BATSINDA ET.AL v BIZIMANA ET.AL

# BATSINDA ET.AL v BIZIMANA ET.AL

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Decisions (Judgements) - Date: 2023-03-03 - Case/document no.: RCAA00002/2021/CA - Collection: Court of Appeal

## Text

## Page 1

BATSINDA ET.AL v BIZIMANA ET.AL [Rwanda COURT OF APPEAL – RCAA00002/2021/CA (Kamere, P.J.) 03 March 2023] Expropriation procedure – Expropriation in case of the implementation of the land use master plan – A person who has been granted property by a competent authority, consisting of a house and land, as part of expropriation in public interest, and who has also provided the required compensation, is considered to have been legally granted that property in accordance with the laws governing expropriation, his/her rights over that property, should not be violated. Facts: The case started when Batsinda, Mukandoli and Mukabatsinda sued Bizimana in the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge seeking for the invalidation of the emphyteutic lease title registered to Bizimana and Mukamana, and then be registered to the heirs of Butera who are the plaintiffs claiming that the defendant has been fraudulently registered on the disputed property. The Court in the case RC00499/2017/TGI/NYGE, declared that the claim filed by the plaintiffs is founded, and ordered that the disputed land be registered to the heirs of Butera, and be removed from Bizimana and Mukamana. Bizimana was not satisfied with that decision and appealed to the High Court, arguing that the claim filed by Butera's heirs represented by Batsinda at the first level should not have been admitted, He contended that they should not have sought to invalidate the emphyteutic land title granted to them, as it is an authentic deed and cannot be challenged without first addressing it in a criminal court as a forged document. He further argued that the land was allocated to him by the government, which had expropriated the heirs, and that he had provided fair compensation. The High Court in the case RCA00417/2018/HC/KIG declared the appeal filed by Bizimana filed, the appealed case changed in all its parts, and ruled that the disputed land belongs to Bizimana. Batsinda and his colleagues appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal, asking to consider whether the High Court should have declared that the disputed land of Butera's heirs should be retained by Bizimana and whether the various damages ordered to be paid by Batsinda and his colleagues should be invalidated. Bizimana argues that the High Court did not make any mistakes in deciding that he should keep the land, as it was allocated to him by the competent government authority in 2004 after providing the required fair compensation. The Court of Appeal in the case RCAA00002/2021/CA declared that Batsinda and his colleagues lose the case because they were unable to provide the claimed evidence of fraud by which Bizimana was registered as the owner of the disputed property, because it was attributed to him by the competent government authority and after fulfilling all requirements according to the provisions of the law relating to the expropriation into force at that time. Held: A person who has been granted a property by the competent government authority, which consists of house and land through expropriation, and who has provided the required fair compensation, has received that property in accordance with the Law on Expropriation, and his rights over that property cannot be violated. Therefore, the expropriated person cannot be taken as the owner of that property pretending that he refused to take the compensation and that did not do what the law provides to prove that he/she was not satisfied with the compensation he/she received.

## Page 2

Appeal lacks merit. Statutes and statutory referred to: Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 12, 111 Decree-Law n° 21/79 of July 23, 1979 relating to expropriation as confirmed by Law n° 01/82 of January 26, 1982. No case laws referred to. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

In case RC00499/2017/TGI/NYGE, Batsinda Camile, Mukandoli Marcelle and Mukabatsinda Annonciata sued Bizimana Augustin in the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge, seeking for the invalidation of the emphyteutic lease title nº 1/02/13/03/815 registered on Bizimana Augustin and Mukamana Dancille, then registered to the heirs of Butera Emile, also they requested various damages. At that level, Kasine Félicité was forcibly intervened. The plaintiffs explained that they are the brothers of the late Butera Emile and his legal heirs, that the left disputed property, was fraudulently registered to Bizimana Augustin and Mukamana Dancille.

