RLR-V.3- 2015

# RLR-V.3- 2015

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Rwanda law reports - Date: 2015-07-30 - Collection: Supreme Court

## Text

## Page 1

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

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

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO RWANDA LAW REPORTS Icyegeranyo V. 1 - 2015 Mutarama, 2015 Icyegeranyo V. 3 - 2015 Nyakanga, 2015 Law Report V. 3 - 2015 July, 2015

## Page 2

Cyateguwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga

Cyatewe inkunga na Ambasade y’Ubuholandi & ICF

## Page 3

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO KINYARWANDA ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO IKINYARWANDA

## Page 5

i

ISHAKIRO IRIBURIRO .............................................................................. vii IBIKUBIYE MURI IKI CYEGERANYO................................. ix AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO ........................................... x IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE ...................................................xiii AMAGAMBO MPINE ............................................................ xiv BINAMUNGU v. OFISI Y’IGIHUGU Y’AMAPOSITA (ONP) ..................................................................................................... 1 ARPEQ v. SEGATABAZI ....................................................... 21 HABIMANA v. REKAYABO ................................................. 29 HARERIMANA N’ABANDI v. SEBUKAYIRE .................... 37 NYIRAHABYARIMANA N’UNDI v. NTEZIRYAYO ......... 57 BIZIMANA v. CIMERWA Ltd ................................................ 69 GAJU v. ACCESS BANK ........................................................ 77 HYDROBATEL Ltd v. KAREKEZI ........................................ 91 IKIGO CY’IGIHUGU CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO v. THE WORLD EXPRESS LTD ....................................................... 107 MBERABAGABO N’ABANDI v. FIAT AMELIE N’UNDI 119 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. BAGORA ...................................... 149 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HABYARIMANA ......................... 155

## Page 6

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO ii UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MURINDA ET AL ........................ 163 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NKUBIRI N’ABANDI .................. 175 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NTAKIRUTIMANA ..................... 189

## Page 7

iii

ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI ITSINDA RY’ABANYAMATEGEKO BATEGUYE IMANZA BAGABO Faustin HAKUZIMANA Ildephonse KABERA Jean Claude KAGABO U. Stephanie MUJABI K. Naphtal MUNYENSANGA Chrysostome MWIHOREZE Claudine NTIHEMUKA Emmanuel SAFARI Gahizi UWIMANA Gisèle

## Page 8

iv

KOMITE YEMEZA IMANZA MUGENZI Louis Marie : Perezida wa Komite Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga Prof. Dr. NGAGI M. Alphonse : Visi perezida wa Komite Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rw’Ikirenga RUTAZANA Angeline : Umwanditsi wa Komite Umugenzuzi w’Inkiko BWIZA N. Blanche : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru DUSHIMINAMA Claudine : Umushinjacyaha ku rwego Rw’Igihugu

Me GAKUNZI Valery : Avoka mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka

GIRANEZA Clémentine : Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze

HABARUREMA Jean pierre : Umushinjacyaha ku Rwego rw’Igihugu

Cpt. KABERUKA Jean Claude : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare

## Page 9

ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI v KALIWABO Charles : Perezida w’Urukiko Rukuru

Me KAYIHURA Didace : Avoka mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka

KIBUKA Jean Luc : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi

MUREREREHE Saouda : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru

NYIRINKWAYA Immaculée : Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga

RUBANGO K. Epimaque : Intumwa ya Leta

RUKUNDAKUVUGA F. Regis : Umugenzuzi Mukuru w’Inkiko

## Page 11

vii

IRIBURIRO Basomyi bacu, Urwego rw’Ubucamanza runejejwe no gutangaza nomero ya gatatu y’icyegeranyo cy’ibyemezo by’inkiko mu mwaka wa 2015. Dukomeje kubashimira, basomyi bacu, ko mudahwema kutugezaho ibitekerezo byanyu mushima aka gatabo, munatwereka aho mwifuza ko hanozwa kurushaho. Ibi bizatuma turushaho kubagezaho icyegeranyo gikozwe neza kandi gifitiye akamaro abantu b’ingeri zitandukanye bahura n’ibibazo by’amategeko mu mwuga wabo. Muri iyi nomero y’icyegeranyo cy’ibyemezo by’inkiko murasangamo imanza cumi n’eshanu zikubiyemo imanza enye (4) mbonezamubano, imanza enye (4) z’ubucuruzi, urubanza rumwe (1) rw’ubutegetsi, urubanza rumwe (1) rw’umurimo n’imanza eshanu (5) nshinjabyaha. Tuboneyeho kubamenyesha ko 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 Dukomeje gushishikariza abantu bose bifashisha amategeko mu kazi kwitabira gukoresha iki cyegeranyo. Prof. Sam RUGEGE Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga Perezida w’Inama Nkuru y’Ubucamanza kuri http://decisia.lexum.com/rlr/kn/nav.do munyuze

## Page 13

ix

IBIKUBIYE MURI IKI CYEGERANYO Iki cyegeranyo gikubiyemo imanza zaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, Urukiko Rukuru n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi zikoreshwa hakurikijwe inyito ivugwa hasi. INYITO Imanza ziri muri iyi volime zikoreshwa muri ubu buryo: [2015] 3 RLR

## Page 14

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo kuwa 4 Kamena 2003 nk’uko ryavuguruwe kugeza ubu, ingingo ya 18................................................................................................... Itegeko-Ngenga N° 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 28(5)............................................................................ Itegeko Ngenga n° 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 Rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 4................. Itegeko Nº 43/2013 ryo kuwa 16/06/2013 rigenga ubutaka mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 5, iya 20 n’iya 73.......................................... Itegeko nº 30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 85..................................................................... ingingo ya 35, 165............................................................. ingingo ya 183................................................................... Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 311................................................................... ingingo ya 12..................................................................... ingingo ya 186, igika cya 3 n’icya 6................................. ingingo ya 162................................................................... ingingo za 163(1)............................................................... ingingo ya 118................................................................... x

191 23 177 42 177 123 94 165 123 59 156 123 42

## Page 15

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO xi Itegeko nº 45/2011 ryo kuwa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, ingingo ya 142............................................................................... Itegeko nº 13/2009 ryo kuwa 27/05/2009 rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 32................................................................. Itegeko-ngenga N° 51/2008 ryo ku wa 09/09/2008 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’inkiko, ingingo ya 106 (1°)................................................................................................. Itegeko no 005/2008 ryo kuwa 14/02/2008 ryerekeye ubukemurampaka n’ubwunzi mu bibazo by’ubucuruzi, ingingo ya 6................................................................................................ Itegeko nº15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 3................................... Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 ryerekeye amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258…………………………………................... ingingo ya 258................................................................... ingingo ya 258................................................................... ingingo ya 555................................................................... Itegeko-Teka no21/77 ryo ku wa 18/8/1977 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ibyaha mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 82, 83, 311....................................................... ingingo ya 431(40)............................................................. ingingo ya 82..................................................................... Iteka rya Perezida Nº 97/01 ryo kuwa 18/06/2014 rigena imikorere n’ububasha by’Umubitsi w’Impapuro Mpamo, ingingo ya 6(1o) n’iya 10(5o) ........................................................ 177 4 110 94 30 94 110 177 123 191 150 42 79

## Page 16

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO xii Itegeko Ngenga Nº 08/2005 ryo kuwa 14/07/2005 rigena imikoreshereze n’imicungire y’ubutaka mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 5 .................................................................................................... Itegeko Ngenga n° 01/2004 ryo kuwa 29/01/2004 ryerekeye imitunganyirize, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 47(1)............................................................................ Itegeko nº 27/1983 ryo kuwa 15/11/1983 rishyiraho uburenganzira bw’umuhanzi, ingingo za 1, 9, 10, 34, 53 igika cya 3, n’iya 80............................................................................... 42 59 4

## Page 17

xiii

IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE MAERSK RWANDA Ltd v. SONARWA SA, RCOMA 0134/11/CS, rwaciwe n’urukiko rw‘Ikirenga, kuwa 3/5/2013….. Ubushinjacyaha v. Ntawiringiribyisi, RPA 0258/08/CS rwaciwe n’urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 30/11/2009……………………….. Association Umwungeri v. Mushayija, RADA 00034/09/CS rwaciwe n’urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 12/02/2010…………….... Ubushinjacyaha v. Kambanda, RPAA 0054/09/CS, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 30/06/2011……………………….. 59 60 60 30

## Page 18

xiv

AMAGAMBO MPINE Amategeko agamije kurengera umutungo bwite mu by’ubwenge – Uburenganzira bw’umuhanzi – Imikoreshereze y’igihangano cyahererekanyijwe – Igihangano cy’umwimerere ni igikorwa kigaragaza uwagihanze mu bikigize no mu miterere yacyo cyangwa mu miterere yacyo gusa – Usibye ikimenyetso cyabivuguruza, nyiri igihangano ni umuntu wagaragaje izina rye cyangwa irihimbano kuri icyo gihangano ku buryo nta gushidikanya kuri uwo mwirondoro we – Umuhanzi w’igihangano afite uburenganzira bwihariye bwo gukora cyangwa kwemeza ko hakorwa igikorwa kimwe ku gihangano cyose cyangwa ku gice cyacyo nko kugituburamo kimwe cyangwa byinshi, kugikora mu bundi buryo cyangwa kugitangaza muri rubanda – Gutanga kopi imwe rukumbi cyangwa kopi nyinshi z’igihangano cy’umuhanzi ntibivuga ko uburenganzira bw‘umuhanzi kuri icyo gihangano butanzwe – Itegeko nº 27/1983 ryo kuwa 15/11/1983 rishyiraho uburenganzira bw’umuhanzi, ingingo za 1, 9, 10, 34, 53 igika cya 3, n’iya 80. BINAMUNGU v. OFISI Y’IGIHUGU Y’AMAPOSITA (ONP)............................................... Amategeko agenga amasezerano – Kuvutswa amahirwe – Indishyi z’amafaranga imodoka yagombaga kwinjiza ikoreshwa mu gutwara abantu – Zitangwa ari uko uzaka agaragaza nta shiti ko iyo modoka yagombaga gukoreshwa mu gutwara abantu – Amafaranga 1

## Page 19

AMAGAMBO MPINE xv y’ikurikiranarubanza – kugira ngo atangwe ni uko uyaka agaragaza ingano y’ayo yakoresheje, iyo atabigaragaje Urukiko ruyagena mu bushishozi bwarwo – Itegeko nº 45/2011 ryo kuwa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, ingingo ya 142. IKIGO CY’IGIHUGU CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO v. THE WORLD EXPRESS LTD… Amategeko agenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa – Amasezerano y’ubwishingire – Kumenyesha umwishingizi mu buryo bweruye – Umwenda wishingiwe, ukishyurwa uwawuhawe agahabwa undi – Umwishingizi ntiyaryozwa umwenda atigeze amenyeshwa mu buryo bweruye n’uwawutanze kuko aba ari inshingano ze zo kumenyesha umwishingizi imiterere n’ingano n’inshingano asezeranye. GAJU v. ACCESS BANK............................................. Indishyi zo gushorwa mu manza n’igihembo cya avoka – Nta ndishyi zo gushorwa mu manza umuburanyi yahabwa mu gihe nta mpanvu yazo, ariko iyo hari ingingo yungukiye mu bujurire agenerwa igihembo cya Avoka mu bushishozi bw’urukiko mu gihe amwitabaje. GAJU v. ACCESS BANK............................................ Indishyi – Gushorwa mu manza – Abarega bakwiye guhabwa indishyi zo gushorwa mu manza n’igihembo cy’avoka kuko byatumye abarega bagana inkiko kandi bagira n’ibyo batakaza – Indishyi z’akababaro abarega basaba ntibakwiye kuzihabwa kuberako uregwa 77 77 107

## Page 20

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO xvi yafashe ikibanza kiburanwa kandi acyubakamo nta buryarya – Indishyi n’igihembo cy‘Avoka uregwa asaba ntazihabwa mu gihe ntacyo agaragaza yangirijwe kandi ari we nyirabayazana w’imanza. HARERIMANA N’ABANDI v. SEBUKAYIRE....... Indishyi z’ikurikirana rubanza – Mu gihe ikirego gifite ishingiro indishyi z’ibigenda mu rubanza ziratangwa. IKIGO CY’IGIHUGU CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO v. THE WORLD EXPRESS LTD… Uburyozwe – Indishyi z’ubukode – Uwavukije undi ubukode yitwaje ko yaguze muri cyamunara, nyamara yarafatanyije n’uwateje cyamunara kutubahiriza amategeko, bafatanya kumwishyura indishyi – Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 ryerekeye amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258. MBERABAGABO N’ABANDI v. FIAT AMELIE N’UNDI.......................................................................... Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha – Ifungwa rinyuranije n’amategeko – Gufungwa mu gihe hatanzwe ubujurire ku rubanza rwaciwe rudategeka ko uwarezwe ahita afungwa – Mu gihe Urukiko rwaciye urubanza rutigeze rutegeka ko uwahamwe n’icyaha ahita afungwa cyangwa ngo byemezwe n’Urukiko rwajuririwe, gufunga uwaciriwe urubanza biba binyuranije n’amategeko – Itegeko nº 30/2013 ryo kuwa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, n’ingingo ya 183. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HABYARIMANA.............. 37 107 120 155

## Page 21

xvii ii Intera itandukanya uvuga ko yabonye icyaha n’aho cyakorewe – Kuvuguruzanya kw’abatangabuhamya – Kuvuguruzanya kw’abatangabuhamya gutera gushidikanya bikarengera ushinjwa – Itegeko nº 30/2013 ryo kuwa 24/5/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, Ingingo ya 35. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MURINDA ET AL............. Kwemera icyaha – Kugabanyirizwa ibihano – Kuba uwarezwe yaremeye icyaha mu buryo bwuzuye, bituma agabanyirizwa ibihano. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MURINDA ET AL............. Ibimenyetso bishinja – ubushinjacyaha […] nibwo bugomba gutanga ibimenyetso byemeza icyaha – Itegeko nº 30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 85. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NKUBIRI N’ABANDI....... Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano – Kugobokesha umuburanyi mu rubanza – Kugobokesha Umuburanyi bwa mbere mu bujurire kandi ashobora kugira ibyo acibwa ntibyemewe – ibitararegewe mu rwego rwa mbere ntibyasuzumwa mu rwego rw’ubujurire – Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 118. HARERIMANA N’ABANDI v. SEBUKAYIRE....... AMAGAMBO MPINE 163 163 175 37

## Page 22

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO xviii Ubujurire mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga – Icyemezo cy’ibanzirizasuzuma – Itariki-fatizo mu kubara ibihe by’ubujurire ku muburanyi wari mu iburanisha rya nyuma akamenyeshwa umunsi w’isomwa ry’urubanza ariko uwo munsi wagera isomwa rikimurirwa ku wundi munsi – Imenyeshwa ry’urubanza – Iyo umuburanyi yitabye mu iburanisha rya nyuma akamenyeshwa umunsi w’isomwa ry’urubanza, ibihe byo kujurira bitangira kubarwa guhera ku munsi isomwa ryabereyeho kabone n’iyo yaba atari ahari cyangwa adahagarariwe – Iyo umuburanyi atitabiriye umuhango w’isomwa ry’urubanza, ntibibuza ko urwo rubanza rukomeza gufatwa nk’urwaburanishijwe ababuranyi bo ku mpande zombi bahari – Nta na hamwe hateganyijwe ko umuburanyi wari mu iburanisha rya nyuma kandi watangarijwe itariki urubanza ruzasomwaho agomba kumenyeshwa imikirize y’urubanza kabone n’ubwo isomwa ryaba ryimuriwe ku wundi munsi – Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo za 163(1) – Itegeko Ngenga n° 01/2004 ryo kuwa 29/01/2004 ryerekeye imitunganyirize, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 47(1). NYIRAHABYARIMANA N’UNDI v. NTEZIRYAYO............................................................. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubucuruzi – Indishyi z’akababaro – Gushorwa mu manza ku maherere – Umuburanyi usabye indishyi z’akababaro zituruka ku gushorwa mu manza ku maherere 57

## Page 23

xix ntazihabwa iyo Urukiko rusanze uzisabwa yari afite uburenganzira bwo kujurira – Itegeko no 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 162. HYDROBATEL Ltd v. KAREKEZI.......................... Gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya – Impamvu z’akarengane – Umuburanyi ntiyavuga ko Urukiko rwaciye urubanza rusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane gakabije rutari rufite ububasha mu gihe rwafashe icyemezo rushingiye ku ngingo z’amategeko zirebana no gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya kandi n’ababuranyi bakaba arizo bashingiyeho mu myanzuro yabo itanga ikirego – Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano , iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 186, igika cya 3 n’icya 6. MBERABAGABO N’ABANDI v. FIAT AMELIE N’UNDI.......................................................................... Kwiyambaza icyarimwe inzira ebyiri z’ubujurire ku rubanza rumwe – Ntibifatwa nko kwiyambaza inzira ebyiri z’ubujurire mu gihe umuburanyi yaretse urubanzakuri imwe mu nzira yari yatangiye – Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 12. MBERABAGABO N’ABANDI v. FIAT AMELIE N’UNDI.......................................................................... AMAGAMBO MPINE 119 91 119 urubanza kuri imwe mu nzira yari yatangiye

## Page 24

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO xx Gucungura icyagombaga gutezwa cyamunara – Agaciro k’ubugure bugamije ubwicungure mbere ya cyamunara – Umuntu wese cyangwa urimo umwenda ashobora igihe cyose mu nyungu z‘uwafatiriwe n’uberewemo umwenda, ariko mbere ya cyamunara gucungura ibyafatiriwe – Amasezerano y’ubugureagamije ubwicungure bw’ibyafatiriwe aba afite agaciro – Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 311. MBERABAGABO N’ABANDI v. FIAT AMELIE N’UNDI.......................................................................... Amategeko agenga imisoro – Igenagaciro ry’ibintu byatumijwe mu mahanga – Mu Kugena agaciro k’icyatumijwe mu mahanga, umusoresha ntashingira ku gaciro k’ibintu byenda kuba bimwe, cyangwa gusa kandi biva mu gihugu kimwe mu gihe usora yagaragaje agaciro k’ikiguzi cyacyo – Itegeko nº15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 3; IKIGO CY’IGIHUGU CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO v. THE WORLD EXPRESS LTD… Amategeko agenga ingwate – Ingwate ku nzu y’umuryango – Agaciro k’ingwate ku nzu y’umuryango yatanzwe umwishingizi atabimenyeshejwe – Ingwate yemewe n’umwishingizi ku nguzanyo yishingiye, uwo mwenda ukishurwa, ntiyafatwa nk’ingwate ku wundi mwenda 119 107

## Page 25

xxi i wafashwe mu gihe atabimenyeshejwe ngo agire icyo abivugaho. GAJU v. ACCESS BANK............................................ Amategeko agenga ububasha bw’Inkiko – Ubujurire – Inzitizi yo kutakira ubujurire – Ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga bwo kuburanisha mu rwego rw’ubujurire imanza zaciwe mu rwego rwa kabiri n’Urukiko Rukuru – Mu gihe impamvu zashingiweho ku rwego rwa mbere zitandukanye n’izashingiweho n’urukiko mu rwego rw’ubujurire, umuburanyi yemerewe kujurira mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga – Itegeko-Ngenga N° 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 28(5). ARPEQ v. SEGATABAZI…………………………... Amategeko agenga ubukemurampaka – Amasezerano y’ubutumwa bw’ubukemurampaka – Kongera amasezerano y’ubutumwa bw’ubukemurampaka mu buryo buteruye – Amasezerano y’ubutumwa bw’ubukemurampaka afatwa nk’aho yongerewe igihe mu buryo buteruye, iyo igihe yagombaga kumara cyarangiye ariko ababuranyi bagakomeza kwitabira imihango y’ubukemurampaka. HYDROBATEL Ltd v. KAREKEZI.......................... Umwanzuro w’ubukemurampaka – Ivanwaho ry’umwanzuro w’abakemurampaka – Umwe mu biyambaje ubukemurampaka wirengagije uburenganzira bwe bwo kugaragaza ibyo atemera mu mwanzuro w’ubukemurampaka ntiyasaba ivanwaho AMAGAMBO MPINE 91 77 21

## Page 26

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO xxii ryawo – Itegeko no 005/2008 ryo kuwa 14/02/2008 ryerekeye ubukemurampaka n’ubwunzi mu bibazo by’ubucuruzi, ingingo ya 6. HYDROBATEL Ltd v. KAREKEZI.......................... Amategeko agenga ubutaka – Uburyo bwo kubona ubutaka no kubwiyandikishaho – Ubudahungabanywa bw’uburenganzira bwanditse mu cyangombwa cy’ubutaka – Uburenganzira ku butaka bushingira ku kuba nyirabwo yarabubonye ku bw’umuco, cyangwa se yarabuhawe n’urwego rubifitiye ububasha, cyangwa se yarabuguze – Ibyangombwa by’ubutaka bishobora guteshwa agaciro – Uwatunze ubutaka bw’abandi nta buryarya arabusubiza ariko akishyurwa agaciro k’ibyo yabushyizeho – Itegeko Ngenga Nº 08/2005 ryo kuwa 14/07/2005 rigena imikoreshereze n’imicungire y’ubutaka mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 5 – Iteka rya Perezida Nº 97/01 ryo kuwa 18/06/2014 rigena imikorere n’ububasha by’Umubitsi w’Impapuro Mpamo, ingingo ya 6(1o) n’iya 10(5o) – Itegeko Nº 43/2013 ryo kuwa 16/06/2013 rigenga ubutaka mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 5, iya 20 n’iya 73. HARERIMANA N’ABANDI v. SEBUKAYIRE....... Amategeko agenga Umurimo – Iseswa ry’amasezerano – Ikosa rikomeye – Amasezerano y’akazi ashobora guseswa nta nteguza iyo habaye ikosa rikomeye ry’umwe mu bayagiranye – Itegeko ry’umurimo ntiriteganya ko umukoresha aryozwa indishyi ku mpamvu zo kutamenyesha umukozi iryo kosa mu gihe cy’amasaha 48 – Itegeko nº 13/2009 ryo kuwa 91 37

## Page 27

xxiii 27/05/2009 rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 32. BIZIMANA v. CIMERWA Ltd.................................. Amategeko agenga umuryango – Ikirego cy’umwana ushaka kugira se – Ikimenyetso – Agaciro k’ikizamini cya ADN – Ibyemejwe n’ikizamini cya ADN ku byerekeye kumenya niba umwana n’ukekwaho kuba se bifatwaho ukuri, kuko gisohoka kigaragaza ko nta sano bafitanye cyangwa ko bafitanye isano iri hejuru ya 99 %. HABIMANA v. REKAYABO.................................... Amategeko Mpanabyaha – Guhishira undi ibyibano – igihe igihano cy’ubugome gishobora guhanishwa icyaha gikomokaho ibintu byahishwe, uwahishe azahanishwa igihano itegeko ryageneye icyo cyaha cy’ubugome n’impamvu zacyo azaba yaramenye mu gihe cy’ubuhishe […] – Itegeko Teka n° 21/77 ryo kuwa 18/08/1977 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 431(40). UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NKUBIRI N’ABANDI..... Imikoreshereze y’amategeko ahana – Amategeko ahana ntashobora gukoreshwa mu buryo butandukira, agomba gufatwa uko ateye – Itegeko Ngenga n° 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 Rishyiraho igitabo cy’ amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 4. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NKUBIRI N’ABANDI.... AMAGAMBO MPINE 69 29 175 175

## Page 28

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO xxiv Impamvu Nyoroshyacyaha – Umucamanza aha agaciro impamvu zigabanya ubugizi bwa nabi bw’uwakoze icyaha, ari izakibanjirije, ari izagiherekeje cyangwa izagikurikiye – Itegeko-Teka no21/77 ryo ku wa 18/8/1977 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ibyaha mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 82. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NTAKIRUTIMANA....... Indishyi – Indishyi zikomoka ku cyaha – Zigenwa mu bushishozi bw’urukiko hakurikijwe ingaruka z’icyaha cyakozwe – Ntawakongera gusaba indishyi mu gihe yazigenewe mu Rukiko rubanza. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MURINDA ET AL.......... Indishyi – Ikoreshwa ry’igihangano mu buryo butubahirije uburenganzira bw’umuhanzi – Igihembo cy’Avoka – Indishyi zituruka ku mikoreshereze inyuranyije n’amategeko y’igihangano zigenwa mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko – Umuburanyi wagombye gukomeza kwiyambaza umuburanira ku rwego rw’ubujurire ahabwa igihembo cy’avoka kuri urwo rwego – Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258. BINAMUNGU v. OFISI Y’IGIHUGU Y’AMAPOSITA (ONP)............................................ Indishyi zishingiye ku ngaruka icyaha cyari gutera umuntu utari ugambiriwe kugikorerwa – Uregera indishyi arazihabwa mu gihe icyaha cyashoboraga kumugiraho ingaruka, cyaramuteye ubwoba kandi 189 163 1

## Page 29

xxv kikamuhungabanya – Itegeko ryo ku wa 30 Nyakanga 1888 rigenga ibyerekeye amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. BAGORA.......................... Itegeko Nshinga – Uburenganzira bwo kunganirwa no kwiregura – Mu gihe umuburanyi n’umwunganira bagaragaje umwete muke mu gukurikirana urubanza rwabo, bikabangamira uburenganzira bw’abandi ndetse bikadindiza imikorere n’imigendekere myiza by’inzego z’ubutabera, hakemezwa ko urubanza ruburanishwa atunganiwe ntibyafatwa nko kumuvutsa uburenganzira bwo kunganirwa no kwiregura – Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’ u Rwanda ryo kuwa 4 Kamena 2003 nk’ uko ryavuguruwe kugeza ubu, ingingo ya 18. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NTAKIRUTIMANA....... AMAGAMBO MPINE 189 149

## Page 31

URUBANZA RW’UBUTEGETSI

## Page 33

1

BINAMUNGU v. OFISI Y’IGIHUGU Y’AMAPOSITA (ONP) [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RDA 0042/13/CS (Mukamulisa, P.J., Mukandamage na Gatete G., J.) 10 Ukwakira 2014] Amategeko agamije kurengera umutungo bwite mu by’ubwenge – Uburenganzira bw’umuhanzi – Imikoreshereze y’igihangano cyahererekanyijwe – Igihangano cy’umwimerere ni igikorwa kigaragaza uwagihanze mu bikigize no mu miterere yacyo cyangwa mu miterere yacyo gusa – Usibye ikimenyetso cyabivuguruza, nyiri igihangano ni umuntu wagaragaje izina rye cyangwa irihimbano kuri icyo gihangano ku buryo nta gushidikanya kuri uwo mwirondoro we – Umuhanzi w’igihangano afite uburenganzira bwihariye bwo gukora cyangwa kwemeza ko hakorwa igikorwa kimwe ku gihangano cyose cyangwa ku gice cyacyo nko kugituburamo kimwe cyangwa byinshi, kugikora mu bundi buryo cyangwa kugitangaza muri rubanda – Gutanga kopi imwe rukumbi cyangwa kopi nyinshi z’igihangano cy’umuhanzi ntibivuga ko uburenganzira bw‘umuhanzi kuri icyo gihangano butanzwe – Itegeko nº 27/1983 ryo kuwa 15/11/1983 rishyiraho uburenganzira bw’umuhanzi, ingingo za 1, 9, 10, 34, 53 igika cya 3, n’iya 80. Indishyi – Ikoreshwa ry’igihangano mu buryo butubahirije uburenganzira bw’umuhanzi – Igihembo cy’Avoka – Indishyi zituruka ku mikoreshereze inyuranyije n’amategeko y’igihangano zigenwa mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko – Umuburanyi wagombye gukomeza kwiyambaza umuburanira ku rwego rw’ubujurire ahabwa igihembo cy’avoka kuri urwo

## Page 34

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 2 rwego – Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258. Incamake y’ikibazo: Ofisi y’Igihugu y’amaposita (ONP) yatanze isoko ryo kuyikorera ibihangano byo gushyira ku matembure maze Binamungu Epaphrodite yitabira ipiganwa araritsinda kandi ibihangano bye bitanu ari byo patrimoine, Agaseke et sourires, Intore, les mains habiles na Danse mixte, aba aribyo bitsinda irushanwa. Binamungu yaje kurega ONP mu Rukiko Rukuru, avuga ko icyo kigo cyarakoresheje ibihangano bye mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amasezerano bagiranye kuko cyabitubuye, cyagiye kibicamo ibice ndetse kikanabihindura, maze abisabira indishyi zitandukanye zihwanye na 200,000,000Frw. Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko ONP itsinzwe kuko yarengereye mu ikoreshwa ry’ibihangano bya Binamungu, rumugenera indishyi zihwanye na 5.000.000Frw kuberako ibihangano bye byatubuwe kandi bigakorwamo amakarita y’Iposita (cartes postales) nta burenganzira Binamungu abitangiye. Rwanamugeneye indishyi zihwanye na 10.000.000Frw zo kuba ibihangano bye byaragiye bicibwamo kabiri mu gihe byakorwagamo amakarita ndetse n’izina rye ntirigaragare, na 1.000.000Frw y’igihembo cy’Avoka. Impande zombi ntizishimiye imikirize y’urubanza maze zijurira mu Rukiko rw’ikirenga, ONP ivuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwumvise nabi ibikubiye mu masezerano yabaye hagati y’impande zombi kubera ko rutibajije ikibazo cy’ingenzi cyo kumenya imiterere y’uburenganzira bwa Binamungu ku bihangano yahaye ONP binyuze mu ipiganwa kuko bishingiye ku muco (folklore) Binamungu akaba adashobora kubyita ibye kandi ko indishyi zagenwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rutarubahirije 200.000.000 Frw.

## Page 35

BINAMUNGU v. OFISI Y’IGIHUGU Y’AMAPOSITA (ONP) 3 ibivugwa mu Iteka rya Perezida rifite nº 276/14 ryo kuwa 6/5/1985, naho Binamungu we akavuga ko indishyi yagenewe ari nke. Yisobanura ku ngingo z’ubujurire za ONP avuga ko uburenganzira ku bihangano yahaye ONP bwareberwa ku kuba ari umwimerere we nk’uko bitegenywa n’ingingo ya 1 y’itegeko ryo kuwa 15/11/1983 rishyiraho uburenganzira bw’umuhanzi. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Igihangano cy’umwimerere ni igikorwa kigaragaza uwagihanze mu bikigize no mu miterere yacyo cyangwa mu miterere yacyo gusa. 2. Usibye ikimenyetso cyabivuguruza, nyiri igihangano ni umuntu wagaragaje izina rye cyangwa irihimbano kuri icyo gihangano ku buryo nta gushidikanya kuri uwo mwirondoro we. 3. Umuhanzi w’igihangano afite uburenganzira bwihariye bwo gukora cyangwa kwemeza ko hakorwa igikorwa kimwe ku gihangano cyose cyangwa ku gice cyacyo: kugituburamo kimwe cyangwa byinshi, kugikora mu bundi buryo cyangwa kugitangaza muri rubanda. 4. Gutanga kopi imwe rukumbi cyangwa kopi nyinshi z’igihangano cy’umuhanzi ntibivuga ko uburenganzira bw’umuhanzi kuri icyo gihangano butanzwe. 5. Indishyi zituruka ku mikoreshereze inyuranyije n’amategeko y’igihangano zigenwa mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko kandi izagenwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ziri mu kigero gikwiye. 6. Ku mafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka asabwa na Binamungu kuri uru rwego, Urukiko rusanga ONP igomba kuyamuha kuko byagaragaye ko yagombye gukomeza kwiyambaza umuburanira kuri uru rwego. Ariko kubera ko ayo asaba ari ikirenga, mu bushishozi bw’urukiko, akwiye guhabwa 500.000 Frw yiyongera kuri 1.000.000Frw yagenewe n’Urukiko Rukuru. BINAMUNGU v. OFISI Y’IGIHUGU Y’AMAPOSITA (ONP) 3 Frw

## Page 36

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 4 Ubujurire bwa Ofisi y’Igihugu y’Amaposita nta shingiro bufite. Ubujurire bwa Binamungu bufite ishingiro. Amagarama y’urubanza aherereye kuri Ofisi y’Igihugu y’Amaposita. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko nº 27/1983 ryo kuwa 15/11/1983 rishyiraho uburenganzira bw’umuhanzi, ingingo za 1, 34, 9, 53 igika cya 3, 10 na 80. Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Binamungu Epaphrodite yitabiriye ipiganwa ryatanzwe na Ofisi y’Igihugu y’amaposita (ONP) ryo kuyikorera amatembure, ibihangano bye bitanu, ari byo patrimoine, Agaseke et sourires, Intore, les mains habiles na Danse mixte, biratsinda. Nyuma Binamungu yareze ONP mu Rukiko Rukuru, avuga ko yatangajwe no kubona icyo kigo cyarakoresheje ibihangano bye mu buryo bunyuranye n’ibyo bari barumvikanye, irabitubura ndetse igenda ibicamo ibice iranabihindura, ari yo mpamvu yasabye guhabwa indishyi zitandukanye zihwanye na 200,000,000Frw. 200.000.000 Frw.

## Page 37

5 [2] Mu guca urubanza, Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko ONP itsinzwe kuko yarengereye mu ikoreshwa ry’ibihangano bya Binamungu. Rwageneye Binamungu indishyi zihwanye na 5.000.000Frw zo kuba ibihangano bye byaratubuwe, bigakorwamo amakarita y’Iposita (cartes postales) nta burenganzira Binamungu abitangiye. Rwanamugeneye indishyi zihwanye na 10.000.000Frw zo kuba ibihangano bye byaragiye bicibwamo kabiri mu gihe byakorwagamo amakarita ndetse n’izina rye ntirigaragare, na 1.000.000Frw y’igihembo cy’Avoka. [3] Impande zombi ntizishimiye imikirize y’urubanza maze zijuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, zinatanga imyanzuro ikubiyemo impamvu z’ubujurire. [4] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame kuwa 09/09/2014, Ofisi y’Igihugu y’Amaposita (ONP) iburanirwa na Me Ndagijimana Emmanuel, Binamungu Epaphrodite aburanirwa na Me Bundogo Innocent. II. ISESENGURA RY’IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA a) Kumenya niba Binamungu nta burenganzira yari afite ku bihangano yakoze apiganwa mu irushanwa ryakoreshejwe na ONP. [5] Me Ndagijimana Emmanuel uburanira Ofisi y‘Igihugu y’Amaposita (ONP) avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwumvise nabi ibikubiye mu masezerano yabaye hagati y’impande zombi kubera ko rutibajije ikibazo cy’ingenzi cyo kumenya imiterere y’uburenganzira bwa Binamungu ku bihangano yahaye ONP BINAMUNGU v. OFISI Y’IGIHUGU Y’AMAPOSITA (ONP)

## Page 38

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 6 binyuze mu ipiganwa. Anasanga Urukiko rutarasesenguye neza ibikubiye mu ngingo ya 9, igika cya nyuma n’iya 53 z’Itegeko nº 27/1983 ryo kuwa 15/11/1983 rishyiraho uburenganzira bw’umuhanzi1 ngo rubone ko Binamungu adashobora kwiyitirira ibihangano avuga kuko bishingiye ku muco (oeuvres folkloriques), akaba nta burenganzira abifiteho. [6] Muri urwo rwego akomeza atanga urugero avuga ko nta muhanzi wakwiyitirira Intore ngo avuge ko ari igihangano cye bwite, kubera ko bisanzwe bizwi ko Intore ari kimwe mu biranga umuco nyarwanda (folklore) kandi ahubwo Itegeko nº 27/1983 ryavuzwe rikaba rirengera umuco muri rusange ku buryo umuntu ukoresha mu nyungu ze ibihangano bishingiye ku muco yabihanirwa n’ingingo ya 78 y’iryo tegeko. [7] Me Bundogo uburanira Binamungu asubiza ko ibyo uburanira ONP avuga nta shingiro bifite, kubera ko mu gusuzuma niba Binamungu afite uburenganzira ku bihangano

1Ingingo ya 9 y’iryo tegeko igaragaza urutonde rw’uburenganzira bwihariye bunyuranye bw’umuhanzi, naho igika cya nyuma cy’iyo ngingo kikavuga gitya: “…gutanga ku buryo bwuzuye igihangano gikomoka ku bihangano karande, kugitanga igice cyangwa gutanga uburenganzira bwihariye kuri icyo gihangano byemerwa ari uko urwego rw’ubutegetsi rwita ku burenganzira bw’umuhanzi rubitangiye uruhushya”. Mu byo ingingo ya 53 y’itegeko rimaze kuvugwa ivuga, harimo ko: “….iyo habayeho ugushidikanya ku burenganzira buvugwa mu ngingo ya 9, bwatanzwe igice cyangwa bwose, mu gukemura impaka bibanda gusa ku ngingo zanditse muri ayo masezerano, ziteganya imikoreshereze yayo. Ibitagaragara mu mu masezerano y’umuhanzi ko yabitanze bikomeza kuba ibye. Gutanga kopi imwe rukumbi cyangwa kopi nyinshi z’igihangano cy’umuhanzi ntibivuga ko uburenganzira bw’umuhanzi kuri icyo gihangano butanzwe. …”.

## Page 39

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 7 bye, hagomba gushingirwa ku ngingo ya 1 y’Itegeko nº 27/1983 ryavuzwe, ivuga ko igihangano cy’umwimerere ari igihangano gituma uwagihimbye amenyekana bitewe n’ibikigize n’uko yagikoze (éléments caractéristiques et forme) cyangwa bitewe gusa n’uko gikoze (forme). Akavuga rero ko hagomba kurebwa nyiri ibihangano uwo ari we, kandi ko nta gushidikanya ko ari Binamungu kuko ari umwimerere we akaba ari nawe wabihimbye mu buryo buteganywa n’Itegeko nº 27/1983 ryamaze kuvugwa cyane cyane ko n’izina rye ribigaragaraho, kubera iyo mpamvu akaba ari nta wundi ushobora kubyiyitirira. [8] Yongeraho ko ibivugwa na ONP ko Urukiko Rukuru rwumvise nabi ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko nº 27/1983 ryavuzwe atari ukuri, bitewe n’uko iyo ngingo isobanutse neza kuko ivuga ko nyiri igihangano afite uburenganzira bwo kwanga ko igihangano cye bagitubura, bagihindura, bagisubiramo cyangwa bakagikoresha mu bundi buryo bwose bwo guhindura igihangano, ndetse ko ari byo Binamungu yanze kubera ko yabonaga ko ONP yahinduye ikanatubura ibihangano bye ibikoresha mu buryo yishakiye nyamara batabyumvikanyeho. [9] Ku bijyanye n’ingingo ya 53 y’Itegeko nº 27/1983 uburanira ONP avuga ko Urukiko rwumvise nabi, Me Bundogo asubiza ko iyo ngingo nayo isobanutse neza kuko ivuga ko gukemura impaka bibanda gusa ku ngingo zanditse mu masezerano y’umuhanzi ko ateganya imikoreshereze y’igihangano, ariko ko ibitagaragara muri ayo masezerano ko umuhanzi yabitanze, bikomeza kuba ibye. [10] Akomeza avuga ko ibijyanye n’uburenganzira bw’umuhanzi byanasobanuwe mu rubanza RCOMA 0014/08/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 06/08/2010, hagati y’umuhanzi Bushayija Pascal na COGEBANQUE S.A BINAMUNGU v. OFISI Y’IGIHUGU Y’AMAPOSITA (ONP) BINAMUNGU v. OFISI Y’IGIHUGU Y’AMAPOSITA (ONP) 7

## Page 40

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 8 aho uwo muhanzi yareze avuga ko iyo banki yakoresheje ibihangano bye ku ma sheki yayo atayibihereye uburenganzira, Urukiko rwemeza ko ibyo avuga ari ukuri. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [11] Ingingo ya 1 y’Itegeko nº 27/1983 ivuga itya: “Abahanzi b’ibihangano by’umwimerere mu bwanditsi, mu bugeni no mu bumenyi, babifitiye uburenganzira butangwa n’ingingo z’iri tegeko“. Ikomeza ivuga itya kandi: „Igihangano cy’umwimerere ni igikorwa kigaragaza uwagihanze mu bikigize no mu miterere yacyo cyangwa mu miterere yacyo gusa”. [12] Ingingo ya 34 y’iryo tegeko n° 27/1983 yo ivuga ko usibye ikimenyetso cyabivuguruza, nyiri igihangano ari umuntu wagaragaje izina rye cyangwa irihimbano kuri icyo gihangano ku buryo nta gushidikanya kuri uwo mwirondoro we. [13] Nanone kandi ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru ivuga ko umuhanzi w’igihangano giteganywa n’iri tegeko afite uburenganzira bwihariye bwo gukora cyangwa kwemeza ko hakorwa igikorwa kimwe ku gihangano cyose cyangwa ku gice cyacyo: kugituburamo kimwe cyangwa byinshi, kugikora mu bundi buryo cyangwa kugitangaza muri rubanda. Naho ingingo ya 53 y’iryo tegeko, mu gika cya 3 yo ikavuga itya: „Gutanga kopi imwe rukumbi cyangwa kopi nyinshi z’igihangano cy’umuhanzi ntibivuga ko uburenganzira bw‘umuhanzi kuri icyo gihangano butanzwe”. [14] Mu itangazo rya ONP rihamagarira ipiganwa ryo gushushanya amatembure y’iposita, icyo kigo cyahamagariraga abanyabugeni babyifuza kandi babifitiye ubushobozi

## Page 41

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 9 gushushanya amatembure ku nsanganyamatsiko zikurikira: Imikino olimpiki ya Beijing, Uduseke tw’i Rwanda, Umuco nyarwanda (kubyina, gutaka)....By’umwihariko ku bijyanye n’umuco nyarwanda, ONP ikaba yarasobanuye muri iryo tangazo ko abanyabugeni bazashushanya ku bintu bitandukanye bigaragaza umuco nyarwanda mu mbyino zinyuranye no gutaka. [15] Kuba rero Binamungu yaritabiriye iryo rushanwa maze ku bijyanye n’umuco nyarwanda, agashushanya ibihangano akanabishyiraho izina rye, bigashimwa na ONP yanabishyize ku matembure yayo, ntibikuraho inganzo y’umwimerere (originalité) yabikoranye nk’uko ingingo ya 1 y’Itegeko nº y’Itegeko nº 27/1983 ryavuzwe ibisobanura, kuko ahubwo uwo mwimerere n’ubwenge yabikoranye ari byo byatumye ibihangano bye ari byo bitsinda ipiganwa. [16] Urukiko rushingiye kuri ibyo bisobanuro, rusanga imvugo y’uburanira ONP y’uko Binamungu adakwiye kwiyitirira ibihangano bijyanye n’umuco nta shingiro ifite, mu gihe byagaragajwe ko Binamungu afite uburenganzira kuri ibyo bihangano kandi bukaba burengerwa n’itegeko mu buryo bunyuranye nk’uko byavuzwe. [17] Byongeye kandi, Urukiko rurasanga nk’uko Urukiko Rukuru rwabyemeje, mu gihe ONP idahakana ko Binamungu yayishyikirije ibihangano yakoze ashingiye ku itangazo ry’ipiganwa ONP yari yatanze, ikanerekana uko yifuza ko ibyo bihangano bigomba kuba biteye, itahindukira ngo ivuge ko ibyo Binamungu yakoze atabyiyitirira cyangwa ko nta burenganzira abifiteho. BINAMUNGU v. OFISI Y’IGIHUGU Y’AMAPOSITA (ONP) BINAMUNGU v. OFISI Y’IGIHUGU Y’AMAPOSITA (ONP) 9

## Page 42

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 10 b) Ku bijyanye no kumenya niba ONP yarakoresheje ibihangano Binamungu yayihaye mu buryo butubahirije uburenganzira bw’umuhanzi. [18] Me Ndagijimana avuga ko ONP itarengereye mu ikoreshwa ry’ibihangano byakozwe na Binamungu kuko itabicuruje, ahubwo ko yabikoresheje gusa ku makarita y’iposita mu rwego rwo kwamamaza umuco nyarwanda, ndetse ko yabyerekanye mu imurika rimwe ryabaye, bikaba bitandukanye no kubitubura ugamije kubicuruza. [19] Anavuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rutagombaga gushingira ku rubanza RCOMA 0014/08/CS rwaciwe n’uru Rukiko kuwa 06/08/2010 hagati ya COGEBANQUE na Bushayija kuko rutandukanye n’uru rubanza, cyane cyane ko muri urwo rundi, COGEBANQUE yakoresheje ibihangano mu bucuruzi, mu gihe bizwi ko Iposita yo idacuruza, n’ubwoko bw’ibihangano muri izo manza bukaba atari bumwe. [20] Me Ndagijimana yongeraho ko kubera ingano y’ibihangano Binamungu yashyikirije bitashobotse kubishyira uko byakabaye ku ikarita y’iposita nk’uko byagenze ku ma timbure, ari yo mpamvu ONP yashyizeho igice cyabyo, ariko ko ibyo bitafatwa nko guhindura igihangano. [21] Me Bundogo avuga ko ONP yatubuye ibihangano bya Binamungu ibikoramo amakarita y’iposita, ndetse ibicamo n’ibice kuko ku ma timbure bigaragara byose nk‘uko yabihanze, ariko ku makarita y’iposita (cartes postales) ibihangano bye bikaba bitagaragara uko byakabaye. Anavuga ndetse ko usibye no kubihindura, ONP itanagaragaje izina rye kuri izo „cartes postales”.

## Page 43

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 11 [22] Mu bujurire bwe kandi uburanira Binamungu anenga Urukiko kuba rwaravuze ko ONP itahinduye ibihangano bye ibikoramo amakarita (cartes postales) igamije kuyacuruza ngo kubera ko idacuruza, rwemeza ko ahubwo icyo kigo cyari kigamije kwamamaza umuco, agasanga ibyo binyuranye n‘ukuri kubera ko Binamungu yarugaragarije ibimenyetso birimo fagitire zitandukanye zirimo n’izatanzwe n’abacuruzi bikorera ku giti cyabo. [23] Anavuga ko usibye n’ibyo bimenyetso bivuzwe, yerekanye ko no mu kiganiro (gikubiye mu nyandiko “extrait” yashyikirije Urukiko) Umuyobozi wa ONP ushinzwe ibikorwa by’ubucuruzi witwa Maniraguha Bisengimana Dieudonné yagiranye n’itangazamakuru, yasobanuye ko ONP ikora ubucuruzi. Agasanga rero ntaho ONP yahera ivuga ko idakora ubucuruzi, kandi ko nta kosa Urukiko Rukuru rwakoze rushingira ku rubanza rwavuzwe RCOMA 0014/08/CS rwaciwe n’uru Rukiko kuwa 06/08/2010 hagati ya COGEBANQUE na Bushayija kuko rufitanye isano n‘uru. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [24] Ingingo ya 9 y’itegeko nº 27/1983 yavuzwe haruguru, ivuga ku burenganzira bwihariye bwo gukora cyangwa kwemeza ko hakorwa igikorwa kimwe ku gihangano cyose cyangwa ku gice cyacyo: kugituburamo kimwe cyangwa byinshi, kugikora mu bundi buryo cyangwa kugitangaza muri rubanda. [25] Ingingo ya 10 y’iryo tegeko yo ivuga ko nta muntu ushobora gukora kimwe mu bikorwa bivugwa mu ngingo ya 9 imaze kuvugwa atabiherewe uruhushya rwemewe kandi BINAMUNGU v. OFISI Y’IGIHUGU Y’AMAPOSITA (ONP) BINAMUNGU v. OFISI Y’IGIHUGU Y’AMAPOSITA (ONP) 11

## Page 44

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 12 rwanditse rutangwa na nyirabyo cyangwa abamusimbura rwashyizweho umukono na noteri cyangwa undi mutegetsi ubifitiye ububasha. [26] Urukiko rurasanga hashingiwe ku ngingo z’amategeko zagaragajwe, icy’igenzi kigomba gusuzumwa ari ukumenya niba ONP yarakoresheje ibihangano Binamungu yahaye icyo kigo ku byo bari bumvikanyeho byonyine. [27] Urukiko rusanga mu gihe mu itangazo rya ONP ryasobanuye neza ko “rihamagarira ipiganwa ryo gushushanya amatembure y’Iposita”, nyamara ikaba idahakana ko usibye gukoresha ibihangano bya Binamungu ku matembure nk’uko bari babyumvikanye, yanarenzeho ikabikoresha ku makarita yayo (cartes postales). Bikaba rero bigaragaza ko ONP itubahirije ibyo yari yumvikanye na Binamungu ku ikoreshwa ry’ibihangano bye. [28] Ku bijyanye n’uko ONP yakoresheje ibihangano bya Binamungu, nk’uko n‘Urukiko Rukuru rwabisobanuye, uru Rukiko narwo rusanga ibyo bihangano bitarashyizwe ku makarita y’iposita uko byakabaye, ndetse ko bitanagizwe bito gusa nk’uko ONP ibivuga, ahubwo byaraciwemo kabiri kandi n’izina rye ntiryagaragara, kubera ibyo byose rero, hatitawe kureba urwego ONP yabikozemo, akaba ari nta gushidikanya ko yarengereye mu ikoreshwa ry’ibyo bihangano. c) Ku bijyanye n’indishyi zinyuranye zatanzwe n’izasabwe kuri uru rwego: 1. Indishyi zo kuba ONP yaratubuye ikanakoresha ibihangano bya Binamungu mu bucuruzi.

## Page 45

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 13 [29] Me Bundogo avuga ko Binamungu asaba ko yahabwa indishyi zihwanye na 150.000.000Frw (ni ukuvuga 30.000.000Frw x ibihangano 5) zijyanye no kuba ONP yarakoresheje ibihangano bye mu bucuruzi bwayo. Anasaba ko indishyi Binamungu yagenewe zijyanye no kuba ibihangano bye byaratubuwe ziyongera, maze agahabwa izingana na 4.000.000Frw x ibihangano 5, zihwanye na 20.000.000Frw. [30] Me Ndagijimana avuga ko ONP idacuruza, ko ndetse itigeze icuruza amakarita ariho ibihangano bya Binamungu, ahubwo ko yabigaragaje gusa rimwe mu imurika ryabaye mu rwego rwo kwamamaza umuco nyarwanda, ari nawo wari mu bihangano Binamungu avuga ko yahanze. Anasanga mu kugenera Binamungu indishyi, Urukiko Rukuru rutarubahirije ibivugwa mu Iteka rya Perezida rifite nº 276/14 ryo kuwa 6/5/1985. [31] Me Bundongo yongeraho ko iryo Teka nº 276/14 rishyiraho inyishyu n’uburyo bwo gukurikirana indishyi nk’uko bigenwa mu ngingo ya 11 kugeza kuya 14 z’itegeko nº 27/1983, ko ariko izo ngingo zivuga ku byerekeranye n’inyungu abahanzi babona ku bihangano byabo igihe byagurishijwe cyangwa byatejwe cyamunara kandi impande zombi zabanje kubyumvikanaho, nyamara bikaba ntaho bihuriye n’uko ONP yakoresheje ibihangano bya Binamungu batabyumvikanye. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [32] Urukiko rurasanga nk’uko Urukiko Rukuru rwabyemeje, nta kigaragaza ko ONP yacuruje ibihangano bya Binamungu mu buryo busanzwe bw’uburucuzi cyane cyane ko Binamungu atashoboye kugaragaza umubare w’ibyaba byaracurujwe BINAMUNGU v. OFISI Y’IGIHUGU Y’AMAPOSITA (ONP) BINAMUNGU v. OFISI Y’IGIHUGU Y’AMAPOSITA (ONP) 13

## Page 46

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 14 n’inyungu ONP yakuyemo, icyo ONP yaryoza ahubwo ni uko yahinduye ibihangano bye mu buryo batari bumvikanye nk’uko byavuzwe haruguru. [33] Ku bijyanye no kuba ONP yaratubuye ibihangano bya Binamungu batabyumvikanye, nkuko byasobanuwe haruguru, ONP yararengereye ikoresha ibihangano bya Binamungu mu buryo bunyuranyije n’icyo byari bigenewe ndetse ntiyubahiriza itegeko rirengera uburenganzira bw’umuhanzi kubera ko itabigaragaje uko biri, akaba ari nta gushidikanya ko ibikorwa bya ONP byabangamiye uburenganzira bwa Binamungu nk’umuhanzi. [34] Icyakora ku bijyanye n’ingano z’indishyi, nkuko byemejwe mu rubanza RCOMA 0014/08/CS rwabaye hagati ya Bushayija Pascal na COGEBANQUE S.A, rwavuzwe haruguru, hanashingiwe ku ngingo ya 80 y’itegeko n° 27/1983 ryavuzwe haruguru, ivuga ko imanza z’amahugu zivuka mu iyubahirizwa ry’uburenganzira bw’umuhanzi zicibwa nk’imanza z’amahugu zisanzwe, mu kugena indishyi Urukiko rugomba gushingira ku ngingo ya 258 y’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’amategeko mbonezamubano iteganya ko igikorwa cyose cy’umuntu cyangirije undi gitegeka nyiri ugukora ikosa rigikomokaho kuriha ibyangiritse. [35] Urukiko rurasanga indishyi zo kuba ONP yaratubuye ikanagurisha amakarita y’iposita zidakwiye gutandukanywa muri uru rubanza, kuko ibyo bikorwa byombi bifitanye isano n’uko ONP isanzwe icuruza amakarita nk’uko yabisobanuye mu ibaruwa yayo iri muri dosiye yo kuwa 14/09/2011 yasubizaga iyo uwunganira Binamungu yari yayandikiye.

## Page 47

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 15 [36] Na none ku bijyanye n’igenwa ry’indishyi, Urukiko rusanga uburanira ONP atagaragaza uburyo Iteka rya Perezida nº 274/14 ryo kuwa 6/5/1985 ritubahirijwe, uretse n’uko iryo Iteka ritashingirwaho mu gihe ibihangano byanakoreshejwe no ku buryo itumvikanye na Binamungu. [37] Hakurikijwe rero ibisobanuro byatanzwe, Urukiko rusanga indishyi zigomba kugenwa mu bushishozi bw’urukiko, akaba ari yo mpamvu izo Binamungu yagenewe n’Urukiko Rukuru mu bushishozi bwarwo zingana na 5.000.000Frw ziri mu kigero gikwiye. 2. Indishyi zijyanye no kuba ONP yaraciyemo ibice ibihangano bya Binamungu. [38] Me Bundogo avuga ko indishyi Binamungu yagenewe zihwanye na 10.000.000Frw zijyanye no kuba ONP yaragiye icamo ibihangano bye mo kabiri maze igafata ibice byabyo akaba ari byo ishyira ku ma „cartes postales“, n‘izina rye ritagaragazwe, nazo ari nke kuko ibyo ONP yakoze byatumye atakaza icyizere yari afitiwe n’abafatabuguzi be bari basanzwe bamuzi nk‘icyamamare mu gihugu no hanze, bituma agira igihombo gikabije. Kubera izo mpamvu asaba Urukiko ko yahabwa indishyi zingana na 6.000.000Frw kuri buri gihangano X ibihangano 5, zihwanye na 30.000.000Frw ku bihangano byose. [39] Me Ndagijimana avuga ko nta ndishyi Binamungu akwiye ndetse ko n’izo yagenewe n‘Urukiko Rukuru zitari zikwiye kuko atabasha kugaragaza ingaruka mbi yagiriwe mu ikoreshwa ry’ibihangano avuga, cyangwa se ngo yerekane igihombo yagize, ngo abe ari byo Urukiko ruheraho rumugenera indishyi rwamugeneye mu bushishozi bwarwo. BINAMUNGU v. OFISI Y’IGIHUGU Y’AMAPOSITA (ONP) 15

## Page 48

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 16 UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [40] Nkuko Urukiko Rukuru rwabisobanuye, nta gushidikanya ko ONP yakoze ikosa icamo ibihangano bya Binamungu batabyumvikanyeho kandi binyuranyije n’itegeko. Icyakora, uburanira Binamungu ntiyabashije kugaragariza Urukiko igihombo kijyanye no kuba yaratakaje icyizere abafatabuguzi bari basanzwe bamufitiye ngo Urukiko rubihereho rugena izo ndishyi, ariyo mpamvu n’ubwo akwiye indishyi, zigomba kugenwa mu bushishozi bw’urukiko, muri urwo rwego uru Rukiko rukaba rusanga izo yagenewe n‘Urukiko Rukuru zihwanye na 10.000.000Frw ziri mu kigereo gikwiye. c. Ku bijyanye n’igihembo cya Avoka [41] Ku mafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka Binamungu yagenewe, Me Ndagijimana anenga Urukiko Rukuru ko rwamugeneye 1.000.000Frw kandi ntayo yari yasabye. Anasaba Urukiko ko nirusanga ubujurire bwa ONP bufite ishingiro, rwazayigenera 2.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka. [42] Me Bundogo asubiza ko amafaranga Binamungu yagenewe yari yayasabye, ko rero nta kosa Urukiko rwakoze. Anavuga ko ONP nta mafaranga ya Avoka ikwiye kuko ariyo yakoze amakosa. Akomeza ahubwo asaba ko Binamungu yagenerwa amafaranga y‘igihembo cya Avoka n’ikurikiranarubanza angana na 1.500.000 yiyongera kuyo yagenewe n’Urukiko Rukuru.

## Page 49

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 17 UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [43] Urukiko rusanga Binamungu yaraje mu manza kubera amakosa ya ONP, kandi bigaragara ko mu mwanzuro w‘umwunganira mu Rukiko Rukuru, yasabye 1.000.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka, Urukiko Rukuru rukaba rero nta kosa rwakoze rumugenera amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka. [44] Ku mafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka asabwa na Binamungu kuri uru rwego, Urukiko rusanga ONP igomba kuyamuha kuko byagaragaye ko yagombye gukomeza kwiyambaza umuburanira kuri uru rwego. Ariko kubera ko ayo asaba ari ikirenga, mu bushishozi bw’urukiko, akwiye guhabwa 500.000Frw yiyongera kuri 1.000.000Frw yagenewe n’Urukiko Rukuru, amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka ku nzego zombi ONP igomba guha Binamungu akaba ahwanye na 1.500.000 Frw. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [45] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Ofisi y’Igihugu y’Amaposita (ONP) nta shingiro bufite. [46] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Binamungu Epaphrodite bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe. [47] Ruvuze ko imikirize y’urubanza RAD 0106/12/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru kuwa 03/05/2013, ihindutse gusa ku byerekeye amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka ONP igomba guha Binamungu Epaphrodite. BINAMUNGU v. OFISI Y’IGIHUGU Y’AMAPOSITA (ONP) 17

## Page 50

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 18 [48] Rutegetse Ofisi y’Igihugu y’Amaposita guha Binamungu indishyi yagenewe n’Urukiko Rukuru zingana na 15.000.000Frw na 1.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka, hamwe na 500.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka kuri uru rwego, amafaranga yose hamwe ONP igomba kumuha akaba angana na 16.500.000Frw. [49] Rutegetse Ofisi y’Igihugu y’Amaposita gutanga amagarama y’uru rubanza.

## Page 51

IMANZA MBONEZAMUBANO

## Page 53

21

ARPEQ v. SEGATABAZI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RCAA 0025/13/CS (Kayitesi Z., P.J., Kayitesi R. na Rugabirwa, J.) 10 Mata 2015] Amategeko agenga ububasha bw’Inkiko – Ubujurire – Inzitizi yo kutakira ubujurire – Ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga bwo kuburanisha mu rwego rw’ubujurire imanza zaciwe mu rwego rwa kabiri n’Urukiko Rukuru – Mu gihe impamvu zashingiweho ku rwego rwa mbere zitandukanye n’izashingiweho n’urukiko mu rwego rw’ubujurire, umuburanyi yemerewe kujurira mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga – Itegeko-Ngenga N° 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 28(5). Incamake y’ikibazo: Segatabazi ashingiye ku nyandiko ya ARPEQ yo kuwa 22/11/2011 n’iyo kuwa 06/12/2011, aho ARPEQ yiyemereramo ko imurimo umwenda ungana na 150.000.000Frw; yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo asaba ko yawumwishyura.Uwo mwenda ugizwe n’inguzanyo, imisanzu yatanze hamwe n’ishimwe yamwemereye hiyongereyeho inyungu z’ayo mafaranga yose zibariwe kuri 18% kugeza igihe azishyurirwa. Asabakandi ko yahabwa indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza hamwe n’igihembo cy’Avoka. Urukiko rwemeje ko ikirego cye gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe maze rutegeka ARPEQ kwishyura umwenda yagurijwe hamwe n’ishimwe yemeye bihwanye na 105.648.178Frw. Impande zombi zajuririye iki cyemezo mu Rukiko Rukuru maze rwemeza ko Segatabazi atsindiye 150.000.000Frw runategeka

## Page 54

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 22 irangizarubanza ry’agateganyo kubyerekeye 48.693.484Frw hamwe no kumwishyura amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza kandi ARPEQ ikanatanga amagarama y’urubanza. ARPEQ yajuririye iki cyemezo mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga ivuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rutahaye urubanza uburemere rukwiriye kandi ko Umucamanza yitiranyije ARPEQ n’ibigo biharanira inyungu kandi ari umushinga udaharanira inyungu. Iburanisha ry’ubujurire bwa ARPEQ rigitangira, Segatabazi yabyukije inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego cyayo avuga ko yatsinzwe ku rwego rwa mbere n’urwa kabiri ku mpamvu zimwe. Mu kwiregura kuri iyo nzitizi, ARPEQ ivuga ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwasanze Segatabazi adakwiye gusubizwa amafaranga y’imisanzu naho Urukiko Rukuru rwo rukemeza ko ayahabwa; bisobanuye ko ARPEQ yatsindiye iyi ngingo hanyuma ikazakuyitsindirwa bwa mbere mu Rukiko Rukuru. Ibi rero bikaba bivuga ko ari ubwa mbere ARPEQ yayijuririraga bigaragaza ko abo baburana bumva nabi ingingo ingingo ya 28, igika cya 5 y’Itegeko-Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012, bityo akaba asaba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kutakira inzitizi yatanzwe na Segatabazi. Incamake y’icyemezo:Urubanza umuburanyi yatsinzwe ku rwego rwa mbere n’urwa kabiri ku mpamvu zimwe, ntirushobora kujuririrwa mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga ariko mu gihe impamvu zashingiwehoku rwego rwa mbere zitandukanye n’izashingiweho ku rwego rwa kabiri, yemerewe kujurira mu rukiko rw’Ikirenga. Inzitizi nta shingiro ifite; Amagarama arasubitswe.

## Page 55

ARPEQ v. SEGATABAZI 23 Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko-Ngenga N° 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 28(5). Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo Segatabazi Protais arega ARPEQ umwenda ungana na 150.000.000Frw (ugizwe na 48.693.694Frw yagurije ARPEQ, 44.352.822Frw y’imisanzu yatanze muri ARPEQ na 56.953.484Frw y’ishimwe yemerewe na ARPEQ) hiyongereyeho inyungu zayo mafaranga yose zibariwe kuri 18% kugeza yishyuwe, indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza zingana na 5.000.000Frw n’igihembo cya Avoka kingana na 7.500.000 Frw. Urukiko rwasanze ikirego cya Segatabazi gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe, rutegeka ARPEQ kumwishyura 48.693.694Frw yayigurije na 56.953.484Frw y’ishimwe yamwemereye yose hamwe akaba 105.648.178Frw. [2] Impande zombi zajuririye iki cyemezo mu Rukiko Rukuru. Mu rubanza RCA041/13/HC/KIG na RCA 0550/13/HC/KIG rwo kuwa 08/11/2013, urwo Rukiko rwemeje ko Segatabazi atsindiye 150.000.000Frw, rutegeka irangizarubanza ry’agateganyo ku mafaranga angana na 48.693.484Frw, rutegeka kandi ARPEQ kwishyura Segatabazi amafaranga y’ikurikirana rubanza angana na 1.000.000Frw no

## Page 56

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 24 gutanga amagarama y’urubanza.ARPEQ yajuririye iki cyemezo mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga ivuga ko urubanza rutahawe uburemere rukwiriye mu Rukiko Rukuru kandi ko Umucamanza yitiranyije ARPEQ n’ibigo biharanira inyungu kandi ari umushinga udaharanira inyungu. Ikirego cyanditswe kuri Nº RCAA 0025/13/CS. [3] Mu gihe urubanza rutaraburanishwa mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, ARPEQ yatanze ikirego cyihutirwa gishamikiye ku rubanza Nº RCA 0025/13/CS isaba ko irangizarubanza ry’agateganyo ryategetswe n’Urukiko Rukuru riba rihagaze, ariko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza ku birego byihutirwa Nº RC 0004/13/CS rwaciwe kuwa 10/01/2014, rwemeza ko ikirego cyayo nta shingiro gifite. [4] Iburanisha ry’urubanza Nº RCA 0025/13/CS mu ruhame ryabaye kuwa 24/03/2015, ARPEQ ihagarariwe na Me Bikotwa Bruce, naho Segatabazi Protais ahagarariwe na Me Niyomugabo Christophe. [5] Iburanisha rigitangira, Me Niyomugabo Christophe yabyukije inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego cya ARPEQ avuga ko yatsinzwe ku rwego rwa mbere n’urwa kabiri ku mpamvu zimwe, ko rero hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 28, igika cya 5 y’Itegeko-Ngenga N° 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga nk’uko ryahinduwe kugeza ubu, ubujurire bwa ARPEQ budakwiye kwakirwa.

## Page 57

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 25 II. IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYACYO Kumenya niba ARPEQ yaratsinzwe mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye no mu Rukiko Rukuru ku mpamvu zimwe, ubujurire bwayo bukaba butagomba kwakirwa. [6] Me Niyomugabo uburanira Segatabazi avuga ko uwo yunganira yareze ashingiye ku nyandiko ya ARPEQ yo kuwa 22/11/2011 n’iyo kuwa 06/12/2011, aho ARPEQ yiyemerera ko irimo Segatabazi umwenda ungana na 150.000.000Frw, ko izo nyandiko arizo zashingiweho n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo, ndetse n’Urukiko Rukuru, mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye Segatabazi agatsindira 105.648.178Frw naho mu Rukiko Rukuru agatsindira 150.000.000Frw, ko nta yindi mpamvu yatumye ARPEQ itsindwa muri izo nkiko uretse kwiyemerera umwenda mu nyandiko, bityo akaba asaba uru Rukiko gushingira ku ngingo ya 28, igika cya 5 y’Itegeko-Ngenga N° 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rukemeza ko ubujurire bwa ARPEQ butakiriwe. [7] Me Bikotwa Bruce uburanira ARPEQ avuga ko mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye Segatabazi yaregeye 150.000.000Frw akubiyemo 48.693.694Frw Segatabazi yagurije ARPEQ, 44.352.822Frw y’imisanzu yatanze muri ARPEQ na 56.953.484Frw y’ishimwe yemerewe na ARPEQ, ko mu rubanza RC 0280/12/TGI/GSBO rwaciwe kuwa 19/09/2012 Urukiko rwasanze Segatabazi adakwiye gusubizwa 44.352.822Frw y’imisanzu, bisobanuye ko ARPEQ yatsindiye iyi ngingo, ikayitsindirwa bwa mbere mu Rukiko Rukuru, bivuga ko ari ubwa mbere ARPEQ yayijuririra bigaragaza ko abo baburana bumva nabi ingingo ya 28, igika cya 5 y’Itegeko- ARPEQ v. SEGATABAZI 25

## Page 58

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 26 Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru kuko ivuga umuburanyi watsinzwe ku rwego rwa mbere n’urwa kabiri ku mpamvu zimwe, bityo akaba asaba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kwemeza ko inzitizi yatanzwe na Me Niyomugabo uburanira Segatabazi nta shingiro ifite. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [8] Ingingo ya 28, igika cya 5 y’Itegeko-Ngenga N° 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga nk’uko ryahinduwe kugeza ubu igira iti: “urubanza umuburanyi yatsinzwe ku rwego rwa mbere n’urwa kabiri ku mpamvu zimwe, ntirushobora kujuririrwa mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga”. [9] Urukiko rurasanga mu kirego cya Segatabazi mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo harimo gutegeka ARPEQ kumwishyura umwenda ungana na 150.000.000Frw (cote 5), avuga ko ARPEQ yiyemerera mu nyandiko yitwa “Gukemura burundu ikibazo cya Protais” yo kuwa 22/11/2011, n’iyitwa “Inyandiko mvugo yo gukemura burundu ikibazo cya Segatabazi Protais imugenewe” yo kuwa 06/12/2011, izi nyandiko zikaba zishimangira ko uwo mwenda ugizwe na 56.953.484Frw y’ishimwe ARPEQ yemereye Segatabazi hamwe n’amafaranga y’ideni angana na 93.046.516Frw akubiyemo 48.693.694Frw Segatabazi yagurije ARPEQ na 44.352.822Frw y’imisanzu yatanze muri ARPEQ (cotes 9-10 na 58-60). [10] Urukiko rurasanga Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwaratandukanyije kandi rusuzuma buri gice kigize umwenda waregewe, Segatabazi agatsindira kwishyurwa 48.693.694 Frw

## Page 59

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 27 yagurije ARPEQ na 56.953.484Frw y’ishimwe ARPEQ yamwereye hashingiwe ku nyandiko zayo zavuzwe haruguru (igika cya 4 n’icya 8 by’urubanza RC 0280/12/TGI/GSBO rwaciwe kuwa 19/09/2012); naho ku byerekeye imisanzu ingana na 44.352.822Frw ya Segatabazi Protais muri ARPEQ, Urukiko rwemeza ko atayahabwa hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 21 n’iya 23 y’amategeko shingiro ya ARPEQ no ku ngingo ya 30 y’Itegeko Nº 20/2000 ryo kuwa 26/07/2000 ryerekeye imiryango idaharanira inyungu, muri rusange Segatabazi atsindira gusa 105.648.178Frw, aho kuba 150.000.000Frw yari yaregeye. [11] Urukiko rurasanga mu Rukiko Rukuru, ARPEQ yarajuririye ishingiro ry’ishimwe rya 56.953.484 Frw n’uburyo bwo kwishyura amafaranga yagurijwe, Urukiko rusanga ubujurire ku ishimwe nta shingiro bufite hashingiwe ku nyandiko yayo yo kuwa 06/12/2011 yemera iryo shimwe (igika cya 12 cy’urubanza RCA 0421/13/HC/KIG; RCA 0550/13/HC/KIG rwaciwe kuwa 08/11/2013). [12] Urukiko rurasanga mu Rukiko Rukuru Segatabazi yari yajuriye asaba guhabwa imisanzu ingana na 44.352.822Frw afite muri ARPEQ, yari yatsindiwe ku rwego rwa mbere hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 21 n’iya 23 y’amatageko shingiro ya ARPEQ no ku ngingo ya 30 y’Itegeko Nº 20/2000 ryo kuwa 26/07/2000 ryerekeyeimiryango idaharanira inyungu, Urukiko Rukuru rwo rwemeza ko ayihabwa hashingiwe ku nyandiko ya ARPEQ yo kuwa 06/12/2011 yemera kuyimusubiza, no ku ngingo ya 28 y’Itegeko Nº15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo iteganya ko inyandikobwite yiyemerera umwenda itsindisha nyirayo. [13] Urukiko rurasanga rero ibyo uburanira Segatabazi avuga ko ARPEQ yatsinzwe ku rwego rwa mbere n’urwa kabiri ku ARPEQ v. SEGATABAZI 27

## Page 60

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 28 mpamvu zimwe z’uko inkiko zashingiye ku nyandiko ARPEQ yiyemereyemo ko igomba Segatabazi amafaranga angana na 150.000.000Frw atari ukuri, kuko ku rwego rwa mbere yatsindiye gusa 105.648.178Frw, naho ku rwa kabiri atsindira 150.000.000Frw, kubera ko hari amafaranga angana na 44.352.822Frw y’imisanzu Segatabazi yari yatsindiwe mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye ayatsindira ku rwego rwa kabiri mu Rukiko Rukuru, kuko Urukiko Rukuru rwashingiye ku nyandiko ya ARPEQ. [14] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro byatanzwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga impamvu zashingiweho ku rwego rwa mbere n’urwa kabiri urubanza rucibwa zitandukanye, bityo ubujurire bwa ARPEQ bukaba bukwiye kwakirwa kuko butanyuranije n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 28, igika cya 5 y’Itegeko-Ngenga N° 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga nk’uko ryahinduwe kugeza ubu. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [15] Rwemeye kwakira inzitizi yo kutakira ubujurire bwa ARPEQ yatanzwe na Segatabazi Protais kuko yatanzwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko; [16] Rwemeje ko iyo nzitizi nta shingiro ifite; [17] Rwemeje ko urubanza ruzakomeza kuburanishwa mu mizi kuwa 02/06/2015; [18] Ruvuze ko amagarama y’urubanza asubitswe.

## Page 61

29

HABIMANA v. REKAYABO [Rwanda URUKIKO RUKURU – RCA 0197/12/HC/KIG (Hitimana, P.J.) 23 Gicurasi 2014] Amategeko agenga umuryango – Ikirego cy’umwana ushaka kugira se – Ikimenyetso – Agaciro k’ikizamini cya ADN – Ibyemejwe n’ikizamini cya ADN ku byerekeye kumenya niba umwana n’ukekwaho kuba se bifatwaho ukuri, kuko gisohoka kigaragaza ko nta sano bafitanye cyangwa ko bafitanye isano iri hejuru ya 99 %. Incamake y’ikibazo: Rekayabo na Habimana bakiri abasore barakundanye nyuma yaho Rekayabo abyara umwana witwa Niyigena Mugisha, ibyo biza gutuma atanga ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyamirambo asaba ko Urukiko kwemeza ko Habimana ari we se w’uwo mwana, maze rwemeza ko umwana ari uwe rushingiye ku nyandiko yagiye yiyandikira amwemera. Habimana ntiyishimiye imikirize y’urubanza arujuririra mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye avuga ko n’ubwo yari aziranye na Rekayabo ariko umwana Niyigena Mugisha atari uwe ndetse ko n’izo nyandiko yanditse yazandikaga abitegetswe n’ubuyobozi, bityo agasaba ko hakoreshwa ikizamini cya ADN. Urukiko rwemeje ko uwo mwana ari uwe rutitaye ku kizami cya ADN yari yasabye gukoresha rugendeye ku bindi bimenyetso bigizwe n’inyandiko yagiye yandika cyangwa se anasinyaho yemera ko umwana ari uwe, imbere y’abayobozi n’abaturage. Habimana ntiyishimiye iyo mikirize ajurira mu Rukiko Rukuru avuga ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rutagaragaje ko yasabye ikoreshwa rya ADN mu rubanza rumwemeza umwana mu gihe

## Page 62

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 30 nyamara rwabifasheho icyemezo bikananirana kubera amananiza ya Rekayabo utarabonekaga ngo hafatwe ibizamini, nyuma rukaza gushingira ku bimenyetso byari bisanzwe byaratanzwe kandi atabyemera. Incamake y’icyemezo: Ibyemejwe n’ikizamini cya ADN ku byerekeye kumenya niba umwana n’ukekwaho kuba se bifatwaho ukuri, kuko gisohoka kigaragaza ko nta kuntu uwo muntu yaba se w’umwana (cyemeza ko nta sano bafitanye) cyangwa kikemeza ko bafitanye isano iri hejuru ya 99 % kubw’ibyo rero kuba ikizamini kigaragaza ko Habimana adashobora kuba ariwe wabyaye Niyigenga Mugisha bigomba gufatwaho ukuri. Ubujurire bufite ishingiro. Amagarama y’urubanza aherereye ku regwa. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko-ngenga N° 51/2008 ryo ku wa 09/09/2008 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’inkiko, ingingo ya 106 (1°). Imanza zifashishijwe: Ubushinjacyaha v. Kambanda, RPAA 0054/09/CS, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 30/06/2011.

