RLR V. 1 - 2022

# RLR V. 1 - 2022

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Rwanda law reports - Date: 2022-01-30 - 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. 1 - 2022 Mutarama, 2022 Law Reports V. 1 - 2022 January, 2022 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 3

Icyegeranyo V. 1 - 2022 Mutarama, 2022 Law Reports V. 1 - 2022 January, 2022 REPUBLIC OF RWANDA SUPREME COURT Po. Box. 2197 KIGALI www.judiciary.gov.rw

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 5

I i

ISHAKIRO

ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI ...................................iii IRIBURIRO ............................................................................... ix IBIKUBIYE MURI IKI CYEGERANYO................................. xi INYITO ...................................................................................... xi AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO ........................................xiii IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE .................................................. xvii AMAGAMBO MPINE ............................................................ xix Re. URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA (2) ............. 1 Re KABASINGA...................................................................... 25 Re. NDAYISABYE .................................................................. 77 NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA ......................................... 113 CELA COMPANY LTD v. PHILIPP COTTON ................... 147 NIYIBOGORA v DORISI N’ABANDI ................................. 173 i

## Page 6

IIII

## Page 7

III III

ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI

I. ITSINDA RY’ABANYAMATEGEKO BATEGUYE IMANZA

KAGABO U. Stephanie

KAVUTSE M. Claude

KUBWIMANA Jean Claude

MUJABI K. Naphtal

UWINKINDI Angelique

iii

## Page 8

IV IV

## Page 9

V V

II. KOMITE YEMEZA IMANZA

Prof. Dr. NGAGI M. Alphonse : Perezida wa Komite, Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire

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

NSENGIYUMVA Jean Claude : Umwanditsi wa Komite, Umugenzuzi w’Inkiko

RUKUNDAKUVUGA F. Regis : Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire

Dr. KARIMUNDA M. Aimé : Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga

NDAHAYO Xavier : Perezida w’Urukiko Rukuru

RUTAZANA Angeline : Umugenzuzi Mukuru w’Inkiko

KALIWABO Charles : Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire

Dr. KAYIHURA Didas :

BURAYOBERA UMUZAYIRE Bibiane : Umuyobozi wa ILPD

Visi Perezida wa Komisiyo y`u Rwanda ishinzwe Ivugururwa ry`Amategeko v

## Page 10

VI

BWIZA N. Blanche : Umugenzuzi w’Inkiko

KIBUKA Jean Luc : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi

HABARUREMA Jean Pierre : Umushinjacyaha ku Rwego rw’Igihugu

BUNYOYE Grace : Umushinjacyaha ku Rwego rw’Igihugu

KABIBI Specioza : Intumwa ya Leta

MUREREREHE Saouda : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru

Lt. col. MADUDU A. Charles :

Umucamanza mu Rukiko rwa Gisirikare

Dr. NSHIMIYIMANA Didace :

GIRANEZA Clémentine :

TASHOBYA Benon : Perezida w’Urukiko Rwisumbuye

Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye

Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye vi ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 11

VII

BAGABO Faustin :

GAPARAYI Idi :

Dr. SHEMA Pierre :

KARAKE Canisius :

Dr. HABIMANA Pie :

RWIGEMA Royck :

YANKURIJE Dorothée : Avoka mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka

Umwarimu muri University of Kigali

Umwarimu muri ULK

Umwarimu muri UNILAK

Avoka mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka

Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi

Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ibanze vii KOMITE YEMEZA IMANZA

## Page 12

VIII VIII

## Page 13

IX IX

IRIBURIRO Basomyi bacu, Tunejejwe no kubagezaho Icyegeranyo cy’Ibyemezo by’Inkiko, Volime 1 [2022]. Nk’uko mubizi, tubahitiramo imanza zikubiyemo bimwe mu bisubizo by’ibibazo muhura nabyo kenshi, haba mu mirimo yanyu ndetse no mu buzima bwa buri munsi. Muri iyi nomero murasangamo imanza esheshatu (6) zikurikira: urubanza rumwe (1) rurebana n’ikirego gisaba isobanurampamo ry’amategeko, imanza ebyiri (2) zerekeranye n’ibirego bisaba kwemeza ko Itegeko rinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga, urubanza rumwe (1) rw’imbonezamubano, urubanza rumwe (1) rw’ubucuruzi, urubanza rumwe (1) rw’inshinjabyaha n’urundi rumwe (1) rwerekeranye n’imiburanishirize y’imanza. Nk’uko mumaze kubimenyera imanza ziri muri iki cyegeranyo ziboneka no ku rubuga rwa murandasi rw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga: http://decisia.lexum.com/rlr/kn/nav.do. Dr NTEZILYAYO Faustin Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga akaba na Perezida w’Inama Nkuru y’Ubucamanza

ix

## Page 14

X

## Page 15

XI XI

IBIKUBIYE MURI IKI CYEGERANYO Iki Cyegeranyo gikubiyemo imanza zaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi.

INYITO Imanza ziri muri iyi volime zikoreshwa muri ubu buryo: [2022] 1 RLR

xi

## Page 16

XII XII

## Page 17

XIII XIII

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO

a. Amategeko akoreshwa ubu Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015; ingingo ya 95………………………………………………....5 ingingo ya 3, 15, 16, 21, 29 n’iya 95……………………...32 ingingo ya 15, 29 n’iya 96…………………………………79 Itangazo ry’Umuryango w’Abibumbye ku burenganzira bwa muntu (Universal Declaration of Human Rights), ryo mu mwaka wa 1948, ingingo ya 7…………………………………………………..7 ingingo ya 7…………………………………………………33 Amasezerano mpuzamahanga agamije gukumira ivangura iryo ariryo ryose rikorerwa abagore, U Rwanda rwayemeje n’Iteka rya Perezida Nº431/16 ryo ku wa 10 Ugushyingo 1980, rwayashyizeho umukono ku itariki ya 02/03/1981, ingingo ya 1 n’iya 12……………………………………………………………….33 Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yerekeye uburenganzira mu by’ubukungu, imibereho myiza n’umuco (International Covenant on Economic, social and Cultural Rights), U Rwanda rwayemeje n’Itegeko-teka Nº 8/75 ryo ku wa 12/02/1975, ingingo ya 12……........................................................................................33 Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga ku burenganzira Mbonezamubano n’ubwa Politiki (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), 1966, ingingo ya 26………………………………………………..33 ingingo ya 26……………………………………………….79 xiii

## Page 18

XIV

Amasezerano y’inyongera ku masezerano Nyafurika yerekeye uburenganzira bwa muntu n’ubwa abaturage yerekeye uburenganzira bw’umugore yashyiriweho umukono I Maputo ku wa 11 Nyakanga 2003, yemejwe burundu n’Iteka rya Perezida Nº 11/01 ryo ku wa 24/06/2004, ingingo ya 8………………………..33 Amasezerano Nyafurika yerekeye Uburenganzira bwa muntu n’ubw’abaturage (African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights), U Rwanda rwayemeje n’iteka rya Perezida Nº 10/1983 ryo ku wa 17/05/1985, ingingo ya 16……………………………..33 World Trade Organization General Agreement on Trade in services (GATS), ingingo ya 1 ………………………………………5 Protocol on establishment of East African Community Common Market, ingingo ya 16………………………………………………..5 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)………………………………………………………………5 Itegeko N° 026/2019 ryo ku wa 18/09/2019 rigena uburyo bw’isoresha, ingingo ya 9, 52 n’iya 53……………………………80 Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, ingingo ya 85, 107, 108 n’iya 111……………………………………………………………………34 Itegeko Nº 30/2018 ryo kuwa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, ingingo ya 65 n’iya 79……………………………………….5 ingingo ya 55………………………………………………116 ingingo ya 55 n’iya 63……………………………………177 Itegeko No22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018, ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 9……………………………………………….….5 xiv ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 19

XV

ingingo ya 150 agace ka 6………………………………116 ingingo ya 184…………………………………………….150 Itegeko Nº 21/05/2016 ryo ku wa 20/05/2016 ryerekeye ubuzima bw’imyororokere y’abantu, ingingo ya 3, 12 n’iya 16…………34 Itegeko N°37/2012 ryo kuwa 09/11/2012 nk’uko ryahinduwe n'Itegeko N° 02/2015 ryo kuwa 25/2/2015, rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro, ingingo ya 5 n’iya 1…………………………5 Itegeko N° 08/2009 ryo ku wa 27/04/2009 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’inshingano by’Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro (RRA), ingingo ya 3………………………………………………………….80 Itegeko N° 25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha, ingingo ya 27…………………………………………..80 Itegeko N⁰ 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 119…………………117 Iteka rya Perezida Nº 85/01 ryo ku wa 11/09/2002 rishyiraho amabwiriza agenga imihanda n’uburyo bwo kuyigendamo, ingingo 11, 13. 15 na 104………………………………………...117 Iteka rya Minisitiri Nº 002/2008 ryo ku wa 01/04/2008 rigena uburyo iyandikisha ry’ubutaka rikorwa, ingingo ya 10……….178

b. Amategeko yakuweho ariko yakoreshwaga igihe ikibazo cyavukaga Itegeko Ngenga Nº 01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 143 …………………………………………...…32 ingingo ya 24 igika 2……………………………………...116 ingingo ya 613 n’iya 614…………………………………177 xv AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO

## Page 20

XVI

Itegeko – teka Nº 21/77 ryo ku wa 18 Kanama 1977 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’Amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 314………………………………………………33 ingingo ya 18 ingingo ya 18 ingingo ya 18……………..166

c. Amategeko yo hanze yashingiweho Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano (criminal code) ryo muri Canada, ingingo ya 233…………………………………………….34 Igitabo mpanabyaha cy’Ubwongereza (UK), ingingo ya 16….34. Itegeko rya Canada ryo mu 1948 ku cyaha cyo kwica umwana wibyariye, ingingo ya 262………………………………………….34

xvi ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 21

XVII XVII

IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE Delhi-v, Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal Nos. 5105-5107 of 2009, Judgment rendered on 11 September 2020, Postscript 1, paragraph 11…………………………………………………………... RS/SPEC/00001/2017/SC, Re Urugaga rw’Abavoka rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 28/04/2017………………………….5 RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC; Re Kabasinga rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku itariki ya 04/12/2019, para. 13…..…34 RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2019/SC; Re. Murangwa rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 29/11/2019………………………34 RS/INJUST/RP 00006/2017/CS Ubushinjacyaha na Nsengiyumva rwaciwe kuwa 29/11/2019……………………….178 RS/SPEC/00001/2017/SC Re Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 28/04/2017……………178 RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS; Re Akagera Business Group rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 23/09/2016. ………………………34 R. v. Parks, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 871, at p. 896………………………34 S.C.C. No.: 36585, Her Majesty the Queen and Meredith Katharine Borowiec, para. 2………………………………………34

xvii

## Page 22

XVIII XVIII

## Page 23

XIX XIX

AMAGAMBO MPINE 1. Amategeko agenga ibimenyetso – Agaciro k’inyandiko – Inyandikomvaho – Inyandiko ntigirwa inyandikomvaho no kuba yarakozwe n’umukozi wa Leta gusa, ahubwo kugira ngo igire agaciro k’inyandikomvaho, igomba kuba ikubiyemo amakuru y’impamo umukozi wa Leta ubifitiye ububasha yahagazeho ubwe; iyo bitabaye ibyo, iyo nyandiko ifatwa nk’ikimenyetso icyo aricyo cyose gishobora kunyomozwa n’ikindi kimenyetso kikivuguruza NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA…………………..113 2. Amategeko agenga ibyaha n’ibihano – Icyaha cyo kwica uwo wibyariye – Ni icyaha cyihariye kidashobora gukorwa n’umugabo bitewe n’imiterere ye nk’umuntu udashobora gutwita ngo abyare, ngo noneho nyuma yo kubyara abe yagira ingaruka ziturutse kuri uko kubyara cyangwa se konsa nk’uko biba ku mugore – Ni umugore ugikora abitewe n’ingaruka zo kubyara. Re. KABASINGA …….………………………………25 Ibikorwa bigize icyaha cyo kwica uwo wibyariye – Ni ibikorwa umugore yakoze abishaka cyangwa akanga gukora ikigomba gukorwa nabwo abishaka, agamije kwica umwana yibyariye, ariko ibyo akabikora abitewe n’ihungabana rituruka kuri uko kubyara cyangwa se konsa. Uko guhungabana gutandukanye no guta ubwenge gushobora gutuma umuntu adashobora kumenya ibyo yakoze. Re. KABASINGA ……...………………………………25 3.Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza mbonezamubano – Inzitizi –Inzitizi yabyukijwe mu xix

## Page 24

XX

rwego rwa mbere, igafatirwa umwanzuro ntigarukweho nk’impamvu y’ubujurire mu rubanza rwaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma, ntishobora kongera kugarukwaho mu rwego rwo gusubirishamourubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane. NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA…………………..113 4.Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha – Ubujurire – Kujuririra indishyi mu rubanza nshinjabyaha – Kujuririra indishyi mu rubanza nshinjabyaha – Igihe uregera indishyi ariwe gusa wajuriye, uregwa nta bihano agenerwa kabone niyo Urukiko rwasanga ahamwa n’icyaha. NIYIBOGORA v DORISI N’ABANDI……..……….173 5. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubucuruzi – Uburyo bw’ukuregera ikirego kirebana n’ugusaba guhatira umuyobozi kubahiriza icyemezo cy’Urukiko. – Uburyo bw’ukuregera ikirego kirebana n’ugusaba guhatira umuyobozi kubahiriza icyemezo cy’Urukiko. – Ikirego kireba umuyobozi wanze kubahiriza ibyategetswe mu rubanza, gitangwa mu buryo bw’inyandiko nsobanurakirego itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe CELA COMPANY LTD v. PHILIPP COTTON…...147 Guhatira umuyobozi kubahiriza icyemezo cy’urukiko – Igihano gihatira umuyobozi kurangiza urubanza – Icyemezo cy’urukiko kiba kigomba kubahirizwa n’abo bireba bose harimo n’abayobozi b’inzego za Leta – Iyo batabyubahirije, urukiko rubategeka kwishyura ibitarashyizwe mu bikorwa kandi rukaba rwagena n’igihano cyo kutarangiza urwo rubanza. CELA COMPANY LTD v. PHILIPP COTTON…...147 xx ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 25

XXI

5. Amategeko agenga imisoro – Isobanura ry’amategeko y’imisoro mbere y’isoreshwa – Icyemezo gifatwa mbere y’isoreshwa – Ni icyemezo cy’ubutegetsi kigomba kubahirizwa n’Ubuyobozi bw’imisoro bwagifashe kigashyirwa mu bikorwa n’umusoreshwa hakurikijwe ihame rya “Good faith” – Umusoreshwa ashobora gusaba ko gikurwaho mu buryo busanzwe bw’ibyemezo by’ubutegetsi cyangwa kuregera urukiko rubifitiye ububasha mu gihe atemeranya n’umurongo wafashwe Re. NDAYISABYE…………………………………….77 6. Amategeko agenga ububasha bw’inkiko –Ikirego gisaba isobanurampamo – Ibisabwa kugirango ikirego cyakirwe – Utanga ikirego asaba isobanurampamo ry’ingingo y’itegeko, agomba kubanza kugaragaza inyungu ashaka kurengera, zishobora kuba inyungu bwite cyangwa inyungu rusange, kugaragaza ko ingingo y’itegeko asabira isobanurampamo iteje impaka mu myumvire yayo, ko hari imanza cyangwa ibyemezo by’ubutegetsi bivuguruzanya ku bisobanuro by’ingingo y’itegeko, cyangwa ko hari amagambo ari mu itegeko atera urujijo ku buryo yahabwa ibisobanuro bivuguruzanya, kandi bikaba biri mu nyungu rusange ko ayo magambo asobanuka Kuba abantu bumva ku buryo butandukanye ingingo y’itegeko, ntibyitwa impaka iyo hari icyemezo cy'urukiko ku rwego rwa nyuma cyatanze umurongo ku kibazo ababuranyi bagaragaza ko giteye urujijo. Re. URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA (2) ………………………………………………………1 Umuyobozi wanze kurangiza urubanza rwaciwe mu bibazo by’ubucuruzi – Ububasha bw’inkiko z’ubucuruzi mu guhatira umuyobozi w’ikigo cya Leta kurangiza urubanza – Umuyobozi wanze kubahiriza ibyategetswe mu rubanza rwaciwe n’urukiko rw’ubucuruzi ashobora guhamagazwa xxi AMAGAMBO MPINE

## Page 26

XXII

nurwo rukiko kugira ngo yisobanure ku mpamvu zamubujije kubyubahiriza, iyo bisabwe n’umuburanyi ubifitemo inyungu. CELA COMPANY LTD v. PHILIPP COTTON…...147 4. Itegeko Nshinga – Ihame ry’uko abantu bareshya imbere y’amategeko – Gudatandukanya abantu – Abantu bafatwa kimwe imbere y’itegeko, nta busumbane cyangwa ivangura ndetse n’itegeko rigiyeho rigafata kimwe abo rireba – Iri hame rishobora kugira irengayobora (exception) igihe hari impamvu zumvikana zishingiye ku ntego ifite ireme bigatuma abantu bafatwa kimwe ariko hitawe ku miterere yabo, bikaba atari ivangura Re. KABASINGA ……………………………………...25 Ubutabera buboneye – Uburyo butandukanye bugize ubutabera buboneye – Ubutabera buboneye bushingiye ku iyubahirizwa ry’imihango ya ngombwa n’uruhererekane rw’ibigomba kubahirizwa hashingiwe ku mahame ateganywa n’amategeko naho Ubutabera buboneye bushingiye ku biteganywa n’itegeko bwo bubuza ishyirwaho ry’amategeko cyangwa izindi ngamba zidashyira mu gaciro zibangamira uburenganzira bw’abaturage Re. KABASINGA ……...………………………………25 Gudatandukanya abantu – Nubwo abantu bagomba kureshya imbere y’amategeko, kuba Komiseri Mukuru w’Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro itegeko rimuha ububasha bwo gufata ibyemezo bisobanura amategeko y’imisoro, atari ukumushyira hejuru y’abasoreshwa kuko bombi batari mu cyiciro kimwe n’inshingano zabo imbere y’amategeko zikaba zidahuye Re. NDAYISABYE…………………………………………..77 xxii ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 27

XXIII XXIII

IBIREGO BYIHARIYE

## Page 28

XXIV XXIV

## Page 29

XXV XXV

IBIREGO BIREBANA N’ISOBANURAMPAMO RY’AMATEGEKO

## Page 30

XXVI XXVI

## Page 31

1 XXVII

Re. URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA (2) [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/INTL/SPEC 00001/2020/SC–– (Ntezilyayo, P.J., Hitiyaremye, Cyanzayire, Rukundakuvuga na Muhumuza, J.) 23 Ukwakira 2020] Amategeko agenga ububasha bw’Inkiko – Ikirego gisaba isobanurampamo – Ibisabwa kugira ngo ikirego cyakirwe – Utanga ikirego asaba isobanurampamo ry’ingingo y’itegeko, agomba kubanza kugaragaza inyungu ashaka kurengera, zishobora kuba inyungu bwite cyangwa inyungu rusange, kugaragaza ko ingingo y’itegeko asabira isobanurampamo iteje impaka mu myumvire yayo, ko hari imanza cyangwa ibyemezo by’ubutegetsi bivuguruzanya ku bisobanuro by’ingingo y’itegeko, cyangwa ko hari amagambo ari mu itegeko atera urujijo ku buryo yahabwa ibisobanuro bivuguruzanya, kandi bikaba biri mu nyungu rusange ko ayo magambo asobanuka. Amategeko agenga ububasha bw’Inkiko – Ikirego gisaba isobanurampamo – Kuba abantu bumva ku buryo butandukanye ingingo y’itegeko, ntibyitwa impaka iyo hari icyemezo cy'urukiko ku rwego rwa nyuma cyatanze umurongo ku kibazo ababuranyi bagaragaza ko giteye urujijo. Incamake y’ikibazo: ENSafrica Rwanda Ltd (ENSafrica) yandikiye Urugaga rw’Abavoka, irusaba kuyitangira ikirego gisaba isobanurampamo ry’ingingo ya 5, igika cya mbere-1°, y'Itegeko n°37/2012 ryo kuwa 09/11/2012 nk’uko yahinduwe n'ingingo ya mbere y'itegeko n° 02/2015 ryo kuwa 25/2/2015, 1

## Page 32

XXVIII

rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro. Ubu busabe bukaba bufitanye isano ya hafi n’urubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi, ENSafrica ifitanye n’Ikigo cy’imisoro n’amahoro (RRA), isaba gukurirwaho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro (TVA) yaciwe, ivuga ko yawuciwe mu buryo bunyuranije n’amategeko. Muri urwo rubanza yaratsinzwe itegekwa kwishyura umusoro wari wemejwe na RRA mu gihe cy’ubwimvikane. Nyuma yo kwakira ubusabe bwa ENSafrica no kubusuzuma, Urugaga rw’Abavoka rwandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusaba isobanurampamo ry’ingingo ya 5, igika cya mbere-1º, y’itegeko n° 37/2012 ryavuzwe. Mu gusobanura ikirego cyarwo, Urugaga rw’Abavoka ruvuga ko mu gihe ingingo ya 5 igika cya mbere1° y’itegeko ryo mu 2012 yateganyaga urutonde rw’ibintu n'imirimo bifatwa nk’ibyoherejwe mu mahanga, bityo bigasoreshwa ku ijanisha rya zeru, by’umwihariko ikavugamo imirimo ikorerwa mu mahanga ariko ingingo ya mbere igika cya mbere-1° y'itegeko ryo mu 2015 nta gisobanuro cyangwa ingero itanga ry'ibifatwa nk'ibintu cyangwa serivisi bifatwa nk'ibyoherejwe mu mahanga. Bivuze ko umushingamategeko atigeze atanga igisobanuro cya serivisi yoherejwe mu mahanga (exported services) kandi byari ngombwa kugira ngo hatabaho urujijo cyangwa imyumvire itandukanye ku byari bimaze guhindurwa, by’umwihariko igihe serivisi ifatwa nk’iyoherejwe mu mahanga. Rukomeza ruvuga ko kudatanga igisobanuro cyeruye cya serivisi yoherejwe mu mahanga ari ikibazo kuko serivisi atari ikintu gifatika (tangible), ikaba itandukanye n’ibintu bifatika byambuka umupaka kuko byo kugenzura aho byoherejwe byoroha. Runavuga ko ukurikije aho isi igeze uyu munsi, serivisi zishobora guhabwa umuntu utuye mu mahanga bitabaye ngombwa ko utanga serivisi yambuka umupaka ngo ajye mu mahanga, ko ibi 2 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 33

XXIX

byatuma habaho imyumvire itandukanye kuri iyi ngingo aho bamwe bashobora kuvuga ko imirimo yoherejwe mu mahanga ari iyakorewe mu mahanga, abandi bakaba bavuga ko ari iyakorewe/yahawe ababarizwa mu bihugu by’amahanga. Rushingiye ku masezerano mpuzamahanga ashyiraho isoko rusange ry’umuryango w’Afurika y’Iburasirazuba, Urugaga rw’Abavoka ruvuga ko igisobanuro gihabwa imirimo yoherejwe mu mahanga (exported services) muri ayo masezerano mpuzamahanga kigaragaza neza ko imirimo yoherejwe mu mahanga ishobora kuba iyakorewe mu mahanga cyangwa iyakorewe abantu babarizwa mu bindi bihugu. Urugaga rw’Abavoka ruvuga na none ko imyumvire itandukanye kuri iyi ngingo yagaragaye mu byemezo bitandukanye by’ubutegetsi ndetse n’inkiko, nk’aho Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro (RRA) mu bihe bitandukanye, cyagiye cyemera ko imirimo yakorewe mu Rwanda ikorewe ababarizwa mu mahanga, yoherejwe mu mahanga (exported), nyamara kikanga indi byakozwe mu buryo bumwe cyangwa bisa kandi nta mpamvu ifatika ishingiweho, ruvuga ko ibi ari nako bimeze mu byemezo by’Inkiko ENSafrica yabayemo umuburanyi. Urugaga rw'Abavoka bavuga ko ubu busabe bw'isobanurampamo buri mu rwego rw'imwe mu mirongo ngenderwaho yashyizweho n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, aho rwasobanuye ko mu bigenderwaho hemezwa ko ingingo ikeneye isobanurampamo, harimo kuba hari imanza cyangwa ibyemezo by’ubutegetsi bivuguruzanya ku bisobanuro by’ingingo y’itegeko, bityo bakaba basanga Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rukwiye gutanga isobanurampamo ry’iyo ngingo kuko mu ishyirwa mu bikorwa ryayo hagiye habaho imyumvire itandukanye ku rwego rwa RRA ndetse no ku rwego rw’inkiko. 3 Re. URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA (2)

## Page 34

XXX

Uhagariye Leta y’u Rwanda avuga ko igitekerezo cya Leta y’u Rwanda kigomba kureberwa mu murongo watanzwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza rwaciye mu mwaka wa 2017, aho rwavuze ko kugira ngo hasabwe isobanurampamo ry’ingingo y’itegeko hagomba kuba hari ibyemezo bivuguruzanya byafashwe, kandi hagamijwe inyungu rusange. Avuga ko ibyemezo byakwitwa ko bivuguruzanya igihe Komiseri Mukuru yafata icyemezo kimwe ku musoreshwa runaka, akongera agafatira undi musoreshwa ikindi cyemezo kivuguruzanya n’icyo yafatiye uwa mbere kandi bahuje ibibazo. Uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda anavuga ko Urugaga rw’Abavoka rutagaragaza ko itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru ritumvikana ku bijyanye n’icyo ryashyiriweho, kuko ryanditse mu buryo bumwe n’ubwo ayaribanjirije yari yanditsemo. Avuga ko icyo iyo ngingo yerekana ari uko ibintu na serivisi byoherejwe mu mahanga bisoreshwa ku ijanisha rya zeru, mu gihe ibitoherejwe mu mahanga, ni ukuvuga imirimo na serivisi byagurishijwe mu gihugu byo bitarebwa n’iyi ngingo. Avuga kandi ko iyo ngingo irushaho kumvikana neza iyo uyisomeye hamwe n’izindi ngingo, cyane cyane ingingo ya 2 (7) y’Itegeko nº 37/2012 ryavuzwe, isobanura imirimo ikorewe mu Rwanda. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Utanga ikirego asaba isobanurampamo ry’ingingo y’itegeko, agomba kubanza kugaragaza inyungu ashaka kurengera, zishobora kuba inyungu bwite cyangwa inyungu rusange, kugaragaza ko ingingo y’itegeko asabira isobanurampamo iteje impaka mu myumvire yayo, ko hari imanza cyangwa ibyemezo by’ubutegetsi bivuguruzanya ku bisobanuro by’ingingo y’itegeko, cyangwa ko hari amagambo ari mu itegeko atera urujijo ku buryo yahabwa 4 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 35

XXXI

ibisobanuro bivuguruzanya, kandi bikaba biri mu nyungu rusange ko ayo magambo asobanuka. 2. Kuba abantu bumva ku buryo butandukanye ingingo y’itegeko, ntibyitwa impaka iyo hari icyemezo cy'urukiko ku rwego rwa nyuma cyatanze umurongo ku kibazo ababuranyi bagaragaza ko giteye urujijo. Ikirego gisaba isobanurampamo ry’ingingo y’itegeko nticyakiriwe. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nshinga rya Republika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015, ingingo ya 95. World Trade Organization General Agreement on Trade in services (GATS), ingingo ya 1. Protocol on establishment of East African Community Common Market, ingingo ya 16. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Itegeko Nº 30/2018 ryo kuwa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, ingingo ya 65 n’iya 79. Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018, ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 9. Itegeko N°37/2012 ryo kuwa 09/11/2012 nk’uko ryahinduwe n'Itegeko N° 02/2015 ryo kuwa 25/2/2015, rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro, ingingo ya 5 n’iya 1. Imanza zifashishijwe: Re Urugaga rw’Abavoka, RS/SPEC/00001/2017/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 28/04/2017. 5 Re. URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA (2)

## Page 36

XXXII

Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Ku wa 10 Ukuboza 2019, ENSafrica Rwanda Ltd (“ENSafrica” muri uru rubanza) yandikiye Urugaga rw’Abavoka, irusaba kuyitangira ikirego gisaba isobanurampamo ry’ingingo ya 5, igika cya mbere1°, y'Itegeko N°37/2012 ryo kuwa 09/11/2012 nk’uko yahinduwe n'ingingo ya mbere y'itegeko N° 02/2015 ryo kuwa 25/2/2015, rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro. ENSafrica ni ikigo gitanga ubufasha mu by'amategeko mu bakiriya bacyo, muribo hakaba harimo abantu cyangwa ibigo bibarizwa hanze y'u Rwanda (non-residents). [2] Ubu busabe bwa ENSAfrica bukaba bufitanye isano ya hafi n’urubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi, ENSafrica irega Ikigo cy’imisoro n’amahoro (RRA), isaba gukurirwaho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro (TVA) yaciwe ungana na 53.157.360 Frw, ivuga ko yawuciwe mu buryo bunyuranije n’amategeko. [3] Nyuma yo gutanga ikirego, ENSafrica na RRA bagaragaje ubushake bwo kumvikana Urukiko rurabibemerera, RRA igabanya umusoro uva kuri 53.157.360 Frw ugera kuri 29.261.826 Frw ariko ENSafrica ntiyanyurwa bituma ikomeza urubanza. Mu miburanire yayo, ENSafrica yasobanuye ko ari ikigo gifite ubuzima gatozi, cyanditswe muri RDB, gikora imirimo ijyanye no gutanga serivisi mu by’amategeko ku bantu batandukanye, cyane cyane ababarizwa hanze y’u Rwanda. 6 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 37

XXXIII

Yagaragaje ko imirimo yakoze kuva mu kwezi kwa Nyakanga kugeza mu Ugushyingo 2017 yari mu cyiciro cya exported services, ikaba yaragombaga gusoreshwa ku ijanisha rya zeru hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 5, igika cya mbere 1° y’itegeko N°37/2012 ryo kuwa 09/11/2012, nk’uko yahinduwe n'ingingo ya mbere y'itegeko N°02/2015 ryo kuwa 25/2/2015 rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro. [4] Kuwa 20/03/2019, Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwaciye urubanza RCOM 01492/2019/TC rwemeza ko ikirego cyatanzwe na ENSafrica gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe, ko umusoro ENSafrica yasabye ko wakurwaho utagomba kuvaho, ahubwo ugomba kugabanywa, ruyitegeka kwishyura umusoro ku nyongeragaciro (TVA) n’ibihano, uhwanye na 22.814.510 Frw, rwemeza ko ikirego kiregera kwiregura cyatanzwe na RRA gifite ishingiro, rutegeka ENSafrica guha RRA indishyi z’ibyakozwe ku rubanza zihwanye na 600.000 Frw. [5] Mu gufata icyemezo, Urukiko rwashingiye ku kuba hari inyemezabwishyu (factures) ENSafrica itishyuriye TVA kandi imirimo yakorewe abishyuye izo factures bari bayikeneye mu Rwanda cyangwa yarabagiriye akamaro mu Rwanda, nkuko biteganywa mu ngingo ya 2 agace ka 7(d)1, y’itegeko N°37/2012 ryo kuwa 09/11/2012, rishyiraho TVA, bityo izo serivisi zikaba zaragombaga gusoreshwa. Rwashingiye kandi ku kuba rwarasanze hari inyemezabwishyu zimwe serivisi zazo zoherejwe mu mahanga, ku buryo izo serivisi zagombabaga gusoreshwa ku ijanisha rya zeru.

1 Iyi ngingo mu gace ka 7(d) ivuga ibyerekeranya n’imirimo ifatwa nk’ikorewe mu Rwanda iyo uyikora nta cyicaro afite mu Rwanda ahubwo akakigira ahandi kandi abo iyo mirimo ikorerwa bayikenera cyangwa ikabagirira akamaro mu rwanda 7 Re. URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA (2)

## Page 38

XXXIV

[6] ENSafrica yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, ivuga ko ijurijwe no kuba Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwarirengagije ibisobanuro byayo, ngo kuko rwafashe icyemezo rushingiye ku ngingo y’itegeko idafite aho ihuriye n’ikibazo cyari mu rubanza rujuririrwa, kuba rwarivuguruje ku cyemezo rwafashe no kuba ENSafrica yarategetswe gutanga indishyi kandi Urukiko rwaremeje ko ikirego cyayo gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe. RRA nayo yatanze ubujurire bwuririye ku bwa ENSafrica isaba ko Urukiko Rukuru rwasubizaho inyemezabwishyu Urukiko rubanza rwakuye mu zigomba gusoreshwa TVA, inasaba indishyi z’ibyagiye ku rubanza. [7] Kuwa 04/12/2019, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwaciye urubanza RCOMA 00350/2019/HCC, rwemeza ko ubujurire bwatanzwe na ENSafrica nta shingiro bufite, ruvuga ahubwo ko umusoro ENSafrica yaciwe utagombaga kugabanywa n’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi, ruyitegeka kwishyura umusoro wa TVA ungana na 29.261.826 Frw nkuko wari wemejwe na RRA mu gihe cy’ubwimvikane. [8] Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwavuze ko igisobanuro cy’imirimo yoherejwe mu mahanga itagomba gucibwa TVA, kitagomba gushingira ku kuba uwakorewe iyo mirimo ari mu mahanga, ahubwo ko hagomba kurebwa aho imirimo yakorewe uwo muntu yoherejwe ngo imugirire akamaro, ruvuga ko ENSafrica yagiye ikorera serivisi abanyamahanga, izo serivisi zigomba kubagirira akamaro mu Rwanda, bityo ko zagombaga kwishyurirwa TVA ariko ntibikorwe, runasobanura ko indishyi ENSafrica yaciwe zashingiye ku makosa yakoze yo kudaca TVA kuri serivisi yahaye abakiriya bayo, no kuba ariyo nyirabayazana w’imanza. 8 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 39

XXXV

[9] Nyuma yo kwakira ubusabe bwa ENSafrica no kubusuzuma, Urugaga rw’Abavoka rwandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusaba isobanurampamo ry’ingingo ya 5, igika cya mbere 1º, y’itegeko N°37/2012 ryavuzwe, ikirego gihabwa nomero RS/INTL/SPEC 00001/2020/SC. [10] Mu gusobanura ikirego cyarwo, Urugaga rw’Abavoka ruvuga ko mu mwaka wa 2015, Inteko Ishinga Amategeko Umutwe w'Abadepite, yatoye itegeko Nº 02/2015 ryo ku wa 25/02/2015 rihindura kandi ryuzuza itegeko N° 37/2012 ryo kuwa 09/11/2012 rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro. Mu ngingo zahinduwe n’Itegeko ryo mu 2015, Urugaga rwibanze ku ngingo ya 5, igika cya mbere1º, y’itegeko N° 37/2012 ryo kuwa 09/11/2012 kugira ngo rugaragaze ishingiro ry’isobanurampamo ENSafrica yasabaga ko Urugaga ruyigereza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga. [11] Ingingo ya gatanu, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko ryo mu 2012 yateganyaga ibi bikurikira ibintu na serivisi bikurikira bisoreshwa ku ijanisha rya zeru: 1º ibintu n’imirimo byoherejwe mu mahanga: a. ibintu byoherejwe mu mahanga bifitiwe ibimenyetso byemewe na Komiseri Mukuru; b. imirimo y‘ubwikorezi n‘indi mirimo ijyana nabwo ifitanye isano no kohereza ibintu mu mahanga bivugwa mu gace ka a) k'iyi ngingo; c. imirimo y'ubwikorezi bw'ibintu binyura mu Rwanda bigana mu mahanga harimo n'imirimo ijyana na bwo; d. lisansi y‘indege; 9 Re. URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA (2)

## Page 40

XXXVI

e. imirimo ikorerwa mu mahanga; f. ibintu bikoreshwa mu ndege ziva mu Rwanda zijya mu Mahanga. 2o Ibintu bigurishirizwa mu maduka adasoreshwa, nk'uko biteganywa n'itegeko rigenga za gasutamo. [12] Urugaga rw’Abavoka rwerekana ko itegeko ryo mu 2015, mu ngingo yaryo ya mbere 1º, ryahinduye iyo ngingo mu buryo bukurikira: ibintu na serivisi bikurikira bisoreshwa ku ijanisha rya zeru: 1. ibintu na serivisi byoherejwe mu mahanga; 2. amabuye y’agaciro yacurujwe ku isoko ry’imbere mu gihugu; 3. imirimo y’ubwikorezi mpuzamahanga bw’ibintu byinjira mu Rwanda n’imirimo y'ubwikorezi bw'ibintu binyura mu Rwanda bigana mu mahanga, harimo n'imirimo ijyana na bwo; 4. ibintu bigurishirizwa mu maduka adasoreshwa, nk'uko biteganywa n'itegeko rigenga za gasutamo. [13] Urugaga rw’Abavoka ruvuga ko mu gihe ingingo ya 5 igika cya mbere 1° y’itegeko ryo mu 2012 yateganyaga urutonde rw’ibintu n'imirimo bifatwa nk’ibyoherejwe mu mahanga, bityo bigasoreshwa ku ijanisha rya zeru, by’umwihariko ikavugamo "imirimo ikorerwa mu mahanga”, ingingo ya mbere igika cya mbere 1° y'itegeko ryo mu 2015 nta gisobanuro cyangwa ingero itanga ry'ibifatwa nk'ibintu cyangwa serivisi bifatwa nk'ibyoherejwe mu mahanga. 10 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 41

XXXVII

[14] Urugaga rw’Abavoka rukomeza ruvuga ko ikibazo gihari ari uko mu guhindura ingingo ya 5 y’itegeko rishyiraho TVA ryo muri 2012, hakavugwa gusa ko ibintu na serivisi byoherejwe mu mahanga bisoreshwa ku ijanisha rya zeru, umushingamategeko atigeze atanga igisobanuro cya serivisi yoherejwe mu mahanga (exported services) kandi byari ngombwa kugira ngo hatabaho urujijo cyangwa imyumvire itandukanye ku byari bimaze guhindurwa, by’umwihariko igihe serivisi ifatwa nk’iyoherejwe mu mahanga. Ruvuga ko kudatanga igisobanuro cyeruye cya serivisi yoherejwe mu mahanga ari ikibazo kuko serivisi atari ikintu gifatika (tangible), ikaba itandukanye n’ibintu bifatika byambuka umupaka kuko byo kugenzura aho byoherejwe byoroha. Runavuga ko ukurikije aho isi igeze uyu munsi, serivisi zishobora guhabwa umuntu utuye mu mahanga bitabaye ngombwa ko utanga serivisi yambuka umupaka ngo ajye mu mahanga, ko ibi byatuma habaho imyumvire itandukanye kuri iyi ngingo aho bamwe bashobora kuvuga ko imirimo yoherejwe mu mahanga ari iyakorewe mu mahanga, abandi bakaba bavuga ko ari iyakorewe/yahawe ababarizwa mu bihugu by’amahanga. [15] Urugaga rw’Abavoka ruvuga ko aha ariho ENSafrica isanga hakwiye kurebwa amasezerano mpuzamahanga yerekeye ubucuruzi bwa serivisi bwambukiranya imipaka u Rwanda rwasinye rukanayemeza, muri ayo masezerano bakavugamo General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) yo mu 1995 ya World Trade Organization/Organisation Mondiale du Commerce (OMC), yerekeye ubucuruzi mpuzamahanga bwa serivisi hagati y’ibihugu, hamwe n’Amasezerano mpuzamahanga ashyiraho isoko rusange ry’Umuryango w’Afurika y’Iburasirazuba (Protocol on the establishment of the East African Community common Market), nayo u Rwanda rwasinye rukanayemeza. Bavuga ko amasezerano ya GATS, mu ngingo 11 Re. URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA (2)

## Page 42

XXXVIII

yayo ya mbere, avuga ko serivisi zambukiranya imipaka/zoherejwe mu mahanga (internationally traded services) bivuze serivisi zitanzwe n’umuntu wo mu gihugu kimwe zigatangirwa mu kindi gihugu cyangwa serivisi zitangiwe mu gihugu kimwe zigahabwa umuntu uri mu kindi gihugu. [16] Urugaga rw’Abavoka ruvuga ko ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya mbere ya GATS ari nabyo bisubirwamo mu ngingo ya 16.2 [a et b] y’Amasezerano mpuzamahanga ashyiraho isoko rusange ry’umuryango w’Afurika y’Iburasirazuba, ko igisobanuro gihabwa imirimo yoherejwe mu mahanga (exported services) muri ayo masezerano mpuzamahanga yombi kigaragaza neza ko imirimo yoherejwe mu mahanga ishobora kuba iyakorewe mu mahanga cyangwa iyakorewe abantu babarizwa mu bindi bihugu. [17] Urugaga rw’Abavoka ruvuga na none ko imyumvire itandukanye kuri iyi ngingo yanagaragaye mu byemezo bitandukanye by’ubutegetsi ndetse n’inkiko, nk’aho Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro (RRA) mu bihe bitandukanye, cyagiye cyemera ko imirimo yakorewe mu Rwanda ikorewe ababarizwa mu mahanga, yoherejwe mu mahanga (exported), nyamara kikanga indi byakozwe mu buryo bumwe cyangwa bisa kandi nta mpamvu ifatika ishingiweho, ruvuga ko ibi ari nako bimeze mu byemezo by’Inkiko ENSafrica yabayemo umuburanyi. [18] Urugaga rw’Abavoka rwemeza ko ubusabe bwa ENSafrica bufite ishingiro, ngo kuko nta gisobanuro cya serivisi (imirimo) yoherejwe mu mahanga umushingamategeko yatanze, ko hari ukuvuguruzanya kugaragara mu byemezo bitandukanye byagiye bifatwa na RRA n’ibyafashwe n’inkiko ku byerekeye iyoherezwa rya serivisi mu mahanga (kwemeza ko serivisi zoherejwe mu mahanga cyangwa zitoherejwe mu mahanga), aho 12 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 43

XXXIX

habayeho kwemera ko serivisi zakorewe abanyamahanga zikorewe mu Rwanda zoherejwe mu mahanga nyamara izindi zisa nazo cyangwa zakozwe mu buryo bumwe, ntizemerwe. [19] Urubanza muri uru Rukiko rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame kuwa 22/09/2020, Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda ruhagarariwe na Me Basomingera Albert, Me Nzafashwanayo Dieudonné na Me Bizimana Emmanuel, hari na Me Kabibi Speçiose uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda. [20] Abahagarariye Urugaga rw’Abavoka, bashingiye ku ngingo ya 79 y’itegeko Nº 30/2018 ryo kuwa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, bagaragaje ko ENSafrica ifite inyungu bwite n’inyungu rusange zo gutanga ikirego gisaba isobanurampamo ry’ingingo ya 5, igika cya mbere 1° y’itegeko N°37/2012 ryo kuwa 09/11/2012, nk’uko yahinduwe n'ingingo ya mbere y'itegeko N°02/2015 ryo ku wa 25/2/2015 rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro, kugira ngo abantu bakora mu byo gutanga serivisi, bazikorera abantu cyangwa ibigo byo hanze y’u Rwanda, bave mu rujijo ruri ku myumvire y’iyo ngingo, haba ku ruhande rw’abasora, urwa RRA n’urw’Inkiko. [21] Uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda, Me Kabibi Speçiose nta kibazo yagaragaje ku bijyanye n’inyungu z’ababuranyi ahubwo yibanze ku kugaragaza ko itegeko ryavuzwe nta rujijo riteye ku buryo ryakenera isobanurampamo. [22] Ikibazo cyabanje gusuzumwa n’icyo kumenya niba ikirego gisaba isobanurampamo ry’ingingo ya 5, igika cya mbere 1°, y’itegeko N°37/2012 ryavuzwe cyatanzwe n’Urugaga rw’Abavoka cyubahirije ibisabwa n’itegeko kugirango cyakirwe. 13 Re. URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA (2)

## Page 44

XL

II. IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYACYO 1. Kumenya niba ikirego gisaba isobanurampamo ry’ingingo ya 5, igika cya mbere 1° y’itegeko N°37/2012 ryo kuwa 09/11/2012, nk’uko yahinduwe n'ingingo ya mbere y'itegeko N° 02/2015 ryo ku wa 25/2/2015 rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro, cyubahirije ibisabwa n’itegeko kugirango cyakirwe. [23] Abahagarariye Urugaga rw’Abavoka, bavuga ko isobanurampamo basaba rishingiye ku kuvuguruzanya kugaragara mu byemezo bitandukanye byagiye bifatwa na RRA n’inkiko ku byerekeye iyoherezwa rya serivisi mu mahanga, aho habayeho kwemera ko serivisi zakorewe abanyamahanga zikorewe mu Rwanda, zoherejwe mu mahanga, nyamara izindi zisa nazo cyangwa zakozwe mu buryo bumwe ntizifatwe nkizoherejwe mu mahanga. Bavuga ko muri dosiye zimwe na zimwe, banatangiye ingero bifashishije imbonerahamwe ku byemezo bya RRA, RRA yemeye ku rwego rw'ubujurire kwa Komiseri Mukuru, ko imirimo yakozwe na ENSafrica ari exported services mu gihe izindi dosiye zagombye gutegereza igihe cyo kugerageza kumvikana ikirego cyarageze mu Rukiko. Bavuga kandi ko uretse no ku rwego rwa RRA ubwarwo, iryo vuguruzanya ryanagaragaye hagati y’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi na RRA ndetse no hagati y’urwo Rukiko n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ku gisobanuro gikwiye iyo ngingo, aho mu myumvire y’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi exported services bitavuze gusa imirimo yoherejwe hanze nkuko Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwari rwabyemeje ku mirimo imwe, ko ahubwo imirimo yakorewe abantu bari mu mahanga itafatwa nka exported services iyo yabagiriye akamaro mu Rwanda. 14 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 45

XLI

[24] Abahagarariye Urugaga rw'Abavoka bavuga ko ubu busabe bw'isobanurampamo buri mu rwego rw'imwe mu mirongo ngenderwaho yashyizweho n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza RS/SPEC/00001/2017/SC rwaciwe kuwa 28/04/2017 ku kirego cyari cyatanzwe n’Urugaga rw’Abavoka, aho rwasobanuye ko mu bigenderwaho hemezwa ko ingingo ikeneye isobanurampamo, harimo kuba hari imanza cyangwa ibyemezo by’ubutegetsi bivuguruzanya ku bisobanuro by’ingingo y’itegeko, bityo bakaba basanga Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rukwiye gutanga isobanurampamo ry’iyo ngingo kuko mu ishyirwa mu bikorwa ryayo hagiye habaho imyumvire itandukanye ku rwego rwa RRA ndetse no ku rwego rw’inkiko. [25] Bavuga kandi ko kwivuguruza bitakabaye bireberwa mu manza nyinshi kuko bishobora no kuba mu cyemezo kimwe, ko basanga Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rutakwiyambura ububasha bwo gutanga isobanurampamo risabwa rushingiye ku kuba Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwaratanze umurongo, ngo kuko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ruri hejuru y’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi kandi ibyemezo by’uru akaba atari itegeko ko izindi nkiko zibyubahiriza. [26] Naho ku bijyanye n’ibisobanuro bya exported services, Urugaga rw’Abavoka ruvuga ko ibyo bisobanuro binashingiye ku mahame mpuzamahanga (internationaly accepted principles) yerekeye TVA nk’uko ari mu nyandiko za Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) zitandukanye, u Rwanda akaba ari umunyamuryango wa OECD Development Centre ku buryo kuba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwashingira ku nyandiko zayo mu gusobanura ingingo ya 5 igika cya mbere 1 y’Itegeko rishyiraho TVA, byaba bikwiye. Urugaga ruvuga ko inyandiko za OECD zagiye zishingirwaho n’inkiko zo mu bindi 15 Re. URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA (2)

## Page 46

XLII

bihugu zashimangiye ko amahame zigarukaho yemewe ku rwego mpuzamahanga, ndetse ko byaba ari ukutareba kure Urukiko ruramutse ruyirengagije mu gihe atavuguruza amategeko y’igihugu runaka. [27] Me Kabibi Speçiose uhagariye Leta y’u Rwanda avuga ko igitekerezo cya Leta y’u Rwanda kigomba kureberwa mu murongo watanzwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2017/SC rwaciwe ku wa 28/04/2017, aho rwavuze ko kugira ngo hasabwe isobanurampamo ry’ingingo y’itegeko hagomba kuba hari ibyemezo bivuguruzanya byafashwe, kandi hagamijwe inyungu rusange. Asobanura ko amategeko ateganya ko umusoreshwa utishimiye umusoro yaciwe ajuririra kwa Komiseri Mukuru wa RRA. Iyi ikaba ari inzira y’ubujurire isanzwe yo mu rwego rw’ubutegetsi igamije kugira ngo Komiseri Mukuru asuzume niba umukozi wabaze umusoro ataribeshye cyangwa atumvise itegeko uko ritari, anavuga ko hari indi nzira y’ubujurire yashyizweho yitwa gukemura ikibazo mu bwumvikane mu bijyanye n’imisoro (Amicable settlement), ko ibyemezo byafatwa bivuye muri iyo nzira bitafatwa nk’ibyemezo bivuguruzanya. Avuga ko ibyemezo byakwitwa ko bivuguruzanya igihe Komiseri Mukuru yafata icyemezo kimwe ku musoreshwa runaka, akongera agafatira undi musoreshwa ikindi cyemezo kivuguruzanya n’icyo yafatiye uwa mbere kandi bahuje ibibazo. [28] Me Kabibi Speçiose anavuga ko Urugaga rw’Abavoka rutagaragaza ko itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru ritumvikana ku bijyanye n’icyo ryashyiriweho, kuko ryanditse mu buryo bumwe n’ubwo ayaribanjirije yari yanditsemo. Avuga ko icyo iyo ngingo yerekana ari uko ibintu na serivisi byoherejwe mu mahanga bisoreshwa ku ijanisha rya zeru, mu gihe ibitoherejwe mu 16 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 47

XLIII

mahanga, ni ukuvuga imirimo na serivisi byagurishijwe mu gihugu byo bitarebwa n’iyi ngingo. Avuga kandi ko iyo ngingo irushaho kumvikana neza iyo uyisomeye hamwe n’izindi ngingo, cyane cyane ingingo ya 2 (7) y’Itegeko Nº 37/2012 ryavuzwe, isobanura imirimo ikorewe mu Rwanda. Muri iyo ngingo ya 2 (7) mu gace kayo ka d, hateganyijwe ko iyo uwatanze serivisi nta cyicaro afite mu Rwanda ariko abo iyo serivisi ikorerwa bayikeneye cyangwa ikabagirira akamaro mu Rwanda, iyo serivisi yakozwe ifatwa nk’iyakorewe mu Rwanda. Avuga ko ibi bishatse kwerekana ko utanga serivisi ashobora kuba atabarizwa mu Rwanda ndetse n’uhabwa serivisi akaba atabarizwa mu Rwanda, ariko uhabwa serivisi akaba ayikeneye mu Rwanda cyangwa se iyo serivisi ikaba yamugiriye akamaro mu Rwanda, bikitwa ko iyo serivisi yatangiwe mu Rwanda ku buryo inasoreshwa ku ijanisha rya 18% kuko iba itoherejwe mu mahanga. [29] Avuga rero ko mu gihe hakozwe isesengurwa ry’ingingo ya 5(1) n’iya 2 (7) (d)] z’itegeko Nº 37/2017 ryavuzwe, ikibazo cyo kumenya serivisi ifatwa nk’iyakorewe mu mahanga cyabonerwa igisubizo bitabaye ngombwa kwiyambaza amahame ya OECD, n’ibyemezo by’Inkiko zo mu mahanga, cyangwa se isobanurampamo. UKO URUKIKO RUBUBONA [30] Ingingo ya 79, igika cya 2, y’itegeko N°30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko iteganya ko urega agomba kugaragaza mu mwanzuro we inyungu zihariye cyangwa inyungu rusange zemewe aharanira n’ aho impaka zishingiye. 17 Re. URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA (2)

## Page 48

XLIV

[31] Iyi ngingo yumvikanisha ko utanga ikirego agomba kubanza kugaragaza inyungu ashaka kurengera, zishobora kuba inyungu bwite cyangwa inyungu rusange. Agomba nanone kugaragaza ko ingingo y’itegeko asabira isobanurampamo iteje impaka mu myumvire yayo, ni ukuvuga ko hari imanza cyangwa ibyemezo by’ubutegetsi bivuguruzanya ku bisobanuro by’ingingo y’itegeko, cyangwa ko hari amagambo ari mu itegeko atera urujijo ku buryo yahabwa ibisobanuro bitandukanye bivuguruzanya, kandi bikaba biri mu nyungu rusange ko ayo magambo asobanuka. Ibi akaba ari nako byari byarasobanuwe mu rubanza RS/SPEC/00001/2017/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 28/04/20172. [32] Ku birebana n’uru rubanza, Urukiko rusanga ibijyanye n’inyungu nta mpaka biteje, kuko uwasabye isobanurampamo afite inyungu zihariye zijyanye n’imirimo akora, bikaba bidakeneye gukorwaho isesengura. Rusanga ahubwo ari ngombwa gusuzuma niba ingingo ya 5 igika cya mbere1°, y’itegeko N°37/2012 ryo kuwa 09/11/2012 nk’uko yahinduwe n'ingingo ya mbere y'itegeko N° 02/2015 ryo kuwa 25/2/2015, rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro basaba ko isobanurwa, hari impaka iteje ku buryo yakenera isobanurampamo. [33] Urukiko rusanga iyo mu myandikire y’itegeko ubwaryo hari ibitumvikana hiyambazwa amahame agenga isesengura ry’itegeko hashingiwe ku busumbane bwayo (hierarchy of laws) n’igihe yakorewe, ibyemezo by’inkiko ndetse n’ inyandiko z’abahanga mu mategeko, nkuko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 9 y’itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018, ryerekeye

2 Reba igika cya 25 n’icya 26 by’urwo rubanza.

18 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 49

XLV

imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi. [34] Ku bijyanye n’ubusumbane bw’amategeko, ingingo ya 95 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Republika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015, iteganya ko amategeko asumbana mu buryo bukurikira: 1° Itegeko Nshinga; 2° Itegeko Ngenga; 3° amasezerano mpuzamahanga yemejwe n’ u Rwanda; 4° itegeko risanzwe; 5° amateka, kandi ko nta tegeko rivuguruza iririsumba. Hashingiwe kuri ibyo rero, Urukiko rusanga hari amasezerano u Rwanda rwashyizeho umukono ashobora gutanga ibisobanuro by’inyongera ku mirimo/serivisi yoherejwe mu mahanga bivugwa mu ngingo ya 5 y’itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru isabirwa isobanurampamo mu gihe haba hari uwaba adasobanukiwe ibyo iyo ngingo ishaka kuvuga. [35] Urukiko rusanga kandi ababuranyi bagaragaza ubwabo ko hari uburyo ingingo yashobora kumvikanamo hifashishijwe amahame ari mu masezerano mpuzamahanga cyane cyane aya GATS n’ashyiraho isoko rusange ry’Umuryango w’Afurika y’Iburasirazuba, ku gisobanuro gihabwa imirimo yoherejwe mu mahanga (exported services), kuko ayo masezerano ari mu mategeko u Rwanda rugenderaho nkuko biteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga mu ngingo yavuzwe mu gika kibanziriza iki, bityo akaba atari ngombwa ko hiyambazwa inzira y’isobanurampamo mu gihe ikibazo bavuga ko bafite gishobora gukemuka hakoreshejwe inzira zisanzwe zo gusobanura amategeko. [36] Urukiko rusanga kandi ibivugwa n’abarega ko habaye ivuguruzanya ku byemezo byafashwe, haba ku rwego rwa RRA ndetse no mu nkiko, bidashoboka kuko icyo bita impaka zishingiye ku gisobanuro cy’imirimo yoherejwe mu mahanga, cyacyemuwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi mu rubanza 19 Re. URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA (2)

## Page 50

XLVI

rwabaye itegeko nk’uko nabo babyiyemerera. Kuba hari ibisobanuro Urukiko rwatanze bitandukanye n’ibyari byatanzwe na RRA ubwabyo ntibishobora kwitwa ivuguruzanya kuko ari ibisanzwe ko igihe umusoreshwa yaba atanyuzwe n’icyemezo cyafashwe n’urwego runaka, aba yemerewe kubishyikiriza Urukiko rukabifataho umwanzuro, kandi umwanzuro ufashwe ku rwego rwa nyuma ukaba itegeko kuri bose. [37] Urukiko rusanga kandi ibyo ababuranyi bavuga ko habaye ivuguruzanya ku myumvire y’iyi ngingo hagati y’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi nabyo atari byo, kuko ari ibisanzwe ko Urukiko ruri hejuru rukosora ururi munsi yarwo kuko ariyo mpamvu inkiko zisumbana. Byakwitwa ko habaye ivuguruzanya mu gihe Urukiko rwaciye urubanza ku rwego rwanyuma rwafashe ibyemezo bitandukanye ku bibazo bisa, nyamara akaba atari ko byagenze muri uru rubanza kuko abarega batagaragaza ko hari ibyemezo bitandukanye Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwafashe ku bibazo bisa n’iki. [38] Urukiko rusanga iyo Urukiko rwaciye urubanza ku rwego rwanyuma rwafashe umurongo ku kibazo runaka, ruba rumaze impaka kuri icyo kibazo ku buryo nta sobanurampamo riba rigikenewe. Ibyo abarega bavuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rudatanga umurongo ngenderwaho sibyo, kuko mu micire y’imanza ishingiye ku byemezo byafaswe n’inkiko (precedents), iyo Urukiko ruciye urubanza, umurongo rufashe uba ugomba kubahirizwa muri rwo no mu nkiko ziri munsi yarwo3. Itegeko rikaba ahubwo riteganya ko utishimiye umurongo wafashwe ku kibazo runaka kandi akaba yifuza ko uwo murongo wahinduka mu nyungu z’imanza zizakurikira,

3Reba Urubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2019/SC, igika cya 32 n’icya 33. 20 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 51

XLVII

abiregera mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga nkuko biteganywa mu ngingo ya 65 y’itegeko N°30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububashwa bw’inkiko. [39] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, Urukiko rurasanga ingingo y’itegeko Urugaga rw’Abavoka rusaba ko ikorerwa isobanurampamo nta impaka iteje, kuko ishobora gusobanurwa hakurikijwe amahame asanzwe agenga isobanurwa ry’amategeko, hakaba hari n’igisobanuro cyatanzwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi kitaravuguruzwa kugeza ubu. Kubera izo mpamvu, Urukiko rusanga ikirego gisaba isobanurampamo ry’ ingingo ya 5, igika cya mbere 1°y’itegeko N°37/2012 ryo kuwa 09/11/2012, nk’uko yahinduwe n'ingingo ya mbere y'itegeko N°02/2015 ryo kuwa 25/2/2015 rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro, kidashobora kwakirwa ngo gisuzumwe kuko kitubahirije ibisabwa n’itegeko. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [40] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe n’Urugaga rw’Abavoka gisaba isobanurampamo ry’ingingo ya 5, igika cya mbere 1° y’itegeko N°37/2012 ryo kuwa 09/11/2012, nk’uko yahinduwe n'ingingo ya mbere y'itegeko N°02/2015 ryo ku wa 25/2/2015 rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro, kitakiriwe.

21 Re. URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA (2)

## Page 52

22 XLVIII

## Page 53

23 XLIX

IBIREGO BISABA KWEMEZA KO ITEGEKO RINYURANYE N’ITEGEKO NSHINGA

## Page 54

24L

## Page 55

25 LI

Re KABASINGA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2020/SC (Ntezilyayo, P.J., Cyanzayire, Muhumuza, Rukundakuvuga, Hitiyaremye, J.) 27 Ugushyingo 2020] Itegeko Nshinga – Ihame ry’uko abantu bareshya imbere y’amategeko – Gudatandukanya abantu – Abantu bafatwa kimwe imbere y’itegeko, nta busumbane cyangwa ivangura ndetse n’itegeko rigiyeho rigafata kimwe abo rireba – Iri hame rishobora kugira irengayobora (exception) igihe hari impamvu zumvikana zishingiye ku ntego ifite ireme bigatuma abantu bafatwa kimwe ariko hitawe ku miterere yabo, bikaba atari ivangura. Amategeko agenga ibyaha n’ibihano – Icyaha cyo kwica uwo wibyariye – Ni icyaha cyihariye kidashobora gukorwa n’umugabo bitewe n’imiterere ye nk’umuntu udashobora gutwita ngo abyare, ngo noneho nyuma yo kubyara abe yagira ingaruka ziturutse kuri uko kubyara cyangwa se konsa nk’uko biba ku mugore – Ni umugore ugikora abitewe n’ingaruka zo kubyara. Itegeko Inshinga – Ubutabera buboneye – Uburyo butandukanye bugize ubutabera buboneye – Ubutabera buboneye bushingiye ku iyubahirizwa ry’imihango ya ngombwa n’uruhererekane rw’ibigomba kubahirizwa hashingiwe ku mahame ateganywa n’amategeko naho Ubutabera buboneye bushingiye ku biteganywa n’itegeko bwo bubuza ishyirwaho ry’amategeko cyangwa izindi ngamba zidashyira mu gaciro zibangamira uburenganzira bw’abaturage. Amategeko agenga ibyaha n’ibihano – Ibikorwa bigize icyaha cyo kwica uwo wibyariye – Ni ibikorwa umugore yakoze 25

## Page 56

LII

abishaka cyangwa akanga gukora ikigomba gukorwa nabwo abishaka, agamije kwica umwana yibyariye, ariko ibyo akabikora abitewe n’ihungabana rituruka kuri uko kubyara cyangwa se konsa. Uko guhungabana gutandukanye no guta ubwenge gushobora gutuma umuntu adashobora kumenya ibyo yakoze. Incamake y’ikibazo: Kabasinga yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga asaba kwemeza ko ingingo ya 108 y’Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015, mu ngingo zaryo za 15 na 16, bitewe n’uko asanga igaragaramo ivangura rishingiye ku gitsina kuko ireba umugore gusa. Avuga kandi ko iyo ngingo ibangamiye uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye buteganywa n’ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga, kuko ihana umugore wakoze icyaha kandi ubwenge bwe budakora neza, bityo agasaba ko yakurwaho hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 3 y’Itegeko Nshinga. Leta y’u Rwanda yo ivuga ko iyo ngingo nta vangura rishingiye ku gitsina riyigaragaramo, ko ndetse ntaho ibangamiye uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye, igasanga rero itagomba gukurwaho kuko itanyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. Mu iburanisha mu ruhame, Urega avuga ko ingingo ya 108 y’itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 na 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga kuko igaragaramo ivangura rishingiye ku gitsina, aho umugore ari we wenyine ushobora gukurikiranwa kuri iki cyaha, nta na rimwe icyaha giteganywa n’iyi ngingo gishobora guhama umugabo kuko atonsa kandi atajya atwita. Ikindi ni uko ingaruka za nyuma yo kubyara zatuma habaho kwica umwana atabishaka ntizireba umugore gusa, ahubwo 26 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 57

LIII

zireba ababyeyi bombi harimo n’umugabo kuko nk’igihe umugore apfuye abyara, inshingano zo kwita ku mwana zigasigarana umugabo, icyo gihe nawe akaba ashobora kwica umwana atabishaka biturutse ku ngaruka zo kumwitaho nko kurara amajoro bikaba byatuma ubwenge bwe budakora neza. Aha umugabo we yakurikiranwa hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 111 y’itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru iteganya icyaha cy’ubwicanyi bidaturutse ku bushake bitandukanye no kuba umugore yarashyiriweho igihano kihariye kandi nawe azaba yishe umwana we atabishaka. Leta y’u Rwanda ivuga ko abagabo n’abagore bose bishe abana babo bibyariye bakurikiranwa kimwe ku cyaha cyo kwica ku bushake ariko imiterere yihariye y’umugore ituma ariwe ushobora kugira inkurikizi zituruka ku kubyara cyangwa guhembera iyo yiyiciye umwana bikomotse kuri izo nkurikizi, ntabwo ahanirwa icyaha cyo kwica ku bushake, ahubwo ahanirwa icyo kwica umwana yibyariye bikomotse kuri izo nkurikizi. Bivuze ko ahabwa ibihano bitoya ugereranyije n’abagore cyangwa abagabo biyiciye abana bidaturutse kuri izo mpamvu. Leta y’u Rwanda isobanura ko impamvu zatumye hajyaho iyi ngingo ari mu rwego rwo kurengera uburenganzira bw’umwana, aho mu gihe cyashize habagaho kwica umwana ukivuka bitewe n’uko yavutse ababyeyi be ntibamwishimire. Ibi bigaragaza ko nta vangura rigaragara muri iyi ngingo, kubera ko umugabo wishe umwana yibyariye nawe ahanwa kimwe n’umugore nawe wakwiyicira umwana abishaka; ko n’ubwo byagaragara nk’aho muri iyi ngingo harimo ivangura rikorerwa abagore, ryaba ari ivangura ryiza (discrimination positive) ryemewe mu mategeko. Umuryango uharanira iterambere ry’ubuzima (HDI) nk’inshuti y’Urukiko, uvuga ko guhana icyaha cyo kwihekura atari ubwa 27 Re. KABASINGA

## Page 58

LIV

mbere bibaye mu mategeko y’u Rwanda, ko uko amategeko yagendaga asimburana yabaga afite ingingo ihana icyo cyaha, aho umugabo n’umugore bahanwa kimwe igihe babaga bakoze icyaha cyo kwihekura. Umwihariko w’ingingo ya 108 y’Itegeko nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018, ni uko ihana umugore wenyine, kandi igashimangira ko umugore ahanwa igihe bigaragaye ko yishe umwana we ubwenge bwe budakora neza bitewe n’inkurikizi zavuzwe haruguru, nawo ukaba wemeza ko iyi ngingo igaragaramo ivangura. Umuryango “Women’s Link Worldwide” uvuga ko na wo usanga ingingo ya 108 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru igaragaramo ivangura rishingiye ku gitsina kubera ko iteganya icyaha cyo kwihekura gishobora gukorwa n’abagore gusa. Ku kibazo kindi kijyanye no kuba ingingo ya 108 y’Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange ibangamiye uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye, ikaba inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga, Urega abisobanura avuga ko iyi ngingo ihana umuntu wakoze igikorwa kitujuje ibisabwa byose kugira ngo cyitwe icyaha kuko nta bushake bwo kugikora buba bwabayeho, nyamara ubusanzwe umenya ko icyaha cyabaye iyo ingingo zikigize zuzuye. Bityo, uretse no kuba idatanga ubutabera buboneye, iyi ngingo nta n’ubwo yubahirije amahame rusange y’amategeko ahana. Akomeza asobanura ko iyo ugereranyije imihanire y’iki cyaha mu Rwanda no mu bindi bihugu aho ubona ko itegeko ryacu risa nk’aho ryakomotse, bigaragara ko umushingamategeko hari ibyo atasobanuye cyane, bityo bikaba bishobora gukomeza kurenganya abagore bashobora guhura n’ibibazo nk’ibi bya nyuma yo kubyara, maze aho gufashwa mu guhabwa ubutabera, ahubwo bigasa nko gufashwa guhungabana. Hakurikijwe amahame y’amategeko ahana, ntawakabaye ahanirwa igikorwa 28 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 59

LV

yakoze nta bushake, kabone n’iyo icyo gikorwa cyaba cyateye urupfu kubera ko iyo nta bushake buhari nta cyaha kiba cyabayeho ko rero niba nta cyaha cyabaye nta no guhanwa biba bikwiriye kubaho. Asanga ahubwo iyi ngingo ya 108 ikwiye kuvugururwa mu rwego rwo kuyisobanura neza igatandukanya igihe uwaba akurikiranyweho icyaha yafatwa nk’aho yagikoze ku bushake, icyo gihe akaba yabihanirwa, n’igihe yaba yagikoze nta bushake, icyo gihe ntabe yabihanirwa. Bityo ibi byazafasha Inkiko kuba zatanga ubutabera buboneye. Leta y’u Rwanda ivuga ko ku kijyanye no kuvuga ko iyi ngingo ya 108 y’itegeko ihana udakwiye kuba ahanwa ataribyo. Isobanura ko iyi ngingo mu kinyarwanda izanamo ijambo ubwenge bwe budakora neza, ari ikibazo cy’imyandikire gusa iri jambo ridakwiye kubamo, ahubwo bigasobanuka nk’uko mu cyongereza no mu gifaransa byanditse, bikumvikana ko ari umugore wese, abishaka ukora cyangwa ntakore ikigomba gukorwa, wica umwana yabyaye utarengeje amezi cumi n’abiri (12) ariko mu gihe cyo gukora icyaha akaba afite inkurikizi zituruka ku kubyara cyangwa guhembera k’umubyeyi aba akoze icyaha.… Ibi ibishingira ku kuba ubusanzwe abahanga mu by’ubuvuzi bagaragaza ko inkurikizi zo kubyara cyangwa guhembera zidashobora gutuma umugore ata ubwenge (mental capacity) nk’aho ari umurwayi wo mu mutwe. Ibi bikaba bivuze ko nubwo yaba afite ibyo bibazo, aba afite ubwenge bwo kumenya icyaha n’ikitari icyaha, yewe n’ingaruka z’ibikorwa yakora, bitandukanye n’umuntu uba afite uburwayi bwo mu mutwe udashobora kumenya icyaha n’ikitari icyaha ndetse n’ingaruka z’ibikorwa yakora ko ari mbi cyangwa atari mbi. Bityo, akwiye kuryozwa igikorwa yakoze abizi neza kandi ku bushake, icyakora igihano kikaba gitoya kubera ko icyaha cyo kwiyicira umwana aba yagikoze atagambiriye kwica umwana ahubwo aba yabitewe n’izo ngaruka zitamuturutseho. Niyo 29 Re. KABASINGA

## Page 60

LVI

mpamvu buri mugore wese wabyaye cyangwa se ufite ihungabana atica umwana yabyaye, bityo umwica aba agomba guhanwa. Umuryango uharanira iterambere ry’ubuzima (HDI) nk’inshuti y’Urukiko, usesengura ingingo ya 108 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru, uvuga ko iyi ngingo inyuranyije n’uburenganzira bw’umugore ku buzima bw’imyororokere nk’uko biteganywa mu masezerano mpuzamahanga hamwe n’ayandi mategeko akoreshwa imbere mu gihugu n’Ihame rituma umuntu aryozwa icyaha. Uvuga kandi ko usanga iyi ngingo ya 108 inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 95 y’Itegeko Nshinga, aho iyo ngingo iteganya ko amasezerano mpuzamahanga yashyizweho umukono asumba amategeko asanzwe. Bityo ko kuba Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 ari itegeko risanzwe, riza inyuma y’amasezerano Mpuzamahanga, yemejwe n’u Rwanda, ateganya ku byerekeye uburenganzira bw’umugore ku buzima muri rusange, no ku buzima bw’imyororokere mu buryo bwihariye. Inyuranyije kandi n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 3, iya 12 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nº 21/05/2016 ryo ku wa 20/05/2016 ryerekeye ubuzima bw’imyororokere y’abantu, kuko izi ngingo ziramutse zubahirijwe umugore atakora icyaha cyo kwihekura adafite ikibazo cy’ihungabana. Iyi ngingo ndetse inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 85 (2) y’Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru, iteganya ko nta buryozwacyaha bubaho iyo ushinjwa yari afite uburwayi bwo mu mutwe mu gihe yakoraga icyaha. Umuryango Women’s Link Worldwide (WLW) nk’indi nshuti y’urukiko, uvuga ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwakwita ku bibazo bijyanye no guhana icyaha cyo kwihekura birimo gukoresha nabi amategeko ahana icyo cyaha, aho abagore bahanwa kubera ko badashobora kubona serivisi zihagije z’ubuzima bw’imyororokere, n’ihohoterwa ry’uburenganzira bw’umugore 30 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 61

LVII

ku mibereho, ubuzima ndetse n’ubuzima bwite no gukoresha nabi icyaha cyo kwihekura ku bagore n’abakobwa bakuyemo inda cyangwa bahuye n’ibibazo bikomeye byo kubyara bigize igihano kirimo ubugome kandi kidasanzwe. Uyu muryango usobanura ko mu bihugu byinshi iki cyaha gifatwa nk’icyaha gito ugeranyinyije n’ubundi bwoko bw’ubwicanyi, ko impamvu ari uko harebwa impamvu ziba zatumye icyo cyaha gikorwa. Usoza uvuga ko gushinja icyaha abagore n’abakobwa bafite ibibazo bikomeye byo kubyara cyangwa gukuramo inda mu buryo budatekanye, ari ukurenga bikomeye ku burenganzira bw’abagore bwo kugira imibereho n’ubuzima birengerwa n’amategeko mpuzamahanga nk’uburenganzira bw’ikiremwamuntu. Ahubwo ko umuti mwiza w’iki kibazo waba guharanira ko abagore bagira umutekano bakabona serivisi z’imyororokere, harimo gukuramo inda no kwitabwaho nyuma yo gukuramo inda, kwigishwa iby’imibonano mpuzabitsina no kwirinda gusama. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Abantu bafatwa kimwe imbere y’itegeko, nta busumbane cyangwa ivangura ndetse n’itegeko rigiyeho rigafata kimwe abo rireba. Iri hame rishobora kugira irengayobora (exception) igihe hari impamvu zumvikana zishingiye ku ntego ifite ireme bigatuma abantu bafatwa kimwe ariko hitawe ku miterere yabo, bikaba atari ivangura. Bityo, ingingo ya 108 y’Itegeko nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange nta kutareshya imbere y’amategeko cyangwa ivangura rishingiye ku gitsina biyigaragaramo kubera ko icyaha cyo kwica uwo wibyariye kidashobora gukorwa n’umugabo bitewe n’imiterere ye itandukanye n’iy’umugore, ikaba itanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda. 31 Re. KABASINGA

## Page 62

LVIII

2. Icyaha cyo kwica uwo wibyariye ni icyaha cyihariye kidashobora gukorwa n’umugabo bitewe n’imiterere ye nk’umuntu udashobora gutwita ngo abyare, ngo noneho nyuma yo kubyara abe yagira ingaruka ziturutse kuri uko kubyara cyangwa se konsa nk’uko biba ku mugore. Bityo, ni umugore ugikora abitewe n’ingaruka zo kubyara. 3. Ubutabera buboneye bugizwe n’uruhererekane rw’ibigomba kubahirizwa mu migendekere y’urubanza hashingiwe ku mahame ateganywa n’amategeko (procedural due process) n’ubutabera bunogeye bubuza ishyirwaho ry’amategeko cyangwa izindi ngamba zidashyira mu gaciro zibangamira uburenganzira bw’abaturage (substantive due process). 4. Ibikorwa bigize icyaha cyo kwica uwo wibyariye ni ibikorwa umugore yakoze abishaka cyangwa akanga gukora ikigomba gukorwa nabwo abishaka, agamije kwica umwana yibyariye, ariko ibyo akabikora abitewe n’ihungabana rituruka kuri uko kubyara cyangwa se konsa. Uko guhungabana gutandukanye no guta ubwenge gushobora gutuma umuntu adashobora kumenya ibyo yakoze. Bityo, iyo ngingo ya 108 ikaba ntaho ibangamiye ubutabera buboneye buteganywa n’ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga. Ikirego nta shingiro gifite. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015, ingingo ya 3, 15, 16, 21, 29 n’iya 95. Itegeko Ngenga Nº 01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 143. 32 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 63

LIX

Itegeko–teka Nº 21/77 ryo ku wa 18 Kanama 1977 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’Amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 314. Amasezerano y’inyongera ku masezerano Nyafurika yerekeye uburenganzira bwa muntu n’ubwa abaturage yerekeye uburenganzira bw’umugore yashyiriweho umukono I Maputo ku wa 11 Nyakanga 2003, yemejwe burundu n’Iteka rya Perezida Nº 11/01 ryo ku wa 24/06/2004, ingingo ya 8. Amasezerano Nyafurika yerekeye Uburenganzira bwa muntu n’ubw’abaturage (African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights), U Rwanda rwayemeje n’iteka rya Perezida Nº 10/1983 ryo ku wa 17/05/1985, ingingo ya 16. Amasezerano mpuzamahanga agamije gukumira ivangura iryo ariryo ryose rikorerwa abagore, U Rwanda rwayemeje n’Iteka rya Perezida Nº431/16 ryo ku wa 10 Ugushyingo 1980, rwayashyizeho umukono ku itariki ya 02/03/1981, ingingo ya 1 n’iya 12. Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yerekeye uburenganzira mu by’ubukungu, imibereho myiza n’umuco (International Covenant on Economic, social and Cultural Rights), U Rwanda rwayemeje n’Itegeko-teka Nº 8/75 ryo ku wa 12/02/1975, ingingo ya 12. Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga ku burenganzira Mbonezamubano n’ubwa Politiki (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), 1966, ingingo ya 26. Itangazo ry’Umuryango w’Abibumbye ku burenganzira bwa muntu (Universal Declaration of Human Rights), ryo mu mwaka wa 1948, ingingo ya 7. 33 Re. KABASINGA

## Page 64

LX

Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, ingingo ya 85, 107, 108 n’iya111. Itegeko Nº 21/05/2016 ryo ku wa 20/05/2016 ryerekeye ubuzima bw’imyororokere y’abantu, ingingo ya 3, 12 n’iya 16. Amategeko yo hanze yashingiweho: Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano (criminal code) ryo muri Canada, ingingo ya 233. Igitabo mpanabyaha cy’Ubwongereza (UK), ingingo ya 16. Itegeko rya Canada ryo mu 1948 ku cyaha cyo kwica umwana wibyariye, ingingo ya 262. Imanza zifashishijwe: RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC; Re Kabasinga rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku itariki ya 04/12/2019, para. 13. RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/ 2019/SC, Re Murangwa rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku itariki ya 29/11/2019. RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS Re Akagera Business Group rwaciwe n’URukiko rw’Ikirenga ku itariki ya 23/09/2016. Icyegeranyo cy’ibyemezo by’inkiko, V. 2, 2017, P.1. S.C.C. No.: 36585, Her Majesty the Queen and Meredith Katharine Borowiec, para. 2. R. v. Parks, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 871, at p. 896. Inyandiko z’Abahanga zifashishijwe: Erwin Chemerinsky, In Defense of Equality: A Reply to Professor Westin, 81 MICH. L. REv. 575, 578 n.17 (1983). 34 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 65

