RLR-V.2-2015

RLR-V.2-2015

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Rwanda law reports - Date: 2015-04-01 - 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 Law Report , V. 1 - 2015 January, 2015

RWANDA LAW REPORTS Icyegeranyo V. 1 - 2015 Mutarama, 2015 Icyegeranyo V. 2 - 2015 Mata, 2015 Law Report V. 2 - 2015 April, 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 IBIKUBIYE MURI IKI CYEGERANYO ......................................... ix INYITO .............................................................................................. ix NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl ................................................................... 3 NKURUNZIZA v. MUDOGO N’ABANDI ..................................... 33 UMUJYI WA KIGALI N’ABANDI v. KARIMBA ......................... 41 KHALID v. AHMED N’ABANDI ................................................... 53 MUSHINZIMANA v. RUTARINDWA ........................................... 65 NKURUNZIZA N’UNDI v. HAKIZIMANA N’UNDI .................... 73 BANQUE RWANDAISE DE DEVELOPPEMENT (BRD) v. MWUBAHAMANA; ........................................................................ 87 MWUBAHAMANA v. BANQUE RWANDAISE DE DEVELOPPEMENT (BRD) ............................................................. 87 BUCYENSENGE v. I&M BANK .................................................. 123 IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO v. AGESPRO SECURITY 133 SORAS Ltd v. ITEX Sarl ................................................................ 141 SORAS AG Ltd v. MTS Ltd ........................................................... 155 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. CYUMA MIRUHO ................................ 181 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HAKIZIMANA N’ABANDI ................. 189 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NYIRAMUGISHA ................................ 201

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 iv

KOMITE YEMEZA IMANZA MUGENZI Louis Marie : Perezida wa Komite Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga Prof. Dr. NGAGI M. Alphonse : Visi perezida wa Komite Umwarimu muri Kaminuza y’u Rwanda 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

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 ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI v

Page 10

vivi

Page 11

IRIBURIRO Basomyi bacu, Urwego rw’Ubucamanza runejejwe no gutangaza nomero ya kabiri 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 eshatu (3) z’ubutegetsi, imanza eshatu(3) mbonezamubano, imanza enye(4) z’ubucuruzi, urubanza rumwe(1) rw’Umurimo n’imanza eshatu(3) z’inshinjabyaha, Nkuko bisanzwe icyegeranyo kiboneka no ku rubuga rwa murandasi rw’Ukiko rw’Ikirenga http://www.judiciary.gov.rw/en/case_ law/case _law booklets/ 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

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: [V.2-2015]RLR

Page 14

x

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo kuwa 04/06/2003 nk’uko ryavuguruwe kugeza ubu, ingingo ya 144……………………………………………..................................... Itegeko Ngenga nº 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 78 n’iya 84……………………………………………….. ingingo za 28, 29, 76, 77, 78 na 143…………………..……………. Itegeko Ngenga n° 01/2004 ryo kuwa 29/01/2004 rigena imitunganyirize, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 43(7).……………………………………………. ingingo ya 84.……………………………………………….. Itegeko n°13/2013 ryo ku wa 24/5/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabya, ingingo ya 191………………………………………………………………………. Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/6/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi,………………………………………….. ingingo ya 9..………………………………………………… ingingo ya 92 n’iya 93. ………………………………….... ingingo ya 167...…………………………………………….. ingingo ya 295 na 329……………………………………… ingingo ya 9;…………………………………...................... Itegeko n°45/2011 ryo kuwa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, .............56 .............56 .............192 .............204 ..............66 ..............56 ............204 ................8 ..............43 ..............35 ............125 ............135

Page 15

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO xi ingingo ya 64, 144 n’iya 146……………………………… ingingo ya 144.…………………………………………….... Itegeko n° 13/2009 ryo kuwa 27/05/2009 rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda, ingingo za 1, 6, 22, 33, 34, 48, 47, 59, 60 n’iya 75……………………………………................................................. Itegeko n° 15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/6/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 3………………………… Itegeko n° 18/2004 ryo kuwa 20/06/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 176…………………..…... Itegeko n° 25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu, ingingo ya 5 igika cya 3 n’iya 27, igika cya 3………………….…. Itegeko n° 15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/6/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 3. ……………………… Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258……………………………………………… ingingo ya 45, 47, 63 n’iya 100………………………….. ingingo ya 431 na 432……………………………………... ingingo ya 258………………………………………………. ingingo ya 258. ……………………………………………... Itegeko-Teka no 20/75 ryo kuwa 20/06/1975 ryerekeye ubwishingizi, ingingo ya 32 igika cya 1. ………………………………… xi ...............8 ...........144 .............92 ...............8 .............56 ...........135 ...........204 .............76 ...........158 ...........144 .............76 ...............8 ...........144

Page 16

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO xii

ingingo ya 12, 27 na 32. ………………………................. Itegeko ryo kuwa 19/1/1920 ryerekeye intumwa mu bucuruzi n’abikorezi, ingingo ya 10 na 18…………………………………… Itegeko-Teka no 21/77 ryo kuwa 18/8/1977 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ibyaha mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 35………… Itegeko n° 18/2004 ryo kuwa 20/06/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 162(2) …………………… xii ...........158 ...........144 ...........183 .............35

Page 17

xiii

IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE Nyirantambara v. Mukasa n’undi, RCAA 0032/11/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 14/12/2012……………………… SNCTPC-China Road v. BEST LTD, RCOMA 0196/12/CS, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 21/02/2014…………....... Ubushinjacyaha v. Mukaniyonsenga, RP 0024/14/TGI/RSZ, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rusizi kuwa 28/03/2014..................................................................................... .............66 .............35 ...........204

Page 18

xiv

AMAGAMBO MPINE Amategeko agenga amasezerano – Ibarwa ry’inyungu ku mafaranga remezo – Igihe zitangirira kubarwa – Iyo kwica amasezerano birebana no kutishyura amafaranga, inyungu zibarwa uhereye igihe uwagombaga kuzishyura yihanangirijwe zikanabarwa hashingiwe ku gipimo cyemewe na Banki Nkuru y’Igihugu hakuwemo ibyo uruhande rwishe amasezerano rufiteho uburenganzira – Itegeko no 45/2011 ryo kuwa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, ingingo ya 144. SORAS Ltd v. ITEX Sarl...........................………….… Amategeko agenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa – Kwica amasezerano – Indishyi z’ubukererwe – Ibarwa ry’ubukererwe – Indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’avoka – Iyo kwica amasezerano birebana no kutishyura amafaranga cyangwa kudakora igisabwa gishobora kubarwa mu mafaranga azwi cyangwa ashobora kumenyekana, inyungu zibarwa uhereye igihe igisabwa cyagombaga gukorwa hakuwemo ibyo uruhande rwishe amasezerano rufiteho uburenganzira – Inyungu zishobora guteganywa mu masezerano ariko hakagenwa umubare ukwiye ugendeye ku gihombo nyakuri kiriho cyangwa cyiteguwe ko cyabaho mu gihe amasezerano atubahirijwe cyangwa mu gihe cy’ingorane zo kubona ibimenyetso by’igihombo – Iyo ababuranyi bombi basabye amafaranga y’igihembo cy’avoka n’ay’ikurukiranarubanza, kandi buri ruhande rufite ibyo rutsindira n’ibyo rutsindirwa, habaho guhwanywa ibyo ...........141

Page 19

AMAGAMBO MPINE xv

basaba ariko Urukiko rukabanza kugaragaza ayo rwageneye buri ruhande – Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/6/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 7 n’iya 147 (2) – Itegeko n° 45/2011 ryo kuwa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, ingingo za 144 na 146. NAEB v. SINFOTEC sarl …………………….............. Gusebanya – Indishyi z’akababaro – Uburyo bwo kuregera Urukiko – Indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’Avoka – Gusebanya bisobanura kwitirira undi igikorwa gishobora gutesha uwo muntu icyubahiro cyangwa agaciro cyangwa gishobora kumusuzuguza mu ruhame – Bishobora gukurikiranwa mu manza z’inshinjabyaha, nk’uko bishobora gukurikiranwa mu manza z’imbonezamubano – Muri uru rubanza, amagambo “les mauvais compagnies” na “l’irreconnaissance” nta kundi yakumvikana usibye ko abantu bayavugwaho bafite imyitwarire igayitse yo kutibuka ineza bagiriwe – Mu kugena indishyi z’akababaro, hagomba kwitabwa ku kuba udutabo Hakizimana na Twizeyimana bavuzwemo twaranyanyagijwe mu bantu batandukanye, Nkurunziza n’umugore we Nzayinganyiki bakaba batarigeze bagerageza kutugaruza mu bantu baduhaye cyangwa basaba imbabazi ku mugaragaro abo batesheje agaciro ngo bibe byahanagura mu bantu isura mbi babahesheje – Itegeko Ngenga n° 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy'amategeko ahana – Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258. xv ...............3

Page 20

xvi ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO xvi

NKURUNZIZA N’UNDI v.

HAKIZIMANA N’UNDI…......................................................................... Ubufatanye mu nshingano zo kwishyura – Ubufatanye mu nshingano hagati y’umwishingizi n’uwagize uruhare mu kwangiza ibintu by’uwishingiwe – Ubufatanye mu nshingano zo kwishyura ntibukekwa, bugomba kuba buteganyijwe ku buryo bweruye mu masezerano, keretse mu gihe bushingiye ku mategeko – Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 ryerekeye amasezerano n’imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 63 n’iya 100. SORAS Ltd v. MTS Ltd ………………………………. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha – Ihuzwa ry’ ibihano bitanzwe n’Urukiko rumwe ku cyaha kimwe – Mu gihe hadasobanuwe umwihariko mu ikorwa ry’ icyaha kiburanishwa kandi hakaba haraciwe imanza ku byaha bisa nacyo, ibihano bigomba gusa. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NYIRAMUGISHA……....... Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubutegetsi – Ikimenyetso ku mpamvu ntakumirwa – Inshingano y’urega yo kugaragaza ibimenyetso – Urega agomba kugaragaza ibimenyetso by’ibo aregera. Iyo abibuze, uwarezwe aratsinda – Kuba SINFOTEC itaragaragarije Urukiko ibimenyetso byerekana ko ubwato bwari butwaye “matières premières” bwagize ikibazo, OCIR- THE ikaba itagomba kuyishyura amafaranga yari yayikase nk’indishyi z’ubukererwe bw’iminsi 12 – Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/6/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 9 – xvi .............73 ...........155 ...........201

Page 21

AMAGAMBO MPINE xvii

Itegeko n° 15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/6/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 3. UMUJYI WA KIGALI v. KARIMBA………….……. Inenge y’imyandikire mu nyandiko itanga ikirengo – Guta agaciro k’inyandiko kubera inenge y’imyandikire – Kwandika gusubirishamo urubanza aho kuba kurujuririra ni ikosa ry’imyandikire riri mu rwego rw’inenge zitatuma igikorwa cy’ubujurire giteshwa agaciro mu gihe hatagaragajwe ko biteganyijwe n’itegeko ku buryo budashidikanywa; hari umuhango simusiga cyangwa w’indemyagihugu utarubahirijwe, cyangwa ngo umuburanyi usaba iryo tesha-gaciro agaragaze ko byagize icyo bimwangiriza kuko bishobora gukosorwa – Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 92. UMUJYI WA KIGALI v. KARIMBA……………….. Ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi – Ingaruka zo gutanga ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi igihe uregwa agamije kubona muri ubwo bujurire bwe ibyo yatsindiwe ku rwego rwa mbere – Uregwa mu bujurire ntiyemerewe gutanga ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi kugira ngo akurikirane undi na we uregwa mu bujurire kandi wamutsinze mu gihe agamije kubona muri ubwo bujurire bwe ibyo yatsindiwe ku rwego rwa mbere. Icyo gihe aba agombaga kubisaba abinyujije mu bujurire bw’iremezo – Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo xvii ............41 ............41 ............41

Page 22

xviii

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO xviii

n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 167 – Itegeko n° 18/2004 ryo kuwa 20/06/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 162(2). NKURUNZIZA v. MUDOGO N’ABANDI ……….... Igihe ntarengwa cyo kujuririra ikirego cyatanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe – Kujuririra ikirego cyatanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe bikorwa mu minsi itanu – Itegeko no 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruci, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 329. BUCYENSENGE v. I&M BANK……………............ Gutambamira icyemezo cya perezida w’Urukiko gishyiraho itariki ya cyamunara – Umuburanyi ntiyasaba gutambamira icyemezo cya perezida gishyiraho itariki ya cyamunara avuga ko gifite inenge kuko atari urubanza ruburanishwa, ahubwo ari icyemezo cy’ubuyobozi – Itegeko no 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruci, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 295. BUCYENSENGE v. I&M BANK BANK…………… Gutanga ibimenyetso – Urega agomba kugaragaza ibimenyetso by’ibyo aregera, iyo abibuze uwarezwe aratsinda – Itegeko nº 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 9. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO xviii .......................123 ............33 ............33 ..........123

Page 23

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO xix

IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA) v. AGESPRO SECURITY ....……….............................. Igihano gihatira kwishyura – Mu manza z’ubwishingizi, Urukiko rushobora kugena igihano gihatira kwishyura uwishingiye mu gihe yamaze igihe kirekire asaba kwishyurwa ariko ntibikorwe – Itegeko no 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 216. SORAS Ltd v. MTS Ltd……………………………….. Amategeko agenga ububasha bw’Inkiko – Ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga – Inzira z’ubujurire mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga – Iyakirwa ry’ikirego kigamije gutambamira urubanza – Inzira y’ubujurire idasanzwe yo gutambamira urubanza rw’abandi (tierce opposition) ishobora kuzitirwa n’itegeko – Urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ntirushobora kongera kuburanishwa keretse gusa iyo ari ugukosora imyandikire y’icyo bibeshyeho cyangwa se gusobanura urubanza rwaciwe mu buryo butumvikana, cyangwa bushobora kumvikana mu buryo bunyuranye – Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo kuwa 04/06/2003 nk’uko ryavuguruwe kugeza ubu, ingingo ya 144 – Itegeko Ngenga n° 01/2004 ryo kuwa 29/01/2004 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 84 – Itegeko n° 18/2004 ryo ku wa 20/06/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 176. KHALID v. AHMED N’ABANDI.................................

AMAGAMBO MPINE xix ..........133 ..........155 ............53

Page 24

xx

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO xx

Ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga – Agaciro gashingirwaho mu kugena ububasha bw’Urukiko – Agaciro kagenwe mu cyemezo cy’iyandikisha ry’ingwate ntabwo ariko kashingirwaho mu kwemeza ko ubujurire buri mu bubasha bw’Urukiko igihe atariko kagaragajwe ikirego gitangwa cyangwa se ngo kabe karagenwe n’umucamanza habaye impaka – Itegeko Ngenga n° 01/2004 ryo kuwa 29/01/2004 rigena imitunganyirize, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 43(7). MUSHINZIMANA v. RUTARINDWA…………….... Amategeko agenga ubwikorezi – Amasezerano y’ubwikorezi – Ibimenyetso mu masezerano y’ubwikorezi – Amasezerano y’ubwikorezi agaragazwa n’ibimenyetso byose biteganywa n’amategeko, byaba ari ibyerekeye ibicuruzwa bikagaragazwa n’impapuro z’ipakira – Itegeko ryo kuwa 19/1/1920 ryerekeye intumwa mu bucuruzi n’abikorezi, ingingo ya 10. SORAS Ltd v.MTS Ltd ...........................………....... Amasezerano y’ubwikorezi – Uburyozwe bw’abikorezi – Umwikorezi aryozwa ibyangiritse cyangwa ibyatakaye mu gihe aterekana ko ukwangirika, ugutakara cyangwa impanuka zaturutse ku yindi mpamvu itamuturutseho kandi idashobora kumushinjwa – Itegeko ryo kuwa 19/1/1920 ryerekeye intumwa mu bucuruzi n’abikorezi, ingingo ya 18. SORAS Ltd v. MTS Ltd…………………………….... Amategeko agenga ubwishingizi – Kwishyura indishyi z’ubwishingizi – Isimbura ry’umwishingizi mu burenganzira z’uwishingiwe – Uwishingiye wishyuye ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO xx ............65 ..........155 ..........155

Page 25

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO xxi

indishyi z’ubwishingire, asimbura uwo yishingiye, mu rugero rw’indishyi yatanze, mu byerekeye uburenganzira no gukurikirana abandi bantu batumye yishyura kubera ibikorwa byabo – Itegeko- Teka no 20/75 ryo kuwa 20/06/1975 ryerekeye ubwishingire, ingingo ya 32 igika cya1. SORAS Ltd v. MTS Ltd…………...…………………. Amasezerano y’ubwishingizi – Uburyozwe bushingiye ku masezerano y’ubwishingizi – Uburyozwe bw’umwishingizi ku byangijwe n’umukozi wo mu rugo w’uhagarariye sosiyeti – Ntaho umwishingizi yashingira ahunga cyangwa yivanaho inshingano ziteganyijwe mu masezerano yitwaje amakosa yakozwe n’umukozi w’uhagarariye sosiyeti – Itegeko-Teka no 20/75 ryo kuwa 20/06/1975 ryerekeye ubwishingizi, ingingo ya 12 – Amabwiriza rusange yerekeranye n’ubwishingizi bwihariye bw’inkongi, ingigo ya 46. SORAS Ltd v. MTS Ltd ......…………………………. Igena ry’indishyi mu gihe nta muburanyi ugaragaza agaciro k’icyishingiwe ku munsi icyago kibereyeho – Iyo nta muburanyi ugaragaza agaciro k’icyishingiwe ku munsi icyago kibereho, indishyi zigenwa hashingiwe ku gaciro kishingiwe – Itegeko-Teka no20/75 ryo kuwa 20/06/1975 ryerekeye ubwishingizi, ingingo ya 27. SORAS Ltd v. MTS Ltd…………………………….... Amategeko agenga Umurimo – Inshingano y’umukoresha yo kwishyura umushahara – Mu gihe amasezerano y’akazi agikomeza inshingano yo kwishyura umushahara ifitwe n’umukoresha ikurwaho n’uko umukozi yarenze ku nshingano ye yo gukora, ariko mu gihe umukoresha

AMAGAMBO MPINE xxi ..........155 ..........155 ..........155

Page 26

xxii

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO xxii

ariwe ubwiye umukozi ko atari ngombwa ko akora, inshingano ye yo kumuhemba igumaho – Itegeko n° 13/2009 ryo kuwa 27/05/2009 rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda, ingingo za 6, 59, 60 n’iya 75,

BANQUE RWANDAISE DE DEVELOPPEMENT (BRD) v. MWUBAHAMANA………………………... Amategeko y’imisoro – Ibaruwa ishinganye – Igihe umusoreshwa yanze kwakira ibaruwa ishinganye, ibiro by'iposita bikora inyandiko igaragaza ko nyiri ubwite yanze ubutumwa, bakoherereza kopi yayo ubuyobozi bw’imisoro – Itegeko n° 25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha, ingingo ya 5, igika cya 3. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA) v. AGESPRO SECURITY………………..…………….. Ihagarikwa ry’ubusaze bw’igenzura – Ubusaze bw’igenzura buhagarikwa n’itangwa ry’inyandiko imenyesha umusoreshwa igihe azagenzurirwa – Itegeko n° 25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoreshank’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu, ingingo ya 27, igika cya 3. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA) v. AGESPRO SECURITY................................................ Amategeko Mpanabyaha – Ubwicanyi – Ntibyakwitwa gukubita no gukomeretsa ku bushake nta gitekerezo cyo kwica kiriho byateye urupfu mu gihe bigaragara ko hari hagambiriwe kwica. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. CYUMA MIRUHO………. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO xxii ............87 ...........133 ..........133 .......181

Page 27

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO xxiii

Igabanyagihano – Ntawagabanyirizwa igihano mugihe impamvu nyoroshyacyaha atanga nta bimenyetso azitangira. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. CYUMA MIRUHO……… Igifungo kimara igihe – Igifungo kimara igihe, kimara nibura umunsi umwe kandi ntikirenza imyaka makumyabiri (20) ukurikije uko biteganijwe n’itegeko, keretse mu gihe cy’insubira-cyaha cyangwa mu bihe bindi itegeko riba ryarateganije ibindi bihano – Itegeko- Teka no21/77 ryo kuwa 18/8/1977 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ibyaha mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 35 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. CYUMA MIRUHO…….... Impurirane y’ibyaha – Itangwa ry’igihano – Mu gihe cy’impurirane y’ibyaha hatangwa igihano kirushije ibindi gukomera – Itegeko Ngenga nº 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo 84. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HAKIZIMANA…………... Igabanyagihano rishingiye ku butoya – Iyo uwakoze icyaha agabanyirijwe ibihano kubera ko ari umwana, ibihano agomba guhanishwa ntibigomba kurenga icya kabiri cy’ibihano yagombaga guhanishwa iyo aza kuba afite imyaka 18. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HAKIZIMANA…………... Isubikabihano – Ibihano ntibishobora gusubikwa mugihe igihano cy’iremezo kiri hejuru y’imyaka itanu. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HAKIZIMANA……….......

AMAGAMBO MPINE xxiii .......181 .......181 .......189 .......189 .......189

Page 28

xxiv

Ubwinjiracyaha mu kwihekura – Ubwinjiracyaha buharanirwa n`ubwo icyari cyagenderewe kitashoboye kugerwaho bitewe n’impamvu nyir’ugukora icyaha atashoboye kumenya – Ubwinjiracyaha bw’icyaha cy’ubugome cyangwa icyaha gikomeye bufatwa kimwe nk’icyaha cy’ubugome cyangwa icyaha gikomeye ubwacyo – Itegeko Ngenga nº 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’Amategeko ahana, ingingo za 28 na 29. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NYIRAMUGISHA……..… Impamvu nyoroshyacyaha – Iyo icyaha cyakozwe nta ngaruka zikomeye cyateje bituma igihano kigabanuka – Itegeko Ngenga nº 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’Amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 77 n’iya 4. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NYIRAMUGISHA……...... Amategeko mpuzamahanga – amasezerano mpuzamahanga, Inyandiko z’abahanga n’ibyemezo by’inkiko zo mu mahanga – Imikoreshereze y‘amasezerano mpuzamahanga, inyandiko z’abahanga n’ibyemezo by’Inkiko byo mu bindi bihugu mu Rwanda – Mu gihe inyandiko z’abahanga mu mategeko cyangwa ibyemezo by’inkiko z’ikindi gihugu bitandukanye n’amategeko y’u Rwanda ntibyakurikizwa mu Rwanda, keretse ahubwo abo bahanga n’izo nkiko zarafashe icyemezo zishingiye ku mategeko mpuzamahanga areba u Rwanda kandi rwashyizeho umukono.Amategeko agenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa – Amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’Avoka – Umuburanyi wabaye nyirabayazana xxiv ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO .......201 .......201

Page 29

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO xxv

w’urubanza niwe ugomba kwiregera ibyo undi muburanyi yatanze aburana urwo rubanza.

BANQUE RWANDAISE DE DEVELOPPEMENT (BRD) v. MWUBAHAMANA....................................... Kwirukanwa binyuranyije n’amategeko – Iseswa ry’amasezerano y’akazi mu gihe habayeho ihuzwa ry’ibigo – Indishyi – Iyo umukoresha ahinduye imiterere y’ikigo mu by’amategeko, nk’izungura, ahinduye izina, akigurishije, yifatanyije n’ikindi kigo, ihindura ry’imari y’ikigo cyangwa agihinduye ubwibumbe bw’abantu, amasezerano yose y’akazi agifite agaciro igihe izo mpinduka zabereye agumaho hagati y’umukoresha mushya n’abakozi bari basanzwe – Iyo habayeho ihuzwa ry’ibigo hakaba hagomba kubaho ivugurura ry’inzego z’imirimo, iryo vugurura ry’inzego z’imirimo rifatwa nk’ivugurura kubera impamvu z’ubukungu – Icyakora kuba Umukoresha atagaragaza uburyo yubahirije ingingo ya 34 y’itegeko rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda ku mukozi ngo asobanure ibyo yagendeyeho agabanya abakozi kubera impamvu z’ubukungu bifatwa nko kumwirukana nta mpamvu – Iyo umukozi afite uburambe ku kazi bugeze ku myaka icumi ku mukoresha umwe, indishyi z’akababaro ntishobora kurenza amezi icyenda – Itegeko n° 13/2009 ryo kuwa 27/05/2009 rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda, ingingo za 22, 33 igika cya 2 na 34.

BANQUE RWANDAISE DE DEVELOPPEMENT (BRD) v. MWUBAHAMANA ………………………..

AMAGAMBO MPINE xxv .........87 .........87

Page 30

xxvi xxvi

Gusubizwa mu kazi – Niba gusubizwa ku kazi ari imwe mu nzira yo kurenganura umukozi wirukanywe nta mpamvu – Iyo nzira yo gusubizwa ku kazi umukozi wirukanywe nta mpamvu ntabwo iteganyizwe mu mategeko y’u Rwanda ahubwo amategeko ateganya ko iseswa ry’amasezerano rinyuranyije n’amategeko rihanishwa guca indishyi uyasheshe – Itegeko n° 13/2009 ryo kuwa 27/05/2009 rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 33.

BANQUE RWANDAISE DE DEVELOPPEMENT (BRD) v. MWUBAHAMANA…………...................... .........87 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 31

1

IMANZA Z’UBUTEGETSI

Page 32

2

Page 33

3

NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RADA 0025/12/CS (Mutashya, P.J., Rugabirwa na Gakwaya, J.) 25 Mata 2014] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubutegetsi – Ikimenyetso ku mpamvu ntakumirwa – Inshingano y’urega yo kugaragaza ibimenyetso – Urega agomba kugaragaza ibimenyetso by’ibo aregera. Iyo abibuze, uwarezwe aratsinda – Kuba

SINFOTEC itaragaragarije Urukiko ibimenyetso byerekana ko ubwato bwari butwaye “matières premières” bwagize ikibazo, OCIR-THE ikaba itagomba kuyishyura amafaranga yari yayikase nk’indishyi z’ubukererwe bw’iminsi 12 – Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/6/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi,ingingo ya 9 – Itegeko n° 15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/6/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 3. Amategeko agenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa – Kwica amasezerano – Indishyi z’ubukererwe – Ibarwa ry’ubukererwe – Indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’avoka – Iyo kwica amasezerano birebana no kutishyura amafaranga cyangwa kudakora igisabwa gishobora kubarwa mu mafaranga azwi cyangwa ashobora kumenyekana, inyungu zibarwa uhereye igihe igisabwa cyagombaga gukorwa hakuwemo ibyo uruhande rwishe amasezerano rufiteho uburenganzira – Inyungu zishobora guteganywa mu masezerano ariko hakagenwa umubare ukwiye ugendeye ku gihombo nyakuri kiriho cyangwa cyiteguwe ko cyabaho mu gihe amasezerano atubahirijwe cyangwa mu gihe cy’ingorane zo

Page 34

4

kubona ibimenyetso by’igihombo – Iyo ababuranyi bombi basabye amafaranga y’igihembo cy’avoka n’ay’ikurukiranarubanza, kandi buri ruhande rufite ibyo rutsindira n’ibyo rutsindirwa, habaho guhwanywa ibyo basaba ariko Urukiko rukabanza kugaragaza ayo rwageneye buri ruhande – Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/6/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 7 n’iya 147 (2) – Itegeko n°45/2011 ryo kuwa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, ingingo za 144 na 146. Incamake y’ikibazo: SINFOTEC Sarl yagiranye amasezerano naOCIR-THE, ubu yahindutse NAEB, yo kuyigemura imifuka yo gupfunyikamo icyayi ku gaciro ka 208.250.000Frw. Yishyuweho amafaranga y’igice cya mbere yari imaze kugemura, hasigara 45.968.585Frw, ariko irangije kugemura igice gisigaye NAEB iyishura 19.570.252Frw, kuko NAEB yayikase 14.855.333Frw y’ibihano by’ubukererwe, 11.543.000Frw yajyanywe n’Umuyobozi wa EIS akaba ari nawe Muyobozi wa SINFOTEC Sarl, yose hamwe ikaba yarakaswe 26.398.333Frw. SINFOTEC Sarl yareze mu Rukiko Rukuru isaba gusubizwa ayo mafaranga no kwishyurwa indishyi zitandukanye, ay’ibihano by’ubukererwe ku mafaranga itishyuriwe igihe angana na 0,1% buri munsi, ikishyurwa nanone indishyi yakaswe na FINA Bank zibariwe ku gaciro ka 25% buri kwezi, hakiyongeraho indishyi zingana n’agaciro mbumbe (forfait) kangana na 1.000.000Frw kubera ko amafaranga yayo yakoresheje yari umwenda wa Banki yagombaga kwishyura. Isaba inyungu kuri ayo mafaranga ingana na 10.074.427Frw, ikanasaba kwishyurwa amafaranga y’igihembo cy’avoka angana ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 4 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 35

5 5

na 10% y’agaciro k’ikiburanwa na 1.000.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza. Urukiko rwemeje ko ikirego cya SINFOTEC Sarl gifite ishingiro ku bijyanye n’amafaranga y’ubukererwe bw’iminsi 12 yakaswe binyuranije n’amasezerano kuko yagaragaje ko yahuyen’impamvu ntarengwa no ku bijyanye n’amafaranga yafatiriwe na OCIR-THE. OCIR-THE yajuriye mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, ivuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko habayeho impamvu ntarengwa yatumye habaho ubukererwe bw’iminsi 12 mu kugemura icyiciro cya mbere cy’imifuka kandi SINFOTEC Sarl itarigeze igaragaza ikimenyetso kiyishimangira, ikanavuga ko indishyi z’ibihano by’ubukererwe zagenewe SINFOTEC Sarl zidakwiye kuko zabazwe ku mafaranga itagombaga guhabwa. SINFOTEC Sarl yireguye ivuga ko ikimenyetso cy’impamvu ntarengwa cyatanzwe mu iburanisha kandi ko umucamanza yabashije kubisobanukirwa akabishingiraho. SINFOTEC Sarl nayo yararujuririye ivuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwirengagije ko OCIR-THE ariyo yateje ubukererwe, ko Urukiko Rukuru rutabashije kubona ko habaye impamvu itunguranye kandi itigobotorwa (cas de force majeure) yatumye itarashoboye kubahiriza amasezerano, ko Urukiko Rukuru rwanze kuyigenera indishyi zo kutishyura ku gihe biturutse ku makosa ya OCIR- THE. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Urega agomba kugaragaza ibimenyetso by’ibo aregera. Iyo abibuze, uwarezwe aratsinda. Naho uvuga ko icyo yategekwaga gukora cyagaragajwe n’ibimenyetso atagitegetswe kugikora, agomba kugaragaza impamvu zakimukuyeho. Iyo abiburiye ibimenyetso, uwo baburana aramutsinda, bityo kuba

SINFOTEC Sarl itaragaragarije Urukiko ibimenyetso byerekana ko ubwato bwari NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl 5

Page 36

6 6

butwaye “matières premières” bwagize ikibazo, OCIR-THE ikaba itagomba kuyishyura amafaranga yari yayikase nk’indishyi z’ubukererwe bw’iminsi 12.

2. OCIR-THE ntiyagombaga gufatira amafaranga y’ubwishyu yagombaga SINFOTEC Sarl mu rwego rw’ihwanya ry’imyenda kubera y’uko ayo mafaranga OCIR-THE yari yayishyuye indi sosiyete yitwa E.I.S., itandukanye na SINFOTEC Sarl, bityo OCIR-THE ikaba igomba kuyatangira indishyi z’ubukererwe.

3. Kuba OCIR-THE yaramenyesheje

SINFOTEC Sarl ibizandikwa ku mifuko nyuma y’iminsi 43 uhereye igihe basinyiyeho amasezerano, bigaragara ko urukiko Rukuru rutibeshye ku itariki yo gutangiraraho kubara ubukererwe kuko

SINFOTEC Sarlyagombaga gutegereza ko imenyeshwa ibizandikwa ku mifuka kugirango ishyire mu bikorwa amasezerano n’ukuvuga kuva kuwa 13/10/2008 kugeza kuwa 28/11/2008 bityo ubujurire bwa SINFOTEC Sarl nta shingiro bufite.

4. Impamvu ishingiye ku kuba SINFOTEC Sarl yaramenyesheje mu ibaruwa OCIR-THE ko uruganda rukora imifuka rwo muri Kenya rwahagaritse imirimo yarwo kubera ikibazo cy’ubukungu ku isi ntiyatafatwa nk’impamvu ntakumirwa kuko igemurwa ry’imifuka ryagombaga gukorwa mu minsi 45 kandi iyo mpamvu yabaye nyuma y’iyo minsi iteganywa mu masezerano bityo indishyi z’ubukererwe zaciwe na OCIR-THE ku mafaranga yari yarasigaye SINFOTEC Sarl igemura icyiciro cya kabiri cy’imifuka zirakwiye.

5. Indishyi zituruka ku kwica amasezerano zishobora guteganywa mu masezerano ariko hakagenwa umubare ukwiye ugendeye ku gihombo nyakuri kiriho cyangwa cyiteguwe ko cyabaho mu gihe amasezerano atubahirijwe cyangwa mu gihe ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 37

7 7

cy’ingorane zo kubona ibimenyetso by’igihombo, bityo ingingo ya 258 y’Itegeko ryo kuwa 30 Nyakanga 1888 rigenga masezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa ikaba idashobora gukoreshwa muri uru rubanza kuko rurebana n’ikibazo cyo gukora ibisabwa mu masezerano.

6. Indishyi zagenwe n’Urukiko zigomba kugaragara mu cyemezo cy’urubanza, bityo iryo kosa rigomba gukosorwa.

7. Iyo kwica amasezerano birebana no kutishyura amafaranga cyangwa kudakora igisabwa gishobora kubarwa mu mafaranga azwi cyangwa ashobora kumenyekana, inyungu zibarwa uhereye igihe igisabwa cyagombaga gukorwa hakuwemo ibyo uruhande rwishe amasezerano rufiteho uburenganzira.

8. Umucamanza aca urubanza ku cyasabwe cyose kandi kuri icyo cyonyine kandi ica ry’urubanza risobanura itegeko ryakurikijwe n’ingingo zishingiye ku byabaye zagaragajwe mu rubanza bityo kuba Urukiko rukuru rwarategetse ihwanya ry’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’avoka byasabwaga na buri muburanyi rutabanje kugaragaza ayo rwageneye buri ruhande n’ibisobanuro ruyashingiraho, Urukiko rw’ikirenga rukaba rusanga Urukiko Rukuru rutarubahirije amategeko.

9. OCIR-THE yari ifitiye uburenganzira bwo gukata SINFOTEC Sarl indishyi z’ubukererwe ariko nta burenganzira yari ifite bwo gufatira amafaranga ya SINFOTEC Sarl kubera ihwanya ry’imyenda itari iyayo. OCIR-THE ikaba igomba gutanga indishyi z’ubukerewe z’iminsi 1753 (jours), kuva ku itariki yagombaga kuyishyura kugeza umunsi w’isomwa ry’urubanza, ku gipimo cya 0.1% y’ayo mafaranga ku munsi.

10. Ku byerekeye 31.623.000Frw asabwa na SINFOTEC Sarl arebana n’igihombo OCIR-THE yayiteye kuko ku makosa yayo NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl

Page 38

8 8

itashoboye kuriha ideni rya FINA Bank (26.398.333 x 25% x 57,5 mois/12 mois = 31.623.000Frw), Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga itayahabwa, kuko idashobora gusaba indishyi zishingiye ku ngingo ya 258 y’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano mu bibazo birebana n’irangiza ry’amasezerano.

11. Ku byerekeye 1.000.000Frw ya forfait asabwa na SINFOTEC Sarl, ntikwiye kuyabona kuko idasobanura impamvu yayo.

12. Ku byerekeye igihembo cy’avoka n’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza bingana na 10% y’indishyi yose igomba guhabwa na OCIR-THE, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga, aya mafaranga ari ikirenga, bityo ikiba igenewe akwiye mu bushishozi bwaryo. Ubujurire bwa OCIR-THE bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe. Ubujurire bwa SINFOTEC Sarl bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe. Amagarama y’urubanza aherereye ku mpande zombi. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/6/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo za 7, 9 na 147 Itegeko n° 15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/6/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo ingingo ya 3. Itegeko n°45/2011 ryo kuwa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano ingingo ya 64, 144 n’iya 146 Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingigo ya 258. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 39

9 9

Nta manza zifashishijwe. Inyandiko z’abahanga zifashishijwe: Henri De Page, “Traité de droit civil belge, principes-doctrine- jurisprudence”, Tome deuxième, troisième édition, Bruylant, Bruxelles, 1964, PP 596-597-602. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA Kuwa 30/8/2008,

SINFOTEC Sarl yagiranye [1] amasezerano na OCIR-THE, ubu yahindutse NAEB, yo kuyigemura imifuka yo gupfunyikamo icyayi ku gaciro cya 208.250.000Frw. Nyuma yo kwishyurwa amafaranga y’igice cya mbere yari imaze kugemura, hagasigara ikindi gice gifite agaciro kangana na 45.968.585Frw, SINFOTEC Sarl yaje nacyo kukigemura ariko mu kwishyurwa ihabwa 19.570.252Frw, inasobanurirwa ko yakaswe 14.855.333Frw y’ibihano by’ubukererwe, ikanakatwa 11.543.000Frw yatwawe n’Umuyobozi wa EIS RUDAHARISHEMA Emmanuel, akaba ari nawe Muyobozi wa SINFOTEC Sarl, yose hamwe ikaba yarakaswe 26.398.333Frw. SINFOTEC Sarl ntiyanyuzwe n’ibisobanuro yahawe na [2] OCIR-THE, ubu yahindutse NAEB, byerekeranye n’uburyo yakaswe aya mafaranga, yiyambaza Urukiko Rukuru i Kigali, isaba gusubizwa ayo mafaranga no kwishyurwa indishyi za 12.855.988Frw y’ibihano by’ubukererwe ku mafaranga iregera itishyuriwe igihe, zingana na 0,1% buri munsi (26.398.333Frw x 0,1% x 487 jours = 12.855.988Frw), ikishyurwa nanone NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl

Page 40

10 10

indishyi yakaswe na FINA Bank zibariwe ku gaciro ka 25% buri kwezi, hakiyongeraho indishyi zingana n’agaciro mbumbe (forfait) kangana na 1.000.000Frw, kubera ko amafaranga ye yakoresheje yari umwenda wa Banki yagombaga kwishyura nyuma y’ubwishyu na OCIR-THE, isaba inyungu kuri ayo mafaranga ingana na 10.074.427Frw (26.398.333Frw x 25% x 16.5/12 + 1.000.000Frw = 10.074.427Frw), ikanasaba kwishyurwa amafaranga y’igihembo cya avoka angana na 10% y’agaciro k’ikiburanwa na 1.000.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza. Urukiko rwaciye urubanza RAD 0156/10/HC/kig kuwa [3] 27/4/2012, rwemeza ko ikirego cya SINFOTEC Sarl gifite ishingiro ku bijyanye na 2.449.000Frw y’ubukererwe bw’iminsi 12 yakaswe binyuranije n’amasezerano yo kuwa 30/8/2008 kuko yagaragaje ko yahuye na “force majeure” no ku bijyanye na 11.543.000 Frw yafatiriwe na OCIR-THE ivuga ko ihwanyije umwenda yari ifitiwe n’indi sosiyete yitwa Entreprise d’Ingénierie et de Service en sigle E.I.S., rwemeza ariko ko ibindi birego bya SINFOTEC Sarl nta shingiro bifite, rutegeka OCIR-THE kwishyura SINFOTEC Sarl 14.042.000Frw. OCIR-THE ntiyishimiye imikirize y’uru rubanza, [4] irujuririra kuwa 25/5/2012 mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, ivuga ko Urukiko Rukuru, ku birebana n’ubukererwe bw’iminsi 12 yo kugemura icyiciro cya mbere cy’imifuka, rwemeje ko habaye “force majeure” yatumye

SINFOTEC Sarl itubahiriza amasezerano, nyamara SINFOTEC Sarl ntiyigeze igaragaza ikimenyetso gishimangira iyo “force majeure”. Ivuga kandi ko Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje, nta mpamvu, ko SINFOTEC Sarl ikwiye guhabwa indishyi by’ubukererwe ingana na 6.838.616Frw. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 41

11 11

SINFOTEC Sarl nayo, yararujuririye kuwa 26/5/2012, [5] ivuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwirengagije ko OCIR-THE ariyo yateje ubukererwe, ko Urukiko Rukuru rutabashije kubona ko habaye impamvu itunguranye kandi itigobotorwa (cas de force majeure) yatumye itashoboye kubahiriza amasezerano, ko Urukiko Rukuru rwanze kuyigenera indishyi kandi ko ku makosa ya OCIR-THE, kubera kutishyurwa mu gihe, yatumye igirana ikibazo na FINA Bank. Ivuga kandi ko Urukiko Rukuru rutashyize indishyi z’ubukererwe yayigeneye zingana na 6.838.616Frw mu giteranyo kigaragara mu cyemezo cyarwo, ko Urukiko Rukuru rwamwimye indishyi zose yasabaga kandi byagaragaye ko yarenganyijwe, nyamara rwemeza ko indishyi yasabaga zigomba guhwanywa (compensation), ndetse ko Urukiko Rukuru rwanze kuyigenera 26.398.333Frw kandi ko ayo mafaranga yagombaga kubarirwa indishyi z’ubukererwe bw’iminsi 487, ingana na 12.855.988Frw. Iburanisha mu ruhame ryabaye kuwa 11/3/2014, OCIR- [6] THE, iburanirwa na Me Rubango Epimaque, Intumwa ya Leta naho SINFOTEC Sarl iburanirwa Rudaharishema Emmanuel, yunganiwe na Me Baragondoza Jean Damascène. II. ISESENGURA RY’IBIBAZO BIGIZE

URUBANZA Ubujurire bwa OCIR-THE Kumenya niba SINFOTEC Sarl yari yatanze mu Rukiko Rukuru, ikimenyetso kigaragaza impamvu ntakumirwa y’uko ubwato bwari butwaye “matières premières” bwagize ikibazo mu nyanja. NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl

Page 42

12 12

Me Rubango Epimaque, uburanira OCIR-THE, avuga [7] ko Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko ubukererwe bw’iminsi cumi n’ibiri (12), kuva kuwa 28/11/2008 kugeza kuwa 9/12/2008, bwatumye OCIR-THE ihana SINFOTEC Sarl, iyikata 2.499.000 Frw y’igihano cy’ubukererwe, bugomba kuvaho kuko icyo gihe SINFOTEC Sarl yahuye n’impamvu ntakumirwa (force majeure) y’uko ubwato bwari butwaye “matières premières” bwagize ikibazo mu nyanja, ko ariyo mpamvu yatumye SINFOTEC Sarl itubahiriza amasezerano bagiranye, nyamara nta kimenyetso SINFOTEC Sarl yigeze itanga kigaragaza iyo mpamvu ntakumirwa (force majeure), mu buryo yasobanuwemo, ku buryo cyari kwemerwa nk’ikigaragaza iyo mpamvu ntakumirwa (force majeure), bityo akaba asanga uru Rukiko rwaremeje iyo mpamvu ntakumirwa (force majeure) rushingiye gusa ku mvugo ya SINFOTEC Sarl, agasaba rero ko icyo gihe cy’iminsi cumi n’ibiri (12), nacyo cyemezwa mu gihe cy’ubukererwe SINFOTEC Sarl ikwiye guhanirwa. Me Rubango Epimaque asobanura ko impamvu [8] ntakumirwa (force majeure) ari ikintu kimenywa na bose, ko itaba izwi na SINFOTEC Sarl yonyine, ko kuba ubwato bwarapfiriye mu nyanja bikamenywa na SINFOTEC Sarl yonyine kandi yaragombaga kumenywa na buri wese, iyo mpamvu itari ntakumirwa cyane cyane ko usibye kubyandika mu ibaruwa, nta kindi kimenyetso, SINFOTEC Sarl igaragaza. Me Baragondoza Jean Damascène, uburanira [9]

SINFOTEC Sarl, avuga ko ikimenyetso cy’impamvu ntakumirwa (force majeure) cyatanzwe mu iburanisha kandi ko umucamanza yabashije kubisobanukirwa abishingiraho, bityo akaba asanga ko iyo mpamvu itangwa na OCIR-THE nta shingiro ifite kuko Urukiko Rukuru rwakurikije amategeko ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 43

13 13

cyane cyane ko impamvu ntakumirwa (force majeure) iteganyijwe mu masezerano SINFOTEC Sarl na OCIR-THE bagiranye.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA Ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/6/2012 [10] ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko “urega agomba kugaragaza ibimenyetso by’ibo aregera. Iyo abibuze, uwarezwe aratsinda. Naho uvuga ko icyo yategekwaga gukora cyagaragajwe n’ibimenyetso atagitegetswe kugikora, agomba kugaragaza impamvu zakimukuyeho. Iyo abiburiye ibimenyetso, uwo baburana aramutsinda”. Ingingo ya 3, agace ka 1 y’Itegeko n° 15/2004 ryo kuwa [11] 12/6/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo iteganya ko “buri muburanyi agomba kugaragaza ukuri kw’ibyo aburana”. Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga mu gika cya 4 [12] cy’urubanza rwajuririwe, Urukiko Rukuru rushingiye ku ingingo ya 64 y’Itegeko n° 45/2011 ryo kuwa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano no ku ibaruwa ya SINFOTEC Sarl yo kuwa 28/10/2008 yakiriwe na OCIR-THE kuwa 30/10/2008 iyimenyesha ko itashobora kubahiriza amasezerano bagiranye mu gihe basezeranye kuko ubwato bwari butwaye “matières premières” buva muri Afrika y’Epfo bugana Kenya bwagize ikibazo mu nyanja, rwaremeje ko indishyi y’ubukererwe bw’iminsi 12, ingana na 2.499.000Frw, SINFOTEC Sarl itakagombye kuzicibwa kubera ko kutubahiriza inshingano zayo NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl

Page 44

14 14

kutaturutse ku bushake bwayo nk’uko biteganyije mu masezerano bagiranye mu gika cyayo cya 31. Usesenguye ibivugwa mu gika cya 4 cy’urubanza [13] rwajuririwe, bigaragara ko Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko habaye impamvu ntarengwa itunguranye yatumye SINFOTEC Sarl igemura icyiciro cya mbere y’imifuka kuwa 9/12/2008, hashize iminsi 12 y’ubukererwe, ibyo rubyemeza rushingiye gusa ku ibaruwa yo kuwa 28/10/2008 ya SINFOTEC Sarl, aho imenyesha OCIR-THE ko ubwato bwavaga muri Afrika y’Epfo bugana muri Mombasa-Kenya bwaje kugirira ikibazo mu nyanja bigasaba igihe cy’ubyumweru bitatu kugira ngo gikemuke, nyamara uretse kumenyesha OCIR-THE icyo kibazo,

SINFOTEC Sarl yagombaga gutanga n’ibimenyetso bibigaragaza, cyane cyane imbere y’Urukiko Rukuru kuko yaregaga OCIR-THE kuba yari yayikase 2.499.000Frw kubera ubukererwe bw’iminsi 121. Hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko n° [14] 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/6/2012 naryo ryavuzwe haruguru n’iya 3 agace ka 1 y’Itegeko n° 15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/6/2004 ryavuzwe haruguru ndetse n’ibisobanuro by’Urukiko Rukuru mu gika cya 4 cy’urubanza rwajuririwe, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga nta kimenyetso nta kimwe kigaragaza ko impamvu ntarengwa

1“C’est au débiteur qui se prétend libéré par cas fortuit ou par force majeure, à prouver cette libération, et par conséquent le fait qui la produit. La preuve de la cause étrangère doit être faite avec tous les caractères requis pour qu’elle soit libératoire, c’est-à-dire que l’exécution soit réellement impossible, et pas simplement plus onéreuse, et que toute faute du débiteur soit exclue”. Henri De Page, “Traité de droit civil belge, principes-doctrine- jurisprudence”, Tome deuxième, troisième édition, Bruylant, Bruxelles, 1964, PP 596-597-602. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 45

15 15

ivugwa na SINFOTEC Sarl yabaye koko, bityo Urukiko Rukuru rukaba rutagombaga kwemeza ko habaye impamvu ntarengwa, mu gihe nta kimenyetso kibishimangira. Kubera izo mpamvu zose, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga [15] rurasanga iyo impamvu y’ubujurire bwa OCIR-THE ifite ishingiro, bityo OCIR-THE ikaba itagomba kwishyura SINFOTEC Sarl 2.499.000Frw yari yayikase nk’indishyi z’ubukererwe bw’iminsi 12. Kumenya niba

SINFOTEC Sarl ikwiye indishyi z’ubukererwe, Urukiko Rukuru rwayigeneye. Me Rubango Epimaque avuga ko indishyi za [16] 6.838.616Frw z’ibihano by’ubukererwe, Urukiko Rukuru rwageneye SINFOTEC Sarl, zidakwiye kuko zabazwe ku mafaranga itagombaga guhabwa, harimo 2.499.000Frw y’ubukererwe na 11.543.000Frw OCIR-THE yavanye mu mafaranga yagombaga kwishyura SINFOTEC Sarl, mu rwego rw’ihwanya ry’imyenda (compensation), bityo akaba asanga izo ndishyi SINFOTEC Sarl itazihabwa kuko nta mpamvu 14.042.000Frw yagombaga kuvanwaho n’Urukiko Rukuru. Me Baragondoza Jean Damascène avuga ko itagombaga [17] gukatwa 2.499.000Frw y’ubukererwe kuko yahuye n’impamvu ntakumirwa (cas de force majeure) yatumye itubahiriza amasezerano yagiranye na OCIR-THE, ko kandi itagomgaba gukatwa 11.543.000Frw kuko ayo mafaranga ari ay’iyindi sosiyete (E.I.S.), itandukanye na SINFOTEC Sarl, yari ifite umwenda wa OCIR-THE, bityo akaba asanga ko iyo mpamvu y’ubujurire bwa OCIR-THE nta shingiro ifite. NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl

Page 46

16 16

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA Ku byerekeye 2.499.000Frw, nk’uko byavuzwe [18] haruguru, OCIR-THE yari ifite uburenganzira bwo guca SINFOTEC Sarl ayo mafaranga nk’indishyi y’ubukererwe kuko uretse kubivuga, itagaraje impamvu ntakumirwa yatumye itagemurira OCIR-THE imifuka basezeranye mu gihe bumvikanyeho, bityo Urukiko Rukuru rutagombaga kubara izo ndishyi y’ubukererwe rushingiye ku aya mafaranga. Ku byerekeye 11.543.000Frw, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga [19] rurasanga mu myanzuro y’ubujurire ya OCIR-THE, iremeza ko ibisobanuro byatanzwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku birebana n’ayo mafaranga, mu gika cya 6 n’icya 7 cy’urubanza rwajuririwe, bikwiye kuko OCIR-THE itagombaga kuyafatira, mu rwego rw’ihwanya ry’imyenda hashingiye ku ingingo ya 181 n’iya 182 z’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano, ku bwishyu yagombaga SINFOTEC Sarl ku mpamvu y’uko ayo mafaranga bari barishyuye koko indi sosiyete yitwa E.I.S., itandukanye na SINFOTEC Sarl. Nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga [20] rurasanga indishyi z’ibihano by’ubukererwe ku mafaranga SINFOTEC Sarl iregeraga itishyuwe, ryagombaga kubarwa hashingiwe gusa ku 11.543.000Frw yari yakaswe nta mpamvu, bityo OCIR-THE igomba kuyatangira indishyi z’ubukererwe. Kubera izo mpamvu zose, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga [21] rurasanga iyo ngingo y’ubujurire bwa OCIR-THE ifite ishingiro gusa ku birebana na 2.499.000Frw, Urukiko Rukuru rwayitegetse kwishyura SINFOTEC Sarl. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 47

17 17

Ku bujurire bwa SINFOTEC Sarl Kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru rwarabaze ubukererwe bwa mbere ruhereye ku tariki yo kuwa 30/8/2008. Me Baragondoza Jean Damascène avuga ko Urukiko [22] Rukuru rutashishoje neza ngo rubone ko OCIR-THE ari nyirabayazana w’ibibazo byose byavutse, byatumye habaho ubukererwe. Asobanura ko ubukererwe bwa mbere bwatejwe na OCIR-THE kuko yari yahinduye ibizandikwa ku mifuka (artwork) ikabimenyesha SINFOTEC Sarl nyuma y’iminsi 43 (13/10/2008), bamaze gusinya amasezerano kandi ko ayo masezerano yagombaga gushyirwa mu bikorwa mu minsi 45 kuva tariki yo kuwa 30/8/2008. Me Rubango Epimaque avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru [23] rutahereye ku itariki yo kuwa 30/8/2008 y’insinywa ry’amasezerano, rubara iminsi y’ubukererwe kuko bigararagara neza mu gika cya 4 cy’urubanza rwajuririwe ko itariki Urukiko Rukuru rwahereyeho rubara ibihe by’ubukererwe ari iyo kuwa 13/10/2008, nyuma yo kwemeza ibizandikwa ku mifuka (artwork). Asobanura ko iminsi 45 y’igemurwa ry’ibyumvikanyweho ikaba yarahereye kuri iyo tariki ya 13/10/2008 kugeza kuri tariki yo kuwa 27/11/2008, bityo akaba asanga ko kuba ubukererwe bwarabazwe nyuma y’itariki yo kuwa 13/10/2008, nta makosa Urukiko Rukuru rwakoze.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga usomye igika cya 4 [24] cy’urubanza rwajuririwe, biragaragara neza ko Urukiko Rukuru rwatangiye kubara iminsi y’ubukererwe kuva kuwa 13/10/2008, umunsi hemerejwe ibizandikwa ku mifuka “artwork” kandi ko NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl

Page 48

18 18

rwemeje ko imifuka yose y’agaciro kangana na 208.250.000Frw yagombaga kuba yarangije kugemurwa mu minsi 45, ari kuwa 28/11/2008, ariko ntibyakorwa ahubwo icyiciro cya mbere kigemurwa kuwa 9/12/2008, icya kabiri kuwa 31/12/2008, icya gatatu kuwa 8/4/2009, icya kane nayo ari nacyo cya nyuma kuwa 10/4/2009. Hashingiwe ku ibyo byavuzwe haruguru, Urukiko [25] rw’Ikirenga rurasanga ahubwo Urukiko Rukuru, nk’uko OCIR- THE itabihakana, rwemeje ko gushyira mu bikorwa amasezerano SINFOTEC Sarl yagiranye na OCIR-THE, byatinze kuko SINFOTEC Sarl yagombaga kurindira ko OCIR- THE yayimenyesha ibizandikwa ku mifuka (artwork), niyo mpamvu OCIR-THE, aho kutangira kubara iminsi 45 yo kugemura imifuka basezeranye kuwa 30/8/2008, umunsi basinye amasezerano, yayibaze kuva kuwa 13/10/2008, umunsi yamenyesheje SINFOTEC Sarl ibizandikwa ku mifuka. Kubera izo mpamvu zose, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga [26] rurasanga kuba OCIR-THE yamenyesheje SINFOTEC Sarl ibizandikwa ku mifuka nyuma y’iminsi 43 kuva ku itariki bagiranye amasezerano (30/8/2008), ntabwo bisobanuro ubukererwe bwa SINFOTEC Sarl mu kugemura OCIR-THE imifuka mu minsi 45 kuva ku itariki ya 13/10/2008, n’ukuvuga kuwa 28/11/2008, bityo iyo mpamvu y’ubujurire bwa SINFOTEC Sarl nta shingiro ifite kuko OCIR-THE itari nyirabayazana by’ubukererwe bwa SINFOTEC Sarl. Kumenya niba ari impamvu ntarengwa ya kabiri yaratumye SINFOTEC Sarl itaragiriza mu gihe amasezerano yagiranye naOCIR-THE no kumenya niba indishyi z’ubukererwe yakaswe na OCIR-THE ku mafaranga 52.205.875 itubahirije amategeko. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 49

19 19

Me Baragondoza Jean Damascène avuga ko Urukiko [27] Rukuru rutabashije kubona ko habaye impamvu ntakumirwa (cas de force majeure) ebyiri, kandi ko rwirengagije icya kabiri kirebana n’imifuka yagemuwe OCIR-THE ifite agaciro ka 58.205.875Frw. Me Baragondoza Jean Damascène, mu iburanisha, [28] asobanura ko nyuma y’uko icyiciro cya mbere cy’imifuka cyinjiye muri MAGERWA, igice cyayo, gifite agaciro ka 58.275.639Frw, cyaje gukurwamo n’ikamyo ebyiri, zikijyana muri OCIR-THE kubera ikibazo kihutirwaga, hagasigara ikindi gice, gifite agaciro ka 58.205.875Frw kingana n’ikamyo ebyiri zagombaga gukurikiza “procédure fiscale”, ariko OCIR-THE yatinze kuzikurayo, niyo mpamvu SINFOTEC Sarl yayandikiye ibaruwa, iyisaba kuyitwara, bityo akaba asanga itagombaga gukatwa indishyi z’ubukererwe kuko ubwo bukererwe bwakozwe na OCIR-THE. Rudaharishema Emmanuel avuga ko nyuma yo [29] kugemura icyiciro cya mbere cy’imifuka, uruganda rwakoraga iyo mifuka, rwahagaritse akazi burundu kuko rwahuye n’ikibazo cy’ihungabana ry’ubukungu ku isi, ngo kubera ibyo, SINFOTEC Sarl yandikiye OCIR-THE kuwa 16/2/2009, iyimenyesha icyo kibazo, ikanayisaba kuyihindurira indi mifuka itandukanye n’iyo bari basezeranye mbere, hakurikijwe “échantillon” nshyashya yayeretse. Akomeza asobanura ko OCIR-THE yasubije ibaruwa ya SINFOTEC Sarl nyuma y’iminsi 15, ivuga ko icyo kibazo cyabaye kitaturutse ku bushake bwa SINFOTEC Sarl ariko ikayimenyesha ko izayica indishyi z’ubukererwe kuko yatinze kuzana imifuka, bityo akaba asanga ko OCIR-THE yivuguruza kubera ko mu gihe yari NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl

Page 50

20 20

imaze kwemera ko iyo mpamvu itaturutse ku SINFOTEC Sarl, itari gufata icyemezo cyo kuyikata indishyi z’ubukererwe. Me Rubango Epimaque avuga ko OCIR-THE itemera [30] impamvu ntakumirwa (cas de force majeure) n’imwe nk’uko yabisobanuye haruguru mu ingingo ya mbere y’ubujurire bwa OCIR-THE. Asobanura ko ku birebana n’impamvu ntakumirwa (cas de force majeure) ya kabiri ivugwa na SINFOTEC Sarl, Urukiko Rukuru rwatanze igisobanuro cyumvikana kandi gikwiye, bityo akaba asanga amakosa ya SINFOTEC Sarl yo kuba itaragemuriye ibintu rimwe kandi izi neza ko yarengeje igihe cyo kubigemura bitabazwa OCIR-THE.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga impamvu ntarengwa ya [31] kabiri ivugwa mu rubanza rwajuririwe, irebana n’ikibazo uruganda rwakoraga imifuka SINFOTEC Sarl yagombaga kugemurira OCIR-THE, rwahuye nacyo, cyatumye ruhagarika gukora ku mpamvu cy’ihungabana ry’ubukungu ku isi, naho amafaranga 58.205.875 arebana n’ikindi gice k’imifuka, SINFOTEC Sarl sarl yagemuye OCIR-THE kuwa 31/12/2008. Ku byerekeye impamvu ntarengwa ya kabiri ivugwa [32] haruguru, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga, uretse ko mu ibaruwa yo kuwa 16/2/2009, SINFOTEC Sarl yamenyeshaga OCIR- THE ko uruganda rukora imifuka basezeranye, rwahagaritse imirimo yarwo, ikanagaragaza muri dosiye ikinyamakuru “Daily nation” yo muri Kenya cyasohotse kuwa 7/2/2009, aho kibivuga, iyo mpamvu itari ntarengwa kuko amasezerano yagiranye na OCIR-THE ateganya ko imifuka 200.000 yose basezeranye igomba kugemurwa mu minsi 45, nyamara iyo ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 51

21 21

minsi yari yarangiye kuva kuwa 28/11/2008 ndetse ko iyo mpamvu itanga yabaye nyuma y’iyo tariki yo kuwa 28/11/2008, bityo ibivugwa na SINFOTEC Sarl nta shingiro bifite. Ku byerekeye indishyi z’ubukererwe SINFOTEC Sarl [33] yakaswe na OCIR-THE ku mafaranga 52,205,875, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga SINFOTEC Sarl idatanga ikimenyetso kigaragaza ko ishyikirizwa (livraison) ry’imifuka yari yazanye ryagombaga gukorwa muri MAGERWA, ndetse itagaragaza ko OCIR-THE yari ifite ishingano yo kuyikuraho, icyakora, ingingo za 25.1 na 25.2 ya “Cahier des Clauses Administratives Particulières (CCAP)” zigaragaza ko ishyikirizwa ry’imifuka ikorerwa ku cyicaro cya OCIR-THE kuko ziteganya ko igenzura ry’imifuka rizakorwa igihe ry’ishyikirizwa kandi rikorerwe i Gikondo ku cyicaro cya OCIR-THE2. Rurasanga kandi ingingo ya 16 ya “Cahier des Clauses Administratives Générales (CCAG)” igaragaza neza ko SINFOTEC Sarl ariyo igomba kwishyura imisoro yose irebana nibyo ishyikiriza OCIR-THE3,

2L’article 25.1 du Cahier des Clauses Administratives Particulières dispose que “Les inspections et essais seront effectués à la livraison. Elles vérifieront la conformité entre spécifications techniques et la livraison”. Quant à lui, l’article 25.2 du Cahier des Clauses Administratives Particulières dispose que “les inspections et essais seront conduits à Gikondo, siège de l’Ocir-Thé”. 3L’article 16.1 du Cahier des Clauses Administratives Générales édicte que “pour les fournitures provenant d’un pays autre que le pays de l’Entité de passation des marchés, le Fournisseur sera entièrement responsable de tous les impôts, droit de timbre, patente et taxes dus à l’extérieur du Rwanda”. L’article 16.2 du Cahier de Clauses Administratives Générales prévoit que “pour les fournitures fabriquées au Rwanda, le Fournisseur sera entièrement responsable de tous les impôts, droits, patentes, etc…., à payer jusqu’au moment de la livraison à l’Entité de passation des marchés des fournitures faisant l’objet du marché”. Enfin, l’article 16.3 du Cahier des Clauses Administratives Générales stipule que “si le fournisseur peut prétendre à des NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl

Page 52

22 22

ndetse ko “bon d’arrivée provisoire” yo kuwa 1/12/2008 y’imifuka yinjiye muri Magerwa, igaragaza ko nyiri mifuka (destinataire) ari SINFOTEC Sarl, bityo ibivugwa na SINFOTEC Sarl by’uko gutinda gukora “procédure fiscale” kwa OCIR-THE aricyo cyatumye icyiciro cya kabiri cy’imifuka cyaratinze gusohoka muri Magerwa, kikavamo tariki yo kuwa 31/12/2008, nyamara cyari cyagezeyo kuwa 1/12/2008, nta gaciro bikwiye guhabwa kuko isesengura ry’ibisobanuro n’izi ngingo zivugwa haruguru, bigaragaza bidashidikanwa ko ari SINFOTEC Sarl yari ifite ishingano yo gukora iyo mitunganyirize y’isoresha (procédure fiscale). Kubera izo mpamvu zose, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga [34] rurasanga nta makosa Urukiko Rukuru rwakoze mu gihe rwemeje ko impamvu ntarengwa ya kabiri ivugwa na SINFOTEC Sarl nta shingiro ihabwa ndetse ko indishyi z’ubukererwe zakaswe na OCIR-THE ku mafaranga 149.974.361Frw yari yasigaye igihe

SINFOTEC Sarl yagemuraga icyiciro cya kabiri cy’imifuka gifite agaciro ka 58.205.875Frw, zikwiye, bityo iyo ngingo y’ubujurire bwa SINFOTEC Sarl nta shingiro ifite. Kumenya niba indishyi zisabwa na SINFOTEC Sarl hakurikijwe ingingo ya 258 y’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano zikwiye. Me Baragondoza Jean Damascène avuga ko hakurikijwe [35] ingingo ya 64 y’Itegeko n° 45/2011 ryo kuwa 25/11/2011 rigena

exemptions, réductions, abattements ou privilèges en matières fiscale dans le pays de l’Entité de passation des marchés, l’Entité de passation des marchés fera tout son possible pour permettre au Fournisseur d’en bénéficier jusqu’à concurrence du maximum autorisé”. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 53

23 23

amasezerano, Urukiko Rukuru rwanze kugena indishyi SINFOTEC Sarl yagombwaga na OCIR-THE, bitewe n’uko ukutayishyura byatumye igirana ikibazo na FINA Bank, ku buryo yaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi indishyi nyinshi z’ibihano, nyamara bigaragara ko Urukiko Rukuru rwirengagije ibivugwa mu ngingo ya 258 y’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano. Asobanura ko usibye ko amasezerano SINFOTEC Sarl yagiranye na OCIR-THE ateganya indishyi z’ubukererwe, kutishyura SINFOTEC Sarl byayiteje igihombo gikomeye. Me Rubango Epimaque avuga ko kuri iyi mpamvu [36] y’ubujurire bwa SINFOTEC Sarl, mu gika cya 10 cy’urubanza rwajuririwe, Urukiko Rukuru rwatanze ibisobanuro byumvikana kandi bisobanutse, ahubwo ikitumvikana ari uburyo SINFOTEC Sarl isaba guhabwa indishyi ziteganyijwe mu masezerano yagiranye na OCIR-THE, nyuma igasaba kwishyurwa imyenda n’indishyi zayo ifitanye na FINA Bank.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA Ingingo ya 144 y’Itegeko n° 45/2011 ryo kuwa [37] 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano iteganya ko “Iyo kwica amasezerano birebana no kutishyura amafaranga cyangwa kudakora igisabwa gishobora kubarwa mu mafaranga azwi cyangwa ashobora kumenyekana, inyungu zibarwa uhereye igihe igisabwa cyagombaga gukorwa hakuwemo ibyo uruhande rwishe amasezerano rufiteho uburenganzira”, naho ingingo ya 146, igika cya mbere y’iryo Tegeko iteganya ko “indishyi zituruka ku kwica amasezerano zishobora guteganywa mu masezerano ariko hakagenwa umubare ukwiye ugendeye ku gihombo nyakuri kiriho cyangwa cyiteguwe ko cyabaho mu NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl

Page 54

24 24

gihe amasezerano atubahirijwe cyangwa mu gihe cy’ingorane zo kubona ibimenyetso by’igihombo”. Ku byerekeye indishyi z’ubukererwe, Urukiko [38] rw’Ikirenga rurasanga mu masezerano yabaye hagati ya OCIR- THE na SINFOTEC Sarl, ingingo ya 15.5 ya “Cahier des Clauses Administratives Générales”4 iteganya ko niba OCIR- THE itishyuriye SINFOTEC Sarl mu gihe, izakatwa indishyi z’ubukererwe z’imisi yose y’ubukererwe kuri ayo mafaranga ku gipimo kivugwa muri “Cahier des Clauses Administratives Particulières”. Nanone mu gushyira mu bikorwa iyo ngingo yavuzwe haruguru, agace ka CCAG 15.5 ya “Cahier des Clauses Administratives Particulières”5 gasobanura ko indishyi z’ubukererwe zizabarwa ku gipimo cya 0,1% ku munsi kandi ko zizatangira kubarwa nyuma y’iminsi 45 kuva igihe SINFOTEC Sarl yahaye OCIR-THE inyemezabuguzi (facture) isaba kwishyurwa. Ku birebana n’indishyi SINFOTEC Sarl isaba, ishingiwe [39] ku ingingo ya 258 y’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga

4L’article 15.5 du Cahier des Clauses Administratives Générales prévoit que “dans l’éventualité où l’Entité de passation des marchés n’effectuerait pas un paiement dû à sa date d’exigibilité ou dans un délai indiqué au CCAP, l’entité de passation des marchés sera tenu de payer au Fournisseur des intérêts sur le montant du paiement en retard, au(x) taux spécifié(s) dans le CCAP pour toute la période de retard jusqu’au paiement intégral du prix, que ce soit avant ou à la suite d’un jugement ou une sentence arbitrale”. 5Le point CCAG 15.5 du Cahier des Clauses Administratives Particulières prévoit que “le nombre de jour de retard de paiement de la facture du Fournisseur qui conditionne le paiement des intérêts de retard est de 45 jours. Le taux d’intérêt applicable sera de 0,1% par jours de retard”. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 55

25 25

hakurikijwe ihame ry’amategeko ribuza abagombwa inshigano (créanciers) gusaba icyarimwe abagomba inshingano (débiteurs) indishyi zikomoka ku makosa yo kutubahiriza amasezerano (responsabilité contractuelle) n’izishingiye ku makosa akozwe ku bushake (responsabilité délictuelle)6, SINFOTEC Sarl, mu gihe igaragaza ko amakosa OCIR-THE yakoze ashingiwe ku kutubahiriza inshingano ze zikomoka ku masezerano bagiranye, ntishobora gusaba Urukiko gutegeka OCIR-THE kuyishyura indishyi ishingiwe ku ingingo ya 258 y’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano, yerekeye n’amakosa akozwe ku bushake n’ibisa nayo (des délits et quasi- délits), bityo ingingo ya 258 y’Igitabo ryavuzwe haruguru ntishobora gukoresha muri uru rubanza kuko rurebana n’ikibazo cyo gukora ibisabwa mu masezerano. Usibye ibyo byose kandi, bitabangamiye ibyavuzwe mu [40] gika kibanziriza icyi, niba amasezerano agena indishyi zizatangwa mu gihe umwe mu basezeranye atinze kuyubahiriza, ntakundi bigomba kugenda, ni ukubahiriza ibyo bivugwa mu masezerano hakurikijwe ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 64 y’Itegeko n° 45/2011 ryo kuwa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, bityo Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga SINFOTEC Sarl idakwiye gusaba OCIR-THE kuriha ibyangiritse ku mpamvu y’uko

6“La règle du non-cumul des responsabilités contractuelle et délictuelle signifie que la responsabilité délictuelle ne peut pas être invoquée entre des cocontractants pour la période de l’exécution d’un contrat”, Alain BENABENT, droit civil, les obligations, 11e édition, Montchrestien, Paris, 2007, P. 367. “Le créancier d’une obligation contractuelle ne peut se prévaloir contre le débiteur de cette obligation, quand bien même il y aurait intérêt, des règles de la responsabilité délictuelle”, Civ. 1re, 11 janvier 1989, Bull. civ., I, n° 3, in Alain BENABENT, idem. NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl

Page 56

26 26

gutinda kuyishyura yatumye itubahiriza amasezerano yagiranye na FINA Bank kuko itashoboye kwishyura ideni ryayo. Kubera izo mpamvu zose, iyo ngingo y’ubujurire bwa [41] SINFOTEC Sarl nta shingiro ifite. Kumenya niba icyemezo cy’urubanza rwajuririwe kitagaragaza indishyi z’ubukererwe zingana na 6.838.616Frw zagenewe

SINFOTEC Sarl n’Urukiko Rukuru. Me Baragondoza Jean Damascène avuga ko n’ubwo, [42] Urukiko Rukuru rwageneye SINFOTEC Sarl indishyi nke z’ubukererwe zingana na 6.838.616Frw, rutigeze ruzishyira mu giteranyo kigaragara mu cyemezo cyarwo kiboneka mu gika cya 15 y’urubanza rwajuririwe. Me Rubango Epimaque avuga ko iyo hagize indishyi [43] zigenwa n’Urukiko bikwiye, zishyirwa muri “dispositif” y’urubanza kugira ngo byorohe kururangiza mu gihe rubaye Itegeko.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga mu gika cya 9 [44] cy’urubanza rwajuririwe, Urukiko Rukuru rwageneye

SINFOTEC Sarl indishyi z’ubukererwe zingana na 6.838.616Frw ariko aya mafaranga ntavugwa mu cyemezo cy’urubanza. Nk’uko bivugwa n’ababuranyi, aya mafaranga [45] yagombaga kugaragara mu cyemezo cy’urubanza, bityo Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga iyo ngingo y’ubujurire bwa ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 57

27 27

SINFOTEC Sarl ifite ishingiro kuko iryo kosa rigomba gukosorwa. Kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru rwatanze ibisobanuro mu kwemeza ihwanya ry’amafaranga y’igihembo cya avoka n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza impande zombi zasabaga. Me Baragondoza Jean Damascène avuga ko mu gika cya [46] 11 y’urubanza rwajuririwe, Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko indishyi zasabwaga n’impande zombi zifite ishingiro ariko ari ikirenga, nyuma rukemeza ko zigomba guhwanywa. Asobanura ko ibyo byakozwe n’impande zombi muri uru rubanza ntishobora kungana, bityo akaba asanga nta mpamvu yo kwangira SINFOTEC Sarl indishyi zose yasabaga no kuyitegeka gutanga igice (1/2) cy’amagarama y’urubanza. Me Rubango Epimaque avuga ko muri uru rubanza, [47] Urukiko Rukuru rwasanze ko ku mafaranga impande zombi zaregeraga, hari ayo SINFOTEC Sarl ikwiye guhabwa, hari n’andi OCIR-THE yayikase zifite inshingiro, bityo kuba mu gika cya 11 cy’ica ry’urubanza, Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje, mu bushishozi bwarwo, ko mu indishyi zasabwaga n’impande zombi zikwiye guhwanywa kuko ababuranyi bombi, buri wese hari ibyo yatsindiwe n’ibyo yatsindiye, akaba asanga ko iyo mpamvu y’ubujurire nta shingiro kuko nta nenge y’ubwo bushishozi bw’Urukiko igaragazwa.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA Ingingo ya 7 y’Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize [48] y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi itegenya ko “umucamanza aca urubanza ku cyasabwe cyose kandi kuri icyo cyonyine”. NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl

Page 58

28 28

Ingingo ya 147, agace ka kabiri y’Itegeko ryerekeye [49] imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, iteganya ko “ica ry’urubanza risobanura itegeko ryakurikijwe n’ingingo zishingiye ku byabaye zagaragajwe mu rubanza”. Kubyerekeranye n’amafaranga y’igihembo cy’avoka [50] n’ay’ikurukiranarubanza, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga SINFOTEC Sarl yarasabaga indishyi zingana na 10% y’agaciro k’ikiburanwa kubera gushorwa mu manza nta mpamvu na 1.000.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza naho OCIR-THE yarasabaga 1.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya avoka na 500.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza. Rurasanga rushingiye ku ngingo ya 258 y’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano, Urukiko Rukuru rwaremeje ko ibisabwa n’ababuranyi bifite ishingiro ariko kubera ibisabwa ari ikirenga, ndetse ko buri ruhande rufite ibyo rutsindira n’ibyo rutsindirwa, bikaba bigomba guhwanywa. Kuba Urukiko Rukuru rwarategetse ihwanya [51] ry’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya avoka rutabanje kugaragaza ayo rwageneye buri ruhande, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga rutarashubije ibyari byasabwe n’ababuranyi, bityo hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 7 n’iya 147, agace ka kabiri z’Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, Urukiko Rukuru rutubahirije amategeko kuko mbere yo kwemeza ihwanya ry’amafaranga rwagombaga kugaragaza amafaranga rwageneye buri muburanyi n’ibisobanuro bibishimangira. Kubera iyo mpamvu, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga iyo [52] ingingo y’ubujurire bwa SINFOTEC Sarl ifite ishingiro. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 59

29 29

Kumenya niba SINFOTEC Sarl ikwiye guhabwa indishyi zose isaba. Me Baragondoza Jean Damascène avuga mu myanzuro [53] ye ko Urukiko Rukuru rwanze kugenera SINFOTEC Sarl 14.855.333Frw yakaswe nk’indishyi z’ubukererwe bitari ngombwa na 11.543.000Frw yafatiriwe kandi yaragombaga kubazwa indi sosiyeti yihariye (E.I.S.). Avuga kandi ko aya mafaranga yose (26.398.333Frw) yagombaga kubarirwaho indishyi z’ubukererwe bw’iminsi 487 ku gipimo cya 0,1%, zingana na 12.855.988Frw, nk’uko ziteganywa mu ngingo ya 15.5 ya “Cahier des Clauses Administratives Générales”. Avuga ndetse ko agomba kuhongerwaho 25% ku mwaka y’indishyi zibarwa kuva kuwa 21/4/2009 kugeza kuwa 10/3/2010 kuko OCIR-THE yateje

SINFOTEC Sarl igihombo bikaba byaratumye igirana ikibazo na FINA Bank, hakiyongeraho “forfait” ya 1.000.000Frw kuko SINFOTEC Sarl yakoreshaga amafaranga y’umwenda nk’uko bigaragara mu ibaruwa yo kuwa 10/3/2010 FINA Bank yandikiye SINFOTEC Sarl, Sarl, indishyi zose ihwanye na 10.074.427Frw (26.398.333Frw + 25% + 16,5 mois/12 mois) + 1.000.000Frw). Asoza avuga ko igiteranyo cy‘amafaranga yose OCIR-THE agomba guha SINFOTEC Sarl ari 55.261.622 Frw (39.254.321Frw + 10.074.427Frw + 10% (39.254.321Frw + 10.074.427Frw: igihembo cya avoka) + 1.000.000Frw: ikurikiranarubanza), hiyongereyeho 500.000Frw y’igihembo cy’avoka kubera urubanza rw’ubujurire. Me Baragondoza Jean Damascène, mu iburanisha, [54] asobanura ko kubera amategeko ateganya ko indishyi z’ubukererwe zidashobora kurenga igipimo cya 10% y’agaciro k’isoko ryose, SINFOTEC Sarl idashobora kuzibara kugeza uyu NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl

Page 60

30 30

munsi kuko zirarenga iyo 10% y’igiciro cy’isoko ryose, bityo akaba asaba ko SINFOTEC Sarl, Sarl igenerwa indishyi z’ubukererwe zingana na 10% y’isoko ryose, ni ukuvuga 20.825.000Frw. Asobanura kandi ko SINFOTEC Sarl isaba ubu guhabwa 31.623.000Frw arebana n’igihombo OCIR-THE yayiteye kuko ku makosa yayo itashoboye kuriha ideni ya FINA Bank (26.398.333 x 25% x 57,5 mois/12 mois = 31.623.000Frw), hakiyongeraho “forfait” ya 1.000.000Frw. Asoza asobanura ko SINFOTEC Sarl isaba nanone igihembo c y’avoka n’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza bingana na 10% y’indishyi yose igomba guhabwa na OCIR-THE, n’ukuvuga 7.984.633Frw (26398.333 + 20.825.000 + 31.623.000Frw + 1.000.000Frw = 79.846.333 Frw x 10% = 7.984.633Frw), yose hamwe akaba 87.830.966Frw. Me Rubango Epimaque avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru [55] rwasobanuye mu buryo bwumvikana impamvu yatumye rwemeye cyangwa rutemeye amafaranga yose SINFOTEC Sarl yaregeraga ndetse n’indishyi zijyanye nayo, bityo kuba SINFOTEC Sarl itagaragaza icyo inenga kuri buri gisobanuro cyatanzwe n’Urukiko Rukuru kuri buri mafaranga yaregerwaga, ahubwo ikifuza gusa guhabwa ibyo yaregeraga byose, akaba asanga ko iyo mpamvu y’ubujurire nta shingiro ifite.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA Ku byerekeye 26.398.333Frw, harimo 2.499.000Frw, [56] 3.299.436Frw, 8.933.312Frw, na 63.585Frw z’indishyi z’ubukererwe SINFOTEC Sarl yakaswe na OCIR-THE na 11.543.000Frw yakaswe ku mpamvu y’uko yari ifitiye OCIR- THE umwenda, ikaba ikora ihwanya ry’imyenda, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga nk’uko byavuzwe haruguru, uretse ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 61

31 31

11.543.000Frw, OCIR-THE yari ifitiye uburenganzira bwo gukata SINFOTEC Sarl indishyi z’ubukererwe zose zingana na 14.855.333Frw, bityo kuba yarafatiriye SINFOTEC Sarl 11.543.000Frw nta mpamvu, nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru mu gika cya 19 n’iya 20, OCIR-THE igomba kuyiha indishyi z’ubukerewe z’iminsi 1753 (jours), kuva ku itariki yagombaga kuyishyura kugeza umunsi w’isomwa ry’urubanza, ku gipimo ya 0.1% y’aya mafaranga ku munsi, n’ukuvaga 20.234.000Frw (11.543.000 x 0,1% x 1.753 jours). Ku byerekeye 31.623.000Frw asabwa na SINFOTEC [57] Sarl arebana n’igihombo OCIR-THE yayiteye kuko ku makosa yayo itashoboye kuriha ideni rya FINA Bank (26.398.333 x 25% x 57,5 mois/12 mois = 31.623.000Frw), Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga itayahabwa, nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru mu gika cya 39 n’iya 40, ku mpamvu y’uko idashobora mu bibazo birebana n’irangiza ry’amasezerano, gusaba indishyi zinshingiye ku ngingo ya 258 y’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano. Ku byerekeye 1.000.000Frw ya forfait asabwa na [58] SINFOTEC Sarl, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga idakwiye kuyabona kuko idasobanura impamvu yayo. Ku byerekeye 7.984.633Frw y’igihembo cy’avoka [59] n’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza bingana na 10% y’indishyi yose igomba guhabwa na OCIR-THE, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga, aya mafaranga ari ikirenga, bityo mu bushishozi bwaryo, rurayigenera 500.000Frw y’igihembo cya avoka na 300.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza, yose hamwe akaba 800.000Frw. NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl

Page 62

32 32 32

Hashingiwe kuri ibyo byose byavuzwe haruguru, [60] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga OCIR-THE igomba kwishyura SINFOTEC Sarl 11.543.000Frw yakaswe nta mpamvu, 20.234.000Frw y’indishyi z’ubukererwe n’amafaranga, 500.000Frw y’igihembo cy’avoka na 300.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza, yose hamwe 32.577.000Frw. III. ICYEMEZO CY‘URUKIKO Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa OCIR-THE bufite ishingiro [61] kuri bimwe. Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa SINFOTEC Sarl bufite [62] ishingiro kuri bimwe. Rutegetse OCIR-THE kwishyura SINFOTEC Sarl [63] 11.543.000Frw yakaswe nta mpumvu, 20.234.000Frw y’indishyi z’ubukererwe kuri ayo mafaranga, 500.000Frw y’igihembo cy’avoka na 300.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza, yose hamwe akaba 32.577.000Frw. Rutegetse OCIR-THE na

SINFOTEC Sarl sarl [64] kwishyura amagarama y’uru rubanza anagana n’amafaranga 19.000Frw. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 63

33

NKURUNZIZA v. MUDOGO N’ABANDI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RADA 0026/12/CS (Mukanyundo, P.J., Rugabirwa, Hitiyaremye, J.) 10 Ukwakira, 2014] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubutegetsi – Ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi – Ingaruka zo gutanga ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi igihe uregwa agamije kubona muri ubwo bujurire bwe ibyo yatsindiwe ku rwego rwa mbere – Uregwa mu bujurire ntiyemerewe gutanga ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi kugira ngo akurikirane undi na we uregwa mu bujurire kandi wamutsinze mu gihe agamije kubona muri ubwo bujurire bwe ibyo yatsindiwe ku rwego rwa mbere. Icyo gihe aba agombaga kubisaba abinyujije mu bujurire bw’iremezo – Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 167 – Itegeko n° 18/2004 ryo kuwa 20/06/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 162(2). Incamake y’ikibazo:Leta y’u Rwanda (Minisiteri ifiteubutaka mu nshingano zayo) yakodesheshe Nkurunziza isambu bituma Mudogo abarega mu Rukiko Rukuru avuga ko Leta y’U Rwanda itagombaga gukodesha isambu ye kuko yayiguze na Zafarani Kankundiye ko rero amasezerano y’ubukode burambye akwiye kuvanwaho ndetse akanahabwa indishyi. Urukiko rwemeje ko isambu ari iya Mudogo kuko yayihawe mbere y’uko leta y’uRwanda iyiha Nkurunziza, ko rero icyemezo cy’ubukode burambye kivanweho kandi Mudogo agasubizwa

Page 64

34 34

iyo sambu ndetse abaregwa bombi bakaba bagomba gufatanya kumuha indishyi. Nkurunziza yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga avugako Urukiko Rukuru rwagombaga kwemeza ko iyo sambu ariye kuko ayifitiye ibyangombwa birimo amasezerano y’ubukode burambye atateshwa agaciro kabone n’ubwo yaba yarakozwe hashingiwe ku masezerano ashobora guseswa cyangwa guteshwa agaciro. Leta y’u Rwanda yatanze ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi itanga inzitizi ijyanye n’uko Urukiko Rukuru rutagomba gakwakira ikirego cya Mudogo kuko nyuma yo gutakamba, yaruregeye akererewe, ko rero icyemezo cyo kuwa 14/03/2012 cyafashwe n’uru Rukiko gikwiye kuvanwaho, naho uhagarariye Mudogo akavuga ko ubwo bujurire bwuririye kubundi butagomba kwakirwa. Incamake y’icyemezo: Uregwa mu bujurire ntiyemerewe gutanga ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi kugira ngo akurikirane undi na we uregwa mu bujurire kandi wamutsinze mu gihe agamije kubona muri ubwo bujurire bwe ibyo yatsindiwe ku rwego rwa mbere. Icyo gihe aba agombaga kubisaba abinyujije mu bujurire bw’iremezo. Inzitizi yatanzwe na Leta y’u Rwanda ntiyakiriwe kuko yatanzwe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko. Amagarama y’urubanza arasubitswe. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 65

35 35

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 167. Itegeko n° 18/2004 ryo kuwa 20/06/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 162(2). Imanza zifashishijwe: SNCTPC-China Road v. BEST LTD, RCOMA 0196/12/CS, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 21/02/2014. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA Mudogo Selemani yareze Leta y’u Rwanda (Minisiteri [1] ifite ubutaka mu nshingano zayo) na Nkurunziza François Xavier mu Rukiko Rukuru avuga ko Leta y’u Rwanda itagombaga gukodesha Nkurunziza isambu ye iri mu Murenge wa Rusororo, Akarere ka Gasabo kuko yayiguze na Zafarani Kankundiye kuwa 13/11/1980, ko rero amasezerano y’ubukode burambye nº 1493/GAS/RUS yo kuwa 29/08/2011 Leta y’u Rwanda yamuhaye akwiye kuvanwaho kugirango ayisubirane, ko kandi akwiye guhabwa n’indishyi zinyuranye. Urwo Rukiko rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko isambu [2] iburanwa ari iya Mudogo Selemani kuko yayihawe mbere y’uko Leta y’u Rwanda (Minisiteri ifite ubutaka mu nshingano zayo) iyiha Nkurunziza François Xavier, ko rero icyemezo NKURUNZIZA v. MUDOGO N’ABANDI

Page 66

36 36

cy’ubukode burambye cyafashwe n’iyo Minisiteri cyo gukodesha Nkurunziza François Xavier iyo sambu kivanyweho, rutegeka ko Mudogo Selemani asubizwa iyo sambu, rutegeka kandi ko Leta y’u Rwanda ifatanyana Nkurunziza François Xavier guha Mudogo Selemani 3.000.000Frw y’indishyi. Nkurunziza François Xavier yajuririye urwo rubanza mu [3] Rukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwagombaga kwemeza ko iyo sambu ariiye kuko ayifitiye ibyangombwa birimo amasezerano y’ubukode burambye atateshwa agaciro kabone n’ubwo yaba yarakozwe hashingiwe ku masezerano ashobora guseswa cyangwa guteshwa agaciro. Uburanira Leta y’u Rwanda (Minisiteri ifite ubutaka mu [4] nshingano zayo) yatanze ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi ivuga ko atanze inzitizi ijyanye n’uko Urukiko Rukuru rutagombaga kwakira ikirego cya Mudogo Selemani kuko nyuma yo gutakamba, yaruregeye akererewe, ko rero icyemezo cyo kuwa 14/03/2012 cyafashwe n’uru Rukiko cyemeje ko ikirego cye cyakiriwe gikwiye kuvanwaho, uhagarariye Mudogo we akavuga ko ubwo bujurire bwuririye ku bundi butagomba kwakirwa. Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame kuri iyo nzitizi [5] kuwa 09/09/2014, Nkurunziza François Xavier ahagarariwe na Me Ruzindana Ignace, Mudogo Selemani yunganiwe na Me Munyamasoko Jovit, naho Leta y’u Rwanda (Minisiteri ifite ubutaka mu nshingano zayo) ihagarariwe na Me Malala Aimable. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 67

37 37

II. IKIBAZO KIRI MU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYACYO Kumenya niba ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwatanzwe na Leta y’u Rwanda bwakwakirwa. Me Malala Aimable uburanira Leta y’u Rwanda avuga [6] ko atanze inzitizi mu bujurire bwayo bwuririye ku bwa Nkurunziza François Xavier kugira ngo Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwemeze ko Urukiko Rukuru rutagombaga kwakira ikirego cya Mudogo Selemani kuko nyuma y’itakamba rye, yaruregeye akererewe kuko igihe cy’amezi atandatu (6) cyateganywaga n’ingingo ya 339 y’Itegeko n° 18/2004 ryo kuwa 20/06/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ryakurikizwaga igihe Mudogo yaregaga cyari cyararenze, ko rero icyemezo cyo kuwa 14/03/2012 cyafashwe n’Urukiko Rukuru cyemeje ko ikirego cye cyakiriwe gikwiye kuvanwaho. Me Munyamasoko Jovit uburanira Mudogo Selemani [7] avuga ko kuba Leta y’u Rwanda itarajuririye icyemezo ku nzitizi cyafashwe n’Urukiko Rukuru kuwa 14/03/2012 cyavuzwe haruguru itakijuririra mu bujurire bwayo bwuririye ku bundi kuko ubu bujurire bukoreshwa n’umuburanyi mu gusaba indishyi gusa. Me Ruzindana Ignace uburanira Nkurunziza François [8] Xavier avuga ko hakurikijwe ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 167, igika cya 2 y’Itegeko n° 18/2004 ryavuzwe haruguru, Leta y’u Rwanda itakoresha gusa ubujurire bwayo bwuririye ku bundi mu gusaba indishyi. NKURUNZIZA v. MUDOGO N’ABANDI

Page 68

38 38

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA Ku birebana n’ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi,ingingo ya [9] 167 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 “Uregwa mu bujurire ashobora nawe kujurira yuririye ku bujurire bw’urega mbere y’iburanisha cyangwa mu iburanisha, n’aho yaba yaramenyeshejwe urubanza rwe ntagaragaze ko hari icyo arukemangaho. Ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bukorwan’uwarezwe mu bujurire bwerekeye ku wajuriye cyangwa ku bandi barezwe mu bujurire. Ntabwo bushingira gusa kugusaba indishyi”. Nk’uko byemejwe mu rubanza RCOMA 0196/12/CS [10] rwaciwe n’uru Rukiko kuwa 21/02/20141, umuhanga mu mategeko witwa “Talendier” asobanura ko uregwa mu bujurire atemerewe gukora ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi kugira ngo akurikirane undi na we uregwa mu bujurire kandi wamutsinze, iyo agamije kubona muri ubwo bujurire bwe ibyo yatsindiwe ku rwego rwa mbere, ko ahubwo yagombaga kubisaba abinyujije mu bujurire bw’iremezo (L’intimé n’est pas recevable à interjeter appel incident contre l’intimé, à l’égard duquel il a succombé, quand il s’agit pour lui d’obtenir en appel ce qui lui a été dénié en première instance. Dans ce cas, c’est un appel principal qui devait être interjeté)2.

