ECOBANK RWANDA PLC v. RUSEKAMPUNZI ET AL.

# ECOBANK RWANDA PLC v. RUSEKAMPUNZI ET AL.

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Decisions (Judgements) - Date: 2024-10-14 - Case/document no.: RCOMAA 00058/2024/CA - Collection: Court of Appeal

## Text

## Page 1

ECOBANK RWANDA PLC v. RUSEKAMPUNZI ET AL. [Rwanda COURT OF APPEAL – RCOMAA 00058/2024/CA (Rutazana, P.J.) 14 October 2024] Commercial procedure– Auction – Valuation of assets to be auctioned –Assets to be auctioned must be subject to a valuation, carried out at the time of sale, that reflects their market value as determined by a certified valuer. Commercial procedure – Auction – The auction terms and conditions – A receiver should not change their content conveniently and at any time, without informing the concerned parties about the changes. Facts: DATAPRO GRAPHICS Ltd was granted a loan by ECOBANK, Rusekampunzi acted as mortgagor for it, whereby he mortgaged his property registered under UPI: 1/02/13/01/1374. DATAPRO GRAPHICS failed to repay the loan. This fact prompted ECOBANK to request to the Registrar General to sell the mortgage which was granted, and the property was auctioned. Rusekampunzi wrote to the Registrar General requesting that the auction should be invalidated alleging that it was unlawfully conducted. Having noted that he was not given a response, he filed a claim before the Commercial Court requesting that the auction should be invalidated on grounds that the valuation was outdated, and that the auction notice was advertised in a newspaper different from the one the receiver had provided for in the auction terms and conditions. The Commercial Court ruled that the auction was conducted in compliance with the law, and therefore should be upheld. Rusekampunzi appealed to the Commercial High Court, claiming that the auction of his property should have been invalidated. The Court ruled that his appeal has merit, that the auction of his property was unlawfully conducted because the receiver conducted the auction based on the value that was not relevant to the time of the auction, and did not comply with the provisions of the auction terms and conditions regarding the newspaper in which the auction was to be published, and ordered that the auction should be cancelled. ECOBANK RWANDA Plc and Muvunyi (the receiver) appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the auction should not have been invalidated because Rusekampunzi was informed of the valuation and did not challenge it or refute it. They also argued that the auction was advertised in accordance with the law. They also sought for various damages. Rusekampuzi, on the other hand, states that the valuation on which the auction is based was not conducted in accordance with the law, and does not meet all the requirements for it to be valid. He also alleges that the fact that the auction was not advertised in the newspaper mentioned in the auction terms and conditions, it is a flaw that prevented the auction from being properly attended; therefore, the errors made must be corrected and the auction invalidated. Held: 1. Assets to be auctioned must be subject to a valuation, carried out at the time of sale, that reflects their market value as determined by a certified valuer. 2. The receiver should not change the contents of the auction terms and conditions conveniently and at any time without informing the concerned parties.

## Page 2

The appeal lacks merits. The court fee covers the expenses of proceedings. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Instructions of the Registrar General n° 001/2020/org of 12/05/2020 regulating modalities of management, lease, auction and acquisition of mortgage, articles 2, 26, 27, 28 and 29. No cases were referred to. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

DATAPRO GRAPHICS Ltd was granted a loan by ECOBANK Rwanda Plc, Rusekampunzi Kabera Edgar acted as mortgagor for it and mortgaged his property registered under UPI: 1/02/13/01/1374. DATAPRO GRAPHICS Ltd failed to repay the loan; this fact prompted ECOBANK RWANDA Plc to request to the Registrar General in Rwanda Development Board (RDB) a certificate to auction the mortgage, the request was granted. On 07/06/2024, the assets were auctioned by the Court Bailiff Muvunyi Serge, who was the Receiver, and the property was purchased by Ndikumana Frodouald.

On 14/06/2024, Rusekampunzi Kabera Edgar wrote to the Registrar General requesting that the auction should be invalidated because it was unlawfully conducted, based on the following reasons: the fact that ECOBANK RWANDA Plc requested that the mortgage should be auctioned without first issuing a notice of the request for repayment and demonstrating that the agreements to pay the remaining debt in installments entered into with DATAPRO GRAPHICS Ltd's guarantors were not respected; the fact that DATAPRO GRAPHICS Ltd was granted the loan without being notified of the certificate to auction the mortgage, the valuation of the mortgage sold, the auction terms and conditions , and the auction notice; and the fact that the report indicates that the auction was advertised in the AMAKURU MEDIA newspaper while the receiver, in the auction terms and conditions he prepared himself, stated that the auction would be advertised in the IGIHE.COM newspaper.