LXI

Eric Vallillee, Western Journal of Legal Studies, Vol 5, Issue 4, article 1. I. Elements of the offence (Infanticide). R v. Smith (1976) 32 C.C.C.(2d)224(Nfdl Dist Ct), cited by Winifred H. Holland. Winifred H. Holland, Murder and related Issues: An Analysis of the law in Canada, Report for the Law Commission, July 27th, 2005, p. 26. Michele Connell, The Postpartum Psychosis Defense and Feminism: More or Less Justice for Women. I. IMITERERE Y’IKIREGO [1] Kabasinga Florida yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga asaba kwemeza ko ingingo ya 108 y’Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015, mu ngingo zaryo za 15 na 16, bitewe n’uko asanga igaragaramo ivangura rishingiye ku gitsina kuko ireba umugore gusa. Avuga kandi ko iyo ngingo ibangamiye uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye buteganywa n’ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga, kuko ihana umugore wakoze icyaha kandi ubwenge bwe budakora neza, bityo agasaba ko yakurwaho hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 3 y’Itegeko Nshinga. [2] Ingingo ya 108 y’Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru, iteganya ko umugore wese, abishaka cyangwa biturutse ku kudakora ikigomba gukorwa, wica umwana yabyaye utarengeje amezi cumi n’abiri (12) ariko mu gihe cyo gukora icyaha ubwenge bwe bukaba budakora neza bitewe n’inkurikizi zituruka ku kubyara cyangwa guhembera k’umubyeyi aba akoze icyaha. 35 Re. KABASINGA

## Page 66

LXII

Iyo abihamijwe n’urukiko ahanishwa igifungo kitari munsi y’imyaka itanu (5) ariko kitarenze imyaka irindwi (7). [3] Leta y’u Rwanda yo ivuga ko iyo ngingo nta vangura rishingiye ku gitsina riyigaragaramo, ko ndetse ntaho ibangamiye uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye, igasanga rero itagomba gukurwaho kuko itanyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. [4] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku itariki ya 03/11/2020, Kabasinga Florida watanze ikirego yunganiwe na Me Rwagitare Fred Fiston afatanyije na Me Mugabonabandi Jean Maurice, hari Leta y’u Rwanda ihagarariwe na Me Umwari M. Claire afatanyije na Me Kabibi Spéciose. Hari kandi n’inshuti z’Urukiko: Umuryango uharanira iterambere ry’ubuzima (Health Development Initiative, HDI) uhagarariwe na Me Garura Christian, n’Umuryango “Women’s Link Worldwide” uhagarariwe n’Umuyobozi wawo mu Rwanda yunganiwe na Me Cyiza Consolée. [5] Muri uru rubanza hasuzumwe ibibazo bikurikira:  Kumenya niba ingingo ya 108 y’Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange igaragaramo ivangura rishingiye ku gitsina ku buryo inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015 mu ngingo zaryo za 15 na 16;  Kumenya niba iyi ngingo ibangamiye uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye buteganywa n’ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga. 36 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 67

LXIII

I. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO 1. Kumenya niba ingingo ya 108 y’Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange igaragaramo ivangura rishingiye ku gitsina ku buryo inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015 mu ngingo zaryo za 15 na 16. [6] Kabasinga Florida n’abamwunganira bavuga ko ingingo ya 108 y’Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, igaragaramo ivangura rishingiye ku gitsina, bityo ko inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015, mu ngingo zaryo za 15 na 16. Iyo ngingo iteganya ko umugore wese, abishaka cyangwa biturutse ku kudakora ikigomba gukorwa, wica umwana yabyaye utarengeje amezi cumi n’abiri (12) ariko mu gihe cyo gukora icyaha ubwenge bwe bukaba budakora neza bitewe n’inkurikizi zituruka ku kubyara cyangwa guhembera k’umubyeyi aba akoze icyaha, ko iyo abihamijwe n’urukiko ahanishwa igifungo kitari munsi y’imyaka itanu (5) ariko kitarenze imyaka irindwi (7). Bavuga ko byumvikana neza ko iyi ngingo ikorera abagore ivangura ku mpamvu zikurikira: a. umugore ni we wenyine ushobora gukurikiranwa kuri iki cyaha, nta na rimwe icyaha giteganywa n’iyi ngingo gishobora guhama umugabo kuko atonsa kandi atajya atwita. Kuba umugore ariwe wenyine urebwa n’iyi ngingo, babirebera muri bimwe mu bigize iki cyaha byihariye (éléments constitutifs spéciaux de l’infraction), aribyo kuba umubyeyi yica 37 Re. KABASINGA

## Page 68

LXIV

umwana biturutse ku nkurikizi za nyuma yo kubyara cyangwa guhembera kw’ababyeyi. b. ingaruka za nyuma yo kubyara zatuma habaho kwica umwana utabishaka ntizireba umugore gusa, ahubwo zireba ababyeyi bombi harimo n’umugabo kuko nk’igihe umugore apfuye abyara, inshingano zo kwita ku mwana zigasigarana umugabo, icyo gihe nawe akaba ashobora kwica umwana atabishaka biturutse ku ngaruka zo kumwitaho nko kurara amajoro bikaba byatuma ubwenge bwe budakora neza. c. Umugabo aramutse ahuye n’ikibazo cyo kwica umwana atabishaka, we yakurikiranwa hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 111 iteganya icyaha cy’ubwicanyi bidaturutse ku bushake, akaba yahanishwa igifungo kitari munsi y’amezi atandatu (6) ariko kitarenze imyaka ibiri (2) n’ihazabu y’amafaranga atari munsi y’ibihumbi magana atanu (500.000 Frw) ariko atarenze miliyoni ebyiri (2.000.000 Frw) cyangwa kimwe gusa muri ibyo bihano, icyo akaba ari igihano cyoroheje cyane ugereranyije n’icyateganyirijwe umugore wakoze icyaha kimwe n’icy’umugabo. d. Iyo umushingamategeko aba yarashakaga gutanga igihano harebwe icyaha cyakozwe, ntiyari kuvangura umugore ngo amushyirireho igihano cyihariye. Umugore wishe umwana we atabishaka yari guhanwa nk’undi wese ukoze icyaha cyo kwica umuntu atabishaka (homicide involontaire) giteganywa n’ingingo ya 111 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe, yaba yabikoze abishaka agahanwa nk’abandi ku cyaha cy’ubwicanyi giteganywa n’ingingo ya 107 y’iryo tegeko, bitabaye ngombwa gutandukanya umugabo n’umugore. 38 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 69

LXV

[7] Barangiza bavuga ko iyo ngingo inyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga ryo muri 2003 ryavuguruwe muri 2015 mu ngingo ya 15 n’iya 16 ribuza ivangura iryo ariryo ryose, ndetse ikaba inanyuranye n’amategeko mpuzamahanga arwanya ivangura iryo ariryo ryose u Rwanda rwayashyizeho umukono. Batanga urugero rw’Amasezerano ya Maputo yo mu mwaka wa 2003, yemejwe muri 2004, nk’uko bigaragara mu iteka rya Perezida No 11/01 ryo ku itariki ya 24/06/2004, bityo bagasaba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga gushingira ku ngingo ya 3 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda rukayikuraho. [8] Kuri iyi mpamvu, abahagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda bavuga ko batemeranya n’uwatanze ikirego ko ingingo ya 108 y’Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 rimaze kuvugwa igaragaramo ivangura, ibyo bakabishingira ku mpamvu zikurira: 5. Abagabo kimwe n’abagore bose bishe abana babo bibyariye bakurikiranwa kimwe ku cyaha cyo kwica ku bushake, kuko kwica umwana wibyariye ari icyaha cy’ubwicanyi; 6. Imiterere yihariye y’umugore ituma ariwe ushobora kugira inkurikizi zituruka ku kubyara cyangwa guhembera. Ariko iyo yiyiciye umwana bikomotse kuri izo nkurikizi, ntabwo ahanirwa icyaha cyo kwica ku bushake, ahubwo ahanirwa icyo kwica umwana wibyariye bikomotse ku nkurikizi zo kubyara no guhembera. Bivuze ko bahabwa ibihano bitoya ugereranyije n’abagore cyangwa abagabo biyiciye abana bidaturutse kuri izo mpamvu. [9] Abahagarariye Leta bakomeza basobanura ko imiterere karemano y’umugore wabyaye itandukanye n’iy’umugabo, ko iyo miterere ariyo yitaweho mu guhana ibikorwa bigize icyaha 39 Re. KABASINGA

## Page 70

LXVI

giteganywa mu ngingo ya 108 y’Itegeko Nº 68/2018. Bavuga ko ibikorwa bivugwa muri iyi ngingo ari ukwica umwana ukimara kubyara (après accouchement) kandi ingaruka zishobora kuvuka cya gihe cya nyuma yo kubyara zikaba zidashobora kureba umugabo. Bavuga ko rero izo ngaruka arizo zitaweho muri iri tegeko, bitandukanye n’uko byari bimeze mu mategeko ya mbere, aho umugabo n’umugore bahanwaga kimwe mu gihe babaga bahamwe n’icyaha cyo kwica abo bibyariye. Umwihariko w’iyi ngingo akaba ari uko umugore wishe umwana we biturutse ku ngaruka zo kubyara ahanwa, ariko mu buryo bugereranyije. [10] Bavuga ko impamvu zatumye hajyaho iyi ngingo ari mu rwego rwo kurengera uburenganzira bw’umwana, aho mu gihe cyashize habagaho kwica umwana ukivuka bitewe n’uko yavutse ababyeyi be ntibamwishimire. Aha batanze urugero rw’umubyeyi washoboraga kwica umwana we bitewe n’uko yavukanye ubumuga, cyangwa se akaba yamwica kubera ko yavutse ari umukobwa kandi yifuzaga umuhungu. [11] Barangiza bavuga ko babona nta vangura rigaragara muri iyi ngingo, kubera ko umugabo wishe umwana yibyariye nawe ahanwa kimwe n’umugore nawe wakwiyicira umwana abishaka; ko n’ubwo byagaragara nk’aho muri iyi ngingo harimo ivangura rikorerwa abagore, ryaba ari ivangura ryiza (Discrimination Positive) ryemewe mu mategeko kuko, nk’uko n’inkiko z’u Rwanda zabisobanuye, iyo ivangura rifite impamvu nziza kandi zishingiye ku mwihariko runaka riba ryemewe. Batanga urugero rw’itegeko rishyiraho sitati rusange igenga abakozi ba Leta aho iteganya ikiruhuko kirekire ku mugore wabyaye kuruta igihabwa umugabo kandi ibyo ntibifatwe nk’ivangura. [12] Kuri iyi ngingo, uhagarariye Umuryango uharanira iterambere ry’ubuzima (HDI) nk’inshuti y’Urukiko, avuga ko 40 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 71

LXVII

guhana icyaha cyo kwihekura atari ubwa mbere bibaye mu mategeko y’u Rwanda, ko uko amategeko yagendaga asimburana yabaga afite ingingo ihana icyo cyaha. Atanga urugero rw’ingingo ya 143 y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº 01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ndetse n’ingingo ya 314 y’Itegeko–teka Nº 21/77 ryo ku wa 18 Kanama 1977 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’Amategeko ahana. [13] Avuga ko ayo mategeko yavuzwe haruguru, yahanaga kimwe umugabo n’umugore igihe babaga bakoze icyaha cyo kwihekura. Umwihariko w’ingingo ya 108 y’Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018, ni uko ihana umugore wenyine, kandi igashimangira ko umugore ahanwa igihe bigaragaye ko yishe umwana we ubwenge bwe budakora neza bitewe n’inkurikizi zituruka ku kubyara cyangwa guhembera k’umubyeyi, nabo bagasanga iyi ngingo igaragaramo ivangura. [14] Uhagarariye Umuryango “Women’s Link Worldwide” avuga ko na we asanga ingingo ya 108 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru igaragaramo ivangura rishingiye ku gitsina kubera ko iteganya icyaha cyo kwihekura gishobora gukorwa n’abagore gusa. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [15] Ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015, iteganya ko abantu bose bareshya imbere y’amategeko, itegeko ribarengera ku buryo bumwe. Naho iya 16 y’Itegeko Nshinga na none, igateganya ko ivangura iryo ariryo ryose cyangwa kurikwirakwiza byaba bishingiye ku bwoko, ku muryango cyangwa ku gisekuru, ku nzu, ku ibara ry’umubiri, ku gitsina, ku karere, ku byiciro 41 Re. KABASINGA

## Page 72

LXVIII

by’ubukungu, ku idini cyangwa ukwemera, ku bitekerezo, ku mutungo, ku itandukaniro ry’umuco, ku rurimi, ku bukungu, ku bumuga bw’umubiri cyangwa ubwo mu mutwe no ku rindi vangura iryo ari ryo ryose, bibujijwe kandi bihanwa n’amategeko. [16] Ingingo isabirwa gukurwaho uwatanze ikirego avuga ko inyuranye n’ingingo z’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda zimaze kuvugwa, ni ingingo ya 108 y’Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, iteganya ko umugore wese, abishaka cyangwa biturutse ku kudakora ikigomba gukorwa, wica umwana yabyaye utarengeje amezi cumi n’abiri (12) ariko mu gihe cyo gukora icyaha ubwenge bwe bukaba budakora neza bitewe n’inkurikizi zituruka ku kubyara cyangwa guhembera k’umubyeyi aba akoze icyaha. Iyo abihamijwe n’urukiko, ahanishwa igifungo kitari munsi y’imyaka itanu (5) ariko kitarenze imyaka irindwi (7). [17] Kugira ngo bimenyekane niba muri iyi ngingo hagaragamo kutareshya imbere y’amategeko n’ivangura rishingiye ku gitsina, bityo ikaba inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 kimwe n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda nk’uko uwatanze ikirego abivuga, ni ngombwa kubanza gusobanura uburyo izo ngingo zumvikana. Nk’uko byasobanuwe mu rubanza RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS1 rwaciwe n’uru Rukiko ku itariki ya 23/09/2016, ingingo ya 15 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga zifitanye isano ku buryo gusobanura icyo zishatse kuvuga uzitandukanyije, bigoye. Nk’uko byasobanuwe kandi muri urwo rubanza, ingingo ya 15 ivuga ko abantu bose bareshya imbere y’amategeko kandi bakarengerwa n’amategeko mu buryo bumwe. Ni ukuvuga ko hatagomba kubaho ivangura rituma

1 Icyegeranyo cy’ibyemezo by’inkiko, V. 2, 2017, P.1. 42 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 73

LXIX

abantu batarengerwa mu buryo bumwe cyangwa kutagira uburenganzira aho bakabugize. Naho ingingo ya 16 ikomerezaho ivuga uburyo gutandukanya abantu bifatwa nk’ivangura kandi ko bitemewe n’Itegeko Nshinga. Izi ngingo zombi zafatwa nk’izikubiyemo ihame rimwe ryo kudasumbanya abantu mu byo bemerewe cyangwa babujijwe ugamije kugira abo uheza ku burenganzira bemererwa n’amategeko. [18] Ihame ryo kureshya imbere y’amategeko no kudakorerwa ivangura, si mu Itegeko Nshinga ry’u Rwanda turisanga gusa, rigaragara no mu Masezerano Mpuzahanga u Rwanda rwashyizeho umukono. Twavuga nk’ingingo ya 7 y’Itangazo ry’Umuryango w’Abibumbye ku burenganzira bwa muntu (Universal Declaration of Human Rights), ryo mu mwaka wa 1948, igira iti: “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination’’. [19] Hari kandi n’ingingo ya 26 y’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga ku burenganzira Mbonezamubano n’ubwa Politiki (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966) igira iti: “All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”. By’umwihariko ku birebana no kureshya hagati y’umugabo n’umugore, ingingo ya 8 (f) ya Maputo Protocol, iteganya ko abagore n’abagabo bareshya 43 Re. KABASINGA

## Page 74

LXX

imbere y’amategeko kandi bagomba kurindwa ku buryo bungana kandi amategeko akabarengera kimwe. Ivuga ko Ibihugu byemera aya masezerano bifite inshingano yo kuvugurura amategeko n’imigirire bisanzweho bigaragaramo ivangura mu rwego rwo guteza imbere no kurinda uburenganzira bw’umugore (“Women and men are equal before the law and shall have the right to equal protection and benefit of the law. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure …. (f): reform of existing discriminatory laws and practices in order to promote and protect the rights of women)2. [20] Nk’uko bimaze kugaragazwa mu ngingo z’amategeko ndetse n’iz’amasezerano mpuzamahanga zavuzwe haruguru, ihame ry’uko abantu bareshya imbere y’amategeko rivuze ko abantu bafatwa kimwe imbere y’itegeko, nta busumbane cyangwa ivangura, ndetse n’itegeko rigiyeho rigafata kimwe abo rireba. Iryo hame ariko rishobora kugira irengayobora (exception) igihe hari impamvu zumvikana zishingiye ku ntego ifite ireme (legitimate or rational purpose), ibi bikaba byaremejwe n’uru Rukiko mu rubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/ 2019/SC rwaciwe ku itariki ya 29/11/20193. Muri urwo rubanza, urukiko rwasobanuye kandi ko ibigomba gufatwa kimwe ari ibimeze kimwe, naho ibintu bitandukanye bigafatwa ku buryo butandukanye hakurikijwe itandukaniro ryabyo (Things that are alike should be treated alike, and things that are unalike should be treated unalike in proportion to their unalikeness)4. Mu

2 U Rwanda rwashyize umukono kuri aya masezerano ku itariki ya 25/06/2004. 3 Urubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/ 2019/SC rwaciwe ku wa 29/11/2019, p.12, para. 35 4 Erwin Chemerinsky, In Defense of Equality: A Reply to Professor Westin, 81 Mich. L. REv. 575, 578 n.17 (1983). 44 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 75

LXXI

yandi magambo, abantu bagomba gufatwa kimwe, ariko hitawe ku miterere yabo. [21] Nyuma yo gusobanura icyo kureshya imbere y’amategeko bivuze, kugira ngo ikibazo kiri muri uru rubanza kigamije kumenya niba ingingo ya 108 y’Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange igaragaramo ivangura gisobanuke, ni ngombwa kandi gusobanura icyo ivangura ari cyo. Mu rubanza RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS5 rwaciwe ku itariki ya 23/09/2016, uru Rukiko rwasobanuye ko muri rusange ivangura ari ugutandukanya abantu hagamijwe kuvutsa amahirwe bamwe no gutonesha abandi, bigakorwa hashingiwe ku mpamvu zitumvikana. Ku birebana n’ivangura rishingiye ku gitsina, amasezerano mpuzamahanga agamije gukumira ivangura iryo ariryo ryose rikorerwa abagore, mu ngingo yayo ya mbere ivuga ko iryo vangura ari irishingiye ku gutandukanya umugore n’umugabo hagamijwe kuburizamo uburenganzira mu bya politike, ubukungu, umuco n’ibindi (For the purposes of the present Convention, the term "discrimination against women" shall mean any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field)6. [22] Nyuma y’ibisobanuro rusange bimaze gutangwa, igisigaye ni ukureba niba, kuba ingingo ya 108 y’Itegeko Nº

5 Icyegeranyo cy’ibyemezo by’inkiko, V. 2, 2017, P.16, Para. 22. 6 U Rwanda rwashyize umukono kuri aya masezerano ku itariki ya 02/03/1981. 45 Re. KABASINGA

## Page 76

LXXII

68/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru iteganya ko umugore wese, abishaka cyangwa biturutse ku kudakora ikigomba gukorwa, wica umwana yabyaye utarengeje amezi cumi n’abiri (12) ariko mu gihe cyo gukora icyaha ubwenge bwe bukaba budakora neza bitewe n’inkurikizi zituruka ku kubyara cyangwa guhembera k’umubyeyi aba akoze icyaha, igaragaramo ivangura kubera ko itavugwamo umugabo. Kugira ngo iki kibazo gishobore kubonerwa igisubizo, ni ngombwa kureba ibigize icyaha cyo kwica uwo wibyariye (infanticide). [23] Uru Rukiko rusanga ibiteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 108 imaze kuvugwa, atari hano mu Rwanda honyine biba, ndetse akaba atari n’ubwa mbere impaka zishingiye ku biyivugwamo zivuka hirya no hino ku isi, ariko iteka amategeko, ibyemezo by’inkiko mu kuzikemura ndetse n’abahanga mu mategeko bikagusha ku mwihariko umugore afite kubera imiterere karemano ye. Nko muri Canada, ingingo ya 233 y’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano (criminal code), iteganya ko “A female person commits infanticide when by a wilful act or omission she causes the death of her newlyborn child, if at the time of the act or omission she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason there of or of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child her mind is then disturbed”. Mu gitabo mpanabyaha cy’Ubwongereza (UK), ingingo ya 160 iteganya infanticide: Where a woman by any wilful act or omission causes the death of her child, being a child under the age of twelve months, but at the time of the act or omission the balance of her mind was disturbed by reason of her not having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to the child or by reason of the effect of lactation consequent upon the birth of the child […]. 46 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 77

LXXIII

[24] Ibiteganyijwe muri izo ngingo zaje gusobanurwa mu manza zinyuranye. Mu nyandiko ye kuri infanticide, uwitwa Julio Arboleda-Florez yagaragaje ko igihe umucamanza McRuer7 yasesenguraga ingingo ya 262, 2 y’itegeko rya Canada ryo mu 1948 ku cyaha cyo kwica umwana wibyariye (infanticide), yagaragaje ko kigizwe n’ibintu bikurikira :

Uregwa agomba kuba ari umugore,

Agomba kuba yishe umwana,

Umwana agomba kuba akivuka,

Umwana agomba kuba ari uw’uregwa,

Urupfu rugomba kuba rwaturutse ku bushake bwo gukora icyaha cyangwa kudakora ikigomba gukorwa,

Muri icyo gihe uregwa agomba kuba atarashobora guhembera bitewe n’inkurikizi zituruka ku kubyara,

Bitewe n’impamvu yo kubyara, uregwa agomba kuba yahungabanye. Yabivuze muri aya magambo y’icyongereza: «In his analysis of the then Section 262, 2, Judge McRuer considered the elements of the offence of infanticide as: the accused must be a woman; she must have caused the death of a child; the child must have been newly born; the child must have been a child of the accused; the death must have been caused by a wilful act or omission of the accused; at the time of the wilful act or omission the accused must not have fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to the child; and by reason of giving birth to

7 James Chalmers McRuer, OC (August 23, 1890 – October 6, 1985) was a Canadian lawyer, judge, commissioner and author in Ontario. 47 Re. KABASINGA

## Page 78

LXXIV

the child the balance of her mind must then have been disturbed (19) »8. [25] Mu nyandiko ye yasohotse mu Kinyamakuru Western Journal of Legal Studies, iyo nyandiko akaba yarayise Deconstructing Infanticide, uwitwa Eric Vallillee, yasobanuye ibigize icyaha giteganywa mu ngingo ya 233 y’Itegeko rihana ryo muri Canada (Infanticide). Urubanza R v Smith yifashishije muri iyo nyandiko ye, rwerekanye ko icyaha cyo kwica uwo wibyariye kigizwe n’ibi bikurikira: a) uregwa ni igitsina gore, b) nyakwigendera yavutse ari muzima, c) uwo uregwa yishe ni umwana we, d) igikorwa cyateye urupfu uregwa yagikoze nkana, e) nyakwigendera ntiyari arengeje amezi cumi n’ibiri (12), f) uregwa yari atarakira neza ingaruka zo kubyara umwana yishe, g) ubwenge bw’uregwa bwarahungabanye kubera ingaruka zo kubyara cyangwa konsa9. [26] Mu rubanza rwa Her Majesty the Queen (wajuriye) na Meredith Katharine Borowiec (uregwa), Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa Canada rwasobanuye ko icyaha cyo kwica umwana wibyariye ari icyaha gikorwa mu buryo bwihariye. Icya mbere,

8 Available at https://docksci.com/infanticide-some-medicolegal- considerations_5e58e908097c47f42d8b4578.html. Consulté le 26/11/2020. 9 Western Journal of Legal Studies, Vol 5, Issue 4, article 1. I. Elements of the offence (Infanticide) R v Smith5 clarified the seven elements of section 233: The accused is female; (b) The deceased was born alive; (c) The accused caused the death of her child; (d) The death of the child was caused by a wilful act or omission of the accused; (e) The child was newly- born (under 12 months of age); (f) The accused was not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child; (g) By reason of childbirth or the consequent effects of lactation the accused’s mind was disturbed. This article is available in Western Journal of Legal Studies: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/uwojls/vol5/iss4/1. 48 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 79

LXXV

ni uko icyaha gikorwa n’umubyeyi w’umugore, abishaka, wica umwana we w’uruhinja rutaragera ku mezi cumi n’abiri (12). Icya kabiri, ni uko muri icyo gihe aba agifite ihungabana yatewe n’ingaruka zo kubyara cyangwa konsa. Rwabivuze rutya mu magambo y’icyongereza: «Infanticide, which is defined in s. 233 of the Criminal Code, is a form of culpable homicide and applies in the narrow set of circumstances where (1) a mother, by a wilful act or omission, kills her newborn child (under one year of age, as defined by the Criminal Code, s. 2) and, (2) at the time of the act or omission, the mother’s mind is “disturbed” either because she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth or by reason of the effect of lactation: L.B., at para. 58»10. [27] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa ku bijyanye n’imikorere y’icyaha cyo kwica uwo wibyariye, Urukiko rurasanga icyo cyaha ari icyaha cyihariye kidashobora gukorwa n’umugabo bitewe n’imiterere ye nk’umuntu udashobora gutwita ngo abyare, ngo noneho nyuma yo kubyara abe yagira ingaruka ziturutse kuri uko kubyara cyangwa se konsa nk’uko biba ku mugore. Kandi kugira ngo icyaha cyo kwica uwo wibyariye gishoboke, ibyo bintu bikaba ari ngombwa nk’uko byagaragajwe haruguru. Urukiko rusanga ahubwo icyaha cyo kwica uwo wibyariye (infanticide), ari umugore ugikora abitewe n’ingaruka zo kubyara, ikigamijwe mu itegeko akaba atari uko hagira utoneshwa cyangwa uvutswa uburenganzira ku mpamvu itumvikana. [28] Kuba rero ingingo ya 108 y’Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange iteganya ko icyaha cyo kwica uwo wibyariye kidashobora gukorwa n’umugabo bitewe n’imiterere ye itandukanye n’iy’umugore,

10 File No.: 36585. 2016: January 20; 2016: March 24. 49 Re. KABASINGA

## Page 80

LXXVI

Urukiko rurasanga nta kutareshya imbere y’amategeko cyangwa ivangura rishingiye ku gitsina biyigaragaramo, bityo ikaba itanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda. 2. Kumenya niba ingingo ya 108 y’Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015, mu ngingo yaryo ya 29. [29] Kabasinga Florida avuga ko ingingo ya 108 y’Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange ibangamiye uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye, bityo ikaba inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015. Ibyo abisobanura mu buryo bukurikira:

a. Iyi ngingo ihana umuntu wakoze igikorwa kitujuje ibisabwa byose kugira ngo cyitwe icyaha kuko iteganya ko ashobora guhanirwa icyaha kigaragazwa n’igikorwa cyakozwe nta bushake bwo kugikora, nyamara ubusanzwe, kugira ngo umenye ko icyaha cyabaye nk’uko bivugwa n’umwanditsi Robert Kint, ugomba kureba ko ingingo zikigize zuzuye: izo akaba ari ukuba igikorwa cyabaye (élément matériel), kuba itegeko rigiteganya nk’icyaha (élément légal), no kuba uwagikoze yari afite ubushake (élément moral). Bityo, uretse no kuba idatanga ubutabera buboneye, nta n’ubwo yubahirije amahame rusange y’amategeko ahana; b. N’ubwo ibiteganyijwe muri iyi ngingo ubisanga no mu bindi bihugu nk’Ubwami bw’Ubwongereza, 50 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 81

LXXVII

Ireland cyangwa Canada, muri ibyo bihugu ho ubona iyo basanze umuntu yarishe umwana we nta bushake bwo gukora icyaha, ari nk’ibibazo byo mu mutwe adahanwa, ahubwo akurikiza gahunda z’abaganga baba bamukurikiranira hafi; mu gihe ingingo ya 108 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe yo, uretse no kumufasha mu buryo bwo kumuvura, imuteganyiriza ibihano binaremereye. c. Iyi ngingo ntitandukanya uwaba yishe umwana we ku bushake, cyangwa se akaba yabikoze nta bushake bwo gukora icyaha burimo. [30] Avuga ko ubushakashatsi bwakorewe ku manza zabaye kuri iki cyaha mu Bwami bw’Ubwongereza na Wales [Pays des Galles mu rurimi rw’Igifaransa] mu mwaka wa 2005, bwagaragaje ko mu bagore 49 bahamijwe icyaha cyo kwica abana babo hagati y’umwaka wa 1989 n’umwaka wa 2000 hashingiwe ku ngingo ifitanye isano n’iregerwa, abagore babiri (2) gusa aribo bahanishijwe igifungo, abasigaye bashyirwa aho bagomba kwitabwaho bubahiriza amabwiriza y’abaganga, ibi bikaba bitandukanye cyane n’ibibera mu Rwanda aho umubare munini ujyanwa muri gereza. Avuga ko, nk’uko ubwo bushakashatsi bubigaragaza, abahanwa hakurikijwe ingingo imeze nk’iya 108 y’Itegeko ry’u Rwanda ari bake cyane bigaragara ko bagize ubushake bwo kwica abo bibyariye, bitandukanye n’ibikubiye mu ngingo ya 108 y’Itegeko ry’u Rwanda aho iyi ngingo ihana umugore wishe umwana bidaturutse ku bushake bwe, kuko ubwenge bwe buba butakiri ku murongo bitewe n’inkurikizi zo kubyara cyangwa se ku mpamvu zo guhembera k’umubyeyi. Agasanga aho guhanwa ahubwo yakagombye gushyirwa kuri gahunda z’abaganga bakamukurikiranira hafi mu rwego rwo kumusubiza ku murongo. 51 Re. KABASINGA

## Page 82

LXXVIII

[31] Akomeza avuga ko mu gihugu cya Canada, kimwe mu bihugu byateye imbere mu bijyanye n’uburenganzira bwa muntu muri rusange, n’ingingo ya 233 y’Itegeko rihana icyaha cyo kwica uwo wibyariye, iteganya ko umugore aba akoze icyo cyaha iyo ku bushake bwe akoze igikorwa cyangwa yanze gukora icyo yagombaga gukora bigatera umwana we ukivuka urupfu, muri icyo gihe akaba atarakiranuka neza n’ingaruka zikomoka ku kubyara cyangwa guhembera k’umubyeyi, bigatuma ubwenge bwe budakora neza (A female person commits infanticide when by a wilful act or omission she causes the death of her newly-born child, if at the time of the act or omission she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason thereof or of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child her mind is then disturbed). [32] Avuga ko kuba iri tegeko ridafite ibisobanuro birambuye, ryateje impaka zihoshwa n’imanza zaciwe n’urukiko, izo manza akaba ari Veit J held in R v Effert ndetse na R v LB. Avuga ko izi manza zakemuye impaka, kandi zifasha gusobanura iyi ngingo muri icyo gihugu, inkiko zikaba zarabanje kumenya niba ukurikiranywe yarabikoze ku bushake cyangwa nta bushake bwo gukora icyaha, cyangwa hari impamvu zitamuturutseho zabimuteye. [33] Yongeraho ko iyo ugereranyije imihanire y’iki cyaha mu Rwanda no mu bindi bihugu aho ubona ko itegeko ryacu risa nk’aho ryakomotse, bigaragara ko umushingamategeko hari ibyo atasobanuye cyane, bityo bikaba bishobora gukomeza kurenganya abagore bashobora guhura n’ibibazo nk’ibi bya nyuma yo kubyara, maze aho gufashwa mu guhabwa ubutabera, ahubwo bigasa nko gufashwa guhungabana. 52 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 83

LXXIX

[34] Avuga ko iyo urebye ingingo ya 108 y’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange ryo mu Rwanda, usanga yivuguruza ubwayo ikavuga ibintu binyuranyije n’amategeko. Avuga ko kuba iyo ngingo ivuga ko iyo umugore yishe umwana we abishaka, ibyo nta kibazo icyaha kiba cyabaye kubera ko haba harimo ubushake. Ko ariko ikibazo gihari ari uko iyo ngingo ikomeza ivuga ngo “mu gihe cyo gukora icyaha ubwenge bwe bukaba budakora neza”. Akavuga ko bitashoboka ko habaho ubushake bwo gukora icyaha kandi ubwenge budakora neza, ko kubiteganya gutyo, umushingamategeko yakuye inshingano ku bushinjacyaha yo kwerekana ingingo zigize icyaha harimo n’ubushake, ko icyo umushinjacyaha asabwa ari ukwerekana ko umugore yishe umwana we gusa. [35] Akomeza asobanura ko hakurikijwe amahame y’amategeko yavuzwe haruguru, ntawakabaye ahanirwa igikorwa yakoze nta bushake, kabone n’iyo icyo gikorwa cyaba cyateye urupfu. Avuga ko iyo nta bushake buhari nta cyaha kiba cyabayeho, ko rero niba nta cyaha cyabaye nta no guhanwa biba bikwiriye kubaho. Asanga ahubwo ikwiye kuvugururwa mu rwego rwo kuyisobanura neza igatandukanya igihe uwaba akurikiranyweho icyaha yafatwa nk’aho yagikoze ku bushake, icyo gihe akaba yabihanirwa, n’igihe yaba yagikoze nta bushake, icyo gihe ntabe yabihanirwa. Ko ibyo bizanafasha inkiko kuba zatanga ubutabera buboneye, nk’uko ingero zishingiye ku bushakashatsi bwakorewe mu bindi bihugu byavuzwe haruguru zibyerekana. [36] Arangiza asaba ko Urukiko rukwiriye kubona ko ingingo 108 y’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, inyuranyije n’ingingo zose zavuzwe, arizo iya 15, 16, ndetse cyane cyane iya 29 z’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u 53 Re. KABASINGA

## Page 84

LXXX

Rwanda ryo muri 2003 ryavuguruwe muri 2015, bityo ikaba ikwiriye kuvaho nk’uko ingingo ya 3 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ibiteganya. [37] Me Rwagitare Fred Fiston na Me Mugabonabandi Jean Maurice bunganira Kabasinga Florida, bavuga ko ingingo ya 108 y’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange uburyo yanditse ubwayo yivuguruza harebwe ibiteganywa n’amategeko. Bavuga ko kuba iyo ngingo itangira ivuga ngo umugore wese abishaka cyangwa biturutse ku kudakora ikigomba gukorwa […], hanyuma ikarangiza ivuga ngo muri icyo gihe ubwenge bwe bukaba budakora neza […], basanga ibyo bitashoboka ko habaho ubushake kandi ubwenge budakora neza. Bavuga ko iyo ngingo inyuranyije n’iya 85 y’iryo tegeko ubwaryo iteganya ko iyo umuntu akoze icyaha nta bushake adakurikiranwa. [38] Me Umwari M. Claire na Me Kabibi Spéciose bahagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda, bavuga ko ku kijyanye no kuvuga ko iyi ngingo y’itegeko ihana udakwiye kuba ahanwa ataribyo. Icya mbere ngo n’ubwo iyi ngingo mu kinyarwanda izanamo ijambo “ubwenge bwe budakora neza”, babona ari ikibazo cy’imyandikire gusa iri jambo ridakwiye kubamo, ahubwo bigasobanuka nk’uko mu cyongereza no mu gifaransa byanditse, bikumvikana ko ari umugore wese, abishaka ukora cyangwa ntakore ikigomba gukorwa, wica umwana yabyaye utarengeje amezi cumi n’abiri (12) ariko mu gihe cyo gukora icyaha akaba afite inkurikizi zituruka ku kubyara cyangwa guhembera k’umubyeyi aba akoze icyaha. [39] Bavuga ko ibyo bashishingira ku kuba ubusanzwe abahanga mu by’ubuvuzi bagaragaza ko inkurikizi zo kubyara cyangwa guhembera zidashobora gutuma umugore ata ubwenge (mental capacity) nk’aho ari umurwayi wo mu mutwe. Ibi bikaba 54 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 85

LXXXI

bivuze ko nubwo yaba afite ibyo bibazo, aba afite ubwenge bwo kumenya icyaha n’ikitari icyaha, yewe n’ingaruka z’ibikorwa yakora, bitandukanye n’umuntu uba afite uburwayi bwo mu mutwe udashobora kumenya icyaha n’ikitari icyaha ndetse n’ingaruka z’ibikorwa yakora ko ari mbi cyangwa atari mbi. Bavuga ko kuba ubwenge bw’uwo mugore buba bukora neza, akwiye kuryozwa igikorwa yakoze abizi neza kandi ku bushake, icyakora igihano kikaba gitoya (mitigated) kubera ko icyaha cyo kwiyicira umwana aba yagikoze atagambiriye kwica umwana ahubwo aba yabitewe n’izo ngaruka zitamuturutseho. [40] Bakomeza bavuga ko kuba iyi ngingo y’itegeko iteganya ibihano biruta ibyo “kwica bidaturutse ku bushake/homicide involontaire/manslaughter”, ari ko bigomba kugenda, kubera ko, n’ubwo umugore wiyicira umwana biturutse ku nkurikizi zo kubyara no guhembera aba atagambiriye kwica umwana we, ariko nanone ntabwo akwiye guhanwa nk’uwishe umuntu bidaturutse ku bushake kubera umwihariko afite wo kurengera umwana buri gihe. Ibyo babisobanura mu buryo bukurikira:  Aba afite ubwenge bwuzuye, aba azi neza ibikorwa yakorera umwana bikamuvutsa ubuzima, bityo akaba afite inshingano zo kwirinda kubikora;

 Afite inshingano zo kwitwararika uko bishoboka kose kugira ngo arengere ubuzima bw’umwana w’uruhinja kuko buba buri mu maboko ye ijana ku ijana, akaba ari nawe murengezi we wa mbere;

 Kubera ko umugore wese wabyaye agira impinduka mu mubiri we harimo n’izagera ku bwenge bwe, akwiye kwitegura mbere y’igihe akanitwararika mu gihe yabyaye akakira izo 55 Re. KABASINGA

## Page 86

LXXXII

ngaruka kugira ngo arengere ubuzima bw’umwana. [41] Abahagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda barangiza bavuga ko buri mugore wese wabyaye cyangwa se ufite ihungabana atica umwana yabyaye, ko ariyo mpamvu umwica aba agomba guhanwa. Basaba ko Urukiko rubonye ari ngombwa rwazahamagaza impuguke mu bijyanye n’ubuzima bwo mu mutwe bw’umugore umaze kubyara akabisobanura. [42] Kuri iyi ngingo, uhagarariye Umuryango uharanira iterambere ry’ubuzima (Health Development Initiative, HDI) nk’inshuti y’Urukiko, avuga ko ibitekerezo byabo byibanda ku bijyanye no gusobanura uko abahanga mu buvuzi bavuze ku bibazo by’umwihariko abagore bahura nabyo bijyanye n’ubuzima bw’imyororokere (reproductive health/santé de la reproduction) nk’uko biteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda, ayandi mategeko akoreshwa imbere mu gihugu hamwe n’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yerekeye uburenganzira bwa muntu. [43] Ku birebana n’isano iri hagati y’abagore batwite, abamaze kubyara n’ubuzima bwo mu mutwe, avuga ko umuryango Mpuzamahanga wita ku Buzima (World Health Organization/Organisation Mondiale de la Santé) nk’uko wabigaragaje mu mibare, ku rwego rw’isi, hafi ya 13% by’abagore batwite bakunda guhura n’ikibazo cy’ihungabana (mental disorder), by’umwihariko kwiheba (depression), byagera mu bihugu bikiri mu nzira y’amajyambere, ari naho u Rwanda rubarizwa, umubare wabo ukazamuka ukagera ku kigero cya 19.8%. 56 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 87

LXXXIII

[44] Avuga kandi ko ubushakashatsi bwakozwe mu Mujyi wa Manchester, mu gihugu cy’Ubwongereza, bwagaragaje ko umubare w’abagore bajyanwa mu bitaro by’abarwayi bo mu mutwe kubera ihungabana nyuma yo kubyara (post–partum depression) uba wikubye inshuro umunani umubare w’abandi bagore baba bahuye n’ibindi bibazo byabateye kugira ihungabana. [45] Akomeza avuga ko Minisiteri y’ubuzima y’u Rwanda nayo yemera ko umugore wahuye n’ikibazo cy’ihungabana amaze kubyara ashobora kwiyahura cyangwa kwihekura. Minisiteri ikaba ivuga ko uwo mugore aba agomba kuvurwa ndetse agahabwa imiti (psychotherapy and medication). Ikindi cyagaragajwe ni uko ihungabana ryo mu mutwe riturutse ku gutwita ari umwihariko w’abagore. [46] Avuga ko ku byerekeye uburenganzira ku buzima muri rusange, ingingo ya 21 y’Itegeko Nshinga ry’u Rwanda iteganya ko abanyarwanda bose bafite uburenganzira bwo kugira ubuzima bwiza. Avuga ko abanyarwanda bose barebwa n’ubwo burenganzira kuko Itegeko Nshinga mu ngingo ya 16 (1) riteganya ko Abanyarwanda bose bavukana kandi bagakomeza kugira uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure bingana. [47] Avuga kandi ko mu rwego mpuzamahanga, ingingo ya 12(1) y’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yerekeye uburenganzira mu by’ubukungu, imibereho myiza n’umuco (International Covenant on Economic, social and Cultural Rights)11, hamwe n’ingingo ya 16(1) y’Amasezerano Nyafurika yerekeye Uburenganzira bwa muntu n’ubw’abaturage (African Charter on

11 U Rwanda rwemeje aya Masezerano n’Itegeko-teka nº 8/75 ryo ku wa 12/02/1975. 57 Re. KABASINGA

## Page 88

LXXXIV

Human and Peoples Rights)12 ziteganya ko buri muntu afite uburenganzira ku buzima. Aya masezerano akaba ateganya uburenganzira ku buzima mu buryo bukurikira mu rurimi rw’icyongereza: “Every individual shall have the right to enjoy the best attainable state of physical and mental health”. [48] Akomeza avuga ko ku byerekeye ubuzima, Umuryango Mpuzamahanga wita ku buzima wasobanuye ko ubuzima atari ukutagira uburwayi gusa ahubwo ko ari no kumva umerewe neza: Health is a state on complete physical, mental and social well- being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity”. Ibi bikaba bisobanuye ko ubuzima (health/santé) bureba n’ibyo twakwita aspect mental mu rurimi rw’igifaransa. Uburenganzira ku buzima ntabwo busobanuye kutarwara, ahubwo busobanura uburenganzira bwo kurindwa indwara no kuvurwa igihe umuntu yaba arwaye. [49] Avuga ko ku bijyanye n’uburenganzira bw’umugore ku buzima mu buryo bwihariye, ingingo ya 14 (2)(b) y’Amasezerano Nyafurika y’inyongera yerekeye uburenganzira bwa muntu n’ubw’abaturage, yerekeye uburenganzira bw’umugore muri Afurika13 (Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa) iteganya ko Ibihugu byashyize umukono ku masezerano bigomba gushyiraho uburyo bwo kwita ku buzima bw’abagore igihe bitegura kubyara, igihe babyaye, nyuma yo kubyara n’igihe

12 U Rwanda rwemeje aya masezerano n’iteka rya Perezida nº 10/1983 ryo ku wa 17/05/1985. 13 Amasezerano y’inyongera ku masezerano Nyafurika yerekeye uburenganzira bwa muntu n’ubwa abaturage yerekeye uburenganzira bw’umugore yashyiriweho umukono I Maputo ku wa 11 Nyakanga 2003, yemejwe burundu n’Iteka rya Perezida Nº 11/01 ryo ku wa 24/06/2004. 58 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 89

LXXXV

barimo konsa (States Parties shall establish and strengthen existing pre-natal, delivery and Post-natal health and nutritional services for women during pregnancy and while they are breast- feeding). [50] Avuga kandi ko ingingo ya 12(2) y’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yerekeye guca burundu ivangura iryo ariryo ryose rikorerwa abagore14 (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) nayo aribyo igarukaho (Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article, states parties shall ensure to women appropriate services in connection with pregnancy, confinement and the post-natal period, granting free services where necessary, as well as adequate nutrition during pregnancy and lactation). [51] Avuga nanone ko Komite y’impuguke ishinzwe kureba uko ibihugu byubahiriza Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yerekeye guca burundu ivangura iryo ari ryo ryose rikorerwa abagore (CEDAW Committee) yasesenguye ingingo ya 12 y’aya masezerano muri aya magambo: “States parties should include in their reports how they supply free services where necessary to ensure safe pregnancies, childbirth and post-partum periods for women. Many women are at risk of death or disability from pregnancy-related causes because they lack the funds to obtain or access the necessary services, which include antenatal, maternity and post-natal services.15 Mu yandi magambo, Komite yavuzwe haruguru isaba ibihugu byashyize umukono kuri aya

14 U Rwanda rwemeje aya masezerano n’Iteka rya Perezida Nº431/16 ryo ku wa 10 Ugushyingo 1980. 15 Office of the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women General recommendation Nº 24: Aricle 12 of the Convention (women and health). 59 Re. KABASINGA

## Page 90

LXXXVI

masezerano birimo n’u Rwanda, kujya bigaragaza muri raporo bishyikiriza iyo komite, amakuru kuri serivisi zitishyurwa zijyanye no kubungabunga, igihe cyose bibaye ngombwa, ubuzima bw’abagore igihe batwite, bamaze kubyara na nyuma yaho. [52] Mu gusesengura ingingo ya 108 y’Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018, avuga ko nk’uko babigaragaje haruguru, basanga iyi ngingo inyuranyije n’ibi bikurikira:  Uburenganzira bw’umugore ku buzima bw’imyororokere nk’uko biteganywa mu masezerano mpuzamahanga hamwe n’ayandi mategeko akoreshwa imbere mu gihugu;

 Ihame rituma umuntu aryozwa icyaha. [53] Ku byerekeranye n’uburenganzira bw’umugore ku buzima bw’imyororokere, avuga ko basanga kwemeza ko umugore wihekuye kubera ko ubwenge bwe budakora neza bitewe n’inkurikizi zituruka ku kubyara cyangwa guhembera byonyine biba bihagije kwerekana ko uburenganzira bw’uwo mugore ku buzima bwiza bwavukijwe, kuko bigaragara neza ko ubuzima bw’umugore buba butifashe neza igihe icyaha gikorwa. [54] Avuga kandi ko basanga ingingo ya 108 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru, inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 95 y’Itegeko Nshinga, aho iyo ngingo iteganya ko amasezerano mpuzamahanga yashyizweho umukono asumba amategeko asanzwe. Bityo ko kuba Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 ari itegeko risanzwe, riza inyuma y’amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yemejwe n’u Rwanda bagaragaje haruguru, aho berekanye icyo aya masezerano ateganya ku byerekeye 60 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 91

LXXXVII

uburenganzira bw’umugore ku buzima muri rusange, no ku buzima bw’imyororokere mu buryo bwihariye. [55] Avuga ko basesenguye ingingo ya 108 y’Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, basanga nanone inyuranyije n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 3, iya 12 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nº 21/05/2016 ryo ku wa 20/05/2016 ryerekeye ubuzima bw’imyororokere y’abantu, kuko izi ngingo ziramutse zubahirijwe umugore atakora icyaha cyo kwihekura adafite ikibazo cy’ihungabana. [56] Avuga ko mu byerekeye guhana umugore wihekuye abitewe n’uko yahuye n’ihungabana yatewe no kubyara, mu rubanza State v. White, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa Leta ya Idaho ibarizwa muri Leta Zunze Ubumwe z’Amerika rwarekuye Jane White wari ukurikiranyweho icyaha cyo kwihekura yari yatewe n’uko nawe yari yagize ikibazo cyo mu mutwe nk’ingaruka yo kubyara. [57] Akomeza avuga kandi ko umuntu ashobora kwibaza niba hari impamvu yatuma umugore ahanwa mu gihe bagaragaje ko amabwiriza ya Minisiteri y’ubuzima ubwayo ateganya ko umugore wahuye n’ikibazo cya postpartum psychosis aba akwiye gufashwa akavurwa, ndetse n’ingingo ya 85 (2) y’Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 iteganya ko nta buryozwacyaha bubaho iyo ushinjwa yari afite uburwayi bwo mu mutwe mu gihe yakoraga icyaha. [58] Akomeza avuga ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa Idaho muri Leta Zunze Ubumwe z’Amerika rwemeje ko guhamya icyaha umuntu ufite uburwayi bwo mu mutwe bidafasha kugera ku kiba kigamijwe n’amategeko ahana, ko bitanamufasha kugororoka, ko ahubwo icyo bitanga ari ugusubiza muri sosiyete umuntu ufite 61 Re. KABASINGA

## Page 92

LXXXVII

uburwayi bwo mu mutwe nyuma yo guta igihe afunze (the conviction of mentally ill persons does not serve the purpose of punishment in the criminal law, and it certainly does not serve the end of rehabilitation but rather may serve to release a mentally ill person to society after futile confinement). [59] Asoza avuga ko abahanga mu buvuzi bagaragaje ko “postpartum non-psychotic depression” ari kimwe mu bibazo abagore bakunda guhura nabyo bakanemeza ko ari ikibazo gikomeye kijyanye n’ubuzima rusange gikunda kwibasira abagore n’imiryango yabo. Umugore wahuye n’icyo kibazo cya postpartum non-psychotic depression aba akwiye gufashwa aho guhanirwa icyaha cyo kwihekura. [60] Uhagarariye umuryango Women’s Link Worldwide (WLW) nk’indi nshuti y’urukiko, avuga ko bamaze gusuzuma muri make imiterere y’icyaha cyo kwihekura mu Rwanda, n’impungenge zavuzwe ku bijyanye no gukoresha nabi icyaha cyo kwihekura ku bagore n’abakobwa bashaka serivisi zo gukuramo inda, cyangwa bahuye n’ibibazo bikomeye byo kubyara, bifuza ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwakwita ku bibazo bine bikurikira bijyanye no guhana icyaha cyo kwihekura:

Gukoresha nabi amategeko ahana kwihekura, aho abagore bahanwa kubera ko badashobora kubona serivisi zihagije z’ubuzima bw’imyororokere, ni ihohoterwa ry’uburenganzira bw’umugore ku mibereho, ubuzima ndetse n’ubuzima bwite, kandi rikagira ingaruka ku bagore n’abakobwa basanzwe barashyizwe mu kato, cyane cyane abagore b’abakene n’abagore bo mu cyaro; 62 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 93

LXXXIX

Gukoresha nabi icyaha cyo kwihekura ku bagore n’abakobwa bakuyemo inda cyangwa bahuye n’ibibazo bikomeye byo kubyara, ni ukubangamira uburenganzira bw’umugore ku gucirirwa imanza zitabogamye;

Gukoresha nabi icyaha cyo kwihekura ku bagore n’abakobwa bakuyemo inda cyangwa bahuye n’ibibazo bikomeye byo kubyara bigize igihano kirimo ubugome kandi kidasanzwe. [61] Basobanura ko mu bihugu byinshi icyaha cyo kwihekura gifatwa nk’icyaha gito ugeranyinyije n’ubundi bwoko bw’ubwicanyi, ko impamvu ari uko harebwa impamvu ziba zatumye icyo cyaha gikorwa. Aha bavuga nk’imibereho y’uregwa, kuba yarateshejwe agaciro igihe yari atwite ndetse no gutinya ababyeyi, ihungabana ryo mu mutwe yatewe no gutwita, kuba nta bimenyetso bidashidikanywaho ko yagambiriye gukora icyaha. [62] Mu kwanzura, umuryango Women’s Link Worldwide (WLW), uvuga ko gushinja icyaha abagore n’abakobwa bafite ibibazo bikomeye byo kubyara cyangwa gukuramo inda mu buryo budatekanye, ari ukurenga bikomeye ku burenganzira bw’abagore bwo kugira imibereho n’ubuzima birengerwa n’amategeko mpuzamahanga nk’uburenganzira bw’ikiremwamuntu. Bavuga ko kuba abagore bakennye n’abagore bo mu cyaro badakunze kubona uburyo buhagije bwo kuboneza urubyaro na serivisi z’imyororokere, bashobora guhura n’ibibazo bikomeye byo kubyara cyangwa bagahatirwa 63 Re. KABASINGA

## Page 94

XC

gukuramo inda rwihishwa bikaba byabaviramo ibyago byo gushinjwa icyaha cyo kwihekura. [63] Mu gusoza, uyu muryango wibajije niba mu gushyira icyaha cyo kwihekura mu gitabo cy’amategeko ahana, intego yari iyo kugabanya umubare w’abakora iki cyaha, ko bibaye ari byo, umuti mwiza w’iki kibazo waba guharanira ko abagore bagira umutekano bakanabona serivisi z’imyororokere, harimo gukuramo inda no kwitabwaho nyuma yo gukuramo inda, kwigishwa iby’imibonano mpuzabitsina no kwirinda gusama. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [64] Ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavugururwe mu 2015, igaragaza bimwe mu bigize uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye. Nk’uko bigaragazwa n’imyandikire y’iyo ngingo, ntabwo ibigize uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye byarondowe byose. Hakoreshejwe ijambo burimo, mu cyongereza “includes”. Ibi bivuze ko uretse ibivugwa muri iyo ngingo ya 29, hari n’ibindi bigize uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye. [65] Nk’uko uru rukiko rwabigaragaje mu rubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC rwaciwe ku itariki ya 04/12/2019, ubutabera buboneye busobanurwa mu buryo butandukanye, hari ubutabera buboneye bushingiye ku iyubahirizwa ry’imihango ya ngombwa16. Ni ukuvuga uruhererekane rw’ibigomba kubahirizwa hashingiwe ku mahame

16 Procedural due process: a course of formal proceedings (such as legal proceedings) carried out regularly and in accordance with established rules and principles. RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC rwaciwe ku itariki ya 04/12/2019, Para. 13. 64 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 95

XCI

ateganywa n’amategeko. Hari n’Ubutabera buboneye bushingiye ku biteganywa n’itegeko17. Ubu bwo bubuza ishyirwaho ry’amategeko cyangwa izindi ngamba zidashyira mu gaciro zibangamira uburenganzira bw’abaturage. Ibi ni nabyo bijyanye n’ikibazo Urukiko rwashyikirijwe muri uru rubanza. [66] Hashingiwe kuri ibi bisobanuro, hararebwa niba ibiteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 108 y’Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, byafatwa nko kuvutsa umugore uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye. Uwatanze ikirego we asobanura ko ibikubiye muri iyo ngingo bibangamiye amahame ajyanye n’ubutabera buboneye kuko ihana umugore wishe umwana we nta bushake bwo gukora icyaha afite. [67] Urukiko rwemeranya n’uwatanze ikirego ko kugira ngo icyaha cyo kwica umwana wibyariye kibeho, kimwe n’ibindi byaha, kigomba kuba cyujuje ibintu bitatu bya ngombwa: kuba igikorwa cyabaye (élément matériel), kuba itegeko rigiteganya nk’icyaha (élément légal), no kuba uwagikoze yari afite ubushake (élément moral). [68] Bimwe mu biteganywa n’ingingo ya 108 y’Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, ni uko umugore wese, abishaka cyangwa biturutse ku kudakora ikigomba gukorwa, wica umwana yabyaye utarengeje amezi cumi n’abiri (12) ariko mu gihe cyo gukora icyaha

17 Substantive due process: protection against enactement of arbitrary and unreasonable legislation or other measures that would violate peoples’ rights. Idem.

65 Re. KABASINGA

## Page 96

XCII

ubwenge bwe bukaba budakora neza bitewe n’inkurikizi zituruka ku kubyara cyangwa guhembera k’umubyeyi aba akoze icyaha. [69] Mu gusubiza ikibazo Urukiko rwashyikirijwe kijyanye no kumenya niba iyi ngingo ihana umugore wishe umwana we nta bushake bwo gukora icyaha, ni ngombwa kubanza kureba ibigize icyaha cyo kwica umwana wibyariye n’aho gitandukanira n’icyaha cy’ubwicanyi (murder) giteganywa n’ingingo ya 107 ndetse n’icy’ubwicanyi budaturutse ku bushake (manslaughter) giteganywa n’ingingo ya 111, zombi z’Itegeko Nº 68/2018 rimaze kuvugwa. [70] Icyaha cy’ubwicanyi gishobora gukorwa n’umuntu wese harimo n’umugore kandi kigakorerwa uwo ariwe wese harimo n’umwana wibyariye. Ni kimwe n’icyaha cy’ubwicanyi bidaturutse ku bushake bitewe n’amakosa cyangwa urubangare, ariko nta mugambi wo kwica wari uhari. Ibigize icyaha cy’ubwicanyi (les éléments constitutifs), ni umuntu wica undi (actus reus), kandi uwamwishe akaba yari yagambiriye kubikora (mens rea). Mu bigize icyaha cyo kwica utabigambiriye, nabyo harimo kwica umuntu, ariko muri uko kumwica hakaba harimo uburangare (actus reus), buturuka ku myitwarire yashoboraga kwirindwa icyaha ntikibe (mens rea). [71] Ku birebana n’icyaha cyo kwica uwo wibyariye, abahanga basesenguye ibigize icyo cyaha bahereye ku mategeko agihana mu bihugu byabo, bagaragaza ko kugira ngo kibeho hagomba kubaho ubushake bwo kwica cyangwa ubushake bwo kudakora icyagombaga gukorwa bigatera urupfu. Mu nyandiko yise Deconstructing infanticide, Eric Vallillee yasobanuye ibigize icyaha cyo kwica uwo wibyariye giteganywa mu ngingo ya 233 y’amategeko ahana ya Canada, agaragaza ko actus reus (élément matériel) y’icyo cyaha isaba ko igikorwa cyangwa 66 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 97

XCIII

kudakora icyagombaga gukorwa biba byateje urupfu rw’umwana, naho mens rea (élément moral) igasaba ko igikorwa cyangwa ikitakozwe kandi cyagombaga gukorwa biba byaturutse ku bushake bw’ukora icyaha. Abivuga muri aya magambo: The actus reus of the offence requires that an act or omission causes the death of the infant, while the mens rea requires that this act or omission be intentional.18 [72] Uwitwa Winifred H. Holland19, nawe yasobanuye ibigize icyaha cyo kwica uwo wibyariye ahereye ku isesengura ryakozwe n’inkiko, agaragaza ko hagomba kubaho ubushake bwo gukora cyangwa ubushake bwo kudakora icyagombaga gukorwa, hagamijwe kugira nabi. Abivuga muri aya magambo: What is the mens rea of the the offence? While it is clear that the act or omission must be “willful”, it is not clear whether the death must be caused willfully….According to Smith20 the act must be done with a bad motive or purpose, or with intent.21 [73] Ingingo ya 108 y’Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru, ifite igice cya mbere kigira kiti “umugore wese, abishaka cyangwa biturutse ku kudakora ikigomba gukorwa, wica umwana yabyaye utarengeje amezi cumi n’abiri (12) …”. Mu itegeko ryo muri Canada bavuga ngo “A female person commits infanticide when by a wilful act or omission she causes the death of her newlyborn child….”, naho

18 Eric Vallillee, “Disconstructing infanticide”, (2015)5:4 online: Uwojleg Stud/ https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/uwojls/vol5/iss4/1 19 Professor, faculty of law, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada 20 R v. Smith (1976) 32 C.C.C.(2d)224(Nfdl Dist Ct), cited by Winifred H. Holland 21 Winifred H. Holland, Murder and related Issues: An Analysis of the law in Canada, Report for the Law Commission, July 27th, 2005, p. 26. 67 Re. KABASINGA

## Page 98

XCIV

mu itegeko ryo muri UK bakavuga ngo “Where a woman by any wilful act or omission causes the death of her child, being a child under the age of twelve months…”. [74] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, birumvikana ko kugira ngo icyaha cyo kwica uwo wibyariye kibeho, hagomba kuba habayeho ubushake, ni ukuvuga ubushake bwo gukora igikorwa gitera urupfu rw’umwana cyangwa ubushake bwo kudakora icyagombaga gukorwa bigatuma umwana apfa. Ikibazo kigaragara mu ngingo ya 108 y’Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, ni ikibazo cy’imyandikire yayo itagaragaza neza ubushake bwo kudakora icyagombaga gukorwa, ikanasobanura mu buryo buteye urujijo icyiswe mu rurimi rw’icyongereza n’igifaransa postpartum depression/état de dépression postpartum. [75] Inkiko zasobanuye ko kimwe mu bigize actus reus (élément materiel) y’icyaha cyo kwica uwo wibyariye, kikanatandukanya icyo cyaha n’icy’ubwicanyi, ari uko kigomba kuba cyakozwe n’umubyeyi w’umugore wica umwana we ukivuka abitewe n’ihungabana rikomoka ku kuba akimara kubyara. Mu rubanza rwa Her Majesty the Queen v. Meredith Katharine Borowiec, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa Canada rwabivuze muri aya magambo: Infanticide convictions are rare, distinguishable from murder and manslaughter by their unique actus reus: causing the death of her newly-born child while the mother is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth or lactation and by reason thereof her mind is then disturbed22. Uko guhungabana gukomotse ku kubyara nibyo postpartum

22 S.C.C. No.: 36585, Her Majesty the Queen and Meredith Katharine Borowiec, para. 2. 68 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 99

XCV

depression/état de dépression postpartum bivugwa mu ngingo ya 108 yavuzwe haruguru mu rurimi rw’icyongereza n’igifaransa, bikaba bitandukanye no kuba ubwenge budakora neza bivugwa mu rurimi rw’ikinyarwanda. Kuba ubwenge budakora neza byafatwa ahubwo nka postpartum psychosis. [76] Nk’uko bisobanurwa n’abahanga, umugore ukimara kubyara cyangwa se wonsa, ashobora kugira ingaruka z’ubwoko bubiri zikurikira:

Ashobora guta ubwenge (postpartum psychosis), bityo ntamenye kuba yatandukanya ikibi n’icyiza. Muri icyo gihe, ibikorwa binyuranyije n’amategeko yakora harimo no kwica uwo yibyariye, ntiyabihanirwa kubera ko ubwenge bwe buba budakora neza. Ashobora kugira ihungabana (postpartum depression), ariko bitavuze ko muri icyo gihe nta bwenge aba afite. Aba ashobora gutandukanya ikibi n’icyiza, bityo igikorwa kinyuranyije n’amategeko yakora akaba yagikurikiranwaho, ariko kubera ibihe aba arimo, mu kumuhana bikitabwaho. [77] Uwitwa Michele Connell mu nyandiko ye yise: The Postpartum Psychosis Defense and Feminism: More or Less Justice for Women, asobanura ko itandukaniro riri hagati ya postpartum psychosis na postpartum depression ari uko umugore umaze kubyara akagira postpartum psychosis ata ubwenge akamera nk’umusazi ku buryo agira uko afatwa mu rwego rw’amategeko, mu gihe ufite postpartum depression we adata ubwenge ku buryo yananirwa gutandukanya ikibi n’ikiza, uwo we mu rwego rw’amategeko akaba nta mwihariko agira.Yabivuze atya mu magambo y’icyongereza: This distinction is crucial to understanding why postpartum psychosis 69 Re. KABASINGA

## Page 100

XCVI

can be singled out for different legal treatment while the other two illnesses cannot. Based on current medical research, postpartum psychosis is the only condition that should qualify for special legal treatment. "Baby blues" and postpartum depression, while medically recognized, would not meet the threshold of legal insanity in the majority of cases because they typically do not impair a mother's ability to tell right from wrong. It is also important to emphasize, as a rebuttal to those concerned with an overly broad insanity standard, that postpartum psychosis is a narrowly defined medical category that includes relatively few women23. [78] Ibimaze kuvugwa byagarutsweho mu rubanza Her Majesty the Queen v. L.B aho Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwa Ontario rwatanze igisobanuro cyo kwica uwo wibyariye (Infanticide). Rwavuze ko icyaha cyo kwica uwo wibyariye kigizwe n’ibintu bibiri. Icya mbere ni isano iri hagati y’uregwa n’umwana wishwe, icya kabiri ni uko ubwenge bw’uregwa ugomba kuba bari nyina wa nyakwigendera buba bwahungabanye kubera ingaruka zo kubyara cyangwa konsa. Bitandukanye n’irindi hungabana rishobora koroshya uburyozwacyaha, ku birebana n’icyaha cyo kwica uwo wibyariye si ngombwa ko habaho isano hagati y’iryo hungabana n’igikorwa cyateye urupfu rw’umwana, kubera ko iryo hungabana ntaho rihuriye n’icyemezo cyo kwica. Iryo hungabana rifatwa nk’igice cya actus reus aho kuba mu bigize mens rea24.

23 Michele Connell, The Postpartum Psychosis Defense and Feminism: More or Less Justice for Women. Case Western Reserve Law Review. Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol53/iss1/5 24 The definition of Infanticide focuses on two things. First, it requires a mother-child relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. Second, the mental state of the perpetrator/mother must be disturbed and that disturbance must be connected to the effects of giving birth or lactation. Unlike other 70 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 101

XCVII

[79] Tugarutse kuri uru rubanza, urega avuga ko ingingo ya 108 y’Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, idatanga ubutabera buboneye, ashaka kumvikanisha ko ihana n’umuntu udafite ubwenge, udashobora gutandukanya ikibi n’icyiza. Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa haruguru, umugore uvugwa muri iyo ngingo si wa wundi ufite ikibazo cya postpartum psychosis, kuko uyu nk’uko twabibonye adashobora gutandukanya ikibi n’icyiza, bityo akaba atahanirwa ibikorwa bibi yakoze, ahubwo ni wawundi ufite ikibazo cya postpartum depression uba yahungabanye gusa. Uyu rero, kubera ko ashobora gutandukanya ikibi n’icyiza, iyo akoze ibinyuranyije n’amategeko harimo no kwica uwo yibyariye, arabihanirwa. [80] Uwatanze ikirego, avuga ko iyi ngingo idatanga ubutabera buboneye, mu gice cyayo kivuga ngo “…ariko mu gihe cyo gukora icyaha ubwenge bwe bukaba budakora neza bitewe n’inkurikizi zituruka ku kubyara cyangwa guhembera k’umubyeyi…”. Mu cyongereza ni “…but during the commission of the offense she was in postpartum depression or by effect of lactation commits an offense”. Akavuga rero ko niba

mental states that may mitigate criminal responsability, infanticide does not require any causal connection between the disturbance of the mother's mind and the decision to do the thing that caused her child's death: R. v. Guimont (1999), 141 C.C.C (3d) 314 (Q.C.A), at p. 317, E. Cunlife, “infanticide: Legislative History and Current Questions” (2009) 55 Crim. L.Q. 94, at pp. 112-113; I; Grant, D. Chunn & C. Boyle, The Law of Homicide, loose-leaf (Scarborrough: Carswell, 1995), at p. 4-91. Because the mother's "mental disturbance" is not connected to the decision to kill, that "disturbance" is better considered as part of the actus reus and not a mens rea component of the crime of infanticideDocket: C49467-C49468, Date: 20110302, Court of Appeal for Ontario, Doharty, Moldaver and Cronk JJ.A. Between Her Majesty and L.B, Para. 59. 71 Re. KABASINGA

## Page 102

XCVIII

umuntu ubwenge bwe budakora neza, nta n’ubushake bwo gukora icyaha yagira. Nk’uko twabibonye haruguru, iyi ngingo no mu bindi bihugu irahaba. Urugero rwatanzwe n’urwa Canada n’Ubwongereza. Ingingo ya 233 y’Itegeko rihana ryo muri Canada, ku birebana n’uko umugore agomba kuba ameze mu gihe cyo gukora icyaha cyo kwica uwo yibyariye, ivuga ngo “… if at the time of the act or omission she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason thereof or of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child her mind is then disturbed”. [81] Mu ngingo ya 160 (1) y’itegeko rihana ry’Ubwongereza (UK), bavuga ngo “…but at the time of the act or omission the balance of her mind was disturbed by reason of her not having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to the child or by reason of the effect of lactation consequent upon the birth of the child. Muri aya mategeko uko ari atatu, uretse kuba harakoreshejwe amagambo atandukanye, igitekerezo gikubiyemo ni kimwe cy’uko mu gihe umugore yica umwana we aba afite ihungabana rituruka ku kubyara cyangwa konsa. Iki gice cy’ingingo kimaze kugaragazwa, ni cyo uwatanze ikirego aboneramo ko ibigize icyaha bituzuye, ko kuba ubwenge budakora neza, nta bushake bushoboka (mens rea), ko rero nta no guhanwa biba bikwiye kubaho. [82] Mu gusesengura ibigize icyaha cyo kwica uwo wibyariye (infanticide) hagamijwe kureba ibigize icyo cyaha (éléments constitutifs), ariko cyane cyane kumenya icyo amagambo her mind is then disturbed ashatse kuvuga, mu rubanza rwa Her Majesty the Queen (wajuriye) v. Meredith Katharine Borowiec (uregwa), Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa Canada rwasobanuye ko umushingamategeko akoresha aya magambo atashakaga kuvuga 72 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 103

XCIX

umuntu wataye ubwenge udashobora gutandukanya ikibi n’icyiza urebwa n’ingingo ya 1625, ahubwo yavugaga ko umugore agomba kuba yahungabanyijwe n’ingaruka zo kubyara no konsa, uko guhungabana kukaba ari ko kugize igikorwa cyo kwica uwo wibyariye (actus reus), aho kuba umugambi wo kwica (mens rea). Urukiko rwabivuze muri aya magambo mu rurimi rw’icyongereza. “The question of the meaning of the phrase “her mind is then disturbed” is one of statutory interpretation. The grammatical and ordinary sense of the words, their place within the Criminal Code, the provision’s legislative history and evolution, and the jurisprudence interpreting the phrase “her mind is then disturbed” do not support the conclusion that Parliament intended to restrict the concept of a disturbed mind to those who have “a substantial psychological problem”. Rather, the phrase “mind is then disturbed” should be applied as follows: (a) the word “disturbed” is not a legal or medical term of art, but should be applied in its grammatical and ordinary sense; (b) in the context of whether a mind is disturbed, the term can mean “mentally agitated”, “mentally unstable” or “mental discomposure”; (c) the disturbance need not constitute a defined mental or psychological condition or a mental illness. It need not constitute a mental disorder under s. 16 of the Criminal Code or amount to a significant impairment of the accused’s reasoning faculties; (d) the disturbance must be present at the time of the act or omission causing the “newly-born” child’s death and the act or omission must occur at a time when the accused is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth or of lactation; (e) there

25 Article 16 (1) of Criminal code states: No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong. 73 Re. KABASINGA

## Page 104

C

is no requirement to prove that the act or omission was caused by the disturbance. The disturbance is part of the actus reus of infanticide, not the mens rea; (f) the disturbance must be “by reason of” the fact that the accused was not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth or from the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child”26. [83] Urwo Rukiko rukomeza ruvuga ko umuntu uregwa icyaha cyo kwica uwo yibyariye atakwireguza ko ubwenge bwe budakora neza kubera ko aba atataye ubwenge ku buryo atashobora kumenya ko ibyo ari gukora ari ibintu bibi. Rwabivuze muri aya magambo y’icyongereza: The concept of a “disturbed” mind is unique to infanticide and does not appear elsewhere in the Criminal Code. Conceptually, a “disturbed” mind must be different from a “mental disorder”, a term used in s. 16 of the Criminal Code, and, when proved on a balance of probabilities, can lead to a verdict of not criminally responsible. It must also be different from non-insane automatism, which makes the act committed by the accused involuntary: R. v. Parks, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 871, at p. 896. [84] Nanone mu rwego rwo kumenya niba mu gihe umugore yica umwana yibyariye ubwenge bwe buba bwahungabanye (the accused’s mind was disturbed) bimukuraho icyaha, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa Canada mu rubanza Her Majesty The Queen v. Meredith Katharine Borowiec, rwasobanuye ko ubwo hakemurwaga ikibazo nk’iki mu mwaka wa 1976, umucamanza yemeje ko ubushake bwo kwica uwo wibyariye bugaragarira mu bushake bwo gukora igikorwa kinyuranyije n’amategeko, bikerekanwa n’umugambi wo gukora nabi. Ko kuba ubwenge bw’uregwa bwari bwahungabanye igihe yicaga umwana we

26 2016 SCC 11, File No 36585, 2016: January 20; 2016: March 24. 74 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 105

CI

bikaba ntacyo bihindura ku bushake bwe. Urukiko rwabivuze muri aya magambo mu rurimi rw’icyongereza, “An early case relative to this issue is the 1976 trial decision of R v Smith. The judge determined that the mens rea of infanticide is a willful unlawful act consisting of intentional wrongdoing. The finding that the accused’s mind was disturbed when she caused the death of her newborn baby in that case did not alter the mens rea”. 27 [85] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro byose byatanzwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga, ibikorwa umugore ahanirwa bivugwa mu ngingo ya 108 y’Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, ari ibikorwa yakoze abishaka cyangwa akanga gukora ikigomba gukorwa nabwo abishaka, agamije kwica umwana yibyariye, ariko ibyo akabikora abitewe n’ihungabana rituruka kuri uko kubyara cyangwa se konsa. Nk’uko byasobanuwe, uko guhungabana kukaba gutandukanye no guta ubwenge gushobora gutuma umuntu adashobora kumenya ibyo yakoze. Kubera iyo mpamvu, iyo ngingo ikaba ntaho ibangamiye ubutabera buboneye buteganywa n’ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo muri 2003 ryavugururwe muri 2015. [86] Urukiko rurasanga ariko, nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, uburyo ingingo ya 108 imaze kuvugwa yanditse mu kinyarwanda, ishobora gutera urujijo ikaba yakumvikanisha ko umugore uyivugwamo aba yataye ubwenge ku buryo atatandukanya ikibi n’icyiza kandi atari ko igomba kumvikana, rukaba rugira inama inzego zibishinzwe kuyandika neza ku buryo byumvikana neza ko umugore uvugwa muri iyi ngingo ari ufite

27 Idem, para. 49.

75 Re. KABASINGA

## Page 106

CII

ihungabana yatewe no kubyara cyangwa se konsa, ko ariko aba atataye ubwenge ku buryo atahanirwa ibikorwa binyuranyije n’amategeko yakora. [87] Ku birebana n’ubushake buvugwa muri iyo ngingo, Urukiko nanone rurasanga yakwandikwa neza ku buryo ubwo bushake bugaragarira ku mugore ugira icyo akora akica umwana (a wilful act), bunagaragarira ku mugore wanga kugira icyo akora agamije kwica umwana yabyaye (a wilful omission). Uburyo yanditse, ubwo bushake bugaragarira k’ugira icyo akora akica umwana, naho udakora ikigomba gukorwa bikaba byakumvikana nk’aho nta mugambi mubi aba afite akaba yahanirwa kwica umwana biturutse ku burangare (manslaughter) kandi atariko bimeze. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [88] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Kabasinga Florida nta shingiro gifite. [89] Rwemeje ko ingingo ya 108 y’Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, ntaho inyuranyije n’ingingo za 15 na 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga ryo muri 2003 ryavuguruwe muri 2015. [90] Rwemeje kandi ko iyo ngingo itanyuranyije n’ingingo 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga ryo muri 2003 ryavuguruwe muri 2015, ko ahubwo ikeneye gukosorwa mu buryo bw’imyandikire.