1Urubanza RCOMA 0196/12/CS, Société Nationale Chinoise des Travaux, Ponts et Chaussées SNCTPC-China Road C/ BEST LTDrwaciwe n’Urukikorw’Ikirengakuwa 21/02/2014. 2Talendier, Traité de l’appel en matière civile (E-BOOK-free), Section Dixième, l’appel incident est–il recevable d’intimé à intimé.

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 69

39 39

Ku birebana n’uru rubanza, dosiye igaragaza ko kuwa [11] 14/03/2012, Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko ikirego cya Mudogo Selemani cyakiriwe kuko cyatanzwe mu buryo bwemewe n’amategeko. Kuwa 08/03/2013, urwo Rukiko rwaciye urubanza RAD 0176/10/HC/KIG mu mizi, rwemeza ko isambu iburanwa ari iya Mudogo Selemani, rutegeka ko Leta y’u Rwanda ifatanya na Nkurunziza François Xavier kumuha 3.000.000Frw y’indishyi. Dosiye igaragaza kandi ko Leta y’u Rwanda itajuririye [12] icyo cyemezo hamwe n’urubanza RAD 0176/10/HC/KIG rwaciwe mu mizi mu gihe cy’iminsi 30 y’ubujurire nk’uko byateganywaga n’ingingo ya 162, igika cya 2 y’Itegeko n° 18/2004 ryo kuwa 20/06/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ryakurikizwaga icyo gihe yateganyaga ko imanza zibanziriza izindi zijuririrwa igihe urubanza rusoza iburanisha rurangiye, bikanakorerwa rimwe. Mu mwanzuro wayo wo kuwa 09/09/2014 n’imbere [13] y’uru Rukiko, Leta y’u Rwanda, iregwa mu rwego rw’ubujurire, yatanze inzitizi mu bujurire bwayo bwuririye ku bundi isaba ko icyemezo ku nzitizi cyafashwe n’Urukiko Rukuru kuwa 14/03/2012 cyemeje ko ikirego cya Mudogo Selemani cyakiriwe cyavanwaho kuko nyuma y’ubutakambe bwe, yaruregeye akererewe. Hasesenguwe ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 167 y’Itegeko [14] n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ryavuzwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasangaiyi ngingo iteganya gusa ko uregwa mu bujurire utari warajuriye mu gihe cy’iminsi 30 y’ubujurire ashobora na we kujurira NKURUNZIZA v. MUDOGO N’ABANDI

Page 70

40 40 40

yuririye ku bujurire bw’urega mbere y’iburanisha cyangwa mu iburanisha abwerekeje ku wajuriye cyangwa ku bandi barezwe hamwe mu bujurire, naho umuhanga mu mategeko we yatandukanyije igihe uregwa mu bujurire yemerewe kurega mu bujurire bwuririye ku bundi undi nawe uregwa mu bujurire n’igihe atabyemerewe nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru. Urukiko rurasanga rero kuba Leta y’u Rwanda [15] yaratsinzwe mu rwego rwa mbere ku birebana n’inzitizi yari yatanzwe na Nkurunziza François Xavier yari igamije kutakira ikirego cya Mudogo Selemani, Urukiko rukabyanga, ariko Leta y’u Rwanda ikaba itarajuririye icyo icyemezo mu bujurire bw’iremezo, itahindukira ngo isabe ko yahabwa ibyo yimwe mu rwego rwa mbere ibinyujije mu bujurire bwayo bwuririye ku bundi. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO Rwemeje ko inzitizi yatanzwe na Leta y’u Rwanda [16] igamije kutakira ikirego cya Mudogo Selemani itakiriwe kuko yatanzwe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko; Rwemeje ko icyemezo cyo kuwa 14/03/2012 cyafashwe [17] n’Urukiko Rukuru cy’uko ikirego cya Mudogo Selemani cyakiriwe kidahindutse; Rwemeje ko iburanisha ry’uru rubanza mu mizi rizaba [18] kuwa 13/01/2015; Rutegetse ko amagarama y’uru rubanza asubitswe. [19] ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 71

41

UMUJYI WA KIGALI N’ABANDI v.

KARIMBA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RDAA 0040/11/CS – RADAA 0058/12/CS (Mugenzi, P.J., Kanyange na Munyangeri, J.) 28 Werurwe 2014] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubutegetsi – Inenge y’imyandikire mu nyandiko itanga ikirengo – Guta agaciro k’inyandiko kubera inenge y’imyandikire – Kwandika gusubirishamo urubanza aho kuba kurujuririra ni ikosa ry’imyandikire riri mu rwego rw’inenge zitatuma igikorwa cy’ubujurire giteshwa agaciro mu gihe hatagaragajwe ko biteganyijwe n’itegeko ku buryo budashidikanywa;hari umuhango simusiga cyangwa w’indemyagihugu utarubahirijwe, cyangwa ngoumuburanyi usaba iryo tesha-gaciro agaragaze ko byagize icyo bimwangiriza kuko bishobora gukosorwa – Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 92. Inchamake y’ikibazo: Karimba yareze Umujyi wa Kigali mu Rukiko Rukuru asaba gutesha agaciro icyemezo N° 2638/07.1.06/09 kimwambura ikibanza n° 1634 kikagiha Nkusi Rukeba, asaba, indishyi n’amafaranga y’ikurikirana rubanza. Urwo Rukiko rwagobokesheje ku gahato Nkusi Rukeba ariko ntiyitaba, rwemeza ko icyo cyemezo kivanyweho, rutegeka Umujyi wa Kigali guha Karimba indishyi z’akababaro, amafaranga y’ikurikirana rubanza n’igihembo cy’avoka.

Page 72

42 42

Umujyi wa Kigali wajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, ariko na Nkusi Rukeba asubirishamo urwo rubanza avuga ko yahamagawe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko. Karimba yatanze inzitizi yo kutaburanisha urubanza RAD 0117/11/HC/KIG rukoherezwa mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga kuko urubanza rusubirishwamo (RAD 0136/09/HC/KIG) rwajuririwe mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga kuri nomero RADA 0040/11/CS, Urukiko rufata icyemezo cyo kutakira ngo rusuzume iyo nzitizi, ruvuga ko Karimba yabisabye impitagihe. Karimba yajuririye icyo cyemezo cy’Urukiko Rukuru mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, ariko Urukiko Rukuru rukomeza kuburanisha urubanza RADA 0117/11/HC/KG, maze rwemeza ko urubanza

RADA 0136/09/HC/KIG ruteshejwe agaciro. Karimba yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, asaba ko imanza RADA 0040/11/CS (ubujurire bw’Umujyi wa Kigali kuri RAD 0136/09/HC/KIG) na RADA 0058/12/CS (ubujurire bwe kuri RAD 0117/11/HC/KIG) zahuzwa zikaburanishirizwa hamwe. Umujyi wa Kigali uvuga ko ntaho zihuriye, kuko ababuranyi atari bamwe. Umujyi wa Kigali waretse ubujurire bwawo, ndetse na Karimba areka ubwe ku cyemezo cy’Urukiko Rukuru cyo kwanga kwohereza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga urubanza rusubirishamo urundi. Nkusi yabyukije inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego cy’ubujurire bwa Karimba kuko yakinyujije mu nzira ebyiri icyarimwe: iyo gusubirishamo urubanza, n’iyo kurujuririra; Karimba we akavuga ko habayeho ikosa ry’imyandikire ariko handitswe ibaruha ikosora iyo myandikire ku buryo ikirego cyabo ari ubujurire gusa. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 73

43 43

Incamake y’icyemezo: Kwandika gusubirishamo urubanza aho kuba kurujuririra ni ikosa ry’imyandikire riri mu rwego rw’inenge zitatuma igikorwa cy’ubujurire giteshwa agaciro mu gihe hatagaragajwe ko biteganyijwe n’itegeko ku buryo budashidikanywa; hari umuhango simusiga cyangwa w’indemyagihugu utarubahirijwe, cyangwa ngo umuburanyi usaba iryo tesha-gaciro agaragaze ko byagize icyo bimwangiriza. Inzitizi nta shingiro ifite; Iburanisha mu mizi rizakomeza. Amagarama y’urubanza abaye asubitswe. 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 92 n’iya93. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA Kuwa 17/01/1992, Sezoya Antoine w’umurundi yahawe [1] fiche cadastrale y’ikibanza n° 1634 yari yaraguze na Habiyakare Faustin kuwa 12/02/1986. Mu 1994, Sezoya yahungiye i Burundi asize yubatse inzu muri icyo kibanza. UMUJYI WA KIGALI N’ABANDI v. KARIMBA

Page 74

44 44

Kuwa 15/01/1998 Karimba Gaetan yasabye Umujyi wa [2] Kigali icyo kibanza, umusaba kubanza kwishyura 424.599 frw y’ibikorwa byarimo, maze kuwa 17/01/1999, kimwandikwaho ahabwa fiche cadastrale, ndetse kuwa 28/02/2000 basinyana kontaro y’ubukode bwacyo y’imyaka 3 yagombaga kurangira kuwa 31/01/2004. Kuwa 17/01/2007, Sezoya yagurishije Nkusi Rukeba [3] Daphy cya kibanza, ahagarariwe na Uwizeye Marie Patricie yari yarahaye procuration kuwa 26/12/2006. Kuwa 16/07/2009, Umuyobozi w’Umujyi wa Kigali [4] yafashe icyemezo REF N° 2638/07.1.06/09 gisubiza Nkusi Rukeba ikibanza yaguze1bituma Karimba arega Umujyi wa Kigali mu Rukiko Rukuru, asaba gutesha agaciro icyemezo N° 2638/07.1.06/09 cyo kuwa 16/07/2009 cyavuzwe haruguru kimwambura ikibanza n° 1634 kikagiha Nkusi Rukeba, anasaba indishyi zingana na 4.000.000Frw na 600.000Frw y’ikurikirana rubanza. Kuwa 12/08/2011, Urukiko rwaciye urubanza RAD [5] 0136/09/HC/KIG rwari rwagobokeshejwemo ku gahato Nkusi Rukeba ariko ntiyitaba, rwemeza ko icyemezo REF N° 2638/07.1.06/09 kivanyweho, rutegeka Umujyi wa Kigali guha Karimba 400.000 frw y’indishyi z’akababaro na 600.000 frw y’ikurikirana rubanza n’igihembo cy’avoka, rusobanura ko Umujyi wa Kigali udashobora kwivuguruza ku cyemezo wafashe utanga ibyangombwa ngo wongere ubihe undi

1Ashingiye ku nama yo ku wa 10/09/2009 abayobozi b’Umujyi wa Kigali, ab’Akarere ka Nyarugenge, ab’Umurenge wa Muhima n’inteko y’abaturage b’Akagari ka Rugenge bakoze isuzuma ikibazo cy’icyo kibanza. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 75

45 45

bitanyuze mu nzira zemewe n’amategeko ngo ugaragaze ko ibyo byangombwa byataye agaciro. Kuwa 10/09/2011, Umujyi wa Kigali wajuririye urwo [6] rubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, ubujurire bwandikwa kuri

RADA 0040/11/CS, bukorerwa ibanzirizasuzuma, Umucamanza yemeza ko bwaje mu buryo no mu nzira biteganywa n’amategeko, ariko kuwa 26/08/2011, Nkusi Rukeba yasubirishijemo urubanza RAD 0136/09/HC/KIG avuga ko yahamagawe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko kuko yahamagajwe aho adatuye, kandi n’iyo nyandiko imuhamagara ikaba itagaragaza amazina y’uwayitanze n’icyo akora, ikirego cye cyandikwa kuri RAD 0117/11/HC/KIG. Kuwa 28/09/2012, Urukiko rwemeje ko Nkusi Rukeba [7] yemerewe gusubirishamo urubanza RAD 0136/09/HC/KIG, kuwa 16/11/2012, rufata icyemezo ku nzitizi Karimba yatangaga yo kutaburanisha urubanza RAD 0117/11/HC/KIG rukoherezwa mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga kuko urubanza rusubirishwamo (RAD 0136/09/HC/KIG) rwajuririwe mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga kuri nomero RADA 0040/11/CS, Urukiko rwemeza kutakira ngo rusuzume iyo nzitizi, ruvuga ko Karimba yabisabye impitagihe. Kuwa 23/11/2012, Karimba yajuririye icyo cyemezo [8] (cyo mu rubanza RAD 0117/11/HC/KIG) mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, ubujurire buhabwa n° RADA 0058/12/CS, ariko Urukiko Rukuru rukomeza kuburanisha urubanza RAD 0117/11/HC/KIG, maze kuwa 13/03/2013, rwemeza ko urubanza RAD 0136/09/HC/KIG ruteshejwe agaciro, rwemeza ko icyemezo cyafashwe n’Ubuyobozi bw’Umujyi wa Kigali gisubiza Nkusi Rukeba inzu gifite agaciro. UMUJYI WA KIGALI N’ABANDI v. KARIMBA

Page 76

46 46

Urwo Rukiko rwasobanuye ko amasezerano y’ubukode [9] bw’ikibanza bw’imyaka itatu Karimba yagiranye n’Umujyi wa Kigali yarangije igihe cyayo, akaba atari uburenganzira yahawe buhoraho, ruvuga kandi ko kwivuguruza kw’Umujyi wa Kigali wari waramubwiye ko ikibanza ari icye gufite ishingiro kuko byagaragaye ko hari harabaye amakosa mu kukimuha, kuko nta kindi kigaragaza uburyo hari undi wabonye uburenganzira ku kibanza bitanyuze kuri nyiracyo Sezoya wakigurishije na Nkusi. Rwanavuze ko Nkusi atahabwa indishyi yasabaga kuko atabashije kugaragaza icyo yatakaje. Kuwa 11/04/2013, Karimba yajuririye urwo rubanza mu [10] Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, ubujurire bwe bwandikwa kuri n° RADA 0027/13/CS, mu ibaruwa ye yo kuwa 19/8/2013, asaba ko imanza RADA 0040/11/CS (ubujurire bw’Umujyi wa Kigali kuri RAD 0136/09/HC/KIG) na RADA 0058/12/CS (ubujurire bwe kuri RAD 0117/11/HC/KIG) zahuzwa zikaburanishirizwa hamwe, Uburanira Umujyi wa Kigali we akavuga ko ntaho zihuriye, kuko ababuranyi atari bamwe. Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame kuwa [11] 25/02/2014, Umujyi wa Kigali uburanirwa na Me Mbarushimana J.M.Vianney, Intumwa ya Leta, Karimba aburanirwa na Me Rwangabwoba Bernard, naho Nkusi Rukeba aburanirwa na Me Ndondera Christian. Uwo munsi Me Mbarushimana uhagarariye Umujyi wa [12] Kigali, yavuze ko uretse ubujurire bwawo, ndetse n’uburanira Karimba avuga ko Karimba aretse ubwe ku cyemezo cy’Urukiko Rukuru cyo kwanga kwohereza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga urubanza rusubirishamo urundi (opposition). ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 77

47 47

Urukiko rumaze kwumva impande zose zemeranywa ko [13] ukwo kureka ibirego by’ubujurire guhuje n’amategeko, rwarakwemeye rushingiye ku ngingo ya 26 CPCCSA, hasigara hagibwa impaka ku nzitizi yatanzwe n’uburanira Nkusi yo kutakira ubujurire busigaye bwa Karimba (RADA 0027/13/CS). Ku byerekeye inzitizi y’ukutakira ubujurire bwa Karimba. Me Ndondera uhagarariye Nkusi yabyukije inzitizi [14] y’ukutakira ikirego cy’ubujurire bwa Karimba, kuko yakinyujije mu nzira ebyiri icyarimwe, kandi amategeko atabyemera: iyo gusubirishamo urubanza, n’iyo kurujuririra. Uburanira Karimba we avuga ko n’ubwo habaye [15] imyandikire mibi mu gutanga ubujurire bwabo, hakandikwamo “gusubirishamo” hananditswe “kujurira”, hakurikiye ibaruwa ikosora iyo myandikire, ku buryo byumvikana ko ikirego cyabo ari ubujurire gusa. Uburanira Umujyi wa Kigali kimwe n’uburanira Nkusi [16] bavuga ko iyo baruwa yaje ikosora batayibonye, naho uburanira Karimba akavuga ko hari na “accusé de reception” y’Umujyi wa Kigali, hakaba n’inyandiko y’umuhesha w’inkiko igaragaza ko iyo baruwa yashyikirijwe Nkusi akanga gusinya, mu gihe umuburanira avuga ko ataba mu Rwanda, ko haba gusa umugore we. Urukiko rwafashe icyemezo cyo kuba ruhagaritse [17] iburanisha, kugira ngo rubanze rusuzume inzitizi yavuzwe haruguru y’ukutakira ubujurire bwa Karimba, rumenyesha ababuranyi ko icyemezo kuri iyo nzitizi kizamenyeshwa ku wa 28/03/2014. UMUJYI WA KIGALI N’ABANDI v. KARIMBA

Page 78

48 48

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA Ku byerekeye inzitizi y’ukutakira ubujurire bwa [18] Karimba ku mpamvu y’uko bwanyujijwe mu nzira ebyiri bikaba bitemewe n’amategeko nk’uko uburanira Nkusi abivuga, asobanura ko ubwo bujurire butagaragaza icyo nyirabwo ashaka, niba koko ari ubujurire cyangwa ari ugusubirishamo urubanza, Urukiko rurasanga, hakwiye gusuzumwa niba koko ari ikosa ry’imyandikire ryabaye rikaba ryarabashaga gukosorwa n’ibaruwa uburanira Karimba avuga yanditse igamije iryo kosora. Ibyo bigomba gusuzumwa harebwa inyandiko y’ubujurire, inyandiko ivugwa yo gukosora, n’imenyesha ry’iyi nyandiko ku bandi baburanyi. Dosiye y’uru rubanza igaragaza ko ikirego cy’ubujurire [19] bwa Karimba mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga cyatanzwe muri ubu buryo: RADA 0027/13/CS, ikiregerwa giteye gitya: “Kujuririra urubanza RAD 0117/11/HC/KIG rwaciwe kuwa 13/3/2013 - Gusubirishamo urubanza RAD 0136/09/HC/KIG rwaciwe kuwa 12/08/2011 - Gutesha agaciro icyemezo cyo kuwa 16/07/2009 - Indishyi z’akababaro zihwanye na 400.000Frw - Amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya avoka = 600.000Frw”. Mu ibaruwa ye yo kuwa 9/01/2014 iri muri dosiye, [20] ikaba yarashyikirijwe Umujyi wa Kigali uwo munsi nk’uko bigaragazwa na kashe y’Umujyi wa Kigali na sinyatire y’uwayakiriye kuri réception, ikaba kandi yaranashyikirijwe Nkusi Rukeba uwo munsi nk’uko byemejwe n’Umuhesha w’inkiko Rusunika Jonas wanditse akanasinyira kuri iyo baruwa ko yayishyikirije Nkusi akanga kuyisinya, iyo baruwa ikaba yari igamije gusobanura ko n’ubwo mu ibaruwa y’ubujurire hagiye mo ijambo “gusubirishamo”, ikirego ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 79

49 49

cyatanzwe atari icyo gusubirishamo urubanza ahubwo ari icy’ubujurire. Urukiko rurasanga, nta mpamvu igaragara yatuma [21] ikirego Karimba yashyikirije Urukiko rw’Ikirenga nyuma yo kutishimira urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, cyafatwa nko gusubirishamo urubanza aho kuba kurujuririra, akaba ahubwo ari ikosa ry’imyandikire yanakosoye mu ibaruwa yo kuwa 09/01/2014 (art. 93 CPCCSA), riri mu rwego rw’inenge zitatuma igikorwa cy’ubujurire giteshwa agaciro, mu gihe hatagaragajwe ko hari nibura kimwe mu biteganywa n’ingingo ya 92 CPCCSA cyujujwe, biri mo kuba itegeko ryarateganyije itesha-gaciro, kuba hari umuhango simusiga cyangwa w’indemyagihugu utarubahirijwe, cyangwa kuba umuburanyi usaba iryo tesha-gaciro agaragaza ko byagize icyo bimwangiriza. Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro bitanzwe haruguru, Urukiko [22] rurasanga inzitizi yatanzwe n’uburanira Nkusi yo kutakira ubujurire bwa KARIMBA nta shingiro ifite. II. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO Rwemeje ko inzitizi yatanzwe na Nkusi yo kutakira [23] ubujurire bwa Karimba ku rubanza RAD 0136/09/HC/KIG nta shingiro ifite; Rutegetse ko iburanisha ry’urubanza mu mizi rizaba ku [24] wa 14/04/2014. Ruvuze ko amagarama y’urubanza asubitswe. [25] UMUJYI WA KIGALI N’ABANDI v. KARIMBA

Page 80

50

Page 81

51

IMANZA MBONEZAMUBANO

Page 82

52

Page 83

53

KHALID v. AHMED N’ABANDI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RC 0002/09/CS(Kayitesi R., P.J., Mukamulisana Mukandamage, J.) 19 Werurwe 2010] Amategeko agenga ububasha bw’Inkiko – Ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga – Inzira z’ubujurire mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga – Iyakirwa ry’ikirego kigamije gutambamira urubanza – Inzira y’ubujurire idasanzwe yo gutambamira urubanza rw’abandi (tierce opposition) ishobora kuzitirwa n’itegeko – Urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ntirushobora kongera kuburanishwa keretse gusa iyo ari ugukosora imyandikire y’icyo bibeshyeho cyangwa se gusobanura urubanza rwaciwe mu buryo butumvikana, cyangwa bushobora kumvikana mu buryo bunyuranye – Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo kuwa 04/06/2003 nk’uko ryavuguruwe kugeza ubu, ingingo ya 144 – Itegeko Ngenga n° 01/2004 ryo kuwa 29/01/2004 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 84 – Itegeko n° 18/2004 ryo ku wa 20/06/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 176. Incamakey’ikibazo: Khalid Foz yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga atambamira imikirize y’urubanza

RCAA 0006/08/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 26/06/2008. Muri urwo rubanza Assini Omar na Ali Fikirini baburanaga na Ahmed Abdulatif na Succession Yussuf Bin Abdulaziz mu bujurire bw’urubanza RCA 0386/07/HC MUS rukomatanyijwemo izindi manza, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru,

Page 84

54 54

Urugereko rwa Musanze, rukaba rwari rwanagobotsemo Succession Mohamed Yussuf Bin Abdulaziz. Assini Omar yatanze inzitizi yerekeye ububasha bwa Succession Yussuf Bin Abdulaziz naho Succession Yussuf Bin Abdoulaziz itanga inzitizi ijyanye n’ingwate yakwa abanyamahanga, icyakora Urukiko ruhitamo ko habanza gusuzumwa ireme ry’ikirego rwashyikirijwe, hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 84 y’Itegeko Ngenga n° 1/2004 ryo ku wa 29/1/2004 rigena imitunganyirize, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga nk’uko ryavuguruwe kandi rikuzuzwa kugeza ubu, n’ingingo ya 144 y’Itegeko Nshinga ryo ku wa 04/06/2003 nk’uko ryavuguruwe kugeza ubu. Uruhande rurega ruvuga ko baregeye Urukiko basanga rufite ububasha kuko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ruburanisha imanza mu mizi (juge de fond), bivuze ko ikirego cyo gutambamira urubanza ari uburenganzira bw’umuntu buteganywa n’ingingo ya 18 y’Itegeko Nshinga kandi ko hari izindi manza Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwaburanishije rushingiye kuri iyi ngingo, urwo babonye akaba ari urwo gusubirishamo urubanza (opposition) RSOCAA 0008/06/CS rwa EER na Musenyeri Sebununguri rwaciwe tariki ya 17/07/2009, yabisuzuma agasanga byumvikana ko gutambamira urubanza (tierce opposition) nabyo byakwakirwa. Yiregura ku byerekeye ingingo ya 144 y’Itegeko Nshinga, ivuga ko ibyemezo by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga bitajuririrwa uretse ibyerekeye imbabazi n’isubirwamo ry’urubanza, yavuze ko gusubirishamo urubanza abifata kimwe no kurutambamira. Uruhande rwunganira Assini Omar ruvuga ko gutambamira urubanza bikorwa n’umuntu utarigeze ahamagarwa mu rubanza (tierce opposition) byumvikana ko ari opposition ikozwe n’abantu batandukanye. Yongeyeho ko mu rubanza RSOCAA ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 85

55 55

0008/06/CS bisobanuye neza ko umuburanyi akoresha inzira zisanzwe n’izidasanzwe zo kujurira (les voies de recours ordinaires et extraordinaires), akaba asanga rero niba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwarabyemeye, gutambamira urubanza (tierce opposition) bifite ireme kandi ari uburengira bwe mu gihe urubanza rwaciwe rumurenganya kuko kubwe nta kuntu Urukiko rwakwemerera umuburanyi wari uhari kongera kuburana rukabyangira utaramenye urubanza. Uruhande rwunganira Ahmed Abdullatif ruvuga ko izo ngingo z’amategeko zisobanutse neza kuko ku ngingo ya 84 y’Itegeko Ngenga n° 1/2004 ryo ku wa 29/1/2004 rigena imitunganyirize, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, umushingamategeko atari ananiwe kongeramo gusubirishamo urubanza cyangwa kurutambamira, kandi ko hari urubanza RCA 0002/05/CS Kagoyire Christine yaburanye na Amuri Sultan rwerekeranye no gutambamira urubanza rwashingirwaho n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuko rwasanze iyo nzira y’ubujurire idateganyijwe n’amategeko mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga bityoakaba asanga urubanza abamubanjirije batanze rurebana gusa no gusubirishamo urubanza (opposition). Uwunganira Succession Yussuf Bin Abdulaziz nawe yashimangiye ko gutambamira urubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga bidashoboka ashingiye ku ngingo ya 176 y’Itegeko n° 18/2004 ryo ku wa 20/06/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ivuga ko urubanza rushobora gutambamirwa, uretse iyo amategeko abiteganya ukundi. Ali Fikirini we avuga ko Khalid Foz yakwemererwa gutambamira urubanza kuko yaruvuzwemo cyane ariko ntaruhamagarwemo ariyo mpamvu afite inyungu kuko atarumenyeshejwe. KHALID v. AHMED N’ABANDI 55

Page 86

56 56

Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Inzira y’ubujurire idasanzwe yo gutambamira urubanza rw’abandi (tierce opposition) ishobora kuzitirwa n’itegeko.

2. Urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ntirushobora kongera kuburanishwa keretse gusa iyo ari ugukosora imyandikire y’icyo bibeshyeho cyangwa se gusobanura urubanza rwaciwe mu buryo butumvikana, cyangwa bushobora kumvikana mu buryo bunyuranye. Ikirego nticyakiriwe. Amagarama aherereye ku watambamiye urubanza. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo kuwa 04/06/2003 nk’uko ryavuguruwe kugeza ubu, ingingo ya 144. Itegeko Ngenga n° 01/2004 ryo kuwa 29/01/2004 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 84. Itegeko n° 18/2004 ryo ku wa 20/06/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 176. Nta manza zifashishijwe. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 87

57 57

Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA Uru rubanza rukomoka ku kirego Khalid Foz yatanze [1] muri uru rukiko atambamira imikirize y’urubanza RCAA 0006/08/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 26/06/2008. Muri urwo rubanza Assini Omar na Ali Fikirini baburanaga na Ahmed Abdulatif na Succession Yussuf Bin Abdulaziz bajuririra urubanza RCA 0386/07/HC MUS rukomatanyijwemo izindi manza, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze. Hagobotsemo Succession Mohamed Yussuf Bin Abdulaziz. Muri urwo rubanza RCAA 0006/08/CS rutambamirwa, [2] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Assini Omar nta shingiro bufite, ko ubwa Succession Yussuf Bin Abdulaziz bufite ishingiro, ko igoboka ku bushake rya Succession Mohamed Yussuf Bin Abdulaziz ritaburanishijwe kubera ko Me Musonera watanze ikirego yivanye mu rubanza ntihagira umusimbura. Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwategetse Assini Omar guha [3] Succession Yussuf Bin Abdulaziz 3.780.000Frw y’ubukode yiyongera kuri 28.620.000Frw yaciwe mu rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, yose hamwe akaba 32.400.000Frw, no gufatanya na Ali Fikirini kwishyura 300.000Frw y’ikurikirana rubanza yiyongera kuri 1.431.000 Frw baciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, buri wese akanishyura 4% y’umusogongero wa Leta ku mafaranga atsindiwe, bagafatanya na none kwishyura 36.650Frw y’amagarama y’urubanza, KHALID v. AHMED N’ABANDI

Page 88

58 58

batayatanga mu gihe cy’iminsi 8 akavanwa mu byabo ku ngufu za Leta. II. URUBANZA MU RUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA Hakurikijwe itegeko n° 0038/09/RC rya Perezida [4] w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ryo ku wa 20/10/2009, urubanza rwahamagawe mu iburanisha ku wa 10/11/2009 ariko ntirwaburanishwa, rwimurirwa tariki ya 19/01/2010 mu nyungu z’ubutabera kuko ababuranyi bamwe bifuzaga kuburana, abandi bifuza ko iburanisha ryimurwa kuko hari amakuru ko Me Musonera Alexis uburanira Khalid Foz yagize impanuka. Tariki ya 19/01/2010 iburanisha ryarakomeje mu [5] ruhame, hari Me Musonera Alexis uburanira Khalid Foz, Assini Omar yunganirwa na Me Buhuru Pierre Célestin, Me Hakizimana Théogène uburanira Succession Yussuf Bin Abdoulaziz, Me Habimana Adolphe uburanira Ahmed Abdoulatif na Ali Fikirini yiburanira. Mbere y’uko hasuzumwa inzitizi yatanzwe mu [6] myanzuro na Assini Omar yerekeye ububasha bwa Succession Yussuf Bin Abdulaziz n’indi yatanzwe na Me Hakizimana Théogène ijyanye n’ingwate yakwa abanyamahanga, urukiko rwifuje ko habanza gusuzumwa ireme ry’ikirego rwashyikirijwe, hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 84 y’Itegeko Ngenga n° 1/2004 ryo ku wa 29/1/2004 rigena imitunganyirize, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga nk’uko ryavuguruwe kandi rikuzuzwa kugeza ubu, n’ingingo ya 144 y’Itegeko Nshinga ryo ku wa 04/06/2003 nk’uko ryavuguruwe kugeza ubu. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 89

59 59

Me Musonera Alexis yahawe ijambo avuga ko baregeye [7] Urukiko basanga rufite ububasha hashingiwe ku ngingo zimaze kuvugwa kuko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ruburanisha imanza mu mizi (juge de fond), bivuze ko ikirego cyo gutambamira urubanza ari uburenganzira bw’umuntu buteganywa n’ingingo ya 18 y’Itegeko Nshinga. Yakomeje avuga ko hari izindi manza Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwaburanishije rushingiye kuri iyi ngingo, urwo babonye akaba ari urwo gusubirishamo urubanza (opposition) rufite n° RSOCAA 0008/06/CS rwa EER na Musenyeri Sebununguri rwaciwe tariki ya 17/07/2009, yabisuzuma agasanga byumvikana ko gutambamira urubanza (tierce opposition) nabyo byakwakirwa. Ku byerekeye ingingo ya 144 y’Itegeko Nshinga, ivuga [8] ko ibyemezo by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga bitajuririrwa uretse ibyerekeye imbabazi n’isubirwamo ry’urubanza, yavuze ko gusubirishamo urubanza abifata kimwe no kurutambamira. Me Buhuru yahawe ijambo avuga ko ahereye ku rubanza [9] rwo gusubirishamo urubanza (opposition) rumaze kuvugwa, gutambamira urubanza bikorwa n’umuntu utarigeze ahamagarwa mu rubanza (tierce opposition) byumvikana ko ari opposition ikozwe n’abantu batandukanye. Yongeyeho ko muri urwo rubanza bisobanuye neza aho ruvuga ko umuburanyi akoresha inzira zisanzwe n’izidasanzwe zo kujurira (les voies de recours ordinaires et extraordinaires), akaba asanga rero niba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwarabyemeye muri jurisprudence yarwo, gutambamira urubanza (tierce opposition) bifite ireme. Ku byerekeye ingingo ya 84 y’Itegeko Ngenga n° [10] 1/2004 ryo ku wa 29/1/2004 rigena imitunganyirize, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, yavuze ko mu bika bya 22- 24 by’urubanza RSOCAA 0008/06/CS Urukiko rw’Ikirenga KHALID v. AHMED N’ABANDI

Page 90

60 60

rwayivuzeho, yanzura avuga ko niba urubanza rwaciwe kuri uru rwego rwa nyuma rurenganya Khalid Foz, mu gihe yagaragaza inyungu afite, yakwemererwa kurutambamira kuko ari uburenganzira bwe. Assini Omar yongeyeho ko iyo jurisprudence y’Urukiko [11] rw’Ikirenga yasobanuye neza izo ngingo z’amategeko cyane mu gika cya 25 cy’urubanza, akaba yumva nta kuntu Urukiko rwakwemerera umuburanyi wari uhari kongera kuburana rukangira utaramenye urubanza. Me Habimana Adolphe nawe yahawe ijambo, avuga ko [12] izo ngingo z’amategeko zisobanutse neza. Ku ngingo ya 84 y’Itegeko Ngenga n° 1/2004 ryo ku wa 29/1/2004 rigena imitunganyirize, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, yasobanuye ko umushingamategeko atari ananiwe kongeramo gusubirishamo urubanza cyangwa kurutambamira, yongeraho ko hari jurisprudence yashingirwaho y’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza RCA 0002/05/CS Kagoyire Christine yaburanye na Amuri Sultan yerekeranye no gutambamira urubanza, aho rwasanze iyo nzira y’ubujurire idateganyijwe n’amategeko mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, akaba rero asanga jurisprudence abamubanjirije batanze irebana gusa no gusubirishamo urubanza (opposition). Me Hakizimana Théogène nawe yashimangiye ko iyo [13] ngingo isobanutse neza, icyemewe ku rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga akaba ari ukurusubirishamo ingingo nshya. Yakomeje avuga ko iyo ngingo inashingiye ku ya 176 CPCCSA ivuga ko urubanza rushobora gutambamirwa, uretse iyo amategeko abiteganya ukundi, akaba asanga rero gutambamira urubanza muri uru rukiko bidashoboka. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 91

61 61

Ali Fikirini nawe yahawe ijambo avuga ko Khalid Foz [14] yakwemererwa gutambamira urubanza RCAA 0006/08/CS kuko yaruvuzwemo cyane ariko akaba atarahamagajwe, ariyo mpamvu afite inyungu kuko atarumenyeshejwe. Iburanisha ry’urubanza ku bijyanye no kwakira ikirego [15] cyo gutambamira urubanza muri uru rukiko ryarasojwe, ababuranyi bamenyeshwa ko ruzasomwa tariki ya 19/02/2010, uwo munsi ariko isomwa ryarwo ryimurirwa ku wa 19/03/2010 kuko rwari rutararangira gusuzumwa, Urukiko ruriherera ruruca mu buryo bukurikira: III. IBYASUZUMWE N’URUKIKO N’UKO

RUBIBONA Ikigomba gusuzumwa muri uru rubanza ni ukureba niba [16] ikirego cyatanzwe na Khalid Foz gisaba gutambamira urubanza RCAA 0006/08/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 26/06/2008 gikwiye kwakirwa kigasuzumwa. Ingingo ya 144 y’Itegeko Nshinga ryo ku wa 04/06/2003 [17] nk’uko ryavuguruwe kugeza ubu, ivuga ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ari rwo rukiko rukuriye izindi mu gihugu. Ibyemezo byarwo ntibijuririrwa uretse ibyerekeye imbabazi n’isubirwamo ry’urubanza. Byubahirizwa n’abo bireba bose, zaba inzego za Leta, abayobozi bose b’imirimo ya Leta, aba gisiviri, aba gisirikare, abo mu rwego rw’ubucamanza n’abantu ku giti cyabo. Na none ingingo ya 84 y’Itegeko Ngenga n° 1/2004 ryo [18] ku wa 29/1/2004 rigena imitunganyirize, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe KHALID v. AHMED N’ABANDI

Page 92

62 62

kugeza ubu, ivuga ko bitabangamiye uburyo buteganyijwe n’amategeko bwo gusubirishamo urubanza rwaciwe burundu, urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rudashobora kongera kuburanishwa keretse gusa iyo ari ugukosora imyandikire y’icyo bibeshyeho cyangwa se gusobanura urubanza rwaciwe mu buryo butumvikana, cyangwa bushobora kumvikana mu buryo bunyuranye. Ingingo ya 176 y’itegeko n° 18/2004 ryo ku wa [19] 20/06/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko “urubanza rwose rushobora gutambamirwa keretse iyo amategeko abiteganya ukundi”. Ibyo bikaba bisobanuye ko iyo nzira y’ubujurire idasanzwe yo gutambamira urubanza rw’abandi (tierce opposition) ishobora kuzitirwa n’itegeko nk’uko ingingo ya 84 y’Itegeko Ngenga n° 1/2004 imaze kuvugwa yabikoze. Hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’izo ngingo zose, Urukiko [20] rurasanga umushingamategeko yarerekanye mu buryo budashidikanywaho kandi bugaragara ko mu nzira z’ijurira zateganyijwe n’amategeko, imwe gusa yo gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya (recours en révision) ariyo ishobora gukoreshwa ku manza zaciwe burundu n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, izindi zikaba zidashoboka. Ku byerekeye imanza ebyiri, RSOCAA 0008/09/CS, [21] EER yaburanye na Mgr Sebununguri na RC 0002/05/CS Kagoyire Christine yaburanye na Abdallah Sultan na Succession Hamud zaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ababuranyi bavuga ko ari “jurisprudence” bashingiyeho, bamwe bemeza ko ikirego cyo gutambamira urubanza rw’abandi (tierce opposition) cyakwakirwa muri uru rukiko, abandi bahakana ko rutayakira, ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 93

63 63

uru Rukiko rurasanga “jurisprudence” iba igizwe na “une série de décisions concordantes à un problème determine”, bityo izo manza ebyiri zikaba zitafatwaho ko zigize “jurisprudence” ngo zibe zashingirwaho. Na none kuri urwo rubanza RSOCAA 0008/06/CS rwa [22] EER na Musenyeri Sebununguri rwaciwe tariki ya 17/07/2009 Urukiko rurasanga rwarafashwemo icyemezo cyerekeranye no gusubirishamo urubanza (opposition) rukaba rero rutashingirwaho mu gusuzuma iki kirego cyo gutambamira urubanza rw’abandi (tierce opposition), cyane ko nk’uko bimaze kuvugwa, iyi nzira y’ijurira itemewe ku manza zaciwe burundu n’uru rukiko. Hakurikijwe ibimaze gusobanurwa haruguru, Urukiko [23] rurasanga ikirego RC 0002/09/CS cyatanzwe na Khalid Foz kigamije gutambamira urubanza RCAA 0006/08/CS kitagomba kwakirwa ngo gisizumwe. Ku birebana n’inzitizi yatanzwe na Assini Omar [24] yerekeye iburabubasha rya Succession Yussuf Bin Abdulaziz n’indi yatanzwe na Me Hakizimana ijyanye n’ingwate yakwa abanyamahanga, urukiko rurasanga isuzuma ry’izo nzitizi ritakiri ngombwa kuko ikirego cyatanzwe na Khalid Foz kitakiriwe. IV. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO Rwemeje kutakira ikirego cyatanzwe na Khalid Foz cyo [25] gutambamira urubanza RCAA 0006/08/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 26/06/2008 kuko cyatanzwe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko. KHALID v. AHMED N’ABANDI

Page 94

64 64

Rutegetse Khalid Foz kwishyura amafaranga 12.500Frw [26] y’amagarama y’urubanza, akayatanga mu gihe cy’iminsi 8, atayatanga ayo mafaranga agakurwa mu bye ku ngufu za Leta.

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 95

65

MUSHINZIMANA v. RUTARINDWA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RCAA 0026/12/CS (Kayitesi R., P.J Rugabirwa, na Mukandamage, J.) 21 Gashyantare 2014] Amategeko agenga ububasha bw’Inkiko – Ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga – Agaciro gashingirwaho mu kugena ububasha bw’Urukiko – Agaciro kagenwe mu cyemezo cy’iyandikisha ry’ingwate ntabwo ariko kashingirwaho mu kwemeza ko ubujurire buri mu bubasha bw’Urukikoigihe atariko kagaragajwe ikirego gitangwa cyangwa se ngo kabe karagenwe n’umucamanza habaye impaka – Itegeko - Ngenga n° 01/2004 ryo kuwa 29/01/2004 rigena imitunganyirize, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 43(7). Incamake y’ikibazo: Rutarindwa yareze Mushinzimana mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge asaba ko amasezerano y’ubugure bw’inzu yabaye hagati ye n’umugore we aseswa kubera ko yakozwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko kuko uwo mugore we yagurishije nta burenganzira abimuhereye. Urukiko rwemeza ko ikirego cye nta shingiro gifite kuko atarugaragarije ubwoko bw’icungamutungo yari afitanye n’umugore we kugira ngo rumenye niba inzu yagurishijwe yari ayifiteho uburenganzira, runamutegeka guha Mushinzimana igihembo cy’Avoka hamwe n’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza. Rutarindwa yajuririye icyo cyemezo mu Rukiko Rukuru maze rwemeza ko ayo masezerano y’ubugure asheshwe kubera ko nta kigaragariza Urukiko ko Rutarindwa yemeye ubwo bugure kuko umugore we yahise acikira muri Malawi akimara kugurisha

Page 96

66 66

inzu, kandi ko rutasuzuma ibyo Mushinzimana arusaba by’uko yasubizwa amafaranga y’ikiguzi cy’inzu kubera ko bitaburanweho mu rwego rwa mbere, runamutegeka guha Rutarindwa igihembo cy’Avoka. Mushinzimana yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga maze ubujurire bwe bubanza bukorerwa ibanzirizasuzuma umucamanza yemeza ko buri mu bubasha bwarwo. Rutarindwa yatanze inzitizi yo kutakira ubujurire bwa Mushinzimana kuko agaciro k’ikiburanwa katageze kuri 20.000.000Frw nk’uko itegeko ryakurikizwaga igihe Mushinzimana yajuriraga ryabiteganyaga naho Mushinzimana we akavuga ko ubujurire bwe buri mu bubasha bw’urukiko rw’ikirenga kuko agaciro k’ikiburanwa ari 34.178.815Frw nk’uko bigaragazwa n’icyemezo cy’iyandikisha ry’ingwate. Incamake y’icyemezo: Agaciro kagenwe mu cyemezo cy’iyandikisha ry’ingwate si ko kashingirwaho mu kwemeza ko ubujurire buri mu bubasha bw’Urukiko igihe atariko kagaragajwe ikirego gitangwa cyangwa se ngo kabe karagenwe n’umucamanza habaye impaka. Inzitizi y’iburabubasha bw’Urukiko ifite ishingiro. Icyemezo cy’ibanzirizasuzuma kirahindutse. amagarama y’urubanza aherereye ku wajuriye. Amategeko yakoreshejwe: Itegeko - Ngenga n° 01/2004 ryo kuwa 29/01/2004 rigena imitunganyirize, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 43(7). ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 97

67 67

Imanza zifashishijwe: Nyirantambara v. Mukasa n’undi, RCAA 0032/11/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 14/12/2012. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA Rutarindwa Isaïe yareze Mushinzimana Emmanuel mu [1] Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge asaba ko amasezerano y’ubugure bw’inzu yagiranye n’umugore we Mukankuranga Agnès yaseswa kubera ko yakozwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko kuko yayigurishije nta burenganzira abimuhereye. Urwo Rukiko rwemeje ko ikirego cya Rutarindwa Isaïe [2] nta shingiro gifite kubera ko atarugaragarije ubwoko bw’icungamutungo yari afitanye n’umugore we kugira ngo rumenye niba inzu yagurishijwe yari ayifiteho uburenganzira, rutegeka Rutarindwa Isaïe guha Mushinzimana Emmanuel 700.000Frw y’igihembo cya avoka na 150.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza. Rutarindwa Isaïe yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru rwemeza [3] ko urubanza rwajuririwe ruhindutse mu ngingo zarwo zose, ko ayo masezerano y’ubugure asheshwe, rutegeka Mushinzimana guha Rutarindwa 200.000Frw y’igihembo cya avoka. Urwo Rukiko rwasobanuye ko amasezerano y’ubugure [4] asheshwe kubera ko nta kirugaragariza ko Rutarindwa Isaïe yemeye ubwo bugure kuko umugore we yahise acikira muri Malawi akimara kugurisha inzu, kandi ko rutasuzuma ibyo Mushinzimana arusaba by’uko yasubizwa 4.500.000Frw MUSHINZIMANA v. RUTARINDWA

Page 98

68 68

y’ikiguzi cy’inzu kubera ko bitaburanweho mu rwego rwa mbere. Mushinzimana Emmanuel yajuririye Urukiko [5] rw’Ikirenga, ubujurire bwe bukorerwa ibanzirizasuzuma, umucamanza wabishinzwe yemeza ko buri mu bubasha bwarwo. Rutarindwa Isaïe yatanze inzitizi igamije kutakira [6] ubujurire bwa Mushinzimana Emmanuel kubera ko agaciro k’ikiburanwa katageze kuri 20.000.000Frw, naho Mushinzimana Emmanuel we akavuga ko ubujurire bwe buri mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kubera ko agaciro k’ikiburanwa ari 34.178.815Frw nk’uko bigaragazwa n’icyemezo cy’iyandikisha ry’ingwate (Certification for registration of mortgage) yarushyikirije. Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame kuri iyo nzitizi [7] kuwa 21/01/2014, Mushinzimana Emmanuel ahagarariwe na Me Mutabazi Abayo Claude, naho Rutarindwa Isaïe ahagarariwe na Me Bimenyimana Eric. II. IKIBAZO KIRI MU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYACYO: Kumenya niba ubujurire bwa Mushinzimana Emmanuel buri mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. Uburanira Rutarindwa Isaïe avuga ko hakurikijwe [8] ibyateganywaga n’ingingo ya 43, agace ka 7° y’Itegeko - Ngenga n° 01/2004 ryo kuwa 29/01/2004 rigena imitunganyirize, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 99

69 69

ryakurikizwaga igihe Mushinzimana Emmanuel yajuriraga, asanga ubujurire bwe butari mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kubera ko agaciro k’ikiburanwa katageze kuri 20.000.000Frw kuko inzu ye yaguzwe 4.500.000Frw. Avuga kandi ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rutashingira ku [9] Cyemezo cy’iyandikisha ry’ingwate (Certification for registration of mortgage) Mushinzimana Emmanuel yahawe na Rwanda Developement Board (RDB) kigaragaza ko iyo nzu ifite agaciro kangana na 34.178.815Frw kugira ngo rwemeze ko ubujurire bwe buri mu bubasha bwarwo kuko akiburanishije bwa mbere muri uru Rukiko kubera ko icyaburanweho mu rwego rwa mbere n’urwa kabiri ari iseswa ry’amasezerano y’ubugure yavuzwe haruguru. Uburanira Mushinzimana Emmanuel avuga ko ubujurire [10] bwe buri mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga hakurikijwe ibyateganywaga n’ingingo ya 43, agace ka 7° y’Itegeko - Ngenga n° 01/2004 ryo kuwa 29/01/2004 ryavuzwe haruguru, kubera ko agaciro k’ikiburanwa karenze 20.000.000Frw kuko iyo nzu ifite agaciro kangana na 34.178.815Frw nk’uko bigaragazwa n’icyemezo cy’iyandikisha ry’ingwate cyavuzwe haruguru. Asobanura ko yaguze inzu yavuzwe haruguru ku gaciro [11] kangana na 4.500.000Frw mu mwaka wa 1998, ariko ko Mushinzimana Emmanuel yayivuguruye ku buryo mu mwaka wa 2014 ifite agaciro kangana na 34.178.815Frw nk’uko bigaragazwa n’icyemezo cy’iyandikisha ry’ingwate cyavuzwe haruguru, ko rero Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwashingira kuri iki cyemezo rukemeza ko ubujurire bwe buri mu bubasha bwarwo, aho gushingira ku gaciro kavugwa mu masezerano y’ubugure yavuzwe haruguru. MUSHINZIMANA v. RUTARINDWA

Page 100

70 70

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA Ku byerekeye ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga [12] bushingiye ku gaciro k’ikiburanwa, ingingo ya 43, agace ka 7° y’Itegeko - Ngenga n° 01/2004 ryo kuwa 29/01/2004 rigena imitunganyirize, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ryakurikizwaga igihe Mushinzimana Emmanuel yajuriraga, iteganya ko “Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha mu rwego rw’ubujurire, imanza zaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rwa Repubulika mu rwego rwa kabiri, iyo izo manza zagenwemo n’urukiko indishyi zingana cyangwa zirenze amafaranga 20.000.000 hatitawe ku bwoko bwazo cyangwa se zifite agaciro kagenwe n’urega mu nyandiko itanga ikirego cyangwa kemejwe n’umucamanza igihe habaye impaka kangana cyangwa karenze 20.000.000Frw”. Ku birebana n’uru rubanza, inyandiko itanga ikirego mu [13] Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge yo kuwa 23/09/2008 igaragaza ko Rutarindwa Isaïe yasabaga iseswa ry’amasezerano y’ubugure bw’inzu ku giciro cya 4.500.000Frw yabaye hagati y’umugore we Mukankuranga Agnès na Mushinzimana Emmanuel kuwa 19/07/2005 nta burenganzira yabitangiye. Bigaragara muri dosiye ko iyo nzu yaje kugenerwa [14] agaciro kangana na 34.178.815Frw mu cyemezo cy’iyandikisha ry’ingwate (Certification for registration of mortgage) cyo kuwa 10/11/2011 cyashyikirijwe bwa mbere Urukiko rw’Ikirenga na Mushinzimana Emmanuel asaba ko ariko gaciro kashingirwaho kugira ngo rwemeze ko ubujurire bwe buri mu bubasha bwarwo. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 101

71 71

Urukiko rurasanga agaciro kangana na 34.178.815Frw [15] kagenwe mu Cyemezo cy’iyandikisha ry’ingwate atariko kashingirwaho mu kwemeza ko ubujurire bwa Mushinzimana Emmanuel buri mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuko atariko kagaragajwe igihe ikirego cyatangwaga cyangwa se ngo kabe karagenwe n’umucamanza habaye impaka hakurikijwe ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 43, agace ka 7° y’Itegeko - Ngenga n° 01/2004 ryo kuwa 29/01/2004 ryavuzwe haruguru. Urukiko rurasanga kandi ako gaciro gatangiwe bwa [16] mbere mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga kakaba katashingirwaho mu kugena ububasha bwarwo, ibyo bikaba bihuje kandi n’ibyemejwe mu rubanza n° RCAA 0032/11/CS, Nyirantambara Marina yaburanye na Mukasa Gonzalve na Twagirimana Viateur rwaciwe kuwa 14/12/2012, aho Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Nyirantambara Marina butari mu bubasha bwarwo kubera ko agaciro kangana na 51.760.500 Frw kagenwe muri “expertise” itangiwe bwa mbere mu Rukiko Rukuru. Urukiko rurasanga agaciro k’ikiburanwa kagomba [17] gushingirwaho ari agaciro k’inzu kangana na 4.500.000Frw kagaragara mu masezerano y’ubugure bw’inzu yo kuwa 19/07/2005 kuko ariko gaciro inzu yari afite igihe hatangwaga ikirego mu rwego rwa mbere. Kuba ariko ako gaciro k’ikiburanwa katageze kuri 20.000.000Frw, Urukiko rurasanga ubujurire bwa Mushinzimana Emmanuel butari mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga hashingiwe ku byateganywaga n’ingingo ya 43, agace ka 7° y’Itegeko - Ngenga n° 01/2004 ryo kuwa 29/01/2004 ryavuzwe haruguru, bityoicyemezo cy’ibanzirizasuzuma kikaba kigomba guhinduka. MUSHINZIMANA v. RUTARINDWA

Page 102

72 72 72

III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO Rwemeje ko inzitizi y’iburabubasha bw’Urukiko [18] rw’Ikirenga yatanzwe na Rutarindwa Isaïe ifite ishingiro; Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Mushinzimana Emmanuel [19] ku rubanza RCA 0090/08/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru kuwa 27/01/20012 butari mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga; Rwemeje ko icyemezo cy’ibanzirizasuzuma gihindutse; [20] Rutegetse Mushinzimana Emmanuel gutanga [21] amagarama y’uru rubanza angana na 44.600Frw, habariwemo n’ayo yaciwe mu Rukiko Rukuru, atayatanga mu gihe cy’iminsi umunani, ayo mafaranga agakurwa mu bye ku ngufu za Leta. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 103

73

NKURUNZIZA N’UNDI v. HAKIZIMANA N’UNDI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RCAA 0054/12/CS(Nyirinkwaya, P.J., Hatangimbabazi na Hitiyaremye, J.) 3 Nyakanga 2010] Amategeko agenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa – Gusebanya – Indishyi z’akababaro – Uburyo bwo kuregera Urukiko – Indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’Avoka – Gusebanya bisobanura kwitirira undi igikorwa gishobora gutesha uwo muntu icyubahiro cyangwa agaciro cyangwa gishobora kumusuzuguza mu ruhame – Bishobora gukurikiranwa mu manza z’inshinjabyaha, nk’uko bishobora gukurikiranwa mu manza z’imbonezamubano – Muri uru rubanza, amagambo “les mauvais compagnies” na “l’irreconnaissance” nta kundi yakumvikana usibye ko abantu bayavugwaho bafite imyitwarire igayitse yo kutibuka ineza bagiriwe – Mu kugena indishyi z’akababaro, hagomba kwitabwa ku kuba udutabo Hakizimana na Twizeyimana bavuzwemo twaranyanyagijwe mu bantu batandukanye, Nkurunziza n’umugore we Nzayinganyiki bakaba batarigeze bagerageza kutugaruza mu bantu baduhaye cyangwa basaba imbabazi ku mugaragaro abo batesheje agaciro ngo bibe byahanagura mu bantu isura mbi babahesheje – Itegeko Ngenga n° 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy'amategeko ahana – Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258. Incamake y’ikibazo: Urubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Musanze, Hakizimana n’umugore we

Page 104

74 74

Twizeyimana barega Nkurunziza n’umugore we Nzayinganyiki kuba mu gihe bakoraga umunsi mukuru wo gutaha impamyabumenyi barasohoye agatabo bashyizeho amafoto y’abantu benshi maze ku rupapuro ruriho iya Hakizimana n’umugore we Twizeyimana bandikaho “les mauvais compagnies ⦋sic⦌”, naho ku ifoto ubwayo bandikaho “l’irreconnaissance ⦋sic⦌” maze babisabira indishyi z’akababaro zingana na 40.000.000Frw zo kuba barasebejwe na 1.000.000Frw yo gutangaza urubanza mu mvaho nshya. Mbere y’iburanisha mu mizi, abaregwa bazamuye inzitizi y’iburabubasha bavuga ko nta kirego cy’inshinjabyaha cyabayeho kandi ko icyaha bashinjwa cyo gusebanya kibanza kuregerwa Komite y’Abunzi ariko Urukiko ruvuga ko iyo nzitizi nta shingiro ifite. Mu mizi y’urubanza, uru Rukiko rwameje ko abaregwa bakoreye ikosa abarega ryo kubandagaza maze rubategeka kubishyura indishyi z’akababaro za 2.000.000Frw na 500.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’avoka. Nkurunziza na Nzayinganyiki bajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, bavuga ko urukiko rwa mbere rwaciye urubanza rutari mu bubasha bwarwo kuko ibyo baregwa ari ikibazo cy’inshinjabyaha kiri mu bubasha bwa Komite y’Abunzi, nabwo kikabanza kunyura mu bugenzacyaha. Bavugaga kandi ko urwo rukiko rwabaciye indishyi rutabanje kwerekana ko ibyo bakoze byakoranywe ubugome cyangwa ko atari ukuri. Urukiko Rukuru narwo rwemeje ko ubujurire bwabo nta shingiro bufite icyakora ko urubanza ruhindutse gusa ku bijyanye n‘indishyi rubategeka kwishyura Hakizimana n’umugore we Twizeyimana 500.000Frw y’indishyi z’akababaro kuri buri wese, 250.000Frw y’igihembo cy’avoka ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 105

75 75

na 100.000Frw y’ikurikirana rubanza, yose hamwe akaba 1.350.000Frw. Hakizimana n’umugore we Twizeyimana bongeye kujurira mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga bashingiye n’ubundi ku nzitizi bari batanze mbere icyakora mu iburanisha bavuga ko baretse inzitizi bazamuye ahubwo bibanda gusa ku ishingiro ry’indishyi baciwe bavuga urubanza rutagaragaje ibisabwa kugira ngo indishyi zitangwe aribyo ikosa (faute), ingaruka yaryo (préjudice), n’aho bihuriye (lien de causalité), bityo bakaba basanga indishyi zatanzwe ntaho zishingiye. Bavuga kandi ko nta bimenyetso byatanzwe bigaragaza ko bari bafite umutima wo kugira nabi igihe bashyiraga amafoto ya Hakizimana na Twizeyimana mu gatabo basohoye ko ahubwo bashakaga kugaragaza ubuzima Nkurunziza yanyuzemo, imibanire myiza yagiranye n’imiryango imwe n’itari myiza yagiranye n’abantu bamwe barimo Hakizimana. Hakizimana na Twizeyimana bavuga ko batanze ibimenyetso byanditse bishingiye ku nyandiko Nkurunziza na Nzayinganyiki bateguye bagakwirakwiza mu bantu, ibyo bimenyetso bikaba bigaragaza ko bandagajwe bikabatesha agaciro n’icyubahiro, akaba rero asanga nta kosa umucamanza yakoze aha agaciro imiburanire yabo. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Gusebanya bisobanura kwitirira undi igikorwa gishobora gutesha uwo muntu icyubahiro cyangwa agaciro cyangwa gishobora kumusuzuguza mu ruhame. Bishobora gukurikiranwa mu manza z’inshinjabyaha, nk’uko bishobora gukurikiranwa mu manza z’imbonezamubano hashingiwe ko “igikorwa cyose cy’umuntu cyangirije undi gitegeka nyirugukora ikosa rigikomokaho kuriha ibyangiritse”. NKURUNZIZA N’UNDI v. HAKIZIMANA N’UNDI

Page 106

76 76

2. Urukiko rusanga amagambo “les mauvais compagnies” na “l’irreconnaissance” nta kundi yakumvikana usibye ko abantu bayavugwaho bafite imyitwarire igayitse yo kutibuka ineza bagiriwe, ibyo Nkurunziza akaba yarabishimangiye muri uru rukiko avuga ko itegeko ritarengera abantu ku gaciro badafite cyangwa abafite imyitwarire mibi “comportement immoral”.

