debate.2 [35] Based on stated explanations, the Court finds that even though the taxpayer files a claim after the amicable settlement has failed, it does not imply that he can file it at any time of his choice because the rationale of the time limit of 30 days computed from the day he received the decision of the Commissioner General within which he must file his claim cannot be put a side just because the taxpayer has been availed with another mechanism of settling the issue amicably. In addition to that, when the amicable settlement fails, it is obvious that the decision of the Commissioner General remains into force and it is that decision against which the claim is lodged, implying that even though they first tried to settle the matter amicably but the taxpayer must file a claim to court within 30 days beginning from the day she/he was informed that the amicable settlement has failed. [36] Regarding the statements of the Counsel for TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd that at the time it requested for amicable settlement, there was no time limit within which the

demande”: Hakim Boularban, Olivier CAPRASSE, Georges DE LEVAL, Frédéric GEORGES, Pierre MOREAU, Dominique MOUGENOT, Jacques VAN COMPERNOLLE, Jean-François VAN DROOGHENBROECK, Droit judiciaire, Tome 2, Manuel de procédure civile, Larcier, p.794. 2 “…Mais a contrario, et dans la mesure où la demande elle - même n‟est pas modifiée, l‟appelant peut présenter une argumentation et des moyens totalement nouveaux, même si ceux-ci changent le débat”: SERGE GUINCHARD, Droit et Pratique de la Procédure Civile, Huitième édition, 2014-2015, p.1513.

## Page 215

61

Commissioner General had to reply, because that time limit was incorporated in rules Nº001/2014 of 01/11/2014 and was not even communicated to the taxpayer, whereby he consequently relies his argument on the fact that there was no time limit to file a claim by the taxpayer; the Court finds that the fact that the rules provide for the time limit within which the Commissioner General should have taken a decision does not invalidate the time limit provided for by the law within which the claim has to be filed to the court as already mentioned above, because what is considered in respect to the taxpayer is the time the amicable settlement failed. Filing a claim within 30 days beginning from the time when the amicable settlement fails was also held in the judgment RCOMAA0029/15/CS rendered on 04/12/2015 by this court, whereby it also held that when the amicable settlement fails, the claim should be lodged within 30 days as provided by article 38 of the Law Nº25/2005 of 04/12/2005. [37] Regarding the time the Commissioner General replied to TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd that the amicable settlement is no longer possible, from which the computation of 30 days should run, the Court finds that it should be considered the date of December 12, 2013, the day the letter was received by the Post Office as demonstrated by the document produced by RRA, especially that article 6, paragraph 2, of the Law Nº25/2005 of 04/12/2005 of tax procedure, providing that “when a taxpayer and the tax administration send each other a letter by post, they shall be deemed to have discharged their respective obligations as of the date of receipt of such a letter by post office” and that even TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd acknowledges also to have received the reception of the letter of 20/12/2013 without demonstrating any other way it might have received it beside the one proved by RRA. Furthermore during the hearing of 19/04/2016, the TELE 10 RWANDA Ltd v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)

## Page 216

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 62

counsel for TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd stated that the Commissioner General replied on 20/12/2013, and during that period the time was open. He also averred that, they delayed to file a claim because they were waiting for other instructions as they lodged it in March 2014. [38] The Court finds therefore that, given that the claim was submitted to Commercial High Court on 18/03/2014, implies that it was filed after the time limit of 30 days provided by the Law elapsed, thus it should not have been admitted as it was held by the judge at the first instance level although the ground based on is different from the above stated. Therefore the appealed judgment is reversed in whole. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [39] It finds with merit the appeal of RRA; [40] It holds that the claim of TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd was inadmissible due to the grounds explained above; [41] It decides that the judgment RCOMA0287/14/HCC rendered on 30/07/2014 by the Commercial High Court is hereby reversed; [42] It orders TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd to pay the court fees amounting to 100,000Frw.

## Page 217

63

CASES IN MERITS TELE 10 RWANDA Ltd v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)

## Page 219

CIVIL CASE

## Page 221

NSANZABERA v. BARIGANZA ET AL [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCAA0006/15/CS (Kanyange, P.J., Mukandamage and Ngagi, J.) February 10, 2017] Law determining jurisdiction of courts – Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court – Determination of the value of the subject matter – The jurisdiction of the Court shall not be relied on the value of what are awarded to each party, rather, on the value of the subject matter – Organic Law Nº03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 28(7). Family law – Succession – The applicable law for succession of a woman before the promulgation of the Law N°22/99 of 12/11/1999 to supplement book one of the civil code and to institute part five regarding matrimonial regimes, liberalities and successions – Even before the enactment of that law, no provision prevented a female child to inherit her parents because the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 1962, the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 20/12/1978 and that of 10/06/1991, provided that all persons are equal before the law without discrimination based on ethnic, race, origin, sex, religion(…). Family law – Succession – Descending partition – The fact that a female child was allocated a descending partition which was meant to be given to a daughter whose marriage failed; does not deprive her from the right to inherit her ascendants. Facts: Bariganza and Muhawenimana sued their grandfather Nsanzabera at the Intermediate Court of Rubavu stating that he 67

## Page 222

merged the property which he acquired together with their grandmother Bugenimana who passed away with that of his new spouse Mukansoneye before they succeed to their grandmother; because he should have taken ½ of the property he acquired together with their grandmother, another half being awarded to them. The intermediate Court held that their claim lacks merit since they are not entitled to inherit the property left by their grandmother Bugenimana who was married to Nsanzabera while they are not her only grandchildren and the fact that Nsanzabera is still alive, the plaintiffs do not have the right to inherit him because the succession becomes open at the death of the de cujus. In addition, it ordered them to pay counsel fees and moral damages. Bariganza and Muhawenimana appealed to the High Court, chamber of Musanze, which decided that their appeal has merit because Bugenimana left aside two children who are Uwamahoro and Mukangoboka, and that Nsanzabera also got remarried and there is no child of Bugenimana he still takes care of. This Court ordered that the respondents should inherit ¼ of the property of Nsanzabera and Bugenimanana on behalf of their parent Uwamahoro since they are the only ones who filed a claim. Nsanzabera appealed to the Supreme Court stating that the High Court, Chamber of Musanze confirmed the succession in contradiction with the law that was into force at the death of Uwamahoro Béatrice in 19/09/1999; and that it disregarded the fact that she sold his property out of his consent, as well as the fact that he allocated to her a descending partition which was meant to be given to a daughter whose marriage failed and this RWANDA LAW REPORTS 68