76 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 107

77 CIII

Re. NDAYISABYE [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2020/SC (Ntezilyayo, P.J., Cyanzayire, Muhumuza, Rukundakuvuga, Mukamulisa, J.) 30 Ukwakira 2020] Amategeko agenga imisoro – Isobanura ry’amategeko y’imisoro mbere y’isoreshwa – Icyemezo gifatwa mbere y’isoreshwa – Ni icyemezo cy’ubutegetsi kigomba kubahirizwa n’Ubuyobozi bw’imisoro bwagifashe kigashyirwa mu bikorwa n’umusoreshwa hakurikijwe ihame rya “Good faith” – Umusoreshwa ashobora gusaba ko gikurwaho mu buryo busanzwe bw’ibyemezo by’ubutegetsi cyangwa kuregera urukiko rubifitiye ububasha mu gihe atemeranya n’umurongo wafashwe. Itegeko Nshinga – Gudatandukanya abantu – Nubwo abantu bagomba kureshya imbere y’amategeko, kuba Komiseri Mukuru w’Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro itegeko rimuha ububasha bwo gufata ibyemezo bisobanura amategeko y’imisoro, atari ukumushyira hejuru y’abasoreshwa kuko bombi batari mu cyiciro kimwe n’inshingano zabo imbere y’amategeko zikaba zidahuye. Incamake y’ikibazo: Ndayisabye yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga asaba kwemeza ko ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko N° 026/2019 ryo ku wa 18/09/2019 rigena uburyo bw’isoresha inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo ku wa 04 Kamena 2003 ryavuguruwe mu wa 2015, mu ngingo zaryo za 15 na 96, kuko yahaye ububasha Komiseri Mukuru w’Ikigo cy’Igihugu gishinzwe imisoro n’amahoro (RRA) bwo gusobanurira abasoreshwa amategeko y’umusoro. Asobanura ko ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko N° 026/2019 ryo ku wa 18/09/2019 77

## Page 108

CIV

ryavuzwe inyuranye n’ihame riteganyijwe n’Itegeko Nshinga mu ngingo yaryo ya 15 ry’uko abantu bose bareshya imbere y’amategeko kandi abarengera ku buryo bungana kuko Komiseri Mukuru adashyirwa mu rwego rumwe n’abasoreshwa kubera ko we afite ububasha bwo gusobanura amategeko, kandi ibyo asobanuye nta musoreshwa wabirengaho ahubwo bifatwa nk’itegeko. Avuga kandi ko asanga ubwo bubasha Komiseri yahawe ari isobanurampamo ry’amategeko riteganywa mu ngingo ya 96 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’U Rwanda, kandi atariwe iyi ngingo yahaye ubwo bubasha. Ibyo akabishingira ku bintu bitatu aribyo: uburyo ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko N° 026/2019 ryavuzwe yanditse mu rurimi rw’ikinyarwanda; ibyanditse mu kinyarwanda bikaba bitandukanye n’ibiri mu zindi ndimi, aribyo “advance tax ruling/décision anticipée” no kuba icyemezo gifatwa na Komiseri Mukuru ari ndakuka, kidashobora gusubirwaho. Uhagarariye Intumwa Nkuru ya Leta y’u Rwanda avuga ko ikirego cya Ndayisabye nta shingiro gifite, ko ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko N° 026/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru nta na hamwe inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 96 y’Itegeko Nshinga, ahubwo ko urega yitiranyije ububasha bwa Komiseri Mukuru bwo gusobanura itegeko “advance tax ruling” n’ububasha bwo gutanga isobanurampamo ry’amategeko bufitwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. Akomeza avuga ko ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko N° 026/2019 ryo ku wa 18/09/2019 rigena uburyo bw’isoresha itanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga kubera ko mu nshingano za buri munsi z’ikigo cy’Imisoro n’amahoro harimo kwigisha no gukangurira abaturage igikorwa cyo gutanga umusoro n’amahoro. Mu kuzuza iyo nshingano akaba ariho hazamo ko Komiseri Mukuru akoresha inyandiko ziteganywa mu ngingo ya 78 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 109

CV

9 y’iryo tegeko, asobanurira abasoreshwa amategeko y’imisoro. Asobanura ko kubera izo nshingano Komiseri Mukuru afite zo gufata ibyo byemezo, bituma adashobora kureshya n’undi musoreshwa, ariko ko mu gihe umusoreshwa atishimiye icyemezo gisobanura itegeko runaka ryerekeye imisoro, ashobora kubiregera mu nkiko zibifitiye ububasha nk’ibindi byemezo byose byo mu rwego rw’ubutegetsi bikaba byakurwaho mu gihe byaba byafashwe hadakurikijwe amategeko. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Icyemezo gifatwa mbere y’isoreshwa n’Ubuyobozi bw’imisoro ni icyemezo cy’ubutegetsi kigomba kubahirizwa n’ubwo buyobozi bwagifashe kigashyirwa mu bikorwa n’umusoreshwa hakurikijwe ihame rya “Good faith”. Umusoreshwa ashobora gusaba ko gikurwaho mu buryo busanzwe bw’ibyemezo by’ubutegetsi cyangwa kuregera urukiko rubifitiye ububasha mu gihe atemeranya n’umurongo wafashwe. 2. Kuba Komiseri Mukuru w’Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro itegeko rimuha ububasha bwo gufata ibyemezo bisobanura amategeko y’imisoro, atari ukumushyira hejuru y’abasoreshwa kuko bombi batari mu cyiciro kimwe n’inshingano zabo imbere y’amategeko zikaba zidahuye. Ikirego nta shingiro gifite. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015, ingingo ya 15, 29 n’iya 96. Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga ku burenganzira Mbonezamubano n’ubwa Politiki (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966), ingingo ya 26. 79 Re. NDAYISABYE

## Page 110

CVI

Itangazo ry’Umuryango w’Abibumbye ku burenganzira bwa muntu, (Universal Declaration of Human Rights), ryo mu mwaka wa 1948, ingingo ya 7. Itegeko N° 026/2019 ryo ku wa 18/09/2019 rigena uburyo bw’isoresha, ingingo ya 9, 52 n’iya 53. Itegeko N° 37/2012 ryo ku wa 09/11/2002 rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro, ingingo ya 30. Itegeko N° 08/2009 ryo ku wa 27/04/2009 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’inshingano by’Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro (RRA), ingingo ya 3. Itegeko N° 25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha, ingingo ya 27. Imanza zifashishijwe: RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2019/SC; Re. Murangwa rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 29/11/2019. RS/SPEC/00001/2017/SC Re Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 28/04/2017. RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS; Re Akagera Business Group rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 23/09/2016. Delhi-v, Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal Nos. 5105-5107 of 2009, Judgment rendered on 11 September 2020, Postscript 1, paragraph 11. Inyandiko z’Abahanga zifashishijwe: G. Michiels, Normae Generales Juris Canonici (Tournai: Desclée, 1949), vol. I, p. 483. Cited by Msgr. John F. McCarthy, (in) The canonical meaning of the recent authentic interpretation of canon 230.2 regarding female altar servers, Organ of the Roman Theological Forum, January 1995. 80 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 111

CVII

Waerzeggers, C., & Waerzeggers, C. (2016). Introducing an Advance Tax Ruling (ATR) Regime (No. 16/2). Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund, p.1. Alia, D. U. T. A. (2009). The harmonization of advance tax rulings systems in European Union member states Why? Finante-provocarile viitorului (Finance-Challenges of the Future), 1(9), 122, 248-250, P.248, 249. Carlo Romano, Advance Tax Rulings and Principles: Towards a European Tax Rulings, IBFD, 2020, pge 44, 77. John M. Huels, Classifying Authentic Interpretations of Canon Laws, The Jurist 72 (2012). Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’IKIBAZO [1] Me Ndayisabye Alexis yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga arusaba kwemeza ko ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko N° 026/2019 ryo ku wa 18/09/2019 rigena uburyo bw’isoresha inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo ku wa 04 Kamena 2003 ryavuguruwe mu wa 2015, mu ngingo zaryo za 15 na 96, kuko yahaye ububasha Komiseri Mukuru w’Ikigo cy’Igihugu gishinzwe imisoro n’amahoro (RRA) bwo gusobanurira abasoreshwa amategeko y’umusoro. Avuga ko iyo usesenguye ubwo bubasha bwahawe Komiseri Mukuru usanga bunyuranyije n’ibiteganywa mu Itegeko Nshinga ku bubasha bwo gutanga isobanurompamo ku mategeko, kubera ko bwahariwe gusa Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, bisabwe na Guverinoma cyangwa Urugaga rw’abavoka. 81 Re. NDAYISABYE

## Page 112

CVIII

[2] Me Ndayisabye Alexis avuga ko kandi nk’umunyamategeko, asanga iyo ngingo ibangamye cyane ku bijyanye n’ihame riteganyijwe n’Itegeko Nshinga ry’uko abantu bose bareshya imbere y’amategeko kandi akaba abarengera ku buryo bungana. Agaragaza ko mu bijyanye n’umusoro, Komiseri Mukuru ibyo akora byose abikora mu nyungu z’Ikigo cy’imisoro n’amahoro ahagarariye, ko n’iyo asobanura itegeko abikora mu nyungu zacyo, akaba adashobora kurisobanura mu buryo bunogeye abasoreshwa. Asobanura ko kuba ibyo Komiseri Mukuru asobanuye nta musoreshwa wabirengaho ahubwo bifatwa nk’itegeko, asanga Itegeko ritarengera kimwe abasoreshwa n’Ikigo cy’imisoro n’amahoro gihagarariwe na Komiseri Mukuru. [3] Me Ndayisabye Alexis avuga ko mu gusuzuma ikirego cye, Urukiko rwashingira ku bisobanuro bitangwa mu ngingo ya 9 y’Itegeko rigena uburyo bw’isoresha mu rurimi rw’ikinyarwanda, kuko iyo ngingo iha Komiseri Mukuru ububasha bwo gusobanura amategeko mu gihe iyo bisobanuwe mu rurimi rw’icyongereza iyo ngingo yumvikanisha ububasha bwa Komiseri Mukuru bwo gushyiraho “tax ruling” kandi ibi bikaba ntaho bihuriye no gusobanura amategeko. [4] Me Kabibi Spécisoe, uhagarariye Intumwa Nkuru ya Leta y’u Rwanda mu rubanza avuga ko ikirego cya Ndayisabye Alexis nta shingiro gifite, ko ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko N° 026/2019 ryo ku wa 18/09/2019 rigena uburyo bw’isoresha itanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga1 kubera ko mu nshingano za buri munsi z’ikigo cy’Imisoro n’amahoro harimo kwigisha no gukangurira abaturage igikorwa cyo gutanga umusoro

1 Iyo ngingo ivuga ku ihame ry’uko abantu bose bareshya imbere y’amategeko, kandi itegeko rikaba ribarengera kimwe. 82 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 113

CIX

n’amahoro. Uhagarariye Leta y’U Rwanda akomeza avuga ko mu kuzuza iyo nshingano ariho hazamo ko Komiseri Mukuru akoresha inyandiko ziteganywa mu ngingo ya 9 y’iryo tegeko N° 026/2019 rigena uburyo bw’isoresha, asobanurira abasoreshwa amategeko y’imisoro. Asobanura ko kubera izo nshingano Komiseri Mukuru afite zo gufata ibyo byemezo, bituma adashobora kureshya n’undi musoreshwa, ariko ko mu gihe umusoreshwa atishimiye icyemezo gisobanura itegeko runaka ryerekeye imisoro, ashobora kubiregera mu nkiko zibifitiye ububasha nk’ibindi byemezo byose byo mu rwego rw’ubutegetsi bikaba byakurwaho mu gihe byaba byafashwe hadakurikijwe amategeko. [5] Avuga kandi ko ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko N° 026/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru nta na hamwe inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 96 y’Itegeko Nshinga, ahubwo ko urega yitiranyije ububasha bwa Komiseri Mukuru bwo gusobanura itegeko “advance tax ruling” n’ububasha bwo gutanga isobanura-mpamo ry’amategeko bufitwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. [6] Mu magambo make, iby’ingenzi Me Ndayisabye Alexis aburanisha byashyirwa mu ngingo ebyiri: a. Ingingo ya mbere irebana no kuba asanga ububasha ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko N° 026/2019 ryo ku wa 18/09/2019 rigena uburyo bw’isoresha iha Komiseri Mukuru bwo gusobanura amategeko y’imisoro, ari isobanurampamo ry’amategeko riteganywa mu ngingo ya 96 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’U Rwanda, kandi atariwe iyi ngingo yahaye ubwo bubasha. Ibyo akabishingira ku bintu bitatu bikurikira: 83 Re. NDAYISABYE

## Page 114

CX

i. Uburyo ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko N° 026/2019 ryo ku wa 18/09/2019 rigena uburyo bw’isoresha yanditse mu rurimi rw’ikinyarwanda; ii. Ibyanditse mu kinyarwanda bikaba bitandukanye n’ibiri mu zindi ndimi, aribyo “advance tax ruling/décision anticipée”; iii. Kuba icyemezo gifatwa na Komiseri Mukuru ari ndakuka, kidashobora gusubirwaho. b. Ingingo ya kabiri irebana no kuba Komiseri Mukuru adashyirwa mu rwego rumwe n’abasoreshwa kuko afite ububasha bwo gusobanura amategeko, ibyo bikaba binyuranye n’ihame rikubiye mu ngingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ry’uko abantu bose barareshya imbere y’amategeko, kandi akabarengera kimwe. [7] Urukiko rumaze kubona imyanzuro ya Me Ndayisabye Alexis no kubona ibitekerezo byayitanzweho n’uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda, rurasanga ikibazo kigomba gusuzumwa muri uru rubanza, ari ukumenya niba ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko N° 026/2019 ryo ku wa 18/09/2019 rigena uburyo bw’isoresha inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 96 z’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’U Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015.

84 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 115

CXI

II. IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYACYO 1. Kumenya niba ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko N° 026/2019 ryo ku wa 18/09/2019 rigena uburyo bw’isoresha inyuranyije n’ingingo za 15 na 96 z’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo ku mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015 [8] Me Ndayisabye Alexis avuga ko ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo ku wa 04 Kamena 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015, iteganya ko abantu bose barareshya imbere y’amategeko. Itegeko ribarengera ku buryo bumwe naho ingingo yaryo ya 96 ikavuga ko isobanurampamo ry’amategeko rikorwa n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. Iryo sobanurampamo rishobora gusabwa na Guverinoma cyangwa Urugaga rw’Abavoka. Umuntu wese ubifitemo inyungu ashobora gusaba isobanurampamo abinyujije ku Rugaga rw’Abavoka, iyo Itegeko ritumvikanye kimwe mu ndimi ryatangajwemo mu Igazeti ya Leta, hitabwa ku rurimi iryo tegeko ryatowemo. Yemeza ko ibyo ari nako Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwabyemeje mu rubanza RS/SPEC 0001/2017/SC. [9] Avuga kandi ko ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko N° 026/2019 ryo ku wa 18/09/2019 rigena uburyo bw’isoresha ivuga ko haseguriwe ibiteganywa n’andi mategeko, abisabwe cyangwa abyibwirije, Komiseri Mukuru akora inyandiko isobanurira abasoreshwa ingingo z’amategeko agenga imisoro. Iyo inyandiko igenewe rubanda, itangazwa hakoreshejwe uburyo bw’itangazamakuru bugera mu Gihugu hose. Amabwiriza ya Komiseri Mukuru agena uburyo inyandiko isobanurira abasoreshwa ingingo z’amategeko agenga imisoro ikorwa. 85 Re. NDAYISABYE

## Page 116

CXII

[10] Me Ndayisabye Alexis akomeza avuga ko asanga Itegeko Nshinga ryarateganyije ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ari rwo rwonyine rufite ububasha bwo gusobanura ingingo z’amategeko bisabwe na Guverinoma cyangwa Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda, rigakomeza rinagaragaza ko ubifitemo inyungu wese nawe yabiregera Urukiko rw’Ikirenga abinyujije ku Rugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda. Agaragaza ko kuba rero harasohotse Itegeko rigenga isoresha rivuga ko na Komiseri Mukuru abisabwe cyangwa abyibwirije, nawe afite ububasha bwo gusobanura amategeko y’imisoro akabimenyesha mu nyandiko kandi ntaho byigeze biteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga, asanga iyo ngingo inyuranyije n’Itegeko nshinga kuko ibisobanuro atanze ntawushobora kubirengaho. [11] Akomeza avuga ko mu rurimi rw’ikinyarwanda bavuga ko Komiseri asobanura amategeko ariko mu zindi ndimi bakaba barakoresheje ijambo “advance tax ruling” na “décision anticipée”, bikaba ntaho bihuriye no gusobanura amategeko. Asaba ko mu gusuzuma ikirego cye hashingirwa kubyanditse mu Kinyarwanda kugira ngo hatangwe umurongo kuko arirwo rurimi itegeko ryatowemo. [12] Atanga urugero rw’aho Komiseri Mukuru yasobanuye ingingo ya 15 agace ka 7 y’Itegeko rishyiraho umusoro ku musaruro aho yavuze ko mu gushyira mu bikorwa agace ka 7 kajyanye n’indishyi mpozamarira k’uwapfakaye n’impfubyi ku byerekeye kumenya niba izo ndishyi zafatwa nk’umusaruro ukomoka ku kazi usoreshwa, yaravuze ko izo ndishyi ari impozamarira atari umusaruro ukomoka ku kazi, urega akavuga ko icyo gisobanuro cya Komiseri Mukuru ari ndakuka. [13] Atanga na none urugero ku bisobanuro Komiseri Mukuru yatanze ku ngingo ya 27 y’Itegeko N° 25/2005 ryo ku wa 86 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 117

CXIII

04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha, aho avuga ngo twemeje ibi bikurikira: “nous avons pris la décision suivante”: inyandiko ikosora umusoro ishobora gutangwa mu gihe cy’imyaka itanu cyangwa icumi igihe habayeho ibikorwa byo kunyereza umusoro uhereye ku itariki ya mbere Mutarama ikurikira igihe cy’isoresha, ibi bikaba ataribyo itegeko ryavugaga. Urugero rwa kabiri yatanze ni ibisobanuro bya Komiseri Mukuru ku ngingo ya 30 y’Itegeko N° 37/2012 ryo ku wa 09/11/2002 rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro, aho avuga ngo twemeje ibi bikurikira: ku bindi bitari ibitumizwa mu mahanga iyo umubare wanditswe cyangwa wishyuwe mu mafaranga y’amahanga uwo mubare uhindurwa mu mafaranga y’u Rwanda ku gipimo cy’igura gitangwa na Banki Nkuru y’u Rwanda ku itariki uwo mubare w’amafaranga utangiwe, ko ibyo bitari biteganyijwe muri iyo ngingo. [14] Asobanura kandi ko iyo habaye imyumvire itandukanye ku mategeko y’imisoro, Komiseri Mukuru atanga ibisobanuro ashingiye ku myumvire ye, ibyo bitandukanye na Advance Tax Ruling kuko isabwa n’umusoreshwa ku giti cye asobanuza ibimureba, icyemezo gifashwe kikaba kimureba wenyine, kandi ko kidatangazwa. Akomeza avuga ko mu gusobanura itegeko, Komiseri Mukuru abikora mu nyungu z’Ikigo ayobora aho kuba mu nyungu z’abantu bose, ibyo bikaba bigaragaza ko hari ubusumbane hagati ya Komiseri Mukuru n’abasoreshwa, kandi bikanadindiza Politiki ya Leta y’ishoramari (Policy of doing business) u Rwanda rugenderaho mu kwihutisha ishoramari no kubahiriza amategeko arigenga kubera ko umuntu uje gushora imari mu Rwanda acibwa intege no kubona Komiseri Mukuru afite ububasha bw’ikirenga. 87 Re. NDAYISABYE

## Page 118

CXIV

[15] Me Tugirumuremyi Raphael umwunganira avuga ko Itegeko rishyiraho Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’amahoro ryahaye Komiseri Mukuru ububasha bwo kwigisha abasoreshwa amategeko y’imisoro, aho rigena inshingano z’icyo Kigo, ko ariko asanga bitari ngombwa ko bikorwa mu buryo buteganywa mu ngingo ya 9 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru cyane ko urebye uburyo ibyemezo Komiseri Mukuru afata asobanura amategeko usanga ntaho bitaniye n’isobanurampamo. [16] Avuga kandi ko ibivugwa n’uhagarariye Leta ko ibisobanuro bitangwa na Komiseri Mukuru bivugwa mu ngingo ya 9 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru ari”Advance Tax Ruling” ntaho bigaragara mu rurimi rw’ikinyarwanda itegeko ryatowemo. Anasobanura ko bakoze ubushakashatsi kuri “Advance Tax Ruling” bagasanga ireba umusoreshwa umwe cyangwa itsinda, kandi ko icyemezo gifashwe kiba kitareba abandi basoreshwa mu gihe icyemezo gifatiwe abasoreshwa bo mu Rwanda kiba ari ndakuka. Akaba asanga bibangamiye ihame ryo gutandukanya ububasha kuko urwego rugomba gushyira mu bikorwa itegeko rudashobora guhindukira ngo ruhabwe ububasha bwo gushyiraho amabwiriza. Asaba ko gusobanura amategeko byagumana abo itegeko nshinga ryabiteganyirije. [17] Asobanura kandi ko iyo ngingo ya 9 y’Itegeko N° 026/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru itaringaniza umusoreshwa na Komiseri Mukuru ku rwego rumwe imbere y’amategeko, kuko Komiseri Mukuru we afite ububasha bw’ikirenga bwo gushyira mu bikorwa itegeko no kurisobanura uko abyumva, mu gihe umusoreshwa atabyemerewe, ahubwo ategetswe no kubahiriza ibyo Komiseri Mukuru yasobanuye ku mategeko y’imisoro. Asaba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kwemeza ko ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko N° 026/2019 ryo ku wa 18/09/2019 rigena uburyo bw’isoresha 88 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 119

CXV

ko inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga nk’uko ryavuguruwe kugeza ubu. [18] Me Kabibi Spéciose uhagarariye Intumwa Nkuru ya Leta avuga ko ibyo Me Ndayisabye Alexis asaba by’uko Komiseri Mukuru adashyirwa mu rwego rumwe n’abandi basoreshwa kubera ko afite ububasha bwo gusobanura amategeko y’imisoro kandi ibyo asobanuye ntihagire umusoreshwa ubirengaho kuko bifatwa nk’itegeko, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwarabisobanuye mu rubanza RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS rwaciwe ku wa 23/09/2016 no mu rubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2019/SC rwaciwe ku wa 29/11/2019, aho rwemeje ko kureshya imbere y’amategeko no kutavangura bitavuze ko gutandukanya abantu ubwabyo mu bihe byose ari ivangura, ko gutandukanya abantu cyangwa gushyiraho ibyiciro by’abantu bishobora kuba ngombwa bitewe n’ikigambiriwe, hari impamvu zumvikana zishingiye ku ntego ifite ireme (legitimate or rational purpose). [19] Mu rwego rwo gusobanura impamvu Komiseri Mukuru atandukanywa n’abasoreshwa cyangwa adashyirwa mu byiciro bimwe n’ibyabo, Me Kabibi Spéciose avuga ko ingingo ya 3 y’ Itegeko N° 08/2009 ryo ku wa 27/04/2009 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’inshingano by’Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro (RRA), mu gace kayo ka 3, ivuga ko mu nshingano z’icyo kigo harimo kwigisha no gukangurira abaturage igikorwa cyo gutanga imisoro n’amahoro. Muri iyo nshingano yo kwigisha abaturage (ari bo basoreshwa), akaba ariho hazamo kubasobanurira amategeko y’imisoro hakoreshejwe inyandiko zisobanura amategeko y’imisoro ziteganywa n’ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko No 026/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru zivugwa ko zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. [20] Me Kabibi Spéciose akomeza avuga ko Umuyobozi w’Ikigo gishinzwe imisoro n’amahoro (RRA) adashobora kujya 89 Re. NDAYISABYE

## Page 120

CXVI

ku rwego rumwe n’abasoreshwa ariyo mpamvu itegeko rimuha ububasha bwo gufata ibyemezo by’ubutegetsi (administrative acts) nk’ibyo gusobanura amategeko y’imisoro “Advance Tax Ruling”, kandi icyo cyemezo kigahita gikurikizwa, mu rwego rwo korohereza abasoreshwa kumva neza amategeko y’imisoro, gukorera mu mucyo no kubazwa inshingano (accountability and transparency) mu mikorere y’icyo Kigo, hirindwa guca ibihano umusoreshwa wibeshye kuko atumvise neza itegeko. Anasobanura kandi ko ibyo bitabuza ko umusoreshwa utishimiye icyemezo cyafashwe yakwegera inzego z’ubutabera nk’inkiko kugira ngo zimufashe kurenganurwa mu gihe icyo cyemezo cyaba cyaramurenganyije. [21] Me Kabibi Spéciose avuga ko inyandiko isobanura amategeko y’imisoro ikorwa na Komiseri Mukuru idasobanurwa nk’itegeko rigomba kubahirizwa, ahubwo yashyizwemo nk’icyemezo cy’ubutegetsi gishobora kunyura abo kireba cyangwa ntikibanyure. Agaragaza ko iyo icyo cyemezo kitanyuze uwo kireba, yemerewe gukoresha uburenganzira ahabwa n’ingingo ya 52 n’iya 53 z’Itegeko No 026/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru, kimwe n’ubwo ahabwa n’ingingo ya 29, 3o y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda, akakiregera mu rukiko rubifitiye ububasha. [22] Me Kabibi Spéciose avuga kandi ko ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko rigena isoresha nta na hamwe inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 96 y’Itegeko Nshinga kubera ko urega yitiranyije ububasha bwa Komiseri Mukuru bwo gusobanura itegeko “advance tax ruling” n’ububasha bwo gutanga isobanura-mpamo. Asobanura ko ubusanzwe ibyo byemezo bya Komiseri Mukuru asobanura amategeko “ATR” bigamije kwerekana ubushobozi bw’urwego mu kwigenzura bigaragazwa no gukorera mu mucyo, kubazwa 90 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 121

CXVII

inshingano, ugutahiriza umugozi umwe hagati y’urwego rushinzwe imisoro n’umusoreshwa ndetse bikerekana ubushobozi bw’urwego mu gukemura ibibazo aribyo yasobanuye mu cyongereza muri aya magambo2. [23] Avuga ko umwanditsi Gommar Michiels we yongeraho ko isobanura mpamo ari ibisobanuro by’itegeko bifatwa kandi bikemerwa nk’itegeko atari igitekerezo cy’ubuhanga cyerekana ibyo umushingamategeko yari agamije gusa (nk’ibisobanuro bitangwa n’inyandiko zisobanura amategeko y’umusoro byakozwe na Komiseri Mukuru). Abivuga muri aya magambo “…authentic interpretation is an act of the will commanding that the determined meaning of the law be accepted as obligatory, and not just an act of the intellect defining the meaning that was originally intended by the lawmaker”3. Umuntu agerageje kubisobanura mu Kinyarwanda bivuze ko isobanura mpamo ari igikorwa gitegeka ko ibisobanuro byahawe itegeko bigomba gufatwa kandi bikemerwa nk’itegeko; ntibigomba gufatwa nk’igitekerezo cy’ubuhanga (gusa) cyari kigamijwe n’umushingamategeko. Ibi byerekana neza ko mu gihe utanga isobanura mpamvu atanga ibisobanuro-ntegeka (bifite uburemere bw’itegeko) kand biri “binding”; ko rero inyandiko zisobanura amategeko y’umusoro zitangwa na Komiseri Mukuru zo aba atari itegeko.

2 Transparency, clarity, consistency, certainity; compliance and proper functioning of a self assesment system, healthy relationship of taxpayers with the tax authority and reduction of conflict. 3 G. Michiels, Normae Generales Juris Canonici (Tournai: Desclée, 1949), vol. I, p. 483. Cited by Msgr. John F. McCarthy, (in) The canonical meaning of the recent authentic interpretation of canon 230.2 regarding female altar servers, Organ of the Roman Theological Forum, January 1995. 91 Re. NDAYISABYE

## Page 122

CXVIII

[24] Avuga ko icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru gisobanura itegeko “ATR” gikoreshwa mu isoresha ry’ibintu bimwe na bimwe bisa n’aho bitoroheye umusoreshwa kubyumva mu gihe uwo musoreshwa abisabye cyangwa Komiseri Mukuru abyibwirije, ko Komiseri Mukuru aba agamije kwerekana uburyo ubuyobozi bw’imisoro bwumva ingingo zimwe z’amategeko y’imisoro, cyangwa uburyo bumva ibintu bimwe byasoreshwa, ndetse n’uburyo bazabisoresha, ibyo bigafasha umusoreshwa ufite ubushake “good faith” kubikurikiza neza kugira ngo yirinde ibihano mu gihe yaba abikoze nabi bitewe n’uko atumvise neza ikigomba gukorwa. [25] Akomeza avuga ko ibyo urega ashaka kugaragaza ko “Advance Tax Ruling” zireba umuntu umwe cyangwa itsinda ry’abantu gusa ataribyo kuko hari igihe umusoreshwa asaba mu buryo bw’inyandiko gusobanurirwa ingingo y’itegeko atumva neza. Icyo gihe Komiseri Mukuru asubiza uwamwandikiye gusa ku cyasabwe (Private Tax Ruling). Hakaba n’igihe Komiseri Mukuru, mu igenzura ry’uburyo abasoreshwa bagiye basora ashobora kubona abantu benshi bafite imyumvire itandukanye ku ngingo runaka maze agatanga inyandiko isobanura iyo ngingo, kandi iyo nyandiko igatangazwa kuko iba ireba abasoreshwa bose, aribyo bita Public Tax Ruling. Ku bijyanye n’ububasha izo nyandiko zifite, asobanura ko ibivugwa na Me Ndayisabye Alexis ko abasoreshwa bose bagomba kuzishyira mu bikorwa ataribyo, ko ahubwo RRA yafashe icyo cyemezo ariyo itegetswe kugikurikiza naho umusoreshwa ashobora kwemeranywa nacyo cyangwa ntacyemere. 92 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 123

CXIX

[26] Me Kabibi Spéciose asobanura kandi ko imiryango mpuzamahanga igamije iterambere ry’ubukungu4 ndetse n’abahanga mu mategeko y’imisoro5 basobanura iyo nyandiko ya Komiseri Mukuru isobanura amategeko y’imisoro “ATR” nk’ inyandiko itangwa n’Ubuyobozi bw’Imisoro isobanura imyumvire y’ubwo buyobozi ku isoresha ry’ibintu bimwe cyangwa ibindi bitandukanye mu gihe isoresha ritaraba. Mu yandi magambo, ni icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru kigaragaza imyumvire y’ibijyanye n’isoresha. Avuga ko iyo usesenguye icyo iyi ngingo ya 9 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru iteganya, usanga ibyo byemezo bya Komiseri Mukuru “Advance tax Ruling” bishyirwaho hagamijwe gusobanura ingingo z’amategeko y’imisoro abasoreshwa n’abandi bantu bayakoresha badasobanukiwe neza cyangwa batumva ku buryo bumwe, ku buryo binabagora mu kuyashyira mu bikorwa cyangwa kuyakoresha muri rusange. [27] Yakomeje avuga ko iyo Komiseri Mukuru ashyizeho ibyo byemezo ataba agamije gushyiraho amategeko atandukanye cyangwa avuguruza ingingo z’amategeko nk’uko uwareze ashaka kubyumvikanisha, ahubwo aba agamije gufasha abasoreshwa n’abandi bantu bayakoresha kuyumva mu buryo bwagutse. Avuga kandi ko ikigaragaza ko izi nyandiko

4 Me Kabibi agaragaza ko umuryango wa OECD (Organisation for Economic cooperation and Development) sobanura iyo nyandiko “ATR” mu magambo akurikira: “a written statement issued to a taxpayer by a Revenue body that interpretes and applies the tax law to a specific set of facts and is binding upon the Revenual body”. 5 Me Kabibi Spéciose avuga ko International guide to advance ruling isobanura “ATR” ko ari “statement issued upon request to the (potential) taxpayer indicating the tax administration’s view of the tax treatment of the particular set of facts and circumstances contemplated in the process of completion, or completed but not yet assessed 93 Re. NDAYISABYE

## Page 124

CXX

zisobanura amategeko zikenewe, ari uko byagaragaye ko abasoreshwa n’abandi bantu bakoresha amategeko y’imisoro, bakunze kwandikira Komiseri Mukuru bamusaba kubaha umurongo bajya bagenderaho ku ngingo z’amategeko batabasha kumva neza cyangwa batabasha kumva kimwe. [28] Asobanura ko ibyo byemezo bisobanura amategeko y’imisoro bishyirwa ku rubuga (website) rw’Ikigo Gishinzwe imisoro n’amahoro (RRA) kugira ngo abo bigenewe bose hatabuzemo n’umwe (abasora bose n’abandi…) bashobore kubona imyumvire (interpretation) y’icyo Kigo ku mategeko y’imisoro, hakirindwa ko bimenywa gusa n’abanditse bagisha inama, ko izo nyandiko atari amategeko mashya Komiseri Mukuru aba ashyizeho bivuze ko Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro kidashobora guca umusoro gishingiye kuri izo nyandiko zonyine. [29] Anasobanura ko ibyo Me Ndayisabye Alexis avuga ko ibyo byemezo bibangamira ihame rya “Doing business” ataribyo kuko iryo hame rishingiye ku gukorera mu mucyo (transparency), ariyo mpamvu mu rwego rwo kwirinda ko abasoreshwa bahanwa kubera kutumva neza amategeko, ahubwo basobanurirwa mbere, kandi bigabanya n’impaka hagati y’umusoresha n’umusoreshwa. Ibyo byose bikaba aribyo ihame rya “Doing business” rishingiyeho. [30] Avuga kandi ko ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru mu rurimi rw’ikinyarwanda itumvikanisha neza “Advance Tax Ruling” aho ivuga ko Komiseri Mukuru asobanura amategeko, ko byari gusobanuka iyo havugwa “icyemezo gifashwe mbere. [31] Me Ndayisabye Alexis n’umwunganira bavuga ko icyemezo gifatwa na Komiseri gifite kamere y’icyemezo 94 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 125

CXXI

cy’ubutegetsi gifunze kubera ko kiba cyafashwe n’umuyobozi ariko kidashobora kuregerwa kuko mu busanzwe icyemezo yafashe kijuririrwa, naho ku bijyanye no gusobanura itegeko ko utajuririra Komiseri Mukuru umubwira ko yasobanuye nabi itegeko, kandi nta n’aho itegeko ribiteganya. [32] Ku bijyanye n’ibyo ibigo bishinzwe imisoro bikora ahandi mu mahanga (ibisobanuro by’inyandiko ya ATR byatanzwe na OECD), Me Ndayisabye Alexis avuga ko u Rwanda atari umunyamuryango wa OECD ku buryo Komiseri Mukuru yakora nk’ibyo abayobora Ibigo bishinzwe imisoro muri ibyo bihugu bakora, avuga ko kandi muri ibyo bihugu, abo bayobozi badafata ibyemezo byo gusobanura amategeko nk’uko Komiseri Mukuru mu Rwanda abikora ahubwo batanga ibitekerezo byabo nk’abandi bahanga bo mu bigo bya kaminuza n’ibindi bigo by’ubushakashatsi. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA a. Kumenya niba ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko N° 026/2019 ryo ku wa 18/09/2019 rigena uburyo bw’isoresha inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 96 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’U Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015 [33] Igitekerezo nyamukuru Me Ndayisabye Alexis ashingiraho avuga ko ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko N° 026/2019 ryo ku wa 18/09/2019 inyuranye n’ingingo ya 96 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda, ni ukuba Komiseri Mukuru yarahawe n’Itegeko rigena uburyo bw’isoresha ububasha bwo gusobanura amategeko, kandi Urukiko rw’Ikirenga arirwo rwahawe ububasha bwo gukora isobanurampamo ry’amategeko 95 Re. NDAYISABYE

## Page 126

CXXII

n’ingingo ya 96 y’Itegeko Nshinga. Mu gusuzuma ishingiro ryabyo, Urukiko rurasanga rugomba gusuzuma kamere y’ icyemezo gisobanura amategeko arebana n’imisoro mbere y’isoreshwa kugira ngo rushobore kwemeza niba isobanura ry’amategeko arebana n’imisoro rikorwa na Komiseri Mukuru ari isobanurampamo. [34] Ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko N° 026/2019 ryo ku wa 18/09/2019 rigena uburyo bw’isoresha iteganya ko haseguriwe ibiteganywa n’andi mategeko, abisabwe cyangwa abyibwirije, Komiseri Mukuru akora inyandiko isobanurira abasoreshwa ingingo z’amategeko agenga imisoro. Iyo inyandiko igenewe rubanda, itangazwa hakoreshejwe uburyo bw’itangazamakuru bugera mu Gihugu hose. Amabwiriza ya Komiseri Mukuru agena uburyo inyandiko isobanurira abasoreshwa ingingo z’amategeko agenga imisoro ikorwa. [35] Urukiko rusanga ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko N° 026/2019 rimaze kuvugwa haruguru yumvikanisha ko Komiseri Mukuru atanga inyandiko isobanurira abasoreshwa ingingo z’amategeko agenga imisoro mu bihe bikurikira:  Iyo hari umusoreshwa cyangwa itsinda ry’abasoreshwa babisabye;  Iyo Komiseri Mukuru abyibwirije kubera ko hari itegeko ritumvikana kimwe ku basoreshwa batandukanye. [36] Urukiko rurasanga kubera ko Komiseri Mukuru atarashyiraho amabwiriza agena uburyo inyandiko isobanurira abasoreshwa ingingo z’amategeko agenga imisoro ikorwa, hagomba kwifashishwa ibisobanuro byatanzwe mu manza cyangwa mu nyandiko z’abahanga aho hagaragazwa ubwoko 96 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 127

CXXIII

bw’izo nyandiko, akamaro kazo, kamere, ububasha zigira ku buyobozi bw’imisoro no ku musoreshwa. [37] Mu rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rw’Ubuhindi, hasobanuwe ko sisitemu ihamye y’icyemezo gifatwa mbere y’isoreshwa ishobora gufasha cyane mu kugabanya imanza z’imisoro. Bavuga ko aho kubanza gutanga imenyekanisha hanyuma ugahura n’ingaruka zo kudahuza imyumvire n’ubuyobozi bw’imisoro, sisitemu yo gutanga ibyemezo mbere ishobora gutuma ibibazo by’imisoro bikemuka, ikanakumira imanza z’imisoro.6 [38] Muri urwo rubanza kandi bavuze ko intego nyamukuru ya sisitemu iteguye neza y’ibyemezo bisobanura amategeko y’imisoro bitangwa mbere y’isoreshwa ari ugutuma haba kuvugana hagati y’abasoreshwa n’abasoresha kugirango bombi bagere ku ntego rusange ku mpande zombi yo gutuma amategeko y’imisoro yubahirizwa uko bikwiye kandi abasoreshwa bakomeza kugira ubushake bwo gusora.7

6 “In our opinion, a vibrant system of advance ruling can go a long way in reducing taxation litigation. (…) Instead of first filing a return and then facing consequences from the Department because of a different perception which the Department may have, an Advance Ruling system can facilitate not only such resolution, but also avoid the tiers of litigation which such cases go through.” See National C-operative Development Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-V, Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal Nos. 5105-5107 of 2009, Judgment rendered on 11 September 2020, Postscript 1, paragraph 11, https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php? WID=13147 7 “The aim of any properly framed advance ruling system ought to be a dialogue between taxpayers and revenue authorities to fulfil mutually beneficial purpose for taxpayers and revenue authorities of bolstering tax compliance and boosting tax morale.” See National C-operative Development 97 Re. NDAYISABYE

## Page 128

CXXIV

[39] Abahanga mu mategeko Christophe Waerzeggers na Cory Hillier mu nyandiko bise: Introducing an advance tax ruling (ATR) Regime, nabo basobanura itandukaniro riri hagati y’icyemezo cyihariye gisobanura amategeko arebana n’imisoro mbere y’isoreshwa (Private Advance Tax Ruling) n’icyemezo rusange gisobanura amategeko arebana n’imisoro (Public Advance Tax Ruling) mu buryo bukurikira: Ibyemezo byihariye bisobanura amategeko arebana n’imisoro mbere y’isoreshwa (Private Advance Tax Ruling) bifatwa mu gihe umusoreshwa mbere yo gutangira igikorwa gisoreshwa, abanje gusaba inama mu buyobozi bushinzwe imisoro kugira ngo azazigendereho mu gushyira mu bikorwa uwo mushinga we kandi Ubuyobozi bw’imisoro bukubahiriza icyo cyemezo bwafashwe. Icyo cyemezo kigaragaza inshingano z’urwego rushinzwe isoresha nko kurinda umusoreshwa kwishyura umusoro w’inyongera, kutamuca ibihano cyangwa inyungu bushingiye kuri icyo cyemezo. Ibyemezo byihariye bisobanura amategeko arebana n’imisoro mbere y’isoreshwa bireba umusoreshwa wabisabye, ariko ntibikurikizwa ku bandi basoreshwa kabone n’iyo nabo baba barebwa n’impamvu yashingiweho gitangwa.8

Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-V, Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal Nos. 5105-5107 of 2009, Judgment rendered on 11 September 2020, Postscript 1, paragraph 19, https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID= 13147 8 Waerzeggers, C., & Waerzeggers, C. (2016). Introducing an Advance Tax Ruling (ATR) Regime (No. 16/2). Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund, p.1: A private tax ruling consists of advice that a taxpayer may seek from the tax authority in relation to the application of the tax law to their particular arrangement. The ruling typically binds the tax authority in relation to the arrangement for which it is issued. As such, the taxpayer will ordinarily be protected from additional tax, penalties and interest when relying on the ruling issued. The benefit of a private tax ruling is typically personal to the 98 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 129

CXXV

[40] Ku birebana n’icyemezo rusange gisobanura amategeko arebana n’imisoro gitangwa mbere y’isoreshwa (Public Advance Tax Ruling), abo bahanga bavuzwe mu gika kibanziriza iki bagisobanura nk’inyandiko itanzwe n’urwego rushinzwe isoresha irebana n’uburyo amategeko agenga isoresha azubahirizwa n’umusoreshwa cyangwa itsinda ry’abasoreshwa. Icyemezo rusange cy’imisoro gitangazwa ku mugaragaro kandi kikagaragaza uko urwego rushinzwe isoresha rusobanura amategeko rushingiraho mu kugitanga. Izi nyandiko zifite agaciro gakomeye mu birebana n’iyubahirizwa ry’amategeko agenga imisoro, cyane cyane ku birebana no gutanga umurongo ngenderwaho ku bubasha bwihariye bukubiye mu mategeko agenga imisoro. Ibyemezo rusange by’imisoro bishobora gushyirwa cyangwa kudashyirwa mu bikorwa uko byakabaye ariko bigomba gufasha abasoreshwa kugera ku cyo bifuza hakurikijwe amahame agenwa n’amategeko agenga ubutegetsi.9 [41] Urukiko rurasanga ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko N° 026/2019 ryo ku wa 18/09/2019 rigena uburyo bw’isoresha n’ibivugwa n’abahanga, bihuriza ku kuba inyandiko zisobanurira abasoreshwa ingingo z’amategeko agenga imisoro ziri mu bwoko

taxpayer to whom that ruling is issued and is not binding on the tax authority as against other taxpayers, even if the same or similar circumstances exist. 9 IDEM, A public ruling: a written opinion by the tax authority dealing with the way in which the tax law applies to taxpayers, or a class of taxpayers, generally. A public ruling is made publically available in full and can be used as a primary means of publishing and disseminating advice on the tax authority’s interpretation of the tax laws they administer. These instruments also serve important functions in tax law administration, particularly where they provide guidance with respect to the exercise of discretionary powers contained in a tax law. Public rulings may or may not have legally binding force per se but may, at the very least, create legitimate expectations for taxpayers under general principles of administrative law. 99 Re. NDAYISABYE

## Page 130

CXXVI

bubiri, iya mbere ikaba icyemezo cyihariye gitangwa mbere y’isoreshwa (Private Advance Tax Ruling) naho iya kabiri ikaba icyemezo rusange gitangwa mbere y’isoreshwa (Public Advance Tax Ruling). Bityo ibivugwa na Me Ndayisabye Alexis n’umwunganira ko bakoze ubushakashatsi kuri “Advance Tax Ruling” bagasanga ireba gusa umusoreshwa umwe cyangwa itsinda, kandi ko icyemezo gifashwe kiba kitareba abandi, bikaba nta shingiro bifite. [42] Urukiko rusanga ibitagaragara mu myandikire y’ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko No 026/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru mu rurimi rw’ikinyarwanda, ariko byasobanuwe mu zindi ndimi ndetse n’abahanga mu mategeko akaba ariko babisobanura ni uko iyo nyandiko itangwa mbere y’uko umusoreshwa atangira ibikorwa bisoreshwa, ndetse na Me Kabibi Spéciose yemereye mu iburanisha ko byari gusobanuka iyo umushingamategeko avuga “Icyemezo gifashwe mbere”. Kuba iryo jambo ritaranditswe ariko si ikibazo kuko icyo umushingamategeko yari agamije cyumvikana harebwe ibyanditswe mu zindi ndimi. [43] Urukiko rurasanga ibivugwa na Me Ndayisabye Alexis n’umwunganira ko kuba ingingo ya 3 y’Itegeko N° 08/2009 ryo ku wa 27/04/2009 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’inshingano by’Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro iha ububasha Komiseri Mukuru bwo kwigisha amategeko y’imisoro, bitari ngombwa ko anahabwa ububasha bwo gusobanura amategeko nta shingiro bifite kuko mu ngingo ya 3 y’Itegeko N° 08/2009 hasobanurwa inshingano z’Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro mu gace kayo ka 3 zirimo kwigisha no gukangurira abaturage igikorwa cyo gutanga imisoro n’amahoro naho mu ngingo ya 9 y’Itegeko N° 026/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru hakaba hateganyijwe ko Komiseri Mukuru afite ububasha bwo gusobanura amategeko arebana n’umusoro. 100 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 131

CXXVII

Iyi nshingano ikaba ikomoka ku kuba amategeko y’imisoro ahinduka kenshi cyangwa hari igihe abasoreshwa batayasobanukirwa bitewe n’uburyo yanditse nk’uko byasobanuwe n’Uhagarariye Leta. Ubuyobozi bw’imisoro bukayasobanurira abasoreshwa bubyibwirije cyangwa bubisabwe mu rwego rwo gukemura ibibazo byavuka cyangwa byagaragaye, hagamijwe kuzamura imikoranire hagati yabwo n’abasoreshwa, kugabanya amakimbirane yazaterwa n’uko kumva amategeko mu buryo butandukanye no gukorera mu mucyo. [44] Urukiko rurasanga kandi abahanga mu mategeko nabo bashimangira akamaro k’icyemezo gisobanura amategeko arebana n’imisoro mbere y’isoreshwa, nka Alia Duta mu nyandiko ye yitwa:”The harmonization of advance tax rulings systems in european union member states – why?”, avuga ko gukoresha izo nyandiko bifitiye akamaro umusoreshwa ndetse n’ubuyobozi bushinzwe imisoro, kubera ko amategeko agenga imisoro ahinduka kenshi, ndetse hakaba n’igihe abasoreshwa batayasobanukirwa mu buryo bumwe bitewe n’uburyo yanditse. Agaragaza ko ibyo byemezo bituma urwego rushinzwe imisoro rwerekana ubushobozi bwarwo mu gukemura ibibazo, gukoresha ibyo byemezo bikazamura urwego rw’imikoranire hagati y’Ikigo gishinzwe imisoro n’umusoreshwa, bikanagabanya imanza. Akomeza avuga ko ibyo byemezo bigomba gufatwa hubahirijwe amahame rusange areba amabwiriza ku bijyanye n’imisoro nk’ihame ryo kureshya imbere y’amategeko, no gukorera mu mucyo no kubahiriza amategeko.10

10 Alia, D. U. T. A. (2009). The harmonization of advance tax rulings systems in European Union member States-Why? Finante-provocarile viitorului (Finance-Challenges of the Future), 1(9), 248-250, P.248, 249 An advance tax 101 Re. NDAYISABYE

## Page 132

CXXVIII

[45] Urukiko rushingiye ku bivugwa n’umuhanga Alia Duta, rurasanga mu gufata icyemezo gisobanura amategeko arebana n’imisoro mbere y’isoreshwa, Komiseri Mukuru adashingira ku myumvire ye nk’uko Me Ndayisabye Alexis n’umwunganira bashaka kubyumvikanisha ahubwo agifata ashingiye ku mahame rusange akurikizwa mu ishyirwaho ry’amabwiriza ku bijyanye n’imisoro nk’ihame ryo kureshya imbere y’amategeko, no gukorera mu mucyo no kubahiriza amategeko. [46] Ibyo kandi binashimangirwa n’ibivugwa n’uwo muhanga aho asobanura ko mu bijyanye n’ishyirwa mu bikorwa ry’ibyemezo bifatwa mbere y’isoreshwa (ATR) , Ubuyobozi bw’imisoro budashobora kujya ku rwego rumwe n’umusoreshwa, buba bufite ububasha bwinshi, ugereranyije n’ubw’umusoreshwa kuko ibyo bukora byose biba bigamije kugera ku nyungu rusange.11 [47] Urukiko rugendeye kandi ku bisobanuro bitangwa n’abahanga kuri “Advance Tax Ruling”, rurasanga bemeza ko icyemezo gisobanura amategeko arebana n’imisoro mbere y’isoreshwa ari icyemezo cy’ubutegetsi. Ibi bivugwa na Carlo Romano, mu gitabo cye yise Advance Tax Rulings and Principles: Towards a European Tax Rulings asobanura ko kuba icyemezo gisobanura amategeko arebana n’imisoro mbere y’isoreshwa (Advance Tax Ruling) gifatwa nk’icyemezo cy’ubutegetsi aho gufatwa nk’amasezerano areba inzego za Leta

rulings system should comply with the generally prevailing principles of a tax order, like principle of legality, of equality and of transparency. 11 IBIDEM, P.122. In many instances, such as for the functions performed by the tax administration in tax law, the tax administration stands in a position of supremacy in its relation with taxpayers and is acting in order to realize the collective interest of every citizen. 102 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 133

CXXIX

cyangwa umuntu ku giti cye biba ingirakamaro mu kurengera umusoreshwa, kandi bikagira inyungu bitewe n’uburyo bwashyizweho n’amategeko bwo kugena ibyo byemezo […..].12 Avuga kandi ko abasoreshwa badategetswe gushyira mu bikorwa ibyo byemezo, ko hakurikizwa ihame rya “Good faith” ariko iyo babikoze, bagishyira mu bikorwa uko byateganyijwe.13 [48] Urukiko rurasanga kuba icyemezo gisobanura amategeko arebana n’imisoro mbere y’isoreshwa ari icyemezo cy’ubutegetsi, kandi kikaba kigomba kubahirizwa n’Ubuyobozi bw’imisoro bwagifashe, byumvikanisha ko umusoreshwa ashobora gusaba ko gikurwaho mu buryo busanzwe bw’ibyemezo by’ubutegetsi cyangwa kuregera urukiko rubifitiye

12 Carlo Romano, Advance Tax Rulings and Principles: Towards a European Tax Rulings, IBFD, 2020, pge 77, Advance tax rulings (also called advance, private or letter rulings) are legal instruments under which taxpayers (or their tax advisors) may obtain a more less binding statement from the tax authorities concerning the treatment of transaction or a series of contemplated future (and sometimes past) actions or transactions. Advance tax rulings are addressed to particular taxpayers upon request and explain how the tax administration will apply the law to a particular taxpayer or group of taxpayers in relation to a transaction, or a series of specified facts or transactions. They are usually referred to as “advance rulings”, since they are usually provided before the taxpayers enter into a transaction or arrangement, or (in certain jurisdictions) after the event but before a taxpayer files a tax return. Such rulings are tailor made for the taxpayer concerned because they take into account the factual situation of the taxpayer and are thus not directly applicable to other taxpayers. They may also provide a determination of whether or how a general ruling applies to the facts and circumstances of a particular taxpayer. 13 IBIDEM, Pge 44 “The information given by the respective authority is legally not binding, but protected under the principle of good faith. This means that the taxpayer in general can trust the information, if it is not obviously illegal. In general, the applicant-taxpayer is not bound by the obtained advance tax ruling, which means that he can choose not to do the transaction (but when he does, he has to do it as mentioned in the ruling request).” 103 Re. NDAYISABYE

## Page 134

CXXX

ububasha mu gihe atemeranya n’umurongo wafashwe na Komiseri Mukuru. [49] Ku birebana n’isobanurampamo rivugwa mu ngingo ya 96 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’U Rwanda, umuhanga mu mategeko John M. Huels, yasobanuye ko isobanurampamo ry’amategeko rikorwa mu buryo bwihariye, rigakorwa n’ababifitiye ububasha bahabwa n’amategeko, hakanagaragazwa ibisobanuro by’itegeko ritumvikana neza. Abivuga muri ubu buryo: “[….] there is a special form of interpretation that officially and authoritatively resolves the meaning of a doubtful law. This is called "authentic interpretation" and may only be made by the legislator or one to whom he has entrusted the power to interpret the law authentically.14 [50] Mu rubanza RS/SPEC/00001/2017/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 28/04/2017, Urukiko rushingiye ku kuba isobanurampamo ari ugusobanura amategeko bikozwe mu nzira zagenwe kandi bigakorwa n’ubifitiye ububasha, rwemeje ko isobanurampamo ritagereranywa n’isobanura ry’amategeko risanzwe. [51] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro byose byatanzwe, Urukiko rurasanga isobanura ry’amategeko y’imisoro rikorwa na Komiseri Mukuru, ritandukanye n’isobanurampamo riri mu bubasha bw’urukiko rw’Ikirenga, bityo ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko N° 026/2019 ryo ku wa 18/09/2019 rigena uburyo bw’isoresha ikaba itanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 96 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’U Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015.

14 John M. Huels, Classifying Authentic Interpretations of Canon Laws, The Jurist 72 (2012). 104 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 135

CXXXI

Kumenya niba ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko N° 026/2019 ryo ku wa 18/09/2019 rigena uburyo bw’isoresha inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’U Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015 [52] Ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo ku wa 04 Kamena 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015, igira iti abantu bose barareshya imbere y’amategeko. Itegeko ribarengera ku buryo bumwe. [53] Ingingo ya 7 y’Itangazo ry’Umuryango w’Abibumbye ku burenganzira bwa muntu, (Universal Declaration of Human Rights), ryo mu mwaka wa 1948, ivuga ko abantu bose bareshya imbere y’amategeko kandi barengerwa kimwe n’amategeko nta vangura iryo ari ryo ryose.15 Naho ingingo ya 26 y’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga ku burenganzira Mbonezamubano n’ubwa Politiki (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966) igateganya ko abantu bose bareshya imbere y’amatageko kandi barengerwa kimwe n’amategeko nta vangura iryo ari ryo ryose.16 [54] Hashingiwe kubiteganyijwe n’amasezerano mpuzamahanga avugwa mu gika kibanziriza iki, binahuye n’ibyo

15 All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. 16 All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. 105 Re. NDAYISABYE

## Page 136

CXXXII

ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda iteganya, uburinganire imbere y’amategeko ni ihame ry’uko buri muntu agomba gufatwa kimwe n’undi n’amategeko, kandi abantu bose bagengwa n’amategeko amwe. Kubera izo mpamvu, amategeko agomba gutuma nta muntu ku giti cye cyangwa itsinda ry’abantu ritoneshwa cyangwa rivangurwa bikozwe na Leta.17 Kureshya imbere y’amategeko no kutavangura ariko ntibivuze ko gutandukanya abantu ubwabyo buri gihe ari ivangura. Nk’uko uru Rukiko rwabivuze,18 gutandukanya abantu cyangwa gushyiraho ibyiciro by’abantu bishobora kuba ngombwa bitewe n’ikigambiriwe, hari impamvu zumvikana zishingiye ku ntego ifite ireme (Legitimate or rational purpose). [55] Ibi byumvikanisha ko kuba Komiseri Mukuru w’Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro itegeko rimuha ububasha bwo gufata ibyemezo bisobanura amategeko y’imisoro, atari ukumushyira hejuru y’abasoreshwa kuko bombi batari mu cyiciro kimwe n’inshingano zabo imbere y’amategeko zikaba zidahuye. Ikindi ni uko ibyo urega avuga ko Komiseri Mukuru afata ibyemezo bisobanura amategeko mbere y’isoreshwa agamije kurengera gusa inyungu z’Ikigo ayobora bitandukanye n’ibisobanuro byatanzwe muri uru rubanza ku byerekeye ifatwa ry’ibyemezo byihariye n’ibyemezo rusange bisobanura amategeko y’imisoro mbere y’isoreshwa, kuko bifatwa hagamijwe gufasha abasoreshwa kumva neza amategeko y’imisoro, bityo bigatuma basora neza, bikanakumira imanza z’imisoro.

17 Equality before the law, (…) is the principle that each independent being must be treated equally by the law (…) and that all are subject to the same laws of justice (…). Therefore, the law must guarantee that no individual nor group of individuals be privileged or discriminated against by the government. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_before_the_law. 18 Reba urubanza RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS rwaciwe ku wa 23/09/2016 n’urubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2019/SC rwaciwe ku wa 29/11/2019. 106 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 137

CXXXIII

[56] Kubera izo mpamvu zose rero, Urukiko rukaba rusanga ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko N° 026/2019 ryo ku wa 18/09/2019 rigena uburyo bw’isoresha itanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [57] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Me Ndayisabye Alexis nta shingiro gifite. [58] Rwemeje ko ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko N° 026/2019 ryo ku wa 18/09/2019 rigena uburyo bw’isoresha itanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 96 z’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015. 107 Re. NDAYISABYE

## Page 138

108 CXXXIV

## Page 139

109 CXXXV

IMANZA ZEREKERANYE N’IMIBURANISHIRIZE Y’IMANZA

## Page 140

110 CXXXVI

## Page 141

111 CXXXVI

URUBANZA RWEREKERANYE N’IMIBURANISHIRIZE Y’IMANZA ZASABIWE GUSUBIRISHAMO KU MPAMVU Z’AKARENGANE

## Page 142

112 CXXXVI

## Page 143

113 CXXXIX

NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/INJUST/RC 00024/2018/SC (Mukamulisa, P.J, Nyirinkwaya, Cyanzayire, Rukundakuvuga, na Hitiyaremye, J.) 21 Gashyantare 2020] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza mbonezamubano – Inzitizi –Inzitizi yabyukijwe mu rwego rwa mbere, igafatirwa umwanzuro ntigarukweho nk’impamvu y’ubujurire mu rubanza rwaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma, ntishobora kongera kugarukwaho mu rwego rwo gusubirishamourubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Amategeko agenga ibimenyetso – Agaciro k’inyandiko – Inyandikomvaho – Inyandiko ntigirwa inyandikomvaho no kuba yarakozwe n’umukozi wa Leta gusa, ahubwo kugira ngo igire agaciro k’inyandikomvaho, igomba kuba ikubiyemo amakuru y’impamo umukozi wa Leta ubifitiye ububasha yahagazeho ubwe; iyo bitabaye ibyo, iyo nyandiko ifatwa nk’ikimenyetso icyo aricyo cyose gishobora kunyomozwa n’ikindi kimenyetso kikivuguruza Incamake y’ikibazo: Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko rw’Isumbuye rwa Nyarugenge aho Muhima yareze Ngizweninshuti asaba ko inyandikomvugo y'umugenzacyaha yamushyizeho ikosa ryateje impanuka mu muhanda yakosorwa, maze Ngizweninshuti Albert wamugonze akamwishyura amafaranga yakoresheje imodoka. Urukiko rwaciye urubanza ruvuga ko ntaho rwahera ruhindura inyandikomvugo y’umugenzacyaha yemeje ko impanuka yatewe n’amakosa ya Muhima, rwemeje ko ikirego cye kidafite ishingiro kuko ari we nyir'ikosa ryateje impanuka. 113

## Page 144

CXL

Muhima ntiyishimiye imikirize ajuririra Urukiko Rukuru avuga ko ibyo croquis d’accident ivuga ntibihuye n’ukuri, hari ibyo itavuze kandi ari ingirakamaro, ko Urukiko rw’isumbuye rwirengagije ibintu by’ingenzi kandi yari yabigaragaje ko aho umugenzacyaha yavuze ko Muhima ariwe wagonze imodoka ya Ngizweninshuti ataribyo ahubwo iya Ngizweninshuti ariyo yamugonze. Urukiko rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko Ngizweninshuti ari we nyirabayazana w’impanuka kuko atagize ubushishozi ngo yubahirize amategeko y’umuhanda. Ko imvugo zaba traffic police bari mumuhanda zihabanye n’ibyo igishushanyo cy’uburyo impanuka yakozwe cyerekana, ko ubujurire bwa Muhima bufite ishingiro ko Ngizweninshuti agomba kumaha indishyi. Ngizweninshuti ntiyishimiye imikirize maze yandikira Urwego rw’Umuvunyi asaba ko urubanza rusubirwamo kumpamvu z’akarengane, byoherezwa mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga narwo rwemera uko gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane ruraruburanisha. Ngizweninshuti yatanze impamvu yatumye asubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane avuga ko ikirego gisaba gukosora inyandikomvugo y’impanuka atariwe cyaregwa kuko atariwe wakoze iyo nyandikomvugo; ikindi ni uko ngo inyandikomvugo y’impanuko yakozwe ari inyandikomvaho idashobora kuvuguruzwa uretse muburyo buteganywa n'amategeko ko umucamanza atagombaga kuyinenga no kuyivuguruza, icyanyuma cyatumye asubirishamo ngo ni uko Urukiko rwirengagije nyirabyazana w’impanuka ariwe Muhima kuko rwirengagije amategeko cyane cyane amabwiriza agenga imihanda n’uburyo bwo kuyigendamo agena a bashinzwe kubahiriza iteka rugatesha agaciro inyandikomvugo yakozwe na OPJ rutabanje kumwumva. 114 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 145

CXLI

Muhima yavuze ku kibazo cy’uko Ngizweninshuti ataregwa gukosora inyandikomvugo y’impanuka avuga ko mu bibazo bijyanye n’impanuka haregwa abagiranye ikibazo kugira ngo urukiko rugaragaze uwateje impanuka ari nawe ugomba kwishyura, ariko kuko iyi nyandikomvugo y’impanuka irimo amakosa kuko umugenzacyaha wayikoze avuga ko Muhima ari we wateje impanuka kandi yaratejwe na Ngizweninshuti ayo makosa akaba agomba gukosorwa kandi n’umwanzuro wayo ugateshwa agaciro kuko bitari mu bubasha bw’Umugenzacyaha kwemeza uwateje impanuka, akaba asoza avuga ko umugenzacyaha ntacyo bamurega ku giti cye. Kukibazo cy’uko ngo inyandikomvugo y’impanuka itagomba guteshwa agaciro kuko ngo ari inyandikomvaho, Muhima avuga ko ataribyo kuko Umucamanza afite ububasha bwo gusuzuma ko ibivugwa mu nyandiko yakozwe n’umugenzacyaha bihura n’ukuri ndetse akaba yanayitesha agaciro asanze idakurikije amategeko cyangwa ibivugwamo atari ukuri kuko inyandikomvugo yakozwe n’umugenzacyaha atari inyandikomvaho ahubwo ari inyandikomvugo isanzwe, ku buryo ntawavuga ko ibirimo bidashobora guhinduka, cyangwa ngo yemeze ko ari ukuri kose, ndetse akaba asanga nta cyabuza kuvuguruza ibiyikubiyemo. Asoza avuga ku kibazo cy’uwateje impanuka avuga ko uwateje impanuka ari Ngizweninshuti kuko imodoka Muhima yari atwaye ubwo yavaga ku Kimihurura agana mu mujyi ageze mu masangano y’imihanda (umwe ujya mu mujyi n’undi wahuranya ugana ku Kimihurura) yagonzwe n’iyo Ngizweninshuti yari atwaye kuko yahagurutse itunguranye ikangiza igice cy’iburyo cyose cy’imodoka Muhima Giovanni yari atwaye. Incamake y’Icyemezo: 1. Inzitizi yabyukijwe mu rwego rwa mbere, igafatirwa umwanzuro ntigarukweho nk’impamvu y’ubujurire mu rubanza rwaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma, 115 NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA

## Page 146

CXLII

ntishobora kongera kugarukwaho mu rwego rwo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane, bityo ikibazo cy’uko Ngizweninshuti yatanze cyo kutaregwa gukosora inyandikomvugo y’impanuka icyo kibazo cyaratanzwe nk’inzitizi mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye cyagera mu bujurire ntibakigaragaza bityo kikaba kitasuzumwa ku rwego rwo gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. 2. Inyandiko ntigirwa inyandikomvaho no kuba yarakozwe n’umukozi wa Leta gusa, ahubwo kugira ngo igire agaciro k’inyandikomvaho, igomba kuba ikubiyemo amakuru y’impamo umukozi wa Leta ubifitiye ububasha yahagazeho ubwe; iyo bitabaye ibyo, iyo nyandiko ifatwa nk’ikimenyetso icyo aricyo cyose gishobora kunyomozwa n’ikindi kimenyetso kikivuguruza, bityo inyandiko mvugo y’impanuka yakozwe igomba gufatwa nk’inyandiko iyo ari yo yose itanga amakuru ashobora kuvuguruzwa mu buryo ubwo ari bwo bwose. Gusubirishamo urubanza kumpamvu z’akarengane bifite ishingiro; Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 150 agace ka 6 Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, ingingo ya 55 Itegeko-Ngenga N° 01/2012 ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 24 igika 2 116 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 147

CXLIII

Itegeko N⁰ 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 119 Iteka rya Perezida Nº 85/01 ryo ku wa 11/09/2002 rishyiraho amabwiriza agenga imihanda n’uburyo bwo kuyigendamo, ingingo 11, 13. 15 na 104 Itegeko-Teka N° 21/77 ryashyiragaho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 18 Nta manza zifashishijwe. Inyandiko z’abahanga: Thierry Debard et al, Lexique des termes juridiques, 23ème éd., Dalloz, 2015-2016, p.18 Rapport Annuel 2012, La preuve dans la jurisprudence de la Cour de cassation, p.27 Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Ku wa 06/01/2012, ku byuma by’amatara ayobora imodoka (feux de circulation) byo ku Kabindi habaye impanuka, aho imodoka M. Benz RAB 638 W yari itwawe na Muhima Giovanni iva kuri MINADEF yagonganye n’imodoka Toyota Corolla RAB 464 R yari itwawe na Ngizweninshuti Albert, iva i Remera maze mu nyandiko mvugo yakozwe n’Umupolisi Muhire Emmanuel yandika ko imodoka yateje impanuka ari iya Muhima Giovanni. Ibyo byatumye Muhima Giovanni arega Ngizweninshuti Albert mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, asaba ko inyandikomvugo y'umugenzacyaha 117 NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA

## Page 148

CXLIV

yamushyizeho ikosa ryateje impanuka mu muhanda yakosorwa, maze Ngizweninshuti Albert wamugonze akamwishyura amafaranga yakoresheje imodoka. [2] Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwaciye urubanza RC 0701/13/TGI/NYGE ku wa 25/04/2014, rwabanje gusuzuma inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego yatanzwe na Ngizweninshuti Albert mbere yo gusuzuma ikibazo mu mizi. [3] Ku byerekeye inzitizi, Ngizweninshuti Albert yavuze ko atari we ukwiye kuregwa gukosora inyandikomvugo y’impanuka yo mu muhanda yakozwe n’Umugenzacyaha Muhire Emmanuel kuko atari we wayikoze naho Me Kazeneza Théophile uhagarariye Muhima Giovanni asubiza ko bareze basaba gukuraho iyo nyandikomvugo, ariko Ngizweninshuti Albert agasabwa gutanga ibyakozwe ku modoka yagonzwe. Kuri iyi ngingo, Urukiko rwemeje ko nta mpamvu Ngizweninshuti Albert ataregwa kuko kuregwa kwe gushingiye ku buryozwe bw’impanuka, kudashingiye ku nyandikomvugo kuko atari we wayikoze. [4] Naho kubyerekeye urubanza mu mizi, Urukiko rushingiye ku kuba inyandikomvugo yakozwe igaragaza ko umupolisi wari aho impanuka yabereye yemeje ko Muhima Giovanni yatambutse atarabona uburenganzira bwo guhita (feu vert) bigatuma haba impanuka, no kuba ntaho rwahera ruhindura inyandikomvugo y’umugenzacyaha yemeje ko impanuka yatewe n’amakosa ya Giovanni, rwemeje ko ikirego cye kidafite ishingiro kuko ari we nyir'ikosa ryateje impanuka. [5] Muhima Giovanni yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru, avuga ko Umucamanza w’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge 118 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 149

CXLV

yirengagije ibintu by’ingenzi nyamara yari yabigaragaje, birimo ibi bikurikira; a. Umwe mu bapolisi wari hafi aho wavuze ko imodoka ya Muhima Giovanni yatambutse harimo feu vert ntiyabajijwe b. Umugenzacyaha yavuze ko imodoka ya Muhima Giovanni ari yo yagonze iya Ngizweninshuti Albert kandi ahubwo iye ari yo yagonze iya Muhima Giovanni mu rubavu; c. Imodoka yindi (véhicule C) yari ihagararanye na Ngizweninshuti Albert, yo igategereza, naho Ngizweninshuti Albert agakomeza, ntiyavuzwe; d. Muri rusange ngo ibyo croquis d’accident ivuga ntibihuye n’ukuri, hari ibyo itavuze kandi ari ingirakamaro (position des véhicules après l’accident; la distance déjà effectuée par les deux véhicules ...) [6] Urukiko Rukuru, mu rubanza RCA 0249/14/HC/KIG rwaciwe ku wa 23/10/2015, rwanenze icyemezo cy’Urukiko Rwisumbuye kuba rwarashingiye icyemezo cyarwo ku buhamya bw’umugenzacyaha wemeje ko nyirabayazana w’impanuka ari Muhima Giovanni ashingiye gusa ku byo yabwiwe n’abapolisi ba traffic police bari ku kazi icyo gihe bakavuga ko yatambutse harimo feu vert nyamara bigaragara ko ibyo bihabanye n’ibyo igishushanyo cy’uburyo impanuka yakozwe cyerekana. Urukiko Rukuru, rushingiye ku kuba: a. Aho imodoka ya Muhima Giovanni yahagurukiye ugereranyije n’aho bagonganiye ari harehare kandi hakaba hafi y’aho iya Ngizweninshuti Albert yahagurukiye ; b. Imodoka ya Muhima Giovanni yari igiye kurangiza icyanya cy’amasangano mu gihe iya Ngizweninshuti 119 NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA

## Page 150

CXLVI

Albert yari ikinjiramo; rwasanze Ngizweninshuti Albert ari we nyirabayazana w’impanuka kuko atagize ubushishozi ngo yubahirize ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 15 y’Iteka rya Perezida Nº 85/01 ryo ku wa 02/09/2002 rishyiraho amabwiriza rusange agenga imihanda n’uburyo bwo kuyigendamo1, bityo rwemeza ko: a. Ubujurire bwa Muhima Giovanni bufite ishingiro; b. Urubanza rwajuririwe ruhindutse mu ngingo zarwo zose; c. Rutegeka Ngizweninshuti Albert guha Muhima Giovanni 3.262.603 Frw y'indishyi no kumusubiza 75.000 Frw y'igarama ry'urubanza yatanze. [7] Ngizweninshuti Albert ntiyishimiye iyo mikirize y'urubanza, yandikira Umuvunyi Mukuru amusaba ko urwo rubanza rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z'akarengane. [8] Nyuma yo kubigenzura, Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rwandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusaba ko urubanza RCA 0249/14/HC/KIG rwaciwe ku wa 23/10/2015 n’Urukiko Rukuru rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, maze Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ashingiye kuri raporo y’Ubugenzuzi Bukuru bw’Inkiko yemeza ko urwo rubanza rusubirwamo rwandikwa kuri RS/INJUST/RC 00024/2018/SC.

1 Iyo ngingo ivuga ko Umuyobozi w’ikinyabiziga agomba by’umwihariko kwegera isangano agenda ku buryo ashobora guhagarara kugira ngo ibinyabiziga bitambuka mbere bihite; ntashobora kwinjira mu isangano iyo ikinyabiziga cye gishobora kuhahagarara kandi kikabuza guhita ibinyabiziga bigenda mu muhanda usanganya. 120 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 151

CXLVII

[9] Ku wa 04/02/2020, urubanza rwahamagawe Ngizweninshuti Albert ahagarariwe na Me Bizumuremyi Isaac afatanyije na Me Ndoba Augustin naho Muhima Giovanni ahagarariwe na Me Kazeneza Théophile, urubanza ruraburanishwa. [10] Mu ikubitiro, Me Kazeneza Théophile uhagarariye Muhima Giovanni yabanje gutanga inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego mbere yo gusubiza ku mpamvu z’akarengane zatanzwe na Ngizweninshuti Albert, avuga ko urubanza rusabirwa gusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane rwarangijwe, bityo akaba asaba Urukiko kwemeza ko nta nyungu Ngizweninshuti Albert akirufitemo kuko icyo yashakaga atakigezeho. [11] Me Bizumuremyi Isaac uhagarariye Ngizweninshuti Albert yasubije ko kuba urubanza rwararangijwe ari uko itegeko ritabibuza, ariko ko rinemera ko uko kurangizwa kwarwo bitari intambamyi ibuza gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane kandi ko bidakuraho inyungu Ngizweninshuti Albert afite mu gukurikirana uru rubanza. [12] Urukiko rwahise rukemura izo mpaka, rwemeza ko iyo nzitizi nta shingiro ifite kuko irangiza ry’urubanza ritabuza umuburanyi wumva yararenganye gutanga ikirego gisaba gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 64 y’Itegeko N°30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko2, iburanisha rikomereza ku bireba imizi y’urubanza.

2 Iyo ngingo ivuga ngo “Gusaba ko urubanza rwaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane ntibihagarika irangiza ry’urubanza. 121 NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA

## Page 152

CXLVIII

[13] Me Bizumuremyi Isaac na Me Ndoba Augustin bahagarariye Ngizweninshuti Albert basobanuye ko akarengane bifuza ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwakosora gashingiye ku ngingo zikurikira: a. Kuba yararezwe gukosora inyandikomvugo y’impanuka yakozwe n’Umupolisi Muhire Emmanuel, akaba yumva iby’iyo nyandiko atari we wagombye kubibazwa; b. Kuba Urukiko Rukuru rwarirengagije ko inyandikomvugo y’ubugenzacyaha ari inyandikomvaho iteganywa n’ingingo ya 13 y’Itegeko ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ikaba idashobora kuvuguruzwa n’imvugo z’abatangabuhamya gusa. c. Kuba Urukiko Rukuru rwarirengagije amategeko n’ibimenyetso rukemeza ko ari we wateje impanuka kandi hari abatangabuhamya bemeza ko impanuka yatejwe na Muhima Giovanni, bityo akaba asaba gusubizwa amafaranga yamwishyuye n’inyungu zayo. [14] Ku mpamvu ya mbere Me Kazeneza Théophile avuga ko Muhima Giovanni ahagarariye yasabye ko hakosorwa inyandikomvugo y’impanuka kugira ngo hagaragare uwateje impanuka, kuko ikigamijwe ari uko Ngizweninshuti Albert wateje impanuka yabiryozwa. Ntiyemera kandi ko inyandikomvugo y’umugenzacyaha ari inyandikomvaho (acte authentique) kuko we asanga ari inyandiko isanzwe (acte juridique) ishobora kuvuguruzwa mu buryo ubwo ari bwo bwose hashingiwe ku kuri ibimenyetso bigaragaza. Asanga kandi nta bimenyetso urukiko rwirengagije kuko rwashingiye ku miterere y’impanuka nk’uko igishushanyo cy’impanuka kibigaragaza. 122 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 153

CXLIX

[15] Urukiko rurasaga ibibazo bikwiye gusuzumwa muri uru rubanza ari ibi bikurikira: - Ibyerekeye impaka zishingiye ku kirego cyo gukosora inyandikomvugo yakozwe n’Umupolisi Muhire Emmanuel; - Kumenya niba inyandikomvugo y’impanuka y’umugenzacyaha ari inyandikomvaho ishobora kuvuguruzwa gusa mu buryo buteganywa n’ingingo ya 13 y’Itegeko ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo; - Kumenya ukwiye kuryozwa impanuka yo ku wa 06/01/2012; - Ibijyanye n’amafaranga Ngizweninshuti Albert yishyuye Muhima Giovanni; - Ibyerekeye indishyi zisabwa n’impande zombi. II. ISESENGURA RY’IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA Ibyerekeye impaka zishingiye ku kirego cyo gukosora inyandikomvugo yakozwe n’Umupolisi Muhire Emmanuel [16] Me Bizumuremyi Isaac uhagarariye Ngizwenishuti Albert avuga ko ikirego gisaba gukosora inyandikomvugo y’impanuka yakozwe n’Umupolisi Muhire Emmanuel kidakwiye kuba ari we kiregwa kuko atari we wakoze iyo nyandikomvugo; [17] Me Kazeneza Théophile uhagarariye Muhima Giovanni avuga ko mu bibazo bijyanye n’impanuka haregwa abagiranye ikibazo kugira ngo urukiko rugaragaze uwateje impanuka ari 123 NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA

## Page 154

CL

nawe ugomba kwishyura, ariko kuko iyi nyandikomvugo y’impanuka (PV de constat de l’accident) irimo amakosa kuko umugenzacyaha wayikoze avuga ko Muhima Giovanni ari we wateje impanuka kandi yaratejwe na Ngizweninshuti Albert, ayo makosa akaba agomba gukosorwa kandi n’umwanzuro wayo ugateshwa agaciro kuko bitari mu bubasha bw’Umugenzacyaha kwemeza uwateje impanuka. Me Kazeneza asoza avuga ko umugenzacyaha ntacyo bamurega ku giti cye. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [18] Urukiko rwasanze ikibazo cyo kumenya niba ikirego gisaba gukosora inyandikomvugo y’impanuka yakozwe n’Umupolisi Muhire Emmanuel gikwiye kuregwa Ngizweninshuti Albert cyaraburanwe nk’inzitizi mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye, gifatirwa umwanzuro, urwo rukiko rwemeza ko ikirego kiregwa Ngizweninshuti Albert ari ikirego gishingiye ku buryozwe bw’impanuka, ko kidashingiye ku gukosora inyandikomvugo kuko atari we wayikoze. Rusanga kandi icyo kirego kitarajuririwe mu Rukiko Rukuru, kuko nk’uko bigaragara, muri urwo Rukiko impaka zashingiye gusa ku kumenya nyirabayazana w’impanuka no ku buryozwe bwayo. Ikibazo gihari ubu akaba ari ukumenya niba inzitizi yabyukijwe mu rwego rwa mbere, igafatirwa umwanzuro, ntijuririrwe bityo ntiburanwe nk’impamvu y’ubujurire mu rubanza rwaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma yakongera gusuzumwa mu rubanza rw’akarengane. [19] Kuri iki kibazo, Urukiko rusanga, igika cya nyuma cy’ingingo ya 55 Y’Itegeko N°30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, hari icyo kibivugaho. Icyo gika kigira kiti «..umuburanyi wari ufite uburenganzira bwo 124 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 155

CLI

kwiyambaza izindi nzira z’ubujurire zisanzwe n’izidasanzwe ariko ntabikore mu gihe giteganyijwe n’amategeko ntiyemerewe gusaba ko urubanza yatsinzwe rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane … ». Ibi bivuze ko iyo Ngizweninshuti Albert yumva ataranyuzwe n’icyo cyemezo, aba yarakigarutseho mu bujurire bwuririye ku bundi mu Rukiko Rukuru, rugakosora amakosa yaba yarakozwe n’umucamanza w’Urukiko Rwisumbuye3. Kuba rero atarabikoze kandi yariabifitiye uburenganzira, bivuze ko yivukije inzira z’ubujurire bityo akaba adashobora kwifashisha inzira yo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane ngo icyo kibazo cyongere gisuzumwe kuko byaba binyuranye n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 55 y’itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru. [20] Urukiko rusanga ariko hari n’uwakwibaza niba ubujurire buvugwa mu gika kibanziriza iki atari ubureba urubanza rwose

gusa; ku buryo iyo ngingo ya 55 itashingirwaho igihe ari zimwe mu ngingo zafashweho icyemezo mu rukiko rwa mbere zitarajuririwe. Hari n’uwakwibaza kandi impamvu izo ngingo4 zitagarukwaho mu rwego rw’akarengane nyamara ingingo ya 63 y’itegeko rimaze kuvugwa iteganya ko « iyo Urukiko rw’Ikirenga cyangwa urundi rukiko Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga agena rushyikirijwe urubanza rusabirwa gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, rurusuzuma mu mizi

3 Ingingo ya 170 y’Itegeko N°21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ryakoreshwaga ubwo uru rubanza rwaburanishwaga yagiraga iti:” Urukiko rwajuririwe ruburanisha gusa ubujurire mu mbibi z’icyajuririwe. Rufata icyemezo ku ngingo zatumye uwatanze ubujurire ajurira cyangwa uwabwuririyeho na we akajurira.” 4Aha haravugwa izo ngingo nyine zafasweho icyemezo mu rwego rwa mbere ariko ntizijuririrwe, bityo ntiziburanweho mu rubanza rwaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma, ari narwo rusabirwa gusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane 125 NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA

## Page 156

CLII

bundi bushya abarubayemo ababuranyi bose bahamagajwe ». Ikibazo kiri aha, kikaba ari ukumenya neza imbibi z’iryo suzuma rishya iyi ngingo ivuga. [21] Kuri iki kibazo, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusanga gusuzuma urubanza mu mizi bundi bushya bidakwiye kumvikana nko kwirengagiza ko hari izindi manza zabaye mbere y’uko ruregerwa akarengane. Iyo biba ibyo, ntibyari kuba ngombwa ko ababuranyi basabwa gutanga imyanzuro igararagaza akarengane batewe n’urubanza rwabarenganyije nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 150,6o y’ Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi. Iyi ngingo isaba umuburanyi utishimiye imikirize y’urubanza kugaragaza icyo urubanza anenga rwamurenganyijeho, ni ukuvuga icyo rwakoze nabi cyangwa icyo rutakoze (harimo no gukosora amakosa y’urubanza rwo ku rwego rurubanziriza) hakurikijwe ibyo amategeko ateganya)5. Ibyo bisobanuye ko inzitizi umuburanyi atagarutse ho mu rubanza rwaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma aba yarishimiye icyemezo cyayifashwe ho, bityo akaba adashobora kuyigarura mu rwego rwo gusubirishamo urubanza mu rwego rw’akarengane kuko nyine aba yarivukije uburenganzira bwo kurenganurwa igihe yashoboraga kuyijuririra agasaba ko ikosorwa mu buryo amategeko abiteganya ntabikore. [22] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusanga rero, hashingiwe ku bisobanuro bivuzwe mu bika bibanziriza iki, ingingo za 55 igika

5 Iyo ngingo igira iti : Ubujurire (byumvikane mu buryo bwagutse) bukorwa mu buryo bw’umwanzuro utanga ikirego, ugaragaza ibi bikurikira : « …Ibisobanuro kuri buri nenge cyangwa kuri buri kibazo bigaragaza amakosa yakozwe n’uburyo agomba gukosorwa hashingiwe ku mategeko n’ibimenyetso n’igisabwa urukiko 126 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 157

CLIII

cya nyuma isomewe hamwe n’igika cya mbere cy’ingingo ya 63 z’Itegeko N°30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, inzitizi itaremewe mu rwego rwa mbere, ntisubire kuburanwaho mu rwego rw’ubujurire, idashobora kongera kugarukwaho mu rwego rwo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Bityo, kuba ibyerekeye ikirego cyo gukosora inyandikomvugo yakozwe n’Umupolisi Muhire Emmanuel bitaraburanyweho mu rubanza rusabirwa gusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, nta n’ubwo bishobora kugarukwaho muri uru rwego. Niba inyandikomvugo y’impanuka y’umugenzacyaha ariinyandikomvaho ishobora kuvuguruzwa gusa mu buryo buteganywan’ingingo ya 13 ‘Itegeko ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo. [23] Me Ndoba Augustin uhagarariye Ngizweninshuti Albert avuga ko umucamanza wo ku rwego rw'ubujurire yasuzumye igishushanyo kigaragaza uko impanuka yabaye akakinenga akagiha ubusobanuro bwe atitaye ku kuba inyandikomvugo y’impanuka ari inyandikomvaho kuko iba yakozwe n’umukozi ubifitiye ububasha, bityo ikaba idashobora kuvuguruzwa uretse mu buryo buteganywa n’ingingo ya 13 y’Itegeko N°15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo6.

