RLR-V.4-2016

RLR-V.4-2016

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Rwanda law reports - Date: 2016-10-03 - Collection: Supreme Court

Text

Page 1

REPUBLIC OF RWANDA

SUPREME COURT P.o. Box. 2197 KIGALI www.judiciary.gov.rw

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Icyegeranyo V. 4 - 2016 Ukwakira, 2016 Law Report, V. 4 - 2016 October, 2016

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 2

REPUBLIC OF RWANDA

SUPREME COURT Po. Box. 2197 KIGALI www.judiciary.gov.rw

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Icyegeranyo V. 4 - 2016 Ukwakira, 2016 Law Report , V. 4 - 2016 October, 2016

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 4

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

IKINYARWANDA

Page 6

i

ISHAKIRO

ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI ...................................iii KOMITE YEMEZA IMANZA ................................................. iv IRIBURIRO ............................................................................ vii IBIKUBIYE MURI IKI CYEGERANYO ...............................viii INYITO ....................................................................................viii AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO .......................................... ix IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE ..................................................... xi AMAGAMBO MPINE ............................................................. xii ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd v. JULIA SHOP ............................ 1 MUKAKALISA v. MUKAMUSANA N’ABANDI ................ 13 MUKAMANZI v. KWITUNGA N’UNDI ............................... 27 MUNYAMPUNDU N’ABANDI v. UMUJYI WA KIGALI ... 41 SEMANYENZI v. NTIHABOSE ............................................. 51 RWEMA v. RWANDA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (RDB) ... 63 UMUJYI WA KIGALI v. KAGABO ....................................... 79 YARI CORNACCHIA v. NSANAWE .................................... 99 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. RUZINDANA ............................... 117 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. TURATSINZE .............................. 125

Page 8

iii

ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI

ITSINDA RY’ABANYAMATEGEKO

BATEGUYE

IMANZA

KAGABO U. Stephanie

MUJABI K. Naphtal

MUNYENSANGA Chrysostome

MWIHOREZE Claudine

NTIHEMUKA Emmanuel

UWIMANA Gisèle

Page 9

iv

KOMITE YEMEZA IMANZA

MUGENZI Louis Marie : Prezida wa Komite Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga

Dr. MUHIRE G. Yves : Visi Perezida wa Komite Umwarimu muri Kaminuza y’u Rwanda

RUTAZANA Angeline : Umwanditsi wa Komite Umugenzuzi w’Inkiko

BWIZA N. Blanche : Umugenzuzi w’Inkiko

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

KALIWABO Charles : Perezida w’Urukiko Rukuru

Page 10

5

Me KAYIHURA Didas : Avoka mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka

KIBUKA Jean Luc : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi

MUREREREHE Saouda : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru

Prof. Dr. NGAGI M. Alphonse : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rw’Ikirenga

RUBANGO K. Epimaque : Intumwa ya Leta

RUKUNDAKUVUGA F. Regis : Umugenzuzi Mukuru w’Inkiko

UWANTEGE Yvette : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye

ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI v

Page 12

vii

IRIBURIRO Basomyi bacu, Nk’uko mubimenyereye, Urwego rw’ubucamanza runejejwe no kubagezaho nomero ya kane y’icyegeranyo cy’ibyemezo by’inkiko mu mwaka wa 2016. Turashimira abakomeje kutugezaho inkunga y’ibitekerezo, mu rwego rwo kunoza imitegurire y’icyegeranyo cy’ibyemezo by’inkiko, tunashishikariza n’abandi bagerwaho nacyo, kukigira icyabo batanga inkunga y’ibitekerezo. Ibyo bizadufasha kurushaho kunoza imitegurire y’icyegeranyo cy’ibyemezo by’inkiko kugirango kirusheho kugirira akamaro benshi kandi ku rwego mpuzamahanga. Muri iyi nomero y’icyegeranyo cy’ibyemezo by’inkiko murasangamo imanza cumi (10) zikubiyemo imanza eshanu (5) z’imiburanishirize y’imanza, imanza ebyiri (2) z’ubutegetsi, urubanza rumwe (1) rw’ubucuruzi, n’imanza ebyiri (2) nshinjabyaha. Tuboneyeho no kubibutsa ko imanza ziri muri iki cyegeranyo ziboneka no ku rubuga rwa murandasi rw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ruborohereza kubona urubanza mukeneye mu buryo bwihuse, kuri http://decisia.lexum.com/rlr/kn/nav.do Prof. Sam RUGEGE Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga Perezida w’Inama Nkuru y’Ubucamanza

Page 13

viii

IBIKUBIYE MURI IKI CYEGERANYO Iki cyegeranyo gikubiyemo imanza zaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga zikoreshwa hakurikijwe inyito ivugwa hasi.

INYITO Imanza ziri muri iyi volime zikoreshwa muri ubu buryo: [2016] 4 RLR

Page 14

ix

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO Itegeko-Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 28(5)............................................................16 ingingo ya 28(2&5).......................................................30 Itegeko Ngenga Nº01/2012 ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo za 79 na 116………….127 Itegeko N°84/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 ryerekeye icyaha cy’ingengabitekerezo ya Jenoside n’ibindi byaha bifitanye isano nayo, ingingo za 6 n’iya 12.……………………………………..127 Itegeko Nº30/2013 ryo kuwa 24/5/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 165(2o)………………………………………………………………118 Itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 2………………………………………………….3 ingingo ya 171 n’iya 172………………………………….53 Itegeko Nº07/2009 ryo kuwa 27/04/2009 ryerekeye amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi, ingingo ya 16 n‘iya 375..........................................3 Itegeko No59/2008 ryo ku wa 10/09/2008 rikumira kandi rihana ihohoterwa iryo ariryo ryose rishingiye ku gitsina, ingingo ya 39...............................................................................................16 Itegeko N°005/2008 ryo kuwa 14/02/2008 ryerekeye ubukemurampaka n’ubwunzi mu bibazo by’ubucuruzi, ingingo ya 47........................................................................................102

Page 15

x

Itegeko No08/2006 ryo ku wa 24/02/2006 rigena imiterere, imitunganyirize n’imikorere y’Akarere, ingingo ya 67(17)…...43 Itegeko Nº15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 104 n’iya 108……..127 Itegeko–Teka N°20/75 ryo kuwa 20 Kamena 1975 rigena ubwishingire, ingingo ya 37……………………………...............84 Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258…………………………….43 Iteka rya Minisitiri Nº02/05/2009 ryo kuwa 08/05/2009 ryerekeye ubucuruzi bukorwa n’abantu badafite ubushobozi buhagije, ingingo ya 2 n’iya 10...................................................3 Iteka rya Minisitiri Nº16/012 ryo kuwa 15/05/2012 rishyiraho amabwiriza y’ubukemurampaka y’Ikigo Mpuzamahanga cy’Ubukemurampaka cya Kigali, ingingo ya 29………………............................................67 ingingo ya 29...............................................................102 Itegeko-Ngenga No31/2006 ryo ku wa 14/08/2006 rigena imiterere, ifasi, ububasha n’imikorere ya Komite y’Abunzi, ingingo ya 8…………………………...........................................53 Itegeko No18/2004 ryo ku wa 20/06/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 339...............................................................43 ingingo ya 346……………………………………………...84

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 16

xi

IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE Gatera v. Kalisa, RS/Incost/Pen.0003/10/CS, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 07/01/2011.…………………........16

Page 17

12 RADA 006/12/CS

Page 18

xii

AMAGAMBO MPINE Amategeko agenga amasezerano – Ibyemeranyijwe mu masezerano n’ibyemeranyijwe n’impande zombi mu bukemurampaka – Iyakirwa ry’ikirego cyabanje mu bukempurampaka – Icyo impande zombi zemeranyijwe ko kiburanwa mu bukemurampaka ntigishobora kuregerwa hasabwa ko gihinduka mu Rukiko – Iteka rya Minisitiri Nº16/012 ryo kuwa 15/05/2012 rishyiraho amabwiriza y’ubukemurampaka y’Ikigo Mpuzamahanga cy’Ubukemurampaka cya Kigali, ingingo ya 29. YARI CORNACCHIA v. NSANAWE.........................99 Amategeko agenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa – Indishyi – Kuba byemejwe ko ubujurire nta shingiro bufite, byumvikanisha ko nta ndishyi zikwiye guhabwa abajuriye cyane ko uregwa nta kosa rigaragara yakoze ryaba impamvu y’uburyozwe – Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258. MUNYAMPUNDU N’ABANDI v. UMUJYI WA KIGALI...........................................................................41 Amategeko agenga ibimenyetso – Ibimenyetso bicumbukuwe – Ni ingingo amategeko cyangwa urukiko bisesengura bishingiye ku kintu kizwi kugira ngo hagaragazwe ikitazwi. Bigomba kuba bikomeye, bisobanuye kandi bihuje – Itegeko Nº15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo za 104 n’iya 108. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. TURATSINZE...................125 xiii

Page 19

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO xiv

Amategeko agenga imanza z’ubutegetsi – Ibyemezo by’ubuyobozi – Ihame ry’uko icyemezo cy’ubuyobozi kigomba kubahirizwa uko kiri nk’aho gikurikije amategeko, mbere yo kuregerwa kigasuzumwa n’Urukiko (privilège du préalable) – Leta isonewe kubanza kurega kugirango ifate ibyemezo bishyirwa mu bikorwa n’umuturage utabigizemo uruhare. UMUJYI WA KIGALI v. KAGABO...........................79 Ibyemezo by’ubuyobozi – Ihame rya “privilege d’execution d’office” cyangwa “Execution forcee” – Ni imbaraga umuyobozi wo mu rwego rwa Leta akoresha, bigatuma icyemezo afashe wenyine giha uburenganzira cyangwa inshingano ku bandi bantu – Iryo hame rivuze ko ubuyobozi bushobora gukoresha ingufu za Leta kugirango icyemezo bufashe gishyirwe mu bikorwa ariko ubwo burenganzira bw’ubuyobozi bwo kwifashisha ingufu za Leta mu kurengera inyungu rusange iyo bubangamiye inyungu z’umuntu ku giti cye bugomba kwemezwa n’icyemezo cy’Urukiko gishingiye ku mpamvu eshatu, kuba hari itegeko ribiteganya, iyo nta bundi buryo bwo kurengera inyungu rusange n’iyo hari impamvu yihutirwa ituma icyemezo cy’ubuyobozi gishyirwa mu bikorwa cyangwa imwe muri izi – Iyo ubuyobozi bukoresheje ingufu za leta (recours à l’éxécution forcée) kandi nta n’imwe muri izo mpamvu ihari, cyangwa umuntu atanze kubahiriza ibyemezo byabwo, ubuyobozi buba bukoze ikosa bugomba kwirengera. UMUJYI WA KIGALI v. KAGABO...........................79 Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza mbonezamubano – Gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane – Kwiyambura ububasha kw’inteko

Page 20

AMAGAMBO MPINE xv

y’abunzi – Icyemezo cyafashwe n’inteko y’abunzi – Umuburanyi uregeye Urukiko rw’Ibanze nyuma y’uko Inteko y’abunzi yemeje ko idafite ububasha, ntafatwa nk’ujuririye umwanzuro w’abunzi ahubwo aba aregeye urukiko rubifitiye ububasha bwa mbere kubw‘ibyo rero ibihe bibarwa hatangwa ubujurire ntibyakoreshwa mu kumuzitira ikirego cye – Itegeko-Ngenga No31/2006 ryo ku wa 14/08/2006 rigena imiterere, ifasi, ububasha n’imikorere ya Komite y’Abunzi, ingingo ya 8. SEMANYENZI v. NTIHABOSE……………………..51 Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha – Gushidikanya – Birengera ushinjwa – Itegeko Nº30/2013 ryo kuwa 24/5/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 165(2o). UBUSHINJACYAHA v. RUZINDANA....................117 Ingaruka zo kutajuririra igihano k’ubushinjacyaha – Nta mpamvu yatuma igihano kiremerezwa mu bujurire, mu gihe kitajuririwe n’Ubushinjacyaha. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. TURATSINZE……….......125 Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubucuruzi – Ububasha – Gutanga ikirego mu izina ry’ubucuruzi – Julia Shop nta bubasha bwo kurega ifite kuko atari isosiyete y’ubucuruzi ifite buzima gatozi; ahubwo ni ubucuruzi bw’umuntu ku giti cye aho ikirego gitangwa na nyirabwo mu izina rye bwite kabone n’iyo yaba afite izina ry’ubucuruzi – Itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 2 – Itegeko Nº07/2009 ryo kuwa 27/04/2009 ryerekeye amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi, ingingo ya 16 n’iya 375 – Iteka rya Minisitiri Nº02/05/2009 ryo

Page 21

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ku wa 08/05/2009 ryerekeye ubucuruzi bukorwa n’abantu badafite ubushobozi buhagije, ingingo ya 2 n’iya 10. ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd v. JULIA SHOP……………….1 Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubutegetsi – Icyemezo cy’ubutegetsi – Iyimurirwa ry’inshingano z’urwego rw’ubutegetsi mu rundi rwego rw’ubutegetsi – Itakamba – Urwego rutakambirwa kandi rukaregwa – Igihe inshingano zivuye mu bubasha bw’Urwego rw’ubutegetsi zikimurirwa mu bubasha bw’Urundi rwego, biba impamvu ituma Urwego rwafashe icyemezo gisabirwa kuvanwaho izo nshingano zikiri mu bubasha bwarwo atari rwo rutakambirwa cyangwa ruregwa, ahubwo hatakambirwa kandi hakanaregwa urwego rw’ubutegetsi izo nshingano zimuriwemokuko ari rwo rugomba kubazwa ibijyanye n’ibyemezo byafashwe n’urwego rwari rusanganywe izo nshingano – Itakamba ryakorewe imbere y’Umuyobozi utari ugifite ububasha mu gihe ryakorewe ntirihabwa Agaciro – Itegeko No08/2006 ryo ku wa 24/02/2006 rigena imiterere, imitunganyirize n’imikorere y’Akarere, ingingo 67(17) – Itegeko No18/2004 ryo ku wa 20/06/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 339.

MUNYAMPUNDU N’ABANDI v.

UMUJYI WA KIGALI………………………………………………............41 Inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego – Ihame ryo kutongera kuburanisha imanza zabaye itegeko – Kuba ikiburanwa cyari cyaraburanweho mu nkiko zabanje nticyakongera kuburanishwaho kuko byaba binyuranyije n’ihame ribuza kugaruka ku manza zabaye itegeko.

RWEMA v.

RWANDA

DEVELOPMENT

BOARD (RDB)………………………………………………………...63 Amategeko agenga ububasha bw’Inkiko – Ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga nk’Urukiko rw’ubujurire – Inzitizi y’iburabubasha – Gutsindwa ku rwego rwa mbere xvi

Page 22

AMAGAMBO MPINE xvii

n’urwa kabiri ku mpamvu zimwe – Mu gihe Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusanze uwajuriye yaratsinzwe ku rwego rwa mbere n’urwa kabiri ku mpamvu zimwe, ubujurire bwe ntibwakirwa ngo busuzumwe kuko buba butari mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga – Itegeko-Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 28(2&5). MUKAMANZI v. KWITUNGA N’UNDI……………27 Ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga nk’Urukiko rw’ubujurire – Inzitizi y’iburabubasha – Gutsindwa ku rwego rwa mbere n’urwa kabiri ku mpamvu zimwe – Inzitizi y’iburabubasha ntihabwa ishingiro igihe bigaragara ko impamvu zashingiweho umuburanyi atsindwa ku rwego rwa mbere n’urwa kabiri atari zimwe – Itegeko Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 28(5). MUKAKALISA v. MUKAMUSANA N’ABANDI…..13 Amategeko agenga ubukemurampaka – Igihe cyo gusoma icyemezo cy’Urukiko Nkemurampaka – Agaciro k‘icyemezo cy’Urukiko Nkemurampaka cyasomwe nyuma y’igihe impande zombi zumvikanyeho – Gusomwa kw’icyemezo cy’Urukiko Nkemurampaka nyuma y’igihe impande zombi zumvikanyeho mu masezerano si impamvu yatuma giteshwa agaciro – Itegeko N°005/2008 ryo kuwa 14/02/2008 ryerekeye ubukemurampaka n’ubwunzi, ingingo ya 47. YARI CORNACCHIA v. NSANAWE.........................47 Inyandiko y’ubutumwa – Icyemezo cy’ubukempurampaka nticyafatwa nk’aho cyataye agaciro kuko cyafashwe igihe

Page 23

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO xviii

cyateganyijwe mu nyandiko y’ubutumwa cyarangiye mu gihe muri iyo nyandiko hatateganyijwe icyakorwa igihe ubukemurampaka bwaba burengeje iminsi yo gufatamo icyemezo. RWEMA v. RWANDA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (RDB)…………………………………………………...63 Amasezerano y’ubukemurampaka – Abakoranye amasezerano iyo bemeranyije ko ikibazo bazagirana giturutse cyangwa gishingiye kuri ayo masezerano kizakemurwa n’abakemurampaka cyavuka akaba ari bo bagicyemura, bagatanga n’icyemezo ntabwo umwe mu basinye ayo masezerano aregere urukiko. RWEMA v. RWANDA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (RDB)…………………………………………………...63 Amategeko Mpanabyaha – Gupfobya jenoside – Ni imyifatire iyo ari yo yose igambiriwe kandi igaragajwe mu ruhame mu buryo ubwo ari bwo bwose, igamije kugabanya uburemere cyangwa ingaruka ya Jenoside no koroshya uburyo Jenoside yakozwemo – Itegeko N°84/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 ryerekeye icyaha cy’ingengabitekerezo ya Jenoside n’ibindi byaha bifitanye isano nayo, ingingo ya 6. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. TURATSINZE…………...125

Page 24

IMANZA ZEREKEYE IMIBURANISHIRIZE Y’IMANZA

Page 26

IMANZA ZEREKERANYE N’IMIBURANISHIRIZE Y’IMANZA Z’IMBONEZAMUBANO, IZ’UBUCURUZI, IZ’UMURIMO N’IZ’UBUTEGETSI

Page 28

ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd v. JULIA

SHOP [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RCOMAA0042/14/CS (Kayitesi R. P.J., Mukandamage na Kanyange, J.) 18 Werurwe 2016] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubucuruzi – Ububasha – Gutanga ikirego mu izina ry’ubucuruzi – Julia Shop nta bubasha bwo kurega ifite kuko atari isosiyete y’ubucuruzi ifite buzima gatozi; ahubwo ni ubucuruzi bw’umuntu ku giti cye aho ikirego gitangwa na nyirabwo mu izina rye bwite kabone n’iyo yaba afite izina ry’ubucuruzi – Itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 2 – Itegeko Nº07/2009 ryo kuwa 27/04/2009 ryerekeye amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi, ingingo ya 16 n’iya 375 – Iteka rya Minisitiri Nº02/05/2009 ryo ku wa 08/05/2009 ryerekeye ubucuruzi bukorwa n’abantu badafite ubushobozi buhagije, ingingo ya 2 n’iya 10. Incamake y’ikibazo: Julia Shop yasabye gufungurirwa letter of credit muri ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd (LC) ifite agaciro ka 860.000 USD. Ayo madorari akaba yaragombaga kwishyurwa Five Star Trading FZCO. Nyuma y’uko inyandiko zagombaga gutuma Five Star Trading FZCO yishyurwa zigaragariyemo amakosa EBI BANK S.A yategetse Five Star Trading FZCO kuzisubirana. Julia Shop yo yavuze ko ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd yabirenzeho maze itegeka EBI BANK S.A kwishyura ayo amadorari ishingiye ku 1

Page 29

2 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kuba Julia shop yari yemeye gukosora ayo makosa mu gihe yo ivuga ko itari yakayamenyeshejwe. Julia Shop yaregeye Urukiko rw'Ubucuruzi maze narwo rwemeza ko ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd yakoze amakosa ubwo yategekaga IBI SA Paris kwishyura Five Star Trading FZCO 860.000USD hashingiwe ku nyandiko zitujuje ibisabwa (letter of credit). ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ivuga ko ikirego cya Julia Shop kitagombaga kwakirwa ku rwego rwa mbere kuko entreprise nta bubasha bwo kurega igira. Urwo Rukiko rwemeje ko ikirego cya ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd nta shingiro gifite runemeza ko ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe. Mu gufata iki cyemezo rwasobanuye ko Julia Shop ifite ubuzima gatozi kuko no mu nyandiko bagiye bandikirana hakoreshwaga Julia Shop byumvikanisha ko ibufite. Rwanavuze kandi ko icyemezo cy’iyandikwa ry’ubucuruzi kigaragaza ko Julia Shop ifite ubuzima gatozi. ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd yajuriye mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga ivuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwashingiye ku itegeko ritariho rwemeza ko Julia Shop ifite ubuzima gatozi. Julia Shop yo yatanze ubujurire bwuririye kubundi isaba ko indishyi yagenewe zakongerwa inavuga kandi ko ifite ubuzima gatozi nk’uko icyemezo cy’iyandikwa ry’ubucuruzi kibigaragaza, bikanashimangirwa n’amasezerano yabaye hagati y’impande zombi agaragaza ko atabaye hagati ya ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd na Mukandahiro Julienne. Incamake y’icyemzo: Kuba itegeko rigenga iby’amasosite ritegenya ko iyandikisha, imiterere n’imikorere by’ibikorwa

Page 30

3 ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd v. JULIA SHOP

by’ubucuruzi bikorwa n’abantu badashobora kwinjiza nibura ibihumbi icumi (10.000) ku munsi bigenwa n’Iteka rya Minisitiri ufite ubucuruzi mu nshingano ze, Julia Shop ikaba yaranditswe hashingiwe ku Iteka rya Minisitiri No02/09// MINICOM ryo kuwa 08/05/2009 ryerekeye ubucuruzi bukorwa n’abantu badafite ubushobozi buhagije bigaragaza ko Julia Shop ari izina ry’ubucuruzi bw’umuntu ku giti cye; ku bw’ibyo ikaba idafite ubuzima gatozi ku buryo yatanga ikirego mu rukiko. Bityo rero Julia Shop ntiyashoboraga gutanga ikirego mu rukiko kuko nta bubasha ibifitiye. Ubujurire bufite ishingiro; Ikirego nticyagombaga kwakirwa; Urubanza rwajuririwe ruvanyweho; Julia Shop itegetswe kwishyura amagarama y’urubanaza. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 2. Itegeko Nº07/2009 ryo kuwa 27/04/2009 ryerekeye amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi, ingingo ya 16 n’iya 375. Iteka rya Minisitiri Nº02/05/2009 ryo kuwa 08/05/2009 ryerekeye ubucuruzi bukorwa n’abantu badafite ubushobozi buhagije, ingingo ya 2 n’iya 10. Nta manza zifashishijwe

Page 31

4 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Ibitekerezo by’abahanga byifashishijwe: J.P. Bertrel et M. Bertrel, Droit des sociétés, in Droit de l’entreprise, Paris, Wolters Kluwer France SAS, 2010/2011, p.382. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Kuwa 19/06/2012, Julia Shop yasabye gufungurirwa letter of credit muri ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd (LC) ifite agaciro ka 860.000USD kubera isoko ryo kugemura ifumbire yari yatsindiye muri MINAGRI, ayo madorari akaba yaragombaga kwishyurwa Five Star Trading FZCO. [2] Five Star Trading FZCO yashyikirije inyandiko Emirates Islamic Bank ngo izigeze kuri EBI S.A Paris, France kugira ngo yishyure, EBI S.A. Paris izisuzumye isanga zirimo amakosa harebwe ibigenga LC (UPC 600), iyisaba kuzisubirana, Julia Shop ikavuga ko ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd yabirenzeho igategeka EBI BANK S.A kwishyura amadorari yavuzwe haruguru ibishingiye ko Julia Shop yemeye kuvanaho amakosa EBI S.A Paris yari yagaragaje, mu gihe Julia Shop ivuga ko itamenyeshejwe izo nyandiko. [3] Julia Shop yaregeye Urukiko rw'Ubucuruzi ikirego cyasobanuwe haruguru, urwo rukiko rwemeza ko ikirego cyayo gifite ishingiro, ko ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd yakoze amakosa itegeka EBI S.A Paris kwishyura Five Star Trading FZCO 860.000USD hashingiwe ku nyandiko zitujuje ibyo letter of credit isaba, rutegeka ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd gusubiza ayo

Page 32

madorari kuri konti ya Julia Shop, ikanayiha indishyi zingana na 10.000.000 Frw z'uko yakuye ayo madorari kuri konti yayo mu buryo itazi na 300.000Frw y'ikurikiranarubanza n'igihembo cy’Avoka. [4] ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, ivuga ko ikirego cya Julia Shop kitagombaga kwakirwa ku rwego rwa mbere kuko nka Entreprise, nta bubasha ifite bwo kurega ahubwo bufitwe n'uwo yanditseho ari we Mukandahiro Julienne, ko kandi ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd yashyizweho amakosa itakoze inacibwa indishyi zidafite aho zishingiye. [5] Urukiko rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa ECOBANK

RWANDA Ltd nta shingiro bufite, ko n’ubujurire bubwuririyeho bwa Julia Shop bufite ishingiro gusa ku birebana n'igihembo cy’Avoka mu bujurire, ruyigenera 500.000Frw. [6] Urukiko rwasobanuye ko Julia Shop ari izina ry'ubucuruzi rya entreprise ya Mukandahiro Julienne kandi ifite ubuzimagatozi, ko no mu nyandiko impande zombi zagiye zandikirana hagiye hakoreshwa Julia Shop bikumvikana ko havugwa entreprise ya Mukandahiro Julienne; ko no muri certificate of entreprise registratiion, bisobanutse ko iyo entreprise ifite ubuzimagatozi, ikaba kandi yaratanze ikirego mu izina ry'Umuyobozi wayo ari nawe nyirayo. [7] Ku birebana n’urubanza mu mizi, rwasobanuye ko imiburanire ya ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd y'uko muri email yo kuwa 05/09/2012 Julia Shop yemeye discrepancies zose, nta shingiro ifite kuko emails zose zagaragajwe zirebana 5 ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd v. JULIA SHOP

Page 33

6 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

n'inyemezabwishyu, bikanagaragazwa n’ibaruwa yayo yo kuwa 06/09/2012. [8] Ku ndishyi zagenwe ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd yavugaga ko nta shingiro zifite, rwasobanuye ko urukiko rwa mbere rwasobanuye ko ibyakozwe n'iyo Banki aribyo byateye ikibazo Julia Shop, binemezwa bityo mu bujurire, ko rero indishyi yahawe zifite ishingiro, ko kandi kuvuga ko itagaragaje igihombo yagize nta shingiro bifite kuko iyo ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd idategeka ko Five Star Trading FZCO yishyurwa ikabanza gukosora ibibazo byari byagaragajwe, Julia Shop iba yarabonye ibyo yari yatumije kandi ko ryari isoko riyifitiye inyungu, ko rero ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd yamuteye igihombo yaherewe indishyi. [9] Rwasanze indishyi ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd isaba zitakwirirwa zisuzumwa kuko urubanza izisabamo irutsinzwe, ko n'indishyi Julia Shop isaba zigamije kongera izatanzwe ku rwego rwa mbere nta shingiro zifite kuko itagaragaza impamvu itishimiye izo yagenewe, nta n’imibare ifatika yagaragaje ishingiye ku gihombo nyakuri yaba yaragize, ko rero n'ubwo byagaragara ko yagize igihombo, hagumaho izo yagenewe mu bushishozi bw'urukiko rwa mbere. [10] ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd yajuririye mu Rukiko rw'Ikirenga, ivuga ko urukiko rwashingiye ku itegeko ritariho rwemeza ko Julia Shop ifite ubuzimagatozi, ko kandi urukiko rwashyize amakosa kuri ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd arebana n'iyishyurwa rya Five Star Trading FZCO kandi nyamara Julia Shop yari yemeye kuvanaho amakosa yari yagaragajwe (discrepancies). Na none kandi ngo ECOBANK Rwanda Ltd yaciwe indishyi kandi nta makosa yakoze. Julia Shop nayo

Page 34

7

yatanze ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi isaba ko indishyi yagenewe zakongerwa. [11] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame kuwa 06/10/2015, ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd ihagararawe na Me Rubasha Herbert hamwe na Me Umugwaneza Claudine, Julia Shop ihagarariwe na Me Mbaga Tuzinde Mbonyimbuga. II. IBIBAZO BIRI MU RUBANZA N'ISESENGURWA RYABYO 1. Kumenya niba Julia Shop idashobora kurega kuko idafite ubuzimagatozi. [12] Ababuranira ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd bavuga ko urukiko rwemeje ko Julia Shop ifite ububasha bwo kurega kandi nyamara ari izina ry’ubucuruzi, ko ahubwo Mukandahiro Julienne ari we wagombaga kurega kuko ari we entreprise yanditseho. Bavuga ko Urukiko rwafashe ko Julia Shop ari sosiyete kandi ari entreprise, ko kandi ibyo byombi byandikwa hakurikijwe amategeko atandukanye kuko kuri sosiyete hakurikizwa Itegeko Nº7/2009 ryo kuwa 27/04/2009 ryerekeye amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi nk'uko ryahinduwe kugeza ubu, mu gihe ubucuruzi bukorwa n'abantu ku giti cyabo bwandikwa muri RDB hakurikijwe Iteka rya Minisitiri No02/09/MINICOM du 08/05/2009, kandi n'ubucuruzi bwa Julia Shop bukaba bwaranditswe hakurikijwe iryo Teka nk’uko certificat yahawe ibigaragaza. [13] Bavuga kandi ko kurega bigomba gutandukanywa na relations commerciales aho hagiye hakoreshwa Julia Shop, ko n’imanza zaciwe ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd isaba ko ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd v. JULIA SHOP

Page 35

8 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

zashingirwaho hagomba kurebwa uko ziteye. Basanga kandi nta nenge y'imyandikire yabayeho nk'uko uburanira ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd abivuga, ko ahubwo ikirego kitagombaga kwakirwa. [14] Uburanira Julia Shop avuga ko ifite ubuzimagatozi nk'uko bigaragazwa na certificate of enterprise registration, bigashimangirwa n'amasezerano yose yabaye hagati ya JULIA SHOP na ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd kuko atakozwe hagati y’iyo Banki na Mukandahiro Julienne. Asobanura ko Julia Shop/Julienne Mukandahiro ari we watanze ikirego ku rwego rwa mbere, ko mu nyandiko no mu mwanzuro urega yagaragaje izina ry’ubucuruzi rye, entreprise code y’urega n’uyihagarariye ari we Mukandahiro Julienne, ko kuba hatarabanje kwandikwa Mukandahiro Julienne ngo hakurikireho Julia Shop, bitafatwa ko entreprise idafite ubuzimagatozi mu gihe yanditse mu bitabo by’ubucuruzi mu buryo bwemewe n’amategeko. [15] Avuga kandi ko hari imanza zaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga zigaragaza ko uwajuriye cyangwa uregwa ari entreprise mu izina ry’uyihagarariye, atanga ingero ku rubanza RADA0002/12/CS aho uwajuriye ari entreprise ERGECO mu izina ry’Umuyobozi wayo, haregwa entreprise ECOSEC mu izina ry’umuyobozi wayo, ku birebana n’uru rubanza naho hakaba harareze Julia Shop mu izina ry’umuyobozi wayo, ko kandi mu gihe haba harabaye ikibazo mu myandikire, byakosorwa hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 93 y’Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi.

Page 36

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [16] Ingingo ya 375 y’Itegeko Nº07/2009 ryo ku wa 27/04/2009 ryerekeye amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi nk’uko ryahinduwe kugeza ubu, iteganya ko ibyerekeye iyandikisha, imiterere n’imikorere by’ibikorwa by’ubucuruzi bukorwa n’abantu badashobora kwinjiza nibura ibihumbi icumi (10.000Frw) ku munsi bigenwa n’Iteka rya Minisitiri ufite ubucuruzi mu nshingano ze. [17] Hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’iyo ngingo, hashyizweho Iteka rya Minisitiri Nº02/05/2009 ryo ku wa 08/05/2009 ryerekeye ubucuruzi bukorwa n’abantu badafite ubushobozi buhagije, ingingo yaryo ya kabiri ikaba iteganya ko “Igikorwa cy’ubucuruzi hakurikijwe iri teka ni igikorwa cy’umuntu wese yaba umugore cyangwa umugabo ukora ibikorwa by’ubucuruzi, byanditswe hakurikijwe ibiteganywa n’iri teka harimo kugura no kugurisha, gutanga serivisi cyangwa se ikindi gikorwa icyo aricyo cyose mu buryo buhoraho gikorwa hagamijwe kubona inyungu”. [18] Kubirebana n’ubucuruzi bwa Mukandahiro Julienne, icyemezo cy’iyandikwa (Certificate of enterprise registration) cyatanzwe na RDB kuwa 21/09/2011, kigaragaza ko cyatanzwe hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 10 y’Iteka rya Minisitiri Nº02/09//MINICOM ryo kuwa 08/05/2009 ryavuzwe haruguru. Nk’uko umutwe w’iryo Teka ubivuga hamwe n’ingingo yaryo ya kabiri, bigaragara ko ryerekeye ubucuruzi bukorwa n’abantu, bivuze ko ritareba iyandikishwa ry’amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi kuko yo yandikwa hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 16 y’Itegeko Nº07/2009 ryo kuwa 27/04/2009 ryerekeye amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi. 9 ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd v. JULIA SHOP

Page 37

10 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[19] Icyo cyemezo cy’iyandikwa ry’ubucuruzi, kigaragaza ko cyahawe Mukandahiro Julienne nka nyiri ubucuruzi (Enterprise name) ko kandi iyo entreprise ikorera ku izina ry’ubucuruzi rya Julia Shop (Business name). Kuba rero Julia Shop ari izina ry’ ubucuruzi bw’umuntu (Entreprise individuelle), byumvikana ko nta buzima gatozi iyo entreprise ifite ku buryo yatanga ikirego mu Rukiko, ahubwo bikorwa na nyiri ubucuruzi cyangwa nyiri entreprise ariwe Mukandahiro Julienne nk’uko n’icyemezo cy’iyandikwa kibigaragaza (Business owner). [20] Ibimaze kuvugwa ni nako bisobanurwa n’inyandiko z’abahanga mu mategeko aho bavuga ko ubucuruzi bw’umuntu ari ubukorwa n’umuntu ku giti cye, ko bivugwa ko bene ubwo bucuruzi abukora mu izina rye. Bavuga kandi ko ubwo bucuruzi butagira ubuzimagatozi butandukanye n’ubw’umuntu ku giti cye ubukora1. Ibi kandi ni nako bisobanuwe mu nyandiko ziri ku rubuga rwa Intenet nazo zigaragaza ko entreprise y’umuntu ku giti cye idafite ubuzimagatozi, ko idashobora kurega mu rukiko ahubwo bikorwa na nyirayo mu izina rye2.

1L’entreprise individuelle est donc celle exploitée par un commerçant physique seul, c’est-à-dire sans associé. On dit encore d’un tel commerçant qu’il exerce le commerce en ‘’son nom personnel’’ ou ‘’en son nom propre’’. Il est important de bien comprendre qu’une telle entreprise individuelle n’a pas de personnalité juridique distincte de celle de la personne physique qui l’exploite. L’entreprise individuelle, à la différence de la société, n’a donc pas la personnalité morale: Jean-Pierre BERTREL et Marina BERTREL, Droit des sociétés, in Droit de l’entreprise, Paris, Wolters Kluwer France SAS, 2010/2011, p.382. 2L’entreprise individuelle ne possède pas de la personnalité juridique et n’est pas sujet de droit. En conséquence, elle ne peut pas être titulaire de droits réels et fait partie du patrimoine personnel de l’entrepreneur. Elle ne peut également pas ester en justice, les actions en justice sont intentées par l’entrepreneur en son nom. L’entreprise individuelle n’a pas le droit de contracter, les conventions destinées à l’activité professionnelle sont

Page 38

[21] Ku birebana n’uru rubanza, inyandiko itanga ikirego ku rwego rwa mbere, igaragaza ko hareze Julia Shop ifite entreprise code Nº100092512 mu izina ry’Umuyobozi wayo Mukandahiro Julienne, ndetse n’imyanzuro ya Avoka igaragaza ko yakozwe mu mwanya wa Julia Shop. Uko ni nako bimeze mu mwanzuro yo kwiregura mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, aho bigaragara ko yatanzwe mu mwanya wa Julia Shop. [22] Hashingiwe ku byasobanuwe haruguru, ntabwo Julia Shop yarega mu izina ry’Umuyobozi wayo kuko idafite ubuzimagatozi nk’uko byavuzwe haruguru, ahubwo hagomba kurega nyiri entreprise cyangwa nyiri ubucuruzi ariwe Mukandahiro Julienne, bityo hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 2, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, iteganya ko ikirego kitakirwa mu rukiko iyo urega adafite ububasha, inyungu n’ubushobozi bwo kurega, uru Rukiko rurasanga ikirego cyatanzwe na Julia Shop mu izina ry’Umuyobozi wayo Mukandahiro Julienne kitaragombaga kwakirwa kuko

conclues au nom et pour le compte de l’entrepreneur individuel: http://www.distripedie.com/distripedie/spip.php Certaines personnes ne veulent pas nécessairement créer une compagnie, mais veulent quand même pouvoir utiliser un nom d’affaire pour les services qu’elles offrent. Elles doivent alors enregistrer leur nom au REQ. C’est ce qu’on appelle une entreprise individuelle. Par exemple, Justin Morin-Lemieux peut avoir son entreprise de déneigement sous le nom de “Service de déneigement J.M.L.Enr’’ Dans le REQ, on indiquera que le Service de déneigement J.M.L.Enr. est une entreprise individuelle, dont le propriétaire est Justin. Dans ce genre de situation, c’est la personne qui exploite l’entreprise qu’il faut poursuivre, et nom l’entreprise individuelle. En effet, celle-ci n‘existe pas légalement, c’est un simple nom : http://www.educaloi.qc.ca/capsules/bien identifier-qui-il-faut-poursuivre

11 ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd v. JULIA SHOP

Page 39

12 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

cyatanzwe n’udafite ububasha kuko Julia Shop idafite ubuzimagatozi, bivuze ko urubanza RCOM0389/14/TC/NYG rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi hamwe n’urubanza RCOMA0367/14/HCC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi zigomba kuvaho, akaba atari na ngombwa gusuzuma izindi ngingo z’ubujurire za ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd . III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [23] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd bufite ishingiro; [24] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Julia Shop kitagombaga kwakirwa; [25] Rwemeje ko urubanza RCOM0389/14/TC/NYG rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi hamwe n’urubanza RCOMA0367/14/HCC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi zivuyeho; [26] Rutegetse Julia Shop gutanga amagarama y’urubanza angana na 100.000Frw.

Page 40

13

MUKAKALISA v. MUKAMUSANA N’ABANDI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RCAA0037/15/CS (Nyirinkwaya, P.J., Mukandamage na Nyirandabaruta, J.) 29 Mata 2016] Amategeko agenga ububasha bw’Inkiko – Ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga nk’Urukiko rw’ubujurire – Inzitizi y’iburabubasha – Gutsindwa ku rwego rwa mbere n’urwa kabiri ku mpamvu zimwe – Inzitizi y’iburabubasha ntihabwa ishingiro igihe bigaragara ko impamvu zashingiweho umuburanyi atsindwa ku rwego rwa mbere n’urwa kabiri atari zimwe – Itegeko Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 28(5) – Itegeko No59/2008 ryo ku wa 10/09/2008 rikumira kandi rihana ihohoterwa iryo ariryo ryose rishingiye ku gitsina, ingingo ya 39. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uru rubanza rushingiye ku kibazo cy’izungura ry’umutungo wasizwe na Ntuyenabo; uyu yari yarashakanye mu buryo bukurikije amategeko na Nyiramfabakunze babyarana abana batatu aribo Mukamusana Liliane, Musana Landry na Musanabera Sylvie ariko mu 1990 baje gutandukana binyuze mu nkiko. Mu 1993 Ntuyenabo yashakanye na Mukakalisa nawe babyarana abana batatu aribo Ntwari Musana Nelson, Musana Lys na Musana Lynn, hanyuma Ntuyenabo aza kwitaba Imana ku wa 11/05/2012. Mu mwaka wa 2013, Mukamusana Liliane, Musana Laundry na Musanabera Sylvie batanze ikirego mu

Page 41

14 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Musanze basaba izungura ry’umutungo wasizwe n’umubyeyi wabo wigabijwe n’abaregwa kandi batawufiteho uburenganzira. Mukakalisa yiregura avuga ko afite uburenganzira ku mutungo uburanwa kubera ko yashyingiranywe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko na Nyakwigendera ndetse atanga n’inyandiko y’ishyingiranwa ryabo. Urwo Rukiko rwemeje ko Mukakalisa atarugaragarije ko yashyingiranywe na Ntuyenabo kubera ko inyandiko yatanze nk’ikimenyetso itagaragaza ingingo z’ingezi zigomba kuba ziyigize ikaba itafatwa nk’inyandikompamo (y’ishyingirwa) ikemura impaka ku bantu bose, ko kandi abazungura ba nyakwigendera ari abana batandatu yabyaye ku bagore bombi bakwiye bakagabana umutungo uvugwa mu rubanza ku buryo bungana; rwanategetse Mukakalisa kwishyura 76.734.949Frw yavuye mu kubyaza umusaruro umutungo wa Ntuyenabo nayo abazungura be bakanayagabana ku buryo bungana ndetse runamuca indishyi. Mukakalisa yajuririye mu Rukiko Rukuru avuga ko urukiko rubanza rwamwimye uruhare rwe ku mutungo afitanye na Ntuyenabo. Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Mukakalisa nta shingiro bufite, rugaragaza umutungo wa Ntuyenabo ugomba kuzungurwa uwo ariwo n’aho uherereye; rutesha agaciro ibyemezo bya burundu n’iby’agateganyo bigaragaza ko umutungo uzungurwa ari uwa Ntuyenabo na Mukakalisa; rwemeza ko urubanza rwajuririwe ruhindutse gusa ku birebana n’umutungo ugomba kuzungurwa, rutegeka Mukakalisa kwishyura abaregwa mu bujurire amafaranga y’igihembo cy’Avoka.

Page 42

Mukakalisa yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze rwasesenguye nabi ingingo ya 39 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru, n’urubanza RS/INCONST/PEN0003/10/CS, ko rwirengangije ibimenyetso n’amategeko agena inshingano z’ababyeyi mu gutunga abana babyaye, rukanatesha agaciro ibyangombwa by’umutungo utimukanwa ku mpamvu zinyuranye n’ukuri n’amategeko. Mukamusana yazamuye inzitizi y’iburabubasha ishingiye ku kuba Mukakalisa yaratsizwe ku rwego rwa mbere n’urwa kabiri ku mpamvu zimwe. Yireguye kuri iyo nzitizi avuga ko impamvu zashingiweho atari zimwe kuko ku rwego rwa mbere urukiko rwaburanishije ibijyanye no kumenya niba ari umugore w’isezerano wa Ntuyenabo ku buryo yagira uburenganzira ku mutungo we maze hakemezwa ko atari umugore wa Ntuyenabo, naho ku rwego rwa kabiri hakaba haraburanywe ibijyanye no kureba niba yagira uburenganzira bw’umugore wabanye na Ntuyenabo badafitanye isezerano ryo gushyingirwa maze hakemezwa ko ntakigaragaza ko bashakanye uwo mutungo kuko ujurira ubwe yivugira ko yabanye na Nturanyenabo awufite. Incamake y’icyemezo: N’ubwo mu nkiko zombi uwajuriye yatsinzwe n’urubanza aho mu rwego rwa mbere yashingiraga uburenganzira afite ku mutungo asangiye na Ntuyenabo ku kuba barashyingiranwe agatsindwa n’uko atashoboye kugaragaza ko ubwo bushyingiranwe bwabayeho, naho ku rwego rwa kabiri agashingira ubwo burenganzira ku kuba yarabanye nawe nk’umugore n’umugabo batashyingiranywe kandi uwo mutungo bakaba bari bawufitanye agatsindwa n’uko Urukiko rwemeje ko uwo mutungo wose Ntuyenabo yari awufite mbere y’uko atangira kubana nawe; izi mpamvu zikaba atari zimwe, bityo 15 MUKAKALISA v. MUKAMUSANA N’ABANDI

Page 43

16 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

inzitizi yatanzwe n’abaregwa muri uru rubanza ikaba nta shingiro ifite. Inzitizi nta shingiro ifite; Amagarama y’urubanza arasubitswe. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 28(5). Itegeko No59/2008 ryo ku wa 10/09/2008 rikumira kandi rihana ihohoterwa iryo ariryo ryose rishingiye ku gitsina, ingingo ya 39. Imanza zifashishijwe: Gatera v. Kalisa, RS/Incost/Pen.0003/10/CS, rwaciwe n’urukiko rw’ikirenga kuwa 07/01/2011. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rushingiye ku kibazo cy’izungura rya nyakwigendera Ntuyenabo Fidèle witabye Imana kuwa 11/05/2012 i Nairobi muri Kenya, akaba yari yarashakanye mu buryo bukurikije amategeko na Nyiramfabakuze Bibiane babyarana abana batatu aribo Mukamusana Liliane, Musana Laundry na Musanabera Sylvie.

Page 44

17 MUKAKALISA v. MUKAMUSANA N’ABANDI

[2] Mu mwaka w’1990 Ntuyenabo Fidèle na Nyiramfabakuze batandukanye binyuze mu nkiko1, nyuma yaho mu mwaka wa 1993, Ntuyenabo Fidèle ashakana na Mukakalisa Marie Louise nawe babyarana abana batatu, Ntwari Musana Nelson, Musana Lys na Musana Lynn; hanyuma Ntuyenabo aza kwitaba Imana ku wa 11/05/2012. [3] Mu mwaka wa 2013 Mukamusana Liliane, Musana Laundry na Musanabera Sylvie batanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Musanze basaba izungura ry’umutungo wasizwe n’umubyeyi wabo wigabijwe n’abaregwa kandi batawufiteho uburenganzira. Mu rubanza RC0127/13/TGI/MUS rwaciwe ku wa 20/03/2014, urwo Rukiko rwemeje ko MukakalisaMarie Louise atarugaragarije ko yashyingiranywe na Ntuyenabo Fidèle, ko abazungura ba Ntuyenabo Fidèle ari Mukamusana Liliane, Musana Landry, Musanabera Sylvie, Ntwari Musana Nelson, Musana Lyn na Musana Lys, ko abo aribo gusa bagomba kugabana ku buryo bungana umutungo wose wasizwe na Ntuyenabo Fidèle uvugwa muri urwo rubanza, rutegeka Mukakalisa Marie Louise kwishyura 76.734.949Frw yavuye mu kubyaza umusaruro umutungo wa Ntuyenabo Fidèle nayo abazungura be bakanayagabana ku buryo bungana, runamuca indishyi. [4] Mukakalisa Marie louise yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze avuga ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Musanze rwamwimye uruhare rwe ku mutungo yari afitanye na Ntuyenabo Fidèle. Ku wa 30/9/2015 Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze rwaciye urubanza RCA0043/14/HC/MUS, rwemeza ko ubujurire bwa Mukakalisa Marie Louise nta shingiro bufite, rwemeza umutungo wa

1Urubanza RC 17.413/R43/90 rwo kuwa 31/08/1990.

Page 45

18 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Ntuyenabo Fidèle ugomba kuzungurwa uwo ariwo n’aho uherereye2, rutesha agaciro ibyemezo bya burundu n’iby’agateganyo bigaragaza ko umutungo uzungurwa ari uwa Ntuyenabo Fidèle na Mukakalisa Marie Louise, Umubitsi w’impapurompamo z’ubutaka akawandika kuri Ntuyenabo Fidele, rwemeza ko urubanza rwajuririwe ruhindutse gusa ku birebana n’umutungo ugomba kuzungurwa, rutegeka Mukakalisa Marie Louise kwishyura Mukamusana Liliane, Musana Landry na Musanabera Sylvie amafaranga y’igihembo cy’ Avoka. [5] Mukakalisa Marie Louise yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze rwasesenguye nabi ingingo ya 39 y’Itegeko Nº59/2008 ryo ku wa 10/09/2008 rikumira kandi rihana ihohoterwa iryo ariryo ryose rishingiye ku gitsina, n’urubanza RS/INCONST/PEN0003/10/CS, ko rwirengangije ibimenyetso n’amategeko agena inshingano z’ababyeyi mu gutunga abana babyaye, rukanatesha agaciro ibyangombwa by’umutungo utimukanwa ku mpamvu zinyuranye n’ukuri n’amategeko. [6] Iburanisha mu ruhame ryabaye ku wa 5/04/2016, Mukamusana Liliane, Musana Landry na Musanabera Sylvie bahagarariwe na Me Kavuyekure Dieudonné, naho Mukakalisa Marie Louise ahagarariwe na Me Nzirabatinyi Fidèle, uwo munsi haburanishwa ku nzitizi y’iburabasha ry’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga yatanzwe n’uhagarariye Mukamusana Liliane na bagenzi be, ishingiye ku mpamvu y’uko Mukakalisa Marie Louise yatsinzwe ku rwego rwa mbere n’urwa kabiri ku mpamvu zimwe.

2 Urubanza RCA0043/14/HC/MUS, rwaciwe ku wa 30/09/2015 n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, p.12-13 ([22]).