## Page 63

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 31 Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyamirambo, aho Rekayabo Hashura yasabaga Urukiko kwemeza ko umwana witwa Niyigena Mugisha Ally yabyawe na Habimana Assumani. Urukiko rwemeje ko ari umwana we. Habimana Assumani ntiyishimiye iyo mikirize, ayijuririra mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye, avuga ko n’ubwo yari aziranye na Rekayabo Hashura, ko umwana Niyigena Mugisha Ally atari uwe, ahubwo akaba yarasabaga ko yakoreshwa “test ADN”. [2] Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwashingiye ko hari inzandiko Habimana yagiye akora, ibyo avuga ko yazikoraga kubera abayobozi, Urukiko rwasanze uretse kubivuga gusa, nta kimenyetso agaragaza ko yashyizweho iterabwoba kugira ngo yemera ko umwana ari uwe. Rwashingiye kandi ku kuba Habimana yemera ko we na Rekayabo bakiri abasore bakundanye, nyuma Rekayabo aza kubyara umwana, Habimanaakemera ko umwana ari uwe, ndetse akanamugenera ibimutunga, ibyo bikaba byarakorewe inyandiko we ubwe yagiye yiyandikira yemera umwana. Urukiko rwasanze ibyo bimenyetso bihura n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 328 y’itegeko n° 42/1988 rishyiraho Interuro y’Ibanze n’igitabo cya mbere cy’Urwunge rw’Amategeko mbonezamubano, ivuga ko ikirego cy’umwana ushaka kugira se cyemerwa cyane cyane mu bihe iyo ngingo ivuga, harimo iyo hari inyandiko cyangwa imvugo idashidikanywaho byemeza ko umugabo amwemera, no kuba umugabo yemeye gufata umwana neza, akamurera, akamugenera ibintu bye bwite nk’aho ari se. Urukiko rwakomeje rusobanura ko kuba ikizamini cya ADN ababuranyi HABIMANA v. REKAYABO 31

## Page 64

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 32 batarashoboye kugikoresha nk’uko bari babisabye, Urukiko rwagendera ku bindi bimenyetso byemeza ko Habimana yemeraga uwo mwana, birimo nk’inyandiko yagiye yandika cyangwa se anasinyaho yemera ko umwana ari uwe, imbere y’abayobozi n’abaturage, urukiko rukaba rusanga ibyo bimenyetso bihagije mu kwemeza ko koko uwo mwana ari uwa Habimana. Kubera izo mpamvu, Urukiko rwemeje ko umwana ari uwa Habimana Assumani, rwemeza ko ntagihindutse ku rubanza rwajuririwe. [3] Habimana Assumani ntiyishimiye imikirize, ayijuririra muri uru Rukiko. Yasobanuye ko yajuririye Urukiko Rwisumbuye, asaba ko hakoreshwa ikizamini cya ADN kubera ko n’ubwo yemeraga ko yakundanye na Rekayabo, nyuma y’uko yemeye umwana mu buyobozi bw’ibanze akamugenera n’ibimutunga, nibwo Rekayabo yatangiye kugenda abwira inshuti za Habimana ko umwana atari uwe, ibyo bituma agira ugushidikanya. Avuga ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwabahaye Urupapuro rwo kujya kwipimisha, umunsi ugeze Rekayabo ntiyaboneka, Habimana amuhamagaye yanga kuza, ariko ngo ibyo byose Urukiko Rwisumbuye ntirwabigaragaje mu rubanza. Yasobanuye ko n’impapuro yanditse yemera umwana yasobanuye uburyo yazanditsemo, ko yemeraga ko umwana ashobora kuba ari uwe, ariko akavuga ko umwana navuka hazakoreshwa ikizamini cya ADN. [4] Urukiko rwemeye kwakira ubujurire bwa kabiri bwa Habimana Assumani, kubera ko ingingo ya 106, 1° y’itegeko ngenga n° 51/2008 ryo ku wa 09/09/2008 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’inkiko, ivuga ko urubanza rwaciwe ku rwego rwa kabiri n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rushobora kujuririrwa mu Rukiko Rukuru, iyo urwo rubanza rutagaragaza nabusa

## Page 65

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 33 impamvu rushingiyeho. Impamvu Urukiko Rukuru rwafashe urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye nk’urutagaragaza nabusa impamvu rushingiyeho, ni uko Habimana Assumani yari yajuriye asaba ko hakoresha ikizamini cya ADN, kandi Urukiko rwarabyemeye, kuko mu cyemezo cyarwo cyo ku wa 04/05/2012, rwafashe icyemezo ko hafatwa ibizamini bizifashishwa mu gupima ADN bya Habimana Assumani na Niyigena Mugisha Ally. Ibi bizamini ntibyakoreshejwe, kandi mu rubanza ntaho umucamanza agaragaza impamvu ibyo bizamini bitakoreshejwe, n’impamvu aretse ibijyanye n’ikizamini cya ADN ababuranyi bombi bemeraga ko aricyo cyabakiranura ku kumenya niba Habimana ari se w’umwana koko, ahubwo rugahitamo kugendera ku bimenyetso byari bisanzwe muri dosiye. [5] Urukiko Rukuru, rumaze kwakira ubujurire, rwategetse, mu cyemezo cyarwo cyo ku wa 19/05/2013, ko Habimana Assumani na Niyigena Mugisha Ally bafatwa amaraso, hagakorwa ibizamini bya ADN, kugira ngo bifashe Urukiko kumenya niba Niyigena Mugisha Ally yarabyawe na Habimana Assumani, nk’uko Rekayabo Hashura, nyina wa Niyigena Mugisha Ally, abyemeza. [6] Ibizamini byarakoreshejwe, Umushinjacyaha Mukuru abyohereza Urukiko mu ibaruwa ye yo ku wa 23/10/2013, iburanishwa risubukurwa ku wa 29/04/2014. [7] Igisuzumwa muri uru rubanza ni ukumenya niba hakurikijwe ibizamini bya ADN byakoreshejwe, hakwemezwa ko umwana Niyigena Mugisha Ally yabyawe na Habimana Assumani. HABIMANA v. REKAYABO 33

## Page 66

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 34 II. ISESENGURA RY’IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA [8] Umuhanga Dr Christa Augustin, nyuma yo kurahira, asobanura uburyo yakoresheje apima ADN, agaragaza ko hari ibizamini 10 kuri 18 bigaragaza kutagira aho bihurira (there are inconsistencies with paternity in 10 out of 18 DNA – Short- Tandem – Repeat Systems). Bityo mu mwanzuro we avuga ko ibyo bisobanura ko Habimana Assumani adashobora kuba ariwe se w’umwana Ally Niyigena Mugisha (that means that Assumani Habimana does not have the paternally inherited allele of the child Ally Niyigena Mugisha in thes 10 systems. Thus he cannot be the father of the child). [9] Rekayabo Hashura avuga ko ibi bisubizo atabyemera, ko yifuza ko hakoreshwa ubundi buryo kuko we nyina w’umwana ariwe uzi neza ko Habimana Assumani ariwe se w’umwana. [10] Urukiko rurasanga Habimana Assumani na Rekayabo Hashura bari bemeye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye, ndetse no muri uru Rukiko, ko ikizamini cya ADN aricyo cyabakiranura. Urukiko rurasanga kandi uretse n’ibyo, ibyo uwakoze iki kizamini yemeje, bikwiye guhabwa agaciro kuko bihura n’iby’abandi bahanga bemeza. Basobanura ko iyo hari ibyo bareberaho bimwe babonye ku mwana, ntibabibone ku mugabo ukekwaho kuba ariwe se, bifatwa nk’aho uwo mugabo adashobora kuba se w’umwana (In other words, the child has a paternal allele that is not found in the tested man. In such cases, the paternity index [PI] is 0.0, the combined paternity index

## Page 67

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 35 [CPI] is 0.0 and the probability of paternity is 0.0%.)1. No kuri Ally Niyigenga Mugishana Habimana Assoumani ni uko umuhanga yabibonye, kuko yasanze ibyagaragaza ko Habimana ariwe wabyaye uyu mwana ari ntabyo (That means that Assouman Habimana does not have the paternally inherited allele of the Child Ally Niyigena Mugisha). [11] Urukiko rurasanga ku gaciro ikizamini cya ADN gihabwa, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga narwo rwemeje ko ibyemejwe n’icyo kizamini ku byerekeye kumenya niba umwana n’ukekwaho kuba se gifatwaho ukuri, kuko gisohoka kigaragaza ko nta kuntu uwo muntu yaba se w’umwana (cyemeza ko nta sano bafitanye) cyangwa kikemeza ko bafitanye isano iri hejuru ya 99 % 2. Kuba ikizamini kigaragaza ko Habimana Assoumani adashobora kuba ariwe wabyaye Ally Niyigenga Mugisha bigomba gufatwaho ukuri. [12] Kubera impamvu zimaze gusobanurwa, Urukiko rurasanga ubujurire bwa Habimana Assoumani bufite ishingiro, umwana Ally Niyigenga Mugisha akaba atariwe wamubyaranye na Rekayabo Hashura.

1 Bikuwe ku rubuga http://www.genetica.com/GeneticaWebV2.nsf/XReadingtheResults.xsp, aho basobanura uko ibizamini bya AND bisomwa (Reading the DNA TEST results). 2 Urubanza RPAA 0054/09/CS rw’Ubushinjacyaha na KAMBANDA Hussein, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 30/06/2011 (Icyegeranyo cy’ibyemezo by’Inkiko, n° 11, p 14 HABIMANA v. REKAYABO 35

## Page 68

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 36 36

III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [13] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Habimana Assoumani bufite ishingiro. [14] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Rekayabo Hashura nta shingiro bufite. [15] Rwemeje ko imikirize y’urubanza RCA 0658/11/TGI/NYGE, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge ku wa 31/07/2012, ihindutse kuri byose. [16] Rwemeje ko umwana Ally Niyigenga Mugisha atabyawe na Habimana Assumani. [17] Rutegetse Rekayabo Hashura gutanga amagarama y’uru rubanza, angana n’amafaranga 75.000, ahereye ku mafaranga yatanzeho ingwate y’amagarama.

## Page 69

37

HARERIMANA N’ABANDI v. SEBUKAYIRE [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RCAA 0018/13/CS (Kayitesi Z., P.J., Mugenzi na Munyangeri N., J.) 24 Ukuboza 2014] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano – Kugobokesha umuburanyi mu rubanza – Kugobokesha Umuburanyi bwa mbere mu bujurire kandi ashobora kugira ibyo acibwa ntibyemewe – ibitararegewe mu rwego rwa mbere ntibyasuzumwa mu rwego rw’ubujurire – Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 118. Amategeko agenga ubutaka – Uburyo bwo kubona ubutaka no kubwiyandikishaho – Ubudahungabanywa bw’uburenganzira bwanditse mu cyangombwa cy’ubutaka – Uburenganzira ku butaka bushingira ku kuba nyirabwo yarabubonye ku bw’umuco, cyangwa se yarabuhawe n’urwego rubifitiye ububasha, cyangwa se yarabuguze – Ibyangombwa by’ubutaka bishobora guteshwa agaciro – Uwatunze ubutaka bw’abandi nta buryarya arabusubiza ariko akishyurwa agaciro k’ibyo yabushyizeho – Itegeko Ngenga Nº 08/2005 ryo kuwa 14/07/2005 rigena imikoreshereze n’imicungire y’ubutaka mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 5 – Iteka rya Perezida Nº 97/01 ryo kuwa 18/06/2014 rigena imikorere n’ububasha by’Umubitsi w’Impapuro Mpamo, ingingo ya 6(1o) n’iya 10(5o) – Itegeko Nº 43/2013 ryo kuwa 16/06/2013 rigenga ubutaka mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 5, iya 20 n’iya 73.

## Page 70

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 38 38

Amategeko agenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa – Indishyi – Gushorwa mu manza – Abarega bakwiye guhabwa indishyi zo gushorwa mu manza n’igihembo cy’avoka kuko byatumye abarega bagana inkiko kandi bagira n’ibyo batakaza – Indishyi z’akababaro abarega basaba ntibakwiye kuzihabwa kuberako uregwa yafashe ikibanza kiburanwa kandi acyubakamo nta buryarya – Indishyi n’igihembo cy‘Avoka uregwa asaba ntazihabwa mu gihe ntacyo agaragaza yangirijwe kandi ari we nyirabayazana w’imanza. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo, abagize umuryango wa Harerimana Gaspard na Mukangwije Thérèse bahagarariwe na Harerimana Emmanuel barega sebukayire kubohoza no kwibaruzaho ikibanza cy’uwo muryangowari waraguze na Karyango Sévérien muri 1988, nyuma y’uko mu mwaka wa 1994 Harerimana Gaspard n’umugore we bahungiye ntihagire umenya irengero ryabo kandi n’abana basize bakaba bari bakiri bato. Uru Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwasanze icyo kibanza ari icya Harerimana Gaspard, rutegeka Sebukayire kugisubiza abana ba Harerimana Gaspard no kwishyura indishyi zitandukanye. Sebukayire yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru avuga ko icyo kibanza agifitiye ibyangombwa yahawe na Leta, kandi ko indishyi yaciwe zakagombye gucibwa Leta kuko ariyo yamuhaye ibyangombwa. Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko urubanza rwagombaga gutangirira mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze kuko imanza zerekeranye n’amasambu, amatungo n’izungura kuri ibyo bintu zitangirira mu nkiko z’ibanzemaze rutesha agaciro urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye kandi rutegeka ko ibintu bisubiye uko byari bimeze urubanza rutarabaho.

## Page 71

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 39 39

Harerimana Emmanuel yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwaciye urubanza ku kitararegewe ngo kuko nta n’umwe mu baburanyi wari wanenze ububasha bw’Urukiko Rwisumbuye mu iburanisha, kandi ko ikibazo cy’iburabubasha kitari cyajuririwe. Yongeraho ko icyajuririwe ari nacyo cyaregewe mu ikubitiro mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye ari ikibanza atari isambu; agasaba Urukiko rw‘Ikirenga gukosora amakosa yakozwe n’Urukiko Rukuru. Mu iburanisha Sebukayire yatanze inzitizi yo kutakira ubujurire kuko bwatanzwe nyuma y’igihe cy’iminsi 5 iteganywa n’ingingo ya 90 y’Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ku byerekeye ibyemezo by’iburabubasha, n’iyiburabubasha ry’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ngo kuko ikiburanwa kidafite agaciro kageze kuri 50.000.000 Frw gateganywa n’ingingo ya 28, 7º y’Itegeko Ngenga nº 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. Yatanze kandi inzitizi ijyanye n’uko Harerimana Emmanuel adafite ububasha (qualité) bwo guhagararira ababyeyi be kuko nta cyemezo kigaragaza ko bazimiye cyangwa bapfuye afite, ndetse ko n’urubanza Harerimana avuga ko rutanga ubwo bubasha rutahabwa agaciro kandi yibutsa ko yari yaratanze iyi nzitizi mu Rukiko Rukuru ariko ntisuzumwe. Uhagarariye Sebukayire yasabye na none Urukiko ko Leta yagobokeshwa. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Kugobokesha Umuburanyi bwa mbere mu bujurire kandi ashobora kugira ibyo acibwa binyuranije n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 118 y’Itegeko N° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo HARERIMANA N’ABANDI v. SEBUKAYIRE 39

## Page 72

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 40 40

n’iz’ubutegetsi, bityo iburanisha rigomba gukomeza ku baburanyi bari mu rubanza. 2. Kuba Sebukayire yarahawe icyemezo cy’ubutaka atagaragarije abagitanga aho yakomoye ubwo butaka yita ubwe, bigaragaza ko yakibonye mu buryo bw’uburyarya kuko bitanyuze muri imwe muri nzira ziteganywa n’ingingo ya 5 y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº 08/2005 ryo kuwa 14/07/2005 rigena imikoreshereze n’imicungire y’ubutaka mu Rwanda ryakoreshwaga Sebukayire abona icyangombwa cy’ikibanza kiburanwa ndetse n’ingingo ya 5 y’Itegeko Nº 43/2013 ryo kuwa 16/06/2013 rigenga ubutaka mu Rwanda zivuga ko : “uburenganzira ku butaka bushingira ku kuba nyirabwo yarabubonye ku bw’umuco, cyangwa se yarabuhawe n’urwego rubifitiye ububasha, cyangwa se yarabuguze”; n’ubwo ubutaka ubwabwo yabufashe ntaburyarya kubera ko yabumaranye imyaka irenga icumi ntawuragaragaza ko ari ubwe. 3. Ingingo ya 23 y’Iteka rya Minisitiri Nº 002/2008 ryo kuwa 01/04/2008 rigena uburyo iyandikishwa ry’ubutaka rikorwa iteganya ubudahungabanywa bw’uburenganzira bwanditse ku cyemezo cy’ubutaka ntishobora gukurikizwa kubera ko inyuranye n’interuro ya 10 ndetse n’ingingo ya 20 y’Itegeko No 43/2013 ryo kuwa 16/06/2013 rigenga ubutaka mu Rwanda ziteganya ko ibyangombwa by’ubutaka bishobora guteshwa agaciro, kandi uyu murongo unashimangirwa n’ingingo ya 6, 1o ndetse n’iya 10, 5o z’Iteka rya Perezida Nº 97/01 ryo kuwa 18/06/2014 rigena imikorere n’ububasha by’Umubitsi w’Impapuro Mpamo kandi n’ingingo ya 73 y’Itegeko Nº 43/2013 ryo kuwa 16/06/2013 rigenga ubutaka mu Rwanda ivuga ko amategeko, amateka n’amabwiriza yashyiraga mu bikorwa Itegeko Ngenga Nº 08/2005 ryo kuwa 14/07/2005

## Page 73

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 41 41

ryavuzwe haruguru akomeza kubahirizwa mu ngingo zayo zose zitanyuranije naryo gusa. 4. Ikibanza kiburanywa ni icya Harerimana Gaspard na Mukangwije Thérèse, bityo icyemezo cy’ubukode burambye Nº 0672/GAS/KAC cy’ikibanza kiburanwa cyanditswe kuri Sebukayire Tharcisse na Umutoni Sarah kikaba kigomba guteshwa agaciro, Umubitsi w’Inyandikompamo akandika icyo kibanza kuri Harerimana Gaspard na Mukangwije Thérèse. 5. Sebukayire ntagomba gusenya inyubako ze ziri mu kibanza Nº 0672/GAS/KAC kiburanwa kuko yafashe ubutaka kandi akabwubakaho ntaburyarya, bityo izo zikaba zikwiye kugumanwa na Harerimana Gaspard na Mukangwije Thérèse, ariko abashinzwe kubacungira umutungo bakazitangira indishyi zingana na miliyoni 33.589.068 frw hashingiwe ku gaciro kemejwe n’igenagaciro ryakoreshejwe na Harerimana Emmanuel kuko Sebukayire ntacyo yagaragaje kirivuguruza. 6. Harerimana Emmanuel n’abo bavukana bakwiye guhabwa indishyi zingana na 1.500.000Frw, zikubiyemo indishyi zo gushorwa mu manza n’igihembo cy’avoka kuko kuba Sebukayire yarahamagawe mu nzego z’ibanze ngo zibakemurire ikibazo akanga kwitaba, byatumye Harerimana agana inkiko kandi agira n’ibyo atakaza. Icyakora ntibakwiye guhabwa indishyi z’akababaro kubera ko Sebukayire yafashe ikibanza kiburanwa kandi acyubakamo nta buryarya. 7. Ku byerekeye ishyamba ryatemwe, ibyuzi by’amafi n’inzu y’ububiko yaba yarasenywe, urukiko rurasanga bitarigeze biregerwa ngo hagagaragazwe n’agaciro kabyo bityo bikaba bitasuzumwa muri uru rubanza. 8. Sebukayire ntakwiye guhabwa indishyi asaba kuko ntacyo agaragaza yangirijwe ku buryo yahabwa indishyi z’akababaro, HARERIMANA N’ABANDI v. SEBUKAYIRE 41

## Page 74

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 42 42

ndetse n’ay’igihembo cya avoka akaba atayahabwa kuko ariwe nyirabayazana w’izi manza. Ubujurire bufite ishingiro. Urubanza rwajuririwe ruhindutse kuri byose. Amagarama y’urubanza aherereye ku regwa. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nº 43/2013 ryo kuwa 16/06/2013 rigenga ubutaka mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 5, 20 n’iya 73 n’interuro ya 10. Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 118. Iteka rya Perezida Nº 97/01 ryo kuwa 18/06/2014 rigena imikorere n’ububasha by’Umubitsi w’Impapuro Mpamo, ingingo ya 6, (1o ) n’iya 10, (5o) . Itegeko Ngenga Nº 08/2005 ryo kuwa 14/07/2005 rigena imikoreshereze n’imicungire y’ubutaka mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 5. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo, Harerimana Emmanuel arega Sebukayire kubohoza ikibanza Se Harerimana Gaspard ngo yaguze na Karyango

## Page 75

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 43 43

Sévérien muri 1988, nyuma ya 1994 Sebukayire aza kucyibaruzaho ubwo Harerimana Gaspard n’umugore we bari barahunze ntihagire umenya irengero ryabo ku buryo nanubu nta muntu uzi niba bakiriho cyangwa barapfuye, kandi n’abana basize bakaba bari bakiri bato. Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwasanze icyo kibanza ari icya Harerimana Gaspard, rutegeka Sebukayire kugisubiza abana ba Harerimana Gaspard no kwishyura indishyi zitandukanye. [2] Sebukayire yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru avuga ko Urukiko rwemeje ko yabohoje ikibanza nyamara agifitiye ibyangombwa yahawe na Leta, kandi ko yaciwe indishyi zidafite ishingiro, zakagombye gucibwa Leta kuko ariyo yamuhaye ibyangombwa. [3] Urukiko Rukuru rumaze kuvuga ko Harelimana yareze Sebukayire mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye bapfa isambu (Cote 11), rushingiye kandi ku kuba Harerimana na Me Mulinzi umuburanira batarabashije kurutandukanyiriza ikibanza n’isambu biri mu mujyi, rwemeje ko urubanza rwagombaga gutangirira mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze, hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 67, agace ka 2o y’Itegeko-Ngenga Nº 51/2008 ryo kuwa 09/09/2008 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’inkiko, ivuga ko : “imanza zerekeranye n’amasambu, amatungo n’izungura kuri ibyo bintu zitangirira mu nkiko z’ibanze”, rutesha agaciro urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye kandi rutegeka ko ibintu bisubiye uko byari bimeze urubanza rutarabaho. [4] Harerimana Emmanuel yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwatandukiriye rugaca urubanza ku kitararegewe ngo kuko nta n’umwe mu baburanyi wari wanenze ububasha bw’Urukiko Rwisumbuye mu iburanisha, kandi ko ikibazo cy’iburabubasha kitari cyajuririwe. Ubujurire bwe HARERIMANA N’ABANDI v. SEBUKAYIRE 43

## Page 76

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 44 44

abushingira na none ku kuba umucamanza w’Urukiko Rukuru yarahinduye ikirego yirengagiza ko icyajuririwe ari nacyo cyaregewe mu ikubitiro mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye ari ikibanza atari isambu; agasaba uru Rukiko gukosora amakosa yakozwe n’Urukiko Rukuru. [5] Iburanisha ryabaye mu ruhame kuwa 07/01/2014, kuwa 11/02/2014 no kuwa 20/05/2014, Sebukayire Tharcisse yunganiwe na Me Butare Emmanuel naho Harerimana Emmanuel yunganiwe na Me Mulinzi Jean de Dieu. [6] Igihe cyiburanisha Me Butare Emmanuel uhagarariye Sebukayire yatanze inzitizi zitandukanye, iyo kutakira ubujurire kuko bwatanzwe bukererewe, kubera ko buturubahirije igihe cy’iminsi 5 giteganywa n’ingingo ya 90 y’Itegeko N° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ku byerekeye ibyemezo by’iburabubasha, ijyanye n’iburabubasha ry’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ngo kuko ikiburanwa kidafite agaciro kageze kuri 50.000.000 Frw gateganywa n’ingingo ya 28, 7º y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. Mu rubanza rubanziriza urundi Nº RCAA 0018/13/CS rwaciwe kuwa 21/03/2014, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwafashe icyemezo kuri izo nzitizi rwemeza ko nta shingiro zifite. [7] Indi nzitizi uhagarariye Sebukayire yatanze ni ijyanye n’uko Harerimana Emmanuel adafite ububasha (qualité) bwo guhagararira ababyeyi be mu gihe nta cyemezo afite kigaragaza ko bazimiye cyangwa bapfuye, ndetse ko n’urubanza Harerimana avuga ko rutanga ubwo bubasha rutahabwa agaciro,

## Page 77

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 45 45

yibutsa ko yari yaratanze iyi nzitizi mu Rukiko Rukuru ariko ntisuzumwe. [8] Mu rubanza rubanziriza urundi Nº RCAA 0018/13/CS rwaciwe kuwa 20/06/2014, Urukiko rushingiye ku rubanza RC 0252/14/TB/KCY rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Kacyiru kuwa 06/03/2014 rwemereye Harerimana Emmanuel gucunga imitungo yasizwe n’ababyeyi be Harerimana Gaspard na Mukangwije Thérèse bazimiye guhera muri 1994, rwemeje ko impamvu y’iburabubasha yatumaga Harerimana ataba umuburanyi kuva yatangira kugana inkiko zavanweho n’urwo rubanza rw’Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Kacyiru, itakiriho, rwemeza ko inzitizi y’iburabubasha nta shingiro ifite, rutegeka ko iburanisha rizakomeza kuwa 15/07/2014. [9] Uhagarariye Sebukayire yasabye na none Urukiko ko Leta yagobokeshwa, ariko Urukiko rusanga kugobokesha Leta bwa mbere mu bujurire kandi ishobora kugira ibyo icibwa binyuranije n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 118 y’Itegeko N° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru, rutegeka ko iburanisha rikomeza ku baburanyi bari mu rubanza. [10] Mbere yo guca urubanza, Urukiko rwasanze hakwiye gukorwa iperereza mu Kagari ka Kamutwa ikibanza kirimo, no mu Kigo cy’Igihugu gishinzwe Umutungo Kamere, ndetse naho ikiburanywa kiri, kugirango rubone amakuru ahagije ku rubanza, rwemeza ko iperereza rizakorwa ababuranyi badahari hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 100 y’Itegeko Nº 15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, iryo perereza rikorwa kuwa 01/10/2014, raporo yaryo igezwa ku baburanyi mu iburanisha ryo kuwa 06/10/2014 bagira icyo bayivugaho. HARERIMANA N’ABANDI v. SEBUKAYIRE 45

## Page 78

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 46 46

II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO II.1. Ibyerekeye kumenya nyiri ikibanza kiburanwa. [11] Me Mulinzi Jean de Dieu uhagarariye Harerimana Emmanuel avuga ko ikibanza Sebukayire yiyitirira, ari icya Harerimana Gaspard Se w’uwo yunganira, ibi akabishingira ku masezerano y’ubugure bwacyo Harerimana Gaspard yakoranye na Karyango muri 1988 (Cote 50), ku buhamya bw’umugore wa Gisagara, muramu wa Karyango, n’ubuhamya bwa Mukakimenyi, umugore wa Karyango buri muri raporo y’Ubuyobozi bw’Akagali ka Kamutwa aho yemeza ko ikibanza cyaguzwe na Harerimana Gaspard. Avuga ko nubwo ayo amasezerano y’ubugure ari kopi yafatwa nka “commencement de preuve par écrit” agahabwa agaciro kuko ariyo yashoboye kuboneka. [12] Uhagarariye Harerimana avuga kandi ko bakomeje gusaba Sebukayire kwerekana inkomoko y’ubutaka yiyitirira ntayigaragaze, ko n’amasezerano y’ubukode bw’ikibanza yo kuwa 11/06/1996 avuga yamuhesheje ubutaka yari kumara imyaka 3 gusa, byongeye kandi akaba atamwanditseho ahubwo yanditse ku witwa Rwigamba, bikaba bitumvika uko ikibanza cyaje kwandikwa kuri Sebukayire. Yongeraho ko umutungo w’umuntu ari ntayegayezwa nkuko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga, ku buryo na Leta itashoboraga kuhatanga hatabayeho “expropriation” kandi nyiraho atagenewe ingurane ikwiye. [13] Ku byerekeye raporo y’iperereza, avuga ko nayo igaragaza ko ikibanza ari icya Se w’uwo aburanira, bityo ko akwiye kugisubizwa, naho ku nyubako ziriho akavuga ko

## Page 79

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 47 47

Sebukayire yazikuraho kuko yihaye ikibanza ndetse akaryozwa n’indishyi z’ibyo yangirije. Asoza asaba ko uwo aburanira yasubizwa ikibanza cya Se, ko n’urubanza rw’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo rwagumaho. [14] Me Butare uhagarariye Sebukayire avuga ko icyo kibanza/Parcelle Sebukayire atakibohoje, ko yagihawe na Leta mu buryo bwemewe n’amategeko binyuze mu cyahoze ari MINITRAPE, akaba yarahawe “contrat de location N° L 23134 yo kuwa 11/09/95” yanditswe kuri Rwigamba François agasinyirwa na Se Sebukayire, igihe cyo gufata ibyangomba by’ubutaka kikamwandikwaho, ubu akaba agifitiye ibyangomwa yahawe n’Ikigo cy’Igihugu gishizwe Umutungo Kamere. [15] Avuga ko raporo y’Akagali ka Kamutwa kuri icyo kibanza ivugwa, yakozwe muri 2011, naho Sebukayire akaba yarahawe ikibanza ku tariki ya 5/06/2012, ko hari hashize umwaka iyo “litige” izwi, niba ntawagaragaje ikibazo igihe Sebukayire yahabwaga icyemezo, ni uko bari bazi ko agifite mu buryo bwemewe n’amategeko, kubera ko yari agisanganywe hashingiwe ku masezerano y’ubukode yanditse ku mwana we Rwigamba yo muri 1996, ari nayo yashingiweho ahabwa icyemezo. Naho ku bivugwa muri raporo y’iperereza ko ahagenewe amakuru ku nkomoko y’ikibanza mu gitabo cyandikwamo ubutaka ntakihanditse (“vide”) avuga ko byabazwa abuzuza icyo gitabo, atari ikosa rya Sebukayire. [16] Uhagarariye Sebukayire avuga kandi ko inyandiko Sebukayire afite ari inyandiko mpamo “acte authentique”, yahawe na Leta yari nyiri ubutaka, itagomba kuyegayezwa. Asoza asaba ko raporo y’Akagali ka Kamutwa n’inyandiko HARERIMANA N’ABANDI v. SEBUKAYIRE 47

## Page 80

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 48 48

y’ubugure ya Harerimana Gaspard bitashingirwaho, kubera ko izo nyandiko zitarusha agaciro inyandiko mpamo. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [17] Urukiko rurasanga muri dosiye y’urubanza harimo amasezerano y’ubugure bw’ishyamba yo kuwa 01/08/1988 hagati ya Harerimana Gaspard na Karyango yasinyweho na Kamuhanda Sylvestre, Kajyibwami Mathias na Gisagara Materne nk’abagabo bahamya ayo masezerano (cote 50). [18] Muri dosiye y’urubanza harimo kandi inyandiko y’Ubuyobozi bw’Umudugudu w’Urwibutso ku kibazo cy’ikibanza kiburanywa, aho Gisagara Materne muramu wa Karyango yemereye imbere y’Ubuyobozi bw’Umudugudu w’Urwibutso ko ariwe wanditse ayo masezerano y’ubugure, ko aho haburanwa Harerimana Gaspard yahaguze muri 1988, ariko ko atamenye uburyo Sebukayire yahubatse. Iyi mvugo kandi isubirwamo na Mukanyirimpuhwe Emeritha uvuga ko Harerimana akimara kuhagura na Karyango yahamutije ngo ajye ahahinga ariko ko nyuma ya 1994 yahasaruye rimwe ubwa kabiri imashini zikamwangiriza imyaka, ariko akaba ataramenye uwazizanaga. Naho Musonera Callixte wari umukozi wa Harerimana Gaspard mbere ya 1994 akavuga ko yahunze hakiri ishyamba rya Harerimana Gaspard, ariko yahunguka muri 1998 agasanga harubatswe ntamenye uwahubatse uwo ariwe, naho uwitwa Ngezahayo Narcisse akerekana abahanaga imbibi na Harerimana Gaspard aribo Pasiteri Ruzima Narcisse na Bizimungu Athanase, ko nawe atazi uburyo Sebukayire yahubatse (cotes 67-69).

## Page 81

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 49 49

[19] Urukiko rurasanga Sebukayire yarahamagawe n’Ubuyobozi bw’Umudugudu w’Urwibutso ndetse n’ Ubuyobozi bw’Akagari ka Kamutwa kugira ngo yisobanure ku kibazo k’ikibanza Harelimana yari yaregeye ubwo buyobozi avuga ko ari icya Se, ntiyitaba (cote 70), ariko rukaba rwarasanze mu Biro by’Akagali ka Kamutwa ubwo rwari mu iperereza, Icyemezo cy’ubukode burabye Nº 672/GAS/KAC cyanditse kuri Sebukayire Tharcisse na Umutoni Sarah, Umuhuzabikorwa w’Akagali akemeza ko cyatswe binyuze ku zindi nzego zitari ako Kagali kari kagejejweho ikibazo. [20] Urukiko rurasanga mu gitabo cyagenewe kwandikwamo iby’ubutaka urukiko rwasanze mu Biro by’Umubitsi w’Impapurompamo igihe cy’iperereza, ahagenewe kwandikwa inkomoko y’ubutaka, nta cyari kihanditse, kandi na Sebukayire atarugaragariza uburyo ikibanza cyavuye kuri Rwigamba kikamwandikwaho we n’Umutoni Sarah, bisobanura ko yahawe icyo cyemezo atagaragarije abagitanga aho yakomoye ubwo butaka yita ubwe yahawe na Leta, bikaba binyuranije n’ingingo ya 5 y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº 08/2005 ryo kuwa 14/07/2005 rigena imikoreshereze n’imicungire y’ubutaka mu Rwanda1 ryakoreshwaga Sebukayire abona icyangombwa cy’ikibanza kiburanwa ndetse n’ingingo ya 5 y’Itegeko Nº 43/2013 ryo

1 Ingingo ya 5 y’Itegeko Nº 08/2005 ryo kuwa 14/07/2005 rigena imikoreshereze n’imicungire y’ubutaka mu Rwanda ivuga ko : “Umuntu wese, ku giti cye cyangwa ishyirahamwe rifite ubuzima gatozi, batunze ubutaka, baba barabubonye ku bw’umuco, cyangwa se barabuhawe n’ubuyobozi bubifitiye ububasha cyangwa se barabuguze, bemerewe kubutunga ku buryo bw’ubukode burambye, hakurikijwe ibiteganywa n’iri Tegeko Ngenga”. HARERIMANA N’ABANDI v. SEBUKAYIRE 49

## Page 82

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 50 50

kuwa 16/06/2013 rigenga ubutaka mu Rwanda2 zivuga ko : “uburenganzira ku butaka bushingira ku kuba nyirabwo yarabubonye ku bw’umuco, cyangwa se yarabuhawe n’urwego rubifitiye ububasha, cyangwa se yarabuguze”; ibi bikaba bigaragaza ko Sebukayire wabonye icyemezo cy’iyandika ry’ubutaka bitanyuze muri imwe muri izo nzira yakibonye mu buryo bw’uburyarya nubwo ubutaka ubwabwo yabufashe ntaburyarya kubera ko yabumaranye imyaka irenga icumi ntawuragaragaza ko ari ubwe. [21] Urukiko rurasanga kandi ibyo Sebukayire n’Umwunganira bavuga ko ufite icyemezo cy’ubukode burambye ku butaka ariwe nyirabwo, ko icyo cyemezo ari ntayegayezwa babishingira ku ngingo ya 44 y’Igitabo cya II cy’Urwunge rw’Amategeko y’Imbonezamubano, bishingiye ku Iteka ryo kuwa 06/02/1920 ndetse no ku ngingo ya 23 y’Iteka rya Minisitiri Nº 002/2008 ryo kuwa 01/04/2008 rigena uburyo iyandikishwa ry’ubutaka rikorwa3, nyamara izo ngingo

2 Ingingo ya 5 y’Itegeko Nº 43/2013 ryo kuwa 16/06/2013 rigenga ubutaka mu Rwanda ivuga ko: “Umuntu wese ufite ubutaka, yaba yarabubonye ku bw’umuco, cyangwa se yarabuhawe n’urwego rubifitiye ububasha, cyangwa se yarabuguze, yemerewe kubutunga ku buryo bw’ubukode burambye hakurikijwe ibiteganywa n’’iri tegeko”. 3 “Ingingo ya 23 y’Iteka rya Minisitiri nº002/2008 ryo kuwa 01/04/2008 rigena uburyo iyandikwa ry’ubutaka rikorwa” igira iti: Icyemezo cy’iyandikisha cyerekana nta mpaka uburenganzira ku mutungo bwite w’ubutaka, ku bukode bw’ubutaka cyangwa uburenganzira ku mutungo cyangwa ibiwubangamira byanditse kuri icyo cyemezo. Uburenganzira ku mutungo nk’uko buvugwa mu cyemezo, ntibuhungabanywa kabone n’ubwo icyemezo cyaba cyarakozwe bashingiye ku masezerano yo kurekura umutungo ashobora guseswa cyangwa ashobora guteshwa agaciro, cyangwa icyemezo cy’urukiko cyemeza izungura ku buryo butunguranye.

## Page 83

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 51 51

z’amategeko zitakurikizwa kubera ko Umushingamategeko yasubiye ku ngingo zose z’Iteka ryo kuwa 06/02/1920 nkuko bigaragarira mu nteruro ya 10 y’Itegeko Nº 43/2013 ryo kuwa 16/06/2013 ryavuzwe haruguru ndetse n’ingingo ya 20 y’iri tegeko iteganya ko : “Iteka rya Minisitiri ufite ubutaka mu nshingano ze rigena uburyo iteshagaciro ry’iyandikisha ry’ubutaka rikorwa”. [22] Urukiko rurasanga na none ingingo ya 73 y’Itegeko Nº 43/2013 ryo kuwa 16/06/2013 ryavuzwe haruguru ivuga ko amategeko, amateka n’amabwiriza yashyiraga mu bikorwa Itegeko Ngenga Nº 08/2005 ryo kuwa 14/07/2005 ryavuzwe haruguru akomeza kubahirizwa mu ngingo zayo zose zitanyuranije naryo, bisobanuye ko ingingo ya 23 y’Iteka rya Minisitiri Nº 002/2008 ryo kuwa 01/04/2008 ryavuzwe haruguru iteganya ubutayegayezwa idashobora gukurikizwa kubera ko inyuranye n’interuro ya 10 ndetse n’ingingo ya 20 y’Itegeko No 43/2013 ryo kuwa 16/06/2013 ryavuzwe haruguru ziteganya ko ibyangombwa by’ubutaka bishobora guteshwa agaciro, kandi uyu murongo unashimangirwa n’ingingo ya 6, 1o ndetse n’iya 10, 5o z’Iteka rya Perezida Nº 97/01 ryo kuwa 18/06/2014 rigena imikorere n’ububasha by’Umubitsi w’Impapuro Mpamo4.

4 Ingingo ya 6(1o) y’Iteka rya Perezida No 97/01 ryo kuwa 18/06/2014 rigena imikorere n’Ububasha by’Umubitsi w’Impapuro Mpamo igira iti: “By’umwihariko Inama y’Ababitsi b’Impapuro Mpamo ifite inshingano zikurikira: kwemeza iteshagaciro ry’ibyemezo by’iyandikisha ry’ubutaka” naho ingingo ya 10(5o) ikagira iti: Umubitsi Mukuru w’Impapuro Mpamo z’Ubutaka n’Umubitsi w’Impapurompamo z’ubutaka bafite ububasha bukurikira: … 5o gutesha agaciro icyemezo cy’iyandikisha ry’ubutaka mu buryo buteganywa n’amategeko”. HARERIMANA N’ABANDI v. SEBUKAYIRE 51

## Page 84

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 52 52

[23] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro n’amategeko byatanzwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga, ikibanza kiburanywa ari icya Harerimana Gaspard na Mukangwije Thérèse, bityo icyemezo cy’ubukode burambye Nº 0672/GAS/KAC k’ikibanza kiri mu Mudugudu w’Urwibutso, Akagari ka Kamutwa, Umurenge wa Kacyiru, Akarere ka Gasabo, Umujyi wa Kigali cyanditswe kuri Sebukayire Tharcisse na Umutoni Sarah kikaba kigomba guteshwa agaciro, Umubitsi w’Inyandikompamo akagikura ku mazina ya Sebukayire Tharcisse n’Umutoni Sarah kikandikwa kuri Harerimana Gaspard na Mukangwije Thérèse. II.2. Ibirebana n’amazu yubatswe ku Kibanza kiburanwa. [24] Me Mulinzi Jean de Dieu uburanira Harerimana avuga ko batanga ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye baregeye ikibanza n’inyubako zikirimo zifite agaciro k’amafaranga miliyoni 33.589.068 Frw, nk’uko bigaragazwa na “expertise” babikoreye, ko yakozwe mu rwego rwo kugaragaza agaciro k’ikiburanwa, kandi ko kuba hari inzu ya «étage» Harerimana Gaspard yubatse, byumvikana ko hari na za annexes zayo zari mu kibanza kiburanywa, yongeraho ko mu gihe urukiko rwasanga zarubatswe na Sebukayire rwategeka ko azikuraho kuko yazubatse mu buriganya. [25] Me Butare wunganira Sebukayire we avuga ko Sebukayire yasanze muri icyo kibanza nta nyubako zihari ahubaka amazu ari nayo ariho ubu, ko atumva ukuntu Uwunganira Harerimana avuga ko ayo mazu ari ay’uwo baburana.

## Page 85

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 53 53

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [26] Urukiko rurasanga ibyo Uwunganira Harerimana avuga ko kuba hari inzu ya “étage” Harerimana Gaspard yubatse byumvikana ko hari na za annexes zayo mu kibanza kiburanywa, bitahabwa agaciro, kuko Umuyobozi w’Umudugudu w’Urwibutso n’uw’Akagali ka Kamutwa, babwiye urukiko ubwo rwari mu iperereza, ko inyubako ziri ku kibanza ari Sebukayire wazubatse, ibi bikemezwa kandi n’imvugo ya Harerimana Emmanuel ubwe wavuze ko atibuka niba ikibanza cyariho inzu, ndetse niz’uwitwa Musonera Callixte wari umukozi wa Harerimana Gaspard wavuze ko muri 1994 yahunze hakiri ishyamba rya Harerimana Gaspard, n’iza Mukanyirimpuhwe Emeritha wavuze ko muri icyo kibanza yahahingaga ariko ko nyuma ya 1994 haje imashini zirahasiza; bityo hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 3 y’Itegeko Nº 15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ivuga ko: “buri muburanyi agomba kugaragaza ukuri kw’ibyo aburana”, kandi Harerimana n’umwunganira bakaba aha ntabyo bagaragaje, inzu zubatswe ku kibanza kiburanwa zikaba ari iza Sebukayire. [27] Urukiko rurasanga kandi Sebukayire Tharcisse yarubatse amazu mu kibanza cya Harerimana Gaspard n’umugore ntawuhakorera kuko bombi bari barahunze n’abana babo barimo Harerimana Emmanuel bakiri bato, kandi kugeza muri 2011, abo bana bari batararegera Ubuyobozi bw’ibanze ko ikibanza ari icyabo, bisobanuye ko Sebukayire yahubatse yibwira ko ari ahe kandi ntihagira n’ubimubuza, ibi bikaba bigaragaza ko yubaka nta buryarya yari afite. HARERIMANA N’ABANDI v. SEBUKAYIRE 53

## Page 86

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 54 54

[28] Urukiko rurasanga rero n’ubwo ingingo ya 35, igika cya 3 y’Itegeko Nº 43/2013 ryo kuwa 16/06/2013 ryavuzwe haruguru iteganya ko uwubatse ku butaka bw’abandi mu buryo butemewe yasabwa gukuraho inyubako ze, ndetse no kubiryorezwa indishyi z’impozamarira cyangwa iz’ibyo yangirije5, ibyo Uwunganira Harerimana asaba ko Sebukayire yakura inyubako ze ku kibanza bitahabwa ishingiro mu gihe Sebukayire yafashe ubutaka kandi akabwubakaho ntaburyarya nk’uko byasobanuwe mu gika cya 20, bityo inyubako ziri ku kibanza Nº 0672/GAS/KAC zikaba zikwiye kugumanwa na Harerimana Gaspard na Mukangwije Thérèse, ariko abashinzwe kubacungira umutungo bakazitangira indishyi zingana na miliyoni 33.589.068frw hashingiwe ku gaciro kemejwe n’igenagaciro ryakoreshejwe na Harerimana Emmanuel kuko Sebukayire ntacyo yagaragaje kirivuguruza. II.3. Ibirebana n’indishyi n’ibindi bisabwa mu rubanza. [29] Me Murinzi wunganira Harerimana asaba urukiko ko uwo aburanira yahabwa 3.000.000Frw y’indishyi z’akababaro, 1.000.000Frw yo gukururwa mu manza na 500.000Frw y’igihembo cya avoka kandi ko yaryozwa indishyi z’inzu yabikwagamo ibikoresho byubakishwaga mu kibanza Nº 671 Sebukayire yashenye, ishyamba yatemye, n’ibyuzi by’amafi yasibye.

5 Ingingo ya 35, igika cya 3 y’Itegeko Nº 43/2013 ryo kuwa 16/06/2013 rigenga ubutaka mu Rwanda igira iti: “Mu gihe inyubako cyangwa se ibihingwa byashyizwe n’undi muntu ku butaka butari ubwe hadakurikijwe ibisabwa n’amategeko cyangwa amasezerano, nyir’ubutaka afite uburenganzira bwo gusaba uwabishyizeho kubikuraho bitabujije no gusaba impozamarira cyangwa indishyi mu gihe hari ibikorwa bye byangijwe”.

## Page 87

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 55 55

[30] Me Butare wunganira Sebukayire avuga ko iby’indishyi zisabwa na Harerimana kubera ibyuzi by’amafi byasibwe, ishyamba ryatemwe n’inzu zasenywe nta shingiro bifite kubera ko ari ikirego gishya kitigeze kiburanwaho, ahubwo ko Urukiko rwagenera uwo yunganira 3.000.000Frw y’indishyi z’akababaro kubera gushorwa mu manza nta mpamvu na 1.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya avoka. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [31] Ku birebana n’indishyi Me Murinzi asaba ko zahabwa Harerimana Emmanuel n’abo bavukana, Urukiko rurasanga akwiye guhabwa izo asaba zo gushorwa mu manza zingana na 1.000.000frw, kuko kuba Sebukayire yarahamagawe mu nzego z’ibanze ngo zibakemurire ikibazo akanga kwitaba nk’uko byemejwe n’ubuyobozi bw’ ibanze, byatumye Harerimana agana inkiko kandi agira n’ibyo atakaza, bityo akaba agomba no guhabwa 500.000Frw y’igihembo cya avoka kuko yaburanye yunganiwe na avoka, indishyi zose hamwe zikaba zingana na 1.500.000Frw. [32] Urukiko rurasanga cyakora adakwiye guhabwa indishyi z’akababaro asaba kubera ko nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, Sebukayire yafashe ikibanza kiburanwa kandi acyubakamo nta buryarya. Naho ku byerekeye ishyamba ryatemwe, ibyuzi by’amafi n’inzu y’ububiko yaba yarasenywe, urukiko rurasanga bitarigeze biregerwa ngo hagagaragazwe n’agaciro kabyo bityo bikaba bitasuzumwa muri uru rubanza. [33] Ku birebana n’indishyi Sebukayire n’umwunganira basaba, urukiko rurasanga zidakwiriye, kuko ntacyo agaragaza yangirijwe ku buryo yahabwa indishyi z’akababaro, ndetse HARERIMANA N’ABANDI v. SEBUKAYIRE 55

## Page 88

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 56 56

n’ay’igihembo cya avoka akaba atayahabwa kuko ariwe nyirabayazana w’izi manza. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [34] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Harerimana Emmanuel uhagarariye abavandimwe be bufite ishingiro; [35] Rwemeje ko ikibanza Nº 0672/GAS/KAC giherereye mu Mudugudu w’Urwibutso, Akagali ka Kamutwa, Umurenge wa Kacyiru, Akarere ka Gasabo ari icya Harerimana Gaspard na Mukangwije Thérèse bashakanye; [36] Rutegetse ko icyemezo cy’ubukode burambye Nº 672/GAS/KAC cyanditse kuri Sebukayire Tharcisse na Umutoni Sarah giteshwa agaciro, Umubitsi w’ inyandikompamo akacyandika kuri Harerimana Gaspard na Mukangwije Thérèse; [37] Rutegetse Harerimana Emmanuel n’abo ahagarariye bacunga umutungo w’ababyeyi babo gusubiza Sebukayire Tharcisse agaciro k’inyubako ziri mu kibanza Nº 672/GAS/KAC kangana na 33.589.068Frw; [38] Rutegetse Sebukayire Tharcisse guha Harerimana Emmanuel n’abo ahagarariye indishyi zingana n’amafaranga 1.500.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya avoka; [39] Ruvuze ko imikirize y’urubanza RCA 0579/12/HC/KIG ihindutse kuri byose; [40] Rutegetse Sebukayire Tharcisse kwishyura amagarama y’urubanza ahwanye n’amafaranga 100.000Frw.

## Page 89

57

NYIRAHABYARIMANA N’UNDI v. NTEZIRYAYO [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RCAA 0086/11/CS (Mukanyundo, P.J., Rugabirwa na Gatete G., J.) 30 Mutarama 2015] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano – Ubujurire mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga – Icyemezo cy’ibanzirizasuzuma – Itariki-fatizo mu kubara ibihe by’ubujurire ku muburanyi wari mu iburanisha rya nyuma akamenyeshwa umunsi w’isomwa ry’urubanza ariko uwo munsi wagera isomwa rikimurirwa ku wundi munsi – Imenyeshwa ry’urubanza – Iyo umuburanyi yitabye mu iburanisha rya nyuma akamenyeshwa umunsi w’isomwa ry’urubanza, ibihe byo kujurira bitangira kubarwa guhera ku munsi isomwa ryabereyeho kabone n’iyo yaba atari ahari cyangwa adahagarariwe – Iyo umuburanyi atitabiriye umuhango w’isomwa ry’urubanza, ntibibuza ko urwo rubanza rukomeza gufatwa nk’urwaburanishijwe ababuranyi bo ku mpande zombi bahari – Nta na hamwe hateganyijwe ko umuburanyi wari mu iburanisha rya nyuma kandi watangarijwe itariki urubanza ruzasomwaho agomba kumenyeshwa imikirize y’urubanza kabone n’ubwo isomwa ryaba ryimuriwe ku wundi munsi – Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo za 163(1) – Itegeko Ngenga n° 01/2004 ryo kuwa 29/01/2004 ryerekeye imitunganyirize, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 47(1).

## Page 90

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 58 58

Incamake y’ikibazo: Nyirahabyarimana n’umukobwa we Murekatete batanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Muhanga batambamira imikirize y’urubanza RC 5012/17/2003 rwaciwe n’Urukiko rwa Mbere rw’Iremezo rwa Gitarama rukemeza ko Nteziryayo ari mwene Uwamungu Azarias, rukanategeka ko umutungo wose wa Uwamungu ugabanywamo kabiri, ½ kikaba icya Nyirahabyarimana ikindi kikaba icy’abazungura ba Uwamungu. Nyirahabyarimana na Murekatete ntibishimiye imikirize y’urubanza barujuririra mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza, ariko rwemeza ko ubujurire bwabo nta shingiro bufite, bituma bongera kujuririra Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. Umucamanza washinzwe ibanzirizasuzuma yemeje ko ikirego cyabo kitakiriwe kubera ko cyatanzwe gikererewe. Batakambiye President w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga bavuga ko ubujurire bwabo bwagombaga kwakirwa kuko bajuriye mu gihe giteganywa n’amategeko kubera itariki yagombaga gushingirwaho habarwa ibihe by’ubujurire ari iya 27/4/2010, ni ukuvuga igihe bamenyesherejweho imikirize y’urubanza n’Umunyamabanga Nshingwabikorwa w’Akagari ka Nyakabanda ya II, aho kuba itariki ya 18/03/2010 nk’uko byemejwe n’Umucamanza w’ibanzirizasuzuma kuko urubanza bajuririye rwaburanishijwe tariki ya 18/1/2010, maze Umucamanza avuga ko ruzasomwa tariki ya 3/3/2010 ariko uwo munsi ntirwasomwa, ahubwo isomwa ryimurirwa tariki ya 18/3/2010, iyi tariki ikaba itarigeze imenyeshwa ababuranyi. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Iyo umuburanyi yitabye mu iburanisha rya nyuma akamenyeshwa umunsi w’isomwa ry’urubanza, ibihe byo kujurira bitangira kubarwa guhera ku munsi isomwa ryabayeho kabone n’iyo yaba atari ahari

## Page 91

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 59 59

cyangwa adahagarariwe, icyangombwa ni uko aba yaramenyeshejwe umunsi w’isomwa ry’urubanza. 2. Iyo umuburanyi atitabiriye umuhango w’isomwa ry’urubanza, ntibibuza ko urwo rubanza rukomeza gufatwa ko rwaburanishijwe ababuranyi bo ku mpande zombi bahari kandi niwe wirengera ingaruka zabyo. 3. Nta na hamwe hateganyijwe ko umuburanyi wari mu iburanisha rya nyuma kandi watangarijwe itariki urubanza ruzasomwaho agomba kumenyeshwa imikirize y’urubanza kabone n’ubwo isomwa ryaba ryimuriwe ku wundi munsi, kuko iyo umuburanyi yitabiriye umuhango w’isomwa ry’urubanza rwe amenya umunsi urubanza rwimuriweho, iyo rero ataje aba ari ikosa rye agomba kwirengera. Ubujurire ntibwakiriwe. Amagarama aherereye ku barega. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo za 163(1). Itegeko Ngenga n° 01/2004 ryo kuwa 29/01/2004 ryerekeye imitunganyirize, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 47(1). Imanza zifishishijwe: MAERSK RWANDA Ltd v. SONARWA SA, RCOMA 0134/11/CS, rwaciwe n’urukiko rw‘Ikirenga, kuwa 3/5/2013 NYIRAHABYARIMANA N’UNDI v. NTEZIRYAYO 59

## Page 92

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 60 60

Ubushinjacyaha v. Ntawiringiribyisi, RPA 0258/08/CS rwaciwe n’urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 30/11/2009, Association Umwungeri v. Mushayija, RADA 00034/09/CS rwaciwe n’urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 12/02/2010. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Nyirahabyarimana Marcelline n’umukobwa we Murekatete Chantal bareze Nteziryayo Dieudonné mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Muhanga, batambamira imikirize y’urubanza RC 5012/17/2003 rwaciwe n’Urukiko rwa Mbere rw’Iremezo rwa Gitarama rwemeje ko Nteziryayo Dieudonné ari mwene Uwamungu Azarias, rukanategeka ko umutungo wose wa Uwamungu ugabanywamo kabiri, ½ kikaba icya Nyirahabyarimana Marcelline ikindi kikaba icy’abazungura Uwamungu yasize. [2] Nyirahabyarimana Marcelline na Murekatete Chantal ntibishimiye imikirize y’uru rubanza barujuririra mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza, rwaciye urubanza RCA 0110/09/HC/NYA kuwa 18/3/2010 rwemeza ko ubujurire bwabo nta shingiro bufite. [3] Na none Nyirahabyarimana Marcelline na Murekatete Chantal ntibishimiye imikirize y’urubanza barujuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, ikirego cyabo gihabwa nº RCAA 0089/10/CS, Umucamanza washinzwe ibanzirizasuzuma mu cyemezo nº RCIV 0045/Préx-ex/11/CS yafashe kuwa

## Page 93

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 61 61

10/06/2011, yemeza ko ikirego cyabo kitakiriwe kubera ko cyatanzwe gikererewe. [4] Mu gusobanura icyemezo cye, Umucamanza yavuze ko ubujurire bwa Nyirahabyarimana na Murekatete butubahirije igihe cy’ukwezi giteganywa n’ingingo ya 47 y’Itegeko Ngenga nº 01/2004 ryo kuwa 29/01/2004 rigena imitunganyirize, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, kuko urubanza bajuririye rwaciwe kuwa 18/03/2010, bo barujuririra kuwa 25/5/2010. [5] Nyirahabyarimana Narcelline na Murekatete Chantal bamenyeshejwe icyo cyemezo tariki ya 21/07/2011, bakijuririra tariki ya 3/08/2011, ni ukuvuga mu gihe cy’iminsi 15 cyateganywaga n’ingingo ya 55 y’Itegeko Ngenga n° 01/2004 ryo kuwa 29/01/2004; bityo ubujurire bwabo bukaba bukwiye kwakirwa bugasuzumwa kuko bwakozwe mu bihe bikurikije amategeko. [6] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame kuwa 6/01/2015, Nyirahabyarimana Marcelline na Murekatete Chantal baburanirwa na Me Ingabire Gaudence naho Nteziryayo Dieudonné aburanirwa na Me Nizeyimana Boniface. II. ISESENGURA RY’IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA Kumenya niba ubujurire bwa Nyirahabyarimana Marcelline na Murekatete bwaratanzwe bukererewe. [7] Me Ingabire Gaudence uburanira Nyirahabyarimana Marcelline na Murekatete Chantal yavuze ko ubujurire bwabo NYIRAHABYARIMANA N’UNDI v. NTEZIRYAYO 61

## Page 94

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 62 62

aburanira bwagombaga kwakirwa kuko bajuriye mu gihe giteganywa n’amategeko kuko itariki yagombaga gushingirwaho habarwa ibihe by’ubujurire ari iya 27/4/2010, ni ukuvuga igihe bamenyesherejweho imikirize y’urubanza n’Umunyamabanga Nshingwabikorwa w’Akagari ka Nyakabanda ya II, aho kuba itariki ya 18/03/2010 nk’uko byemejwe n’Umucamanza w’ibanzirizasuzuma kuko urubanza bajuririye rwaburanishijwe tariki ya 18/1/2010, maze Umucamanza avuga ko ruzasomwa tariki ya 3/3/2010 ariko uwo munsi ntirwasomwa, ahubwo isomwa ryimurirwa tariki ya 18/3/2010, iyi tariki ikaba itarigeze imenyeshwa ababuranyi. [8] Yabajijwe impamvu abo aburanira bataje gusomerwa kandi bari bamenyeshejwe itariki urubanza rwabo ruzasomerwaho ndetse na nyuma y‘aho ntibakurikirane uko rwasomwe, asubiza ko byatewe n’ikibazo cyo kubura itike ndetse ko bagize n’ikibazo cyo kutamenya amategeko. [9] Me Nizeyimana Boniface uburanira Nteziryayo Dieudonné yavuze ko ubujurire bwa Nyirahabyarimana Marcelline na Murekatete Chantal butagomba kwakirwa kuko bajuriye bakererewe bitewe nuko urubanza bajuririye rwasomwe kuwa 18/3/2010 barujurira kuwa 25/5/2010 ni ukuvuga mu gihe kirenze ukwezi cyateganywaga n’ingingo ya 47 y’Itegeko nº 01/2004 ryo kuwa 29/01/2014 rigena imitunganyirize, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. [10] Yasobanuye ko Nyirahabyarimana Marcelline na Murekatete Chantal ntaho bahera bavuga ko bagombaga kumenyeshwa umunsi w’isomwa ry’urubanza kuko bari bitabiriye iburanisha rya nyuma ry’urubanza bakamenyeshwa ko ruzasomwa kuwa 3/3/2010 ndetse bashyira umukono ku nyandi-komvugo y‘iburanisha, byumvikana ko bagombaga kuza

## Page 95

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 63 63

gusomerwa kuri uwo munsi, kuba rero isomwa ry‘urubanza ryari riteganyijwe kuwa 3/3/2010 ritarabaye, ahubwo rikimurirwa kuwa 18/3/2010, nta rindi menyesha ryagombaga gukorwa kuko iyo baza kwitaba uwo munsi bari kugenda basinyiye itariki isomwa ryimuriweho yo kuya 18/03/2010. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [11] Ibibazo bigomba gusuzumwa muri uru rubanza ni icyo kumenya igihe cy’ifatizo giherwaho mu kubara ibihe by’ijurira ku muburanyi wari mu iburanisha rya nyuma akamenyeshwa umunsi w’isomwa ry’urubanza, uwo munsi wagera ntirusomwe ariko Urukiko rukabikorera inyandikomvugo yerekana impamvu kandi rugatangaza indi tariki isomwa rishyizweho. Hari kandi ikindi kibazo kijyanye no kumenya niba umuburanyi witabiriye iburanisha rya nyuma akamenyeshwa itariki urubanza ruzasomwaho agomba kumenyeshwa imikirize y’urubanza. [12] Ingingo ya 163, igika cya mbere y’Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi kimwe n’iya 47, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko Ngenga n° 01/2004 ryo kuwa 29/01/2004 ryerekeye imitunganyirize, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ziteganya ko «igihe ntarengwa cyo kujurira ari ukwezi kumwe, ko icyo gihe gitangira kubarwa, ku manza zaciwe ababuranyi bombi bahari cyangwa ku manza ababuranyi bamenyeshejwe umunsi w’isomwa ntibitabe, kuva ku munsi zasomeweho”. [13] Ingingo z’amategeko zimaze kuvugwa, zigaragaza ko iyo umuburanyi yitabye mu iburanisha rya nyuma NYIRAHABYARIMANA N’UNDI v. NTEZIRYAYO 63

## Page 96

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 64 64

akamenyeshwa umunsi w’isomwa ry’urubanza, ibihe byo kujurira bitangira kubarwa guhera ku munsi isomwa ryabayeho kabone n’iyo yaba atari ahari cyangwa adahagarariwe, icyangombwa ni uko aba yaramenyeshejwe umunsi w’isomwa ry’urubanza. [14] Ku kibazo cyo kumenya itariki-fatizo mu kubara ibihe by’ubujurire ku muburanyi wari mu iburanisha rya nyuma akamenyeshwa umunsi w’isomwa ry’urubanza, uwo munsi wagera ntirusomwe ariko Urukiko rukabikorera inyandikomvugo rusobanura impamvu kandi rugatangaza indi tariki isomwa ryimuriweho; igisubizo kuri iki kibazo gitangwa n’ibivugwa mu ngingo ya 163 n’iya 47 zimaze kuvugwa haruguru kuko byumvikana ko iyo umuburanyi yitabiriye isomwa ry’urubanza amenya neza niba rusomwe cyangwa niba isomwa ryimuwe; bityo akanamenya itariki nshya isomwa ryimuriweho. Iyo umuburanyi atitabiriye umuhango w’isomwa ry’urubanza, ntibibuza ko urwo rubanza rukomeza gufatwa ko rwaburanishijwe ababuranyi bo ku mpande zombi bahari kandi niwe wirengera ingaruka zabyo. [15] Ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba umuburanyi witabiriye iburanisha rya nyuma akamenyeshwa umunsi w’isomwa agomba kumenyeshwa imikirize y’urubanza, Urukiko rusanga ingingo Nyirahabyarimana Marcelline na Murekatete Chantal baburanisha ko ibihe by’ubujurire kuri bo bigomba kubarwa haherewe ku munsi bamenyesherejweho imikirize y’urubanza nta shingiro ifite kuko nta na hamwe hateganyijwe ko umuburanyi wari mu iburanisha rya nyuma kandi watangarijwe itariki urubanza ruzasomwaho agomba kumenyeshwa imikirize y’urubanza kabone n’ubwo isomwa ryaba ryimuriwe ku wundi munsi, kuko iyo umuburanyi yitabiriye umuhango w’isomwa

## Page 97

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 65 65

ry’urubanza rwe amenya umunsi urubanza rwimuriweho, kuba rero Nyirahabyarimana Marcelline na Murekatete Chantal bataraje gusomerwa kuwa 18/03/2010 akaba ari ikosa ryabo bagomba kwirengera. [16] Byongeye kandi kuba Nyirahabyarimana Marcelline na Murekatete Chantal baramenyeshejwe itariki urubanza ruzasomwaho ariko ntibitabe cyangwa ngo bohereze ubahagararira muri uwo muhango, batashingira kuri uko kubura kwabo maze ngo bavuge ko bagombaga kumenyeshwa imikirize y‘urubanza barufata nk’aho rwaburanishijwe badahari, cyane ko iryo menyesharubanza ritari ngombwa, bityo rikaba nta n‘ingaruka rigomba kugira mu kubara ibihe by’ubujurire nk’uko babiburanisha. Uyu kandi niwo murongo wafashwe n’uru Rukiko mu manza zinyuranye1, aho rwagiye rwemeza ko itariki fatizo y’igihe cy’ubujurire ku muburanyi wamenyeshejwe umunsi w’isomwa ry’urubanza mu iburanisha rya nyuma itaba iy’igihe uwo muburanyi utaritabiriye isomwa ry’urubanza yamenyesherejweho imikirize yarwo kandi bitari ngombwa ko ahubwo ku rubanza ruciwe nyuma y’iyimurwa ry’isomwa ryabereye mu ruhame, umunsi fatizo w’ibara ry’ibihe by’ubujurire ari uwo rwasomeweho bitabaye ngombwa ko icyemezo cy’Urukiko kimenyeshwa ababuranyi batitabiriye isomwa ry’urubanza nta mpamvu.

1Nko mu rubanza nº RCOMA 0134/11/CS, MAERSK RWANDA Ltd yaburanye na SONARWA SA rwaciwe kuwa 3/5/2013, mu rubanza nº RPA 0258/08/CS, Ntawiringiribyisi Théoneste yaburanye n’Ubushinjacyaha rwaciwe kuwa 30/11/2009, mu rubanza nº RADA 00034/09/CS, Association Umwungeri yaburanye na Mushayija François rwaciwe kuwa 12/02/2010.

NYIRAHABYARIMANA N’UNDI v. NTEZIRYAYO 65

## Page 98

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 66 66

[17] Hashingiwe ku byasobanuwe, uru Rukiko rurasanga icyemezo cy’umucamanza w’ibanzirizasuzuma cyajuririwe kitagomba guhinduka kuko cyafashwe mu buryo bwubahirije amategeko, bityo ubujurire bwa Nyirahabyarimana Marcelline na Murekatete Marie Chantal bukaba nta shingiro bufite. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [18] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Nyirahabyarimana Marcelline na Murekatete Chantal ku cyemezo cy’ibanzirizasuzuma nta shingiro bufite. [19] Rubategetse gutanga amagarama y’urubanza angana na 100.000Frw, buri wese agatanga ½ cyayo ni ukuvuga 50.000Frw.

## Page 99

URUBANZA RW’UMURIMO

## Page 101

69

BIZIMANA v. CIMERWA Ltd [Rwanda URUKIKO RUKURU – R.S0C.A 0003/13/HC/RSZ – (Kanyegeri, P.J.) 30 Mutarama 2014] Amategeko agenga Umurimo – Iseswa ry’amasezerano – Ikosa rikomeye – Amasezerano y’akazi ashobora guseswa nta nteguza iyo habaye ikosa rikomeye ry’umwe mu bayagiranye – Itegeko ry’umurimo ntiriteganya ko umukoresha aryozwa indishyi ku mpamvu zo kutamenyesha umukozi iryo kosa mu gihe cy’amasaha 48 – Itegeko nº 13/2009 ryo kuwa 27/05/2009 rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 32. Incamake y’ikibazo: Bizimana yareze CIMERWA Ltd mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye asaba indishyi ku mpamvu zo kwirukanwa bidakurikije amategeko. Urwo Rukiko rwemeje ko ikirego cye nta shingiro gifite, icyakora rutegeka CIMERWA Ltd guha Bizimana umushahara wa nyuma (décompte final). Bizimana ntiyishimiye imikirize y’urubanza ajurira mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi avuga ko Urukiko rubanza rwemeje ko yakoze ikosa rikomeye “faute lourde” kandi uburyozwe bw’icyaha bwemezwa n’inzego zibishinzwe ndetse ko n’iyo iri kosa ryaba ryarakozwe, gusesa amasezerano bisaba integuza y’amasaha 48, bitaba ibyo hakaba kuryozwa indishyi. CIMERWA Ltd ivuga ko iperereza ryakozwe n’urukiko ryemeje ko Bizimana yakoze ubujura bw’icyuma, maze rubifata nk’ikosa rikomeye kandi ko kutamenyeshwa iryo kosa nta gihombo byamuteye. Naho ku bijyanye n’umushahara wa nyuma, ivuga ko nta gihombo Bizimana agaragaza yatewe no kutawuhabwa.

## Page 102

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 70 70

Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Amasezerano y’akazi ashobora guseswa nta nteguza iyo habaye ikosa rikomeye ry’umwe mu bayagiranye. 2. Itegeko ry’umurimo ntiriteganya ko umukoresha aryozwa indishyi ku mpamvu zo kutamenyesha umukozi ikosa rikomeye mu gihe cy’amasaha 48. 3. Umukozi ntagenerwa indishyi z’icyemezo cy’umukoresha kuko bigaragara ko cyakozwe ndetse n’amasaha y’ikirenga atahembwe kimwe na Konji zihemberwa nabyo ntiyabiherwa indishyi kuko byatanzwe nk’uko bigaragara mu nyandiko y’umushahara wa nyuma (decompte final) yakozwe n’umukoresha kandi umukozi akaba atagaragaza uburyo aya mafaranga yabariwe atariyo. Ubujurire nta shingiro bufite; Urubanza rwajuririwe ntiruhindutse; Amagarama y’urubanza aherereye ku wajuriye. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko nº 13/2009 ryo ku wa 27/05/2009 rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda, ingigo ya 32. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA. [1] Bizimana yareze uwari umukoresha we CIMERWA Ltd, asaba indishyi ku mpamvu zo kwirukanywa bidakurikije

## Page 103

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 71 71

amategeko. Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rusizi rwaregewe mbere iki kirego, nyuma yo kugisuzuma rwemeje ko nta shingiro gifite, ariko Cimerwa Ltd itegekwa guha Bizimana amafaranga y’u Rwanda ibihumbi magana atatu na mirongo inani n’umunani n’amafaranga magana arindwi na mirongo inani n’atatu (388.783) ya décompte final. [2] Bizimana ntiyishimiye iyi mikirize ajuririra uru Rukiko. Muri uru rubanza hakaba hasuzumwa ingingo Bizimana ashingiraho ajurira, zijyanye no kuba iby’ikosa rikomeye bitarumvikanye neza kimwe n’ingaruka zaryo. II. ISESENGURA RY’IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA. Kuba urukiko rwarafashe nabi ibijyanye n’ikosa rikomeye “faute lourde”, ndetse n’indishyi zijyana naryo.  [3] Mu iburana ryo ku wa 10/01/2014 Me Muhimanyi uburanira Bizimana avuga ko bajurizwa n’uko urukiko rwafashe ibintu uko bitari, rwemeza ko Bizimana yakoze ikosa rikomeye “faute lourde”, kandi uburyozwe bw’icyaha bwemezwa n’inzego zibishinze. Kuko n’iyo iri kosa ryaba ryarakozwe, gusesa amasezerano bisaba integuza y’amasaha 48, bitaba ibyo hakaba kuryozwa indishyi, kuko n’icyuma “axe” Bizimana yasohokanye mu Ruganda ari icye yari yasabye kuhakoreshereza, arabyemererwa. [4] Me Nyandwi uburanira Cimerwa avuga ko iperereza ryakozwe n’urukiko ryemeje ko Bizimana yakoze ubujura bw’icyuma, bifatwa bityo nk’ikosa rikomeye, kuko nta na prejudice Bizimana agaragaza yaba yaratewe no kudahabwa BIZIMANA v. CIMERWA Ltd 71

## Page 104

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 72 72

décompte final ku gihe kimwe no kutamenyeshwa ikosa rikomeye. [5] Nubwo Bizimana avuga ko yirukanywe mu kazi arenganyijwe, kuko icyuma yasohokanaga mu Ruganda ari icyo yari yarasabye uburenganzira bwo kuhakoreshereza, ntahakana ko atashoboye kugaragaza fagitire yabyo. Kuba Cimerwa yarabifashe nk’ubujura Bizimana afatiwemo cyangwa yari agamije, ikanahita imwirukana ku mpamvu z’ikosa rikomeye “faute lourde” birumvikana, cyane ko iyo ibi byuma bijya kuba ibya Bizimana nk’uko abivuga cyangwa iyo ajya kugira uburenganzira bwo kubisohora, atari kubura ibyemezo byabyo. [6] Nk’uko bisobanurwa mu rubanza rujuririrwa, gusesa amasezerano y’akazi ku mpamvu z’ikosa rikomeye biteganywa mu ngingo ya 32 igika cya 2º y’itegeko nº 13/2009 ryo ku wa 27/05/2009 rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda, ntibivuga ko umukoresha aryozwa indishyi ku mpamvu zo kutamenyesha umukozi iri kosa mu masaha 48 nk’uko biri ku nteguza iteganywa mu gika cya mbere cy’iyi ngingo, cyane ko ibarwa imusezera mu kazi yanditswe ku wa 27/11/2012, mu gihe iri kosa rikomeye ryakozwe tariki ya 25/11/2012. [7] Ku bindi Bizimana asaba bijyanye n’uyu murimo yakoraga birimo icyemezo cy’umukoresha, bigaragara ko cyakozwe tariki ya 08/12/2012, bityo akaba atabihererwa indishyi. Ku masaha y’ikirenga atahembwe kimwe na Konji zihemberwa, nabyo ntacyo Cimerwa yaryozwa kuko uyihagarariye asobanura ko ibijyanye n’imperekeza byatanzwe nk’uko bigaragara mu nyandiko ya decompte final yakozwe na Cimerwa, Bizimana akaba atagaragaza uburyo aya mafaranga yabariwe atariyo.

## Page 105

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 73 73

III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [8] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwatanzwe na Bizimana Antoine nta shingiro bufite. [9] Rwemeje ko imikirize y’urubanza nº R.SOC 0005/13/TGI/RSZ rwaciwe n’urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rusizi ku wa 11/10/2013 idahindutse. [10] Rukijije ko Bizimana Antoine atsinzwe. [11] Rumutegetse gutanga amafaranga y’u Rwanda ibihumbi cumi na kimwe na magana abiri (11.200) y’amagarama y’urubanza, akubiyemo n’ayaciwe mu rubanza rujuririrwa, akayatanga ahereye ku yo yatanze arega, atayatanga mu gihe cy’iminsi umunani kuva uru rubanza rubaye ntakuka, akava mu bye ku ngufu za Leta.