6 Iyi ngingo ivuga ko “inyandikomvaho ikemura impaka kuri bose mu byerekeye ibiyivugwamo umukozi wa Leta yabereye umuhamya cyangwa yakoze ariko atarengeje ibyo yari ashinzwe gukora. Ibivuzwe muri iyo nyandikomvaho ntawe ushobora kubihakana, keretse biramutse bikurikiranwe mu rubanza rushinja icyaha cyo kubeshya mu nyandikomvaho cyangwa umuburanyi aregeye ko iyo nyandiko ari impimbano” 127 NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA

## Page 158

CLIV

[24] Me Kazeneza Théophile uhagarariye Muhima Giovanni avuga ko Umucamanza afite ububasha bwo gusuzuma ko ibivugwa mu nyandiko yakozwe n’umugenzacyaha bihura n’ukuri ndetse akaba yanayitesha agaciro asanze idakurikije amategeko cyangwa ibivugwamo atari ukuri kuko inyandikomvugo yakozwe n’umugenzacyaha atari inyandikomvaho (acte authentique) ahubwo ari inyandikomvugo isanzwe (acte juridique), ku buryo ntawakwihandagaza ngo avuge ko ibirimo bidashobora guhinduka, cyangwa ngo yemeze ko ari ukuri kose, ndetse akaba asanga nta cyabuza kuvuguruza ibiyikubiyemo nk’uko ingingo ya 119 y’Itegeko N° 15/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo7 ibiteganya.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [25] Urukiko rusanga impaka zishingiye ku gaciro nk’ikimenyetso (force probante) k’inyandikomvugo y’impanuka ikozwe n’umugenzacyaha kagomba gusobanurwa hashingiwe ku isesengura ry’ingingo z’Itegeko N°15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo zikurikira: iya 11, iya 13 n’iya 119 zisobanura ibyerekeye inyandiko zikozwe n’umukozi ubifitiye ububasha, agaciro kazo n’ikoreshwa ryazo nk’ibimenyetso mu rwego rw’amategeko. Ingingo ya 11 ivuga ko inyandikomvaho ari “iyanditswe cyangwa yakiranwe imihango yabugenewe n’umukozi wa Leta ufite ububasha bwo gukora mu ifasi y’aho yandikiwe”; ingingo ya 13 y’iryo tegeko ikongeraho ko iyo nyandiko “icyemura

7 Iyi ngingo ivuga ko “mu manza nshinjabyaha, ibimenyetso bishingira ku mpamvu zose z’ibyabaye n’ibyemejwe n’amategeko, ababuranyi bapfa kuba barahawe uburyo bwo kuhaba ngo banyomozanye. Urukiko ruhamya ku buryo butavuguruzwa ko ibimenyetso byose birega cyangwa biregura ari byo kandi ko bishobora kwemerwa”. 128 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 159

CLV

impaka kuri bose mu byerekeye ibiyivugwamo umukozi wa Leta yabereye umuhamya cyangwa yakoze ariko atarengeje ibyo yari ashinzwe gukora… », mu gihe ingingo ya 119 yaryo ivuga ko “mu manza nshinjabyaha, ibimenyetso bishingira ku mpamvu zose z’ibyabaye n’ibyemejwe n’amategeko, ababuranyi bapfa kuba barahawe uburyo bwo kuhaba ngo banyomozanye. Urukiko ruhamya ku buryo butavuguruzwa ko ibimenyetso byose birega cyangwa biregura ari byo kandi ko bishobora kwemerwa”. [26] Iyo usomye igisobanuro cy’inyandikomvaho mu nkoranyamagambo y’amagambo y’amuga mu by’amategeko (Lexique des termes juridiques) usanga havugwa ko inyandikomvaho ari “inyandiko yakozwe n’umukozi wabiherewe ububasha, ku rupapuro cyangwa hifashishijwe ubundi buryo bw’ikoranabuhanga, ikubiyemo amakuru yizewe adashobora gupfa kuvuguruzwa, keretse umuburanyi aregeye ko iyo nyandiko ari impimbano…8”. Nk’uko bigaragara, iki gisobanuro gihuza ibivugwa mu ngingo ya 11 n’iya 13. Kuri ibi bisobanuro ariko inkiko zanongeyeho ko inyandiko umukozi wabiherewe ububasha yiyandikiye ubwe yemeza ibyabaye mu gihe yariho yuzuza inshingano ze, cyangwa yahagazeho biba, ari zo zigira ububasha bw’ikimenyetso ntavuguruzwa, gishobora gukurwaho gusa no kukiregera mu rukiko9. Mu magambo make, Urukiko

8 Ecrit établi par un officier public, sur support papier ou electronique dont les affirmations font foi jusqu’à inscription de faux… ». cfr Thierry Debard et al, Lexique des termes juridiques, 23ème éd., Dalloz, 2015-2016, p.18 9Selon la jurisprudence, seuls les faits que l’officier public a énoncés dans l’acte comme ayant été accomplis par lui ou comme s’étant passés en sa présence dans l’exercice de ses fonctions sont revêtus de cette force probante, qui ne peut être combattue que par la procédure d’inscription de faux ». Voir Cour de Cassation Française, Rapport Annuel 2012, La preuve dans la jurisprudence de la Cour de cassation, p.27, accessible sur https://www.cour de cassation.fr/publicationss26/rapport annuel 36/rapport2012 4571/ 129 NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA

## Page 160

CLVI

rukaba rusanga inyandiko mvaho ari inyandiko yujuje ibi bikurikira: a. Kuba ari inyandiko yakozwe cyangwa yakiranywe imihango yabugenewe n’umukozi wabiherewe ububasha ku rupapuro cyangwa hifashishijwe ubundi buryo bw’ikoranabuhanga; b. Kuba ari inyandiko yanditse mu gihe arimo kuzuza inshingano ze mu ifasi akoreramo; c. Kuba ari inyandiko ikubiyemo amakuru yiyandikiye ubwe cyangwa yahagazeho ibyo ahamya biba. Hashingiwe kuri iki gisobanuro rero, bikaba byumvikanisha ko bidahagije kuba inyandiko iba yakozwe n’umukozi wa Leta ubifitiye ububasha kugira ngo yitwe inyandikomvaho.

[27] Ku byerekeye inyandikomvugo y’umugenzacyaha, umushingamategeko w’u Rwanda ntasobanura mu buryo bwihariye agaciro kayo nk’ikimenyetso mu manza. Mu bindi bihugu nk’Ubufaransa usanga hari amahame abigenga: muri rusange inyandikomvugo z’umugenzacyaha amategeko aziha agaciro k’amakuru asanzwe gusa, zikaba zavuguruzwa hakurikijwe ingingo ya 119 y’Itegeko ry’ibimenyetso10, ariko zimwe muri zo zigahabwa agaciro k’ikimenyetso karemereye kurushaho11. Zimwe muri zo zihabwa agaciro

10 En principe, un procès-verbal rédigé par un membre de la police judiciaire ou par un fonctionnaire chargé de constater une infraction ne vaut qu’à titre de simple renseignement ». Ibid., p.229 11 « En premier lieu, la loi peut prévoir que le procès-verbal vaudra jusqu’à preuve contraire et la loi réglemente alors les conditions dans lesquelles cette preuve contraire pourra être rapportée, soit, le plus souvent, par l’écrit et le témoignage. En second lieu, la loi peut préciser que le procès-verbal vaudra jusqu’à inscription de faux. Le contenu du procès-verbal ne pourra être 130 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 161

CLVII

nk’ak’inyandikomvaho: izo ni nk’inyandikomvugo zikozwe n’umukozi wa gasutamo12; izindi zihabwa ingufu zirenze amakuru asanzwe, zikaba zishobora kunengwa gusa igihe habonetse ikimenyetso kizivuguruza13. Ibyo bivuze ko ushaka kuzinyomoza bitamukundira yifashishije imvugo ze gusa14. Nabwo ariko, kugira ngo inyandikomvugo yo muri uru rwego igire izo ngufu zihariye, hari ibyo igomba kubahiriza15:

a. Kuba ikubiyemo amakuru umugenzacyaha yahagazeho, ni ukuvuga atari umwanzuro ushingiye ku busesenguzi bwayo yikoreye kuko ibyo biha iyo nyandikomvugo agaciro k’amakuru asanzwe;

contesté que par la mise en œuvre de la procédure d’inscription de faux ». Ibid., p.230 12 Selon l’article 336, 1°, du code des douanes, lorsqu’ils sont rédigés par deux agents des douanes ou de toute autre administration, les procès-verbaux de douane font foi, jusqu’à inscription de faux, des constatations matérielles qu’ils relatent. Les constatations matérielles sont celles qui sont faites directement par les rédacteurs du procès-verbal ». Ibid., p 231 13 Le fait d’attribuer une force probante renforcée à certains procès-verbaux induit nécessairement une limitation du contradictoire, la discussion des éléments de preuve étant encadrée par la loi. Le prévenu a le droit de combattre ces procès-verbaux par tous les moyens légaux de preuve, mais leur force probante ne peut être infirmée sur ses seules dénégations ou allégations ». Ibid., p. 230 14 En premier lieu, cette force probante renforcée ne s’attache qu’aux constatations effectuées par les agents et non aux appréciations personnelles, reconstitutions et déductions auxquelles elles donnent lieu, qui ne valent qu’à titre de renseignements laissés à l’appréciation des juges du fond. En deuxième lieu, seuls les constats effectués personnellement par l’auteur du procès-verbal bénéficient de la valeur probatoire renforcée. 15 Enfin, la force probante renforcée ne vaut que pour les constatations se rapportant aux infractions que l’auteur du procès-verbal est spécialement habilité à constater, sur l’étendue de la circonscription à laquelle il est affecté ». Ibid., p. 231 131 NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA

## Page 162

CLVIII

b. Kuba idashingiye ku nkuru mbarirano kabone n’iyo yaba yayibwiwe n’undi mugenzacyaha; c. Kuba yakozwe n’umugenzacyaha ufite ububasha bushingiye ku ifasi y’aho icyaha cyakorewe. Muri uru rwego, inyandikomvugo zikozwe mu rwego rw’ibyaha bito (contraventions) nizo nyandikomvugo zigira ingufu zihariye16, mu gihe izikozwe ku byaha biremereye (délits) zifatwa nk’amakuru asanzwe uretse igihe itegeko ryabigennye ukundi17. Ibyo kandi nk’uko byumvikana bigamije kugabanya impaka z’urudaca ku byaha bito no kutazingitirana (guha uburenganzira buhagije bwo kwiregura) uregwa ibyaha binini. [28] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusanga, mu gihe hatarajyaho amategeko asobanura agaciro k’inyandikomvugo y’umugenzacyaha mu rwego rw’ibimenyetso, uru rugero rw’Ubufaransa rwakwifashishwa mu gukemura impaka zihoraho ku bijyanye n’agaciro k’inyandikomvugo y’umugenzacyaha. Ikibazo gisigaye kikaba ari ukumenya urwego inyandikomvugo y’umugenzacyaha ku byaha bikozwe mu kwirengagiza Iteka rya Perezida rigenga imihanda n’uburyo bwo kuyigendamo18 yashyirwamo. [29] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusanga igisubizo cy’iki kibazo cyari mu ngingo ya 18 y’Itegeko-Teka N° 21/77 ryashyiragaho

16Les procès-verbaux de constat établis en matière contraventionnelle valent jusqu’à preuve contraire». Ibid., p.230 17 Les procès-verbaux ne bénéficient de cette force probante renforcée que dans les cas où leurs auteurs «ont reçu d’une disposition spéciale de la loi le pouvoir de constater des délits par des procès-verbaux ou des rapports». Ibid. 18 Iteka rya Perezida N° 85/01 ryo ku wa 02/09/2002 rishyiraho amabwiriza rusange agenga imihanda n'uburyo bwo kuyigendamo. 132 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 163

CLIX

igitabo cy’amategeko ahana19 ryakurikizwaga ubwo impanuka yabaga ndetse no mu gika cya 2 cy’ingingo ya 24 y’Itegeko Ngenga n° 01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 ryashyiragaho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ryakoreshwaga igihe inyandikomvugo y’impanuka yo mu muhanda hagati ya Muhima Giovanni na Ngizweninshuti Albert yakoreshwaga nk’ikimenyetso mu manza zabanjirije uru. Iyo ngingo yateganyaga ko icyaha gikomoka ku kutubahiriza amategeko y’umuhanda gishyirwa mu rwego rw’ibyaha byoroheje uretse igihe hari itegeko bwite ribihana20. [30] Hashingiwe ku bikubiye mu bika bibanziriza iki, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusanga inyandikomvugo y’impanuka y’imodoka ari ikimenyetso kitapfa kunyomozwa uretse igihe habonetse ikimenyetso kikivuguruza kuko ari inyandikomvugo y’umugenzacyaha ku cyaha gito (contravention) mu gihe cyujuje ibyangombwa byavuzwe mu gika cya 27. [31] Ku bijyanye n’uru rubanza, inyandikomvugo y’umugenzacyaha yakozwe ku mpanuka yabaye hagati y’imodoka ya Muhima Giovanni na Ngizweninshuti Albert si inyandikomvaho ahubwo ni inyandiko ubundi idakwiriye kuba yapfa kunyomozwa uretse igihe habonetse ikimenyetso kiyivuguruza kuko yakorewe ku cyaha gito(contravention), ariko Urukiko rusanga hari ibyo itujuje biyibuza kugera kuri urwo rwego bishingiye cyane cyane ku kuba ibiyikubiyemo ari

19 Iyo ngingo yagiraga iti « …Les infractions aux lois, arrêtés, règlements d'administration publique et de police, à l'égard desquelles la loi ne détermine pas de peines particulières, sont des contraventions ». 20 Iyo ngingo yagiraga iti "Gifatwa kandi nk’icyaha cyoroheje, icyaha gikomoka ku kutubahiriza amategeko, amateka n’amabwiriza y’ubutegetsi bwa Leta n’ayerekeye umutekano iyo nta tegeko bwite ribihana ». 133 NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA

## Page 164

CLX

amakuru umugenzacyaha atahagazeho ubwe, ahubwo bikaba bishingiye ku makuru y’abo yasanze aho impanuka yabereye imaze kuba21. Byongeye kandi iyo nyandikomvugo isoza isa n’itanga umwanzuro w’uburyo ibintu byagenze ashingiye ku busesenguzi yikoreye22. Kubera izo mpamvu, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rukaba rusanga iyo nyandikomvugo igomba gufatwa nk’inyandiko iyo ari yo yose itanga amakuru ashobora kuvuguruzwa mu buryo ubwo ari bwo bwose nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 119 y’Itegeko No15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo. Kumenya ukwiye kuryozwa impanuka yo ku wa 06/01/2012 [32] Me Ndoba Augustin na Me Bizumuremyi Isaac bahagarariye Ngizweninshuti Albert bavuga ko Muhima Giovanni ari we nyirabayazana w’impanuka kuko: a. Abashinzwe umutekano wo mu muhanda bamwiboneye; b. hari n’abatangabuhamya bemeza ko Muhima Giovanni atubahirije amategeko agenga umuhanda agatambuka kuri feux rouges harimo itara ry'umutuku rimubuza gutambuka, bagahita bagongana. [33] Bavuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwirengagije kandi amategeko cyane cyane Iteka rya Perezida Nº 85/01 ryo ku wa 11/09/2002 rishyiraho amabwiriza agenga imihanda n’uburyo bwo kuyigendamo mu ngingo ya mbere agace ka 11 risobanura umukozi ufite ububasha mu kubahiriza iri teka, rugatesha agaciro

21 Reba iyo inyandikomvugo ku rupapuro rwa 4 aho igira iti : « Abapolisi ba traffic bari bahagaze muri ziriya feux lumineux muri irya carrefour nabo bemeza ko Muhima Giovanni yatambutse harimo feux rouges » 22 Reba iyo inyandikomvugo ku rupapuro rwa 4 aho ivuga ko « …impanuka yatewe na Muhima Giovanni watambutse harimo feux rouges» 134 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 165

CLXI

inyandikomvugo yakozwe na OPJ Muhire Emmanuel rutabanje kumwumva. [34] Me Kazeneza Théophile uhagarariye Muhima Giovanni avuga ko nyirabayazana w’impanuka ari Ngizweninshuti Albert kuko imodoka Muhima Giovanni yari atwaye ubwo yavaga ku Kimihurura agana mu mujyi ageze mu masangano y’imihanda (umwe ujya mu mujyi n’undi wahuranya ugana ku Kimihurura) yagonzwe n’iyo Ngizweninshuti Albert yari atwaye kuko yahagurutse itunguranye ikangiza igice cy’iburyo cyose cy’imodoka Muhima Giovanni yari atwaye. [35] Me Kazeneza Théophile avuga ko kandi n’iteka rya perezida bashingiraho rivuga ko mu masangano y’imihanda umuntu agomba kwigengesera, agasoza asaba Urukiko kureba inyandikomvugo y’impanuka na declarations z’ababuranyi bombi kuko bigaragara ko idahuye n’ibyabaye. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [36] Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 104 y’Iteka rya Perezida Nº 85/01 ryo ku wa 02/09/2002 rishyiraho amabwiriza rusange agenga imihanda n’uburyo bwo kuyigendamo isobanura ikinyabiziga gifite uburenganzira bwo gutambuka mbere hashingiwe ku bimenyetso by’amatara bimurika mu buryo bw'amabara atatu bukurikira: a. itara ritukura: birabujijwe kurenga icyo kimenyetso; b. itara ry'umuhondo: birabujijwe gutambuka umurongo wo guhagarara umwanya muto, cyangwa igihe uwo murongo werekana udahari icyo kimenyetso ubwacyo, keretse igihe ryatse umuyobozi (w’ikinyabiziga) akiri hafi cyane ku buryo yaba 135 NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA

## Page 166

CLXII

atagishobora guhagarara mu buryo butamuteza ibyago; nyamara iyo ikimenyetso kiri mu masangangano umuyobozi (w’ikinyabiziga) arenze umurongo wo guhagarara cyangwa ikimenyetso muri ubwo buryo, ashobora kwambukiranya amasangano gusa ari uko atateza abandi ibyago; c. itara ry'icyatsi: rivuga uburenganzira bwo kurenga icyo kimenyetso. [37] Iyo ibinyabiziga bigonganye mu isangano rifite ibimenyetso by’amatara kandi buri wese mu bayobozi b’ibyo binyabiziga atemera uruhare rwe harebwa uwarenze ku mabwiriza rusange agenga abakoresha umuhanda, cyane cyane ingingo ya 15 y’Iteka rya Perezida nº 85/01 ryo ku wa 02/09/2002 rishyiraho amabwiriza rusange agenga imihanda n’uburyo bwo kuyigendamo, ivuga ko umuyobozi w’ikinyabiziga agomba kwegera isangano kandi agenda ku buryo ashobora guhagarara kugira ngo ibinyabiziga bitambuka mbere (bifite priorité) bihite, yirinda icyateza impanuka. [38] Iyo impanuka ibaye itewe no kuba ikinyabiziga kimwe cyatambutse kikinjira mu isangano kitemerewe kuko harimo ikimenyetso cy’itara ritukura akagongana n’uwari ufite ikimenyetso kiri mu ibara ry’icyatsi ari nawe ufite uburenganzira bwo gutambuka, aba afite uruhare byanze bikunze mu mpanuka yabaye. Ku rundi ruhande ariko, iyo ufite uburenganzira bwo gutambuka kuko hari ikimenyetso cy’ibara ry’icyatsi atambutse akagira icyo agonga, nawe aba afite uruhare mu mpanuka rushingiye ku kudashishoza ngo yinjire mu muhanda yitwararitse icyateza impanuka cyose nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 15 y’Iteka ryavuzwe haruguru. Icyakora, birumvikana ko iyo ari we ugonzwe, impanuka iryozwa umugonze wenyine. Iyo bagonganye ku gice cy’imbere cyangwa iyo bigoye kumenya 136 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 167

CLXIII

uwagonze undi, impanuka iryozwa uwatambutse mu gihe hari ikimenyetso cy’itara ritukura kuko ari we uba yirengagije ihame ry’ubushishozi ku buryo bugaragarira buri wese. [39] Muri uru rubanza, igishushanyo cy’impanuka (croquis d’accident) kigaragaza ko Muhima Giovanni waturukaga mu cyerekezo cyo kuri RRA yambukiranya amasangano y’umuhanda yagonganye n’imodoka ya Ngizweninshuti Albert wari mu muhanda uturuka kuri KBC werekeza ku Kimihurura. Nk’uko kandi kibigaragaza, imodoka zangiritse ku gice cy’imbere. Umupolisi wari aho impanuka yabereye yavuze ko impanuka yaturutse kuri Muhima Giovanni watambutse mu masangano y’umuhanda kandi harimo ibara ritukura. N’ubwo ibyo Muhima Giovanni abihakana, ntibyumvikana ukuntu imodoka ya Ngizweninshuti Albert yari kumusanga mu masangano iyo aza kuba yubahirije ikimenyetso kimwereka itara ritukura kuko ayo matara adashobora kwerekana ibimenyetso bituma imodoka zigerera mu masangano rimwe ku buryo zagongana. Ku rundi ruhande kandi, nta mutangabuhamya n’umwe wigeze avuguruza ko Ngizweninshuti Albert yatambutse harimo itara ry’icyatsi. Ibi bikaba bigaragaza nta gushidikanya ko Muhima Giovanni ari we winjiye mu masangano y’umuhanda harimo itara ritukura. Bityo rero, kuba baragonganye imodoka zombi zikangirika ku gice cy’imbere, kandi Muhima Giovanni ari we warenze ku byo ikimenyetso cy’itara ry’umutuku kimutegeka gukora, ni ukuvuga guhagarara, Urukiko rusanga iyo mpanuka ari we igomba kuryozwa kuko ari we wagize ubushishozi buke ku buryo bugaragarira buri wese nk’uko byasobanuwe mu gika kibanziriza iki. [40] Naho, ibyo kuba inkiko zibanza zitarahamagaje uwakoze inyandikomvugo ngo agire ibyo asobanura, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga 137 NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA

## Page 168

CLXIV

rusanga ibyo bitari ngombwa kuko nk’uko byasobanuwe, iyi nyandikomvugo y’impanuka idafite agaciro karenze ak’amakuru asanzwe urukiko rushobora gusuzuma rugaha agaciro rukurikije uko rubibona mu bushishozi bwarwo. Ibijyanye n’amafaranga Ngizweninshuti Albert asaba gusubizwa, hamwe n’inyungu zayo - Kumenya niba Ngizweninshuti Albert yasubizwa amafaranga yishyuye Muhima Giovanni angana na 3.837.603 Frw [41] Me Bizumuremyi Isaac uhagarariye Ngizweninshuti Albert avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwategetse Ngizweninshuti Albert kwishyura Muhima Giovanni miliyoni eshatu n’ibihumbi magana atatu na mirongo itatu na birindwi na magana atandatu n’atatu (3.337.603 Frw) yatanzwe ku modoka yangijwe wongeyeho amafaranga y’igarama ibihumbi mirongo irindwi na bitanu (75.000 Frw) n’ibihumbi magana atanu (500.000 Frw) yishyuye Umuhesha w’Inkiko w’umwuga warangije urubanza, yose hamwe akaba ari miliyoni eshatu n’ibihumbi magana inani na mirongo itatu na birindwi na magana atandatu n’atatu (3.837.603 Frw); bityo akaba agomba kuyasubizwa kuko atari we nyirabayazana w’impanuka. [42] Me Kazeneza Théophile uhagarariye Muhima Giovanni avuga ko ibyo Urukiko rwategetse ari ingaruka z’urubanza rwarangijwe kugira ngo habeho gukoresha imodoka yangijwe n’impanuka yateje, kandi ko ayo mafaranga atasubizwa Ngizweninshuti kuko atari we ahubwo yishyuwe n’ikigo cy’ubwishingizi n’ubwo abihakana, bityo akaba ntayo agomba gusubizwa. 138 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 169

CLXV

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [43] Urukiko rusanga amafaranga miliyoni eshatu n’ibihumbi magana inani na mirongo itatu na birindwi na magana atandatu n’atatu (3.837.603 Frw) Ngizweninshuti Albert yishyuza Muhima Giovanni ashingiye ku irangiza ry’urubanza n’uburyozwe bw’iyi mpanuka kimwe n’igarama yatanze mu Rukiko Rukuru agomba kuyasubizwa kuko atari we nyirabayazana w’impanuka nk’uko byasobanuwe, ariko muri yo hakaba harimo ayishyuwe n’umwishingizi (SAHAM RWANDA ex CORAR AG Ltd) angana na miliyoni ebyiri n’ibihumbi magana abiri na birindwi na magana atandatu n’atatu (2.207.603 Frw) ayo akaba agomba kuvanwa mu yo asubizwa kuko atariwe wayishyuye. Urukiko rusanga rero amafaranga agomba gusubizwa ari miliyoni imwe n’ibihumbi magana atandatu na mirongo itatu (1.630.000 Frw). - Ibyerekeye inyungu ku mafaranga Ngizweninshuti Albert asaba gusubizwa [44] Me Ndoba Augustin uhagarariye Ngizweninshuti Albert asaba inyungu za 18% ku mwaka mu gihe cy'imyaka 4 ishize atanze 3.837.603 Frw zikaba zingana na 2.763.074 Frw, zishingiye ku gihombo yatejwe no kuba yarayavukijwe ku maherere. [45] Me Kazeneza Théophile uhagarariye Muhima Giovanni avuga ko amafaranga y’inyungu nta mpamvu yayo, nta n’ishingiro afite, kuko byaba ari uguca ibihano uwatsinze urubanza, kandi nta kosa, icyo yakoze akaba ari ugushyira mu bikorwa icyemezo cy’urukiko. 139 NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA

## Page 170

CLXVI

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [46] Nk’uko bigaragara mu nyandikomvugo y’irangiza ry’urubanza 0249/14/HC/KIG rwaciwe ku wa 23/10/2015 n’Urukiko Rukuru hagati ya Muhima Giovanni na Ngizweninshuti Albert, Urukiko rurasanga Muhima Giovanni yarishyuwe miliyoni eshatu n’ibihumbi magana inani na mirongo itatu na birindwi na magana atandatu n’atatu (3.837.603 Frw) ; muri yo Ngizweninshuti Albert akaba yaratanze miliyoni imwe n’ibihumbi magana atandatu na mirongo itatu (1.630.000 Frw) naho umwishingizi we SAHAM (ex CORAR) agatanga miliyoni ebyiri n’ibihumbi magana abiri na birindwi na magana atandatu n’atatu( 2.207.603 Frw) bikaba byumvikana ko aya yatanzwe na SAHAM atabarirwa mu yo yavukijwe, bityo akaba nta n’inyungu yayabonaho. [47] Urukiko rusanga ahubwo inyungu agomba kubona ari izishingiye ku yo ubwe yatanze, ni ukuvuga miliyoni imwe n’ibihumbi magana atandatu na mirongo itatu (1.630.000 Frw). Naho ku byerekeye ijanisha rya 18% Ngizweninshuti Albert aheraho azibara, Urukiko rurasanga Muhima Giovanni ntacyo abivugaho, ariko n’Urukiko rukaba rusanga ziri mu gaciro, kuko iyo aba yaragujije ayo mafaranga kugira ngo ayishyure cyangwa se akaba yarayagujije kugira ngo azibe icyuho cy’aho ayo yishyuye aturutse, yari kuyaguza ku kigero cy’inyungu banki zitangiraho amafaranga ku bazigujije, kandi ubu koko hakaba hari banki zitanga inguzanyo ku nyungu ya 18% ku mwaka. Kubera izo mpamvu, Muhima Giovanni akaba agomba guha Ngizweninshuti Albert inyungu za miliyoni imwe n’ibihumbi magana atandatu na mirongo itatu (1.630.000 Frw ) zibazwe mu gihe cy’imyaka itatu n’iminsi makumyabiri n’itanu, ni ukuvuga iminsi igihumbi n’ijana na makumyabiri kuva igihe urubanza 140 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 171

CLXVII

rwarangirijwe nk’uko bigaragazwa n’inyandikomvugo y’irangiza ry’urubanza yo ku wa 27/01/2017 kugeza uyu munsi, aho kuba imyaka ine nk’uko Ngizweninshuti Albert abiburanisha ; bityo yose hamwe akaba ari (1.630.000 Frw x 18% x 1120 J) : 350 J= ibihumbi magana cyenda na magana abiri na mirongo cyenda n’atanu (900.295 Frw) Ibijyanye n’indishyi zisabwa muri uru rubanza [48] Me Ndoba Augustin uhagarariye Ngizweninshuti Albert amusabira ko yasubizwa amafaranga miliyoni (1.000.000 Frw) yishyuye Avoka mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye no mu Rukiko Rukuru ndetse n’andi amafaranga miliyoni (1.000.000 Frw) yamwishyuye muri uru Rukiko, yose hamwe akaba ari 2.000.000 Frw wongeyeho n’amafaranga miliyoni 1.000.000 Frw y'ikurikiranarubanza kuva muri Polisi, hakorwa iperereza kugeza kuri uru rwego. [49] Me Kazeneza Théophle uhagarariye Muhima Giovanni avuga ko amafaranga y’igarama n’igihembo cya Avoka adakwiye kuryozwa Muhima kuko atari we waciye urubanza kandi zikaba nta shingiro zifite, akaboneraho ahubwo gusaba ko Urukiko rwategeka uwareze kwishyura indishyi z'ikurikiranarubanza zingana n’ibihumbi magana atanu (500.000 Frw) n'igihembo cy’Avoka gihwanye n’amafaranga miliyoni 1.000.000 Frw. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [50] Urukiko rurasanga indishyi Muhima Giovanni asaba ntazo akwiye kuko ari we nyirabayazana w’impanuka yo ku wa 06/01/2012 yabaye hagati y’imodoka ye n’iya Ngizweninshuti Albert. Rusanga ahubwo izo Ngizweninshuti Albert asaba 141 NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA

## Page 172

142 CLXVIII

agomba kuzihabwa, ariko kuko adasobanura uko azibara, Urukiko rukaba rumugeneye mu bushishozi bwarwo amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza ibihumbi magana atatu (300.000 Frw) kuri buri rwego bihwanye n’ibihumbi magana cyenda (900.000 Frw) n’ibihumbi magana atanu (500.000 Frw) y’igihembo cy’Avoka kuri buri rwego bingana na miliyoni imwe n’ibihumbi magana atanu (1.500.000 Frw), yose hamwe akaba ari miliyoni ebyiri n’ibihumbi magana ane (2.400.000 Frw). III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [51] Rwemeje ko ikirego cya Ngizweninshuti Albert cyo gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane urubanza nº RCA 0249/14/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 23/10/2015, gifite ishingiro; [52] Rwemeje ko imikirize y’urubanza nº RCA 0249/14/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 23/10/2015, ihindutse kuri byose; [53] Rutegetse Muhima Giovanni guha Ngizweninshuti Albert:  miliyoni imwe n’ibihumbi magana atandatu na mirongo itatu (1.630.000 Frw) yatanze harangizwa urubanza nº RCA 0249/14/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru;  inyungu zayo zihwanye n’ibihumbi magana cyenda na magana abiri na mirongo cyenda n’atanu (900.295 Frw)  miliyoni ebyiri n’ibihumbi magana ane (2.400.000 Frw) y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka mu ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 173

143 CLXIX

Rukiko Rwisumbuye, mu Rukiko Rukuru no mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga;  yose hamwe akaba ari miliyoni enye n’ibihumbi magana cyenda na mirongo itatu na magana abiri na mirongo cyenda n’atanu (4.930.295 Frw).

NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA

## Page 174

144 CLXX

## Page 175

145 CLXXI

URUBANZA RWEREKERANYE N’IMIBURANISHIRIZE Y’IMANZA Z’IMBONEZAMBONEZAMUBANO, IZ’UBUCURUZI, IZ’UMURIMO N’IZ’UBUTEGETSI

## Page 176

146 CLXXII

## Page 177

147 CLXXIII

CELA COMPANY LTD v. PHILIPP COTTON [Rwanda URUKIKO RUKURU RW’UBUCURUZI – RCOM 00014/2019/HCC – (Kibuka, P.J.,) 10 Mata 2019] Amategeko agenga ububasha bw’inkiko – Umuyobozi wanze kurangiza urubanza rwaciwe mu bibazo by’ubucuruzi – Ububasha bw’inkiko z’ubucuruzi mu guhatira umuyobozi w’ikigo cya Leta kurangiza urubanza – Umuyobozi wanze kubahiriza ibyategetswe mu rubanza rwaciwe n’urukiko rw’ubucuruzi ashobora guhamagazwa nurwo rukiko kugira ngo yisobanure ku mpamvu zamubujije kubyubahiriza, iyo bisabwe n’umuburanyi ubifitemo inyungu. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubucuruzi – Uburyo bw’ukuregera ikirego kirebana n’ugusaba guhatira umuyobozi kubahiriza icyemezo cy’Urukiko. – Ikirego kireba umuyobozi wanze kubahiriza ibyategetswe mu rubanza, gitangwa mu buryo bw’inyandiko nsobanurakirego itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubucuruzi – Guhatira umuyobozi kubahiriza icyemezo cy’urukiko – Igihano gihatira umuyobozi kurangiza urubanza – Icyemezo cy’urukiko kiba kigomba kubahirizwa n’abo bireba bose harimo n’abayobozi b’inzego za Leta – Iyo batabyubahirije, urukiko rubategeka kwishyura ibitarashyizwe mu bikorwa kandi rukaba rwagena n’igihano cyo kutarangiza urwo rubanza. Incamake y’ikibazo: CELA Company Ltd yagiranye imanza na University of Rwanda iza no kuyitsinda ariko University of 147

## Page 178

CLXXIV

Rwanda ntiyubahiriza ibyari bikubiye mu manza baburanye zarangiriye mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi. CELA Company Ltd yaje gutanga ikirego mu buryo bw’inyandiko nsobanurakirego isaba gutegeka Phipp Cotton, Umuyobozi wa University of Rwanda kwishyura amafaranga yari isigaje kuyishyura ndetse no kumugenera igihano gihatira kwishyura kubera kudashyira mu bikorwa ibyategetswe n’urukiko. Philipp Cotton yagobokeshejwe mu rubanza atangira atanga inzitizi ebyiri (2) zituma ikirego cya cya CELA Company Ltd kitakwakirwa. Inzitizi ya mbere yabanje gusobanura ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rudafite kuburanisha ikirego cyatanzwe mu rwego rwa mbere kuko ngo mu bubasha bwarwo umushingamategeko atabivuze, ko ahubwo yakagombye kuregwa mu manza z’ubutegetsi kuko ingingo uwareze ashingiraho ya 184 y’Itegeko nº 22/2018 ryo kuwa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iherereye mu bice birebana n’imanza z’ubutegetsi. Yatanze indi nzitizi ya kabiri avuga ko ikirego cy’uwareze yagitanze nabi kuko kitagomba gutangwa mu buryo bw’inyandiko nsobanurakirego itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe kuko nta bwihutire burimo, ko hagomba kuba hatarimo impaka kandi akaba abona zirimo ndetse ko atari uwareze atariwe wari gusaba ko agobokeshwa mu rubanza. Kuri izi nzitizi, kuya mbere uwareze yireguye avuga ko inzitizi yatanzwe na Phipp Cotton nta shingiro ifite kuko amategeko yateganyije ko ikirego yatanze cyo guhatira umuyobozi kurangiza urubanza gitangwa mu rukiko rwaruciye bwa mbere; bityo ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi arirwo rufite ububasha. 148 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 179

CLXXV

Kucyijyanye n’inzitizi ya kabiri, uwareze yireguye avuga ko nayo nta shingiro ifite bitewe n’uko hari ubwihutire kuko ifitiye amadeni banki kandi ikaba iri ku gitutu cyayo; ko kandi uburyo yanzemo ikirego abona bukurikije amategeko. Kubirebana n’urubanza mu mizi, CELA Company Ltd isobanura ko mu rubanza RCOMA 00748/2016/HC/HCC, Universty of Rwandayaratsinzwe maze itegekwa Urukiko ruyitegeka kuyishura amafaranga y’imirimo yakoze ariko yishuyeho amafarnga macye ikaba kandi yanditse n’ibaruwa ivuga ko itazongera kwishyura ibyo yategetswe n’Urukiko, bityo niyo mpamvu yaregeye uru Rukiko kugira ngo ibashe kurenganurwa Philip Cotton Umuyobozi wa University of Rwanda, yisobanura kuri iyi mpamvu y’ikirego cya CELA Company Ltd, avuga ko urega yitiranyije icyemezo cy’Urukiko, kuko icyo Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwategetse, atari indishyi mbumbe zigomba kwishyurwa na Kaminuza y’u Rwanda, ahubwo byari facture igomba gukorwa ikishyurwa mu buryo amasezerano yateganyaga hagati ya kaminuza na rwiyemezamirimo kandi Kaminuza ikaba ayo mafaranga yarayishyuye, bityo akaba asanga ko ntacyo yarakwiye gutegekwa gukora cyangwa guhatira kurangiza urubanza, kuko ibyo University of Rwanda yategetswe, atari Bwana Philip Cotton wabitegetswe, ariko nyamara kandi University of Rwanda yarabirangije.. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. I.Umuyobozi wanze kubahiriza ibyategetswe mu rubanza ashobora guhamagarwa mu rukiko rwafashe icyemezo kugira ngo yisobanure ku mpamvu zamubujije kubyubahiriza, bisabwe n’umuburanyi ubifitemo inyungu. Bityo, inzitizi yatanzwe n’uwagobokeshejwe mu 149 CELA CO.LTD v PHILIPP COTTON

## Page 180

CLXXVI

rubanza nta shingiro ifite kuko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi arirwo rufite ubusha bwo kumuburanisha kuko arirwo rwaciye urubanza rwarezwemo urwego rwa Leta ruhagarariwe n’uwagobokeshejwe. 2. Ikirego kireba umuyobozi wanze kubahiriza ibyategetswe mu rubanza, gitangwa mu buryo bw’inyandiko nsobanurakirego itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe ku buryo umuyobozi watumijwe mu rubanza adashobora kubyuririraho asaba ko kitakwakira kuko cyatanzwe nabi kandi ariko umushingamategeko yabiteganyije. 3.Umuyobozi w’Urwego rwa Leta wanze kurangiza ibikubiye mu rubanza ategekwa kubahiriza ibiruvugwamo ku buryo bitabuza n’urukiko kumugenera igihano cyo kutarangiza urwo rubanza mu gihe atabyubahirije. Inzitizi y’iburabusha yatanzwe n’uwagobokeshejwe nta shingiro zifite. Ubujurire bufite ishingiro. Irangiza rubanza ry’agateganyo rigumyeho. Amagarama ahwanye n’ibyakozwe mu rubanza. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko nº 22/2018 ryo kuwa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 184. Nta manza zifashishijwe.

150 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 181

CLXXVI

Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] CELA Company, Ltd isobanura ko mu rubanza yaburanye na Real Construction and Supply Services Ltd na University od Rwanda (Rukara College of Education) rwo kuwa 29/06/2017, uru Rukiko rwategetse University of Rwanda kuyishyura amafranga yaregeye akomoka ku mirimo yari yarakozwe ku nyubako ya Laboratoire yo muri University of Rwanda, Ishamyi rya Rukara. CELA Company Ltd ivuga ko University of Rwanda, LTD yanze gushyira mu bikorwa icyo cyemezo, ikayishyura amafaranga make gusa muyo yategetswe. [2] CELA Company, LTD yahisemo rero kuregera uru Rukiko kuba Bwana Philip COTTON, umuyobozi wa Universty of Rwanda adashaka gushira mu bikorwa ibyemejwe n’Urukiko, bityo uru Rukiko rutegeke Umuyobozi ubwe uregwa kwishyura, mu gihe atabikora ku itariki yategetswe, agatanga igihano gihatira kurangiza urubanza nk’uko biteganywa n’amategeko. [3] Philip Cotton wagobokeshejwe muri uru rubanza, yabanje gutanga inzitizi ebyiri zo kutakira iki kirego ku mpamvu z’uko kitari mu bubasha bw’uru Rukiko, no ku mpamvu z’uko urega yatanze ikirego mu buryo budakurikije amategeko; nyuma y’izi nzitizi nubwo yireguye ku mpamvu ikirego gishingiyeho, nayo agasobanura ko idafite ishingiro. [4] Ikigiye gusuzumwa no gufatwaho umwanzuro muri iki kirego ni (1) Kumenya niba ikirego kiri mu bubasha bw’uru Rukiko. (2) Kumenya niba ikirego cyatanzwe mu buryo bwubahirije amategeko. Mu gihe rwasanga izi nzitizi zifite 151 CELA CO.LTD v PHILIPP COTTON

## Page 182

CLXXVII

ishingiro, nibwo rusuzuma ingingo ya gatatu, (3) Kumenya niba Philip COTTON, Umuyobozi wa Universty of Rwanda yategekwa kwishyura CELA Company, Ltd, Rwf 54.915 000. II. ISESENGURA RY’IBIBAZO BIRI MU RUBANZA A) Gusuzuma niba uru Rukiko rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha iki kirego. [5] Philip Cotton yatanze inzitizi y’iburabubasha bw’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, ashingiye kuba ingingo ya 82, igika cya 1, icya 3, n’icya 4, y’Itegeko n°30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’Inkiko, igaragaza ububasha bw’Urukiko Rukuru ku rwego rwa mbere; aho iteganya mu gika cya 1, ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ruburanisha ku rwego rwa mbere ibirego bisaba kurangiriza mu Rwanda ibyemezo n’imanza z’ubucuruzi, iz’imari, iz’imisoro n’amahoro byafashwe n’Inkiko zo mu mahanga. Mu gika cya 2, ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rufite kandi ububasha bwo kuburanisha ibirego bisaba kurangiriza mu Rwanda inyandikompamo zifite ikigaragaza ko zanditswe n’abategetsi bo mu mahanga, iyo zujuje ibyangombwa bikurikira: a) iyo impamvu bazisabira irangizwa ntaho zinyuranyije n’amategeko rusange ndemyagihugu, kimwe n’amahame ashingiweho n’amategeko y’u Rwanda; b) iyo hakurikijwe amategeko y’Igihugu zandikiwemo, zujuje ibyangombwa byose bigaragaza ko ari imvaho. Mi gika cya 3, ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ruburanisha kandi imanza zigamije gusuzuma niba ibyemezo byafashwe n’abakemurampaka byubahirije amategeko. [6] Philip Cotton asobanura asobanura ko uko bigaragara muri ibi bika bitatu by’iyi ngingo, ntaho Urukiko Rukuru 152 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 183

CLXXIX

rw’Ubucuruzi rukura ububasha bwo kuburanisha ku rwego rwa mbere Umuyobozi wanze kubahiriza ibyategetswe mu rubanza urwo arirwo rwose, rwaba n’urwo yaciye. Ko ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 184 y’itegeko no 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, CELA Company, Ltd Ishingiraho, bireba inkiko zifite ububasha bwo kuburanisha imanza z’ubutegetsi, nk’uko n’umutwe zibarizwamo ibigaragaza, ko ari imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubutegetsi. Bityo rero, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rukaba ntaho ruhuriye n’ibibazo by’ubutegetsi. Ko kuba ibisabwa bishingiye ku miburanishirize y’imanza z’ubutegetsi, uru Rukiko rukwiye kuvuga ko rudafite ububasha bwo kuburanisha uru rubanza, rushingiye ku miburanishirize y’imanza zitari mu bubasha bwarwo. [7] CELA Company, Ltd yiregura kuri iyi nzitizi, ivuga ko iregera uru Rukiko ubwishyu bukomoka ku mikirize y’urubanza rwaciwe n’uru Rukiko mu mwaka wa 2016. Ko rero kuba hari Umuyobozi w’umukozi wa Leta wanze kwishyura ubwishyu bwategetswe n’Urukiko, yitwaje «budget» n’ibindi, ariyo mpamvu CELA Company, Ltd yatanze ikirego ishingiye ku biteganwa mu ngingo ya 184, igika cya kane, kivuga ko icyo kirego gishyikirizwa Urukiko rwaciye urubanza. Ko rero iki kirego cyayo kirega umuyobozi wanze kubahiriza ibyo Urukiko rwategetse. Hakaba kandi mu kirego harimo ubwihutire kuko urega afite imyenda ya Banki arimo kwishyuzwa. Ko rero iyi nzitizi ya Philip Cotton idafite ishingiro, kuko Itegeko ryemera kuregera uru Rukiko umuyobozi wanze kurangiza urubanza rwaciwe n’uru Rukiko.

153 CELA CO.LTD v PHILIPP COTTON

## Page 184

CLXXX

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [8] Rushingiye ku bisobanuro bitangwa n’ababuranyi bombi kuri iyi nzitizi y’iburabubasha bw’uru Rukiko; rushingiye kuba CELA Company, Ltd yaregeye uru Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, Bwana Philip Cotton nk’Umuyobozi wa University of Rwanda, gutegekwa kwishyura CELA Company, Ltd amafaranga (asigaye mu) yategetswe n’uru Rukiko mu rubanza rwaciye RCOMA 00748/2016/CHC/HCC rwaciwe kuwa 29/06/2017; rushingiye kandi kuba, nubwo ingingo za 183 na 184 z’Itegeko nº 22/2018 ryo kuwa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, zashinzwe n’Umushingamategeko (Lawmaker) mu Mutwe w’ “IMIBURANISHIRIZE Y’IMANZA Z’UBUTEGETSI”; bigaragara ariko muri uyu mutwe ko ugizwe n’Ibyiciro bibiri, aribyo icya mbere “IKIREGO GISABA GUKURAHO IBYEMEZO BY’UBUTEGETS N’IBURANISHA RY’URUBANZA MU MIZI YARWO”, iki cyiciro kikagira nacyo utwiciro tubiri, aritwo; aka mbere “IKIREGO GISABA GUKURAHO IBYEMEZO BY’UBUTEGETSI” N’aka kabiri, “IKIREGO CYEREKEYE IBURANISHA RY’URUBANZA RW’UBUTEGETSI MU MIZI YARWO”. Mu gihe ariko Icyiciro cya kabiri cy’uru Mutwe, cyiswe “IGIHANO GIHATIRA KUBAHIRIZA ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO”. [9] Isesengura ry’ibyo Umushingamategeko yateganije muri uyu Mutwe w’Itegeko, na cyane cyane ibyo yateganije mu byiciro bibiri byayo, yerekana ko koko uyu mutwe ugena uburyo Imanza zo mu rwego rw’ubutegetsi ziregerwa n’uko ziburanishwa. Ikigaragara na none, n’uko mu cyiciro cya mbere hagaragazwa ahanini uko haregwa hakanaburanishwa imanza 154 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 185

CLXXXI

(z’ubutegetsi, bivuga) ziregwamo ibyemezo byafashwe n’Inzego z’Ubutegetsi. Mu gihe mu cyiciro cya kabiri, “IGIHANO GIHATIRA KUBAHIRIZA ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO”, bigaragara ko kinagena uko bigenda mu manza zose (zitari gusa izaciwe mu rwego rw’ubutegetsi mu mizi) iyo habaye umuyobozi (cyangwa umukozi weze wo mu rwego rw’Ubutegetsi/Administratif) utubahiriza (udashyira mu bikorwa) icyemezo (cyose) cy’Urukiko. Hakaba aribwo ibi bigenwa n’uyu mutwe kuko hajemo uruhare rw’uwo muyobozi. [10] Rushingiye kuri ibi bisobanuro, binashimangirwa n’uko igika cya mbere cy’ingingo ya 183 y’Itegeko rivuzwe hejuru, kigena ko “Iyo urubanza rwabaye itegeko rutegeka Leta, Umujyi wa Kigali, ubuyobozi bw’Akarere cyangwa urundi rwego rwa Leta kuriha amafaranga rwagennye, ayo mafaranga agomba kwishyurwa mu mezi atandatu (6) uhereye ku munsi w’imenyeshwa ry’urubanza.” No mu zindi ndimi zikoreshwa muri iri Tegeko, havugwa “When a judicial decision.” (mu Cyongereza), kandi “Lorsqu’une décision juridictionnelle.” (mu Gifaransa); bisobanura neza ko izi ngingo zitagena gusa imanza zaciwe mu rwego rw’Ubutegetsi, ahubwo ikaba ari imanza zose zaciwe n’Inkiko, zabaye Itegeko, zikaba haribyo zategetsemo Leta, izindi nzego z’Ubutegetsi cyangwa urundi rwego rwa Leta, kugira ibyo zikora. Kuko izi nzego zitaburana gusa imanza z’ubutegetsi; ziburana n’izindi manza, harimo n’iz’ubucuruzi. [11] Rushingiye kuri ibi rubonye, no kuba ingingo ya 184 y’Itegeko rimaze kuvugwa, igena mu gika cyayo cya mbere, ko “Umuyobozi wanze kubahiriza ibyategetswe mu rubanza ashobora guhamagarwa mu rukiko rwafashe icyemezo kugira ngo yisobanure ku mpamvu zamubujije kubyubahiriza, bisabwe n’umuburanyi ubifitemo inyungu (…)” Rusanga kuba urubanza 155 CELA CO.LTD v PHILIPP COTTON

## Page 186

CLXXXI

RCOMA 00748/2016/CHC/HCC rwaciwe n’uru Rukiko, nirwo rero rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha iki kirego cya CELA Company, Ltd. Rusanga rero iyi nzitizi yatanzwe na Philip COTTON idafite ishingiro. B) Gusuzuma niba ikirego cya CELA Company, Ltd cyatanzwe mu buryo bwubahirije amategeko. [12] Philip Cotton asobanura iyi nzitizi ye ya kabiri, avuga ko asanga CELA Company, Ltd yaratanze ikirego mu buryo bw’inyandiko nsobanurakirego itanzwe n’ababuranyi, kandi nyamara isaba ko Urukiko rumutegeka kwishyura amafaranga 78,887,854 Frw; ubu buryo bukaba bwashingirwaho kutakira iki kirego. Kuko hifashishije itegeko no 22/2018 ryo kuwa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, mu ngingo yaryo ya 189, igika cya mbere, isobanura neza ko « Inyandiko nsobanurakirego itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe ni uburyo budasanzwe bwo kuregera umucamanza umusaba kugira ibyo aramira mu buryo bwihuse. Ibikubiye muri iyo nyandiko bigomba kandi kuba ari ibibazo bigaragara ko nta mpaka biteye ku buryo byaba ngombwa ko undi muburanyi ahamagarwa. » Philip Cotton asanga muri iyi ngingo y’itegeko, harimo ibintu bitatu, a) Kuba hari ibigomba kuramirwa, b) kuba nta mpaka ibyo bibazo biteye, c) kuba urega atari we ufata iya mbere mu guhamagaza cyangwa gusaba kugobokesha undi muburanyi. [13] Philip Cotton asanga rero, nk’uko bimaze gusobanurwa mu gika kibanziriza iki, nta bibazo urega agaragaza byihutirwa ku buryo ikirego cye cyagombaga kuba mu bwoko bw’ikirego gitanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe ku buryo umucamanza agomba kugifataho icyo cyemezo kugira ngo agire ibyo aramira mu buryo 156 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 187

CLXXXII

bwihuse. Ko ibi aribyo byanemejwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Huye mu Urubanza RCOM 00003/2016/TC/Hye aho sosiyite yitwa Mount Meru Petroleum (Rwanda) Ltd yari yarareze isaba ko HASHI yimurwa muri sitasiyo; umucamanza ategeka ko, kugira ngo hatangwe ikirego cy’inyandiko y’ikibazo kitanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe, ni ngombwa ko icyemezo cyifuzwa kigomba gufatwa kiba ari icyemezo cy’ifatira ry’agateganyo, gisabwa umucamanza kugira ibyo aramira mu buryo bwihuse cyane, ku buryo kigomba kuramirwa kitarangirika. Philip Cotton akaba avuga rero ko ikirego cya CELA Company Ltd kitihutirwa cyane ko CELA Company Ltd yishyuwe igice cya nyuma cy’amafaranga, hari kuwa 19/11/2018, ikaba yaraje gutanga ikirego kuwa 08/03/2019, bigaragaza ko nta bwihutirwe bwari burimo. [14] Philip Cotton asobanura na none ko ibyo imaze kwerekana aribyo umucamanza yagarutseho mu rubanza rwifashishijwe avuga ko Mount Meru Petroleum (R) Ltd nayo yaratanze ikirego hashize amezi hafi ane yose, ko ari ikigaragaza ko yabonaga ko ikirego cyayo nta bwihutirwe gifite kuko nta byakwangirika ku buryo budasubirwaho, ngo ibe yarihutiye gusaba Umucamanza kubiramira. Ikindi ngo kikaba uko ingingo zaregewe na CELA Company Ltd zitagaragaza ko nta mpaka kuko uregwa ari we Bwana Philip Cotton hari ibyo asabwa/ategekwa, bityo akaba yaragombaga kuba ari umuburanyi muri uru rubanza kugira ngo agire icyo asobanura kubyo asabwa. Ibi bikaba bivuze ko iki kirego cyari gutangwa mu buryo busanzwe, ibirego mu manza z’ubucuruzi bitangwamo ku rwego rwa mbere. Ko kuba uwatanze ikirego we ubwe anasaba ko hategekwa igihano gihatira kwishyura, ubwabyo bigaragaza impaka ku buryo iki kirego kitagakwiye gutangwa nk’inyandiko nsobanurakirego itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe. 157 CELA CO.LTD v PHILIPP COTTON

## Page 188

CLXXXIV

[15] Philip Cotton na none avuga ko mu ngingo urega yasabye ko zisuzumwa, harimo isaba kumugobokesha nk’Umuyobozi wa Universty of Rwanda mu rubanza. Kandi mu birego bitanzwe mu buryo bw’inyandiko nsobanurakirego, ntabwo uwatanze ikirego ari we usaba ko hagira urundi ruhande ruhamagazwa, ahubwo Urukiko nirwo rubitegeka mu gihe rusanze ari ngombwa. Ibi bikaba bigaragaza ko hari impaka muri uru rubanza zagakwiye gusuzumwa mu buryo bw’ibirego bisanzwe, hakaregerwa Urukiko rw’ubucuruzi. Ko hashingiwe ku Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru mu ngingo yaryo ya 83 mu gika cyayo cya kane, igira iti « Impamvu ituma ikirego kitakirwa ni ingingo yose isaba kutakira ikirego cy’umuburanyi (…) iyo hari imihango itarubahirijwe iteganywa n’Itegeko. » Ko rero asanga hari imihango itubahirijwe n’urega iteganywa n’itegeko, kuko uburyo yatanzemo ikirego butaribwo. Akabishingiraho asaba uru Rukiko kutakira ikirego cya CELA Company Ltd. [16] CELA Company Ltd yireguye mu iburanisha kuri iyi nzitizi, ivuga ko idafite ishingiro kuko irega umuyobozi wanze kubahiriza ibyo Urukiko rwategetse, kandi ikaregera Urukiko rwaciye urubanza. Kandi ko hari ibyo kuramira byatewe n’uwo muyobozi; hakaba harimo n’ubwihutire buterwa n’imyenda urega afite mu ma Banki. Ko rero byose biteganijwe mu ngingo ya 190 y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo kuwa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [17] Rushingiye kuri iyi nzitizi yatanzwe na Philip COTTON, no ku myiregurire ya CELA Company Ltd; rushingiye kuyo rwabonye mu isesengura ry’inzitizi ya mbere, no kuba ingingo ya 158 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 189

CLXXXV

184 y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo kuwa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, iteganya mu gika cyayo cya kane, ko “Ikirego kireba umuyobozi wanze kubahiriza ibyategetswe mu rubanza, gitangwa mu buryo bw’inyandiko nsobanurakirego itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe.” Rusanga CELA Company Ltd yatanze iki kirego cyayo mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, igitanga hashingiwe kuri iyi ngingo imaze kuvugwa, hamwe n’ingingo zigenga inyandiko nsobanurakirego itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe, mu ngingo ya 189 n’izikurikira z’iri Tegeko. Rusanga rero iyi nzitizi nayo idafite ishingiro; bityo rukaba rwasuzuma impamvu iki kirego cyashingiweho. C) Gusuzuma niba Philip Cotton, Umuyobozi wa Universty of Rwanda yategekwa kwishyura CELA Company Ltd, 54.915 000 frw. [18] CELA Company Ltd isobanura ikirego cyayo, ivuga ko mu rubanza RCOMA 00748/2016/HC/HCC yarezemo Real Construction and Supply Services na Universty of Rwanda (Rukara College of Education) kuyishyura Rwf 150,041,244 akomoka ku mirimo yari yarakozwe ku nyubako ya Laboratoire yo muri Universty of Rwanda ishamyi rya Rukara. Ko nubwo icyemezo cy’Urukiko kigomba kubahirizwa, Universty of Rwanda yatsinzwe mu rubanza, si uko ibyumva kuko idashira mu bikorwa ibyo yategetswe n’Urukiko. CELA Company Ltd ivuga ko usibye ko kuba yarakomeje gusiragizwa nta mpamvu, University of Rwanda yishyuye amafaranga make kuyo yategetswe, kuwa 22/01/2018 yishuye 41.111.695 frw, kuwa 27/02/2018 yishyura 30.051.695 frw, kuwa 21/11/2018 yongera kwishyura amafranga make angana na 23.946.659 frw. Ko ari muri uru rwego yaregeye uru Rukiko kugira ngo ibashe kurenganurwa. 159 CELA CO.LTD v PHILIPP COTTON

## Page 190

CLXXXVI

[19] CELA Company Ltd isobanura kandi ko nyuma y’aho University of Rwanda yanditse ko itazongera kwishyura ibyo yategetswe n’Urukiko, ndetse inagaragaza mu ibaruwa yayo yo kuwa 27/07/2018 impamvu ishingiraho, zidafite ishingiro, ko umwenda wemejwe n’Urukiko usigaye kwishyurwa izawishyurwa aruko ngo ikemuye ibibazo ngo yaba ifitanye n’abaturage (nta nyandiko y’Umuhesha w’Inkiko ifatira cyangwa se ngo hagaragazwe urubanza CELA Company Ltd yaba yaraburanye ngo irutsindwemo). Bityo ikaba yaregeye Urukiko gutegeka Umuyobozi wa University of Rwanda, Bwana Philip Cotton kwishyura. Ko igitangaje, ari uko University of Rwanda yaremeye ko igiye kwishyura, maze nyuma iza kwongera kunaniza. [20] CELA Company Ltd isanga uru Rukiko rwagendera ku bimenyetso byagaragajwe, no ku biteganwa mu ngingo ya 151 al 4 y'Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubukika y'u Rwanda ryo muri 2003 ryavuguruwe muri 2015, ritegenya ko ibyemezo by'umucamanza bigomba gukurikizwa nabo bireba bose, zaba inzego z'ubutegetsi za Leta cyangwa abantu ku giti cyabo. Ko ntibishobora kuvuguruzwa cyeretse binyuze mu nzira no mu buryo biteganywa n'amategeko (…). Ko mu gihe hatubahirijwe itariki yo kwishyura yemejwe n’Urukiko, ishingiro rw’ubusabe bwa CELA company Ltd bwo gutegeka bwana Philip Cotton Umuyobozi wa University of Rwanda kwishyura CELA Company Ltd, Rwf 500.000 ku munsi y’igihano gihatira kurangiza urubanza (astreinte) mu gihe hatubahirijwe italiki yo kwishyura yemejwe n’Urukiko, nk’uko biteganijwe mu ngingo ya 182 y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, iteganya ibirebana n’igihano gihatira kurangiza urubanza. Ko rero uru Rukiko rwaregewe 160 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 191

CLXXXVI

ruzabone ko uregwa akwiye igihano kimuhatira kwishyura gisabwe n’urega. [21] Philip Cotton Umuyobozi wa University of Rwanda, yisobanura kuri iyi mpamvu y’ikirego cya CELA Company Ltd, avuga ko nk’uko yabisobanuye haruguru, asanga CELA Company Ltd yitiranyije icyemezo cy’Urukiko, kuko icyo Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwategetse, atari indishyi mbumbe zigomba kwishyurwa na Kaminuza y’u Rwanda, ahubwo byari facture igomba gukorwa ikishyurwa mu buryo amasezerano yateganyaga hagati ya kaminuza na rwiyemezamirimo. Ko nubwo amasezerano yo kuwa 25/04/2012, n0 008/04/EWL/RCoE/2012 hagati ya kaminuza y’u Rwanda hamwe na Real Constructions & Supply services, ntacyo yateganyaga ku buryo umusoro ku nyongeragaciro wa 18% (VAT) uzishyurwa, ariko ashingiye ku nyandiko ya Kaminuza y’u Rwanda yo kuwa 14/12/2011 imenyesha Real Constructions and Supply services ko inyandiko y'ipiganwa yayo yemewe, bisobanuye ko yatsindiye isoko; igaragaza neza ko umusoro ku nyongeragaciro wa 18% uzaba ukubiye mu bwishyu bwose yari kuzahembwa. Ko rero, ashingiye ku Itegeko n°45/2011 ryo Kuwa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, cyane cyane mu ngingo yaryo ya 64 aho iteganya ko amasezerano yakozwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko aba itegeko ku bayagiranye, kandi ko mu gihe atasheshwe nabo cyangwa kubw’impamvu zemewe n’amategeko, agomba kubahirizwa nta buriganya. [22] Philip Cotton na none, avuga ko ashingiye ku nyandiko yavuze haruguru, University of Rwanda yagombaga kwishyura ikiguzi CELA Company Ltd, ikuyemo umusoro ku nyongeragaciro wa 18% (VAT) ungana n’amafaranga million 22,887,648 Frw, kuko aribyo University of Rwanda yari 161 CELA CO.LTD v PHILIPP COTTON

## Page 192

CLXXXVI

yaremeranyije na rwiyemezamirimo mu gihe yatsindiraga iryo soko. Kandi ko hashingiwe ku itegeko nº 24/2010 ryo kuwa 28/05/2010 rihindura kandi ryuzuza itegeko n° 16/2005 ryo kuwa 18/08/2005 rigena imisoro itaziguye ku musaruro, mu ngingo yaryo ya 9 igika cya 3, aho igena ko « Umusoro ufatirwa wa gatatu ku ijana (3%) ku mafaranga y’impamyabuguzi hatarimo umusoro ku nyongeragaciro, ukatwa mu iyishyura ry’ababonye amasoko ya Leta. » Bityo University of Rwanda nk’ikigo cya Leta ikaba yagombaga gukata 3% y’amafaranga y’impamubuguzi hatarimo umusoro ku nyongeragaciro kuri CELA Company Ltd nk’aho ariyo yatsindiye isoko rya Leta mu mwanya wa Real Contractors and Supply Service, kuko yari sub-contractor wayo; ariyo mafaranga angana na 8,903,547 Frw kaminuza yakase. [23] Philip Cotton asobanura kandi ko hashingiwe nanone ku Itegeko no 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, mu ngingo yaryo ya 227 igika cyambere, igena ko «Umuhesha w’inkiko yemerewe gufatira ibintu byimukanwa by’ugomba kwishyura biri mu maboko y’undi muntu, amaze kumugaragariza urubanza ruriho inyandikompuruza cyangwa indi nyandikompesha.» Ko ibi bishimangirwa n’ingingo ya 113 y’itegeko rigenga amasezerano mu gika cyayo cya kabiri, igena ko «Icyakora, ugenewe inshingano ashobora gukoresha uburenganzira n'ububasha ugomba kumwishyura afite ku bandi bantu kugira ngo ashobore kwishyurwa keretse iyo ubwo burenganzira bushingiye gusa ku muntu ubwe. » Bityo ko, kuba CELA Company Ltd yari yaratsinzwe mu rubanza RCOM 1351/15/TC/NYGE aho yaregagwa na Kavamahanga Alexandre, kandi ikaba itararangije urwo rubanza ku neza, bityo Kavamahanga Alexandre agahitamo gufatira ku ngufu umutungo wayo wimukanwa wari mu maboko 162 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 193

CLXXXIX

ya University of Rwanda. University of Rwanda ikaba nta yandi mahitamo yari ifite keretse kwishyura umwenda ungana na 11,050,000 Frw ukubiyemo igihembo cy’umuhesha w’inkiko. Philip Cotton avuga ko asanga rero ufashe amafaranga milion 107,200,049 Frw University of Rwanda. University of Rwanda yishyuye, ugateranyaho avance ya 12,100,000 frw, ugateranyaho imisoro ingana na 31,791,231 frw, ugateranyaho 11,050,00frw yishyuwe Kavamahanga Alexandre yose hamwe angana na Rwf 150,041,280 ari yo kaminuza yari yarategetswe kwishyura. Bityo ko ibyo CELA Company Ltd isaba nta shingiro bifite, kuko byarakozwe. Ko rero ntacyo yarakwiye gutegekwa gukora cyangwa guhatira kurangiza urubanza, kuko ibyo University of Rwanda yategetswe, atari Bwana Philip Cotton wabitegetswe, ariko nyamara kandi University of Rwanda yarabirangije. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [24] Rushingiye kuri iyi mpamvu y’ikirego cya CELA Company Ltd, no ku myiregurire ya Philip Cotton; rushingiye kuba aba baburanyi bombi bemeranya ko UNIVERSITY OF RWANDA yatsindiwe na CELA Company Ltd mu rubanza RCOMA 00748/2016/CHC/HCC, kuyishyura facture ihwanye na Rwf 150,041,244, izishyurirwa kuri konti ya CELA Company Ltd izagaragazwa kuri iyo facture. Urwo rubanza rukaba rwaraciwe kuwa 29/06/2017; [25] Rushingiye kuba hagaragajwe muri iyi dosiye y’urubanza, kandi ntihagire uyinyomoza, fagitire yakozwe na Real Contractors and Supply Services Ltd na CELA Company Ltd, zisaba University of Rwanda kwishyura kuri konti ya CELA Company Ltd, Rwf 150,041,244, hasyirwa mu bikorwa icyo cyemezo cy’Urukiko; ko iyi fagitire yakozwe kuwa 04/09/2017; 163 CELA CO.LTD v PHILIPP COTTON

## Page 194

CXC

kandi urwo rubanza rwari rushingiye nyine ku ukutishyurwa kwa fagitire zakorewe University of Rwanda, za muri 2013, iya Rwf 101,996,860 (yo kuwa 14/05/2013) n’iya Rwf 48,044,384 (yo kuwa 03/06/2013); [26] Runashingiye kandi kuba ababuranyi bombi bemera ko muri ayo mafaranga yaciwe University of Rwanda Ltd, hari ayo yamaze kwishyura nubwo batayemeranywaho; runashingiye kuba hagaragaye inyandiko zitandukanye aba baburanyi bagiye bandikirana; cyane cyane ibaruwa University of Rwanda yandikiye Umuhesha w’Inkiko Muvunyi Serge kuwa 22/09/2017, aho yemeraga mu gika cyayo cya kabiri ko yiteguye gushyira mu bikorwa icyemezo cy’Urukiko, aho izabonera facture; ibaruwa uyu Muhesha w’Inkiko yandikiye University of Rwanda, kuwa 11/10/2017 ayishyikiriza fagitire, kandi ayisaba kwishyura amafaranga ariho mu gushyira mu bikorwa icyemezo cy’Urukiko; n’ibaruwa University of Rwanda yandikiye Me Rukarishya kuwa 27/07/2018 yemeza kandi ko itigeze yanga kwishyura CELA Company Ltd (bigaragara neza koko ko hari amafaranga yigeze yishyura, ariko ntiyishyure yose), ko izishyura aruko CELA Company Ltd ibanje kwishyura abaturage yakoresheje; ibaruwa Akarere ka Kayonza kandikiye University of Rwanda kuwa 24/08/2018; n’inyandiko-mvugo y’inama yabaye hagati ya CELA Company Ltd na University of Rwanda kuwa 25/10/2018, aho bemeranije ko University of Rwanda izishyura amafaranga yose asigaye mbere yo ku itariki ya 16/11/2018 kugira ngo CELA Company Ltd ireka gukomeza kwiyambaza Inkiko, bagakemura ikibazo (cyo kurangiza urubanza) mu bwumvikane, ndetse banemeranya ko bazaganira ku misoro; 164 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 195

CXCI

[27] Rushingiye kuri ibi byose rubonye, no kuba ingingo ya 151.4 y'Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubukika y'u Rwanda uko ryavuguruwe kugeza ubu, iteganya ko “Ibyemezo by’ubucamanza bigomba gukurikizwa n’abo bireba bose, zaba inzego z’ubutegetsi bwa Leta cyangwa abantu ku giti cyabo. Ntibishobora kuvuguruzwa keretse binyuze mu nzira no mu buryo buteganywa n’amategeko.” Hamwe n’ibyemejwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza RSOC 00001/2016/CS rwaciye kuwa 20/01/2017 (reba mu bice byarwo bya [13] na [14]); rusanga ntabwo University of Rwanda yakwitwaza amasezerano yagiranye na Real Constructions & Supply services na CELA Company Ltd, cyangwa yitwaze amategeko agenga imisoro, cyangwa kandi ngo ibibazo by’abaturage bakoreshejwe na CELA Company Ltd kugira ngo itishyura amafaranga yategetswe n’Urukiko, uko yakabaye; mu gihe ibyo yitwaza itigeze ibiburanisha muri urwo rubanza rurangizwa, cyangwa ibiregere ubundi mu buryo bukurikije amategeko. Ibyo, ikaba yari kubigenderaho iyo yari kwishyura fagitire hubahirizwa amasezerano, hatabayeho icyemezo cy’urukiko kirangizwa. [28] Rusanga rero, amafaranga yose University of Rwanda isigayemo CELA Company Ltd hashingiwe ku cyemezo cy’Urukiko; yagombaga guhita iyishyura uko biteganwa n’amategeko agenga irangizwa ry’imanza. Kuba itarabikoze, hakaba hashize kandi hafi imyaka ibiri urubanza rwaraciwe; kuba hari ariko amafaranga yagiye yishyura nubwo itayishyuye yose uko byakagombye; [29] Rushingiye kubyo rwabonye biteganijwe mu ngingo ya 184 yavuzwe hejuru; rusanga Umuyobozi wa University of Rwanda, Bwana Philip Cotton akwiye gutegekwa nk’umuyobozi gukora ku buryo University of Rwanda CELA Company 165 CELA CO.LTD v PHILIPP COTTON

## Page 196

CXCII

amafaranga Rwf 54,915,000 asigaye kuyo UNIVERSITY OF RWANDA yamaze kwishyura mu yategetswe mu rubanza RCOMA 00748/2016/CHC/HC rwo kuwa 29/06/2017; aya mafaranga akishyurwa bitarenze kuwa 10/06/2019. Iyi tariki igeze bitarakorwa, uyu muyobozi Bwana Philip Cotton akajya yishyura CELA Company Ltd, igihano gihatira umuyobozi kurangiza urubanza, cya Rwf 250,000 buri munsi, kugeza urubanza rwose rurangijwe. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO: [30] Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi: - Rwemeye kwakira inzitizi zatanzwe na Philip Cotton, Umuyobozi wa University of Rwanda, kuko zatanzwe mu buryo bwubahirije amategeko, ruzisuzumye, rusanze nta shingiro zifite. - Rwemeye kwakira ikirego cya CELA Company Ltd, kuko cyatanzwe mu buryo bwubahirije amategeko, rugisuzumye, rusanze gifite ishingiro. - Rukijije ko Philip Cotton, Umuyobozi wa University of Rwanda, agomba gukora ku buryo University of Rwanda iba yarishyuye CELA Company Ltd amafaranga Rwf 54,915,000 asigaye kuyo University of Rwanda yamaze kwishyura mu yategetswe mu rubanza RCOMA 00748/2016/CHC/HC rwo kuwa 29/06/2017; aya mafaranga akishyurwa bitarenze kuwa 10/06/2019. - Rukijije ko Philip Cotton, Umuyobozi wa University of Rwanda, ni adakora ku buryo University of Rwanda iba yarishyuye CELA Company Ltd aya mafaranga Rwf 54,915,000, bitarenze kuwa 10/06/2019; azajya acibwa igihano 166 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 197

CXCIII

gihatira umuyobozi kurangiza urubanza, cya Rwf 250,000 buri munsi, kugeza urubanza rwose rurangijwe. - Rutegetse Philip Cotton, Umuyobozi wa University of Rwanda, gukora ku buryo University of Rwanda iba yarishyuye CELA Company Ltd aya mafaranga Rwf 54,915,000, bitarenze kuwa 10/06/2019. Atabikoze azajya acibwa igihano gihatira umuyobozi kurangiza urubanza, cya Rwf 250,000 buri munsi, kugeza urubanza rwose rurangijwe.