## Page 223

was considered as a succession according to the customs at that time. Before the hearing on merit, the Supreme Court examined the objection of lack of jurisdiction that was raised by Bariganza and Muhawenimana alleging that the value of the subject matter does not reach 50,000,000Frw which is provided by the law. However, it ruled that it has the jurisdiction to hear the case. Bariganza and Muhawenimana defend that it was not relied on inexistent law because as it is clear in the case file, Uwamahoro passed away on July 5, 2011 while the law which was relied on is that enacted in the year 1999. They further argue that the fact to have been allocated descending partition does not deprive her of the right to succession. Bariganza and Muhawenimana filed a cross appeal requesting to be paid compensation for procedural fees, the fees for being dragged into unnecessary lawsuits and counsel fees whereas Nsanzabera states that damages they request for are groundless, rather he should be awarded damages for being dragged into unnecessary lawsuits. Held: 1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall not be relied on the value of what are awarded to each party, rather, the value of the subject matter. Therefore, the fact that the value of the subject matter is worth 70,000,000Frw as it was confirmed by the High Court, the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to hear the appeal of Nsanzabera because it exceeds 50,000,000Frw provided by the law. 2. Before the promulgation of the Law N°22/99 of 12/11/1999 to supplement book one of the civil code and to institute part five regarding matrimonial regimes, liberalities and successions, 69 NSANZABERA v. BARIGANZA ET AL

## Page 224

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 70

no provision prevented a female child to inherit her parents because the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 1962, the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 20/12/1978 and also that of 10/06/1991, provided that all persons are equal before the law without considering ethnic, race, origin, sex, religion(…); therefore, declaring that Uwamahoro Béatrice did not have the right to inherit her mother on the basis that she is a girl, lacks merit. 3. The fact that the succession of Bugenimana was not conducted till the time her heirs Bariganza and Muhawenimana filed a claim in 2013, the Law N°22/99 of 12/11/1999 to supplement book one of the civil code and to institute part five regarding matrimonial regimes, liberalities and successions which was into force at the time of initiation of the claim should apply. 4. The fact that a female child was allocated a descending partition which was meant to be given to a daughter whose marriage failed; does not deprive her of the right to inherit her ascendants. Therefore, Bariganza and Muhawenimana are entitled to succeed in lieu of Uwamahoro, the share of her mother Bugenimana despite of a descending partition given to her by her father. 5. The respondents are awarded the counsel and the procedural fees in the discretion of the Court because they hired a lawyer to assist them and they incurred expenses for the follow up of the case. Appeal has no merit. Appealed judgment sustained.

## Page 225

71

Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Organic Law Nº03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 28(7). Law N°22/99 of 12/11/1999 to supplement book one of the civil code and to institute part five regarding matrimonial regimes, liberalities and successions, articles 50 and 70. No case referred to. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] Bariganza Evangile and Muhawenimana Jean de Dieu are grandchildren of Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim and Bugenimana Xavérine who passed away in 1986. They were begotten by their daughter Uwamahoro Béatrice who also passed away in 2001. After the death of Bugenimana Xavérine, Nsanzabera got married to another wife called Mukansoneye Amina CéciIe. [2] Bariganza Evangile and Muhawenimana Jean de Dieu sued Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim at the Intermediate Court of Rubavu stating that he intends to merge the property which he acquired together with Bugenimana Xavérine with that of his new spouse, before they succeed to their grandmother; whereas she should take ½ of the property he acquired together with Bugenimana Xavérine, and another ½ be awarded to Bariganza Evangile and Muhawenimana Jean de Dieu. NSANZABERA v. BARIGANZA ET AL

## Page 226

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 72

[3] On 06 March 2014, the Court rendered the judgment RC0164/013/TGI/RBV where it held that Bariganza Evangile and Muhawenimana Jean de Dieu‟s claim lacks merit, because they do not have the right to inherit the property left by their grandmother Bugenimama Xavérine who was married to Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim. It ordered them to pay 300,000Frw of the counsel fees and moral damages to Nsanzabera. This ruling is based on the ground that they are not the only grandchildren of Bugenimana Xavérine given that she had two daughters and grandchildren who have equal right to inherit the property of their ascendants as it is provided for by article 50 of the Law N°22/99 of 12/11/1999 to supplement book one of the civil code and to institute part five regarding matrimonial regimes, liberalities and successions. It further held that since Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim is still alive, the plaintiffs do not have the right to inherit him because the succession opens at the death of the de cujus. [4] Bariganza Evangile and Muhawenimana Jean de Dieu appealed to the High Court, Musanze chamber which, on 20 November 2015, found their appeal with merit and entitled them to inherit ¼ of the property‟s value constituted by the house on plot Nº666/RUB/GIS. [5] The High Court based that decision on the fact that, Bugenimana Xavérine left aside two daughters (Uwamahoro and Mukangoboka), Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim remarried and no child of Bugenimana Xavérine he still takes care of; therefore consideration made of article 70 of the Law Nº22/99 mentioned above, Bariganza Evangile and Muhawenimana Jean de Dieu are the ones to inherit ½ of the property‟s value constituted by the house on plot Nº666/RUB/GIS in lieu of