Upon realizing that the Registrar General did not respond to his request, on 22/06/2024, Rusekampunzi Kabera Edgar filed a petition before the Commercial Court requesting the invalidation of the above-mentioned auction, based on the following reasons: • The fact that Rusekampunzi Kabera Edgar, as the owner of the mortgaged property that was auctioned without notice for repayment of a debt amounting to 324,426,451 Frw; • The fact that DATAPRO GRAPHICS Ltd was granted a loan without notice of appointment of receiver; certificate to auction the mortgaged property, valuation of the property sold and notice of auction; • The fact that the report indicates that the auction notice was advertised in AMAKURU MEDIA newspaper; however, as per the auction terms and conditions prepared by the

## Page 3

receiver, it is clearly stated that the auction notice would be advertised in IGIHE.COM newspaper; • The fact that the auction was conducted based on an outdated valuation conducted on 26/04/2023 while the auction was conducted on 07/06/2024 and it is clear that the value of the property is increasing.

In the judgment RCOM 00913/2024/TC, rendered by the Commercial Court on 12/07/2024, it held that the auction conducted on the property UPI: 1/02/13/01/1374 complied with the law and should be upheld, it ordered to Rusekampunzi Kabera Edgar to pay to Muvunyi Serge 500,000 Frw for counsel fee and Frw 50,000 Frw for procedural fee.

Rusekampunzi Kabera Edgar appealed against the judgment to the Commercial High Court to demonstrate that the auction of his above-mentioned property should be invalidated, based on the following reasons:  The fact that his property (which was mortgaged) was auctioned on 07/06/2024 based on the valuation made on 26/04/2023, yet it was necessary to carry out another updated valuation;  The fact that the auction terms and conditions prepared by the receiver indicated that the auction would be advertised in IGIHE.COM newspaper; however, the report indicates that the auction was advertised in AMAKURU MEDIA newspaper.

Muvunyi Serge raised an objection arguing that the Commercial Court should not have admitted Rusekampunzi Kabera Edgar’s claim, on the ground that it was lodged after the expiry of the statutory time limits for seizing the Court. As to the grounds of appeal, all respondents submitted a general defence asserting that the appeal lacks merits, since Rusekampunzi Kabera Edgar was duly notified of the valuation of the property forming the basis of the auction, yet he failed to challenge or contest it, thereby implying his acceptance. They argue that such a contention cannot constitute a ground for nullifying the auction, as it does not fall within the grounds provided under Article 260 of the Law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure. Regarding the auction notice, they contend that the fact that it was published in a newspaper different from the one indicated in the Ministerial Instructions governing public auctions, was merely an inadvertent error, and that it caused no prejudice, since the essential requirement is that the auction should be duly advertised.

In the judgment RCOMA 00448/2024/HCC, rendered on 14/08/2024, the Commercial High Court held that the appeal of Rusekampunzi Kabera Edgar was well-founded; that the auction of his property was unlawfully conducted because the receiver conducted the auction based on a value that was not updated to the time of the auction, and did not comply with the provisions of the auction terms and conditions regarding the place where the auction was to be held, ordered that the auction should be cancelled, and ordered to Muvunyi Serge, the receiver, to pay to Rusekampunzi Kabera Edgar 1,000,000 Frw for counsel fee, 200,000 Frw for procedural fee, both at first instance and appeal, and 60,000 Frw for court fee deposited at first instance and appeal.

ECOBANK RWANDA Plc and Muvunyi Serge appealed to the Court of Appeal, both relying on the grounds that the auction should not have been invalidated because Rusekampunzi Kabera Edgar was informed of the fair valuation of his property and the auction was advertised in

## Page 4

accordance with the law; the appellants also claimed for procedural and counsel fees. Rusekampunzi Kabera Edgar defended himself, stating that the appeal was unfounded, and he claimed for procedural and counsel fees, as well as damages for having been dragged into unnecessary lawsuits.