Page 46

19

II. IKIBAZO KIRI MU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYACYO Kumenya niba Mukakalisa Marie Louise yaratsinzwe ku rwego rwa mbere n’urwa kabiri ku mpamvu zimwe. [7] Me Kavuyekure Dieudonné avuga ko Mukakalisa Marie Louise yaburanye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Musanze avuga ko afite uburenganzira ku mutungo wa Ntuyenabo Fidèle kuko yari yarashakanye nawe ndetse mu kirego cyihutirwa akaba yarahawe umutungo hashingiwe ku kuba yarabanye na Ntuyenabo Fidèle nk’abashyingiranywe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, ariko ko urubanza RCA0291/14/TGI/NGOMA rumaze gucibwa rukemeza ko Mukakalisa atigeze asezerana na Ntuyenabo Fidèle, nyuma yaje guhindura ikirego akaburana mu Rukiko Rukuru avuga ko ashaka uburenganzira ku mutungo yashakanye na Ntuyenabo Fidèle, ko bigaragara ko yaburanye ku rwego rwa mbere n’urwa kabiri haburanwa umutungo kandi akabitsindirwa, kuko hemejwe ko yabanye na Ntuyenabo Fidèle afite umutungo uburanwa. [8] Me Nzirabatinyi Fidèle avuga ko Mukamusana Liliane na bagenzi be aribo bareze mu rwego rwa mbere, urukiko rukaburanisha ku bijyanye no kumenya niba Mukakalisa Marie Louise ari umugore w’isezerano wa Ntuyenabo ku buryo yagira uburenganzira ku mutungo we, hakemezwa ko atari umugore wa Ntuyenabo, naho ku rwego rwa kabiri hakaba haraburanywe ibijyanye no kureba niba Mukakalisa Marie Louise yagira uburenganzira bw’umugore wabanye na Ntuyenabo Fidèle badafitanye isezerano ryo gushyingirwa, akaba asanga umwanzuro w’Inkiko zombi ari umwe, ariko udashingiye ku mpamvu zimwe. MUKAKALISA v. MUKAMUSANA N’ABANDI

Page 47

20 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [9] Ingingo ya 28 y’Itegeko Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga iteganya mu gika cyayo cya gatanu ko urubanza umuburanyi yatsinzwe ku rwego rwambere n’urwa kabiri ku mpamvu zimwe, rudashobora kujuririrwa mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga. [10] Mu rubanza RC0127/13/TGI/MUS rwaciwe ku wa 20/3/2014 n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Musanze, hareze Mukamusana Liliane, Musana Landry na Musanabera Sylvia, barega Mukakalisa Marie Louise, Ruragije Jonas alias Mugezi na Munyemanza Faustin, hagoboka Ntwari Musana Nelson, hagobokeshwa Mukakalisa Marie Louise ahagarariye abana be Musana Lys na Musana Lynn, ikiregerwaga ari: “izungura ry’umutungo wasizwe n’umubyeyi wacu Ntuyenabo Fidèle witabye Imana ku wa 11/5/2012 uwo mutungo ukaba warigabijwe n’abaregwa kandi batawufiteho uburenganzira”. [11] Muri urwo rubanza nk’uko bigaragaramu gika cya [3] ku rupapuro rwa 2-3, Urukiko rwasuzumye ikibazo cyo kumenya niba Mukakalisa Marie Louise yarashyingiranywe na Ntuyenabo Fidèle mu buryo bwubahirije amategeko ku buryo yagira uburenganzira ku mutungo we, hasuzumwa ikibazo cyo kumenya imitungo yasizwe na Ntuyenabo Fidèle n’uburyo yazungurwa n’indishyi zasabwe n’ababuranyi mu rubanza. [12] Ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba Mukakalisa Marie Louise yarashyingiranywe na Ntuyenabo mu buryo bwubahirije amategeko ku buryo yagira uburenganzira ku mutungo we, Urukiko rwasuzumye icyo kibazo ruhereye kuri “photocopie”

Page 48

21 MUKAKALISA v. MUKAMUSANA N’ABANDI

y’inyandiko y’ishyingirwa yakorewe mu cyahoze ari Akarere ka Bicumbi rwashyikirijwe na Mukakalisa Marie Louise, rwemeza ko iyo “photocopie” y’inyandiko y’ishyingirwa itagaragaza ingingo z’ingenzi zigomba kuba ziyigize ikaba itafatwa nk’inyandikompamo (y’ishyingirwa) ikemura impaka ku bantu bose, ko ubwo n’ushinzwe irangamimerere atemeje ko Ntuyenabo Fidèle yashyingiranywe na Mukakalisa Marie Louise ntaho Urukiko rwahera rwemeza ko bashyingiranywe kuko nta nyandiko y’ishyingirwa yatanzwe n’umukozi wa Leta ubifitiye ububasha (ibika bya 9-17 by’urubanza RC0127/13/TGI/MUS rwaciwe ku wa 20/3/2014, cyane cyane igika icya 12, 15 n’icya 17). [13] Urukiko rurasanga iyi ngingo y’imiburanire itarigeze isuzumwa mu rubanza RCA0043/14/HC/MUS rwaciwe ku wa 30/09/2014 n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, kuko Mukakalisa Marie Louise atongeye kuburana avuga ko yashyingiranywe byemewe n’amategeko n’umugabo we Ntuyebabo Fidèle, kuko mu bujurire yaburanye noneho avuga ko urukiko rubanza rwamwimye uruhare rwe ku mutungo uburanwa nk’umugore wabanye na Ntuyenabo Fidèle batarashyingiranywe kuva mu mwaka wa 1993 kugeza mu mwaka wa 2012, avuga ko uburenganzira bwe abushingira ku ngingo ya 39 y’Itegeko No59/2008 ryo ku wa 10/09/2008 rikumira kandi rihana ihohoterwa iryo ariryo ryose rishingiye ku gitsina, no ku rubanza RS/Incost/Pen.0003/10/CS3 rwaciwe ku wa 07/01/2011 n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga.

3 Mu rubanza RS/Incost/Pen.0003/10/CS, Gatera Johnson n’umugore we KalisaTheddy basabye ko ingingo ya 39 y’Itegeko No59/2008 ryo ku wa 10/09/2008 rikumira kandi rihana ihohoterwa iryo ariryo ryose rishingiye ku gitsina, iteganya uburenganzira bungana ku mutungo w’ababanaga nk’umugore n’umugabo batarashyingiranywe, ivanwaho kuko ngo

Page 49

22 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[14] Ku kibazo cyo kumenya umutungo wasizwe na Ntuyenabo Fidèle n’uburyo wazungurwa, dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Musanze rwifashishije ubuyobozi bw’uturere twa Musanze, Burera na Kicukiro bwarugaragarije bimwe mu bigize umutungo ya Ntuyenabo n’aho biherereye, n’izindi nyandiko zinyuranye ziri muri dosiye nka “certificate d’enregistrement folio 87 vol.E.XI, n’inyandiko zerekana nomero za konti zinyuranye, nk’uko bigaragara mu rubanza RC0127/13/TGI/MUS rwavuzwe haruguru ku rupapuru rwa 7-8, ibika bya [21– [25] na [42], rwemeza ko umutungo utimukanwa ugomba kuzungurwa wasizwe na Ntuyenabo Fidèle ari umutungo wanditse kuri Nº2433, Nº2244, Nº5971 na Nº4024 uherereye mu Kagari ka Muhabura, Umurenge wa Nyange, mu Karere ka Musanze; umutungo wanditse kuri Nº577, No5969, uherereye mu Kagari ka Ruhengeri, Umurenge wa Muhoza, Akarere ka Musanze; umutungo wanditse kuri Nº 373 uherereye mu Kagari ka Migeshi, Umurenge wa Cyuve mu Karere ka Musanze, uwanditse kuri Nº08/49 uri ahahoze hitwa Mulinzi- Gasiza, Ruhengeri. [15] Ku byerekeye abantu bagomba kuzungura uwo mutungo ndetse n’amafaranga angana na 76.734.949Frw yasizwe n’ayinjijwe n’umutungo Ntuyenabo Fidèle yasize, Urukiko rwemeje ko ubwo Ntuyenabo yatandukanaga na nyina w’abana bareze (umugore we w’isezerano Nyiramfabakuze Bibiane) mu

inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 26 y’Itegeko Nshinga. Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwemeje ko iyo ngingo ya 39 itanyuramyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, ko ingaruka ku mutungo w’ababanaga nk’umugore n’umugabo batarashyingiranywe mu gihe baretse kubana atari zimwe nk’iziboneka mu gihe habaye ubutane bw’abashyingiranywe, ko uburenganzira ku mutungo w’abashyingiranywe bushingiye ku masezerano bagiranye bahisemo bashyingiranwa, mu gihe ubw’ababana batarashyingiranywe bushingiye ku kuba bari bawufitanye cyangwa barawushakanye.

Page 50

23

mwaka wa 1990, umutungo wose wasubiye mu maboko ye, n’aho abaniye na Mukakalisa Marie Louise umutungo ukomeza kuba uwe kuko batashyingiranywe byemewe n’amategeko, ukaba ugomba kuzungurwa mu buryo bungana n’abana be bose, aribo Mukamusana Liliane, Musana Landry, Musana Sylvie, Ntwari Musana Nelson, Musana Lynn na Musana Lys (reba ibika bya [26] - [30] by’urubanza RC0127/13/TGI/MUS. [16] Kuri iki kibazo cy’uburenganzira ku mutungo, mu Rukiko Rukuru, nk’uko byagaragajwe haruguru, Mukakalisa Marie Louise yaburanye avuga ko urukiko rubanza rwamwimye uruhare rwe ku mutungo uburanwa nk’umugore wabanye na Ntuyenabo Fidèle kuva mu mwaka wa 1993 kugeza mu mwaka wa 2012, avuga ko uburenganzira bwe abushingira ku ngingo ya 39 y’Itegeko No59/2008 ryo ku wa 10/09/2008 rikumira kandi rihana ihohoterwa iryo ariryo ryose rishingiye ku gitsina, no ku rubanza RS/Incost/Pen.0003/10/CS rwaciwe ku wa 07/01/2011 n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. [17] Urwo Rukiko rwasuzumye ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 39 y’Itegeko No59/2008 ryo ku wa 10/09/2008 ryavuzwe haruguru n’isesengura Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwakoze kuri iyo ngingo ya 39 mu rubanza RS Incost/Pen.0003/10/CS, aho rwagaragaje ko uburenganzira umwe mu babanaga batarashyingiranywe afite ku mutungo bushingiye ku kuba barawuhahanye, ko kugira uburenganzira ku mutungo bidashingiye gusa ku kuba ababanaga barabanye nk’umugabo n’umugore batarashyingiranywe, ko ahubwo bigomba kuba bigaragara ko umutungo bawufitanye cyangwa se ko bawuhahanye4, hanyuma rusuzuma ikibazo cy’umutungo utimukanwa Mukakalisa Marie

4Idem, p.5-6 ([8]-[9]). MUKAKALISA v. MUKAMUSANA N’ABANDI

Page 51

24 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Louise yavugaga ko wanditse kuri we na Ntuyenabo Fidèle kugira ngo rumenye niba koko awufiteho uburenganzira. [18] Urukiko Rukuru ruhereye ku byavuzwe n’uwari uhagarariye Mukakalisa Marie Louise ko umutungo wose yagaragaje muri “expertise” Ntuyenabo yari asanzwe awufite atarabana na Mukakalisa Marie Louise mu mwaka wa 1993, ariko uwo mutungo ngo bakaba bari bawufitanye kuko ubanditseho bombi, ko kandi hari ibyagiye biwukorwaho (transformations)5, ariko uretse kuvuga gusa ko hari ibyakozwe akaba atarashoboye kugaragariza urukiko ibyaba byarakozwe cyangwa byarongerewe ku mutungo utimukanwa Ntuyenabo yari asanzwe afite, ngo yerekane uruhare rwa Mukakalisa Marie Louise. Rwasuzumye kandi agaciro kahabwa ibyangombwa by’umutungo utimukanwa ugomba kuzungurwa wanditse kuri Ntuyenabo na Mukakalisa Marie Louise, rusanga nk’uko bigaragara mu gace ka [14] na [15] tw’urubanza rujuririwa, harabayemo uburiganya (bwagaragaye mu iperereza ryakozwe n’Urukiko ku wa 26/02/2013 mu Buyobozi bw’Akarere ka Musanze, bushingiye ku kuba ibaruwa yo ku wa 26/02/2013 isaba icyangombwa cy’ubutaka cya burundu yandikiwe Umuyobozi w’Akarere ka Musanze yarandikiwe mu Bunyamabanga bw’ako Karere ka Musanze, yanditswe na Ntuyenabo kandi icyo gihe yari atakiriho kuko yitabye Imana ku wa 11/05/2012, no kuba mu iperereza Urukiko rwakoze ku wa 29/09/2015 mu biro by’Umubitsi w’Inyandikompamo z’ubutaka wungirije mu Ntara y’Amajyaruguru, naho byaragaragaye ko Mukakalisa yavuze ko inkomoko y’umwe mu mutungo afitiye ibyangombwa yashyikirije urukiko uri mu mutungo ugomba kuzungurwa ari uwo we na Ntuyenabo baguze, undi ko ari umurage cyangwa umunani wabo bombi, n’undi ko bawuhawe

5Idem, p.7 ([12]).

Page 52

25

na Leta, binyuranye n’imvugo ya Me Nzirabatinyi umuburanira wavuze ko umutungo wose uburanwa Nturanyenabo yari awufite mbere y’uko abana na Mukakalisa mu mwaka wa 1993. [19] Urukiko rurasanga ibimaze kugaragazwa mu bika bibanziriza iki aribyo Urukiko Rukuru rwahereyeho, maze rushingiye ku bubasha Umubitsi Mukuru w’impapurompamo z’ubutaka ahabwa n’ingingo ya 20 y’Itegeko No43/2013 ryo ku wa 16/6/2013 rigenga ubutaka mu Rwanda igaragaza ko ibyangombwa by’ubutaka bishobora guteshwa agaciro, (ibyo bikaba bishimangirwa n’ingingo ya 10 agace ka 5 y’Iteka rya Perezida Nº97/01 ryo ku wa 18/6/2004 rigena imikorere n’ububasha by’umubitsi w’impapurompamo) bwo gutesha agaciro icyemezo cy’iyandikisha ry’ubutaka, rwatesheje agaciro ibyemezo bya burundu n’iby’agateganyo bigaragaza ko umutungo utimukanwa igomba kuzungurwa ari iya Ntuyenabo Fidèle na Mukakalisa Marie Louise, Umubitsi w’impapurompamo z’ubutaka akabyandika kuri Ntuyenabo Fidèle. [20] Urukiko rurasanga nk’uko rwabigaragaje haruguru, mu rwego rwa mbere Mukakalisa Marie Louise yaraburanye avuga ko yashyingiranywe byemewe n’amategeko na Ntuyenabo Fidèle bakabana kugeza Ntuyenabo yitabye Imana mu mwaka wa 2012 akaba agomba kugira uruhare ku mutungo uburanwa, atsindwa n’uko atashoboye kugaragaza ko ubwo bushyingiranwe bwabayeho, hemezwa ko abana 6 babyawe na Ntuyenabo aribo bonyine bagomba kuzungura umutungo uburanwa. [21] Urukiko rurasanga ku rwego rwa kabiri, Mukakalisa Marie Louise atarashingiye uburenganzira aburana ku kuba yarashyingiranywe na Ntuyenabo Fidèle, ahubwo MUKAKALISA v. MUKAMUSANA N’ABANDI

Page 53

26 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

yarabushingiye ku kuba yarabanye nawe nk’umugore n’umugabo batashyingiranywe no kuba bari bawufitanye, ashyikiriza urukiko ibyemezo by’uyo mutungo byerekana ko ari uwe na Ntuyenabo, atsindwa n’uko umuburanira yavuze ko iyo mitungo yose Ntuyenabo yari ayifite mbere y’uko atangira kubana na Mukakalisa Marie Louise, uyu akaba avuga ko hari ibyo yayikozeho ariko ntabyerekane, no kuba ibyemezo yatanze yarabibonye mu buriganya. Uru Rukiko rwemeje ko igihindutse ku rubanza rwajuririwe ari umutungo ugomba kuzungurwa gusa (kuko hongewemo n’ibindi biwugize byagaragajwe na Mukakalisa Marie Louise). [22] Urukiko rurasanga rero nk’uko byagaragajwe haruguru, n’ubwo mu nkiko zombi Mukakalisa Marie Louise yatsinzwe n’urubanza, ataratsinzwe ku mpamvu zimwe, inzitizi yatanzwe n’abaregwa muri uru rubanza ikaba nta shingiro ifite. [23] Urukiko rurasanga kandi atari ngombwa gusuzuma izindi ngingo inkiko zombi zafasheho ibyemezo, kuko byamaze kugaragara ko muri izo nkiko Mukakalisa Marie Louise atatsinzwe ku mpamvu zimwe. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [24] Rwemeje ko inzitizi y’iburabubasha ry’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga yatanzwe na Me Kavuyekure Dieudonné uhagarariye abaregwa mu rubanza nta shingiro ifite. [25] Rwemeje ko iburanisha mu mizi y’uru rubanza rizasubukurwa kuwa 12/07/2016. [26] Rutegetse ko amagarama y’urubanza abaye asubitswe.

Page 54

MUKAMANZI v. KWITUNGA N’UNDI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RCAA0019/14/CS (Nyirinkwaya, P.J., Kayitesi R. na Mukandamage, J.) 12 Gashyantare 2016] Amategeko agenga ububasha bw’Inkiko – Ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga nk’Urukiko rw’ubujurire – Inzitizi y’iburabubasha – Gutsindwa ku rwego rwa mbere n’urwa kabiri ku mpamvu zimwe – Mu gihe Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusanze uwajuriye yaratsinzwe ku rwego rwa mbere n’urwa kabiri ku mpamvu zimwe, ubujurire bwe ntibwakirwa ngo busuzumwe kuko buba butari mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga – Itegeko-Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 28(2&5). Incamake y’ikibazo: Uru rubanza rukomoka ku kirego Mukamanzi Laurence yarezemo umugabo we Kanyarwanda Cléophas na Kwitunga Tonny mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu, asaba iseswa ry’amasezerano y’ubugure bw’agateganyo bw’inzu iri mu kibanza N°48, Vol RT XXVII Folio 132 mu Mujyi wa Gisenyi, Akarere ka Rubavu, yakozwe hagati ya Kanyarwanda Cléophas na Kwitunga Tonny atabitangiye uburenganzira. Urwo Rukiko rwaciye urubanza RC0369/011TGI/RBV tariki ya 03/08/2012, rwemeza ko ayo masezerano y’ubugure yakozwe na Nsanzumuhire Kayitare François, ashingiye ku butumwa yahawe na Kanyarwanda ataseswa bityo akaba agomba kubahirizwa n’abamutumye ndetse na Mukamanzi. 27

Page 55

28 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Mukamanzi yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, avuga ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu rwirengagije ko amategeko ateganya ko kugirango ubutaka bugurwe, uwo bashakanye n’abana bagomba kwemera mu nyandiko ubwo bugure kugirango bugire agaciro. Urwo rukiko rwaciye urubanza RCA0154/12/HC/MUS tariki ya 06/12/2012, rusanga ubujurire bwa Mukamanzi nta shingiro bufite, rutegeka ko urubanza yajuririye rugumanye agaciro karwo, kandi ko nawe ari mu bagomba kubahiriza ibikubiye muri ayo mazeserano, rushingiye ku kuba Mukamanzi atarabashije kuvuguruza ibimenyetso byatanzwe na Kwitunga Tonny bigizwe n’inyandiko yo kuwa 29/9/2011 Mukamanzi yandikiye Nsanzimfura Kayitare François avuga ko amushyikirije inyandiko isesa ubutumwa bwerekeranye no gucunga umutungo ndetse n’ubwo kugurisha inzu y’i Gisenyi yanditswe na Kanyarwanda, akaba rero atari gusesa ubutumwa atagizemo uruhare kuko yasobanuye ko iseswa ry’ubutumwa ritewe no kuba batarahawe raporo y’imicungire y’umutungo wabo, akaba ataragombaga gusaba raporo y’ubutumwa atatanze. Mukamanzi yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko Urukiko rwirengagije ingingo yaburanishije igaragaza ko atigeze atanga ukwemera kwe mu buryo butaziguye haba mu butumwa Kanyarwanda yahaye Nsanzimfura cyangwa mu masezerano y’ubugure. Avuga kandi ko urukiko rwirengagije nta mpamvu rutanze urubanza yatanze rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku kibazo nk’iki. Avuga ko ikindi anenga urubanza ari uko urukiko rwakoze isesengura ritari ryo ry’ingingo ya 37 y’Itegeko Ngenga N°08/2005 ryo kuwa 14/07/2005 rigena imikoreshereze y’ubutaka mu Rwanda. Mbere yo kwinjira mu mizi y’urubanza, Me Serugo Jean Baptiste na Me Rukarishya Philémon bahagarariye uruhande

Page 56

29 MUKAMANZI v. KWITUNGA N’UNDI

ruregwa batanze inzitizi y’iburabubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, basobanura ko Mukamanzi yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu aratsindwa, ajurira mu Rukiko Rukuru, urugereko rwa Musanze nabwo aratsindwa, bakaba basanga ubujurire bwe butari mu bubasha bw’uru rukiko kuko yatsinzwe mu nzego ebyiri ku mpamvu zimwe bityo bakavuga ko hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 28, igika cya nyuma y’Itegeko Ngenga rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ubujurire bwe budakwiye kwakirwa. Uwunganira Mukamanzi yiregura avuga ko impamvu zashingiweho n’Urukiko rubanza atari zo zashingiweho n’Urukiko rwajuririwe kubera ko mu rubanza RC0369/011/TGI/RBV urukiko rwavuze ko yatanze ubutumwa ariko nta kigaragaza ko yemeye ko umutungo ugurishwa naho mu rubanza RCA0154/12/HC/MUS Urukiko rwajuririwe nta cyo rwavuze ku ngingo ya 21 n’iya 22 z’Itegeko rigenga imicungire y’umutungo w’abashyingiranywe, ahubwo yavuze ku ngingo ya 37 y’Itegeko ry’ubutaka ryo mu mwaka wa 2005. Incamake y’icyemezo: Kuba Inkiko zibanza zaranzuye ko amagambo akubiye mu nyandiko yo kuwa 29/09//2011 yakozwe na Mukamanzi ayandikira Nsanzimfura, aho avuga ko ashaka kumugezaho inyandiko isesa ubutumwa bwerekeranye no gucunga umutungo ndetse n’ubwo kugurisha inzu y’i Gisenyi kandi ko nk’umugore wa Kanyarwanda basangiye umutungo ashyigikiye iryo seswa ndetse akanamusaba no guhita amuha raporo y’imicungire y’umutungo, bigaragara ko Mukamanzi yagize uruhare mu butumwa bwo kugurisha inzu bwatanzwe n’umugabo we Kanyarwanda, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusanga Mukamanzi yatsinzwe ku rwego rwa mbere n’urwa kabiri ku

Page 57

30 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

mpamvu zimwe, bityo ubujurire bwe bukaba butagomba kwakirwa ngo busuzumwe kuko butari mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. Inzitizi ifite ishingiro. Ubujurire ntibwakiriwe. Amagarama aherereye ku wajuriye. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko - Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 28(2&5). Nta manza zifashishijwe: Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Mukamanzi Laurence yareze umugabo we Kanyarwanda Cléophas na Kwitunga Tonny mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu, asaba iseswa ry’amasezerano y’ubugure bw’agateganyo bw’inzu iri mu kibanza N°48, Vol RT XXVII Folio 132 mu Mujyi wa Gisenyi, Akarere ka Rubavu, asangiye n’umugabo we, kuko yakozwe atabitangiye uburenganzira, asaba n’igihembo cya Avoka kingana na 3.000.000Frw. [2] Urukiko rwaciye urubanza RC0369/011TGI/RBV tariki ya 03/08/2012, rwemeza ko ayo masezerano y’ubugure yakozwe na Nsanzumuhire Kayitare François, ashingiye ku

Page 58

31 butumwa yahawe na Kanyarwanda afite agaciro kandi agomba kubahirizwa n’abamutumye, ko ikibanza N°48 Vol RT XXVII, Folio 132, mu Mujyi wa Gisenyi kiyavugwamo ari icy’uwakiguze Kwitunga Tonny, iyubahirizwa ry’ayo masezerano rikaba rigomba gukomezwa na Kanyarwanda cyangwa n’uwo yatuma wundi, rutegeka ko icyo kibanza kigomba kwandikwa kuwakiguze Kwitunga Tonny, Mukamanzi ategekwa gutanga amagarama y’urubanza, akanishyura igihembo cya Avoka kingana na 400.000Frw. [3] Mukamanzi yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, avuga ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu rwirengagije ko amategeko ateganya ko kugirango ubutaka bugurwe, uwo bashakanye n’abana bagomba kwemera mu nyandiko ko ubwo bugure bubaho, ko kandi rwivuguruje aho rwavuze ko amasezerano y’ubugure bw’agateganyo afite agaciro ko agomba kwubahirizwa n’abatumwe bose, runavuga ko azubahirizwa na Kanyarwanda n’uwo yatumye. [4] Urwo rukiko rwaciye urubanza RCA0154/12/HC/MUS tariki ya 06/12/2012, rusanga ubujurire bwa Mukamanzi nta shingiro bufite, rutegeka ko urubanza yajuririye rugumanye agaciro karwo, hakiyongeraho ko nawe ari mu bagomba kubahiriza ibikubiye mu mazeserano, rumutegeka kwishyura 300.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 50.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’amagarama y’urubanza. [5] Mu gufata icyo cyemezo urukiko rwasobanuye ko Mukamanzi atabasha kuvuguruza ibimenyetso byatanzwe na Kwitunga Tonny bigizwe n’inyandiko yo kuwa 29/9/2011 ikubiyemo amagambo yandikiye Nsanzimfura Kayitare François avuga ko amushyikirije inyandiko isesa ubutumwa MUKAMANZI v. KWITUNGA N’UNDI

Page 59

32 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bwerekeranye no gucunga umutungo ndetse n’ubwo kugurisha inzu y’i Gisenyi yanditswe na Kanyarwanda. [6] Urukiko rwasanze kandi Mukamanzi yarafatanyije n’umugabo we guha Nsanzimfura ubutumwa (mandat) bwo kugurisha inzu kuko inyandiko zo ku wa 29/09/2011 imwe yanditswe na Kanyarwanda, indi yanditswe na Mukamanzi, zigaragaza ko bafatanyije gusesa ubwo butumwa ku mpamvu z’uko batahawe raporo y’imicungire y’umutungo wabo, Mukamanzi akaba atari gusesa ubutumwa atagizemo uruhare kuko yasobanuye ko iseswa ry’ubutumwa ritewe no kuba batarahawe iyo raporo, akaba ataragombaga gusaba raporo y’ubutumwa atatanze. [7] Urukiko rwasanze ibyemejwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu ko Mukamanzi yamenye akanemera ko Nsanzimfura ahabwa ubutumwa bwo kugurisha ikibanza N°48 Vol RT XX VII Folio 132 iri mu Mujyi wa Gisenyi bifite ishingiro, ko kandi inyandiko zo kuwa 29/09/2011 ari ibimenyetso bifatika bigomba gushingirwaho hemezwa ko inzu yagurishijwe Mukamanzi abizi kandi anabyemera. [8] Ku birebana n’uko urukiko rwaciye urubanza mu rwego rwa mbere rwivuguruje, urukiko rwasanze umucamanza yarivuguruje aho yagaragaje ko hari ibimenyetso bigaraza ko Mukamanzi yagize uruhare mu butumwa bwahawe Nsanzimfura, mu cyemezo yafashe agaragaza ko ari Kanyarwanda wamutumye, anavuga ko Nsanzimfura yatumwe n’abantu benshi, yongera gutegeka ko ari Kanyarwanda uhawe inshingano yo kwubahiriza amasezerano cyangwa uwo yatuma wundi, atavuze Mukamanzi mu iyubahirizwa ry’amasezerano kandi nawe amureba, ruvuga ko Mukamanzi nawe afite inshingano yo kubahiriza amasezerano.

Page 60

33

[9] Mukamanzi yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko Urukiko rwirengagije ingingo yaburanishije igaragaza ko atigeze atanga ukwemera kwe mu buryo butaziguye haba mu butumwa Kanyarwanda yahaye Nsanzimfura cyangwa mu masezerano y’ubugure. Avuga kandi ko urukiko rwirengagije nta mpamvu rutanze urubanza yatanze rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku kibazo nk’iki. Avuga ko ikindi anenga urubanza ari uko urukiko rwakoze isesengura ritari ryo ry’ingingo ya 37 y‘Itegeko Ngenga N°08/2005 ryo kuwa 14/07/2005 rigena imikoreshereze y’ubutaka mu Rwanda. [10] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame tariki ya 05/01/2016, Mukamanzi Laurence ahagarariwe na Me Nkurunziza François Xavier, Kanyarwanda Cléophas ahagarariwe na Me Nizeyimana Boniface, naho Kwitunga Tonny ahagarariwe na Me Serugo Jean Baptiste afatanyije na Me Rukarishya Philémon. II. IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYACYO Kumenya niba ubujurire bwatanzwe na Mukamanzi Laurence buri mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. [11] Mbere yo kwinjira mu mizi y’urubanza, Me Serugo Jean Baptiste na Me Rukarishya Philémon batanze inzitizi y’iburabubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, bavuga ko ishingiye ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 28, igika cya nyuma y’Itegeko Ngenga rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. Basobanura ko Mukamanzi yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu aratsindwa, ajurira mu Rukiko Rukuru, urugereko rwa Musanze nabwo aratsindwa, MUKAMANZI v. KWITUNGA N’UNDI

Page 61

34 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bakaba basanga ubujurire bwe butari mu bubasha bw’uru rukiko kuko yatsinzwe mu nzego ebyiri ku mpamvu zimwe. [12] Bakomeza bavuga ko mu rubanza RC0369/011/TGI/RBV rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu tariki ya 03/08/2012, hashingiwe ku nyandiko ebyiri zigaragaza neza ko Mukamanzi yari azi ubutumwa bwatanzwe n’umugabo we (urupapuro rwa 4- 6 igika cya 10), ko kandi yari yabwemeye, ko no mu rubanza RCA0154/12/HC/MUS rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, urugereko rwa Musanze tariki ya 06/12/2012, Mukamanzi Laurence nabwo yatsinzwe hashingiwe kuri izo nyandiko uretse ko habayeho ikosa ku itariki imwe yandikiweho, urwo rukiko rwemeza ko ibyemejwe n’umucamanza wa mbere bidahindutse, bivuze rero ko impamvu zashingiweho ari zimwe. [13] Me Nkurunziza François Xavier uhagarariye Mukamanzi Laurence avuga ko impamvu zashingiweho n’umucamanza wa mbere atari zo zashingiweho n’umucamanza wa kabiri. Asobanura ko Mukamanzi yatanze ikirego ashingiye ku ngingo ya 21 n’iya 22 z’Itegeko ryerekeye imicungire y’umutungo w’abashyingiranywe ndetse n’iya 35 na 37 z’Itegeko ry’ubutaka ryo mu mwaka wa 2005, anashingira ku rubanza RCOM0001/07/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga tariki ya 24/07/2008, haburana Rwigema Joséphine na ECOBANK Rwanda, ko ku rupapuro rwa 4, igika cya 10 rw’urubanza RC0369/011TGI/RBV, umucamanza wa mbere yavuze ko Mukamanzi yatanze ubutumwa ariko ko nta kigaragaza ko yemeye ko umutungo ugurishwa. [14] Akomeza avuga ko mu rubanza RCA0154/12/HC/MUS umucamanza wa kabiri nta cyo yavuze ku ngingo ya 21 n’iya 22 z’Itegeko rigenga imicungire y’umutungo w’abashyingiranywe,

Page 62

35

ko yavuze ku ngingo ya 37 y’Itegeko ry’ubutaka ryo mu mwaka wa 2005, avuga ko bitabuza umucamanza gushingira ku bindi bimenyetso, bivuze ko umutungo wa Kanyarwanda wose yatangiye uburenganzira bwo gucunga, yemeye ko ugurishwa, ko Mukamanzi Laurence atigeze yemera ko umutungo w’umuryango ugurishwa.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [15] Ku byerekeye ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ingingo ya 28 igika cya 2, n’icya 5 y’Itegeko-Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, iteganya ko Urukiko rw’ikirenga rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha mu rwego rw’ubujurire imanza zaciwe ku rwego rwa kabiri n’Urukiko Rukuru, iyo zujuje ibiteganywa muri iyo ngingo. Icyakora, urubanza umuburanyi yatsinzwe ku rwego rwa mbere n’urwa kabiri ku mpamvu zimwe, ntirushobora kujuririrwa mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga. [16] Nk’uko byagaragajwe haruguru, imiterere y’uru rubanza igaragaza ko rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu, rujuririrwa mu Rukiko Rukuru Urugereko rwa Musanze, Kwitunga Tonny atsindira ko hagumaho amasezero y’agateganyo y’ubugure bw’inzu iri mu kibanza N°48, Vol RT XX VII Forio 132 mu Mujyi wa Gisenyi, Akarere ka Rubavu, yabaye hagati ya Nsanzimfura Kayitare François na Kwitunga Tonny, maze inzu ikamwandikwaho. Ayo masezerano niyo yari yasabiwe guseswa mu kirego Mukamanzi Laurence yatanze avuga ko yasezeranye na Kanyarwanda bavanze umutungo, ko umugabo we yahaye ubutumwa Nsanzimfura bwamuhaga ububasha bwo kugurisha iyo nzu, akaba atarasinyeho, ibyo MUKAMANZI v. KWITUNGA N’UNDI

Page 63

36 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bikaba binyuranyije n’amategeko cyane cyane ingingo ya 35 y’Itegeko ry’ubutaka ryo mu mwaka wa 2005, n’ingingo ya 21 y’Itegeko ryerekeye imicungire y’umutungo w’abashakanye. [17] Mu rubanza RC0369/011/TGI/RBV rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu tariki ya 03/08/2012, urukiko rwasanze amasezerano y’ubugure yabaye hagati ya Nsanzimfura Kayitare François na Kwitunga atagomba gufatwa nk’aho Mukamanzi Laurence atari ayazi kubera ko umwunganira ashingira gusa ku mategeko kandi ashaka kugaragaza ko Mukamanzi atasinye ku butumwa bwahawe Nsanzimfura bivuze ko atumvikanye n’umugabo we, kandi atari byo kuko n’ubwo Itegeko ribivuga ko bagirana ubwumvikane bwo gucunga umutungo, si ngombwa ko ubwo bwumvikane bugaragazwa no gusinya kuri “procuration”, ahubwo ubwumvikane bugaragazwa n’ibindi bimenyetso nabyo byanditse cyangwa se ibindi kandi nabyo bishingiye ku mategeko. [18] Muri ibyo bimenyetso, urukiko rwashingiye ku nyandiko yo kuwa 29/09//2011 yakozwe na Mukamanzi yandikira Nsanzimfura, ikubiyemo amagambo agaragaza ko ubutumwa we n’umugabo we bari barabutanze babuziranyeho kandi nawe abuzi azi n’icyakurikiyeho kuko mu gika cyayo cya mbere yavuze ko ashaka kumugezaho inyandiko isesa ubutumwa bwerekeranye no gucunga umutungo ndetse n’ubwo kugurisha inzu y’i Gisenyi, mu gika cya 2 amusaba ko akimara kubona iyo barwa, nk’umugore wa Kanyarwanda basangiye umutungo ashyigikiye iryo seswa kandi akamusaba no guhita amuha raporo y’imicungire. [19] Ikindi kimenyetso cyashingiweho kigaragaza ko Mukamanzi yari azi ubutumwa, ni ibaruwa yanditswe na

Page 64

37 MUKAMANZI v. KWITUNGA N’UNDI

Kanyarwanda nayo yo kuwa 29/09/2011 aho avuga ko we n’umugore we bahaye Nsanzimfura ububasha bwo kubacungira umutungo (…). [20] Urukiko rwasanze izo nyandiko zombi zigaragaza ko hari ikintu Mukamanzi na Kanyarwanda bashaka gukora ariko amategeko atemera: gusesa ubutumwa ntabwo byatewe n’uko bwakozwe Mukamanzi n’umugabo batabyumvikanyeho, ahubwo byatewe n’uko uwo batumye yabakoreye nabi, noneho inkurikizi yabyo iba kumwambura ubutumwa n’ibyo yakoze mbere y’uko babumwambura bifuza ko biseswa, ko ariko ibyo bitaryozwa Kwitunga hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 531 kugeza ku ya 532 CCLIII. [21] Urukiko rwasanze kandi kuba Mukamanzi adahakana ko ubwishyu bw’amafaranga y’ikiguzi cy’inzu ariyo yishyuye umwenda we n’umugabo we bari bafite muri BCR, nabyo bigaragaza ko yari azi ubutumwa bwatanzwe n’umugabo we. [22] Urukiko rwanashingiye ku bimenyetso bicukumbuwe bigaragaza ko ikirego cya Mukamanzi nta shingiro gifite nko kuba Kanyarwanda watanze ubutumwa ari we watumye umugore we ngo aze amurege, kuba baburanirwa na ba Avoka bamwe, Kanyarwanda agafasha umugore we kubona ibimenyetso (urubanza RCA0247/11/TGI/MHG rwari rutegerejwe rwemeza ko habaye ubushyingiranwe hagati yabo), kuba baburanisha ingingo zimwe, bigaragaza ko inyungu bafite ari zimwe. [23] Mu rubanza RCA0154/12/HC/MUS rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, urugereko rwa Musanze tariki ya 06/12/2012, bigaragaza ko narwo rwasanze Mukamanzi yarafatanyije n’umugabo we Kanyarwanda guha Nsanzimfura Kayitare

Page 65

38 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

François ubutumwa bwo kugurisha inzu, kubera ko inyandiko zo kuwa 29/09/2011 imwe yanditswe na Kanyarwanda indi yanditswe na Mukamanzi zigaragaza ko bafatanyije gusesa ubwo butumwa ku mpamvu z’uko batahawe raporo, rusanga Mukamanzi atari gusesa ubutumwa atagizemo uruhare cyane cyane ko yanasobanuye ko iseswa ry’ubwo butumwa ritewe no kuba batarahawe raporo, Mukamanzi akaba rero ataragombaga no gusaba raporo y’ubutumwa atatanze. [24] Urukiko rwasanze kandi ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 37 y’Itegeko Ngenga N°08/2005 ryo kuwa 14/07/2005 rigena imikoreshereze y’ubutaka mu Rwanda yirengagijwe iteganya ko: “kwemerwa kuvugwa mu ngingo ya 35 y’Itegeko Ngenga kugaragazwa n’inyandiko yashyizweho umukono w’abarebwa n’icyo kibazo cyangwa bateyeho igikumwe, bikorewe imbere y’umwanditsi w’irangamimerere cyangwa imbere y’umukuru w’ibiro by’ubutaka akanabyandika mu bitabo”, bitabuza umucamanza kuba yakwifashisha ibindi bimenyetso bishobora kugaragaza ko abagize umuryango bemeye gutanga uburenganzira bwo kugurisha ubutaka, ari nayo mpamvu inyandiko zo ku wa 29/09/2011 ari ibimenyetso bifatika kandi bigomba gushingirwaho hemezwa ko inzu yagurishijwe Mukamanzi abizi kandi anabyemera. [25] Urukiko rwanakosoye ikibazo cyo kwivuguruza cyari mu rubanza rwa mbere ku byerekeye abagomba kubahiriza amasezerano, ruvuga ko na Mukamanzi agomba kuyubahiriza, rwanzura rushimangira ko ibyemejwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu bigumanye agaciro. [26] Urukiko rusanga rero inkiko zombi zabanje zarasanze hari ibimenyetso byemewe n’amategeko zibishingiraho zigaragaza ko Mukamanzi yagize uruhare mu butumwa

Page 66

39 bwatanzwe n’umugabo we Kanyarwanda bwo kugurisha inzu, ko rero amasezerano y’ubugure bw’agateganyo yabaye hagati ya Nsanzumuhire Kayitare François watumwe na Kwitunga Tonny yaregeye atagomba guseswa, ahubwo nawe agomba kuyubahiriza. [27] Hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 28 igika cya 2 n’icya 5 y’Itegeko-Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru no ku bimaze kuvugwa haruguru, urukiko rurasanga Mukamanzi Laurence yaratsinzwe ku rwego rwa mbere n’urwa kabiri ku mpamvu zimwe, bityo ubujurire bwe ntibugomba kwakirwa ngo busuzumwe kuko butari mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [28] Rwemeje ko inzitizi y’iburabubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga yatanzwe na Kwitunga Tonny ifite ishingiro. [29] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Mukamanzi Laurence butari mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. [30] Rutegetse Mukamanzi Laurence kwishyura 100.000Frw y’amagarama y’urubanza.

MUKAMANZI v. KWITUNGA N’UNDI

Page 68

MUNYAMPUNDU N’ABANDI v. UMUJYI WA

KIGALI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RADA0011/13/CS (Mukanyundo, P.J., Rugabirwa na Ngagi, J.) 18 Werurwe 2016] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubutegetsi – Icyemezo cy’ubutegetsi – Iyimurirwa ry’inshingano z’urwego rw’ubutegetsi mu rundi rwego rw’ubutegetsi – Itakamba – Urwego rutakambirwa kandi rukaregwa – Igihe inshingano zivuye mu bubasha bw’Urwego rw’ubutegetsi zikimurirwa mu bubasha bw’Urundi rwego, biba impamvu ituma Urwego rwafashe icyemezo gisabirwa kuvanwaho izo nshingano zikiri mu bubasha bwarwo atari rwo rutakambirwa cyangwa ruregwa, ahubwo hatakambirwa kandi hakanaregwa urwego rw’ubutegetsi izo nshingano zimuriwemokuko ari rwo rugomba kubazwa ibijyanye n’ibyemezo byafashwe n’urwego rwari rusanganywe izo nshingano – Itakamba ryakorewe imbere y’Umuyobozi utari ugifite ububasha mu gihe ryakorewe ntirihabwa Agaciro – Itegeko No08/2006 ryo ku wa 24/02/2006 rigena imiterere, imitunganyirize n’imikorere y’Akarere, ingingo ya 67(17) – Itegeko No18/2004 ryo ku wa 20/06/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 339. Amategeko agenga imirimo nshinganwa cyangwa amasezerano – Indishyi – Kuba byemejwe ko ubujurire nta shingiro bufite, byumvikanisha ko nta ndishyi zikwiye guhabwa abajuriye cyane ko uregwa nta kosa rigaragara yakoze ryaba impamvu y’uburyozwe – Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258. 41

Page 69

42 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Incamake y’ikibazo: Nyuma yaho umujyi wa Kigali weguriye Kalisa ikibanza No1068 kiri mu Murenge wa Kacyiru, Akarere ka Gasabo cyahoze ari icya Gatarayiha akaba yari yaragihaye abana be, abo bana ari bo Munyampundu, Muhizi, Mukarwego na Sebahire batakambiye umujyi wa Kigali basaba kubahiriza ibiteganywa n’amategeko arebana no kwimura abantu ku mpamvu z’inyungu rusange, cyane cyane ibijyanye no gutanga indishyi zikwiye. Munyampundu na bagenzi be babonye nta gisubizo bahawe ku gutakamba kwabo, bareze Ubuyobozi bw’Umujyi wa Kigali mu Rukiko Rukuru basaba gusesa icyemezo kibambura icyo kibanza maze Urukiko rwemeza ko ikirego cyabo kitakiriwe ku mpamvu z’uko bareze uwo batagombaga kurega kuko bagombaga kurega Akarere ka Gasabo bitewe n’uko igihe ikibanza cyatangwaga ibirebana n’ibibanza byari mu bubasha bw’Umujyi wa Kigali, ariko mu gihe cy’urubanza ibirebana n’imikoreshereze y’ubutaka no gutanga ibibanza bikaba biri mu nshingano z’Akarere. Munyampundu na bagenzi be bajuriye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga bavuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwashingiye ku itegeko ridafite aho rihuriye n’iyakirwa ry’ikirego kandi ko kuba inshingano yo gutanga ibibanza ifitwe n’Akarere, bidasobanura ko ivanwaho ry’icyemezo cyafashwe n’Umujyi wa Kigali nabyo bigomba kubazwa Akarere kuko atari ko kafashe icyo cyemezo, ndetse banaherako basa indishyi zinyuranye. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Kuba inshingano zo gutanga ubutaka zaravuye mu bubasha bw’Umujyi wa Kigali zikajya mu bubasha bw’Uturere turi mu ifasi yawo, ni mpamvu yatuma Umujyi wa Kigali utaregwa mu rubanza rwerekeranye n’itangwa ry’ikibanza ryakozwe izo nshingano zikiri mu

Page 70

43 MUNYAMPUNDU N’ABANDI v. UMUJYI WA KIGALI

bubasha bwawo, ahubwo hakaregwa Akarere kuko ari nako gafite inshingano zo kubazwa ibibazo byose bijyanye n’imitangire y’ibibanza biri mu ifasi yako, harimo n’ibitarakemuwe n’Umujyi wa Kigali.

2. Itakamba ryakorewe imbere y’Umuyobozi utari ugifite ububasha igihe ryakorewe ntirihabwa agaciro.

3. Nta ndishyi zitangwa mu rubanza igihe bigaragara ko uregwa nta kosa yakoze. Ubujurire nta shingiro bufite. Amagarama y’urubanza ahwanye n’ibyarukozwemo. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko No08/2006 ryo ku wa 24/02/2006 rigena imiterere, imitunganyirize n’imikorere y’Akarere, ingingo 67. Itegeko No18/2004 ryo ku wa 20/06/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 339. Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258. Nta manza zifashishijwe.

Page 71

44 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Munyampundu Alphonse, Muhizi André, Mukarwego Emerthe na Sebahire François bavuga ko Se Gatarayiha Frédéric yabasigiye ikibanza gifite No1068 kiri mu Murenge wa Kacyiru, Akarere ka Gasabo, nyuma baza kumva ko Umujyi wa Kigali wacyeguriye uwitwa Kalisa Evariste. Ku wa 14/08/2009, bandikiye Umuyobozi w’Umujyi wa Kigali ibaruwa itakamba basaba kubahiriza ibiteganywa n’amategeko arebana no kwimura abantu ku mpamvu z’inyungu rusange, cyane cyane ibijyanye no gutanga indishyi zikwiye. [2] Ku wa 14/01/2010, Munyampundu Alphonse, Muhizi André, Mukarwego Emerthe na Sebahire François bashyikirije Urukiko Rukuru ikirego kigamije gusaba gusesa icyemezo kibambura icyo kibanza. Urwo Rukiko rwaciye urubanza No RAD0008/10/HC/KIG ku wa 11/12/2012, rwemeza ko ikirego cyabo kitakiriwe. [3] Mu gufata icyo cyemezo, Urukiko Rukuru rwasanze icyemezo giha Kalisa Evariste ikibanza No1068 cyarafashwe na Perefe w’Umujyi wa Kigali ku wa 07/03/2001, abarega batakambira uwo Muyobozi ku wa 14/08/2009 basaba ko icyo cyemezo cyavaho, hanyuma urwo Rukiko rwanzura ruvuga ko kuba igihe ikibanza cyatangwaga ibirebana n’ibibanza byari mu bubasha bw’Umujyi wa Kigali, ariko ubu (ni ukuvuga igihe batangiye ikirego), ibirebana n’imikoreshereze y’ubutaka no gutanga ibibanza bikaba biri mu nshingano z’Akarere, byumvikanisha ko Munyampundu Alphonse, Muhizi André,

Page 72

45 MUNYAMPUNDU N’ABANDI v. UMUJYI WA KIGALI

Mukarwego Emerthe na Sebahire François bareze uwo batagombaga kurega kuko bagombaga kurega Akarere ka Gasabo, bityo ruvuga ko ikirego cyabo kitagomba kwakirwa hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 67, agace ka 17, y’Itegeko No08/2006 ryo ku wa 24/02/2006 rigena imiterere, imitunganyirize n’imikorere y’Akarere. [4] Munyampundu Alphonse, Muhizi André, Mukarwego Emerthe na Sebahire François bajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga bavuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwashingiye ku Itegeko1 ridafite aho rihuriye n’iyakirwa ry’ikirego kuko impamvu zituma ikirego kitakirwa ziteganywa mu ngingo za 2, 77 na 142 z’Itegeko No21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, kandi ko kuba inshingano yo gutanga ibibanza zifitwe n’Akarere, bidasobanura ko ivanwaho ry’icyemezo cyafashwe n’Umujyi wa Kigali bigomba kubazwa Akarere kuko atari ko kafashe icyo cyemezo, ko ahubwo kugira ngo hamenyekane ugomba kuregwa, hagomba gusuzumwa uwafashe icyemezo gisabirwa kuvanwaho nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 93, igika cya 1, y’Itegeko Ngenga No51/2008 ryo ku wa 09/09/2008 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’inkiko, ko kuba uwafashe icyemezo ari Perefe w’Umujyi wa Kigali ari nawe watakambiwe nk’uko byateganywaga n’ingingo ya 339 y’Itegeko No18/2004 ryo ku wa 20/06/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, bigaragaza ko bubahirije amategeko. Basabye indishyi zitandukanye nk’uko zigaragara mu mwanzuro wabo.

1Rwashingiye ku ngingo ya 67, agace ka 17, y’Itegeko No08/2006 ryo ku wa 24/02/2006 rigena imiterere, imitunganyirize n’imikorere y’Akarere.

