RLR V.2-2024

# RLR V.2-2024

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Rwanda law reports - Date: 2024-03-01 - Collection: Supreme Court

## Text

## Page 1

REPUBLIC OF RWANDA SUPREME COURT P.o. Box. 2197 KIGALI www.judiciary.gov.rw ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO RWANDA LAW REPORTS Icyegeranyo V. 2 - 2024 Law Reports V.2-2024 Mata - 2024 April, 2024

## Page 3

REPUBLIC OF RWANDA SUPREME COURT Po. Box. 2197 KIGALI www.judiciary.gov.rw ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO RWANDA LAW REPORTS Icyegeranyo V. 2 - 2024 Law Reports V.2-2024 Mata - 2024 April, 2024

## Page 5

v

ISHAKIRO

ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI ...................................iii I. ITSINDA RY’ABANYAMATEGEKO BATEGUYE IMANZA................................................................................iii II. KOMITE YEMEZA IMANZA ......................................... iv IRIBURIRO .............................................................................. vii IBIKUBIYE MURI IKI CYEGERANYO................................. ix INYITO ...................................................................................... ix AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO .......................................... xi IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE .................................................... xv AMAGAMBO MPINE ............................................................ xix Re FAST TRUCK INTERIOR AND HARDWARE Ltd ........... 1 MHAYIMANA vs URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA .................. 21 KATABARWA v AKARERE KA NYARUGURU ................ 57 N.A (mu izina ry’ umwana we I.A) v KIBUNGO MEDICAL CENTER ................................................................................... 85 PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v UWIMANIMPAYE ................................................................................................. 109 GATETE v. ECOBANK LTD ................................................ 131 NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES Ltd v KASESE DISTILLERS Ltd.................................................................... 149

## Page 6

vi

MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD ........................ 183 TRADEMET SA v CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD, ................................................................................................. 223 UBUSHINJACYAHA v NSENGIYAREMYE ...................... 243 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NDIKUMANA .............................. 259

## Page 7

vii

ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI

I. ITSINDA RY’ABANYAMATEGEKO BATEGUYE IMANZA

KAGABO U. Stephanie

KAVUTSE M. Claude

KUBWIMANA Jean Claude

MUJABI K. Naphtal

NZAYISENGA Daniel

UWINKINDI Angelique

UWIMANA Jean Marie Vianney

## Page 8

viii

II. KOMITE YEMEZA IMANZA

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

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

BWIZA N. Blanche : Umwanditsi wa Komite, Umugenzuzi w’inkiko

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

Dr. KARIMUNDA M. Aimé :

KALIHANGABO Isabelle :

Umuyobozi Mukuru wa ILPD

Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire

HABARUREMA Jean Pierre Perezida w’Urukiko Rukuru

KALIWABO Charles :

NKURUNZIZA Valens :

Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire

Umugenzuzi Mukuru w’inkiko BURAYOBERA UMUZAYIRE Bibiane : Visi Perezida wa Komisiyo y`u Rwanda ishinzwe Ivugururwa ry`amategeko

## Page 9

ix

NSENGIYUMVA Jean Claude : Umugenzuzi w’inkiko

KIBUKA Jean Luc : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi

Dr. BIDERI Diogene : Umushinjacyaha ku Rwego rw’Igihugu

KABIBI Specioza : Intumwa ya Leta

MUREREREHE Saouda :

NINAHAZWE Roselyne : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru

Umushinjacyaha ku Rwego rw’Igihugu

Lt Col CYUBAHIRO NSENGIYUMVA Narcisse :

Umucamanza mu Rukiko rwa Gisirikare

Dr. NSHIMIYIMANA Didace :

GIRANEZA Clémentine :

Dr MBONIGABA Callixte :

Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru

Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye

Umwarimu muri INES - Ruhengeri

## Page 10

x

KAMALI Jean Damascene

BAGABO Faustin :

Dr ZIKAMABAHARI Jean de Dieu :

KARAKE Canisius :

HABIMANA Pie :

UMUTESI Vestine :

YANKURIJE Dorothée : Umwarimu muri ULK

Avoka mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka

Umwarimu muri University Of Kigali

Umwarimu muri UNILAK

Avoka mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka

Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi

Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ibanze

## Page 11

xi

IRIBURIRO Basomyi bacu, Tunejejwe no kubagezaho Icyegeranyo cy’Ibyemezo by’Inkiko, Volime 2 [2024]. Nk’uko mubizi, tubahitiramo imanza zikubiyemo bimwe mu bisubizo by’ibibazo muhura nabyo kenshi, haba mu mirimo yanyu ndetse no mu buzima bwa buri munsi. Muri iyi nomero murasangamo imanza icumi (10) zikurikira: urubanza rumwe (1) rwerekeranye n’ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko Itegeko rinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga, imanza ebyiri (2) z’imbonezamubano, imanza ebyiri (2) z’ubutegetsi, imanza eshatu (3) z’ubucuruzi, n’imanza ebyiri (2) z’inshinjabyaha. Dr NTEZILYAYO Faustin Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga akaba na Perezida w’Inama Nkuru y’Ubucamanza

## Page 13

xiii

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

INYITO Imanza ziri muri iyi volime zikoreshwa muri ubu buryo: [2024] 2 RLR

## Page 15

xv

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO

a. Amategeko akoreshwa ubu Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo muri 2003 ryavuguruwe mu mwaka wa 2015, ingingo ya ya 29 n’iya 61…...3 Amasezerano y’inyongera ku masezerano y’Umuryango w’Abibumbye agamije gukumira, kurwanya no guhana icuruzwa ry’abantu, by’umwihariko abagore n’abana, ingingo ya 3…..261 East African Community Customs Management Act, 2004, ingingo ya 144, 147 n’iya 148……………………………………153 Itegeko Nº 017/2020 ryo ku wa 07/10/2020 rishyiraho Sitati igenga abakozi ba Leta……………………………………………..61 Itegeko N° 026/2019 ryo ku wa 18/09/2019 rigena uburyo bw’isoresha, ingingo ya 98………………………………………….3 Itegeko N˚ 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/6/2018 rigena ububasha bw’Inkiko, ingingo ya 72 n’iya 74……………………………………….3 ingingo ya 63………………………………………………..61 Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 9, 75 n’iya 111…………………………………61 ingingo ya 9, 111……………………………………………87 ingingo ya 111…………………………………………….153 ingingo ya 12 niya 150……………………………………225 Itegeko nº 47/2017 ryo ku wa 23/9/2017 rigena imitunganyirize y’imirimo y’amabanki, ingingo ya 112………………………….187

## Page 16

xvi

Itegeko N° 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda rikanagena imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, ingingo ya 25, 29, 31, 74, 75 n’iya 78……23 Itegeko N° 12/2013 ryo ku wa 22/03/2013 rigenga umurimo w’Abahesha b’Inkiko, ingingo ya 49…………………………….134 Itegeko n° 1/2012 ryo ku wa 03/02/2012 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko n° 25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha; ingingo ya 12…………………………………………187 Itegeko No 45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, ingingo ya 75……………………………………………………….153 Itegeko N° 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 9………………………………………………..153 ingingo ya 2………………………………………………..261 Iteka rya Perezida N° 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri biturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga, ingingo ya 19….113 Iteka rya Minisitiri w’Intebe Nº 003/03 ryo ku wa 16/01/2015 rigena uburyo amahugurwa y’abakozi akorwa, ingingo ya 20……………………………………………………………………...61 Iteka rya Minisitiri N°133/moj/ag/18 ryo ku wa 04/06/2018 rigena amafaranga atangwa mu manza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi………………………154 Iteka rya Minisitiri Nº 002/08.11 ryo ku wa 11/02/2014 rigena amafaranga atangwa mu manza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi………………………154 Iteka rya Minisitiri w’Intebe Nº 136/03 ryo ku wa 25/10/2010…………………………………………………………...61

## Page 17

xvii

Amabwiriza rusange n° 12/2017 yo ku wa 23/11/2017 ku ishyirwa mu byiciro ry’imyenda no guteganya ingoboka, ingingo ya 8…………………………………………………………………..187 Amabwiriza Rusange N°07/2010 yo ku wa 27/12/2010 ya Banki Nkuru y’u Rwanda, ingingo ya 2…………………………………187

b. Amategeko yakuweho ariko yakoreshwaga igihe ikibazo cyavukaga Itegeko Ngenga N° 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, Ingingo ya 76, 77,78, 85, 250, 251 n’iya 252…………………………………………………………....261 Itegeko N° 25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 ryagenaga imitunganyirize y’isoresha, ingingo ya 30 n’iya 64………………3

## Page 19

xix

IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE Arrêt du Tribunal de la Fonction Publique de l’Union Européenne (troisième chambre), FS vs Comité économique et social européen (CESE), 12 Mai 2016, para 59…………………24 Arrêt du Tribunal de la Fonction Publique de l’Union Européenne (deuxième chambre), 8 Octobre 2015, para 105 & 107-108………………………………………………………………24 Arrêt du Tribunal de la Fonction Publique de l’Union Européenne (Première Chambre), Simona Murariu vs Autorité européenne des assurances et des pensions professionnelles (AEAPP), 16 Juillet 2015, para 152………………………………24 Bralirwa Ltd na Kazigaba André n’abagenzi be, RCOMAA 0015/14/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 23/06/2017………………………………………………………….154 Civil Appeal Nos. 823-827 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.2001-2005 of 2021) point 16…………………………………...3 Comingersoll S.A.v. Portugal, CEDH, 6 Avril 2000, para 32- 37…………………………………………………………………….154 Jafa na La Pizzeria, Com. 15 mai 2012, no 11-10-278 Bulletin Civil IV n° 101……………………………………………………..154 Judgment of the court (second chamber) of 9 July 1987. Ingfried Hochbaum and Edward Rawes vs Commission of the European Communities, Official - annulment of appointment, Joined cases 44/85, 77/85, 294/85 and 295/85, para 22……………………….24 Leta y’u Rwanda na Ndahindurwa Kimenyi Jéremie, RADA 0006/12/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 04/01/2013…………………………………………………………...61