The public hearing was held on 04/11/2024, ECOBANK RWANDA Plc was represented by Counsel Bimenyimana Eric and Counsel Mutsinzi Clémentine, Muvunyi Serge assisted by Counsel Mfashingabo Aimable and Rusekampunzi Kabera Edgar was represented by Counsel Ndaruhutse Janvier and Counsel Mwima Michel.

Based on the foregoing debates, the Court has to examine the following issues of the case:  Determine whether the fact that the auction of the property registered under UPI: 1/02/13/01/1374, was conducted without a fresh valuation carried out at the time of auctioning it, constitutes a ground for nullifying the auction;  Determine whether the fact that the newspaper in which the auction of the property registered under UPI: 1/02/13/01/1374 belonging to Rusekampunzi Kabera Edgar was different from the one indicated by the receiver in the auction terms and conditions, constitutes a ground for nullifying the auction;  Determine the basis of the procedural fee, counsel fee, and moral damages sought in this case. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUES OF THE CASE - a. Determine whether the fact that the auction of the property registered under UPI: 1/02/13/01/1374, was conducted without a fresh valuation carried out at the time of auctioning it, constitutes a ground for nullifying the auction

In their submissions and pleadings, both appellants (ECOBANK RWANDA Plc and Muvunyi Serge) concur on the ground that they criticize the Commercial High Court for having upheld the grounds on which Rusekampunzi Kabera Edgar based his request to invalidate the auction. They claim that it was conducted based on the valuation of his property dated 23/06/2024 when a new valuation was to be carried out during the auction, ignoring the fact that the flaw was revealed late, as he was notified of the valuation on 08/05/2024 and was not defective within 10 days as provided for in Article 28 of the Instructions of the Registrar General n° 001/2020/org of 12/05/2020 regulating modalities of management, lease, auction and acquisition of mortgage.

The appellants further submit that the notification of the valuation (to the mortgagor or the owner of the mortgaged property) is not a mere formality, rather it is a procedural safeguard intended to inform him/her that, should he/she have any objections, he/she may raise them within the time prescribed by law and when an objection is not raised, that valuation becomes the basis for the auction, as provided under paragraph 5 of Article 28 of the Instructions of the Registrar General cited above; consequently, Rusekampunzi Kabera Edgar cannot rely on his own failure to exercise this right within the lawful time limits as a ground to request the annulment of the auction.

They further argue that the valuation relied upon was indeed a valuation made for purposes of the auction, as it was conducted specifically to be used in the auction of his property; rather it

## Page 5

is Rusekampunzi Kabera Edgar himself who requested the auction suspension for allowing to sell it himself, after twenty (20) days following the notification of the valuation to him, he wrote to ECOBANK RWANDA Plc requesting the authorization to privately sell the mortgaged property for 156,180,000 Frw, an amount representing seventy-five percent (75%) of the value indicated in that valuation, Rusekampunzi Kabera Edgar has not demonstrated that his property was sold at low price, given that the auction price exceeded the valuation by nearly eighty (80) million Rwandan francs.

Counsel Ndaruhutse Janvier and Counsel Mwima Michel, representing Rusekampunzi Kabera Edgar, argue that this ground of appeal is unfounded because, as the Commercial High Court explained, the valuation on which it was based was not made during the auction and therefore did not meet the legal requirements to be valid, based on Article 26 of the aforementioned Instructions of the Registrar General, in its sub-paragraph 5, which provides that the information contained in the mortgage auction terms and conditions include the market value of the property to be sold, determined by a certified real property valuer, and Article 27 of the same Instructions, in its sub-paragraph 2, which provides that the mortgage auction terms and conditions are accompanied by a report on valuation of the property at the time the mortgage is placed under receivership done by a certified real property valuer.

The lawyers of Rusekampunzi Kabera Edgar further explain that he had the right to remind the receiver that the valuation he had notified to him had a flaw that made it invalid in any way and at any time, because this is not done in a counter-valuation against the one provided by the court bailiff, and that even if he did not remind him, the flaw in the valuation would not be removed, and the auction in which it was used would still be canceled.

