RLR-V.2- 2014

RLR-V.2- 2014

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Rwanda law reports - Date: 2014-04-12 - Collection: Supreme Court

Text

Page 1

REPUBLIC OF RWANDA

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

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Icyegeranyo V. 2 - 2014 Ukwakira, 2014 Law Report , V. 2 - 2014 October, 2014

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 2

Cyateguwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga

Cyatewe inkunga na Ambasade y’Ubuholandi & ICF

Page 3

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

KINYARWANDA

Page 5

ISHAKIRO

IRIBURIRO ................................................................................................... xi IBIKUBIYE MURI IKI CYEGERANYO .................................................... xii INYITO ........................................................................................................ xii AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO ............................................................ xiii IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE ........................................................................ xv AMAGAMBO MPINE ................................................................................ xvi EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA ....... 3 NGABONZIZA NA MUGENZI WE v. MIRAVUMBA ............................. 21 ACCESS BANK Ltd v. NGARAMBE NA MUGENZI WE; ...................... 31 MUCUMUMBITSI v. ACCESS BANK Ltd ................................................ 31 MUKABARUNGI v. GATSINZI ................................................................. 49 NTEZIRYAYO v. RUTABAYIRO .............................................................. 65 CORAR v. MBONIMPA .............................................................................. 82 HOTEL OKAPI v. BPR ............................................................................... 97 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. FAYIRARA ....................................................... 111 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MPITABAKANA .............................................. 121 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUKANTAGARA NA MUGENZI WE .......... 129 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUNYANKUMBURWA ................................. 143 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NGIRABABYEYI ............................................. 159

Page 7

ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI

ITSINDA RY’ABANYAMATEGEKO

BATEGUYE

IMANZA

BAGABO Faustin

HAKUZIMANA Ildephonse

KABERA Jean Claude

KAGABO U. Stephanie

MUJABI K. Naphtal

MUNYENSANGA Chrysostome

MWIHOREZE Claudine

NTIHEMUKA Emmanuel

SAFARI Gahizi

UWIMANA Gisèle

VII

Page 8

VIII ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

KOMITE YEMEZA IMANZA

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

Prof. Dr. NGAGI M. Alphonse : Visi perezida wa Komite, Umwarimu muri Kaminuza y’u Rwanda

RUTAZANA Angeline : Umwanditsi wa Komite, Umugenzuzi w’Inkiko

BWIZA N. Blanche : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru

DUSHIMINAMA Claudine : Umushinjacyaha ku rwego Rw’Igihugu

Me GAKUNZI Valery : Avoka mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka

GIRANEZA Clémentine : Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze

HABARUREMA Jean pierre : Umushinjacyaha ku Rwego rw’Igihugu

Cpt. KABERUKA Jean Claude : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare

Page 9

IX ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI

KALIWABO Charles : Perezida w’Urukiko Rukuru

Me KAYIHURA Didace : Avoka mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka

KIBUKA Jean Luc : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi

MUREREREHE Saouda : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru

NYIRINKWAYA Immaculée : Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga

RUBANGO K. Epimaque : Intumwa ya Leta

RUKUNDAKUVUGA F. Regis : Umugenzuzi Mukuru w’Inkiko

Page 11

IRIBURIRO

Basomyi bacu, Nyuma yo kuvugurura imitegurire y’icyegeranyo cy’ibyemezo by’Inkiko gitangazwa n’Urwego rw’Ubucamanza rimwe mu gihembwe, tunejejwe no kubagezaho volime yacu ya kabili. Mbere ya byose, turashimira abasomyi bakomeje kutugezaho ibitekerezo byabo bashima iki cyegeranyo banatwereka aho bifuza ko hanozwa. Turashishikariza kandi n’abandi bacyifashisha gukomeza kuduha ibitekerezo, haba kuri volime yatambutse, iy’ubu ndetse n’izindi zizazatangazwa mu gihe kizaza. Ibi bizatuma turushaho kubagezaho icyegeranyo gikozwe mu buryo bunononsoye kandi bubanogeye kurushaho, dore ko nta gushidikanya ko kigira akamaro gakomeye ku bantu b’ingeri zitandukanye, cyane cyane abakunda guhura n’ibibazo by’amategeko. Muri iyi nimero ya kabiri y’icyegeranyo cy’ibyemezo by’inkiko (Rwanda Law Reports) turasangamo imanza ebyiri (2) z’ubucuruzi, imanza ebyiri (2) z’ubutegetsi, imanza eshatu (3) mbonezamubano n’imanza eshanu (5) z’inshinjabyaha. Prof. Sam RUGEGE Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga Perezida w’inama nkuru y’Ubucamanza

XI Basomyi bacu, Nyuma yo kuvugurura imitegurire y’icyegeranyo cy’ibyemezo by’Inkiko gitangazwa n’Urwego rw’Ubucamanza buri gihembwe, iki ni igitabo cya kabiri gisohotse. Turashimira abasomyi bakomeje kutugezaho ibitekerezo byabo bashima iki cyegeranyo banatwereka aho babona hakwiye kunozwa. Turashishikariza kandi n’abandi bacyifashisha gukomeza kuduha ibitekerezo, kugira ngo kirusheho gutunganywa no kurushaho kugirira akamaro abagisoma b’ingeri nyinshi mu rwego rw’amategeko. Muri iyi nimero, turasangamo imanza ebyiri (2) z’ubucuruzi, imanza ebyiri (2) z’ubutegetsi, imanza eshatu (3) mbonezamubano n’imanza eshanu (5) z’inshinjabyaha.

Page 12

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

INYITO Imanza ziri muri iyi volime zikoreshwa muri ubu buryo: [V.2-2014]RLR

XII V.2 [2014] RLR

Page 13

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO Itegeko Ngenga Nº 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 80, 81 na 86.........................................................6 Itegeko ngenga nº 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 140 n’iya 142........................................123 ingingo ya 77,40,681.............................................131 Itegeko Ngenga Nº 51/2008 ryo kuwa 09/09/2008 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha bw’Inkiko nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu, ingingo ya 153............................36 Itegeko n° 30/2013 ryo kuwa 24/5/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 165.........................................................................................160. Itegeko Nº 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo za 134 n’iya 360...............................................6 ingingo ya 180 n’iya 320...............................................2 Itegeko Nº 45/2011 ryo kuwa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, ingingo ya 89........................................................................36 Itegeko Nº 13/2010 ryo kuwa 07/05/2010 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko nº 10/2009 ryo kuwa 14/05/2009 ryerekeye ubugwate ku mutungo utimukanwa, ingingo ya 4 n’iya 26........................................................................................36 Itegeko, no15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 46........................86

XIII

Page 14

XIV

Itegeko No 22/99 ryo kuwa 12/11/ 1999 ryuzuza igitabo cya mbere cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano kandi rishyiraho igice cya gatanu cyerekeye imicungire y’umutungo w’abashyingiranywe, impano n’izungura, ingingo ya 24.........52 Itegeko No 42/1988 ryo kuwa 27/10/1988 rishyiraho Interuro y’Ibanze n‘Igitabo cya mbere cy’Urwunge rw’Amategeko Mbonezamubano, ingingo ya 289.........................................52 Itegeko-Teka nº 21/77 ryo kuwa 18/08/1977 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ibyaha mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 311................................................................123 ingingo ya 311...............................................................146 Itegeko ryo kuwa 30 Nyakanga 1888, rigenga ibyerekeye imirimo nshinganwa cyangwa amasezerano, ingingo ya 258. ..............................................................36 ingingo ya 258.................................................................86 ingingo ya 33 n’iya 560 ................................................114 ingingo ya 260................................................................146 ingingo za 33, 264 na 288..............................................68 Itegeko no 18/2004 ryo kuwa 20/06/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 134 ...................................................................6 ingingo 167.......................................................................68 Itegeko no 13/2004 ryo kuwa 15/05/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 180......................................................................................114

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 15

IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE Ubushinjacyaha v. Pte Niyoyita, RPA 0074/07/CS, rwaciwe ku wa 25/ 07/2007.......................................................................146 Ubushinjacyaha v. Sebiteke, RPAA 015/10/CS, rwaciwe ku wa 28/02/2014..............................................................................161

XV

Page 16

AMAGAMBO MPINE Amategeko agenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa – Indishyi – Isubizwa ry’igiciro cy’inzu iburanwa n’inyungu zayo – Amafaranga yishyuwe ku nguzanyo – Indishyi zikomoka ku gihombo cy’ubukode bw’inzu – Indishyi z’akababaro – Indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’Avoka – Umuburanyi wahawe inguzanyo na Banki ntasubizwa amafaranga y’umufuragiro acibwa ku nguzanyo (flat fees) kuko usanzwe udasubizwa – Indishyi zijyanye n’ amafaranga y’ubukode yavukijwe zigenwa hashingiwe ku gaciro k’inzu, ku gihe gishize n’aho iherereye – Uwafatiriwe agomba guha Uwaguze mu cyamunara indishyi zikubiyemo amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’Avoka ku nzego zose z’iburanisha agenwe mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko – Itegeko Nº 45/2011 ryo kuwa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, ingingo ya 89 – Itegeko ryo kuwa 30 Nyakanga 1888, rigenga ibyerekeye imirimo nshinganwa cyangwa amasezerano, ingingo ya 258.

ACCESS

BANK Ltd v.

NGARAMBE NA MUGENZI WE; MUCUMUMBITSI v. ACCESS BANK Ltd...........32 Agaciro k’amasezerano y’ubugure bw’umutungo utimukanwa mu gihe hatarakorwa ihinduzamutungo – Kutubahiriza amasezerano – Indishyi ku gihombo umuguzi yatewe n’uko umugurisha atubahirije inshingano yo kumushyikiriza inyandiko z’icyo yaguze mu gihe bumvikanyeho – Amasezerano y’ubugure aba yuzuye igihe abayagiranye bumvikanye ku kintu no ku

XVI

Page 17

XVII

giciro cyacyo n’ubwo ikigurishwa kitari cyatangwa n’ikiguzi cyacyo kikaba kitari cyishyurwa – Umugurisha agomba gutegekwa gutanga indishyi iyo umuguzi yagize igihombo gituruka ku kudashyikirizwa icyo yaguze mu gihe cyumvikanweho – Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 ryerekeye amasezerano imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 33, 264 na 288. NTEZIRYAYO v. RUTABAYIRO..........................65 Kuvutswa amahirwe – Ibara ry’Indishyi zijyanye n’amafaranga ikinyabiziga cyagombaga kuba cyarakoreye zibarwa hakurikijwe igiciro kiri ku isoko havanywemo ibyari kuyigendaho – Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 ryerekeye amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa,ingingo ya 258. CORAR v. MBONIMPA .........................................83 Indishyi z’akababaro – Ntizitangwa iyo uzisaba atagaragaje icyo yangirijwe gitandukanye n’ibyabazwe mu ndishyi mboneza musaruro – Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 ryerekeye amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258. CORAR v. MBONIMPA.........................................83 Uburyozwe bw’umukoresha ku makosa yakozwe n’umukozi – Umukoresha aryozwa ibyangijwe n’amakosa y’umukozi we igihe yayakoze arangiza inshingano ze – Ushinzwe kurinda ubusugire bw’igihugu n’umutekano w’abantu n’ibyabo ntiyabona ibikorwa bihungabanya umutekano harimo na magendu ngo abure kugira icyo akora yitwaje ko atari mu ifasi akoreramo inshingano ze – Itegeko ryo kuwa

AMAGAMBO MPINE

Page 18

XVIII

30/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 260. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUNYANKUMBURWA........................................143 Ibisa no guhabwa ubutumwa – Kubahiriza amasezerano – Iyo bisa nk’aho hari uwabiherewe ubutumwa, undi muntu akibwira ko uwo bagiye kugirana amasezerano yabuhawe, ayo masezerano agomba gushyirwa mu bikorwa uko yakabaye n’usa n’uwatanze bene ubwo butumwa – Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 ryerekeye amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 33. HOTEL OKAPI v. BPR.........................................97 Ubwishingire – Kwishyura k’umwishingizi hatabanje gushakwa ubwishyu mu bintu by’ugomba kwishyura mu gihe yabyiyemereye mu masezerano y’ubwishingire – Igihe uwishingiye uwahawe umwenda yemeye kwishyura hatabanje kwishyuza uwawuhawe, uberewemo umwenda afite uburenganzira bwo kwishyuza umwishingizi ku giti cye cyangwa akabishyuza bose icyarimwe – Itegeko.ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 ryerekeye amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 560. HOTEL OKAPI v. BPR........................................97 Amategeko agenga ibimenyetso – Gusambanya umwana – Kugaragaza ibimenyetso ko uwasambanyijwe ari umwana – Icyemezo cy’amavuko cyatanzwe n’umukozi wa Leta ufite ububasha bwo kugikora cyangwa icyemezo cy’umuganga ni byo byonyine ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 19

XIX

bishobora kugaragaza imyaka y’amavuko y’umuntu – Kutagaragaza iki kimenyetso bitera gushidikanya ku mikorere y’icyaha kandi gushidikanya kurengera ushinjwa – Itegeko n° 30/2013 ryo kuwa 24/5/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 165. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NGIRABABYEYI.........159 Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano – Ubujurire – Imbibi z’icyajuririwe – Guca urubanza ku ngingo zajuririwe mu bujurire bw’ibanze cyangwa mu bujurire bwuririye ku bundi – Gutesha agaciro amasezerano y’ubugwate kandi icyasabwe ari iseswa rya cyamunara, bifatwa nko guca urubanza ku kitaregewe. ACCESS BANK Ltd v. NGARAMBE NA MUGENZI WE; MUCUMBITSI v. ACCESS BANK Ltd..................31 Cyamunara – Kugurisha icyagwatirijwe bitagombye urubanza – Urwego rutanga icyemezo kigomba gushingirwaho mu kugurisha icyagwatirijwe bitagombye urubanza hashingiwe ku masezerano y’ubugwate yasinyiwe imbere ya Noteri kandi yashyizweho inyandikompuruza ariko kitanditswe mu gitabo cyandikwamo ingwate ku mutungo utimukanwa mu biro by’Umwanditsi Mukuru – Icyemezo cya Perezida w’Urukiko nicyo gishingirwaho kugirango cyamunara ibeho, kuko impande zombi zitashoboraga kwiyambaza servisi z’Umwanditsi Mukuru mu gihe muri “Registry” ye umutungo wagombaga kugurishwa utagaragaramo – Itegeko nº 10/2009 ryo kuwa

AMAGAMBO MPINE

Page 20

XX

14/05/2009 ryerekeye ubugwate ku mutungo utimukanwa nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe n’Itegeko nº 13/2010 ryo kuwa 07/05/2010, ingingo ya 26.

ACCESS

BANK Ltd v.

NGARAMBE NA MUGENZI WE; MUCUMBITSI v. ACCESS BANK Ltd..................31 Indishyi – Gushorwa mu manza – Nta ndishyi bitangirwa mu gihe uzisaba atagaragarije Urukiko uko yazibaze kandi bikagaragara ko uwajuririye urubanza rwamutsinze atari agamije kumushora mu manza. MUKABARUNGI v. GATSINZI.............................49 Ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi – Ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi burakirwa n’ igihe uregwa yamenyeshejwe urabanza rwe ntagaragaze ko hari icyo arukemangaho – Itegeko n° 18/2004 ryo kuwa 20/06/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’ubutegetsi n’iz’umurimo, ingingo ya 167. NTEZIRYAYO v. RUTABAYIRO..........................65 Gushorwa mu manza – Nta ndishyi bitangirwa mu gihe uwajuriye hari ibyo yatsindiye. NTEZIRYAYO v. RUTABAYIRO..........................65 Ikirego cyihutirwa – Guhagarika iragizwa ry’urubanza mu gihe urubanza rurutambamira rutaracibwa – Guhagarika irangizarubanza ntibibangamira icibwa ry’urubanza mu mizi mu gihe ntacyo umucamanza yavuze ku byerekeranye n’icibwa ry’urubanza mu mizi – Itegeko nº 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 21

XXI

imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 180 na 320.

NGABONZIZA

NA

MUGENZI WE v. MIRAVUMBA.........................................................21 Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha – Gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya – Ikimenyetso umuburanyi yari azi mu gihe cy’iburanisha nyamara ntakigaragarize urukiko cyangwa ngo avuge impamvu ntakumirwa atabikoze ntabwo cyafatwa nk’ikimenyetso gishya cyatuma habaho gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya – Itegeko no 13/2004 ryo kuwa 15/05/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 180. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. FAYIRARA...................113 Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubutegetsi – Gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane – Inzitizi – Urubanza rusubirishwamo rwatangiye kurangizwa – Ibisabwa kugirango urubanza rusubirwemo ku mpamvu z’akarengane – Ingwate y’amagarama – Urwego rw’Umuvunyi ntirutanga ingwate y’amagarama ku kirego kijyanye n’isubirishamo ry’urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane – Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rufite uburenganzira bwo kwibwiriza gusaba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane ku birego rwashyikirijwe mbere y’uko Itegeko Ngenga Nº 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 ritangira gukurikizwa – Gutangira kurangiza urubanza ntibibuza

AMAGAMBO MPINE

Page 22

XXII

Urwego rw’Umuvunyi gusaba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga gusubiramo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane – Itegeko Ngenga Nº 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 80, 81 na 86 – Itegeko Nº 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 134 na 360 – Itegeko no 18/2004 ryo kuwa 20/06/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 134. EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA……………………………………. 3 Amategeko agenga ingwate – Ingwate ku mutungo utimukanwa – Agaciro k’amasezerano y’ingwate atanditse mu gitabo cyandikwamo ingwate ku mutungo utimukanwa mu biro by’Umwanditsi Mukuru, yashyizweho umukono mbere y’Itegeko nº 10/2009 ryo kuwa 14/05/2009 ryerekeye ubugwate ku mutungo utimukanwa – Amasezerano yose y’ubugwate yakozwe mbere y’uko iryo tegeko ritangira gukurikizwa akomeza kugira agaciro kayo – Itegeko Nº 13/2010 ryo kuwa 07/05/2010 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko nº 10/2009 ryo kuwa 14/05/2009 ryerekeye ubugwate ku mutungo utimukanwa, ingingo ya 4. ACCESS BANK Ltd v. NGARAMBE NA MUGENZI WE; MUCUMBITSI v. ACCESS BANK Ltd...............................................................................31 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 23

XXIII

Amategeko agenga ububasha bw’Inkiko – Ubusobekerane bw’imanza – Imanza zifitanye isano rumwe rweraregewe Urukiko rwisumbuye kurwaregewe urundi – Mu gihe bigaragara ko imikirize ya rumwe ishobora kubangamira urundi, izo manza ziba zifitanye isano kandi zigomba guhuzwa zikaburanishirizwa hamwe – Itegeko Ngenga nº 51/2008 ryo kuwa 09/09/2008 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha bw’Inkiko nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu, ingingo ya 153. ACCESS BANK Ltd v. NGARAMBE NA MUGENZI WE; MUCUMBITSI v. ACCESS BANK Ltd..................31 Amategeko agenga umuryango – Ubutane – Igabana ry’umutungo mu gihe abashakanye basezeranye ivangamutungo rusange – Umutungo washatswe n’umwe mu bashakanye nyuma yo kutabana by’agateganyo – Kutabana by’agateganyo bijyana buri gihe n’ivanguramutungo, ingaruka zabyo zigatangira gukurikizwa umunsi ikirego cyashyikirijweho Urukiko – Umutungo umwe mu bashakanye yabonye ivangamutungo ryararangiye ntubarirwa mu mutungo ugabanwa – Itegeko No 42/1988 ryo kuwa 27/10/1988 rishyiraho Interuro y’Ibanze n‘Igitabo cya mbere cy’Urwunge rw’Amategeko Mbonezamubano, ingingo ya 289. MUKABARUNGI v. GATSINZI...........................49 Amategeko mpanabyaha – Ubwicanyi – Byitwa ubwicanyi iyo bigaragaye ko umuntu yishe undi abishaka – Itegeko- Teka nº 21/77 ryo ku wa 18/08/1977 rishyiraho igitabo

AMAGAMBO MPINE

Page 24

XXIV

cy’amategeko ahana ibyaha mu Rwanda cyakoreshwaga igihe icyaha cyakorwaga, ingingo ya 311. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MPITABAKANA..........121 Kugabanyirizwa ibihano – Ntawakwitwaza ingaruka mbi z’icyaha yakoze ngo asabe kugabanyirizwa ibihano. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MPITABAKANA..........121 Kugabanyirizwa ibihano – kwishyikiriza inzego za polisi nyuma yo gukora icyaha bifatwa nk’ impamvu nyoroshyacyaha – Impamvu nyoroshyacyaha zitaweho n’inkiko zibanza ntizongera gushingirwaho mu kugabanya ibihano. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MPITABAKANA..........121 Kurema umutwe w’ abagizi ba nabi – Kurema umutwe w’abagizi ba nabi ni icyaha cyigenga gitandukanye n’ibyaha bikorwa muri urwo rwego cyangwa n’uwo mutwe – Ntibifatwa nk’icyaha cyo kurema umutwe w’abagizi ba nabi iyo hagambiriwe kugirira nabi umuntu umwe – Itegeko Ngenga nº 01/2012 ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 681. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUKANTAGARA NA MUGENZI WE.......................................................129 Ubwinjiracyaha bw’ubuhotozi – Bifatwa nk’ubwinjiracyaha iyo hari ibikorwa biboneka, bidashidikanywaho by’intangiriro yo gukora icyaha. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 25

XXV

Itegeko-Teka nº 21/77 ryo kuwa 18/8/1977 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 21. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUKANTAGARA NA MUGENZI WE........................................................129 Igabanyagihano – Ibihano bishobora kugabanywa mu gihe nta ngaruka zikomeye icyaha cyateye – Itegeko Ngenga no 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 77 40. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUKANTAGARA NA MUGENZI WE........................................................129 Ubwicanyi – Inyito y’icyaha – Ntibyakwitwa kwica umuntu atabigambiriye kuko ubushake bwo kwica bugaragarira mu kwica umuntu amurashe nyuma yo gushyira amasasu mu mbunda akabuzwa kurasa n’umukuriye akabirengaho – Itegeko Teka nº 21/1977 ryo ku wa 18/08/1977 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ibyaha, Ingingo ya 311 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUNYANKUMBURWA........................................143 Amategeko y’ubucuruzi – Sosiyeti z’ubucuruzi – Ububasha bwo guhagararira sosiyeti mu masezerano igirana n’abandi – Uwafashe umwenda yitwaje ko ahagarariye sosiyeti nyamara ntimwigarike cyangwa ngo imurege kwiha ububasha bifatwa nk’aho wafashwe mu izina ryayo. HOTEL OKAPI v. BPR..........................................97 Amategeko y’ubwishingizi – Uruhushya rwo gutwara ikinyabiziga rwatangiwe mu mahanga – Iyo rutanenzwe

AMAGAMBO MPINE

Page 26

XXVI

n’inzego zibifitiye ububasha cyangwa rutararegewe ko ari inyandiko mpimbano ruba rufite agaciro – Itegeko no 15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 46. CORAR v. MBONIMPA .........................................83 Amasezerano y’ubwishingizi – Igena gaciro k’imodoka yangiritse ku bw’impanuka – Kabarwa hashingiwe kubikubiye mu masezerano CORAR v. MBONIMPA........................................83

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 27

IMANZA Z’UBUTEGETSI

Page 29

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/REV/INJ/AD002/CS (Kaitesi Zainabo, P.J., Hatangimbabazi, Mukandamage, Rugabirwa na Gakwaya, J.) 11 Mutarama 2014] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubutegetsi – Gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane – Inzitizi – Urubanza rusubirishwamo rwatangiye kurangizwa – Ibisabwa kugirango urubanza rusubirwemo ku mpamvu z’akarengane – Ingwate y’amagarama – Urwego rw’Umuvunyi ntirutanga ingwate y’amagarama ku kirego kijyanye n’isubirishamo ry’urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane – Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rufite uburenganzira bwo kwibwiriza gusaba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane ku birego rwashyikirijwe mbere y’uko Itegeko Ngenga Nº 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 ritangira gukurikizwa – Gutangira kurangiza urubanza ntibibuza Urwego rw’Umuvunyi gusaba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga gusubiramo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane – Itegeko Ngenga Nº 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 80, 81 na 86 – Itegeko Nº 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 134 na 360 – Itegeko no 18/2004 ryo kuwa 20/06/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 134. 3

Page 30

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 4

Incamake y’ikibazo: EWSA yakoranye Amasezerano na Karangwa imuha Transformateur ifite ububasha bwa 400 KVA yo gukoresha mu ruganda rwe. EWSA yaje kuyisubiza kuko yari iyikeneye, imusigira indi ya 50 KVA Karangwa atabanje kubyemera. Karangwa yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rukuru abisabira indishyi, ariko uru Rukiko rwemeza ko EWSA itishe amasezerano kuko Transformateur yisubije yari umutungo wayo yari yaratije Karangwa kandi ikaba yarayisimbuje indi Transformateur ya 50 KVA. Karangwa yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, maze rwemeza ko EWSA yishe amasezerano, ruyitegeka kumwishyura indishyi zingana na 207.976.000 Frw hiyongereyeho igihembo cy’ Avoka n’ingwate y’amagarama. Urwo rubanza rwatambamiwe na Leta y’u Rwanda ivuga ko itamenyeshejwe ikizwa ryarwo kandi EWSA ari ikigo cyayo, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwemeza ko ikirego cya Leta y’u Rwanda kitakiriwe kuko cyari cyatanzwe mu buryo bunyuranije n’amategeko. Umuyobozi mukuru wa

EWSA yashyikirije ikibazo cy’akarengane kuri uru rubanza Urwego rw’Umuvunyi Mukuru mbere y’uko Itegeko Ngenga rishyiraho inzira yo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane rijyaho, maze itegeko rimaze kujyayo, Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rwandikira Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusaba ko urubanza Nº RADA 0005/08/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwasubirwamo kubera impamvu z’akarengane. Mu gihe cyo kuruburana, uhagarariye Karangwa atanga inzitizi zo kutakira ikirego avuga ko Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rutatanze ingwate y’amagarama, ko rwibwirije gusaba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane, ko rudakwiye gusaba isubirishamo ry’urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane mu gihe irangizwa ryarwo ryatangiye, ngo kandi

Page 31

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 5

ikirego rwashikirije Urukiko rw’Ikirenga nticyubahirije ibisabwa n’ingingo ya 81 y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. Mu kwiregura, EWSA ivuga ko Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rutagomba gutanga ingwate y’amagarama y’urubanza kubera ko rutari umuburanyi mu rubanza, ko imanza zaciwe burundu zaba zararangijwe cyangwa zitararangizwa zishobora gusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, kandi ko Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rwasabye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga gusubirishamo urwo rubanza rwashingiye ku kibazo rwagejejweho n’Umuyobozi Mukuru wa EWSA. Incamake y’icyemezo 1. Urwego rw’Umuvunyi nta bwo ari umuburanyi mu rubanza, kubera ko rudatanga ikirego ahubwo rusaba ko urubanza rwabonyemo akarengane rwakongera kuburanishwa, Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga akaba ashobora kubyemera cyangwa ntabyemere, ikirego rero kijyanye n’isubirishamo ry’urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane gitangwa mu buryo budasanzwe ku buryo n’ababuranyi badasabwa gutanga ingwate y’amagarama bityo n’Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rukaba rutagomba gutanga ingwate y’amagarama kubera izo mpamvu inzitizi yatazwe nta shingiro ifite.

2. Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rufite uburenganzira bwo kwibwiriza gusaba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane imanza zivugwamo akarengane rwashyikirijwe mbere y’uko Itegeko Ngenga Nº 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ritangira gukurikizwa.

Page 32

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 6

3. Ibisabwa kugira ngo urubanza rusubirwemo ku mpamvu z’akarengane byarubahirijwe ku bijyanye n’iyakirwa ry’ikirego, ishingiro ryabyo risuzumwa mu mizi y’urubanza.

4. Imanza zivugwamo akarengane zaciwe burundu, zaba izarangijwe, izitararangizwa cyangwa izo ababuranyi bumvikanyeho uburyo bwo kurangiza zishobora gusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane bityo nta cyabuza Urwego rw’Umuvunyi gusaba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga gusubirishamo urubanza ruvugwamo akarengane, n’ubwo rwaba ruri mu nzira zo kurangizwa. Inzitizi z’uregwa nta shingiro zifite. Iburanisha ry’urubanza rizakomeza mu mizi. Amagarama y’urubanza abaye asubitswe. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Ngenga Nº 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 80, 81 na 86. Itegeko Nº 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo za 134 n’iya 360. Itegeko no 18/2004 ryo kuwa 20/06/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 134. Nta manza zifashishijwe.

Page 33

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 7

Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rukomoka ku masezerano yo kuwa 28/03/1997 hagati ya EWSA na Karangwa Eugène aho EWSA yahaye Karangwa Transformateur ifite ububasha bwa 400 KVA yo gukoresha mu ruganda rwe FIDECAR rukora amapine y’ingorofani, iza kuyisubiza kuko yari iyikeneye, imusigira indi Transformateur ya 50 KVA, Karangwa atabanje kubyemera. [2] Karangwa yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rukuru, rusanga EWSA itarishe amasezerano kuko Transformateur yisubije yari umutungo wayo yari yaratije Karangwa kandi yarayisimbuje indi Transformateur ya 50 KVA. [3] Karangwa ntiyishimiye imikirize y’urubanza ajuririra Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, maze mu rubanza Nº RADA 0005/08/CS, rwemeza ko EWSA yishe ingingo ya 33 y’Igitabo cya Gatatu cy’Urwunge rw’Amategeko y’Imbonezamubano kandi ko igomba kubiryorezwa indishyi hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 50 y’icyo gitabo n’ingingo ya XII y’amasezerano yagiranye na Karangwa Eugène, nuko rutegeka EWSA kwishyura Karangwa indishyi zingana na 207.976.000 Frw hiyongereyeho igihembo cy’ Avoka n’ingwate y’amagarama. [4] Urwo rubanza rwatambamiwe na Leta y’u Rwanda ivuga ko itamenyeshejwe ikizwa ryarwo kandi EWSA ari ikigo cyayo, maze mu rubanza Nº RADA 0001/09/CS rwo kuwa 17/09/2010, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwemeza ko ikirego cya Leta y’u Rwanda kitakiriwe kuko cyari cyatanzwe mu buryo

Page 34

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 8

bunyuranije n’amategeko, ruhamishaho imikirize y’urubanza Nº RADA 0005/08/CS rwariho. [5] Kuwa 13/02/2013 Urwego rw’Umuvunyi Mukuru rwandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusaba ko urubanza Nº RADA 0005/08/CS hagati ya EWSA na Karangwa Eugène rwaciwe kuwa 23/01/2009 n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwasubirwamo kubera impamvu z’akarengane. [6] Impamvu z’akarengane zishingirwaho n’Urwego rw’Umuvunyi hasabwa isubirishamo ry’urubanza ni uko mu ica ry’urubanza Urukiko rwirengagije ibimenyetso bigaragarira buri wese biri muri dosiye, rugena indishyi z’umurengera; ibyo bimenyetso birimo inyandiko y’umukozi wa ELECTROGAZ n’uwa FIDECAR yo kuwa 01/12/1999, inyandiko ya FIDECAR yo kuwa 13/04/ 2000 n’iyo kuwa 04/06/2001, Fagitiri zashyikirijwe urukiko zerekana “consommation réelle” y’umuriro ya FIDECAR, ndetse n’amasezerano ya ELECTROGAZ (EWSA) na FIDECAR (ihagarariwe na Karangwa) yo kuwa 23/03/1997 cyane cyane ingingo yayo ya 3 yakoreshejwe mu buryo butari bwo. [7] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame kuwa 26/11/2013, ababuranyi bombi bahari, EWSA ihagarariwe na Me Rusanganwa Jean Bosco naho Karangwa Eugène ahagarariwe na Me Batware Jean Claude. [8] Iburanisha ritangiye, Me Batware uhagarariye Karangwa yatanze inzitizi zo kutakira ikirego cya EWSA, azisobanura mu buryo bukurikira:

Page 35

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 9

Urwego rw’Umuvunyi ntirwatanze ingwate y’amagarama igihe rwasabye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane;

Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rwibwirije gusaba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane, EWSA itigeze ibisaba, ibi bikaba binyuranije n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 79, n’iya 86 igika cya 2, z’Itegeko Ngenga Nº 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga;

Ikirego ku isubirishamo ry’urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rwashyikirije Urukiko rw’Ikirenga nticyubahirije ibisabwa n’ingingo ya 81 y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga;

Urwego rw’Umuvunyi ntirukwiye gusaba isubirishamo ry’urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane mu gihe irangizwa ryarwo ryatangiye, kuko haba habayeho kwemera imikirize y’urubanza (acquiescement). [9] Urukiko rugiye kubanza gusuzuma inzitizi zatanzwe n’uhagarariye KARANGWA, mbere yo gukomeza urubanza mu mizi.

Page 36

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 10

II. ISESENGURA KU NZITIZI ZATANZWE MU RUBANZA N’UKO URUKIKO

RUBIBONA Kumenya niba Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rugomba gutanga amagarama mu gihe rushyikirije Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ikibazo rusaba isubirishwamo ry’urubanza kubera impamvu z’akarengane; [10] Me Batware Jean Claude uhagarariye Karangwa Eugène avuga ko we asanga Urwego rw’Umuvunyi nta kirego rwatanze, ko kibaye kinahari kidakwiye kwakirwa ngo gisuzumwe kubera ko Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rutatanze ingwate y’amagarama, ibyo bikaba binyuranije n’ingingo ya 360 y’Itegeko Nº 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko umuntu wese utanze ikirego agomba gutanga igarama. [11] Me Rusanganwa Jean Bosco uhagarariye EWSA avuga ko Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rutagomba gutanga ingwate y’amagarama y’urubanza kubera ko rutari umuburanyi mu rubanza. Yongeraho ko nta garama itegeko ryateganyije, ko ahubwo Itegeko ryateganyije ko Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ariwe usaba Ubwanditsi bw’urukiko kwandika ikirego mu bitabo byabugenewe, ibi akaba ari uburyo budasanzwe (procédure spéciale) mu mitangire y’ikirego.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [12] Ingingo ya 80, igika cya mbere y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru iteganya

Page 37

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 11

ko: “Iyo Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga asuzumye raporo y’Ubugenzuzi Bukuru bw’Inkiko akemeza ko urubanza rwongera kuburanishwa, yoherereza dosiye Umwanditsi Mukuru w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kugira ngo ayandike mu bitabo byabugenewe, akanagena kandi n’itariki y’iburanisha n’inteko y’abacamanza bazaburanisha…”. [13] Urukiko rurasanga umuhango w’itangwa ry’amagarama uteganywa n’ingingo ya 360 y’Itegeko Nº 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ugamije kwemerera ababuranyi ko ibirego byabo byandikwa n’umwanditsi w’urukiko mu bitabo byabugenewe. [14] Urukiko rurasanga Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rutari umuburanyi muri uru rubanza, kubera ko rudatanga ikirego nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 360 y’Itegeko Nº 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru, ahubwo rusaba ko urubanza rwabonyemo akarengane rwakongera kuburanishwa, Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga akaba ashobora kubyemera cyangwa ntabyemere; niwe, iyo asanze urubanza rwakongera kuburanishwa, utegeka ko ikirego cyandikwa mu gitabo cyabugenewe agahita agena itariki y’iburanisha, ababuranyi bakayimenyeshwa.1 Urukiko rurasanga na none, ikirego kijyanye n’isubirishamo ry’urubanza ku impamvu z’akarengane gitangwa mu buryo budasanzwe, ndetse n’ababuranyi badasabwa gutanga ingwate y’amagarama, byumvikanisha ko umushingamategeko atateganije itangwa ry’ingwate y’amagarama mbere y’uko ikirego cyandikwa mu bitabo byabugenewe.

1 Ingingo ya 80 y’Itegeko Ngenga No 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga

Page 38

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 12

[15] Urukiko rurasanga rero, Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rutaragombaga gutanga ingwate y’amagarama, bityo inzitizi ijyanye n’itangwa ry’amagarama uhagarariye Karangwa yatanze ikaba nta shingiro ifite. Kumenya niba Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rwibwirije gusaba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane binyuranije n’ingingo ya 79, n’iya 86 igika cya 2 z’Itegeko Ngenga Nº 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. [16] Uhagarariye Karangwa avuga ko Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rwibwirije gusaba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ko urubanza rwongera kuburanishwa kuko guhera igihe Itegeko Ngenga Nº 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru ritangarijwe, EWSA itigeze iregera urwo Rwego cyangwa ngo irumenyeshe iby’ako karengane nk’ uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 79 y’iryo Tegeko. [17] Uhagarariye Karangwa avuga kandi ko Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rusaba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kwongera kuburanisha urwo urubanza mw’ibaruwa yo kuwa 13/02/2013 rwahereye ku ibaruwa yo kuwa 14/12/2010 ya EWSA, nyamara EWSA yaragombaga gushyikiriza ikirego cyayo Urwego rw’ Umuvunyi mu gihe cy’amezi atandatu uhereye igihe Itegeko Ngenga Nº 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru ryatangarijwe, nkuko biteganywa n’ ingingo ya 86 igika cya 2 y’iryo Tegeko, bityo akaba asaba urukiko kutakira ikirego cya EWSA. [18] Naho Uhagarariye

EWSA akavuga ko Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rwashingiye ku kibazo rwagejejweho

Page 39

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 13

n’Umuyobozi Mukuru wa EWSA nk’uko bigaragara mu ibaruwa yo kuwa 13/02/2013 yandikiwe Urukiko rw’Ikirenga irusaba kongera kuburanisha urubanza rwa EWSA na Karangwa kubera ko rwagaragayema akarengane.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [19] Ingingo ya 79, igika cya 2, y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ivuga ko ababuranyi bashobora kumenyesha Urwego rw’Umuvunyi ko mu rubanza rwaciwe burundu habonetsemo ibimenyetso bigaragaza akarengane. [20] Ingingo ya 86 y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru, iteganya ko imanza zaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma mbere y’uko iryo Tegeko Ngenga ritangazwa mu Igazeti ya Repubulika y’u Rwanda, zigaragaramo akarengane, zizashyikirizwa Urwego rw’Umuvunyi mu gihe cy’umwaka umwe kuva iryo Tegeko Ngenga ritangarijwe, naho imanza zivugwamo akarengane zashyikirijwe inzego zinyuranye zigashyi-kirizwa Urwego rw’Umuvunyi mu gihe kitarenze amezi atandatu kuva iryo Tegeko Ngenga ritangajwe mu Igazeti ya Repubulika y’u Rwanda. [21] Urukiko rurasanga nk’uko bigaragara mu ngingo ya 86 igika cya 2 y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru, Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rutavugwa mu nzego zashyikirijwe imanza zivugwamo akarengane, bikagaragaza ko umushingamategeko yasanze narwo ubwarwo hari imanza zivugwamo akarengane

Page 40

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 14

rwashyikirijwe kuva rukijyaho mu mwaka wa 2003, bikaba byumvikana ko nta kundi kuregerwa cyangwa kugezwaho akarengane Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rwasabwa ku birego by’akarengane rusanzwe rufite. Urukiko rurasanga kandi Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rutasabwa kongera kwandikirwa n’ababuranyi ku birego bivugwamo akarengane rufite, mu gihe inzego zivugwa mu ngingo ya 86, igika cya 2, agace ka 2 zidasabwa ko ababuranyi bongera kuzandikira kugirango zibone gushyikiriza ibirego byabo Urwego rw’Umuvunyi. [22] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rufite uburenganzira bwo kwibwiriza gusaba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane imanza zivugwamo akarengane rwashyikirijwe mbere y’uko Itegeko Ngenga Nº 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru ritangira gukurikizwa, bityo inzitizi yatanzwe n’uhagarariye Karangwa, ikaba nta shingiro ifite. Kumenya niba ikirego ku isubirishamo ry’urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rwashyikirije Urukiko rw’Ikirenga cyubahirije ibisabwa n’ingingo ya 81 y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. [23] Uhagarariye Karangwa avuga ko Urwego rw’Umuvunyi, rusaba ko urubanza rwongera kuburanishwa, rutigeze rugaragaza amategeko yishwe cyangwa ibimenyetso by’akarengane bigaragarira buri wese, bityo akaba asanga ingingo ya 81 y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga itarubahirijwe.

Page 41

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 15

[24] Naho Uhagarariye

EWSA akavuga ko Urwego rw’Umuvunyi arirwo rusuzuma ko habayeho akarengane, kakongera kugaragazwa n’Urwego rw’Ubugenzuzi Bukuru bw’Inkiko, Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga akemeza ko urubanza rwongera kuburanishwa ashingiye kuri ako karengane kavugwa, bityo akaba asanga ingingo ya 81 y’Itegeko Ngenga nº 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru yarubahirijwe, ko ibyo bihagije mu kugaragaza akarengane kari mu rubanza ruburanishwa.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [25] Ingingo ya 81, igika cya mbere y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ivuga ko: “Urubanza rwaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma rushobora gusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane: 1) iyo hari ibimenyetso simusiga bigaragaza ruswa, ikimenyane cyangwa icyenewabo byagize ingaruka ku mikirize y’urubanza bikaba bitarigeze bimenywa n’uwatsinzwe mu gihe cy’iburana; 2) iyo mw’icibwa ry’urubanza hirengagijwe amategeko n’ibimenyetso bigara- garira buri wese; 3) n’ iyo urubanza rudashobora kurangizwa ukurikije imikirize yarwo”. [26] Urukiko rurasanga mu ibaruwa yo kuwa 13/02/2013 Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rwandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusaba gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane rushingira ku ngingo ya 81 z’Itegeko Ngenga Nº 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga (cote 2), ku nyandiko y’Urwego rw’Umuvunyi y‘isuzumwa ry’Urubanza rusabirwa gusubirishwamo igaragaza ko hari ibimenyetso bigaragarira buri

Page 42

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 16

wese biri muri dosiye urukiko rwirengagije birimo: inyandiko ya ELECTROGAZ (EWSA) yo kuwa 01/12/1999, inyandiko ya FIDECAR yo kuwa 13/04/ 2000 n’iyo kuwa 04/06/2001, Fagitiri zashyikirijwe urukiko zerekana “consommation réelle” y’umuriro ya FIDECAR, ndetse n’amasezerano ya ELECTROGAZ (EWSA) na FIDECAR (ihagarariwe na Karangwa) yo kuwa 23/03/1997 cyane cyane ingingo yayo ya 3 yakoreshejwe mu buryo butari bwo. [27] Urukiko rusanga rero, ibimaze gusobanurwa haruguru, bivuga ku bimenyetso byirengagijwe, bisobanuye ko ibisabwa n’ingingo ya 81, igika cya mbere, agace ka 2 byubahirijwe ku bijyanye n’iyakirwa ry’ikirego, ishingiro ryabyo rikazasuzumwa mu mizi y’urubanza, bityo inziti yatanzwe ikaba itahabwa agaciro. Kumenya niba gutangira kurangiza urubanza bibuza Urwego rw’Umuvunyi gusaba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga isubirishwamo ry’urwo rubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane. [28] Me Batware avuga ko mu gihe Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rwasabye EWSA kwishyura Karangwa nayo ikabyemera byafatwa nkaho habayeho kwemera imikirize y’urubanza (acquiescement) ku baburanyi bombi, bityo hakurikijwe ingingo ya 134, 135 n’iya 136 z’Itegeko Nº 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rukaba rutaragombaga gusubira inyuma ngo rusabe Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ko urubanza rwasubirwamo. [29] Uhagarariye EWSA avuga ko imanza zaciwe burundu, zaba zararangijwe cyangwa zitararangizwa, zishobora gusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane hashingiwe ku

Page 43

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 17

biteganywa n’ingingo ya 86 y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru. Yongeraho ariko ko urubanza ruburanwa rwo rutigeze rurangizwa, akaba asanga icyemezo cya nyuma cy’Urwego rw’Umuvunyi cyo gusaba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kongera kuburanisha urubanza aricyo cyahabwa agaciro.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [30] Nk’uko bigaragara muri dosiye y’urubanza, ibaruwa Nº Om 03/07.08/03/11/KJ yo kuwa 07/03/2011 y’Urwego rw’Umuvunyi igaragaza ko Karangwa yarugejejeho ikirego cy’akarengane cy’uko atishyurwa na EWSA, iyi nayo ikaba yaragejeje kuri urwo Rwego rw’Umuvunyi akarengane kagaragara mu rubanza Karangwa yasabiraga ishyirwa mu bikorwa, Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rukagerageza kubumvikanisha ntibikunde, rugasaba EWSA kubahiriza icyemezo cy’Urukiko uko kimeze. Muri dosiye hagaragaramo kandi ibaruwa Nº 11.07.029/847/11/CTX-DIR/YM/c.n yo kuwa 11/03/2011, EWSA yandikiye Urwego rw’Umuvunyi ivuga ko igiye kwegera Karangwa bakaganira ku bijyanye n’uburyo bwo ku mwishyura mu byiciro. [31] Ku byerekeye isubirishamo ry’imanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane zaciwe mbere y’uko Itegeko Ngenga Nº 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru ritangazwa mu Igazeti ya Repubulika y’u Rwanda, ingingo ya 86 igika cya mbere, agace ka 1 y’iryo Tegeko ivuga ko imanza zivugwamo akarengane zaciwe burundu nyuma y’ishyirwaho ry’Urwego rw’Umuvunyi mu mwaka wa 2003, zaba izarangijwe cyangwa izitararangizwa, zizashyikirizwa Urwego rw’Umuvunyi, ikanagena igihe ntarengwa bizakorwamo.

Page 44

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 18

[32] Naho ingingo ya 134 y’Itegeko Nº18/2004 ryo kuwa 20/06/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ryakoreshwaga icyo gihe, ikavuga ko: “Uregwa aba yemeye ikirego iyo yemeye ibyo umurega asaba urukiko cyangwa icyo urubanza rumutsinda rwemeza”. Ibi bishimangirwa n’ingingo ya 134 y’Itegeko Nº 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru, ivuga ko “umuntu ashobora kwemera icyo aregwa aho urubanza rwaba rugeze hose. Ashobora kucyemera arangiza ibyo urukiko rwamutegetse”. [33] Urukiko rurasanga, kuba Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rwaragize uruhare mu kumvikanisha ababuranyi kugirango urubanza rurangizwe, ndetse na EWSA ikagaragaza ubushake bwo gutangira gushyira mu bikorwa urubanza, ari uko nta yandi mahitamo yari ahari mu gihe urubanza rwari rwabaye itegeko, ibi bikaba bitabuza Urwego rw’Umuvunyi gusaba isubirishamo ry’urubanza mu gihe habonetse uburyo bushya bwo gukemura ikibazo cy’akarengane bushingiye ku Itegeko Ngenga rishya2. [34] Urukiko rurasanga kandi imanza zivugwamo akarengane zaciwe burundu, zaba izarangijwe cyangwa izitararangizwa, zishobora gusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 86 igika cya mbere y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru, bisobanuye ko nta cyabuza Urwego rw’Umuvunyi gusaba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga gusubirishamo urubanza rwa EWSA na Karangwa ruvugwamo akarengane, n’ubwo rwari mu nzira zo

2 Itegeko Ngenga No 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga.

Page 45

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 19

kurangizwa, bityo inzitizi uhagarariye Karangwa atanga ikaba nta shingiro ifite. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [35] Rwemeye kwakira inzitizi zatanzwe na Karangwa, ariko ruzisuzumye rusanga nta shingiro zifite; [36] Rwemeje ko iburanisha ry’urubanza Nº RS/REV/INJ/AD002/13/CS rizakomeza mu mizi ku itariki ya 04/02/2014; [37] Ruvuze ko amagarama y’urubanza aba asubitswe.

Page 47

NGABONZIZA NA MUGENZI WE v.

MIRAVUMBA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RADA 0052/13/CS (Kaitesi R., P.J., Mukandamage na Rugabirwa, J.) 10 Mutarama 2014] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubutegetsi – Ikirego cyihutirwa – Guhagarika iragizwa ry’urubanza mu gihe urubanza rurutambamira rutaracibwa – Guhagarika irangizarubanza ntibibangamira icibwa ry’urubanza mu mizi mu gihe ntacyo umucamanza yavuze ku byerekeranye n’icibwa ry’urubanza mu mizi – Itegeko nº 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 180 na 320. Incamake y’ikibazo: Ngabonziza Bosco na Mugabo Semahore Jules bareze Ikigo cy’igihugu gishinzwe umutungo kamere mu Rwanda (RNRA) mu Rukiko Rukuru basaba ko ikibanza no 11528 cyandikwa kuri Ngabonziza naho no 11508 kikandikwa kuri Mugabo Semahore. Urukiko rwategetse ko ibyo bibanza bibandikwaho. Miravumba yatambamiye urwo rubanza, ariko mu gihe urubanza rutambama rutaracibwa mu mizi, Miravumba atanga ikirego cyihutirwa kigamije guhagarika irangiza ry’urubanza RAD 0084/12/HC/KIG yatambamiye kuko nawe afite inyandiko z’ubutaka z’ibyo bibanza maze Urukiko rutegeka ko irangizwa ry’urwo rubanza rihagarara. Ngabonziza Bosco na Mugabo Semahore Jules bajuririye icyo cyemezo mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga bavuga ko umucamanza 21

Page 48

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 22

yabangamiye icibwa ry’urubanza mu mizi, ngo kandi Miravumba icyo asaba mu kirego cyihutirwa gihura neza n’icyo asaba mu kirego cy’iremezo ngo kandi nta bwihutire buhari kuko Miravumba yategereza igihe urubanza rwe ruzaburanishirizwa. Miravumba yiregura avuga ko ubwihutire bugaragazwa n’uko Ngabonziza na Mugabo bahawe kashe mpuruza ku rubanza rwatambamiwe, kandi rukaba rwarategetse RNRA kubaha inyandiko mpamo z’ubutaka ku buryo baramutse banditsweho ibyo bibanza byatera Miravumba igihombo kidasubirwaho. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Icyemezo cy’umucamanza ku kirego cyihutirwa, gitegeka ihagarikwa ry’irangizarubanza ku ihinduzamutungo utimukanwa mu gihe urubanza rurutambamira rutaracibwa, ntacyo kiba kibangamiye icibwa ry’urubanza mu mizi mu gihe nta n’icyo umucamanza yavuze k’ugomba guhabwa inyandiko mpamo z’ubutaka. Ubujurire nta shingiro bufite. Amagarama aherereye ku bajuriye. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko nº 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 180 n’iya 360. Nta manza zifashishijwe.

Page 49

NGABONZIZA NA MUGENZI WE v. MIRAVUMBA 23

Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Ngabonziza Bosco na Mugabo Semahore Jules bareze Ikigo gishinzwe umutungo kamere mu Rwanda (RNRA) mu Rukiko Rukuru, basaba ko ikibanza nº 11528 cyandikwa kuri Ngabonziza agahabwa n’impapuro zacyo, naho ikibanza nº 11508 kikandikwa kuri Mugabo Semahore Jules agahabwa n’impapuro zacyo, urwo rukiko, mu rubanza RAD 0084/12/HC/KIG, rutegeka ko bandikwaho ibyo bibanza. [2] Miravumba Olivier yatambamiye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru, ikirego gihabwa nº RAD 0092/13/KIG, ariko mu gihe urubanza rutaracibwa mu mizi atanga ikirego kihutirwa nº RAD 0094/13/HC/KIG kigamije guhagarika irangiza ry’urubanza RAD 0084/12/HC/KIG, urukiko rusanga icyo kirego gifite ishingiro, rutegeka ko irangizwa ryarwo rihagarara kubera ko Miravumba nawe afite ibyangombwa by’icyo kibanza yahawe n’inzego zibifitiye ububasha, kandi ko harimo n’inyubako ze, kumuvanamo bikaba byamuteza igihombo. [3] Ngabonziza Bosco na Mugabo Semahore Jules bajuririye icyo cyemezo mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga bavuga ko umucamnza yabangamiye icibwa ry’urubanza mu mizi, ko atagaragaje igihombo kidasubirwaho Miravumba yagira urubanza rubaye rurangijwe, ko nta bwihutire buhari ko kandi nta nyungu afite mu rubanza yatambamiye no mu kirego cyihutirwa. [4] Iburanisha ry’urubanza ryabaye mu ruhame tariki ya 31/12/2013, Ngabonziza Bosco na Mugabo Semahore Jules

Page 50

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 24

baburanirwa na Me Karamira Jacques, Ikigo gishinzwe umutungo kamere mu Rwanda (RNRA) gihagarariwe na Me Rubango Epimaque, intumwa ya Leta, naho Miravumba Olivier aburanirwa na Me Buzayire Angèle. II. IKIBAZO KIRI MU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYACYO Kumenya niba irangizwa ry’urubanza RAD 0084/12/HC/KIG rikwiye kuba rihagaze mu gihe urubaza RAD 0092/13/KIG rurutambamira rutaracibwa. [5] Me Karamira Jacques uburanira Ngabonziza Bosco na Mugabo Semahore Jules avuga ko urukiko rwemeje ko irangizwa ry’urubanza RAD 0084/12/HC/KIG rihagarara kubera ko ruramutse rushyizwe mu bikorwa byatera Miravumba igihombo kidasubirwaho, nyamara ntirwagaraza icyo gihombo, cyane cyane ko ikiburanwa ari ugushyira mu bikorwa ibyemezo by’inkiko, mu gihe Miravumba ariwe ufite ibyangombwa by’ubutaka budafite ikintu cyubatseho kandi butari ubwe. [6] Me Karamira Jacques avuga kandi ko mu gufata icyemezo, umucamanza yabangamiye urubanza mu mizi anyuranije n’ibiteganywa mu ngingo ya 320 CPCCSA kubera ko mu rubanza RAD 0084/12/HC/KIG, Ikigo gishinzwe umutungo kamere mu Rwanda cyategetswe guha abo aburanira impapuro mpamo z’ubutaka, icyo Miravumba asaba mu kirego cyihutirwa kikaba gihura neza n’icyo asaba mu kirego cy’iremezo, ni ukuvuga kuburizwamo kw’itangwa ry’izo mpapuro zagombaga guhabwa Ngabonziza na Mugabo.

Page 51

25

[7] Me Karamira Jacques avuga na none ko nta bwihutirwe buhari kuko ntacyatuma Miravumba atategereza igihe urubanza rwe ruzaburanishirizwa kuko ibyo asaba byo kuburizamo itangwa ry’impapuro mpamo z’ubutaka ashobora kuzabihabwa mu mizi y’urubanza. Yongeraho ko nta n’inyungu afite mu rubanza yatambamiye kimwe no muri iki kirego kihutirwa kuko ikibanza yita ko ari icye gifite nº 3554 avuga ko yaguze na Nyiraneza Félicité, mu gihe Ngabonziza we afite ikibanza nº 11528 yahawe n’Umujyi wa Kigali naho Mugabo afite ikibanza nº 11508 nawe yahawe n’Umujyi wa Kigali, akaba rero nta nyungu afite yo kubangamira ibibanza bibiri icyarimwe cyane cyane ko Mugabo ntaho ahuriye n’ikibanza nº 3554 Miravumba yita icye. [8] Me Buzayire Angèle uburanira Miravumba Olivier avuga ko umucamanza yagaragaje neza mu ngingo ya 11 y’urubanza rujuririrwa aho yahereye ku bwiregure bwa Miravumba ko ubwihutirwe bugaragazwa n’uko Ngabonziza na Mugabo bahawe kashe mpuruza ku rubanza RAD 0084/12/HC/KIG rwategetse Ikigo Gishinzwe Umutungo Kamere kubaha inyandiko mpamo z’ubutaka ku buryo baramutse banditsweho ibyo bibanza byatera Miravumba igihombo kidasubirwaho. [9] Avuga na none ko yagaragaje icyo gihombo ashingiye kw’ibaruwa yo kuwa 02/02/2012 Umunyamabanga Nshingwabikorwa w’Umurenge wa Kimironko yandikiye Miravumba n’iyo kuwa 05/03/2012 Umuyobozi w’Akarere ka Gasabo igaragaza ko hari ibikorwa by’ubwubatsi Miravumba yashyize muri ibyo bibanza, cyane cyane ko nawe agaragaza ko afite ibyangombwa yahawe n’inzego zibifitiye ububasha. NGABONZIZA NA MUGENZI WE v. MIRAVUMBA

Page 52

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 26

[10] Ku bijyanye n’uko umucamanza yabangamiye icibwa ry’urubanza mu mizi, Me BUZAYIRE avuga ko nta shingiro bifite kuko umucamanza yemeje ko irangizwa ry’urubanza RAD 0084/12/HC/KIG ryaba rihagaze kugeza igihe urubanza RAD 0092/13/HC/KIG ruzacibwa mu mizi yarwo, ubu rukaba rwaranahawe itariki y’inama ntegurarubanza yo kuwa 21/11/2013. Asanga na none mu kirego cy’iremezo Miravumba yararegeye gutambamira urubanza RAD 0084/12/HC/KIG, bitandukanye n’ibyo yaregeye mu kirego kihutirwa ahagarika irangizwa ryarwo. [11] Ku bijyanye n’inyungu Miravumba afite muri izi manza, zombi, Me Buzayire avuga ko urubanza rwatambamiwe ari urwa Ngabonziza, Mugabo n’Ikigo Gishinzwe Umutungo Kamere, akaba asanga ikibazo cy’ibibanza kizasuzumwa igihe cy’iburanisha ry’urubanza mu mizi. [12] Me Rubango Epimaque avuga ko nta kihutirwa kugirango urubanza RAD 0084/12/HC/KIG rurangizwe kuko igihe urubanza rurutambamira ruzacibwa aribwo Ikigo gishinzwe umutungo kamere mu Rwanda (RNRA) kizamenya uwo impapuro mpamo z’ubutakaka zigomba guhereraho.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [13] Ingingo ya 180 igika cya 4 y’Itegeko nº 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, iteganya ko “gutambamira urubanza rwaciwe ntibihagarika irangizwa ryarwo, keretse iyo rihagaritswe n’urukiko rwaregewe, bisabwe n’umuburanyi”, naho ingingo ya 320 igika cya mbere yaryo ikavuga ko “umucamanza uburanisha ibirego

Page 53

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 27

byihutirwa afata icyemezo ku bibazo byose byihutirwa, ariko mu buryo butabangamiye urubanza rw’iremezo mu mizi yarwo”. [14] Izi ngingo zumvikanisha ko kugirango irangizwa ry’urubanza rwatambamiwe rihagarare, umuburanyi agomba kubisaba urukiko rwaregewe, bivuze ko agomba no kugaragaza impamvu abisaba, umucamanza akazisuzuma akabona gufata icyemezo cy’agateganyo, ariko kitabangamiye icibwa ry’urubanza mu mizi. [15] Urukiko rurasanga mu rubanza ku kirego cyihutirwa rwajuririwe, umucamanza yaragaragaje ko byihutirwa guhagarika irangiza ry’urubanza RAD 0084/12/HC/KIG kubera ko rwamaze guterwaho kashe mpuruza ngo rurangizwe, ategeka ko irangizwa ryarwo ryaba rihagaze mu gihe urubanza RAD 0092/HC/13/KIG Miravumba yatanzemo ikirego kirutambamira ruburanisha mu mizi kubera ko nawe avuga ko afite ibyangombwa by’ubutaka bugiye gutangirwa impapuro mpamo n’Ikigo gishinzwe umutungo kamere mu Rwanda (RNRA). [16] Urukiko rurasanga rero icyo cyemezo kitabangamiye icibwa ry’urubanza mu mizi kuko ntacyo umucamanza yavuze ku byerekeranye n’ugomba guhambwa inyandiko mpamo z’ubutaka hagati ya Ngabonziza, Mugabo na Miravumba. [17] Ku byerekeranye n’igihombo Miravumba yaterwa no kurangiza urubanza RAD 0084/12/HC/KIG, urukiko rurasanga atari cyo cy’ibanze cyashingirwaho mu gutegeka ko irangizarubanza rihagarara, ahubwo, nk’uko urukiko rubanza rwabyemeje, byaba byiza rihagaritswe kugira ngo hamenyekane koko ugomba guhabwa ibyangombwa by’ibibanza bivugwa, NGABONZIZA NA MUGENZI WE v. MIRAVUMBA

Page 54

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 28

ibyo bikaba bizaburanwa igihe cy’iburanisha ry’urubanza mu mizi. [18] Hashingiwe rero kubimaze kuvugwa, urukiko rurasanga ubujurire bwatanzwe na Ngabonziza na Mugabo nta shingiro bufite. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [19] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Ngabonziza Bosco na Mugabo Semahore Jules ku rubanza RADA 0094/13/HC/KIG rugamije guhagarika irangizwa ry’urubanza

RADA 0084/12/HC/KIG nta shingiro bufite. [20] Rutegetse Ngabonziza Bosco na Mugabo Semahore Jules gufatanya kwishyura amafaranga 14.200 y’amagarama y’urubanza, batayatanga ayo mafaranga agakurwa mu byabo ku ngufu za Leta.