On 02/11/2018, the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge ruled on the case and declared that the claim filed by Batsinda Camile, Mukandoli Marcelle and Mukabatsinda Annonciata is founded, held that Bizimana Augustin had registered himself and his wife as the owners of the plot of land with UPI: 1/02/13/03/815 located in Rukiri I Cell, Remera Sector, which includes the land belonging to Butera Emile should be succeeded by Batsinda Camile, Mukandoli Marcelle and Mukabatsinda Annonciata, with a surface of 4 ares and 75 Ca, which should be separated and returned to the heirs of Butera Emile, ordered that the emphyteutic lease title nº UPI: 1/02/13/03/815 of the land located in Agashyitsi Village, Rukiri I Cell, Remera Sector, Gasabo District registered to Bizimana Augustin and Mukamana Dancille, be corrected by separating the portion of land belonging to Butera Emile suceeded by Batsinda Camile, Mukandoli Marcelle and Mukabatsinda Annonciata, with a surface of 4 ares and 75 Ca, and it should be registered to them.

Bizimana Augustin was not satisfied with that decision, he appealed to the High Court, his appeal was recorded on RCA 00417/2018/HC/KIG, he stated that the claim of the heirs of Butera Emille represented by Batsinda Camille at the first level should not have been admitted, because they would not have sought for invalidation of the emphyteutic lease title with UPI: 1/02/13/03/815 granted to him, as it is an authentic deed, without first challenging it as a forged document in a criminal court, therefore the appealed case RC 00499/2017/TGI/NYGE should be dismissed. He appealed and requested that from the plot with UPI : 1/02/13/03/815, should not be separated a surface of 4 ares and 75 Ca of the heirs of Butera Emile, that because he was granted it by the government following the expropriation of these heirs, for which he provided fair compensation, he also requested that the damages awarded to the heirs of Butera Emile represented by Batsinda

## Page 3

Camille should be dismissed, and the damages he claimed due to the incurred loss should be taken into consideration.

On 09/10/2020, the High Court ruled on the case, declared Bizimana Augustin’s appeal justified, that the appealed case RC 00499/2017/TGI/NYGE reversed in all its parts, and that the land wih a surface of 4 ares 75 ca belonged to the heirs of Butera Emile, namely Batsinda Camile, Mukandoli Marcelle and Mukabatsinda Annonciata located in the plot nº UPI: 1/02/13/03/815 retained with Bizimana Augustin. It ordered to Batsinda Camile, Mukandoli Marcelle and Mukabatsinda Annonciata to pay to Bizimana Augustin the damages amounting to six million five hundred and forty thousand (6,540,000 Frw) including five million (5,000,000 Frw) of damages, one million five hundred (1,500,000 Frw) counsel’s fees, and forty thousand (40,000 Frw) for court fees.

On 08/11/2020, Batsinda Camile, Mukandoli Marcelle and Mukabatsinda Annonciata appealed against that decision to the Court of Appeal, their appeal was registered under RCAA 00002/2021/CA, seeking to consider whether the High Court should have declared that the land with a surface of 4 ares 75 ca belonging to the heirs of Butera Emile located in the plot with nº UPI: 1/02/13/03/815 should be retained by Bizimana Augustin and whether the various damages ordered to be paid by Batsinda Camile, Mukandoli Marcelle and Mukabatsinda Annonciata should be dismissed.

The case was heard in public on 13/10/2021, Batsinda Camile assisted by Counsel Nubumwe Jean Bosco and Counsel Ngarambe Raphaël who also represented Mukandoli Marcelle, Mukabatsinda Annonciata and Kasine Félicité, while Bizimana Augustin was assisted by Counsel Taremwa Danitar Daniel and Counsel Bayingana Janvier, the Court examined the objection regarding the lack of jurisdiction raised by the side of the respondent Bizimana Augustin.

On 29/10/2021, the Court ruled on the objection, declared that the second appeal filed by Batsinda Camille, Mukandoli Marcelle and Mukabatsinda Annonciata falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, ordered that the hearing of this case will continue on 10/11/2021 from 09 :30 am.

The case was postponed for various reasons until scheduled on 13/02/2023, and it was heard, the parties were assisted as it was, Batsinda Camile was assisted by Counsel Nubumwe Jean Bosco and Counsel Ngarambe Raphaël who also represented Mukandoli Marcelle, Mukabatsinda Annonciata and Kasine Félicité, while Bizimana Augustin was assisted by Counsel Taremwa Danitar Daniel and Counsel Bayingana Janvier.