The lawyers of Rusekampunzi Kabera Edgar further submit that the very fact that the appellants themselves acknowledge that the amount realized from the auction of his property exceeded the valuation used in that auction demonstrates that the said valuation was outdated. They argue that this is unsurprising, since the valuation in question was conducted on 26/04/2023 and was subsequently used for three separate auctions, the last of which was annulled by the Commercial High Court after the issuance of the sale authorization by the Registrar General on 07/05/2024, more than one year later. They contend that the Commercial High Court correctly found that Rusekampunzi Kabera Edgar could not be permitted to challenge the valuation outside the legally prescribed timeframe, noting that each authorization to sell mortgaged property must be supported by a valuation conducted contemporaneously with the application to the Registrar General. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

[17] The debate on this issue is based on whether, after Muvunyi Serge was appointed by the Registrar General on 07/05/2024 as the receiver of the property UPI:1/02/13/01/1374 belonging to Rusekampunzi Kabera Edgar, he should have conducted another valuation of the property that reflects the basic price to be paid at auction, or whether he was allowed to conduct the auction based on the existing valuation, which was made on 26/04/2023.

Article 26, paragraph one, sub-paragraph 5º, of Instructions of the Registrar General n° 001/2020/org of 12/05/2020 regulating modalities of management, lease, auction and acquisition

## Page 6

of mortgage, provides that the mortgage auction terms and conditions include at least the market value of the mortgaged property determined by a certified real property valuer.

Article 27, paragraph one, sub-paragraph 2º, of the aforementioned Instructions of the Registrar General nº 001/2020/org of 12/05/2020 provides that the auction terms and conditions document shall be accompanied by a report on valuation of the property at the time the mortgage is placed under receivership done by a certified real property valuer and notified to the mortgagor and owner of mortgaged property when the latter is not at the same time the mortgagor.

Article 28 of those Instructions states that " When the mortgagor or the owner of the mortgaged property when the latter is different from the debtor is not satisfied with the valuation produced by a certified real property valuer, he or she has the right to object to the valuation through a counter-valuation produced by a certified real property valuer appointed by the Institute of real property valuers in Rwanda. The counter-valuation is submitted to the receiver within a period not exceeding ten (10) days counted from the day following the day of receipt of the valuation by the objecting party, but including the day of submitting the counter-valuation to the receiver".

The provisions of Articles 26 and 27, read together, mean that one of the things that the receiver appointed by the Registrar General must take into account when preparing the auction is that the property to be sold must be valued, at the time of sale, at its current market value as determined by a certified real property valuer. This also implies that the said valuation serves as the reference price for bidders, acting as the base price during the auction process.

The Court finds that by providing that the mortgaged property should be auctioned based on its market value at the time of sale, it is clear that the legislator intended to protect the owner of the property to be sold, so that his property is not sold at any price that may result in a loss, rather be sold at a fixed price based on its market value at the time of sale, because that value may change over time, and the practice shows that the value of land increases over time.

In particular, as the Commercial High Court explained in the case under appeal, the fact that the real estate prices change over time is emphasized by the fact that the legislator, in Law n° 32/2015 of 11/06/2015 relating to expropriation in the public interest, provided in its article 221 that the list of prices of land and developments on it is reviewed annually.

In relation to this case, the auction terms and conditions for the above-mentioned property dated 20/05/2024 prepared by Muvunyi Serge indicate that the value of the property of Rusekampunzi Kabera Edgar registered under UPI: 1/02/13/01/1374 is 208,240,000 Frw; this value is also reflected in the valuation report which was based on, prepared on 26/04/2023 by a real estate valuer named Abayo Emmanuella; and it is also reflected in the Auction Report as the basic price of the property.

1 The article 22 provides that “Land values and prices for property incorporated on land consistent with the prevailing market rates provided under this Law shall be established by the Institute of Real Property Valuers in Rwanda. The list of land values and prices for property incorporated on land shall be reviewed every year and approved by the regulatory Council for the real property valuation in Rwanda before it becomes effective. The unit prices for land and property incorporated thereon shall be published every year in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda”.

## Page 7

Basing itself on the explanations provided in paragraphs 18 to 22 of this judgment, the Court finds that the property of Rusekampunzi Kabera Edgar mentioned above was sold based on a valuation that was no longer current, as it had been conducted more than a year earlier. Consequently, such valuation cannot be deemed to reflect the market value at the time of the auction sale. Considering also the explanations above regarding the fluctuations in land prices over time, it is evident that this situation caused him a loss, since the bidders relied on an outdated valuation when submitting their offers.