Page 55

IMANZA Z’IMBONEZAMUBANO

Page 57

ACCESS BANK Ltd v. NGARAMBE NA MUGENZI WE; MUCUMBITSI v. ACCESS BANK Ltd [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RCAA 0088/11/CS & RCA 0179/12/HC/KIG (Mugenzi, P.J., N. Munyangeri na G. Gatete, J.) 15 Ugushyingo 2013] Amategeko agenga ububasha bw’Inkiko – Ubusobekerane bw’imanza – Imanza zifitanye isano rumwe rweraregewe Urukiko rwisumbuye kurwaregewe urundi – Mu gihe bigaragara ko imikirize ya rumwe ishobora kubangamira urundi, izo manza ziba zifitanye isano kandi zigomba guhuzwa zikaburanishirizwa hamwe – Itegeko Ngenga nº 51/2008 ryo kuwa 09/09/2008 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha bw’Inkiko nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu, ingingo ya 153. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano – Ubujurire – Imbibi z’icyajuririwe – Guca urubanza ku ngingo zajuririwe mu bujurire bw’ibanze cyangwa mu bujurire bwuririye ku bundi – Gutesha agaciro amasezerano y’ubugwate kandi icyasabwe ari iseswa rya cyamunara, bifatwa nko guca urubanza ku kitaregewe. Amategeko agenga ingwate – Ingwate ku mutungo utimukanwa – Agaciro k’amasezerano y’ingwate atanditse mu gitabo cyandikwamo ingwate ku mutungo utimukanwa mu biro by’Umwanditsi Mukuru, yashyizweho umukono mbere y’Itegeko nº 10/2009 ryo kuwa 14/05/2009 ryerekeye ubugwate ku mutungo utimukanwa – Amasezerano yose y’ubugwate yakozwe mbere y’uko iryo tegeko ritangira gukurikizwa akomeza kugira 31

Page 58

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 32

agaciro kayo – Itegeko Nº 13/2010 ryo kuwa 07/05/2010 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko nº 10/2009 ryo kuwa 14/05/2009 ryerekeye ubugwate ku mutungo utimukanwa, ingingo ya 4. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano – Cyamunara – Kugurisha icyagwatirijwe bitagombye urubanza – Urwego rutanga icyemezo kigomba gushingirwaho mu kugurisha icyagwatirijwe bitagombye urubanza hashingiwe ku masezerano y’ubugwate yasinyiwe imbere ya Noteri kandi yashyizweho inyandikompuruza ariko kitanditswe mu gitabo cyandikwamo ingwate ku mutungo utimukanwa mu biro by’Umwanditsi Mukuru – Icyemezo cya Perezida w’Urukiko nicyo gishingirwaho kugirango cyamunara ibeho, kuko impande zombi zitashoboraga kwiyambaza servisi z’Umwanditsi Mukuru mu gihe muri “Registry” ye umutungo wagombaga kugurishwa utagaragaramo – Itegeko nº 10/2009 ryo kuwa 14/05/2009 ryerekeye ubugwate ku mutungo utimukanwa nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe n’Itegeko nº 13/2010 ryo kuwa 07/05/2010, ingingo ya 26. Amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa – Indishyi – Isubizwa ry’igiciro cy’inzu iburanwa n’inyungu zayo – Amafaranga yishyuwe ku nguzanyo – Indishyi zikomoka ku gihombo cy’ubukode bw’inzu – Indishyi z’akababaro – Indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’Avoka – Umuburanyi wahawe inguzanyo na Banki ntasubizwa amafaranga y’umufuragiro acibwa ku nguzanyo (flat fees) kuko usanzwe udasubizwa – Indishyi zijyanye n’ amafaranga y’ubukode yavukijwe zigenwa hashingiwe ku gaciro k’inzu, ku gihe gishize n’aho iherereye – Uwafatiriwe agomba guha Uwaguze mu cyamunara indishyi zikubiyemo amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’Avoka ku nzego zose

Page 59

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 33

z’iburanisha agenwe mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko – Itegeko Nº 45/2011 ryo kuwa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, ingingo ya 89 – Itegeko ryo kuwa 30 Nyakanga 1888, rigenga ibyerekeye imirimo nshinganwa cyangwa amasezerano, ingingo ya 258. Incamake y’ikibazo: ACCESS BANK yajuririye urubanza rw’Urukiko Rukuru ivuga ko itishimiye icyemezo cyarwo gihindura icyemezo cy’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwari rwemeje ko cyamunara y’inzu uregwa Ngarambe yatanzeho ingwate ikagurwa na Mucumbitsi igumaho. Urukiko Rukuru rwo rwemeje ko ivaho ndetse runabimucira indishyi nyamara ngo nta muburanyi n’umwe wigeze aregera gutesha agaciro ingwate yatanzwe kuko ikirego cya Ngarambe cyari kigamije gutesha agaciro cyamunara, aho gutesha agaciro amasezerano ku ngwate yari yatanzwe kandi ko n’iyo kiza kuba ikibazo cyaregewe, hari kwitabwa ku Itegeko Nº 10/2009 ryo kuwa 14/05/2009 riha agaciro amasezerano y’ubugwate ku mitungo itimukanwa yakozwe mbere y’uko ritangazwa. Mu rundi rubanza RCA 0179/12/HC/KIG mu Rukiko Rukuru, Mucumbitsi yajuriyemo arega ACCESS BANK, asaba ko mu gihe Urukiko rwakwemeza ko cyamunara iseswa ACCESS BANK ari nayo yajuriye mu rubanza RCAA 0088/11/CS mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga yamusubiza ikiguzi cy’inzu yaguze mu cyamunara ndetse ikanabimuhera indishyi z’igihombo cy’amafaranga y’ubukode bw’inzu yagombaga kuba yarishyuwe, iz’izakababaro, ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’avoka. Hagati aho mbere y’imiburanishirize y’urubanza mu mizi, ACCESS BANK ivuga ko isanga imanza zombi zifitanye isano maze igasaba ko zahuzwa zikaburanishirizwa mu rubanza rumwe naho Mucumbitsi na Ngarambe bakavuga ko zidakwiye ACCESS BANK Ltd v. NGARAMBE

Page 60

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 34

guhuzwa kuko nta sano zifitanye.Mu kwiregura mu mizi y’urubanza, Ngarambe avuga ko nta bugwate ku bintu bitimukanwa bubaho butanditse mu gitabo cy’inyandiko z’ubutaka bityo agasobanura ko cyamunara itubahirije amategeko kubera ko uburyo bwo kugurisha icyagwatirijwe bitagombye urubanza butashoboraga gukoreshwa kubera ko nta ngwate yanditse (enregistré) yariho, ndetse Perezida w’Urukiko atari agifite ububasha bwo gufata icyemezo cyo guteza cyamunara kubera ko Itegeko ryo kuwa 15/05/1922 ryari ryaravanyweho n’itegeko nº 10/2009 ryo kuwa 14/05/2009 ryerekeye ubugwate ku mutungo utimukanwa, ku bw’izo mpamvu uwagombaga gutanga uburenganzira akaba yari Umwanditsi Mukuru; bityo Banki ikaba igomba kwirengera ingaruka zose zo gutanga inguzanyo kandi ingwate itandikishije. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ruramutse rwemeje ko cyamunara nta nenge ifite uwaguze akegukana inzu, hagati aho icyemezo cy’Urukiko Rukuru kikamusubiza ikiguzi cyayo, haba habayeho ibyemezo bibiri bitandukanye ku kiburanwa kimwe, akaba ariyo mpamvu izi manza zifitanye isano kandi zigomba guhuzwa zikaburanishirizwa hamwe.

2. Umucamanza yaciye urubanza ku kitaregewe atesha agaciro amasezerano y’ubugwate kandi atabisabwe.

3. Itegeko Nº 10/2009 ryo kuwa 14/05/2009 ryerekeye ubugwate ku mutungo utimukanwa ryateganyije ko amasezerano yose y’ubugwate yakozwe mbere y’uko iryo tegeko ritangira gukurikizwa akomeza kugira agaciro kayo, bityo amasezerano y’ubugwate yashyizweho umukono imbere ya Noteri yashingiweho muri cyamunara yari afite agaciro kayo nk’uko Itegeko Nº 13/2010 ryo kuwa 07/05/2010 rihindura

Page 61

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 35

kandi ryuzuza Itegeko nº 10/2009 ryo kuwa 14/05/2009 ryerekeye ubugwate ku mutungo utimukanwa ryabiteganyije.

4. Cyamunara yakozwe mu buryo amategeko ateganya, kubera ko amasezerano y’ubugwate yasinywe imbere ya Noteri kandi agatezwaho inyandikompuruza mbere y’uko ikorwa.

5. Nta kosa Banki yakoze isaba icyemezo cyo guteza cyamunara, kubera ko yagisabye kugirango hubahirizwe amasezerano kandi na cyamunara ikaba yarabaye mu buryo amategeko ateganya, kugirango hishyurwe inguzanyo yari yatanze.

6. Frais sur crédit na commission d’intervention ni amafaranga y’umufuragiro (flat fees) udasubizwa, ku bw’iyo mpamvu akaba atagomba gusubizwa.

7. Mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko kandi hanashingiwe ku mategeko agenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa; Ngarambe agomba guha Mucumbitsi amafaranga y’ubukode yavukijwe abariwe ku bukode bwa buri kwezi bugenwe hashingiwe ku gaciro k’inzu n’aho iherereye mu gihe cy’amezi 41.

8. Mu bushishozi bwarwo kandi hashingiwe ku Itegeko rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, Ngarambe agomba guha Mucumbitsi indishyi zikubiyemo amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’Avoka ku nzego zose z’iburanisha; rusanga ariko adakwiye kugenerwa indishyi z’akababaro mu gihe yagenewe indishyi zijyanye n’igihombo yatejwe. Ubujurire mu manza zombi bufite ishingiro. Uwafatiriwe umutungo agomba kwishyura indishyi uwaguze mu cyamunara. ACCESS BANK Ltd v. NGARAMBE

Page 62

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 36

Cyamunara igumyeho n’inzu yegukanwe n’uwaguze mu cyamunara. Urubanza RCA 0156/11/HC/KIG ruhindutse mu ngingo zarwo zose. Amagarama aherereye ku wafatiriwe umutungo. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Ngenga nº 51/2008 ryo kuwa 09/09/2008 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha bw’Inkiko nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu, ingingo ya 153. Itegeko Nº 13/2010 ryo kuwa 07/05/2010 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko nº 10/2009 ryo kuwa 14/05/2009 ryerekeye ubugwate ku mutungo utimukanwa, ingingo ya 4, 26. Itegeko Nº 45/2011 ryo kuwa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, ingingo ya 89. Itegeko ryo kuwa 30 Nyakanga 1888, rigenga ibyerekeye imirimo nshinganwa cyangwa amasezerano, ingingo ya 258. Nta manza zifashishijwe: Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Kuwa 31/10/2008, ACCESS BANK Ltd (yitwaga

BANCOR S.A.) yagiranye amasezerano na

THEME ENTREPRESE SARL agamije guha iyo sosiyete inguzanyo ingana na Frw 41.000.000, maze NGARAMBE Emmanuel uyiyobora atanga ingwate (tiers constituant) igizwe n’inzu ye iri muri parseli nº 4650/Remera, ikaba yaraje gutezwa cyamunara kubera ko iyo sosiyete itari yubahirije amasezerano y’ubwishyu.

Page 63

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 37

[2] Ngarambe Emmanuel yareze ACCESS BANK Ltd mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo, asaba gutesha agaciro cyamunara y’iyo nzu yakozwe kuwa 25/04/2010. Ku itariki ya 28/03/2011, urwo Rukiko rwemeje ko ikirego cya Ngarambe Emmanuel nta shingiro gifite, kubera ko impamvu zose yaburanishaga zirimo iyo kuba ubugwate butari bwanditse, iyo gushingira ku itegeko ryavuyeho mu guteza cyamunara iyo nzu, no kuba hatarabanje kurebwa imitungo itimukanwa ya THEME ENTREPRISE zitahawe agaciro. [3] Ngarambe Emmanuel yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru, ikirego gihabwa nimero RCA 0156/11/HC/KIG. Urwo Rukiko rwemeje kuwa 14/07/2011 ko imikirize y’urubanza RC 0171/10/TGI/Gsbo ihindutse mu ngingo zarwo zose, rutegeka ko icyamunara cyakozwe giteshwa agaciro, runategeka kandi ACCESS BANK Ltd kuriha Ngarambe Emmanuel indishyi zingana na Frw 500.000. Ibisobanuro Urukiko Rukuru rwashingiyeho mu gufata icyo cyemezo: [4] Umucamanza w’Urukiko Rukuru yasanze uw’Urukiko Rwisumbuye yarasesenguye nabi ingingo ya 19 y’Itegeko ryo kuwa 15/05/1922 ryerekeye ubugwate ku bintu bitimukanwa, iteganya ko “nta bugwate ku bintu bitimukanwa bubaho butanditse mu gitabo cy’inyandiko z’ubutaka .....”. Umucamanza yasanze umuhango simusiga (formalité substantielle) wo kwandikisha ingwate mu gitabo cy’inyandiko z’ubutaka na nubu uriho, ibi kandi ngo bikaba ari nabyo biteganywa n’igika cya mbere cy’ingingo ya 4 y’itegeko n°10/2009 ryo kuwa 14/05/2009 ryerekeye ingwate ku mutungo utimukanwa iteganya ko “... ubugwate bugira agaciro iyo bwanditse mu gitabo cyandikwamo ingwate ku mutungo ACCESS BANK Ltd v. NGARAMBE

Page 64

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 38

utimukanwa mu biro by’Umwanditsi Mukuru”. Umucamanza yashimangiye ko iyi ngingo itahinduwe mu Itegeko n°13/2010 ryo kuwa 14/05/2010 rihindura kandi ryuzuza itegeko n°10/2009 ryo kuwa 14/05/2009, ku bw’izo mpamvu, ACCESS BANK ikaba yaragize amakosa n’uburangare ntiyandikishe ingwate, kandi ariwo muhango simusiga uha agaciro ubugwate. [5] Urwo rubanza rumaze gucibwa, ACCESS BANK Ltd yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ikirego cyayo gihabwa nimero RCAA 0088/11/CS, ariko hagati aho hagaragaye ko hari urundi rubanza RCA 179/12/HC/KIG bifitanye isano rwari mu Rukiko Rukuru Dr Mucumbitsi Joseph yarezemo ACCESS BANK Ltd, Umucamanza akaba yarafashe icyemezo kuwa 28/03/2013 cyo kuruhuza n’uru rubanza RCAA 0088/11/CS Banki yari yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, akaba arirwo rwaje kuburanishwa ku itariki ya 15/10/2013. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO. A. Isuzuma ry’inzitizi yabyukijwe n’ababuranira Ngarambe na Dr Mucumbitsi ijyanye no kudahuza imanza zombi kuko ngo nta sano zifitanye. [6] Dr Mucumbitsi J., avuga ko nta sano iri mu manza ziburanwa; Me Karongozi umwunganira nawe akunga murye avuga ko Dr Mucumbitsi asaba Banki gusubizwa rwf 42.270.000 yaguze inzu mu cyamunara, akanasaba indishyi zerekeranye n’ikurikirarubanza n’iz’akababaro, naho Ngarambe we agasaba ko cyamunara yakozwe ivanwaho. Icyo ngo Banki igamije mu gusaba ihuzwa ry’imanza, ni ukugirango Dr Mucumbitsi ajye kwishyuza Ngarambe, mu gihe yo yamaze

Page 65

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 39

kwakira sheki yaguzwe inzu mu cyamunara, Mucumbitsi akaba ubu anishyura Ecobank umwenda w’inzu yagurijwe ariko kugeza ubu atigeze atunga. [7] Me Bigaraba John uhagarariye Ngarambe E. asobanura ko nta sano abona imanza zifitanye, kubera ko kugirango habeho urusobekerane (connexité), ababuranyi bagomba kuba ari bamwe, ikiburanwa ari kimwe n’impamvu ari imwe, muri izi manza akaba atariko bimeze, kuko hasabwa gukemura ibibazo bitandukanye. [8] Me Buzayire Angèle uburanira Banki asobanura ko imanza zombi zifitanye isano, kubera ko ikirego cya Ngarambe E. kigamije kuvanaho cyamunara y’inzu yatanzeho ingwate, icya Dr Mucumbitsi J. nacyo kikaba aricyo kigamije (résolution de la vente publique), usibye ko anasaba indishyi zinyuranye. [9] Kuri iki kibazo, Urukiko rusanga isano ivugwa muri uru rubanza iva ku mpamvu z’uko inzu ya Ngarambe Emmanuel yatanzweho ingwate ku nguzanyo yatanzwe na ACCESS BANK yaje gutezwa cyamunara, igurwa na Dr Mucumbitsi Joseph, yishyura ACCESS BANK igiciro cyayo ariko uwaguze ntiyegurirwa inzu, ahubwo Ngarambe Emmanuel ahita arega ACCESS BANK asaba ko cyamunara iseswa kuko yasanze hari ibyo ubugwate ndetse na cyamunara bitubahirije; nyuma yo kudashyikirizwa inzu, Dr Mucumbitsi akaba nawe yarahise arega ACCESS BANK asaba ko cyamunara yaseswa kugirango asubirane amafaranga yari yatanze. [10] Urukiko rero rusanga imanza zombi zifitanye isano nkuko ingingo ya 153 y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº 51/2008 ryo kuwa 09/09/2008 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha bw’Inkiko nkuko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu ibiteganya, ACCESS BANK Ltd v. NGARAMBE

Page 66

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 40

kubera ko imikirize ya rumwe ishobora kubangamira icyemezo cy’urundi, mu gihe hasuzumwa niba cyamunara yabaye yarakurikije amategeko, kuko uru Rukiko ruramutse rwemeje ko cyamunara nta nenge ifite uwaguze akegukana inzu, hagati aho icyemezo cy’Urukiko Rukuru kikamusubiza ikiguzi cyayo, haba habayeho ibyemezo bibiri bitandukanye ku kiburanwa kimwe, akaba ariyo mpamvu izi manza zifitanye isano zigomba guhuzwa zikaburanishirizwa hamwe nk’uko ingingo y’Itegeko Ngenga yavuzwe haruguru ibiteganya. B. Ku bijyanye n’urubanza mu mizi. Ikibazo cyo kumenya niba amasezerano y’ubugwate yasinywe hagati ya ACCESS BANK Ltd na Ngarambe Emmanuel nta gaciro afite kubera ko atanditse (registered). [11] Me Buzayire A. afatanyije na Me Rukangira E. baburanira ACCESS BANK Ltd bavuga ko umucamanza yemeje ko Banki yagize uburangare n’amakosa ntiyandikisha ingwate kandi kuyandikisha ari umuhango uha agaciro ubugwate, anaherako atesha agaciro ubugwate bwari bwatanzwe, ibyo ngo bikaba binyuranyije n’ibyo amategeko ateganya (ingingo ya 170 CPCSSA) kubera ko “Urukiko rujuririwe ruburanisha gusa ubujurire mu mbibi z’icyajuririwe, rugafata icyemezo ku ngingo zatumye uwatanze ubujurire ajurira cyangwa uwabwuririyeho nawe ajurira”, nyamara ngo rukaba rwarafashe icyemezo cyo gutesha agaciro ubugwate, icyo cyemezo kikaba nta shingiro gifite kuko nta muburanyi n’umwe wigeze aregera gutesha agaciro ingwate yatanzwe : bavuga ko ikirego cya Ngarambe cyari kigamije gutesha agaciro cyamunara, kitari icyo gutesha agaciro amasezerano y’ubugwate yari yatanzwe.

Page 67

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 41

[12] Basobanura ko n’iyo kiza kuba ikibazo cyaregewe hari kwitabwa ku ngingo ya 26 y’Itegeko Nº 10/2009 ryo kuwa 14/05/2009 ryavuzwe haruguru riha agaciro amasezerano y’ubugwate ku mitungo itimukanwa yakozwe mbere yuko ritangazwa, umucamanza waciye urubanza rwajuririwe akaba ataragombaga kureba niba kwandikisha ingwate byarabayeho cyangwa bitarabayeho, kubera ko itegeko rivuga ko amasezerano akomeza kugira agaciro kugeza igihe arangiriye. Ikindi cyashimangiwe, nuko Ngarambe atakwitwaza ingingo ya 19 y’Itegeko ryo kuwa 15/05/1922 ryavuzwe haruguru ngo asabe ko cyamunara iseswa azi neza ko ariwe wagize uburiganya ingwate ntiyandikishwe na Banki ntiyishyurwe, akaba ariyo mpamvu agomba kwirengera ingaruka zose. [13] Me Bigaraba J. uburanira Ngarambe E. we ashimangira ko ingingo ya 19 y’Itegeko ryo kuwa 15/05/1922 ryerekeye ubugwate ku bintu bitimukanwa, yateganyaga ko “nta bugwate ku bintu bitimukanwa bubaho butanditse mu gitabo cy’inyandiko z’ubutaka .....”. Ibi kandi ngo bikaba biteganywa n’igika cya mbere cy’ingingo ya 4, y’itegeko n° 10/2009 ryo kuwa 14/05/2009 ryerekeye ingwate ku mutungo utimukanwa nkuko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu mu magambo akurikira: “byitwa ko ubugwate bufite agaciro iyo bwanditse mu gitabo cyandikwamo ingwate ku mutungo utimukanwa mu biro by’Umwanditsi Mukuru”, ku bw’izo mpamvu ngo ACCESS BANK ikaba yaragize amakosa n’uburangare ntiyandikishe ingwate kandi ari umuhango uha agaciro ubugwate. Avuga ko Banki igomba kwirengera ingaruka zose zo gutanga inguzanyo kandi ingwate itandikishije. [14] Urukiko rurasanga koko Umucamanza yaraciye urubanza ku kitaregewe agatesha agaciro amaserano ACCESS BANK Ltd v. NGARAMBE

Page 68

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 42

y’ubugwate kandi atabisabwe, anemeza kandi atari byo ko ayo masezerano atari yanditse, mu gihe dosiye igaragaza ko yashyizweho umukono imbere ya Noteri ku itariki ya 04/11/2008. Kubera rero ko ingingo ya 26 y’Itegeko Nº 10/2009 ryo kuwa 14/05/2009 ryerekeye ubugwate ku mutungo utimukanwa yateganyije ko amasezerano yose y’ubugwate yakozwe mbere yuko iryo tegeko ritangira gukurikizwa (15/05/2009) akomeza kugira agaciro kayo, kandi ko yari yahawe kugeza tariki ya 14/05/2011 kugirango abayasinyiye bayashyikirize Umwanditsi Mukuru, ibi bishatse kuvuga ko igihe cyamunara yabaga ku itariki ya 25/04/2010, yari afite agaciro kayo nk’uko ingingo ya 4 y’Itegeko Nº 13/2010 ryo kuwa 07/05/2010 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko nº 10/2009 ryo kuwa 14/05/2009 ryerekeye ubugwate ku mutungo utimukanwa yabiteganyije. Ikibazo cyo kumenya niba cyamunara yarakozwe amategeko yubahirijwe. [15] Me Bigaraba J. uburanira Ngarambe E. asobanura ko cyamunara itubahirije amategeko kubera ko “procédure de vente par voie parée” itashoboraga gukoreshwa kubera ko nta ngwate yanditse (enregistré) yariho. Ikindi yasobanuye nuko Perezida w’Urukiko atari agifite ububasha bwo gufata icyemezo cyo guteza cyamunara kubera ko Itegeko ryo kuwa 15/05/1922 ryari ryaravanyweho n’itegeko nº 10/2009 ryo kuwa 14/05/2009 ryerekeye ubugwate ku mutungo utimukanwa, ku bw’izo mpamvu uwagombaga gutanga uburenganzira akaba yari Umwanditsi Mukuru. [16] Kuri iki kibazo, Urukiko rusanga ibyo bisobanuro nta gaciro byahabwa kubera impamvu zikurikira:

Page 69

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 43

1. Cyamunara yakozwe ku itariki ya 25/04/2010 igihe amasezerano ateganya “procédure de vente par voie parée” yari afite agaciro, kuko abayagiranye bari bafite inshingano zo kuyashyikiriza Umwanditsi Mukuru bitarenze tariki ya 14/05/2011 (mu gihe cy’imyaka 2).

2. Kuvuga ko “procédure de vente par voie parée” yavanyweho n’Itegeko nº 10/2009 ryo kuwa 14/05/2009 ryerekeye ubugwate ku mutungo utimukanwa byaba ari ukwirengagiza ko amasezerano y’ubugwate iyo “procédure” ishingiyeho yagumanye agaciro ihawe n’iryo tegeko mu ngingo yayo ya 26 yasobanuwe mu bika bibanziriza iki, icyemezo cya Perezida w’Urukiko kikaba aricyo cyagombaga gushingirwaho kugirango cyamunara ibeho, kuko impande zombi zitashoboraga kwiyambaza servisi z’Umwanditsi Mukuru mu gihe muri “Registry” ye umutungo wagombaga kugurishwa utagaragaramo. [17] Nyuma y’ibimaze gusobanurwa rero, Urukiko rusanga cyamunara yarakozwe mu buryo amategeko ateganya, kubera ko yasinywe imbere ya Noteri kandi agatezwaho kashe mpuruza kuwa 12/11/2009 mbere y’uko cyamunara iba kuwa 25/04/2010, akaba ariyo mpamvu igomba guhamana agaciro kayo, kuko inzu ya Ngarambe yatejwe aruko THEME ENTREPRESE yari yananiwe kwishyura inguzanyo yari yahawe nkuko byari byasezeranywe. Ku byerekeye ubujurire bwa Dr Mucumbitsi Joseph. Ikibazo cyo kumenya niba hari igihombo ACCESS BANK Ltd yateje Dr Mucumbitsi Joseph. ACCESS BANK Ltd v. NGARAMBE

Page 70

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 44

[18] Me Karongozi André Martin afatanyije na Me Nubumwe Jean Bosco, basobanura ko Banki yahawe amafaranga mu cyamunara, ariko uwo bahagarariye waguze akaba atarahawe inzu, kandi Banki ariyo yasabye icyemezo cy’urukiko cyo guteza cyamunara ikagihabwa, ku bw’izo mpamvu bakaba babona ko ifite uruhare rukomeye mu gihombo Dr Mucumbitsi J. yagize, kubera ko atahawe icyo yaguze. [19] Me Buzayire Angèle na Me Rukangira Emmanuel bo siko babibona, kubera ko nta masezerano y’ubugure (contrat de vente) Dr Mucumbitsi J. yagiranye na Banki, kuko yegukanye inzu mu ipiganwa rya cyamunara, ku bw’izo mpamvu ikaba ntacyo yaryozwa. [20] Urukiko rusanga nta kosa Banki yakoze isaba icyemezo cyo guteza cyamunara, kubera ko yagisabye kugirango hubahirizwe amasezerano (ingingo ya 33 C.C.L.III), cyamunara ikaba yarabaye mu buryo amategeko ateganya, kugirango hishyurwe inguzanyo yari yatanze, abahagarariye Dr Mucumbitsi bakaba batagaragaza uruhare rwa Banki mu gihombo ubu afite cyo kudatunga icyo yaguze mu cyamunara. Kuba Banki yaratanze ikirego mu Rukiko kugirango ayo masezerano ahamane agaciro kayo, byerekana ahubwo ko ari inzira yatangije (diligence) igamije guhesha Dr Mucumbitsi uburyo bwo gushobora kwisanzura (jouissance) ku mutungo yegukanye mu cyamunara. Ku bijyanye n’indishyi zinyuranye Dr Mucumbitsi Joseph asaba ACCESS BANK Ltd na Ngarambe Emmanuel. [21] Me Karongozi A.M. uhagarariye Dr Mucumbitsi asaba ko yasubizwa igiciro cy’inzu yari yaguze n’indishyi zihwanye na rwf 39.059.179; mu gihe Urukiko rutegetse ko cyamunara

Page 71

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 45

igumana agaciro kayo, Dr Mucumbitsi agasubizwa inzu ye, ACCESS BANK Ltd igafatanya na Ngarambe Emmanuel kumuha indishyi zihwanye na rwf 39.059.179 (principal et intérêts) yishyuye Ecobank kugeza kuwa 05/09/2013, amafaranga yishyuwe kugirango inguzanyo itangwe ahwanye na rwf 3.660.000, rwf 10.000.000 y’indishyi z’akababaro na rwf 11.391.988 akubiyemo ay’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka. [22] Me Buzayire Angèle na Me Rukangira Emmanuel bahagarariye Banki basobanura ko ntacyo Banki yaryozwa kubera ko ntacyo yangirije Dr Mucumbitsi Joseph. [23] Nk’uko byasobanuwe, Urukiko rusanga kuba kugeza magingo aya Dr Mucumbitsi atarabona inzu ye yaguze, nyirabayazana w’izo ngorane ari Ngarambe Emmanuel washoje imanza asaba gusesa cyamunara yakozwe, kandi nyamara hubahirijwe amategeko nkuko byasobanuwe, akaba agomba kwirengera indishyi zijyanye n’icyo gihombo (ingingo ya 258 C.C. L.III). [24] Urukiko rusanga mu ndishyi Dr Mucumbitsi asaba, hakubiyemo rwf 3.660.000 (frais sur crédit & commission d’intervention): usibye ko nta n’ibimenyetso byayo yagaragaje, rusanga ayo mafaranga ari umufuragiro (flat fees) udasubizwa, kandi nawe yiyemerera ko yabonye inguzanyo, ku bw’izo mpamvu akaba atagomba kuyasubizwa mu gihe yegukanye ibyo yaguze. [25] Ku bijyanye n’igihombo yatejwe no kutabona inzu yaguze, Urukiko rusanga mu bushishozi bwarwo Ngarambe Emmanuel agomba guha Dr Mucumbitsi amafaranga y’ubukode yavukijwe ahwanye na rwf 12.300.000, ni ukuvuga rwf 300.000 ACCESS BANK Ltd v. NGARAMBE

Page 72

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 46

buri kwezi mu gihe cy’amezi 41, ubwo bukode bwa buri kwezi bukaba bugenwe hashingiwe ku gaciro k’inzu gasaga rwf 42.000.000, naho iherereye mu Kagari ka Bibare, Umurenge wa Kimironko mu Karere ka Gasabo – Umujyi wa Kigali (ingingo ya 258 C.C. L.III n’iya 89 y’Itegeko Nº 45/2011 ryo kuwa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano). [26] Urukiko rusanga na none mu bushishozi bwarwo, Ngarambe agomba guha Dr Mucumbitsi Joseph rwf 1.000.000 akubiyemo amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka ku nzego zose z’iburanisha (ingingo ya 258 C.C. L.III); rusanga ariko adakwiye kugenerwa indishyi z’akababaro mu gihe yagenewe indishyi zijyanye n’igihombo yatejwe. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [27] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa ACCESS BANK Ltd n’ubwa Dr Mucumbitsi Joseph bufite ishingiro; [28] Rukijije ko Ngarambe Emmanuel atsinzwe; [29] Rutegetse Ngarambe Emmanuel guha Dr Mucumbitsi Joseph indishyi zihwanye na rwf 13.300.000 uru rubanza rukimara gusomwa; [30] Rumutegetse no kuriha amagarama ahwanye na rwf 32.400 uru rubanza rukimara gusomwa. [31] Rutegetse ko cyamunara yakozwe hagurishwa inzu iri mu kibanza nº 4650 i Remera – Bibare ihamanye agaciro kayo, inzu yaguzwe ikegukana nyirayo Dr Mucumbitsi Joseph;

Page 73

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 47

[32] Ruvuze ko imikirize y’urubanza RCA 0156/11/HC/KIG rwaciwe kuwa 14/07/2011 ihindutse mu ngingo zarwo zose.

ACCESS BANK Ltd v. NGARAMBE

Page 75

MUKABARUNGI v. GATSINZI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RCAA 0007/13/CS (Kayitesi Z., P.J., Munyangeri na Hitiyaremye, J.)17 Mata 2014] Amategeko agenga umuryango – Ubutane – Igabana ry’umutungo mu gihe abashakanye basezeranye ivangamutungo rusange – Umutungo washatswe n’umwe mu bashakanye nyuma yo kutabana by’agateganyo – Kutabana by’agateganyo bijyana buri gihe n’ivanguramutungo, ingaruka zabyo zigatangira gukurikizwa umunsi ikirego cyashyikirijweho Urukiko – Umutungo umwe mu bashakanye yabonye ivangamutungo ryararangiye ntubarirwa mu mutungo ugabanwa – Itegeko No 42/1988 ryo kuwa 27/10/1988 rishyiraho Interuro y’Ibanze n‘Igitabo cya mbere cy’Urwunge rw’Amategeko Mbonezamubano, ingingo ya 289. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza mbonezamubano – Indishyi – Gushorwa mu manza – Nta ndishyi bitangirwa mu gihe uzisaba atagaragarije Urukiko uko yazibaze kandi bikagaragara ko uwajuririye urubanza rwamutsinze atari agamije kumushora mu manza. Incamake y’ikibazo: Mukabarungi yatanze ikirego cy’ubutane mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Saint Brieue rwo mu Bufaransa kuwa 28/06/2000 asaba gutandukana na Gatsinzi. Urwo Rukiko rufata icyemezo cy’uko kwiyunga kunaniranye (ordonance de non conciliation), ariko rutegeka ko batandukanye by’agateganyo (séparation de corps). Nyuma y’aho, yatanze ikirego mu 49

Page 76

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 50

Rukiko rwa mbere rw’iremezo rwa Kigali asaba ubutane. Uru Rukiko rutegeka ko batandukanye kandi rubagabanya ku buryo bungana imitungo bafatanyije. Mukabarungi yajuriye mu Rukiko Rukuru avuga ko hari imitungo igizwe n’inzu ebyiri bafatanyije Urukiko rubanza rutabagabanyije. Mu gihe hari hagitegerejwe ko urubanza rucibwa yahise atanga ikirego cyihutirwa muri urwo Rukiko asaba guhabwa ibimutunga maze rutegeka Gatsinzi ko agomba kumugenera ibimutunga buri kwezi kugeza urubanza ruciwe; Gatsinzi yajuririye icyo cyemezo mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga hanyuma rwemeza ko ubujurire bwe butakiriwe kuko kujuririra urubanza rubanziriza urundi bikorerwa rimwe n’urubanza mu mizi. Mu rubanza rubanziriza urundi Urukiko Rukuru rwafashe icyemezo cyo gushyira hamwe umutungo wose uzagabanywa harimo n’inzu Urukiko rwa Mbere rw’Iremezo rutabagabanyije kugira ngo igabanywe nyuma yo kugenerwa agaciro n’abahanga. Gatsinzi yatambamiye icyo cyemezo mu izina ry’umwana we, avuga ko inzu iri mu kibanza n◦ 4423 i Remera III idakwiye gushyirwa mu mutungo w’umuryango kubera ko yayihaye uwo mwana kandi ko ayifitiye ibyangombwa bimwanditseho. Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko iyo inzu ivanwe mu mutungo ugomba kugabanywa. Muri 2013, Urukiko Rukuru rwaciye mu mizi urubanza RCA0039/05/HC/KIG maze rwemeza ko Gatsinzi na Mukabarungi bagomba kugabana imitungo yose buri wese agatwara kimwe cya kabiri, uretse ikibanza no4423 n’inzu irimo kuko Gatsinzi yabihaye umwana we witwa Irebe Gatsinzi Lars

Page 77

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 51

ubifitiye ibyangombwa nkuko byemejwe n’urubanza rutambamirwa. Mukabarungi yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko inzu iri mu kibanza n◦ 4423 i Remera III yakuwe mu mutungo bagomba kugabana kandi ari umutungo w’umuryango kuko n’aho waba waraguzwe nyuma y’uko habayeho kutabana by’agateganyo, ariko ukomoka mu mutungo rusange. Gatsinzi we avuga ko iyo nzu idakwiye gushyirwa mu mitungo igabanwa kuko yawuhashye atakibana na Mukabarungi akaba rero yari afite uburenganzira bwo kuwugenera Irebe Gatsinzi Lars unawufitiye ibyangombwa. Uburanira Gatsinzi yatanze inzitizi avuga ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rudafite ububasha bwo kuburanisha ibirego by’imitungo ishamikiye ku birego remezo by’ubutane, rwo rufata icyemezo ko rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha ibyo birego. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Kutabana by’agateganyo ku bashakanye bijyana buri gihe n’ivanguramutungo, uko kutabana kukaba gufatwa nk’aho kwatangiye gukurikizwa umunsi ikirego cyashyikirijwe Urukiko, bivuga ko uwo mutungo wabonetse ivangamutungo ryararangiye ugomba gufatwa nk’umutungo bwite wa Gatsinzi utagomba kugabanwa, bityo akaba yari afite uburenganzira bwo kuwukoresha uko ashaka.

2. Uregera indishyi zo gushorwa mu manza ntazihabwa mu gihe atagaragarije Urukiko uko yazibaze kandi bikanagaragara ko uwajuririye urubanza rwamutsinze atari agamije kumushora mu manza.

MUKABARUNGI v. GATSINZI

Page 78

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 52

Ubujurire nta shingiro bufite. Amagarama y’urubanza aherereye ku wajuriye. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko No 22/99 ryo kuwa 12/11/ 1999 ryuzuza igitabo cya mbere cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano kandi rishyiraho igice cya gatanu cyerekeye imicungire y’umutungo w’abashyingiranywe, impano n’izungura, ingingo ya 24. Itegeko No 42/1988 ryo kuwa 27/10/1988 rishyiraho Interuro y’Ibanze n‘Igitabo cya mbere cy’Urwunge rw’Amategeko Mbonezamubano, ingingo ya 289. Nta rubanza rwifashishijwe. Ibitekerezo by’abahanga byifashishijwe: Alain B., Droit Civil: La famille, Paris, Litec, 2003, p.274. Francois T. et Dominique F., Droit Civil: Les personnes, la famille et les incapacités, Paris, Dalloz, 1996, pp.451- 452. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko rwa Mbere rw’Iremezo rwa Kigali, Gatsinzi Marcel aregera ubutane. Mu rubanza RC 35.932/01 rwaciwe kuwa 04/02/2003, Urukiko rwemeje ubutane ku makosa ya Gatsinzi no ku makosa ya Mukabarungi, runabategeka kugabana ku buryo bungana

Page 79

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 53

imitungo bafatanyije igizwe n’inzu iri mu Kibanza no 3119 n’isambu iri Gasogi mu Mujyi wa Kigali. [2] Mukabarungi Julienne ntiyishimiye imikirize y’urubanza nuko ajuririra mu Rukiko Rukuru avuga ko hari imitungo afatanyije na Gatsinzi Urukiko rutabagabanyije, ko iyo mitungo igizwe n’inzu iri mu kibanza no 4423 i Remera III mu Mujyi wa Kigali, n’indi iri mu Kibanza no 4704 nayo iri i Remera III mu Mujyi wa Kigali. [3] Mu gihe hagitegerejwe ko urubanza rucibwa mu Rukiko Rukuru, Mukabarungi yatanze ikirego cyihutirwa muri urwo rukiko asaba guhabwa “pension alimentaire”. Urukiko Rukuru rwategetse Gatsinzi Marcel kuwa 18/08/2008 kujya aha Mukabarungi 80.000 Frw buri kwezi kugeza urubanza ruciwe. [4] Gatsinzi ntiyishimiye iki cyemezo nuko akijuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga. Mu cyemezo cy’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga cyo kuwa 17/03/2009, Urukiko rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Gatsinzi butakiriwe kubera ko yajuririye urubanza rubanziriza urundi kandi ingingo ya 163 y’Itegeko no 18/2004 ryo kuwa 20/06/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ivuga ko kujuririra urubanza rubanziriza urundi bikorwa gusa iyo urubanza rusoza iburanisha rurangiye kandi bigakorerwa rimwe. [5] Hagati aho Urukiko Rukuru rwafashe icyemezo cyo gushyira hamwe umutungo wose uzagabanywa harimo n’imitungo itaragabanywe mu Rukiko rwa Mbere rw’Iremezo kugira ngo igenerwe agaciro n’abahanga. MUKABARUNGI v. GATSINZI

Page 80

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 54

[6] Gatsinzi mu izina ry’umwana we witwa Irebe Gatsinzi Lars yatambamiye icyo cyemezo avuga ko inzu iri mu kibanza n◦ 4423 i Remera III idakwiye gushyirwa mu mutungo w’umuryango kubera ko yayihaye uwo mwana kandi ko uwo mwana ayifitiye ibyangombwa bimwanditseho. [7] Mu rubanza RCA 0099/10/HC/KIG rwaciwe kuwa 16/09/2010, Urukiko Rukuru rwasanze inzu iri mu kibanza n◦ 4423 i Remera III yanditse kuri Irebe Gatsinzi Lars nuko rwemeza ko ivanwe mu mutungo Gatsinzi Marcel na Mukabarungi Julienne bakwiye kugabana. [8] Mu rubanza RCA 0039/05/HC/KIG rwaciwe kuwa 03/05/2013, Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko Gatsinzi Marcel na Mukabarungi Julienne bagomba kugabana imitungo buri wese agatwara kimwe cya kabiri igizwe n’ikibanza no 3119 n’imitungo irimo biri mu Rugunga, ikibanza no 4707 n’inzu yubatsemo biri i Nyarutarama, isambu iri i Gasogi, byose mu Mujyi wa Kigali, uwo mutungo wose ukaba ufite agaciro kangana na 223.784.264 Frw. [9] Urukiko rwongeye kwemeza kandi ko ikibanza no 4423 n’inzu irimo bidakwiye kugabanywa Gatsinzi na Mukabarungi kubera ko icyo kibanza n’inzu yubatsemo Gatsinzi yabihaye umwana we witwa Irebe Gatsinzi Lars ubifitiye ibyangombwa. [10] Mukabarungi yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko inzu iri mu kibanza no 4423 Remera III mu Mujyi wa Kigali yakuwe mu mutungo bagombaga kugabanywa kandi ari umutungo w’umuryango. Gatsinzi we avuga ko iyo nzu idakwiye gushyirwa mu mitungo igabanwa kuko ari iya Irebe Gatsinzi Lars.

Page 81

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 55

[11] Mu iburanisha ryo kuwa 07/01/2014, Me Kazungu wunganira Gatsinzi yatanze inzitizi avuga ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rudafite ububasha bwo kuburanisha ibirego by’imitungo ishamikiye ku birego remezo cy’ubutane, maze mu Rubanza rubanziriza urundi RCAA 0007/13/CS rwaciwe kuwa 31/01/2014, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rufata icyemezo ko rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha ibyo birego, rutegeka ko iburanisha mu mizi rikomeza kuwa 26/03/2014. [12] Kuri uwo munsi iburanisha ry’urubanza ryabaye mu ruhame Mukabarungi ahagarariwe na Me Rusanganwa Jean Bosco naho Gatsinzi Marcel ahari kandi ahagarariye umwana we Irebe Gatsinzi Lars bunganiwe na Me Kazungu Jean Bosco. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO. Kumenya niba inzu iri mu kibanza n◦ 4423 Remera III mu Mujyi wa Kigali igomba kugarurwa mu mutungo ugomba kugabanywa Gatsinzi Marcel na Mukabarungi Julienne. [13] Me Rusanganwa uburanira Mukabarungi avuga ko yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga arusaba gusubiza inzu iri mu kibanza nº 4423 i Remera III mu mutungo w’umuryango kugirango Mukabarungi ayigabane na Gatsinzi Marcel kuko Gatsinzi yayitanze ayikuye mu mutungo usangiwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko cyane cyane ingingo ya 24 y’itegeko n◦ 22/99 ryo kuwa 12/11/1999 ryerekeye imicungire y’umutungo w’abashakanye, impano n’izungura ivuga ko ivangamutungo rirangira ari uko habayeho ubutane. MUKABARUNGI v. GATSINZI

Page 82

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 56

[14] Me Rusanganwa avuga kandi ko iby’uko hashingirwa ku ngingo ya 44 y’Igitabo cya kabiri cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano cyangwa hakarebwa igihe “certificat d’enregistrement” yatangiwe bitahabwa agaciro kuko inzu yaturutse mu mutungo usangiwe, ngo kandi uyu niwo murongo watanzwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza rwa Nyirabizimana Ziripa na Musoni Ndamage aho rwemeje ko muri bene izi manza ikigomba gusuzumwa ari inkomoko y’umutungo, aho kuba “certificat d’enregistrement”. [15] Asobanura ko nubwo yajya ku ruhande rw’uregwa, hatarebwa igihe Mukabarungi yatangiye ikirego cy’ubutane mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Saint Brieue mu Bufaransa (France) kuwa 28/06/2000, kuko nta rubanza ku kutabana by’agateganyo cyangwa ku butane rwaciwe n’urwo rukiko, ko ahubwo Urukiko rwavuze ko ubutane buzasuzumwa n’inkiko z’u Rwanda, ko rero Gatsinzi yaguze ikibanza cyubatswemo inzu iburanwa kuwa 07/03/2001 atarabona ubutane bisobanuye ko icyo kibanza ndetse n’inzu icyubatsemo bikomoka mu mutungo w’umuryango, ngo ibi bigaragazwa n’uko mbere y’uko bahabwa ubutane Gatsinzi yakomeje gusura umugore we mu Burayi, bohererezanya amafaranga ndetse n’imitungo yose y’umuryango yari ikiri mu maboko ya Gatsinzi kugeza ubu, bityo ko Urukiko Rukuru rwivuguruje ubwo, mu rubanza RCAA 009/10/HC/KIG, rwemeje ko iyo nzu ivanwa mu bigabanywa, binyuranyije na none n’ingingo ya 24 y’itegeko n◦ 22/99 ryo kuwa 12/11/1999 ryavuzwe haruguru ivuga ko ivangamutungo rirangira ari uko habayeho ubutane. [16] Me Kazungu wunganira Gatsinzi avuga ko Itegeko n◦22/99 ryo kuwa 12/11/1999 ryerekeye imicungire y’umutungo w’abashingiranywe, impano n’izungura, cyane

Page 83

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 57

cyane ingingo yaryo ya 24 ivuga ko ivangamutungo rirangira ari uko habayeho ubutane, ritagomba gukoreshwa muri uru rubanza, kubera ko iyo ngingo ivuga uko bigenda nyuma y’urubanza rw’ubutane, aho kuvuga ku ngaruka z’ubutane zihera kuva ikirego cy’ubutane gitanzwe zikaba ziteganywa n’ingingo ya 247 y’Itegeko no 42/1988 ryo kuwa 27/10/1988 ryavuzwe haruguru. Avuga ko bifashwe ko ingaruka z’ubutane zitangira nyuma y’urubanza rw’ubutane gusa byatuma umwe mu bashakanye yigwizaho imitungo mu buryo budakwiriye “enrichissement sans cause” kubera ko yakungukira ku musaruro w’undi kandi ntacyo bagihuriyeho. [17] Me Kazungu avuga kandi ko nubwo nta cyemezo cy’urukiko cyo kutabana by’agateganyo hagati ya Gatsinzi Marcel na Mukabarungi Julienne cyabayeho, kuva aho Jenoside irangiriye batongeye gutura hamwe kubera ko Mukabarungi yigumiye mu Bufaransa naho Gatsinzi agakomeza kuba mu Rwanda, ko kutabana byabaye “de facto”, ndetse ko mubyo Mukabarungi yarezwe harimo no guta urugo, ko Mukabarungi abaye yemeza ko yageze mu Rwanda nyuma ya 1994 yabitangira ibimenyetso, bityo ko kohererezanya amafaranga no gusurana atari byo bigaragaza ko babanaga. [18] Me Kazungu avuga na none ko Mukabarungi ariwe wabanje gutanga ikirego cy’ubutane mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Saint Brieue mu Bufaransa (France) kuwa 28/06/2000, urwo rukiko rugafata icyemezo kibangira kwiyunga (ordonance de non conciliation), Gatsinzi nawe agatanga ikirego cy’ubutane mu Rwanda kuwa 23/08/2001 kandi akajuririra icyemezo cy’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Saint Brieuc, mu bujurire hakemezwa ko ikibazo cy’ubutane kizakemurwa n’inkiko z’u Rwanda, bityo ko Urukiko MUKABARUNGI v. GATSINZI

Page 84

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 58

rw’Ikirenga rukwiye guhera ku gihe ikirego cy’ubutane cyatangiwe mu Bufaransa, ni ukuvuga kuwa 28/06/2000, rukemeza ko ikibanza nº 4423 n’inzu icyubatsemo biri Remera III bitari mu mutungo rusange w’umuryango kubera ko “certificat d’enregistrement” igaragaza ko byabonetse nyuma y’ikirego cy’ubutane cyatanzwe kuwa 28/06/2000 kandi ko ari umutungo wa Irebe Gatsinzi Lars. [19] Me Kazungu akomeza avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rutivuguruje kubera ko hasuzumwe ibigize umutungo abashakanye bagombaga kugabana, Urukiko rusanga Irebe Gatsinzi Lars afite ukuri ko gutambamira urubanza rwashyiraga inzu ye mu mutungo rusange ugabanywa abashakanye kandi atari umuburanyi muri urwo rubanza, ko gukura iyo nzu mu mutungo ugabanwa byubahirije ingingo ya 44 y’igitabo cya kabiri cy’amategeko mbonezamubano n’ingingo ya 247 y’Itegeko no 42/1988 ryo kuwa 27/10/1988 rishyiraho Interuro y’Ibanze n‘Igitabo cya mbere cy’Urwunge rw’Amategeko Mbonezamubano yari yirengagijwe mbere nyamara yumvikanisha ko ivangamutungo rihagarara kuva itariki ikirego cy’ubutane cyatangiweho mu rukiko urwo arirwo rwose, ko rero iyo urubanza rurangiye ubutane bugatangwa abashyingiranywe bagabana gusa ibintu byari bihari ku munsi wo gutanga ikirego.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [20] Ingingo ya 24 y’itegeko n◦ 22/99 ryo kuwa 12/11/1999 ryuzuza igitabo cya mbere cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano kandi rishyiraho igice cya gatanu cyerekeye imicungire y’umutungo w’abashyingiranywe, impano n’izungura ivuga ko kimwe mu bishobora gutuma

Page 85

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 59

ivangamutungo rusange rirangira ari ukutabana by’agateganyo (séparation de corps). [21] Ingingo ya 289 y’Itegeko no 42/1988 ryo kuwa 27/10/1988 rishyiraho Interuro y’Ibanze n’Igitabo cya mbere cy’Urwunge rw’Amategeko Mbonezamubano yo igateganya ko “kutabana by’agateganyo byemerera abashyingiranywe kutabana bijyana buri gihe n’ivangura ry’umutungo w’abashyingiranywe. Ku bashyingiranywe, uko kutabana kukaba gufatwa” nk’aho kwatangiye gukurikizwa umunsi ikirego cyashyikirijwe urukiko“ [22] Urukiko rurasanga muri dosiye y’urubanza harimo inyandiko igaragaza ko Gatsinzi Marcel yabonye ikibanza n◦4423 ku itariki ya 07/03/2001, n’inyandiko ya “Cerificat d’enregistrement” y’inzu iri muri icyo kibanza yo kuwa 18/07/2002. [23] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza kandi ko Mukabarungi yatanze ikirego cy’ubutane mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Saint Brieue rwo mu Bufaransa kuwa 28/06/2000 asaba gutandukana na Gatsinzi Marcel. Urwo Rukiko rugafata icyemezo kibangira kwiyunga (ordonnance de non conciliation) kuwa 27/02/200. Muri icyo cyemezo Urukiko rwemeje ibi bikurikira: 1) rubemereye kutabana by’agateganyo (séparation de corps), 2) rubujije buri wese gutera umutekano muke aho undi atuye, 3) rutegetse buri wese guha mugenzi we imyenda ye n’ibindi bintu bye bwite, 4) rutegetse ko abana batatu bato barerwa na nyina, 5) rutegetse Gatsinzi Marcel kujya asura abo bana ku bwumvikane, 6) rutegetse Gatsinzi Marcel gutanga ibitunga urugo n’amafaranga y’ishuli ry’abana. MUKABARUNGI v. GATSINZI

Page 86

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 60

[24] Urukiko rurasanga icyemezo cyavuzwe haruguru cyemerera Gatsinzi na Mukabarungi kutabana by’agateganyo (séparation de corps), biteganywa n’ingingo ya 289 y’Itegeko no 42/1988 ryo kuwa 27/10/1988 ryavuzwe haruguru. Iyi ngingo ikaba iteganya kandi ko ukutabana by’agateganyo bijyana buri gihe n’ivangura ry’umutungo w’abashingiranywe kandi ko ku bashingiranywe uko kutabana gufatwa nk’aho kwatangiye gukurikizwa umunsi ikirego cyashikirijwe urukiko; ni ukuvuga ko kuri uru rubanza itariki ya 28/06/2000 igomba gufatwa nk’itariki yatangiweho ikirego cyashingiweho hafatwa icyemezo cyo kutabana by’agateganyo. Ibyo iyi ngingo ya 289 iteganya ku bijyanye n’ingaruka zo kutabana by’agateganyo bihura kandi n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 302 y’Igitabo cya mbere cy’Urwunge rw’Amategeko y’Imbonezamubano yo mu Bufaransa ivuga ko ukutabana by’agateganyo buri gihe bigendana no kuvangura umutungo3. [25] Urukiko rurasanga rero ibyo uburanira Mukabarungi avuga ko hatabayeho kutabana by’agateganyo atari ukuri kuko hari icyemezo cy’Urukiko kibyemeza, naho ibyo avuga ko Gatsinzi yakomeje gutanga ibitunga urugo no gusura umuryango, uyu yabikoze ashyira mu bikorwa icyemezo cy’Urukiko, bityo izo ngingo zikaba nta shingiro zifite. [26] Ku kibazo cy’uko hatagomba kurebwa gusa igihe inzu yabonekeye, ko harebwa n’uko yaturutse mu mutungo rusange nkuko uburanira Mukabarungi abivuga, Urukiko rurasanga, uretse kubivuga gusa, nta bimenyetso agaragariza Urukiko

3 Ingingo ya 302 ya Code Civil Français iteganya ko: “La separation de corps entraine toujours la separation des biens…”

Page 87

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 61

by’uko, nyuma yo kutabana by’agateganyo no kuvangura umutungo, haba hari ukundi iyo nzu yari gukomoka ku mutungo rusange mu gihe nta mutungo rusange wari ukimuhuje na Gatsinzi; bityo iyo ngingo ikaba itahabwa agaciro hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 9 y’Itegeko no 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ivuga ko urega agomba kugaragaza ibimenyetso by’ibyo aregera yabibura, uwarezwe akaba atsinze. [27] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro byatanzwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga ikibanza n◦4423 n’inzu irimo byarabonetse nyuma yuko urukiko rwemereye Gatsinzi Marcel na Mukabarungi kutabana by’agateganyo (séparation de corps) bijyana n’ivangura ry’umutungo wabo kuva tariki ya 28/06/2000, bivuga ko uwo mutungo wabonetse ivangamutungo ryararangiye, ukaba ugomba gufatwa nk’umutungo bwite wa Gatsinzi Marcel utagomba kugabanwa, akaba yari afite uburenganzira bwo kuwukoresha. Bityo ibyo Mukabarungi asaba ko inzu iri mu kibanza no 4423 yagarurwa mu mutungo yashakanye na Gatsinzi Marcel bikaba bitahabwa agaciro kuko itari mu mutungo rusange. [28] Uku ni nako abahanga mu mategeko y’umuryango babisanga aho bavuga ko gutandukana by’agateganyo kw’abashingiranywe bijyana n’ivangura ry’umutungo kubera ko nta kiba kikibahuje, ko mu mwanya w’ivangamutungo rusange bifatwa ko bagengwa n’ivangura mutungo kugira ngo mu gihe abashakanye batarabona ubutane hatazagira uwitwaza ivangamutungo rusange agatwara igice cy’imitungo yashatswe MUKABARUNGI v. GATSINZI

Page 88

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 62

n’undi nyuma yo kuregera ubutane cyangwa agafata ibyemezo bibangamira umutungo w’undi4.