The case was heard on the grounds of appeal raised during the pretrial conference, regarding whether the High Court should have declared that the land with a surface of 4 ares 75 ca belonging to the heirs of Butera Emile located in nº UPI 1/02/13/03/ 815 should be retained by Bizimana Augustin, whether various damages ordered to be paid by Batsinda Camile, Mukandoli Marcelle and Mukabatsinda Annonciata should be dismissed, the issue of moral damages equal to 10,000,000Frw and the damages for being dragged in unnecessary lawsuits equal to 5,000,000Frw requested by the appellants, and the procedural fees requested by both parties. The pronouncement of the judgment was scheduled on 24/02/2023 but later the Court potponed it on 03/03/2023.

## Page 4

II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES  i. Determine whether the High Court erred by declaring that the land measuring 4 ares 75 ca which previously belonged to the heirs of Butera Emile, located in the plot with UPI 1/02/13/03/815, sould be retained by Bizimana Augustin

Counsel Ngarambe Raphaël and Counsel Nubumwe Jean Bosco, who assist Batsinda Camile, and also represent Mukandoli Marcelle, Mukabatsinda Annonciata and Kasine Félicité argue that they challenge the High Court's decision that the land measuring 4 Ares 75 ca belonging to the heirs of Butera Emile located in the plot with UPI 1/02/13/03/815 should be retained by Bizimana Augustin. They explain that, when the heirs of Butera Emile, who are Batsinda Camille, Mukandoli Marcelle and Mukabatsinda Annonciata, realised that Bizimana Augustin had fraudletly registered in his name the property of Butera Emile, they brought the matter to the various administrative organs including City of Kigali, Gasabo District and the Sector to help them regain their relative's property, and having analyzed the issue based on various documents related to the land registered on UPI: 1/02/13/03/815, they found that Bizimana Augustin and his wife had used fraud to register such plot of land, and they wrote to the Director General of the Rwanda Natural Resources Authority seeking for the invalidation of such fraudulently obtained land title.

They further explain that, after receiving such information about the fraud, the Director General of Rwanda Natural Resources Authority wrote to Batsinda Camille asking him to pursue Bizimana Augustin before the competent authorities, so that the land title should be invalidated, and such stance was upheld by the Minister of Natural Resources.

They add that the fact that the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge based on various administrative documents, the fact that Bizimana did not put a building on that land, and the fact that Batsinda Camille also requested to build it, and ordered that the land measuring 4 ares 75 ca should be separated from the plot of land granted to Bizimana Augustin with an area equal to 21 ares 49 ca, they found that such facts are justified. They find that the fact that the High Court's decision based on expropriation is flawed, because the City of Kigali itself during the hearing confirmed that no expropriation was carried out, the reason why they request that the decision of the High Court should be overturned.

They submit that they base on article 34 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 as amended in 2015, on point 2 of article 17 of the International Convention on Human Rights of 10/12/1948, and article 34 of Law n0 43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda.

Counsel Taremwa Daniel Danitar and Counsel Bayingana Janvier, assisting Bizimana Augustin, defend on this ground of appeal bu submitting that on 20/06/2014, after the letter of 30/8/2013, for nine months (9) and twenty-one days (21) ago, the Mayor of Gasabo District wrote to the Registrar of Land Titles a letter with nº 1345/07/01.02/2014, whereby in its paragraph five (5), requested that the land title of the plot with UPI: 1/02/13/03/815 should be invalidated as "the caveat which was put on it by Batsinda Camile has no reason to be cancelled", and he also tacled on the case RC 0180/10/TB/KMA decided on 29/09/2010, to uphold that the Court declared that Batsinda, Mukandoli and Mukabatsina are the legal heirs of the late Butera Emile. They add that what the Mayor did not mention in his letter, is that in the case RC 0127/04/TP/KIG decided on 04/01/2006, eight (8) years, five (5) months and seventeen days ago (17), the Mayor of Gasabo

## Page 5

District wrote the letter nº 1345/07/01.02/2014, whereby those heirs " were designed to inherit ½ of the value agreed by both parties on the house which was in the plot of land located in Remera, Kacyiru, Rukiri I for which the expropriation compensation was calculated by the City of Kigali".