The Court finds that, although Article 28 of the Instructions of the Registrar General Nº 001/2020/org of 12/05/2020 mentioned above provides that when the mortgagor or the owner of the mortgaged property when the latter is different from the debtor is not satisfied with the valuation produced by a certified real property valuer, he or she has the right to object to the valuation through a counter-valuation within a period not exceeding ten (10) days calculated from the day following the day of receipt of the valuation, this does not remove the primary obligations of the receiver, as a professional, provided for by the law as explained above, to rely on the updated valuation that is relevant to the time and made at the time of the auction; therefore, the fact that Rusekampunzi Kabera Edgar did not immediately object to the valuation when it was submitted, the receiver cannot use it as an excuse to demonstrate that what he/she did was in compliance with the law; and if there was a loss caused to him as explained, there is nothing to prevent Rusekampunzi Kabera Edgar from relying on that defect to request that the auction be invalidated.

Based on all the elucidations provided above, this ground of appeal is unfounded. - 2. Determine whether the fact that the newspaper in which the auction of the property registered under UPI: 1/02/13/01/1374 belonging to Rusekampunzi Kabera Edgar was different from the one indicated by the receiver in the auction terms and conditions, constitutes a ground for nullifying the auction

[28] ECOBANK RWANDA Plc and Muvunyi Serge concur on this ground of appeal, explaining that their criticism of the impugned judgment lies in the fact that the Court annulled the auction on the basis that the receiver admitted to having made a typographical error in the auction terms and conditions, by indicating that the auction would be advertised in IGIHE.COM whereas it was in fact published in AMAKURU MEDIA. They contend that the lower Court wrongly considered this error as misleading both potential buyers and the property owner, while in reality the bidders are not among the recipients of the auction terms and conditions. They further argue that this typographical error had no practical consequence, since the auction was well attended, and even Rusekampunzi Kabera Edgar personally participated and sought a buyer himself. Therefore, what matters is that the auction was duly advertised in an authorized newspaper, at the Cell office, and on the Radio, and the Court did not reject these facts.

[29] The lawyers of Rusekampunzi Kabera Edgar argue that this ground of appeal is baseless because the Commercial High Court did not err in its analysis of the judgment under appeal. They explain that those concerned by the auction terms and conditions should have encouraged others to participate in the auction, and the latter should have gone to see the advertisement in the newspaper they were told about, that the fact that they were told about the newspaper and did not find the advertisement in it, is a defect that prevented the auction from being properly attended; therefore, the mistakes made must be corrected and the auction must be invalidated because advertising an auction is not just a mere formality but aims to protect the rights

## Page 8

of the owner of the property, his creditors, buyers or anyone who has a claim on that property, based on the position set in the judgments RCOMAA 00064/2019/CA, RCOMAA 00028/2023/CA and RCOMAA 00031/2016/SC-RCOMAA 00036/16/CS, all rendered by the Court of Appeal.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The debate on this issue is based on whether the fact that the auction was advertised in a newspaper different from the one that the receiver had stated in the auction terms and conditions, is a reason for invalidating the auction.

Article 29 of the Instructions of the Registrar General n° 001/2020/org of 12/05/2020 regulating modalities of management, lease, auction and acquisition of mortgage concerns the publication of auction, and provides that the receiver advertises the auction in a print or online newspaper operating in Rwanda.

Article 26 of the same Instructions also provides that the receiver shall prepare a written document of mortgage auction terms and conditions containing the information mentioned in that article2, and any other information as the receiver deems necessary. Article 28 of the said Instructions provides that the receiver shall notify the mortgagee and the mortgagor of the auction terms and conditions at least 10 days before the date of the auction, and reserves a copy thereof to the Registrar General and the owner of the mortgaged property when the latter is different from the debtor.

Article 2 of the Instructions of the Registrar General Nº 002/2021/ORG of 29/06/2021 amending the Instructions of the Registrar General n° 001/2020/org of 12/05/2020 regulating modalities of management, lease, auction and acquisition of mortgage provides, in its last paragraph, that during the auction, the mortgagee, the mortgagor, or the owner of the mortgaged property has the right to find himself or herself the buyers that can bid during the auction.