Kumenya niba indishyi Gatsinzi Marcel asaba yazihabwa [29] Mu bujurire bwuririye ku bundi, uburanira Gatsinzi Marcel na Irebe Gatsinzi Lars avuga ko Irebe Gatsinzi Lars yashowe mu manza nta mpamvu kubera yagombye kuburana inzu ye kandi ayifiye icyangombwa cya burundu (certificat d’enregistrement) kigaragaza ko ari ye naho Gatsinzi Marcel agashorwa mu manza k’ubushotoranyi bwa Mukabarungi bityo bakaba babisabira indishyi z’akababaro zingana na 1.000.000 frw. [30] Uburanira Mukabarungi avuga ko indishyi nta shingiro zifite kubera ko nta bushotoranyi bwabayeho kandi ko nubundi imitungo yagumye mu maboko ya Gatsinzi Marcel. [31] Ku byererekeye indishyi zingana na 1.000.000 Frw zisabwa na Gatsinzi Marcel, Urukiko rurasanga usibye ko atagaragaza uburyo zabazwe, nta n’ubushotoranyi bwakozwe na Mukabarungi Julienne kuko yajuririye urubanza rwamutsinze ashingiye ku biteganywa n’amategeko, bityo indishyi zisabwa zikaba nta shingiro zifite.

4 Reba Alain Bénabent, Droit Civil: La famille, Paris, Litec, 2003, p.274 na Francois Terré na Dominique Fenouillet, Droit Civil: Les personnes, la famille et les incapacités, Paris, Dalloz, 1996, pp.451-452.

Page 89

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 63

III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO. [32] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Mukabarungi Julienne nta shingiro bufite; [33] Rwemeje ko ikibanza No 4423 n’inzu icyubatsemo bitari mu mutungo ugabanywa hagati ya Gatsinzi Marcel na Mukabarungi Julienne, kuko itari mu mutungo rusange. [34] Ruvuze ko urubanza rwajuririwe ruhamyeho; [35] Rutegetse Mukabarungi Julienne gutanga amagarama y’urubanza angana na 226.400 frw.

MUKABARUNGI v. GATSINZI

Page 91

NTEZIRYAYO v. RUTABAYIRO [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RCAA 0003/13/CS (Mutashya P.J., Rugabirwa na Hitiyiramye, J.) 31 Mutarama 2014] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza mbonezamubano – Ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi – Ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi burakirwa n’ igihe uregwa yamenyeshejwe urabanza rwe ntagaragaze ko hari icyo arukemangaho – Itegeko n° 18/2004 ryo kuwa 20/06/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’ubutegetsi n’iz’umurimo, ingingo ya 167. Amategeko agenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa – Agaciro k’amasezerano y’ubugure bw’umutungo utimukanwa mu gihe hatarakorwa ihinduzamutungo – Kutubahiriza amasezerano – Indishyi ku gihombo umuguzi yatewe n’uko umugurisha atubahirije inshingano yo kumushyikiriza inyandiko z’icyo yaguze mu gihe bumvikanyeho – Amasezerano y’ubugure aba yuzuye igihe abayagiranye bumvikanye ku kintu no ku giciro cyacyo n’ubwo ikigurishwa kitari cyatangwa n’ikiguzi cyacyo kikaba kitari cyishyurwa – Umugurisha agomba gutegekwa gutanga indishyi iyo umuguzi yagize igihombo gituruka ku kudashyikirizwa icyo yaguze mu gihe cyumvikanweho – Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 ryerekeye amasezerano imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 33, 264 na 288. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza mbonezamubano – Gushorwa mu manza – Nta ndishyi bitangirwa mu gihe uwajuriye hari ibyo yatsindiye. 65

Page 92

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 66

Incamake y’ikibazo: Nteziryayo yagiranye na Rutabayiro amasezerano y’ubugure bw’ikibanza kirimo inzu eshanu na “annexes”, hanyuma Rutabayiro amwishyura amafaranga make bumvikana ko asigaye yose azayamuha ari uko amuhaye ibyangombwa by’ inzu bigizwe n’icyangombwa cyerekana ubuso bw’ikibanza, amasezerano y’ubukode bw’ikibanza n’ uruhushya rwo kubaka; yagombaga gushaka mu gihe cy’ukwezi kumwe kandi ko nikurenga bitaraboneka impande zombi zizicarana kugira ngo zirebere hamwe igihe bizabonekera. Nteziryayo yasabye ibyo byangombwa mu buyobozi bw’Akarere ntiyabihabwa kuko aho inzu zihererereye hari hatarakorerwa igishushanyo mbonera, hagati aho atangira gusana izo nzu ngo kuko yabonaga zirimo kwangirika. Rutabayiro abonye ko Nteziryayo atangiye kuzisana yamureze mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo asaba ko habaho ihinduzamutungo (mutation) kugira ngo izo nzu zimwandikweho, kandi anasaba indishyi zinyuranye. Urwo Rukiko rwemeje ko Nteziryayo agomba kwegurira Rutabayiro inzu nawe akamwishyura amafaranga yamusigayemo hamwe n’amafaranga y’agaciro kiyongereyeho kandi Nteziryayo akamuha ay’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’Avoka. Rutabayiro yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru maze Nteziryayo nawe atanga ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi asaba ko amasezerano aseswa; rwemeza ko habaho ihinduzamutungo (mutation) hagati ye na Nteziryayo, naho ubujurire bwa Nteziryayo bwuririye ku bundi busaba iseswa ry’amasezerano butakiriwe kubera ko iseswa ry’amasezerano asaba ritagamije kwiregura ku kirego cy’iremezo. Byatumye Nteziryayo ajuririra Urukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko amasezerano y’ubugure yakoranye na Rutabayiro yaseswa, cyangwa se bitashoboka akamuha amafaranga y’agaciro

Page 93

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 67

kiyongereyeho avugurura izo nzu hamwe n’ayo yari yaramusigayemo n’indishyi zinyuranye. Rutabayiro nawe avuga ko ubujurire bwa Nteziryayo budakwiye kwakirwa ngo busuzumwe kuko butagamije kwiregura ku kirego cy’iremezo ko kandi hakwiye kubaho ihinduzamutungo hagati ye na Nteziryayo, akanamuha indishyi zinyuranye. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bukwiye kwakirwa hagasuzumwa ishingiro ryabwo kuko uregwa mu Rukiko rujuririrwa ashobora nawe kujurira yuririye ku bujurire bw’urega mbere y’iburanisha cyangwa mu iburanisha, n’aho yaba yaramenyeshejwe urubanza rwe ntagaragaze ko hari icyo arukemangaho.

2. Amasezerano y’ubugure aba yuzuye igihe abayagiranye bumvikanye ku kintu no ku giciro cyacyo n’ubwo ikigurishwa kitari cyatangwa n’ikiguzi cyacyo kikaba kitari cyishyurwa kandi agomba kubahirizwa nta buryarya bityo hakaba hagomba kuba ihinduzamutungo hagati ya Nteziryayo na Rutabayiro, hanyuma Rutabayiro nawe akamwishyura amafaranga yamusigayemo ku kiguzi hamwe na kimwe cya kabiri cy’agaciro kiyongereyeho hasanwa izo nzu.

3. Umugurisha agomba gutegekwa gutanga indishyi iyo umuguzi yagize igihombo gituruka ku kudashyikirizwa icyo yaguze mu gihe cyumvikanyweho.

4. Mu gihe uwajuriye hari ibyo yatsindiye, uregwa ntiyahabwa indishyi zo gushorwa mu manza ku maherere. Ubujurire nta shingiro bufite. Ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi nta shingiro bufite kuri bimwe. NTEZIRYAYO v. RUTABAYIRO

Page 94

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 68

Amagarama y’urubanza aherereye ku wajuriye. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko n° 18/2004 ryo kuwa 20/06/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’ubutegetsi n’iz’umurimo, ingingo 167. Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo za 33, 264 na 288. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Ibitekerezo by’abahanga byifashishijwe: Laurent C., Vente d’immeuble: un contrat parfait par le seul accord sur la chose et le prix, article publié le 25/10/2011. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Kuwa 15/03/2010, Nteziryayo Eric yagiranye na Rutabayiro Eric amasezerano y’ubugure bw’ikibanza kirimo amazu atanu na “annexes” biherereye mu Mudugudu wa Rusenyi, Akagari ka Murama, Umurenge wa Kinyinya, mu Karere ka Gasabo ku giciro kingana na 30.000.000 Frw. Rutabayiro Eric yahise yishyura Nteziryayo Eric 7.000.000 Frw, bumvikana ko 23.000.000 Frw asigaye, Rutabayiro Eric azayamuha ari uko Nteziryayo Eric amuhaye ibyangombwa bigizwe na “fiche cadastrale”, “contrat de location” na “autorisation de bâtir” azashaka mu gihe cy’ukwezi kumwe, ko

Page 95

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 69

nikurenga bitaraboneka, impande zombi zizicarana kugira ngo zirebere hamwe igihe bizabonekera. [2] Rutabayiro Eric abonye ko Nteziryayo Eric atamuhaye ibyangombwa byavuzwe haruguru, kandi atangiye kuvugurura amazu yamugurishije, yamureze mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo, asaba ko habaho ihinduzamutungo (mutation) kugira ngo ayo mazu amwandikweho, akanamuha n’indishyi zinyuranye. Nteziryayo nawe yatanze ikirego kiregera kwiregura asaba ko ayo masezerano yaseswa. [3] Urwo Rukiko rwemeje ko Nteziryayo Eric agomba kwegurira Rutabayiro Eric inzu yaguze, nawe akamwishyura 23.000.000 Frw yamusigayemo. Rwemeje kandi ko ikirego kiregera kwiregura cyatanzwe na Nteziryayo gisaba iseswa ry’amasezerano nta shingiro gifite kubera ko kitagamije kwiregura ku kirego cy’iremezo, rutegeka Rutabayiro guha Nteziryayo 95.126.105 Frw ahwanye n’agaciro kiyongereye, rutegeka Nteziryayo Eric guha Rutabayiro Eric 500.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya avoka. [4] Rutabayiro Eric yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru rwemeza ko habaho ihinduzamutungo (mutation) hagati ye na Nteziryayo Eric, ko ubujurire bwa Nteziryayo bwuririye ku bundi busaba iseswa ry’amasezerano butakiriwe kubera ko iseswa ry’amasezerano asaba ritagamije kwiregura ku kirego cy’iremezo kijyanye n’uko “mutation“ yakorwa hagati ye na Rutabayiro Eric. Rwemeje kandi ko urubanza rwajuririwe ruhindutse mu ngingo zarwo zose, uretse ku bijyanye na 500.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya avoka, Rutabayiro Eric yagenewe ku rwego rwa mbere. NTEZIRYAYO v. RUTABAYIRO

Page 96

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 70

[5] Nteziryayo Eric yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko amasezerano y’ubugure yagiranye na Rutabayiro Eric yaseswa kuko yabuze ibyangombwa byavuzwe haruguru, ko mu gihe adasheshwe, Rutabayiro Eric yamusubiza 95.126.105 Frw yakoresheje mu kuvugurura amazu akanamuha 23.000.000 Frw yamusigayemo hiyongereyeho indishyi zinyuranye. Rutabayiro Eric nawe avuga ko hakwiye kubaho ihinduzamutungo (mutation) hagati ye na Nteziryayo Eric, ko kandi akwiye kumuha indishyi zinyuranye. [6] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame kuwa 17/12/2013, Nteziryayo Eric ahagarariwe na Me Mutabazi Abayo Claude, naho Rutabayiro Eric ahagarariwe Me Nzirabatinyi Fidèle. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO 1. Kumenya niba ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwatanzwe na Nteziryayo Eric bukwiye kwakirwa [7] Uburanira Nteziryayo Eric avuga ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rukwiye kwakira ubujurire bwe bwuririye ku bundi kugira ngo ruteshe agaciro amasezerano y’ubugure yavuzwe haruguru kubera ko Urukiko Rukuru rwanze kubwakira ruvuga ko ikirego kiregera kwiregura yatanze mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo kitagombaga kwakirwa kubera ko iseswa ry’amasezerano yasabaga ritagamije kwiregura ku ihinduzamutungo (mutation) riburanwa mu kirego cy’iremezo, ariko ko rwirengagije ko bwagombaga kwakirwa kuko bwari bwaratanzwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko.

Page 97

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 71

[8] Uburanira Rutabayiro Eric avuga ko ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwa Nteziryayo butagomba kwakirwa kubera ko iseswa ry’amasezerano y’ubugure yasabaga mu kirego kiregera kwiregura yatanze mu Rukiko rwabanje ritari rigamije kwiregura ku kirego cy’iremezo cyari kigamije gusaba ko habaho ihinduzamutungo (mutation) hagati ye na Nteziryayo Eric.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [9] Ku byerekeye ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi, ingingo ya 167 y’Itegeko n° 18/2004 ryo kuwa 20/06/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’ubutegetsi n’iz’umurimo ryakurikizwaga igihe amasezerano y’ubugure yakorwaga, iteganya ko “Uregwa mu Rukiko rujuririrwa ashobora nawe kujurira yuririye ku bujurire bw’urega mbere y’iburanisha cyangwa mu iburanisha, n’aho yaba yaramenyeshejwe urubanza rwe ntagaragaze ko hari icyo arukemangaho”. [10] Umwanzuro Nteziryayo Eric yashyikirije Urukiko Rukuru uri kuri kote ya 46 n’imiburanire ye muri urwo Rukiko, bigaragaza ko yatanze ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi asaba ko amasezerano y’ubugure yavuzwe haruguru yaseswa kubera ko Akarere ka Gasabo kamubwiye ko katazamuha ibyangombwa yasabye kubera ko aho amazu ye aherereye hatarakorerwa igishushanyo mbonera. [11] Hakurikijwe ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 167 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga, Urukiko Rukuru rwaragombaga kwakira ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwatanzwe na Nteziryayo Eric kubera ko bwatanzwe mu buryo NTEZIRYAYO v. RUTABAYIRO

Page 98

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 72

buteganywa n’amategeko, bityo bukaba bugomba kwakirwa muri uru Rukiko kugira ngo hasuzumwe ishingiro ryabwo.

2. Kumenya niba amasezerano y’ubugure yabaye hagati ya Nteziryayo Eric na Rutabayiro Eric kuwa 15/03/2010 yuzuye n’inkurikizi zayo [12] Uburanira Nteziryayo Eric avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko habaho ihinduzamutungo (mutation) hagati ye na Rutabayiro Eric, rwirengagiza ko amasezerano y’ubugure bagiranye kuwa 15/03/2010 yarimo inkomyi nsesamasezerano (obligation conditionnelle) ijyanye n’uko Rutabayiro Eric yagombaga kumwishyura 23.000.000 Frw ari uko amuhaye “fiche cadastrale”, “contrat de location” na “autorisation de bâtir”, ariko ko atashoboye kubona ibyo byangombwa kubera ko Akarere ka Gasabo kamwandikiye ibaruwa yo kuwa 26/10/2011 kamubwira ko atazabona ibyagombwa yasabye mu gihe igishushanyo mbonera kitarakorwa. [13] Asobanura ko atagize uburiganya (mauvaise foi), kuko nyuma y’iminsi umunani (8) amasezerano y’ubugure akozwe, Nteziryayo Eric yahise yandikira Akarere ka Gasabo kuwa 23/03/2010 asaba ko kamuha ibyagombwa byavuzwe haruguru, kamusubiza ko katabimuha kubera ko hatarakorwa igishushanyo mbonera, asaba Rutabayiro ko yamusubiza 7.000.000 Frw yamuhaye, bagasesa amasezerano kuko yabonaga ubugure butagishobotse, arabyanga, ko kandi yasabye Rutabayiro ko yamuha 23.000.000 Frw yamusigayemo akabyishakira, nabwo arabyanga, bituma Nteziryayo ajya gusaba icyagombwa cyo gusana amazu kubera ko yabonaga amazu agiye kumugwaho bitewe n’uko yavaga, ko rero ayo masezerano akwiye guseswa kuko adashobora gushyirwa mu

Page 99

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 73

bikorwa nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 70 CCLIII5 kubera ko yabuze ibyangombwa byavuzwe haruguru. [14] Uburanira Rutabayiro Eric avuga ko amasezerano y’ubugure yavuzwe haruguru ataseswa, ko ahubwo Urukiko rwategeka ko habaho ihinduzamutungo (mutation) hagati ye na Nteziryayo Eric kugira ngo amazu yaguze amwandikweho, ko kandi Nteziryayo Eric yagize uburiganya (mauvaise foi) kuko yavuguruye amazu azi neza ko yayamugurishije.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [15] Ku bijyanye n’agaciro k’amasezerano, ingingo ya 33 y’igitabo cy’urwunge rw’amategeko y’imbonezamubano yerekeye imirimo nshinganwa cyangwa amasezerano yakurikizwaga igihe amasezerano y’ubugure yakorwaga, ivuga ko “Amasezerano akozwe ku buryo bukurikije amategeko, aba itegeko ku bayagiranye. Ashobora guseswa ari uko babyumvikanyeho cyangwa ku mpamvu zemewe n’amategeko. Agomba kubahirizwa nta buryarya”6. [16] Ingingo ya 264 y’igitabo kimaze kuvugwa haruguru, ivuga ko “Igurisha riba ryuzuye hagati y’abagiranye amasezerano, kandi umugurisha akegurira burundu umuguzi

5Iyo ngingo ivuga ko “Inkomyi yose ishingiye ku kintu kidashoboka, cyangwa kinyuranyije n’umuco mbonezabupfura, cyangwa kibujijwe n’amategeko, ntigira agaciro kandi itesha agaciro amasezerano ayishingiyeho”. 6Iyo ngingo ihuje kandi n’ibivugwa mu ngingo ya 64 y’Itegeko n° 25/2011 ryo kuwa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, ivuga ko “Amasezerano akozwe ku buryo bukurikije amategeko, aba itegeko ku bayagiranye. Ashobora guseswa ari uko babyumvikanyeho cyangwa ku mpamvu zemewe n’amategeko. Agomba kubahirizwa nta buriganya”. NTEZIRYAYO v. RUTABAYIRO

Page 100

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 74

icyagurishijwe mu gihe bumvikanye ku kintu no ku giciro cyacyo n’ubwo ikigurishwa kitari cyatangwa n’ikiguzi cyacyo kikaba kitari cyishyurwa”. [17] Abahanga mu mategeko barimo Laurent Collon basobanura ko kuva kera Inkiko zagiye zemeza ko igurisha ry’umutungo utimukanwa (immeuble), riba ryuzuye mu gihe abagiranye amasezerano y’ubugure bumvikanye ku kintu no ku giciro, uretse ko bashobora no kwiyongereramo izindi nshingano7. [18] Ku birebana n’uru rubanza, amasezerano y’ubugure yo kuwa 15/03/2010, agaragaza ko Nteziryayo Eric yagurishije Rutabayiro Eric ikibanza cye kirimo amazu atanu na “annexes” biherereye mu Mudugudu wa Rusenyi, Akagari ka Murama, Umurenge wa Kinyinya, mu Karere ka Gasabo, ku gaciro kangana na 30.000.000 Frw, Rutabayiro Eric ahita amwishyura 7.000.000 Frw, bumvikana ko 23.000.000 Frw asigaye, azayamwishyura ari uko amuhaye “fiche cadastrale”, “contrat de location” na “autorisation de bâtir”, mu gihe kitarenze ukwezi kumwe, ko ukwezi nikurangira Nteziryayo Eric atarabibona, impande zombi zizicarana kugira ngo zirebere hamwe igihe bizabonekera.

7Durant de nombreuses années, les cours et tribunaux ont considéré que, même lorsqu’elle porte sur un bien immobilier, la vente est parfaite dès que l’on prouve que le consentement a porté sur la chose (le bien vendu/acquis) et le prix, toutes les autres conditions de la vente étant réputées accessoires, à moins que l’une et/ou l’autre partie ait érigé un ou plusieurs élément(s) au rang de condition (s) essentielles, comme la chose et le prix. Par Laurent Collon, Vente d’immeuble un contrat parfait par le seul accord sur la chose et le prix, article publié le 25/10/2011.

Page 101

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 75

[19] Hakurikijwe ibiteganywa n’ingingo z’amategeko n’ibisobanuro by’abahanga mu mategeko bimaze kuvugwa haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga amasezerano y’ubugure Nteziryayo Eric yagiranye na Rutabayiro Eric yavuzwe haruguru afite agaciro kuko bumvikanye ku mazu agurishwa no ku giciro cyayo, bityo akaba agomba kubahirizwa nta buryarya nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 33 y’igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko y’imbonezamubano cyakurikizwaga igihe ayo masezerano yasinywaga. [20] Ku byerekeranye n’ishyirwa mu bikorwa ry’ayo masezerano, inyandiko yo kuwa 23/03/2010, igaragaza ko Nteziryayo Eric yandikiye Akarere ka Gasabo asaba ko kamuha “fiche cadastrale”, “contrat de location” na “autorisation de bâtir” by’ikibanza giherereye ahantu havuzwe haruguru, kamusubiza kuwa 26/10/2011 ko agomba gutegereza kubera ko ahantu asabira ibyangombwa hatarakorerwa igishushanyo mbonera (physical plan). [21] Nyuma y’isinywa ry’ayo masezerano, Nteziryayo Eric ntiyagiye ngo yicecekere, ahubwo yihutiye gusaba ibyangombwa byavuzwe haruguru nk’uko bigaragazwa n’inyandiko ye yo kuwa 23/03/2010, kuba atarabibonye bikaba byaratewe n’uko yahuye n’icyemezo cy’Ubuyobozi atashoboraga kugira icyo agikoraho, cyane cyane ko atari azi igihe yagombaga kumara abitegereje. Ibyo bikaba byaratumye afata icyemezo kitari cyo cyo kujya gusaba icyemezo cyo gusana amazu, kuko mu bitekerezo bye yumvaga akiri nyiri uwo mutungo kubera ko wari ukimwanditseho, arayasana, ku buryo agaciro kayo kavuye kuri 30.000.000 Frw kakagera kuri 125.126.105 Frw nk’uko bigaragazwa na “expertise NTEZIRYAYO v. RUTABAYIRO

Page 102

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 76

immobilière“ yo kuwa 02/09/2011 yakozwe n’umuhanga mu by’ubwubatsi witwa Alain Bayavuge. [22] Kuba Nteziryayo Eric yarakoze amakosa yo gusana ayo mazu atabanje kwegera Rutabayiro Eric kugira ngo barebere hamwe icyakorwa nk’uko bari barabyumvikanyeho mu masezerano bagiranye, kugeza n’aho Rutabayiro yamwihanangirije akanabimuhera integuza nk’uko bigaragazwa n’ibaruwa ye yo kuwa 18/05/2011, ndetse akaba yaranatambamiye n’ubugwate mu mabanki atandukanye nk’uko bigaragazwa n’ibaruwa yo kuwa 30/06/2012 bitewe n’uko yumvaga Nteziryayo ashobora kuyatangaho ubugwate muri Banki yitwaje ko ayo mazu yari akimwanditseho, Urukiko rurasanga Nteziryayo Eric ariwe utarubahirije amasezerano y’ubugure, bityo akaba agomba kuyubahiriza. [23] Urukiko rurasanga nyamara ariko, agaciro amazu yari afite igihe amasezerano yasinywaga, kariyongereye nk’uko byagaragajwe mu gika cya 21, bityo mu kubahiriza ayo masezerano, Rutabayiro Eric akaba agomba mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko, guha Nteziryayo Eric kimwe cya kabiri cy’amafaranga yakoresheje asana ayo mazu ahwanye na ଽହ.ଵଶ଺.ଵ଴ହ ୊୰୵ ଶ = 47.563.052 Frw kuko, kuba yakwegukana ayo mazu uko ameze ubu ntacyo atanze kandi agaciro kayo kariyongereye, kwaba ari ugusarura ibyo ataruhiye. Urukiko rurasanga kandi kuri ayo mafaranga, hagomba kwiyongeraho 23.000.000 Frw Rutabayiro Eric yasigayemo Nteziryayo Eric igihe bakoraga amasezerano y’ubugure, yose hamwe akaba 47.563.052 Frw + 23.000.000 Frw = 70.563.052 Frw.

3. Ku byerekeye indishyi zisabwa muri uru rubanza

Page 103

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 77

[24] Uburanira Nteziryayo Eric avuga ko mu gihe Urukiko rutegetse ko amasezerano y’ubugure asheshwe, rwategeka ko Nteziryayo Eric asubiza Rutabayiro Eric 7.000.000 Frw ya “avance” yamuhaye, rugategeka ko Rutabayiro amuha 10.000.000 Frw y’indishyi z’akababaro kubera ko yamushoye mu manza ku maherere, 5.000.000 Frw y’igihembo cy’abavoka babiri bamuburaniye na 300.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza. [25] Avuga kandi ko mu gihe Urukiko rwemeje ko amasezerano y’ubugure agumanye agaciro kayo, rwategeka ko Rutabayiro Eric amuha 95.126.105 Frw yatanze avugurura amazu nk’uko “expertise” iri muri dosiye ibigaragaza, akanamwishyura 23.000.000 Fw yamusigayemo, naho Nteziryayo Eric akamusubiza 7.000.000 Frw ya “avance” yamuhaye. [26] Uburanira Rutabayiro Eric avuga ko atanze ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi asaba ko Nteziryayo Eric yamuha 150.000.000 Frw y’indishyi z’uko yatinze kumushyikiriza amazu yaguze hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 287 na 288 z’Igitabo cy’urwunge rw’amategeko y’imbonezamubano yerekeye imirimo nshinganwa cyangwa amasezerano cyakurikizwaga igihe amasezerano y’ubugure yakorwaga, na 5.000.000 Frw y’indishyi z’akababaro kubera ko yamushoye mu manza ku maherere, igihembo cy’avoka n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [27] Ku birebana n’indishyi z’akababaro zo kudahabwa amazu, ingingo ya 288 y’Igitabo cyavuzwe haruguru, ivuga ko “Ibyo aribyo byose, umugurisha agomba gutegekwa gutanga NTEZIRYAYO v. RUTABAYIRO

Page 104

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 78

indishyi iyo umuguzi yagize igihombo gituruka ku kudashyikirizwa icyo yaguze mu gihe cyumvikanweho”. [28] Ku birebana n’uru rubanza, ikigaragara ni uko Rutabayiro Eric yahise yegukana amazu yaguze na Nteziryayo Eric kuva kuwa 15/03/2010, ariko kuba uyu atarahise ayamushyikiriza, ahubwo akaba yarayagundiriye mu gihe kirenga imyaka itatu n’amezi cumi, ni ukuvuga kuva kuwa 15/03/2010 kugeza kuwa 31/01/2014, umunsi w’icibwa ry’urubanza, bigaragara ko byateje Rutabayiro Eric igihombo kuko byatumye adahabwa ayo mazu hakiri kare kugira ngo ayatunge mu mudendezo, cyangwa ngo ayabyaze umusaruro, bityo Urukiko rurasanga Nteziryayo Eric agomba kubimuhera indishyi z’akababaro zigenwe mu bushishozi bwarwo zingana na 5.000.000 Frw kuko izo Rutabayiro Eric asaba zingana na 150.000.000 Frw ari ikirenga, kandi akaba atarazitangiye ibimenyetso ngo anagaragaze uko yazibaze. [29] Ku bijyanye n’indishyi z’akababaro zo gushorwa mu manza ku maherere, kuba Nteziryayo Eric afite uburenganzira ahabwa n’amategeko bwo kujuririra imikirize y’urubanza atishimiye agamije kurenganurwa, bigaragara ko atashoye Rutabayiro Eric mu manza ku maherere, bityo Urukiko rurasanga Rutabayiro Eric atahabwa 5.000.000 Frw y’indishyi z’akababaro asaba zo gushorwa mu manza ku maherere, Nteziryayo Eric nawe akaba atagomba kuzihabwa kuko bigaragara ko Rutabayiro Eric atamushoye mu manza ku maherere bitewe n’uko hari ibyo yatsindiye. [30] Ku byerekeranye n’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’avoka, Urukiko rurasanga kuba Rutabayiro Eric yari ahagarariwe muri uru Rukiko, kandi hakaba hari ibyo yatsindiye, bigaragara ko Nteziryayo Eric agomba kumuha

Page 105

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 79

200.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza na 300.000 Frw y’igihembo cya avoka yo kuri uru rwego agenwe mu bushishozi bwarwo yiyongera kuri 500.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya avoka yagenewe n’Urukiko Rukuru, yose hamwe akaba 1.000.000 Frw. [31] Hakoreshejwe uburyo bw’ihwanya ry’imyenda buteganywa n’ingingo ya 181 y’igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko y’imbonezamubano cyavuzwe haruguru8, Urukiko rurasanga Rutabayiro Eric agomba guha Nteziryayo Eric 70.563.052 Frw, Nteziryayo Eric nawe akamuha 5.000.000 Frw + 1.000.000 Frw, bivuga ko Rutabayiro Eric agomba guha Nteziryayo Eric 64.563.052 Frw (= 70.563.052 Frw - 5.000.000 Frw - 1.000.000 Frw), Nteziryayo Eric nawe akamwegurira ikibanza kirimo amazu atanu na “annexes” yaguze byavuzwe haruguru, hakanaba n’ihinduzamutungo (mutation) hagati yabo bombi. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [32] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Nteziryayo Eric nta shingiro bufite kuri bimwe; [33] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Rutabayiro Eric bwuririye ku bundi bufite ishingiro; [34] Rutegetse Nteziryayo Eric kwegurira Rutabayiro Eric ikibanza yamugurishije kirimo amazu atanu na “annexes”

8Iyo ivuga ko “Ihwanya ry'imyenda riba nta rubanza kubera gusa ko amategeko abiteganya atyo, yewe n'iyo abagomba kwishyura batabizi; imyenda yombi irazimangana ku mpande zombi kuva igihe ibereyeho, kugeza ku gaciro kayo kangana”. NTEZIRYAYO v. RUTABAYIRO

Page 106

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 80

biherereye mu Mudugudu wa Rusenyi, Akagari ka Murama, Umurenge wa Kinyinya, mu Karere ka Gasabo, mu Mujyi wa Kigali hakabaho ihinduzamutungo (mutation) kugira ngo ave kuri Nteziryayo Eric yandikwe kuri Rutabayiro Eric; [35] Rutegetse ko Rutabayiro Eric agomba guha Nteziryayo Eric 64.563.052 Frw; [36] Ruvuze ko imikirize y’urubanza RCA 0047/12/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru kuwa 11/01/2013, ihindutse ; [37] Rutegetse Nteziryayo Eric gutanga amagarama y’uru rubanza angana na 36.650 Frw, atayatanga mu gihe cy’iminsi umunani, akavanwa mu bye ku ngufu za Leta.

Page 107

IMANZA Z’UBUCURUZI

Page 109

CORAR v. MBONIMPA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RCOMA 0185/12/CS (Mugenzi, P.J., Gatete na Munyangeri, J.) 15 Ugushyingo 2013] Amategeko y’ubwishingizi – Uruhushya rwo gutwara ikinyabiziga rwatangiwe mu mahanga – Iyo rutanenzwe n’inzego zibifitiye ububasha cyangwa rutararegewe ko ari inyandiko mpimbano ruba rufite agaciro – Itegeko no 15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 46. Amategeko y’ubwishingizi – Amasezerano y’ubwishingizi – Igenagaciro k’imodoka yangiritse ku bw’impanuka – Kabarwa hashingiwe kubikubiye mu masezerano. Amategeko agenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa – Kuvutswa amahirwe – Ibara ry’Indishyi zijyanye n’amafaranga ikinyabiziga cyagombaga kuba cyarakoreye zibarwa hakurikijwe igiciro kiri ku isoko havanywemo ibyari kuyigendaho – Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 ryerekeye amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa,ingingo ya 258. Amategeko agenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa – Indishyi z’akababaro – Ntizitangwa iyo uzisaba atagaragaje icyo yangirijwe gitandukanye n’ibyabazwe mu ndishyi mboneza musaruro – Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 ryerekeye amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258. Incamake y’ikibazo: Hashingiwe ku masezerano y’ubwishingizi, Mbonimpa yareze CORAR mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’ubucuruzi kuba ataramusubije agaciro k’imodoka ye yakoze impanuka kuwa 04/09/2010 ikangirika bikabije bigatuma 83

Page 110

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 84

idashobora gusanwa ngo isubire mu kazi; ku bw’ibyo anabisabira n’indishyi zijyanye n’agaciro k’imodoka yangiritse, iz’ijyanye n’amafaranga imodoka yagombaga kuba yarakoreye n’indishyi z’akababaro zirimo izishingiye ku rupfu rw’umugabo we wari utwaye imodoka n’izindi. Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwemeje ko CORAR igomba guha Mbonimpa amafaranga y’agaciro k’imodoka, ay’indishyi imodoka yagombaga kuba yarakoreye ku mezi 17, ay’indishyi z’akababaro, ajyanye n’urupfu rw’umushoferi wari uyitwaye ikora impanuka ay’ikurikirana rubanza n’igihembo cya avoka. CORAR yajuriye mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga ivuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwageneye Mbonimpa indishyi kandi impanuka yarakozwe n’imodoka ye mu gihe yari itwawe n’umushoferi utabifitiye uruhushya rwemewe, ibyo bikaba binyuranye n’amasezerano y’ubwishingizi bagiranye. Mbonimpa avuga ko umushoferi yari afite uruhushya rwo gutwara imodoka rwatangiwe muri Repubulika iharanira Demokarasi ya Congo ibyo bikaba byaranemejwe na Inspecteur de Police wa Repubulika iharanira Demokarasi ya Congo.Yasabye kandi mu bujurire bwuririye ku bundi amafaranga imodoka yagombaga kuba yarakoreye, indishyi z’akababaro, ay’ikurikirana rubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka. Kubijyanye n’izo ndishyi CORAR yo ivuga ko amafaranga imodoka yagombaga kuba yarakoreye ari ikirenga kandi ko ntabimeyetso ayatangira. Kubijyanye n’indishyi z’akababaro, avuga ko nta bisobanuro Mbonimpa azitangira kandi ko yagenewe indishyi mbonezamusaruro.

Page 111

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 85

Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Iyo habaye impanuka ikozwe n’umushoferi ufite uruhushya rwatangiwe mu mahanga, kandi ntawigeze aregera inyandiko mpimbano, n’Ubugenzacyaha ntiburukemange mu iperereza ku mpanuka cyangwa se ngo ababuranyi babugaragarize ko hari inenge rufite bituma rudateshwa agaciro.

2. Mu gihe Mbonimpa atagaragaje impamvu hatakubahirizwa amasezerano y’ubwishingizi yagiranye na CORAR kandi ntavuguruze agaciro k’imodoka kagenwe n’impuguke hashingiwe ku masezerano bagiranye, ayemejwe n’impuguke niyo agomba guhabwa.

3. Amafaranga imodoka ya Mbonimpa yashoboraga kuba yarinjije iyo CORAR imuha uburyo bwo kwishakira indi modoka, abarwa kuva ku munsi Urukiko rwaregeweho kugeza ku munsi w’isomwa ry’urubanza ku rwego rwa nyuma. Ariko kubw’uko bigaragara ko imodoka hari iminsi itakora, n’amafaranga y’ibigenda ku kuyikoresha no ku zindi mpamvu zinyuranye bigaragaza ko amahirwe yavukijwe yo kwinjiza amafaranga ari ku kigereranyo cya 80% y’amafaranga yashoboraga kuba yakorera 12.240.000 frw bityo indishyi uregwa agomba guhabwa zikaba zingana na 9.792.000 frw.

4. Mbonimpa nta ndishyi z’akababaro yagenerwa mu gihe atazisobanuye. Ubujurire bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe. Ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe. Amagarama y’urubanza aherereye ku baburanyi bombi.

CORAR v. MBONIMPA

Page 112

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 86

Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko, no15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 46. Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 ryerekeye amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258. Nta manza rwifashishijwe. Inyandiko z’abahanga: Philippe, T., Droit de la responsabilité et des contrats, 8e éd., Dalloz, 2010, p. 1419-1420. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Mbonimpa Solange na

CORAR Ltd bagiranye amasezerano y’ubwishingizi bw’imodoka Daihatsu RAB 849P yakoreshwaga mu mirimo y’ubwikorezi bw’ibintu. Kuwa 04/09/2010 iyo modoka yakoze impanuka irangirika bikomeye, impuguke mu by’imodoka yemeza ko idashobora gusanwa ngo isubire mu muhanda. [2] Mbonimpa yareze CORAR Ltd mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi kuba yaranze kumwishyura iyo modoka yishingiye, CORAR ikisobanura ivuga ko idashobora kuryozwa iby’iyo mpanuka kubera ko imodoka yari itwawe n’umuntu udafite uruhushya rwemewe n’amategeko. Urubanza rwaburanishijwe CORAR Ltd ititabye, rwemeza ko igomba guha Mbonimpa 25.000.000 frw y’agaciro k’imodoka, 3.000.000 frw ajyanye n’urupfu rw’umushoferi wari uyitwaye

Page 113

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 87

ikora impanuka, 5.000.000 frw y’indishyi mbonezamusaruro ku mezi 17, 1.000.000 frw y’indishyi z’akababaro na 500.000 frw y’ikurikirana rubanza n’igihembo cya avoka. [3] CORAR A.G. Ltd yajuririye mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, ivuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwageneye Mbonimpa indishyi kandi impanuka yakozwe n’imodoka ye mu gihe yari itwawe n’umushoferi utabifitiye uruhushya rwemewe, ibyo bikaba binyuranye n’amasezerano y’ubwishingizi bagiranye, ndetse n’indishyi zagenwe zikaba zirengeje agaciro kishingiwe. [4] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame kuwa 15/10/2013, CORAR ihagarariwe na Me Munyandirikirwa Laurent, naho Mbonimpa Solange aburanirwa na Me Masumbuko Mussa. II. IBIBAZO BISUZUMWA MURI URU

RUBANZA A. Ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba umushoferi wari utwaye imodoka yari abifitiye uruhushya rwemewe n’amategeko. [5] Uburanira

CORAR avuga Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rutitaye ku kibazo cy’uko umushoferi wari utwaye iyo modoka yakoze impanuka atari afite uruhusa rwo gutwara imodoka rwemewe n’amategeko, ibyo bikaba binyuranyije n’ingingo ya 24 n’iya 64 z’amasezerano y’ubwishingizi Mbonimpa yagiranye na CORAR aho ateganya ko imodoka yafatiwe ubwishingizi igomba kuba itwawe n’umushoferi ubifitiye uburenganzira kandi afite uruhushya rwo gutwara imodoka rwemewe n’amategeko y’u Rwanda. CORAR v. MBONIMPA

Page 114

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 88

[6] Asobanura ko urwo ruhusa rwatangiwe muri Repubulika iharanira Demokarasi ya Congo, inyandiko iri mu dosiye Mbonimpa yatanze ivuga ko ruzwi muri Congo yakozwe na Inspecteur de police, mu gihe CORAR yo yahawe inyandiko n’ukuriye Service de communication aho muri Congo yemeza ko ukuri kwayo gushidikanywaho (l’autenticité de ce permis est mise en doute), kandi iyo service ariyo ishinzwe gutanga impushya zo gutwara imodoka, naho Inspecteur de Police akaba nta bubasha abifitiye. [7] Arasaba Urukiko ko ubwo hari ibyemezo bibiri bitandukanye, Urukiko rwategeka irindi perereza kugira ngo hemezwe amakuru nyayo kuri authenticité de permis. Avuga ko ikindi kigaragaza ko urwo ruhusa rutakwizerwa nk’urwatanzwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, ari uko rugaragaza ko Hakizayezu yavukiye i Goma mu gihe attestation de mariage yerekana ko avuka Cyuve- Musanze. [8] Mbonimpa n’umwunganira bavuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwasobanuye neza ibijyanye n’urwo ruhushya, na dosiye ikaba igaragaza inyandikomvugo y’impanuka yakozwe n’inzego zibifitiye ububasha, ndetse kuwa 03/06/2011 urwego rubifitiye ububasha muri Repubulika iharanira Demokarasi ya Congo (Inspecteur de Police) rukaba rwaremeje ko urwo ruhushya baruzi kandi barwemera. [9] Basobanura ko kuba hari abayobozi b’i Goma bavuga ko ukuri kw’urwo ruhushya gushidikanywaho bitavuga ko atarirwo cyangwa rudahari, kuko mu dosiye harimo PV y’impanuka yakozwe n’ababifitiye ububasha, nko ku rupapuro rwa kane bavuga ko nyakwigendera yari afite uruhushya rwo gutwara imodoka rwatangiwe muri Congo rufite catégorie zitandukanye; iyo nyandiko ikaba nta yindi ihari iyivuguruza kimwe n’uko

Page 115

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 89

batayikemanga, ahubwo Urukiko rukaba rwasuzuma niba CORAR ifite ububasha bwo kurenga imbibi ijya kureba ibyangombwa aho kwandikira Police ngo ibe yakora dosiye y’inyongera(dossier subséquent). [10] Urukiko rusanga, kuba ibyemezo byatanzwe n’abayobozi bo muri Congo bivuguruzanya ku byerekeye uruhushya rwo gutwara imodoka bitarigeze bisabwa n’inzego z’u Rwanda zibifitiye ububasha, buri mu buranyi ariwe wishakiye icye kandi bikaza bivuguruzanya, byongeye hakaba nta n’umwe muri bo wigeze aregera inyandiko mpimbano mu buryo buteganywa n’ingingo ya 46 y‘Itegeko ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ibyo bituma nta mpamvu hashingirwa kuri ibyo byemezo, mu gihe Ubugenza cyaha bw’u Rwanda bwakoze iperereza ku mpanuka yabaye bwavuze ko bwanabonye uruhushya rw’uwari utwaye iyo modoka n’ibiruranga byose ntibugire icyo burukemanga cyangwa se ababuranyi ngo babugaragarize ko hari inenge rufite. B. Ku byerekeye indishyi zisabwa muri uru rubanza 1. Indishyi zijyanye n’agaciro k’imodoka yangiritse [11] Uburanira CORAR A.G. Ltd avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwagenye indishyi zirengeje agaciro kishingiwe kandi zidateganywa mu masezerano, kuko rwemeje agaciro k’imodoka ka 25.000.000 frw kandi imodoka yarishingiwe ku gaciro ka 17.000.000 frw (valeur assurée), mu gihe ahubwo amasezerano ateganya ko iyo habaye impanuka, agaciro kishyurwa ari ako imodoka yari isigaranye umunsi w’impanuka. [12] Asobanura ko ingingo ya 45 y’amasezerano iteganya ko amafaranga yishyurwa ku mpanuka y‘imodoka angana CORAR v. MBONIMPA

Page 116

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 90

n’agaciro iyo modoka yari ifite ikora impanuka (valeur actuelle), bivuze ko agaciro k’iyo modoka kari kubarirwa kuri 17.000.000 frw hagakurwamo amortissement ya 2% buri kwezi, ku mezi 9 yarimaze ikora, ni ukuvuga 18%, hagakurwamo n’agaciro k’igikanka (valeur de l’épave)ka 10%, maze bigahura n’ayo impuguke Nikwigize yemeje ko imodoka yakoze impanuka ifite agaciro ka 12.546.000 frw, ariyo mafaranga Mbonimpa yagombye guhabwa aho kubarirwa 25.000.000 frw batazi iyo Urukiko rwayakuye. [13] Mbonimpa n’umwunganira bavuga ko iyo ngingo nta shingiro ifite kuko CORAR yaba yirengagiza ingaruka zo kutubahiriza ibyo yasezeranye, kandi itegeko n° 45/2011 ryo kuwa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, mu ngingo yaryo ya 65 na 81 zivuga ko amasezerano adateganya gusa icyemejwe, ahubwo yongeraho ingaruka, ugushyira mu kuri, imigenzereze cyangwa amategeko byageneye inshingano bikurikije kamere yayo, kandi kwica amasezerano yose, bitanga uburenganzira ku ndishyi z’akababaro zishingiye ku nshingano zo gukora igisabwa zitararangira. [14] Bavuga ko CORAR itubahirije amasezerano ku gihe, kandi agaciro k’imodoka kishingiwe ari 17.000.000 frw, ako gaciro kakaba kaguma uko kari, naho kuba Urukiko rwarayiciye 25.000.000 frw bikaba ari ingaruka ku kutubahiriza amasezerano ku gihe, kuko nyuma y’impanuka Mbonimpa yagombaga kugurirwa indi modoka nshya, kandi ku isoko itaboneka kuri 17.000.000 frw. [15] Urukiko rurasanga, nta mpamvu Mbonimpa agaragaza yo kuba hatakwubahirizwa amasezerano y’ubwishingizi yagiranye na CORAR, ateganya ko mu gihe impanuka izatuma iyo modoka yangirika yose (en cas de perte totale), CORAR

Page 117

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 91

izishyura imodoka hakurikijwe agaciro yari ifite mu gihe yakoraga impanuka (la valeur vénale au jour du sinistre), naho izindi ndishyi zaba ziterwa no kutubahiriza amasezerano ku gihe, zikaba zasobanurwa ukwazo zititiranyijwe n’iz’agaciro k’imodoka ubwayo. [16] Urukiko rusanga rero, mugihe Mbonimpa atigeze avuguruza ko agaciro k’imodoka umunsi ikora impanuka ari 12.546.000 frw nk’uko byagaragajwe n’impuguke Nikwigize, nta yandi mafaranga yagenerwa ku bijyanye n’agaciro k’imodoka usibye ayo ngayo.

2. Indishyi zijyanye n’amafaranga imodoka yagombaga kuba yarakoreye. [17] Uburanira CORAR avuga ko izo ndishyi Mbonimpa atagomba kuzihabwa kuko imodoka yari itakibasha gusubira mu muhanda, kandi iyo bimeze bityo nta ndishyi mbonezamusaruro zibarwa kuko iyo modoka iba itagomba kubyara umusaruro kuko itari igishoboye kujya mu muhanda, Urukiko rukazabishingira ku rubanza RCAA 0001/11/CS rwaciwe kuwa 13/01/2012, ku gika cya 12 urupapuro rwa 4. [18] Mbonimpa n’umwunganira bavuga ko ku birebana n’indishyi mbonezamusaruro, kuba imodoka yari igenewe gukora imirimo y’ubucuruzi harimo gutwara ibintu, imodoka ikaba yarangiritse ku buryo itakongera gukora, ayo akaba ari amakuba Mbonimpa yagize, umwishingizi we CORAR ntiyamugobokemo, ariyo mpamvu kutishyurira igihe bitera ingaruka zo kwishyura menshi. [19] Mu bujurire bwuririye ku bundi, barasaba ko Mbonimpa yagenerwa indishyi zibariwe kuri 50.000 frw iyo modoka CORAR v. MBONIMPA

Page 118

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 92

yinjizaga ku munsi, bityo, Mbonimpa agahabwa 18.700.000 frw yasabaga ku mezi 17 hakiyongeraho 14.300.000 frw y’amezi agera kuri 13 uhereye kuwa 27/09/2012 urubanza rumaze gucibwa kugeza mu kwa 10/2013 aburana mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga. [20] Uburanira CORAR we avuga ko amafaranga 50.000 frw ku munsi Mbonimpa avuga ko imodoka yakoreraga ari ikirenga atanagaragariza ibimenyetso, Urukiko rusanze izo ndishyi zigomba kwishyurwa hakaba hashingirwa ku biciro biteganywa na RURA ku byerekeye amafaranga imodoka zikorera. [21] Urukiko rusanga, kuba impanuka yarabaye kuwa 04/09/2010, nyuma hakaba inyandiko zinyuranye hagati ya Mbonimpa na CORAR zijyanye n’ikibazo cy’ubwishyu Mbonimpa yasabaga, kugeza ubwo aregeye Urukiko byananiranye, bikagaragaza ko habaye kwanga kwishyura, kandi ari yo yari inshingano ya CORAR hakurikijwe amasezerano y’ubwishingizi basinyanye, iryo akaba ari ikosa ryateje Mbonimpa igihombo kigomba kuryozwa CORAR yagiteje, hakurikijwe ingingo ya 258 y’igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano, iteganya ko “Igikorwa cyose cy’umuntu cyangirije undi gitegeka nyirugukora ikosa rigikomokaho kuriha ibyangiritse”. [22] Urukiko rusanga urugero rw’amafaranga 50.000 frw Mbonimpa avuga ko imodoka yakoreraga ku munsi atari ikirenga ku modoka y’ubwoko bwa Daihatsu ikora imirimo y’ubwikorezi, ariko hakaba hakwiye kuvanwamo 40% y’ibigenda ku modoka byose, hagasigara 30.000 frw iyo modoka yabasha gukorera mu minsi 22 mu kwezi, harebwe ko

Page 119

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 93

hari iminsi ibiri itakora mu cyumweru kubera impamvu zinyuranye z’irimo no gukoreshwa kwayo. [23] Urukiko rurasanga rero, amafaranga imodoka ya Mbonimpa yashoboraga kuba yarinjije iyo CORAR imuha uburyo kwishakira indi modoka, yabarwa kuva ku munsi CORAR yaregeye Urukiko kuwa 03/05/2012 kugeza ku munsi w’isomwa ry’urubanza ku rwego rwa nyuma kuwa 15/11/2013, ni ukuvuga mu mezi 18 n’iminsi cumi n’ibiri (12), yose akaba = 12.240.000 frw. [24] Kubera ariko ko amafaranga avuzwe haruguru atari ayo imodoka yari yinjije ngo tuvuge ko yabuze yari yayakoreye, ahubwo ari ayo imodoka yabashaga kuba yarinjije iyo iramuka ikoze neza nta nkomyi muri kiriya gihe cyavuzwe, byumvikana ko Mbonimpa ari amahirwe yavukijwe9 yo kwinjiza ariya mafaranga (perte de chance), ayo mahirwe rero ubwo bigaragara ko yari menshi kuko imodoka yari isanzwe ikora, akaba yagereranyirizwa kuri 80% y’amafaranga yashoboraga kuba yakorera, bityo, indishyi Mbonimpa akwiye guhabwa zikaba 9.792.000 frw.

9 Abahanga mu mategeko basobanura ko kuvutswa amahirwe bitandukanye no kuvutswa inyungu nyakuri zari zitegerejwe, indishyi zitangwa iyo ari amahirwe umuntu yavukijwe zikaba zidashobora kungana n’izari gutangwa iyo haza kuba ari inyungu nyakuri yavukijwe. Ni byo Philippe Le Tourneau asobanura mu gitabo cye, Droit de la responsabilité et des contrats, 8ème edition, Dalloz, février 2010, p 1419-1420, aho agira ati: “ La perte de chance implique toujours l’existence d’un aléa; c’est ce qui la distingue du strict gain manqué, dont l’obtention aurait été certaine si le fait dommageable n’était pas survenu. La réparation est donc en principe nécessairement inférieure à l’avantage que la victime escomptait retirer de l’événement en question”. CORAR v. MBONIMPA

Page 120

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 94

3. Indishyi z’akababaro mbonimpa asaba [25] Usibye indishyi za 3.000.000 frw Mbonimpa yagenewe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi kubera urupfu rw’umushoferi wari n’umugabo we wari utwaye imodoka, arasaba indishyi z’akababaro zingana na 3.000.000 frw, uburanira CORAR akavuga, mu bujurire bwuririye ku bundi, ko n’izo Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwamugeneye za 1.000.000 frw zitagombaga kubaho, mu gihe yari agenewe indishyi mbonezamusaruro. [26] Urukiko rusanga nta bisobanuro Mbonimpa atanga ku ndishyi z’akababaro asaba usibye kuvuga ko CORAR yamuruhije, akaba rero ntazo yagenerwa, mu gihe yagenewe iz’imbonezamusaruro zibariwe ku gihe CORAR yamaze yanze kumuha indishyi z’imodoka ye yakoze impanuka.

4. Indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya avoka. [27] Ku bijyanye n’amafaranga 2.000.000 frw Mbonimpa asaba y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya avoka ku rwego rw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, Urukiko rurasanga, n’ubwo bigaragara ko yagombye kwiyambaza avoka ahemba akagira n’ibyo atanga ku ikurikiranarubanza, nta bimenyetso yerekana ku rugero rw’izo ndishyi, bityo, mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko akaba yagenerwa 1.000.000 frw ku nzego zombi yaburaniyemo. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [28] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa CORAR bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe;

Page 121

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 95

[29] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Mbonimpa bwuririye ku bundi bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe; [30] Rutegetse CORAR Ltd kwishyura Mbonimpa Solange 12.546.000 frw y‘indishyi ku modoka ye yangijwe n’impanuka, 9.792.000 frw y’indishyi mbonezamusaruro, 3.000.000 frw y’indishyi ku mushoferi w’iyo modoka waguye muri iyo mpanuka, zikaba zitarajuririwe, na 1.000.000 frw y’igihembo cya avoka n’ikurikiranarubanza, yose hamwe akaba 26.338.000 frw; [31] Rutegetse

CORAR Ltd na Mbonimpa Solange kwishyura buri wese icya ½ cy’amagarama y’uru rubanza, angana na 22.100 frw, ni ukuvuga 11.050 frw buri wese.

CORAR v. MBONIMPA

Page 123

HOTEL OKAPI v. BPR [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RCOMA 0032/12/CS (Mugenzi, P.J., Kanyange na Munyangeri, J.) 14 Werurwe 2014] Amategeko y’ubucuruzi – Sosiyeti z’ubucuruzi – Ububasha bwo guhagararira sosiyeti mu masezerano igirana n’abandi – Uwafashe umwenda yitwaje ko ahagarariye sosiyeti nyamara ntimwigarike cyangwa ngo imurege kwiha ububasha bifatwa nk’aho wafashwe mu izina ryayo. Amategeko agenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa – Ibisa no guhabwa ubutumwa – Kubahiriza amasezerano – Iyo bisa nk’aho hari uwabiherewe ubutumwa, undi muntu akibwira ko uwo bagiye kugirana amasezerano yabuhawe, ayo masezerano agomba gushyirwa mu bikorwa uko yakabaye n’usa n’uwatanze bene ubwo butumwa – Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 ryerekeye amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 33. Amategeko agenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa – Ubwishingire – Kwishyura k’umwishingizi hatabanje gushakwa ubwishyu mu bintu by’ugomba kwishyura mu gihe yabyiyemereye mu masezerano y’ubwishingire – Igihe uwishingiye uwahawe umwenda yemeye kwishyura hatabanje kwishyuza uwawuhawe, uberewemo umwenda afite uburenganzira bwo kwishyuza umwishingizi ku giti cye cyangwa akabishyuza bose icyarimwe – Itegeko.ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 ryerekeye amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 560. 97

Page 124

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 98

Incamake y’ikibazo: HOTEL OKAPI ihagarariwe na Nkunda Leatitia yagiranye amasezerano y’inguzanyo na Banki y’Abaturage y’u Rwanda, ishami rya Remera; iyo nguzanyo yashyizwe kuri konti ya HOTEL OKAPI yasinywagaho na Nkunda Leatitia na Rumanyika Jean Marie Vianney wari umuyobozi wayo. Banki y’Abaturage y’u Rwanda yasabye HOTEL OKAPI kuyishyura, Rumanyika Jean Marie Vianney wari uyihagarariye ayisubiza ko atazi uwo mwenda ngo kuko amasezerano yasinywe n’umuntu itemera. Banki y’Abaturage y’u Rwanda yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi isaba ko HOTEL OKAPI ihagarariwe na Rumanyika Jean Marie Vianney ifatanya na Nkunda Leatitia kwishyura umwenda n’inyungu zawo Nkunda Leatitia yishingiye. Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwemeza ko abarezwe bafatanya kwishyura umwenda n’inyungu zawo. Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwajuririwe na

HOTEL

OKAPI ihagarariwe na Rumanyika Jean Marie Vianney, Nkunda Leatitia akagobokeshwa, Rumanyika Jean Marie Vianney yavuze ko Banki y’Abaturage yagize uburangare bwo guha umwenda umuntu utarufite ububasha bwo kuyihagararira. Nkunda Leatitia we yavuze ko yari umwishingizi kandi uwo yishingiye akaba atabuze ubwishyu, bityo ko yagombye kuryozwa uwo mwenda ari uko uwo yishingiye adashoboye kuwishyura n’ubwo we yari yariyemereye kuzahita yishyura bitabaye ngombwa ko ubwishyu bubanza gushakirwa mu bintu bya HOTEL OKAPI. Naho ku ruhande rwa Banki y’abaturage y’u Rwanda, yo yagaragaje ko iyo konti yagiye ikoreshwa na Rumanyika Jean Marie Vianney na Nkunda ku matariki atandukanye, bityo akaba nta burangare Banki yagize mugutanga umwenda kubera ko Nkunda wakoreshaga iyo konti atigeze aregwa kwiha

Page 125

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 99

ububasha kuri yo ikanavuga ko Nkunda Laetitia nk’umwishingizi w’umwenda agomba gufatanya na HOTEL OKAPI kwishyura kubera ko yayibereye umwishingizi magirirane. Muri uru rubanza kandi Banki y’Abaturage y’u Rwanda yatanze ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi isaba kwishyurwa umwenda remezo, inyungu z’ubukererwe, amafaranga y’ikurikirana rubanza n’igihembo cya avoka; naho Nkunda Leatitia we akaba yarasabaga ko atategekwa kwishyura umwenda kubera ko we ari umwishingizi kandi uwo yishingiye akaba atabuze ubwishyu. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Iyo umwe mubafite uburenganzira bwo gusinya kuri konti kandi iyo konti ikanyuzwaho inguzanyo isabwe n’umwe muribo bisa nk’aho yabiherewe ubutumwa. Amasezerano akozwe muri ubwo buryo agomba gushyirwa mu bikorwa uko yakabaye n’usa n’uwatanze ubwo butumwa. Uwitwa nyiri konti ntashobora kuvuga ko atamutumye mu gihe atamwigaritse cyangwa ngo amurege ko yihaye ububasha. Bityo, uwajuriye agomba gushyira mu bikorwa amasezerano y’umwenda wasinywe n’uwagobokeshejwe.

2. Mu gihe bisa nk’aho hari uwahawe ubutumwa, undi muntu ashobora kwibwira ko uwo bagiye kugirana amasezerano yabuhawe, kandi ko iyi myumvire ye ishobora gutuma uyu muntu atagenzura ububasha bw’uriya. Amasezerano akozwe muri ubwo buryo agomba gushyirwa mu bikorwa uko yakabaye n’usa n’uwatanze bene ubwo butumwa.

3. Uwishingiye undi agomba kwishyura ugomba kwishyurwa gusa iyo ugomba kwishyura atashoboye kubikora. Ubwishyu bugomba kubanza gushakwa mu bintu by’ugomba kwishyura, keretse iyo uwamwishingiye yiyemereye kuzahita yishyura HOTEL OKAPI v. BPR

Page 126

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 100

bitabaye ngombwa ko ubwishyu bubanza gushakirwa mu bintu by’ugomba kwishyura. Bityo kuba uwagobokeshejwe yariyemereye kuzishyura umwenda yishingiye bitabaye ngombwa ko ubwishyu bubanza gushakirwa kuwahawe umwenda, uwatanze inguzanyo afite uburenganzira bwo kumurega wenyine. Ariko kandi bashobora gufatanya kwishyura umwenda mu gihe uwawubahaye ahisemo kubaregera icyarimwe, uwarezwe akaba aribyo yakoze, bityo bakaba bagomba gufatanya kwishyura umwenda remezo, inyungu zawo n’igihembo cy’Avoka. Ubujurire nta shingiro bufite. Ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bw’uwarezwe bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe. Ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bw’uwagobokeshejwe nta shingiro bufite. Uwajuriye n’uwagobokeshejwe bagomba gufatanya kwishyura uwarezwe. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 ryerekeye amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 33 n’iya 560 (Ingingo ya 33 niyo yakoreshwaga igihe amasezerano yakorwaga ikaba yarasimbuwe n’Ingingo ya 64 y’itegeko no 45/2011 ryo kuwa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano). Nta manza zifashishijwe. Inyandiko z’abahanga zifashishijwe: Philippe, T., et Loïc, C., Droit de la Responsabilité, Dalloz Action, Paris, p.544.