## Page 227

73

Uwamahoro Béatrice and Mukangoboka (because nothing proves that she is alive) especially that Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim revealed that it was built in 1965 when Bugenimana Xavérine was his wife. [6] Furthermore, it explained that Bariganza Evangile and Muhawenimana Jean de Dieu, should equally share ½ of the property mentioned above in lieu of their mother Uwamahoro Béatrice and Mukangoboka, another ½ being awarded to Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim. However, since Bariganza Evangile and Muhawenimana Jean de Dieu are the only ones who filed a claim, they should inherit only ¼ of the value of the house mentioned above. It found in addition that the statements of Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim that they should not inherit twice because their mother (Uwamahoro Béatrice) sold his piece of land, lacks merit because apart from alleging it, he does not produce supporting evidence. [7] Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim appealed to the Supreme Court alleging that the High Court, Musanze chamber confirmed the succession which did not base on the law into force at the death of Uwamahoro Béatrice on September 19, 1999 and that it disregarded that she sold the property of Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim while he was in exile in Uganda. [8] On 10 January 2017, the judgment was conducted in public, Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim represented by his son Mupole Ahmed, who is also assisted by Counsel Habonimana Jean-Baptiste, Bariganza Evangile and Muhawenimana Jean de Dieu being represented by Counsel Ngabo Claude. [9] First and foremost, it was examined the objection of lack of jurisdiction for this Court that was raised by the plaintiffs in NSANZABERA v. BARIGANZA ET AL

## Page 228

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 74

appeal relying on article 28(7) of the Organic Law Nº03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court because the property in litigation was valued at 70,000,000Frw while Bariganza Evangile and Muhawenimana Jean de Dieu were awarded ¼ of that value which was the subject matter in this Court and it does not reach 50,000,000Frw provided by the mentioned provision. [10] The counsel for Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim defended in arguing that the appeal falls into the jurisdiction of this court because their opponents are the ones who set the value of the subject matter to 70,000,000Frw which exceeds that amount; and that ¼ of its value should not be considered for determination of the jurisdiction of the Court because Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim appeal related to entire property since according to him, the respondents do not even deserve the ¼ of its value because they were not entitled to succession. [11] The Court deliberated on the bench about that objection, and found that basing on article 28(2) litera 7 of the Organic Law Nº03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court providing that “the Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction over cases heard and decided in the second instance by the High Court(…..), if such cases involve a judgment in respect of which there was an award of damages of at least fifty million Rwandan francs (50,000,000Frw), or when the value of the case, as determined by the judge in case of a dispute, is at least fifty million Rwandan francs (50,000,000Frw)”. The value of the subject matter should not be based on what was awarded to each party rather; it should be based on the subject matter

## Page 229

75

which is the plot and the house with the value worth 70,000,000Frw as it was confirmed by the High Court. Therefore it held that the appeal of Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim falls into its jurisdiction. [12] The hearing continued by examining the grounds of appeal of Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES 1. Whether the High Court, Musanze chamber relied on inexistent law at the time Uwamahoro Béatrice passed away and determining whether she has been given her part. [13] Counsel for Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim alleges that the judge rendered a judgment on basis of the Law N°22/99 of 12/11/1999 to supplement book one of the civil code and to institute part five regarding matrimonial regimes, liberalities and successions while Uwamahoro Béatrice whose children wish to inherit Nsanzabera died on September 19, 1999; which implies that the law was not into force at that time; rather, in 1992 Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim, basing on culture, gave her the tenure of the land located at Cyuve/Musanze and he entitled her the usufruct of the remaining part of it but before her death she sold the whole land to Mukagatare. [14] They further state that Uwamahoro Béatrice received descending partition which was given to a daughter when her marriage failed, which is considered as succession according to the culture of that time whereby a father was allowed to give partitions on his property and Uwamahoro Béatrice was also given her partition. Therefore, the remaining part belongs to Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim and her wife. NSANZABERA v. BARIGANZA ET AL

## Page 230

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 76

[15] Counsel Ngabo Jean-Baptiste and Bariganza Evangile allege that it was not relied on inexistent law at the time Uwamahoro Béatrice passed away as stated by their opponents because the death certificate which is in case file demonstrates that she died on 05 July 2011 while at that time, the Law N°22/99 of 12/11/1999 mentioned above was into force, which implies that the succession between female and male was allowed. [16] They explain in addition that even before the enactment of the law already mentioned, girls were entitled to inherit depending on their parents‟ wish, and therefore, Bariganza Evangile and Muhawenimana Jean de Dieu requested to succeed after their grandfather got remarried and registered the entire assets in the names of her wife, thus they pray to be awarded their share which their grandmother Bugenimana Xavérine left because it was not apportioned to heirs till now. [17] Concerning the plot for which Counsel for Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim states that he allocated to Uwamahoro Béatrice, they state that it is not true because he filed a case against her to the court alleging that she illegally occupied it but he lost the case because he declared himself that it was a gift granted to her daughter. He thereafter filed a case that she inherited him which he lost again because the succession would not be carried out in favor of one child. [18] They state in addition that even if Uwamahoro Béatrice was given descending partition as their opponents allege; this does not deprive her of the right to inherit her parent.