## Page 20

xx

Magara Gahakwa et Crts, RS/INJUST/RP 00001/2020/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 21/02/2021 mu gika cyarwo cya 21……………………………………………………….61 Metropolitan Internationa Schools Ltd v Designtechnica Corporation, Google UK Ltd na Google Inc, [2010] EWHC 2411 (QB) 35……………………………………………………………154 Ngirinshuti vs Muhima Giovani, RS/INJUST/RC 00024/2018/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 21/02/2020 ku gika cya 19-22………………………………………………………………….61 Prime Insurance Ltd na Kansiime James, RS/INJUST/RCOM 00005/2018/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikrenga ku wa 12/06/2020………………………………………………………….154 RCA 00280/2016/HC/KIG, Me Nduwamungu Jean Vianney n’Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 12/01/2017……………………………………………………24 Re Kabasinga, RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwaciwe kuwa 04/12/2019……………245 Road Solutions Pavement Products vs MAILCO Ltd, RS/INJUST/RCOM 00002/2020/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 29/09/2020…………………………………….61 Rock Global Consulting Ltd na Impact Distributors East Africa Ltd, RCOMA0041/13/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 3 Werurwe 2016……………………………………………………154 RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2018/SC, Nditiribambe Samuel na Gatera Jason et Crts, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 13/03/2020…………………………………………………………...24

## Page 21

xxi

RS/INJUST/RAD 00003/2021/SC, Tabaruka Dieudonné n’Akarere ka Gicumbi, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 20/05/2022…………………………………………………………...23 Speaker of the National Assembly and Another v. Land Access Movement of South Africa and Others [2019] ZACC 10, rwaciwe ku wa 19/03/2019……………………………………………………..3 Ubushinjacyaha v. Ahimpereye, RPAA 00436/2020/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 28/06/2022…………………….245 Ubushinjacyaha v. Hakizimana, RPAA 00091/2021/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 19/07/2022…………………….245 Ubushinjacyaha v. Mukankusi, RPA 0246/09/CS, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 14/12/2012, Icyegeranyo cy’ibyemezo by’inkiko, Igitabo cya kabiri 2013, n⁰ 17 cyasohotse muri Mata, 2013…………………………………………………...261 Ubushinjacyaha v. Niyonsaba, RS/INJUST/RP 00003/2019/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 28/01/2022……………245 Ubushinjacyaha v. Nzafashwanimana, RPAA 00032/2019/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 28/02/2020………….245 Ubushinjacyaha v. Shakabatenda, RPAA 00039/2021/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 02/07/2021………….245 Unidare Plc v Cohen and Dermot Power [2006] Ch 489, para 19…………………………………………………………………….154 Urubanza Cairo Banking Co. v West, 187 Ga. 666 (1939)……188 Urubanza Central Nat. Bank of Richmond v. First & Merchants Nat. Bank..., 171 Va. 289 (1938)…………………………………188

## Page 22

Urubanza Nº RADA 0054/12/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 19/12/2014 haburana Kabayijuka Gaspard na MINISANTE…………………………………………………………87 Urubanza Nº RCAA 00073/2018/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 19/07/2019 hagati ya Nyirabatesi Laurence n’Ibitaro byitiriwe Umwami Fayisali…………………………….87 Urubanza Re (II ZR 185/85), (1987) E.C.C. 254 (1985)………188 Urubanza RS/INJUST/RCOM 00006/2022/SC; Banque Populaire du Rwanda Plc v Akarere ka Nyamasheke rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 27/01/2023………………………188 Urubanza RS/INJUST/RC 00021/2022/SC; Mukagatare Régine n’abandi v SANLAM AG Plc rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 17/03/2022……………………………………………………..188 Urubanza RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2018/SC Nditiribambe v Gatera rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 13/03/2020…..188 Urubanza RS/INJUST/RC 00024/2018/SC; Ngizweninshuti v Muhima rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 21/02/2020…188 Urubanza RS/INJUST/RC 00012/2021/SC Nsengiyumva v Ntagungira n’abandi rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 22/07/2022………………………………………………………….188 Urubanza RS/INJUST/RCOM 00001/2017/SC; Sebahizi Jules yaburanaga v Equity Bank Rwanda Ltd, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 26/01/2018…………………………………...188 Urubanza RCOMA 0171/12/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 03/01/2014, ibika bya 16-20………………………………188 Urubanza Stokes v. Commonwealth, 49 Va.App. 401 (2007)……………………………………………………………….188

## Page 23

xxiii

AMAGAMBO MPINE 1. Amategeko agenga amasezerano – Amasezerano y’ubucuruzi – Ibimenyetso mu manza z’ubucuruzi – Ihame rusange ni uko mu manza z’ubucuruzi nta busumbane bw’ibimenyetso bubaho – Ibikorwa by’ubucuruzi ntibigombera byanze bikunze amasezerano yanditse, ahubwo bishobora kugaragazwa hashingiwe ku bimenyetso by’ubwoko bwose harimo n’ubutumwa impande zombi zahererekanyije, inyemezabwishyu, ibitabo by’ibaruramari, ubuhamya cyangwa ibindi bintu bifatika – Singombwa ko iteka hagaragazwa umwimerere w’inyandiko ababuranyi bashingiraho nk’ibimenyetso NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES Ltd v KASESE DISTILLERS Ltd…………………………………….149 Amasezerano y’ubucuruzi – Ibimenyetso bishingirwaho mu manza z’ubucuruzi – Uburemere bw’inyandiko zitangwa nk’ibimenyetso mu manza z’ubucuruzi – Mu gusuzuma niba harabayeho imikoranire hagati y’abacuruzi ntibisaba buri gihe ko hagaragazwa ibimenyetso simusiga, ahubwo hitabwa ku buryo abacuruzi basanzwe bakorana hanyuma hagasuzumwa agaciro gakwiye guhabwa ibimenyetso biba byagaragarijwe Urukiko; narwo mu bushishozi bwarwo, rugasuzuma niba izo nyandiko zikiranuye kandi zifitanye isano na kamere y’ikiburanwa NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES Ltd v KASESE DISTILLERS Ltd…………………………………….149 Amasezerano y’ubucuruzi – Inkurikizi zo kwica amasezerano ku bigo cg sosiyete – Ibigo cyangwa Sosiyete z’ubucuruzi bishobora guhabwa indishyi z’akababaro kuko nk’uko bimeze ku bantu, icyubahiro cyazo, icyizere

## Page 24

xxiv ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

zifitiwe n’uburyo zifatwa muri rubanda bishobora kubangamirwa kandi bikagira ingaruka ku mibereho yazo; bishoboka ko hangirizwa ibintu by’ingenzi bireba sosiyete kandi bidafite aho bihuriye n’inyungu zayo z’ubucuruzi cyangwa umutungo wayo NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES Ltd v KASESE DISTILLERS Ltd…………………………………….149 Amasezerano y’ubucuruzi – Indishyi z’akababaro zihabwa ibigo cyangwa sosiyete – Ni indishyi ziba zigamije gusa kugaruza agaciro iyo sosiyete yatakaje aho kuba ibyo yahombye kubera ko itasaba iz’uko yatewe agahinda, yababajwe ku mubiri cyangwa ku mutima cyangwa yasuzuguwe kuko ari umwihariko w’abantu. Mu kuzigena, Urukiko rusabwa ubushishozi no gushyira mu gaciro bihagije kugira ngo hatazamo gukabya, izatanzwe zikaba nke cyane ku buryo ntacyo zaba zivuze cyangwa zikaba umurengera ku buryo zakwitiranywa n’indishyi mbonezamusaruro cyangwa iz’igihombo sosiyete yatejwe NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES Ltd v KASESE DISTILLERS Ltd…………………………………….149 2. Amategeko agenga imanza mbonezamubano – Indishyi– Igenwa ry’indishyi zikomoka ku ikosa – Uburyozwe bushingiye kw’ikosa – Amakosa yakozwe n’abaganga mu mwuga wabo – uburyo bwo kubara indishyi z’amakosa y’abaganga bakoze bari mu azi kabo – Indishyi ku buryozwe bw’umuganga wakoze amakosa bikaviramo umurwayi gutakaza bimwe mu bice by’umubiri zibarwa mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko (ex aequo et bono) N.A (mu izina ry’ umwana we I.A) v KIBUNGO MEDICAL CENTER………………………………….85

## Page 25

xxv AMAGAMBO MPINE

Indishyi – Igenwa ry’indishyi – Iyo urukiko rugennye indishyi rushingiye ku itegeko ridafite aho rihuriye n’ikiburanwa mu rubanza, bifatwa nk’aho rwashingiye ku itegeko ritariho N.A (mu izina ry’ umwana we I.A) v KIBUNGO MEDICAL CENTER………………………………….85 Ubujurire – Igenwa ry’indishyi zikomoka ku ikosa – Urukiko rwajuririwe ntirugomba guhindura icyemezo cyafashwe n’urukiko rwo hasi rutabanje kugaragaza icyo runenga icyo rukinenga N.A (mu izina ry’ umwana we I.A) v KIBUNGO MEDICAL CENTER………………………………….85 Indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka - Gutakaza akazi - Umuntu utagaragaza ibimenyetso by’uko hari akazi yari afite igihe yakoraga impanuka, nta ndishyi zo kugatakaza agomba guhabwa PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v UWIMANIMPAYE…………………………………109 Indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka – Kugira igihombo kubera impanuka - Ku bantu badafite akazi bakoze impanuka, nta gihombo cy’ako kanya kigaturukaho gishobora kubaho, igishobora kwitabwaho ni amahirwe yo kuzabona akazi yavukijwe kubera iyo mpanuka PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v UWIMANIMPAYE…………………………………109 Imiburansihirize y’imanza – Kugira uburenganizra bwo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane – Ntabwo ari ngombwa ko umuburanyi abanza kwiyambaza inzira yo gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya kugira ngo agire uburenganzira bwo gusaba ko urubanza rwe