Page 73

46 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[5] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku wa 16/02/2016, abajuriye bahagarariwe na Me Nkanika Alimasi, naho Umujyi wa Kigali uburanirwa na Me Kayiranga Rukumbi Bernard, Intumwa ya Leta. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO Kumenya niba kuba inshingano zo gutanga ubutaka zaragiye mu bubasha bw’Akarere ka Gasabo, byatuma Umujyi wa Kigali utaregwa mu rubanza rwerekeranye n’itangwa ry’ikibanza ryakozwe bikiri mu bubasha bwawo. [6] Me Nkanika Alimasi, uburanira abajuriye, avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rutakiriye ikirego cyabo rushingiye ku ngingo ya 67 y’Itegeko No08/2006 ryo ku wa 24/02/2006 rigena imiterere, imitunganyirize n’imikorere y’Akarere kandi bararegeye kuvanaho icyemezo cyafashwe n’Umujyi wa Kigali kibambura ikibanza, cyamara kuvanwaho, bityo icyo kibanza kigasubizwa bene cyo aribo Munyampundu Alphonse, Muhizi André, Mukarwego Emerthe na sebahire François. Avuga ko Umucamanza yasobanuye ko bareze uwo batagombaga kurega, ariko ko yirengagije ko impamvu yatumye ikibanza kiregerwa ishingiye ku cyemezo cyafashwe n’Umujyi wa Kigali. [7] Me Kayiranga Rukumbi Bernard, uburanira Umujyi wa Kigali, avuga ko Ubutegetsi bwa Leta ari bumwe kandi ko buhoraho, ko iyo inshingano z’urwego runaka rwa Leta zihawe urundi rwego, urwo rwego rwa nyuma ruzungura izo nshingano, rukanaryozwa amakosa yaba yarakozwe hagati aho. Asobanura ko, mu uru rubanza, inshingano zirebana n’ibibanza mu Mujyi wa Kigali zeguriwe Uturere, bivuze ko imanza zirebana

Page 74

47 n’ubutaka, n’ubwo ibyemezo byaba byarafashwe n’Umujyi wa Kigali, zigomba kubazwa Uturere; ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwamaze gufata umurongo ku bibazo bisa n’iki, mu rubanza Nº RCAA0057/05/CS, Succession Rukeba c/

MINITRAPE rwaciwe ku wa 10/02/2006, aho Urukiko rwasanze, kugira ngo urubanza rukomeze kuburanishwa, hagomba guhamagazwa Umujyi wa Kigali nk’umuzungura wa MINITRAPE, bityo ko yumva Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwahamagaza Akarere ka Gasabo nk’uko mu rubanza rumaze kuvugwa haruguru Umujyi wa Kigali wahamagajwe urubanza rugakomeza.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [8] Ingingo ya 67, agace ka 17, y’Itegeko No08/2006 ryo ku wa 24/02/2006 rigena imiterere, imitunganyirize n’imikorere y’Akarere, iteganya ko Komite Nyobozi y’Akarere ishinzwe kwita ku mikoreshereze y’ubutaka, gutunganya no gutanga ibibanza mu Karere. [9] Muri uru rubanza, dosiye igaragaza ko icyemezo giha Kalisa Evariste ikibanza No1068 cyafashwe na Perefe w’Umujyi wa Kigali ku wa 07/03/2001. Igaragaza na none ko Munyampundu Alphonse, Muhizi André, Mukarwego Emerthe na Sebahire François batakambiye Umuyobozi w’Umujyi wa Kigali ku wa 14/08/2009 basaba ivanwaho ry’icyo cyemezo nk’uko byateganywaga n’ingingo ya 339 y’Itegeko No18/2004 ryo ku wa 20/06/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ryakurikizwaga icyo gihe. [10] Urukiko rurasanga, nk’uko Urukiko Rukuru rwabibonye, kuba igihe ikibanza cyavuzwe haruguru cyahabwaga Kalisa MUNYAMPUNDU N’ABANDI v. UMUJYI WA KIGALI

Page 75

48 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Evariste, gutanga ibibanza byari mu bubasha bw’Umujyi wa Kigali, hanyuma igihe cyo kurega izo nshingano zikaba zari zarahawe Akarere, ibyo byumvikanisha ko Umujyi wa Kigali atari wo wagombaga kuregwa nyuma y’itakamba ryakozwe na Munyampundu Alphonse, Muhizi André, Mukarwego Emerthe na Sebahire François, kuko mu Itegeko No08/2006 ryo ku wa 24/02/2006 ryavuzwe haruguru, ntaho umushingamategeko yateganyije ko ku manza zikomoka ku byemezo byo gutanga ibibanza byafashwe mbere y’uko iryo tegeko risohoka, hazaregwa Umujyi wa Kigali, ibi bikaba bisobanura ko Akarere ka Gasabo kahawe ububasha ku birebana n’imikoreshereze y’ubutaka no gutanga ibibanza, ari nako gafite inshingano zo kubazwa ibibazo byose bijyanye n’imitangire y’ibibanza biri mu ifasi yako, harimo n’ibitarakemuwe n’Umujyi wa Kigali (transfert des droits et des obligations). [11] Urukiko rurasanga, na none, rutashingira ku kuba itakamba ryarakorewe imbere y’Umuyobozi w’Umujyi wa Kigali kugira ngo rwemeze ko Umujyi wa Kigali ari wo ugomba kuregwa, kuko iryo takamba ryakorewe imbere y’Umuyobozi utari ugifite, mu bubasha bwe, inshingano zo gutanga ibibanza. [12] Hakurikijwe ibimaze gusobanurwa haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga kuba inshingano zo gutanga ubutaka zaravuye mu bubasha bw’Umujyi wa Kigali zikajya mu bubasha bw’Uturere turi mu ifasi yawo, ari impamvu yatuma Umujyi wa Kigali utaregwa mu rubanza rwerekeranye n’itangwa ry’ikibanza ryakozwe izo nshingano zikiri mu bubasha bwawo.

Page 76

49

Kumenya niba abajuriye bagenerwa indishyi basabye [13] Me Nkanika Alimasi, uburanira abajuriye, avuga ko kuba Umujyi wa Kigali warabaruhije usaba ibidateganywa n’amategeko, bikaba byaratumye bagira ibyo batakaza mu bujurire, ndetse bikanatinza urubanza rwabo, Munyampundu Alphonse, Muhizi André, Mukarwego Emerthe na Sebahire François bagomba guhabwa 1.000.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza (500.000Frw kuri buri rwego), 1.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 12.000.000Frw y’indishyi z’akababaro (3.000.000Frw kuri buri wese). [14] Me Kayiranga Rukumbi Bernard, uburanira Umujyi wa Kigali, avuga ko izo ndishyi zisabwa n’abajuriye ntaho zishingiye kuko Umujyi wa Kigali wakoresheje uburenganzira bwawo nk’uregwa, ko rero bitafatwa nko gutinza urubanza kuko gutanga inzitizi ari uburenganzira umuburanyi yemererwa n’amategeko.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [15] Ingingo ya 258 y’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano (CCL.III), iteganya ko: “Igikorwa cyose cyangirije undi gitegeka nyir’ugukora ikosa kuriha ibyangiritse”. [16] Urukiko rurasanga, nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, kuba ubujurire bwa Munyampundu Alphonse, Muhizi André, Mukarwego Emerthe na Sebahire François nta shingiro bufite, byumvikanisha ko nta ndishyi bakwiye guhabwa muri uru rubanza, cyane cyane ko nta kosa Umujyi wa Kigali wakoze ku MUNYAMPUNDU N’ABANDI v. UMUJYI WA KIGALI

Page 77

50 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

buryo wariryorezwa indishyi nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 258 yavuzwe haruguru. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [17] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwatanzwe na Munyampundu Alphonse, Muhizi André, Mukarwego Emerthe na Sebahire François nta shingiro bufite. [18] Rwemeje ko urubanza NoRAD0008/10/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 11/12/2012, rudahindutse. [19] Rutegetse ko ingwate y’amagarama yatanzwe n’abajuriye ihwanye n’ibyakozwe mu rubanza.

Page 78

51

SEMANYENZI v. NTIHABOSE [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/REV/INJUST/CIV0010/15/CS (Mutashya, P.J., Karimunda na Gakwaya, J.) 22 Mutarama 2016] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza mbonezamubano – Gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane – Kwiyambura ububasha kw’inteko y’abunzi – Icyemezo cyafashwe n’inteko y’abunzi – Umuburanyi uregeye Urukiko rw’Ibanze nyuma y’uko Inteko y’abunzi yemeje ko idafite ububasha, ntafatwa nk’ujuririye umwanzuro w’abunzi ahubwo aba aregeye urukiko rubifitiye ububasha bwa mbere kubw’ibyo rero ibihe bibarwa hatangwa ubujurire ntibyakoreshwa mu kuzitira ikirego cye – Itegeko-Ngenga No31/2006 ryo ku wa 14/08/2006 rigena imiterere, ifasi, ububasha n’imikorere ya Komite y’Abunzi, ingingo ya 8. Incamake y’ikibazo: Semanyenzi yareze Ntihabose mu Nteko y’Abunzi y’Akagali ka Nganzo avuga ko yigabije isambu ye nyamara iyo sambu yari yarayitsindiye mu Rukiko rwa Mbere rw’Iremezo aho yayiburanaga na Gabiro, sekuru wa Ntihabose. Intekoy’Abunzi yasanze nta bubasha ifite bwo gukemura icyo kibazohashingiwe kugaciro k’ikiburanwa. Semanyenzi yaregeye Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyamabuye maze urwo Rukiko rusanga Ntihabose nta kimenyetso agaragaza cy’uko yigeze aragwa isambu iburanwa kandi ko n’iyo yaba yarayirazwe nta gaciro byahabwa kuko yaba yarayirazwe n’utari nyirayo kubera ko Semanyenzi yayitsindiye mu rubanza No RC1324/4, hanyuma rwemeza ko isambu iburanwa ari iya

Page 79

52 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Semanyenzi ko kandi Ntihabose agomba kwishyura amafaranga y’insimburamubyizi hamwe nay’ibyatswe byose mu rubanza. Ntihabose yajuririye Urukiko Rwisumbuye avuga ko Semanyenzi yabeshye avuga ko ahaburanwa ari ahe kuko yahatsindiye mu rubanza No RC1324/4 kandi ari aha Ntihabose kuberako yaharazwe na sekuru Gabiro. Urukiko rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko nta gihindutse ku mikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe. Ntihabose yajuririye nanone Urukiko Rukuru avuga ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwaciye urubanza rutagaragaza na busa impamvu rwashingiyeho; urwo Rukiko rwemeza ko Semanyenzi yakerewe gutanga ikirego kivuye mu bunzi mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze bityo ko Urukiko rw’Ibanze n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye zirengagije ibihe biteganywa n’amategeko mu itangwa ry’ibirego bivuye mu Bunzi kandi ari indemyagihugu, ibyo bikaba bifatwa nk’aho inkiko zombi zaciye urubanza nta mpamvu na busa zishingiyeho, bityo ko imanza zaciwe n’izo Nkiko zombi zikwiye kuvaho hakubahirizwa imyanzuro yafashwe n’Inteko y’Abunzi. Semanyenzi yasubirishijemo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane maze Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusuzuma niba kuregera Urukiko rw’Ibanze nyuma y’icyemezo cy’iburabubasha cyafashwe n’Inteko y’Abunzi bigomba gufatwa nk’ubujurire kuburyo yaba yarakererewe kubutanga mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyamabuye. Incamake y’icyemezo: Kuba inteko y’abunzi yariyambuye ububasha ku kirego ishingiye ku gaciro k’ikiburanwa ntihagire ubijuririra; ikirego gitanzwe mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze nticyafatwa nk’ubujurire butanzwe mu Rukiko kubera ko icyemezo cyayo kiba cyabaye ndakuka kubw’ibyo rero igihe Semanyenzi

Page 80

53 SEMANYENZI v. NTIHABOSE

yatangaga ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze ntiyajuriraga ahubwo bwari ubwa mbere atanze ikirego mu Rukiko rubifitiye ububasha, bityo ibihe bibarwa hatangwa ubujurire bikaba bitakoreshwa mu kuzitira umuburanyi uregeye Urukiko rubifitiye ububasha bwa mbere . Ikirego gisubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane gifite ishingiro; Urubanza RCAA0078/11/HC/NYA rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza ruvuyeho; Urubanza RCA0358/010/TGI/MHG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Muhanga n’urubanza RC0172/09/TB/NYBYE rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyamabuye zigumyeho; Amagarama y’urubanzaaherereye ku regwa. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko No21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 171 n’iya 172. Itegeko-Ngenga No31/2006 ryo ku wa 14/08/2006 rigena imiterere, ifasi, ububasha n’imikorere ya Komite y’Abunzi, ingingo ya 8. Nta manza zifashishijwe.

Page 81

54 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Semanyenzi Déogratias yareze Ntihabose Théoneste ku Nteko y’Abunzi y’Akagali ka Nganzo avuga ko yigabije isambu ye nyamara iyo sambu ariyo Semanyenzi Déogratias yatsindiye mu rubanza NoRC1324/4 yaburanye na Gabiro Sekuru wa Ntihabose Théoneste, Urukiko rwa Mbere rw’Iremezo rwa Gitarama rukayimwegurira ku wa 23/04/2009. Inteko y’Abunzi yasanze hagendewe ku gaciro k’ikiburanwa, nta bubasha ifite bwo kuburanisha urwo rubanza kubera ko iyo sambu irengeje agaciro ka miliyoni eshatu y’amafaranga y’u Rwanda (3.000.000Frw). [2] Nyuma y’icyemezo cy’Inteko y’Abunzi, Semanyenzi Déogratias yaregeye Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyamabuye. Mu rubanza No RC0172/09/TB/NYBYE rwaciwe ku wa 24/06/2010, Urukiko rwasanze Ntihabose Théoneste nta kimenyetso agaragaza cy’uko yigeze aragwa isambu iburanwa kandi niyo yaba yarayirazwe nta gaciro byahabwa kuko yaba yarayirazwe n’utari nyirayo kubera ko Semanyenzi Déogratias yayitsindiye mu Rukiko, rwemeza ko isambu iburanwa ari iya Semanyenzi Deogratias, Ntihabose Théoneste ategekwa kwishyura amafaranga 8.500 y’insimburamubyizi na 46.740 y’ibyakozwe mu rubanza byose. [3] Ntihabose Théoneste ntiyishimiye icyo cyemezo akijuririra mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye avuga ko Semanyenzi Déogratias yabeshye ko ahaburanwa yahatsindiye hose kandi ari aho Ntihabose Théoneste yarazwe na Sekuru Gabiro.

Page 82

55

[4] Mu rubanza No RCA0358/010/TGI/MHG rwaciwe ku wa 28/01/2011, Urukiko rwasanze Ntihabose Théoneste adatanga ibimenyetso by’ibyo avuga ko ahaburanwa yaharazwe na Sekuru Gabiro, rwemeza ko nta gihindutse ku mikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe, Ntihabose Théoneste ategekwa kwishyura amagarama y’urubanza angana na 5.000Frw. [5] Ntihabose Théoneste yajuririye mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza avuga ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwaciye urubanza rutagaragaza na busa impamvu rwashingiyeho. [6] Mu rubanza No RCAA0078/11/HC/NYA rwaciwe ku wa 20/01/2012, Urukiko rwasanze mu gihe Abunzi bafashe umwanzuro ku wa 23/04/2009, Semanyenzi Déogratias atanga ikirego mu Rukiko ku wa 25/05/2009 kandi umunsi wa nyuma wo kuregera Urukiko wari ku wa 22/05/2009, rwemeza ko yakerewe gutanga ikirego, ko Urukiko rw’Ibanze n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye zirengagije ibihe biteganywa n’amategeko mu itangwa ry’ibirego bivuye mu Bunzi kandi ari indemyagihugu, inkiko zombi zikaba zaraciye urubanza nta mpamvu na busa zishingiyeho, bityo ko imanza zaciwe n’izo Nkiko zombi zikwiye kuvaho hakubahirizwa imyanzuro yafashwe n’Inteko y’Abunzi yo ku wa 23/04/2009, Semanyenzi Déogratias ategekwa gutanga amagarama y’urubanza angana na 22.000Frw. [7] Semanyenzi yandikiye Urwego rw’Umuvunyi arusaba gusuzuma akarengane kabaye mu rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza. Kuwa 07/10/2014 Umuvunyi Mukuru yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga amusaba ko urubanza No RCAA0078/11/HC/NYA rwaciwe ku wa 20/01/2012 rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. SEMANYENZI v. NTIHABOSE

Page 83

56 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[8] Mu cyemezo No17/2015 cyo ku wa 31/03/2015, Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, yasabye Ubwanditsi bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga gushyira kuri gahunda y’iburanisha urubanza no RCAA0078/11/HC/NYA rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza ku wa 20/01/2012 kugira ngo hasuzumwe niba rushobora gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. [9] Iburanisha mu ruhame ryabaye ku wa 08/12/2015, Semanyenzi Déogratias yitabye kandi aburanirwa na Me Kabagambe Joëlle, Ntihabose Théoneste nawe ahari kandi aburanirwa na Me Ndagijimana Viateur. II. IKIBAZO KIGIZE URU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYACYO Kumenya niba kuregera Urukiko rw’Ibanze nyuma y’icyemezo cy’iburabubasha cyafashwe n’Inteko y’Abunzi bigomba gufatwa nk’ubujurire. [10] Me Kabagambe Joëlle uburanira Semanyenzi Déogratias avuga ko babanje kuregera Inteko y’Abunzi y’Akagali ka Nganzo, bayisaba kwemeza imanza zihesha Semanyenzi Déogratias uburenganzira ku isambu iburanwa, ariko Inteko y’Abunzi isanga ikiburanwa gifite agaciro karengeje miliyoni eshatu y’amafaranga y’u Rwanda (3.000.000Frw), yemeza ko nta bubasha ifite bwo kuburanisha urwo rubanza, aricyo cyatumye batanga ikirego gishya mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyamabuye rwatesheje agaciro inzitizi yatanzwe na Ntihabose Théoneste wavugaga ko ubujurire bwatanzwe impitagihe, Urukiko rwemeza ko icyaregewe atari imyanzuro y’Abunzi

Page 84

57

ahubwo ko Semanyenzi Déogratias yatanze ikirego gishya kandi ko gifite ishingiro. [11] Asobanura ko Ntihabose Théoneste yakomeje kuburanisha inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye no mu Rukiko Rukuru, ariko ko mu nama ntegurarubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, Me Ndagijimana Viateur uburanira Ntihabose Théoneste avuga ko inzitizi batanze mu Nkiko zibanza nta shingiro yari ifite kubera ko nyuma y’uko Inteko y’Abunzi yiyambuye ububasha, ikirego cyatanzwe mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyamabuye cyari gishya kandi cyihariye. [12] Asoza avuga ko imiburanire ya Ntihabose Théoneste yayobeje Urukiko Rukuru kugeza aho ruvuze ko mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze haburanwe ubujurire ku myanzuro y’Abunzi kandi ko bwatanzwe bukererewe, akaba asaba uru Rukiko gukosora ayo makosa rutesha agaciro urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Muhanga rukagumana agaciro karwo. [13] Me Ndagijimana Viateur uburanira Ntihabose Théoneste avuga ko yemera ko Urukiko Rukuru rwibeshye ruvuga ko icyaburanwaga mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyamabuye ari ubujurire kandi bwatanzwe impitagihe nyamara cyari ikirego gishya kubera ko batigeze baburanisha imizi y’urubanza, asobanura ko uwo yunganira yari yatanze ibibazo bibiri, icyo kutakira ikirego kubera ko ubujurire bwatanzwe impitagihe n’icy’uko Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyamabuye n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Muhanga zavuze ko Semanyenzi Déogratias atsinze ntacyo zishingiyeho, akaba asanga uburyo bwo gukosora amakosa yakozwe atari ukuvanaho icyemezo cy’Urukiko Rukuru ahubwo ari uguha Semanyenzi Déogratias amahirwe yo SEMANYENZI v. NTIHABOSE

Page 85

58 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kugaragaza ibimenyetso by’ibyo aregera kugirango Ntihabose Théoneste abyisobanureho.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [14] Ingingo ya 171 y’Itegeko No21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko: “Urukiko rwajuririwe iyo ruhinduye icyemezo cyajuririwe, ruburanisha urwo rubanza mu mizi yarwo keretse iyo ruruhinduye ku mpamvu y’uko rwaregewe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko cyangwa ku mpamvu y’iburabubasha”. Naho ingingo ya 172 y’iryo Tegeko ivuga ko “Urukiko rutesheje agaciro urubanza rwajuririwe ntiruruburanisha bundi bushya mu mizi yarwo. Ababuranyi bashobora ariko kongera kuregera bundi bushya urukiko rwo ku rwego rwa mbere mu gihe bishoboka gukosora amakosa aba yakozwe”. [15] Ingingo ya 106, agace ka mbere, y’Itegeko-Ngenga No51/2008 ryo ku wa 09/09/2008 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Inkiko nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu iteganya ko “[Urukiko Rukuru] ruburanisha kandi imanza z’imbonezamubano zajuririwe, zaciwe mu rwego rwa kabiri n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye, mu gihe izo manza: 1o. zitagaragaza na busa impamvu zashingiyeho mu icibwa ryazo, zishingiye ku Itegeko ritariho cyangwa zaciwe n’Urukiko rutabifitiye ububasha;…”. [16] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza ko Semanyenzi Déogratias yabanje kuregera Inteko y’Abunzi y’Akagali ka Nganzo asaba gusubizwa isambu ye yahugujwe na Ntihabose Théoneste, iyo Nteko ifata icyemezo ku wa 23/04/2009 ivuga ko ikiburanwa

Page 86

59

kirenze ububasha bwayo (cote 7), aricyo cyatumye ku wa 25/05/2009, Semanyenzi Déogratias aregera Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyamabuye (cotes 3-4), mu iburanisha ryabaye ku wa 09/09/2009, Semanyenzi Déogratias asobanura ko icyo asaba Urukiko ari ugutegeka Ntihabose Théoneste kumusubiza isambu ye yamuhuguje, uregwa nawe yiregura avuga ko atuye aho yarazwe na Sekuru Gabiro, ko nyuma y’imanza zabaye hagati ya Sekuru na Semanyenzi Deogratias, aho Sekuru yasigaranye yahamuraze, akaba yarahatuye guhera mu 1988, bituma Urukiko rubatuma igishushanyo mbonera cy’ikiburanwa ndetse runikorera n’iperereza mbere yo guca urubanza (cotes 11-31). [17] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza kandi ko Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyamabuye rwasanze imyanzuro ya Semanyenzi Déogratias itanga ikirego yaraziye igihe ahubwo Icyemezo cy’Inteko y’Abunzi aricyo cyatinze kuboneka, Urukiko rwanzura kuri icyo kibazo ruvuga ko itinda ry’icyo cyemezo ariryo ryatumye ikirego cye kitandikirwa igihe mu bitabo by’ibirego, ariko ko yemerewe kurega, nyuma yo gusuzuma imiburanire y’impande zombi n’ibikubiye muri dosiye, Urukiko rusanga Ntihabose Théoneste atarugaragariza ibimenyetso by’uko Sekuru yamuraze ahaburanwa kandi ko niyo yabigaragaza bitahamuhesha kubera ko Sekuru yahaburanye, akahatsindirwa na Semanyenzi Déogratias ( cote 36). [18] Inyandiko zigize dosiye zerekana kandi ko mu rwego rw’ubujurire mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Muhanga, Me Nsabimana Gabriel waburaniraga Ntihabose Théoneste yabanje gutanga inzitizi ijyanye n’iyakira ry’ikirego avuga ko Semanyenzi Déogratias yatinze kujuririra Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyamabuye kandi ko yabeshye ko ahaburanwa ari ahe, SEMANYENZI v. NTIHABOSE

Page 87

60 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Urukiko rusanga Ntihabose Théoneste atagaragaza ibimenyetso by’ibyo avuga, rwemeza ko nta gihindutse ku mikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe, iyo nzitizi yongeye gutangwa mu bujurire mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza, urwo Rukiko ruca urubanza ku wa 20/10/2015, rwemeza ko imikirize y’Inkiko zombi ivuyeho kubera ko Semanyenzi Déogratias yaregeye Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyamabuye akerewe(cotes 35, 40 na 41). [19] Urukiko rurasanga umwanzuro w’Inteko y’Abunzi y’Akagali ka Nganzo wo ku wa 23/04/2009 ugira uti: “Dushingiye ku ngingo ya 8 y’Itegeko-Ngenga No31/2006 ryo ku wa 14/08/2006 rigena imiterere, ifasi, ububasha n’imikorere ya Komite y’Abunzi, agaka ka mbere (1o), Dusanze birenze [ibiburanwa] ububasha bwa Komite y’Abunzi ”, byumvikanisha ko iyo Nteko yivanyeho ikirego cyose yari yaregewe na Semanyenzi Déogratias wagombaga gutanga ikirego gishya mu Rukiko rubifitiye ububasha kandi bikaba bitarasabaga ko yitwaza umwanzuro w’Inteko y’Abunzi ahubwo ari ukugaragaza ko hashingiwe ku gaciro k’ikiburanwa naho giherereye, Urukiko yaregeye arirwo rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha urubanza rwe. [20] Urukiko rurasanga kuba Semanyenzi Déogratias yarabwiye Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyamabuye ko yatindijwe kujurira n’uko ataboneye igihe umwanzuro w’Inteko y’Abunzi, urwo Rukiko narwo rukabishingiraho ruvuga ko ahawe amahirwe yo kuburana n’ubwo ikirego cye cyatinze kwandikwa mu Gitabo cy’Ibirego, byari ukwibeshya kubera ko nyuma yaho Inteko y’Abunzi yiyamburiye ububasha bwo kuburanisha ikirego cya Semanyenzi Deogratias, icyemezo cyayo cyabaye ndakuka, bivuze ko aregera Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa

Page 88

61 Nyamabuye, Semanyenzi Déogratias atajuriraga ahubwo bwari ubwa mbere atanze ikirego mu Rukiko rubifitiye ububasha, bityo ibihe bibarwa hatangwa ubujurire bikaba bitakoreshwa mu kuzitira umuburanyi uregeye Urukiko rubifitiye ububasha bwa mbere. [21] Urukiko rurasanga kandi ibimaze kuvugwa mu gika kibanziriza iki bishimangirwa n’uko mu gusuzuma ikirego cya Semanyenzi Deogratias, Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyamabuye rutitwaye nk’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire kubera ko rwacukumbuye kandi rusesengura ikirego nk’Urukiko ruregewe bwa mbere, kuko iyo biba ari ugusuzuma ubujurire, rwari kubanza guca urubanza kubirebana n’ububasha bw’Inteko y’Abunzi kuko aricyo cyonyine cyasuzumwe kandi cyemezwa n’iyo Nteko, kutabikora gutyo bikaba ari uko urubanza rutari mu bujurire. [22] Urukiko rurasanga Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza rwaribeshye ruvuga ko Inkiko zibanza zaciye imanza nta mpamvu na busa zigaragaje bituruka kukuba zarirengangije ibihe by’ijurira biteganywa n’amategeko, bituma ruburanisha urubanza ubundi rutari mu bubasha bwarwo, kuko iyo rusanga Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyamabuye rwaraburanishije uru rubanza ku rwego rwa mbere nk’uko uru Rukiko rubibona, Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza rwari kubona ko ubujurire rwajuririwe butari mu bubasha bwarwo hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 106, agace ka mbere, y’Itegeko- Ngenga No51/2008 ryo ku wa 09/09/2008 ryibukijwe haruguru, bisobanuye ko impamvu Urukiko Rukuru rwashingiyeho rwakira ubujurire kandi rutesha agaciro imanza zaciwe n’izo Nkiko nta shingiro ifite. [23] Hashingiwe ku byasobanuwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga, urubanza No RCAA0078/11/HC/NYA rwaciwe SEMANYENZI v. NTIHABOSE

Page 89

62 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza ku wa 20/01/2012 rugomba kuvaho, hakagumaho urubanza No RCA358/010/TGI/MHG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Muhanga ku wa 28/01/2011 rwemeje imikirize y’urubanza NoRC0172/09/TB/NYBYE rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyamabuye ku wa 24/06/2010. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [24] Rwemeye kwakira ikirego cya Semanyenzi Déogratias gisaba gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane kuko cyatanzwe mu buryo n’inzira bikurikije amategeko; [25] Ruvuze ko icyo kirego gifite ishingiro; [26] Ruvuze ko urubanza No RCAA0078/11/HC/NYA rwaciwe n’UrukikoRukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza ku wa 20/01/2012 ruvuyeho; [27] Ruvuze ko urubanza No RCA0358/010/TGI/MHG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Muhanga ku wa 28/01/2011 n’urubanza RC0172/09/TB/NYBYE rwaciwen’Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyamabuye ku wa 24/06/2010 zigumyeho; [28] Rutegetse Ntihabose Théoneste gutanga amagarama y’urubanza anganana 100.000Frw.

Page 90

RWEMA v. RWANDA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (RDB) [Rwanda – URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RADA0048/13/CS (Mutashya, P.J., Nyirinkwaya na Kayitesi R., J.) 15 Mata 2016] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubutegetsi – Inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego – Ihame ryo kutongera kuburanisha imanza zabaye itegeko – Kuba ikiburanwa cyari cyaraburanweho mu nkiko zabanje nticyakongera kuburanishwaho kuko byaba binyuranyije n’ihame ribuza kugaruka ku manza zabaye itegeko. Ubukemurampaka – Inyandiko y’ubutumwa – Icyemezo cy’ubukempurampaka nticyafatwa nk’aho cyataye agaciro kuko cyafashwe igihe cyateganyijwe mu nyandiko y’ubutumwa cyarangiye mu gihe muri iyo nyandiko hatateganyizwe icyakorwa igihe ubukemurampaka bwaba burengeje iminsi yo gufatamo icyemezo. Ubukemurampaka – Amasezerano y’ubukemurampaka – Abakoranye amasezerano iyo bemeranyije ko ikibazo bazagirana giturutse cyangwa gishingiye kuri ayo masezerano kizakemurwa n’abakemurampaka cyavuka akaba ari bo bagikemura, bagatanga n’icyemezo ntabwo umwe mu basinye ayo masezerano aregera urukiko. Incamake y’ikibazo: Rwema yagiranye na TERRACOM SARL amasezerano yo kubacururiza ibicuruzwa birimo na serivisi byayo hirya na hino mu Rwanda. 62 63

Page 91

64 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Muri 2007 TERRACOM SARL yaragurishijwe kuri Lap Green networks ariko Rwema ntiyishyurwa amafaranga yari amaze gukorera. Ashingiye ku ngingo ya 5.2.6 y’amasezerano Leta y’u Rwanda yagiranye na “Lap Green networks” yaguze TERRACOM SP SARL iteganya ko imyenda icyo kigo cyari gifite mbere ya tariki 30/6/2007 ari Leta y’u Rwanda iyishyura, yasabye RDB yabarizwagamo ubunyamabanga bushinzwe kwegurira ibigo bya Leta abikorera ku giti cyabo kumwishyura umwenda bari bamurimo ndetse n’indishyi ziwukomokaho ariko barananiranwa. Rwema yareze RDB mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi maze rwemeza ko habaho ihwanya ry’imyenda Rwema yari afitanye na RWANDATEL SP SARL. Rwema ntiyishimiye icyo cyemezo maze akijuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, narwo rwemeje ko Rwema agomba kwishyura RWANDATEL SP SARL amafaranga 1.871.154Frw, naho RWANDATEL SP SARL itegekwa kwishyura Rwema 2.200.000Frw y’agaciro ka “imprimantes” na “panneaux publicitaires”, akanayisubiza EVDOS 3 hamwe na “ordinateur portable” imwe. Rwema yasubirishijemo urwo rubanza ingingo nshya ashingiye ku manza z’inshinjabyaha RP0140/09/TB/NYGE na RPA0406/10/TGI/NYGE, maze Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rutegeka

RWANDATEL

SARL kumwishyura 8.978.846Frw na 300.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka. Nyuma Rwema yiyambaje Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi ikirego cye nticyakirwa kuko Urukiko rwanzuye ko abanza kwiyambaza ubukemurampaka nk’uko biteganywa mu masezerano bagiranye na RWANDATEL SP SAR., RDB na Rwema bemeranije gushyiraho ubukemurampaka. Urukiko Nkemurampaka rwafashe umwanzuro ko ikirego cya Rwema kitakiriwe kubera

Page 92

65 RWEMA v. RWANDA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (RDB) cyamaze gusuzumwa n’Inkiko zisanzwe ndetse zikanagifataho icyemezo ubu cyabaye Itegeko. Rwema yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rukuru maze RDB nayo itanga inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego kubera ko amasezerano ashingiraho, ateganya ko habanza ubukemurampaka, ko kandi niba ikirego cye ari ubujurire ku cyemezo cy’Urukiko Nkemurampaka nabwo budakwiye kwakirwa kuko icyo cyemezo kitajuririrwa nk’uko bikubiye mu masezerano nkemurampaka. Urwo rukiko rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Rwema bujyanye n’umwanzuro wa burundu wafashwe n’Urukiko Nkemurampaka butakiriwe. Rwema yajuririye icyo cyemezo mu Rukiko rw’ Ikirenga avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwahuje amasezerano abiri adafite aho ahuriye kuko amasezerano ya mbere yagiranye na Rwandatel, yari ayo kumucururiza umuriro wa cash power ariyo yakomotseho urubanza baburanye rukarangira, naho urubanza aburana ubu akaba ari urushingiye ku masezerano ya kabiri yo ku wa 04/1/2006 aho yabacururizaga amakarita na telefoni. Yongeraho ko n’ubwo inyandiko itanga ubutumwa yagiranye na RDB yahaga Urukiko Nkemurampaka ububasha bwo kuzaburanisha mu rwego rwa mbere n’urwa nyuma impaka zizavuka hagati yabo bombi yayisinye atarebye, akaza gusanga imurenganya, ariko ko atabarwa n’ingingo ya III yayo mu gace ka 7, ivuga ko igihe kinini ntarengwa cy’imiburanishirize y’Inteko Nkemurampaka kitazarenza iminsi mirongo itatu (30) uhereye ku ishyirwa ry’umukono ku nyandiko y’ubutumwa nyamara umwanzuro wayo ukaba warafashwe icyo gihe cyararangiye bityo uwo mwazuro ukaba nta gaciro ufite. RDB yiregura ivuga ko ubujurire butakwakirwa kubera ko imanza zabanje zaburanishijwe ku masezerano yo kuwa 04 Mutarama 2006, ndetse ko n’ubwo mu nyandiko itanga

Page 93

66 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ubutumwa Rwema yagiranye na RDB, bumvikanye ko umwanzuro uzafatwa mu minsi 30, ariko ko nta cyateganyijwe igihe bitakubahirizwa ikindi kandi ko iyo ngingo y’iminsi 30 atariyo yatesha agaciro ihame ry’uko ababuranyi aribo bihitiramo ubukemurampaka n’uko bagena uburyo ibyemezo bizafatwa. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Kuba ikiburanwa cyari cyaraburanweho mu nkiko zabanje nticyakongera kuburanishwaho kuko byaba binyuranyije n’ihame ribuza kugaruka ku manza zabaye itegeko.

2. Kuba umuburanyi haribyo avuga ko yasinyiye atabibonye ntibihabwa agaciro igihe atagaragaza ko yayisinyishijwe ku ngufu cyangwa ku gahato, cyangwa se ngo agaragaze ko hari izindi mbaraga zakoreshejwe kugira asinye.

3. Abakoranye amasezerano iyo bemeranyije ko ikibazo bazagirana giturutse cyangwa gishingiye kuri ayo masezerano kizakemurwa n’abakemurampaka cyavuka akaba ari bo bagicyemura, bagatanga n’icyemezo ntabwo barengaho ngo umwe mubayagiranye aregere Urukiko.

4. Icyemezo cy’ubukempurampaka nticyafatwa nk’aho cyataye agaciro kuko cyafashwe igihe cyateganyizwe mu nyandiko y’ubutumwa cyararangiye mu gihe muri iyo nyandiko hatateganyijwe icyakorwa igihe ubukemurampaka bwaba burengeje iminsi yo gufatamo icyemezo. Ikirego nta shingiro gifite. Amagarama y’urubanza aherereye ku wajuriye.

Page 94

67

Amategeko yashingiweho: Iteka rya Minisitiri No16/012 ryo kuwa 15/05/2012 rishyiraho amabwiriza y’ubukemurampaka y’Ikigo Mpuzamahanga cy’Ubukemurampaka cya Kigali, ingingo ya 29. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Iki kirego gikomoka ku masezerano ya Dealership Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal yagiranye na TERRACOM SARL nka “Service Provider” ku itariki ya 04/01/2006 kugirango abacururize ibicuruzwa birimo na serivisi, amatelefoni agendanwa n’amakarita yayo, amakarita ya telefoni zitagendanwa n’amakarita yayo na serivisi za Internet hirya no hino mu Rwanda. [2] TERRACOM yaje kugurishwa mu mwaka wa 2007 ariko Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal ntiyishyurwa amafaranga yari amaze gukorera, aza gushingira ku ngingo ya 5.2.6 y’amasezerano Leta y’u Rwanda yagiranye na “Lap Green networks” yari yaguze TERRACOM SP SARL iteganya ko imyenda icyo kigo cyari gifite mbere ya tariki 30/6/2007 ari Leta y’u Rwanda iyishyura, asaba RDB yabarizwagamo ubunyamabanga bushinzwe kwegurira ibigo bya Leta abikorera ku giti cyabo kumwishyura amafaranga bari bamugezemo ndetse n’indishyi ziwukomokaho birananirana, aho yaje kwitabaza inkiko maze Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi mu rubanza RCOM0358/08/HCC rwemeza ko habaho ihwanya RWEMA v. RWANDA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (RDB)

Page 95

68 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

myenda Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal yari afitanye na RWANDATEL SP SARL. [3] Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal ntiyanyuzwe n’icyo cyemezo akijuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, rwemeza mu rubanza RCOMA0021/09/CS ko Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal agomba kwishyura RWANDATEL SP SARL miliyoni imwe n’ibihumbi magana inani na mirongo irindwi na kimwe n’ijana na mirongo itanu n’ane (1.871.154Frw), rutegeka RWANDATEL SP SARL kwishyura Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal miliyoni ebyiri n’ibihumbi magana abiri (2.200.000Frw) y’agaciro ka “imprimantes” na “panneaux publicitaires”, ikanamusubiza EVDOS 3 hamwe na “ordinateur portable” imwe. [4] Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal yasubirishijemo urwo rubanza ingingo nshya ashingiye kumanza z’inshinjabyaha RP0140/09/TB/NYGE na RPA0406/10/TGI/NYGE, maze ku wa 15/3/2013 Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza RS/REV/RCOM0011/11/CS, rutegeka RWANDATEL SARL kumwishyura 8.978.846 Frw na 300.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka. [5] Nyuma y’uko urwo rubanza ruciwe, Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal yiyambaje Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi ikirego cye nticyakirwa kuko Urukiko rwavuze ko abanza kwiyambaza ubukemurampaka nk’uko biteganywa mu masezerano bagiranye na RWANDATEL SP SARL. [6] RDB na Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal bemeranije gushyiraho ubukemurampaka. Urukiko Nkemurampaka rwafashe umwanzuro ku wa 4/12/2012, ruvuga ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal kitakiriwe kubera ko

Page 96

69

cyamaze gusuzumwa n’Inkiko zisanzwe ndetse zikanagifataho icyemezo ubu cyabaye Itegeko. [7] Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rukuru, uhagarariye Leta nawe atanga inzitizi z’uko ikirego cyatanzwe na Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal kitakwakirwa kubera ko amasezerano ashingiraho, ateganya ko habanza ubukemurampaka, ko kandi niba ikirego cye ari ubujurire ku cyemezo cy’Urukiko Nkemurampaka nabwo budakwiye kwakirwa kuko icyo cyemezo kitajuririrwa nk’uko bikubiye mu masezerano nkemurampaka. Ko ruramutse rusanze cyakwakirwa, rwavuga ko nta shingiro gifite kubera ko nk’uko byemejwe n’Urukiko Nkemurampaka ikirego yatanze cyamaze gufatwaho icyemezo n’inkiko. (Exception de l’autorité de la chose jugée). Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal bw’umwanzuro wa burundu (definitive award) bwafashwe n’Urukiko Nkemurampaka ku wa 04/12/2012 hagati ya Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal na RDB butakiriwe. [8] Nyuma y’aho Urukiko Rukuru rufatiye icyo cyemezo, Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal yakijuririye mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 29/6/2013, iburanisha rishyirwa ku wa 02/2/2016 ariko urubanza ntirwaburanishwa kuko muri iyo nteko harimo umucamanza waciye urubanza rwo gusubirishamo ingingo nshya, rwimurirwa ku wa 15/3/2016 kugira ngo inteko ihinduke. [9] Kuri uwo munsi urubanza rwaraburanishijwe, Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal yunganiwe na Me Tuyishimire Jean Paul, RDB ihagarariwe na Me Kayigi Léon. RWEMA v. RWANDA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (RDB)

Page 97

70 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO Kumenya niba ubujurire bwa Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal ku cyemezo cy’ubukemurampaka bwaragombaga kwakirwa mu Rukiko Rukuru. [10] Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwahuje amasezerano abiri adafite aho ahuriye bituma ruvuga ko ayo ku wa 04/1/2006 yarangije gufatwaho icyemezo mu manza zaciwe, kandi amasezerano ya mbere yagiranye na Rwandatel, yari ayo kumucururiza umuriro wa cash power arirwo rubanza baburanye rukarangira, ko urubanza aburana ubu ari urushingiye ku masezerano ya kabiri yo ku wa 04/1/2006 aho yabacururizaga amakarita na telefoni. [11] Avuga ko nanone urukiko rwanze kwakira ikirego cye rushingiye ku ngingo ya VI y’inyandiko itanga ubutumwa yagiranye na RDB yahaga Urukiko Nkemurampaka ububasha bwo kuzaburanisha mu rwego rwa mbere n’urwa nyuma impaka zizavuka hagati yabo bombi, kandi iyo nyandiko yarayisinye atarebye akaba asanga imurenganya, ariko ko atabarwa n’ingingo ya III y’iyo nyandiko y’ubutumwa mu gace ka 7, ahanditse ko Inteko Nkemurampaka ishobora kuzaca urubanza by’agateganyo cyangwa bya burundu, kandi ko uko byagenda kose igihe kinini ntarengwa cy’imiburanishirize ntikizarenza iminsi mirongo itatu (30) uhereye ku ishyirwaho ry’umukono ku nyandiko y’ubutumwa. [12] Akomeza avuga ko hakurikijwe ibivugwa muri iyi ngingo, ububasha bw’abakemurampaka bwarangiye ku wa 17/08/2012 kuko inyandiko y’ubutumwa yashyizweho umukono n’abo ireba bose ku wa 18/07/2012, ko nyuma y’iyi tariki,

Page 98

71 ibyakozwe byose n’urubanza baciye nta gaciro bifite, bivuze ko n’umwanzuro Urukiko Nkemurampaka rwafashe nta gaciro wahabwa kuko rwawufashe ku wa 4/12/2012 ububasha bw’abakemurampaka bwararangiye. [13] Me Tuyishimire Jean Paul avuga ko abunganira RDB batagaragaza urubanza rwaburanywe ngo bagire icyo baruvugaho. Avuga ko urukiko rwazasuzuma niba iriya minsi 30 yararenze koko uwo yunganira akaba yarenganurwa. [14] Me Kayigi avuga ko ubujurire butakwakirwa kuko imanza zabanje zaburanishije kuri ayo masezerano yo kuwa 04/1/2006. Avuga ko mu nyandiko itanga ubutumwa Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal yagiranye na RDB, banditse ko urubanza ruzaburanishwa mu minsi 30, ariko ko nta cyateganyijwe igihe urubanza rwaba rudaciwe muri iyo minsi 30. Avuga kandi ko iyo ngingo y’iminsi 30 atari yo yatesha agaciro ihame ry’uko ababuranyi aribo bihitiramo ubukemurampaka, n’uko bagena uburyo ibyemezo bizafatwa.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [15] Ku byerekeye amasezerano yo ku wa 04/01/2006, Urukiko rurasanga hari urubanza RCOM0358/08/HCC aho Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal yaregeraga amasezerano yagiranye na Rwandatel yo kumucururiza cash power, muri urwo rubanza Rwandatel ikaba yaratanze ikirego cyuririye ku kindi isaba nayo kwishyurwa na Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal amafaranga angana na 37.173.008Frw akomoka ku masezerano bagiranye ku wa 04/1/2006 yo kubacururiza amakarita, Urukiko rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ihwanyamwenda. RWEMA v. RWANDA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (RDB)

Page 99

72 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[16] Urukiko rurasanga ayo masezerano yo ku wa 04/1/2006 Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal aburanisha, nkuko bimaze kuvugwa inkiko zarayashingiyeho ziyaciraho urubanza, kongera kuyagarura nanone mu bukemurampaka cyangwa mu nkiko ngo zongere ziyaburanisheho, kwaba ari ukunyuranya n’ihame ry’uko nta kugaruka ku manza zabaye itegeko, bityo ubujurire bwe kuri iyi ngingo nta shingiro bufite. [17] Ku byerekeye ibivugwa mu nyandiko y’ubutumwa yakozwe hagati ya Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal na RDB, Urukiko rurasanga ingingo yayo ya VI ivuga ko Urukiko Nkemurampaka rufite inshingano yo kuzaburanisha mu rwego rwa mbere n’urwa nyuma ibikubiye mu kiburanwa. [18] Urukiko rurasanga ubukemurampaka buri mu rwego rw’amasezerano abantu bagirana bagamije kurangiza ibibazo byabo mu buryo bwihuse batagombye kubinyuza mu nkiko, ayo masezerano akaba agomba kubahirizwa n’impande zombi nk’amasezerano yose abantu bagirana. [19] Urukiko rurasanga ibyo Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal avuga ko ingingo ya VI y’iyo nyandiko ivuga ko Urukiko Nkemurampaka rufite inshingano yo kuzaburanisha mu rwego rwa mbere n’urwa nyuma ibikubiye mu kiburanwa yagobetswemo nyuma asinya atarebye, ibyo bitahabwa ishingiro kuko atagaragaza ko yayisinyishijwe ku ngufu cyangwa ku gahato, cyangwa se ngo agaragaze ko hari izindi mbaraga zakoreshejwe kugirango ayisinye ku buryo yata agaciro kayo, akaba atanagaragaza uburyo iyo nyandiko yagobetswemo nyuma. [20] Urukiko rurasanga kuba Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal yaremeye iyo nyandiko y’ubutumwa (acte de mission)

Page 100

73

akayishyiraho umukono, agomba kubahiriza ibiyikubiyemo dore ko ariyo igenga ababuranyi nkuko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 29 y’Iteka rya Minisitiri No16/012 ryo kuwa 15/05/2012 rishyiraho amabwiriza y’ubukemurampaka y’Ikigo Mpuzamahanga cy’Ubukemurampaka cya Kigali iteganya ko: “Urukiko rw’ubukemurampaka rukora rushingiye ku nyandiko cyangwa impande zose zihari kandi rugendeye ku nyandiko rumaze kubona, inyandiko igaragaza ubutumwa ruhawe [….]”. [21] Urukiko rurasanga kuba Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal yararenze ku biteganywa n’inyandiko y’ubutumwa akajuririra umwanzuro wa nyuma w‘Urukiko Nkemurampaka kandi warafashwe ku rwego rwa mbere n’urwa nyuma nkuko inyandiko y’ubutumwa (acte de mission) ubwe yisinyiye ibiteganya, yanyuranyije nayo kandi ariyo igenga ababuranyi nkuko byasobanuwe, bityo ubujurire bwe kuri iyo ngingo bukaba nta shingiro bufite. [22] Ku byerekeye ibyo Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal avuga ko kuba Urukiko Nkemurampaka rwarafashe icyemezo iminsi 30 iteganyijwe mu ngingo ya III y’inyandiko y’ubutumwa yararenze ko uwo mwanzuro nta gaciro wahabwa, Urukiko rurasanga ibyo nta shingiro bifite kuko muri iyo nyandiko itanga ubutumwa, ntacyo bateganyije mu gihe ubukemurampaka burengeje iyo minsi 30 mu guca urubanza, nta naho bateganyije ko icyo gihe icyo cyemezo cy’ubukemurampaka gihita gita agaciro, bityo ibyo bikaba bidakuraho ko icyo cyemezo cyafashwe mu rwego rwa mbere n’urwa nyuma.

RWEMA v. RWANDA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (RDB)

Page 101

74 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [23] Rwemeje ko ikirego cya Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal nta shingiro gifite; [24] Rwemeje ko imikirize y’urubanza RAD0091/12/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru i Kigali idahindutse kuri byose, ikaba igumyeho; [25] Rutegetse Rwema Muhamahoro kwishyura amagarama y‘urubanza.