## Page 231

77

OPINION OF THE COURT [19] As it was recalled above, the High Court, Musanze chamber relied on article 70 of Law N°22/99 of 12/11/1999 to supplement book one of the civil code and to institute part five regarding matrimonial regimes, liberalities and successions which was into force at the time of the trial provides for modalities of the succession for spouses married under the regime of community of property, whereby litera 7 provides that “the surviving spouse who no longer has any children under his/her care and wants to remarry shall obtain full ownership of the ½ of the patrimony and another half shall be given to the deceased's heirs”. [20] The Court finds that Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim, in his pleadings, does not deny that he co-owned property with Bugenimana Xavérine on which Bariganza Evangile and Muhawenimana Jean de Dieu request to have right; also he does not deny that there is not still any child of Bugenimana Xavérine under his care; and furthermore, on 16/03/2013 he got remarried to Mukansoneye Amina Cécile as demonstrated by his certificate in the case file; therefore, no reason would prevent the judge to rely on the Law N°22/99 of 12/11/1999 mentioned above, because even if the mother of Bariganza Evangile and Muhawenimana Jean de Dieu died before the promulgation of that law; given that she died on September 19, 1999 (except that the case file include another death certificate of July 5, 2011), this does not exclude the fact that her succession opened at her death in 1986 (ouverture de la succession) and was not enforced because Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim administered the property they co owned till now. NSANZABERA v. BARIGANZA ET AL

## Page 232

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 78

[21] Given that Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim got remarried in 2013, the time Bariganza Evangile and Muhawenimana Jean de Dieu instituted a claim, it is clear that it should have been based on the law which was into force at the filing of the claim because the share of Bugenimana Xavérine on the property she co-owned with Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim was not inherited till that time. In addition to that, save that the Law Nº22/99 of 12/11/1999 mentioned above provides clearly that male and female children inherit in equal parts without discrimination (article 50); even before, no provision prevented a female child to inherit her parents because from 1962, the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda provided that all persons are equal before the law without discrimination based on ethnic, race, origin, sex, religion (…). This was also reiterated by the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 20/12/1978 and that of 10/06/1991. Therefore, declaring that Uwamahoro Béatrice did not have the right to inherit her mother because she is a girl, lacks merit. [22] Regarding the allegation by the counsel for Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim that Uwamahoro Béatrice was given descending partition which was meant to be allocated to a daughter whose marriage failed, the Court finds that this does not deprive her of the right to inherit her parent as stated above, because what she was given does not relate to the share of Bugenimana Xavérine on the property she jointly own with Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim, in the capacity of a married couple. [23] Basing on stated reasons, the Court finds that the ground of appeal of Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim lacks merit; therefore it sustains the rulings of the appealed judgment.

## Page 233

79

2. Examination of the basis of the requested damages in cross appeal. [24] Through the cross appeal, Bariganza Evangile and Muhawenimana Jean de Dieu request 2,000,000Frw of counsel fees; 1,000,000Frw of the procedural fees and 1,000,000Frw for dragging them into unnecessary lawsuits. [25] The Counsel for Nsanzabera argues that the requested damages are groundless because respondents did not produce any evidence such as the contract which they concluded with their counsel; the evidence that they incurred expenses for lawsuits follow up and that 1,000,000Frw for being dragged into unnecessary lawsuits are excessive; rather, according to his estimate, this should be 100,000Frw. In contrast, he finds that they should be ordered to pay 2,000,000Frw to Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim for dragging him into lawsuits. FINDINGS OF THE COURT [26] The Court finds that the counsel and procedural fees for which the respondents request have merit because they hired advocates in order to assist them and they incurred expenses for following up their case but the amount they claim for is excessive. Rather, they are awarded 700,000Frw in discretion of the Court. However they should not be awarded the fees for being dragged into lawsuits because apart from the fact that Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim exercised his right of appeal in accordance with the law, they do not demonstrate another way he dragged them into unnecessary lawsuits. NSANZABERA v. BARIGANZA ET AL

## Page 234

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 80

[27] Concerning 2,000,000Frw requested by Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim for dragging him into lawsuits, the Court finds that he should not be awarded them since his appeal lacks merit. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [28] Decides that the appeal of Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim lacks merit; [29] Holds that the cross appeal of Bariganza Evangile and Muhawenimana Jean de Dieu has merit in part; [30] Orders Nsanzabera Vincent Ibrahim to pay 700,000Frw to Bariganza Evangile and Muhawenimana Jean de Dieu for the counsel and procedure fees on this instance; [31] Sustains the rulings of the judgment RCA0032/14/HC/MUS of 20/01/2015 rendered by the High Court, chamber of Musanze.

## Page 235

CRIMINAL CASES

## Page 237

PROSECUTION v. HABIMANA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RPAA0321/10/CS (Mugenzi, P.J., Nyirinkwaya and Rugabirwa, J.) March 18, 2016] Law of evidence – Oath of an expert – The value of a report not preceded by an oath of its issuer – Although the Law provides that an expert’s report must be preceded by an oath, failing to do so nullifies the report, nothing prohibits such a procedural error rather than substantial to be rectified, like when the issuer appears before the court and makes an oath before providing explanations thereof – Law No15/2004 of 12/04/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 93. Damages – Award of damages – Damages awarded by the previous court in its discretion cannot be changed unless proven to be excessive. Facts: The accused was prosecuted for having defiled a six- year-old child, when her grandmother entrusted her to him, on their way from church so that he can bring her to her mother who was his neighbor and on the way, he refused that the girl goes with another man who is their neighbour but instead, he defiled her behind a house. The Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge convicted and sentenced him to ten years of imprisonment and the fine of one hundred thousand Rwandan francs (100,000Frw), his penalty being reduced because he was young, aged of 25year old. Furthermore, the victim‟s mother was granted moral damages of five hundred thousand (500,000Frw). 83

## Page 238

He lodged an appeal to the High Court, whereby his appeal was found without merit, on the grounds that his defence that the victim was consulted by a doctor three days later, and the medical report is not clear in a clear way that cannot be considered, because the court requested the explanations from the doctor who made the report and she proved that the child was defiled and the fact of being examined three days later does not wipe off the offence. He appealed to the Supreme Court, stating that he was convicted without tangible convicting evidence, that his defence was not considered, whereby he stated that he brought the victim near her home and pointed a finger at her home. He added that even the testimony of the teacher was not supported by evidence and the medical report does not prove that he is the one who defiled the victim. The prosecutor states that the medical report was issued without being preceded by the oath but the issuer wrote her names and then signed, therefore, it cannot be annulled because such irregularities were caused by the fact that the doctor is not a lawyer, in addition it was not the sole evidence based on to convict the accused. Held: 1. Although the law provides that an expert‟s report must be preceded by the oath, failing to do so annuls it, nothing prohibits such procedure error instead of substantial to be rectified, for instance by summoning its issuer before the court and take oath before providing related explanations, something that happened in the course of hearing, when the physician took oath before the court, before displaying the content of the report. Therefore, the medical report must be considered. 2. Damages granted by the previous court in its discretion cannot change unless proved to be excessive. RWANDA LAW REPORTS 84

