DE HAGUENAU v. CHINA ROAD AND BRIDGE CORPORATION LTD (CRBC LTD)

DE HAGUENAU v. CHINA ROAD AND BRIDGE CORPORATION LTD (CRBC LTD)

The appellate court held that the procedural complaints did not justify annulling and remitting the judgment because the first-instance appeal had been heard on the merits and the alleged defects fell to be assessed as appeal grounds, not as jurisdictional defects under Article 157/158. On the substance, the court...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant/respondent: DE HAGUENAU Alain Paul; Respondent/appellant: CHINA ROAD AND BRIDGE CORPORATION Ltd
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Procedural Posture
Civil/commercial Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal partly upheld; High Commercial Court judgment varied; CRBC Ltd found liable and ordered to pay additional damages and costs.
Legal Topics
Appeal, Jurisdiction, Inadmissibility of Claim, Breach of Contract, Loss of Chance, Expert Evidence, Parking Use of Land, Costs and Advocate Fees
Source Language
rw
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Contract Law Damages Appeal Jurisdiction Inadmissibility of Claim Breach of Contract +4 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DE HAGUENAU Alain Paul

Appellant/respondent

CHINA ROAD AND BRIDGE CORPORATION Ltd

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil/commercial Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the High Commercial Court committed procedural errors warranting annulment and remittal of the judgment.
  2. 2 Whether CRBC Ltd breached the soil dumping agreement.
  3. 3 Whether DE HAGUENAU Alain Paul was entitled to damages for loss of profit or only loss of chance.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court held that the procedural complaints did not justify annulling and remitting the judgment because the first-instance appeal had been heard on the merits and the alleged defects fell to be assessed as appeal grounds, not as jurisdictional defects under Article 157/158. On the substance, the court found that CRBC Ltd breached the soil dumping agreement by depositing more soil than agreed, compacting it excessively, and placing unsuitable top soil; that DE HAGUENAU Alain Paul had not proved actual lost profit from an operating project, so he was entitled only to loss-of-chance damages; that he did not prove CRBC Ltd used the land as parking in a compensable way; and that...

Court Disposition

Appeal partly upheld; High Commercial Court judgment varied; CRBC Ltd found liable and ordered to pay additional damages and costs.

Orders

  • CRBC Ltd shall pay DE HAGUENAU Alain Paul 220.352.132 Frw for removal of excess soil from UPI: 1/03/02/04/657.
  • CRBC Ltd shall pay DE HAGUENAU Alain Paul 3.957.259 Frw for treatment of top soil to make it suitable for vegetation.