## Page 26

xxvi ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane mu gihe we abona ko nta mpamvu n’imwe yujuje mu zo itegeko riteganya kugira ngo ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya cyakirwe. PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v UWIMANIMPAYE…………………………………..109 Inshingano – Inshingano z'umwuga – Umukiliya afite inshingano zo kwita ku gatabo k’inyandiko isaba kwishyura cyangwa ubundi buryo ahabwa na banki bwatuma yishyura, ariko ibyo ntibivaniraho banki inshingano yo kugira no gukoresha ubushishozi mbere yo kwishyura MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD……….183 Inshingano – Inshingano z'umwuga – Amafaranga y’umuntu banki ibitse ntagomba gukorwaho nyirayo atabitangiye uruhushya, iyo iyahaye umuntu utabifitiye uburenganzira, bifatwa nk’aho ayo mafaranga atigeze ava kuri konti ye, icyo gihe banki ikaba ariyo ibyirengera MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD……….183 3. Amategeko agenga imanza nshinjabyaha – Impamvu nyoroshyacyaha – Imihanire y’umuntu mukuru ariko umaze igihe gito avuye mu bwana/young adult n’iy’umuntu ukuze urengeje imyaka 25 (adult) ikwiye gutandukana mu rwego rwo gutanga ubutabera buboneye kuri buri muntu, hitawe no kuburemere bw’icyaha, ingaruka zacyo n’amahirwe y’uko uhanwe ashobora kugororwa (rehabilitation) UBUSHINJACYAHA v NSENGIYAREMYE……...243 Icyaha cyo gucuruza abantu – Ku gikorwa cyo kubyaza umuntu inyungu mu cyaha cyo gucuruza abantu, si

## Page 27

xxvii AMAGAMBO MPINE

ngombwa ko intego iba yagezweho, icy’ingenzi nuko hagaragazwa icyari kigamijwe, mu ikorwa ry’icyo gikorwa kuko igihanwa ari icyari kigambiriwe nukuvuga kubyaza umuntu inyungu zitemewe aho kuba icyagezweho UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NDIKUMANA……………259 Icyaha cyo gucuruza abantu – Ku cyaha cyo gucuruza abantu, uregwa ntashobora kwireguza ko uwakorewe icyaha nawe yari yiyemereye gukorerwa igikorwa cyo gucuruza abantu UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NDIKUMANA……………259 4. Amategeko agenga imanza z’ubucuruzi – Gufatira – Gufatira Ingwate – Ubwishyu busabwa umwishingizi bugarukira mu mbibi z’ubwishingire bwo kwishyura umwenda. Iyo habaye guhindura amasezerano y’umwenda, biba na ngombwa ko nyiri ugutanga ingwate yemera ko ingwate yari yatanze inareba ayo masezerano mashya GATETE v. ECOBANK LTD………………………..131 Inguzanyo – Inyungu z’ubukererwe – Ibarwa ry’inyungu z’ubukererwe – Inyungu z’ubukererwe zibarirwa ku gipimo cy’indishyi zihabwa umuguzi wa serivisi z’imari kidashobora kujya munsi y’ikigereranyo cy’inyungu ku nguzanyo (taux moyen de prêt) ariko zitarenze umwenda wishyuzwa. MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD……….183 5. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirije y’imanza zasabiwe gusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane – Imbibi z’ikiburanwa – Ibirego bishya bitari mu byaburanywe mu rubanza rusubirishwamo ntibyakirwa mu rubanza rwasabiwe gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. MHAYIMANA vs URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA……21

## Page 28

xxviii ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Gusaba kurenganurwa ku ngingo itaragaragarijwe umucamanza mu rubanza rusabirwa gusubirwamo – Kuba umuburanyi yarashyiriweho inzira idasanzwe yo gusubirishamo urubanza rwabaye itegeko mu gihe yumva hari ingingo runaka yarenganyeho, ntibimuha uburenganzira bwo gutanga ibirego bishya bitari mu murongo w’ibyaregewe mu nyandiko isaba kurenganurwa KATABARWA v AKARERE KA NYARUGURU…..57 6. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’ imanza z’ ubucuruzi – Gutambamira umutungo utimukanwa – Itambama ku mutungo rivanwaho iyo ryakozwe ku mutungo wagurishijwe mu buryo bwemewe n’ amategeko n’ ubwo uwawegukanye atabashije kuwiyandikaho ku mpamvu zitamuturutseho TRADEMET SA v CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD……………………………………..223 7. Amategeko agenga imisoro – Kumenyekanisha umusoro – Aho uburyozwe bw'uwamenyekanishije umusoro bugarukira – Iyo ibicuruzwa byamenyekanishirijwe umusoro mu Rwanda biburiwe irengero, ny’ir’ibicuruzwa ntabashe kugaragaza ko byibiwe mu nzira, niwe ukwiye kuryozwa umusoro n’ibihano Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro kiba cyaciye uwawumenyekanishije. Urukiko, mu bushishozi bwarwo, rumugenera indishyi z’akababaro iyo yagaragajwe nka bihemu kugeza ubwo abihaniwe ndetse agakurwa kuri serveur y’abamenyekanisha mu gihe amakosa yahaniwe yatewe na nyir’ibicuruzwa. NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES Ltd v KASESE DISTILLERS Ltd…………………………………….149 7. Amategeko agenga umurimo – Kwirukanwa binyuranyije n’amategeko – Amafaranga y’indishyi agenerwa umukozi

## Page 29

xxix AMAGAMBO MPINE

igihe yirukanwe – Iyo bigaragara ko umukozi yasezerewe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko ahabwa indishyi zibarwa ku rugero rw’umushahara yahembwe bwa nyuma, zikabarwa guhera igihe yahagarikiwe kugeza urubanza rusomwe, hagendewe ku mushahara yatahanaga mu ntoki ndetse n’ibindi yagenerwaga nk’umukozi byamufashaga kurangiza inshingano ze KATABARWA v AKARERE KA NYARUGURU…..57 9. Amategeko agenga urugaga rw’Abavoka – Imyitwarire y’Abavoka – Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire – Ibihe byo kuregera komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire – Iyo Umukuru w’Urugaga amenye amakosa Avoka aregwa kandi ari mu bubasha bwa Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire, abiregera iyo Komisiyo mu mezi atatu uhereye igihe yamenyeye amakosa MHAYIMANA vs URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA……21 Imyitwarire y’abavoka – Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire – Ifatwa ry’icyemezo – Iyo komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire y’Abavoka iteranye mu rwego rwo guhana, quorum isabwa kugirango iterane kandi ifate icyemezo ni 2/3 by’umubare w’abayigize bagenwa n’Itegeko MHAYIMANA vs URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA……21 10. Itegeko Nshinga – Itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga – Itegeko riregerwa ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rigomba kuba ari itegeko rikiriho, rikoreshwa kandi rigikurikizwa – Iyo itegeko cyangwa ingingo yaryo bitakiriho cyangwa bitagikoreshwa, ikirego kiburirwa impamvu cyatangiwe, nticyakirwe Re FAST TRUCK INTERIOR AND HARDWARE Ltd………………………………………………………1

## Page 31

IBIREGO BYIHARIYE

## Page 33

IKIREGO GISABA KWEMEZA KO ITEGEKO RINYURANYE N’ITEGEKO NSHINGA

## Page 35

1

Re FAST TRUCK INTERIOR AND HARDWARE Ltd [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/INCONST/RCOM 00001/2022/SC (Ntezilyayo, J.P., Nyirinkwaya, Hitiyaremye, Muhumuza na Karimunda, J.) 19 Gicurasi 2023] Itegeko Nshinga – Itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga – Itegeko riregerwa ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rigomba kuba ari itegeko rikiriho, rikoreshwa kandi rigikurikizwa – Iyo itegeko cyangwa ingingo yaryo bitakiriho cyangwa bitagikoreshwa, ikirego kiburirwa impamvu cyatangiwe, nticyakirwe. Incamake y’ikibazo: Ubwo Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwasuzumaga ubujurire rwari rwashyikirijwe n’Ikigo cy’Igihugu gishinzwe Imisoro n’Amahôro (Rwanda Revenue Authority) mu rubanza RCOMA 00443/2021/HCC, Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd iburana yabyukije ikibazo cy’itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga nk’inzitizi, avuga ko ingingo ya 64 y’Itegeko N° 25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 ryagenaga imitunganyirize y’isoresha inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. Perezida w’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga amugezaho icyo kibazo ashingiye ku ngingo ya 74 y’Itegeko N˚ 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/6/2018 rigena ububasha bw’Inkiko maze Ubwanditsi bw’Urukiko buracyakira gihabwa nomero. Leta y’u Rwanda yatanze inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego cyatanzwe na Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd, ivuga ko kuba Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd iregera ryaravuyeho, ridashobora kuregerwa ko