## Page 239

Appeal without merit. Appealed judgment sustained. Court fees reserved to the public treasury. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law No21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 93. Law No15/2004 of 12/04/2004 relating to evidence and its production, articles 93 and 108. Cases referred to: RPAA0039/12/CS, Prosecution v. Ntakiyimana and Mugirwanake, rendered by the Supreme Court on 26 February 2016. RPA0018/10/CS, Prosecution v. Rubyiruko et al rendered by the Supreme Court on 25 November 2011. RPA0227/08/CS, Prosecution v. Sibomana rendered by the Supreme Court, on 19 February 2010. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND [1] Habimana Jean Claude was prosecuted for having defiled a six-year-old child named U.Y on 14 June 2008, when her grandmother entrusted her to him, so that he can bring her to her mother who was his neighbor and on the way, he refused that the girl goes with another man who is their neighbor but instead, he defiled her behind a house. In the judgment RP0540/08/TGI/NYGE, rendered on 27 March 2009, he was convicted and sentenced to ten years of imprisonment and a fine 85 PROSECUTION v. HABIMANA

## Page 240

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 86

of one hundred thousand Rwandan francs (100,000Frw), his penalty being reduced because he was young and aged 25 years. Furthermore, Umumararungu Sylvie, the victim‟s mother was granted moral damages of five hundred thousand (500,000Frw). [2] Habimana appealed to the High Court, which rendered the verdict of the judgment RPA0440/09/HC/KIG on 18 February 2010, whereby it found his appeal to be without merit stating that his defence that the victim was consulted by a doctor three days later, and the medical report is not clear enough to be considered, because the court requested the explanations from the doctor who made the report and she proved that the child was defiled, and that the fact of being examined three days later does not wipe off the offence. [3] The court went on to explain that his defense that the injuries to the victim's sex were caused by the defilement and that even the teacher of the victim testified without evidence lack merit because Habimana did not prove what had hurt the victim who was entrusted to him so that he could bring her home. In addition, the teacher proved how the victim missed class and Habimana's sisters went to see her at school and apologized to her mother. [4] Habimana appealed to the Supreme Court, stating that he was convicted without tangible convicting evidence, regardless of his defence whereby he stated that he brought the victim near her home and pointed a finger at her home. He added that even the testimony of the teacher was not supported by evidence and the medical report does not prove that he is the one who defiled the victim.

## Page 241

87

[5] In the court hearing, Habimana and his counsel stated that the claim for damage should not have been received in the previous courts because they have no basis. [6] The hearing was held in public on 5 October 2015 and 15 February 2016, Habimana Jean Claude being assisted by Counsel Habimana Adolphe, Umumararungu Sylvie, the civil party was not present though legally summoned, while the prosecution was represented by Bunyoye Grậce. In course of the hearing of 15 February 2016 Dr. Rumanya Liliane was present. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES Whether Habimana Jean Claude was convicted without evidence. [7] Habimana states that the court convicted him without facts because the testimony given by the teacher was not supported by evidence, medical report was confusing, rather, it relied on testimony given by the victim‟s mother that he did not bring the child home, disregarding his defence. [8] He keeps explaining that the testimony given by the teacher whereby he stated that the child missed class; this was not supported by attendance book. He adds that even in case she had missed class, it would not have proved that she was defiled by Habimana. [9] He states that the victim‟s mother testimony repeats of what was told by the victim and the latter stated that he defiled her and one can wonder why she did not immediately inform her mother once she reached home, she did not cry for help when she was being defiled, and her mother did not PROSECUTION v. HABIMANA

## Page 242

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 88

immediately file the claim against him while he knew him, rather, she waited to arrest him on his way when they met, tricking him that he could help her to resolve an issue she had at the police station. [10] Habimana states that the medical report could not be relied on to convict him because it is inconsistent with the law as the doctor did not take oath and it does not prove that injuries found on the victim were caused by defilement and committed by Habimana. [11] He argues that the grounds of his defence were not considered while he proved that he was requested by Safi, an old woman who used to teach them bible, to take the victim home, and when he reached near, he showed her home by pointing finger and he went back home, he was surprised that he was arrested three days later when he met the victim‟s mother and the latter tricked him that he could help her with an issue she had at the police station, and if he was guilty, he could not go there. [12] The prosecutor states that the medical report was issued without being preceded by the oath but the issuer wrote her names and then signed, therefore, it cannot be annulled because such irregularities were caused by the fact that the doctor is not a lawyer, especially that it was not the sole evidence based on to convict Habimana. He adds that another report in the same conditions as this was considered by the Supreme Court in the case RPA0227/08/CS of 19 February 2010, Prosecution vs Sibomana Nathanaël. [13] He argues that it is not a medical doctor who certifies that the victim was defiled, rather, he exposes what was

