APADEM N’ABANDI v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF RWANDA (BRD)

APADEM N’ABANDI v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF RWANDA (BRD)

The Court found that both the Commercial Court and the High Commercial Court decided the case on the same substantive grounds: the claim was not materially changed, interest continued to accrue per contract, and only the named sureties were liable. As such, the appeal was inadmissible under Article 52(3) of Law No...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RCOMAA 00028/2024/CA
Parties
Appellant: APADEM; Appellant: Kalinda Alexis; Appellant: Segatarama Siméon; Appellant: Ngendahimana Isidore; Appellant: Sembagare Schadrack; Respondent: Development Bank of Rwanda Plc (BRD)
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
13 February 2025
Case Number
RCOMAA 00028/2024/CA
Procedural Posture
Commercial Appeal / Court of Appeal – Ruling on Jurisdictional Objection
Outcome
Appeal dismissed as inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Appellate Jurisdiction, Loan Agreements, Suretyship, Costs and Attorney Fees
Source Language
rw
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Appellate Jurisdiction Loan Agreements Suretyship Costs and Attorney Fees

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

APADEM

Appellant

Kalinda Alexis

Appellant

Segatarama Siméon

Appellant

Ngendahimana Isidore

Appellant

Sembagare Schadrack

Appellant

Development Bank of Rwanda Plc (BRD)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Appeal / Court of Appeal – Ruling on Jurisdictional Objection

  1. 1 Whether the appeal is admissible where the appellants lost in both lower courts on the same grounds
  2. 2 Whether the lower courts relied on the same reasons in dismissing the appellants' claims
  3. 3 Entitlement to costs and attorney fees

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that both the Commercial Court and the High Commercial Court decided the case on the same substantive grounds: the claim was not materially changed, interest continued to accrue per contract, and only the named sureties were liable. As such, the appeal was inadmissible under Article 52(3) of Law No 30/2018. Costs were awarded to BRD as the prevailing party on the jurisdictional objection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed as inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Objection to jurisdiction upheld.
  • Appeal by APADEM and sureties not admitted.