## Page 36

2 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. Isobanura ko itegeko ritakiriho ridashobora kuregerwa ngo harebwe niba rinyuranyije cyangwa ritanyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, kuko n’ubundi iyo Urukiko rusanze rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, ingaruka ibaho ari uko rikurwaho. Kuba Urega avuga ko iryo tegeko ryamugizeho ingaruka n’ubwo ryavuyeho, bitaba impamvu yo kuregera ko rivaho kandi n’ubundi ritakiriho, cyane cyane ko ryamugizeho ingaruka kuko yakoze ibibujijwe na ryo igihe ryari ririho. Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd yiregura ivuga ko n’ubwo Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru ryavuyeho, ariko ko ingingo ya 64 y’iryo Tegeko yakomeje gukurikizwa kubera ko ariyo Rwanda Revenue Authority yashingiyeho iyica umusoro ku nyongeragaciro. Kuba Inteko Ishinga Amategeko imenyeshwa mu gihe Urukiko rwaba rusanze ryari rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, atari ngombwa kuko iryo tegeko ryavuyeho, ahubwo ko ryagira ingaruka ku byemezo byafashwe n’Urukiko hashingiwe kuri iryo tegeko bikwiye guseswa. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga cyakirwa iyo urega agaragaje itegeko anenga n’imigereka yaryo iyo ihari. rikavanwaho n’urukiko rubifitiye ububasha mu gihe rusanze koko ribangamiye uburenganzira bw’umuntu buteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga. 2. Itegeko riregerwa ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rigomba kuba ari itegeko rikiriho, rikoreshwa kandi rigikurikizwa. Iyo itegeko cyangwa ingingo yaryo bitakiriho cyangwa bitagikoreshwa, ikirego kiburirwa impamvu cyatangiwe, nticyakirwe. Bityo. Ikirego cyatanzwe na Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd nticyakiriwe kuberako ingingo ya 64 y’Itegeko N° 25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 ryagenaga imitunganyirize y’isoresha, aregera ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga ntirikiriho.

## Page 37

3 Re FAST TRUCK INTERIOR AND HARDWARE Ltd

Inzitizi ifite ishingiro. Ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko ingingo y’itegeko inyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga, nticyakiriwe. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo muri 2003 ryavuguruwe mu mwaka wa 2015, ingingo ya 29 n’iya 61. Itegeko N° 026/2019 ryo ku wa 18/09/2019 rigena uburyo bw’isoresha, ingingo ya 98. Itegeko N˚ 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/6/2018 rigena ububasha bw’Inkiko, ingingo ya 72 n’iya 74. Itegeko N° 25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 ryagenaga imitunganyirize y’isoresha, ingingo ya 30 n’iya 64. Imanza zifashishijwe: Speaker of the National Assembly and Another v. Land Access Movement of South Africa and Others [2019] ZACC 10, rwaciwe ku wa 19/03/2019. Civil Appeal Nos. 823-827 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.2001-2005 of 2021) point 16. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi, irega Rwanda Revenue Authority (RRA), isaba gukurirwaho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro (TVA) ungana n’amafaranga 32.258.138 ivuga ko yaciwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko. Urwo Rukiko rwaciye urubanza

## Page 38

4 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

RCOM 00257/2021/TC ku wa 12/05/2021 ruha ishingiro ikirego cyayo maze rwemeza ko uwo musoro usheshwe. [2] Rwanda Revenue Authority yajuririye icyo cyemezo mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi maze mu iburanisha ry’urubanza RCOMA 00443/2021/HCC, Me Hategeka Placide, uhagarariye Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd abyutsa ikibazo cy’Itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga nk’inzitizi avuga ko ingingo ya 64 y’Itegeko N° 25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 ryagenaga imitunganyirize y’isoresha inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. [3] Ashingiye ku ngingo ya 74 y’Itegeko N˚ 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/6/2018 rigena ububasha bw’Inkiko, Perezida w’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 28/12/2022, amugezaho icyo kibazo, Ubwanditsi bw’Urukiko bwakira icyo kibazo, cyandikwa kuri RS/INCONST/RCOM 00001/2022/SC maze isuzumwa ryacyo rishyirwa ku wa 25/01/2023, ariko uwo munsi ugeze urubanza ntirwaburanishwa bisabwe n’Intumwa ya Leta. [4] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku wa 19/04/2023, Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd yitabye ihagarariwe na Me Hategeka Placide naho Leta y’u Rwanda ihagarariwe na Me Kabibi Spéciose na Me Twahirwa Jean Baptiste. [5] Mu myanzuro yayo ndetse no mu iburanisha, Leta y’u Rwanda yatanze inzitizi ivuga ko kuba Itegeko N˚ 25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 ryagenaga imitunganyirize y’isoreshwa Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd iregera ryaravuyeho, ridashobora kuregerwa ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, bityo ikirego cyayo kikaba kidakwiye kwakirwa.

## Page 39

5 Re FAST TRUCK INTERIOR AND HARDWARE Ltd

[6] Mu gusubiza kuri iyo nzitizi, Me Hategeka Placide avuga ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rugomba gusuzuma ikirego cya Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd kuko n’ubwo Itegeko N° 25/2005 ryavuzwe haruguru ryavuyeho, ariko ingingo ya 64 y’iryo Tegeko yakomeje gukurikizwa kubera ko ariyo Rwanda Revenue Authority yashingiyeho ica Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd umusoro ku nyongeragaciro ungana n’amafaranga 32.258.138. [7] Ikibazo kigomba gusuzumwa n’Urukiko, kikaba ari ukumenya niba itegeko ritakiriho rishobora kuregerwa ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko nshinga. II. IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYACYO 1. Kumenya niba itegeko ritakiriho rishobora kuregerwa ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga [8] Me Kabibi Spéciose uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda, avuga ko ingingo ya 98 y’Itegeko N° 026/2019 ryo ku wa 18/09/2019 rigena uburyo bw’isoresha iteganya ko Itegeko N° 25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 ryagenaga imitunganyirize y’isoresha nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu n’ingingo zose z’amategeko abanziriza iri kandi zinyuranyije na ryo bivanyweho, ibi bikaba bivuze ko iryo Tegeko N° 25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 ryaregewe ritakiriho. [9] Akomeza avuga ko Itegeko ritakiriho ridashobora kuregerwa ngo harebwe niba rinyuranyije cyangwa ritanyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, kuko n’ubundi iyo Urukiko rusanze rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, ingaruka ibaho ari uko

## Page 40

6 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

rikurwaho, bikamenyeshwa Inteko Ishinga Amategeko na Guverinoma, bikaba byumvikana ko bidashoboka gukuraho itegeko n’ubundi ritakiriho. [10] Asobanura kandi ko muri bene ibyo birego, icyemezo cy’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kiba ari “ex-nunc”, bivuze ko kigira ingaruka kuva igihe cyafatiwe kikaba rero kidashobora kugira ingaruka ku byabaye mbere y’uko gifatwa. [11] Agaragaza ko kuba urega avuga ko iryo tegeko ryamugizeho ingaruka n’ubwo ryavuyeho, bitaba impamvu yo kuregera ko rivaho kandi n’ubundi ritakiriho, cyane cyane ko ryamugizeho ingaruka kuko yakoze ibibujijwe n’iryo tegeko igihe ryari ririho. [12] Ku kibazo cyo kumenya uburyo ababangamiwe n’ibikorwa bavuga ko binyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga babiregera, Me Kabibi Spéciose avuga ko ikirego cya Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd cyatanzwe hisunzwe ingingo ya 74 y’Itegeko N° 30/2018 gitandukanye n’ibirego biregera ibikorwa binyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga, kandi ko icyo gihe Urega yaba agiye guhindura ikirego, asaba Urukiko kuguma mu mbibi z’icyaregewe, rugahera ku gusuzuma niba bishoboka kuregera Itegeko N° 25/2005 ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga kandi ritakiriho. [13] Atanga n’urugero rw’imanza zaciwe n’inkiko zo mu bindi bihugu, nko mu rubanza Civil Appeal Nos. 823-827 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.2001-2005 of 2021) point 16, aho muri urwo rubanza hari Assam Act1 yari yarasohotse mu mwaka

1 The Assam Parliamentary Secretaries (Appointment, Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004.

## Page 41

7 Re FAST TRUCK INTERIOR AND HARDWARE Ltd

wa 2004 maze mu mwaka wa 2012 hashyirwaho Manipular Act isa neza n’iya 2004 ari naryo ryaregewe mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga rw’Ubuhinde ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga ndetse urwo Rukiko ruha ishingiro icyo kirego. Nyuma, haregerwa na none Itegeko ryo muri 2012 ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga hashingiwe kuri urwo rubanza rwaciwe ku rya 2004, ariko mu gihe Urukiko rwari rutarafata icyemezo, Inteko Ishinga Amategeko ikuraho itegeko rya 2012, irisimbuza irya 2018 maze Urukiko Rukuru ruca urubanza rwemeza ko Inteko Ishinga Amategeko itari ifite ububasha bwo kurisimbura kuko irya 2012 rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. Urubanza rugeze mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga rwemeza ko nyuma y’uko hatowe Itegeko ryo muri 2018 byumvikanisha ko Itegeko ryo muri 2012 ryavuyeho, Urukiko Rukuru rukaba rutaragombaga kureba ibijyanye n’isuzuma ry’uko iryo tegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga kandi ryaravuyeho. [14] Akomeza avuga ko ikibazo cyasuzumwe muri urwo rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga gisa n’ikibazo Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd yashyikirije uru Rukiko kuko Itegeko N° 25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 ryavuzwe haruguru iregera ryavuyeho, akaba ariyo mpamvu asaba uru Rukiko kwifashisha umurongo watanzwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rw’Ubuhinde rukemeza ko Itegeko ryavuyeho ridashobora kuregerwa ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga kuko riba ritakiriho. [15] Me Twahirwa Jean Baptiste yamwunganiye avuga ko itegeko riregerwa ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga kugira ngo ritakaze agaciro karyo, bikumvikana ko ibyo bishoboka gusa iyo iryo tegeko ryari rikigafite, ni ukuvuga rigikurikizwa; ko kuba