## Page 243

89

remarked on the victim's body as he stated that there were wounds on the victim‟s thigh and sex and that she was no longer a virgin. These have to be confronted with the victim‟s statements to let the court convict the accused. [14] With regard to the testimony given by Mukakabego, the teacher of the victim, the prosecutor states that she did not contract herself because she was not heard before, but she was heard by the court and Habimana was given the time to react on it, As for attendance book, he did not claim it. He states that his defence that she had missed class due to other sicknesses, is contradicted by the medical report proving that the child had signs that she was defiled. OPINION OF THE COURT [15] As demonstrated in the case file, Habimana acknowledges that he was entrusted with Ugirimbabazi at evening when they came from church to bring her home but he did not. Moreover, her mother states that she reached home late and when she asked her the reason of that, she replied that she was with Habimana and two days later, she noticed that the girl could hardly seat and walk until she checked her private parts and noticed small wounds and when she asked her what happened to her, replied that when she came home with Habimana, the latter removed her underwear and inserted his sex into hers, telling her that if she reveals it, he would kill her. [16] The testimony of Mukakabego, teacher of the victim also proves that she noticed that she missed class several times and when she came she was bored and she could hardly sit down, PROSECUTION v. HABIMANA

## Page 244

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 90

she called her mother and the latter told her that she was defiled and that the matter was notified to the police station. [17] The medical report issued on 15 June 2008, 3 days after Habimana escorted Ugirimbabazi, proved that she was no longer virgin, that lesions in the thigh, vagina and vulva were noticed on her, and the doctor proved the same once he appeared before the court on 15 February 2016, adding that the power to determine whether she was defiled or the person who committed it does not belong to him. [18] Even Habimana during his provisional detention or release hearing1 admitted that he was with the victim at around 7:00, entrusted to him by her grand-mother so that he brings her home but he did not. He furthermore stated that Ugirimbabazi wanted to go with her neighbour but he refused; rather, they waited about five minutes, waiting for another person who could bring her but finally, he did not take her home but showed her the way by pointing the finger so that she can go alone. [19] The court finds that there are corroborated evidence convicting Habimana, namely the fact that Umumararungu, the victim‟s mother remarked small wounds on the private parts and she told her that she was defiled by Habimana, the medical report proving that the victim was defiled, especially that the time revealed by the victim is the same as when Habimana was given her to take home but he did not, while it was the night and Habimana stated himself that someone else wanted to take her home but he refused.

1See the minute of provisional detention or release of 23 June 2008, p.17.

## Page 245

91

[20] The court finds that basing on article 108 of the Law No15/2004 of 12/04/2004 relating to evidence and its production, which explains presumptions, all these evidence make important precise and consistent presumptions,2 leading the court to convict beyond any reasonable doubt that Habimana committed the offence of defilement3, therefore, his appeal lacks merit. [21] The court finds without merit the defence of Habimana criticising the testimony made by the victim‟s mother and her teacher because it does not prove that they said lies when they revealed that the victim had problems and stated that she was defiled, but the medical report proved the same. Habimana failed to prove to the court the reason behind the victim‟s mother which would lead her to falsely incriminate him, but during his interrogation in the judicial police, he stated that there was no conflict between them. [22] With regard to the medical report, the accused criticises the fact that it does not indicate the oath of the issuer as provided for by article 93 of the Law No15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating the evidence and its production4, the court finds that

2Article 108 states: “Presumptions that have not been established by the law are left to the discretion and wisdom of the court. The court shall admit only those presumptions if they are important, precise and consistent”. 3Presumptions were also based on other case laws rendered by this court: see judgment RPAA0039/12/CS of 26/02/2016, Prosecution v. Ntakiyimana and Mugirwanake and the judgment RPA0018/10/CS of 25/11/2011, Rubyiruko Sylvestre et al v. the Prosecutor. 4 Article 93 provides that the report is signed by all the experts. The signing of experts shall be invalid, if not preceded by the following declaration: I ……., swear that I have fulfilled my mission completely and conscientiously, PROSECUTION v. HABIMANA

## Page 246

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 92

although the report is not preceded by the oath as provided for by the law, and absence of the oath annuls it, nothing prohibits such procedure error instead of substantial to be rectified,5for instance by summoning its issuer before the court and take oath before explaining it6, something that happened on 15 February 2016, when Dr Rumanya Liliane took oath before the court before displaying the content of the report. Therefore, the report must be considered. With regard to damages granted by the High Court. [23] Rwigema, the counsel for Habimana argued that the claim for damages was illegally initiated as it was by the minor and it was rectified by the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge, in the course of the hearing of 1st October 2008 while it was not competent to change the subject matter of plaintiff, therefore, it could not be received to be analysed. However, he adds that although it could be given merit, damages were granted without relevant facts by the civil party. [24] The court finds that the decision was made by the precedent courts with regard to the receivability of the civil claim, and the procedure in which it was initiated was rectified

with accuracy and honesty. May I face the law if I did not do it with due accuracy. 5 Article 93 of the Law No21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that procedural acts nullified due to irregularity in form shall regain validity upon corrections as long as corrections do not have any impact on the subject matter. 6 See the judgment RPA0227/08/CS of 19/02/2010, Prosecution v. Sibomana Nathanaël.

## Page 247

93

and Habimana did not appeal against it, therefore, he cannot be allowed to talk about it again. [25] With regard to evidence of damages which was not demonstrated as claimed by Habimana, the court finds that he does not explain the kind of evidence needed, while 500,000Frw granted in the court‟s discretion are moral, and he does not prove them to be excessive. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [26] Finds the appeal lodged by Habimana Jean Claude without merit; [27] Sustains the judgment RPA0440/09/HC/KIG rendered on 18 February 2010 by the High Court; [28] Orders the court fees to be charged to the public treasury.

