ETRACO LTD v. DOFFICE

ETRACO LTD v. DOFFICE

The court held that Etraco Ltd could not file a second unilateral request or an urgent application based on a previous unilateral request in the same court regarding the same matter, as this is prohibited by law. Therefore, the claim was inadmissible.

Citation
RCOM 00002/2017/CHC/HCC
Parties
Applicant: ETRACO LTD; Respondent: D’OFFICE
Court
Commercial High Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
8 May 2017
Case Number
RCOM 00002/2017/CHC/HCC
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Preliminary Objection/admissibility
Outcome
Claim dismissed as inadmissible
Legal Topics
Requete Unilaterale, Referé, Liquidation, Admissibility of Claims
Source Language
rw
Commercial Law Civil Procedure Requete Unilaterale Referé Liquidation Admissibility of Claims

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ETRACO LTD

Applicant

D’OFFICE

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Preliminary Objection/admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a single party can file two unilateral requests (requete unilaterale) in the same court regarding the same matter
  2. 2 Whether a referé (urgent application) can be based on a requete unilaterale in the same court

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Etraco Ltd could not file a second unilateral request or an urgent application based on a previous unilateral request in the same court regarding the same matter, as this is prohibited by law. Therefore, the claim was inadmissible.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed as inadmissible

Orders

  • The claim filed by Etraco Ltd is not admitted.
  • Court fees paid by the applicant remain with the State.