EQUITY BANK RWANDA PLC v. BES & SUPPLY LTD N’UNDI

EQUITY BANK RWANDA PLC v. BES & SUPPLY LTD N’UNDI

The Supreme Court found no evidence that the original debt of 217,000,000 Frw secured by the mortgage was repaid. The bank's account history showed the debt remained outstanding, and the respondent failed to prove repayment. The mortgage agreement therefore remains valid until the debt is fully paid, regardless of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RS/INJUST/RCOM 00003/2021/SC
Parties
Applicant: Equity Bank Rwanda Plc; Respondent: BES & Supply Ltd; Respondent: Uwimana Saidi Salim
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
18 November 2022
Case Number
RS/INJUST/RCOM 00003/2021/SC
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Supreme Court Review on Grounds of Injustice
Outcome
Appeal allowed; lower court decision reversed; mortgage agreement upheld.
Legal Topics
Mortgage Agreements, Secured Transactions, Bank Loans, Collateral Enforcement, Judicial Review, Burden of Proof
Source Language
rw
Commercial Law Banking Law Civil Procedure Mortgage Agreements Secured Transactions Bank Loans Collateral Enforcement Judicial Review +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Equity Bank Rwanda Plc

Applicant

BES & Supply Ltd

Respondent

Uwimana Saidi Salim

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Supreme Court Review on Grounds of Injustice

  1. 1 Whether the mortgage agreement on property UPI: 1/03/07/01/248 should be cancelled and the collateral released to Uwimana Saidi Salim
  2. 2 Whether the debt of 217,000,000 Frw secured by the collateral was repaid, justifying release of the mortgage
  3. 3 Whether damages and legal costs should be awarded to either party

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found no evidence that the original debt of 217,000,000 Frw secured by the mortgage was repaid. The bank's account history showed the debt remained outstanding, and the respondent failed to prove repayment. The mortgage agreement therefore remains valid until the debt is fully paid, regardless of the expiry date in the mortgage contract or subsequent agreements. The request to cancel the mortgage was denied, and the respondent was ordered to pay legal costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; lower court decision reversed; mortgage agreement upheld.

Orders

  • The decision of the High Commercial Court (RCOMA 00815/2018/CHC/HCC) is reversed in all its provisions.
  • The mortgage agreement on property UPI: 1/03/07/01/248 remains valid.