PROSECUTION v. HABIMANA

## Page 249

PROSECUTION v. UWIZEYE [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RPA0255/13/CS (Mutashya, P.J., Rugabirwa and Karimunda, J.) April 21, 2017] Criminal Law – Penalty reduction – The gravity of the offence – The fact of not considering the gravity of the offence committed and the fact of not being remorseful must be considered in determination of the penalty – Organic Law No01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article 76. Criminal Law – Domestic violence – In determination of the penalty, violence exercised against women needs to be considered. Criminal Law – Penalty reduction – The cruelty used in the commission of an offence – The cruelty used in the commission of an offense prevents the benefit of penalty reduction. Facts: The accused was prosecuted, charged with the murder, where the prosecution accused him of having murdered his wife not legally married and he pleaded guilty. The High Court, Rwamagana chamber found that he confessed that he planned to kill his wife and sentenced him to life imprisonment and ordered him to pay court fees. He appealed to the Supreme Court submitting that the previous court misinterpreted the facts because he never intended for killing his wife, that he was rather under provocation due to her adultery behaviors and he killed her because of anger. He seeks for pardon, sentence reduction and sentence suspension so that it enables him to return home and take care of his mother and his children left abandoned. 95

## Page 250

The prosecution states that the accused had conflicts with his wife because he suspected her to be in adultery, for that reason the prosecutor requests this court not to consider his arguments with regard to the sentence reduction so that he can return home to take care of his mother and his children left exposed and prosecutor requests to sustain the rulings of the appealed judgment as the accused could not pretend the consequences of his/her offence to be the cause of the penalty reduction. Held: 1. The fact of not considering the gravity of the offence committed and being not remorseful, should be considered in determination of the penalty. 2. The fact that the offence committed is qualified as domestic violence, the accused who pretends to convince that the victim had wrongdoings as a motive of being killed, , he/she should face serious penalty because the violence exercised against women needs to be considered in sentencing. 3. The wickedness of high level used in the commission of an offence prevents the penalty reduction. Appeal without merit. The appealed judgment upheld. Court fees to the public treasury. Statute and statutory instruments referred to: Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article 76.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 96

## Page 251

Case laws referred to: Angelique Lyn Lavalle v. Prosecution (Angelique Lyn Lavalle her majesty the queen), Supreme Court of Canada, 1990, 1 SCR 852, p.872. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] This case began in the High Court chamber of Rwamagana where Uwizeye was accused of having murdered his wife Uwineza Médiatrice with whom he was not legally married on 27 November 2012 using a machete. He hit her on the head and on the arm using a machete. After committing the murder, he told his neighbors that he killed her because of her beauty, so that it shall be useless to her. Uwizeye Eustache pleaded guilty. [2] In the judgment RP0100/12/HC/RWG rendered on 21/12/2012, the court found that Uwizeye Eustache confessed that he planned to kill Uwineza Médiatrice by hitting her three times on the neck with the intention to separate it from the body. The court sentenced him to life imprisonment and ordered him to pay court fees. [3] Unsatisfied with the judgment, Uwizeye Eustache appealed to the Supreme Court submitting that the previous court misinterpreted the facts because he never intended to kill his wife, that he was rather under provocation due to her adultery, he also added that he killed as a result of anger, he 97 PROSECUTION v. UWIZEYE

## Page 252

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 98

therefore requested for sentence reduction as he pleads guilty and asks for pardon, he further requested for suspended penalty in the interests of his children and in order to avoid that he continues to be the burden for the State. [4] The public hearing was held on 20 March 2013, Uwizeye Eustache being assisted by Counsel Mberabagabo Balinda Richard while the prosecution was represented by Habineza Jean Damascène, the Prosecutor at National. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUE Whether the penalty sentenced to Uwizeye Eustache can be reduced due to the fact that he pleads guilty and seeks forgiveness. [5] Uwizeye Eustache says he was in conflict with his wife Uwineza Médiatrice when the latter asked him why he did not cook beans and from that, they had quarrels. He explained, he had no good relationship with his wife because she had indulged into adultery and that he even once caught her, having sexual intercourse with another person but the latter fled. He concluded that he admits to have committed an atrocious offence with cruelty and seeks forgiveness, the reason why he prays this court to change life imprisonment inflicted on him by the High Court, Rwamagana chamber so that he can return home to take care of his mother and his children abandoned. [6] His counsel Mberabagabo Balinda Richard states that even if Uwizeye Eustache failed to catch his wife‟s partner in adultery, the behaviors of his wife induced him to commit the offence he pleads guilty for, as he explains and seeks forgiveness since he was arrested till he appeared before the

## Page 253

99

court. He concludes by requesting the court to consider his client‟ behaviors and protects the interests of his children and reduces sentence up to ten years of imprisonment basing on article 77 paragraph 3 and article 78 paragraph 1 of the Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code. [7] The Prosecutor states that Uwizeye Eustache was in conflict with his wife because he suspected her to be adulterer, and immediately after murdering his wife, full of blood, he went to Ugiriwabo Eugénie and told her that Uwineza Médiatrice‟s beauty shall no longer be of use to her because he comes from killing her. He requests this court to disregard Uwizeye Eustache‟s arguments with regard to the sentence reduction so that he can return home to take care of his mother and his errant children, because there is a court‟s position highlighted in the judgment between prosecution and Mpitabakana1, stating that an accused would not benefit from the consequences of the offence s/he committed in order to be granted the penalty reduction. Therefore, he prays the court to sustain the appealed judgment. THE OPINION OF THE COURT [8] Article 76 of the Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code provides that the judge may consider the appropriateness of mitigating circumstances which preceded, accompanied or followed an offence. The decision to accept mitigating circumstances must be justified.