167 CELA CO.LTD v PHILIPP COTTON

## Page 198

168 CXCIV

## Page 199

169 CXCV

URUBANZA RWACIWE MU MIZI

## Page 200

170 CXCVI

## Page 201

171 CXCVII

URUBANZA RWINSHINJYABYAHA

## Page 202

172 CXCVII

## Page 203

173 CXCIX

NIYIBOGORA v DORISI N’ABANDI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’UBUJURIRE – RS/INJUST/RP 00003/2019/CA (Kamere P.J, Kaliwabo na Musabyinema, J.) 16 Ukwakira 2020] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha – Ubujurire – Kujuririra indishyi mu rubanza nshinjabyaha – Igihe uregera indishyi ariwe gusa wajuriye, uregwa nta bihano agenerwa kabone niyo Urukiko rwasanga ahamwa n’icyaha. Incamake y’ikibazo: Urubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko rw’Isumbuye rwa Musanze aho Ubushinjacyaha bwareze Dorisi, Hakizimana na Naburugero icyaha cyo kwihesha mu buriganya ikintu cy’undi. Aho Dorisi na Hakizimana bakoze inyandiko ivuga ko Dorisi agurishije ikibanza Hakizimana, maze bifashisha Naburugero wari Noteri w’ubutaka abakorera inyandiko z’ihererekanya ry’ubutaka z’ibinyoma ashingiye kuri ubwo bugure, kandi we akora mu murenge wa cyuve naho ubutaka bukaba bwari mu murenge wa Muhoza, kandi abagore babo aribo Niyibogora na Twizeyimana bakaba bataratumijwe muri iryo hererekanya. Urukiko rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko Dorisi na Hakizimana bahamwa n’icyaha cyo guhimba no gukoresha inyandiko mpimbano rubahanisha igifungo cy’imyaka 6, naho Naburugero ahamwa n’icyaha cyo gutanga inyandiko ku muntu udakwiye kuyihabwa bikozwe n’umukozi wa Leta, nawe ahanishwa igifungo cy’imyaka 6. Abaregwa ntibishimiye imikirize bajuririra Urukiko Rukuru Urugereko rwa Musanze, Urukiko rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko Dorisi na Hakizimana badahamwa n’icyaha cyo guhimba no gukoresha inyandiko mpimbano, ko Naburugero adahamwa 173

## Page 204

CC

n’icyaha cyo gutanga inyandiko ku muntu udakwiye kuyihabwa bikozwe n’umukozi wa Leta, kuko rwasanze ibimenyetso byatanzwe n’Ubushinjacyaha bishidikanywaho. Niyibogora yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire asaba ko urubanza rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane ku bijyanye n’indishyi, nawe yandikira Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga asaba ko urwo rubanza rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, Prezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ategeka ko urubanza rwoherezwa mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire kugira ngo ruburanishwe. Me Bizumuremyi uhagarariye Niyibogora avuga ko impamvu basubirishije urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane ari uko Urukiko Rukuru rwirengagije ibimenyetso rukagira abere abaregwa. Ibimenyetso rwirengagije ni: icyemezo cy’ishyingirwa cyemeza ko Nibogora ari umugore w’isezerano wa Dorisi kigaragaza ko basezeranye ivanga mutungo; amasezerano y’ubugure bw’ikibanza afite inenge; icyemezo cy’ubutaka cyasohotse nyuma gato yo gushyingirwa kwabo, kikaba kigaragaza ko ubutaka ari ubwabo ko iyo yari kuba yarabugurishije bwari kwandikwaho Hakizimana; Ihererekanya ry’ubutaka ryabaye hashize hafi imyaka 5, hakibazwa icyo Dorisi yari ategereje kugira ngo atange ubutaka yagurishije; ubutumwa bugufi Dorisi yangikiye Niyibogora; inyandiko y’ibazwa ya Dorisi igaragaramo kuvuguruzanya na Hakizimana; inyandiko igaragaza ko basabye inguzanyo muri banki bakubaka n’inyandiko zigaragaza ko bishyuraga imisoro buri mwaka kuva 2011 kugeza urubanza rutangiye. Me Bizumuremyi akomeza garagaza ko kuri Naburugero, ibimenyetso byirengagijwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, byatumye Niyibogora agira akarengane ari uko mu nyandiko (form) isaba ihererekanya ry’uburenganzira ku butaka, Dorisi yabajijwe niba 174 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 205

CCI

yubatse, akavuga ko yubatse, ariko Naburugero ntiyamuhamagaza, kugira ngo hatagira inyungu ze zibangamirwa, ntiyanahamagaza umugore wa Hakizimana kandi yaragombaga kubikora, n’ubwo rero ubutaka bwari bwanditse kuri Dorisi 100%. Asoza avuga ko ibyo bimenyetso byose iyo bisuzumwa n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, byari kugaragara ko amasezerano y’ubugure ari inyandiko yahimbwe. Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko ibimenyetso bwatanze mu Rukiko Rukuru, ko bwari bwareze busobanura uburyo amasezerano yakozwe ari amahimbano yakorewe mu nzu kwa Hakizimana nk’uko uwitwa Ntihabose yabivuze, akaba yarahimbwe, kuko Dorisi yari atangiye urubanza rw’ubutane, kugira ngo azegukane ikibanza n’inzu irimo, ko mu rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Musanze, mu gika cya 14, rwemeje ko ayo masezerano ari amahimbano, naho Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze rukita gusa ku nyandiko y’ihererekanya ry’ubutaka yakozwe ba nyiri ubwite badahari, maze abarezwe bagirwa abere, bituma Niyibogora avutswa uburenganzira ku mutungo ari byo byamuteye kurengana. Dorisi avuga ko abona ariwe ukorerwa akarengane, kuko hari urubanza rwaciwe ku wa 20/01/2018 n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Musanze rwabaye itegeko, rwemeje ko amasezerano y’ubugure yakozwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, ko hari n’urubanza rwo ku wa 28/01/2019 rwaburanywe hagati ya Dorisi na Niyibogora narwo rwabaye itegeko, rwanditsemo ko bemeranya ko nta mutungo bafite. Avuga kandi ko kuba ariwe wasabye icyangombwa cyo kubaka, byatewe n’uko yari atarakorana ihererekanya ry’uburenganzira ku butaka na Hakizimana ngo ubutaka buve mu mazina ye bujye mu mazina ya Hakizimana, kandi ko “autorisation de bâtir” itangwa yanditseho amazina y’uwanditse ku butaka. Ku bijyanye 175 NIYIBOGORA v DORISI N’ABANDI

## Page 206

CCII

n’ubutumwa bugufi (sms) buvugwa ko yohererezaga Niyibogora yemera ko bafite inzu i Musanze, avuga ko ntabwo yigeze amwoherereza, ko Niyibogora nawe ashobora gufata telefone ye akabwiyoherereza, naho ku bijyanye no kuba ariwe watangaga imisoro y’ikibanza cyubatsemo inzu igibwaho impaka kugeza mu mwaka wa 2016, akavuga ko Hakizimana ariwe watangaga amafaranga y’imisoro, ariko ku nyandiko z’imenyekanisha y’iyishyurwa ry’imisoro bikagaraga ko ari Dorisi utanze imisoro, kubera ko ikibanza cyari kikimwanditseho. Ku byerekeye inguzanyo ku mushahara yafashwe mu mwaka wa 2013, avuga ko ayo mafaranga yasabye muri Banki y’Abaturage, atari ayo kubaka inzu nk’uko Niyibogora abivuga, kuko ayo yahawe adashobora kubaka inzu, ko ahubwo ayo mafaranga yakoreshejwe mu bijyanye n’amasomo ya Niyibogora Hakizimana we avuga ko yaguze ikibanza na Dorisi akiri ingaragu atarashaka ariko ntibahita bakora ihererekanya, ko kuba icyangombwa cyo kubaka cyanditse kuri Dorisi ari uko batari bwahinduze ibyangombwa ndetse n’imisoro yatangirwaga kumazina ya Dorisi kuko ariwe icyangombwa cyanditseho ariko amafaranga amafaranga akaba ariwe uyatanga. Kuba dorisi yarabaga muri iyo nzu yubakishaga nuko yari yari yaramuhaye akazi kuko yari ingenieur azi ibyo kubaka akabimureberera. Ko ihinduranya ryabaye nyuma ntakibazo kibirimo kuko ryakozwe hashingiwe kumasezerano y’ubugure bari barakoranye kandi Dorisi ariwe wenyine wari wanditse kucyangombwa ndetse bikorerwa mbere ya Noteri w’ubutaka. Naburugero nawe yiregura avuga nka Noteri w’ubutaka yagiye gukorera mu murenge wa Muhoza avuye cyuve agiye gusimbura uwaho yari agiye muri conge yoherejwe n’umuyobozi we, akaba ariyo mpamvu ariwe wabakoreye ihererekanya. Kuba Niyibogora ataramuhamagaje ngo asinye ku iherekanya nta mategeko yishe 176 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 207

CCIII

kuko mu iherekanya ry’uburenganzira ku butaka ikigenderwaho ari abanditse ku cyemezo cy’ubutaka, kandi ko ubwo butaka bwari bwanditse kuri Dorisi 100%. Avuga na none ko kuba Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko yagombaga kubanza kureba uburyo bw’imicungire y’umutungo w’abo yari agiye gukorera ihererekanya ry’uburenganzira ku butaka atari byo, kuko “système” bakoreramo nka ba Noteri mu by’ubutaka mu Rwanda ishingira ku byanditswe ku cyangombwa cy’ubutaka, ko rero atagomba kujya iruhande rw’ibyanditse ku cyangombwa cy’ubutaka ngo abaze abaje gukora ihererekanya ry’uburenganzira ku butaka uburyo bacungamo umutungo wabo. Incamake y’Icyemezo: 1. Igihe uregera indishyi ariwe gusa wajuriye, uregwa nta bihano agenerwa kabone niyo Urukiko rwasanga ahamwa n’icyaha, bityo nubwo ibyaha Dorisi, Hakizimana na Naburugero baregwa bibahama, ntabwo bahabwa ibihano kuko ubushinjacyaha butajuriye ahubwo Niyibogora waregeye indishyi agomba kuzihabwa. Gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane bifite ishingiro; Imikirize y’urubanza rwasubirishijwemo ku mpamvu z’akarengane ihindutse kuri bimwe. Amategeko yashyingiweho: Itegeko n° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, ingingo ya 55 n’iya 63 Itegeko- Ngenga nº 01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 613 n’iya 614 177 NIYIBOGORA v DORISI N’ABANDI

## Page 208

CCIV

Iteka rya Minisitiri nº 002/2008 ryo ku wa 01/04/2008 rigena uburyo iyandikisha ry’ubutaka rikorwa, ingingo ya 10 Imanza zifashishijwe RS/INJUST/RP 00006/2017/CS; Ubushinjacyaha na Nsengiyumva rwaciwe kuwa 29/11/2019. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Musanze, Ubushinjacyaha bwareze Dorisi Melchiade, Hakizimana Sylvain na Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja icyaha cyo kwihesha mu buriganya ikintu cy’undi, buvuga ko Dorisi Melchiade na Hakizimana Sylvain bafatanyije, banditse inyandiko bise iyo ku wa 22/07/2011, ivuga ko Dorisi Melchiade agurishije Hakizimana Sylvain ikibanza nº PC 992 giherereye mu Kagari ka Mpenge, Umurenge wa Muhoza, Akarere ka Musanze, Intara y’Amajyaruguru, barangije bifashisha Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja, Noteri wa Leta mu by'ubutaka mu Murenge wa Cyuve, wabakoreye ku bw'uburiganya inyandiko zitangwa n'inzego zabugenewe zirimo ibinyoma z'ihererekanya ry'uburenganzira ku butaka rishingiye ku bugure hagati yabo, yirengagije ko icyo kibanza kibarizwa mu Murenge wa Muhoza, ko kandi Dorisi Melchiade na Hakizimana Sylvain bafite abagore bashyingiranywe, aribo Niyibogora Christine (umugore wa Dorisi Melchiade) na Twizerimana Kwitonda Emerita (umugore wa Hakizimana Sylvain), bagombaga gutumizwa bakemeza iryo hererekanya ry’uburenganzira ku butaka, ndetse anirengagije agaciro k’ikibanza, kuko mu masezerano y’ubugure banditse ko bakiguze 178 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 209

CCV

ku giciro cya miliyoni ebyiri na magana atatu (2.300.000 Frw) kandi harimo inzu ifite agaciro k'amafaranga y’u Rwanda agera kuri miliyoni mirongo itanu (50.000.000 Frw). [2] Mu rubanza RP 00205/2017/TGI/MUS rwaciwe ku wa 07/12/2017, Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Musanze rwemeje ko Dorisi Melchiade na Hakizimana Sylvain bahamwa n’icyaha cyo guhimba no gukoresha inyandiko mpimbano, ruhanisha buri wese igifungo cy’imyaka itandatu (6), naho Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja ahamwa n’icyaha cyo gutanga inyandiko ku muntu udakwiye kuyihabwa bikozwe n’umukozi wa Leta, rumuhanisha igifungo cy’imyaka itandatu (6), rubategeka gufatanya kwishyura Niyibogora Christine indishyi zingana na miliyoni eshatu n’ibihumbi magana atatu (3.300.000 Frw). [3] Dorisi Melchiade, Hakizimana Sylvain na Naburughero Giramahoro Ajja bajuririye Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, ibirego byabo bihurizwa hamwe mu rubanza RPA 00572/2017/HC/MUS – RPA 00010/2018/HC/MUS – RPA 00018/208/HC/MUS, urwo Rukiko rwemeza ko ubujurire bwabo bufite ishingiro, ko Dorisi Melchiade na Hakizimana Sylvain badahamwa n’icyaha cyo guhimba no gukoresha inyandiko mpimbano, ko Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja adahamwa n’icyaha cyo gutanga inyandiko ku muntu udakwiye kuyihabwa bikozwe n’umukozi wa Leta, kuko rwasanze ibimenyetso byatanzwe n’Ubushinjacyaha bishidikanywaho, rutegeka Niyibogora Christine kwishyura amagarama y’urubanza angana n’amafaranga y’u Rwanda ibihumbi makumyabiri (20.000 Frw). [4] Nyuma y’icibwa ry’urwo rubanza, Niyibogora Christine yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire asaba ko urubanza RPA 00572/2017/HC/MUS - RPA 00010/2018/HC/MUS - RPA 00018/208/HC/MUS rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, 179 NIYIBOGORA v DORISI N’ABANDI

## Page 210

CCVI

nawe yandikira Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, asaba ko urwo rubanza rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, maze ku wa 19/07/2019 mu cyemezo nº 138/CJ/2019, Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ategeka ko urubanza rwoherezwa mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire kugira ngo ruruburanishe, ruhabwa nº RS/INJUST/RP 00003/2019/CA. [5] Urubanza rwaburanishirijwe mu ruhame ku wa 10/02/2020 Niyibogora Christine ahagarariwe na Me Kabagema Aphrodice na Me Bizumuremyi Félix, Dorisi Melchiade yunganiwe na Me Kavuyekure Dieudonné, Hakizimana Sylvain yunganiwe na Me Nsengiyumva Straton afatanyije na Me Dukundane Anastase, Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja yunganiwe na Me Nsengiyumva Enos, naho Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na Rudatinya Gaspard, Umushinjacyaha ku rwego rw’Igihugu, rurapfundikirwa, ariko mbere y’uko rucibwa, umwe mu bacamanza bagize inteko yaruburanishije yimurirwa mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, bituma rwongera kuburanishwa n’indi nteko ku wa 09/09/2020, Niyibogora Christine ahagarariwe na Me Bizumuremyi Félix, abandi baburanyi bunganiwe nka mbere. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO Kumenya niba ikirego cyatanzwe na Niyibogora Christine cyo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane kitagomba kwakirwa, kuko yari agifite indi nzira y’ubujurire [6] Me Nsengiyumva Enos, wunganira Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja, avuga ko hakurikijwe ingingo ya 55, igika cya 2, y’Itegeko Nº 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, iteganya ko umuburanyi wari ufite uburenganzira 180 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 211

CCVII

bwo kwiyambaza izindi nzira zo kujurira zisanzwe n’izidasanzwe, ariko ntabikore mu gihe giteganyijwe n’amategeko, atemerewe gusaba ko urubanza yatsinzwe rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, asanga ikirego cyatanzwe na Niyibogora Christine gisaba gusubirishamo urubanza nº RPA 00572/2017/HC/MUS – RPA 00010/2018/HC/MUS – RPA 00018/208/HC/MUS rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru Urugereko rwa Musanze, kidakwiye kwakirwa, kubera ko atabanje kwiyambaza inzira yo gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya yemererwaga n’ingingo ya 193 n’iya 194, z’Itegeko Nº 30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, kubera ko avuga ko akarengane ke gashingiye ku bimenyetso byirengagijwe, ndetse mu bimenyetso avuga, hakaba harimo ibyo yungutse nyuma y’uko urubanza rucibwa. [7] Me Kabagema Aphrodice, uhagarariye Niyibogora Christine, avuga ko iyo nzitizi yatanzwe na Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja nta shingiro ifite, kuko atumva neza impamvu ashingiraho avuga ko yari gutanga ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya, aho gusaba ko rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, kuko ibimenyetso avuga ko ari bishya, atari bishya, ahubwo ko byose byakoreshejwe mu iburanisha mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze. [8] Me Bizumuremyi Félix, nawe uhagarariye Niyibogora Christine, avuga ko yasubirishijemo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane ashingiye ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 55, igika cya 2, y’Itegeko Nº 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasba bw’inkiko, kuko yabonaga ko nta yindi nzira y’ubujurire yari isigaye, kandi abona ko Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, hari ibimenyetso rwirengagije kandi byaraburanweho.

181 NIYIBOGORA v DORISI N’ABANDI

## Page 212

CCVIII

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [9] Ingingo ya 55, igika cya 2, y’itegeko Nº 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko iteganya ko “Icyakora umuburanyi wari ufite uburenganzira bwo kwiyambaza izindi nzira z’ubujurire zisanzwe n’izidasanzwe, ariko ntabikore mu gihe giteganyijwe n’amategeko, ntiyemerewe gusaba ko urubanza yatsinzwe rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, keretse akarengane kabonywe n’Ubugenzuzi Bukuru bw’Inkiko”. [10] Naho ku byerekeye gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya, ingingo ya 194, agace ka 5, y’Itegeko Nº 30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha ryakurikizwaga igihe Niyibogora Christine yasabaga gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane, iteganya ko “Urubanza rushobora gusubirishwamo ingingo nshya kubera imwe mu mpamvu zikurikira: (…) Iyo kuva aho urubanza ruciriwe habonetse ikimenyetso cya kamarampaka kigaragaza neza akarengane katewe n’urubanza rusabirwa gusubirishwamo, icyo kimenyetso kikaba cyari mu nyandiko zatanzwe mu rubanza, ariko urukiko ntirukibone”. [11] Urukiko rurasanga ibyo uwunganira Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja avuga ko Niyibogora Christine yari agifite inzira yo gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya, mbere yo kwiyambaza iyo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane nta shingiro bifite, kuko atagaragaza ikimenyetso cya kamarampaka cyabonetse nyuma y’icibwa ry’urubanza, cyangwa se icyari muri dosiye umucamanza ntakibone, kikaba kiburanishwa na Niyibogora Christine muri uru rubanza, mu gihe ababuranira Niyibogora Christine bavuga ko ibimenyetso 182 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 213

CCIX

baburanisha byose byaburanweho, ariko agasanga urubanza uko rwaciwe byaramuteye akarengane. [12] Hashingiwe ku ngingo z’amategeko zagaragajwe haruguru no ku bimaze gusobanurwa, Urukiko rurasanga inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego yatanzwe na Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja nta shingiro ifite. Kumenya niba Dorisi Melchiade na Hakizimana Sylvain barakoze, ku bw’uburiganya inyandiko y’ubugure bw’ikibanza UPI:4/03/08/03/992 no kumenya niba Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja, nka Noteri w’Ubutaka, yaragize uruhare mu buriganya buvugwa na Niyibogora Christine akabaha inyandiko badakwiye [13] Me Bizumuremyi Félix, uhagarariye Niyibogora Christine, avuga ko Dorisi Melchiade na Niyibogora Christine bashyingiranywe ku wa 15/09/2011, mu buryo bw’ivangamutungo rusange, Niyibogora Christine amusangana ikibanza UPI:4/03/08/03/992 kitarubakwa, bakajya bacyishyurira imisoro kuva mu mwaka wa 2011 kugeza uru rubanza rutangiye, ko muri Gashyantare 2013 batse uruhushya rwo kubaka (autorisation de bâtir), batangira kubaka inzu muri icyo kibanza bakoresheje amatafari ahiye yavaga muri Koperative Dorisi Melchiade yari arimo, bigeze muri Nzeli 2013, basaba inguzanyo muri Banki y’Abaturage ya Musanze kugira ngo basakare iyo nzu banayikinge, nyuma bayibamo, bakagenda bayubaka buhoro buhoro, kuko banakoreraga imishahara buri kwezi. [14] Akomeza avuga ko mu gihe Dorisi Melchiade yari mu mugambi wo gusaba ubutane, yatangiye gutegura uburyo yiharira iyo nzu, maze afatanyije na Hakizimana Sylvain bakora 183 NIYIBOGORA v DORISI N’ABANDI

## Page 214

CCX

amasezerano y’ubugure bw’ikibanza UPI:4/03/08/03/992 cyavuzwe haruguru, bashyiraho itariki ya mbere y’ugushyingirwa kwa Dorisi Melchiade na Niyibogora Christine, bavuga ko ayo masezerano akozwe ku wa 22 Nyakanga 2011, barangije bajya gukora andi masezerano imbere ya Noteri ku wa 28 Ukwakira 2016, ikibanza cyari icya Dorisi Melchiade gihinduka icya Hakizimana Sylvain, ibyo babikora mu buriganya, kuko Noteri Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja yari ahagarariye ihererekanya ry’ubutaka ntagire icyo ababaza, nyamara bombi bafite abagore bashyingiranywe, kandi ifishi yabahaye igaragaza ahuzuzwa irangamimerere y’ugurisha ubutaka, bituma avutswa 50% ku kibanza yubakanyemo inzu n’umugabo we akakigurisha atamubwiye. [15] Asanga rero mu rubanza yasubirishijemo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze rwarahinduye urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Musanze, abarezwe bagirwa abere, n’indishyi yari yagenewe zikurwaho hirengagijwe ibimenyetso byose byagaragajwe n’Ubushinjacyaha bikurikira: - “Acte de mariage” igaragaza ko Dorisi Melchiade yashyingiranywe na Niyibogora Christine mu buryo bw’ivangamutungo rusange. - Amasezerano y’ubugure yo ku wa 22/07/2011 afite inenge, kuko ariho umukono w’Umukuru w’Umudugudu, ariko nta kashe iriho, kubera ko iyo iba iriho byari kugaragara ko ayo masezerano y’ubugure ari amahimbano, kuko Dorisi Melchiade yari yiyanditseho ubutaka n’inzu agiye gutangiza urubanza rw’ubutane ; - Icyemezo cy’umutungo cyasohotse ku wa 05/10/2011, nyuma gato cyane y’ishyingirwa ryabo: iyo Dorisi 184 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 215

CCXI

Melchiade aba yaragurishije ubutaka, ntabwo icyo cyemezo cyari gusohoka cyanditsweho Dorisi Melchiade; - Ihererekanya ry’ubutaka ryabaye ku wa 28/10/2016, hashize hafi imyaka 5, hakibazwa icyo Dorisi Melchiade yari ategereje kugira ngo atange ubutaka yagurishije; - Ubutumwa bugufi (sms) Dorisi Melchiade yandikiye Niyibogora Christine hagati y’itariki 9 - 12/07/2016, ubwo yamusabaga gushaka inzu i Kigali kugira ngo abone aho arerera umwana wabo, undi akamubwira ko atashaka indi nzu i Kigali kandi n’iy’i Musanze itaruzura, byumvikanisha ko nawe yemeraga ko iyo nzu bayisangiye; - Inyandiko mvugo y’ibazwa rya Dorisi Melchiade mu Bushinjacyaha, aho yabajijwe uko aba muri iyo nzu, akavuga ko ayikodesha 25.000 Frw, naho Hakizimana Sylvain avuga ko bayibamo ku buntu; - Inyandiko zigaragaza ko ku wa 12/09/2013 basabye inguzanyo ingana na 3.800.000 Frw muri Banki y’Abaturage, ishami rya Musanze, maze bakubaka; - Inyandiko zigaragaza ko bishyuye imisoro y’ikibanza buri mwaka kuva mu mwaka wa 2011 kugeza uru rubanza rutangiye; [16] Me Bizumuremyi Félix avuga ko kuri Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja, ibimenyetso byirengagijwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze byatumye Niyibogora Christine agira akarengane ari uko mu nyandiko (form) isaba ihererekanya ry’uburenganzira ku butaka, Dorisi Melchiade yabajijwe niba yubatse, akavuga ko yubatse, ariko Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja ntiyahamagaza Niyibogora Christine bashakanye kugira ngo 185 NIYIBOGORA v DORISI N’ABANDI

## Page 216

CCXII

hatagira inyungu ze zibangamirwa, ntiyanahamagaza umugore wa Hakizimana Sylvain kandi yaragombaga kubikora, ko n’ubwo rero ubutaka bwari bwanditse kuri Dorisi Melchiade 100%, ariko Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja yagombaga guhamagaza umugore wa Dorisi Melchiade n’uwa Hakizimana Sylvain bakihagararira. [17] Yongeraho ko ibyo Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja yabikoze ari Noteri w’Umurenge wa Cyuve, utari uw’Umurenge wa Muhoza, uretse ko abazwa mu Bugenzacyaha yavuze ko yari afite uburenganzira bwo gukora ibikorwa by’ubunoteri mu wundi Murenge, ariko ko yabuhawe mu magambo gusa, mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Musanze avuga ko hari inyandiko ibimuhera uburenganzira, aribwo yayishakishije mu mayeri ayishyira muri iecms, kandi mbere yaravuze ko uburenganzira yabuhawe mu magambo. [18] Me Bizumuremyi Félix avuga na none ko Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja, nka Noteri mu by’ubutaka yagombaga kwita ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 36 y’Itegeko rigenga umurimo w’abanoteri, igaragaza ibyo basabwa mbere yo gusinya ku nyandiko y’ihererekanya ry’uburenganzira ku butaka, no ku ngingo ya 37 y’iryo tegeko imusaba ubushishozi mbere yo gusinya ku nyandiko y’ihererekanya ry’uburenganzira ku butaka, ko izi ngingo zombi zigaragaza ko mbere y’uko Noteri wa Leta mu by’ubutaka Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja asinya ku nyandiko z’ihererekanya ry’uburenganzira ku butaka, yagombaga kubanza kubaza umwirondoro wa dorisi Melchiade n’uwa Hakizimana Sylvain, akamenya ko nta wundi muntu basangiye uwo mutungo, cyane cyane ko bamusanze mu wundi Murenge. [19] Asoza avuga ko ibyo bimenyetso byose iyo bisuzumwa n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, byari kugaragara ko amasezerano y’ubugure yashyizwe mbere gato y’ishyingirwa rya 186 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 217

CCXIII

Dorisi Melchiade na Niyibogora Christine, ari inyandiko yahimbwe yahawe itariki itari iyo yakoreweho (antidaté), bigatuma Dorisi Melchiade na Hakizimana Sylvain bahamwa n’icyaha cyo guhimba no gukoresha inyandiko mpimbano, naho Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja agahamwa n’icyaha cyo guha umuntu inyandiko atayikwiye bikozwe n’umukozi wa Leta, maze Niyibogora Christine nawe agahabwa indishyi, kuko ibyo byaha bakoze byatumye Dorisi Melchiade yiharira umutungo bari basangiye ufite agaciro ka miliyoni mirongo itanu z’amafaranga y’u Rwanda (50.000.000 Frw). [20] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko ibimenyetso bwatanze mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze byirengagijwe, ko bwari bwareze busobanura uburyo amasezerano yakozwe ku wa 22/07/2011 ari amahimbano yakorewe mu nzu kwa Hakizimana Sylvain nk’uko uwitwa Ntihabose Modeste yabivuze, akaba yarahimbwe, kuko Dorisi Melchiade yari atangiye urubanza rw’ubutane, kugira ngo azegukane ikibanza n’inzu irimo, ko mu rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Musanze, mu gika cya 14, rwemeje ko ayo masezerano ari amahimbano, naho Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze rukita gusa ku nyandiko y’ihererekanya ry’ubutaka yakozwe ba nyiri ubwite badahari, maze abarezwe bagirwa abere, bituma Niyibogora Christine avutswa uburenganzira ku mutungo ari byo byamuteye kurengana. [21] Akomeza avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze rwemeje ko amasezerano yo ku wa 22/07/2011 avugisha ukuri, rushingiye ku mpamvu y’uko hari abayashyizeho umukono, rwumva ko bihagije, rwirengagije ko bamwe mu bayasinyeho bemeje ko yabereye mu rugo rwa Hakizimana Sylvain, batageze ku kibanza kigurishwa, akibaza icyo 187 NIYIBOGORA v DORISI N’ABANDI

## Page 218

CCXIV

bahamyaga ko kigurishijwe, mu gihe ikigurishwa batari bakibonye ngo bamenye ko gihari, ko ikindi cyirengagijwe ari uko bamwe mu bahamije ubwo bugure ari abo mu muryango wa Dorisi Melchiade, ndetse ko binagaragara ko uwaguze nawe ari uwo mu muryango we, n’abamusinyiye ari abavandimwe be, akaba ari nabo bagiye mu gusuzuma ikibazo cye n’umugore we adahari, ibyo bikaba bigaragaza ko abakoze ayo masezerano ari abashakaga gufasha Dorisi Melchiade guhisha umutungo, kuko babonaga atabanye neza n’umugore we. [22] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko ikindi Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze rwirengajie, ari uko mu butumwa bugufi (sms), Dorisi Melchiade yandikiye umugore we ku wa 09/07/2016 no ku wa 12/07/2016, yavugaga ko bafite inzu i Musanze, akaba atagaragaza indi nzu bahafite uretse igibwaho impaka, ko ubwo butumwa umucamanza yabutesheje agaciro kandi bwaragombaga kumubera ikimenyetso kigaragaza ko iyo nzu ari iy’umuryango, kandi ko ikibanza yubatsemo kitigeze kigurishwa. [23] Avuga na none ko hirengagijwe ko Dorisi Melchiade avuga ko inzu yayigurishije tariki 22/07/2011, ashyingiranwa na Niyibogora Christine ku wa 15/09/2011, ko yagurishije umutungo adasangiye n’undi kuko umwanditseho 100%, nyamara akirengagiza ko basezeranye ivangamutungo rusange, ko Dorisi Melchiade abaye yaragurishije ikibanza tariki 22/07/2011, atari gukora iherekanya ry’uburenganzira ku butaka rishingiye ku bugure (mutation) nyuma y’imyaka itanu (5) yose, ko hakwibazwa icyo Hakizimana Sylvain yari yizeye mu gihe ubutaka yitwa ko yaguze bwari bucyanditse kuri Dorisi Melchiade, ko kandi n’ubwo bwose ubutaka bwari bwanditse kuri Dorisi Melchide 100%, uyu atari kubugurisha umugore we 188 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 219

CCXV

atabizi, kubera ko bashyingiranywe ivangamutungo rusange, kandi ko no mu gihe cyo gukora ihererekanya ry’uburenganzira ku butaka (mutation) umugore we yagombaga kuba ahari nk’uko biteganywa ku nyandiko yabugenewe. [24] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze rwanirengagije ko Dorisi Melchiade avuga ko yagurishije Hakizimana Sylvain ikibanza, cyubakwamo inzu, yuzuye we n’umugore we bayimukiramo, bakajya bayikodesha amafaranga ibihumbi makumyabiri na bitanu (25.000 Frw), mu gihe Hakizimana Sylvain we avuga ko yayibatije ku buntu, ibyo bikaba bidashoboka ko yamugurisha ikibanza, akacyubakamo inzu, yarangiza kuyubaka akayituramo batarakora ihererekanya ry’uburenganzira ku butaka. [25] Asoza avuga ko ibyo byose ari byo byatumye habaho akarengane, kuko urubanza rwavukije Niyibogora Christine uburenganzira ku mutungo bushingiye ku isezerano ryo gushyingirwa ryo ku wa 15/09/2011, ko rero ashingiye ku ngingo ya 63 y’Itegeko Nº 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, Ubushinjacyaha busaba ko Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwasuzuma ibimenyetso byose bwatanze, maze rukemeza ko abaregwa bahamwa n’ibyaha baregwa ndetse rukagumishaho igihano bari bahawe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Musanze. [26] Dorisi Melchiade avuga ko abona ariwe ukorerwa akarengane, kuko hari urubanza RADA 00006/2017/TGI/MUS rwaciwe ku wa 20/01/2018 n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Musanze rwabaye itegeko, rwemeje ko amasezerano y’ubugure yakozwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, ko hari n’urubanza RC 00071/2018/TB/MUH na RC 00188/2017/TB/MUH rwo ku wa 28/01/2019 rwaburanywe hagati ya Dorisi Melchiade na 189 NIYIBOGORA v DORISI N’ABANDI

## Page 220

CCXVI

Niyibogora Christine narwo rwabaye itegeko, rwanditsemo ko Niyibogora Christine na Dorisi Melchiade bemeranya ko nta mutungo bafite. [27] Akomeza avuga ko ikibanza UPI:4/03/08/03/992 yakigurishije akiri ingaragu ku itariki ya 22/07/2011, ashyingiranwa na Niyibogora Christine ku wa 15/09/2011, ko Hakizimana Sylvain yakigurishije yamusabye ko yamwubakishiriza inzu muri icyo kibanza, kuko ari inzobere mu by’ubwubatsi (engineer), inzu arayubakisha, igihe itari yuzura neza ayimukiramo akajya ayikodesha ku mafaranga ibihumbi makumyabiri na bitanu (25.000 Frw) bitewe n’ubuzima yari abayeho, kuko umugore we Niyibogora Christine yari yaramutaye, ko kuba rero yaravuze ko iyo nzu yayibagamo ayikodesha, naho Hakizimana Sylvain akavuga ko yayibagamo ku buntu, abona nta kibazo kirimo, kuko igihe yabaga yahakoreye yayibagamo ku buntu, yaba atahakoreye akishyura amafaranga y’ubukode. [28] Avuga kandi ko kuba ariwe wasabye icyangombwa cyo kubaka (autorisation de bâtir), byatewe n’uko yari atarakorana ihererekanya ry’uburenganzira ku butaka na Hakizimana Sylvain ngo ubutaka buve mu mazina ye bujye mu mazina ya Hakizimana Sylvain, kandi ko “autorisation de bâtir” itangwa yanditseho amazina y’uwanditse ku butaka. [29] Ku bijyanye n’ubutumwa bugufi (sms) buvugwa ko yohererezaga Niyibogora Christine yemera ko bafite inzu i Musanze, Dorisi Melchiade avuga ko ntabwo yigeze amwoherereza, ko Niyibogora Christine nawe ashobora gufata telefone ye akabwiyoherereza, naho ku bijyanye no kuba ariwe watangaga imisoro y’ikibanza cyubatsemo inzu igibwaho impaka kugeza mu mwaka wa 2016, akavuga ko Hakizimana Sylvain 190 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 221

CCXVII

ariwe watangaga amafaranga y’imisoro, ariko ku nyandiko z’imenyekanisha y’iyishyurwa ry’imisoro bikagaraga ko ari Dorisi Melchiade utanze imisoro, kubera ko ikibanza cyari kikimwanditseho. [30] Ku bivugwa n’Ubushinjacyaha ko abanditse mu masezerano y’ubugure banayasinyeho ari abo mu muryango we, banagaragara mu nyandiko y’umuryango yo gukemura ibibazo bye na Niyibogora Christine, Dorisi Melchiade avuga ko nta kosa ririmo, kuko ikibanza yakigurishije atarashaka, akigurisha hari umuryango, kuko ariwo wamufashaga mu bibazo, ko kuba yaratinze guhererekanya ubwo butaka na Hakizimana Sylvain byatewe n’uko ku wa 28/10/2016 ari bwo Hakizimana Sylvain yari abonye umwanya, kuko yari mu kazi kenshi. [31] Me Kavuyekure Dieudonné, wunganira Dorisi Melchiade, avuga ko urubanza RC 00071/2018/TB/MUH na RC 00188/2017/TB/MUH rwo ku wa 28/01/2019 ruvuguruza ibyo abahagarariye Niyibogora Christine bavuga, kuko we ubwe yivugiye imbere y’Urukiko ko nta mutungo afitanye na Dorisi Melchiade, kandi ko ibyo yabivuze nyuma y’imyaka ibiri (2) urubanza RP 00205/2017/TGI/MUS ruciwe, kuko rwaciwe ku wa 07/12/2017, ko agaciro gahabwa urubanza rwabaye itegeko ku birebana n’imitungo gatuma babona ko ibyo Niyibogora Christine yivugiye bifite ishingiro. [32] Me Kavuyekure Dieudonné akomeza avuga ko ubutumwa bugufi (sms) buvugwa muri uru rubanza ko Dorisi Melchiade yandikiye Niyibogora Christine atari byo, ko kandi ntacyo bwamumarira, kuko yiyemereye ko nta mutungo afitanye na Dorisi Melchiade, ko kandi ubwo butumwa ari ubwo mu mwaka wa 2016, mu gihe ubugure bw’ikibanza bwari bwarabaye mbere. 191 NIYIBOGORA v DORISI N’ABANDI

## Page 222

CCXVII

[33] Anavuga ko amasezerano y’ubugure atari amahimbano, kuko abayagiranye basinyiye ibyo bahagazeho kandi bemeza ko ariko byagenze, ko kuba ayo masezerano ariho amatariki abiri, byatewe n’uko hasi bashyizeho itariki Umukuru w’Umudugudu yasinyeho, ko kandi nta muntu n’umwe uhakana ayo masezerano y’ubugure yo ku wa 22/07/2011, kuko Niyibogora Christine atigeze aregera kuyatesha agaciro, kandi ko ikigaragaza nyiri umutungo ari icyangombwa cy’ubutaka, icyo cyangombwa cy’ubutaka kikaba cyari cyanditse kuri Dorisi Melchiade 100%, kandi Niyibogora Christine akaba nabyo atarigeze abiregera. [34] Me Kavuyekure Dieudonné avuga ko Dorisi Melchiade yasabiye Hakizimana Sylvain icyangombwa cyo kubaka, kuko ikibanza cyari kikimwanditseho, ko ari we wishyuraga n’imisoro, ariko ikaza mu mazina ya DORISI Melchiade, kuko Hakizimana Sylvain yari atarinjira muri “système” bitewe n’uko ikibanza cyari kitaramwandikwaho, ko kubijyanye no kuba baratinze gukora ihererekanya ry’uburenganzira ku butaka, nta kibazo abibonamo, kuko bikorwa igihe icyo ari cyo cyose, kandi nta gihe ntarengwa gihari kigenwa n’itegeko. [35] Ku bijyanye no kuba Dorisi Melchiade yarabaga mu nzu yubatse mu kibanza bivugwa ko ari icya Hakizimana Sylvain, Me Kavuyekure Dieudonné avuga ko iyo nzu Dorisi Melchiade yayubakishaga anayibamo, yaba yagiye gukorera ahandi hantu akishyura Hakizimana Sylvain amafaranga y’ubukode ibihumbi makumyabiri na bitanu (25.000 Frw), ko rero atagombaga gukodesha kandi hari ibikoresho bya Hakizimana Sylvain yagombaga kurinda. [36] Ku byerekeye inguzanyo ku mushahara ingana na 3.787.560 Frw yafashwe mu mwaka wa 2013, Me Kavuyekure 192 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 223

CCXIX

Dieudonné avuga ko ayo mafaranga Dorisi Melchiade yasabye muri Banki y’Abaturage, ishami rya Musanze atari ayo kubaka inzu nk’uko Niyibogora Christine abiburanisha, kuko ayo yahawe adashobora kubaka inzu bavuga ko ifite agaciro k’amafaranga miliyoni mirongo itanu (50.000.000 Frw), ko ahubwo ayo mafaranga yakoreshejwe mu bijyanye n’amasomo ya Niyibogora Christine. [37] Asanga nta kuntu Dorisi Melchiade yari guhimba inyandiko y’ubugure, kuko atari kwihesha uburenganzira ku butaka asanganywe, ibyo bikaba bihura n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 18 y’itegeko ry’ubutaka ryakoreshwaga mu mwaka wa 2013 iteganya ko nyiri ubutaka ari uwo bwanditseho, kandi ko mu gukora ihererekanya ry’uburenganzira ku butaka, hakenerwa uwo ubwo ubutaka bwanditseho gusa, ari nayo mpamvu bitari ngombwa ko Dorisi Melchiade ajyana n’umugore we Niyibogora Christine kwa Noteri w’ubutaka. [38] Hakizimana Sylvain avuga ko yaguze ikibanza na Dorisi Melchiade akiri ingaragu, uyu nawe akaba yari yarakiguze n’abandi, barakoze ihererekanya ry’uburenganzira ku butaka, ariko ibyangombwa bitarasohoka, yubakamo inzu, ndetse aha Dorisi Melchiade akazi ko kujya amurebera uko ibikorwa by’ubwubatsi bigenda, kuko ari impuguke mu by’ubwubatsi (Ingénieur civil), ko kubera ko ikibanza cyari cyanditswe kuri Dorisi Melchiade bitewe nuko bari batarakora ihererekanya ry’uburenganzira ku butaka, byatumye icyangombwa cyo kubaka (autorisation de bâtir) gisohoka cyanditse kuri Dorisi Melchiade, gitansi z’imisoro nazo zikaza zimwanditseho, ariko amafaranga y’imisoro ari we (Hakizimana Sylvain) wayatanze, ko rero byabaye ngombwa ko Dorisi Melchiade wari ufite icyangombwa cy’ikibanza kimwanditseho nk’umutungo we 193 NIYIBOGORA v DORISI N’ABANDI

## Page 224

CCXX

100% acyivanaho, kuko yari yaramaze kukigurisha, maze ku wa 28/10/2016 cyandikwa kuri Hakizimana Sylvain wari warakiguze, bikorerwa imbere ya Noteri w’ubutaka Naburugero Giramahoro Ajjya, Hakizimana Sylvain ahabwa icyangombwa cy’icyo kibanza. [39] Hakizimana Sylvain avuga kandi ko inzu Dorisi Melchiade yamwubakishirizaga yayubakaga ayibamo, yaba yagiye gukorera ahandi hantu akamwishyura amafaranga ibihumbi makumyabiri na bitanu (25.000 Frw) y’ubukode, ko kuba baratinze gukora ihererekanya ry’uburenganzira ku butaka byatewe n’uko bari barumvikanye ko igihe cyose azabishakira ari cyo gihe bazabikora, kandi ko nta cyo byari bimutwaye. [40] Me Nsengiyumva Straton, wunganira Hakizimana Sylvain, avuga ko intandaro y’ikirego cy’Ubushinjacyaha ari ikirego cyatanzwe na Niyibogora Christine asaba ko amasezerano y’ubukode burambye ateshwa agaciro, mu kuyasuzuma, Urukiko rusanga nta nenge afite, akaba asanga urwo rubanza rutateshwa agaciro, ko ahubwo uru Rukiko rukwiye kureba impamvu yatumye Niyibogora Christine yamaze igihe cy’imyaka itanu (5) adakurikirana inzu yita ko ari iye, ngo asabe ko imwandikwaho. [41] Akomeza avuga ko atabona ibimenyetso bishinja icyaha cyo guhimba amasezerano byaba byarirengagijwe n’Urukiko Rukuru nk’uko bivugwa na Niyibogora Christine, mu gihe ugura n’ugurisha bayasinyeho kandi bayemera, ko kandi amasezerano y’ubugure yo ku wa 22/07/2011 avuga ko Dorisi Melchiade agurishije ikibanza aho kuba inzu. [42] Me Nsengiyumva Straton avuga na none ko kuba abahamya bagaragara mu masezerano y’ubugure ari inshuti 194 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 225

CCXXI

z’umuryango, nta kibazo kirimo, kuko nta tegeko ribibuza, ndetse ko bamwe muri bo barimo Gatete Callixte na Ntihabose Modeste nta sano bafitanye na DORISI Melchiade wagurishije cyangwa se na Hakizimana Sylvain waguze, ko rero ntaho Niyibogora Christine n’Ubushinjacyaha bahera bavuga ko amasezerano ari amahimbano. [43] Ku byerekeye ubutumwa bugufi buvugwa ko Dorisi Melchiade yagiye yoherereza Niyibogora Christine, Me Nsengiyumva Straton avuga ko ntacyo burebaho Hakizimana Sylvain, kuko bashobora no kubiganira ahubwo bashaka kumunyaga ibye. [44] Me Nsengiyumva Straton asoza avuga ko kuba Dorisi Melchiade na Hakizimana Sylvain barakoze ihererekanya ry’uburenganzira ku butaka batinze bitafatwa nk’ikimenyetso cyemeza ko amasezerano y’ubugure ari amahimbano, kuko nta tegeko ribihana, ko rero ibyo amategeko adahana bitaba ikimenyetso cy’uko amasezerano y’ubugure ari amahimbano, ko kandi kuba Hakizimana Sylvain atarabwiye umugore we ngo bajyane gukora iherekanya ry’uburenganzira ku butaka bitafatwa nk’ikimenyetso cy’uko amasezerano y’ubugure ari amahimbano, kuko we nta kibazo yari afitanye n’umugore we. [45] Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja avuga ko nka Noteri w’iby’ubutaka yagiye gukorera mu Murenge wa Muhoza, kubera ko Noteri waho witwa Sebutwa Félicien yari muri konji, agenda yoherejwe n’umukuriye mu kazi, kandi ko itegeko ry’abanoteri ribiteganya. Akomeza avuga ko n’ubwo kuri “formulaire” buzuza bakora ihererekanya ry’uburenganzira ku butaka bandikaho ko umuntu ari ingaragu cyangwa se yubatse, ibyo bidakuraho amategeko ba noteri bagenderaho, cyane cyane ingingo ya 5 n’iya 23 z’Iteka rya Minisitiri Nº 002/2008 ryo ku 195 NIYIBOGORA v DORISI N’ABANDI

## Page 226

CCXXII

wa 01/04/2008 rigena uburyo iyandikisha ry’ubutaka rikorwa, ziteganya ko mu iherekanya ry’uburenganzira ku butaka ikigenderwaho ari abanditse ku cyemezo cy’ubutaka, kandi ko ubwo butaka bwari bwanditse kuri Dorisi Melchiade 100%. [46] Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja avuga na none ko kuba Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko yagombaga kubanza kureba uburyo bw’imicungire y’umutungo w’abo yari agiye gukorera ihererekanya ry’uburenganzira ku butaka atari byo, kuko système bakoreramo nka ba Noteri mu by’ubutaka mu Rwanda ishingira ku byanditswe ku cyangombwa cy’ubutaka, ko rero atagomba kujya iruhande rw’ibyanditse ku cyangombwa cy’ubutaka ngo abaze abaje gukora ihererekanya ry’uburenganzira ku butaka uburyo bacungamo umutungo wabo. [47] Avuga kandi ko formulaire yujujwe na Dorisi Melchiade asaba ihererekanya ry’uburenganzira ku butaka yujujeho ko afite umugore, ariko ko atari yo igenderwaho mu gukora ihererekanya ry’uburenganzira ku butaka, ahubwo ko hagenderwa ku mategeko yagaragaje haruguru. [48] Me Nsengiyumva Enos, wunganira Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja, avuga ko icyaha uwo yunganira aregwa cyo guhesha umuntu inyandiko atagenewe bikozwe n’umukozi wa Leta ntacyo yakoze, kuko abo yakoreye ihererekanya ry’uburenganzira ku butaka, Dorisi Melchiade na Hakizimana Sylvain, batabanje kumwereka amasezerano y’ubugure, ko rero atari guhanwa mu manza nshinjabyaha, ahubwo yari guhanwa mu rwego rw’akazi akora, niba hari amakosa yaba yarakoze.

196 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 227

CCXXII

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [49] Ingingo ya 55, agace ka 2º, y’Itegeko Nº 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/0682018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko iteganya ko “Urubanza rwaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma rushobora gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane kubera impamvu zikurikira: (...) 2° iyo mu icibwa ry’urubanza hirengagijwe amategeko n’ibimenyetso bigaragarira buri wese (...). [50] Ikirego cyatanzwe na Niyibogora Christine cyo gusubirishamo urubanza RPA 00572/2017/HC/MUS - RPA 00010/2018/HC/MUS - RPA 00018/208/HC/MUS rwaciwe ku wa 26/07/2018 n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, ku mpamvu z’akarengane, gishyigikiwe n’Ubushinjacyaha, kigamije kugaragaza ko hari ibimenyetso byirengagijwe n’urwo Rukiko, maze rukagira abere Dorisi Melchiade na Hakizimana Sylvain ku cyaha cyo guhimba no gukoresha inyandiko mpimbano bari bahamijwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Musanze, iyo nyandiko akaba ari amasezerano y’ubugure bw’ikibanza nº UPI 04/03/08/03/992 MUS/MUH, giherereye mu Kagari ka Mpenge, Umurenge wa Muhoza, Akarere ka Musanze, Intara y’Amajyaruguru bashyizeho itariki ya mbere y’ugushyingirwa kwa Niyibogora Christine na Dorisi Melchiade (antidaté), maze bavuga ko yakozwe ku wa 22/07/2011, bayitwaza imbere ya Noteri w’ubutaka bahamya ubwo bugure ku itariki ya 28/10/2016, naho Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja agirwa umwere ku cyaha cyo gutanga inyandiko ku muntu udakwiye kuyihabwa bikozwe n’umukozi wa Leta, ibyo byaha bakaba barabikoze bagamije kumuvutsa uburenganzira afite kuri uwo mutungo nk’umugore wasezeranye na Dorisi Melchiade mu buryo bw’ivangamutungo rusange, akaba abisabira indishyi atahawe. 197 NIYIBOGORA v DORISI N’ABANDI

## Page 228

CCXXIV

Kuri Dorisi Melchiade na Hakizimana Sylvain [51] Ingingo ya 614, agace ka 1º n’aka 3º, y’Itegeko - Ngenga Nº 01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ryakurikizwaga igihe icyaha cyakurikiranwaga, iteganya ko “Umuntu wese: 1º wandika abizi inyandiko ivuga ibintu uko bitari; (…), ukoresha abizi, inyandiko itavugisha ukuri cyangwa yahinduwe; ahanishwa igifungo kirenze imyaka itanu (5) kugeza ku myaka irindwi (7) n’ihazabu y’amafaranga y’u Rwanda kuva ku bihumbi magana atanu (500.000) kugeza kuri miliyoni ebyiri (2.000.000)”. [52] Ikimenyetso nyamukuru kigibwaho impaka muri uru rubanza ni inyandiko y’amasezerano y’ubugure bivugwa ko yakozwe ku wa 22/07/2011 hagati ya Dorisi Melchiade na Hakizimana Sylvain, Niyibogora Christine n’Ubushinjacyaha bakaba bavuga ko ibiyavugwamo ko Dorisi Melchiade agurishije Hakizimana Sylvain ikibanza atari ukuri, kuko icyo kibanza ari icya Dorisi Melchiade na Niyibogora Christine basezeranye ivangamutungo rusange, bakacyubakamo inzu, bakayituramo, ayo masezerano akaba yarahimbwe agahabwa itariki ya mbere y’ugushyingirwa kwabo, Dorisi Melchiade agamije kwegukana inzu basangiye ubwo yateganyaga gutanga ikirego cy’ubutane. [53] Ikindi kimenyetso Niyibogora Christine n’Ubushinjacyaha bashingiraho ni amasezerano yo ku wa 28/10/2016 y’ihererekanya ry’uburenganzira ku butaka yakozwe na Dorisi Melchiade na Hakizimana Sylvain, imbere ya Noteri w’Ubutaka, ari nayo yashingiweho bahererekanya uburenganzira ku butaka (mutation), ngo bakaba barabikoze bazi neza ko nta bugure bwabayeho, bityo nayo ngo akaba agomba gufatwa nk’inyandiko mpimbano. 198 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 229

CCXXV

[54] Inyandiko ziri muri dosiye zigaragaza ko ku wa 15/09/2011, Dorisi Melchiade yashyingiranywe na Niyibogora Christine mu buryo bw’ivangamutungo rusange, ko ku wa 05/10/2011, Dorisi Melchiade yagiranye na Leta y’u Rwanda amasezerano y’ubukode burambye nº 0992/MUS/MUH ku kibanza nº 4/03/08/03/992, acyandikwaho 100%. [55] Dosiye igaragaza kandi ko nyuma yo guhabwa icyo kibanza Dorisi Melchiade yagiye agisorera imyaka yose kuva mu mwaka wa 2011 kugeza mu mwaka wa 2016, ubwo yagihererekanyaga na Hakizimana Sylvain, ko yasabye icyemezo cyo kucyubaka, aranacyubaka, atura mu nzu abana n’umugore we NIYIBOGORA Christine kugeza ku wa 28/01/2019 habayeho urubanza rw’ubutane RC 00071/2018/TB/MUH-RC 00188/2017/TB/MUH rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Muhoza. [56] Bigaragara ko muri urwo rubanza rw’ubutane, Dorisi Melchiade yareze avuga ko umugore we yataye urugo, kandi ko amuhoza ku nkeke amuhoza mu manza1, Niyibogora Christine nawe yiregura avuga ko atataye urugo, ko yiga ubuganga muri Kaminuza i Butare, agakorera no mu bitaro binyuranye i Kigali n’i Butare kugira ngo abashe kuzamura urugo rwabo, ibyo bikaba byaratumye babasha kubaka inzu bafitanye mu Kagari ka Mpenge, Umurenge wa Muhoza, Akarere ka Musanze (reba igika cya 4, urupapuro rwa 3 rw’urubanza RC 00071/2018/TB/MUH- RC 00188/2017/TB/MUH).

1 Urubanza yavugaga icyo gihe ni urubanza nº RP 00205/2017/TGI/MUS rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Musanze ku wa 07/12/2017 aho DORISI Melchiade yahamijwe icyaha cyo guhimba no gukoresha inyandiko mpimbano agahanishwa igifungo cy’imyaka 6 199 NIYIBOGORA v DORISI N’ABANDI

## Page 230

CCXXVI

[57] Urukiko rurasanga ubwo ku wa 15/09/2011 Dorisi Melchiade yashyingiranwaga na Niyibogora Christine yari afite ikibanza, kuko cyamwanditsweho ku wa 05/10/2011 kuri nº 4/03/08/03/992, akaba rero atavuga ko ari icye 100%, kubera ko mu ivanga mutungo rusange ibyanditswe kuri umwe mu bashyingiranywe aba abihuriyeho n’uwo bashyingiranywe nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 6, igika cya 3 y’Itegeko nº 27/2016 ryo ku wa 08/07/2016 rigenga imicungire y’umutungo w’abashyingiranywe, impano n’izungura2. [58] Urukiko rurasanga rero amasezerano y’ubugure bw’ikibanza nº PC 992 bivugwa ko yakozwe ku wa 22/07/2011 hagati ya Dorisi Melchiade na Hakizimana Sylvain bavuga ko amugurishije ikibanza yaguze na Nsanzuwera Désiré, ko amuhaye amafaranga miliyoni ebyiri na magana atatu, hakaba harimo n’icyitonderwa kivuga ngo “Nkaba niyemeje kuzamukorera mutation igihe cyose azabishakira kandi amafaranga ajyanye nayo nkazayitangira”, atavugisha ukuri, kubera ko ikibanza cyanditswe kuri Dorisi Melchiade ku wa 05/10/2011, akaba rero atari kugurisha umutungo ku wa 22/07/2011 kandi icyo gihe ntawo yari afite, ahubwo, nk’uko byavuzwe haruguru, icyo gihe umwandikwaho wari waramaze kuba umutungo asangiye n’umugore we, kuko bashyingiranywe ku wa 15/09/2011 mu buryo bw’ivangamutungo rusange. [59] Urukiko rurasanga ikindi kigaragaza ko amasezerano y’ubugure atavuga ukuri, ari uko mu kuyakora bongeyemo icyitonderwa kivuga ngo DORISI Melchiade yiyemeje kuzamukorera mutation igihe cyose azabishakira, ibi bikaba byari ukugira ngo bazabashe gusobanura impamvu batahinduje

2Umutungo wose wanditse kuri umwe mu bashyingiranywe ubarirwa mu mutungo w’abashyingiranywe mu buryo bw’ivangamutungo rusange 200 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 231

CCXXVI

mu gihe gikwiye ngo umutungo wandikwe k’uwaguze.

Byongeye kandi nta mpamvu bari gushyiramo icyo cyitonderwa bataramenya ko Hakizimana Sylvain azabura umwanya wo guhinduza. [60] Urukiko rurasanga na none ibyo Dorisi Melchiade n’umwunganira bavuga ko mu rubanza rw’ubutane RC 00071/2018/TB/MUH na RC 00188/2017/TB/MUH rwo ku wa 28/01/2019 ruvuguruza ibyo uhagarariye Niyibogora Christine aburanisha, kuko we ubwe yivugiye imbere y’Urukiko ko nta mutungo afitanye na Dorisi Melchiade, kandi ko ibyo yabivuze nyuma y’imyaka ibiri (2) urubanza nº RP 00205/2017/TGI/MUS ruciwe, kuko rwaciwe ku wa 07/12/2017, nta shingiro bifite, kuko nk’uko byagaragajwe haruguru, Niyibogora Christine yaburanye avuga ko bafite inzu ivugwa muri uru rubanza, ahubwo Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Muhoza, mu guca urubanza, ntirwagira icyo ruyivugaho. Harebwe na none ubutumwa bugufi (sms) Dorisi Melchiade, akoresheje telefone ye 0788679458, yandikiye Niyibogora Christine kuri telefone ye 0785973782 ku wa 09/07/2016 no ku wa 12/07/2016 nk’uko MTN yabutanze, bigaragara ko nawe yemeraga ko bafite inzu i Musanze itaruzura, ko badakwiye gushaka indi i Kigali. [61] Ku byerekeye urubanza RADA 00006/2017/TGI/MUS rwaciwe ku wa 20/01/2018 n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Musanze rwabaye itegeko, Dorisi Melchiade n’umwunganira bavuga ko rwemeje ko amasezerano y’ubugure yakozwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, Urukiko rurasanga muri urwo rubanza Niyibogora Christine yari yareze asaba gutesha agaciro amasezerano y’ubukode burambye yakozwe hagati ya Hakizimana Sylvain, Twizeyimana Kwitonda Emerthe n’Ikigo cy’igihugu gishinzwe imicungire n’imikoreshereze y’ubutaka mu 201 NIYIBOGORA v DORISI N’ABANDI

## Page 232

CCXXVI

Rwanda, urukiko rwemeza ko ikirego cye nta shingiro gifite, rumuca indishyi zinyuranye, hakaba rero ntaho rwemeje ko amasezerano y’ubugure yakozwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko. Byongeye kandi urwo rubanza rwaciwe mu gihe n’uru rwari rukiburanishwa, urukiko runagaragarizwa ko habayeho gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane, ariko ruvuga ko kuba urubanza rwaciwe burundu nta kibuza ko rurangizwa, bityo nta n’icyabuza ko urwo rubanza ruburanishwa. [62] Urukiko rurasanga na none ibyo Dorisi Melchiade avuga ko yashakiye Hakizimana Sylvain icyangombwa cyo kubaka inzu mu kibanza baguze, akamutangira imisoro ndetse akanamwubakishiriza kuko ari inzobere mu by’ubwubatsi (engineer), igihe inzu itari yuzura neza akayimukiramo akajya ayikodesha ku mafaranga ibihumbi makumyabiri na bitanu (25.000 Frw) bitewe n’ubuzima yari abayeho, kuko umugore we Niyibogora Christine yari yaramutaye, nabyo nta kuri kurimo, kuko nk’uko bigaragara mu nyandiko mvugo ye mu Bushinjacyaha, yavuze ko yayimukiyemo ku wa 30/11/2013 akaba ayikodesha 25.000 Frw, naho Hakizimana Sylvain, abajijwe, avuga ko Dorisi Melchiade yamukoreye “consultance”, amuhemba kuba muri iyo nzu, ariko imbere y’uru Rukiko bavuze ko hari igihe yayiberagamo ubuntu, ubundi akayikodesha, mu buryo bwo gushaka guhuza imvugo. [63] Urukiko rurasanga kandi, ku wa 28/10/2016, Dorisi Melchiade na Hakizimana Sylvain bari imbere ya Noteri w’ubutaka, barakoze amasezerano y’ubugure ashingiye ku nyandiko y’amasezerano yitiriwe itariki ya 22/07/2011 nayo atavugisha ukuri, maze bahererekanya ikibanza n’inzu irimo, byandikwa kuri Hakizimana Sylvain, bazi neza ko ayo masezerano nayo atavugisha ukuri, kuko uwo mutungo 202 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 233

CCXXIX

awusangiye na Niyibogora Christine, nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, agamije kuwikubira wenyine, bityo iyo nyandiko y’ubugure yakorewe imbere ya Noteri ikaba nayo ari impimbano. [64] Hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 614, agace ka 1º n’aka 3º, y’Itegeko - Ngenga Nº 01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012, no ku bimaze gusobanurwa, Urukiko rurasanga Dorisi Melchiade na Hakizimana Sylvain baranditse inyandiko y’amasezerano y’ubugure bw’ikibanza nº UPI 04/03/08/03/992 MUS/MUH, bavuga ko yakozwe ku wa 22/07/2011, DORISI Melchiade akiri ingaragu, babizi neza ko ibiyivugwamo atari ukuri, banayikoresha buzuza inyandiko yo ku wa 28/10/2016 y’amasezerano y’ihererekanya ry’uburenganzira ku butaka yakorewe imbere ya Noteri w’ubutaka bahinduranya icyo kibanza n’inzu yubatsemo, nabwo bazi ko iyo nyandiko itavugisha ukuri, bakaba bahamwa n’icyaha cyo gukora inyandiko irimo ibinyoma, no kuyikoresha. Kuri Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja [65] Ingingo ya 613 y’Itegeko - Ngenga Nº 01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru, iteganya ko “Umukozi wa Leta uha umuntu cyangwa umuhesha imwe mu nyandiko ziteganywa mu ngingo ya 612 y’iri tegeko ngenga, akayimuha azi ko adakwiye kuyihabwa, ahanishwa igifungo kirenze imyaka itanu (5) kugeza ku myaka irindwi (7) n’ihazabu y’amafaranga y’u Rwanda kuva ku bihumbi magana atanu (500.000) kugeza kuri miliyoni ebyiri (2.000.000)”. [66] Naho ku byerekeye kwandikisha ibyemezo by’ubutaka, ingingo ya 10 y’Iteka rya Minisitiri Nº 002/2008 ryo ku wa 01/04/2008 rigena uburyo iyandikisha ry’ubutaka rikorwa, iteganya ko “Usaba iyandikisha ry’ubutaka abikora mu nyandiko 203 NIYIBOGORA v DORISI N’ABANDI

## Page 234

CCXXX

yuzuza ifishi yabugenewe yateguwe n’Urwego rw’Umubitsi w’impapurompamo. Ku birebana n’ihererekanya ry’ubutaka, iyo fishi igomba kuba iherekejwe na: a) Umwimerere cyangwa kopi yashyizweho umukono na noteri ku masezerano y’ihererekanya ry’ubutaka iyo ayo masezerano yanyuze imbere y’umuyobozi ubifitiye ububasha utari Umubitsi w’impapurompamo cyangwa Umubitsi w’impapurompamo wungirije ubifitiye ububasha;

b) Dipulikata y’icyemezo kibitswe na nyiri umutungo utimukanwa”. [67] Inyandiko isaba ihererekanya ry’uburenganzira ku butaka rishingiye ku bugure iri muri dosiye, igaragaza ko hari ahasabwa kuzuza umwirondoro w’usaba (Dorisi Melchiade) urimo n’irangamimirere aho yanditse ko yubatse, nyamara kuri iyi tariki ya 28/10/2016 hakaba nta tegeko ryasabaga ko agomba gushyiraho uwo bashakanye, cyangwa se uwashakanye n’uwo umutungo ugiye guhabwa. [68] Urukiko rurasanga ibivugwa n’uhagarariye Niyibogora Christine n’Ubushinjacyaha ko Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja yagombaga gukora ihererekanya ry’ubutaka abanje guhamagaza abashakanye na Dorisi Melchiade na Hakizimana Sylvain, nta shingiro bifite, kuko nta tegeko ryabimusabaga. Byongeye kandi kuba Dorisi Melchiade yari afite amasezerano y’ubukode burambye agaragaza ko ubutaka bumwanditseho 100%, ntacyagombaga gutuma agira amakenga ko hari uwo amasezerano agamije guheza ku mutungo ugurishwa. [69] Ku bijyanye n’ibyo Niyibogora Christine n’Ubushinjacyaha bavuga ko Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja yakoreye mu wundi Murenge agatanga ibyangombwa nta 204 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 235

CCXXXI

burenganzira abifitiye, Urukiko rurasanga hari inyandiko y’umukuriye mu kazi igaragaza ko yari abyemerewe, kandi ibyo ubwabyo ntibigize icyaha, ahubwo yabikurikiranwaho mu rwego rw’akazi. [70] Urukiko rurasanga, n’ubwo amasezerano y’ihererekanya ry’uburenganzira ku butaka yakozwe hagati ya Dorisi Melchiade na Hakizimana Sylvain ku wa 28/10/2016 byagaragaye ko atavugisha ukuri, nyamara nta kimenyetso kigaragaza ko Noteri w’ubutaka, Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja, yayashyizeho umukono azi neza ibinyoma biyavugwamo, bityo icyaha cyo gutanga inyandiko ku muntu udakwiye kuyihabwa bikozwe n’umukozi wa Leta yari yahamijwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Musanze kikaba kitamuhama. Kumenya niba Dorisi Melchiade na Hakizimana Sylvain bagenerwa ibihano [71] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko ashingiye ku ngingo ya 63 y’Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, asaba ko Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusuzuma ibimenyetso byose bwatanzwe, maze rukemeza ko abaregwa bahamwa n’ibyaha baregwa, rukabahanisha igifungo cy’imyaka itandatu (6) nk’uko UrukikoRwisumbuye rwa Musanze rwari rwabitegetse. [72] Me Kavuyekure Dieudonné, wunganira Dorisi Melchiade, avuga ko nta burenganzira Ubushinjacyaha bufite bwo gusaba ibihano, kuko atari bwo bwasabye ko urubanza rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. [73] Me Nsengiyumva Enos, wunganira Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja, avuga ko Ubushinjacyaha butagombye 205 NIYIBOGORA v DORISI N’ABANDI

## Page 236

CCXXXI

gusabira ibihano abaregwa, kuko urubanza rwabaye itegeko, kandi ko bwaje mu rubanza nka “partie jointe”, aho kuba “partie principale”. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [74] Ingingo ya 63 y’Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko iteganya ko: “Iyo Urukiko rw’Ikirenga cyangwa urundi rukiko Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga agena rushyikirijwe urubanza rusabirwa gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, rurusuzuma mu mizi bundi bushya abarubayemo ababuranyi bose bahamagajwe”. [75] Urukiko rurasanga, nubwo Dorisi Melchiade na Hakizimana Sylvain bahamwa n’icyaha cyo gukora inyandiko irimo ibinyoma no kuyikoresha, nyamara aba badashobora kugenerwa igihano kubera ko, uwasabye gusubirishamo urubanza ari Niyibogora Christine, Ubushinjacyaha bukaba bwarahamagawe mu rubanza kuko bwaburanye urubanza rusabirwa gusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane rwaciwe burundu n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, bukaba rero butasabira abaregwa ibihano, kuko urwo Rukiko rwabagize abere, ntibwasubirishamo urubanza, muri uru rubanza hakaba hagomba gusuzumwa gusa ibirebana n’indishyi zaregewe na Niyibogora Christine. [76] Urukiko rurasanga uwo ari nawo murongo wafashwe mu rubanza RS/INJUST/RP 00006/2017/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 29/11/2019, haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Nsengiyumva Fulgence wasubirishijemo urubanza, Rutembesa Phocas, Gabiro David na Habimana Asman Olivier, aho rwasanze Rutembesa Phocas, Gabiro David na Habimana Asman 206 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 237

CCXXXI

Olivier bahamwa n’icyaha bari barezwe, ko ariko batagihanirwa kuko bagizwe abere ku rwego rwa mbere, Ubushinjacyaha ntibwajuririra icyo cyemezo, uregera indishyi aba ari we ujurira wenyine, rusuzuma urubanza ku birebana n’indishyi gusa, runabishingiye ku zindi manza rwaciye. Ku byerekeye indishyi zisabwa na Niyibogora Christine [77] Me Bizumuremyi Félix, uhagarariye Niyibogora Christine, avuga ko NIYIBOGORA Christine asaba DORISI Melchiade, HAKIZIMANA Sylvain na NABURUGERO GIRAMAHORO Ajja wabafashije kumuha 5.000.000 Frw y’indishyi z’akababaro kubera ko yahemukiwe n’uwo bakundanye, bagashyingiranwa ndetse bagafatanya gushaka umutungo, 4.000.000 Frw y’igihembo cya ba Avoka bamuburaniye ku nzego zose kugeza ubu, bakanamuha 1.000.000 Frw yo gusiragira mu nzego zishinzwe ubutaka, mu Murenge, mu Karere no ku Ntara y’Amajyaruguru, kuri Banki y’Abaturage, ishami rya Musanze, mu Bugenzacyaha, mu Bushinjacyaha no mu nkiko, hose yishyura ingendo, icumbi n’amafunguro, no gusubizwa 50.000 Frw yatanzeho igarama ry’urukiko. [78] Me Kavuyekure Dieudonné, wunganira Dorisi Melchiade, avuga ko indishyi zisabwa na Niyibogora Christine nta shingiro zifite, ahubwo ko Dorisi Melchiade ariwe ukwiye guhabwa na Niyibogora Christine 1.500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka, 1.000.000 Frw y’indishyi z’akababaro na 500.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza, kuko yashowe mu manza z’amaherere kandi atarahimbye inyandiko. [79] Me Nsengiyumva Straton, wunganira Hakizimana Sylvain, avuga ko nta ndishyi z’akababaro akwiye kwishyura Niyibogora Christine muri uru rubanza rw’akarengane, kuko 207 NIYIBOGORA v DORISI N’ABANDI

## Page 238

CCXXXIV

rwabayeho kubera amakosa y’Urukiko, ko ahubwo ari we ukwiye guha Hakizimana Sylvain 1.000.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 500.000 Frw y’indishyi z’akababaro, kuko akomeje kumuhangayikisha no kumushyira ku nkeke amushora mu rubanza bitari ngombwa. [80] Me Nsengiyumva Enos, wunganira Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja, avuga ko nta ndishyi akwiye guha Niyibogora Christine, kuko nta kosa yamukorewe, ko ahubwo ari we ugomba guha Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja 200.000 Frw y’ingendo, 100.000 Frw yo gutegura urubanza, 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 1.000.000 Frw y’indishyi z’akababaro, yose hamwe akaba 1.800.000 Frw. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [81] Urukiko rurasanga, nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, Niyibogora Christine yarakorewe icyaha na Dorisi Melchiade na Hakizimana Sylvain cyamwangirije, bimutera akababaro, indishyi asaba akaba akwiye kuzigenerwa mu bushishozi, kuko izo asaba ari ikirenga, Dorosi Melchiade na Hakizimana Sylvain bakaba bagomba gufatanya kumwishyura 2.000.000 Frw y’indishyi z’akababaro na 1.000.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka. [82] Ku byerekeye 50.000 Frw y’igarama Niyibogora Christine asaba gusubizwa, Urukiko rurasanga atayagenerwa, kuko nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 62, igika cya 2, y’Itegeko Nº 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/0682018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, “Umuburanyi usaba kurenganurwa hakurikijwe ibivugwa muri iyo ngingo ntatanga ingwate y’amagarama”. 208 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 239

CCXXXV

[83] Urukiko rurasanga amafaranga y’indishyi z’akababaro, ay’ikurikiranarubanza n’ay’ibihembo bya ba Avoka asabwa na Dorisi Melchiade na Hakizimana Sylvain batayagenerwa kuko batsinzwe n’urubanza. [84] Ku byerekeye amafaranga y’indishyi z’akababaro, ay’ikurikiranarubanza n’ay’igihembo cya Avoka Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja asaba Niyibogora Christine, Urukiko rurasanga atayagenerwa, kubera ko kuba yarasubirishijemo urubanza ari uburenganzira ahabwa n’itegeko, kandi ntagaragaza ko yabikoze agamije gusa kumutesha umwanya. Kuba kandi Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja yaraje kuburana uru rubanza n’uko ingingo ya 63 y’Itegeko n° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru iteganya ko mu rubanza rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, abarubayemo ababuranyi bose bongera guhamagarwa. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [85] Rwemeje ko Ikirego cyatanzwe na Niyibogora Christine cyo gusubirishamo urubanza nº RPA 00572/2017/HC/MUS - RPA 00010/2018/HC/MUS - RPA 00018/208/HC/MUS rwaciwe ku wa 26/07/2018 n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, ku mpamvu z’akarengane gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe; [86] Rwemeje ko urubanza nº RPA 00572/2017/HC/MUS - RPA 00010/2018/HC/MUS - RPA 00018/208/HC/MUS rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze ku wa 26/07/2018 ruhindutse mu ngingo zarwo zose; 209 NIYIBOGORA v DORISI N’ABANDI

## Page 240

CCXXXVI

[87] Rwemeje ko Dorisi Melchiade na Hakizimana Sylvain bahamwa n’icyaha cyo gukora inyandiko irimo ibinyoma no kuyikoresha; [88] Ruvuze ko nta gihano bahawe kubera ko uregera indishyi ari we wenyine wasabye ko urubanza rusubirwamo ku mpamvuz’akarengane; [89] Rwemeje ko Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja adahamwa n’icyaha akurikiranyweho; [90] Rutegetse Dorisi Melchiade na Hakizimana Sylvain gufatanya kwishyura Niyibogora Christine 2.000.000 Frw y’indishyi z’akababaro na 1.000.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka; [91] Ruvuze ko amagarama y’urubanza aherereye ku Isanduku ya Leta.

210 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 241

RWANDA LAW REPORTS ENGLISH VERSION RWANDA LAW REPORTS ENGLISH VERSION

## Page 243

I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TEAM OF EDITORS ................................................................ iii I. LAW REPORTING TEAM ............................................. iii II. MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE ..................... v PREFACE ................................................................................. ix SCOPE OF THE REPORTS ..................................................... xi CITATION ................................................................................ xi LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ xiii LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED .......................................... xvii SUBJECT INDEX ................................................................... xix Re. RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION (2) ................................. 1 Re KABASINGA ..................................................................... 23 Re NDAYISABYE ................................................................... 71 NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA ........................................ 103 CELA COMPANY LTD v. PHILIPP COTTON ................... 135 NIYIBOGORA v DORISI ET AL. ........................................ 161 i

## Page 244

II

## Page 245

III

TEAM OF EDITORS

I. LAW REPORTING TEAM

KAGABO U. Stephanie

KAVUTSE M. Claude

KUBWIMANA Jean Claude

MUJABI K. Naphtal

UWINKINDI Angelique

iii

## Page 246

IV

## Page 247

V

II. MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE

Prof. Dr. NGAGI M. Alphonse : President of the Committee, Judge of the Court of Appeal

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

NSENGIYUMVA Jean Claude : Secretary of the Committee, Inspector of Courts

RUKUNDAKUVUGA F. Regis : President of Court of Appeal

Dr. KARIMUNDA M. Aimé : Judge at Supreme Court

NDAHAYO Xavier : President of High Court

RUTAZANA Angeline : Inspector General of Courts

KALIWABO Charles : Judge of the Court of Appeal

Dr. KAYIHURA Didas :

BURAYOBERA UMUZAYIRE : Bibiane

Rector of ILPD

Vice-Chairman of Rwanda Law Reform Commission BWIZA N. Blanche : Inspector of Courts

KIBUKA Jean Luc : Judge at Commercial High Court v

## Page 248

HABARUREMA Jean Pierre : Prosecutor at National Level

BUNYOYE Grace : Prosecutor at National Level

KABIBI Specioza : State Attorney

MUREREREHE Saouda : Judge at High Court

Lt. Col. MADUDU A. Charles : Judge at Military Court

Dr. NSHIMIYIMANA Didace : Peresident of Intermediate Court GIRANEZA Clémentine :

TASHOBYA Benon :

Judge of the Intermediate Court

Judge of the Intermediate Court BAGABO Faustin :

GAPARAYI Idi :

Dr. SHEMA Pierre :

KARAKE Canisius :

Dr. HABIMANA Pie : Advocate at Rwanda Bar Association Lecturer at the University of Kigali Lecturer at ULK

Lecturer at UNILAK

Advocate at Rwanda vi RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 249

RWIGEMA Royck :

YANKURIJE Dorothée : Bar Association Judge of Commercial Court

Judge of Primary Court

vii MULTI-INSTITUTION COMMITEE

## Page 250

VIII

## Page 251

IX

PREFACE Dear Readers, We are pleased to present to you the Law Reports Volume 1 [2022]. As usual, we select cases that solve some of the legal issues you encounter, either in your career or in your daily life. This volume contains six (6) cases, which includes; one (1) petition seeking authentic interpretation of the law, two (2) petitions seeking to declare the law unconstitutional, one (1) commercial case, one (1) criminal case and one (1) procedural case. These cases can be accessed on the website of the judiciary: http://decisia.lexum.com/rlr/en/nav.do. Dr NTEZILYAYO Faustin President of the Supreme Court and President of the High Council of Judiciary

ix

## Page 252

X

## Page 253

XI

SCOPE OF THE REPORTS These reports cover cases decided by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal.