Page 127

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 101

Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Inkomoko y’uru rubanza ni amasezerano y’inguzanyo yabaye kuwa 29/04/2008 hagati ya Banki y’Abaturage y’u Rwanda Ishami rya Remera na HOTEL OKAPI yari ihagarariwe na Nkunda Laetitia, Banki y’Abaturage y’u Rwanda ikavuga ko yasabye HOTEL OKAPI ko yishyura uwo mwenda ikayisubiza ko itazi uwo mwenda ngo kuko amasezerano yawo yasinywe n’umuntu itemera. [2] Banki y’Abaturage y’u Rwanda yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi isaba ko Urukiko rutegeka HOTEL OKAPI ihagarariwe na Rumanyika Jean Marie Vianney afatanyije na Nkunda Laetitia agobokeshejwe wishingiye uwo mwenda kuyishyura amafaranga y’umwenda remezo n’inyungu zawo zibazwe kugera kuwa 04/08/2009. [3] Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko ikirego cya Banki y’Abaturage y’u Rwanda gifite ishingiro, rutegeka HOTEL OKAPI ihagarariwe na Rumanyika JMV ifatanyije na Nkunda Laetitia kwishyura BPR 31.490.040 frw akubiyemo umwenda remezo, inyungu zawo n’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza. [4] HOTEL OKAPI yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ivuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwirengagije amategeko shingiro yayo kubera ko rwemeje ko Nkunda ariwe wari uhagarariye

HOTEL OKAPI,nyamara nta cyemezo kibigaragaza, ko ahubwo BPR yagize uburangare igaha umwenda umuntu udahagarariye HOTEL OKAPI. Nkunda HOTEL OKAPI v. BPR

Page 128

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 102

wagobokeshejwe muri uru rubanza yemeza ko yakoze amasezerano mu izina rya HOTEL OKAPI, ko n’amafaranga yagiye kuri konti yayo agakoreshwa mu nyungu zayo. [5] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame kuwa 04/02/2014 HOTEL OKAPI iburanirwa na Me Bizimana Shoshi, Nkunda Laetitia aburanirwa na Me Rwigema Aimable naho Banki y’Abaturage y’u Rwanda iburanirwa na Me Ntaganda Kabare Festo. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO a. Kumenya uwahawe umwenda wa 20.000.000 frw hagati ya HOTEL OKAPI na Nkunda. [6] Me Shoshi uburanira HOTEL OKAPI avuga ko umucamanza wo mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi yirengagije amategeko shingiro ya HOTEL OKAPI aho yemeje ko Nkunda Laetitia yari ayihagarariye mu gihe yasinyaga amasezerano y’inguzanyo kandi yari yahawe amategeko shingiro yerekana ko Rumanyika JMV ari we uhagarariye iyo HOTEL. [7] Avuga ko BPR yagize uburangare isinyana amasezerano n’umuntu utabifitiye ububasha, ko iby’uko HOTEL OKAPI yagiye ihagararirwa n’abantu benshi bidahagije kubera ko amategeko shingiro yayo agaragaza neza ko ihagarariwe na Rumanyika JMV, ko rero igomba kwirengera ingaruka zabyo. [8] Asobanura ko HOTEL OKAPI itafashe uwo mwenda ihagarariwe na Nkunda Laetitia, ko ifite inyandikomvugo y’inama rusange idasanzwe y’abanyamuryango ba HOTEL

Page 129

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 103

OKAPI yo kuwa 19/09/2007 yemejwe na Notaire igaragaza neza ko uhagarariye HOTEL OKAPI ari Rumanyika JMV, naho Nkunda Laetitia yakodesheje iyo HOTEL gusa agasinya amasezerano mu buryo bw’uburiganya, nyamara HOTEL OKAPI yari yarumvikanye nawe ko amafaranga y’ubukode azajya yishyura umwenda wa HOTEL OKAPI ibereyemo Banki, akaba ari muri urwo rwego babyitiranyije. [9] Avuga ko kuba Nkunda yari yemerewe gusinya kuri konti ya HOTEL byatewe nuko bishyuranaga, naho ku kibazo kijyanye n’ingano y’umwenda Me Shoshi avuga ko uwo aburanira atemera uwo mwenda ko nta n’impamvu ihari yo kwisobanura ku ngano yawo kuko atari cyo cyajuririwe. [10] Me Rwigema uburanira Nkunda avuga ko umucamanza atirengagije amategeko shingiro ya HOTEL OKAPI, ko ahubwo yasanze HOTEL yaragiye igira abayihagarariye benshi kandi batagaragara mu mategeko shingiro yayo, ko ari nabwo buryo Nkunda yagiyeho, akaba yarafashe inguzanyo nk’uhagarariye HOTEL OKAPI amafaranga agashyirwa kuri konti yayo, akajya akurwaho akajya kwishyura umwenda HOTEL OKAPI ihagarariwe na Rumanyika yari ifitiye BCR nk’uko bigaragazwa na historique ya konti nº 401.200.783.111 ya HOTEL OKAPI nk’aho ku itariki 11/06/2008 yakuweho 12.098.747frw. [11] Akomeza avuga ko bitumvikana ukuntu Rumanyika ahagarariye HOTEL OKAPI yakomeje gukoresha iyi konti anemera ko we na Nkunda bakomeza kujya bayisinyaho kandi akabikora nyuma y’uko iyo nguzanyo imaze gufatwa, HOTEL OKAPI ikaba ishaka kwivanaho inshingano zayo kandi bigaragara ko yakoresheje ayo mafaranga ihagarariwe na Rumanyika. HOTEL OKAPI v. BPR

Page 130

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 104

[12] Me Ntaganda uburanira Banki y’Abaturage y’u Rwanda avuga ko inguzanyo yatswe na HOTEL OKAPI ihagarariwe na Nkunda, ko Rumanyika na Nkunda Laetitia, bombi bemerewe kubikuza kuri iyo konti, bikaba bigaragara ko iyo konti yagiye ikoreshwa na Rumanyika Jean Marie Vianney na Nkunda ku matariki atandukanye, bityo akaba nta burangare Banki yagize mugutanga umwenda kubera ko Nkunda wakoreshaga iyo konti atigeze aregwa kwiha ububasha kuri yo, umwenda bishyuza HOTEL OKAPI na Nkunda Laetitia kugeza ubu ukaba ugeze kuri 44.487.042 frw.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [13] Inyandiko ziri muri dosiye y’urubanza zigaragaza ko amasezerano y’inguzanyo yasinywe kuwa 28/04/2008 yabaye hagati ya HOTEL OKAPI na Banki y’Abaturage y’u Rwanda, agasinywa na Nkunda, akaba yaremeye ko yishingiye umwenda wahawe

HOTEL

OKAPI ku bw’amasezerano Banki y’Abaturage y’u Rwanda ishami rya Remera ifitanye n’iyo HOTEL. [14] Dosiye igaragaza kandi ko hafunguwe konti nº 401.200.783.111 ya HOTEL OKAPI10 yasinywagaho na Rumanyika na Nkunda, igomba gushyirwaho amafaranga Banki itanzeho inguzanyo. [15] Urukiko rurasanga, ubwo Nkunda yasinyiraga inguzanyo ya OKAPI atarabanje kugaragariza BPR ibyemezo bihagije by’uko yari ahagarariye koko OKAPI mu buryo

10 Reba inyandiko zinyuranye ziri muri dosiye y’urubanza kuva kuri Cote ya 84-88.

Page 131

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 105

bukurikije amategeko, ariko nanone bikaba bigaragara ko hari ibyo iyo banki yashingiyeho icyizere ifata Nkunda nk’uwatumwe na OKAPI ayihagarariye, birimo kuba inyandiko igaragaza abafite uburenganzira bwo gusinyira konti ya OKAPI ari Rumanyika na Nkunda bagaragajwe kuri iyo nyandiko nka Perezida w’Inama y’Ubutegetsi na Visi Perezida wa mbere, kandi iyo konti akaba ariyo yasabiwe kunyuzwaho iyo nguzanyo akaba ari nako byagenze, binakubitiyeho ko OKAPI yakoreshaga iyo konti itarigaritse Nkunda ko yaba yarayikoreye ibyo itamutumye. [16] Urukiko rurasanga ibyo bihuje kandi n’ibisobanuro by’abahanga mu mategeko nk’abitwa Philippe le Tourneau na Loïc Cadiet, bavuga ko mu gihe bisa nk’aho hari uwabiherewe ubutumwa (mandat apparent), undi muntu ashobora kwibwira ko uwo bagiye kugirana amasezerano yabiherewe ubutumwa, kandi ko iyi myumvire ye ishobora gutuma uyu muntu atagenzura ububasha bw’uriya, kandi ko amasezerano akozwe muri ubwo buryo agomba gushyirwa mu bikorwa uko yakabaye n’usa n’uwatanze bene ubwo butumwa (mandant)11. [17] Urukiko rurasanga nk’uko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwabyemeje, HOTEL OKAPI igomba gushyira mu bikorwa amasezerano y’umwenda yasinye kuwa 28/04/2008 ihagarariwe na Nkunda Laetitia hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 33 y’igitabo cya gatatu cy’amategeko mbonezamubano iteganya ko

11 “Le mandat apparent suppose la croyance légitime du tiers dans l’existence du mandat, qui suppose elle-même que les circonstances le dispensaient de vérifier les pouvoirs du pseudo mandataire. La totalité des effets de la convention conclue par le mandataire apparent doivent être exécutés par le prétendu mandant”. HOTEL OKAPI v. BPR

Page 132

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 106

amasezerano akozwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko abera itegeko abayagiranye12. b. Ku byerekeye ubujurire bwa BPR bwuririye ku bundi [18] BPR yasabye ko urugero rw’umwenda rwabarirwa ku gihe tugezemo, ikaba yishyuza ubu 40.470.040 frw, hamwe n’andi 4.017.004 frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya avoka. [19] Urukiko rurasanga, amafaranga BPR igomba kwishyurwa kugeza kuwa 09/12/2013 nk’uko iyasaba ari 39.670.040 frw, ni ukuvuga 20.000.000 frw zibariwe inyungu zisanzwe za 14% hamwe na 4% z’ubukererwe mu gihe cy’iminsi 1059 nk’uko BPR yabigaragarije inyandiko yo kuwa 09/12/2013 abo baburana bakaba batarayivuguruje. [20] Urukiko rurasanga, ku byerekeye amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya avoka BPR yaka, itayahabwa kuko ari ikirenga itagaragariza ibisobanuro, Urukiko rukaba rwayigenera 500.000 frw yiyongera kuri 500.000 frw yagenewe ku rwego rwa mbere. c. Ku byerekeye ubujurire bwa Nkunda bwuririye ku bwa

HOTEL OKAPI [21] Me Rwigema uburanira Nkunda Laetitia asaba ko atategekwa kwishyura umwenda kubera ko we ari umwishingizi kandi uwo yishingiye akaba atabuze ubwishyu, ko yagombye

12 Amasezerano akozwe ku buryo bukurikije amategeko aba itegeko ku bayagiranye. Ashobora guseswa ari uko babyumvikanyeho cyangwa ku mpamvu zemewe n'amategeko. Agomba kubahirizwa nta buriganya.

Page 133

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 107

kuryozwa uwo mwenda ari uko uwo yishingiye adashoboye kwishyura. [22] Me Shoshi uburanira HOTEL OKAPI avuga ko ku bujurire bwuririye ku bundi butanzwe na Nkunda ntacyo yabuvugaho, ko hazarebwa ibyo umucamanza wa mbere yamutegetse, naho Me Kabare Ntaganda Festo uburanira Banki y’Abaturage y’u Rwanda akavuga ko Nkunda Laetitia nk’umwishingizi w’umwenda agomba gufatanya na HOTEL OKAPI kwishyura kubera ko yayibereye umwishingizi magirirane (caution solidaire), asaba 500.000 frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’avoka.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [23] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza ko kuwa 29/05/2008 Banki y’Abaturage y’u Rwanda, Ishami rya Remera yagiranye amasezerano y’ubwishingire na Nkunda Laetitia, ku nguzanyo ya 20.000.000frw n’inyungu zayo yagurije HOTEL OKAPI, akiyemeza ko azishyura iyo nguzanyo bitabaye ngombwa ko Banki y’Abaturage ibanza gushakira ubwishyu mu mitungo ya hotel okapi13. [24] Ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba Banki y’Abaturage y’u Rwanda, Ishami rya Remera ifite uburenganzira bwo gukurikirana uwishingiye umwenda bitabaye ngombwa ko ibanza gukurikirana uwo yishingiye wenyine, ingingo ya 560 y’igitabo cya gatatu cy’amategeko mbonezamubano, iteganya ko "Uwishingiye undi ashinzwe kwishyura ugomba kwishyurwa

13 Ingingo ya 3 y’amasezerano y’ubwishingire yabaye hagati ya Banki y’Abaturage y’u Rwanda, Ishami rya Remera na Nkunda Laetitia. HOTEL OKAPI v. BPR

Page 134

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 108

gusa iyo ugomba kwishyura atashoboye kubikora, ubwishyu bugomba kubanza gushakwa mu bintu by’ugomba kwishyura, keretse rero uwamwishingiye yariyemereye kuzahita yishyura bitabaye ngombwa ko ubwishyu bubanza gushakirwa mu bintu by’ugomba kwishyura". [25] Urukiko rurasanga mu masezerano Nkunda Laetitia yasinye, harateganyijwemo ko yemeye kuzishyura umwenda yishingiye bitabaye ngombwa ko ubwishyu bubanza gushakirwa kuri HOTEL

OKAPI yahawe umwenda, bityo Banki y’Abaturage y’u Rwanda ikaba ifite uburenganzira bwo kurega Nkunda Laetitia wishingiye umwenda wenyine cyangwa ikabaregera hamwe ari nabyo yakoze isaba ko bafatanya kuwishyura (condamnation in solidum), bityo hashingiwe ku masezerano no ku ngingo ya 560 byavuzwe haruguru Nkunda Laetitia akaba agomba kwishyura umwenda remezo n’inyungu zawo afanyije na HOTEL OKAPI ihagarariwe na Rumanyika Jean Marie Vianney. [26] Urukiko rurasanga 500.000 frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’avoka Banki y’Abaturage y’u Rwanda yasabye ikwiye kuyahabwa kuko byabaye ngombwa ko kuri uru rwego yifashisha uwuyiburanira ikanamuhemba. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [27] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa HOTEL OKAPI ihagarariwe na Rumanyika Jean Marie Vianney nta shingiro bufite. [28] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwa Banki y’Abaturage y’u Rwanda bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe.

Page 135

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 109

[29] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwa Nkunda Laetitia nta shingiro bufite. [30] Rutegetse

HOTEL

OKAPI na Nkunda Laetitia gufatanya kwishyura Banki y’Abaturage y’u Rwanda 40.670.040 frw (39.670.040 frw+500.000 frw+500.000 frw). [31] Rugitegetse HOTEL OKAPI na Nkunda Laetitia gufatanya kwishyura amagarama y’urubanza angana na 44.400 frw.

HOTEL OKAPI v. BPR

Page 137

IMANZA Z’INSHINJABYAHA

Page 139

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. FAYIRARA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/REV/PEN0016/10/CS (Kayitesi Z., PJ., Mugenzi na Munyangeri, J.) 18 Ukwakira 2013] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha – Gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya – Ikimenyetso umuburanyi yari azi mu gihe cy’iburanisha nyamara ntakigaragarize urukiko cyangwa ngo avuge impamvu ntakumirwa atabikoze ntabwo cyafatwa nk’ikimenyetso gishya cyatuma habaho gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya – Itegeko no 13/2004 ryo kuwa 15/05/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 180. Incamake y’ikibazo: Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rusizi rwahamije Fayirara Ananias icyaha cyo kwigana ibimenyetso by’amafaranga y’u Rwanda no kuyakwirakwiza rumuhanisha igifungo cy’imyaka 10.Yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru avuga ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rutahaye agaciro imvugo ye ahubwo rugashingira ku bamushinja gusa. Urukiko rwasanze nta shingiro ikirego cye gifite. Yaje kujuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko yahaniwe icyaha atakoze nyamara narwo rushimangira ibyo Urukiko Rukuru rwari rwemeje. Nyuma yaregeye urwo Rukiko avuga ko asaba gusubirishamo urwo rubanza ingingo nshya aho ibanzirizasuzuma ryerekanye ko urega atemerewe gukoresha iyi nzira kuko aterekanaga aho ubushya bw’ikimenyetso yatanze buherereye. Yajuririye icyo cyemezo avuga ko hari inyemezabuguzi atigeze aburanisha kuko yari yarayibuze akaba atarashoboraga kuyiburanisha kuko atashoboraga kuyigaragariza urukiko 113

Page 140

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 114

Ubushinjacyaha busanga ibi nta gaciro byahabwa kuko iyo nyemezabuguzi ari we wayikoranye n’uwo avuga wamuhaye akazi. Bwongeraho ko aburana mbere yari azi ko iyo nyemezabuguzi iriho. Akaba rero, n’ubwo atashoboraga kuyigaragariza Urukiko, yagombaga kuvuga ko iriho kugirango izashakishwe ishyikirizwe Urukiko. Ubushinjacyaha bwashimangiye ko bitabaye ibyo nta cyabuza ko yaba yarayihimbye nyuma y’icibwa ry’urubanza, akagerageza guhuza ibyo yaburanishije n’igipapuro yanditse. Incamake y’icyemezo: Mu gihe ushinjwa yari azi ko hari ikimenyetso ntakigaragarize urukiko cyangwa ngo agaragaze impamvu atakigaragaza ntabwo gifatwa nk’ikimenyetso gishya cyatuma habaho gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya. Kubera izi mpamvu Urukiko rwanze kwakira ikirego cy’uwajuriye gisaba gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya. Ubujurire ku cyemezo cy’ibanzirizasuzuma nta shingiro bufite. Icyemezo cy’ibanzirizasuma no RP 0410/09/Pré-ex/CS ntigihindutse. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko no 13/2004 ryo kuwa 15/05/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 180. Nta rubanza rwifashishijwe. Ibitekerezo by’abahanga: M. Franchimont . et al., Manuel de Procédure Pénale, 2ème. ed., Bruxelles, Larcier, 2006, p.1200.

Page 141

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 115

Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Urubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rusizi, Fayirara Ananias aregwa gufatanya na Munyaneza Joseph na Kazungu kwigana ibimenyetso by’amafaranga y’u Rwanda no kuyakwirakwiza mu baturage bakoresheje uburyo bwo kuyabavunjira. Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwasanze Fayirara yarafatanyaga n’Abanyekongo atashatse kuvuga amazina gukora ayo mafaranga nyuma akayaha Munyaneza Joseph ngo jye kuyagurisha, rumuhanisha igifungo cy’imyaka 10. [2] Fayirara yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi, avuga ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rutahaye agaciro imvugo ye, ahubwo rwamuhamije icyaha rushingiye ku mvugo z’ushinja gusa. Urukiko Rukuru rwasanze ubujurire bwa Fayirara nta shingiro bufite rwemeza ko nta gihindutse ku mikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe. [3] Fayirara yajuririye icyo cyemezo mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko yahaniwe icyaha cyakozwe na Munyaneza Joseph, ko atazi muri Congo ndetse nabo banyekongo bavugwa muri dosiye bataziranye. Mu rubanza Nº RPAA0103/08/CS/, Urukiko rwasanze ubujurire bwa Fayirara nta shingiro bufite, rwemeza ko nta gihindutse ku mikirize y’inkiko za mbere. [4] Fayirara yaregeye gusubirishamo urwo rubanza ingingo nshya mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, ikirego cye cyandikwa kuri no RS/REV/PEN0039/09/CS-RPAA0103/08/CS/, umucamanza w’ibanzirizasuzuma agisuzumye asanga atagaragaza aho UBUSHINJACYAHA v. FAYIRARA

Page 142

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 116

ubushya bw’ibimenyetso yatanze buherereye, afata icyemezo no RP 0410/09/ Pré-ex/CS cyo kuwa 26/10/2009 ko atemerewe isubirishamo ry’urubanza ingingo nshya kuko nta mpamvu abitangira yemewe n’amategeko. [5] Fayirara yajuririye icyo cyemezo cy’ibanzirizasuzuma muri uru Rukiko, ubujurire bwe bwandikwa kuri RS/REV/PEN 0016/10/CS. Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame kuwa 02/10/2013, Fayirara yitabye kandi yunganiwe na Me Kayitare Dieudonné, naho Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na Mukurarinda Alain. II. IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA N’UKO

URUKIKO RUBIBONA Kumenya niba inyemezabuguzi (Risi/recu) FAYIRARA yagaragaje nyuma y’urubanza yafatwa nk’ikimenyetso gishya. [6] Fayirara Ananias avuga ko Umucamanza w’ibanzirizasuzuma yanze kwakira ikirego cye kuko atahaye agaciro ikimenyetso ashingiraho asaba gusubirishamo urubanza rwe ingingo nshya, cyerekeranye n’inyemezabuguzi (Risi/recu) yagiranye na Munyaneza Joseph igaragaza ko imashini ivugwa muri dosiye atari iyo kwigana amafaranga ahubwo ari iyo kudoda, ko iyo nyemezabuguzi atigeze ayiburanisha mbere kubera ko yari yarayibuze, ngo nubwo yari azi ko iriho ntiyari kuburanisha ikimenyetso adashobora kugaragariza Urukiko. [7] Avuga ko iyo mpamvu ikwiye gutuma yemererwa gusubirishamo urubanza rwe ingingo nshya hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 180, agace ka 4 y’Itegeko No 13/2004 ryo kuwa

Page 143

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 117

17/5/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha ryakoreshwaga igihe yatangiye ikirego. Naho Me Kayitare Dieudonné umwunganira yongeraho ko icyo asaba Urukiko ari ukurenganura Fayirara ruha agaciro inyemezabuguzi yagiranye n’uwamuhaye akazi, ko kuva Fayirara yemeza ko iyo nyemezabuguzi ari umwimerere, Urukiko rwabifata nk’ukuri. [8] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko ubushya bw’inyemezabuguzi Fayirara yashyikirije umucamanza ubwo yasabaga ko urubanza rusubirishwamo ingingo nshya nta shingiro bufite kubera ko iyo nyemezabuguzi ari we wayikoranye n’uwo avuga wamuhaye akazi, ko aburana mbere yari azi ko iyo nyemezabuguzi iriho, ko nubwo atashoboraga kuyigaragariza Urukiko yakagombye kuba yaravuze ko iriho kugirango izashakishwe ishyikirizwe Urukiko, ko mu gihe atagaragaza ko itari izwi igihe yaburanaga, nta cyabuza ko yaba yarayihimbye nyuma y’icibwa ry’urubanza, akagerageza guhuza ibyo yaburanishije n’igipapuro yanditse; asoza avuga ko asanga icyemezo cy’umucamanza w’ibanzirizasuzuma nta nenge gifite.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [9] Kubyerekeye impamvu zigomba gushingirwaho kugirango ikirego cyakirwe, ingingo ya 180 y’Itegeko no 13/2004 ryo kuwa 15/05/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha ryakoreshwaga igihe ikirego cyatanzwe, iteganya ko: “Gusubirishamo urubanza rw’inshinjabyaha rwaciwe burundu ingingo nshya bishobora gusabwa ku nyungu z’umuntu wese wahamijwe icyaha cy’ubugome cyangwa gikomeye iyo: UBUSHINJACYAHA v. FAYIRARA

Page 144

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 118

1º umuntu amaze gucibwa urubanza rw’uko yicanye, hanyuma hakaboneka ibimenyetso bihagije byemeza ko uwo bakeka ko yishwe atapfuye; 2º bamaze gucira umuntu urubanza ku cyaha yashinjwaga, hakaboneka urundi rubanza nk’urwo rwahannye undi muntu kuri icyo cyaha izo manza zombi zivuguruzanya kandi zigaragaza ko umwe mu bakatiwe yarenganye; 3º umwe mu batangabuhamya yahaniwe kuba yarabeshyeye uwahanwe kandi urubanza rumuhana rwaramaze gucibwa; 4º n’iyo bamaze guca urubanza, hakaboneka ibimenyetso bitagaragaye mbere byerekana ko uwakatiwe yatsinzwe azize akarengane”. [10] Urukiko rurasanga icyemezo cy’ibanzirizasuma no RP 0410/09/ Pré-ex/CS cyo kuwa 26/10/2009 kigaragaza ko impamvu zatanzwe na Fayirara yamenye nyuma y’icibwa ry’urubanza, yita nshya, umucamanza yashingiyeho afata icyemezo ari : 1) Ko amafaranga aregwa yatanzwe n’uwitwa Bellancille wayashyiriye iwabo ayakuye k’uwo bita Kayiranga, 2) Ko ayo mafaranga yakorewe ahitwa mu Mwaga k’uwo bita Karinda Antoine wari wahawe akazi na Kayiranga, 3) Ko inyito y’icyaha aregwa yahinduwe hakabaho no guhindagura amagambo kubyo yavuze bakamwandikira ibyo bashatse, 4) Ko hari umutangabuhamya usobanura uburyo umugambi wo kumufungisha wakozwe n’abawuteguye. [11] Urukiko rurasanga na none muri dosiye y’urubanza hari ibaruwa yo kuwa 26/07/2009, Fayirara yandikiye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga asaba gusubirishamo urubanza rwe ingingo nshya, avugamo ko, mu mpamvu ashingiraho ikirego cye harimo kuba “hari na risi (recu) yabonetse atari akibuka ko yaba yari igihari”; iyo nyemezabuguzi (risi /recu) Fayirara yagiranye na Munyaneza Joseph, yometswe kuri iyo barwa (cote 1,

Page 145

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 119

urupapuro rwa 4.). Biragaragara ko umucamanza atayisuzumye bitewe nuko na nyirubwite atayigarutseho mu myanzuro ye ndetse no mu nyandiko yo kuwa 10/03/2010 yandikiye Urukiko yongera kurusaba.gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya (cote 1, 2, 3). Ariko kandi niyo umucamanza aza kuyisuzuma yari gusanga atari ikimenyetso gishya, kuko nkuko Fayirara abyiyemerera ubwe, yari azi ko iyo nyemezabuguzi (risi /recu) ihari, gusa akaba atarayiburanishije mu nkiko zibanza kuko atari kuyibona, ibi bikaba bishimangira ko iyo nyemezabuguzi (risi /recu) atari ikimenyetso gishya kuko abahanga mu mategeko bavuga ko ikirego gisaba gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya kitakirwa, iyo uregwa yarafite inyemezabuguzi igihe cy’iburanisha, kandi ntanashobore kugaragariza Urukiko impamvu ndakumirwa zamubujije kugaragariza Urukiko ko iyo nyemezabuguzi yariho14, bityo ikimenyetso cyatanzwe na Fayirara kikaba kitashingirwaho ngo yemererwe isubirishamo ry’urubanza ingingo nshya. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [12] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Fayirara Ananias ku cyemezo cy’ibanzirizasuma No RP 0410/09/Pré-ex/CS cyo kuwa 26/10/2009 nta shingiro bufite. [13] Rwemeje ko icyemezo cy’ibanzirizasuma no RP 0410/09/Pré-ex/CS cyo kuwa 26/10/2009 kidahindutse.

14“Est irrecevable la demande en révision fondée sur une facture en possession du requérant lors du procès et qu’il n’allègue pas avoir été dans l’impossibilité de produire au cours des débats”. Reba Michel Franchimont et alii, Manuel de Procédure Pénale, 2ème ed., Bruxelles, Larcier, 2006, p.1200. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. FAYIRARA

Page 147

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MPITABAKANA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’ IKIRENGA – RPA0129/10/CS (Nyirinkwaya, P.J., Havugiyaremye na Mukamulisa, J.) 7 Werurwe 2014] Amategeko mpanabyaha – Ubwicanyi – Byitwa ubwicanyi iyo bigaragaye ko umuntu yishe undi abishaka – Itegeko-Teka nº 21/77 ryo ku wa 18/08/1977 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ibyaha mu Rwanda cyakoreshwaga igihe icyaha cyakorwaga, ingingo ya 311. Amategeko mpanabyaha – Kugabanyirizwa ibihano – Ntawakwitwaza ingaruka mbi z’icyaha yakoze ngo asabe kugabanyirizwa ibihano. Amategeko mpanabyaha – Kugabanyirizwa ibihano – kwishyikiriza inzego za polisi nyuma yo gukora icyaha bifatwa nk’ impamvu nyoroshyacyaha – Impamvu nyoroshyacyaha zitaweho n’inkiko zibanza ntizongera gushingirwaho mu kugabanya ibihano. Incamake y’ ikibazo: Mpitabakana yishyikirije ubugenzacyaha avuga ko aje kwirega kuko yishe umugore we. Muganga wasabwe na Polisi gusuzuma umurambo we yanditse muri raporo ye ko yasanze yarakubiswe ku mutwe, ariko cyane cyane ku nda, akaba yarishwe n’uko gukubitwa kandi atwite inda y’amezi 7. Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi, rwaciye urubanza ku rwego rwa mbere rwemeje ko icyaha cy’ubwicanyi uwajuriye aregwa kimuhama, rumuhanisha igifungo cy’imyaka 20, rumugabanyirije kuko yemeye icyaha, akaba yaranishyikirije Polisi icyaha kikimara gukorwa. 121

Page 148

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 122

Yajuririye mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko yishe umugore we abishaka kandi ari impanuka yagize, ndetse ko rwamuhanishije igihano kiremereye kandi yemera icyaha, akaba atararuhije ubutabera. Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko ibyo uregwa avuga nta shingiro bifite kuko gukubita umugeri umugore utwite ubwabyo bishobora kumwica. Buvuga kandi ko ikindi bushingiraho buvuga ko yamwishe abishaka ari uko mbere yo kumukubita yabanje gufunga urugi kugira ngo hatagira utabara, dore ko n’abatabaye bagerageje kumena urwo rugi bikabananira, ngo kandi ibyo guhohotera nyakwigendera yari yarabigize akamenyero, ndetse ngo n’umugore wa mbere nicyo cyatumye batandukana. Incamake y’ icyemezo: 1. Hakurikijwe ibimenyetso biri muri dosiye, nko gukubita umugeri kunda y’ umugore utwite inda y’amezi arindwi akanga kumujyana kwa muganga, gukubita umwana agahunga no gukinga urugi ngo hatagira utabara, bigaragaza nta gushidikanya ko uregwa yishe umugore we abishaka 2. Kuba uregwa yarishyikirije Polisi icyaha kigikorwa no kuba hari ibyo yagaragaje ku ruhare rwe mu rupfu rwa nyakwigendera, n’ubwo hari ibyo atavugishaho ukuri, byorohereje ubutabera, ariko ibyo byitaweho n’urukiko rubanza kuko yahanishijwe igifungo cy’imyaka 20 mu gihe yari guhanishwa igifungo cya burundu.

3. Ku bijyanye n’ibyo uregwa asaba ko yagabanyirizwa igihano akajya kurera imfubyi umugore we yasize, Urukiko rusanga ariwe ubwe wabagize imfubyi, akaba atakwitwaza ingaruka mbi z’icyaha yakoze ngo agabanyirizwe igihano. Ubujurire nta shingiro bufite.

Page 149

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 123

Nta gihindutse ku mikirize y’ urubanza rwajuririwe. Amagarama ahererejwe ku isanduku ya Leta. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko ngenga nº 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 140 n’iya 142. Itegeko-Teka nº 21/77 ryo ku wa 18/08/1977 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ibyaha mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 311. Nta rubanza rwifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Kuwa 01/09/2008, saa kumi n’ebyiri za mugitondo, Mpitabakana yishyikirije Ubugenzacyaha avuga ko aje kwirega kuko yishe umugore we Yaduhaye Asinati. Muganga wasabwe na Polisi gusuzuma umurambo we yanditse muri raporo ye ko yasanze yarakubiswe ku mutwe, ariko cuyyane cyane ku nda, akaba yarishwe n’uko gukubitwa kandi atwite inda y’amezi 7. [2] Mu Bugenzacyaha Mpitabakana yasobanuye ko yakubise umugore we urushyi n’umugeri ubwo bari mu nzira bataha, akaba yaramukubise amuziza ko amusanganye n’undi mugabo, agwira inda, aramwegura, umugore we apfa bageze mu rugo. Naho mu Rukiko Rukuru yasobanuye ko barwaniye mu nzu bapfuye ko umugore we yari yamusanze mu kabare, akaba atari yatetse, ndetse yamututse, yamuciriye mu maso, yanamukubise urushyi, umugore we yitura hasi, amukubita umugeri mu mugongo, ariko ntiyahita apfa kuko baryamye UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MPITABAKANA

Page 150

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 124

bavugana amubwira ngo amujyane kwa muganga, kubera gusinda ntiyabyitaho kugeza apfuye. [3] Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi, rwaciye urubanza ku rwego rwa mbere rwemeje kuwa 10/03/2010 ko icyaha cy’ubwicanyi Mpitabakana aregwa kimuhama, rumuhanisha igifungo cy’imyaka 20, rumugabanyirije kuko yemeye icyaha, akaba yaranishyikirije Polisi icyaha kikimara gukorwa. [4] Mpitabakana yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko yishe umugore we abishaka kandi ari impanuka yagize, ndetse ko rwamuhanishije igihano kiremereye kandi yemera icyaha, akaba atararuhije ubutabera. [5] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame kuwa 27/01/2014, Mpitabakana yunganiwe na Me Mwizerwa Grace hamwe na Me Nsengimana Elie, Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na Higaniro Hermogène, Umushinjacyaha ku rwego rw’igihugu. II. IBIBAZO BIRI MU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO Kumenya niba Mpitabakana yarishe umugore we atabishaka. [6] Mpitabakana avuga ko atishe umugore we abishaka nk’uko byemejwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, ahubwo ko ari impanuka yamugwiririye kuko yamukubise akageri mu mugongo bapfuye ko yasanze atatetse, umugore we yikubita hasi, amusabye ngo amujyane kwa muganga aramwihorera, yigira kuryama, hashize

Page 151

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 125

umwanya umugore we aza kuryama ari muzima, ariko yongeye kumukoraho asanga yapfuye ari nabwo yahitaga yijyana kuri Polisi. Yongeraho ko kubera umujinya yari yabanje gukubita agashyi umwana wari uhari ariruka. [7] Abamwunganira bavuga ko ikigaragaza ko Mpitabakana yagize impanuka ari uko yakubise umugore we umugeri, akaba atarigeze afata ikindi kintu ngo akimukubite, nk’umuhoro cyangwa ikindi gikoresho cyica. [8] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko ibyo Mpitabakana n’abamwunganira bavuga ko yishe umugore we atabishaka nta shingiro bifite kuko gukubita umugeri umugore utwite ubwabyo bishobora kumwica. Buvuga kandi ko ikindi bushingiraho buvuga ko yamwishe abishaka ari uko mbere yo kumukubita yabanje gufunga urugi kugira ngo hatagira utabara, dore ko n’abatabaye bagerageje kumena urwo rugi bikabananira. [9] Ubushinjacyaha bwongeraho ko ibyo guhohotera nyakwigendera Mpitabakana yari yarabigize akamenyero, ndetse ko n’umugore wa mbere aricyo cyatumye batandukana nk’uko byemezwa n’umuvandimwe we Bariyanga Masomo. [10] Urukiko rurasanga Mpitabakana yarishe umugore we abishaka kubera impamvu zikurikira: Kuba yemera ko yabanje gukubita umwana akiruka ni ikigaragaza ko yangaga ko umwana abona icyo yashakaga gukora kuko adasobanura icyo yari kuba ahora uwo mwana. Kuba yarakubise umugeri mu nda umugore utwite inda y’amezi 7 nk’uko byemezwa na Muganga. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MPITABAKANA

Page 152

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 126

Kuba yemera ko umugore we yamusabye kumujyana kwa muganga akanga. Kuba imvugo z’abatangabuhamya babajijwe aribo Bariyanga Masomo (cote 3) na Nyiraruzindaro Domitile (cote ya 9) zigaragaza ko yishe nyakwigendera yikingiranye, n’abashakaga gutabara bakabura uko binjira, ahubwo Mpitabakana akajya avuza ijerikani avuga ko yatewe. Kuba mu ibazwa rye yararanzwe no guhinduranya imvugo: muri Polisi yavuze ko yakubise umugore we urushyi bari mu nzira bataha amuhoye ko yamusanganye n’undi mugabo, yitura hasi, aramwegura barataha, apfa nyuma bageze mu rugo; mu Rukiko Rukuru yavuze ko yamukubitiye mu nzu amuhoye ko atatetse, ariko ko umugore we atahise apfa kuko baryamye bavugana amubwira ngo amujyane kwa muganga, kubera gusinda ntiyabyitaho kugeza apfuye; naho imbere y’uru rukiko yavuze ko umugore we yaje kuryama ari muzima, ariko yongeye kumukoraho asanga yapfuye; uko guhindagura imvugo bikaba bigaragaza ko ashaka guhisha ukuri. [11] Urukiko rusanga rero hashingiwe ku mpamvu zasobanuwe, nta gushidikanya ko Mpitabakana yishe umugore we Yaduhaye Asinati abishaka n’ubwo we abihakana. Kumenya niba Mpitabakana akwiye kongera kugabanyirizwa igihano. [12] Mpitabakana asaba ko yagabanyirizwa igihano kugira ngo ajye kurera imfubyi ebyiri yasigaranye. Abamwunganira nabo basaba ko urukiko rwamugabanyiriza rushingiye ku

Page 153

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 127

ngingo za 35 y’itegeko rigenga imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha ryariho igihe icyaha cyakorwaga, n’ingingo ya 82 na 83,2° z’igitabo cy’amategeko ahana cyariho icyo gihe kuko yemera icyaha akanagisabira imbabazi. [13] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko umuntu wese ufunze hari inshingano abuzwa kuzuza, ko iya aza kuba afitiye impuhwe abana be aba yaririnze gukora icyaha. Buvuga kandi ko Mpitabakana yagabanyirijwe bihagije mu rwego rwa mbere. [14] Icyaha cy’ubwicanyi Mpitabakana yahamijwe gihanishwa igihano cy’igifungo cya burundu nk’uko bivugwa mu ngingo ya 311 z’igitabo cy’amategeko ahana cyakurikizwaga igihe icyaha cyakorwaga. Ni nacyo gihano giteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 140 n’iya 142 z’Itegeko Ngenga nº 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo gishya cy’ amategeko ahana. [15] Urukiko rusanga koko kuba Mpitabakana yarishyikirije Polisi icyaha kigikorwa no kuba hari ibyo yagaragaje ku ruhare rwe mu rupfu rwa nyakwigendera nubwo hari ibyo atavugishaho ukuri, byarorohereje ubutabera, ariko ibyo bikaba byaritaweho n’urukiko rubanza kuko yahanishijwe igifungo cy’imyaka 20 mu gihe yari guhanishwa igifungo cya burundu. [16] Ku bijyanye n’ibyo asaba ko yagabanyirizwa igihano akajya kurera imfubyi umugore we yasize, Urukiko rusanga ariwe ubwe wabagize imfubyi, akaba atakwitwaza ingaruka mbi z’icyaha yakoze ngo agabanyirizwe igihano. [17] Hashingiye kuri ibyo bisobanuro, Urukiko rusanga ubujurire bwa Mpitabakana nta shingiro bugomba guhabwa, bityo n’urubanza rwajuririwe rukaba rutagomba guhinduka. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MPITABAKANA

Page 154

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 128

III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [18] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Mpitabakana nta shingiro bufite. [19] Ruvuze ko imikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe RP 0087/08/HC/RSZ rwamuhanishije igifungo cy’imyaka makumyabiri (20) idahindutse. [20] Rutegetse ko amagarama y’urubanza aherera ku isanduku ya Leta kuko uwajurire afunze.

Page 155

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUKANTAGARA NA

MUGENZI WE [Rwanda- URUKIKO RW’ IKIRENGA – RPA 0196/11/CS (Kayitesi R., P.J., Mukandamage na Rugabirwa, J.) 15 Ugushyingo 2013] Amategeko mpanabyaha – Kurema umutwe w’ abagizi ba nabi – Kurema umutwe w’abagizi ba nabi ni icyaha cyigenga gitandukanye n’ibyaha bikorwa muri urwo rwego cyangwa n’uwo mutwe – Ntibifatwa nk’icyaha cyo kurema umutwe w’abagizi ba nabi iyo hagambiriwe kugirira nabi umuntu umwe – Itegeko Ngenga nº 01/2012 ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 681. Amategeko mpanabyaha – Ubwinjiracyaha bw’ubuhotozi – Bifatwa nk’ubwinjiracyaha iyo hari ibikorwa biboneka, bidashidikanywaho by’intangiriro yo gukora icyaha. Itegeko- Teka nº 21/77 ryo kuwa 18/8/1977 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 21. Amategeko mpanabyaha – Igabanyagihano – Ibihano bishobora kugabanywa mu gihe nta ngaruka zikomeye icyaha cyateye – Itegeko Ngenga n0 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 77 40. Incamake y’ ikibazo: Mukantagara na Nsanzimana bakurikiranyweho icyaha cy’ ubwinjiracyaha mu buhotozi. Ubushinjacyaha mu kubashinja bwifashisha abatangabuhamya bavuye mu mugambi wabo bakabimenyesha inzego z’ umutekano, ndetse n’amafaranga Mukantagara yafatanywe yagombaga gutanga nka avansi ku bagombaga gukora icyo 129

Page 156

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 130

gikorwa. Urukiko Rukuru rwabahamije icyaha bashinjwa, rubahanisha igifungo cya burundu buri wese. Bombi bajuririye Urukiko rw’ Ikirenga, Nsanzimana avuga ko yahamijwe icyaha cy’ ubwinjiracyaha mu buhotozi aho kuba kurema umutwe w’ abagizi ba nabi, naho Mukantagara akavuga ko yahamijwe icyaha cy’ ubuhotozi, nyamara we yaragambiriye gufungisha sebukwe, basaba ko byakosorwa. Umushinjacyaha avuga ko icyaha cyakozwe atari ukurema umutwe w’abagizi ba nabi, ahubwo ari ubwinjiracyaha bw’ ubuhotozi kuko abaregwa bacyiyemereye mu bugenzacyaha no mu bushinjacyaha, bakanasobanura uko cyateguwe. Ku bijyanye no kuba Mukantagara avuga ko icyo yari agambiriye ari ugufungisha Ndwaniye, atari ukumwicisha, Umushinjacyaha avuga ko ibyo nta shingiro bifite kuko aterekana icyaha yari kuba afungishirije sebukwe. Incamake y’ icyemezo: 1. Kurema umutwe w’abagizi ba nabi ni icyaha cyigenga gitandukanye n’ibyaha bikorwa muri urwo rwego cyangwa n’uwo mutwe. Byumvikana kandi ko kugira ngo bene icyo cyaha kibeho, ari ngombwa ko abantu baba barishyize hamwe hagamijwe kugirira nabi abantu cyangwa ibyabo, bivuze ko igihe abantu bifatanyije ngo bagire umuntu bahitana ku giti cye, icyo gikorwa cyabo bagambiriye kitafatwa mu rwego rwo guhungabanya umudendezo w’igihugu. Bityo rero, ntibyafatwa nk’ icyaha cyo kurema umutwe w’abagizi ba nabi , mu gihe nta mutwe w’abagizi ba nabi uzwi ko abaregwa bashinze, kandi n’ibikorwa bashinjwa ko bakoze bitari bigamije guhungabanya umudendezo w’igihugu, nta n’ibindi byaha by’ubugizi bwa nabi bizwi ko bakoranye.

Page 157

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 131

2. Bifatwa nk’ icyaha cy’ubwinjiracyaha bw’ ubuhotozi, iyo hari ibikorwa biboneka, bidashidikanywaho by’intangiriro yo gukora icyaha cy’ ubuhotozi. Bityo, kuba Mukantagara yaratanze amafaranga yo kuzana Ndwaniye i Kigali, Nsanzimana akajya kwereka abagombaga kumuzana aho atuye muri Nyaruguru, bakamuzana i Kigali ngo Mukantagara abanze amubone, kandi abahe avansi ku gihembo bari bumvikanye kugira ngo babone kumwica, bikabuzwa n’uko Nyirinkindi yari yarikuye muri uwo mugambi akabimenyesha Polisi ikabafata Ndwaniye ataricwa, bituma Mukantagara na Nsanzimana bahamwa n’ubwinjiracyaha bw’ubuhotozi.

3. Abaregwa bashobora kugabanyirizwa igihano, mugihe icyaha bakoze nta ngaruka zikomeye cyagize. Bityo, igifungo cya burundu abaregwa bahawe kiragabanyijwe, bahanishijwe igifungo cy’imyaka cumi n’’itanu (15) buri wese. Abajuriye bahamwa n’ubwinjiracyaha bw’ubuhotozi Bahanishijwe igifungo cy’ imyaka cumi n’ itanu buri wese. Urubanza rwajuririwe ruhindutse gusa ku birebana n’ ingano y’ ibihano. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Ngenga no 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 77, 4o, 681. Itegeko-Teka Nº 21/77 ryo kuwa 18/8/1977 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo za 21, 281, 312. Nta rubanza rwifashishijwe.

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUKANTAGARA NA MUGENZI WE

Page 158

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 132

Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Mukantagara Séraphine yagiranye amakimbirane na sebukwe Ndwaniye Thacien, akomoka ku mazu Ndwaniye avuga ko Mukantagara yabohoje igihe we yari afunze, maze aho afunguriwe Mukantagara yanga kuyamusubiza, bituma Ndwaniye atanga ikirego mu Rukiko, Mukantagara aratsindwa, arajurira. [2] Mu gihe urubanza rwari rutaraburanishwa, Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko Mukantagara yacuze umugambi wo kwicisha Ndwaniye, ndetse awugeza kuri Nsanzimana nawe awugeza kuri Nyirinkindi Peter, uyu abimenyesha Polisi, ariko akomeza kubibafashamo, batazi ko yabavuyemo. [3] Nsanzimana na Nyirinkindi nabo biyambaje uwitwa Haridi ngo azane imbunda bajyane muri Nyaruguru kuzana Ndwaniye, Mukantagara abaha 50.000 Frw yo kugura lisansi, anabemerera kuzabaha avansi ya 500.000 Frw igihe bazaba bamugejeje i Kigali, bafatwa bakihagera Mukantagara abazaniye ya avansi yari yabemereye, umugambi wabo uburizwamo batarica Ndwaniye. [4] Ubushinjacyaha bwatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rukuru i Kigali bukurikiranyeho Mukantagara Séraphina na Nsanzimana Antoine ubwinjiracyaha bw’ubwicanyi kuko bacuze umugambi wo kwica Ndwaniye Thatien ukaburizwamo nuko Polisi yabaguye gitumo, ruca urubanza RP 0105/10/HC/KIG kuwa 24/06/2011, rwemeza ko icyo cyaha kibahama, rubahanisha igifungo cya burundu buri wese.

Page 159

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 133

[5] Mukantagara yajuriye avuga ko yahawe igihano kiremereye ku bwinjiracyaha bw’ubuhotozi atakoreye sebukwe kuko atashakaga kumwica, ahubwo yari agamije kumufungisha. [6] Nsanzimana we yajuriye avuga ko urukiko rwaciye urubanza rugenekereje rumuhamya ubwinjiracyaha bw’ubuhotozi atakoze, asaba ko inyito y’icyaha yahinduka agahanirwa icyaha cyo kurema umutwe w’abagizi ba nabi. [7] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame kuwa 14/10/2013, Mukantagara yunganiwe na Me Habimana Adolphe naho Nsanzimana yunganiwe na Me Ruberwa Silas, Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na Mutayoba Alphonse, umushinjacyaha ku rwego rw’Igihugu. II. ISESENGURA RY’ IKIBAZO KIGIZE

URU RUBANZA Kumenya niba icyaha Mukantagara Séraphine na Nsanzimana Antoine bakoze ari ukurema umutwe w’abagizi ba nabi cyangwa ubwinjiracyaha bw’ubuhotozi. [8] Mukantagara na Me Habimana Adolphe umwunganira bavuga ko icyaha cyakozwe atari ubwinjiracyaha bw’ubuhotozi, bagasobanura ko yashatse gufungisha sebukwe Ndwaniye, maze akagurira abazabimufashamo Nyirinkindi na Haridi, yabazaniwe na Nsanzimana. [9] Bavuga ko nta mpamvu yatuma rero bashinjwa ubwinjiracyaha bw’ubwicanyi mu gihe bo bari bagambiriye gusa gufungisha Ndwaniye, ko Nyirinkindi na Haridi aribo bari gushakisha icyaha bamuhimbira n’aho bamufungira. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUKANTAGARA NA MUGENZI WE

Page 160

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 134

[10] Mukantagara avuga ko imvugo ze zo mu Bugenzacyaha no mu Bushinjacyaha zitashingirwaho kuko atari ukuri, kubera ko Haridi yamushutse ko niyemera ko yari afite umugambi wo kwica sebukwe, ariho azagabanyirizwa igihano. [11] Naho Nsanzimana yunganiwe na Me Ruberwa Silas bavuga ko kuba Nyirinkindi na Haridi barisubiyeho ntibakomeze uwo mugambi ari ikimenyetso cy’uko icyaha bari bagambiriye gukora kitari gushoboka, ko rero inyito y’icyaha yahinduka, agashinjwa icyaha cyo kurema umutwe w’abagizi ba nabi, asaba Urukiko ko rwashingira ku rubanza RP 0067/11/HC/KIG haburanagamo Ubushinjacyaha na Africa Bernard na Uwamahoro Théoneste, aho urukiko rwemeje ko ubujurire bwabo nta shingiro bufite ku byerekeye icyaha cyo kurema umutwe w’abagizi ba nabi bahamijwe n’ibihano bahanishijwe. [12] Umushinjacyaha avuga ko icyaha cyakozwe atari ukurema umutwe w’abagizi ba nabi, ahubwo ari ubwinjiracyaha bw’ ubuhotozi kuko abaregwa bacyiyemereye mu Bugenzacyaha no mu Bushinjacyaha, bemeza ko bateguye uyu mugambi wo kwica Ndwaniye, bikabuzwa nuko Nyirinkindi yabibwiye Polisi ikawuburizamo. [13] Ku bijyanye no kuba Mukantagara avuga ko icyo yari agambiriye ari ugufungisha Ndwaniye, atari ukumwicisha, Umushinjacyaha avuga ko ibyo nta shingiro bifite kuko aterekana icyaha yari kuba afungishirije sebukwe, ko kandi ibi bikorwa biba hari 2010 mu gihe nta muntu waba yari agifungirwa ubusa. [14] Ku byerekeye urwo rubanza RP 0067/11/HC/KIG09/09/2011 MP c/ Africa Bernard na

Page 161

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 135

Uwamahoro, Nsanzimana n’umwunganira basaba ko uru Rukiko rwashingiraho, Umushinjacyaha avuga ko urwo rubanza rwerekeye umutwe w’abagizi ba nabi Afurika na Uwamahoro bari baremye kugira ngo bashyire mu bikorwa umugambi wo kwica uwitwa Ndagiwenimana, bashatse kuwinjizamo uwitwa Hope na Nkurikiwenimana Gaston. Kuba aba badashobora gukurikiranwa, ntibyaba urwitwazo ko uwo umutwe utabayeho, kuko wabayeho igihe abawushinze bari bamaze kwemeranywa ku mugambi wo kwica Ndagiwenimana. Kubera ariko ko Hope na Nkurikiwenimana binjiye muri gahunda y’uwo mutwe kugira ngo babone uko baburira inzego z’umutekano zishobore kuburizamo uwo mugambi, ntibakurikiranwa hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 283 y’igitabo cy’amategeko ahana cyakoreshwaga, ariko ntibyabuza kuba uwo mutwe w’abagizi ba nabi warabayeho. [15] Ku birebana na Mukantagara na Nsanzimana, Umushinjacyaha yanzura avuga ko bo bacuze umugambi wo kwica Ndwaniye, barawutsotsoba, uza kuburizwamo n’igikorwa kitabaturutseho, kuko Polisi yaburiwe n’umwe mu bo bawugejejeho, ikawubatesha bagejeje Ndwaniye i Kigali, aho Mukantagara yari abategerereje ngo abahe avansi ya 500.000 Frw yari yabemereye, bakabona kumwica. Umushinjacyaha avuga ko asanga izo manza zombi zitagereranywa kuko ntaho zihuriye.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA a. Ku byerekeranye n’icyaha cyo kurema umutwe w’abagizi ba nabi. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUKANTAGARA NA MUGENZI WE

Page 162

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 136

[16] Ingingo ya 281 y’Itegeko-Teka nº 21/77 ryo kuwa 18/8/1977 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana cyakoreshwaga icyaha gikorwa ihuje n’iya 681 y’Itegeko Ngenga nº 01/2012 ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ivuga ko ‘‘Kurema umutwe wose, hatitaweho umubare w’abawugize cyangwa igihe uzamara, ugamije kugirira nabi abantu cyangwa ibyabo, ari icyaha cy'ubugome kigirwa nuko kurema15 agakungu ubwabyo’’. [17] Icyumvikana kuri izi ngingo zombi ni uko kurema umutwe w’abagizi ba nabi ari icyaha cyigenga gitandukanye n’ibyaha bikorwa muri urwo rwego cyangwa n’uwo mutwe. Byumvikana kandi ko kugira ngo bene icyo cyaha kibeho, ari ngombwa ko abantu baba barishyize hamwe hagamijwe kugirira nabi abantu cyangwa ibyabo (organisation criminelle). Byongeye kandi mu gitabo cya mbere cy’amategeko ahana kimwe n’igishyiraho itegeko rihana rishya, izi ngingo zigaragara mu mutwe wa “IV” uteganya ibyaha bihungabanya umudendezo w’igihugu (les infractions contre la sécurité publique), bivuze ko igihe abantu bifatanyije ngo bagire umuntu bahitana ku giti cye, icyo gikorwa cyabo bagambiriye kitafatwa mu rwego rwo guhungabanya umudendezo w’igihugu. [18] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro bitanzwe, Urukiko rusanga icyaha cyo kurema umutwe w’abagizi ba nabi nk’uko abaregwa bacyireguza nta shingiro ryabyo, kuko nta mutwe w’abagizi ba nabi uzwi ko bashinze, kandi n’ibikorwa bashinjwa ko bakoze

15 “Kurema agakungu ubwabyo” katagarutse mu ngingo y`itegeko rishya niho izi ngingo za 261 na 681 zitandukaniye gusa, ariko ntacyo bihindura ku gisobanuro cy`icyaha ubwacyo.