## Page 42

8 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

rero itegeko ryaregewe ritakiriho, ridashobora kuregerwa ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. [16] Ku birebana n’ibisobanuro bya Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd by’uko ryaregewe kuko rigikoreshwa mu kuyica imisoro, avuga ko icyo kibazo kitagakwiye gusuzumwa n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ahubwo ibaye yararenganyijwe n’Itegeko N° 25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 ryavuzwe haruguru, yazakiregera mu rubanza rw’imisoro. [17] Mu kwiregura kuri icyo kibazo, Me Hategeka Placide avuga ko Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd itaregeye Urukiko kwemeza ko ingingo ya 64 y’Itegeko N˚ 25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 ryagenaga imitunganyirize y’isoreshwa inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga mu buryo busanzwe bene ibyo birego bitangwamo, ahubwo ko yagitanze nk’ikibazo cyavukiye mu iburanisha mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi (question préjudicielle). [18] Akomeza asobanura ko impamvu Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd yaregeye kwemeza ko ingingo ya 64 y’Itegeko N˚ 25/2005 ryavuzwe haruguru rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga n’ubwo ryavuyeho, ari uko Rwanda Revenue Authority yayiciye umusoro ariryo ishingiyeho nk’uko bigaragazwa n’inyandiko mvugo imenyesha amakosa yakozwe ku wa 13/10/2020 mu gika cyayo cya nyuma, kuko rireba ibikorwa yakoze mu gihe itegeko ryari rigifite ubuzima bwaryo, byumvikanisha ko n’ubwo bwose iryo tegeko ryavuyeho, ariko ryakomeje gukoreshwa, ku bw’ibyo, rikaba rishobora no kuregerwa ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. [19] Naho ku bijyanye no kumenyesha Inteko Ishinga Amategeko mu gihe Urukiko rwaba rusanze ryari rinyuranyije

## Page 43

9 Re FAST TRUCK INTERIOR AND HARDWARE Ltd

n’Itegeko Nshinga, avuga ko bitaba ngombwa kuko iryo tegeko ryavuyeho, ahubwo ko ryagira ingaruka ku byemezo byafashwe n’Urukiko hashingiwe kuri iryo tegeko bikwiye guseswa. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [20] Ingingo ya 72 y’Itegeko No 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, igika cya 1, ivuga ko umuntu ku giti cye, ikigo cyangwa umuryango ufite ubuzimagatozi bashobora kuregera Urukiko rw’Ikirenga basaba kwemeza ko itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga iyo babifitemo inyungu. Igika cya 2, ikavuga ko urega agomba gushyira ku mugereka w’inyandiko itanga ikirego kopi y’itegeko anenga n’imigereka yaryo iyo ihari. Naho igika cya 5, kikavuga ko iyo Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwemeje ko iryo tegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, ruhita rubimenyesha mu nyandiko Inteko Ishinga Amategeko na Guverinoma. Icyo cyemezo gitangazwa mu Igazeti ya Leta ya Repubulika y’u Rwanda. [21] Ingingo ya 74, igika cya mbere n’icya kabiri, y’Itegeko N°30/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru iteganya kandi ko Iyo Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ruburanisha izindi manza zitari izo kugenzura ko itegeko ritanyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, hakabonekamo ikibazo cy’itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, rugomba kubanza kugikemura mbere yo kuburanisha urubanza mu mizi yarwo. Iyo icyo kibazo kigaragaye, gitanzwe n’ababuranyi cyangwa urukiko rubyibwirije, mu iburanisha ry’urubanza mu nkiko zo hasi, izo nkiko zihita zihagarika iburanisha ry’urubanza rw’ibanze, zikoherereza Urukiko rw’Ikirenga icyo kibazo kugira ngo rubanze rugifateho icyemezo.

## Page 44

10 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[22] Nk’uko byibukijwe haruguru, ikibazo nyamukuru kiri muri uru rubanza impande zombi zirurimo zitumvikanaho, ni ukumenya niba itegeko ryavuyeho rishobora kuregerwa ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, aho Intumwa za Leta zihamya ko bidashoboka, ariko uhagarariye Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd we akavuga ko ntakibibuza mu gihe iryo tegeko ryakomeje gukoreshwa na nyuma y’uko rivuyeho ku bikorwa byabayeho rigikurikizwa. [23] Urukiko rurasanga ikibazo kirebana no kuba itegeko ryavuyeho rishobora kuregerwa ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga cyarasuzumwe n’izindi nkiko z’ibindi bihugu zifite mu nshingano zazo kurinda Itegeko Nshinga. [24] Urukiko rushinzwe Itegeko Nshinga rwo muri Afurika y’Epfo, mu rubanza Speaker of the National Assembly and Another v Land Access Movement of South Africa and Others [2019] ZACC 10, rwaciwe ku wa 19/03/2019, aho mu gika cya 8, uwaregeye ko itegeko ryavuyeho rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga yabishingiye ku mpamvu ebyiri: iya mbere ikaba yari ukuba NCOP2 n’Abashingamategeko bo ku rwego rw’intara, mu bihe bitandukanye, batarubahirije ibiteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga mu gice cyaryo cya 72(1)(a), kuko nta ruhare abaturage bagize mu itorwa ry’itegeko ryabanjirije itegeko rihindura iryavuyeho, maze mu gika cya 10, Urukiko rwemeza ko itegeko ryavuyeho riteshejwe agaciro, rushingiye ku ngingo ya mbere yari ikubiye mu mwanzuro w’urega.3

2 National Council of Provinces. 3 Speaker of the National Assembly and Another v Land Access Movement of South Africa and Others [2019] ZACC 10, rwaciwe ku wa 19/03/2019, mu gika cya 8, “The applicants challenged the constitutionality of the repealed Amendment Act on two grounds: first, that the NCOP and the provincial

## Page 45

11 Re FAST TRUCK INTERIOR AND HARDWARE Ltd

[25] Naho Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwo mu Buhinde, mu rubanza rwanavuzwe haruguru mu myanzuro y’Intumwa ya Leta, rwemeje ko kuba itegeko ryavanyweho riba ritakiriho, Urukiko rudashobora gusuzuma niba rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, bityo ko Urukiko Rukuru rwakoze ikosa mu kwemeza ko itegeko ryavanyweho rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga.4 [26] Urukiko rusanga ingero ebyiri z’imanza zaciwe n’Inkiko zo mu bindi bihugu zavuzwe haruguru, zigaragaza ko ikibazo cyo kumenya niba itegeko ryavanyweho rishobora kuregerwa ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, kitarakemuwe kimwe n’izo nkiko; bityo mu gusuzuma ikirego rwashyikirijwe, rugiye kureba niba ukurikije ibiteganywa n’amategeko, bishoboka ko umuburanyi yasaba ko uru Rukiko rusuzuma niba itegeko ryavuyeho rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. [27] Urukiko rurebeye hamwe ibivugwa mu ngingo ya 72 n’ingingo ya 74 igika cya 1 n’icya 2 z’Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru, rurasanga Umushingamategeko atarasobanuye mu buryo bweruye ibyo Urukiko rushingiraho

legislatures respectively breached section 72(1)(a) of the Constitution by failing to “facilitate public involvement” in the passing of the Bill that preceded the repealed Amendment Act” maze mu gika cya 10, Urukiko Rushinzwe Itegeko Nshinga, rugira ruti ⦋…⦌ “It also declared the repealed Amendment Act to be invalid, thereby accepting the LAMOSA respondents’first argument...” ruboneka kuri http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2019/10.html. 4 (…) “The aforesaid judgments leave no room for doubt that after enactment of the Repealing Act, 2018, the 2-12 Act did not survive and the High Court ought not to have considered the constitutional validity of the same. To that extent, the High Court committed an error in declaring a non-existing law as unconstitutional.” The State of Manipur & Ors Vs Surjakumar Okram & Ors, Civil Appeal Nos. 823 – 827 of 2022, 1 February 2022, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/118737687/

## Page 46

12 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

rusuzuma iyakirwa ry’ikirego cy’itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga kibyukijwe n’umuburanyi mu rubanza, bikaba ariko byumvikana ko icyo kirego kigomba gusuzumwa mu buryo bumwe n’ubw’ibirego bisaba kwemeza ko Itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga buteganywa n’ingingo ya 72. [28] Urukiko rurasanga rero bimwe mu bisabwa kugira ngo ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga cyakirwe, ari uko urega agomba kugaragaza itegeko anenga n’imigereka yaryo iyo ihari. Bikumvikanisha ko ikigamijwe muri bene ibi birego ari ukugira ngo mu gihe Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusanze koko iryo tegeko ribangamiye uburenganzira bw’umuntu buteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga, rivanweho. [29] Ku birebana n’ivanwaho ry’itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga bishimangirwa no kuba mu gika cya 5 cy’ingingo ya 72 y’Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru, Umushingamategeko yaragennye ko iyo itegeko ryemejwe ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ruhita rubimenyesha mu nyandiko inzego zibifitiye ububasha kugira ngo rikosorwe cyangwa risimbuzwe. Inzego zibifitiye ububasha ni Inteko Ishinga Amategeko na Guverinoma. [30] Urukiko rurebye ibisabwa mu itangwa ry’ibirego bisaba kwemeza ko itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga n’imihango iteganyijwe nyuma yo gusanga ariko bimeze, rurasanga ari imihango ya ngombwa ku buryo mu gihe itubahirijwe byatuma icyemezo Urukiko rwaba rwafashe gita agaciro, kuko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rutamenyesha Inteko Ishinga Amategeko na Guverinoma kugira ngo hakurweho itegeko n’ubundi ritakiriho cyangwa ngo hatangazwe mu Igazeti ya Leta urubanza rwemeza ko itegeko rivuyeho kandi n’ubundi ryaramaze gutangazwa ko