CITATION The Reports in this volume are cited as: [2022] 1 RLR

xi

## Page 254

XII

## Page 255

XIII

LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED

a. Current laws Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, article 95……………………………………………………...5 articles 3, 15, 16, 21, 29 and 95…………………………...30 articles 15, 29 and 96………………………………………75 Universal Declaration of Human Rights as ratified by Rwanda on 18/09/1962, article 7……………………………………………………...31 article 7……………………………………………………...75 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, adopted by Rwanda through the Presidential order nº431/16 of 10 November 1980 and ratified on 02/03/1981, articles 1 and 12……………………………………………………..30 International Covenant on Economic, social and Cultural Rights, ratified by the decree law nº 8/75 of 12/02/1975, article 12……31 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as ratified by Decree-Law no 8/75 of 12/02/1975, published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda of 1975, article 26……………………………………………………31 article 26…………………………………………………….75 The Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa, adopted in Maputo on 11 July 2003, ratified by the Presidential Order Nº 11/01 of 24/06/2004, article 8………………………………………………..30 African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, ratified by the Presidential order nº 10/1983 of 17/05/1985, article 16………30 xiii

## Page 256

World Trade Organization General Agreement on Trade in services (GATS), article 1……………………………………………5 Protocol on establishment of East African Community Common Market, article 16……………………………………………………5 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)………………………………………………………………5 Law N° 026/2019 of 18/09/2019 on tax procedures article 9, 52 and 53………………………………………………………………...75 Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general, articles 85, 107, 108 and 111…………………………31 Law N° 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, articles 65 and 79…………………………………………….5 article 55…………………………………………………...108 articles 55 and 63…………………………………………168 Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 9……………………………………………………….5 article 150………………………………………………….140 Law N° 21/05/2016 of 20/05/2016 relating to human reproductive health, articles 3, 12 and 16……………………..…31 Law n°37/2012 of 09/11/2012 as modified and complemented by Law n° 02/2015 of 25/2/2015, establishing the Value Added Tax, articles 5 and 1………………………………………………………5 Law N° 08/2009 of 27/04/2009 determining the organisation, functioning and the duties of Rwanda Revenue Authority (RRA), article 3……………………………………………………………...76. Law N° 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures, article 27….76 xiv RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 257

Law Nº 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to Evidence and its Production, article 119……………………………………………108 Presidential Decrée No 85/01 of 02/09/2002 regulating general traffic police and road traffic, Articles 11, 13. 15 and 104……108 Ministerial Order nº 002/2008 of 01/04/2008 determining modalities of land registration, article 10………………………167

b. Repealed laws Organic Law Nº 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code; article 143......................................................................30 Paragraph 2 of the article 24……………………………108 articles 613 and 614………………………………………168 Law N° 37/2012 of 09/11/2012 establishing value added tax, article 30…………………………………………………………….75. Decree law Nº 21/77 of 18 August 1977 instituting the penal code, article 314…………………………………………………...30 article 18......................................................................108

c. Foreign legislations Criminal code of Canada, article 233…………………………….31 UK penal code, article 16…………………………………………..31 The Law relating to infanticide in Canada, article 262…………31

xv LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED

## Page 258

XVI

## Page 259

XVII

LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED Delhi-V, Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal Nos. 5105-5107 of 2009, Judgment rendered on 11 September 2020, Postscript 1, paragraph 11…………………………………………………………... R. v. Parks, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 871, at p. 896. R. v. Parks, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 871, at p. 896. R. v. Parks, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 871, at p. 896……………………………………………………………………31 Re Bar Association, RS/SPEC/00001/2017/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 28/04/2017………………………………………5 RS/INCONST/SPEC00003/2019/SC, Re Kabasinga rendered by the Supreme Court on 04/12/2019, para. 13…………….….……31 RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2019/SC; Re. Murangwa rendered by the Supreme Court on 29/11/2019……………………..………31 RS/INJUST/RP 00006/2017/CS rendered on 29/11/2019…….168 RS/SPEC/00001/2017/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 28/04/2017………………………………………………………….....5 RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS, Re Akagera Business Group rendered by the Supreme Court on 23/09/2016, Law Report V. 2, 2017, p.1…………………………………………………………………..…31 S.C.C. No.: 36585, Her Majesty the Queen and Meredith Katharine Borowiec, para. 2………………………………………31

xvii

## Page 260

XVIII

## Page 261

XIX

SUBJECT INDEX 1. Civil procedure law – Objections –The objection raised during the first instance and decided should not be reviewed as a ground of appeal during judgment tried at the last instance; it can neither be reviewed on grounds of injustice NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA………………….105 2. Commercial procedure – Filing of the claim against an administrative authority who failed to comply with the court judgment – The claim against an administrative authority who refused to execute the ruling of the court is initiated in the form of ex parte application. CELA COMPANY LTD v. PHILIPP COTTON…...135 Forcing an administrative authority to execute a court decision – Sanction forcing an administrative authority to execute a court decision – Court rulings are binding on all parties concerned including the public authorities – In the event they don’t comply, the court instructs them to pay for the unexecuted part and would determine a sanction forcing execution. CELA COMPANY LTD v. PHILIPP COTTON…...135 3. Constitution – Authentic interpretation of laws – Requirements for admissibility – The applicant must beforehand demonstrate in his/her submissions a private or public legitimate interest pursued, the issue arising in the law and in respect of which he/she seeks interpretation, that there exist contradictory court or administrative decisions to the interpretation of the provision of the law, or the text of the law in respect of which the misinterpretation arises and likely to lead to equivocal and contradictory interpretations, and being in the general interests to xix

## Page 262

determine the right interpretation – The fact that there arises dissension from its interpretation should not be considered as dispute in the event there exists a final court decision that sets the position about the issue pointed out by the parties to have given rise to the confusion. Re. RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION (2)……………...1 The principle of equality before the law – Distinction of individuals – All persons are equal before the law without any distinction or discrimination and the enacted law should treat people equally – This principle may be subject to exception if there are reasonable grounds based on legitimate purpose of distinction of people but which, with consideration of their physiology, does not constitute a discrimination. Re KABASINGA………………………………………23 Due process of law – Guarantees of due process of law – It consists with a course of legal proceedings based on the principles of law and fair justice preventing the adoption of unreasonable legislation or other measures violating the substantive due process of law for the people. Re KABASINGA………………………………………23 Equality of people – The fact that the Commissioner General of the Revenue Authority is entrusted by the law the power to issue advance tax ruling, despite equality of people before the law, it does not place him in a superior with regard to other taxpayers because they belong to different categories and with different responsibilities before the law. Re NDAYISABYE…………………………………….73 xx RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 263

3. Criminal procedure – Appeal – Appealing for the damages in the criminal case – In case the claimant for the damages is the only one who appealed, the appellate court cannot sentence the accused even if it finds the accused guilty. NIYIBOGORA v DORISI ET AL…………………...163 4. Evidence law - Probative value of deeds - Authentic deeds - A deed does not become an authentic deed because it has been drawn by a public officer, but it must contain the authentic information witnessed by a civil servant in the capacity of a witness; otherwise, the deed shall be considered as any other evidence which may be challenged by other adversial evidence. NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA………………….105 5. Law determining jurisdiction of courts – Commercial courts – Non - execution of the judgment rendered by commercial courts – The competence of the commercial courts to compel the administrative authority to execute the judgment – An administrative authority who declines the execution of the ruling can be summoned by the commercial court which rendered the final judgment in order to give explanations on the reasons that prevented him from complying with the court order, when it is requested by the interested party. CELA COMPANY LTD v. PHILIPP COTTON…...137 6. Law determining offences and penalties – Infanticide – It is a particular offense which cannot be committed by a male due to his physiology as a person unable to conceive and deliver, and therefore unlikely to undergo postnatal effects and lactation problems as it happens to female – It is committed by a female as a result of postnatal effect. Re KABASINGA ……………………………………...23 xxi SUBJECT INDEX

## Page 264

Constitutive acts of infanticide – They are wilful acts or omission committed by a woman with intention to kill her biological child occasioned by postpartum depression or lactation problems – This depression is different from mental disturbance likely to result into incapacity of the person to perceive his/her acts. Re KABASINGA………………………………………23 7. Tax law – Advance tax ruling – The ruling issued before paying tax – It is an administrative act to be honoured by the tax administration which issued it and implemented by the taxpayers in accordance with the principle of Good faith– A taxpayer may apply for the removal of such ruling through an ordinary adminitrative act or sue before a competent court in case he/she is not satisfied with the legal position provided. Re NDAYISABYE……………………….…………….73

xxii RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 265

XXIII

SPECIAL CLAIMS

## Page 266

XXIV

## Page 267

XXV

PETITION SEEKING AUTHENTIC INTERPRETATION OF LAWS

## Page 268

XXVI

## Page 269

1

Re. RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION (2) [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/INTL/SPEC 00001/2020/SC– (Ntezilyayo, P.J., Hitiyaremye, Cyanzayire, Rukundakuvuga and Muhumuza, J.) October 23, 2020] Constitution – Authentic interpretation of laws – Requirements for admissibility – The applicant must beforehand demonstrate in his/her submissions a private or public legitimate interest pursued, the issue arising in the law and in respect of which he/she seeks interpretation, that there exist contradictory court or administrative decisions to the interpretation of the provision of the law, or the text of the law in respect of which the misinterpretation arises and likely to lead to equivocal and contradictory interpretations, and being in the general interests to determine the right interpretation. Constitution – Authentic interpretation of laws – The fact that there arises dissension from its interpretation should not be considered as dispute in the event there exists a final court decision that sets the position about the issue pointed out by the parties to have given rise to the confusion. Facts: ENSafrica Rwanda Ltd (ENSafrica) requested in writing the Bar Association the endorsement to initiate a petition for the interpretation of article 5, paragraph 1(1°) of the Law n°37/2012 of 09/11/2012 as amended by article one of the Law n° 02/2015 of 25/2/2015 establishing the Value Added Tax. This application is closely related to the case initially introduced to the Commercial Court between ENSafrica and Rwanda Revenue Authority (RRA), where ENSafrica requested the cancellation of 1

## Page 270

2

the value added tax it was imposed in contravention with the Law. ENSafrica lost the case and was ordered to pay the amount of tax that was determined by RRA during the amicable settlement. Following the admission and examination of the of ENSafrica’s motion, the Bar Association addressed the petition for the interpretation of article 5, paragraph 1 (1º) of the stated Law n° 37/2012 to the President of the Supreme Court. The Bar Association elucidates that while article 5 paragraph 1(1°) of the Law of 2012 provided for the list of the commodities and services regarded as exported, and therefore taxed at zero rate, especially exported services, article one, paragraph 1(1°) of the Law of 2015 does neither provide for the explanation nor the instances of exported goods or services. This implies that the legislator has never provided for the explanation for exported services while it was necessary in order to avoid confusion or divergent interpretation about the amendments that were made, especially the instance the service is considered to have been exported. The Bar Association further states that the lack of explicit definition of the exported services amounts to a disputable issue because a service is not tangible, therefore different from tangible commodities exported, control of destination is easy. In addition, it states that considering the current world situation, services may be delivered to a person living abroad without necessitating the supplier to cross the border, this may lead to the divergent interpretation about this provision where some persons may construe exported services as those produced from abroad, while others may state that they are services produced and/or delivered to persons residing in foreign countries. Basing on the Protocol on the establishment of the East African Community Common Market, the Bar Association adduces that the definition given to exported services by that protocol RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 271

3

indicates clearly that they may be those produced from abroad or supplied to individuals residing abroad. It further argues that the dissent interpretations on this provision arose from different administrative and court decisions, where for instance, Rwanda Revenue Authority (RRA) at different occasions, has asserted that the services produced in Rwanda and supplied to individuals living abroad, are exported services, while at the same time, it disapproved other services produced under same conditions or similar services without a reliable ground, and that this same situation is present in court decisions in which ENSafrica was a party to. The Bar Association states that this petition for the interpretation intervenes in the context of one of the positions set by the Supreme Court, where it held that among the guiding principles to admit that a legal provision needs to be interpreted, includes the existence of the court or administrative decisions that diverge about the definitions of the legal provision, and thus, they find that the Supreme Court should provide its right interpretation because there have been different understandings during its application at RRA and court levels. The State Attorney states that the position of the Government of Rwanda should be perceived in the position adopted by the Supreme Court in the case delivered in 2017, where it was held that, in order for the interpretation of the legal provision to be requested, there should have been taken contradictory decisions, and it should be done in general interests. He alleges that the decisions would be considered as contradictory in the event the Commissioner General would take a decision about one particular taxpayer and take a contradictory decision for another taxpayer while they have similar issue. Re. RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION (2)

## Page 272

4

The State Attorney states again that the Bar Association does not demonstrate that the stated legal instrument is not clear with respect to its purpose of enactment because its diction is similar to that in previous instruments. They state that what this provision provides is that exported goods and services are taxed at zero rate, while those that are not, meaning the works and services supplied within the country are not concerned by this article. They further adduce that this provision is clearly understandable when it is read concurrently with other provisions, especially article 2(7) of the mentioned Law nº 37/2012 providing for the definition of services produced in Rwanda. Held: 1. The applicant must beforehand demonstrate in his/her submissions a private or public legitimate interest pursued, the issue arising in the law and in respect of which he/she seeks interpretation, that there exist contradictory court or administrative decisions to the interpretation of the provision of the law, or the text of the law in respect of which the misinterpretation arises and likely to lead to equivocal and contradictory interpretations, and being in the general interests to determine the right interpretation. 2. The fact that there arises dissension from its interpretation should not be regarded as dispute in the event there exists a final court decision that set the position about the issue pointed out by the parties to have given rise to the confusion. Petition for interpretation of the provision of the Law is dismissed. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 273

5

Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, article 95. World Trade Organization General Agreement on Trade in services (GATS), article 1. Protocol on establishment of East African Community Common Market, article 16. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Law n° 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, articles 65 and 79. Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 9. Law n°37/2012 of 09/11/2012 as modified and complemented by Law n° 02/2015 of 25/2/2015, establishing the Value Added Tax, articles 5 and 1. Cases referred to: Re Bar Association, RS/SPEC/00001/2017/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 28/04/2017. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

On 10th October 2019, ENSafrica Rwanda Ltd (hereby referred to as “ENSafrica”) wrote to the Bar Association requesting the latter to initiate a petition for the interpretation of article 5, paragraph 1-1°, of the Law n° 37/2012 of 09/11/2012 as modified by article 1 of the Law n° 02/2015 of 25/2/2015 establishing the Value Added Tax. ENSafrica is a law firm Re. RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION (2)

## Page 274

6

providing legal services to its clientele including non-residents individuals or legal entities.

This petition of ENSafrica is closely related to the case initiated for the first time to the Commercial Court, whereby ENSAfrica sued Rwanda Revenue Authority (RRA), requesting the cancellation of the Value Added Tax (TVA) amounting to 53,157,360Frw alleging that it was unlawful imposed.

After the submission of the claim, ENSAfrica and RRA expressed the intention to settle the issue amicably, which the Court endorsed, and RRA reduced the tax from 53,157,360Frw to 29,261,826Frw, but ENSafrica was not satisfied and pursued the case. In its submissions, ENSafrica explained that it is a legal entity registered in RDB, and providing legal services to various individuals especially those residing outside Rwanda. It indicated that the services it delivered from July to November 2017 were in the category of exported services, and should have taxed at zero tax rate basing on article 5, paragraph 1(1°) of the Law n°37/2012 of 09/11/2012 as modified by article 1 of the Law n°02/2015 of 25/2/2015 establishing the Value Added Tax.

On 20/03/2019, the Commercial Court tried the case RCOM 01492/2019/TC and held that the claim submitted by ENSafrica has merit in part, that the tax for which ENSafrica requested the cancellation should be maintained, but be reduced. The court ordered it to pay the valued added tax and related penalties amounting to 22,814,510Frw. It held that the counterclaim raised by RRA has merit and ordered ENSafrica to pay RRA judicial damages amounting to 600,000Frw.

The Court relied its decision on the invoices for which ENSafrica did not pay VAT while the services delivered to the RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 275

7

clients were in their need and benefit in Rwanda according to article 2 sub-paragraph 7(d)1 of the Law n°37/2012 of 09/11/2012 establishing VAT. Therefore, those services should have been imposed. The Court also relied on the fact that there were invoices relating to services that were exported such that they should have been imposed at zero rate.

ENSafrica lodged an appeal to the Commercial High Court on ground that the Commercial Court disregarded its explanations because it took a decision on the basis of the provision of the law that is not relevant with appealable issues, the fact that it issued contradictory rulings and that ENSafrica was instructed to pay damages despite that the Court found its claim partially valid. RRA has also raised a cross-appeal demanding the Commercial High Court to reconsider the invoices that the previous Court has excluded from those taxable of VAT and requested judicial damages as well.

On 04/12/2019, the Commercial High Court tried the case RCOMA 00350/2019/HCC and found appeal lodged by ENSafrica without merit, and held rather that, the tax imposed to ENSafrica should not have been reduced by the Commercial Court, and ordered it to pay the VAT amounting to 29,261,826Frw as it was determined by the RRA at the moment of the amicable settlement.

The Commercial High Court stated that the definition of exported services that should not be imposed VAT, must not rely

1 The sub-paragraph 7(d) of this article provides about the services that are considered to be performed in Rwanda when the service provider does not have a headquarter in Rwanda and has it elsewhere instead and that the beneficiaries seek for or benefit them in Rwanda. Re. RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION (2)

## Page 276

8

on the fact that service beneficiary resides abroad, there should rather be considered the place where the services provided to the benefit of that person were produced. It therefore stated that ENSafrica had delivered services to foreigners who had to benefit them in Rwanda, and for this reason, the VAT should have been perceived, but which was not done. It also explains that damages ENSafrica was ordered to pay were based on its failure to withhold VAT on the delivered services to its clients, and of being the scapegoat for all those trials.

After the entertainment and analysis of the motion of ENSafrica, the Bar Association wrote to the President of the Supreme Court to request the interpretation of article 5, paragraph one (1º) of the stated Law N°37/2012, and the application was given the docket number RS/INTL/SPEC 00001/2020/SC.

The Bar Association explained that in the year 2015, the Parliament, Chamber of deputies, adopted the Law nº 02/2015 of 25/02/2015 modifying and complementing the Law n° 37/2012 of 09/11/2012 establishing the value added tax. Among the provisions amended by the law of 2015, the Bar Association emphasized on article 5, paragraph one (1º) of the Law n° 37/2012 of 09/11/2012 in order to indicate the merit of the interpretation sought by ENSafrica through the Bar Association to the Supreme Court.

Article 5, paragraph one of the law of 2012 provided that the following goods and services shall be zero-rated: 1º exported goods and services: a. exported goods bearing stamps recognized by the Commissioner General; RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 277

9

b. transportation services and other related services with regard to export goods referred to in item a) of this Article; c. transportation services of goods in transit in Rwanda to other countries including related services; d. aircraft benzene; e. services rendered abroad; f. goods used in aircrafts from Rwanda to abroad; 2o goods sold in shops that are exempted from tax as provided for by the law governing customs;

The Bar Association indicates that the article 1, paragraph one(1º) of Law of 2015 has amended this provision as follows: the following goods and services shall be zero-rated: 1. exported goods and services; 2. minerals that are sold on the domestic market; 3. international transportation services of goods entering Rwanda and transportation services of goods in transit in Rwanda to other countries, including related services; 4. goods sold in shops that are exempted from tax as provided for by the law governing customs.

The Bar Association stated that while article 5, paragraph one (1°) of the Law of 2012 provided for the list of goods and services considered as exported, and therefore zero-rated, especially “services rendered abroad”; the article one, paragraph Re. RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION (2)

## Page 278

10

one (1°) of the Law of 2015 does not provide for instances of goods and services considered as exported.

The Bar Association continues adducing that the issue lies in the fact that at the time of modification of article 5 of the Law of 2012 establishing VAT where it was stated exported goods and services that are zero-rated, the legislator did not state the definition of an exported services, which was important in order to avoid the confusion, or disparate understandings of the amendments made, especially the instance of which a service should be regarded as exported. It states that it arises an issue in failing to provide for the definition of an exported service, given that the service is not tangible, which is different from tangible exported goods for which the control of the destination of export is easy. The Bar further added that according to the current trend, services can be delivered to a person residing abroad without necessitating to cross the border, and that this would result in equivocal understanding with regard to this provision whereby some people would allege that the exported services are those rendered abroad while according to others they are those rendered/delivered to customers residing abroad.

The Bar Association alleges that, according to ENSafrica, there should be considered the International Agreements on cross-border trade in services signed and ratified by Rwanda, among others, the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) of 1995 of the World Trade Organization in relation to international trade in services, and the Protocol on the establishment of the East African Community Common Market. They adduce that following article one of GATS agreement, internationally traded services mean services from the territory of one Member into the territory of any other Member or services in RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 279

11

the territory of one Member to the service consumer of any other Member.

The Bar Association states that the text of the first article of GATS, which is similar to article 16.2 [a and b] of the East African Community Common Market, reads that the definition given to exported services in these both international agreements indicates clearly that the exported services could be those rendered abroad or those delivered to customers residing abroad.

In addition, they state that the divergent understanding on this article was also discovered in different administrative and court decisions, notably where Rwanda Revenue Authority (RRA) has, at different occasions, admitted that services rendered in Rwanda to consumers abroad are considered as exported services, but at the same time, by rejecting similar services or those rendered in the same circumstances without any legitimate reason, and this consists of a similar situation in the court decisions in which ENSafrica has been a litigant.

The Bar Association supports that the motion of ENSafrica has merit because the legislator did not provide for the definition of an exported service; consequently, there exists a manifest contradiction among different decisions taken at different occasions by RRA as well as those taken by courts in relation to the exported services (approval of exported services or not), whereby there has been adopted that the services rendered in Rwanda for foreign customers are regarded as exported services whereas other similar services or rendered in the same circumstances were rejected.

The hearing of the case by this Court was held in public on 22/09/2020, the Rwanda Bar Association being represented by Re. RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION (2)

## Page 280

12

Counsel Basomingera Albert, Counsel Nzafashwanayo Dieudonné and Counsel Bizimana Emmanuel, and present was Counsel Kabibi Specioza Specioza, the State Attorney.

The legal counsel for the Bar Association indicated on the basis of Article 79 of the Law nº 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, that ENSafrica has personal and general interests to petition for the authentic interpretation of article 5, paragraph one (1°) of the Law n°37/2012 of 09/11/2012 as modified and complemented by article one of Law n°02/2015 of 25/2/2015 establishing the Value Added Tax in order for service providers to individuals or corporate customers from abroad be spared of the confusion about the understanding of that provision be it on the side of the taxpayers, RRA and Courts.

Counsel Kabibi Specioza, the State Attorney did not raise an objection relating to the interests of parties, she rather focused on indicating that the stated Law does not cause uncertainty to the extent of necessitating authentic interpretation.

The first issue to be determined consists of whether the motion for the authentic interpretation of article 5, paragraph one (1°) of the above stated Law n°37/2012 introduced by the Bar Association complies with the admissibility requirements.

## Page 281

13

II. ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION - Determining whether the petition for the authentic interpretation of article 5, paragraph one (1°) of the Law n°37/2012 of 09/11/2012 as amended by the first article of the Law n° 02/2015 of 25/2/2015 establishing the Value Added Tax complies with the admissibility requirements

The counsel for the Bar Association declares that the authentic interpretation they are seeking is based on the contradiction that is manifest in different decisions made on different occasions by RRA and courts in relation to the exportation of services, whereby it was decided that the services delivered to foreigners but rendered in Rwanda are exported services, whereas other similar services or those rendered in the same circumstances were not considered as such. They state that in some dossiers of which they have even pointed out examples through the table of RRA's decisions, it adopted at Commissioner General level, that the services rendered by ENSafrica are exported services while other dossiers had to be put on hold for the amicable settlement after the case was already initiated to the Court. They add that aside from the contradiction at RRA level, the same case has also occurred between the Commercial Court and RRA as well as between that Court and the Commercial High Court on the right definition to that provision, whereby according to the interpretation of the Commercial High Court, exported services does not only entail services exported abroad as held by the Commercial Court with regards to some services, rather, services delivered to individuals abroad should not be regarded as exported services in the event they enjoyed them while in Rwanda.

## Page 282

14

Counsel for the Bar Association states that the present motion for authentic interpretation is in line with one of the positions set by the Supreme Court in the case RS/SPEC/00001/2017/SC delivered on 28/04/2017 on the claim that was initiated by the Bar Association, where it explained that among the guiding principles for determining if the provision needs the authentic interpretation, includes the existence of contradictory judgments or administrative decisions with regards to the definition of legal provisions, and for this reason, they find that the Supreme Court should provide the authentic interpretation of this provision because its application invoked divergent interpretations by RRA as well as court.

They also submit that the contradiction should not be perceived through the big number of cases as it could occur in a single case. They accordingly find that the Supreme Court should not declare itself incompetent to issue the authentic interpretation sought on the basis that the Commercial High Court has set the leading position, because the Supreme Court is superior to the Commercial High Court, whose decisions are not binding to other courts.

Concerning the definitions of exported services, the Bar Association adduces that they are based on internationally accepted principles relating to VAT as provided under Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) different documents, of which Rwanda is a member state, and therefore, the fact for the Supreme Court to rely on these documents for providing the interpretation of article 5, paragraph one of the Law establishing VAT is admissible. In addition, the OECD documents were referred to by Courts in other countries and upheld that the principles raised are RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 283

15

internationally acknowledged and that it would be missing the opportunity for the Court to disregard them while they are not inconsistent with any internal legislation of any country.

Counsel Kabibi Specioza, the State Attorney rebuts that the opinion of the Government of Rwanda should be perceived in the position set by the Supreme Court in the judgment RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2017/SC rendered on 28/04/2017, where it held that in order for the authentic interpretation of the provision of the Law to be provided, contradictory decisions must have been taken, and the interpretation should be in general interests. She explains that the taxpayer who is not satisfied with the tax he/she is imposed submits his/her appeal to the Commissioner General of RRA. This is an ordinary administrative remedy with the purpose of allowing the Commissioner General to assess whether the tax officer who computed the tax did not err or misinterpret the law. She further declares that there exists another form of remedy known as amicable settlement and that the decisions reached at would not be considered inconsistent. She adduces that the decisions would be considered contradictory in the event the Commissioner General takes a particular decision with regards to a taxpayer and takes another divergent decision to the first one with respect to another taxpayer who nonetheless has a similar issue.

Counsel Kabibi Specioza adds that the Bar Association does not demonstrate that the above-stated law is not understandable as far as its purpose of enactment is concerned, given that it is articulated in the same manner as of the previous laws. She submits that, according to the content of this provision, exported goods and services are zero-rate taxed while those not exported, meaning the goods and services sold to the domestic Re. RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION (2)

## Page 284

16

market, are excluded. She adds that this provision becomes clearly understandable if read jointly with other provisions, especially article 2(7) of the Law nº 37/2012 above-stated, clarifying the services rendered in Rwanda. This article 2(7), subparagraph d, provides that services shall be regarded as provided in Rwanda if the service provider has no headquarters in Rwanda but it has it elsewhere and the recipients of the services need it or benefits from them in Rwanda. She states that this implies that the service provider, as well as the recipient, would not reside in Rwanda, but the recipient needs or benefits from it in Rwanda, and in this case, the service is regarded as provided in Rwanda such that it is taxed at 18% rate since it is not an exported service.

Therefore, she alleges that the analysis of article 5(1) and 2(7°, d) of the above-stated Law 37/2012 led to the answer to the issue of determination of the service regarded as exported without being necessary to refer to the international principles of OECD, foreign court decisions, or authentic interpretation. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 79, paragraph 2 of the Law n°30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts provides that the applicant must demonstrate in his/her submissions a private or public legitimate interest pursued, the subject of the dispute.

This provision implies that the petitioner must first indicate interest, which may be personal or public, he/she intends to protect. He/she must also demonstrate that the provision of the Law for which the authentic interpretation is sought is vague, which implies there should be inconsistent court and RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 285

17

administrative decisions with regards to the interpretation of the provision of the law, or that there are some terms of the law that cause confusion such that they would be given contradictory interpretations while being in the general interests to determine the right interpretation. And this is similar to the holding of the judgment RS/SPEC/00001/2017/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 28/04/20172.

As far as this case is concerned, the Court finds that there is no dispute with regards to interests because the petitioner has a particular interest in relation to his business activities, and for this reason, it is not necessary to make a determination thereto. It rather finds it necessary to determine whether article 5, paragraph one (1°) of the Law n°37/2012 of 09/11/2012 as amended by article one of the Law n° 02/2015 of 25/2/2015 establishing Value Added Tax, of which they petition for the authentic interpretation, causes dispute requiring authentic interpretation.

The Court finds that in the event where the ambiguity is in the wording of the provision of the law, the interpretation guiding principles based on the hierarchy of norms and the time of enactment, court decisions as well as law scholars’ opinions apply in accordance with article 9 of the Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure.

Article 95 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003, revised in 2015, provides the hierarchy of norms as follows: 1° Constitution; 2° organic law; 3° international treaties and agreements ratified by Rwanda; 4° ordinary law; 5° orders,

See paragraphs 25 and 26 of that judgment.

Re. RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION (2)

## Page 286

18

and a law cannot contradict another law that is higher in hierarchy. Based on these grounds, the Court notes that there are international agreements ratified by Rwanda that may provide for additional explanations of exported services as specified by article 5 of the aforementioned law of which the authentic interpretation is petitioned to enlighten someone who would miss its intended meaning.

In addition, It is also in the finding of the Court that the parties to the case indicated themselves that there is a way through which the provision on the definition given to exported services would be understandable, especially by referring to the principles of international agreements, of which GATS and the Protocol on the establishment of the East African Community Common Market, because such conventions are part of the legislation of Rwanda in accordance with the provision of the Constitution of Rwanda stated in the previous paragraph, and for these reasons, it is not necessary to resort to the authentic interpretation as long as the issue they raised is likely to be solved through the ordinary way of legal interpretation.

It further finds that the statements by the petitioners, according to which there have been contradictions among the decisions made, be they at RRA and courts levels, are groundless because what they allege to be the disputes about the definition of exported services was resolved by the Commercial High Court in the final judgment as they themselves admitted. The fact that there are explanations provided by the Court that are different from those provided by RRA, should not in itself be regarded as a contradiction because it is normal for the taxpayer who is not satisfied with the decision made by a given institution to submit RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 287

19

the matter to the Court and the final decision becomes binding to all.

The Court finds also that the statements of the parties according to which there occurred the divergence with respect to the understanding of this provision between the Commercial Court and the Commercial High Court, are groundless because, in practice, the superior court can rectify the decision of the lower court, which is the reason of the ranking of Courts. It would be regarded as a contradiction in the event the last instance Court made divergent decisions on similar issues, which is not the situation in this case since the petitioners fail to demonstrate that there are contradictory decisions delivered by the Commercial High Court on similar issues.

The Court notes that if the last instance court has adopted the position with regard to a given issue, it is regarded as if it settles all disputes regarding that issue such that the interpretation is no longer needed. Thus, the statements according to which the petitioners allege that the Commercial High Court is not competent to set a leading position, are unfounded because according to the judicial system based on stare decisis, the position adopted by the court must be respected by the same court and lower courts3. The Law provides instead that the person who is not satisfied with the position adopted concerning a particular issue and wishes it to be changed in the interest of future cases seizes the Supreme Court according to article 65 of the Law n°30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts.

Based on the explanations above, the Court is of the view that the provision of the Law of which the Bar Association

3See the case RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2019/SC, paragraphs 32 and 33. Re. RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION (2)

## Page 288

20

demands the authentic interpretation does not cause ambiguity because it can be interpreted in accordance with the existent guiding principles of legal interpretation, and in addition to that, there is a position set by the Commercial High Court which has not yet been reversed. For all these reasons, the Court deems that the petition for authentic interpretation of article 5, paragraph one (1°) of the Law n°37/2012 of 09/11/2012, as amended by article one of the Law n°02/2015 of 25/2/2015 establishing the Value Added Tax, should not be admitted and examined because it does not comply with the law. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the petition for authentic interpretation of article 5, paragraph one (1°) of the Law n°37/2012 of 09/11/2012, as amended by article one of the Law n°02/2015 of 25/2/2015 establishing the Value Added Tax, submitted by the Bar Association is dismissed.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 289

21

PETITIONS SEEKING TO DECLARE A LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL

## Page 290

22

## Page 291

23

Re KABASINGA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2020/SC– (Ntezilyayo, P.J., Cyanzayire, Muhumuza, Rukundakuvuga and Hitiyaremye, J.) November 27, 2020] Constitution – The principle of equality before the law – Distinction of individuals – All persons are equal before the law without any distinction or discrimination and the enacted law should treat people equally – This principle may be subject to exception if there are reasonable grounds based on legitimate purpose of distinction of people but which, with consideration of their physiology, does not constitute a discrimination. Law determining offences and penalties – Infanticide – It is a particular offense which cannot be committed by a male due to his physiology as a person unable to conceive and deliver, and therefore unlikely to undergo postnatal effects and lactation problems as it happens to female – It is committed by a female as a result of postnatal effect. Constitution – Due process of law – Guarantees of due process of law – It consists with a course of legal proceedings based on the principles of law and fair justice preventing the adoption of unreasonable legislation or other measures violating the substantive due process of law for the people. Law determining offences and penalties – Constitutive acts of infanticide – They are wilful acts or omission committed by a woman with intention to kill her biological child occasioned by postpartum depression or lactation problems – This depression is different from mental disturbance likely to result into incapacity of the person to perceive his/her acts. 23

## Page 292

24

Facts: Kabasinga initiated a petition to the Supreme Court praying the court to declare article 108 of the Law Nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offenses and penalties in general inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, articles 15 and 16, on ground that it manifests gender-based discrimination since it only penalises a female. She also contends that this provision is an obstruction to fair justice provided for under article 29 of the Constitution because it provides for punishment against a woman who committed an offence being mentally incapacitated, accordingly, she prays the court to repeal it in accordance with the provision of article 3 of the Constitution. The Government of Rwanda argues that such provision does not manifest gender-based discrimination and that such does not obstruct the right to fair justice; accordingly, it is in their stance that it should not be repealed because it does not contradict the Constitution. In the hearing in public, the petitioner alleges that article 108 of the above-stated law is inconsistent with articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution because it manifests gender-based discrimination whereby it is only a woman who is likely to be prosecuted for this offense given that in no way a man can be found guilty of the offense provided for by this provision since he can neither conceive nor breastfeed. Another thing is that the postpartum effects that may lead to involuntary infanticide do not only concern the woman, rather both parents including the man, for instance in the event of the postpartum death of the delivering mother, the parental duties also lie with a man who, at such time may kill the child unwillfully occasioned by intense care demand for the child to wit long sleepless nights which may impact his mind negatively. In such a case, a man would be prosecuted based RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 293

25

on article 111 of the stated law determining offenses providing for manslaughter, which is different from the fact that a special penalty is provided for a woman who would kill her child unwillfully. The Government of Rwanda states that women and men who commit infanticide are prosecuted for manslaughter in the same way but the particularity of a woman’s physiology of makes her susceptible to the postpartum depression or lactation effects. In case infanticide was occasioned by such effects, she is not punished for the manslaughter, she is rather punished for infanticide as a result of such effects. This entails that she is given a lesser penalty comparing to women or men who committed infanticide for reasons other than these. The Government of Rwanda elucidates that the purpose of the foregoing provision was established in the to protect the right of the child, whereby in the past, a new born used to be killed on ground that the parents were not happy with it. This indicates that this provision does not contain discrimination since a man who commits infanticide is also punished the same way as a woman who would commit voluntary infanticide. Therefore, even though this provision seems to be discriminatory against women, it would be a positive discrimination permitted by the law. Health Development Initiative (HDI) organisation as the amicus curiae states that the punishment of the offense of infanticide has not occurred for the first time in Rwandan legislation because the successive legislations have had the provision criminalising this offense where the man and woman were subject to the same penalties for infanticide. The particularity of article 108 of the Law no 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 consists of the fact that it punishes a woman only and stresses that she is punished in the event she commits infanticide while she is in the state of mental disturbance Re. KABASINGA

## Page 294

26

as a result of the effects stated above, it thus finds this provision discriminatory. The organisation “Women’s Link Worldwide” also finds that article 108 of the foregoing law manifests gender-based discrimination because it provides for the infanticide which can be committed by women only. Regarding another issue relating to the fact that article 108 of the Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offenses and penalties in general is an obstruct to the right to fair justice, thus inconsistent with article 29 of the Constitution, the petitioner submits that this provision punishes the person who committed an act that does not fulfil all constitutive elements of an offense as there is no intention to commit such offence while in usual circumstances, an offense is considered as such if all its constitutive elements are manifested. Accordingly, aside from the fact that such article does not guarantee fair justice, it does not even abide by the general principles of criminal law. She further elucidates that from the comparison of the criminalisation of this offense in Rwanda and that of other countries from where our instrument seems to have originated from, it is evident that the legislator shallowly explicited some notions and this is likely to subject women to aa continuous injustice towards women who may undergo postpartum depression, and instead of justice being served to them, their traumatism is worsened. In view of the principles of criminal laws, no person should be punished for an act committed unwillfully, even in the event where such an act occasioned of death given that in the absence of intent, there is no offense and thus, no punishment. She is of the stance that article 108 needs to be amended for the purpose of legal certainty in order to differentiate the instance of willful commission of an offence that RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 295

27

is subject to punishment and an unwillful one that is punishable. Hence, this would help courts to administer fair justice. The Government of Rwanda contends that the statements that article 108 of the law punishes a wrong person are unfounded. It explains that the Kinyarwanda version of this provision introducing in the text “ubwenge bwe budakora neza” (disturbed mind), consists of the formulation issue only as this text should not be part of the provision, rather, it should be perceived as in the English and French versions where it is understood as any woman, who intentionally or by omission kills her biological child whose age is not above twelve (12) months but during the commission of the offense she was in postpartum depression or by the effect of lactation commits an offense. It relies on the fact that usually, the medical experts indicate that the postpartum or lactation effects are not likely to result in mental incapacity like in the case of mental disorder patients. This entails that even if she has such conditions, she remains with the faculties to know the good and wrong, and even the consequence of the acts he/she may commit, which is different in case of the person with a mental disorder who lacks such faculties. For this reason, she should be held liable for the act willfully committed with full knowledge, but with a reduced penalty because she commits the offense of infanticide unwillfully as a result of those effects, the reason why not every woman who delivers or with postpartum depression does not kill her own child, therefore, the woman who does it should be punished. In its analysis of article 108 of the foregoing law, the organisation Health Development Initiative (HDI) as the amicus curiae analyses alleges that this provision violates with the rights of the woman to reproduction health as provided in the international conventions and other domestic legal instruments as well as the Re. KABASINGA

## Page 296

28

principle of criminal liability. In addition, it deems that this article 108 contradicts article 95 of the Constitution providing that international conventions duly ratified prevail over ordinary laws. For this reason, the Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 is an ordinary law which is inferior to the international convention ratified by Rwanda in relation to the right of the woman health in general and to reproductive health in particular. It is again inconsistent with articles 3, 12, and 16 of the Law n° 21/05/2016 of 20/05/2016 relating to human reproductive health because if these provisions were respected, the woman would not commit infanticide unless she has mental depression. This provision is as well inconsistent with Article 85(2) of the Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 stated above, providing that there is no liability if the accused had a mental disorder at the time of the commission of the offense. Women’s Link Worldwide (WLW) as another amicus curiae states that the Supreme Court should address issues relating to the punishment of infanticide including the abuse of the laws punishing such crime where women are punished on ground that they are unable to access sufficient health reproduction services and violation of the women’s right to life, health and privacy and abuse of the offense of infanticide towards women and girls who aborted or underwent postpartum effects which constitutes a cruel and unusual penalty. The organisation explains that in several countries, this offense is considered a petty offense comparing to other kinds of homicide, on ground that that the intention for the commission of such crime is considered. It concludes by stating that indicting women and girls facing serious postpartum effects or unsafe abortion, constitutes serious violation of women’s right to life and health protected by the law and international conventions as a human right. The RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 297

29

right solution to this issue should be striving for the better security of women by giving them access to reproduction health services including abortion and post abortion care, sexual health education and pregnancy prevention. Held: 1. All persons are equal before the law. They are entitled to equal protection of the law without any distinction or discrimination and the enacted law should treat people equally. This principle may be subject to exception if there are reasonable grounds based on legitimate purpose of distinction of people but which, with consideration of their physiology, does not constitute a discrimination. For these reasons, article 108 of the Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general does not manifest inequality before the law or gender – based discrimination on ground that infanticide cannot be committed by a man due to the fact that his physiology is different from that of a woman, accordingly, itis not inconsistent with articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda. 2. Infanticide is a special offense that cannot be committed by a man due to the nature of his physiology as an individual unable to conceive, deliver and undergo postpartum and lactation effects as it is to a woman. Thus, it is committed by a woman as a result of postpartum effects. 3. Due process of law consists of a course of legal proceedings based on the principles of law and fair justice preventing the adoption of unreasonable legislation or other measures violating the substantive due process of law for the people. 4. They are wilful acts or omission committed by a woman with intention to kill her biological child occasioned postpartum depression or by effect of lactation. This depression is different from mental disturbance likely to result into incapacity of the Re. KABASINGA

## Page 298

30

person to perceive his/her acts. Therefore, article 108 does not obstruct fair justice provided for under article 29 of the Constitution. Petition without merit. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, articles 3, 15, 16, 21, 29 and 95. Organic Law nº 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article 143. Decree law nº 21/77 of 18 August 1977 instituting the penal code, article 314. The Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa, adopted in Maputo on 11 July 2003, ratified by the Presidential Order Nº 11/01 of 24/06/2004, article 8. African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, ratified by the Presidential order nº 10/1983 of 17/05/1985, article 16. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, adopted by Rwanda through the Presidential order nº431/16 of 10 November 1980 and ratified on 02/03/1981, articles 1 and 12. International Covenant on Economic, social and Cultural Rights, ratified by the decree law nº 8/75 of 12/02/1975, article 12. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), 1966, article 26. Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, article 7. Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general, articles 85, 107, 108 and 111. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 299

31

Law n° 21/05/2016 of 20/05/2016 relating to human reproductive health, articles 3, 12 and 16. Foreign legislations referred to: Criminal code of Canada, article 233 UK penal code, article 16. The Law relating to infanticide in Canada, article 262. Cases referred to: RS/INCONST/SPEC00003/2019/SC, rendered by the Supreme Court on 04/12/2019, para. 13. RS/INCONST/SPEC00001/2019/SC, rendered by the Supreme Court on 29/11/2019. RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS, rendered by the Supreme Court on 23/09/2016, Law Report V. 2, 2017, p.1. S.C.C. No.: 36585, Her Majesty the Queen and Meredith Katharine Borowiec, para. 2. R. v. Parks, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 871, at p. 896. Authors cited: Erwin Chemerinsky, In Defense of Equality: A Reply to Professor Westin, 81 MICH. L. REv. 575, 578 n.17 (1983). Eric Vallillee, Western Journal of Legal Studies, Vol 5, Issue 4, article 1. I. Elements of the offence (Infanticide). R v. Smith (1976) 32 C.C.C.(2d)224(Nfdl Dist Ct), cited by Winifred H. Holland. Winifred H. Holland, Murder and related Issues: An Analysis of the law in Canada, Report for the Law Commission, July 27th, 2005, p. 26. Re. KABASINGA

## Page 300

32

Michele Connell, The Postpartum Psychosis Defense and Feminism: More or Less Justice for Women. I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Kabasinga initiated a petition to the Supreme Court praying the court to declare article 108 of the Law Nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offenses and penalties in general inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, articles 15 and 16, on ground that it manifests gender-based discrimination since it only penalises a female. She also contends that this provision is an obstruction to fair justice provided for under article 29 of the Constitution because it provides for punishment against a woman who committed an offence being mentally incapacitated, accordingly, she prays the court to repeal it in accordance with the provision of article 3 of the Constitution.

Article 108 of the Law nº 68/2018 stated above reads that any woman, who intentionally or by omission kills her biological child whose age is not above twelve (12) months but during the commission of the offense she was in postpartum depression or by effect of lactation commits an offense. Upon conviction, she is liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than five (5) years but not exceeding seven (7) years.

The Government of Rwanda states that this provision does not manifest gender-based discrimination and that it does not obstruct the right to fair justice; therefore, it is in its stance that it should not be repealed on ground that it is not inconsistent with the constitution. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 301

33

The case was heard in public on 03/11/2020, Kabasinga Florida - the petitioner - was assisted by Counsel Rwagitare Fred Fiston and Counsel Mugabonabandi Jean Maurice, and present was also the Government of Rwanda represented by Counsel Umwari M. Claire together with Counsel Kabibi Spécioza. There were also Amicus curiae: Health Development Initiative, (HDI) represented by Counsel Garura Christian and “Women’s Link Worldwide” represented by its representative in Rwanda and assisted by Counsel Cyiza Consolée.

In the instant case, the following issues were examined:  Whether article 108 of the Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offenses and penalties in general manifests gender- based discrimination in so much that is inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, articles 15 and 16;  Whether this provision is an obstruct to the right to due process of law provided for under article 29 of the Constitution. II. LEGAL ISSUES AND THEIR ANALYSIS 1. Whether article 108 of the Law Nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offenses and penalties in general manifests gender-based discrimination in so much that it is inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, articles 15 and 16;

Kabasinga Florida and her Counsels state that article 108 of the Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general manifests gender-based discrimination, Re. KABASINGA

## Page 302

34

therefore, it is inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, articles 15 and 16. This provision provides that any woman, who intentionally or by omission kills her biological child whose age is not above twelve (12) months but during the commission of the offense she was in postpartum depression or by effect of lactation commits an offense. Upon conviction, she is liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than five (5) years but not exceeding seven (7) years. They state that it is evident that this provision discriminates against women for the following reasons: a. The woman is the sole person who suceptible to prosecution for this offense, and in no way a man can be convicted of this offense because does he neitther conceive nor breastfeed. They construe the fact that a woman is the sole person concerned by this provision in light with the constitutive special elements of the offense, meaning the fact for the mother to kill her child as a result of postpartum or lactation effects. b. The postpartum effects that may lead to involuntary infanticide do not only concern the woman, rather both parents including the man, for instance in the event of the postpartum death of the delivering mother, the parental duties also lie with a man who, at such time may kill the child unwillfully occasioned by intense care demand for the child to wit long sleepless nights which can lead to mental disturbance. c. In the event a man happens to commit infanticide, he would be prosecuted in accordance to article 111 providing for manslaughter and be liable to an imprisonment for a term of not less than six (6) months but not more than two (2) years and a fine of not less than five hundred thousand Rwandan francs (Frw 500,000) and not more than two million Rwandan francs (Frw 2,000,000) or only one of these penalties, and such is a minor RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 303

35

penalty comparing to that provided for a woman who commits the same crime. d. If the legislator intended to establish the penalty based on the offense committed, he/she would not have segregated the woman by fixing a special penalty against her. A woman who commits involuntarily kills her child would be punished like any other person who commits manslaughter provided for by article 111 of the above stated law, and if there is intent, she should be liable to the same penalty as that for persons who committed murder provided for by article 107 of the same law without being necessarily differentiating between man and woman.

They conclude by alleging that this provision is inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, articles 15 and 16 prohibiting any kind of discrimination, and it is as well in contradiction with international conventions on the elimination of all forms of discrimination ratified by Rwanda. They cite the Protocol adopted in Maputo in 2003, ratified by the Presidential Order nº 11/01 of 24/06/2004, and for these reasons, they accordingly pray the Supreme Court to rely on article 3 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda and repeal it.

With regard to this reason, the State Attorneys disagree with the petitioner to the effect that article 108 of the Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 previously mentioned manifests discrimination, and they rely their arguments on the following grounds: Men like women who all commit infanticide are prosecuted in the same way for voluntary homicide because killing their own child consists of murder; Re. KABASINGA

## Page 304

36

The particular physiology of a woman leads to the fact that she is the only person who is lekely to suffer from postpartum depression or lactation effects. However, if she commits infanticide as a result of those effects, she is not punished for voluntary murder, rather, she is punished for infanticide due to postpartum depression and lactation effects. This implies that they are punished with a reduced penalty comparing to those imposed on men and women who killed his/her newborn for different reasons.

The State Attorneys further explain that natural physiology of a woman who delivered is different from that of a man, and that it is this physiology which was taken into account for punishing the acts constituting a crime under article 108 of the Law nº 68/2018. They state that those acts stated in this article consist of killing a child shortly after delivery and that such postpartum effects could not affect a man. They argue therefore that such effects were considered in this law, a situation different from the ancient instruments where a man and a woman were subjected to same punishment in the event of the commission of the crime of infanticide. The particularity of this provision lies in the fact that a woman who commits an infanticide as a result of the postpartum depression is punished but with a mitigated penalty.

They argue that the reason for enactment intended to protect the right of the child, where in the past infanticide used to be committed against an undesired newborn by the parents. They gave an example of a situation where a parent could kill his/her own child for disability reasons or for being a girl while they desired a boy. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 305

37

They conclude their briefs by declaring that they don’t deem this article discriminatory due to the fact that a man who kills willfully his own child also punished as a woman who would kill her child wilfully; that even though this provision may appear discriminatory against women. As was held by rwandan courts in the event where the distinction pursues legitimate purpose and based on particular criterion, it would be considered as positive discrimination permitted by the law. They give the instance of the law establishing the general statute for civil servants where it provides a long maternity leave for a woman than that given to a man without considering this as discrimination.

With regard to this issue, the representative of Health Development Initiative (HDI) as a friend of the Court, states that the punishment of the offense of infanticide is not new in Rwandan legislation because the successive amendments have had a provision criminalising this offense. She cites article 143 of the Organic Law nº 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code as well as article 314 of the Decree Law nº 21/77 of 18 August 1977 instituting the penal code.

She declares that those above-stated instruments provided for the same punishment for men and women in the event they commit infanticide. The particularity of this article 108 of the Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 is that it punishes the woman only and stresses that she is punished in case she commits infanticide while in a state of mental disturbance as a result of postpartum depression or lactation effects; therefore, they find this provision discriminatory.

The representative of “Women’s Link Worldwide” states that article 108 of the Law mentioned above manifests gender- Re. KABASINGA

## Page 306

38

based discrimination because it provides for the offense of infanticide which can only be committed by women. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015 provides that all persons are equal before the law. They are entitled to equal protection of the law. In addition, article 16 of the Constitution states also that discrimination of any kind or its propaganda based on, inter alia, ethnic origin, family or ancestry, clan, skin colour or race, sex, region, economic categories, religion or faith, opinion, fortune, cultural differences, language, economic status, physical or mental disability or any other form of discrimination are prohibited and punishable by law.

The article for which the abrogation is sought against which the petitioner alleges to be inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda as stated above consists of article 108 of the Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offenses and penalties in general providing that any woman, who intentionally or by omission kills his or her biological child whose age is not above twelve (12) months but during the commission of the offense she was in postpartum depression or by effect of lactation commits an offense. Upon conviction, he / she is liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than five (5) years but not exceeding seven (7) years.

In order to determine whether this provision manifests inequality before the law and gender-based discrimination, therefore inconsistent with article 15 as well as 16 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda as declared by the RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 307

39

petitioner, it is necessary to explain how these provisions are construed. As explained in the judgment RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS1 rendered by this Court on 23/09/2016, articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution are linked to the extent that it is difficult to interpret them separately. Indeed, article 15 provides that all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection of the law. This implies that there should not be discrimination likely to prevent people from enjoying equal protection or being deprived of their entitled rights. On the other hand, article 16 provides that the distinction between individuals is considered as discrimination and that, it is prohibited by the Constitution. Both provisions are to be considered as encompassing a single principle of prohibition of distinction in their rights or prohibitions with the purpose of excluding some people from enjoying their entitled rights.

The principle of equality and prohibition of discrimination is not only found in the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda, but also present in International Conventions ratified by Rwanda to wit article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 which states that “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination”.

There is also article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 stating that “All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and

1 Rwanda Law Reports, V. 2, 2017, P.1. Re. KABASINGA

## Page 308

40

effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”. In particular, concerning the equality between women and men, article 8(f) of Maputo Protocol, provides that “Women and men are equal before the law and shall have the right to equal protection and benefit of the law. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure …. (f): reform of existing discriminatory laws and practices in order to promote and protect the rights of women”.2

As indicated in the foregoing provisions of the law and international conventions, the principle of equality before the law denotes that people are entitled to equal protection of the law without distinction or discrimination and the adopted instrument should treat people equally. However, this principle may be subject to exception in case there exists a legitimate reason based on rational purpose. This has been held by the instant Court in judgment RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/ 2019/SC rendered on 29/11/20193. In that judgment, the Court explained also that “Things that are alike should be treated alike, and things that are unalike should be treated unalike in proportion to their unlikeness”4. In other words, people should be treated equally but with consideration of their physiologies.

After explaining the meaning of equality before the law, in order to adress the issue in the instant case relating to whether article 108 of the Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general manifests discrimination, it is

2 Rwanda ratified this protocol on 25/06/2004. 3 RS/INCONST/SPEC00001/ 2019/SC rendered on 29/11/2019, p.12, para. 35 4 RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/ 2019/SC rendered on 29/11/2019, p.12, para. 35 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 309

41

necessary to define discrimination. In the judgment RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS5 delivered on 23/09/2016, the instant Court defined discrimination in general, as the distinction of people with the purpose of depriving some of them of opportunities and practice nepotism in favor of others based on irrational grounds. Concerning gender-based discrimination, article one of international conventions on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, states that it is any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect of nullifying the recognition, enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field (For the purposes of the present Convention, the term "discrimination against women" shall mean any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field)6.

Following the foregoing general explanations, the next course of action is to determine whether the fact that article 108 of the aforementioned Law nº 68/2018 which states that any woman, who intentionally or by omission kills his or her biological child whose age is not above twelve (12) months but during the commission of the offense she was in postpartum depression or by effect of lactation commits an offense, manifests discrimination for omitting a man. For this matter to be

5 Law report, V. 2, 2017, P.16, Para. 22. 6 This Convention was ratified by Rwanda on 02/03/1981. Re. KABASINGA

## Page 310

42

addressed, it is important to analyse the constitutive elements of the offence of infanticide.

It is the fnding of this court that the text of article 108 is not Rwandan particularity only, and it is not the first time debates about its content have arisen across the world but in order to settle them, the legal instruments, court decisions as well as legal scholars always corroborate to consider the particularity of the woman due to her natural physiology. In Canada for instance, article 233 of the criminal code provides that “A female person commits infanticide when by a wilful act or omission she causes the death of her newly born child, if at the time of the act or omission she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason there of or of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child her mind is then disturbed”. In the criminal code of UK, article 160 providing for infanticide reads that Where a woman by any wilful act or omission causes the death of her child, being a child under the age of twelve months, but at the time of the act or omission the balance of her mind was disturbed by reason of her not having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to the child or by reason of the effect of lactation consequent upon the birth of the child […].

The provisions of these articles were later interpreted in various judgments. In his article on infanticide, Julio Arboleda- Florez indicated that according to the analysis of Lord justice McRuer7 on article 262(2) of the Law of Canada of the year 1948 on the offense of infanticide, he indicated that it is constituted by the following elements:

a) The accused should be a woman,

7 James Chalmers McRuer, OC (August 23, 1890 – October 6, 1985) was a Canadian lawyer, judge, commissioner and author in Ontario. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 311

43

b) She should have killed a child, c) The child should be a newborn, d) The child should belong to the accused, e) The death should be the result of the intent to commit the offense or the omission to do what ought to be done, f) During this time, the accused should be in the state of postpartum lactation effects, g) The accused should be in a state of postpartum depression. He expressed it in the following English terms: “In his analysis of the then Section 262, 2, Judge McRuer considered the elements of the offence of infanticide as: the accused must be a woman; she must have caused the death of a child; the child must have been newly born; the child must have been a child of the accused; the death must have been caused by a wilful act or omission of the accused; at the time of the wilful act or omission the accused must not have fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to the child; and by reason of giving birth to the child the balance of her mind must then have been disturbed (19)”8

In his article published in Western Journal of Legal Studies, titled Deconstructing Infanticide, Eric Vallillee clarified the constitutive elements of the offense provided by article 233 of the criminal law in Canada (Infanticide). The case law R v Smith that he referred to in his article indicated that the

8 Available at https://docksci.com/infanticide-some-medicolegal- considerations_5e58e908097c47f42d8b4578.html. Consulté le 26/11/2020. Re. KABASINGA

## Page 312

44

infanticide is constituted by the following elements: The accused is female; (b) The deceased was born alive; (c) The accused caused the death of her child; (d) The death of the child was caused by a wilful act or omission of the accused; (e) The child was newly-born (under 12 months of age); (f) The accused was not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child; (g) By reason of childbirth or the consequent effects of lactation the accused’s mind was disturbed.9

In the judgment opposing Her Majesty the Queen (Appellant) against Meredith Katharine Borowiec (Respondent), the Supreme Court of Canada held that infanticide consists of the offense which is committed in a particular manner. Firstly, this offense is committed by a mother, willfully kills her newborn child under twelve months of age. Secondly, at this time, he is still in a state of depression due to delivery or lactation effects. It stated this in the following English terms: “Infanticide, which is defined in s. 233 of the Criminal Code, is a form of culpable homicide and applies in the narrow set of circumstances where (1) a mother, by a wilful act or omission, kills her newborn child (under one year of age, as defined by the Criminal Code, s. 2) and, (2) at the time of the act or omission, the mother’s mind is “disturbed” either because she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth or by reason of the effect of lactation: L.B., at para. 58”10

9 Western Journal of Legal Studies, Vol 5, Issue 4, article 1. I. Elements of the offence (Infanticide) R v Smith5 clarified the seven elements of section 233: The accused is female; (b) The deceased was born alive; (c) The accused caused the death of her child; (d) The death of the child was caused by a wilful act or omission of the accused; (e) The child was newly-born (under 12 months of age); (f) The accused was not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child; (g) By reason of childbirth or the consequent effects of lactation the accused’s mind was disturbed. This article is available in Western Journal of Legal Studies: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/uwojls/vol5/iss4/1. 10 File No.: 36585. 2016: January 20; 2016: March 24. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 313

45

Based on the explanations provided in relation to the commission of infanticide, it is the finding of the Court that it is a special offense that cannot be committed by man due to his physiology and inability to conceive and deliver, and thereby suffers the effects of delivery and lactation as it happens to female. In addition, for the commission of infanticide to be possible, those circumstances are necessary as indicated above. The court finds in contrast that the offense of infanticide is committed by a female as a result of postpartum effects, and the purpose of the law is not to favour some people or depriving them of opportunities based on irrational grounds.

Accordingly, the fact that article 108 of the Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offenses and penalties in general provides that infanticide cannot be committed by a man due to his physiology which is different from that of a woman, the court finds that no inequality before the law or discrimination is manifest in this provision; therefore, it is not inconsistent with article 15 and 16 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda. 2. Whether article 108 of the Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offenses and penalties in general is inconsistent with article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015

Kabasinga Florida declares that article 108 of the Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offenses and penalties in general is an obstruction to the right to fair justice, therefore, inconsistent with article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015. She explains this in the following way:

a. This provision punishes a person who committed an act that does not fulfill the required constitutive elements of an Re. KABASINGA

## Page 314

46

offense in order to be considered as such because it provides that he/she could be punished for an act committed without intent while normally, in order to establish that the offense happened as declared by Robert Kint, it should be examined if the constitutive elements are present: to wit material, legal, and moral elements. Accordingly, aside from the fact that it does not guarantee fair justice, this provision does not even abide by the general principles of criminal law. b. Though the content of this article is found in other countries like the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Ireland, or Canada where, it is found that if a person committed infanticide unwillfully, due for instance to mental disorders is not punished, rather, she follows medical treatment of her doctor while according to article 108 of the stated Law, instead of assisting her to access medical treatment, it subjects her to severe sanctions. c. This provision does not distinguish between a person that committed infanticide willfully and the one who committed it without intent.

She submits that the research carried out on cases in relation to this offense in the United Kingdom and Wales [Pays des Galles in French] in the year 2005, established that among 49 women convicted of infanticide between the year 1989 and 2000 based on the provision which is similar to the impugned one, only two (2) were sentenced to imprisonment and the rest were placed in treatment facilities where they were to follow medical counselling, a situation totally different from that in Rwanda where the big number is incarcerated. She avers that as indicated by this research, those who are punished in accordance to the provision similar to article 108 of the Law in Rwanda are very RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 315

47

few who ostensibly manifested the intention to kill their children, which is different from the content of article 108 of the Law in Rwanda where it punishes a woman who unintentionally killed a childdue to mental incapacity occasioned by postpartum depression or lactation effects. It is in her stance that instead of being punished, she should be subject to medical treatment and follow-up in order to help her recover.

She goes on to state that in Canada as one of the developed countries in human rights in general, the provision of article 233 of the law criminalising the offense of infanticide providing that a female person commits infanticide when by a wilful act or omission she causes the death of her newly-born child, if at the time of the act or omission she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason thereof or of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child her mind is then disturbed.

She alleges that the fact that this law has no elaborate explanations, it inspired debates which were settled by court decisions in cases of Veit J held in R v Effert and R v LB. She states that these judgments settled these debates and served to explain this provision in this country, where courts had first to determine whether the accused committed it with or without intent or if it was a result of unforeseeable circumstances that drove her to do so.

She further elucidates that from the comparison of the criminalisation of this offense in Rwanda and that of other countries from where our instrument seems to have originated, it is evident that the legislator shallowly explicited some notions and this is likely toubjectwomen to a continous injustice who may Re. KABASINGA

## Page 316

48

undergo postpartum depression, and instead of justice being served for them, their their traumatism is worsened.

She states that the consideration of article 108 of the Rwandan Law determining offences and penalties in general, reveals that it contradicts itself and the law. She alleges that there exists no issue for this provision to read that "in the event a woman kills her infant with intent" because in this case, the offense is complete since there is an intention. However, the issue resides in the fact that this provision pursues that “during the commission of the offense she was in postpartum depression”. Thus, she argues that the intent to commit an offense could not exist while the state of mind is disturbed, therefore, providing it as such suggests that the legislator releived the prosecutor of the duty to prove the constitutive elements of the offence including the intent given that the latter is only required to prove that a woman killed her infant.

She further explains that according to aforementioned general principles of the Law, no person would be punished for an act committed without intent, even when it resulted into death. She emphasizes that whenever there is no intention, there is no offence and for this reason, no punishment should be imposed. She states therefore that this provision should be amended in order to clearly explain it and make a distinction between the situation where the accused would be considered as if she committed it willfully and be punished and the event when she committed it without intention and be disculpated. This position would help Courts to dispense fair justice as supported and indicated by the results of aforementioned researches carried out in foreign countries. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 317

49

She concludes her briefs by requesting the Court to consider article 108 of the Law determining offenses and penalties in general inconsistent with all stated provisions notably articles 15, 16 as well as 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015; and therefore that it should be repealed in compliance with article 3 of the same Constitution.

Counsel Rwagitare Fred Fiston and Counsel Mugabonabandi Jean Maurice for Kabasinga Florida state that the text of article 108 of the Law determining offenses and penalties in general contradicts itself if confronted with the provisions of the law. They allege that the fact for this provision to state that “any woman, who intentionally or by omission […]”, and ends by stating that “but during the commission of the offense she was in postpartum depression or by effect of lactation [….]; they deem that the manifestation of intent is impossible as long as she is in a state of mind disturbance. They declare that this provision contradicts article 85 of the same law providing that the person who commits an offense without intent is not prosecuted.

Counsel Umwari M. Claire and Counsel Kabibi Specioza, the State Attorneys reply that the statements according to which this provision inculpates the person who should not be prosecuted are not correct. Firstly, thought the Kinyarwanda version of this provision introduced the text “ubwenge bwe budakora neza” (disturbed mind), they consider it as the formulation issue only as this text should not be part of the provision, rather, it should be perceived as in the English and French versions where it is understood as being any woman, who intentionally or by omission kills her biological child whose age is not above twelve (12) months but during the commission of the offense she was in Re. KABASINGA

## Page 318

50

postpartum depression or by the effect of lactation commits an offense.

They base suchassertions on the fact that medical experts establish hat postpartum depression or lactation effects are not likely to result in mental incapacity like in the case of mental disorder patients. This denotes that even if she has undergone those effects, she hasthe mental capacity to discern the right from the wrong, and even the consequence thereof, a different situation with a person with mental disorder who is unable to discern the right from the wrong and the effects thereof. They argue that since the mind of that woman remains in a normal state, she should be held liable for the act willfully committed, but with a mitigated penalty because she commits infanticide unwillfully as a result of such effects beyond her control.

They futher submit that the fact for this provision provides for severe penalties than for manslaughter, is justified on ground that, even though a woman who kills her child as a result of postpartum depression and lactation effects do it without intention, she should not be punished as an author of manslaughter due to inherent duty of protection she has with regard to her child. They elaborate on that as follows:  She remains with a sound mind, with full knowledge of acts she can commit which are likely to kill the baby, therefore she has the obligation to refrain from doing them;

 She has the duty of care in order to protect the life of the baby as the person who ensures it entirely and as her primary caregiver;

 Since every woman who delivers undergoes changes in her body including those affecting her mind, she should get ready RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 319

51

beforehand, control herself, and assumes those effects at the time of delivery in order to preserve the life of the child.

The State Attorneys conclude their briefs by declaring that not every woman who delivers or who is depressed commits infanticide, the reason why a woman who kills her baby should be punished. They pray that if the court finds it necessary, it would summon a postpartum psychologist to furnish the court with explanations.

Concerning this issue, the representative of Health Development Initiative, (HDI) as an amicus curia, states that their opinions shall stess the explanations of medical experts in relation to reproductive health as provided for by the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda, other domestic instruments and international agreements relating to human rights.

Concerning the correlation between pregnant women, women that recently delivered, and mental health, she states that as the World Health Organization indicated through statistics at the world level, around 13% of pregnant women are usually affected by the mental disorder, especially, depression and in developing countries, where Rwanda belongs, the number raises to 19.8%.

She further aversthat the research carried out in Manchester City in England, revealed that the number of mothers admitted in psychiatric hospitals for postpartum depression is 8 times higher than that of other women who underwent other conditions that resulted into depression.

She goes on to submit that the Ministry of Health concedes that a woman who underwent postpartum depression Re. KABASINGA

## Page 320

52

could commit suicide or infanticide. The ministry declares that such a woman should get psychotherapy and medication. Another conlusion that was reachedat was that postpartum depression affects women only.

She states that concerning the right to health in general, article 21 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda provides that all Rwandans have the right to good health and that they enjoy that right especially that article 16 (1) reads that all Rwandans are born and remain equal in rights and freedoms.

She further states that at international level, article 12 (1) of the International Covenant on Economic, social and Cultural Rights11 and article 16 (1) of African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights12 provide that every individual has the right to health. They read as follow: “Every individual shall have the right to enjoy the best attainable state of physical and mental health”.

She further submits that concerning health, the World Health Organisation clarified that health does not imply the lack of ailments but it extends to well-being: “Health is a state on complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity”. This implies that health encompasses also the mental aspect. The right to health does not imply the absence of disease, it rather involves the right to be protected from disease and to treatment in the event a person falls ill.

She declares that concerning the right of the woman on health in particular, article 14(2)(b) of the Protocol to the African

11 Rwanda ratified this Covenant by the Presidential order nº 8/75 of 12/02/1975. 12 Rwanda ratified this Covenant by the Presidential Order nº 10/1983 of 17/05/1985. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 321

53

Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa13 stipulates that States parties shall establish and strengthen pre-natal, delivery and post-natal health for women during pregnancy and while they are breast-feeding.

She further states that article 12(2) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women also provides for the same thing that “Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article, states parties shall ensure to women appropriate services in connection with pregnancy, confinement and the post-natal period, granting free services where necessary, as well as adequate nutrition during pregnancy and lactation”.

She goes on to submit that the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee) analysed article 12 of this Convention in the following terms: “States parties should include in their reports how they supply free services where necessary to ensure safe pregnancies, childbirth and post-partum periods for women. Many women are at risk of death or disability from pregnancy- related causes because they lack the funds to obtain or access the necessary services, which include antenatal, maternity and post- natal services14. In other words, the above stated Committee requests state parties including Rwanda to indicate in the report they submit to this Committee, information with repect to free

1313 Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa, adopted in Maputo on July 11, 2003, ratified by the presidential order Nº 11/01 on 24/06/2004. 14Office of the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women General recommendation Nº 24: Article 12 of the Convention (women and health). Re. KABASINGA

## Page 322

54

services in relation to safe pregnancies, childbirth and post- partum periods for women.

From the analysis of article 108 of the aforementioned Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018, she states that as pointed out above, they find that this provision is inconsistent with the following:  The right of woman to reproductive health as stipulated by international conventions and domestic instruments.  The principle of criminal liability.

With regards to the right of woman to reproduction health, she states that they are of the view that holding that infanticide resulted from postpartum depression and lactation effects consists of a sufficient reason to indicate that there has been violation of her right to good health because it is clear that her life was in dismay at the time of the commission of the offense.

She further states that they find article 108 of the aforementioned Law inconsistent with article 95 of the Constitution which provides that international treaties and agreements ratified by Rwanda prevail over ordinary laws. Therefore, the fact that the Law no 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 is an ordinary law, it ranks below the international treaties and agreements ratified by Rwanda that were cited above, where they indicated what they provide about woman’s right to health in general and reproduction health in particular.

She declares that following ther analysis of article 108 of the nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offenses and penalties in general, it is their findings that it also contradicts articles 12 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 323

55

and 16 of the Law n° 21/05/2016 of 20/05/2016 relating to human reproductive health, because were these provisions respected, a woman would not commit infanticide unless she was in a state of depression.

She intimates that concerning the prosecution of a woman who committed infanticide as a result of postpartum depression, in the case State v. White, the Supreme Court of Idaho State in the United States of America acquited Jane White on the count of infanticide due to postpartum depression she also suffered.

She goes on to argue that one may wonder if there exist reasons for the punishment of woman while they indicated that according to the directives of the ministry of health, a woman who faced a postpartum psychosis deserves to be given medical treatment, especially that article 85(2) of the Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 provides that “there is no criminal liability if the accused was insane during the commission of the offence”.

She goes on to state that the Supreme Court of Idaho in the United States of America held that “the conviction of mentally ill persons does not serve the purpose of punishment in the criminal law, and it certainly does not serve the end of rehabilitation but rather may serve to release a mentally ill person to society after futile confinement.”

She rests her case by stating that “postpartum non- psychotic depression” is one of the problems that women usually face, stressing thatit is a serious public health concern that affects women and their families. A woman affected by postpartum non-psychotic depression deserves to be assisted rather than being punished for infanticide. Re. KABASINGA

## Page 324

56

The representative of Women’s Link Worldwide (WLW) as another amicus curiae, states that after a brief analysis of the situation of the offence of infanticide in Rwanda, and concerns stated about the abortion services abuse by ladies applying for abortion services or affected by severe postpartum effects, they wish the Supreme Court to consider the following four issues with respect to the punishment of infanticide: The misapplication of law criminalising infanticide where women are punished as a consequence of inaccessibility to sufficient reproduction health services, consists of the violation to the right of woman to good well-being, health, and personal life and this affects women who already bear stigma, especially poor and rural women; The misapplication of infanticide against women and girls who aborted or affected by severe postpartum effects, consists of the violation to the right of woman to fair trial; The misapplication of infanticide against women and girls who aborted or affected by severe postpartum effects, consists of an unhuman and weird penalty.

They explain that in many countries, the offense of infanticide is considered as a petty offense compared to other kinds of homicides since taken into account are the reasons of the commission of the offense, to wit the standards of living of the accused, mistreatment during pregnancy, the reverential fear of parents, mental depression due to pregnancy, and the lack of irrrefutable evidence of her intent to commit the crime. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 325

57

In conclusion, Women’s Link Worldwide (WLW) alleges that the prosecution of women and girls facing serious problems of unsafe delivery and abortion constitutes serious violation of the right of women to their lives and health protected by international instruments as human right. They explain that the inaccessibility by needy and rural women to adequate family planning and reproduction health services, exposes them to delivery complications or to forced abortions in secret, can lead them to prosecution for infanticide.

They rest their case by wondering whether at the time of including infanticide into the penal code, the purpose was to reduce the number of offenders, and if this is the case, a betterremedy to this issue would be striving for the better security of women and have access to reproduction health services including abortion and post abortion care, sexual health education and pregnancy prevention. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015 provides for some of the elements of the right to due process of law. As indicated by the wording of this provision, not all elements of the right to fair justice were listed. The word “burimo” or “includes” in English was used. This implies that there are other unstated elements of the right to due process of law in addition to those listed by article 29.

As held by the instant Court in the judgment RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC rendered on 04/12/2019, fair justice is explained in different ways whereby there is fair Re. KABASINGA

## Page 326

58

justice based on the procedural due process15 meaning a course of formal proceedings carried out regularly and in accordance with established rules and principles; and fair justice based on substantive due process16 which prohibits the adoption of irrational legal instruments and other measures affecting the peoples’ rights. This is what is in line with the petition submitted to this Court in the instant case.

Pursuant to these explanations, it is to be determined if the provisions of article 108 of the Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offenses and penalties in general, would be considered as depriving a woman of the right to fair justice since according to the petitioner, the text of this article violates the principles of fair justice by punishing a woman who committed infanticide without intent.

The Court concurs with the petitioner that in order for the offense of infanticide to occur, like other offenses, it should fulfill three constitutive elements to wit material legal and moral elements.

Some of the elements provided by article 108 of the Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offenses and penalties in general are that, any woman who intentionally or by omission kills his or her biological child whose age is not above twelve (12) months but during the commission of the offense she was in postpartum depression or by effect of lactation commits an offense.

15 Procedural due process: a course of formal proceedings (such as legal proceedings) carried out regularly and in accordance with established rules and principles. RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC rendered on 04/12/2019, Para. 13. 16 Substantive due process: protection against enactment of arbitrary and unreasonable legislation or other measures that would violate peoples’ rights. Idem. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 327

59

In addressing the petition submitted to the instant Court relating to determining whether this article holds responsible a woman who killed her baby without intention to commit the offense, it is necessary to know the elements of infanticide and its difference with murder provided for by the article 107 and manslaughter provided by article 111, both of the aforementioned Law nº 68/2018.

The offense of murder may be committed by any person including a woman and against any person including one’s own child. It is the same case with manslaughter occasioned by carelessness and failure to observe rules but without intent to kill him/her. The constitutive elements of murder consist of the person who kills another person (actus reus), with the intention to doso (mens rea). Among the constitutive elements of manslaughter include also the killing of a person but as a result of carelessness (actus reus) resulting from the attitude which would have been avoided and prevent the commission of the offense (mens rea).

Concerning the offense of infanticide, the analysis made by law scholars on its constitutive elements from the legislation in their countries, demonstrates that in order for this offense to occur, there should be a will to kill or the intent to refrain from doing what ought to be done which resulted into death. In an article titled Deconstructing infanticide, Eric Vallillee explained the constitutive elements of infanticide provided in article 233 of the criminal law of Canada, where he indicated in the following words that the actus reus (material element) of the offense requires that an act or omission causes death of an infant, while Re. KABASINGA

## Page 328

60

the mens rea (moral element) requires that this act or omission be intentional.17

Winifred H. Holland18 clarified the constitutive elements of infanticide basing on the analysis carried out by Courts where she indicated that there should be a will to commit an act or an intent of ommission with a bad purpose or motive. Shee states it in the following words: What is the mens rea of the the offence? While it is clear that the act or omission must be “willful”, it is not clear whether the death must be caused willfully….According to Smith19 the act must be done with a bad motive or purpose, or with intent.20

Article 108 of the aforementioned Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 is composed of the first part reading that “any woman, who intentionally or by omission kills his or her biological child whose age is not above twelve (12) months…”. In the Canadian law, it is stated that “A female person commits infanticide when by a wilful act or omission she causes the death of her newborn child….”, while the Uk law, it is stated that “Where a woman by any wilful act or omission causes the death of her child, being a child under the age of twelve months…”.

Consideration made of the above explanations, it is understood that in order for the offense of infanticide to be committed, there should have been the intent, implying the will to commit an act that causes death of an infant or an omission that

17 Eric Vallillee, “Disconstructing infanticide”, (2015)5:4 online: Uwojleg Stud/ https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/uwojls/vol5/iss4/1 18 Professor, faculty of law, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada 19 R v. Smith (1976) 32 C.C.C.(2d)224(Nfdl Dist Ct), cited by Winifred H. Holland 20 Winifred H. Holland, Murder and related Issues: An Analysis of the law in Canada, Report for the Law Commission, July 27th, 2005, p. 26. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 329

61

resulted in the death of a child. The problem that arises from article 108 of the Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offenses and penalties in general, consists of formulation which does not indicate clearly the intent to refrain from doing what ought to be done and ambiguous explanation of what is termed in English and French as postpartum depression/état de dépression postpartum.

Courts explained that one of the elements of actus reus (material element) of infanticide and which differentiates it from that of murder, is that it should be committed by a female parent who kills her new born due to depression resulting from immediate effects of delivery. In the judgment of Her Majesty the Queen v. Meredith Katharine Borowiec, the Supreme Court of Canada elaborated it in the following words: “Infanticide convictions are rare, distinguishable from murder and manslaughter by their unique actus reus: causing the death of her newly-born child while the mother is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth or lactation and by reason, thereof her mind is then disturbed.”21 This depression caused by delivery is the one termed postpartum depression/état de dépression postpartum stated in the above-stated article 108 in English and French versions, which is different from the mental disturbance (Ubwenge budakora neza) stated in Kinyarwanda version because this should rather be considered as “postpartum psychosis”.

As explained by experts, the delivering and breastfeeding mother may undergo two different conditions:

21 S.C.C. No.: 36585, Her Majesty the Queen and Meredith Katharine Borowiec, para. 2. Re. KABASINGA

## Page 330

62

a) She may suffer postpartum psychosis, therefore unable to discern the good and wrong. In this situation, she could not be held liable for all acts she may commit including the killing of her own child since her mind is in a state of disorder. b) She may have postpartum depression but not necessarily losing hersound mind. She is able to discern the good and wrong; therefore, she could be held liable for an act infringing the law she would commit, but due to this situation she undergoes, it is taken into account for her punishment.

In her article titled “The Postpartum Psychosis Defense and Feminism: More or Less Justice for Women”, Michele Connell explains that the difference between postpartum psychosis and postpartum depression is that a woman who delivers and develops postpartum psychosis loses her mind and becomes insane to the extent of being singled out for different legal treatment while the one who develops postpartum depression does not lose her mind and does not fail to discern the right from wrong, therefore, does not need special legal treatment. She stated this in the following terms: “This distinction is crucial to understanding why postpartum psychosis can be singled out for different legal treatment while the other two illnesses cannot. Based on current medical research, postpartum psychosis is the only condition that should qualify for special legal treatment. "Baby blues" and postpartum depression, while medically recognized, would not meet the threshold of legal insanity in the majority of cases because they typically do not impair a mother's ability to tell right from wrong. It is also important to emphasize, as a rebuttal to those concerned with an overly broad insanity standard, that postpartum psychosis is a RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 331

63

narrowly defined medical category that includes relatively few women”22

The foregoing arguments were reiterated in the judgment of Her Majesty the Queen v L.B whereby the Court of Appeal of Ontario provided the definition of infanticide. It held that infanticide is constituted by two elements to wit the first being the relationship between the accused and the infant killed, and the second being that the mind of the accused who should be the mother of the deceased should be in a state of disturbance as a result of delivery and lactation. This is unlike other mental states that may mitigate criminal liability. With regards to infanticide, it does not require the connection of any causal connection between the disturbance of the mind and the decision to commit an act that caused the child's death, because that state is not connected to the decision to kill. That disturbance is rather considered as part of the actus reus and not a mens rea component of infanticide.23

22 Michele Connell, The Postpartum Psychosis Defense and Feminism: More or Less Justice for Women. Case Western Reserve Law Review. Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol53/iss1/5 23 The definition of Infanticide focuses on two things. First, it requires a mother-child relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. Second, the mental state of the perpetrator/mother must be disturbed and that disturbance must be connected to the effects of giving birth or lactation. Unlike other mental states that may mitigate criminal responsability, infanticide does not require any causal connection between the disturbance of the mother's mind and the decision to do the thing that caused her child's death: R. v. Guimont (1999), 141 C.C.C (3d) 314 (Q.C.A), at p. 317, E. Cunlife, “infanticide: Legislative History and Current Questions” (2009) 55 Crim. L.Q. 94, at pp. 112-113; I; Grant, D. Chunn & C. Boyle, The Law of Homicide, loose-leaf (Scarborrough: Carswell, 1995), at p. 4-91. Because the mother's "mental disturbance" is not connected to the decision to kill, that "disturbance" is better considered as part of the actus reus and not a mens rea component of the crime of infanticideDocket: C49467-C49468, Date: 20110302, Court of Appeal for Ontario, Doharty, Moldaver and Cronk JJ.A. Between Her Majesty and L.B, Para. 59. Re. KABASINGA

## Page 332

64

Back on the instant case, the petitioner states that article 108 of the Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offenses and penalties in general does not ensure fair justice thereby purpoting that it punishes even the person without a sound mind, incapable of discerning right and wrong. Based on the foregoing elucidations, a woman alluded in this provision is not that person with postpartum psychosis, who, as seen above is unable to discern the right and wrong; accordingly, she should not be held liable for punishable acts she commits. On the contrary, it is the one affected by postpartum depression, who, given that she is able to discern right and wrong; she is held liable in the event she commits unlawful acts including infanticide.