They aver that in paragraph 13 of the case RCA 00417/2018/HC/KIG, the High Court found that on 23/6/2004 Bizimana Augustin applied to the City of Kigali for a commercial plot and it was measured, and he was granted the cadastral plan n0 10184 which indicates that he was granted the land measuring 21 ares 49 ca. Since the land he was granted was occupied by others, the City of Kigali required him to provide compensation, he so did, as evidenced by Invoice nº 22564/VK of 8/7/2004, where he paid a compensation equal to 13,313,218 Frw to the Commercial Bank of Rwanda (BCR), and that on 22/11/2004 he paid other 4,666,451 Frw of expropriation on Invoice nº 28368/VK, and the payment was made for expropriation.

It is recalled that in paragraph 21 of the case RCA00417/2018/HC/KIG, the High Court said : “according to the Ombudsman's report and various elements of evidence, the expropriation was carried out, the plot of land has been granted as evidenced by the documents of the City of Kigali which granted that plot", then in paragraph 26 of the case, the High Court has stated : "Bizimana did not fraudlently obtain the land of Succession Butera Emile, but he has been granted it by the competent authority. As upheld by the Court, the City of Kigali did not commit an error nor violate the law that would warrant depriving Bizimana of this land since he provided fair compensation". They also add that for this reason, along with many others, the High Court declared that "the land measuring 4 ares 75 ca belonged to the heirs of Butera Emile located with UPI : 1/02/13/03/815, would be retained by Bizimana Augustin”.

They also submit that the claim of the appellants that the disputed land belongs to the heirs of Butera Emile is not true, because since the beginning of the case up to date they have never had the right to the property of the land, because when Kasine Felecita sued them, the case was the house of the late Butera Emile and his wife Mukankurunziza Cansilide, and the Court made a decision that the heirs of the deceased would inherit the expropriation value and that this is confirmed by the letter nº271/6.04/05 of 14/09/2005, where the Court which was trying the succession case requested the City of Kigali to halt any work on the disputed house. Therefore, apart from relying on the letter nº 1345/07/01.02/2014, the appellants have no right to claim the government land on which Butera Emile had constructed a house.

Counsels for Batsinda Camile who also represent Mukandoli Marcelle, Mukabatsinda Annonciata and Kasine Felesita argue that what has been mentioned above by the counsels for Bizimana Augustin have been mentioned here for the first time and were not introduced in previous proceedings, that they require to the Court of Appeal to dismiss it because the disputed property originates from Butera Emile, as evidenced by the cadastral plan and the construction permit submitted in IECMS, which have been presented to the lower courts since the beginning of the case proceedings. The appellants have the right to claim the property based on the case RC0180/010/TB/KMA decided on 29/09/2010.

Regarding the aforementioned cadastral plan, Counsels for Bizimana Augustin reply that it should not considered as reliable as it does not bear the signature of the person who established it and the offical stamp of the State. They add that the statement that the land measuring 4 ares 75 ca belongs to the heirs of Butera Emile, is not true, the aforementioned land has never belonged to

## Page 6

the heirs of Butera Emille and Mukankurunziza Cansilide because from 1994 to 25/06/2003 when the claim of Kasine Felicité was registered in court, apart from being the property of the heirs, that it had never belonged to the late Butera Emile and Mukankurunziza Cansilde because while they were still alive the land was the property of the State1. Therefore, for that reason, on any day or any hour, that land property never became the property of the heirs of Butera Emile, and that whenever the heirs of Butera Emile had the right to inherit, such right was equal to the rights of the brothers of Mukankurunziza Cansilde and the latters have already inherited a part of the value of the disputed property as ordered by the Court. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The dispute on this issue is based on whether the way the land with a surface of 4 ares 75 ca previously owned by the late Butera Emile was included as part of the plot nº UPI: 1/02/13/03/815 of Bizimana Augustin, was lawful, where the appellants aver that it was done in a fraudulent manner while in deciding the appealed case, the High Court erred in ruling that the procedure complied with the law, while the counsels of Bizimana Augustin stated that the High Court did not err in ruling that he should retain the plot because the land was granted to him by the competent government authority in 20042 after paying the required fair compensation.