Page 102

IMANZA ZACIWE MU MIZI

Page 104

URUBANZA RW’UBUTEGETSI

Page 106

UMUJYI WA KIGALI v. KAGABO [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RADA0017/11/CS (Nyirinkwaya, P.J., Kayitesi R. na Hatangimbabazi, J.) 04 Gicurasi 2012] Amategeko agenga imanza z’ubutegetsi – Ibyemezo by’ubuyobozi – Ihame ry’uko icyemezo cy’ubuyobozi kigomba kubahirizwa uko kiri nk’aho gikurikije amategeko, mbere yo kuregerwa kigasuzumwa n’Urukiko (privilège du préalable) – Leta isonewe kubanza kurega kugirango ifate ibyemezo bishyirwa mu bikorwa n’umuturage utabigizemo uruhare. Amategeko agenga imanza z’ubutegetsi – Ibyemezo by’ubuyobozi – Ihame rya “privilege d’execution d’office” cyangwa “Execution forcee” – Ni imbaraga umuyobozi wo mu rwego rwa Leta akoresha, bigatuma icyemezo afashe wenyine giha uburenganzira cyangwa inshingano ku bandi bantu – Iryo hame rivuze ko ubuyobozi bushobora gukoresha ingufu za Leta kugirango icyemezo bufashe gishyirwe mu bikorwa ariko ubwo burenganzira bw’ubuyobozi bwo kwifashisha ingufu za Leta mu kurengera inyungu rusange iyo bubangamiye inyungu z’umuntu ku giti cye bugomba kwemezwa n’icyemezo cy’Urukiko gishingiye ku mpamvu eshatu, kuba hari itegeko ribiteganya, iyo nta bundi buryo bwo kurengera inyungu rusange n’iyo hari impamvu yihutirwa ituma icyemezo cy’ubuyobozi gishyirwa mu bikorwa cyangwa imwe muri izi – Iyo ubuyobozi bukoresheje ingufu za leta (recours à l’éxécution forcée) kandi nta n’imwe muri izo mpamvu ihari, cyangwa umuntu atanze kubahiriza ibyemezo byabwo, ubuyobozi buba bukoze ikosa bugomba kwirengera. 79

Page 107

80 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Incamake y’ikibazo: Imodoka ya Kagabo MERCEDES Benz RAB196D yafashwe na police ku mabwiriza y’Umujyi wa Kigali kuko yangije imikindo ibiri igihe yakoraga impanuka bamusaba ko yakwishyura 2.000.000Frw. Nyuma yo gusaba ko imodoka ye yarekurwa ariko ntabyemerwe yareze Umujyi wa Kigali mu Rukiko Rukuru asaba ko yahabwa indishyi zinyuranye kubera ifatira ry’imodoka ye agasubizwa n’imodoka ye. Urwo Rukiko rwemeje ko Umujyi wa Kigali umuha indishyi zitandukanye kandi rutegeka ko imodoka na carte jaune bisubizwa nyirabyo. Urwo rukiko rwashingiye ko icyemezo cyafashwe n’Umujyi wa Kigali cyo gufatira imodoka MERCEDES Benz RAB196D, kugeza igihe Kagabo Achille yishyuriye 2.000.000Frw, cyashingiwe ku mabwiriza rusange akubiye mu gitabo cyo mu gushyingo 2004 cyitwa “igitabo cy’ibihano by’amwe mu makosa arangwa mu mujyi wa Kigali”, atagira uwayashyizeho umukono, ataje gushyira mu bikorwa itegeko ry’ibidukikije kuko ryasohotse nyuma yayo, kandi ayo mabwiriza akaba anyuranye n’amategeko yagombye kuyaha agaciro, akaba ataranyuze mu nzira agomba kunyuramo kugira ngo agire ireme yubahirizwe. Byongeye icyo cyemezo cyaje kiremereye ukurikije ikosa cyahanaga ryakorwa na buri wese ushobotse kuko gihana kuba umukindo warangijwe n’impanuka kandi ntawe uyikururira. Umujyi wa Kigali wajuriye mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga uvuga ko hari ihame y’uko ibyemezo by’Ubuyobozi byubahirizwa uko biri (privilège du préalable et d’éxécution forcée) bikaregerwa nyuma bityo Kagabo yagombaga kuba yarabanje kwishyura imikindo yangije hashingiwe ku cyemezo cy’Umujyi wa Kigali, akabona kujya kuregera inkiko. Unavuga ko n’ubwo ayo mahame ataburanishijweho, Urukiko rwari kwibwiriza

Page 108

81 UMUJYI WA KIGALI v. KAGABO

rukayashingiraho kuko ruzi amategeko, naho ku byerekeye indishyi uvuga ko indishyi zaciwe Kagabo nta kibazo zifite kuko zishingiye ku mabwiriza ya RURA. Ku bijyanye n’indishyi zingana na 25.000Frw ku munsi Urukiko rwageneye Kagabo Umujyi wa Kigali uvuga ko ari nyinshi, kubera ko igihe imodoka ye imaze ifatiriwe kitazwi. Kagabo we yiregura avuga ko amahame cyangwa icyo bita “principes doctrinaires”, bidashobora kwifashishwa mu gihe hari amategeko. Bityo ibyo Umujyi wa Kigali wakoze byo kumutegeka kwishyura imikindo yangiritse, aho wakwishyuje umwishingizi we “Phoenix insurance S.A”, binyuranyije n’amategeko y’ubwishingizi, kuko uwangirijwe agomba gukurikirana umwishingizi aho gukurikirana uwishingiwe. Naho ku byerekeye indishyi avuga ko we asanga Urukiko rwarazigennye mu bushishozi bwarwo kuko yari yasabye nyishi ariko rumugenera izo. Yatanze n’ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi asaba ko yagenerwa 30.000Frw x 354(jrs) yakodesheje indi modoka kuva aho urubanza rwo mu Rukiko Rukuru rubereye, igihembo cya Avocat n’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza byiyongera ku yo yari yagenewe mu rukiko rubanza, agasoza asaba Urukiko ko rwashyiraho igihano gihatira Umujyi wa Kigali (astreinte) kwishyura vuba. Ku bijyanye n’ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi Umujyi wa Kigali uvuga ko gukodesha indi modoka ariwe wabyiteye kuko iyo ashyira mu bikorwa icyemezo cy’Umujyi wa Kigali, aba yarahise asubizwa imodoka ye, naho ku bijyanye n’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avocat, avuga ko niba ahagarariwe mu rubanza atagomba kwaka amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza, ko ahubwo yasaba igihembo cya avoka. Kubirebana n’igihano kiwuhatira kwishyura, Umujyi wa Kigali uvuga ko ufite amafaranga, ko uramutse utsinzwe ufite

Page 109

82 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ubushobozi bwo kwishyura, akaba ari nta mpamvu yo gushyiraho igihano kiwuhatira kwishyura. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Ibyemezo by’ubuyobozi bigomba kubahirizwa uko biri nk’aho bikurikije amategeko, mbere yo kuregerwa bigasuzumwa n’Urukiko (privilège du préalable) kandi Leta isonewe kubanza kurega kugirango ifate ibyemezo bishyirwa mu bikorwa n’umuturage utabigizemo uruhare.

2. Iryo hame rivuze ko ubuyobozi bushobora gukoresha ingufu za Leta kugirango icyemezo bufashe gishyirwe mu bikorwa ariko ubwo burenganzira bw’ubuyobozi bwo kwifashisha ingufu za Leta mu kurengera inyungu rusange iyo bubangamiye inyungu z’umuntu ku giti cye bugomba kwemezwa n’icyemezo cy’Urukiko gishingiye ku mpamvu eshatu, kuba hari itegeko ribiteganya, iyo nta bundi buryo bwo kurengera inyungu rusange n’iyo hari impamvu yihutirwa ituma icyemezo cy’ubuyobozi gishyirwa mu bikorwa cyangwa imwe muri izi ariko iyo ubuyobozi bukoresheje ingufu za leta (recours à l’éxécution forcée) kandi nta n’imwe muri izo mpamvu ihari, cyangwa umuntu atanze kubahiriza ibyemezo byabwo, ubuyobozi buba bukoze ikosa bugomba kwirengera.

3. Icyemezo cyo gufatira imodoka no gutegeka ko habanza kwishyurwa ihazabu ni icyemezo cy’ubuyobozi bw’Umujyi wa Kigali arikokibangamiye inyungu z’umuntu ku giti cye, kuko a gishingiye ku mabwiriza atubahirije imihango n’inzira zisabwa kugirango agire agaciro, nko kuba atagira uwayasinyeho, ntabe yaratangajwe mu igazeti ya Leta, kandi ashyirwaho nta tegeko ashingiyeho aje gushyira mu bikorwa, bityo amabwiriza y’Umujyi wa Kigali n’ibyemezo biyakubiyemo, harimo n’icyerekeye ibihano ku wangije ibiti binyuranyije n’amategeko

Page 110

83 bisobanuye ko ifatira ry’imodoka ya Kagabo rishingiye kuri ayo mabwiriza naryo rinyuranyije n’amategeko.

4. Nta nyungu itaziguye (intérêt immediat) cyangwa impamvu yihutirwa yatuma Police igomba gufatira imodoka y’umuntu ikamuvutsa uburenganzira bwo kuyigendamo kandi ifite ibiyiranga, nawe afite aho abarizwa, kuko amande atishyuwe ako kanya, nta kintu byari byangirije.

5. Impamvu y’ubujurire bw’Umujyi wa Kigali y’uko Urukiko Rukuru rwari kwibwiriza rugashingira ku mahame, si ikirego gishya, kuko ayo mahame mu busanzwe azwi kandi ziteganyijwe kandi muri izo mpamvu nta n’imwe ayo mahame yujuje. Bityo Indishyi mbonezamusaruro zingana na 25.000Frw ku munsi, nk’uko zemejwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, zikaba zikomeza kubarwa kugeza uyu munsi urubanza ruciwe muri uru Rukiko.

6. Indishyi mbonezamusaruro Kagabo yanewe zifite ishingiro kubera ikosa ry’Umujyi wa Kigali ryo gufatira imodoka ye nta tegeko bishingiyeho kandi hari ubundi buryo bwashobokaga ngo imikindo yishyurwe.

7. Nta kimenyetso kigaragaza ko imodoka ya Kagabo yagurishijwe bityo amafaranga y’ubukode bw’indi modoka asaba akaba ntaho Urukiko rwashingira ruyamugenera.

8. Amafaranga y’ikurikirana rubanza n’igihembo cya avoka yagenwe n’urukiko rubanza agumyeho ariko mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko akagenerwa andi mu rwego rw’ubujurire.

9. Mu gihe nta kimenyetso Kagabo atanga kigaragaza ko Umujyi wa Kigali wagurishije iyo modoka Umujyi wa Kigali ntiwacibwa igihano kiwuhatira kwishyura “astreinte” kuko ntacyabuza ko Kagabo asubizwa imodoka ye. UMUJYI WA KIGALI v. KAGABO

Page 111

84 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Ubujurire nta shingiro bufite; Ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe; Amagarama y’urubanza aherereye ku Mujyi wa Kigali. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko N°18/2004 ryo ku wa 20/6/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 346. Itegeko –Teka N°20/75 ryo kuwa 20 Kamena 1975 rigena ubwishingire, ingingo 37. Ibitekerezo bya bahanga: J. Rivero et J. Waline, Droit administratif, Paris, Dalloz, 20édition, p.334. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Imodoka y’uwitwa Kagabo Achille MERCEDES Benz RAB 196 D ifite ubwishingizi muri “Phoenix of Rwanda Assurance S.A” yakoze impanuka yangiza imikindo ibiri n’icyapa cya “Hardware unique”, ifatwa ako kanya n’ishami rya Polisi hakurikijwe amabwiriza y’Umujyi wa Kigali. Kagabo yasabye ko iyo modoka yarekurwa ntiyabyemererwa, kuko ayo mabwiriza ateganya ko imodoka zangije igiti zigomba gufatwa. [2] Kagabo yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rukuru, asaba gusubizwa imodoka ye na carte jaune, n’uko Umujyi wa Kigali wamuha indishyi zinyuranye kubera ifatira ry’imodoka ye. Mu

Page 112

85

rubanza RAD0008/10/HC/KIG rwaciwe kuwa 19/04/2011, Urukiko rwemeza ko iyo modoka irekurwa na carte jaune bigahita bisubizwa nyirabyo, Kagabo Achille, rutegeka Umujyi wa Kigali kumuha 25.000Frw ku munsi kuva imodoka yafatirwa kugeza urubanza rusomwe, ni ukuvuga 6.475.000Frw, no kumuha indishyi z’akababaro n’ayikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’avoka, yose hamwe aba 7.475.000Frw. [3] Impamvu Urukiko rwashingiyeho, ni uko icyemezo cyafashwe n’Umujyi wa Kigali cyo gufatira imodoka MERCEDES Benz RAB 196 D, kugeza igihe Kagabo Achille yishyuriye 2.000.000Frw, cyashingiwe ku mabwiriza rusange akubiye mu gitabo cyo mu Ugushyingo 2004 cyitwa “igitabo cy’ibihano by’amwe mu makosa arangwa mu mujyi wa Kigali”, atagira uwayashyizeho umukono, ataje gushyira mu bikorwa itegeko ry’ibidukikije kuko ryasohotse nyuma yayo, kandi ayo mabwiriza akaba anyuranye n’amategeko yagombye kuyaha agaciro, akaba ataranyuze mu nzira agomba kunyuramo kugira ngo agire ireme yubahirizwe. Byongeye icyo cyemezo cyaje kiremereye ukurikije ikosa cyahanaga ryakorwa na buri wese ushobotse kuko gihana kuba umukindo warangijwe n’impanuka kandi ntawe uyikururira. [4] Umujyi wa Kigali wajuririye mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga uvuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwirengagije ko Kagabo yagombaga kubahiriza icyemezo cy’ubuyobozi akishyura ibyangijwe, nyuma akabona kuregera inkiko, n’uko yagenewe indishyi zidafite ishingiro. Umucamanza w’ibanzirizasuzuma yafashe icyemezo kuri ubwo bujurire yemeza ko bwakozwe mu buryo n’inzira bikurikije amategeko. [5] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame kuwa 28/02/2012, Umujyi wa Kigali uhagarariwe n’intumwa ya Leta UMUJYI WA KIGALI v. KAGABO

Page 113

86 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Me Sebazungu Alphonse, naho Kagabo Achille ahagarariwe na Me Nkundabarashi Moise. II. ISESENGURA RY’IBIBAZO BIGIZE

URUBANZA Kumenya niba Kagabo Achille yaragombaga kubanza kubahiriza icyemezo cy’Umujyi wa Kigali, akishyura imikindo yangijwe, nyuma akabona gutanga ikirego mu Rukiko. [6] Uburanira Umujyi wa Kigali avuga ko n’ubwo icyemezo cy’Umujyi wa Kigali cyari kuba kidakurikije amategeko, Kagabo yagombaga kubahiriza amahame y’uko ibyemezo by’Ubuyobozi byubahirizwa uko biri (privilège du préalable et d’éxécution forcée), bigashobora kuregerwa nyuma, maze akaba yarishyuye imikindo yangije hashingiwe ku cyemezo cy’Umujyi wa Kigali, akabona kujya kuregera inkiko. Avuga ko n’ubwo ayo mahame ataburanishijweho, Urukiko rwari kwibwiriza rukayashingiraho kuko ruzi amategeko, rukemeza ko Kagabo atubahirije icyemezo cy’Umujyi wa Kigali nk’uko kigaragara mu mabwiriza yawo yo muri 2004, bityo ntirunamugenere indishyi. [7] Uburanira Kagabo avuga ko iyo ngingo irebana n’uko hari amahame atubahirijwe itakwakirwa kuko “principes doctrinaires”, zidashobora kwifashishwa mu gihe amategeko ahari. Asobanura ko ibyo Umujyi wa Kigali wakoze byo gutegeka Kagabo kwishyura imikindo yangiritse, aho wakwishyuje umwishingizi we “Phoenix insurance S.A”, binyuranyije n’amategeko y’ubwishingizi, kuko uwangirijwe

Page 114

87 agomba gukurikirana umwishingizi aho gukurikirana uwishingiwe. [8] Ku byerekeye amahame y’uko ibyemezo by’Ubuyobozi byubahirizwa uko biri, nyuma byaba bidakurikije amategeko bigashobora kuregerwa (Privilège du préalable et privilège d’éxécution d’office), n’ubwo amategeko y’u Rwanda ntacyo ayavugaho, aya mahame arazwi nk’uburyo bwemewe butuma ibyemezo by’ubuyobozi byubahirizwa uko biri, kuko biba bigamije kurengera inyungu rusange. [9] Abahanga mu mategeko basobanura mu nyandiko zabo ko “privilège du préalable” ari ihame ry’uko icyemezo cy’ubuyobozi kigomba kubahirizwa uko kiri nk’aho gikurikije amategeko, mbere yo kuregerwa kigasuzumwa n’Urukiko (La decision exécutoire bénéficie, avant toute vérification par le juge, d’une présomption de conformité au droit)1. André de Laubadère avuga ko icyo iryo hame risobanuye mu magambo make, ni uko Leta isonewe kubanza kurega kugirango ifate ibyemezo bishyirwa mu bikorwa n’umuturage utabigizemo uruhare (L’administration se trouve dispensée, pour réaliser ses droits, de s’adresser prèalablement à un juge; si l’administré conteste les prétentions de l’administration, c’est lui qui devra saisir le juge). [10] Naho “privilège d’exécution d’office ou “Execution forcée” ni uburyo (contrainte) umuyobozi wo mu rwego rwa Leta akoresha, bigatuma icyemezo afashe wenyine giha uburenganzira cyangwa inshingano ku bandi bantu (acte juridique accompli unilatéralement par une autorité publique administrative et créant pour les tiers des droits ou des

1 Idem, p.354. UMUJYI WA KIGALI v. KAGABO

Page 115

88 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

obligations)2. Iryo hame rivuze ko ubuyobozi bushobora gukoresha ingufu za Leta kugirango icyemezo bufashe gishyirwe mu bikorwa (ce privilège signifie que l’administration peut employer la contrainte contre le particulier réfractaire en recourant à la force publique et sans saisir le juge). [11] Ubwo burenganzira bw’ubuyobozi bwo kwifashisha ingufu za Leta mu kurengera inyungu rusange, ariko bubangamiye inyungu z’umuntu ku giti cye, bukomoka ku cyemezo cy’Urukiko3 cyemeje ko bushoboka ku mpamvu eshatu cyangwa imwe murizo zikurikira: Iyo hari itegeko ribiteganya (une loi qui prévoit expréssement le recours à la force publique pour faire exécuter un acte unilatéral ou éxécution forcée). Iyo nta bundi buryo bwo kurengera inyungu rusange (absence d’autre voie de droit pour sauvegarder l’intérêt général). Iyo hari impamvu yihutirwa ituma icyemezo cy’ubuyobozi gishyirwa mu bikorwa (Exécution forcée en cas d’Urgence, affaire Société immobilière Saint-Just, TC, 1902). [12] Abahanga mu mategeko bavuga na none ko iyo ubuyobozi bukoresheje ingufu za leta (recours à l`éxécution forcée) kandi nta n’imwe muri izo mpamvu ihari, cyangwa umuntu atanze kubahiriza ibyemezo byabwo, ubuyobozi buba bukoze ikosa bugomba kwirengera (Lorsque l’administration

2 J.Rivero et J.Waline, Droit administratif, Paris, Dalloz, 20eme édition, p.334. 3 http://www.luiss.it/erasmuslaw/francia/amm-03.htm; page 1. http://www.lemondepolitique.fr/cours/droit-public/actes-administrat...., 1920.

Page 116

89

procède à une execution forcée en dehors de ces 3 hypothèses ou encore lorsqu’il n’y a pas de résistance, de l’administré, elle commet une faute de nature à engager sa responsabilité4). [13] Ku mpamvu ya 1 y’uko haba hari itegeko riteganya iryo fatira police yaba yarashingiyeho: bigaragara ko icyemezo cyo gufatira imodoka ya Kagabo, no gutegeka ko abanza kwishyura ihazabu ari icyemezo cy’ubuyobozi bw’Umujyi wa Kigali cyashyizwe mu bikorwa na Police, ikibazo akaba ari ukumenya niba hari imwe mu mpamvu zimaze gusobanurwa yatumaga iryo fatira rishoboka, kuko ari icyemezo kibangamiye inyungu z’umuntu ku giti cye. [14] Urukiko rusanga, nk’uko Urukiko Rukuru rwabisobanuye, ayo mabwiriza anyuranyije n’amategeko, kuko atubahirije imihango n’inzira zisabwa kugirango agire agaciro, nko kuba atagira uwayasinyeho, ntabe yaratangajwe mu igazeti ya Leta, ariko cyane cyane, ashyirwaho nta tegeko ashingiyeho aje gushyira mu bikorwa, rikaba ryarashyizweho nyuma, bivuze ko ari impitagihe. Bityo amabwiriza y’Umujyi wa Kigali n’ibyemezo biyakubiyemo, harimo n’icyerekeye ibihano ku wangije ibiti bikaba binyuranyije n’amategeko, bisobanura ko ifatira ry’imodoka ya Kagabo Achille rishingiye kuri ayo mabwiriza rinyuranyije n’amategeko. [15] Ku mpamvu ya 2 yo kuba nta bundi buryo bwo kurengera imikindo ibiri yangijwe, uretse gufatira imodoka ya Kagabo, kugirango abanze yishyure amande y’ibyo biti, Urukiko rusanga hari ubundi buryo bwo kurengera ibyangijwe (inyungu rusange) kuko Kagabo yagaragaje ko imodoka ye ifite

4 http://www.lemondepolitique.fr/cours/droit-public/actes-administrat, page 20. UMUJYI WA KIGALI v. KAGABO

Page 117

90 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ubwishingizi bwa sosiyete “Phoenix Insurance”, Umujyi wa Kigali ukaba warashoboraga guhita ukurikirana umwishingizi we hakurikjwe ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 37 y’Itegeko –Teka N°20/75 ryo kuwa 20 Kamena 1975 rigena ubwishingire ivuga ko “Uwangilijwe ahita arega uwishingiye uburyozwe bw’uwateye ubwo bwangize, ariko agomba kandi kugaragaza ikosa ry’uwo ubwangize bukomokaho. Uwishingiye nta wundi ashobora kwishyura amafaranga yose yishingiye cyangwa igice cyayo, uretse uwangilijwe….”. Umujyi wa Kigali kandi washoraga no kumutegeka kuba yishyuye nko mu gihe runaka, utagombye kumuvutsa uburenganzira bwo gukoresha imodoka, ugereranyije n’ingano y’ihazabu yagombaga gutangwa, ndetse washoboraga kumugenera ikindi gihano. [16] Ku mpamvu ya 3 ishingiye k’ubwihutirwe yari gutuma Police igomba gufatira imodoka y’umuntu ikamuvutsa uburenganzira bwo kuyigendamo kandi ifite ibiyiranga, nawe afite aho abarizwa, urukiko rusanga nta nyungu itaziguye (intérêt immediat) yatumaga Police igomba gufatira imodoka ya Kagabo, ku buryo amande atishyuwe ako kanya, hari icyari kwangirika. [17] Hashingiwe ku mategeko n’ibisobanuro byatanzwe haruguru, Urukiko rusanga kuba Umujyi wa Kigali warajuriye uvuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwari kwibwiriza rugashingira ku mahame, atari ikirego gishya, nk’uko uburanira Kagabo Achille abivuga kuko ayo mahame mu busanzwe azwi kandi akurikizwa mu bijyanye n’ibyemezo by’ubutegetsi, ariko akaba agomba gushingira ku mpamvu zisobanutse zatanzwe haruguru. Uru Rukiko rukaba rusanga muri izo mpamvu nta n’imwe ayo mahame yujujuje, kugirango rube rwayashingiraho.

Page 118

91

Ishingiro ry’indishyi mbonezamusaruro n’ingano yazo. [18] Uburanira Umujyi wa Kigali avuga ko kuba haragenywe indishyi hashingiwe ku mabwiriza ya RURA nta kosa ririmo, ko ariko indishyi zingana na 25.000Frw ku munsi Urukiko rwagennye ari nyinshi, kubera ko igihe imodoka ya Kagabo Achille imaze kitazwi, ko ishobora kuba yari ishaje ku buryo itashoboraga gukora buri munsi, cyane ko itari imodoka ikoreshwa mu bucuruzi, ahubwo yari imodoka yatemberagamo, ikaba yagombye kubarirwa 20.000Frw ku munsi, mu minsi 20 mu kwezi kuko itagombaga kuba ikoreshwa mu gihe cy’ikiruhuko (samedi, dimanche, congé éventuel, ko n`indishyi zari kuba 6.800.000Frw. [19] Uburanira Kagabo avuga ko n`ubwo mu Rukiko rubanza yari yasabye indishyi zingana na 89.000Frw ku munsi, Urukiko rukamugenera 25.000Frw ku munsi, asanga rwarashyize mu gaciro, ko ibyo bishingiye ku bushishozi bw’Urukiko, nta kosa abibonamo. [20] Ku bijyanye n’ishingiro ry’indishyi zatanzwe, hashingiwe ku byasobanuwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga indishyi mbonezamusaruro Kagabo yagenewe zifite ishingiro kubera ikosa ry’Umujyi wa Kigali ryo gufatira imodoka ye nta tegeko bishingiyeho, hari ubundi buryo bwashobokaga ngo imikindo yishyurwe cyangwa se Kagabo agenerwe ikindi gihano, nta n`impamvu y’ubwihutirwe bw`icyemezo nk’icyamufatiwe, Kagabo ntavutswe uburenganzira bwe ku modoka igihe kirekire byitwa ko ariwe wagombaga kwishyura ibyangijwe kandi imodoka ifite ubwishingizi. Naho ku bijyanye n’ingano y’izo ndishyi, uru Rukiko rusanga izagenwe n’Urukiko Rukuru zingana na 25.000Frw ku munsi zikwiye harebwe uko imodoka zikodeshwa mu mujyi wa Kigali, UMUJYI WA KIGALI v. KAGABO

Page 119

92 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

hatitawe ku cyo imodoka yakoraga cyangwa umubare w’iminsi yakoraga mu cyumweru kuko ari uburenganzira bw’umuntu bwo gukoresha imodoka ye mu minsi yose harimo n’iy’ikiruhuko, hakaba nta kigaragaza ko yari ishaje cyangwa irwaye ku buryo yagombaga kumara iminsi ihagaze, bityo ubujurire bw’Umujyi wa Kigali kuri iyo ngingo bukaba nta shingiro bufite. Ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwatanzwe na Kagabo Achille. [21] Uburanira Kagabo Achille avuga ko kuva aho urubanza rwo mu Rukiko Rukuru rubereye, imodoka yaje gutezwa cyamunara n’Umujyi wa Kigali, ko abonye ko kuzongera kuyisubizwa bizagorana, Kagabo yahise akodesha indi modoka atangaho 30.000Frw ku munsi. Avuga rero ko ayo masezerano y’ubukode yakozwe kuva kuwa 10/04/2011, bityo ngo akaba asaba 30.000Frw x 354(jrs) = 10.620.000Frw. [22] Avuga kandi ko mu Rukiko Rukuru Kagabo achille yari yasabye 2.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avocat, na 2.000.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza, Urukiko Rukuru rukamugenera 1.000.000Frw gusa, ubu akaba asaba 1.000.000Frw y’ikurikirana rubanza mu bujurire, 1.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka w’urubanza rwa mbere na 1.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka mu bujurire. [23] Ku bijyanye n’uko Kagabo yakodesheje imodoka, uburanira Umujyi wa Kigali avuga ko Kagabo ari we wabyiteye kuko iyo ashyira mu bikorwa icyemezo cy’Umujyi wa Kigali, aba yarahise asubizwa imodoka ye; naho ku bijyanye n’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya avocat, avuga ko niba

Page 120

93

Kagabo ahagarariwe mu rubanza atagomba kwaka amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza, ko ahubwo yasaba igihembo cya avoka. [24] Uru rukiko rusanga iby’uko imodoka ye yagurishijwe nta kimenyetso abitangira, bityo amafaranga y’ubukode bw’indi modoka asaba akaba ntaho Urukiko rwashingira ruyamugenera. [25] Urukiko rusanga ariko indishyi mbonezamusaruro zingana na 25.000Frw ku munsi, nk’uko zemejwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, zikomeza kubarwa kugeza uyu munsi urubanza ruciwe muri uru Rukiko. Ni ukuvuga ko guhera igihe urubanza ruciriwe n’Urukiko Rukuru kuwa 19/4/2011 kugeza kuwa 04/05/2012, umunsi rusomwe muri uru Rukiko, harimo iminsi 375 Kagabo Achille agomba kubarirwa indishyi mbonezamusaruro zingana na 25.000Frw x 375 = 9.375.000Frw. [26] Ku bijyanye n’ikurikirana rubanza n’igihembo cya avoka, Urukiko rurasanga ayo Urukiko Rukuru rwari rwageneye Kagabo Achille akwiye, akaba gusa mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko yagenerwa ay’igihembo cy’avoka n`ikurikiranarubanza mu bujurire angana na 500.000Frw. [27] Urukiko rusanga amafaranga Kagabo Achille agomba kwishyurwaa ari aya akurikira: 6.475.000Frw y’indishyi mbonezamusaruro, na 1.000.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka yari yagenewe n’Urukiko Rukuru, hakiyongeraho nanone 9.375.000Frw nk’uko yagaragajwe haruguru, hakiyongeraho 500.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’avoka yagenwe n’uru Rukiko, yose hamwe akaba angana na 17.375.000Frw.

UMUJYI WA KIGALI v. KAGABO

Page 121

94 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Igihano gihatira Umujyi wa Kigali kwishyura [28] Uburanira Kagabo Achille avuga ko, kuba imodoka yaragurishijwe, bigaragara ko bizagorana kuyisubiza, bityo akaba asaba urukiko ko rwashyiraho igihano gihatira Umujyi wa Kigali (astreinte) kwishyura vuba. [29] Uburanira Umujyi wa Kigali, avuga ko iyo modoka itagurishijwe, ngo kuko ihari, akemeza ko Umujyi wa Kigali ufite amafaranga, ko uramutse utsinzwe ufite ubushobozi bwo kwishyura. nta mpamvu yo gushyiraho igihano kiwuhatira kwishyura. [30] Ingingo ya 346 y’Itegeko N°18/2004 ryo ku wa 20/6/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu ivuga ko “Iyo urukiko rufashe icyemezo mu manza z’ubutegetsi, rushobora gutegeka ubutegetsi gukora icyo rwemeje cyangwa kudakora icyo rubujije kandi rugateganya igihano cyubahirizwa guhera ku itariki rugena mu gihe icyo rwemeje cyaba kidakurikijwe”. [31] Urukiko rusanga mu gihe nta kimenyetso Kagabo atanga kigaragaza ko Umujyi wa Kigali wagurishije imodoka ivugwa muri uru rubanza, ntaho rwahera rutegeka “astreinte”, kuko ntacyabuza ko Kagabo asubizwa imodoka ye, bityo igihano kiwuhatira kwishyura gisabirwa Kagabo, kikaba nta shingiro gifite.

Page 122

95

III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [32] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwatanzwe n’umujyi wa Kigali nta shingiro bufite. [33] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwatanzwe na Kagabo Achille bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe. [34] Rwemeje ko indishyi mbonezamusaruro zingana na 25.000Frw nkuko zemejwe n`Urukiko Rukuru zikomeza kubarwa kugeza umunsi uru rubanza rusomeweho muri uru Rukiko. [35] Ruvuze ko urubanza No R.AD.0008/10/HCLKig rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru kuwa 19/04/2011 ruhindutse ku birebana n’indishyi mbonezamusaruro, amafaranga y`ikurikiranarubanza n`igihembo cy`avoka. [36] Rutegetse Umujyi wa Kigali kwishyura Kagabo Achille indishyi mbonezamusaruro, amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’avoka, yose hamwe angana na 17.375.000 nk’uko byasobanuwe. [37] Rutegetse Umujyi wa Kigali gutanga amagarama y’urubanza angana na 45.600Frw.

UMUJYI WA KIGALI v. KAGABO

Page 124

URUBANZA RW’UBUCURUZI

Page 126

99

YARI CORNACCHIA v. NSANAWE [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RCOMA0053/15/CS (Mutashya, P.J., Karimunda na Gakwaya, J.) 26 Gashyantare 2016] Amategeko agenga amasezerano – Ibyemeranyijwe mu masezerano n’ibyemeranyijwe n’impande zombi mu bukemurampaka – Iyakirwa ry’ikirego cyabanje mu bukempurampaka – Icyo impande zombi zemeranyijwe ko kiburanwa mu bukemurampaka ntigishobora kuregerwa hasabwa ko gihinduka mu Rukiko – Iteka rya Minisitiri Nº16/012 ryo kuwa 15/05/2012 rishyiraho amabwiriza y’ubukemurampaka y’Ikigo Mpuzamahanga cy’Ubukemurampaka cya Kigali, ingingo ya 29. Amategeko agenga ubukemurampaka – Igihe cyo gusoma icyemezo cy’Urukiko Nkemurampaka – Agaciro k‘icyemezo cy’Urukiko Nkemurampaka cyasomwe nyuma y’igihe impande zombi zumvikanyeho – Gusomwa kw’icyemezo cy’Urukiko Nkemurampaka nyuma y’igihe impande zombi zumvikanyeho mu masezerano si impamvu yatuma giteshwa agaciro – Itegeko N°005/2008 ryo kuwa 14/02/2008 ryerekeye ubukemurampaka n’ubwunzi, ingingo ya 47. Incamake y’ikibazo: Sosiyete Papyrus Bakery Café Ltd y’uwitwa Nsanawe Serge Ndekwe yagurishije imigabane yayo ingana na 50% ku giciro cya 100.000 Euros, iyigurisha uwitwa

YARI CORNACCHIA. Bakoranye amasezerano bayita convention d’actionnariat bumvikana ko ibibazo byayavukamo bizakemurwa n‘inkiko, ariko nyuma yaho Nsanawe avuga ko

Page 127

100 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

yishyuwe gusa 60.000 Euros gusa aho kumwishyura 100.000 Euros. YARI CORNACCHIA yasabye Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge kongera kugura imigabane yari yarangije kwishyura ihwanye na 60.000 Euros nyuma yo kunanirwa kwishyura 40.000 Euros yari asigaye. Nsanawe yarabyemeye, bakora andi masezerano bayita convention de cession d’actions bumvikana ko ibibazo bishobora kuvuka muri aya masezerano bizakemurwa n’n’Urukiko Nkemurampaka. Haje kuvuka impaka kubyerekeye kurangiza amasezerano, YARI CORNACCHIA arega Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge mu kigo Mpuzamahanga cy’Ubukemurampaka cya Kigali, cyemeza ko NSANAWE Ndekwe Serge yavuye mu masezerano ya convention d‘actionnariat ariko ko aya convention cession d’action agomba kubahirizwa. Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge ntiyabyishimiye ajurira mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi asaba ko icyo cyemezo cy‘ubukemurampaka kivanwaho, avuga ko Ikigo Mpuzamahanga cy’Ubukemurampaka cya Kigali cyasuzumye ikibazo kidafitiye ububasha kuko nta ngingo iteganya ubukemurampaka mu masezerano ya convention d’actionnariat. Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko nta bubasha ubukemurampaka bwari bufite, rwemeza kandi ko icyo cyemezo kivuyeho. YARI CORNACCHIA yajuririye icyo cyemezo mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko ikibazo cyashyikirijwe ubukemurampaka cyarebanaga na mise en exécution ou défaut d’exécution y’ibyari byemeranyijwe mu masezerano ya cession d’actions avuga ko ari nayo yateganyaga ubukemurampaka. Yakomeje avuga ko mu masezerano ya mbere yiswe convention d’actionnariat yateganyaga ko havutse ikibazo cyashyikirizwa Inkiko, ko ariko amasezerano ya kabiri yiswe aya convention de

Page 128

101 YARI CORNACCHIA v. NSANAWE

cession d’actions yateganyaga ko hiyambazwa Ikigo Mpuzamahanga cy’Ubukemurampaka cya Kigali mu gihe habayeho kutumvikana ndetse ibibazo byagaragaraga muri contrat de cession d‘actions akaba ari nabyo biri muri acte de mission. Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge yisobanura avuga ko

YARI CORNACCHIA yareze mu Bukemurampaka asaba iseswa ry’amasezerano ya convention d’actionnariat kandi ayo masezerano yarateganyaga ko Inkiko ari zo zifite ububasha bwo gukemura ibibazo bishobora kuvuka. Anavuga ko nta hagaragara ko YARI CORNACCHIA yaregeye amasezerano ya cession d’actions bityo Ikigo Mpuzamahanga cy’Ubukemurampaka cya Kigali kikaba kitari kugira icyo gisuzuma ku masezerano ya convention d’actionnariat kandi itabifitiye ububasha. Mu bujurire bwuririye ku bundi, Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge avuga ko imihango y’iburanisha itubahirijwe ku bijyanye n’iminsi ntarengwa yo kubona icyemezo cy’urukiko asaba ko gikurwaho anasaba indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’iz’igihembo cy‘Avoka. YARI CORNACCHIA yasubije avuga ko gutinda kubona icyo cyemezo bitagikuraho, kandi ko n’indishyi asaba zidafite aho zishingiye. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. N’ubwo ikirego cyatanzwe mu Bukemurampaka cyarebanaga n‘amasezerano ya convention d’actionariat, bigararaga ko mu iburanisha hagiwe impaka ku mitangire y‘ikirego aho impande zombi zemeranyijwe ko gishingiye ku masezerano ya cession d‘action kandi muri ayo masezerano hari hateganyijwe ko ikibazo kizavuka kizakemurwa n‘Ubukemurampaka. Bityo icyo impande zombi

Page 129

102 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

zemeranyijwe nk’iburanwa mu bukemurampaka ntigishobora kuregerwa hasabwa ko gihinduka mu rukiko.

2. Icyemezo cy’ubukemurampaka gisomwa mu gihe cyemeranyijweho kuva aho urukiko nkemurampaka rupfundikiye iburanisha. Iyo iyi minsi irenze icyo cyemezo kitarasomwa, nti biba impamvu yo kugitesha agaciro. Ikirego gifite ishingiro. Ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi nta shingiro bufite. Urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ruhindutse mu ngingo zarwo zose rukaba runavanyweho. Amagarama y’urubanza aherereye kuwarezwe. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko N°005/2008 ryo kuwa 14/02/2008 ryerekeye ubukemurampaka n’ubwunzi mu bibazo by’ubucuruzi, ingingo ya 47. Iteka rya Minisitiri Nº16/012 ryo kuwa 15/05/2012 rishyiraho amabwiriza y’ubukemurampaka y’Ikigo Mpuzamahanga cy’Ubukemurampaka cya Kigali, ingingo ya 29. Nta manza zifashishijwe.

Page 130

103

Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA. [1] Mu ntangiriro z’umwaka wa 2012, Bwana YARI CORNACCHIA yaguze imigabane muri Sosiyete Papirus Bakery Café Ltd yari ifite umunyamigabane umwe ariwe Bwana Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge, agura 50% y’imigabane. (Imigabane yose ikaba ihwanye na 100.000 Euros), ayo masezerano yitwa convention d’actionnariat ashyirwaho umukono kuwa 20/7/2012. Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge avuga ko YARI CORNACCHIA atigeze yubahiriza amasezerano kuko yishyuye 60.000 Euros gusa. [2] YARI CORNACCHIA ntiyabashije kwishyura ayo yandi yari asigaye 40.000 Euros, aza gusaba Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge nk’umuntu washinze iyo Sosiyete, kugura imigabane ye ihwanye na 60.000 Euros yatanze. Akaba ari bwo haje gukorwa amasezerano kuwa 22/7/2013 yiswe contrat de cession d’actions yateganyaga ko Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge aguze imigabane ya YARI CORNACCHIA ingana na 54.000.000Frw (60.000 Euros), akazajya yishyura 1.500.000Frw buri kwezi mu gihe cy’amezi 35. Aho rero niho haje kuvuka impaka ku byerekeye kurangiza amasezerano, nibwo

YARI CORNACCHIA yiyambaje Kigali International Arbitration (KIAC), nayo iza gufata icyemezo Nº2013-2014/017 cyo kuwa 06/03/2015 ko Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge yavuye mu masezerano ya actionnariat, ko ayo masezerano ya cession d’actions agomba kubahirizwa, uwo mwanzuro w’Ubukemurampaka ntiwigeze unyura Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge. YARI CORNACCHIA v. NSANAWE

Page 131

104 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[3] Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge yajuririye icyo cyemezo mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, asaba ivanwaho ryacyo. [4] Mu mpamvu z’ingenzi yashingiragaho ubujurire bwe, ni uko nta ngingo iteganya Ubukemurampaka mu masezerano ya convention d’actionnariat bagiranye hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 47, igika cya 1 agace ka c na d y’Itegeko ryerekeye ubukemurampaka, ko rero Ikigo Mpuzamahanga cy’Ubukemurampaka cya Kigali yasuzumye ikibazo idafitiye ububasha. [5] Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwaciye urubanza kuwa 9/7/2015 rwemeza ko umukemurampaka atari afite ububasha bwo gukemura ikibazo cya YARI CORNACCHIA na Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge, rwemeza ko icyemezo cy’umukemurampaka cyo ku wa 6/3/2015 n’ikigisobanura cyo ku wa 17/4/2015 bivuyeho. [6] YARI CORNACCHIA uhagarariwe na Me Rukangira Emmanuel yajuririye icyo cyemezo mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, avuga ko ikibazo cyashyikirijwe ubukemurampaka ari ikibazo kirebana na mise en exécution ou défaut d’exécution y’ibyari byemeranyijwe mu masezerano ya contrat de cession d’actions ari nayo yateganyaga ubukemurampaka. [7] Me Kiloha Olivier na Me Umupfasoni Blandine mu mwanzuro wabo, batanze inzitizi ko Urukiko rw‘Ikirenga rudafite ububasha bwo kuburanisha ubujurire bwa YARI CORNACCHIA kuko butujuje ibivugwa mu ngingo ya 28, igika cya kabiri y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere, n‘ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. Me Rukangira Emmanuel akavuga ko iyo nzitizi yabo nta shingiro ifite.

Page 132

105 [8] Iyo nzitizi Urukiko rwayitesheje agaciro kuwa 04/12/2015, rwemeza ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwaciye urubanza rw’Ubukemurampaka ku rwego rwa mbere, rukaba rugomba gusuzumwa n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku rwego rw’ubujurire mu rwego rwa mbere, bityo uru Rukiko rukaba rufite ububasha, urubanza rukaba rugomba kuburanishwa mu mizi. [9] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu mizi kuwa 26/01/2016,

YARI

CORNACCHIA ahagarariwe na Me Rukangira Emmanuel, naho Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge ahagarariwe na Me Kiloha Olivier na Me Umupfasoni Blandine. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO. Kumenya niba YARI CORNACCHIA yaratanze ikirego mu bukemurampaka ashingiye ku masezerano ya convention d’actionnariat cyangwa niba yaragitanze ashingiye ku masezerano ya cession d’actions. [10] Me Rukangira Emmanuel uburanira

YARI CORNACCHIA avuga ko amasezerano ya mbere ya convention d’actionnariat, yateganyaga ko havutse ikibazo cyashyikirizwa Inkiko za Kigali, ariko aho Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge aguriye imigabane ya

YARI

CORNACCHIA bakagira ibyo bumvikanaho ariko Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge ntabyubahirize, hakozwe andi masezerano ya kabiri ya convention de cession d’actions ateganya ko Nsanawe Serge Ndekwe aguze imigabane ya YARI CORNACCHIA ingana na 54.000.000Frw (60.000 Euros), akazajya yishyura 1.500.000Frw buri kwezi mu gihe cy’amezi 35. YARI CORNACCHIA v. NSANAWE

Page 133

106 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[11] Avuga ko amasezerano ya kabiri ariyo ya convention de cession d’actions Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge yayubahirije igice kuko muri 54.000.000Frw yagombaga kwishyura, yishyuye 8.000.000Frw gusa ubundi aricecekera, ikaba ariyo mpamvu YARI CORNACCHIA ashingiye ku ngingo ya 12 y’ayo masezerano, yaregeye Kigali International Arbitration Center (KIAC) kuko muri iyo ngingo ariho hateganyijwe ko nihavuka ikibazo mu ishyirwa mu bikorwa by’ayo masezerano, haziyambazwa ubukemurampaka. [12] Avuga kandi ko ikindi kigaragaza ko

YARI CORNACCHIA yatanze ikirego mu Bukemurampaka ashingiye ku masezerano ya convention de cession d’actions, ari uko ibibazo biri muri acte de mission yasinyweho n’impande zombi byasabwaga gukemurwa, ari nabyo biri muri convention de cession d’actions kuko icyo yasabaga ari ukwishyurwa amafaranga yasigaye kuri 54.000.000Frw avugwa muri convention de cession d’actions. Yongeraho ko muri acte de mission ntaho umucamanza yigeze avuga ibijyanye na convention d’actionnariat, ndetse ko nta n’ingingo nimwe yo muri ayo masezerano yigeze igibwaho impaka. [13] Me Umupfasoni Blandine avuga ko nkuko ikirego YARI CORNACCHIA yatanze mu Bukemurampaka kibigaragaza, yaregeye iseswa ry’amasezerano ya convention d’actionnariat (constater la dénonciation de la Convention d’actionnariat) kandi ayo masezerano ariyo yateganyaga ko Inkiko arizo zifite ububasha bwo gukemura ibibazo bishobora kuvuka, ko nta nahamwe mu myanzuro ye Me Rukangira Emmanuel yatanze havugwamo ko baregeye cession d’actions. [14] Avuga ko kuba Me Rukangira Emmanuel ashingira ku ngingo ya 12 ya cession d’actions ivuga ko ibibazo byose

Page 134

107 birebana n’amasezerano bizakemurwa na Kigali International Arbitration Center (KIAC) nta gaciro byahabwa, kuko convention d’actionnariat yaregeye na cession d’actions ari amasezerano atandukanye, ko cession d’actions idashingiye kuri convention d’actionnariat nubwo ababuranyi ari bamwe. [15] Me Kiloha Olivier nawe avuga ko ibyo Me Rukangira Emmanuel avuga ko kuba barasubije ku mwanzuro ngo bivuga ko bari bemeye ko haregewe cession d’actions, atari byo kuko bitari kubabuza gukora imyanzuro à titre subsidiaire, ko ibyo bitavuga byanze bikunze ko basubizaga ku masezerano ya cession d’actions atarubahirijwe, avuga ko Kigali International Arbitration Center (KIAC) itari kugira icyo isuzuma ku masezerano ya convention d’actionnariat kandi itabifitiye ububasha, ko ijambo constater la dénonciation de la convention d’actionnariat itandukanye cyane n’ijambo constater la dénonciation de convention de cession d’actions.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [16] Ingingo ya 29 y’Iteka rya Minisitiri Nº16/012 ryo kuwa 15/05/2012 rishyiraho amabwiriza y’ubukemurampaka y’Ikigo Mpuzamahanga cy’Ubukemurampaka cya Kigali, iteganya ko Urukiko rw’Ubukemurampaka rukora rushingiye ku nyandiko cyangwa impande zose zihari kandi rugendeye ku nyandiko rumaze kubona, inyandiko igaragaza ubutumwa ruhawe. Iyo nyandiko iba ikubiyemo ibikurikira: 2° Incamake y’ibirego ndetse n’ibyemezo buri ruhande rushaka ko bifatwa, agaciro mu mafaranga k’ibirego; mu gihe bishoboka, ikigereranyo cy’agaciro mu mafaranga k’ibindi birego ibyo aribyo byose; 4° Uretse iyo urukiko rubona ko bidakwiye, urutonde rw’ibibazo bigomba kwigwaho; 7° N’ibindi byose birebana n’amabwiriza YARI CORNACCHIA v. NSANAWE

Page 135

108 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

y’imiburanishirize akurikizwa, kugaragaza ububasha bwahawe urukiko rw’ubukemurampaka bwo gufata ibyemezo rushyize mu gaciro, iyo ariko biteganijwe. Urukiko rw’ubukemurampaka rushyikiriza Ikigo inyandiko y’ubutumwa yashyizweho umukono n’urukiko ndetse n’impande zose mu gihe kitarenze amezi abiri (2) uhereye ku itariki idosiye yohererejweho. Ikigo gishobora kongera iki gihe bitewe n’isaba ryumvikana ry’urukiko rw’ubukemurampaka cyangwa se ku bwacyo mu gihe kibona ko ari ngombwa kubikora. Mu gihe hari uruhande rwanze kugira uruhare mu gutegura inyandiko y’ubutumwa cyangwa rwanze kuyishyiraho umukono, inyandiko y’ubutumwa ishyikirizwa ikigo kikayemeza. Iyo inyandiko y’ubutumwa imaze gushyirwaho umukono cyangwa yemejwe n’Ikigo, ubukemurampaka niho bushobora gukomeza. Iyo Inyandiko y’ubutumwa imaze gushyirwaho umukono cyangwa kwemezwa, nta ruhande rushobora gutanga ibirego bishya bitari mu nyandiko y’ubutumwa keretse rubyemerewe n’urukiko rw’ubukemurampaka rushingiye ku miterere y’ibyo birego, rurebye aho ubukemurampaka bugeze n’ibindi byashingirwaho. [17] Urukiko rurasanga mu Bukemurampaka,

YARI CORNACCHIA yaratanze ikirego giteye gitya: “Constater la dénonciation de la Convention d’Actionnariat par le défendeur et par conséquent ordonner la restitution des sommes versées au défendeur et non remboursées à cette date équivalentes à 46.000.000Frw”.