The petitioner alleges that the part of this provision that does not ensure fair justice is the one reading that “…but during the commission of the offense she was in a state of mental disturbance caused by postpartum depression or by the effect of lactation …”. It reads in the English version as follows “…but during the commission of the offense she was in postpartum depression or by effect of lactation commits an offense”. She thus argues that if a person is in a state of mind disturbance, she would not express the intent to commit a crime. As recalled above, this provision exists even in other countries like England and Canada. Article 233 of the criminal code of Canada states, regarding the state in which a woman should be at the time of the commission of infanticide, that “… if at the time of the act or omission she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason thereof or of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child her mind is then disturbed”.

In article 160(1) of the criminal code of England (UK), it is stated that “…but at the time of the act or omission the balance RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 333

65

of her mind was disturbed by reason of her not having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to the child or by reason of the effect of lactation consequent upon the birth of the child.” Despite that different wording were applied in these three legislations, the idea is the same that at the time a woman kills her infant, she is in a state of depression caused by postpartum or lactation effects. It is this indicated part of the provision the petitioner faults for not meeting the constitutive elements of the offense, because the state of mind disturbance implies the absence of intent (mens rea); therefore, the punishment should not be imposed.

In analysing the constitutive elements of infanticide with the purpose of establishing its constitutive elements, especially with the purpose of knowing the meaning of the statement “her mind is then disturbed”, in the judgment Her Majesty the Queen (Appellant) v. Meredith Katharine Borowiec (Respondent), the Supreme Court of Canada explained that the legislator, by using this statement, he/she did not intend to mean the person who lost his/her mind unable to discern the right from wrong as provided for by article 1624, he/she rather intended to mean that a woman should be depressed by effects of delivery and lactation; the depression which constitutes the act of killing her own child (actus reus), instead of being the intent to kill (mens rea). The court stated this in the following English words: “The question of the meaning of the phrase “her mind is then disturbed” is one of statutory interpretation. The grammatical and ordinary sense of the words, their place within the Criminal Code, the provision’s

24 Article 16 (1) of Criminal code states: No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong. Re. KABASINGA

## Page 334

66

legislative history and evolution, and the jurisprudence interpreting the phrase “her mind is then disturbed” do not support the conclusion that Parliament intended to restrict the concept of a disturbed mind to those who have “a substantial psychological problem”. Rather, the phrase “mind is then disturbed” should be applied as follows: (a) the word “disturbed” is not a legal or medical term of art, but should be applied in its grammatical and ordinary sense; (b) in the context of whether a mind is disturbed, the term can mean “mentally agitated”, “mentally unstable” or “mental discomposure”; (c) the disturbance need not constitute a defined mental or psychological condition or a mental illness. It need not constitute a mental disorder under s. 16 of the Criminal Code or amount to a significant impairment of the accused’s reasoning faculties; (d) the disturbance must be present at the time of the act or omission causing the “newly-born” child’s death and the act or omission must occur at a time when the accused is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth or of lactation; (e) there is no requirement to prove that the act or omission was caused by the disturbance. The disturbance is part of the actus reus of infanticide, not the mens rea; (f) the disturbance must be “by reason of” the fact that the accused was not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth or from the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child”25.

The instant Court further motivates that the accused of infanticide should not raise the mental disturbance as a defense since she does not lose the mind to the extent of ignoring that his/her acts are wrong. It stated this in the following words: The concept of a “disturbed” mind is unique to infanticide and does not appear elsewhere in the Criminal Code. Conceptually, a

25 2016 SCC 11, File No 36585, 2016: January 20; 2016: March 24. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 335

67

“disturbed” mind must be different from a “mental disorder”, a term used in s. 16 of the Criminal Code, and, when proved on a balance of probabilities, can lead to a verdict of not criminally responsible. It must also be different from non-insane automatism, which makes the act committed by the accused involuntary: R. v. Parks, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 871, at p. 896.

In addition, in order to determine whether the fact that at the time of the commission of infanticide the accused’s mind was disturbed exempts her from liability, the Supreme Court of Canada in the judgment Her Majesty The Queen v. Meredith Katharine Borowiec, stated that when a simila matter was resolved in 1976, the judge held that the intention to commit infanticide is manifested through the commission of an intentional unlawful act, and established by the intent to harm; therefore, the fact that the accused’s mind was disturbed when she caused the death of her newborn baby does not alter her intention. This court expressed it in the following terms: “An early case relative to this issue is the 1976 trial decision of R v Smith. The judge determined that the mens rea of infanticide is a willful unlawful act consisting of intentional wrongdoing. The finding that the accused’s mind was disturbed when she caused the death of her newborn baby in that case did not alter the mens rea”.

In the premises, the court is of the view that the punishable acts committed by a woman provided under article 108 of the Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offenses and penalties in general, are willful acts or omission with the intent to kill her own child but as a result of postpartum depression or lactation effects. As explained, such depression is different from loss of mind likely to result into incapacity to Re. KABASINGA

## Page 336

68

perceive her acts. For this reason, this provision is not in any case an obstruction to fair justice provided for uuder article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015.

The Court finds however that, as explained above, the way the above-stated article 108 is formulated is likely to cause confusion to the extent of being understood that a woman mentioned in it loses her mind to the point of becoming unable to make a difference between good and wrong while it should not be perceived as such; therefore, this Court advises relevant organs to reformulate it that it may clearly provide a woman stated therein is the one having been affected by postpartum depression or lactation effects, but has not lost her mind to the extent of being exempted from criminal prosecution for her unlawful acts.

With regards to the intention expressed in this provision, The Court finds also that it ought to be well-formulated to the point of being singled out from an act of killing of one’s own child (a willful act), and from an omission of doing something with the intent to kill own child (a wilful omission) by a woman. According to the way it is formulated, this intention occurs with respect to the person who commits an act of killing of an infant, while for the omission to take a necessary action would be perceived as not revealing the wicked intention to the extent of being punished for manslaughter while it is not the case. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Declares the petition initiated by Kabasinga Florida without merit. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 337

69

Declares that article 108 of the nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offenses and penalties in general does not in any way contradict articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015.

Declares also that this article is not inconsistent with article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015; rather, its formulation needs to be rectified.

Re. KABASINGA

## Page 338

70

## Page 339

71

Re NDAYISABYE [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2020/SC – (Ntezilyayo, P.J., Cyanzayire, Muhumuza, Rukundakuvuga, Mukamulisa, J.) October 30, 2020] Tax law – Advance tax ruling – The ruling issued before tax payment – It is an administrative act to be honoured by the tax administration which issued it and implemented by the taxpayers in accordance with the principle of Good faith – A taxpayer may apply for the cancellation of such ruling through ordinary administrative procedure or seize a competent court in case he/she is not satisfied with the legal position provided. Constitution – Equality of people – The fact that the Commissioner General of the Revenue Authority is entrusted by the law the power to issue advance tax ruling, despite equality of people before the law, it does not place him in a superior with regard to other taxpayers because they belong to different categories and with different responsibilities before the law. Facts: Ndayisabye petitioned the Supreme Court to declare article 9 of the Lawn° 026/2019 of 18/09/2019 on tax procedures inconsistent with articles 15 and 96 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 04 June 2003, revised in 2015 on ground that it vested the Commissioner General of Rwanda Revenue Authority (RRA) with the power to issue advance tax ruling to taxpayers. He motivates that article 9 of the aforementioned law n° 026/2019 of 18/09/2019 contradicts the constitutional principle of equality and equal protection before the law provided under article 15 of the Constitution, because the Commissioner 71

## Page 340

72

General is not treated like other taxpayers for he has the power to issue binding advance tax ruling. He further submits that it is in his finding that the power vested with the Commissioner correspond with authentic interpretation of laws provided under article 96 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda, whereas he/she is not the person entrusted with this power. He bases his statements on the following three grounds that is; the formulation of Kinyarwanda version of article 9 of the aforementioned Law n° 026/2019; the text of Kinyarwanda version is different from the text in other languages, namely “advance tax ruling/décision anticipée”; and the fact that the ruling of the Commissioner General is final. The State Attorney argues that the petition of Ndayisabye is baseless, as article 9 of the Law n° 026/2019 aforementioned does not in no way contradict article 96 of the Constitution, rather, the petitioner confused the power of the Commissioner General for issuing advance tax ruling with the power of authentic interpretation of laws done by the Supreme Court. She added that article 9 of the Law n° 026/2019 of 18/09/2019 on tax procedures does not contradict article 15 of the Constitution because among general duties and responsibilities of the Revenue Authority include educating and sensitizing the population on tax payment. It is in carrying out this responsibility that the Commissioner General refers to the provisions of article 9 of that law to issue advance tax rulings. She motivates that because of such responsibilities of the Commissioner General, she/he is placed in a superior position with regard to other taxpayers, but any taxpayer is not contented with the advance tax ruling on a particular tax law, has the right to seize the competent courts in the form of administrative action for annulment in case they are inconsistent with the law. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 341

73

Held: 1. An advance tax ruling issued by the Revenue Authority is an administrative act which has to be enforced by that Authority and implemented by a taxpayer following the principle of Good Faith. A taxpayer may apply for cancellation of such decision through an ordinary administrative procedure or seize a competent court in case he/she is not satisfied with the legal position provided. 2. The fact that the Commissioner General of the Revenue Authority is entrusted by the law the power to issue advance tax ruling despite equality of people before the law, it does not place him/her in a superior position with regard to other taxpayers because they belong to different categories and with different responsibilities before the law. The petition lacks merit. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003, revised in 2015, articles 15, 29 and 96; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, article 26; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, article 26; Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, article 7; Law n° 026/2019 of 18/09/2019 on tax procedures, articles 9, 52 and 53. Law n° 37/2012 of 09/11/2012 establishing value added tax, article 30; Law n° 08/2009 of 27/04/2009 determining the organization, functioning and the duties of Rwanda Revenue Authority (RRA), article 3; Re. NDAYISABYE

## Page 342

74

Law n° 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures, article 27. Cases referred to: RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2019/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 29/11/2019; RS/SPEC/00001/2017/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 28/04/2017; RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 23/09/2016; Delhi-V, Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal Nos. 5105-5107 of 2009, Judgment rendered on 11 September 2020, Postscript 1, paragraph 11. Authors cited: G. Michiels, Normae Generales Juris Canonici (Tournai: Desclée, 1949), vol. I, p. 483. Cited by Msgr; John F. McCarthy, (in) The canonical meaning of the recent authentic interpretation of canon 230.2 regarding female altar servers, Organ of the Roman Theological Forum, January 1995; Waerzeggers, C., & Waerzeggers, C. (2016). Introducing an Advance Tax Ruling (ATR) Regime (No. 16/2). Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund, p.1. Alia, D. U. T. A. (2009). The harmonization of advance tax rulings systems in European Union member states Why? Finante-provocarile viitorului (Finance-Challenges of the Future), 1(9), 122, 248-250, P.248, 249. Carlo Romano, Advance Tax Rulings and Principles: Towards a European Tax Rulings, IBFD, 2020, pge 44, 77. John M. Huels, Classifying Authentic Interpretations of Canon Laws, The Jurist 72 (2012). RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 343

75

Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Counsel Ndayisabye Alexis petitioned the Supreme Court to declare article 9 of the Law n° 026/2019 of 18/09/2019 on tax procedures is inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 04 June 2003, revised in 2015 in its articles 15 and 96, on ground that it vested the Commissioner General of Rwanda Revenue Authority (RRA) with the power to issue advance tax ruling to the taxpayers. He states that when one analyses the power entrusted to the Commissioner General, you would find it contradictory to the provisions of the Constitution on matters related to authentic interpretation of laws normally exclusively done by the Supreme Court, upon request by Cabinet or the Bar Association.

Counsel Ndayisabye Alexis also states that, as a lawyer, he finds such article prejudicial to the constitutional principle of equality and equal protection before the law. He indicates that with respect to taxation, the Commissioner General does everything in the interest of Rwanda Revenue Authority he/she represents, even when issuing advance tax ruling, he does not do it in a satisfactory manner for the taxpayers. He submits that the fact that the ruling of the Commissioner General has a binding force for a taxpayer, the law does not treat equally all taxpayers of the Rwanda Revenue Authority represented by the Commissioner General.

Counsel Ndayisabye Alexis states that in examining his petition, the Court should base on the provisions of the article 9 of the Law on tax procedures in Kinyarwanda version, because Re. NDAYISABYE

## Page 344

76

that article entrusts the Commissioner General the power to interpreted tax laws, while in English version, that article stipulates the power of the Commissioner General to issue an advance tax ruling, and this is far different from interpreting laws.

Counsel Kabibi Specioza, the State Attorney argues that the petition of Ndayisabye Alexis lacks merit, that article 9 of the Law n° 026/2019 of 18/09/2019 on tax procedures does not contradict article 15 of the Constitution 1because the general duties and responsibilities of the Revenue Authority includes education and sensitization the population on tax payment. She added that it is in carrying out this responsibility that the Commissioner General refers to the provisions of article 9 of that Law n° 026/2019 on tax procedures in issuing an advance tax ruling. She motivates that of such responsibilities elevate him/her in a superior position over taxpayers, but the latter have the right to seize competent courts in the form of administrative action procedure in case they are not contented with the advance tax ruling, for annulment in case they were not made in accordance with the law.

She also advances that article 9 of the aforementioned Law n° 026/2019 does not in no way contradict article 96 of the Constitution, that the petitioner confused the power of the Commissioner General for issuing advance tax ruling with the power of authentic interpretation of laws done by the Supreme Court.

The submissions by Counsel Ndayisabye Alexis can be summarized in two grounds:

1 That article provides that: “All persons are equal before the law. They are entitled to equal protection of the law”. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 345

77

a. The first ground relates to the fact that the power entrusted by article 9 of the Law n° 026/2019 of 18/09/2019 on tax procedures to the Commissioner General to issue an advance tax ruling consists of an authentic interpretation of laws provided by article 96 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda, of which this article does not entrust to the Commissioner General. He bases these allegations on the following three grounds: I. The formulation of article 9 of the Law n° 026/2019 of 18/09/2019 on tax procedures in Kinyarwanda version; II. The text in Kinyarwanda version is different from the text in other languages, notably “advance tax ruling/décision anticipée”; III. The fact that the ruling of the Commissioner General is final. b. The second ground relates to the fact that the Commissioner General is not treated like other taxpayers because he/she has the power to issue an advance tax ruling, which contradicts the principle provided under article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda that all persons are equal before the law , and entitled to equal protection of the law.

Following the consideration of the submissions of Counsel Ndayisabye Alexis and the retorts by the State Attorney, the Court finds that the issue to be analyzed in this case consists of whether article 9 of the Law n° 026/2019 of 18/09/2019 on tax Re. NDAYISABYE

## Page 346

78

procedures is inconsistent with the provisions of articles 15 and 96 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015. II. LEGAL ISSUE AND ITS ANALYSIS 1. Whether the article 9 of the Law n° 026/2019 of 18/09/2019 on tax procedures is inconsistent with the articles 15 and 96 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003, revised in 2015

Counsel Ndayisabye Alexis states that article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 04 June 2003, revised in 2015, providing that all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection of the law. In addition, its article 96 reads that Authentic interpretation of laws is done by the Supreme Court. Authentic interpretation of laws may be requested by Cabinet or the Bar Association. Any interested person may request for an authentic interpretation of a law through the Bar Association. In case of conflict between the languages in which a law was published in the Official Gazette, the language in which that law was adopted prevails. He confirms that such provisions concur with the holdings of the Supreme Court in the judgement RS/SPEC 0001/2017/SC.

He also advances that article 9 of the Law n° 026/2019 of 18/09/2019 on tax procedures provides that subject to the provisions of other laws, on request or by his or her own initiative, the Commissioner General issues an advance tax ruling. In case this ruling is for the public, it is published through RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 347

79

a nationwide media. The rules of the Commissioner General determine modalities for establishment of an advance tax ruling.

Counsel Ndayisabye Alexis adds that, according to the Constitution, an authentic interpretation of laws is done by the Supreme Court upon request by the Cabinet or the Bar Association and that any interested person may sue before the Supreme Court requesting for an authentic interpretation of a law through the Rwanda Bar Association. He indicates that the publication of law on tax procedures providing that, the Commissioner General issues in writing an advance tax ruling on request or by his or her own initiative, which is not provided by the Constitution, he finds such article inconsistent with the Constitution because his/her ruling is final.

He further contends that in Kinyarwanda version the text reads that the Commissioner interprets laws, but in other languages, they have used the text “advance tax ruling” and “décision anticipée”, and this has nothing to do with interpretation of laws. He prays that in examining his petition, they should consider the Kinyarwanda version in providing a legal position because it is the language of adoption of the law.

He gives an example of where the Commissioner General issued an advance ruling on article 15, subparagraph 7 of the Law on income tax, where it is stated that in implementing the subparagraph 7 relating to moral damages for widow(er)s and orphans on whether those moral damages can be considered as taxable employment income, the commissioner stated that those damages consist of moral compensation and not employment income. the petitioner finds this ruling of the Commissioner General final. Re. NDAYISABYE

## Page 348

80

He gives another example of the ruling issued by the Commissioner General on article 27 of the Law n° 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures, where he states that we have decided the following: The rectification note may be issued in a period of five or ten (10) years in case of tax evasion, starting from January 1st, following the tax period, which was not provided by the law. The second example is about the advance tax ruling by the Commissioner General on article 30 of the Law n° 37/2012 of 09/11/2012 establishing the value added value where he states that we decided the following: in any other case apart from importation of goods, the amount is to be converted into Rwandan francs at the National Bank of Rwanda exchange rate applying between the foreign currency and Rwandan franc on the date on which the amount is given, which was not provided by that article.

He also motivates that in case of conflict of interpretations of tax laws, the Commissioner General provides interpretation basing on his/her personal conviction, which is different from Advance Tax Rulingissued upon request of the taxpayer about individual concerns, and this ruling is not made public. He added that in interpreting the law, the Commissioner General does it in the interests of the institution under his/her management instead of public interests, and this proves an inequality between the Commissioner General and taxpayers, and obstructs the implementation of government policy of doing business adopted by the Republic of Rwanda in order to speed up business and respect the legislation thereof because potential investors in Rwanda may be discouraged by the excessive powers entrusted to the Commissioner General. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 349

81

Counsel Tugirumuremyi Raphael assisting him advances that the Law establishing Rwanda Revenue Authority entrusted the Commissioner General the power to educate and sensitize the population on tax legislation, where it determines the mission of that institution, but he finds it unnecessary to do it in accordance with the provisions of article 9 of the aforementioned law, because it is clear that the advance ruling is not different from the authentic interpretation.

He also states that the statements of the State Attorney according which the interpretation provided by the Commissioner General under e article 9 of the aforementioned law is an “Advance Tax Ruling” which is not mentioned in the Kinyarwanda version in which the law was adopted. He motivates that they conducted a research on “Advance Tax Ruling” and came to the conclusion that it concerns one taxpayer or a group of taxpayers, and that such ruling issued does not concern other taxpayers whereas the ruling issued for the Rwandan taxpayers is final, the situation whih he deems violating the principle of separation of powers, because executive organ cannot be also entrusted the power to enact the law. He prays that the power of interpretation of the laws remains in the jurisdiction of the same organ provided by Constitution.

He further submits that article 9 of the Law n° 026/2019 mentioned above, does not treat equally the taxpayer and the Commissioner General, because the Commissioner General has the excessive power to implement the law and provide his/her discretionary interpretation, which is not the case for the taxpayer, but he/she is instead bound to execute even the advance tax ruling issued by the Commissioner General. He prays the Supreme Court to declare article 9 of the Law n° 026/2019 of Re. NDAYISABYE

## Page 350

82

18/09/2019 on tax procedures inconsistent with the Constitution, as revised up to date.

Counsel Kabibi Specioza, the State Attorney, states that the allegations of Counsel Ndayisabye Alexis that the Commissioner General is not treated like other taxpayers because he/she is entrusted the power to issue a final advance tax ruling , the Supreme Court motivated thereon in the judgements RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS rendered on 23/09/2016 and RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2019/SC rendered on 29/11/2019, where it held that the equality and prohibition of distinction of persons do not mean that distinction of persons amounts always to discrimination, since distinction and or categorization of persons can be necessary depending legitimate or rational purpose.

In motivating on the reason the Commissioner General is treated differently from other taxpayers or he/she is not included in the same category with them, Counsel Kabibi Specioza states that article 3, paragraph 3 of the Law n° 08/2009 of 27/04/2009 determining organization, functioning and responsibilities of Rwanda Revenue Authority (RRA), reads that the responsibilities of RRA include educating and sensitizing the population on tax legislation, which includes issuing to them an advance tax ruling provided in article 9 of the aforementioned Law no 026/2019 alleged to be unconstitutional.

Counsel Kabibi Specioza added that the Commissioner General of Rwanda Revenue Authority (RRA) cannot belong to the same category with other taxpayers, the reason why the law entrusts him the power to issue administrative acts such as “Advance Tax Ruling”, and this act has an immediate effect, in to the context of raising awareness of the taxpayers about tax RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 351

83

legislation, accountability and transparency with regard to that institution, in order to avoid fines imposed to taxpayers for mistakes occasioned misinterpretation of tax legislation. She also motivates that this cannot deprive the taxpayer of the right to seize the court to mend injustice that would have resulted from that act.

Counsel Kabibi Specioza declares that the advance tax ruling issued by the Commissioner General is not considered as the law with binding force, but rather an administrative act that can be welcomed by its subjects or not. She indicates that in case the taxpayer is not contented with such act, he/she is allowed to exercise the right conferred by articles 52 and 53 of the aforementioned Law no 026/2019 and article 29(3o) of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda, and attack it before a competent court.

Counsel Kabibi Specioza also submits that article 9 of the law on tax procedures does not contradict article 96 of the Constitution because the petitioner confused the power of the Commissioner General of issuing an advance tax ruling with the power to do authentic interpretation. She motivates that such advance tax rulings (ATR) by the Commissioner General normally aims at indicating the level of autonomy of the institution expressed by its transparency, accountability, collaboration between RRA and taxpayers, as well as the capacity of the institution to settle disputes, and this is what she explained in English as follows2.

2 Transparency, clarity, consistency, certainty; compliance and proper functioning of a self-assessment system, healthy relationship of taxpayers with the tax authority and reduction of conflict. Re. NDAYISABYE

## Page 352

84

She quotes Gommar Michiels, a Law scholar, who further defined authentic interpretation as follows: “…authentic interpretation is an act of the will commanding that the determined meaning of the law be accepted as obligatory, and not just an act of the intellect defining the meaning that was originally intended by the lawmaker”. (such as an interpretation note given through an advance tax ruling issued by the Commissioner General). This indicates that the authority doing an authentic interpretation issues commanding and binding interpretation, and thus, advance tax rulings issued by the Commissioner General are not binding. 3

She states that the advance tax ruling issued by the Commissioner General is used in levying taxes on some goods and services considered as difficult to understand by the taxpayer issued upon request by the taxpayer or by the Commissioner General on his own initiative, that the intended purpose of the Commissioner General herein to demonstrate the stance of the revenue authority on certain articles of the law or on matters related to taxation of certain goods and taxation modalities, and this helps a taxpayer who has a good faith to honour them as they are set in order to avoid fines and penalties in case he/she fails to respect it due to wrong interpretation of the law.

She added that the petitioner’s statements that an “Advance Tax Ruling” concern one individual or a group of individuals are not true, because the taxpayer may request in writing for an clarification on an article which he/she considers

3 G. Michiels, Normae Generales Juris Canonici (Tournai: Desclée, 1949), vol. I, p. 483. Cited by Msgr. John F. McCarthy, (in) The canonical meaning of the recent authentic interpretation of canon 230.2 regarding female altar servers, Organ of the Roman Theological Forum, January 1995. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 353

85

unclear. In such case, the Commissioner General addresses only the request from the sender (Private Tax Ruling). In some other cases, especially in monitoring tax recovery activities, the Commissioner General may find out that the majority of taxpayers have conflicting interpretation about a certain article and thereby issue what is known as Public Tax Ruling and this ruling is published because it is made for all taxpayers. With regards to the binding force of that ruling, she motivates that what Counsel Ndayisabye Alexis states that all taxpayers are bound to execute that ruling, is not true, instead, RRA which issued such ruling has to honour it, and the taxpayer may or may not comply with it.

Counsel Kabibi Specioza also motivates that international organizations for economic development4 as well as expert in fiscal law5 explain advance tax ruling (ATR) issued by the Commissioner General as a a written statement issued to a taxpayer by a Revenue body that interprets and applies the tax law to a specific set of facts and is binding upon the Revenue body before taxation process. In other words, this is an act of the Commissioner General about clarification of taxation. She alleges that the analysis of the provisions of the aforementioned article 9 suggests that the advance tax ruling of the Commissioner General is issued in order to clarify e articles of tax laws for the taxpayers and other users who do not have a clear or same

4 Counsel Kabibi indicates that OECD (Organisation for Economic cooperation and Development) defines ATR as follows: “a written statement issued to a taxpayer by a Revenue body that interprets and applies the tax law to a specific set of facts and is binding upon the Revenual body”. 5 Counsel Kabibi Spéciose argues that an International guide to advance ruling defines ATR as a “statement issued upon request to the (potential) taxpayer indicating the tax administration’s view of the tax treatment of the particular set of facts and circumstances contemplated in the process of completion, or completed but not yet assessed”. Re. NDAYISABYE

## Page 354

86

understanding about them, and who may face some difficulties in implementing or using them in general.

Shefurther alleged that when the Commissioner General issues that ruling, his/her purpose is not to enact laws which contradict or conflict with articles of the law as purported by the petitioner, he/she rather aims at helping taxpayers and other users to have a clear understanding of those provision. She additionally submits that what justifies the necessity of such ruling is the fact that many taxpayers and users of tax laws use to write to the Commissioner General requesting a legal position to be be referred to about legal provisions for which they do not have a clear understanding or same assumption.

She motivates that those advance tax rulings are uploaded on the website of Rwanda Revenue Authority (RRA) for all taxpayers and other users to have access on the stance of the revenue body on tax laws, in order to avoid that this stance remains exclusive to those who requested advice, therefore that suchrulings cannot be considered as new laws enacted by the Commissioner General, meaning that Rwanda Revenue Authority cannot only rely on those rulings to impose taxes.

She also motivates that the statements of Counsel Ndayisabye Alexis that those rulings contradict the principle of “Doing business”, are baseless, because that principle is based on the transparency, the reason why in order to avoid fines and penalties imposed to taxpayers due to misunderstanding of the laws they may have and to reduce disputes between the taxpayer and the revenue authrity, they are given explanations in advance, which is the basis of the principle of “Doing business”. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 355

87

He also states that the Kinyarwanda version of article 9 of the aforementioned law does not clarify the meaning of “Advance Tax Ruling” where it reads that the Commissioner General interpretes laws, while it would be clear if the translation “icyemezo gifashwe mbere” meaning “(advance ruling” was used.

Counsel Ndayisabye Alexis and his counsel submit that a ruling issued by the Commissioner General is by nature an unappealable administrative act, which, is normally subject to appeal, and with regards to intepretation of law, you cannot appeal before the Commissioner General telling him/her that he/she misintepreted the law, and this is not even provided by the law.

On matters related to practices of revenue athorities in other countries (elucdations on ATR provided by OECD), Counsel Ndayisabye Alexis states that the Republic of Rwanda is not a member state of OECD, in so much that the Commissioner General may apply practice of the Commissioners General of the revenue authority in those member countries , that that those Commissioners do not issue advance tax rulings as it is the case in Rwanda, they rather give their opinions like other scholars from universities and experts from research institutions.

Re. NDAYISABYE

## Page 356

88

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT a. Whether article 9 of the Law n° 026/2019 of 18/09/2019 on tax procedures contradicts article 96 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003, revised in 2015

The principal ground on which Counsel Ndayisabye Alexis relieshis petition that article 9 of the Law n° 026/2019 of 18/09/2019 contradicts article 96 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda, is the fact that the Commissioner General was entrusted by the Law on tax procedures the power to provide interpretation of the law, while the power to do an authentic interpretation of laws is vested with the Supreme Court by article 96 of the Constitution. In examining its basis, the Court finds that it has to examine the nature of the advance tax ruling in order to be able to determine whether that advance tax ruling issued by the Commissioner General is an authentic interpretation.

Article 9 of the Law n° 026/2019 of 18/09/2019 on tax procedures provides that : “Subject to the provisions of other laws, on request or by his or her own initiative, the Commissioner General issues an advance tax ruling. In case this ruling is for the public, it is published through a nationwide media. The rules of the Commissioner General determine modalities for establishment of an advance tax ruling”.

The Court finds that article 9 of the aforementioned Law n° 026/2019 to imply that the Commissioner General issues an advance tax ruling in the following circumstances:  Upon request by a taxpayer or a group of taxpayers; RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 357

89

 By the Commissioner General’s own initiative in case where various taxpayers have a a different perception on a given law.

The Court finds that, because the Commissioner General has not yet set up the rules determining the modalities of issuing an advance tax ruling, a reference must be made to the motivations provided in decided cases or opinions from scholars, wherein the types of such documents, their importance, nature as well as their impact on tax administartion and taxpayers.

In the judgement rendered by the Supreme Court of India, it was motivated that a strong system of issuing an advance tax ruling can play a vital role in reducing the number of taxation litigations. They state that instead of declaring tax first and face disparate tax perception with tax adminitration later, a system of issuing an advance tax ruling can avoid such disputes and litigations.6

In that judgement, they also stated that the aim of any properly framed advance ruling system ought to be a dialogue between taxpayers and revenue authorities to fulfil mutually

6 “In our opinion, a vibrant system of advance ruling can go a long way in reducing taxation litigation. (…) Instead of first filing a return and then facing consequences from the Department because of a different perception which the Department may have, an Advance Ruling system can facilitate not only such resolution, but also avoid the tiers of litigation which such cases go through.” See National C-operative Development Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-V, Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal Nos. 5105-5107 of 2009, Judgment rendered on 11 September 2020, Postscript 1, paragraph 11, https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php? WID=13147 Re. NDAYISABYE

## Page 358

90

beneficial purpose for taxpayers and revenue authorities of bolstering tax compliance and boosting tax morale.7

Christophe Waerzeggers and Cory Hillier, legal experts, in their article: Introducing an advance tax ruling (ATR) Regime, also show the difference between Private Advance Tax Ruling and Public Advance Tax Ruling as follows: A private tax ruling consists of advice that a taxpayer may seek from the tax authority in relation to the application of the tax law to their particular arrangement. The ruling typically binds the tax authority in relation to the arrangement for which it is issued. As such, the taxpayer will ordinarily be protected from additional tax, penalties and interest when relying on the ruling issued. The benefit of a private tax ruling is typically personal to the taxpayer to whom that ruling is issued and is not binding on the tax authority as against other taxpayers, even if the same or similar circumstances exist.8

7 “The aim of any properly framed advance ruling system ought to be a dialogue between taxpayers and revenue authorities to fulfil mutually beneficial purpose for taxpayers and revenue authorities of bolstering tax compliance and boosting tax morale.” See National C-operative Development Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-V, Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal Nos. 5105-5107 of 2009, Judgment rendered on 11 September 2020, Postscript 1, paragraph 19, https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13147 8 Waerzeggers, C., & Waerzeggers, C. (2016). Introducing an Advance Tax Ruling (ATR) Regime (No. 16/2). Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund, p.1: A private tax ruling consists of advice that a taxpayer may seek from the tax authority in relation to the application of the tax law to their particular arrangement. The ruling typically binds the tax authority in relation to the arrangement for which it is issued. As such, the taxpayer will ordinarily be protected from additional tax, penalties and interest when relying on the ruling issued. The benefit of a private tax ruling is typically personal to the taxpayer to whom that ruling is issued and is not binding on the tax authority as against other taxpayers, even if the same or similar circumstances exist. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 359

91

With regard to Public Advance Tax Ruling, experts mentioned in the previous paragraph, define it as a written opinion by the tax authority dealing with the way in which the tax law applies to taxpayers, or a class of taxpayers, generally. A public ruling is made publically available in full and can be used as a primary means of publishing and disseminating advice on the tax authority’s interpretation of the tax laws they administer. These instruments also serve important functions in tax law administration, particularly where they provide guidance with respect to the exercise of discretionary powers contained in a tax law. Public rulings may or may not have legally binding force per se but may, at the very least, create legitimate expectations for taxpayers under general principles of administrative law.9

The Court finds that the provisions of article 9 of the Law n° 026/2019 of 18/09/2019 on tax procedures and the statements of various experts, both state that an Advance Tax ruling is in two categories to wit Private Advance Tax Ruling and Public Advance Tax Ruling. Therefore, the allegations of Counsel Ndayisabye Alexis and his legal counsel that they conducted a research on “Advance Tax Ruling” and found that it only concerns taxpayers and a class of taxpayers, and that such ruling does not concern others, is baseless.

9 IDEM, A public ruling: a written opinion by the tax authority dealing with the way in which the tax law applies to taxpayers, or a class of taxpayers, generally. A public ruling is made publically available in full and can be used as a primary means of publishing and disseminating advice on the tax authority’s interpretation of the tax laws they administer. These instruments also serve important functions in tax law administration, particularly where they provide guidance with respect to the exercise of discretionary powers contained in a tax law. Public rulings may or may not have legally binding force per se but may, at the very least, create legitimate expectations for taxpayers under general principles of administrative law. Re. NDAYISABYE

## Page 360

92

The Court finds that what is not mentioned in the formulation of article 9 of the aforementioned Law no 026/2019 in Kinyarwanda version, but explained in other languages and in agreement with legal experts is to the effect that such ruling is issued before the taxpayer starts taxable activities, and Counsel Kabibi Specioza admitted that it would be clear if the legislator stated “Icyemezo gifashwe mbere” (an advance ruling). The fact that such term was not used is not regarded as a concern, because the rationale of the legislator is clearly conveyed in other languages.

The Court finds Counsel Ndayisabye Alexis and his legal counsel’s allegations according to which article 3 of the Law n° 08/2009 of 27/04/2009 determining organization. functioning and responsibilities of Rwanda Revenue Authority assigns to the Commissioner General the responsibility of educating and sensitizing the population on tax payment, therefore it was not necessary to also assign him/her the responsibility of interpreting laws, baseless, because article 3, subparagraph 3o of the Law n° 08/2009 provides for the responsibilities of Rwanda Revenue Authority including educating and sensitizing the population on tax payment, whereas article 9 of the aforementioned Law n° 026/2019 provides that the Commissioner General has the responsibility to issue an advance tax ruling. This responsibility is premised on the frequent changes in tax legislation or sometimes misunderstanding of such laws by given their formulation, as motivated by the State Attorney. The revenue authority clarifies them for the taxpayers on request or by their initiative, in order to settle disputes that may arise or already occurred, to promote cooperation between taxpayers and revenue authority, reducing disputes that may result from conflicting perception of tax laws and for transparency purpose. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 361

93

The Court also finds that legal experts also emphasise the importance of an advance tax ruling, such as Alia Duta, in her writing titled: “The harmonization of advance tax rulings systems in european union member states – why?”, wherein she states that using that ruling is important for both taxpayers and revenue authority, because of frequent changes of tax legislation and sometimes taxpayers misunderstand the text of such legislation due to their formulation. The expert indicates that those rulings serve as a barometer of the capacity of the revenue authority in disputes settlement, and the use of such rulings help in promoting cooperation between taxpayers and revenue authorities and reduction of litigations. She added that those advance tax rulings system should comply with the generally prevailing principles of a tax order, like principle of legality, of equality and of transparency.10

Basing on the statements of expert Alia Duta, the Court finds that, in issuing an advance tax ruling, the Commissioner General does not base on his/her own assumption, as alleged by Counsel Ndayisabye Alexis and his counsel, he/she instead issues it basing on the generally prevailing principles of a tax order, like principle of legality, of equality and of transparency.

This is also emphasised by that expert, where she explains that in enforcing advance tax rulings (ATR), the tax administration stands in a position of supremacy in its relation

10 Alia, D. U. T. A. (2009). The harmonization of advance tax rulings systems in European Union member States-Why? Finante-provocarile viitorului (Finance- Challenges of the Future), 1(9), 248-250, P.248, 249 An advance tax rulings system should comply with the generally prevailing principles of a tax order, like principle of legality, of equality and of transparency. Re. NDAYISABYE

## Page 362

94

with taxpayers and is acting in order to realize the collective interest of every citizen.11

Considering also the explanations provided by experts on “Advance Tax Ruling”, the Court finds that they confirm that an advance tax ruling is an administrative act. This is stressed by Carlo Romano in his book titled Advance Tax Rulings and Principles: Towards a European Tax Rulings where he explains that the fact that an advance tax ruling is considered as an administrative act instead of an agreement binding public institutions or an individual, plays a vital role in protecting the taxpayer and is also beneficial depending on the legal modalities of issuing those rulings[…..].12 He adds that “The information given by the respective authority is legally not binding, but protected under the principle of good faith, but when he does, he has to do it as mentioned in the ruling request.”13

11 IBIDEM, P.122. In many instances, such as for the functions performed by the tax administration in tax law, the tax administration stands in a position of supremacy in its relation with taxpayers and is acting in order to realize the collective interest of every citizen. 12 Carlo Romano, Advance Tax Rulings and Principles: Towards a European Tax Rulings, IBFD, 2020, pge 77, Advance tax rulings (also called advance, private or letter rulings) are legal instruments under which taxpayers (or their tax advisors) may obtain a more less binding statement from the tax authorities concerning the treatment of transaction or a series of contemplated future (and sometimes past) actions or transactions. Advance tax rulings are addressed to particular taxpayers upon request and explain how the tax administration will apply the law to a particular taxpayer or group of taxpayers in relation to a transaction, or a series of specified facts or transactions. They are usually referred to as “advance rulings”, since they are usually provided before the taxpayers enter into a transaction or arrangement, or (in certain jurisdictions) after the event but before a taxpayer files a tax return. Such rulings are tailor made for the taxpayer concerned because they take into account the factual situation of the taxpayer and are thus not directly applicable to other taxpayers. They may also provide a determination of whether or how a general ruling applies to the facts and circumstances of a particular taxpayer. 13 IBIDEM, Pge 44 “The information given by the respective authority is legally not binding, but protected under the principle of good faith. This means that the taxpayer RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 363

95

The Court finds that the fact that an advance tax ruling is an administrative act, which has to be enforced by the Revenue authority that issued it, means that a taxpayer may request for its invalidation through ordinary procedure applied in administrative acts or seize a competent court in case he/she is not contented with the ruling by the Commissioner General.

With regard to authentic interpretation provided under article 96 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda, a one John M. Huels, who is a legal expert explains that an authentic interpretation of laws is made in a special way by competent persons, and resolves the meaning of a doubtful law. He states it as follows: “[….] there is a special form of interpretation that officially and authoritatively resolves the meaning of a doubtful law. This is called "authentic interpretation" and may only be made by the legislator or one to whom he has entrusted the power to interpret the law authentically.14

In the judgement RS/SPEC/00001/2017/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 28/04/2017, the Court basing on the fact that an uthentic interpretation refers to intepretation of laws done in accordance with the provisions of the law and by competent persons, declared that an authentic interpretation cannot be compared to an ordinary intepretation of laws.

Basing on all foregoing elucidations, the Court finds that an advance tax ruling issued by the Commissioner General is

in general can trust the information, if it is not obviously illegal. In general, the applicant-taxpayer is not bound by the obtained advance tax ruling, which means that he can choose not to do the transaction (but when he does, he has to do it as mentioned in the ruling request).” 14 John M. Huels, Classifying Authentic Interpretations of Canon Laws, The Jurist 72 (2012). Re. NDAYISABYE

## Page 364

96

different from an authentic interpretation under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, therefore, article 9 of the Law n° 026/2019 of 18/09/2019 on tax procedures is thereby not inconsistent with article 96 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003, revised in 2015. b. Whether article 9 of the Law n° 026/2019 of 18/09/2019 on tax procedures contradicts the article 96 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003, revised in 2015

Article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 04 June 2003, revised in 2015 provides that all persons are equal before the law. They are entitled to equal protection of the law.

Article 7 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 stipulates that all persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.15 And article 26 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 provides that all persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.16

Basing on the provisions of the International covenant mentioned in the previous paragraph, and in alignment with the

15 All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. 16 All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 365

97

provisions of article 15 of the Constitution which provides the principle that each person must be treated equally before the law and that all are subject to the same laws. Therefore, the law must guarantee that no individual nor group of individuals be privileged or discriminated against by the government.17 However, equality before the law and non-discrimination of individuals do not mean that distinction of individuals per se amounts always to discrimination. As stated by the Court, 18 distinction or categorization of individuals can be necessary, when it is done for legitimate or rational purpose.

This means that the fact that the Commissioner General of Rwanda Revenue Authority is vested by the law with the power to issue an advance tax ruling, it does not mean that the law places him/her in a superior position with regard to other taxpayers because they do not belong in the same category and their responsibilities are not similar. In addition, the statements of the petitioner to the effects that the Commissioner General makes decisions when issuing advance tax rulings with the sole purpose of protecting the interests of the institution under his/her management, differ from the motivations provided in the instant case on matters related to private and public advance tax rulings, because they are issued with the purpose of facilitating the taxpayers to have a clear understanding on tax laws, and hence comply with tax payment, thereby reducing taxation litigations.

17 Equality before the law, (…) is the principle that each independent being must be treated equally by the law (…) and that all are subject to the same laws of justice (…). Therefore, the law must guarantee that no individual nor group of individuals be privileged or discriminated against by the government. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_before_the_law. 18 See judgement RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS rendered on 23/09/2016 and the judgment RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2019/SC renderd on 29/11/2019. Re. NDAYISABYE

## Page 366

98

Basing on the premises, the Court then finds that, the article 9 of the Law n° 026/2019 of 18/09/2019 on tax procedures is not inconsistent article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003, revised in 2015. I. DECISION OF THE COURT

Declares baseless the petition initiated by Counsel Ndayisabye Alexis;

Declares article 9 of the Law n° 026/2019 of 18/09/2019 on tax procedures not inconsistent with articles 15 and 96 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003, revised in 2015.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 367

99

PROCEDURAL CASES

## Page 368

100

## Page 369

101

CASE RELATING TO THE PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW OF A JUDGMENT DUE TO INJUSTICE

## Page 370

102

## Page 371

103

NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/INJUST/RC 00024/2018/SC (Mukamulisa, P.J, Nyirinkwaya, Cyanzayire, Rukundakuvuga and Hitiyaremye, J.) 21 February 2020] Procedure for review of a judgment due to injustice – Objections – The objection which was overlured at the first instance and not raised as a ground of appeal on the appellante level cannot be raised during the review of the judgment due to injustice Laws relating to evidence - Probative value of deeds - Authentic deeds - A deed does not become an authentic deed because it has been drawn by a public officer, but it must contain the authentic information witnessed by a civil servant in the capacity of a witness; otherwise, the deed shall be considered as any other evidence which may be challenged by other adversial evidence. Facts: The case started at Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge where Muhima filed a claim against Ngizweninshuti seeking the rectification of the statement made by the judicial police officer that attributed to him the fault that caused the accident on the road and accordingly order Ngizweninshuti Albert who knocked him to pay him all the costs he incurred in reparing the car. The court ruled the case of the judicial police officer which confirmed that the accident was caused by Muhima. The court declared that his claim has no merits because he he is the cause of the road accident. Muhima was not satisfied with the ruling and lodged an appeal to the High Court stating that the content of the sketch of the accident “croquis d’accident” is not true, because it omitted some 103

## Page 372

104

useful and relevant information, that the trial Court disregarded important grounds and that the judicial police officer’s statement that Muhima was the one who hit Ngizweninshuti's car is not true because its Ngizweninshuti's car that hit his. In pronouncing itself on this matter, the court declared that Ngizweninshuti was responsible for the accident because he did not follow traffic rules; that the statement of the traffic police staff on the scene does not corroborate with the sketch of the accident, thus Muhima's appeal has merits. Therefore, Ngizweninshuti must pay him damages. Ngizweninshuti was not satisfied with the rulings and filed an application for review due to injustice to the Office of the Ombudsman which was referred to the Supreme Court which admitted the application for review due to injustice. Ngizweninshuti’s grounds for application for review due to injustice are to the effect that the claim for rectification of the accident statement cannot be lodged against him because he was not the one who drew up the statement. The other reason is that the accident statement drawn up cannot not be challenged except in the manner prescribed by law thus the judge should not criticize and challenge it. The last reason for his review of judgment is that the Court overlooked the person responsible for the accident, who is Muhima because it diregarded the laws especially the traffic rules which determines enforcement officers and by doing so declared OPJ's statement invalid without first hearing his defense. Muhima submitted that Ngizweninshuti cannot be sued in the case of rectification of the accident statement because in cases relating to accident the concerned parties are the only ones brought before the court to determine the liable party. But, given the fact that the accident statement is tainted with errors premised RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 373

105

on the judicial police officer’s erroneous conclusion that Muhima was responsible for the accident rather than Ngizweninshuti such errors must be corrected and the decision thereof declared invalid because it's not in the Judicial police officer's competence to determine the party responsible for the accident. He concludes by stating that they have nothing to hold against the Judicial Police officer personally. With regard to the fact that the accident statement cannot be declared nul because it is an authentic deed, Muhima argues that it is not true because the Judge is competent verify whether the content of the statement made by the judicial police officer is consistent with the truth of the matter and may even declare it invalid if he finds it illegal or inaccurate because the statement made by the judicial police officer is not an authentic deed but an ordinary statement to the extent that its content cannot be challenged. He is accordingly of the stance that such statement is not immune from rebuttal. Regarding the party responsible for the accident, he concluded by submitting that the responsible party is is Ngizweninshuti on the ground that Muhima's car, traveling from Kimihurura to town, collided with Ngizweninshuti's car at the road junction as he suddenly entered the road and damaged the right side of the car that was being driven by Muhima Giovanni. Held: 1. The objection which was overlured at the first instance and not raised as a ground of appeal on the appellante level cannot be raised during the review of the judgment due to injustice, therefore, the issue raised by Ngizweninshuti that he shouldnot have been sued for failure to rectify the accident report which was submitted to the Intermediate Court as an objection but was not raised again at the appellate level, so it can not be examined at the level of review of the judgment due to injustice. NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA

## Page 374

106

2. A document is not considered an authentic deed just because it was made by a public employee, but rather to be considered authentic it has to contain authentic information witnessed by a competent authority, if not so that document will be considered as any other evidence which may be challenged by any counter evidence. Therefore, the accident report must be considered as any other document containing the information that may be contradicted. Review of the judgement due to injustice has merits; Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law No 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the Civil, Commercial, Labour and Administrative Procedure, point 6, Article 150. Law Nº 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the Jurisdiction of the Courts, article 55 Organic Law No 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the Penal Code, paragraph 2 of article 24 Law Nº 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to Evidence and its Production, article 119 Presidential Decrée No85/01 of 02/09/2002 regulating general traffic police and road traffic, Articles 11, 13. 15 and 104 Decree Law No 21/77 instituting the Penal Code, article 18 No cases referred to. Legal scholars: Thierry Debard et al, Lexique des termes juridiques, 23ème éd., Dalloz, 2015-2016, p.18 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 375

107

Rapport Annuel 2012, La preuve dans la jurisprudence de la Cour de cassation, p.27 Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

On 06/01/2012, an accident occured at Kabindi Traffic lights, where a M. Benz plate No RAB 638 W, which was being driven by Muhima Giovanni travelling from MINADEF, collided with Toyota Corolla plate No RAB 464 Rcoming from Remera driven by Ngizweninshuti Albert, and the accident report made by Traffic Police Officer, Muhire Emmanuel stated that the vehicle that caused the accident belonged to Muhima Giovanni, this prompted Muhima Giovanni to file a claim against Ngizweninshuti Albert before the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge seeking the rectification of that accident report made by that judicial police officer which faulted him for the causing the accident, so that Ngizweninshuti Albert, compasates him the expenses he incured on repairing his car.

Nyarugenge Intermediate Court adjudicated case RC 0701/13/TGI/NYGE on 25/04/2014, examined the objection for inadmissibility of the claim filed by Ngizweninshuti Albert before it examined the merits of the case.

With regard to the objection, Ngizweninshuti Albert contends that he is not the right person to be sued for rectifying the accident report made by the Judicial Police Officer Muhire Emmanuel, whereas Counsel Kazeneza Théophile representing Muhima Giovanni states that their claim seeks the invalidation of NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA

## Page 376

108

the accident report, and accordingly Ngizweninshuti Albert be compelled to pay all car repair expenses. In respect of this issue, the court ruled that there is no reason for not suing Ngizweninshuti Albert because the case is based on liability originating from the accident but not on the accident report because he is not the one who made it.

With regard to the case in merits, basing on the fact that the accident report made by the judicial police officer at the scene confirmed that Muhima Giovanni violated the traffic lights (green light) which resulted in an accident and the fact that there was no way it can change the report made by the Judicial Police officer which confirmed that the accident was caused by Giovanni's faults, the Court declared that his claim has no merits because he was responsible for the accident.

Muhima Giovanni lodged an appeal to the High Court on grounds that the Judge of the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge errored in fact by disregarding the crucial information and moreover they raised them, which includes the following ; a. One of the police officers at the scene who stated that Muhima Giovanni's car started moving when traffic lights were indicating green light, was not interviewed b. The judicial police officer stated that Muhima Giovanni's car was the one that hit Ngizweninshuti Albert's car whereas it was his car that hit the side of Muhima Giovanni's car ; c. Another vehicle (vehicle C) was parked alongside that of Ngizweninshuti Albert, did not move while Ngizweninshuti Albert kept driving, was not mentioned in the report ; RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 377

109

d. In general, the content of the sketch of the accident is false and it left out some crutial information, (position des véhicules après l’accident ; la distance déjà effectuée par les deux véhicules ...)

In the judgment RCA 0249/14/HC/KIG rendered on 23/10/2015, the High Court challenged the decision of the Intermediate Court for premising its decision on the Judicial Police Officer testimony who declared that Muhima Giovanni was responsible for the accident basing only on what he was told by the traffic police officers who were on duty at the time who alleged that he had passed when the traffic lights were green However, it is contrary to what the sketch of the accident indicates. The High Court, based on the fact that : a. Compared to where Muhima Giovanni's car pulled away and the scene of accident, it is a long distance ; and close to where Ngizweninshuti Albert's car started moving ; b. Muhima Giovanni's car was about to end the junction zone the whereas Ngizweninshuti Albert's car was entering the junction. The Court found that Ngizweninshuti Albert is responsible for the accident because he was not careful to comply with the provisions of Article 15 of the Presidential Decree n° 85/01 of 02/09/2002 regulating general Traffic Police and Road Traffic1 . Thus it accordingly declared that :

1The Article stipulates that the car driver must, particularly, come close to a cross-road at such a speed that he has the possibility to stop and let pass vehicles having priority ; he cannot move in the cross-roads where his car risks to be immobilised and block the passage to vehicles moving on the transversal way NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA

## Page 378

110

a. The appeal filed by Muhima Giovanni has merits ; b. The appealed judgment is reversed in whole ; c. Ordered Ngizweninshuti Albert to pay Muhima Giovanni 3,262,603 Frw for damages and to pay him back 75,000 Frw as court deposit.

Ngizweninshuti Albert was not satisfied with the ruling of the case and addressed a written request to the Ombudsman appliying for review due to injustice.

Following the examination of the matter, the Office of the Ombudsman addressed a written request to the President of the Supreme Court requesting that the judgment RCA 0249/14/HC/KIG rendered on 23/10/2015 by the High Court to be reviewed due to injustice. Based on the report of the Inspectorate-General of Courts, the President of the The Supreme Court confirmed the review of the judgement and was registered under RS/INJUST/RC 00024/2018/SC.

On 04/02/2020, parties were called to appear before the court. Ngizweninshuti Albert was represented by learned Counsel Bizumuremyi Isaac together with learned Counsel Ndoba Augustin, whereas Muhima Giovanni was represented by Counsel Kazeneza Théophile ; and the case was heard.

At the beggining of the hearing, Counsel Kazeneza Théophile, representing Muhima Giovanni raised an objection for inadmissibility of the claim before responding to the grounds of injustice filed by Ngizweninshuti Albert where he contended that the case subjected to application for review due to injustice was executed. Thus, he moved the Court to declare that RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 379

111

Ngizweninshuti Albert no longer have interest in it because he lost the case.

In his defence, Counsel Bizumuremyi Isaac, representing Ngizweninshuti Albert argued that the case was executed because it's not prohibited by law as it equally provides that such execution shall not be an impediment to the application for review of the case on grounds of injustice neither does it extinguish Ngizweninshuti Albert's interest to pursue their case

The court immediately solved the disagreement and declared that the objection lacks merits on grounds that judgement execution does not prevent the agrieved party from filing a an application for review of the judgement on grounds of injustice as provided for in Article 64 of Law N°30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the Jurisdiction of the Courts2 . The hearing proceded to the merits of the caset.

Counsel Bizumuremyi Isaac and Learned Counsel Ndoba Augustin representing Ngizweninshuti Albert explained that the grounds of injustice they seek the Supreme Court to correct is based on the following reasons : a. The fact that he was charged with correcting the accident statement drawn up by a police officer a one Muhire Emmanuel, , he is accordingly of the stance that his clent should not be held accountable for the matters concerning the foregoing statement;

2 The Article stipulates that: “an application for review of a final judgement on grounds of being vitiated by injustice does not entail the stay of the execution of the judgement. NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA

## Page 380

112

b. The fact that the High Court disregarded the fact that the statement drawn up by a judicial police officer is a statement provided for by the Article 13 of the Law relating to Evidence and its Production which cannot be challenged by the testimony of witnesses only. c. The fact that the High Court disregarded the law and evidence by declaring that he was the party responsible for the accident whereas there are witnesses who deponed that the accident was caused by Muhima Giovanni. Therefore, he seeks to be repaid the money he paid to him with interests thereof.

With regard to the first reason, learned Counsel Kazeneza Théophile states that his client, Muhima Giovanni, prayed for the rectification of the accident statment so as determine the party that caused the accident given that the rationale behind this is to prove that Ngizweninshuti Albert is responsible for accident and and hold him accountable for it. He also does not admit that a a judicial police officer statement is an authentic deed as he consideres it to be a legal act that can be challenged in any way according to the veracity of the evidence adduced. He is also of the stance that no evidence was ignored by the Court because it based it ruling on the description of the accidentin accordance to the accident sketch.

The Court finds that the issues to be examined in the instant case are as follows : - Matters concerning dispute related to the claim seekingfor the correction of a statement drawn up by Judicial Police Police Officer a one Muhire Emmanuel ; - whether an accident statement RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 381

113

- drawn up by a Judicial police officer is an act that may be challenged only in accordance to the provisions of the Article 13 of the Law relating to Evidence and its Production ; - Determine who should be held accountable for the accident of 06/01/2012 ; - Matters concerning the money paid by Ngizweninshuti Albert to Muhima Giovanni ; - Matters concerning damages claimed by both parties. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUES IN THE CASE Matters concerning dispute related to the claim seekingfor the correction of a statement drawn up by a Judicial Police Police Officer a one Muhire Emmanuel;

Learned Counsel Bizumuremyi Isaac, Ngizwenishuti Albert's representative contends that the claim requesting the correction of the accident statement made by the judicial Police Officer a one Muhire Emmanuel should not be filed against him because he was not the one who drew such a statement ;

Learned Counsel Kazeneza Théophile, Muhima Giovanni's representativesubmitted that in matters related to accidents, parties to the dispute are the same time parties to the case so as to determine the party responsible for the accident and the same should pay.. However, the fact that the report of the NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA

## Page 382

114

accident is tainted with errors where the judicial police officer who drew it up erroneously declared that Muhima Giovanni was responsible for the accident rather than being Ngizweninshuti Albertsuch errors should be corrected and as well as decision that resulted thereon must be declared invalid as it's not vested in Judicial police officer's competence to determine the responsible for accident. Counsel Kazeneza rests his case by stating that they have nothing to hold against the judicial police officer personally. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

With respect to whether the claim requesting for the correction of an accident statement drawn up by the Judicial Police Officer a one Muhire Emmanuel may be lodged against Ngizweninshuti Albert, the Court found that it was raised as an objection and accordingly decided on by the Intermediate Court where it declared that the charge against Ngizweninshuti Albert is a claim based on the accident liability not on the correction of accident statement because he is not the one who drew it. It also finds that the foregoing claim was not been appealed to the High Court as it is clear that the dispute was based solely on determination of the party responsible for the accident and the liability thereof. The current problem is to determine whether the objection that was raised and decided on at the first instance, and was not appeales against that it may be heard as a ground of appeal in the judgement rendered at the last instance could be reexamined through application for review on grounds of injustice.

Regarding the forgoing matter, the Court finds that the last paragraph of Article 55 of Law N°30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the the Jurisdiction of Courts has something to RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 383

115

enligh thereon. The paragraph stipulates that : «...any party entitled to ordinary and extraordinary remedies but that fails to assert his/her right within the time limit provided by law, is not allowed to apply for review of a case he/she lost because of injustice… ». This means that in the event where Ngizweninshuti Albert felt dissatisfied with the decision, he would have challenged it by filing a cross appeal to the High Court that it may correct the errors that may have been made by the intermediate court judge3. The fact that he failed do so when he was entitled to it, means that deprived himself of the appeal procedures. Thus, he cannot apply for review on grounds of injustice for such issue to be re examined as it would be inconstistent with the provisions of Article 55 of the above Law.

However, the Court also wonders whether the appeal referred to in the preceding paragraph does not concern whole case so much so that. Article 55 may no be based on in the event where some grounds deliberated by the trial court were not appealed against. One may also wonder why such grounds cannot be reviwed on grounds of injustice yet Article 63 of the aforementioned law provides that « when the Supreme Court or any other court designated by the President of the Supreme Court receives an application for review of a judgement on grounds of being vitiated by injustice, it examines the merits of the case anew and in the presence of all parties ». The question beofere the court is to clearly determine limitations of the review provided for under the new Article.

3 Article 170 Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that “The subject matter to be decided by the appeal court shall be limited to what is in the appeal. The court may only decide on the issues brought forth by the appellant and respondent at the appeal level.” NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA

## Page 384

116

Regarding this matter, the Supreme Court finds that examining the merits of the case anew should not be construed as a disregard for the existence of other cases before being seized due to injustice. If this were the case, it would not have been necessary for the parties to submit submissions on the alleged injustice as a result of an unfair judgement as provided for in Article 150.6o of Law No. 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure. This Artcile requires a party who is not satisfied with the ruling of the case to demonstrate the errors contained in the impugned case To wit: errors of act or ommission (including fixing the errors of the case at the previous instance) in accordance with the provisions of the law4 . This means that the objection not raised by the party before the last appellate court, he/she is satisfied with the decision taken thereon he would not accordingly rraise it again at the level of review of the case due to injustice because he deprived himself of the right to getting a fair trial when he could appeal and request for modification accoding to legal provisions, but failed to do so.

It is Therefore, in the finding of the Supreme Court that, based on preceeding paragraphs, Article 55, last paragraph when aligned with the first paragraph of Article 63 of Law N ° 30/2018 of 02 / 06/2018 determing the Jurisdiction of Courts, an un admited objection before the trial court and and it is not raised at the appellate level, cannot be subjected to application for review due to injustice Thus, the fact that the matters related to the claim seeking the correction of the accident statement drawn up by the

4 The article stipulates that: The application for appeal is done by means of submissions filing the claim and containing: « …The motivation for each grievance or problem indicating the errors committed and the way in which they must be modified on the basis of the law and the means of proof and the claim RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 385

117

Police staff a one Muhire Emmanuel was not heard in the case prayed to be reviewed due to injustice, it neither be reviewed at this instance. Whether a statement of accident drawn by the Judicial police officer is an authentic deed that may be challenged only in accordance to the provisions of the Article 13 of the Law relating to Evidence and its Production;

Counsel Ndoba Augustin, representing Ngizweninshuti Albert, contends that the appellate judge examined the accident sketch and faulted it by interpreting it in his own understanding regardless of whether the accident statement was an authentic deed seeing that it was drawn by a competent staffand accordingly cannot not be challenged except in the manner provided for under Article 13 of the Law N°15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to Evidence and its Production5 .

Counsel Kazeneza Théophile, representative of Muhima Giovannisubmits that the Judge has competence to verify whether the content of statement made by the judicial police officer is consistent with the truth and he/she may even declare it invalid if it is found to be illegal or inaccurate because the statement drawn up by the judicial police officer is not an authentic deed but an ordinary legal actto the extent that such content is deemed immutable or infallible its contents cannot be

5 The Article states that “the content of authentic deed witnessed by a civil servant in the capacity of a witness or agent within the limit of his or her mission is reliable and binding towards all. The contents of such a deed shall not be challenged except through prosecution for falsification or forgery.” NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA

## Page 386

118

as provided under Article 119 of the Law N° 15/2004 relating to Evidence and its Production6. THE ANALYSIS OF THE COURT

The Court finds that the dispute based on probative value (Probative value) as evidence of the accident statement made by the judicial police officer must be interpreted according to an analysis of the following Articles of the Law N°15/2004 of of 12/06/2004 relating to Evidence and its Production : Articles 11, 13 and 119 defining matters of the deeds made by a competent civil servant, their value and their use as evidence in the legal framework. Article 11 stipulates that an an authentic deed is “one, which has been drawn or received in accordance with all the required formalities, by a public officer authorised to officiate in the place where the deed was drawn up”; Article 13 of that Law provides that the “content of authentic deed witnessed by a civil servant in the capacity of a witness or agent within the limit of his or her mission is reliable and binding towards all… », whereas Article 119 stipulates that “in criminal cases, evidence can be established by all means of fact or law provided they are subject to adversarial proceedings. The court rules sovereignly on the validity and relevance of the prosecution or defence evidence”.

If you read the definition of an authentic deed in a Glossary of Legal Terms (Lexique des termes juridiques) an authentic deed is defined as “a document drawn up by an authorized public officer, on paper or by other means of

6 The Article stipulates that “in criminal cases, evidence can be established by all means of fact or law provided they are subject to adversarial proceedings. The court rules sovereignly on the validity and relevance of the prosecution or defence evidence”. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 387

119

technology, which contains credible information that shall not be challenged, except through prosecution for falsification or forgery... ”7. Apparently, this definition is consistent with the provisions of Article 11 and 13. upon the foregoing elucidations, the courts added that documents personally drawn by a competent staff attesting to what happened while he/she was fulfilling his/her duties, or if he/she was an eye witness, such document have a value of unquestionable evidence which can only be revoked by the court 8. Succinctly, the Court finds that the authentic deed is a document that meets the following criteria : a. The fact that it's an authentic deed which has been drawn or received in accordance with all the required formalities, by a public officer authorised by a written document or by other means of technology ; b. The fact that it is a deed that was drawn up in the course of fulfilling his/her duties in his/her Work jurisdiction ; c. Being a document containing information personally drawn by him/her or first hand information. Therefore, based on the foregoing elucidations, it is clear that it is not enough for a document to be drawn up by a competent public servant to be called an authentic deed.

7 Ecrit établi par un officier public, sur support papier ou electronique dont les affirmations font foi jusqu’à inscription de faux… ». cfr Thierry Debard et al, Lexique des termes juridiques, 23ème éd., Dalloz, 2015-2016, p.18 8 Selon la jurisprudence, seuls les faits que l’officier public a énoncés dans l’acte comme ayant été accomplis par lui ou comme s’étant passés en sa présence dans l’exercice de ses fonctions sont revêtus de cette force probante, qui ne peut être combattue que par la procédure d’inscription de faux ». Voir Cour de Cassation Française, Rapport Annuel 2012, La preuve dans la jurisprudence de la Cour de cassation, p.27, accessible sur https://www.cour de cassation.fr/publicationss26/rapport annuel 36/rapport2012 4571/ NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA

## Page 388

120

With regard to the statement of the judicial police officer, the Rwandan legislator does not specifically define its value as evidence of litigation. In other countries, such as France, there are regulatory principles to that effect: in general, the statements by judicial police officer are considered as ordinary information under the law, which can be challenged in accordance with Article 119 of the Law relating to Evidence and its Production9, but some of them are given high probative value than others10. Some of them given probative value as authentic deeds and these inter alia include statements made by the customs officer11; others are are given the value beyond normal information, which can only be impugned when an adversarial evidence is found12. This means that it is impossible to rebut them when one is using his

9 En principe, un procès-verbal rédigé par un membre de la police judiciaire ou par un fonctionnaire chargé de constater une infraction ne vaut qu’à titre de simple renseignement ». Ibid., p.229 10 « En premier lieu, la loi peut prévoir que le procès-verbal vaudra jusqu’à preuve contraire et la loi réglemente alors les conditions dans lesquelles cette preuve contraire pourra être rapportée, soit, le plus souvent, par l’écrit et le témoignage. En second lieu, la loi peut préciser que le procès-verbal vaudra jusqu’à inscription de faux. Le contenu du procès-verbal ne pourra être contesté que par la mise en œuvre de la procédure d’inscription de faux ». Ibid., p.230 11 Selon l’article 336, 1°, du code des douanes, lorsqu’ils sont rédigés par deux agents des douanes ou de toute autre administration, les procès-verbaux de douane font foi, jusqu’à inscription de faux, des constatations matérielles qu’ils relatent. Les constatations matérielles sont celles qui sont faites directement par les rédacteurs du procès-verbal ». Ibid., p 231 12 Le fait d’attribuer une force probante renforcée à certains procès-verbaux induit nécessairement une limitation du contradictoire, la discussion des éléments de preuve étant encadrée par la loi. Le prévenu a le droit de combattre ces procès-verbaux par tous les moyens légaux de preuve, mais leur force probante ne peut être infirmée sur ses seules dénégations ou allégations ». Ibid., p. 230 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 389

121

own words. words. 13. However, in order for a statement in this category to have such specific value, there are certain requirements that must be met14: a. it must contain the firsthand information witnessed by a judicial police office, to wit: it is not a decision based on its own analysis as it to gives the statment the value of ordinary information; b. The fact that it is not based hearsey even if it was told to him/her fellow judicial police officer ; c. The fact that it was drawn by a comptent judicial police officer in his territorial jurisdiction where the crime was committed. it is in that light that Petty offences statements are the statements that have special force 15, while those made on misdemeanours are considered as ordinary information, unless otherwise provided by law16. This, of courseis calculated at both reducing un ending disputes on

13 En premier lieu, cette force probante renforcée ne s’attache qu’aux constatations effectuées par les agents et non aux appréciations personnelles, reconstitutions et déductions auxquelles elles donnent lieu, qui ne valent qu’à titre de renseignements laissés à l’appréciation des juges du fond. En deuxième lieu, seuls les constats effectués personnellement par l’auteur du procès-verbal bénéficient de la valeur probatoire renforcée. 14 Enfin, la force probante renforcée ne vaut que pour les constatations se rapportant aux infractions que l’auteur du procès-verbal est spécialement habilité à constater, sur l’étendue de la circonscription à laquelle il est affecté ». Ibid., p. 231 15Les procès-verbaux de constat établis en matière contraventionnelle valent jusqu’à preuve contraire». Ibid., p.230 16 16 Les procès-verbaux ne bénéficient de cette force probante renforcée que dans les cas où leurs auteurs «ont reçu d’une disposition spéciale de la loi le pouvoir de constater des délits par des procès-verbaux ou des rapports». Ibid. NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA

## Page 390

122

Petty offences and avoid giving blanketed justice (giving him/her enough time for defense) misdemeanours' defendant.

The Supreme Court finds that, while there is no law that defines the value of a judicial police officer's statement as a piece of evidence, this example from France would be a good precident in resolving continuing disputes over the value of a judicial police officer's statement. The only remaining question is to determine at which level the statement made by judicial police officer on crimes committed in violation of the Presidential Decree regulating general traffic police and road traffic 17would be classified..

The Supreme Court finds that the answer to this question is provided under Article 18 of Decree -Law N° 21/77 Instituting the Penal Code 18 that was in force at the time the accident happened and in paragraph 2 of Article 24 of the Organic Law n° 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 Instituting the Penal Code that was in force at the time the road accident statement between Muhima Giovanni and Ngizweninshuti Albert was adduced as evidence in cases that preceded this one. The Article stipulates that the offense of non-compliance with road traffic rules is classified as a petty offences except they are punishable under specific law19..

17 Presidential Decree n° 85/01 of 02/09/2002 regulating general traffic police and road traffic, Articles. 18 The Article stated that « …Offences against laws, orders, public service and security regulations in respect of which the law does not provide for specific sentences are also petty offences». 19 Iyo ngingo yagiraga iti "Offences against laws, orders, public service and security regulations in respect of which the law does not provide for specific sentences are also petty offences». RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 391

123

Based on the contents of the preceding paragraphs, the Supreme Court finds the statement of the car accidentto be an irrefutable piece of evidence unless evidence reubbutal to that effect is adduced given that its a statement on petty offense drawn by a Judicial police officer as long as it fulfills the requirements set out in paragraph 27.

With respect to the instant case, the statement drawn up by the judicial police officer on the accident occurred between Muhima Giovanni and Ngizweninshuti Albert’s car is not an authentic deed but a statement that cannot be subjected to challenge unless the rebuttal evidence is adduced as it is a statement on petty offense, however the Court finds it to have some inadequacies that prevents it qualify for that level mainly based on the fact that the content thereof was not a fisthand information but a hearsay the judicial police officer heard from people present at the scene of the accident20. In addition, the conclusion of the statement seems to give a conclusion based onpersonal-analysis of the events that occured21. accordingly, it is in the finding of the Supreme Court such statement should be considered as any document that providing information that can be challenged in any way as provided for under Article 119 of Law No. 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to Evidence and its Production.

20See the text on page 4 where it states that: "Traffic police staff who were standing at the Traffic lights in the junction also confirmed that Muhima Giovanni had crossed when the red lights were being emitted." 21 See the statement on page 4 where it states that "... the accident caused by Muhima Giovanni who crossed when the red lights were being emitted" NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA

## Page 392

124

Determination of who should be held liable for the accident of 06/01/2012

Learned Counsel Ndoba Augustin and learned Counsel Bizumuremyi Isaac, representative of Ngizweninshuti Albertsubmit that Muhima Giovanni is the party responsible for the accident because : a. The Road traffic staff saw him ; b. There are also witnesses who deponed that Muhima Giovanni violated traffic rules where he started moving when the traffic lights shone red whci prohibited him from moving moving, and and in actingcontrary to that they collided.

They submit that the High Court also errord in law by disregarding the law, in particular the Presidential Decree N° 85/01 of 02/09/2002 regulating General Traffic Police and Road Traffic in the Article one, paragraph 2, which defines the qualified agent for enforcement of this Order and and nullified the statement made by OPJ Muhire Emmanuel without hearing his elucidations on the matter.

Counsel Kazeneza Théophile, representative of Muhima Giovanni contends that the party responsible for the accident is Ngizweninshuti Albert on ground that Muhima Giovanni's car, traveling from Kimihurura to the town (one heading to the town and the other to Kimihurura), was knocked by Ngizweninshuti Albert's car in the road junction as he suddenly entered the road and as a result damaged the right side of Muhima Giovanni’s car

Learned Counsel Kazeneza Théophile also states that the Presidential Decree that was based on stipulates that in road RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 393

125

junctions the driver must be cautious. He rests hua case by praying the Court to examine the statement of the accident and the declarations of both parties as it appears to be inconsistent with what happened. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The Court finds that Article 104 of Presidential Decree N° 85/01 of 02/09/2002 regulating General Traffic Police and Road Traffic, defines a vehicle that has priority to pass based on the traffic lights that shne in colours following three colours : a. the red light means : prohibition to move beyond the signal ; b. the yellow light means : prohibition to move beyond the stop line or, in default of any stop line, the signal itself, unless its turns on when the driver is so close to the degree that he is not able to stop without causing more problems ; however in the event where where the signal is located at cross-roads, the driver who has moved passed the stop line or the signal in such circumstances can only cross the cross-roads if he cannot cause danger to other road users; c. the green light means : authorisation to pass the signal.

When vehicles collide in a junction that has a traffic lights and each of the drivers does not accept its responsibility therein, the party thatviolated the general rules of the road must shall be held liable, especially Article 15 of the Presidential Decree n° 85/01 of 02/09/2002 regulating general traffic police and road traffic, stipulating that the car driver must come close to a cross- road at such a speed that he has the possibility to stop and let pass vehicles having priority to avoid any cause of an accident. NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA

## Page 394

126

In the event where an accident happened due to the fact that one of the vehicles moved into the junction without the priority to pass given that the red light signal was on ans as a result slumed into the one complying with the green light signal, which has priority to pass, he is undoubtly responsible for the accident. On the other hand, if someone with priority to pass as per the green light signal is passes and happens to slam into something, they are also equally responsible for theaccident based on the fact that he was negligent to enter the junction without being careful of any risk that might cause the accident as provided under Article 15 of the Decree mentioned above. However, if it's clear that he is the victim, the accident is the sole responsibility of the offender. In the event where it was a head to head collission or when it is difficult to determine who the responsible party is, the one who violated the red traffick light signal shall be held liable as he/she is the one who blatantly ignored the principle of foresight.

In the instant case, the accident sketch shows that Muhima Giovanni, who was driving from RRA's directionwas and as he crossed the road junctionhe collided with Ngizweninshuti Albert's car who was emerging from KBC road heading to Kimihurura. The report also demonstrates that the car was damaged at the front side. A police officer present at the scene of accident stated that the accident was caused by Muhima Giovanni who crossed the road junction while the red light was still on. Although Muhima Giovanni denies to that effect, it is not clear how Ngizweninshuti Albert's car would have hit him in the junction if he had complied with the traffick lights which shone red because the traffic lights cannot indicate signs that would lead vehicles to reach the junction at the same time and collide as a result. On the other hand, none of the witnesses challenged the RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 395

127

fact that Ngizweninshuti Albert crossed the junction when traffic lights indicated green light. This indicates that Muhima Giovanni was the one who crossed the road junction when the red light was still in action. Therefore, the fact that both vehicles collided and got damaged at the front side, and Muhima Giovanni was the one who was in violation of the traffick lights that ordered him to stop, the Court finds him liable for the accident on grounds that because he is the one who blatantly lacked foresight as explained in the preceding paragraph.

However, regarding the fact that the previous courts did not summon the person who drew the statement for elucidations, the Supreme Court finds it unnecessary because, as explained, such accident statement is more or less than the ordinary information that may be examined and considered by the court in its discretion. Regarding the amount of money and the interest thereof that Ngizweninshuti Albert seeks to be refunded, Whether Ngizweninshuti Albert can be refunded the amount of 3,837,603 Frw paid to Muhima Giovanni

Learned Counsel Bizumuremyi Isaac, representing Ngizweninshuti Albert, submitted that the High Court ordered Ngizweninshuti Albert to pay Muhima Giovanni three million, three hundred and thirty-seven thousand, six hundred and three rwandan francs (3,337,603 Frw) for damaged car in addition to of the cout fees of seventy-five thousands rwandan francs (75,000 Frw) and five hundred thousand rwandan francs (500,000 Frw) paid to the professional bailiff who executed the judgement. NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA

## Page 396

128

Making a total sum of three million, eight hundred and thirty- seven thousand, six hundred and three rwandan francs (3,837,603 Frw); so he has to be refunded taht money because he is not the party responsiblefor the accident. Learned Counsel Kazeneza Théophile, representing Muhima Giovanni, contends that the Court order is a result of the judgment execution in order to repair the car damaged by the accident, accordingly such money shall not be refunded to Ngizweninshuti because he is not the one who paid it but the insurance company though he denies it. Thus, he is not eligible to be refunded. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT The Court finds that three million eight hundred thirty- seven thousand six hundred three rwandan francs (Frw 3,837,603) claimed by Ngizweninshuti Albert from Muhima Giovanni based on the judgement execution and the liability of the accident, as well as the court fees paid at the High Court must be refunded to him because he is not the party responsible for the accident as stated above. But the total amount includes the amount paid by the Insurance Company (SAHAM RWANDA ex CORAR AG Ltd) amounting to two million two hundred seven thousand six hundred three rwandan francs (2.207.603 Frw). This last sum must be deducted from the total amount to be reimbursed to him because he is not the one who paid it. Therefore, the Court finds that the amount to be refunded is one million six hundred thirty thousand Rwandan francs (1,630,000 Frw).