BIZIMANA v. CIMERWA Ltd 73

## Page 107

IMANZA Z’UBUCURUZI

## Page 109

77

GAJU v. ACCESS BANK [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RCOMA 0138/12/CS (Nyirinkwaya P.J., Hatangimbabazi na Hitiyaremye, J.) 16 Gicurasi 2014] Amategeko agenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa – Ingwate – Amasezerano y’ubwishingire – Kumenyesha umwishingizi mu buryo bweruye – Umwishingizi ntiyaryozwa umwenda atigeze amenyeshwa mu buryo bweruye n’uwawutanze kuko aba ari inshingano ze zo kumenyesha umwishingizi imiterere n’ingano n’inshingano asezeranye – Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 ryerekeye amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 555. Amategeko agenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa – Indishyi zo gushorwa mu manza n’igihembo cya avoka – Nta ndishyi zo gushorwa mu manza umuburanyi yahabwa mu gihe nta mpanvu yazo, ariko iyo hari ingingo yungukiye mu bujurire agenerwa igihembo cya Avoka mu bushishozi bw’urukiko mu gihe amwitabaje. Incamake y’ikibazo: ACCESS BANK RWANDA Ltd yahaye Twagira Azzy inguzanyo ya 25.000.000Frw, yishingiwe n’umugore we Gaju wemeye ko ingwate y’inzu yatanzwe na Twagira izavamo ubwishyu mu gihe atishyuye, ariko uwo mwenda uza kwishyurwa nk’uko impande zombi zabyemeranyijweho. Nyuma yaho banki yongeye guha Twagira indi nguzanyo ingana na 12.000.000Frw agwatiriza n’inzu ye. Ntiyubahirije amasezerano bituma banki imurega mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi hamwe n’umugore we Gaju Cyntia,

## Page 110

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 78 78

rwemeza ko ikirego cya ACCESS BANK RWANDA Ltd gifite ishingiro, ko Twagira Azzy na Gaju batsinzwe. Gaju yajuririye icyo cyemezo mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko atishingiye amasezerano y’inguzanyo ya 12.000.000Frw umugabo we yagiranye na ACCESS BANK. Yavuze kandi ko atigeze yemera imyenda atazi nk’uko yari yarabyemeye mu masezerano ya mbere, kandi ko nta ngwate yatanzwe ku nzu y’umuryango cyane ko itanditswe mu bitabo. Yasoje asaba indishyi zo gushorwa mu manza n’igihembo cy’Avoka Banki yo ivuga ko yasanze bitari ngombwa ko Gaju amenyeshwa iby’inguzanyo ya kabiri ishingiye ku masezerano y’ubwishingire aho yari yariyemereye ko azishingira n’indi myenda umugabo we azafata, akaba ariyo mpamvu bagomba gufatanya kwishyura umwenda bakurikiranyweho. Banki yakomeje ivuga ko inzu yari yatanzweho ingwate ku mwenda wa mbere nta gihe ntarengwa yari yarahawe, ko byongeye kandi Twagira yayitanze ari iy’umuryango, Gaju nawe akaba yarabyemeye mu masezerano y’ubwishingire. Banki yasoje ivuga ko Gaju nta ndishyi zo gushorwa mu manza akwiye kuko nta kindi banki yari gukora uretse kwiyambaza inkiko kugirango yishyurwe. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Umwishingizi wishingiye umwenda, banki ikishyurwa, uwari wahawe umwenda akongera agahabwa undi, umwishingizi ntiyafatwa nk’uwishingiye uwo mwenda wa kabiri ngo awuryozwe mu gihe atawumenyeshejwe mu buryo bweruye kuko aba ari inshingano z’uwawutanze kugirango uwishingiye umwenda amenye neza imiterere n’ingano y’inshingano asezeranye. Uwahawe umwenda niwe uba ugomba kuwuryozwa wenyine.

## Page 111

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 79 79

2. Mu gihe umwishingizi agaragaje ko nta ruhare na ruto yagize mu masezerano y’ubwishingire bw’inguzanyo, nta gaciro ingwate iyavugwamo ihabwa kuko aba atabimenyeshejwe ngo agire icyo abivugaho. 3. Nta ndishyi zo gushorwa mu manza umuburanyi yahabwa mu gihe nta mpanvu yazo, ariko iyo hari ingingo yungukiye mu bujurire agenerwa igihembo cya Avoka mu bushishozi bw’urukiko mu gihe amwitabaje. Ubujurire bufite ishingiro. Imikirize y’urubanza RCOM 0087/12/HCC irahindutse. Amagarama y’urubanza aherereye ku warezwe. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 ryerekeye amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 555. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Ibitekerezo by’abahanga byifashishijwe: Thierry Bonneau, Droit Bancaire, 7é éd., Montchrestien, Domat, Droit Privé, 2007, p.525. Dominique Legeais, Le cautionnement, Edition Economica, 1995, pp.27-28, 40. GAJU v. ACCESS BANK 79

## Page 112

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 80 80

Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Ku itariki ya 28/04/2006, ACCESS BANK RWANDA Ltd yemereye Twagira Azzy inguzanyo y’amafaranga 25.000.000, uwo mwenda wishingirwa na Gaju Cynthia nk’uko bigaragazwa na “Acte de cautionnement solidaire et indivisible” yasinye ku itariki imaze kuvugwa, ndetse mu ngingo ya 11 yayo akemera ko ingwate yatanzwe n’umugabo we Twagira ku nzu y’umuryango izavamo ubwishyu, Twagira aramutse atishyuye, ariko uwo mwenda ukaba waraje kwishyurwa nk’uko impande zose muri uru rubanza zibyemeranyaho. [2] Nyuma y’aho, ku itariki ya 24/04/2007, Banki yemereye Twagira Azzy indi nguzanyo y’amafaranga 12.000.000 impande zombi zisezerana ko uwo mwenda wagombaga kwishyurwa mu mezi 24, uwagurijwe yemera kugwatiriza inzu ye iherereye mu Murenge wa Kagarama, Akarere ka Kicukiro. [3] Kubera ko Twagira Azzy atubahirije amasezerano ngo yishyure uwo mwenda wa 12.000.000 Frw Banki yamureze hamwe na Gaju Cynthia imbere y’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, narwo ruca urubanza RCOM 0087/12/HCC kuwa 29/06/2012, rwemeza ko ikirego cya ACCES BANK RWANDA Ltd gifite ishingiro, ko Twagira Azzy na Gaju Cynthia batsinzwe, rubategeka kwishyura ACCES BANK RWANDA Ltd amafaranga angana na 25.230.942 no kwishyura umusogongero wa Leta ungana na 1.009.550Frw. [4] Gaju Cynthia ntiyishimiye icyo cyemezo maze akijuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko ACCESS BANK

## Page 113

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 81 81

RWANDA Ltd itubahirije uburenganzira bwe nk’umukirya ku bijyanye n’amasezerano y’inguzanyo ya 12.000.000Frw iyi Banki yagiranye na Twagira, ko ahubwo yitwaje umwanya wayo w’ingufu (position de force) ishyiraho ingingo zitamurengera ishingiye ku kuba we nta mbaraga yari afite (position de faiblesse) kuko atamenyereye ibintu bya Banki. Yongeraho ko atigeze yemera imyenda atazi, cyane cyane izaza nk’uko yabisinyiye mu masezerano y’inguzanyo yishingiye ya 25.000.000Frw, akaba asanga nta ngwate iri ku nzu y’umuryango we nk’uko ACCESS BANK RWANDA Ltd ibyifuza, cyane cyane ko itanditswe mu bitabo nk’uko biteganywa n’amategeko. [5] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame kuwa 04/04/2014, Gaju Cynthia aburanirwa na Me Mugemangango Jean Nepo, naho ACCESS BANK RWANDA Ltd iburanirwa na Me Bugingo Jean Bosco, Twagira Azzy aburanirwa na Me Shema Gerard. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO. 1. Kumenya niba Gaju Cynthia yarishingiye umwenda wa 12.000.000Frw Twagira Azzy yahawe na ACCESS RWANDA Ltd. [6] Uburanira Gaju Cynthia avuga ko uyu yajurijwe n’uko Urukiko rwamutegetse gufatanya n’umugabo we Twagira kwishyura inguzanyo ya ACCESS BANK RWANDA Ltd ya 12.000.000Frw atigeze amenya, akaba atarigeze ayishingira nk’uko byagenze ku nguzanyo ya mbere ya 25.000.000Frw. GAJU v. ACCESS BANK 81

## Page 114

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 82 82

[7] Akomeza avuga ko kuba Twagira Azzy yarasubiye muri Banki agasinya andi masezerano y’inguzanyo ya 12.000.000Frw, Banki nayo ikemeza ko Gaju akomeje kwishingira uwo mwenda wa kabiri, nyamara atabimenyeshejwe, asanga ari ukurengera uburenganzira bw’umuguzi ugiye guhabwa “service” nk’uko biteganywa mu ngingo ya 33 y’itegeko rirengera umuguzi. [8] Avuga ko ACCESS BANK RWANDA Ltd, nka Banki, iba izi ibyo ikora mu rwego rw’akazi imenyereye (professionnel), ko kuba itarahamagaye Gaju ngo imusobanurire iby’iyo nguzanyo ya kabiri, asanga itarubahirije uburenganzira bwe, nyamara umukiriya agomba guhabwa nibura amakuru ajyanye n’ingano y’umwenda utanzwe, igihe cyo kwishyura, inyungu cyangwa andi mafaranga ajyanye n’umwenda, hamwe n‘ijanisha ry’inyungu ku mwaka. [9] Uburanira ACCESS BANK RWANDA Ltd avuga ko iyi Banki yashingiye ku masezerano Gaju Cynthia yasinye yiswe “acte de cautionnement solidaire” ku mwenda wa 25.000.000Frw umugabo we yafashe, aho mu ngingo yayo ya mbere havugwa mu magambo yeruye ko azishingira n’iyindi myenda Twagira azafata, ko kandi Gaju amaze kuyasoma, nk’umuntu wize ndetse usobanukiwe bihagije (knowledge), yasinye nta gahato ko azayishingira, naho mu ngingo ya 11, akagaragaza ko yemera gutangaho ingwate inzu afatanyije n’umugabo we, akaba asanga rero bitari ngombwa ko Gaju Cynthia amenyeshwa iby’inguzanyo ya kabiri ya 12.000.000Frw kuko hari n’ingwate yatanzwe mbere yari igikomeje. [10] Uburanira ACCESS BANK RWANDA Ltd asoza avuga ko yaba Gaju Cynthia, yaba umugabo we Twagira Azzy,

## Page 115

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 83 83

ntawigeze ahingutsa ko iyo ngwate itakiri iyabo, akaba ari yo mpamvu bagomba gufatanya kwishyura umwenda bakurikiranyweho. [11] Uburanira Twagira Azzy avuga ko umwenda awemera kandi ko yiteguye kuwishyura, akaba asaba ko ibyo Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwemeje aribyo byahamaho, ko yiteguye guhita atangira kwishyura uwo mwenda urubanza rukimara kurangira, ari yo mpamvu yifuza ko inyungu z’ubukerererwe zakurwaho. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [12] Ku bijyanye na “Cautionnement”, ingingo ya 555 y’igitabo cya 3 cy’amategeko y’imboneza mubano iteganya ko “Le cautionnement ne se présume point; il doit être exprès, et l'on ne peut pas l'étendre au-delà des limites dans lesquelles il a été contracté”. [13] Umuhanga mu mategeko ya za banki Thierry Bonneau, mu gitabo cye cyitwa “Droit Bancaire”, ahareba uburenganzira bw’umwishingizi w’inguzanyo ya Banki, asobanura ko “itangwa ry’inguzanyo rihuza abantu babiri, bashobora kuba badahuje ingufu mu by’ubukungu, ari yo mpamvu kurengera udafite imbaraga ari inshingano iba igamijwe mu mirimo yose ijyanye n’iryo gurizwa ndetse no mu bindi bitari iby’igurizwa, abadafite imbaraga bagomba kurengerwa bakaba ari uwahawe inguzanyo n’uwishingiye iyo nguzanyo”1.

1 Thierry Bonneau, Droit Bancaire, 7é éd., Montchrestien, Domat Droit Privé, 2007, p.525, no703 : “la distribution du crédit met en rapport des parties dont la situation économique n’est pas forcément la même: l’une peut GAJU v. ACCESS BANK 83

## Page 116

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 84 84

[14] Ku bijyanye n’umwishingizi (caution), uwo muhanga mu mategeko asobanura ko umwishingizi agomba guhabwa amakuru, bitari gusa igihe asinya amasezerano y’ubwo bwishingizi, ko ahubwo ayo makuru akomeza no kuyahabwa igihe ayo masezerano ashyirwa mu bikorwa, kandi ikigo cyahaye amafaranga uwagurijwe w’ibanze (débiteur principal), kikamumenyesha ko nyirukugurizwa atubahirije inshingano ze zo kwishyura umwenda. [15] Ibi ni nabyo bivugwa n’undi muhanga mu mategeko witwa Dominique Legeais2 aho asobanura ko ibigo biguriza amafaranga (établissements de crédit) bifite inshingano yihariye yo guha amakuru abakiriya babyo n’abishingizi babo ndetse no gutanga ikimenyetso cy’uko byubahirije iyo nshingano (….une obligation d’information a été mise à la charge des établissements de crédit lorsque le cautionnement consenti par une personne physique ou morale est la condition d’un crédit accordé à une entreprise quelle que soit sa forme……Quel que soit le cautionnement, le créancier tenu à un devoir d’information, doit…rapporter la preuve de l’exécution de son obligation). [16] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro by’abahanga mu mategeko bimaze kuvugwa, Urukiko rurasanga kugirango umwishingizi

être en position de faiblesse par rapport à l’autre. La protection de la partie faible est alors un objectif à poursuivre dans le domaine des opérations de crédit comme il l’est dans d’autres domaines. Cette protection a deux destinations: le débiteur et la caution”. 2 Dominique Legeais, Le cautionnement, Edition Economica, 1995, pp.27- 28, 4.

## Page 117

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 85 85

yitwe ko yemeye ku buryo bweruye (exprès) inshingano yo kwishingira uwahawe inguzanyo n’ikigo cy’imari, iki kigo kigomba kuba cyamuhaye amakuru ahagije ajyanye n’iyo nguzanyo (obligation d’information), kugira ngo amenye kandi yumve neza imiterere n’ingano y’inshingano asezeranye. [17] Urukiko rurasanga igihe Gaju yashyiraga umukono ku masezerano y’ubwishingizi kuwa 28/04/2006, inguzanyo yari yishingiye mu buryo bweruye yari iya 25.000.000Frw, iyo nguzanyo ikaba yarishyuwe nk’uko ababuranyi bose babyemeranyaho. [18] Ku bijyanye n’inguzanyo ya 12.000.000Frw Twagira yafashe nyuma yo kurangiza kwishyura ideni rya mbere rya 25.000.000Frw rimaze kuvugwa haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga ACCESS BANK RWANDA Ltd itagaragaza ko yamenyesheje Gaju Cynthia iby’iyo nguzanyo mu gihe cyose amasezerano yashyirwaga mu bikorwa, ikaba yarabimumenyesheje gusa mu ibaruwa yo kuwa 20/03/2012 itangira kumwishyuza ishingiye ku masezerano yasinye mbere yishingira inguzanyo ya 25.000.000Frw, icyo gihe Gaju nawe agahita ayisubiza kuwa 23/03/2012 abinyujije kuri Avoka wayo asobanura ko atigeze amenya iby’uwo mwenda, yaba abibwiwe na Twagira cyangwa abibwiwe na Banki. [19] Urukiko rusanga kandi ibyo Banki iburanisha by’uko bitari ngombwa ko Gaju Cynthia amenyeshwa iby’inguzanyo ya kabiri yahawe Twagira ya 12.000.000Frw ngo kuko mu ngingo ya 1 y’amasezerano ya “Cautionnement solidaire et indivisible”, yasinyiye ko yishingiye imyenda yose ya Twagira afite n’iyo ashobora kuzagira mu bihe bizaza (engagements que Twagira a ou pourrait avoir actuellement ou à l’avenir) nta shingiro bifite, kuko ibisobanuro byatanzwe haruguru bigaragaza ko iyo ngingo GAJU v. ACCESS BANK 85

## Page 118

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 86 86

itavanaho inshingano za banki zo guha umwishingizi amakuru ahagije ajyanye n’inguzanyo (obligation d’information) yahaye uwo yishingiye kugira ngo amenye kandi yumve neza imiterere n’ingano y’inshingano ze, ayo makuru akaba ari nayo umwishingizi aheraho akoresha bibaye ngombwa uburenganzira yemererwa n’amategeko bwo kuba yasesa ubwishingizi yatanze. [20] Hashingiwe ku bimaze kuvugwa haruguru byose, Urukiko rurasanga mu gihe ACCESS BANK RWANDA Ltd nta kimenyetso igaragaza cy’uko hari aho Gaju yamenyeshejwe inguzanyo ya 12.000.000Frw kugira ngo amenye ingano yayo, ntaho rwahera rwemeza ko hari amasezerano amureba yo kwishingira uwo mwenda wa 12.000.000Frw, bityo hakaba ntacyo Access Bank igomba kumwishyuza imufatanya na Twagira gikomoka kuri iyo nguzanyo, ahubwo uwahawe uwo mwenda ariwe Twagira Azzy, unawemera, akaba ariwe ugomba kuwuryozwa wenyine nk’uko wemejwe mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’ Ubucuruzi. 2. Kumenya niba Gaju yaratanze ingwate ku nzu y’umuryango ku mwenda uburanwa muri uru rubanza wa 12.000.000Frw. [21] Uburanira Gaju Cynthia avuga ko nta ngwate y’inzu yigeze atanga ku mwenda wa 12.000.000Frw Twagira yahawe na ACCESS BANK RWANDA Ltd, akaba yifuza ko iyi Banki itakomeza kwita iyo nzu ingwate ngo ibe yanatezwa cyamunara kubera uwo mwenda atazi wa 12.000.000Frw. [22] Uburanira ACCESS BANK RWANDA Ltd avuga ko iyo nzu ikiri ingwate yayo cyane cyane ko nta gihe ntarengwa bigeze bayiha, byongeye kandi Twagira akaba yarayitanze ari iy’umuryango, Gaju nawe akaba yarabyemeye igihe yashyiraga

## Page 119

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 87 87

umukono ku masezerano y’ubwishingizi bw’umwenda wa 25.000.000Frw, ibyo bikagaragarira mu ngingo ya 11 y’ayo masezerano, ahanditse ibikurikira ko “la caution, épouse du débiteur principal, déclare avoir pris connaissance de la promesse d’hypothèque que son conjoint a donné à la BANCOR, en couverture des engagements et donne son plein consentement à la constitution de ladite hypothèque”. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [23] Urukiko rurasanga hashingiwe ku byavuzwe haruguru, ubwo nta bwishingizi Gaju yatanze bw’inguzanyo ya 12.000.000Frw Twagira yahawe na ACCESS BANK RWANDA Ltd, byumvikana ko nta n’ingwate y’inzu yigeze atanga kuri uwo mwenda nk’uko ACCESS BANK RWANDA Ltd ibiburanisha, kuko ibivugwa mu ngingo ya 11 y’amasezerano y’ubwishingizi yo kuwa 28/04/2006 bireba gusa ubwishingizi bw’inguzanyo ya 25.000.000Frw, kandi nayo ikaba yaraje kwishyurwa nk’uko impande zose muri uru rubanza zibyemeranyaho, bikaba rero ntaho bihuriye n’amasezerano yabaye nyuma kuwa 02/05/2007 ACCESS BANK RWANDA Ltd iha Twagira inguzanyo ya 12.000.000Frw, Gaju atabimenyeshejwe kugira ngo abe yagira icyo abivugaho. 1. Ku bijyanye n’ indishyi Gaju Cynthia asaba [24] Uburanira Gaju avuga ko asaba indishyi z’uko yashowe mu manza bikamutera guhangayika igihe yumvaga ko hashobora gutezwa cyamunara umutungo we, akaba yifuza izingana n’amafaranga 2.000.000Frw akubiyemo GAJU v. ACCESS BANK 87

## Page 120

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 88 88

ay’ikurikiranarubanza, agahabwa na 5.000.000Frw y’igihembo cy’avoka. [25] Uburanira ACCESS BANK RWANDA Ltd avuga we ko ayo mafaranga ntayo Gaju Cynthia akwiye guhabwa kubera ko yemeye kwishingira umugabo we, nyamara ntiyishyure, ko rero atashowe mu manza nk’uko abivuga, kuko nta kindi Banki yari gukora uretse kwiyambaza Urukiko. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [26] Urukiko rurasanga bwari uburenganzira bwa ACCESS BANK Ltd bwo gukurikirana Gaju mu nkiko mu gihe yumvaga iri mu kuri, rukaba rusanga ibyo Gaju aburanisha by’uko yamushoye mu manza nta shingiro bifite, bityo n’indishyi abisabira zikaba nta shingiro zifite. [27] Urukiko rurasanga ariko ubwo hari ingingo Gaju yungukiye mu bujurire bwe, akaba yaragombye gufata Avoka wo kumuburanira, yagenerwa mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko 300.000Frw y’igihembo cy’avoka wamukurikiraniye urwo rubanza. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [28] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Gaju Cynthia bufite ishingiro; [29] Rwemeje ko nta bwishingizi Gaju yigeze atanga ku mwenda wa 12.000.000Frw, ndetse ko nta ngwate y’uwo mwenda yigeze atanga ku nzu afatanyije n’umugabo we Twagira.

## Page 121

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 89 89

[30] Rwemeje ko imikirize y’urubanza RCOM 0087/12/ HCC ihindutse ku bireba Gaju Cynthia, ni ukuvuga ko Twagira Azzy ari we wenyine ugomba kwishyura ACCES BANK RWANDA Ltd amafaranga angana na 25.230.942Frw yemejwe n’Urukiko Rukuru. [31] Rutegetse ACCESS BANK RWANDA Ltd guha Gaju Cynthia 300.000Frw y’igihembo cy’avoka; [32] Rutegetse ACCESS BANK RWANDA Ltd gutanga amagarama y’urubanza angana na 23.150Frw itayishyura, agakurwa mu byayo ku ngufu za Leta. GAJU v. ACCESS BANK 89

## Page 123

91

HYDROBATEL Ltd v. KAREKEZI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RCOMA 0007/13/CS (Mukanyundo, P.J., Rugabirwa na Gakwaya, J.) 6 Gashyantare 2015] Amategeko agenga ubukemurampaka – Amasezerano y’ubutumwa bw’ubukemurampaka – Kongera amasezerano y’ubutumwa bw’ubukemurampaka mu buryo buteruye – Amasezerano y’ubutumwa bw’ubukemurampaka afatwa nk’aho yongerewe igihe mu buryo buteruye, iyo igihe yagombaga kumara cyarangiye ariko ababuranyi bagakomeza kwitabira imihango y’ubukemurampaka. Amategeko agenga ubukemurampaka – Umwanzuro w’ubukemurampaka – Ivanwaho ry’umwanzuro w’abakemurampaka – Umwe mu biyambaje ubukemurampaka wirengagije uburenganzira bwe bwo kugaragaza ibyo atemera mu mwanzuro w’ubukemurampaka ntiyasaba ivanwaho ryawo – Itegeko no 005/2008 ryo kuwa 14/02/2008 ryerekeye ubukemurampaka n’ubwunzi mu bibazo by’ubucuruzi, ingingo ya 6. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubucuruzi – Indishyi z’akababaro – Gushorwa mu manza ku maherere – Umuburanyi usabye indishyi z’akababaro zituruka ku gushorwa mu manza ku maherere ntazihabwa iyo Urukiko rusanze uzisabwa yari afite uburenganzira bwo kujurira – Itegeko no 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 162.

## Page 124

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 92 92

Incamake y’ikibazo: Karekezi, Katabarwa Andre na Katabarwa Aimé bashinze sosiyete yitwa bayita HYDROBATEL Ltd kandi bateganya mu ngingo ya 51 y’amategeko shingiro yayo ko mu gihe havutse ikibazo, kizakemurwa n’ubukemurampaka, bitashoboka, kizakemurwa n’Inkiko z’u Rwanda zibifitiye ububasha. Karekezi yaje kwegura muri iyo sosiyeti kubera kutishimira imicungire yayo y’umutungo, maze aregera Inteko Nkemurampaka igizwe n’abakemurampaka batatu asaba ko yahabwa inyungu zikomoka ku migabane ye yashyize muri iyo sosiyete n’indishyi zinyuranye. Kuwa 29/01/2013 ababuranyi bombi bagiranye inyandiko itanga ubutumwa, aho bahaye abakemurampaka igihe cy’iminsi 60 ngo bazabe barangije gufata umwanzuro wabo ku kibazo bafitanye. Kuwa 10/04/2013, Inteko y’Abakemurampaka yafashe umwanzuro itegeka HYDROBATEL Ltd guha Karekezi 60.000.000Frw y’inyungu zikomoka ku migabane yashoye muri iyo sosiyete, 20.000.000Frw y’indishyi z’akababaro, 3.700.000Frw y’ubukemurampaka yatanze mbere, 1.850.000Frw y’ubukemurampaka yasigaye na 3.925.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka. HYDROBATEL Ltd yajuririye uwo mwanzuro mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi isaba ko wavanwaho kuko wafashwe n’inteko nkemurampaka igihe cy’iminsi 60 yari yarahawe cyo kuwufata cyararenze ikaba isanga nta bubasha bari bagifite. Mu gihe cy’iburanisha, Karekezi yatanze inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego ishingiye ku iburabubasha bw’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi avuga ko iyo ababuranyi batiyambaza ubukemurampaka, Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi arirwo rwari rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha urubanza rwabo. Yatanze kandi

## Page 125

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 93 93

inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego cya HYDROBATEL Ltd kuko itigeze igaragariza Inteko Nkemurampaka ko igihe cy’iminsi 60 yagombaga gufatamo umwanzuro yari yarahawe cyari cyararenze. Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwemeje ko inzitizi y’iburabubasha yatanzwe na Karekezi nta shingiro ifite kuko arirwo rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha urubanza rwaregewe. Rwemeje kandi ko ikirego cya HYDROBATEL Ltd kitakiriwe kuko igihe yaburanishwaga n’Inteko y’Abakemurampaka itigeze inenga ko igihe cy’iminsi 60 cy’ubutumwa bw’ubukemurampaka cyarenze. HYDROBATEL Ltd yajuririye mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga ivuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwagombaga kwakira ikirego cyayo kuko inenge zijyanye n’ubutumwa bw’ubukemurampaka zitavuzwe impitagihe. Mu iburanisha, Karekezi yarongeye atanga inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego cya HYDROBATEL Ltd avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rutari rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha ubujurire bwayo, ko ahubwo bwari bufitwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi kuko arirwo rwagombaga kuburanisha urwo rubanza iyo ababuranyi batiyambaza ubukemurampaka. Urukiko rw’ikirenga rwemeje ko inzitizi y’iburabubasha bw’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi yatanzwe na Karekezi nta shingiro ifite kuko urwo Rukiko arirwo rwari rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha ubujurire bwa HYDROBATEL Ltd bwasabaga ivanwaho ry’umwanzuro wo kuwa 10/04/2013 wafashwe n’Inteko Nkemurampaka. Mu iburanisha ry’urubanza mu mizi, Karekezi yatanze ubujurire bwurirye ku bundi asaba indishyi zo gushorwa mu manza ku maherere n’igihembo cya avoka. HYDROBATEL Ltd yavuze HYDROBATEL Ltd v. KAREKEZI 93

## Page 126

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 94 94

ko itazimuha ishingiye ko yazigenewe mu rubanza rwaciwe mu mizi, ko ariko urukiko rusanze rwazimugenera rushingiye ku mategeko agenga abavoka. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Umuburanyi wiyambaje ubukemurampaka ntiyasaba urukiko ivanwaho ry’umwanzuro bwafashe kandi yaritabiriye iburanisha kenshi ndetse akanasinya inyandiko-mvugo zaryo n’iz’isomwa ry’icyemezo ntagire icyo azinenga. 2. Umuburanyi witabiriye imihango y’ubukemurampaka akanasinya inyandiko-mvugo zirimo iz’isomwa ry’icyemezo, ntiyahindukira ngo avuge ko icyemezo cyafashwe cyarengeje igihe kuko ukwicecekera kwe gufatwa nk’aho igihe cy’ubutumwa cyongerewe mu buryo buteruye. 3. Umuburanyi usabye indishyi z’akababaro zituruka ku gushorwa mu manza ku maherere ntazihabwa iyo Urukiko rusanze uzisabwa yari afite uburenganzira bwo kujurira. Ubujurire nta shingiro bufite. Umwanzuro wafashwe n’nteko y’abakemurampaka ugumyeho. Amagarama aherereye ku wajuriye. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko no 005/2008 ryo kuwa 14/02/2008 ryerekeye ubukemurampaka n’ubwunzi mu bibazo by’ubucuruzi , ingingo ya 6. Itegeko no 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano,

## Page 127

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 95 95

iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 162. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Inyandiko z’abahanga zakoreshejwe: Philipe DE Bournoville, Droit Judiciaire-L’Arbitrage, Larcier, 2000, p.183. Urubanza I. IMITEREREY’URUBANZA [1] Karekezi François Xavier afatanyije na Katabarwa André, Katabarwa Aimé na Kalisa Evariste bashinze Sosiyete yitwa HYDROBATEL Sarl yahindutse HYDROBATEL Ltd ifite imari-shingiro ingana na 5.000.000Frw ahwanye n’imigabane 100, ni ukuvuga ko buri wese yatanze 50.000Frw y’umugabane we. Mu ngingo ya 51 ya Sitati y’iyo Sosiyete hateganyijwe ko mu gihe havutse ikibazo muri Sosiyete kizakemurwa n’Umukemurampaka umwe cyangwa benshi bumvikanyweho n’impande zose, bitashoboka, kigakemurwa n’Inkiko z’u Rwanda zibifitiye ububasha. [2] Karekezi François Xavier avuga ko yeguye muri iyo sosiyete kubera ko imicungire yayo itari myiza, maze hakurikijwe ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 51 ya Sitati ya HYDROBATEL Ltd yavuzwe haruguru, aregera Inteko Nkemurampaka igizwe n’Abacamanza batatu (3) asaba ko yahabwa inyungu zikomoka ku migabane ye yatanze muri iyo sosiyete hamwe n’indishyi zinyuranye. HYDROBATEL Ltd v. KAREKEZI 95

## Page 128

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 96 96

[3] Kuwa 29/01/2013, ababuranyi b’impande zombi bagiranye inyandiko itanga ubutumwa (Acte de mission), aho bahaye Abakemurampaka igihe cy’iminsi 60 kugira ngo bazabe barangije gufata umwanzuro wabo ku kibazo bashyikirijwe. [4] Kuwa 10/04/2013, Inteko y’Abakemurampaka yafashe umwanzuro wayo, itegeka HYDROBATEL Ltd ihagarariwe na Katabarwa André guha Karekezi François Xavier 60.000.000Frw y’inyungu (dividendes) zikomoka ku migabane ye yashoye muri iyo sosiyete, 20.000.000Frw y’indishyi z’akababaro, 3.700.000Frw y’ubukemurampaka yatanze mbere, 1.850.000Frw y’ubukemurampaka yasigaye na 3.925.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka. [5] HYDROBATEL Ltd yajuririye uwo mwanzuro mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi isaba ko wavanwaho kubera ko wafashwe n’Inteko Nkemurampaka itakibifitiye ububasha kuko igihe cy’iminsi 60 yari yarahawe cyo kuwufata cyari cyararenze. [6] Iburanisha ry’urubanza ritangiye, Karekezi François Xavier yatanze inzitizi y’iburabubasha bw’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi bwo kuburanisha urwo rubanza kubera ko bufitwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi kuko arirwo rwagombaga kuruburanisha iyo ababuranyi batiyambaza Ubukemurampaka. Karekezi François Xavier yatanze kandi inzitizi igamije kutakira ikirego cya HYDROBATEL Ltd kubera ko yagitanze impitagihe bitewe n’uko yagitanze muri urwo Rukiko, nyamara itarigeze igaragariza Inteko Nkemurampaka igihe cy’iburanisha, ko yafashe umwanzuro wayo igihe cy’iminsi 60 yari yarahawe cyo kuwufata cyari cyararenze.

## Page 129

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 97 97

[7] Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwaciye urubanza, rwemeza ko inzitizi y’iburabubasha bw’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi yatanzwe na Karekezi François Xavier nta shingiro ifite kubera ko urwo Rukiko arirwo rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha urwo rubanza hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 13, igika cya 4 y’Itegeko Ngenga n° 06/2012/OL ryo kuwa 14/09/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Inkiko z’Ubucuruzi, iteganya ko “Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha mu rwego rw’ubujurire ibyemezo byafashwe n’Abakemurampaka”. [8] Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwemeje kandi ko ikirego cya HYDROBATEL Ltd kitakiriwe kubera ko cyatanzwe impitagihe kubera ko igihe yaburanaga, itigize igaragariza Inteko Nkemurampaka ko yasomye umwanzuro wayo kuwa 10/04/2013, igihe cy’iminsi 60 yari yarahawe cyo kuwufata mu nyandiko itanga ubutumwa cyari cyararenze. [9] HYDROBATEL Ltd yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga ivuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwagombaga kwakira ikirego cyayo kuko kitatanzwe impitagihe. [10] Iburanisha ry’urubanza ritangiye, Karekezi François Xavier yatanze inzitizi igamije kutakira ubujurire bwa HYDROBATEL Ltd kubera ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rutari rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha ubujurire bwayo busaba ivanwaho ry’umwanzuro wafashwe n’Inteko Nkemurampaka, ko ahubwo ubwo bubasha bufitwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi kuko arirwo rwagombaga kuburanisha urwo rubanza iyo ababuranyi batiyambaza Ubukemurampaka. HYDROBATEL Ltd v. KAREKEZI 97

## Page 130

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 98 98

[11] Nyuma y’iburanisha ry’urubanza kuri iyo nzitizi, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwafashe icyemezo kuwa 24/10/2014, rwemeza ko inzitizi y’iburabubasha bw’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi yatanzwe na Karekezi François Xavier nta shingiro ifite kubera ko urwo Rukiko arirwo rwari rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha ubujurire bwatanzwe na HYDROBATEL Ltd busaba ivanwaho ry’umwanzuro wo kuwa 10/04/2013 wafashwe n’Inteko Nkemurampaka, rutegeka ko iburanisha ry’urubanza mu mizi rizaba kuwa 16/12/2014. [12] Kuri iyo tariki, urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu mizi, HYDROBATEL Ltd ihagarariwe na Me Rusanganwa Jean Bosco, naho Karekezi François Xavier yunganiwe na Me Mucyo Donatien. II. IBIBAZO BIRI MU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO: 1. Kumenya niba Umwanzuro w’Abakemurampaka wateshwa agaciro kubera ko wafashwe igihe cy’ubutumwa cyararangiye [13] Me Rusanganwa Jean Bosco uburanira HYDROBATEL Ltd avuga ko Urukiko rwemeje ko ikirego cyayo kitakiriwe kubera ko cyatanzwe impitagihe ngo kuko itagaragarije Abakemurampaka ko amasezerano (Acte de mission) yo kuwa 29/01/2013 yabahaga ububasha yari yararangiye kuwa 25/03/2013, rwirengagije ko itashoboraga kubigaragariza Abakemurampaka igihe cy’iburanisha bitewe n’uko icyo gihe ayo masezerano yari agifite agaciro, ariko ko igihe bafataga umwanzuro wabo kuwa 10/04/2013, ayo masezerano yari yarataye agaciro kubera ko yarangiye kuwa 25/03/2013. .

## Page 131

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 99 99

[14] Asobanura ko urubanza rwaburanishijwe bwa nyuma kuwa 13/03/2013, Urukiko Nkemurampaka rumenyesha ababuranyi ko urubanza ruzasomwa kuwa 03/04/2013, uwo munsi ugeze, HYDROBATEL Ltd iritaba, ariko ntirwasomwa kubera ko umwe mu Bakemurampaka atari yitabye, maze hakorwa inyandiko-mvugo yimurira isomwa ryarwo kuwa 08/04/2013, irayisinya, uyu munsi ugeze, nabwo ntirwasomwa kandi ntihakorwa inyandiko-mvugo yimurira isomwa ryarwo kuwa 10/04/2013, ahubwo yamenyeshweje iyi tariki kuri telefoni gusa, iyi tariki igeze urubanza rurasomwa. Asaba ko umwanzuro wafashwe n’Abakemurampaka kuwa 10/04/2013 wavanwaho kuko wafashwe n’Abakemurampaka batagifite ububasha bitewe n’uko amasezerano (Acte de mission) yo kuwa 29/01/2013 yabubahaga yari yararangiye kuwa 25/03/2013, ko kandi ayo masezerano atigeze yongerwa kuko itariki y’isomwa ry’urubanza yo kuwa 10/04/2013 itigeze yumvikanywaho n’ababuranyi b’impande zombi. [15] Urukiko rwabajije Me Rusanganwa Jean Bosco impamvu yatumye HYDROBATEL Ltd itamenyesha Abakemurampaka igihe cy’iburanisha cyangwa icy’isubikwa ry’urubanza ko amasezerano y’ubutumwa (Acte de mission) yarangiye kuwa 25/03/2013, asubiza ko byatewe n’uko itari yaratahuye ivuguruzanya (contradiction) riri muri ayo masezerano ku byerekeranye n’igihe cy’iminsi 60, ubutumwa bwagombaga kumara n’igihe cy’iminsi 30 yari igenewe isomwa ry’urubanza, ariko ko HYDROBATEL Ltd yajurijwe n’uko Abakemurampaka bafashe umwanzuro wabo kuwa 10/04/2013, ayo masezerano atagifite agaciro kuko atigeze yongererwa igihe. HYDROBATEL Ltd v. KAREKEZI 99

## Page 132

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 100 100

[16] Yongeraho ko kuba Abakemurampaka barirengagije ibikubiye mu masezerano y’ubutumwa (Acte de mission) yavuzwe haruguru ku bijyanye n’igihe bagombaga gukoreramo akazi kabo no gufata icyemezo, bigaragara ko batubahirije ingingo ya 64 y’Itegeko n° 45/2011 ryo kuwa 25/11/2001 rigenga amasezerano, iteganya ko amasezerano akozwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, aba itegeko ku bayagiranye, ko agomba kubahirizwa nta buriganya. [17] Me Mucyo Donatien, uburanira Karekezi François Xavier, avuga ko ku bw’ibanze (A titre principal), asanga igihe Urukiko Nkemurampaka rwafataga icyemezo cyarwo kuwa 10/04/2013, rwari rubifitiye ububasha kubera ko iminsi 60 rwari rwarahawe n’ababuranyi kugira ngo rufate umwanzuro warwo yari itararangira kuko rwakoresheje iminsi 54 gusa kubera ko mu kubara iminsi 60 rwari rwarahawe hagomba kuvanwamo iminsi y’ikiruhuko yemewe n’amategeko nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 369 na 370 z’Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, uretse ko iyo umunsi wa nyuma ubaye uw’ikiruhuko aribwo wongerwaho, ko kandi Urukiko rutakwirengagiza ko mu masezerano y’ubutumwa (Acte de mission) yavuzwe haruguru hateganyijwe ko iminsi 60 yashoboraga kongerwa ariko ntirenge igihe giteganywa n’Itegeko ryerekeye Ubukemurampaka. [18] Avuga kandi ko “à titre subsidiaire”, mu gihe Urukiko rwasanga iminsi 60 y’Ubukemurampaka yararenze n’ubwo atariko Karekezi François Xavier abibona, rwakwemeza ko icyo gihe cyongerewe biturutse ku bwumvikane bw’impande zombi kubera ko HYDROBATEL Ltd yitabiraga isubikwa

## Page 133

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 101 101

ry’iburanisha ry’urubanza ryaterwaga ahanini n’uko itabaga yatanze ibimenyetso yasabwaga, ko kandi yagiye initabira isubikwa ry’isomwa ry’urubanza ryabaga ryemeranyijwe n’impade zombi ryabaye kuwa 03/04/2013, 08/04/2013 no kuwa 10/04/2013, ikanarisinyira, ko rero itakwitwaza ko urubanza rwasomwe kuwa 10/04/2013 amasezeramo y’Ubukemurampaka atagifite agaciro kuko itigeze ibigaragariza Abakemurampaka muri icyo gihe cyose. [19] Asobanura ko urubanza rwaburanishijwe kuwa 13/03/2013, Urukiko Nkemurampaka rumenyesha ababuranyi ko urubanza ruzasomwa kuwa 03/04/2013, impande zombi zitaha ziyisinyiye, iyi tariki igeze, isomwa ry’urubanza ryimurirwa kuwa 08/04/2013, uyu munsi ugeze nabwo ntirwasomwa bitewe n’uko wahuriranye n’ikiruhuko gitunguranye kijyanye n’icyunamo cyo kwibuka abazize Jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi bituma isomwa ryarwo ryimurirwa kuwa 10/04/2013 ariko ababuranyi b’impande zombi babimenyeshwa kuri telefoni, uyu munsi ugeze, urubanza rusomwa ababuranyi bose bahari, ko rero asanga umwanzuro wafashwe n’Inteko y’Abakemurampaka kuwa 10/04/2013 utateshwa agaciro kubera ko amasezerano y’ubutumwa yari agifite agaciro. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [20] Ingingo ya 6 y’Itegeko n°005/2008 ryo kuwa 14/02/2008 ryerekeye ubukemurampaka n’ubwunzi mu bibazo by’ubucuruzi, iteganya ko “Umwe mu biyambaje ubukemurampaka uzi neza ko hari ingingo muri iri tegeko abiyambaje ubukemurampaka bashobora kwirengagiza, cyangwa se ko hari ibisabwa n’amasezerano HYDROBATEL Ltd v. KAREKEZI 101

## Page 134

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 102 102

y’ubukemurampaka byirengagijwe, ariko we agakomeza ubukemurampaka atagaragaje ibyo anenga hatabayeho gukererwa cyangwa niba hari igihe ntarengwa cyateganyijwe akabigaragaza muri icyo gihe, ubwo afatwa nk’uwaretse uburenganzira bwe bwo kugaragaza ibyo atemera mu bukemurampaka”. [21] Ku birebana n’uru rubanza, Urukiko rurasanga ubujurire bwa HYDROBATEL Ltd bugamije gusaba kuvanaho umwanzuro wafashwe n’Inteko y’Abakemurampaka tariki ya 10/04/2013 kubera ko wafashwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko bitewe n’uko wafashwe amasezerano y’Ubutumwa (Acte de mission) yo kuwa 29/01/2013 atagifite agaciro kubera ko yarangiye kuwa 25/03/2013. [22] Ingingo ya 6 y’amasezerano y’ubutumwa (Acte de mission) Karekezi François Xavier yagiranye HYDROBATEL Ltd iteganya ko Urukiko Nkemurampaka ruhawe iminsi mirongo itandatu (60) itangira kubarwa guhera kuwa 24/01/2013 kugira ngo ruzabe rwarangije imirimo yarwo, ko kandi umwanzuro wabo uzafatwa mu gihe cy’iminsi 30 itangira kubarwa guhera igihe ayo masezeramo azatangira gukurikizwa kuwa 29/01/2013, ariko ko icyo gihe gishobora kongerwa ariko ntikirenze igihe giteganywa n’Itegeko ryerekeye Ubukemurampaka. [23] Inyandiko mvugo ziri muri dosiye zigaragaza ko iburanisha ry’urubanza rishojwe kuwa 13/3/2013, Urukiko Nkemurampaka rwamenyesheje ababuranyi b’impande zombi ko urubanza ruzasomwa kuwa 03/04/20013, bataha basinyiye iyo tariki, iyi tariki igeze, ababuranyi bose baritabye, ariko Urukiko rubamenyesha ko isomwa ry’urubanza ryimuriwe kuwa 08/04/2013 kubera ko hari Umukemurampaka utabonetse,

## Page 135

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 103 103

ababuranyi b’impande zombi barayisinyira, iyi tariki igeze nta nyandiko-mvugo y’iyimurwa ry’isomwa ry’urubanza iri muri dosiye, ariko ababuranyi b’impande zombi bavuze igihe cy’iburanisha ko bamenyeshejwe kuri telefoni ko urubanza rutari busomwe, ko ahubwo ruzasomwa kuwa 10/04/2013, iyi tariki igeze, urubanza rwasomwe hari ababuranyi b’impande zombi, HYDROBATEL Ltd ihagarariwe na Katabarwa André hari kandi na Karekezi François Xavier, ndetse ababuranyi bombi batashye basinyiye ko basomewe umwanzuro warwo, nyamara ntacyo HYDROBATEL Ltd yigeze yandika ku nyandiko-mvugo y’isomwa ry’urubanza igira icyo inenga uwo mwanzuro nk’uko bigaragazwa n’inyandiko-mvugo y’isomwa ryarwo iri muri dosiye. [24] Hakurikijwe ibimaze kuvugwa haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga kuba HYDROBATEL Ltd yarakomeje kwitabira imihango y’Ubukemurampaka harimo n’iy’isomwa ry’urubanza ryagiye ryimurirwa ku matariki atandukanye ikanasinya ku nyandiko-mvugo, kandi ivuga ko igihe cy’ubutumwa cyari cyararangiye, ntigire icyo ibivugaho, uko guceceka kwayo kugaragaraza ko yari yemeye mu buryo buteruye (tacite) ko igihe cy’ubutumwa cyongerewe (prorogation tacite), bityo ingingo y’ubujurire ya HYDROBATEL Ltd isaba ko umwanzuro wafashwe n’Inteko y’Abakemurampaka tariki ya 10/04/2013 wateshwa agaciro ikaba nta shingiro ifite. [25] Ibyo bihuje kandi n’ibisobanuro by’abahanga mu mategeko arebana n’Ubukemurampaka barimo Philipe DE HYDROBATEL Ltd v. KAREKEZI 103

## Page 136

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 104 104

Bournoville mu gitabo cye yise “Droit Judiciaire-L’arbitrage”1, aho yasobanuye ko igihe cyateganyijwe mu masezerano y’Ubutumwa (Acte de mission) gishobora kongerwa n’ababuranyi mu buryo bweruye (exprès) cyangwa buteruye (tacite), ko kandi umucamanza uburanisha urubanza mu mizi ariwe ufite ububasha bwo kubyemeza mu bushishozi bwe bitewe n’imiterere ya buri dosiye yashyikirijwe. Akomeza asobanura ko imanza zaciwe n’Inkiko (Jurisprundences) zigaragaza ko igihe cyari giteganyijwe mu masezerano y’Ubutumwa (Acte de mission) cyongerewe n’ababuranyi bose, iyo icyo gihe cyarangiye, ariko bagakomeza kwitabira imihango y’Ubukemurampaka bakanakora nyuma y’aho ibikorwa bigaragara mu buryo budashidikanywaho. [26] Hashingiwe ku mategeko n’ibisobanuro by’abahanga byavuzwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga ubujurire bwa HYDROBATEL Ltd nta shingiro bufite.

1 Philipe DE Bournoville, Droit Judiciaire-L’Arbitrage, Larcier, 2000, p.183, yasobanuye ko “Les parties peuvent proroger, soit expressément, soit tacitement, le délai fixé dans la convention d’arbitrage, leur accord dit être exempt de toute ambiguïté et bannir toute imprécision quant au nouveau délai. Il appartient au juge de fond, sur base des faits qu’il constate, d’apprécier souverainement s’il ya prorogation tacite du délai. La jurisprudence induit généralement une prorogation du délai de la participation de toutes les parties à l’instance, se traduisant par des actes positifs et sans équivoques, sans protestation ni réserve. Il en est ainsi si les parties assistent librement à une phase de l’arbitrage après expiration de délai initialement convenu”.

## Page 137

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 105 105

2. Kumenya niba ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwatanzwe na Karekezi François Xavier bufite ishingiro [27] Me Mucyo Donatien avuga ko Karekezi François Xavier yunganira atanze ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi asaba ko HYDROBATEL Ltd yamuha 10.000.000Frw y’indishyi z’akababaro z’uko yamushoye mu manza ku maherere na 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya avoka, yose hamwe akaba 10.500.000Frw. [28] Me Rusanganwa Jean Bosco uburanira HYDROBATEL Ltd avuga ko itaha Karekezi François Xavier indishyi asaba kubera ko yazigenewe mu rubanza rwaciwe mu mizi, ariko ko mu gihe Urukiko rwasanga Avoka wamuburaniye akwiye guhabwa amafaranga y’igihembo cya avoka, rwayamugenera ruhereye ku byo amategeko agenga ba Avoka abateganyiriza. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [29] Ingingo ya 162 y’Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, iteganya ko “Umuntu wese wabaye umuburanyi mu rubanza ku rwego rwa mbere ashobora kurujuririra iyo abifitemo inyungu, keretse iyo amategeko abigena ukundi”. [30] Hakurikijwe ibiteganywa n’iyo ngingo, Urukiko rurasanga HYDROBATEL Ltd itaha Karekezi François Xavier indishyi z’akababaro asaba kuko itamushoye mu rubanza ku maherere nk’uko abivuga kuko ari uburenganzira bwayo bwo kujuririra imikirize y’urubanza itishimiye. HYDROBATEL Ltd v. KAREKEZI 105 .

## Page 138

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 106 106

[31] Urukiko rurasanga rero HYDROBATEL Ltd igomba Karekezi François Xavier 500.000Frw y’igihembo cya avoka kuko byabaye ngombwa ko ashaka umwunganira kuri uru rwego hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 258 y’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’amategeko y’imbonezamubano, iteganya ko “Igikorwa cyose cy’umuntu cyangirije undi gitegeka nyirugukora ikosa rigikomokaho kuriha ibyangiritse”. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [32] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa HYDROBATEL Ltd nta shingiro bufite; [33] Rutegetse HYDROBATEL Ltd guha Karekezi François Xavier 500.000Frw y’igihembo cya avoka; [34] Rwemeje kandi rutegetse ko umwanzuro wafashwe n’Inteko y’Abakemurampaka tariki ya 10/04/2013 ugumyeho; [35] Rutegetse HYDROBATEL Ltd gutanga amagarama y’uru rubanza angana na 100.000Frw.

## Page 139

107

IKIGO CY’IGIHUGU CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO v. THE WORLD EXPRESS LTD [Rwanda URUKIKO RUKURU RW’UBUCURUZI – RCOMA 0586/13/HCC (Niwemugeni, P.J.) 07 Werurwe 2014] Amategeko agenga imisoro – Igenagaciro ry’ibintu byatumijwe mu mahanga – Mu Kugena agaciro k’icyatumijwe mu mahanga, umusoresha ntashingira ku gaciro k’ibintu byenda kuba bimwe, cyangwa gusa kandi biva mu gihugu kimwe mu gihe usora yagaragaje agaciro k’ikiguzi cyacyo – Itegeko nº15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 3; Amategeko agenga amasezerano – Kuvutswa amahirwe – Indishyi z’amafaranga imodoka yagombaga kwinjiza ikoreshwa mu gutwara abantu – Zitangwa ari uko uzaka agaragaza nta shiti ko iyo modoka yagombaga gukoreshwa mu gutwara abantu – Amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza – kugira ngo atangwe ni uko uyaka agaragaza ingano y’ayo yakoresheje, iyo atabigaragaje Urukiko ruyagena mu bushishozi bwarwo – Itegeko nº 45/2011 ryo kuwa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, ingingo ya 142. Amategeko agenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa – Indishyi z’ikurikirana rubanza – Mu gihe ikirego gifite ishingiro indishyi z’ibigenda mu rubanza ziratangwa. Incamake y’ikibazo: The World Express yatumije imodoka hanze, igeze mu gihugu imenyesha gasutamo igiciro yayiguzeho kugirango kizashingirweho mu kuyisoresha. Ikigo cy’Iguhugu Kugira

## Page 140

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 108 108

cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyarabyanze, ahubwo kiyigenera agiciro kari hejuru. The World Express yaje kuregera Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi irusaba kugena igiciro hashingiwe ku masezerano n’inyandiko yishyuriyeho. Ikigo cy’Iguhugu cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyasobanuye ko cyashidikanyije ku giciro cy’imodoka Combi cya 4300$ habariwemo n’igiciro cy’ubwikorezi bituma igena ako gaciro ihereye ku yindi KIA Combi yo mu mwaka umwe n’iyo (1999) yaguzwe 6500$ hatabariwemo igiciro cy’ubwikorezi, yaherukaga kuva mu gihugu cya Koreya.Urukiko rwemeje ko Ikigo cy’igihugu cy’imisoro n’amahôro cyahereye ku makuru adahagije. Ruvuga ko imodoka zakoze zishobora kugira ibiciro bitandukanye haherewe ku buryo zimeze mu gihe cy’igurishwa. Ikigo cy’Iguhugu cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyajuririye Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi kivuga ko: Urukiko rwashingiye ku biteganywa n’umugereka wa 4, igice cya mbere, igika cya 3 n’icya 4 (Transaction value on identical goods na Transaction value on similar goods) cy’itegeko rigenga za Gasutamo z’Umuryango w’Afurika y’Iburasirazuba kandi atari ko bimeze, rukaba rwaranashidikanyije ku cyemezo cyarwo, ko kandi cyanaciwe indishyi zidafite aho zishingiye. The World Express yo yavuze ko: imodoka iburanwa yazanye n’indi yo mu bwoko bwa Istana yaguzwe 4200$ harimo n’ubwikorezi naho combi ikaba yaraguzwe 4300$ habariwemo n’ubwikorezi, nk’uko bigaragazwa n’amasezerano y’ubugure bw’izo modoka kuri interineti.Yavuze kandi ko Urukiko rutashidikanyije ku cyemezo cyarwo ko ahubwo rwashakaga kugaragaza ibiciro by’imodoka byagaragajwe mu bimenyetso byakoreshejwe mu iburanisha kugira ngo hagaragare ukuri kw’ikiburanwa. Naho ku bijyanye n’indishyi ivuga ko zifite ishingiro. Yatanze ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi isaba indishyi

## Page 141

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 109 109

zingana n’amafaranga yagombaga kwinjiza iyakuye mu bikorwa byo gutwara abagenzi mu gihe cy’umwaka, inyungu mbonezamusaruro hamwe n’ikurikirana rubanza ku rwego rw’ubujurire. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Mu kugena agaciro k’ibintu bisoreshwa bivuye mu mahanga, hashingirwa ku giciro cy’ikiguzi cyabyo cyagaragajwe n’usora mu gihe cyose nta kindi kimenyetso gihagije kibivuguruza cyatanzwe n’umusoresha, bityo agaciro k’imodoka yatumijwe mu mahanga kagaragajwe n’usora, umusoresha ntiyagahindura agendeye ku gaciro k’imodoka zenda gusa, zenda kuba zimwe cyangwa ziva mu gihugu kimwe. 2. Kuba ikirego cya The World Express cyari gifite ishingiro.bituma indishyi zaciwe Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro (RRA) zigumaho 3. Ntaho The World Express yahera yaka indishyi z’amafaranga yagombaga kuba yarinjije mu gihe itagaragaza imirimo iyo modoka yari gukoreshwa igeze mu gihugu. Naho uwaka amafaranga y’ikurikirana rubanza, agomba kugaragaza niba yarayakoresheje koko, iyo atabashije kubigaragaza, Urukiko ruyagena mu bushishozi bwarwo. Ubujurire nta shingiro; Amafaranga yikurikirana rubanza hamwe n’amagarama aherereye k’uwajuriye; Urubanza rwajuririwe ntiruhindutse. RRA v. THE WORLD EXPRESS LTD 109 .

## Page 142

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 110 110

Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nº15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 3; Itegeko Nº 45/2011 ryo kuwa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, ingingo ya 142. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] The World Express ivuga ko yatumije imodoka hanze, yagera muri gasutamo ikayimenyesha igiciro yayiguriyeho ariko iracyanga ikayishyira ku giciro cyo hejuru kitari icy’ukuri. Yaregeye Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge mu rubanza rujuririrwa, irusaba kugena igiciro gishingiye ku masezerano n’inyandiko yishyuriyeho. [2] Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro (RRA) kivuga ko cyashidikanyije ku giciro cy’imodoka Combi cya 4300$ habariwemo n’igiciro cy’ubwikorezi bituma igena ako gaciro ihereye ku yindi KIA Combi yo mu mwaka imwe n’iyo (1999) yaguzwe 6500$ hatabariwemo igiciro cy’ubwikorezi yaherukaga kuva mu gihugu cya Koreya kimwe n’iyo modoka ivugwa hano. Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro cyasabye ko uwo musoro wemezwa indishyi zisabwa na The World Express ntizihabwe agaciro kubera ko umukozi wacyo afite uburenganzira bwo kugena umusoro n’amahoro.

## Page 143

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 111 111

[3] Urukiko rwafashe icyemezo cy’uko RRA ihera ku makuru adahagije mu kugena igiciro kandi kuba izo modoka ziva mu gihugu kimwe ubwabyo bidahagije ko ziba zimwe. Ruvuga kandi ko imodoka zakoze zishobora kugira ibiciro bitandukanye haherewe ku buryo zimeze mu gihe cy’igurishwa. Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro (RRA) nticyishimiye icyo cyemezo, ikijuririra muri uru Rukiko ku mpamvu z’uko urukiko rwavuze ko RRA yashingiye ku biteganywa n’umugereka wa kane, igice cya mbere, igika cya gatatu n’icya kane (Transaction value on identical goods na Transaction value on similar goods) w’itegeko rigenga za Gasutamo z’umuryango w’Afurika y’Iburasirazuba atari ko bimeze, ko urukiko narwo rwashidikanyije mu cyemezo cyarwo, aho ruvuga ko hari impamvu yo gushidikanya ku giciro cya The World Express, ndetse no ku ndishyi urukiko rwaciye. Muri uru rubanza, uru Rukiko rugiye gusuzuma niba izo mpamvu z’ubujurire zifite ishingiro koko. II. ISESENGURA RY’URUBANZA 1. Ese koko Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro nticyashingiye Kumugereka wa kane, igice cya mbere, igika cya gatatu n’icya kane (Transaction value on identical goods na Transaction value on similar goods) w’itegeko rigenga za Gasutamo z’umuryango w’Afurika y’Iburasirazuba kigena igiciro cy’imodoka ivugwa muri uru rubanza? [4] Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro (RRA) kivuga ko urukiko rwavuze ko cyashingiye ku biteganywa n’umugereka wa kane, igice cya mbere, igika cya gatatu n’icya kane (Transaction value on identical goods na Transaction RRA v. THE WORLD EXPRESS LTD 111

## Page 144

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 112 112

value on similar goods) w’itegeko rigenga za Gasutamo z’umuryango w’Afurika y’Iburasirazuba mu kugena agaciro k’imodoka ya The World Express Ltd RRA yagendeye ku bicuruzwa bitandukanye ku mpamvu zikurikira: - Imodoka KIA Combi yahereyeho igena igiciro itandukanye na KIA Combi yatumijwe na The World Express kuko zititwa kimwe na sosiyete zitumizwamo zitandukanye; - Nta giciro k’izo modoka ziva mu ruganda cyagaragajwe - Kuba izo modoka ziva mu gihugu kimwe ubwabyo ntibihagije kuba zimwe - Kuba imodoka zakoze (used vehicles/voitures d’occasion) zidashobora kugira ibiciro bimwe. [5] Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro (RRA) cyo kiravuga ko kitashingiye kuri uriya mugereka wavuzwe n’urukiko rugena agaciro k’imodoka, ko ahubwo cyashingiye ku mugereka wa munani, igice cya mbere igika cya munani (Fall back method). Kirasobanura ko icyo gika giteganya ko: “Iyo agaciro k’ibicuruzwa kadashoboye kuboneka hakurikijwe uburyo buteganywa mu bikibanziriza, ako gaciro kaboneka hakoreshejwe uburyo bwo kubara agaciro bwemewe n’amahame n’ingingo rusange zikubiye muri uwo mugereka wa kane no ku makuru aboneka mu gihugu kigize umuryango.” [6] The World Express mu miburanire yayo ivuga ko imodoka iburanwa yazanye n’indi yo mu bwoko bwa Istana, zikaba zaraguzwe hakoreshejwe internet ku giciro cya 8500$ zombi harimo n’ubwikorezi (CIF). Istana yari kuri 4200$ naho ; ;

## Page 145

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 113 113

Combi iri kuri 4300$ harimo n’ubwikorezi. Bikaba bigaragazwa na sales contract yaguriweho iyo modoka kuri internet. [7] Uru Rukiko rurasanga kuri iyi ngingo y’ubujurire, Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro (RRA) cyaravugishije urukiko ibyo rutavuze kuko nyuma yo kuvuga ibyo uriya mugereka uteganya mu gice cya 8 n’icya 9 by’urubanza rujuririrwa, urukiko rwavuze mu gika cya 10 cy’urwo rubanza ko : “Rushingiye ku biteganywa n’amategeko bivuzwe mu bika bibanziriza iki, rusanga RRA cyangwa se by’umwihariko itarashingiye ku bicuruzwa bimwe cyangwa bisa mu kugena agaciro k’imodoka, ahubwo yarashingiye ku modoka zenda kuba zimwe cyangwa zenda gusa kandi ziva mu gihugu kimwe.” Ntabwo rero urukiko rwavuze ko RRA yashingiye ku mugereka wa kane, igice cya mbere, igika cya gatatu n’icya kane (Transaction value on identical goods na Transaction value on similar goods) w’itegeko rigenga za Gasutamo z’umuryango w’Afurika y’Iburasirazuba nk’uko ikigo cy’imisoro n’Amahoro gishaka kubyumvikanisha, ahubwo rwavuze ko kitawushingiyeho. Kuvuga ko cyashingiye kuri Fall Back Method iteganya ibijyanye n’iyo agaciro k’ibicuruzwa kadashoboye kuboneka na byo nta shingiro byahabwa kuko rusanga iyo method yakoreshwa igihe nta gaciro k’ibicuruzwa kagaragajwe, mu gihe kuri iyi Combi ivugwa muri uru rubanza, hagaragajwe ko yaguzwe ku giciro cya 4300$. Iyi mpamvu y’ubujurire rero ikaba nta shingiro yahabwa. 2. Ese koko urukiko rwarashidikanyije mu cyemezo cyarwo? [8] Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro (RRA) kiravuga ko urukiko rwemeje ko The World Express Ltd igomba gusorera ku gaciro yaguriyeho kangana na 4.300$ RRA v. THE WORLD EXPRESS LTD 113

## Page 146

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 114 114

nyamara na rwo rwiyemerera ko hari impamvu yo gushidikanya kuri icyo giciro mu ica ry’urubanza ku rupapuro rwa gatatu agace ka 12. [9] The World Express Ltd yo ivuga ko muri icyo gika, umucamanza yashakaga kugaragaza ibiciro by’imodoka byagaragajwe mu bimenyetso byakoreshejwe mu iburanisha kugira ngo hagaragare ukuri kw’ikiburanwa. Ko ari muri urwo rwego mu gika cya 13 cy’urwo rubanza, urukiko rwasanze impamvu zo gushidikanya zitangwa na RRA nta shingiro zahabwa, rwemeza ko The World Express Ltd igomba gusorera ku gaciro yaguriyeho (transaction value) kangana na 4.300$. Ko bishimangirwa kandi ko n’uko mu gika cya 14, The World Express Ltd yagaragarije urukiko ibimenyetso byuzuzanya kandi bidafite gushidikanya, bigaragaza agaciro nyako imodoka iburanwa igomba gusorerwaho gahwanye na 4.300$. [10] Hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 3 y’itegeko rigena ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, uru Rukiko rurasanga Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro (RRA) gifata igice kimwe kigifitiye akamaro muri icyo gika cya 12 kivuga ariko ntikirangize interuro yose, kuko urukiko rwavuze ko kuba izo modoka eshatu zose zituruka muri Koreya zidahuje igiciro, yaba impamvu yo gushidikanya ku giciro cyavuzwe na The World Express Ltd cya Combi ya Korea Auto co.Ltd, ariko ukugihakana n’ukugena ikindi bigomba amakuru ahagije, arimo ubushishozi kandi afatika. Mu gika cya 13, urukiko rwavuze ko rusanga impamvu yo kwizera cyane no kugendera ku makuru y’igiciro cy’imodoka imwe cya 6500$ hatarimo ubwikorezi itumvikana mu gihe hari ibiciro by’ izindi modoka zavuye Koreya zavuzwe haruguru byose biri munsi y’icyo giciro kandi habariwemo n’ubwikorezi buzigeza Dar Es Salaam

## Page 147

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 115 115

cyangwa i Kigali. Mu gika cya 14, urukiko rwanzuye ko igiciro cyagaragajwe na The World Express Ltd cyafatwaho ukuri igihe cyose nta kindi kimenyetso gihagije kivuguruza igiciro cy’imodoka Combi cyamenyekanishijwe cya 4300$ kikaba ari cyo cyemezwa. [11] Bigaragara rero ko Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro (RRA) cyerekana ikintu gito umucamanza yavuze kigifitiye akamaro, ariko ntigishake kureba ibisobanuro yagihaye gihagije kinaganisha no ku mwanzuro yafashe. Muri East African Community Customs Management Act, Fourth schedule (ss 122 (1) iteganya ko mu kugena igiciro cy’ibintu bivuye mu mahanga, hashingirwa ku giciro cyishyuriweho ibyagurishijwe. Uru Rukiko rurasanga rero mu rubanza rujuririrwa, ntaho urukiko rugaragaza ko gushidikanya ku giciro cy’iyo modoka ya The World Express byatuma isoreshwa igiciro kiri hejuru y’icyo yaguriweho, ko ahubwo rwagaragaje byaba impamvu ikomeye ituma isoreshwa ku giciro yaguriweho mu gihe cyose nta kindi kimenyetso gihagije kivuguruza igiciro cyerekanwe. Iyi mpamvu y’ubujurire rero ikaba nta shingiro yahabwa. 3. Ese indishyi zaciwe Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro (RRA) ntizari ngombwa? [12] Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro (RRA) kiravuga ko cyaciwe indishyi za 600.000frs z’ibigenda ku rubanza, kikaba gisanga nta shingiro zifite kuko n’ikirego ubwacyo nta shingiro gifite. Uru Rukiko rurasanga atari byo kuko bigaragara ko ikirego cya The World Express cyari gifite ishingiro. 4. Ese indishyi zisabwa na The World Express Ltd zatangwa? RRA v. THE WORLD EXPRESS LTD 115

## Page 148

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 116 116

[13] The World Express Ltd irasaba indishyi zingana n’amafaranga yagombaga kwinjiza itwara abagenzi mu mwaka angana na 7.200.000Frw, inyungu mbonezamusaruro za 2.000.000Frw, ay’ikurikirana rubanza ku rwego rw’ubujurire ra 500.000Frw. [14] Ingingo ya 142 y’itegeko rigenga amasezerano, iteganya ko: “Nta ndishyi zishobora gutangwa ku gihombo kiri hejuru y’icyo uruhande rwarenganyijwe rushobora kugaragaza nta gushidikanya”. Uru Rukiko rurasanga The World Express itagaragaza nta shiti ko iyo modoka yagombaga gukoreshwa mu gutwara abantu ku buryo yari kuyikuraho amafaranga isaba, ndetse ikaba itanagaragaza icyo isabira indishyi mbonezamusaruro. Na ho ikurikirana rubanza, ruri buyagene mu bushishozi bwarwo kuko nta kigaragaza ko yakoresheje 500.000Frw ku rwego rw’ubujurire koko. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi: [15] Rwemeye kwakira ubujurire rwashyikirijwe n’ Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro (RRA). [16] Rwemeje ko nta shingiro bufite. [17] Rukijije ko The World Express Ltd itsinze, ko Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro (RRA) gitsinzwe. [18] Rutegetse Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro (RRA) kwishyura The World Express Ltd 200.000Frw ahwanye n’ikurikirana rubanza ku rwego rw’ubujurire, kikayatanga mu

## Page 149

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 117 117

gihe cy’iminsi cumi n’itanu urubanza rubaye itegeko, kitayatanga akavanwa mu byacyo ku ngufu za Leta. [19] Rutegetse Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro (RRA) kwishyura 9700Frw ahwanye n’ibyakozwe muri uru rubanza, kikayatanga mu gihe cy’iminsi cumi n’itanu urubanza rubaye itegeko, kitayatanga akavanwa mu byacyo ku ngufu za Leta. [20] Rutegetse ko ku bindi hubahirizwa icyemezo cy’urukiko mu rubanza RCOM 0870/13/TC/Nyge. RRA v. THE WORLD EXPRESS LTD 117

## Page 151

119

MBERABAGABO N’ABANDI v. FIAT AMELIE N’UNDI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/REV/INJUST/COM 0001/13/CS (Kayitesi, P.J., Hatangimbabazi, Mukandamage, Rugabirwa na Gakwaya, J.) 28 Werurwe 2014] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubucuruzi – Gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya – Impamvu z’akarengane – Umuburanyi ntiyavuga ko Urukiko rwaciye urubanza rusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane gakabije rutari rufite ububasha mu gihe rwafashe icyemezo rushingiye ku ngingo z’amategeko zirebana no gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya kandi n’ababuranyi bakaba arizo bashingiyeho mu myanzuro yabo itanga ikirego – Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano , iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 186, igika cya 3 n’icya 6. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubucuruzi – Kwiyambaza icyarimwe inzira ebyiri z’ubujurire ku rubanza rumwe – Ntibifatwa nko kwiyambaza inzira ebyiri z’ubujurire mu gihe umuburanyi yaretse urubanzakuri imwe mu nzira yari yatangiye – Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 12. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubucuruzi – Gucungura icyagombaga gutezwa cyamunara – Agaciro k’ubugure bugamije ubwicungure mbere ya cyamunara – Umuntu wese cyangwa urimo umwenda ashobora igihe cyose

## Page 152

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 120 120

mu nyungu z‘uwafatiriwe n’uberewemo umwenda, ariko mbere ya cyamunara gucungura ibyafatiriwe – Amasezerano y’ubugureagamije ubwicungure bw’ibyafatiriwe aba afite agaciro – Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 311. Amategeko agenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa – Uburyozwe – Indishyi z’ubukode – Uwavukije undi ubukode yitwaje ko yaguze muri cyamunara, nyamara yarafatanyije n’uwateje cyamunara kutubahiriza amategeko, bafatanya kumwishyura indishyi – Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 ryerekeye amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258. Incamake y’ikibazo: Banki y’Ubucuruzi y’u Rwanda (BCR) ubu yabaye I&M BANK yahaye inguzanyo Dunia Bakarani, ariko ntiyashobora kuyishyura bituma iregera inkiko iramutsinda. Hatangiye imihango yo kurangiza icyemezo cy’urukiko bikozwe na Noteri Kayitesi Judith, Hagati aho Dunia yagurishije iyo nzu na Fiat Amelie maze yishyura uwo mwenda ndetse banki imenyesha noteri ko uwo mwenda wamaze kwishyurwa. Noteri Kayitesi yabirenzeho akomeza cyamunara, inzu igurwa na Mberabagabo nyuma y’iminsi ibiri yishyuye. Dunia yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi asaba gusesa cyamunara y’inzu ye kuko yakozwe nyuma yo kwishyura umwenda . Muri urwo rubanza hagobotsemo na Fiat Amelie wari waguze inzu na Dunia ku bwumvikane mbere y’uko cyamunara iba. Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwemeje ko cyamunara yabaye hakurikijwe amategeko, ko kandi ikirego cya Fiat Amelie kitakiriwe kuko nta nyungu n’ububasha yari afite byo kurega. Dunia na Fiat bajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga

## Page 153

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 121 121

ariko mu gihe rutaraburanishwa bareka urwo rubanza ahubwo bongera kuregera Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi basaba gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya ku mpamvu z’uko Urukiko rwitiranyije uko ibintu byagenze, maze urwo Rukiko rwemeza ko cyamunara yakozwe iteshejwe agaciro, runategeka ko Kayitesi Judith ( Notaire), Mberabagabo Innocent wari ufatanyije sosiyete na Butera wanaguze inzu mu cyamunara bishyura Fiat Amelie 29.575.000Frw y’ubukode bw’inzu yari kubona mu mezi 13 iyo iyo nzu yaguze idatezwa cyamunara, banategekwa kandi kwishyura 500.000Frw by’igihembo cy’ Avoka. Kayitesi, Mberabagabo Innocent na Butera bandikiye umuvunyi Mukuru bamusaba gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane kagaragarira buri wese kuko hari amategeko n’ibimenyetso byirengagijwe maze byemezwa ko rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, Kayitesi, Mberabagabo Innocent na Butera basobanura ko akarengane kagaragarira mu kuba Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi atari rwo rwari rufite ububasha bwo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpanvu z’akarengane, ko ahubwo bwari bufitwe n‘Urukiko rw’Ikirenga bityo Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rukaba rutaragombaga kwakira ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya cya Dunia na Fiat kandi hari ubujurire bari baratanze mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, ko kandi ubugure bw’inzu bwabaye hagati ya Dunia na Fiat bwatumye Dunia abona ubwishyu bwo kwishyura BCR butari guhagarika cyamunara yabaye bitewe n’uko inzu itari ikiri mu maboko yabo. Bavuze kandi ko kuba Fiat Amelie yarahawe amafaranga y’ubukode yemejwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ari akarengane kuko nta makosa bakoze. MBERABAGABO N’ABANDI v. FIAT AMELIE N’UNDI 121

## Page 154

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 122 122

Dunia na Fiat Amelie bo bavuze ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi arirwo rwari rufite ububasha bwo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane gakabije kuko gashingiye ku kwitiranya uko ibintu byagenze kandi hakaba harashingiwe ku ngingo z’amategeko zijyanye no gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya. Barongeye bavuga ko batiyambaje inzira ebyiri z’ubujurire icyarimwe kuko batanga ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya berekanye ko baretse ubujurire bari baratanze mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga. Bavuze kandi ko ubugure bwabaye hagati yabo bufite agaciro kuko Fiat yarangije urubanza ku neza yishyura BCR ndetse imuha icyemezo cyo kutabamo umwenda inabimenyesha notaire Kayitesi Judith imusaba guhagarika cyamunara. Byongeye kandi bavuga ko kuba Mberabagabo Innocent na Butera baraguze iyo nzu mu cyamunara bazi neza ko ari inzu yagurishijwe basanga ari amakosa akomeye bagomba kuryozwa bakishyura Fiat Amelie amafaranga y’ubukode bamuvukije. Basoje basaba guhabwa amafaranga yo gushorwa mu manza ku maherere n’ay’igihembo cy’ Avoka. Naho Kayitesi Judith, Mberabagabo Innocent na Butera bavuga ko ayo mafaranga abayasabye batayakwiye kuko nta makosa bakoze. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Umuburanyi ntiyavuga ko Urukiko rwaciye urubanza rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane gakabije rutari rufite ububasha mu gihe rwafashe icyemezo rushingiye ku ngingo z’amategeko zirebana no gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya kandi n’ababuranyi bakaba arizo bashingiyeho mu myanzuro yabo itanga ikirego;Bityo ijambo "gakabije" yakoreshejwe mu kiburanwa nta ngaruka ifite mu