Page 136

109

[18] Urukiko rurasanga mu iburanisha mu Rukiko Nkemurampaka, ababuranyi nyuma yo kujya impaka ku mitangire y’ikirego, baremeranyije ko ikiburanwa ari amasezerano ya cession d’actions, ndetse banatanga n’imyanzuro mishya nkuko bigaragara mu gika cya 55 na 56 by’urubanza nkemurampaka, Urukiko rukaba ariho rwahereye rukomeza urubanza kuko muri ayo masezerano ariho hateganyijwe ko ibibazo bizavuka bizakemurwa na Kigali International Arbitration Center (KIAC). [19] Urukiko rurasanga icyaburanishijwe kandi ababuranyi bamaze kubyumvikanaho nkuko bimaze gusobanurwa, cyerekeranye n’amasezerano ya convention de cession d’actions Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge yubahirije igice kuko muri 54.000.000Frw yagombaga kwishyura, yishyuye 8.000.000Frw gusa, ayo masezerano akaba yaraje asimbura aya convention d’actionnariat kuko YARI CORNACCHIA yari amaze kugurisha imigabane ye na Nsanawe Serge Ndekwe, akaba atari akirebwa n’amasezerano ya convention d’actionnariat. [20] Urukiko rurasanga kandi, uretse ko n’ababuranyi ubwabo babanje kumvikana ku kirego kigomba gusuzumwa mu bukemurampaka, ariko na YARI CORNACCHIA nta kibazo yari afite muri ayo masezerano ya convention d’actionnariat ku buryo yayaregera kuko atari akiyabarizwamo, ahubwo aho yari agifite ni mu masezerano ya cession d’actions kuko ariwe utari warishyuwe amafaranga yose Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge yamugombaga, ndetse n‘ikindi kigaragaza ko ari amasezerano ya cession d’actions yaregerwaga, ni uko nkuko bigaragara mu gika cya 15 na 16 by’urubanza nkemurampaka, Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge yagaragaje ubushake bwo kwishyura binyuze mu bwumvikane gusa YARI CORNACCHIA ntiyabyemera, YARI CORNACCHIA v. NSANAWE

Page 137

110 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

birumvikana ko ibyo yashakaga kwishyura binyuze muri ubwo bwumvikane ari ibiteganywa mu masezerano ya cession d’actions . [21] Urukiko rurasanga na none ikindi kigaragaza ko ari amasezerano ya cession d’actions yaregerwaga, ni uko 46.000.000Frw avugwa muri acte de mission, hamwe n’izindi ndishyi z’ubucyererwe zibazwe guhera ku wa 28/12/2013 kugeza kuwa 28/6/2014, n‘indishyi z’igihombo

YARI CORNACCHIA avuga yatejwe, izo ndishyi zose zivugwa mu bibazo bigomba gusuzumwa n’Urukiko nkemurampaka (des points litigieux à être résolus par le Tribunal Arbitral ) ziboneka muri convention de cession d’actions yateganyaga ubukemurampaka ibibazo nibiramuka bivutse, kuko muri ayo masezerano ariho havugwamo 54.000.000Frw Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge yagombaga kwishyura YARI CORNACCHIA akamwishyura 8.000.000Frw gusa. [22] Urukiko rurasanga rushingiye ku bimaze kuvugwa, YARI CORNACCHIA yaratanze ikirego mu Bukemurampaka ashingiye ku masezerano ya cession d’actions yateganyaga mu ngingo yayo ya 12 ko ikibazo cyose kizavuka gishingiye ku ishyirwa mu bikorwa by’ayo masezerano kizacyemurwa n’Urukiko nkemurampaka, bityo uru Rukiko rukaba rwari rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha ikirego yari yatanze.

Page 138

111 Kumenya niba ubujurire bwa Nsanawe Serge Ndekwe bwuririye ku bwa YARI CORNACCHIA bushingiye ku gutesha agaciro icyemezo cy’ubukemurampaka kubera ko cyarengeje igihe cyumvikanyweho cyo gusoma, bufite ishingiro. [23] Me Kiloha Olivier avuga ko mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi bari baregeye ibintu bibiri ari byo gusaba gukuraho icyemezo cy’Urukiko nkemurampaka, no kuba imihango y’iburanisha itarubahirijwe kuko icyemezo bumvikanye ko kizaboneka ku wa 17/9/2014, kiboneka ku wa 06/03/2015 iminsi 45 ntarengwa ivugwa mu mabwiriza yararenze. Akavuga ko ingingo ya 47, 1º d y’Itegeko ry’ubukemurampaka ivuga ko icyemezo gikurwaho iyo ibyo ababuranyi bemeranyijwe bitubahirijwe, ko rero umucamanza wo mu Rukiko Rukuru yasuzumye impamvu imwe. Avuga kandi ko basaba Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge indishyi zingana na 1.500.000Frw y’ikurikirana rubanza, na 4.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya avoka. [24] Me Rukangira Emmanuel avuga ko kuba urubanza rutubahirije ibihe rugomba kuba rwaciwemo, inkurikizi zabyo ntabwo ari izo gukuraho icyemezo cyafashwe, ahubwo hatangwa ibihano byo mu rwego rw’ubutegetsi, ko imihango y’imiburanishirize imbere y’umukemurampaka ikurikiza imihango y’izindi manza zisanzwe, gutinda rero bikaba bidakuraho icyemezo cy’Urukiko. Avuga kandi ko amafaranga basaba y’indishyi nta shingiro afite kuko imyaka ibaye itatu YARI CORNACCHIA yishyuza amafaranga ye, ahubwo ko ariwe wakagombye gusaba indishyi.

YARI CORNACCHIA v. NSANAWE

Page 139

112 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [25] Ingingo ya 47(1º, d) y’Itegeko N°005/2008 ryo kuwa 14/02/2008 ryerekeye ubukemurampaka n’ubwunzi mu bibazo by’ubucuruzi Me Kiloha Olivier ashingiraho iteganya ko: “Imyanzuro yafashwe hakoreshejwe ubukemurampaka ishobora kuvanwaho n’urukiko ruvugwa mu ngingo ya 8 y’iri tegeko igihe gusa: 1° uwiyambaje ubukemurampaka usaba iryo vanwaho atanze ibimenyetso ko: [.....] d) imiterere y’Inteko y’Abakemurampaka cyangwa imiburanishirize bitakurikije amasezerano ababuranyi bagiranye, mu gihe ariko ayo masezerano atanyuranye n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo z’iri tegeko abagiranye amasezerano badashobora kwirengagiza, cyangwa ayo masezerano abaye adahari, iyo miterere n’imiburanishirize bitarakurikije iri tegeko”. [26] Urukiko rurasanga iyo ngingo Me Kiloha Olivier ashingiraho asaba ko icyemezo gikurwaho bitewe n’uko iminsi 45 yarenze, idashimangira ibyo avuga ngo yerekane ko iyo ngingo ituma icyemezo gihita kivaho mu gihe kiba kitasomewe ku gihe cyemeranyijweho, ntanagaragaza ko iyo bidakozwe inkurikizi ari ugusesa icyemezo cy’Umukeramurampaka ngo abigaragarize mu ngingo ziri muri iryo Tegeko ry’ubukemurampaka, bityo iyo ngingo ikaba nta shingiro ifite. [27] Ku byerekeye indishyi zisabwa na Nsanawe Serge Ndekwe, Urukiko rurasanga izo ndishyi ntaho zishingiye kuko ikirego cye nta shingiro gihawe mu mizi yacyo.

Page 140

113

III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [28] Rwemeje ko ikirego cya YARI CORNACCHIA gifite ishingiro; [29] Rwemeje ko Urukiko nkemurampaka rwari rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha ikirego cya YARI CORNACCHIA na Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge; [30] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwa Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge nta shingiro bufite; [31] Ruvuze ko urubanza RCOMA0248/15/HCC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ku wa 09/07/2015 ruhindutse mu ngingo zarwo zose, rukaba ruvanyweho; [32] Rutegetse Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge kwishyura amagarama y’urubanza angana na 100.000Frw.

YARI CORNACCHIA v. NSANAWE

Page 142

IMANZA NSHINJABYAHA

Page 144

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. RUZINDANA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RPAA0297/11/CS (Mugenzi, PJ, Mutashya na Gatete, J.) 24 Werurwe 2016] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha – Gushidikanya – Birengera ushinjwa – Itegeko Nº30/2013 ryo kuwa 24/5/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 165(2o). Incamake y’ikibazo: Uregwa na bagenzi we batari muri uru rubanza bakurikiranywe ku cyaha cy’ubwicanyi bwakorewe Rucyahana. Kubirebana n’uregwa, Urukiko rushingiye ku magambo yivugiye ubwe igihe yabazwaga mu Bushinjacyaha, agaragaza ko yamukurikiranye atashye yasinze akamwica, ndetse na raporo ya Muganga ikagaragaza ko nyakwigendera yishwe anizwe, rwemeje ko ahamwa n’icyaha cy’ubwicanyi akurikiranyweho, ahanishwa igifungo cya burundu. Yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko umucamanza yamwemeje icyaha nta bimenyetso bifatika ashingiyeho, ntiyanaha agaciro iperereza yasabye ryashoboraga kumugira umwere. Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko hakwibazwa impamvu byafashe igihe kinini Ubuyobozi buzi ko hari amakuru abatangabuhamya bashobora gutanga ntagere ku nzego zibishinzwe. Incamake y’icyemezo: Nta bimenyetso bidashidikanywaho byatuma uregwa ahamwa n’icyaha ashinjwa, bityo agomba kugirwa umwere. 117

Page 145

118 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Ubujurire bufite ishingiro. Uregwa agizwe umwere agomba guhita arekurwa. Amagarama aherereye ku isanduku ya Leta. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nº30/2013 ryo kuwa 24/5/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 165(2o). Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza, Ubushinjacyaha bukurikiranyeho Ruzindana na Serunyange icyaha cy’ubwicanyi, naho Musabyimana ashinjwa icyaha cyo kudatabara umuntu uri mu kaga. Ku itariki ya 14/10/2011, urwo Rukiko rwemeje ko Ruzindana ahamwa n’icyaha cy’ubwicanyi akurikiranyweho, ahanishwa igifungo cya burundu, Musabyimana ahamwa n’icyaha cyo kudatabara umuntu uri mu kaga, ategekwa kwishyura 10.000Frw y’ihazabu, naho Serunyange agirwa umwere. [2] Mu gufata icyo cyemezo, Urukiko rwasanze Ruzindana ahamwa n’icyaha cy’ubwicanyi rushingiye ku magambo yivugiye ubwe igihe yabazwaga mu Bushinjacyaha, ayo magambo akaba agaragaza ko yamukurikiranye atashye yasinze

Page 146

119 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. RUZINDANA akamwica, ndetse na raporo ya Muganga ikagaragaza ko nyakwigendera yishwe anizwe. [3] Ruzindana yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko umucamanza yamwemeje icyaha nta bimenyetso bifatika ashingiyeho, ntiyanaha agaciro iperereza yasabye ryashoboraga kumugira umwere. [4] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame kuwa 28/09/2015, Ruzindana yunganiwe na Me Uramije James, naho Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na Bunyoye Grâce, Umushinjacyaha ku rwego rw’Igihugu, nyuma yo gupfundikira iburanisha, ababuranyi bamenyeshwa ko bazamenyeshwa icyemezo kuwa 30/10/2015, ariko igihe cyo kwiherera, rusanga ari ngombwa ko mbere yo guca urubanza mu mizi, rukwiye kwumva abatangabuhamya Ruzindana yifuje ko babazwa, bakurikira: Rutabana Gaspard, Nyiraminani Alphonsine, Muhayimpundu Claudine na Museruka Théoneste, kugirango bagire ibyo babazwa ku bijyanye n’urupfu rwa Rucyahana Felisiyani. [5] Iburanisha ryasubukuwe kuwa 22/02/2016, Ruzindana yunganiwe na Me Uramije James, naho Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na Dushimimana Claudine, Umushinjacyaha ku rwego rw’Igihugu. II. ISESENGURA RY’IKIBAZO KIGIZE

URUBANZA Kumenya niba hari ibimenyetso bifatika byatuma Ruzindana Emmanuel ahamwa n’icyaha ashinjwa.

Page 147

120 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[6] Me Uramije asobanura ko Ruzindana yunganira yasangiye inzoga mu kabari na Rucyahana, barangije Ruzindana aramuherekeza amugeza kwa mwene nyina Serunyange, bahageze Rucyahana atangira kurwana n’uwo mukuru we arabakiza, nyuma Ruzindana ajya gutabaza umukuru w’umudugudu [7] Ruzindana ashimangira kandi ko yagiye gutabaza umukuru w’umudugudu akamubwira ko ntacyo yabikoraho kuko intonganya za Rucyahana zisanzwe iyo yanyoye inzoga, ko kandi kuva yajya gutabaza atigeze ahindukira ngo asubire aho imirwano yabereye. [8] Basobanura kandi ko hari ibimenyetso bishinjura byari byagejejwe ku rukiko rwamuburanishije ariko ntirwabiha agaciro, ko kandi hari hifujwe ko habazwa abatangabuhamya 17 bagaragajwe mu iperereza ryakozwe n’Inzego z’Ibanze nkuko bavugwa mu ibarwa yo kuwa 21/05/2010 yanditswe n’Umunyamabanga Nshingabikorwa w’Akagari ka Bunge. [9] By’umwihariko Ruzindana avuga ko ari umuryango wa nyakwigendera Rucyahana Felisiyani wabimwoherereje, Serunyange1 bari bafunganye arekuwe, akaba asaba ko uru Rukiko rwakora iperereza ryimbitse ku cyaha ashinjwa, hakabazwa nibura Rutabana Gaspard, Nyiraminani Alphonsine, Muhayimpundu Claudine na Museruka Théoneste kuko aribo bagaragaza igihe yatandukaniye na nyakwigendera Rucyahana. Ruzindana avuga kandi ko icyemezo cyafashwe gifite inenge kubera ko cyashingiye ku mvugo zamwitiriwe kandi atari ize.

1 Uyu ni mukuru we kwa Se wabo warangije igihano yari yahawe.

Page 148

121

[10] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko icyaha Ruzindana ashinjwa cyakozwe kuwa 08/02/2010, inyandiko yashyikirijwe Urukiko isaba ko habazwa abatangabuhamya yandikwa ku itariki ya 21/05/2010, hakaba hibazwa impamvu byafashe icyo gihe cyose Ubuyobozi buzi ayo makuru abatangabuhamya bashobora gutanga ntagere ku nzego zibishinzwe. [11] Asobanura ko Rucyahana yagundaguranye na Serunyange, Ruzindana akitambika hagati akabakiza, nyamara uko kugundagurana kukaba kudahagije ngo kuviremo umuntu urupfu, keretse niba hari icyo Serunyange barwanaga yamukubise, kandi Ruzindana akaba ntacyo agaragaza. [12] Ku byerekeye ubuhamya burimo inenge, asanga bwaranditswe uko bwavuzwe, akaba yumva ntawahimbira Ruzindana ibyo atavuze, ku bw’izo mpamvu bukaba bukwiye guhamana agaciro kose.2 Asanga kandi imvugo z’abatangabuhamya hari aho zivuguruzanya kuko ngo umwe hari aho avuga ko Ruzindana amaze kwinginga Rucyahana akamunanira yitahiye, undi akavuga ko yagiye gutabaza umukuru w’umudugudu.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [13] Urukiko rusanga nyuma y’isesengura ry’imvugo z’abatangabuhamya babajijwe3 mu iburanisha ryo ku wa 22/02/2016, bose bahuriza ku mvugo imwe yuko Ruzindana

2 Usanga umucamanza yarahamije icyaha Ruzindana kubera ko Rucyahana yavuze ngo “mwana wa Ayirwanda (Ruzindana) uranshakaho iki?”

3 Habajijwe Rutabana Gaspard, Nyiraminani Alphonsine, Muhayimpundu Claudine na Museruka Théoneste UBUSHINJACYAHA v. RUZINDANA

Page 149

122 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

yatahanye na Nyakwigendera, bageze kwa Serunyange, Rucyahana yanga gukomeza inzira ataha iwe, avuga ko yageze iwabo. [14] Rusanga na none bahuriza ku mvugo imwe yuko Rucyahana yarwanye na Serunyange, Ruzindana akabakiza, Serunyange agasubira mu nzu akikingirana, Ruzindana agakomeza kwinginga nyakwigendera ngo akomeze atahe, ariko undi akanga akaguma ku irembo kwa mwene nyina4. [15] Ikindi kitakwirengagizwa, nuko bose bavuga ko nyuma y’iyo mirwano, Ruzindana yagiye guhuruza umukuru w’umudugudu, kandi nkuko Ruzindana abisobnura, nta muntu numwe wigeze avuga ko amaze guhuruza, yaba yaramubonye aho imirwano ya Rucyahana na Serunyange yabereye [16] Urukiko rurasanga nta kwivuguruza kw’abatangabuhamya kugaragara nkuko uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha abivuga, kuko Ruzindana amaze kunaniranwa na Rucyahana, nta gitangaje ko yamubwira ko we yitahiye, ariko bikaba byaragaragaye ko yagiye gutabaza umukuru w’umudugudu mbere yo gutaha, kandi koko umutangabuhamya Museruka Théoneste yemeje ko, igihe yari avuye mu rugendo i Kigali, Ruzindana yamusanze kuri “centre” aje gutabaza kubera imirwano yari asize inyuma [17] Rurasanga kandi rutakwirengagiza inyandiko yatanzwe n’Inzego z’Ibanze kugirango ishingirweho habazwa abatangabuhamya, kabone n’ubwo yaba yaraje itinze, kubera ko izo nzego ziri aho icyaha cyakorewe, abatangabuhamya babajijwe bakaba barahagaze ubwabo ku mirwano ya

4 Kwa mwene nyina Serunyange

Page 150

123

Rucyahana na Serunyange, nta kuntu imvugo yabo itafatwaho ukuri. [18] Urukiko rurasanga rero, kubera ibimaze gusobanurwa, nta bimenyetso bidashidikanywaho byatuma Ruzindana ahamwa n’icyaha ashinjwa, akaba agomba kugirwa umwere hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 165, igika cya 2 cy’Itegeko Nº30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, iteganya ko „iyo urubanza rwakurikiranywe mu buryo bwose, ntihagire ibimenyetso nyakuri biboneka byemeza nta shiti abacamanza ko ushinjwa yakoze icyaha koko, bagomba kwemeza ko atsinze“. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO. [19] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Ruzindana Emmanuel bufite ishingiro; [20] Rwemeje ko adahamwa n’icyaha ashinjwa; [21] Rutegetse ko ahita arekurwa uru rubanza rukimara gusomwa; [22] Rutegetse ko amagarama y’urubanza aherera ku Isanduku ya Leta.

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. RUZINDANA

Page 152

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. TURATSINZE [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RPAA0021/12/CS (Nyirinkwaya, P.J., Rugabirwa na Ngagi, J.) 19 Gashyantare 2016] Amategeko agenga ibimenyetso – Ibimenyetso bicumbukuwe – Ni ingingo amategeko cyangwa urukiko bisesengura bishingiye ku kintu kizwi kugira ngo hagaragazwe ikitazwi. Bigomba kuba bikomeye, bisobanuye kandi bihuje – Itegeko Nº15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 104 n’iya 108. Amategeko Mpanabyaha – Gupfobya jenoside – Ni imyifatire iyo ari yo yose igambiriwe kandi igaragajwe mu ruhame mu buryo ubwo ari bwo bwose, igamije kugabanya uburemere cyangwa ingaruka ya Jenoside no koroshya uburyo Jenoside yakozwemo – Itegeko N°84/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 ryerekeye icyaha cy’ingengabitekerezo ya Jenoside n’ibindi byaha bifitanye isano nayo, ingingo ya 6. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha – Ingaruka zo kutajuririra igihano k’ubushinjacyaha – Nta mpamvu yatuma igihano kiremerezwa mu bujurire, mu gihe kitajuririwe n’Ubushinjacyaha. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uregwa yagejejwe imbere y’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Ngoma aregwa icyaha cyo gupfobya Jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi, hashingiwe ku magambo yavuze ubwo yabwiraga Nyirabashumba 125

Page 153

126 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Françoise bari bahuriye mu nzira ngo nibajya kwibuka abazize Jenoside ku itariki ya 07/04 bajye bibuka n’itariki ya gatanu z’uko kwezi yarongoreyeho. Urukiko rwemeje ko icyaha aregwa kimuhama, rumuhanisha igihano cy’igifungo cy’imyaka icumi (10). Yajuriye mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana, narwo rwemeza ko ubujurire bwe nta shingiro bufite. Uregwa yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, avuga ko icyaha aregwa ntacyo yakoze ndetse ko inkiko zibanza zamuhamije icyaha zitabajije abatangabuhamya yasabye ko babazwa. Uhagararariye Ubushinjacyaha we, avuga ko hari umutangabuhamya wasobanuye mu Bugenzacyaha uko icyaha cyakozwe kuko yarahari, akaba asanga nta mpamvu Urukiko rutaha agaciro ubuhamya bwe kuko uregwa ubwe yivugiye ko ntacyo bapfaga. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Ibimenyetso bicukumbuye ni ingingo amategeko cyangwa urukiko bisesengura bishingiye ku kintu kizwi kugira ngo hagaragazwe ikitazwi. Bigomba kuba bikomeye, bisobanuye kandi bihuje.

2. Gupfobya Jenoside ni imyifatire iyo ari yo yose igambiriwe kandi igaragajwe mu ruhame mu buryo ubwo ari bwo bwose, igamije kugabanya uburemere cyangwa ingaruka ya Jenoside no koroshya uburyo Jenoside yakozwemo.

3. Igihano uregwa yahawe nticyaremerezwa mu bujurire ku mpamvu z’uko ari insubiracyaha kuko, n’ubwo yari abikwiye, inkiko zibanza zitigeze zibishingiraho mu

Page 154

127 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. TURATSINZE

kumugenera igihano yahawe kandi nta n’ubwo Ubushinjacyaha bwigeze bujuririra igihano yahawe, bityo akaba agomba guhanishwa igifungo cy’imyaka icyenda (9) kuko aricyo gihano ntarengwa giteganyijwe n’amategeko. Ubujurire nta shingiro. Imikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe ihindutse ku birebana n’igihano. Amagarama aherereye ku isanduku ya Leta. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Ngenga Nº01/2012 ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 79 n’iya 116. Itegeko N°84/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 ryerekeye icyaha cy’ingengabitekerezo ya Jenoside n’ibindi byaha bifitanye isano nayo, ingingo za 6 na 12 Itegeko Nº15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 104 n’iya 108. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Ngoma, Turatsinze Pierre aregwa

Page 155

128 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

icyaha cyo gupfobya Jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi ubwo ku itariki ya 19/04/2008 yabwiraga Nyirabashumba Françoise bari bahuriye mu nzira ngo nibajya kwibuka abazize Jenoside ku itariki ya 07/04 bajye bibuka n’itariki ya gatanu z’uko kwezi yarongoreyeho. [2] Uru rukiko rwaciye urubanza N° RP0287/08/TGI/Ngoma ku wa 22/05/2009, rwemeza ko icyaha aregwa kimuhama, rumuhanisha igihano cy’igifungo cy’imyaka icumi (10). [3] Turatsinze yajuriye mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana, urwo rukiko ruca urubanza N° RPA0110/09/HC/RWG ku wa 11/03/2011, rwemeza ko ubujurire bwe nta shingiro bufite. [4] Nyuma y’isomwa ry’urwo rubanza, Turatsinze Pierre yavuze ko ajuriye ariko nta myanzuro y’ubujurire yigeze ashyikiriza uru rukiko. Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku wa 29/12/2015, Turatsinze Pierre yunganiwe na Me Umulisa Paola, Ubushinjacyaha buhagariwe na Ntawangundi Béatrice, Umushinjacyaha ku rwego rw’Igihugu. II. IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYACYO: Kumenya niba Turatsinze Pierre adahamwa n’icyaha cyo gupfobya Jenoside. [5] Turatsinze Pierre avuga ko icyaha aregwa ntacyo yakoze, ko icyo yemera n’uko ku itariki ya 19/04/2008

Page 156

129

yahuye na Nyirabashumba avuye kwa Hitamungu, umugore we Mukandayisenga amuherekeje, nawe agiye muri urwo rugo ari hamwe na Karegeya Claver na Innocent, Nyirabashumba akamusuhuza, Mukandayisenga agasubira mu rugo, abasaza yari hamwe nabo bakajya mu nzu bagasigara uko ari babiri ku mbuga yo kwa Hitamungu, ariko ko nta ntonganya zabaye, ko nta kindi bavuganye usibye gusuhuzanya, Nyirabashumba amubwira ko yamwanze atakimusura, nawe amubwira ko atari ukumwanga ahubwo ari ukubura umwanya, ko nawubona azamusura, nyuma y’ iminota itarenze itanu Nyirabashumba akagenda, nawe akinjira kwa Hitamungu. [6] Akomeza avuga ko Hitamungu yagiye kubagurira inzoga ku mugabo witwa Viateur, hashyize nk’iminota 30 Nyirabashumba araza abwira abari aho ati “Pierre yambwiye amagambo numva arambabaje”, bamubajije icyo yamubwiye, avuga gusa ko amagambo yamubwiye yamubabaje ahita agenda, ageze imbere aragaruka aravuga ngo “ngaho nimubaze Twamugize, ayo magambo yayumvise”, bamubajije avuga ko yabanyuzeho bahagararanye agiye kwigurira ifu y’abana ariko ko ayo magambo yamubabaje atayumvise, ubwo nawe bamubaza icyo yamubwiye, abasobanurira ko basuhuzanyije, Nyirabashumba akamubwira ko yamwanze atakimusura, akamusubiza ko atamwanze, ko nta kindi bavuganye, hashyize akanya Nyirabashumba ataraha, nabo ntibongera kubyitaho. [7] Avuga kandi ko ibyo Twamugize yavuze mu Bugenzacyaha ko yasanze ahagaranye na UBUSHINJACYAHA v. TURATSINZE

Page 157

130 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Nyirabashumba ku mbuga yo kwa Hitamungu atari ukuri kuko atigeze ahamubona, naho ku byerekeye impamvu Nyirabashumba yaba amubeshyera, avuga ko ubundi imibanire yabo yari myiza basurana, ariko ko mu mwaka wa 2007 yigeze kumusaba nk’umuntu wireze akemera icyaha cya Jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi ngo azashinje uwitwa Nyirabukeye Clémentine muri Gacaca ko yasahuye ibintu byo muri Komini, ashaka no kumwigisha uko yabivuga, arabyanga amubwira ko atamurega ibintu atabonye cyangwa atamenye. [8] Avuga ko Inkiko zibanza zamuhamije icyaha zitabajije abatangabuhamya yasabye ko babazwa, abo akaba ari Karegeya Claver, Mukandayisenga na Hitamungu kuko bari bahari igihe avugana na Nyirabashumba ku wa 19/04/2008 bakaba bavuga niba harabaye intonganya hagati yabo, abandi akaba ari abazi ko Nyirabashumba yari yaramusabye gushinja Nyirabukeye, aribo Muyango Martin, uwari ushinzwe umutekano mu Kagari witwa Viateur n’Umuyobozi w’Akagari. Ku kibazo cyo kumenya ukuntu babimenye, avuga ko ari we wabibabwiye. [9] Me Umulisa Paola wunganira Turatsinze avuga ko usibye n’uko uwo yunganira ahakana amagambo aregwa, kuvuga ngo “nimujya mwibuka abazize Jenoside mujye mwibuka itariki narongoreyeho” ntabwo byafatwa nko gupfobya Jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi kuko ayo magambo atabuza kwibuka Jenoside kandi ntahakana ko yabaye, ahubwo byafatwa nko kuyiha agaciro. [10] Akomeza avuga ko guha agaciro itariki umuntu yarongoreyeho atari ukwambura agaciro igikorwa cyo

Page 158

131

kwibuka Jenoside, ko ariya magambo Turatsinze aregwa yakomeretsa uwo bakundanye kuko agamije kumubwira kwibuka itariki yashakiyeho umugore, akaba rero ari muri urwo rwego yakomerekeje Nyirabashumba kuko bakundanye ariko ntiyamurongora, ahubwo ashaka undi mugore. [11] Avuga kandi ko mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Ngoma, Turatsinze yasabye ko hakorwa iperereza, umucamanza amubwira ko urubanza rwe ruri mu birarane, ko rutasubikwa, ko n’ubwo ntaho byanditse ko yasabye iperereza bitabura guhabwa agaciro, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rukamuha amahirwe yo kubaza abatangabuhamya yatanze hiyongereyeho Sumba Shabani, Nyiramatabaro Jeanne, Karegeya Claver, Mukandayisenga Claudine na Nyirabukeye Clémentine kuko bazi imibanire ye na Nyirabashumba,ndetse bakurikije uko bamuzi n’imyitwarire ye bakaba bavuga niba ariya magambo yayavuga. [12] Ku birebana n’uko yaba yarabwiye Nyirabashumba ariya magambo mu rwego rwo kumukomeretsa nk’umuntu bakundanye ariko akaza kumwanga akarongora undi, Turatsinze avuga ko koko bakundanye ariko ntiyamurongora kubera ko yaje kumenya ko afite ubwandu bwa SIDA, ariko ko atari kumubwira ariya magambo kuko kuba yarashatse ko babana ntibibe bitaba impamvu yo kumubwira amagambo amukomeretsa. [13] Uhagararariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko Twamugize Chantal yasobanuye mu Bugenzacyaha ko yasanze Nyirabashumba arimo kurira atongana na UBUSHINJACYAHA v. TURATSINZE

Page 159

132 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Turatsinze, amusubirira mu magambo Turatsinze yamubwiye, nawe abimubajije ahita abisubiramo uko Nyirabashumba yari yabivuze, akaba asanga nta mpamvu Urukiko rutaha agaciro ubuhamya bwa Twamugize kuko Turatsinze ubwe yivugiye ko ntacyo bapfaga. [14] Avuga kandi ko Nyirabashumba nta masano afitanye na Turatsinze ngo abe yakwibuka umunsi yarongoreyeho, ko kandi urebye uburemere icyaha cya Jenoside gifite kugereranya igikorwa cyo kwibuka abazize Jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi n’icyo kwibuka ubukwe ari ukuyambura agaciro, ndetse ko Turatsinze yabikoze azi neza icyo akora agamije gukomeretsa Nyirabashumba. [15] Ku birebana n’abatangabuhamya asaba ko bahamagazwa, avuga ko ntacyo bamara kuko nawe ubwe yivugiye ko yari abanye neza na Nyirabashumba kandi ko nta muntu wamenye ko yamusabye gushinja Nyirabukeye usibye abo yabibwiye, yivugiye na none ko nta wundi muntu wari uhari igihe avugana na Nyirabashumba bahagaze ku mbuga yo kwa Hitamungu usibye Twamugize wahanyuze agahagarara. [16] Asoza avuga ko Turatsinze yashoboraga guhabwa igihano cy’igifungo cyikubye kabiri nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 75 y’Itegeko Ngenga N°01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana yerekeye ibihano bihabwa insubiracyaha kuko yari yarakatiwe igifungo cy’imyaka 10 kubera icyaha cya Jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi, ariko ko atabisaba kuko Ubushinjacyaha butajuriye.

Page 160

133

Yongeraho ko nubwo itegeko rihana ririho ubu riteganya ibihano byoroheje kurusha ibyariho igihe Turatsinze yakoraga icyaha, asaba ko hagumishwaho igihano yahawe mu nkiko zibanza hakurikijwe ko ari insubiracyaha.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [17] Muri uru rubanza, hagomba gusuzumwa niba Turatsinze yarabwiye Nyirabashumba amagambo aregwa ngo nibajya kwibuka abazize Jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi ku itariki ya 07/04 bajye bibuka n’itariki yarongoyeho ku itariki ya gatanu z’uko kwezi kwa kane, niba yarayavuze hagasuzumwa niba yafatwa ngo gupfobya Jenoside. [18] Ingingo ya 104 y’Itegeko ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n‘itangwa ryabyo ryavuzwe haruguru ivuga ko ibimenyetso bicukumbuye ari ingingo amategeko cyangwa urukiko bisesengura bishingiye ku kintu kizwi kugira ngo hagaragazwe ikitazwi, naho ingingo ya 108 ikavuga ko ibimenyetso bicukumbuwe n’urukiko bigomba kuba bikomeye, bisobanuye kandi bihuje (Ne doivent être admises que les présomptions humaines graves, précises et concordantes). [19] Urukiko rurasanga nubwo Turatsinze ahakana kuba yarabwiye Nyirabashumba amagambo aregwa, yemera ko bahuye ku itariki ya 19/04/2008 bakamarana akanya gato bahagararanye, ndetse ko uwo munsi Nyirabashumba yabwiye abantu yasanze mu kabari ka Viateur ko yamubwiye amagambo yamubabaje. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. TURATSINZE

Page 161

134 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[20] Urukiko rurasanga kandi n’ubwo imbere y’uru rukiko Turatsinze avuga ko Twamugize atigeze abanyuraho ubwo yari ahagararanye na Nyirabashumba, yarabyemeye mu Bushinjacyaha, ibyo yemeye agifatwa akaba aribyo bigomba gufatwaho ukuri kuko abihurizaho na Nyirabashumba na Twamugize nawe ubwe avuga ko ntacyo bapfaga cyatuma amubeshyera. [21] Urukiko rurasanga na none nubwo imbere y’uru rukiko Turatsinze avuga ko Nyirabashumba amubeshyera kuko bakundanye nyuma akaza gushaka undi mugore bitafatwaho ukuri kuko haba mu nzego z’iperereza, haba mu nkiko yaburaniyemo zindi atigeze abivuga, akaba agenda ahinduranya imvugo kuko mbere hose yavugaga gusa ko ashobora kuba amuhora y‘uko yamusabye gushinja muri Gacaca uwitwa Nyirabukeye akabyanga. [22] Urukiko rurasanga kandi ibyo avuga ko Nyirabashumba ashobora kuba amuziza ko yamusabye gushinja Nyirabukeye akabyanga nta gaciro byahabwa kuko bivuguruzwa n’ibyo avuga ku rundi ruhande ko bari babanye neza, ndetse ko Nyirabashumba ariwe wamwakiriye neza wa mbere ubwo yari amaze gufungurwa avuye muri gereza kubera icyaha cya Jenoside. [23] Ku birebana n’abatangabuhamya asaba ko bahamagazwa, Urukiko rurasanga ntacyo byafasha kuko nawe ubwe yivugiye mu Bugenzacyaha no mu Bushinjacyaha ko nta wundi wabanyuzeho igihe yari ahagararanye na Nyirabashumba usibye Twamugize, ko yari abanye neza na Nyirabashumba, ndetse ko abazi ko

Page 162

135

yari yaramusabye gushinja Nyirabukeye ari abo we ubwe yabibwiye, bakaba rero batabitangira ubuhamya kuko baba batavuga ibintu biyumviye cyangwa biboneye ubwabo. [24] Iyo rero rusuzumye imvugo ya Twamugize Chantal mu Bugenzacyaha, aho avuga ko yasanze Nyirabashumba ahagararanye na Turatsinze arimo kurira atongana amubaza impamvu ahora amukomeretsa, ko ndetse Turatsinze yamusubiriyemo ibyo yabwiraga Nyirabashumba ngo nawe bajye bamwibuka mu kwezi kwa kane kuko tariki ya 05/04 aribwo yarongoye, rukayihuza n‘imvugo ya Nyirabashumba mu Bugenzacyaha igihe yatangaga ikirego, aho avuga ko Twamugize yaturutse hepfo ahagararanye na Turatsinze, uyu amusibiriramo amagambo yamubwiye, rukayihuza na none n’imvugo ya Turatsinze ubwe mu Bushinjacyaha aho yemera ko Twamugize yasanze ahagararanye na Nyirabashumba, rukareba n’ukwivuguruza no guhinduranya imvugo kwagiye kuranga imvugo ze, Urukiko rurasanga nta gushidikanya guhari ko yabwiye Nyirabashumba ariya magambo aregwa. [25] Ku bijyanye no kumenya niba amagambo Turatsinze yavuze agize icyaha cyo gupfobya Jenoside, harebwa ingingo ya 6 y’Itegeko N°84/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 ryerekeye icyaha cy’ingengabitekerezo ya Jenoside n’ibindi byaha bifitanye isano nayo ivuga ko gupfobya Jenoside ari imyifatire iyo ari yo yose igambiriwe kandi igaragajwe mu ruhame mu buryo ubwo ari bwo bwose, igamije kugabanya uburemere UBUSHINJACYAHA v. TURATSINZE

Page 163

136 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

cyangwa ingaruka ya Jenoside no koroshya uburyo Jenoside yakozwemo. [26] Urukiko rurasanga ibyo uwunganira Turatsinze avuga ko ariya magambo atafatwa nko gupfobya Jenoside kuko atabuza kwibuka kandi adahakana ko yabaye, ari ukwirengagiza ko Jenoside ari icyaha ndengakamere cyateye ibikomere bikomeye mu gihugu no mitima y’Abanyarwanda benshi, ko kwibuka abapfuye bishwe mu buryo bwa kinyamanswa bitagereranywa no kwizihiza umunsi umuntu yarongoreyeho. [27] Urukiko rurasanga kandi Turatsinze, nk’umuntu Jenoside yabaye ari mukuru, wayikoze kandi wayihaniwe, yari azi neza ko kubwira Nyirabashumba ngo nibajya kwibuka Jenoside bajye bibuka n’itariki yarongoreyeho ari ukwambura Jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi uburemere bwayo agereranya igikorwa cyo kwibuka abazize Jenoside kireba Igihugu n’Abanyarwanda bose n’igikorwa cyo kwibuka ubukwe kireba umuntu ku giti cye, ibi akaba yarabikoze agamije gukomeretsa Nyirabashumba agaragaza ko nta gaciro n’uburemere aha ubwicanyi ndengakamere Abatutsi bakorewe n’agahinda kw’ababashije kurokoka. [28] Ku bijyanye rero n’ibihano, ingingo ya 4 y’Itegeko No33bis/2003 ryo ku wa 06/09/2003 rihana icyaha cya Jenoside, ibyaha byibasiye inyoko muntu n’ibyaha by’intambara yateganyaga igifungo kuva ku myaka icumi (10) kugeza kuri makumyabiri (20) ku wahamijwe icyaha cyo guhakana, gupfobya cyangwa guha ishingiro Jenoside, ibi bihano ariko byasimbujwe

Page 164

137

igihano cy’igifungo kuva ku myaka itanu (5) kugeza ku myaka icyenda (9) hashingiwe ku bivugwa mu ngingo ya 12 y’Itegeko N°84/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 ryerekeye icyaha cy’ingengabitekerezo ya Jenoside n’ibindi byaha bifitanye isano nabyo n‘ibivugwa mu ngingo ya 116 y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº01/2012 ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana. [29] Ku birebana n’ibihano bireba uwakoze icyaha ari insubiracyaha, ingingo ya 85 y’Itegeko Teka Nº21/77 ryo ku wa 18/08/1977 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ryariho igihe icyaha cyakorwaga yavugaga ko ahanishwa igihano ntarengwa cyo gufungwa cyateganyijwe n’itegeko kandi ko icyo gihano gishobora kwongerwa kugeza ku nshuro ebyiri zacyo. Ni nabyo biteganyije mu ngingo ya 79 y’Itegeko Ngenga N°01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana rikurikizwa ubu. [30] Urukiko rurasanga ariko igihano Turatsinze yahawe kitaremerezwa mu bujurire ku mpamvu z’uko ari insubiracyaha kuko, n’ubwo yari abikwiye, inkiko zibanza zitigeze zibishingiraho mu kumugenera igihano yahawe kandi nta n’ubwo Ubushinjacyaha bwigeze bujuririra igihano yahawe, bityo akaba agomba guhanishwa igifungo cy’imyaka icyenda (9) kuko aricyo gihano ntarengwa cyateganyijwe n’ ingingo ya 116 y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana rikurikizwa ubu ku wahamijwe icyaha cyo gupfobya Jenoside.

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. TURATSINZE

Page 165

138 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [31] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Turatsinze Pierre nta shingiro bufite; [32] Rwemeje ariko ko urubanza N° RPA0110/09/HC/RWG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana ku wa 11/03/2011 ruhindutse ku byerekeranye n’ibihano byahawe Turatsinze Pierre mu rwego rwo kubahiriza Itegeko Ngenga Nº01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana rikurikizwa ubu; [33] Ruhanishije Turatsinze Pierre igifungo cy’imyaka icyenda (9); [34] Rutegetse ko amagarama y’urubanza aherera ku Isanduku ya Leta.

Page 166

RWANDA LAW

REPORTS

ENGLISH VERSION

Page 168

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TEAM OF EDITORS ................................................................ iii MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE .............................. iv PREFACE ................................................................................. vi SCOPE OF THE REPORTS .................................................... vii CITATION ............................................................................... vii

LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ viii LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED .............................................. x SUBJECT INDEX ..................................................................... xi ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd v. JULIA SHOP ............................ 1 MUKAKALISA v. MUKAMUSANA ET AL ........................ 13 MUKAMANZI v. KWITUNGA ET AL.................................. 27 MUNYAMPUNDU ET AL v. KIGALI CITY ........................ 41 SEMANYENZI v. NTIHABOSE ............................................ 51 RWEMA v. RWANDA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (RDB) .. 63 KIGALI CITY v. KAGABO .................................................... 79 YARI CORNACCHIA v. NSANAWE .................................... 97 PROSECUTION v. RUZINDANA ........................................ 113 PROSECUTION v. TURATSINZE ....................................... 121

Page 170

iii

TEAM OF EDITORS

LAW REPORTING TEAM

KAGABO U. Stephanie

MUJABI K. Naphtal

MUNYENSANGA Chrysostome

MWIHOREZE Claudine

NTIHEMUKA Emmanuel

UWIMANA Gisèle

Page 171

iv

MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE

MUGENZI Louis Marie : President of the Committee Supreme Court Judge

Dr. MUHIRE G. Yves : Vice President of the Committee Lecturer in the School of Law/UR

RUTAZANA Angeline : Secretary of the Committee Inspector of Courts

BWIZA N. Blanche : Inspector of Courts

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

KALIWABO Charles : President of High Court

Page 172

v

Me KAYIHURA Didas : Advocate at Rwanda Bar Association

KIBUKA Jean Luc : Judge at Commercial High Court

MUREREREHE Saouda : Judge at High Court

Prof. Dr. NGAGI M. Alphonse : Supreme Court Judge RUBANGO K. Epimaque : State Attorney RUKUNDAKUVUGA F. Regis : Inspector General of Courts

UWANTEGE Yvette : Juge at Intermediate Court

Page 173

vi

PREFACE Dear Readers, As usual, the Rwandan Judiciary is pleased to present to you the fourth volume of Rwanda Law Report for the year 2016. We are thankful to those who support us with their comments in order to improve the preparation of Law Reports and we keep encouraging all our readers to contribute with comments. This will make us improve the preparation of Law Reports, and make it more useful at the international market. In this Law Report, you will find ten (10) cases including five (5) cases relating to procedure, two (2) administrative cases, one (1) commercial case and two (2) criminal cases. We are pleased to remind you that published cases can be accessed on the website of the judiciary which facilitates the users to find cases easily and quickly on http://decisia.lexum.com/rlr/en/nav.do Prof. Sam RUGEGE President of the Supreme Court President of the High Council of Judiciary

Page 174

vii

SCOPE OF THE REPORTS These reports cover cases decided by the Supreme Court listed under the heading of “Citation” below.

CITATION The Reports in this volume are cited thus: [2016] 4 RLR

Page 175

viii

LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY

INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 Organic determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 28(5)…………………………………………………..16 article 28(2&5)……… ………………………………..........30 Organic Law Nº01/2012 of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, articles 79 and 116.………………………………….........123 Law N°84/2013 of 11/09/2013 on Genocide ideology and other related crimes, articles 6 and 12.……………………………….123 Law Nº30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure, article 165(2o)………………………………………114 Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 2…………………………………………………………3 articles 171 and 172……… ………………………………..53 Law N°07/2009 of 27/04/2009 relating to companies, articles 16 and 375 ………………………………………………………………..3 Law Nº59/2008 of 10/09/2008 on prevention and punishment of gender based violence, article 39…………………………………16 Law N°005/2008 of 14/02/2008 on arbitration and conciliation in commercial matters, articles 8 and 47………………………………...100 Law No08/2006 of 24/02/2006 determining the organization and functioning of the district, article 67.………………………........43 Law Nº15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, articles 104 and 108………………………………..123

Page 176

Decree - Law N°20/75 of June 20, 1975 regulating insurance, article 37.…………………………………………………………….84 Decree law 30/07/1888 relating to Contracts or obligations, article 258.…………………………………………………………..43 Ministerial Order No02/09/MINICOM of 08/05/2009 relating to business of low income, articles 2 and 10………………………...3 Ministerial Order No16/012 of 15/05/2012 determining arbitration rules of Kigali International Arbitration Centre, article 29……………………………………………………...66 article 29………………………………………………….....100 Organic law No31/2006 of 14/08/2006 determining the organization, jurisdiction, competence and functioning of the mediation committee, article 8……………………………………53 Law No18/2004 of 20/06/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and procedure, article 339…………………………………………………….43 article 346………………………………………………….…84

ix

LIST OF STATUTES

Page 177

x

LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED Gatera v. Kalisa, RS/Incost/Pen.0003/10/CS, rendered by the Supreme Court on January 07, 2011.……………………………16

Page 178

xi

SUBJECT INDEX Administrative law – Administrative decisions – The principle of automatic execution – Administration has the prerogative to execute their decisions without resorting to the prior authorization of a judge. KIGALI CITY v. KAGABO.…………………………79 The principle of “privilege d’exécution d’office or “Execution forcée” – It constitutes the authority of the administration which entails its decision to be biding to citizens – That principle implies that the administration can recourse to the government coercion to protect the public interest but in case it prejudices an individual interest, it has to be authorized by the court basing on the three elements: the existence of law that expressly provides for it, the lack of other means to protect the public interest or the existence of urgency for the execution of the administrative decision or one of those – When the administration recourse to the coercion in the absence of one of those elements or in case an individual has not resisted to execute its decision, this is regarded as a fault of which the administration has to be held liable KIGALI CITY v. KAGABO …………………………79 Administrative procedure – Administrative decision – The transfer of the responsibility from one administrative entity to another – Administrative appeal – The right entity to lodge to an administrative appeal and to be sued – The transfer of the responsibilities from one administrative entity to another makes the latter entity liable for the decisions made by the former entity; thus the entity which made the contested decision when the

Page 179

12 RADA 006/12/CS transferred responsibilities were still in its competence no longer have the capacity to entertain an administrative appeal regarding that decision or to be sued for it rather the one to which those responsibilities were transferred to is the one to be sued and the one to which an administrative appeal can be filled to – Law No08/2006 of 24/02/2006 determining the organization and functioning of the district, article 67 – Law No18/2004 of 20/06/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and procedure, article 339. MUNYAMPUNDU ET AL v. KIGALI CITY.………41 Preliminary objection to admissibility – The principle of res judicata (claim preclusion) – A matter that has been adjudicated by a court having jurisdiction is conclusive and therefore may not be pursued further by the same parties. RWEMA v. RWANDA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (RDB)…………………………………………………..63 Arbitration – Terms of reference – If the terms of reference provide for the period of arbitral proceedings but silent on what to be done in case the award is issued after the lapse of that period, in that case the award cannot be invalidated RWEMA v. RWANDA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (RDB)…………………………………………………..63 Arbitration agreement – When the parties agree to resolve any disputes arising from the contract by binding arbitration a party cannot sue in ordinary court when that dispute was adjudicated through arbitration and consequently an award issued, the party cannot seize the ordinary courts.

RWEMA v.

RWANDA

DEVELOPMENT

BOARD (RDB)………………………………………………………...63 xii

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 180

Time limit for pronouncement of arbitral award – The validity of the arbitral award pronounced after the time limit set by both parties – The pronouncement of the arbitral award done after the time limit set by both parties is not the ground to set it aside – Law on arbitration and conciliation in commercial matters, article 47. YARI CORNACCHIA v. NSANAWE……………….97 Civil procedure – Review of the judgment due to injustice – Self declaration of incompetence by Abunzi committee – The decision of the Abunzi committee –A party who seizes the primary Court after the decision of the Abunzi committee declaring itself incompetent is not considered as appeal against the Abunzi decision on the appellate level but as an action on the first instance, therefore prescription against the claims of appeal do not bar it – Organic Law No31/2006 of 14/08/2006 determining the organization, jurisdiction, competence and functioning of the mediation committee, article 8. SEMANYENZI v. NTIHABOSE……………………..51 Commercial procedure – Status – Filing a claim under business name – JULIA SHOP has no status to file a claim to court since it is not a company endowed with the legal personality; it is rather an individual business whereby legal action is initiated by its owner under his/ her name even when he/ she has a business name – Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 2(1) – Law N°07/2009 of 27/04/2009 relating to companies, articles 16 and 376 – Ministerial Order No02/09/MINICOM of 08/05/2009 relating to business of low income, articles 2 and 10. ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd v. JULIA SHOP..……………..1 xiii

SUBJECT INDEX

Page 181

xiv Contract law – Contractual terms and terms of reference – Admissibility of the claim initially submitted before arbitral tribunal – Terms of reference cannot be referred to the court of law as a claim requesting its modification – Ministerial Order determining arbitration rules of Kigali International Arbitration Center (KIAC), article 29. YARI CORNACCHIA v. NSANAWE.…...………….97 Contracts or obligations law – Damages – There is no damages awarded to the plaintiff when the appeal has no merit because the defendant has no fault to be held reliable – Decree law 30/07/1888 relating to Contracts or obligations, article 258. MUNYAMPUNDU ET AL v. KIGALI CITY….……41 Criminal law – Minimization of Genocide – It shall be any deliberate act committed in public, aiming at downplaying the gravity or consequences of Genocide and downplaying the methods through which Genocide was committed. – Law N°84/2013 of 11/09/2013 on Genocide ideology and other related crimes, articles 6. PROSECUTION v. TURATSINZE.………………..121 Criminal procedure – Doubt – It favours the accused – Law Nº30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure, article 165(2o). PROSECUTION v. RUZINDANA………………….113 Consequences of the Prosecution not appealing against the penalty imposed – The penalty cannot be increased on the appellate level when the Prosecution did not appeal against it. PROSECUTION v. TURATSINZE.……………………...121

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 182

xv Evidence law – Presumptions – They are inferences that the law or a court makes from a known fact to discern an unknown fact. They must be significant, precise and consistent – Law Nº15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, articles 104 and 108. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. TURATSINZE.…………..121 Law determining the jurisdiction of courts – Appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court – Preliminary objection of lack of jurisdiction – Losing the case at first and second instance for the same grounds – Objection for lack of jurisdiction has no merit in case the grounds based on for losing the case at the first and second instance are not the same – Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 28(5). MUKAKALISA v. MUKAMUSANA ……………….13 Appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court – Objection of lack of jurisdiction – Loss of the case on first and second instance for similar reasons – In case the Supreme Court finds that the appellant lost the case on first and second instance on similar reasons, his appeal claim becomes inadmissible because it does not fall within its jurisdiction – Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 28(2&5). MUKAMANZI v. KWITUNGA ET AL.…………….27

SUBJECT INDEX

Page 184

PROCEDURAL CASES

Page 186

CASES RELATING TO CIVIL, COMMERCIAL, LABOUR AND

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

Page 188

ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd v. JULIA

SHOP [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCOMAA0042/14/CS (Kayitesi R. P.J., Mukandamage and Kanyange, J.) March 18, 2016] Commercial procedure – Status – Filing a claim under business name – JULIA SHOP has no status to file a claim to court since it is not a company endowed with the legal personality; it is rather an individual business whereby legal action is initiated by its owner under his/ her name even when he/ she has a business name – Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 2(1) – Law N°07/2009 of 27/04/2009 relating to companies, articles 16 and 376 – Ministerial Order No02/09/MINICOM of 08/05/2009 relating to business of low income, articles 2 and 10. Facts: JULIA SHOP requested ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd to open for it a letter of credit which was worth $860,000. Those dollars were supposed to be given to Star Trading FZCO as payment. After those errors in paperwork presented by Star Trading FZCO for payment were found, Star Trading FZCO requested to get back those papers. To JULIA SHOP, ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd took no notice of the issue and ordered EBI BANK S.A to release the dollars for payment under the pretext that JULIA SHOP had accepted to rectify those errors while, to 1

Page 189

2

RWANDA LAW REPORTS it, it was not notified about the concerns that had risen from those papers. JULIA SHOP sued to the Commercial Court and the latter held that ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd committed a fault when it ordered IBI SA Paris to release $860,000 for Five Star Trading FZCO to get paid based on the letter of credit which does not fulfil the requirements. ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd appealed to the Commercial High Court lamenting that the claim filed by JULIA SHOP had not to be admitted at the first instance because individual business is not endowed with the status to file a claim. The Court decided that the appeal of ECOBANK has no merit and held that cross appeal has merit in part. In so deciding, the Court found that JULIA SHOP has legal personality since in their different correspondences, JULIA SHOP was recognised, which implies that it is endowed with legal personality. The Court further held that the certificate of business registration indicates that it has legal personality. ECOBANK Rwanda Ltd appealed to the Supreme Court stating that the Commercial High Court had relied on inexistent law and ruled that JULIA SHOP has legal personality. JULIA SHOP filed a cross appeal requesting the accrual of the awarded damages. It insisted also that it has legal personality as demonstrated by the certificate of business registration as well as the agreements between two parties which show that those contracts were not concluded between ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd and Mukandahiro Julienne. Held: Taking into account the Law governing companies which provides that, registration, nature and organization of those who

Page 190

3 ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd v. JULIA SHOP cannot score a daily income of at least ten thousand Rwandan francs (10,000Frw) shall be determined by an Order of the Minister in charge of commerce, while JULIA SHOP was registered

in accordance with Ministerial Order No02/09/MINICOM of 08/05/2009 relating to business of low income, it indicates that JULIA SHOP is a business name of the sole proprietorship; hence it is not endowed with legal personality in a such a way that it is entitled to institute a legal proceeding due lack of status. Appeal has merit. The claim should not have been received. Appealed judgment quashed. Court fees to JULIA SHOP. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 2. Law N°07/2009 of 27/04/2009 relating to companies, articles 16 and 375. Ministerial Order No02/09/MINICOM of 08/05/2009 relating to business of low income, articles 2 and 10. No case was referred to. Author cited: J.P. Bertrel et M. Bertrel, Droit des sociétés, in Droit de l’entreprise, Paris, Wolters Kluwer France SAS, 2010/2011, p.382.