## Page 47

13 Re FAST TRUCK INTERIOR AND HARDWARE Ltd

ryavanyweho. Ibyo binahura n’ibyavuzwe na Me Hategeka Placide mu iburanisha, aho yireguye avuga ko bitaba ngombwa kumenyesha Inteko Ishinga Amategeko kuko iryo tegeko ryavuyeho. [31] Urukiko rurasanga ingaruka ziva mu kuvanaho itegeko zaranasobanuwe mu rubanza “The State of Manipur vs Surjakumar Okram” rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rw’Ubuhinde, rwavuzwe haruguru, mu gika cyarwo cya 15 ku rupapuro rwa 6, aho rwemeje ko ……ingaruka zo kuvanaho itegeko ni ugusibwa burundu mu bitabo by’Inteko Ishinga Amategeko nk’aho ritigeze ritorwa kandi bigafatwa nk’aho ritigeze ribaho keretse irengayobora ku bikorwa byari byaratangiye, ibyamaze gushinjwa ndetse n’ibyamaze gukorwa igihe ryari itegeko rikiriho. Rusobanura kandi ko ⦋…⦌ uwo ari umurongo wamaze kwemezwa mu mategeko ko igihe cyose itegeko rivanyweho, bigomba gufatwa nk’aho ritigeze ribaho. Ikigamijwe mu kurivanaho akaba aba ari ukurandura iryo tegeko keretse irengayobora ku mpamvu zimwe ziteganijwe. Kuvanaho akaba atari ikibazo kirebana n’imiterere (form) gusa ahubwo kikaba kinareba ibirimo (substance). Bityo rero, iyo itegeko rivanyweho, ingingo zaryo ziba zakuweho mu buryo bwose.5

5 The State of Manipur vs Surjakumar Okram on 1 February, 2022 rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rw’Ubuhinde, mu gika cyarwo cya 15 ku rupapuro rwa 6, aho rugira ruti ⦋…⦌ “I take the effect of repealing a statute to be to obliterate it as completely from the records of Parliament as if it had never been passed; and it must be considered as a law that never existed except for the purpose of those actions which were commenced, prosecuted and concluded whilst it was an existing law.” Rugakomeza rugira ruti ⦋…⦌ “It is a settled legal proposition that whenever an Act is repealed, it must be considered as if it had never existed” …rugasoza rugira ruti “Repeal is not a matter of mere form but is of substance. Therefore, on repeal, the earlier provisions stand

## Page 48

14 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[32] Urukiko, rushingiye ku bisobanuro byatanzwe mu bika bibanziriza iki, rurasanga nta gushidikanya ko itegeko riregerwa ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rigomba kuba ari itegeko rikiriho, ni ukuvuga rigikurikizwa nk’uko abahagarariye Leta babiburanisha. [33] Urukiko rurasanga ibivugwa na Me Hategeka Placide ko Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd yaregeye Itegeko N° 25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 ryagenaga imitunganyirize y’isoresha n’ubwo ryavuyeho kuko Rwanda Revenue Authority yashingiye ku ngingo yaryo ya 64 ikayica umusoro ungana n’amafaranga 32.258.138, nta shingiro bifite kubera ko ibyemezo bifatwa mu bijyanye n’isora n’isoreshwa ari ibyemezo by’ubutegetsi, bishobora kuvanwaho binyuze mu nzira yo gutakambira Komiseri Mukuru nk’uko byateganywaga n’ingingo ya 30 y’iryo Tegeko, nabwo icyemezo afashe kitamunyura akaregera urukiko. [34] Ibyo bikaba bigaragaza ko hateganyijwe inzira umusoreshwa ubangamiwe n’ingingo ya 64 y’Itegeko N° 25/2005 ryavuzwe haruguru yashoboraga kwiyambaza kugira ngo arenganurwe, kandi Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd ikaba yarayiyambaje mu rwego rwo kugira ngo umusoro yaciwe ukurweho, bitandukanye no gutanga ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko itegeko ritakiriho rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, kandi ntaho rikigaragara mu bitabo by’amategeko nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru. [35] Dushingiye ku bisobanuro byatanzwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga ikirego cyatanzwe na Fast Truck Interior and Hardware

obliterated/abrogated/wiped out wholly...” ruboneka kuri https://indiankanoon.org/doc/118737687/.

## Page 49

15 Re FAST TRUCK INTERIOR AND HARDWARE Ltd

Ltd iregera kwemeza ko ingingo ya 64 y’Itegeko N° 25/2005 ryavuzwe haruguru rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga kitagomba kwakirwa kuko iryo tegeko ritakiriho. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [36] Rwemeje ko inzitizi yatanzwe na Leta y’u Rwanda ifite ishingiro. [37] Rwemeje ko ikirego cya Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd gisaba kwemeza ko ingingo ya 64 y’Itegeko n° 25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 ryagenaga imitunganyirize y’isoresha, inyuranye n’ingingo ya 29 n’iya 61 z’Itegeko Nshinga, kitakiriwe ngo gisuzumwe. [38] Rwemeje ko hakomeza iburanisha ry’urubanza RCOMA 00443/2021/HCC mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi.

## Page 51

IMANZA ZACIWE MU MIZI

## Page 53

URUBANZA RW’UBUTEGETSI

## Page 55

21

MHAYIMANA vs URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/INJUST/RAD 00002/2022/SC – (Ntezilyayo, J. P., Nyilinkwaya, Cyanzayire, Hitiyaremye na Karimunda, J.) 17 Gashyantare 2023] Amategeko agenga urugaga rw’Abavoka – Imyitwarire y’Abavoka – Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire – Ibihe byo kuregera komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire – Iyo Umukuru w’Urugaga amenye amakosa Avoka aregwa kandi ari mu bubasha bwa Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire, abiregera iyo Komisiyo mu mezi atatu uhereye igihe yamenyeye amakosa. Amategeko agenga urugaga rw’Abavoka – Imyitwarire y’abavoka – Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire – Ifatwa ry’icyemezo – Iyo komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire y’Abavoka iteranye mu rwego rwo guhana, quorum isabwa kugirango iterane kandi ifate icyemezo ni 2/3 by’umubare w’abayigize bagenwa n’Itegeko. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirije y’imanza zasabiwe gusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane – Imbibi z’ikiburanwa – Ibirego bishya bitari mu byaburanywe mu rubanza rusubirishwamo ntibyakirwa mu rubanza rwasabiwe gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Incamake y’ikibazo: Me Mhayimana yareze Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda, asaba Urukiko gukuraho icyemezo cya Komisiyo Ishinzwe Imyitwarire y’Abavoka mu Rwanda, kimuhanisha guhagarikwa amezi 3 kubera uko yitwaye ubwo Umwanditsi w’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge

## Page 56

22 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

yamumenyeshaga icyemezo cyo kumuca ihazabu mbonezamubano bitewe no gutinza urubanza. Urubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rukuru, Me Mhayimana aratsindwa bituma asaba ko urubanza rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, ubusabe bwe burakirwa. Asaba ko icyemezo kimuhagarika cyakurwaho kuko cyafashwe n’abatabifitiye ububasha, aho cyafashwe n’abantu babiri gusa kandi kigomba gufatwa na 2/3 by’abantu cumi n’umwe bagize Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire y’Abavoka mu Rwanda. Ikindi ni uko hirengagijwe ko habayeho ubuzime bwo gukurikirana ikosa yarezwe ndetse ntibahe agaciro amategeko n’ibimenyetso bigaragaza ko icyemezo yafatiwe kitubahirije imihango yo gukurikirana ikosa iteganywa n’itegeko. Urugaga rw’Abavoka ruvuga ko urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rudakwiye guhinduka kubera ko icyemezo cyo guhagarika Urega mu gihe cy’amezi atatu cyafashwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko. Rusobanura ko kuba icyemezo kigomba gufatwa mu gihe kitarenze amezi 2, biba mu bihe bisanzwe kubera ko icyo cyemezo yafatiwe cyafashwe mu gihe cya COVID-19 kandi ingamba zagendaga zishyirwaho mu rwego rwo kurwanya icyo cyorezo ntizatumaga akazi gakorwa nk’uko bisanzwe. Kuvuga ko ikurikirana ry’ikosa riba imfabusa iyo ibihe birenze ni ukuvugisha itegeko ibyo ritavuze. Ikibazo nyamukuru cyasuzumwe mu rubanza, ni ukumenya niba icyemezo cyafashwe na Komisiyo Ishinzwe Imyitwarire y’Abavoka mu Rwanda cyakurwaho kubera impamvu zinyuranye zatanzwe n’Urega. Muri izo mpamvu, harimo kuba quorum y’abagize Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire itari yuzuye igihe yateranaga igafata icyemezo.

## Page 57

23 MHAYIMANA vs URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA

Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Ibirego bishya bitari mu byaburanywe mu rubanza rusubirishwamo ntibyakirwa mu rubanza rwasabiwe gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. 2. Iyo Umukuru w’Urugaga amenye amakosa Avoka aregwa kandi ari mu bubasha bwa Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire, abiregera iyo Komisiyo mu mezi atatu uhereye igihe yamenyeye amakosa. 3. Iyo komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire y’Abavoka iteranye mu rwego rwo guhana, quorum isabwa kugirango iterane kandi ifate icyemezo ni 2/3 by’umubare w’abayigize bagenwa n’Itegeko. Bityo, quorum yasabwaga kugirango Me Mhayimana Isaïe afatirwe icyemezo yagombaga kuzura hari abagize Komisiyo nibura 7 kuri 11 bateganywa n’itegeko, aho kuba 6/9 hashingiye ko hari imyanya itarimo abantu. Ikirego gisaba gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane, gifite ishingiro. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko N° 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda rikanagena imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, ingingo ya 25, 29, 31, 74, 75 n’iya 78. Imanza zifashishijwe: RS/INJUST/RAD 00003/2021/SC, Tabaruka Dieudonné n’Akarere ka Gicumbi, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 20/05/2022.