## Page 155

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 123 123

kumenya urukiko rwari rufite ububasha bwo gusuzuma uru rubanza. 2. Ntibifatwa nko kwiyambaza icyarimwe inzira ebyiri z’ubujurire mu gihe uwasubirishijemo urubanza ingingo nshya yaretse ubujurire mbere y‘urubanza. 3. Mu gihe cyamunara itaraba umuntu wese cyangwa urimo umwenda ashobora igihe cyose, ariko mbere ya cyamunara, gucungura ibyafashwe mu gihe byakozwe mu nyungu y’uberewemo umwenda n’uwurimo. Singombwa gusaba Urukiko icyemezo gihagarika cyamunara mbere yo gucungura ibyafashwe. 4. Uwavukije undi amafaranga y’ubukode bw’inzu yaguze mu buryo bwemewe n’amategeko yitwaje ko we yayiguze mu cyamunara nyamara kidakurikije amategeko, bafatanya n’uwayikoresheje kubiryozwa. Icyakora, uwari muri sosiyete imwe n’uwaguze, ntabiryozwa mu gihe yayiguze ku giti cye. Ikirego cya Butera gifite ishingiro. Ikirego cy’abandi barega nta shingiro gifite. Amagarama y’urubanza aherereye ku bareze. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko N°21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 12, 186, igika cya 3 n’icya 6, n’iya 311. Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 ryerekeye amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258. Nta manza zifashishijwe. MBERABAGABO N’ABANDI v. FIAT AMELIE N’UNDI 123

## Page 156

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 124 124

Ibitekerezo by’Abahanga byifashishijwe: Albert FETTWEIS, Manuel de procédure civile, deuxième édition, Faculté de droit de Liège, 1987, pp. 479-480. Michel Franchimont, Ann Jacobs et Adrien Masset, Manuel de procédure pénale, 2e édition, Larcier, Bruxelles, 2006, p. 927. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Banki y’Ubucuruzi y’u Rwanda (BCR) ubu yabaye I&M Bank yahaye Dunia Bakarani inguzanyo ntiyashobora kuyishyura nk’uko byari byasezeranywe, ku buryo hatangiye imihango yo kurangiza urubanza RCOM 0005/09/HCC rwabaye itegeko kuko yatsinze urubanza RCOMA 0013/10/CS. Dunia Bakarani yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi kigamije guhagarikisha cyamura y’inzu ye iri mu kibanza nimero 339 mu Mujyi wa Rubavu, kubera icyamunara cyakozwe na Noteri Kayitesi Judith nyamara ku tariki ya 15/12/2011 yaramenyeshejwe ko Banki y’Ubucuruzi y’u Rwanda yarangije kwishyurwa ku itariki ya 13/12/2011. Fiat Amélie we yagobotse ku bushake muri urwo rubanza kuko yari yaguze inzu na Dunia Bakarini ku bwumvikane mbere ya cyamunara. [2] Ku itariki ya 18/10/2012, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwaciye urubanza rwaregewe RCOM 0070/12/HCC rwemeza ko cyamunara yakurikije amategeko, ko kandi ikirego cya Fiat Amelie, wagobotse ku bushake, kitagomba kwakirwa kuko atari

## Page 157

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 125 125

afite ububasha n’inyungu byo kurega, cyane cyane ko inzu yagurishijwe itari ikiri iye. [3] Dunia Bakarani na Fiat Amélie bongeye kuregera Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi basubirishamo urubanza RCOM 0070/12/HCC ingingo nshya, bashingiye ku ngingo ya 186, igika cya 3 n’iya 6 y’Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi. [4] Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwaciye urubanza RCOM 0306/12/HCC kuwa 21/01/2013 rwemeza ko ikirego cya Fiat Amélie na Dunia Bakarani gifite ishingiro, rutegeka ko Kayitesi Judith, Mberabagabo Innocent na Butera Jean-Pierre batsinzwe, rutegeka kandi ko cyamunara yo kuwa 15/12/2011 y’inzu iri mu kibanza nimero 339 mu Mujyi wa Rubavu iteshejwe agaciro. [5] Uru Rukiko kandi rwategetse Kayitesi Judith, Mberabagabo Innocent na Butera Jean-Pierre gufatanya kwishyura Fiat Amélie amafaranga angana na 29.575.000 Frw y’ubukode bw’inzu n’amafaranga angana na 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cy’avoka, yose hamwe angana n’amafaranga 30.575.000 Frw, urubanza rukimara gusomwa bahereye ku mafaranga Noteri Kayitesi Judith yabikije muri Banki Nkuru y’u Rwanda (consignation) kuwa 19/12/2011 amaze guteza cyamunara, rubategeka no gufatanya kwishyura amagarama y’urubanza ahwanye na 9.000 Frw. [6] Kuwa 6/2/2013, Umuvunyi Mukuru yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga asaba ko urubanza RCOM 0306/12/HCC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi MBERABAGABO N’ABANDI v. FIAT AMELIE N’UNDI 125

## Page 158

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 126 126

rwasubirwamo kubera impamvu z’akaregane gakomoka ku kuba hari amategeko n’ibimenyetso byirengagijwe. [7] Nyuma yo gusuzuma raporo y’Ubugenzuzi Bukuru bw’Inkiko kuri uru rubanza, Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ashingiye ku ngingo ya 80 y’Itegeko Ngenga n° 03/2012 ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw‘Ikirenga, yemeje kuwa 27/3/2013 ko uru rubanza rwoherezwa mu bwanditsi bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kugira ngo ruzongere ruburanishwe. [8] Kayitesi Judith, Mberabagabo Innocent na Butera Jean- Pierre basaba gusubirishamo urubanza RCOM 0306/12/HCC ku mpamvu z’akarengane zikurikira: a. Kwirengagiza amategeko n’ibimenyetso bigaragarira buri wese, bavuga ko umucamanza yirengagije ingingo ya 78 n’iya 79 z’Itegeko Ngenga nº 03/2012 ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. b. Kwakira ikirego no kugisuzuma kandi itegeko ribiteganya ukundi, bavuga ko n’ubwo yari kuba afite ububasha, umucamanza atari kwakira ikirego ngo agisuzume hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 12 y’Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, abarezwe bakaba barabigaragarije umucamanza ariko aranga asuzuma ikibazo. c. Gushyigikira amanyanga n’amakosa y’abareze; bavuga ko ikirego cy’abareze cyari gishingiye ku manyanga no kwica itegeko kugirango bahagarikishe

## Page 159

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 127 127

cyamunara bitwaza amasezerano y’ubugure ku nzu yari yarafatiriwe itakiri mu maboko ya nyirayo bigashimangirwa n’ingingo ya 295 y’Itegeko n° 18/2004 ryo kuwa 20/06/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi yakurikizwaga icyo gihe. [9] Fiat Amélie asaba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga gutegeka abarega kumwishyura 3.500 USD buri kwezi mu gihe cy’amezi 13 y’ubukode bw’inzu yaguze mbere ya cyamunara, hamwe na Dunia Bakarani bagasaba gutegeka abarega kubaha amafaranga 2.000.000 kubera babashoye mu manza ku maherere n’amafaranga 2.000.000 y’igihembo y’avoka. I&M Bank (ex- Banki y’Ubucuruzi y’u Rwanda) nayo yatanze ikirego cyuririye kucy‘abarega isaba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kubategeka kuyishyura indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza zingana n’amafaranga 500.000 n’igihembo cya avoka kingana n’amafaranga 500.000. [10] Iburanisha ryabaye mu ruhame kuwa 4/2/2014, Mberabagabo Innocent, Butera Jean-Pierre na Kayitesi Judith bahagarariwe na Me Nzamwita Toy na Me Twagirayezu Christophe, Fiat Amélie na Dunia Bakarani bahagarariwe na Me Shema Gakuba Charles na Me Buhuru Pierre-Célestin naho I&M BANK (ex-Banki y’Ubucuruzi y’u Rwanda) ihagarariwe na Me Batware Jean-Claude. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO. a. Kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rutari rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha urubanza RCOM 0306/12/HCC. MBERABAGABO N’ABANDI v. FIAT AMELIE N’UNDI 127

## Page 160

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 128 128

[11] Me Nzamwita Toy, uburanira Mberabagabo Innocent, Butera Jean-Pierre na Kayitesi Judith, avuga ko Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rutari rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha urubanza RCOM 0306/12/HCC kuko Fiat Amélie na Dunia Bakarani bari batanze ikirego basaba gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane gakabije urubanza RCOM 0070/12/HCC rwari rwaraciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma n’urwo Rukiko, nyamara hakurikijwe ibiteganywa n‘ingingo ya 78 n’iya 79 z’Itegeko Ngenga n° 03/2012 ryo kuwa 13/6/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, icyo kirego kitari gushyikirizwa urwo Rukiko kubera ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga arirwo rwonyine rufite ububasha bwo gusuzuma ibirego bisubirishamo imanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane gakabije, bityo akaba asanga mu gihe Urukiko rw‘Ubucuruzi rwihaye ububasha rudafite, iyi ari mpamvu igaragaza akarengane kabaye muri uru rubanza. [12] Me Nzamwita Toy asobanura ko Fiat Amélie na Dunia Bakarani batanga ikirego mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, batari gushingira ku ingingo ya 186 y’Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi kuko ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane gitangwa gishingiye ku ingingo ya 78 n’iya 79 z’Itegeko Ngenga n° 03/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru. Me Twagirayezu Christophe, uburanira nawe Mberabagabo Innocent, Butera Jean-Pierre na Kayitesi Judith, asobanura ko mu gika cya munani cy’urubanza RCOM 0306/12/HCC, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwashingiye ku ingingo ya 189 y’Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru, rwemeza gusa ko rufite ububasha bwo kwakira ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya (recours en révision),

## Page 161

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 129 129

nyamara urwo Rukiko rwirengagije ko hari Itegeko Ngenga riha Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ububasha bwo gusuzuma ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane. [13] Me Buhuru Pierre Célestin, uburanira Fiat Amélie na Dunia Bakarani, avuga ko mu rubanza RCOM 0306/12/HCC, abarega basabaga gusubirishamo ingingo nshya urubanza RCOM 0070/12/HCC ku mpamvu z’akaregane, ko kandi Urukiko rwaciye urubanza rusabirwa gusubirishamo ingingo nshya, ari rwo rufite ububasha bwo kuruburanisha hashingiwe kubiteganywa n’ingingo ya 186 n’iya 189 z’Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryavuze haruguru, bityo akaba asanga mu gihe izo ngingo ziha ububasha Urukiko rwaciye mu rwego rwa nyuma urubanza rusubirishamo ingingo nshya, nta makosa Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwakoze kuko ari rwo rwaciye mu rwego rwa nyuma urubanza RCOM 0070/12/HCC. [14] Me Shema Gakuba Charles, uburanira Fiat Amélie na Dunia Bakarani, avuga ko abarega mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’ubucuruzi batanze ikirego cyo gusubirishamo ingingo nshya urubanza RCOM 0070/12/HCC ku mpamvu z’akaregane gakabije katewe n’amakosa akabije yo kwitiranya uko ibintu byagenze, gishingiwe ku ingingo ya 186, igika cya 3 n’icya 6 y’Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru, nyamara ingingo ya 78 n’iya 79 z’Itegeko Ngenga n° 03/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru zidateganya ko “kwitiranya uko ibintu byagenze” iri mu mpamvu zituma habaho gusubirishamo ku impamvu z’akarengane urubanza rwaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma, bityo akaba asanga iyo ngingo nta agaciro ikwiye guhabwa. [15] Me Batware Jean-Claude, uburanira I&M BANK (ex- Banki y’Ubucuruzi y’u Rwanda) avuga ko urubanza RCOM MBERABAGABO N’ABANDI v. FIAT AMELIE N’UNDI 129

## Page 162

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 130 130

0306/12/HCC rwari rwasabye gusubirishamo urubanza RCOM 0070/12/HCC rwashingiye ku karengane gakabije ndetse n’amakosa akabije yo kwitiranya uko ibintu byangenze nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 186, igika cya 3 n’icya 6 y’Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru, ko kandi ibyo bigaragara mu kiburanwa mu rubanza RCOM 0306/12/HCC, bityo akaba asanga nta handi Fiat Amélie na Dunia Bakarani bari kujyana icyo kirego uretse kugishyikiriza Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwari rwaciye urubanza RCOM 0070/12/HCC rwabaye Itegeko. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [16] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga ikiburanwa mu rubanza RCOM 0306/12/HCC ari‘‘gusubirishamo urubanza RCOM 0070/12/HCC ingingo nshya ku mpamvu z’akarengane gakabije katewe n’urubanza ndetse n’amakosa akabije yo kwitiranya uko ibintu byagenze (ingingo ya 186, igika cya 3 n’icya 6 y‘Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi). [17] Usomye agace ka 8 k’urubanza RCOM 0306/12/HCC, biragaragara ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwemeje ko rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha urwo rubanza kubera ko ingingo ya 189 y‘Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru iteganya ko ikirego cyo gusaba ko urubanza rwaciwe burundu rusubirishwamo ingingo nshya kijyanwa mu Rukiko rwaciye urwo rubanza, kandi ko urubanza RCOM 0070/12/HCC rusubirishwamo ingingo nshya rwaciwe n’urwo Rukiko no kuba igihe batangaga ikirego cyabo, abareze

## Page 163

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 131 131

bashingiye ku ingingo ya 186, igika cya 3 n’icya 6 y‘Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru. [18] Ingingo ya 186, igika cya 3 y’Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru iteganya ko “urubanza rushobora gusubirishwamo ingingo nshya iyo 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”, naho igika cya 6 y’iryo ngingo ya 186 iteganya ko “urubanza rushobora gusubirishwamo ingingo nshya iyo mu icibwa ry’urubanza hakozwe amakosa akabije yo kwitiranya uko ibintu byagenze cyangwa hashingiwe ku itegeko ritariho”. [19] Ingingo ya 189, igika cya 1 y’Itegeko n°21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru iteganya ko “Ikirego cy’iremezo cyo gusaba ko urubanza rwaciwe burundu rusubirishwamo ingingo nshya kijyanwa mu rukiko rwaciye urwo rubanza ariko rugizwe n’undi cyangwa abandi bacamanza bataruburanishije”. [20] Ingingo ya 78 y’Itegeko Ngenga n° 03/2012 ryo kuwa 13/6/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga iteganya ko “Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ni rwo ruburanisha ibirego byerekeranye no gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane imanza zaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma byemejwe na Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga”, naho ingingo ya 79 y’iryo Tegeko Ngenga ryavuzwe haruguru ikavuga ku buryo bwo kuregera Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ibirego byerekeranye no gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane urubanza rwaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma. MBERABAGABO N’ABANDI v. FIAT AMELIE N’UNDI 131

## Page 164

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 132 132

[21] Usesenguye ibivugwa muri izo ngingo n’ikiburanwa mu rubanza RCOM 0306/12/HCC, biragaragara bidashidikanywa ko mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, FIAT Amélie na Dunia Bakarani batanze ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza RCOM 0070/12/HCC ingingo nshya gishingiwe ku ingingo ya 186, igika cya 3 n’icya 6 y’Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/6/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru, bigaragarira mu gace ka 10 k‘imyanzuro ya FIAT Amélie na Dunia Bakarani bashyikirije Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, ko ikirego cyabo gishingiye ku ingingo ya 186, 187, 188 n’iya 189 z’Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/6/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru, bityo urwo Rukiko rukaba rwari rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha kuko ari rwo rwari rwaciye mu rwego rwa nyuma urubanza RCOM 0070/12/HCC. [22] Ku byerekeye ibivugwa n’abarega by’uko Fiat Amélie na Dunia Bakarani batanga ikirego mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, basabaga gusubirishamo urubanza RCOM 0070/12/HCC ku mpamvu z‘akarengane gakabije, ko kubera ibyo bagombaga kujyana icyo kirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, uru Rukiko rurasanga ataribyo kuko bigaragara mu ngingo ya 186, igika cya 3 y’Itegeko n°21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru ko umuburanyi ufite uburenganzira bwo gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya ashobora kubikora ku mpamvu y’uko kuva aho urubanza ruciriwe, habonetse ibimenyetso bya kamarampaka bigaragaza neza akarengane katewe n’urubanza rusabirwa gusubirishwamo ingingo nshya, bityo ijambo “gakabije” yakoreshejwe mu kiburanwa nta ngaruka ifite mu kumenya urukiko rwari rufite ububasha bwo gusuzuma urubanza RCOM 0306/12/HCC mu gihe bisobanutse neza ko ikirego cyatanzwe muri uru rubanza gishingiye ku ngingo zavuzwe haruguru z’Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/6/2012.

## Page 165

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 133 133

[23] Hashingiwe kuri ibyo byose byavuzwe haruguru, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga iyo ngingo y’abarega nta shingiro ifite kuko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwari rufite ububasha busesuye bwo kuburanisha ikirego cya Fiat Amélie na Dunia Bakarani cyo gusubirishamo urubanza RCOM 0070/12/HCC ingingo nshya. b. Kumenya niba Fiat Amélie na Dunia Bakarani bariyambaje icyarimwe inzira ebyiri zo kujurira. [24] Me Nzamwita Toy avuga ko hashingiwe ku biteganywa n‘ingingo ya 12 y’Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano , iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rutari kwakira ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya, ngo rugisuzume kuko Fiat Amélie na Dunia Bakarani bari batanze kuwa 26/10/2012 ikirego cy’ubujurire mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga bajurira urubanza RCOM 0070/12/HCC, nyuma bongera batanga kuwa 6/11/2012 mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ikindi kirego gisubirishamo urwo rubanza ingingo nshya, bityo akaba asanga ko mu gihe biyambaje inzira ebyiri, ubujurire no gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya, kandi inzira ya mbere ituma utakaza gukoresha inzira ya kabili, Fiat Amélie na Dunia Bakarani nta burenganzira bari bafite bwo gusubirishamo urubanza RCOM 0070/12/HCC ingingo nshya mu gihe bari baramaze kurujurira mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga. [25] Me Buhuru Pierre Célestin avuga ko ibivugwa n’ingingo ya 12 y’Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/6/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru, birebana n’inzira zo kujurira zisanzwe, gusubirishamo urubanza n’ubujurire, ko gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya ari inzira yo kujurira idasanzwe, idahuye na ziriya zo kujurira MBERABAGABO N’ABANDI v. FIAT AMELIE N’UNDI 133

## Page 166

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 134 134

zisanzwe. Asobanura ko kubera ko urubanza RCOM 0070/12/HCC rwari rwaciwe ku iranginzwa ry‘urubanza kandi rutashoboraga kujurirwa, Fiat Amélie na Dunia Bakarani, bashingiye ku ingingo ya 26 y’Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/6/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru, bahise bareka ikirego cyabo cy’ubujurire, batanga ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urwo rubanza ingingo nshya mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, ko kandi ingingo ya 26 y‘Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/6/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru iteganya ko mu gihe umuburanyi areka ikirego, ukwemera k’undi muburanyi atari ngombwa. [26] Me Batware Jean-Claude avuga ko gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya ari inzira yo kujurira idasanzwe, ndetse ko mu gihe baburanaga mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, Fiat Amélie na Dunia Bakarani bari bagaragaje ko baretse ikirego cyabo cy’ubujurire mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, bityo akaba asanga kureka ikirego cyabo byari bihagije kuko bidasaba ko undi muburanyi agira icyo abivugaho. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [27] Ku byerekeye inzitizi yari yatanzwe mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi na Mberabagabo Innocent, Butera Jean-Pierre na Kayitesi Judith yo kutakira ikirego cya Fiat Amélie na Dunia Bakarani ku mpamvu yuko biyambaje icyarimwe inzira ebyiri zo kujurira, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga mu gace ka 6 k’urubanza RCOM 0306/12/HCC, urwo Rukiko rwemeje ko batiyambaje icyarimwe inzira ebyiri zo kujurira kubera ko ikirego cyo gusubirishamo ingingo nshya cyatanzwe batagikurikirana ubujurire bwo mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga.

## Page 167

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 135 135

[28] Ingingo ya 12 y’Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko “nta muburanyi ushobora ku rubanza rumwe, kwiyambaza icyarimwe inzira y’ubujurire n’iyo gusubirishamo urubanza. Inzira ya mbere yahisemo ituma atakaza uburenganzira yari afite bwo kwiyambaza indi nzira”. [29] Hasesenguwe ibiteganywa muri iyo ngingo, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga biragaragara ko inzira z’ubujurire zivugwa ari inzira zo kujurira zisanzwe, ni ukuvuga gusubirishamo urubanza n’ubujurire, icyakora, bitabangamiye ibyavuzwe, nta kintu kibuza gukoresha muri uru urubanza amahame y’amategeko agenga imanza zirebana no kwiyambaza icyarimwe inzira z’ubujurire zisanzwe. Rurasanga kandi icyo umushingamategeko abuza ni ukwiyambaza icyarimwe inzira ebyiri z‘ubujurire1, nyamara muri uru rubanza bigaragara ko Fiat Amélie na Dunia Bakarani batanze ubujurire mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 26/10/2012, nyuma baza gutanga ikirego cyo

1 Ce que la règle “Electa una via non datur recursus ad alteram” prohibe, c’est la poursuite parallèle, simultanée des deux voies de recours contre une même décision’’ Albert FETTWEIS, Manuel de procédure civile, deuxième édition, Faculté de droit de Liège, 1987, PP 479-480. Il a été jugé que l’appel du jugement par défaut, interjeté après une opposition, mais en temps utile, doit être reçu si l’opposition est elle-même non recevable’’, in Michel Franchimont, Ann Jacobs et Adrien Masset, Manuel de procédure pénale, 2e édition, Larcier, Bruxelles, 2006, P. 927. Lorsqu’une opposition a été formée postérieurement à un appel, si l’appel est irrecevable, il n’y aurait pas d’obstacle à la recevabilité d’une opposition régulière, faite pour la première fois ultérieurement, Michel Franchimont, Ann Jacobs et Adrien Masset, Manuel de procédure pénale, 2e édition, Larcier, Bruxelles, 2006, P. 927. MBERABAGABO N’ABANDI v. FIAT AMELIE N’UNDI 135

## Page 168

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 136 136

gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi kuwa 6/11/2012, ndetse baza no kureka ubwo bujurire kuwa 11/12/2012, bityo biragagara ko Fiat Amélie na Dunia Bakarani batiyambaje icyarimwe inzira ebyiri zo kujurira kuko batanze ubujurire busanzwe kuwa 26/10/2012, nyuma y’iminsi 12 n’ukuvuga kuwa 6/11/2012 baza gutanga ikirego kidasanzwe cyo gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya, ndetse baza no kureka ubujurire bari batanze mu Rukiko rw‘Ikirenga. [30] Hashingiwe ku bimaze kuvugwa haruguru, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga ibivugwa n‘abarega kuri iyo impamvu y’akarengane nta shingiro bikwiye guhabwa kuko nta makosa Urukiko Rukuru rw’ubucuruzi rwakoze. c. Kumenya niba ubugure hagati ya Fiat Amélie na Dunia Bakarani butahabwa agaciro. [31] Me Nzamwita Toy avuga ko hakurikijwe ibiteganya n’ingingo ya 295 y’Itegeko n° 18/2004 ryo kuwa 20/06/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ryakoreshwaga igihe habaga ubugure bw’inzu hagati ya Fiat Amélie na Dunia Bakarani, ubwo bugure butahabwa agaciro kuko Fiat Amélie yafashe amafaranga y’ubugure, akayashyikiriza I&M BANK (ex-Banki y‘ubucuruzi y’u Rwanda), aho kuyashyikiriza umucungamari wa Leta. Avuga ko iyo mikorere ya FIAT Amélie, yatumye Noteri akomeza cyamunara ku nyungu za Leta, bityo akaba asanga ko icyemezo I&M BANK (ex-Banki y‘ubucuruzi y’u Rwanda) yahaye Dunia Bakarani ubwacyo nta gaciro cyari guhabwa ngo gihagarike cyamunara. Avuga kandi ko Noteri atari afite ishingano yo guhagarika cyamunara ashingiye kuri icyo cyemezo kuko hagombaga irindi Tegeko rya

## Page 169

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 137 137

Perezida w’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu rimutegeka guhagarika cyamunara (parallélisme de forme). Asoza avuga ko ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 318 y’Itegeko n° 18/2004 ryo kuwa 20/06/2004 ryavuzwe haruguru ryakoreshwaga icyo gihe bidashobora gukurikizwa muri uru rubanza mu gihe ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 295 y’Itegeko n° 18/2004 ryo kuwa 20/06/2004 ryavuzwe haruguru bitubahirijwe. [32] Me Shema Gakuba Charles avuga ko kuba Fiat Amélie yaraguze iyo nzu hanyuma akishyura I&M BANK (ex-Banki y‘ubucuruzi y’u Rwanda), bigaragara ko habayeho irangiza ry’urubanza ku neza (exécution volontaire) kwa Dunia Bakarani, akaba asanga mu gihe I&M BANK (ex-Banki y‘ubucuruzi y’u Rwanda) yahaye Dunia Bakarani ‘‘attestation de non créance‘‘ kandi ikabimenyesha Noteri Kayitesi Judith imusaba guhagarika icyamunara, nta makosa, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwakoze kuko igurisha ry’inzu ryabaye mbere yuko cyamunara ikorwa ndetse igiciro cy’igurisha cyahawe I&M BANK (ex-Banki y‘ubucuruzi y’u Rwanda), bityo, akaba abona ko guha Umucungamari wa Leta amafaranga y’igurisha bitari ngombwa kuko ifatira ry’inzu ya Dunia Bakarani ryari ryakozwe mu nyungu za I&M BANK (ex-Banki y‘ubucuruzi y’u Rwanda). [33] Me Batware Jean-Claude avuga ko hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 314 y’Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano , iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, umuntu wese afite uburenganzira bwo gucungura ibyafashwe iyo yishyuye umwenda mu nyungu z’uwafatiriye kandi abimwemereye. Asobanura ko mbere yuko cyamunara iba, I&M BANK (ex- Banki y‘ubucuruzi y’u Rwanda) yari yamaze kumvikana na MBERABAGABO N’ABANDI v. FIAT AMELIE N’UNDI 137

## Page 170

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 138 138

Dunia Bakarani kuko yamwishyuye ku neza kandi ko yabimenyesheje Noteri, bityo akaba asanga ko icyamunara cyabaye kitakurikije amategeko. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [34] Ingingo ya 293 y’Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/6/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano , iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi (yari ingingo ya 295 y‘Itegeko n° 18/2004 ryo kuwa 20/6/2004 ryakoreshwaga igihe habaga ubugure bw’inzu hagati ya Fiat Amélie na Dunia Bakarani) iteganya ko “Gutanga ibintu bitimukanwa cyangwa ubundi buryo bwose bwo kwemera ko hagira undi ubigiraho uruhare bikozwe n’urimo umwenda wahawe icyemezo kimuhatira kwishyura cyangwa yarabujijwe kugira icyo abikoraho ntabwo bigira agaciro, keretse ubihawe yemeye guha umucungamari wa Leta ingwate y’amafaranga angana n’umubare w’umwenda n’amafaranga uwafatiriye agomba guhabwa”. [35] Ingingo ya 313 y’Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/6/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru (yari ingingo ya 317 y‘Itegeko n° 18/2004 ryo kuwa 20/6/2004 ryavuzwe haruguru) iteganya ko “Urimo umwenda wafatiriwe ibintu ashobora igihe cyose kubicungura, ashyize kuri konti y’urukiko ishyirwamo amafaranga y’ingwate, amafaranga ahagije kwishyura umwenda watumye ibintu bye bifatirwa, habariwemo umubare w’umwenda ubwawo, inyungu n’amagarama kandi nyir’ukubicungura agasobanura neza ko ayo mafaranga ari ayo kwishyura umwenda w’ufatira ibintu, niba aramutse abonye ibimenyetso biwumuhamya”.

## Page 171

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 139 139

[36] Ingingo ya 314 y‘Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/6/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru (yari ingingo ya 318 y‘Itegeko n° 18/2004 ryo kuwa 20/6/2004 ryavuzwe haruguru) iteganya ko ‘‘Umuntu wese afite uburenganzira bwo gucungura ibyafashwe iyo yishyuye umwenda wabiteye n’amafaranga y’ibyatanzwe ku ifatira. Apfa kuba yabikoze mu nyungu z’uwafatiriwe kandi abimwemereye, ibye bitaramara gutezwa cyamunara‘‘. [37] Izo ingingo z’amategeko zigaragaraza ko nubwo habaye ifatira ry’ibintu by‘urimo umwenda, umuntu wese cyangwa urimo umwenda ashobora igihe cyose ariko mbere yuko haba icyamunara, gucungura ibyafashwe mu gihe byakozwe mu nyungu y’uberewemo umwenda n’urimo umwenda, bikaba bivuga ko amafaranga atanzwe mu nyungu y’urimo umwenda ari ayo kwishyura umwenda w’ufatira ibintu n’amafaranga y’ifatira (frais de saisie). [38] Ku byerekeye ingingo ya 293 y‘Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/6/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga guha umucungamari wa Leta ingwate y’amafaranga angana n’umubare w’umwenda n’amagarama uwafatiriye agomba guhabwa atari kamarampaka cyangwa umuhango simusiga kuko icyangombwa ari uko uberewemo umwenda yishyurwa umwenda, byongeye kandi iyo ngingo ya 293 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru ntabwo ari indemyagihugu. [39] Ku byerekeye ibivugwa n’abarega y’uko ubugure bw’inzu hagati ya Fiat Amélie na Dunia Bakarani nta gaciro byahabwa kuko byari ngombwa ko mbere y’uko iryo gurisha riba, Perezida w’Urukiko Rwisumbuye yagombaga gufata ikindi cyemezo gihagarika cyamunara, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga ataribyo kuko nta mategeko abiteganya, ahubwo nkuko byavuzwe haruguru umuntu wese cyangwa urimo umwenda MBERABAGABO N’ABANDI v. FIAT AMELIE N’UNDI 139

## Page 172

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 140 140

ashobora igihe cyose, ariko mbere ko haba icyamunara, gucungura ibyafashwe mu gihe byakozwe mu nyungu y’uberewemo umwenda n’urimo umwenda, bityo si ngombwa gusaba Perezida w’Urukiko Rwisumbuye icyemezo gihagarika cyamunura mbere yo gucungura ibyafashwe. [40] Kubera izo mpamvu zose, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga ubugure hagati ya Fiat Amélie na Dunia Bakarani bugomba guhabwa agaciro kubera ko bwakoze mu rwego rwo gucungura inzu yafatishijwe na I&M BANK (ex-Banki y‘ubucuruzi y’u Rwanda), ikishyurwa kandi ikabimenyesha Noteri Kayitesi Judith mbere y’uko cyamunara iba. d. Kumenya niba indishyi z’ubukode bw’inzu zaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi zifite ishingiro. [41] Me Nzamwita Toy avuga ko gutegeka Noteri Kayitesi Judith, Mberabagabo Innocent na Butera Jean-Pierre kwishyura Fiat Amélie na Dunia Bakarani indishyi zingana na mafaranga 30.000.000 ari akarengane kuko nta makosa bakoze, ndetse ko Noteri Kayitesi Judith yagizwe umwere mu Nkiko ebyiri zose. Avuga ko Butera Jean-Pierre nta kosa yari gukora kuko atagurishije inzu, akaba ataranayiguze, ko Mberabagabo Innocent nta makosa yakoze mu gihe yabonye itangazo, akitabira cyamunara, akagenda akagura inzu, bityo akaba asanga nta hantu na hamwe Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwashingiye rutanga izo ndishyi. [42] Me Buhuru Pierre Célestin avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwemeje ko cyamunura yakozwe na Noteri Kayitesi Judith idakurikije amategeko, ivutsa Fiat Amélie na Dunia Bakarani ubukode bwayo kuko iyo nzu yakodeshwaga USD 3.500 ku kwezi, mbere yuko igurishwa, ko abo baguze

## Page 173

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 141 141

cyamunura bakoze amanyanga kandi ko ari Butera Jean-Pierre wakoze ayo masezerano. Asobanura ko mbere ya cyamunara Mberabagabo Innocent, Butera Jean-Pierre na Bisamaza bari bakoze isosiyete yitwa “Prime Lodge”, bahita bahindura ‘‘destination‘‘ ya “busness” yakorerwaga mu nzu yagurishijwe, bityo akaba asanga ko mu gihe Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwashimangiye icyemezo cyafashwe kuri ibyo bisobanuro, biragaragara ko rwasobanuye neza amakosa bakoze. [43] Me Gakuba Shema Charles avuga ko kuwa 13/12/2011, I&M Bank (ex-Banki y‘ubucuruzi y’u Rwanda) yandikiye Noteri Kayitesi Judith, imusaba guhagarika cyamunara kuko nta mwenda Dunia Bakarani yari ayifitiye, bityo mu gihe Noteri Kayitesi Judith yarenze ibyo byose agateza cyamunara, naho Mberabagabo Innocent na Butera Jean-Pierre bakagura iyo nzu bazi neza ko ari amanyanga, asanga ari amakosa akomeye bagomba kuryozwa. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [44] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga mu gace ka 14 k’urubanza rwajuririwe, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwaremeje ko: “amakosa yakozwe yavukije Fiat Amélie wari waguze inzu mbere ya cyamunara ubukode bw’inzu ye buhwanye na Us$ 3,500. buri kwezi mu gihe cy’amezi 13 yose hamwe akaba ahwanye na Us$ 45,500, ahwanye na rwf 29.575.000, ayo mafaranga, mu gihe cy’irangiza ry’uru rubanza, akaba agomba gukurwa ku yabikijwe muri BNR igihe cyamunara yari imaze gutezwa (ingingo ya 258 CCLIII)”, bityo rukaba rwarategetse Noteri Kayitesi Judith, Mberabagabo Innocent na Butera Jean-Pierre gufatanya kwishyura Fiat amélie rwf 30.575.000 uru rubanza rukimara gusomwa, bahereye ku MBERABAGABO N’ABANDI v. FIAT AMELIE N’UNDI

## Page 174

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 142 142

mafaranga Noteri Kayitesi Judith yabikije muri BNR (consignation) kuwa 19/12/2011 amaze guteza cyamunara. [45] Ku byerekeye Noteri Kayitesi Judith, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga mu gihe I&M Bank (ex-Banki y‘ubucuruzi y’u Rwanda) yari yamumenyesheje mbere yuko cyamunara iba, ko Dunia Bakarani yari yarangije kuyishyura, ikamusaba guhagarika cyamunara ariko akabirengaho akagurisha iyo nzu iri muri parseli n° 339 i Rubavu (ex- Gisenyi), ari amakosa agomba kuryozwa indishyi kuko iki gikorwa cyangirije FIAT Amélie kimuvutsa ubukode bw’inzu yari yaguze mbere ya cyamunara, buhwanye na USD 3.500 buri kwezi mu gihe cy’amezi 13 yose hamwe akaba ahwanye na USD 45,500., ahwanye na 29.575.000Frw y’igihe Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwaciye urubanza. Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga kandi kuba Noteri Kayitesi Judith yaragizwe umwere mu manza z’inshinjabyaha, bitabuza ko aryozwa amakosa (faute délictuelle ou quasi-délictuelle) yakoreye Fiat Amélie, bityo Noteri Kayitesi Judith akaba agomba kuriha ibyangiritse. [46] Ku byerekeye Mberabagabo Innocent, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga mu gihe yari yamenyeshejwe ko inzu yaguze mu cyamunara yari ifite ibibazo kuko hari undi muntu wayiguze mbere ariko akayigumana, agahindura ibyakorerwaga muri iyo nzu, ari amakosa agomba kuryozwa kuko yavukijije FIAT Amélie ubukode bw’inzu yari yaguze mbere ya cyamunara, buhwanye na USD 3.500 buri kwezi mu gihe cy’amezi 13 yose hamwe akaba ahwanye na USD 45,500., ahwanye na 29.575.000Frw y’igihe Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwaciye urubanza, bityo Mberabagabo Innocent akaba agomba kuriha ibyangiritse.

## Page 175

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 143 143

[47] Ku byerekeye Butera Jean-Pierre, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga nta gikorwa yakoze cyangirije Fiat Amélie kuko ataguze iyo nzu mu cyamunara kandi kuba ari muri bamwe bagize isosiyete yitwa “Prime Lodge”, atari impamvu yatuma yishyura amakosa Mberabagabo Innocent yakoze, bityo Butera Jean-Pierre akaba ataryozwa ibyangirijwe na Mberabagabo Innocent. [48] Kubera izo mpamvu zose, hakurikijwe 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”. Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga Noteri Kayitesi Judith na Mberabagabo Innocent bonyine bagomba kwishyura Fiat Amélie 29.575.000Frw y’ubukode bw’inzu yari yaguze mbere ya cyamunara, ahwanye na USD 3.500 buri kwezi mu gihe cy’amezi 13, bityo urubanza RCOM 0306/12/HCC rukaba rugomba guhinduka ku birebana na Butera Jean-Pierre kuko rwamutegetse gufatanya na bandi kwishyura FIAT Amélie ayo mafaranga. e. Kumenya niba abaregwa bakwiye guhabwa amafaranga y’indishyi basaba. [49] Me Buhuru Pierre Célestin na Me Gakuba Shema Charles basaba ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rutegeka Noteri Kayitesi Judith, Mberabagabo Innocent na Butera Jean-Pierre kuriha FIAT Amélie na Dunia Bakarani 2.000.000Frw kubera kubashora mu manza ku maherere na 2.000.000Frw y’igihembo cy’avoka. [50] Me Batware Jean-Claude asaba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga gutegeka Noteri Kayitesi Judith, Mberabagabo Innocent na MBERABAGABO N’ABANDI v. FIAT AMELIE N’UNDI

## Page 176

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 144 144

Butera Jean-Pierre kwishyura I&M Bank (ex-Banki y’Ubucuruzi y’u Rwanda) indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza zingana na 500.000Frw n’igihembo cy’avoka kingana na 500.000Frw. [51] Me Nzamwita Toy avuga ko abaregwa badakwiye guhabwa ayo mafaranga kuko nta makosa abarega bakoze. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [52] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga 2.000.000Frw FIAT Amélie na Dunia Bakarani basaba kubera kubashora mu manza ku maherere, badakwiye kuyahabwa kuko bari bafite uburenganzira bwo gutanga iki kirego mu gihe basangaga ko ari akarengane babakoreye. [53] Ku birebana na 2.000.000Frw y’igihembo cy’avoka Fiat Amélie na Dunia Bakarani basaba, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga bagomba kuyahabwa ariko kubera ari ikirenga, rubagenera mu bushishozi bwarwo amafaranga y’igihembo cy’avoka angana na 500.000Frw. [54] Ku birebana na 500.000Frw y‘indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy‘avoka zingana na 500.000Frw I&M Bank (ex-Banki y’Ubucuruzi y’u Rwanda) isaba, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga ari ikirenga, ruyigenera mu bushishozi bwarwo amafaranga angana 500.000Frw. [55] Kubera izo mpamvu zose, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rugomba gutegeka Noteri Kayitesi Judith na Mberabagabo Innocent kwishyura Fiat Amélie na Dunia Bakarani 500.000Frw y’igihembo cy’avoka, no kwishyura I&M Bank (ex-Banki

## Page 177

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 145 145

y’Ubucuruzi y’u Rwanda) 500.000Frw y’ikurikirarubanza n’igihembo cy’avoka. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [56] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Noteri Kayitesi Judith na Mberabagabo Innocent nta shingiro gifite. [57] Rwemejo ko ikirego cya Butera Jean-Pierre gifite ishingiro. [58] Rutegetse Noteri Kayitesi Judith na Mberabagabo Innocent gufatanya kwishyura Fiat Amélie 29.575.000Frw y’ubukode bw‘inzu. [59] Rutegetse Noteri Kayitesi Judith na Mberabagabo Innocent gufatanya kwishyura Fiat Amélie na Dunia Bakarani amafaranga y’igihembo cy’avoka angana na 500.000Frw yongera kuri 500.000Frw yagenewe n’urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, akaba yose 1.000.000Frw. [60] Rutegetse Noteri Kayitesi Judith na Mberabagabo Innocent gufatanya kwishyura I&M Bank (ex-banki y’ubucuruzi y’u Rwanda) 500.000Frw y’igihembo cy’avoka n’ikurikiranarubanza. [61] Rutegetse Noteri Kayitesi Judith na Mberabagabo Innocent kwishyura amagarama y’uru rubanza angana na 14.500Frw. MBERABAGABO N’ABANDI v. FIAT AMELIE N’UNDI 145

## Page 179

IMANZA NSHINJABYAHA

## Page 181

149

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. BAGORA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RPA0308/10/CS (Nyirinkwaya, P.J., Mukanyundo na Rugabirwa, J.) 9 Mutarama 2015] Indishyi – Indishyi zikomoka ku cyaha – Indishyi zishingiye ku ngaruka icyaha cyari gutera umuntu utari ugambiriwe kugikorerwa – Uregera indishyi arazihabwa mu gihe icyaha cyashoboraga kumugiraho ingaruka, cyaramuteye ubwoba kandi kikamuhungabanya – Itegeko ryo ku wa 30 Nyakanga 1888 rigenga ibyerekeye amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258. Incamake y’ikibazo: Bagora yakurikiranyweho ubwinjiracyaha bw’ubwicanyi mu Rukiko Rukuru,Urugereko rwa Musanze hashingiwe kukuba yarafatanywe gerenade agiye kuyitera mu rugo rwa mushiki we. Mukapasika Marie Jeanne, umukobwa wa Nyirabazamanza nawe yaregeye indishyi muri urwo rubanza zishingiye ku kuba Bagora yarabatoteje kuva mu bwana bwe kugeza amutemye ijisho ndetse akageza ubwoashaka kubatera gerenade ngo yice abo mu rugo bose. Urukiko rwahamije Bagora icyaha rumuhanisha igifungo cy’imyaka ine (4) ndetse rwemeza ko ikirego cy’indishyi cyatanzwe na Mukapasika nta shingiro gifite kuko icyaha cyo kumutema ku jisho atari cyo cyaburanywe naho ku bijyanye n’icyaha cyo gutera gerenade akaba adasobanura uko yabangamiwe ku giti cye, cyane ko uwari ugiye kwicwa ari we nyina akiriho. Mukapasika yajuririye iki cyemezo mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko akomeje gukurikirana indishyi z’akababaro zishingiye kuri gerenade bari bagiye guterwa kuko

## Page 182

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 150 byamuteye ihahamuka mu gihe Bagora avuga ko icyaha cyo gushaka gutera gerenade yagihaniwe igifungo cy’imyaka 4, akaba asanga nta ndishyi yacibwa kuko ntacyo yabangirije. Ubushinjacyaha bwo buvuga ko ntacyo bugikurikiranye muri uru rubanza ariko ko busanga uregera indishyi yazigenerwa kuko iyo gerenade iterwa nawe yari kumugiraho ingaruka. Incamake y’icyemezo: Icyaha uregwa yahaniwe kijyanye no kuba yari yagambiriye kubatera gerenade ariko igikorwa ntikigerweho cyangirije Mukapasika Marie Jeanne kuko nawe yashoboraga kumugiraho ingaruka zikomeye, bikaba byaramuteye ubwoba kandi byaramuhungabanyije, bityo akaba afite uburenganzira bwo guhabwa indishyi. Ubujurire bufite ishingiro Uwajuriye agomba guhabwa indishyi zingana na miliyoni imwe (1.000.000Frw) Urubanza rwajuririwe ruhindutse kubijyanye n’indishyi. Amagarama y’urubanza aherereye ku isanduku ya Leta. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko ryo ku wa 30 Nyakanga 1888 rigenga ibyerekeye amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258. Nta rubanza rwifashishijwe.

## Page 183

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 151 151 [1] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, Ubushinjacyaha burega Bagora icyaha cy’ubwinjiracyaha mu bwicanyi buvuga ko tariki ya 25/09/2009 yafatanywe gerenade hafi yo kwa mushiki we Nyirabazamanza bari bafitanye ibibazo by’amasambu agiye kuyitera ku rugo rw’uwo mushiki we. Mukapasika Marie Jeanne, umukobwa wa Nyirabazamanza nawe yaregeye indishyi muri urwo rubanza zishingiye ku kuba yarabatoteje kuva mu bwana bwe kugeza amutemye ijisho kuwa 14/08/2007, kuwa 25/09/2009 naho agashaka kubatera gerenade ngo abice bose mu rugo. [2] Urwo Rukiko rwaciye urubanza RP 0100/09/HC/MUS kuwa 24/09/2010, ruhamya Bagora ubwinjiracyaha mu buhotozi ahanishwa igifungo cy’imyaka ine (4), rwemeza ko indishyi zaregewe na Mukapasika nta shingiro zifite kuko icyaha cyo kumutema ku ijisho ataricyo cyaburanywe, ku bijyanye n’icyaha cyo gutera gerenade akaba adasobanura uko yabangamiwe ku giti cye, cyane ko uwari ugiye kwicwa ari nyina ucyibereyeho. [3] Mukapasika yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 19/10/2010. Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame kuwa 01/12/2014, Bagora Jonas yunganiwe na Me Nzabarantumye Augustin, Mukapasika Marie Jeanne uregera indishyi yunganiwe na Me Twagirayezu Laurent, naho Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na PN Higaniro Hermogène. II. IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISENSENGURWA RYACYO Kumenya niba Mukapasika Marie Jeanne akwiye kugenerwa indishyi z’akababaro. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. BAGORA 151 I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, Ubushinjacyaha burega Bagora icyaha cy’ubwinjiracyaha mu bwicanyi buvuga ko tariki ya 25/09/2009 yafatanywe gerenade hafi yo kwa mushiki we Nyirabazamanza bari bafitanye ibibazo by’amasambu agiye kuyitera ku rugo rw’uwo mushiki we. Mukapasika Marie Jeanne, umukobwa wa Nyirabazamanza nawe yaregeye indishyi muri urwo rubanza zishingiye ku kuba yarabatoteje kuva mu bwana bwe kugeza amutemye ijisho kuwa 14/08/2007, kuwa 25/09/2009 naho agashaka kubatera gerenade ngo abice bose mu rugo. [2] Urwo Rukiko rwaciye urubanza RP 0100/09/HC/MUS kuwa 24/09/2010, ruhamya Bagora ubwinjiracyaha mu buhotozi ahanishwa igifungo cy’imyaka ine (4), rwemeza ko indishyi zaregewe na Mukapasika nta shingiro zifite kuko icyaha cyo kumutema ku ijisho ataricyo cyaburanywe, ku bijyanye n’icyaha cyo gutera gerenade akaba adasobanura uko yabangamiwe ku giti cye, cyane ko uwari ugiye kwicwa ari nyina ucyibereyeho. [3] Mukapasika yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 19/10/2010. Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame kuwa 01/12/2014, Bagora Jonas yunganiwe na Me Nzabarantumye Augustin, Mukapasika Marie Jeanne uregera indishyi yunganiwe na Me Twagirayezu Laurent, naho Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na PN Higaniro Hermogène. II. IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISENSENGURWA RYACYO Kumenya niba Mukapasika Marie Jeanne akwiye kugenerwa indishyi z’akababaro. Urubanza

## Page 184

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 152 152

[4] Mukapasika Marie Jeanne avuga ko mu rwego rwa mbere yasabye indishyi zishingiye ku kuba Bagora yaramutemye ijisho no ku kuba yari agiye kubatera gerenade mu nzu yabanagamo na nyina na murumuna we, akaba akomeje gukurikirana mu bujurire indishyi z’akababaro za 5.000.000 Frw zishingiye kuri gerenade bari bagiye guterwa kuko byamuteye ihahamuka. [5] Me Twagirayezu Laurent umwunganira nawe avuga ko iyo Bagora aza gutera gerenade mu nzu ya mushiki we nk’uko yari yabigambiriye, itari guhitamo uwo yica, akaba asanga Mukapasika yabiherwa indishyi yasabye mu rwego rwa mbere kuko icyaha cyamuteye ihahamuka nk’uko abivuga. [6] Bagora Jonas avuga ko nta kibazo yari afitanye na mwishywa we Mukapasika Marie Jeanne, ahubwo ko yari agifitanye na nyina, ndetse ko icyaha cyo gushaka gutera gerenade yagihaniwe igifungo cy’imyaka 4 , akaba asanga nta ndishyi yacibwa kuko ntacyo yabangirije. [7] Me Nzabarantumye Augustin umwunganira avuga ko Bagora adakwiye gucibwa indishyi ku cyaha cyo guterwa gerenade kuko Mukapasika Marie Jeanne azivuze bwa mbere mu bujurire, uwagombaga kuzikurikira akaba ari nyina ucyibereho. [8] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko ntacyo bugikurikiranye muri uru rubanza kuko bwashimishijwe n’igihano cyatanzwe, bukaba ariko busanga Mukapasika Marie Jeanne yagenerwa indishyi kuko iyo gerenade iterwa nawe yari kumugiraho ingaruka.

## Page 185

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 153 153

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA: [9] Ingingo ya 258 y’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko y’imbonezamubano ivuga ko “igikorwa cyose cy’umuntu cyangirije undi gitegeka nyirugukora ikosa rigikomokaho kuriha ibyangiritse. [10] Bagora Jonas yahaniwe icyaha cy’ubwinjiracyaha mu buhotozi ubwo yari agiye gutera gerenade mu nzu ya mushiki we Nyirabazamanza ariko ku bw’amahirwe icyaha kikaburizwamo ku mpamvu zitamuturutseho, nawe kandi ntahakana ko mwishywa we Mukapasika Marie Jeanne yari atuye muri iyo nzu ku buryo nawe yashoboraga kugerwaho n’ingaruka za gerenade iyo aza kuyitera nk’uko yari yabigambiriye. [11] Urukiko rusanga rero icyaha Bagora Jonas yahaniwe cyarangirije Mukapasika Marie Jeanne kuko gerenade yari yagambiriye gutera nawe yashoboraga kumugiraho ingaruka zikomeye, bikaba byumvikana ko nubwo igikorwa kitagezweho cyamuteye ubwoba kandi cyaramuhungabanyije. [12] Ku bijyanye ariko n’amafaranga Mukapasika Marie Jeanne asaba, Urukiko rusanga 5.000.000Frw ari menshi ugereranyije n’ingaruka icyaha cyateje, mu bushishozi bwarwo rukaba rumugeneye indishyi z’akababaro za 1.000.000Frw. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [13] Rwemeye ko ubujurire bwa Mukapasika Marie Jeanne bufite ishingiro. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. BAGORA 153

## Page 186

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 154 154

[14] Rutegetse Bagora Jonas kumuha indishyi z’akababaro za miliyoni imwe (1.000.000Frw). [15] Rwemeje ko urubanza n° RP 0100/09/HC/MUS rwaciwe kuwa 24/09/2010 ruhindutse ku bijyanye n’indishyi. [16] Ruvuze ko amagarama y’urubanza aherera ku isanduku ya Leta.

## Page 187

155

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HABYARIMANA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RPA 0152/12/CS (Havugiyaremye, P.J., Kanyange na Munyangeri N., J.) 10 Ukwakira 2014] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha – Ifungwa rinyuranije n’amategeko – Gufungwa mu gihe hatanzwe ubujurire ku rubanza rwaciwe rudategeka ko uwarezwe ahita afungwa – Mu gihe Urukiko rwaciye urubanza rutigeze rutegeka ko uwahamwe n’icyaha ahita afungwa cyangwa ngo byemezwe n’Urukiko rwajuririwe, gufunga uwaciriwe urubanza biba binyuranije n’amategeko – Itegeko nº 30/2013 ryo kuwa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, n’ingingo ya 183. Incamake y’ikibazo: Habyarimana, Manirakiza na Habimana bakurikiranywe n’Ubushinjacyaha bubarega kuba baragize uruhare mu gitero cyagabwe kwa Nzeyimana Jérôme, bamwicira umugore, nawe basiga bamuciye ukuboko. Urukiko rwemeje ko abakurikiranywe bose bahamwa n’icyaha cy’ubwicanyi rubahanisha igifungo cya burundu no guha Nzeyimana Jérôme indishyi z’akababaro zingana na 20.000.000 frw, gutanga 4% y’ayo mafaranga angana na 800.000Frw no gutanga amagarama y’urubanza. Habyarimana yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga ariko nyuma aza gufatwa afungirwa muri gereza ya Rusizi maze atanga ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko yafunzwe mu buryo bunyuranije n‘amategeko kandi urwo rubanza yararuburanye adafunze akarujuririra.

## Page 188

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 156 156

Habimana nawe yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga anarusubirishamo mu Rukiko Rukuru, ariko rwemeza ko icyo kirego kitakiriwe. Incamake y’icyemezo: Mu gihe Urukiko rwaciye urubanza rutigeze rutegeka ko uwahamwe n’icyaha ahita afungwa cyangwa ngo byemezwe n’Urukiko rwajuririwe, kumufunga biba binyuranyije n’amategeko. Abajuriye bafunzwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko. Abaregwa bagomba guhita bafungurwa bakaburana badafunze. Urubanza rugomba gukomereza muri uru Rukiko. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko nº 30/2013 ryo kuwa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 183. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Ubushinjacyaha bwakurikiranye mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi Habyarimana Philbert, Manirakiza Emmanuel na Habimana Melchior bubarega kuba baragize uruhare mu gitero cyagabwe mu ijoro ryo ku itariki ya 15/10/1996, i Gishagara muri Nyamaronko, Umurenge wa

## Page 189

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 157 157

Nyakabuye ho mu Karere ka Rusizi ubu, kwa Nzeyimana Jérôme, kimwicira umugore, nawe basiga bamuciye ukuboko. [2] Mu rubanza RP 0009/06/HC/RSZ rwaciwe kuwa 28/03/2012 nyuma y’uko ruburanishijwe abaregwa batari bitabye ariko barahamagawe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, Urukiko rwemeje ko Habyarimana Philbert, Habimana Melchior na Manirakiza Emmanuel bahamwa n’icyaha cy’ubwicanyi bakurikiranyweho, rubahanisha igihano cy’igifungo cya burundu no guha Nzeyimana Jérôme indishyi z’akababaro zingana na 20.000.000frw, gutanga 4% y’ayo mafaranga angana na 800.000Frw no gutanga amagarama y’urubanza. [3] Habyarimana yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 24/04/2012. [4] Kuwa 23/07/2013 yarafashwe afungirwa muri Gereza ya Rusizi, mu ibaruwa yo kuwa 09/04/2014 atanga ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga ko yafunzwe mu buryo bunyuranije n‘amategeko kandi urubanza RP 0009/06/HC/RSZ afungiye yararuciriwe adafunze akarujuririra. [5] Habimana Melchior nawe yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 24/05/2012, anarusubirishamo mu Rukiko Rukuru, ariko mu rubanza rwaciwe kuwa 26/03/2013 urukiko rwemeza ko ikirego yatanze cyo gusubirishamo urubanza kitakiriwe. [6] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame kuwa 15/09/2014 Habyarimana yunganiwe na Me Rwangabwoba Bernard, Habimana Melchior yunganiwe na Me Mihigo Bernard, Nzeyimana Jérôme yunganiwe na Me Niyibizi Remy, naho Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na Munyaneza Nkwaya Eric. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HABYARIMANA 157

## Page 190

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 158 158

[7] Mbere yo kwinjira mu mizi y’urubanza Urukiko rwaburanishije ku kibazo cya Habyarimana Philbert na Habimana Melchior ko bafunzwe mu buryo bunyuranije n’amategeko kuko bafashwe n‘Ubushinjacyaha mu gihe bari barajuriye kandi baraburanye badafunze, ko ibyo binyuranije n‘ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 183 y’Itegeko ryerekeranye n’imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha. II. IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYACYO Kumenya niba Habyarimana Philbert na Habimana Melchior bafunzwe mu buryo bunyuranije n’amategeko. [8] Habyarimana Philbert avuga ko urubanza RP 0009/06/HC/RSZ rwaciwe adahari, aho amenyeye imikirize yarwo arajurira ariko nyuma y’ubwo bujurire arafatwa arafungwa, nyuma y’igihe gito arafungurwa ariko nyuma y’iminsi itatu nanone yongera gufungwa, akaba asaba gufungurwa akaburana ari hanze nk’uko yari ameze mbere ubwo urubanza yajuririye rwaburanishwaga n’igihe yajuriraga. [9] Me Rwangabwoba umwunganira avuga ko na mbere hose mu gihe yari yarafunzwe by’agateganyo Habyarimana yari yahawe uburenganzira bwo kuburana ari hanze ntihagira ubijuririra, ko hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 183 y’Itegeko nº 30/2013 ryo kuwa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha iteganya ko‚ “uwaburanye adafunze agakatirwa ari hanze nyuma akajurira akomeza kuburana ubujurire bwe ari hanze, keretse iyo urukiko rwategetse ko ahita afatwa agafungwa”. Avuga ko

## Page 191

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 159 159

Ubushinjacyaha bwafashe icyemezo muri rusange ku bantu babiri nyamara bakurikije inzira z’ubujurire zitandukanye. [10] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha yamenyesheje urukiko ko atagishingiye ku myanzuro yatanzwe mbere na mugenzi we avuga ko Ubushinjacyaha bushingira ku ngingo ya 227 y‘itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha iteganya ko ku byerekeranye n’irangizwa ry’imanza Ubushinjacyaha bukurikirana ibyerekeye igifungo, rukibwiriza gufunga abakatiwe n’urukiko, bityo bukaba bukurikiza icyemezo cy’urukiko. [11] Ku kibazo cyo kumenya uko ahuza ingingo ya 227 y’iryo tegeko avuga ko ari yo yashingiweho n’ingingo yaryo ya 183, avuga ko Habyarimana na Habimana bafunzwe Ubushinjacyaha bumaze kumenyeshwa n’Urukiko ko batajuriye, bukaba bubifitiye n’icyemezo cyatanzwe n’urukiko. [12] Me Mihigo wunganira Habimana Melchior avuga ko urubanza ruburanishwa ubu rutarageza igihe cyo kurangizwa, ko ingingo ya 227 y‘Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha Ubushinjacyaha bushingiraho nta shingiro ifite, hakaba hagomba gushingirwa ku ngingo ya 183. [13] Asobanura ko ingingo ya 183 igika cya mbere y’itegeko nº 30/2013 ryo kuwa 24/05/2013 CPP (ryatangiye gukurikizwa kuwa 08/07/2013) isobanura ko iyo ushinjwa icyaha aburana adafunze agakatirwa igihano cy’igifungo, aguma kuburana adafunze iyo yajuririye icyo cyemezo, keretse iyo urukiko rwategetse ko afatwa agafungwa, ko Habimana yajuririye urubanza kuwa 24/05/2012 afungwa kuwa 23/07/2013 nyamara bitarigeze bitegekwa n’urukiko rwaciye urubanza cyangwa ngo Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwajuririwe rube rwarabitegetse. Avuga ko UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HABYARIMANA 159

## Page 192

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 160 160

kuba Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko Habimana Melchior afunzwe hashingiwe ku rubanza RP 0024/12/HC/RSZ bigaragaza akarengane gakomeye kuko afunze nta cyemezo cy’urukiko giteganya icyo gifungo kuko n’urukiko yasubirishijemo urubanza rwemeje ko uko gusubirishamo kutakiriwe. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [14] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko Habyarimana na Habimana bafunzwe mu rwego rwo kurangiza urubanza rwaciwe kandi ko icyo gihe batari bajuriye. [15] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza ko urubanza RP 0009/06/HC/RSZ rwaciwe kuwa 28/03/2012 rwajuririwe na Habyarimana kuwa 24/04/2012 nk’uko bigaragara ku ibaruwa yandikiye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, naho Habimana arujurira kuwa 24/05/2012 bigaragazwa n’icyemezo cyatanzwe n’Ubwanditsi bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga cyo kuwa 28/03/2013 amaze kumenyeshwa imikirize yarwo, bivuze ko mu gihe bigaragara ko abaregwa bajuriye ubujurire bwabo bukaba butarafatwaho icyemezo n’urukiko rwajuririwe, urubanza rwajuririwe rutaragera igihe cyo kurangizwa nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 180 y’itegeko nº 30/2013 ryo kuwa 24/05/2013 iteganya ko “irangizwa ry’urubanza riba rihagaritswe kugeza ku munsi igihe cyo kujurira kirangiriraho cyangwa niba umuntu yarajuriye, kugeza igihe hafatiwe icyemezo kuri ubwo bujurire”. [16] Nanone kandi ingingo ya 183 y’iryo tegeko iteganya ibikurikira: [17] “Iyo ushinjwa aburana adafunze, agakatirwa igihano cy’igifungo, aguma kuburana adafunze iyo yajuririye icyo

## Page 193

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 161 161

cyemezo, keretse iyo urukiko rwategetse ko ahita afatwa agafungwa”. [18] “Ashobora gufatwa agafungwa iyo habonetse impamvu zikomeye kandi zidasanzwe zikagaragarizwa urukiko rwajuririwe”. [19] Inyandiko ziri muri dosiye y‘urubanza zigaragaza ko Habyarimana na Habimana baburanye badafunze, bakatirwa igihano cy’igifungo, urukiko ntirwategeka ko bahita bafatwa bagafungwa, bajuririra urwo rubanza nk’uko byasobanuwe, hagati aho barafungwa nta cyemezo kirafatwa kuri ubwo bujurire cyangwa ngo urukiko rwajuririwe, rwo rwonyine rubasha kwemeza ko abo bantu hagati aho bafungwa, rube rwarabitegetse nkuko biteganywa n’igika cya kabiri cy’ingingo ya 183 y’itegeko rivuzwe haruguru. [20] Urukiko rusanga amakuru n’inyandiko byashingiweho n’Ubushinjacyaha bufunga Habyarimana na Habimana atari byo byagombaga gushingirwaho kuko binyuranije n’ukuri. [21] Hashingiwe kuri ibyo bisobanuro, Urukiko rurasanga ifungwa rya Habyarimana Philbert na Habimana Melchior ryarakozwe mu buryo bunyuranye n’amategeko, bityo bakaba bagomba gufungurwa bakaburana badafunze. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [22] Rwemeje ko Habyarimana Philbert na Habimana Melchior bafunzwe mu buryo bunyuranije n’amategeko; UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HABYARIMANA 161

## Page 194

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 162 162

[23] Rutegetse ko bahita bafungurwa bakaburana urubanza rwabo mu mizi badafunze; [24] Ruvuze ko iburanisha ry’uru rubanza mu mizi rizakomeza kuwa 29/10/ 2014.

## Page 195

163

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MURINDA ET AL [Rwanda URUKIKO RUKURU – RPA 0448/13/HC/NYA (Ngabire, P.J.) 25 Mata 2014] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha – Intera itandukanya uvuga ko yabonye icyaha n’aho cyakorewe – Kuvuguruzanya kw’abatangabuhamya – Kuvuguruzanya kw’abatangabuhamya gutera gushidikanya bikarengera ushinjwa – Itegeko nº 30/2013 ryo kuwa 24/5/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, Ingingo ya 35. Amategeko yerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha – Kwemera icyaha – Kugabanyirizwa ibihano – Kuba uwarezwe yaremeye icyaha mu buryo bwuzuye, bituma agabanyirizwa ibihano. Indishyi zikomoka ku cyaha – Zigenwa mu bushishozi bw’urukiko hakurikijwe ingaruka z’icyaha cyakozwe – Ntawakongera gusaba indishyi mu gihe yazigenewe mu Rukiko rubanza. Inshamake y’ikibazo: Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Huye rwahamije Murinda Deny na Dukuzeyezu Cécile, umugore we ubwinjiracyaha mu bwicanyi bwakorewe Kalisa Vital. Bahanishijwe gufungwa burundu banabategekwa guha Kalisa Vital indishyi zingana na 2.148.725Frw. Murinda ndetse n’umugore we bajuririye Urukiko Rukuru, Murinda asaba kugabanyirizwa no gusubukirwa ibihano anasaba kugabanyirizwa indishyi naho Cecile Dukuzeyezu asaba kurenganurwa akagirwa umwere. N’UNDI 163

[Rwanda URUKIKO RUKURU – RPA 0448/13/HC/NYA (Ngabire, P.J.) 25 Mata 2014] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha – Intera itandukanya uvuga ko yabonye icyaha n’aho cyakorewe – Kuvuguruzanya kw’abatangabuhamya – Kuvuguruzanya kw’abatangabuhamya gutera gushidikanya bikarengera ushinjwa – Itegeko nº 30/2013 ryo kuwa 24/5/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, Ingingo ya 35. Amategeko yerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha – Kwemera icyaha – Kugabanyirizwa ibihano – Kuba uwarezwe yaremeye icyaha mu buryo bwuzuye, bituma agabanyirizwa ibihano. Indishyi zikomoka ku cyaha – Zigenwa mu bushishozi bw’urukiko hakurikijwe ingaruka z’icyaha cyakozwe – Ntawakongera gusaba indishyi mu gihe yazigenewe mu Rukiko rubanza. Inshamake y’ikibazo: Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Huye rwahamije Murinda Deny na Dukuzeyezu Cécile, umugore we ubwinjiracyaha mu bwicanyi bwakorewe Kalisa Vital. Bahanishijwe gufungwa burundu banabategekwa guha Kalisa Vital indishyi zingana na 2.148.725Frw. Murinda ndetse n’umugore we bajuririye Urukiko Rukuru, Murinda asaba kugabanyirizwa no gusubukirwa ibihano anasaba kugabanyirizwa indishyi naho Cecile Dukuzeyezu asaba kurenganurwa akagirwa umwere.

## Page 196

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 164 164

kuri izi ngingo z’ubujurire, Ubushinjacyaha bwavuze ko ukwemera no gusaba imbabazi kwa Murinda kutuzuye ahubwo ari ugukingira ikibaba umugore we kugirango ahanwe wenyine. Bwasoje busa Urukiko kugumishaho imikirize y’urubanza rujuririrwa. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Kuba intera yari hagati y’ abatangabuhamya n’aho icyaha cyabereye yari ndende ku buryo batashoboraga kubona niba barafatanyije byongeye kandi bakaba bari gutabara iyo baza kuba hafi y’ aho, ndetse imvugo zabo zikaba zivuguruzanya bituma habaho gushidikanya, bikaba birengera ushinjwa. Bityo Dukuzeyezu Cécile agizwe umwere. 2. Ukwemera icyaha k’ uregwa kuruzuye bityo ni impamvu ituma agabanyirizwa igihano, akaba ahanishijwe igifungo cy’ imyaka makumyabiri n’ itanu. 3. Hitawe ku ngaruka z’icyaha cyakozwe, indishyi uwakorewe icyaha asaba ntabwo ari umurengera nk’ uko bivugwa n’uregwa. Bityo zikaba zihamyeho. Ikirego cy’ uregera indishyi cy’uko izo yagenewe zakongerwa nta shingiro gifite, kuko izo asaba yazigenewe mu Rukiko rubanza Dukuzeyezu Cecile agizwe umwere. Murinda Deny ahanishijwe igifungo cy’ imyaka 25. Murinda Deny agomba kwishyura Vital Kalisa 2.148.725Frw. Murinda Deny asonewe amagarama y’urubanza kuko afunze. Amategeko yashingiweho:

## Page 197

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 165 165

Itegeko nº 30/2013 ryo kuwa 24/5/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo za 35 na 165. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Mu rubanza rwavugiwe nimero haruguru, Murinda Deny yaburanye yemera kuba ariwe watemaguye Kalisa Vital ku mugoroba wo kuwa 02/11/2012 bapfuye ubwatsi bw’inka n’imyaka, kandi ko ariwe wenyine wamutemaguye, naho umugore we Dukuzeyezu Cécile aburana ahakana ubwinjiracyaha barezwe hamwe, maze kuwa 16/10/2013 Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Huye ruca urubanza rwemeza ko ikirego cy’Ubushinjacyaha n’icya Kalisa Vital gisaba indishyi mu rubanza bifite ishingiro, rwemeza ko Murinda Deny na Dukuzeyezu Cécile bahamwa n’ubwinjiracyaha mu bwicanyi, rwemeza ko Murinda Deny na Dukuzeyezu Cécile bagomba gufatanya guha Kalisa Vital indishyi zingana na 2.148.725 FRW, rukiza ko Murinda Deny na Dukuzeyezu Cécile batsinzwe, rubahanisha igihano cy’igifungo cya burundu, rubategeka gufatanya guha Kalisa Vital indishyi zingana na 2.148.725FRW; Murinda Deny akaba yarajuririye Urukiko Rukuru urwo rubanza kuwa 04/11/2013 asaba kugabanyirizwa no gusubikirwa igihano, anasaba kugabanyirizwa indishyi, na Dukuzeyezu Cécile akaba yarajuriye we asaba kurenganurwa. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MURINDA ET AL 165 N’UNDI

## Page 198

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 166 166

II. ISESENGURA RY’IBIBAZO BIRI MURI URU RUBANZA [2] Haba mu nyandiko no mu mwanzuro bye by’ubujurire ndetse no mu iburanisha ry’uru rubanza ryo kuwa 10/3/2014, Murinda Deny, yunganiwe na Me Ndayisenga Maurice, arasaba kugabanyirizwa no gusubikirwa igihano yahanishijwe ku rwego rwa mbere ngo kuko yaburanye yemera icyaha anagisabira imbabazi ariko ntiyagabanyirizwa igihano, akanasaba kugabanyirizwa indishyi yategetswe kwishyura Kalisa Vital ngo akamwishyura nibura 500.000FRW, naho Dukuzeyezu Cécile arasaba kurenganurwa mu gihe Ubushinjacyaha busaba ko urubanza rwajuriwe rudahinduka ngo kuko ukwemera icyaha no kugisabira imbabazi kwa Murinda Deny gushidikanywaho ngo kuko akingira umugore we ikibaba kugira ngo ahanwe wenyine, Kalisa Vital we agasaba izindi ndishyi ziyongera kuzo yagenewe ku rwego rwa mbere; bityo muri uru rubanza hakaba hagomba gusuzumwa niba koko Murinda Deny n’umugore we Dukuzeyezu Cecile barafatanyije gutemagura Kalisa Vital, muyandi magambo gusuzuma niba ukwemera icyaha no kugisabira imbabazi kwa Murinda Deny kuzuye kuburyo kwamubera impamvu nyoroshyacyaha (1) no gusuzuma ikibazo cy’indishyi zagenwe n’izisabwa muri uru rubanza (2). Kubyerekeye ikibazo cyo kumenya niba koko Murinda Deny n’umugore we Dukuzeyezu Cécile barafatanyije gutemagura Kalisa Vital, no kumenya niba ukwemera icyaha no kugisabira imbabazi kwa Murinda Deny kuzuye kuburyo kwamubera impamvu nyoroshyacyaha [3] Ubushinjacyaha ntibwemeranywa na Murinda Deny uvuga ko yatemaguye Kalisa Vital wenyine abanje kumutema ukuguru bituma acika intege agwa hasi maze akomeza

## Page 199

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 167 167

kumutemagurira hasi kuko bwo (Ubushinjacyaha) buvuga ko ukwemera icyaha no kugisabira imbabazi kwa Murinda Deny gushindikanywaho ngo kuko Kalisa Vital yatemwe ahantu harenga 18 ukuguru kutarimo, ngo bivuze ko yari afite uwamumufashije ngo nk’uko abatangabuhamya babivuga. [4] Urukiko rurasanga mu kirego cye yatanze mu Bugenzacyaha kuwa 03/11/2012 yaraye atemaguwe, Kalisa Vital yivugiye ko mu bice by’umubiri yatemaguwe harimo no ku kuguru1 ibyo bigashimangirwa n’ifoto iri muri dosiye kuri kote ya 34 igaragaza ibisebe bine ku maguru ya Kalisa Vital, bityo ibivugwa n’Ubushinjacyaha by’uko Murinda Deny atatemye Kalisa Vital ku kuguru ngo kuko raporo ya muganga itabivuga nta shingiro bifite, dore ko haba mu kirego cye ndetse no mu kuburana kwe, Kalisa Vital yivugira ko Murinda Deny yamutemye ku ijosi no mu mutwe, ibyo nabyo bigashimangirwa n’amafoto abyemeza ari muri dosiye kuri kote ya 30, 31 n’iya 33, ibyo bikemeza nta shiti ibivugwa na Murinda Deny by’uko yatemye Kalisa Vital akagwa hasi maze akaba ariho akomeza kumutemagurira kuko Urukiko rusanga byumvikana cyane ko umuntu watemwe amaguru yombi, ku ijosi no mu mutwe hakoreshejwe umupanga, yacika intege akagwa hasi kuburyo uwashaka gukomeza kumutemagurira hasi yabyifasha wenyine, cyane cyane ko Kalisa Vital watemaguwe yivugira mu kirego cye ko mu gihe batangiye kurwana na Murinda Deny bituranye hasi. [5] Urukiko rurasanga abatangabuhamya bashingiweho mu kwemeza ko Murinda Deny yafatanyije n’umugore we

1Reba inyandiko-mvugo Kalisa Vital yatangiyeho ikirego mu Bugenzacyaha kuwa 03/11/2012, ifite kote 3-5 muri dosiye. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MURINDA ET AL 167 N’UNDI

## Page 200

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 168 168

Dukuzeyezu Cécile gutemagura Kalisa Vital, aribo Mukakimonyo Esperance na Iyakaremye Mathias, bari hakurya y’aho Kalisa Vital yatemaguriwe nk’uko babyivugiye mu nyandiko-mvugo babarijweho mu Bugenzacyaha2 nk’uko Kalisa Vital nawe yabyivugiye mu kirego cye cyavuzwe haruguru, nk’uko ndetse n’Umunyamabanga Nshingwabikorwa w’Akagali ka Remera abisobanura mu nyandiko ye yo kuwa 26/9/2013 aho ahamya ko hagati y’aho Kalisa Vital yatemaguriwe n’aho abo batangabuhamya batuye harimo intera ndende kuburyo batari kubona uburyo Kalisa Vital yatemaguwe3 bityo imvugo za Mukakimonyo Esperance n’iza Iyakaremye Mathias zishinja Dukuzeyezu Cecile ko yafatanyije n’umugabo we Murinda Deny gutemagura Kalisa Vital zikaba zitera ugushidikanya, cyane cyane ko iyo bajya kuba barabonaga Kalisa Vital atemagurwa bari kwambuka bakamutabara, dore ko Iyakaremye Mathias anivugira ko ubwo yari iwe mu rugo yumvise induru ya Kalisa Vital ati: “Nimuntabare baranyishe”, ariko nabo ubwabo bemeza ko batigeze bagera aho yatemaguriwe. Byongeye kandi, Urukiko rurasanga imvugo z’abo batangabuhamya bombi (Mukakimonyo Esperance na Iyakaremye Mathias) zivuguruzanya kuko uwa mbere yemeza ko ari Murinda Deny n’umugore we Dukuzeyezu Cecile batemaguye Kalisa Vital, usibye ko hari naho agira ati “Gusa nabonaga uwari hejuru akubita ariko icyo akubitisha

2 Reba inyandiko-mvugo babarijweho mu Bugenzacyaha kuri kote ya 11-12 na 13-14. 3 Reba inyandiko yo kuwa 26/9/2013 yanditswe n’Umunyamabanga Nshingwabikorwa w’Akagali ka Remera, ifite kote ya 91 muri dosiye; uwo muyobozi akaba yaranditse iyo nyandiko ashingiye ku makuru yahawe n’ubuyobozi bw’umudugudu wa Butare Kalisa Vital yatemaguriwemo, ndetse no ku makuru yahawe n’abaturage.