3. Mu kugena indishyi z’akababaro, hagomba kwitabwa ku kuba udutabo Hakizimana na Twizeyimana bavuzwemo twaranyanyagijwe mu bantu batandukanye, Nkurunziza n’umugore we Nzayinganyiki bakaba batarigeze bagerageza kutugaruza mu bantu baduhaye cyangwa basaba imbabazi ku mugaragaro abo batesheje agaciro ngo bibe byahanagura mu bantu isura mbi babahesheje bityo hakaba hakwiye kugumaho indishyi z’akababaro za 2.000.000Frw Hakizimana na Twizeyimana bari bagenewe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Musanze, cyane cyane ko Urukiko Rukuru rutagaragaje icyo rwashingiyeho rugabanya izo ndishyi, 40.000.000Frw basaba nayo akaba ari ikirenga ugereranyije n’ingaruka ikosa ryabagizeho. Ubujurire nta shingiro bufite. Ubujurire bwuririrye ku bundi bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe. Amagarama y’urubanza aherereye ku bajuriye. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Ngenga n° 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy'amategeko ahana. Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258. Nta manza zifashishijwe. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 107

77 77

Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA Ubwo bateguraga umunsi mukuru wo gutaha [1] impamyabumenyi ya Nkurunziza Apollinaire mu by’ubwubatsi, we n’umugore we Nzayinganyiki Elizabeth basohoye agatabo bashyizeho amafoto y’abantu benshi babandikaho ibintu bitandukanye. Ni muri urwo rwego bashyizemo amafoto ya Hakizimana Sylvain n’umugore we Twizeyimana Emeritha n’abandi bantu ku rupapuro rwanditseho “les mauvais compagnies ⦋sic⦌”, naho ku ifoto ubwayo bandikaho “l’irreconnaissance ⦋sic⦌”. Hakizimana Sylvain n’umugore we Twizeyimana [2] Kwitonda Emeritha bareze Nkurunziza Apollinaire na Nzayinganyiki Elizabeth mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Musanze basaba indishyi z’akababaro zingana na 40.000.000Frw zo kuba barasebejwe na 1.000.000Frw yo gutangaza urubanza mu mvaho nshya. Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Musanze rwabanje gufata [3] icyemezo ku nzitizi zari zabyukijwe n’abaregwa bavugaga ko ikirego kitagomba kwakirwa kubera ko nta kirego cy’inshinjabyaha cyabayeho, icyaha bashinjwa cyo gusebanya kikaba kandi gitangirira mu Bunzi, rwemeza ko izo nzitizi nta shingiro zifite. Urubanza mu mizi rwaciwe kuwa 11/01/2011, urukiko [4] rwemeza ko Nkurunziza Apollinaire na Nzayinganyiki Elizabeth bakoreye ikosa Hakizimana Sylvain na Twizeyimana Kwitonda Emeritha kuko babandagaje, rubategeka gufatanya NKURUNZIZA N’UNDI v. HAKIZIMANA N’UNDI

Page 108

78 78

kubishyura indishyi z’akababaro za 2.000.000Frw na 500.000Frw y’ikurikirana rubanza n’igihembo cy’avoka. Nkurunziza na Nzayinganyiki bajuririye urwo rubanza [5] mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, bavuga ko urukiko rwa mbere rwaciye urubanza rutari mu bubasha bwarwo kuko ibyo baregwa ari ikibazo cy’inshinjabyaha kiri mu bubasha bwa Komite y’Abunzi, nabwo kikabanza kunyura muri Polisi. Bavugaga kandi ko urwo rukiko rwabaciye indishyi rutabanje kwerekana ko ibyo bakoze byakoranywe ubugome cyangwa ko atari ukuri. Urukiko Rukuru rwaciye urubanza kuwa 27/04/2012, [6] rwemeza ko ubujurire bwabo nta shingiro bufite, ko urubanza rwajuririwe ruhindutse gusa ku mubare w’indishyi zigomba gutangwa aho rwategetse abajuriye guha Hakizimana Sylvain na Twizeyimana Kwitonda indishyi z’akababaro za 500.000Frw kuri buri wese, 250.000Frw y’igihembo cy’avoka na 100.000Frw y’ikurikirana rubanza, yose hamwe akaba 1.350.000Frw. Nkurunziza Apollinaire na Nzayinganyiki Elizabeth na [7] none bajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 28/05/2012 ku mpamvu zimwe n’izari zatumye bajurira ubwa mbere. Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame kuwa [8] 27/05/2014, Me Nyirabuheta Béata yunganiye Nkurunziza Apollinaire kandi ahagarariye Nzayinganyiki Elizabeth, Me Nsengiyumva Straton yunganiye Hakizimana Sylvain kandi ahagarariye Twizeyimana Kwitonda Emeritha ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 109

79 79

Mu iburanisha, abajuriye bavuze ko baretse inzitizi [9] baburanye guhera mu rwego rwa mbere, ubujurire bwabo bukaba bwibanda ku ishingiro ry’indishyi zatanzwe. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO: 1° Kumenya niba Nkurunziza Apollinaire na Nzayinganyiki Elizabeth baraciwe indishyi hatagaragajwe ikosa bakoze. Me Nyirabuheta uburanira Nkurunziza Apollinaire na [10] Nzayinganyiki Elizabeth avuga ko kugira ngo indishyi zitangwe hagomba kugaragazwa ikosa (faute), ingaruka yaryo (préjudice), n’aho bihuriye (lien de causalité), ko nta na kimwe muri ibyo cyagaragajwe muri uru rubanza, akaba rero asanga indishyi zatanzwe ntaho zishingiye. Avuga kandi ko nta bimenyetso byatanzwe bigaragaza [11] ko abo aburanira bari bafite umutima wo kugira nabi igihe bashyiraga amafoto ya Hakizimana Sylvain na Twizeyimana Kwitonda Emeritha mu gatabo basohoye bategura umunsi mukuru wo gutaha impamyabumenyi ya Nkurunziza Apollinaire, ahubwo bashakaga kugaragaza ubuzima yanyuzemo, imibanire myiza yagiranye n’imiryango imwe n’itari myiza yagiranye n’abantu bamwe barimo Hakizimana Sylvain. Nkurunziza nawe avuga ko Hakizimana [12] atarashyingirwa yari nk’umwana mu rugo, ndetse ko aribo bamushyingiye, bityo ko nta mpamvu yo kumuharabika bari bafite, umucamanza akaba yaragombaga kureba contexte NKURUNZIZA N’UNDI v. HAKIZIMANA N’UNDI

Page 110

80 80

amagambo yakoreshejwemo, niba koko asebanya n’ ingaruka yagize. Avuga kandi ko ijambo “irreconnaissance” ryanditse ku [13] ifoto ya Hakizimana Sylvain na Twizeyimana Kwitonda Emeritha rivuga “ukutibuka ineza wagiriwe”, naho amagambo “mauvais compagnie” ari ku mutwe w’urupapuro ifoto ririho akaba asobanura “abababaniye nabi”. Avuga kandi ko atari ikosa gushyira hanze ibibi umuntu [14] yakoze hagamijwe kumufasha kwikosora, ndetse ko itegeko ritarengera abantu ku gaciro badafite cyangwa abafite “comportement immoral”, imyitwarire mibi ivugwa hano akaba ari uko Hakizimana Sylvain wari nk’umwana wabo atibuka ineza yakorewe. Me Nsengiyumva avuga ko Hakizimana Sylvain na [15] Twizeyimana Kwitonda Emeritha batanze ibimenyetso byanditse bishingiye ku nyandiko Nkurunziza Apollinaire na Nzayinganyiki Elizabeth bateguye bagakwirakwiza mu bantu,ibyo bimenyetso bikaba bigaragaza ko bandagajwe bagateshwa agaciro n’icyubahiro, akaba rero asanga nta kosa umucamanza yakoze aha agaciro imiburanire yabo.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA Gusebanya bisobanura kwitirira undi igikorwa gishobora [16] gutesha uwo muntu icyubahiro cyangwa agaciro cyangwa gishobora kumusuzuguza mu ruhame. Bishobora gukurikiranwa mu manza z’inshinjabyaha hashingiwe ku ngingo za 288 na 289 z’itegeko rihana ibyaha rikoreshwa ubu, nk’uko bishobora gukurikiranwa mu manza z’imbonezamubano hashingiwe ku ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 111

81 81

ngingo 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”. Urukiko rusanga amagambo “les mauvais compagnies” [17] na “l’irreconnaissance” nta kundi yakumvikana usibye ko abantu bayavugwaho bafite imyitwarire igayitse yo kutibuka ineza bagiriwe, ibyo Nkurunziza akaba yarabishimangiye muri uru rukiko avuga ko itegeko ritarengera abantu ku gaciro badafite cyangwa abafite imyitwarire mibi “comportement immoral”. Urukiko rusanga kandi icyo Nkurunziza n’umugore we [18] bari bagamije bagaragariza abatumire babo nta bindi bisobanuro batanze ko Hakizimana Sylvain na Twizeyimana Kwitonda Emeritha ari inshuti mbi kandi ko batibuka ineza bagiriwe atari ukubafasha kwikosora nk’uko babiburanisha, ahubwo ari ukubatesha icyubahiro nk’uko byasobanuwe mu nkiko zabanje, akaba atari ngombwa gusuzuma niba ibyo bavuze ari ukuri cyangwa atari ukuri kuko nabo batasobanuye mu gatabo bahaye abatumire babo icyo bashingiyeho babivuga. Urukiko rusanga kandi ku munsi mukuru wo kwizihiza [19] impamyabumenyi ya Nkurunziza Apollinaire, bitari ngombwa gushyira mu dutabo tugenewe abatumire ifoto ya Hakizimana Sylvain na Twizeyimana Kwitonda Emeritha yanditseho ko babaye inshuti mbi, ndetse ko batibuka ineza bagiriwe, kuba byarashyizwemo bitari ngombwa bikaba bigaragaza ubushake bwo kubaha isura itari nziza muri abo batumirwe. Ku bijyanye n’ingaruka z’ikosa bakorewe, Urukiko [20] rusanga kuba ifoto yabo yarashyizwe mu dutabo NKURUNZIZA N’UNDI v. HAKIZIMANA N’UNDI

Page 112

82 82

twanyanyagijwe mu batumirwe ba Nkurunziza Apollinaire na Nzayinganyiki Elizabeth, bakandikwa mu cyiciro cy’inshuti mbi kandi bakavugwaho ko ari abantu batibuka ineza bagiriwe byarabatesheje icyubahiro mu bantu kuko bagaragajwe nk’abantu barangwa n’ubuhemu. 2° Ku byerekeye indishyi Nkurunziza Apollinaire na Me Nyirabuheta bavuga ko [21] indishyi za 1.000.000Frw zatanzwe mu Rukiko Rukuru ari ikirenga, ndetse ko bigaragaye ko hari ikosa Nkurunziza n’umugore we Nzayinganyiki Elizabeth bakoze bacibwa 1 Frw ry’umugenzo (symbolique) y’indishyi z’akababaro. Me Nsengiyumva mu bujurire bwuririye ku bundi avuga [22] ko ahubwo indishyi Hakizimana Sylvain na Twizeyimana Kwitonda Emeritha bagenewe ari nke harebwe ukuntu bandagajwe bateshwa agaciro n’icyubahiro, akaba asaba ko bagenerwa amafaranga bari basabye ku rwego rwa mbere angana na 40.000.000Frw kuri bombi. Arasaba kandi ko abo aburanira bagenerwa [23] 1.000.000Frw y’ikurikirana rubanza n’igihembo cy’avoka mu Rukiko Rukuru no mu Rukiko rw’ikirenga, yiyongera kuri 500.000Frw bagenewe mu Rukiko Rwisumbye, yose hamwe akaba 1.500.000Frw.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA Urukiko rusanga mu kugena indishyi z’akababaro, [24] hagomba kwitabwa ku kuba udutabo Hakizimana Sylvain na Twizeyimana Kwitonda Emeritha bavuzwemo twaranyanyagijwe mu bantu batandukanye, Nkurunziza ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 113

83 83

Apollinaire n’umugore we Nzayinganyiki Elizabeth bakaba batarigeze bagerageza kutugaruza mu bantu baduhaye cyangwa basaba imbabazi ku mugaragaro abo batesheje agaciro ngo bibe byahanagura mu bantu isura mbi babahesheje. Hashingiwe ku bimaze kuvugwa, Urukiko rusanga [25] hakwiye kugumaho indishyi z’akababaro za 2.000.000Frw Hakizimana Sylvain na Twizeyimana Kwitonda Emeritha bari bagenewe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Musanze, umwe wese agahabwa 1.000.000Frw, cyane cyane ko Urukiko Rukuru rutagaragaje icyo rwashingiyeho rugabanya izo ndishyi, 40.000.000Frw basaba nayo akaba ari ikirenga ugereranyije n’ingaruka ikosa ryabagizeho. Ku bijyanye n’amafaranga y’ikurikirana rubanza [26] n’igihembo cy’avoka mu Rukiko Rukuru no kuri uru rwego, Urukiko rusanga Hakizimana Sylvain na Twizeyimana Kwitonda Emeritha bakwiye kuyahabwa kuko bagombye gufata avoka ubaburanira, bagira n’ibyo batakaza bijyanye no gukurikirana urubanza no kwitaba urukiko, ariko akagenwa n’urukiko mu bushishozi bwarwo, bakaba rero hakurikijwe imiterere y’urubanza rwabo bagenewe 600.000Frw (300.000Frw x 2), yiyongera ku mafaranga 500.000Frw bagenewe ku rwego rwa mbere. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Nkurunziza Apollinaire na [27] Nzayinganyiki Elizabeth nta shingiro bufite. NKURUNZIZA N’UNDI v. HAKIZIMANA N’UNDI

Page 114

84 84 84

Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwa [28] Hakizimana Sylvain na Twizeyimana Kwitonda Emeritha bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe. Rutegetse Nkurunziza Apollinaire na Nzayinganyiki [29] Elizabeth bafatanyije guha Hakizimana Sylvain na Twizeyimana Kwitonda Emeritha indishyi z’akababaro za 1.000.000Frw kuri buri wese, yose hamwe akaba 2.000.000Frw. Rutegetse kandi Nkurunziza Apollinaire na [30] Nzayinganyiki Elizabeth bafatanyije guha Hakizimana Sylvain na Twizeyimana Kwitonda Emeritha 1.100.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’avoka agizwe na 500.000Frw yo ku rwego rwa mbere, 300.000Frw mu Rukiko Rukuru na 300.000Frw kuri uru rwego. Rutegetse Nkurunziza Apollinaire na Nzayinganyiki [31] Elizabeth bafatanyije gutanga amagarama y’urubanza angana na 24.550Frw. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 115

85

URUBANZA RW’UMURIMO

Page 116

86

Page 117

87

BANQUE RWANDAISE DE DEVELOPPEMENT (BRD) v. MWUBAHAMANA; MWUBAHAMANA v. BANQUE RWANDAISE DE DEVELOPPEMENT (BRD) [Rwanda URUKIKO RUKURU – RSOCA 0194/13/HC/KIG - RSOCA 0202/13/HC/KIG (Hitimana, P.J.) 13 Kamena 2014] Kwirukanwa binyuranyije n’amategeko – Iseswa ry’amasezerano y’akazi mu gihe habayeho ihuzwa ry’ibigo – Indishyi – Iyo umukoresha ahinduye imiterere y’ikigo mu by’amategeko, nk’izungura, ahinduye izina, akigurishije, yifatanyije n’ikindi kigo, ihindura ry’imari y’ikigo cyangwa agihinduye ubwibumbe bw’abantu, amasezerano yose y’akazi agifite agaciro igihe izo mpinduka zabereye agumaho hagati y’umukoresha mushya n’abakozi bari basanzwe – Iyo habayeho ihuzwa ry’ibigo hakaba hagomba kubaho ivugurura ry’inzego z’imirimo, iryo vugurura ry’inzego z’imirimo rifatwa nk’ivugurura kubera impamvu z’ubukungu – Icyakora kuba Umukoresha atagaragaza uburyo yubahirije ingingo ya 34 y’itegeko rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda ku mukozi ngo asobanure ibyo yagendeyeho agabanya abakozi kubera impamvu z’ubukungu bifatwa nko kumwirukana nta mpamvu – Iyo umukozi afite uburambe ku kazi bugeze ku myaka icumi ku mukoresha umwe, indishyi z’akababaro ntishobora kurenza amezi icyenda – Itegeko n° 13/2009 ryo kuwa 27/05/2009 rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda, ingingo za 22, 33 igika cya 2 na 34. Amategeko agenga Umurimo – Inshingano y’umukoresha yo kwishyura umushahara – Mu gihe amasezerano y’akazi

Page 118

88 88

agikomeza inshingano yo kwishyura umushahara ifitwe n’umukoresha ikurwaho n’uko umukozi yarenze ku nshingano ye yo gukora, ariko mu gihe umukoresha ariwe ubwiye umukozi ko atari ngombwa ko akora, inshingano ye yo kumuhemba igumaho – Itegeko n° 13/2009 ryo kuwa 27/05/2009 rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda, ingingo za 6, 59, 60 n’iya 75. Kwirukanwa binyuranyije n’amategeko – Gusubizwa mu kazi – Niba gusubizwa ku kazi ari imwe mu nzira yo kurenganura umukozi wirukanywe nta mpamvu – Iyo nzira yo gusubizwa ku kazi umukozi wirukanywe nta mpamvu ntabwo iteganyizwe mu mategeko y’u Rwanda ahubwo amategeko ateganya ko iseswa ry’amasezerano rinyuranyije n’amategeko rihanishwa guca indishyi uyasheshe – Itegeko n° 13/2009 ryo kuwa 27/05/2009 rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 33. Amategeko mpuzamahanga – amasezerano mpuzamahanga, Inyandiko z’abahanga n’ibyemezo by’inkiko zo mu mahanga – Imikoreshereze y‘amasezerano mpuzamahanga, inyandiko z’abahanga n’ibyemezo by’Inkiko byo mu bindi bihugu mu Rwanda – Mu gihe inyandiko z’abahanga mu mategeko cyangwa ibyemezo by’inkiko z’ikindi gihugu bitandukanye n’amategeko y’u Rwanda ntibyakurikizwa mu Rwanda, keretse ahubwo abo bahanga n’izo nkiko zarafashe icyemezo zishingiye ku mategeko mpuzamahanga areba u Rwanda kandi rwashyizeho umukono. Amategeko agenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa – Amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’Avoka – Umuburanyi wabaye nyirabayazana w’urubanza niwe ugomba kwiregera ibyo undi muburanyi yatanze aburana urwo rubanza. Incamake y’ikibazo: Nyuma yo guhuza Banki y’Imiturire y’u Rwanda (BHR) na Banki y’Amajyambere y’u Rwanda (BRD), imirimo yose y’iyo Banki igahagarikwa kandi inshingano ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 119

89 89

n’umutungo byayo bikegurirwa Banki y’Amajyambere y’u Rwanda (BRD), abakozi bayo bimurirwa muri BRD. BRDyandikiye Mwubahamana imumenyesha ko amasezerano y’akazi yari afitanye na Banki y’Imiturire mu Rwanda yasheshwe guhera tariki ya 30/04/2011 kubera impamvu z’ubukungu n’ikoranabuhanga, inamumenyesha ko yamaze gushyikirizwa imperekeza n’andi mafaranga ateganywa n’amategeko afiteho uburenganzira. Mwubahamana yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, arega BRD ko yamwirukanywe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko maze asaba ko yasubizwa mu kazi, bitaba ibyo agahabwa amafaranga yagombaga guhembwa kugeza igihe cyo kujya mu kiruhuko cy’izabukuru. BRD nayo yatanze inzitizi, ivuga ko icyo kirego kidakwiye kwakirwa ngo gisuzumwe kubera ko ikirego cyatanzwe ku mugenzuzi w’umurimo cyerekeye impaka rusange (conflit collectif), kandi abandi bakozi bumvikanye na BRD. Urwo Rukiko rwemeje ko iyo nzitizi nta shingiro ifite, rwemeza ko BRD yamwirukanye mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko rutegeka BRD guha Mwubahamana indishyi zitandukanye. BRD yajuriye mu Rukiko Rukuru ivuga ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwemeje ko Mwubahamana yirukanywe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko kandi atari ko bimeze ndetse rukaba rwaramugeneye n’indishyi nyinshi, umushahara w’amezi atatu n’iminsi 10 kandi icyo gihe atarakoze, indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka kandi ariwe wishoye mu rubanza akanarushoramo BRD nta mpamvu. Ikomeza ivuga ko habayeho igabanywa rya bamwe mu bakozi mu rwego rwo gukumira igihombo cyashoboraga guterwa n’abakozi bahuje inshingano ibi bikaba bifatwa nk’impamvu z’ubukungu zishobora gutuma ikigo kigabanya abakozi.. BRD v. MWUBAHAMANA

Page 120

90 90

Mwubahamana yiregura avuga ko gukumira igihombo cyashoboraga kubaho bidashobora gufatwa nk’impamvu z’ubukungu zashingirwaho mu gusezerera abakozi mu buryo bunyuranyize n’amategeko. Anavuga ko yashyizwe mu gihirahiro ategereje ko ashyirwa mu kazi kandi kuba BRD yarateshutse ku nshingano zayo zo kumuha akazi kandi itamusezereye nta wundi wabiryozwa utari yo naho kubyerekeye amafaranga y’igihembo cy’avoka n’ikurikiranarubanza avuga ko yirukanywe ku maherere nta tegeko na rimwe ryubahirijwe, akaba rero ngo ari uburenganzira bwe bwo kuregera urukiko kugira ngo arenganurwe, kandi ko uwamurenganyije ari nawe ugomba kwirengera igihombo gituruka kuri izo manza. Mwubahamana nawe yajuririye icyemezo cy’Urukiko Rwisumbuye avuga ko icyo anenga icyemezo cyarwo ari ukuba rwaremeje ko isezererwa rye ridakurikije amategeko nyamara ntirufate umwanzuro wo kumusubiza mu kazi. BRD yo yiregura kuri iyi ngingo ivuga ko igihe urukiko rwasanga yarirukanywe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko icyo yagenerwa ari indishyi gusa nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 33 y’Itegeko 13/2009 ryo kuwa 27/05/2009 rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Iyo umukoresha ahinduye imiterere y’ikigo mu by’amategeko, nk’izungura, ahinduye izina, akigurishije, yifatanyije n’ikindi kigo, ihindura ry’imari y’ikigo cyangwa agihinduye ubwibumbe bw’abantu, amasezerano yose y’akazi agifite agaciro igihe izo mpinduka zabereye agumaho hagati y’umukoresha mushya n’abakozi bari basanzwe.

2. Iyo habayeho ihuzwa ry’ibigo bikaba ngombwa ko habaho ivugurura ry’inzego z’imirimo, iryo vugurura ry’inzego z’imirimo rifatwa nk’ivugurura kubera impamvu z’ubukungu. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 121

91 91

3. Iyo Umukoresha atagaragaza uburyo yubahirije ingingo ya 34 y’Itegeko rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda ngo asobanure ibyo yagendeyeho agabanya abakozi kubera impamvu z’ubukungu bifatwa nko kwirukana umukozi nta mpamvu.

4. Iyo umukozi afite uburambe ku kazi bugeze ku myaka icumi ku mukoresha umwe, indishyi z’akababaro ntishobora kurenza amezi icyenda kandi urukiko rumugeneye ageze kuri icyo kigero nta kosa ruba rukoze.

5. Mu gihe amasezerano y’akazi agikomeza inshingano yo kwishyura umushahara ifitwe n’umukoresha ikurwaho n’uko umukozi yarenze ku nshingano ye yo gukora, ariko mu gihe umukoresha ariwe ubwiye umukozi ko atari ngombwa ko akora, inshingano ye yo kumuhemba igumaho.

6. Inzira yugusubizwa umukozi wirukanywe nta mpa ku kazi ntabwo yateganyizwe mu mategeko y’u Rwanda ahubwo amategeko y’u Rwanda ateganya ko iseswa ry’amasezerano rinyuranyije n’amategeko rihanishwa guca indishyi uyasheshe.

7. Mu gihe inyandiko z’abahanga mu mategeko cyangwa ibyemezo by’inkiko z’ikindi gihugu bitandukanye n’amategeko y’u Rwanda nti byakurikizwa mu Rwanda, keretse ahubwo abo bahanga n’izo nkiko zarafashe icyemezo zishingiye ku mategeko mpuzamahanga areba u Rwanda kandi rwashyizeho umukono.

8. Umuburanyi wabaye nyirabayazana w’urubanza niwe ugomba kwiregera ibyo undi muburanyi yatanze aburana urwo rubanza. Ubujurire bwa BRD nta shingiro bufite; Ubujurire bwa Mwubahamana nta shingiro bufite; BRD v. MWUBAHAMANA

Page 122

92 92

Urubanza rwajuririwe ruhindutse gusa ku byerekeye amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’Avoka; Amagarama y’urubanza aherereye ku baburanyi bombi. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko n° 13/2009 ryo kuwa 27/05/2009 rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda, ingingo za 1, 6, 22, 33, 34, 48, 47, 59, 60 n’iya 75 Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA Mwubahamana Béata yari umukozi wa Rwanda Housing [1] Bank. Iyi banki yaje guhuzwa na BRD, Mwubahamana Béata n’abandi bakozi bayo nabo bimurirwa muri BRD. Ku wa 11/08/2011 BRD yandikiye MwubahamanaBéata [2] ibaruwa imusezerera abwirwa ko hashingiwe ku cyemezo cy’Inteko rusange idasanzwe ya Banki y’Imiturire y’u Rwanda (BHR) yateranye ku wa 30/03/2011, ikemeza ko imirimo yose y’iyo Banki ihagarikwa kandi inshingano n’umutungo byayo bikegurirwa Banki y’Amajyambere y’u Rwanda (BRD), amenyeshejwe ko amasezerano yari afitanye na Banki y’Imiturire mu Rwanda yasheshwe guhera tariki ya 30/04/2011. Yanibukijwe ko yamaze gushyikirizwa imperekeza n’andi mafaranga ateganywa n’amategeko umukozi afiteho uburenganzira iyo amasezerano y’akazi asheshwe, cyane cyane nk’uko biteganywa n’itegeko rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda, mu ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 123

93 93

ngingo yaryo ya 34 ijyanye no gusezererwa ku mpamvu z’ubukungu n’ikoranabuhanga. Mwubahamana Béata yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko [3] Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, aregera ko yirukanywe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, asaba kandi ko yasubizwa mu kazi, bitaba ibyo akabarirwa amafaranga yagombaga guhembwa kugeza igihe cyo kujya mu kiruhuko cy’izabukuru. Uhagarariye BRD yatanze inzitizi, avuga ko ikirego cya [4] MwubahamanaBéata kidakwiye kwakirwa ngo gisuzumwe, kubera ko ikirego cyatanzwe ku mugenzuzi w’umurimo ari icy’impaka rusange (conflit collectif), kandi abandi bakozi bumvikanye na BRD, ikibazo kitakemutse kikaba ari icya Rutagengwa Jean Paul. Urukiko rwemeje ko inzitizi nta shingiro ifite, rusuzuma [5] urubanza mu mizi. Ku rubanza mu mizi, BRD yasobanuye ko yasezereye [6] MwubahamanaBéata ishingiye ku ngingo ya 34 y’itegeko rigenga umurimo, kubera amasezerano yasheshwe bitewe n’impamvu z’ubukungu kuko guhuza Rwanda Housing Bank na BRD (fusion) ubwabyo byatewe n’ibibazo by’ubukungu, kugira abakozi bamwe basezererwa bikaba byari ingamba zo kurinda igihombo cy’ibyo bigo byari bihujwe. Yasobanuye ko hari imyanya y’imirimo Banki y’Imiturire y’u Rwanda yagiraga, ihuye n’iy’abandi bakozi babaga muri BRD, bikaba ngombwa ko muri abo bakozi hatoranywamo umwe ufite ubushobozi kurusha abandi, abandi bagasezererwa bahawe ibyo amategeko abemerera. Urukiko rwemeje ko n’ubwo BRD ivuga ko yashingiye [7] ku ngingo ya 34 y’itegeko rigenga amasezerano y’umurimo mu BRD v. MWUBAHAMANA

Page 124

94 94

Rwanda, ariko mu kuburana kwayo ntigaragaza impamvu y’ubukungu iyo ariyo kuko itagaragaza ko hari igihombo BRD yari ifite cyangwa se ko yari igamije kuzamura ikigo ku mpamvu z’ubukungu n’ikoranabuhanga kuko ubwayo ivuga ko nta hungabana ry’ubukungu yari ifite, ko ahubwo guhuza ibigo byombi byakozwe ku mpamvu yo kwirinda igihombo, bikaba byumvikana ko impamvu z’ubukungu cyangwa se ikoranabuhanga ivugwa muri iyo ngingo itashingirwaho kuko atariyo mpamvu y’ukuri uregwa yashingiyeho asesa amasezerano y’akazi ka Mwubahamana Béata kandi niyo haba hariho icyo kibazo cy’ubukungu muri BRD, umukoresha mushya umaze kwegukana ikigo cya Rwanda Housing Bank yari afite kubumbira hamwe abakozi bose, agasesa amasezerano yabo akurikije uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 34 y’itegeko rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda ibiteganya, nyamara ibyo ntibyubahirijwe kuko nta rutonde BRD yakoze rushingiye ku bushobozi, amashuri, uburambe, abo atunze ndetse no kubimenyesha umugenzuzi w’umurimo. Urukiko rwemeje ko kuba BRD itarubahirije ingingo ya [8] 34 y’itegeko rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda, bivuga ko Mwubahamana yirukanywe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko. Urukiko rwemeje ko n’ubwo Mwubahamana Béata [9] yirukanywe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, ibyo asaba ko yasubizwa mu kazi ntiyabyemererwa kuko igihano cyo gusesa amasezerano ku buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko ingingo ya 33 y’itegeko rigenga umurimo iteganya ari indishyi. Rwategetse koMwubahamana Béata ahabwa indishyi zingana n’inshuro 9 umushahara we w’ukwezi w’amafaranga 497.759, ni ukuvuga amafaranga 4.479.831 kubera ko yari akoze igihe kirengeje imyaka 10. Rwemeje ko atahabwa umushahara kugeza igihe ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 125

95 95

yagombaga kugira mu kiruhuko cy’izabukuru, kuko nta kigaragaza kandi ko yari gukora kugeza icyo gihe kandi n’ingingo ya 33 y’itegeko rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda icyoyemera ni indishyi zishobora kugeza ku mezi 9, kandi nta n’icyamubuza gushaka akazi ahandi nyuma yo gusezererwa ku kazi na BRD. Mwubahamana Béata yasabaga kandi n’imishahara [10] y’amezi atatu n’iminsi 10, ni ukuvuga kuva tariki ya 30/04/2011 kugeza ubwo yandikiwe ibaruwa imusezerera yo ku wa 11/08/2011, akabwirwa ko asezerewe guhera ku wa 30/04/2011), bityo akaba akwiye kubona uwo mushahara. Uhagarariye BRD we yavuze ko Mwubahamana atahabwa uwo mushahara kuko atigeze akora, kandi nk’uko ingingo ya mbere y’itegeko rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda ibivuga, umushahara ni ikiguzi cy’akazi kakozwe. Ku mishahara ivugwa mu gika kibanziriza iki, Urukiko [11] rwemeje ko ntayo Mwubahamana Béata yahabwa, kubera ko atigeze akora muri icyo gihe asabira imishahara. Rwemeje ariko ko n’ubwo atakoze muri icyo gihe, kudakora kwe ntibyamuturutseho kuko ari BRD yamushyize mu gihirahiro ntiyayikorera kugeza basezerewe akaba yari akibarwa nk’umukozi wa BRD, icyo gihe n’ubwo atakoze ngo abe yahembwa icyitwa umushahara ariko amafaranga y’iyo minsi yicaye ategereje ko ashyirwa mu kazi akaba yayagenerwa nk’uwari umukozi wa BRD kuko ariyo yanzeko akomeza gukora nk’uko byari bisanzwe kugeza asezerewe. Rwemeje koMwubahamana Béata ahabwa amafaranga y’icyo gihe cyo kuva ku wa 30/04/2011 kugeza ku wa 11/08/2011, gihwanye n’amezi atatu n’iminsi icumi, ni ukuvuga amafaranga 1.493.277 y’amezi atatu kuko umushahara we wari amafaranga 497.759, BRD v. MWUBAHAMANA

Page 126

96 96

kongeraho amafaranga 165.919 y’iminsi 10, yose hamwe akaba amafaranga 1.659.191. Ku byerekeye indishyi z’igihombo yatejwe no [12] kwirukanwa, indishyi mpozamarira kubera guhohoterwa, ariko izi ndishyi Urukiko rwemeje ko ntaho ziteganyijwe mu mategeko agenga umurimo kandi na Mwubahamana Béata akaba atagaragaza uburyo izo ndishyi zatangwa zibangikanye n’iziteganywa n’ingingo ya 33 y’itegeko rigenga umurimo, kuko indishyi zishobora kubangikana n’izivugwa mu ngingo ya 33 y’itegeko rigenga umurimo ari imperekeza, integuza, amafaranga ya konji n’indishyi zo kudahabwa icyemezo cy’akazi. Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwageneye kandi [13] MwubahamanaBéata amafaranga 100.000 yo gukurikirana urubanza n’amafaranga 300.000 y’igihembo cya Avoka. BRD ntiyishimiye imikirize, iyijuririra muri uru Rukiko, [14] ubujurire bwayo bwandikwa mu bitabo by’Urukiko kuri RSOCA 0194/13/HC/KIG. Yajuririye ingingo yo kuba Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwaremeje ko Mwubahamana Béata yirukanywe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko kandi atari uko bimeze, ndetse rukamugenera n’indishyi nyinshi, n’ingingo yo kuba yaragenewe amafaranga y’amezi atatu n’iminsi 10 kandi icyo gihe atarakoze. Mwubahamana Béata nawe ntiyishimiye imikirize, [15] ayijuririra muri uru Rukiko, ubujurire bwe bwandikwa mu bitabo by’Urukiko kuri RSOCA 0202/13/HC/KIG, ingingo atishimiye ikaba ari uko Urukiko rutategetse ko asubizwa mu kazi kandi yari yabisabye.

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 127

97 97

Muri uru rubanza harasuzumwa ikibazo cyo kumenya [16] niba Mwubahamana Béata yarirukanywe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko koko nk’uko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwabyemeje cyangwa niba amategeko yarakurikijwe nk’uko BRD ibivuga. Mu gihe byaba bigaragaye ko yirukanywe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, harasuzumwa niba guhabwa indishyi aribwo buryo bwonyine bwo kumusubiza uburenganzira bwe, cyangwa niba yarashoboraga no gusubizwa mu kazi nk’uko yari yabisabye. Harasuzumwa na none niba Mwubahamana Béata yaragombaga guhabwa amafaranga y’igihe yamaze adakora kandi atanarasezererwa cyangwa niba ayo mafaranga ntayo yagombaga guhabwa. II. ISESENGURA RY’IBIBAZO BIGIZE

URUBANZA A. UBUJURIRE BWA BRD Ku byerekeye kumenya niba Mwubahamana Béata yarirukanywe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko. Me Mugeni Anita avuga ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye [17] rwemeje ko BRD itashoboye kugaragaza impamvu z’ubukungu yavugaga kandi izo yarazigaragaje. Avuga ko yasobanuye ko guhuza BHR na BRD ubwabyo byatewe n’impamvu z’ubukungu hagamijwe kubuzahura no kunoza imikorere kugira ngo inshingano ibigo byombi byashyiriweho zishobore kugerwaho. Avuga ko BRD, nyuma yo guhuzwa na BHR), byabaye ngombwa ko Inama y’Ubutegetsi ishyiraho imbonerahamwe nshya y’imirimo kugira ngo abakozi bari bamaze guhurizwa hamwe badakora imirimo imwe kandi binafashe Banki guhangana n’ibindi bigo by’imari (réorganisation de la banque pour sauvegarder la compétitivité), ari nabyo byatumye habaho igabanywa rya bamwe mu bakozi

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO BRD v. MWUBAHAMANA

Page 128

98 98

mu rwego rwo gukumira igihombo cyashoboraga guterwa n’abakoze bahuje inshingano (prévention de la mise en péril de la situation économique de la Banque). Asobanura ko inyandiko z’abahanga zivuga ko ibi bimaze kuvugwa bifatwa nk’impamvu z’ubukungu zishobora gutuma ikigo kigabanya abakozi, kuba Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwarirengagije izo mpamvu zatanzwe na BRD ngo ntabwo bisobanutse. Me Mugeni Anita avuga kandi ko byumvikana ko mu [18] gihe abakozi bari bamaze guhurizwa hamwe muri BRD, umwanya umwe ugahurirwaho abakozi barenze umwe ndetse kubera ivugurura n’ikoranabuhanga indi myanya ikaba itari igikenewe, ku bireka ngo bigume bityo bikaba byaratumaga BRD yishyura abakozi benshi ku murimo ubundi wagakozwe n’umukozi umwe ahandi ikishyura abakozi bigaragara ko imirimo bakora itagikenewe nyuma y’ivugurura ry’imikorere n’ikoranabuhanga. Ibyo ngo ubwabyo ni impamvu z’ubukungu kandi ikigo nticyari gushobora gukora neza mu gihe gisohora amafaranga bitari ngombwa, bikaba byarashoboraga gukurura igihombo. Avuga kandi ko ku mwanya wa “auditeur interne”, nyuma y’ivugurura BRD yasanze yari ikeneye ufite nibura amashuri yo ku rwego rwa ACCA, kandi Mwubahamana Béata ntiyari afite urwo rwego, bityo biba ngombwa ko asezererwa. Me Bakashyaka Gérardine avuga ko iyi ngingo [19] y’ubujurire nta shingiro ifite kubera ko BRD yivugira ko yahujwe na BHR (fusion) kandi inshingano n’umutungo byayo byose bikegurirwa BRD, ariyo mpamvu BRD yagombaga kubahiriza ingingo ya 22 y’itegeko rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda, nyamara yo yarabihunze ahubwo igashaka kwemeza ko yashingiye ku ngingo ya 34 y’itegeko rigenga umurimo n’ubwo n’ibiteganywa n’iyo ngingo itabikoze, bityo iseswa ry’amasezerano BRD yari ifitanye na Mwubahamana nta tegeko

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 129

99 99

ryashingiyeho, ibyo isobanura byose ni urwitwazo rudafite aho rushingiye. Me Bakashyaka Gérardine akomeza asobanura ko ibyo [20] uhagarariye BRD avuga ko Inama y’Ubutegetsi ya BRD yakoze imbonerahamwe nshya y’imirimo kugira ngo abakozi bari bamaze guhurizwa hamwe badakora imirimo imwe kandi bibafashe guhangana n’ibindi bigo by’imari (réorganisation de la Banque pour sauvegarde de compétitivité), ibyo ngo bikaba ari nabyo byatumye habaho igabanywa rya bamwe mu bakozi mu rwego rwo gukumira igihombo cyashoboraga guterwa n’abakozi bahuje inshingano, ibi ngo ntaho bihuriye n’ukuri kuko abahanga mu mategeko basobanura ko umukoresha agomba kugaragaza ingingo zifatika zerekana ko hari ikibazo gikomeye cyahungabanya umurimo mu gihe kizaza. Bavuga ko adashobora kuvuga gusa mu ibaruwa isesa amasezerano ko kuvugurura ikigo bigamije guhangana n’ibindi bigo ku isoko. Ahubwo ngo umukoresha agomba kugaragaza ko hari ikibazo koko, agaragaza ibintu bifatika bigaragaza izo ngorane (l’employeur est tenu de démontrer l’existence d’un certain nombre d’éléments précis permettant de prouver le danger à venir sur l’emploi. Il ne peut se contenter d’invoquer dans la lettre de licenciement l’existence d’une réorganisation effectuée en vue de sauvegarder la compétitivité. L’employeur doit être en mesure de prouver la réalité de la menace, éléments concrets et circontanciés à l’appui.)1. Akomeza avuga ko aba bahanga bavuga ko ibibazo by’ubukungu umukoresha avuga ko yabonaga agiye guhuza nabyo bigomba kuba ari ibibazo byatuma ikigo n’imirimo bihungabana kandi bikaba bisobanutse bihagije ku buryo bisaba ko imiterere y’ikigo isubirwamo. Bityo umukoresha agomba kugaragaza ibintu bifatika bigaragaza ko

1http://www.village-justice.com/actualites/id-83-pas-de-licenciement- economique-justifie-sans-menacedemontree

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO BRD v. MWUBAHAMANA

Page 130

100 100

hari ibibazo bizahungabanya umurimo, kugabanya abakozi akaba abikoze kuko atabikoze yazirukana benshi nyuma (… les difficultés économiques à venir doivent être de nature à porter atteinte à la pérénnité de l’entreprise et des emplois, et doivent être suffisamment précis pour justifier la réorganisation. L’employeur est en effet, tenu de démontrer l’existence d’un certain nombre d’éléments précis permettant de prouver les difficultés à venir sur l’emploi, l’objectif étant de prendre des mesures de nature à éviter des licenciements ultérieurs plus importants”2. Kuri iyi ngingo, Me Bakashyaka Gérardine asoza avuga [21] ko “gukumira igihombo cyashoboraga guterwa… ” ntibishobora gufatwa nk’impamvu z’ubukungu zashingirwaho mu gusezerera abakozi mu buryo nk’ubwo BRD yabikozemo kuko nta kimenyetso ntakuka kigaragaza ikibazo cyari kuyiteza igihombo mu buryo budasubirwaho. Me Bakashyaka Gérardine avuga kandi ko no mu [22] byemezo by’inkiko byafaswe n’inkiko z’ahandi, bigaragara ko umukoresha adashobora kwitwaza impamvu ze bwite cyangwa impamvu za baringa ngo abyitirire ibibazo by’ubukungu bitariho kugira ngo abangamire uburenganzira bw’abakozi “il est toutefois nécessaire pour l’entreprise qu’elle soit en mesure de démontrer l’existence de la menace sur la compétitivité. La jurisprudence considère ainsi que ne repose pas sur un juste motif économique la réorganisation destinée à améliorer les marges (cass.soc. 13 septembre 2006, n° 05-41.665), les profits (cass.soc. 30 novembre 2011, n° 09-43.183) ou le niveau de

2http://www.village-justice.com/articles/licencier-prevision- difficultes,2037.html?var_recherche=homale#gQOamCMi8BR5yQEh.99

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 131

101 101

rentabilité au détriment de l’emploi (cass.soc 6 mars 2007, n° 05-42.271)”3. Ku kibazo cyerekeranye n’impamyabumenyi ya ACCA [23] uhagarariye BRD avuga ko ariyo Mwubahamana Béata yabuze, Me Bakashyaka Gérardine avuga ko ibi nabyo ari urwitwazo rudafite aho rushingiye, kuko byari bigamije gushakisha impamvu yashingiraho iseswa ry’amasezerano yakoze, nyamara bigaragara ko nta tegeko na rimwe yubahirije irikora. Avuga kandi ko ingingo ya mbere, igika cya 21, isobanura ko kudakurikiza uburyo bwateganyijwe n’amategeko ari ukwirukanwa nta mpamvu. Avuga ko ingingo ya 34 y’itegeko rigenga umurimo bivugwa ko ariyo yashingiweho nayo ubwayo ntiyakurikijwe kuko iyo ngingo iteganya ko “gusezerera umukozi umwe cyangwa benshi bitewe no kuvugurura imikorere y’ikigo bikorwa kubera ingorane z’ubukungu cyangwa guhindura ikoranabuhanga ryakoreshwaga hagamijwe kugira ngo kirusheho gukora neza. Abakozi bagabanywa mu kigo batondekwa hakurikije ubushobozi ku murimo, amashuri, uburambe muri icyo kigo n’umubare w’abo atunze ku buryo bwemewe n’amategeko, bikitabwaho uko bakurikirana. Ibyo bimenyeshwa umugenzuzi w’umurimo mu nyandiko”; kuba BRD n’ibi itarabyubahirije ubwabyo byonyine ngo bivuze ko nta mpamvu yashingiyeho. Urukiko rurasanga ibyo abahagarariye BRD bavuga, ko [24] Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwemeje ko BRD itashoboye kugaragaza impamvu z’ubukungu yavugaga kandi izo yarazigaragaje, kuko basobanuye ko guhuza BHR na BRD ubwabyo byatewe

3http://www.pourseformer.fr/liste-d-articles/detail-liste-d- article/h/9fad762eb4/a/le-motif-économique-dulicenciement.html.

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO BRD v. MWUBAHAMANA

Page 132

102 102

n’impamvu z’ubukungu hagamijwe kubuzahura no kunoza imikorere kugira ngo inshingano ibigo byombi byashyiriweho zishobore kugerwaho, bifite ishingiro kuko kuba ibigo bibiri byahuzwa kugira ngo birusheho gukora neza biremewe, kuko n’ingingo ya 22 y’itegeko rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda icyo igaragaza ni uko kuba ibigo bibiri byahuzwa ari uburenganzira bw’umukoresha, ahubwo ikagena uburyo n’uburenganzira bw’umukozi bwubahirizwa muri icyo gihe. Ivuga ko “Iyo umukoresha ahinduye imiterere y’ikigo mu by’amategeko, nk’izungura, ahinduye izina, akigurishije, yifatanyije n’ikindi kigo, ihindura ry’imari y’ikigo cyangwa agihinduye ubwibumbe bw’abantu, amasezerano yose y’akazi agifite agaciro igihe izo mpinduka zabereye agumaho hagati y’umukoresha mushya n’abakozi bari basanzwe”. Bityo ntabwo kuba BHR yarahujwe na BRD ubwabyo ari ikibazo, ahubwo ikibazo ni ukumenya niba iryo huzwa ritarahungabanyije uburenganzira bwa Mwubahamana Béata, kandi amasezerano ye yaragombaga kugumaho. Urukiko rurasanga uko bigaragara mu ibaruwa isezerera [25] Mwubahamana Béata, ihuzwa ry’ibigo byombi biragaragara ko ariryo ryahise rihungabanya uburenganzira bwe, kandi nk’uko byasobanuwe, ntacyo ryagombaga guhita ribuhungabanyaho. Nyamara muri iyo baruwa yabwiweho ko hashingiwe ku cyemezo cy’Inteko rusange idasanzwe ya Banki y’Imiturire y’u Rwanda (BHR) yateranye ku wa 30/03/2011, ikemeza ko imirimo yose y’iyo Banki ihagarikwa kandi inshingano n’umutungo byayo bikegurirwa Banki y’Amajyambere y’u Rwanda (BRD), amenyeshejwe ko amasezerano yari afitanye na Banki y’Imiturire mu Rwanda yasheshwe guhera tariki ya 30/04/2011. Aya magambo agaragaza ko amasezerano Mwubahamana yari yaragiranye na BHR yasheshwe n’icyemezo cyo kuba Inama Rusange yaremeje ko imirimo yose

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 133

103 103

y’iyo Banki ihagarikwa kandi inshingano n’umutungo byayo bikegurirwa Banki y’Amajyambere y’u Rwanda (BRD). Nyamara nk’uko byasobanuwe, ibyo ubwabyo ntibyashoboraga gutuma amasezerano y’akazi Mwubahamana Béata yari afitanye na BHR aseswa, ahubwo ayo masezerano yagombaga guhita yimurirwa, uko yakabaye, muri BRD, kuko ingingo ya 22 y’itegeko rigenga umurimo ivuga ko iyo habaye guhuza ibigo, “ amasezerano yose y’akazi agifite agaciro igihe izo mpinduka zabereye agumaho hagati y’umukoresha mushya n’abakozi bari basanzwe”. Ariko n’ubwo ibaruwa isesa amasezerano y’akazi ya [26] Mwubahamana Béata itangira igaragaza ko iseswa ry’amasezerano rishingiye ku kuba ikigo BHR kivanyweho, inshingano n’umutungo byacyo bigahabwa BRD, iyo baruwa inavuga ko amasezerano y’akazi yasheshwe hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’itegeko rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda, mu ngingo yaryo ya 34 y’itegeko rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda, ijyanye no gusezererwa ku mpamvu z’ubukungu n’ikoranabuhanga. Aha haganisha ku kuba nyuma y’uko BHR ihujwe na BRD, byabaye ngombwa ko igira abakozi isezerera, barimo na Mwubahamana Béata. Urukiko rurasanga kuba ibigo bibiri bihujwe, kugira ngo [27] birusheho gukora neza, nk’uko byasobanuwe, ibyo ni uburenganzira bwabyo, kandi guhuzwa ubwabyo ntibihungabanya uburenganzira bw’abakozi. Ariko iyo bimaze guhuzwa, bishobora gukora ivugurura ry’imiterere y’imirimo (réorganisation), hakaba hagira imyanya y’imirimo ivanwaho cyangwa ihuzwa, ibyo bigatuma hagira abakozi basezererwa. Urukiko rurasanga ibyo Me Bakashyaka Gérardine [28] uhagarariye Mwubahamana Béata avuga, ko abahanga mu mategeko basobanura ko umukoresha agomba kugaragaza

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO BRD v. MWUBAHAMANA

Page 134

104 104

ingingo zifatika zerekana ko hari ikibazo gikomeye cyahungabanya umurimo mu gihe kizaza, ko abo bahanga mu mategeko bavuga ko adashobora kuvuga gusa mu ibaruwa isesa amasezerano ko kuvugurura ikigo bigamije guhangana n’ibindi bigo ku isoko, ko ahubwo umukoresha agomba kugaragaza ko hari ikibazo koko, agaragaza ibintu bifatika bigaragaza izo ngorane, ibi avuga bifite agaciro mu gihe ari ikigo ubwacyo gikoze ivugurura ry’inzego z’imirimo. Ariko mu gihe ivugurura ry’inzego z’imirimo rishingiye ku ihuzwa ry’ibigo, ihuza ubwaryo ni impamvu ihagije igaragaza ko hagomba kubaho ivugurura ry’inzego z’imirimo, kuko ibigo byombi biba bisanzwe bifite inzego z’imirimo zitandukanye, n’abakozi batandukanye, ibyo bikaba biba bigomba guhurizwa hamwe. Nk’uko abahagarariye BRD babivuga, BHR yari isanzwe ifite inzego z’imirimo n’abakozi bakoramo, na BRD ifite izindi nzego z’imirimo n’abakozi bakoramo. Guhuza ibyo bigo bisaba guhuza n’izo nzego z’imirimo n’abo bakozi (réorganisation), kandi iryo vugurura ry’inzego z’imirimo rifatwa nk’ivugurura kubera impamvu z’ubukungu. Nk’uko abahagarariye BRD babivuga, niba nyuma yo guhuza BHR na BRD byaragaragaye ko hari abakozi bahurira ku mwanya umwe, kandi imirimo ikenewe kuri uwo mwanya yakorwa n’abakozi bake ku bakozi bose bahuriye kuri uwo mwanya, ntabwo BRD yari gusabwa kubaguma bose, kuko byaba bivuze ko ihemba abakozi bamwe kandi itabakeneye mu kazi,

ibyo bikaba byaba bibangamiye ubukungu bwayo. Bityo BRD, nyuma yo guhuzwa na BHR, hari yemerewe gukora ivugurura ry’inzego z’imirimo zayo kugira ngo rijyane n’iryo huzwa, kandi yari yemereye kuba yagira abakozi isezerera kubera iryo vugurura, kandi iryo vugurura rifatwa nk’impamvu y’ubukungu. Ahubwo ikigomba kurebwa ni ukumenya niba koko ingingo ya 34 y’itegeko rigenga umurimo yarubahirijwe mu gusezerera Mwubahamana Béata.

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 135

105 105

Urukiko rurasanga abahagarariye BRD bavuga ko ku [29] mwanya wa “auditeur interne”, nyuma y’ivugurura, BRD yasanze yari ikeneye ufite nibura amashuri yo ku rwego rwa ACCA, kandi Mwubahamana Béata ntiyari afite urwo rwego, bityo biba ngombwa ko asezererwa. Urukiko rurasanga abahagarariye BRD batarashoboye kugaragariza Urukiko inyandiko igaragaraza ko koko ku mwanya Mwubahamana Béata yakoragamo wa “auditeur interne”, hemejwe ko hakenewe ufite impamyabumenyi yo ku rwego rwa “ACCA” n’urwego rwabyemeje urwo arirwo, kandi no mu ibaruwa isesa amasezerano, iyo mpamvu ntiyashyizwemo, kuko hashyizwemo gusa ko hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 34 y’itegeko rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda, ariko ntihasobanurwe ku bireba Mwubahamana Béata impamvu itumye amasezerano aseswa. Urukiko rurasanga kandi abahagarariye BRD batanagaragaza aho iyi mpamyabumenyi yo ku rwego rwa “ACCA” ihuriye n’ihuzwa rya BHR na BRD, kuko ubundi iryo huzwa ariryo bashingiraho basobanura ko hari impamvu z’ubukungu zituma bavugurura imiterere y’inzego z’imirimo (réorganisation). Bityo nk’uko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwari rwabyemeje, n’ubwo haba hari impamvu z’ubukungu zituma hari abakozi bamwe ba BRD yari imaze guhuzwa na BHR basezererwa, BRD ntigaragaza uburyo yubahirije ingingo ya 34 y’itegeko rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda kuri Mwubahamana Béata, igaragaza ko ivugurura ryakozwe ryatumye haba ubushobozi bukenerwa ku mwanya Mwubahamana Béata yarimo, akaba ntabwo yari afite. Bityo yasezerewe nta mpamvu kuko ibyo BRD inenga ku cyemezo cy’Urukiko Rwisumbuye kuri iyo ngingo nta shingiro bifite. Ku byerekeye kumenya niba Mwubahamana yaragombaga guhabwa amafaranga y’amezi atatu n’iminsi icumi kandi atarakoze.

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO BRD v. MWUBAHAMANA

Page 136

106 106

Me Mugeni Anita avuga ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye [30] rwemeye ko amezi atatu n’iminsi 10 urega asabira amafaranga y’igihembo ntayo yakoze kandi ingingo ya mbere, agaka ka 42 n’iya 75 z’itegeko rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda ikaba iteganya ko umushahara ari ikiguzi cy’akazi kakozwe, udakoze akaba nta mushahara ahabwa. Ariko ibyo rwabirenzeho ruvuga ko ruyagennye rushingiye ku gihirahiro Mwubahamana Béata yashyizweho atamenyeshejwe ko atakiri umukozi wa BRD. Avuga ko asanga ibyo Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwemeje ataribyo kuko abakozi bose, nk’uko basezerewe, barabibwiwe mu itangazo rusange, kandi ibyo byakozwe nyuma y’aho ubwabo bamaze kwirebera urutonde rw’uko batondekanyijwe n’ibyashingiweho basezererwa. Bikaba byumvikana ko guhera ku wa 30/04/2011 kugeza ku wa 11/08/2011 bari bazi ko basezerewe cyane ko kuva icyo gihe batakoraga. Bityo amabaruwa bakaba barayahawe by’umuhango w’imenyesha ku buryo bwanditse. Bityo ngo ntibyumvikana ukuntu Urukiko rwarenga kuri iyo ngingo rukagenera abakozi umushahara kandi nta bimenyetso by’akazi bakoreye BRD nyuma yo kugabanya. Me Bakashyaka Gérardine avuga ko BRD yemera ko [31] ibaruwa isezerera Mwubahamana yayimuhaye mu rwego rwo kubahiriza imenyesha ku buryo bwanditse. Ibi ngo asanga ari ukwireguza amakosa ubwayo yemera ko yakoze (sa propre turpitude). Avuga ko mu gihe Mwubahamana we agaragaza ko yashyizwe mu gihirahiro, ategereje ko ashyirwa mu kazi ari nayo mpamvu agomba gufatwa nk’umukozi wa BRD, kuba BRD yarateshutse ku nshingano zayo zo kumuha akazi kandi itamusezereye nta wundi wabiryozwa utari yo. Urukiko rurasanga nk’uko byasobanuwe, amasezerano [32] yari hagati ya BHR na Mwubahamana Béata yimuriwe muri BRD (transfert). Ni ukuvuga ko Mwubahamana Béata yakomeje

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 137

107 107

kuba umukozi, na BRD ikomeza kuba umukoresha, kugeza igihe amasezerano ye asheshwe, ni ukuvuga ku wa 11/08/2011. Muri iki gihe amasezerano yari ataraseswa, BRD yari ifite inshingano yo guha Mwubahamana Béata akazi basezeranye kandi ikakamuha mu buryo, mu gihe n'ahantu bumvikanyeho, kuko iyo ari imwe mu nshingano z’umukoresha, nk’uko zigaragzwa n’ingingo ya 47 y’itegeko rigenga umurimo. Iyi nshingano ijyana n’inshingano yo guhemba umukozi umushahara basezeranye mu gihe cyateganyijwe. Mwubahamana nawe yari afite inshingano yo gukora ubwe umurimo yasezeranye, akawukorera igihe, ahantu no mu buryo bwumvikanyweho kuko ariyo nshingano ye nk’umukozi iteganywa n’ingingo ya 48 y’itegeko rigenga umurimo. Urukiko rurasanga ibyo abahagarariye BRD bavuga ko [33] Mwubahamana atahemberwa amezi atatu n’iminsi 10 yamaze adakora kuko ingingo ya mbere, agaka ka 42 n’iya 75 z’itegeko rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda ikaba iteganya ko umushahara ari ikiguzi cy’akazi kakozwe, udakoze akaba nta mushahara ahabwa, nta shingiro bifite, kuko izi ngingo azumvikanisha uko zitari. Ingingo ya 75 y’itegeko rigenga umurimo ivuga koko ko “Umushahara ni ikiguzi cy’umurimo wakozwe”. Ariko iyo ngingo inavuga ko“Uretse ubwumvikane hagati y’abagiranye amasezerano y’akazi cyangwa mu bihe byateganyijwe n'iri tegeko, udakoze nta mushahara abona”. Ni ukuvuga ko iyi ngingo uwo ivuga udafite uburenganzira ni umukozi wanze kubahiriza inshingano ze zo gukora, si umukozi wabujijwe gukora akazi n’umukoresha we, kandi atamwirukanye. Mu gihe BRD yabujije Mwubahamana kuza ku kazi, ariko ikaba itari yamwirukanye, idahagaritse n’amasezerano, ni ukuvuga ko Mwubahamana atanze gukora akazi, ngo bikureho n’inshingano za BRD zo kumwishyura umushahara we. Mu gihe amasezerano y’akazi agikomeza, inshingano yo kwishyura umushahara ifitwe

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO BRD v. MWUBAHAMANA

Page 138

108 108

n’umukoresha ikurwaho n’uko umukozi yarenze ku nshingano ye yo gukora. Ariko mu gihe umukoresha ariwe ubwiye umukozi ko atari ngombwa ko akora, inshingano ye yo kumwishyura igumaho, kuko niko baba bumvikanye, ko umukozi ataza ku kazi, byumvikana ariko ko uko kutaza ku kazi bitazamubuza kumuhemba, kuko kutamuhemba byaturuka ku kuba amasezerano yahagaritswe n’impamvu ituma atamuhemba cyangwa amasezerano yasheshwe, kandi muri izo mpamvu zombi na n’imwe ihari, ku buryo ntacyakura kuri BRD inshingano yo kwishyura Mwubahamana umushahara we w’igihe yamaze yarabujijwe gukora kandi itaramusezereye. Urukiko rurasanga kandi nk’uko ingingo ya 75 y’itegeko [34] rigenga umurimo ibivuga, hari ibihe byinshi umukozi ashobora guhembwa umushahara we kandi atakoze ku mpamvu zitamuturutseho. Ingingo ya 59 y’itegeko rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda igaragaza ko umukozi ahembwa ku munsi w’ikiruhuko kandi aba atakoze. Ingingo ya 60 nayo ivuga ko “Iminsi umukozi asiba akazi kubera impamvu zo gukora akazi gategetswe n’itegeko cyangwa byemewe na Minisitiri ufite umurimo mu nshingano ze arayihemberwa”. Ingingo ya 6 nayo igaragaza ko umukozi ashobora guhemberwa igihe kingana n’amezi atatu, adakora, kubera ko yabujijwe gukora n’uburwayi. Hari n’izindi ngero nyinshi muri iryo tegeko. Kubera impamvu zimaze gusobanurwa ntabwo BRD [35] yavuga gusa ko “umushahara ari ikiguzi cy’imirimo yakozwe”, yirengagije ko kuba Mwubahamana Béata atarakoze kandi agifite amasezerano y’akazi afite agaciro ariyo yabiteye. Urukiko rurasanga n’ubwo mu rubanza R.SOC.A 0193/13/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’uru Rukiko ku wa 22/11/2013, BRD isaba ko umurongo rwatanze wagenderwaho muri uru rubanza, hemejwe ko abari bafite ikibazo nk’icya

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 139

109 109

Mwubahamana bamaze igihe badakora kandi batarasezerewe, batahabwa umushahara w’icyo gihe kuko “umushahara ari ikiguzi cy’imirimo yakozwe”, uwo murongo ntiwagenderwaho kuko nk’uko byasobanuwe, icyo cyemezo cyafashe igice kimwe cy’ingingo ya 75 y’itegeko rigenga umurimo, ivuga koko ko umushahara ari ikiguzi cy’imirimo yakozwe, ariko ntirwareba ku gice cya kabiri cy’iyo ngingo igaragaza ko umushahara ushobora kwishyurwa n’ubwo umukozi yaba atakoze, ariko ku mpamvu zitamurutseho. Kubera impamvu zimaze gusobanurwa, ubujurire bwa [36] BRD nta shingiro bufite kuri iyi ngingo. Ku byerekeye kumenya niba indishyi zarabazwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko. Me Mugeni Anita avuga ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa [37] Nyarugenge rwageneye Mwubahamana Béata indishyi z’akababaro ruvuga ko ari uko yirukanywe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko. Avuga ko izi ndishyi ntazo yari akwiye guhabwa kuko nk’uko byasobanuye, ngo ntiyirukanywe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko. Avuga kandi ko n’indishyi rwamugeneye zabazwe mu buryo budateganywa n’ingingo ya 33 y’itegeko rigenga umurimo, kuko iyo ngingo iteganya indishyi zidashobora kujya munsi y’umushahara w’amezi atatu kandi ntizirenge umushahara w’amezi 6, nyamara Mwubahamana Béata yagenewe indishyi zingana n’umushahara we w’amezi 9. Bigaragara ko hashingiwe ku burambe Beata yari afite, kandi ubundi burebwa mu gihe cyo kubara imperekeza. Me Bakashyaka Gérardine avuga ko ibyo uhagarariye [38] BRD avuga ko indishyi Mwubahamana Béata yagenewe zinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 33 y’itegeko rigenga umurimo,

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO BRD v. MWUBAHAMANA

Page 140

110 110

nk’uko Urukiko rubisobanura mu gika cya 18, rusobanura ko rwazibariye ku mezi 9 rushingiye ku ngingo ya 33 igika cya 2 kuko yari afite uburambe bw’imyaka 15 mu kazi nk’uko iyi ngingo ibiteganya. Urukiko rurasanga Mwubahamana Béata yaragombaga [39] guhabwa indishyi zo kwirukanwa nta mpamvu, kuko nk’uko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwabigaragaje, kandi n’Urukiko Rukuru rukaba ari uko rwabisanze, Mwubahamana Béata yirukanywe nta mpamvu, akaba yaragombaga kubihererwa indishyi ziteganywa n’ingingo ya 33 y’itegeko rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda. Urukiko rurasanga ku byerekeye ingano y’indishyi [40] yagenewe, nk’uko uhagarariye Mwubahamana abivuga, igika cya 2 cy’ingingo ya 33 y’itegeko rigenga umurimo ivuga ko“Iyo umukozi afite uburambe ku kazi burenze imyaka icumi (10) ku mukoresha umwe, indishyi z’akababaro ntizishobora kurenga umushahara w’amezi icyenda (9)”. Bityo kuba Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwarageneye Mwubahamana Béata indishyi zingana n’umushahara we w’amezi 9, ntaho binyuranyije n’amategeko kuko rwashingiye ku burambe bwe, kandi BRD ikaba itabuhakana. Ku byerekeye amafaranga y’igihembo cya avoka n’ikurikiranarubanza Me Mugeni Anita avuga ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye [41] rwageneye Mwubahamana Béata indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka, akaba ataragombaga kuzigenerwa kuko ngo ariwe wishoye mu rubanza akanarushoramo BRD nta mpamvu.

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 141

111 111

Me Bakashyaka Gérardine avuga ko ibyo uhagarariye [42] BRD avuga ko Mwubahamana ariwe wishoye mu manza akanarushoramo BRD bityo akaba nta kurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka akwiye guhabwa, ngo nta shingiro bifite kuko ngo Mwubahamana yirukanywe ku maherere nta tegeko na rimwe ryubahirijwe, iryo yirukanwa rikaba ridafite impamvu nk’uko byasobanuwe, bityo ngo ni uburenganzira bwe bwo kuregera urukiko kugira ngo arenganurwe, bityo bikaba ngo byumvikana ko uwamurenganyije ari nawe ugomba kwirengera igihombo gituruka kuri izo manza. Urukiko rurasanga nta mpamvu Mwubahamana Béata [43] atagenerwa amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka kuko nk’uko byasobanuwe, yirukanywe nta mpamvu, bityo BRD yabaye nyirabayazana w’urubanza, ikaba igomba no kwirengera ibyo Mwubahamana yatanze aburana urwo rubanza. B. UBUJURIRE BWA MWUBAHAMANA Béata. Kumenya niba kuba urukiko rwari rumaze kwemeza ko mwubahamana beata yirukanywe nta mpamvu, inzira yari isigaye ari iyo kumusubiza mu kazi kuko aribyo yasabaga. Mwubahamana Béata, mu mwanzuro ujurira, avuga ko [44] icyo anenga ku cyemezo cy’Urukiko Rwisumbuye ari uko rwemeje ko icyemezo cyo kumusezerera kidakurikije amategeko, byumvikana ko icyemezo cya BRD cyavanyweho, ariko Urukiko ntirwafata umwanzuro wo kumusubiza uburenganzira bwe bwo gusubizwa ku kazi. Avuga ko igisubizo Urukiko rwatanze ku byo yari yarusabye cyirengagije amategeko, aho rwavuze ko icyifuzo cye cyo gusubizwa uburenganzira bwe ku murimo ngo kitemewe n’amategeko (igika cya 18 cy’urubanza), aho rushingira ku ngingo ya 33 y’itegeko rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda kandi iyi ngingo ubwayo irimo igihirahiro kandi ntaho ivuga ko gusubizwa ku

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO BRD v. MWUBAHAMANA

Page 142

112 112

murimo bibujijwe. Avuga ko iyi ngingo itangira ivuga ko “Iseswa ryose ry’amasezerano y’akazi rishobora gutuma hatangwa indishyi …”, ikaba nta kindi gisobanuro cyafasha kumenya igihe rishobora gutuma hatangwa indishyi. Avuga ko ariyo mpamvu hagomba kwitabazwa itegeko nshinga n’andi mategeko yo ku rwego mpuzamahanga n’abahanga mu mategeko. Mwubahamana ashingira ku ngingo ya 37 y’Itegeko [45] Nshinga ivuga ko buri wese afite uburenganzira bwo guhitamo umurimo umunogeye. Avuga ko mu mategeko mpuzamahanga, itangazo mpuzamahanga ry’uburenganzira bwa muntu ryo ku wa 10 ukwakira 1948, mu ngingo ya 23 ivuga ko “1. Toute personne a droit au travail, au libre choix de son travail, à des conditions équitables et satisfaisantes de travail et la protection contre le chomage…”, ariko ngo Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwarabyirengagije. Mwubahamana Beata avuga ko abahanga mu [46] by’amategeko nabo bagize icyo babivugaho, nka Maillard Dalloz ngo yavuze ko “en cas de licenciement nul, la réintégration est de droit car qui dit nullité dit réintégration. Le salarié qui le demande sera donc réintégré, la raison en est simple : le licenciement annulé est censé n’avoir jamais été prononcé et le salarié est cencé n’avoir jamais été évincé de son travail. Si le salarié le demande, le juge doit prononcer sa réintégration avec le maintien des avantages acquis”. Avuga kandi ko hari undi muhanga mu by’amategeko witwa Verkindt (Y-P), wanditse avuga ku ru banza rw’umurimo, avuga ko urwo rubanza rwemeje ko “encourt la cassation l’arrêt qui après avoir consaté qu’un salarié a été licencié en fraude de ses droits, décide que ce licenciement sans cause réelle et sérieuse ouvre droit à une indemnisation, mais refuse d’autoriser la

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 143

113 113

réintégration du salarié, et le paiement des salaires qu’il aurait dû percevoir entre son licenciement et sa réintégration (soc 15 février 2006.BICC n° 640 du 15 mai 2006”. Me Mugeni Anita avuga ko Mwubahamana atagaragaza [47] ibyo ingingo ashingiraho ubujurire bwe ziteganya, ntagaragaza aho icyemezo cyafashwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye kibangamiye uburenganzira bwa muntu buteganywa muri izo ngingo kuko nta na kimwe cyigeze gihungabanywa. Kuba BRD yarasheshe amasezerano ya Mwubahamana byamwambuye uburenganzira bwo kuba yahitamo gukora undi murimo umunogeye ndetse akaba yanakorana n’undi mukoresha yihitiyemo. Bityo ngo ntaho uburenganzira buteganywa n’ingingo ya 37 y’itegeko nshinga bwabangamiwe. Me Mugeni Anita avuga kandi ko ukurikije ibivugwa [48] mu ngingo 14 na 29 z’itegeko rigenga umurimo, bigaragara ko gukorana n’umuntu atari agahato, ko isano iri hagati y’umukozi n’umukoresha igaragazwa n’amasezerano bagiranye, ayo masezerano akaba akorwa ku bwumvikane bw’impande zombi ndetse akaba yaseswa igihe icyo aricyo cyose umwe mu bayagiranye abishatse. Avuga kandi ko itegeko ritemera amasezerano y’ubuzima bwe bwose byibuze ngo Mwubahamana avuge ko ntahandi yari gukora kugera ashaje atari muri BRD, bityo ngo ubujurire nta shingiro bufite kuri iyi ngingo. Avuga kandi ko Urukiko ruramutse rusanze Mwubahamana yarasezerewe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko, ko ingingo ya 33 y’itegeko rigenga umurimo icyo iteganya ari indishyi, bityo ngo icyo gihe nizo Mwubahamana yahabwa, kuko ntaho iryo tegeko riteganya ko umukozi wirukanywe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko asubizwa mu kazi.

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO BRD v. MWUBAHAMANA

Page 144

114 114

Urukiko rurasanga nk’uko uhagarariye BRD abivuga, ari [49] nako Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwabyemeje, inzira yo gukemura ikibazo umukozi yatewe no kwirukanwa nta mpamvu (modes de réparation) ingingo ya 33 y’itegeko rigenga umurimo iteganya ni iyo guhabwa indishyi, kuko igika cya mbere cy’iyi ngingo kivuga ngo “Iseswa ryose ry’amasezerano y’akazi rinyuranyije n’amategeko rishobora gutuma hatangwa indishyi z'akababaro. Indishyi z’akababaro zihabwa umukozi wirukanwe binyuranije n’amategeko ntizishobora kujya munsi y’umushahara w’amezi atatu (3), ariko kandi ntizishobora kurenza amezi atandatu (6)”. Ibyo Mwubahamana Béata avuga ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwagombaga gutegeka ko asubira mu kazi ke nta shingiro bifite kuko iyo nzira ntayo iri tegeko riyiteganya ngo rinagaragaze uburyo bikorwamo. Urukiko rurasanga ibyo Mwubahamana Béata avuga ko [50] amagambo “rishobora” akoreshwa muri iki gika avuga ko umukozi ashobora guhabwa indishyi cyangwa agasubizwa mu kazi, nta shingiro bifite kuko ahubwo aya magambo icyo avuga ari uko iyo habayeho gusesa amasezerano y’akazi mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, hashobora gutangwa indishyi cyangwa ntizitangwe, kuko zitatangwa n’igihe uwirukanywe ntazo asaba. Ariko ntaho bigaragara ko iri jambo “rishobora” rihitishamo hagati y’indishyi no gusubizwa mu kazi, kuko ntaho iyi nzira yo gusubizwa mu kazi iteganyijwe. Iyo Umushingamategeko aba yarateganyije izi nzira zombi, birumvikana ko yari kwandika ngo “rishobora gutuma hatangwa indishyi z'akababaro cyangwa rikavanwaho”. Kuba atarabikoze ni uko inzira yateganywaga ari imwe, yo gutanga indishyi. Kuba inzira yo gutanga indishyi ariyo yonyine [51] yateganyijwe mu gihe habaye gusesa amasezerano y’umurimo mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, bigaragarira no mu mpaka

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 145

115 115

zagiwe n’Inteko Ishinga Amategeko mu itorwa ry’iyi ngingo, yari iya 34 mu mushinga w’itegeko, kuko icyagaragaye ari uko hari bamwe mu badepite bagize impungenge ko umukoresha udashaka umukozi azajya amwirukana, akiyemeza kumuha indishyi yazacibwa n’urukiko, ari nayo mpamvu basabaga ko ibyo gushyiraho “marge” byavaho, indishyi zikagenwa n’umucamanza akurikije uburemere bw’ikosa ryakozwe n’igihombo byateye uwarikorewe, ariko iyo nzira ntiyemerwa. Urukiko rurasanga ibyo Mwubahamana avuga ko [52] Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 37 y’Itegeko Nshinga ivuga ko buri wese afite uburenganzira bwo guhitamo umurimo umunogeye, nta shingiro bifite kuko Mwubahamana atigeze ahabwa umurimo ku ngufu, ahubwo yari yarahisemo umurimo umunogeye nk’uko iyo ngingo ibivuga. Kuba yarasezerewe, nk’uko byasobanuwe, icyabayeho ni uko BRD yishe amasezerano bari baragiranye, kandi kwica amasezerano y’umurimo ingingo ya 33 y’itegeko rigenga umurimo ibihanisha guca uwishe amasezerano indishyi, nazo zidashobora kurenga umushahara w’amezi atandatu cyangwa icyenda hakurikijwe uburambe. Urukiko rurasanga kandi ibyo Mwubahamana avuga ko [53] mu mategeko mpuzamahanga, itangazo mpuzamahanga ry’uburenganzira bwa muntu ryo ku wa 10 ukwakira 1948, mu ngingo ya 23 ivuga ko “1. Toute personne a droit au travail, au libre choix de son travail, à des conditions équitables et satisfaisantes de travail et la protection contre le chomage …”, nabyo ntaho bikemura ikibazo yagiranye na BRD, kuko nayo icyo ishimangira ari uko umuntu afite uburenganzira bwo kuba yakwihitiramo akazi akora, kandi nibyo byari byabaye Mwubahamana ahabwa akazi. Kuba yarasezerewe ku buryo budakurikije amategeko, Urukiko rwemeje ko ari amakosa.

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO BRD v. MWUBAHAMANA

Page 146

116 116

Nyamara iyi ngingo Mwubahamana ashingiraho, iravuga ku burenganzira, ariko ntivuga ku bihano by’uwarenze kuri ubwo burenganzira, amategeko y’u Rwanda, ingingo ya 33 y’itegeko rigenga umurimo niyo isobanura ko iseswa ry’amasezerano rinyuranyije n’amategeko rihanishwa guca indishyi uyasheshe. Bityo ntaho Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwanyuranyije n’aya masezerano mpuzamahanga, kuko nta bihano k’uwasheshe amasezerano mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko aya masezerano ateganya ngo Urukiko rube rutarabyitayeho. Urukiko rurasanga Mwubahamana avuga ko ashingira [54] no ku byo babahanga mu mategeko bemeje, nka Maillard Dalloz, wavuze ko iyo iseswa ry’amasezerano rivanyweho (licenciement nul) ari uburenganzira bw’umukozi gusubizwa mu kazi, ndetse ibi ngo bikaba ari nako byagiye byemezwa n’inkiko mu manza zaciwe ku kibazo nk’icyo, ibi byaba byumvikana kuko aba bahanga mu mategeko, n’ibi byemezo by’inkiko, bihuje n’ibyo amategeko y’ibyo bihugu abo bahanga mu mategeko bandikagaho cyangwa amategeko izo nkiko zashingiyeho zica imanza. Icyo Mwubahamana yagombye kugaragaza ni uko amategeko bashingiyeho asa n’ay’u Rwanda, cyane cyane ingingo ya 33 y’itegeko rigenga umurimo Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwashingiyeho. Icyo gihe yakwifashisha aba bahanga agaragaza uko iyi ngingo ikwiye kumvikana no gukoreshwa. Ariko mu gihe amategeko atandukanye, n’ibisobanuro by’abahanga mu mategeko cyangwa ibyemezo by’inkiko z’ikindi gihugu, ntibyasimbura amategeko y’u Rwanda, keretse ahubwo abo bahanga n’izo nkiko zarafashe icyemezo zishingiye ku mategeko mpuzamahanga areba n’u Rwanda. Urukiko rurasanga bigaragara ko aba bahanga mu [55] mategeko n’ibyemezo by’inkiko Mwubahamana ashingiraho

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 147

117 117

bihuje n’ibyo amategeko yabo ateganya, kuko ingingo ya L1235-3 y’itegeko ry’umurimo ry’abafaransa ivuga, mu gika cyayo cya mbere, ivuga ko “Si le licenciement d’un salarié survient pour une cause qui n’est pas réelle et sérieuse, le juge peut proposer la réintégration du salarié dans l’entreprise, avec maintien de ses avantages acquis”, naho igika cyayo cya kabiri kikavuga ngo “Si l'une ou l’autre des parties refuse, le juge octroie une indemnité au salarié. Cette indemnité, à la charge de l'employeur, ne peut être inférieure aux salaires des six derniers mois. Elle est due sans préjudice, le cas échéant, de l’indemnité de licenciement prévue à l'article L. 1234-9”. Mwubahamana Béata ntagaragaza ingingo y’itegeko ry’umurimo mu Rwanda ivuga ko umukozi wirukanywe nta mpamvu ashobora gusubizwa ku kazi bitegetswe n’Urukiko (réintégration), bityo ntabwo inyandiko z’abahanga n’ibyemezo by’inkiko byo mu gihungu cy’Ubufaransa byakurikizwa mu Rwanda kandi bigaragara ko ingingo z’amategeko abo bahanga mu mategeko bashingiraho zitandukanye n’ibiteganywa n’itegeko rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda. Urukiko rurasanga ku rwego rw’amategeko [56] mpuzamahanga yerekeranye n’iseswa ry’amasezerano mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, icyashoboraga gufasha Mwubahamana Béata ni amasezerano mpuzamahanga n° 158 ku isesa ry’amasezerano (convention n° 158 sur le licenciement). Ariko n’ubwo ayo masezerano, mu

ngingo yayo ya 10, bigaragara ko uburyo bwo kurenganura uwirukanywe nta mpamvu ari ukumusubiza mu kazi mu gihe bishoboka, iyi ngingo inavuga ko ibyo bikorwa iyo amategeko y’imbere mu Gihugu abyemera cyangwa mu gihe ari uko ibintu bisanzwe bikorwa, bitaba ibyo, uwirukanywe nta mpamvu agahabwa indishyi (si les organismes mentionnés à l’article 8 de la présente convention arrivent à la conclusion que le licenciement

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO BRD v. MWUBAHAMANA

Page 148

118 118

est injustifié, et si, compte tenu de la législation et de la pratique nationales, ils n’ont pas le pouvoir ou n’estiment pas possible dans les circonstances d’annuler le licenciement et/ou d’ordonner ou de proposer la réintégration du travail, ils devront être habilités à ordonner le versement d’une indemnité adéquate ou toute autre forme de réparation considérée comme appropriée). Uretse kandi no kuba n’aya masezereno adateganya ko umukozi wirukanywe nta mpamvu agomba gusubizwa mu kazi igihe abisabye, ko ahubwo harebwa icyo amategeko y’igihugu ateganya, nta n’ubwo u Rwanda rwayashyizeho umukono ku buryo yafatwa nk’itegeko, ahubwo Urukiko rwayifashisha mu rwego rwo kumva neza amategeko y’u Rwanda, bikaba bigaragara ko kuba ingingo ya 33 y’itegeko rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda iteganya ko uwirukanywe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko ahabwa indishyi, ntaho binyuranye n’uburenganzira bw’umukozi, niyo mpamvu kuba Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwarashingiye kuri iyi ngingo ntaho binyuranyije n’amategeko yaba ay’u Rwanda, yaba mpuzamahanga. Ku byerekeye amafaranga y’igihembo cya avoka muri uru rukiko. Uhagarariye BRD asaba ko BRD yahabwa amafaranga [57] 400.000 y’ikurikiranarubanza n’amafaranga 1.000.000 y’igihembo cy’Avoka. Me Bakashyaka Gérardine avuga ko amafaranga [58] 400.000 y’ikurikiranarubanza n’amafaranga 1.000.000 y’igihembo cya Avoka uhagarariye BRD asaba nta shingiro afite kuko niyo yashoye Mwubahamana mu manza. Me Bakashyaka Gérardine asaba ko Mwubahamana [59] Urukiko rwamugenera amafaranga 500.000 y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 149

119 119

Urukiko rurasanga amafaranga 400.000 [60] y’ikurikiranarubanza n’amafaranga 1.000.000 y’igihembo cya Avoka uhagarariye BRD asaba ntayo yahabwa kuko ubujurire bwayo nta shingiro bufite. Urukiko rurasanga amafaranga 500.000 [61] y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka uhagarariye Mwubahamana Béata amusabira, ntiyayahabwa yose kuko ubujurire bwe nta shingiro bufite, bityo akaba akwiye kwirengera amafaranga yatanze mu gukurikirana ubwo bujurire, ahubwo akaba yayagenerwa ku bujurire bwa BRD kuko nayo yajuriye kandi ubujurire bwayo bukaba nta shingiro bufite. Bityo agenewe mu bushishozi bw’urukiko amafaranga 300.000 y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’Avoka. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa BRD nta shingiro bufite. [62] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Mwubahamana Béata bufite [63] ishingiro kuri bimwe. Rwemeje ko imikirize y’urubanza

RSOC [64] 0021/13/TGI/NYGE rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge ku wa 19/07/2013 idahindutse, uretse ku byerekeranye n’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’Avoka. Rutegetse BRD guha Mwubahamana Béata amafaranga [65] 300.000 y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka, yiyongera ku mafaranga yari yagenewe mu rubanza rwajuririwe. BRD v. MWUBAHAMANA

Page 150

120 120

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 120

Rutegetse Mwubahamana Béata na BRD gutanga [66] amagarama y’uru rubanza angana n’amafaranga 150.000, buri wese agatanga amafaranga 75.000 ahereye ku ngwate y’amagarama yatanze. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 151

121

IMANZA Z’UBUCURUZI

Page 152

122

Page 153

123

BUCYENSENGE v. I&M BANK [Rwanda URUKIKO RUKURU RW’UBUCURUZI – RCOMA 0464/14/HCC (Rwanyindo, P.J.) 12 Nzeli 2014] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubucuruzi – Igihe ntarengwa cyo kujuririra ikirego cyatanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe – Kujuririra ikirego cyatanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe bikorwa mu minsi itanu – Itegeko no21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruci, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 329. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubucuruzi – Gutambamira icyemezo cya perezida w’Urukiko gishyiraho itariki ya cyamunara – Umuburanyi ntiyasaba gutambamira icyemezo cya perezida gishyiraho itariki ya cyamunara avuga ko gifite inenge kuko atari urubanza ruburanishwa, ahubwo ari icyemezo cy’ubuyobozi – Itegeko no21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruci, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 295. Incamake y’ikibazo: Bisabwe na I&M BANK, hagamijwe kurangiza urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge rwafashe icyemezo cyo gushyiraho itariki yo guteza cyamunara ubutaka hamwe n’inyubako biri mu bibanza nº 283 na nº 544, rwemeje ko Bucyensenge agomba kwishyura I&M BANK amafaranga angana na 103.777.778 hiyongereyeho na 10.377.778Frw. Bucyensenge Charles yatanze ikirego cyo gutambamira icyo cyemezo mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge avuga ko

Page 154

124 124

urubanza rushaka kurangizwa rwateshejwe agaciro, uru rukiko narwo rwemeza ko ikirego cye nta shingiro gifite. Bucyensenge yajuririye mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi avuga ko icyemezo cyafashwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge cyo gushyiraho itariki yo guteza cyamunara cyagombaga kuvanwaho kubera inenge gifite, ndetse ko I&M BANK yatanze ikirego ishingiye ku nyandiko nsobanura kirego itanzwe n’uburanyi umwe. I&M BANK Ltd yireguye ivuga ko ikirego cya Bucyesenge Charles kitagomba kwakirwa kubera ko yajuririye mpitagihe. Inavuga kandi ko itatanze ikirego mu buryo bw’ inyandiko nsobanura kirego itanzwe n umuburanyi umwe ahubwo ko yasabye itariki ya cyamunara hakurikijwe amategeko kandi bidasaba gutanga igarama. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Ubujurire bwa Bucyensenge bwatanzwe mu gihe gikurikije amategeko kuko igihe ntarengwa cyo kujuririra ikirego cyatanzwe mu buryo bw’inyandiko gitanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe ari iminsi 5.

2. I&M BANK ntiyatanze ikirego mu buryo bw’inyandiko itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe ahubwo icyo yakoze ni ugushyikiriza urukiko ibisabwa kugirango ihabwe itariki ya cyamunara. Ikibigaragaza niuko nta magarama yatanzwe kuko icyasabwaga cyari mu bubasha bwa perezida w’urukiko bwo gufata ibyemezo by’ubuyobozi. Bityo icyo cyemezo kikaba kitagomba kujuririrwa cyangwa gutambamirwa.