Page 163

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 137

ntibyari bigamije guhungabanya umudendezo w’igihugu, nta n’ibindi byaha by’ubugizi bwa nabi bizwi ko bakoranye, bikubitiyeho ko bitari ngombwa kurema umutwe w’abagizi ba nabi kugira ngo Ndwaniye yicwe. b. Ku cyaha cy’ubwinjiracyaha mu buhotozi [19] Ingingo ya 21 y’Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana cyariho icyo gihe, ivuga ko ‘‘Ubwinjira-cyaha buhanirwa iyo imigambi yo gukora icyaha yagaragajwe n'ibikorwa biboneka, bidashidikanywa by'intangiriro y'icyaha, bigenewe kugitsotsoba, bigahagarikwa gusa cyangwa bikabuzwa kugera ku cyifuzo, bikazitirwa gusa n'impamvu zidakomoka ku bwende bwa nyir’icyaha”. [20] Ku bijyanye n’icyaha cy’ubwinjiracyaha bw’ubuhotozi Mukantagara akurikiranyweho, Urukiko rusanga imyiregurire ye y’uko yaragambiriye gusa gufungisha sebukwe Ndwaniye nta shingiro ryayo kuko atagaragaza icyaha Ndwaniye yari gufungirwa. Kuvuga kandi ko cyari gushakwa n’abo yatumye kumuvana i Nyaruguru bamujyana i Kigali nabyo nta shingiro bifite kuko abo yishyuriye urugendo ngo bajye kuzana Ndwaniye, ntacyo bapfaga nawe, nta rubanza bari bafitanye nawe, ntacyo bari bamukurikiranyeho uretse “ikiraka” yabahaye bari kuzahemberwa cyo kuzamuzana i Kigali kugira ngo abanze amubone, abahe avansi ku gihembo bari bumvikanye, babone kumwica. Byongeye kandi nta n’indi mpamvu agaragaza yari gutuma batamufungira i Nyaruguru, iyo koko umugambi we uba wari ukumufungisha gusa. [21] Isesengura rya dosiye rigaragaza ko mu ibazwa rya Nyirinkindi mu Bugenzacyaha, yavuze ko Nsanzimana yaje kumureba akamubwira ko afite “deal” (ikiraka) yahawe na UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUKANTAGARA NA MUGENZI WE

Page 164

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 138

Mukantagara ngo bice sebukwe kuko yari agiye kumutsindira amazu amaranye igihe kandi yarayasanishije (cote 6). Yavuze kandi ko bari bemeranyijwe ko azamuhemba 1.200.000 Frw, yanasobanuye kuri kote ya 5 uburyo bahawe 50.000 Frw yo kugura lisansi no gukodesha imodoka yo kujya kuzana uwo musaza Ndwaniye wagombaga kwicwa, iby’ayo mafaranga kandi na Mukantagara yarabyiyemereye kuri kote ya 15 mu Bugenzacyaha. Nyirinkindi yemeye kandi ko bamaze kumuzana, Mukantagara yari kubaha 500.000 Frw, asigaye akazayabaha bamaze kumwica. [22] Mu ibazwa rya Nsanzimana Antoine yemeye ko yatangiye afite umugambi wo gufungisha Ndwaniye nyuma aza kugira uwo kumwica abigiriwemo inama na Haridi na Nyirinkindi. Kuri kote ya 11 Nsanzimana yemeye ko ariwe wanditse agapapuro kariho aderesi ya Ndwaniye, yemera kandi ko avansi y’amafaranga 500.000 Frw yagombaga gutangwa mbere yo kumwica, anemeza ko mu kuzana Ndwaniye, Nyirinkindi na Haridi bagombaga kumwica ariko ko atari azi aho bari kumwicira. Yemeje kandi ko yajyanye nabo kumuzana. [23] Mu ibazwa rya Mukantagara kuri kote 15, yemeye ko yatanze amafaranga ya lisansi yo kujya kuzana Ndwaniye. Yemeye kandi ko ibyo kumwica yabiganiriyeho nabo yatumye kumuzana n’ubwo batabifasheho icyemezo, avuga ariko ko ntacyo apfana na Nsanzimana Antoine, nyamara mu ibazwa rya Mukankindi Dévota, murumuna wa Mukantagara, we yemeje ko Nsanzimana ari muramu wabo. Naho mu ibazwa rya Ndwaniye yemeje ko Mukantagara na Nsanzimana bose ari bakavukire bo mu Mudugudu w’iwabo. [24] Muri dosiye kandi kuri kote ya 17, hagaragaramo inyandikomvugo y’ifatira ya 500.000 Frw Mukantagara

Page 165

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 139

Séraphine yafatanywe kandi nawe yashyizeho umukono yemera ko ari aye. [25] Nk’uko Urukiko Rukuru rwabyemeje, Urukiko rusanga hari ibimenyetso by’ibikorwa bidashidikanywa bigaragaza ko Mukantagara na Nsanzimana bashatse kwica Ndwaniye, bigaharikwa na Polisi yabaguye gitumo, bikurikira: Kuba ubwabo biyemerera ko umugambi wo kumwica bawuganiriyeho n’ubwo Nsanzimana avuga ko yari kwicwa na Nyirinkindi na Haridi, ibyo bikaba nta gitangaza kirimo kuko n’ubundi n’icyo yari yabahamagariye. Kuba Mukantagara yemera ko yatanze amafaranga yo kujya kuzana Ndwaniye muri Nyaruguru, n’ubwo avuga ko kwari ukugirango bamufungishe, ntagaragaza aho yari gufungirwa n’icyo yari gufungirwa, n’igihe icyo gifungo cyari kumara kugira ngo yizere ko ikibazo cy’amazu yari afitanye na Ndwaniye kirangiye. Kuba Nyirinkindi yarasobanuye uko umugambi wateguwe akavuga uburyo Mukantagara yari gutanga 500.000 Frw bamaze kugeza Ndwaniye i Kigali kandi Mukantagara akaba ariyo yafatanywe aje kubareba. Kuba Mukantagara avuga ko ntacyo apfana na Nsanzimana kandi murumuna we yemeza ko ari muramu wabo no kuba Nsanzimana avuga ko atazi aho Ndwaniye atuye kandi Ndwaniye yemeza ko ari bakavukire bo mu Mudugudu umwe. [26] Urukiko rusanga hari ibikorwa biboneka, byose bidashidikanywaho by’intangiriro yo gukora icyaha bigizwe nuko Mukantagara yatanze amafaranga yo kuzana Ndwaniye i UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUKANTAGARA NA MUGENZI WE

Page 166

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 140

Kigali, Nsanzimana ajya kwereka abagombaga kumuzana aho atuye muri Nyaruguru, bamuzana i Kigali ngo Mukantagara abanze amubone, kandi abahe avansi ku gihembo bari bumvikanye kugira ngo babone kumwica ariko kandi bibuzwa nuko Nyirinkindi yari yarikuye muri uwo mugambi akabimenyesha Polisi ibafata Ndwaniye ataricwa, bityo Mukantagara na Nsanzimana bakaba bahamwa n’ubwinjiracyaha bw’ubuhotozi buhanishwa igifungo cya burundu nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 312 y’Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana cyakoreshwaga icyaha gikorwa. [27] Ku byerekeye imyiregurire ya Nsanzimana yuko nta cyaha we na Mukantagara bakwiye gukurikiranwaho kuko Nyirinkindi na Haridi bisubiyeho, ntibageza umugambi ku ndunduro, icyaha bari bagambiriye gukora kikaba kitari gushoboka, Urukiko rusanga kuba Nyirinkindi na Haridi barikuye mu mugambi wo kwica Ndwaniye bitabavanaho icyaha, kuko ntakigaragaza ko kugeza bafatwa nabo baretse umugambi wabo mubisha nk’uko byagenze k’uwitwa Hope na Nkurikiwenimana Gaston mu rubanza RP 0067/11/HC/KIG09/09/ MP c/Africa Bernard na Uwamahoro, bikuye mu mugambi wo kwica Ndagiwenimana mbere y’uko bakurikiranwa, byongeye kandi iki gikorwa cyabo cyo kwikura muri uwo mugambi kikaba kitaravanyeho icyaha Africa Bernard na Uwamahoro kuko baremye umutwe w’abagizi ba nabi bagambiriye kuzica Ndagiwenimana n’ubwo waburijwemo n’inzego z’umutekano. [28] Ku bijyanye n’ibihano Mukantagara na Nsanzimana bakwiye guhabwa, Urukiko rusanga bakwiye kugabanyirizwa ibihano hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 77, 4o y’Itegeko Ngenga n° 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho Igitabo

Page 167

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 141

cy’amategeko ahana, kuko icyaha bakoze nta ngaruka zikomeye cyateje, igifungo cya burundu bahawe kikagabanywa, bagahanishwa igifungo cy’imyaka cumi n’’itanu (15) buri wese. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [29] Rwemeje ko Nsanzimana Antoine na Mukantagara bahamwa n’ubwinjiracyaha bw’ubuhotozi. [30] Rwemeje ko bahanishijwe igifungo cy’imyaka icumi n’itanu (15) buri wese. [31] Ruvuze ko imikirize y’urubanza nº RP 0105/HC/KIG rwaciwe kuwa 24/06/2011 rwajuririwe ihindutse gusa ku birebana n’ingano y’ibihano.

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUKANTAGARA NA MUGENZI WE

Page 169

UBUSHINJACYAHA v.

MUNYANKUMBURWA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RPA 0210/10/CS (Kayitesi Z., P.J., Mukanyundo na Rugabirwa, J.) 18 Nyakanga 2014] Amategeko mpanabyaha – Ubwicanyi – Inyito y’icyaha – Ntibyakwitwa kwica umuntu atabigambiriye kuko ubushake bwo kwica bugaragarira mu kwica umuntu amurashe nyuma yo gushyira amasasu mu mbunda akabuzwa kurasa n’umukuriye akabirengaho – Itegeko Teka nº 21/1977 ryo ku wa 18/08/1977 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ibyaha, ingingo ya 311. Amategeko agenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa – Uburyozwe bw’umukoresha ku makosa yakozwe n’umukozi – Umukoresha aryozwa ibyangijwe n’amakosa y’umukozi we igihe yayakoze arangiza inshingano ze – Ushinzwe kurinda ubusugire bw’igihugu n’umutekano w’abantu n’ibyabo ntiyabona ibikorwa bihungabanya umutekano harimo na magendu ngo abure kugira icyo akora yitwaje ko atari mu ifasi akoreramo inshingano ze – Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 260. Incamake y’ikibazo: Munyankumburwa Valens yarezwe n’Ubushinjacyaha mu Rukiko Rukuru ashinjwa ubwicanyi aho ari kumwe na Munyurasi Gakara, umupolisi, bakurikiranye abaforoderi nuko babagezeho abategeka gushyira ibyo bari bafite hasi, ashyira isasu mu mbunda, Munyurasi abyumvise amubuza inshuro ebyiri kurasa ariko undi abirengaho arasa 143 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUNYANKUMBURWA

Page 170

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 144

umwe muri bo witwa Nkunzimana. Akarere ka Burera nk’umukoresha w’uwakekwagaho icyaha kahatiwe kugoboka mu rubanza kugirango kazishyure indishyi. Uwashinjwaga yahamijwe icyaha ahanishwa igifungo cy’imyaka icumi naho Akarere ka Burera gategekwa kwishyura indishyi zingana na 7, 450,000. Munyankumburwa ndetse n’Akarere ka Burera bajuririye mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga. Munyankumburwa yavugaga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwamuhanishije igihano kiremereye cy’imyaka icumi rwirengagije ko yaburanye yemera icyaha kandi akagisabira imbabazi akaba yaranagikoze atakigambiriye. Yasabaga kugabanyirizwa igihano. Umwunganira yavuze ko abona harabayeho kwitiranya ibintu maze asaba ko icyaha cyakozwe cyakwitwa kwica umuntu atabigambiriye. Ubushinjacyaha bwavuze ko ibi bitahabwa agaciro kuko Munyurasi yamubujije kurasa nyamara akabirengaho akarasa amasasu yahitanye nyakwigendera; bigaragaza ubushake yari afite bwo kwica. Intumwa ya Leta yo yavugaga ko Urukiko rwategetse Akarere ka Burera kwishyura indishyi hirengagijwe imiburanire y’abaregwaga ndetse n’imyanzuro bashyikirije urukiko. Ikindi kandi ngo ni uko urukiko rwagennye indishyi rushingiye ku ngingo ya 27 y’Itegeko nº 25/2004 ryo kuwa 19/11/2004 rishyiraho kandi rigena imitunganyirize n’imikorere by’urwego rw’abaturage rushinzwe gufasha gucunga umutekano, Local defence, ariko ntirwagira icyo ruvuga ku gika cya kabiri cyayo kandi aricyo cyari ingenzi mu myiregurire y’Akarere ka Burera. Abaregera indishyi mu bujurire bwuririye ku bundi basabye amafaranga y’igihembo cya avoka. Inshamake y’icyemezo: 1. Inyito y’icyaha igomba guhura n’ibyabaye. Ibikorwa ushinjwa yakoze bihabanye n’inyito

Page 171

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 145

ashaka ko ihabwa icyaha yakoze kuko ubushake bwo gukora iki cyaha bushimangirwa n’uko yashyize amasasu mu mbunda akabuzwa kurasa n’uwari umukuriye mu kazi akabirengaho akarasa amasasu atatu yahitanye nyakwigendera. Bityo, ibikorwa yakoze bigize ubwicanyi.

2. Uwajuriye ntiyagabanyirizwa igihano kuko nyuma yo kurasa yabigambiriye akica umuturage utagize icyo amautwaye yahanishijwe igihano cy’igifungo cy’imyaka icumi (10) aho guhanishwa igifungo cya burundu.

3. Kurinda ubusugire bw’igihugu no gucunga umutekano w’abantu n’ibyabo biri mu nshingano za Polisi y’Igihugu ndetse n’Urwego rw’abaturage rushinzwe gufasha gucunga umutekano "Local defence". Ushinjwa rero ntiyabona ibikorwa bihungabanya umutekano, harimo na magendu imunga ubukungu bw’igihugu, ngo areke kugira icyo akora yitwaje ko atari mu ifasi akoreramo inshingano ze. Ntiyari kwanga kandi gukora ako kazi mu gihe bizwi ko mu nshingano ze "local defence" agomba gufatanya n’izindi nzego bakorana gucunga umutekano.

4. Mu guca urubanza rusaba indishyi zikomoka ku cyaha cyakozwe n’umukozi, inkiko zigomba kureba niba igikorwa cyakozwe n’umukozi cyari gifitanye isano n’akazi ke cyangwa n’inshingano ze. Umukoresha ntiyaryozwa ibyangijwe n’amakosa y’umukozi igihe ntaho bihuriye n’inshingano ze kandi bigakorwa igihe umukoresha atashoboraga kubigenzura. Ariko rero, umukoresha aryozwa izo indishyi igihe umukozi yarimo arangiza inshingano ze kabone niyo yazirangiza nabi.Gukoresha igikoresho nabi mu kazi ashinzwe ko gucunga umutekano ntibibuza umukoresha kuryozwa ibyangijwe n’iryo kosa mu gihe umukozi aba atatandukiriye inshingano ze. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUNYANKUMBURWA

Page 172

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 146

Ubujurire ku mpande zombi nta shingiro bufite. Ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bufite ishingiro. Akarere ka Burera gategetswe kwishyura 7.450.000 Frw y’indishyi na 500. 000 Frw y’igihembo cy’avoka. Amagarama y’urubanza aherereye ku isanduku ya Leta. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Iteka nº 21/1977 ryo ku wa 18/08/1977 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ibyaha, ingingo ya 311. Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 260. Imanza zifashishijwe: Ubushinjacyaha v. Pte Niyoyita, RPA 0074/07/CS, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 25/ 07/2007 Ibitekerezo by’abahanga: Ch. Larroumet, note sous cass. Com.12 oct.1993, Dalloz.1994.124, séc.p.125. F. Benac-Schmidt, Responsabilité du fait d’autrui, Repertoire de droit civil, Dalloz, TIX, mise à jour en 1999, p.17, nº 135. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rukuru, Ubushinjacyaha burega Munyankumburwa Valens (wari Local defense), kuba ku itariki ya 26/8/2008 ahagana mu ma saa ine

Page 173

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 147

z’ijoro, ari kumwe n’umupolisi witwa Sergent Munyurasi Gakara, barakurikiranye abaforoderi bari batambukanye ibicuruzwa bya magendu, babagezeho, Munyurasi ahagarika moto, naho Munyankumburwa Valens abategeka gushyira ibyo bari bafite hasi ariko ajya gutangira abari imbere nuko ku mpamvu zitazwi ahita ashyira amasasu mu imbunda yari afite, Munyurasi abyumvise amubuza kurasa ariko undi ntiyamwuvira ahubwo abikorera icyo, bagiye kureba basanga umwe muri ba baforoderi witwa Nkunzimana yarashwe, bamujyanye kwa muganga ahita apfa. [2] Akarere ka Burera nk’umukoresha wa Munyankumburwa Valensi kagobokeshejwe ku gahato muri urwo rubanza kugira ngo kazishyure indishyi. Urukiko rwaregewe ruca urubanza kuwa 28/06/2010, rwemeza ko Munyankumburwa Valensi n’Akarere ka Burera batsinzwe, ruhanisha Munyankumburwa igifungo cy’imyaka 10, rutegeka Akarere ka Burera mu izina ry’Umuyobozi wako guha Manirarora Rosette n’abana be indishyi izingana na 7.450.000 Frw. [3] Munyankumburwa Valensi ndetse n‘Akarere ka Burera mu izina ry’Umuyobozi wako, ntibishimiye imikirize y‘urubanza bajuririra Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, Munyankumburwa Valensi avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rutahaye agaciro ibisobanuro yarugaragarije kuko igihano cy’imyaka 10 rwamuhaye gihanitse kandi yaraburanye yemera icyaha ndetse agasaba n’imbabazi. [4] Me Karemera George, Intumwa ya Leta mu mwanya w‘Akarere ka Burera avuga ko kategetswe kwishyura indishyi zingana na 7.450.000 Frw hirengagijwe imyiregurire yabo haba igihe cy‘iburanisha ndetse no mu myanzuro yashyikirijwe Urukiko. Ikindi batishimiye ni ukuba Umucamanza yategetse UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUNYANKUMBURWA

Page 174

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 148

Akarere kwishyura indishyi ashingiye ku gika cya mbere cy’ingingo ya 27 y’Itegeko nº 25/2004 ryo kuwa 19/11/2004 rishyiraho kandi rigena imitunganyirize n’imikorere by’urwego rw’abaturage rushinzwe gufasha gucunga umutekano „Local defence“, ariko ntiyagira icyo avuga ku gika cya kabiri cyayo kandi aricyo cyari ingenzi mu myiregurire y’Akarere ka Burera. Abaregera indishyi mu bujurire bwuririye ku bundi basabye amafaranga y’igihembo cya avoka. [5] Iburanisha mu ruhame ryabaye kuwa 07/07/2014, Munyankumburwa valensi yunganiwe na Me Nzabonimana John Peter, abaregera indishyi bahagarariwe na Me Bizimana Jean de Dieu, naho Akarere ka Burera gahagarariwe na Me Umwali Claire, Intumwa ya Leta. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO a. Kumenya inyito yahabwa icyaha Munyankumburwa Valensi yakoze kandi niba yakongera kugabanyirizwa igihano yahawe. [6] Munyankumburwa Valensi na Me Nzabonimana John Peter umwunganira bavuga ko impamvu yatumye ajurira ari uko Urukiko rwamuhanishije igifungo gihanitse cy’imyaka icumi kandi yaraburanye yemera icyaha akurikiranweho cyo kuba yarishe Nkunzimana amurashe, ko yarusobanuriye ko yagikoze atakigambiriye kuko ntacyo yapfaga na nyakwigendera ariko rurabyirengagiza. Bavuga ko Munyankumburwa nta bushake na bucye yigeze agira bwo kwica Nkunzimana kuko nta hantu na hamwe yari aziranye nawe ku buryo hari icyo bapfaga cyatuma amwica.

Page 175

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 149

[7] Bavuga ko igihe Munyankumburwa Valensi n’umupolisi wamuhaye imbunda bari bageze ku bantu bari bikoreye magendu, uwo mupolisi yamutegetse kubahagarika, hanyuma nawe ashyira isasu mu mbunda, abageze iruhande yumva isasu rirasohotse ryerekeza kuri Nkunzimana, ariko ibyo bikaba byarabaye atabishakaga. Bakomeza basobanura ko iyo Munyankumburwa aza kuba afite umugambi wo gushaka kurasa, yari kurasa abo baforoderi bose, kuba atarabikoze, ibyamubayeho bikaba ari impanuka kuko yari afite gahunda yo kubahagarika gusa kuko n’ubusanzwe magendu itemewe. [8] Me Nzabonimana John Peter avuga ko mu rwego rw’amategeko, asanga harabaye gufata ibintu uko bitari, maze icyaha bagiha inyito itariyo, we akaba asanga iki cyaha Munyankumburwa yakoze cyakwitwa icyaha cyo kwica umuntu utabishaka giteganywa n’ingingo ya 145 y’Itegeko Ngenga nº01/2012/Ol ryo kuwa 2/5/2012 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ibyaha, kuko ibigize icyaha cy’ubwicanyi bituzuye kubera ko haburamo icyerekeranye n’ubushake bwo gukora icyaha. Asobanura ko Munyankumburwa yibagiwe gufunga “self” y’imbunda maze amasasu arisohora, ibyamubayeho bikaba byagereranywa n’ibikorwa n’umushoferi ugonga umuntu mu muhanda kubera uburangare. [9] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha yavuze ko ibisobanuro bya Munyankumburwa Valensi n’umwunganira nta shingiro bifite, kuko mu gihe Munyankumburwa yirukankanaga abaforoderi, yabagezeho maze ashyira amasasu mu mbunda, mugenzi we amubujije kurasa undi arabyanga arabikora, bityo rero akaba adakwiriye kubwira Urukiko ko ibyo yakoze ari impanuka kandi yararashe abishaka. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUNYANKUMBURWA

Page 176

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 150

[10] Avuga ko ibyo Munyankumburwa Valensi yireguza ko ntacyo yapfaga na nyakwigendera nabyo nta gaciro byahabwa kuko atari ngombwa ko haba amakimbirane kugira ngo habe ubushake bwo kwica. Avuga ko kuba yarashyize amasasu mu mbunda, mugenzi we Gakara yamwumva akamubuza kurasa ubugira kabiri ariko undi akabyanga, byumvikana ko ibyo yakoze bitabaye ku bw’impanuka. Yasoje avuga ko Munyankumburwa atakongera kugabanyirizwa igihano yahawe kuko byakozwe ku rwego rwa mbere. [11] Ingingo ya 311 y’Iteka nº 21/1977 ryo ku wa 18/08/1977 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ibyaha ryakoreshwaga icyaha gikorwa iteganya ko “Ukwica umuntu ubishaka, byitwa ubwicanyi: bihanishwa igifungo cya burundu”. [12] Ku birebana n’uru rubanza, n’ubwo imbere y’uru Rukiko Munyankumburwa Valensi n’umwunganira bahakana ko atigeze agira ubushake bwo kwica Nkunzimana, ko icyaha bumva yakoze ari icyo kwica umuntu utabishaka (homicide involontaire), Urukiko rurasanga inyito Munyankumburwa Valensi asaba ko yahabwa icyaha akurikiranyweho idahura n’ibyabaye kuko ubushake bwo kwica bugaragarira ku kuba yarashyize amasasu mu mbunda, Munyurasi Gakara abyumvise amubuza kurasa, undi aho kumwumvira ahubwo ahita abikora maze arasa Nkunzimana amasasu atatu yose nuko ahita apfa. [13] Urukiko rusanga ahubwo kuba Munyankumburwa Valensi mu Rukiko Rukuru yaremeye icyaha ndetse rukabiheraho rumugabanyiriza igihano, kandi icyaha aregwa ndetse yaburanye ari icy‘ubwicanyi, atasaba ko cyakwitwa ukundi, cyane ko ibyo yemeye akanabisabira imbabazi bihura n’imvugo za Munyurasi ndetse n’iz’abatangabuhamya bari aho icyaha cyakorewe (bagenzi ba Nkunzimana), bose bemeje ko

Page 177

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 151

yarashe nyakwigendera ku bw’urugomo gusa kuko atari yigeze amurwanya. [14] Hashingiwe ku bimaze gusobanurwa, Urukiko rurasanga Munyankumburwa Valensi yararashe Nkunzimana abishaka, bityo icyaha yakoze kandi kimuhama akaba ari icy’ubwicanyi giteganywa kandi kigahanishwa ingingo ya 311 y’Itegeko Teka nº 21/1977 ryo ku wa 18/08/1977 ryavuzwe. [15] Ku bijyanye no kongera kugabanyirizwa igihano Munyankumburwa Valensi n’umwunganira basaba, imikirize y‘urubanza rwajuririwe igaragaza ko mu kumugenera igihano, Urukiko Rukuru rwamugabanyirije ku buryo buhagije kuko rwamuhanishije igifungo cy’imyaka 10 rushingiye ku mpamvu nyoroshyacyaha z’uko yemeye icyaha akagisabira n’imbabazi, kandi akaba ari ubwa mbere akatiwe igihano ku buryo bwa burundu n’Inkiko. [16] Urukiko rurasanga rero, kuba Munyankubwurwa Valensi yaragombaga guhanishwa igifungo cya burundu hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 311 y’Itegekoyavuzwe haruguru, ariko agahanishwa igifungo cy’imyaka icumi (10) gusa, byumvikana ko Urukiko Rukuru rwamugabanyirije igihano mu buryo buhagije ugereranyije n’uburemere bw’icyaha yakoze cyo kurasa umuturage utagize icyo amutwara; bityo ubujurire bwe bukaba nta shingiro bufite. b. Kumenya niba Akarere ka Burera kagomba kuryozwa amakosa yakozwe na Munyankumburwa Valens wari “local defence”. [17] Me Umwali uhagarariye Akarere ka Burera avuga ko Urukiko rwategetse ko Akarere ka Burera karyozwa indishyi UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUNYANKUMBURWA

Page 178

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 152

kandi Munyankumburwa yariyemereye ko imbunda yakoresheje arasa Nkunzimana itari iye kandi ko yayikoresheje atabifitiye uburenganzira, byongeye kandi umupolisi wari wamuhaye iyo mbunda akaba yaramubujije kurasa ariko undi arabyanga ararasa. [18] Avuga ko indi mpamvu ituma Akarere ka Burera katagomba kuryozwa amakosa yakozwe na Munyankumburwa, ari uko icyaha akurikiranyweho yagikoreye mu Karere ka Rulindo, ni ukuvuga hanze y’aho asanzwe akorera mu Karere ka Burera, kandi akaba yaragiyeyo Akarere katamutumye, bityo rero akaba ariwe ugomba kuryozwa amakosa ye bwite cyane ko yarashe umuntu abishaka kandi azi neza ko bibujijwe. [19] Ikindi batishimiye ni ukuba mu kuryoza Akarere ka Burera indishyi zikomoka ku cyaha Munyankumburwa yakoze, Urukiko rwarashingiye ku gika cya mbere cy’ingingo ya 27 y’Itegeko nº25/2004 ryo kuwa 19/11/2004 rishyiraho kandi rigena imitunganyirize n’imikorere by’urwego rw’abaturage rushinzwe gufasha gucunga umutekano (Local defence), ariko ntirwagira icyo ruvuga ku gika cya kabiri cyayo Akarere kari kaburanishije, iki gika kikaba giteganya ko iyo „local defence“ akoresheje imbunda nabi abihanirwa mu buryo buteganywa n’amategeko16. [20] Munyankumburwa yavuze ko iyo umupolisi atamuha imbunda atari kwipangira akazi cyane ko imbunda yakoreshejwe itari iye, ko kandi kuba yaragiye gukurikirana

16 Ingingo ya 27 igira iti : «Igihe ugize “Local Defence” ari mu kazi kajyanye n’inshingano ze, amakosa akoze aryozwa Akarere cyangwa Umujyi akoreramo». Ariko iyo akoze ibinyuranyije n’inshingano ze ahanwa hakurikijwe amategeko.

Page 179

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 153

bariya baforoderi mu Karere ka Rulindo nta kosa abibonamo kuko atari kwanga amabwiriza kuko yayoborwaga nk’abandi bose. [21] Me Bizimana uburanira abaregera indishyi yavuze ko Munyankumburwa yari umukozi w’Akarere ka Burera nka LDF, bityo rero hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 260 CCLIII, indishyi zikomoka ku cyaha yakoze, zikaba zatangwa n’Akarere kuko yari umukozi wako. [22] Yasoje atanga ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi asaba indishyi za 500.000frw y’ikurikirana rubanza n’igihembo cy’avoka kingana na 500.000 frw ziyongera kuzo bari bagenewe ku rwego rwa mbere.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [23] Ingingo ya 260, igika cya gatatu, y’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’Urwunge rw’Amategeko Mbonezamubano iteganya ko umukoresha aryozwa ibyangijwe n’abakozi igihe bakora imirimo bashinzwe. [24] Ku byerekeranye n’imiburanire y’uhagarariye Akarere ka Burera ko kuba karategetswe kwishyura abasizwe na nyakwigendera Nkunzimana wishwe na Munyankumburwa ari amakosa bitewe nuko yabikoze yarenze inkengero y’ako Karere ashinzwe gukoreramo imirimo ye, Urukiko rurasanga inshingano nyamukuru ya Polisi y’Igihugu ndetse n’iy’Urwego rw’abaturage rushinzwe gufasha gucunga umutekano “Local defence”, ari iyo kurinda ubusugire bw’Igihugu, kurinda umutekano w’abantu n’ibyabo. N’ubwo Local defence aba afite agace ashinzwe gukoreramo, ibyo ntibyatuma yipfumbata ngo UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUNYANKUMBURWA

Page 180

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 154

arebere cyangwa yirengagize ibirimo gukorwa kandi byangiza umutekano w’Igihugu. Ikindi ni uko atari kwanga gukurikiza amabwiriza Sergent Munyura Gakara amuhaye mu gihe bizwi ko mu nshingano ze “local defence” agomba gufatanya n’izindi nzego bakorana gucunga umutekano. [25] Ku birebana n’uru rubanza, Urukiko rusanga kuba Polisi ikorera mu Karere ka Burera yari imaze kubona amakuru ko hari magendu irimo kunyura muri ako Karere yerekeza mu Karere ka Rulindo bihanye imbibi, kandi yahamagara bagenzi be bo muri Rulindo ntibitabe, byari ngombwa mu rwego rwo gushyira mu bikorwa inshingano zabo zo gucunga umutekano w’Igihugu harimo no kurwanya magendu imunga ubukungu bwacyo, gukurikirana abo bagizi ba nabi hatitawe ku mbibi z’Akarere ubusanzwe bakoreramo, bityo iyi ngingo y’ubujurire y’Akarere ka Burera ikaba nta shingiro ifite. [26] Me Umwali Claire uhagarariye Akarere ka Burera asaba ko ibyemejwe mu rubanza nº RPA 0074/07/CS rwaciwe kuwa 25/07/2007, Ubushinjacyaha burega Pte Niyoyita icyaha cy’ubwicanyi, uwitwa Gakosi Nkuriza n’abavandimwe be baregera indishyi, byakurikizwa no muri uru rubanza maze Akarere ka Burera ntikagire indishyi gatanga kubera ko Munyankuburwa yakoresheje imbunda itari iye kandi katamutumye, Urukiko rurasanga izi manza zombi zitandukanye harebwe ibyabaye (les circonstances du crime) kuko abahanga mu mategeko barimo Viney, Joudrday na Starck17 bavuga ko mu guca urubanza, inkiko zigomba kureba niba igikorwa cyakozwe n’umukozi cyari gifitanye isano n’akazi ke cyangwa

17F. Benac-Schmidt, Responsabilité du fait d’autrui, Repertoire de droit civil in Encyclopédie Dalloz, TIX, mise à jour en 1999, p.17, nº 135.

Page 181

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 155

n’inshingano ze, bikumvikana ko umukoresha atakagombye kuryozwa ingaruka z’ibyangijwe n’umukozi we mu gihe ibyo yakoze ntaho bihuriye n’akazi ke cyangwa n’inshingano ze kandi bigakorwa mu gihe umukoresha atashoboraga kubigenzura. Ibi ni nabyo bivugwa mu ngingo ya 260 y’Igitabo cy’amategeko cyavuzwe haruguru. [27] Urukiko rurasanga ku byerekeranye n’amasaha y’akazi, Munyankumburwa yararashe Nkunzimana hafi saa yine za nijoro, ariko ari mu kazi yategetswe gukora na Sergent Munyurasi Gakara wari usanzwe amuyobora mu kazi ke ka buri munsi mu gihe Pte Niyoyita we yarashe Mukagatana n’umwana we yataye akazi kandi icyaha akagikorera aho atatumwe. Ku bijyanye n’aho icyaha cyakorewe, nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, kuba barakurikiranye abaforoderi mu Karere ka Rulindo gahana imbibi n’Akarere ka Burera bakoreramo kandi bigaragara ko abo bagizi ba nabi bari baturutse muri Burera, atari amakosa y’akazi Akarere kakwitsitsaho gahakana uburyozwe nk’umukoresha we mu gihe icyari kibajyanye aho muri Rulindo ari akazi (inyungu za Leta). [28] Ku byerekeranye n’imiburanire y’Akarere ka Burera ko katakwishyura indishyi kubera ko imbunda yarashishije atari iye, Urukiko rurasanga imbunda yakoreshejwe icyaha yaba iya Munyankumburwa cyangwa iy’undi ubwabyo bidahagije kugira ngo Akarere ka Burera nk’umukoresha wa Munyankumburwa gategekwe kwishyura iby’abandi yangije ayikoresheje, ko ahubwo hagomba kurebwa impamvu yayikoresheje. Muri uru rubanza, bigaragara ko Munyankumburwa na mugenzi we bari bitwaje iriya mbunda kugira ngo babe bayitabaza mu gihe hagize ushaka kubahohotera mu kazi bashinzwe ko gucunga umutekano. Nk’uko bigaragara ariko, Urukiko rurasanga UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUNYANKUMBURWA

Page 182

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 156

Munyankumburwa yarakoresheje nabi iriya mbunda n’ubwo byabaye ari mu gikorwa kijyanye n’inshingano ze, ibi akaba ari nabyo bigize ikosa rishingirwaho mu gusaba Akarere ka Burera kwishyura indishyi zikomoka ku cyaha cyakozwe n’umukozi wako. [29] Ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba Munyankumburwa yaba yarahawe amabwiriza yo kurasa Nkunzimana, inyandiko mvugo ya Sergent Munyurasi Gakara, igaragaza ko amaze kumva atangiye gukokinga (gushyira isasu mu cyumba cy’imbunda) yamubujije kurasa ubugira kabiri ariko undi aranga asohora amasasu atatu yose ariyo yahitanye nyakwigendera, ko rero iki gikorwa yakibwirije ariyo mpamvu akiryozwa mu rwego rw’amategeko ahana, kuko yarenze ku biteganywa n‘ingingo ya 15 ndetse n’iya 16 z’Itegeko nº 25/2004 ryo kuwa 19/11/2004 rishyiraho kandi rigena Urwego rw’abaturage rushinzwe gufasha gucunga umutekano “Local defence”18, zerekana igihe “Local defence” ashobora gukoresha ibikoresho by’umutekano, nk’imbunda. [30] Hashingiwe ku byasobanuwe, Urukiko rurasanga Akarere ka Burera kagomba kwishyura indishyi kategetswe n’Urukiko Rukuru kuko n’ubwo Munyankumburwa yarashe Nkunzimana kubera impamvu ze bwite atasobanuye, yabikoze

18 Ingingo ya 15 igira iti “Ibikoresho by’umutekano, nk’imbunda, bikoreshwa gusa mu gihe cyabigenewe. Iyo umwe mu bagize “Local Defence” abikoresheje agahungabanya umutekano, ahanwa hakurikijwe amategeko ahana y’u Rwanda. Naho ingingo ya 16 ikagira iti” 1. Kwiyambaza imbunda ntibyemewe ku bagize “Local Defence” keretse gusa iyo: Bagiriwe urugomo cyangwa rugiriwe abandi nta bundi buryo bakoresha kandi barwana n’abantu bitwaje intwaro; 2. Bagiye gufata abantu bagaragayeho kuba ba ruharwa mu bugizi bwa nabi cyangwa abantu bitwaje intwaro bateza umutekano muke».

Page 183

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 157

ari mu gikorwa kijyanye n’inshingano ye yo gucunga umutekano arwanya magendu, ibyo akaba yarabikoze mu rwego rwo kubahiriza ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 719 y’Itegeko nº 25/2004 ryo kuwa 19/11/2004 aho yafatanyije n’Urwego rwa Polisi gutangira abantu bafatiye mu cyuho batorokesha ibicuruzwa bya magendu. [31] Akarere ka Burera rero nk’umukoresha kagomba kwishyura indishyi kaciwe bitewe nuko Munyankuburwa yaguye mu cyaha atatandukiriye inshingano ze, ahubwo nk’uko byakomeje gusobanurwa yari arimo azuzuza n’ubwo yabikoze nabi. Ibi birahura n’ibyemejwe n’abahanga20 mu mategeko aho bavuga ko kugira ngo umukoresha aryozwe ibyangijwe n’umukozi we, bihagije kureba nibura niba igikorwa cye cyangirije undi gifitanye isano n’inshingano ze..... bagatanga urugero rw’umushoferi uba atwaye imodoka y’umukoresha we maze agakora impanuka kubera umuvuduko mwinshi. Ku

19 Ingingo ya 7 igira iti: 1º gufatanya n’abandi baturage gucunga umutekano w’abantu n’uw’ibintu byabo; 2º kumenyesha inzego z’ubuyobozi zimwegereye ikintu cyose gishobora guhungabanya umutekano; 3º gufasha izindi nzego zishinzwe umutekano w’abaturage n’uw’ibintu byabo mu gihe bibaye ngombwa; 4º gufata umuntu wese ufatiwe mu cyuho ahungabanya umutekano, agahita amushyikiriza ubuyobozi cyangwa ikigo cya Polisi kiri hafi. 20CH. Larroumet, note sous cass. Com.12 oct.1993, Dalloz.1994.124, séc.p.125 cité par Françoise BENAC-SCHMIDT, op cit, p.11, nº 74. “On peut se contenter d’un simple lien de connexité entre l’acte dommageable du préposé et ses fonctions, pour pouvoir engager la responsabilité du commettant. L’auteur continue en disant que “ lorsque l’acte du préposé consiste en un exercice défectueux de ses fonctions, le rattachement est manifeste: tel est le cas du chauffeur livreur qui commet un accident de la circulation du fait d’une vitesse excessive…. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUNYANKUMBURWA

Page 184

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 158

bireba uru rubanza, byafatwa ko Munyankumburwa nawe yakoze kiriya cyaha ari mu kazi n’ubwo yagakoze nabi. [32] Ku byerekeranye na 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya avoka Me Bizimana asabira abaregera indishyi kuri uru rwego, Urukiko rusanga Akarere ka Burera kagomba kuyabaha kuko byabaye ngombwa ko bashaka umunyamategeko ubaburanira kuri uru rwego kandi uyu mubare bifuza ukaba uri mu rugero III. ICYEMEZO CY‘URUKIKO

[33] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Munyankumburwa nta shingiro bufite. [34] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bw’Akarere ka Burera nabwo nta shingiro bufite. [35] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwa Manirarora Rosette n’abana be Mukandengo, Hategekimana na Nsengiyumva Fidèle bwakiwe kandi ko bufite ishingiro; [36] Rwemeje ko Akarere ka Burera kishyura Manirarora Rosette, Mukandengo, Hategekimana na Nsengiyumva 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya avoka agenwe kuri uru rwego, akiyongera ku ndishyi zingana na 7.450.000 Frw bagenewe n’Urukiko Rukuru, ku cyicaro cyarwo i Kigali, yose hamwe akaba 7.950.000 Frw. [37] Rutegetse ko amagarama y’urubanza aherera ku Isanduku ya Leta.

Page 185

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 159

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NGIRABABYEYI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RPAA 0086/ 10/CS (Mukanyundo, P.J., Hatangimbabazi na Gakwaya, J.) 16 Gicurasi 2014] Amategeko agenga ibimenyetso – Gusambanya umwana – Kugaragaza ibimenyetso ko uwasambanyijwe ari umwana – Icyemezo cy’amavuko cyatanzwe n’umukozi wa Leta ufite ububasha bwo kugikora cyangwa icyemezo cy’umuganga ni byo byonyine bishobora kugaragaza imyaka y’amavuko y’umuntu – Kutagaragaza iki kimenyetso bitera gushidikanya ku mikorere y’icyaha kandi gushidikanya kurengera ushinjwa – Itegeko n° 30/2013 ryo kuwa 24/5/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 165. Incamake y’ikibazo: Ngirababyeyi Thomas yarezwe icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana w’imyaka 13. Yahamijwe icyaha maze ahanishwa igifungo cy’imyaka 25.Yajuririye mu Rukiko Rukuru rugumishaho imikirize y’urukiko rwarubanjirije.Yajuririye mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko yavukijwe uburenganzira ahabwa n’amategeko bw’umuntu wese wagaragaje ukuri ku cyaha ashinjwa akanagisabira imbabazi, asaba kugabanyirizwa igihano. Ngirababyeyi Thomas yavuze ko yemera kuba yarasambanyije Uzamukunda Marie Rose ariko akaba yarabikoze babyumvikanyeho. Umwunganira mu mategeko we avuga ko hagomba kugaragazwa ikigaragaza ko uwasambanyijwe koko yari afite imyaka 13, cyabura uwo yunganira akaba atahanirwa gusambanya umuntu mukuru kuko atari byo yarezwe. Kuri iki kibazo Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko bwabuze icyo cyemezo. 159

Page 186

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 160

Ariko bwasoje buvuga ko Urukiko rwahera ku bimenyetso bicukumbuwe no gusesengura urubanza (présomption humaine) kuko nabyo byemewe mu mategeko cyane ko na Ngirababyeyi Thomas mu ibazwa rye mu nzego zabanje yiyemereraga ko yasambanyije umwana ariko ageze mu Rukiko rwajuririwe avuga ko yabonaga uwo mukobwa afite imyaka nka 20. Incamake y’icyemezo: Kuba Ubushinjacyaha bwarananiwe kugaragaza ko uwasambanyijwe yari umwana koko igihe kivugwa ko icyaha cyakorwaga bituma habaho ugushidikanya. Ibyo Ubushinjacyaha busaba ko hashingirwa ku bimenyetso bicukumbuwe no gusesengura urubanza nta shingiro bifite kuko icyemezo cy’amavuko cyatanzwe n’umukozi wa Leta ubifitiye ububasha bwo kugikora cyangwa icyemezo cy’umuganga byonyine aribyo bishobora kugaragaza imyaka y’amavuko y’umuntu. Bityo rero, icyaha yari akurikiranyweho ntikimuhama kuko imyaka y’Uzamukunda Marie-Rose itagaragarijwe ikimenyetso. Ubujurire bufite ishingiro. Urubanza rwajuririwe ruhindutse kuri byose. Uwajuriye ahanaguweho icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana. Uwajuriye agomba guhita arekurwa. Amagarama y’urubanza aherejwe ku isanduku ya Leta Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko n° 30/2013 ryo kuwa 24/5/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 165.

Page 187

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 161

Imanza zifashishijwe: Ubushinjacyaha v. Sebiteke, RPAA 015/10/CS, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 28/02/2014. Inyandiko z’abahanga: J.-François Renucci et C.Courtin, Le Droit pénal des mineurs, 4è. éd., PUF, Paris, 1991, p.4. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo, Ngirababyeyi Thomas aregwa icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana muto witwa Uzamukunda Marie-Rose. Uru Rukiko rwaciye urubanza RP 0139/06/TGI/GSBO kuwa 29/05/2006 rwemeza ko icyaha aregwa kimuhama, rumuhanisha igifungo cy’imyaka makumyabiri n’itanu (25ans) no gutanga amagarama y’urubanza angana na 10.950 Frw. [2] Ngirababyeyi Thomas ntiyishimiye imikirize y’urubanza maze arujurira mu Rukiko Rukuru. Uru Rukiko ruca urubanza RPA 0992/06/HC/KIG kuwa 05/01/2010, rwemeza ko icyaha aregwa kimuhama, rutegeka ko imikirize y’urubanza RP 0139/06/TGI/GSBO rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo rugumyeho mu ngingo zarwo zose, uretse amagarama yagombaga gutangwa ahwanye na 17.700 Frw. [3] Ngirababyeyi Thomas ntiyishimiye imikirize y’urubanza, ajurira mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwamuvukije uburenganzira Itegeko riha umuntu wese UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NGIRABABYEYI

Page 188

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 162

wagaragaje ukuri ku cyaha aregwa, ndetse akaba yarasabye imbabazi ku cyaha aregwa, nyuma Urukiko Rukuru rwirengagiza amategeko maze rumuhanisha igihano cy’imyaka 25 idasubitswe ndetse asaba ko hakurikizwa amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha kuko yemera icyaha kandi akagisabira imbabazi. [4] Iburanisha mu ruhame ryabaye kuwa 17/3/2014, Ngirababyeyi Thomas yunganiwe na Me Dusenge Vestine naho Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na Mutayoba Alphonse, Umushinjacyaha ku rwego rw’Igihugu. II. IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYACYO

Kumenya niba Ngirababyeyi Thomas yarasambanyije ku ngufu Uzamukunda Marie-Rose utarageza ku myaka y‘ubukure. [5] Ngirababyeyi Thomas avuga ko impamvu zamuteye kujurira ari uko yahawe igihano kirekire kandi yaraburanye yemera ko yasambanyije Uzamukunda Marie-Rose, ariko ko yabikoze babyumvikanyeho. [6] Me Dusenge Vestine, wunganira Ngirababyeyi Thomas, avuga ko n’ubwo bwose yemera ko yasambanyije uwo mukobwa, nta kigaragaza ko Uzamukunda Marie-Rose yari ataruzuza imyaka y’ubukure cyane ko muri dosiye nta cyemezo cy’amavuko kirimo, kigaragaza ko yasambanyijwe akiri umwana. Asobanura ko ukwemera icyaha gusa bidahagije ngo hemezwe ko habayeho icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana, bityo akaba asanga ari ngombwa ko bigaragarira Urukiko ko

Page 189

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 163

Uzamukunda Marie-Rose yari umwana koko icyo igihe bavuga ko yahohotewe ndetse ko icyemezo cy’amavuko cye cyonyine gishobora kubigaragaza. [7] Me Dusenge Vestine asoza avuga ko niba bigaragaye ko nta kimenyetso gihamya ko Ngirababyeyi Thomas yasambanyije umwana muto, atashinjwa icyaha cyo gusambanya umuntu mukuru kuko ataricyo yarezwe, bityo akaba asaba uru Rukiko ko mu guca urubanza rwazirinda kugenekereza ruhindura inyito y’icyaha kuko bitakwitwa gufata ku ngufu umwana muto mu gihe nta cyemezo cy’amavuko gihari cyerekana ko Uzamukunda Marie-Rose ari umwana. [8] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko babuze aho bakura icyemezo cy’amavuko kigaragaza ko Uzamukunda Marie-Rose yasambanyijwe akiri umwana kuko bandikiye Inzego z’Ubuyobozi z‘aho uwo mwana yabarizwaga, basubizwa ko nta aderesi (adresse) y’uwo mwana izwi, bityo rero ko ntaho bahera batanga icyo cyemezo, asaba Urukiko ko rwagendera ku mategeko rugafata ko uwo mukobwa yasambanyijwe akuze. [9] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha asoza ariko avuga ko mu gufata icyemezo, Urukiko rwazashishoza kuko n’ubwo bwose nta cyemezo cy’amavuko cyagaragajwe, ko ibimenyetso bicukumbuwe no gusesengura urubanza (présomption humaine) byemewe mu mategeko cyane ko na Ngirababyeyi Thomas mu ibazwa rye mu nzego zabanje yiyemereye ko yasambanyije umwana ariko ageze muri uru Rukiko avuga ko yabonaga uwo mukobwa afite imyaka 20 kandi abeshya.

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NGIRABABYEYI

Page 190

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 164

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [10] Ingingo ya 165 y’Itegeko n° 30/2013 ryo kuwa 24/5/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, iteganya ko “ugushidikanya birengera ushinjwa, iyo urubanza rwakurikiranywe mu buryo bwose, ntihagire ibimenyetso nyakuri biboneka byemeza nta shiti abacamanza ko ushinjwa yakoze icyaha koko, bagomba kwemeza ko atsinze”. [11] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga kuba Ubushinjacyaha butarabashije kugaragaza bidashidikanywaho ko Uzamukunda Marie-Rose uvugwa ko yasambanyijwe ari umwana, bituma haba ugushidikanya kuri kimwe kandi cy’ingenzi mu bigize icyaha, bityo ibivugwa n’Ubushinjacyaha y’uko hakurikizwa ikimenyetso gicukumbuwe no gusesengura urubanza kuko Ngirababyeyi Thomas yari yemeye ko yasambanyije umwana, nta shingiro bifite kubera ko icyemezo cy’amavuko cyatanzwe n’umukozi wa Leta ufite ububasha bwo kugikora cyangwa icyemezo cy’umuganga byonyine aribyo bishobora kugaragaza imyaka y’amavuko y’umuntu21. Kubera ibyo bisobanuro, hakaba hagomba kwemezwa ko icyaha Ngirababyeyi Thomas aregwa cyo gusambanya umwana kitamuhama22.

21 “C’est la production d’un acte de l’état de civil qui permettra de déterminer l’âge réel, mais si cet acte ne paraît pas fiable, ou s’il n’existe pas, il sera possible de calculer l’âge probable de l’individu en ayant recours à une expertise fondée sur la morphologie”, J.-François RENUCCI et C. Courtin, Le Ddroit pénal des mineurs, 4e édition, PUF, Paris, 1991, p.4. 22 Uyu ni umurongo wemejwe mu rubanza RPAA 015/10/CS rwaciwe n’uru Rukiko kuwa 28/2/2014, haburana Ubushinjacyaha v. Sebiteke Shamungabo.

Page 191

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 165

[12] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga, hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 165 y’Itegeko n° 30/2013 ryavuzwe haruguru, icyaha cyo gusambanya Uzamukunda Marie-Rose utari wujuje imyaka y’ubukure (umwana), Ngirababyeyi Thomas akurikiranyweho kitamuhama kuko imyaka ya Uzamukunda Marie-Rose itagaragarijwe ikimenyetso, kuba ishidikanywaho bikaba bimurengera, bityo rero icyo cyaha akaba agomba kugihanagurwaho. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [13] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Ngirababyeyi Thomas bufite ishingiro. [14] Rwemeje ko imikirize y’urubanza RPA 0992/06/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru kuwa 5/1/2010 rujurirwa, ihindutse kuri byose. [15] Rwemeje ko icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana Ngirababyeyi Thomas akurikiranweho kitamuhama, agihanaguweho. [16] Rutegetse ko Nyirababyeyi Thomas agomba kurekurwa uru rubanza rukimara gusomwa. [17] Rutegetse ko amagarama y’urubanza aherera ku Isanduku ya Leta. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NGIRABABYEYI

Page 193

RWANDA LAW

REPORTS

ENGLISH VERSION

Page 195

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TEAM OF EDITORS .......................................................................... v PREFACE ......................................................................................... viii SCOPE OF THE REPORTS ............................................................... ix

LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED .................................................................................... x LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED ..................................................... xii SUBJECT INDEX ............................................................................ xiii EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA ...................................................................................... 3 NGABONZIZA ET AL v. MIRAVUMBA ....................................... 19 ACCESS BANK Ltd v. NGARAMBE ET AL; ................................ 29 MUCUMUMBITSI v. ACCESS BANK Ltd ..................................... 29 MUKABARUNGI v. GATSINZI ...................................................... 45 NTEZIRYAYO v. RUTABAYIRO ................................................... 59 CORAR v. MBONIMPA ................................................................... 77 HOTEL OKAPI v. BPR ..................................................................... 89 PROSECUTION v. FAYIRARA..................................................... 103 PROSECUTION v. MPITABAKANA ........................................... 111 PROSECUTION v. MUKANTAGARA ET AL ............................. 119 PROSECUTION v. MUNYANKUMBURWA ............................... 133 PROSECUTION v. NGIRABABYEYI ........................................... 149

iii ...vi ..vii ...ix ...xi .xiii ....3 ..19 ..19 ..29 ..45 ..59 ..77 ..89 103 111 119 133 149 .......................................................................... ............................................................................................. ............................................................... .................................................................................... ....................................................... ............................................................................. ....................................................................................... .......................................... .................................. ...................................... ....................................................... .................................................... .................................................................... ...................................................................... ...................................................... ............................................. ............................... ................................. .............................................

Page 196

Prepared by the Supreme Court Funded by Dutch Embassy & ICF

Page 197

TEAM OF EDITORS

LAW REPORTING TEAM

BAGABO Faustin

HAKUZIMANA Ildephonse

KABERA Jean Claude

KAGABO U. Stephanie

MUJABI K. Naphtal

MUNYENSANGA Chrysostome

MWIHOREZE Claudine

NTIHEMUKA Emmanuel

SAFARI Gahizi

UWIMANA Gisèle

III

Page 198

MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE

MUGENZI Louis Marie : President of the Committee, Supreme Court Judge

Prof. Dr. NGAGI M. Alphonse : Vice President of the Committe, Lecturer in University of Rwanda

RUTAZANA Angeline : Secretary of the Committee, Inspector of Courts

BWIZA N. Blanche : Judge at the High Court

DUSHIMINAMA Claudine : Prosecutor at National Level

Me GAKUNZI Valery : Advocate at Rwanda Bar Association

GIRANEZA Clémentine : Judge at Primary Court

HABARUREMA Jean Pierre : Prosecutor at National level

Cpt. KABERUKA Jean Claude : Judge at Military

IV

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 199

High Court

KALIWABO Charles : President of High Court

Me KAYIHURA Didace : Advocate at Rwanda Bar Association

KIBUKA Jean Luc : Judge at Commercial High Court

MUREREREHE Saouda : Judge at High Court

NYIRINKWAYA Immaculée : Supreme Court Judge

RUBANGO K. Epimaque : State Attorney RUKUNDAKUVUGA F. Regis : Inspector General of Courts

V

TEAM OF EDITORS

Page 200

PREFACE

Dear Readers, After reforming the preparation of the law reports published by the Judiciary once per term, we are pleased to provide you with our second volume. First and foremost, we thank our readers who never stop giving us ideas, appreciating the law reports and suggesting us some areas of improvement. Therefore, we encourage more readers to keep on giving us their comments with regards to the previous volume, the current one or those to be published in the future. This will help us to publish a much more improved and appreciated law report, especially that its usefulness to different people is undoubted, in particular, those who face legal issues in their daily life. In this second volume of Rwanda Law Reports, we shall find two (2) commercial cases, two (2) administrative cases, three (3) civil cases and five (5) criminal cases. Prof. Sam RUGEGE President of the Supreme Court President of the High Council of Judiciary

VI Dear Readers, After reforming the preparation of law reports published by the Judiciary once per trimester, we are pleased to provide you with our second volume. We are thankful to readers who keep on giving us ideas, appreciating the law reports and suggesting us some areas of improvement. We encourage other readers to provide us with their comments for the improvement of its preparation towards its usefulness for different categories of users in the legal field. In this second volume of Rwanda Law Reports, we shall find two (2) commercial cases, three (3) administrative cases, two (2) civil cases and five (5) criminal cases.

Page 201

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

CITATION The Reports in this volume are cited thus: [V.2-2014] RLR

VII V.2 [2014] RLR

Page 203

LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY

INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED Organic Law n° 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 80,81,86............................................................................6 Organic Law nº 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code,

articles 140 and 142...........................................113 articles 77, 40 and 681................................................121 Organic Law n° 51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of Courts, article 153.............................................................................................33 Law nº 30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure, article 165.............................................................150 Law no 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles 134 and 360.......................................................6 articles 180 and 320.....................................................20 Law nº 45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, article 89...............................................................................................33 Law nº 10/2009 of 14/05/2009 on mortgages as amended and complemented by the Law Nº 13/2010 of 07/05/2010, articles 4 and 26.......................................................................................26 Law no 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 46................................................................79 Law no 22/99 of 12/11/1999 supplementing book one of the civil code and instituting part five regarding matrimonial regimes, liberalities and successions, article 24......................................48 IX

Page 204

Law no 42/1988 of 27/10/1988 instituting preliminary title and book I of civil code, article 289.................................................47 Decree Law nº 21/77 of 18/8/1977 instituting the penal code as modified and complemented to date, article 260......................................................................136 article 21, 281, 312........................................................121 article 311......................................................................136 article 311.......................................................................113 Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or obligations, article 258 ...................................................................79 articles 33, 264 and 288...............................................61 article 258.....................................................................33 articles 33 and 560.......................................................92 Law no 18/2004 of 20/06/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 134....................................................................................6 article 167..................................................................................61 Law n° 13/2004 of 17/5/2004 relating to the code of criminal procedure article 180..............................................................104

X

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 205

LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED Prosecution v. Pte Niyoyita, RPA 0074/07/CS, rendered on 25 July 2007................................................................................136 Prosecution v. Sebiteke, RPAA 015/10/CS, rendered on 28 February 2014..........................................................................150

XI

Page 207

SUBJECT INDEX Administrative procedure – Petition for review of the final decision due to injustice – Objections – The review of the final decision due to injustice of which the execution has commenced – Grounds for review of the final decision due to injustice – Deposit of the court fees – The Office of Ombudsman is not subjected to deposit of the court fees for the petition for review of the final decision due to injustice – The Office of Ombudsman on its own initiative, can request the Supreme Court to review the final decisions which were referred to it before the coming into force of the Organic Law n° 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court – The commencement of the execution of the judgment do not bar the Office of Ombudsman from requesting the Supreme court to review the final decision due to injustice. – Organic Law N° 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, articles 80, 81 and 86 – Law no 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles, 134 and 360 – Law no 18/2004 of 20/06/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 134. EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA …………...........................................3 Summary procedure claims – Stay of execution of the Judgment before the adjudication of the third party opposition claim instituted against it – The stay of

XIII

Page 208

execution does not prejudice the principal suit as long as the Judge did not mention anything about it – Law nº 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles 180.and 320. NGABONZIZA ET AL v. MIRAVUMBA...............19 Civil procedure – Appeal – Scope of appeal – Trial on grounds of appeal or cross-appeal – The decision to invalidate the mortgage contract while the subject matter concerned the resolution of public auction, is considered as an ultra petita ruling. ACCESS BANK Ltd v. NGARAMBE ET AL; MUCUMBITSI v. ACCESS BANK Ltd................................................................................29 Public auction – Auction of mortgage without recourse to judicial proceedings – The organ delivering the order for public auction of the mortgage without recourse to judicial proceedings based on the mortgage contract certified by the notary and affixed with an enforcement formula in case it is not recorded by the office of the Registrar General – The president’s court order is based on to carry out the public auction since both litigants would not have requested the services of the Registrar General whereas the property to be auctioned was not registered – Law nº 10/2009 of 14/05/2009 on mortgages as amended and complemented by the Law Nº 13/2010 of 07/05/2010, article 26. ACCESS BANK Ltd v. NGARAMBE ET AL; MUCUMBITSI v. ACCESS BANK Ltd...................29

XIV

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 209

Damages – Being dragged into lawsuit – Damages are not awarded in case the claimer did not demonstrate to the Court how they were computed and it is obvious that the appellant did not intend to drag him into lawsuit. MUKABARUNGI v. GATSINZI...............................45 Cross appeal – The cross appeal is admissible even if the respondent was informed of the judgment and does not contest it – Law no 18/2004 of 20/06/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labor and administrative procedure, article 167. NTEZIRYAYO v. RUTABAYIRO...........................59 Unnecessary lawsuits –Damages are not awarded in case some of the appellant’s claims had merit. NTEZIRYAYO v. RUTABAYIRO...........................59 Commercial law – Company – Capacity of representing a company in contract it concludes with others – When a debtor pretends to represent the company, it is considered as such as long as the latter did neither disown nor sue him/her for usurpation of power. HOTEL OKAPI v. BPR.............................................89 Contracts or obligations law – Damages –Reimbursement of the value and related interests of the house in litigation – Loan flat fees – Damages from the loss of rent – Moral damages – Reference costs and counsel fees – The litigant is not entitled to be reimbursed flat fees deducted from the bank loan since they are irredeemable by nature – The distrainee should pay damages including costs for litigation diligence and counsel fees for all proceeding levels as fixed under discretion of the Court – Law Nº

XV

SUBJECT INDEX

Page 210

45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, article 89 – Decree of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or conventional obligations, article 258. ACCESS BANK Ltd v. NGARAMBE ET AL; MUCUMBITSI v. ACCESS BANK Ltd.................30 The validity of sale contract of immovable title before the transfer of its title – Breach of contract – Damages on the loss incurred by the buyer due to the seller’s failure to deliver the documents of the purchased thing at the convened time – The sale contract is valid when the parties have agreed to the thing and its price, although the sold thing has not yet been delivered or its price paid – The seller must be ordered to pay damages when the buyer incurred loss resulting from failure to deliver to him/her the acquired thing at convened time – Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or obligations, article 33, 264 and 288. NTEZIRYAYO v. RUTABAYIRO...........................59 Loss of a chance – Damages regarding the revenues that the vehicle would have generated are calculated basing on market price by subtracting eventual expenses – Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or obligations, article 258. CORAR v. MBONIMPA............................................77 Moral damages – They are not granted when the applicant failed to provide the prejudice different from that computed as financial damages – Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or obligations, article 258. CORAR v. MBONIMPA............................................77

XVI

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 211

Apparent mandate – Performance of contract – When there is an apparent mandate, another party may presume that the contractor has a mandate; the contract concluded in that context binds the mandator – Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contract or obligation, article 33. HOTEL OKAPI v. BPR.............................................89 Suretyship – The payment made by the surety without seeking the payment in properties of the principal debtor in case he/she consented to that in suretyship contract – When the surety accepted to pay without seeking the payment from the debtor, the creditor has right to sue either the surety or both in solidum – Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contract or obligation, article 560. HOTEL OKAPI v. BPR.............................................89 The vicarious liability of an employer – An employer is civilly held liable for the tortuous acts of his/ her employee when their commission occurred in the exercise of his/ her duties – An officer in charge of territorial integrity and security of citizens and their properties cannot remain indifferent in the sight of the acts threatening the national security or deteriorating the national economy including smuggling, on the ground that they are not occurring in his/her territorial jurisdiction – Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or obligations, article 260. PROSECUTION v. MUNYANKUMBURWA.......133 Criminal Law – Murder – It is considered murder, when proved that a person intentionally killed another – Decree – Law nº 21/77 of 18/08/1977 instituting the penal code, article 311.