Page 191

4

RWANDA LAW REPORTS Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE

CASE [1] On 19 June 2012, JULIA SHOP requested ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd (LC) to open for it a letter of credit equivalent to $860,000 due to a successful bid to supply fertilizers to MINAGRI. The payment of those dollars ought to be done for Five Star Trading FZCO. [2] Five Star Trading FZCO submitted the papers to EMIRATES ISLAMIC BANK for the latter to submit them to EBI S.A Paris, France for the payment. When the papers where assessed by EBI S.A Paris, France, it found that they contained errors based on the requirements that Letter of Credit (UPC 600) must fulfill. EBI S.A Paris, France requested Emirates Islamic Bank to correct those papers. As to JULIA SHOP, ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd did not take note of those errors and ordered EBI BANK S.A to pay the aforementioned dollars based on the fact that JULIA SHOP had accepted to rectify the errors identified by EBI S.A Paris while JULIA SHOP claims that it was not notified of those errors. [3] JULIA SHOP filed the claim to the Commercial Court and the latter found that the claim has merit. The Court further found out that ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd committed a fault when it ordered EBI S.A Paris to make the payment of $860,000 to Five Star Trading FZCO based on the papers which did not comply with the requirements of the letter of credit. In consequence, the Court ordered ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd to refund the dollars to the account of JULIA SHOP and pay

Page 192

5 damages of 10,000,000Frw for the unauthorized withdrawal of those dollars from a client account and 300,000Frw for procedural and the advocate fees. [4] ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd appealed to the Commercial High Court lamenting that the claim filed by JULIA SHOP had to be inadmissible at the first instance because as a sole proprietorship, it had no status to institute the claim. It asserted that it was rather endowed in the person after whom it was named, Mukandahiro Julienne. ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd also claimed that it was rather found at fault and ordered to pay damages which had no grounds at all. [5] The Court found that appeal filed by ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd had no merit. It decided further that cross appeal filed by JULIA SHOP has merit only with regard to the advocate fees at appeal level, and consequently it awarded 500,000Frw. [6] The Court explained that JULIA SHOP is a business name of the enterprise belonging to Mukandahiro Julienne which has a legal personality and that in all correspondences between them; they used JULIA SHOP which indicates that it is a company owned by Mukandahiro Julienne which was being referred to. The Court further held that even the certificate of business registration clearly indicates that it is the enterprise endowed with the legal personality and had initiated the proceeding in the name of its Managing Director who is also the owner. [7] With regard to the merit of the case, the Court held that the defense of ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd that JULIA SHOP acknowledged all discrepancies in the e-mail dated September ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd v. JULIA SHOP

Page 193

6

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 5, 2012 has no merit since all emails which have been identified concern the bank slips and it is demonstrated by the letter dated September, 2012. [8] With regard to the awarded damages challenged by ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd, the Court held that the Court of the first instance had explained that it is the faults of that Bank which prejudiced JULIA SHOP and it was so confirmed at appeal. Therefore, the awarded damages have merit. The Court further explained that the statements that the allegations that incurred loss is not supported by evidence has no merit because, had ECOBANK not ordered the payment to Five Star but rather opts for the prior rectification of the identified errors, JULIA SHOP could have received the ordered commodities and it was the tender which had to generate interests for it. The Court hence concluded that such conduct caused loss which was remedied by award of damages. [9] The Court further found it unnecessary to examine the damages requested by ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd because it lost the claim. In addition, the damages requested by JULIA SHOP aiming at accrual of those awarded at the first instance have no merit as it did neither justify the reason of the dissatisfaction nor demonstrated the method of computation of the real incurred loss. Hence, though it might be justified that it has incurred the loss, those awarded at the first instance must be upheld. [10] ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd appealed to the Supreme Court lamenting that the previous Court had based its decision on inexistent law and decides that JULIA SHOP has legal personality and that ECOBANK RWANDA was at fault in connection with the payment executed in favor of Five Star

Page 194

7 Trading FZCO while JULIA SHOP had admitted to rectify errors that had been identified. Furthermore, ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd was ordered to pay damages while it committed no fault. JUALIA SHOP filed a cross appeal requesting the accrual of the awarded damages. [11] The case was heard in an open court on October 6, 2015 ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd being represented by both Counsel Rubasha Herbert and Mugwaneza Claudine while JULIA SHOP was represented by councel Mbaga Tuzinde Mbonyimbuga. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES 1. Whether JULIA SHOP is not entitled to filing a claim due to lack of legal personality. [12] Counsels for ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd claimed that the Court confirmed that JULIA SHOP has status to initiate a claim while it is actually only a business name. They insisted that, it is rather Mukandahiro Julienne who should have filed a claim because it is under her name that the enterprise is registered. Furthermore, they insisted that the Court considered JULIA SHOP as a company while it is a sole proprietorship. They added further that both types of entities are registered basing on different legal instruments since, for the company it is Law N°07/2009 of 27/04/2009 relating to companies as modified to date while for individual businesses, they are registered by RDB under Ministerial Order No02/09/MINICOM of 08/05/2009 relating to business of low income. Hence, JULIA SHOP was registered based on this Order as her certificate of registration testifies. ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd v. JULIA SHOP

Page 195

8

RWANDA LAW REPORTS [13] They pleaded further that filing a claim must be distinguished from commercial relationships whereby parties have been using JULIA SHOP. They stressed further that the nature of the decided case that ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd requests to be based on must be assessed. In addition they adduced that, in their view, there are no drafting deficiencies as claimed by counsel for ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd but rather the claim should have been declared inadmissible. [14] Counsel for JULIA SHOP claimed that the latter is endowed with the legal personality as testified by the certificate of registration and stressed by the different contractual agreements between JULIA SHOP and ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd given that they were not entered into between ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd and Mukandahiro Julienne. He explained further that it is JULIA SHOP/Julienne Mukandahiro who initiated the claim on the first instance. He articulated further that in her submissions initiating the claim, she specified her business name, registration code and its representative, Mukandahiro Julienne. He concluded that the fact that it was not Mukandahiro Julienne who was initially registered then JULIA SHOP, must not be taken as if the enterprise has no legal personality while it is lawfully registered. [15] He stated further that there are a number of cases decided by the Supreme Court which clearly indicate that the appellant or the defendants are enterprises in the name of its representative. He referred for example to the case RADA0002/12/CS whereby the appellant was ERGECO in the name of its Managing Director while the respondent was ECOSEC in the name of its Managing Director. He reiterated that with regard to this case, JULIA SHOP is the plaintiff in the

Page 196

9 name of its Managing Director and that in case there was a typographical error, and then it could be rectified in accordance with article 93 of the Law relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure.

THE VIEW OF THECOURT [16] Article 375 of Law N°07/2009 of 27/04/2009 relating to companies as modified to date states that registration, nature and organization of those who cannot score a daily income of at least ten thousand Rwandan francs (10,000Frw) shall be determined by an Order of the Minister in charge of commerce. [17] Pursuant to the above article, a Ministerial Order No02/09/MINICOM of 08/05/2009 relating to business of low income was enacted, whereby in its article 2, it provides that a business activity shall mean any business activity carried out by any individual regardless of sex and registered as provided for by this Order. It shall include purchase and sale, service delivery or any other professional activity done on a regular basis in order to gain profit. [18] With regard to the business of Mukandahiro Julienne, the certificate of registration which was issued by RDB on September 21, 2011, indicates that it was issued based on article 10 of Ministerial Order No02/09/MINICOM of 08/05/2009 as referred to above. As the title of that Order indicates alongside with its article 2, it is clear that it concerns the business carried out by individuals, and not companies since they are registered based on article 16 of Law N°07/2009 of 27/04/2009 relating to companies. ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd v. JULIA SHOP

Page 197

10

RWANDA LAW REPORTS [19] This certificate of business registration indicates that it was issued to Mukandahiro Julienne as the owner of the business and that the business runs under the commercial name of JULIA SHOP. Therefore, the fact that JULIA SHOP is the business name of the sole trader implies that it has no legal personality to the extent to be able to file a claim before the court. It is rather done by the owner of the business who in this case is Mukandahiro Julienne as indicated by the business certificate. [20] The explanations above are in conformity with the opinions of legal scholars who explain that, the sole proprietorship is the business ran by individual person and that the sole trader runs such kind of business in his/ her name. They explain further that such kind of business has no legal personality which is different from that of its owner.1 These same explanations are also found on the web site which indicates that individual business has no legal personality and cannot sue to court but legal action can be brought by the business owner in his/ her name2.

1A sole proprietorship is that which is ran by one individual that is to say without partner. It is also said such a trader exercises trade in '' his own name ''or'' in his own name. ''It is important to understand that such a sole proprietorship does not have legal personality separate from that of the individual who runs it. The individual business, unlike the company therefore has no legal personality: Droit des sociétés, in Droit de l’entreprise, Paris, Wolters Kluwer France SAS, 2010/2011, p.382. 2The individual company does not have legal personality and is not subject of law. Consequently, it cannot be real rights holder and is part of the entrepreneur's personal assets. It also cannot sue; legal actions are brought by the contractor on its behalf. The sole proprietorship has no right to contract; agreements for professional activities are concluded in the name and on behalf of the individual entrepreneur:

Page 198

11 [21] With regard to the case at hand, the plaintiff’s submissions to the first instance indicate that it is JULIA SHOP with enterprise code Nº100092512 in the name of its Managing Director, Mukandahiro Julienne which filed the claim, and even the submissions drafted by the advocate to the court indicate that they were drafted on behalf of JULIA SHOP. This is the same case for the defense submissions before the Supreme Court whereby it is clear that they have been submitted on behalf of JULIA SHOP. [22] Considering the above mentioned findings, JULIA SHOP was not entitled to file a legal action in the name of its Managing Director since it is not endowed with legal personality as highlighted above; it should have been done by the owner of the business who is Mukandahiro Julienne instead. Therefore, pursuant to article 2, paragraph 1 of Law Nº21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure which provides that a claim cannot be accepted in court unless the plaintiff has the status, interest and

http://www.distripedie.com/distripedie/spip.php some people do not necessarily want to create a company, but still want to use a business name for the services they offer. They must then register their names at REQ. This is called an individual business. For example, Justin Morin Lemieux can have its snow removal company under the name of “snow removal service J.M.L.Enr” In the REQ, it will indicate that the snow removal service J.M.L.Enr. is a sole proprietorship whose owner is Justin. In this situation, it is the person who runs the business to be pursued, and name individual business. Indeed, this one does not legally exist is a simple name: http://www.educaloi.qc.ca/capsules/bien identifier-qui-il-faut-poursuivre

ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd v. JULIA SHOP

Page 199

12

RWANDA LAW REPORTS capacity to bring the suit, the Court finds that the suit brought by JULIA SHOP in the name of its Managing Director, Mukandahiro Julienne, should not have been admitted since the claimant had no status to file a claim because JULIA SHOP has no legal personality. It implies that the judgment RCOM0389/14/TC/NYG which was decided by the Commercial Court as well as the judgment RCOMA0367/14/HCC rendered by the Commercial High Court must be quashed and it is not necessary to examine other grounds of appeal for ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd. III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [23] Holds that appeal filed by ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd has merit; [24] Decides that the suit filed by JULIA SHOP should not have been admitted; [25] Decides that the judgment RCOM0389/14/TC/NYG rendered by the Commercial Court as well as the judgment in RCOMA0367/14/HCC rendered by Commercial High Court are overturned; [26] Orders JULIA SHOP to pay the court fees equivalent to 100,000Frw.

Page 200

MUKAKALISA v. MUKAMUSANA ET AL [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCAA0037/15/CS (Nyirinkwaya, P.J., Mukandamage and Nyirandabaruta, J.) April 29, 2016] Law determining the jurisdiction of courts – Appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court – Preliminary objection of lack of jurisdiction – Losing the case at first and second instance for the same grounds – Objection for lack of jurisdiction has no merit in case the grounds based on for losing the case at the first and second instance are not the same – Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 28(5). Facts: This case is based on the succession of the property left by Ntuyenabo Fidèle who was legally married with Nyiramfabakuze with whom they had three children who are Mukamusana Liliane, Musana Landry and Musanabera Sylvie and in 1990, they divorced. In 1993, he got married with Mukakalisa and had also three children, Ntwari Musana Nelson, Musana Lys and Musana Lynn, and on 11 May 2012 Ntuyenabo passed away. In 2013 Mukamusana Liliane, Musana Laundry and Musanabera Sylvie seized the Intermediate Court of Musanze requesting for the succession of their late father’s property which had been illegally possessed by the defendants. 13

Page 201

14

RWANDA LAW REPORTS In her defence, Mukakalisa argued that she is entitled to the disputed property because she was legally married with the deceased, by which she produced the marriage certificate. That Court held that Mukakalisa did not prove that she was married with Ntuyenabo because the document she produced as an evidence does not contain the main provisions which it is supposed to have, therefore it cannot be considered as an authentic deed of the (marriage) to resolve the dispute for all the parties, and also it held that the successors to the deceased who are his six children he had with both wives must share equally the property mentioned in the case, it also ordered Mukakalisa to pay 76,734,949Frw of the revenues he got from the property of Ntuyenabo which the successors must also share equally, she was also charged damages. Mukakalisa appealed to the High Court claiming that the Intermediate Court refused to grant her the share on property she co owns with Ntuyenabo. The High Court decided that the appeal of Mukakalisa has no merit and indicated Ntuyenabo’s property which must be inherited and its location. It cancelled the land and the provisional titles which indicated that the estate to be inherited is jointly owned by Ntuyenabo and Mukakalisa; it declared that the appealed judgement is only superseded in regards with the property to be inherited and Mukakalisa to pay to the respondents the counsel fees incurred on the appellate level. Mukakalisa appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that the High Court, chamber of Musanze misinterpreted article 39 of the law mentioned above and also the judgment RS/INCONST/PEN0003/10/CS, that it disregarded the facts and laws regulating the duties of the parents in raising their children,

Page 202

15 MUKAKALISA v. MUKAMUSANA ET AL that it cancelled the documents for the immovable property on illegitimate ground. Mukamusana raised a preliminary objection of lack of jurisdiction on the ground that Mukakalisa lost the case on the first and second instance on similar grounds. In her defence, Mukakalisa argued on that objection in stating that the grounds relied on in the adjudication of the case are not similar because on the first instance, the Court heard and examined whether she is the legitimate wife of Ntuyenabo for her to have right on the property of Ntuyenabo and consequently it was declared that she is not a legitimate wife of Ntuyenabo, whereas on the second instance the litigation was about examining whether she can have the right entitled to illegitimate wife of Ntuyenabo whereby it was decided that there is no proof that they acquired it together especially that the appellant avers that Ntuyenabo had it before they lived together. Held: Even though the appellant lost the case in both Courts; but at the first instance her right on property which she jointly owns with Ntuyenabo was based on the ground that they were legally married though she failed to prove that marriage and she lost the case whereas at the second instance she based that right on the ground that she cohabitated with him although they were not legally married and they co-owned that property and she lost because the Court held that Ntuyenabo had that property before living with her, therefore those grounds are not the same, hence the objection raised by the respondents is overruled. The objection is overruled; Court fees suspended.

Page 203

16

RWANDA LAW REPORTS Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 28(5). Law Nº59/2008 of 10/09/2008 on prevention and punishment of gender-based violence, article 39. Case referred to: Gatera v. Kalisa, RS/Incost/Pen.0003/10/CS, rendered by the Supreme Court on January 07, 2011. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE

CASE [1] This case is based on the issue of succession of the estate of the late Ntuyenabo Fidèle who was deceased on 11 May 2012 in Nairobi Kenya. He was legally married with Nyiramfabakuze Bibiane and they gave birth to three children, namely Mukamusana Liliane, Musana Laundry and Musanabera Sylvie. [2] Ntuyenabo Fidèle and Nyiramfabakuze divorced1 in 1990 and in 1993, Ntuyenabo Fidèle got married with Mukakalisa Marie Louise with whom they had three children together, namely Ntwari Musana Nelson, Musana Lys and Musana Lynn. Ntuyenabo deceased on 11 May 2012.

1 Judgment RC17.413/R43/90 of 31/08/1990.

Page 204

17 [3] In 2013 Mukamusana Liliane, Musana Laundry and Musanabera Sylvie seized the Intermediate Court of Musanze claiming for the succession of the estate of their deceased parent which is in possession of the defendants who are not entitled the right to it. In the Judgment No RC0127/13/TGI/MUS rendered on 20 March 2014, that Court held that Mukakalisa Marie Louise did not prove that she was legally married with Ntuyenabo Fidèle, and that the rightful heirs of Ntuyenabo Fidèle are Mukamusana Liliane, Musana Landry, Musanabera Sylvie, Ntwari Musana Nelson, Musana Lyn and Musana Lys who have to share equally the estate of Ntuyenabo Fidèle mentioned in that judgment. It also ordered Mukakalisa Marie Louise to pay 76,734,949Frw of the revenue she got from Ntuyenabo Fidèle’s estate which must also be shared equally among the heirs, and it charged her damages. [4] Mukakalisa Marie Louise appealed against that judgment in the High Court, Chamber of Musanze claiming that the Intermediate Court did not allocate to her the share on the property she jointly owned with Ntuyenabo Fidèle. In the judgment RCA0043/14/HC/MUS, rendered on 30 September 2015 by the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, this Court held that the appeal of Mukakalisa Marie Louise has no merit, hence, it précised the estate of the late Ntuyenabo Fidèle which must be inherited and its location2, cancelled the land and emphyteutic lease titles which indicated that the estate to be inherited is jointly owned by Ntuyenabo Fidèle and Mukakalisa Marie Louise, that the land registrar should register it in the names of Ntuyenabo Fidele. It declared that the appealed judgement is

2 The judgment RCA0043/14/HC/MUS, rendered on 30 September 2015 by High Court, Musanze, p.12-13 ([22]). MUKAKALISA v. MUKAMUSANA ET AL

Page 205

18

RWANDA LAW REPORTS only superseded in regards with the estate to be inherited. It ordered Mukakalisa Marie Louise to pay to Mukamusana Liliane, Musana Landry and Musanabera Sylvie the Counsel fees. [5] Mukakalisa appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that the High Court, chamber of Musanze misinterpreted article 39 of the Law Nº59/2008 of 10/09/2008 on prevention and punishment of gender-based violence and also the case law RS/INCONST/PEN0003/10/CS. It disregarded the facts and laws regulating the duties of the parents in raising their children and cancelled the immovable property titles on the basis of illegitimate grounds. [6] The case was heard in public on 05 April 2016, Mukamusana Liliane, Musana Landry and Musanabera Sylvie represented by Counsel Kavuyekure Dieudonné whereas Mukakalisa Marie Louise represented by Counsel Nzirabatinyi Fidèle, and on that day the parties argued about the preliminary objection of lack of jurisdiction which was raised by the Counsel for Mukamusana Liliane and others on the ground that Mukakalisa Marie Louise lost the case on first and second instance on similar grounds. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUE Determining whether Mukakalisa Marie Louise lost the case on the first and second instance basing on similar grounds. [7] Counsel Kavuyekure Dieudonné argues that Mukakalisa Marie Louise pleaded in Intermediate Court of Musanze claiming that she is entitled to the Ntuyenabo Fidèle’s estate on the ground that they were married and during the summary

Page 206

19 procedure the estate was put under her administration on the ground that she lived with late Ntuyenabo Fidèle as legally married, but after the judgment RCA0291/14/TGI/NGOMA which held that Mukakalisa never got legally married to Ntuyenabo Fidèle, she changed the claim and pleaded in the High Court arguing that she demands the right on the property she jointly acquired with Ntuyenabo Fidèle, therefore it is evident that she pleaded on the first and second instance about the estate and lost the cases, because it was held that when she lived with Ntuyenabo Fidèle, he was already in possession of the contested estate. [8] Counsel Nzirabatinyi Fidèle argues that Mukamusana Liliane and others are the ones who seized the court at first instance, and the Court heard the arguments on whether Mukakalisa Marie Louise is the legitimate wife of Ntuyenabo for her to be entitled the right to his estate and it was decided that she is not a wife of Ntuyenabo, whereas on the second instance the argument was about determining whether Mukakalisa Marie Louise could have the right as a wife who cohabited with Ntuyenabo Fidèle without being legally married. In his view, he finds that the decisions of both Courts are the same, but relied on different grounds.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [9] Article 28 of the Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court provides for in its fifth paragraph that the case lost by a party to proceedings in the first and second instances basing on similar grounds shall not be appealed for to the Supreme Court. MUKAKALISA v. MUKAMUSANA ET AL

Page 207

20

RWANDA LAW REPORTS [10] In the Judgment RC0127/13/TGI/MUS rendered on 20 March 2014 by Intermediate Court of Musanze, the plaintiffs were Mukamusana Liliane, Musana Landry and Musanabera Sylvia and the defendants were Mukakalisa Marie Louise, Ruragije Jonas alias Mugezi and Munyemanza Faustin and Ntwari Musana Nelson voluntary intervened while Mukakalisa Marie Louise was forced to intervene to represent her children Musana Lys and Musana Lynn. The subject matter was “the succession of the estate of our late parent Ntuyenabo Fidèle who deceased on 11 May 2012 and that estate is possessed by the defendants who are not entitled to it”. [11] In that judgment as it is evident on paragraph three [3] on page 2-3, the Court examined the issue relating to whether Mukakalisa Marie Louise was legally married to Ntuyenabo Fidèle for her to be entitled to his estate, determination of the estate of late Ntuyenabo Fidèle, and its succession procedure and the damages requested by the parties in the case. [12] On the issue of determining whether Mukakalisa Marie Louise was legally married with Ntuyenabo for her to be entitled to his estate, the Court based on the photocopy of the marriage certificate submitted by Mukakalisa Marie Louise which was issued by the former Bicumbi district. The court ruled that the photocopy of the marriage certificate does not indicate the main provisions which should be in such a document, therefore it should not be considered as an authentic deed (marriage certificate) with an erga omnes value, and also the fact that the civil status officer did not confirm that Ntuyenabo Fidèle was married with Mukakalisa Marie Louise, the court could not hold that they were married since there was no marriage certificate issued by the public servant who has the

Page 208

21 competence to do so ( paragraphs 9 - 17 of the judgment RC0127/13/TGI/MUS rendered on 20 March 2014, especially paragraphs 12, 15 and 17). [13] The Court finds that this ground was not examined in the judgment RCA0043/14/HC/MUS rendered on 30 September 2014 by the High Court, chamber of Musanze, because Mukakalisa Marie Louise did not again present the argument that she was legally married with her husband Ntuyebabo Fidèle, because at appeal level she pleaded arguing that the previous Court refused to grant her the share of the contested property as a wife who cohabited with Ntuyebabo Fidèle since 1993 till 2012. She argued that her right is based on article 39 of the Law Nº59/2008 of 10/09/2008 on the prevention and punishment of gender based violence, and on the judgment RS/INCONST/PEN0003/10/CS3 rendered on 07 January 2011 by the Supreme Court. [14] On the issue of determining the estate of late Ntuyenabo Fidèle and on how it will be inherited, it is indicated in the case file that the Intermediate Court of Musanze with the aid of the

3 The judgment RS/ Incost/Pen.0003/10/CS, Gatera Johnson and his wife Kalisa Theddy requested for the repeal of article 39 of Law Nº59/2008 of 10/09/2008 on prevention and punishment of gender based violence, which provides for the equal right on property for the people entertaining unlawful marriages because it contravenes article 26 of the Constitution. The Supreme court held that article of 39 does not contravenes the constitution, that the effects on the property of those who lived as a wife and husband without a legal marriage when they decide to separate are not the same as for those who were legally married and they divorce, that the right on property of the married people are based on marriage contract they chose at their on the eve of their marriage, whereas for those who lived as a wife and husband that right is based on the fact that jointly owned it or acquired together. MUKAKALISA v. MUKAMUSANA ET AL

Page 209

22

RWANDA LAW REPORTS administration of Musanze, Burera and Kicukiro districts, identified the assets of Ntuyenabo and their location, and other various documents in file such as registration certificate folio 87 vol.E.XI, and other documents demonstrating various bank account, as it is in the judgment RC0127/13/TGI/MUS mentioned above on the page 7-8, paragraph [21-25] and [42]. Therefore it held that the immovable property left by Ntuyenabo Fidèle which must be inherited is constituted by the plots registered on Nº2433, Nº2244, Nº5971 and Nº4024 located in Muhabura cell, Nyange Sector, Musanze district; plots registered on Nº577, Nº 5969 located in Ruhengeri cell, Muhoza Sector, Musanze district, the plot registered on Nº373 located in Migeshi cell, Cyuve Sector, Musanze Sector, and the other one registered on Nº08/49 which is located in former Mulinzi- Gasiza in Ruhengeri. [15] Regarding the heirs to the estate and also the money left and that of the revenue got from the deceased’s asset amounting to 76,734,949Frw, the Court ruled that when Ntuyenabo divorced with the mother of the children who seized the court (legitimate wife named Nyiramfabakuze Bibiane) in 1990, the entire property got back in his possession, and even when he lived with Mukakalisa Marie Louise the property was still his because they did not get married legally. Thus it must be inherited by all of his children who are; Mukamusana Liliane, Musana Landry, Musana Sylvie, Ntwari Musana Nelson, Musana Lynn and Musana Lys ( see the paragraph of [26] - [30] of the judgment RC0127/13/TGI/MUS. [16] On the issue of the right to the property, before the High Court, as indicated above, Mukakalisa Marie Louise argued that the previous Court refused to grant her a share on the contested

Page 210

23 property as a wife who stayed in concubinage with him since 1993 till 2012. She states that her right is grounded on article 39 of the Law Nº59/2008 of 10/09/2008 on prevention and punishment of gender-based violence, and on the case law RS/INCONST/PEN0003/10/CS rendered on 07 January 2011 by the Supreme Court. [17] That Court examined the provision of article 39 of the Law Nº59/2008 of 10/09/2008 mentioned above and the interpretation of article 39 by the Supreme Court in the judgment RS/Incost/Pen.0003/10/CS, whereby it interpreted that the right on the property by one of these who lived in concubinage without a legal marriage is based on the fact that they acquired it together and that right is not only based on the fact that they lived as husband and wife without a legal marriage, rather it must be obvious that they jointly own that property or acquired it together4 and then it examined the issue of the immovable property that Mukakalisa Marie Louise argued that it is registered on her and Ntuyenabo Fidèle for assessing whether she has a right over it. [18] The High Court, in accordance with the statements of the counsel for Mukakalisa Marie Louise that the property she demonstrated in the valuation report belonged to Ntuyenabo before they cohabitated in 1993, but that they jointly owned that property because it was registered on both of them, and there were some transformations made on it5 ,but apart from arguing that, she failed to prove to the Court those transformations or

4 Idem, p.5-6 ([8]-[9]) 5 Idem, p.7 ([12]) MUKAKALISA v. MUKAMUSANA ET AL

Page 211

24

RWANDA LAW REPORTS the renovation made on the immovable property owned by Ntuyenabo, so that he could indicate the share of Mukakalisa Marie Louise on it. It also examined the validity of the emphyteutic lease of the immovable property to be inherited which is registered on Ntuyenabo and Mukakalisa Marie Louise and it found as indicated in part [14] and [15] of the appealed judgment that there was fraud (it was revealed in the investigation carried out by the Court at the administration of Musanze District on 26 February 2013 that it was based on the fact that the letter of 26 February 2013 requesting for the land title addressed to the Mayor of Musanze district, was written in secretariat of Musanze district, by Ntuyenabo while he was not alive by that time because he deceased on 11 May 2012, and the fact that the investigation carried out by the Court on 29 September 2015 at the office of the Deputy Registrar General of land titles in Northern Province indicates also that Mukakalisa stated that the origin of one of the property of which she possesses documents which she submitted to the court, which is among the assets to be inherited was bought by her and Ntuyenabo, the other being their inheritance and the rest was given to them by the government. These statements are contrary to the statements of her counsel Nzirabatinyi who stated that the contested property was all in

ownership of Ntuyenabo before cohabitation with Mukakalisa in 1993. [19] The Court finds that it is according to aforementioned grounds that were considered by the High Court, whereby basing on the attributions of the Office of the Registrar General of land titles bestowed to him by article 20 of Law N°43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda demonstrating that the land title may be cancelled, (those are emphasised by article 10 part 5 of the presidential order No97/01 of 18 June 2004

Page 212

25 determining the functioning and the competence of the land registrar) which regards the cancellation of the emphyteutic lease title, it cancelled the final and provisional emphyteutic lease titles which indicated that the immovable property to be inherited belongs to both Ntuyenabo Fidèle and Mukakalisa Marie Louise. Instead, the Registrar general of Land titles registered them in the names of Ntuyenabo Fidèle. [20] As demonstrated above, the court finds that, at the first instance Marie Louise relied her pretentions on the fact that she was legally married to Ntuyenabo Fidèle and they live together until Ntuyenabo Fidèle died in 2012, therefore she must get a share on the contested property, and she lost because she failed to prove that the marriage existed and it was declared that it is only six children of Ntuyenabo Fidèle who should inherit the contested property. [21] The Court finds that at the second instance, Mukakalisa Marie Louise did not base her rights on her being fact that she was married to Ntuyenabo Fidèle, rather she based that right on the ground that she lived with him in concubinage relationshipas a wife and husband although they were not legally married and they co-owned that property. In consequence, she submitted to the court the emphyteutic lease title which demonstrated that it belongs to her and Ntuyentabo, and she lost the case because her Counsel argued that Ntuyenabo owned all properties before he began to live together with Mukakalisa Marie Louise, who argues that she made some transformations on it but failed to prove them. The fact that the documents she submitted were obtained fraudulently, that Court held that the appealed judgment is superseded only on the property to be inherited MUKAKALISA v. MUKAMUSANA ET AL

Page 213

26

RWANDA LAW REPORTS (because there are other additional assets which were demonstrated by Mukakalisa Marie Louise). [22] Therefore as demonstrated above, the Court is of the view that even if Mukakalisa Marie Louise lost the case in both Courts, she did not lose on similar grounds, thus the preliminary objection raised by the respondents in this case has no merit. [23] The Court finds that it is not necessary to examine other grounds on which both Courts decided, because it is already evident that in those Courts, Mukakalisa Marie Louise did not lose cases on similar grounds. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [24] It holds that the preliminary objection of lack of jurisdiction by the Supreme Court raised by Kavuyekure Dieudonné, counsel for the respondents in this case has no merit. [25] It declares that the hearing of the case on merit will resume on 12 July 2016. [26] It orders the Court fees to be suspended.

Page 214

MUKAMANZI v. KWITUNGA ET AL [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCAA0019/14/CS (Nyirinkwaya, P.J., Kayitesi R. and Mukandamage, J.) February 12, 2016] Law determining jurisdiction of courts – Appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court – Objection of lack of jurisdiction – Loss of the case on first and second instance for similar reasons – In case the Supreme Court finds that the appellant lost the case on first and second instance on similar reasons, his appeal claim becomes inadmissible because it does not fall within its jurisdiction – Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 28(2&5). Facts: This case originated from the claim initiated by Mukamanzi to the Intermediate Court of Rubavu against his husband Kanyarwanda Cléophas and Kwitunga Tonny whereby she requested the resolution of the provisional contract of sale of the house located on the plot N°48, Vol RT XXVII Folio 132 in Gisenyi town, Rubavu district between Kanyarwanda Cléophas and Kwitunga Tonny without her consent. On 3rd August 2012, this Court rendered the judgment RC0369/011TGI/RBV and held that the said sale contract concluded by Nsanzumuhire Kayitare François under the power of attorney he was assigned by Kanyarwanda could not be resolved, therefore it should be complied with by the principal as well as Mukamanzi. 27

Page 215

28

RWANDA LAW REPORTS Mukamanzi lodged an appeal to the High Court, Chamber of Musanze alleging that the Intermediate Court of Rubavu disregarded the provision of the law which states that in order for the acquisition of land to be valid, it should be endorsed by the spouse and children in written form. This court rendered the judgment RCA0154/12/HC/MUS on 6 December 2012 and found the appeal lodged by Mukamanzi without merit; therefore it upheld the appealed judgment and specified that she is also among the parties who have the obligation to execute the clauses of the contract, given that Mukakamanzi failed to provide contradictory evidence to evidence submitted by Kwitunga Tonny constituted by the letter of 29/9/2011 that Mukamanzi addressed to Nsanzimfura Kayitare François in which she mentions that she conveys to him the document; mentions which refer to the termination of the proxy relating to the management of the assets as well as the sale of the house registered to Kanyarwanda. This indicates that she could not terminate the proxy she did not participate in because she explained that its termination was due to the fact that they were not given the report on their assets management which implies that had she not assigned the duty, she could not have requested it. Mukamanzi appealed to the Supreme Court alleging that the court disregarded his grounds which indicates that she

has never endorsed the sale directly neither in the proxy assigned by Kanyarwanda to Nsanzimfura nor in sale contract. She states also that the court disregarded without any ground the case law she relied on which was rendered by the Supreme Court on the similar issue. She alleges that another ground is that the court misinterpreted the provison of article 37 of the Organic Law N°08/2005 of 14/07/2005 governing land in Rwanda.

Page 216

29 MUKAMANZI v. KWITUNGA ET AL Before the examination of the merit, Counsel Serugo Jean Baptiste and counsel Rukarishya Philémon for the respondent raised an objection of lack of jurisdiction by the Supreme Court, whereby they explain that given that Mukamanzi lost her claim at the Intermediate Court of Rubavu and her appeal at High Court, Chamber of Musanze; her appeal claim does not fall into the jurisdiction of Supreme Court because she lost the case at both instances on similar grounds, therefore in accordance to the provision of the last paragraph of article 28 of the Organic Law determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, her appeal claim should not be admitted. The counsel for Mukamanzi presents her client’s defence grounds whereby he states that the reasons relied on by the first instance court are different from grounds relied on by the appellate Court since in the judgment RC0369/011/TGI/RBV, the Court decided that she participated in the assignment of power of attorney without evidence indicating his consent to the sale of the property whereas in the judgment RCA0154/12/HC/MUS, the appellate Court did not address the provision of articles 21 and 22 of the Law relating to matrimonial regimes, rather, it addressed article 37 of the Law governing land of the year 2005. Held: Given that previous courts held that the content of

the document dated on 29 September 2011 which was written by Mukakamanzi to Nsanzimfura, whereby she states that she would like to address to him a document involving the termination of the proxy relating to the management of the assets and that of sale of the house located in Gisenyi town and that, as a spouse to Kanyarwanda of whom they co-own all property, she supports this termination and therefore he should

Page 217

30

RWANDA LAW REPORTS submit to her the property management report; it is clear that Mukamanzi participated in the proxy relating to the sale of their house assigned by her husband Kanyarwanda, therefore the Supreme Court finds that Mukamanzi lost the case at first and second instance for similar grounds, and consequently her appeal should not be admitted and examined because it does not fall into the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Objection with merit. Appeal dismissed. Court fees to the appellant. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 28(2&5). No case referred to: Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE

CASE [1] Mukamanzi Laurence sued her husband named Kanyarwanda Cléophas and Kwitunga Tonny before Intermediate Court of Rubavu, requesting the termination of the provisional sale contract of the house at plot N°48, Vol RT XXVII Folio 132 located in Gisenyi town, Rubavu district which she co-own with her husband because it was concluded

Page 218

31 without her consent and she requested the counsel fees amounting to 3,000,000Frw. [2] The court rendered the judgment RC0369/011TGI/RBV on 03/08/2012, and held that the contract of sale which was concluded by Nsanzumuhire Kayitare François, under the proxy assigned by kanyarwanda is valid and should be executed by the principals, therefore the plot N°48 Vol. RT XXVII, Folio 132 in Gisenyi town mentioned in it belongs to the purchaser named Kwitunga Tonny, and the execution of this contract should be done by Kanyarwanda or another person he may delegate. It ordered the plot to be registered to the purchaser Kwitonda Tonny. It ordered also Mukamanzi to pay court fees and counsel fees amounting to 400,000Frw. [3] Mukamanzi appealed to the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, alleging that the Intermediate Court of Rubavu disregarded the fact that the law provides that in order for the land to be sold, the spouse and children should endorse it in writing, and that it made a contradiction whereby it held that the provisional sale contract is valid and that it should be performed by all agents including Kanyarwanda and his agent. [4] That Court rendered the judgment RCA0154/12/HC/MUS on 6 December 2012, and found the appeal lodged by Mukamanzi without merit therefore that the appealed judgment is upheld and that he is among those who are required to execute the clauses of the contract and should pay 300,000Frw of counsel fees and 50,000Frw of procedural expenses and court fees. [5] As grounds for the decision, the court explained that Mukamanzi failed to contradict the evidence submitted by MUKAMANZI v. KWITUNGA ET AL

Page 219

32

RWANDA LAW REPORTS kwitonda Tonny which is constituted by the letter written on 29 September 2011 containing the message addressed to Nsanzimfura Kayitare François whereby it is stated that she handed him the message written by Kanyarwanda which relates to the termination of the proxy for management of assets and sale of the house located in Gisenyi. [6] The court found in addition that Mukamanzi assisted his husband to assign the proxy relating to the sale of the house to Nsanzimfura because according to the documents dated on 29 September 2011, one of which was written by Kanyarwanda while another was written by Mukamanzi, it is indicated that they jointly participated in termination of that proxy because they were not given a report on the management of their property; therefore Mukamanzi would not have terminated the proxy he did not participate in because she explained that its termination was due to the lack of the report, which she would not require had she never assigned it. [7] The Court found that the holdings of the Intermediate Court of Rubavu that Mukamanzi was aware and indorsed the proxy relating to the sale of the plot N°48 Vol RT XX VII Folio located in Gisenyi town has merit, and that the documents of 29 September 2011 are substantial evidence likely to be relied on to confirm that the sale of the house was known and endorsed by Mukamanzi. [8] Concerning the fact that the court which rendered the judgment at first instance contradicted itself, the court found that the ruling judge contradicted himself whereby he indicated that there are some elements of evidence indicating that Mukamanzi was involved in the proxy assigned to Nsanzimfura while in the decision, he indicated that the proxy was concluded

Page 220

33 by Kanyarwanda to Nsanzimfura and in addition he stated that Nsanzimfura was appointed by several persons. He also ordered that it is Kanyarwanda who is assigned the obligation to execute the contract or another person he may appoint without mentioning Mukamanzi as far as the execution of the contract is concerned while she is also concerned, but in turn, the court mentioned Mukamanzi among those with the obligation to execute the contract. [9] Mukamanzi lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court alleging that the court disregarded her submissions in which she indicates that he did not indorse her consent in writing directly, whether in the proxy that Kanyarwanda assigned to Nsanzimfura or in sale contract. She states in addition that the court disregarded the case law she submitted which was rendered by the Supreme Court on the similar issue. She alleges again that the court misinterpreted the provision of the article 37 of the Organic Law N°08/2005 of 14/07/2005 governing land in Rwanda. [10] The hearing was conducted in public on 05 January 2016, whereby Mukamanzi Laurence was represented by Counsel Nkurunziza François Xavier, Kanyarwanda Cléophas being represented by Counsel Nizeyimana Boniface while Kwitunga Tonny was represented by Counsel Serugo Jean Baptiste and Counsel Rukarishya Philémon.

MUKAMANZI v. KWITUNGA ET AL

Page 221

34

RWANDA LAW REPORTS II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUE Whether the appeal lodged by Mukamanzi Laurence falls within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. [11] Before the examination of the merit of the case, Counsel Serugo Jean Baptiste and Counsel Rukarishya Philémon raised an objection of lack of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court stating that it relies on the provision of the last paragraph of article 28 of the Organic Law determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. They allege that Mukamanzi initiated a claim to the Intermediate Court of Rubavu which she lost, and appealed to the High Court, Chamber of Musanze and lost again, therefore they find that her appeal does not fall into the jurisdiction of this court because she lost at both instances on similar grounds. [12] They go on stating that in the judgment RC0369/011/TGI/RBV rendered by the Intermediate Court of Rubavu on 3 August 2012, it was relied on two documents which indicate clearly that Mukamanzi knew the proxy assigned by her husband (page 4-6, paragraph 10) and that she indorsed it, especially that in the judgment RCA0154/12/HC/MUS rendered by the High Court, Chamber of Musanze on 6 December 2012, Mukamanzi Laurence lost also the case due to the fact that it was relied on the same document, except that there has been a mistake on the date of drafting of one of them. This court upheld the ruling of the first judge which implies that the grounds relied on are similar. [13] Counsel Nkurunziza François Xavier who represents Mukamanzi Laurence states that the reasons relied on by the previous judge differ from the reasons relied on by the second

Page 222

35 judge. He explains that Mukamanzi initiated a claim basing on article 21 and 22 of the Law regarding matrimonial regimes as well as articles 35 and 37 of the Law of 2005 governing land. He relied also on the case RCOM0001/07/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 24 July 2008, in which parties were Rwigema Joséphine against ECOBANK Rwanda, and he states that on the page 4, paragraph 10 of the judgment RC0369/011TGI/RBV, the previous judge held that Mukamanzi assigned the proxy but nothing indicates that she approved the sale of the property. [14] He goes on arguing that in the judgment RCA0154/12/HC/MUS, the second judge was silent about the provision of articles 21 and 22 of the Law regarding matrimonial regimes, but provided some arguments on article 37 of the law of 2005 governing land, whereby he stated it is not prohibited to the judge to rely on other evidence, which implies that Kanyarwanda accepted the sale of his whole property for which the proxy to be managed was issued, even if Mukamanzi Laurence has never indorsed the sale of their household property.

REASONS FOR COURT DECISION [15] Concerning the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 28, paragraphs 2 and 5 of the Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13 June 2012 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, provides that the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over cases heard and decided in the second instance by the High Court if they fall within the instances mentioned in this provision. However, a case lost by a MUKAMANZI v. KWITUNGA ET AL

Page 223

36

RWANDA LAW REPORTS party to proceedings in the first and second instances basing on similar grounds shall not be appealed for to the Supreme. [16] As indicated above, the state of this judgment indicates that it was initiated to the Intermediate Court of Rubavu, and was appealed for to the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, whereby Kwitunga Tonny won the case for the validity of the provisional sale contract of the house N°48, Vol RT XX VII Forio 132 located in Gisenyi town, Rubavu district which was concluded between Nsanzimfura Kayitare François and Kwitunga Tonny which should be registered to him. It is in regard to this contract that resolution was requested for through the claim submitted by Mukamanzi Laurence who stated that she was civilly married to Kanyarwanda under community of assets, but that her husband assigned the proxy to Nsanzimfura for the sale of the said house without her endorsement, and this is in contradiction to the provisions of law, especially article 35 of the law governing land of 2005 and article 21 of the law regarding matrimonial regimes. [17] In the judgment RC0369/011/TGI/RBV rendered by Intermediate Court of Rubavu on 3 August 2012, the Court found that the sale contract which was concluded between Nsanzimfura Kayitare Francois and Kwitunga should not be considered as if Mukamanzi Laurence was not aware of it because her counsel relies only on the provisions of the law to indicate that there was no agreement between her and her husband as Mukamanzi did not sign the proxy issued to Nsanzimfura, which is not true because even if the law provide for the consent between spouses for the management of their property, it is not necessary for this consent to be indicated by

Page 224

37 the signature on the proxy, rather, the agreement is evidenced by other written or lawful evidence. [18] Among those evidences, the court relied on the document of 29 September 2011 which was written by Mukamanzi to Nsanzimfura which includes the massage indicating that the proxy issued was concerted between both of them therefore she knew about it as she knew the implication because in its first paragraph, she stated that she intended to address him a letter concerning the resolution of the proxy relating to the management of the property as well as the sale of the house located in Gisenyi, while in its paragraph 2, she requested him to hand to her a property management report because in the capacity of the spouse to Kanyarwanda, whom they own jointly their property, she supports the resolution of the proxy. [19] Another evidence relied on which indicates that Mukamanzi was aware of this proxy, is the letter written by Kanyarwanda on same date of 29 September 2011, whereby he states that he and his wife issued a proxy for the management of their property to Nsanzimfura. [20] The Court found that those two letters indicate that there is something that Mukamanzi and Kanyarwanda would like to do but which is not lawful and that is the resolution of the proxy contract which was not due to the fact that Mukamanzi and her husband did not agree on that, rather it was due to the fact that the agent did not respect the proxy, and the consequence being the withdraw of the proxy and the wish for annulment of his acts performed before the withdrawal. However, in compliance with the provision of article 531 and 532 of the civil code, book III, Kwitunga should not be held liable for this. MUKAMANZI v. KWITUNGA ET AL

Page 225

38

RWANDA LAW REPORTS [21] The Court found that the fact that Mukamanzi does not deny that the proceeds of the sale of the house was used to pay back the credit she and her husband owed to the BCR, which indicates she was aware of the proxy concluded by her husband too. [22] The court relied also on circumstantial evidence indicating that the claim of Mukamanzi is groundless since Kanyarwanda who concluded the proxy is the one who advised his wife to seize the court against him, the fact that they are represented by same counsels, and Kanyarwanda assists her wife to get evidence (judgment RCA0247/11/TGI/MHG which was pending and about the existence of civil marriage between them), and the fact that their allegation grounds are similar, implies that they share same interests. [23] In the judgment RCA0154/12/HC/MUS rendered by the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, on 6 December 2012, it is indicated that it was found that Mukamanzi endorsed the proxy concluded by her husband Kanyarwanda to Nsanzimfura Kayitare François concerning the sale of the house because the letters of 29 September 2011, of which one was written by Kanyarwwanda and another one written by Mukamanzi demonstrate that they participated together for the termination of the said proxy due to the fact that they were not given the report, therefore it finds that Mukamanzi would not terminate the proxy that she did not participate in, especially that she explained that its termination was due to the fact that they were not given report. Hence, Mukamanzi should not have requested the termination of the proxy she never concluded. [24] The court found in addition that, the provision of article 37 of the Organic Law N°08/2005 of 14/07/2005 governing land

Page 226

39 in Rwanda which was disregarded provides that the approval mentioned in article 35 of the organic law is indicated by the document which is signed by the individuals involved before the registrar of civil status or the land officer who records it in the related registry. However, this is not likely to prevent the judge from referring to other evidence which is likely to demonstrate that the family members endorsed the sale of the land; the reason why the documents dated on 29 September 2011 constitutes the tangible and reliable evidence to prove that the house was sold to the knowledge and approval by Mukamanzi. [25] The Court rectified also the issue of contradiction relating to the parties that are liable to execute the contract which was apparent in the first instance judgment, whereby it stated that Mukamanzi should comply with it and upheld the ruling of the Intermediate Court of Rubavu. [26] The Court finds therefore that both previous courts found that there exist lawful elements of evidence on which they relied to indicate that Mukamanzi participated in the conclusion of the proxy contract done by her husband Kanyarwanda to sale the house, therefore the provisional sale contract concluded between Nsanzimfura Kayitare François in favour of Kwitunga Tonny for which she seized the court, should not be terminated, rather she should perform it as well. [27] In accordance to second and fifth paragraphs of article 28 of the Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 as mentioned above, the Court finds that Mukamanzi Laurence lost the case on first and second instances for similar grounds, therefore her appeal claim should not be admissible because it does not fall into the jurisdiction of the Supreme court. MUKAMANZI v. KWITUNGA ET AL

Page 227

40

RWANDA LAW REPORTS III. DECISION OF THE COURT [28] It finds the objection of lack of jurisdiction by the Supreme Court with merit. [29] Decides that the appeal claim lodged by Mukamanzi Laurence does not fall into the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. [30] Orders Mukamanzi Laurence to pay 100,000Frw of court fees.