3. Ikirego cya Bucyensenge Charles gitambamira icyemezo no 008/BMG/2014 cyo gushyiraho itariki yo guteza cyamunara ubutaka buri mu bibanza no 283 na no 544 n’inyubako abisabwe na I&M

BANK cyafashwe na Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge ku wa 30/06/2014 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 155

125

nticyagombaga kwakirwa n’Umucamanza wa mbere kubera ko icyo cyemezo ari icy’ubuyobozi. 3.Ubujurire bwa Bucyensenge bwatanzwe mu gihe gikurikije amategeko kuko igihe ntarengwa cyo kujuririra ikirego cyatanzwe mu buryo bw’inyandiko gitanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe ari iminsi 5. Ubujurire burakiriwe. Ikirego cyatanzwe mu rwego rwa mbere nticyagombagakwakirwa. Amagarama yatanzwe n’uwajuriye agumye mu isanduku ya Leta. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko no 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruci, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 295 na 329. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA MU

NCAMAKE Kuwa 30/06/2014, Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi [1] rwa Nyarugenge yafashe icyemezo cyo gushyiraho itariki (12/08/2014) yo guteza cyamunara ubutaka buri mu bibanza no BUCYENSENGE v. I&M BANK 125

Page 156

126 126

283 na no 544 n’inyubako abisabwe na I&M BANK Ltd yashakaga kurangiza urubanza RCOMA 00119/10/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 28/12/2012 rwemeza ko Bucyensenge Charles agomba kuyishyura 103.777.778Frw hiyongereyeho 10.377.778Frw. Bucyensenge Charles yatanze ikirego cyo gutambamira [2] icyo cyemezo mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge rwemeje ko icyo kirego nta shingiro gifite kubera ko cyafashwe hakurikijwe ingingo ya 295 y’Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruci, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi (Abisabwe n’uwafatiriye, kandi amaze kugenzura ko imihango yose y’ifatira yubahirijwe, Perezida w’Urukiko rw’ibanze rw’aho icyamunara kizabera, cyangwa Perezida w’urukiko rw’ubucuruzi mu gihe harangizwa urubanza rwaciwe n’inkiko z’ubucuruzi, agena itariki n’aho ibintu bigomba kugurishirizwa, ahantu n’uburyo amatangazo y’icyo cyamunara agomba kumanikwa) kandi icyo cyemezo kikaba kitari mu byemezo bivugwa mu ngingo ya 360 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru bisabwa gufatwa hamaze gutangwa ingwate y’amagarama. Rwemeje kandi ko ikirego cya Bucyensenge Charles nta shingiro gifite kubera ko ibyo avuga ko urubanza RCOMA 00119/10/CS rushaka kurangizwa rwateshejwe agaciro nta shingiro bifite kuko atagaragaza urundi ruruvuguruza rwabaye Itegeko. Rwemeje na none ko icyo kirego nta shingiro gifite kubera ko ibyo Bucyensenge Charles avuga ko imihango y’ifatira itubahirijwe nta shingiro bifite kuko yamenyeshejwe icyemezo gihatira kwishyura anamenyeshwa ko natishyura icyo cyemezo kizahinduka ifatirabwishyu ry’umutungo we utimukanwa. Icyo nyuma Urukiko rwemeje ni uko ikirego cya Bucyensenge Charles nta shingiro gifite kubera ko ibyo avuga ko agomba guhabwa uburenganzira bwo gutanga ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 157

127 127

indi mitungo ye itimukanwa akaba ariyo yafatirwa nta shingiro bifite kuko atagaragaza iyo mitungo iyo ariyo n’aho ihereye ngo anagaragaze ko ishobora kuvamo ubwishyu bw’umwenda yishyuzwa. Bucyensenge Charles yajuriye urubanza rwaciwe [3] n’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge ku mpamvu zikurikira: - Icyemezo cyafashwe cyo guteza cyamunara cyagombaga kuvanwamo kubera inenge gifite ariko Urukiko ntirwabikoze. Ikindi niuko icyagombaga gusuzumwa n’Umucamanza wa mbere ari ukureba niba haricyo icyo cyemezo cyagombaga kuramira mu buryo bwihuse nk’uko ingingo ya 324 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru ibiteganya. - Mu kwemeza ko icyemezo cyatambamirwaga kitari mu biteganywa mu ngingo ya 360 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru, Urukiko rwanyuranyije n’iyo ngingo kuko mu gace kayo ka 8 hateganyijwe inyandiko nsobanurikirego itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe, kandi ari nayo I&M BANK Ltd yakoresheje kugira ngo ibone icyemezo cy’Urukiko kiriho umukono w’Umucamanza n’Umwanditsi, kuko nta bundi buryo bushingiye ku mategeko bwagaragajwe yaba yaregeyemo Urukiko. I&M BANK Ltd yireguye itanga inzitizi yo kutakira [4] ikirego cya Bucyensenge Charles kuko yagitanze impitagihe. Ivuga ko Bucyensenge Charles yagombaga gutanga ikirego cy’ubujurire bitarenze ku 17/08/2014 kuko icyemezo cyarafashwe kuwa 12/08/2014 kandi iminsi yo kujurira ari 5. Ivuga kandi ko nk’uko Umucamanza wa mbere yabisobanuye umuhango wo kugena itariki ya cyamunara ntabwo uri ku BUCYENSENGE v. I&M BANK

Page 158

128 128

rutonde rw’ibirego bisabwa ingwate y’amagarama bivugwa mu ngingo ya 360 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru; ahubwo uwo muhango ukorwa hakurikijwe ibivugwa mu ngingo ya 295, igika cya 1, y’iryo Tegeko. Ibibazo bisuzumwa muri uru rubanza n’ibikurikira: [5] - Kumenya niba Bucyensenge Charles yaratanze ubujurire bwe impitagihe. - Kumenya niba Bucyensenge Charles yashoboraga gutambamira icyemezo cya Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge gishyiraho itariki ya cyamunara. II. ISESENGURA RY’IBIBAZO BIGIZE

URUBANZA A- Kumenya niba Bucyensenge Charles yaratanze ubujurire bwe impitagihe. I&M BANK Ltd ivuga ko ikirego cya Bucyesenge [6] Charles kitagomba kwakirwa kubera ko yajuriye mu gihe kidakurikije amategeko. Ivuga ko yagombaga gutanga ikirego cy’ubujurire bitarenze kuwa 17/08/2014 kuko icyemezo cyafashwe kuwa 12/08/2014 kandi iminsi yo kujurira ari 5. Bucyesenge Charles yiregura avuga ko yajuriye mu gihe [7] gikurikije amategeko, ko urubanza rwagombaga gusomwa ku wa 11/08/2014 ariko ntirwasomwa uwo munsi, rusomwa umunsi ukurikira ku wa 12/08/2014. Abajijwe igihe yamenyeshejwe imikirize y’urubanza, asubiza ko atabyibuka ariko kandi ko atariwe ugomba kugaragaza itariki ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 159

129 129

yamenyeshejwe ahubwo ko ari uvuga ko yajuriye impitagihe ugomba kubikora kuko amategeko ateganya ko urega ariwe utanga ibimenyetso by’ibyo aregera. Ku bijyanye n’icyo kibazo, Urukiko rusanze ko nyuma [8] yo kumva imyiregure ya Bucyesenge Charles, I&M BANK Ltd yavuze ko kopi ihari y’urubanza igaragaramo ko Umwanditsi yayihaye Bucyensenge Charles kuwa 19/08/2014. Rusanze ko Bucyensenge Charles nawe atabihakanye. Rusanze rero ko kuba Bucyensenge Charles yarajuriye ku wa 26/08/2014 urubanza yamenyeshejwe ku wa 19/08/2014, akaba yarajuriye mu gihe gikurikije amategeko kuko igihe ntarengwa cyo kujuririra ikirego cyatanzwe mu buryo bw’inyandiko gitanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe ari iminsi 5 nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 329 y’Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi (2012). B- Kumenya niba Bucyensenge Charles yarashoboraga gutambamira icyemezo cya Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge gishyiraho itariki ya cyamunara. Bucyesenge Charles yatambamiye icyemezo cya [9] Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge avuga ko gifite inenge kandi ko cyasuzumwe kigafatwaho icyemezo kandi uwagitanze nta garama yari yatanze. I&M BANK Ltd ivuga ko itatanze ikirego mu buryo [10] bw’inyandiko itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe ahubwo yasabye itariki ya cyamunara hakurikijwe ingingo ya 295 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru kandi ibyo ntabwo bisaba gutanga igarama. BUCYENSENGE v. I&M BANK

Page 160

130 130

Urukiko rusanze koko ko I&M BANK Ltd itigeze itanga [11] ikirego mu buryo bw’inyandiko itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe nk’uko Bucyensenge Charles abivuga ahubwo I&M BANK Ltd yasabye itariki ya cyamunara, ishyikiriza Urukiko ibisabwa ngo ihabwe itariki. Rusanze ko Perezida w’Urukiko yafashe icyemezo cyo kuyiha itariki ya cyamunara hatabaye iburanisha kuko atari ngombwa ahubwo icyo yakoze ni gusuzuma ibyo yashyikirijwe bimwemerera gutanga itariki ya cyamunara. Rusanze ko ibyo Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge yakoze bishingiye ku ngingo ya 295 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru ivuga ko “abisabwe n’uwafatiriye, kandi amaze kugenzura ko imihango yose y’ifatira yubahirijwe, Perezida w’Urukiko rw’ibanze rw’aho icyamunara kizabera, cyangwa Perezida w’urukiko rw’ubucuruzi mu gihe harangizwa urubanza rwaciwe n’inkiko z’ubucuruzi, agena itariki n’aho ibintu bigomba kugurishirizwa, ahantu n’uburyo amatangazo y’icyo cyamunara agomba kumanikwa”. Rusanze ko hakurikijwe iyo ngingo, icyemezo gifatwa na Perezida w’Urukiko ari icyemezo cy’ubuyobozi kuko atari urubanza arimo kuburanisha, bityo icyo cyemezo kikaba kitagomba kujuririrwa cyangwa gutambamirwa. Rusanze ko kuba Bucyensenge Charles avuga ko ikirego cya I&M BANK Ltd ari ikirego gitangwa mu buryo bw’inyandiko itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe kubera ko Perezida yafashe icyemezo afashijwe n’Umwanditsi, ibyo bikaba nta shingiro bifite kubera ingingo ya 295 yavuzwe haruguru itamubuza kubikora afashijwe n’Umwanditsi. Rusanze kandi ko ikigaragaza ko atari ikirego gitangwa mu buryo bw’inyandiko itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe ni uko nta garama yatanzwe kuko icyasabwaga byari mu bubasha Perezida bw’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi afite bwo gufata ibyemezo by’ubuyobozi. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 161

131 131

Bityo, rukaba rusanga ko ikirego cya Bucyensenge [12] Charles gitambamira icyemezo no008/BMG/2014 cyo gushyiraho itariki yo guteza cyamunara ubutaka buri mu bibanza no283 na no544 n’inyubako abisabwe na I&M BANK cyafashwe na Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge ku wa 30/06/2014 kitagomba kwakirwa n’Umucamanza wa mbere kubera ko icyo cyemezo ari icy’Ubuyobozi. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO Rwemeye kwakira ubujurire bwa Bucyensenge Charles. [13] Rwemeje ko ikirego yatanze mu rwego rwa mbere [14] gitambamira icyemezo no008/BMG/2014 cya Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge gishyiraho itariki ya cyamunara kitagombaga kwakirwa. Rutesheje agaciro urubanza RCOM 0788/14/TC/NYGE [15] rwaciwe ku wa 12/08/2014 n’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge. Rutegetse ko ingwate y’amagarama Bucyensenge [16] Charles yatanze ihera mu Isanduku ya Leta. BUCYENSENGE v. I&M BANK

Page 162

132 132

Page 163

133 133

IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO v.

AGESPRO SECURITY [Rwanda URUKIKO RUKURU RW’UBUCURUZI–RCOMA 0296/13/HCC (Niwemugeni, J.) 20 Nzeli 2013] Amategeko y’imisoro – Ibaruwa ishinganye – Igihe umusoreshwa yanze kwakira ibaruwa ishinganye, ibiro by'iposita bikora inyandiko igaragaza ko nyiri ubwite yanze ubutumwa, bakoherereza kopi yayo ubuyobozi bw’imisoro – Itegeko n° 25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha, ingingo ya 5, igika cya 3. Amategeko y’imisoro – Ihagarikwa ry’ubusaze bw’igenzura – Ubusaze bw’igenzura buhagarikwa n’itangwa ry’inyandiko imenyesha umusoreshwa igihe azagenzurirwa – Itegeko n° 25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoreshank’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu, ingingo ya 27, igika cya 3. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubucuruzi – Gutanga ibimenyetso – Urega agomba kugaragaza ibimenyetso by’ibyo aregera, iyo abibuze uwarezwe aratsinda – Itegeko nº 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 9. Incamake y’ikibazo: Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro, cyakoreye AGESPRO Security, igenzura ry’imisoro y’imyaka ya 2006, 2007, 2008 na 2009 cyemeza yuko agomba kwishyura umusoro ungana na 95.277.440Frw. AGESPRO yajuririye kwa Komiseri Mukuru nabwo ntiyanyurwa n’igisubizo yahawe bituma itanga

Page 164

134 134

ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge, rwemeza yishyuraumusoro ufatirwa ungana na 9.123.604Frw. Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahorocyajuririye mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi kivuga ko umucamanza yirengagije ko iposita yagaruye iyo baruwa kuko AGESPRO yanze kuza kuyifata, kandi ibyo iposita ikaba yarabigaragaje ku ibahasha igaragaza amatariki yagiye imenyesherezaho AGESPRO. Indi ngingo y’ubujurire ni uko umucamanza yemeje ko habayeho ubusaze ku myaka ya 2006 na 2007 mu gihe bwahagaritswe n’inyandiko igenzura yo kuwa 23/12/2009. Yavugaga kandi ko mucamanza yemeje ko ku myaka ya 2008 na 2009 hishyurwa gusa umusoro ufatirwa Ku mpamvu ya mbere y’ubujurire, AGESPRO yisobanuye ko iyo baruwa ari kopi nta mwimerere wayo ugaragazwa, bikaba byari bihagije ngo umucamanza yemeze ko nta gaciro yahabwa. Ku mpamvu y’ubusaze, AGESPRO ivuga ko kuba umucamanza yaremeje ko habayeho ubusaze akirengagiza inyandiko imenyesha igenzura yo ku wa 23/12/2009, ari uko igenzura ryabaye ridashingiye kuri iyo nyandiko kubera yuko iryakozwe ryakozwe nyuma y’imyaka ibiri n’abarikoze akaba ataribo bagombaga kurikora. Kubirebana n’uko umucamanza yemeje ko mu myaka 2008 na 2009 hishyurwa gusa umusoro ufatirwa, AGESPRO yayuririyeho itanga ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi ivuga ko umucamanza yashingiye ku ngingo itari yo kuko yashingiye kungingo ya 53 y’itegeko rigena imisoro itaziguye ku musaruro, kandi umusoro Agespro isabwa gutanga Atari umusoro ku mushahara. Kuri ino ngingo, Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro kuvuga ko usibye umusoro ufatirwa uri muri uwo wemejwe n’urukiko, harimo umusoro ku nyungu n’umusoro nyongeragaciro, ayemejwe n’umucamanza akaba ari umusoro ufatirwa gusa. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 165

135

Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Mu gihe Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro cyoherereje umusoreshwa ibaruwa hakoreshejwe iposita akanga kuyakira, haba hagomba gukorwa inyandikomvugo igaragaza ko nyir’ubwite yanze kwakira ubwo butumwa kopi yayo ikohererezwa Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro.

2. Kuba inyandiko yo kuwa 23/12/2009, yaravugaga ko igenzura rizakorwa kuwa 11/01/2010, rikozwe n’ishami ry’abasoreshwa bato n’abaciriritserikaba ritarabayeho, ahubwo hagakorwa irindi naryo rikozwe n’abagenzuzi batandukanye n’abavugwagwa mu rwandiko rwa 23/12/2009, bivuga yuko igenzura ryabaye ridashingiye ku nyandiko imenyesha igenzura yo kuwa 23/12/2009, kuko ryo ryashaje hakaba hashize imyaka irenze itatu.

3. Kuba Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro kitagaragaza umusoro umucamanza yagombaga kwemeza ko AGESPRO yishyura ungana, ntikinagaragaze uwo ari wo, ishingiro n’ibimenyetso byawo, bituma ubujurire bwacyo budahabwa ishingiro.

AGESPRO nayo kuba itabasha kugaragaza umusoro umucamanza yayiciye uwo ari wo mu bwoko butatu bw’umusoro yaciwe, bituma ubujurire bwayo bwuririye ku bundi budahabwa agaciro. Ubujurire nta shingiro bufite; Urubanza rwajuririwe ntiruhindutse; Amagarama aherereye ku wajuriye. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko nº 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 9; IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO v. AGESPRO SECURITY 135

Page 166

136 136

Itegeko n° 25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu, ingingo ya 5 igika cya 3 n’iya 27, igika cya 3. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro, (RRA) kiravuga ko [1] cyakoreye AGESPRO security Ltd igenzura ry’imisoro y’imyaka ya 2006, 2007, 2008 na 2009, maze mu nyandiko igena umusoro imenyeshwa ko igomba kwishyura imisoro n’ibihano bijyanye nayo, ntiyabyishimira, ijuririra kwa Komiseri Mukuru, ariko na bwo ntiyanyurwa n’igisubizo yahawe, itanga ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge, urukiko rwemeza ko ku musoro ungana na 95.277.440Frw yari yaciwe, yishyura umusoro ufatirwa ungana na 9.123.604Frw. Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro, (RRA) nticyishimiye [2] imikirize y’urwo rubanza, kirujuririra muri uru Rukiko ku mpamvu z’ubujurire zigaragara mu isesengura ry’uru rubanza. AGESPRO nayo yuririye kuri ubwo bujurire igaragaza kon’umusoro yaciwe n’urukiko na wo itawemera. Muri uru rubanza, urukiko rugiye gusuzuma niba impamvu z’ubujurire zitangwa n’ababuranyi zifite ishingiro. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 167

137 137

II. ISESENGURA RY’URUBANZA 1. Ku mpamvu y’ubujurire y’uko Urukiko rwavuze ko ibaruwa n° 1862/ORR/DRI/PMC/DA/09 yo kuwa 23/12/2009 yamenyeshaga AGESPRO Security ko izakorerwa igenzura nta gaciro yahabwa ngo kuko itashyikirijwe AGESPRO Security Ltd cyangwa ngo hakorwe inyandikomvugo yo kwanga kuyakira. Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro, (RRA) kiravuga ko ibi [3] umucamanza yemeje binyuranyije n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 5 igika cya 2 y’Itegeko n° 25/2005 ryo kuwa 4/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoreshwa nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi rikuzuzwa kugeza ubu. Ko kuba umucamanza yarakoresheje igika cya 3 cy’iyi ngingo iteganya ko: “Ibiro by’iposita cyangwa umuhesha w’inkiko, bakora inyandiko igaragaza ko nyir’ubwite yanze ubutumwa, bakoherereza kopi yayo ubuyobozi bw’imisoro” ko umucamanza yirengagije ko iposta yagaruye iyo baruwa kuko AGESPRO Security yanze kuza kuyifata, kandi ibyo iposita ikaba yarabigaragaje ku ibahasha yarimo iyo baruwa aho yagiye igaragaza amatariki yagiye imenyesherezaho AGESPRO ariko ntize kuyifata. AGESPRO yo ivuga ko kuba iyo baruwa ivugwa ari [4] kopi nta mwimerere wayo RRA igaragaza kuko ivuga ko ntayo yabona, byari bihagije kugira ngo umucamanza yemeze ko nta gaciro yahabwa. Ikindi kuba umucamanza yarashingiye ku gika cya 3 cy’ingingo ivuzwe haruguru, AGESPRO iravuga ko RRA itagaragaza itegeko umucamanza yishe, kuko iposta yagombaga gukora inyandiko mvugo iteganywa n’iyo ngingo. Igika cya 3 cy’ingingo ya 5 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe [5] haruguru, igaragaza neza uburyo iposta isubiza ibaruwa yanze IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO v. AGESPRO SECURITY

Page 168

138 138

kwakirwa na nyirayo mu Kigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro, ko hagomba gukorwa inyandikomvugo igaragaza ko nyir’ubwite yanze kwakira ubwo butumwa. Kuvuga ko iposita yagaragaje ku ibahasha amatariki yagiye imenyeshaho AGESPRO ariko ntize gufata iyo baruwa, uru Rukiko rusanga bitahabwa agaciro kuko bidakurikije ibyo igika cya 3 cy’ingingo ya 5 yavuzwe haruguru iteganya.

2. Ku mpamvu y’ubujurire y’uko umucamanza yemeje ko habayeho ubusaze ku myaka ya 2006 na 2007. Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro kiravuga ko umucamanza [6] yemeje ko hari ubusaze ngo kuko ibaruwa yo kuwa 06/03/2012 imenyesha umusoreshwa ko azagenzurwa, n’iyo kuwa 14/11/2012 y’inyandiko ikosora, zatanzwe nyuma y’imyaka itatu harabayeho ubusaze. Kiravuga ko umucamanza yashingiye ku ibaruwa yo kuwa 06/03/2012, yemeza ko ari yo nyandiko imenyesha umusoreshwa ko azagenzurwa, kandi inyandiko imenyesha igenzura yashingiweho ari iyo kuwa 23/12/2009, yahagaritse ubusaze bw’imyaka 3, hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 27 igika cya 3 y’Itegeko rigena imitunganyirize y’isoreshwa nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi rikuzuzwa kugeza ubu. AGESPRO Security Ltd yo ivuga ko igenzura ryabaye [7] ridashingiye ku nyandiko imenyesha igenzura yo kuwa 23/12/2009 kubera ko: a) Inyandiko yo kuwa 23/12/2009, yavugaga ko igenzura rizakorwa kuwa 11/01/2010, ariko iryo genzura rikaba ritarabaye, kuko iryakozwe ryakozwe nyuma y’imyaka ibiri. b) Igenzura rivugwa mu nyandiko yo kuwa 23/12/2009 ryagombaga gukorwa n’abitwa Mukamurenzi Annonciata ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 169

139 139

na Kanyemera Vincent, ariko igenzura rigibwaho impaka, si abo uko ari babiri barikoze. c) Igenzura rivugwa mu nyandiko yo kuwa 23/12/2009 ryagombaga gukorwa n’ishami ry’abasoreshwa bato n’abaciriritse, mu gihe igenzura rigibwaho impaka, ryakozwe n’ishami ry’abasoreshwa banini. Hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 27 igika cya 3 [8] yavuzwe haruguru iteganya ko: “…ubusaze buvugwa muri iki gika buhagarikwa n’inyandiko imenyesha umusoreshwa igihe azagenzurirwa…”, uru Rukiko rurasanga ibivugwa n’Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro ko inyandiko yashingiweho hakorwa igenzura ari iyo kuwa 23/12/2009 aho kuba iyo kuwa 06/03/2012, nta shingiro byahabwa kubera impamvu eshatu (a; b ;c) zagaragajwe haruguru zitangwa na AGESPRO Security.

3. Ku mpamvu y’ubujurire y’uko umucamanza yemeje ko ku myaka ya 2008 na 2009 yavanyeho umusoro w’ikirenga (80.590.256 Frw), anemeza ko hishyurwa umusoro muke (9.123.604Frw). Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro kiravuga ko usibye [9] umusoro ufatirwa uri muri uwo wemejwe n’urukiko, harimo umusoro ku nyungu n’umusoro ku nyongeragaciro, ayemejwe n’umucamanza akaba ari umusoro ufatirwa gusa. Kuri iyi mpamvu, AGESPRO nayo yayuririyeho itanga ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi ivuga ko umucamanza yashingiye ku ngingo itari yo kuko yashingiye kungingo ya 53 y’Itegeko rigena imisoro itaziguye ku musaruro, kandi umusoro AGESPRO isabwa gutanga atari umusoro ku mushahara. Hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 9 y’Itegeko ryerekeye [10] imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO v. AGESPRO SECURITY

Page 170

140 140

iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, uru Rukiko rurasanga Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro kitagaragaza umusoro umucamanza yagombaga kwemeza ko AGESPRO yishyura uko ungana, kikaba kitanagaragaza uwo ari wo, kubivuga mu magambo gusa kitagaragaza ishingiro n’ibimenyetso by’uwo cyemera bikaba bitahabwa ishingiro. AGESPRO nayo ntigaragaza umusoro umucamanza yayiciye ashingiye ku ngingo ya 53 y’Itegeko n° 16/2005 rigena imisoro itaziguye ku musaruro uwo ari wo, kuko ivuga ko Atari umusoro ku mushahara ariko ikaba itagaragaza uwo musoro uwo ari wo mu bwoko butatu bw’umusoro yaciwe, kuba itabigaragaza rero, bikaba nta shingiro ubujurire bwe bwuririye ku bundi bwahabwa. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi: Rwemeye kwakira ubujurire rwashyikirijwe n’Ikigo [11] cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro. Rwemeje ko nta shingiro bufite. [12] Rukijije ko AGESPRO Security Ltd itsinze, ko Ikigo [13] cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro gitsinzwe. Rutegetse Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro kwishyura [14] 12.900Frw ahwanye n’ibyakozwe muri uru rubanza, kikayatanga mu gihe cy’iminsi mirongo itatu urubanza rubaye itegeko, kitayatanga akavanwa mu byacyo ku ngufu za Leta. Rutegetse ko kubindi, hubahirizwa icyemezo cy’urukiko [15] mu rubanza R Com0219/13/TC/Nyge. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 171

141 141

SORAS Ltd v. ITEX Sarl [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RCOMA 0148/11/CS (Mutashya, P.J., Gatete na Gakwaya, J.) 23 Gicurasi 2014] Amategeko agenga ubwikorezi – Amasezerano y’ubwikorezi – Ibimenyetso mu masezerano y’ubwikorezi – Amasezerano y’ubwikorezi agaragazwa n’ibimenyetso byose biteganywa n’amategeko, byaba ari ibyerekeye ibicuruzwa bikagaragazwa n’impapuro z’ipakira – Itegeko ryo kuwa 19/1/1920 ryerekeye intumwa mu bucuruzi n’abikorezi, ingingo ya 10. Amategeko agenga ubwikorezi – Amasezerano y’ubwikorezi – Uburyozwe bw’abikorezi – Umwikorezi aryozwa ibyangiritse cyangwa ibyatakaye mu gihe aterekana ko ukwangirika, ugutakara cyangwa impanuka zaturutse ku yindi mpamvu itamuturutseho kandi idashobora kumushinjwa – Itegeko ryo kuwa 19/1/1920 ryerekeye intumwa mu bucuruzi n’abikorezi, ingingo ya 18. Amategeko agenga ubwishingizi – Kwishyura indishyi z’ubwishingizi – Isimbura ry’umwishingizi mu burenganzira z’uwishingiwe – Uwishingiye wishyuye indishyi z’ubwishingire, asimbura uwo yishingiye, mu rugero rw’indishyi yatanze, mu byerekeye uburenganzira no gukurikirana abandi bantu batumye yishyura kubera ibikorwa byabo – Itegeko- Teka no 20/75 ryo kuwa 20/06/1975 ryerekeye ubwishingire, ingingo ya 32 igika cya 1. Amategeko agenga amsezerano – Ibarwa ry’inyungu ku mafaranga remezo – Igihe zitangirira kubarwa – Iyo kwica amasezerano birebana no kutishyura amafaranga, inyungu zibarwa uhereye igihe uwagombaga kuzishyura yihanangirijwe

Page 172

142 142

zikanabarwa hashingiwe ku gipimo cyemewe na Banki Nkuru y’Igihugu hakuwemo ibyo uruhande rwishe amasezerano rufiteho uburenganzira – Itegeko no 45/2011 ryo kuwa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, ingingo ya 144. Incamake y’ikibazo: SORAS Ltd yareze ITEX s.a.r.l mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ivuga ko yagiranye amazerano y’ubwishingizi bw’icyayi na sosiyeti y’ubwikorezi yitwa TACT Ltd. Nyuma y’aho TACT Ltd yaje kumvikana na sosiyeti ITEX s.a.r.l ngo ibe ariyo yikorera icyayi cya OCIR-THE. Imodoka yari icyikoreye igeze mu gihugu cya Kenya yaje gukora impanuka icyayi yari itwaye kirangirika. TACT Ltd yaje gusaba SORAS Ltd kuyishyura agaciro k’icyayi yari yishingiye, nyuma SORAS Ltd irabikora, nayo ihita isimbura TACT Ltd mu burenganzira bwayo bwo gukurikirana ITEX s.a.r.l ku gihombo yatewe no kuba ITEX s.a.r.l itaragejeje imizigo aho yagombaga kugezwa. Urukiko Rukuru rw’ubucuruzi rwemeje ko ikirego cya SORAS Ltd nta shingiro gifite. SORAS Ltd yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ivuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’ubucuruzi rwirengangije ibimenyetso yatanze bigaragaza ko hagati ya ITEX s.a.r.l na TACT Ltd habaye amasezerano y’ubwikorezi bw’icyayi cya OCIR-THE. ITEX s.a.r.l yo yavuze ko mu bimenyetso byatanzwe birimo na “lettre de transport” igaragaza ko umwikorezi ari TACT Ltd kandi yafashe ubwishingizi ndetse SORAS Ltd ikaba yarishyuye OCIR-THE icyayi cyayo. Yongeye ivuga kandi ko SORAS itagaragaje ko imodoka yakoze impanuka ari iya ITEX s.a.r.l, ndetse ko niyo iza kuba iyayo, ibyo bitari kuba bihagije kugirango iryozwe icyayi cyangiritse kuko nta masezerano y’ubwikorezi yari hagati ya ITEX sarl na TACT Ltd. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 173

143 143

ITEX s.a.r.l yatanze ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi isaba ko SORAS ltd itegekwa kuyishyura indishyi z’akababaro kubera gukomeza kuyishora mu manza ku maherere, amafaranga y’ikurikirana rubanza n’ay’igihembo cy’Avoka. SORAS Ldt yo yasabye ko ITEX s.a.r.l iyishyura inyungu zibariwe kuri 18% y’amafaraga yishuye TACT Ltd, abazwe kuva igihe ITEX s.a.r.l yaboneye integuza. Yanasabye kandi amafaranga y’ikurikirana rubanza n’igihembo cy’Avoka. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Amasezerano y’ubwikorezi ntagaragazwa gusa no kuba yanditse, ashobora no kugaragazwa n’ibimenyetso byose biteganywa n’amategeko nk’inyemezabwishyu yabaye hagati y’umwikorezi n’uwo apakiriye ibintu, icyemezo cy’ubwikorezi bwo mu muhanda mpuzamahanga, ingano y’ibiro bigomba koherezwa ugenewe ibicuruzwa bihura n’ibipakiwe. Bikaba bigaragara rero ko TACT Ltd yagiranye na ITEX s.a.r.l amasezerano y’ubwikorezi bw’icyayi cya OCIR-THE gifite 49.418kg kandi ikaba yari yishyuye igiciro cy’ubwo bwikorezi (4.448$).

2. Umwikorezi aryozwa ibyangiritse mu gihe atagaragaza ko byaturutse ku yindi mpamvu itamuturutseho kandi idashobora kumushinjwa. Ibimenyetso byose byagaragajwe byerekanye ko TACT Ltd yagiranye amasezerano y’ubwikorezi na ITEX s.a.r.l bw’icyayi cya OCIR-THE.

3. Umwishingizi wishyuye indishyi z’ubwishingire, asimbura uwo yishingiye mu rugero rw’indishyi yatanze. Mu gihe SORAS Ltd yishyuye TACT Ltd 20.700.150Frw, SORAS Ltd ifite uburenganzira bwo gusimbura TACT s.a.r.l mu rugero rw’indishyi yishyuye.

SORAS Ltd rero ikaba ifite uburenganzira bwo gusaba ITEX s.a.r.l amafaranga 20.700.150 yishyuye TACT Ltd. SORAS Ltd v. ITEX Sarl

Page 174

144 144

4. Inyungu zijyanye no kutishyuriwa igihe ziratangwa kandi zikabarwa hashingiye ku gipimo cyemewe na Banki Nkuru y’igihugu. Izo nyungu zibarwa haherewe ku munsi uzisaba yihanangirijeho ugomba kuzimwishyura. Ubujurire bufite ishingiro. Urubanza rwajuririwe ruhindutse kuri byose. Rutegetse ITEX s.a.r.l kwishyura SORAS Ltd agaciro k’icyayi cyangirikiye mu mpanuka, inyungu ku mafaranga remezo, amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’ay’igihembo cy’Avocat. Amagarama aherereye ku regwa. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko no45/2011 ryo kuwa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, ingingo ya 144. Itegeko ryo kuwa 19/1/1920 ryerekeye intumwa mu bucuruzi n’abikorezi, ingingo ya 10 na 18. Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 ryerekeye amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 431 na 432. Itegeko- Teka no 20/75 ryo kuwa 20/06/1975 ryerekeye ubwishingire, ingingo ya 32 igika cya 1. Nta manza zifashishijwe. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 175

145

Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA Soras Ltd yareze ITEX Sarl mu Rukiko Rukuru [1] rw’Ubucuruzi ivuga ko yagiranye amasezerano y’ubwishingizi bw’icyayi na sosiyeti y’ubwikorezi yitwa TACT Ltd (Trans- Africa Container Transport Ltd), hanyuma TACT Ltd yaje guha sosiyeti ITEX Sarl icyayi cya OCIR-THE ngo ibe ariyo icyikorera, imodoka yari icyikoreye igeze mu gihugu cya Kenya, ikora impanuka icyayi yari itwaye kirangirika. Nyuma y’uko TACT Ltd isabye SORAS Ltd kwishyura [2] icyo cyayi yari yarishingiye, SORAS Ltd yishyuye TACT Ltd agaciro k’icyayi cyangiritse kangana na 20.700.150Frw, SORAS Ltd nayo ihita isimbura TACT Ltd mu burenganzira bwayo bwo gukurikirana ITEX Sarl kuri icyo gihombo (préjudice) yatewe no kuba ITEX Sarl itaragejeje imizigo aho yagombaga gusohozwa, ari nacyo Soras Ltd yaregeye ITEX Sarl. Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwemeje ko icyo kirego [3] cya SORAS Ltd nta shingiro gifite, rwemeje kandi ko ikirego cyo kwiregura cya ITEX Sarl, kigamije gusaba indishyi, kitakiriwe kuko cyatanzwe impitagihe iburanisha ry’urubanza ryaramaze gusozwa. SORAS Ltd ntiyishimiye imikirize y’urwo rubanza, [4] ijuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga ivuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwirengagije ibimenyetso byatanzwe bigaragaza ko hagatiya ITEX Sarl na TACT Ltd habaye amasezerano y’ubwikorezi bw’icyayi cya OCIR-THE cyangiritse, ahubwo SORAS Ltd v. ITEX Sarl 145

Page 176

146 146

rwavuze ko ibyo bimenyetso byose bitabigaragaza, ndetse ko fagitire yo kuwa 22/3/2010 ITEX Sarl yakoreye TACT Ltd itagaragaza ko yishyuzaga ubwikorezi bw’icyayi cya OCIR- THE. ITEX Sarl yatanze ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi isaba ko SORAS Ltd itegekwa kuyishyura indishyi z’akababaro kubera gukomeza kuyishora mu manza ku maherere, iy’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’avoka. Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame kuwa [5] 15/04/2014, SORAS Ltd ihagarariwe na Me Ruzindana Ignace, naho ITEX Sarl ihagarariwe na Me Ndagijimana Emmanuel. II. ISESENGURA RY’IBIBAZO BIGIZE

URUBANZA a. Kumenya niba harabaye amasezerano y’ubwikorezi hagati ya ITEX Sarl na TACT Ltd, yatuma SORAS Ltd, mu mwanya wa TACT Ltd, yishyuza ITEX S.a.r.l agaciro k’icyayi cyangiritse kubera impanuka. Me Ruzindana Ignace, uhagarariye SORAS Ltd, avuga [6] ko nk’uko bigaragara mu gika cya 5 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwavuze ko ibimenyetso Soras Ltd ishingiraho ikirego cyayo ari inyandiko-mvugo yakozwe na Polisi ya Kenya igaragaza izina rya Bisamaza ITEX nka nyir’ukuyimenyesha imizigo yangiritse ubwo yari yikorewe ivanywe mu Rwanda igana Mombasa, fagitire yo kuwa 22/3/2010 ya 4.448USD, ITEX Sarl yakoreye TACT Ltd iyishyuza ubwikorezi bw’icyayi cya OCIR-THE kivugwa muri uru rubanza n’ibaruwa yo kuwa 2/2/2010, Twagirumukiza Benoît, “courtier” wa TACT Ltd yandikiye SORAS Ltd, ariko urwo Rukiko rwasanze ko ibi bimenyetso byose bitagaragaza ko ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 177

147 147

hagati ya ITEX Sarl na TACT Ltd habaye amasezerano y’ubwikorezi bw’icyayi cya OCIR-THE cyangiritse, SORAS Ltd ikakishyurira, none ubu ikaba iregera kugaruza amafaranga yacyishyuriye. Me Ruzindana Ignace asobanura ko ku byemeza gutyo, [7] Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwivuguruje kuko rwemeza ko fagitire yo kuwa 22/3/2010 ya ITEX Sarl irebana n’icyayi cya OCIR-THE kivugwa muri uru rubanza, hanyuma rukarangiza ruvuga ko nta bimenyetso bigaragaza ko habaye amasezerano y’ubwikorezi bw’icyayi cya OCIR-THE cyangiritse, hagati ya ITEX Sarl na TACT Ltd. Asobanura ko kuvuga ko fagitire yo kuwa 22/3/2010, ITEX Sarl yakoreye TACT Ltd iyishyuza ubwikorezi bw’icyayi, itari ikimenyetso kibishimangira, ahubwo ibyo bigaragaza ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rutayisesenguye neza, kuko mu miburanire, ntaho ITEX Sarl yigeze ivuga ko icyayi cyishyuzwa kuri fagitire ivugwa, kijyanye n’ubundi bwikorezi butari ubw’icyayi cya OCIR-THE. Asobanura kandi ko 4.448Usd ari amafaranga y’ubwikorezi, atari agaciro k’icyayi cyane ko ITEX Sarl itari kwishyuza TACT Ltd icyayi, ko ITEX Sarl itashoboye kugaragaza nyiri icyayi, imodoka ye yari yatwaye, ndetse usibye ko ITEX Sarl itari gufata ubwishingizi bw’icyayi kuko icyayi cyari cyishingiwe na TACT Ltd, bigaragara neza ko ari icyayi cya OCIR-THE kubera ko ingano (quantité) y’icyayi igaragara kuri “lettre de transport” ihura n’ibyo TACT Ltd yayihaye, bityo akaba asanga ibi bimenyetso byari bihagije, bitari ngombwa ko habaho amasezerano yanditse, ariyo mpamvu ITEX Sarl igomba gusubiza SORAS Ltd 20.700.150Frw yishyuye TACT Ltd kubera icyayi cyangirikiye mu mpanuka yakozwe n’imodoka yayo. SORAS Ltd v. ITEX Sarl

Page 178

148 148

Ku birebana n’imodoka yakoze impanuka, Me [8] Ruzindana Ignace avuga ko ibivugwa mu rubanza rwajuririwe mu gika cya 5 ku rupapuro rwa 4 y’uko “iyo modoka iza kugaragazwa ko ari iya ITEX Sarl, ibi bitaba ubwabyo bivuga ko ari yo yaryozwa inshingano z’umwikorezi kuko byanashoboka ko TACT Ltd yaba umwikorezi ariko akora akazi k’ubwikorezi yiyambaje imodoka ya ITEX Sarl cyangwa se y’undi uwo ariwe wese babyumvikanyeho mu masezerano yihariye atari ay’ubwikorezi”, ataribyo kuko mu miburanire ya ITEX Sarl itigeze ivuga ko imodoka zayo zakodeshejwe na TACT Ltd mu buryo aribyo byatumye ikora fagitire yo kuwa 22/3/2010 yishyuzaga TACT Ltd cyangwa ngo igaragaze imodoka bari bakodesheje n’igiciro cy’ubukode, bityo akaba asanga Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwarashingiye icyemezo cyarwo ku bitagaragajwe mu iburanisha. Me Ndagijimana Emmanuel avuga ko uretse ko ITEX [9] Sarl na TACT Ltd bakorana imirimo myinshi, iyo fagitire yo kuwa 22/3/2010 ari fagitire y’icyayi ITEX Sarl yatwariye TACT Ltd gifite agaciro ka 4.448Usd, gitandukanye n’icyayi kivugwa muri uru rubanza gifite agaciro kangana na 20.700.000Frw. Akomeza avuga ko SORAS Ltd itagaragaza ko imodoka yakoze impanuka ari iya ITEX Sarl, ndetse ko niyo iza kuba iyayo, ibyo bitaba bihagije kugirango iryozwe icyayi cyangiritse kuko nta masezerano y’ubwikorezi ari hagati ya ITEX Sarl na TACT Ltd. Me Ndagijimana Emmanuel asobanura ko “lettre de [10] transport” igaragaza umwikorezi na nyiri icyayi, bityo akaba asanga OCIR-THE idashobora kwemera ko umwikorezi atwara icyayi cyayo atafashe ubwishingizi. Akomeza avuga ko umwikorezi ari TACT Ltd kandi yafashe ubwishingizi, ndetse ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 179

149 149

ko Soras Ltd yishyuye OCIR-THE icyayi cyayo cyagize impanuka, bityo akaba asanga nta mpamvu yatuma ITEX Sarl iza mu masezerano yabaye hagati ya TACT Ltd na Soras Ltd. Asoza avuga ko iyo ITEX Sarl iza kuba umwikorezi yari gufata ubwishingizi kuko ntabwo yari gufata “risque” zo kohereza imodoka yayo nta bwishingizi.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA Ingingo ya 10 y’Itegeko ryo kuwa 19/1/1920ryerekeye [11] intumwa mu bucuruzi n’abikorezi iteganya ko “amasezerano y’ubwikorezi agaragazwa n’ibimenyetso byose biteganywa n’amategeko mbese nko kubyerekeye ibicuruzwa hakoreshwa impapuro z’ipakira”. Ingingo 431y’Igitabo cya III cy’urwunge rw’amategeko [12] mbonezamubano iteganya ko “Ntibabazwa (abikorezi mu muhanda cyangwa mu mazi) gusa ibyo bashyikirijwe mu bwato cyangwa mu modoka, babazwa kandi ibyo baherewe mu cyumba cyangwa mu mangazini ngo bishyirwe mu bwato cyangwa mu modoka”. Ingingo ya 432 y’Igitabo cya III cy’urwunge [13] rw’amategeko mbonezamubano iteganya ko “baryozwa (abikorezi mu muhanda cyangwa mu mazi) ibyo bahawe byatakaye n’ibyangiritse, keretse berekanye ko byatakaye cyangwa ko byangiritse ku mpamvu itunguranye cyangwa itunguranye ntarengwa”. Ingingo ya 18 y’Itegeko ryo kuwa 19/1/1920 ryerekeye [14] intumwa mu bucuruzi n’abikorezi iteganya ko “umwikorezi aryozwa ibyangiritse cyangwa ibyatakaye cyangwa ndetse SORAS Ltd v. ITEX Sarl

Page 180

150 150

n’impanuka zaba kubo atwaye mu gihe aterekana ko ukwangirika, ugutakara cyangwa impanuka zaturutse ku yindi mpamvu itamuturutseho kandi idashobora kumushinjwa”. Ingingo ya 32, igika cya 1 y’Itegeko-Teka n° 20/75 ryo [15] kuwa 20/6/1975 ryerekeye Ubwishingire iteganya ko “uwishingiye wishyuye indishyi z’ubwishingire, asimbura uwo yishingiye, mu rugero rw’indishyi yatanze, mu byerekeye uburenganzira no gukurikirana abandi bantu batumye yishyura kubera ibikorwa byabo”. Ku birebana n’amasezerano y’ubwikorezihagati ya [16] TACT Ltd na ITEX Sarl, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga muri dosiye y’uru rubanzahari inyandiko-mvugoya polisi ya Kenya (police station MTITO ANDEI) yo kuwa 1/3/2010, aho Bwana BISAMAZA ITEX abamenyesha ibyabuze igihe imodoka Mercedes Benz ifite icyapa RAB 691K/ RL 0707 yari yakoze impanuka. Rurasanga kandi muri dosiye hari fagitire yo kuwa 22/3/2010, ITEX Sarl yakoreye TACT Ltd, iyisaba kwishyura 4.448Usd y’ubwikorezi bwa 49.418Kg y’icyayi cy‘umukara yikoreye kuva Kigali kugeza Mombasa (Kenya), ndetse ko iyo fagitire igaragaza neza ibyanditse no muri “lettre de transport routier international” (international trucking bill of lading) n° 157/2010 yo kuwa 2/2/2010, aho usanga ikilo cy’icyayi kigomba koherezwa Mombasa kwa Bahari (T) Co Ltd (destinataire) ari 49.418Kg (Poids Brut: G. Weight) nk’uko bigaragarano muri “liste de colisage n°029/2010” yo kuwa 2/2/2010, TACT Ltd yari yoherereje Bahari (T) Co. Ltd kuwa 19/2/2010 na Soras Ltd, umwishingizi, kuwa 5/4/2010. Byongeye kandi inyandiko yo kuwa 4/3/2010 bita “arrival advice”, nayo ikaba igaragaza ko icyayi kivugwa cyohererejwe Bahari (T) Co. Ltd. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 181

151 151

Hakurikijwe ibyavuzwe haruguru, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga [17] rurasanga nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 10 y’Itegekoryo kuwa 19/1/1920 ryerekeye intumwa mu bucuruzi n’abikorezi aho ryemeza ko amasezerano y’ubwikorezi agaragazwa n’ibimenyetso byose biteganywa n’amategeko, ibyo bimenyetso byose bivugwa mu gika kibanziriza iki, bigaragaza neza ko TACT Ltd na ITEX Sarl bagiranye amasezerano y’ubwikorezi bw’icyayi cya OCIR-THE gifite 49.418Kg kigomba koherezwa Mombasa kwa Bahati (T) Co. Ltd ndetse ko TACT Ltd yishyuye ITEX Sarl 4.448Usd y’ubwo bwikorezi bw’icyayi, bityo ibivugwa na ITEX Sarl y’uko amasezerano y’ubwikorezi yanditswe yonyine ashobora kubyemeza, bikaba nta shingiro bifite. Ku birebana n’igiciro cy’icyayi cyoherejwe Mombasa, [18] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga inyandiko iri mu dosiye, bita “proposition d’indemnisation” yo kuwa 19/7/2010, igaragaza neza ko igiciro cyayo cyari 143.792 Usd, ni ukuvuga 82.392.816 Frw y’icyo gihe, bityo ibivugwa na ITEX Sarl y’uko 4.448Usd, agaragara muri fagitireyo kuwa 22/3/2010, ariyo giciro cy’icyayi cyoherejwe Mombasa, ko nta sano afitanye n’icyayi kivugwa muri uru rubanza, bikaba ataribyo kuko 4.448Usd ari igiciro cy’ubwikorezi bw’icyayi nk’uko byagaragajwe haruguru. Ku birebana na 20.700.150Frw SORAS Ltd yishyuza [19] ITEX Sarl, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga mu gihe bigaragara ko SORAS Ltd yishyuye TACT Ltd ayo mafaranga kuwa 22/7/2010 ikoresheje “chèque” n° BB 03920994 (tiré sur la Banque de Kigali) kuko na OCIR-THE yayisabaga kuyishyura icyayi cyayo cyangiritse mu mpanuka yavuzwe haruguru, SORAS Ltd, nk’umwishingizi (assureur), ifite uburenganzira SORAS Ltd v. ITEX Sarl

Page 182

152 152

bwo gusimbura TACT Sarl uwo yishingiye mu rugero rw’indishyi yishyuye, isaba ITEX Sarl kuyisubiza ayo mafaranga, bityo hashingiwe ku ingingo ya 431 n’iya 432 z’Igitabo cya III cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano, ku ngingo ya 18 y’Itegeko ryerekeye intumwa mu bucuruzi n’abikorezi no ku ngingo ya 32, igika cya 1 y’Itegeko-Teka n° 20/75 ryo kuwa 20/6/1975 ryerekeye Ubwishingire, ITEX Sarl ikaba igomba kwishyura SORAS Ltd 20.700.150Frw. Hashingiwe kuri ibyo bisobanuro, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga [20] rurasanga iyo mpamvu y’ubujurire bwa SORAS Ltd ifite ishingiro. b. Kumenya niba SORAS Ltd ikwiye guhabwa inyungu ku mafaranga remezo isaba, indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’avoka. Me Ruzindana Ignace, mu myanzuro yanditse, asaba ko [21] ITEX Sarl itegekwa guha Soras Ltd inyungu z’ubukererwe ku mafaranga 20.700.150Frw zibariwe kuri 18%, uhereye igihe ITEX Sarl yaboneye integuza. Me Ruzindana Ignace asaba kandi ko ITEX Sarl [22] itegekwa guha SORAS Ltd 1.000.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza, 500.000Frw y’igihembo cy’avoka mu rwego rwa mbere na 500.000Frw y’igihembo cy’avoka mu rwego rw’ubujurire. Me Ndagijimana Emmanuel avuga ko SORAS Ltd [23] idakwiye guhabwa amafaranga isaba kuko yareze uwo itagombaga kurega. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 183

153 153

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA Ingingo ya 144 y’Itegeko n° 45/2011 ryo kuwa [24] 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezeranoiteganya ko “iyo kwica amasezerano birebana no kutishyura amafaranga cyangwa kudakora igisabwa gishobora kubarwa mu mafaranga azwi cyangwa ashobora kumenyekana, inyungu zibarwa uhereye igihe igisabwa cyagombaga gukorwa hakuwemo ibyo uruhande rwishe amasezerano rufiteho uburenganzira”. Hashingiwe kuri iyo ngingo, kuba ingaruka y’isimbura [25] ari uko uwishyuye asimbura ugomba kwishyurwa mu burenganzira, mu birego, afite k’ugomba kumwishyura, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga Soras Ltd izo nyungu izikwiye, bityo ITEX Sarl ikaba igomba kuyishyura inyungu ku mafaranga remezo isaba, ku gipimo cya 7% cyemewe na Banki Nkuru y’Igihugu (taux de placement moyen BNR), zibazwe guherakumunsi SORAS Ltd yihanangirije ITEX Sarl, ni ukuvuga kuwa 13/8/2010, kuko igipimo cya 18% SORAS Ltd ivuga, ari menshi, bityo inyungu ikaba igomba kubarwa mu buryo bukurira: 20.700.150 x 7 x iminsi 1379 100 x iminsi 365 = 5.474.481Frw Ku byerekeye amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza [26] n’igihembo cya avoka SORAS Ltd isaba, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga ayo asaba ari menshi, rukaba ruyigeneye mu bushishozi bwarwo (ex aequo et bono) 300.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza na 500.000Frw y’igihembo cy’avoka mu rwego rwa mbere no mu rwego rw’ubujurire, yose hamwe akaba 800.000Frw. SORAS Ltd v. ITEX Sarl

Page 184

154 154

Hashingiwe kuri ibyo byose byavuzwe haruguru, [27] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga ITEX Sarl igomba kwishyura Soras Ltd 20.700.150Frw y’agaciro k’icyayi cyangirikiye mu mpanuka, 5.474.481Frw y’inyungu ku mafaranga remezo, 300.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza na 500.000Frw y’igihembo cya avoka, yose hamwe akaba 26.974.631Frw. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Soras Ltd bufite ishingiro. [28] Rwemeje kourubanza nº RCOM 0341/10/HCC rwaciwe [29] kuwa 29/07/2011 n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ruhindutse kuri byose. Rutegetse

ITEX Sarl kwishyura Soras Ltd [30] 20.700.150Frw y’agaciro k’icyayi cyangirikiye mu mpanuka, 5.474.481Frw y’inyungu ku mafaranga remezo, 300.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza na 500.000Frw y’igihembo cy’avoka, yose hamwe 26.974.631Frw. Rutegetse ITEX Sarl kwishyura amagarama y’uru [31] rubanza angana na 29.150Frw. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 185

155

SORAS AG Ltd v. MTS Ltd [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RCOMA 0044/13/CS (Mutashya, P.J., Nyirinkwaya na Gakwaya, J.) 21 Ugushyingo 2014] Amategeko agenga ubwishingizi – Amasezerano y’ubwishingizi – Uburyozwe bushingiye ku masezerano y’ubwishingizi – Uburyozwe bw’umwishingizi ku byangijwe n’umukozi wo mu rugo w’uhagarariye sosiyeti – Ntaho umwishingizi yashingira ahunga cyangwa yivanaho inshingano ziteganyijwe mu masezerano yitwaje amakosa yakozwe n’umukozi w’uhagarariye sosiyeti – Itegeko-Teka no 20/75 ryo kuwa 20/06/1975 ryerekeye ubwishingizi, ingingo ya 12 – Amabwiriza rusange yerekeranye n’ubwishingizi bwihariye bw’inkongi, ingigo ya 46. Amategeko agenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa – Ubufatanye mu nshingano zo kwishyura – Ubufatanye mu nshingano hagati y’umwishingizi n’uwagize uruhare mu kwangiza ibintu by’uwishingiwe – Ubufatanye mu nshingano zo kwishyura ntibukekwa, bugomba kuba buteganyijwe ku buryo bweruye mu masezerano, keretse mu gihe bushingiye ku mategeko – Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 ryerekeye amasezerano n’imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 63 n’iya 100. Amategeko agenga ubwishingizi – Igena ry’indishyi mu gihe nta muburanyi ugaragaza agaciro k’icyishingiwe ku munsi icyago kibereyeho – Iyo nta muburanyi ugaragaza agaciro k’icyishingiwe ku munsi icyago kibereho, indishyi zigenwa hashingiwe ku gaciro kishingiwe – Itegeko-Teka no 20/75 ryo kuwa 20/06/1975 ryerekeye ubwishingizi, ingingo ya 27.

Page 186

156 156

Amategeko agenga imanza z’ubucuruzi – Igihano gihatira kwishyura – Mu manza z’ubwishingizi, Urukiko rushobora kugena igihano gihatira kwishyura uwishingiye mu gihe yamaze igihe kirekire asaba kwishyurwa ariko ntibikorwe – Itegeko no 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 216. Incamake y’ikibazo: Kuwa 30/10/2011, Nzayirata Donat, wari umukozi wo mu rugo rwa Kayibanda Joseph, yatwitse imodoka 2 za Modern Technology Services (M.T.S) ihagarariwe na Kayibanda Joseph. Nyuma y’iyo mpanuka, M.T.S Ltd yandikiye SORAS AG Ltd iyisaba ko zakorwa cyangwa ikishyurwa agaciro zari zifite mbere y’uko impanuka iba. Kuwa 26/01/2012 SORAS AG Ltd yasubije M.T.S Ltd ko idashobora kwishyura kuko inkongi yatewe n’umuntu uwishingiwe yaryozwa ibyangijwe nawe bitewe n’uko Nzayirata Donat watwitse imodoka yari umukozi wa Kayibanda Joseph. M.T.S Ltd yareze SORAS AG LTD mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ivuga ko imodoka zatwitswe ari izayo atari iza Kayibanda, kandi ko bombi ari bantu babiri batandukanye. Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwategetse SORAS AG Ltd na Nzayirata Donat gufatanya kwishyura agaciro k’imodoka, rutegeka kandi SORAS AG Ltd kwishyura M.T.S Ltd na Kayibanda Joseph indishyi. SORAS AG Ltd yajuririye mu Rukiko rw’ikirenga ivuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwakoresheje nabi ingingo ya 260 y’igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano bituma urubanza rucibwa nabi, ko Urukiko rutasobanuye itegeko ryakurijwe n’ingingo zishingiye ku ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 187

157 157

byabaye mu rubanza; bituma Urukiko rutegeka ubufatanye bwo kwishyura hagati ya SORAS AG Ltd na Nzayirata Donat kandi ntaho bahuriye ndetse ntirutange impamvu z’ubwo bufatanye.M.T.S Ltd na Kayibanda Joseph wagobokeshejwe mu rubanza bavuga ko ingingo ya 260 y’igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano yakoreshejwe neza kubera ko Kayibanda Joseph atari kwishingira ibikorwa byakozwe na Nzayirata Donat kuko mu mirimo yari ashinzwe, iyo gutwika imodoka za M.T.S Ltd itarimo. Bavuze kandi ko bitewe n’uko SORAS AG Ltd ariyo yahamagaje Nzayirata Donat n’ubwo atitabye yifuzaga ko bafatanya, ko mu gihe yumva atari ngombwa, yarangiza inshingano zayo zo kwishyura M.T.S Ltd ibyononekaye byose yishingiye igategekwa gukoresha imodoka cyangwa kwishyura agaciro kishingiwe k’imodoka zatwitswe. M.T.S Ltd na Kayibanda Joseph batanze ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi, M.T.S Ltd isaba SORAS AG Ltd amafaranga y’ikurikirana rubanza n’igihembo cya avoka angana na 10% y’amafaranga izagenerwa n’Urukiko no kuyitegeka gutanga 1.000.000Frw buri kwezi y’igihano gihatira kwishyura. Naho Kayibanda Joseph we yasabye amafaranga y’ikurikirana rubanza n’igihembo cya avoka bingana na 800.000Frw. SORAS AG Ltd yo yavuze ko nta ndishyi, nta n’amafaranga igomba M.T.S Ltd na Kayibanda Joseph. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Bashebuja n’abakoresha baryozwa ibyangijwe n’abakozi babo mu gihe bakora imirimo babashinze. Ibi ntibyakurikizwa mu gihe uburyozwe bw’uwishingiye buba bukomoka ku masezerano yagiranye n’uwishingiwe kandi ntaho umwishingizi yashingira ahunga cyangwa yivanaho inshingano ziteganyijwe mu masezerano. SORAS AG Ltd v. MTS Ltd

Page 188

158 158 158

2. Ubufatanye ntibukekwa, bugomba guteganywa ku buryo bweruye keretse mu gihe ubufatanye buriho nta shiti bishingiye ku mategeko. Umwishingizi ntategekwa gufatanya n’uwakoze amakosa mu gihe ibyo umwishingizi asabwa n’uwishingiwe bikubiye mu masezerano bagiranye. Icyakora, nyuma yo kwishyura indishyi asabwa, umwishingizi aba afite uburenganzira bwo gusaba ko uwakoze amakosa yishyura ibyangiritse, akabikora atanze ikindi kirego.

3. Mu gihe ababuranyi batagaragaza agaciro k’icyishingiwe ku munsi icyago kibereyeho, hishyurwa amafaranga y’agaciro kishingiwe. Iyo indishyi kandi zasabwe n’uwishingiwe, umwishingizi ategekwa kwishyura indishyi zitewe no kutubahiriza inshingano cyangwa gutinda kuzubahiriza, igihe cyose atagaragaza ko kutayubahirza byatewe n’impamvu itamuturutseho, bipfa gusa kutabamo uburiganya. Izo ndishyi kandi ziba zigizwe n’igihombo byateye uwishingiwe hamwe n’inyungu byamuvukije.

4. Igihano gihatira kwishyura gicibwa umwishingizi mu gihe uwishingiwe yamusabye kumwishyura akamara igihe kirekire atabikora. Ubujurire nta shingiro bufite. Ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bufite ishingiro. Amagarama aherereye ku wajuriye. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 ryerekeye amasezerano n’imirimo nshimganwa, ingingo ya 45, 47, 63 n’iya 100. Itegeko – Teka no 20/75 ryo kuwa 20/06/1975 ryerekeye ubwishingizi, ingingo ya 12, 27 na 32. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 189

159

Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA Kuwa 30/10/2011, Nzayirata Donat yatwitse imodoka [1] ebyiri (2) za Modern Technology Services Ltd (en sigle M.T.S. Ltd) zari muri parking y’inzu ya Kayibanda Joseph wari umuyobozi wayo. Kubera ko izo modoka zari zarafatiwe ubwishingizi muri SORAS AG Ltd, M.T.S. Ltd yayimenyesheje iby’iyo mpanuka inayoherereza devis de réparation y’izo modoka zombi Toyota Hilux RAB 417P na Nissan Infiniti RAB 115U ndetse n’agaciro zari zifite mbere y’impanuka, iyisaba ko zakorwa cyangwa akishyurwa agaciro zari zifite mbere y’uko impanuka iba. Kuwa 26/01/2012, SORAS AG Ltd yasubije M.T.S. Ltd [2] ko idashobora kwishyura, isobanura ko: “cet incendie a été commis par une personne dont notre assuré est civilement responsable en tant que son préposé” kandi ko ingingo ya 39 y’amasezerano bagiranye iteganya ko : “l’assuré n’a aucun droit aux garanties dégâts matériels, vol, incendie lorsqu’il se trouve dans une situation telle qu’en matière d’assurance responsabilité civile et conformément à la loi, la société pourrait soit lui refuser son intervention, soit lui réclamer l’indemnité payée”, kandi Nzayirata Donat watwitse izo modoka ari umukozi (préposé) wa Kayibanda Joseph. MTS Ltd yareze SORAS AG Ltd mu Rukiko Rukuru [3] rw’Ubucuruzi iyisaba ibivugwa mu kiburanwa hejuru, isobanura SORAS AG Ltd v. MTS Ltd 159

Page 190

160 160

ko izo modoka ari izayo atari iza Kayibanda, kandi ko bombi ari abantu babiri batandukanye (deux personnes juridiques différentes), ariyo mpamvu SORAS AG Ltd igomba kwishyura izo mpanuka. Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwaciye urubanza [4] RCOM 0050/12/HCC kuwa 28/02/2013, rutegeka SORAS AG Ltd na Nzayirata Donat gufatanya kwishyura (in solidum) M.T.S.Ltd agaciro k’izo modoka kangana na 42.000.000Frw, rutegeka kandi SORAS AG Ltd kwishyura M.T.S. Ltd 20.160.000Frw, ruyitegeka no kwishyura Kayibanda Joseph 1.050.000Frw. SORAS AG Ltd ntiyishimiye imikirize y’ urubanza, [5] kuwa 22/03/2013, irujuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, ivuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwakoresheje nabi ingingo ya 260

y’Igitabo cya III cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano, bituma urubanza ruba “mal jugée”, ko rwirengagije ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 141 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo kuwa 4/6/2003, nk’uko ryavuguruwe kugeza ubu, ingingo ya 147 y’Itegeko no 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/6/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, n’iya 100 y’Igitabo cya III cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano kuko rwategetse nta mpamvu ubufatanye hagati ya SORAS AG Ltd na Nzayirata Donat mu kwishyura M.T.S. Ltd 42.000.000Frw, ndetse ko rwirengangije ingingo ya 39 ya “conditions générales communes de l’assurance du véhicule contre l’incendie, le vol et les dégâts matériels”. Kayibanda Joseph yatanze ubujurire bwuririye ku bwa [6] SORAS AG Ltd, asaba Urukiko ko yategekwa kumuha indishyi ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 191

161 161

zirebana n’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka ku rwego rw’ubujurire. MTS Ltd yatanze ubujurire bwuririye ku bwa SORAS [7] AG Ltd isaba indishyi zitandukanye zirebana n’impanuka yabaye, isaba kandi Urukiko gushyiraho igihano gihatira kurangiza urubanza, no kuyitegeka kumuha indishyi kubera gukomeza gusiragizwa mu manza nta mpamvu. Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame kuwa [8] 21/10/2014, SORAS AG Ltd ihagarariwe na Me Rusanganwa Jean Bosco, Modern Technology Services (M.T.S.) Ltd ihagarariwe na Me Munderere Léopold, Kayibanda Joseph ahagarariwe na Me Ndayisaba Fidèle, naho Nzayirata Donat atitabye kandi yahamagajwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, Urukiko rufata icyemezo cyo kuburanisha adahari. Mu iburanisha, SORAS AG Ltd yamenyesheje Urukiko ko iretse impamvu y’ubujurire irebana no kutubahiriza ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 39 ya “conditions générales communes de l’assurance du véhicule contre l’incendie, le vol et les dégâts matériels”. II. ISESENGURA RY’IBIBAZO BIGIZE

URUBANZA a. Kumenya niba Kayibanda Joseph yaryozwa ibyakozwe na Nzayirata Donat, umukozi we wu mu rugo. Me Rusanganwa Jean Bosco avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru [9] rw’Ubucuruzi rwakoresheje nabi ingingo ya 260 y’Igitabo cya III cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano kuko rwemeje ko Kayibanda Joseph ataryozwa inkongi y’umuriro yakozwe na SORAS AG Ltd v. MTS Ltd

Page 192

162 162

Nzayirata Donat, watwitse imodoka ziburanwa muri uru rubanza, nyamara Nzayirata Donat ari umukozi we. Asobanura ko ingingo ya 260 y’Igitabo cya III cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano yavuzwe haruguru isobanutse ku buryo nka shebuja, Kayibanda Joseph agomba kuryozwa ibikorwa by’umukozi we byakozwe ari mu kazi, bityo akaba asanga kwemeza ko shebuja ataryozwa ibyakozwe n’umukozi we mu gihe atamutumye kubikora no mu gihe ibyo yakoze bidahuye n’imirimo yari ashinzwe, ari ukwirengangiza ibiteganywa n’iyo ngingo. Asobanura kandi ko igitekerezo cyakoreshejwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi kivuga “gukora ikosa rijyanye n’imirimo umuntu ashinzwe” ntaho kiri mu ngingo ya 260 yavuzwe haruguru, nta n’aho kiri mu itegeko, nyamara nta kintu kigomba kwongerwa ku byo Umushingamategeko yavuze (il ne faut pas ajouter à la loi). Me Rusanganwa Jean Bosco avuga ko usibye ibyo [10] byose, hari urubanza RP 0054/11/TB/KCY rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Kacyiru kuwa 25/1/2012 aho Nzayirata Donat yemera ko yatwitse izo modoka kubera shebuja yamukubise imigeri mu mutwe no mu mbavu kuko yamusanze yateretse ibiryo mu modoka, maze nawe akagira umujinya akazitwika, bityo akaba asanga imvugo ya Nzayirata Donat igaragaza neza ko ibyo yakoze yabikoze ari ku kazi. Me Rusanganwa Jean Bosco asoza avuga ko hashingiwe [11] kuri ibyo byose, Kayibanda Joseph agomba kuryozwa (responsable) ibyangiritse kuko amasezerano y’ubwishingizi adakuraho uburyozwe bw’abandi bantu, bityo Kayibanda Joseph, mu mategeko, akaba afatwa nk’umuntu wishingiye Nzayirata Donat, umukozi we. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 193

163 163

Me Munderere Léopold avuga ko ibivugwa na SORAS [12] AG Ltd nta shingiro bifite kubera ko mu mirimo Nzayirata Donat yari ashinzwe kwa Kayibanda Joseph, iyo gutwika imodoka za M.T.S. Ltd itarimo, ko niba SORAS AG Ltd ibyemeza, igomba kubitangira ibimenyetso. Akomeza avuga ko ingingo ya 260 y’Igitabo cya III cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano SORAS AG Ltd yitwaza, iyivugisha ibyo itavuga kandi ko Kayibanda Joseph yabisobanuye neza mu Rukiko rubanza aho yatanze inyandiko z’abahanga (doctrines) n’imanza zaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwemeza ko umukoresha (Leta) ataryozwa indishyi zisabwa mu gihe abakoze ibyaha, n’ubwo ari abakozi bawe, babikoze batabitumwe n’umukoresha (Leta), bityo akaba asanga na Kayibanda Joseph nta kintu yaryozwa mu gihe atigeze atuma Nzayirata Donat gukora ibikorwa by’ubugome byakorewe M.T.S. Ltd. Me Munderere Léopold avuga ko mu gihe SORAS AG [13] Ltd yiyemerera ko Nzayirata Donat atari umukozi wa M.T.S. Ltd, nk’uko yabyanditse mu ibaruwa yo kuwa 26/1/2012, no kuba SORAS AG Ltd ariyo umwishingizi wayo ndetse ko yishyuwe “primes d’assurances”, igomba kwishyura mu gihe icyo yayifatiye kibaye, hakurikijwe amasezerano ifitanye na M.T.S. Ltd. Me Ndayisaba Fidèle avuga ko ibivugwa na SORAS AG [14] Ltd nta shingiro bifite kuko nk’uko Urukiko rwabisobanuye, mu nshingano Nzayirata Donat yari yarahawe gutwika imodoka bitarimo, ko yakoze igikorwa gihabanye n’imirimo yari ashinzwe. Ko mu gufata icyemezo cyajuririwe, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwifashishije ibitekerezo by’abahanga mu mategeko aho bavuga ko umukoresha ataryozwa byanze SORAS AG Ltd v. MTS Ltd

Page 194

164 164

bikunze ibikorwa by’umukozi we mu gihe yateshutse ku nshingano ze asanganywe mu kazi ashinzwe, ndetse rukemeza ko ntacyo Kayibanda Joseph yaryozwa ku byakozwe na Nzayirata Donat, bityo akaba asanga SORAS AG Ltd ikoresha ingingo ya 260 y’Igitabo cya III cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano uko itari kuko mu gika cyayo cya 3, isobanura neza ko ba shebuja n’abakoresha baryozwa ibyangijwe n’abakozi babo mu gihe bakora imirimo babashinze.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA Ingingo ya 260, agace ka 3 y’Igitabo cya III cy’urwunge [15] rw’amategeko mbonezamubano iteganya ko “Bashebuja n’abakoresha baryozwa ibyangijwe n’abakozi babo mu gihe bakora imirimo babashinze. [......]”. Ingingo ya 33 y’Igitabo cya III cy’urwunge [16] rw’amategeko mbonezamubano ryakoreshwaga igihe SORAS AG Ltd na M.T.S. Ltd bagiranye amasezerano y’ubwishingire iteganya ko “Amasezerano akozwe k’uburyo bukurikije amategeko, aba itegeko ku bayagiranye. Ashobora guseswa ari uko babyumvikanyeho cyangwa ku mpamvu zemewe n’amategeko. Agomba kwubahirizwa nta buryarya”. Ingingo ya 11, agace ka mbere y’Itegeko-Teka no 20/75 [17] yo kuwa 20/6/1975 ryerekeye ubwishingire iteganya ko “Uwishingira yishingira ibyaba ku wishingiwe byateganyijwe mu masezerano”. Ingingo ya 46 ya “conditions générales communes de [18] l’assurance du véhicule contre l’incendie, le vol et les dégâts matériels”, irebana na “conditions spéciales de l’assurance ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 195

165 165

contre l’incendie” iteganya ko “la société assure le véhicule désigné (châssis, carrosserie, y compris les accessoires fixes indispensables à l’usage normal du véhicule) contre l’incendie, les dégâts par le feu, l’explosion, les jets de flammes et la foudre, en quelque lieu que l’événement se produise et quelle qu’en soit la cause, à l’exception cependant; a) des dommages causés par un chargement de matières ou objets facilement inflammables ou explosibles; b) des dommages causés par suite de tremblement de terre ou d’éruption volcanique; c) des dommages causés aux appareils électriques et résultant de leur seul fonctionnement; d) des cas d’exclusion résultant des conditions générales du titre II. Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga muri uru rubanza M.T.S. [19] Ltd isaba ko SORAS AG Ltd itegekwa kubahiriza ishingano zayo zikomoka ku masezerano y’ubwishingizi bagiranye kuwa 11/1/2011 (contrat d’assurance véhicule contre l’incendie, le vol et les dégats matériels). Ku byerekeranye n’ibivugwa na SORAS AG Ltd ko [20] hakurikijwe ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 260, agace ka 3 y’Igitabo cya III cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano, irebana n’amakosa akozwe ku bushake n’ibisa nayo, itagomba kwishingira ibyakozwe na Nzayirata Donat ku modoka za M.T.S. Ltd zivugwa muri uru rubanza kuko ari umukozi wa Kayibanda Joseph, n’uyu akaba umuyobozi wa M.T.S. Ltd, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga iyo ngingo itakoreshwa muri uru rubanza kuko ibisabwa na M.T.S. Ltd birebana n’uburyozwe bwa SORAS AG Ltd bukomoka ku masezereno y’ubwishingizi SORAS AG Ltd v. MTS Ltd

Page 196

166 166

yavuzwe haruguru. Byongeye kandi, nta ngingo nimwe y‘ayo masezerano iteganya ko SORAS AG Ltd itagomba kwishingira ibyangijwe n’umukozi wa M.T.S. Ltd cyangwa n’umukozi w’umuyobozi wa M.T.S. Ltd, bityo hakurikijwe ingingo ya 64 y’Itegeko no 45/2011 ryo kuwa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, iya 11, agace ka mbere y’Itegeko-Teka no 20/75 yo kuwa 20/6/1975 ryerekeye ubwishingizi n’iya 46 ya “conditions générales communes de l’assurance du véhicule contre l’incendie, le vol et les dégâts matériels”, irebana na “conditions spéciales de l’assurance contre l’incendie”, SORAS AG Ltd igomba kubahiriza ishingano zayo zo kwishingira impanuka yabaye ku modoka zashinganywe. Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga n’ubwo iyo ngingo yaba [21] yari gukoreshwa (par extraordinaire), umuntu wangiritse wenyine (seule la victime) ashobora gusaba urukiko ko hakurikizwa iyo ngingo, kuko shebuja wa nyirugukora ikosa ryamwangirije1, yanze kumuriha ibyangiritse n’umukozi we bityo SORAS AG Ltd ikaba nta bubasha ifite bwo gusaba ko muri uru rubanza hakurikizwa ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 260, agace ka 3 y’Igitabo cya III cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano kuko itari “victime” y’amakosa yakozwe na Nzayirata Donat, umukozi wa Kayibanda Joseph.

1Le principe de la responsabilité civile du commettant a pour but de protéger les tiers contre l’insolvabilité de l’auteur du préjudice en leur permettant de recourir contre son employeur, il s’ensuit que seule la victime a qualité pour mettre en cause et invoquer contre lui (l’employeur), à son profit, les dispositions de l’article 1384, alinéa 5 du code civil français (pendant de l’article 260, alinéa 3 de notre code civil, livre III), Civ. 6 févr. 1974 : D. 1974. 409, 28 oct. 1987: Bull. civ. II, n° 214, in code civil, édition 2000, Dalloz, Paris, 2000, P.

1039. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 197

167 167

Byongeye kandi, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga, nk’uko [22] Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwabisobanuye, hakurikizwa ibiteganya n’ingingo ya 260, agace ka 3 y’Igitabo cya III cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano gusa mu gihe umukozi yangirije undi cyangwa ibyabandi, akora imirimo ashinzwe, nyamara bigaragara mu rubanza

RP 0054/11/TB/KCY rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Kacyiru kuwa 25/1/2012 ko Nzayirata Donat, umuzamu kwa Kayibanda Joseph, yemeye ko yatwitse izo modoka kubera shebuja yari yamukubise, nawe (Nzayirata Donat) akagira umujinya akazitwika, bityo igikorwa cye kikaba ntaho gihuriye n’imirimo yari ashinzwe (kurinda ibyo yari ashinzwe) kandi ko yagikoze abishaka ku mpamvu ze bwite2. Usibye n’ibyo byose kandi, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga [23] rurasanga niyo Nzayirata Donat aza kuba umukozi wa M.T.S. Ltd, nta cyari kubuza SORAS AG Ltd kwishingira ibyangiritse kuko ingingo ya 12 y’Itegeko-Teka no 20/75 ryo kuwa 20/6/1975 ryerekeye ubwishingizi iteganya ko “Uwishingiye yishingira ibyabura n’ibyakwangirika bitewe n’abantu uwishingiwe aryozwa hakurikijwe ibivugwa mu gitabo cy’amategeko y’imbonezamubano, batitaye ku imiterere y’amakosa yakozwe n’abo bantu n’uko angana”.