## Page 201

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 169 169

sinkibone”, byumvikana ko uwatemaguye Kalisa Vital ari umuntu umwe; naho uwa kabiri (Iyakaremye Mathias) we akavuga ko mu gihe yumvise induru ya Kalisa Vital itabaza yahagaze ahirengeye maze abona umuntu ari hejuru y’undi ahondagura, byumvikana ko ari umuntu umwe yabonye watemaguraga Kalisa Vital, ariko Iyakaremye Mathias akongera ati “aho birangiriye mbona umugore n’umugabo bafashe inzira baragenda bagana kwa Murinda”; Urukiko rukaba rusanga uburyo Mukakimonyo Esperance na Iyakaremye Mathias basobanura ko Dukuzeyezu Cecile yafatanyije n’umugabo we Murinda Deny gutemagura Kalisa Vital ari uburyo bwo guhimba, bityo imvugo zabo zikaba zidakwiye kwemerwa hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 65 y’itegeko ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo. [6] Nanone, Urukiko rurasanga abitwa Makuza Evariste, Uwimana Kaniziyo na Nyiraneza Takirine bemeza ko mu gihe Murinda Deny yatemaguraga Kalisa Vital, Dukuzeyezu Cecile yari yibereye kwa Makuza Evariste4 ibivugwa na Makuza Evariste, Uwimana Kaniziyo na Nyiraneza Takirine bikaba bihuje n’imyiregurire ya Dukuzeyezu Cécile yuko atari kumwe n’umugabo we mu gihe yatemaguraga Kalisa Vital, ko ahubwo yari kwa Makuza Evariste ngo kuko ariho yavuye mu gihe bumvaga induru ko Murinda Deny yarwanye na Kalisa Vital, ibi nabyo bigatera ugushidikanya ko Dukuzeyezu Cecile atafatanyije n’umugabo we Murinda Deny gutemagura Kalisa Vital, dore ko no mu iburanisha ry’uru rubanza Ubushinjacyaha butashoboye kugaragaza ko Dukuzeyezu Cécile yari aragiranye n’umugabo we kugira ngo babe barafatanyije gutemagura

4Reba inyandiko zabo bakoreye imbere y’ubuyobozi bw’Umurenge wa Muganza kuwa 30/10/2013. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MURINDA ET AL 169 N’UNDI

## Page 202

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 170 170

Kalisa Vital, kandi nta kimenyetso nyakuri cyemeza nta shiti ko Dukuzeyezu Cecile yafatanyije n’umugabo we gutemagura Kalisa Vital. [7] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro bitanzwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga nta kimenyetso nyakuri Ubushinjacyaha bwashoboye kugaragaza cyemeza nta shiti ko Dukuzeyezu Cécile yageze aho Kalisa Vital yatemaguriwe agafatanya n’umugabo we Murinda Deny gukorera Kalisa Vital ubwinjiracyaha mu bwicanyi, bityo uko gushidikanya kukaba kugomba kumurengera agatsinda urubanza nk’uko ingingo ya 165 y’itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha ibiteganya. Nanone, Urukiko rurasanga ibisobanuro byatanzwe haruguru bigaragaza ko ukwemera icyaha no kugisabira imbabazi Murinda Deny yakoreye mu Bugenzacyaha, mu Bushinjacyaha, mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Huye ndetse no mu iburanisha ry’uru rubanza, kudashidikanywaho aho kuba uburyo bwo guhunga ingaruka z’icyaha no gukingira umugore we ikibaba kugira ngo ahanwe wenyine nk’uko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Huye rwabibonye, bityo ukwemera icyaha no kugisabira imbabazi kwe kukaba gukwiye kumubera impamvu nyoroshya-cyaha ituma agomba kugabanyirizwa igihano hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 35 y’itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha no ku ngingo ya 77 n’iya 78 z’itegeko ngenga rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ariko mu kumugabanyiriza igihano hakitabwa ku bugome n’ubukana yakoresheje atemagura Kalisa Vital, naho ku cyifuzo cye cyo gusubikirwa igihano, Urukiko rurasanga adakwiye gusubikirwa igihano kubera ubugome bukabije yatemanye Kalisa Vital, akaba akwiye kumara igihano cyose ahanishijwe muri Gereza kugira ngo agororwe bihagije, dore ko n’igihano agomba guhanishwa kirenze kure icyemerewe

## Page 203

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 171 171

isubikagihano nk’uko ingingo ya 85 y’itegeko ngenga ryavuzwe haruguru ibiteganya. Ku byerekeye indishyi [8] Murinda Deny arasaba kugabanyirizwa indishyi zingana na 2.148.725Frw yategetswe gufatanya na Dukuzeyezu Cecile kwishyura Kalisa Vital ngo kuko ari umurengera, akavuga ko yamwishyura nibura 500.000Frw, mu gihe Kalisa Vital asaba ko hejuru y’izo ndishyi yagenewe ku rwego rwa mbere Murinda Deny yategekwa kongeraho 300.000Frw yishyuye umumotari wamugemuriye ubwo yari mu bitaro, 1.000.000Frw y’indishyi z’akababaro, 200.000Frw yo gusiragizwa mu Nkiko na 300.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka wamuburaniye mu bujurire. [9] Urukiko rurasanga indishyi zingana na 2.148.724FRW zagenewe Kalisa Vital ku rwego rwa mbere atari umurengera nk’uko Murinda Deny abivuga bitewe n’uburemere bw’ubwinjiracyaha yakorewe, kuko ahantu 18 Murinda Deny yemera ko yamutemaguye hateye ububabare bwinshi cyane kuburyo nubwo Kalisa Vital atapfuye, aho yatemaguwe hamusigiye ububabare n’ubusembwa bwinshi, nk’uko amafoto ari muri dosiye abigaragaza, kandi akababaro yagize ntikagereranywa n’indishyi yagenewe cyangwa se 500.000FRW Murinda Deny avuga ko yamwishyura, dore ko Kalisa Vital yamaze n’igihe kirekire mu bitaro yivuza, bivuze nanone ko yangirijwe byinshi mu gutemagurwa kwe, bityo iyi mpamvu y’ubujurire ya Murinda Deny ikaba nta shingiro ifite. [10] Urukiko rurasanga indishyi Kalisa Vital yagenewe ku rwego rwa mbere zikubiyemo indishyi z’akababaro, igihembo cya Avoka n’amafaranga yakoresheje yivuza, nk’uko bisobanuye mu gika cya 18 cy’urubanza rwajuriwe, bityo izindi UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MURINDA ET AL 171 N’UNDI

## Page 204

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 172 172

ndishyi z’akababaro n’andi mafaranga asaba mu bujurire zikaba nta shingiro zifite, cyane cyane ko indishyi z’akababaro akwiye zigenwa mu bwitonzi n’ubushishozi by’Urukiko, akaba ataragaragaje ko yasiragiye mu Nkiko, ahubwo ni Avoka wamuburaniye, igihembo cya Avoka mu bujurire akaba atagihabwa kuko byari ngombwa ko aburana kubera ubujurire bwa Dukuzeyezu Cécile bwagaragaye ko bufite ishingiro, byumvikana ko atakwitwaza ko ari Murinda Deny watumye yishyura Avoka wamuburaniye mu bujurire. Naho kubyerekeye amafaranga 300.000Frw Kalisa Vital asaba ngo kubera amasezerano yakoranye n’umumotari wamugemuriraga mu bitaro, Urukiko rurasanga atayahabwa kuko amasezerano ashingiraho yakozwe kuwa 02/10/2012 mbere yuko atemwa, kandi n’ibikubiye muriayo masezerano ntibyemeza ukuri ko byabayeho. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [11] Rwemeje ko impamvu z’ubujurire bwa Dukuzeyezu Cécile zifite ishingiro, naho impamvu z’ubujurire bwa Murinda Deny zifite ishingiro kuri bimwe, bityo urubanza nº RP 0256/13/TGI/HYE rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Huye kuwa 16/10/2013 rukaba ruhindutse kuri Dukuzeyezu Cécile ugomba gutsinda urubanza no ku gihano Murinda Deny agomba guhanishwa, kubera impamvu zasobanuwe haruguru. [12] Rukijije ko Dukuzeyezu Cécile atsinze. [13] Rutegetse ko urubanza nº RP 0256/13/TGI/HYE rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Huye kuwa 16/10/2013 ruhindutse kuri Dukuzeyezu Cécile utsinze urubanza no ku

## Page 205

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 173 173

gihano Murinda Deny agomba guhanishwa, kubera impamvu zasobanuwe haruguru. [14] Ruhanishije Murinda Deny igihano cy’igifungo cy’imyaka makumyabiri n’itanu (25 years). [15] Rutegetse Murinda Deny kwishyura Kalisa Vital indishyi zingana na 2.148.725Frw nk’uko zemejwe ku rwego rwa mbere, atazimwishyura ku bushake mu gihe giteganyijwe n’amategeko zikavanwa mu mutungo we ku ngufu za Leta. [16] Rutegetse ko Murinda Deny asonewe kwishyura amagarama y’Urukiko angana na 4.700Frw yagombaga kwishyura kubera ko afunzwe, hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 268 y’itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha.

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MURINDA ET AL 173 N’UNDI

## Page 207

175

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NKUBIRI N’ABANDI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’ IKIRENGA – RPA 0234/08/CS (Havugiyaremye, P.J., Munyangeri na Kanyange, J.) 17 Ukwakira 2014] Amategeko Mpanabyaha – Guhishira undi ibyibano – igihe igihano cy’ubugome gishobora guhanishwa icyaha gikomokaho ibintu byahishwe, uwahishe azahanishwa igihano itegeko ryageneye icyo cyaha cy’ubugome n’impamvu zacyo azaba yaramenye mu gihe cy’ubuhishe […] – Itegeko Teka n° 21/77 ryo kuwa 18/08/1977 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 431(40). Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha – Ibimenyetso bishinja – ubushinjacyaha […] nibwo bugomba gutanga ibimenyetso byemeza icyaha – Itegeko nº 30/2013 ryo kuwa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 85. Amategeko Mpanabyaha – Imikoreshereze y’amategeko ahana – Amategeko ahana ntashobora gukoreshwa mu buryo butandukira, agomba gufatwa uko ateye – Itegeko Ngenga n° 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 Rishyiraho igitabo cy’ amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 4. Incamake y’ikibazo: Tubarimo, Nkubiri Mbyogo, Nsengiyumva na Uwimana François bakurikiranywe mu Rukiko Rukuru, Tubarimo Aloys ku cyaha cy’ ubuhotozi n’ ubujura bukoresheje intwaro, Nkubiri Mbyogo ku cyaha cy’ ubujura bukoresheje intwaro naho Nsengiyumva Jean de Dieu na

## Page 208

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 176 176

Uwimana François ku bufatanyacyaha mu buhotozi. Urukiko rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko Tubarimo ahamwa n’ibyaha aregwa, rumuhanisha igifungo cya burundu cy’umwihariko, ko Nkubiri Mbyogo, Nsengiyumva na Uwimana badahamwa n’ibyaha bari bakurikiranyweho, rutegeka ko uko ari batatu bahita barekurwa. Ubushinjacyaha bwajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga buvuga ko hirengagijwe ibimenyetso bishinja ibyaha abaregwa.Urubanza rwaburanishijwe abaregwa batitabye n’ubwo bari bagejejweho inyandiko zibatumira kuburana, urukiko rufata icyemezo cyo kuburanisha urubanza badahari Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Nkubiri Mbyogo agomba guhanishwa igifungo giteganyirijwe icyaha cy’ubujura bukoreshejwe intwaro cyakozwe kugira ngo ariya magare aboneke, ariko agahanwa hakurikijwe igitabo cy’amategeko gishya kuko aricyo giteganya ibihano byoroheje, bityo ahanishijwe igifungo cy’imyaka umunani. 2. Ubushinjacyaha ntibwabashije kugaragaza ibimenyetso bihamya icyaha Nsengiyumva ku buryo budashidikanywaho. 3. Amategeko ahana ntashobora gukoreshwa mu buryo butandukira, agomba gufatwa uko ateye; nta bubasha inkiko zifite bwo guca imanza ku buryo bugenekereje. Bityo kuba ibimenyetso Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko byirengagijwe bidahamya icyaha Uwimana ku buryo budashidikanywaho, akomeje kugirwa umwere. Ubujurire bw’Ubushinjacyaha bufite ishingiro ku bimwe. Nkubiri Mbyogo ahamwa n’icyaha cyo guhishira undi ibyibano.

## Page 209

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 177 177

Ahanishijwe igifungo cy’imyaka umunani. Rutegetse ko ahita afatwa agafungwa. Nta gihindutse ku bireba Nsengiyumva na Uwimana. Icyakabiri cy’amagarama giherereye kuri Nkubiri ikindi ku Isanduku ya Leta. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Ngenga n° 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 Rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 4. Itegeko nº 30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 85 Itegeko Teka n° 21/77 ryo kuwa 18/08/1977 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo za 82, 83 na 311. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Tubarimo Aloys, Nkubiri Mbyogo, Nsengiyumva Jean de Dieu na Uwimana François bakurikiranyweho ibyaha byasobanuwe haruguru mu Rukiko Rukuru, ruca urubanza rwemeza ko Tubarimo ahamwa n’ibyaha aregwa, rumuhanisha igifungo cya burundu cy’umwihariko, rwemeza ko Nkubiri Mbyogo adahamwa n’icyaha cy’ubujura bukoreshejwe intwaro, ko Nsengiyumva na Uwimana nabo badahamwa n’ubufatanyacyaha mu buhotozi, rutegeka ko uko ari batatu bahita barekurwa. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NKUBIRI MBYOGO N’ABANDI 177 .

## Page 210

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 178 178

[2] Kuri Nkubiri Mbyogo, Urukiko rwasobanuye ko mu nzego z’ikurikiranacyaha no mu Rukiko atemeye icyaha aregwa kandi na Tubarimo akaba ataramushinje, ko ahubwo yahishwe ko amagare yahabwaga na Tubarimo ngo agurishe yabaga yayibye abanyozi yahotoraga. Rwasobanuye kandi ko kuba bari basanzwe ari inshuti akamuha icyo kiraka cyo kujya amugurishiriza ayo magare no kuba yari azi ko nta mikoro Tubarimo yari afite yari gutuma arangura ayo magare, bidahagije kugira ngo abe yahamwa n’icyaha kuko byaba ari ugukeka, cyane cyane ko n’ubuhamya bw’abamushinja bwuzuyemo gukeka gusa. [3] Rwasanze kandi icyaha cy’ubujura bw’amagare akurikiranyweho cyarakozwe nyuma y’ihotorwa ry’abanyozi ari nabo ba nyiri amagare, nyamara Ubushinjacyaha bukavuga ko nta kimenyetso bwashingiraho bumukurikiranaho icyaha cy’ubuhotozi bw’abo banyonzi, ko rero ntaho urukiko rwahera rwemeza ko yari azi ko Tubarimo yamburaga abanyonzi amagare amaze kubica, ko hari ugukeka kurengera uregwa. [4] Kuri Nsengiyumva, rwasobanuye ko nawe Tubarimo atamushinja, ko icyashingiweho cy’uko yayobyaga uburari abuza abaje gucukura ahatabwe imirambo y’abicwaga, nabyo ari ugukeka kurengera uregwa kuko atabyemera akanavuga ko Umugenzacyaha yiyandikiye ibyo ashaka kandi ko yakubiswe inkoni nyinshi, ko kandi hibazwa uburyo yari azi ko Tubarimo yahotoraga abanyonzi akanabahamba mu byobo, ariko ntamenye ikimutera kubica aricyo kwiba amagare yabo, ngo nabyo abikurikiranweho, cyane cyane ko muri ibyo byobo hanatabwagamo imisego y’ayo magare n’ibiyaranga kugira ngo atazamenyekana.

## Page 211

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 179 179

[5] Kuri uwimana, urukiko rwasobanuye ko nawe Tubarimo atamushinja kuba yari azi ko ibyobo yacukuye byari ibyo gutamo abo yicaga cyangwa ngo avuge ko ibyo Uwimana yacukuye iwe aricyo byari bigamije, ko hari abatangabuhamya bemeje ko ibyo byobo byari ibyo guteramo insina kuko hari n’izari zimaze guterwa, ibyari bisigaye bikaba byari bitegereje ko imvura igwa kugira ngo amazi abanze ajyemo. Rwasobanuye kandi ko inkweto za Uwimana zasanzwe kwa Tubarimo zahasigaye ubwo bahamufatiraga bamujyanye kuri polisi, ko n’ikoti ryahafatiwe atari irye nk’uko hari abatangabuhamya babyemeje. [6] Ubushinjacyaha bwajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga buvuga ko hirengagijwe ibimenyetso bishinja ibyaha abaregwa. [7] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame kuwa 15/09/2014, Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na Munyaneza Nkwaya Eric, Nkubiri Mbyogo, Nsengiyumva na Uwimana batitabye n’ubwo bari bagejejweho inyandiko zibatumira kuburana, urukiko rufata icyemezo cyo kuburanisha urubanza badahari. II. IKIBAZO KIRI MU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYACYO Kumenya niba harirengagijwe ibimenyetso bishinja icyaha Nkubiri Mbyogo, Nsengiyumva na Uwimana. ● Kuri Nkubiri Mbyogo [8] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko urukiko rwa mbere rwagaragarijwe ibimenyetso bihagije ariko ruvuga ko UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NKUBIRI MBYOGO N’ABANDI

## Page 212

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 180 180

hari ugushidikanya ku cyaha aregwa, ko ibyo bimenyetso bigizwe no kuba ari we wagurishaga amagare Tubarimo yabaga yibye nk’uko bombi babyemera, ko n’ubwo Nkubiri avuga ko atari azi inkomoko y’ayo, Ubushinjacyaha bwagarageje ko iyo mvugo itafatwaho ukuri kuko yabanaga na Tubarimo buri gihe akaba yari azi ko nta mikoro afite yatuma arangura amagare; kuba nta gare na rimwe ryari rifite icyangomwa, nawe ubwe akaba avuga ko kubera iyo mpamvu yajyaga kuyagurisha nijoro, bivuze ko yari azi ko ari amibano; kuba Tubarimo ataramubwiraga igiciro atajya munsi ahubwo akaba ariwe ukishyiriraho, bisobanura ko yari azi ko ari amibano kuko iyo aba ayo Tubarimo aba yararanguye koko yari kujya amubwira igiciro atajya munsi; kuba hari abatangabuhamya bemeje ko yari azi bamwe muri ba nyiri amagare yagurishaga. [9] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga kandi ko urukiko rwavuze ko Nkubiri atakurikiranywaho icyaha cy’ubujura mu gihe atakurikiranyweho icyaha cy’ubuhotozi, kandi nyamara yararezwe hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 257 y’Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ko uruhare rwe ari urwo kugurishiriza amagare Tubarimo kandi azi neza ko ari amibano, bikaba rero bitari ngombwa ko ahamwa n'icy’ubuhotozi kuko kuri buri cyaha harebwa uruhare umuntu yagize mu ikorwa ryacyo, ko rero kuba yari azi neza ko amagare Tubarimo amuha ngo agurishe ari amibano, akamuhishira ntamurege ahubwo akamufasha kurangiza igikorwa cye amugurishiriza ibyibano nawe akabikuramo inyungu, ahamwa n’icyaha cy’ubujura bukoreshejwe intwaro.

## Page 213

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 181 181

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [10] Nkubiri Mbyogo nawe ntahakana ko yagurishaga amagare yahabwaga na Tubarimo wabaga yayambuye abanyonzi nyuma yo kubica. N’ubwo umucamanza wa mbere yemeje ko Nkubiri yahishwaga inkomoko y’ayo magare, Uru rukiko rurasanga kuba ataramenye iby’iyicwa rya ba nyirayo, bidakuraho ariko ko yari azi ko ayo magare yari amibano kuko mu nyandikomvugo yakorewe mu Bushinjayaha yabyemeye aho yabisobanuye muri aya magambo: ‘’nanjye numvaga ko ibyo ari byo byose yabaga yayibye’’, ‘’nari nzi ko ari umujura, numvaga yayibye’, naho ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba yari azi ko acuruza ibyibano naho yasubije ngo ‘’yego’’, anabajijwe niba yarabajije Tubarimo aho ayakura, asubiza ko yamubwiye ko ayegura (arayiba), ko afite n’abahungu b’i Kinazi bayamuzanira. [11] N’ubwo mu Rukiko Rukuru Nkubiri yavuze ko atari azi inkomoko y’amagare yahabwaga na Tubarimo, uyu nawe akavuga ko yamubwiraga ko yayaguraga i Gitarama, urukiko rurasanga izo mvugo zabo zivuguruzwa n’ibyo Nkubiri yiyemereye inshuro irenze imwe nk’uko byavuzwe haruguru. Kuba kandi Nkubiri yaraburanye mu Rukiko Rukuru avuga ko Tubarimo yamubwiye ko ayo magare yayaranguraga i Gitarama, uru Rukiko rurasanga atari ukuri kuko iyo aza kuba ayo yaranguraga koko aba yaramubwiye igiciro atagomba kujya munsi, nyamara mu nyandikomvugo yo mu Bushinjajyaha bigaragara ko Nkubiri ariwe washyiragaho ibiciro akurikije uko igare ryabaga rimeze: “Twari twaravuganye ko nagurisha igare ku mafaranga 20.000 azajya afatamo 2000Frw, ariko kuko ayo magare atari amwe, akambwira ko amwe yayagurishje ku giciro UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NKUBIRI MBYOGO N’ABANDI 181

## Page 214

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 182 182

cyo hasi, nka 18.000Frw, 16.000Frw”, ibi nabyo bikaba bishimangira ko Nkubiri yari azi inkomoko y’ayo magare. [12] Kuba rero ayo magare Nkubiri yagurishaga yabaga yibwe kandi abizi, urukiko rurasanga agomba gukurikiranwa hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 431 y’igitabo cy’amategeko ahana cyakoreshwaga ubwo icyaha cyakorwaga irebana no guhishira undi ibyibano aho kuba ingingo ya 257 y’icyo gitabo nk’uko Ubushinjacyaha bubiburanisha kuko iyo ngingo irebana no guhisha umuntu wakoze icyaha, cyangwa ushakishwa n’ubutabera cyangwa kumuhungisha, akaba ataricyo gikorwa Nkubiri yakoze. [13] Ku birebana n’icyaha cyo guhishira undi ibyibano, umuhanga mu mategeko Kint Robert avuga ko bidahagije ko umuntu aba yakiriye ibintu azi ko byabonetse hakozwe icyaha, ko agomba no kuba yabyakiriye agamije kubivanamo inyungu cyangwa gufasha uwakoze icyaha cyangwa icyitso cye kubivanamo inyungu (Pour être coupable de recel, il ne suffit pas d’avoir reçu sciemment des choses obtenues à l’aide d’une infraction, il faut qu’on les ait acceptées dans l’intention frauduleuse soit d’en profiter soi-meme, soit d’aider les auteurs et complices de l’infraction à en recueillir des avantages). [14] Ku birebana na Nkubiri, usibye no kuba yaragurishaga amagare agaha amafaranga avuyemo Tubarimo, nawe ubwe yabibonagamo inyungu kuko yemera ko Tubarimo yamuhaga kuri ayo mafaranga. [15] Ku birebana n’ibihano, ingingo ya 431, igika cya 3 y’Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana iteganya ko “igihe igihano cy’ubugome gishobora guhanishwa icyaha gikomokaho ibintu byahishwe, uwahishe azahanishwa igihano itegeko ryageneye

## Page 215

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 183 183

icyo cyaha cy’ubugome n’impamvu zacyo azaba yaramenye mu gihe cy’ubuhishe. Ariko kandi igihano cyo kwicwa kizasimbuzwa ku bahishe igifungo cya burundu’’. Igika cya kane nacyo kiteganya ko ‘’ Bazahanishwa ibyo bihano, abantu bazaba, kandi babizi, barabonye inyungu, ku buryo ubwo aribwo bwose, ituruka ku gikomoka ku cyaha cy’ubugome cyangwa ku cyaha gikomeye’’. [16] Hashingiwe kuri izo ngingo, urukiko rurasanga Nkubiri Mbyogo agomba guhanishwa igifungo giteganyirijwe icyaha cy’ubujura bukoreshejwe intwaro cyakozwe kugira ngo ariya magare aboneke, ariko agahanwa hakurikijwe igitabo cy’amategeko gishya kuko aricyo giteganya ibihano byoroheje (ingingo ya 305), bityo akaba ahanishijwe igifungo cy’imyaka umunani (8). ● Kuri Nsengiyumva Jean de Dieu [17] Uhagarariye ubushinjacyaha avuga ko Nsengiyumva ashinjwa ubufatanyacyaha na Tubarimo mu cyaha cy’ubuhotozi hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 257 y’Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, uruhare rwe rukaba ari uko yagerageje guhishira Tubarimo ubwo mu gikorwa cyo gutaburura imirambo y’abantu yishe, yayobyaga abari muri icyo gikorwa ababuza gutaburura ahari hahambwe abantu batatu abeshya ko hashyinguwe nyina wa Tubarimo, ko umucamanza yemeye imvugo ya Nsengiyumva y’uko ibyo yemeye mu Bugenzacyaha byatewe n’inkoni yahakubitiwe nyamara Ubushinjacyaha bwaragaragaje ko atigeze akubitwa kuko nta n’ikimenyetso yagaragaje, ko rero ibyo binyuranye n’ingingo ya 44 igika cya 3 y’Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NKUBIRI MBYOGO N’ABANDI 183

## Page 216

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 184 184

[18] Avuga kandi ko urukiko rwagaragarijwe imvugo za Nsengiyumva ariko ntirwaziha agaciro kandi yaremeye ko Tubarimo ari uwo mu muryango kandi ko yajyaga amusura iwabo akanabona ibyobo yacukuraga. Na none kandi ngo yemeye ko ubwo inzego z’ubuyobozi n’abaturage bashakishaga abantu bari batabwe muriibyo byobo, yababujije gucukura ahantu abeshya ko hashyinguwe nyina wa Tubarimo, kandi mu mvugo ze akaba yivuguruza kuko hari aho yavuze ko yari azi aho ashyinguye ubundi akavuga ko bamushyingura atari ahari, ko rero yari agamije kuyobya inzego kugira ngo abo abantu 3 bari bahashyinguwe batamenyekana. [19] Yongeraho ko urukiko rwirengagije ibimenyetso bishingiye ku mvugo z’abatangabuhamya Mukaserire Espérance na Nkurunziza François bumviswe n’urukiko, bemeje ko Nsengiyumva yayobeje abari baje gushakisha imirambo y’abishwe. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [20] Urukiko rurasanga iby’uko Nsengiyumva ari uwo mu muryango wa Tubarimo kandi akaba yaramusuraga, bitashingirwaho nk’ikimenyetso kimushinja ko bafatanyije kwica abanyozi mu rwego rwo kubambura amagare kuko nta gikorwa kimuhuza n’icyo cyaha Ubushinjacyaha bwagaragaje yaba yarakoze, mu gihe Tubarimo wemeye icyaha yasobanuye uburyo yazanaga abo banyonzi iwe abavanye aho bakorera akabazimanira nyuma akabakubita agafuni, muri ibyo bikorwa byose hakaba hataragaragajwe uruhare Nsengiyumva yaba yarabigizemo.

## Page 217

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 185 185

[21] Na none kandi, kuba Nsengiyumva yarabonaga ibinogo Tubarimo yacukuraga, nabyo si ikimenyetso kimushinja icyaha kuko ababajijwe bose barimo n’abayobozi b’inzego z’ibanze bemeje ko ibyo binogo babibonaga ariko akababwira ko ari ibyo avanamo icyondo cyo guhoma inzu, ubundi akavuga ko ari ibyo guteramo insina. Nsengiyumva nawe ubwo yabazwaga yavuze ko yabonaga ibyo binogo abivanamo icyondo cyo guhoma inzu ibindi akabiteramo insina, akaba ari nta kindi kimenyetso Ubushanjacyaha bwatanze cyerekana ko yashoboraga kumenya ibirenze iby’abandi bari bahaturiye babonye harimo n’abayobozi kuko na mushiki we babanaga mu rugo rumwe yavuze ko yabonaga abicukura ariko ntamenye igihe yashyiriyemo abantu. [22] Ku birebana n’uko Nsengiyumva yabujije abantu gucukura ahabonetse imirambo y’abantu batatu avuga ko hahambwe nyina wa Tubarimo, Urukiko rurasanga ibyo koko yarabyemeye mu ibazwa rye mu nzego z’iperereza, akaba yaranasobanuye ko impamvu yabivuze ari uko afitanye amasano na Tubarimo kuko nyina ari nyirasenge wa Nsengiyumva witabye Imana, akaba yaraketse ko aho hantu ariho ashyinguye kuko hari indabo zikuze, icyo gisobanuro kikaba cyahabwa agaciro kuko yanasobanuye ko atari guhishira aho hantu kandi hari indi mirambo yari imaze gutabururwa kandi akaba yarafatanyije n’abandi gucukura. [23] Hashingiwe ku bimaze gusobanurwa, urukiko rurasanga Ubushinjacyaha butarabashije kugaragaza ibimenyetso bihamya icyaha Nsengiyumva ku buryo budashidikanyaho nk’uko bubisabwa n’ingingo ya 85 y’itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha iteganya ko UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NKUBIRI MBYOGO N’ABANDI 185

## Page 218

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 186 186

ubushinjacyaha (….) ari bwo bugomba gutanga ibimenyetso byemeza icyaha, ibyo bushingiraho bikaba birimo gucyeka gusa. ● Kuri Uwimana François [24] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko urukiko rwahanaguyeho icyaha Uwimana kandi nyamara hari ibimenyetso bimushinja bigizwe ahanini n’ubuhamya bw’ababajijwe n’ibintu byafatiriwe byabonetse ahakorewe icyaha birimo inkweto n’ikote bye, hakaba n’ibinogo yari yaracukuye bisa n’ibyo Tubarimo yashyiragamo abo yabaga amaze kwica, akaba yari yaranabujije ababyeyi be kuhagera, ko kandi ise umubyara yasobanuye ko yari inshuti ya Tubarimo bakaba barakundaga kugendana no gusurana bakanatirana imirima, anavuga ko icyobo cyasanzwe mu isambu yabo cyacukuwe na Uwimana kandi ko atari azi igihe yabikoreye. [25] Akomeza avuga ko uwitwa Musafiri Ildephonse nawe yavuze ko ubwo kwa Tubarimo hatabururwaga imirambo, ari mubagiye gufata Uwimana kuko byavugwaga ko agendana na Tubarimo bakaba bashobora kuba barafatanyije kwica abantu, ko Sindikubwabo François nawe yavuze ko ari we wamenye mbere amakuru ko mu isambu ya Uwimana hacukuyemo ibyobo bimeze neza nk’ibyo kwa Tubarimo, akaba yaranemeje ko inkweto n’ikoti bya Uwimana byasanzwe kwa Tubarimo ari we wabijyanye mu buyobozi. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [26] Mu bimenyetso Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko byirengagijwe, hari inkweto n’ikoti byabonetse kwa Tubarimo buvuga ko ari ibya Uwimana, nyamara ku birebana n’izo

## Page 219

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 187 187

nkweto Uwimana akaba yarasobanuye uburyo yazivanyemo baje kumufata, bigahura n’ibyemejwe na Musafili Ildephonse yazisigiye, wasobanuye ko yazifashije hasi munsi y’urugo kwa Tubarimo agiye gufasha abandi gutaburura imirambo nyuma ngo ntiyongere kuzitekerezaho. Ku birebana n’ikoti, Uwimana yavuze koatari irye, imvugo ye ikaba ihura n’ibyavuzwe na Nzabanita na Mbarushimana nabo bavuze ko iryo koti atari irya Uwimana. [27] Ku birebana n’ibyobo Uwimana yari yaracukuye, ubwo yabazwaga yasobanuye ko byari ibyo guteramo insina ndetse muri kimwe akaba yari yaramaze kuyiteramo, kikaba cyaranacukuwe ntihagira ikindi kintu basangamo, naho mu byobo bitari bwaterwemo insina, nabyo ntacyo Ubushinjacyaha bwagaragaje kibihuza n’icyaha cy’ubuhotozi bwakorewe abantu bishwe kuko kuvuga ko bisa n’ibyo Tubarimo yari yaracukuye bidahagije mu kwemeza ko byacukuwe mu rwego rwo gushyiramo imirambo mu gihe itabonetsemo cyangwa ngo habonekemo ikindi kintu cyose kirebana n’abantu bishwe cyangwa amagare bambuwe nk’uko byagaragaye mu byobo byo kwa Tubarimo, kandi kugenekereza bikaba bitemewe mu manza z’inshinjabyaha nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 4 y’Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ivuga ko “amategeko ahana adashobora gukoreshwa mu buryo butandukira, agomba gufatwa uko ateye; nta bubasha inkiko zifite bwo guca imanza ku buryo bugenekereje”. [28] Hashingiwe ku byasobanuwe byose, Urukiko rurasanga ibimenyetso Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko byirengagijwe bidahamya icyaha Uwimana ku buryo budashidikanywaho, akaba akomeje kugirwa umwere. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NKUBIRI MBYOGO N’ABANDI 187

## Page 220

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 188 188

III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [29] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bw’Ubushinjacyaha bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe; [30] Rwemeje ko Nkubiri Mbyogo ahamwa n’icyaha cyo guhishira undi ibyibano; [31] Rumuhanishije igifungo cy’imyaka umunani (8); [32] Rutegetse ko ahita afatwa agafungwa; [33] Rwemeje ko nta gihindutse ku bireba Nsengiyumva Jean de Dieu na Uwimana François; [34] Rutegetse Nkubiri Mbyogo gutanga ½ cy’amagarama y’urubanza ikindi ½ kigaherera ku isanduka ya Leta.

## Page 221

189

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NTAKIRUTIMANA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’ IKIRENGA – RPA 0197/10/CS (Havugiyaremye, P.J., Kanyange na Mukamulisa, J.) 21 Ugushyingo 2014] Itegeko Nshinga – Uburenganzira bwo kunganirwa no kwiregura – Mu gihe umuburanyi n’umwunganira bagaragaje umwete muke mu gukurikirana urubanza rwabo, bikabangamira uburenganzira bw’abandi ndetse bikadindiza imikorere n’imigendekere myiza by’inzego z’ubutabera, hakemezwa ko urubanza ruburanishwa atunganiwe ntibyafatwa nko kumuvutsa uburenganzira bwo kunganirwa no kwiregura – Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo kuwa 4 Kamena 2003 nk’ uko ryavuguruwe kugeza ubu, ingingo ya 18. Amategeko Mpanabyaha – Impamvu Nyoroshyacyaha – Umucamanza aha agaciro impamvu zigabanya ubugizi bwa nabi bw’uwakoze icyaha, ari izakibanjirije, ari izagiherekeje cyangwa izagikurikiye – Itegeko-Teka no21/77 ryo ku wa 18/8/1977 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ibyaha mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 82. Incamake y’ikibazo: Umurambo wa Furere Rutamunuga wabonetse mu cyumba yararagamo, basanga yishwe yajanjaguwe umutwe n’ibintu bamukubise, yanigishijwe n’umugozi. Nyuma y’iperereza Furere Harerimana, Sibomana murumuna wa Furere Harerimana, Ntakirutimana na Biramba Cartone bita Dudu bagejejwe imbere y’Urukiko Rukuru, narwo rufata icyemezo cy’uko Sibomana azakurikiranwa ukwe kubera impamvu z’uburwayi. Urukiko rwaje guca urubanza, rwemeza koabaregwa bahamwa n’icyaha cyo kurema umutwe w’abagizi

## Page 222

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 190 190

ba nabi, icyaha cy’ubuhotozi bwa Furere Rutamunuga n’icy’ubujura bukoresheje intwaro, ruhanisha Harerimana igifungo cya burundu cy’umwihariko, Ntakirutimana ahanishwa igifungo cya burundu, naho Biramba Cartone ahanishwa igifungo cy’imyaka cumi n’itanu. Urukiko Rukuru rwanabategetse kandi gutanga indishyi zitandukanye kubari baziregeye, runategeka ko ibintu byasahuwe kwa nyakwigendera bigizwe na radiyo n’ibindi byasubizwa abazunguraba nyakwigendera. Ntakirutimana yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga muri rusange mu myanzuro inyuranye ko urukiko rwirengagije uburenganzira bwe bwo kunganirwa no kwisobanura yemererwa n’amategeko nk’uko yabisabye, ko yahamijwe icyaha akanahanishwa igifungo cya burundu hashingiwe kumvugo z’impimbano zivuguruzanya, kandi zihakanwa na banyirazo, ko Biramba Cartone nta na rimwe yigeze amushinja imbere y’Urukiko kandi ko kuba yaremeye icyaha imbere y’Ubugenzacyaha ari uko yari yashyizweho agahato. Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwasobanuye impamvu rufasheicyemezo cyo kumuburanisha avoka we adahari, rukavuga ko inkiko zirutanwa, bityo ko atagomba kujya kuburana mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye kandi afite urubanza rumaze iminsi asanzwe azi mu Rukiko Rukuru.Yongeraho ko n’icyo cyemezo kitajuririwe. Abaregera indishyi bo bavuga ko système yo gusesa imanza (cassation) itakibaho, bityo Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha mu mizi imanza izo arizo zose. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Uburenganzira bwo kunganirwa no kwiregura buteganywa n’ingingo ya 18 y’Itegeko Nshinga

## Page 223

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 191 191

ntibugomba kwitiranwa no kubangamira uburenganzira bw’abandi ndetse no kudindiza imikorere n’imigendekere myiza by’inzego z‘ubutabera, bityo ingingo Ntakirutimana n’abamwunganira baburanisha ko yavukijwe uburenganzira bwo kunganirwa no kwiregura nta shingiro ifite. 2. Nyuma yo gusuzuma ibisobanuro Ntakirutimana atanga avuga ko agamije kugaragaza ko yemera icyaha no gusobanura uruhare rwe mu rupfu rwa Furere Rutamunuga J.M.V.Urukiko rusanga aho kwemera icyaha akurikiranyweho ahubwo agihakana, bityo no kugabanyirizwa igihano asaba akaba atabihabwa. 3. Ku birebana n’indishyi zisabwa kongerwa ku mpamvu y’uko amafaranga yibwe yamenyewe irengero, Urukiko rusanga nta bimenyetso byizewe bigaragaza ingano yayo kugira ngo rube rwayishingiraho rufata icyemezo cyo kongera indishyi zagenwe n’Urukiko Rukuru. Ubujurire nta shingiro bufite. Imikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe igumyeho. Amagarama y’uru rubanza aherereye ku Isanduku ya Leta kuko uregwa afunze. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’ u Rwanda ryo kuwa 4 Kamena 2003 nk’uko ryavuguruwe kugeza ubu, ingingo ya 18. Itegeko-Teka no21/77 ryo ku wa 18/8/1977 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ibyaha mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 82. Nta manza zifashishijwe. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NTAKIRUTIMANA 191

## Page 224

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 192 192

Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Mu ijoro ryo kuwa 07/01/2007, mu kigo cy’Abafurere Maristes kiri mu kagali ka Rukatsa, Umurenge wa Kagarama, Akarere ka Kicukiro, Umujyi wa Kigali, hiciwe Umufurere witwa Rutamunuga Jean Marie Vianney, umurambo uboneka mu cyumba yararagamo. Basanze yishwe yajanjaguwe umutwe n’ibintu bamukubise, yanigishijwe n’umugozi. [2] Iperereza ryahise ritangira, hakekwa Furere Harerimana bari basanzwe batumvikana, Sibomana Protogène murumuna w’uwo Furere Harerimana, Ntakirutimana Jean Claude na Biramba Cartone bita Dudu hashingiwe ku makuru yatanzwe n’abakozi b’icyo kigo aribo Semigabo Laurent (umutetsi w’Abafurere Maristes) na Mutabaruka Anastase (umukozi wo mu busitani muri icyo kigo). [3] Mu iburanisha ryo kuwa 30/04/2008 Urukiko Rukuru rwaregewe rwafashe icyemezo cy’uko Sibomana Protogène azakurikiranwa ukwe kubera impamvu z’ uburwayi. [4] Urukiko rwaciye urubanza, rwemeza ko Harerimana Innocent, Ntakirutimana Jean Claude na Biramba Cartone bahamwa n’icyaha cyo kurema umutwe w’abagizi ba nabi, icyaha cy’ubuhotozi bwa Furere Rutamunuga JMV n’icy’ubujura bukoresheje intwaro, ruhanisha Harerimana Innocent igifungo cya burundu cy’umwihariko, Ntakirutimana Jean Claude ahanishwa igifungo cya burundu, naho Biramba Cartone ahanishwa igifungo cy’imyaka cumi n’itanu (15), rutegeka ko Harerimana Innocent, Ntakirutimana Jean Claude

## Page 225

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 193 193

na Biramba Cartone bafatanya kwishyura Umulisa Cansilde, Mukakinani Godelene na Bakayiganwa Esther, buri muntu bakamuha 1.500.000Frw y’indishyi mpozamarirana 50.000Frw yo gukurikirana urubanza, 400.000Frw ya avoka, rutegeka ko ibintu byasahuwe kwa nyakwigendera bigizwe na radiyo n’ibindi byasubizwa abo mu muryango wa nyakwigendera bafite kumuzungura. [5] Urukiko rwashingiye icyemezo cyarwo ku mpamvu z’uko Biramba Cartone yiyemerera icyaha akanagisabira imbabazi kandi agasobanura uburyo cyakozwe, ku mvugo ya Harerimana Innocent wemera ko koko yari akuriye kandi ayobora uwo mutwe w’abagizi ba nabi akanemera ko ari we wagambiriye kwica Furere Rutamunuga J.M.V. akifashisha Sibomana Protogène, Ntakirutimana Jean Claude na Biramba Cartone. [6] Ntakirutimana yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga muri rusange mu myanzuro inyuranye ko urukiko rwirengagije uburenganzira bwe bwo kunganirwa no kwisobanura yemererwa n’amategeko nk’uko yabisabye, ko yahamijwe icyaha hashingiwe ku mvugo z’impimbano zivuguruzanya, ahabwa igifungo cya burundu hashingiwe ku mvugo zihakanwa na banyirazo, ko Biramba Cartone nta na rimwe yigeze amushinja imbere y’Urukiko kandi ko kuba yaremeye icyaha imbere y’Ubugenzacyaha ari uko yari yashyizweho agahato. [7] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame kuwa 13/10/2014, Ntakirutimana yunganiwe na Me Ndagijimana Augustin hamwe na Me Gashema Félicien, abaregera indishyi bunganiwe na Me Mutembe Protais, naho Ubushinjacyaha UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NTAKIRUTIMANA 193

## Page 226

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 194 194

buhagarariwe na Higaniro Hermogène, Umushinjacyaha ku rwego rw’igihugu. [8] Iburanisha ritangiye, Ntakirutimana yavuze ko akuyeho indi myanzuro yose yatanze mbere ihakana icyaha, ko umwanzuro mushya afiteugizwe n’impapuro 142 ari ugaragaza ukuri ku rupfu rwa Furere Rutamunuga n’uruhare rwe muri urwo rupfu, ko yemera icyaha akaba anagisabira imbabazi. [9] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha yavuze ko nʼubwo Ubushinjacyaha butabonye uwo mwanzuro wa nyuma ngo bugire icyo buwuvugaho bitabuza ko Ntakirutimana n’abamwunganira bagenda bavuga mu magambo make uko ibintu byagenze, ko icyo asabwa ari kuvugisha ukuri adaciye ku ruhande, naho abaregera indishyi bavuga ko iyo umuntu ajuriye agenda agaragaza inenge z’urubanza ajuririra, ko kubimureba yagenda agaragaza ibyo urukiko rutamenye, akazirikana ko atagomba kujuririra ibindi bitaciriweho urubanza. [10] Urukiko rwafashe icyemezo ko mu gihe umwanzuro Ntakirutimana avuga ko afite utarugejejweho mbere ngo unamenyeshwe abandi baburanyi, utashyirwa muri dosiye, ko ahubwo yasobanura mu magambo make ibiwukubiyemo abandi bakabyireguraho. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO a. Kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru rwaravukije Ntakirutimana uburenganzira bwo kunganirwa no kwiregura .

## Page 227

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 195 195

[11] Ntakirutimana asaba ko imikirize y’urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru yavanwaho n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kugira ngo hubahirizwe ingingo ya 18 y’Itegeko Nshinga ryo kuwa 04/06/2003 nk’uko ryavuguruwe. Avuga ko yavukijwe n’Urukiko Rukuru uburenganzira bwo kwisobanura rushingiye ku ngingo ya 51 y’Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza mbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, akaba asanga ibyo binyuranye n’ibiteganywa n’iyo ngingo y’Itegeko Nshinga. [12] Me Ndagijimana umwunganira nawe avuga ko icyo Ntakirutimana asaba ari uko yahabwa uburenganzira bwo kuburanira ku rwego rwa mbere n’urwa kabiri, ko anenga kuba yarambuwe uburenganzira bwo kuburanira mu rukiko rubanza. [13] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwasobanuye impamvu rufashe icyemezo cyo kumuburanisha avoka we adahari, ruvuga ko inkiko zirutanwa, ko atagomba kujya kuburana mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye kandi afite urubanza rumaze iminsi asanzwe azi mu Rukiko Rukuru, yongeraho ko n’icyo cyemezo kitajuririwe. [14] Me Mutembe avuga ko système yo gusesa imanza (cassation) itakibaho, ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha mu mizi imanza izo arizo zose. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [15] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza ko Ntakirutimana yahawe uburenganzira bwo gushaka umwunganira aramubona. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NTAKIRUTIMANA 195

## Page 228

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 196 196

[16] Mu iburanisha ryo kuwa 30/04/2008 mu Rukiko Rukuru ku cyicaro cyarwo i Kigali, Ntakirutimana na Furere Harerimana Innocent bavuze ko bataburana kubera ko avoka wabo atabonetse kubera urundi rubanza rw’umurimo yitabiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Ngoma ngo akaba yanditse asaba ko urubanza rwakwimurwa. Icyo kibazo urukikorwagifasheho umwanzuro ruvuga ko iyo mpamvu ntashingiro ifite kuko umunsi w’iburanisha avoka yari asanzwe awuzi ku buryo yari gutuma n’undi avoka akamuburanira urwo rubanza cyane cyane ko urubanza rwari rumaze gusubikwa kenshi, ko rero ruburanishwa kandi bigafatwa nkaho ruburanishijwe bahari. Urukiko rwashingiye kandi ku mpamvu ko urubanza rw’umurimo ruri mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rutahabwa umwanya mbere y‘urubanza nshinjabyaha ruri mu Rukiko Rukuru. [17] Urukiko rurasanga nta burenganzira bwo kunganirwa cyangwa bwo kwiregura umucamanza yavukije Ntakirutimana, ahubwo yasobanuye icyemezo cye, asobanura impamvu agifashe ashingiye ku myitwarire ye na avoka we bagaragazaga umwete muke kugira ngo urubanza ruburanishwe nyuma yo gusubikwa inshuro 11 zose. [18] Urukiko rusanga kandi uburenganzira bwo kunganirwa no kwiregura buteganywa n’ingingo ya 18 y’Itegeko Nshinga butagomba kwitiranwa no kubangamira uburenganzira bw’abandi ndetse no kudindiza imikorere n’imigendekere myiza by’inzego z‘ubutabera, bityo ingingo Ntakirutimana n’abamwunganira baburanisha ko yavukijwe uburenganzira bwo kunganirwa no kwiregura ikaba nta shingiro ifite. b. Kumenya niba Ntakirutimana Jean Claude yemera icyaha ku buryo yagabanyirizwa igihano.

## Page 229

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 197 197

[19] Ntakirutimana avuga ko Urukiko rwaciye urubanza rumuhamya icyaha rushingiye ku mvugo z’abamushinja zidafite gihamya, by’umwihariko imvugo y’uwitwa Biramba Cartone yavugiye mu Bugenzacyaha aho yavuze ko Furere Rutamunuga yishwe kubera urwango rwari hagati ye n’umuryango wa Harerimana Innocent,ko ibyo ari ibihimbano. [20] Ku byerekeranye n’imikorere y’icyaha, Ntakirutimana avuga ko mu ntangiriro nta mugambi wo kwica Furere Rutamunuga wari uriho, ko icyariho ari umugambi wo kwiba moto ebyiri n’imodoka yabaga ku Kicukiro. [21] Akomeza avuga ko we n’uwitwa Uwimana Bernard na Sibomana Protogène bumvikanye k’umugambi wo kujya kwiba izo moto, bigeze hagati bigira inama yo kujya kwiba n’imodoka yari ihari, ko aho Uwimana ababwiriye ko atazajya abona umwanya wo kujya gushaka abaguzi (clients), yabahuje n’uwitwa Ahimana André bumvikana ko ari we uzashaka isoko rya moto. Avuga ko hagati aho mu gihe bari batarabona iryo soko,Uwimana Bernard yamwumvishije ko bashaka kujya kwiba moto kandi nyamara Furere afite amafaranga afite agaciro karenze ibyo bashaka kwiba, amubajije icyamubwiye koFurere afite ayo mafaranga amusubiza ko uwayamuhaye amuzi ko n’uburyo yayabonye abizi, ko ariko agiye gushaka uko yabimenya neza, aribwo ngo yiyoberanyije avugana na Furere nk’aho ari uwagombaga kuyamwoherereza, bumvikana ko azayohereza mu kwezi kwa 7, bituma nabo bahindura gahunda, biyemeza kuziba amafaranga bombi gusa naho abandi baguma kuri gahunda ya moto. [22] Avuga ko hagati aho nanone yaje kujyagushaka Biramba Cartone amugezaho umugambi wo kujya kwiba ayo mafaranga, nawe amubwira ko ari umujura ruharwa wibisha internet ubundi UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NTAKIRUTIMANA 197

## Page 230

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 198 198

ngo akaba yasinziriza uwo agiye kwiba, abimubwiye yumva ibyo kumusinziriza aribyo byiza,ko ari nabyo byazakoreshwa, amafaranga yaboneka bakazayagabana ari batatu. [23] Avuga ko mbere yo kujya kuyiba babanje kubiganiraho na Furere Harerimana Innocent, abacurishiriza urufunguzo rw’icyumba cya Furere Rutamunuga n’urw’igipangu. [24] Asobanura ko umunsi bumvikanye ugeze bagiye, ko Biramba Cartone yagombaga kwinjira mu cyumba mbere agateramo imiti isinziriza, we asigaye hanze, ko ari nako byagenze, nyuma y’iminota 30 Biramba Cartone asohoka afite “emballage”, we ntiyamenya niba umuti yawuteye,amubwira ko bahurira mu Cyahafi aho mu gihe baganiraga yamweretse ibikomere byinshi yari afite, amubwira ko yabitewe na Furere wamurwanyije mu gihe yari amusabye kumuha amafaranga ku neza akanga, bikaba ngombwa ko amwica, ko ariko mu gihe yabimubwiraga atabyemeye, ahubwo ko yaketse ko ashaka kumwumvisha ko byamuruhije. [25] Nyuma y’ibyo byose Ntakirutimana asobanura ko ikitari ukuri ari uko yabeshye ku byerekeranye n’urwango Furere Rutamunuga yari afitiye umuryango wa Furere Harerimana, ko mu by'ukuri ari ibyo bahimbye babibwiwe na Biramba Cartone kugira ngo bazabe aribyo basobanurira Polisi ibafashe, ko naho ubundi Furere Rutamunuga nta rwango yari abafitiye, akaba nta n’urwo yari afitiye Furere Harerimana. [26] Avuga ko bageze muri Polisi Biramba Cartone yabihinduye amuhimbira ko ari we wishe Furere Rutamunuga bimufata bityo, ko ariko mu by’ukuri atari we wamwishe, ko yamenye ko yapfuye ari kuwa mbere icyaha cyaraye kibaye.

## Page 231

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 199 199

[27] Ku byerekeranye n’imvugo za Biramba Cartone zivuguruzanya, Ntakirutimana avuga ko ibyo yavugiye mu Bugenzacyaha kuwa 11/01/2007 atari bimwe n’ibyo yavuze kuwa 12/01/2007, ko yavuze ko bari baziranye kandi ko bari baturanye nyamara atari byo, ko n’ubuhamya yatanze mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga buvuguruzanya n’ubwo yatanze mu Rukiko Rukuru, akaba ari nayo mpamvu atajuriye. [28] Me Ndagijimana umwunganira avuga ko asanga Ntakirutimana asobanura imikorere y’icyaha, ko yagize uruhare rukomeye kugira ngo Furere Rutamunuga yicwe kubera ko ari wewagiye gushaka Biramba Cartone bagacura umugambi wo kuzajya kwiba amafaranga, akagira uruhare mu kujya gutegura ahakorewe icyaha, ibyo byose bigatuma Furere yicwa, ko ari umugambi wagiye ukura, muri make ko yagize ubufatanyacyaha (participation) mu rupfu rwa nyakwigendera kubera ko yakoze uburinzi hanze nubwo atari azi ko Furere ari bupfe, ariko ko ari umugambi mubisha agomba guhanirwa. Asobanura ko Ntakirutimana atari ananiwe kwemera ko bajyanye mu cyumba bagafatanya kwica kubera ko n’ubundi ibyo yakoze bihanwa kimwe. [29] Yongeraho ko urukiko rwasuzuma impamvu Ntakirutimana yabanje kutavugisha ukuri, ko muri make yaguye mu cyaha agikoreshejwe n'umuntu wari ruharwa unamenyereye kuburana, abo bafatanyije bajya mu Bugenzacyaha no mu Bushinjacyaha yamaze kubashyiramo ubwoba ababwira ko batagomba kuvuga ikijyanye n’amafaranga, aba ari we ubyungukiramo kuko ibinyoma bye aribyo byafashwe nk’ukuri nyamara ibyo Ntakirutimana avuga bihura n’ibya Sibomana n’ubwo bwose we ataraburana. Anasaba Urukiko ko rwazasuzuma uburyo bunyuranye bwo kwemera icyaha, ko atari UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NTAKIRUTIMANA 199

## Page 232

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 200 200

ngombwa ko ukurikiranywe avuga ko yanize cyangwa ko yatemye, kuko hari ushobora kutabikora kandi uruhare rwe rukaba runini mu cyaha. [30] Me Gashema nawe wunganira Ntakirutimana avuga ko mu kumuhana hashingirwa ku ngingo ya 82 n’iya 83 z‘Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana cyakurikizwaga igihe icyaha cyakorwaga, rukitaho ko ibyo akurikiranyweho atari insubiracyaha, ko yasobanuye umugambi w’icyaha aregwa, hakanitabwaho ko ari ubwa mbere akurikiranyweho icyaha. [31] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko ukwirega icyaha kwa Ntakirutimana kutuzuye, ko hazahabwa agaciro ibyo yiyemereye mu Bugenzacyaha akanabishinjwa n’abo bakurikiranywe hamwe kugeza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, aho ubwo Furere Harerimana yaburanaga abatangabuhamya batumijwe baje bagasobanura ko umugambi wo kwica wakozwe ukanashyirwa mu bikorwa Ntakirutimana awurimo, ko rero urubanza rwajuririwe rwagumana agaciro karwo kuko Ntakirutimana n’abamwunganira batagaragaza inenge zarwo n’icyo yaba apfa n'abamushinje, ahubwo umwanzuro yateguye ukaba ugamije kubeshya urukiko gusa. [32] Akomeza avuga ko nk’uko bigaragara muri dosiye y’urubanza, ubwo Furere Harerimana yaburanaga mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga yashinje Ntakirutimana, na bagenzi be nabo baramushinja, ko yasobanuye ukuntu babanje kujya gusura ikigo babeshya ko bagiye kureba akanyamasyo, n’ukuntu nyuma yagiye kubakira mu kabari ku Kicukiro. [33] Me Mutembe wunganira abaregera indishyi avuga ko Ntakirutimana adasobanura ku bushake uburyo babigenje, by‘umwihariko ko umwe yateze muri douche undi muri salon

## Page 233

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 201 201

undi ahagaze hanze, bateranira kuri Furere baramwica, mugenzi we yakoze ku buryo umukozi usanzwe amuherekeza aba adahari, uko babivuze mbere bikaba bitavuguruzwa n’ibyo Ntakirutimana amaze iminsi yigira muri gereza bigamije kubeshya urukiko. [34] Ku byerekeranye n’indishyi zisabwa, asaba ko ku zagenwe n’Urukiko Rukuru hakwiyongeraho 10.000.000Frw kubera ko noneho amafaranga yibwe yamenyewe irengero. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [35] Ingingo ya 82 y’Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana cyakurikizwaga igihe icyaha Ntakirutimana akurikiranyweho cyakorwaga iteganya ko umucamanza aha agaciro impamvu zigabanya ubugizi bwa nabi bw’uwakoze icyaha, ari izakibanjirije, ari izagihekeje cyangwa izagikurikiye. [36] Urukiko rusanga niyo rwagendera ku bivugwa na Ntakirutimana ko we yari azi ko bagiye kwiba amafaranga uretse ko atari nabyo kubera ko bihabanye n’ibikubiye muri dosiye y’urubanza, ntacyo byamwungura ku byerekeranye n’icyaha cy’ubuhotozi akurikiranyweho kuko yemera ko yagize uruhare mu itegurwa no mu ishyirwa mu bikorwa byacyo. [37] Ku byerekeranye n’ukuri kw’ibyo Ntakirutimana avuga, Urukiko rusanga bitandukanye cyane n’ibikubiye muri dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza ko kuva mu ntangiriro icyari kigamijwe n’abakigizemo uruhare bose bakuriwe na Furere Harerimana wateguye umugambi akawushyiramo murumuna we Sibomana Protogène, Ntakirutimana Jean Claude na Biramba Cartone ari urupfu rwa Furere Rutamunuga, ibyo bikaba bigaragarira mu UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NTAKIRUTIMANA 201

## Page 234

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 202 202

nyandikomvugo zabo mu Bugenzacyaha, mu Bushinjacyaha no mu rubanza rwerekeranye n’ifungwa ry’agateganyo. [38] Nubwo rero Ntakirutimana avuga ko yemera icyaha akanagisabira imbabazi, uburyo asobanura imikorere yacyo n’uruhare yakigizemo, ntaho bihuriye n’icyaha cy’ubuhotozi bwakorewe Furere Rutamunuga akurikiranyweho, kuko icyaha yemera ari icy’ubujura bwakorewe mu cyumba cya Furere Rutamunuga bikamuviramo urupfu yishwe na Biramba Cartone mu gihe we yari azi ko bagiye kwiba amafaranga hakoreshejwe imiti isinziriza. Ibyo yemera rero ntibihuye n’ibyo Biramba Cartone yasobanuye mu Rukiko Rukuru aho yagaragaje uruhare nyakuri rwe n’urwa Ntakirutimana muri urwo rupfu, akongera kubyemeza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza rw’ubujurire rwa Furere Harerimana Innocent, Ntakirutimana wari watumiwe muri urwo rubanza nk’umutangabuhamya ntabivuguruze agahitamo ahubwo kuvuga ko ntacyo yifuza gutangariza Urukiko. [39] Ku byerekeranye n’imvugo za Biramba Cartonemu Bugenzacyaha Ntakirutimana avuga ko zitandukanye, Biramba Cartone ubwo yaburanaga mu Rukiko Rukuru yasobanuye ubwe ko kwari ukujijisha kubera gutinya bagenzi be bashoboraga kumugirira nabi nyuma y’uko yari yanze igitekerezo cya Furere Harerimana ko bombi bakwigerekaho icyaha bagashinjura Sibomana na Ntakirutimana Jean Claude, ariko akaza kumwemerera kutavugisha ukuri kose. [40] Ku bijyanye na none n’iby’uko ngo ibyo Biramba Cartone yavugiye mu Rukiko Rukuru bitandukanye n’ibyo yavuze mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, Urukiko rusanga aho hombi ntaho yashinjuye Ntakirutimana ku ruhare yagize mu rupfu rwa Furere Rutamunuga.

## Page 235

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 203 203

[41] Nyuma yo gusuzuma ibisobanuro Ntakirutimana atanga avuga ko agamije kugaragaza ko yemera icyaha no gusobanura uruhare rwe mu rupfu rwa Furere Rutamunuga J.M.V. Urukiko rusanga aho kwemera icyaha akurikiranyweho ahubwo agihakana, bityo no kugabanyirizwa igihano asaba akaba atabihabwa. [42] Ku birebana n’indishyi zisabwa kongerwa ku mpamvu y’uko amafaranga yibwe yamenyewe irengero, Urukiko rusanga nta bimenyetso byizewe bigaragaza ingano yayo kugira ngo rube rwayishingiraho rufata icyemezo cyo kongera indishyi zagenwe n’Urukiko Rukuru. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [43] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Ntakirutimana Jean Claude nta shingiro bufite; [44] Rwemeje ko urubanza RP 0007/07/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru kuwa 03/07/2008 rudahindutse; [45] Rutegetse ko amagarama y’urubanza aherera ku Isanduku ya Leta kuko Ntakirutimana Jean Claude afunze.

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NTAKIRUTIMANA

## Page 237

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 205 RWANDA LAW REPORTS ENGLISH VERSION

## Page 239

i TABLE OF CONTENTS TEAM OF EDITORS .............................................................iii SCOPE OF THE REPORTS .................................................. vii LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED .....................................................................viii LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED .......................................... xi SUBJECT INDEX ................................................................. xii BINAMUNGU v. NATIONAL POST OFFICE (ONP) .......... 1 ARPEQ v. SEGATABAZI .................................................... 21 HABIMANA v. REKAYABO .............................................. 31 HARERIMANA ET AL v. SEBUKAYIRE .......................... 39 NYIRAHABYARIMANA ET AL v. NTEZIRYAYO ......... 61 BIZIMANA v. CIMERWA Ltd ............................................. 75 GAJU v. ACCESS BANK ..................................................... 83 HYDROBATEL Ltd v. KAREKEZI ..................................... 97 MBERABAGABO ET AL v. FIAT AMELIE ET AL ........ 115 RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY v. WORLD EXPRESS LTD ...................................................................................... 143 PROSECUTION v. BAGORA ............................................ 157 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA............................... 163 PROSECUTION v. MURINDA ET AL. ............................. 171 PROSECUTION v. NKUBIRI ET AL ................................ 183 PROSECUTION v. NTAKIRUTIMANA ........................... 197

## Page 241

iii iii TEAM OF EDITORS LAW REPORTING TEAM BAGABO Faustin HAKUZIMANA Ildephonse KABERA Jean Claude KAGABO U. Stephanie MUJABI K. Naphtal MUNYENSANGA Chrysostome MWIHOREZE Claudine NTIHEMUKA Emmanuel SAFARI Gahizi UWIMANA Gisèle

## Page 242

iv MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE MUGENZI Louis Marie : President of the Committee Supreme Court Judge Prof. Dr. NGAGI M. Alphonse : Vice President of the Committee Supreme Court Judge RUTAZANA Angeline : Secretary of the Committee Inspector of Courts BWIZA N. Blanche : Judge at the High Court DUSHIMINAMA Claudine : Prosecutor at National Level

Me GAKUNZI Valery : Advocate at Rwanda Bar Association

GIRANEZA Clémentine : Judge at Primary Court

HABARUREMA Jean Pierre : Prosecutor at National level

MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE MUGENZI Louis Marie : President of the Committee Supreme Court Judge Prof. Dr. NGAGI M. Alphonse : Vice President of the Committee Supreme Court Judge RUTAZANA Angeline : Secretary of the Committee Inspector of Courts BWIZA N. Blanche : Judge at the High Court DUSHIMINAMA Claudine : Prosecutor at National Level

Me GAKUNZI Valery : Advocate at Rwanda Bar Association

GIRANEZA Clémentine : Judge at Primary Court

HABARUREMA Jean Pierre : Prosecutor at National level

## Page 243

v v Cpt. KABERUKA Jean Claude: Judge at Military High Court

KALIWABO Charles : President of High Court

Me KAYIHURA Didace : Advocate at Rwanda Bar Association

KIBUKA Jean Luc : Judge at Commercial High Court

MUREREREHE Saouda : Judge at High Court

NYIRINKWAYA Immaculée : Supreme Court Judge

RUBANGO K. Epimaque : State Attorney RUKUNDAKUVUGA F. Regis Inspector General of Courts

## Page 244

vi PREFACE Dear Readers, The Rwandan Judiciary is pleased to publish the third volume of Rwanda Law Report for the year 2015. We reiterate our thanks to you, dear Readers, for regularly providing us with your ideas, appreciating the law reports and suggesting some areas of improvement. This will help us to publish greatly improved and appreciated law reports, useful to those who face legal challenges in their profession. In this volume of Rwanda Law Reports, you will find fifteen cases including four (4) civil cases, four (4) commercial cases, one (1) labor case, one (1) administrative case and five (5) criminal cases. We are also pleased to inform you that published cases can also be accessed on the website of the judiciary: http://decisia.lexum.com/rlr/en/nav.do which facilitates the users to find cases easily and quickly. We still encourage all legal practitioners and others who regularly deal with the law in their work to use these law reports. Prof. Sam RUGEGE President of the Supreme Court President of the High Council of Judiciary.

## Page 245

vii ii SCOPE OF THE REPORTS These reports cover cases decided by the Supreme Court, the High Court and Commercial High Court listed under the heading of “Citation” below. CITATION The Reports in this volume are cited thus: [2015] 3 RLR vii

## Page 246

RWANDA LAW REPORTS viii LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED Constitution of Rwanda of 4 June 2003 as amended to date, article 18……………………………………………...… Organic law N° 03/2012/OL of 13 June 2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as it is amendment to date, article 28(5)……………………………..…………… Organic Law n° 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article 4……………………………………... Organic Law n° 51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of Courts, article 106 (1)…………………………………………………. Law Nº 43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda, articles 5, 20 and 73……………………..……….. Law nº 30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating the code of criminal procedure, article 183…………………….………. Law no 30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure, article 183………………………..…………………. article 35……………………………………………… article 85……………………………………………… 199 23 185 32 44 164 123 123 123 Law no 30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure, article 183………………………..…………………. article 35……………………………………………… article 85……………………………………………… 164 173 185

## Page 247

ix ix Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, social and administrative procedure, article 118………………………………………….… article 163(1)……………………………………… article 162……………………………………………. articles 186 paragraph 3and 6, 283…………… article 12………………………………………..…. article 311…….…………………………………... Law nº 45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing Contracts, article 142…………………………………………………….. Law nº 13/2009 of 27/05/2009 regulating labour in Rwanda, article 32…………………………………...………. Law n° 005/2008 of 14/02/2008 on arbitration and conciliation in commercial matters, article 6…………….. Law n° 15/2004 of 12/06/ 2004, relating to evidence and its production, article 3……………………………………… Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or obligations, article 258………………………………………..… article 555……………………………………….… article 258…………………………………………. article 258…………………………………….…… Presidential Order Nº 97/01 of 18/06/2014 determining the functioning and the competences of the Registrar of Land Titles, articles 6(1o) and 10 (5o)………………...….. Organic law Nº 08/2005 of 14/07/2005 determining the use and management of land in Rwanda, article 5………. LIST OF STATUTES CONSIDERED ix 44 101 115 293 63 120 116 146 76 101 146 4 120 85 158 44 44 (50 ) (10 )

## Page 248

RWANDA LAW REPORTS x Organic Law N° 01/2004 of 29/01/2004 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 47(1)………………………………. Law nº 27/1983 of 15/11/1983 on the protection of intellectual property, articles 1, 9, 10, 34, 53 paragraph 3, and 80………………………………..…………………. Decree-Law n° 21/77 of 18/08/1977 instituting the penal code, article 431, (40)…................................................. article 82……………………………………………… 63 4 185 199

## Page 249

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO xi xi LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED Prosecution v. Kambanda Hussein, RPAA 0054/09/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 30 June 2011………... MAERSK RWANDA Ltd v. SONARWA SA, RCOMA 0134/11/CS, rendered by the Supreme Court on 3 May 2013 ……………………………………………………………. Prosecution v. Ntawiringiribyisi, RPA 0258/08/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 30 November 2009…. Association Umwungeri v. Mushayija, RADA 00034/09/CS, rendered by the Supreme Court on 12 February 2010………………………………………………... SUBJECT INDEX 64 64 63 33

## Page 250

xii SUBJECT INDEX Arbitration Law – Agreement on terms of reference of arbitration – Tacit extension of agreement on terms of reference of arbitration – The agreement on terms of reference of arbitration is considered to be tacitly extended when its period of validity expires; but the parties continue to take part in arbitral proceedings. HYDROBATEL Ltd v. KAREKEZI…………. Award of the arbitrators – Removal of award of arbitrators – Where one of the parties who referred a dispute to arbitration does not exercise his/her right to object to any point he/she disagrees with in the arbitral award, he/she cannot apply for its setting aside – Law n° 005/2008 of 14/02/2008 on arbitration and conciliation in commercial matters, article 6. HYDROBATEL Ltd v. KAREKEZI…………. Civil Procedure – Forced Intervention – New claims at the appeal level – Forced intervention of a party for the first time in appeal that could result in a sentencing judgment is inadmissible – Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, social and administrative procedure , article 118. HARERIMANA ET AL v. SEBUKAYIRE...… 97 97 39

## Page 251

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO xiii Redress before the Supreme Court – Screening decision – The relevant date for computation of appeal period for the litigant who appeared in the last hearing and informed of the judgment delivery date, but which was postponed to a future date – Notification of the judgment – If the litigant appears in the last hearing and is informed of the judgment delivery date, the time for appeal shall be computed from the date of the pronouncement of the judgment even if he/she did not appear or was not represented – The default of the party at the day of judgment delivery does not prevent the delivered judgment to be considered as an adversarial trial – No provision provides that the party who appeared in the last hearing should be notified of the ruling even if the pronouncement was postponed on a future date – Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 163(1) – Organic Law n° 01/2004 of 29/01/2004 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme, article 47(1). NYIRAHABYARIMANA ET AL v. NTEZIRYAYO................................................ Commercial procedure – Moral damages – Being involved in the court proceedings for no ground – A party who claims damages resulting from being involved in the court proceedings cannot be awarded them in case the court finds that the other party had the right to appeal – Law n° SUBJECT INDEX 61

## Page 252

RWANDA LAW REPORTS xiv 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 162. HYDROBATEL Ltd v. KAREKEZI…............. Case review – The grounds for injustice – The party cannot say that the court which has rendered the judgment on application for review of the judgment for extreme injustice was not competent in case it has decided basing on legal provisions governing the review of the judgment and the parties have based on them within their submissions filing the claim – Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 186 paragraph 3and 6. MBERABAGABO ET AL v. FIAT AMELIE ET AL………………………………...………… Exercise of two ways of appeal at the same time for the same case – Where the party has abandoned one of the ways of appeal he/she had started, this shall not be considered as exercising two procedures of appeal at the same time – Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 12. MBERABAGABO ET AL v. FIAT AMELIE ET AL…………………………………………... Commercial procedure – Redemption of the property that ought to be auctioned – The validity of the sale aiming at the redemption 97 115 115

## Page 253

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO xv before the auction – If the redemption results from the sale of the house, that contract is valid – Any person or the debtor can redeem the seized property as long as it is done before the end of the sale and in the interests of the creditor and of the debtor–The sale contract aiming at redeeming the seized property is valid –Law N° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 311. MBERABAGABO ET AL v. FIAT AMELIE ET AL…………………………...……………… Constitution – Right to legal assistance and defence – When a person and his counsel behave in the way that proves unwilling to plead the case, the behavior that may violate one’s right and delays judicial procedure, till the court decides to hear the case without legal representation, it should not be interpreted as violating one’s legal assistance and defence rights – Constitution of Rwanda of 4 June 2003 as amended to date, article 18. PROSECUTION v. NTAKIRUTIMANA……. Contract laws – Loss of opportunities – Damages for expected income to be earned by a vehicle affected in transportation – They are granted if the claimant prove without any doubt that the vehicle was supposed to be used for transportation – procedural fees – For procedural fees to be granted the applicant shall provide SUBJECT INDEX 115 197

## Page 254

RWANDA LAW REPORTS xvi evidence that they have been really spend, failing to do so they are determined by court discretion – Law nº 45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing Contracts, article 142. RRA v. WORLD EXPRESS LTD…………….. Contracts or obligations law – Securities – Suretyship contract – Express information to the surety – The surety cannot be held liable for the payment of a loan as long as he /she was not expressly informed about it, because it is the obligation of the creditor to provide him/her with information in order to allow him/her to know the terms of the obligation he/she commits to – Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contract or obligations, article 555. GAJU v. ACCESS BANK……………………... Criminal Law – Concealment of the stolen items – When the penalty for the felony related to the concealment of the stolen object, the person who concealed the stolen items shall be liable to the penalties reserved to the felony and other offences relating to the/she knew during the concealment […] – Decree – Law n° 21/77 of 18/08/1977 instituting the penal code, article 431, 40. PROSECUTION v. NKUBIRI ET AL………... Interpretation of criminal law – Criminal laws shall not be interpreted to extensively; they must be construed strictly – Organic Law n° 143 83 183

## Page 255

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO xvii 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article 4. PROSECUTION v. NKUBIRI ET AL…........... Mitigating circumstance – The judge puts in consideration the mitigating circumstances which preceded, accompanied or followed an offence – Decree -Law no 21/77 of 18/8/1977 instituting the penal code in Rwanda, article 82. PROSECUTOR v. NTAKIRUTIMANA……... Criminal procedure – Unlawful detention – Imprisonment in case there is appeal while the trial court has not ordered the immediate imprisonment of the accused – In case neither the trial court nor the appellate court has ordered the imprisonment of the accused, the imprisonment of the accused is considered unlawful – Law nº 30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating the code of criminal procedure, article 183. PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA……….. Distance between eye witnesses and the crime scene – Contradictory testimonial evidence – Contradictory testimonial evidence creates doubt and the latter favours the accused – Law no 30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure, article 35. PROSECUTION v. MURINDA ET AL…….... Guilty plea – Reduction of the penalty – Unequivocal guilty plea entails the reduction of the penalty. SUBJECT INDEX 171 183 197 163

## Page 256

RWANDA LAW REPORTS xviii PROSECUTION v. MURINDA ET AL…….... The burden of proof – The burden of proof shall be on the Public Prosecution […] – Law nº 30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure, article 85. PROSECUTION v. NKUBIRI ET AL……....... Damages – Detrimental use of copyright – counsel fees – Damages relating to detrimental use of artistic work are awarded upon discretion of the court – The party who continued to hire the services of the advocate at appellate level should be awarded related counsel fees – Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or obligations, article 258. BINAMUNGU v. NATIONAL POST OFFICE (ONP)…................................................................ Damages for being dragged into lawsuits and counsel fees – No damage for being unfairly sued could be granted to the party in the case when it has no merit, but if some of his/her grounds had merit in appellate level and that he/she hired an advocate, advocate fees are granted upon court’s discretion. GAJU v. ACCESS BANK………………........... Damages for being dragged into lawsuits – The appellants should be awarded damages for being dragged into lawsuits and compensation for counsel fees due to the fact that they incurred some expenses in courts – The appellants do not deserve to be awarded moral damages they 171 183 1 83

## Page 257

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO xix requested because the responded occupied and built on the disputed plot of land with good faith – Damages and counsel fees prayed by the respondent should not be awarded to him because he did not indicate the loss incurred and indeed, he is the instigator of all these lawsuits. HARERIMANA ET AL v. SEBUKAYIRE…... The liability – Damages for rents – The person who deprived another of rents on the pretext that he has bought the leased property at auction while he has violated the law together with the one who conducted the auction they jointly pay him the damages – Decree of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or obligations, article 258. MBERABAGABO ET AL v. FIAT AMELIE ET AL…………………………………………... Procedural fees – Damages for case’s expenses are granted when the claim has merit. RRA v. WORLD EXPRESS LTD…………….. Damages arising from the offence – They are awarded in the discretion of the court based on the consequences occasioned by the committed offence – None can reclaim damages where they were granted by the first instance court. PROSECUTION v. MURINDA ET AL..…….. Civil damages resulting from an offense – Damages based on the impact that would be caused by the offense in case the claimant is not the undertaken victim – The civil party has right SUBJECT INDEX 171 143 115 39

## Page 258

RWANDA LAW REPORTS xx to damages in case the offense should have impact on him/her, terrified and traumatized him/her – Law of 30 July 1888 relating to contracts or obligations, article 258. PROSECUTION v. BAGORA……………....... Family law – The paternity Action – Evidence – The value attached to the DNA test – The results of DNA test in determining whether the alleged father is the biological father of the child are considered as true because this test results demonstrate that they have no biological relationship or confirms that they have biological relationship which is over 99%. HABIMANA v. REKAYABO………………… Intellectual property – Copyright – Use of transferred work –Original work is defined as work which, by its characteristic features and in its form, or its form alone, allows individualization of its author – Unless proved otherwise, is presumed the author of the work, the person whose name or pseudonym leaving no doubt about the identity of the author, is shown on the work – The author of a protected work has the exclusive right to do or authorize the performance of any of the following acts on the entire work, or part of it such as its reproduction; transformation of the work and communication of the work to the public – The transfer of ownership of the single copy or copies shall not imply the transfer of copyright in the work – Law nº 27/1983 of 157 31

## Page 259

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO xxi 15/11/1983 on the protection of intellectual property, articles 1, 9, 10, 34, 53 paragraph 3, and 80. BINAMUNGU v. NATIONAL POST OFFICE (ONP)…………………………..……………….. Labour law – Termination of employment contract – Gross negligence – The employment contract can be terminated without notice in case of gross negligence by one of the parties – The law regulating labour does not provide that the employer has to pay damages because of failure to inform the employee of the gross negligence within 48 hours – Law nº 13/2009 of 27/05/2009 regulating labour in Rwanda, article 32. BIZIMANA v. CIMERWA Ltd……………….. Law determining the jurisdiction of Courts – Appeal – Objection of inadmissibility of appeal – Appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over judgments heard and decided in the second instance by the High Court – In case the grounds which were based on for adjudication at the first instance are different from those of the second instance, the party is allowed to appeal against it to the Supreme Court – Organic law N° 03/2012/OL of 13 June 2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as it is amendment to date, article 28(5). ARPEQ v. SEGATABAZI……………….……. SUBJECT INDEX 21 75 1

## Page 260

Laws governing land – Modalities of land acquisition and registration – Conclusiveness of registered title – The ownership over land relies on the fact that the owner acquired it either in accordance with custom, or granted by a competent authority, or by purchase – The certificates of registration can be challenged and invalidated – The occupant with good faith of third-party’s land shall hand it back but is entitled to compensation for the value of the works she/he erected on it – Organic law Nº 08/2005 of 14/07/2005 determining the use and management of land in Rwanda, article 5 – Presidential Order Nº 97/01 of 18/06/2014 determining the functioning and the competences of the Registrar of Land Titles, articles 6(1o) and10(5o) – Law Nº 43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda, articles 5, 20 and 73. HARERIMANA ET AL v. SEBUKAYIRE…... Tax laws – To determine the value of the imported goods – In determining the value of the imported good, the imposition cannot be determined based on goods which seems to be similar or look alike and coming from the same country while the taxpayer has shown the value of the paid amount – Law n° 15/2004 of 12/06/ 2004, relating to evidence and its production, article 3. RRA v. WORLD EXPRESS LTD……..............