XVII

SUBJECT INDEX

Page 212

PROSECUTION v. MPITABAKANA....................111 Penalty reduction – None could pretend the consequences of his/her offence to be the cause of the penalty reduction. PROSECUTION v. MPITABAKANA....................111 Penalty reduction – Reporting him/herself to the judicial police immediately after committing an offence may apply as a mitigating circumstance – Mitigating circumstances applied by the previous Court are not to be reconsidered. PROSECUTION v. MPITABAKANA....................111 The formation of criminal gang – A criminal gang is an independent crime different from those committed in this context or by that gang – The formation of criminal gang does not exist when it is intended to commit a crime against an individual – Law nº 01/2012 of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article 681. PROSECUTION v. MUKANTAGARA ET AL.....119 Attempt to murder –There is an attempt to offence when the plot to commit an offence has been demonstrated by observable and unequivocal acts constituting the beginning of the offence – Decree Law nº 21/77 of 18/8/1977 instituting the penal code as modified and complemented to date, article 21. PROSECUTION v. MUKANTAGARA ET AL…119 Penalty reduction – It may apply when the offence has minor consequences – Organic Law n0 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article. 77, 40.

XVIII

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 213

PROSECUTION v. MUKANTAGARA ET AL….119 Murder – Qualification of an offence – It cannot be considered as involuntary homicide since the intent to kill is evidenced by the fact of loading the gun and disobey the order of the superior prohibiting to fire – Decree law nº 21/1977 of August 18, 1977 instituting the penal code, art.311. PROSECUTION v. MUNYANKUMBURWA.......133 Criminal procedure – Review – An evidence the accused knew the whereabouts at the time of the trial and did not produce it or did neither notify the Court of its existence nor provides the Court with a irreversible cause as to why he could not present it cannot be considered as a new evidence which can entail review – Law n° 13/2004 of 17/5/2004 relating to the code of criminal procedure, art.

180. PROSECUTION v. FAYIRARA.............................103 Evidence law – Child defilement – Providing evidence attesting that a person sexually abused is a child – Only birth certificate or a medical report attesting the age of an individual prove the age of a person – Failure to produce this evidence brings about doubt and the latter benefits the accused – Law nº 30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure, art.

165. PROSECUTION v. NGIRABABYEYI...................149 Family law – Divorce – The sharing of assets under the of community of property – The property acquired by one of the spouses after legal separation – The legal separation always entails the separation of property; its

XIX

SUBJECT INDEX

Page 214

effects at the day of the submission of the claim to the court – The asset acquired by one of the spouses after the dissolution of the regime of community of property is not counted among the assets to be shared – Law no 42/1988 of 27/10/1988 instituting preliminary title and book I of civil code, article 289. MUKABARUNGI v. GATSINZI...............................45 Insurance law – A driving license issued abroad – It remains valid if not contested by the competent organs or if no criminal action was filed for forgery – Law no 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 46. CORAR v. MBONIMPA............................................77 Insurance contract – Determination of the value of the damaged vehicle due to accident – It is calculated on insurance contract basis. CORAR v. MBONIMPA............................................77 Law determining jurisdiction of courts – Connexity of claims– Various related claims pending in two different courts, one being superior to the other – If there are various claims such that the resolution of one may affect the other, these are related cases and shall be joined and tried in the same suit – Organic Law N° 51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of Courts, article 153. ACCESS BANK Ltd v. NGARAMBE ET AL; MUCUMBITSI v. ACCESS BANK Ltd.................29 Law of securities – Mortgage – The merit of mortgage contract which is not recorded in the register of mortgages held

XX

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 215

by the office of the Registrar General, signed before commencement of the law nº 10/2009 of 14/05/2009 on mortgages – All mortgage contracts concluded before the commencement of this law remain valid – Law Nº 13/2010 of 07/05/2010 amending and complementing the law nº 10/2009 of 14/05/2009 on mortgages, article 4. ACCESS BANK Ltd v. NGARAMBE ET AL; MUCUMBITSI v. ACCESS BANK Ltd.................29

XXI

SUBJECT INDEX

Page 216

ADMINISTRATIVE CASES

Page 218

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/REV/INJ/AD002/CS (Kaitesi Z., P.J., Hatangimbabazi, Mukandamage, Rugabirwa and Gakwaya, J.) January 11, 2014] Administrative procedure – Petition for review of the final decision due to injustice – Objections – The review of the final decision due to injustice of which the execution has commenced – Grounds for review of the final decision due to injustice – Deposit of the court fees – The Office of Ombudsman is not subjected to deposit of the court fees for the petition for review of the final decision due to injustice – The Office of Ombudsman on its own initiative, can request the Supreme Court to review the final decisions which were referred to it before the coming into force of the Organic Law n° 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court – The commencement of the execution of the judgment do not bar the Office of Ombudsman from requesting the Supreme court to review the final decision due to injustice. – Organic Law N° 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, articles 80, 81 and 86 – Law no 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles, 134 and 360 – Law no 18/2004 of 20/06/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 134. Facts: EWSA entered into a contract with Karangwa, whereby the former gave the later the Transformer of 400 KVA voltages 3

Page 219

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 4 to use in his factory, EWSA repossessed it as it was in need of it, and replaced it with another one of 50 KVA voltages without the assent of Karangwa. He filed a suit in the High Court requesting to be awarded damages for the prejudice caused, but the Court held that there was no breach of contract on the part of EWSA, because the transformer was its asset given in rent to Karangwa and was replaced with another transformer of 50 KVA voltages. Karangwa appealed to the Supreme Court which held that EWSA breached the contract it concluded with Karangwa and ordered it to pay damages amounting to 207,976,000 Rwf in addition to the counsel and court fees. The Government of Rwanda lodged a third party opposition against the judgment, where it averred that it was not informed about the rulings of the case while EWSA is its institution. The Supreme Court ruled that the claim of the Government of Rwanda is inadmissible due to procedural irregularity. The Director General of EWSA submitted the case of injustice on this case to the Office of Ombudsman before the publication of the organic law which instituted the review of the final decision due to injustice, and after its enactment, the Office of Ombudsman wrote to the President of the Supreme Court requesting the Judgment No RADA 0005/08/CS rendered by the Supreme Court to be reviewed due to injustice. In the course

of hearing, the counsel for Karangwa raised various objections relating to inadmissibility; submitting that; the Office of Ombudsman did not deposit the court fees, it requested the Supreme Court for the review of the final decision due to injustice on its own accord, should not request for the review of the final decision due to injustice when the execution of the judgment has already commenced, and that the petition does not

Page 220

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 5 fulfil the grounds required by article 81 of the Organic Law n° 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. In its defence, EWSA adduced that the Office of Ombudsman is not obliged to pay the court fees deposit for it is not a party to the case; a final decision either executed or not can be reviewed due to injustice, and that the Office of Ombudsman requested for the review of that final decision due to injustice pursuant to the letter of the Director General of EWSA. Held: 1. The Office of Ombudsman is not a party to the case because it does not file the claim; instead, it requests the final decision alleged to be unjust to be reviewed. The president of the Supreme Court can grant or refuse the request of the Office of Ombudsman; therefore the claim for the review of the final decision due to injustice is filed in an extraordinary procedure to the extent that the parties are not obliged to deposit the court fees. As a result even the office of Ombudsman must not pay the court fees. Therefore the objection is rejected.

2. The Office of Ombudsman can, on its own initiative, request the Supreme Court for review of the final decision due to injustice, cases alleged to be unjust which were referred to it before the coming into force of Organic Law n° 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

3. The grounds required for the final decision to be reviewed due to injustice were complied with, and as regards to the admissibility of the claim, their grounds will be examined on merits.

Page 221

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 6 4 The final decision alleged to be unjust whether or not executed, or those of which the parties have agreed on the modalities of execution can be reviewed due to injustice, therefore nothing can prevent the Office of the Ombudsman to request the Supreme Court to review the final decision due to injustice even though it is in execution process. Objections of the respondent rejected. The trial of the case on merit is to proceed. Court fees are temporally suspended. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Organic Law n° 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 81. Law no 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles, 134 and 360. Law no 18/2004 of 20/06/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 134. No cases referred to. Judgment

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] This lawsuit originates from the contract concluded between EWSA and Karangwa Eugene on 28/03/1997, whereby EWSA leased out a transformer of 400 KVA voltages to Karangwa for use in his FIDECAR factory which manufactures

Page 222

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 7 wheelbarrow tyres, and later EWSA repossessed it because it was in need of it and replaced it with another one of 50 KVA voltage without the consent of Karangwa. [2] Karangwa lodged a claim in the High Court, which held that EWSA did not breach the contract because the transformer it repossessed was its asset which it had lent to Karangwa and replaced it with another transformer of 50 KV voltages. [3] Karangwa was not satisfied with the rulings of the case and appealed to the Supreme Court, then in the Judgment RADA 0005/08/CS; it held that EWSA was in breach of article 33 of Civil Code, book III and that it is liable to pay damages thereto pursuant to article 50 of thatbook and clause XII of the contract it entered into with Karangwa Eugène, therefore ordered EWSA to pay the damages amounting to 207,976,000 Rwf in addition with the counsel and Court fees to Karangwa. [4] The government of Rwanda filed a third party opposition arguing that it was not notified of the rulings, whereas EWSA is its institution, thus in the Judgment RADA 0001/09/CS rendered on 17/09/2010, the Supreme Court ruled that the claim of the government of Rwanda is inadmissible because of procedural irregularities and sustained the Judgment RADA 0005/08/CS. [5] On 13 February 2013, the Office of Ombudsman wrote to the President of the Supreme Court requesting that the Judgment RADA 0005/08/CS between EWSA and Karangwa Eugène rendered by the Supreme Court be reviewed due to injustice.

Page 223

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 8 [6] The grounds of injustice relied upon by the Office of the Ombudsman to request for the review of the final decision due to injustice are that during its trial, the court ignored apparent evidences available in the case file including the document made between the employee of ELECTROGAZ and that of FIDECAR on 01/12/1999, the document of FIDECAR on 13/04/2000 and that of 04/06/2001, the bills submitted to the court illustrating the real consumption of electricity by FEDCAR, furthermore, even the contract concluded between ELECTROGAZ (EWSA) and FEDCAR (represented by Karangwa) of 23/03/1997 especially the clause 3 was breached; and it awarded excessive damages. [7] The case was heard in public on 26/11/2013, both parties present, EWSA represented by Rusanganwa Jean Bosco, it’s counsel while Karangwa Eugène was represented by his counsel Batware Jean Claude.. [8] At the beginning of the court hearing, Batware the Counsel for Karangwa raised various objections for inadmissibility of the claim of EWSA, which he explained in the following way: The Office of Ombudsman did not deposit the court fees at the time it requested the Supreme Court to review the final decision due to injustice; The office of the Ombudsman requested on its own initiative the Supreme Court to review the final decision due to injustice without the request of EWSA, which is contrary to what is provided for by article 79 and 86, paragraph 2 of the Organic Law n° 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court;

Page 224

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 9

The petition for review of the final decision due to injustice submitted by the Office of Ombudsman to the Supreme Court did not fulfil the grounds required by article 81 of Organic Law n° 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Office of Ombudsman should not request for the review of the final decision due to injustice when its execution has already commenced, because there was acceptance of the claim (acquiescence):

[9] The Court will first examine the objections raised by the counsel of Karangwa, before it examines the case on merit. II. ANALYISIS OF OBJECTIONS RAISED IN

THE HEARING AND THE VIEW OF THE

COURT Whether the Office of Ombudsman should pay court fees when it submits a request to the Supreme Court for a review of the final decision due to injustice. [10] Batware Jean Claude, the Counsel for Karangwa Eugène adduces that in his view the Office of Ombudsman did not file a claim, and if at all it happens that the claim was filed, it should not be admissible for examination because the Office of Ombudsman did not deposit the court fees, which is contrary to article 360 of the Law no 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure which

Page 225

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 10 provides that everyone who files a claim must deposit the court fees. [11] Rusanganwa Jean Bosco, the Counsel for EWSA argues that the Office of Ombudsman does not deposit court fees because it is not a litigant to the case. He went on to aver that the law did not provide for the court fees, rather, it provides that it is the President of the Supreme Court who requests the court registry to record the claim in the relevant register, thus, this is a special procedure of filling a claim.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [12] Article 80, paragraph. 1 of the Organic Law n° 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 stated above provides that “If after considering the report of the General Inspectorate of Courts, the President of the Supreme Court decides that the case be re- adjudicated, he/she shall send the file to the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court for recording it in the relevant register, and shall set the date of hearing and determine the bench”. [13] The Court finds that the procedure of depositing the court fees which is provided for by article 360 of the Law No 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure is meant to allow parties to have their claims registered in the relevant registers. [14] The Court finds that the Office of Ombudsman is not a party in this case, because it does not file a claim as it is provided for by article 360 of the Law no 21/2012 stated above, instead, it requests for the review of the final decision which it finds unjust. The President of the Supreme Court can grant or

Page 226

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 11 refuse it , if he finds that the final decision should be reviewed. He/she is the one who also instructs that the claim be registered in the relevant register, sets the date of the hearing and then the parties are informed1. The Court also finds that the claim for review of the final decision due to injustice is filed in an extra ordinary procedure and even the parties are not required to deposit court fees, implying that the legislator did not provide for the deposit of court fees before the claim is recorded in the relevant register. [15] Thus, the Court finds that the Office of Ombudsman was not required to deposit the court fees; hence the objection raised by the Counsel of Karangwa is rejected. Whether the fact for the Office of Ombudsman to request on its own initiative the Supreme Court to review the final decision due to injustice is contrary to article 79 and 86 paragraph 2 of the Organic Law n° 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

[16] The Counsel for Karangwa submits that the Office of Ombudsman requested the Supreme Court to review the final decision on its own initiative because ever since the Organic Law no 03/201/OL of 13/06/2012 stated above came in force, EWSA did not make a complaint to that office or inform it of the injustice as provided for by article 79 of that law.

1 Article 80 of Organic Law N° 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Page 227

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 12 [17] The Counsel for Karangwa further states that when the Office of Ombudsman requested for the review of that judgment in the letter dated 13 February 2013, it relied on the letter of EWSA dated 14 December 2012, though EWSA had to submit its claim to the Office of Ombudsman within six months, starting from the time when the Organic Law no 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 stated above was published as provided for by article 86 paragraph 2 of that law; therefore requests the Court to dismiss the claim of EWSA. [18] On the contrary, the Counsel of EWSA states that the Office of Ombudsman relied on the complaint submitted to it by the Director General of EWSA, as it is evident in the letter dated 13 February 2013 it wrote to the Supreme Court requesting it to review the final decision of EWSA and Karangwa due to injustice.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [19] Article 79 paragraphs 2 of the Organic Law n° 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court provides that the parties can inform the Office of the Ombudsman when there are evidences of injustice in the final decision. [20] Article 86 of the Organic Law no 03/06/2012 mentioned above provides that the final decisions made before the publication of this Organic Law in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda shall be referred to the Office of Ombudsman within one year and those alleged to be unjust that have been referred to various organs shall be referred to the Office of the Ombudsman within six (6) months as from the

Page 228

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 13 publication of this Organic Law in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda. [21] As highlighted in article of 86 paragraph 2 of the Organic Law No 03/06/2012/OL of 03/06/2012 stated above, the Court is of the view that the Office of Ombudsman is not listed among the organs which the final decisions alleged to be unjust were referred to, demonstrating that the lawmaker found that the Office of Ombudsman itself was referred with some final decisions alleged to be unjust since its establishment in 2003, therefore it is understandable that there is no other requirement for submitting a claim in relation to the cases of injustice already submitted or reported to the office of Ombudsman. The Court also finds that the Office of Ombudsman is not required to be seized again by the parties regarding the claims alleged to be unjust which it has already been reported, as long as the organs stated in article 86, paragraph 2, section 2 are not required to be seized again by the parties for those final decisions to be referred to the Office of Ombudsman. [22] Basing on the explanations given above, the Court is of the view that the Office of Ombudsman has the right to request on its own initiative the Supreme Court to review the final decision due to injustice the decision alleged to be unjust which were referred to it before the coming into force of the Organic Law No 03/06/2012/OL of 03/06/2012 stated above, therefore the objection raised by Karangwa is overruled. Whether the claim submitted by the Office of Ombudsman to the Supreme Court for review of the final decision due to injustice was in conformity with the grounds required for by article 81 of the Organic Law no 03/06/2012/OL of

Page 229

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 14 03/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. [23] The Counsel for Karangwa argues that the Office of Ombudsman, while requesting for the final decision be reviewed due to injustice, it did not demonstrate the provisions which were violated or apparent evidences of injustice, therefore he finds that article 81 of Organic Law No03/06/2012/OL of 03/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was violated. [24] Whereas the Counsel for EWSA asserts that the Office of Ombudsman is the one which scrutinizes if there was injustice and that injustice is again demonstrated by the General Inspectorate of Courts, and the president of the Supreme Court declares that the final decision be reviewed on the basis of the alleged injustice; therefore he finds that article 81 of the Organic Law no 03/06/2012 of 13/06/2012 stated above was complied with, and that was enough to illustrate the injustice in the claim before the court.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [25] Article 81 paragraph 1 of the of the Organic Law No 03/06/2012/OL of 03/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court provides that “the review of a final decision due to injustice shall only be applied for on any of the following grounds: 1° when there is unquestionable evidences of corruption, favouritism or nepotism that were relied upon in the judgment and that were unknown to the losing party during the course of the proceedings; 2 when there are provisions and irrefutable evidence that the judge

Page 230

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 15 ignored in rendering the judgment; 3° when the judgment cannot be executed due to the drafting of its content”. [26] The Court finds that in the letter dated 13/02/2013 the Office of Ombudsman wrote to the President of the Supreme Court requesting that the judgment be reviewed due to injustice relying on article 81 of the Organic Law no 03/06/2012/OL of 03/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (cote 2), the Ombudsman’s analysis document of the final decision which the office of Ombudsman requests to be reviewed demonstrating that there are apparent evidences in the case file that were disregarded by the Court including: the document of ELECTROGAZ(EWSA) dated 1 December 1999, the document of FIDECAR dated 13 April 2000 and that of 04 June 2001, the bills submitted to the Court illustrating the actual electricity consumed by FIDECAR, and the contract between ELECTROGAZ(EWSA) and FIDECAR (represented by Karangwa) of 23 March 1997, especially clause 3 which was mistakenly interpreted. [27] The Court therefore is of the view that what has been explained above relate to evidences that were disregarded; implying that the grounds relating to the admissibility of the action provided for by article 81 paragraph 1 section 2 were complied with; their ground will be examined on the hearing of the merit of the claim, therefore the objection raised is overruled. Whether the commencement of execution of the judgment bars the Office of Ombudsman to request the Supreme Court to review the final decision due to injustice.

Page 231

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 16 [28] Counsel Batware, adduces that the fact for the Office of Ombudsman to request EWSA to pay Karangwa and who consented should be considered as acceptance of the claim by both parties, therefore in accordance to articles of 134,135 and 136 of the Law no 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, the Office of Ombudsman must not have retracted and request the Supreme Court for the review of the final decision. [29] The Counsel for EWSA alludes that the final decisions, whether executed or not yet, can be reviewed due to injustice, pursuant to the provision of article 86 of the Organic Law no03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 stated above. He adds on that the final decision in litigation was never executed, therefore finds that the final resolution of the Office of Ombudsman to request the Supreme Court to review the final decision is the one to be considered.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [30] As demonstrated in the case file, the letter no Om 03/07/11/KJ of 07th March 2011 of the Office of Ombudsman illustrates that Karangwa referred to it the claim of injustice, of the default of payment by EWSA, and the later also referred to the Office of Ombudsman the apparent injustice in the judgment which Karangwa was requesting to be executed, and the office of Ombudsman tried to mediate between them but in vain, and it requested EWSA to abide by the decision of the Court as it is. In the file there is also a letter no 11.07.029/847/11/CTX- DIR/YM/c.n dated 11 of March 2011, which EWSA wrote to the Office of Ombudsman informing that it is going to contact

Page 232

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 17 Karangwa in order to negotiate about the modalities of payment in instalment. [31] Regarding the review of the final decision due to injustice of the judgments rendered before the Organic Law no 03/2012 of 13/06/2012 stated above was published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda, article 86 paragraph 1 section 1 of that law provides that the final decision alleged to be unjust which were rendered before the establishment of the Office of Ombudsman in the year 2003, whether executed or not, will be referred to the Office of Ombudsman, and it determines the its implementation deadline . [32] Indeed, article 134 of the Law no 18/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure which was in force at that time, provides that “An acceptance of a claim is where the defendant admits the claims made by the plaintiff or the judgment against him/ her” this is emphasized by article 134 of the Law no 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 stated above stating that “a person may accept a claim at any stage of the proceedings. He can accept it by execution of the court’s decisions.” [33] The Court is of the view that, the fact for the Office of Ombudsman to having played a role in mediating between the parties so that the final decision can be executed, and EWSA manifested the intent of commencing the execution of the judgment, it was because there was no other alternative after the judgment had become final, this being unlikely to bar the Office of Ombudsman to request for the review of the final

Page 233

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 18 decision when new remedy for the issue of injustice was availed by the new Organic Law2. [34] The Court finds that the final decisions, alleged to be unjust whether executed or not, can be reviewed due to injustice as provided for by article 86 paragraph 1 of the Organic Law no 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 stated above, meaning that nothing can bar the Office of the Ombudsman to request the Supreme Court to review the judgment of EWSA and Karangwa which is alleged to be unjust even if it was in process of execution; therefore the objection raised by the counsel for Karangwa is overruled. III. THE COURT’S DECISION [35] Accepts to admit the objections raised by Karangwa but after examining them it finds that they lack merit. [36] Decides that the hearing on merit of the case Nº RS/REV/INJ/AD002/13/CS will proceed on 04th February 2014; [37] Declares that the court fees are suspended.

2 Organic Law N° 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Page 234

NGABONZIZA ET AL v. MIRAVUMBA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RADA 0052/13/CS (Kaitesi R, P.J., Mukandamage R and Rugabirwa, J.) January 10, 2014] Administrative procedure – Summary procedure claims – Stay of execution of the Judgment before the adjudication of the third party opposition claim instituted against it – The stay of execution does not prejudice the principal suit as long as the Judge did not mention anything about it – Law nº 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles 180.and 320. Facts: Ngabonziza and Mugabo Semahore sued the Rwanda Natural Resources Authority (RNRA) in the High Court, praying that the plot no 11528 be registered in the names of Ngabonziza and the plot no 11508 be registered in the names of Mugabo Semahore. The court ordered that those plots be registered on their names. Miravumba lodged a third party opposition against that judgment, but before the judgment on the merits of the third party opposition claim, he filed a summary procedure claim purportedly to stay the execution of the judgment RAD 0084/12/HC/KIG, on the ground that he also possesses the documents of those plots, and consequently the court ordered the stay of its execution. Ngabonziza and Mugabo Semahore appealed against that order in the Supreme Court submitting that the Judge prejudiced the judgment on the merits, and the request of Miravumba in the summary procedure claim is the same as the one in the principal claim and that there is no urgency because Miravumba could wait for the hearing of the case. In the defence of Miravumba, 19

Page 235

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 20 he stated that the urgency is demonstrated by the fact that Ngabonziza and Mugabo were given enforcement formula on the judgment of which the third party opposition was lodged against, and the court ordered RNRA to issue to them the authentic deeds of the plots, to the extent that if it happens that those plots have been registered on their names, it would cause an irreversible loss to Miravumba. Held: 1. The decision of the Judge on the summary procedure claim, ordering to stay the execution of the judgment on the immovable property before the adjudication of the third party opposition claim, does not prejudice the judgment on the principal claim as long as the Judge did not make any decision on the merit of the case. The appeal is without merit. Court fees to the appellants. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Lawnº 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 Law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles 180 and 320. No case referred to.

Page 236

21 Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] Ngabonziza Bosco and Mugabo Semahore Jules sued Rwanda Natural Resources Authority (RNRA) in the High Court, praying that the plot no 11528 be registered in the names of Ngabonziza and be awarded its documents, and plot no 11508 be registered in the names of Mugabo Semahore Jules and also be awarded its documents, that court ordered in the Judgment RAD 0084/12/HC/KIG that those plots be registered on their names. [2] Miravumba Olivier lodged a third party opposition against that judgment in the High Court, and the case was recorded on RAD 0092/13/HC/KIG, but before trial on its merit, he filed a summary procedure case, no RADA 0094/13/ HC/KG purportedly to stay the execution of the judgment RAD 0084/12/HC/KIG, the court found the claim with merit and ordered the stay of its execution because Miravumba also possesses the documents of that plot which were awarded to him by the competent organs and that it accommodates his houses, therefore his dispossession would result in loss. [3] Ngabonziza Bosco and Mugabo Semahore Jules appealed against that Court Order in the High Court adducing that the Judge prejudiced the principal claim on its merit, that he did not demonstrate the irrevocable loss Miravumba would incur if the judgment has been executed, that there is no urgency and that he has no interest in the judgment he applied the third party opposition against and also in the summary procedure claim. NGABONZIZA ET AL v. MIRAVUMBA

Page 237

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 22 [4] The hearing of the case was held in public on 31 December 2013, Ngabonziza Bosco and Mugabo Semahore Jules represented by Karamira Jacques, the Counsel, the Rwanda Natural Resources Authority (RNRA) represented by Rubango Epimaque, the State Attorney and for Miravumba Olivier, assisted by the Counsel Buzayire Angèle. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUE Whether there must be a stay of the execution of judgment RADA 0084/12/HC/KIG prior to the trial of the case RADA 0092/13/HC/KIG of a third party opposition filed against it. [5] Karamira Jacques, the Counsel for Ngabonziza Bosco and Mugabo Semahore Jules argues that the Court decided that the execution of the judgment RAD 0084/12/HC/KIG be stayed because if it executed, it will cause irretrievable loss to Miravumba, yet it did not demonstrate that loss, especially that the subject matter is the execution of the decisions of the courts, while it is Muravumba who holds the documents of the unconstructed land and which does not belong to him. [6] The Counsel Karamira Jacques also states that in making that order, the Judge prejudiced the case on its merit in contravention of the provision of article 320 of CCLAP because in the Judgment RAD 0084/12/HC/KIG, the Rwanda Natural Resources Authority(RNRA) was ordered to issue to his clients the land title deeds, and the request of Muravumba in the principal claim is exactly the same as in the summary procedure claim, that’s to say the obstruction of the issuance of those documents which were to be issued to Ngabonziza and Mugabo.

Page 238

NGABONZIZA ET AL v. MIRAVUMBA 23 [7] Karamira Jacques, the Counsel states again that there is no urgency because there is no reason why Miravumba cannot wait for the trial of his case because his request consisting of opposing the issuing of the title deeds would be granted to him on the merits of the case. He adds on that Miravumba has no interest in the case against he filed a third party opposition and even in the summary procedure claim, because the plot which he claims to be his, of which he alleges to have bought it from Nyiraneza Félicité, is plot no 3554, while the one for Ngabonziza is plot no11528 which was awarded to him by Kigali City and Mugabo owns the plot nº 11508 awarded also by Kigali City , thus he has no interest in opposing against two plots at once, especially that Mugabo has no connection with the plot no3554 which Miravumba pretends to own. [8] Buzayire Angèle, the Counsel for Miravumba Olivier states that the court highlighted in article 11 of the appealed judgment, whereby he based on the defence of Miravumba and clearly demonstrated that the urgency is demonstrated by the fact that the judgment RAD 0084/12/HC/KG of Ngabonziza and Mugabo was affixed with the enforcement formula and ordered the Rwanda Natural Resources Authority(RNRA) to issue to them the land title deeds, to the extent that if those plots are registered in their names, it will cause Miravumba a irreversible loss. [9] She also states that he demonstrated that loss in the letter of 02/02/2012 which the Executive Secretary of Kimironko sector wrote to Miravumba and that of the Mayor of Gasabo District demonstrating that there are constructions which Miravumba erected on those plots, especially that he also

Page 239

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 24 demonstrates that he has the documents issued to him by the competent organs. [10] Concerning the fact that the Judge prejudiced the merit of the case, Buzayire, the counsel states that it is groundless because the Judge ordered to stay the execution of the judgment RAD 0084/12/HC/KIG until the judgment on the merit of the case RAD 0092/13/HC/KIG and the preliminary hearing has been scheduled to 21 November 2013. She is also of the view that in the principal claim Muravumba filed a third party opposition against the judgment RAD 0084/12/HC/KIG, which is different from the subject matter in the summary procedure claiming for the stay of its execution. [11] Regarding the interest Muravumba has in both cases, Counsel Buzayire adduces that the third party opposition was lodged against the judgment of Ngabonziza, Mugabo and Rwanda Natural Resource Authority, therefore is of the view that the issue of the plots will be examined during the hearing of the case on merit. [12] RUBANGO Epimaque, the State Attorney states that there is no urgency for the execution of the judgment RAD 0084/12/HC because it is at the trial of the related third party opposition case that the Rwanda Natural Resource Authority (RNRA) will know whom the land title deeds should be recorded to.

THE VIEW OF COURT [13] Article 180 paragraph 4 of the Law no 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and

Page 240

NGABONZIZA ET AL v. MIRAVUMBA 25 administrative procedure provides that “an opposition by a third party shall not automatically suspend execution of the challenged judgment, unless the execution is suspended by the court upon request of one of the parties, and article 320 paragraph 1 states that the summary procedure judge shall decide by way of orders, but without prejudicing the merits of the principal suit”. [14] These articles explain that in order for the execution of the judgment which has been attacked through the third party opposition to be stayed, the litigant should submit his request to the court seized with the principal claim, implying that he/she must also present the grounds thereto for the judge to analyse them and makes a provisional order, but without prejudicing the merits of the principal suit. [15] The Court finds that in the appealed case on summary procedure, the Judge demonstrated that is urgent to stay the execution of the Judgment RAD 0084/12/HC/KIG because it has already been sealed with the enforcement formula, and ordered for the stay of its execution until the case RAD 0092/HC/13/KIG in which Muravumba filed for a third party opposition be heard on its merits, because he also avers that he possesses the documents of the plots of land of which the land title deeds are going to be issued for by Rwanda Natural Resources Authority (RNRA). [16] Therefore, the Court finds the order does not prejudice the merits of the principal suit, because the Judge did not rule about the person who should be issued with the land title deeds among Ngabonziza, Mugabo and Miravumba.

Page 241

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 26 [17] Regarding the loss Miravumba would incur due to the execution of the Judgment RAD 0084/12/HC/KIG, the court finds that it is not the primary ground which should be relied on to order for the stay of execution, but as it was held by the previous court, it would be better if the execution is stayed in order to really determine the recipient of the title deed of the said plots; and this will be debated in the course of the hearing of the case in merit. [18] Accordingly, basing on the statements above, the court finds that the appeal filed by Ngabonziza and Mugabo is without merit. III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [19] Decides that the appeal of Ngabonziza Bosco and Mugabo Semahore Jules against the judgment RADA 0094/13/HC/KIG, requesting the stay of execution of the judgment RADA 0084/12/HC/KIG is without merit. [20] Orders Ngabonziza Bosco and Mugabo Semahore Jules to jointly pay the court fees of 14,200 Rwf, and failure to pay in a period of eight days, that amount of money is to be deducted from their assets through government coercion.

Page 242

CIVIL CASES

Page 244

ACCESS BANK Ltd v. NGARAMBE ET AL; MUCUMBITSI v. ACCESS BANK Ltd [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCAA 0088/11/CS & RCA 0179/12/HC/KIG (Mugenzi, P.J., N. Munyangeri and G. Gatete, J.) November 15, 2013] Law determining jurisdiction of courts – Connexity of claims– Various related claims pending in two different courts, one being superior to the other – If there are various claims such that the resolution of one may affect the other, these are related cases and shall be joined and tried in the same suit – Organic Law N° 51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of Courts, article 153. Civil procedure – Appeal – Scope of appeal – Trial on grounds of appeal or cross-appeal – The decision to invalidate the mortgage contract while the subject matter concerned the resolution of public auction, is considered as an ultra petita ruling. Law of securities – Mortgage – The merit of mortgage contract which is not recorded in the register of mortgages held by the office of the Registrar General, signed before commencement of the law nº 10/2009 of 14/05/2009 on mortgages – All mortgage contracts concluded before the commencement of this law remain valid – Law Nº 13/2010 of 07/05/2010 amending and complementing the law nº 10/2009 of 14/05/2009 on mortgages, article 4. Civil procedure – Public auction – Auction of mortgage without recourse to judicial proceedings – The organ delivering the order for public auction of the mortgage without recourse to 29

Page 245

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 30 judicial proceedings based on the mortgage contract certified by the notary and affixed with an enforcement formula in case it is not recorded by the office of the Registrar General – The president’s court order is based on to carry out the public auction since both litigants would not have requested the services of the Registrar General whereas the property to be auctioned was not registered – Law nº 10/2009 of 14/05/2009 on mortgages as amended and complemented by the Law Nº 13/2010 of 07/05/2010, article 26. Contracts or obligations law – Damages –Reimbursement of the value and related interests of the house in litigation – Loan flat fees – Damages from the loss of rent – Moral damages – Reference costs and counsel fees – The litigant is not entitled to be reimbursed flat fees deducted from the bank loan since they are irredeemable by nature – The distrainee should pay damages including costs for litigation diligence and counsel fees for all proceeding levels as fixed under discretion of the Court – Law Nº 45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, article 89 – Decree of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or conventional obligations, article 258. Facts: ACCESS BANK appealed against the judgment of the High Court, arguing that it was not satisfied with its decision that overruled the decision of the Intermediate Court which had already decided to uphold the public auction of the mortgaged house of Ngarambe acquired by Mucumbitsi. The High Court ruled that the mortgage should be nullified and ordered him to pay damages whereas none of the litigants prayed for the resolution of mortgage, since the claim of Ngarambe intended the resolution of public auction rather than the resolution of mortgage contract. ACCESS BANK argues that if it were the

Page 246

ACCESS BANK Ltd v. NGARAMBE 31 case, the Law Nº 10/2009 of 14/05/2009 which upheld valid the mortgage contracts concluded before its commencement, should have been considered. In another judgment RCA 0179/12/HC/KIG, in which Mucumbitsi appealed against ACCESS BANK; he requests that in case the Court finds the public auction should be resolved, ACCESS BANK, which is also appellant in the judgment RCAA 0088/11/CS before the Supreme Court; be requested to reimburse the value of the house he acquired through public auction and pay compensation for the loss of the house rent he should have been paid, moral damages, reference costs and counsel fees. Meanwhile, before the hearing of the case on the merits, ACCESS BANK raised an objection that both cases are related and requests them to be joined and heard in the same suit while Mucumbitsi and Ngarambe argues that they do not deserve to be joined for the reason that they are not connected. In his defence, Ngarambe states that the mortgage cannot exist if not registered in land register, therefore the public auction did not comply with the law because the auction without recourse to judicial proceedings would not be carried out since there was not a registered mortgage, and that the President of the Court was not competent to order the public auction to take place due to the fact that the law of 15/05/1922 was repealed by the law nº 10/2009 of 14/05/2009 on mortgages; therefore the one who should have ordered it, is the Registrar General; hence, the Bank should bear all consequences related to the grant of loans unsecured with a registered mortgage. Held: 1. In case the Supreme Court decides that the public auction is unexceptionable and the buyer holds the house,

Page 247

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 32 meanwhile the High Court decision awards him its price, there would be two contradictory verdicts on the same subject matter, the reason why these cases are connected and should be joined and heard in the same suit.

2. The judge ruled ultra petita in invalidating the mortgage contract while it had not been requested.

3. The Law Nº 10/2009 of 14/05/2009 on mortgages provided that all mortgage contracts signed before its commencement remain valid; this implies that the mortgage contract signed before the notary and which was based on to carry out the public auction, was valid in accordance with the Law Nº 13/2010 of 07/05/2010 amending and complementing the law nº 10/2009 of 14/05/2009 on mortgages.

4. The public auction was conducted in accordance with the law for the mortgage contract was approved and certified before the notary and affixed with enforcement formula before it was conducted.

5. No fault was committed by the Bank in requesting public auction order, since it needed it for enforcing the contract and the public auction was carried out in accordance with the law in order to get the payment of the allocated loan.

6. Fee and commission on credit intervention are irredeemable flat fees, therefore should not be reimbursed.

7. According to the discretion of the Court, and pursuant to the laws relating to contracts or conventional obligations, Ngarambe should pay Mucumbitsi the deprieved sums of rent computed on monthly basis for a period of 41 months in consideriation of the value of the house and its location.

Page 248

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 33 8. In accordance with its discretion and pursuant to the law relating to contracts or obligations, Ngarambe should pay Mucumbitsi damages encompassing litigation dilegence cost and counsel fee for all trial levels; however he does not deserve to be awarded moral damages since he was awarded compensation for the loss incurred. Appeals in both cases granted. The distrainee shall pay compensations to the purchaser. Public auction upheld and the house awarded to the purchaser. The appealed judgment RCA 0156/11/HC/KIG overruled. Court fees to the distrainee. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Organic Law N° 51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of Courts, article 153. Law Nº 45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, article 89. Law nº 10/2009 of 14/05/2009 on mortgages as amended and complemented by the Law Nº 13/2010 of 07/05/2010, articles 4 and 26. Decree of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or obligations, article 258. No case referred to: Judgment I. BREIF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE ACCESS BANK Ltd v. NGARAMBE

Page 249

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 34 [1] On 31 October 2008, ACCESS BANK Ltd (former BANCOR S.A.) entered into a contract with THEME ENTREPRESE SARL with the purpose of granting to that company a loan of 41,000,000 Rwf, and thereafter, Ngarambe Emmanuel who is its Director mortgaged his house located on plot nº 4650/Remera as third party constituent, which was later auctioned for the reason that the company had not abide by the reimbursement agreement. [2] Ngarambe Emmanuel sued ACCESS BANK Ltd before the Intermediate Court of Gasabo requesting for the invalidation of the public auction of that house conducted on 25 April 2010. On 28 March 2011, the Court ruled that the petition of Ngarambe Emmanuel lacks merit for the reason that all the grounds he submitted including the fact that the mortgage was not registered, that of relying on an abrogated law for public auctioning of the house and that of the benefit of discussion on the assets of THEME ENTREPRISE, were not considered. [3] Ngarambe Emmanuel apealed to the High Court and the case was recorded on RCA 0156/11/HC/KIG. On 14 July 2011, this Court overruled the ruling of the case RC 0171/10/TGI/Gsbo, ordered that the conducted public auction be invalidated and ACCESS BANK Ltd was orded to pay damages amounting to 500,000Rwf to Ngarambe Emmanuel. Motivation of the High Court ruling [4] The Judge of the High Court found that the Intermediate Court erred on the interpretation of article 19 of the law of 15/05/1922 on mortgages, which provides that “no mortgage is valid if it is not registered in land registry…..”. The Judge found that the substantial formality of mortgage registration in land

Page 250

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 35 registry still exists, and this provision of the first paragraph of article 4 of the law n°10/2009 of 14/05/2009 on mortgages which states that “a mortgage is considered to be valid when recorded in the mortgage register in the office of the Registrar General”. The Judge confirmed that this provision has not been amended in the Law nº 13/2010 of 07/05/2010 amending and complementing the law nº 10/2009 of 14/05/2009, for those reasons, ACCESS BANK made a mistake and negligence as it did not proceed for registration of mortgage while this is the essential formality which makes the mortgage valid. [5] After the delivery of that judgment, ACCESS BANK Ltd appealed to the Supreme Court and its appeal was recorded on RCAA 0088/11/CS. However, in the meantime, it was discovered that there was another related case RCA 179/12/HC/KIG pending in the High Court in which Dr Mucumbitsi sued ACCESS BANK Ltd /CS. On 28 March 2013, the Judge decided to join them and the case was heard on 15 November 2013. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES A. Analysis of the objection raised by the counsels for Ngarambe and Dr Mucumbitsi relating to the act of not joining both cases on the ground that they have no connection. [6] Dr Mucumbitsi J. states that there exists no link between these cases; Karongozi, his counsel supports him arguing that Dr Mucumbitsi requests the Bank to pay him 42,270,000 Rwf, the price of the house bought in public auction, and requests for damages relating to reference costs and moral damages, while ACCESS BANK Ltd v. NGARAMBE

Page 251

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 36 Ngarambe requests that the conducted public auction be invalidated. The intention of the Bank in its request of joining the cases is that Mucumbitsi would seek payment from Ngarambe while the Bank already received the check paid for the house purchased in public auction, and Mucumbitsi is still paying ECOBANK the loan he was granted to buy a house which he never enjoyed. [7] Bigaraba John, the Counsel for Ngarambe E. explains that he does not find any link between these cases, because for the connexity to exist, parties to the case, subject matter and cause of action should be the same, which is not the case since the claims to be decided on are different. [8] Buzayire Angèle, the Counsel for the bank explains that both cases are related, for the reason that the claim of Ngarambe E. aims at invalidating the public auction of the house he mortgaged, and that of Dr Mucumbitsi J. aims at the same (Invalidation of public auction), except that he also requests for various damages. [9] Regarding this issue, the Court finds that the link raised in this case derives from the fact that the house of Ngarambe Emmanuel, which was mortgaged for the loan that had been granted by ACCESS BANK, was auctioned and bought by Dr Mucumbitsi Joseph who paid its price to ACCESS BANK but was not delivered the house; instead, Ngarambe Emmanuel immediately sued ACCESS BANK requesting that the public auction be invalidated for the reason that there were some formalities which had not been observed. Due to the fact that the house was not delivered to him, Dr Mucumbitsi sued ACCESS BANK requesting the invalidation of the public auction in order to get back the amount of the price he paid.

Page 252

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 37 [10] Therefore, the Court finds that both cases are related as specified by article 153 of the Organic Law N° 51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of Courts as amended and modified to date, because the resolution of one may affect the the outcome of the other if it is examined whether the conducted public auction was in compliance with the law, since, if this Court decides that the auction was fair and the purchaser acquires the house, meanwhile the High Court rules that he be reimbursed its price, there would be two contradicting decisions on the same subject matter. That is the reason why these two cases are linked and should be joined to be heard in same case as specified by the provision of the mentioned organic law. B. Concerning the merit of the case Whether the mortgage contract signed between ACCESS BANK Ltd and Ngarambe Emmanuel is void on ground that it was not registered. [11] Counsels Buzayire A. and Rukangira E., for ACCESS BANK Ltd state that the judge confirmed that the Bank neglected to register the mortgage which is an essential formality for the validity of the mortgage, and therefore invalidated it in contradiction with the provision of the law (article 170 of CCLAP) since “the appealed Court may only decide on the issues brought forth by the appellant and respondent at the appeal level”, yet it decided to invalidate the mortgage. That decision is groundless because none of the parties to the case has requested its invalidation: They state that the claim of Ngarambe aimed at quashing the auction, not invalidating the mortgage contract. ACCESS BANK Ltd v. NGARAMBE

Page 253

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 38 [12] They explain that even if it was the claim submitted to the Court, there should be considered article 26 of the Law nº 10/2009 of 14/05/2009 on mortgages mentioned above, which validates the mortgage contracts concluded before its commencement. Therefore, the judge should not have considered whether or not the registration of the mortgage occurred, because the law provides that the contract remains valid until its full performance. They also emphasized that Ngarambe cannot rely on article 19 of the law 15/05/1922 stated above and requests for the resolution of the auction while he knows that he is the one who acted with bad faith for the mortgage not to be registered and the bank was not paid; the reason why he has to bear all consequences. [13] Bigaraba J., Counsel for Ngarambe E. emphasizes that article 19 of the law of 15/05/1922 on mortgages specified that “no mortgage is valid if it is not registered in land registry….”. This is also provided for by the first paragraph of article 4 of the law n°10/2009 of 14/05/2009 on mortgages as amended and complemented to date in the following words: “A mortgage is considered to be valid when recorded in the mortgage register in the office of the Registrar General”, therefore the ACCESS BANK neglected and did not register the mortgage while it constitutes an essential formality for its validity. He argues

that the Bank should bear all consequences of granting the loan without a registered mortgage. [14] The Court finds that the judge ruled ultra petita and declared invalid the mortgage contract, and confirmed wrongly that the contract was not in written form while the file indicates that it was signed in presence of the notary on 04 November 2008. For the reason that article 26 of the Law Nº 10/2009 of

Page 254

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 39 14/05/2009 on mortgages provided that all mortgage contracts concluded before its commencement (15/05/2009) remain valid, and that it was assigned time till the 14 May 2011 so that parties submit it to the Registrar General; implying that when the public auction was conducted on 25 April 2010, the mortgage was valid as specified by article 4 of the Law Nº 13/2010 of 07/05/2010 amending and complementing the law nº 10/2009 of 14/05/2009 on mortgages. Whether the public auction was carried out in accordance with the law. [15] Bigaraba J., Counsel for Ngarambe E. explains that the public auction did not comply with the law because the auction without recourse to judicial proceedings would not be applied since the mortgage was not registered. He also explained that the President of the Court was no longer competent to order the public auction for the Law of 15/05/1922 had already been repealed by the Law nº 10/2009 of 14/05/2009 on mortgages; consequently, the one who must have ordered it should have been the Registrar General. [16] On this issue, the Court finds that those submissions are groundless due to following reasons: 1. The public auction was conducted on 25April 2010 when the mortgage contract providing for the sale of property without recourse to judicial proceedings was still valid, since the parties had the duty to deliver it to the Registrar General before 14/05/2011 (for a period of two years). ACCESS BANK Ltd v. NGARAMBE

Page 255

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 40 2. Holding that the sale of property without recourse to judicial proceedings has been repealed by the Law nº 10/2009 of 14 May 2009 on mortgages would be disregarding that, the mortgage contract on which relies that procedure remained valid by virtue of that statute in its article 26 as explained in previous paragraphs. Therefore, the President’s order should have been the basis for the conduct of the auction because both parties could not resort to the service of the Registrar General as the property that should be auctioned was not recorded in his registry. [17] Pursuant to previous motivation, the Court considers that the public auction was carried out in accordance with the law, since the mortgage contract was signed in the presence of the notary and was affixed with enforcement formula on 12 November 2009 before the conduct of the auction on 25 April 2010, the reason why it should remain valid for the house of Ngarambe was auctioned when the THEME ENTREPRESE had defaulted to pay the loan it was granted as agreed upon. Regarding the appeal of Mucumbitsi. Whether ACCESS BANK caused a loss to Dr Mucumbutsi Joseph. [18] Counsels Karongozi André Martin and Nubumwe Jean Bosco, explain that the Bank was paid money from public auction proceeds but their client who purchased the house, was not given it, while it is the Bank which requested for the court order and was awarded it. For that reason, they argue that the bank played a serious role in the loss suffered by Mucumbitsi since he was not handed the subject of sale.

Page 256

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 41 [19] Counsels Buzayire Angèle and Rukangira Emmanuel, state that they have a different view, because there is no sale contract concluded between Dr Mucumbitsi and the Bank, since he purchased the house in the public auction; consequently, the bank should not be held liable of anything. [20] The Court finds that the Bank did not commit any fault when it requested for the court order for public auction, since it intended to enforce the contract (article 33 of CCB.III). The public auction was conducted in accordance with the law in order for the Bank to be reimbursed the loan it granted. The Counsels for Dr Mucumbitsi failed to demonstrate the liability of the Bank in relation to the loss incurred for failure to enjoy the house he bought in auction. The fact for the Bank to have filed a case to the Court for that contract to remain valid indicates instead, that it is a diligent process undertaken with the aim of facilitating Dr Mucumbitsi to enjoy the purchased property. Concerning various damages that Dr Mucumbitsi Joseph requests to be paid by the ACCESS BANK Ltd and Ngarambe Emmanuel. [21] Karongozi A.M, counsel for Dr Mucumbitsi requests to be paid back the price of the house he bought and damages amounting to 39,059,179 Rwf; and in case the Court decides the public auction to remain valid, Dr Mucumbitsi be handed back his house, and ACCESS BANK Ltd with Ngarambe Emmanuel jointly pay him compensation amounting to 39,059,179 Rwf of the capital and interests paid to ECOBANK till 5 September 2013, loan charges amounting to 3,660,000 Rwf, 10,000,000 Rwf of moral damages and 11,391,988 Rwf encompassing the reference cost and counsel fees. ACCESS BANK Ltd v. NGARAMBE

Page 257

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 42 [22] Counsels Buzayire Angèle and Rukangira Emmanuel for the Bank explain that it should not be held liable of anything because it did not cause any loss to Dr Mucumbitsi Joseph. [23] As explained, the Court finds that the fact that Dr Mucumbitsi has not yet been handed the house he purchased up to now, the person who should be held liable is Ngarambe Emmanuel who initiated lawsuits to request the resolution of the auction whereas the law has been complied with as held above; and he should therefore bear the damages for the loss suffered (article 258 of CCB.III). [24] The Court finds that among the damages requested by Dr Mucumbitsi, includes 3,660,000 Rwf (of commission fees on credit and intervention). Except that he did not even present evidence thereon, the Court finds that such amount is a non- refundable flat fee and he himself admits that he received a loan, therefore he should not be reimbursed it since he is awarded the sold asset. [25] Concerning the loss incurred from non-enjoyment of the house he bought, the Court finds that, according to its discretion, Ngarambe Emmanuel should pay Dr Mucumbitsi, the amount of rent he lost amounting to 12,300,000 Rwf, meaning 300,000 Rwf a month for a period of 41 months. The rent isfixed in consideration of the value of the house amounting to 42,000,000 Rwf and its location in Bibare cell, Kimironko sector, Gasabo district in Kigali city (Article 258 CCB.III and article 89 of the Law Nº 45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts). [26] The Court finds also that in accordance with its discretion, Ngarambe should pay to Dr Mucumbitsi Joseph the

Page 258

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 43 amount of 1,000,000 Rwf encompassing the reference costs and counsel fees on all levels of court proceedings (article 258 CCB.III). However, it finds that Dr Mucumbitsi should not be awarded moral damages while he was awarded damages for the loss suffered. III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [27] Decides that the appeals of ACCESS BANK Ltd and Dr Mucumbitsi Joseph have merit; [28] Rules that Ngarambe loses the case; [29] Orders Ngarambe Emmanuel to pay to Dr Mucumbitsi Joseph the compensation amounting to 13,300,000 Rwf immediately after the delivery of this judgment; [30] Orders him to pay court fees amounting to 32,400 Rwf immediately after the delivery of this judgment; [31] Rules that the public auction carried out for selling the house located in the plot nº 4650 at Remera – Bibare is held valid and the purchased house be handed over to the owner Dr Mucumbitsi Joseph; [32] Overrules the judgment RCA 0156/11/HC/KIG delivered on 14/07/2011.

ACCESS BANK Ltd v. NGARAMBE

Page 260

MUKABARUNGI v. GATSINZI [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCAA 0007/13/CS (Kayitesi Z., P.J., Munyangeri and Hitiyaremye, J.) April 17, 2014] Family law – Divorce – The sharing of assets under the regime of community of property – The property acquired by one of the spouses after legal separation – The legal separation always entails the separation of property; its effects at the day of the submission of the claim to the court – The asset acquired by one of the spouses after the dissolution of the regime of community of property is not included among the assets to be shared – Law no 42/1988 of 27/10/1988 instituting preliminary title and book I of civil code, article 289. Civil procedure – Damages – Being dragged into lawsuit – Damages are not awarded in case the claimant did not demonstrate to the Court how they were computed and it is obvious that the appellant did not intend to drag him into lawsuit. Facts: Mukabarugi filed a divorce claim in the Intermediate Court of Saint Brieue of France on 28 June 2000 against Gatsinzi. That Court made an order of non conciliation but ordered a legal separation between them. Later, she filed a claim in the First Instance Court of Kigali requesting for the divorce which was granted and ordered the two parties to share equally their assets. Mukabarungi appealed to the High Court arguing that there are two jointly owned houses, which the previous court did not apportion between them. Pending the delivery of the judgment, 45

Page 261

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 46 she filed a summary procedure case in that court requesting to be granted the alimony, and the court ordered Gatsinzi to provide the alimony to her for every month up to the date of judgment delivery. Gatsinzi appealed against this decision before the Supreme Court which dismissed his appeal on the ground that the appeal of interlocutory judgment is filed jointly with the appeal for the case in merit. In interlocutory judgment the High Court decided to make an inventory of the property to be shared, including the houses which were not shared in the First Instance Court, in order to be apportioned after determination of their value by property valuators. Gatsinzi lodged a third party opposition against that decision on behalf of his child, stating that the house which is on plot no 4423 at Remera III should not belong to the community property because he offered it to that child who has got its documents registered on his name. The High Court decided that the house be separated from the property which should be shared. In 2013, the High Court rendered the judgment RCA 0039/05/HC/KIG in merits, and it decided that Gatsinzi and Mukabarungi must share all properties equally, except the plot no 4423 and the house on it because Gatsinzi donated them to his child named Irebe Gatsinzi Lars who has got their documents as it was held by the judgment of which the third party opposition was lodged against. Mukabarungi appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that the house which is on plot no 4423 at Remera was removed from the property they have to share, while it is a family property and

Page 262

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 47 that, even though it was acquired after the legal separation, it originates from the community property. In his defence, Gatsinzi states that the house must not be included among the assets to be shared, because he acquired it after separating with Mukabarungi, therefore he had the right to donate it to Irebe Gatsinzi Lars who owns its document. The counsel for Gatsinzi raised an objection stating that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to try claims relating to assets of which the principal claim is divorce, but it decided that it has jurisdiction to hear them. Held: 1. The legal separation always entails the separation of property, which is retroactive to the date of the submission of the claim to the court. Consequently, the property acquired after the dissolution of the community property, has to be considered as a personal property of Gatsinzi which must not be shared, thus he had the right to use it as he deems fit.

2. The damages of being dragged into lawsuits cannot be awarded when the party requesting for them did not demonstrate to the Court how they were computed and it is obvious that the appellant did not intend to drag him into unnecessary lawsuits. Appeal without merit. Court fees to the appellant. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law no 42/1988 of 27/10/1988 instituting preliminary title and book I of civil code, article 289. MUKABARUNGI v. GATSINZI

Page 263

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 48 Law no 22/99 of 12/11/1999 supplementing book one of the civil code and instituting part five regarding matrimonial regimes, liberalities and successions, article 24. No case referred to. Authors Cited: Alain B., Droit Civil: La famille, Paris, Litec, 2003, p.274. Francois T. et Dominique F., Droit Civil: Les personnes, la famille et les incapacités, Paris, Dalloz, 1996, pp.451-452. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] This case began in the First Instance Court of Kigali whereby Gatsinzi Marcel filed a claim requesting for divorce. In the Judgment RC 35.932/01 rendered on 04 February, 2003, the Court decided to admit the divorce basing on the faults of both Gatsinzi Marcel and Mukabarungi, and ordered them to share the joint properties comprising of the house which is on plot no 3119 and the piece of land which is at Gasogi in Kigali City equally. [2] Mukabarungi Julienne was not satisfied with the judgment and appealed to the High court stating that there are assets she jointly owns with Gatsinzi comprising of the house which is on plot no 4423 situated in Remera III in Kigali City, and another one on plot no 4704 also located at Remera III in Kigali City which the Court did not apportion between them.