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 397

129

Regarding the interests related to amount Ngizweninshuti Albert seeks to be refunded Learned Counsel Ndoba Augustin representing Ngizweninshuti Albert claims annual interest of 18% over the last 4 years after paying 3.837.603 Frw. Interests are equal to 2,763,074 Frw, based on the loss he incurred andon the fact that he was unfairly deprived such amount. Learned Counsel Kazeneza Théophile representing Muhima Giovanni contends that the interests claimed are unreasonableand groundless on grounds that it would be penalizing the party that won the case yet they are innocent. What he did was to execute the decision of the Court. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT According to the statement of execution of judgement 0249/14/HC/KIG tried on 23/10/2015 by the High Court between Muhima Giovanni and Ngizweninshuti Albert, the Court finds that Muhima Giovanni was paid three million eight hundred thirty-seven thousand six hundred three rwandan francs (3,837,603 Frw) of which Ngizweninshuti Albert paid one million six hundred and thirty thousand rwandan francs (1,630,000 Frw) whereas his insurer SAHAM (ex CORAR) paid two million two hundred and seven thousand six hundred and three rwandan francs (2,207,603 Frw). It is ostensibly clear that he was not deprived of the amount paid by SAHAM. So, and accordingly shall not be awarded the interests thereof. On the contrary the Court finds that the interests he is eligible for are those based on the amount he personally paidto NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA

## Page 398

130

with : one million six hundred and thirty thousand rwandan francs (1,630,000 Frw). With regard to the rate of 18% that Ngizweninshuti Albert bases his interests, the Court finds that Muhima Giovanni did not rubut to that effectand the Court also finds the to be reasonable, on grounds that if he had borrowed the money to be repaid or had borrowed it to fill the gap left, he would have borrowed it at the rate similar to the one of the bank to the borrowers ; and currently there are banks that grant loans at an annual rate of 18%. based on such grounds Muhima Giovanni must pay Ngizweninshuti Albert the interests emanating from one million six hundred and thirty thousand Rwandan francs (1,630,000 Frw) calculated over a period of three years and twenty-five daysto wit: one thousand one hundred and twenty days since the judgement was executed as its indicated by the statement of the execution of the judgement of 27/01/2017 until today, instead of four years as Ngizweninshuti Albert claims; thus, the total is (1,630,000 Frw x 18% x 1120 J): 350 J= nine hundred thousand two hundred ninety-five rwandan francs (900.295 Frw) Regarding Damages claimed in the instant case Counsel Ndoba Augustin representing Ngizweninshuti Albert requests seeks to be refunded one million (1,000,000 Frw) paid to his Counsel at both Intermediate and High Court level as well as another one million (1,000,000 Frw) he paid to this Courtamounting to a total amount of 2,000,000 Frw in addition to the one million (1,000,000 Frw) for procedural fees right from the Police level, throughout investigation until the current level. Counsel Kazeneza Théophle, representing Muhima Giovanni, contend that court deposit fees and lawyer's fees should not be paid by Muhima on ground that he was he is not RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 399

131

the judge that tried the casenot mentioning that tey are unfounded. He on the contrary moved the Court to order the plaintiff to pay the damages for procedural fees equivalent to five hundred thousand rwandan francs (500,000 Frw) and a lawyer's fees equivalent to one million rwandan francs (1,000,000 Frw). DETERMINATION OF THE COURT The court finds that Muhima Giovanni does nor deserve damages he claimed because he is responsible for the accident which occurred on 06/01/2012 between his car and that of Ngizweninshuti Albert. The Court finds that Ngizweninshuti Albert must receive the claimed damages, but because he does not justfy the basis of the calculation thereof, the Court, in its discretion, awards him three hundred thousand rwandan francs (300,000 Frw) of procedural fees for each case level which is equivalent to nine hundred thousand rwandan francs (900,000 Frw) and five hundred thousand francs (500,000 Frw) for lawyer's fees at each level which is equivalent to one million five hundred thousand rwandan francs (1,500,000 Frw). The total is two million and four hundred thousand Rwandan francs (2,400,000 Frw). III. DECISION OF THE COURT Hereby declares that Ngizweninshuti Albert’s application for review for injustice against judgement nº RCA 0249/14/HC/KIG tried by the High Court on 23/10/2015, is founded ; NGIZWENINSHUTI v MUHIMA

## Page 400

132

Declares that the ruling of case nº RCA 0249/14/HC/KIG rendered by High Court on 23/10/2015 is reversed in whole ; Orders Muhima Giovanni to pay Ngizweninshuti Albert :  One million six hundred and thirty thousand Rwandan francs (1,630,000 Frw) paid in execution of case nº RCA 0249/14/HC/KIG tried by the High Court ;  The interests thereof equivelent to nine hundred thousand two hundred ninety-five rwandan francs (900.295 Frw)  Two million four hundred thousand rwandan francs (2,400,000 Frw) for procedural fees and lawyer's fees paid at the Intermediate Court, High Court and the Supreme Court level ;  The total amounts to four million nine hundred thirty thousand two hundred ninety-five Rwandan francs (4,930,295 Frw).

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 401

133

CASE RELATING TO CIVIL, COMMERCIAL, LABOUR AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

## Page 402

134

## Page 403

135

CELA COMPANY LTD v. PHILIPP COTTON [Rwanda COMMERCIAL HIGH COURT – RCOM 00014/2019/HCC – (Kibuka, P.J.,) 10 April 2019] Law determining jurisdiction of courts – Non - execution of the judgment rendered by commercial courts – The competence of the commercial courts to compel the administrative authority to execute the judgment – An administrative authority who declines the execution of the ruling can be summoned by the commercial court which rendered the final judgment in order to give explanations on the reasons that prevented him from complying with the court order, when it is requested by the interested party. Commercial procedure – Filing of the claim against an administrative authority who failed to comply with the court judgment – The claim against an administrative authority who refused to execute the ruling of the court is initiated in the form of ex parte application. Commercial procedure – Forcing an administrative authority to execute a court decision – Sanction forcing an administrative authority to execute a court decision – Court rulings are binding on all parties concerned including the public authorities – In the event they don’t comply, the court instructs them to pay for the unexecuted part and would determine a sanction forcing execution. Facts: CELA Company Ltd had cases against the University of Rwanda, up to the Commercial High Court, which the University of Rwanda lost but it failed to execute the court rulings. 137

## Page 404

136

CELA Company Ltd introduced a claim through an ex parte application requesting the Court to order Philip Cotton, the Vice- Chancellor of the University of Rwanda to pay the balance that the University ought to pay as well as imposing the sanction forcing execution due to the refusal to execute the ruling of the Court. Philip Cotton was forced to intervene in the trial and raised two objections of inadmissibility of the claim of CELA Company Ltd. For the first objection, he explained that the Commercial High Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the first instance claim because the legislator did not attribute it such jurisdiction and that he should rather be sued in administrative claims especially that the cited article 184 of the Law nº 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, is recorded among the provisions relating to administrative cases. He raised a second objection stating that the plaintiff introduced his claim irregularly because it should not have been initiated as an ex parte application since it lacks urgency, that it should not contain contestations while he finds that there are and that it was not up to the plaintiff to have requested his forced intervention. As far as these objections are concerned, he retorted about the first one that it lacks merit as the law provided that the claim Philip Cotton introduced to force him to execute the ruling is initiated to the Court that tried the case at the first instance level, and therefore that it is the Commercial Court that is competent. Concerning the second objection, the plaintiff retorted that it is groundless because there is an urgency which lies in the fact that it owes the bank some loans, and is under pressure to pay, and that the claim was lawfully introduced. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 405

137

Regarding the case in merit, CELA Company Ltd argues that the University of Rwanda lost in the case RCOMA 00748/2016/HC/HCC and it was ordered by the court to pay the money originating from the works done but it paid just little amount and it latter informed it in writing that it will not pay again as it was ordered by the Court, therefore that is the reason it seized this Court to get relief. In his defence, Philip Cotton, the Vice Chancellor of University of Rwanda argues that the plaintiff misconceived the court decision, because what the commercial High Court ordered does not consists of an entire amount of damages that should be paid by University of Rwanda, it was rather the invoice that should be drawn and be paid according to the clauses of the contract between the University and the Contractor which was paid by the University, therefore he finds that he should not be ordered to do anything or forced to execute the judgment, because it was the University of Rwanda which was ordered to pay nor Mr. Philip Cotton, in addition to that, the University of Rwanda paid that amount.. Held: 1. An administrative authority who declines the execution of the ruling would be summoned in the Court that tried the case under the request of the interested party in order for him to provide explanations on the reasons that prevented him from complying. Hence, the objection raised by the forced intervener is groundless because it is the Commercial High Court that has jurisdiction to try him since it tried the claim in which an administrative entity represented by the intervener was sued at the first instance level. CELA CO. LTD v. PHILIPP COTTON

## Page 406

138

2.The claim against an administrative authority who refused to execute the ruling of the court is initiated in the form of ex parte application and the summoned authority could not raise an objection of inadmissibility pretending it has been irregularly introduced because it was provided as such by the legislation. 3.An administrative authority who refuses to execute the ruling of the court is instructed to comply with it and this could not prevent the Court to impose a sanction forcing execution in the event of noncompliance. The objection of lack of jurisdiction raised by the forced intervener lacks merit. The appeal has merit. Provisional execution of the judgment is maintained. Court fees are equivalent to the cost of proceedings. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 184. No case referred to: Judgment BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

CELA Company Ltd explains that in the case opposing it to Real Construction and Supply Services Ltd and the University of Rwanda (Rukara College of Education) of 29/06/2017, the RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 407

139

Court ordered the University of Rwanda to pay the amount of money that it was claiming from works executed on the laboratory building of the University of Rwanda, Rukara College. CELA Company Ltd states that the University of Rwanda refused to execute the ruling, and paid a small part of the amount of money it was ordered to pay.

CELA Company LTD decided to seize this Court alleging that Mr. Philip COTTON, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Rwanda has no intention to execute the Court decision, and therefore the Court should order him to personally pay, and in the event he does not execute at a prescribed time, he would be imposed a sanction forcing execution as provided for by the Law.

Philip Cotton who was forced to intervene in this case raised initially two objections of inadmissibility on the grounds that the claim does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Court and that the claimant initiated a claim irregularly. After these objections, he also retorted on the ground of this claim, where he explained that it is groundless.

The issue to be determined in this case is (1) to establish whether this claim falls within the jurisdiction of this Court. (2) Whether the claim was initiated in accordance with the Law. In the event these objections are found with merit, it would examine the third (3) issue of whether Philipp COTTON, the Vice- Chancellor of the University of Rwanda would be ordered to pay CELA Company Ltd 54,91,000Frw.

CELA CO. LTD v. PHILIPP COTTON

## Page 408

140

II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES - A) Determining whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear this case.

Philip Cotton raised an objection of lack of jurisdiction of the Commercial High Court, basing of the fact that article 82, paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 of the Law n°30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of Courts, indicates the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court at first instance, where it provides in paragraph 1 that, the Commercial High Court hears at first instance, applications seeking execution in Rwanda of decisions and judgements rendered by foreign courts on commercial, financial and fiscal cases. According to paragraph 2, the Commercial High Court has also jurisdiction to hear petitions seeking execution in Rwanda of authentic deeds which have proof that they were written by foreign authorities if they have the following evidence: a) if the reasons for seeking the execution of the authentic deeds are not contrary to public order and legal principles of Rwandan laws; b) if according to laws of the country in which they were written, they have all necessary evidence to prove their authenticity. And in paragraph 3, that the Commercial High Court also examines the legality of awards rendered by the arbitrators.

Philip Cotton explains that as it is expressed by these three paragraphs of this provision, nowhere the Commercial High Court draws the jurisdiction to hear cases at the first instance level against an administrative authority who refused to execute any ruling of the court including its own ruling. That the provision of article 184 of Law n° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure that CELA Company Ltd relies on concerns the RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 409

141

Courts having jurisdiction to try administrative cases as even indicated by the title where they are found, they are administrative matters. For these reasons, the Commercial High Court has no attachment with administrative cases. That the fact that the claim lies on administrative procedure, this Court should declare itself incompetent to hear this case on the basis that such cases do not fall within its jurisdiction.

CELA Company Ltd replies to this objection stating that it seized this Court for seeking the payment ordered by the ruling of the case tried by this Court in the year 2016. Therefore, the fact that there is an administrative authority who refused to effect payment ordered by the Court alleging budget constraints, etc…, CELA Company Ltd initiated a claim based on the provision of article 184, paragraph four, stating that such claim is submitted to the Court that tried the case. Accordingly, its claim involve an administrative authority who refused to comply with the ruling of the court. And that there is urgency because the claimant has bank loans that he is being requested to reimburse. Thus, this objection raised by Philip Cotton lacks merit because the Law permits the claim against an administrative authority who refused to execute the judgment rendered by this Court. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Basing on the explanations provided by both parties on this objection of lack of jurisdiction by this Court; basing on the claim initiated by CELA Company Ltd to this Commercial High Court against Mr Philip Cotton as the Vice-Chancellor of University of Rwanda, for him to be ordered to pay CELA Company Ltd the balance of the amount ordered by this Court in the judgment RCOMA 00748/2016/CHC/HCC rendered on CELA CO. LTD v. PHILIPP COTTON

## Page 410

142

29/06/2017; basing also on the fact that though articles 183 and 184 of the Law nº 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure that were mentioned by the lawmaker within the title relating to “PROCEDURES IN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS”, it is however clear that it is made of two sections, of which the first is “APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS AND FULL JURISDICTION ACTION”, this section having also two subsections namely the Subsection One: “ACTION FOR ANNULMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS” and the second subsection: “ACTION RELATING TO PROCEEDINGS IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE CASE ON MERITS”. Conversely, the second section of this title is titled “SANCTION FORCING TO EXECUTE A COURT DECISION”.

The analysis of the text provided by the Lawmaker in this title of the Law, especially what is provided in its both sections, indicates that this title provides really the modalities of initiation and trial of administrative cases. Another observation is that in the first section, it is specially indicated the modalities of initiation and hearing of the case (administrative, implying) concerning administrative decisions, while in the second section, SANCTION FORCING TO EXECUTE A COURT DECISION”, it is clear that it also provides for the process regarding all kinds of cases (not only administrative cases tried on merit) where an administrator (or any civil servant) who does not enforce (does not execute) the court decision. And it is thus provided by this title because the role of an administrative authority comes into play. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 411

143

Basing on these explanations, supported also by the fact that the first paragrph of article 183 of the aforementioned Law provides that “When a judicial decision is final and binding against the Government, the Kigali City, a District or a Government institution or organ for the payment of a sum of money fixed by the decision, the amount must be paid within a period of six (6) months from the time of notification of the decision.” Even in other language versions used in this insturment, it is stated ““When a judicial decision.” (in English), and ““Lorsqu’une décision juridictionnelle.” (in French); meaning clearly that these provisions do not provide only for decisions delievered in the context of administrative matters; rather, they are all judicial decisions which became final and having ordered the government, other administrative organs or any other government organ to take some measures. In fact, these organs re not only involved in administratie cases because they also plead in other cases including commercial cases.

Considering all these grounds, and the article 184 of the above mentioned Law prviding in its first paragraph that “An administrative authority that fails to execute a court judgement may be summoned to the court that issued the decision to justify reasons of the non- compliance upon request by an interested party (…), this Court deems that the fact that the judgment RCOMA 00748/2016/CHC/HCC was rendered by this same Court, it is equally competent to try this claim of CELA Company Ltd. For this reason, it finds the objection raised by Philip COTTON without merit.

CELA CO. LTD v. PHILIPP COTTON

## Page 412

144

- B) Determining whether the introduction of the claim of CELA Company Ltd was regular.

Philip Cotton explains his second objection that CELA Company Ltd initiated his claim through the ex parte application while it requests the Court to instruct him to pay 78,887,854Frw, and therefore that this remedy would be relied on to reject this claim. In fact, referrence made on paragraph one of article 189 of the Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, explaining clearly that “Ex parte application is a special way to seize the court by requesting it to take urgent measures to safeguard certain interests. The content of the application must be issues which seem not to be controversial and not necessarily requiring the intervention of the other party.” Philip Cotton finds that there are three elements in this provision namely a) the presence of certain interests to be safeguarded, b) the claims should not be contentious, c) the plaintiff should not be the one to take the initiative to require the summoning or the intervention of the other party.

Philip Cotton notes therefore that as explained in the previous paragraph, the plaintiff does not indicate the interests that need urgent measures to the extent of considering his plaint to be an ex parte application in so far as the judge has to take peremptory decision with the purpose of safeguarding certain interests. it is indeed this position that has even been adopted by the Commercial Court of Huye in the judgment RCOM 00003/2016/TC/Hye where the company named Mount Meru Petroleum (Rwanda) Ltd sued to request the expulsion of HASHI from the petrol station, and the judge held that in order for the ex parte application to be initiated, it is necessary that the needed RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 413

145

decision be a provisional seizure, requested to the judge in order to urgently safeguard certain interests before the occurrence of the loss. Philip Cotton states consequently that the plaint of CELA Company Ltd is not urgent especially that CELA Company Ltd was paid the last installment of the debt on 19/11/2018, while it initiated the plaint on 08/03/2019, which implies that there was no celerity.

Philip Cotton explains further that what is indicated above similar to what the judge has reconsidered in the judgment referred to where he states that Mount Meru Petroleum (R) Ltd introduced a claim after almost four months, which indicates that it realised that its claim does not need to be considered as urgent since no irremediable loss would occur to the extent of requesting the judge to take urgent measure for safeguarding them. In addition, he adduces that the claims presented by CELA Company Ltd do not demonstrate the absence of contentions because the defendent namely Mr Philip Cotton is being held liable/required; therefore he should have been a party to this case in order for him to provides his briefs about the claims against him. This implies that this plaint should have been introduced according to ordinary procedure of commercial claims at first instance level. Thus, the fact that the plaintiff himself prays also the imposition of a sanction forcing execution, is an indication of the existence of a contention, and accordingly, this claim should not be filed in the form of ex parte application.

Philip Cotton states in addition that among the issues for determination raised by the plaintiff, includes his forced intervention as a Vice-Chancellor of the University of Rwanda. Conversely, as far as the ex parte applications are concerned, it is not the plaintiff who requests for the forced intervention of CELA CO. LTD v. PHILIPP COTTON

## Page 414

146

another opposing party, it is rather the court that orders it whenever it deems it necessary. These consist of the clue of contention in this case that deserve to be examined according to ordinary proceedings where it should be seized the commercial Court. Thus, on the basis of article 83, paragraph four of the aforementioned Law stating that “The plea of inadmissibility of a claim is any plea seeking to have the other party’s claim declared inadmissible (…) when there are formalities provided for by law which have not been complied with.”He accordingly finds that there exist the legal formalities uncomplied to by the plaintiff give that the way he initiated the claim is irregular, and for these reasons, he requists the Court to dismiss the claim of CELA Company Ltd.

CELA Company Ltd retorted during th hering on this objection by adducing that it is groudless because it sue an administrative authority who refused to comply with the court decision before the Court that delivered the judgment. And that, there are certain interests resulting from the abstinence of that authority that need to be protected urgently as well as the urgency due to the loans the plaintiff owes to the banks. Therefore that all of this is provided for by article 190 of the Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Basing on this objection raised by Philip COTTON, and the defence by CELA Company Ltd; basing on the grounds noted from the analysis of the first objection, and on the fact that article 184 of the Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, provides i its RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 415

147

paragraph four that “A claim against an administrative authority who failed to comply with the court judgement is filed by way of unilateral application.” It deems that CELA Company Ltd introduced its claim in confirmity with the Law and according tothe above stated provision, as well as the provisions relating to ex parte application found in article 198 and subsequent of this Law. For these reasons, it finds this objection without merit as well, and consequently it decides to proceed with the hearing of the grounds of this case. - C) Determining whether Philip Cotton, the Vice-Chancellor of University of Rwanda would be instructed to pay CELA Company Ltd, 54.915 000 frw.

CELA Company Ltd supports its claim by stating that it sued Real Construction and Supply Services and University of Rwanda (Rukara College of Education) in the case RCOMA 00748/2016/HC/HCC, to pay 150,041,244Frw originating from the works done on the building of the laboratory of the University of Rwanda, Rukara college. And that, though the decision of the Court should be complied with, the University of Rwanda that lost the case does not share the same view because it does not intend to execute the ruling of the Court. CELA Company Ltd states that despite being subject to unreasonable delays, University of Rwanda paid a small amount of money to what it was ordered to pay where on 22/01/2018 it paid 41,111,695Frw, 30,051,695Frw on 27/02/2018, and on 21/11/2018 it paid a small amount of 23,946,659Frw. And it is in this context that it seized this Court in order to be served justice.

CELA Company Ltd adduces further that after the University of Rwanda informed in writting that it will not pay CELA CO. LTD v. PHILIPP COTTON

## Page 416

148

again as it was ordered by the Court where it even indicated in its correspondence of 27/07/2018 the reasons of this refusal, that are unfounded, and that it will pay the balance of the debt determined by the Court on condition that CELA Company Ltd settles the disputes it has with the population (there is no ourt bailiff statement of seizure nor it is not indicated any judgment that CELA Company Ltd would have pleaded and lost). Thus, it seizes the Court in order for it to order Mr. Philip Cotton, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Rwanda, to pay. It is surpising that the University of Rwanda has accepted tht it was going to pay but later, it declined it.

CELA Company Ltd finds that the Court would rely on the elements of evidence produced as well as the provision of article 151 paragraph 4 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003, revised in 2015, providing that Court rulings are binding on all parties concerned, be they public authorities or individuals. They cannot be challenged except through procedures determined by law (…). In the event the date of payment fixed by the Cour is not respected, the request of CELA Company Ltd should be considered and Mr. Philip Cotton, the Vice-Chancellor of University of Rwanda be ordered to pay a daily amount of 500,000Frw of the sanction forcing execution in accordance with article 182 of the Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure providing for the sanction forcing execution. Therefore, that this seized Court should consider that the defendant deserves to be given the sanction forcing him to pay as requested by the plaintif.

Philip Cotton, the Vice Chancellor of University of Rwanda retorts about this ground of the claim of CELA Company Ltd, stating that as he explained above, he finds that CELA RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 417

149

Company Ltd misconceived the court decision, because what the commercial High Court ordered does not consists of an entire amount of damages that should be paid by University of Rwanda, it was rather the invoice that should be drawn and be paid according to the clauses of the contract between the University and the Contractor. That even if the agreement no 008/04/EWL/RCoE/2012 of 25/04/2012 between the University of Rwanda and the Real Constructions & Supply services did not provide anything about the modalities of payment of the value added tax (VAT) of 18%, but basing on the document of University of Rwanda of 14/12/2011 notifying Real Constructions & Supply Services the acceptance of its bidding document, implying it is a successful bidder; it indicates clearly that the value added tax of 18% will be inclusive into the total payment it would receive. For this reason, basing on the Law n°45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, especially article 64 whereby it provides that Contracts made in accordance with the law shall be binding between parties, and in the event they are revoked by them or for reasons based on law, they shall be performed in good faith.

Philip Cotton states also that basing on the documents above stated, the University of Rwanda ought to pay the price deducted of value added tax 18% (VAT) amounting to 22,887,648 Frw as the University of Rwanda had promised the contractor when it wone the tender. And basing on article 9, paragraph 3 of the Law nº 24/2010 of 28/05/2010 modifying and complementing law n° 16/2005 of 18/08/2005 on direct taxes on income where it reads that “A withholding tax of three percent (3%) on the sum of invoice, excluding the value added tax, is retained on payments by public institutions to the winner of public tenders.” Thus, University of Rwanda as an administrative CELA CO. LTD v. PHILIPP COTTON

## Page 418

150

entity should have retained 3% on the invoice, excluding the value added tax from CELA Company Ltd as the successful bidder of public tender in lieu of Real Contractors and Supply Service, because it was its sub-contractor, and that is the source of the amount of 8,903,547 Frw that the University deducted.

Philip Cotton explains also that basing on article 227, paragraph 1 of the Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, reads that “The bailiff is allowed to seize the movable property of the debtor in the hands of a third party after showing him/her the judgement or any enforcement order bearing enforcement formula.” This is also supported by the provisions of article 113, paragraph 2 of the Law governing contracts reading that “Nevertheless, the creditor may exercise rights and claims owned by his/her debtor towards third parties unless such a right is exclusively personal to the debtor.” Therefore, the fact that CELA Company Ltd had lost the case RCOM 1351/15/TC/NYGE where it was sued by Kavamahanga Alexandre, and had failed to execute the judgment voluntarily, the reason why Kavamahanga Alexandre opted to seize the movable property in the hands of University of Rwanda. The latter had no choice than paying the loan amounting to 11,050,000 Frw encompassing the court bailiff fees. Philip Cotton states that he finds that if consideration is made of the mount of 107,200,049 Frw paid by University of Rwanda, plus the advance payment of 12,100,000Frw, plus 31,791,231Frw of the amount of tax, plus 11,050,041,280Frw paid to Kavamahanga Alexandre, the total being 150,041,280Frw, that the University was instructed to pay. Thus, the requests of CELA Company Ltd lacks merit because they were executed. And for this reason, Philip Cotton should not be ordered to do anything or forced to RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 419

151

execute the judgment, on the ground that what the University of Rwanda was instructed to do does not concern him and in additon to that, the University of Rwanda enforced it. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Basing on this ground of the plaint of CELA Company Ltd and the defense of Philip Cotton; basing on the fact that both these parties concur that UNIVERSITY OF RWANDA lost the case against CELA Company Ltd in the case RCOMA 00748/2016/CHC/HCC and ordered to pay the invoice of 150,041,244 to be deposited on the account of CELA Company Ltd to be indicated on this invoice. That judgment was delivered on 29/06/2017;

Basing on the fact that it was indicated in this file, without being refuted by any one, the invoice drawn by Real Contractors and Supply Services Ltd, and CELA Company Ltd requesting University of Rwanda to pay to the account of CELA Company Ltd the amount of 150,041,244Frw in the context of executing that court decision, and that this invoice was drawn on 04/09/2017; and this judgment was in fact based on the default of payment of the invoice drawn for University of Rwanda in 2013, the invoice of 101,996,860Frw (dated 14/05/2013) and that of 48,044,384Frw (dated 03/06/2013);

Basing also on the fact that both parties concur that among the amount of money that University of Rwanda Ltd was ordered to paid, he has already paid a portion though they do not get along about it; basing on the fact that there were revealed various correspondences exchanged between the litigants, especially the correspondence that University of Rwanda rwote to the court CELA CO. LTD v. PHILIPP COTTON

## Page 420

152

bailiff Muvunyi Serge on 22/09/2017, where he was admitting in the second paragraph that it is ready to execute the court decision whenever the invoice will be communicated to it; the correspondence that the court bailiff adressed to the University of Rwanda on 11/10/2017 to transfer the invoice and request it to pay the amount it mentions in for the execution of the judgment, as well as the letter that University of Rwanda wrote to Counsel Rukarishya on 27/07/2018 emphysizing that it has never denied to pay CELA Company Ltd (it is really obvious that it paid some) because it will pay on condition that CELA Company Ltd pay the population workforce first; the letter that Kayonza district wrote to the University of Rwanda on 24/08/2018; and the statement of the meeting held between CELA Company Ltd and University of Rwanda on 25/10/2018, where they agreed that University of Rwanda shall pay the total balance of money before 16/11/2018 in order for CELA Company Ltd to refrain from exercising court proceedings, and settles the dispute amicably (judgment execution), and agreed to discuss about the issue of taxes.

Basing on all these established grounds, and the fact that article 151(4) of the Constitution of the republic of Rwanda as revised to date, providing that “Court rulings are binding on all parties concerned, be they public authorities or individuals. They cannot be challenged except through procedures determined by law;” as well as the ruling of the Supreme Court in the judgment RSOC 00001/2016/CS rendered on 20/01/2017 (see paragraphs [13] and [14]; it finds that University of Rwanda would not rely on the agreement it concluded with Real Constructions & Supply Services and CELA Company Ltd, or on tax legislation, or even the issues of the populations workforce used by CELA Company Ltd to avoid the payment of the whole amount of money as ordered by the Court, while it never advanced those grounds in RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 421

153

that judgment that is subject to execution or initiate a claim about it in accordance with the law. It would have relied on these grounds if it had paid the invoice in the context of performance of the contract, without the intervention of the final court decision.

The Court finds therefore that on the basis of the court decision, University of Rwanda should have immediately paid the total balance of money that it owes to CELA Company Ltd in confirmity with the provisions of the law governing the execution of judgments. The fact that it did not execute two years later from the delivery of the judgment, the fact that there is however the amount of money that it paid even though it did not pay the whole amount;

Basing on the provisions of article 184 stated above, it finds that the Vice Chancellor of University of Rwanda, Mr. Philip Cotton should be instructed, in the capacity of leader, and to insure that University of Rwanda pay the balance of 54,915,000Frw from the amount already paid to CELA Company as established in the judgment RCOMA 00748/2016/CHC/HC of 29/06/2017, not later than 10/06/2019. Default to pay at this date, this Vice chancellor, Mr. Philip Cotton would pay 250,000Frw of daily sanction forcing execution to CELA Company Ltd until the full enforcement of the judgment. III. DECISION OF THE COURT:

The Commercial High Court: - Admits the objections raised by Philip Cotton, the Vice-Chancellor of University of Rwanda, because they were submitted in accordance with the Law, but CELA CO. LTD v. PHILIPP COTTON

## Page 422

154

as it examines them, they are found without merit. - Admits the claim of CELA Company Ltd since it was submitted in conformity with the Law, and as it examines it, it is deemed with merit. - Decides that Philip Cotton, the Vice-Chancellor of Unversity of Rwanda, should insure that University of Rwanda, pay the balance of 54,915,000Frw from the amount already paid to CELA Company as established in the judgment RCOMA 00748/2016/CHC/HC of 29/06/2017, not later than 10/06/2019. - Holds that in the event Philip Cotton, the Vice Chancellor of University of Rwanda, does not insure that the University of Rwanda pays the said balance of 54,915,000Frw not later than 10/06/2019, he should be imposed the sanction forcing execution of a daily amount of 250,000Frw until the execution of the entire judgment. - Orders Philip Cotton, the Vice-Chancellor of University of Rwanda to insure that it pays the balance of 54,915,000Frw to CELA Company not later than 10/06/2019. In the event he fails to insure that, he shall be imposed the sanction forcing execution of a daily amount of 250,000Frw until the execution of the entire judgment. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 423

155

## Page 424

156

## Page 425

157

CASE IN MERITS

## Page 426

158

## Page 427

159

CRIMINAL CASE

## Page 428

160

## Page 429

161

NIYIBOGORA v DORISI ET AL. [Rwanda COURT OF APPEAL – RS/INJUST/RP 00003/2019/CA (Kamere P.J, Kaliwabo and Musabyinema, J.) 16 October 2020] Criminal procedure – Appeal – Appealing for the damages in the criminal case – In case the claimant for the damages is the only one who appealed, the appellate court cannot sentence the accused even if it finds the accused guilty. Facts: The case began in Musanze Intermediate Court, the Prosecution suing Dorisi, Hakizimana and Naburugero for committing fraud. Doris and Hakizimana made a statement stating that Doris had sold the plot to Hakizimana, and used Naburugero, who was a land notary, to produce fake land transfer documents based on that purchase, and the latter was working in Cyuve sector while the land was in Muhoza sector, and their wives Niyibogora and Twizeyimana were not informed about that transfer. The court ruled that Dorisi and Hakizimana were sentenced to 6 years of imprisonment for committing an offence of counterfeit and use of a counterfeit document, while Naburugero was convicted of issuing a document by a competent civil servant to a person who is not entitled to it and was also sentenced to 6 years of imprisonment. Defendants were not satisfied with the ruling and appealed to the High Court, Musanze Chamber, the court ruled that Dorisi and Hakizimana were not guilty of 163

## Page 430

162

counterfeit and use of a counterfeit document, and that Naburugero was not guilty of issuing a document by a competent civil servant to a person who is not entitled to it, because it found that the evidence produced by the Prosecution was doubtful. Niyibogora wrote to the President of the Court of Appeal requesting that the case be reviewed on the grounds of injustice in respect of compensation, and she also wrote to the President of the Supreme Court requesting that the case be reviewed on the grounds of injustice, and the President of the Supreme Court ruled that the case be referred to the Court of Appeal for trial. Counsel Bizumuremyi, representing Niyibogora, stated taht the reason for the review was that the High Court had ignored the evidence and acquitted the accused. Evidences disregarded are: a marriage certificate confirming that Nibogora is the official wife of Dorisi under community of property; the purchase agreement for the property is flawed; the land title was issued shortly after their marriage, indicating that the land was theirs, that if it had been sold it would have been registered to Hakizimana; the transfer of land took place about five years ago, and it is not understandable how Dorisi waited for that time to transfer the land he had sold; Dorisi's short message to Niyibogora; the statement of Dorisi's interrogation appears to contradict Hakizimana; a document stating that they have applied for a bank loan and built a house, a document stating that they have been paying their taxes annually from 2011 until the beginning of the trial. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 431

163

Bizumuremyi further states that with regard to Naburugero, the evidence was ignored by the High Court, which led to Niyibogora's injustice because when filling in the form requesting the transfer of land titles, Dorisi was asked if he was married and he confirmed it, but Naburugero decided not to summon her in order to protect her interests, he did not even call Hakizimana's wife while he had to do so, even though the land was 100% registered to Dorisi. He concludes that if all those evidences were examined by the High Court, Musanze Chamber, it would have shown that the purchase agreement was a counterfeit document. The prosecutor's office stated that the evidence it produced in the High Court, that it had sued motivating how the statement made in Hakizimana's house was false, as stated by Ntihabose, as Dorisi had sued for divorce, in order to win the title of the plot and the house in it, that in the the judgment rendered by Musanze High Court, in paragraph 14, ruled that that agreement was counterfeit, while the High Court, Musanze Chamber only heeded the transfer of land deeds made in the absence of its proprietors, and the defendants were acquitted, resulting in Niyibogora being deprived of property rights, which led to injustice she faced. Dorisi claims to be the victim of an injustice, as a case was decided on 20/01/2018 by Musanze Intermediate Court, which ruled that the purchase agreement was legally binding, and that there was a final judgment of 28 /01/2019 between Dorisi and Niyibogora, stating that they agreed that they had no common property. He also stated that the fact that he was the one who applied for the NIYIBOGORA v DORISI ET AL.

## Page 432

164

building permit, was due to the fact that he had not yet made the transfer of land titles with Hakizimana, and that the "construction permit" was issued with the name of the person whom the land was registered to. As for the text message (SMS) allegedly sent to Niyibogora, he admitted that they had a house in Musanze, stating that he had never sent it to her, that Niyibogora could also pick up his phone and send it to himself, while in the case of being the taxpayer for the plot of the house under dispute until 2016, claiming that Hakizimana was the one who paid the tax, but on the tax receipt documents it appeared that it was Dorisi who paid the tax, because the plot was still registered to him. Regarding the loan for the salary advance taken in 2013, he elucidates that the money requested from Banque Populaire was not for the construction of the house as stated by Niyibogora, because the money given could not build the house, that instead the money was used as school fees for Niyibogora. Hakizimana, meanwhile, states that he bought the land with Dorisi as a single but did not immediately conclude the transfer, that the fact that the building permit was written on Dorisi was that they had not concluded the land transfer yet and the taxes were paid in Dorisi's name because he was the registered owner but that he was the one who paid them. The fact that Dorisi lived in the house he was building was because he had hired him as an engineer who knew how to build and supervise the construction activities, that the transfer which took place later was not a problem because it was done on the basis of a purchase agreement they had made and Dorisi was the sole proprietor and it was done before the Land Notary. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 433

165

Naburugero also defended himself by stating that as Land Notary, he was deployed by his superior in Muhoza sector from Cyuve to replace the one who was in a leave, which is why he was the one who concluded the transfer of land titles. The fact that Niyibogora was summoned to sign the transfer did not violate the law because the transfer of the right to the land bases on the title deed, and that land was 100% registered to Dorisi. He further elucidates that the fact that the Prosecution argues that he had to first look at the management of the property of those who were going to carry out the transfer of land titles was not correct, because the "system" in which they operate as land notaries in Rwanda is based on the land title deed, so that he should not go beyond of the content of the land title deeds and ask those who came to do the transfer of land titles how they manage their property. Held: 1. In case the claimant for the damages is the only one who appealed, the appellate court cannot sentence the accused even if it finds the accused guilty, therefore, though Doris, Hakizimana and Naburugero are declared guilty of the charges against them, no penalty has to be imposed on them because the Prosecution did not appeal, instead, Niyibogora has to be awarded the damages she applied for. Application to review the judgment due to injustice has merit; The judgment under review due to injustice is reversed in part. NIYIBOGORA v DORISI ET AL.

## Page 434

166

Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law N° 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, articles 55 and 63; Organic Law Nº 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code , articles 613 and 614; Ministerial Order nº 002/2008 of 01/04/2008 determining modalities of land registration, article 10. Cases referred to: RS/INJUST/RP 00006/2017/CS rendered on 29/11/2019. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

In Musanze Intermediate Court, the Prosecution charged Dorisi Melchiade, Hakizimana Sylvain and Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja with fraud, alleging that Dorisi Melchiade and Hakizimana Sylvain, together, issued a statement dated 22/07/2011 stating that Dorisi Melchiade sold to Hakizimana Sylvain a plot no PC 992 located in Mpenge Cell, Muhoza Sector, Musanze District, Northern Province, with the help of Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja, a Land Notary in Cyuve Sector, who fraudulently issued to them documents provided by the competent authorities including false claims of land transfer based on the purchase agreement between them, ignoring the fact that the plot is located in Muhoza Sector, and that Dorisi Melchiade and Hakizimana Sylvain also RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 435

167

are married men, to namely Niyibogora Christine (wife of Dorisi Melchiade) and Twizerimana Kwitonda Emerita (Hakizimana's wife), who had to be summoned and give their consent on the transfer of land titles, even ignoring the value of the land, as in the purchase agreement they wrote that they had bought it for two and three hundred million francs (2,300,000 Frw), ignoring that the house in that plot is valued at Rwf up to fifty million (50,000,000 Frw).

In the judgment RP 00205/2017 /TGI /MUS rendered on 07/12/2017, Musanze Intermediate Court ruled that Dorisi Melchiade and Hakizimana Sylvain were convicted of counterfeit and use of a counterfeit document and sentenced each to six years of imprisonment ( 6), while Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja was convicted of issuing a document by a competent civil servant to a person who is not entitled to it, and sentenced him to six (6) years of imprisonment, ordering them to jointly pay Niyibogora Christine compensation of three million and three hundred thousand (3,300,000 Frw).

Dorisi Melchiade, Hakizimana Sylvain and Naburughero Giramahoro Ajja have appealed to the High Court, Musanze Chamber, their charges being consolidated in case RPA 00572/2017 / HC / MUS - RPA 00010/2018 / HC / MUS - RPA 00018/208 / HC / MUS, and the Court found that their appeal is well-founded, that Dorisi Melchiade and Hakizimana Sylvain are not guilty of counterfeit and use of a counterfeit document, that Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja is not guilty of issuing a document by a competent civil servant to a person who is NIYIBOGORA v DORISI ET AL.

## Page 436

168

not entitled to it, as it found the evidence adduced by the Prosecution was doubtful, ordering Niyibogora Christine to pay court costs amounting to twenty thousand Rwandan francs (20,000 Frw).

Following the adjudication of the case, Niyibogora Christine wrote to the President of the Court of Appeal requesting that judgment RPA 00572/2017 / HC / MUS - RPA 00010/2018 / HC / MUS - RPA 00018/208 / HC / MUS be reviewed for reasons of injustice, and the latter also wrote to the President of the Supreme Court, requesting that the case be reviewed for reasons of injustice, and on 19/07/2019 in decision nº 138 / CJ / 2019, the President of the Supreme Court ordered that the case be referred to the Court of Appeal for trial, and was registered to RS/INJUST / RP 00003/2019/CA.

The case was heard in public on 10/02/2020, Niyibogora Christine represented by Counsel Kabagema Aphrodice and Counsel Bizumuremyi Félix, Dorisi Melchiade represented by Counsel Kavuyekure Dieudonné, Hakizimana Sylvain represented by Counsel Nsengiyumva Straton in collaboration with Counsel Dukundane Anastase, and Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja represented by Counsel Nsengiyumva Enos, while the Prosecution was represented by Rudatinya Gaspard, the National Prosecutor, and the case was closed, but before it was decided, one of the jugdes of the jury was transferred to the Supreme Court, resulting in a retrial by another jury on September 09/09/2020, Niyibogora Christine represented by Counsel Bizumuremyi Félix, other parties represented as before. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 437

169

II. LEGAL ISSUES AND THEIR ANALYSIS - a. To determine whether the application filed by Niyibogora Christine for the review of the judgment due to injustice should not be admitted, for she was still having another alternative of appeal

Nsengiyumva Enos, counsel for Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja, states that in accordance with Article 55, paragraph 2, of Law Nº 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, which provides that any party entitled to ordinary and extraordinary remedies but that fails to assert his/her right within the time limit provided by law, is not allowed to apply for review of a case he/she lost because of injustice, finds that the complaint filed by Niyibogora Christine seeking the review of judgment no. RPA 00572/2017 / HC / MUS - RPA 00010 / 2018 / HC / MUS - RPA 00018/208 / HC / MUS rendered by the High Court, Musanze Chamber, should not be admitted, as she has not yet used the process in place for review provided by Articles 193 and 194, of Law No. 30/2013 of 24/05/2013 on Criminal Procedure, alleging that her injustice was based on ignored evidence, including evidence she produced, including her gains after the case was adjudicated.

Counsel Kabagema Aphrodice, representing Niyibogora Christine, argues that the objection raised by Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja is unfounded, as he does not NIYIBOGORA v DORISI ET AL.

## Page 438

170

fully understand the reason for her application for the review of the judgment instead of requesting a review on the grounds of injustice, for the evidences she claims to be new are really not, but all those evidences have been used in the trial of the High Court, Musanze Chamber.

Counsel Bizumuremyi Félix, also representing Niyibogora Christine, argued that she had applied for the review of the judgment on the grounds of injustice in accordance with the provisions of Article 55, paragraph 2, of Law Nº 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of the courts, because he considered that there was no other way to appeal, and that the High Court, Musanze Chamber, had ignored some evidences produced while they were pleaded on. Determination of the Court

Article 55, paragraph 2, of the Law Nº 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, provides that : “However, any party entitled to ordinary and extraordinary remedies but that fails to assert his/her right within the time limit provided by law, is not allowed to apply for review of a case he/she lost because of injustice, except instances of such injustice identified by the Inspectorate General of Courts”.

With regard to the review of the case, Article 194, section 5, of Law Nº 30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating to Criminal Procedure that was into force when Christine Niyibogora applied for a review on the grounds of injustice, provides that: “The application for review may be filed on the following grounds: (…) if, after the judgment, conclusive evidence sufficiently showing RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 439

171

injustice caused by the judgment subject to review is uncovered; while such evidence was submitted in thecase file but was not seen by the court”.

The court finds that Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja's Counsel arguing that Niyibogora Christine was still in the process of applying for the review of the case, before she applies for the review of the judgment on grounds of injustice, lacks merit, as he did not show an unequivocal evidence obtained after the verdict, or an evidence that was in the case file that the judge disregarded, which is being used by Niyibogora Christine in the case, while Niyibogora Christine's counsels state that all evidences being produced have been used in the trial, but finds that the verdict was unfair.

Based on the above-mentioned legal provisions and the foregoing, the Court finds that the objection to dismissal of the complaint raised by Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja is unfounded. b. To determine whether Dorisi Melchiade and Hakizimana Sylvain have fraudulent made the purchase deed of the plot registered on UPI :4/03/08/03/992 and whether Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja, as Land Notary, was involved in the fraud alleged by Niyibogora Christine by issuing to them a document they were not entiltled to

Counsel Bizumuremyi Félix, representing Niyibogora Christine, states that Dorisi Melchiade and Niyibogora Christine were married on 15/09/2011, under community of property regime, and when Niyibogora Christine married him, he had an unbuilt plot registered NIYIBOGORA v DORISI ET AL.

## Page 440

172

on UPI: 4/03/08/03/992 and paid for it taxes from 2011 to the present case, that in February 2013 they applied for the construction permit (autorisation de bâtir), and they started building the house on the site using burnt bricks from the Cooperative to which Dorisi Melchiade belonged, in September 2013, they applied for a loan in Banque Populaire, Musanze Branch, in order to cover the house and buy doors and windows for it, and then they lived in it, and gradually built it up, as they were also earning monthly salaries.

He further added that while Dorisi Melchiade was in the process of seeking a divorce, he began planning how he will own the house, and together with Sylvain Hakizimana, they made a purchase agreement for the plot with UPI: 4/03/08/03/992, and set a date that is prior to the marriage of Dorisi Melchiade and Niyibogora Christine, and stated that the agreement was concluded on July 22, 2011, and they sgned that agreement before the Notary on October 28, 2016, and the plot that belonged to Dorisi Melchiade was transferred to Hakizimana Sylvain, and they did all of this fraudulently, because Notary Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja officiated the land transfer without any worry, yet both have married wives, and the form he gave them shows the column where it is filled in the status of the seller of the land, resulting in beeing deprived of a 50% of the plot where her husband and her should built the house, but unfortunately her husband sold it without her consent.

He finds that in the judgment under review, the High Court, Musanze Chamber reversed the judgment RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 441

173

rendered by Musanze Intermediate Court, acquitted the accused, and the damages awarded were disregarded in view of all the following evidence produced by the Prosecution : - The marriage certificate that indicates that Dorisi Melchiade was married to Niyibogora Christine in a community of property regime. - The purchase agreement dated 22/07/2011 is defectious, as it is signed by the Village Head, but there is no stamp, because if it had existed, it would have been clear that the purchase agreement was a counterfeit, because Dorisi Melchiade had registered land and house to him just when he was about to file for divorce ; - The property deed was issued on 05/10/2011, shortly after their marriage : if Dorisi Melchiade had sold the land, that deed would not have been issued in the names of Doris Melchiade; - The land transfer took place on 28/10/2016, almost 5 years ago, with the question of what Dorisi Melchiade was waiting for to give the land he had sold ; - Doris Melchiade texted (sms) Niyibogora Christine between 9 - 12/07/2016, when she asked him to find a house in Kigali to find a place to raise their child, and the latter replied that he could not look for another house in Kigali while the one in Musanze was not yet complete, meaning that he also acknowlegded that the house was shared ; NIYIBOGORA v DORISI ET AL.

## Page 442

174

- The statement of the interrogation of Dorisi Melchiade in the Prosecution, where he was asked how he lived in the house, and claimed that he was renting it for 25,000 Frw, while Hakizimana Sylvain stated that they were living in it for free ; - There are records showing that on 12/09/2013 they applied for a loan of 3,800,000 Frw from the Banque Populaire, Musanze branch, and they started construction activities ; - Records showing that they have paid the property annual taxes from 2011 until the trial begins ;

According to Félix Bizumuremyi, in the case of Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja, the evidence ignored by the High Court, Musanze Chamber which caused Niyinogora Christine to suffer from injustice is related to the fact that in a form requesting the transfer of land titles, Dorisi Melchiade was asked if he was married and replied positively, but for Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja did not summon his wife Niyibogora Christine so that her interests would not be harmed, nor did he summon the wife of Hakizimana Sylvain, while he was supposed to do so, so even though the land was 100% registered to Dorisi Melchiade, but Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja had to summon Melchiade Dorisi’s and the wife of Hakizimana Sylvain to give their consent.

He added that Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja was a Land Notary of Cyuve Sector, and not Muhoza Sector, except that when interrogated by the Investigation, he RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 443

175

stated that he had the power to carry out notarial activities in another Sector, but that he was verbally given that power, in Musanze Intermediate Court, he alleged that there was a document authorizing him to deliver such services, which he cunningly searched for and uploaded it in the iecms, while he had previously stated that he had got it verbally.

Counsel Bizumuremyi Félix also states that Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja, as a Land Notary had to take into account the provisions of Article 36 of the Notary Labor Act, outlining the requirements before signing the transfer of land titles, and Article 37 of the law that requires him to be prudent before signing a deed of transfer of land titles, that both clauses show that before the Land Notary Officer Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja, by signing the deed of the transfer of land titles, he had to first inquire into the identitifications of Dorisi Melchiade and Hakizimana Sylvain, to check whether no one else shared the property, especially that he was operating in another sector.

He concludes that if all the evidences had been examined by the High Court, Musanze Chamber, it would have been clear that the purchase agreement was set shortly before the marriage of Dorisi Melchiade and Niyibogora Christine was a counterfeit document given a date different from the one it was made (antidaté), resulting in convicting Dorisi Melchiade and Hakizimana Sylvain counterfeit or use of a counterfeit document, and Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja of Issuing a document by a competent civil servant to a person who is not entitled to NIYIBOGORA v DORISI ET AL.

## Page 444

176

it, and award damages to Niyibogora Christine, as their crimes resulted in making Dorisi Melchiade the sole proprietor of a shared property valued at fifty million Rwandan francs (50,000,000 Frw).

The Prosecution's representative argues that the evidence produced in the High Court, Musanze Chamber, was ignored, that it had alleged that the agreement reached on 22/07/2011 was forged in the house of Sylvain Hakizimana, as stated by Ntihabose Modeste, which was a counterfeit, because Doris Melchiade had initiated a divorce case, in order to win the title and the house in question, that in a judgment rendered by Musanze Intermediate Court, in paragraph 14, the agreement was found to be a counterfeit, while the High Court, Musanze Chamber only considered the land transfer deed that was made in the absence of the land proprietors, and the defendants were acquitted, resulting in Niyibogora Christine being deprived of property rights, which was the reason for her to be wronged.

He further added that the High Court, Musanze Chamber, held that the agreement signed on 22/07/2011 was correct, based on the fact that it was signed, which it found sufficient, ignoring the fact that some of the signatories had confirmed that it took place at Hakizimana Sylvain's home, who did not arrive at the scene of the sale, wondering what the evidence was that it had been sold, while they have not seen the product to be sold and confirm that it was available, that the other negligence was that some of the witnesses to the purchase belonged to the Dorisi Melchiade family, and that the buyer was RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 445

177

also a member of the family, and even his signatories are his relatives, who have also examined the issue bettwen him and his wife in her absence, indicating that the parties to the agreement were the ones who wanted to help Dorisi Melchiade conceal the property, as they felt he was not in a good relationship with his wife.

The Prosecution's representative alleges that the High Court, Musanze Chamber, ignored the fact that in a text message (sms), Dorisi Melchiade wrote to his wife on 09/07/2016 and 12/07/2016, stating that they had a house in Musanze, he did not disclose any other house than the one under dispute, that the message was invalidated by the judge and should have served as proof that the house belonged to the family, and that the plot on which it was built had not been sold.

He also alleges that it was ignored that Doris Melchiade alleges that he sold the house on 22/07/2011, married to Niyibogora Christine on 15/09/2011, that he sold the property registered to him 100% as a sole proprietor, yet ignoring the fact that they were married under a community of property regime, that if Dorisi Melchiade had sold the land on 22/07/2011, he should have not concluded the transfer of the land title based on the purchase (mutation) after a all five (5) years, that one should question what Sylvain Hakizimana was building on his trust when the land he had allegedly bought was still registered to Dorisi Melchiade, that, even though the land was registered Doris Melchiade 100% as a sole proprietor, this one would not have sold it without the consent of his wife, because they were married under a NIYIBOGORA v DORISI ET AL.

## Page 446

178

community of property regime, and that even during the transfer of land rights (mutation) his wife had to be present as provided for in the affidavit.

The Prosecutor's Office alleges that the High Court, Musanze Chamber ignored Dorisi Melchiade's claim that he had sold the plot of land to Hakizimana Sylvain, in which a house was built, and he and his wife had moved into it when completed, and rented it for twenty-five thousand francs (25,000 Frw), while Hakizimana Sylvain stated that they were living in it for free, which is unlikely to have sold him a plot of land, built a house in it, completed it and resettled in it before they conclude a transfer of land titles.

He concludes that all of this has led to injustice, as the case that deprived Niyibogora Christine of her property rights based on a marriage dated 15/09/2011, and therefore based on Article 63 of Law No. 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of the courts, the Prosecution requests that the Court of Appeal consider all the evidence presented, and affirm the conviction of the accused and uphold the sentence imposed by Musanze Intermediate Court.

Dorisi Melchiade claims to be the victim of an injustice, as there was a judgment RADA 00006/2017 / TGI / MUS rendered on 20/01/2018 by the Musanze Intermediate Court that has acquired res judicata principle, which ruled that the purchase agreement was made in accordance with the law, that there was also a judgment RC 00071/2018 / TB / MUH and RC 00188/2017 / TB / MUH dated 28/01/2019 between Doris RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 447

179

Melchiade and Niyibogora Christine which also was also final, stating that Niyibogora Christine and Dorisi Melchiade agreed that they have no common property.

He further states that he sold the plot registered to UPI: 4/03/08/03/992 while he was still single on 22/07/2011, and he was married to Niyibogora Christine on 15/09/2011, and that Sylvain Hakizimana who bought it asked him to build a house on it, because he was an construction engineer, he built the house, and he moved into it when it was not yet completed and rented it for twenty-five thousand francs (25,000 Frw) due to the life he was living, because his wife Niyibogora Christine had abandoned him, so stating that he rented the house, and Sylvain Hakizimana stated that he lived in it for free, he finds no problem with it, because when he was working there, he lived in it for free, and pay rent when he was not living in it for work puproses.

He further added that the fact that he was the one who applied for the construction permit (autorisation de bâtir), was due to the fact that he had not yet done the transfer of land titles with Sylvain Hakizimana, and that the construction permit was issued with the names of the person whom the land was registered to.

Dorisi Melchiade, who reportedly sent a message to Niyibogora Christine acknowledging that they had a house in Musanze, stated that he had never sent it to him, that Niyibogora Christine could also pick up his phone and send it to herself, and with regard to the fact that he was the one who paid the property tax of the plot in which the house in dispute was built until 2016, he claims that NIYIBOGORA v DORISI ET AL.

## Page 448

180

Sylvain Hakizimana was the one who paid the taxes, but in the names of Dorisi Melchiade, because the plot was registered to him.

With regard to the Prosecution’s statements that those who signed the purchase agreement belonged to his family, and that they appear in the family's statement of dispute resolution between him and Niyibogora Christine, Dorisi Melchiade finds no mistake in it, because he sold the land before getting married and sold in presence of his family, because it was the one who used to help him in all his propblems, that the delay in transferring the land to Hakizimana Sylvain was due to the fact that Hakizimana Sylvain was available on 28/10/2016, as he was on a lot of work.

Kavuyekure Dieudonné, Dorisi Melchiade's Counsel, argues that judgments RC 00071/2018/ TB/MUH and RC 00188/2017/ TB/MUH of 28/01/2019 contradict the statements of the representatives for Christine Niyibogora, as she herself testified before the court that she had no property in common with Dorisi Melchiade, and that her statement came two (2) years after the judgment RP 00205/2017 / TGI / MUS was rendered, as it was decided on 07/12/2017, that the value of the judgment was final in respect of property makes them believe that Niyibogora Christine's statement is justified.

Counsel Kavuyekure Dieudonné adds that the concerned text message (sms) in this case that Doris Melchiade wrote to Niyibogora Christine was incorrect, and that it was of no use to her, as she admitted that she had no shared property with Dorisi Melchiade, and that RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 449

181

the said message was reportedly sent in 2016, while the purchase of the property had already taken place before.

He further states that the purchase agreement is not a counterfeit, because the parties signed the agreement and confirmed that it happened, that the fact that the agreement carries two different dates, it was due to the fact that they set the date on which the Village Head signed it, and that no one denies that Purchase agreement dated 22/07/2011, as Niyibogora Christine never sued to invalidate it, and that the identity of the property owner was a land title, the title deed was 100% registered to Dorisi Melchiade, and Niyibogora Christine has never sued for this.

Counsel Kavuyekure Dieudonné states that Dorisi Melchiade applied for a building permit for Sylvain Hakizimana, as the plot was registered to him, that he was the one paying the taxes, but came in the name of DORISI Melchiade, because Sylvain Hakizimana had not entered the "system" due to the fact that the plot was not yet registered to him, that as to the delay in the transfer of land titles, there is no problem with it, for it is done at any time, and there is no time limit set by law.

As for the fact that Dorisi Melchiade lived in a house built on a plot of land owned by Hakizimana Sylvain, Counsel Kavuyekure Dieudonné states that Dorisi Melchiade lived in that house when he was building it as an employee, and when he was not working on that house he paid a rent to Hakizimana Sylvain of twenty-five thousand francs (25,000), so that he did not NIYIBOGORA v DORISI ET AL.

## Page 450

182

have to rent while there were some tools belonging to Hakizimana Sylvain he had to protect.

Regarding a salary advance loan of 3,787,560 Frw taken in 2013, Counsel Kavuyekure Dieudonné states that the money requested by Dorisi Melchiade from Banque Populaire, Musanze branch was not for the construction of the house, as stated by Niyibogora Christine, for that amount cannot build a house which is said to be worth fifty million francs (50,000,000 Frw), that instead the money was spent on the schooling of Niyibogora Christine.

He finds that there is no way Doris Melchiade could have forged the purchase deed, as it the land was already registered to him, which is in line with the provisions of Article 18 of the Land Use Act of 2013, which provides that the land owner is the one to whom it is registered and that in the process of transfer of land titles, only the person to whom the land is registered is needed, which is why it was not necessary for Dorisi Melchiade to be accompanied with his wife Niyibogora Christine to the Land Notary.

Sylvain Hakizimana alleges that he bought the land with Dorisi Melchiade being single, who had also bought it with others, made a transfer of land titles, but before the documents came out, he built a house, and gave Dorisi Melchiade a job to look after the progress of the construction work as a civil engineer (Ingénieur civil), that because the site was registered to Dorisi Melchiade because they had not yet transferred the title of the land, it resulted in a building permit (autorisation de bâtir) being RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 451

183

issued to Dorisi Melchiade and the tax receipt was also written in his name though it was paid by Sylvain Hakizimana, so it was necessary for Dorisi Melchiade, to whom the land titles were registered 100% as a sole proprietor, to remove it, as he had already sold it, and on the 28th / 10/2016 the land was registered to Hakizimana Sylvain who had bought it, which was done in front of the Land Notary named Naburugero Giramahoro Ajjya, and Sylvain Hakizimana officially became the proprietor of the disputed plot.

Hakizimana Sylvain also alleges that Dorisi Melchiade lived in the house he was building for him, and when he was in other businesses not related to building of this house, he used to pay a rent of twenty-five thousand francs (25,000 Frw), that the delay in transferring the right to land was due to the fact that they had agreed to do it whenever he wanted it, and that it didn't matter to him.

Counsel Nsengiyumva Straton, representing Sylvain Hakizimana, argues that the basis for the Prosecution's complaint is a complaint filed by Niyibogora Christine requesting that the long-term lease agreement be invalidated, but after examination, the Court found it lawful, the reason why he finds that this judgment should not be invalidated, that rather this Court should consider why Niyibogora Christine has not been pursuing this house she claims to be hers for five (5) years, in order to ask that it be registered to her.

He further states that he does not produce evidence accusing him of counterfeiting the contract which would have been ignored by the High Court, as stated by NIYIBOGORA v DORISI ET AL.

## Page 452

184

Niyibogora Christine, while the buyer and seller signed and agreed to it, and that the purchase agreement dated 22/07/2011 states that Dorisi Melchiade sold the plot instead of the house.

Counsel Nsengiyumva Straton also states that the fact that the witnesses appearing in the purchase agreement are family friends, does not matter, as there is no barrier to it, and that some of them including Gatete Callixte and Ntihabose Modeste have no relationship with DORISI Melchiade who sold or/and Hakizimana Sylvain, who bought it, so that Niyibogora Christine and the Prosecution have no reason to state that the contract was a counterfeit.

Regarding the text message that Dorisi Melchiade has reportedly been sending to Niyibogora Christine, Counsel Nsengiyumva Straton states that message has nothing to do with Sylvain Hakizimana, because they can even talk about it with the intention to fraud him.

Counsel Nsengiyumva Straton concludes by stating that the fact that Dorisi Melchiade and Hakizimana Sylvain made the transfer of land titles late cannot be considered as proof that the purchase agreement was a counterfeit, as there is no law punishing it, and therefore the non-disclosure of the law is not a sign that the purchase agreement is a counterfeit, and the fact that Hakizimana Sylvain did not inform his wife about the transfer of land titles cannot be considered as an evidence of counterfeit, because he had no problem with his wife. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 453

185

Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja states that he went to work as a Land Notary in Muhoza Sector, because his local Notary, Sebutwa Félicien, was on leave, he was sent by his superior to work, and the law of the notaries provided for it. He further elucidates that although on the "form" there is a column where it is filled in whether people concluding the transfer of land titles are single or married, this does not exclude the law governing notaries, especially Articles 5 and 23 of Ministerial Order No. 002 / 2008 of 01/04/2008 governing Land registartion, which stipulates that in the transfer of land titles they consider only people to whom the land tiltes are registered, and that the land was 100% registered to Dorisi Melchiade

Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja also argues that the fact that the Prosecution argues that he had to first look at the management of the assets of those who were going to carry out the transfer of land rights was incorrect, as the system in which they operate as land notaries in Rwanda is based on the content of the deed of land, so that he should not go beyond of what is was written on the deed of land and ask those who came to do the transfer of land title how they manage their property.

He also states that the form filled in by Dorisi Melchiade for the transfer of land titles, he mentioned that he has a wife, but that it is not the basis for the transfer of land titles, but rather the transfer bases on the aforemntioned legal provisions.

Counsel Nsengiyumva Enos, representing Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja, alleges that his client is not guilty of the charges of issuing a document by a NIYIBOGORA v DORISI ET AL.

## Page 454

186

competent civil servant to a person who is not entitled to it against him, as those involved in that transfer, Dorisi Melchiade and Hakizimana Sylvain, did not first show him the the purchase agreement, therefore he would not be prosecuted in a criminal case, but would be punished in the context of his work, if there were any mistakes he would have made. Determination of the Court

Article 55, section 2º of the law Nº 30/2018 of 02/0682018 determining the jurisdiction of courts stipulates that : “A case that was finally determined at last instance may be reviewed on grounds of injustice due to one of the following reasons:(...)2 º if during the trial, the judge showed blatant disregard for legal provisions and evidence(...).

The complaint filed by Niyibogora Christine for the review of the judgment RPA 00572/2017 / HC / MUS - RPA 00010/2018 / HC / MUS - RPA 00018/208 / HC / MUS rendered on 26/07/2018 by the High Court, Musanze Chamber , on the grounds of injustice, supported by the Prosecution, aims at proving that there was an evidence ignored by the Court, and acquitted Dorisi Melchiade and Hakizimana Sylvain of the crime of counterfeit or use of a counterfeit document convicted by Musanze Intermediate Court, the document which is a contract for the purchase agreement of the plot nº UPI 04/03/08/03/992 MUS/MUH, located in Mpenge Cell, Muhoza Sector, Musanze District, Northern Province with the date prior to the marriage of Niyibogora Christine and Dorisi Melchiade (antidaté), the agreement said to RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 455

187

have been executed on 22/07/2011, brought it before the Notary of the Land who officiated the purchase on 28/10/2016, while Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja was acquitted of the charge of issuing a document by a competent civil servant to a person who is not entitled to it, who committed the crime with the aim of depriving her of the rights to the property as a wife who was married to Dorisi Melchiade under community of property regime, and she is requesting compensation for that purpose. - With regard to the case of Dorisi Melchiade and Hakizimana Sylvain

Article 614, sections 1º and 3º, of Organic Law Nº 01/2012 / OL of 02/05/2012 instituting Penal Code which was into force at the time of the prosecution, provides that : “Any person who :1° knowingly issues a document containing materially incorrect facts; (…), knowingly uses an inaccurate or falsified document; shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of more than five (5) years to seven (7) years and a fine of five hundred thousand (500,000)to two million (2,000,000) Rwandan francs”.

The main evidence in dispute in this case is the statement of the purchase agreement allegedly dated 22/07/2011 between Dorisi Melchiade and Hakizimana Sylvain, which Niyibogora Christine and the Prosecution alleges that its content that Dorisi Melchiade sold a plot to Hakizimana Sylvain was not true, because the land belongs to Dorisi Melchiade and Niyibogora Christine who are married under community of property regime, built in the house, lived in it, and the agreement was counterfeited and given the date prior to their marriage, NIYIBOGORA v DORISI ET AL.

## Page 456

188

Dorisi Melchiade intended to win the house they shared when he was planning to file for divorce.

Another ground for Niyibogora Christine and the Prosecution is the land transfer agreement dated 28/10/2016 signed by Dorisi Melchiade and Hakizimana Sylvain, before the Notary, which was also the basis for the transfer of land titles (mutation), that they did so knowing full well that no purchase had taken place, therefore, this should be considered as a counterfeit.

The documents in the file show that on 15/09/2011, Doris Melchiade was married to Niyibogora Christine under community of property regime, that on 05/10/2011, Dorisi Melchiade entered into a permanent lease agreement with the Government of Rwanda nº 0992 / MUS / MUH in the plot nº 4/03/08/03/992, and it was 100% registered to him

The file also states that after receiving the land, Dorisi Melchiade was taxed for all the years from 2011 to 2016 when he transferred it to Sylvain Hakizimana, who applied for a permit to build it, and did it, living in the house with his wife NIYIBOGORA Christine until 28/01/2019 when they divorced in the judgment RC 00071/2018 / TB / MUH-RC 00188/2017 / TB / MUH rendered by Muhoza Primary Court.

It is clear that in that judgment, Dorisi Melchiade had complained that his wife has left the household, and that she has been harassing him by the fact that she has been dragging him in unnecessary lawsuits , which Niyibogora Christine denied, stating that she was studying RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 457

189

medicine at the University in Butare, and was working in various hospitals in Butare and Kigali, which enabled them to build their house in Mpenge Cell, Muhoza Sector, Musanze District (see paragraph 4, page 3 of case RC 00071/2018 / TB / MUH-RC 00188/2017 / TB / MUH).

The Court finds that on 15/09/2011 when Dorisi Melchiade married to Niyibogora Christine, he had a plot, as it was registered to him on 05/10/2011 on nº 4/03/08/03/992, and therefore cannot claim to be 100% his, because in the community of property regime entails that any property registered in one spouse’s name is part of the property belonging to spouses under the community of property regime, as stipulated in the Article 6, paragraph 3 of Law nº 27/2016 of 08/07/2016 governing matrimonial regimes, donations and successions .

The Court finds therefore that the purchase agreement for the plot nº PC 992 said to have been concluded on 22/07/2011 between Dorisi Melchiade and Hakizimana Sylvain stating that he sold to him a plot he bought with Nsanzuwera Désiré, that he paid him two million three hundred thousand, with a nota bene stating that: “I hereby agree to make a transfer for him at any time he will be available and I will fully pay for all required money”, which is not true, as the plot was registered to Doris Melchiade on 05/10/2011, so he could not sell the property on 22/07/2011 which was not registered to him at that time, but, as mentioned above, at that time of land registration, the plot was already a joint property with his wife, as they were married on 15/09/2011 under community of property regime. NIYIBOGORA v DORISI ET AL.

## Page 458

190

The court also finds that the purchase agreement was untrue, adding that in doing so they added a note stating that DORISI Melchiade had decided to carry out the land transfer whenever he wanted to, so that they could explain why they had not changed it in due course for the property to be registered to its buyer.

The court also finds that what Dorisi Melchiade and his counsel argue in the divorce case RC 00071/2018 / TB / MUH and RC 00188/2017 / TB / MUH dated 28/01/2019 contradicts the statements of Niyibogora Christine's counsel, because she herself testified before the Court that she had no property with Dorisi Melchiade, and that her statement came two (2) years after the case nº RP 00205/2017/TGI/MUS was decided on 07/12/2017, is baseless, because as noted above, Niyibogora Christine argued that they had a house mentioned in the case, but Muhoza Primary Court, in its judgment, ignored it. By also considering the text messages (sms) Dorisi Melchiade, via his phone number 0788679458, wrote to Niyibogora Christine on her phone 0785973782 on 09/07/2016 and on 12/07/2016, as issued by MTN, it is also clear that he also agreed that they had the house in Musanze under construction, that they should not rent another one in Kigali.

With regard to the case of RADA 00006/2017/TGI/MUS, which was definitively decided on 20/01/2018 by Musanze Intermediate Court, Dorisi Melchiade and his counsel argued that the purchase agreement was in accordance with the law, the Court finds that in this case, Niyibogora Christine had sued for RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 459

191

annulment of a permanent lease agreement between Hakizimana Sylvain, Twizeyimana Kwitonda Emerthe and the Rwanda Land Management Authority, and ruled that her claim was unfounded, and requested her to award various damages, and therefore there is no verdict issued by the Court that the purchase agreement was made in accordance with the law. In addition, the case was adjudicated while this one was still pending, the court also told that there has been a review of the case on the grounds of injustice, but stated that the fact that the case was finally decided does not preclude its execution, so there is no reason why the case should not be heard.

The court also finds that Dorisi Melchiade's claim that he sought Sylvain Hakizimana's building permit for the house in the plot he bought, paid taxes for him and built the house for him because he was an civil engineer, and moved in that house before it was completed and rented it for twenty thousand francs (25,000 Frw) due to the life he was living, because his wife Niyibogora Christine had abandoned him, which is also untrue, because, according to his statements before the Prosecution, he stated that he moved in that house on 30/11/2013 and rented it for 25,000 Frw, while Sylvain Hakizimana’s statements, during interrogation, stated that Dorisi Melchiade had offered him consultancy services and paid him to stay in the house, but before this Court, they stated that he had lived in it for some time for free, and paid a rent later, in an attempt to reconcile the statements. NIYIBOGORA v DORISI ET AL.

## Page 460

192

The court also finds that, on 28/10/2016, Dorisi Melchiade and Hakizimana Sylvain, before the Land Notary, entered into a purchase agreement based on a deed dated 22/07/2011, which was also untrue, and they made a transfer of the plot and the house built in it, and they were registered to Hakizimana Sylvain, being well aware that the agreement was also a counterfeit, as the property was shared with Niyibogora Christine, as described above, for the sole purpose of owning it as a sole proprietor, therefore, the purchase deed made before the Land Notary was a counterfeit.

Pursuant to Articles 614, Sections 1º and 3º, of Organic Law Nº 01/2012 / OL of 02/05/2012, and on the foregoing, the Court finds that Dorisi Melchiade and Hakizimana Sylvain wrote the Purchase agreement nº UPI 04/03/08/03/992 MUS / MUH, which is said to have been made on 22/07/2011, when DORISI Melchiade was still single, knowing full well that its content was not true, and used it to complete the document on of 28/10/2016 of the land transfer agreement entered into before the Land Notary and they transferred the plot and the house in it, they also knew that the document was a counterfeit, and they were convicted of counterfeit and use of a counterfeit document. - With regard to Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja

Article 613 of the aforementioned Organic - Law Nº 01/2012 / OL of 02/05/2012, provides that: “A civil servant who issues or causes others to issue a document mentioned in Article 612 of this Organic Law, to a person RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 461

193

who is not entitled to it, shall be liable to imprisonmentof more than five (5) years to ten (10) years and a fine of five hundred thousand (500,000) to two million (2,000,000) Rwandan francs”.

With regard to the registration of land deeds, Article 10 of Ministerial Order Nº 002/2008 of 01/04/2008 determining the modalties of land registration, provides that : “The person applying for land registration fulfills a prescribed form set up by the Registrar. That form shall be accompanied with the following for land transfer : a) the minute or a certified copy of the contract of transfer when it has been passed before a public servant other than the Registrar or the competent Deputy Registrar ; b) the duplicate of the certificate kept by the owner of the immovable property”.

The application for the transfer of land titles based on the purchase is contained in the case file, indicating that there is a requirement to fill in the applicant's profile (Dorisi Melchiade) including marital status where he wrote that he was married, however, as of 28/10/2016 there is no legal provisions requiring him to mention his wife, or a spouse to whom the property was to be transferred.

The court finds that the allegations made by Niyibogora Christine's representative and the Prosecution that Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja had to transfer the land after summoning the spouses of Dorisi Melchiade and NIYIBOGORA v DORISI ET AL.

## Page 462

194

Sylvain Hakizimana are unfounded, as there was no law in place to demand it. Moreover, the fact that Dorisi Melchiade had a permanent lease agreement showing that the landwas 100% registered to him, should not have raised any suspicion that the agreement aimed at depriving anyone’s rights of his/her property.

With regard to the statements of Niyibogora Christine and the Prosecution that Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja worked in another Sector and issued documents without permission, the Court finds that there is a document issued by his superior in the work proving that he had that competence, and that in itself does not constitute a crime, but rather a work misconduct.

The court finds that, although the land transfer agreement between Doris Melchiade and Hakizimana Sylvain on 28/10/2016 was found to be a counterfeit, there is no evidence that the Land Notary, Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja, signed it being fully aware of that it was a counterfeit, therefore, he is not guilty of the crime of issuing a document by a competent civil servant to a person who is not entitled to it, as convicted by the Musanze Intermediate Court. - b. To determine whether Dorisi Melchiade and Hakizimana Sylvain are liable to penalties

The Prosecution’representative argues that pursuant to Article 63 of Law N ° 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of the courts, he requests that the Court of Appeal consider all the evidence adduced, RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 463

195

and convict the accused and sentence them to six (6) years of imprisonment as ordered by Musanze Intermediate Court.

Counsel Kavuyekure Dieudonné, Dorisi Melchiade's representative, states that the prosecution has no right to request for penalties, as it did not apply for review of a judgement on grounds of being vitiated by injustice.

Nsengiyumva Enos, counsel for Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja, argues that the Prosecution should not seek the punishment of the accused, as the case has been definitively decided, and that it has come to the case as joint party", rather than a "main party". DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 63 of Law N° 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining jurisdiction of courts provides that : “When the Supreme Court or any other court designated by the President of the Supreme Court receives an application for review of a judgement on grounds of being vitiated by injustice, it examines the merits of the case anew and in the presence of all parties”.

The court finds that although Dorisi Melchiade and Sylvain Hakizimana were convicted of counterfeit or use of a counterfeit document, they could not be liable to any sentence on grounds that the petitioner was Niyibogora Christine, and the prosecution was summoned NIYIBOGORA v DORISI ET AL.

## Page 464

196

to court in tthe review of the judgment on grounds of being vitiated by injustice in which it was a party, a case that had been finally decided by the High Court, Musanze Chamber, and therefore, it cannot request that the defendants be sentenced, as the Court acquitted them, and the Prosecution did not apply for its review, and therefore, only the damages claimed by Niyibogora Christine should be considered in this case.

The Court finds that the same line as in the judgment RS/ INJUST/RP 00006/2017/CS was decided by the Supreme Court on 29/11/2019, about the Prosecution against Nsengiyumva Fulgence who applied for the review of the judgment, Rutembesa Phocas, Gabiro David and Habimana Asman Olivier, where that Court found that Rutembesa Phocas, Gabiro David and Habimana Asman Olivier were convicted of the charges against them, but that they could not be sentenced because they were acquitted in the first instance, and the Prosecution did not appeal the decision, but only a claim for civil damages was filed and considered, based on other rendered judgments. - d. With regard to damages claimed by Niyibogora Christine

Counsel Bizumuremyi Félix, representing Niyibogora Christine, states that NIYIBOGORA Christine is requests DORISI Melchiade, Hakizimana Sylvain and Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja to jointly award her 5,000,000 Frw as moral damages for she had been deceived by her lover, whom she married and sought property together, 4,000, 000 Frw as counsel fee at all RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 465

197

levels so far, and 1,000,000 Frw unnecessary travels to the Land authorities, Sector, District and Northern Province, Banque Populaire, Musanze Branch, Investigation, the prosecution and to the courts she paid, and even for accommodation and catering bills, and a refund of the 50,000 Frw he paid as court fee.

Counsel Kavuyekure Dieudonné, Dorisi Melchiade's representative, argues that the damages claimed by Niyibogora Christine are unfounded, but that Doris Melchiade is liable to be paid by Niyibogora Christine 1,500,000 Frw for counsel fee, 1,000,000 Frw for moral damages and 500,000 Frw for procedural fee, as he was dragged in unnecessary lawsuits and did not fabricate documents.

Counsel Nsengiyumva Straton, Sylvain Hakizimana's representative, satates that no compensation should be awarded to Christine Niyibogora in this injustice case, as it was due to the errors of the Court, that instead she should have awarded Hakizimana Sylvain 1,000,000 Frw for counsel fee and 500,000 Frw for moral compensation, as she continued to make his life worse and harass him by dragging him in unnecessary lawsuits.

Nsengiyumva Enos, counsel for Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja, states that his client should not pay compensation to Christine Niyibogora, because he did not wrong her, that instead, she should award Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja 200,000 Frw for travel, 100,000 Frw for the preparation of the case, 500,000 Frw for counsel fee and 1,000,000 Frw as moral damages, totaling to 1,800,000 Frw. NIYIBOGORA v DORISI ET AL.

## Page 466

198

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The court finds that, as described above, Niyibogora Christine was offended by Dorisi Melchiade and Hakizimana Sylvain, causing her grief, the damages she is claiming should be awarded discretionarily, as the damages she claims are excessive, Dorosi Melchiade and Hakizimana Sylvain should pay her 2,000,000 Frw each for moral compensation and Frw 1,000,000 for procedural and counsel fees.

As for the 50,000 Frw Niyibogora Christine's claim for refunding, the Court finds that she could not be entitled to it, as provided for in article 62, paragraph 2, of Law Nº 30/2018 of 02/0682018 determining the jurisdiction of the courts : “The applicant seeking remedy against injustice in accordance with the provisions of this Article is exempted from payment of court fees”.

The court finds that the damages for moral, procedural and counsel fees claimed by Doris Melchiade and Hakizimana Sylvain should not be awarded because they lost the case.

With regard to moral damages, procedural and counsel fees Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja requests Niyibogora Christine, the Court finds that he should not be entitled to it, as her application for the review is her legal right, and there is no evidence that she did it for the sole purpose wasting his time. The fact that Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja also became a party in this case was RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 467

199

based on Article 63 of the aforementioned Law n ° 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 which stipulates that in the case of review on the grounds of injustice, all the parties to it have to be summoned again. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Decides that the application filed by Niyibogora Christine for review of the judgment No. RPA 00572/2017 / HC / MUS - RPA 00010/2018 / HC / MUS - RPA 00018/208 / HC / MUS rendered on 26/07/2018 by the High Court, Musanze Chamber, on the grounds of injustice, has merit in part ;

Decides that the judgment no. RPA 00572/2017 / HC / MUS - RPA 00010/2018 / HC / MUS - RPA 00018/208 / HC / MUS rendered by the High Court, Musanze Chamber on 26/07/2018, is reversed in whole ;

Convicts Dorisi Melchiade and Hakizimana Sylvain of counterfeit and use of a counterfeit document ;

Decides that no sentence is imposed on them because the application for the review of the judgment on grounds of being vitiated by injustice was only filed for civil damages;

Decides that Naburugero Giramahoro Ajja is acquitted of the charges against him ;

Orders Dorisi Melchiade and Hakizimana Sylvain to jointly pay Niyibogora Christine 2,000,000 Frw as NIYIBOGORA v DORISI ET AL.

## Page 468

200

moral compensation and 1,000,000 Frw for procedural and counsel fees ;

Orders that court fees be transferred to Public Treasury.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 470

Printed by Image Designing Center Tel : (+250) 788 887 218 / 789 332 730 E-mail:imagedesigningcenter@gmail.com