2Le commettant ne s’exonère de sa responsabilité que si son préposé a agi hors des fonctions auxquelles il était employé, sans autorisation, et à des fins étrangères à ses attributions”, Ass. Plén. 19 mai 1988 : D. 1988. 153, in code civil, édition 2000, Dalloz, Paris, 2000, P. 1039. “Que dès lors, après avoir constaté que la cause dedommages résidait dans un acte délibéré, étranger à ses fonctions, accompli par ………à des fins personnelles, la Cour d’appel a décidé à bon droit que la responsabilité de la société n’était pas engagée”, Ass. Plén. 17 juin 1983. SORAS AG Ltd v. MTS Ltd

Page 198

168 168

Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro byose bimaze gutangwa, [24] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga iyo mpamvu yatanzwe na SORAS AG Ltd nta gaciro ikwiye guhabwa, bityo ikaba igomba kwishyura M.T.S. Ltd ibyangiritse, nyuma igasimbura M.T.S. Ltd mu byerekeye uburenganzira bwo gukurikirana uwatumye yishyura kubera ibikorwa bye3. b. Kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwarakoze amakosa mu gutegeka ubufatanye hagati ya SORAS AG Ltd na Nzayirata Donat mu kwishyura M.T.S. Ltd. Me Rusanganwa Jean Bosco avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru [25] rw’Ubucuruzi rwategetse ko SORAS AG Ltd yishyura 42.000.000Frw, ifatanyije na Nzayirata Donat kandi ntaho bahuriye ndetse ko rutatanze impamvu z’ubwo bufatanye (absence de motivation), bityo akaba asanga Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rutarubahirije ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 141 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo kuwa 4/6/2003, nk’uko ryavuguruwe kugeza ubu, n’ingingo ya 147 y’Itegeko no21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/6/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ndetse ko rwirengagije ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 100 y’Igitabo cya III cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano. Me Munderere Léopold avuga ko ibivugwa na SORAS [26] AG Ltd nta shingiro bifite kuko yiyibagiza ko ariyo yahamagaje

3Ingingo ya 32, agace ka 1 y’Itegeko-Teka n° 20/75 yo kuwa 20/6/1975 ryerekeye ubwishingire iteganya ko “Uwishingiye wishyuye indishyi z’ubwishingire, asimbura uwo yishingiye, mu rugero rw’indishyi yatanze, mu byerekeye uburenganzira no gukurikirana abandi bantu batumye yishyura kubera ibikorwa byabo”. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 199

169 169

Nzayirata Donat mu rubanza, kandi ikaba yarifuzaga ko bafatanya kwishyura kuko yemezaga ko ariwe nyirabayazana w’amakuba M.T.S. Ltd yagize. Akomeza avuga ko niba SORAS AG Ltd yumva atari ngombwa ko Nzayirata Donat ayifasha kwishyura ibyo yangije, yo yarangiza inshingano zayo zo kwishyura M.T.S. Ltd ibyononekaye byose yishingiye. Me Ndayisaba Fidèle avuga ko ibivugwa na SORAS AG [27] Ltd nta shingiro bifite kuko Nzayirata Donat yakoze ikosa ryo gutwika imodoka, bityo hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 258 y’Igitabo cya III cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano akaba agomba kuryozwa ibikorwa bye. Akomeza avuga ko mu gihe SORAS AG Ltd yakiriye “prime d’assurance”, kuyitegeka kwishyura bikaba bitanyuranyije n’amategeko cyane ko ingingo ya 46 y’amasezerano (conditions générales communes de l’assurance du véhicule contre l’incendie, le vol et les dégâts matériels) bagiranye igaragaza igihe yishyurira, bidakozwe rero bikaba ari ukwikungahaza kudafite ishingiro (enrichissement sans cause), hatirengagijwe ko ariyo yagobokesheje Kayibanda Joseph na Nzayirata Donat, bityo Urukiko rusanze batafatanya kwishyura M.T.S. Ltd, rukaba rwayitegeka kwishyura yonyine.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA Ingingo ya 100 y’Igitabo cya III cy’urwunge [28] rw’amategeko mbonezamubano ryakoreshwaga igihe SORAS AG Ltd na M.T.S. Ltd bagiranye amasezerano y’ubwishingizi iteganya ko “Ubufatanye ntibukekwa, bugomba guteganywa k’uburyo bweruye. Iryo hame rireka gukurikizwa gusa mu gihe ubufatanye buriho nta shiti bishingiye ku mategeko”. SORAS AG Ltd v. MTS Ltd

Page 200

170 170

Ingingo ya 141, agace ka kabiri y’Itegeko Nshinga rya [29] Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo kuwa 4/6/2003, nk’uko ryavuguruwe kugeza ubu, iteganya ko “urubanza rwose rwaciwe rugomba kugaragaza impamvu rushingiyeho kandi rukandikwa mu ngingo zarwo zose [.....]”. Ingingo ya 147, agace ka 2, ka 3 na ka 4 y’Itegeko no [30] 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/6/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko “Ica ry’urubanza risobanura itegeko ryakurikijwe n’ingingo zishingiye ku byabaye zagaragajwe mu rubanza. Ica ry’urubanza rigomba gusobanura impamvu yatumye ikimenyetso cyaba cyaratanzwe kitemerwa n’agaciro riha ibimenyetso byose byatanzwe mu rubanza. Ica ry’urubanza ry’urubanza rigomba kwerekana amategeko yose yakurikijwe mu ikemura ry’urubanza”. Ingingo ya 63 y’Igitabo cya III cy’urwunge [31] rw’amategeko mbonezamubano ryakoreshwaga igihe SORAS AG Ltd na M.T.S. Ltd bagiranye amasezerano y’ubwishingizi iteganya ko “Amasezerano agira inkurikizi hagati y’abayagiranye gusa, ntabangamira undi wese kandi amugirira akamaro gusa mu biteganyijwe mu ingingo ya 21”. Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga bigaragara mu gika cya [32] 13 cy’urubanza rwajuririwe ko hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 258 y’Igitabo cya III cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwemeje ko SORAS AG Ltd igomba gufatanya na Nzayirata Donat kwishyura M.T.S. Ltd (in solidum) 42.000.000Frw ariko ntirwasobanura impamvu y’ubwo bufatanye rutegeka, bityo rukaba rwarirengangije ibiteganywa n’ingingo zimaze kuvugwa. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 201

171 171

Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga na none ubwo bufatanye [33] budashoboka muri uru rubanza kuko ibyo M.T.S. Ltd isaba SORAS AG Ltd kwishyura bikomoka ku masezerano y’ubwishingizi bagiranye kandi ko Nzayirata Donat ntayarimo. Usibye n’ibyo, muri uru rubanza SORAS AG Ltd ikaba itari ifite ububasha bwo gusaba ko Nzayirata Donat ategekwa kwishyura M.T.S. Ltd ibyangiritse hashingiwe ku makosa yakozwe ku bushake n’ibisa nayo (responsabilité délictuelle) mu gihe M.T.S. Ltd isaba ko SORAS AG Ltd itegekwa kwishyura indishyi z’ubwishingizi hashingiwe ku masezerano y’ubwishingizi (responsabilité contractuelle). Byongeye kandi, SORAS AG Ltd ifite ububasha n’inyungu yo gusaba ko Nzayirata Donat ategekwa kwishyura ibyangiritse hashingiwe ku makosa akozwe ku bushake n’ibisa nayo (responsabilité délictuelle) gusa nyuma yo kwishyura indishyi z’ubwishingire ariko itanga ikindi kirego (action récursoire), hashingiwe ku ingingo ya 32 y’Itegeko-Teka no 20/75 ryo kuwa 20/6/1975 ryerekeye ubwishingizi ryavuzwe haruguru. Hakurikijwe ibisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, Urukiko [34] rw’Ikirenga rurasanga hashingiwe ku ingingo ya 63 y’Igitabo cya III cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rutagombaga gutegeka Nzayirata Donat kwishyura ibyangiritse kubera icyago cyabaye ku modoka zishingiwe na SORAS AG Ltd ndetse ko rutagombaga gutegeka SORAS AG Ltd gufatanya na Nzayirata Donat kwishyura M.T.S. Ltd (in solidum) 42.000.000Frw, bityo rukaba rwarirengangije ibiteganywa n’ingingo zavuzwe haruguru. C. Kumenya niba M.T.S. Ltd ikwiye guhabwa indishyi isaba. SORAS AG Ltd v. MTS Ltd

Page 202

172 172

Me Munderere Léopold avuga ko SORAS AG Ltd [35] igomba gutegekwa gukoresha imodoka “Toyota Hilux” ku mafaranga 23.290.170Frw nk’uko bigaragara muri “devis ya réparation” cyangwa se kwishyura “valeur assurée” yayo ingana na 22.000.000 Frw no gukoresha imodoka “Infinity” ku mafaranga 37.161.806Frw nk’uko bigaragara muri “devis ya réparation” cyangwa kwishyura “valeur assurée” yayo ingana na 20.000.000Frw. Me Munderere Léopold akomeza avuga ko M.T.S. Ltd [36] isaba ko SORAS AG Ltd itegekwa kuyishyura 52.800.000Frw yishyuye mu gukodesha izindi modoka zo kuyifasha mu kazi kuva kuwa 30/10/2011 kugeza kuwa 30/6/2014, isaba kandi ko ayo mafaranga azakomeza kwiyongera kugeza urubanza ruciwe. Me Munderere Léopold asoza avuga ko MTS Ltd isaba [37] kandi ko SORAS AG Ltd itegekwa kuyishyura amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya avoka angana na 10% y’amafaranga izagenerwa n’Urukiko no kuyiteka gutanga 1.000.000Frw buri kwezi ya “astreinte”. Me Rusanganwa Jean Bosco avuga ko nta ndishyi [38] SORAS AG Ltd igomba M.T.S. Ltd.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA Ingingo ya 27 y’Itegeko-Teka no20/75 ryo kuwa [39] 20/6/1975 ryerekeye ubwishingizi iteganya ko “ubwinshigire bw’ibintu ni amasezerano y’indishyi. Umubare w’indishyi ntushobora na rimwe gusumba agaciro k’ikintu cyishingiwe ku munsi icyago kibereyeho”. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 203

173 173

Ingingo ya 45 y’Igitabo cya III cy’urwunge [40] rw’amategeko mbonezamubano ryakoreshwaga igihe SORAS AG Ltd na M.T.S. Ltd bagiranye amasezerano y’ubwishingizi iteganya ko “Ugomba inshingano ategekwa, iyo bibaye ngombwa, kwishyura indishyi zitewe no kutubahiriza inshingano cyangwa no gutinda kuyubahiriza, igihe cyose atagaragaza ko kutayubahiriza byatewe n’impamvu itamuturutseho, bipfa gusa kutabamo uburiganya”. Ingingo ya 47 y’Igitabo cya III cy’urwunge [41] rw’amategeko mbonezamubano ryakoreshwaga igihe SORAS AG Ltd na M.T.S. Ltd bagiranye amasezerano y’ubwishingizi iteganya ko “Indishyi zigenewe ugombwa inshingano zigizwe, muri rusange, n’igihombo byamuteye hamwe n’inyungu byamuvukije, uretse ibiseguriwe n’ibihinduwe bikurikira”. Ingingo ya 258 y’Igitabo cya III cy’urwunge [42] rw’amategeko mbonezamubano iteganya ko “Igikorwa cyose cy’umuntu cyangirije undi gitegeka nyirugukora ikosa rigikomokaho kuriha ibyangiritse”. Ku byerekeye n’indishyi zirebana n’imodoka zangiritse, [43] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga mu gace ka 13 k’urubanza rwajuririwe, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwategetse SORAS AG Ltd guha M.T.S. Ltd 42.000.000Frw angana n’umubare w’amafaranga y’imodoka zishingiwe. Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga mu gihe ababuranyi [44] batagaragaza agaciro k’imodoka zishingiwe ku munsi icyago kibereyeho ndetse ko SORAS AG Ltd nta kintu ivuga kubyo M.T.S. Ltd isaba guhabwa, SORAS AG Lts ikaba igomba guha M.T.S. Ltd indishyi zingana n‘umubare w’amafaranga izo modoka zishingiwe (le montant de la garantie ou la valeur SORAS AG Ltd v. MTS Ltd

Page 204

174 174

assurée), bityo SORAS AG Ltd ikaba igomba kwishyura MTS Ltd 42.000.000Frw angana n’umubare w’amafaranga y‘imodoka zishingiwe. Ku byerekeye 52.800.000Frw y’ubukode bw’imodoka [45] asabwa na M.T.S. Ltd, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga Urukiko Rukuru rwageneye M.T.S. Ltd 19.360.000Frw irebana n’ubukode bw’imodoka ebyiri kuva ku kwezi kwa mbere k’umwaka wa 2012 kugeza ku kwezi kwa cumi na kumwe k’umwaka wa 2012. Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga M.T.S. Ltd yarakomeje [46] gukodesha imodoka ebyiri (Toyota Hilux RAB 207 V ku mafaranga 910.000 buri kwezi na Toyota RAV 4 RAB 838 P ku mafaranga 850.000 buri kwezi) kugeza mu kwezi kwa gatandatu 2014 kubera ko SORAS AG Ltd itubahirije inshingano zayo zikomoka ku masezerano y’ubwishingizi, bityo hashingiwe ku ingingo ya 45 n’iya 47 z’Igitabo cya III cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano zavuzwe haruguru ndetse nk’uko bigaragara mu ma fagitiri yatanzwe na M.T.S Ltd, SORAS AG Ltd igomba kuyisubiza 33.440.000Frw ku bukode bw‘imodoka kuva mu kwezi kwa cumi n‘abiri 2012 kugeza mu kwezi kwa gatandatu 2014, hiyongereyeho 19.360.000Frw yari yagenewe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, yose hamwe akaba 52.800.000Frw. Ku byerekeye amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza [47] n’igihembo cy’avoka kingana na 10% y’amafaranga izagenerwa, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga amafaranga asabwa na M.T.S. Ltd ari menshi, bityo hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 258 y’Igitabo cya III cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano, mu bushishozi bwarwo, ruyigenera 300.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza na 500.000Frw y’igihembo cy’avoka, ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 205

175 175

yiyongereyeho 300.000Frw yari yagenewe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, yose hamwe akaba 1.100.000Frw. Ku byerekeranye n’igihano MTS Ltd isabira SORAS [48] AG Ltd cyo guhatira kurangiza urubanza (astreinte), Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga hashingiwe ku ingingo ya 216 y’Itegeko no 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/6/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, icyo gihano gikwiye kubera ko imaze igihe kire kire isaba ayo mafaranga ariko rukaba rugennye mu bwitonzi bwarwo ko SORAS AG Ltd igomba guhatirwa kwishyura M.T.S. Ltd 500.000Frw buri kwezi mu gihe izatinda (izakererwa) kwishyura indishyi zategetswe muri uru rubanza aho kuba 1.000.000Frw kuko ari menshi. d. Kumenya niba Kayibanda Joseph akwiye guhabwa amafaranga asaba. Me Ndayisaba Fidèle avuga ko hashingiwe ku ngingo ya [49] 167 y’Itegeko nᵒ21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/6/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, asaba Urukiko ko SORAS AG Ltd yategekwa guha Kayibanda Joseph indishyi zirebana n’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’avoka ku rwego rw’ubujurire zihwanye na 800.000Frw. Asoza asaba kourubanza rwajuririwe rutahinduka mu ngingo zarwo zose, usibye ku birebana n’indishyi asaba. Me Rusanganwa Jean Bosco avuga ko nta mafaranga [50] SORAS AG Ltd igomba guha Kayibanda Joseph. SORAS AG Ltd v. MTS Ltd

Page 206

176 176

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA Ingingo ya 258 y’Igitabo cya III cy’urwunge [51] rw’amategeko mbonezamubano iteganya ko “Igikorwa cyose cy’umuntu cyangirije undi gitegeka nyirugukora ikosa rigikomokaho kuriha ibyangiritse”. Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga Kayibanda Joseph [52] akwiye guhabwa amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’avoka asaba, ni ukuvuga 300.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza na 500.000Frw y’igihembo cy’avoka, yiyongereyeho 1.000.000Frw yari yagenewe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, yose hamwe akaba 1.800.000Frw. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa SORAS AG Ltd nta shingiro [53] bufite. Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa M.T.S. Ltd bwuririye ku bwa [54] SORAS AG Ltd bufite inshingiro. Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Kayibanda Joseph bwuririye [55] ku bwa SORAS AG Ltd bufite inshingiro. Rutegetse SORAS AG Ltd kwishyura M.T.S. Ltd [56] 42.000.000Frw angana n’umubare w’amafaranga y’imodoka zishingiwe. Rutegetse SORAS AG Ltd kwishyura M.T.S. Ltd [57] 52.800.000Frw ku bukode bw’imodoka kuva ku kwezi kwa ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 207

177 177

cumi na kabiri k’umwaka wa 2011 kugeza ku kwezi kwa gatandatu k’umwaka wa 2014. Rutegetse SORAS AG Ltd kwishyura M.T.S. Ltd [58] 300.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza na 500.000Frw y’igihembo cy’avoka, yiyongereyeho 300.000Frw yari yagenewe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, yose hamwe akaba 1.100.000Frw. Rutegetse SORAS AG Ltd kwishyura M.T.S. Ltd [59] 500.000Frw buri kwezi mu gihe izakererwa kwishyura indishyi zategetswe muri uru rubanza. Rutegetse SORAS AG Ltd kwishyura Kayibanda Joseph [60] 300.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza na 500.000Frw y’igihembo cya avoka, yiyongereyeho 1.000.000Frw yari yagenewe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, yose hamwe akaba 1.800.000Frw. Rutegetse SORAS AG Ltd kwishyura Kayibanda Joseph [61] 50.000Frw buri kwezi mu gihe izakererwa kwishyura indishyi zategetswe nk’uko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwabitegetse. Rutegetse SORAS AG Ltd gutanga amagarama [62] y’urubanza. SORAS AG Ltd v. MTS Ltd

Page 208

178

Page 209

179

IMANZA NSHINJABYAHA

IMANZA NSHINJABYAHA

Page 210

180

Page 211

181

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. CYUMA MIRUHO [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RPA 0142/10/CS (Rugege, P.J., Mukanyundo na Rugabirwa) 19 Nzeli 2014] Amategeko Mpanabyaha – Ubwicanyi – Ntibyakwitwa gukubita no gukomeretsa ku bushake nta gitekerezo cyo kwica kiriho byateye urupfu mu gihe bigaragara ko hari hagambiriwe kwica. Amategeko Mpanabyaha – Igabanyagihano – Ntawagabanyirizwa igihano mugihe impamvu nyoroshyacyaha atanga nta bimenyetso azitangira. Amategeko Mpanabyaha – Igifungo kimara igihe – Igifungo kimara igihe, kimara nibura umunsi umwe kandi ntikirenza imyaka makumyabiri (20) ukurikije uko biteganijwe n’itegeko, keretse mu gihe cy’insubira-cyaha cyangwa mu bihe bindi itegeko riba ryarateganije ibindi bihano – Itegeko-Teka no21/77 ryo kuwa 18/8/1977 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ibyaha mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 35. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uregwa yatemye umugore we akeka ko yarimo gusambana n’undi mugabo, ajyanwa kwa muganga ariko apfira mu nzira ataragerayo. Ubushinjacyaha bwatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyagatare bumurega icyaha cyo gukubita no gukomeretsa ku bushake nta gitekerezo cyo kwica kiriho byateye urupfu. Urwo Rukiko rwaciye urubanza rwemeza kouregwa agomba gukurikiranwaho icyaha cy’ubwicanyi aho kuba icyo gukubita no gukomeretsa ku bushake byavuyemo urupfu rutagambiriwe, rwemeza ko urubanza rutari mu bubasha bwarwo, rutegeka ko rwoherezwa mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana. Urukiko Rukuru rwamuhamije icyaha, rumuhanisha igifungo cy’imyaka

Page 212

182 182

25.Uregwa yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, avuga ko inyito y’ubwicanyi yahawe icyaha yahamijwe atariyo, ko icyo yakoze ari ugukubita no gukomeretsa byateye urupfu. Yavugaga kandi ko Urukiko Rukuru rutitaye ku mpamvu nyoroshyacyaha. Uhagarariye ubushinjacyaha yavuze ko nta mpamvu uregwa agaragaza zatuma inyito y’icyaha ihindurwa, ko ibyo avuga ko yishe umugore we atabigambiriye atari ukuri kuko yavuye mu rugo avuga ko nasanga umugore ari mu makosa amukubita, akaba yaragiye yitwaje umuhoro bigaragaza ko yari agamije kuwumutemesha inshuro nyinshi, akaba yarabikoze arinayo ntandaro y’urupfu rw’ umugore we. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Harebwe intwaro uregwa yakoresheje, umuhoro, inshuro yawutemesheje Akimana Léonille, inshuro eshatu cyangwa enye nk’uko yagiye abyivugira, ndetse na nyuma yo kumutema akaba yaramuhondaguye akoresheje umuhini bigaragaza ko atari afite umugambi wo kumukubita nk’uko abivuga. Ibikandi yabikoreraga umuntu uryamye hasi utamurwanya. Ruhereye kuri ibi byose, Urukiko rusanga uregwa yari afite umugambi wo gukora icyaha cyo kwica, bityo, icyaha agomba guhanirwa kikaba icyo kwica aho kuba icyo gukubita no gukomeretsa ku bushake byavuyemo urupfu rutagambiriwe.

2. Urukuru ntirwirengagije impamvu nyoroshyacyaha z’uregwa nk’uko abivuga, kuko rwamuhanishije igifungo cy’imyaka 25 aho kuba igifungo cya burundu. Kubijyanye n’uko yakongera kugabanyirizwa igihano kuko yaba yaratemye umugore we bitewe n’uko yamusanze asambana, Urukiko rurasanga iyo atari impamvu nyoroshyacyaha kuko atigeze abitangira ibimenyetso.

3. Igifungo kimara igihe uregwa yagombaga guhabwa, nticyagombaga kurenza imyaka makumyabiri (20) nk’uko ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 213

183

biteganywa n’amategeko, bityo igifungo cy’imyaka makumyabiri n’itanu yahawe kikaba gisimbuwe n’igifungo cy’imyaka makumyabiri. Ubujurire bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe. Urubanza rwajuririwe ruhindutse gusa kubirebana n’igihano. Uregwa ahanishijwe igifungo cy’imyaka makumyabiri. Amagarama aherereye ku Isanduku ya Leta. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko-Teka no 21/77 ryo ku wa 18/8/1977 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ibyaha mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 35. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA Mu ijoro ryo kuwa 13/04/2007 ahagana saa tanu zijoro, [1] Cyuma Miruho, akoresheje umuhoro yatemye umugore we Akimana Leonille akeka ko yararimo gusambana n’undi mugabo. Akimana yahise ajyanwa kwa muganga ariko apfira mu nzira ataragerayo. Iperereza rirangiye, Ubushinjacyaha bwatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyagatare burega Cyuma Miruho Alexandre icyaha cyo gukubita no gukomeretsa ku bushake, nta gitekerezo cyo kwica kiriho byateye urupfu. Urwo Rukiko rwaciye urubanza kuwa 30/04/2008, rwemeza ko Cyuma Miruho agomba UBUSHINJACYAHA v. CYUMA MIRUHO 183

Page 214

184 184

gukurikiranwaho icyaha cy’ubwicanyi aho kuba icyo gukubita no gukomeretsa ku bushake byavuyemo urupfu rutagambiriwe, rwemeza ko urubanza rutari mu bubasha bwarwo, rutegeka ko rwoherezwa mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana. Urubanza rwageze mu Rukiko Rukuru rwandikwa kuri [2] noRP 0039/08/HC/RWA, rucibwa kuwa 07/05/2010 rwemeza ko Cyuma Miruho Alexandre ahamwa n’icyaha cyo kwica umugore we Akimana Léonille, rumuhanisha igifungo cy’imyaka 25. Ku itariki ya 31/05/2010, Cyuma Miruho Alexandre yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga. Avuga ko inyito y’ubwicanyi yahawe icyaha yahamijwe atariyo, ko icyo yakoze ari ugukubita no gukomeretsa byatanze urupfu. Indi mpamvu atanga ajurira, ngo nuko Urukiko Rukuru rutitaye ku mpamvu nyoroshyacyaha. Iburanisha ry’uru rubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga [3] ryabereye mu ruhame ku itariki ya 21/07/2014, Cyuma Miruho Alexandre yitabye yunganirwa na Me Aimable Ngendahimana naho Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na Bwana Mutayoba Alphonse, Umushinjacyaha ku Rwego rw’Igihugu. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO Kumenya niba ibikorwa bigize icyaha Cyuma Miruho Alexandre aregwa byakwitwa ubwicanyi cyangwa gukubita no gukomeretsa ku bushake byavuyemo urupfu rutagambiriwe. Cyuma Miruho Alexandre avuga ko umugore we yatinze [4] gutaha akava mu rugo agiye kureba icyo yabaye, yagera mu ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 215

185

nzira agasanga umugore we asambana n’undi mugabo akamutema abitewe n’uburakari, ko icyo yari agendereye atari ukumwica ahubwo yaragamije kumuhana. Akomeza avuga ko yatemye umugore we inshuro eshatu akoresheje umuhoro, umaze kumucika atangira kumuhondesha umuhini. Me Ngendahimana Aimable avuga ko yemera [5] ibyakozwe n’Ubushinjacyaha ku Rwego Rwisumbuye rwa Nyagatare rwasanze ibyo Cyuma Miruho Alexandre yakoze ari ugukubita no gukomeretsa byateye urupfu. Akomeza avuga ko uwo yunganira yavuye mu rugo agiye kureba umugore we, ageze mu nzira asanga barimo kumusambanya aherako amutema akaba asanga uwo yunganira yaratemye umugore we bitewe nuko yasanze bamusambanya kandi ko atavuye mu rugo afite umugambi wo kumutema. Uhagarariye ubushinjacyaha yavuze ko nta mpamvu [6] Cyuma Miruho Alexandre agaragaza zatuma inyito y’icyaha ihindurwa, ko ibyo avuga ko yishe umugore we atabigambiriye atari ukuri kuko yavuye mu rugo avuga ko nasanga umugore ari mu makosa amukubita, akaba yaragiye yitwaje umuhoro bigaragaza ko yari agamije kuwumutemesha inshuro nyinshi, akaba yarabikoze arinayo ntandaro y’urupfu rwa Akimana Léonille.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA Ubwo yabazwaga mu Bugenzacyaha, Cyuma Miruho [7] Alexandre yemeye ko yatangiye atema umugore we mu bitugu, arongera amutema izindi nshuro eshatu, arangije aca igiti akimukubitisha inshuro nyinshi. Naho mu iburanisha ry’uru rubanza, yavuze yatemye umugore we inshuro eshatu, umuhoro UBUSHINJACYAHA v. CYUMA MIRUHO 185

Page 216

186 186

umaze kumucika akomeza kumuhondesha umuhini. Harebwe intwaro Cyuma Miruho Alexandre yakoresheje, umuhoro, inshuro yawutemesheje Akimana Léonille, inshuro eshatu cyangwa enye nk’uko yagiye abyivugira, ndetse na nyuma yo kumutema akaba yaramuhondaguye akoresheje umuhini bigaragaza ko atari afite umugambi wo kumukubita nkuko abivuga. Ibi kandi yabikoreraga umuntu uryamye hasi utamurwanya. Urukiko ruhereye kuri ibi byose, rusanga Cyuma Miruho Alexandre yari afite umugambi wo gukora icyaha, bityo, icyaha agomba guhanirwa kikaba icyo kwica aho kuba icyo gukubita no gukomeretsa ku bushake byavuyemo urupfu rutagambiriwe. Kumenya niba Urukiko rutaritaye ku mpamvu nyoroshyacyaha ngo Cyuma Miruho Alexandre agabanyirizwe ibihano. Cyuma Miruho Alexandre avuga ko amaze gukora [8] icyaha yishyikirije ubutabera, naho yagiye abazwa akaba yaremeye icyaha akagisabira n’imbabazi kandi ko n’ibyo yakoze yabitewe nuko yasanze umugore we asambana. Akaba asanga ibyo byose ari impamvu nyoroshyacyaha zari gushingirwaho akagabanyirizwa ibihano. Me Ngendahimana Aimable avuga ko muri dosiye hari [9] impamvu nyoroshyacyaha zitandukanye zirimo kuba Cyuma Miruho Alexandre yarishyikirije inzego z’umutekano, akaba atararuhije ubutabera, kandi icyaha yakoze akaba yaragitewe nuko yasanze umugore we asambana. Akongeraho ko nta mugabo numwe wasanga umugore we asambana ngo narangiza agendere aho. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 217

187 187

Uhagarariye ubushinjacyaha avuga ko uregwa atemera [10] icyaha ku buryo budashidikanywaho ngo kuko ahunga kuba yarishe Akimana Léonille abigambiriye. Naho ibyo kuba Cyuma Miruho Alexandre yarasanze umugore we asambana, uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha akavuga ko ibyo nta bimenyetso uregwa yabitangiye kandi ko niyo byaba byo, ntiyagombaga kumwica, naho kuba Cyuma Miruho Alexandre yarishyikirije inzego z’umutekano, uhagarariye ubushinjacyaha avuga ko aribyo ariko ko bitaba impamvu nyoroshyacyaha. Asoza asaba ko hagumaho imikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA Mu rubanza RP0039/08/HC/RWG rwaciwe kuwa [11] 7/05/2010, mu gika cyarwo cya 12, Cyuma Miruho Alexandre yahamijwe icyaha cyo kwica agenerwa igihano cyo gufungwa burundu hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 311 y’Itegeko-Teka no 21/77 ryo ku wa 18/8/1977 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ibyaha mu Rwanda ryakoreshwaga icyo gihe. Umucamanza yasobanuye kandi ko Cyuma Miruho Alexandre ari ubwa mbere akurikiranyweho icyaha abiheraho amugabanyiriza ibihano maze igifungo cya burundu gishyirwa ku myaka makumyabiri n’itanu (25 ans). Ibi rero bigaragaza ko Cyuma Miruho Alexandre yagabanyirijwe ibihano hashingiwe ku mpamvu y’uko bwari ubwa mbere akurikiranyweho icyaha ku buryo buzwi. Naho kuba uru Rukiko rwakongera kugabanya igihano kuko yaba yaratemye umugore we bitewe nuko yamusanze asambana, Urukiko rurasanga iyo atari impamvu nyoroshyacyaha kuko Cyuma Miruho Alexandre atigeze abitangira ibimenyetso. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. CYUMA MIRUHO

Page 218

188 188

Ingingo ya 35 y’Itegeko-Teka no 21/77 ryo kuwa [12] 18/08/1977 ryavuzwe mu gika kibanziriza iki ivuga iti “Igifungo kimara igihe, kimara byibura umunsi umwe kandi ntikirenza imyaka makumyabiri ukurikije uko biteganijwe n’itegeko, keretse mu gihe cy’insubira-cyaha cyangwa mu bihe bindi itegeko riba ryarateganije ibindi bihano”. Mu kugabanya ibihano, Urukiko Rukuru rwavanyeho igifungo cya burundu ruhanisha Cyuma Miruho Alexandre gufungwa imyaka 25. Igifungo kimara igihe Cyuma Miruho Alexandre yagombaga guhabwa, nticyagombaga kurenza imyaka makumyabiri (20) nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 35 ivugwa muri iki gika. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwatanzwe na Cyuma Miruho [13] Alexandre bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe. Rwemeje ko imikirize y’urubanza RP0039/10/HC/RWG [14] rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana ku wa 7/05/2010 rujuririrwa muri uru Rukiko ihindutse gusa ku birebana n’igihano. Ruhanishije Cyuma Miruho Alexandre igifungo [15] cy’imyaka makumyabiri (20). Rutegetse ko amagarama y’urubanza ahererejwe ku [16] isanduku ya Leta. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 219

189

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HAKIZIMANA N’ABANDI [Rwanda URUKIKO RUKURU – RPA 0735/13/HC/KIG, RPA 0750/13/HC/KIG, RPA 0766/13/HC/KIG (Uwamariya P J.) 13 Kamena 2014] Amategeko Mpanabyaha – Impurirane y’ibyaha – Itangwa ry’igihano – Mu gihe cy’impurirane y’ibyaha hatangwa igihano kirushije ibindi gukomera – Itegeko Ngenga nº 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo 84. Amategeko Mpanabyaha – Igabanyagihano rishingiye ku butoya – Iyo uwakoze icyaha agabanyirijwe ibihano kubera ko ari umwana, ibihano agomba guhanishwa ntibigomba kurenga icya kabiri cy’ibihano yagombaga guhanishwa iyo aza kuba afite imyaka 18. Amategeko Mpanabyaha – Isubikabihano – Ibihano ntibishobora gusubikwa mugihe igihano cy’iremezo kiri hejuru y’imyaka itanu. Incamake y’ikibazo: Hakizimana, Rugero na Mugirwanake na bagenzi babo batajuriye bakurikiranywe mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge ku bwinjiracyaha bwo kunyereza umutungo wa Leta n’ubufatanyacyaha muri icyo cyaha, ubujura budakoresheje kiboko cyangwa ibikangisho n’ubufatanyacyaha muri icyo cyaha no guhimba inyandiko no kuyikoresha n’ubufatanyacyaha muri icyo cyaha. Rwahanishije Hakizimana Pascal igifungo cy’imyaka itanu n’ihazabu 1.710.000Frw, Rugero Etienne igihano cy’igifungo cy’imyaka icumi n’ihazabu

Page 220

190 190

y’amafaranga 4.255.000Frw naho Mugirwanake Zawadi ahanishwa igifungo cy’imyaka ibiri n’ihazabu ya 1.710.000Frw. Ntibishimiye imikirize y’urubanza barujuririra mu Rukuko Rukuru. Mugirwanake n’umwunganizi we basobanura ko yajuriye asaba ko yagabanyirizwa ibihano kubera ko yaburanye yemera icyaha akagisabira imbabazi, akaba kandi asaba ko yasubikirwa igifungo kubera impamvu z’uburwayi, ikindi akaba ari umwana bityo akaba yasohoka akajya kwitabwaho. Hakizimana we avuga ko yajuririye ibihano bikakaye yahawe kandi yaraburanye akemera icyaha, naho Rugero we asobanura ko yajuririye kuba urukiko rwaramutandukanyije n’abo bafatanyije icyaha rukamuha igihano gikakaye kurusha abandi, umucamanza akaba atarahaye agaciro imyiregurire ye akaba asaba ko yagabanyirizwa igifungo akanasubikirwa. Ubushinjacyaha bwiregura buvuga ko ibihano bahawe atari birebire hagereranijwe n’ibyaha bakoze kandi Mugirwanake we akaba yaragabanyirijwe ibihano kubera ko ari umwana ndetse no kuba yemera icyaha, naho Rugero we akaba atari kugabanyirizwa ibihano kuko atari ubwa mbere akoze iki cyaha. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Ibyaha Mugirwanake Zawadi akuriranyweho bigize impurirane y’ibyaha. Mu byaha yakoze igihanishwa igihano kirushije ibindi gukomera ni icyaha cyo kunyereza umutungo wa Leta. Kubera ko ari umwana, ibihano agomba guhanishwa ntibigomba kurenga icya kabiri cy’ ibihano yagombaga guhanishwa iyo aza kuba afite imyaka 18. Kuba rero yari guhanishwa igifungo cy’imyaka icumi n’ihazabu y’amafaranga miliyoni n’ibihumbi magana ane, akaba agomba guhanishwa igifungo cy’imyaka itanu n’ihazabu y’amafaranga ibihumbi magana arindwi. Kuba na none hari impamvu ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 221

191 191

nyoroshyacyaha, urukiko Rukuru rukaba rubona igifungo cy’imyaka ibiri yahanishijwe gikwiranye n’icyaha yakoze.

2. Kuba Mugirwanake akunda kurwaragurika nk’uko yabigaragarije ibimenyetso kandi akaba ari nabwo bwa mbere akoze icyaha, igihano cy’imyaka ibiri yahawe cyasubikwaho amezi atandatu mu gihe cy’umwaka, undi mwaka n’igice bisigaye akabirangiriza muri gereza.

3. Kuba Hakizimana Pascal yaragombaga guhanishwa igifungo cy’imyaka icumi urukiko rubanza rukamuhanisha igifungo cy’imyaka itanu, urukiko rurasanga yarahawe igihano gito ntarengwa Urukiko rudashobora kujya munsi k’ugabanyirijwe kubera impamvu nyoroshyacyaha, bityo kikaba kidashobora guhinduka. Ku byerekeye isubikagihano, n’ubwo itegeko ryemera ko iki gihano gishobora gusubikwa kuko kitarenze imyaka itanu, urukiko rurasanga gusubika iki gifungo byafatwa na rubanda nko gushyigikira abiba cyangwa abagerageza kwiba no kwangiza ibyo bagezeho, bityo iki gifungo akaba agomba kukirangiriza muri gereza.

4. N’ubwo Rugero yagaragaye mu Rukiko rubanza nk’umutangabuhamya akavuga ko abamushinja ari inama bamugiriye kugira ngo bamugambanire ariko nyuma akaza kwemera icyaha, urukiko rurasanga bitashingirwaho mu kumugabanyiriza ibihano kuko n’iyo atemera ntihari kubura ibimenyetso bimushinja. Kuba ibi byaha akurikiranyweho bigize impurirane z’ibyaha, igihano ntarengwa ku rwego rwo hejuru ku cyaha cy’inyandiko mpimbano akaba ari imyaka irindwi naho ku cyaha cyo kunyereza umutungo wa Leta kikaba imyaka icumi, urukiko Rwisumbuye rukaba rwaramuhanishije igifungo cy’imyaka icumi.Urukiko rurasanga ataravanguwe muri bagenzi be nk’uko abivuga ahubwo yarahanwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko. Ku isubikagifungo, kubw’itegeko, UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HAKIZIMANA N’ABANDI

Page 222

192 192

igihano Rugero ahanishijwe ntigishobora gusubikwa kuko kiri hejuru y’imyaka itanu. Ubujurire bwa Mugirwanake bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe. Ahanishijwe igifungo cy’imyaka ibiri n’ihazabu ya (700.000), umwaka n’amezi 6 akaba agomba kubirangiriza muri gereza, naho amezi atandatu agasubikwa mu gihe cy’umwaka. Ubujurire bwa Hakizimana nta shingiro bufite. Ubujurire bwa Rugero nta shingiro bufite. Nta gihindutse ku bihano Hakizimana na Rugero bari barahanishijwe. Amagarama y’urubanza ahererejwe ku isanduku ya Leta. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Ngenga nº 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’ amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 78 n’iya 84 Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA. Mu rubanza RP 0086/13/TGI/NYGE urukiko [1] Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwahamije Ndayambaje Pierre, Nyandwi Dismas Mugirwanake Zawadi, Hakizamungu André na Rugero Etienne ubwinjiracyaha bwo kunyereza umutungo wa Leta n’ubufatanyacyaha muri icyo cyaha, ubujura ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 223

193

budakoresheje kiboko cyangwa ibikangisho n’ubufatanyacyaha muri icyo cyaha no guhimba inyandiko no kuyikoresha n’ubufatanyacyaha muri icyo cyaha. Rwahanishije Ndayambaje Pierre, Nyandwi Dismas, Hakizamungu André na Hakizimana Pascal igihano cy’igifungo cy’imyaka itanu n’ihazabu 1.710.000Frw buri wese, ruhanisha Rugero Etienne igihano cy’igifungo cy’imyaka icumi n’ihazabu y’amafaranga 4.255.000Frw naho Mugirwanake Zawadi ahanishwa igifungo cy’imyaka ibiri n’ihazabu y’amafaranga 1.710.000. Hakizimana Pascal, Rugero Etienne na Mugirwanake [2] Zawadi ntibishimiye imikirize y’urubanza barujuririra mu Rukuko Rukuru. Mugirwanake n’umwunganizi we basobanura ko yajuriye asaba ko yagabanyirizwa ibihano kubera ko yaburanye yemera icyaha akagisabira imbabazi, akaba kandi asaba ko yasubikirwa igifungo kubera impamvu z’uburwayi, ikindi akaba ari umwana bityo akaba yasohoka akajya kwitabwaho. Hakizimana we avuga ko yajuririye ibihano bikakaye yahawe kandi yaraburanye akemera icyaha, naho Rugero we asobanura ko yajuririye kuba urukiko rwaramutandukanyije n’abo bafatanyije icyaha rukamuha igihano gikakaye kurusha abandi, umucamanza akaba atarahaye agaciro imyiregurire ye akaba asaba ko yagabanyirizwa igifungo akanasubikirwa. Kuri Hakizimana na Mugirwanake, Ubushinjacyaha [3] bwiregura buvuga ko ibihano bahawe atari birebire hagereranijwe n’ibyaha bakoze kandi Mugirwanake we akaba yaragabanyirijwe ibihano kubera ko ari umwana ndetse no kuba yemera icyaha, naho Rugero we akaba atari kugabanyirizwa ibihano kuko atari ubwa mbere akoze iki cyaha. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HAKIZIMANA N’ABANDI 193

Page 224

194 194

Ikigomba gusuzumwa muri uru rubanza, ni ukumenya niba Mugirwanake Zawadi yakongera kugabanyirizwa ibihano akanasubikirwa igifungo, kumenya niba Hakizimana Pascal yagabanyirizwa ibihano, no kumenya niba Rugero yagabanyirizwa ibihano akanasubikirwa igifungo. II. IBIBAZO BIRI MU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO Kumenya niba Mugirwanake Zawadi yakongera kugabanyirizwa ibihano akanasubikirwa igifungo. Mugirwanake Zawadi n’umwunganizi we basobanura ko [4] yajuriye kubera ibihano birebire yahawe. Avuga ko akomeza gutakamba nubwo urukiko rwamugabanyirije akaba asaba ko rwakongera kumugabanyiriza ibihano akanasubikirwa igifungo kubera ubuzima arimo muri gereza, kuko yafashwe n’uburwayi busaba ko buri gihe aterwa amaraso. Barasaba urukiko kandi ko mugufata icyemezo hazitabwa ku itegeko rirengera umwana no kumurinda, akaba yasubizwa mu muryango akajya kwitabwaho. Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko ibihano yahawe atari birebire [5] ugereranyije n’icyaha cyakozwe, akaba yaragabanyirijwe hitaweho ko ari umwana, gusaba ko yakongera kugabanyirizwa akaba atari inenge bubona mu rubanza, naho ku kibazo cy’uburwayi gereza ikaba yamworohereza kugira ngo abashe kwivuza. Buvuga ko ibyo kuba ari umwana urukiko rutabyirengagije akaba ari nayo mpamvu yahanishijwe ibihano bito ugereranije n’abandi bafatanyije gukora icyaha. Ku isubikagihano, buvuga ko umucamanza adategetswe kuritanga. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 225

195 195

Urukiko rurasanga ibyaha Mugirwanake Zawadi [6] akuriranweho bigize impurirane y’ibyaha nk’uko n’ubundi byabonywe n’umucamanza w’urukiko Rwisumbuye. Muri ibi byaha igihanishwa igihano kirushije ibindi gukomera ni icyaha cyo kunyereza umutungo wa Leta, gihanishwa igifungo kuva ku myaka 7 kugeza ku icumi1 n’ihazabu y’amafaranga kuva ku nshuro ebyiri kugeza kuri eshanu z’agaciro k’umutungo warigishijwe cyangwa wononwe. Urukiko rurasanga kuba Mugirwanake Zawadi yari [7] guhanishwa igifungo kimara igihe n’ihazabu, akaba agomba kugabanyirizwa ibihano kubera ko ari umwana, ibihano agomba guhanishwa ntibigomba kurenga icya kabiri cy’ibihano yagombaga guhanishwa iyo aza kuba afite imyaka 18. Kuba Mugirwanake Zawadi ahamwa n’ubufatanyacyaha mu cyaha cy’ubwinjiracyaha mu kunyereza umutungo wa Leta, icy’ubujura bworoheje n’icyo guhimba inyandiko no kuyikoresha, urukiko rurasanga yari guhanishwa igifungo cy’imyaka icumi n’ihazabu yikubye inshuro eshanu amafaranga yashakaga kwiba, ni ukuvuga 1.400.000Frw hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 84 y’iri tegeko ngenga rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana. Kuba ariko Mugirwanake ari umwana, ibi bihano bigomba kugabanywa kabiri, agahanishwa igifungo cy’imyaka itanu n’ihazabu y’amafaranga ibihumbi magana arindwi (700.000Frw). Kuba na none hari impamvu nyoroshyacyaha, urukiko rurasanga mu kumugabanyiriza ibihano hagomba gukurikizwa agace ka kane k’ingingo ya 78 y’iri tegeko ngenga. Akaba ashobora kuba yagabanyirizwa igifungo kugeza ku mezi abiri. Aha itegeko rivuga igihano gito

1Reba ingingo ya 325 y’Itegeko Ngenga no 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/5/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’ametegeko ahana. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HAKIZIMANA N’ABANDI

Page 226

196 196

umucamanza atagomba kujya munsi ariko ntirivuga igihano kirekire atagomba kujya hejuru, byumvikana ko kuba Mugirwanake Zawadi yarahanishijwe igifungo cy’imyaka ibiri bikurikije itegeko kandi urukiko Rukuru rukaba rubona icyo gihano gikwiranye n’icyaha yakoze. Kuba ariko Mugirwanake akunda kurwaragura nkuko [8] yabigaragarije ibimenyetso, kandi akaba ari nabwo bwa mbere akoze icyaha, urukiko rurasanga iyi myaka ibiri y’igifungo yasubikwaho amezi atandatu mu gihe cy’umwaka, undi mwaka n’igice bisigaye akabirangiriza muri gereza. Kumenya niba Hakizimana Pascal yagabanyirizwa ibihano Hakizimana asobanura ko yajuriye ibihano bikakaye [9] yahawe kandi yaraburanye yemera icyaha akagaragaza uko cyakozwe n’abagikoze, akaba asaba ko yagabanyirizwa ibihano akanasubikirwa. Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko Hakizimana atahawe igihano [10] gikomeye kubera icyaha yakoze, bukaba bubona yaragabanyirijwe bihagije kandi akaba ari nta tegeko ryirengagijwe, naho isubikagihano akaba ari nta mpamvu yaryo. Kuba Hakizimana Pascal yaragombaga guhanishwa [11] igifungo cy’imyaka icumi urukiko rukamuhanisha igifungo cy’imyaka itanu urukiko rurasanga yarahawe igihano gito ntarengwa Urukiko rudashobora kujya munsi k’ugabanyirijwe kubera impamvu nyoroshyacyaha, bityo kikaba kidashobora guhinduka. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 227

197 197

Ku byerekeye isubikagihano, nubwo itegeko ryemera ko [12] iki gihano gishobora gusubikwa kuko kitarenze imyaka itanu2, urukiko rurasanga gusubika iki gifungo byafatwa na rubanda nko gushyigikira abiba cyangwa abagerageza kwiba no kwangiza ibyo bagezeho, bityo iki gifungo Hakizimana akaba agomba kukirangiriza muri gereza. Kumenya niba Rugero yagabanyirizwa ibihano akanasubikirwa igifungo. Rugero asobanura ko yajuririye ibihano bikomeye [13] yahawe umucamanza akaba yaramutandukanije n’abo bareganwa ku buryo bukabije akaba atarahaye agaciro imyiregurire ye n’ibimenyetso yatanze. Avuga ko yemeye icyaha agasobanura uko byagenze, kandi n’uwazanye sheki akaba yarabyemeye. Yemera ko izo sheke yatanze ariwe wazisinyeho yigana amasinya yari kuri fotokopi ya sheki abashinzwe gucunga konti ya mituele ya Kayenzi bari bishyuriyeho. Arasaba urukiko ko rwamugirira impuhwe rukamugabanyiriza ibihano, rukanamusubikira igifungo kuko amaze gufungwa umudamu we yakoze impanuka akitaba imana none abana bane yasize baka bandagaye. Ubushanjacyaha buvuga ko Rugero yahanishijwe [14] igifungo cy’imyaka icumi kubera ko yaburanye atemera icyaha, ikindi ubushinjacyaha bukaba butari bwamukurikiranye.

2 Ingingo ya 85 igika cya mbere y’itegeko ngenga no 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/5/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana igira iti: “Muri iri Tegeko Ngenga, isubikagihano ni icyemezo cy’umucamanza gihagarika irangizarubanza ku gihano cy’igifungo kitarengeje imyaka itanu (5) iyo uwagikatiwe atigeze ahanishwa mbere mu rubanza rwabaye ndakuka igihano cy’igifungo cyangwa igihano nsimburagifungo cy’imirimo ifitiye igihugu akamaro kirenze amezi atandatu (6)”. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HAKIZIMANA N’ABANDI

Page 228

198 198

Buvuga ko nubwo ari byiza ko avugishije ukuri atagabanyirizwa ibihano kuko atari ubwa mbere akurikiranweho icyaha. N’ubwo mu rukiko rwaciye urubanza rwajuririwe mu [15] iburanisha ryo kuwa 24/7/2013 Rugero yari yitabye nk’umutangabuhamya akavuga ko abamushinja ari inama bamugiriye kugira ngo bamugambanire ariko kuwa 25/7/2014 yakwitaba akemera icyaha, urukiko rurasanga bitashingirwaho mu kumugabanyiriza ibihano kuko n’iyo atemera ntihari kubura ibimenyetso bimushinja. Ikindi hakurikijwe uburyo iki cyaha cyakozwe nk’uko bisobanurwa n’abo yagiye aha izi cheques bigaragaza neza ko yari ashirutse ubwoba muri iki gikorwa nk’aho yari akimenyereye kuko abo yahaye izi cheque, iyo kuri banki imwe bayabimaga kubera gushidikanya ku masinye yababwiraga kujya ku yindi. Ikindi kigagaza ko yari afite akamenyero muri iki cyaha n’ukuntu kuri Union des Banques Populaires bari bamaze kubima amafaranga Rugero agahamaga asaba amasinya nk’uko bisobanurwa na Hakizimana Pascal akabikora azi neza ko ari nawe wasinye izo cheque abyihimbiye. Kuba ibi byaha byakozwe bigize impurirane z’ibyaha [16] nk’uko n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwabibonye igihano ntarengwa ku rwego rwo hejuru ku cyaha cy’inyandiko mpimbano akaba ari imyaka irindwi naho ku cyaha cyo kunyereza umutungo wa Leta kikaba imyaka icumi, urukiko Rwisumbuye rukaba rwaramuhanishije igifungo cy’imyaka icumi, urukiko rurasanga ataravanguwe muribagenzi be nk’uko abivuga ahubwo yarahanwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko kuko nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 84 y’Itegeko Ngenga no 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/5/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, “Iyo ku gikorwa kimwe gusa cyangwa byinshi, uwakoze icyaha ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 229

199 199

yari guhanishwa ibihano byinshi byo gufungwa cyangwa by’ihazabu, umucamanza amuhanisha igihano kiruta ibindi yongera igihe cyangwa umubare bitewe n’uburyo ibyaha byakozwe ariko ntarenze urugero ntarengwa wongeyeho icya kabiri (1/2) cy’icyo gihano kirushije ibindi gukomera”. Iyi ngingo igaragaza ko kuri iki gifungo cy’imyaka icumi umucamanza yashoboraga kongeraho indi myaka itanu. Kubera rero impamvu zasobanuwe, urukiko rurasanga iki gihano kitagabanywa kikaba kigomba kuguma uko kiri. Ku isubikagifungo, kubwo itegeko, igihano Rugero [17] ahanishijwe ntigishobora gusubikwa kuko kiri hejuru y’imyaka itanu. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Mugirwanake Zawadi bufite [18] ishingiro kuri bimwe, ko ubwa Hakizimana Pascal na Rugero Etienne budafite ishingiro. Rwemeje ko ibihano bihindutse kuri Mugirwanake [19] Zawadi, akaba agomba guhanishwa igifungo cy’imyaka ibiri n’ihazabu y’amafaranga ibihumbi magana arindwi (700.000), kuri iki gifungo, umwaka umwe n’amezi atandatu akaba agomba kubirangiriza muri gereza, naho amezi atandatu agasubikwa mu gihe cy’umwaka. Rwemeje ko nta gihindutse ku bihano Hakizimana [20] Pascal na Rugero Etienne bari bahanishijwe. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HAKIZIMANA N’ABANDI

Page 230

200 200

Rutegetse ko amagarama y’urubanza ahererezwa ku [21] isanduku ya Leta kuko Hakizimana Pascal na Rugero Etienne bajuriye ari abafungwa. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 231

201

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NYIRAMUGISHA [Rwanda URUKIKO RUKURU – RPAA 0059/14/HC/RSZ (Bakuzakundi, P.J.) 29 Nzeli 2014] Amategeko Mpanabyaha – Ubwinjiracyaha mu kwihekura – Ubwinjiracyaha buharanirwa n’ubwo icyari cyagenderewe kitashoboye kugerwaho bitewe n’impamvu nyir’ugukora icyaha atashoboye kumenya – Ubwinjiracyaha bw’icyaha cy’ubugome cyangwa icyaha gikomeye bufatwa kimwe nk’icyaha cy’ubugome cyangwa icyaha gikomeye ubwacyo – Itegeko Ngenga nº 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’Amategeko ahana, ingingo za 28 na 29. Amategeko y’imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha – Ihuzwa ry’ibihano bitanzwe n’ Urukiko rumwe ku cyaha kimwe – Mu gihe hadasobanuwe umwihariko mu ikorwa ry’icyaha kiburanishwa kandi hakaba haraciwe imanza ku byaha bisa nacyo, ibihano bigomba gusa. Amategeko Mpanabyaha – Impamvu nyoroshyacyaha – Iyo icyaha cyakozwe nta ngaruka zikomeye cyateje bituma igihano kigabanuka –Itegeko Ngenga nº 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’Amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 77, 4. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uregwa yabyaye umwana w’umuhungu, maze nyuma y’icyumweru kimwe gusa amubyaye amujyana mu bigori byari hafi y’ikiraro cya Rubyiro amushyira mu mwobo arenzaho ibuye yisubirira mu rugo. Uwari wamuteye inda ubwo yari avuye i Bugande gupagasa yagiye kumureba ngo amwereke umwana yabyaye undi amuhisha ko yamutaye, ahubwo

Page 232

202 202

amwereka uwo yatiye ariko nawe ahita atahura ko uregwa amubeshya uwo mwana amwereka atari uwe yitabaza inzego z’ubuyobozi ngo zimubaze aho yashyize uwo mwana. Uregwa yarezwe mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rusizi, ku cyaha cyo guta umwana, maze ruhindura inyito y’icyaha rwemeza ko ibikorwa uregwa yakoze bigize icyaha cy’ubwinjiracyaha mu cyaha cyo kwihekura, aho kuba icyaha cyo guta umwana yaregwaga n’Ubushinjacyaha, rumuhanisha igihano cyo gufungwa imyaka makumyabiri naho amagarama y’urubanza ahererezwa ku isanduku ya Leta. Uregwayajuririye Urukiko Rukuru Urugereko rwa Rusizi, avuga ko inyito y’icyaha yahamijwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye atariyo, ko icyaha yakoze ari icyo guta umwana ariko atagambiriye ko apfa ahubwo agamije kugira ngo abantu bamutoragure bamujyane mu kigo kirera impfubyi. Mu gihe cy’iburanisha ry’urubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru, uregwa yahinduye impamvu y’ubujurire yari ikubiye mu myanzuro ye, avuga ko yajurijwe no gukomeza gusaba imbabazi kugira ngo Urukiko Rukuru rumugabanyirize igihano kinini yahawe n’Urukiko rwaciye urubanza ku rwego rwa mbere, kubirebana n’impamvu zashingirwaho agabanyirizwa igihano, uregwa akavuga ko usibye impamvu nyoroshyacyaha zasobanuwe n’Urukiko ku rwego rwa mbere, hanitabwa cyane cyane kukuba yarasize abana bato mu rugo batagira kirera ubu akaba atazi aho baherereye, byashoboka agafungurwa akabasanga. Kuri iki kibazo, Ubushinjacyaha bwo buvuga ko bubona ubujurire bw’ uregwa nta shingiro bufite kuko ibyo kugabanyirizwa igihano asaba mu Rukiko Rukuru yabihawe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rusizi rwaciye urubanza ku rwego rwa mbere, rwamugabanyirije igihano ku buryo buhagije ugereranyije ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 233

203 203

n’ubugome bukabije bwakoranywe iki cyaha, ubwo yacukuraga umwobo agashyiramo umwana akarenzaho ibuye. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. N’ubwo impamvu uregwa yishingikiriza ku rwego rw’ubujurire avuga ko zoroshya ububi bw’icyaha yakoze ari izashingiweho n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rusizi rumugabanyiriza igihano yagombaga guhabwa rukagena ikindi gikwiye nyuma yo kwemeza ko rubona ibyo yishingikiriza asaba kugabanyirizwa igihano koko ari impamvu nyoroshyacyaha, Urukiko Rukuru rurasanga mu itangwa ry’igihano muri uru rubanza hataritawe ku ihuzwa ry’ibihano bisanzwe bitangwa n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rusizi ku cyaha kimwe, kandi ntirwanagaragaza mu isobanurampamvu z’urubanza rwaciwe niba hari umwihariko uru rubanza rufite watuma uwakoze icyaha ahabwa igihano gihanitse ugereranyije n’igihano cyahawe abo bakoze icyaha kimwe kandi mu buryo bumwe, bo bahanishijwe gufungwa imyaka icumi.

2. Kuba icyaha uregwa yakoze nta ngaruka zikomeye cyateje kuko umwana uvugwa mu rubanza yatabawe atarapfa akitabwaho agakira, bituma agomba kugabanyirizwa igihano yahawe mu rubanza rujuririrwa. Ubujurire nta shingiro bufite. Urubanza rwajuririwe ihindutse gusa ku birebana n’igihano. Uregwa ahanishijwe igihano cy’igifungo cy’imyaka 10. Amagarama ahererereye ku isanduku ya Leta. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NYIRAMUGISHA

Page 234

204 204

Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Ngenga nº 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’Amategeko ahana, ingingo za 28, 29, 76, 77, 78 na 143. Itegeko n°13/2013 ryo ku wa 24/5/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabya, ingingo ya 191. Itegeko n° 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/6/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 3. Imanza zifashishijwe: Ubushinjacyaha v. Mukaniyonsenga, RP 0024/14/TGI/RSZ, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rusizi kuwa 28/03/2014. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA Ku itariki ya 03/06/2013 Nyiramugisha Joséphine yabyaye [1] umwana w’umuhungu, maze nyuma y’icyumweru kimwe gusa amubyaye amujyana mu bigori byari hafi y’ikiraro cya Rubyiro amutamo yisubirira mu rugo. Uwitwa Ndungutse Davide wari wateye Nyiramugisha [2] Joséphine inda akubutse mu rugendo yari yagiyemo i Bugande gupagasa yagiye kureba Nyiramugisha Joséphine kugira ngo amwereke umwana yabyaye undi amuhisha ko yamutaye, ahubwo amwereka uwo yatiye ariko Ndungutse Davide ahita atahura ko Nyiramugisha Joséphine amubeshya uwo mwana amwereka atari uwe yitabaza inzego z’ubuyobozi ngo zibaze Nyiramugisha Joséphine aho yashyize uwo mwana. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 235

205

Ubugenzacyaha bwabitangijeho iperereza ry’ibanze [3] rirangiye dosiye buyishyikiriza Ubushinjacyaha bukomeza iperereza, risozwa ubushinjacyaha bufashe umwanzuro wo kurega mu Rukiko Nyiramugisha Joséphine icyaha cyo guta umwana. Mu rubanza RP 0030/14/TGI/RSZ rwaciwe kuwa [4] 23/04/2014, Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rusizi rwahinduye inyito y’icyaha rwemeza ko ibikorwa Nyiramugisha Joséphine yakoze bigize icyaha cy’ubwinjiracyaha mu cyaha cyo kwihekura, aho kuba icyaha cyo guta umwana yaregwaga n’Ubushinjacyaha. Urukiko rwahanishije Nyiramugisha Joséphine igihano cyo gufungwa imyaka makumyabiri, amagarama y’urubanza aherezwa ku isanduku ya Leta. Nyiramugisha Joséphine ntiyishimiye imikirize y’urubanza ajuririra Urukiko Rukuru Urugereko rwa Rusizi, maze ikirego cye cyandikwa mu gitabo cy’ibirego kuri RPA 0059/14/HC/RSZ. II. ISESENGURA RY’IBIBAZO BIGIZE

URUBANZA Mu miburanishirize y’uru rubanza hagaragayemo ikibazo kimwe kigomba gusuzumwa n’urukiko rukagifataho umwanzuro, aricyo cyo kumenya niba kuburana yemera icyaha agasaba imbabazi byamubera impamvu nyoroshyacyaha zashingirwaho n’Urukiko rwajuririwe akagabanyirizwa igihano yagenewe n’Urukiko rwaciye urubanza ku rwego rwa mbere. Mu myanzuro yashyikirije Urukiko Rukuru atanga [5] ikirego cy’ubujurire, Nyiramugisha Joséphine avugamo ko UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NYIRAMUGISHA 205

Page 236

206 206

inyito y’icyaha yahamijwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye atariyo, ko icyaha yakoze ari icyo guta umwana ariko atagambiriye ko apfa ahubwo agamije kugira ngo abantu bamutoragure bamujyane mu kigo kirera impfubyi, ibi akaba yarabikoze kubera ko uwo mwana yavutse umugabo we yaramutaye mu nzu y’inkodeshanyo yabanagamo n’abana babiri barya aruko abaciriye inshuro, abona rero nta bushobozi afite bwo kubona icyo atungisha uwo mwana wundi uvutse. Nyiramugisha Joséphine asobanura kandi mu mwanzuro [6] we wanditse ko muri uko gufata ibintu uko bitari hashingirwa gusa ku mvugo z’umugabo watoraguye uwo mwana, Ubugenzacyaha, Ubushinjacyaha ndetse n’Urukiko ntawigeze akora iperereza ngo harebwe aho yari yasize umwana agamije ko atoragurwa akajyanwa mu kigo kirera impfubyi, ko bitari gushoboka ko umwana w’uruhinja atabwa mu mwobo nk’uko bivugwa n’uwamutoraguye, ngo nyuma bamusange ari muzima mu gihe cyose yari ahamaze. Mu gihe cy’iburanisha ry’urubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru, [7] Nyiramugisha Joséphine yahinduye impamvu y’ubujurire yari yanditse, avuga ko yajurijwe no gukomeza gusaba imbabazi kugira ngo Urukiko Rukuru rumugabanyirize igihano kinini yahawe n’Urukiko rwaciye urubanza ku rwego rwa mbere, kubirebana n’impamvu zashingirwaho agabanyirizwa igihano, uregwa akavuga ko usibye impamvu nyoroshyacyaha zasobanuwe n’Urukiko ku rwego rwa mbere, hanitabwa cyane cyane kukuba yarasize abana bato mu rugo batagira kirera ubu akaba atazi aho baherereye, byashoboka agafungurwa akabasanga. Kuri iki kibazo, Ubushinjacyaha bwo buvuga ko bubona [8] ubujurire bwa Nyiramugisha Joséphine nta shingiro bufite kuko ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 237

207 207

ibyo kugabanyirizwa igihano asaba mu Rukiko Rukuru yabihawe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rusizi rwaciye urubanza ku rwego rwa mbere, rwamugabanyirije igihano ku buryo buhagije ugereranyije n’ubugome bukabije bwakoranwe iki cyaha, Nyiramugisha Joséphine acukura umwobo agashyiramo umwana akarenzaho ibuye. Ubwo yabazwaga mu Bugenzacyaha ku itariki ya [9] 11/01/2014, Nyiramugisha Joséphine yasobanuye ko asiga uwo mwana wari umaze ibyumweru bibiri avutse mu bigori yari agamije kugira ngo hazagire umutoragura amwijyanire kuko we nta bushobozi yari afite bwo kumurera kandi uwari yamuteye inda yarigiriye ahantu atazi mu Bugande, ariko ko atigeze amushyira mu mwobo ngo agerekeho ibuye (côte ya 6), umugenzacyaha amubajije impamvu atashyize uwo mwana ahagaragara nko ku Murenge, kuri Police cyangwa mu bihaye Imana niba koko yari agamije kugira ngo hagire umwitwarira, Nyiramugisha Joséphine asubiza kuri côte ya 7 ko aho koko yibeshye. Mu ibazwa rye ryo kuwa 13/01/2014 mu Bugenzacyaha, [10] kuri côte ya 8, Nyiramugisha Joséphine yemeye ko mu gihe yataga uwo mwana yasize amugeretseho ibuye, akaba ari nabyo yavugiye mu iburanisha ryo mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye nk’uko bigaragara ku rupapuro rwa 7 rw’inyandiko mvugo z’iburanisha ryo kuwa 13/03/2014, ariko Nyiramugisha Joséphine abajijwe icyo yari agamije agereka ibuye ku mwobo uvugwa ko ari uwo yari yashyizemo uwo mwana, araceceka. Ibi Nyiramugisha Joséphine yemereye mu [11] Bugenzacyaha no mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rusizi byemezwa kandi na Hategekimana Emmanuel uvuga kuri côte ya 14 ko yahuruye yumvise abantu bavuga ko babonye umwana UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NYIRAMUGISHA

Page 238

208 208

utabye ageze aho yari ari mu mwobo ugeretseho ibuye amukuramo kubera ko yari yanyagiwe amujyana kuri Centre de Santé Islamique nabo bahita bamwohereza mu bitaro bikuru i Mibirizi amaramo ibyumweru bibiri n’igice bamwongerera amaraso n’umwuka akaba no mu cyuma kimushyushya. Iyo harebwe ibibazo by’ubukene Nyiramugisha [12] Joséphine avuga ko yari afite mu gihe yabyaraga uriya mwana, hakarebwa uburyo yahishe ko atwite ndetse yanabyara ntihagire ubimenya nk’uko abyisobanurira mu mvugo ze zo mu Bugenzacyaha, hakarebwa kandi uburyo we ubwe atashatse umugiraneza yasobanurira ikibazo cy’ubukene afite ngo amusabe ko yamwihera uwo mwana akamumurerera ahubwo akamushyira mu mwobo uri ahiherereye mu bigori akagerekaho ibuye akigendera ntanagaruke kuri uwo munsi kureba ko hari uwahamuvanye mu rwego rwo kwirinda ko yaharara akicwa n’imbeho cyangwa akaribwa n’ibisimba, ndetse harebwe n’uburyo aho Ndungutse David (côte ya 10-14) (wemera ko ari we wamuteye inda) aviriye mu ruzinduko yari yaragiyemo i Bugande akamenya ko Nyiramugisha Joséphine yabyaye yamubajije aho umwana we ari undi akamuhisha ukuri ahubwo akajya gutira umwana akamuheka mu rwego rwo kujijisha kugeza ubwo uwatiwe umwana amuvuyemo akamwaka umwana we Ndungutse David bikamutera urujijo bigatuma ajya kurega Nyiramugisha Joséphine ku Murenge ikibazo cyo kwihekura kikabona kujya ahagaragara; ikomatanwa n’isesengurwa ry’ibi byose bituma Urukiko Rukuru rwemeranya n’Urukiko rwaciye urubanza ku rwego rwa mbere rwasobanuye mu buryo bwumvikana muri nimero ya 8 iri ku rupapuro rwa 2 rw’urubanza RP 0030/14/ TGI/RSZ, ko akora ibi, Nyiramugisha Joséphine yari agamije kwihekura ariko ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 239

209 209

ntiyagera kuri uwo mugambi we ku mpamvu atazi zitamuturutseho. Ingingo ya 28 y’Itegeko Ngenga nº 01/2012/OL ryo [13] kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’Amategeko ahana igateganya ko ubwinjiracyaha buhanirwa n’ubwo icyari cyagenderewe kitashoboye kugerwaho bitewe n’impamvu nyir’ugukora icyaha atashoboye kumenya. Igika cya mbere cy’ingingo ya 29 y’iryo Tegeko Ngenga nº 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 cyo giteganya ko ubwinjiracyaha bw’icyaha cy’ubugome cyangwa icyaha gikomeye bufatwa kimwe nk’icyaha cy’ubugome cyangwa icyaha gikomeye ubwacyo, igika cya kabiri cy’iyi ngingo cyo kikavuga ko icyakora, mu kugena ibihano kubyerekeranye n’ubwinjiracyaha, umucamanza ashobora kugabanya ibihano bitewe n’uburyo ubwinjiracyaha bwakozwe; hashingiwe rero kubiteganywa n’izi ngingo zimaze kuvugwa, Urukiko Rukuru rukabona ibikorwa Nyiramugisha Joséphine yakoze bihanishwa ingingo ya 143 y’Itegeko Ngenga nº 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’Amategeko ahana, isobanura kokwihekura ari ubwicanyi bukorewe umwana wabyaye cyangwa uwo ubereye umubyeyi mu buryo bwemewe n’amategeko, bigahanishwa igifungo cya burundu. Nk’impamvu y’ubujurire, Nyiramugisha Joséphine [14] asaba ko yagabanyirizwa igihano yahawe n’Urukiko rwaciye urubanza ku rwego rwa mbere, nyamara nk’uko bigaragara muri nimero ya 9 n’iya 10 ziri ku rupapuro rwa 3 rw’urubanza RP 0030/14/TGI/RSZ, hasobanuwe neza uburyo Nyiramugisha Joséphine yagombaga guhabwa igihano cyo gufungwa burundu ku cyaha yahamijwe hashingiwe ku bimenyetso bishinja icyaha birimo no kuba we ubwe yemera ibyo aregwa, ariko ko kubera UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NYIRAMUGISHA

Page 240

210 210

impamvu nyoroshyacyaha zemejwe n’Urukiko rushingiye ku ngingo ya 76 n’iya 77 z’Itegeko Ngenga nº 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’Amategeko ahana ( kuba ari ubwa mbere Nyiramugisha Joséphine akoze icyaha gihanwa n’amategeko no kuba yemera icyaha akanagisabira imbabazi ), icyo gihano yagombaga guhanishwa kigabanyijwe kigashyirwa ku myaka makumyabiri (20 ans) y’igifungo hashingiwe ku biteganywa mu gace ka mbere k’ingingo ya 78 y’Itegeko Ngenga nº 01/2012/OL ryavuzwe, iyi ngingo ikaba iteganya ko mu gihe Urukiko rwemeje ko hari impamvu nyoroshyacyaha, “igihano cyo gufungwa burundu cyangwa y’umwihariko gisimbuzwa igihano cy’igifungo kitari munsi y’imyaka icumi (10 ans”. N’ubwo ariko impamvu Nyiramugisha Joséphine [15] yishingikiriza ku rwego rw’ubujurire avuga ko zoroshya ububi bw’icyaha yakoze ari izashingiweho n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rusizi rumugabanyiriza igihano yagombaga guhabwa rukagena ikindi gikwiye nyuma yo kwemeza ko rubona ibyo yishingikiriza asaba kugabanyirizwa igihano koko ari impamvu nyoroshyacyaha, Urukiko Rukuru rubona mu itangwa ry’igihano muri uru rubanza hataritawe ku ihuzwa ry’ibihano bisanzwe bitangwa n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rusizi ku cyaha kimwe (harmonisation des peines prononcées au sein d’une même juridiction sur une même infraction) kandi ntirwanagaragaza mu isobanurampamvu z’urubanza rwaciwe niba hari umwihariko uru rubanza rufite watuma uwakoze icyaha ahabwa igihano gihanitse ugereranyije n’igihano cyahawe abo bakoze icyaha kimwe kandi mu buryo bumwe1 bo bahanishijwe gufungwa imyaka icumi.

1Mu rubanza RP 0024/14/TGI/RSZ rwaciwe n`Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rusizi kuwa 28/03/2014, Mukaniyonsenga Frolence wakoze icyaha kimwe ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 241

211 211

Hagendewe ku bimaze gusobanurwa, ndetse no kukuba [16] icyaha Nyiramugisha Joséphine yakoze nta ngaruka zikomeye cyateje (agace ka kane k’ingingo ya 77 y’Itegeko Ngenga nº 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’Amategeko ahana) kuko umwana uvugwa mu rubanza yatabawe atarapfa akitabwaho agakira, Urukiko Rukuru rusanga Nyiramugisha Joséphine agomba kugabanyirizwa igihano yahawe mu rubanza RP0030/14/TGI/RSZ rujuririrwa. Nyiramugisha Joséphine agomba kandi gusonerwa gutanga amagarama y’urubanza kuko afunzwe, hagendewe ku biteganywa mu gika cya kabiri cy’ingingo ya 191 y’Itegeko no30/2013 ryo kuwa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO Rwemeye kwakira ikirego cy’ubujurire cya [17] Nyiramugisha Joséphine kuko cyatanzwe mu gihe no mu buryo buteganywa n’amategeko. Rwemeje kandi rutegetse ko imikirize y’urubanza RP [18] 0030/14/TGI/RSZ rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rusizi ku itariki ya 23/04/2014 ihindutse kubijyanye n’igihano cyatanzwe, Nyiramugisha Joséphine akaba ahanishijwe igifungo cy’imyaka icumi (10 d’emprisonnement ferme).

n’icyo Nyiramugisha Joséphine yahamijwe, muri urwo rubanza hakemezwa ko hari impamvu nyoroshyacyaha zimwe n’izemejwe mu rubanza rwa Nyiramugisha Joséphine, kandi hakanashingirwa ku ngingo n’amategeko amwe mu igenwa ry’ibihano, yahawe igihano cyo gufungwa imyaka icumi nyamara Nyiramugisha Joséphine we ahabwa igihano cyo gufungwa imyaka makumyabiri. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NYIRAMUGISHA

Page 242

212 212

Rutegetse ko Nyiramugisha Joséphine asonewe gutanga [19] amafaranga y’amagarama y’urubanza kuko afunzwe, aya mafaranga akaba ahererejwe ku isanduku ya Leta.

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 243

213

RWANDA LAW

REPORTS

ENGLISH VERSION

Page 244

214

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 214

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 214

Page 245

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS TEAM OF EDITORS ................................................................ iv PREFACE ................................................................................ vii SCOPE OF THE REPORTS ................................................... viii CITATION .............................................................................. viii

LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED .......................................................................... ix LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED ............................................. ix SUBJECT INDEX .................................................................... xii NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl .......................................................... 3 NKURUNZIZA v. MUDOGO ET AL. .................................... 31 KIGALI CITY ET AL v. KARIMBA...................................... 39 KHALID v. AHMED ET AL................................................... 51 MUSHINZIMANA v. RUTARINDWA .................................. 63 NKURUNZIZA ET AL. v. HAKIZIMANA ET AL ............... 71 BANQUE RWANDAISE DE DEVELOPPEMENT (BRD) v. MWUBAHAMANA ................................................................ 85

MWUBAHAMANA v.

BANQUE

RWANDAISE DE DEVELOPPEMENT (BRD).................................................... 85 BUCYENSENGE v. I&M BANK ......................................... 121

Page 246

ii

RWANDA

REVENUE

AUTHORITY v.

AGESPRO SECURITY ............................................................................ 129 SORAS Ltd v. ITEX Sarl ....................................................... 137 SORAS AG Ltd v. MTS Ltd .................................................. 151 PROSECUTOR v. CYUMA MIRUHO ................................. 173 PROSECUTION v. HAKIZIMANA ET AL ......................... 181 PROSECUTION v. NYIRAMUGISHA ................................ 193

Page 247

iv

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 248

v

MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE MUGENZI Louis Marie : President of the Committee Supreme Court Judge Prof. Dr. NGAGI M. Alphonse : Vice President of the Committe Lecturer in University of Rwanda 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

Cpt. KABERUKA Jean Claude : Judge at Military

Page 249

vi

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 250

PREFACE

Dear Readers,

The Rwandan Judiciary is pleased to publish the second 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 three (3) administrative cases, three (3) civil cases, four (4) commercial cases, one (1) labour case and three (3) criminal cases. As usual, the law reports are available on the website of the judiciary http://www.judiciary.gov.rw/en/case_ law/case _law booklets/ 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 251

viii

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: [V.2-2015] RLR

Page 252

ix

LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY

INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED The Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 4 June 2003 as amended and complemented to date, article 144. Organic Law n° 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting penal code, articles 288 and 289…………………………………………. articles 78 and 84…………………………………………….. articles 28, 29 ,76 , 77, 78 and 143………………………... article 35………………………………………………………. Law n°13/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure, article 191 Law n° 21/2012 of 14/6/2012 relating to civil, commercial, social and administrative procedure, articles 7, 9 and 147…………………………………………. articles 92 and 93…………………………………………….. article 295 and 329 ………………………………………….. article 9………………………………………………………... article 167…………………………………………………….. Law n°45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, articles 64, 144 and 146 ……………………………………. article 144…………………………………………………….. Law n° 13/2009 of 27/05/2009 regulating labour in Rwanda, articles of 1, 6, 22, 33, 34, 48, 47, 59, 60 and 75…………………. .................74 ...........................54 ...............184 ...............195 ...............175 ....................8 ..................41 ................123 ................131 .................32 .....................8 .............................140 ..................89 ..............................................................................195

Page 253

x x

Law nº 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures, as amended to date, article 5, paragraph 3 and article27 paragraph 3…… Law no 15/2004 of 12/6/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 3………………………………………………………... article 3………………………………………………………... Decree law no 20/75 of 20/06/1975 relating to insurance, article 32 paragraph 1………………………………………. articles 12, 27 and 32………………………………………... Law of 19/01/1920 relating to mandate in the commerce and transporters, article 18.……………………………………………… Law of 30/07/ 1888 relating to contracts or conventional obligations, articles 45, 47, 63 and 100..………………………………… article 431 and 432…………………………………………... article 258…………………………………………………….. article 258…………………………………………………….. Law no 18/2004 of 29/06/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedural, article 162(2)…………………………………………………. article 176…………………………………………………….. Organic law n° 01/2004 of 29/01/2004 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 43(7)…………………………………………………… article………………………………………………………….

RWANDA LAW REPORTS ...131 ................8 ............195 ............140 ............140 ............154 ............140 ................8 ..............74 ..............32 ..............65 ..............54 ..............54 ............154

Page 254

xi

LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED Nyirantambara v. Mukasa et al., RCAA 0032/11/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 14 December 2012………………….. Prosecutor v. Mukaniyonsenga, RP 0024/14/TGI/RSZ, rendered by the Intermediate Court of Rusizi on 28 March......................... Société Nationale Chinoise des Travaux, Ponts et Chaussées SNCTPC-China Road v. BEST LTD, RCOMA 0196/12/CS, rendered by the Supreme Court, February 21, 2014…………..... .......65 2014............195 .......32

Page 255

xii

SUBJECT INDEX Administrative procedure – Burden of proof – Evidence of fortuitous event– Every plaintiff must prove a claim. Failure to obtain proof, the defendant wins the case. – OCIR-THE should not reimburse the late fees of 12 days it charged SINFOTEC because the latter did not produce to the court the evidence demonstrating that the ship transporting the raw materials encountereda mechanical problem – Law N° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, – Law no 15/2004 of 12/6/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 3. NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl…………………………… Cross appeal – The effect for filing a cross appeal when the respondent intends to get from it whathewas denied in the first instance – The respondentis notallowed tolodge a crossappealagainst the other respondent who won the case against him/her, if the intention of the cross appealis to get what hewas deniedat the first instance.In this case, His/her requests should be requested through appeal– Law no 21/2012 of 14/06/20122004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedural, article 167 – Law no 18/2004 of 29/06/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedural, article 162(2). NKURUNZIZA v. MUDOGO ET AL……………….. Irregularities in the form of an act instituting a claim – The nullity of a procedural act due to irregularities in the form – To write opposition instead of appeal against a .................3 ...............31

Page 256

xiii

judgment, is an irregularity in the form which cannot render the process of appeal null and void, when it has not been demonstrated that its voidance is undoubtedly provided for by law, there is any serious formality or of public order that is not respected or the party requesting for it indicates the loss he/ she may incur – Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 92. KIGALI CITY v. KARIMBA……………………….. Commercial procedure – The time limit to lodge an appeal against an exparte application – Appeal against an exparte application is lodged within five days – Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 329. BUCYENSENGEv. I&M BANK…………………….. Opposition against the order of the President of the court determining the date of the auction – The party cannot apply for opposition against the order of the President which determines the date of the auction claiming that it has defect since it is not a claim as such but an administrative decision – Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 295. BUCYENSENGE v. I&M BANK…………….............. Penalty forcing the execution – In insurance cases, the court may determine penalty forcing the execution to the insurer when the insured spent long period requesting to be paid but in vain – Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 216. xiii

SUBJECT INDEX ...............39 ..............121 ..............121

Page 257

xiv xiv

RWANDA LAW REPORTS xiv

SORAS AG Ltd v. MTS Ltd ………………………….. Burden of proof – Every plaintiff must prove a claim. Failure to obtain proof the defendant wins the case – Law nº21/2012 of 14th June 2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 9. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY v. AGESPRO SECURITY…………………………….......................... Contract Law – Calculation of the interests on principal amount of money – Starting time for calculation – If the breach of the contract is related to the failure to pay money, the interests start to be calculated from the time of warning and are calculated to the rate of the National Bank less all deductions to which the party in breach is entitled – Law no 45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, article 144. SORAS Ltd v. ITEX Sarl……………………………. Contracts or obligations law – Breach of the contract – Late fees – Damages – If the breach of the contract consists of a failure to pay a sum of money or to render a performance with fixed or ascertainable monetary value, interests are calculated from the time for performance was due less all deductions to which the party in breach is entitled and those damages may be provided for in the contract but at a reasonable amount based on the actual loss or potential loss to occur in case of breach of the contract or in case of difficulty in providing evidence of the loss – Damages for breach of the contract may be provided for in the contract but at a reasonable amount based on the actual loss or potential loss to occur in case of breach of the contract or in case of difficulty in ............151 ............129 .............137

Page 258

xv

providing evidence of the loss – When both parties claim for procedural and Counsel fees while each party has won some of his/her claims and lost others in the judgment, compensation shall be operated between their requests but the Court will have to first indicate what it has awarded to every party – A creditor cannot simultaneously claim from the debtor the damages arising from the non-performance of the contractual obligation and those arising from the torts – Law N° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles 7, 9 and 147 – Law n°45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, articles 64, 144 and 146. – Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or obligations, article 258 NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl ………………………….. Defamation – Moral damages – Option to file a case to the court – Procedural costs and counsel fee – Defamation means imputation of a specific act to another person which is likely to damage the honour or dignity, or bring him/her to public contempt– It may be instituted through criminal proceedings as it may be instituted through civil proceedings – In this case, the terms “les mauvais compagnies” and “l’irreconnaissance” shall be perceived as individuals mentioned have unpleasant behaviour of disregarding the beneficence toward them – For the determination of moral damages, it should be considered the fact that the booklets in which Hakizimana and Twizeyimana were cited have been distributed among various persons while Nkurunziza and his wife named Nzayinganyiki did not try to recall them or publicly apologize to the people xv

SUBJECT INDEX .................3

Page 259

xvi xvi

they defamed so that it can erase the tarnished image – Organic Law n° 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting penal code, articles 288 and 289 – Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or obligations, article 258. NKURUNZIZA ET AL. v. HAKIZIMANA ET AL.... Procedural and counsel fees – The party which initiated the lawsuit is the one which must be responsible for the expenses incurred by the other party.

BANQUE RWANDAISE DE DEVELOPPEMENT (BRD) v. MWUBAHAMANA MWUBAHAMANA v. BANQUE RWANDAISE DE DEVELOPPEMENT(BRD)…………………............... Solidarity in obligation to pay – Solidarity in obligation between the insurer and the participant in the prejudice against the insured – Solidarity in obligation is not assumed, it shall be expressly provided in contract except when it is provided for by the law – Decree of 30/07/ 1888 relating to contracts or conventional obligations, article 63 and 100. SORAS AG Ltd v. MTS Ltd ………………………...... Criminal Law – Murder – It shall be murder instead of assault and intentional bodily injuries resulting to unintentional killing, in case it is proved that there was intent to kill. PROSECUTOR v. CYUMA MIRUHO…………......... Penalty reduction – None can benefit the penalty reduction, without proving the mitigating circumstances he/she alleges. PROSECUTOR v. CYUMA MIRUHO………………. A fixed term penalty – Fixed-term imprisonment is not less than one day and not more than twenty years, except

RWANDA LAW REPORTS ....71 ....85 ....85 ..151 ..173 .173

Page 260

xvii

SUBJET INDEX xvii

in cases of recidivism or in other cases where the law provides for other ranges of penalties. – Decree Law no 21/77 of 18/8/1977 instituting the penal code in Rwanda, article 35. PROSECUTOR v. CYUMA MIRUHO………………. Concurrence of offences – Determining Penalty – In case of concurrence of offences, the most severe penalty shall apply – Organic Law nº 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article 84. PROSECUTION v. HAKIZIMANA ET AL……........ Mitigating excuses – Minority – When the offender got the mitigating excuse basing on his/her minority, the penalty to be inflicted to him/her cannot go beyond the half of the penalty that he/she would have been sentenced to if he/she was adult. PROSECUTION v. HAKIZIMANA ET AL………… Suspension of sentence – It shall not apply in case the principal penalty does exceed 5 years of imprisonment. PROSECUTION v. HAKIZIMANA ET AL……........ Attempted infanticide –An attempt shall be punishable even if the objective is not achieved on account of a circumstance unknown to the offender. –An attempt to commit a felony or a misdemeanour shall be regarded as a felony or a misdemeanour – Organic Law nº 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, articles 28 and 29. PROSECUTION v. NYIRAMUGISHA…………........ Mitigating circumstances – When the offence had minor consequences, the sentence is reduced – Organic Law nº ..193 ..181 ..181 ..181 ..173

Page 261

xviii xviii

01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article 77 (4). PROSECUTION v. NYIRAMUGISHA…………........ Criminal Procedure – Harmonization ofsentenceswithinthe samejurisdiction overthe same offence – In case the court ruled on the same offences and the particularity in the offence commission of the pending case is not set out, the sentences are harmonized. PROSECUTION v. NYIRAMUGISHA………............ Insurance Law – Determining damages in case no party is showing the value of the insured object at the day of the accident – When no party has submitted the value of the object insured at the day of the accident, damages are determined based on insured value – The value of damages shall never be more than the insured object at the day of the accident – Decree Law no 20/75 of 20/06/1975 related to the insurance, article 27. SORAS AG Ltd v. MTS Ltd ………………………...... Insurance contract – Liability based on insurance contract – Liability of insurer vis a vis the faults committed by domestic of the head of a company – The insurer shall not escape its liability mentioned in the insurance contract pretending that the faults were committed by the domestic of the head of a company – Decree Law no 20/75 of 20/06/1975 related to insurance, article 12 – Common terms and conditions related to special fire insurance, article 46. SORAS AG Ltd v. MTS Ltd ………………………….. compensation of damages by insurance – Subrogation of insurer vis a vis the insured – The insurer who recovered

RWANDA LAW REPORTS .151 .151 .193 .193

Page 262

xix xix

the loss of the insured subrogates him/her in rights to pursue a third party that caused an insurance loss to the insured at the extent of the paid damages – Decree Law no 20/75 of 20/06/1975 relating to insurance, article 32 paragraph 1. SORAS Ltd v. ITEX Sarl……………………………… International Laws – International conventions, doctrines and jurisprudence from other jurisdictions – The application of the International conventions, doctrines and jurisprudence from other jurisdictions – International conventions, doctrine or the jurisprudence from other jurisdictions cannot be applied when they are contrary to the Rwandan laws, unless those scholars or Courts made those decisions pursuant to the international laws which were ratified by Rwanda and which binds it.

BANQUE RWANDAISE DE DEVELOPPEMENT (BRD) v. MWUBAHAMANA MWUBAHAMANA v. BANQUE RWANDAISE DE DEVELOPPEMENT (BRD)………………………….. Law determining jurisdiction of courts – Supreme Court jurisdiction – Remedies in the Supreme Court – Admission of a third party opposition claim – An extraordinary remedy of third party opposition may be prevented by the law – A case decided by the Supreme Court shall not be retried save only for the purpose of rectifying an error apparent on the record or clarifying a decision which is ambiguous or susceptible to divergent interpretations – The Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 4 June 2003 as amended and complemented to date, article 144 – Organic Law N° 01/2004 of 29/01/2004 establishing the organisation, functioning

SUBJET INDEX .137 ..85

Page 263

xx xx

and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 84 – Law n° 18/2004 of 20/06/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 176. KHALID v. AHMED ET AL………………………….. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court – Substantive jurisdiction of the Court – The value bestowed in the registration of mortgage certificate cannot be based on to determine whether the appeal falls within the jurisdiction of the Court when it is not the value which was indicated at the time of the submission of the claim or determined by the judge after deliberation on parties submissions thereto – Organic law n° 01/2004 of 29/01/2004 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 43(7). MUSHINZIMANA v. RUTARINDWA……………… Law regulating Labour – The obligation of the employer to pay the salary – In case the employment contract is still in progress, the obligation of the employer to pay the salary ceases only when the worker breaches his/her obligation to work, but when it is the employer who has notified the worker that it is not necessary for her/him to work, the obligation of payment remains – Law n° 13/2009 of 27/05/2009 regulating labour in Rwanda, articles 6, 75, 60 and 75.