RWANDA LAW REPORTS xxii 39 143

## Page 261

xxiii ADMINISTRATIVE CASE

## Page 263

xxv 1 BINAMUNGU v. NATIONAL POST OFFICE (ONP) [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RDA 0042/13/CS (Mukamulisa, P.J., Mukandamage and Gatete G., J.) October 10, 2014] Intellectual property – Copyright – Use of transferred work –Original work is defined as work which, by its characteristic features and in its form, or its form alone, allows individualization of its author – Unless proved otherwise, is presumed the author of the work, the person whose name or pseudonym leaving no doubt about the identity of the author, is shown on the work – The author of a protected work has the exclusive right to do or authorize the performance of any of the following acts on the entire work, or part of it such as its reproduction; transformation of the work and communication of the work to the public – The transfer of ownership of the single copy or copies shall not imply the transfer of copyright in the work – Law nº 27/1983 of 15/11/1983 on the protection of intellectual property, articles 1, 9, 10, 34, 53 paragraph 3, and 80. Damages – Detrimental use of copyright – counsel fees – Damages relating to detrimental use of artistic work are awarded upon discretion of the court –The party who continued to hire the services of the advocate at appellate level should be awarded related counsel fees – Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or obligations, article 258.

## Page 264

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 2 Facts: The National Post Office (NPO) released tender to design artistic works to be used for making its post stamps, and Binamungu Epaphrodite participated in the tender competition and his 5 artistic works comprising: patrimoine, Agaseke et sourires, Intore, les mains habiles and Danse mixte won the tender. Binamungu filed a case against the NPO in the High Court alleging that the NPO used his artistic works in breach of the contract they had concluded because it reproduced; cut and modified them. He requested 200,000,000Frw as damages. The High Court ruled against NPO because it infringed in the use of Binamungu’s artistic works, and awarded him 5,000,000Frw of damages for the reproduction, and use of his artistic works to make postal cards without his authorization. In addition, it awarded him 10,000,000Frw for cutting of his artistic works in the course of making post cards, printing and the absence of his pseudonym on them, and 1,000,000Frw of counsel fees. Both sides were not satisfied with the ruling of the case and appealed to the Supreme Court, whereby NPO alleges that the High Court misinterpreted the provisions of the contract they concluded because it did not raise the main issue concerning the status of the rights that Binamungu has over his artistic works transferred to NPO through bidding as they are folkloric, such that Binamungu cannot pretend to own them. He alleges in addition that the award of damages by the High court was done contrary to the Presidential order nº 276/14 of 6/5/1985. For Binamungu, he deems damages awarded to him insufficient and concerning the NPO appeal

## Page 265

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 3 grounds, he alleges that his right over the artistic works transferred to NPO should be analysed in the context of the originality of them as provided for by article 1 of the Law of 15/11/1983 on the protection of intellectual property. Held: 1. Original work is defined as work which, by its characteristic features and in its form, or its form alone, allows individualization of its author. 2. Unless proven otherwise, it is presumed that the author of the work, the person whose name or pseudonym leaving no doubt about the identity of the author is shown on the work. 3. The author of a protected work has the exclusive right to do or authorize the performance of any of the following acts on the entire work, or part of it; its reproduction; transformation of the work and communication of the work to the public. 4. The transfer of ownership of the single copy or copies shall not imply the transfer of copyright in the work 5. Damages relating to detrimental use of artistic work are awarded upon discretion of the court and those awarded by the High Court are in range 6. Concerning the counsel fees requested by the respondent on this level, is charged on the appellant because the latter was represented even at appeal level. Since what he requested for is excessive; the court upon its discretion, awards him 500,000Frw in addition to 1,000,000Frw awarded by the High Court. BINAMUNGU v. ONP 3

## Page 266

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 4 National Post Office’s appeal has no merit. Binamungu’s appeal has merit. Court fees to National Post Office. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law nº 27/1983 of 15/11/1983 on the protection of intellectual property, articles 1, 9, 10, 34, 53 paragraphs 3, and 80. Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or obligations, article 258. No case referred to. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] Binamungu Epaphrodite’s 5 artistic works which are patrimoine, Agaseke et sourires, Intore, les mains habiles and Danse mixte won the tender offer that was released by National Post Office relating to the production of artistic work to be used for post-stamps graphic design. Binamungu sued NPO before the High Court alleging that he was surprised to realize that this institution used his works in contradiction with the contract as it reproduced, cut into parts and modified them. He therefore requested 200,000,000 as damages. [2] The High Court dismissed NPO because it has misused Binamungu’s works and awarded him

## Page 267

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 5 5,000,000Frw as damages for extension and use of his artistic works in production of postal cards without his authorization. It also awarded him 10,000,000Frw for cutting in parts his artistic works during the graphic design of postal cards and for the lack of his pseudonym on them, and 1,000,000Frw as counsel fees. [3] Both sides were not satisfied with the ruling of the case and they submitted their appeal to the Supreme Court. [4] Public hearing was conducted on 09 September 2014, whereby NPO was represented by Counsel Ndagijimana Emmanuel while Binamungu Epaphrodite was represented by Counsel Budongo Innocent. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES a) Whether Binamungu had no right over the artistic works presented in NPO tender. [5] Counsel Ndagijimana Emmanuel for NPO states that the High Court misinterpreted the provisions of the contract between both parties where it did not raise the crucial issue concerning the status of ownership right of Binamungu over the works transferred to NPO through the tender competition. He states also that the Court has not analysed well the provision of article 53, paragraph 9 of the Law nº 27/1983 of 15/11/1983 on the protection of intellectual property1 and realize that Binamungu could

1Article 9 of that Law indicates the list of different rights of the author of works, while its last paragraph states as such: “…the total BINAMUNGU v. ONP 5

## Page 268

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 6 not claim ownership over them because they are folkloric works therefore; he holds no right of ownership over them. [6] In this context, he presents further example that no artist may claim ownership over Intore because it is commonly known to be one of the indicator of Rwandan culture (folklore) and indeed, the above mentioned Law nº 27/1983 protect even culture in general such that any artist who exploit the folklore for his own interests may be punished by article 78 of the same Law. [7] Counsel Budongo for Binamungu in his arguments rejects the allegations of Counsel Ndagijimana Emmanuel on behalf of the NPO finding them baseless. He argues also that in order to examine if Binamungu has ownership right over his artistic works, it should be referred to article 1 of the Law nº 27/1983 stated above, which provides that original work is defined as work which, by its characteristic features and in its form, or its form alone, allows individualization of its author. Therefore, it should be considered that the

or partial disposal of a work inspired by folklore or the exclusive license relating to such a work is valid only if it has received the approval of the Rwandan Department responsible for the management of copyright”. Among the readings of article 53 of the aforementioned Law include: “….In case of transfer of all or part of any of the rights mentioned in Article 9, the scope is limited to the exploitation modes specified in the contracts. All that the author did not have expressly transferred is reserved for him.The transfer of ownership of the single copy or copies shall not imply the transfer of copyright in the work.…”

## Page 269

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 7 owner of the artistic works is obviously Binamungu since the said artistic works are his own original works produced and protected in accordance with the above mentioned Law nº 27/1983, especially that even his pseudonym appears on them. Thus, nobody can claim ownership over them. [8] He refutes in addition the arguments of NPO that the High Court misinterpreted the provision of article 9 of the aforementioned Law nº 27/1983, because according to him that provision is very clear since it states that the author of artistic work has the right to prohibit its modification, reproduction, redesign or use of it in any modifying way and this is in relation to what the NPO did because it modified, reproduced and used his works in breach of their agreements. [9] Concerning article 53 of the Law nº 27/1983 stated by Counsel for NPO stating that the Law was misinterpreted by the court, Counsel Budongo on behalf of Binamungu refutes his argument by saying that this provision is also clear because it provides that in order to settle the disputes, the scope is limited to the exploitation modes specified in the contracts but all that the author did not expressly transfer is reserved for him. [10] He argues regarding the rights of artists that the copyright was expressed in the judgment RCOMA 0014/08/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 06 August 2010, opposing the artist Bushayija Pascal and COGEBANQUE S.A in which this artist initiated the case alleging that this bank used his artistic works on its BINAMUNGU v. ONP 7

## Page 270

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 8 bank cheques without his authorization and the Court gave merit to his claim. FINDINGS OF THE COURT [11] Article 1 of the Law nº 27/1983 states that “the authors of literary, artistic and original scientific works benefit from the protection of their works in accordance with this Act. It further stipulates that “the original work is defined as work which, by its characteristic features and in its form, or its form alone, allows the identification of its author”. [12] Article 34 of Law n° 27/1983 states that, it is presumed author of the work, unless proven otherwise, the person whose name or pseudonym as marked on it leaves no doubt about the identity of the author. [13] In addition, article 9 of the aforementioned law provides that the author of a protected work has the exclusive right to do or authorize the performance of any of the following acts on the totality or part thereof; reproduce the work by making one or more copies, make any other alteration, and communicate the work to the public, while article 53 paragraph 3 of the same Law provides that “the transfer of ownership of the single copy or copies shall not imply the transfer of copyright in the work”. [14] Through the NPO bidding offer for the design of post stamps, it called the participation of all desiring and competent artists to design post stamps on the following

## Page 271

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 9 themes: Beijing Olympic Games, Rwandan baskets, Rwandan Culture (Danse and Decoration), etc. As far as the Rwandan culture was concerned, the NPO put it clear in that offer that the artist’s drawings should relate to various aspects of dance and decoration in the context of Rwandan culture. [15] Binamungu having participated in the competition and drawn Rwandan cultural works on which he mentioned his pseudonym, which were retained by NPO and put them on its post stamps, does not preclude the originality of his artistic work as explained by article 1 of the Law nº 27/1983 since contrariwise, that originality and inventiveness of his drawings were the key factor for winning the competition. [16] Based on all these explanations, the Court finds that the statements of the Counsel for NPO, that Binamungu should not claim the authorship of folkloric works lack merit because it was highlighted that he has the right over those works which is protected by the Law. [17] More so, as decided by the High Court, since NPO does not deny that Binamungu submitted his artistic works designed in accordance to its offer which indicated the specifications of those works, the court therefore finds no reason for it to reverse from the reality and argue that Binamungu cannot claim authorship or has no copyright over them. BINAMUNGU v. ONP 9

## Page 272

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 10 b) Whether NPO used the artistic works of Binamungu in infringement of copyright. [18] Counsel Ndagijimana states that NPO did not infringe in the use of Binamungu’s artistic works because it did not trade them, rather, it only put them on post stamps in the context of exhibition of Rwandan culture and that it displayed them once in exhibition, and this is different from reproduction for the commercial purpose. [19] He states in addition that the High Court should have not relied on the judgment RCOMA 0014/08/CS rendered by this Court on 6 August 2010 between COGEBANQUE against Bushayija because it has no link with this case, especially that in the first one, COGEBANQUE used the works in commercial context, while it is known that the Postal Office does not engage in business deals and the nature of works differ in both cases. [20] Counsel Ndagijimana adds that due to the size of the works submitted by Binamungu, It was impossible to incorporate them on postal card entirely as it was done for post stamps, the reason why NPO incorporated them in part, but that should not be considered as work alteration. [21] Counsel Budongo argues that NPO reproduced and cut in parts the artistic works of Binamungu through the printing of postal cards. He states that on the post stamps they appear as entirely conceived by him, which is different from how it appears on postal cards. He

## Page 273

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 11 states in addition that, despite even their alteration, NPO did not mention his pseudonym on those postal cards. [22] In his appeal, the counsel for Binamungu blames the Court to have held that NPO did not alter his artistic works in the course of postal cards graphic design in the context of commerce, but rather, it held that it intended to exhibit the culture. Therefore, he finds the decision far from the truth since Binamungu produced evidences before the court, including various invoices which include even those submitted by individual traders. [23] He states in addition that, despite those mentioned evidences, there exists an abstract of the broadcast interview submitted to the Court, which was held by the Director of Marketing known as Maniraguha Bisengimana Dieudonné in which he explained that NPO exercises commercial activities, therefore he finds that NPO should not deny it and that the High Court was legally right when relying on the judgment RCOMA 0014/08/CS it rendered on 06 August 2010 between COGEBANQUE and Bushayija because they have same facts. THE VIEW OF THE COURT [24] The provision of article 9 of the Law nº 27/1983 points to the exclusive right to do or authorize to doing one act on the totality of the work or part thereof like reproduction, transformation or communication of it to the public. BINAMUNGU v. ONP 11

## Page 274

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 12 [25] Article 10 of the same Law provides that “the fulfillment of one of the acts mentioned in Article 9 by a third party can take place only with the express written authorization of the author or his beneficiaries duly endorsed by a notary or legalized by a competent authority. [26] Pursuant to the highlighted provisions, the Court is of the view that the essential issue that should be examined is to know whether NPO exploited the artistic works of Binamungu according to what is agreed upon in the contract. [27] The Court finds that whereas in the bid announcement released by NPO it was well clear that it concerned “call for competition to draw post stamps”, NPO does not deny that, despite that it incorporated Binamungu’s artistic works on the post stamps as it was agreed upon, it also pasted them on its postal cards. Consequently, it is obvious that NPO did not respect the clauses of the contract as far as the use of his artistic works is concerned. [28] Regarding the use of the artistic works of Binamungu by NPO as the High court reasoned it, the court finds that the works were not incorporated on the postal cards entirely and despite being minimized only as argued by NPO, they were even cut in pieces, and his pseudonym did not appear on them. Consequently, there is no doubt, irrespective of the context NPO used them, their use is contravening.

## Page 275

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 13 c) Concerning various damages requested for and awarded on this level. 1. Damages relating to the reproduction and use of Binamungu’s artistic works for commercial purposes by NPO. [29] Counsel Budongo states that Binamungu requests for 150,000,000Frw as damages for the use of his 5 artistic works for commercial purpose by NPO (meaning 30,000,000Frw per each piece of work). He requests in addition the increase of the awarded damages to Binamungu for the reproduction of the same works, therefore he requests for 4,000,000Frw per each piece of work amounting to 20,000,000Frw. [30] Counsel Ndagijimana argues that NPO does not exercise commercial activities and that it has never commercialised postal cards with Binamungu’s artistic works, rather, it exhibited them once in the context of Rwandan cultural exposition, of which was even expressed in the works that Binamungu pretends to have invented. He states also that in the determination of damages awarded to Binamungu, the High Court did not follow the provisions of the presidential Order nº 276/14 of 6/5/1985. [31] Counsel Budongo adds that this Presidential Order nº 276/14 determines damages and the exercise of resale right as provided for by articles 11 to 14 of the Law nº 27/1983, but goes on to argue that those provisions relate to interests earned from the proceeds of the sale or auction of their works with the agreement of BINAMUNGU v. ONP 13

## Page 276

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 14 both parties, which is different in this case as NPO exploited the works of Binamungu without his consent. THE VIEW OF THE COURT [32] The Court shares the view with the High Court that there is no evidence indicating the commercialization of Binamungu's artistic works especially that he was unable to demonstrate the number of commercialized pieces of work and the amount of money gained, therefore, the court finds that NPO should be held liable of modifying Binamungu’s artistic works contrary to their agreement.. [33] Concerning the reproduction of Binamungu's works by NPO without his authorization, as stated above, NPO acted in contravention with the law, beyond the end use purpose and copyright since it did not exhibit them entirely, therefore it is undoubtful that the acts of NPO infringed Binamungu’s copyright. [34] However, regarding the amount of compensation awarded in the judgment RCOMA 0014/08/CS between Bushayija Pascal and COGEBANQUE S.A and pursuant to the provision of article 80 of the Law n° 27/1983 which states that Civil law applies to civil actions arising from the exercise of copyright, the court should rely on article 258 of the civil code book III which provides that "any act whatever of man, which causes damage to another, obliges the one by whose fault it occurred, to pay for reparation" for the determination of compensations.

## Page 277

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 15 [35] The Court finds that damages for reproduction of artistic works and for sale of postal cards should not be separated because those two acts are linked to the NPO's daily sale activity of postal cards as it is explained in its letter of 14 September 2011 in response to the one wrote to it by Binamungu. [36] Concerning the determination of damages, the court finds that the counsel for NPO failed to justify how the court disregarded the Presidential Order nº 274/14 of 6/5/1985, despite that it could not even be applied while the artistic works were used in contradiction to the agreement concluded with Binamungu. [37] Given the motivation above, the court is of the view that compensations should be determined upon the discretion of the court, thus the amount of 5,000,000Frw as damages awarded by the High Court upon its discretion are in range. 2. Compensation for transformation by cutting in pieces Binamungu’s artistic works by NPO. [38] Counsel Budongo declares that damages awarded to Binamungu which amount to 10,000,000Frw for NPO’s act of cutting his artistic works in pieces, which were later put on its postal cards omitting his name, are insufficient and this acts of NPO caused him a big loss because his clients who used to recognize him for his fame home and abroad lost trust in him. Consequently, he prays the court to award him 6,000,000Frw for each pece of artistic work, thus amounting to 30,000,000Frw for all 5 works. BINAMUNGU v. ONP 15

## Page 278

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 16 [39] Counsel Ndagijimana states that Binamungu does not deserve to be awarded compensation and should have not been awarded them at the High Court because he fails to justify how the use of his works by NPO affected him and the loss it caused him as likely to be relied on by the court for its discretionary award of damages. THE VIEW OF THE COURT [40] According to the motivation of the High Court, the modification in pieces of the artistic works of Binamungu without his consent by NPO is certainly a fault and it is in contradiction with the Law. However, the counsel for Binamungu failed to demonstrate to the Court the loss relating to the trust in him lost by his clients in order for the Court to rely on it for the award of damages, the reason why even if he deserves them, but they should be determined upon the discretion of the Court and in this context, the court deems that those amounting to 10,000,000Frw awarded by the High Court are in range. c. Concerning counsel fees [41] Counsel Ndagijimana blames the High Court in its decision to have awarded 1,000,000Frw as counsel fees while it was unclaimed. He also argues that in case the court finds NPO's appeal claim with merit, it shall award 2,000,000Frw of counsel fees to NPO.

## Page 279

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 17 [42] Counsel Budongo states in response that the amount awarded to Binamungu was requested for, and therefore the court was not wrong. He contends in addition that NPO does not deserve counsel fees because it committed faults. He furthermore prays for the award of advocate fees and procedural costs amounting to 1,500,000Frw in addition to what was awarded by the High Court to Binamungu. THE VIEW OF THE COURT [43] The court finds that Binamungu engaged in law suits due to the faults of NPO and it is clear in the submission of his counsel before the High Court that he requested 1,000,000Frw for procedural expenses and counsel fees, therefore the High Court committed no error in awarding them to him. [44] Regarding the counsel fees requested by Binamungu on this level, the court finds that NPO should pay them because it was necessary for him to hire the services of the advocate, since the requested fees is excessive, he should be awarded 500,000Frw in addition to 1,000,000Frw awarded by the High Court, thus amounting to 1,500,000Frw. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [45] Decides that the appeal lodged by National Post Office (NPO) has no merit. BINAMUNGU v. ONP 17

## Page 280

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 18 [46] Decides that the appeal lodged by Binamungu Epaphrodite has merits in part. [47] Modifies the ruling of the judgment RAD 0106/12/HC/KIG rendered on 3 may 2013 solely in relation to the counsel fees to be paid by NPO to Binamungu Epaphrodite. [48] Orders National Post Office to pay 15,000,000Frw to Binamungu for damages and 1,000,000Frw for advocate fees awarded by the High Court in addition to 500,000Frw awarded on this level. The total amount to be paid by NPO to him shall be 16,500,000Frw. [49] Orders the National Post Office to pay court fees for this case.

## Page 281

19 CIVIL CASES

## Page 283

21 21 ARPEQ v. SEGATABAZI [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCAA 0025/13/CS (Kayitesi. Z., P.J., Kayitesi. R. and Rugabirwa, J.) April 10, 2015] Law determining the jurisdiction of Courts – Appeal – Objection of inadmissibility of appeal – Appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over judgments heard and decided in the second instance by the High Court – In case the grounds which were based on for adjudication at the first instance are different from those of the second instance, the party is allowed to appeal against it to the Supreme Court – Organic law N° 03/2012/OL of 13 June 2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as it is amendment to date, article 28(5). Fact: Considering ARPEQ’s documents dated on 22 November 2011 and the other one of 06 December 2011 whereby ARPEQ personally admitted that it owes Segatabazi a debt of 150,000,000Frw which led him to file a claim at Intermediate Court of Gasabo praying that ARPEQ pays him that debt which is comprised of a loan, contribution he paid together with bonus which he was promised by defendant, including interest arising from all amount calculated on 18% until its payment. He prayed also to be awarded damages of procedural cost and the counsel’s fees.

## Page 284

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 22 The Court affirmed that his claim had merit in part and orders ARPEQ to pay the debt it was given and the bonus promised, all amounting to 105,648,178Frw. Both parties appealed to the High Court against this decision and Court then ruled that Segatabazi wins a sum of 150,000,000Frw and ordered the provisional execution on 48,693,484Frw and also ordered it to pay Segatabazi procedural damages and the Court fees. ARPEQ appealed against this decision to the Supreme Court claiming that the case had not been accorded due attention it deserved in the High Court claiming that the judge confused ARPEQ with profit making entities, to the contrary it is a non-profit project. At the beginning of the hearing ARPEQ’s appeal, Segatabazi raised the objection of inadmissibility for ARPEQ’s claim stating that the appellant had lost the case on the first and second instances on similar grounds. The defence on that objection, ARPEQ states that the Intermediate Court found that Segatabazi should not be reimbursed the amount relating to pension contribution whereas the High Court awarded them, which means that ARPEQ won on this ground and lost it for the first time in High Court, which means that it is the first time ARPEQ appeals against it, it is evident that the respondent does not interpret well article 28 paragraph 5 of the organic law N° 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012, therefore praying to affirm that the objection raised by Segatabazi is baseless.

## Page 285

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 23 Held: A case lost by a party to proceedings in the first and second instances based on similar grounds shall not be appealed for to the Supreme Court but if the grounds which are based on at the first instance are different to those of the second instance; he/she is allowed to appeal against it to the Supreme Court. The objection has no merit, Hearing on the merits of the case scheduled on 02/06/2015; Suspends the Court fees. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Organic law N° 03/2012/OL of 13 June 2012 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as it is amendment to date, article 28(5). No case referred to. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] This case began at Intermediate Court of Gasabo whereby Segatabazi Protais filling a case against ARPEQ for the debt worth 150,000,000Frw (composed of 48,693,694Frw which he lent to ARPEQ, 44,352,822Frw of pension contribution he paid in ARPEQ v. SEGATABAZI 23

## Page 286

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 24 ARPEQ and 56.953.484Frw of the bonus which he was promised by ARPEQ) and in addition for interests arising from all the amounts prayed for calculated on 18% until time of their payment; procedure cost of worth 5,000,000Frw and the counsel’s fees worth 7,500,000Frw. The Court found that the claim of Segatabazi has merit in part, and ordered ARPEQ to pay him 48,693,694Frw which had been lent to her and 56,953,484Frw in form of bonus which the appellant promised the respondent, all amounting to 105,648,178Frw. [2] Both parties appealed against this decision to the High Court. In the case with reference number RCA041/13/HC/KIG and RCA 0550/13/HC/KIG of 08 November 2013, and that Court ruled that Segatabazi won for 150,000,000Frw, ordered the provisional execution on 48,693,484Frw and also ordered ARPEQ to pay to Segatabazi procedural cost of 1,000,000Frw and Court fees. [3] ARPEQ appealed against this decision to the Supreme Court claiming that the case was not given due attention it deserved while in the High Court and that the judge confused ARPEQ with the profit making entities, contrary to its real status of Non-profit making entities; the claim was recorded on Nº RCAA 0025/13/CS. [4] Before the case could be heard before the Supreme Court, ARPEQ lodged a summary procedure attached on the judgment Nº RCA 0025/13/CS praying that the provisional execution ordered by the High Court be suspended but the Supreme Court on the judgment of

## Page 287

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 25 summary procedureNº RC 0004/13/CS rendered on 10 January 2014 ruled that its claim had no merit. [5] The hearing of the case Nº RCA 0025/13/CS conducted in public on 24 March 2015, ARPEQ represented by Counsel Bikotwa Bruce whereas Segatabazi Protais was represented by Counsel Niyomugabo Christophe. [6] At the beginning of the hearing, Counsel Niyomugabo Christophe raised the objection of inadmissibility for ARPEQ’s claim stating that it had lost the case on the first and on the second instance on similar grounds, therefore based on article 28 paragraph 5 of the organic law N° 03/2012/OL of 13 June 2012 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as it is amendment to date, the appeal of ARPEQ should not be admitted. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUE Whether ARPEQ lost the case at Intermediate Court and also at High Court on the similar grounds which is leading to the inadmissibility of the appeal [7] Niyomugabo, the counsel for Segatabazi states that his client filed a claim based on the ARPEQ’s documents dated 22 November 2011 and the other one of 06 December 2011, whereby ARPEQ admitted the debt it owes Segatabazi amounting to 150,000,000Frw. The Intermediate Court and High Court based on those documents; at Intermediate Court Segatabazi won ARPEQ v. SEGATABAZI 25

## Page 288

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 26 105,648,178Frw whereas in the High Court he won 150,000,000Frw, there is no other ground which led ARPEQ to lose the case in those Courts, apart from admitting the debt in writing. Therefore he prays this Court to declare the appeal inadmissible based on article 28 paragraph 5 of the organic law N° 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. [8] Bikotwa Bruce, the Counsel for ARPEQ argues that at the Intermediate Court Segatabazi filed a case for 150,000,000Frw which includes 48,693,694Frw he lent ARPEQ, 44,352,822Frw of the pension contribution he paid to ARPEQ and an amount worth 56,953,484Frw in form of bonus ARPEQ promised the respondent. In the case RC 0280/12/TGI/GSBO rendered on 19 September 2012, the Court found that Segatabazi should not be reimbursed 44,352,822Frw relating to pension contribution, which means that ARPEQ won on this ground and lost it for the first time in High Court, which means that it is the first time ARPEQ appeals against it, it is evident that the respondent does not interpret well article 28 paragraph 5 of the organic law N° 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 mentioned above because it stipulates that a case lost by a party to proceedings in the first and second instances basing on similar grounds, therefore praying to affirm that the objection raised by Niyomugabo, the Counsel for Segatabazi is baseless.

## Page 289

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 27 THE VIEW OF THE COURT [9] Article 28 paragraph 5 of the Organic law N° 03/2012/OL of 13 June 2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as amended to date, stipulates “that a case lost by a party to proceedings in the first and second instances based on similar grounds shall not be appealed against to the Supreme Court”. [10] The Court finds that the claim of Segatabazi in Intermediate Court of Gasabo annex 5, praying to court to order ARPEQ to pay him the debt of 150,000,000Frw, he argues that ARPEQ personally admitted the debt in the document entitled “permanent resolve of Protais’s matter” dated 22 November 2011 and the other one called “the statement to resolve for good the problem of Segatabazi Protais which is allocated to him” dated 06 December 2011, those documents further adduce that the debt is composed of 56,953,484Frw in form of bonus which ARPEQ promised Segatabazi together with the debt amounting to 93,046,516Frw which includes 48,693,694Frw of the amount Segatabazi loaned to ARPEQ and 44,352,822Frw of the contribution he paid in ARPEQ (annexes 9-10 and 58-60). [11] The Court finds that the Intermediate Court separated and examined each part of claim constituting the debt in dispute, where Segatabazi was awarded 48.693.694Frw, resulting from the amount loaned to ARPEQ and 56,953,484Frw in form of bonus which ARPEQ promised him based on her documents ARPEQ v. SEGATABAZI 27

## Page 290

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 28 mentioned above (paragraph 4 and 8 of the judgment RC 0280/12/TGI/GSBO rendered on 19 September 2012), concerning pension contributions of 44,352,822Frw Segatabazi Protais contributed to ARPEQ. The Court rules that he could not be awarded them basing on article 21 and 23 of the internal rules of ARPEQ and article 30 of the Law Nº 20/2000 of 26/07/2000 relating to non- profit organisation. Generally, Segatabazi is awarded only 105.648.178Frw instead of being 150,000,000Frw he prayed for. [12] The Court finds that ARPEQ appealed against the basis of bonus of 56.953.484Frw and the procedure of payment of the money which was loaned to him at the High Court, and the Court finds that the appeal on gratitude has no merit based on her document dated 06 December 2011 whereby she admitted bonus (paragraph 12 of the judgment RCA 0421/13/HC/KIG; RCA 0550/13/HC/KIG rendered on 08 November 2013). [13] The Court finds that Segatabazi appealed to the High Court praying to be awarded pension Contribution he has in ARPEQ amounting to 44.352.822Frw, which he had lost on the first instance based on articles 21 and 23 of the internal rules of ARPEQ and also based on article 30 of the Law Nº 20/2000 of 26/07/2000 relating to non-profit organisation, the High Court ruled that they should be awarded to them based on the document originating from ARPEQ dated 06 December 2011 whereby it admitted to give them back to him and also on article 28 of the Law Nº15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and it’s production provides that 44,352,822Frw,

## Page 291

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 29 private deed in which a party admits a debt, leads to the other party to win the case. [14] Therefore the Court finds that relating to claims made by Segatabazi’s Counsel that ARPEQ lost the case on similar grounds on the first and the second instance, that Courts based on the documents which ARPEQ personally admitted

that it owes Segatabazi 150,000,000Frw is not true because on the first instance he was awarded only 105,648,178Frw whereas on the second level he won 150,000,000Frw, resulting from the pension contribution of amount worth 44,352,822Frw which Segatabazi had lost in the Intermediate Court, but which he later won on the second level in the High Court because the High Court relied on the document originating from ARPEQ. [15] Considering the explanations provided above, the Court finds that the grounds which were based on at the first and second instance in rendering the judgment to be different, therefore the ARPEQ’s appeal should be admitted because it is in conformity with article 28 paragraph 5 of the organic law N° 03/2012/OL of 13 June 2012 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as amended to date. III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [16] Admits the objection of inadmissibility of ARPEQ’s appeal which was submitted by Segatabazi Protais because it was lawfully filed. ARPEQ v. SEGATABAZI 29

## Page 292

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 30 [17] Decides that the objection has no merit. [18] Decides that the hearing of the case on merit will continue on 02 June 2015. [19] Suspends Court fees.

## Page 293

31 31 HABIMANA v. REKAYABO [Rwanda HIGH COURT– RCA 0197/12/HC/KIG (Hitimana, P.J) May 23, 2014] Family law – The paternity Action – Evidence – The value attached to the DNA test – The results of DNA test in determining whether the alleged father is the biological father of the child are considered as true because this test results demonstrate that they have no biological relationship or confirms that they have biological relationship which is over 99%. Facts: During their adolescence, Rekayabo and Habimana were in love. Later on, Rekayabo delivered a child named Niyigena Mugisha; this led Rekayabo to file a claim with the Primary Court of Nyamirambo requesting the Court to hold that the child named Niyigena Mugisha is born of Habimana, and the Court held that the child belongs to him basing on the documents he wrote recognizing the child Habimana was not satisfied with the ruling of the case and then appealed in the Intermediate Court arguing that though he was in a relationship with Rekayabo, her child Niyigena Mugisha is not his and that even those documents he wrote he has written them under the local authorities’ order and therefore he requested to test for DNA. The Court ruled that the child is his without considering the DNA test which he had requested basing rather on other evidences including the documents .

## Page 294

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 32 recognizing the child which he wrote or signed before the authorities and local residents. Habimana was not satisfied with the ruling of the case and appeals in the High Court stating that the Intermediate Court did not indicate that he requested to test for DNA in the trial meant to establish his paternity while it granted this request but it was frustrated by Rekayabo who never turned up for the test, and thereafter it relied on the evidence which were already submitted before while he does not agree with them. Held: The results of DNA test in determining whether the alleged father is the biological father of the child are considered as true because this test results demonstrate that in no way the alleged father could be the biological father of the child (it proves they have no biological relationship) or confirms that they have biological relationship which is over 99%. Therefore, the test demonstrating that Habimana Assoumani could not be the biological father of Ally Niyigenga Mugisha must be considered as true. Appeal has merit; With the Court fees to the respondent. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Organic Law n° 51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of Courts, article 106 (1).

## Page 295

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 33 Cases referred to: Prosecution v. Kambanda Hussein, RPAA 0054/09/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 30/06/2011. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] The case began in the Primary Court of Nyamirambo, whereby Rekayabo Hashura requested the Court to hold that the child named Niyigena Mugisha Ally is born of Habimana Assumani. The Court held that the child belongs to him. Habimana Assumani was not satisfied with that ruling and appealed against it in the Intermediate Court stating that, even if he knew Rekayabo Hashura, he is not the father of her child Niyigena Mugisha Ally and he rather requested to test for DNA. [2] The Intermediate Court relied on the documents which Habimana wrote on several occasions and found that, apart from his allegations that he wrote them under the authorities’ threat, he does not produce any evidence demonstrating he recognised the child as his under any duress. It also based on the fact that Habimana accepts that they fell in love in the course of their adolescence and thereafter Rekayabo gave birth to a child. Habimana recognised the child as his and provides his alimony and all these were put in black and white in documents he wrote himself recognising the child. The Court found HABIMANA v. REKAYABO 33

## Page 296

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 34 that those evidences comply with the provisions of article 328 of Law no 42/1988 Instituting the Preliminary Title and the Civil Code Book I which stipulates that the claim for seeking establishment of paternity is accepted in particular in cases mentioned by the same article including the unequivocal written or oral statement to the fact the man recognizes the child and the fact that the man accepts to well treat the child, caters for and educate the child as his father. The Court continued motivating that the fact that the parties were not able to test for DNA as they had requested, the Court could considered other evidences which confirm that Habimana used to recognise the child including the documents he wrote or signed recognizing the child as his before the authorities and local residents. The Court finds, therefore, that those evidences are enough to confirm that the child belongs to Habimana. Due to those grounds, the Court held that the child belongs to Habimana Assumani and ruled that the appealed judgment is sustained. [3] Habimana Assumani was not satisfied with the ruling, and appealed in this Court. He explained that he appealed to Intermediate Court requesting to go for DNA test because, even if he agrees that he fell in love with Rekayabo after recognising the child before the local authorities and was providing alimonies for him, Rekayabo began to inform friends of Habimana that the child does not belong to him which made him suspicious. He argues that the Intermediate Court ordered them to test for DNA and on the day of test Rekayabo never turned up, Habimana called her and she refused to come; but the Intermediate Court disregarded

## Page 297

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 35 all those facts in the judgment. He submitted that he has explained circumstances in which he wrote documents recognizing the child and that he admitted the child could be his; but he subjected this to the condition that after his birth they would go for DNA test. [4] The Court admits the second appeal of Habimana Assumani since article 106 (1) of Organic Law n° 51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of Courts stipulates that the High Court hears appealed civil cases heard on the second instance by the Intermediate Court when it does not set out whatsoever the basis for decisions. The High Court has considered the judgment delivered by the Intermediate Court as not setting out whatsoever the basis for decision because Habimana Assumani appealed requesting to test for DNA and the Court granted this because in its decision of 04 May 2012 it ordered for tests that would help for DNA test of Habimana Assumani and Niyigena Mugisha Ally. These medical test were not carried out and the judge does neither provide in the judgment the reasons why those medical tests were not conducted nor why he abandoned the DNA test which both parties agreed it would help them to know whether Habimana is really the biological father of the child; but rather chose to base on the evidences already available in the case file. [5] After admitting the appeal, the High Court ordered in its decision of 19 May 2013 to take blood samples of Habimana Assumani and Niyigena Mugisha Ally to carry out DNA test to help the Court determine HABIMANA v. REKAYABO 35

## Page 298

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 36 whether Niyigena Mugisha Ally is born of Habimana Assumani as confirmed Rekayabo Hashura, the mother of Niyigena Mugisha Ally,. [6] The tests were carried out and transferred to the Court by the Prosecutor General in his letter of 23 October 2013 and the hearing was reopened on 29 April 2014. [7] The issue in this case is to determine whether, according to the DNA test carried out, it should be confirmed that Niyigena Mugisha Ally is born of Habimana Assumani. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUES [8] After taking oath, the expert Dr Christa Augustin explains the way he used in DNA testing, demonstrating that there are inconsistencies with paternity in 10 out of 18 DNA – Short- Tandem – Repeat Systems. Therefore, in his conclusion, he confirms that Assumani Habimana does not have the paternally inherited allele of the child Ally Niyigena Mugisha in these 10 systems. Thus he cannot be the father of the child. [9] Rekayabo Hashura argues that she does not agree with the results and she prefers the use of other means because she, as the mother of the child, knows well that Habimana Assumani is the father of child. .

## Page 299

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 37 [10] The Court finds that Habimana Assumani and Rekayabo Hashura agreed in Intermediate Court and also in this Court that the DNA test is the one that should resolve their problem. Also, the Court finds that, apart from this, the confirmation of the expert who carried out the test must be considered because it is consistent with the other experts’ confirmation. They explain that where the child has a paternal allele that is not found in the tested man. In such cases, the paternity index [PI] is 0.0, the combined paternity index [CPI] is 0.0 and the probability of paternity is 0.0%1. The expert found the same for Ally Niyigena Mugisha and Assouman Habimana since he found that Assouman Habimana does not have the paternally inherited allele of the Child Ally Niyigena Mugisha. [11] The Court finds that, as for the value attached to the DNA test, the Supreme Court also held that the test results in determining whether the alleged father is the biological father of the child are considered as true because this test results demonstrate that in no way the alleged father could be the biological father of the child (it proves they have no biological relationship) or confirms that they have biological relationship which is over 99%2. Therefore, the test demonstrating that Habimana Assoumani could not be the biological father of Ally Niyigenga Mugisha must be considered as true.

1 See, http://www.genetica.com/GeneticaWebV2.nsf/XReadingtheResults. xsp, where they explain the reading of DNA TEST results. 2 Prosecution v. Kambanda Hussein, RPAA 0054/09/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 30/06/2011.( law report , no 11, pg 14) HABIMANA v. REKAYABO 37

## Page 300

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 38 [12] In light of the above explained grounds, the Court finds that the appeal of Habimana Assoumani has merit and the child Ally Niyigenga Mugisha is not born of his union with Rekayabo Hashura III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [13] Decides that the appeal of Habimana Assouman has merit; [14] Decides that the appeal of Rekayabo Hashura has no merit; [15] Decides that the ruling of the judgment RCA 0658/11/TGI/NYGErendered by Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge on 31/07/2012, is overturned; [16] Decides that the child Ally Niyigenga Mugisha is not born of Habimana Assumani; [17] Orders Rekayabo Hashura to pay the Court fees amounting to 75,000Frw starting with the deposited court fees. .

## Page 301

39 39 HARERIMANA ET AL v. SEBUKAYIRE [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCAA 0018/13/CS (Kayitesi Z., P.J., Mugenzi and Munyangeri, J.) December 24, 2014] Civil Procedure – Forced Intervention – New claims at the appeal level – Forced intervention of a party for the first time in appeal that could result in a sentencing judgment is inadmissible – Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, social and administrative procedure , article 118. Laws governing land – Modalities of land acquisition and registration – Conclusiveness of registered title – The ownership over land relies on the fact that the owner acquired it either in accordance with custom, or granted by a competent authority, or by purchase – The certificates of registration can be challenged and invalidated – The occupant with good faith of third- party’s land shall hand it back but is entitled to compensation for the value of the works she/he erected on it – Organic law Nº 08/2005 of 14/07/2005 determining the use and management of land in Rwanda, article 5 – Presidential Order Nº 97/01 of 18/06/2014 determining the functioning and the competences of the Registrar of Land Titles, articles 6(1o)and10(5o) – Law Nº 43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda, articles 5, 20 and 73. Contracts or obligation Law – Damages – Being dragged into lawsuits – The appellants should be

## Page 302

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 40 awarded damages for being dragged into lawsuits and compensation for counsel fees due to the fact that they incurred some expenses in courts – The appellants do not deserve to be awarded moral damages they requested because the responded occupied and built on the disputed plot of land with good faith – Damages and counsel fees prayed by the respondent should not be awarded to him because he did not indicate the loss incurred and indeed, he is the instigator of all these lawsuits. Facts: This case commenced in the Intermediate Court of Gasabo, in which the family members of Harerimana Gaspard and Mukangwije Thérèse represented by Harerimana Emmanuel filled a case against Sebukayire for illigal occupation of the plot of land which he registered in his names. The said family acquired the disputed plot of land iin 1988 from Karyango Sévérien. This happened after the exile and disappearence of Harerimana Gaspard and his spouse, leaving behind their minor children. The Intermediate Court ruled that the plot belongs to Harerimana Gaspard and ordered Sebukayire to hand it back to his children and pay various damages. Sebukayire appealed before the High Court arguing that he holds land titles delivered by the government and that damages he was ordered to pay should have been imposed to the government as the issuer of those titles. The High Court ruled that the case should have commenced before the Primary Court because disputes related to land, livestock and their succession are

## Page 303

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 41 referred to Primary Courts. It therefore quashed the ruling of the Intermediate Court and ordered the status quo. Harerimana Emmanuel appealed to the Supreme Court alleging that the High Court ruled beyond the scope of the request because none of the parties had, in the course of hearing, objected against the jurisdiction of the Intermediate Court, and that the issue relating to lack of jurisdiction was not the subject matter of appeal. He states in addition that, the subject matter in appellate level which was indeed the subject matter of the claim at first instance level before the Intermediate Court consists of a plot of land and not a land for agriculture, therefore he requests the Supreme Court to correct the errors in the decision of the High Court. In the course of the hearing, Sebukayire raised objections of inadmissibility of appeal with regards to decision on lack of jurisdiction because it was submitted beyond the time limit of 5 days prescribed by article 90 of the Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, social and administrative procedure as well as that of lack of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court based on the value of subject matter which is less than 50,000,000Frw provided for by article 28, 7º of the Organic Law nº 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. He raised another objection relating to the fact that Harerimana lacks legal status to represent his parents since he holds no certificate confirming that they disappeared or died, and that even the judgment relied HARERIMANA ET AL v. SEBUKAYIRE 41

## Page 304

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 42 upon by Harerimana which confirmes his status should not be considered.He reminded the court that this objection was raised in the High Court but was not examined. Counsel for Sebukayire prayedtocourt to order the forced intervention of the government. Held: 1. Forced intervention of a party for the first time at appellate level, that could result in a sentencing judgment contravenes the provision of article 118 of the Law N° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, social and administrative procedure. Therefore, the hearing should proceed with regards to the existing parties to the case. 2. The fact that Sebukayire was issued with the land title without indicating to the issuers the origin of the land he claimed to be his own, implies that he fraudulently received it since the formalities provided for by article 5 of the Organic Law Nº 08/2005 of 14/07/2005 determining the use and management of land in Rwanda which was in force at the time Sebukayire acquired the land titile; and article 5 of the Law Nº 43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda which states that the ownership of land relies on the fact that “the owner acquired it either in accordance with custom, or granted by a competent authority, or by purchase”, were not respected. However, apparently he occupied the land in good faith for a period of 10 years with no one claiming its ownership. 3. Article 23 of the Ministerial Order Nº 002/2008 of 01/04/2008 determining modalities of land registration which provides for unchallengeable character of the right

## Page 305

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 43 recorded on the land title should not be applied because it contravenes both chapter 10 and article 20 of Law No 43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda, which provides that land titles can be challenged and this position is supported by the provisions of articles 6(1o) and 10(5o) of the Presidential Order Nº 97/01 of 18/06/2014 determining the functioning and the competence of the Registrar of Land Titles and indeed, even the provision of article 73 of of the Law Nº 43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda states that all laws, orders and instructions implementing the aforementioned Organic Law No08/2005 of 15/07/2005 shall remain applicable as long as their provisions are consistent with this Law. 4. The plot of land in dispute belongs to Harerimana Gaspard and Mukangwije Thérèse, therefore the emphyteutic lease title Nº 0672/GAS/KAC registered in the names of Sebukayire Tharcisse and Umutoni Sarah should be invalidated and the Registrar of Land titles have to register the aforementioned land in the names of Harerimana Gaspard and Mukangwije Thérèse. 5. Sebukayire should not destroy his houses built on the land Nº 0672/GAS/KAC in disputebecause he occupied it with good faith. They should be owned by Harerimana Gaspard and Mukangwije Thérèse provided that their property managers pay a correlative compensation amounting to 33,589,068Frw as approved by valuation report requested by Harerimana Emmanuel which was not contested by Sebukayire. 6. Harerimana Emmanuel and his siblings should be awarded damages amounting to 1,500,000Frw HARERIMANA ET AL v. SEBUKAYIRE 43

## Page 306

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 44 encompassing those of being dragged into lawsuits and counsel’s fees incurred by Harerimana Emmanuel because Sebukayire denied to appear before local authorities for concilliation. However, they should not be awarded moral damages because Sebukayire occupied and exploited the land in good faith. 7. Relating to the destroyed woodland, the fish pond and store house alleged to have been destroyed, should not be examined in this case because they were not part of the claim and their values were not determined. 8. Damages and counsel’s fees requested by Sebukayire should not be awarded to him because he did not indicate the loss he incurred and indeed, he is the instigator of all these lawsuits. Appeal granted. Appealed judgment overruled. Court fees to the respondent. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law Nº 43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda, articles 5, 20 and 73 Law N° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, social and administrative procedure, article 118. Presidential Order Nº 97/01 of 18/06/2014 determining the functioning and the competences of the Registrar of Land Titles, articles 6(1o) and 10(5o). Organic law Nº 08/2005 of 14/07/2005 determining the use and management of land in Rwanda, article 5. .

## Page 307

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 45 No case law referred to. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] This case commenced in the Intermediate Court of Gasabo, where Harerimana Emmanuel filled a case against Sebukayire alleging that, he illegally occupied a plot of land which his father acquired from Karyango Sévérien in 1988 and after 1994, Sebukayire had it registered in his own names. This happened after the exile and disappearance of Harerimana Gaspard and his spouse in 1994 – to-date nobody knows the whereabouts of the couple, whether the couple is alive or not, nobody knows. T they left children who were still minor. The Intermediate Court found that the plot belonged to Harerimana Gaspard and ordered Sebukayire to give it back to his children and pay them also diverse damages. [2] Sebukayire appealed to the High Court alleging that lower court ruled that he fraudulently occupied the plot of land, disregarding the fact that he holds land titles delivered by the Government, and that he was made to pay damages, to the contrary, they should have been charged against the government which delivered the land title to him. [3] The High Court finding that Harerimana filed a suit against Sebukayire to the Intermediate Court in a HARERIMANA ET AL v. SEBUKAYIRE 45

## Page 308

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 46 dispute related to a plot of land (Cote 11); given also that Harerimana and his counsel Mulinzi failed to establish a difference between the plot of land and a land for agriculture located in the city; the High Court ruled that in accordance with article 67(2) of the Organic Law Nº 51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of courts which stipulates that “disputes related to land and livestock and their succession shall be tried by Primary Courts on first instance level; the case should have commenced in the Primary Court. The High Court quashed the ruling of the Intermediate Court and ordered the pristine state as before the existence of the case. [4] Harerimana Emmanuel appealed to the Supreme Court alleging that the High Court ruled beyond the scope of the request because none of the parties raised an objection concerning the jurisdiction of the Intermediate Court in the course of the hearing, and that the issue of lack of jurisdiction was not the subject of appeal. In addition, He based his appeal on the fact that the High Court judge changed the claim in disregard of the fact that, the subject matter on appellate level which was indeed the subject matter of the claim at first instance level before the Intermediate Court consists of a plot of land and not a land for agriculture. He therefore requests the Supreme Court to correct the errors in the decision of the High Court. [5] The hearing was conducted in public on 7 January 2014, on 11 February 2014 and 20 May 2014. Sebukayire Tharcisse was represented by Counsel Butare

## Page 309

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 47 Emmanuel while Harerimana Emmanuel was assisted by Counsel Mulinzi Jean de Dieu. [6] In the course of the hearing, Butare Emmanuel, the counsel for Sebukayire raised various objections. The first relates to inadmissibility of the appeal due to the fact that it was lodged beyond the prescribed time limit of 5 days provided by article 90 of the Law N° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure in relation to the decision concerning lack of jurisdiction. Another objection relates to the lack of jurisdiction by the Supreme Court because the value of the subject matter of the claim is less than 50,000,000Frw provided by the provision of article 28(7º) of the Organic Law Nº 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. In the interlocutory judgment Nº RCAA 0018/13/CS, rendered by the Supreme Court on 21/03/2014, the Supreme Court decided on those objections and found them with no merit. [7] Another objection raised by the counsel for Sebukayire concerns the lack of legal status by Harerimana Emmanuel to represent his parents as he does not hold any certificate confirming their disappearance or death. He further argues that even the judgment alleged to have accorded such status by Harerimana Emmanuel should not be considered; and reminded court that this objection was raised in the High Court but was not examined. HARERIMANA ET AL v. SEBUKAYIRE 47

## Page 310

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 48 [8] In the interlocutory judgment Nº RCAA 0018/13/CS rendered on 20 June 2014, the Court decided that, pursuant to the judgment RC 0252/14/TB/KCY rendered by the Primary Court of Kacyiru on 6 March 2014 which vested Harerimana Emmanuel with the power to administer the assets of his parents named Harerimana Gaspard and Mukangwije Thérèse who disappeared since 1994; the lack of legal status which obstructed Harerimana to be a party since the beginning of the pleadings, was overruled by that Primary Court of Kacyiru. It also decided on the pursuance of the hearing on 15 July 2014. [9] The counsel for Sebukayire further claimed for forced intervention of the Government but the Court found this forced intervention for the first time at appellate level wheresuch could result in a sentencing judgment contravenes the provision of article 118 of the Law N° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, social and administrative procedure. Therefore, it ordered the pursuit of the hearing with regards to the existing parties to the case. [10] Prior the deliberation of the case, the Court considered it appropriate to conduct an investigation in Kamutwa Cell where the plot is located and from the Rwanda Natural Resources Authority and to visit the plot itself in a bid to collect sufficient and useful information to the case. Indeed, it decided the investigation to be conducted in absesnce of the parties, pursuant to article 100 of the Nº 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production. The investigation

## Page 311

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 49 took place on 1st October 2014 and the outcome was presented to the parties for comments and be debated on in the reopenning of the hearing of 6 October 2014. II. ISSUES IN THE CASE AND THEIR ANALYSIS II.1. Concerning the ownership of the disputed plot of land. [11] Counsel Mulinzi Jean de Dieu for Harerimana Emmanuel states that the plot of land that Sebukayire pretends to own belongs to Harerimana Gaspard who is the father of his client. The basis of his statements relies no the sale contract concluded in 1988 between Harerimana Gaspard and Karyango (Cote 50), to the testimonies of Gisagara’s wife. GISAGARA is Karyango’s brother, Mukakimenyi who is Karyango’s spouse which was obtained from Kamutwa Cell administration report affirming that the plot of land was purchased by Harerimana Gaspard. He further argues that even if the sale contract is a copy of the original, but should be, considered as “a written prima facie evidence” and deemed with a probative force since it is the only available document. [12] The Counsel for Harerimana alleges in addition that, they continuously requested Sebukayire to justify the origin of the plot of land he claims to own but he could not, and that its emphyteutic lease of 11 June 1996 of which empowers him with the right over it was supposed to last for 3 years only, and indeed it is not HARERIMANA ET AL v. SEBUKAYIRE 49

## Page 312

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 50 registered in his names, rather it is registered in the names of Rwigamba; which created confusion as to how it was later registered in the names of Sebukayire. He further argues that, according to the provision of article 29 of the Constitution, the private property is inviolable such a way that even the government could not transfer it to anybody out of expropriation procedure and without a prior and fair compensation. [13] Concerning the investigation report, the counsel for Harerimana Emmanuel states that it indicates in addition that the plot of land belongs to his client’s father therefore it should be given back to him. Concerning the building located on the plot, he prayed that they should destroy them because he fraudulently occupied the plot of land. He further requests that Sebukayire should pay damages for the loss he caused. He finally prays for his client to be given back the plot of land and the court to uphold the Gasabo Intermediate Court’s ruling. [14] Counsel Butare for Sebukayire claims that Sebukayire did not occupy the plot of land fraudulently since he was legally awarded it by the Government through former MINITRAPE, in the lease contract N° L 23134 of 11 of September 1995 concluded in favour of Rwigamba François who was represented by his father Sebukayire and later during the systematic land registration, this was registered in his names and now, he holds the land certificate delivered by Rwanda Natural Resources Authority. [15] He indicated that the report issued by Kamutwa Cell administration relating to the said plot was drawn in

## Page 313

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 51 2011 while Sebukayire was issued with the plot on 5 June 2012, one year after the dispute was known and the fact that nobody has raised it implies that they acknowledged his tenure as lawful since he possessed it based on the emphyteutic lease agreement written in the names of his son Rwigamba, and it is this contract which was based on for being issued with this emphyteutic lease. Concerning the statements of the investigation report, indicating that the column reserved for the information relating to the origin of the land in land registers, being blank; he said that issues related to such would be best explained by the office in charge of land, and that it is not Sebukayire’s mistake. [16] The counsel for Sebukayire states in addition that the land title in possession of Sebukayire is an authentic deed delivered by the government as the owner of the land and should not be challenged. He concludes by praying to the Court to set aside the Kamutwa cell’s report and Harerimana’s purchase contract because those documents are more or less similar to Authentic Deed. THE VIEW OF THE COURT [17] The Court finds that there is a sale and purchase contract of woodland concluded on 1st August 1988 between Harererimana Gaspard and Karyango witnessed by Kamuhanda Sylvestre, Kajyibwami, Mathias and Gisagara Materne in the case file (cote 50). [18] There is also in the case file, the document obtained from the administration of Urwibutso village HARERIMANA ET AL v. SEBUKAYIRE 51

## Page 314

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 52 concerning the plot of land in dispute, whereby Gisagara Materne brother in law to Karyango admitted before court that he drafted that purchase contract of the said plot of land. He states that Harerimana purchased that plot of land in 1988, adding that he did not know how Sebukayire came to put structures in that land. This statement was affirmed by Mukanyirimpuhwe Emeritha who testifies that after the piece of land was bought by Harerimana from Karyango, he gave it to her for a while to use it for agricultural reasons but after 1994, she harvested once since the second time her crops were damaged by machines and she did not mind who owned them. Musonera Callixte who was the employee of Harerimana Gaspard before 1994 states that when he fled, there was still Harerimana Gaspard’s woodland, but when he returned in 1998 he found that there were buildings on that land whose owner he did not know. Ngezahayo Narcisse named owners of neighbouring plots of land to Harerimana Gaspard’s; who are: Pastor Ruzima Narcisse and Bizimungu Athanase. He states that he does not know how Sebukayire erected buildings on it (cotes 67-69). [19] The Court finds that Sebukayire was summoned by Administration of Urwibutso village and that of Kamutwa Cell to appear in order to explain on the Harerimana’s claim that land belongs to his father, but he did not appear (cote 70). However, during investigation, the Court found from the office of Kamutwa Cell the emphyteutic lease title Nº 672/GAS/KAC registered in the names of Sebukayire Tharcisse and Umutoni Sarah, and the Executive

## Page 315

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 53 Secretary of the Cell indicated that the request for the said papers was made through other organs, and not the cell administration that received the claim. [20] The court finds that in the land register held by the registrar of land titles found during investigation, the column reserved for the origin of land remains blank and Sebukayire failed to indicate how that land was transferred from Rwigamba to him and his wife Umutoni Sarah. This implies that he was given the land title without indicating to the competent authority the origin of the plot of land he claims to own from the government and this is in contradiction with the provision of article 5 of the Organic Law Nº 08/2005 of 14/07/2005 determining the use and management of land in Rwanda1 and article 5 of the Law Nº 43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda2 stating that: “the ownership over land shall rely on the fact that the owner acquired it either in accordance with custom, or granted by a competent authority, or by purchase”; and this indicates that Sebukayire acquired the land title, contrary to the

1Article 5 of the Organic Law Nº 08/2005 of 14/07/2005 determining the use and management of land in Rwanda states that: “Any person or association with legal personality that owns land either through custom, or who acquired it from competent authorities or who purchased it are allowed to own it on long term lease in conformity with provisions of this organic law”. 2Article 5 of the Law Nº 43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda provides that: “Every person who is in possession of land, acquired either in accordance with custom, or granted by a competent authority, or by purchase, is the recognized proprietor under an emphyteutic lease in accordance with the provisions of this law”. HARERIMANA ET AL v. SEBUKAYIRE 53

## Page 316

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 54 possible ways mentioned above,. He acquired it fraudulently, though he occupied the land in good faith and spent 10 years with it during which nobody claimed its ownership. [21] The Court farther finds that the statements of Sebukayire and his counsel suggesting that the holder of the emphyteutic lease title is the legitimate owner of the land as such instrument remains unchallengeable according to article 44 of the civil code Book II, in compliance with order of 06/02/1920 and article 23 of the Ministerial Order Nº 002/2008 of 01/04/2008 determining modalities of land registration3, should not be considered because the legislator modified all provisions of the order of 06/02/1920 as evidenced by the Title of Law Nº 43/2013 of 16/06/2013 and article 20 of the same Law which provides that “an Order of the Minister in charge of land shall specify modalities and procedures for cancellation of land registration”. [22] Court also finds that article 73 of the aforementioned Law Nº 43/2013 of 16/06/2013 stipulates that all laws, orders and instructions implementing the aforementioned Organic Law

3 “Article 23 of the Ministerial Order Nº 002/2008 of 01/04/2008 determining modalities of land registration” stipulates: The Certificate of Registration on the Register of Titles is full evidence for the right of ownership, emphyteutic lease or real rights or encumbrances (real charges) that are specified on it. The right of ownership which is recorded thereon cannot be challenged, even though the Certificate was drawn on basis of a cancellable or invalid contract of alienation, or a court order obtained by surprise.

## Page 317

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 55 No08/2005 of 15/07/2005 shall remain applicable as long as their provisions are consistent with this Law, implying that article 23 of the Ministerial Order Nº 002/2008 of 01/04/2008 as mentioned above, which provides for the unchallengeable character cannot be followed because it is inconsistent with Title 10 and article 20 of the Law Nº 43/2013 of 16/06/2013 which provides that the land titles can be invalidated and this position is supported by article 6(1o) and 10(5o) of the presidential order Nº 97/01 of 18/06/2014 determining the functioning and competences of the Registrar of Land Titles4. [23] In accordance with the explanations and motivations and the legal provisions submitted, Court considers that the land in dispute belongs to Harerimana Gaspard and Mukangwije Thérèse, and therefore the emphyteutic lease title Nº 0672/GAS/KAC of the plot of land located in Urwibutso Village, Kamutwa Cell, Kacyiru Sector, Gasabo District in Kigali City registered in the names of Sebukayire Tharcisse and Umutoni Sarah should be invalidated, and the Registrar of land titles should register it from the names of Sebukayire Tharcisse and to those of Harerimana Gaspard and Mukagwije Thérèse.

4Article 6(1o) of the Presidential Order No 97/01 of 18/06/2014 determining the functioning and competences of the Registrar of Land Titles provides that: “Especially, the Council shall have the responsibility to: decide on the cancellation of land title;” while its article 10(5o) states that: the Registrar of Land Titles shall have following responsibility: …5o to cancel certificate of land registration in accordance with the law”. HARERIMANA ET AL v. SEBUKAYIRE 55

## Page 318

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 56 II.2. Concerning the houses built on the plot in dispute. [24] Counsel Mulinzi Jean de Dieu for Hererimana states that at the time they filed the case to the Intermediate Court, the subject matter concerned the land and the house at it worth 33,589,068Frw as shown by the established valuation for that purpose of establishing the value and that the fact that there exists a storeyed house, implies the existence of its annexes. He added that if the court finds that they were constructed by Sebukayire, he prayed for its removal because he will have erected them in bad faith. [25] Counsel Butare for Sebukayire states that his client found that plot empty and erected on it the buildings which are still standing, and therefore he does not perceive how the counsel for Harerimana alleges that they belong to his client. THE OPINION OF THE COURT [26] The court finds that the statements of the counsel for Harerimana that the existence of a storeyed house constructed by Harerimana implies the existence of its annexes in the plot of land in contestation, should not be considered because the Chief of Urwibutso Village and the executive Secretary of Kamutwa Cell informed the Court during the investigation that the buildings at the plot of land were constructed by Sebukayire, and this is supported by the statements of Harerimana Emmanuel who personally testified that he does not remember

## Page 319

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 57 whether the plot contained a house; that of Musonera Callixte, a former Harerimana Gaspard’s worker who mentioned that he fled in 1994 when the land was only accommodating woodland which belonged to Harerimana Gaspard, and the testimony of Mukanyirimpuhwe Emeritha who testified that she used to cultivate on that land but that after 1994,machines came and levelled the ground. Therefore, pursuant to article 3 of the Law Nº 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production which provides that “every plaintiff must prove his claim” while Harerimana and his counsel failed to prove it; the houses at the plot in contestation belong to Sebukayire. [27] The Court finds in addition that by the time Sebukayire Tharcisse constructed houses in the plot belonging to Harerimana Gaspard and his wife, were in exile and their children including Harerimana Emmanuel were still minors, and until 2011, they had not yet submitted their claim to local administration. This implies that Sebukayire believed he owned the land and put up buildings in good faith. [28] Court finds therefore that even if article 35 paragraph 3 of the aforementioned Law Nº 43/2013 of 16/06/2013 provides that constructions erected by a person on a piece of land, that is not his/hers, without authorization shall be requested to remove such constructions without prejudice to claim indemnities for any damages5, the prayer of the counsel for Harerimana

5Article 35 paragraph 3 of the Law Nº 43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda stipulates that: “When buildings or crops HARERIMANA ET AL v. SEBUKAYIRE 57

## Page 320

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 58 requesting Sebukayire to remove his buildings from the land plot cannot be considered because he occupied it with good faith as explained in paragraph 20. Therefore the buildings in plot Nº 0672/GAS/KAC should be owned by Harerimana Gaspard and Mukangwije Thérèse, provided that the administrators of their assets pay related compensation amounting to 33,589,068Frw based on the value asserted by the valuation report done under request of Harerimana Emmanuel since it was not contested by Sebukayire. II.3. Concerning damages and other requests in the case. [29] Counsel Mulinzi for Harerimana prays to the court to award his client 3,000,000Frw of moral damages; 1,000,000Frw for being dragged into lawsuits and 500,000Frw for counsel fees. He prays in addition that Sebukayire should be held liable to pay compensation for the cost of the materials of storeyed house in plot Nº 671 he destroyed; the woodland he cut down and fish pond he scratched out. [30] Counsel Butare for Sebukayire argued that concerning damages prayed by Harerimana due to fish pond, woodland and destroyed house are groundless because they constitute a new claim which was not subject to debate. To the contrary, he prayed to court to

have been developed by a person on the land that is not his/hers through procedures that are contrary to laws or agreement with land owner, the later has the right to request the person who performed them to remove such development without prejudice to the land owner to claim indemnities for any damages”.

## Page 321

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 59 award 3,000,000Frw as general damages for being dragged into lawsuits and 1,000,000Frw for counsel’s fees. THE OPINION OF THE COURT [31] Concerning damages prayed by the Counsel Mulinzi for Harerimana Emmanuel and his siblings, the court finds that he deserves 1,000,000Frw for being dragged into lawsuits because Sebukayire denied appearing before local administration which summoned him for conciliation as confirmed by local authorities, which led Harerimana to resort to the court and incur losses. He should also be awarded 500,000Frw as counsel’s fees because he appeared in court with a lawyer, all damages amounting to 1,500,000Frw. [32] However, the Court finds that he should not be awarded the requested moral damages, because as explained above, Sebukayire occupied and built on the plot in good faith. Concerning the destroyed woodland, fish pond and building materials which is said to have been destroyed, the court finds that they have not been referred to it and their value established; therefore they cannot be examined in this case. [33] Regarding damages requested by Sebukayire and his counsel, they should not be awarded to him because he did not indicate the loss incurred and indeed, he is the instigator of all these lawsuits. HARERIMANA ET AL v. SEBUKAYIRE 59

## Page 322

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 60 III. DECISION OF THE COURT [34] Court decides that the appeal lodged by Harerimana Emmanuel who represents his siblings has merit. [35] Court decides that the plot of land Nº 0672/GAS/KAC located in Urwibutso village, Kamutwa Cell, Kacyiru Sector, Gasabo District belongs to Harerimana Gaspard and his spouse Mukangwije Thérèse. [36] Court quashes the emphyteutic lease title Nº 672/GAS/KAC registered in the names of Sebukayire Tharcisse and Umutoni Sarah, and orders the Registrar of Land Titles to register it in the names of Harerimana Gaspard and Mukangwije Thérèse. [37] Court orders Harerimana Emmanuel and his siblings he represents who manage their parents’ assets to pay the compensation amounting to 33,589.068Frw for the buildings at plot Nº 672/GAS/KAC to Sebukayire. [38] Court orders Sebukayire Tharcisse to pay Harerimana Emmanuel and his siblings 1,500,000Frw for compensation of counsel and procedural costs. [39] Court overrules the ruling of the judgment RCA 0579/12/HC/KIG. [40] Court orders Sebukayire Tharcisse to pay 100,000Frw of court fees.

## Page 323

61 61 NYIRAHABYARIMANA ET AL v. NTEZIRYAYO [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCAA 0086/11/CS (Mukanyundo, P.J., Rugabirwa and Gatete G., J.) January 30, 2015] Civil procedure – Redress before the Supreme Court – Screening decision – The relevant date for computation of appeal period for the litigant who appeared in the last hearing and informed of the judgment delivery date, but which was postponed to a future date – Notification of the judgment – If the litigant appears in the last hearing and is informed of the judgment delivery date, the time for appeal shall be computed from the date of the pronouncement of the judgment even if he/she did not appear or was not represented – The default of the party at the day of judgment delivery does not prevent the delivered judgment to be considered as an adversarial trial – No provision provides that the party who appeared in the last hearing should be notified of the ruling even if the pronouncement was postponed on a future date – Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 163(1) – Organic Law n° 01/2004 of 29/01/2004 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 47(1). Facts: Nyirahabyarimana and her daughter Murekatete initiated a third-party opposition claim in the Intermediate Court of Muhanga against the judgment RC

## Page 324

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 62 5012/17/2003 rendered by the First Instance Court of Gitarama whereby it decided that Nteziryayo is the son of Uwamungu Azarias, and ordered that all his assets be divided, and ½ returning to Nyirahabyarimana and the rest allocated to the heirs of Uwamungu. Nyirahabyarimana and Murekatete were not satisfied with the ruling and appealed against it in the High Court, Chamber of Nyanza; but it ruled that their appeal lacked merit, and they appealed again to the Supreme Court. The screening judge decided that their appeal is not admitted because it was belatedly submitted. They complained to the President of the Supreme Court arguing that their appeal should have been admitted because they lodged it within the prescribed period because the date which should have been considered for computatiing appeal period is 27 April 2010, meaning the day they were notified of the ruling of the judgment by the Executive Secretary of Nyakabanda II Cell, instead of being 18 March 2010 as decided by the screening judge because the judgment they appealed against was heard on 18 January 2010 and the judge fixed the date of delivery on 03 /03/2010. However, it was not delivered on the very date and the delivery was rather adjourned on18 March 2010, the date which the parties were never notified of. Held: 1. If a party appears in the last hearing and is informed of the judgment delivery date, the time limit for appeal shall be computed from the date of the pronouncement of the judgment even if he/she did not

## Page 325

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 63 appear or was not represented as what is relevant is to have been informed of the date of judgment delivery. 2. The default of the party on the day of the judgment delivery does not prevent the delivered judgment to be considered as an adversarial trial, and he/she bears all related consequences. 3. No provision provides that the party who appeared in the last hearing should be notified of the ruling of the case even if the pronouncement was postponed to a future date, because a party who is present during the decision delivery proceeding learns the new date. Thus, his/her failure to appear remains his/her fault of which he/she takes responsibility. Appeal is not admitted. Court fees to the appellants. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 163(1). Organic Law n° 01/2004 of 29/01/2004 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 47(1). Cases referred to: MAERSK RWANDA Ltd v. SONARWA SA, RCOMA 0134/11/CS, rendered by the Supreme Court on 3 May 2013 NYIRAHABYARIMANA ET AL v. NTEZIRYAYO 63 .

## Page 326

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 64 Prosecution v. Ntawiringiribyisi, RPA 0258/08/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 30 November 2009, Association Umwungeri v. Mushayija, RADA 00034/09/CS, rendered by the Supreme Court on 12 February 2010. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] Nyirahabyarimana Marcelline and her daughter Murekatete Chantal sued Nteziryayo Dieudonné before the Intermediate Court of Muhanga in a third party opposition against the judgment RC 5012/17/2003 rendered by the First Instance Court of Gitarama which confirmed that Nteziryayo Dieudonné is a son of Uwamungu Azarias, and ordered that all his assets be divided and ½ returning to Nyirahabyarimana and the rest allocated to the heirs of Uwamungu. [2] Nyirahabyarimana Marcelline and Murekatete Chantal were not satisfied with the ruling and appealed to the High Court, Chamber of Nyanza, which delivered the judgment RCA 0110/09/HC/NYA on 18 March 2010 whereby it declared their appeal without merit. [3] Once again, Nyirahabyarimana Marcelline and Murekatete Chantal were not satisfied with the ruling and appealed to the Supreme Court. Their claim was .