Paragraph 1 of article 12 of Law n0 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that "The claimant must prove a claim, failing which, the respondent wins the case".

The case file indicates that on 23/6/2004 Bizimana Augustin applied to the City of Kigali for a commercial plot in order to implement the City master plan, and it was granted to him because the plot was measured and the cadastral plan n0 10184 was attributed on the land with a surface of 21 ares 49 ca.

The case file also indicates that the plot of land granted to Bizimana Augustin was the land that was previously occupied by the activities of other people, because the City of Kigali requested him to firstly provide the compensation for it as evidenced by invoice n0 22564/VK of 8/7/ 2004 for a payment equal to 13,313,218 Frw and invoice n0 28368/VK of 22/11/2004 for a payment equal to 4,666,451 Frw, both of them show that the money was deposited to the account of the City of Kigali in the Commercial Bank of Rwanda (BCR) for expropriation activities.

The case file indicates that the City of Kigali wrote to Batsinda Camille, who represents the heirs of Butera Emile, the letter n0 5152/07.11.10/04 of 21/9/2004 requesting him to come and see the value of his immovable property, and the letter n0 5256/0711.10/2004 of 29/9/2004

1 In Ministry of Lands, Environment, Forests, Water and Mines, National Land Policy, February 2004, p. 26 where it is mentioned that: “According to custom, land ownership is held by whoever occupies the land first. This rule has always been respected in our society. However, in modern times, land acquisition by occupation has become obsolete since all vacant land belongs to the State. Likewise, the provisions of the decree-law No. 09/76 of 4th March 1976, article 1, stipulates that “… all land not held under the written law and affected or not by customary law or land occupation belongs to the State”. 2 BIZIMANA Augustin argues that he paid for it the compensation amounting to 13.313.218 Frw in the Commercial Bank BCR on Invoice nº 22564/VK of 08/07/2004, and on 22/11/2004 he paid another amount of 4.666.451 Frw on Invoice nº 28368/VK for expropriation

## Page 7

requesting him to look for estate valuer that had to work with the City of Kigali to revise the valuation in the above-mentioned plot n0 10184 as he had not agreed with the initial valuation. As it also appears in the case file, on 22/10/2004, the City of Kigali, based on those letters, wrote to him again informing him that the time he was given had expired, that the amount corresponding to the value of his immovable property in the above mentioned plot was deposited into the account of the City of Kigali, and he is required to come and collect it and immediately vacate the plot not later than fifteen (15) days.

The case file also indicates that Batsinda Camille did not comply with the request to vacate the plot that had already been paid for the activities that were in that plot, because it also indicates that on 18/11/2004 the City of Kigali took a written decision to demolish. This has not yet been implemented because on 10/01/2005 the Mayor of the City of Kigali once again wrote to Batsinda Camille informing him that the valuation of his property in the plot n0 10184 has been completed, and granted him another seven-day notice to reassess the valuation if he had not agreed with it, even on 4/29/2005 Batsinda Camille was again asked by this administration to reassess this valuation within four (4) days, but instead of implementing this administrative request, on 13/5/2005 he wrote to the City of Kigali seeking for justice. On 19/7/2005, the City of Kigali wrote to the Police requesting its assistance to forcibly evict Batsinda Camille from the plot n0 10184 because he had refused to vacate it amicably without providing any justification and Bizimana Augustin should proceed with what he was assigned to do.

The case file indicates that even after the aforementioned decision to forcibly remove the activities of Batsinda Camille’s family in the plot no 10184, which was awarded to Bizimana Augustin, this Batsinda Camille kept on being requested by various government authorities to go to the City of Kigali to collect the amount of money of the compensation that was calculated but he declined3, instead he decided to take his case to other authorities who also advised him to go and collect the amount of the compensation that was calculated but he did not agree and he continued the judicial process4.