BANQUE RWANDAISE DE DEVELOPPEMENT (BRD) v. MWUBAHAMANA MWUBAHAMANA v. BANQUE RWANDAISE DE DEVELOPPEMENT (BRD)………………………….. Tax Law – Registered mail – When a tax payer refuses to receive a registered mail, the post office makes an

RWANDA LAW REPORTS ...51 ...63 ...85

Page 264

xxi xxi

official statement demonstrating that the concerned rejected the correspondence and the copy is made to the tax administration – Law nº 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures, article 5 paragraph 3. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY v. AGESPRO SECURITY…………………………………………….. Interruption of the prescription of tax audit – The prescription of tax audit is interrupted by the rectification note informing the taxpayer when it is going to be audited – Law nº25/2005 of 4/12 2005 relating to Tax procedures as amended and complemented to date, article 27 paraphaph 3. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY v. AGESPRO SECURITY…………………………………………….. Transport Law –Transport contract – Evidence in transport contract – The contract of transport is proven by all evidence provided for by the law and by bill of lading in case they are related to goods – Law of 19/01/1920 relating to mandate in the commerce and transporters, article 10. SORAS Ltd v. ITEX Sarl……………………….....… Transport contract – The liability of transporters – The transporter is liable for the damaged or lost goods in case he/she does not prove that the damage, loss or accident resulted from another ground beyond his/her control for which he/she cannot be held liable – The law of 19/01/1920 relating to mandate in the commerce and transporters, article 18. SORAS Ltd v. ITEX Sarl……………………….........

SUBJET INDEX ..137 ..137 ..129 ..129

Page 265

xxii xxii

Termination of an employment contract in the course of merging of the enterprises – Damages – In case of modification due to enterprise’s legal situation particularly by succession, re-naming, sale, merging, transformation of funds, incorporation of companies, all contracts of employment in progress on the day of the modification remain valid between the new employer and the workers of the enterprise – When the enterprises merge and it is necessary to carry out reorganization of the professional categories, that reorganization is considered as a reorganization due to economical reasons – Failure for the employer to demonstrate how he complied with article 34 of the Law regulating labour in Rwanda to explain the criteria he relied on for the lay-off of the employees due to economic reasons, it is regarded as unlawfully dismissal – When an employee has a work experience of ten years the moral damages cannot exceed nine months – Law n° 13/2009 of 27/05/2009 regulating labour in Rwanda, articles 22, 33(2) and 34.

BANQUE RWANDAISE DE DEVELOPPEMENT (BRD) v. MWUBAHAMANA MWUBAHAMANA v. BANQUE RWANDAISE DE DEVELOPPEMENT (BRD)………………………….. Reinstatement – Whether reinstatement at work is one of the remedies for unfair dismissal – Reinstatement is not provided for as one of the remedies for unfair dismissal by the Rwandan laws, instead they provide for the payment of damages by the one who has unfairly terminated the employment contract – Law n° 13/2009 of 27/05/2009 regulating labour in Rwanda, article 33.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS ....85

Page 266

xxiii xxiii

BANQUE RWANDAISE DE DEVELOPPEMENT (BRD) v. MWUBAHAMANA MWUBAHAMANA v. BANQUE RWANDAISE DE DEVELOPPEMENT (BRD)…………………..............

SUBJET INDEX ....85

Page 267

xxiv xxiv

Page 268

xxv 1

ADMINISTRATIVE CASES

Page 269

2

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 2

Page 270

3

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 3

NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RADA 0025/12/CS (Mutashya, P.J., Rugabirwa and Gakwaya, J.) 25 April, 2014] Administrative procedure – Burden of proof – Evidence of fortuitous event – Every plaintiff must prove a claim. Failure to obtain proof, the defendant wins the case – OCIR-THE should not reimburse the late fees of 12 days it charged SINFOTEC because the latter did not produce to the court the evidence demonstrating that the ship transporting the raw materials encountereda mechanical problem – Law N° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure,– Law no 15/2004 of 12/6/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 3. Contracts or obligations law – Breach of the contract – Late fees – Damages – If the breach of the contract consists of a failure to pay a sum of money or to render a performance with fixed or ascertainable monetary value, interests are calculated from the time for performance was due less all deductions to which the party in breach is entitled and those damages may be provided for in the contract but at a reasonable amount based on the actual loss or potential loss to occur in case of breach of the contract or in case of difficulty in providing evidence of the loss – Damages for breach of the contract may be provided for in the contract but at a reasonable amount based on the actual loss or potential loss to occur in case of breach of the contract or in case of difficulty in providing evidence of the loss – When both parties claim for procedural and Counsel fees while each party has won some of his/her claims and lost others in the judgment, compensation shall be operated between their

Page 271

4 4

requests but the Court will have to first indicate what it has awarded to every party – A creditor cannot simultaneously claim from the debtor the damages arising from the non- performance of the contractual obligation and those arising from the torts – Law N° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles 7, 9 and 147 – Law n°45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, articles 64, 144 and 146 – Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or obligations, article 258. Facts: SINFOTEC Sarl entered into a contract with former OCIR-THE, currently known as NAEB for supplying it with the sacks for tea leaves packaging at the price of 208,250,000Frw. It was paid the first instalment for what it had supplied and remained a balance of 45,968,585Frw, but after supplying the remaining goods NAEB paid it 19,570,252Frw because it deducted 14,855,333Frw for late fees, 11,543,000Frw which the manager of EIS who is at the same time the manager of SINFOTEC Sarl took, all together amounting to 26,398,333Frw. SINFOTEC Sarl sued in the High Court claiming to be reimbursed that amount and be paid various damages, late fees for the amount it was not paid on time equivalent to 0.1% per day, the interests it was charged by FINA Bank at the value of 25% per month, in addition of the interest at the flat rate of 1,000,000Frw because the money it used was a loan from the bank which it had to pay with the interests equivalent to 10,074,427Frw, and the counsel fees of 10% of the subject matter and the procedural fees of 1,000,000Frw. The Court held that the claim of SINFOTEC Sarl has merit on the late fees it was charged contrary to the contract for 12 days because it demonstrated that it was due to casus force majeure and the

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 272

5

amount which was withheld by OCIR-THE.OCIR-THE appealed in the Supreme Court, claiming that the High Court held that there was force majeure which led to a late fine of 12 days in supplying the first instalment of the sacks while SINFOTEC Sarl did not produce evidence in support of it and it argued that the late fees which was awarded to SINFOTEC Sarl was charged on the amount it should not have been paid. In SINFOTEC Sarl’s defence, it stated that the evidence proving the force majeure was produced during the hearing and the judge understood it and relied on it. SINFOTEC Sarl appealed also, stating that the High Court disregarded the fact that it was OCIR-THE which caused the delay, that the High Court delay, that the Court failed to realize that there was a force majeure which made it impossible to perform the contract, that it did not award the damages it requested, and that the High Court did not award late fine to OCIR-THE faults. Held: 1. Every plaintiff must prove a claim, failure to obtain proof, the defendant wins the case and a party who alleges that he/she has been discharged from an obligation that has been established must prove that the obligation no longer exists, failure to do so, the other party wins the case. Thus, the fact that SINFOTEC did not produce evidence demonstrating that the ship which was transporting the raw materials broke down, OCIR-THE does not have to reimburse the amount it retained as late fees.

2. OCIR-THE should not have retained the money which it owes SINFOTEC Sarl for the purposes of compensation because OCIR-THE had paid that money to another company called E.I.S which is separate from SINFOTEC Sarl. Therefore, OCIR-THE must pay damages for the late fine. NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl 5

Page 273

6 6

3. The fact that OCIR-THE informed SINFOTEC Sarl what will be mentioned on the bags 43 days after the conclusion of the contract, it is obvious that the High Court did not error on the starting date for the computation of late fees because SINFOTEC had to wait until it was informed of the bags’ mentions for the performance of the contract, that is to say from 13 October 2002 up to 28 November 2008. Therefore, the appeal of SINFOTEC has no merit.

4. The ground which is based on the fact that SINFOTEC Sarl informed OCIR-THE in the letter that the Kenyan company which manufactures the sacks closed due to financial crisis cannot be considered as force majeure because those sacks were supposed to be delivered within 45 days and that event happened after those days provided for by the contract. Therefore, moratorium interests charged by OCIR-THE on arrears left at the time SINFOTEC supplied the second lot of sacks are well-founded.

5. Damages for breach of the contract may be provided for in the contract but at a reasonable amount based on the actual loss or potential loss to occur in case of breach of the contract or in case of difficulty in providing evidence of the loss, therefore article 258 of the Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or obligations cannot be applied in this case because it concerns the performance of the contract.

6. Damages awarded by the court should be indicated in the judgment; therefore that error should be rectified.

7. If the breach of the contract consists of a failure to pay a sum of money or to render a performance with fixed or ascertainable monetary value, interests are calculated from the time

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 274

7

theperformance was due less all deductions to which the party in breach is entitled.

8. The judge shall rule only and on all that which is referred to the court, and the judgement must contain grounds in law and in fact, thus the Supreme Court finds that the fact for the High Court to have ordered compensation of the procedural and counsel fees claimed by both parties without first demonstrating what each party is awarded and motivation thereto, is in contradiction with the law.

9. OCIR-THE had the right to charge the late fees to SINFOTEC but had no right of retention of the money meant for SINFOTEC in the context of compensation of loans which do not belong to it. OCIR-THE should therefore pay late fees for 1753 days, starting from the day it was supposed to pay it until the day the judgment was rendered at the rate of 0.1% of that amount per day.

10. Regarding the 31,623,000Frw claimed by SINFOTEC Sarl for for default to pay back the FINA Bank loan due to OCIR- THE fault (26.398.333 x 25% x 57,5 months/12 months = 31.623.000Frw), the Court is of the view that they should not be awarded, because it cannot request damages based on article 258 of the Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or obligations for issues regarding the performance of the contract.

11. Regarding the 1,000,000Frw of the flat rate claimed by SINFOTEC Sarl, it should not be awarded it because no motivation was provided thereto.

12. Regarding the procedural and counsel fees equal to 10 % of all damages it has to be paid by OCIR-THE, the Court finds them excessive; hence they are awarded upon the discretion of the Court. NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl 7

Page 275

8 8

13. A creditor cannot simultaneously claim from the debtor the damages arising from the non-performance of the contractual obligation and those arising from the torts. The appeal of OCIR-THE has merit in part; The appeal of SINFOTEC Sarl has merit in part; Court fees to both parties. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law n° 21/2012 of 14/6/2012 relating to civil, commercial, social and administrative procedure, articles 7, 9 and 147. Law no 15/2004 of 12/6/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 3. Law n°45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, articles 64, 144 and 146. Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or obligations, article 258. No case referred to. Authors cited: Henri De Page, Traité de droit civil belge, principes-doctrine- jurisprudence, Tome deuxième, troisième édition, Bruylant, Bruxelles, 1964, PP 596-597-602.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 276

9 9

Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] On 30/08/2008, SINFOTEC Sarl concluded a contract with former OCIR-THE, currently known as NAEB, to supply it with sacks for the package of tea worth 208,250,000Frw. After it has been paid for the supplied first instalment, and the remaining instalment amounting to 45,968,585Frw, SINFOTEC Sarl supplied the remaining instalment but when it came to payment it was paid 19,570,252Frw. It was told that there has been a deduction of 14,885,333Frw as penalty for late fee and 11,543,000Frw, taken by the director of EIS Rudaharishema Emmanuel, who is also the director of SINFOTEC and thus, a total of 26,398,333Frw was deducted. [2] SINFOTEC was not satisfied with explanations it was given by OCIR-THÉ, the today’s NAEB, relating to deduction of this amount and resorted to the High Court seating in Kigali, requesting the reimbursement of that amount and the payment of damages worth 12,855,988Frw of moratorium interests as the amount in question was not paid on time, calculated to 0,1% a day (2.398.333Frw x 0.1% x 487 days = 12.855.988 Frw), the payment of damages based on interests deducted by FINA Bank computed on 25% a month, in addition to the lump sum of 1,000,000Frw because the money that it used was a loan owed to the Bank that it would have paid after the payment by OCIR- THE. It requested interests on that amount equal to 10,074,427Frw (26,398,333Frw x 25% x 16.5/12 + 1,000,000Frw = 10,074,427Frw), and it claimed the payment of council’s fees equal to 10% of the value of the subject matter and 1,000,000Frw of case follow upexpenses. NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl

Page 277

10 10

[3] The court ruled on the case RAD 0156/10/HC/kig on 27 April 2012, and held that the claim of SINFOTEC Sarl is founded as to 2,449,000Frw for the 12 days late fine deducted contrary to the contract of 30 August 2008 because it has indicated that it encountered “force majeure” and as to 11,543,000Frw retained by OCIR-THE on the ground that it operates compensation between the debt owed to it by the other company, Entreprise d’Ingénierie et de Service (EIS). But, it ruled that other SINFOTEC claims are not founded and ordered OCIR-THÉ to pay it 14,042,000Frw. [4] OCIR-THE was not contended with the decision of the High Court and appealed before the Supreme Court on 25 May 2012, arguing that the High Court, as to the late fine of 12 days of supplying the first instalment of sacks, held that there has been a force majeure yet SINFOTEC did not produce any evidence to prove it. It also argues that the High Court held without motivation that SINFONTEC has to be awarded moratory damages equal to 6,838,616Frw. [5] SINFOTEC Sarl appealed against that judgment too on 26 May 2012 alleging that the High Court, disregarded that the delay was caused by OCIR-THE, failed to discover that there has been a force majeure that prevented the performence of the contract, refused to award it damages, and that due to Ocir- Thé’s faults of delay of payment of the loan occasioned disputes between SINFOTEC and FINA Bank. It further argues that the High Court did not include the damages awarded worth 6,838,616Frw in the sum that appears in the judgment, that it did not award all damages it claimed, yet it was cleared that it was prejudiced; rather, it ruled that the claimed damages had to be set off. Moreover, the High Court refused to award

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 278

11 11

26,398,333Frw and that this amount was subject to moratory damages of 487 days, equal to 12,855,988Frw. [6] The hearing was conducted in public on 11 March 2014, OCIR-THE represented by State Attorney Rubango Epimaque while SINFOTEC Sarl was represented by Rudaharishema Emmanuel, assisted by Counsel Baragondoza Jean Damascène. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES The appeal of OCIR-THE Whether SINFOTEC Sarl did produce any evidence before the High Court to prove the occurence of force majeure as the ship that carried raw materials would have faced a serious problem while in the ocean. [7] State Attorney Rubango Epimaque, who represents Ocir- thé argues that the High Court ruled that the lateness of 12 days from 28 November 2008 to 9 December 2008 which led OCIR- THE to penalise SINFOTEC Sarl, charging it 2,499,000Frw as a moratory penalty has to be ruled out since during that period SINFOTEC encountered a force majeure as the ship carrying raw materials encountered a difficulty while in the ocean, being the cause for SINFOTEC’s failure to execute the contract, while no evidence was produced to prove that force majeure as explained, to the extent that it would have been admitted as proving such a force majeure, and he therefore finds that the court confirmed that force majeure on mere statements of SINFOTEC Sarl, and prays that the period of 12 days be included among the delay period that SINFOTEC should be penalized for. NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl

Page 279

12

[8] State Attorney Rubango Epimaque explains that the force majeure is something that is known by all people once occured, therefore it should not be known by SINFOTEC only, and the fact that the ship broke down in the ocean and this was known by SINFOTEC only yet it should have been known by anybody, that is not a force majeure, especially that except it was written in the letter, there is no other related evidence produced by SINFOTEC. [9] Counsel Baragondoza Jean Damascène, representing SINFOTEC argues that the evidence of the force majeure was produced during the hearing and that the judge was able to understand and consider it. Therefore, he finds the ground put forward by OCIR-THE baseless as the High Court acted in accordance with the law, especially that the force majeure is stipulated in the contract between SINFOTEC and OCIR-THE.

COURT FINDINGS [10] Article 9 of the law n° 21/2012 of 14/6/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provided that “every plaintiff must prove a claim. Failure to obtain proof, the defendant wins the case. Likewise, a party who alleges that he/she has been discharged from an obligation that has been established must prove that the obligation no longer exists. Failure to do so, the other party wins the case”. [11] Article 3, paragraph 1 of the law n° 15/2004 of 12/6/2004 relating to evidence and its production provides that “Each party has the burden of proving the facts it alleges”. 12

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 280

13

[12] The Supreme Court finds that in the paragraph 4 of the judgment appealed against, the High Court basing on article 64 of the Law n°45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts and on the letter of SINFOTEC Sarl of 28 October 2008 received by OCIR-THE on 30 October 2008 notifying that it could not be able to perform its obligations in the due time since the ship that carried raw materials coming from South Africa to Kenya encountered a barrier in the ocean; ruled that SINFOTEC Sarl should not be charged the moratory damages of 12 day amounting to 2,499,000Frw, because the failure to fulfil its obligations was beyond its control as stipulated in their contract in its paragraph 31. [13] Upon analysis of the content of paragraph 4 of the judgment appealed against, it is obvious that the High Court held that there has been a force majeure that could not be foreseen which prevented SINFOTEC Sarl from supplying the first instalment of sacks 9/12/2008, after 12 days of delay, and that was held only basing on the letter of 28 October 2008 drawn by SINFOTEC Sarl, where it notifies OCIR-THE that the ship that was coming from South Africa towards Mombasa- Kenya encountered a barrier in the ocean that took three weeks to be sorted out. However, except notifying that problem, SINFOTEC Sarl had to produce evidence thereto, especially before the high court, since it was claiming that OCIR-THE charged it 2,499,000Frw because of 12 days of lateness1.

1“C’est au débiteur qui se prétend libéré par cas fortuit ou par force majeure, à prouver cette libération, et par conséquent le fait qui la produit. La preuve de la cause étrangère doit être faite avec tous les caractères requis pour qu’elle soit libératoire, c’est-à-dire que l’exécution soit réellement impossible, et pas simplement plus onéreuse, et que toute faute du débiteur soit exclue’’. Henri De Page, “Traité de droit civil belge, principes-doctrine- 13 NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl

Page 281

14

[14] Pursuant to the provisions of article 9 of the law n° 21/2012 of 14/6/2012 stated above and article 3 of the law n° 15/2004 stated above in its paragraph 1 and the motivation of the High Court in paragraph 4 of the judgment appealed against, the court finds that there is no single evidence that proves the occurrence of that force majeure, therefore the High Court should have not held that there have been a force majeure, as long as there is no evidence to sustain it. [15] Having considered all those grounds, the Supreme Court is of the view that the ground of appeal of OCIR-THE is founded, therefore OCIR-THE should not pay SINFOTEC Sarl 2,499,000Frw that was deducted as moratory damages for 12 days. Whether SINFOTEC Sarl deserve to retain moratory damages that the High Court awarded to it. [16] State Attorney Rubango Epimaque argues that damage equal to 6,838,616 Frw of late fine, the High court awarded to SINFOTEC Sarl are not reasonable as they were calculated on the amount it should have not been awarded including 2,499,000Frw of late fine and 11,543,000Frw OCIR-THE deducted from the amount owed to SINFOTEC Sarl in terms of set-off, therefore he finds that SINFOTEC should not be awarded those damages as there is no reason that 14,042,000Frw had to be removed by the High Court. [17] Counsel Baragondoza Jean Damascène puts forward that it should have not been deducted 2,499,000Frw of late fine as it

jurisprudence”, Tome deuxième, troisième édition, Bruylant, Bruxelles, 1964, PP 596-597-602. 14

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 282

15

has encountered the force majeure that led to the non- performance of its obligations towards OCIR-THE, and that it should have not been deducted 11,543,000Frw because that amount was owed by another company different from SINFOTEC Sarl, therefore, he finds that the ground of appeal of OCIR-THE has no merit.

COURT FINDINGS [18] With regard to 2,499,000Frw as stated above, OCIR- THE had the right to charge SINFOTEC Sarl that amount as moratory damages because except the mere argument, it did not prove the force majeure that prevented it from supplying OCIR- THE with the sacks within the agreed period, therefore the High Court did not have to calculate those moratory damages basing on this amount. [19] With respect to 11,453,000Frw, the Supreme Court finds that according to appeal submissions of OCIR-THE, the motivation given by the High Court as per that amount, under paragraph 6 and 7 of the judgment appealed against, is founded because OCIR-THE should have not retained that amount in terms of set-off provided for by article 181 and 182 of the civil code book III, upon the payment owed to SINFOTEC Sarl because that amount was paid to another company named E.I.S, different from SINFOTEC Sarl. [20] As explained above, the Supreme Court finds that the late fine on the amount of money that SINFOTEC claims were not paid to it, should have been computed basing on 11,543,000Frw which was deducted without any just cause, hence OCIR-THE has to pay related moratorium interests. 15 NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl

Page 283

16

[21] Pursuant to all those grounds, the Supreme Court is of the view that this ground of appeal of OCIR-THE is founded as regards to 2,499,000Frw only that the High Court ordered it to pay to SINFOTEC Sarl. The appeal of SINFOTEC Sarl To know whether the High Court counted the first late fine from 30/8/2008. [22] Counsel Baragondoza Jean Damascène argues that the High Court did not analyse carefully to find that OCIR-THE caused all problems of delay. He elaborates that the first latenesswas caused by OCIR-THE that changed the artwork and notified SINFOTEC Sarl after 43 days (13 October 2008), after the conclusion of the contract, and that contract was due to performed within 45 days from 30 August 2008. [23] State Attorney Rubango Epimaque puts forward that the High Court did not start the computation of delay from 30 August 2008, the date on which the contract was concluded as it is obvious from paragraph 4 of the appealed judgment that the date the High Court started to compute the delay is 13 October 2008, after the confirmation of the artwork to be marked on sacks. He explains that 45 days of the supply of sacks as convened begun on 13 October 2008 up to 27 November 2008, therefore he finds that the High Court did not error by computing the lateness period starting after 13 October 2008.

COURT FINDINGS [24] The Supreme Court finds that when you read paragraph 4 of the appealed judgment, it is clear that the High Court 16

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 284

17

started to compute the late period of delay from 13 October 2008 the day on which the artwork was confirmed and it confirmed that all sacks worth 208,250,000Frw had to be supplied within 45 days, on 28 November 2008 but this was not done and the first installment was supplied on 9 December 2008, the second on 31 December 2008, the third 8 April 2009 and the fourth that was the last on 10 April 2009. [25] With regard to motivation above, the Supreme Court is of the view that, the High Court, as OCIR-THE does not refute it , ruled rather that the performance of the contract between SINFOTEC Sarl and OCIR-THE was late as SINFOTEC Sarl had to wait for OCIR-THE to inform it the content of the artwork, the reason why instead for OCIR-THE to begin to count 45 days of supplying the agreed sacks on 30 August 2008 the day the contract was concluded, it begun from 13 October 2008, the day SINFOTEC Sarl was notified of the artwork. [26] Pursuant to all those grounds, the Supreme Court finds that the fact that OCIR-THE notified SINFOTEC Sarl the artwork after 43 days from the date of the conclusion of the contract, does not justified the delay of SINFOTEC Sarl to supply the sacks within 45 days beginning from 13 October 2008 to 28 November 2008, therefore that ground of appeal of SINFOTEC Sarl has no merit as OCIR-THE is not responsible for SINFOTEC Sarl’s delay. Whether there has been a second force majeure that led SINFOTEC Sarl to delay the performance of the contract and whether the late fine deducted from 52,205,875Frw by OCIR-THE was contrary to the law. 17 NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl

Page 285

18

[27] Counsel Baragondoza Jean Damascène argues that the High Court was not able to find out that there was a second force majeure and did not consider the second instalment relating to the sacks worth 58,205,875Frw. [28] In the course of hearing, Counsel Baragondoza Jean Damascène, explains that after the first instalment was stocked in MAGERWA, a part of it worth 58,275,639Frw was transported by two lorries to OCIR-THE and there left the other part worth 58,205,875Frw equal to two lorries that had to comply with tax procedures, but OCIR-THE delayed to pick them from MAGERWA, the reason why SINFOTEC Sarl wrote a letter requesting it to pick the remaining part. Hence, he finds that it should have not been deducted the late fine as the delay was caused by OCIR-THE. [29] Rudaharishema Emmanuel argues that after the supply of the first instalment of sacks, the factory that manufactured them closed its doors due to global economic crisis, consequently SINFOTEC wrote a letter to OCIR-THE on 16/2/2009, notifying it that problem and requesting it to supply it other sacks different from those agreed upon previously according to the new sample presented to it. He further explains that OCIR-THE replied to the letter of SINFOTEC Sarl after 15 days stating that the problem was out of SINFOTEC Sarl’s will but that it will charge it moratorium interests as it did not supply sack on time, therefore he finds that OCIR-THE contradicts itself because after accepting that the problem was beyond SINFOTEC Sarl’s control, it should not have decided to charge it the late fine. [30] State Attorney Rubango Epimaque argues that OCIR- THE does not accept any force majeure as it explained above in 18

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 286

19

the first ground of appeal of OCIR-THE. He explains that as for the second force majeure alluded by SINFOTEC Sarl, the High Court gave a clear and reasonable explanation, therefore he finds that failure forSINFOTEC Sarl to supply all sacks at once, yet it knew that it delayed to supply them, OCIR-THE.should not be held liable.

COURT FINDINGS [31] The Supreme Court finds that the second force majeure stated in the appealed judgment concerns the shutdown of the factory that manufactured sacks that had to be supplied by SINFOTEC Sarl due to the global economic crisis, while 58,205,875Frw relates to the other part of sacks supplied to OCIR-THE on 31 December 2008 by SINFOTEC Sarl. [32] With regard to the second force majeure stated above, the Supreme Court is of the view that, Even if SINFOTEC Sarl notified OCIR-THE in the letter of 16 February 2009 that the factory manufacturing sacks had shut down upon presentation of a copy of Daily nation newspaper from Kenya realesed on 7 February 2009 to sustain it; this is not a force majeure as the contract with OCIR-THE stipulates that all 200,000 sacks had to be supplied within 45 days, yet the last day was on 28 November 2008 and that raised incident occurred after that date. Therefore, the arguments of SINFOTEC are not founded. [33] With regard to the late fine charged by OCIR-THE to SINFOTEC Sarl amounting to 52,205,875Frw, the Supreme Court finds that SINFOTEC Sarl does not prove that the delivery destination of sacks had to be at MAGERWA, and does not prove that OCIR-THE had the obligation to get them from 19 NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl

Page 287

20

there. In contrast, article 25.1 and 25.2 of the book of particular administrative clauses show that the delivery of sacks was due to be at the head offices of OCIR-THE as they stipulate that the verification of sacks will be carried out at the time of delivery at Gikondo at OCIR-THE head offices2. It moreover finds that article 16 of the book of general administrative clauses clearly shows that SINFOTEC Sarl had the obligation to pay all taxes relating to all its delivery to OCIR-THE3, and indeed, the provisional certificate of arrival of 1 December 2008 of the sacks warehoused in MAGERWA indicates the owner of the sacks as SINFOTEC Sarl, therefore the argument of SINFOTEC Sarl that the delay to carry out the fiscal procedure by OCIR- THE was the cause of the delay of of release of the second instalment of the sacks by MAGERWA on 31 December 2008,

2L’article 25.1 du Cahier des Clauses Administratives Particulières dispose que “Les inspections et essais seront effectués à la livraison. Elles vérifieront la conformité entre spécifications techniques et la livraison”. Quant à lui, l’article 25.2 du Cahier des Clauses Administratives Particulières dispose que “les inspections et essais seront conduits à Gikondo, siège de l’Ocir-Thé”. 3L’article 16.1 du Cahier des Clauses Administratives Générales édicte que “pour les fournitures provenant d’un pays autre que le pays de l’Entité de passation des marchés, le Fournisseur sera entièrement responsable de tous les impôts, droit de timbre, patente et taxes dus à l’extérieur du Rwanda”. L’article 16.2 du Cahier de Clauses Administratives Générales prévoit que “pour les fournitures fabriquées au Rwanda, le Fournisseur sera entièrement responsable de tous les impôts, droits, patentes, etc… à payer jusqu’au moment de la livraison à l’Entité de passation des marchés des fournitures faisant l’objet du marché”. Enfin, l’article 16.3 du Cahier des Clauses Administratives Générales stipule que “si le fournisseur peut prétendre à des exemptions, réductions, abattements ou privilèges en matières fiscale dans le pays de l’Entité de passation des marchés, l’Entité depassation des marchés fera tout son possible pour permettre au Fournisseur d’en bénéficier jusqu’à concurrence du maximum autorisé”. 20

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 288

21

yet it was there since 1 December 2008; is baseless because the analysis of the aforementioned grounds, undoubtedly indicate that the obligations to ensure the compliance with the fiscal procedure befell on SINFOTEC Sarl. [34] Basing on all those grounds, the Supreme Court finds that the High Court did not error in holding that the second force majeure raised by SINFOTEC was baseless and that the late fine deducted from 149,974,361Frw remained by the time SINFOTEC Sarl supplied the second party of sacks worth 58,205,875 Frw are reasonable and therefore that ground of appeal of SINFOTEC Sarl is not founded. Whether SINFOTEC Sarl deserves to be awarded damages it claims for basing on article 258 of the civil code book III. [35] Counsel Baragondoza Jean Damascène argues that the the High Court refused to charge OCIR-THE damages to be awarded to SINFOTEC Sarl based on article 64 of the law n° 45/2011of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, and because that failure to pay it, it led to its failure to pay FINA Bank, to the extent that it was charged enormous damages by the Commercial High Court, yet it is obvious that the High Court disregarded the provisions of article 258 of the civil code book III. He explains that except the contract between SINFOTEC Sarl and OCIR-THE provides for the late fine, SINFOTEC Sarl incurred a serious loss from the failure to get paid. [36] State Attorney Rubango Epimaque argues that on this ground of appeal of SINFOTEC Sarl, under paragraph 10 of the appealed judgment, the High Court’s motivation is clear and concise, and in contrast, what is not understandable is how SINFOTEC claims for damages provided in the contract 21 NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl

Page 289

22

concluded with OCIR-THE, and at the same occasion claims for the payment of debts and damages it owes to FINA Bank.

COURT FINDINGS [37] Article 144 of the law n° 45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contract provides that “if the breach of the contract consists of a failure to pay a sum of money or to render a performance with fixed or ascertainable monetary value, interests are calculated from the time for performance was due less all deductions to which the party in breach is entitled”, and article 146, paragraph 1 provides “damages for breach of the contract may be provided for in the contract but at a reasonable amount based on the actual loss or potential loss to occur in case of breach of the contract or in case of difficulty in providing evidence of the loss”. [38] With regard to late fine, the Supreme Court finds that under the contract concluded between SINFOTEC Sarl and OCIR-THE, article 15.5 of the book of general administrative clauses4 provides that if OCIR-THE does not pay SINFOTEC Sarl on time, it will be charged to late fine of all days of delay

4L’article 15.5 du Cahier des Clauses Administratives Générales prévoit que “dans l’éventualité où l’Entité de passation des marchés n’effectuerait pas un paiement dû à sa date d’exigibilité ou dans un délai indiqué au CCAP, l’entité de passation des marchés sera tenu de payer au Fournisseur des intérêts sur le montant du paiement en retard, au(x) taux spécifié(s) dans le CCAP pour toute la période de retard jusqu’au paiement intégral du prix, que ce soit avant ou à la suite d’un jugement ou une sentence arbitrale”. 22

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 290

23

on that amount on the rate stipulated under the book of general administrative clauses. Indeed, for execution of the aforementioned article, paragraph 15.5 of the book of particular administrative clauses5 explains that late fine are computed on the rate of 0.1% a day and computation of which shall start running after 45 days from the time SINFOTEC handed OCIR- THE with the invoice requesting the payment. [39] With regard to damages that SINFOTEC Sarl claims basing on article 258 of the civil code book III, the Supreme Court finds that pursuant to the general principle of law that prohibits creditors to request from the debtors the damages arising from the contract and those arising from torts at the same time, SINFOTEC Sarl cannot request the court to charge OCIR-THE the payment of damages basing on article 258 of the civil code book III relating to torts and quasi-torts, while it shows that the fault committed by OCIR-THE are based on the non-performance of the obligations arising from their contract. Therefore, article 258 stated above cannot be invoked in this case which concerns the execution of the contract. [40] In spite of all those facts, without prejudice to what are stated in the previous paragraph, if the contract provides for damages that will be awarded once one of the parties has delayed in performance, there is no other alternative apart from complying with the stipulations of the contract in accordance with article 64 of the Law n° 45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing

5 Le point CCAG 15.5 du Cahier des Clauses Administratives Particulières prévoit que “le nombre de jour de retard de paiement de la facture du Fournisseur qui conditionne le paiement des intérêts de retard est de 45 jours. Le taux d’intérêt applicable sera de 0,1% par jours de retard”. 23 NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl

Page 291

24

contracts as there is no other alternative to that. Therefore, the Supreme Court is of the view that SINFOTEC Sarl should not request OCIR-THE to pay the loss it suffered on the ground that the delay in payment caused the failureto honor its obligations towards FINA Bank as it defaulted to pay its debt. [41] Pursuant to all those grounds, that ground of appeal of SINFOTEC Sarl has no merit. Whether the decision of the judgment appealed against does not contain the moratory damageds equal to 6,838,616Frw awarded to SINFOTEC by the High Court. [42] Counsel Baragondoza Jean Damascène argues that even though the High Court awarded to SINFOTEC Sarl late fine equal to 6,838,616Frw, it did not include i in the sum found in its decision under paragraph 15 of the appealed judgment. [43] State Attorney Rubango Epimaque argues that if damages awarded by the court have merit, this has to be included in the ruling of the case in order to facilitate its enforcement once it becomes final.

COURT FINDINGS [44] The Supreme Court is of the view that under paragraph 9 of the appealed judgment, the High Court awarded late fine to SINFOTEC Sarl equal to 6,838,616Frw and this amount is not indicated in the ruling. [45] As argued by litigants, this amount had to be included in the court ruling, therefore, the Supreme Court finds that this 24

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 292

25

ground for SINFOTEC Sarl’s appeal is founded as this mistake has to be rectified. To determine whether the High Court provided motivation for the compensation between the counsel and proceeding fees claimed by both parties. [46] Counsel Baragondoza Jean Damascène argues that under paragraph 11 of the appealed judgment, the High Court ruled that damages claimed by all parties were well founded but they are excessive and after, it ruled that they have to be compensated. He argues that the expenses incurred by all parties cannot be equal, and finds that there is no ground to deny SINFOTEC Sarl all the damages it claimed and orderit to pay a half of the court fees. [47] State Attorney Rubango Epimaque argues that in this case, the High Court found that concerning the amount all parties claimed, there is certain amount that SINFOTEC had to be awarded, and another amount that OCIR-THE deducted which are founded, therefore the fact that under paragraph 11 of the court’s decision, the High Court in its discretion, held that damages claimed by both parties, as each party lost and won on some points, and he finds that that ground of appeal is ill- founded as there is no irregularity of that court’s discretion was proven.

COURT FINDINGS [48] Article 7 of the relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that “the judge shall rule only and on all that which is referred to the court”. 25 NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl

Page 293

26

[49] Article 147, paragraph 2 of the law relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that “the judgement must contain grounds in law and in fact”. [50] With regard to the counsel’s honorary and procedural fees, the Supreme Court finds that SINFOTEC Sarl claimed damages equal to 10% of the subject matter because it was dragged into lawsuits and 1,000,000Frw of proceedings’ expenses whereas OCIR-THE claimed 1,000,000Frw of the counsel feesand 500,000Frw of procedural fees. The court finds that pursuant to article 258 0f the civil code book III, the High Court found that the claims of litigants are founded but because they were excessive, and in addition each party wins and losses on some grounds of the claim there should be compensation. [51] Given that the High Court ordered the compensation of the counsel and procedural fees without first demonstrating what has been awarded to each party, the Supreme Court finds that the High Court did not respond to the requests of litigants and therefore pursuant to article 7 and 147, paragraph 2 of the law relating to civil, commercial labour and administrative procedure, the High Court did not abide by the law because before the confirmation of the compensation of the amount, it had first to indicate the amount awarded to each party and its basis. [52] Due to that ground, the Supreme Court finds that the ground of appeal of SINFOTEC Sarl is founded. 26

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 294

27

To know whether Sarl has to be awarded all damages it claims. [53] Counsel Baragondoza Jean Damascène argues in his written submissions that the High Court refused to award SINFOTEC Sarl 14,8555,333Frw deducted as late fine unnecessarily and 11,543,000Frw retained yet it was owed by another company (E.I.S). He further argues that the late fine fo 487 days on the rate of 0.1%, equal to 12,855,988Frw had to be calculated on all amount of money (26,398,333Frw) as stipulated under article 15.5 of the book of general administrative clauses. He further adds that he should be awarded extra 25% of the damages computed from 21 April 2009 to 10 March 2010 as OCIR-THE caused a loss to SINFOTEC Sarl which led it to have contentions with FINA Bank, in addition to the lump sum of 1,000,000Frw as SINFOTEC Sarl used a loan as indicated in the letter of 10 March 2010 FINA Bank wrote to it, all damages amounting to 10,074,427Frw (26.398.333Frw + 25% + 16,5 months/12 months) + 1,000,000 Frw). He concludes that the sum of all amount that OCIR-THE owes to SINFOTEC Sarl is 55,261,622Frw (39,254,321Frw + 10,074,427Frw +10% (39,254,321Frw + 10,074,427Frw: Counsel fees) + 1,000,000Frw: Procedural fees), in addition to 500,000Frw of the counsel fees at appellate level. [54] During the hearing, Counsel Baragondoza Jean Damascèneexplains that as the law provides that late fines cannot exceed the rate of 10% of the value of the tender, SINFOTEC Sarl cannot compute them up to this day because they may exceed that 10% of the total value of the entire tender, and he therefore prays that SINFOTEC be awarded damages 27 NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl

Page 295

28

equal to 10% of the entire tender, that is 20,825,000Frw. He further explains that SINFOTEC Sarl prays for the award of 31,623,000Frw relating to the loss caused by the faults of OCIR-THE as it was not able to pay the debt owed to FINA Bank (26,398,333 x 25% x 57,5 months/12 months = 31,623,000Frw) in addition to the lump sum of 1,000,000Frw. He concludes by arguing that SINFOTEC SARL prays for the counsel fees and the procedural fees equal to 10% of all the amount that has to be paid to OCIR-THE, that is to say, 7,984,633Frw (26,398,333 + 20,825,000 + 31,623,000Frw + 1,000,000 Frw = 79,846,333Frw x 10% = 7,984,633Frw), altogether amounting to 87,830,966Frw. [55] State Attorney Rubango Epimaque adduces that the High Court clearly motivated the grounds on which it admitted or rejected all amounts claimed by SINFOTEC Sarl, therefore, the fact that SINFOTEC Sarl does not demonstrate what it critises on each motivation given by the High Court on each amount claimed, instead wishes to get all it claimed for, he finds that ground of appeal not founded.

COURT FINDINGS [56] With regard to 26,398,333Frw, including 2,499,000Frw, 3,299,436Frw, 8,933,312Frw and 63,585Frw of the late fine

SINFOTEC Sarl was deducted by OCIR-THE and 11,543,000Frw deducted due to the debt it owed to OCIR-THE, for which the compensation was operated , the Supreme Court finds that as stated above, except 11,543,000Frw; OCIR-THE had the right to deduct from SINFOTEC Sarl the late fine equal to 14,855,333Frw, therefore the fact that it retained 11,543,000Frw owed to SINFOTEC Sarl without just cause, as 28

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 296

29

explained under paragraph 19 and 20, OCIR-THE has to pay late fine for 1,753 days, from the date it was supposed to pay up to the day of the pronouncement of the judgment, on the rate of 0.1% of that amount per day, that is to say 20,234,000 Frw (11,543,000 x 0.1% x 1,753 days. [57] With regard to 31,623,000Frw claimed by SINFOTEC Sarl relating to the loss OCIR-THE caused it as due to its faults, it failed to pay the debt owed to FINA Bank (26,398,333 x 25% x 57,5 months/12 months = 31,623,000Frw), the Supreme Court find that it should not be awarded this amount as explained above under paragraph 39 and 40, on the ground that it cannot claim damages basing on article 258 of the civil code book III for issues relating to the execution of the contract. [58] As for 1,000,000Frw of lump sum, the Supreme Court finds that they should not be awarded to it, as it does not prove its relevance. [59] With regard to 7,984,633Frw of the counsel and procedural fees equal to 10% of all damages that it has to be paid by OCIR-THE, the Supreme Court finds that this amount is excessive and therefore, upon its discretion the Court awards it 500,000Frw for counsel fees and 300,000Frw for the procedural fees, altogether amounting to 800,000Frw. [60] Pursuant to the grounds stated above, the Supreme Court finds that OCIR-THE has to pay 11,543,000Frw to SINFOTEC Sarl which it deducted without any justification, 20,234,000Frw for late fees, 500,000Frw for the counsel fees and 300,000Frw for the procedural fees, altogether amounting to 32,577,000Frw. 29 NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl

Page 297

30

III. COURT DECISION [61] Decides that the appeal of OCIR-THE has merit in part. [62] Decides that the appeal of SINFOTEC Sarl has merit in part. [63] Orders OCIR-THÉ to pay to SINFOTEC Sarl 11,543,000Frw deducted without any justification, 20,234,000Frw for the late fine computed on that amount of money, 500,000Frw of the counsel fees and 300,000Frw for the procedural fees, altogether amounting to 32,577,000Frw. [64] Orders OCIR-THÉ and SINFOTEC sarl to pay court fees equal to 19,000Frw.

30

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 298

31

NKURUNZIZA v. MUDOGO ETAL. [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RADA 0026/12/CS (Mukanyundo, P.J., Rugabirwa and Hitiyaremye, J.) October 10, 2014] Administrative procedure – Cross appeal – The effect for filing a cross appeal when the respondent intends to get from it what he was denied in the first instance – The respondent is not allowed to lodge a cross appeal against the other respondent who won the case against him/her, if the intention of the cross appeal is to get what hewas denied at the first instance. In this case, his/her requests should be requested through appeal – Law no 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedural, article 167 – Law no 18/2004 of 29/06/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedural, article 162(2). Fact: The State of Rwanda leased the piece of land to Nkurunziza and this led Mudogo to sue them at the High Court stating that the State of Rwanda should not have leased his piece of land because he bought it from Kankundiye, therefore the emphyteutic lease should be quashed and be paid damages. The Court held that the piece of land which is in litigation belongs to Mudogo because it was granted to him before the State of Rwanda leased it to Nkurunziza. Therefore, the emphyteutic lease is quashed and Mudogo must be given back that piece of land, and both respondents must jointly pay damages to him. Nkurunziza appealed against that judgment at the Supreme Court stating that the High Court should have held that the pieceof land belongs to him because he holds its documents

Page 299

32 32

including emphyteutic lease which cannot be challenged, even though the certificate was drawn on the basis of a cancellable or invalid contract. The State of Rwanda filed a cross appeal whereby it raised the objection of inadmissibility of the Mudogo’s claim by the High Court because after lodging the administrative appeal, he delayed to sue, therefore this Court’s decision of 14 March 2012 must be quashed. The Counsel for Mudogo states that the cross- appeal must not be admitted. Held: The respondent is not allowed to lodge a cross appeal against the other respondent who won the case against him/her, if the intention of the cross appeal is to get what he was denied at the first instance. In this case, his/her requests should be requested through appeal. The objection raised by the State of Rwanda is rejected because it was filed in contradiction with the procedure; The Court fees are suspended. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law no 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedural, article 167. Law no 18/2004 of 29/06/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedural, article 162(2). Cases referred to: SNCTPC-China Road v. BEST LTD, RCOMA 0196/12/CS, rendered by the Supreme Court, February 21, 2014.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 32

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 300

33 33

Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] Mudogo Selemani sued the State of Rwanda (Ministry which has land in its attributions) and Nkurunziza François Xavier at the High Court stating that the State of Rwanda should not have leased his piece of land which is located at Rusororo Sector, Gasabo District to Nkurunziza because he bought it from Zafarani Kankudiye on 13 November 1980, therefore the emphyteutic lease nº1493/GAS/RUS of 29 August 2011 which the State of Rwanda gave him, should be quashed in order for him to repossess it and also be paid various damages. [2] The Court held that the piece of land in litigation belongs to Mudogo Selemani because it was given to him before the State of Rwanda (Ministry which has the land in its attributions) leased it to Nkurunziza François Xavier. Therefore, the emphyteutic lease between that Ministry and Nkurunziza François Xavier is quashed. It ordered that Mudogo Selemani be given back that piece of land, and ordered that the State of Rwanda and Nkurunziza François Xavier jointly pay 3,000,000Frw of damages to Mudogo Selemani. [3] Nkurunziza François Xavier appealed against that judgment to the Supreme Court stating that the High Court should have held that the piece of land belongs to him because he possesses its documents including emphyteutic lease which cannot be challenged, even though the certificate was drawn on the basis of a cancellable or invalid contract. NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl 33 NKURUNZIZA v. MUDOGO ET AL

Page 301

34 34

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO 34

[4] The Counsel for the State of Rwanda (Ministry which has the land in its attribution) filed cross appeal in which it raised the objection relating to the fact that the High Court should not have admitted Mudogo Selemani’s claim because after lodging the administrative appeal, he delayed to refer the case to this court; therefore, the decision of 14 March 2012 made by this Court which held that his action is admitted must be quashed. The Counsel for Mudogo states that this cross appeal must not be admitted. [5] On 09 September 2014, the hearing of the case was held in public on that objection, Nkurunziza François Xavier represented by the Counsel Ruzindana Ignace, Mudogo Selemani represented by the Counsel Munyamasoko Jovit whereas the State of Rwanda (Ministry which has the land in its attribution) was represented by the State attorney Malala Aimable. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUE Whether the cross appeal filed by the State of Rwanda should be admitted. [6] The Counsel for the State of Rwanda, Malala Aimable states that he raises the objection in its cross appeal in order for the Supreme Court to rule that the High Court should not haveadmitted the claim of Mudogo Selemani because after his administrative appeal, he delayed to sue since the period of six(6) months which was provided for by article 339 of the law no 18/2004 of 29/06/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedural which was into force at the time Mudogo suedhad expired; therefore the High Court

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 34

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 302

35

judgment of 14 March 2012 which held that his claim was admitted, must be quashed. [7] Munyamasoko Jovit, the Counsel for Mudogo Selemani argues that the fact that the State of Rwanda did not appeal against that decision of the High Court of 14 March 2012 mentioned above on the objection, it cannot appeal against it through its cross appeal because this cross appeal is allowed to the party for the request of damages only. [8] Ruzindana Ignace, the Counsel for Nkurunziza François Xavier states that according to the provision of article 167(2) of the Law no 18/2004 of 29/06/2004 mentioned above, the States of Rwanda cannot use its cross appeal for request of the damages only.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [9] Regarding the Cross appeal, article of 167 of the Law no 21/2012 of 14/06/20122004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedural, provides that “the respondent may also file a cross appeal before or during hearings, even if he/she did not protest anything when he/she was served with a copy of the final judgment. A cross appeal may be filed by the respondent against the appellant or against other respondents. It shall not be solely based on obtaining compensation”. NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl 35 NKURUNZIZA v. MUDOGO ET AL

Page 303

36 36

[10] As it was ruled in the judgment RCOMA 0196/12/CS rendered by this Court on 21 February 20141, Law scholar named “Talendier” explains that the respondent is not allowed to lodge an appeal against the fellow respondent who won the case against him/her when he intends to get from his appeal what he was denied at trial. In this case, it is a main appeal that should be filed2. [11] Regarding this judgment, it is indicated in the file that on 14 March 2012, the High Court admitted the claim of Mudogo Selemani because it was filed in accordance with the procedure. On 8 March 2013, that Court rendered the judgment RAD 0176/10/HC/KIG in the merit and ruled that the piece of land in litigation belongs to Mudogo Selemani. It ordered the State of Rwanda and Nkurunziza François Xavier to jointly pay 3,000,000Frw of damages to him. [12] The case file also demonstrates that the State of Rwanda did not appeal against that decision together with the judgment on merit RAD 0176/10/HC/KIG within the appeal time limit of 30 days provided for by article 162(2) of law no 18/2004 of 20/06/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedural which was into force at that time, which stipulated that the appeal against an interlocutory judgment shall be made only jointly with the final judgment.

1 Judgment RCOMA 0196/12/CS Société Nationale Chinoise des Travaux, Ponts et Chaussées SNCTPC-China Road v. BEST LTD rendered by the Supreme Court on 21 February 2014. 2 Talendier, Traité de l’appel en matière civile (E-BOOK-free), Section Dixième, l’appel incident est–il recevable d’intimé à intimé.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 36

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 304

37 37

[13] In its submission of 9 September 2014 and before this Court, the State of Rwanda, which is sued in appeal level, raised the objection in its cross appeal requesting that the decision of the High Court of 14 March 2012 on the objection which held that the claim of Mudogo Selemani was admitted, should be quashed because eafter his administrative appeal, he filed beyond the provided time limit. [14] Notwithstanding the provision of article 167 of Law no 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure mentioned above, the Court finds that this article provides only that the respondent in appeal who did not appeal in the period of 30 days could also file a cross appeal before the hearing or in the course of it against the appellant or against other respondents, whereas the law scholar differentiated the instance the respondent is entitled to lodge a cross appeal against another respondent and the instance he is not entitled to do so as it is motivated above. [15] Therefore the Court finds that the fact that the State of Rwanda lost the case on the first instance concerning the objection raised by Nkurunziza François Xavier for inadmissibility of the claim of Mudogo Selemani, which the Court rejected, but the State of Rwanda did not appeal against that decision in the main appeal, it cannot at turn request its prayers which were rejected in first instance to be considered through its cross appeal. NKURUNZIZA v. MUDOGO ET AL NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl 37 NKURUNZIZA v. MUDOGO ET AL

Page 305

38 38

III. DECISION OF THE COURT [16] Decides that the objection raised by the State of Rwanda for inadmissibility of the claim of Mudogo Selemani, is rejected because it was filed in contradiction with the procedure; [17] Decides that the High Court decision of 14 March 2012 admitting the claim of Mudogo Selemani is sustained; [18] Schedules the hearing of this case in merit on 13 January2015; [19] Suspends the court fees.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 38

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 306

39 39

KIGALI CITY ET AL v. KARIMBA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RDAA 0040/11/CS – RADAA 0058/12/CS (Mugenzi, P.J., Kanyange and Munyangeri, J.) March 28, 2014] Administrative procedure – Irregularities in the form of an act instituting a claim – The nullity of a procedural act due to irregularities in the form – To write opposition instead of appeal against a judgment, is an irregularity in the form which cannot render the process of appeal null and void, when it has not been demonstrated that its voidance is undoubtedly provided for by law, there is any serious formality or of public order that is not respected or the party requesting for it indicates the loss he/ she may incur – Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 92. Facts:Karimba brought a case against the Kigali City before the High Court requesting the annulment of the decision N° 2638/07.1.06/09 misappropriating him the plot no 1634 and gives it to Nkusi Rukeba, claiming damages and proceedings fee. That Court ordered a forced intervention of Nkusi Rukeba but he did not appear. It decided that the contested decision is null and void and ordered Kigali City to pay moral damages, proceedings fee and the counsel fees to Karimba. The City of Kigali appealed against that judgement before the Supreme Court and Nkusi Rukeba lodged an opposition against that judgement asserting that he was unlawfully summoned. Karimba raised an objection of inadmissibility of the case RAD 0117/11/HC/KIG and prayed to be transferred to the Supreme Court because the judgment for which the opposition is lodged NKURUNZIZA v. MUDOGO ET AL NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl 39

Page 307

40 40

against (RAD 0136/09/HC/KIG) has been appealed against before the Supreme Court on number RADA 0040/11/CS. The Court decided to reject the objection, motivating that Karimba delayed to raise it. Karimba appealed against the decision of the High Court before the Supreme Court, but the High Court proceeded with the hearing of the case RADA 0117/11/HC/KG whereby it held that the judgment RADA 0136/09/HC/KIG is quashed. Karimba appealed against that judgment before the Supreme Court, claiming that cases RADA 0040/11/CS (the appeal of the City of Kigali against RAD 0136/09/HC/KIG) and RADA 0058/12/CS (his appeal against RAD 0117/11/HC/KIG) should be joinedand be tried together. The City of Kigali argues that there is no link between those cases, because the litigants are different. The City of Kigali withdrew its appeal, and also Karimba withdrew his which was formed against the decision of the High Court of rejection to transfer the claim of opposition to the Supreme Court. Nkusi raised an objection of inadmissibility of Kanimba’s appeal on the ground that he used two remedies simultaneously, which are opposition and appeal. In his defence, Karimba asserts that there was irreguralities in form, but that a letter rectifying rectification that irregelarity was written, thus their claim concerns appeal only. Held: The fact of mentioning opposition instead of appeal against a judgment, is an irregularity in the form which cannot render the process of appeal null and void, when it has not been demonstrated that its voidance is undoubtedly provided for by law, there is any serious formality or of public order that was not

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 308

41 41

respected or the party requesting for it indicates the loss he/ she may had incur. The objection overruled; The judgment on merit to proceed; Court fees suspended. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles 92 and 93. No case referred to. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] On 17 January 1992, a Burundian Sezoya Antoine was given a cadastral plan of a plot no 1634 which he bought from Habiyakare Faustin on 12 February 1986. In the year 1994, Sezoya went back to Burundi after he had built a house on this plot. [2] On 15 January 1998, Karimba Gaetan requested to be allocated that plot by Kigali City. Kigali City requested him to first pay 424,599Frw for the assets which were in the plot. On 17 January 1999, they registered the plot on his name and got the cadastral plan, and on 28th February 2000 they both signed the lease contract of that plot for 3 years which had to end on 31st January 2004. KIGALI CITY ET AL v. KARIMBA

Page 309

42 42 42

[3] On 17 January 2007, Sezoya sold that plot to Nkusi Rukeka Daphy, he was represented by Uwizeye Marie Patricie to whom he had given the power of attorney on 26December 2006. [4] On 17th January 2009, Mayor of Kigali City made an order REF N° 2638/07.1.06/09 giving back to Nkusi Rukeba the plot he had bought1 which led Karimba to lodge the case to the High Court against Kigali City, requesting to nullify order no 2638/07.1.06/09 of 16 July2009 mentioned above which deprives him the plot no1634 and gave it to Nkusi Rukeba, and requested also damage of 4,000,000Frw and 600,000Frw of procedural costs. [5] On 12 August 2011, the Court rendered the judgment RAD 0136/09/HC/KIG in which Nkusi Rukeba forcibly intervened but he did not appear before the Court. the Court decided that order REF N° 2638/07.1.06/09 to be quashed, ordered Kigali City to pay Karimba 400,000Frw of damages and 600,000Frw for the procedural and counsel fees, under the motivation that Kigali City cannot contradict itself in its orders whereby it issued thecertificates and later issues them to another person without following the lawful procedure and indicate that the previous ones have been nullified. [6] On 10 September 2012, Kigali City appealed against that judgment to the Supreme Court and the appeal was recorded on RADA 0040/11/CS. The appeal was screened and the screening

1Basing on the meeting of, the administrators of Kigali City, Nyarugenge District, Muhima Sector and the council for the residents of Rugenge Cell which was held on 10/09/2009 to analyze the issue of that plot.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 310

43

judge held that it followed the legal procedure, but on 26 August 2011, Nkusi filed for an opposition against the case RAD 0136/09/HC/KIG arguing that he was unlawfully summoned, because he was summoned at false residence and also the summon did not bear the names and profession of the one who summoned him. His claim was recorded on RAD 0117/11/HC/KIG. [7] On 28 September, the Court admitted the opposition claim of Nkusi Rukera against the judgment RAD 0136/09/HC/KIG. On 16 November 2012, it ruled on the objection raised by Karimba concerning the transfer of the case RAD 0117/11/HC/KIG to the Supreme Court because the judgment for which opposition was formed (RAD 0136/09/HC/KIG) was appealed against to the Supreme Court and recorded on RADA 0040/11/CS. The court rejected the objection because he delayed to raise it. [8] On 23 November 2012, Karimba appealed against that decision (concerning the case RAD 0117/11/HC/KIG) to the Supreme Court. The appeal was recorded on n° RADA 0058/12/CS, but the High Court proceeded with the hearing of the case RAD 0117/11/HC/KIG, then on 13 March 2013, it quashed the judgment RAD 0136/09/HC/KIG and decided that the order made by the administration of Kigali City which gave back the house to Nkusi Rukera was valid. [9] That court explained that the lease contract of the plot for 3 years entered into between Karimba and Kigali City had expired as he was not given permanent ownership. The declared that the contradiction of Kigali City which had told him that the plot was his has merit, because it found that some mistakes were made when it was given to him, because there is no way KIGALI CITY ET AL v. KARIMBA 43

Page 311

44 44

another person would get the right on the plot without being transferred by the owner Sezoya who sold it to Nkusi. It also held that Nkusi cannot be awarded the damages he claims for because he was not able to demonstrate the loss incurred. [10] On 11 April 2013, Karimba appealed against that judgment before the Supreme Court, the appeal was recorded on no RADA 0027/13/CS. In his letter dated 19 August 2013,he requested that the cases RADA 0040/11/CS9 (the appeal of Kigali City against RAD 0136/09/HC/KIG) and RADA 0058/12/CS (his appeal against RAD 0117/11/HC/KIG) to be joined and tried jointly, but the counsel for Kigali City argued that they are different because the litigants are not the same. [11] The hearing was conducted in public on 25 February 2014, the Kigali City was represented by Mbarushimana J.M.Vianney, the state attorney, Karimba was represented by Counsel Rwangabwoba Bernard, and Nkusi Rukeba was represented by Counsel Ndondera Christian. [12] On that day, State attorney Mbarushimana, representing Kigali City, stated that it has withdrawn its appeal and even the counsel for Karimba also stated that Karimba has also withdrawn his appeal regarding the decision of the High Court concerning the refusal to transfer to Supreme Court the opposition claim. [13] After both parties agreed that the withdrawal of the claims of appeal were in conformity with the law, the Court admitted it pursuant to article 26 CCLAP, and the debate stayed on the objection raised by the counsel for Nkusi concerning the inadmissibility of the remaining appeal lodged by Karimba (RADA 0027/13/CS).

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 312

45 45

Regarding the objection of inadmissibility of appeal lodged by Karimba. [14] Ndondera, the counsel for Nkusi raised an objection of inadmissibility of Karimba’s appeal because he used two remedies which are opposition and the appeal simultaneously while it is prohibited by the law. [15] The counsel for Karimba adduces that even if there was an irregularity in form on their appeal, on which they wrote “opposition” and “appeal” at the same time, they wrote a letter which rectified those irregularities, in the away that it is obvious the claim was of appeal. [16] The counsel for Kigali City and the one for Nkusi claim that they did not get the letter for rectification of irregularities whereas Counsel for Karimba argues that there is an evidence of its reception by the Kigali City, and a court bailiff’s writ indicating that the letter was delivered to Nkusi who refused to acknowledge receipt, whereas his Counsel claims that only his wife resides in Rwanda as he does not reside there. [17] The Court decided to suspend its proceedings in order to first examine the objection mentioned above concerning the inadmissibility of Karimba’s appeal and it informed parties that the decision will be pronounced on 28 March 2014. KIGALI CITY ET AL v. KARIMBA

Page 313

46 46

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [18] Regarding the objection of inadmissibility of the Karimba’s appeal on the ground that he exercised tworemediessimultaneously which are prohibited by the law as the counsel for Nkusi claims whereby he explains that the appeal doesn’t indicate the appellant intention as whether it is an appeal or an opposition; the Court is of the view that what must be examined is to determine whether it was really an irregularity in the form which could be rectified by the letter which the counsel for Karimba claims that it was written with the purpose of rectifying it. This should be addressed while taking into account the document regarding the appeal submission, the document which is purportedly for rectification and its notification to the opponents. [19] The case file indicates that the appeal of Karimba to the Supreme Court was filed in this way: RADA 0027/ 13 / CS, the subject matter of the claim being Appeal against the judgment RAD 0117/11/HC/KIG pronounced on 13 March 2013 - Opposition to the judgment RAD 0136/09/HC/KIG pronounced on 12 August 2011 - Annulment of the order of 16 July 2009 - Damages equivalent to 400,000Frw – Procedural and counsel fees = 600,000Frw. [20] In his letter dated 9 January 2014 which is contained in the file, and which was submitted to Kigali City on the same day as demonstrated by the seal of Kigali City and the signature of the person who received it at the reception and also submitted to Nkusi Rukeba that same day as confirmed by the court bailiff Rusunika Jonas who wrote and signed on the letter that he handed it to Nkusi but he refused to sign for its reception, the

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 314

47 47

purpose of this letter was to explain that even if in the application of appeal there was a word “opposition” but the claim filed is not of opposition, rather it concerns the appeal. [21] The court finds that there is no ground on which the claim that Karimba filed before the Supreme Court after he was not satisfied with the decision of the High Court, be considered as opposition rather than appeal against it. Instead, it is an irregularity in the form which was even rectified in the letter of 9 January 2014 (Article 93 CCLAP), which falls into the categories of irregularities unlikely to render the process of appeal null, when it has not been demonstrated that any of the requirements provided for by article 92 of CCLAP existed, such as; when the voidance is undoubtedly provided for by the Law, there is any serious formality or of public order that was not respected, or if the party requesting for it indicates the loss he/ she may incur. [22] Based on the explanations given above, the Court finds that the objection of inadmissibility of Karimba’s appeal raised by the Counsel for Nkusi is overruled. II. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [23] Decides that the objection of inadmissibility of Karimba’s appeal against the judgment RAD 0136 /09 / HC / KIG raised by Nkusi is overruled; [24] Orders that the hearing of the case on merit is scheduled on 14 April 2014; [25] Suspends the court fees. KIGALI CITY ET AL v. KARIMBA

Page 315

48

Page 316

49

CIVIL CASES

Page 317

50 50

Page 318

51 51

KHALID v. AHMED ET AL [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RC 0002/09/CS(Kayitesi R., P.J., Mukamulisaand Mukandamage, J.) March 19, 2010] Law determining jurisdiction – Supreme Court jurisdiction – Remedies in the Supreme Court – Admission of a third party opposition claim – An extraordinary remedy of third party opposition may be prevented by the law – A case decided by the Supreme Court shall not be retried save only for the purpose of rectifying an error apparent on the record or clarifying a decision which is ambiguous or susceptible to divergent interpretations – The Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 4 June 2003 as amended and complemented to date, article 144 – Organic Law N° 01/2004 of 29/01/2004 establishing the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 84 – Law n° 18/2004 of 20/06/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 176. Facts: Khalid Foz filed a third party opposition in the Supreme Court against the judgment RCAA 0006/08/CS delivered by the Supreme Court on 26 june 2008. In that case, Assini Omar and Ali Fikirini were opposing Ahmed Abdulatif and Succession Yussuf Bin Abdulaziz in the appeal case RCA 0386/07/HC MUS encompassing other cases, rendered by the High Court, Chamber of Musanze and Succession Mohamed Yussuf Bin Abdulaziz intervened in it. Assini Omar raised the objection relating to the lack of status of Succession Yussuf Bin Abdulaziz while the later raised the objection regarding security deposits furnished by foreigners. However, the court decided to examine the admissibility of the

Page 319

52 52

claim first, pursuant to article 84 of the Organic Law N° 01/2004 of 29/01/2004 establishing the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as amended and completed to date, and article 144 ofThe Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 4 June 2003 as amended and complemented to date. The plaintiff side states that they filed the case to the court which they consider to have jurisdiction because the Supreme Court hears cases on merits implying that third party opposition claim is an individual’s right provided for by article 18 of the Constitution and that there are other cases tried by the Supreme Court basing on this provision, one of them they came accross being RSOCAA 0008/06/CS, EER v. Musenyeri Sebununguri delivered on 17 July 2009 which related to opposition. Upon its analysis, it is clear that even the third party opposition should be admitted. Concerning the defense on article 144 of the Constitution which provides that the decisions of the Supreme Court are not subject to appeal save in terms of petitions for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy or revision of a judicial decision; he stated that he considers opposition like third-party opposition. The counsel for Assini Omar argues that the third party opposition is filed by a third person to the case implying that it is an opposition initiated by different persons. He added that it is clearly motivated in the judgment RSOCAA 0008/06/CS that the litigant is entitled to use ordinary and extraordinary remedies, therefore he finds that if the Supreme Court admitted it, the third party opposition is valid and is his right as long as the rendered judgment prejudice his rights because according to him, it is not fair as how the Supreme Court could allow the

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 320

53

existent party to plead and denies it to a third party to the judgment. The counsel for Ahmed Abdullatif states that all those provisons of the law are clear because nothing would have prevented the Legislator to add the opposition and third party opposition in the provision of article 84 of the Organic Law n° 1/2004 of ku wa 29/1/2004 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and that there exists a case law RCA 0002/05/CS, Kagoyire Christine v. Amuri Sultan relating to the third party opposition which should be relied on by the Supreme Court because it held that such a remedy is not provided for by the law before the Supreme Court, therefore he finds that the case law submitted by the opponent party related only to the opposition. The counsel for Succession Yussuf Bin Abdulaziz emphasized that according to article 176 of the Law n° 18/2004 of 20/06/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure which stipulates that any judgment shall be subject to third party opposition, unless otherwise provided by the Law. Ali Fikirini states that the third party opposition lodged by Khalid Foz should be admitted because he was cited several times without being summoned the reason why he has interest as he was not notified about it. Held: 1. An extraordinary remedy of third party opposition may be prevented by the law.

2. A case decided by the Supreme Court shall not be retried save only for the purpose of rectifying an error apparent on the KHALID v. AHMED ET AL 53

Page 321

54 54

record or clarifying a decision which is ambiguous or susceptible to divergent interpretations. Claim rejected. Court fees to the third party. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: The Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 4 June 2003 as amended and complemented to date, article 144. Organic Law N° 01/2004 of 29/01/2004 establishing the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 84. Law n° 18/2004 of 20/06/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 176. No case referred to. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] This case derives from the third party opposition claim filed by Khalid Foz in this Court against the ruling of the case RCAA 0006/08/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 26 June 2008. In that case, Assini Omar and Ali Fikirini sued Ahmed Abdulatif and Succession Yussuf Bin Abdulaziz in appeal against the judgment RCA 0386/07/HC MUS to which other cases were joined and it was rendered by the High Court, Chamber of Musanze. Succession Mohamed Yussuf Bin Abdulaziz intervened in it.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 322

55

[2] In that judgment RCAA 0006/08/CS against which the third party opposition was lodged, the Supreme Court decided that the appeal lodged by Assini Omar has no merit, that the appeal of Succession Yussuf Bin Abdulaziz has merit and that the voluntary intervention by Succession Mohamed Yussuf Bin Abdulaziz was not heard because Counsel Musonera who filed the application withdrawn from the case and was not replaced. [3] The Supreme Court ordered Assini Omar to pay 3,780,000 Frw to Succession Yussuf Bin Abdulaziz of rent in addition to 28,620,000Frw he was charged in the judgment rendered by the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, all amounting to 32,400,000Frw and pay jointly with Ali Fikirini 300,000 Frw of procedural costs in addition to 1,431,000Frw they were charged by the High Court and everyone pays 4% of prorated fee of damages charged and jointly pay 36,650Frw of Court Fees, failure to pay it within 8 days, it shall be deducted from their assets through government coercion. II. THE CASE BEFORE THE SUPREME

COURT [4] Pursuant to the Supreme Court president’s order n° 0038/09/RC of 20/10/2009, the hearing was scheduled on 10 November 2009 but was not held and it was adjourned to 10 January 2010 in the interestof justice because some of the litigants wished to be heard while others wanted the hearing to be adjourned because there was information that Counsel Musonera Alexis for Khalid Foz committed an accident. [5] On 19 January 2010, the hearing proceeded in public, in presence of Counsel Musonera Alaxis for Khalid Foz, Assini KHALID v. AHMED ET AL 55

Page 323

56 56

Omar represented by Counsel Buhuru Pierre Célestin, Counsel Hakizimana Théogène for Succession Yussuf Bin Abdoulaziz, Counsel Habimana Adolphe for Ahmed Abdoulatif and Ali Fikirini standing on his own. [6] Before the examination of the objections relating to the status of Succession Yussuf Bin Abdulaziz raised by Assini Omar in his submissions and another one raised by Counsel Hakizimana Théogène relating to the security deposits furnished by foreigners, the Court resumed to prior examine the admissibility of the claim it was filed with in accordance with article 84 of the Organic Law n° 1/2004 of 29/1/2004 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as amended and complemented to date and article 144 of the Constitution of 4 June 2003 as amended to date. [7] Counsel Musonera Alexis was allowed time to submit and stated that they filed to the Court which they consider to have jurisdiction pursuant to aforementioned provisions because the Supreme Court tries cases on merits, implying that the third party opposition claim is the individual’s right provided for by article 18 of the Constitution. He explained that there exist other cases tried by the Supreme Court in which it relied on this provision, the one they came across being RSOCAA 0008/06/CS of EER against Musenyeri Sebununguri rendered on 17 July 2009 and upon its examination, he finds that even the third party opposition should be admitted. [8] Concerning article 144 of the Constitution which stipulates that the decisions of the Supreme Court are not be subject to appeal save in terms of petitions for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy or revision of a judicial decision; he

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 324

57 57

stated that he considers the opposition as the same as the third party opposition. [9] Counsel Buhuru was allowed time to submit and stated that relying on the aforementioned opposition judgment, the third party opposition is lodged by a person who has not been sued or summoned to appear, implying that it is an opposition initiated by different persons. He argues in addition that in that case, it is well explained that the litigant uses ordinary and extra-ordinary remedies; therefore he finds that if the Supreme Court admitted it in the case law it delivered, the third party opposition is admissible. [10] Regarding article 84 of the Organic Law n° 1/2004 of 29/1/2004 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court; he stated that in paragraphs 22-24 of the judgment RSOCAA 0008/06/CS, the Supreme Court interpreted it and he concluded by submitting that if the final judgment rendered by this Court prejudices Khalid Foz, he should be allowed to lodge a third party opposition claim because it is in his right as long as he demonstrates the interests thereon. [11] Assini Omar added that the case law of the Supreme Court interpreted well those provisions of the law, especially in paragraph 25 of the judgment; therefore he does not perceive how the court allowed an existing party to plead and denies it to a third party. [12] Counsel Habimana Adolphe was given time to submit and stated that those provisions are clear enough. Concerning the article 84 of the Organic Law n° 1/2004 of 29/1/2004 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the KHALID v. AHMED ET AL

Page 325

58 58

Supreme Court, he explained that nothing would prevent the legislator to insert in the opposition or third party opposition remedies, and he argues in addition that there is a case law RCA 0002/05/CS, Kagoyire Christine v. Amuri Sultan which relates to third party opposition, whereby it held that it is not provided for by the Law, that may be relied on by the Supreme Court. Therefore, he finds that the case law submitted by the opponents relates only to the opposition. [13] Counsel Hakizimana Théogène reaffirmed that this provision is clear enough, as the remedy which is allowed for the Supreme Court judgment is the revision. He further argued that this provision is in accordance with the provision of article 176 of the Law n° 18/2004 of 20/06/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure which stipulates that any judgment shall be subject to third party opposition, unless otherwise provided by the Law. Therefore, he finds that the third party opposition against a judgment in this court is impossible. [14] On his behalf, Ali Fikirini states that Khalid Foz should be allowed to lodge a third party opposition against the judgment RCAA 0006/08/CS because he was mentioned several times in it but without being notified the reason why he has interest as he was not summoned. [15] The hearing about the admissibility of the third party opposition claim was closed and litigants were informed that the pronouncement will be held on 19 February 2010, but on that day, because the deliberation was not over, it was adjourned to 19 March 2010 on which the Court deliberated as follow:

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 326

59 59

III. LEGAL ISSUE AND MOTIVATION [16] The legal issue which should be examined in this case is the admissibility of third party opposition claim lodged by Khalid Foz against the judgment RCAA 0006/08/CS delivered by the Supreme Court on 26 June 2008. [17] Article 144 of the Constitution of 04 June 2003 as amended to date, stipulates that “the Supreme Court is the highest court in the country. The decisions of the Supreme Court are not to be subject to appeal save in terms of petitions for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy or revision of a judicial decision. Its decisions are binding on all parties concerned whether such are organs of the State, public officials, civilians, military, judicial officers or private individuals”. [18] Again, article 84 of the Organic Law n° 1/2004 of 29/1/2004 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as amended and complemented to date, states that “without prejudice to the procedures established by law for review of judgments against which no further appeal is possible, cases decided by the Supreme Court shall not be retried save only for the purpose of rectifying an error apparent on the record or clarifying a decision which is ambiguous or susceptible to divergent interpretations”. [19] Article 176 of the Law n° 18/2004 of 20/06/2004 relating to civil, commercial, social and administrative procedure provides that “any judgement shall be subject to third party opposition, unless otherwise provided by the law”. And this implies that such extraordinary remedy of third party opposition KHALID v. AHMED ET AL

Page 327

60 60

may be prevented by the Law as provided for by the aforementioned article 84 of Organic Law n° 1/2004. [20] Pursuant to the provisions of all those articles, the Court finds that the legislator unequivocally explained that among the remedies provided for by the law, only one consisting of case review can be used for judgment tried in last resort by the Supreme Court, as others remedies are prevented. [21] Concerning two case laws RSOCAA 0008/09/CS, of EER v. Mgr Sebununguri and RC 0002/05/CS of Kagoyire Christine v. Abdallah Sultan and Succession Hamud rendered by the Supreme Court invoked by the parties as case law whereby some of them submit that the third party claim should be admitted by this Court while others pray it be rejected; this Court is of the view that the precedent should be constituted by a series of concurrent decisions relating to a determined legal issue, therefore these case laws cannot be considered as constituting the precedent to be relied on. [22] Furthermore, regarding the judgment

RSOCAA 0008/06/CS of EER v. Musenyeri Sebununguri rendered on 17 July 2009, the Court finds that it was adjudicated in regards to opposition, therefore should not be relied on to examine the third party opposition, especially as it is held above; this kind of remedy is not allowed against final judgment delivered by this Court. [23] In accordance with the motivation above, the Court finds that the third party opposition claim RC 0002/09/CS initiated by Khalid Foz against the judgment RCAA 0006/08/CS should be rejected.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 328

61 61

[24] Concerning the objection raised by Assini Omar relating to the lack of status by Succession Yussuf Bin Abdulaziz and another one raised by Counsel Hakizimana relating to the security deposit furnished by foreigners; the Court finds that their examination is no longer necessary since the claim initiated by Khalid Foz is rejected. VI. DECISION OF THE COURT [25] Rejects the third party opposition claim initiated by Khalid Foz against the judgment RCAA 0006/08/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 26 June 2008 because its initiation was in contradiction with the Law. [26] Orders Khalid Foz to pay 12,500Frw of court fees, payment default of which within 8 days, that amount shall be deducted from his assets through government coercion.