## Page 327

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 65 recorded on nº RCAA 0089/10/CS and the judge designed for screening the case decided, in his decision nº RCIV 0045/Préx-ex/11/CS of 10 June 2011, that their claim is not admitted because it was belatedly filed. [4] In motivating his position, the Judge stated that the appeal claim of Nyirahabyarimana and Murekatete did not respect the period of one month which is provided for by article 47 of Organic Law nº 01/2004 of 29/01/2004 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, since the judgment appealed against was delivered on 18/03/2010 while they submitted their appeal on 25 May 2010. [5] Nyirahabyarimana Narcelline and Murekatete Chantal were notified of that decision on 21 July 2011, and appealed against it on 3 August 2011, which means within 15 days which were provided for by article 55 of Organic Law n° 01/2004, therefore their appeal should be admitted and examined because it was submitted within the prescribed period. [6] The hearing of the case was conducted in public on 6 January 2015 where Nyirahabyarimana Marcelline and Murekatete Chantal were represented by Counsel Ingabire Gaudence while Nteziryayo Dieudonné was represented by Counsel Nizeyimana Boniface. NYIRAHABYARIMANA ET AL v. NTEZIRYAYO 65

## Page 328

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 66 II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES Whether the appeal of Nyirahabyarimana Marcelline and Murekatete was belatedly filed. [7] Counsel Ingabire Gaudence representing Nyirahabyarimana Marcelline and Murekatete Chantal stated that the appeal of her clients should have been admitted because they filed it within the prescribed period since the date which should have been considered to compute the appeal period is 27 April 2010, i.e the time when they were notified of the ruling by the executive secretary of the Cell of Nyakabanza II, instead of being 18 March 2010 considered the screening judge because the judgement they appealed against was heard on 18 January 2010 and the judge scheduled the delivery on 03 /03/2010, the date on which it was not, however, delivered; but was rather adjourned on 18 March 2010. This new date was not notified to the litigants. [8] Asked why her clients did not appear on the day of the judgment pronouncement while they were notified of the date of delivery and they did not even want to know the ruling afterwards, she replied that this was due to lack of money for transport and ignorance of the law. [9] Counsel Nizeyimana Boniface for Nteziryayo Dieudonné argued that the appeal filed by Nyirahabyarimana Marcelline and Murekatete Chantal should not be admitted since it has been initiated after the prescribed period as they appealed on 25 May 2010 against the judgment delivered on 18 March 2010, that is beyond one month that was prescribed by article 47 of

## Page 329

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 67 Organic Law nº 01/2004 of 29/01/2014 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. [10] He explained that Nyirahambimana Marcelline and Murekatete Chantal have no reason to argue that they should have been notified of the new judgment delivery date because they had appeared in the last hearing of the case whereby they were informed of the pronouncement date which was 3 March 2010 and signed to the minutes of the hearing. It is clear that they should have appeared for judgment delivery on that very day. The fact that the pronouncement initially scheduled on 3 March 2010 did not take place and was instead postponed on 18 March 2010 implies that no further notification was to be done because if they had appeared, they should have learnt the new date of 18 March 2010. THE VIEW OF THE COURT [11] The legal issues to be analysed in this case include that of determining the reference date for computation of appeal period for the party who appeared in the last hearing and informed of the date of judgment delivery which is not, however, delivered on the very date; but the Court drafts the minutes indicating reasons thereof and date on which judgment delivery is postponed. Another issue to be analysed is to know whether the party who appeared in the last hearing and informed of the delivery date should be notified of the ruling of the case. NYIRAHABYARIMANA ET AL v. NTEZIRYAYO 67

## Page 330

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 68 [12] Article 163, paragraph 1 of Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, social and administrative procedure as well as article 47, paragraph 1 of Organic Law n° 01/2004 of 29/01/2004 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court which provide that “the time limit for lodging an appeal shall be one (1) month. That time shall start running from the day the final judgment was pronounced in presence of both parties or when the party did not appear after having been notified of the day of the pronouncement”. [13] The aforementioned legal provisions indicate that if the party was present at the last hearing and informed of the day of the pronouncement of the judgment, the time limit for appeal shall run from the day of the delivery of the judgment even if he/she failed to appear or was not represented because what is relevant is the notification of the judgment delivery date to him/her. [14] As for the question of knowing the reference date for computation of appeal period for the party who appeared in the last hearing and is informed of the date of judgment delivery which is not, however, delivered on the very date; but the Court drafts the minutes indicating reasons thereof and date on which judgment delivery is postponed, the answer is found in the provisions of the aforementioned articles 163 and 47 because it is obvious that the party who appears in the pronouncement of the judgment shall clearly know whether the pronouncement took place or if it was postponed; and therefore be aware of the future date.

## Page 331

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 69 The default of the party on the day of the judgment delivery does not prevent the delivered judgment from being considered as rendered in adversarial trial, and he/she is responsible for all related consequences. [15] The Court finds that, on the issue of whether the party who was present at the last hearing and informed of the date of judgment pronouncement should be notified of the ruling of the case; the grounds submitted by Nyirahabyarimana Marcelline and Murekatete Chantal that the time limit for appeal for them should be computed from the day they were notified of the ruling of the case are without merit because no legal provision provides for the notification of the ruling of the case to the party who was present in the last hearing and informed of the pronouncement date even in case it is postponed to a future date because the present party learns the date on which the pronouncement is postponed. Therefore, Nyirahabyarimana Marcelline and Murekatete Chantal failure to appear on the day of pronouncement on 18 March 2010 is their fault of which they have to take responsibility. [16] In addition, Nyirahabyarimana Marcelline and Murekatete Chantal cannot rely on their default on the date of judgment pronouncement and argue they should have been notified of the ruling by considering it as a judgment by default since they were informed of the date of pronouncement of the ruling of the case; but did not appear or send their representatives; especially that the said notification was not necessary and should not , therefore, impact on the computation of time period for NYIRAHABYARIMANA ET AL v. NTEZIRYAYO 69

## Page 332

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 70 appeal as they argue. This is also the position held by this Court in various cases1 whereby it ruled that the reference date for computing the period of appeal for the party who was informed of the pronouncement of the judgment in the last hearing should not correspond to the date the defaulting party was notified of the ruling while this notification was not necessary; but rather the day of its delivery where the judgment was delivered after the postponement of the pronouncement date decided in the public hearing without it being necessary to notify the decision to the defaulting parties. [17] In light of the motivation above, the Court finds that the screening judge decision against which the appeal was lodged should not be modified because it was taken according to the law. Therefore, the appeal of Nyirahabyarimana Marcelline and Murekatete Marie Chantal is without merit. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [18] It finds without merit the appeal lodged against the screening decision by Nyirahabyarimana Marcelline and Murekatete Chantal.

1Like in the case nº RCOMA 0134/11/CS, MAERSK RWANDA Ltd v. SONARWA SA rendered on 3/5/2013, In the case nº RPA 0258/08/CS, Ntawiringiribyisi Théoneste v. Ubushinjacyaha rendered on 30/11/2009, in the case nº RADA 00034/09/CS, Association Umwungeri v. Mushayija François rendered on 12/02/2010.

## Page 333

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 71 [19] It orders them to jointly pay the court fees amounting to 100,000Frw, of which everybody shall pay ½; that is 50,000Frw. NYIRAHABYARIMANA ET AL v. NTEZIRYAYO 71

## Page 335

73 LABOUR CASE

## Page 337

75 75 BIZIMANA v. CIMERWA Ltd [Rwanda HIGH COURT, CHAMBER OF RUSIZI – R.S0C.A 0003/13/HC/RSZ (Kanyegeri, P.J.) January 30, 2014] Labour law – Termination of employment contract – Gross negligence – The employment contract can be terminated without notice in case of gross negligence by one of the parties – The law regulating labour does not provide that the employer has to pay damages because of failure to inform the employee of the gross negligence within 48 hours – Law nº 13/2009 of 27/05/2009 regulating labour in Rwanda, article 32. Facts: Bizimana sued CIMERWA Ltd in the Intermediate Court requesting for damages due to unfair dismissal. This Court ruled that his claim has no merit; but CIMERWA Ltd was ordered to pay Bizimana the money for his final dues. Bizimana was not contented with the rulings of the case and appealed in the High Court, Chamber of Rusizi arguing that the Court at first instance held that he committed a gross negligence whereas criminal liability is determined by competent organs and, even though there might have been gross negligence, the termination of the contract requires a notice of 48 hours and if not so damages are charged. CIMERWA Ltd affirms that the investigation carried out by the court confirmed that Bizimana stole an axle, which is regarded as a gross negligence and he did not suffer any prejudice for not being informed of that gloss

## Page 338

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 76 negligence. Concerning the final dues it states that Bizimana does not demonstrate the loss he incurred due to not getting it. Held: 1. The employment contract can be terminated in case of gross negligence by one of the parties. 2. The law regulating labour does not provide that the employer has to pay damages because of failure to inform the employee of the gross negligence within 48 hours. 3. The employee should neither be awarded the damages for the employer’s failure to deliver the work certificate because it is clear that it was issued nor be awarded extra hours and paid leave damages since they were paid to him as indicated in the final dues document made by employer and the employee does not demonstrate how these fees were wrongly calculated. Appeal has no merit; The appealed judgment is sustained; Court fees on the appellant. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law nº 13/2009 of 27/05/2009 regulating labour in Rwanda, article 32. No case referred to.

## Page 339

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 77 Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] Bizimana sued his former employer CIMERWA Ltd claiming for the damages due to the unfair dismissal. The Intermediate Court of Rusizi which was first seized with this claim ruled that it has no merit; but CIMERWA was ordered to pay to Bizimana three hundred eighty thousand, seven hundred and eighty three Rwandan francs (388,783) of final dues. [2] Bizimana was not satisfied with the court’s judgment and appealed in this Court. The issue to be analysed in this case is the grounds of appeal of Bizimana, which is the gross negligence which was not well understood as well as its consequences. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUE Whether the court misconstrued “gross negligence” and the related damages. [3] In the hearing of 10/01/2014; Muhimanyi, the counsel for Bizimana submits that the ground of their appeal is that the court erred and held that Bizimana committed a gross negligence irrespective of the fact that criminal liability is confirmed by a competent authorities, because, even if there might have been gross negligence, termination of the contract requires a notice of 48 hours and if this is not the case damages are BIZIMANA v. CIMERWA Ltd 77

## Page 340

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 78 charged; because even the instrument “axle” which Bizimana took away from the factory was his and he had asked for the permission to use it therein and he was allowed to do so. [4] Counsel Nyandwi representing CIMERWA submits that the investigation carried out by the Court revealed that Bizimana stole the instrument, which was thus interpreted as a gross negligence, with more reason that Bizimana proved no prejudice resulting from either the fact he was not given his final dues on time or he was not notified of the gross negligence. [5] Even if Bizimana says that he was unfairly dismissed because the instrument he took away from the factory was his of which he had requested for the permission to use it therein, he does not deny that he failed to produce the receipt thereof. That Cimerwa considered it as theft committed or attempted by Bizimana and immediately dismissed him on the ground of gross negligence is understandable; especially that if these instruments were for Bizimana as he alleges or had he had the permission of taking them away from the factory he would not have failed to adduce evidence thereof. [6] As explained in the appealed judgment, the termination of employment contract due to gross negligence as provided by article 32 paragraph 2 of Law n° 13/2009 of 27/05/2009 regulating labour in Rwanda does not provide that the employer has to pay damages due to failure to give notice to the employee guilty of this negligence within the 48 hours contrary to the notice

## Page 341

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 79 provided for in the first paragraph of this provision, especially that the letter dismissing him was written on 27 November 2012,while this gross negligence was committed on 25 November 2012. [7] Regarding the other claims of Bizimana regarding his former work including the employment certificate, it is obvious that the latter was issued on 08 December 2012 and he cannot, therefore, get the damages for this. As for the extra time he was not paid and paid leave, CIMERWA cannot pay any damages thereof because its representative explains that the dismissal benefits were paid as indicated in the final dues document drafted by CIMERWA and Bizimana has not demonstrated that this amount of money he was given is not sufficient. III. DECISION OF THE COURT. [8] It decides that the appeal of Bizimana Antoine has no merit. [9] It decides that the ruling of judgment nº R.SOC 0005/13/TGI/RSZ rendered by the Intermediate Court of Rusizi on 11/10/2013 is sustained. [10] It rules that Bizimana has lost the case. [11] It orders him to pay the court fee equal to eleven thousand two hundred Rwandan francs (11,200Frw) which includes the court fee charged in the appealed judgment; he should pay it beginning with the deposited BIZIMANA v. CIMERWA Ltd 79

## Page 342

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 80 court fees, failure to pay it within 8 days, that amount will be deducted from his assets through government coercion.

## Page 343

81 COMMERCIAL CASES

## Page 345

83 83 GAJU v. ACCESS BANK [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCOMA 0138/12/SC (Nyirinkwaya, P.J., Hatangimbabazi and Hitiyaremye, J.) May 16, 2014] Contracts or obligation law – Securities – Suretyship contract – Express information to the surety – The surety cannot be held liable for the payment of a loan as long as he /she was not expressly informed about it, because it is the obligation of the creditor to provide him/her with information in order to allow him/her to know the terms of the obligation he/she commits to – Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contract or obligations, article 555. Contracts or obligation law – Damages for being dragged into lawsuits and counsel fees – No damage for being unfairly sued could be granted to the party in the case when it has no merit, but if some of his/her grounds had merit in appellate level and that he/she hired an advocate, advocate fees are granted upon court’s discretion. Facts: ACCESS BANK RWANDA Ltd granted a loan of 25,000,000Frw to Twagira Azzy, and this debt was secured by Gaju his wife; and this debt has been fully paid as agreed by both parties. Later, Azzy was granted another loan amounting to 12,000,000Frw by the same bank and it was secured by his house. He defaulted to pay the loan, and the bank sued him before the Commercial High Court together with his wife Gaju Cynthia, where the Court declared the claim of ACCESS

## Page 346

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 84 BANK to be valid and both Twagira Azzy and Gaju lost the case. Gaju was not satisfied with the decision and appealed against it before the Supreme Court claiming ignorance about the loan of 12,000,000Frw granted to her husband by ACCESS BANK. Furthermore, she stated that she did never guaranteed the new loan as she did for the first one and that there is no guarantee encumbered on her matrimonial house since it is not registered as provided for by the law, She finally requested damages for being dragged into lawsuits and counsel fees. The Bank argues that it was unnecessary to inform Gaju about the second loan basing on the suretyship contract that she signed whereby she agreed to secure all other future loans her husband will be granted, thus holding both responsible for payment of that loan they are sued for. The bank argues in addition that the contract on encumbered house has no time expiry, and indeed, Twagira encumbered it as a matrimonial house and this was agreed upon by Gaju through the suretyship contract they signed. ACCESS Bank ended stating that Gaju does not deserve to be awarded any damages because involving her in lawsuit was the only option for it to recover the debt. Held: 1. In case a secured loan through suretyship was paid, and after the debt is paid the borrower is granted another loan; the surety is not considered as securing the second loan as long as she was not expressly informed about it, because it is the obligation of the lender to provide him/her with information in order to allow

## Page 347

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 85 him/her to know the terms of the obligation he/she commits to. 2. When it is proven that the surety was not involved in the suretyship contract, the guaranty cannot be considered as valid since he/she was not informed for his/her engagement. 3. No damage for being unfairly sued could be granted to the party in the case when it has no merit, but if some of his grounds had merit in appellate level and that he/she hired an advocate, advocate fees are granted upon court’s discretion. Appeal has merit. Judgment RCOM 0087/12/HCC is overturned. Court fees are charged to the respondent. Statute and statutory instruments referred to: Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contract or obligations, article 555. No case referred to. Authors cited: Thierry Bonneau, Droit Bancaire, 7é éd., Montchrestien, Domat Droit Privé, 2007, p. 525. Dominique Legeais, Le cautionnement, Edition Economica, 1995, pp.27-28, 40. GAJU v. ACCESS BANK 85

## Page 348

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 86 Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] On 28/04/2006, ACCESS BANK RWANDA Ltd gave a loan of 25.000.000Frw to Twagira Azzy, and this debt was guaranteed by Gaju Cynthia as proven by the “certificate of security bonds on joint and indivisible liability” signed on the above mentioned date, and also in Article 11 of the contract made, it is said that she agreed that the mortgage of the matrimonial home issued by her husband would constitute the payment, in case Twagira fails to pay, but both parties to the case admitted that the debt has been paid. [2] On 24/04/2007, the bank gave Twagira Azzy another loan of 12,000,000Frw, and both parties agreed that this debt would be paid within 24 months, and the borrower agreed to mortgage his house located in Kagarama Sector, Kicukiro District as a guaranty. [3] Twagira Azzy breached the contract when he failed to perform his duties in the contract by paying the debt of 12,000,000Frw as agreed and, the bank sued him with Gaju Cynthia before the Commercial High Court. The case claim was registered on RCOM 0087/12/HCC and the case was decided on 29/06/2012, and found the claim of ACCESS BANK RWANDA Ltd with merit and both Twagira Azzy and Gaju Cynthia lost it, and were ordered to pay to ACCESS BANK RWANDA Ltd the

## Page 349

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 87 amount of 25,230,942Frw and 1,009,550Frw for the proportional right. [4] Gaju Cynthia was not satisfied with the decision and appealed against it before the Supreme Court arguing that ACCESS BANK did not respect her rights as a client with regard to the loan contract of 12,000,000Frw that this bank made with Twagira. She goes on to state that ACCESS BANK based on the strong position it had, and the articles which does not protect her as weaker party who is ignorant about the bank transactions and violated her rights. In addition, She states that she did not admit to the debt that she was not aware of, more especially when it could have follow the same process as the one she signed before in the loan contract she guaranteed for 25.000.000Frw. Therefore she finds her matrimonial home not mortgaged as ACCESS BANK wished it to be because it is not registered as provided for by the law. [5] The case was heard in public on 04/04/2014, Me Mugemangango Jean Nepo pleading on behalf of Gaju Cynthia, while Me Bugingo Jean Bosco pleaded on behalf of ACCESS BANK, and Me Shema Gerard pleaded on behalf of Twagira Azzy. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES. 1. Knowing whether Gaju Cynthia guaranteed the loan of 12,000,000Frw that Twagira Azzy was given by ACCESS. GAJU v. ACCESS BANK 87

## Page 350

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 88 [6] The Counsel for Gaju Cynthia argues in appeal against the decision of the court that ordered her together with her husband Twagira to pay the loan of ACCESS BANK of 12,000,000Frw she was not aware of, that she did not guarantee it as it happened in the first loan of 25,000,000Frw. [7] Gaju’s counsel goes on to argue saying that the fact that Twagira Azzy went back and signed for another loan contract of 12,000,000Frw with the bank and the Bank confirming Gaju to continue being the guarantee to that second loan without notifying her, is regarded as violation of the right of the customer who is waiting for services as it is provided for in Article 33 of the Law relating to competition and consumer protection. [8] He said that ACCESS BANK professionally knows what it does , and refusing to call and explain to Gaju their client about the second loan was violating her rights because she had be. Informed at least about the amount of the loan given, the period of payment, the percentage of interest rate per year and other loan related issues. [9] The Counsel for ACCESS BANK argues that ACCESS BANK based on the contract Gaju Cynthia signed known as “the act of guaranty on joint liability” on the loan of 25,000,000Frw given to her husband, where in its first article, it is clearly stated that she will guarantee other loans that Twagira will take, and that Gaju after reading it as an intellectual person , she signed it freely committing herself,, while in its article 11, she consented together with her husband to give their house

## Page 351

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 89 for guarantee, therefore, he states that the Bank found it not necessary for Gaju Cynthia to be notified of the second loan of 12,000,000Frw since there was a mortgage which was given before and it continued to be given as a guaranty. [10] The counsel for ACCESS BANK in conclusion says that neither Gaju Cynthia nor her husband Twagira Azzy, none of them revealed that the mortgage was no more belonging to them, that’s why they have to jointly be held responsible for the debt they are sued for. [11] The counsel for Twagira Azzy on behalf of his client admits the loan and that he is ready to pay it, he also requests the court to sustain the judgement of the Commercial High Court saying that he is ready to start paying the loan after the decision is taken, that’s why she desires that delayed payment interests be waved. THE VIEW OF THE COURT [12] With regard to “Surety contract/ guaranty”, Article 555 of the civil code book III, provides that “the guaranty is not presumed, it has to be express that it cannot be extended far from the limits in which it was signed for”. [13] The legal scholar in banking law Thierry Bonneau, in his book called “Droit Bancaire”, in the part regarding the right of the guarantor of the bank loan, explains that “the issuing of a loan joins two people, who may be having different capacities economically, that’s GAJU v. ACCESS BANK 89

## Page 352

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 90 why the protection of the weaker party is an obligation in all activities concerning the loan even in others which are not related to it, the weaker parties have to be protected who are the borrower and the guarantor”1 [14] Regarding the guarantor (caution), that Legal scholar explains that the guarantor must be informed, not only at the time of the signature of that guaranty, but even during the execution of that contract, and the institution that has given the loan to the principal debtor, has to inform him/her that the borrower did not respect his/her obligations of paying the loan. [15] This is similar to the statements of another legal scholar called Dominique Legeais2 who explains that credit institutions have exclusive obligations to inform their clients and their guarantors and give evidence to justify that they have fulfilled that obligation. (….une obligation d’information a été mise à la charge des établissements de crédit lorsque le cautionnement consenti par une personne physique ou morale est la condition d’un crédit accordé à une entreprise quelle que soit sa forme……Quel que soit le cautionnement, le

1 Thierry Bonneau, Droit Bancaire, 7é éd., Montchrestien, Domat Droit Privé, 2007, p.525, no703: “la distribution du crédit met en rapport des parties dont la situation économique n’est pas forcément la même: l’une peut être en position de faiblesse par rapport à l’autre. La protection de la partie faible est alors un objectif à poursuivre dans le domaine des opérations de crédit comme il l’est dans d’autres domaines. Cette protection a deux destinations: le débiteur et la caution”. 2 Dominique Legeais, Le cautionnement, Edition Economica, 1995, p.27-28, 40 . .

## Page 353

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 91 créancier tenu à un devoir d’information, doit…rapporter la preuve de l’exécution de son obligation). [16] Basing on the arguments by legal scholars mentioned above, to consider the guarantor to have expressly agreed the obligation of guaranteeing the borrower in a financial institution, the court finds that this institution must have given him/her enough information about that loan, for him/her to know and understand the nature and the amount of the obligation he/she commits him/herself to. [17] The Court Finds that when Gaju signed the insurance contract on 28/04/2006, the loan she had expressly guaranteed was for 25,000,000Frw, and that this contract has been already paid as admitted by both parties to the case. [18] With regard to the loan of 12,000,000Frw borrowed by Twagira after paying the first loan of 25,000,000Frw mentioned above, the court finds no proof of notification from ACCESS BANK, to justify that Gaju Cynthia was informed about the loan while the contract was in execution. The court finds also that ACCESS BANK notified her only in the letter of 20/03/2012 requesting her to pay basing on the contract she signed before when she guaranteed the loan of 25,000,000Frw, then Gaju also responded to it on 23/03/2012 through its counsel explaining how she is not informed about that debt, either by Twagira or the bank. GAJU v. ACCESS BANK 91

## Page 354

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 92 [19] The Court also finds no merit in the arguments presented by the bank that it was not necessary to notify Gaju Cynthia of the second loan of 12,000,000Frw given to Twagira based on article 1 of the contract of “Suretyship of joint and indivisible liability” she signed saying that she guarantees all the present and potential debts that Twagira would have, because the explanations given above demonstrate that this article does not excludes the obligations of the bank to share enough information with the guarantor relating to the loan, which information could use in exercising her legal rights of resolving the guaranty she/he has given when it deems necessary. [20] Basing on what has been previously said, the Court finds no ground to base on deciding that Gaju is responsible of guaranteeing a loan contract of 12,000,000Frw, in case ACCESS BANK fails to prove that Gaju was notified about it, for her to know its amount. Therefore ACCESS BANK cannot request her to jointly pay anything resulting from that loan with Twagira. The court also finds that the loan as decided by the Commercial High Court should be paid by Twagira Azzy the borrower, who admits and is held liable for it. 2. Knowing whether Gaju has given the mortgage on the matrimonial house for the debt at issue in this case of 12,000,000Frw. [21] The counsel for Gaju Cynthia states that she gave no mortgage on the house for the loan of 12,000,000Frw given to Twagira by ACCESS BANK and her wish is to stop ACCESS BANK to continue considering this house

## Page 355

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 93 as the mortgage for a debt of 12,000,0000Frw she is not aware of. [22] The counsel for ACCESS BANK argues that the house is still regarded as its mortgage more importantly that the commitment had no limited period, and Twagira mortgaged it as a matrimonial house, and that Gaju has agreed to it when she signed on the contract of guaranty on the loan of 25,000,000Frw. He states also that it is very clear in article 11 of that contract, where it is written that: “la caution, épouse du débiteur principal, declare avoir pris connaissance de la promesse d’hypothèque que son conjoint a donné à la BANCOR, en couverture des engagement et donne son plein consentement à la constitution de ladite hypothèque” and translated as the guarantee who is the spouse of the principal debtor declare to have knowledge of mortgage that her spouse has given to BANCOR, to cover the commitments and gives her full consent for the mentioned mortgage. THE VIEW OF THE COURT [23] Basing on what has been said above, the Court finds that Gaju gave no guaranty for the loan of 12,000,000Frw which was given to Twagira by ACCESS BANK, it is understood that he gave no security for that loan as the ACCESS BANK argues it, because what is provided for in the article 11 of the guaranty contract made on 28/04/2006 only regards the guaranty of 25,000,000Frw, which has been paid as both parties to the case admit it, hence having no relation with GAJU v. ACCESS BANK 93

## Page 356

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 94 the contract which was made thereafter on 02 May 2007 when ACCESS BANK gave a loan of 12,000,000Frw to Twagira without notifying Gaju of it for her comment. 1. With regard to the damages that Gaju Cynthia claims. [24] Gaju’s counsel claims damages of 2,000,000Frw for involving his clients in court proceedings and putting her on stress when she heard that her property might be auctioned, and claims also 5,000,000Frw for the lawyer’s fees. [25] The counsel for ACCESS BANK objects for Gaju’s claim saying that she agreed to be the guarantor for her husband who failed to pay, therefore he states that involving her in court was necessary as the only option the Bank had the court proceedings as she claims it, because nothing else would the bank do than seizing the court. THE VIEW OF THE COURT [26] The Court finds that it was the right of ACCESS BANK to sue Gaju before the courts in case it considered it right, therefore, he claim of damages based on having been involved in court proceedings is baseless and holds no merit. [27] The Court finds that since there is an argument that Gaju benefited from her appeal which required her to seek for an advocate to plead for her, she may be

## Page 357

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 95 provided with, within the discretionary power of the court, 300,000Frw for the fees for the counsel who pleaded that case. III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [28] Decides that Gaju’s appeal has merit. [29] Decides that she gave no guaranty for the debt of 12,000,000Frw, and she did not give the mortgage on the house together with her husband Twagira. [30] Decides that the decision of the judgment RCOM 0087/12/ HCC changes with regard to Gaju Cynthia, meaning that only Twagira Azzy is the one responsible to pay to ACCESS BANK RWANDA Ltd money amounting to 25,230,942Frw as decided by the Commercial High Court. [31] Orders ACCESS BANK to pay to Gaju Cynthia 300,000Frw for the lawyer’s fees. [32] Orders ACCESS BANK to pay the court fees equal to 23,150Frw, failure to pay, it will be taken from its property through the government coercion. GAJU v. ACCESS BANK 95

## Page 359

97 97 HYDROBATEL Ltd v. KAREKEZI [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCOMA 0007/13/CS (Mukanyundo, P.J., Rugabirwa and Gakwaya, J.) February 06, 2015] Arbitration Law – Agreement on terms of reference of arbitration – Tacit extension of agreement on terms of reference of arbitration – The agreement on terms of reference of arbitration is considered to be tacitly extended when its period of validity expires; but the parties continue to take part in arbitral proceedings. Arbitration Law – Award of the arbitrators – Removal of award of arbitrators – Where one of the parties who referred a dispute to arbitration does not exercise his/her right to object to any point he/she disagrees with in the arbitral award, he/she cannot apply for its setting aside – Law n° 005/2008 of 14/02/2008 on arbitration and conciliation in commercial matters, article 6. Commercial procedure – Moral damages – Being involved in the court proceedings for no ground – A party who claims damages resulting from being involved in the court proceedings cannot be awarded them in case the court finds that the other party had the right to appeal – Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 162. Fact: Karekezi, Katabarwa André and Katabarwa Aimé have found the company named HYDROBEL Ltd.

## Page 360

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 98 Article 51 of the Articles of association of this company provided that in case a dispute may rise, it shall be settled by one or more arbitrators agreed on by all parties and in case no settlement can be reached, it shall be settled by the competent Rwandan courts. Karakezi has resigned from that company due to its bad management, and seized the arbitral tribunal made up of three arbitrators where he claimed payment of the dividends from shares he owned in that company and various damages. On 29 January 2013, both parties drew up the document defining the terms of reference whereby they gave arbitrators the period of 60 days to decide on the dispute between them. On 10 April 2013, the arbitral tribunal delivered its award and condemned HYDROTEL Ltd to pay Karekezi 60,000,000Frw of dividends on shares he had in that company, 20,000,000Frw for the moral damages, 3,700,000Frw for the arbitration fees he has paid in advance, 1,850,000Frw for outstanding arbitration fees and 3,925,000Frw for the advocate’s fees. HYDROBATEL appealed against that award before the Commercial High Court requesting the removal of the award since it has been taken by the arbitral tribunal after the period of 60 days it has been given has expired and therefore no longer had jurisdiction. During the hearing, Karekezi raised the objection of inadmissibility of the claim due to lack of jurisdiction by the Commercial High Court since it was in the jurisdiction of Commercial Court to hear the case

## Page 361

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 99 because it is the latter which would have heard it. He has also raised another objection of inadmissibility of the claim of HYDROBATEL because, during the hearing, it has not informed the arbitral tribunal that it delivered its award after the expiry of 60 days it was given to deliver it. The Commercial High Court has decided that the objection raised by Karekezi as to its lack of jurisdiction is baseless since it is within the jurisdiction of this Court to hear the case it was seized with. Moreover, it declared the claim of HYDROBATEL Ltd inadmissible since it has been lately lodged because during the hearing by arbitral tribunal it has never raised any objection as to the expiry of the period of 60 days the arbitral tribunal was given to decide. HYDROBATEL Ltd appealed before the Supreme Court stating that the Commercial High Court should have admitted its claim since the objection of irregularity of the arbitration terms of reference was not tardily raised. During the hearing Karekezi raised an objection of inadmissibility of the claim of HYDROBATEL Ltd since the Commercial High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear its appeal; it is rather within the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court to hear his appeal since it is the one which would have heard that case shouldn’t the parties have referred the dispute to arbitration. The Supreme Court decided that the objection of lack of jurisdiction of the Commercial High Court raised by Karekezi has no grounds since that Court is the one which had jurisdiction to hear the appeal of HYDROBATEL Ltd v. KAREKEZI 99

## Page 362

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 100 HYDROBATEL Ltd which requested the vacation of the arbitral award of 10 April 2013. During the hearing on merits, Karekezi filed a cross appeal requesting damages for being involved in court proceedings without reasonable ground and advocate fees. HYDROBATEL Ltd stated that it cannot give him those damages because he was awarded them in the judgment on merits, but if the court finds that it should award them, it should do so basing on the law governing bar. Held: 1. A party to arbitration process cannot request the court to annul the award of arbitration while he/she has participated in arbitral proceedings as well as the award delivery hearing and signed minutes thereof without objecting to them. 2. A party to arbitration process who attended arbitral proceedings including the award delivery and signed minutes thereof cannot allege that the decision was taken after the expiry of time limit for the terms of reference because his/her silence is considered as implying that the time limit for the terms of reference of arbitration was tacitly extended. 3. A party who claims damages resulting from being involved in the court proceedings cannot be awarded them in case the court finds that the other party had the right to appeal. Appeal lacks merit; Arbitral award is sustained;

## Page 363

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 101 Court fees to the appellant. Statutes or statutory instruments referred to: Law n° 005/2008 of 14/02/2008 on arbitration and conciliation in commercial matters, article 6. Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 162. Authors cited: Philipe DE Bournoville, Droit Judiciaire-L’Arbitrage, Larcier, Paris, 2000, p.183. No case referred to. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] Karekezi François Xavier together with Katabarwa André, Katabarwa Aimé and Kalisa Evariste found the company named HYDROBATEL Sarl which became later HYDROBATEL Ltd with the capital share of 5,000,000Frw which is equal to 100 shares; which means that each one has invested 50,000Frw for his share. Under article 51 of the company’s Articles of association it is provided that in case disagreement may arise within the company, it shall be settled by one or more arbitrators agreed upon by all parties and in case no HYDROBATEL Ltd v. KAREKEZI 101

## Page 364

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 102 settlement can be reached, it shall be settled by the competent Rwandan courts. [2] Karekezi François Xavier states that he has withdrawn from that company because its management was not good, and basing on provisions of the aforesaid article 51 of the Article of association of HYDROBATEL Ltd, he seized the Arbitral Tribunal composed of three arbitrators claiming payment of the dividends on his shares in that company and various damages. [3] On 29 January 2013, both parties drew up a document defining the terms of reference whereby they have given arbitrators the period of 60 days to decide on the dispute referred to them. [4] On 10 April 2013, the arbitral tribunal rendered its award, and condemned HYDROTEL Ltd represented by Katabarwa André to pay to Karekezi 60,000,000Frw for the dividends resulting from the shares he owned in that company, 20,000,000Frw as the moral damages, 3,700,000Frw for the advanced arbitration fees, 1,850,000Frw for the outstanding arbitration fees and 3,925,000Frw for the advocate’s fees. [5] HYDROBATEL appealed against that award before the Commercial High Court requesting its removal since it has been taken by the arbitral tribunal which no longer had jurisdiction since the period of 60 days it has been given to render it had expired.

## Page 365

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 103 [6] At the beginning of the hearing, Karekezi François Xavier raised the objection of lack of jurisdiction of the Commercial High Court since it was rather the Commercial Court that had jurisdiction to hear this case because it is the latter which would have heard it., Karekezi François Xavier has also raised another objection aiming at inadmissibility of the claim of HYDROBATEL since it has delayed to lodge its claim because it lodged the claim before the said Court while , during the hearing, it has never informed the arbitral tribunal that the period of 60 days it was granted to take its decision had expired. [7] The Commercial High Court has decided that the objection of its lack of jurisdiction raised by Karekezi François Xavier is baseless since it is the one which has jurisdiction to hear the case on the basis of article 13, paragraph 4 of the Organic Law N° 06/2012/OL of 14/09/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of commercial courts which provides that “the Commercial High Court shall have appellate jurisdiction over the decisions rendered by arbitrators”. [8] In addition, the Commercial High Court decided that the claim of HYDROBATEL Ltd is inadmissible since it has been belatedly lodged since during the pleadings it never showed the arbitral tribunal that rendered its award on 10 April 2013 that the period of 60 days which it was given, in the terms of reference, to render it had expired. [9] HYDROBATEL Ltd appealed before the Supreme Court arguing that the Commercial High Court HYDROBATEL Ltd v. KAREKEZI 103

## Page 366

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 104 should have admitted its claim since it has not been belatedly lodged. [10] At the beginning of the hearing, Karekezi François Xavier raised an objection of inadmissibility of the claim of HYDROBATEL Ltd since the Commercial High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear its appeal requesting the setting aside of the award taken by the arbitral tribunal and that it is rather the Commercial Court that has competence since it is the one which should have heard that case shouldn’t the parties have referred the dispute to arbitration. [11] After the hearing on that objection, the Supreme Court rendered the decision on 24 October 2014 whereby it decided that the objection of lack of jurisdiction of the Commercial High Court raised by Karekezi François Xavier is baseless since the aforesaid court is the one which was competent to hear the appeal of HYDROBATEL Ltd requesting the setting aside of the arbitral award of 10 April 2013 and decided that the trial of the case on merits would be held on 16 December 2014. [12] On that date, the case was heard on merits, HYDROBATEL Ltd represented by Rusanganwa Jean Bosco, the counsel while Karekezi François Xavier was assisted by Mucyo Donatien, the counsel.

## Page 367

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 105 II. LEGAL ISSUES IN THIS CASE AND THEIR ANALYSIS 1. Whether the arbitral award can be set aside since it was rendered after the expiry of the time- limit set in the terms of reference. [13] Rusanganwa Jean Bosco, the counsel for HYDROBATEL Ltd states that the Court decided that its claim was inadmissible because it has been belatedly lodged since the latter did not inform the arbitrators that the time limit set by the Arbitration terms of reference of 29 January 2013 which conferred them competence to resolve the dispute had expired on 25 March 2013 ignoring the fact that this was not possible during the hearing since those terms of reference were still valid while they were no longer valid on 10 April 2013, when the arbitrators rendered their award, since their validity expired on 25 March 2013. [14] He explains that the case was finally heard on 13 March 2013 when the arbitral tribunal notified the parties the award would be rendered on 3 April 2013. On that date HYDROBATEL Ltd appeared; but the award was not pronounced since one of the arbitrators was not present and pronouncement of the award was postponed on 8 April 2013 and minutes thereof were taken and signed by HYDROBATEL. On that date, the award was not delivered and no minutes postponing its pronouncement on 10 April 2013 were taken. It was, however, notified of this date only on telephone and the award was delivered on the same date. He requests setting aside the award rendered by the arbitrators on 10 HYDROBATEL Ltd v. KAREKEZI 105

## Page 368

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 106 April 2013 since it has been rendered by the arbitrators who no longer had jurisdiction because the terms of reference of 29 January 2013 which conferred them jurisdiction expired on 25 March 2013 and their validity period was not extended as the date of award pronouncement has not been agreed upon by counsels for both parties. [15] Asked by the Court why, during the hearing or at the time of postponement of the award delivery, HYDROBATEL Ltd did not inform the arbitrators that the terms of reference had expired on 25 March 2013; Rusanganwa Jean Bosco, the counsel responded that it had not yet discovered the contradiction within those terms of reference with regard to the period of 60 days they were meant to last and 30 days within which the award was to be rendered; but that HYDROBATEL Ltd appealed because the arbitrators rendered their award on 10 April 2013, when that agreement was no longer valid since its period was never extended. [16] He argues, moreover, that the fact that the arbitrators disregarded the provisions of the aforesaid terms of reference with regard to the time frame they had to perform their functions and render the award, shows that they breached article 64 of Law n° 45/2011 of 25/11/20011 governing contracts, which provides that the contract made in accordance with the law shall be binding between parties and that they shall be performed in good faith. [17] Mucyo Donatien, the counsel for Karekezi François Xavier stated that, in principal, he realizes that

## Page 369

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 107 the arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction on 10 April 2013 when it rendered its award since 60 days it was given by the parties to render its decision had not lapsed since it only used 54 days because in calculating 60 days it has been given, official holidays must be excluded as provided for in article 369 and 370 of the Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, except that if the last day is an official holiday, the expiry of the time limit is extended to the next working day. In addition, the court cannot ignore that the aforesaid terms of reference provides that the period of 60 days could be extended provided that it does not go beyond the time limit provided for by the law relating to the arbitration. [18] He added that, though this is not how Karekezi François Xavier views the matter, in case the Court may find that 60 days of time limit of arbitration have expired, in the alternative, the Court should decide that this time limit was extended by the agreement of both parties because HYDROBATEL Ltd attended the adjournments of the hearing which were mainly caused by its failure to produce requested evidence. Moreover, it has been attending the award delivery adjournments agreed on by both parties which took place on 3 April 2013, 8 April 2013 and on 10 April 2013 respectively and signed minutes thereof. It cannot therefore claim that, on the 10 April 2013, when the award was delivered the arbitration agreement was no longer valid since it did not bring this to the arbitrators’ attention at that time. HYDROBATEL Ltd v. KAREKEZI 107

## Page 370

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 108 [19] He explains that the case was heard on 13 Mach 2013 and the arbitral tribunal notified parties that the award will be rendered on 3 April 2013 and both parties left after signing for this. On this date, the delivery of the award was postponed on 8 April 2013 but it was not delivered on this date since it concurred with an unanticipated day off related to the mourning in remembrance of the Genocide Perpetrated against Tutsi. Its delivery was thus postponed on 10 April 2013 but representatives of both sides were notified of this date on the telephone and on this date the award was delivered in the presence of all parties. Therefore, he finds that the award rendered by the arbitral tribunal on 10 April 2013 cannot be set aside because the terms of reference were still valid. THE VIEW OF THE COURT [20] Article 6 of the Law n° 005/2008 of 14/02/2008 on arbitration and conciliation in commercial matters provides that “a party who knows that any provision of this Law from which the parties may derogate or any requirement under the arbitration agreement that has not been complied with and yet proceeds with the arbitration without stating his objection to such a non-compliance without undue delay or, if a time-limit is provided therefore, within such a period of time, shall be considered to have waived his or her right to object”. [21] With regard to this case, the Court finds that the appeal of HYDROBATEL Ltd aims at requesting setting aside the award rendered by the arbitral tribunal on 10

## Page 371

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 109 April 2013 because it was illegally rendered because it was rendered when the terms of reference of 29 January 2013 were no longer valid since they expired on 25 March 2013. [22] Article 6 of the terms of reference made between Karekezi François Xavier and HYDROBATEL Ltd provides that the arbitral tribunal is given a period of 60 days starting to run from 24 January 2013 to complete its functions and 30 days starting to run from the agreement’s effective date which is 29 January 2013 to render its award . However, that period may be extended but cannot exceed the time limit provided for by the law relating to arbitration. [23] Minutes available in the file show the hearing was closed on 13 March 2013 where the arbitral tribunal notified counsels for both sides that the award would be delivered on 3 April 20013 and they left after signing for that date. On this date, all the parties appeared, but the court notified them that the delivery of the award is adjourned on 8 April 2013since one arbitrator was not present and counsels for both sides signed for it. on this date no award delivery adjournment minutes are available in the file; but counsels for both sides have admitted, during the hearing, that they were notified on telephone that no award delivery was going to take place on this date and that it would instead be rendered on 10 April 2013. On this date, the award was delivered in presence of all parties, HYDROBATEL Ltd represented by Katabarwa André and Karekezi François Xavier. In addition, both parties left after signing the delivery HYDROBATEL Ltd v. KAREKEZI 109

## Page 372

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 110 minutes confirming the award was delivered in their presence. Nonetheless, as it can be seen from the award delivery minutes available in the file, HYDROBATEL Ltd noted nothing in the same minutes criticizing the award. [24] Basing on the foregoing statements, the Court finds that the fact that HYDROBATEL Ltd continued to participate in arbitral proceedings including the pronouncement of the award which has been postponed on several dates and signed the minutes, while it says that the time-limit of the terms of reference has expired without saying anything in this regard, its silence implies that it tacitly agreed to extend the period for the Terms of reference. Thus its argument for the appeal requesting vacation of the award rendered by the arbitral tribunal on 10 April 2013 is baseless. [25] This is confirmed by the explanations of arbitration law scholars including Philipe DE Bournoville who explains, in his book titled “Droit Judiciaire - L’arbitrage1, that the period provided in the

1Philipe DE Bournoville,“Droit Judiciaire-L’Arbitrage”, Larcier, 2000, p.183, explains “Les parties peuvent proroger, soit expressément, soit tacitement, le délai fixé dans la convention d’arbitrage, leur accord dit être exempt de toute ambiguïté et bannir toute imprécision quant au nouveau délai. Il appartient au juge de fond, sur base des faits qu’il constate, d’apprécier souverainement s’il y a prorogation tacite du délai. La jurisprudence induit généralement une prorogation du délai de la participation de toutes les parties à l’instance, se traduisant par des actes positifs et sans équivoques, sans protestation ni réserve. Il en est ainsi si les parties

## Page 373

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 111 terms of reference may be extended expressly or tacitly by the parties and that the judge trying the case on merits is the one who is competent to appreciate this at his discretion depending on the nature of the case he is seized with. He goes on explaining that case laws demonstrate that the period which was provided for in the terms of reference is extended by all parties if, after the expiry of that period, they proceed with attending arbitral proceedings and unequivocally perform the functions thereafter. [26] Basing on the law and scholars’ explanations mentioned above, the Court finds that the appeal of HYDROBATEL Ltd lacks merit. 2. Whether the cross appeal made by Karekezi François Xavier has merit. [27] Mucyo Donatien, the counsel, states that his client Karekezi François Xavier lodged a cross appeal requesting that HYDROBATEL pays him 10,000,000Frw of moral damages for having involved him in court proceedings for no ground and 500,000Frw for the lawyer’s fees which make in total 10,500,000Frw. [28] Rusanganwa Jean Bosco, the counsel for HYDROBATEL Ltd states that the latter cannot pay Karekezi François Xavier the damages he claims because he was awarded them in the judgment rendered on

assistent librement à une phase de l’arbitrage après expiration de délai initialement convenu”. HYDROBATEL Ltd v. KAREKEZI 111

## Page 374

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 112 merits, but in case the court may find that his advocate deserves the lawyer’s fees, it may award them basing on provisions of the rules governing advocates. THE VIEW OF THE COURT [29] Article 162 of the Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that “any person who was a party to the proceedings in the first instance may appeal the judgment if he/she has an interest therein, except when the law provides otherwise”. [30] Basing on the provisions of the aforesaid article, the Court finds that HYDROBATEL Ltd may not pay to Karekezi François Xavier moral damages he claims since; it did not involve him in the court proceedings for no ground as he argues because it is its right to appeal against the court decision since it is not satisfied with. [31] Therefore, the Court finds that, on the basis of 258 of the third book of the Civil code which provides that “any act of a person which causes damage to another person obliges the one whose fault caused damage to make good the loss”. Therefore, HYDROBATEL Ltd owes to Karekezi François Xavier 500,000Frw for the lawyer’s fees since it has been necessary to hire an advocate to assist him at this instance.

## Page 375

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 113 III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [32] Decides that the appeal of HYDROBATEL Ltd is without merit; [33] Condemns HYDROBATEL Ltd to pay Karekezi François Xavier 500,000Frw for the lawyer’s fees; [34] Decides and orders that the award rendered by the arbitral tribunal on 10 April 2013 is sustained; [35] Orders HYDROBATEL Ltd to pay the court fees amounting to 100,000Frw. HYDROBATEL Ltd v. KAREKEZI 113

## Page 377

115 115 MBERABAGABO ET AL v. FIAT AMELIE ET AL [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/REV/INJUST/COM 0001/13/SC (Kayitesi, P.J., Hatangimbabazi, Mukandamage, Rugabirwa and Gakwaya, J.) March 28, 2014] Commercial procedure – Case review – The grounds for injustice – The party cannot say that the court which has rendered the judgment on application for review of the judgment for extreme injustice was not competent in case it has decided basing on legal provisions governing the review of the judgment and the parties have based on them within their submissions filing the claim – Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 186 paragraph 3and 6. Commercial procedure – Exercising two ways of appeal at the same time – Where the party has abandoned one of the ways of appeal he/she had started this shall not be considered as exercising two procedures of appeal at the same time – Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 12. Commercial procedure – Redemption of the property that ought to be auctioned – The validity of the sale aiming at the redemption before the auction – If the redemption results from the sale of the house, that contract is valid – Any person or the debtor can redeem

## Page 378

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 116 the seized property as long as it is done before the end of the sale and in the interests of the creditor and of the debtor – The sale contract aiming at redeeming the seized property is valid – Law N° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 311. contracts or obligation law – Liability – Damages for rents – The person who deprived another of rents on the pretext that he has bought the leased property at auction while he has violated the law together with the one who conducted the auction they jointly pay him the damages – Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or obligations, article 258. Facts: Banque Commercial du Rwanda (BCR) which became I&M BANK has given the loan to Dunia Bakarani who he failed to pay off and to the former seized the court and won the case against him. There the procedures of executing the court judgment were initiated and conducted by Notary Kayitesi Judith whereas in the meanwhile Dunia sold the seized house to Fiat Amelie and cleared that debt and even the Bank notified the notary that that debt has already been paid. Notary Kayitesi ignored this and went on with the auction whereby the house was bought by Mberabagabo two days after clearing the debt. Dunia lodged a claim before the Commercial High Court claiming to nullify the auction of his house because it was conducted after paying the debt. Fiat Amélie who bought that house from Dunia Bakarini by an agreement before the auction took place voluntarily intervened in that case.

## Page 379

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 117 The Commercial High Court decided that the auction was legally conducted, and that Fiat Amelie’s claim is inadmissible since he has no status and interests for seizing the court. Dunia and Fiat appealed against that judgment before the Supreme Court but withdrew their appeal before the case hearing and they rather seized again the Commercial High Court applying for review of the judgment on the grounds that the Court has confused the facts and this time the court decided that the auction performed is nullified, and ordered Kayitesi (the notary), Mberabagabo Innocent who co-owned a company with Butera who bought the house at the auction to pay Fiat Amelie 29,575,000Frw for the rents of the house he would have earned for 13 months if the house he bought was not auctioned and were ordered to pay also 500,000Frw for the lawyer’s fees. Kayitesi, Mberabagabo Innocent and Butera wrote to the Ombudsman requesting her to petition for application for review of the judgment for the manifest injustice since there are laws and the evidences which have been ignored and its review on grounds of injustice was approved that. Before the Supreme Court, Kayitesi, Mberabagabo Innocent, Butera explain that injustice is proven by the fact that the Commercial High Court was not competent to review the judgment on the grounds of injustice but rather the Supreme Court was the only one which was competent thus the Commercial High Court would not have admitted Dunia and Fiat’s claim for the review of the judgment while they have lodged the appeal before MBERABAGABO ET AL v. FIAT AMELIE ET AL 117

## Page 380

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 118 the Supreme Court and that the sale of that house between Dunia and Fiat that enabled the former to get money to pay BCR could not suspend the auction which was conducted because that house was no longer within their possession. They have also said that the fact that Fiat Amelie was awarded the money for the rent by the Commercial High Court is injustice since they committed no fault. Fiat and Dunia have said that the Commercial High Court was the one which was competent to review the judgment on the grounds of extreme injustice since it results from confusion of the facts and they have based on the provisions relating to the review of the judgment. They have also said that they have not concurrently exercised two ways of appeal since while lodging the application for review of the judgment they have proven that they have withdrawn the appeal they had lodged before the Supreme Court. They have also said that the sale between them is valid since Fiat has voluntarily executed the judgment and paid BCR which issued to him the debt-clearance certificate and it notified this to Kayitesi Judith requesting her to stop the auction. In addition, they say that the fact that Mberabagabo Innocent and Butera have bought that house at auction fully knowing that it has been sold is a serious fault for which they have to be held liable and pay to Fiat the rentals they have deprived him of. They have concluded claiming the damages for being involved in the court proceedings for no ground and the lawyer’s fees. As for them Kayitesi Judith, Mberabagabo

## Page 381

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 119 Innocent and Butera argued that the claimants of that money do not deserve it since they committed no fault. Held: 1. The party cannot say that the Court which has rendered the judgment reviewing another because of extreme injustice was not competent in case it has decided basing on legal provisions relating to review of judgment and the parties have based on them within their submissions filing the claim, thus the word “extreme” which has been used in the subject matter of the case has no effect in knowing the court which was competent to examine the case. 2. Where the person who applied for review of judgment has withdrawn the appeal before the hearing of the case, this is not considered as concurrently exercising two ways of appeal. 3. Any person or the debtor has the right to redeem the seized property by satisfying the damages and the costs of the seizure as long as it is made before the end of the sale and in the interests and with the consent of the debtor without necessarily requesting the Court order staying the auction before redeeming the seized property. 4. A person who deprived another of the rentals of the house he has legally bought on the pretext that he, himself has bought at auction which was nonetheless illegal is jointly liable with the one who conducted the auction. However, the one who co-owns the company with the buyer of the house is not liable in case the latter has personally bought it. MBERABAGABO ET AL v. FIAT AMELIE ET AL 119

## Page 382

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 120 Butera’s claim has merit The claim by other appellants has no merit Court fees to the appellant Statutes and Statutory instruments referred to: Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure article 186, paragraph 3 and 6 and that of 293, Law of 30/07/1888 relating to the contracts or obligations, article 258 No case referred to: Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] Banque Commerciale du Rwanda (BCR) which later became I&M Bank has granted the loan to Dunia Bakarani who failed to reimburse as agreed upon to the extent that the procedures of executing the judgment RCOM 0005/09/HCC which became final were initiated since it won the judgment RCOMA 0013/10/CS. Dunia Bakarani lodged a claim before the Commercial High Court requesting to stay the auction of his house located in plot no 339 in Rubavu Town due to the auction carried out by Notary Kayitesi Judith while on 15/12/2011 he was notified that Banque Commercial du Rwanda was already fully paid on 13/12/2011. As for Fiat Amélie, he Law of 30/07/1888 relating to the contracts or obligations, article 258 g obligations, article 258 . . . .

## Page 383

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 121 voluntarily intervened in that case since he had bought the house from Dunia Bakarini before the auction. [2] On 18/10/2012 the Commercial High Court delivered the judgment RCOM 0070/12/HCC for the case it was seized with and decided that the auction was legal and that the claim of Dunia Bakarini, who voluntarily intervened in the case, had not to be admitted since he had no status and interests of claiming with more reasons that the sold house was no longer his. [3] Dunia Bakarani and Fiat Amélie seized again the Commercial High Court applying for the review of judgement RCOM 0070/12/HCC basing on article 186 in its paragraph 3 and 6 of Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure. [4] The Commercial High Court delivered the judgment RCOM 0306/12/HCC on 21/01/2013 whereby it decided that the claim of Fiat Amélie and Dunia Bakarani has merit and decided that Kayitesi Judith, Mberabagabo Innocent and Butera Jean-Pierre lost the case, and nullified the auction of the house located in plot no 339 in Rubavu Town conducted on 15/12/2011. [5] The court also ordered Kayitesi Judith, Mberabagabo Innocent and Butera Jean-Pierre to jointly pay, Fiat Amélie the sum of money amounting to 29,575,000Frw for the rentals of the house and 500,000Frw for the lawyer’s fees which make a total of 30,575,000Frw, and immediately after delivery of the court decision starting with the money that Notary MBERABAGABO ET AL v. FIAT AMELIE ET AL 121

## Page 384

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 122 Kayitesi Judith has deposited in the National Bank after the auction, and ordered them to jointly pay the court fees amounting to 9,000Frw. [6] On 6/2/2013, the Ombudsman wrote to the Supreme Court requesting the review of judgment RCOM 0306/12/HCC rendered by the Commercial High Court due to injustice resulting from the fact that there are laws and evidences which were ignored. [7] After analysing the report of the Inspector General of courts on this judgment, on 27/3/2013 the President of the Supreme Court, basing on article 80 of Organic Law N° 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, decided to refer this judgment to the registry of the Supreme Court to be tried again. [8] Kayitesi Judith, Mberabagabo Innocent and Butera Jean-Pierre applied for the review of judgment RCOM 0306/12/HCC on the following injustice grounds: a. disregard of the evidences and laws that are obvious to everyone, they claim the judge has ignored article 78 and 79 of the of Organic Law N° 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. b. admission and examination of the claim on merits contrary to the legal provisions, they argue that, even if he were competent, the judge could not have admitted the claim and examined

## Page 385

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 123 it on merits basing on article 12 of Law N° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure. c. Support of the fraud and faults of the plaintiffs; they argue that the claim of the plaintiffs was based on fraud and violated the law for purposes of staying the auction purporting to base on the contract of sale of the house which was already seized and was no longer in the possession of its owner as supported by article no 295 of Law n° 18/2004 of 20/06/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure which was in force at that time. [9] Fiat Amélie requests the Supreme Court to order the plaintiffs to pay him 3,500 USD per month for the period of 13 months for the rents of the house he bought before the auction. Himself and Dunia Bakarani request to order the plaintiff to pay them 2,000,000 Frw for having involved them in the court proceedings for no ground and 2,000,000Frw for the lawyer’s fees. I&M Bank (former Banque Commerciale du Rwanda) also lodged a cross appeal requesting the Supreme Court to order Fiat and Dunia to pay the former the procedural fees amounting to 500,000Frw and the lawyer’s fees amounting to 500,000 Frw. [10] The public hearing was held on 4/2/2014; Mberabagabo Innocent, Butera Jean-Pierre and Kayitesi Judith represented by Counsels Nzamwita Toy and Twagirayezu Christophe, Fiat Amélie and Dunia Bakarani were represented by Counsels Shema Gakuba MBERABAGABO ET AL v. FIAT AMELIE ET AL 123

## Page 386

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 124 Charles and Buhuru Pierre-Célestin while I&M Bank (former Banque Commerciale du Rwanda) was represented by Counsel Batware Jean-Claude. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES a. Whether the Commercial High Court was not competent to hear the case RCOM 0306/12/HCC [11] Nzamwita Toy, the counsel for Mberabagabo Innocent, Butera Jean-Pierre and Kayitesi Judith says that the Commercial High Court was not competent to hear the case RCOM 0306/12/HCC since FIAT Amélie and Dunia BakaranI had lodged an application for review of judgement RCOM 0070/12/HCC finally rendered by that court due to extreme injustice whereas basing on article 78 and 79 of Organic Law N° 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, that claim should not have been filed with that court since the Supreme Court is the only competent court to examine the applications for reviewing the judgments on grounds of extreme injustice. Thus, he finds that since the Commercial High Court has given itself the competence it does not have, this constitutes the ground that reveals injustice in this case. [12] Counsel Nzamwita Toy explains that Fiat Amélie and Dunia Bakarani could not base on article 186 of Law N° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure when filing the claim before the Commercial High Court since .

## Page 387

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 125 the application for reviewing the judgment due to injustice is filed pursuant to article 78 and 79 of Organic Law n° 03/2012 mentioned above. Twagirayezu Christophe, the counsel for Mberabagabo Innocent, Butera Jean-Pierre and Kayitesi Judith explains that in paragraph 8 of judgment RCOM 0306/12/HCC, the Commercial High Court based on article 189 of Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 mentioned above and decided that it is competent to admit the application for review; but it ignored that there is an Organic Law which gives the Supreme Court the competence to examine the application for review of the judgment due to injustice. [13] Counsel Buhuru Pierre Célestin representing Fiat Amélie and Dunia Bakarani says that in judgment RCOM 0306/12/HCC the plaintiffs applied for reviewing judgment RCOM 0070/12/HCC due to injustice and that the court which delivered the judgment for which the review is applied for is the one competent to hear this case basing on provisions of article 186 and 189 of Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 mentioned above. Thus, he finds that, since these articles give competence to the court which has rendered the final judgment for which review is applied for, the Commercial High Court committed no fault as it is the one that delivered the final judgment RCOM 0070/12/HCC. [14] Shema Gakuba Charles, the counsel for Fiat Amélie and Dunia Bakarani, says that the plaintiffs applied for the review of the judgment RCOM 0070/12/HCC before the Commercial High Court on the grounds of extreme injustice caused by serious mistakes MBERABAGABO ET AL v. FIAT AMELIE ET AL 125

## Page 388

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 126 of confusing the facts basing on article 186, paragraph 3 and 6 of Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 mentioned above, while article 78 and 79 of Organic Law n° 03/2012 mentioned above do not include “confusion of the facts” among the grounds for application for review of the final judgment on the grounds of injustice and thus, he finds that the argument has not to be considered. [15] Counsel Batware Jean-Claude who represents I&M BANK (former Banque Commerciale du Rwanda) says that the judgment RCOM 0306/12/HCC requested to review the judgment RCOM 0070/12/HCC on grounds of extreme injustice and serious errors committed based on confusion about the situation of facts as provided for by article 186 paragraph 3 and 6 of Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 mentioned above and that this is evident in the subject matter of judgment RCOM 0306/12/HCC. Thus, he finds that Fiat Amélie and Dunia Bakarani had to refer that petition nowhere else but to the Commercial High Court which delivered the judgment RCOM 0070/12/HCC which became final. THE VIEW OF THE COURT [16] The Supreme Court finds the subject matter in the judgment RCOM 0306/12/HCC is “the application for review of judgment RCOM 0070/12/HCC on the grounds of extreme injustice that resulted from the serious errors committed based on confusion about the situation of facts (article 186 paragraph 3 and 6 of Law N° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure).

## Page 389

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 127 [17] On reading paragraph 8 of judgment RCOM 0306/12/HCC, it is evident that the Commercial High Court decided that it is competent to hear the case since article 189 of Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 mentioned above provides that the application for the review of the final judgment is brought before the same court which rendered it and that the judgment RCOM 0070/12/HCC for which review is sought was decided by that court and that the plaintiffs based on article 186 paragraph 3 and 6 of Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 mentioned above while lodging their petition . [18] Article 186 paragraph 3 of Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 mentioned above provides that “an application for review can be made if, since the time of rendering the judgment, it was evident that there was injustice due to the judgment 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” and paragraph 6 of the same article provides that “an application for review can be made if, during the hearing, there were errors committed based on confusion about the situation of facts or basing on a non-existing law”. [19] Article 189 paragraph 1 of Law n°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 mentioned above provides that “the application for review of a final judgment shall be brought before the same court that rendered it but with a judge or judges that did not preside over the hearing”. [20] Article 78 of Organic Law N° 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning MBERABAGABO ET AL v. FIAT AMELIE ET AL 127

## Page 390

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 128 and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court provides that “the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction over applications for review of final decisions due to injustice upon approval of the President of the Supreme Court and article 79 of the aforesaid Organic Law provides for the procedure for petitioning the Supreme Court over the applications for review of final judgment due to injustice. [21] The analysis of provisions of those articles and the subject matter of judgment RCOM 0306/12/HCC shows undoubtedly that before the Commercial High Court, Fiat Amélie and Dunia Bakarani filed the application for review of judgment RCOM 0070/12/HCC basing on article 186 paragraph 3 and 6 of Law n° 21/2012 of 14/6/2012 mentioned above. This is demonstrated under point 10 of the court submissions of FIAT Amélie and Dunia Bakarani submitted to the Commercial High Court stating that their petition is based on article 186,187, 188 and 189 of Law ° 21/2012 of 14/6/2012 mentioned above. Thus, that Court was competent to hear the case since it is the one that which had finally decided the judgment RCOM 0070/12/HCC. [22] With regard to the allegations of the plaintiffs that Fiat Amélie and Dunia Bakarani seized the Commercial High Court applying for review of judgment RCOM 0070/12/HCC due to extreme injustice and that, due to this, they should have filed the petition with the Supreme Court, this Court finds that it is not true since it is clear from article 186 paragraph 3 of Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 mentioned above that the party

## Page 391

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 129 who has right to apply for review may do so on the ground that, since the time of rendering the judgment, it was evident that there was injustice due to the judgment for which the review is sought and the use of the word ‘‘extreme” in the subject matter has no effect in knowing the court which is competent to hear the case RCOM 0306/12/HCC since it is clear that the claim filed in this case is based on the provisions of Law n°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 mentioned above. [23] In light of the above explanations, the Supreme Court finds the argument of the plaintiffs unfounded since the Commercial High Court was competent to hear the application of review of judgment RCOM 0070/12/HCC filed by Fiat Amélie and Dunia Bakarani. b. Whether Fiat Amélie and Dunia Bakarani have concurrently exercised both ways of appeal. [24] Counsel Nzamwita Toy says that pursuant to the provisions of the article 12 of Law N° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, the Commercial High Court could not have admitted the application for the review of the judgment and examine it because, on 26/10/2012, Fiat Amélie and Dunia Bakarani had lodged the appeal against the judgment RCOM 0070/12/HCC before the Supreme Court and later, on 6/11/2012, they applied for the review of same judgment; thus, he finds that since they resorted to two ways of appeal: ordinary appeal and the application for review whereas the exercise of the first entails the loss of the right to exercise the second, Fiat Amélie and Dunia Bakarani had no right of applying MBERABAGABO ET AL v. FIAT AMELIE ET AL 129

## Page 392

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 130 for the review of judgment RCOM 0070/12/HCC while they had already appealed against it before the Supreme Court. [25] Counsel Buhuru Pierre Célestin says that the provisions of article 12 of Law n° 21/2012 of 14/6/2012 mentioned above are related to ordinary ways of appeal, opposition and appeal and that the application for review is an extraordinary way of appeal. He explains that the fact that the judgment RCOM 0070/12/HCC was decided on the execution of the judgment and it could not be appealed against, Fiat Amélie and Dunia Bakarani withdrew their appeal claim and filed an application for review pursuant to article 26 of the Law n° 21/2012 of 14/6/2012 mentioned above which provides that in case of self-deprivation of the right to action, the acceptance of another party is not necessary. [26] Counsel Batware Jean-Claude says that the application for review of judgment is an extraordinary way of appeal and that, during their pleadings before the Commercial High Court, FIAT Amélie and Dunia Bakarani said that they have withdrawn their claim of appeal before the Supreme Court and thus, he finds that their self-deprivation of the right to action was enough since it does not require the acceptance of another party. THE VIEW OF THE COURT [27] With regard to the objection raised before the Commercial High Court by Mberabagabo Innocent, Butera Jean-Pierre and Kayitesi Judith requesting to

## Page 393

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 131 dismiss the claim of Fiat Amélie and Dunia Bakarani because they concurrently exercised two ways of appeal, the Supreme Court finds that under paragraph 6 of the judgment RCOM 0306/12/HCC the aforesaid Court decided they did not exercise two ways of appeal since the application for review was lodged after withdrawing the appeal claim before the Supreme Court. [28] Article 12 of Law N° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that “a party shall not choose both ways of appeal for the same case. The first appeal shall be only considered and he/she shall for the same case lose the right to exercise the second way of appeal”. [29] By analyzing the provisions of that article, the Supreme Court finds that it is clear that the ways of appeal mentioned are the ordinary ways of appeal, that is to say the opposition and appeal. However, notwithstanding what has been said, nothing prohibits, in this case, the application of legal principles governing the concurrent exercise of two ordinary ways of appeal. It finds that what is prohibited by the legislator is to concurrently exercise two ways of appeal1 while in this

1 “What the rule “Electa una via non datur recursus ad alteram” prohibits, is the simultaneous referal to two ways of appeal against the same decision” Albert FETTWEIS, Manuel de procédure civile, deuxième édition, Faculté de droit de Liège, 1987, PP 479-480. It has been decided that the appeal of the judgment in absentia, lodged after the opposition, but which is important, has to be admitted if the opposition itself is inadmissible”, in Michel Franchimont, Ann Jacobs et Adrien Masset, Manuel de procédure pénale, 2e édition, MBERABAGABO ET AL v. FIAT AMELIE ET AL 131

## Page 394

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 132 case it is clear that Fiat Amélie and Dunia Bakarani filed an appeal with the Supreme Court on 26/10/2012, later they applied for review before the Commercial High Court on 6/11/2012 withdrew the appeal on 11/12/2012. Therefore, it is evident that they did not simultaneously exercise two ways of appeal since they filed the ordinary appeal on 26/10/2012, 12 days later they lodged the extraordinary claim of application for the review on 6/11/2012and later on they withdrew the appeal they had lodged before the Supreme Court. [30] Basing on what has been said above; the Supreme Court finds that the arguments of the plaintiffs in respect to the ground of injustice should be considered baseless since the Commercial High Court committed no errors. C. Whether the contract of sale between Fiat Amélie and Dunia Bakarani should not be considered as valid. [31] Counsel Nzamwita Toy says that basing on the provisions of article 295 of Law n° 18/2004 of 20/06/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure which was into force when the sale contract of the house between Fiat Amélie and Dunia Bakarani was made, that sale should not be taken as valid since Fiat Amélie has delivered the sale price

Larcier, Bruxelles, 2006, P. 927. In case the opposition was made after the appeal, if the appeal is inadmissible, there will be no hinderance on the admissibility of a regular opposition, made for the first time. Michel Franchimont, Ann Jacobs et Adrien Masset, Manuel de procédure pénale, 2e édition, Larcier, Bruxelles, 2006, P. 927.

## Page 395

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 133 proceeds to I&M BANK (former Banque Commercial du Rwanda) instead of depositing it with the State Treasurer. He adds that this action of Fiat Amelie led the notary to proceed with the auction in the State’s interests. Thus, he finds that the debt-clearance certificate that I&M BANK (former Banque Commercial du Rwanda) issued to Dunia Bakarani was not in itself enough to stay the auction. Furthermore, he says that the notary had no obligation of staying the auction basing on that certificate since it required another court order from the President of Rubavu Intermediate Court ordering him to stay the auction. He concludes saying that the provisions of article 318 of Law n° 18/2004 of 20/06/2004 mentioned above which was into force at that time cannot be based on in this case while the provisions of article 295 of Law n° 18/2004 of 20/06/2004 mentioned above were not complied with. [32] Counsel Shema Gakuba Charles says that the fact that Fiat Amélie bought that house and later paid to I&M BANK (former Banque Commercial du Rwanda) shows that Dunia Bakarani voluntarily executed the judgment and he finds that as long as I&M BANK (former Banque Commerciale du Rwanda) issued the debt-clearance certificate to Dunia Bakarani and notified it to Notary Kayitesi Judith requesting her to stay the auction, the Commercial High Court committed no fault since the sale contract was made before the auction was conducted and the sale proceeds were given to I&M BANK (former Banque Commerciale du Rwanda). Thus, he finds that depositing the sale proceeds with the State Treasurer was not necessary since the house of Dunia Bakarani was MBERABAGABO ET AL v. FIAT AMELIE ET AL 133

## Page 396

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 134 seized in the interests of I&M BANK (the former Banque Commercial du Rwanda). [33] Counsel Batware Jean-Claude says that basing on the article 314 of Law N° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, any person shall have the right to redeem the seized property by satisfying the damages and costs in the interests and with the consent of the debtor. He explains that before the auction, I&M BANK (former Banque Commerciale du Rwanda) and Dunia Bakarani had reached the consensus since the latter voluntarily paid the former that notified this to the notary; thus he finds that the auction was illegally conducted. THE VIEW OF THE COURT [34] Article 293 of Law N° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure (former article 295 of Law n° 18/2004 of 20/6/2004 which was into force that time of the sale of the house between Fiat Amélie and Dunia Bakarani) provides that “the alienation of immovable property and the establishment of any charges related to it by the debtor after being served with the order to pay or objection shall be automatically void unless the acquirer deposits in the hands of a government accountant an amount which is equal to the debt and costs which are supposed to be paid to the distrainer”. [35] Article 313 of Law n° 21/2012 of 14/6/2012 mentioned above (former 317 of Law n° 18/2004 of

## Page 397

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 135 20/6/2004 mentioned above) provides that any distrainee debtor may, at any time, redeem the seized property by paying to the court’s account, a sum sufficient to satisfy the principal debt which led to the seizure, interests and costs and specifying that the sum is meant to satisfy the debt of the distrainer, if the rights of the latter are subsequently recognized”. [36] Article 314 of Law n° 21/2012 of 14/6/2012 mentioned above (former article 318 of Law n° 18/2004 of 20/6/2004 mentioned above) provides that “any person shall have the right to redeem the seized property by satisfying the damages and the costs of the seizure, as long as it is made before the end of the sale, in the interests and with the consent of the debtor”. [37] Those legal provisions demonstrate that, though is seized, any person or the debtor can, as long as it is made before the end of the sale, redeem the seized property if it is made in the interests of the creditor and of the debtor implying that the sum is meant to satisfy the debt of the distrainer and the seizure costs. [38] With regard to article 293 of Law n° 21/2012 of 14/6/2012 mentioned above, the Supreme Court finds that it is not necessary to deposit with the State Treasurer the sum of the debt and costs of the seizure and no indispensable formality is required since what is necessary is to pay to the creditor on top of that article 293 of the aforementioned Law is not of public order. [39] With regard to the allegations of the plaintiffs that the contract of sale of the house between Fiat MBERABAGABO ET AL v. FIAT AMELIE ET AL 135 MBERABAGABO ET AL v. FIAT AMELIE ET AL 135

## Page 398

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 136 Amélie and Dunia Bakarani should not be considered valid because it was necessary to get another court order of the President of the Intermediate Court staying the auction before entering into that sale contract, the Supreme Court finds that it is not true since it is not provided for by any law, instead any person or the debtor has the right to redeem the seized property by satisfying the damages and the costs of the seizure, as long as it is made before the end of the sale, in the interests and with the consent of the debtor. Therefore, it is not necessary to request the President of Intermediate Court’s order staying the auction before redeeming the seized property. [40] In light of all those grounds, the Supreme Court finds that the sale contract between Fiat Amélie and Dunia Bakarani has to be considered as valid since it was made for redeeming the house which was seized by I&M BANK (former Banque Commerciale du Rwanda) which was paid and notified Notary Kayitesi Judith before the auction. a. Whether damages for the rent of the house awarded by the Commercial High Court have basis. [41] Counsel Nzamwita Toy says that ordering Notary Kayitesi Judith, Mberabagabo Innocent and Butera Jean- Pierre to pay to Dunia Bakarani 30,000,000 Frw in damages amounts to injustice since they committed no fault and on top of that Notary Kayitesi Judith was acquitted by two courts. He says that Butera Jean-Pierre could not commit any fault since he did not buy nor sell the house and Mberabagabo Innocent committed no fault

## Page 399

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 137 since he saw the advertisement for and attended the auction at which he bought the house; thus he finds that the Commercial High Court’s decision awarding those damages is baseless. [42] Counsel Buhuru Pierre Célestin says that the Commercial High Court decided that the auction conducted by Notary Kayitesi Judith was illegal, it deprived Fiat Amélie and Dunia BAKARANI of its rents since that house was leased at 3,500 USD per month before its sale and that buyers at auction used fraud and that it is Butera Jean-Pierre who drafted that contract. He explains that before the auction Mberabagabo Innocent, Butera Jean-Pierre and Bisamaza formed the company called ‘‘Prime Lodge‘‘, and they shortly changed the destination of the business which was carried out in the sold house, thus he finds that, as long as the Commercial High Court has upheld the decision taken on those explanations, it is clear that it has explained the faults they committed. [43] Counsel Gakuba Shema Charles says that on 13/12/2011I&M Bank (former Banque Commercial du Rwanda) wrote to Notary Kayitesi Judith requesting her to stay the auction since Dunia no longer had any debt towards the bank. Therefore, since the notary ignored all this and auctioned the house while Butera Jean Pierre and Mberabagabo Innocent bought the same house fully knowing that this was fraudulent, he finds this as serious faults for which they have to be held liable. MBERABAGABO ET AL v. FIAT AMELIE ET AL 137 MBERABAGABO ET AL v. FIAT AMELIE ET AL 137

## Page 400

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 138 THE VIEW OF THE COURT [44] The Supreme Court finds that in paragraph 14 of the judgment for which review is sought, the Commercial High Court has decided that ‘‘the committed faults deprived Fiat Amélie who bought the house before the auction from the rents of his house amounting to 3,500USD per month for the period of 13 months which make the total of 45,000USD equivalent to 29,575,000Frw which amount at the time of the execution of this judgment has to be deducted from money deposited with BNR when the auction was carried out (article 258 CCB III)”, thus it has ordered Notary Kayitesi Judith, Mberabagabo Innocent and Butera Jean-Pierre to jointly pay to Fiat Amélie 30,575,000Frw after delivery of the judgment, starting with the amount that Notary Kayitesi Judith deposited with BNR on 19/12/2011 after conducting the auction. [45] With regard to Notary Kayitesi Judith, the Supreme Court finds that since she proceeded with the auction and sold that house located in plot n° 339 in Rubavu (former Gisenyi) despite the fact that I&M Bank (former Banque Commercial du Rwanda ) had notified her, before the auction, that Dunia Bakarani had already finished to pay it and requested her to stay the auction she committed the fault for which she has to be held liable and pay damages thereof since this act caused damage to Fiat Amélie and deprived him of the rents for the house, which he had bought before the auction, amounting to 3,500USD per month for the period of 13 months which makes the total of 29,575,000Frw by the

## Page 401

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 139 time the Commercial High Court delivered its judgment. In addition, the Supreme Court finds that the fact that Notary Kayitesi Judith was acquitted in criminal cases does not exempt her from being held liable for torts or quasi-torts she committed against Fiat Amélie, thus the Notary Kayitesi Judith has to make good the damage. [46] With regard to Mberabagabo Innocent, the Supreme Court finds that since he was notified that the house he bought from the auction was litigious as it was bought by another person before; but he kept its possession and changed the activities which were carried out in that house, this is a fault for which he has to be held liable because he deprived Fiat Amélie of the rents for the house, which he had bought before the auction, amounting to 3,500USD per month for the period of 13 months which makes the total of 29,575,000Frw by the time the Commercial High Court delivered the judgment, thus Mberabagabo Innocent has to make good the damage. [47] With regard to Butera Jean-Pierre, the Supreme Court finds that he caused no damage to Fiat Amélie since he did not buy that house at auction and the fact that he is among shareholders of the company called “Prime Lodge” is not the ground that can make him liable for the faults of Mberabagabo Innocent, thus Butera Jean-Pierre cannot be held liable for the damage caused by Mberabagabo Innocent. [48] In light of all the above grounds and basing on article 258 of the Civil Code Book Three which provides that “ any act of a person that causes damage to another MBERABAGABO ET AL v. FIAT AMELIE ET AL 139 MBERABAGABO ET AL v. FIAT AMELIE ET AL 139

## Page 402

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 140 person, obliges the one whose fault has caused damage to make good the loss”, the Supreme Court finds that only Notary Kayitesi Judith and Mberabagabo Innocent have to pay Fiat Amélie 29,575,000Frw for the rents of the house which he had bought before the auction amounting to 3,500USD per month for the period of 13 months, thus the judgment RCOM 0306/12/HCC has to be overruled with regard to Butera Jean-Pierre since it has ordered him jointly with others to pay to Fiat Amélie that sum of money. a. Whether the defendants should be awarded damages they claim [49] Counsels Buhuru Pierre Célestin and Gakuba Shema Charles request the Supreme Court to order Notary Kayitesi Judith, Mberabagabo Innocent and Butera Jean-Pierre to pay to FIAT Amélie and Dunia Bakarani 2,000,000Frw for having involved them in court proceedings for no ground and 2,000,000Frw for the lawyer’s fees. [50] Counsel Batware Jean-Claude requests the Supreme Court to order Notary Kayitesi Judith, MBerabagabo Innocent and Butera Jean-Pierre to pay to I&M Bank (former Banque Commerciale du Rwanda) 500,000Frw for the procedural damages and 500,000Frw for the lawyer’s fees. [51] Counsel Nzamwita Toy, says that the defendants should not be awarded those damages since the plaintiffs committed no fault. .