## Page 58

24 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2018/SC, Nditiribambe Samuel na Gatera Jason et Crts, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 13/03/2020. RCA 00280/2016/HC/KIG, Me Nduwamungu Jean Vianney n’Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 12/01/2017. Arrêt du Tribunal de la Fonction Publique de l’Union Européenne (troisième chambre), FS vs Comité économique et social européen (CESE), 12 Mai 2016, para 59. Arrêt du Tribunal de la Fonction Publique de l’Union Européenne (deuxième chambre), 8 Octobre 2015, para 105 & 107-108. Arrêt du Tribunal de la Fonction Publique de l’Union Européenne (Première Chambre), Simona Murariu vs Autorité européenne des assurances et des pensions professionnelles (AEAPP), 16 Juillet 2015, para 152. Judgment of the court (second chamber) of 9 July 1987. Ingfried Hochbaum and Edward Rawes vs Commission of the European Communities, Official - annulment of appointment, Joined cases 44/85, 77/85, 294/85 and 295/85, para 22. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Ku wa 20/05/2021, Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire y’Abavoka mu Rwanda (Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire muri uru rubanza) yafashe icyemezo nimero 008/CD/2021, gihanisha Me Mhayimana Isaïe guhagarikwa gukora umwuga w’ubwavoka

## Page 59

25 MHAYIMANA vs URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA

mu gihe cy’amezi 3 kubera imyitwarire yamuranze ubwo yamenyeshwaga n’Umwanditsi w’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge icyemezo cyo kumuca ihazabu ku mpamvu zo gutinza urubanza. [2] Me Mhayimana Isaïe yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rukuru asaba gukuraho icyo cyemezo ashingiye ku mpamvu zikurikira: - Kuba cyarafashwe n’abatabifitiye ububasha; - Kuba abagifashe badashobora kugaragaza ko bari bagize Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire y’Abavoka mu Rwanda kuko muri icyo gihe manda yabo yari yararangiye; - Kuba icyemezo cyarafashwe harabayeho ubuzime bw’ikurikirana ry’ikosa; - Kuba imihango yo gukurikirana ikosa iteganywa n’itegeko itarakurikijwe; - Kuba Komite yararegewe n’umuntu utabifitiye ubabasha n’ inyungu. [3] Urukiko Rukuru, mu rubanza RAD 00017/2021/HC/KIG rwaciwe ku wa 28/10/2021, rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Me Mhayimana Isaïe kidafite ishingiro, ko icyemezo nimero 008/CD/2021 cya Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire y’Abavoka mu Rwanda cyo ku wa 20/05/2021 kidateshejwe agiciro kuko kitanyuranyije n’amategeko, rutegeka Me Mhayimana Isaïe guha Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda 1.000.000 Frw akubiyemo igihembo cy’Avoka n’ikurikiranarubanza. [4] Me Mhayimana Isaïe yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire asaba ko urubanza RAD 00017/2021/KIG

## Page 60

26 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, nawe amaze kubisuzuma yandikira Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga asaba ko urwo rubanza rusubirwamo. Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga amaze gusuzuma raporo yashyikirijwe, yemeje ko urubanza rwavuzwe haruguru ruburanishwa n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, rwandikwa kuri RS/INJUST/RAD 00002/2022/SC. [5] Urubanza rwashyizwe kuri gahunda y’iburanisha ku wa 21/11/2022, ariko kuri iyo tariki iburanisha mu mizi ntiryaba kuko Me Mhayimana Isaïe yihannye umwe mu bacamanza bagize inteko, iburanisha rigahita rihagarara kugira ngo habanze gusuzumwa ibirebana n’ubwo bwihane. Icyemezo ku bwihane cyafashwe ku wa 30/11/2022, Urukiko rwemeza ko ikirego cya Me Mhayimana Isaïe kigamije kwihana umucamanza kitakiriwe. [6] Iburanisha ry’urubanza ryasubukuwe ku wa 16/01/2023, ababuranyi bose bitabye, Me Mhayimana Isaïe yunganiwe na Me Abijuru Emmanuel, Me Basomingera Albert na Me Rwigema Vincent; naho Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda ruhagarariwe na Me Nizeyimana Boniface, Me Uwanyirigira Delphine na Me Rushikama Niyo Justin. [7] Me Mhayimana Isaïe n’abamwunganira basobanuye ko akarengane gashingiye ku mpamvu zikurikira: - Kuba icyemezo asaba ko gikurwaho cyarafashwe n’abatabifitiye ububasha kuko cyafashwe n’abantu babiri gusa kandi kigomba gufatwa na 2/3 by’abantu cumi n’umwe bagize Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire y’Abavoka mu Rwanda; - Kuba icyemezo asaba ko gikurwaho cyarafashwe n’abavuga ko bagize Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire

## Page 61

27 MHAYIMANA vs URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA

y’Abavoka mu Rwanda nyamara batari bagifite ububasha (manda yabo yararangiye); - Kuba harirengagijwe ko habayeho ubuzime bwo gukurikirana ikosa yarezwe kandi byari impamvu ituma icyo cyemezo giteshwa agaciro; - Kudaha agaciro amategeko n’ibimenyetso bigaragaza ko icyemezo yafatiwe kitubahirije imihango yo gukurikirana ikosa iteganywa n’itegeko. [8] Abahagarariye Urugaga bo bavuga ko urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rudakwiye guhinduka kubera ko icyemezo cyo guhagarika Me Mhayimana Isaïe mu gihe cy’amezi atatu cyafashwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko. [9] Ibibazo byasuzumwe muri uru rubanza ni ibi bikurikira: - Kumenya niba icyemezo nimero 008/CD/2021 cyafashwe na Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire ku wa 20/05/2021 cyakurwaho:  Kumenya niba harabayeho ubuzime bw’ikurikirana ry’ikosa;  Kumenya niba Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire yararegewe n’utabifitiye inyungu n’ububasha;  Kumenya niba icyemezo nimero 008/CD/2021 cyarafashwe n’abatabifitiye ububasha:  Kuba cyarafashwe na Perezida wa Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire hamwe n’Umunyamabanga wayo;

## Page 62

28 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

 Kuba quorum y’abagize Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire itari yuzuye.  Kuba manda y’abagize Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire yari yararangiye;  Kumenya niba imihango irebana n’ikurikirana ry’ikosa yarubahirijwe;  Kumenya niba Me Mhayimana Isaïe yarahanishijwe igihano kidateganyijwe n’amategeko kandi nta mpamvu gishingiyeho. - Ibijyanye n’indishyi. [10] Ku bindi Me Mhayimana Isaïe yasabaga ko Urukiko rwategeka Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda kuzatangaza icyemezo cyarwo mu gihe yaramuka atsinze, Urukiko rwamenyesheje ababuranyi ko bitasuzumwa kubera ko bitari mu byaburanywe mu rubanza rusabirwa gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane; ibyo bikaba byarafashweho umurongo mu manza zinyuranye zaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga1. [11] Ababuranyi bamaze kujya impaka ku bibazo byemejwe ko aribyo bisuzumwa, Urukiko rwapfundikiye iburanisha rumenyesha ababuranyi ko urubanza ruzasomwa ku wa 17/02/2023.

1 Urubanza RS/INJUST/RAD 00003/2021/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 20/05/2022 haburana Tabaruka Dieudonné n’Akarere ka Gicumbi (igika cya 9); n’urubanza RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2018/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 13/03/2020 haburana Nditiribambe Samuel na Gatera Jason et Crts (igika cya 66).

## Page 63

29 MHAYIMANA vs URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA

II. ISESENGURA RY’IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA 1. Kumenya niba icyemezo nimero 008/CD/2021 cyafashwe na Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire y’Abavoka mu Rwanda ku wa 20/05/2021 cyakurwaho - Kumenya niba harabayeho ubuzime bw’ikurikirana ry’ikosa [12] Me Mhayimana Isaïe n’abamwunganira bavuga ko habayeho ubuzime bw’ikurikirana ry’ikosa bashingiye ku mpamvu zikurikira: - Umukuru w’Urugaga yashingiye ikirego cye kuri e- mail yo ku wa 16/12/2020 yandikiwe n’Umugenzuzi Mukuru w’Inkiko, ashyikiriza ikibazo Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire ku wa 23/12/2020, ayisaba gukurikirana Me Mhayimana Isaïe. Uyu yahamagajwe kwitaba ku wa 12/03/2021, ku wa 25/03/2021 no ku wa 30/04/2021, icyemezo gifatwa ku wa 20/05/2021. - Ashingiye ku ngingo ya 78, igika cya 2, y’Itegeko No 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda, rikanagena imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, iteganya iminsi ntarengwa yo gufataho icyemezo2, asanga amezi abiri ateganyijwe

2 Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire iterana hari nibura bibiri bya gatatu (2/3) by’abayigize. Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire igomba kuba yafashe icyemezo mu gihe kitarenze amezi abiri (2) uhereye ku munsi yagejejweho ikirego. Ifata icyemezo kandi ku bwiganze bwa bibiri bya gatatu (2/3) by’abitabiriye inama. Umwanditsi w’Urugaga amenyesha Avoka uregwa icyemezo