Page 264

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 49 [3] Pending the judgment in the High Court, Mukabarungi filed a summary procedure claim in that Court requesting to be awarded alimony. On 18 August 2008, the Court ordered Gatsinzi Marcel to pay 80,000 Rwf to Mukabarungi every month until the judgment is rendered. [4] Gatsinzi was not satisfied with the decision and appealed against it to the Supreme Court. In the Supreme Court’s decision of 17 March 2009, the Court decided to dismiss the appeal because it was formed against the interlocutory judgment while article 163 of the law no 18/2004 of 20/06/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure stipulates that the appeal against an interlocutory judgment shall be made only jointly with the final judgment. [5] Meanwhile, the High Court decided to make an inventory of all properties to be shared including the properties which were not apportioned by the First Instance Court, so that their value be determined by the property valuators. [6] Gatsinzi, on behalf of his child named Irebe Gatsinzi Lars, lodged a third party opposition against that decision stating that the house which is on plot no 4423 at Remera III do not deserve to be put in the family property since he offered it to that child who owns its documents registered on his name. [7] In the judgment RCA 0099/10/HC/KIG rendered on 16 September 2010, the High Court found that the house which is on plot no 4423 at Remera III is registered in the names of Irebe Gatsinzi Lars, then decided it should be removed from the property to be apportioned between Gatsinzi Marcel and Mukabarungi. MUKABARUNGI v. GATSINZI

Page 265

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 50 [8] In the judgment RCA 0039/05/HC/KIG rendered on 3 May 2013, the High Court decided that Gatsinzi Marcel and Mukabarungi Julienne must share the properties and each one takes a half of them which is comprised by the plot no 3119 located at Rugunga, the house on plot no 4707 located at Nyarutarama, the piece of land located at Gasogi all of which situated in Kigali City. All these assets amounting to 223,784,264Rwf equally. [9] The Court decided again, that the plot no 4423 and the house on it should not be shared by Gatsinzi and Mukabarungi because, Gatsinzi gave them to his child named Irebe Gatsinzi Lars who has got their documents. [10] Mukabarungi appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that the house which is on plot no 4423 Remera III in Kigali City was isolated from the property they had to share while it is a family property. Gatsinzi states that the house does not deserve to be included among the properties to be shared, because it belongs to Irebe Gatsisnzi Lars. [11] In the hearing of 07 January 2014, Kazungu, the counsel assisting Gatsinzi raised the objection that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to try the claims related to properties attached to the principal claim of divorce, and then in the interlocutory judgment RCAA 0007/13/CS rendered on 31 January 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that it has jurisdiction to try those claims and scheduled the hearing on merit on 26 March 2014. [12] On that day, the hearing was conducted in public, Mukabarungi represented by Counsel Rusanganwa Jean Bosco,

Page 266

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 51 and Gatsinzi Marcel present on behalf of his son Irebe Gatsinzi Lars assisted by Kazungu Jean Bosco, the counsel. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES 1. Whether the house on plot no4423 Remera III in Kigali City should be returned in the property which must be apportioned between Gatsinzi Marcel and Mukabarungi Julienne. [13] Rusanganwa, the Counsel for Mukabarungi states that he appealed to the Supreme Court requesting to take back the house on plot no 4423 at Remera III into the family property so that Mukabarungi shares it with Gatsinzi Marcel because he offered it from the common property unlawfully, especially article 24 of Law no 22/99 of 12/11/1999 regarding matrimonial regimes, liberalities and successions which stipulates that the regime of community of property shall be dissolved by divorce. [14] Rusanganwa, the Counsel argues also that the fact of relying on article 44 of the civil book II or the consideration of the time the title deed was issued should not be considered because the house was bought from the proceeds of common property, and that this is the view of the Supreme Court, in the case of Nyirabizimana Ziripa against Musoni Ndamage whereby it decided that in these kinds of cases what should be analyzed is the origin of the property rather than the title deed. [15] He explains that even if he was on the side of the respondent, it should not be considered the time Mukabarungi filed a divorce claim in the Intermediate Court of Saint Brieue in France on 28 June 2000, should no t be considered because no judgment on legal separation or divorce was rendered by this MUKABARUNGI v. GATSINZI

Page 267

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 52 Court, that rather the Court declared the divorce will be heard by the Rwandan Courts, thus Gatsinzi bought the plot and the house in litigation on 07 March 2001 before he got a divorce, implying they originate from the family property, and that, its demonstrated by the fact that, before they divorced Gatsinzi continued to visit his wife in Europe, they reciprocally transferred money and all family assets are still administered by Gatsinzi until now, that therefore the High Court contradicted itself in the Judgment RCAA 009/10/HC/KIG whereby it decided that the house be isolated from the common property, which is again contrary to the provision of article 24 of the Law No 22/99 of 12/11/1999 mentioned above which states that the regime of community of property shall be dissolved by divorce. [16] Kazungu, the Counsel for Gatsinzi states that the Law no 22/99 of 12/11/1999 regarding matrimonial regimes, liberalities and successions, especially its article 24 which provides that the regime of community of property shall be dissolved by the divorce, should not be applied in this judgment, because that provision stipulates for what will happen after the divorce judgment, instead of stating its effects which run at the time of the submission of the divorce action provided for by article 247 of Law no 42/1988 of 27/10/1988 mentioned above. He states that if it is

considered that the effects of divorce start running after the divorce judgment only, it would lead to unjust enrichment of one of the spouses because he/she may benefit from the revenue of the partner while there is no longer any relationship between them. [17] Kazungu, the Counsel states that even if there is no court decision on legal separation of Gatsinzi Marcel and Mukabarungi Julienne; since the end of Genocide they did not

Page 268

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 53 live together again because Mukabarungi stayed in France while Gatsinzi continued to live in Rwanda, that the separation became “de facto”, also that among the things Mukabarungi was sued for, includes the family abandonment, and that if Mukabarungi confirms that she came to Rwanda after 1994 she should produce evidences; thus the reciprocal transfer of money and visiting do not evidence that they cohabited. [18] Kazungu, the Counsel states again that Mukabarungi is the one who first filed a case for divorce in the Intermediate Court of Saint Brieue in France on 28 June 2000. The Court made an order of non conciliation, and Gatsinzi filed a divorce case in Rwanda on 23 August 2001 and meanwhile appealed the decision of the Intermediate Court of Saint Brieue, which decided that the divorce matter will be heard by the Rwandan Courts, thus the supreme Court should refer to the time the divorce claim was filed in France, meaning on 28 June 2000 and decide that the house and plot nº 4423 located at Remera III are not in the family common property because the title deed demonstrates that the property was acquired after filling divorce action on 28 June 2000 and belongs to Irebe Gatsinzi Lars. [19] Kazungu, the Counsel continues to argue that the High Court did not contradict itself because what was examined entails the asset which

the spouses should have shared, the Court finds that Irebe Gatsinzi Lars has the legitimacy of filing a third party opposition against the judgment which included his house in the common property which is a portioned to the spouses while he is not a party to that case, isolating that house from the shared property complied with article 44 civil code book II and the article 247 of Law no 42/1988 of 27/10/1988 instituting preliminary title and book I of civil code which was MUKABARUNGI v. GATSINZI

Page 269

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 54 disregarded before yet it emphasises that the community of property regime dissolves from the date of submission of the divorce action in whatever Court, therefore when the judgment has been rendered and the divorce is admitted, the spouses share only the assets which were in existence at the day of filing the action

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [20] Article 24 of the Law no 22/99 of 12/11/1999 supplementing book one of the civil code and instituting part five regarding matrimonial regimes, liberalities and successions stipulates that one of the things which may led the community property to be dissolved is the legal separation. [21] Article 289 of the Law no 42/1988 of 27/10/1988 instituting preliminary title and book I of civil code provides that legal separation allows the spouses not to cohabit. It entails the separation of the property of the spouse. This separation retroactive to the date when the action of divorce was submitted to the court. [22] The Court finds that in the case file there is a document which demonstrates that Gatsinzi Marcel got the plot no 4423 on 07 March 2001 and the title deed of the house on that plot dated 18 July 2002. [23] The case file demonstrates also that Mukabarungi filed a claim for divorce in the Intermediate Court of Saint Brieue of France on 28 June 2000 requesting for the divorce with Gatsinzi Marcel. That Court made an order of non conciliation on 27 February 2001. The Court ordered the following: 1. The legal

Page 270

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 55 separation was admitted to them, 2. It prohibits each other to cause insecurity at another ones residence, 3. It orders them to give to each other personal belonging, 4. It orders that the three children be raised by their mother, 5. It orders that Gatsinzi Marcel should be visiting those children on the mutual consent, 6. It orders Gatsinzi Marcel to pay alimony of the family and school fees for the children. [24] The Court finds that the order stated above grants legal separation to Gatsinzi and Mukabarungi, which is provided by article 289 of the Law no 42/1988 of 27/10/1988 mentioned above. This article provides also that the legal separation always entails the separation of property, which is retroactive to the date of the submission of the action to the court, therefore in this case the date of 28 June 2000 should be considered as the date of submission of the action which was relied on in making the decision of legal separation. The provisions of this article 289 concerning the effects of legal separation concurs with what are provided for by article 302 of French civil code book I , which stipulates that legal separation always entails the separation of property3. [25] Thus, the Court finds that what the counsel for Mukabarungi adduces that there was no legal separation is not true because there is a Court order which confirms it, well as what he argues that Gatsinzi continued to pay alimony and to visit the family, it was to execute the court order, so those grounds are without merit.

3 Article 302 of France civil code provides for that “Legal separation always entails the separation of property ...” MUKABARUNGI v. GATSINZI

Page 271

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 56 [26] On the issue of not only considering the time the house was obtained, but also to consider that it originated from the common property as adduced by the counsel of Mukabarungi, the Court finds that, except stating them verbally, she does not produce any evidences to the Court to establish that after the legal separation and the separation of the property, there are other means that house would have originated from the common property, moreover when there was no common property between her and Gatsinzi; therefore that article should not be valued relying on article 9 of the Law no 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure stipulates that every plaintiff must prove a claim. Failure to obtain proof, the defendant wins the case. [27] Relying on the explanations given above, the Court finds that the plot no 4423 and the house which is on it, were obtained after the Court granted Gatsinzi Marcel and Mukabarungi a legal separation entailing their separation of property since on 28 June 2000, which means that the asset was obtained after the dissolution of the community property, therefore it should be considered as a personal property of Gatsinzi Marcel, which should not be shared, of which he had the right of usus. Thus the request of Mukabarungi of including the house on plot no 4423 among the common

property, she acquired with Gatsinzi Marcel has no merit, for not a common property. [28] This is also the view of the family law scholars, were they state that the legal separation for the spouses entails the separation of property because there is no relationship, between them anymore, and that instead of the regime of community of property it is regarded as they are governed by separation of property, so that before divorcing, no one will use the pretext of the regime of community of property and take a half of the

Page 272

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 57 properties acquired by another after suing for a divorce or to make the decision which prejudices the property of another4.

2. Whether the damages Gatsinzi Marcel requests should be awarded [29] In the cross appeal, the counsel for Gatsinzi Marcel and Irebe Gatsinzi Lars states that Irebe Gatsinzi Lars was dragged into unnecessary lawsuits because he had to plead for his house, and moreover he owns its title deed which demonstrates that it is his own house and for Gatsinzi Marcel was dragged into lawsuits provocation of Mukabarungi, therefore they request for the moral damages equal to 1,000,000 Rwf. [30] The Counsel for Mukabarungi argues that the damages requested are groundless because there was no provocation and also that the properties were administered by Gatsinzi Marcel. [31] Concerning the damages equal to 1,000,000 Rwf requested by Gatsinzi Marcel, the Court find that apart from not demonstrating how they were computed, there was no provocation done by Mukabarungi Julienne because she appealed the judgment which she lost basing on the provisions of the law, therefore the requested damages are without merit.

4See Alain Bénabent, Droit Civil: La famille, Paris, Litec, 2003, p.274 na Francois Terré na Dominique Fenouillet, Droit Civil: Les personnes, la famille et les incapacités, Paris, Dalloz, 1996, pp.451-452. MUKABARUNGI v. GATSINZI

Page 273

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 58 III. DECISION OF THE COURT [32] Decides that the appeal of Mukabarungi Julienne is without merit; [33] Decides that the plot no 4423 and the house built on it, are not among the apportioned asset between Gatsinzi Marcel and Mukabarungi Julienne, because it is not among the common property. [34] Declares that the appealed judgment is sustained; [35] Orders Mukabarungi Julienne to pay the Court fees equal to 226,400Rwf.

Page 274

NTEZIRYAYO v. RUTABAYIRO [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCAA 0003/13/CS (Mutashya P.J., Rugabirwa and Hitiyiramye, J.) January 31, 2014] Civil procedure – Cross appeal – The cross appeal is admissible even if the respondent was informed of the judgment and does not contest it – Law no 18/2004 of 20/06/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labor and administrative procedure, article 167. Contracts or obligations Law – The validity of sale contract of immovable before the transfer of its title – Breach of contract – Damages on the loss incurred by the buyer due to the seller’s failure to deliver the documents of the purchased thing at the convened time – The sale contract is valid when the parties have agreed to the thing and its price, although the sold thing has not yet been delivered or its price paid – The seller must be ordered to pay damages when the buyer incurred loss resulting from failure to deliver the acquired thing to him/her at the convened time – Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or obligations, article 33, 264 and 288. Civil procedure – Unnecessary lawsuits –Damages are not awarded in case some of the appellant’s claims had merit. Facts: Nteziryayo concluded a sale contract of a plot of land accommodating five houses and annexes with Rutabayiro. The seller paid the advance and they agreed that the remaining balance will be paid at the delivery of the documents comprising of cadastral plan, emphyteutic lease title and construction permit, of which he would have sought within one 59

Page 275

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 60 month period and that if it exceeds without getting them, both parties will meet in order to find a solution on the time they will be issued. Nteziryayo applied for those documents at the administration of the district but were not issued to him because the location of the houses was not yet included on master plan. Meanwhile, Nteziryayo began rehabilitating those houses pretending they were being damaged. After Rutabayiro realised that Ntenziryayo has began the rehabilitation, he sued him in the Intermediate Court of Gasabo requesting for the transfer of the title of houses so that they should be registered in his name and requested in addition for various damages.The Court decided that Nteziryayo should hand over the houses to Rutabayiro and the later pays him the remaining amount he owes him increased with their added value and also Nteziryayo should pay him the procedural costs and counsel fees. Rutabayiro appealed to the High Court and Nteziryayo also filed a cross appeal requesting for the resolution of the contract. The court decided that the transfer of title be operated between him and Nteziryayo, and the cross appeal of Nteziryayo which requests for the resolution of the contract is dismissed, because the resolution of the contract he requests is not incidental to the principal claim. As a consequence, Nteziryayo appealed to the Supreme Court stating that the sale contract he entered into with Rutabayiro be resolved, if not possible, he should pay the rehabilitation added value, the remaining balance and various damages. Rutabayiro states that the cross appeal lodged by Nteziryayo should not be admitted and examined because it does not intend to present the defence on the main claim and that there should be transfer of

Page 276

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 61 title between him and Nteziryayo who should also pay damages to him. Held: 1. Cross appeal must be admitted and its merit examined because the respondent may file a cross appeal in any event, before or during the hearing, even though the judgment was served on without protest.

2. The sale contract is valid when the parties agreed to the thing and its price, although the sold thing has not yet been delivered or its price paid, and it must be performed in good faith, thus there must be a transfer of title between Nteziryayo and Rutabayiro, and the later pays him the balance of the price and a half of the houses rehabilitation costs.

3. The seller should be ordered to pay damages, if failure to deliver the sold thing at the agreed time is detriment to the purchaser.

4. In case some of the appellant’s claims were found with merits, the respondent should not be awarded the requested damages for being dragged into unnecessary lawsuits. Appeal without merit. The cross appeal has merit in part. Court fees to the appellant. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law no 18/2004 of 20/06/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 167. Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or obligations, article 33, 264 and 288. NTEZIRYAYO v. RUTABAYIRO

Page 277

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 62 No cases referred to. Authors Cited: Laurent C., Vente d’immeuble: un contrat parfait par le seul accord sur la chose et le prix, article publié le 25/10/2011. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] On 15 March 2010, Nteziryayo Eric entered into a sale contract with Rutabayiro Eric of the plot accommodating five houses and annex, situated in Rusenyi Village, Murama Cell, Kinyinya Sector, Gasabo District for the price amounting to 30,000,000 Rwf. Rutabayiro Eric paid immediately 7,000,000 Rwf to Nteziryayo Eric and they agreed that the remaining balance of 23,000,000 Rwf will be paid by Rutabayiro Eric at the time Nteziryayo Eric hands him the cadastral plan, emphyteutic lease title and construction permit documents to be applied for within one month, and if it exceeds without getting them, both parties will meet and discuss on a new period they can be obtained. [2] After Rutabayiro Eric realised that Nteziryayo Eric did not hand him the documents stated above, and has began rehabilitating the houses he sold to him, he sued him to the Intermediate Court of Gasabo requesting for the transfer of the title so that those houses be registered on his name, and pay him various damages. Nteziryayo also filed a counterclaim requesting for resolution of the contract.

Page 278

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 63 [3] That Court decided that Nteziryayo Eric should hand over to Rutabayiro Eric the house he bought in return of the payment of the remaining amount of 23,000,000 Rwf. It decided in addition that the counterclaim filed by Nteziryayo requesting for the resolution of the contract is without merit since it does not constitute a defence to the principal claim and ordered Rutabayiro to pay Nteziryayo 95,126,105 Rfw equivalent to the value added, and ordered Nteziryayo Eric to pay 500,000 Rfw for procedural costs and counsel fees. [4] Rutabayiro Eric appealed to the High Court which decided that the transfer of the title be operated between him and Nteziryayo Eric, that the cross appeal of Nteziryayo in which he requests for the resolution of the contract is not admissible because the resolution of the contract he requests for does not constitute a defence to the principal claim concerning how the transfer of the title should be done between him and Rutabayiro Eric. It decided also that the appealed judgment is overturned in all its aspects, save the 500,000 Rwf of procedural costs and counsel fees that Rutabayiro Eric was awarded on the first instance. [5] Nteziryayo Eric appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that the sale contract entered into with Rutabayiro Eric be resolved because he failed to get the documents stated above, and if not resolved, Rutabayiro Eric should reimburse him 95,126,105 Rwf he spent for rehabilitating the houses and pays him the remaining 23,000,000 Rwf in addition to the various damages. Rutabayiro Eric state also that there deserves to be a transfer of the title between him and Nteziryayo Eric, and that he should pay him various damages. NTEZIRYAYO v. RUTABAYIRO

Page 279

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 64 [6] The hearing was conducted in public on 17 December 2013, Nteziryayo Eric represented by the council, Mutabazi Abayo Claude, whereas Rutabayiro Eric was represented by the counsel Nzirabatinyi Fidèle. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES Whether the cross appeal filed by Nteziryayo Eric should be admitted. [7] The Counsel for Nteziryayo Eric states that the Supreme Court should admit his cross appeal so that it decides void the sell contract mentioned above because the High Court refused to admit it on the ground that the counterclaim he raised in Intermediate Court of Gasabo should not have been admitted because the resolution of the contract he requested for does not relate to the defence submissions on transfer of title in litigation in the main claim, while it disregarded that it had to be admitted since it was regularly filed. [8] The Counsel for Rutabayiro Eric argues that the cross appeal filed by Nteziryayo should have not been admitted because the resolution of the sale contract he requested in counterclaim filed in the previous Court does not constitiute a defence to the principal claim which intended to request for transfer of title between him and Nteziryayo Eric.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [9] Concerning the cross appeal, article 167 of the Law no 18/2004 of 20/06/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure which was in force at the time of

Page 280

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 65 conclusion of the sale contract, provides that “the respondent may file cross appeal in any event, before or during the hearing, even though the judgment was served on without protest”. [10] The submission Nteziryayo Eric submitted to the High Court which is on page 46 and his arguments in that Court, demonstrate that he filed a cross appeal requesting that the sale contract mentioned above should be resolved because the Gasabo district informed him that it would not issue to him the document he requested for because there was not yet established a master plan of the location of the houses. [11] Pursuant to the provision of article 167 of the Law stated above, the Court finds that the High Court should have admitted the cross appeal filed by Nteziryayo Eric because it was filed in accordance with the law, therefore it must be admitted in this Court in order to examine its merit.

2. Whether the sale contract entered into between Nteziryayo Eric and Rutabayiro Eric on 15/03/2010 is valid and its effects [12] The Counsel for Nteziryayo Eric states that the High Court held that a transfer of title between him and Rutabayiro Eric be operated, disregarding the fact that the sale contract concluded between them on 15 March 2010 had a resolutive condition, that Rutabayiro Eric had to pay him 23,000,000 Rwf after he has given him the cadastral plan, emphyteutic lease title and construction permit of which he did not get, because in the letter dated 26 October 2011 Gasabo district informed him that he would not be able to get those documents he requested for in case the master plan has not been established . NTEZIRYAYO v. RUTABAYIRO

Page 281

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 66 [13] He explains that he did not act in bad faith, because eight days (8) after the sale contract was concluded, on 23 March 2010 Nteziryayo Eric wrote to Gasabo district requesting to be issued with those documents, and it replied him that it cannot issue them to him, because the master plan has not yet been established, consequently he requested Rutabayiro to reimburse him the 7,000,000 Rwf he paid, so that they resolve the sale contract, because in his opinion the sale was impossible, which Rutabayiro refused and that also Nteziryayo requested Rutabayiro to pay him the remaining balance of 23,000,000 Rwf and looks for those documents himself, of which he also rejected. Consequently Nteziryayo requested for a rehabilitation permit because he realized that the houses were damaged By leaking, therefore, the contract should be resolved because it cannot be performed as provided by article 70 CCBIII5 because he failed to obtain those documents. [14] The Counsel for Rutabayiro Eric states that the sale contract mentioned above should not be resolved, instead the Court should order for the transfer of title between him and Nteziryayo Eric so that the houses he purchased be registered on his name, and also that Nteziryayo Eric acted in bad faith because he rehabilitated those houses aware that he brought them from him.

5 That article stipulates that “any condition based on impossible event, or contrary to good morals, or prohibited by the law is void and invalidate the agreement deriving from it”.

Page 282

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 67

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [15] Concerning the validity of the contract, article 33 of Book of Civil Code relating to contracts or obligations which was into force at the time the sale contract was concluded, stipulates that “Contracts made in accordance with the law shall be binding between parties. They may only be revoked at the consent of the parties or for reasons based on law. They shall be performed in good faith6”. [16] Article 264 of the Book stated above, stipulates that “the sale is completed between the parties, and the property is acquired as of right by the buyer vis-a-vis the seller, once they agreed on the thing and the price, although the thing has not yet been delivered or the price paid”. [17] The Law scholars including Laurent Collon explain that since long time ago the Courts went on ruling that the sale of immovable properties is valid when the parties to the sale contract have agreed to the object and the price, except that they can stipulate for other obligations7.

6 That article concurs with the provision of article 64 of the Law no 25/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, which stipulates that “Contracts made in accordance with the law shall be binding between parties. They may only be revoked at the consent of the parties or for reasons based on law. They shall be performed in good faith” 7 For many years, the courts have held that, even when it relates to real estate, the sale is completed as soon as we prove that the consent was on the thing (the property sold / purchased) and prices, all other terms of the sale were deemed accessories, unless one and / or the other party has erected one or more item (s) to the rank of condition (s) essential, as the thing and the price. Par Laurent Collon, Vente d’immeuble : un contrat parfait par le seul accord sur la chose et le prix, article publié le 25/10/2011. NTEZIRYAYO v. RUTABAYIRO

Page 283

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 68 [18] Concerning this case, the sale contract of 15 March 2010 demonstrates that Nteziryayo Eric sold to Rutabayiro Eric his plot with five houses and annexes located at Rusenyi village, Murama cell, Kinyinya sector, Gasabo district, for the price amounting to 30,000,000 Rwf. Rutabayiro Eric paid him 7,000,000 Rwf immediately, and they agreed that the remaining 23,000,000 Rwf will be paid on condition that he hands to him cadastral plan, emphyteutic lease and construction permit not later than a month, and this period elapses while Nteziryayo Eric did not get them, both parties will meet and find a solution on the time they will be obtained. [19] Pursuant to the provisions of the law and the opinions of the law scholars which have already been stated above, the Court finds that the above mentioned sale contract between Nteziryayo Eric and Rutabayiro Eric is valid because they agreed on the houses for sale and their price, therefore should be performed in good faith as it is provided for by article 33 of civil code relating to contracts or obligations, which was into force at the time of the conclusion of that contract. [20] Concerning the performance of that contract, the letter of 23 March 2010, indicates that Nteziryayo Eric wrote to Gasabo district requesting it to give him cadastral plan, emphyteutic lease and construction permit of the plot located in

the place mentioned above. The district replied on 26 October 2011 that he should wait because, the master plan of the plot’s area he requests the documents for, has not yet been established. [21] After the conclusion of that contract, Nteziryayo Eric did not abstain, instead he rushed to request for the documents stated above as revealed by his letter of 23 March 2010. The fact that he did not find them was the result of an administrative

Page 284

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 69 decision which he could not change, especially that he did not know the time he would spend waiting for them. It led him to a wrong decision of requesting for the rehabilitation permit, because in his understanding he assumed that he remained the owner of that asset for it was still registered on his name, and was rehabilitated to the extent that its value increased from 30,000,000 Rwf to 125,126,105 Rwf as illustrated by real estate valuation of 02 September 2011 carried out by a construction Engineer known as Alain Bayavuge. [22] The fact that Nteziryayo Eric made a wrong decision of rehabilitating the houses without approaching Rutabayiro Eric so that they find a solution as agreed in the contract they concluded, until Rutabayiro notified him as demonstrated in his letter of 18 May 2012, and opposed against potential mortgages in different banks as substantiated by his letter of 30 June 2012 because he perceived that Nteziryaryo could mortgage them in banks on the pretext that they were still registered in his name; the court finds that Nteziryayo Eric is the one who breached the sale contract, therefore he should abide with it. [23] The Court finds however that, the value of the houses, at the time of the conclusion of the conctract, increased as indicated in paragraph 21. Consequently, concerning the performance of the

contract, Rutabayiro Eric should pay Nteziryayo Eric a half of the money he used for rehabilitation of those houses equivalent to , awarded in accordance with the discretion of the Court, because, if the houses are transferred to him in the current state without paying anything whereas their value increased, it would be considered as unjust enrichment. The Court finds also that this NTEZIRYAYO v. RUTABAYIRO

Page 285

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 70 money should be increased with the remaining 23,000,000 Rwf which Rutabayiro Eric owed Nteziryayo Eric since the conclusion of the contract, all amounting to 47,563,052 Rwf + 23,000,000 Rwf = 70,563,052 Rwf.

3. Concerning the requested damages in this case [24] The Counsel for Nteziryayo Eric argues that in case the Court orders that the sale contract to be resolved, it should order that Nteziryayo Eric reimburses Rutabayiro Eric 7,000,000 Rwf of advance payment, orders that Rutabayiro pays him 10,000,000 Rwf for moral damages since he dragged him in lawsuits unnecessarily, 5,000,000 Rwf for counsel fees for two counsels who pleaded on his behalf and 300,000 Rwf of procedural costs. [25] He adduces in addition that if the Court decides the sale contract to remain valid, it should order Rutabayiro Eric to pay him 95,126,105 Rwf he spent for rehabilitation of the houses as indicated by the valuation in the file, and pays him 23,000,000 Rwf of the remaining amount he owes him, while Nteziryayo Eric should reimburse 7,000,000 Rwf of advance he paid him. [26] The Counsel for Rutabayiro Eric states that he files a cross appeal requesting that Nteziryayo Eric should pay him 150,000,000 Rwf of damages for stalling to transfer to him the houses he bought, relying on articles 287 and 288 of the Book of Civil Code relating to contracts or obligations which was in force at the time the sale contract was concluded, and 5,000,000 Rwf of moral damages because he dragged him in unnecessary lawsuits, counsel fees and the procedural costs.

Page 286

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 71

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [27] Regarding moral damages for failure to transfer the houses, article 288 of the Book stated above, stipulates that “the seller should be ordered to pay damages, if failure to deliver the sold thing at the agreed time is detriment to the purchaser”. [28] Within the context of this case, it is clear that Rutabayiro Eric owned immediately the houses he bought from Nteziryayo Eric since 15 March 2010, but the fact that this one did not deliver them to him, instead, retained them for a period exceeding three years and ten months, meaning from 15 March 2010 up on 31 January 2010, the day of judgment delivery, it is clear that it resulted the suffered loss by Rutabayiro Eric because he did not get them at time in order to peacefully enjoy or exploit them; therefore the Court finds that Nteziryayo Eric should pay him related moral damages awarded in its discretion, amounting to 5,000,000 Rwf because 150,000,000 Rwf requested by Rutabayiro Eric are excessive and, he did not produce any evidence thereto or indicates how they were calculated. [29] Concerning the moral damages for being dragged into unnecessary lawsuits, the fact for Nteziryayo Eric to have the right to appeal against a ruling of the court he is not satisfied with, conferred to him by the law for justice to be done, it implies that he did not drag Rutabayiro Eric into unnecessary lawsuits, therefore the Court find that Rutabayiro Eric should not be awarded 5,000,000 Rwf of the moral damage he requests for being dragged into unnecessary lawsuits. Nteziryayo Eric should not be awarded them as well, because Rutabayiro Eric NTEZIRYAYO v. RUTABAYIRO

Page 287

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 72 did not drag him into unnecessary lawsuits due to the fact that some of his claims were found with merit. [30] Concerning the procedural costs and the counsel fees, the Court finds that the fact for Rutabayiro Eric to be represented in this Court and some of his claims being found with merit, show that Nteziryayo Eric must pay him 200,000 Rwf for procedural costs and 300,000 Rwf for counsel fees at this level awarded in accordance with its discrection in addition to 500,000 Rwf for procedural costs and counsel fees which was awarded by the High Court, all amounting to 1,000,000 Rwf. [31] In accordance to compensation of loans provided for by article 181 of the Civil Code Book III stated above8, the Court finds that Rutabayiro Eric should pay Nteziryayo Eric 70,563,052 Rwf, and at turn Nteziryayo Eric pays him 5,000,000 Rwf + 1,000,000 Rwf, which means that Rutabayiro Eric should pay Nteziryayo Eric 64,563,052 Rwf (= 70,563,052 Rwf – 5,000,000Rwf – 1,000,000 Rwf), at turn, Nteziryayo Eric should deliver to him the plot with five houses and annexes he bought as stated above, and to operate of the title transfer between them. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [32] Decides that the appeal of Nteziryayo Eric lacks merit in part;

8 This stipulates that “ the compensation is operated without recourse to court proceedings as of the law even when the debtors are not aware, both debts are respectively extinguished from their existence to the extent of their equivalent proportions”

Page 288

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 73 [33] Decides that the cross appeal of Rutabayiro Eric has merit; [34] Orders Nteziryayo Eric hand over to Rutabayiro Eric the plot with five houses and annexes he sold to him located in Rusenyi Village, Murama Cell, Kinyinya Sector, Gasabo District in Kigali City and operate the transfer of the title from Nteziryayo Eric to the names of Rutabayiro Eric; [35] Orders that Rutabayiro Eric should pay 64,563,052 Rwf to Nteziryayo Eric; [36] Declares that the ruling of the case RCA 0047/12/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court on 11 January 2013 is overturned; [37] Orders Nteziryayo Eric to pay the Court fees amounting to 36,650 Rwf, failure of which within eight days, that amount will be deducted from his assets through Government coercion.

NTEZIRYAYO v. RUTABAYIRO

Page 290

COMMERCIAL CASES

Page 292

CORAR v. MBONIMPA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCOMA 0185/12/CS (Mugenzi, P.J., Gatete and Munyangeri, J.) November 15, 2013] Insurance law – A driving license issued abroad – It remains valid if not contested by the competent organs or if no criminal action was filed for forgery – Law no 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 46. Insurance law – insurance contract – Determination of the value of the damaged vehicle due to accident – It is calculated on insurance contract basis. Insurance law – Loss of a chance – Damages regarding the revenues that the vehicle would have generated are calculated basing on market price by subtracting eventual expenses – Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or obligations, article 258. Contracts or obligation law – Moral damages – They are not granted when the applicant failed to provide the prejudice different from that computed as financial damages – Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or obligations, article 258. Facts: Basing on the insurance contract concluded, Mbonimpa filed a case against CORAR to the Commercial High Court stating that it refused to compensate him the value of insured vehicle which had an accident on 4 September 2010 and got seriously damaged that it cannot be repaired to be used again. For that reason, she requested for damages equivalent to the value of the damaged vehicle, those relating to financial loss and those resulting from the death of her husband who was driving the vehicle and other different damages. 77

Page 293

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 78 The Commercial High Court ordered CORAR to grant Mbonimpa damages equivalent to the value of the vehicle, those relating to financial loss within 17 months, moral damages, those resulting from the death of the driver during the accident and those relating to procedural and advocate’s fees. CORAR appealed to the Supreme Court stating that the Commercial High Court allocated damages to Mbonimpa while the accident of his vehicle occurred when the driver did not possess a valid driving license, which was inconsistent with insurance contract they concluded. Mbonimpa states that the driver had a driving license issued in Democratic Republic of Congo, which was confirmed by the Police Inspector. In cross appeal, he requested also to be granted financial loss, moral damages and procedural and advocate’s fees. Regarding requested damages, CORAR states that financial loss is excessive and that Mbonimpa did not provide any evidence. As for moral damages, CORAR states that Mbonimpa did not provide any explanation as he was granted financial damages. Held: 1. If the driver possessing a driving license issued abroad undergoes an accident, and none has filed a case for forgery and is not challenged by the Judicial Police during the investigation or parties did not invoke that it has a defect, it cannot be declared invalid.

2. As long as Mbonimpa does not provide the ground for non execution of the insurance contract she concluded with CORAR, and does not contradict the value of the vehicle determined by the expert basing on the contract; the value

Page 294

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 79 determined by the expert is one considered and be granted to her.

3. The income that Mbonimpa’s vehicle would have generated if CORAR had given her the opportunity to get another one, are calculated from the date on which the Court is seized to verdict delivery of the last instance. However, as it is clear that the car may not be used for some days and generate income, expenses for maintenance and other different reasons, it implies that there is a high probability of chance to generate income at the average 80% of the income that should be have generated of 12,240,000 Rwf. Therefore, the respondent will be awarded damages equal to 9,792,000 Rwf.

4. Mbonimpa cannot be awarded moral damages as long as she did not justify their basis. Appeal has merit in part. Cross appeal has merit in part. Costs to both parties. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law no15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 46. Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or obligations, article 258. No case referred to. Author cited: Philippe, T., Droit de la responsabilité et des contrats, 8è éd., Dalloz, 2010, p. 1419-1420. CORAR v. MBONIMPA

Page 295

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 80 Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] Mbonimpa Solange and CORAR Ltd entered into auto insurance contract of Daihatsu RAB 849P which was used for the transport of goods. On 4 September 2010 the vehicle had an accident and was seriously damage. Automotive expert concluded that it cannot be repaired and used again. [2] Mbonimpa filed a case against CORAR to the Commercial High Court, arguing that it refused to compensate the insured vehicle. CORAR replied that it could not be held liable of the accident because the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid driving license. The case was heard in default of CORAR Ltd. The Court decided that CORAR must grant to Mbonimpa 25,000,000 Rwf equivalent to the value of the vehicle, 3,000,000 Rwf resulting from the death of driver in the accident, 5,000,000 Rwf of financial loss of 17 months, 1,000,000 Rwf of moral damages and 500,000 Rwf of procedural and advocate’s fees. [3] CORAR A.G. Ltd appealed to the Supreme Court stating that the Commercial High Court allocated the damages to Mbonimpa while the accident of his vehicle occurred when its driver did not possess a valid driving license. He added that it was inconsistent with insurance contract they concluded and that the allocated damages exceed the assured value. [4] The public hearing was held on 10 October 2013, CORAR represented by the counsel, Munyandirikirwa Laurent

Page 296

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 81 while Mbonimpa Solange was represented by the counsel Masumbuko Mussa. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES A. Whether the driver had a valid driving license. [5] The counsel for CORAR states that the Commercial High Court disregarded that the driver of the vehicle that had an accident did not possess a valid driving license, while it is inconsistent with articles 24 and 64 of insurance contract between Mbonimpa and CORAR. He explained that the contract provides that an insured vehicle must be driven by an authorized person possessing a valid driving license under Rwandan law. [6] He stated that the driving license was issued in Democratic Republic of Congo. He added that the document issued by the Police Inspector submitted by Mbonimpa which is in the case file indicates that the driving license is recognized in Congo while the one given to CORAR from the communication service of Congo indicates that the authenticity of that driving license is suspicious. He further emphasizes that this service is the one in charge of issuing driving license, while the Police Inspector is not competent. [7] Basing on two different documents, he requested the Court to order another investigation to get the real information on the authenticity of that driving license. He kept on arguing that another proof that the driving license was not legally issued is that it indicates that Hakizayezu was born in Goma while the marriage certificate indicates that he was born in Cyuve- Musanze. CORAR v. MBONIMPA

Page 297

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 82 [8] Mbonimpa and his counsel state that the Commercial High Court clearly explained about the driving license. Furthermore, they stated that the case file indicates that the statement of the accident made by the competent organs and even on 3 June 2011 the competent authority of Democratic Republic of Congo (Police Inspector) confirmed that it recognizes the license. [9] They explained that the fact that some of authorities in Goma challenge the authenticity of the driving license does not imply that it does not exist because the statement of accident on page 4 of the case file made by competent authorities states that the deceased possesses a driving license issued in Congo with different classes. They added that there is no other document in contradiction and they had never challenged it, but the Court may analyze if CORAR has competence to cross the borders to check the document instead of writing to the police to make a subsequent case file. [10] The Court finds that contradicting the documents regarding the driving license delivered by Congolese authorities were not requested by Rwandan competent organs but rather by each party. Furthermore, none of them seized the Court for forgery as provided by article 46 of the Law of 12 June 2004 relating to evidence and its production. It implies that those documents should not be relied on, while the Rwandan Judicial Police that investigated the accident affirmed to have found the driving license of the driver and its details but did not challenge it. In addition to this, the parties did not provide its defect.

Page 298

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 83 B. Concerning the requested damages 1. The value of the damaged vehicle [11] The counsel for CORAR A.G. Ltd states that the Commercial High Court has awarded the damages exceeding the insured value and not provided in the contract. He explained that the Court awarded 25,000,000 Rwf of the value of the vehicle while it was insured on the value of 17,000,000 Rwf. He added that in case of accident, the contract provides that the value to be considered is the current on the day of accident. [12] He stated that article 45 of the insurance policy provides that the compensation in case of vehicle accident is equivalent to the current value, implying that the value of the vehicle would be 17,000,000 Rwf minus depreciation of 2% per month during 9 months in activity which implies 18%, by subtracting the value of the wreck of 10% to match the value of 12,546,000 Rwf determined by Nikwigize, the expert. This would be the compensation that Mbonimpa should be granted instead of 25,000,000 Rwf as decided by the Court without any reference. [13] Mbonimpa and his counsel states that the point has no merit because CORAR would be disregarding the effects of non-execution of the contract, while the Law n° 45/2011 of 25 November 2011 governing contracts in its article 65 and 81 provide that a contract shall not only cover the subject matter but also the effects that equity, practices or law impute to the obligations according to the nature of the contract, implying that the total breach of the contract gives right to damages based on the non performed obligations. CORAR v. MBONIMPA

Page 299

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 84 [14] They stated that CORAR did not execute the contract on time, and that the insured value of the vehicle is 17,000,000 Rwf which should be maintained. Concerning 25,000,000 Rwf awarded by the Court, is the consequence of non-execution of the contract on time, since after the accident Mbonimpa should have been compensated with another new car which should not be affordable on market at 17,000,000 Rwf. [15] The Court finds that Mbonimpa did not prove the reason why he would not execute the insurance contract concluded with CORAR which provides that in case of total loss, it would pay the current value at the time of accident. Concerning other damages resulting from the non execution of the contract on time, it would be separately explained without confusing them with the value of the vehicle itself. [16] The Court finds that as Mbonimpa failed to contradict the value of the vehicle that was 12,546,000 Rwf on the day of accident as demonstrated by Nikwigize, the expert, he would not be awarded of additional money apart from above mentioned.

2. The damages relating to the income that the vehicle would have generated [17] The counsel for CORAR states that Mbonimpa must not be awarded of those damages because the vehicle was unable to be used again, and in this situation, the financial damages are not granted because that vehicle is not supposed to generate income as it is not working. He added that the Court could rely on judgment RCAA 0001/11/CS rendered on 13 January 2012, on paragraph 12 page 4.

Page 300

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 85 [18] Regarding the financial damages, Mbonimpa and his counsel state that the fact that the vehicle was reserved for commercial activities including transport of goods while it was damaged at the extent that it could not be useful, that can be considered that his insurer, CORAR left him in boiling water. Therefore, the failure to pay on time results in paying a lot of money. [19] In cross appeal, they request that Mbonimpa be allocated the damages of 50,000 Rwf per day, for him to receive 18,700,000 Rwf requested in 17 months, plus 14,300,000 Rwf of estimated 13 months from 9 September 2012 after the verdict delivery up to October 2013 when he pleaded before the Supreme Court. [20] The counsel for CORAR states that 50,000 Rwf per day requested by Mbonimpa alleging that it was a daily income of the vehicle is excessive and without proof. If the Court found it worthy, he added, it would be computed on prices provided by RURA concerning the daily income of the vehicles. [21] The Court finds that the fact that the accident took place on 4 September 2010, and then after there were different correspondences between CORAR and Mbonimpa regarding the issue of compensation requested by the latter, until they failed to settle the issue and filed the case to the Court, proves that there was refusal to pay, and that was the duty of CORAR as provided by the insurance contract they concluded. Therefore, it is the fault which caused the loss to Mbonimpa and which CORAR should be held liable according to article 258 of contracts or obligations which provides that any act of man which causes damage to another obliges the one by whose fault happens to repair. CORAR v. MBONIMPA

Page 301

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 86 [22] The Court finds not excessive the average of 50,000 Rwf requested by Mbonimpa as the daily income of make Daihatsu which carries out the transport. However, it should be substracted 40% of its expenditures, remaining 30,000 Rwf as the daily income that the vehicle can generate in 22 days per month, as it is considered that there are 2 days off per week due to different reasons including its maintenance. [23] Therefore, the Court finds that, the income that Mbonimpa’s vehicle should have generated if CORAR had offered opportunity to get another one, is computed from 3 May 2012, the day CORAR filed a case to the Court until 15 November 2013, the day the verdict was delivered. Thus, the total is 12,240,000 Rwf for 18 months and 12 days. [24] However, considering that the above mentioned amount is not generated by the vehicle for us to assume that it is a loss but rather the income that the vehicle should have made if it was properly used without constraint in the mentioned period, implying that it is the chance that Mbonimpa lost9 to get that money. Therefore, as it is clear that there is a high probability of

9 The law scholars explain that the loss of chance is different from the deprivation of interests. The damages are granted when there is a loss of chance which cannot be equal to those resulting from deprivation of interest. That is cited in the book of Philippe Le Tourneau, Droit de la responsabilité et des contrats, 8ème edition, Dalloz, février 2010, p 1419-1420, where he states that: “La perte de chance implique toujours l’existence d’un aléa; c’est ce qui la distingue du strict gain manqué, dont l’obtention aurait été certaine si le fait dommageable n’était pas survenu. La réparation est donc en principe nécessairement inférieure à l’avantage que la victime escomptait retirer de l’événement en question”.

Page 302

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 87 chance since the car was in use, it can be estimated to 80% of the total income that should be generated. Thus the compensation to be awarded to MBONIMPA is 9,792,000 Rwf.

3. Moral damages requested by Mbonimpa [25] Except the damages of 3,000,000 Rwf allocated to Mbonimpa by the Commercial High Court resulting from the death of driver who was her husband, she requests 3,000,000 Rwf of moral damages. The counsel for CORAR states in cross appeal even 1,000,000 Rwf awarded by Commercial High Court should not exist since she had been awarded financial damages. 26] The Court finds that with regards to damages, Mbonimpa does not provide any explanation apart from stating that CORAR engaged her in unceasing litigation. Therefore, she cannot be awarded them because she has been awarded financial damages computed from the time CORAR refused to compensate her vehicle damaged by an accident.

4. Damages of procedural and advocate fees [27] Concerning 2,000,000 Rwf requested by Mbonimpa for procedural and advocate fees to the Supreme Court, the Court finds that even if she hired an advocate and spend some procedural fees, there is no proof of those damages, and then in the Court discretion, she shall get 1,000,000 Rwf to all instances. III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [28] Decides that the appeal of CORAR has merit in part; CORAR v. MBONIMPA

Page 303

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 88 [29] Decides that the cross appeal of Mbonimpa has merit in part; [30] Orders CORAR Ltd to pay Mbonimpa Solange 12,546,000 Rwf of her vehicle damaged in accident, 9,792,000 Rwf of compensation, 3,000,000 Rwf of damages on the driver’s death, which was not appealed against and 1,000,000 Rwf of advocate and procedural fees, all totaling 26,338,000 Rwf; [31] Orders CORAR Ltd and Mbonimpa Solange to jointly pay 22,100 Rwf of Court fees in this instance; meaning 11,050 Rwf for each.

Page 304

HOTEL OKAPI v. BPR [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCOMA 0032/12/CS (Mugenzi, P.J., Kanyange and Munyangeri, J.) March 14, 2014] Commercial law – Company – Capacity of representing a company in contract it concludes with others – When a debtor pretends to represent the company, it is considered as such, as long as the latter did neither disown nor sue him/her for usurpation of power. Contract or obligation law – Apparent mandate – Performance of contract – When there is an apparent mandate, another party may presume that the contractor has a mandate, the contract concluded in that context binds the mandator – Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contract or obligation, article 33. Contract or obligation law – Suretyship – The Payment made by the surety without seeking the payment in properties of the principal debtor in case he/she consented to that in suretyship contract – When the surety accepted to pay without seeking the payment from the debtor, the creditor has right to sue either the surety or both in solidum – Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contract or obligation, article 560. Facts: HOTEL OKAPI represented by Nkunda Leatitia concluded a loan contract with Banque Populaire du Rwanda, Remera branch and the loan was deposited on the HOTEL OKAPI account on which Nkunda Leatitia signed jointly with Rumanyika Jean Marie Vianney, the legal representative of HOTEL OKAPI. “Banque Populaire du Rwanda” requested HOTEL OKAPI to repay the loan and Rumanyika Jean Marie 89

Page 305

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 90 Vianney, the legal representative, responded that he does not recognize the loan because the contract was signed by an incompetent person. “Banque Populaire du Rwanda” filed a claim to the Commercial High Court requesting that HOTEL OKAPI represented by Rumanyika Jean Marie Vianney and Nkunda Leatitia to jointly repay the loan and its interests guaranteed by Nkunda Leatitia. The Commercial High Court decided that the respondents will jointly pay the loan and its interests. HOTEL OKAPI, represented by Rumanyika and Nkunda Leatitia who was forced to intervene, appealed to the Supreme Court stating that “Banque Populaire du Rwanda” negligently granted the loan to a person not representing HOTEL OKAPI. Nkunda Leatitia stated that she was a surety and the principal debtor did not fail to pay. She added that she should be requested to pay in case the principal debtor fails to pay even if she committed herself to repay the debt without the prior seeking of the payment from the properties of HOTEL OKAPI. “Banque Populaire du Rwanda” proved that Rumanyika Jean Marie Vianney and Nkunda Leatitia performed different transactions on different dates on loan account. Therefore, the bank had not negligently granted the loan because Nkunda who used to perform transaction on the account was not sued for usurpation of power. In addition, the bank stated that Nkunda Laetitia as the surety of the loan must jointly repay it with HOTEL OKAPI. In this case also, “Banque Populaire du Rwanda” filed a cross appeal requesting to be paid the principal debt, late interests, procedural and advocate fees; while Nkunda Leatitia was

Page 306

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 91 requesting not to pay the loan because she is the surety and that the principal debtor is not insolvent. Held: 1. When one of the signatories of the loan account uses it for the transfer of the loan he/she requested, it is considered as he/she has a mandate. The contract concluded in this circumstance, shall be fully executed by the presumed mandator. The so called bank account owner shall not pretend that he/she did not confer on him/her the power of attorney in case he/she did not disown or sue him/her for usurpation of power. Thus, the appellant shall perform the loan contract signed by the forced intervenor.

2. In case there is an apparent mandate, another party may presume that the contractor has a mandate and this may lead him/her not to the assess the reliability of the power of attorney of the contractor. Therefore, the contract concluded in that context must fully executed by the presumed mandator.

3. The surety is obligated to pay the creditor only in case of insolvency of the principal debtor. The payment must be first sought from the properties of the principal debtor unless the benefit of discussion has been waived. Thus, the fact that the forced intervenor accepted to pay the loan he guaranteed without seeking for the payment from the debtor’s properties, the creditor has right to sue him/her on his/her own. Otherwise, they shall jointly pay the loan when the creditor chooses to sue them in solidum, which the defendant did. Thus they shall jointly pay the principal loan, its interests and advocate fees. Appeal lacks merit. Cross appeal of the defendant has merit in part. The cross appeal of the intervener has no merit. HOTEL OKAPI v. BPR

Page 307

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 92 Costs to both parties. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contract or obligation, articles 33 and 560. No cases referred to. Authors Cited: Philippe, T. et Loïc, C., Droit de la Responsabilité, Dalloz Action, Paris, p.544. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] The case arises from the loan contract concluded on 29 April 2008 between “Banque Populaire du Rwanda”, Remera branch and HOTEL OKAPI which was represented by Nkunda Laetitia. The “Banque Populaire du Rwanda” stated that it requested HOTEL OKAPI to pay that debt and the latter responded that it is not aware of it as the contract was signed by an incompetent person. [2] The “Banque Populaire du Rwanda” filed a claim before the Commercial High Court requesting it to order HOTEL OKAPI represented by Rumanyika Jean Marie Vianney with Nkunda Leatitia, the surety who was forced to intervene, to jointly pay the principal debt and interests computed up to 4 August 2009.

Page 308

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 93 [3] The Commercial High Court ruled the case and decided that the claim of “Banque Populaire du Rwanda” has merit and ordered HOTEL OKAPI represented by Rumanyika Jean Marie Vianney and Nkunda Leatitia to jointly pay 31,490,040 Rwf constituting of the principal debt, its interests and procedural fees. [4] HOTEL OKAPI appealed to the Supreme Court stating that the Commercial High Court disregarded its articles of association because it ruled without any proof that Nkunda has been representing HOTEL OKAPI while the “Banque Populaire du Rwanda negligently granted the loan to a person not representing HOTEL OKAPI. Nkunda who was force to intervene in this case, confirms that she concluded the contract in the name of HOTEL OKAPI and the money was deposited on its account and used in its interests. [5] The case was held in public on 4 February 2014, HOTEL OKAPI represented by the Counsel, Bizimana Shoshi, and Nkunda Leatitia represented by the Counsel, Rwigema Aimable while “Banque Populaire du Rwanda” was represented by the Counsel, Ntaganda Kabare Festo. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES a. To know who was granted the loan of 20,000,000 Rwf between HOTEL OKAPI and Nkunda [6] Shoshi, the counsel for HOTEL OKAPI states that the Judge at Commercial High Court disregarded the articles of association of HOTEL OKAPI and decided that Nkunda represented it at the time of concluding the loan contract while it HOTEL OKAPI v. BPR

Page 309

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 94 was provided with those articles of association that Rumanyika JMV was the legal representative of HOTEL OKAPI. [7] He stated that “Banque Populaire du Rwanda” negligently concluded a contract with an incompetent person. He added that, stating that HOTEL OKAPI has been represented by different people is not sufficient, because its articles of association clearly prove that it is represented by Rumanyika JMV. Thus, it must bear the consequences. [8] He states that HOTEL OKAPI did not get the loan being represented by Nkunda Leatitia. He added that the Hotel possesses the minutes of extraordinary meeting of 19 September 2007 of its members drawn up by Notary proving that the legal representative of HOTEL OKAPI is Rumanyika JMV. He added that Nkunda Leatitia only rented the Hotel, and fraudulently signed the contract but HOTEL OKAPI has made an agreement with her while HOTEL OKAPI had agreed with her that the rent fees would pay back the loan that HOTEL OKAPI had for the bank and it is in this context that the latter was misled. [9] He stated that Nkunda was authorized to sign on the Hotel account because of compensation. With regards to the total amount of the loan, the counsel, Shoshi states that his client does not recognize the loan and there is no reason to dispute on its amount because it is not the grounds of appeal. [10] Rwigema, the counsel for Nkunda states that the judge did not disregard the articles of association of HOTEL OKAPI but rather the HOTEL has had many representatives who do not appear in its articles of association, the way Nkunda was designated and latter get the loan as representative of HOTEL OKAPI. He added that the money was deposited on its account

Page 310

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 95 and withdrawn at different period to repay the loan that HOTEL OKAPI represented by Rumanyika had for BCR as indicated by the bank statement nº 401.200.783.111 of HOTEL OKAPI where on 11 June 2008, it withdrew 12,098,747Rwf. [11] He keeps stating that it is unconceivable how Rumanyika, as the legal representative of HOTEL OKAPI, continued performing regular transactions on this account and allowed himself and Nkunda to sign on it after the loan was granted. He added that it would be illogical for HOTEL OKAPI to decline its responsibilities while it used the money having Rumanyika as legal representative. [12] Ntaganda, the counsel for “Banque Populaire du Rwanda” states that the loan application was made by HOTEL OKAPI represented by Nkunda. Additionally, Rumanyika and Nkunda Leatitia were authorized to withdraw from the account and it is clear that they have performed different transactions on different dates. Therefore, the bank had not negligently granted the loan because Nkunda who used to perform transaction on the account was not sued for usurpation of power. The current debt to be paid by HOTEL OKAPI and Nkunda Leatitia is 44,487,042 Rwf.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [13] The documents in the case file demonstrate that the loan contract was concluded on 28 April 2008 between HOTEL OKAPI and “Banque Populaire du Rwanda” and signed by Nkunda who accepted to be surety of the loan by virtue of the contract. HOTEL OKAPI v. BPR

Page 311

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 96 [14] Furthermore, the case file demonstrates that the account nº 401.200.783.111 of HOTEL OKAPI10 was opened and signed by Rumanyika and Nkunda and it is on that account that the loan was deposited. [15] The Court finds that when Nkunda signed for OKAPI to get the loan she did not sufficiently prove to “Banque Populaire Rwanda” that she was a legal representative of OKAPI. However, it is very clear that there are facts to which the bank referred to in trusting Nkunda as surety of OKAPI. The facts include the document demonstrating the signatories of OKAPI account, Rumanyika and Nkunda as were shown on that document as president and first vice president of board of directors respectively. In addition, it was on that account that the loan was supposed to be deposited and was so done. Furthermore, OKAPI did not disown Nkunda as mandatory. [16] The Court notes that this is consistent with explanation of law scholars namely Philippe le Tourneau and Loïc Cadiet, who state that “when there is an apparent mandate, another party may presume that the contractor has a mandate and this may lead to him/her not to assess the reliability of the power of attorney of the contractor. The contract concluded in this context must be fully executed by the presumed mandator”11.

10 See different documents in case file of judgment from page 84 to 88. 11 “Le mandat apparent suppose la croyance légitime du tiers dans l’existence du mandat, qui suppose elle-même que les circonstances le dispensaient de vérifier les pouvoirs du pseudo mandataire. La totalité des effets de la convention conclue par le mandataire apparent doivent être exécutés par le prétendu mandant”.

Page 312

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 97 [17] The Court finds that, as it was decided by the Commercial High Court, HOTEL OKAPI represented by Nkunda Leatitia must execute the loan contract it signed on April 28, 2008 as it is provided by article 33 relating to contract or obligation stating that contracts made in accordance with the law shall be binding between parties12. b. Concerning the cross appeal of “Banque Populaire du Rwanda” [18] Banque Populaire du Rwanda requested that the amount of the debt should be computed up to date, for it to be paid 40,470,040 Rwf, and 4,017,004 Rwf for procedural and advocate’s fees. [19] As requested by the “Banque Populaire du Rwanda”, the Court finds that it must be paid 39,670,040 Rwf computed up to 9 December 2013, consisting of 20,000,000 Rwf computed on ordinary interests of 14% and 4% of late interests in 1059 days as demonstrated by “Banque Populaire du Rwanda” in the document dated 9 December 2013 which is not contradicted by the opponents. [20] The Court finds that “Banque Populaire du Rwanda” cannot be granted procedural and advocate’s fees as requested because they are excessive, yet it does not provide any justification. Therefore, the Court awards an additional amount of 500,000 Rwf in addition to 500,000 Rwf allocated in the first instance.

12 Contracts made in accordance with the law shall be binding between parties. They may only be revoked at the consent of the parties or for reasons based on law. They shall be performed in good faith. HOTEL OKAPI v. BPR

Page 313

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 98 c. Concerning the cross appeal of Nkunda against HOTEL OKAPI. [21] Rwigema, the counsel for Nkunda Laetitia requests the Court not to order her to pay the loan because she was surety and the principal debtor did not fail to pay. He added that Nkunda should be requested to pay in case the principal debtor fails too. [22] Shoshi, the counsel for HOTEL OKAPI states that he has no comment on the cross appeal of Nkunda. He added that the decision of the previous judge must be considered, while Kabare Ntaganda Festo, the counsel for “Banque Populaire du Rwanda” states that Nkunda as the surety of the loan must jointly with HOTEL OKAPI repay the loan. He also requested 500,000 Rwf of procedural and advocate’s fees.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [23] The case file demonstrates that on 29 May 2008 “Banque Populaire du Rwanda”, Remera branch concluded the suretyship contract with Nkunda for securing the loan of 20,000,000Rwf and its interests granted to HOTEL OKAPI. She committed herself to repay the debt without the prior seeking of the payment from the properties of HOTEL OKAPI13. [24] Concerning the issue of whether “Banque Populaire du Rwanda”, Remera branch has the right to sue the surety without necessarily suing the principal debtor, article 560 of contracts or

13 The article 3 of suretyship contract between “Banque Populaire du Rwanda”, Remera branch and Nkunda Leatitia

Page 314

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 99 obligations provides that the surety is obligated to pay the creditor only in case of insolvency of the principal debtor. The payment must be first sought from the properties of the principal debtor unless the benefit of discussion has been waived. [25] The Court finds that in the contract signed by Nkunda provides that as the surety she undertook to pay the loan without necessarily seeking the payments from the properties of HOTEL OKAPI, the principal debtor. “Banque Populaire du Rwanda” has right to sue either the surety; Nkunda Leatitia or both in solidum as it did. Therefore, with regards to the concluded contract and on article 560 above mentionned, Nkunda and HOTEL OKAPI, represented by Rumanyika Jean Marie Vianney are condemned in solidum, to pay the principal debt and its interests. [26] The Court finds worthy 500,000 Rwf of procedural and advocate’s fees as requested by “Banque Populaire du Rwanda” because it hired and paid the counsel at this instance. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [27] Decides that the appeal of HOTEL OKAPI represented by Rumanyika Jean Marie Vianney lacks merit. [28] Decides that the cross appeal of “Banque Populaire du Rwanda” has merit in part. [29] Decides that the cross appeal of Nkunda Leatitia lacks merit. HOTEL OKAPI v. BPR

Page 315

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 100 [30] Orders HOTEL OKAPI and Nkunda Leatitia and “Banque Populaire du Rwanda” to pay in solidum 40,670,040 Rwf (39,670,040 Rwf + 500,000 Rwf + 500,000 Rwf). [31] Orders HOTEL OKAPI and Nkunda Leatitia to pay in solidum 44,400 Rwf of Court fees.

Page 316

CRIMINAL CASES

Page 318

PROSECUTION v. FAYIRARA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/REV/PEN0016/10/CS (Kayitesi Z., P.J., Mugenzi and Munyangeri, J.) October 18, 2013] Criminal procedure – Review – An evidence the accused knew the whereabouts at the time of the trial and did not produce it or did neither notify the Court of its existence nor provides the Court with a irreversible cause as to why he could not present it cannot be considered as a new evidence which can entail review – Law n° 13/2004 of 17/5/2004 relating to the code of criminal procedure, art.

180. Facts: The Intermediate Court of Rusizi convicted Ananias Fayirara of Counterfeit and falsification of Rwandan monetary symbols and their circulation and sentenced him to 10 years of imprisonment. He lodged an appeal to the High Court stating that the Intermediate Court disregarded his statements but rather focused solely on witnesses inculpating him. The Court noted that his appeal was not valid. He appealed again to the Supreme Court stating that he was convicted of an offence he had never committed. The Court upheld the appealed judgment. Later on, he seized the same Court applying for review. The screening of the case indicated that the appellant was not allowed to use this remedy because he could not demonstrate the novelty of the evidence he produced. He appealed against this order stating that he had an invoice that he could not find and consequently had not produced it because he could not invoke evidence that he could not provide to the court. 103

Page 319

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 104 The Prosecution requests the Court not to consider the accused defense since he forged the invoice with an individual whom he declares was his employer. Additionally, the Prosecution states that, in the course of the trial, he knew about the existence of the invoice. Therefore, even though he could not provide it to the Court, he could have declared its existence so that it could be searched and be provided to the Court. The Prosecution insisted that in case it is found otherwise, nothing could have prevented him from forging it after the judgment was rendered and attempt to match his former defense with the forged document. Held: Evidence that the accused knew the whereabouts at the time of the trial and did neither produce it nor provide a conclusive cause as to why he could not present it to the Court cannot be considered as new evidence which can entail review. For all these grounds the Court rejected the appellant’s application for review. Appeal against screening of the case order is inadmissible. The screening of the case order no RP 0410/09/Pré-ex/CS Appealed is upheld. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to. Law n° 13/2004 of 17/5/2004 relating to the code of criminal procedure, art.180. No case was referred to Doctrine M. Franchimont et al., Manuel de Procédure Pénale, 2ème ed., Bruxelles, Larcier, 2006, p.1200.