## Page 403

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 141 THE VIEW OF THE COURT [52] The Supreme Court finds that Fiat Amélie and Dunia Bakarani cannot be awarded 2,000,000Frw in damages they request for having been involved in court proceedings for no ground since they have right to lodge a claim in case they find that they have suffered from injustice. [53] With regard to 2,000,000Frw for the lawyer’s fees that Fiat Amélie and Dunia Bakarani request, the Supreme Court finds that it has to award them 500,000Frw for the lawyer’s fees at its discretion since what they request is excessive. [54] With regard to 500,000Frw for the procedural damages and 500,000Frw for the lawyer’s fees that I&M Bank (former Banque Commerciale du Rwanda) requests, the Supreme Court awards 500,000 Frw at its discretion since it finds what they request to be excessive. [55] Basing on all those grounds, the Supreme Court has to order Notary Kayitesi Judith and Mberabagabo Innocent to pay to Fiat Amélie and Dunia Bakarani 500,000Frw for the lawyer’s fees and pay to I & M Bank (former Banque Commercial du Rwanda) 500,000Frw for the procedural and lawyer’s fees. MBERABAGABO ET AL v. FIAT AMELIE ET AL MBERABAGABO ET AL v. FIAT AMELIE ET AL 141

## Page 404

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 142 III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [56] Decides that the claim lodged by Notary Kayitesi Judith and Mberabagabo Innocent is without merit; [57] Decides that Butera Jean-Pierre’s claim has merit; [58] Orders Notary Kayitesi Judith and Mberabagabo Innocent to jointly pay to Fiat Amélie 29,575,000Frw for the rent of the house; [59] Orders Notary Kayitesi Judith and Mberabagabo Innocent to jointly pay to Fiat Amélie and Dunia Bakarani the lawyer’s fees amounting to 500,000Frw plus 500,000Frw which was awarded by the Commercial High Court, which make in total 1,000,000Frw; [60] Orders Notary Kayitesi Judith and Mberabagabo Innocent to jointly pay to I&M Bank (former Banque Commerciale du Rwanda) 500,000Frw for the advocate’s and the procedural fees; [61] Orders Notary Kayitesi Judith and Mberabagabo Innocent to pay the court fees equal to 14,500Frw.

## Page 405

143 143 RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY v. WORLD EXPRESS LTD [Rwanda COMMERCIAL HIGH COURT – RCOM A 0586/13/HCC – (Niwemugeni, J.) March 07, 2014] Tax laws – To determine the value of the imported goods – In determining the value of the imported good, the imposition cannot be determined based on goods which seems to be similar or look alike and coming from the same country while the taxpayer has shown the value of the paid amount – Law n° 15/2004 of 12/06/ 2004, relating to evidence and its production, article 3. Contract law – Loss of opportunities – Damages for expected income to be earned by a vehicle affected in transportation – They are granted if the claimant prove without any doubt that the vehicle was supposed to be used for transportation – procedural fees – For procedural fees to be granted the applicant shall provide evidence that they have been really spend, failing to do so they are determined by court discretion – Law nº 45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing Contracts, article 142. Contracts or obligation law – Procedural fees – Damages for case’s expenses are granted when the claim has merit. Facts: The World Express imported a vehicle, and when vehicle arrived in the country, it declared the purchase price as basis for levying tax. Customs objected the

## Page 406

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 144 declared purchase price, and instead hiked it to the value higher than the declared purchase price. World Express filed a case in the Commercial High Court requesting the Court to determine the purchase price basing on the contract and payment documents. The Commissioner General explained that he doubted on the purchase price of USD 4300 including shipping costs for a vehicle Combi and thus, he determined the priced based to another KIA Combi of the same year (1999) bought at USD6500 excluding shipping costs from Korea as was the case for the vehicle in question. The Court decided that, the Commissioner General based on insufficient information and ruled that, second hand vehicles may have different prices according to their technical state on the purchase date. The Commissioner General appealed against the ruling in the Commercial High Court on the following grounds:( i) The Court erroneously ruled that RRA based on the provisions of appendix four, part one, paragraph three and four (Transaction value on identical goods and Transaction value on similar goods) of the East African Community Customs Management Act, (ii) That Court’s decision also was based on doubt , when it said that there are reasons for doubting on World Express prices, (iii) RRA was Ordered to pay damages without legal basis. World Express submitted as follows: (i) the vehicle in question, together with another one of Istana’s brand, were purchased online at USD8500, including shipping charges (CIF). Istana at USD 4200 and Combi at USD 4300 including shipping costs as evidenced by the sales

## Page 407

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 145 contract for purchase online, (ii) the judge based on the purchase price provided in the hearing to arrive at the truth of the matter, (iii) That the damages awarded to it have merit. And went ahead to request for damages equivalent to the amount of money it would have earned from public transport in a year, financial damages and case related costs at the appeal level. Held: 1. In determining the value of imported goods for tax purpose, the imposition shall be based on the price of the imported goods shown by the taxpayer and especially when the tax administration failed to provide evidence which contradict the shown price. Therefore the price shown by the taxpayer for the imported vehicle cannot be changed by the tax administration based on goods which seems to be similar or look alike and coming from the same country 2. The fact that The World Express’s claim had merit, Damages which were charged to Rwanda Revenue Authority remains. 3. There is nowhere that The World Express should request income it was supposed to earn if it failed to show activities that the vehicle was supposed to be performing in the country, and For procedural fees, the applicant shall provide evidence on how these fees were spent, failing to do so, these fees are determined at the Court discretion. Appeal without merit; The appellant shall bear the costs. RRA v. WORLD EXPRESS LTD 145 .

## Page 408

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 146 Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law n° 15/2004 of 12/06/ 2004, relating to evidence and its production, article 3; Law nº 45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing Contracts, article 142. No case referred to. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] The World Express says that it purchased a vehicle abroad and when it was delivered, it declared the purchase price but the customs administration objected the declared price and fixed a higher price that was not correct. The World Express filed the claim to the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge requesting the court to determine the value basing on the contract and the invoices. [2] RRA says that it doubted on the purchase price of the vehicle Combi of 4300$ including shipping charges and determined the real purchase price basing on the price of another vehicle of the same nature KIA Combi manufactured in the same year (1999) and bought in Korea as the one of World Express. That one was bought at the price of 6500$ excluding shipping. RRA requests the court to uphold that tax and not consider the damages claimed by The World Express because RRA has the power to determine taxes and customs duties.

## Page 409

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 147 [3] The court decided that, in determining the price, RRA based on insufficient information because the fact that those two vehicles originate from a same country does not mean that they are the same. Ruling that used cars may have different prices according their conditions at the time of sell. RRA was not convinced with the court ruling and appealed against it in this Court On the grounds that the Court erroneously ruled that RRA based on the Appendix 4, part 3, paragraphs 3 and 4 of EACMA (transaction value on identical goods and transaction value on similar goods), that Court’s decision also was based on doubt, when it said that there are reasons for doubting on World Express prices, and on the awarded damages. The Court shall examine the validity of these grounds of appeal. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES 1. Whether RRA based on the Appendix 4, part 3, paragraphs 3 and 4 of EACMA (transaction value on identical goods and transaction value on similar goods) in determining the purchase price of the vehicle in question? [4] Rwanda Revenue Authority (RRA) argues that the Court ruled it based on Appendix 4, part 3, paragraphs 3 and 4 of EACMA (Transaction value on identical goods and Transaction value on similar goods) in determining the price of The World Express Ltd’s vehicle basing on two different items because of the following reasons: RRA v. WORLD EXPRESS LTD 147

## Page 410

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 148 -The vehicle KIA Combi is different from Combi which was purchased by The World Express because they do not have the same brand names and the manufacture companies are not the same. -The price of brand new similar vehicles was not shown. - Having the same country of Origin alone does not mean that the vehicles are the same. - Used cars cannot have the same purchase price. [5] RRA says that in the determination of the value of the vehicle it did not base on the said appendix, but on the appendix eight, part one, paragraph eight (Fall back method) which provides that “when the value of goods cannot be determined basing on the methods provided for in the previous paragraph, it shall be determined basing on the methods recognized by the principles and general provisions provided for in this appendix 4 and information available in a member State”. [6] The World Express in its submissions says that the vehicle in question was purchased online together with another one, Istana brand at 8500$ including shipping charges (CIF). The price of Istana 4200$ while the one of Combi was 4300$ including shipping charges. This is proven by the online sale contract. [7] The Court considers that on this ground of appeal, RRA misinterpreted the court’s ruling because after having quoted that appendix in the paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment, the Court said this: “Basing on

## Page 411

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 149 legal provisions mentioned in the previous paragraphs, the court considers that RRA did not base on the same goods or the similar goods in the determination of the value of the vehicle, but on the almost the same or almost similar vehicles from the same country of origin. The court did not therefore say that RRA based on the appendix 4, part 1, paragraph 3 and 4 (Transaction value on identical goods and Transaction value on similar goods) of EACMA but it said that RRA did not base on that appendix. The argument of having based on the Fall Back Method is baseless because the court considers that this method can be used only when the value of the goods cannot be known, while for that Combi vehicle it was shown at 4300$. Therefore, this ground of appeal is baseless. 2. Whether the Court had doubt in its decision? [8] Rwanda Revenue Authority ( RRA) argues that, the Court decided that World Express Ltd pay tax based on the purchase of 4.300$ yet it agrees that there is a reason to doubt on that value on page three paragraph 12 of the ruling. [9] The World Express Ltd argues that on that paragraph, the judge wanted to show the prices of the vehicle as used in the evidences during the hearing in order to highlight the truth of the subject matter and it is in that regard that on paragraph 13 the court found that the grounds of uncertainty as raised by RRA to be unfounded and ordered that the World Express to pay taxes based on the purchase price of 4.300$. It says that additionally in the paragraph 14, the World Express RRA v. WORLD EXPRESS LTD 149

## Page 412

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 150 presented the corroborating and doubtless evidence proving that the taxable value of the vehicle in question as 4300$. [10] Basing on the article 3 of the Law on evidence, the Court finds that Rwanda Revenue Authority emphasizes one part of paragraph 12 mentioned by RRA which is favorable to it, and does not mention the whole sentence. This is because the court said that the fact that those three vehicles from Korea have different prices is a reason of doubting on the value declared by the World Express Ltd, however saying that this price is not correct and determining another one needs more concrete and accurate information. In paragraph 13, the Court decided that it finds the reason of believing so much and relying on information regarding the price one vehicle of USD 6500 excluding shipment charges, is not convincing yet the prices of other vehicles imported from Korea as seen above including shipping charges to Dar el Salaam or Kigali is lower than that one referred to: In Paragraph 14, Court ruled that the value provided by World Express Ltd shall be considered as true as long as there is no sufficient evidence contradicting the declared value of 4300 USD for the vehicle Combi and, thus, that value has to be confirmed. [11] It is evident that Rwanda Revenue Authority (RRA) highlights a minor element explained by the judge and favorable to it, without going deep to the whole reasoning that lead to the Court’s decision. The East African Community Customs Management Act, Fourth schedule (ss 122 (1) provides that in the

## Page 413

4. Whether to award damages requested by the World Express [13] The World Express Ltd is requesting damages for the amount expected to have earned in transporting persons (public transport) in a year amounting to 7,200,000Frw, financial damages of 2.000.000Frw, and AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 151 determination of the value of imported items, the basis which is taken into consideration is the purchase price of those imported items. This Court finds that in the appealed case, there is nowhere it shows that doubting on the purchase price of The World Express vehicle would lead it to be taxed basing on the value higher than the price it purchased it. The Court failed to establish that having doubt on the price of the vehicle of The World Express could lead it to be taxed based on a value which is higher than the price that has bought it, Instead, the Court established that this could be a strong ground to tax it basing on the purchase price as long as there is no other evidence to the contrary that has been provided, Thus, this ground of appeal is baseless. 3. Whether an Order for RRA to pay damages was necessary [12] Rwanda Revenue Authority (RRA) submits that it was ordered to pay 600.000Frw as case related costs and argues that they are baseless as the case itself had no basis. This Court finds that this not true because it is established that, The World Express’s claim was valid. RRA v. WORLD EXPRESS LTD 151 . . . 2,000,000

## Page 414

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 152 court related costs at the appeal level equivalent to 500,000Frw. [14] Article 142 of the law governing contract provides that “Damages shall not be granted for loss greater than what the aggrieved party can establish with certainty” This Court finds, The World Express does not establish with certainty whether it would have earned that amount of money from the business of public transport using the vehicle and does not even provide any explanations on financial damages that it is also requesting, and thus, the costs shall be determined at the Court discretion, because there is no proof that 500.000Frw was spent at the appeal level. III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT The Commercial High Court: [15] Decides to receive the appeal filed by Rwanda Revenue Authority (RRA). [16] Decides that it has no basis. [17] Rules that, The World Express Ltd wins and Rwanda Revenue Authority (RRA) losses. [18] Orders Rwanda Revenue Authority (RRA) to pay to The World Express Ltd 200.000Frw as costs at the appeal level which shall be paid within fifteen days,

## Page 415

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 153 failing to do so, the amount shall be raised by forced recovery. [19] Orders Rwanda Revenue Authority (RRA) to pay 9700Frw as expenses incurred in this case, to be paid within eight day failing to do so, the amount shall be raised on its properties by forced execution. [20] Orders the execution of the ruling of the case R Com 0870/13/TC/Nyge on other issues. RRA v. WORLD EXPRESS LTD 153

## Page 417

155 CRIMINAL CASES

## Page 419

157 PROSECUTION v. BAGORA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RPA0308/10/CS (Nyirinkwaya, P.J., Mukanyundo and Rugabirwa, J.) 9 January 2015]. Damages – Civil damages resulting from an offense – Damages based on the impact that would be caused by the offense in case the claimant is not the undertaken victim – The civil party has right to damages in case the offense should have impact on him/her, terrified and traumatized him/her – Law of 30 July 1888 relating to contracts or obligations, article 258. Facts: In the High Court Chamber of Musanze, Bagora was charged of attempt to murder basing on the fact that he was caught while going to throw a grenade on the house of his sister. Mukapasika Marie Jeanne, daughter of Nyirabazamanza also filed a civil case basing on the torture they went through by him since her childhood until 14 August 2007 when he injured her eye and on 25/09/2009 when he wanted to kill all of them with a grenade. The Court convicted Bagora and sentenced him with 4 years of imprisonment and ruled that the damages requested by Mukapasika are not valid since the offense of injuring her eye has not been argued upon in this court. Concerning the offence of throwing the grenade, she does not explain how the offense affected her since the intended victim who is her mother, is still alive. Mukapasika appealed to the Supreme Court.

## Page 420

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 158 Held: The offense of which Bagora Jonas was convicted has affected Mukapasika Marie Jeanne since the grenade that he intended to throw should have great impact on her and it is understandable that even if the act was not accomplished, it terrified and traumatized her therefore, she has rights to damages. Appeal has merit. The appellant must be awarded damages equal to 1.000.000Frw from Bagora. The appealed judgment changes only on issues concerning the damages. Court fees goes to the Public Treasury. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law of 30 July 1888 relating to contracts or obligations, article 258. No case laws referred to. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] This case commenced in the High Court Musanze Chamber, when the prosecution charged Bagora with a crime of attempted murder, stating that on 25 September 2009, he was caught near his sister’s home Nyirabazamanza with a grenade intending to throw it at 1,000,000

## Page 421

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 159 his sister’s house with which they had land conflicts. Mukapasika Marie Jeanne, daughter of Nyirabazamanza also filed a civil action basing on the torture they went through since her childhood until 14 August 2007 when he injured her eye and on 25 September 2009 when he intended to kill all of them with a grenade. [2] On 24 September 2010, That court ruled in the case RP 0100/09/HC/MUS, convicting Bagora of attempted murder and sentenced him to 4 years of imprisonment and ruled that the damages requested by Mukapasika have no merit since the offence of injuring her eye has not been tried before, while concerning the offence of throwing the grenade, she has not explained how it has affected her, especially when the targeted person who is the mother, is still alive. [3] Mukapasika appealed in the Supreme Court on 19 October, 2010. The case was publicly tried on 1 December 2014, Bagora Jonas was assisted by Council Nzabarantumye Augustin while Mukapasika Marie Jeanne a civil party was assisted by Council Twagirayezu Laurent, while the Prosecution was represented by National Prosecutor, Higaniro Hermogène. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUE To know whether Mukapasika Marie Jeanne can be awarded civil damages. PROSECUTION v. BAGORA 159 159

## Page 422

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 160 [4] Mukapasika Marie Jeanne states that in the first instance, she requested for damages basing on the fact that Bagora injured her eye and that his intention was to kill them with a grenade in their house where they lived with her mother and her little sister, She appealed requesting for damages equal to 5.000.000Frw basing on the grenade that was going to be thrown on them that left her with trauma. [5] Twagirayezu Laurent Council of Mukapasika also states that if Bagora should have thrown the grenade at the house of his sister as intended, it shouldn’t have differentiated among the victims and that’s why he finds his client having rights to damages as claimed for in the first instance court, since the offence caused her trauma as mentioned. [6] Bagora Jonas stated that he had no problem with his nephew Mukapasika Marie Jeanne, but had it with her mother and that he was punished for intending to throw grenade and given a sentence of 4 years of imprisonment, therefore he added that he cannot be ordered to pay damages since nothing was destroyed by the grenade. [7] Nzabarantumye Augustin Council of Bagora Jonas also states that there is no ground on which Bagora can be ordered to pay damages from the offense of throwing the grenade, since Mukapasika Marie Jeanne presented her claim of damages on appeal level, and highlights that the competent person to claim damages is her mother who is still alive.

## Page 423

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 161 [8] The prosecution representative states that they have no claim since they have been satisfied with the decision taken on the penalty but finds reason in the award of damages to Mukapasika Marie Jeanne, since the throwing of the grenade should have had impact on her. THE VIEW OF THE COURT [9] Article 258 of the Civil Code Book III states that “Any act of a person that harms another obliges that person who committed that fault to repair” [10] Bagora Jonas was punished for the attempted murder when he intended to throw the grenade in the house of his sister Nyirabazamanza but lucky enough the offense was stopped without his participation and admits also that his action should have caused harm to his nephew Mukapasika Marie Jeanne since she resides in the same house. [11] The court therefore, finds that the offense of which Bagora was convicted has affected Mukapasika Marie Jeanne since the grenade he intended to throw should have had great impact, and this is understandable that even though the act has not been accomplished, it has terrified and traumatized her. [12] Concerning the money requested by Mukapasika Marie Jeanne, the court finds that 5.000.000frw is much compared to the damages caused by the offense and in PROSECUTION v. BAGORA 161 161 .

## Page 424

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 162 its discretion; she can be awarded moral damages equal to 1.000.000frw. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [13] The appeal of Mukapasika Marie Jeanne has merit. [14] Orders Bagora Jonas to award her moral damages equal to one million (1.000.000Frw). [15] Rules that the judgment RP 0100/09/HC/MUS rendered on 24/09/2010 changes in regards damages. [16] Orders that the costs to be met by the State. 1,000,000Frw. (1,000,000Frw).

## Page 425

163 163 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RPA0152/12/CS (Havugiyaremye, P.J., Kanyange and Munyangeri, J.) October 10, 2014] Criminal procedure – Unlawful detention – Imprisonment in case there is appeal while the trial court has not ordered the immediate imprisonment of the accused – In case neither the trial court nor the appellate court has ordered the imprisonment of the accused, the imprisonment of the accused is considered unlawful – Law nº 30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating the code of criminal procedure, article 183. Facts: Habyarimana, Manirakiza and Habimana have been accused by the Prosecution alleging that they conspired in the criminal attack directed against the family of Nzeyimana in which they killed his wife and cut off his arm. The court convicted all the accused of the offense of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment with damages to Nzeyimana equal to 20,000,000Frw, 4 % of that amount equal to 800,000Frw and court fees. Habyarimana appealed against the verdict before the Supreme Court; but later on he was arrested and jailed in Rusizi Prison and then filed a claim to the Supreme Court stating that he has been unlawfully detained while the appealed judgment was tried while he was in provisional release.

## Page 426

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 164 Habimana also appealed against that judgment in the Supreme Court and applied for its review in High Court which ruled however that the case is not admissible. Held: In case neither the trial court nor the appellate court has ordered the imprisonment of the accused, the imprisonment of the accused is considered unlawful. The appellants are unlawfully detained The accused must be immediately released The case will be tried by this court Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law nº 30/2013 of 24/05/2013relating the code of criminal procedure, article 183. No case referred to. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] Habyarimana Philbert, Manirakiza Emmanuel and Habimana Melchior were charged by the Prosecution before the High Court, Rusizi Chamber of conspiring in the attack against the family of Nzeyimana Jerome in the night of 15 October 1996 at Gishagara in Nyamaronko, Nyakabuye Sector, Rusizi District in which they killed his wife and cut off his arm. . . .

## Page 427

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 165 [2] In the judgment RP0009/06/HC/RSZ rendered in absentia on 28 March 2012 while they had been legally summoned to appear before the court, the Court ruled that Habyarimana Philbert, Manirakiza Emmanuel and Habimana Melchior are convicted of the offence of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment and ordered them to pay 20,000,000Frw in moral damages to Nzeyimana Jerome, 4% of that amount of money equal to 800,000Frw and the court fees. [3] On 24 April 2012, Habyarimana appealed against that judgment before the Supreme Court. [4] On 23 July 2013, he was arrested and detained in Rusizi Prison. In his letter of 9 April 2014, he lodged a complaint to the Supreme Court alleging that he was illegally detained while the judgment RP0009/06/HC/RSZ that is being executed was rendered while he was free and filed the appeal against the latter. [5] Habimana Melchior also appealed against that judgment before the Supreme Court on 24 May 2012 and applied for review in the High Court which, however, ruled that his application for review is not admissible in the judgment rendered on 26 March 2013. [6] On 15 September 2014 ,the case was publicly tried where Habyarimana was assisted by counsel, Rwangabwoba Bernard, Habimana Melchior assisted by counsel Mihigo Bernard and Nzeyimana Jérôme assisted by counsel Niyibizi Remy while the prosecution was represented by Munyaneza Nkwaya Eric. PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA 165 165

## Page 428

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 166 [7] Prior to the examination of the case on merits, the Court first examined the issue of whether Habyarimana Philbert and Habimana Melchior are unlawfully detained because they were arrested by the prosecution while they had appealed against the judgment during the trial of which they remained free and whether this is contrary to article 183 of the Law relating to the Code of Criminal Procedure. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUE Whether Habyarimana Philbert and Melchior are illegally detained [8] Habyarimana Philbert states that the judgment RP 0009/06/HC/RSZ was rendered in his absentia and after being notified of the verdict therefrom, he appealed against it but after the very appeal he was arrested and detained. He was released after a short period; but was detained again three days later. Thus, he requests his release as restoring in his status during the trial of appealed judgment. [9] His Counsel, Rwangabwoba Bernard states that even before he was provisionally detained and he had been granted provisional release without any appeal. He further stated that basing on article 183 of Law No 30/2013 of 24/05/ 2013 relating to the Code of Criminal Procedure which provides that “If the accused remaining free during trial is sentenced to imprisonment, he/she shall remain free during trial if he/she has filed an appeal .

## Page 429

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 167 against the penalty unless the court orders his/her immediate arrest”. He states that the prosecution has taken a general decision concerning two individuals while they appealed in different ways. [10] The representative of the Prosecution, who notified the court that he is no longer relying on the previous submissions by his fellow prosecutor, states that the basis of the prosecution is article 227 of the code of criminal procedure which provides that, with respect to the execution of court judgments, the Public Prosecution is required to execute prison sentences and does so on its own initiative and in doing so, it respects the decision of the court. [11] Regarding the relation between article 227 of the aforesaid law which he states to have been the basis and article 183, he states that Habyarimana and Habimana have been detained after the prosecution was notified by the court that they did not appeal as evidenced by the certificate thereof delivered by the court. [12] Mihigo, the Counsel for Habimana Melchior, states that the case under process is not yet final to be executed and hence article 227 of the law relating to the code of criminal procedure which is the basis of the prosecution is not relevant; rather the legal basis is article 183. [13] He further explains that article 183 paragraph 1 of Law no 30/2013 of 24/05/2013(that came into force on 8 July 2013) which provides that if the accused remaining free during trial is sentenced to imprisonment, PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA 167 167

## Page 430

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 168 he/she shall remain free during trial if he/she has filed an appeal against the penalty unless the court orders his/her immediate arrest. He then states that Habimana appealed against that judgment on 24 May 2012 and he was arrested on 23 July 2013 while it was neither ordered by the trial court nor the Supreme Court. He adds that the fact that the prosecution states that Habimana Melchior is detained basing on the judgment RP 0024/12/HC/RSZ is an evidence of grave injustice since he is detained without any court decision ordering that imprisonment as the trial court ruled that his application for review is not admissible. THE VIEW OF THE COURT [14] The prosecution states that Habyarimana and Habimana are detained in execution of the decision of the court and they had not appealed by then. [15] The file of the case demonstrates that the judgement RP 0009/06/HC/RSZ rendered on 28 March 2012 has been appealed against by Habyarimana on 24 April 2012 as noticed from his letter to the Supreme Court while Habimana appealed on 24 May 2012 as evidenced by the certificate issued by the Supreme Court Registry on 28/03/2013 after being notified of the decision of the court. It means that while it is clear that the accused have appealed and the appellate court is yet to decide on their appeal, the appealed against judgment is not yet enforceable as provided for by article 180 of Law no 30/2013 of 24 May 2013 which provides that “The execution of a judgment shall be stayed until the

## Page 431

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 169 expiration of the time limits for appeal and if the appeal is filed, until the decision on appeal is rendered”. [16] Moreover, article 183 of the same law provides for the following: [17] “If the accused remaining free during trial is sentenced to imprisonment, he/she shall remain free during trial if he/she has filed an appeal against the penalty unless the court orders his/her immediate arrest”. [18] “He/she may be arrested and detained if there are serious and exceptional reasons given to the court seized of the appeal”. [19] The documents in this case file demonstrate that Habyarimana and Habimana were free during trial and got sentenced to life imprisonment without an order of immediate arrest by the trial court and appealed against that judgment as explained; but in the meantime they have been arrested and detained while the appellate court has neither decided on that appeal nor decided to arrest and detain them pending the appeal decision, as the only court competent to do so as provided for by paragraph 2 of article 183 of the abovementioned law. [20] The Court finds that the information and documents considered by the prosecution in detaining Habyarimana and Habimana should not have been based on since they are contrary to the reality. [21] Basing on all these explanations, the Court finds that the detentions of Habyarimana Philbert and PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA 169 169

## Page 432

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 170 Melchior is unlawful and therefore have to be immediately released and tried while remaining free. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [22] It rules that Habyarimana Philbert and Habimana Melchior are unlawfully detained [23] It orders that they have to be immediately released and remain free during their trial on merits. [24] It rules that the trial of this case on merits will continue on 29 October 2014. .

## Page 433

171 171 PROSECUTION v. MURINDA ET AL. [Rwanda HIGH COURT – RPA 0448/13/HC/NYA (Ngabire, P.J.) April 25, 2014] Criminal procedure – Distance between eye witnesses and the crime scene – Contradictory testimonial evidence – Contradictory testimonial evidence creates doubt and the latter favours the accused – Law no 30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure, article 35. Criminal procedure – Guilty plea – Reduction of the penalty – Unequivocal guilty plea entails the reduction of the penalty. Damages arising from the offence – They are awarded in the discretion of the court based on the consequences occasioned by the committed offence – None can reclaim damages where they were granted by the first instance court. Facts: Intermediate Court of Huye convicted Deny Murinda and his wife Cécile Dukuzeyezu of attempted murder perpetrated against Vital Kalisa. They were sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to pay Vital Kalisa 2,148,725 Frw in damages. Both Murinda and his wife appealed to the High Court, the former requesting reduction and suspension of the penalty as well as reduction of damages while Cécile Dukuzeyezu was requesting to be acquitted.

## Page 434

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 172 In responding to the grounds of appeal, the Prosecution contended that the guilty plea and the forgiveness seeking of Murinda were not authentic. In contrast, the Prosecution added, he wanted to cover his wife so as to be sentenced lonely. The Prosecution concluded by requesting the court to uphold the ruling of the appealed judgment. Held: 1. The fact that the distance between the crime scene and witnesses was too long in such a way that they could not see whether they co-operated to commit the crime and the fact that they could have rushed for rescue if they had been in the vicinity of the crime scene as well as their contradictory statements create doubt which favours the accused. Hence, Cécile Dukuzeyezu is acquitted. 2. The guilty plea made by the accused is unequivocal. Hence, it is a ground for the reduction of the penalty and therefore he is sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment. 3. Based on the consequences of the committed crime, the damages requested by victim are not excessive as alleged by the accused. Hence, they are upheld. The claim of the civil party requesting the increase of awarded damages has no merit since the damages he requests have been granted by the first instance court. Cécile Dukuzeyezu is acquitted. Deny Murinda is sentenced to 25 years in jail. Deny Murinda must pay Kalisa Vital 2,148,725 Frw. Deny Murinda is exempted from court fees since he is in jail.

## Page 435

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 173 Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law nº 30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure, article 35. No case was referred to. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] In the case whose number has been stated above, Deny Murinda pleaded guilty of having battered Vital Kalisa with blows of machetes in the evening of November 2, 2012 following a dispute over fodder and crops. In addition, he admitted that he solely battered him with blows of machetes. On the other hand, his wife Cécile Dukuzeyezu pleaded not guilty of attempted murder which they were co-accused of. On October 16, 2013, the Intermediate Court of Huye ruled on the case and held that the criminal action filed by the Prosecution and the civil action filed by Vital Kalisa have merit. The Court found Deny Murinda and Dukuzeyezu Cecile guilty of attempted murder. Furthermore, the Court ordered both Deny Murinda and Cecile Dukuzeyezu to pay 2, 148, 725Frw. The court decided that Deny Murinda and Cécile Dukuzeyezu lost the case, sentenced them to life imprisonment and ordered them to pay 2,148,725Frw to Vital Kalisa. Kalisa appealed on November 4, 2013 requesting the penalty reduction and its suspension and the reduction of damages while Cecile PROSECUTION v. MURINDA ET AL 173 173

## Page 436

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 174 Dukuzeyezu appealed requesting to be declared innocent. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES [2] Both in his appeal notice and submissions as well as during the case hearing, Murinda Deny assisted by Counsel Maurice Ndacyayisenga requests the penalty reduction and suspension of the penalty imposed at the first instance since he pleaded guilty and sought forgiveness but in vain. He also requests the Court to reduce the damages he was ordered to pay Vital Kalisa so that he can pay him at most 500, 000 Frw while Cécile Dukuzeyezu requests to be declared innocent. In contrast, the Prosecution request to uphold the appealed against judgment since the guilty plea made by Deny Murinda is not genuine as he tends to cover his wife so that he can be solely convicted. As for Vital Kalisa, he requests the increase of the damages awarded at the first instance. Hence, in this case the Court will analyse whether Vital Kalisa Deny Murinda his wife Cécile Dukuzeyezu co-acted. In other words, whether the guilty plea made by Deny Murinda is genuine in such a way that it can constitute mitigating circumstance for him (1) to consider issue of the awarded damages and those sought in this case (2). Whether Deny Murinda and his wife Cécile Dukuzeyezu cooperated in battering Vital Kalisa with blows of machete and whether the guilty plea and the forgiveness seeking made by Deny

## Page 437

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 175 Murinda are genuine to constitute the mitigating circumstance [3] The Prosecution rejects the defence presented by Deny Murinda who states that he lonely battered Vital Kalisa with the machete by first wounding his leg which weakened him and fell down while Deny Murinda continued battering him with the machete. In contrast, the Prosecution submits that the guilty plea and the forgiveness seeking made by Deny Murinda is equivocal because Kalisa Vital sustained 18 blows of machete on various body parts excluding the leg. This implies, for the prosecution, he was helped by someone as testified. [4] In his complaint filed to the Judicial Police on 03/11/2012, a day after he was battered with a machete, the Court finds that Vital Kalisa stated that he was wounded on different parts of the body including the leg. This is emphasized by the photo in the case file under identification code 34 which reveals four wounds on the legs of Vital Kalisa. Therefore, the statement of the Prosecution that Deny Murinda did not batter Vital Kalisa on the legs with the machete has no basis; especially that both in his complaint and pleading, Vital Kalisa affirms that Deny Murinda injured him with the machete on the neck and the head. This is also buttressed by the photos in the case file under identification codes 30, 31 and 33 and this confirms beyond any reasonable doubt the statements of Deny Murinda that he injured Vital Kalisa with a machete who then fell down and the accused continued to batter his victim with blows of machete because it is clear to the Court that someone PROSECUTION v. MURINDA ET AL 175 175 .

## Page 438

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 176 whose two legs, neck and head have been wounded by the machete can be weakened and fall down in such a way that whoever wants may continue battering him without any help; especially that Vital Kalisa who was injured states in his complaint that when he started fighting with Murinda, they both fell down. [5] The Court finds that the witnesses relied on in confirming that Deny Murinda and Cécile Dukuzeyezu cooperated in battering Vital Kalisa with the machete namely Esperance Mukakimonyo and Mathias Iyakaremye were on the other hill opposite to the place where Vital Kalisa was battered as affirmed by themselves during their interrogation by the judicial police. This was also affirmed by Vitali Kalisa himself in his aforesaid complaint and the Executive Secretary of Remera Cell in his report of September 26, 2013 whereby he testifies that the distance between the crime scene and the place where the witnesses reside is too long, in such a way that they could not see how Vital Kalisa was wounded. Therefore, the statements of Esperance Mukakimonyo and Mathias Iyakaremye inculpating Cecile Dukuzeyezu as a co-offender of her husband, Deny Murinda create doubt on top of that if they had seen Vitali Kalisa being battered; they should have crossed to save him. In addition, Iyakaremye personally states that when he was at his home he heared Vital Kalisa screaming “save me I am being killed”. However, they admitted that they had never reached the crime scene. Moreover, the Court finds that the statements of those two witnesses (Esperance Mukakimonyo and Mathias Iyakaremye) are

## Page 439

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 177 contradictory since the first testifies that it is Deny Murinda and his wife Cecile Dukuzeyezu who battered Vital Kalisa with the machete. However, in some of his statements he affirms: “I saw the person over someone beating him but I could not see what he was beating’’. It is clear that only one person battered Vital Kalisa. As for the second (Iyakaremye Mathias), he states that when he heard the sreaming of Vital Kalisa calling for help he positioned himself where he could have a clear view of the scene and saw a person over someone else hitting, which clearly implies that he saw only one person battering Vital Kalisa with a machete. However, Mathias Iyakaremye adds this “at the end of the events I saw a husband and a wife moving towards Murinda’s house”. The Court finds the testimonies of Esperance Mukakimonyo and Mathias Iyakaremye explaining that Dukuzeyezu Cecile cooperated with her husband Deny Murinda in battering Vital Kalisa with the machete to be false. Therefore, their statements should not be considered pursuant to article 65 of the Law relating to evidence and its production. [6] Furthermore, the Court finds that Makuza Evariste, Uwimana Kaniziyo and Nyiraneza Takirine attest that Dukuzeyezu Cécile was at Evariste Makuza’s house at the time Murinda Deny was battering Kalisa Vital with the machete. The statements of Evariste Makuza, Uwimana Kaniziyo and Nyiraneza Takirine are consistent with the defence presented by Dukuzeyezu Cécile that he was not with her husband when he battered Kalisa Vital with the machete. In contrast, the Court finds she was at Evarist Makuza’s since she PROSECUTION v. MURINDA ET AL 177 177

## Page 440

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 178 allegedly moved from there when they heard the scream that Deny Murinda and Vitali Kalisa had fought. These statements also create doubt on whether Dukuzeyezu Cécile might have cooperated with her husband Murinda Deny in macheting Vital Kalisa. This is emphasized by the fact that in the course of the hearing the prosecution has failed to demonstrate that Cécile Dukuzeyezu was herding with her husband so that she might have cooperated with him in macheting Vital Kalisa. Moreover, there is no other reliable evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that Cecile Dukuzeyezu cooperated with her husband in macheting Vital Kalisa. [7] Basing on the above explanations, the Court finds that the prosecution has failed to produce any reliable evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that Cécile Dukuzeyezu has ever arrived at the place where Deny Murinda bettered Vital Kalisa with the machete and cooperated with the former in attempted murder. Hence, doubt should be given in her favor so as to be acquitted as provided for by article 165 of Law relating to the code of criminal procedure. Furthermore, the Court finds that the explanations provided above indicate that, contrary to the findings of the Intermediate Court of Huye, the guilty plea and the forgiveness seeking made by Deny Murinda before the judicial police, the prosecution, before the Intermediate Court of Huye as well as in the course of the hearing of this case are unequivocal instead of being tricks to avoid consequences of the offence and cover up his wife so as to be solely convicted. Therefore, his plea of guilty and forgiveness seeking should constitute for him mitigating circumstance which should

## Page 441

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 179 entail the penalty reduction following the provisions of article 35 of Law relating to the code of criminal procedure as well as article 77 and 78 of Organic law instituting the penal code. However, his cruelty and the gravity of the crime of macheting Vital Kalisa should be taken into consideration in the reduction of the penalty. As for his request for penalty suspension, the Court is of the view that his penalty should not be suspended because of his extreme cruelty in macheting Vital Kalisa and should serve the entire imposed penalty in prison so as to be sufficiently corrected with more reason that the imposed penalty is far greater than that which can be suspended as provided for by article 85 of the aforementioned Organic law. Regarding damages [8] Deny Murinda requests the court to reduce the damages totalling 2,148,725Frw he and Cecile Dukuzeyezu were ordered to pay Vital Kalisa since, according to him, they are excessive. He submits that he would pay him 500,000Frw at the most while Vital Kalisa requests the Court to order Deny Murinda to add 300,000Frw in addition to the amount awarded at the first instance he paid the motorcyclist who used to provide him with food while he was admitted to the hospital. In addition to this, he requests the court to award the moral damages amounting to 1,000,000Frw, 200,000Frw for involving him in litigations and 300,000Frw for counsel’s fees at the appeal level. [9] The Court finds that 2,148,724 granted to Vital Kalisa in damage is not excessive as alleged by Deny PROSECUTION v. MURINDA ET AL 179 179

## Page 442

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 180 Murinda following the gravity of attempted murder committed against Vital Kalisa because 18 machete injuries on his body Deny Murinda accepts to have caused, inflicted him much pain in such way that, though Vital Kalisa did not die, the hacked parts of the body inflicted him much pain and left many scars as proved by photos in the case file. In addition, the pain he suffered from can neither be compared to damages awarded to Vital Kalisa nor to 500,000Frw which Murinda proposes to pay him with more reason that Vital Kalisa spent long time in the hospital for treatment. Furthermore, this implies that he suffered much loss following the hacking of which he was victim. Hence, the ground of appeal of Deny Murinda has no merit. [10] The Court finds that the damages Vital Kalisa was awarded at the first instance include the moral damages, counsel fees and the medical expenses as it is motivated in paragraph 18 of the appealed judgment. Hence, additional moral damages and damages he requests at the appeal level have no merit with more reason that moral damages to be awarded to him should be determined at the discretion of the Court. In addition, he did not prove that he spent much time in court litigations as he was, on the contrary, represented by the lawyer. At the appeal level, no counsel’s fees should be awarded since it was necessary for him to be party to the case because it was found that the appeal of Dukuzeyezu Cécile has merit. It is clear that he cannot pretend he has hired a lawyer at appeal level because of Deny Murinda. As for 300, 000Frw Vital Kalisa requests because he contracted a motorcyclist who regularly provided him

## Page 443

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 181 with food at the hospital, the Court finds that it cannot be awarded as the contract he base on was executed on October 2, 2012 prior to him being hacked and the reality of the other contents of contract is questionable . III. THE DECEISION OF THE COURT [11] Decides that the grounds of appeal of Cécile Dukuzeyezu have merit while the grounds of appeal of Deny Murinda have merit in part. Hence, in light of the grounds explained above, the judgment RP 0256/13/TGI/HYE rendered by Intermediate Court of Huye on October 16, 2013 is overruled in respect to Dukuzeyezu Cécile who must be acquitted and to the penalty Deny Murinda must be sentenced to. [12] It acquits Cécile Dukuzeyezu. [13] It overrules the judjment nº RP 0256/13/TGI/HYE rendered by Intermediate Court of Huye on October 16, 2013 in regard to Cécile Dukuzeyezu who is acquitted and to the penalty Deny Murinda is sentenced to following the grounds explained above. [14] It sentences Deny Murinda to 25 years in prison. [15] It orders Deny Murinda to pay 2,148,725Frw in damages as ordered at the first instance; failure to do so within the time provided for by the law, the amount shall be deducted from his assets through State coercion. PROSECUTION v. MURINDA ET AL 181 181

## Page 444

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 182 [16] It exempts Murinda from the court fees totaling 4,700Frw since he is in prison following the provisions of article 268 of the law relating to the code of criminal procedure.

## Page 445

183 183 PROSECUTION v. NKUBIRI ET AL [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RPA 0234/08/CS (Havugiyaremye, P.J., Munyangeri and Kanyange, J.) October 17, 2014]. Criminal Law – Concealment of the stolen items – When the penalty for the felony related to the concealment of the stolen object, the person who concealed the stolen items shall be liable to the penalties reserved to the felony and other offences relating to the/she knew during the concealment […] – Decree-Law n° 21/77 of 18/08/1977 instituting the penal code, article 431, 40. Criminal procedure – The burden of proof – The burden of proof shall be on the Public Prosecution […] – Law nº 30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure, article 85. Criminal Law – Interpretation of criminal law – Criminal laws shall not be interpreted to extensively; they must be construed strictly.–Organic Law n° 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article 4. Facts: Tubarimo, Nkubiri Mbyogo, Nsengiyumva and Uwimana were aligned before the High Court, Tubarimo charged of murder and armed robbery, Nkubiri Mbyogo of armed robbery, Nsengiyumva Jean de Dieu and Uwimana of complicity in murder. The court found Tubarimo guilty of offences he was charged of, and

## Page 446

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 184 sentenced him to life imprisonment with special provisions. Yet, the court found Nkubiri Mbyogo, Nsengiyumva and Uwimana not guilty and ordered for immediate release of the three. The prosecution appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court stating that the incriminating evidences were disregarded. The hearing was held in absence of the accused who did not appear in court though legally summoned. Held: 1. Nkubiri Mbyogo must be punished for the armed robbery committed to get the bicycles, but pursuant to the new penal code that provides for the lenient penalty. Therefore, he is sentenced to eight (8) years of imprisonment. 2. The prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Nsengiyumva is guilty. 3. Evidence presented by the prosecution alleging that they have been disregarded do not incriminate Uwimana beyond reasonable doubt, thus he remains not guilty. Appeal of the prosecution has merit in part. Nkubiri Mbyogo is found guilty of the concealment of the stolen object. He is sentenced to 8 years of imprisonment. Orders his immediate arrest. No change with regards to Nsengiyumva and Uwimana. ½ of the court fees charged to Nkubiri Mbyogo and ½ to the public treasury.

## Page 447

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 185 Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Organic Law n° 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article 4. Law nº 30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure, article 85. Decree-Law n° 21/77 of 18/08/1977 instituting the penal code, article 431(40) No case referred to. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] Tubarimo Aloys, Nkubiri Mbyogo, Nsengiyumva Jean de Dieu and Uwimana François were charged of the aforementioned offences before the High Court. The court found Tubarimo guilty of offences he was charged of, and sentenced him to life imprisonment with special provisions. The court found Nkubiri Mbyogo not guilty of armed robbery; Nsengiyumva and Uwimana were found not guilty of complicity in murder. The court therefore ordered immediate release of the three. [2] With regards to Nkubiri Mbyogo, the court explained that in pre judicial and judicial proceedings he never pleaded guilty and Tubarimo did not accuse him and Turimo had never disclosed to him that bicycles he brought to him to sell were stolen from bicyclists he killed. The court also explained that being friends and PROSECUTION v. NKUBIRI MBYOGO ET AL 185 185 .

## Page 448

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 186 the fact that Tubarimo used to give him the bicycles to sell and the fact that he knew that Tubarimo had no means to buy the bicycles is not enough to convict him of the offence because it is based on assumptions especially that even testimonies in charge are full of doubt. [3] The Court found also that the crime of robbery of bicycles he was charged of, was committed after murdering the cyclists who owned them, yet the prosecution declares themselves having no evidence to prosecute him on the crime of assassination, consequently, the court had no ground to prove that he had information that Tubarimo took the bicycles from the owners after killing them, what is seen as doubt which is benefited by the accused. [4] With regards to Nsengiyumva, the court explained that Tubarimo does not incriminate him, that what was based on to incriminate him, was a doubtful information accusing him of misleading people who were digging in searching the body of the deceased, because he does not admit it and stated that the judicial police officer wrote what himself wanted after beating him severely. The court wonders why he could have known that Tubarimo killed people and put them in pits while he could not know the reason behind their death, thus stealing their bicycles especially that in the pits are where the pillows and number plates of the bicycles were thrown in order to keep the information closed. [5] The court explained that Uwimana is also not accused by Tubarimo for having known that the pits he

## Page 449

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 187 dug were reserved for bodies he killed, he did not even state whether the pits dug by Uwimana at his home were reserved for that. Testimonies from witnesses state that the pits were for banana plantation as some of them were already planted and others were waiting for the rain. About the shoes found at Tubarimo’s home belonging to Uwimana, the Court explained that they were left when he was caught and taken from Tubarimo’s place to the police station and that even the seized jacket found at the place does not belong to him as some witnesses affirmed it. [6] The prosecution appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court on the ground that the incriminating evidences were disregarded. [7] The public hearing took place on 15 September 2014, in the absence of Nkubiri Mbyogo, Nsengiyumva and Uwimana who were legally summoned, and the prosecution was represented by Munyaneza Nkwaya Eric. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUE Whether incriminating evidences for Nkubiri Mbyogo, Nsengiyumva and Uwimana were disregarded by the Court. ●Nkubiri Mbyogo [8] The prosecutor claims that enough evidence was presented to the first instance court proving that the PROSECUTION v. NKUBIRI MBYOGO ET AL 187 187

## Page 450

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 188 accused is the one who sold the stolen bicycles by Tubarimo as both of them admit it, but the court disregarded that stating that there was doubt on the crime his prosecuted on. The prosecutor also states that even though Nkubiri said that he was not informed of their origin, he had requested the court not to give it value because he interrupted a lot with Tubarimo and knew that he had no money to buy those bicycles, and the fact that bicycles had no identification documents this caused him to sell them at night as he himself testified and the fact that he was allowed by Tubarimo to fix the prices not even being given the minimum price to base on as also an indication that he was aware the bicycles were stolen. Another evidence the prosecutor stated was from witnesses who affirmed that he knew some of the bicycle owners. [9] The prosecutor keeps on stating that the court stated that Nkubiri could not be held responsible for theft while he was not prosecuted for murder and yet the prosecution accused him basing on article 257 of the penal code, showing that his role was of selling bicycles for Tubarimo well knowing that they were stolen, and this did not require him to be convicted of murder because for every offence, the role of each person is observed. The prosecutor added that the fact that he never disclosed to the police knowing that bicycles Tubarimo give him to sell were but helped him to accomplish his mission by selling and getting profit from them, the prosecutor finds him guilty of armed robbery.

## Page 451

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 189 THE VIEW OF THE COURT [10] Nkubiri Mbyogo does not deny that the bicycles he was given to sell by Tubarimo were stolen from their owners after killing them. Though it was decided by the first court that Nkubiri was not informed about the origin of the bicycles and the fact that he was ignorant about the death of the owners does not prevent him from knowing that they were stolen based on his statement made before the judicial police where he admitted and explained, “I also believed by all means that they are stolen” I knew he was a thief. He also admitted knowing that he sold stolen bicycles and Tubarimo had told him about it and told him about the boys from Kinazi who brings him bicycles. [11] Even though in the High Court Nkubiri stated that he was not aware of the origin of the bicycles he was given by Tubarimo, and the latter stated that he told him that he bought the bicycles at Gitarama, the court finds the two statements contradicting with what is in his statement that he admitted to several times. Despite that in his pleadings before the High Court Nkubiri stated that he was told by Tubarimo that the bicycles were bought at Gitarama, the court finds it false as in that case, Tubarimo would have fixed the minimum price, contrary to what is stated in the judicial police that Nkubiri was free to fix the price based on the condition of the bicycle: “We had agreed that in case the bicycle is sold on 20,000Frw, his share would be 2,000Frw, but as they were different, he told me to sell some at PROSECUTION v. NKUBIRI MBYOGO ET AL 189 189

## Page 452

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 190 18.000Frw, and 16,000Frw” This also justifies that Nkubiri was aware of the origin of the bicycles. [12] Following the fact that Nkubiri sold the bicycles well knowing that they were stolen, the court finds that he must be prosecuted pursuant to article 431 of the Rwandan penal code that was into force when the offence was committed, regarding the concealment of the stolen items instead of article 257 of the penal code as the prosecution stated, it is relating to the concealment of the offender or any fugitive and his/ her accomplice contrary to what Nkubiri committed. [13] With regards to the concealment of the stolen items, the Law scholar Kint Robert states that to be guilty of this offence, it is not enough to receive the items knowing that they are stolen but to receive them with the fraudulent intent to either benefit from them or help the authors and accomplices to do so.(pour ètre coupable de recel, il ne suffit pas d’avoir reçu sciemment des choses obtenues à l’aide d’une infraction, il faut qu’on les ait acceptées dans l’intention frauduleuse soit d’en profiter soi-meme, soit d’aider les auteurs et complices de l’infraction à en recueillir des avantages). [14] Despite that Nkubiri sold bicycles and gave the money to Tubarimo, he also had interest from it as he admitted that Tubarimo shared that money with him. [15] Regarding the penalties, articles 431, paragraph 3 of the penal code provides that when the penalty on a felony is related to the concealment of the stolen object, the person who concealed the stolen object shall be

## Page 453

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 191 liable to the penalties reserved to the felony and other offences relating to it that he/she knew during the concealment. However, the death penalty would be replaced by life imprisonment’’. Paragraph 4 of the mentioned article provides that “Any person who knowingly gets profits from a concealed object obtained from a crime or misdemeanour”. [16] Based on the provisions mentioned above, the court finds that Nkubiri Mbyogo must be punished with a penalty given to for armed robbery committed when getting the bicycles, but pursuant to the new penal code that provides for the lenient penalty (article 305). Therefore, he is sentenced to eight (8) years of imprisonment. ● Nsengiyumva Jean de Dieu [17] The prosecution states before the court that Nsengiyumva is prosecuted for being accomplice in murder with Tubarimo pursuant to article 257 of the penal code, where he tried to cover up Tubarimo in the course of digging out the bodies of victim she killed, and trying to stop people who were trying to dig out three bodies by misleading and telling them that it was Tubarimo’s mother buried there. He adds that the judge considered false statements from Nsengiyumva where he reversed his statements saying that what he admitted before the judicial police was due to the corporal violence, yet the prosecution had contended that he did not prove it, and that this is inconsistent with article 44, PROSECUTION v. NKUBIRI MBYOGO ET AL 191 191

## Page 454

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 192 paragraph 3of the Law relating to the code of criminal procedure. [18] The prosecutor also contends that the court disregarded the statements made by Nsengiyumva in the court affirming that Tubarimo is his relative and that he saw the pits he dug when he had gone to visit him. He even admits having misguided the local authority and people who were looking for bodies buried in the pits, he stopped them from digging out the bodies and lied to them that there was Tubarimo’s mother. He keeps on stating that he contradicts himself where he claims to know where Tubarimo’s mother was buried and later denies it saying that he was not around when she was buried, implying that he intended to mislead the authorities so that they could not find the three bodies buried there. [19] The prosecutor states also that the court disregarded the evidence presented to it based on testimonies given by Mukaserire Espérance and Nkurunziza François, who proved that Nsengiyumva mislead people who were looking for the victim’s bodies. THE VIEW OF THE COURT [20] The court is not convinced enough to take the fact that Nsengiyumva being a relative of Tubarimo and having visited him, without the prosecution linking him to the offence, to proof that he was his accomplice in killing the bicyclists in order to take their bicycles

## Page 455

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 193 especially that Tubarimo in his guilty plea had never mentioned Sengiyumva’s role when he explained the way he brought the bicyclists from their parking place and offered them something to eat or drink after which he hit each with a small hoe. [21] Furthermore, the fact that Nsengiyumva saw the pits dug, is not enough to incriminate him as all people interrogated including the heads of the local authority acknowledged to have seen the pits and Tubarimo told them that it is where he gets mud used to build his house and others are reserved for banana plantation, a statement similar to what Nsengiyumva stated in his interrogation. The prosecution presents no new evidence that proves Nsengiyumva more knowledgeable about the issue than others who lived in vicinity including the local authority and even his sister testified about having seen him digging but could not know when the bodies were buried. [22] On the issue of Nsengiyumva stopping and misleading people who were digging out the three bodies saying that it was where Tubarimo’s mother was buried, the court finds that he admitted to it during his interrogation in the judicial police and explained that he did it based on the relationship both had because Turimo’s mother was his paternal aunt Nsengiyumva gives a considerable statement showing that he thought she is buried there as there are grown flowers, and also explained that he could not hide that place while there were other bodies discovered and he was among people who were digging. PROSECUTION v. NKUBIRI MBYOGO ET AL 193 193

## Page 456

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 194 [23] Basing on the above, the court finds that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Nsengiyumva is guilty as it remains to be their obligation stated in article 85 of the Law relating to the criminal procedure “The burden of proof shall be on the Public Prosecution […], and the evidence given is full of doubt. ●Uwimana François [24] The prosecutor stated that the court acquitted Uwimana while there are many evidences incriminating him made of testimonies and the seized items found on the crime scene including his shoes and jacket. He also stated that he also dug pits similar to those found at Tubarimo’s place where he through bodies of people he killed. He adds also that he had refused his parents to visit him and his father testified that he was a close friend of Tubarimo and the pit found in their field was dug by Uwimana without his knowledge of when it was done. [25] The prosecutor presented another witness known as Musafiri Ildephonse who stated that while digging out bodies at Tubarimo’s, he was among people who went to arrest Uwimana suspecting him to be his accomplice in killings, because it was said that he passes most of his time with him and basing on the testimony of Sindikubwabo François who was the first to know that Uwimana had the same pits dug in his land, he was even the one who took the shoes and the jacket of Uwimana found at Tubarimo’s home to the local authority.

## Page 457

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 195 THE VIEW OF THE COURT [26] The prosecutor states that among evidence that was disregarded include the shoes and jacket found at Tubarimo’s home belonging to Uwimana, while Uwimana stated that he removed them when he was arrested and this corresponds to what was stated by Musafiri Ildephonse, the one who was left with the shoes where he said that he put them down when he was going to help others to dig out bodies and he never thought about them again. With regards to the jacket, Uwimana denies ownership, and his statements corresponds to one made by Nzabanita and Mbarushimana who affirmed that the jacket never belonged to Uwimana. [27] With regards to the pits Uwimana is said to have dug, during his interview with the authorities, he stated that it was intended for banana plantations which was evident to one which was dug out in search for bodies and nothing was found out as the case of Tubarimo. The prosecution could not link the findings with the killing Tubarimo committed and to state that they are like those dug by Tubarimo is not enough to confirm that they were dug to serve the purpose of throwing bodies in, when neither the remains nor any other thing related to the bicycles that belonged to the deceased were found in the pit as it was discovered in the pits dug by Tubarimo. Furthermore, as provided for in article 4 of the penal code, the use of an analogy is forbidden in criminal cases where it is stated that Criminal laws shall not be interpreted to extensively, they must be construed PROSECUTION v. NKUBIRI MBYOGO ET AL 195 195

## Page 458

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 196 strictly. Courts are not allowed to pronounce sentences by analogy. [28] Basing on the finding mentioned above, the court finds the evidence presented by the prosecution alleging that they have been disregarded not founded to incriminate Uwimana beyond reasonable doubt, thus he remains not guilty. III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [29] Decides appeal of prosecution with merit in part. [30] Decides that Nkubiri Mbyogo is guilty of the concealment of stolen items. [31] Sentences him to eight years imprisonment. [32] Orders for his immediate arrest. [33] Orders no change with regards to Nsengiyumva Jean de Dieu and Uwimana François. [34] Orders Nkubiri Mbyogo to pay ½ of the court fees and another ½ be paid by the State.

## Page 459

197 197 PROSECUTION v. NTAKIRUTIMANA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT– RPA 0197/10/CS (Havugiyaremye, P.J., Kanyange and Mukamulisa, J.) November 21, 2014]. Constitution – Right to legal assistance and defence – When a person and his counsel behave in the way that proves unwilling to plead the case, the behaviour that may violate one’s right and delays judicial procedure, till the court decides to hear the case without legal representation, it should not be interpreted as violating one’s legal assistance and defence rights – Constitution of Rwanda of 4 June 2003 as amended to date, article 18. Criminal Law – Mitigating circumstance – The judge puts in consideration the mitigating circumstances which preceded, accompanied or followed an offence – Decree - Law no21/77 of 18/8/1977 instituting the penal code in Rwanda, article 82. Facts: A lifeless body of Brother Rutamunuga Jean Marie Vianney was found in his bedroom, where he was strangled using a rope, his head was also smashed using sharp objects. After investigations, Brother Harerimana and his young brother Sibomana Protegène, Ntakirutimana Jean Claude and Biramba Cartone nicknamed Dudu were aligned before the High Court which decided that Sibomana Protogène would be tried separately because he was sick.

## Page 460

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 198 The Court rendered verdict and found the accused guilty of forming a criminal gang, murder of Brother Rutamunuga JMV and armed robbery. The court sentenced Harerimana Innocent to life imprisonment with special provisions; Ntakirutimana Jean Claude was sentenced to life imprisonment while Biramba Cartone was sentenced to fifteen years of imprisonment. The court also ordered them to jointly pay damages to the civil party and ordered the return of the deceased’s property including a radio that were routed from his home and give them to his rightful successors. Ntakirutimana appealed against the ruling before the Supreme Court, arguing in his various written submissions that the court disregarded his right to defence and legal counsel as he had prayed to court, that he was also convicted basing on the false and contradicting statements and sentenced to life imprisonment basing on the statements retracted by the witnesses. He also argues that Biramba Cartone did not at any time implicate him before court and that his confession before the judicial police was due to duress. The prosecution submits that the High Court gave reasons as to why he was heard without his legal counsel, citing the hierarchy of courts implying that he would not have preferred to plead the case in the Intermediate Court leaving the one in the High Court he was aware of. He also adds that this decision was not appealed against. The civil party argues that the procedure of review and sending back (cassation) was repealed, and that the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to hear all cases in substance.

## Page 461

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 199 Held: 1. The right to defence and legal assistance provided for in Article 18 of the Constitution should not be confused with violation of one’s rights and delaying Judicial procedure, therefore, the arguments presented by Ntakirutimana and his counsels are baseless. 2. In examination of Ntakirutimana’s reasoning when he claims to have intention to plead guilty and explain his role in the death of brother Rutamunuga J.M.V, the court finds him pleading not guilty, thus the penalty reduction he requested for cannot be granted. 3. On the request to increase damages due to the existing trace of the stolen money, the court finds no reliable evidence proving its value for the court to base on while increasing damages granted by the High Court. Appeal has no merit. Appealed judgment sustained. Court fees be charged to the public treasury as the accused is in jail. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 4 June 2003 as amended to date, article 18. Decree - Law no21/77 of 18/8/1977 instituting the penal code in Rwanda, article 82. No case referred to. PROSECUTION v. NTAKIRUTIMANA 199 199

## Page 462

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 200 Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] In the night of 7 January 2007, in the congregation of Maristes Brothers located in Rukatsa cell, Kagarama Sector, Kicukiro district Kigali City, Brother Rutamunuga Jean Marie Vianney was found in his room dead, strangled with a rope and his head smashed with sharp objects. [2] The investigations started and based on information from Semigabo Laurent (cook to the Maristes Brothers) and Mutabaruka Anastase (gardener) the suspects were brother Harerimana with whom they had conflicts, Sibomana Protegène (brother to Harelimana) Ntakirutimana Jean Claude and Biramba Cartone nicknamed Dudu. [3] In the hearing of 30 April 2008, the High Court decided that Sibomana Protogène will be separately heard because of sickness. [4] The Court rendered verdict and found Harerimana Innocent, Ntakirutimana Jean Claude and Biramba Cartone guilty of forming a criminal gang, murder of Brother Rutamunuga JMV and armed robbery. The court sentenced Harerimana Innocent to life imprisonment with special provisions; Ntakirutimana Jean Claude was sentenced to life imprisonment while Biramba Cartone was sentenced to fifteen years of

## Page 463

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 201 imprisonment. The court also ordered them to jointly pay to Umulisa Cansilde, Mukakinani Godelene and Bakayiganwa Esther 1,500,000Frw each, as moral damages, 50,000Frw spent in the course of court proceedings and refund to them 400,000Frw paid to the lawyer. The court also ordered that the radio and other staff that were routed from the deceased be given to his successors. [5] The court based its decision on the fact that Biramba Cartone pleads guilty and seeks forgiveness, explaining how it was committed, and on Harerimana Innocent’s statement who admitted that he was the head of the criminal gang and killed Brother Rutamunuga J.M.V. with the help of Sibomana Protogène, Ntakirutimana Jean Claude and Biramba Cartone. [6] Ntakirutimana appealed against the ruling before the Supreme Court, alleging in his numerous written submissions that the court disregarded his right to defense and that of being legally assisted as he has been claiming for, that he was also convicted basing on the false and contradicting statements and sentenced to life imprisonment basing on the statements denied by their authors. He also stated that Biramba Cartone has never charged him before courts and explains that before the judicial police, he was forced to admit that he comitted the offence. [7] The case was heard in public on 13 October 2014, Ntakirutimana being assisted by the Counsels Ndagijimana Augustin and Gashema Félicien, civil parties represented by Counsel, Mutembe Protais, and PROSECUTION v. NTAKIRUTIMANA 201 201

## Page 464

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 202 the prosecution was represented by Higaniro Hermogène, the National Prosecutor. [8] At the start of the hearing, Ntakirutimana presented his wish to withdraw the previous submissions he made denying to have commited the offence, revealing the new one made up of 142 pages in which he pleads guity and explains his role in the death of brother Rutamunuga and seeks forgiveness. [9] The prosecutor declared having no knowledge and response to Ntakirutimana’s new submissions but requests him and his counsels to state briefly and be honest about what happened, while the civil party stated that when one appeals, he/she demonstrates what is being criticised in the appealed decision and regarding Ntakirutimana, they stated that he should point out what was not heard by the previous court, bearing in mind that he should not appeal for what was not based on by the previous court when deciding the appealed case . [10] Court rejected the filling of the new submissions by Ntakirutimana basing on the fact that they were not submitted to the court before and were not notified to the parties, therefore allowed him to briefly explain its content for others to have a defense on it. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES a. Whether the High Court denied Ntakirutimana the right to legal representation and defense. .

## Page 465

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 203 [11] Ntakirutimana appealed to the Supreme Court to overrule the judgment rendered by the High Court in respect of article 18 of the Constitution of 04 June 2003 as amended to date. He states that he was denied his right to defense basing on article 51 of the Law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, he finds unconstitutional. [12] Council Ndagijimana, on behalf of Ntakirutimana presents his request stating that his client was denied the right to be heard in the lower court, therefore he claims for review of the decision and grant him the right to be heard in both courts. [13] The prosecution submits that the High Court gave reasons as to why he was heard without his legal counsel, citing the hierarchy of courts implying that he would not have prefered to plead the case in the Intermediate Court leaving the one in the High Court he was aware of. He also adds that this decision was not appealled against. [14] Counsel Mutembealso argues that the procedure of review and sending back (cassation) was repealled, and that the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to hear all cases in substance. THE VIEW OF THE COURT [15] The file information reveals that Ntakirutimana was given the right to find a legal counsel and he got one. . PROSECUTION v. NTAKIRUTIMANA 203 203 also

## Page 466

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 204 [16] In the hearing of 30 April 2008 in the High Court at Kigali, Ntakirutimana and Brother Harerimana Innocent stated that they would not plead in the absence of their counsel because he had another case in the Intermediate Court of Ngoma chamber of social cases and he requested for the adjournment of their case. The court found the reasons given baseless and decided upon hearing the case because it has been adjourned for many times and the Advocate was communicated in time on when it would be heard so as to delegate another Advocate in case he found himself busy. The Court also based on the fact that the social case in the Intermediate Court would not be given priority when there was a criminal case pending in the High Court. [17] The court finds that no right to legal assistance or defence was denied Ntakirutimana by the previous court, instead, the decision was motivated basing on the accused and his counsel’s behaviour, unwilling to plead the case after being adjourned for 11 times. [18] The court also finds that the right to legal assistance and defence provided for by Article 18 of the Constitution should not be seen as violating any one’s right and delaying Judicial procedure; therefore, Ntakirutimana and his counsel’s point of argument is regarded by Court as baseless. b. Whether Ntakirutimana Jean Claude pleads guilty to the extent that he could benefit the penalty reduction.

## Page 467

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 205 [19] Ntakirutimana argues that the court convicted him basing on forged and false statements, especially the one made before the Judicial police by Biramba Cartone in which he stated that Brother Rutamunuga was killed due to existing hate between his family and Harerimana Innocent’s family. [20] Regarding the way the crime was committed, Ntakirutimana states that initially the intention was not to kill Brother Rutamunuga but to steal the car and the two moto-cycles that were located in Kicukiro. [21] He continued to narrate that together with Uwimana Bernard and Sibomana Protogène had plotted on stealing the two motocycles and later included the car that was found there, after Uwimana had revealed to them that he had no time to find clients, he then connected them to Ahimana André with whom they agreed he will look for clients of the Motocycles. He states that Uwimana Bernard convinced him to steal the deceased’s money saying that it had more value than the motocycles they were intending to steal. When uwimana was questioned on how he got the information, he told him that he knew the person who gave it to the deceased and how he got it, but he promised that he was going to find out for more information, and this is when he talked to Brother Rutamunuga pretending to be the person supposed to send him money, and they promised each other that money will be sent in July. He narrates that from this talk, they both committed themselves to stealing this money in July and the initial plan of stealing motocycles was left with the rest of the group members. PROSECUTION v. NTAKIRUTIMANA 205 205

## Page 468

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 206 [22] He also states that he went to look for Biramba Cartone and shared with him about the plot to steal money and Biramba told him how he is an expert at cyber crimes and that he can even apply somniferous substance to the person he intends to steal. After realising that the application of somniferous substance was the best to use, they agreed to use it and also to share the money they will have got amongst the three of them. [23] He states that before stealing the money, they also shared the information with Brother Harerimana Innocent, who gave them a copy of Brother Rutamunuga’s room key and the one for the gate. [24] He explains that on the due day as planned, Biramba Cartone went in the room first because he was to apply the somniferous substance while he was waiting outside. He recounted that it went as planned, and after 30 minutes Biramba Cartone came out with a poliseline bag [emballage], ignorant of whether the substance was applied, he states that he was told to meet him in Cyahafi, where he found him with many wounds on his body and from the story, he was informed that they were caused by Brother Rutamunuga who fought him when he was asked to surrender his money peacefully, and that when he refused, Biramba declared he killed him, Ntakirutimana goes on to say that he never believed in what biramba was telling him, he thought it was a way to convice him that the mission was hard to achieve. [25] Ntakirutimana declared false the fake story he gave about the hate between Brother Rutamunuga and

## Page 469

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 207 the family of Brother Harerimana, confessing that they forged it when told by Biramba Cartone that they use it as their defence once arrested by the police. Otherwise, he declares, Brother Rutamunuga had no conflict with neither them nor Brother Harelimana. [26] He argues that while at the police, Biramba Cartone changed his statement and falsely incriminated him for having killed Brother Rutamunuga and it was believed as such, yet he says that he learnt about his death on Monday when the crime was commited the previous day. [27] Regarding the contradicting statements made by Biramba Cartone, Ntakirutimana states that what he declared in the judicial police on 11 January 2007 is different from what was declared on 12 January 2007, where he falsely stated that they were neighbours, and that they knew each other before. He also explains that even the statements he made in the Supreme Court is different from the one made before the High Court, showing this as the reason why he did not appeal. [28] Counsel Ndagijimana as a defence lawyer appreciates Ntakirutimana’s guity plea as he admits and explains his role in the comitment of the crime, and highligting that he holds a big role because he is the one who went for Biramba Cartone and involved him and even planned together for the theft of the money, he highlights also that his client was on guard outside, when Brother Rutamunuga was being killed recognissing that he was accomplice in the death of the deceased. Even though he claims he was ignorant about what was PROSECUTION v. NTAKIRUTIMANA 207 207

## Page 470

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 208 hapenning inside and not believing that Brother Rutamunuga would be killed, he confirms that he is responsible and should be punished for the crime comitted.He adds that Ntakirutimana could have even stated that they went together in the room to kill him, because what he committed is equally punished. [29] He argued to court to examine why Ntakirutimana started with false statements, and explained that he was trapped intocomitting the offence by Biramba who is experienced and used to pleadings. He also states that before the accussed appeared both before the judicial police and the Prosecution officer, that Biramba had terrorised his maccomplices instructing them to never mention anything concerning money. He kept on stating that the later benefited from his false statements that were consedered as truth while the statements of Ntakirutimana are similar to those of Sibomana though he has never been heard by courts. He requested the court to analyse diferent ways of pleading guilty, that pleading guilty may not mean agreeing to having cut off or srangled the deceased justifying that even those who may be silent, could be a principle actor in the comission of an offence. [30] Gashema, another counsel for Ntakirutimana pleaded to court requesting the judges when sentencing him, to consider articles 82 and 83 of the penal code that was into force at the time when the crime was committed, considering his explanations on how the crime was comitted, and that he is not a recidivist.

## Page 471

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 209 [31] The prosecutor states that the guilty plea of Ntakirutimana is not sincere, that the statements he made before the judicial police and those of his co offenders who incriminated him until the Supreme Court would be considered, where during the hearing of Brother Harerimana the witnesses explained that Ntakirutimana was involved in the killing, requesting that the appealed judgment be sustained, because Ntakirutimana and his counsels failed neither to criticize it nor prove whether there is a conflict between the accused and the witness he states also that his written statement are intended to mislead the court. [32] He kept on stating that as indicated in the case file, when Brother Harerimana appeared before the Supreme Court, he implicated Ntakirutimana like all the accused did, explaining how for the first time they went to visit the place, pretending that they had gone to see the tortoise and that later he had a meeting reception with them at a certain bar in Kicukiro. [33] Counsel Mutembe, on behalf of the civil party states that Ntakirutimana does not explain well his role in the crime execution. He states that they positioned themselves in a way that one waited in the bathroom, another one in the sitting room and another one waited outside and they collectively murdered Brother Rutamunuga and that his colleague had done all possible ways to absent the worker who used to escort him. Therefore, he states, the statements given before should not be altered by what Ntakirutimana has been practicing in prison with intentions to confuse the Court. PROSECUTION v. NTAKIRUTIMANA 209 209

## Page 472

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 210 [34] Regarding damages, he requests the court to increase by adding 10,000,000Frw to the one granted by the High Court basing on the fact that the trace of the stolen money was found. THE VIEW OF THE COURT [35] Article 82 of the penal code that was into force at the time Ntakirutimana committed the offence provides that the judge may consider the appropriateness of mitigating circumstances which preceded, accompanied or followed an offence. [36] However much it would consider the allegations of Ntakirutimana claiming that the intention he believed in was only to steal the money which is false and contradictory to the records of the case file, the Court finds that this would not favour him, regarding the crime of murder he is charged and the fact that he admits to his responsibility in the planning and execution of the crime. [37] Regarding the flawless of Ntakirutimana’s pleadings, the court finds it contradictory to what is stated in the case file, proving that from the start, the intention of the group headed by Brother Harerimana who initiated the plot and included also his brother Sibomana Protogène in the group of Ntakirutimana Jean Claude and Biramba Cartone, was to kill Brother Rutamunuga. The above is proved by their statements made before the judicial police, the prosecution and before the court that decided on the provisional detention.

## Page 473

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 211 [38] Although Ntakirutimana claims to plead guilty and seek forgiveness, it is regarded as pretence considering the way he explains his role and how the crime was committed. His words are also inconsistent and contradictory to his initial statements about the murder of Brother Rutamunuga. He only pleads guilty of stealing money from Brother Rutamunuga’s room, and claims that he thought the plot was only about stealing money, but in the process, he stated that BirambaCartone decided to kill him with the help of somniferous substances. His guilty plea also contradicts Biramba Cartone’s statements before the High Court, where he points out his own responsibility and that of Ntakirutimana in the murder of Brother Rutamunuga, the statements he maintained before the Supreme Court in the appeal case of Brother Harerimana Innocent, with no objection from Ntakirutimana instead, he stated that he was not willing to communicate to the court. [39] Ntakirutimana argues that Biramba Cartone’s statements in the judicial police are contradictory to what himself once said before the High Court, where he explained that his statements were based on fear for his colleges who might harm him because he had disappointed them by rejecting Brother Harelimana’s idea requesting both of them to plead guilty and discharge Sibomana and Ntakirutimana Jean Claude, he states therefore that he did it in order to confuse them, finally he stated that he agreed to not tell the whole truth. [40] Regarding the statements made by Biramba Cartone in the High Court which is taken to be PROSECUTION v. NTAKIRUTIMANA 211 211

## Page 474

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 212 contradicting the one he made in the Supreme Court, the Court finds that neither the two discharge Ntakirutimana from his responsibility in the death of the Brother Rutamunuga. [41] Considering explanations made by Ntakirutimana that he was intending to plead guilty and explain about the death of Brother Rutamunuga J.M.V the Court finds that instead of pleading guilty, he pleads not guilty; thus, the penalty reduction he requested for cannot be granted. [42] Regarding the request to increase damages due to the fact that the trace of the stolen money was found, the court finds no reliable evidence proving its value for the court to base on while changing the one granted by the High Court. III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [43] Decides that the appeal lodged by Ntakirutimana Jean Claude lacks merit. [44] Decides that the appealed judgment RP 0007/07/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court on 3 July 2008 is sustained. [45] Orders that the court fees be charged to the public treasury as Ntakirutimana Jean Claude is in jail.