The Court finds that, according to the law, the High Court stated that Bizimana Augustin requested a commercial plot to the City of Kigali in accordance with Decree-Law n0 21/79 of July 23, 1979 relating to expropriation in public interest adopted by the Law n° 01/82 of 26/01/1982, the plot had already been granted but the Law n° 18/2007 of 19/04/2007 relatig to expropriation in public interest which was published before being able to do anything in this plot because Batsinda Camille kept institing to staty in this plot and not collecting the amount of money that was calculated.

3 On 20/8/2005, a letter was sent to him requesting him to come and collect the compensation, on 21/9/2005 he was reminded again that he must not exceed on 24/9/2005. On 22/10/2007, he received a letter from Gasabo District requesting him to go to the City of Kigali to collect a cheque equal to his share because KASINE Felicité had already received her share, in accordance with the court's order in case RC 0127/04/TP/KIG on the inheritance of the late BUTERA Emile and his wife. 4 See in the case file the report of the Office of the Ombudsman of 12/11/2008 where after analyzing this issue submitted by BATSINDA, the Office requested him to approach the City of Kigali to collect his share of the compensation, and also informed him that BIZIMANA Augustin has full rights to use his land in accordance with what was allowed to him by the competent administrative authorities.

## Page 8

Based on the elements of evidence and explanations mentioned above on which relied the High Court in adjudicating the appealed case5, this instant Court finds that Batsinda Camille, Mukandoli Marcelle and Mukabatsinda Annociata share the pleadings, and in this appeal they keep on loosing the case due to their inability to present elements of evidence of fraud to prove that Bizimana Augustin, the respondent, used so that he and his wife, Mukamana Dancille, should be registered as the owners of the immovable property registered on UPI 1/02/13/03/815, as provided in article 12 of Law n0 22/2018 mentioned above. Like the High Court that ruled on the appealed case, this instant Court also finds that Bizimana Augustin became the owner of this property granted to him by the competent government authority after complying with all the requirements in accordance with the provisions of the law relating to the expropriation in the public interest into force by that time, the fact that the heirs of Butera Emile, represented by Batsinda Camille, refused to collect the amount of the compensation calculated for them is a matter that must remain between them and the City of Kigali that expropriated them and was given the amount calculated as compensation, this issue does not affect the legal rights granted to Bizimana Augustin as the property owner, allowing him to use the property as allowed by law. Therefore, the appeal of Batsinda Camille, Mukandoli Marcelle and Mukabatsinda Annociata is groundless on this issue.  ii. Determine whether various damages to be paid by BATSINDA Camile, MUKANDOLI Marcelle and MUKABATSINDA Annonciata should be dismissed

Counsel Nubumwe Jean Bosco and Counsel Ngarambe Raphael Counsels for Batsinda Camile, and who represent Mukandoli Marcelle, Mukabatsinda Annonciata and Kasine Felesita requested the Court of Appeal to dismiss the various damages to be paid by Batsinda Camile, Mukandoli Marcelle and Mukabatsinda Annonciata as ordered by the Court, because they were prejudiced by being fraudulently deprived of their relative's property.

Bizimana Augustin and his counsels request the Court of Appeal to consider the matter at its discretion, based on the fact that Batsinda Camile and his relatives are the ones who brought him into lawsuits, and they knew that they were claiming the rights not granted to them by the Court in the case RC0127/04/TP/KIG. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The Court finds that the various damages claimed by the appellants to be dismissed are those described by the Court that rendered the judgment under appeal in its paragraph 33, page 11. The damages ordered by the Court to be paid by the appellants to Bizimana Augustin amounted to 5,000,000 Frw because the the heirs of Butera Emile impeded him to use the plot of land that the City of Kigali had granted to him in accordance with the law, they refused to receive the compensation and accused him into administrative authorities, 1,500,000 Frw for counsel's fee due to the time the case was lasting, and order the reimburse the court fee of 40,000 Frw.