Page 320

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 105 Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] The case commenced in Intermediate Court of Rusizi whereby Fayirara in complicity with and Joseph MUNYANEZA and Kazungu, were accused of having counterfeited and circulated in the population Rwandan monetary symbols by way of exchange. The Intermediate Court noted that Fayirara collaborated with some Congoleses whom he did not want to list names in counterfeiting the money which was handed to Munyaneza for sale. The Intermediate Court inflicted on him the penalty of 10 years of imprisonment. [2] Fayirara filed an appeal to the High Court, Rusizi Chamber arguing that Intermediate Court did not consider his statements and convicted him only basing on the statements made by the Prosecution. The High Court declared that Fayirara’s appeal lacked merit and upheld the appealed judgment. [3] He lodged an appeal against that decision to the Supreme Court stating that he was convicted and inflicted the penalty for the offence committed by Joseph Munyaneza and that he neither knew Congo nor the Congoles mentioned in the case file. In the Judgment nº RPAA0103/08/CS/ the Supreme Court declared Fayirara’s appeal invalid and upheld the previous courts’ verdicts. [4] Fayirara applied for review against that judgment in the Supreme Court and his application was enrolled under no RS/REV/PEN0039/09/CS-RPAA0103/08/CS/. The preliminary PROSECUTION v. FAYIRARA

Page 321

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 106 judge examined the application and noted that the applicant does not provide any new evidence. In the order no RP 0410/09/ Pré-ex/CS of October 26, 2009, the judge ruled that Fayirara was not allowed to apply for review since he does not provide any legal basis for his application. [5] Fayirara appealed against this order in the same Court where his appeal was recorded under RS/REV/PEN 0016/10/CS. The public hearing was held on October 2, 2013; Fayirara appeared and assisted by KAYITARE Dieudonné, the Counsel and the Prosecution represented by Alain MUKURARINDA. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUE Whether the invoice that Fayirara produced after the final judgment can be taken as new evidence. [6] Fayirara Ananias states that the case screening judge dismissed his application because he did not consider the evidence about an invoice between him and Joseph Munyaneza on which he bases his application and which shows that the machine referred to in the case file was actually used for tailoring and not for counterfeiting money. He adds that he did not previously raise the invoice before the court of law since it was lost. He added that even though he knew about it he could not invoke it as he could not provide it to the Court. [7] He argues that this ground would constitute a valid cause for his application for review basing on article 180 no 4 of the Law n° 13/2004 of 17/5/2004 relating to the code of criminal procedure which was into force at the time he filed an appeal. His Counsel, Kayitare Dieudonné, adds that his request to the

Page 322

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 107 Court is to see justice rendered for Fayirara by considering the invoice between him and the one who hired him and that since Fayirara declares that the invoice is original, the court would take his declaration as the truth. [8] The Representative of the Prosecution disputed that the invoice that Fayirara provided to the judge as a new evidence when applying for review should not be admitted because he forged it himself together with the individual he claims to have hired him and that in the previous proceedings, he knew the existence of the invoice and though he could not provide it for the court, he could have notified the Court of its existence for it to be searched and handed over to the Court. He adds that, as long as Fayirara does not show that he had never known about it at the time of the trial, nothing could remove the assumption that he forged it after the judgment was rendered and then try to match the previous pleadings with the forged document. He finally states that the order of the screening judge is valid.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [9] Regarding the grounds for the application for review to be admissible , article 180 of the Law n° 13/2004 of 17/5/2004 relating to the code of criminal procedure which was into force at the time of application provides: “an application for review of a criminal judgment which has been finally decided can be made for the benefit of any person who has been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor if: 1°After a person convicted of homicide, there is latter discovered enough evidence indicating that the person alleged to have been killed is actually not; 2° After a person convicted PROSECUTION v. FAYIRARA

Page 323

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 108 of an offence there is discovered another similar judgment which punished a different person for the same offence and the contradiction in the two cases show that one of the convicted persons was innocent; 3° One of the witnesses to a case is subsequently found to have given false testimony against the accused person and the former has already been convicted for the offence. The person convicted of perjury cannot be called as a witness in the new case; 4° after judgment, there is discovered new evidence, indicating that the convicted person was innocent”. [10] The Court finds that the case screening order no RP 0410/09/Pré-ex/CS of 26/10/2009 indicates that the so called new evidence provided by Fayirara after the trial of the case as considered by the judge in taking the decision are : 1) that the money which is the basis of the criminal proceeding was delivered by Bellancille who has taken it to her parents from Kayiranga 2) That money has been counterfeited at Mwaga at Kalinda Antoine’s house who was hired by the one called Kayiranga.

3) The offence he is charged with has been reclassified and the words making up his statements were altered many times to write what they wanted their wants 4) There is a witness who clearly explains how the plan to get him imprisoned was prepared and the master minders. [11] Yet, the Court notes that in the case file there was a letter dated July 26, 2009 written to the Supreme Court by Fayirara applying for review whereby he states that the grounds on which he bases his application include the invoice found that he could not recall the existence. That invoice between Fayirara and Munyaneza Joseph is attached to that letter (mark 1, page 4). It is clear that the judge did not examine it since Fayirara did

Page 324

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 109 not turn to it in his submissions and even in his letter dated March 10, 2010 that he submitted to the Supreme Court when he applied again for review (mark 1, 2, 3). Indeed, if the judge had examined it, he would have not admitted it as a new evidence because Fayirara admits that he knew about its existence but did not use it in the previous courts because he could not find it. This highlights that this invoice is not a new evidence. Moreover, Legal scholars state that is inadmissible, the application for review based on an invoice in possession of the applicant in course of the trial and which he does not declare he was in impossibility of production during the debates14 and therefore the evidence produced by Fayirara would not be valid as a ground for review.

DECISION OF THECOURT [12] Rules that Fayirara Ananias appeal against the case screening order no RP 0410/09/Pré-ex/CS of 26/10/2009 lacks merit. [13] The court upholds screening order no RP 0410/09/Pré- ex/CS of 26/10/2009.

14“Est irrecevable la demande en révision fondée sur une facture en possession du requérant lors du procès et qu’il n’allègue pas avoir été dans l’impossibilité de produire au cours des débats”. Look at Michel Franchimont et alii, Manuel de Procédure Pénale, 2ème ed., Bruxelles, Larcier, 2006, p.1200. PROSECUTION v. FAYIRARA

Page 326

PROSECUTION v. MPITABAKANA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RPA0129/10/CS (Nyirinkwaya, P.J., Havugiyaremye and Mukamulisa, J.) March 7, 2014] Criminal Law – Murder – It is considered murder, when proved that a person intentionally killed another – Decree – Law nº 21/77 of 18/08/1977 instituting the penal code, article 311. Criminal Law – Penalty reduction – None could pretend the consequences of his/her offence to be the cause of the penalty reduction. Criminal Law – Penalty reduction – Reporting him/herself to the judicial police immediately after committing an offence may apply as a mitigating circumstance – Mitigating circumstances applied by the previous Court are not to be reconsidered. Facts: The appellant reported himself to the judicial police, confessing the killing of his wife. The Doctor who was requested to perform an autopsy, delivered a report that she got a hit on the head and especially on belly, as the cause of her death because she was pregnant of seven months. The High Court, Rusizi chamber, ruled on the case on the first instance, convicted and sentenced the appellant to 20 years of imprisonment. The Court reduced his penalty because he pleaded guilty and reported himself to the judicial police immediately after the offence. He appealed to the Supreme Court, alleging that the High Court confirmed that he deliberately killed his wife while it was by 111

Page 327

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 112 accident and it sentenced him to the heavy penalty despite his guilty plea and that he facilitated the justice. The prosecution contends that his allegation that he killed his wife by accident is groundless, because to kick a pregnant woman is enough to kill her. He added that another proof that he intended to kill her is that before hitting her, he closed the door to prevent any rescue for her, and those who came for help tried to demolish the door but in vain. “He used violence against the victim every day, which is even the cause of his separation from his first wife”, the prosecutor added. Held: 1. The evidences gathered in the case file, such as the fact that he kicked on belly the pregnant of seven months and refused to take her to hospital, the fact that he firstly beat the kid and the latter ran away, and the fact that he closed the door before killing the victim to prevent any rescue, prove that the accused intentionally killed his wife.

2. Though the appellant reported himself to the judicial police and partially explained his role in the death of the diseased, even if he lies on some details, it facilitated the justice, but this was considered by the previous court as he was sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment rather than life imprisonment. 3.With regards to the accused request of the penalty reduction for him to take care of the orphans left by his wife, the Court finds that he is the one who made them orphans, and he cannot rely upon the horrific consequences of the offence he committed to benefit the penalty reduction. Appeal without merit. The appealed judgment is upheld. The Court fees are charged to the public treasury.

Page 328

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 113 Statute and statutory instruments referred to: Organic Law nº 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article 140 and 142. Decree - Law nº 21/77 of 18/08/1977 instituting the penal code, article 311. No case referred to. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] The High Court, Rusizi chamber, ruled on the case on first instance and on 10 March 2010 convicted and sentenced Mpitabakana to 20 years of imprisonment. The Court reduced his penalty because he pleaded guilty and reported himself to the judicial police immediately after committing the offence. [2] On 1 September 2008, at 6 AM, Mpitabakana reported himself to the judicial police, confessing the killing of his wife, Yaduhaye Asinati. The Doctor who was requested to perform an autopsy, delivered a report that she got a hit on the head and especially on belly, as a cause of her death because she was pregnant of seven months. [3] In the judicial police, Mpitabakana explained that he slapped and kicked his wife when they were on their way home, because he found her with another man. He added that she fell down against her tummy, he raised her up and she died later on when they arrived home. In the High Court, he explained that they fought in their house because his wife joined him in a PROSECUTION v. MPITABAKANA

Page 329

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 114 cabaret, without having cooked, she insulted him and spat on his face. He slapped her, she fell down and he kicked her on the back but that she did not immediately die because when they went to bed, she was asking him to take her to hospital, but as he was drunk, he did not pay attention until she died. [4] Mpitabakana appealed to the Supreme Court alleging that the High Court confirmed that he deliberately killed his wife while it was by accident and that the Court sentenced him to the heavy penalty despite his guilty plea and that he facilitated the justice. [5] The hearing was held in public on 27 January 2014, Mpitabakana assisted by the Counsels, Mwizerwa Grace and Nsengimana Elie, the prosecution represented by Higaniro Hermogène, the National Prosecutor. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUES Whether Mpitabakana involuntarily killed his wife. [6] Mpitabakana argues that he did not voluntarily kill his wife as confirmed by the High Court; it was by accident because he slightly kicked her on the back due to the fact that she did not cook, she fell down and when asked to bring her to hospital, he denied and went to sleep. He added that his wife also went to sleep and after a moment, when he touched her, she found her dead and he immediately went to report himself to the police. He also added that because of anger, he slightly slapped a child who was there and the latter ran way.

Page 330

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 115 [7] His counsel states that what proves that Mpitabakatana killed his wife by accident is that he only kicked her without using other material to hit her such as a machete or whatever. [8] The prosecution contends that the statements made by Mpitabakana and his counsel, alleging that he accidentally killed his wife are groundless because kicking a pregnant woman is likely to kill her. The prosecution also states that another ground which proves that he intended to kill her is that before hitting her, he closed the door to prevent any rescue for her, and those who came for help tried to destroy the door but failed. [9] The prosecution adds that Mpitabakana used violence to the victim every day that is even the reason why he separated from his first wife as attested by his brother Bariyanga Masomo. [10] The Court finds that Mpitabakana intended to kill his wife because of the following reasons: The fact that he firstly beat the kid and the latter ran away, is the proof that he was preventing the child to watch what he was ready to do because he does not explain the reason why he beat the kid. The fact that he kicked on the belly of a seven months pregnant woman as proven by the doctor. The fact that he recognises that he denied her request of taking her to hospital. The fact that the statements made by interrogated witnesses such as Bariyanga Masomo (mark 3) and Nyiraruzindaro Domitile (mark 9) prove that he closed the door before killing PROSECUTION v. MPITABAKANA

Page 331

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 116 the deceased and those who came for rescue failed to enter the house; while Mpitabakana was beating the jercan, yelling that he was attacked. The fact that during his interrogation he contradicted himself: in the judicial police, he stated that he slapped his wife when they were on their way home, because he found her with another man. She fell down because of the slap, he raised her up and she died later on when they arrived home. In the High Court, he declared that he beat his wife because she did not cook, but that she did not immediately die because when they went to bed, she begged him to take her to hospital, but as he was drunk, he did not pay attention until she died while before this Court, he stated that his wife came to bed and when he touched her later, he found her dead. These contradictions prove that he tries to hide the truth. [11] The Court finds that as explained above, there is no doubt that Mpitabakana intended to kill his wife Yaduhaye Asinati although he denies it. Whether Mpitabakana deserves another penalty reduction. [12] Mpitabakana requests the Court to reduce his penalty, for him to join and take care of two orphans left by his wife. His counsel also requests the Court to reduce his penalty based on article 35 of Law relating to the code of Criminal Procedure that was into force at the time the offence was committed and on article 82 and 83,2° of the penal code in force at the time the offence was committed, because he pleads guilty and seeks forgiveness.

Page 332

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 117 [13] The prosecution contends that every prisoner is prevented from some obligations, if he had pity for his kids, he would have abstained from committing the crime. The prosecution also contends that Mpitabakana sufficiently benefited the penalty reduction. [14] The murder that Mpitabakana was convicted of, is punishable with life imprisonment as provided for by article 311 of the penal code which was into force when the offence was committed. It is the same penalty provided for by article 140 and 142 of the Law nº 01/2012/OL of 2 May 2012 instituting the penal code. [15] The Court finds that Mpitabakana reported himself to the judicial police and partially explained his role in the death of the deseased, even if he lies on some details, and it facilitated the justice.However, it was considered by theprevious Court as he was sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment rather than life imprisonment. [16] With regards to his requests of the penalty reduction, for him to join and take care of the orphans left by his wife, the Court finds that he is the one who made them orphans, and he cannot rely upon the horrific consequences of the offence he committed to benefit the penalty reduction. [17] Based on the above explanations, the Court finds Mpitabakana’s appeal without merit, thus, the appealed judgment is to be upheld.

PROSECUTION v. MPITABAKANA

Page 333

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 118 III. DECISION OF THE COURT [18] Finds Mpitabakana’s appeal without merit. [19] Rules that the appealed judgment no RP 0087/08/HC/RSZ that sentenced him to twenty years of imprisonment is upheld. [20] Orders that the Court fees are charged to the public treasury.

Page 334

PROSECUTION v. MUKANTAGARA ET AL [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RPA0196/11/CS (Kayitesi R., P.J., Mukandamage and Rugabirwa, J.) November 15, 2013] Criminal law – The formation of criminal gang – A criminal gang is an independent crime different from those committed in this context or by that gang – The formation of criminal gang does not exist when it is intended to commit a crime against an individual – Law nº 01/2012 of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article 681. Criminal law – Attempt to murder –There is an attempt to offence when the plot to commit an offence has been demonstrated by observable and unequivocal acts constituting the beginning of the offence – Decree Law nº 21/77 of 18/8/1977 instituting the penal code as modified and complemented to date, article 21. Criminal law –Penalty reduction – It may apply when the offence has minor consequences – Organic Law n0 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article. 77, 40. Facts: Mukantagara and Nsanzimana were charged with attempted murder. The Prosecution relied upon evidence gathered from witnesses, who abandoned the conspiracy and notified security officials, and money seized from Mukantagara. The money was to be given to the killers as payment in advance. The High Court convicted both the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment. Both appealed to the Supreme Court, Nsanzimana arguing that he was unfairly convicted of an attempt to murder rather than the formation of a criminal gang. 119

Page 335

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 120 Mukantagara contended that she was unduly convicted of attempt to murder while she only intended to get her father-in- law imprisoned. The Prosecutor contended that the committed crime is not the formation of criminal gang but rather the attempted murder as the accused have confessed in the judicial police and the prosecution, acknowledging that they had intended to kill Ndwaniye and explaining in details how it was plotted. Regarding the statements made by Mukantagara that her intent was to make Ndwaniye imprisoned rather than killing him, the Prosecutor argued that it is groundless as she does not demonstrate the offence which might cause his father-in-law to be imprisoned. Held: 1. The fact of forming a criminal gang is an independent crime different from those committed in this context or by that gang. It is also clear that for that crime to be committed, it is necessary that people group together with the purpose to commit an offence against persons or their property. This means that when people form an association in order to offend an individual, they should not be found guilty of an offence against public security. Thus, it cannot be considered as the formation of a criminal gang if there is no recognised criminal gang that was formed by the accused and that the acts of which they are convicted, are not meant to disrupt public security, and there are no other known offences that they have committed together.

2. It is considered as attempt to murder, when there are observable and unequivocal acts, constituting the beginning of murder. Thus, the fact that Mukantagara paid for the transportation of Ndwaniye to Kigali; Nsanzimana guided those who were to transport him to his residence in Nyaruguru; they

Page 336

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 121 got him to Kigali so that Mukantagara could see him, and then pay them the advance payment of the agreed reward so that they would kill him; and the plot was interrupted by the fact that Nyirinkindi withdrew from that plot and informed the police that arrested them before Ndwaniye was killed. Therefore, Mukantagara and Nsanzimana are found guilty of attempted murder.

3. The accused may benefit the penalty reduction when the offence they committed caused minor consequences. Thus life imprisonment that was sentenced to the accused is reduced to fifteen years of imprisonment each. The appellants convicted of attempted murder. Each appellant is sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment. The appealed judgment is overturned but only with regards to the length of the penalty. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Organic Law n0 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, art. 77, 40 and 681. Decree Law nº 21/77 of 18/8/1977 instituting the penal code as modified and complemented to date, art 21, 281, 312. No case referred to.

PROSECUTION v. MUKANTAGARA ET AL

Page 337

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 122 Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] Mukantagara Séraphine was in conflict with her father- in-law Ndwaniye Thacien, because of houses which Ndwaniye alleges that Mukantagara misappropriated while he was in prison. When he was released, she refused to give them back to him. This led Ndwaniye to file a claim in Court. The court ruled against Mukantagara and she appealed. [2] Before the case was heard, the Prosecutor argues that Mukantagara premeditated the killing of Ndwaniye, shared her intention with Nsanzimana who then shared it with Nyirinkindi Peter. The latter informed the police but remained involved in the conspiracy. [3] Nsanzimana and Nyirinkindi sought for help from Haridi, who was to bring the gun and accompany them to Nyaruguru to get Ndwaniye. Mukantagara gave them fifty thousand Rwandan Francs (50.000 Rwf) for fuel, and promised them an advance of five hundred thousand Rwandan Francs (500.000Rwf) when they would have brought him to Kigali. Later on,they were arrested at their arrival in Kigali when Mukantagara brought the promised advance, and therefore their conspiracy was interrupted before they killed Ndwaniye. [4] The Prosecution filed the case in the High Court at Kigali, accusing Mukantagara Séraphina and Nsanzimana Antoine of attempted murder, as they conspired to kill Ndwaniye Thatien but were surprisingly interrupted by the police. The verdict RP 0105/10/HC/KIG was delivered on 24

Page 338

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 123 June 2011, and each of them was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. [5] Mukantagara appealed, alleging that she was sentenced to the highest penalty for the attempted murder while she did not intend to kill her father-in-law, but rather to get him imprisoned. [6] As for Nsanzimana, he appealed alleging that the Court ruled the case by analogy and convicted him of an attempted murder which he did not commit. He requested the Court to reclassify the offence, for him to be punished for the formation of criminal gang. [7] The hearing was conducted in public on 14 October 2013; Mukantagara was assisted by the Counsel, Habimana Adolphe, while Nsanzimana was assisted by the counsel Ruberwa Silas. The Prosecution was represented by Mutayoba Alphonse, the Prosecutor at national level. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES Whether the crime committed by Mukantagara Séraphine and Nsanzimana Antoine is the formation of a criminal gang or attempted murder. [8] Mukantagara and her Counsel, Habimana Adolphe, state that the crime committed was not attempted murder. They argue that she only intended to get her father-in-law Ndwaniye imprisoned. She bribed Nyirinkindi and Haridi who were recommended by Nsanzimana to help her in her plot. PROSECUTION v. MUKANTAGARA ET AL

Page 339

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 124 [9] They state that they should not be accused of attempted murder because their intent was to get Ndwaniye imprisoned. They kept on stating that Nyirinkindi and Haridi were supposed to concoct the crime for him and find a place to imprison him. [10] Mukantagara contends that her statements to the judicial police and the prosecution are not accurate and should not be considered because Haridi misled her that her penalty would be reduced if she admitted that she intended to kill her father-in- law. [11] Nsanzimana and his Counsel, Ruberwa Silas state that the fact that Nyirinkindi and Haridi retracted provides evidence that the intended crime would not be consumed. Thus the offence for which they are charged should be reclassified to the formation of a criminal gang. He requested the Court to rely on RP 0067/11/HC/KIG, Prosecutor v. Africa Bernard and Uwamahoro Théoneste, the case in which the Court decided that the appeal lacked merit with regards to the formation of a criminal gang of which they were convicted. [12] The Prosecutor contended that the committed crime is not the formation of a criminal gang but the attempted murder because the accused confessed to the judicial police and the prosecution, that they had intended to kill Ndwaniye, and that their intent was interrupted by the fact that Nyirinkindi informed the police. [13] The prosecutor argues that Mukantagara’s contention that she did not intent to kill Ndwaniye but rather to get him imprisoned is groundless, because she does not demonstrate the offence which may cause his father-in-law to be imprisoned. In

Page 340

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 125 addition, the facts transpired in 2010, when no one could be unfairly imprisoned. [14] Concerning the case no RP 0067/11/HC/KIG09/09/2011 MP v Africa Bernard and Uwamahoro, which Nsanzimana and his counsel request the Court to rely on, the Prosecutor contends that it is about the criminal gang formed by Afrika and Uwamahoro in order to execute the intent of killing Ndagiwenimana; they tried to involve Hope and Nkurikiwenimana Gaston. The prosecutor keeps on stating that the fact that the latter could not be prosecuted does not mean that a criminal gang did not exist, because it existed since the members agreed to kill Ndagiwenimana; Hope and Nkurikiwenimana joined the gang in order to inform security officials so that the action may be stopped. The fact that they were not prosecuted pursuant to art. 283 of the former penal code, does not mean that the criminal gang did not exist. [15] With regards to Mukantagara and Nsanzimana, the Prosecutor concluded, stating that they conspired to kill Ndwaniye, minutely planned it, but their conspiracy was interrupted by an unpredictable event. The police was informed of the conspiracy by an individual and was thus capable of disrupting them when they got Ndwaniye to Kigali. This is where Mukantagara was waiting for them in order to give them the promised advance payment of 500,000 Rwf for the killing of Ndwaniye. The Prosecutor states that these two cases should not be compared because they are not similar.

PROSECUTION v. MUKANTAGARA ET AL

Page 341

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 126 THE VIEW OF THE COURT. a. Concerning the crime of formation of the criminal gang. [16] Art. 281 of Decree Law nº 21/77 of 18 August1977 of the penal code that was in effect when the crime was committed, is similar to art. 681 of Law nº 01/2012 of 02 May 2012 instituting the penal code which provides: “to form an association, regardless of its duration or number of members, for the purpose of preparing offence against persons or property, is a felony” constituted by that very fact of forming15 a group of trouble makers”. [17] The notion behind both provisions is that “the fact of forming a criminal gang is an independent crime different from those committed in this context or that gang. It is also clear that for the crime to be committed, it is necessary that people group together with the purpose to commit an offence against persons or their property (criminal gang). Furthermore, in the former penal code as in the current code, these provisions appear under chapter IV which establishes offences against public security. This means that when people form an association in order to offend an individual, they should not be found guilty of an offence against public security. [18] Based on the explanations listed above, the Court finds that the formation of a criminal gang, as pleaded by the accused, lacks merit. This is because there is no recognised criminal gang they formed; the acts the accused committed were not directed

15“Forming a group of trouble makers” that was not taken back in the new code, is the only difference of the articles 261 and 681, but it does not change the meaning of the offence itself.

Page 342

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 127 against the public security, and there were no other offences which the accused had committed together. In addition, it was not necessary to form a criminal gang in order to kill Ndwaniye. b. Concerning the attempted murder. [19] Art. 21 of the penal code in effect at the time the offence was committed states that “An attempt is punishable when the plan to commit an offence has been demonstrated by observable and unequivocal acts constituting the beginning of the offence meant to enable the commission and that were suspended or failed in their purpose only because of circumstances beyond the offender’s control”. [20] Regarding the attempted murder of which Mukantagara was accused, the Court finds that her defence that she only intended to get her father-in-law Ndwaniye imprisoned, lacks merit, because she failed to demonstrate the offence for which he could be imprisoned. Her argument that the offence would be concocted by those she paid to transport him from Nyaruguru to Kigali is also groundless because they were not in conflict with him, they had no litigation, a part from the payable “task” of bringing him to Kigali, so that she may first see him and then pay them the agreed advance payment before killing him. Furthermore, if her sole intention was to get him imprisoned, she fails to provide the reason why they could not imprison him in Nyaruguru. [21] The case analysis demonstrates that in his interrogation in the judicial police, Nyirinkindi stated that Nsanzimana came to him and told him that he had a “deal” from Mukantagara for the killing of her father-in-law who was about to win a case between them relating to the houses she owned for long time PROSECUTION v. MUKANTAGARA ET AL

Page 343

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 128 and that she had repaired(mark6). He further declared that they agreed the payment of 1.200.000 Rwf and on page 5 he explained the way they were first given fifty thousand for fuel and the hiring of the car which would be used to transport the old man Ndwaniye, who was supposed to be killed. Mukantagara also acknowledged the money on page 15 before the judicial police. Nyirinkindi also confirmed that after getting him to Kigali, Mukantagara would have paid them 500.000 Rwf and the balance was to be paid after killing him. [22] In the course of Nsanzimana Antoine’s interrogation, he admitted that in the beginning the intent was to get Ndwaniye imprisoned, but upon Haridi and Nyirinkindi’s advice, he decided to kill him. On mark 11 Nsanzimana admitted that he was the one who wrote the piece of paper which contained Ndwaniye’s address. In addition, he admits that the 500.000 Rwf advance would have been paid before killing him. He confirmed that in bringing Ndwaniye, Nyirinkindi and Haridi had to kill him but he did not know the place of killing. He also confirmed that he went with them to bring him. [23] In the course of Mukantagara’s interrogation, on mark 15, she admitted that she gave them the money for fuel to bring Ndwaniye. She also admitted that although they did not make a decision, they discussed the notion of killing him. In addition, she mentioned that she had no relationship with Nsanzimana Antoine while during interrogation, her young sister, Mukankindi Dévotastated that Nsanzimana was their brother-in- law. In his interrogation, Ndwaniye confirmed that both Mukantagara and Nsanzimana were natives of his village.

Page 344

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 129 [24] In the case file on mark 17, there is a seizure statement of 500.000 Rfw from Mukantagara Séraphine and signed by the latter acknowledging to be the owner. [25] As decided by the High Court, the Court finds that there is evidence of unequivocal acts proving that Mukantagara and Nsanzimana intended to kill Ndwaniye, and that their plot was suspended by the police. The evidence is as follow: The fact that they admit to have discussed their plot to kill him, even if Nsanzimana states that he would have been killed by Nyirinkindi and Haridi, that is not surprising, because they were called for that mission. The fact that Mukantagara admits to have paid money to transport Ndwaniye from Nyaruguru, even if she states that she wanted them to get him imprisoned, she does not demonstrate the reason, the place, or the period of time he would be imprisoned in order to be sure that their house related disputes would be ceased. The fact that Nyirinkindi explained how the plot was set out; the way Mukantagara would have given them 500,000 Rwf if they had brought Ndwaniye to Kigali and the same amount was seized from Mukantagara when she came to see them. The fact that Mukantagara denies having family relationship with Nsanzimana, yet her young sister confirms that he is their brother-in-law. Furthermore, Nsanzimana states that he does not know where Ndwaniye lives, yet he latter confirms that they are natives of the same village. [26] The Court finds that there are observable and unequivocal acts constituting the beginning of an offence. This PROSECUTION v. MUKANTAGARA ET AL

Page 345

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 130 is constituted by the fact that Mukantagara paid for the transportation of Ndwaniye to Kigali, Nsanzimana guided those who were to transport him to his house in Nyaruguru, they brought him to Kigali so that Mukantagara could see him, and then pay them the advance payment of the agreed reward so that they would kill him. However, the plot was interrupted by the fact that Nyirinkindi withdrew from that plot and informed the police who arrested them before Ndwaniye was killed. Therefore, Mukantagara and Nsanzimana are found guilty of attempted murder as provided for by article 312 of the penal code which was in effect at the time perpetrations were made for the crime. [27] Nsanzimana argues that they should not be accused of any offence because Nyirinkindi and Haridi retracted and did not finalize their plot. Consequently, the crime intended for was impossible. Despite this defence, the Court finds that the retraction of Nyirinkindi and Haridi from the plot to kill Ndwaniye cannot serve as an excuse from the crime. This is because there is no proof that they had retracted before their arrest. This was the case for Hope and Nkurikiwenimana Gaston in the judgment RP 0067/11/HC/KIG09/09/ MP v. Africa Bernard and Uwamahoro. They withdrew themselves from the plot of killing Ndagiwenimana before being prosecuted. However, their act of retraction from that plot did not exclude Africa Bernard and Uwamahoro from the offence. Even though their plot was interrupted by security officials, they nevertheless formed a criminal gang intending to kill Ndagiwenimana. [28] Regarding Mukantagara and Nsanzimana’s penalties, the Court finds that they deserve the penalty reduction per article 77, 4o of the Organic Law n0 01/2012/OL of 2 May 2012 of the

Page 346

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 131 penal code because their offence did not cause severe consequences. Their life imprisonment sentence has to be reduced to fifteen years (15) of imprisonment each.

III. THE ORDER OF THE COURT [29] Decides that Nsanzimana Antoine and Mukantagara are guilty of attempted murder. [30] Sentences each of them to fifteen years of imprisonment (15) [31] Rules that the ruling of the judgment RP 0105/HC/KIG of 24 June 2011 is overturned only with regards to the extent of the penalty.

PROSECUTION v. MUKANTAGARA ET AL

Page 348

PROSECUTION v. MUNYANKUMBURWA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RPA 0210/10/CS (Kayitesi Z., P.J., Mukanyundo and Rugabirwa, J.) July 18, 2014] Criminal law – Murder – Qualification of an offence – It cannot be considered as involuntary homicide since the intent to kill is evidenced by the fact of loading the gun and disobey the order of the superior prohibiting to fire – Decree law nº 21/1977 of August 18, 1977 instituting the penal code, art.311. Law relating to contracts or obligations – The vicarious liability of an employer – An employer is civilly held liable for the tortuous acts of his/ her employee when their commission occurred in the exercise of his/ her duties – An officer in charge of territorial integrity and security of citizens and their properties cannot remain indifferent in the sight of the acts threatening the national security or deteriorating the national economy including smuggling, on the ground that they are not occurring in his/her territorial jurisdiction – Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or obligations, article 260. Facts: The Prosecution seized the High Court against Munyankumburwa Valens for murder where alongside Munyurasi Gakara, the policeman pursued smugglers and when they reached to them, he ordered them to put down their belongings. In the meantime, he loaded the gun. When Munyurasi heard the loading, he prohibited him twice from shooting but he disobeyed and gunned down one of them named Nkunzimana. As an employer of the suspect, Burera District was forced to intervene in the case so as to pay potential damages. The accused was found guilty and sentenced to 10 years of 133

Page 349

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 134 imprisonment while Burera District was ordered to pay 7, 450,000 Rwf of damages. Both Munyankumburwa and Burera District appealed to the Supreme Court. Munyankumburwa stated that the High Court sentenced him to the heavy penalty of 10 years of imprisonment despite his guilty plea and forgiveness seeking. He added that he had not had any criminal intention. His Counsel adduced that there was error in facts and requested the Court to qualify the offence as involuntary homicide in consequence. Munyankumburwa requested the penalty reduction. The Prosecution stated that the accused defense would not be considered because Munyurasi prohibited him from shooting but the accused disobeyed and shot bullets which cost the life of the deceased. He concluded that this justifies the mens rea to murder. State Attorney disputed that the Court held Burera District liable of damages disregarding the pleading of the accused and their written submissions. Another ground was that the Court determined the damages basing on article 27 of Law n° 25/2004 of 19/11/2004 establishing and determining the organisation and functioning of the local service in charge of assisting in maintenance of security referred to as “Local Defense” but did not hold anything on paragraph 2 of the same article while it was of paramount importance in the defence of Burera District. The paragraph provides that if he or she commits acts contrary to his or her duties, Local Defense Member shall be punished in accordance with the law. Applicants of damages in their cross appeal requested advocate fees. Held: 1. The qualification of an offence should match the facts. The acts of the accused are far different from the qualification he

Page 350

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 135 requests the Court to confirm for the offence he committed as long as the intent to commit the offence is demonstrated by the shooting of three bullets that cost the life of the deceased despite the order of his superior prohibiting him from shooting. Thus, his acts constitute homicide.

2. He cannot benefit the penalty reduction since he had been sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment after gunning down deliberately a citizen who did not fight him while he would have been sentenced to life imprisonment.

3. The maintenance territorial integrity and the security of citizens and their properties is the preoccupation of the National Police and Local Defence. Therefore, Munyankumburwa could not remain indifferent in the sight of the acts threatening the national security or deteriorating the national economy including smuggling, on the ground that they are not occurring on his territorial jurisdiction. In addition, he could not have denied executing such a task in case it is mandatory for Local Defence to cooperate with other Security Organs in security maintenance.

4. In deciding the case related to the request of damages resulting from the offence committed by an employee, Courts must assess whether the committed acts had a link with his (employee) actual duties; otherwise the employer cannot be held liable for the tortuous acts of an employee in case the faults were not linked to his/her duties and occurred at the time when the employer could not supervise them (acts). However, the employer should be liable for damages in case the employee committed the offence while he was on his duties even in the case of wrong execution of the latter. The wrong use of weapon in security maintenance cannot prevent the employer from being PROSECUTION v. MUNYANKUMBURWA

Page 351

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 136 held liable for the damage caused by the fault in case the employee did not deviate from his duties. Appeal on both sides lacks merit. Cross appeal has merit. Burera District is ordered to pay 7,450,000 of damages and 500,000 for counsel fees. Court fees to the public fund. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Decree law nº 21/1977 of 18/08/1977 instituting the penal code, article 311. Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or obligations, article 260. Cases referred to: Prosecution v Pte Niyoyita, RPA 0074/07/CS rendered by the Supreme Court, June 7, 2007. Authors Cited: Ch. Larroumet, note sous cass. Com.12 oct.1993, Dalloz.1994.124, séc.p.125. F.Benac-Schmidt, Responsabilité du fait d’autrui, Repertoire de droit civil, Dalloz, TIX, mise à jour en 1999, p.17, nº 135.

Page 352

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 137 Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] The case commenced in the High Court when Prosecution seized the Court against Munyankumburwa Valens alleging that on August 26, 2008 toward 10 p.m, together with the policeman, Munyurasi Gakara pursued people who were smuggling and when they reached them, Munyurasi stopped the motor bike while Munyankumburwa ordered them to put down their belongings. He moved ahead a little bit to stop those who were trying to move away. Upon unknown reasons, he promptly loaded the gun preparing to shoot and when Munyurasi heard it, he prohibited but in vain. When they (Munyankumburwa and Munyurasi) approached, they realized that Nkunzimana was gunned down. They immediately took him to hospital but died short time after their arrival. [2] Burera District as an employer of Munyankumburwa was forced to intervene in the case so as to be held liable for potential damages. The seized court decided the case on June 28, 2010 and held that Munyankumburwa and Burera District lost the case. It sentenced Munyankumburwa to 10 years of imprisonment and ordered the District in the name of its mayor to pay Manirarora Rosette and her children 7,450,000 Rwf. [3] Not satisfied by the ruling of the case, both Munyankumburwa Valens and Burera District in the name of its Mayor appealed to the Supreme Court. Munyankumburwa Valens was stating that the High Court disregarded the explanations he provided and inflicted on him a heavy penalty of 10 years while he pleaded guilty and sought forgiveness. PROSECUTION v. MUNYANKUMBURWA

Page 353

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 138 [4] Karemera George, the State Attorney for Burera District states that they were ordered to pay damages totalling 7,450, 000 Rwf disregarding their pleading during the hearing and the content of their submissions. Another point of their dissatisfaction was the Judge’s order against the District to pay damages basing on article 27 of the Law N° 25/2004 of 19/11/2004 establishing and determining organisation and functioning of the local service in charge of assisting in maintenance of security referred to as “Local Defense” but did not hold anything with regard to the second paragraph of the same article while it was of paramount importance in the defence of Burera District. The applicant for damages requested counsel fees in their cross appeal. [5] The public hearing was conducted on July 7, 2014 Munyankumburwa Valens assisted by Counsels Nzabonimana John Peter, applicant for damages represented by Counsel Bizimana Jean de Dieu, while Burera District was represented by Umwali Claire, State Attorney. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES a. To determine the qualification of the offence Munyankumburwa committed and whether he can benefit the penalty reduction. [6] Munyankumburwa and Nzabonimana John Peter, his Counsel contend that their grounds of appeal are the fact that the Court sentenced him to the heavy penalty of 10 years of imprisonment despite his guilty plea of having murdered Nkunzimana by gunning him down. In addition, he adds that he had not had any mens rea since there was no dispute between

Page 354

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 139 them, but the Court disregarded it. They state that Munyankumburwa had no intention to kill Nkunzimana since they had never known each other so that some conflicts may have occurred for him to kill the deceased. [7] They assert that when Munyankumburwa Valens and the policeman who gave him the gun reached the people who were carrying smuggled goods, the policeman ordered him to stop them and he loaded the gun. When he reached nearby them he heard the bullet out toward Nkunzimana but without his intention. They keep on arguing that if Munyankumburwa had intended to shoot, he would have shot all of those smugglers. The fact that he did not shoot all of them implies that his acts were not intentional since he only intended to arrest them as smuggling is unlawful. [8] Nsanzimana John Peter, the Counsel, contends that there has been error in facts which resulted in a wrong qualification of the offence. He realizes that the offence Munyankumburwa committed would be qualified involuntary manslaughter provided for by article 145 of Organic Law n° 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code since the constituent elements of homicide are not complete; intent to commit an offence is lacking. He argues that Munyankumburwa has forgotten to keep the safety of the gun closed and accidentally bullets went out. Those acts would be

considered as those of the driver who recklessly knocks a pedestrian down on the street. [9] The Representative of the Prosecution disputed that the explanations provided by Munyankumburwa Valens alongside his Counsel are unsubstantiated since, when Munyankumburwa was running to arrest the smugglers, he reached them and loaded the gun and when his fellow prohibited him from shooting, he PROSECUTION v. MUNYANKUMBURWA

Page 355

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 140 disrespected and shot. Hence he should not plead the absence of intentionbefore the Court while he did it deliberately. [10] The Prosecutor contends that the defense statements made by Munyankumburwa Valens regarding the absence of disputes between him and the deceased is unsubstantiated as well, since the existence of conflict is not mandatory to have an intent to murder. He insisted that the fact that he loaded the gun and his fellow prohibited from him shooting but in vain implies that his act was not accidental. He ended stating that Munyankumburwa would not benefit another penalty reduction since it was granted at the first instance. [11] Article 311 of the Decree Law nº 21/1977 of 18/08/1977 instituting the penal code which was into effect when the offence was committed provides that voluntary manslaughter is murder; it is intentional killing of a person and shall be punishable by life imprisonment. [12] As far as the case is concerned, even though before the Court, Munyankumburwa and his Counsel denied that Munyankumburwa had an intent to kill Nkunzimana and hence in their opinion he committed involuntary manslaughter, the Court finds that the qualification Munyankumburwa requests the Court to give to the offence he committed does not match the committed acts since the intent to kill is evidenced by the fact that he loaded the gun and when Munyurasi Gakara heard that he prohibited him from to shoot but Munyankumburwa disrespected and it cost the life of Nkunzimana in consequence of three bullets. [13] Rather, the Court finds that Munyankumburwa pleaded guilty in the High Court and the latter referred to that guilty plea

Page 356

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 141 to reduce the penalty. In addition, he was accused of homicide and pleaded on it; hence, he cannot request its reclassification, especially that his guilty plea coincides with the statements made by Munyurasi and all witnesses who were at the scene of the crime (The fellows of Nkunzimana), testified that he brutally killed him since he had not fought him. [14] Basing on the explanations provided, the Court finds that Munyankumburwa Valens willingly shot Nkunzimana. Therefore, the offence he committed and of which he is found guilty is murder provided and punishable by article 311 of Decree Law nº 21/1977 of 18/08/1977 instituting the penal code as referred to above. [15] Regarding another penalty reduction requested by Munyankumburwa and his Counsel, the ruling of the appealed case indicates that in the penalty determination, the High Court sufficiently reduced the penalty since it inflicted on him 10 years of imprisonment based on his guilty plea and the first offender status. [16] In consequence, the Court finds that since Munyankumburwa Valens would have been sentenced to life imprisonment by virtue of article 311 of the law referred to above but inflicted 10 years in prison only, it implies that the High Court sufficiently reduced the penalty taking into account the gravity of the committed offence of shooting a citizen who had not fought him. Hence, his appeal lacks merit. b. Whether Burera District should be held liable for the faults committed by Munyankumburwa Valens, Local Defense Member. PROSECUTION v. MUNYANKUMBURWA

Page 357

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 142 [17] Umwali, the State Attorney representing Burera District disputed that the Court ordered Burera District to pay damages while he admitted that the gun he used in shooting does not belong to him and used it while he was not untitled to. Furthermore, the policeman who gave him the gun prohibited him to shoot but denied. [18] She states that another ground of denial of Burera District liability for the fault committed by Munyankumburwa is that the alleged offence was committed in Rulindo District and that he went there without the authorization of the District. Therefore, he should be responsible for his own fault especially that he deliberately shot a person while he knew it was unlawful. [19] Another point of their dissatisfaction is that in holding them liable for damages originating from the offence committed by Munyankumburwa, the Court based on article 27 paragraph one of the Law n° 25/2004 of 19/11/2004 establishing and determining the organisation and functioning of the local service in charge of assisting in maintenance of security referred to as “Local Defense” but kept silent on paragraph two of the same article. This paragraph provides that if he or she commits acts contrary to his or her duties, he or she shall be punished in accordance with the law16.

16 Article 27 states that when a member of the service of Local Defence, is in the course of performing his or her duties, the District, Town or Municipality in which he or she operates shall be liable for the acts he or she commits. However, if he or she commits acts contrary to his or her duties, he or she shall be punished in accordance with the law.

Page 358

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 143 [20] Munyankumburwa argues that if the policeman had not given him the gun, he would not have tasked himself especially that the gun he used was not his and that pursuing smugglers in Rulindo District does not constitute an offence since he could not disrespect the instructions of his superior. [21] Bizimana, the Counsel for applicant for damages adduced that Munyankumburwa was an employee of Burera District as LDF. Therefore, basing on the provisions article 260 of Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or obligations, damages resulting from the offence he committed should be paid by the District as he was its employee. [22] He ended by filing a cross appeal requesting damages totalling 500,000 Rwf for procedural fees and 500,000 Rwf for advocate fees to be added to those awarded on the first instance.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [23] Article 260 paragraph of the 3 Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or obligations, provides that the employer is held liable for tortuous acts of his employees when they are on duties. [24] Regarding the pleading of State Attorney for Burera District who considers being at fault the fact of ordering the District to pay damages to the deceased’s family members who were under the deceased’s charge, Nkunzimana who was killed by Munyankumburwa, because he did it out of the territorial jurisdiction of the District in which he was supposed to execute his duties, the Court finds that the Police and Local Defense main obligation is to maintain territorial integrity and security of PROSECUTION v. MUNYANKUMBURWA

Page 359

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 144 citizens and their property. Even though Local Defense Member actually has a jurisdiction in which he/she should execute his duties, he/she could not keep his arms crossed or remain indifferent for any acts threatening the national security. Furthermore, he could not deny executing an order issued by Sergent Munyurasi Gakara while it is well known that in his attributions, Local Defense should cooperate with other agencies to maintain the security. [25] As far as this case is concerned, the Court finds that the fact that the Police in Burera District was informed that there were smuggling activities from their District toward Rulindo District, two districts bordering each other and when he called his fellows in Rulindo district he got no answer, it proves the necessity, in the context of executing their attributions of maintaining the national security including preventing smuggling which deteriorates national development, to pursue those wrong doers regardless of District borders in which they normally carry out their activities. Therefore, this ground of appeal has no merit. [26] Umwali Claire, State Attorney representing Burera District, states that the holdings of the judgment nº RPA 0074/07/CS decided on July 25, 2007 in which the prosecution seized the Court against Pte Niyoyita for murder where Gakosi Nkuriza and his siblings applied for damages would be applied in this case so that Burera District cannot not pay damages because Munyankumburwa used the gun which did not belong to him and was not evenon the mission of the District. The Court finds that these judgments are different taking into consideration circumstances under which the offences were committed because

Page 360

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 145 the legal scholars including Viney, Joudrday and Starck17 state that in deciding the cases, Courts should assess whether the act performed by an employee was related to his tasks or duties. It implies that the employer cannot be held liable for the consequences triggered by the tortuous acts of his/ her employee in case those acts had no link with his/her actual tasks or duties and were performed ( those acts) beyond the employer’s control. These are the provisions of article 260 of law relating to the contract or obligation as above mentioned. [27] Regard the working hours, the Court notices that, Munyankumburwa has gunned down Nkunzimana towards 10 p.m when he was on duties as ordered by Sergent Munyurasi Gakara who was his supervisor in his daily activities, while Pte Niyoyita has gunned down Mukagatana and her child when he had abandoned the service and the offence was committed at the place where he was not commissioned. With respect to the place of the commission of the offence, as explained above, pursuing the smugglers in Rulindo District bordering Burera which is their jurisdiction, while it is obvious that those wrong doers were crossing from Burera, it is not service fault that Burera District can pretend to deny its liability as an employer, as long as they (Munyankumburwa and Munyurasi Gakara) went to Rulindo only for the purpose of their attributions. [28] With regards to Burera Distric pleadings denying to pay damages basing on the fact that the gun used by Munyankumburwa to shoot does not belong to him, the Court finds that the gun used in the commission of the crime, whether

17F. BENAC-SCHMIDT, Responsabilité du fait d’autrui, Repertoire de droit civil, Dalloz, TIX, 1999, p.17, nº 135. PROSECUTION v. MUNYANKUMBURWA

Page 361

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 146 belonged to Munyankumburwa or someone else, is not sufficient to order Burera District, as an employer of Munyankumburwa, to repair the damage caused by using the gun. But rather, the reason for which he used it should be assessed. In this case, it is very obvious that Munyankumburwa and his fellow were holding the gun with them to defend themselves in the case they were threatened on their duties of maintaining the security. However, as it is manifested, the Court notes that Munyankumburwa had misused the gun even though it occurred while he was on duties. This is the core of his fault based on to order Burera District to pay damages resulting from the fault committed by its employee. [29] Regarding whether Munyankumburwa was ordered to gun down Nkunzimana, the statement made by Sergeant Munyurasi Gakara indicates that after hearing that he was loading the gun, he prohibited him twice from shooting but he disrespected and fired three bullets which killed the deceased. He performed this act personally, which obliges him to be hold criminally liable since he infringed the provisions of articles 15 and 16 of Law n° 25/2004 of 19/11/2004 establishing and determining the organisation and functioning of the local service in charge of assisting in maintenance of security referred to as “Local Defense”18 which determine cases in which he/she can resort to the use of weapon including a gun.

18 Article 15 states that security equipment such as guns shall only be used during appropriate circumstances. If one of the members of the Local Defence service uses them in disrupting security, he or she shall be punished in accordance with Rwandan penal provisions while article 16 states that: 1. If they are attacked or other people are attacked by armed persons and where there is no other alternatives; 2. they are set out to arrest notorious criminals or armed persons who cause insecurity

Page 362

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 147 [30] Basing on the above explanations, the Court notes that Burera District should pay damages as ordered by the High Court because, even though Munyankumburwa gunned down Nkunzimana for his personal grounds for which he did not provide explanations, it occurred while he was on duties of maintaining security through the fight against smuggling. It happened in the context of complying with the provisions of articles 719 and 4 of the Law n° 25/2004 of 19/11/2004 establishing and determining the organisation and functioning of the local service in charge of assisting in maintenance of security referred to as “Local Defense” whereby he collaborated with Police Agencies to arrest individuals who were caught red- handed smuggling. [31] Therefore, Burera District as an employer should pay damages because Munyankumburwa committed the offence being on duties. Again, as explained, he was executing his duties though he did it in a wrong way. This corresponds with the writings of law scholars20 that to hold an employer liable for

19 Article 7 states that 1° collaborate with the residents, in maintenance of security of people and their property; 2° informing the nearest administrative organs anything that he or she may find as a threat to security; 3° assist, if considered necessary, other organs responsible for security of the people and their property; 4° arrest any person caught red handed disrupting security and handing him or her to the administration or to the nearest police station. 20 CH. LARROUMET, note sous cass. Com.12 oct.1993, Dalloz.1994.124, séc.p.125 cité par Françoise BENAC-SCHMIDT, op cit, p.11, nº 74. “On peut se contenter d’un simple lien de connexité entre l’acte dommageable du préposé et ses fonctions, pour pouvoir engager la responsabilité du commettant. L’auteur continue en disant que “lorsque l’acte du préposé consiste en un exercice défectueux de ses fonctions, le rattachement est manifeste: tel est le cas du chauffeur livreur qui commet un accident de la circulation du fait d’une vitesse excessive….” PROSECUTION v. MUNYANKUMBURWA

Page 363

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 148 tortuous acts of his employee, it is enough to establish whether his tortuous act was linked to his duties at least. They give an example of a driver of the car of his employer who makes an accident because of a high speed. As far as this case is concerned, it is considered that Munyankumburwa committed the offence when he was on duties though he performed them in a wrong way. [32] Regarding 500,000 Rwf for counsel fees that Bizimana, the Counsel requests on behalf of the applicants for damages on this instance, the Court notes that Burera District should pay it taking into account the necessity to hire an advocate and the fact that the amount is moderate.

THE DECISION OF THE COURT [33] Appeal filed by Munyankumburwa lacks merit. [34] Appeal filed by Burera District lacks merit as well. [35] Holds that cross appeal filed by Manirarora Rosette and her children, Mukandengo, Hategekimana and Nsengiyumve Fidèle is admitted and has merit. [36] Orders Burera District to pay to Manirarora Rosette Mukandengo, Hategekimana and Nsengiyumva 500,000 Rwf for advocate fees as awarded on this instance and should be added to damages amounting 7,450,000 Rwf awarded by the High Court in Kigali to total 7,950, 000. Rwf. [37] The court orders the court fees to be charged to public treasury.

Page 364

PROSECUTION v. NGIRABABYEYI [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RPAA 0086/ 10/CS (Mukanyundo, P.J., Hatangimbabazi and Gakwaya, J.) June16, 2014] Evidence law – Child defilement – Providing evidence attesting that a person sexually abused is a child – Only birth certificate or a medical report attesting the age of an individual prove the age of a person – Failure to produce this evidence brings about doubt and the latter benefits the accused – Law nº 30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure, art.

165. Facts: Ngirababyeyi Thomas was accused of committing child defilement against a girl of 13 years old. He was found guilty and sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment He appealed to the High Court and the latter upheld the ruling of the Court of first instance. He appealed to the Supreme Court stating that he was deprived of the rights granted by the law to everyone who figures out the truth about the commission of the offence and seeks forgiveness, requesting the penalty reduction. Ngirababyeyi stated that he admits to have had sex with Uzamukunda Marie Rose but with her consent. The Counsel for the appellant contends that evidence proving that the potential victim was really 13 year old should be produced; otherwise his client would not be condemned for having sex with adult person since it is not the offence he is charged with. On this issue, the Prosecution states that it failed to get the certificate. and requested the Court to resort to human presumption since it is lawful especially that Ngirababyeyi Thomas, in previous instances, admitted that he committed child defilement though 149

Page 365

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 150 he recanted at the appellate Court that the girl was an adult of likely 20 years old. Held: The fact that the Prosecution failed to demonstrate that the individual with whom the accused had sex was really a child at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed causes doubt. Therefore, the request of the Prosecution that the Court would resort to human presumption lacks merit since only birth certificate issued by the competent civil servant or the medical report made by a physician prove the individual’s age. Therefore, the accused is not guilty of the offence he was accused of since no evidence was provided with regard to the age of Uzamukunda Marie Rose. The appellant was acquitted because of doubt. Appeal granted. The appealed judgment quashed. Appellant acquitted of child defilement. Appellant should immediately be released. Court fees charged to the public treasury. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law nº 30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure, art. 165 Cases referred to: Prosecution v. Sebiteke, RPAA 015/10/CS, rendered by the Supreme Court, on February 28, 2014

Page 366

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 151 Author cited: J.-François Renucci et C. Courtin, “Le Droit pénal des mineurs”, 4è éd., PUF, Paris, 1991, p.4. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] The case commenced the Intermediate Court of Gasabo, Ngirababyeyi being charged with child defilement against Uzamukunda Marie Rose. The Court decided the case no RP 0139/06/TGI/GSBO on May 29, 2006 and found him guilty. The Court sentenced him to 25 years of imprisonment and ordered him to pay the court fees totalling 10,500 Rwf. [2] Not contented with the decision of the Court, Ngirababyeyi Thomas appealed to the High Court. The Court decided the case no RPA 0992/06/HC/KIG on June 5, 2010 and found him guilty of the offence he was charged with. It upheld the judgment RP 0139/06/TGI/GSBO rendered by the Intermediate Court of Gasabo in its entirety except the court fees to be paid amounting 17,700 Rwf. [3] Not satisfied with the Court decision, Ngirababyeyi Thomas appealed to the Supreme Court disputing that the High Court deprived him of the rights granted by the law to everyone who figures out the truth and seeks forgiveness with regards to the offence he/she is charged with. He added that he sought forgiveness and the Court disregarded the law and sentenced him to 25 years of imprisonment not suspended. Furthermore he PROSECUTION v. NGIRABABYEYI

Page 367

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 152 requests that the law regulating criminal procedure were applied in line with his guilty plea and forgiveness seeking. [4] The hearing in public was held on March 17, 2014. Ngirababyeyi Thomas was assisted by Counsel Dusenge Vestine while the Prosecution was represented by Mutayoba Alphonse, the National Prosecutor. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES Whether Ngirababyeyi Thomas committed child defilement against Uzamukunda Marie Rose. [5] Ngirababyeyi states that he appealed because he was sentenced to the heavy penalty while he pleaded guilty of having had sex with Uzamukunda Marie Rose. However he adds that she had consented. [6] Dusenge Vestine, Counsel for Ngirababyeyi Thomas, contends that even though he admits to have had sex with that girl, there is no evidence proving that she was a minor especially that the case file does not contain the birth certificate proving that child defilement was committed by Thomas Ngirababyeyi. She adds that the mere fact of pleading guilty is not sufficient to confirm that there had been child defilement. She realises that it is necessary to show the birth certificate to the Court that Uzamukunda was a child at the time of the alleged offence. She insists that only birth certificates can confirm this. [7] Counsel Dusenge Vestine, concludes by stating that if no evidence proving that Ngirababyeyi Thomas committed child defilement is produced, then he would not be accused of rape

Page 368

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 153 since it is not listed in his indictment. She requests the Court to avoid analogy by reclassifying an offence at the time when it will be deciding the case as it cannot be qualified as child defilement in case no birth certificate is issued to confirm that Uzamukunda Marie Rose was a child. [8] The Representative of the Prosecution states that they failed to find the birth certificate proving that Uzamukunda Marie Rose was still a child at the alleged time she was sexually abused, because they wrote to the administrative authorities of the domicile of the child and they got replied that the child had no address and, therefore cannot manage to issue the certificate because had no reference. The prosecutor requested the Court to resort to the law and assume that the girl was adult at the time she had sex. [9] The Representative of the Prosecution ends up however concluding that, in deciding the case, the Court would base on the fact that, even though no birth certificate was produced, human presumption can be resorted to; especially that during his interrogation, Ngirababyeyi Thomas admitted to have committed, child defilement but before the Court he told lies and recanted that the girl was likely 20 years old.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [10] Article 165 of the Law nº 30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure stipulates: “The benefit of doubt shall be given in favour of the accused. If the proceedings conducted as completely as possible do not enable judges to find reliable evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that the PROSECUTION v. NGIRABABYEYI

Page 369

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 154 accused committed the offence, the judges shall order his/her acquittal”. [11] The Supreme Court finds that the failure of the Prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that child defilement was committed against Uzamukunda Marie Rose, causes doubt on one of the constutuent element of the offence. Therefore, the statements made by the Prosecution requesting the Court to resort to human presumption because Ngirababyeyi admitted to have committed child defilement lacks merit since only birth certificate issued by competent civil servant or the medical report issued by a physician prove the age of the individua21. Basing on those explanations, Ngirababyeyi Thomas should be acquitted of child defilement22. [12] The Supreme Court finds that pursuant to article 165 of the Law nº 30/2013 referred to above, Ngirababyeyi Thomas is not guilty of committing child defilement against Uzamukunda Marie Rose since no evidence proving how old she was. Therefore, since doubt is in his benefit, he should be acquitted of the offence.

21 “C’est la production d’un acte de l’état de civil qui permettra de déterminer l’âge réel, mais si cet acte ne paraît pas fiable, ou s’il n’existe pas, il sera possible de calculer l’âge probable de l’individu en ayant recours à une expertise fondée sur la morphologie”, Jean-François RENUCCI et Christine Courtin, “le droit pénal des mineurs”, 4e édition, PUF, Paris, 1991, p.4. 22 This is the position adopted by this Court in casein the judgment RPAA 015/10/CS rendered by this Court on February 28, 2014, between Prosecution and Sebiteke Shamungabo.

Page 370

EWSA (Ex RECO – RWASCO Ex ELECTROGAZ) v. KARANGWA 155 III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [13] Decides that the appeal filed by Ngirababyeyi Thomas has merit. [14] Decides that the ruling of the case RPA 0992/06/HC/KIG decided by the High Court on January 5, 2010 is quashed. [15] Acquits Ngirababyeyi Thomas of child defilement. [16] Orders Ngirababyeyi Thomas’s release immediately after the verdict delivery. [17] Orders the court fees to be charged to public treasury. PROSECUTION v. NGIRABABYEYI

Page 371

Printed by

PROGRAPH LTD