Based on the combined interpretation of Articles 26 and 2 referred to above, the Court finds that the auction terms and conditions, prepared by the receiver and notified to the Registrar General, who delegated those responsibilities, as well as to the mortgagee, the mortgagor, and the property owner where distinct from the mortgagor, constitutes an official instrument encompassing the essential information prescribed under Article 26 mentioned above, together with any other relevant details deemed necessary by the receiver regarding the auction and its modalities. Consequently, the Court finds that the receiver is not permitted to alter the content of that document arbitrarily or at any time without duly notifying the aforementioned parties as required under the Registrar General’s Instructions. Such conduct would not only amount to unprofessional practice but could also undermine the rights of the mortgagee, the mortgagor, or the property owner to seek

2 Such article provides that “A receiver prepares the mortgage auction terms and conditions, which include at least the following:1° number of the mortgaged property; 2° location of the mortgaged property; 3° area of the mortgaged property; 4° a statement that the property is offered on an “as is” basis; 5° market value of the mortgaged property determined by a certified real property valuer; 6° date of the auction; 7° time of the auction; 8° location of the auction; 9° schedule for subsequent auction dates in the event of postponement; 10° details of escrow account to be used to deposit the proceeds of the auction; 11° bid security; 12° indicating the payment priority order of the proceeds from the sale of a mortgage; 13° any other information the receiver deems necessary for the purposes of the auction”.

## Page 9

bidders during the auction process, thereby adversely affecting both the level of participation and the overall results of the auction.

The case file indicates that the auction terms and conditions prepared by Muvunyi Serge, who was the receiver, and notified to Rusekampunzi Kabera Edgar, states that the auction of his property mentioned above will be advertised in IGIHE.COM newspaper, surprisingly, on 10/06/2024, the auction of that property was advertised in AMAKURU MEDIA newspaper.

Based on the elucidations set out in paragraph 34, the Court finds that the fact that the receiver notified the parties concerned by the auction terms and conditions, including Rusekampunzi Kabera Edgar, that the auction of his property would be advertised in the newspaper IGIHE.COM but did not comply with it by instead advertising it in a different newspaper (AMAKURU MEDIA), as explained above; in addition to being unprofessional conduct for the receiver, they also violated the rights of Rusekampunzi Kabera Edgar as the owner of the property to seek bidders during the auction, because this information contained in the auction terms and conditions provides for the manner in which the auction will be conducted and from which he encourages buyers to participate; the fact that the receiver could notify them where to find the auction notice and not advertise it could confuse and mislead them, as the Commercial High Court had explained it, and could also affect the participation in the bidding, and the overall results of the auction; all this would cause the owner of the property to suffer undue losses; based on these elucidations, this is a reason why the auction is invalidated.  Determine the basis of the procedural fee, counsel fee, and moral damages sought in this case

Rusekampunzi Kabera Edgar requested the Court to order to the appellants to pay to him 1,500,000 Frw for the procedural fee at all levels of the proceedings ; 3,000,000 Frw for the counsel fee for two lawyers who represented him, 60,000 Frw for the court fee paid at the first and second levels, and 5,000,000 Frw as moral damages for being dragged into unnecessary lawsuits.

The appellants state that the claims of Rusekampunzi Kabera Edgar are baseless.

Article 111 of Law n° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that: “the claim for legal costs is adjudicated at the same time with the principal claim. It can also be admitted and adjudicated even if the principal claim has not been admitted.”

The Court finds that ECOBANK RWANDA Plc and Muvunyi Serge are the ones who appealed to this Court, making it necessary for Rusekampunzi Edgar Kabera to pursue the case and hire the advocates to defend him, and as explained above, their appeal lacks merit; therefore, based on the provisions of Article 111 mentioned above, the Court grants to Rusekampunzi Edgar Kabera, at its discretion, 700,000 Frw for the counsel fee and 300,000 Frw for the procedural fee at this level, because those granted at the previous levels were allocated in the case under appeal; while he is not entitled to moral damages because this is the first time to seek them. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

## Page 10

Holds that the appeal of ECOBANK RWANDA Plc and that of Muvunyi Serge lack merits.

Holds that the ruling of the judgment RCOMA 00448/2024/HCC rendered by the Commercial High Court on 14/08/2024 is sustained.

Orders to ECOBANK RWANDA Plc and Muvunyi Serge to jointly and on equal basis pay to Rusekampunzi Kabera Edgar seven hundred thousand francs (700,000 Frw) for counsel fee and three hundred thousand (300,000 Frw) for procedural fee at this stage. Rules that the court fee deposited by the appellants covers the expenses of the proceedings.