The Court finds that the grounds on which Batsinda Camile, Mukandoli Marcelle and Mukabatsinda Annonciata base their request that these damages should not be considered are that they were allegedly abused by Bizimana Augustin fraudulently taking their brother's property, and

5 See the detailed explanation given by the High Court on this issue in paragraphs 13-28 of the appealed judgment.

## Page 9

this ground of appeal is unfounded because, as explained above, the disputed property was granted to Bizimana Augustin by a competent authority in accordance with the law.  iii. Determine whether the appellants should be granted the claimed moral damages and damages for being dragged into unnecessary lawsuits

The appellants requested to the Court to order to Bizimana Augustin to pay to them moral damages amounting to ten million (10,000,000 Frw), which they requested in the High Court, which refused to award them, because they fraudulently registered the land as the heirs of Butera Emile. They also requested the Court to order to him to pay them damages for being dragged into unnecessary lawsuits amounting to five million (5,000,000 Frw).

Bizimana Augustin and his counsels argue that the ten million (10,000,000 Frw) of moral damages claimed by the appellants are unjustified, and that Bizimana Augustin should instead be awarded the compensation for pecuniary loss of such amount, because he was denied the right to build a modern house that he had benefited for 16 years of litigation in the courts and administrative organs.

Regarding the damages requested by the appellants for for being dragged into unnecessary lawsuits, they state that Bizimana Augustin trusts the Court's discretion in determining who brought the other party into court, asserting that he was not the one who initiated the case and argues that he, instead, should be awarded damages of fifteen million (15,000,000 Frw) for being dragged into unnecessary lawsuits since 2009. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The Court finds that the grounds on which Batsinda Camile, Mukandoli Marcelle and Mukabatsinda Annonciata base their claim for these damages are that they were illegally deprived of their property and were dragged into unnecessary lawsuits, this ground of appeal is unfounded because, as explained above, the disputed property was granted to Bizimana Augustin by a competent authority in accordance with the law. Furthermore, no lawsuits were initiated against them ; rather, they were the ones who filed a claim against him, which, as explained above, was found to be baseless.

Regarding the damages claimed by Bizimana Augustin, this instant Court finds them unjustified because those he requested in the appealed case were awarded at the Court's discretion, and he raised no criticisms regarding them in this appeal.  iv. Regarding the procedural fees and counsel’s fees requested by the parties.

Counsel Ngarambe Raphaël and Counsel Nubumwe Jean Bosco, assisting Batsinda Camile, also representing Mukandoli Marcelle, Mukabatsinda Annonciata and Kasine Félicité request to the Court of Appeal to order to Bizimana Augustin to pay to the appellants the procedural and counsel’s fees amounting to 5.000.000Frw based on the scale of advocates’ fee.

Bizimana Augustin argues in his defense that the damages requested by the appellants are unjustified. He requests that the Court should examine and find that he is instead the one to be

## Page 10

entitled to procedural and counsel’s fees who assisted him since 2009, and to award him an amount equal to 18,000,000 Frw. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 111 of Law n° 22/2018 of 29/04/ relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides the following : “The claim for representation fees is an incidental claim to the principal claim aiming to repay expenses incurred during judicial proceedings. The claim for legal costs is adjudicated at the same time with the principal claim. It can also be admitted and adjudicated even if the principal claim has not been admitted. ” ;

The Court finds that the procedural fees and counsel’s fees requested by the appellants are not justified as they lost this case at the principal claim. It finds that Bizimana Augustin is the one who is entitled to them because he has hired lawyers to defend him and the case has been heard many times and for a long time at this instance. It finds, but, that 18,000,000 Frw requested is excessive, and therefore, in the Court’s discretion, Batsinda Camile, Mukandoli Marcelle and Mukabatsinda Annonciata should be ordered to jointly pay to Bizimana Augustin 1,000,000 Frw for counsel’s fees and 500,000 Frw for procedural fees at this instance, in addition to the fees ordered in the appealed case. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Declares the appeal filed by Batsinda Camile, Mukandoli Marcelle and Mukabatsinda Annonciata unfounded ;

Declares the ruling of the High Court of the case RCA00417/2018/HC/KIG decided on 09/10/2020 sustained in all its parts ;

Orders to Batsinda Camile, Mukandoli Marcelle and Mukabatsinda Annonciata to jointly pay to Bizimana Augustin 1,000,000 Frw for counsel’s fees and 500,000 Frw for procedural fee at this instance ;

Holds that the court fees deposited by the appellants cover the expenses of the proceedings.