1 See judgment RPA0129/10/CS rendered by Supreme Court on 07/03/2014. PROSECUTION v. UWIZEYE

## Page 254

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 100

[9] The file demonstrates statements made by Uwizeye Eustache before the judicial police and the prosecution, that since they started cohabitation in 2006, they had no peaceful household as she used to wander and return home late in the night, that he cooked for the children and the wife used to insult him that he is a dog. He explained that he only caught her in sexual intercourse in 2007, but he still suspected her. He admitted for having killed his wife on 27 November 2012 using a machete, that he surprised her when she was sitting on a chair and hit three times on the neck and she fell down and suddenly died. He added that after killing her, he fled to Ugiriwabo Eugénie informing her that he had just killed his wife and Ugiriwabo Eugénie called the neighbors and the police (identification mark 5-7 and 22-24). [10] The case file also contains Ugiriwabo Eugénie‟ statement in the judicial police stating that Uwizeye Eustache came at her home holding a blooded machete in his hands, saying that he had just killed his wife and she has immediately called Sibomana Théophile who took the machete off him. As for Sibomana Théophile, he stated that he found Uwineza Médiatrice lying down, the blood flowing around and when he asked Uwizeye Eustache the motive of such act, he replied that he could no longer bear the matter of being harassed by her wife, that no man will seduce her anymore and she will no longer benefit from her beauty, that even the twin children she left, may either live or die (identification mark 14-15). [11] The case file also contains the statements of Iragena Jeannette when she was interviewed in the judicial police that Uwizeye Eustache told her that one month elapsed without copulating since she started working in terracing farmland, that

## Page 255

101

she has a man who come to his home, she cooks for him and share the meal, that he preferred killing her so that she will not be benefiting from her beauty any more. As for Ndagijimana Jean Bosco, he stated that he heard a scream for help at Uwizeye Eustache and he went for rescue but in reaching the place he found Uwizeye Eustache‟s wife lying down and dead with injuries on her head and on arm and that Uwizeye Eustache said that his wife had become out of control as a reason of murdering her because there is a man with whom they work together who used to visit her and she cooked for him.(identification mark 10-12). [12] The court finds that the statement of Uwizeye Eustache before this court that he planned to kill Uwineza Médiatrice and that he hit her with a blow of machete on the neck, this statement as well as the ones made in judicial police, prosecution and before the High Court, Rwamagana chamber are the same. His statement is also as the same as ones made by witnesses interrogated in the case file with regard to the motive of killing his wife, that it is the jealousy he had against her, the file also contains a picture on identification mark 18 showing the deceased lying down in blood in the sitting room with a machete full of blood on her side, that machete was seized by the judicial police as demonstrated by the statement of seizure of 28 November 2012, all these proving that Uwizeye Eustache admits the offence with no doubt as it was confirmed by the High Court, Rwamagana chamber, in the appealed judgment, page three. [13] The court however finds that after he killed Uwineza Médiatrice, Uwizeye Eustache said that he killed her because of her beauty, before this court he mentioned again that he PROSECUTION v. UWIZEYE

## Page 256

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 102

suspected that his wife was involved in adultery even though he did not catch her in the act and that his wife used to insult him that he is a dog, that she also used to wander and leave children at home, he intends to convince that Uwineza Médiatrice was wrong as motive to kill her. These understandings reveal that Uwizeye Eustache does not still consider the gravity of the offence he committed and he is not remorseful even if he says that he seeks forgiveness, this should be considered in determination of the penalty convenient to the offence he committed. [14] The court finds, Uwizeye Eustache committed domestic violence, but he still intends to convince that Uwineza Médiatrice had wrongdoings which pushed him to kill her, this is itself sufficient ground to punish him seriously so that men with such kind of understanding be aware that a woman is not to be manipulated but rather a human being with the same rights, value and capacity as her partner. [15] The court finds, with regard the violence exercised against women in determination of the penalty, it was also mentioned by the Supreme Court of Canada in the judgment Angélique Lyn Lavallee versus prosecution, the court reminded that the notion that a man has the right to discipline his wife is deeply founded in the history of our society. The wife's obligation was to serve her husband, to remain married at all costs until death separated them, and to be punished for failing to please her husband. One of the consequences of this attitude was that violence against women was rarely mentioned, rarely reported, rarely prosecuted and even more rarely punished. Although the society had stopped to approve the domestic violence officially, we continued and we continue up today, to

## Page 257

103

tolerate it in some areas. It is well that we notice since few years, a great consciousness that no man has, under any circumstances, the right to brutalize a wife.2 [16] Basing on the above grounds, the court finds that even if Uwizeye Eustache admits for having committed offence saying that he seeks forgiveness and reduction of sentence so that he can return home to take care of his mother and his children, the fact that he did not seek remedy from the family, friends, administrative or justice organs to handle the matter with his wife that he suspected to be involved in adultery but surprised her when she was sitting on a chair, hit her three times on the neck using the machete with the intention to immediately kill her as he states himself, by doing so, he did not consider interests of looking after children as well as his mother, the grounds he uses before this court, while those interests would have prevented him to commit the offence. These demonstrate the wickedness of high level he used in the commission of the offence, thus, the life imprisonment sentenced by the High Court, Rwamagana chamber, cannot be reduced as it reflects the gravity of the offence committed.

2 “The notion that a man has the right to discipline his wife is deeply founded in the history of our society. The wife's obligation was to serve her husband, to remain married at all costs until death separated them, and to be punished for failing to please her husband. One of the consequences of this attitude was that violence against women was rarely mentioned, rarely reported, rarely prosecuted and even more rarely punished. Although the society had stopped to officially approve the domestic violence, we continued and we continue up today, to tolerate it in some areas. It is well that we notice since few years, a great consciousness that no man has, under any circumstances, the right to brutalize a wife”, Supreme Court of Canada, Angelique Lyn Lavallee v. Her Majesty the Queen, [1990] 1 SCR 852, at 872. PROSECUTION v. UWIZEYE

## Page 258

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 104

III. DECISION OF THE COURT [17] Decides that Uwizeye Eustache‟s appeal intending penalty reduction is without merit. [18] Rules that the appealed judgment RP0100/12/HC/RWG rendered by the High court, Rwamagana chamber on 21 December 2012 is upheld. [19] Orders that the Court fees are charged to the public treasury.

## Page 259

Printed by PROGRAPH LTD P.o. Box 1882 Kigali - Rwanda Tel : (+250) 788303889 E-mail:hakizae2007@yahoo.fr