KHALID v. AHMED ET AL

Page 329

62 62

Page 330

63 63

MUSHINZIMANA v. RUTARINDWA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCAA 0026/12/CS (Kayitesi R., P.J, Rugabirwa and Mukandamage, J.) February 21, 2014] Law determining the jurisdiction of Courts – Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court – Substantive jurisdiction of the Court – The value bestowed in the registration of mortgage certificate cannot be based on to determine whether the appeal falls within the jurisdiction of the Court when it is not the value which was indicated at the time of the submission of the claim or determined by the judge after deliberation on parties submissions thereto – Organic law n° 01/2004 of 29/01/2004 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 43(7). Fact: Rutarindwa sued Mushinzimana at Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge requesting that the sale contract of the house concluded between Mushinzimana and the wife of Rutarindwa should be cancelled because it was unlawfully concluded since she sold it without his consent. The Court held that his claim has no merit because he did not demonstrate to the Court the kind of the matrimonial regime he had with his wife, so that the Court determines whether he has a right on the sold house, and it ordered Rutarindwa to pay to Mushinzimana the counsel and procedural fees. Rutarindwa appealed against that decision at the High Court which held that the sale contract is terminated because there is no evidence which demonstrates to the Court that Rutarindwa consented to that sale because his wife fled to Malawi just after she sold the house, and that it cannot examine the requests of

Page 331

64 64

Mbarushimana who prays to be reimbursed the price of the house, because it was not the subject of the claim in the first instance. It ordered him to pay the counsel fees to Rutarindwa. Mushinzimana appealed to the Supreme Court then his appeal was screened and the judge declares that the appeal falls within its jurisdiction. Rutarindwa raised the objection of lack of jurisdiction, requesting to reject the appeal of Mushinzimana because the value of the subject matter does not reach 20,000,000Frw amount as it was provided for by the law determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court that was into force at the time Mushinzimana appealed because the sale contract which was submitted at the time of the claim has the value of 4,500,000Frw, whereas Mushinzimana states that his appeal falls within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court since the value of the subject matter amounts to 34,178,815Frw as it is demonstrated by the submitted certificate of registration of mortgage. Held:The value bestowed in the registration of mortgage certificate cannot be based on to determine whether the appeal falls within the jurisdiction of the Court when it is not the value which was indicated at the time of the submission of the claim or determined by the judge after deliberation on parties submissions thereto. Objection of lack of jurisdiction has merit; The claim does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court; With Court fees to the appellant.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 332

65 65

Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Organic law n° 01/2004 of 29/01/2004 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 43(7). Cases referred to: Nyirantambara v. Mukasa et al., RCAA 0032/11/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 14 December 2012 Judgment

BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] Rutarindwa Isaïe sued Mushinzimana Emmanuel in Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge requesting that the sale contract of the house he concluded with his wife Mukankuranga Agnès should be terminated because it is unlawfully concluded since she sold it without his consent. [2] The Court held that the claim of Rutarindwa Isaïe is groundless because he did not demonstrate the matrimonial regime he had with his wife, in order for the Court to determine whether he has the right on the house she sold. It ordered Rutarindwa Isaïe to pay 700,000Frw of Counsel fees and 150,000Frw of the procedural costs to Mushinzimana Emmanuel. [3] Rutarindwa Isaïe appealed to the High Court which held that the appealed judgment is overturned, that the sale contract is terminated and ordered Mushinzimana to pay 200,000Frw of counsel fees to Rutarindwa. MUSHINZIMANA v. RUTARINDWA

Page 333

66 66

[4] The Court motivated that the sale contract is terminated because there is no evidence which demonstrates to the Court that Rutarindwa consented to that sale because his wife fled to Malawi just after she sold the house, and that it cannot examine the requests of Mbarushimana who prays to be reimbursed 4,500,000Frw the house price, because it was not the subject of the claim in the first instance. [5] Mushinzimana Emmanuel appealed to the Supreme Court, his appeal was screened and the screening judge admitted that the appeal falls within its jurisdiction. [6] Rutarindwa Isaïe raised the objection of inadmissibility of appeal of Mushinzimana Emmanuel because the value of the subject matter does not reach 20,000,000Frw, whereas Mushinzimana Emmanuel states that his appeal falls within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court because the value of the subject matter is 34,178,815Frw as it is demonstrated by the certificate of mortgage registration of which he submitted to it. [7] The hearing of the case on that objection was held on 21 January 2014, Mushinzimana Emmanuel represented by Counsel Mutabazi Abayo Claude, whereas Rutarindwa Isaïe was represented by Counsel Bimenyimana Eric. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUE Whether the appeal of Mushinzimana Emmanuel is in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. [8] The Counsel for Rutarindwa Isaïe states that according to the provision of article 43(7) of the Organic Law n° 01/2004 of 29/01/2004 determining the organisation, functioning and

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 334

67

jurisdiction of the Supreme Court which was into force at the time Mushinzimana Emmanuel appealed, he finds that his appeal does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court because the value of the subject matter does not reach 20,000,000 Frw since his house was sold at 4,500,000Frw. [9] He argues in addition that the Supreme Court cannot rely on that certificate of the mortgage registration which Mushinzimana Emmanuel was given by Rwanda Development Board (RDB) demonstrating that the house has the value of 34,178, 815 Frw in order to rule that his appeal falls within its jurisdiction, because it is the first time he submits it in this Court since the subject matter in the first and last instance was the termination of the sale contract as mentioned above. [10] The Counsel for Mushinzimana Emmanuel states that his appeal falls within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court according to the provision of article 43(7) of the Organic Law n° 01/2004 of 29/01/2004 mentioned above because the subject matter exceeds 20,000,000 Frw because the house has the value of 34,178,815Frw as demonstrated by the aforementioned certificate of mortgage registration. [11] He explains that he bought the aforementioned house at value of 4,500,000Frw in 1998 but that Mushinzimana Emmanuel renovated it to the extent that in 2014 it has the value of 34,178,815Frw as showed by mortgage registration certificate mentioned above. Therefore, the Supreme Court should rely on this certificate instead of relying on the value mentioned into the sale contract and rule that his appeal falls within its jurisdiction. MUSHINZIMANA v. RUTARINDWA 67

Page 335

68 68

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [12] Concerning the substantive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 43(7) of the Organic Law n° 01/2004 of 29/01/2004 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court which was into force at the time Mushinzimana Emmanuel lodged an appeal, provides that “the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction over cases heard and decided by High court of the Republic in the second instance if the case involves a judgment in respect of which there was an award of damages equal to or exceeding twenty million Rwandan francs (20,000,000Frw) irrespective of the nature of the case or where the value as determined by the originating motion of the plaintiff or as approved by a judge in the case of contestation that is equal to or exceeds twenty million ( 20,000,000Frw) Rwandan francs”. [13] Regarding this judgment, the writ of summonsbefore the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge of 23 September 2008 indicates that Rutarindwa Isaïe requested the termination of the sale contract for the house on the price amounting to 4,500,000Frw which was concluded between his wife Mukankuranga Agnès and Mushinzimana Emmanuel on 19 July 2005 out of his consent. [14] It is obvious in the file that the house was evaluated at 34,178,815Frw on mortgage registration certificate of 10 November 2011 which was submitted to the Supreme Court for the first time by Mushinzimana Emmanuel requesting that it should be the value to be relied on in order to admit that his appeal falls within its jurisdiction.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 336

69 69

[15] The Court finds that in accordance with the provision of article 43(7) of the organic law n° 01/2004 of 29/01/2004 mentioned above, it is not the value of 34,178,815Frw bestowed in the registration of mortgage certificate which can be based on to determine whether the appeal of Mushinzimana Emmanuel falls within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court because it is not the value which was indicated at the time of the submission of the claim or determined by the judge after deliberation on parties’ submissions thereto. [16] The Court finds in addition that the value is produced for the first time at the Supreme Court therefore it should not be based on for determining its jurisdiction, and this is similar to the ruling of the judgment n°

RCAA 0032/11/CS, Nyirantambara Marina v. Mukasa Gonzalve and Twagirimana Viateur rendered on 14 December 2012, whereby the Supreme Court decided that the appeal of Nyirantambara Marina did not fall within its jurisdiction because the value of 51,760,500Frw accurate in property valuation which was produced at the High Court for the first time. [17] The Court finds that the value of the subject matter which should be relied on, is the value of the house indicated in the sale contract of 19 July 2005 amounting to 4, 500, 000Frw because it is the value which the house has at the time the claim was submitted in the first instance. However, pursuant to the provision of article of 43(7) of the Organic Law n° 01/2004 of 29/01/2004 mentioned above, the Court finds that the appeal of Mushinzimana Emmanuel does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court because the value of the subject matter does not amount to 20,000,000Frw. Therefore, the screening decision must be overturned. MUSHINZIMANA v. RUTARINDWA

Page 337

70 70

III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [18] Decides that the objection for lack of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court raised by Rutarindwa Isaïe has merit; [19] Decides that the appeal of Mushinzimana Emmanuel against the judgment RCA 0090/08/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court on 27 January 2012 does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court; [20] Decides that the screening decision is overturned; [21] Orders Mushinzimana Emmanuel to pay the Court fees amounting to 44,600Frw, in addition to what he had been charged in the High Court, failure to pay within eight days, that amount shall be deducted from his assets through government coercion.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 338

71 71

NKURUNZIZA ET AL. v. HAKIZIMANA ET AL [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCAA 0054/12/CS(Nyirinkwaya, P.J., Hatangimbabazi and Hitiyaremye, J.)July 3, 2010] Contracts or obligations Law – Defamation – Moral damages – Option to file a case to the court – Procedural costs and counsel fee – Defamation means imputationof a specific act to another person which is likely to damage the honour or dignity, or bring him/her to public contempt – It may be instituted through criminal proceedings as it may be instituted through civil proceedings – In this case, the terms “les mauvais compagnies” and “l’irreconnaissance” shall be perceived as individuals mentioned have unpleasant behaviour of disregarding the beneficence toward them – For the determination of moral damages, it should be considered the fact that the booklets in which Hakizimana and Twizeyimana were cited have been distributed among various persons while Nkurunziza and his wife named Nzayinganyiki did not try to recall them or publicly apologize to the people they defamed so that it can erase the tarnished image – Organic Law n° 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting penal code,articles 288 and 289 – Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or obligations, article 258. Facts: Thecase begun in the Intermediate Court of Musanze, whereby Hakizimana and his wife Twizeyimana sued Nkurunziza and his wife Nzayinganyiki for the fact that while they were celebrating their graduation, they printed a booklet containing many photos and wrote on the page which contained

Page 339

72 72

their picture the statement: “les mauvais compagnies ⦋sic⦌” whereas on the picture itself they wrote “l’irreconnaissance ⦋sic⦌”. Hakizimana and Twizeyimana requested 40,000,000Frw of damages for defamation and 1,000,000Frw of publication of the judgment in the Imvaho Nshya Newsletter. Before the hearing of the case on merit, the defendants raised an objection of lack of jurisdiction stating that there was no criminal claim, and that the offence of defamation of which they are accused of must first be referred to the conciliation committee, but the Court overruled that objection. On the merits of the case, this Court held that the defendantsdefamed the plaintiffs and ordered them to pay 2,000,000Frw of moral damages and 500,000Frw of procedural costs and counsel fees to the plaintiffs. Nkurunziza and Nzayinganyiki appealed the judgment to the High Court, chamber of Musanze, stating that thefirst instance Court tried a case which did notfall into its jurisdiction since what they are accused of is a criminal matter which is within the jurisdiction of the Conciliators Committee and of which it should first be reported to the judicial police. They further argue that the Court charged them damages without establishing that what they did was done in bad faith or that it was not true. The High Court held that their appeal was without merit but that the judgment is overruled in regard to the damages and ordered them to pay Hakizimana and his wife Twizeyimana 500,000Frw of moral damages for each one, 250,000Frw of counsel fees and 100,000Frw of procedural costs; all amounting to 1,350,000Frw. Hakizimana and his wife Twizeyimana appealed again to the Supreme Court relying on the objection they had raised before

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 340

73 73

but during the hearing they informed that they abandon their raised objection however they concentrate their defense to the merit of the damages they have been charged stating that the Court did not indicate the required conditions for damages to be ordered which are the fault, prejudice, and causation link. Therefore, they find that the damages ordered are unsubstantiated. They state in addition that there is no produced evidence indicating that they had a bad faith when they printed the photos of Hakizimana and Twizeyimana in the booklet the released in the course of preparation of the graduation of Nkurunziza, rather, they intended to demonstrate his life style, friendship with some families and bad relations with some people including Hakizimana. Hakizimana and Twizeyimana state that they submitted written evidence based on the document prepared and distributed by Nkurunziza and Nzayinganyiki, and this evidence indicates that they were defamed. Therefore, they find that the judge was not wrong in sustaining their pleadings. Held: 1. Defamation means Imputationof a specific act to another person, which is likely to damage the honour or dignity, or bring him/her to public contempt. It may be instituted through criminal proceedings as it may be instituted through civil proceedings based on the fact that “Any act of man, which causes damage to another obliges the person by whose fault it happened to repair it”.

2. The Court finds that the words “les mauvais compagnies” and “l’irreconnaissance” should not be perceived otherwise than people cited have unpleasant behavior consisting of disregarding the beneficence toward them, and this has been NKURUNZIZA ET AL. v. HAKIZIMANA ET AL

Page 341

74 74 74

emphasized by Nkurunziza who stated in this court that the law does not protect the people’s lack of integrity or those with immoral behavior.

3. For the determination of moral damages, it should be considered the fact that the booklets in which Hakizimana and Twizeyimana were cited have been distributed to various persons while Nkurunziza and his wife named Nzayinganyiki did not try to recall them or publicly apologize to the people they defamed in order to retract the bad reputation among the population. Therefore, moral damages amounting to 2.000.000Frw awarded to hakizimana and Twizeyimana by the intermediate Court of Musanze, especially that the High Court did not present the motivation of its reduction; however, even 40,000,000Frw they requested is excessive comparing to the prejudice suffered from the fault. Appeal without merit. Cross-appeal has merit in part. Court fees to appellants. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Organic Law n° 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting penal code, articles 288 and 289. Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or obligations, article 258. No case referred to.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 342

75

Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] During the preparation of Nkurunziza Apollinaire graduation in civil engineering, Nkurunziza Apollinaire and his wife Nzayinganyiki Elizabeth published a booklet in which they included many photos of several people and commented on them. It is in that context that they included the photos of Hakizimana Sylvain and his wife Twizeyimana Emeritha and other people on the page which was written on “les mauvais compagnies ⦋sic⦌” whereas on the photo itself, they wrote “l’irreconnaissance ⦋sic⦌”. [2] Hakizimana Sylvain and his wife Twizeyimana Kwitonda Emeritha sued Nkurunziza Apollinaire and Nzayinganyiki Elizabeth in the Intermediate Court of Musanze requesting moral damages amounting to 40,000,000Frw for defamation and 1,000,000Frw for publishing the judgment in Imvaho Nshya. [3] Prior, the Intermediate Court of Musanze ruled on the objections raised by the defendantswho objected that the claim should not be admitted because there was no criminal claim and that the offense they are accused of is tried at the first instance by the Conciliators Committee, but the court overruled it. [4] The judgment on meritswas delivered on 11 January 2011 and the Court decided that Nkurunziza Apollinaire and Nzayinganyiki Elizabeth offended Hakizimana Sylvain and Twizeyimana Kwitonda Emertha because they defamed them. It ordered the defendants to jointly pay 2,000,000 Frw of moral NKURUNZIZA ET AL. v. HAKIZIMANA ET AL 75

Page 343

76 76

damages and 500,000Frw of procedural costs and counsel fees to the plaintiffs. [5] Nkurunziza and Nzayinganyiki appealed against the judgment to the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, claiming that the first instance court ruled on a case which does not fall into its jurisdiction because the subject matter of what they are sued for is a criminal issue which falls into the jurisdiction of the Conciliators Committee, and should be submitted to the judicial police first. They further state that the court ordered them to pay damages without indicating that what they did was done with bad faith or that it is not true. [6] The High Court delivered the judgment on 27 April 2012 and upheld that their appeal is without merit, that the appealed judgment has changed only in regard to the amount of damages to be paid, whereby it ordered the appellants to pay Hakimizima Sylvian and Twizeyimana Kwitonda 500,000Frw of moral damages for each one, 250,000Frw of advocate fees and 100,000Frw of procedural costs, all amounting to 1,350,000Frw. [7] Nkurunziza Apollinaire and Nzayinganyiki Elizabeth appealed again to the Supreme Court on May 28 2012forthe same grounds as in the first appeal. [8] The hearing was conducted in public on 27 May 2014, Nkurunziza Apollinaire assisted by Counsel Nyirabuheta Béata who represented also Nzayinganyiki Elizabeth and Counsel Nsengiyumva Straton assisting Hakizimana Sylvain and representing Twizeyimana Kwitonda Emeritha.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 344

77 77

[9] In the course of the hearing, the appellants stated that they renounce the objections raised from the first instance court and that they opt to concentrate their appeal on the merit of ordered damages. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES 1° Whether Nkurunziza Apollinaire and Nzayinganyiki Elizabeth were charged damages without indicating the fault they committed. [10] Counsel Nyirabuheta for Nkurunziza Apollinaire and Nzayinganyiki Elizabeth states that in order for damages to be awarded, the fault, prejudice and causal link must be established, but none of them was established in this case. Therefore, the damages awarded are groundless. [11] In addition, she states that there is no produced evidence proving that his clients acted in bad faith when they put the photos of Hakizimana Sylvain and Twizeyimana Kwitonda Emertitha in the published booklet for Nkurunziza Apollinaire’s graduation, since in contrast they intended to show his lifestyle, friendship with some families and bad relationships with other people including Hakizimana Sylvain. [12] Nkurunziza states that before Hakizimana got married, he was considered as a child at home, and that they assisted him during his wedding, therefore, they had no reason to defame him. He argues that the judge should have considered the context in which the words were used in and see if they are of defamation nature or not. NKURUNZIZA ET AL. v. HAKIZIMANA ET AL

Page 345

78 78

[13] He further states that the word “irreconnaissance” written on the photo of Hakizimana Sylvain and Twizeyimana Kwitonda Emeritha means “disregarding the generositydoneto you” while the words “mauvais compagnie” that are written on the top of the page on which the photo is printed mean “bad fellows”. [14] He further argues that it is not a fault to reveal the bad deeds of someone with the purpose to help him to rehabilitate himself and that the law does not protect people on the integrity they do not possess or those with immoral behavior. The bad behaviors stressed above refer to the fact that Hakizimana was considered as one of their children but does not value the generosity toward him. [15] Counsel Nsengiyumva states that Hakizimana Sylvain and Kwitonda Emeritha submitted written evidence based on the documents prepared and distributed among the people by Nkurunziza Apollinaire and Nzayinganyiki Elizabeth. Thus, it is evident that they were defamed, the reason why he considers that the Court did not error by valuing their submissions.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [16] Defamation means imputation of a specific act to another person, which is likely to damage the honour or dignity, or bring him/her to public contempt. It may be instituted through criminal proceedings pursuant to article 288 and 289 of the current organic law instituting the penal code, as it may be instituted through civil proceedings in compliance with the provision of article 258 of the law relating to contracts or obligations which stipulates that “Any act of man, which causes

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 346

79 79

damage to another obliges the person by whose fault it happened to repair it”. [17] The Court finds that the words “les mauvais compagnies” and “l’irreconnaissance” cannot be perceived in any other way apart from the individuals mentioned have unpleasant behaviour of disregarding the generosity rendered towards them, and it has been stressed by Nkurunziza in this court whereby he states that the law does not protect the people on the integrity they lack or those with immoral behavior. [18] The Court again finds that what Nkurunziza and his wife intended when they presented to their invited guests, Hakizimana Sylvain and Twizeyimana Kwitonda Emeritha as bad friends and they disregard generosity rendered to them without further explanations cannot assist Nkurunziza and twizeyimana to change their behaviour as they submit it, rather, it is considered as defaming them as explained in previous courts. Therefore, it is not necessary to examine whether their statements contain the truth or not because even them, did not include in the booklet they gave to their guests the explanations they relied on when making those statements. [19] The court further finds that it was not necessary to include in the booklet reserved for the invited guests on Nkurunziza Apollinaire’s graduation day, the photos of Hakizimana Sylvain and Twizeyimana Kwitonda Emeritha on which it was written that they have been bad fellows and disregarded the generosity rendered to them. Consequently, the fact that they have unnecessarily included their photos, which indicates the intention to present them with a bad reputation among those invited guests. NKURUNZIZA ET AL. v. HAKIZIMANA ET AL

Page 347

80 80

[20] Concerning the prejudice suffered from the fault, the Court finds that the fact that their photoswereput in the booklet which were distributed among Nkurunziza Apollinaire and Nzayinganyiki Elizabeth guests, and recorded in the category of bad fellows and they branded them as ingrates, it disgraced them before the public since they were presented as infamous persons. 2° Concerning damages [21] Nkurunziza Apollinaire and Counsel Nyirabuheta state that 1,000,000Frw of damages awarded by the High Court are excessive and that in case it is found that Nkurunziza and his wife Nzayinganyiki Elizabeth committed a fault, they be charged a token compensation of 1Frw. [22] In the cross appeal, Counsel Nsengiyumva states that in contrast, the damages awarded to Hakizimana Sylvain and Twizeyimana Kwitonda Emeritha are few compared to the extent they were defamed and dishonoured, therefore prays that they both be awarded 40,000,000Frw requested in the first instance. [23] In addition to that, he requests that his clients be awarded 1,000,000Frw of procedural costs and counsel fees in the High Court and the Supreme Court in addition to 500,000Frw they were awarded in Intermediate Court, all amounting to 1,500,000Frw.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [24] The Court finds that for determination of moral damages, it should be taken into account the fact that the

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 348

81 81

booklet that Hakizimana Sylvain and Twizeyimana Kwitonda Emertha were mentioned in were distributed among various individuals, and Nkurunziza and wife Nzayinganyiki Elizabeth did not try to recall them from the people or publically apologize to the persons they defamed, so that it could erase the tarnished reputation to the population. [25] Pursuant to the aforementioned motivation, the Court finds that 2,000,000Frw of damages awarded to Hakizimana Sylvain and Twizeyimana Kwitonda Emeritha by the Intermediate Court of Musanze should be upheld and each one should receive 1,000,000Frw, especially that the High Court did not indicate the grounds for the reduction of those damages. 40,000,000Frw requested is excessive compared to the extent of the prejudice caused by the fault. [26] Concerning the incurred costs of procedure and counsel fees before the High court and on this instance level, the Court finds that Hakizimana Sylvain and Twizeyimana Emeritha should be awarded them because they had to hire an advocate and spent some amounts of money to follow up the case and appearance to the court. However, they should be determined upon court’s discretion, therefore, according to the state of the case, they are awarded 600,000Frw (300,000Frw x 2), in addition to 500,000Frw awarded on first instance. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [27] Decides the appeal lodged by Nkurunziza Apollinaire and Nzayinganyiki Elizabeth has no merit. NKURUNZIZA ET AL. v. HAKIZIMANA ET AL

Page 349

82 82

[28] Decides that the cross appeal lodged by Hakizimana Sylvain and Twizeyimana Kwitonda Emeritha has merit in part. [29] Orders Nkurunziza Apollinaire and Nzayinganyiki Elizabeth to jointly pay Hakizimana Sylvain and Twizeyimana Kwitonda Emeritha moral damages amounting to 1.000.000Frw for each one, all amounting to 2,000,000Frw. [30] Orders Nkurunziza Apollinaire and Nzayinganyiki Elizabeth to jointly pay Hakizimana Sylvain and Twizeyimana Kwitonda Emeritha 1,100,000Frw of procedural costs and counsel fees constituted by 500,000Frw for first instance level, 300,000Frw for High Court and 300,000Frw for this level. [31] Orders Nkurunziza Apollinaire and Nzayinganyiki Elizabeth to jointly pay court fees amounting to 24,550Frw.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 350

83

LABOUR CASE

Page 351

84

Page 352

85

BANQUE RWANDAISE DE DEVELOPPEMENT (BRD) v.

MWUBAHAMANA MWUBAHAMANA v. BANQUE

RWANDAISE DE DEVELOPPEMENT (BRD) [Rwanda HIGH COURT – RSOCA 0194/13/HC/KIG - RSOCA 0202/13/HC/KIG (Hitimana, J.) June 13, 2014] Unlawful dismissal – Termination of an employment contract in the course of merging of the enterprises – Damages – In case of modification due to enterprise’s legal situation particularly by succession, re-naming, sale, merging, transformation of funds, incorporation of companies, all contracts of employment in progress on the day of the modification remain valid between the new employer and the workers of the enterprise – When the enterprises merge and it is necessary to carry out reorganization of the professional categories, that reorganization is considered as a reorganization due to economical reasons – Failure for the employer to demonstrate how he complied with article 34 of the Law regulating labour in Rwanda to explain the criteria he relied on for thelay-off of the employees due to economic reasons, it is regarded as unlawfully dismissal – When an employee has a work experience of ten years the moral damages cannot exceed nine months – Law n° 13/2009 of 27/05/2009 regulating labour in Rwanda, articles 22, 33(2) and 34. Laws regulating Labour – The obligation of the employer to pay the salary – In case the employment contract is still in progress,

Page 353

86 86 86

the obligation of the employer to pay the salary ceases only when the worker breaches his/her obligation to work, but when it is the employer who has notified the worker that it is not necessary for her/him to work, the obligation of payment remains – Law n° 13/2009 of 27/05/2009 regulating labour in Rwanda, articles 6, 75, 60 and 75. Unlawful dismissal – Reinstatement – Whether reinstatement at work is one of the remedies for unfair dismissal – Reinstatement is not provided for as one of the remedies for unfair dismissal by the Rwandan laws, instead they provide for the payment of damages by the one who has unfairly terminated the employment contract – Law n° 13/2009 of 27/05/2009 regulating labour in Rwanda, article 33. International Laws – International conventions, doctrines and jurisprudence from other jurisdictions – The application of the International conventions, doctrines and jurisprudence from other jurisdictions – International conventions, doctrine or the jurisprudence from other jurisdictions cannot be applied when they are contrary to the Rwandan laws, unless those scholars or Courts made those decisions pursuant to the international laws which were ratified by Rwanda and which binds it. Contracts or obligations Law – Procedural and counsel fees – The party which initiated the lawsuit is the one which must be responsible for the expenses incurred by the other party. Facts: After merging Rwanda Housing Bank (BHR) with the Development Bank of Rwanda (BRD), all its activities, assets, staff and obligations were transferred to the Development Bank of Rwandaweretransferred to the Development Bank of Rwanda (BRD). BRD wrote to Mwubahamana informing her that the employment contract she had with Rwanda Housing Bank was

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 354

87

terminated with effect from 30 April 2011 due to the economic and technological reasons, it also informed her that it had already given her the dismissal compensation and all other entitlements she is entitled to. Mwubahamana lodged a claim in the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge against BRD, claiming that she was unfairly dismissed, therefore requesting reinstatement on her post of work if not so they pay her the salary she was supposed to be paid until her retirement. On its behalf, BRD raised an objection of inadmissibility on the ground that the claim which was submitted to the labour inspector is a collective dispute and moreover other workers already settled the matter with BRD. That court overruled that objection and held that BRD dismissed her unfairly and awarded her various damages. BRD appealed in the High Court claiming that the Intermediate Court ruled that she was unfairly dismissed, awarded excessive damages, the salary for three month and ten days and procedural and counsel fees while she did not work during that period and has been the one who dragged herself and BRD into lawsuits. It continues adducing that there wasa layoff of some workers in order to prevent the loss which might have been caused by the workers who shared the same responsibilities and this is considered as economic reasons which can lead to lay off of some workers by an enterprise. Mwubahamana submits that preventing the imminent loss cannot be regarded as an economic reason which can be based on to unlawfully dismiss employees. In her defence, Mwubahamana argues that preventing the loss which might have occurred cannot be considered as an economic reason which should be based on to unfairly dismiss the workers. BRD v. MWUBAHAMANA 87

Page 355

88 88

She adds on that she was put under uncertainty situation of waiting to be recalled at work, and the failure for BRD to fulfil its obligation of allocating her the workwhile it did not dismiss her, it should be the one held accountable. Regarding the procedural and counsel fees, she adduces that she was unfairly dismissed therefore she has the right to sue to the court so that she can get justice and the one who prejudiced her should bear the loss from those lawsuits. Held: 1. In case of modification due to entreprise's legal situation particularly by succession, re-naming, sale, merging, transformation of funds, incorporation of companies, all the contracts of employment in progress on the day of the modification remain valid between the new employer and the workers of the enterprise.

2. When the enterprises merge and carry out reorganization of professional categories, that reorganization is considered as reorganization due to economic reasons.

3. Failure for the employer to comply with article 34 of the Law regulating labour in Rwanda and lack of explanations as of the criteria he relied on to lay off the employee due to economic reasons it is considered as unlawful dismissal.

4. When an employee has a work experience of ten years, moral damages cannot exceed nine months and the court does not error in law in case it awards such damages to her.

5. In case the employment contract is still in progress, the obligation of the employer to pay the salary ceases only when the worker breaches his/her obligation to work, but when it is the employer who has notified the worker that it is not necessary for her/him to work, the obligation of payment stays.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 356

89

6. Reinstatement is not provided for as one of the redress for unfair dismissal by the Rwandan laws, instead they provide for the payment of damages by the one who has unfairly terminated the employment contract.

7. International conventions, doctrine or the jurisprudence from other jurisdictions cannot be applied when they are contrary to the Rwandan laws, unless those scholars or Courts made those decisions pursuant to the international laws which were ratified by Rwanda and by which it abides.

8. The party who initiates the lawsuit is the one who should be responsible for the expenses incurred by the opponent. The appeal of BRD has no merit; The appeal of Mwubahamana has no merit; The appealed judgment has only changed with regards to the procedural and counsel fees, with costs to both parties. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law n° 13/2009 of 27/05/2009 regulating labour in Rwanda, articles 1, 6, 22, 33, 34, 48, 47, 59, 60 and 75. No cases referred to. BRD v. MWUBAHAMANA 89

Page 357

90 90

Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] Mwubahamana Béata was an employee of Rwanda Housing Bank. This Bank was merged with BRD. Mwubahamana Béata and other employees were transferred to BRD. [2] On 11 August 2011, BRD wrote to Mwubahamana Béata a dismissal letter informing her that pursuant to the general extraordinary meeting of Rwanda Housing Bank (BHR) held on 30 March 2011, decided that the bank halts all of its activities and all its assets and duties be transferred to (Rwanda Development Bank) BRD. She was also notified that her employment contract with Rwanda Housing Bank was terminated from 30 April 2011. She was in addition reminded that she has already been paid the compensation for termination of employment contract and other benefits a dismissed employee is entitled to as provided by article 34 of the labor code relating to the termination of the employment contract due to economic and technological reasons. [3] Mwubahamana Béata initiated a case to the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge claiming that she was unfairly dismissed, therefore requesting that she be reinstated in her post and if not so, she be awarded the amount that she should have been paid up to her retirement. [4] The counsel of BRD raised an objection that the claim of Mwubahamana Béata should not be admitted and heard on merits because it was filed before the labor inspector as a

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 358

91 91

collective dispute and other employees reached the compromise with BRD, the dispute that was not settled is that of Rutagengwa Jean Paul. [5] The court held that the objection has no merit and proceeded to hear the case on merits. [6] In merits of the case, BRD argued that it dismissed Mwubahamana Béata basing on article 34 of the labor law because the contract was terminated due to economic reason since the merging of Rwanda Housing Bank and BRD was due to economic reasons, therefore, the dismissal of some employees was a strategy to avoid the insolvency of those merged companies. It explained that there were some work positions in Rwanda Housing bank which were similar to other workers’ positions in BRD therefore, it was necessary to choose among those employees the one who is more competent than others, who at turn were dismissed after being paid all benefits the law entitles them. [7] The Court held that despite the argument of BRD that it based on article 34 of the labor law, it does not show in its oral submissions what constitutes the economic reason because it does not show that it was in austerity or it aimed at the recovery of the company on economic or technological grounds because it itself argues that it did not have any economic crisis, but rather the merger was made to avoid insolvency, therefore, it is obvious that economic and technological reasons asserted in this provision should not be based on because this was not the real cause the defendant based on in terminating the employment contract with Mwubahamana Béata, and even though there was that economic crisis in BRD, the new employer, after merging with Rwanda Housing Bank had to consider all employees and BRD v. MWUBAHAMANA

Page 359

92 92

terminate their contracts in accordance with the provisions of article 34 of the labor code. However, this was not complied with because there is no list established by BRD based on competence, level of education, experience, dependents and notification to the labour inspector. [8] The court held that the fact that BRD did not comply with the provision of article 34 of the labor law, implies that Mwubahamana Béatawas unfairly dismissed. [9] The court held that though Mwubahamana Béata was unfairly dismissed her claim that she should be reinstated cannot be awarded because the sanction of unfair termination of the employment contract provided by article 33 of the labour law is the award of damages. It ordered that Mwubahamana Béata be awarded damages equal to 9 times of her monthly salary of 497,759Frw, to mean 4,479,831Frw because she has been an employee for more than 10 years. It held that she cannot be awarded the salaries up to her retirement because there is no evidence that she would remain in service until that time, especially that even article 33 of the labor law allows only for the award of damages that may be up to 9 months, and nothing would prevent her to look for another employment after her dismissal in BRD. [10] Mwubahamana Béata claimed also for the salaries of 3 months and 10 days, meaning from 30 April 2011 up to the date she received her dismissal letter on 11 August 2011 and she was notified that she is dismissed from 30 April 2011; therefore she has to be paid that salary. The counsel of BRD argued that Mwubahamana cannot be awarded that salary because she did not work and as provided by article 1 of the labor code, the salary is the price of the work done.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 360

93 93

[11] With regard to the salaries mentionedin the previous paragraph, the Court held that they cannot be paid to Mwubahamana because she did not work during that period she claims the salaries for. It however held that, even thoughshe did not work during that time, her failure to work was not due to her own fault since BRD put her in dilemma and she could not work up to the day they were dismissed and during this period, she was considered to be the employee of BRD, because, though she did not work during that period for the salary to be due, she should be awarded remuneration of days she spent awaiting to be appointed in a given post as an employee of BRD because it was BRD which refused her to work as usual until her dismissal. It held that Mwubahamana Béata be awarded the money for that period from 30 April 2011 up to 11 August 2011 equal to 3 months and 10 days, to mean 1,493,277Frw because her salary was 497,759Frw, in addition to 165,919Frw or ten days which in total equals to 1,659,191Frw. [12] With regard to damages for the loss resulted from her dismissal, moral damages due to the violence, The court held that these damages are not provided for anywhere under the labour law and Mwubahamana Béata does not produce any evidence as of how these damages can be awarded along with those provided under article 33 of the labour law because damages that can be cumulative with those provided under article 33 of the labour law are dismissal compensation, notice compensation, leave compensation and damages of work certificate that was not delivered. [13] The Intermediate Court also awarded to Mwubahamana Béata 100,000Frw for procedural fee and 300,000Frw of the counsel fees. BRD v. MWUBAHAMANA

Page 361

94 94

[14] BRD was not satisfied with the ruling and appealed to this Court; the appeal was recorded in court register on RSOCA 0194/13/HC/KIG. It appealed against the ruling of the Intermediate Court which held that Mwubahamana Béata was unfairly dismissed yet it is not the case, and awarded her enormous damages and the ruling of awarding her the amount of three months and 10 days yet she did not work during that time. [15] Mwubahamana Béata was not also satisfied with the ruling and appealed against it. Her appeal was recorded in the book registers on RSOCA 0202/13/HC/KIG, her ground of appeal being that the court did not order her reinstatement yet it was her request. [16] In this case, the court will examine the issue relating to whether Mwubahamana was dismissed unfairly as held by the Intermediate court or whether it was in compliance with the law as BRD alleges. In case the court finds that she was unfairly dismissed the court will examine whether damages was the only remedy to bestow her rights to her or whether she could have been reinstated as she requested the court. It will also be examined whether or not Mwubahamana Béata would have been awarded the remuneration for the period she spent without working.

ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES A. THE APPEAL OF BRD Whether Mwubahamana Béata was unfairly dismissed

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 362

95 95

[17] Counsel Mugeni Anita argues that the Intermediate Court held that BRD was not able to prove the economic reasons it alleged yet it proved them. She asserts that it explained that the merger of RHB and BRD in itself was due to economic reasons with the aim of recovery and improvement of their business in order to achieve the attributions of both institutions. She asserts that BRD after being merged with RHB, the need arises and the Board of Directors established a new organisational structure in order to avoid duplication of employment positions for different employees and to help the bank to compete with other financial institutions (the reorganization of the bank for safeguarding the competitiveness), which led to the layoff of some employees due to the loss that would result from the duplication of duties for the same employees (prevention of endangering the economic situation of the Bank). She explains that according to the opinions of the law scholars, the aforementioned statements constitute an economic reason that may lead a given company to reduce the number of employees. Therefore, the disregard of these grounds submitted by BRD by the Intermediate Court to disregard these reasons put forward by is unclear. [18] Counsel Mugeni Anita also asserts that it is obvious that after the merger of employees in BRD, and a single post had more than one employee and due to

technological reforms other posts were no longer necessary, remaining in that situation was leading BRD to paying several employees for the work that would have otherwise being performed by a single employee or paying employees whose posts were clearly no longer necessary after the organizational and technology reform. She asserted that these constitute economic reasons and the institution could not run smoothly while having unnecessary expenditures likely to BRD v. MWUBAHAMANA

Page 363

96 96

trigger a loss. She argues that for the post of internal auditor after the reform BRD needed an employee with an ACCA level and Mwubahamana Béata did not have that level, hence it was necessary that she be dismissed. [19] Counsel Bakashyaka Gérardine asserts that this ground of appeal has no merit because BRD itself puts it that it was merged with RHB and all its obligations and assets were transferred to BRD, this is the reason BRD had to comply with article 22 of the labor law, instead it avoided what is provided for by this article and contends to show that it based on article 34 of the labor law though it did not also comply with the provisions of that article, therefore, the termination of the employment contract between BRD and Mwubahamana Béata is not based on any law and arguments of BRD are the baseless pretext. [20] Counsel Bakashyaka Gérardine explains further that the statements of the counsel for BRD asserting that the Board of Directors established a new organization chart in order to avoid the duplication of duties for the same employees and help them to compete with other financial institutions (the reorganization of the bank for safeguarding the competitiveness) which led to the reduction of some employees in order to avoid the loss that would result from the duplication of duties for the employees; are far from the truth because law scholars explain that the employer has to prove that there are serious grounds that would prejudice the employment in the future. They assert that he cannot only state in the dismissal letter that the restructure aims at the competitiveness of the institutions with other institutions on the market. Instead the employer has to prove that actual difficulties by putting forward palpable facts to prove those

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 364

97 97

difficulties (the employer is bound to demonstrate the existence of a certain number of precise elements permitting to prove the future danger on employment. He cannot contend himself to invoke in the dismissal letter the existence of the reorganization aimed at the safeguarding of the competitiveness. The employer has to be able to prove the reality of the threat, concrets elements and circumstantial at support).1 She further asserts that scholars state that the economic difficulties that the employer asserts that she was about to encounter have to be difficulties that would endanger the institution and the employment and has to be evident enough to the extent of requiring the restructure of the institution. Hence, the employment has to demonstrate empirical evidence that there are real difficulties that would endanger the employment, that the reduction of employees is done due to the fact that the failure to do so would eventually lead to the dismissal of a large number of employees, in French words “…les difficultés économiques à venir doivent être de nature à porter atteinte à la pérénnité de l’entreprise et des emplois, et doivent être suffisamment précis pour justifier la réorganisation. L’employeur est en effet, tenu de démontrer l’existence d’un certain nombre d’éléments précis permettant de prouver les difficultés à venir sur l’emploi, l’objectif étant de prendre des mesures de nature à éviter des licenciements ultérieurs plus importants”2 [21] On this ground, Counsel Bakashyaka Gérardine concludes by arguing that “the prevention of the loss that would

1http: //www.village-justice.com/actualites/id-83-pas-de- licenciement-economique-justifie-sans-menace-demontree. 2http : //www.village-justice.com/articles/licencier-prevision- difficultes,2037.html?var_recherche=homale#gQOamCMi8B R5yQEh.99 BRD v. MWUBAHAMANA

Page 365

98 98

result from…” cannot be considered to be the economic reason that justify the termination of the employment in the manner that BRD did because there is no unequivocal evidence proving the difficulty that would led it to irreversible loss. [22] Counsel Bakashyaka Gérardine also argues that even in case laws of courts from other jurisdictions, it is obvious that the employer cannot base on his own reasons or non-existent reasons under the pretext of economic reasons in order to violate the rights of employees, in their french words they stated that “il est toutefois nécessaire pour l’entreprise qu’elle soit en mesure de démontrer l’existence de la menace sur la compétitivité. La jurisprudence considère ainsi que ne repose pas sur un juste motif économique la réorganisation destinée à améliorer les marges” (cass.soc. 13 septembre 2006, n° 05-41.665), les profits (cass.soc. 30 novembre 2011, n° 09-43.183) ou le niveau de rentabilité au détriment de l’emploi (cass.soc 6 mars 2007, n° 05- 42.271).3 [23] With regard to the degree of ACCA the counsel for BRD asserts that Mwubahamana did not possess, Counsel Bakashyaka Gérardine asserts that this a groundless pretext because it is aimed at finding the cause of termination of the employment contract it concluded, yet there is no single law on which it was based. She further states that the first paragraph of article 21 explains that the failure to comply with the procedure provided by the law constitutes unfair dismissal. She asserts that article 34 of the labour law alleged to be the basis was not complied with since that article provides that“ the dismissal of one or several employees due to economic reason, internal

3http://www.pourseformer.fr/liste-d-articles/detail-liste-d- article/h/9fad762eb4/a/le-motif-économique-du-licenciement.html.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 366

99 99

reorganization or consecutive restructuring for economic difficulties or technological transfers with the aim of protecting the competitiveness of the enterprise. In such a case the dismissal ranking shall be done in accordance with the performance, professional qualification, time spent in the enterprise and social charges of each worker. The employer informs the competent labour inspector in a written form”. The fact that BRD did not comply with these implies that the dismissal was unfair. [24] The Court finds that the argument of BRD counsels that the Intermediate Court ruling that BRD did not prove the economic reasons it alleged yet it proved them, since they explained that the merger of BRD and RHB itself was due to economic reasons in order to recover and improve the smooth running in order to ensure the achievements of the attributions of both institutions have merit, because the merger of two institutions for the smooth running of the business is acceptable, as even article 22 of the labour law provides that for the two enterprises to merge is a right of the employer but it also regulates how the employee’s right is respected during that time. It provides that when the employer restructured the legal nature of the institution, like succession, change of the name, merger, cession, the change of the financial structure or changing it into a partnership, all continuing

employment contracts at the time of those changes remain valid between the new employer and the existing employees. Hence, the merger of RHB and BRD is not an issue, instead the issue is to know whether that merger did not prejudice the rights of Mwubahamana Béata, yet her contract had to remain in force. [25] The court finds that the letter dismissing Mwubahamana Béata demostrate that, the merger of two institutions BRD v. MWUBAHAMANA

Page 367

100 100

immediately prejudiced her rights, and as explained above, this should not have affected her rights. However, she was informed in that letter that based on the resolution of extraordinary general assembly of RHB held on 30 March 2011, which resolved that all activities of that bank are suspended and all its assets and obligations are transferred to BRD, she is notified that her employment contract with Rwanda Housing Bank is terminated with effect from 30 April 2011. These words indicate that the employment contract of Mwubahamana Béata and RHB was terminated by the resolution of the general assembly which resolved that all activities of that bank are extinguished and its assets and liabilities are transferred to BRD. However, as explained above these did not themselves constitute enough grounds likely to lead to the termination of Mwubahamana Béata and RHB’s employment contract, rather that contract had to be transferred in its entirety to BRD, since article 22 of the labor code provides that “all contracts of employment in progress on the day of modification remain valid between the new employer and the workers of the enterprise”. [26] Even though the dismissal letter of Mwubahamana Béata first indicates that the termination of the contract is based on the fact that RHB is suspended and its assets and obligations transferred to BRD, that letter also states that the employment contract is terminated according to the provision of article 34 of the labour law relating to the dismissal due to economic and technological reasons, which lead to the fact that after the merger of RHB and BRD it was necessary to dismiss some employees including Mwubahamana Béata.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 368

101 101

[27] The Court finds that the fact that these two institutions were merged to ensure their smooth running as explained above is their rights and the merger in itself does not prejudice the rights of the employees. But after their merger they can do a reorganization which may led to the removal of some posts or be merged, which would lead to the dismissal of some employees. [28] The court finds that the argument of Counsel Bakashyaka for Mwubahamana Béata that the law scholar’s opinion is that the employer has to demonstrate an empirical ground to support the existence of the problem likely to prejudice the work in the future, that those law scholars again state that the employer cannot only indicate in the dismissal letter that the reorganization was due to the competitiveness, instead he has to indicate that there is an actual problem demonstrated by facts thereto, would have merit only if it is the institution itself that has carried out the reorganization of the employment. In contrast, when the reorganization is due to the merger of institutions, the merger in itself suffices to justify the reorganization of employment because both institutions normally have different employment structure, different employees which have to be brought together. As the counsels for BRD argue, RHB already had its own employment structure and employees as well as BRD. The merger of these

two institutions also requires the merger of their employment structure and employees (reorganization), and that reorganization is considered as the employment reorganization due to economic reasons. As argued by counsels for BRD, if after the merger of RHB and BRD it was found there were employees who fell in the same position yet the duties under that position can be performed by a lesser number of employees BRD v. MWUBAHAMANA

Page 369

102 102

than all those employees that fall within that position, BRD would not be required to remain with all those employees since it would imply that it pays some employees yet it does not need them in its employment structure, and this would affect its economic situation. Therefore, after BRD merged with RHB was allowed to reorganize its employment structure so it could fit in that merger and it was allowed to layoff some employees due to that reorganization and that reorganization is considered to be due toeconomic reason. Instead, what has to be determined is whether the article 34 of the labour law was complied with in dismissing Mwubahamana Béata. [29] The court finds that the counsels for BRD argue that after the reorganization, BRD required a candidate with ACCA diploma for the position of internal auditor which Mwubahamana Béata did not possess; and it was necessary to dismiss her. The court finds that the counsels for BRD failed to produce the document proving the resolution that the candidate in that position of internal auditor which Mwubahamana Béata occupied should hold an ACCA diploma and the organ that decided that. Moreover, even in the dismissal letter, that ground was not indicated because it stated that the basis is article 34 of the labour law without explanation about the dismissal of Mwubahamana Béata. The court finds again that the counsels for BRD do not even

demonstrate the link between ACCA diploma and the merger of RHB and BRD since this merger has been their basis in arguing that there was economic reason that led to the reorganization of the employment structure. Hence, as the Intermediate Court held, even though there may be some economic reasons leading to the dismissal of some employees after the merger of BRD and RHB, but BRD did not prove how it complied with article 34 of the labour law in regards to

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 370

103 103

Mwubahamana Béata, and demonstrates that the reorganization led to the requirement of a certain competence on the post of Mwubahamana that she did not possess. Therefore, she was unfairly dismissed because the dissatisfaction of BRD to the decision of the Intermediate Court is groundless. Whether Mwubahamana Béata had to be awarded the salary of three months and ten days yet she did not work during that time. [30] Counsel Mugeni Anita argues that the Intermediate Court agreed that the plaintiff did not work during that period of three months and 10 days of which she claims the salary for, yet article 1 para 42 and article 75 of the labour law provides that the salary is the price of the work done, therefore who did not work cannot claim the salary. But it went over board and held that it has awarded that amount basing on the dilemma in which Mwubahamana Béata went through as she was never notified that she is no longer an employee of BRD. She argues that the ruling of the Intermediate court was not right because as all employees when they are dismissed, they were informed in a general announcement and they were informed of that after they saw the list of the hierarchy and the conditions based on in their dismissal. It is obvious that from 30 April 2011 up to 11 August 2011 they were aware of their dismissal especially starting from that time they were not working. Hence, they were given letters as a mere formality of notification in writing. Therefore, it is not understandable how the court disregarded that article and awarded the salary to employees yet there is no evidence that they worked for BRD after their layoff. [31] Counsel Bakashyaka Gérardine asserts that BRD admits that the letter dismissing Mwubahamana was handed to her for BRD v. MWUBAHAMANA

Page 371

104 104

just complying with the formality of written notification. For her, she finds this as invoking its own turpitude. She asserts that Mwubahamana herself proves that she was put in dilemma waiting for being appointed and that is why she has to be considered as an employee of BRD, as failure for BRD to comply with its duty to give her an employment cannot be imputed to none than itself. [32] The court finds that as explained, the contract that existed between BHR and Mwubahamana Béata was transferred to BRD. This means that Mwubahamana Béata continued to be an employee and BRD continued to be an employer up to the time the contract was terminated, that is to say 11 August 2011. During all this time that the contract was yet terminated, BRD was bound to provide Mwubahamana Béata with the employment in a manner, time and place agreed upon since this is among the obligations of an employer as provided under article 47 of the labour law. This obligation goes hand in hand with the obligation to pay the agreed salary to the employee at the agreed period of time. Mwubahamana also had the duty to perform the agreed employment on time, place and manner agreed upon because it is her obligation as an employee as provided under article 48 of the labour law. [33] The court finds that the arguments of BRD’s counsels that Mwubahamana should not be paid the 3 months and 10 days salary she passed without working, relying on article 1 paragraph 42 and article 75 of the Rwandan labour law which provides that the salary is the price of the work done, the person who did not work cannot claim the salary, is groundless because they wrongly interpreted it. Article 75 of the labour law provides indeed that the salary is the price of the work done.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 372

105 105

That article also provides that unless agreed upon between the concerned parties or for cases provided for by this law, no salary is to be paid in the event of absence at work. This implies that the person this provision deprives the right to salary is an employee who refused to fulfil his/her obligation, instead of being an employee whose employer prevented from working yet he did not dismiss him. It means that Mwubahamana did not refuse to work the fact which would waive the obligation of BRD to pay her the salary. During the employment contract the obligation to pay the salary which befalls upon the employer is waived when the employee has not fulfilled her obligation to work. But as far as the employment contract is still in progress, the obligation of the employer to pay the remuneration is waived by the breach of his/her duty to work. In contrast, if it is the employer who informed his/her employee that it is not necessary to perform his/her duties, the obligation to pay the salary remains because it is their convenience that the employee shall not work, this is understandable that absence of the employee to work will not prevent the employer from paying him because failure to pay the salary is likely to result from the valid suspension of the contract or the termination of the contract and there is no single grounds among both, which is likely to waive from BRD the

obligation to pay Mwubahamana the salary corresponding to the time she did not work while prevented from working without being dismissed. [34] The court also finds that as provided under article 75 of the labour law, there are several circumstances in which the employee can be paid the salary without having worked due to the reasons beyond his control. Article 59 of the labour law reads that, the employee is paid on the leave yet he did not work. Article 60 provides “theabsences caused by reasons to BRD v. MWUBAHAMANA

Page 373

106 106

accomplish duty imposed by the law or authorized by the Minister in charge of Labour are paid”. Article 6 also provides that the employee can be paid during a sickleave of 3 months without working. There are many other instances in this law. [35] Due to the reasons explained above, BRD cannot just adduce that the salary is the price of the work done, in disregard of the fact that the failure for Mwubahamana Béata to work while she still had a valid employment contract is imputable to it. The court finds that even though in the judgment R.SOC.A 0193/13/HC/KIG rendered by this court on 22 November 2013, in which it was held that persons with the same issue like that of Mwubahamana, who spent a long period without working yet they were not dismissed, should not be awarded the salary of that period because “the salary is the price of the work done”, for which BRD requests to be relied on as a precedence in this case cannot not be applied, because as explained, it was considered in that lawsuit, one part of the provision of article 75 of the labour law which really provides that the salary is “the price of the work done” while leaving aside the other part of that provision indicating that the salary can be paid even if the employee has not worked, but due to the reasons beyond his control. [36] Due to the reasons explained, the appeal of BRD has no merit in regards to this ground. Regarding whether the damages were computated in accordance with the law. [37] Counsel Mugeni Anita asserts that the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge awarded moral damages to Mwubahamana Béata motivating that she was unfairly

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 374

107 107

dismissed. She asserts that she should have not been awarded these damages because as explained she was not unfairly dismissed. She also argues that the awarded damages were calculated in contradiction with the provision of article 333 of the labor code, because this article provides that damages shall not be less than the salary of 3 months and not more than the salary of 6 months, and yet Mwubahamana Béata was awarded damages equal to the salary of 9 months. It is clear that it was based on experience which is rather considered in calculating the dismissal compensation. [38] Counsel Bakashyaka Gérardine argues that the argument of the counsel for BRD that the damages awarded to Mwubahamana are contrary to article 33 of the labour law, but as explained by the court under paragraph 18, it calculated them on 9 months basing on article 33 paragraph 2 because she has a working experience of 15 years as provided for by this provision. [39] The court finds that Mwubahamana Béata had to be awarded the damages for unfair dismissal because according to the holding of the Intermediate Court as well as the findings of the High Court, Mwubahamana Béata was unfairly dismissed, and should be awarded damages provided under article 33 of the Rwandan labor law. [40] The court finds that with regard to the amount of damages awarded, as the counsel for Mwubahamana argues, the paragraph 2 of article 33 of the labour law provides that “where the worker has worked for the employer for a period which is longer than ten (10) years, damages shall not go beyond the salary of nine (9) months”. Therefore, the Intermediate Court having awarded damages equal to the salary of 9 months to BRD v. MWUBAHAMANA

Page 375

108 108

Mwubahamana Béata is by no means contrary to the law since it based it on her working experience, and BRD does not contest that. With regard to counsel and procedural fees. [41] Counsel Mugeni Anita asserts that the Intermediate Court awarded damages of procedural and the counsel’s fees to Mwubahamana Béatawhile she should have not been awarded them because she engaged herself in those proceedings and dragged BRD into them. [42] Counsel Bakashyaka Gérardine retorts that the statements of the counsel for BRD that Mwubahamana initiated lawsuits and dragged BRD into them therefore should not be awarded proceedural and counsel fees; are groundless because Mwubahamana was unfairly dismissed as no any provision of the law was complied with. Thus, that dismissal is unjustified as explained above, therefore it is her right to sue to the court in order to seek justice and it is obvious that the person who prejudiced her rights is responsible to bear the loss arising from those lawsuits. [43] The court finds that there is no ground which is likely to prevent Mwubahamana Béata to be awarded the procedural and counsel fees because as explained, she was unfairly dismissed, hence BRD the causal link of the lawsuit has to bear all the expenses which Mwubahamana incurred in this case. THE APPEAL OF MWUBAHAMANA Béata. Whether after the court held that Mwubahamana Béata was unfairly dismissed, the last redress was to reinstate her in

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 376

109 109

her employment position since this was her prayer to the court. [44] Mwubahamana Béata argues in her appeal submission that she contests the ruling of the Intermediate Court whichheld that the decision of her dismissal was unfair, which is obvious that the decision of BRD was nullified, but did not make a decision to restitute her right of being reinstated in her employment position. She asserts that the court’s response on her prayers whereby it held that her prayer to be restituted of her right to employment was in contradiction with the law is a violation of the law (paragraph 18 of the judgment). It relies on article 33 of the Rwandan labor law yet this article has some ambiguity and does not prohibit the reinstatement. She further asserts that this article begins by stating that “any unlawful termination of contract may result in damages”. There is no other explanation as to when damages can be awarded. She argues that is the reason why there has to be a resort to the constitution, international law and law scholar writings. [45] Mwubahamana relies on article 37 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda, which states that every individual has the right to choose the employment that suits him or her. She also argues that under international law, the universal declaration of human rights of 10 October 1948, in its article 23 provides that any person has the right to employment, freedom of choice of his or her employment in fair and satisfying conditions and the protection from unemployment, but the intermediate court disregarded that. [46] Mwubahamana Béata asserts that even law scholars have also had their opinion in this regard. For instance, Maillard Dalloz stated that in case of “a nul and void dismissal, the BRD v. MWUBAHAMANA

Page 377

110 110

reinstatement is a right, since who says nullity says reinstatement. The employee who requests that will be reinstated, the reason is very simple, the nullified dismissal is considered to have never been pronounced and the employee is considered to have never been dismissed from her or his employment. If the employee requests that the judge pronounces her or his reinstatement with all acquired rights. She argue that there is another law scholar called Verkindt (Y-P) who commented on the labour case law, whereby he stated that “It shall be quashed, the judgment which, after finding that an employee was dismissed in fraud of his rights, decides that dismissal without real and serious cause is eligible for compensation, but refuses to allow the reinstatement of the employee, and the payment of wages he would have earned between his dismissal and reinstatement” (soc 15 Febuary 2006.BICC n° 640 of 15 may 2006). [47] Counsel Mugeni Anita argues that Mwubahamana does not demonstrate the provisions of articles on which she relies her appeal, that she does not show where the decision of the Intermediate Court violates human rights provided under those articles since nothing was violated, as regardsthe fact that BRD terminated the employment contract of Mwubahamana deprived her of her rights to freedom of choice of employment and employer of her choice. Therefore, there is nowhere the right provided under article 37 of the constitution were violated. [48] Counsel Mugeni Anita also argues that according to the provisions of articles 14 and 29 of the labor code, it is obvious that working with a given person is not compulsory, as the relationship between an employer and employee is proven by the contract they underwent, that contract being concluded with

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 378

111 111

the consent of both parties and can be terminated anytime at the initiative of one of the parties. She further argues that the law does not allow the employment contract for the entire life period so that at least Mwubahamana may argue that she could not work elsewhere than in BRDuntil her old age. She therefore asserts that the appeal has no merit with regard to this ground. She also says that in case the court finds that Mwubahamana was unfairly dismissed, what is provided for by that article 33 of the labor law are damages, and that is what is likely to be awarded to Mwubahamana since it is nowhere provided that the unfairly dismissed employee can be reinstated. [49] The court finds that the argument of the counsel for BRD, which is also the same with the findings of the intermediate court, the way to redress the loss suffered by an employee due to unfair dismissal provided under article 33 of the labor code is the award of damages since the paragraph 1 of this article provides that “any unlawful termination of contract may result in damages. Damages paid to the unlawfully dismissed worker cannot go below his/her three months’ salary but they cannot exceed the six (6) - month salary”. The argument of Mwubahamana Béata that the intermediate court had to order her reinstatement is groundless since that redress and modalities of reinstatement are not provided under this

law. [50] The court finds that the assertion of Mwubahamana Béata that the words “may result in” used under this paragraph means that the employee can be awarded damages or be reinstated, is not founded since what these words mean instead that in case of unfair termination of employment contract, damages may or not be awarded, as they cannot be even in case the employee did not claim for them. Thus, it is nowhere stated BRD v. MWUBAHAMANA

Page 379

112 112

that the sentence “may result in” creates an alternative between damages and reinstatement, since there is nowhere this reinstatement is provided. Should the legislator have provided for both redresses, it is obvious that he should have written that “it can lead to the award of damages or declared null”. The reason why he did not do so is because there is only one single remedy provided, and that is the award of damages. [51] The fact that the award of damages was the sole redress provided in case of unfair termination of employment contract, can be noticedfrom the debate held in the parliament at the time of enactment of this article, which was article 34 in the draft law, because what was clear is that some of the members of parliament were worried that employer who does not need the employee will dismiss her or him and undertake to pay him/her damages that would be ordered by the court, the reason why they were requesting that the establishment of the margin should be abandoned in that law and damages be awarded by the judge basing on the gravity of the fault committed and the loss suffered by the aggrieved party. However, that alternative was not accepted.4 [52] The court finds that the arguments of Mwubahamana that the Intermediate Court contradicted with the provision of article 37 of the Constitution which provides that “every person has the right to free choice of employment”, is not founded since Mwubahamana was not forcibly employed, instead she

4See the cession statement N° 34/PV/CD/ N.T/2009 plenary cession of parliament chamber of deputies of 04/2009 (Afternoon), page 55 and subsequent.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 380

113 113

chose the employment that suited her as provided under this article. What happened when she has been dismissed as explained is that BRD breached the contract concluded between them, and this breach is sanctioned by article 33 of the labour code by the payment of damages that cannot be more than the salary of 6 months or 9 months depending on the working experience. [53] The court finds that the argument of Mwubahamana that the international law, the universal declaration of human rights of 10 October 1948, article 23 states that every person has the right to employment, the free choice of his or her employment in fair and satisfying conditions of employment and the protection from unemployment, does not resolve her dispute with BRD either since what it emphasizes is that the person has the right to choose his/her employment and this happened in the recruitment of Mwubahamana. The fact that she was unfairly dismissed, the court held that it constitutes a fault. However, this provision relied on by Mwubahamana provides for the right but does not provide for the sanctions of the person who violated that right, and it under Rwandan law, article 33 of the labour code which explains well that unfair termination of employment contract is sanctioned by the payment of damages by the party that terminated it. Hence, there is nowhere the Intermediate Court contravened this international treaty, since it does not provide for the sanction in case of unfair termination of employment contract so it can be asserted that the court failed to consider them. [54] The court finds that Mwubahamana asserts that she also bases on law scholars writings like Maillard Dalloz who articulated that once the dismissal is nullified it is the right of BRD v. MWUBAHAMANA

Page 381

114 114

the employee to be reinstated and this is the position held by courts in cases rendered about this issue. This is understandable because these law scholars and case laws are in line with the provisions of laws of countries about which those scholars wrote and laws on which courts that rendered those cases based on. What Mwubahamana has to prove is that the laws on which they based are similar to Rwandan laws especially article 33 of the labour code the Intermediate Court based on. In that case she may refer to those scholars in a bid to demonstrate how this article should be interpreted and applied. But as long as laws are different, law scholars’ writings and courts decisions from other countries cannot replace Rwandan laws except in case those legal scholars and those courts ruled basing on international treaties to which Rwanda is a party. [55] The Court finds that these foreign law scholars opinions and case laws on which Mwubahamana bases are in accordance with the provisions of their laws, since article L1235-3 of the French labour code states under its paragraph 1 that “If the dismissal of an employee occurs for a cause that is not real and serious, the judge may propose reinstatement of the employee in the company, while maintaining acquired benefits”, and paragraph 2 provides that “if either party refuses, the judge made an award to the employee. This compensation at

the expense of the employer cannot be less than the wages of the last six months. It is due without prejudice, if any, of the severance pay provided for in Article L. 1234-9”. Mwubahamana Béata does not demonstrate the provision of the Rwandan labour law that provides that an unfairly dismissed employee can be reinstated upon the court order, therefore, the law scholars writings and case laws from French jurisdiction cannot be applied in Rwanda yet it is obvious that the legal

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 382

115 115

provisions on which those law scholars relied on are different from the provisions of the Rwandan labour code. [56] The court finds that in the context of international law relating to the unfair termination, what would have helped Mwubahamana Béata is the international convention n° 158 concerning termination of employment. But even though it is obvious under article 10 of that convention that the best way to give redress to the unfairly dismissed employee is the reinstatement if possible, this article also provides that this is done if it is allowed under domestic laws or when that has become local practice, otherwise the unfairly dismissed employee is awarded damages, in french words “si les organismes mentionnés à l’article 8 de la présente convention arrivent à la conclusion que le licenciement est injustifié, et si, compte tenu de la législation et de la pratique nationales, ils n’ont pas le pouvoir ou n’estiment pas possible dans les circonstances d’annuler le licenciement et/ou d’ordonner ou de proposer la réintégration du travail, ils devront être habilités à ordonner le versement d’une indemnité adéquate ou toute autre forme de réparation considérée comme appropriée”. Given that even this convention does not provide for the reinstatement of an unfairly dismissed employee in case she or he requests for that, but instead the provisions of domestic laws are

considered, Rwanda has not ratified this convention so that it can be bound, rather, the court may refer to them in the context of persuasion in order to understand well Rwandan laws, therefore it is clear that the fact that article 33 of the labor code provides that the unfairly dismissed employee is awarded damages, is under no circumstances contrary to the rights of an employee. Therefore, the Intermediate Court having based on this article is by no means in contravention of either Rwandan or international law. BRD v. MWUBAHAMANA

Page 383

116 116

With regard to the counsel fees before this court. [57] The counsel for BRD requests that BRD be awarded 400,000Frw of procedural fees and 1,000,000Frw of the counsel fees. [58] Counsel Bakashyaka Gérardine asserts that 400,000Frw of procedural fees and 1,000,000Frw of the counsel fees that the counsel for BRD claims is not founded because it is the one that dragged Mwubahamana into lawsuits. [59] Counsel Bakashyaka Gérardine prays that the court awards to Mwubahamana 500,000 Frw of procedural fee and the counsel fees. [60] The court finds that 400,000Frw of the procedural fee and 1,000,000Frw of the counsel fees claimed by the counsel for BRD cannot be awarded because its appeal is not founded. [61] The court finds that 500,000 Frw of proceedings fees and counsel fees the counsel for Mwubahamana Béata claims on her behalf, cannot be awarded in its entirety because her appeal is has no merit and therefore has to bear all expenses she incuredon the appellate proceedings. Instead, they are awarded to her on the side of BRD’s appeal since it also appealed but its appeal is groundless. Hence, upon the court’s discretion, she is awarded 300,000Frw of the proceedings and counsel fees.

DECISION OF THE COURT [62] Holds that the appeal of BRD has no merit.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 384

117 117

[63] Holds that the appeal of MwubahamanaBéata has merit in some parts. [64] Uphold the ruling of the judgment

RSOC 0021/13/TGI/NYGE rendered by the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge on 19 July 2013, except on the procedural and counsel fees. [65] Orders BRD to pay Mwubahamana Béata 300,000Frw for proceedural and counsel fees, in addition to damages awarded in the appealed judgment. [66] Orders Mwubahamana Béata and BRD to pay the court fees equal to 150,000Frw, each having to pay 75,000Frw after deduction of the amount of the court fees deposited.

BRD v. MWUBAHAMANA

Page 385

118

Page 386

119

COMMERCIAL CASES

Page 387

120

Page 388

121

BUCYENSENGE v.I&M BANK [Rwanda COMMERCIAL HIGH COURT – RCOMA 0464/14/HCC (Rwanyindo, P.J.) September 12, 2014] Commercial procedure – The time limit to lodge an appeal against an exparte application – Appeal against an exparte application is lodgedwithin five days – Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 329. Commercial procedure – Opposition against the order of the President of the court determining the date of the auction – The party cannot apply for opposition against the order of the President which determines the date of the auction claiming that it has defect since it is not a claim as such but an administrative decision – Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 295. Facts: Upon the request ofI&M BANK, in perspective of the execution of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court, Nyarugenge Commercial Court fixed the date of auctioning the land and building on plot nº 283 and nº 544. The Court also ordered Bucyensenge to pay 103,777,778Frw and 10,377,778Frw to I&M BANK. Bucyensenge Charles lodged an opposition against the decision before Nyarugenge Commercial Court stating that the judgment to be executed was nullified. The court declared his claim without merit. Bucyensenge appealed before the Commercial High Court stating that the decision taken by Nyarugenge Commercial Court fixing the date of the auction would be dismissed for its

Page 389

122 122

defect. In addition, he stated that the claim of I&M BANK was lodged basing on exparte application. I&M BANK Ltd contends that that Bucyesenge Charles’s claim would not be admissible because he appealed after the time limit. It also stated that it did not lodge an exparte application but legally applied for the fixation of the date of the auction which does not require the depositof court fees. Held: 1. Appeal of Bucyensenge was lodged within the time prescribed by the law since the time limit to appeal against an exparte application is five days.

2. I&M BANK did not lodge an exparte application but it provided the court with all requirements to get the date of the auction. The proof is that no court fees were deposited as the request was in the competence of the President of the court to take such administrative decisions. Thus, that order may neither be appealed against nor be opposed.

3. Bucyensenge Charles’s claim opposing the order nº 008/BMG/2014 of fixing the date of the auction of the land and building on plot nº 283 and nº 544 at the request of I&M BANK taken by the President of Nyarugenge Commercial Court on 30/06/2014 would not have been admitted by the judge of the first instance since that decision is an administrative. Appeal has merit. Claim lodged at the first instance has not merit. Court fees deposited by the appellant remains in public treasury.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 390

123

Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 295 and 329. No case referred to. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] Upon the request ofI&M BANK, in perspective of the execution of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court, ordering Bucyensenge to pay 103,777,778Frw and 10,377,778Frw to I&M BANK, on 30 June 2014, the President of the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge fixed the date (12/08/2014) of auctioning the land and building on plot nº 283 and nº 544. [2] Bucyensenge Charles filed an opposition against the decision before the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge which found his claim without merit due to the fact that it was taken in respect of article 295 of the Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure “Upon request by the distrainer, and after verification that all the formalities for seizure have been met, the President of the Primary Court of the place where the auction will take place, or the President of Commercial Court, for execution of a judgment delivered by a commercial court, fixes the date and place of sale, the places where it must be publicized by posting, and the conditions under which the posting is to take place” while that decision was not among the decisions which are BUCYENSENGE v. I&M BANK 123

Page 391

124 124

provided for by article 360 of the above stated law which requires a deposit of court fees. The court also decided Bucyensenge’s claim without merit because his allegations that of the judgment RCOMA 00119/10/CS to be executed has been nullified, has no merit since he does not produce another enforceable judgment contradicting it. It also decided that the claim of Bucyensenge regarding the procedure of seizure was not respected, has no merit since he has been notified of the decision forcing him to pay otherwise the decision would change into distrait of his immovable properties. Finally, the court decided Bucyensenge’s claim to have no merit since his request to be authorized to give other immovable property to be seized has no merit since he does not reveal those properties, where they are located and whether they can cover the payment of the debt he is requested to reimburse. [3] Bucyensenge appealed against this judgment decided by the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge for the following grounds: -The decision of auctioning could have been nullified because of its defect but the court did not do it. In addition to that what should be analyzed by the previous judgewas to check whether that decision should urgently safeguard something as provided for by the article of the above mentioned Law. -In deciding that the opposed was not provided for by the article 360 of the above mentioned law, the court contravened with this article, since in its paragraph 8, it provides for an exparte application, which I&M Bank has used to get the court decision bearing the Judge and Registrar’s signature, since there is no other legal

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 392

125

procedure demonstrated thought which the court was seized. [4] I&M Bank argued by raising the objection of the inadmissibility of Bucyensenge Charles’s claim since it was lodged after the time limit. It stated that Bucyensenge Charles would have lodged it not later than 17 August 2014 since the decision was take on 12 August 2014 while the period for appeal is five days. It also argues that as the judge of the first instance motivated the procedure of fixing the date of the auction it is not among the claims which require the deposit of the court fees provided for by article 360 of the above mentioned law, instead, this procedure is done in accordance with the provision of article 295 paragraph 1 of the mentioned law. [5] The issues to be analyzed in this case are the following: -To know whether Bucyensenge Charles lodged his appeal after the time limit; -To know whether Bucyensenge Charles could file an opposition against the decision of the President of Commercial Court of Nyarugenge fixing the date of the auction. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES Whether Bucyensenge Charles has lodged his appeal after time limit. [6] A&M BANK Ltd states that Bucyensenge’s claim should not be admissible since he appealed after the time limit provided for by the law. It argues that he could have lodged his BUCYENSENGE v. I&M BANK 125

Page 393

126 126

appeal not later than 17 August 2014 since the decision was taken on 12 August 2014 considering the period for appeal is 5 days. [7] Bucyensenge argues that he has appealed within the time prescribed by the law. He articulates that the judgment could have been delivered on 11 August 2014 but it was not delivered on the next day, 12 August 2014. When he was asked the time he was notified of the decision of the court, he responded that he does not remember. However he added that he is not the one to prove the time he was notified of the decision instead it is the one who argues that he appealed after the time limit since the plaintiff has to prove what he claims. [8] With regard to this issue, the court finds that after hearing the pleadings of Bucyesenge Charles, I&M BANK Ltd stated that the available copy of judgment reveals that the court registrar delivered it to Bucyensenge Charles on 19 August 2014. It finds that Bucyensenge does not deny it as well. It finds therefore the fact that Bucyensenge Charlesappealed on 26 August 2014 while he was notified of the decision on 19 August 2014 then heappealed in the time prescribed by the law, since the time limit to appeal against an exparte application is five days as provided for by the article 329 of the law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure of 2012. a. Whether Bucyensenge Charles could lodge an opposition against the decision of the President of Commercial Court of Nyarugenge fixing the date of the auction. [9] Bucyensenge Charles lodge an opposition against the decision of the President of Commercial Court of Nyarugenge

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 394

127 127

arguing that it has defects and that it was analyzed and decided upon while the one who lodged it did not pay the court fees. [10] I&M Bank Ltd argues that it did not lodge an exparte application but it requested the date of the auction as provided for by article 295 of the above mentioned law, which does not require the deposit of the court fees. [11] The Court finds that I&M Bank Ltd did not lodge an appeal through an exparte application as stated by Bucyensenge, instead I&M Bank requested the date of the auction and provided the court with all requirements to be given the date of auction. The Court finds that the President of the Court fixed the date of the auction without the hearing since it is not required instead, he analyses the requirements submitted to him allowing him to fixe the date of auction. It finds the President of the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge based his decision on article 295 of the above mentioned law which states that “upon request by the distrainer, and after verification that all the formalities for seizure have been met, the President of the Primary Court of the place where the auction will take place, or the President of Commercial Court, for execution of a judgment delivered by a commercial court, fixes the date and place of sale, the places where it must be publicized by posting, and the conditions under which the posting is to take

place”. Pursuant to the abovementioned article the court finds that the decision taken by the president of the court is administrative since it is not the claim as such. Thus, this decision is not opposable. The Court finds that as the president decided being assisted by a registrar has no merit because article 295 above mentioned does not prevent him being assisted by a registrar. Furthermore, the Court finds that the proof that it is an exparte application is that BUCYENSENGE v. I&M BANK BUCYENSENGE v. I&M BANK

Page 395

128 128

it did not deposit the court fees since the requestwas within the competence of the President of the Commercial Court to take an administrative decision. [12] Therefore, it finds that Bucyensenge Charles’s opposition against the Court order nº 008/BMG/2014 decided bythe President of the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge on 30 June 2014 fixing the date of the auction of the land and building on plot nº 283 and nº 544 upon the request of I&M Bank could not have been admitted by the first judge since it is an administrative decision. III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [13] Admits the appeal of Bucyensenge; [14] Decides that the opposition filed at the first Court against the order nº 008/BMG/2014 of the President of the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge fixing the date of the auction could not have been admitted. [15] Dismisses the case RCOM 0788/14/TC/NYGE decided on 12 August 2014 by the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge. [16] Orders that the court fees deposited by Bucyensenge Charles remains in public treasury.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 396

129

RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY v.AGESPRO SECURITY [Rwanda COMMERCIAL HIGH COURT – RCOMA 0296/13/HCC (Niwemugeni, P.J.) 20 September 2013] Tax Law – Registered mail – When a tax payer refuses to receive a registered mail, the post office makes an official statement demonstrating that the concerned rejected the correspondence and the copy is made to the tax administration – Law nº 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures, article 5 paragraph 3. Tax Law – Interruption of the prescription of tax audit – The prescription of tax audit is interrupted by the rectification note informing the taxpayer when it is going to be audited – Law nº25/2005 of 4/12 2005 relating to Tax procedures as amended and complemented to date, article 27 paraphaph 3. Commercial procedure – Burden of proof – Every plaintiff must prove a claim. Failure to obtain proof the defendant wins the case – Law nº21/2012 of 14th June 2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 9. Facts: Rwanda Revenue Authority audited AGESPRO Security Ltd for the years of 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 decided that it should pay a tax amounting to 95,277,440Frw. AGESPRO appealed to the Commissioner General but also without satisfaction with the decision. Finally, it filed a claim to the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge which ruled that it should pay a withholding tax of 9,123,604Frw.

Page 397

130 130

Rwanda Revenue Authority appealed to the Commercial High Court stating that the judge had disregarded that the mail was sent back because AGESPRO had refused to come and pick it.This is evidenced by different correspondences addressed to AGESPRO. Another ground of appeal is the fact that the judge confirmed that there was prescription for the years 2006 and 2007 while it was interrupted by the rectification note of 23/12/2009. It added again that the judge confirmed the withholding tax be paid on the years 2008 and 2009. On the first ground of RRA’s appeal, AGESPRO explained that the letter in question is a copy and its original is not produced, which should have been sufficient to decide it invalid. Concerning the prescription, AGESPRO alleges that the fact that the judge confirmed the prescription and disregarded the letter of 23 December 2009 related to audit, is a proof that the auditperformed was not based on that letter as it was performed two years later and by others auditors. Concerning the court decision relating to the payment of withholding tax of the years 2008 and 2009, AGESPRO filed a cross appeal arguing that the judgement was based on a wrong provision of law, because he referred to article 53 of the law on direct taxes on income while the tax imposed to AGESPRO is not an employment income. On this point, RRA states that, apart from the withholding tax included in the tax confirmed by the court, there is also income tax and the value added tax, and only the withholding tax has been confirmed by the judge. Held: 1. When Rwanda Revenue Authority sends a letter by the Post office to a taxpayer and the latter rejects it, there must be an official statement proving that the concerned person rejected mail whereby the copy is sent to Rwanda Revenue Authority.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 398

131 131

2. The fact that, the letter of 23 December 2009 stated that on 11 January 2010 an audit would be carried out by the middle and small tax payers department which did not take place while another audit was carried out by other auditors different from those indicated in the letter of 23 December 2009, which implies that the audit that was performed is not based on the letter of 23 December 2009 in relation to audit because there is prescription more than three years ago.

3. As long as Rwanda Revenue Authority does neither indicate the tax that the judge could have confirmed to be imposed to AGESPRO, which type of tax, nor its ground and evidence, its appeal cannot have merit. As for AGESPRO, the fact that it does not indicate the tax decided by the judge among the three types of taxes that were imposed makes its appeal unfounded. Appeal without merit. Court fees to the appellant. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law no21/ 2012 of 14 June 2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 9. Law nº 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures, as amended to date, article 5, paragraph 3 and article27 paragraph 3. No case referred to. RRA v. AGESPRO SECURITY

Page 399

132 132

Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] Rwanda Revenue Authority, (RRA) alleges that it has assessed AGESPRO Security Ltd on Tax for the fiscal year of 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009, and in the notice of assessment, it was notified that, it should pay tax with penalties. AGESPRO Security Ltd was not satisfied and appealed to the Commissioner General. Unsatisfied, it decided to file a claim to the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge. The Court ordered it to pay 9,123,604, 00Frw as withholding tax instead of paying the tax that it was charged, amounting to 95,277,440.00Frw. [2] Rwanda Revenue Authority, (RRA) was not satisfied by the court decision and appealed to this Court on the grounds that appear in the analysis of this case. AGESPRO Security Ltd also filed a cross appealed alleging that it had not even accepted the tax that it was charged. In this case, the Court is about to analyze if the grounds of appeal presented by parties have basis. II.ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES Whether the ground of appeal upon the Court’s motivation that the letter no 1862/ORR/DRI/PMC/DA/09 of 23 December 2009 notifying AGESPRO Security that it would be assessed has no merit since it was neither delivered to AGESPRO Security Ltd nor made an official statement refusing its reception. [3] Rwanda Revenue Authority (RRA) states that the decision of the judge is in contradiction with the provisions of

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 400

133

article paragraph 2 of the Law n° 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures as modified and completed up to date. The fact that the judge referred to paragraph 3 of this article providing that: “The post office or the Court bailiff shall make an official statement refusing the correspondence by the concerned and send a copy to the Tax Administration”. The judge disregarded that the post returned the mail because AGESPRO Security had refused to receive it and this have been demonstrated by post throughout different notes that appear on the envelopes of the notification that were addressed to AGESPRO but it did not came to collect them. [4] AGESPRO alleges that, the fact the mail in issue is a copy without its original from Rwanda Revenue Authority which states that it, it is now for the judge to rule it invalid. Moreover, the fact that the judge based on paragraph 3 of above mentioned article, AGESPRO states that RRA does not indicate any provision that the judge misinterpreted, since the post office was supposed to make an official statement as provided in that article. [5] Paragraph 3 of article 5 of the law stated above, clearly indicating how the post office returned the letter rejected by the recipient to Rwanda Revenue Authority, that there must be an official statement proving that the recipient refused to receive the mail. Therefore, stating that the post office proved on the letter, the dates on which AGESPRO was notified without coming to correct its letter, the Court finds that it cannot be considered since it is contrary to paragraph 3 of article 5 above mentioned. On the grounds of appeal that the judge decided that there was prescription for the years 2006 and 2007. RRA v. AGESPRO SECURITY 133

Page 401

134 134

[6] Rwanda Revenue Authority states that the court ruled that there was prescription because the notice of assessment to the taxpayer of 06 March 2012 and rectification note of 14 November 2012 were issued three years later after the prescription. It claims that the court based its decision on the letter of 06 March 2012 and confirmed that it was a notice of assessment while the really notice of assessment which was the basis of the assessment was that of 23 December 2009, that interruptedthe prescription of 3 years, basing on article 27 paragraph 3 of the Law no 25/2005 on tax procedures as modified and completed to date. [7] For AGESPRO Security Ltd, it states that the assessment which was carried out was not based on the notice of assessment of 23 December 2009 because: a) The letter of 23 December 2009 which stated that the assessment will be performed on 11 January 2010, but without performance because the one carried out was performed two year later. b) The Assessment which is the subject matter in the letter of 23 December 2009, was supposed to be performed by the named Mukamurenzi Nonciata and Kanyemera Vincent, but the assessment which is the subject matter was not performed by both of them. c) The assessment stated in the letter of 23 December 2009 was supposed to be performed by office in charge of small and medium taxpayer while the assessment which is the subject matter was performed by the large taxpayers’ office.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 402

135 135

[8] According to article 27 paragraph 3 explained above and which provides that: The prescription mentioned in this paragraph is interrupted by the notification informing the taxpayer the period to be audited.This Court finds Rwanda Revenue Authority’s explanations, that the document which was used is the one of 23 December 2009 instead of that of 06 March 2012, have no merit for the three motives (a; b; c) as provided by AGESPRO security. On the grounds of appeal that the court decided to remove the extra taxes of (80,590,256Frw) from the years 2008 and 2009, and reduced the amount of tax to be paid to (9,123,604Frw). [9] Rwanda Revenue Authority pleads that apart from withholding tax which is included in that decided by the court; there is a tax on profit and the value added tax while the decided by the court is only the withholding tax. It is for this reason that AGESPRO had filed a cross appeal contending that the court had referred to a wrong article since article 53 on direct taxes on income, while that tax that AGESPRO is required to pay is not the tax on employment income. [10] Basing on article 9 of the law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, this court finds that Rwanda Revenue Authority does not determine the exact type of tax and exact amount to be paid by AGESPRO which was supposed to be confirmed by the court. Despite oral claims, Rwanda Revenue Authority does not even determine the basis of evidences related to the tax that it agrees with. Therefore, this has no merit.As for AGESPRO, it does not determine the tax that was considered by the judge in accordance to article 53 of the Law no 16/2005 on direct taxes on income, and it stated that RRA v. AGESPRO SECURITY

Page 403

136 136

it is not a tax on employment income, but without determining the type of the tax among the three types of taxes it was charged. Therefore, its cross appeal has no merit. III.THE DECISION OF THE COURT. The Commercial High Court: [11] Receives the appeal filed by Rwanda Revenue Authority. [12] Decides that it is without merit. [13] Rules that AGESPRO Security Ltd wins and Rwanda Revenue Authority loses. [14] Orders Rwanda Revenue Authority to pay Court fees amounting to 12,900Frw otherwise it shall be deducted from its assets by the government coercion within 30 days. [15] Orders the execution of the judgment RCOM0219/13/TC/Nyge for the rest.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 404

137

SORAS Ltd v. ITEX Sarl [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCOMA 0148/11/CS (Mutashya, P.J., Gatete and Gakwaya, J.) May 23, 2014] Transport Law – Transport contract – Evidence in transport contract – The contract of transport is proven by all evidence provided for by the law and by bill of lading in case they are related to goods – Law of 19/01/1920 relating to mandate in the commerce and transporters, article 10. Transport Law – Transport contract – Liability of transporters – The transporter is liable for the damaged or lost goods incase he/she does not prove that the damage, loss or accident resulted from another ground beyond his/her control for which he/she cannot be held liable – The law of 19/01/1920 relating to mandate in the commerce and transporters, article 18. Insurance Law – compensation of damages by insurance – Subrogation of insurer vis a vis the insured – The insurer who recovered the loss of the insured subrogates him/her in rights to pursue a third party that caused an insurance loss to the insured at the extent of the paid damages – Decree Law no 20/75 of 20/06/1975 relating to insurance, article 32 paragraph 1. Contract Law – Calculation of the interests on principal amount of money – Starting time for calculation – If the breach of the contract is related to the failure to pay money, the interests start to be calculated from the time of warning and are calculated to the rate of the National Bank less all deductions to which the party in breach is entitled – Law no45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, article 144.