Page 228

MUNYAMPUNDU ET AL v. KIGALI

CITY [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RADA0011/13/CS (Mukanyundo, P.J., Rugabirwa and Ngagi, J.) March 18, 2016] Administrative procedure – Administrative decision – The transfer of the responsibility from one administrative entity to another – Administrative appeal – The right entity to lodge an administrative appeal to and to be sued – The transfer of the responsibilities from one administrative entity to another makes the latter entity liable for the decisions made by the former entity; thus the entity which made the contested decision when the transferred responsibilities were still in its competence no longer have the capacity to entertain an administrative appeal regarding that decision or to be sued for it rather the one to which those responsibilities were transferred to is the one to be sued and the one to which an administrative appeal can be filled to – Law No08/2006 of 24/02/2006 determining the organization and functioning of the district, article 67 – Law No18/2004 of 20/06/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and procedure, article 339. Contracts or obligations law – Damages – There is no damages awarded to the plaintiff when the appeal has no merit because the defendant has no fault to be held reliable – Decree law 30/07/1888 relating to Contracts or obligations, article 258. Facts: After Kigali City has allotted to Kalisa the plot No1068 located at Kacyiru Sector, Gasabo district which belonged to Gatarayiha who had given it to his children, who are 41

Page 229

42

RWANDA LAW REPORTS Munyampundu, Muhizi, Mukarwego and Sebahire. Those children lodged an administrative appeal to Kigali City claiming that the laws relating to expropriation in the public interest especially the provisions relating to fair compensation should be followed. Munyampundu and others did not get a response therefore they sued Kigali City in the High Court requesting for the annulment of the decision which deprived them of their plot. That court held that their claim is inadmissible because they sued a wrong party as they should have sued Gasabo district, because although at the time of allocation of the plot the matters relating to the allocation of plots were in the competence of Kigali City, but at the time of the lawsuit the matters relating to the land use and allocation of plots were in the attribution of the district. Munyampundu and others appealed to the Supreme Court contending that the High Court relied on the Law1 which is not related to the admissibility of a claim and the transfer of the responsibility of allocation of plots to the district does not imply that the district must be liable for the annulation of a decision made by Kigali City because it is not the one which made that decision. They also request for various damages. Held: 1. The fact that the responsibilities of allotting the plots were transferred from Kigali City to the Districts in its territorial boundaries is a ground for which Kigali City cannot be sued in a case relating to the allocation of a plot which was carried out when those responsibilities were still in its competence, instead

1 It based on article 67(17), Law No08/2006 of 24/02/2006 determining the organization and functioning of the district.

Page 230

43 MUNYAMPUNDU ET AL v. KIGALI CITY the right party to sue is the District because it is the one responsible for all the matters regarding the allocation of plots in its territory including those claims not settled by Kigali City.

2. The administrative appeal before the authority which no longer has competence at the time it was lodged is disregarded.

3. No damages awarded to the plaintiff when the appeal has no merit. The appeal lacks merit. The court fees deposited by the appellants are equal to the expenses of the case. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law No08/2006 of 24/02/2006 determining the organization and functioning of the District, article 67. Law No18/2004 of 20/06/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and procedure, article 339. Decree law 30/07/1888 relating to Contracts or obligations, article 258. No cases referred to. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE

CASE [1] Munyampundu Alphonse, Muhizi André, Mukarwego Emerthe and Sebahire François state that their father Gatarayiha

Page 231

44

RWANDA LAW REPORTS Frédéric left behind for them a plot No1068 located in Kacyiru sector, Gasabo district. Later they heard that Kigali city allotted it to Kalisa Evariste. On 14 August 2009, through a letter to the Mayor of Kigali City, they made an administrative appeal requesting that the laws relating to expropriation in the public interest should be complied with especially those providing for the appropriate compensation. [2] On 14 January 2010, Munyampundu Alphonse, Muhizi André, Mukarwego Emerthe and Sebahire François lodged a claim in the High Court requesting for the annulation of the decision which deprives them of that plot. In the judgment No RAD0008/10/HC/KIG rendered on 11 December 2012, that Court declared the claim inadmissible. [3] In making that declaration, the High Court found that the decision which allotted the plot No1068 to Kalisa Evariste was made by the Mayor of Kigali City on 07 March 2001 and the plaintiffs lodged an administrative appeal requesting for the annulation of that decision to the Mayor of Kigali City on 14 August 2009, and then that Court motivated that at the time of giving away that plot the issues concerning plots were in the attributions of Kigali City, but now (at the time of filling a claim), the land use and allotment of the plot are in the attributions of the district, implying that Munyampundu Alphonse, Muhizi André, Mukarwego Emerthe and Sebahire François sued a wrong defendant because they should have sued Gasabo District, thus it declared that their claim should not be admitted basing on article 67(17) of Law No08/2006 of 24/02/2006 determining the organization and functioning of the district.

Page 232

45 [4] Munyampundu Alphonse, Muhizi André, Mukarwego Emerthe and Sebahire François appealed in the Supreme Court claiming that the High Court relied on the Law2 which does not relate to the admissibility of a claim because the grounds for admissibility of the claim are provided for by articles 2, 77 and 142 of the Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, and the duties of allotting plots being in the attributions of the district does not imply that the District is responsible for the annulment of the decision made by Kigali City because it is not the one which made that decision, rather in order to determine who should be sued, it should be determined the one who made that decision which is the subject for annulations as provided for by article 93(1) of the Organic Law No51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of courts, and therefore the fact that for the decision was made by the Mayor of Kigali City is also the one to whom the administrative appeal was addressed as it is provided for by article 339 of the Law No18/2004 of 20/06/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, and this implies that that they complied with the law. They requested for various damages as indicated in their submissions. [5] The hearing was conducted in public on 16/02/2016, the appellants being represented by Counsel Nkanika Alimasi, whereas Kigali City was represented by the state attorney Kayiranga Rukumbi Bernard.

2 It based on article 67(17), Law No08/2006 of 24/02/2006 determining the organization and functioning of the district. MUNYAMPUNDU ET AL v. KIGALI CITY

Page 233

46

RWANDA LAW REPORTS II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUE Determining whether the transfer of the attribution of plots allotment in the authority of Gasabo district, exempts Kigali City to be sued in a case relating to plots allotment preformed while that attribution was still under its authority. [6] Nkanika Alimasi, the counsel for the appellants states that the High Court rejected their claim on the basis of article 67 of the Law No08/2006 of 24/02/2006 determining the organization and functioning of the District while they sued for annulment of the decision made by Kigali City which deprived them of the plot so that plot be allotted to the rightful owners who are Munyampundu Alphonse, Muhizi André, Mukarwego Emerthe and Sebahire François. He argues that the judge motivated that they sued a wrong defendant but he disregarded the fact that the subject matter relies on the decision made by Kigali City. [7] Kayiranga Rukumbi Bernard, the Counsel for Kigali City invoked the indivisibility and continuity of the administration of the government and explained that when the duties of a particular organ of the government is attributed to another organ, the latter organ assumes those duties, and it is liable for the faults that were committed. He explains that in this case the duties regarding the plots in Kigali City were transferred to the Districts, which means that for land cases, even if the decisions were made by Kigali City, the Districts are liable. He states in addition that the Supreme has already taken a position on this legal issue, in the judgment Nº RCAA0057/05/CS, Succession Rukeba c/

MINITRAPE rendered on 10 February 2006, whereby it found that, in order to

Page 234

47 continue the hearing Kigali city had to be summoned as the successor of MINITRAPE, thus he is of the view that the Supreme Court should summon Gasabo District as it was the case in the judgment mentioned above whereby Kigali City was summoned and the hearing proceeded.

VIEW OF THE COURT [8] Article 67(17) of the Law No08/2006 of 24/02/2006 determining the organization and functioning of the District, provides that the responsibility of the District Executive Committee is promoting land use, organizing and allotting plots in the District. [9] In this case, it is indicated in the case file that the decision which allotted the plot No 1068 to Kalisa Evariste was made by the Mayor of Kigali City on 07 March 2001. It is also demonstrated that Munyampundu Alphonse, Muhizi André, Mukarwego Emerthe and Sebahire François lodged the administrative appeal to the Mayor of Kigali City on 14 August 2009 requesting for the annulment of that decision as provided for by article 339 of the Law No18/2004 of 20/06/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and procedure which was in force that time. [10] The Court holds the same view like that of the High Court that by the time the above mentioned plot was allotted to Kalisa Evariste, Kigali City was the one with the responsibility of allotting plots but at the time of filling the claim that responsibility had already been transferred to the District, and by this, it means that Kigali city was the right party to be sued after the administrative appeal lodged by Munyampundu MUNYAMPUNDU ET AL v. KIGALI CITY

Page 235

48

RWANDA LAW REPORTS Alphonse, Muhizi André, Mukarwego Emerthe and Sebahire François, because in the Law No08/2006 of 24/02/2006 mentioned above, the legislator did not provide that it’s Kigali city which will be sued in the cases originating from the decisions relating to plots allottment which were made before the promulgation of that law. This implies that given that it is Gasabo District which was assigned with the responsibility in matters regarding land use and plots allotment, it is the one which is liable for all matters regarding the allotment of plots in its territory including those that were not solved by Kigali City (transfer of rights and obligations). [11] The Court also finds that it cannot base on the ground that the administrative appeal was lodged to the Mayor of Kigali City to hold that the right party to be sued is Kigali City, because the administrative appeal was done before the authority that did no longer have the competence and obligations relating to allotment of the plots. [12] Pursuant to the motivation provided above, the Court finds that for the obligations of allotment of plots were transferred from the competence of Kigali City to the competence of the Districts in its territory, this constitutes the ground for Kigali City not to be sued in the case relating to the allotting of the plot which was done when it still had those obligations. Whether appellants should be awarded damages they claimed for. [13] Nkanika Alimasi, the counsel for appellants argues that given that Kigali City used delaying tactics by claiming for what are not provided by the law, it made them incur the

Page 236

49 expenses on the appellate level and also delayed the case, therefore Munyampundu Alphonse, Muhizi André, Mukarwego Emerthe and Sebahire François should be given 1,000,000Frw of procedural fees (500,000Frw corresponding to every instance), 1,000,000Frw of the counsel fees and 12,000,000Frw of moral damages (3,000,000Frw for each). [14] Kayiranga Rukumbi Bernard, the counsel for Kigali City argued that damages claimed by the appellants have no basis because Kigali City exercised its rights as a respondent, thus this should not be considered as delaying the case because raising an objection is a right granted to a party by the law.

VIEW OF THE COURT [15] Article 258 of the civil code book three (CCB III) provides that “any act of man, which causes damage to another obliges the person by whose fault it happened to repair it”. [16] As motivated above, the Court finds that because the appeal of Munyampundu Alphonse, Muhizi André, Mukarwego Emerthe and Sebahire François lacks merit, it implies that they should not be awarded damages in this case, especially that Kigali City did not commit any fault for it to be liable for damages as it is provided for by article 258 mentioned above. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [17] It holds that the appeal submitted by Munyampundu Alphonse, Muhizi André, Mukarwego Emerthe and Sebahire François lacks merit; MUNYAMPUNDU ET AL v. KIGALI CITY

Page 237

50

RWANDA LAW REPORTS [18] It rules that the judgment No RAD0008/10/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court on 11 December 2012 is sustained. [19] It orders that the court fees deposited by the appellants are equal to the expenses incurred in the case.

Page 238

SEMANYENZI v. NTIHABOSE [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/REV/INJUST/CIV0010/15/CS (Mutashya, P.J., Karimunda and Gakwaya, J.) January 22, 2016] Civil procedure – Review of the judgment due to injustice – Self declaration of incompetence by Abunzi committee – The decision of the Abunzi committee – A party who seizes the primary Court after the decision of the Abunzi committee declaring itself incompetent is not considered as appeal against the Abunzi decision on the appellate level but as an action on the first instance, therefore time barred against the claims of appeal does not apply – Organic Law No31/2006 of 14/08/2006 determining the organization, jurisdiction, competence and functioning of the mediation committee, article 8. Fact: Semanyenzi sued Ntihabose in the Abunzi Committee of Nganzo cell accusing the latter of unlawfully possessing his farm land which he won in a case he had against Gabiro (the Grandfather of Ntihabose Théoneste) in the First Instance Court of Gitarama. The Abunzi Committee declared itself incompetent on the ground of the value of the subject matter. Semanyenzi filed a claim in the Primary Court of Nyamabuye, which held that Ntihabose failed to prove that he has the contested farm as an inheritance and even though this was the case, it would have no merit because the predecessor was not the owner given that Semanyenzi Déogratias had won it in the judgment No RC1324/4. Consequently, it held that the contested farm belongs to Semanyenzi Déogratias and Ntihabose 51

Page 239

52

RWANDA LAW REPORTS Théoneste was ordered to pay time wage and the costs of the case. Ntihabose appealed in the Intermediate Court arguing that Semanyenzi Déogratias lied that the contested land belongs to him because he won the case in the judgment No RC1324/4 about it whereas belongs to Ntihabose because he inherited it from his grandfather named Gabiro. In its judgment, the Court sustained the rulings of the appealed judgment. Again, Ntihabose appealed to the High Court claiming that the Intermediate Court did not demonstrate the motivations of its judgment. That Court held that Semanyenzi delayed to file a claim against the award of Abunzi committee to the Primary Court thus the later and the Intermediate Court disregarded the time bar for filing of the claims from the Abunzi Committee as provided for by the law while it is a procedure of public order. Thus, both of those Courts rendered their judgments without a legal basis, therefore their judgments should be quashed and the decision of the Abunzi sustained. Semanyenzi applied for a review of the judgment due to injustice and the Supreme Court examined whether filing a claim in the Primary Court contesting the decision of the Abunzi committee in which it declared itself incompetent is considered as an appeal likely to involve the delay to file it in the Primary Court of Nyamabuye. Held: The fact that the Abunzi Committee declared themselves incompetent to hear a claim on the ground of the value of the subject matter and no one appealed against it, a claim submitted at the Primary Court regarding the subject matter on which the Abunzi Committee declared itself incompetent is not considered as a claim of appeal on the pretext that because the decision of

Page 240

53 SEMANYENZI v. NTIHABOSE Abunzi Committee became final, therefore when Semanyenzi filed a claim at the Primary Court it was not an appeal, rather, he was filing the claim in the competent Court for the first time. Thus, the time computation relating to appeal claim does not apply to a plaintiff who filed a claim to the competent Court for the first time. The claim for the review of the judgment due to injustice has merit; The judgment RCAA0078/11/HC/NYA rendered by the High Court, chamber of Nyanza is quashed; The judgments RCA0358/010/TGI/MHG and RC0172/09/TB/NYBYE rendered by the Intermediate Court of Muhanga and the Primary Court of Nyamabuye respectively are sustained; The Court fees to the respondent. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law Nº21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles 171and 172 Organic law No31/2006 of 14/08/2006 determining the organization, jurisdiction, competence and functioning of the mediation committee, article 8. No case referred to.

Page 241

54

RWANDA LAW REPORTS Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF CASE [1] Semanyenzi Déogratias sued Ntihabose Théoneste in the Abunzi committee of Nganzo cell accusing him of unlawful occupation of his farm land which he won in the judgment No RC1324/4 between Semanyenzi v. Gabiro (the Grandfather of Ntihabose Théoneste) in the First Instance Court of Gitarama on 23 April 2009. Pursuant to the value of the subject matter the Abunzi committee declared itself incompetent to hear that claim because its value exceeds three million Rwandan franc (3,000,000Frw). [2] After the decision of Abunzi committee, Semanyenzi Déogratias filed a claim in the Primary Court of Nyamabuye. In the judgment No RC0172/09/TB/NYBYE rendered on 24/06/2010, the Court held that Ntihabose failed to prove that he has the contested farm as an inheritance and even though this was the case, it would have no merit because the predecessor was not the owner given that Semanyenzi Déogratias won it in the Court. It held that the contested farm belongs to Semanyenzi Déogratias and Ntihabose Théoneste was ordered to pay 8,500Frwfor daily wage compensation and 46,740Frw of the costs of the case. [3] Ntihabose Théoneste was not satisfied with the decision, thus he appealed in the Intermediate Court arguing that Semanyenzi Déogratias lied that he won the case about all the contested farm land while Ntihabose Théoneste inherited it from his grandfather named Gabiro.

Page 242

55 [4] In the judgment No RCA0358/010/TGI/MHG rendered on 28 January 2011, the Court held that Ntihabose Théoneste failed to prove his statement that the contested farm is his inheritance from his grandfather Gabiro, therefore it sustained the appealed judgment and Ntihabose Théoneste was ordered to pay the Court fees of 5,000Frw. [5] Ntihabose Théoneste appealed in the High Court chamber of Nyanza stating that the Intermediate Court rendered the judgment without demonstrating the legal basis. [6] In the judgment No RCAA0078/11/HC/NYA rendered on 20 January 2012, the Court found that the Abunzi committee rendered its decision on 23 April 2009 while Semanyenzi Déogratias filed the claim on 25 May 2009 and the last day for seizing the Court was on 22 May 2009. It ruled that he delayed to file the claim, therefore that Primary Court and the Intermediate Court disregarded the prescribed time limit for filing a claim from the Abunzi Committee as provided for by the law while it is of public order, and consequently both Courts rendered the judgment without a legal basis, therefore the judgments they rendered should be quashed and the decision of the Abunzi Committee of 23 April 2009 sustained. Semanyenzi Déogratias was ordered to pay the court fees equal to 22,000Frw. [7] Semanyenzi requested in writing the office of ombudsman to analyse the existence of injustice in the judgment rendered by the High Court, chamber of Nyanza. On 07 October 2014, the Ombudsman wrote to the President of the Supreme Court requesting that the judgment No RCAA0078/11/HC/NYA rendered on 20 January 2012 be reviewed due to injustice. SEMANYENZI v. NTIHABOSE

Page 243

56

RWANDA LAW REPORTS [8] In the decision No17/2015 of 31 March 2015, the President of the Supreme Court requested the Supreme Court registry to schedule the hearing of the judgement No RCAA0078/11/HC/NYA rendered by the High Court, chamber of Nyanza on 20 January 2012 to examine whether it should be reviewed due to injustice. [9] The hearing in public was held on 08 December 2015, Semanyenzi Déogratias appeared through his Counsel Kabagambe Joëlle and Ntihabose Théoneste was also represented by Counsel Ndagijimana Viateur. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUE Determine whether the lodging of a claim in the Primary Court after the decision of lack of competence of the Abunzi committee should be considered as an appeal. [10] Kabagambe Joëlle, the Counsel for Semanyenzi Déogratias states that they first lodged the claim in the Abunzi Committee of Nganzo cell, requesting it to endorse the judgments which bestowed to Semanyenzi Déogratias the right on the contested farm land, but the Abunzi committee found that the value of the subject matter exceeds three million (3,000,000Frw). It declared itself incompetent to hear the case, which led them to lodge a new claim in the Primary Court of Nyamabuye which overruled the objection raised by Ntihabose Théoneste who claimed that the claim of appeal was lodged beyond the time limit for lodging an appeal, that Court held that the claim which was lodged was not the decision of Abunzi committee, rather, Semanyenzi Déogratias lodged a new claim which also has merit.

Page 244

57 [11] He explains that Ntihabose Théoneste continued relying on the objection of inadmissibility of a claim in the Intermediate Court and in High Court but during the preliminarily hearing in the Supreme Court, Ndagijimana Viateur, the counsel for Ntihabose Théoneste stated that the objection they raised in the previous Courts has no merit because after the Abunzi committee declared itself incompetent, the claim which was filed in the Primary Court of Nyamabuye was new and independent. [12] He concludes stating that the allegations of Ntihabose Théoneste misled the High Court into declaring that at the Primary Court the case was heard as an appeal against the decision of Abunzi committee and that there was a delay in its submission, therefore he requests this Court to rectify those errors and quash the judgment rendered by the High Court and uphold the judgment rendered by the Intermediate Court of Muhanga. [13] Ndagijimana Viateur, the counsel for Ntihabose Théoneste concurs that the High Court erred in declaring that the subject matter at Primary Court of Nyamabuye was an appeal which was filed outside the time limit while it was a new claim because they did not address the merit. He explains that his client had submitted two issues, and the one for inadmissibility of the claim due to time bar of the appeal and another one concerning the fact that the Primary Court of Nyamabuye and Intermediate Court of Muhanga declared that Semanyenzi Déogratias won the case without any legal basis, thus he finds that the procedure to rectify the error is not to quash the decision of the High Court, rather to give to SEMANYENZI v. NTIHABOSE

Page 245

58

RWANDA LAW REPORTS Semanyenzi Déogratias the opportunity to prove his plaint so that Ntihabose Théoneste could defend himself.

VIEW OF THE COURT [14] Article 171 of the Law No21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that “when the appeal court overrules the appealed judgment, the court shall hear the case in substance unless the overruling was done because there were irregularities in lodging the appeal or for lack of jurisdiction” whereas article 172 of that law provides that “the court which annuls the appealed judgment shall not hear it. The parties may, however, file a new claim at the first level court where there is possibility of correcting the errors made”. [15] Article 106(1) of the organic Law No51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of Courts as it was amended and completed to date provides that “the High Court hears appealed civil cases heard on the second instance by the Intermediate Court when such cases: 1o do not set out whatsoever the basis for decisions, are based on non-existing laws or were pronounced by incompetent court…”. [16] The case file demonstrates that Semanyenzi Déogratias first lodged the claim in the Abunzi committee of Nganzo cell requesting to be given back his farm land which is unlawfully possessed by Ntihabose Théoneste. On 23 April 2009, that committee ruled that the subject matter exceeds their competence (cote 7), which led Semanyenzi Déogratias on 25 May 2009 to file a claim in the Primary Court of Nyamabuye

Page 246

59 (cotes 3-4). During the hearings of 09 September 2009, Semanyenzi Déogratias explained that his prayer to the Court is to order Ntihabose Théoneste to give him back his farm land which he unlawfully possesses. In his defence, the defendant argued that he lives in the remaining part of the plot of land he received from his grandfather who gave it to him after he won the case between him and Semanyenzi from 1988. Because of that, the court ordered them to hand a plot demarcation plan of the disputed land and it carried out its own investigation before it took the decision (cotes 11-31). [17] Also the case file demonstrates that the Primary Court of Nyamabuye found that the submission of Semanyenzi Déogratias filing the claim were submitted in due time but it is the decision of the Abunzi Committee which was availed with delay and the Court held that due to that, its recording in the registry of claims delayed as well, but that he is allowed to file a claim. After examining the pleadings of both parties and those included in the case file, the Court finds that Ntihabose Théoneste does not prove that his grandfather gave him the contested farm land as an inheritance and even if this was the case, he cannot be awarded it because his grandfather lost the case about it in favour of Semanyenzi Déogratias (cote 36). [18] The documents composing the case file demonstrates that at the

appellate level in Intermediate Court of Muhanga, Nsabimana Gabriel, the counsel for Ntihabose Théoneste first raised an objection of inadmissibility of the claim stating that Semanyenzi Déogratias delayed to appeal to the Primary Court of Nyamabuye and also he lied that the contested plot belongs to him. The Court found that Ntihabose Théoneste did not prove his argument, and it held that the appealed judgment is SEMANYENZI v. NTIHABOSE

Page 247

60

RWANDA LAW REPORTS sustained. That objection was again raised in the appeal at the High Court, chamber of Nyanza on 20 October 2015, and that Court rendered a judgment in which it overturned the rulings of both Courts on the ground that Semanyenzi Déogratias delayed to file a claim to the Primary Court of Nyamabuye (cotes 35, 40 and 41). [19] The Court finds that the decision of the Abunzi Committee of Nganzo Cell of 23 April 2009 states that “basing on article 8(1o) of the Organic Law No31/2006 of 14/08/2006 determining the organization, jurisdiction, competence and functioning of the mediation committee, we find the subject matter to exceed the value of material competence of the Abunzi committee”. This means that the committee rejected the whole claim it was seized with by Semanyenzi Déogratias who had to file a new claim to the competent Court and it was not necessary to use the decision of the Abunzi committee, rather it was only enough to demonstrate that, based on the value of the subject matter and its location, the Court he filed the claim to is the one with the jurisdiction to hear his case. [20] The Court finds that the fact for Semanyenzi Déogratias to have informed the Primary Court of Nyamabuye that he delayed to appeal because he did not get the decision of the Abunzi committee on time which the Court based on to give him a chance to be heard even if his claim delayed to be recorded in Court register of claims was a mistake because after the Abunzi committee declared itself incompetent to hear the claim of Semanyenzi Déogratias, this decision was final and it means that when he filed a claim to the Primary Court of Nyamabuye, Semanyenzi Déogratias was not appealing but it was the first time he lodged the claim in the competent Court, therefore the

Page 248

61 time limit prescribed for appeal claims cannot be referred to bar a party who intend to file an initial claim to the competent Court. [21] The Court finds also that what have been mentioned in the previous paragraph, is emphasized by the fact that in examining the claim of Semanyenzi Deogratias, the Primary Court of Nyamabuye did not behave as an appellate Court because it deeply analysed and examined the claim as a first instance Court, because if it was to examine the appeal it would have first adjudicated on the competence of the Abunzi committee because it is the only legal issue examined and decided on by that committee, and the fact that it was not done so implies that the judgment was not on appeal level. [22] The Court finds that the High Court chamber of Nyanza erred in declaring that the previous Courts rendered the judgment without demonstrating any legal basis due to the fact that they disregarded the prescribed time limit for appeal claims of appeal provided for by the law and consequently it heard a case which does not fall into its jurisdiction, because if it found that the Primary Court of Nyamabuye heard this judgment on the first instance as this Court finds it, the High Court chamber of Nyanza would have found that the claim of appeal of which it was seized did not fall into its jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of article 106(1o) of the Organic Law No51/2008 of 09/09/2008 stated above and this implies that the ground on which the High Court based on in admitting the appeal and quashing the judgments rendered by those Courts has no merit. [23] Basing on the motivations above, the Court finds that the judgment No RCAA0078/11/HC/NYA rendered by the High Court, Chamber of Nyanza on 20 January 2012 should be SEMANYENZI v. NTIHABOSE

Page 249

62

RWANDA LAW REPORTS quashed, and the judgment No RCA358/010/TGI/MHG rendered by the Intermediate Court of Muhanga on 28 January 2011 which affirmed the rulings of the judgment No RC0172/09/TB/NYBYE rendered by the Primary Court of Nyamabuye on 24 June 2010 is upheld. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [24] It admits the claim of Semanyenzi Déogratias requesting for the review of the judgment due to injustice because it was lawfully filed; [25] It declares that the claim has merit; [26] It declares that the judgment No RCAA0078/11/HC/NYA rendered on 20 January 2012 by the High Court, Chamber of Nyanza is reversed; [27] It sustains the judgment No RCA0358/010/TGI/MHG rendered on 28 January 2011 by the Intermediate Court of Nyamabuye and judgment RC0172/09/TB/NYBYE rendered on 24 June 2010 by the Primary Court of Nyamubuye; [28] It orders Ntihabose Théoneste to pay the court fees equal to 100,000Frw.

Page 250

RWEMA v. RWANDA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (RDB) [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RADA0048/13/CS (Mutashya, P.J., Nyirinkwaya and Kayitesi R., J.) April 15, 2016] Administrative procedure – Preliminary objection to admissibility – The principle of res judicata (claim preclusion) – A matter that has been adjudicated by a court having jurisdiction is conclusive and therefore may not be pursued further by the same parties. Arbitration – Terms of reference – If the terms of reference provide for the period of arbitral proceedings but silent on what to be done in case the award is issued after the lapse of that period, in that case the award cannot be invalidated. Arbitration – Arbitration agreement – When the parties agree to resolve any disputes arising from the contract by binding arbitration a party cannot sue in ordinary court when that dispute was adjudicated through arbitration and consequently an award issued. Fact: Rwema concluded a contract with TERRACOM SARL for selling their products and services countrywide. In 2007 TERRACOM SARL was bought by Lap Green Networks but Rwema was not paid for what he had worked for and pursuant to article 5.2.6 of the contract the Government of Rwanda concluded with Lap Green Networks which bought TERRACOM SP SARL that stipulates that the debt that institution owed before 30 June 2007 will be paid by the 63

Page 251

64

RWANDA LAW REPORTS government of Rwanda, he requested RDB which had the privatization secretariat to pay him the money they owed him and also damages originating from it, but all was in vain. Rwema sued RDB in the Commercial High Court which ordered the compensation of the debts between Rwema and RWANDATEL SP SARL. Rwema was not contented with the decision and appealed in the Supreme Court which ruled that Rwema should pay 1,871,151Frw to RWANDATEL SP SARL and RWANDATEL SP SARL to pay Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal 2,200,000Frw for the value of the printers and advertisement billboard and to give him back three EVDOS and one laptop. Rwema applied for the case review whereby he relied it on the judgment RP0140/09/TB/NYGE and RPA0406/10/TGI/NYGE and in the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court, RWANDATEL SAR was ordered to pay him 8,978,846Frw and 300,000Frw for the counsel fees. After that judgment, Rwema seized the commercial Court but his claim was inadmissible because the Court declared that he should first resort to the arbitration as it is provided for by the contract he concluded with RWANDATEL SP SARL. RDB and Rwema agreed to begin the arbitral process. The arbitration committee issued an award declaring the claim filed by Rwema inadmissible because it was already examined and decided by the ordinary Courts and the decision is now binding. Rwema seized the High Court whereby RDB raised a preliminary objection to admissibility on the ground that the contract on which Rwema bases on provides for the arbitration, and also if his claim is an appeal against the award issued by the arbitration committee it is also inadmissible because that award

Page 252

65 RWEMA v. RWANDA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (RDB) is not subject to appeal as provided in the arbitration contract. The Court held that the appeal of Rwema against the final award issued by the arbitration committee is rejected. Rwema appealed in the Supreme Court contending that the High Court joined two different contracts which have no link, because the first contract he concluded with Rwandatel related to the commercialisation of cash power and it is from this contract that the first judgment arose and was settled. In contrast, the present case between them relates to second contract of 4 January 2006 for sale of airtime cards on their behalf. He states in addition that even if the proxy document concluded with RDB issued he power to the arbitral tribunal to hear the case at first and last instance the dispute likely to arise between them, he signed the terms of reference without due diligence and he realised that it prejudiced his interests later, but that there is still a remedy for him in article III(7) of the said terms of reference which state that the maximum time limit for the Arbitral tribunal to deliver its award is fixed at 30 days starting from the signature of the arbitration clause while however it delivered its award far beyond the specified period, therefore this award should be disregarded. In its defence, RDB argues that the appeal is inadmissible because the

previous cases were related to contract of 04 January 2006 and also the terms of reference between Rwema and RDB stipulates that the arbitration proceedings will take place within 30 days but it does not provide for what will be done in case they exceed and that the article which provides for the 30 days cannot supersede the principle that the parties are the ones who opt the arbitration, and determine the procedure.

Page 253

66

RWANDA LAW REPORTS Held: 1. A matter that has been adjudicated by a court having jurisdiction is conclusive and therefore may not be pursued further by the same parties.

2. The claim that a party signed a document without verifying has no merit when he does not prove that he signed the contract under duress.

3. When the parties agree to resolve any disputes arising from the contract by binding arbitration award, a party cannot sue in ordinary court when that dispute was adjudicated through arbitration and consequently an award issued, the party cannot seize the ordinary courts.

4. If the terms of reference provides for the period of arbitral proceedings but silent on what to be done in case the award is issued after the lapse of that period, in that case the award cannot be invalidated. The claim has no merit. Court fees to the appellant. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Ministerial Order No16/012 of 15/05/2012 determining arbitration rules of Kigali International Arbitration Centre, article 29. No cases referred to.

Page 254

67 Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE

CASE [1] This claim originates from the dealership contract Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal concluded with TERRACOM SARL on 04 January 2006 to act as a Service Provider so that he sells for them their products which include services, mobile phones and their airtime, landline phones and the internet services in different parts of Rwanda. [2]

TERRACOM was sold in 2007 but Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal was not paid for what he had worked for. Consequently, he relied on article 5.2.6 of the contract the Government of Rwanda concluded with Lap Green Networks which bought TERRACOM SP SARL that stipulates that the debt that institution owed before 30 June 2007 will be paid by the government of Rwanda, and requested RDB which had the privatization secretariat to pay him the money they owed him and also the damages originating from it. This was done in vain, and he sought for redress in the Commercial High Court and in the judgment RCOM0358/08/HCC that Court ordered for the compensation of the debts which Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal owed to RWANDATEL SP SARL. [3] Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal was not satisfied with that decision and appealed in the Supreme Court, which in the judgment RCOMA0021/09/CS ruled that Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal should pay 1,871,151Frw to RWANDATEL SP SARL. It also ordered RWANDATEL SP SARL to pay to Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal 2,200,000Frw for the values of printers and RWEMA v. RWANDA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (RDB)

Page 255

68

RWANDA LAW REPORTS advertisement billboard and give him back EVDOS 3 with one laptop. [4] Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal applied for the review of the case on the basis of the criminal cases RP0140/09/TB/NYGE and RPA0406/10/TGI/NYGE. On 15 March 2013 the Supreme Court rendered a judgment RS/REV/RCOM0011/11/CS in which it ordered RWANDATEL SARL to pay him 8,978,846Frw and the counsel fees amounting to 300,000Frw. [5] After that judgment, Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal seized the commercial Court but his claim was inadmissible because the Court declared that he should first resort to the arbitration as it is provided for by the contract he concluded with RWANDATEL SP SARL. [6] RDB and Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal agreed to begin the arbitration process. On 4 December 2012 the Arbitration Tribunal issued an award declaring the claim filed by Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal inadmissible because it was already examined and decided by the ordinary Courts and the decision is now binding. [7] Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal seized the High Court whereby the state attorney raised a preliminary objection of admissibility on the ground that the contract on which Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal bases on provides for the arbitration, and also that if his claim is an appeal against the award issued by the Arbitration Tribunal, it should also be inadmissible because that award is not subject to appeal as provided in the arbitration contract. In case it finds it admissible, it should declare that it lacks merit because as it was held by the arbitration tribunal that

Page 256

69 the claim he submitted was already decided by the Courts. (The objection of the authority of res judicata). The High Court held that the appeal of Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal against the definitive award issued by the arbitration tribunal on 04 December 2012 between Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal and RDB is inadmissible. [8] After the judgment rendered by the High Court, on 26 June 2013, Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal appealed to the Supreme Court and the hearing was scheduled on 02 February 2016. On that day, the hearing did not take place because the quorum included a judge who adjudicated the case which was in review and it was postponed on 15 March 2016 in order to change the quorum. [9] On that day, the judgment was heard, Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal represented by Counsel Tuyishimire Jean Paul, RDB represented by Counsel Kayigi Léon. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES Determining whether the appeal against the arbitration award filled by Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal should have been admitted in the High Court. [10] Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal argues that the High Court joined two different contracts which do not have any link and this led it to declare that the one rendered on 04 January 2006 was already adjudicated upon while the first contract he concluded with RWANDATEL was to sell cash power which was the subject matter of the case which was closed, and the judgment which is pending now is based on the second contract of 04 January whereby he sold for them airtime and telephone. RWEMA v. RWANDA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (RDB)

Page 257

70

RWANDA LAW REPORTS [11] He also argues that the Court refused to admit his claim on the basis of article VI of the letter of engagement he entered into with RDB which gave the arbitration tribunal the competence to hear on the first and last instance the disputes which will rise between them while he signed that letter without verifying it and he finds it prejudicing his interests. He states however that he has a remedy in article III(7) of the engagement letter whereby it provides that the arbitration tribunal could issue a provisional or a final award but in anyway the proceedings cannot exceed 30 days beginning from the signature of the engagement letter. [12] He continues to state that according to the provisions of this article, the competence of the arbitrators ceased on 17 August 2012 because the engagement letter was signed by the parties on 18 July 2012, implying that after that date whatever was done and the award issued are invalid, which means that the award issued by the arbitration tribunal is invalid since it was issued on 04 December 2012 when the competence of the arbitration tribunal had ceased. [13] Counsel Tuyishimire Jean Paul claims that the counsels for RDB have not produced that final judgment so that they may debate upon it. He prays to the Court to examine whether those 30 days exceeded really so that his client gets relief. [14] Counsel Kayigi argues that the appeal is inadmissible because the previous cases were related to contract of 04 January 2006. He further argues that in terms of reference between Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal and RDB, it is stipulated that the arbitration proceedings will take place within 30 days but it does not provide for what will be done in case they exceed. He further states that the article which provides for the

Page 258

71 30 days cannot supersede the principle that the parties are the ones who opt for the arbitration, and determine the procedure.

VIEW OF THE COURT [15] Regarding the contract of 04 January 2006, the Court finds that there is a judgment RCOM0358/08/HCC whereby Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal sued for the contract of sale of cash power he concluded with RWANDATEL. In that case, RWANDATEL filed a cross appeal requesting also to be paid by Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal 37,173,008Frw resulting from the contract of selling for them airtime which they concluded on 04 January 2006, consequently the Court ruled that there should be compensation of the debts. [16] The Court finds that the contract of 04 January 2006 on which Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal relies his arguments, Courts adjudicated upon it as stated above and for instituting it again in the arbitration or in courts of law as a legal action, contravenes the principle of res judicata; therefore his appeal on this ground has no merit. [17] Concerning the provisions in the terms of reference between Muhamahoro Pascal and RDB, the Court finds that article VI stipulates that the arbitration tribunal has jurisdiction on first and last instance over the subject matter. [18] The Court finds that arbitration is a kind of a contract in which parties enter into with the purpose of settling their disputes problems swiftly without going to courts and that contract should be performed by both parties like any other contracts between the parties. RWEMA v. RWANDA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (RDB)

Page 259

72

RWANDA LAW REPORTS [19] The Court finds that arguments of Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal that article VI of that letter which stipulates that the arbitration tribunal has jurisdiction over the subject matter on the first and last instance was inserted in later and he signed without verifying, lacks merit because he does not prove that he signed the contract under duress for the contract to be invalid, and he does not also prove how that document was added in later. [20] The Court finds that the fact that Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal consented to that terms of reference and signed it, he should comply with its provisions especially that it is the one which regulates the parties as provided for by article 29 of Ministerial Order No16/012 of 15/05/2012 determining arbitration rules of Kigali International Arbitration Center which reads that “the Arbitral tribunal shall draw up, on the basis of documents or in the presence of the parties and in the light of their most recent submissions, a document defining its Terms of Reference [….]”. [21] The Court finds that because Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal transcended the provisions of the terms of reference and appealed against the final award of the arbitration tribunal when it was adjudicated on the first and last instance as provided for by the engagement letter he signed himself, he contravened it while it is the one which regulates the parties as it is explained, therefore this ground of appeal lacks merit. [22] Regarding the arguments of Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal that the arbitration tribunal adjudicated the case after the 30 days provided in article III of the terms of reference had exceeded, thus the award is invalid; the Court finds it with no merit because the terms of reference did not provide what would

Page 260

73 be done in case the arbitration committee exceeds 30 days without issuing an award, and also it is not provided that in that case the award would be invalid, thus this is not likely to invalidate the award issued on the first and last instance. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [23] It holds that the claim of Rwema Muhamahoro Pascal has no merit; [24] It sustains the rulings of the judgment RAD 0091/12/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court at Kigali; [25] It orders Rwema Muhamahoro to pay the court fees.

RWEMA v. RWANDA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (RDB)

Page 262

CASES IN MERITS

Page 264

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE

Page 266

KIGALI CITY v. KAGABO [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RADA0017/11/CS (Nyirinkwaya, P.J., Kayitesi R. na Hatangimbabazi, J.) May 04, 2012] Administrative law – Administrative decisions – The principle of automatic execution – Administration has the prerogative to execute their decisions without resorting to the prior authorization of a judge. Administrative Law – The principle of “privilege d’exécution d’office or “Exécution forcée” – It constitutes the authority of the administration which entails its decision to be biding to citizens – That principle implies that the administration can recourse to the government coercion to protect the public interest but in case it prejudices an individual interest, it has to be authorized by the court basing on three elements: the existence of law that expressly provides for it, the lack of other means to protect the public interest or the existence of urgency for the execution of the administrative decision or one of those – When the administration recourse to the coercion in the absence of one of those elements or in case an individual has not resisted to execute its decision, this is regarded as a fault for which the administration has to be held liable. Facts: The vehicle of Kagabo (MERCEDES Benz RAB196D) was seized by the police on the instructions of the Kigali City because it destroyed the palm trees when it had an accident and demanded him to pay 2,000,000Frw. After requesting for its release but in vain he sued Kigali City before the High Court requesting for various damages because of the seizure of his 79

Page 267

80

RWANDA LAW REPORTS vehicle and to be given it back. That Court held that Kigali City should pay him various damages and the hand back of the vehicle and its yellow card. That Court relied on the fact that the decision made by Kigali City to seize the MERCEDES Benz RAB 196D vehicle, until Kagabo Achille pays 2.000.000Frw in fine was taken in accordance to the general instructions contained in the book of November 2004 called “the book of penalties for some of the petty offences committed in the Kigali City” which has not been signed, which was not intended to implement the environmental law since this came into force latter and those instructions are contrary to the laws on which they should rely, and that they did not follow the right procedure in order to be lawful and binding. In addition to that, such decision provided for a severe sanction compared to the fault consisting of damaging the ornamental palm tree trough accident while this is likely to be committed by anybody as this results in an unforeseen event. Kigali City appealed to the Supreme Court claiming that there exists a principle in accordance to which the administrative decisions are automatically executed (privilège du préalable et d’éxécution forcée) and contested in courts of law latter therefore Kagabo should have first paid damages for the palm trees as it was required in the decision of Kigali City and

sue later. They claim in addition that although those principles were not argued upon but the Court should have based on it on its own because it is knowledgeable about the law. Regarding the fine which Kagabo was charged, it supports that they are lawful because they relied on the instructions of RURA but damages amounting 25,000Frw per day which it was charged by the court is excessive because the time the vehicle of Kagabo has spent is unknown.

Page 268

81 KIGALI CITY v. KAGABO In the defence of Kagabo, he argues that the principle or law scholars’ opinions cannot be relied upon where laws in the matter exist. Thus the act of Kigali City of ordering him to pay for the destroyed ornamental palm trees instead of demanding it from his insurer which is Phoenix insurance S.A is contrary to the insurance laws where the prejudiced one has to claim the payment from the insurer instead of the insured. Regarding damages, he argues that the Court awarded them in its discretion because he had requested for excessive damages but it awarded him that amount. He lodged a cross appeal requesting to be awarded 30,000Frw x 354 (per day) for renting another vehicle since the date of judgment of the High Court, counsel and the procedural fees in addition to those he was awarded in the High Court. He concludes by requesting the penalty forcing execution in case Kigali City defaults to pay at time. Regarding the cross appeal, the Kigali City alleges that the fact for him to have rented another car was due to his failure to comply with the decision of the Kigali City because if he did, he would have been given back his vehicle instantly. Regarding the procedural and counsel fees, it alleges that given that he was represented he should not claim for the procedural fees, rather he should request for the counsel fees, and on the penalty forcing

execution it claims that it has means for payment in case it loses the case therefore there is no need to impose it. Held: 1. The administrative decisions have the privilege to be executed as such and are presumed to be lawful before they are contested in the courts of law (privilège du préalable) and the Government is exempted from first resorting to the courts for citizen who did not participate in its enactment to abide by it.

Page 269

82

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 2. The principle of automatic execution provides that the administration can use the government coercion to protect the public interest but when it prejudices an individual interest it has to be authorized by the court basing on the three elements: the existence of the law that expressly provides for it, when there is no other means to protect public interest or when there is an urgency for the execution of the administrative decision or one of them. Therefore if the coercion is recoursed to in the absence of one of those elements or in case an individual has not refused to execute the decision, it is regarded as a fault for which the administration has to be held liable.

3. The decision to seize the vehicle until the fine is paid is a decision made by Kigali City which prejudices to a person’s interests since it is based on the instructions which did not follow the right procedure, like not having been affixed a signature, not published in the official gazette, came into force without the existence of any law it is meant to implement especially that the law came into force latter, thus the instructions of Kigali City and the decisions relating to them including the penalties for destroying the ornamental palm trees are illegal which implies even the seizure of Kagabo’s vehicle which relied on those instructions is illegal.

4. There is no urgency (intérêt immediat) or imminent interest for the police to seize a personal vehicle and deprive the owner the right to drive it when it has its documents and the owner having a residence because the default of instant payment of the fine does not obstruct anything. 5 The ground for the appeal of Kigali City that the court on its own motion should have based on those principles is not a new claim because those principles are common and they are often based on in the administrative decisions but have to be applied

Page 270

83 in fulfilment of the conditions laid down, which is not the case. Thus the pecuniary damages of 25,000Frw per day awarded by the High Court has to be computed until the case will be delivered in this court.

6. The pecuniary damages awarded to Kagabo has merit because of the fault committed by Kigali City of seizing his vehicle unlawfully while there were other remedies for the payment of the palm trees.

7. There is no proof that the vehicle of Kagabo was sold, therefore the money for rent of another vehicle lacks merit and should not be awarded.

8. The procedural and counsel fees awarded in the previous court is sustained and he should be awarded additional amount corresponding to appeal level upon the court’s discretion.

9. In case there is no evidence that Kigali City sold the vehicle, the penalty forcing execution should not be ordered against it, because there is no reason why Kagabo do not get back his vehicle. The appeal has no merit; The cross appeal has partial merit; Court fees on Kigali City. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law Nº18/2004 of 20/6/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 346. Decree - Law N°20/75 of June 20, 1975 regulating insurance, article 37. No case referred to. KIGALI CITY v. KAGABO

Page 271

84

RWANDA LAW REPORTS Doctrine: J.Rivero et J.Waline, Droit administratif, Paris, Dalloz, 20édition, p.334. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE. [1] The vehicle of Achille of MERCEDES Benz RAB196D model which was insured in “Phoenix of Rwanda Assurance S.A” had an accident and destroyed two palm trees and a post of “Hard ware unique, and was immediately seized by the police pursuant to the instructions of Kigali City. Kagabo requested for the release of his vehicle but in vain because those instructions provides for the seizure of the vehicles which destroy the trees. [2] Kagabo seized the High Court, requesting to be given his vehicle and its yellow card back and various damages for the seizure of his vehicle .In the judgment RAD0008/10/HC/KIG rendered on 19/04/2011 the Court held that the vehicle be released and together with the yellow card be returned to the owner, Kagabo Achilles, and ordered Kigali City to pay him 25,000Frw per day since it was seized up to the day this judgment was rendered, that is to say 6,475,000Frw, moral damages and procedural and counsel fees, totalling to 7,475,000Frw. [3] The motivation of the Court was that the decision to seize the vehicle MERCEDES Benz RAB 196D until Kagabo pays 2,000,000Frw was based on the general instructions which are in the book of November 2004 entitled “the book of

Page 272

85 penalties of some of the faults committed in the Kigali City” which has no signatory, was not put in place to enforce an environmental law because it came into force after them, are contrary to the laws which it had to enforce, did not follow the rightful procedure. In addition to that the decision was so heavy compared to the offence it was penalising which could be committed by anybody because palm tree was destroyed by an accident which cannot be prevented. [4] Kigali City appealed in the Supreme Court claiming that the High Court disregarded that Kagabo had to first execute the decision of the administration, and pay for the damaged trees , and latter seize the courts of law, was awarded baseless damages. The screening judge ruled that it has a prema ficie case. [5] The case was heard in public on 28/02/2012, Kigali City being represented by state attorney Umujyi Sebazungu Alphonse, and Kagabo Achille by Counsel Nkundabarashi Moise. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUES Wether Kagabo Achille had to first execute the decision of Kigali City of paying the destroyed palm tree before he seized the court of law. [6] The counsel for Kigali City claim that even though the decision of Kigali City was illegal, Kagabo had to comply with the principle of execution ex-officio and prior execution (privilège du préalable et d’éxécution forcée). He adduces that even though those principles were not debated upon, but the court on its own motion should have based on it, and rules that KIGALI CITY v. KAGABO

Page 273

86

RWANDA LAW REPORTS Kagabo did not execute the decision of Kigali City as it is in the instructions of 2004, therefore do not award him damages. [7] The counsel for Kagabo claims that the ground of not complying with the principles should not be admissible because law scholars’ opinions, cannot apply in lieu of existent laws. He explains that the act of Kigali City of ordering Kagabo to pay for the destroyed palm trees instead of his insurer ``Phoenix insurance S.A`` is illegal because the prejudiced claim for the compensation from the insurer instead of the one who caused the prejudice. [8] Regarding the principle of execution ex-officio and prior execution (“Privilège du préalable” et “privilège d’éxécution d’office”), even though the Rwandan law is silent on that issue but those principles are well established that the administrative decisions are executed as they are, because they are in the spirit of protecting the public interest. [9] The law scholars explain that prior execution principle “privilège du préalable” is the principle whereby the administrative decision has to be executed as if it is lawful before it is contested in the courts of law (La decision exécutoire bénéficie, avant toute vérification par le juge, d’une présomption de conformité au droit)1. André de Laubadère states that, in summary that principle means that the government is exempted from first resorting to courts of law for its decision to be implemented by a third party. (L’administration se trouve dispensée, pour réaliser ses droits, de s`adresser prèalablement à un juge; si l’administré conteste les prétentions de l’administration, c’est lui qui devra saisir le juge).

1 Idem, p.354.

Page 274

87 [10] And for the execution ex officio or coercive execution “privilège d’exécution d’office ou “Exécution forcée” is the force (contrainte), a unilateral decision of an administrator which creates rights and obligations for third parties (acte juridique accompli unilatéralement par une autorité publique administrative et créant pour les tiers des droits ou des obligations)2. This principle means that the administration can apply the government coercion for its decision to be applied without initiating a claim to the court (ce privilège signifie que l`administration peut employer la contrainte contre le particulier réfractaire en recourant à la force publique et sans saisir le juge). [11] The entitlement of using the government coercion to protect the public interest, when it prejudices an individual rights has to be endorsed by the court3 decision granted basing on the following three conditions: When there is a law providing for it (une loi qui prévoit expressément le recours à la force publique pour faire exécuter un acte unilatéral ou exécution forcée). When there is no other means of protection of public interest (absence d’autre voie de droit pour sauvegarder l’intérêt général). When there is urgency for the execution of that decision. (Exécution forcée en cas d’Urgence, affaire Société immobilière Saint-Just, TC, 1902).

2 J.Rivero et J.Waline, Droit administratif, Paris, Dalloz, 20édition, p.334. 3 http://www.luiss.it/erasmuslaw/francia/amm-03.htm; page 1. http://www.lemondepolitique.fr/cours/droit-public/actes-administrat...., 1920. KIGALI CITY v. KAGABO

Page 275

88

RWANDA LAW REPORTS [12] The legal scholars again state that when the administrators apply the government coercion (recours à l`éxécution forcée) in absence of those conditions or when a person has not refused to comply with the administrative decision, the administration commits a fault of which it has to be held liable (Lorsque l’administration procède à une exécution forcée en dehors de ces 3 hypothèses ou encore lorsqu’il n’y a pas de résistance, de l’administré, elle commet une faute de nature à engager sa responsabilité4). [13] Concerning the 1st condition of the availability of a law providing for that seizure by the police: It is evident that the decision to seize Kagabo’s vehicle and ordering him to first pay the fine is a decision made by Kigali City which was executed by the police. The issue is to analyze if there is one of the conditions explained above which is likely to back the seizure because it is a decision which prejudices an individual’s interests. [14] The Court is of the view that as it was held by the High Court, those instructions are contrary to the laws because they did not comply with the formalities set down by the law for it to be valid, such as inexistence of the signatory, default of publication the official gazette and especially that it was adopted before the existence of the law it was intended to enforce as that law came into force after those instructions which means it was early. Therefore the instructions of Kigali City and the decisions related to them including the penalties for destroying the palm trees are unlawful, that is to say that the

4 http://www.lemondepolitique.fr/cours/droit-public/actes-administrat... page 20.

Page 276

89 seizure of Kagabo’s vehicle which is based on those instructions is unlawful as well. [15] Concerning the 2nd condition that there existed no other alternative to protect the two palm trees which were destroyed, apart from seizing Kagabo’s vehicle so that he pays the fine, the Court finds that there are other alternative means which could have been used to protect the destroyed ones because Kagabo demonstrated that his vehicle has an insurance from Phoenix Insurance, therefore Kigali City should have held the insurer accountable basing on article 37 of the Decree- Law No20/75 of 20 June 1975 which provides that the insurer is held accountable for the damage caused by third party, nonetheless he has to prove the fault of the one who caused the damage. The insurer cannot pay the total or part of the money to any person apart from the one who was prejudiced. Kigali City could also have ordered him to pay the fine in a certain period without depriving him of his right to use his vehicle considering the amount of fine he had to pay or it would have imposed him another penalty. [16] Regarding the 3rd condition concerning the urgency which drove the police to seize a personal vehicle and deprive her/him the right to drive it when it has its document, the owner having a known residence, the Court finds that there is no direct interest (intérêt immédiat) for the police to seize the vehicle of Kagabo because the default of payment of fine instantly would obstruct nothing. [17] Pursuant to the laws and the explanations given above, the Court finds that the fact for the Kigali City to state that the High Court should on its own motion based on those principles is not a new claim as claimed by the counsel for Kagabo KIGALI CITY v. KAGABO

Page 277

90

RWANDA LAW REPORTS Anchille because those principles are common and are applied in regards to the administrative decisions, but have to be applied in compliance with conditions explained above. The Court is of the view that no condition among them was fulfilled for the court to rely on them. The basis and amount of pecuniary damages [18] The counsel for Kigali City claims that due to the fact that those fines were based on the instructions of RURA, no mistake was made but that damages amounting to 25,000Frw per day awarded by the court are excessive because the period Kagabo Achille’s vehicle has spent is unknown, therefore it should have been computed on 20,000Frw because it may have been old to the extent that it could not be used every day for 20 days a month especially that it was not meant to work during holidays (Saturday, Sunday, incidental holidays), therefore the total of damages should amount to 6,800,000Frw. [19] The counsel for Kagabo argues that even though in the previous Court he prayed for damages amounting to 89,000Frw per day, but the Court awarded him 25,000Frw per day upon its own discretion, he is of the view that no mistake was made. [20] Regarding the basis of the awarded damages basing on the explanations above, the Court finds that the pecuniary damages awarded to Kagabo has merit due to the fault committed by Kigali City consisting of seizing his vehicle without any basis of the law. There are other means through which the palm trees should have been paid or Kagabo given another penalty, and there was no urgency in the decision taken against him, therefore Kagabo should not have been deprived of the right on his vehicle for long a time that he has to pay for the

Page 278

91 destroyed palm trees while the vehicle was insured. Concerning the amount of the damages of 25,000Frw per day awarded by the High Court, the Court finds that it is enough regarding the rental price of the vehicle in Kigali City, without considering the activity of the vehicle or the number of working days because it is the right of the owner to decide whether drive it even during public holidays and there is no proof that it was old or had a technical problem to the extent that it had to spend days without working, therefore the appeal of Kigali City has no merit on that ground. Cross appeal [21] The Counsel for Kagabo Achille claims that since the hearing of the case in the High Court, the vehicle was auctioned by Kigali City and after realising that getting it back will be hard he decided to rent another one at 30,000Frw per day. He states that the rent contract was concluded on 10/04/2011, therefore he requests for 30,000Frw x 354 (days) = 10,620,000Frw. [22] He adds that in the High Court he had requested for 2,000,000Frw for the counsel fees and 2,000,000 for the procedural fees, but the High Court awarded him only 1,000,000Frw, and now he requests for counsel fees of 1,000,000Frw for procedural expenses on the appeal instance level, 1,000,000Frw of counsel fees for first instance case and 1,000,000Frw on the appeal level. [23] Regarding Kagabo’s renting of a car, the counsel for Kigali City argues that it was due to his fault because had he executed the decision of Kigali City he would have got back his vehicle, while regarding the procedural and counsel fees, he KIGALI CITY v. KAGABO

Page 279

92

RWANDA LAW REPORTS adduces that since Kagabo was represented in court, he should claim for counsel fees but not procedural fees. [24] The court finds that there is no proof that his vehicle was sold, thus the money for the rent he is claiming for has no basis for the court to award it. [25] The Court finds that the pecuniary damages of 25000Frw per day as awarded by the High Court should continue to be computed up to the day the judgment in this court be rendered. That is to say from 19/4/2011 when the High court rendered the judgment up to 04/05/2012, when this court rendered this judgment, that is 375 days. Thus Kagabo Achille has to be awarded pecuniary damages amounting to 25,000Frw x 375 = 9,375,000Frw [26] Concerning procedural and counsel fees, the Court finds that the one awarded by the High Court is sufficient, but the Court awards Kagabo Achille 500,000Frw for both procedural and counsel fees upon its own discretion for appeal level. [27] The Court finds that the total of the money Kagabo Achille has to be paid is as follow: 6,475,000Frw for pecuniary damages and 1,000,000Frw for procedural and counsel fees awarded by the High Court, plus 9,375,000Frw as shown above, 500,000Frw of the procedural and counsel fees awarded by this court, all in total amounting to 17,375,000Frw. Penalty forcing the execution. [28] The counsel for Kagabo Achille claims that because the vehicle was sold, it will be hard to get it back, thus he requests

Page 280

93 the court to order for the fine forcing Kigali City to execute the judgment in due time. [29] The counsel for Kigali City argue that the vehicle was not sold and Kigali City has money, therefore in case it loses the case, it has the capacity to pay, therefore there no need for fine to force the execution. [30] Article 346 of the Law N°18/2004 of 20/6/2004 Law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure as modified up to date provides “When a court makes a decision in administrative cases, it may issue to an administrative organ, an order to do or an injunction restraining it from doing an action or operation, and prescribe a penalty for the noncompliance with a determined date”. [31] The Court find that Kagabo does not produce evidence that Kigali City sold his vehicle, therefore it cannot order for the fine forcing the execution because nothing is likely to prevent Kagabo to get back his vehicle, thus the ground for the fine forcing the execution of the judgment has no merit. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [32] It holds that the appeal of Kigali City has no merit; [33] It holds that the cross appeal of Kagabo Achille has partial merit; [34] It holds that pecuniary damages of 25,000Frw as held by the High Court continue to be computed until the day this judgment has been rendered in this Court. KIGALI CITY v. KAGABO

Page 281

94

RWANDA LAW REPORTS [35] It overturns the Judgment No R.AD0008/10/HCL/Kig rendered by the High Court on 9/04/2011 in regards to pecuniary damages, procedural and counsel fees. [36] It orders Kigali City to pay pecuniary damages, procedural and counsel fees to Kagabo all amounting to 17,375,000 as explained. [37] It orders Kigali City to pay court fees amounting to 45,600Frw.

Page 282

COMMERCIAL CASE

Page 284

YARI CORNACCHIA v. NSANAWE [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCOMA0053/15/CS (Mutashya, P.J., Karimundana and Gakwaya, J.) February 26, 2016] Contract law – Contractual agreement and terms of reference – Admissibility of the claim initially submitted before arbitral tribunal – The subject matter on which parties agreed to refer to arbitration could not be referred to the court for modification – Ministerial Order No16/012 of 15/05/2012 determining arbitration rules of Kigali International Arbitration Center (KIAC), article 29. Arbitration law – Time limit for delivery of arbitral award – The validity of the arbitral award issued after the time limit set by both parties – The delivery of the arbitral award after the time limit set by both parties is not a ground to set it aside – Law No005/2008 of 14/2/2008 on arbitration and conciliation in commercial matters, article 47. Facts: Papyrus Bakery Cafe Ltd, the company which belongs to Nsanawe Serge Ndekwe, sold off its shares amounting to 50% at 100,000 Euros to YARI CORNACCHIA. They concluded a contract titled convention d’actionnariat whereby they agreed that all possible contentions would be settled by courts. Later on, Nsanawe complained that he was only paid 60,000 Euros instead of 100,000 Euros. Subsequently, YARI CORNACCHIA requested Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge to redeem the shares which were already paid equivalent to 60,000 Euros after the failure to pay 40,000 Euros 97

Page 285

98

RWANDA LAW REPORTS that have been not yet paid. Nsanawe admitted the proposal and they entered into the second contract titled contrat de cession d’action and they agreed that the possible disputes from the contract would be settled by Arbitral Tribunal. There arose disputes in connection to contract performance and YARI filed a complaint to Kigali International Arbitration Center and the latter affirmed that Nsanawe Serge Ndekwe was no longer bound by the contract titled contrat d’actionnariat but confirmed that the one titled cession d’action must be respected. Not satisfied, Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge appealed to the Commercial High Court requesting annulment of the arbitral award because Kigali International Arbitration Center examined the matter which was not in its competence as there was no arbitration clause in the contract titled convention d’actionnariat. The Commercial High Court decided that the Arbitral Tribunal was incompetent and hence quashed the award. YARI CORNACCHIA appealed to the Supreme Court claiming that the claim that was submitted to the Arbitral Tribunal is related to performance or failure to perform the agreement in the contract titled contrat de cession d’actions, which, to him, was the one with arbitration clause. He continued further claiming that the first contract that was titled convention d’actionnariat provides that the possible disputes would

be reffered to Court while in the second contract titled convention de cession d’actions, the case would be reffered to Kigali International Arbitration Center in case of disputes. He added that disputes which arose from contrat de cession d’actions are the same as those which are embodied in terms of referrence. Nsanawe Serge Ndekwe presented the defence that YARI CORNACCHIA lodged a suit before the Arbitral Tribunal

Page 286

99 YARI CORNACCHIA v. NSANAWE requesting termination of the contract of convention d’actionnariat while that contract provides that it is the Court which shall be competent to adjudicate possible disputes. He asserted further that there is no evidence that YARI CORNACCHIA filed a claim for cession d’actions and, hence, Kigali International Arbitration Center had no ground to assess the contract titled convention d’actionnariat while it was not competent. In his cross appeal, Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge claimed that the procedure was not respected in connection to the time limit of delivering the arbitral award. He requested its annulment in consequence. He requested further procedural and advocate fees. YARI CORNACCHIA replied that the delay in delivery of arbitral award is not the ground to quash it. He added further that the damages that Nsanawe Serge Ndekwe requests have no basis. Held: 1. Though the claim referred to Arbitral Tribunal was in connection with convention d’actionariat, it is clear that during the hearing the debate concerned admissibility of the claim whereby both parties agreed that it was in connection with to the contract titled cession d’action and in that contract it was provided that the possible dispute would be settled by Arbitral Tribunal. Therefore, the subject matter referred to arbitral tribunal cannot be referred to court for its modification.

2. Arbitral award is pronounced within the time limit set by parties from the time when Arbitral Tribunal closes the hearing. However, after this period elapses without the pronouncement, the arbitral award cannot be invalidated for such a mere fact. The claim has merit.

Page 287

100

RWANDA LAW REPORTS Cross appeal has no merit. Judgment rendered by the Commercial High Court is modified in all its content and hereby quashed Court fees to the defendant. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law N°005/2008 of 14/02/2008 on arbitration and conciliation in commercial matters, articles 8 and 47. Ministerial Order No16/012 of 15/05/2012 determining arbitration rules of Kigali International Arbitration Center (KIAC), article 29. No case was referred to Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE

CASE [1] At the beginning of the year 2012, Mr. YARI CORNACCHIA bought shares in Papirus Bakery Café Company Ltd which was owned by Mr. Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge, as sole proprietor. He bought 50% of shares. All shares were equivalent to 100,000Euros. That contract is titled “convention d’actionnariat” and was signed on 20/7/2012. Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge claims that YARI CORNACCHIA did not respect the contract because he paid 60,000 Euros only. [2] YARI CORNACCHIA did not afford to pay 40,000 remaing Euros, and he requested Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge as the founder of that company to redeem shares equivalent to 60,000

Page 288

101 Euros that he paid. This led to the conclusion of the contract entered into on 22/7/2013 titled “contrat de cession d’actions” which provides that Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge has bought shares of YARI CORNACCHIA equivalent to 54,000,000Frw (60,000 Euros) within 35 months by monthly payment of 1,500,000Frw. This caused the rise of disputes relating to performance of the contract which led YARI CORNACCHIA to referring the case to Kigali International Arbitration Centre (KIAC). In return, KIAC delivered an award Nº 2013-2014/017 dated 06/03/2015 confirming that Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge was no longer bound by the contract titled contrat d’actionnariat, and that the contract titled contrat de cession d’actions must be respected. Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge was never satisfied of arbitral award. [3] Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge appealed to the Commercial High Court, requesting annulment of that award. [4] As the vital grounds of his appeal, he had among others the absence of any provision about arbitration clause in the contract titled convention d’actionnariat they concluded basing on article 47(1) section c and d of the Law on arbitration. He concluded that Kigali International Arbitration Center examined the matter which was not in its competence. [5] The Commercial High Court ruled on the case on 9/07/2015 and affirmed that the Arbitrator had no competence to settle the dispute between YARI CORNACCHIA and Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge and it quashed the arbitrator’s award dated 6/3/2015 and its interpretative award of 17/4/2015. [6] Represented by counsel Rukangira Emmanuel, YARI CORNACCHIA appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that the matter which was submitted to arbitration was an issue YARI CORNACCHIA v. NSANAWE

Page 289

102

RWANDA LAW REPORTS related to the peformance or failure of performance « mise en exécution ou défaut d’exécution » of agreement of the contracting parties in the contract termed contrat de cession d’actions which contained arbitration clause. [7] In their submissions, Counsel Kiloha Olivier and Counsel Umupfasoni Blandine raised an objection that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to precede with YARI Cornacchia’s appeal since it does not comply with the provisions of article 28(2) of Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Counsel Rukangira Emmanuel replied that their objection had no ground. [8] That objection was rejected by the Court on 04/04/2015 and it affirmed that the Commercial High Court ruled, on the first instance, on arbitral award. The Supreme Court concluded that it must examine the claim on appeal level. The Court concluded that it has competence over the case, and hence must be adjudicated on merit. [9] The case was adjudicated in merit on 26/01/2016, YARI CORNACCHIA was represented by counsel Rukangira Emmanuel while Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge was represented by his counsels Kiloha Olivier and Umupfasoni Blandine. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES Whether YARI CORNACCHIA submitted a claim to Arbitral Tribunal relying on the contract titled convention d’actionnariat or on the one titled contract de cession d’actions.

Page 290

103 [10] Counsel Rukangira Emmanuel pleading for YARI CORNACCHIA claimed that the first contract titled convention d’actionnariat provides that potential dispute should be submitted to the Courts of Kigali. However, he added, after Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge bought shares of

YARI CORNACCHIA whereby they agreed on certain things which Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge did not comply with, it led to the conclusion of another second contract titled convention de cession d’actions which provides that Nsanawe Serge Ndekwe purchases shares of YARI CORNACCHIA equivalent to 54,000,000Frw (60,000 Euros), with a monthly payment of 1,500,000Frw within 35 months. [11] He argues that there was partial execution of the second contract titled convention de cession d’actions to the side of Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge because for 54,000,000Frw he was obliged to pay, he had only paid 8,000,000Frw and, since then, he stopped. It is for this reason that based on article 12 of that contract, YARI CORNACCHIA referred the case to Kigali International Arbitration Centre (KIAC) because it is in that article that arbitration clause is embodied. [12] He states further that another evidence that YARI CORNACCHIA submitted the claim to the Arbitral Tribunal based on contract titled convention de cession d’actions is that the content of terms of reference signed by both parties are the exact terms in the contract titled convention de cession d’actions since his request was to be paid the remaining amount of money on 54,000,000Frw referred to in convention de cession d’actions. He added that the judge has never mentioned convention d’actionnariat from the terms of reference and that no single provision from that contract was ever debated on. YARI CORNACCHIA v. NSANAWE

Page 291

104

RWANDA LAW REPORTS [13] Counsel Umupfasoni Blandine states that as indicated by the claim that had been submitted to the Arbitral Tribunal, YARI CORNACCHIA claimed for cancellation of the contract titled convention d’actionnariat (constater la dénonciation de la Convention d’actionnariat) while that contract provides that it is Courts which are competent to settle possible disputes. He stressed that Counsel Rukangira Emmanuel had never specified in his submissions that the subject matter concerns cession d’actions. [14] She argues that the fact that Counsel Rukangira Emmanuel relies on article 12 of the contract titled cession d’actions which provides that all disputes relating to the contract shall be settled by Kigali International Arbitration Centre (KIAC) must not be considered because the contract titled convention d’actionnariat which is the subject matter of litigation and the contract titled cession d’actions are two different contracts. He added that the contract titled cession d’actions has nothing to do with convention d’actionnariat though litigants are the same. [15] Counsel Kiloha Olivier also states that the arguments advanced by Counsel Rukangira Emmanuel that their response to their submissions implies the acceptance of the contract titled cession d’actions as the object of litigation is not true because it would not stop them from drafting court submissions as alternative pleading and it is not the meaning that their response was a direct response to the contract titled cession d’actions which was breached. He argued further that Kigali International Arbitration Centre (KIAC) could not examine anything on the contract titled convention d’actionnariat while it had no competence. He stressed that the statement constater la

Page 292

105 dénonciation de la convention d’actionnariat is totally different from the statement constater la dénonciation de convention de cession d’actions.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [16] Article 29 of Ministerial Order Nº16/012 of 15/05/2012 determining arbitration rules of Kigali International Arbitration (KIAC), provides that “the Arbitral Tribunal shall draw up, on the basis of documents or in the presence of the parties and in the light of their most recent submissions, a document defining its Terms of Reference. This document shall include the following particulars: 2° A summary of the parties’ respective claims and of the relief sought by each party, together with the amounts of any quantified claims and, to the extent possible, an estimate of the monetary value of any other claims 4° Unless the Arbitral tribunal considers it inappropriate, a list of issues to be determined; and 7° Particulars of the applicable procedural rules and, if such is the case, reference to the power conferred upon the Arbitral tribunal to act as amiable compositeur or to decide ex aequo et bono. The terms of Reference signed by it and by the parties shall be submitted by the Arbitral Tribunal to the Centre within two months of the date on which the file has been transmitted. The Centre may extend this time limit pursuant to a reasoned request from the arbitral tribunal YARI CORNACCHIA v. NSANAWE

Page 293

106

RWANDA LAW REPORTS or on its own initiative if it decides it is necessary to do so. If any of the parties refuses to take part in the drawing up of the Terms of Reference or to sign the same, they shall be submitted to the Centre for approval. When the Terms of Reference have been signed or approved by the Centre, the arbitration shall proceed. After the Terms of Reference have been signed or approved by the Centre, no party shall make new claims which fall outside the limits of the Terms of Reference unless it has been authorized to do so by the Arbitral tribunal, which shall consider the nature of such new claims, the stage of the arbitration and other relevant circumstances”. [17] The Court finds that YARI CORNACCHIA submitted to Arbitral Tribunal a claim of this nature: to confirm the termination of the contract titled convention d’Actionnariat by the defendant and therefore orders the refund of money paid to the defendant and not repaid by that date equivalent to 46,000,000Frw. Constater la dénonciation de la Convention d’Actionnariat par le défendeur et par conséquent ordonner la restitution des sommes versées au défendeur et non remboursées à cette date équivalentes à 46,000,000Frw. [18] The Court finds that during the hearing before Arbitral Tribunal, litigants, after contradictory debate on the issue of the admissibility of the claim, agreed that the subject matter is the contract titled cession d’actions and they also submitted new court briefs as seen in paragraph 55 and 56 of the arbitral award which served as the basis for the Arbitral Tribunal to continue with the proceedings because it is in that contract whereby it is

Page 294

107 provided that disputes that will arise will be settled by Kigali International Arbitration Centre (KIAC). [19] The Court finds that the adjudicated subject matter after mutual agreement of parties thereon as aforementioned is all about the contract titled convention de cession d’actions whose partial execution was done by Nsanawe Serge Ndekwe, because for 54,000,000Frw which was supposed to be paid, he paid 8,000,000Frw only and that contract was entered into as a replacement of that of the contract titled convention d’actionnariat since YARI CORNACCHIA had already sold his shares to Nsanawe Serge Ndekwe and was no longer bound by the contract titled convention d’actionnariat. [20] The Court finds further that, though the parties themselves had first agreed on the subject matter that was supposed to be examined by the Arbitral Tribunal, YARI CORNACCHIA also had no problem in that contract titled convention d’actionnariat in a way that he could file a claim thereto because it was no longer binding him. Instead, he had the problem on the contract titled cession d’actions because it is him who was not paid the totality of the money that Nsanawe Serge Ndekwe owed him. Another evidence that it is the contract titled cession d’actions which was at issue, is that as seen in paragraph 15 and 16 of the arbitral award, Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge manifested the desire to pay through amicable settlement but YARI CORNACCHIA did not accept. It is understandable then that the payment he desired to execute through that settlement was provided in the contract termed cession d’actions. [21] The Court finds also that another issue which proves that it is the contract titled cession d’actions which was the cause of YARI CORNACCHIA v. NSANAWE

Page 295

108

RWANDA LAW REPORTS litigation is that 46,000,000Frw referred to in the terms of reference as well as moratoria damages, being computed from 28/12/2013 to 28/6/2014, and damages for the loss that YARI CORNACCHIA states that he incurred are all referred to in the issues that must be examined by the Arbitral Tribunal and are also found in convention de cession d’actions which provides for arbitration clause (des points litigieux à être résolus par le Tribunal Arbitral) since it is in that contract whereby 54,000,000Frw which Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge owed YARI CORNACCHIA while he had only paid 8,000,000Frw. [22] The Court finds that pursuant to the aforementioned findings, YARI CORNACCHIA lodged a claim before Arbitral Tribunal based on the contract titled cession d’actions that provides for arbitration clause in its article 12. Therefore, this Arbitral Tribunal had competence to hear the case. Whether cross appeal filed by Nsanawe Serge Ndekwe requesting the annulment of the arbitral award due to the elapse of the time limit fixed by parties for Arbitral Tribunal's delivery has merit.

[23] Counsel Kiloha Olivier states that before the Commercial High Court, they had filed the claim relying on two grounds, one being annulment of arbitral award while the second was the failure to comply with the procedural formalities because both had agreed that the award would be pronounced on 17/9/2014 while it was issued on 06/03/2015, just after 45 days, the time limit fixed by parties in that agreement. He specified that article 47(1º, d) of Law on arbitration states that the award shall be quashed if litigants had not complied with the terms of reference. Thus, he concluded, the Judge of the High

Page 296

109 Court examined only one issue. He also stated that they seek from Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge damages amounting to 1,500,000Frw and 4,000,000Frw for procedural and advocates fee respectively. [24] Counsel Rukangira Emmanuel states that the effects of failure to deliver the arbitral award in accordance with the fixed time limit should not be its annulment; instead, administrative sanctions are imposed. He added that the procedural formalities before the arbitrator are the same as those in ordinary proceedings. Therefore, the fact of failing to comply with the time limit is not a ground for annulment of the arbitral award. He stressed further that the damages he seeks have no merit since it is three years while, YARI CORNACCHIA is demanding the payment. On the contrary, it is him who would otherwise seek damages.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [25] Article 47, 1o d of the Law N°005/2008 of 14/02/2008 on arbitration and conciliation in commercial matters that counsel Kiloha Olivier relies on, provides that: an arbitral award decided by an arbitration may be set aside by the court specified in article 8 of this Law only if: 1o the party seeking cassation furnishes proof that: (…) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless such an agreement is in conflict with provisions of this Law from which the parties cannot derogate, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with this Law. YARI CORNACCHIA v. NSANAWE

Page 297

110

RWANDA LAW REPORTS [26] The Court finds that the provisions relied on by Counsel Kiloha Olivier to request annulment of the arbitral award due to the failure to comply with 45 days do not emphasize his allegations to prove that this ground leads to immediate annulment of the arbitral award when the latter was not pronounced within the time fixed by parties. He does also show that the effect is to quash the arbitral award in accordance with the provisions of that Law on arbitration. Therefore, this ground has no merit. [27] With regard to the damages requested by Nsanawe Serge Ndekwe, the Court finds that those damages have no basis since his claim has no merit. III. THE DECISION OF COURT [28] Decides the claim filed by YARI CORNACCHIA with no merit. [29] Decides that Arbitral Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the case between YARI CORNACCHIA and Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge. [30] Decides that cross appeal filed by Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge has no merit. [31] Quashes the judgment RCOMA0248/15/HCC rendered by the Commercial High Court on 09/07/2015. [32] Orders Nsanawe Ndekwe Serge to pay court fees equal to 100,000Frw.

Page 298

CRIMINAL CASES

Page 300

PROSECUTION v. RUZINDANA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RPAA0297/11/CS (Mugenzi, P.J., Mutashya and Gatete, J.) March 24, 2016] Criminal procedure – Doubt – It favours the accused – Law Nº30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure, article 165(2o). Facts: The accused and his fellows not mentioned in this case were prosecuted for murder committed against Rucyahana. With regard to the accused, relying on the statements he made before the prosecution during his interrogation whereby he conceded that he followed the victim while drunk and then killed him, and on the medical report which proves that the late was strangled to death, the Court found him guilty of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. He appealed to the Supreme Court, stating that the judge convicted him without relevant evidence and without taking into consideration his request of further investigation which should have possibly proven his innocence. As for the prosecutor, one could wonder why it took such a long time while the administrative authorities were aware that there were discharging testimonies but which were not given to the concerned authorities. Held: There is no relevant evidence beyond reasonable doubt convicting the accused of the offence he is charged with. Therefore, he is acquitted. 113

Page 301

114

RWANDA LAW REPORTS Appeal granted. Accused acquitted and immediate released ordered. Court fees charged to the public treasury. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law Nº30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure, article 165(2o). No case law referred to. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE

CASE [1] The case started in the High Court, Nyanza Chamber, the Prosecution accusing Ruzindana and Serunyange of murder, while Musabyimana was accused of failing to assist a person in danger. On 14 October 2011, the court found Ruzindana guilty of the offence he was charged with and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Musabyimana was found guilty of failing to assist a person in danger hence was ordered to pay 10,000Frw of fine while Serunyange was acquitted. [2] In its verdict, the Court convicted Ruzindana basing on the statements he made before the prosecution during his interrogation whereby he conceded that he followed the deceased who was drunk and killed him and on the medical report which demonstrates that the deceased was strangled to death.

Page 302

115 PROSECUTION v. RUZINDANA [3] Ruzindana appealed to the Supreme Court, stating that the judge convicted him without relevant evidence, without taking into consideration his request for further investigation under which he could have been acquitted. [4] The public hearing was held on 28 September 2015. Ruzindana was assisted by Counsel Uramije James while the Prosecution was represented by Bunyoye Grâce, the National Prosecutor. After closing the hearing, parties were communicated that the pronouncement will be held on 30 October 2015. However, during deliberation, the Court found that prior to the adjudication of the case on merit it was necessary to hear witnesses suggested by Ruzindana, namely Rutabana Gaspard, Nyiraminani Alphonsine, Muhayimpundu Claudine and Museruka Théoneste so that they could be interrogated about the death of Rucyahana Felisiyani. [5] The hearing was re-opened on 22 February 2016, Ruzindana being assisted by the Counsel Uramije James while the Prosecution was represented by Dushimimana Claudine, the National Prosecutor. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUE Whether there is relevant evidence convicting Ruzindana Emmanuel. [6] Counsel Uramije argues that his client Ruzindana shared beer with Rucyahana in the pub. He added that after that sharing, Ruzindana accompanied him until he reached his brother Serunyange’s home. He insists that when they reached there, Rucyahana started fighting with his elder brother but

Page 303

116

RWANDA LAW REPORTS Ruzindana interposed and went to call the chairman of the village for help. [7] Ruzindana emphasizes that he went to call the chairman of the village for help and the latter told him that he could do nothing because it was known that, Rucyahana habitually quarrels when drunk. He also affirms that after his call on the chairman of the village for help, he did not return to the scene of fight. [8] They asserted further that there are pieces of exculpating evidence which were submitted to the previous Court, but, the latter did not take them into consideration. Furthermore, they added that they requested for interrogation of 17 witnesses enumerated by the Local Authorities in their investigation as specified in the latter written by the Executive Secretary of Bunge cell on 21 May 2010. [9] More particularly, Ruzindana insisted that those pieces of evidence were sent to him by the family members of the late Rucyahana Felisiyani just after Serunyange1 who was incarcerated with him was released. He concluded that he requests the Court to conduct further investigation on his charges and at least interrogates Rutabana Gaspard, Nyiraminani Alphonsine, Muhayimpundu Claudine and Museruka Théoneste because they can specify the time when he left the late Rucyahana. Furthermore, Ruzindana states that the decision taken is defective because it relies on the testimonies supposed to be his while they were made by other people.

1 This is his cousin brother who already served his sentence.

Page 304

117 [10] The Prosecutor states that the offence that Ruzindana is charged with was committed on 08 February 2010 while the request to the Court to hear witnesses was written on 21 May 2010 and one can wonder the reason why it took such longtime while the administrative authorities were aware of witness evidence without sharing this information with the concerned authorities. [11] She explains that Rucyahana brawled with Serunyange, and Ruzindana interposed between them, but that such brawl was not fatal unless Serunyange hit the deceased with instrument, and Ruzindana does not prove it. [12] With regards to the challenged testimony, she states that it was transcribed such as it was given and none could consider statements made by someone else as if they were made by Ruzindana, the reason why it has to remain valid2. Moreover, she adds that testimonies are contradictory on some occasions, because one of them testified that Ruzindana left Rucyahana for home after having begged him in vain to go home and rejected it on one hand, while on the other hand one testified that he walked away to call the Chairman of the Village for help.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [13] After analysis of testimonies3 given during the hearing of 22 February 2016, the Court finds that all witnesses coincide on the point that Ruzindana went home with the deceased and

2Apparently, the judge convicted Ruzindana of the offence, because Rucyahana said “Ayirwanda’s son (Ruzindana), what do u want to me?” 3Were interrogated: Rutabana Gaspard, Nyiraminani Alphonsine, Muhayimpundu Claudine and Museruka Théoneste. PROSECUTION v. RUZINDANA

Page 305

118

RWANDA LAW REPORTS when they reached to Serunyange’s, Rucyahana refused to keep his way home stating that he has already reached there. [14] The Court finds further that they all coincide on the point that Rucyahana fought with Serunyange, and Ruzindana interposed himself between them, Serunyange went back inside the house and closed the door, while Ruzindana kept begging the deceased to keep his way home, but the latter refused and stayed at the entrance of his brother’s.4 [15] Another thing which must not be disregarded is that all of them coincide on the point that after the fight, Ruzindana went to call on the Chairman of Village for help, and as Ruzindana explains, none testified to have seen him at scene of fight between Rucyahana and Serunyange after calling for help. [16] The Court finds no contradiction in the testimony as pretended by the Prosecutor because, after Rucyahana has rejected Ruzindana’s request to go home, it is no surprise that Ruzindana told Rucyahana that he is about to leave him, but it was found that he called on the Chairman of the Village before going home, as testified by Museruka Théoneste, that when he was on his way from Kigali, Ruzindana met him to the center calling for help because of the fights. [17] Further, the Court cannot disregard the document issued by the local administrative authorities in order to serve as the base of interrogation of witnesses, although it was submitted late, because those authorities are of the place of the commission of the crime, and the interrogated witnesses reached the crime scene due to the fight between Rucyahana and

4 Serunyange’s brother

Page 306

119 Serunyange. Therefore there is no cause as to why their testimonies would not be duly considered. [18] In the light of the above explanations, the Court finds that there is no relevant evidence beyond any reasonable doubt to convict Ruzindana. Therefore, he must be acquitted pursuant to the provisions of article 165(2o) of Law Nº30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure which provides that if the proceedings conducted as completely as possible do not enable judges to find reliable evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence, the judges shall order his/her acquittal. III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT. [19] Finds appeal lodged by Ruzindana Emmanuel with merit; [20] Finds him not guilty; [21] Orders his immediate release; [22] Orders that the court fees be charged to the public treasury.

PROSECUTION v. RUZINDANA

Page 308

PROSECUTION v. TURATSINZE [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RPAA0021/12/CS (Nyirinkwaya, P.J., Rugabirwa and Ngagi, J.) February 19, 2016] Evidence law – Presumptions – They are inferences that the law or a court makes from a known fact to discern an unknown fact. They must be significant, precise and consistent – Law Nº15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, articles 104 and 108. Criminal law – Minimization of Genocide – It shall be any deliberate act committed in public, aiming at downplaying the gravity or consequences of Genocide and downplaying the methods through which Genocide was committed – Law N°84/2013 of 11/09/2013 on Genocide ideology and other related crimes, article 6. Criminal Procedure – Consequences of the absence of appeal by Prosecution against the penalty imposed – The penalty cannot be increased on the appellate level when the Prosecution did not appeal against it. Facts: The accused was brought before the Intermediate Court of Ngoma, accused of minimization of genocide against the Tutsi, basing on the words he told Nyirabashumba Françoise when they met that as they commemorate the Genocide against the Tutsi on 07/04 they should also commemorate the fifth of the same month on which he got married. He was convicted and sentenced to ten (10) years of imprisonment. He appealed to the 121

Page 309

122

RWANDA LAW REPORTS High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana, which held that his appeal lacks merit. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that he did not commit the offence and that the previous courts convicted him without examining the witnesses he called as he had requested. The prosecution contends that there is a witness who was at the scene of the offence who narrated in the Judicial Police how the offence was committed, thus his testimony should be valued, especially that even the accused stated that there is no conflict between them. Held: 1. Presumptions are inferences that the law or a court makes from a known fact to discern an unknown fact. They must be significant, precise and consistent.

2. Minimization of Genocide shall be any deliberate act committed in public, aiming at downplaying the gravity or consequences of Genocide and down playing the methods through which Genocide was committed.

3. The penalty imposed on Turatsinze cannot be increased in the appeal on the ground of recidivism, because even though he deserved it, the previous courts did not rely on it in determining the penalty and the Prosecution did not appeal against the penalty. Therefore, he must be sentenced to nine (9) years of imprisonment which is the maximum penalty provided for by the law. Appeal lacks merit. The appealed judgment is reversed in regard to the penalty. The court fees are to be charged from the public treasury.

Page 310

123 PROSECUTION v. TURATSINZE

Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Organic Law Nº01/2012 of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, articles 79 and 116. Law N°84/2013 of 11/09/2013 on Genocide ideology and other related crimes, articles 6 and 12. Law Nº15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, articles 104 and 108. No cases referred to. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE

CASE [1] The case begun in the Intermediate Court of Ngoma, where Turatsinze Pierre was accused of the offence of minimizing the genocide against the Tutsi, he allegedly committed on 19 April 2008 when he told Nyirabashumba Françoise whom he met on the way, that when they go for genocide commemoration on 7 April 04, they should also commemorate the 5th of April on which he got married. [2] The court rendered the judgment RP0287/08/TGI/Ngoma on 22 May 2009, in which it convicted and sentenced him to ten (10) years of imprisonment.

Page 311

124

RWANDA LAW REPORTS [3] Turatsinze appealed to the High Court, chamber of Rwamagana, in the judgment RPA0110/09/HC/RWG rendered on 11 March 2011 that Court held that his appeal lacks merit. [4] Immediately after the pronouncement, Turatsinze Pierre declared that he has lodged an appeal though he did not submit his appeal submissions to the court. The public hearing was held on 29 December 2015, Turatsinze Pierre being assisted by Counsel Umulisa Paola, while the prosecution was represented by Ntawangundi Béatrice, the National Prosecutor. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUE Whether Turatsinze Pierre is not guilty of minimization of genocide. [5] Turatsinze Pierre claims that he did not commit the offence he is accused of, he admits to have met Nyirabashumba on 19 April 2008, when she was coming from Hitamungu’s home accompanied by the latter’s wife Mukandayisenga, while he was also going to that home with Karegeya Claver and Innocent. Nyirabashumba greeted him and Mukandayisenga went back home, the old men he was with entered into the house and both of them stayed at Hitamungu’s courtyard. He proceeds that they did not quarrel, apart from Nyirabashumba greeted him, and she told him that he resented her, as he no longer visit her and he replied that it was due to the lack of time when he get time he will visit her He states that after not more than five minutes, Nyirabashumba left and he entered into Hitamungu’s house. [6] He further states that Hitamungu took them to Viateur’s pub to buy for them alcohol, after 30 minutes Nyirabashumba

Page 312

125 came and told people who were there as follow “I am saddened of what Pierre have just told me”. When they asked her to repeat what he had told her, she only repeated that it had saddened her and immediately left. He adds that she just came back and said “You can ask Twamugize, he heard what Turatsinze told me”. They asked him but he affirmed to have passed near them when going to buy flour for his kids but he did not hear those words that had saddened her. Then they asked him to tell them what happened, he said that they greeted each other and Nyirabashumba told him that he resented her as he no longer visit her and he replied that it was not like that and after a short time Nyirabashumba went home, they did not proceed further. [7] He refutes what Twamugize stated before the Judicial Police that he found him with Nyirabashumba at Hitamungu’s courtyard because it is false because he never saw him. With regard to the reason why Nyirabashumba would falsely accuse him, he replied that they normally lived in harmony, occasionally visiting each other, but in 2007, she requested him, as a person who had pleaded guilty to the crime of genocide against the Tutsi, to accuse Nyirabukeye Clémentine in Gacaca courts that she looted the commune’s property, she wanted even to tell him how he could do it but he told her that he cannot falsely accuse her. [8] He states that previous courts convicted him without examining the witnesses he called who are Karegeya Claver, Mukandayisenga and Hitamungu who were around when he talked with Nyirabashumba on 19 April 2008 and who can testify if there was a quarrel between them, as for others they know that Nyirabashumba requested him to accuse Nyirabukeye and these are Muyango Martin, and Viateur who were in charge PROSECUTION v. TURATSINZE

Page 313

126

RWANDA LAW REPORTS of security in the Cell. With regard to know how they got informed about it, he states that he is the one who told them. [9] Counsel Umulisa Paola, assisting Turatsinze states that apart from the fact that her client pleads not guilty, to say “when you commemorate genocide victims, commemorate also my wedding date” should not be considered as minimizing the Genocide against the Tutsi, as such words do not prevent people from commemorating Genocide nor deny it, but instead, they should be regarded as valuing it. [10] She further states that to give value to one’s wedding date is not downplaying the commemoration of genocide rather those words which Turatsinze is accused of can offend his ex- lover as they are intended to remind him the date on which he got married. It could be in such context that he offended Nyirabashumba who used to be his lovers but he did not marry her since he married another lady. [11] He also states that in the Intermediate Court of Ngoma, Turatsinze requested the Court to carry out the investigation, but the judge told him that his case was among the backlog cases, therefore it cannot be postponed, that although his request for the investigation is not written anywhere, nothing prevent it to be taken into consideration by the Supreme Court so that it gives him a chance to examine the witnesses he called including Sumba Shabani, Nyiramatabaro Jeanne, Karegeya Claver, Mukandayisenga Claudine and Nyirabukeye Clémentine who know his relationship with Nyirabashumba and they also consider his behaviors and testify whether he can utter such words.

Page 314

127 [12] With regard to the fact that he told Nyirabashumba such words, with the intention of offending her as someone who was in love with and broke up and married another one, Turatsinze avers that it is true that they were in relationship but he did not marry her after knowing that she was HIV positive. He further states that just because she wanted to live together with him but it failed, that would not lead him to tell her such words to offend her. [13] The representative of the Prosecution states that Twamugize Chantal made a statement in the Judicial Police that she found Nyirabashumba crying, quarreling with Turatsinze, and she repeated what Turatsinze had told her, and when she asked him about it, he repeated what Nyirabashumba had told her, in her view there is nothing which could prevent the Court to value his testimony because Turatsinze also stated himself that there is no conflict between them. [14] She further argues that Nyirabashumba and Turatsinze are not related that she remembers his wedding day, that considering the severity of Genocide, it would be its revisionism to compare the commemoration of its victims to the wedding date, especially that doing so, Turatsinze was aware that it would offend Nyirabashumba. [15] Regarding the witnesses he requested to be heard, she argues that it has no significance because he himself stated that there is no conflict between him and Nyirabashumba and no one knew that she requested him to accuse Nyirabukeye apart from those he told about it. She further argues that he also stated that there was no one around when he was talking to Nyirabashumba at Hitamungu’s courtyard apart from Twamugize who was passing by and stood there. PROSECUTION v. TURATSINZE

Page 315

128

RWANDA LAW REPORTS [16] She concludes that Turatsinze would have been sentenced to the double of the penalty as provided for by article 75 of Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code relating to the penalty in case of recidivism because he was sentenced to ten (10) years when he was convicted for Genocide against the Tutsi, but that she cannot request for it when the prosecution did not appeal. She adds that although the current penal code provides for lesser penalties than the one that was in force at the time Turatsinze committed the offence, she requests that the penalty imposed to him by previous courts be sustained considering that it is recidivism.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [17] In this case, the issue to be examined is whether Turatsinze told Nyirabashumba that “when they commemorate the victims of genocide against the Tutsi on 7 April, they should also commemorate the day on which he got married on 5th of the same month” and if he did so, whether such words constitute minimization of Genocide. [18] Article 104 of the Law relating to evidence and its production mentioned above provides that presumptions are inferences that the law or a court makes from a known fact to discern an unknown fact. As for article 108, it states that the court shall admit only those presumptions if they are important, precise and consistent. [19] The court finds that although Turatsinze denies having told Nyirabashumba the words he is being charged with, he admits that on 19 April 2008 they met and spent a while with

Page 316

129 her, and on the same day Nyirabashumba told people she found in Viateur’s pub that she was offended by what he had told her. [20] The court also finds that even if before this court, Turatsinze states that Twamugize did not pass by where he and Nyirabashumba were, he admitted it before the Prosecution, and what he admitted immediately after his arrest are the one to be considered because it corroborates with the statements of Nyirabashumba and Twamugize, and moreover he stated that there was no conflict between them that could lead him to falsely accuse him. [21] The court finds also that even if before this court, Turatsinze states that Nyirabashumba falsely accuse him because they were once in a relationship but he married another one cannot be given weight, because he did not mention it neither in pre-judicial phases nor in the courts, therefore, he contradicts himself because previously, he only stated that she might be avenging because he refused to accuse Nyirabukeye in Gacaca courts. [22] The court again finds that the arguments that Nyirabashumba falsely accuses him because he refused to accuse Nyirabukeye as she had requested him has no value because it contradicts his statements that they lived in harmony, and that Nyirabashumba is the one who received him when he was released from the prison convicted of Genocide. [23] With regard to the witnesses he called for examination, the court finds that it alters nothing, because himself before the Judicial Police and Prosecution stated that no one else passed by where he was with Nyirabashumba, apart from Twamugize, that he lived in harmony with Nyirabashumba, and that those who PROSECUTION v. TURATSINZE

Page 317

130

RWANDA LAW REPORTS know that she had requested him to accuse Nyirabukeye are those to whom he told it. Therefore, they cannot testify it as they did not hear nor see it themselves. [24] When analysing the statements made by Twamugize Chantal before the Judicial Police, that she found Nyirabashumba with Turatsinze crying, quarrelling and asking him the reason why he always offend her, that even Turatsinze repeated what he had told to Nyirabashumba, that in April they should also remember the 5th April that is when he married and relates it to the statements Nyirabashumba made before the Judicial Police when she was filing the claim, that Twamugize found her with Turatsinze, and the latter repeated what he just told her and again relates it with the statement Turatsinze made before the Prosecution confirming that Twamugize found him with Nyirabashumba. Considering contradiction and inconsistency that made up his statements, the court finds that there is no doubt that he told Nyirabashumba those words of which he is charged. [25] With regard to establish whether the words Turatsinze uttered constitute the offence of minimization of Genocide, article 6 of Law N°84/2013 of 11/09/2013 on the Genocide ideology and other related offences stating that minimization of Genocide shall be any deliberate act committed in public, aiming at downplaying the gravity or consequences of Genocide and downplaying the methods through which Genocide was committed. [26] The court notices that the argument of the counsel for Turatsinze, that such words should not be considered as minimization of Genocide because they do not deny it nor prevent its commemoration is disregarding that the Genocide is

Page 318

131 the most heinous crime that fatally injured the country and the hearts of numerous Rwandans, therefore, commemorating its victims who were barbarically killed cannot be compared to one’s wedding date. [27] The court also finds that Turatsinze as a person who was an adult during Genocide, who perpetrated it and punished for it, he was well aware that telling Nyirabashumba that when they commemorate the Genocide, they should also commemorate his wedding date is minimizing the Genocide against the Tutsi by comparing the act of commemorating genocide victims that involves the nation and all Rwandans with that of remembering one’s wedding date involving only the concerned person. His intention in doing so was to offend Nyirabashumba, demonstrating that he downplays the severity of atrocities committed against the Tutsis and the sorrow of its survivors. [28] With regard to the penalty, article 4 of the Law No33bis/2003 of 06/09/2003 punishing the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes that provided for the imprisonment of ten (10) years to twenty (20) years to the one convicted of Genocide denial, minimizing or justifying genocide, these penalties were replaced by five (5) years to nine (9) years considering provisions of article 12 of the Law N°84/2013 of 11/09/2013 relating to Genocide denial and related offences and the provisions of article 116 of Organic Law Nº01/2012 of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code. [29] With regard to the penalty to be imposed in case of recidivism, article 85 of the Decree Law Nº21/77 of 18/08/1977 instituting the penal code that was in force at the time the offence was committed provides that in case of recidivism, the convict shall receive the maximum penalty provided by Law and PROSECUTION v. TURATSINZE

Page 319

132

RWANDA LAW REPORTS the penalty may be doubled. The same is provided for by article 79 of Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code that is in force. [30] The court finds that the penalty imposed on Turatsinze cannot be increased in the appeal on the ground of recidivism, because even if he deserves it, the previous courts did not rely on it in determining his penalty and moreover, the Prosecution did not appeal against the penalty imposed on him. Therefore, he must be sentenced to nine (9) years of imprisonment which is the maximum penalty provided for by article 116 of Organic Law Nº01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code which is in force for the one convicted of the offence of minimizing genocide. III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [31] Decides that the appeal of Turatsinze Pierre lacks merit; [32] Decides that the judgment N° RPA0110/09/HC/RWG rendered on 11 March 2011 by the High Court, chamber of Rwamagana is reversed as with regards to the penalty imposed to Turatsinze Pierre in respect to the Organic Law Nº01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code which is in force; [33] Sentences Turatsinze Pierre to nine (9) years of imprisonment; [34] Orders that the court fees be charged from the public treasury.

Page 321

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

Page 322

Printed by PROGRAPH LTD P.o. Box 1882 Kigali - Rwanda Tel : (+250) 788303889 E-mail:hakizae2007@yahoo.fr