Page 405

138 138

Facts: SORAS Ltd filed a claim against ITEX Sarl before the Commercial High Court claiming that it concluded an insurance contract of the tea with a transport Company named TACT Ltd. Afterwards, TACT Ltd had agreed with ITEX Sarlto transport the tea of OCIR-THE. Reaching in Kenya, the vehicle carrying tea got an accident and the tea got damaged. TACT Ltd requested SORAS Ltd to recover the value of insured tea. SORAS Ltd executed and afterward subrogated TACT Ltd in its rights of suing ITEX Sarl for the loss it suffered from the fact that ITEX Sarl did not carry the luggage up to the destination. The Commercial High Court declared the claim of SORAS Ltd without merit. SORAS Ltd appealed before the Supreme Court arguing that the Commercial High Court disregarded the evidences it produced proving that there has been the contract of transport of the tea of OCIR-THE between ITEX Sarl and TACT Ltd. ITEX Sarl argued that among the evidence produced, there is waybill proving that the transporter was TACT Ltd, insured by SORAS Ltd which had already covered the tea to OCIR-THE. It also stated that SORAS Ltd did not prove that the vehicle which got an accident was for ITEX Sarl, and even if it would have been for the latter, it would not be sufficient for it to be held liable for the damaged tea since there is no transport contract between ITEX Sarl and TACT Ltd. ITEX Sarlfiled a cross appeal requesting SORAS Ltd to be ordered to pay it moral damages for its continuous baseless involvement in the court proceedings, procedural and advocate fees. SORAS Ltd also requested that ITEX Sarl pays it the interests calculated on 18% of the money it paid to TACT Ltd, computed

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 406

139 139

from the date on which ITEX Sarl received the notice. It also requested the procedural and advocate fees. Held: 1. The contract of transport is not solely proven by a written document, it may be even proven by all evidence provided for by the law as the invoices made between the transporter and the one whose goods are transported, the certificate of international road transport, the quantity of goods to be sent to the consignee must be equal to the goods loaded. It is evident that TACT Ltd and ITEX Sarl concluded a transport contract of tea of OCIR-THE weighing 49,418kg and it was paid for that transport (4,448$).

2. The transporter is liable for the damaged in case he/she does not prove that it resulted from another ground beyond his/her control for which he/she cannot be held liable. The evidence produced demonstrate that TACT Ltd and ITEX Sarlconcluded the transport contract of the tea belonging to OCIR-THE.

3. The insurer who recovered the loss of the insured subrogates him/her in rightsat the extent of the amount of the damages it paid. In case SORAS Ltd has paid TACT Ltd 20,700,150Frw, it has right to subrogate TACT Ltd at the extent of he amount of damages it paid. Therefore, SORAS Ltd has right to request ITEX Sarl 20,700,150Frw it paid to TACT Ltd.

4. Moratory damages are paid and computed basing on the rate established by the National Bank from the date on which the one who requested them has given notice to the one who has to pay them. Appeal with merit. Appealed judgment is changed in its entire content. SORAS Ltd v. ITEX Sarl

Page 407

140 140

Orders to ITEX Sarl to pay to SORAS Ltd the value of the tea damaged in accident, interest on the principal amount, procedural and advocate fees. Court fees to the defendant. Statutes and statutory instrument referred to: Law no45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, article 144. Law of 19/01/1920 relating to mandate in the commerce and transporters, article 18. Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts and contractual obligations, article 431 and 432. Decree lawno 20/75 of 20/06/1975 relating to insurance, article 32 paragraph 1. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] SORAS Ltd filed a claim against ITEX Sarl before the Commercial High Court stating that it concluded an insurance contract of the tea with the transport company named TACT Ltd (Trans-Africa Container Transport Ltd). Later on TACT Ltd gave ITEX Sarl the tea belonging to OCIR-THÉ for the transport. When the vehicle which was transporting it reached Kenya was involved in accident and the tea got damaged. [2] As requested by TACT Ltd SORAS Ltd compensated it the value of the damaged tea it had insured amounting to 20,700,150Frw and immediately subrogated TACT Ltd in the right of suing ITEX Sarl for that prejudice suffered due to the fact that it failed the to deliver the luggage at destination.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 408

141

[3] The Commercial High Court found the claim of SORAS Ltd without merit and the counter claim of ITEX Sarl requesting the moral damages was not admitted since it was filed after the hearing was closed. [4] Not satisfied with the decision of the court, SORAS Ltd appealed before the Supreme Court claiming that the Commercial High Court disregarded the evidence proving that ITEX Sarl concluded a transport contract of the tea belonging to OCIR-THE with TACT Ltd which got damaged. The court decided that the evidence prove it otherwise and that even the invoices of 22 March 2010 that ITEX Sarl issued for TACT Ltd do not prove that it requested the payment for the transport of the tea belonging to OCIR-THE. ITEX Sarl lodged a cross appeal requesting that SORAS Ltd should be ordered to pay the damages for its continuous baseless involvement in the court proceedings, procedural and advocate fees. [5] The case was heard in public on 15 April 2014; SORAS Ltd represented by Ruzindana Ignace, the counsel while ITEX Sarl was represented by Ndagijimana Emmanuel, the counsel. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES a. Whether there has been a transport contract ITEX Sarl and TACT Ltd, which may allow SORAS Ltd to subrogate TACT Ltd in requesting ITEX Sarlto compensate the value of the damaged tea in the accident. [6] Ruzindana Ignace, the counsel, states that as it is demonstrated in the paragraph 5 of the appealed judgment the Commercial High Court held that the evidence on which SORAS Ltd bases its claim is the statement made by the SORAS Ltd v. ITEX Sarl 141

Page 409

142 142

Policeof Kenya which revealed the name of Bisamaza Itex as the one who reported to it the damaged luggage which were carried from Rwanda to Mombasa; the invoices of 22 March 2010 of 4,448USD that ITEX Sarl issued to TACT Ltd requesting it to pay the transportation fee of the tea belonging to OCIR-THE refers to this case and in the letter of 2 February 2010 that Twagirumukiza Benoît, the broker of TACT Ltd wrote to SORAS Ltd. However, the court found that all the evidence does not prove that there had been a transport contract concluded between ITEX Sarl and TACT Ltd of tea belonging to OCIR-THE which got damaged, which SORAS Ltd had recovered and then claiming the restitution. [7] Ruzindana Ignace, the counsel, explains that to decide so, the Commercial High Court contradicted itself since it decides that the invoice of 22 March 2010 issued by ITEX Sarlconcerning the tea belonging to OCIR-THE mentioned in this case, and finally came up holding that there was no evidence that between ITEX Sarl and TACT Ltd there has been the transport contract of the tea belonging to OCIR-THE which got damaged. He explains that the invoice of 22 March 2010 issued by ITEX Sarl made to TACT Ltd requesting the latter to pay the transport of the tea, was not the sufficient evidence. This proves that the Commercial High Court did not enough analyze the issue since in the pleadings, ITEX Sarl did not

mention that the invoice to be paid is not related to another transport contract than the one relating to the tea belonging to OCIR-THE. He also explains that 4,448USD was the transport fee instead of being the value of the tea especially that ITEX Sarl could not request the payment of the tea from TACT Ltd. He added that ITEX Sarl failed to prove the owner of the tea its vehicle carried, especially that ITEX Sarl should not insure the tea since it was

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 410

143 143

insured by TACT Ltd which clearly prove that the tea belongs to OCIR-THE because the quantity of the tea referred in waybill corresponds that TACT Ltd has given to it. Thus, he realizes that these evidences were sufficient, it was not necessary that there should be the written contract, the reason why ITEX Sarl has to pay back to TACT Ltd 20,700,150Frw it paid to SORAS Ltd due to the damaged tea in the accident occasioned by its vehicle. [8] With regard to the vehicle which was involved in accident, Ruzindana Ignace, the counsel, states that what is stated in page 4, paragraph 5 of appealed judgment that if it was established that ITEX Sarl was the owner of the vehicle, it should not imply the liability of the transporter because if it could be possible that TACT Ltd might be the transporter but using the vehicle belonging to ITEX Sarl or to whoever else upon special contract not of transport, then, it cannot be considered as a truth, since in its pleadings, ITEX Sarl did not mention that its vehicles were hired by TACT Ltd in such a way that it led it to issue an invoice dated 22 March 2010 requesting TACT Ltd to demonstrate the hired vehicleand its price. Thus, he realizes that the Commercial High Court has based its decision on what has not been invoked during the hearing. [9] Ndagijimana Emmanuel, the counsel, states apart from that ITEX Sarl and TACT Ltd cooperate in

different deals, the invoice of 22 March 2010 concerns the tea that ITEX Sarl carried for TACT Ltd at 4,448USD, which is different from the tea valued at 20,700,000Frw referred in this case. He keeps stating that SORAS Ltd failed to prove that the vehicle involved in accident belongs to ITEX Sarl, even if it had been the case, itwould not have been sufficient for it to be held liable for the SORAS Ltd v. ITEX Sarl

Page 411

144 144

damaged tea since there was no contract of transport between ITEX Sarl and TACT Ltd. [10] Ndagijimana Emmanuel, the counsel explains that waybill indicates the transporter and the owner of the tea. Therefore, he finds that OCIR-THE could not accept that the transporter carries its tea without insurance. He keeps on stating that the transporter was TACT Ltd which has insurance, and that SORAS Ltd has already paid the damaged tea belonging to OCIR-THE. Therefore, he finds that there is no ground for ITEX Sarl to interfere in the contract concluded between TACT Ltd and SORAS Ltd. He concluded stating that if ITEX Sarl has been the transporter, it would have taken the insurance since it could not take the risk by sending its vehicle without the insurance.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [11] Article 10 of the Law 19/01/1920 relating to mandate in commerce and transporters provides for that the contract of transport is proven with all evidence provided for by the law and by bill of lading in case they are related to goods. [12] Article 431 of the civil code book III provides that they (the transporters by road or water) are not only responsible for what have been entrusted with them in the boat or in a vehicle, but also for what have been entrusted to them within the room or within the store to be deposited in the boat or the car. [13] Article 432 of the civil code book III provides that they (the transporters by road or water) are responsible for what have been entrusted to them and get lost and damaged, unless they

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 412

145 145

prove that the loss or damage due to the unforeseeable and unpredictable event. [14] Article 18 of the Law of 19/01/1920 relating to mandate in the commerce and transporters, provides that transporter is held liable for what has been damaged or lost and the accident which may occur to people he/she transports unless he/she proves the damage or accident resulted from another cause beyond his/her control to which he/she could not be held liable. [15] Article 32, paragraph 1 of the of the Decree Law of 20/06/1975 relating to insurance provides that the insurer who recovered the loss of the insured subrogates him/he rin rights to pursue a third party that caused an insurance loss to the insured at the extent of the paid damages. [16] With regards to the contract of transport between TACT Ltd and ITEX Sarl, the Supreme Court realizes that in the case file there is a statement of the police of Kenya (police station MTITO ANDEI) of 1 March 2010, where Mr BISAMAZA Itex declared what were lost when the car Mercedes Benz which has the plate RAB 691K/ RL 0707 got an accident. It realizes that in the file there was an invoice of 22 March 2010, which ITEX Sarl issued to TACT Ltd, requesting the latter to pay 4,448USD for the transport of 49,418Kg of black tea it carried from Kigali to Mombasa (Kenya), and that the invoice sufficiently proves what the content in the international bill of lading n° 157/2010 of 2 February 2010, where the Gross weight of tea which had to be delivered in Mombasa to BAHARI (T) Co Ltd (destination) were 49,418Kgs as it is in the list of package n° 029/2010 of 2 February 2010 that TACT Ltd has sent to BAHARI (T) Co. Ltd on 19 February 2010 and to SORAS Ltd, the insurer on 5 April 2010. Furthermore de document of 4/3/2010 named arrival SORAS Ltd v. ITEX Sarl

Page 413

146 146

advice also proves that the mentioned tea was sent to BAHARI (T) Co. Ltd. [17] Basing on what has been mentioned above, the Supreme Court finds as provided for by the article 10 of the Law of 19/01/1920 relating to mandate in the commerce and transporterswhere it decides that the contract of transport is proven with all evidence provided for by the law, all the evidence mentioned in the previous paragraph, clearly proves that TACT Ltd and ITEX Sarl concluded a contract of transport of the tea belonging to OCIR-THE weighting 49,418Kg which had to be sent to Mombasa to BAHARI (T) Co. Ltd and that ITEX Sarl paid 4,448USD to ITEX Sarl for that transport of the tea. Therefore the defence of ITEX Sarl that the only written contract of transport can prove it; is baseless. [18] With regard to the value of the tea sent to Mombasa, the Supreme Court finds the document which is in the filecalled “the compensation proposal” of 19 July 2010, proves that its price was 143,792USD, equivalent to 82,392,816Frw at the time. Thus, the defense of ITEX Sarl that 4.448USD, mentioned in the invoice of 22 March 2010, is the value of the tea that was sent to Mombasa, it is not related to the tea referred to in the case, is not true since 4,448USD is the value of the transport of the tea as demonstrated above. [19] With regards to 20,700,150 Frw that SORAS requests ITEX Sarl to pay, the Supreme Court finds that as long as it is proven that SORAS Ltd paid TACT Ltd on 22 July 2010 by cheque n° BB 03920994 (of the Bank of Kigali) as OCIR-THE requested it to compensate the tea damaged in the accident, SORAS Ltd as insurer has the right of subrogating the insured, TACT Ltd, to the extent of damages it paid to ITEX Sarl. Thus

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 414

147 147

basing on articles 431 and 432 of the civil code book IIIon article 18 of the law relating to mandate in the commerce and transporters, and on article 32 paragraph 1 of the Decree Law 20/75 of 20/6/1975 relating to insurance, ITEX Sarl has to pay 20,700,150Frw to SORAS Ltd. Basing on the above holdings, the Supreme Court finds that, the ground of appeal of SORAS Ltd has merit. b. Whether SORAS Ltd deserves the interests on the principal amount of money it requests, the procedural and advocate fees. [20] In his written submissions, the counsel, Ruzindana Ignace, requests that ITEX Sarl be ordered to pay to SORAS Ltd the interests for late payment on 20,700,150Frw calculated on 18%, from the date ITEX Sarl got the notice. [21] Ruzindana Ignace, the counsel, also requests that ITEX Sarl be ordered to pay 1,000,000Frw to SORAS Ltd for the procedural costs, 500,000Frw for the advocate fees at the first instance level and 500,000Frw at the appeal level. [22] Ndagijimana Emmanuel, the counsel, state that SORAS Ltd may not be granted with the money it requests since it sued the wrong person.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [23] Article 144 of the Law n° 45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, provides that if the breach of the contract consists of a failure to pay a sum of money or to render a performance with fixed or ascertainable monetary value, SORAS Ltd v. ITEX Sarl

Page 415

148 148

interests are calculated from the time for performance was due less all deductions to which the party in breach is entitled. [24] Basing on the above mentioned article, the fact that the effect of subrogation is that the one who paid subrogates the one to be paid in rights, on claims, he has as to the one who must pay him, the Supreme Court finds that SORAS Ltd deserves those interests. Thus ITEX Sarl has to pay the interests to the principal amount of money it requests, on the rate of 7% as established by the National Bank, calculated from 13 August 2010, the date on which SORAS Ltd has given the notice to ITEX Sarl. However as the rate of 18% claimed by SORAS Ltd is excessive, the interests have to be calculated as follow: 20,700,150x7x 1379days 100 x 365 days = 5,474,481Frw [25] With regards to the procedural and advocate fees that SORAS Ltd claims, the Supreme Court finds that the amount it requests is excessive, and in its discretion it grants 300,000Frw for the procedural fees, 500,000Frw for advocate fees for both the first instance and the appeal level amounting to 800,000Frw. [26] Basing on the motivation above, the Supreme Court finds that ITEX Sarl has to pay to SORAS Ltd 20,700,150Frw for the value of the tea damaged in the accident, 5,474,481Frw for the interests on the principal amount of money, 300,000Frw for the procedural and 500,000Frw of advocate fees, which makes the total of 26,974,631Frw. III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [27] Decides that the appeal of SORAS Ltd has basis;

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 416

149 149

[28] Decides that the judgment RCOM 0341/10/HCC rendered on 29 July 2011 by the Commercial High Court is overturned; [29] Orders to ITEX Sarl to pay 20,700,150Frw to SORAS Ltd relating to the value of the tea that got damaged in the accident, 5,474,481Frw for the interests on the principal amount, 300,000Frw for the procedural costs and 500,000Frw of advocate fees, which makes the total of 26,974,631Frw; [30] Orders ITEX Sarl to pay the court fees amounting to 29,150Frw.

SORAS Ltd v. ITEX Sarl

Page 417

150

Page 418

151

SORAS AG Ltd v. MTS Ltd [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCOMA 0044/13/CS (Mutashya, P.J., Nyirinkwaya and Gakwaya, J.) 21 November 2014] Insurance Law – Insurance contract – Liability based on insurance contract – Liability of insurer vis a vis the faults committed by domestic of the head of a company – The insurer shall not escape its liability mentioned in the insurance contract pretending that the faults were committed by the domestic of the head of a company – Decree Law no 20/75 of 20/06/1975 related to insurance, article 12 – Common terms and conditions relating to special fire insurance, article 46. Contracts or obligation Law – Solidarity in obligation to pay – Solidarity in obligation between the insurer and the participant in the prejudice against the insured – Solidarity in obligation is not assumed, it shall be expressly provided in contract except when it is provided for by the law – Decree of 30/07/ 1888 relating to contracts or conventional obligations, article 63 and 100. Insurance Law – Determining damages in case no party is showing the value of the insured object at the day of the accident – When no party has submitted the value of the object insured at the day of the accident, damages are determined based on insured value – The value of damages shall never be more than the insured object at the day of the accident – Decree Law no 20/75 of 20/06/1975 related to the insurance, article 27. Commercial procedure – Penalty forcing the execution – In insurance cases, the court may determine penalty forcing the

Page 419

152 152

execution to the insurer when the insured spent long period requesting to be paid but in vain – Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 216. Facts: On 30 October 2011, Nzayirata Donat, domestic of Kayibanda Joseph burnt two cars (2) belonging to Modern Technology Services Ltd represented by Kayibanda Joseph. After the incident, Modern Technology Services wrote to SORAS AG LTD requesting their reparation or the payment of the value they had before the incident. On 26 January 2012, SORAS AG Ltd answered MTSLtd that it could not pay, explaining that the firewas set bya person under responsibility ofinsured shall be liable since Nzayirata Donat who burnt the cars, was the employee of Kayibanda Joseph. MTS Ltd filed a case against SORAS AG Ltd to the Commercial High Court stating that the burnt cars belonged to it but not to Kayibanda, and that both are different legalpersons. The Commercial High Court ordered SORAS AG Ltd and Nzayirata Donat to jointly pay the value of the cars, and also ordered SORAS AG Ltd to pay damages to MTS Ltd and Kayibanda Joseph. SORAS AG Ltd appealed to the Supreme Court stating that the commercial High Court misused article 260 of Civil Code Book III which led to unfair decision. It added that the court did not indicate grounds based on the law which led it to order SORAS AG Ltd and Nzayirata Donat to jointly pay while they were different and did not explain the ground of solidality. MTS Ltd and Kayibanda Joseph were forced intervened in the case and stated that article 260 of Civil Code Book III was well

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 420

153 153

applied because Kayibanda Joseph shall not be liable for the acts done by Nzayirata Donat because within his duties were not include to burn the cars of MTS They also stated that since it is SORAS AG Ltd that requested the intervention of Nzayirata Donat intending to jointly pay with him even if he defaulted to appear. They added that in case SORAS AG Ltd does not find it necessary it shall be ordered to repair the burnt cars or restitute their value. MTS Ltd and Kayibanda Joseph filed the cross appeal; MTS Ltd requested to SORAS AG Ltd procedural and advocate fees of 10% of the money to be determined by the court. It also requested to court to order SORAS AG Ltd to pay 1,000,000Frw per month of penalty forcing execution. Kayibanda Joseph requested procedural and advocate fees equal to 800,000Frw. SORAS AG Ltd stated that it does owe neither damages nor fees to MTS Ltd and Kayibanda Joseph. Held: 1. Bosses and/or employers are liable for prejudices caused by their servants and/or employees in execution of their duties. This shall not apply when the liability of the insurer derives from the contract between the insured and the insurer while the insurer cannot escape or decline its liability provided in the contract.

2. The solidarity is not assumed, it must be expressly provided except when it is expressly based on the law. The insurer is not forced to jointly pay with defaulter when the request on the insured is provided in their contract. However, after paying the damages, the insurer has the right to sue the defaulter for damages, but through filing another case. SORAS Ltd v. MTS Ltd

Page 421

154

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 154

3. When parties do not provide the value of the insured object at the day of the accident, the insured value shall be paid. If the damages are requested by the insured, the insurer is ordered to pay damages for non-execution or delay to execute obligations as long as it does not prove that the execution was for an unforeseen cause without bad faith. The damages include the loss and interests which should be generated by the insured.

4. Penalty forcing execution shall be imposed to the insurer when insured spent long period requesting to be paid but in vain. Appeal lacks merit. Cross appeal has merit. Court fees charged to the appellant. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law of 30/07/ 1888 relating to contracts or conventional obligations, articles 45, 47, 63 and 100. Decree Law no 20/75 of 20/06/1975 relating to insurance, articles 12, 27 and 32. No case referred to. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] On 30 October 2011, Nzayirata Donat burnt two cars (2) belonging to Modern Technology Services Ltd ( MTS Ltd) in the parking of the house of Kayibanda Joseph, its managing

Page 422

155

Director. Because the cars were insured in SORAS AG Ltd, MTS Ltd notified it the incident and sent to it the repair quote of both cars Toyota Hilux RAB 417P and Nissan Infiniti RAB 115U and the value they had before the incident. He requested it their reparation or compensation of the value they had before the incident. [2] On 26 January 2012, SORAS AG Ltd replied to MTS Ltd that it could not pay, explaining that the fire was set by a person under the responsibility of the insured as his agent that also article 39 of the contract they concluded provides that the insured is not entitled to guarantee property damage, theft, fire when in such a situation in terms of liability insurance and according to law, the company could refuse his intervention, namely claim from the compensation paid especially that Nzayirata Donat who burnt the cars was a domestic of Kayibanda Joseph. [3] MTS Ltd filed a case against SORAS AG Ltd to the Commercial High Court requesting the content of the above mentioned claim. It explained that those cars belonged to it not to Kayibanda and that both are two different persons, reason why SORAS AG Ltd shall be liable for the incident. [4] The Commercial High Court adjudicated the case RCOM 0050/12/HCC on 28 February 2013, and ordered SORAS AG Ltd and Nzayirata Donat to pay in solidum MTS Ltd the value of those cars equal to 42,000,000Frw. It also ordered SORAS AG Ltd to pay MTS Ltd 20,160,000Frw, and ordered it to pay Kayibanda Joseph 1,050,000Frw. [5] Not satisfied with the court decision, SORAS AG Ltd appealed to the Supreme Court on 22 March 2013 stating that SORAS Ltd v. MTS Ltd 155

Page 423

156 156

the Commercial High Court misapplied article 260 of Civil Code Book III, which led it unfair decision. It also stated that the court did not take into account the provisions of article 141 of Rwandan Constitution of 4 June 2003, as amended to date, article 147 of the Law no 21/2012 of 14 June 2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, and article 100 of Civil Code Book III because without motivation it ordered SORAS AG Ltd and Nzayirata Donat to pay in solidium MTS Ltd 42,000,000Frw. Furthermore, it stated that the court did not consider article 39 of common terms and conditions of vehicle insurance against fire, theft and property damage. [6] Kayibanda Joseph filed a cross appeal requesting the court that SORAS AG Ltd should pay him damages of procedural and advocate fees at appeal level. [7] MTS Ltd filed a cross appeal requesting different damages relating to the accident occurred. It also requested the court to inflict SORAS AG Lt the penalty forcing the execution and payment of damages for being dragged into unnecessary litigation. [8] The case was heard in public on 21 October 2014, SORAS AG Ltd was represented by Rusanganwa Jean Bosco, the counsel, and Modern Technology Services (MTS) Ltd represented by Munderere Léopold, the counsel, Kayibanda Joseph represented by Ndayisaba Fidèle, the counsel, while Nzayirata Donat defaulted to appear while he was summoned in accordance with the law and the court decided to hear the case in his absence. During the hearing, SORAS AG Ltd notified the court that it withdrew its ground of appeal regarding the non compliance with the provision of the article 39 of common

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 424

157 157

terms and conditions of vehicle insurance against fire, theft and property damage. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES a. Whether Kayibanda Joseph is liable for the acts committed by his domestic, Nzayirata Donat. [9] Rusanganwa Jean Bosco, the counsel, states that the Commercial High Court misapplied article 260 of Civil Code Book III deciding that Kayibanda Joseph is not liable for the fire set by Nzayirata Donat to two cars referred to in this case, while Nzayirata Donat was his employee. He explained that article 260 of the Civil Code Book III mentioned above is very clear that as his employer, Kayibanda Joseph shall be liable of the acts of his employee in execution of his duties. Thus to set aside the liability of the employer vis a vis the acts committed by his employee when he did not mandate to do so and while the acts committed were not within his responsibilities, it is disregard of legal provisions. He also explained the concept referred to the Commercial High Court stating that “to commit fault related to his/her responsibilities” there is no closeness with article 260 mentioned above, and it is not even found in provisions of law; while it is prohibited to add anything to the provisions of the legislator. [10] Rusanganwa Jean Bosco, the counsel, states that, except the arguments above, there is a case RP 0054/11/TB/KCY rendered Primary Court of Kacyiru on 25 January 2012 where Nzayirata Donat admitted that he burnt those cars because his employer kicked him in head and in ribs when he found him with the food in the car, which made him angry and burn them. SORAS Ltd v. MTS Ltd

Page 425

158 158

Therefore, he finds that statement of Nzayirata Donat clearly demonstrates that he committed these acts being at work. [11] In concluding, Rusanganwa Jean Bosco, the counsel, stated that basing on all the facts, Kayibanda Joseph is liable of the prejudice because the insurance contract does not exclude the liability of third parties. Thus, Kayibanda Joseph is legally considered as guarantor of Nzayirata Donat, his employee. [12] Munderere Léopold, the counsel, states that the arguments of SORAS AG Ltd lacks merit because among duties conferred to Nzayirata Donat burning cars of MTS Ltd at Joseph Kayibanda’s was not included. He added that if SORAS AG Ltd confirms that it should provide evidence. He kept stating that SORAS AG Ltd misinterpreted article 260 of Civil Code Book III while Kayibanda Joseph explained well to the first instance where he raised doctrines and case law of the Supreme Court confirming that employer (the Government) is not liable in case the offenders, even if they are its employees committed those acts while they were not mandated to do so by the employer. Therefore, he finds that Kayibanda Joseph is not liable because he did not mandate Nzayirata Donat to commit cruel acts directed against MTS Ltd. [13] As written in the letter of SORAS AG Ltd of 26 January 2012 Munderere Léopold, the counsel, states that SORAS AG Ltd recognizes that Nzayirata Donat is not an employee of MTS Ltd. Therefore, SORAS AG Ltd as the insurer who was paid insurance premiums should pay in case the insured risk occurs, basing on the contract concluded with MTS Ltd. [14] NdayisabaFidèle, the counsel, states that argument of SORAS AG Ltd has no merit because as explained by the court,

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 426

159 159

among responsibilities of Nzayirata Donat burning the cars was not included rather his act was not related to his duties. He added that in the deliberation of the appealed case, the Commercial High Court based on writing of law scholars stating that the employer is not liable of the acts of his employee who commit act not related to his duties basing on that the Court decided that Kayibanda Joseph is not liable for the acts committed by Nzayirata Donat. Thus he find that SORAS AG Ltd misapplied article 260 of Civil Code Book III because in its paragraph 3, it explains well that employer is liable for the acts committed by the employee when he is accomplishing his duties.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [15] Article 260 of Civil Code Book III paragraph 3, provides that employers are liable for the acts committed by the employees when they execute their duties. [......]. [16] Article 33 of Civil Code Book III used when SORAS AG Ltd and MTS Ltd made the insurance contract provides that ‘‘Contracts made in accordance with the law shall bind parties. They may only be revoked at the consent of parties or for reason based on law. They shall be performed in good faith. [17] Article 11, paragraph one of Decree Law no 20/75 of 20/06/1975 related to the insurance provides that the insurer insures the incident that should occur to the insured as provided in contract they concluded. [18] Article 46 of Common terms and conditions of vehicle insurance against fire, theft and property damage provides that SORAS Ltd v. MTS Ltd

Page 427

160 160

the company insures the determined vehicle (frame, bodywork, including essential fixed accessories for the normal use of the vehicle) against fire, damage by fire, explosion, jets of flame and lightning, in wherever the event occurs and whatever the cause, with the exception, however; a) damage caused by loading of easily inflammable orexplosive substances, b) damage caused byearthquakeorvolcanic eruption c) damage toelectrical devices duetotheir own functioning d) exclusion cases as result of general conditionof Title II. [19] The Supreme Court finds that in this case MTS Ltd requests that SORAS AG Ltd shall be ordered to execute its obligations delivering from the insurance contract made on 11 January 2011 (vehicle insurance policy against fire, theft and property damage). [20] Concerning the argument of SORAS AG Ltd referring to the provision of article 260 of Civil Code Book III paragraph 3, relating to the fault willingly committed and alike, shall not guaranty the acts of Nzayirata Donat on the cars of MTS Ltd referred in the case because is the employee of Kayibanda Joseph who is the employee of MTS Ltd, Supreme Court finds that the provision is not related to this case because the requests of MTS Ltd concern the liability of SORAS AG Ltd from insurance contract mentioned above. Furthermore, there is no provision in the contract providing that SORAS AG Ltd shall not guaranty the prejudice from the employee of MTS Ltd or the employee of the staff of MTS Ltd. Therefore, basing on article 64 of Law n°45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, and

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 428

161 161

article 11, paragraph one of Organic Law no 20/75 of 20/06/1975 related to the insurance and article 46 of Common terms and conditions ofvehicle insurance against fire, theft and damage, relates to special conditions of insurance against fire, SORAS AG Ltd shall execute its responsibility to guarantee the accident occurred to the cars insured. [21] The Supreme Court finds that even though that article should be extraordinarily used it is only upon the victim to request to court to use that article, because the employer of the defaulter refused to pay the prejudice caused by his employee1. Therefore, SORAS AG Ltd cannot request that the provision of article 260, paragraph 3 Civil Code Book III be used in this case since it is not the victim of the fault committed by Nzayirata Donat, employee of Kayibanda Joseph. [22] Furthermore, the Supreme Court finds as explained by the Commercial High Court the provision of article 260, paragraph 3 Civil Code Book III shall apply only when the employee caused prejudice to others or their property executing his duties, while as mentioned on the case RP 0054/11/TB/KCY decided by the Primary Court of Kacyiru on 25 January 2012 that Nzayirata Donat, the domestic of Kayibanda Joseph acknowledged to have burnt the cars because his employer beat him, and because of because of anger he (Nzayirata Donat)

1Le principe de la responsabilité civile du commettant a pour but de protéger les tiers contre l’insolvabilité de l’auteur du préjudice en leur permettant de recourir contre son employeur, il s’ensuit que seule la victime a qualité pour mettre en cause et invoquer contre lui (l’employeur), à son profit, les dispositions de l’article 1384, alinéa 5 du code civil français (pendant de l’article 260, alinéa 3 de notre code civil, livre III), Civ. 6 févr. 1974 : D. 1974. 409, 28 oct. 1987: Bull. civ. II, n° 214, in code civil, édition 2000, Dalloz, Paris, 2000, P.

1039. SORAS Ltd v. MTS Ltd

Page 429

162 162

burnt them. Thus, his act has no link with his duties (to ensure the security of the property) especially that he did it willingly and for his own reasons2. [23] Except all that, the Supreme Court finds that even if Nzayirata Donat would be the employee of MTS Ltd, this cannot exempt SORAS AG Ltd to guarantee the prejudice since article 12 of the Organic Law no 20/75 of 20/06/1975 relating to the insurance provides that insurer guarantees the loss and the prejudice caused by the person under responsibility of the insured basing on the provision of the Civil Code disregarding the nature and the quantity of the fault they committed. [24] Based on the finds already presented, the Supreme Court finds that the defence of SORAS AG Ltd should not be considered. Thus, it should compensate MTS Ltd with all the damaged property and thereafter subrogates it over the one who caused it to pay as result of his acts3.

2Le commettant ne s’exonère de sa responsabilité que si son préposé a agi hors des fonctions auxquelles il était employé, sans autorisation, et à des fins étrangères à ses attributions’’, Ass. Plén. 19 mai 1988 : D. 1988. 153, in code civil, édition 2000, Dalloz, Paris, 2000, P. 1039. ‘’Que dès lors, après avoir constaté que la cause des dommages résidait dans un acte délibéré, étranger à ses fonctions, accompli par ………à des fins personnelles, la Cour d’appel a décidé à bon droit que la responsabilité de la société n’était pas engagée’’, Ass. Plén. 17 juin 1983 3Article 32 paragraph 1 of Decree Law n° 20/75 of 20/6/1975 relating to insurance provides that the insurer who paid insurance damages, replaces the insured in accordance with damages he paid regarding responsibility of third parties who made the insurer to pay because of their acts.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 430

163 163

b. Whether the Commercial High Court made a mistake in deciding the payment in solidum between SORAS AG Ltd and Nzayirata Donat to MTS Ltd. [25] Rusanganwa Jean Bosco, the counsel, states that the Commercial High Court ordered without motivation SORAS AG Ltd and Nzayirata Donat to pay 42,000,000Frw to pay in solidum while they are two persons different. Thus, he finds that the Commercial High Court did not respect the provision of article 141 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 4 June 2003, as amended to date, article 147 of the Law no21/2012 of 14/6/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure and disregarded the provision of article 100 of Civil Code Book III. [26] Munderere Léopold, the counsel, states that argument of SORAS AG Ltd has no merit because it is the one that forcibly intervened Nzayirata Donat intending to pay in solidum with him because he caused prejudice to MTS Ltd. He keeps stating that if SORAS AG Ltd does not consider that Nzayirata Donat pays his prejudice with it, it should execute its obligation of paying MTS Ltd all the prejudice insured. [27] NdayisabaFidèle, the counsel, states that argument of SORAS AG Ltd has no merit because Nzayirata Donat is at fault of burning cars. Then, based to article 258 of Civil Code Book III he should be liable of his acts. He continues stating that as long as SORAS AG Ltd received insurance premium, then ordering it to pay is not contrary to the law especially that article 46 of the contract they concluded (Common terms and conditions of vehicle insurance against fire, theft and damage property) clearly indicates circumstances under which it pays. Therefore, in case it does not pay, it would be unjust enrichment SORAS Ltd v. MTS Ltd

Page 431

164 164

notwithstanding its request forcing Kayibanda Joseph and Nzayirata Donat to appear. Hence, the court finds that they could not be jointly liable to pay MTS Ltd, rather, it orders it to pay alone.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [28] Article 100 of Civil Code Book III that was in force when SORAS AG Ltd and MTS Ltd concluded insurance contract provides that Solidarity is not presumed, it shall be expressly provided. That principle will not be considered in case the existing solidarity is clearly based on the law. [29] Article 141, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 4 June 2003, as amended to date provides that Every court decision shall indicate the grounds of its basis, be written in its entirety […]. [30] Article 147, paragraph 2, 3 and 4 of the Law no 21/2012 of 14/6/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that ‘the judgment must contain grounds in law and in fact. It attributes the rejection of the evidence produced and the value it attribute to the different types of evidence produced in court. The judgment shall indicate all the legal provisions it was based on in deciding the case. [31] Article 63 of Civil Code Book III that was into force when SORAS AG Ltd and MTS Ltd concluded an insurance contract provides that Contracts shall have effect only on contracting parties. They shall not cause any prejudice to a third

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 432

165 165

party and shall only benefit to him/her in case of provisions in favor of a third party as provided by article 21. [32] The Supreme Court finds that it is clear in the paragraph 13 of the appealed case that basing on article 258 of Civil Code Book III, the Commercial High Court decided without motivation that SORAS AG Ltd and Nzayirata Donat pay in solidum 42,000,000Frw to MTS Ltd. Thus, it did not respect the provision of the above mentioned article. [33] The Supreme Court finds the payment in solidum impossible because the request of MTS Ltd to SORAS AG Ltd of paying pursuant to the insurance contract between them where Nzayirata Donat was not involved. Apart from that, on this case SORAS AG Ltd has no right to request that Nzayirata Donat shall be ordered to pay MTS Ltd based on the fault he willingly committed and alike while MTS Ltd requested that SORAS AG Ltd be ordered to pay insurance damage pursuant to insurance contract. Furthermore, SORAS AG Ltd has right and interest to request that Nzayirata Donat be ordered to pay the prejudice based on the fault he willingly committed but after the payment of the insurance damages and through another case file, basing on to the provisions of article 32 of Decree Law no 20/75 of 20/06/1975 relating to insurance above mentioned. [34] Basing on the given explanations, the Supreme Court finds that referring to article 63 of Civil Code Book III, the Commercial High Court should not order Nzayirata Donat to pay the prejudice because of the incident occurred to the cars insured by SORAS AG Ltd and that it should not order SORAS AG Ltd and Nzayirata Donat to pay in solidum 42,000,000Frw to MTS Ltd. Thus, it did not consider the above mentioned provision. SORAS Ltd v. MTS Ltd

Page 433

166 166

C. Whether MTS Ltd shall be granted requested damages [35] Munderere Léopold, the counsel, states that SORAS AG Ltd should either be ordered to pay 23,290,170Frw for repairing the car “Toyota Hilux”on as it is highlighted in repair estimate or its insured value equal to 22,000,000Frw and either to pay 37,161,806Frw to repair the car “Infinity” as it found in the repair estimate to pay its insured value equal to 20,000,000Frw. [36] Munderere Léopold, the counsel, keeps stating that that MTS Ltd requests that SORAS AG Ltd be ordered to pay 52,800,000Frw paid on the rent of other cars for doing work from 30 October 2011 to 30 June 2014, requesting that the amount keeps increasing till the final judgment. [37] Munderere Léopold, the counsel, concludes that MTS Ltd requests the court to order SORAS AG Ltd to pay the procedural and advocate fees equivalent to 10% of the money it would be ordered to pay by the court. In addition, he requests the court to order it to pay 1,000,000Frw every month for penalty forcing the execution. [38] Rusanganwa Jean Bosco, the counsel, rejected damages requested by MTS Ltd to SORAS AG Ltd.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [39] Article 27 Decree Law no 20/75 of 20/06/1975 relating to the insurance provides that property insurance is indemnity contract. The value of indemnity shall never be more than the value of the insured object at the time of accident.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 434

167 167

[40] Article 45 of Civil Code Book III that was into force when SORAS AG Ltd and MTS Ltd concluded insurance contract provides that when necessary the debtor shall pay damages for non-execution or delay in execution of obligation. If he/she does not prove the non execution was due to unforeseen and unpredictable event and without bad faith. [41] Article 47 of Civil Code Book III that was into force when SORAS AG Ltd and MTS Ltd concluded insurance contract provides that the damages due to the creditor are in general, the incurred loss and the profit of which he was deprived with the exception and modification below. [42] Article 258 of Civil Code Book III provides that any act committed by a person who causes damage to another shall render the person through whose fault the damage was caused liable to make reparation for it. [43] For damages related to the damaged car, the Supreme Court finds in the paragraph 13 of the appealed case, the Commercial High Court ordered to SORAS AG Ltd to pay 42,000,000Frw to MTS Ltd equal to the value of the damaged car. [44] The Supreme Court finds that in case the parties did not determine the value of the insured cars insured on the day of the incident and that SORAS AG Ltd did not react on the request of MTS Ltd; SORAS AG Ltd shall give to MTS Ltd the damages equal to the amount insured value. Thus, SORAS AG Ltd shall pay to MTS Ltd 42,000,000Frw equal to the value of the insured cars. SORAS Ltd v. MTS Ltd

Page 435

168 168

[45] Concerning 52,800,000Frw of the rent of car requested by MTS Ltd, the Supreme Court finds that the Commercial High Court granted 19,360,000Frw to MTS Ltd relating to the rent of two cars from January 2012 to November 2012. [46] The Supreme Court finds that MTS Ltd had continued renting two cars (Toyota Hilux RAB 207 V on 910,000Frw for each month and Toyota RAV 4 RAB 838 P on 850,000Frw each month) till June 2014 because SORAS AG Ltd did not fulfil its obligations arising from insurance contract. Therefore, based on article 45 and 47 of Civil Code Book III mentioned above and as demonstrated by invoices submitted by MTS Ltd, SORAS AG Ltd should reimburse 33,440,000Frw for the rent of the cars due from December 2012 till June 2014 adding 19,360,000Frw granted by the Commercial High Court, all totalling 52,800,000Frw. [47] For the procedural and advocate fees equal to 10% of the granted damage, the Supreme Court finds that the amount requested by MTS Ltd was excessive. Thus basing on article 258 of Civil Code Book III, and in its discretion, the court grants 300,000Frw for procedural and 500,000Frw of advocate fees adding 300,000Frw granted by the Commercial High Court, all totalling 1,100,000Frw. [48] Regarding the penalty enforcing the execution of court judgment requested by MTS Ltd to SORAS AG Ltd, the Supreme Court finds that basing on article 216 of the Law no 21/2012 of 14/6/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, that penalty is necessary because of long period it asked for that amount but in its discretion it orders that SORAS AG Ltd shall be forced to pay 500,000Frw each month to MTS Ltd as long as it delays to pay the damages

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 436

169 169

ordered in this case instead of being 1,000,000Frw since it is excessive. d. Whether Kayibanda Joseph may be granted of the money he is requesting. [49] NdayisabaFidèle, the counsel, states that basing on article 167 of the Law no 21/2012 of 14/6/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, he requests the court to order SORAS AG Ltd to pay Kayibanda Joseph procedural and advocate fees at appeal level equal to 800,000Frw. In conclusion, he requested the appealed judgment be upheld except with regards to the requested damages. [50] Rusanganwa Jean Bosco, the counsel, stated that SORAS AG Ltd owes nothing to Kayibanda Joseph.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [51] Article 258 of Civil Code Book III provides that any act committed by a person who causes damage to another shall render the person through whose fault the damage was caused liable to make reparation for it. [52] The Supreme Court finds that Kayibanda Joseph shall be paid the procedural and advocate fees; 300,000Frw for procedural fees, 500,000Frw for advocate fees and 1,000,000Frw granted by the Commercial High Court, all totalling 1,800,000Frw. SORAS Ltd v. MTS Ltd

Page 437

170 170

III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [53] Decides that the appeal of SORAS AG Ltd has no merit. [54] Decides that the cross appeal of MTS Ltd has merit. [55] Decides that that appeal of Kayibanda Joseph cross appealed to that of SORAS AG Ltd has merit. [56] Orders SORAS AG Ltd to pay 42,000,000Frw to MTS Ltd of the value of insured cars. [57] Orders SORAS AG Ltd to pay 52,800,000Frw to MTS Ltd for the rent of cars from December 2011 to June of 2014. [58] Orders SORAS AG Ltd to pay MTS Ltd 300,000Frw for procedural fees, 500,000Frw for advocate fees, adding 300,000Frw granted by the Commercial High Court, all totalling 1,100,000Frw. [59] Orders SORAS AG Ltd to pay 500,000Frw to MTS Ltd each month in case it delays to pay the damages ordered in this case. [60] Orders SORAS AG Ltd to pay Kayibanda Joseph 300,000Frw for procedural and 500,000Frw of advocate fees, plus 1,000,000Frw granted by the Commercial High Court, all totalling 1,800,000Frw. [61] Orders SORAS AG Ltd to pay Kayibanda Joseph 50,000Frw each month in case it delays to pay the damages as ordered by the Commercial High Court. [62] Orders SORAS AG Ltd to pay the court fees.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 438

171

CRIMINAL CASES

Page 439

172

Page 440

173

PROSECUTOR v. CYUMA MIRUHO [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RPA 0142/10/CS (Rugege, P.J, Mukanyundo and Rugabirwa) September 19, 2014] Criminal Law – Murder – It shall be murder instead of assault and intentional bodily injuries resulting to unintentional killing, in case it is proved that there was intent to kill. Criminal Law – Penalty reduction – None can benefit the penalty reduction, without proving the mitigating circumstances he/she alleges. Criminal Law – Fixed term penalty – Fixed-term imprisonment is not less than one day and not more than twenty years, except in cases of recidivism or in other cases where the law provides for other ranges of penalties – Decree Law no21/77 of 18/8/1977 instituting the penal code in Rwanda, article35. Facts: The accused hit his wife with the blow of machete, suspecting that she was cheating on him. She was immediately brought to Hospital but died half way.The Intermediate Court of Nyagatare was seized of jurisdiction by the prosecution, accusing him of the assault and intentional bodily injuries resulting to unintentional killing. The court ruled on the case and decided that the accused should be prosecuted for murder instead of the assault and intentional bodily injuries resulting to unintentional killing and decided that it had no jurisdiction to rule on it and transferred the case to the High Court, Rwamagana Chamber.The High Court found him guilty of murder committed against her wife and sentenced him to twenty five years (25) imprisonment. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, PROSECUTION v. CYUMA MIRUHO

Page 441

174 174 174

stating that the offence he is charged of was wrongly classified, that he committed assault and intentional bodily injuries resulting to unintentional killing rather than murder and that the High Court disregarded the mitigating circumstances. The prosecutor contended that the accusedhas no ground for the reclassification of his offence, that what he argues that he has unintentionally killed his wife is wrong, because he left home stating that if he found his wife at fault he would hit her and he went holding a machete which demonstrates that he intended to hit her with it many times, something that he did and that occasioned the death of his wife. Held: 1. Considering the weapon the accused used, the machete, and the times he used it hitting Akimana Léonille, three or four times as he admitted it, and after, he used the big wood to hit her many times prove that he was not intending to hit her as he has admitted. In addition, all of these acts were committed to someone lying down without defending him. Basing on that, the court finds that the accused intended to commit murder, thus he must be punished for murder instead of assault and intentional bodily injuries resulting in unintentional killing.

2. The High Court did not disregard the mitigating circumstances as argued by the accused as he was sentenced to 25 years instead of life imprisonment. Regarding the accused request that the court may reduce again his penalty, basing on the fact that he killed his wife because he found her cheating on him, the court finds that it is not a mitigating circumstance because he did not prove it.

3. A fixed term imprisonment that could have been inflicted to the accused could not exceed twenty years as provided for by

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 442

175

the law. Therefore, twenty five years imprisonment sentenced to him is replaced by twenty years (20) of imprisonment. Appeal has merit in part. Appealed judgment changes with regards to the penalty. Accused sentenced to twenty years of imprisonment. Court fees charged to the public treasury. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Decree Law no21/77 of 18/8/1977 instituting the penal code in Rwanda, article 35 No case referred to. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] In the night of 13 April 2007 around 11h00 PM, Cyuma Miruho, suspecting that her wife Akimana Leonille was cheating on him, hit her with a blow of machete. Akimana was immediately brought to Hospital but died half way. At the end of investigations, the prosecution filed a case in the Intermediate Court of Nyagatare against Cyuma Miruho Alexandre for the assault and intentional bodily injuries resulting to unintentional killing. The court ruled on the case on 30 April 2008 and decided that Cyuma Miruho should be prosecuted for murder instead of assault and intentional bodily injuries resulting to unintentional killing and that it had no jurisdiction to rule on it and transferred the case to the High Court, Rwamagana Chamber. PROSECUTOR v. CYUMA MIRUHO 175

Page 443

176 176

[2] The case was registered in the High Court under RP 0039/08/HC/RWA and on 7 May 2010 the court found Cyuma Miruho Alexandre guilty for murder committed against her wife Akimana Léonille, and sentenced him to 25 years of imprisonment. On 31 May 2010, Cyuma Miruho Alexandre appealed to the Supreme Court, alleging that the offence he is charged of was wrongly classified, that he committed Manslaughter and intentional bodily injuries resulting to unintentional killing rather than murder and that the High Court disregarded his mitigating circumstances. [3] The case was heard in public in the Supreme Court on 21 July 2014, Cyuma Miruho Alexandre assisted by the counsel, Aimable Ngendahimana while the prosecution was represented by Mr Mutayoba Alphonse, National prosecutor. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES Whether acts constituting the offence charged with Cyuma Miruho Alexandre could be classified murder or assault and intentional bodily injuries resulting to unintentional killing. [4] Cyuma Miruho Alexandre states that his wife delayed to come home and he left home with intention of knowing what was happened to her. He added that on his way, he found her cheating on him and he hit her with the blow of machete because of anger but without intent to kill her. He kept stating that he hit his wife three times with the blow of machete and when it slipped and fell down, he hit her with a big wood. [5] Ngendahimana Aimable, the Counsel, argues that he agrees with the classification made by the prosecution at the Intermediate Court of Nyagatare that Cyuma Miruho Alexandre

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 444

177

committed assault and intentional bodily injuries resulting to unintentional killing. He keeps on stating that his client left home to find his wife and on his way, he found her cheating on him and he hit her with the blow of machete. He added that he finds that his client hit his wife with the blow of machete because she was committing adultery, otherwise he did not leave home with the intent to kill her with machete. [6] The prosecutor contended that Cyuma Miruho Alexandre has no ground for reclassification of his offence, that his argument that he has unintentionally killed his wife is wrong, because he left home stating that if he found his wife at fault he would hit her and he went holding a machete which demonstrate that he intended to hit her with it many times, something that he did and that occasioned the death of Akimana Léonille.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [7] During his interrogation in the Judicial Police, Cyuma Miruho Alexandre admitted that he started by hitting her wife with the blow of machete on shoulders and hit again three times and then after, he cut off the tree and hit her with it many times. During the hearing, he stated that he hit his wife three times and when the machete slipped and fell down, he continued hitting her with the big wood. Considering weapon Cyuma Miruho Alexandre used, the machete and the times he used it hitting Akimana Léonille, three or four times as he admitted, and after, he used the big wood to hit her many times prove that he had intent to kill her contrary to what he admitted. He committed all of this to someone lying down without defending him. Basing on that, the court finds that Cyuma Miruho Alexandre intended PROSECUTOR v. CYUMA MIRUHO 177

Page 445

178 178

to commit murder, thus the offence he must be punished for is murder instead of assault and intentional bodily injuries resulting to unintentional killing. Whether the court disregarded the mitigating circumstances to reduce the penalty for Cyuma Miruho Alexandre. [8] Cyuma Miruho Alexandre states that after committing the offence, he reported himself to the police and in his entire interrogation he admitted the offence and sought forgiveness. He added that he was provoked by the fact that his wife was cheating on him and found all those grounds as mitigating circumstances. [9] The counsel, Ngendahimana Aimable states that in the case file, there are some mitigating circumstances including the fact that Cyuma Miruho Alexandre reported himself to the police and committed the offence being provoked by the fact that he found his wife cheating on him. He added that no man can abstain himself from committing an offence while finding his wife cheating on him. [10] The prosecutor states that the accused does not unequivocally plead guilty because he denies to have intended to kill Akimana Léonille. With regards to the pleadings of Cyuma Miruho Alexandre that he found his wife cheating on him, the prosecutor contends that the accused did not prove it and even if it had been the case, it would have not been the motive to kill her. Regarding the fact that Cyuma Miruho Alexandre reported himself to the police, the prosecutor states that it was true but that it cannot be considered as mitigating circumstance. In concluding, the prosecutor requested that the appealed judgment be upheld.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 446

179 179

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [11] In paragraph 12 of the case RP0039/08/HC/RWG rendered on 7 May 2010, Cyuma Miruho Alexandre was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment pursuant to article 311 of the Decree Law no 21/77 of 18/8/1977 instituting the penal code in Rwanda that was into force at the time when the offence was committed. The judge explained that Cyuma Miruho Alexandre was the first offender and reduced his penalty where life imprisonment was reduced to twenty years imprisonment. This proves that Cyuma Miruho Alexandre got the penalty reduction based on the fact that he was the first offender. Regarding his request that the court may reduce again his penalty, basing on the fact that he killed his wife because he found her cheating on him, the court finds that it is not a mitigating circumstance because Cyuma Miruho Alexandre did not prove it. [12] Article 35 of the Decree Law no 21/77 of 18/08/1977 aforementioned provides that “Fixed-term imprisonment is not less than one (1) day and not more than twenty (20) years, except in cases of recidivism or in other cases where the law provides for other ranges of penalties”. In reducing penalty, the High Court sentenced Cyuma Miruho Alexandre to 25 years of imprisonment instead of life imprisonment. A fixed term imprisonment that could have been sentenced to Cyuma Miruho Alexandre could not exceed twenty years (20) as provided for by article 35 as aforementioned. PROSECUTOR v. CYUMA MIRUHO

Page 447

180 180

III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [13] Finds Cyuma Miruho Alexandre’s appeal with merit in part. [14] Decides that the appealed judgment RP0039/10/HC/RWG rendered by theHigh Court, Rwamagana Chamber on 7 May 2010 only changes with regards to the penalty. [15] Sentences Cyuma Miruho Alexandre to twenty years of imprisonment. [16] Orders that the court fees are charged to the public treasury.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 448

181

PROSECUTION v. HAKIZIMANA ET AL [Rwanda HIGH COURT – RPA 0735/13/HC/KIG, RPA 0750/13/HC/KIG, RPA 0766/13/HC/KIG (Uwamariya P J.) June 13, 2014] Criminal Law – Concurrence of offences – Determining Penalty – In case of concurrence of offences, the most severe penalty shall apply – Organic Lawnº 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article 84. Criminal Law – Mitigating excuses – Minority – When the offender got the mitigating excuse basing on his/her minority, the penalty to be inflicted to him/her cannot go beyond the half of the penalty that he/she would have been sentenced to if he/she was adult. Criminal Law – Suspension of sentence – It shall not apply in case the principal penalty does exceed 5 years of imprisonment. Facts: Hakizimana, Rugero, Mugirwanake and others who did not appeal were accused before the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge for attempted embezzlement of public property and complicity in attempted embezzlement of public property, theft without violence or threat and complicity in theft without violence or threat, forgery and complicity in forgery. The Court sentenced Hakizimana Pascal to five (5) years imprisonment and the fine of 1,710,000Frw, ten (10) years of imprisonment and the fine of 4,255,000Frw to Rugero Etienne while Mugirwanake Zawadi was sentenced to two (2) years of imprisonment and the fine of 1,710,000Frw.

Page 449

182 182

Not satisfied, they appealed to the High Court. Mugirwanake and his counsel explained that he appealed so that he may get lower penalty as he pleaded guilty and sought forgiveness. He was also requesting the suspension of his sentence basing on the fact that he is sick. Furthermore, he stated that he is minor and should be released for him to be cared. As for Hakizimana, he argues that he appealed because he was sentenced to the severe penalty while he pleaded guilty. Concerning Rugero, he stated that he appealed because the Court treated him differently from his accomplices and inflicted on him the most severe penalty, resulting from the fact that the judge did not consider his defence. He requested the reduction of the penalty and its suspension. Concerning Hakizimana and Mugirwanake, the prosecution contends that the penalty inflicted on them is not severe, considering the offence they committed. He explained that Mugirwanake benefited the penalty reduction basing on his minority status and his guilty plea. The prosecution added that Rugero could not get the penalty reduction because he was a recidivist. Held: 1. The offences Mugirwanake Zawadi committed constitute the concurrence of offences. Among the offences he committed, the one punishable to the highest penalty is the embezzlement of the public property. Therefore, as he should have been sentenced to ten years of imprisonment and the fine of 1,400,000Frw, basing on his minority status, he is sentenced to five (5) years of imprisonment and fine of 700,000Frw. Furthermore, the fact that there are some mitigating circumstances, the High Court finds right and reasonable two

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 450

183 183

years of imprisonment he was sentenced to, considering the offence he committed.

2. However, as Mugirwanake proved to be sickly and the first offender, the court finds that two years of imprisonment sentenced to him could be suspended of six months for one year, and he could serve one year and half in prison.

3. The fact that Hakizimana Pascal should have been sentenced to ten years of imprisonment instead of 5 years imprisonment that was inflicted to him, the Court finds that he got the lenient sentence for the person benefiting the penalty reduction based on mitigating circumstances. Thus, the penalty must be upheld. With regards to the sentence suspension, although his penalty is within the range provided by the law: not being beyond five years of imprisonment, the Court finds that in eyes of the public, it would be considered as the way to support thieves or those who attempt to steal or/and destroy the citizen’s property. Thus, Hakizimana must serve his penalty in prison.

4. Though Rugero appeared as a witness in the first instance court and stated that people plotted to incriminate him but pleaded guilty later on, the court finds that it cannot be considered in reducing his penalty because even in case he would have not pleaded guilty, there were other incriminating evidences. The fact that the offences Rugero committed constitute concurrence of offences whereas the highest penalty of forgery is seven (7) and ten (10) years of imprisonment in case of embezzlement of public property, and he was sentenced to ten (10) years imprisonment, the court finds that he was not discriminated from others as he alleges, rather, he was punished according to the provisions of the law. Thus, his penalty must be upheld. With regards to the suspension of the sentence, it is not PROSECUTION v. HAKIZIMANA ET AL

Page 451

184 184

legally possible, as his penalty is beyond five (5) years of imprisonment. Appeal of Mugirwanake Zawadi has merit in part. Mugirwanake Zawadi is sentenced to two years of imprisonment and fined 700,000Frw, he shall serve one year and a half of imprisonment and six months are suspended during one year. Appeal of Hakizimana is without merit. Appeal of Rugero is without merit. Penalty previously inflicted to Hakizimana and Rugero is upheld. Court fees charged to the public treasury. Statutes and statutory instruments reffered to: Organic Law nº 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, articles 78 and 84. No case referred to. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] In case RP 0086/13/TGI/NYGE the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge convicted Ndayambaje Pierre, Nyandwi Dismas, Mugirwanake Zawadi, Hakizamungu André and Rugero Etienne for having attempted embezzlement of public property and complicity in attempted embezzlement of public property, theft

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 452

185

without violence or threat and complicity in theft without violence or threat, forgery and complicity in forgery. The Court sentenced Ndayambaje Pierre, Nyandwi Dismas, Hakizamungu André and Hakizimana Pascal to five (5) years imprisonment and the fine of 1,710,000Frw each, ten years of imprisonment and the fine of 4,255,000Frw to Rugero Etienne while Mugirwanake Zawadi was sentenced to two (2) years of imprisonment and the fine of 1,710,000Frw. [2] Not pleased, Hakizimana Pascal, Rugero Etienne and Mugirwanake Zawadi appealed to the High Court. Mugirwanake and his counsel explained that he appealed, for him to get lenient penalty as he pleaded guilty and sought forgiveness. He was also requesting the suspension of his sentence basing on the fact that he is a sickly person. Furthermore, he added, he is minor and should be released, for him to get care. As for Hakizimana, he argues that he appealed because he was sentenced to the severe penalty while he pleaded guilty. Concerning Rugero, he stated that he appealed because the Court treated him differently from his accomplicesand inflicted on him the most severe penalty, resulting from the fact that the judge did not consider his defence. He requested the reduction of the penalty and its suspension. [3] Concerning Hakizimana and Mugirwanake, the prosecution contends that the penalty inflicted to them is not severe, considering the offence they committed. He explained that Mugirwanake got penalty reduction basing on his minority status and on his guilty plea. The prosecution added that Rugero could not get the penalty reduction because he was a recidivist. PROSECUTION v. HAKIZIMANA ET AL 185

Page 453

186 186

The issues to be analysed in this case are whether Mugirwanake Zawadi could once again benefit the penalty reduction and the sentence suspension; whether Hakizimana Pascal could get the penalty reductionand whether Rugero could benefit the reduction of the penalty and its suspension. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES Whether Mugirwanake Zawadi could benefit from penalty reduction and sentence suspension. [4] Mugirwanake Zawadi and his counsel state that he appealed because he was sentenced to severe penalty. He argues that he keeps on seeking forgiveness although the Court reduced his penalty, requesting for another penalty reduction with sentence suspension because he suffers from the illness that obliges him to regularly get the blood transfusion. They request the Court to consider the law relating to the right and protection of the child during the case deliberation, for him to join the family and get care. [5] The prosecution contends that the penalty inflicted to him is not severe, considering the offence he committed andthat he got mitigating excuse based on his minority status. He emphasised that to request for another penalty reduction is not a mistake in the appealed judgment and regarding the sickness, the prison may facilitate him to get medical care. Furthermore, the prosecution contends that the Court did not disregard the fact that he is minor, instead, he was sentenced to the lenient sentence comparing to his accomplices. With regards to the suspension of the sentence, the prosecution stated that the judge is not obliged to grant it.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 454

187 187

[6] As found by the Intermediate Court, the court finds that offences Mugirwanake Zawadi committed constitute the concurrence of offences. Among the offences he committed, the one punishable to the highest penalty is the embezzlement of the public property, sentenced from seven (7) years up to ten (10) years of imprisonment1 and the fine of two to five times of the value of the embezzled or destroyed property. [7] The Court finds the fact that Mugirwanake Zawadi should have been sentenced to the imprisonment and fine, he has to benefit the mitigating excuse based on his minority status. Thus, the penalty to be inflicted to him should not exceed the half of the penalty that should have been inflicted to him if he had been adult. The fact that Mugirwanake Zawadi is found guilty of the complicity in attempted embezzlement of the public property, theft without violence or threat and forgery, the court finds that he should have been sentenced to ten years of imprisonment and the fine of five times of the money he intended to steal; equalling to 1,400,000Frw pursuant to the provisions of article 84 of the Organic Law instituting the penal code. However, the fact that Mugirwanake is minor implies that his penalty to be reduced for him to be sentenced to five years of imprisonment and the fine of 700,000Frw. The fact that there is also mitigating circumstances, the Court relied on article 78 paragraph 4 of the Organic Law in reducing his penalty and he could get penalty reduction up to two months. At this point, the law precises the lowest penalty that the judge may not go below but does not for the highest. Thus, it is right to have sentenced

1See article 325 of the Organic Law no 01/2012/OL of 02/5/2012 instituting the penal code. PROSECUTION v. HAKIZIMANA ET AL

Page 455

188 188

Mugirwanake Zawadi to two years of imprisonment and the court finds it reasonable considering the offence he committed. [8] However, as Mugirwanake proved that he is the sickly man and as the first offender, the court finds that six months of two years of imprisonment could be suspended of one year, for him to serve one year and a half in prison. Whether Hakizimana Pascal could benefit the penalty reduction. [9] Hakizimana explains that he appealed because he was sentenced to the severe penalty while he pleaded guilty, explaining the way he committed the offence and revealed the perpetrators. He requests for the reduction of the penalty and its suspension. [10] The prosecution states that Hakizimana was not sentenced to severe penalty considering the offence he committed, that his penalty was sufficiently reduced and no legal provision was disregarded. With regards to the suspension of the penalty, the prosecutor stated that it would be without merit. [11] The fact that Hakizimana Pascal should have been sentenced to ten years of imprisonment instead of 5 years imprisonment that was inflicted to him, the Court finds that he got the lenient sentence for the person benefiting the penalty reduction based on mitigating circumstance. Thus, it must be upheld. [12] With regards to the sentence suspension, although it is provided by the law as the penalty is less than five years of

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 456

189 189

imprisonment2, the Court finds that in the eyes of the public, it would be like the way of encouraging the thieves or those who attempt to steal or destroy the citizen’s property. Thus, Hakizimana must serve his penalty in prison. Whether Rugero could benefit the reduction of the penalty and its suspension. [13] Rugero stated that he appealed because he was sentenced to heavy penalty; that the Court treated him differently from his accomplices and did not consider his defence and evidences he provided. He keeps on stating that he pleaded guilty and explained the way the offence was committed, and the person who brought the cheque admitted it. He acknowledges to have signed on the cheque, forging signatures found on copies of cheques used in payment by the responsible of the mutual health insurance of Kayenzi. He requests the Court to have mercy on him by reducing and suspending his penalty, because after being imprisoned, his wife died in accident and his kids do not have anybody to look after them. [14] The prosecution contends that Rugero was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment because he pleaded not guilty and the

2Article 85 paragraphe 1 of Organic Law no 01/2012/OL of 02/5/2012 instituting the penal code states: “For the purposes of this Organic Law, the suspension of penalty is a judge’s decision to order the stay of execution of a penalty of imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years if the convict has not been previously sentenced to imprisonment or to community service as an alternative penalty to imprisonment of more than six (6) months as a result of a final judgment”. PROSECUTION v. HAKIZIMANA ET AL

Page 457

190 190

prosecution had not prosecuted him. He added that it is good for him to tell the truth but it cannot serve as a mitigating circumstance because he is a recidivist. [15] Although on 24 July 2013, in the public hearing of the previous court, Rugero appeared as a witness and stated that people plotted to incriminate him, but pleaded guilty on 25 July 2014, the court finds that it cannot be considered in reducing his penalty because even in case he would have not pleaded guilty, there would be other incriminating evidence. Furthermore, considering the way the offence was committed as explained by people who were given the cheques, it is clear that he was master in what he was doing as if he was experienced enough. When the bank refused to give them money because of doubt on signatures, he advised them to go to another agency. Another evidence proving that he was master in the offence was the time when “Union des Banques Populaires”refused to give them money and Rugero called them requesting signatures as explained by Hakizimana Pascal, while he knew that he was the one who forged the signature on the cheque. [16] As found by the Intermediate Court, there were concurrence of offences. The highest penalty of forgery is seven (7) while and in case of embezzlement of public property it is ten (10) years. The court finds that he was not differentiated from others when he was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment as he states, but rather, he was punished according to the provisions of article 84 of Organic Law no01/2012/OL of 02/5/2012 instituting the penal code stating that “If an offender would receive several penalties of imprisonment or fine as a result of one or several acts, the judge shall apply the most severe penalty and increase its duration or

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 458

191 191

the amount depending on the circumstances of the offences, but not exceeding half (1/2) in addition to the maximum of the most severe penalty”. By this article, the judge may add five more years of imprisonment to ten years of imprisonment inflicted on him. For all the above explanations, the court finds that the penalty cannot be reduced; therefore, it must be upheld. [17] With regards to the suspension of the sentence, it is not legally possible, as his penalty is beyond 5 years of imprisonment. III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [18] Finds the appeal of Mugirwanake Zawadi with merit in part while the one of Hakizimana Pascal and Rugero Etienne lacks merit. [19] Decides that the penalty of Mugirwanake Zawadi changes. He is sentenced to two (2) years of imprisonment and the fine of seven hundred thousand Rwandan francs (700,000 Frw), but he must serve one year and a half in prison as six months are suspended for a year. [20] Decides that the penalty of Hakizimana Pascal and Rugero Etienne is upheld. [21] Orders the court fees to be charged to the public treasury as Hakizimana Pascal and Rugero Etienne who appealed are in jail. PROSECUTION v. HAKIZIMANA ET AL

Page 459

192

Page 460

193

PROSECUTION v. NYIRAMUGISHA [Rwanda HIGH COURT – RPAA 0059/14/HC/RSZ (Bakuzakundi, P.J.) September 29, 2014] Criminal Law – Attempted infanticide – An attempt shall be punishable even if the objective is not achieved on account of a circumstance unknown to the offender – An attempt to commit a felony or a misdemeanour shall be regarded as a felony or a misdemeanour – Organic Law nº 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, articles 28 and 29. Criminal Procedure – Harmonization of sentences within the same jurisdiction over the same offence – In case the court ruled on the same offences and the particularity in the offence commission of the pending case is not set out, the sentences are harmonized. Criminal Law – Mitigating circumstances – When the offence had minor consequences, the sentence is reduced – Organic Law nº 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article77 (4). Facts: The accusedgave birth to a baby boy and a week later, she threw him in the maize plantation near Rubyiro’s cowshed where she put the baby in the pit, covered it with a stone and went back home. A man who impregnated the accused came back from Uganda where he was working and met her so that she can introduce him the baby, she hide him that she had thrown the baby, but instead, she arranged to get another person’s baby to introduce as hers. He knew that she was lying and turned to the local authorities to interrogate her on the whereabouts of the baby.

Page 461

194 194

The accused was charged of abandonment of a child and the Intermediate court of Rusizi reclassified the offence and decided that the elements of the offence she committed constitute the attempted infanticide instead of abandonment of child that she was charged of by the prosecution, and then sentenced her to twenty years of imprisonment. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, stating that the classification of the offence as decided by the Intermediate Court was wrong, that she committed the abandonment of the child without the intent to kill the baby but to expose him to the sight of the public that could take him to the orphanage. During the hearing in the High Court, the accused changed her grounds of appeal and stated that her appeal was intending to seek mercy from the High Court so that it reduces the severe penalty inflicted to her by the previous court. With regards to circumstances to consider in reducing her penalty, the accused explained that apart from mitigating circumstances explained by the previous court, it should be considered that she left little kids at home without a caregiver, that she does not know where they are and if possible, she could be released and join them. With regards to this ground, the prosecution states that the appeal of the accused lacks merit because the Intermediate Court of Rusizi that rendered the decision at the first instance granted her the penalty reduction she is requesting for. The prosecutor added that the previous court sufficiently reduced his penalty, considering the cruelty under which the offence was committed, where shedug a pit, put the baby inside and covered up with a stone. Held: 1. Even though the grounds raised up by the accusedas mitigating circumstances were considered by the Intermediate

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 462

195 195

court of Rusizi in reducing her penalty after considering her mitigating circumstances, the High Court finds that the penalty imposition by the Intermediate Court of Rusizi did not comply with the principle of harmonization of sentences inflicted to the convicted of an offence such as that she had committed (harmonisation of sentence in same court for the same offences), while it did not motivate if there is some particularity in its commission that could led the offender to be severely punished comparing to the sentence already imposed by the same court to the convicted of an offence such as that she had committed, who were sentenced to ten years of imprisonment.

2. The fact that the offence the accused committed had minor consequences as the baby referred to in the case was saved, got medical assistance and healed, the High Court finds that the accused must benefit the reduction of penalty inflicted on her by the appealed judgment. She must also be discharged of the court fees because she is in jail. Appeal without merit. Appealed judgment only changes with regards to the sentence. Accused sentenced to ten years of imprisonment. Court fees charged to the public treasury. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Organic Law nº 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, articles 28, 29, 76, 77, 78 and 143. Law n°13/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure, article 191. Law n° 15/2004 of 12/6/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 3. PROSECUTION v. NYIRAMUGISHA

Page 463

196

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 196

Case referred to: Prosecutor v. Mukaniyonsenga, RP 0024/14/TGI/RSZ, rendered by the Intermediate Court of Rusizi on 28 March 2014. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] On 03 June 2013, Nyiramugisha Joséphine gave a birth to a baby boy and a week later, she threw him in the maize plantation near Rubyiro’s cowshed and she went back home. [2] Ndungutse David who impregnated Nyiramugisha Joséphine came back from Uganda where he was working and met Nyiramugisha Joséphine for her to introduce him the baby, she hide him that she had thrown the babyandarranged to get another person’s baby to introduce as hers. He knew that she was lying and turned to local authorities to interrogate Nyiramugisha Joséphine on the whereabouts of the baby. [3] The Judicial Police started preliminary investigations and ended by transferring the case to the prosecution. After conducting supplementary investigation, the prosecution filed the case to the court against Nyiramugisha Joséphine for abandonment of a child. [4] In the case RP 0030/14/TGI/RSZ rendered on 23 April 2014, the Intermediate court of Rusizi reclassified the offence and decided that the elements of the offence Nyiramugisha Joséphine committed constitute the attempted infanticide instead of abandonment of child that she was charged of by the prosecution. The court sentenced Nyiramugisha Joséphine to

Page 464

197

twenty years of imprisonment and court fees were charged to the public treasury. Not satisfied by the decision of the court, Nyiramugisha Joséphine appealed to the High Court Rusizi Chamber, where the case was registered under RPA 0059/14/HC/RSZ. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES In the case, the legal issue to be analysed and decided upon by the court is to know whether the guilty plea and forgiveness seeking of the accused should serve as mitigating circumstances. [5] In her appeal submissions to the High Court, Nyiramugisha Joséphine states that the classification of the offence as decided by the Intermediate Court is wrong, that she committed abandonment of the child without the intent to kill him but to expose him to the sight of the public that could take him to orphanage. She added that she made all that when his husband left her alone in the rented house where she stayed with two kids that hardly got the food and she found that she could not find means to feed the other baby. [6] In her written submissions, Nyiramugisha Joséphine keeps on explaining that in being misled, basing on the statements made by the man who rescued the baby, neither the judicial police, the prosecution nor the court conducted investigations to find the place where she left the baby so that another person takes him to the orphanage. She added that after such long, it could not be possible to find alive a baby thrown into the pit as alleged by the person who found him. PROSECUTION v. NYIRAMUGISHA 197

Page 465

198 198

[7] During the hearing in the High Court, Nyiramugisha Joséphine changed her grounds of appeal and stated that her appeal was intending to seek mercy from the High Court so that it reduces the severe penalty sentenced to her by the previous court. With regards to circumstances to consider in reducing her penalty, the accused explained that apart from mitigating circumstances explained by the previous court, it should be considered that she left little kids at home without a caregiver, that she does not know where they are and if possible, she could be released and join them. [8] With regards to this ground, the prosecution states that the appeal of Nyiramugisha Joséphine lacks merit because the penalty reduction she is requesting the High Court, she already got it from the Intermediate Court of Rusizi that rendered the decision at the first instance. The prosecutor added that the previous court sufficiently reduced his penalty, considering the cruelty under which the offence was committed, where Nyiramugisha Joséphine dug a pit, put the baby inside and covered up with a stone. [9] During her interrogation of 11 January 2014 in the judicial police, Nyiramugisha Joséphine explained that when she threw the baby aged of two weeks in the maize plantation, her intention was to expose him to anyone who could take him to his/her home, because she had no means to look after him and the man who impregnated her had left to unknown place of Uganda and she denied to have covered the pit. When a Judicial Police officer asked her the reason why she did not abandon the baby to a public place such as Sector office, Police station or religious home if she actually intended to let the baby to

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 466

199 199

someone’s hands, Nyiramugisha Joséphine replied that she made a mistake (mark7). [10] During her interrogation of 13 January 2014 in the judicial police, at mark 8, Nyiramugisha Joséphine acknowledged to have put the baby in the pit and then covered it with a stone. She repeated the same statements in hearing in the Intermediate Court as indicated on page 7 of the minute of hearing of 13 March 2014. When Nyiramugisha Joséphine was asked what she intended when she covered the pit where she put the baby with the stone, she kept silent. [11] The statements of Nyiramugisha Joséphine made in the judicial police and before the Intermediate Court of Rusizi are confirmed by Hategekimana Emmanuel at mark 14, where he states that he came when he heard people shouting that they found a baby buried and when he reached where the baby was in a pit covered by a stone, he took him off. He added that as the baby was so cold because of rain, he took him to “Centre de santé Islamique”, where he got transferred to Mibilizi hospital. The baby passed two weeks there, under blood transfusion, reanimation and a warm machine. [12] When analysing the poverty as averred by Nyiramugisha Joséphine and the way she hide that she was pregnant until she gives birth as she explains in the judicial police; considering also that she did not look for a nice person who could take care of the baby after she explains him/her her economic situation, but rather she put the baby into a pit dug in the maize plantation, covered it with a stone and went away without looking back to see if someone had rescued the baby in order to avoid that he passes night there and succumb to the coldness or be killed by wild animals; considering that when Ndungutse David (mark10- PROSECUTION v. NYIRAMUGISHA

Page 467

200 200

14) who acknowledges to be the father of the baby, came back from Uganda asked Nyiramugisha Joséphine where was the baby and she did not want to tell him the truth but went to take someone’s baby and put her on the back, pretending to be hers, until the baby’s mother came to recuperate him; being confused, Ndungutse Davide went to the Sector office to report the case against Nyiramugisha Joséphine and then the case was known; analysis of all these matters led the High Court to find that the previous court explained enough in paragraph 8 at page 2 of the case RP 0030/14/ TGI/RSZ, that Nyiramugisha Joséphine was intending to commit infanticide but could not fulfil it for circumstances unknown to her. [13] Article 28 of the Organic Law nº 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code provides that an attempt shall be punishable even if the objective is not achieved on account of a circumstance unknown to the offender. Paragraph 29 of the Organic Law no 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 provides that an attempt to commit a felony or a misdemeanour shall be regarded as a felony or a misdemeanour. However, its paragraph 2 provides that the judge may reduce penalties for the attempt according to the circumstances in which the attempt occurred. Considering the above mentions provisions of the Law, the High Court finds that the offence Nyiramugisha Joséphine committed is punished by article 143 of the Organic Law nº 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, providing that a person who kill his/her biological or adopted child shall commit infanticide and shall be punishable to life imprisonment. [14] As ground of appeal, Nyiramugisha Joséphine requests the penalty reduction, but as mentioned in paragraph 9 and 10 at page 3 of the judgment RP 0030/14/TGI/RSZ, it is well

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 468

201 201

explained that Nyiramugisha Joséphine should have been sentenced to life imprisonment basing on incriminating evidences such as her guilty plea, but due to mitigating circumstances considered by the Intermediate Court basing on article 76 and 77 of Organic Law nº 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code (the fact of being the first offender and the fact that she pleads guilty and seeks forgiveness), the sentence was reduced to twenty years of imprisonment based on the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 78 of the Organic Law nº 01/2012/OL above mentioned,that provides that when there are mitigating circumstances, life imprisonment or life imprisonment with special provisions is replaced by a penalty of imprisonment of not less than ten years. [15] However, even though the grounds raised by Nyiramugisha Joséphine as mitigating circumstances were considered by the Intermediate court of Rusizi in reducing her penalty after considering her mitigating circumstances, the High Court finds that the penalty imposition did not comply with the harmonization of sentences already imposed by the Intermediate Court of Rusizi to the convicted of an offence such as that she had committed (harmonisation of sentence in same court for the same offences), while it did not motivate whether there was some particularity in its commission that could led the offender to be severely punished comparing to the sentence already inflicted to other convicted of the offence such as the one she had committed1, who were sentenced to ten years of imprisonment.

1In the case RP 0024/14/TGI/RSZ rendered by the Intermediate Court of Rusizi on 28 March 2014, Mukaniyonsenga Frolence who committed the same offence as Nyiramugisha Joséphine was convicted, with same mitigating circumstances as those considered for Nyiramugisha Joséphine, PROSECUTION v. NYIRAMUGISHA

Page 469

202 202

[16] Considering the above mentioned holdings and the fact that the offence Nyiramugisha Joséphine committed had minor consequences (paragraph 4 of article 77 of the Organic Law nº 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code) as the baby referred to in the case was saved, got medical assistance and was healed, the High Court finds that the sentenced inflicted on Nyiramugisha Joséphine in the appealed judgment RP 0030/14/TGI/RSZ must be reduced. Considering the provisions of article 191 paragraph 2 of the Law no 30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure, Nyiramugisha Joséphine must also be discharged of the court fees because she is in jail. III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [17] Admits Nyiramugisha Joséphine’s appeal because it respected the procedure. [18] Decides that the judgment RP 0030/14/TGI/RSZ rendered by the Intermediate Court of Rusizi on 23 April 2014 only changes with regards to the sentence, Nyiramugisha Joséphine is sentenced to ten years of imprisonment. [19] Orders that Nyiramugisha Joséphine is discharged of the court fees as she is in jail, they are charged to the public treasury.

basing on same provisions of law in sentence imposing, was convicted to ten years of imprisonment while Nyiramugisha Joséphine was sentenced to twenty years of imprisonment.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 471

204 Printed by PROGRAPH LTD P.O.Box 1882Kigali - Rwanda Tel: (+250) 788303889