## Page 64

30 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

n’iyo ngingo yararangiye ku wa 22/02/2021, kandi kuri iyo tariki akaba yari atarahamagarwa kuko yahamagawe bwa mbere ku wa 12/03/2021, bikaba bigaragara ko ikurikirana ry’ikosa ryari ryarazimye. - Kwitwaza ko habayeho ibihe bidasanzwe bitewe n’icyorezo cya Covid-19 nta shingiro bifite kuko bidateganyijwe n’amategeko ko ibihe bishobora kongerwa kubera ibihe bidasanzwe, byongeye kandi guma mu rugo (Lockdown) yarangiye ku wa 07/02/2021, bikaba atari igisobanuro cyo kuba ku wa 02/03/2021 ari bwo yashyikirijwe ubutumire bwo kuzitaba Komisiyo ku wa 12/03/2021. - Ibihe byo gushaka amakuru no gukora iperereza biteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 74 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru ni ndemyagihugu, kuko iyo ngingo iteganya ko gushaka amakuru no gukora iperereza bigomba {shall/doivent} kuba byarangiye mu gihe kitarenze ukwezi kumwe. Iyi ngingo ikaba igomba kubahirizwa uko iteye kuko itegeka, yaba itubahirijwe imihango yo guhana ikaba imfabusa nk’uko biteganyijwe n’ingingo ya 172 y’amategeko ngengamikorere y’Urugaga3; ibi kandi akaba ari nako byagenze mu

cyose cyafashwe mu rubanza cyerekeye ibihano by’amakosa y’umwuga mu gihe cy’iminsi cumi n’itanu (15) hakoreshejwe uburyo bw’imenyesha ry’ibyemezo bukurikizwa mu mategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’ubutegetsi n’iz’umurimo. 3 Urwego rubifitiye ububasha rugomba kumenyesha Avoka uregwa ibyo akurikiranyweho, kandi rukamutumira kuza kwiregura mu gihe cy’iminsi kuva kuri irindwi (7) kugeza kuri cumi n’ine (14), bitaba ibyo, imihango yose ijyanye no guhana ikaba impfabusa.

## Page 65

31 MHAYIMANA vs URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA

rubanza RCA 00280/2016/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 12/01/2017 haburana Me Nduwamungu Jean Vianney n’Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda mu gika cya 28. [13] Abahagarariye Urugaga bavuga ko ibyo Me Mhayimana Isaïe avuga nta shingiro bifite kubera impamvu zikurikira: - Kuba icyemezo kigomba gufatwa mu gihe kitarenze amezi 2 biba mu bihe bisanzwe, kandi ingamba zagendaga zishyirwaho mu rwego rwo kurwanya icyorezo cya Covid-19 ntizatumaga akazi gakorwa nk’uko bisanzwe. Ibyo bishimangirwa n’uko ku wa 18/01/2021, bitewe n’uko ubwandu bwa Covid-19 bwagendaga bwiyongera mu Gihugu, hashyizweho amabwiriza ashyira Umujyi wa Kigali muri guma mu rugo (Lockdown); - Itegeko ntiryigeze rivuga mu buryo butaziguye ko niba amezi 2 atubahirijwe ibyakozwe bihita bita agaciro hakabaho ubuzime; - Kuvuga ko ikurikirana ry’ikosa riba imfabusa iyo ibihe birenze ni ukuvugisha itegeko ibyo ritavuze, no mu mategeko asanzwe niba Umushingamategeko yaravuze ko ikirego cyihutirwa kigomba kuburanishwa mu gihe runaka, iyo icyo gihe kirenze ntabwo bikuraho gufata icyemezo cyangwa ngo icyemezo gifashwe muri icyo gihe gite agaciro, keretse itegeko ribaye ariko ryabiteganyije.

Iyo dosiye isaba ko hakorwa iperereza ku myitwarire, Umukuru w’Urugaga cyangwa Komisiyo ihoraho ishinzwe imyitwarire bashobora gushyiraho ukora iperereza.

## Page 66

32 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [14] Ubuzime busobanurwa nk’uburyo bwo gutuma habaho kuzima k’uburenganzira bitewe n’uko uwari ufite ubwo burenganzira (cyangwa ububasha) ntacyo yakoze mu gihe runaka4. Ubuzime butangira kubarwa kuva igihe ufite uburenganzira yamenyeye cyangwa yagombaga kuba yaramenye ibikorwa bituma abukoresha5. [15] Ingingo ya 22 y’Amategeko Ngengamikorere y’Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda yo ku wa 16/09/2014 (Amategeko Ngengamikorere muri uru rubanza), igika cya 2, agace ka 3, iteganya ko Umukuru w’Urugaga afite ubushobozi bwo kohereza Avoka muri Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire, iyo abona ko ibyo Avoka aregwa bishobora gutuma hafatwa ibihano byo mu rwego rw’imyitwarire kandi birenze ububasha bwe. [16] Ingingo ya 171 y’ayo Mategeko Ngengamikorere yerekeye uburyo bwo gushaka no gukurikirana amakosa, igaragagaza inzego zitandukanye zikurikirana amakosa y’imyitwarire harimo n’Umukuru w’Urugaga; mu gace kayo ka (c), igateganya ko amakosa ashobora gukurikiranwa bisabwe

4 Moyen d'éteindre un droit par non-usage ; JuriBistro Edictionnaire, Dictionnaire de droit québécois et canadien, 2016, https://dictionnairereid.caij.qc.ca/, consulté le 15/02/2023. Un mode d’extinction d'un droit résultant de l'inaction de son titulaire pendant un certain laps de temps, Ooreka Droit, 2023, p.2, https://justice.ooreka.fr/, consulté le 15/02/2023. 5 L’article 2224 du Code civil dispose que, les actions personnelles ou mobilières se prescrivent par 5 ans à compter du jour où le titulaire d'un droit a connu, ou aurait dû connaître, les faits lui permettant de l'exercer. Cette prescription est considérée comme celle de droit commun. Elle est donc la règle par principe; Ooreka Droit, ibidem p. 2.

## Page 67

33 MHAYIMANA vs URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA

n’umuntu wese ubifitemo inyungu. Icyo gihe, ikirego kigomba gutangwa mu mezi atatu (3) uhereye igihe uwo muntu yamenyeye amakosa, cyangwa uhereye igihe iperereza ryarangiriye. Iyo ngingo ikomeza ivuga ko iki gihe aricyo gisabwa iyo Umukuru w’Urugaga cyangwa umwe mu bagize Inama y’Urugaga ari we waregeye Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire. [17] Ibiteganyijwe mu ngingo za 22 na 171 z’Amategeko Ngengamikorere zimaze kuvugwa, ni nabyo bigaragara mu ngingo ya 75 y’Itegeko Nº 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda, rikanagena imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo (Itegeko rigenga Urugaga muri uru rubanza).6 [18] Ibivugwa mu ngingo zavuzwe byumvikanisha ko, iyo Umukuru w’Urugaga amenye amakosa Avoka aregwa kandi ari mu bubasha bwa Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire, abiregera iyo Komisiyo mu mezi atatu uhereye igihe yamenyeye amakosa. [19] Muri uru rubanza, inyandiko zigize dosiye zigaragaza ko ku wa 16/12/2020, Umugenzuzi Mukuru w’Inkiko yoherereje e- mail Mugabe Victor (Umunyamabanga Nshingwabikorwa w’Urugaga rw’Abavoka), amumenyesha imyitwarire ya Me Mhayimana Isaïe, agenera kopi Umukuru w’Urugaga kuri e-mail julien@ksolutions-law.com. Bigaragara na none ko ku wa

6 Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire y’Urugaga iburanisha ibirego by’amakosa y’Abavoka. Iregerwa n’Umukuru w’Urugaga, umwe (1) mu bagize Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire cyangwa undi muntu wese ubifitemo inyungu. Iyo umwe (1) mu bavugwa mu gika cya mbere cy’iyi ngingo abona ko Avoka agomba gukurikiranwa, amurega mu gihe kitarenze amezi atatu (3) abarwa uhereye igihe ubifitemo inyungu amenyeye amakuru cyangwa uhereye igihe iperereza risorejwe.

## Page 68

34 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

23/12/2020, Umukuru w’Urugaga yandikiye Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire ibaruwa ifite nimero Let.211/Bat./KJG/12/2020, ayisaba gusuzuma imyitwarire ya Me Mhayimana Isaïe. [20] Ikigaragara mu nyandiko zavuzwe mu gika kibanza, ni uko Umukuru w’Urugaga uhabwa n’amategeko ububasha bwo kuregera Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire, yamenye amakuru y’imyitwarire ya Me Mhayimana Isaïe ku wa 16/12/2020, akaregera Komisiyo ku wa 23/12/2020, ni ukuvuga mu gihe cy’iminsi 7. Urukiko rukaba rusanga igihe cy’amezi 3 giteganywa n’amategeko cyo gukurikirana amakosa y’Avoka bikozwe n’Umukuru w’Urugaga cyarubahirijwe. [21] Urukiko rusanga rero, hashingiwe ku bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, Ibivugwa na Me Mhayimana Isaïe ko habaye ubuzime bw’ikurikirana ry’ikosa nta shingiro bifite. - Kumenya niba Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire y’Abavoka mu Rwanda yararegewe n’utabifitiye inyungu n’ububasha [22] Me Mhayimana Isaïe n’umwunganira bavuga ko uwatanze ikirego nta nyungu n’ububasha yari afite babishingiye ku mpamvu zikurikira: - Ikirego Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire yashyikirijwe cyatanzwe n’Umugenzuzi Mukuru w’Inkiko, nawe agishingira ku ikosa avuga ko ryakorewe Umwanditsi w’Urukiko, nyamara Umugenzuzi Mukuru w’Inkiko akaba atari we wakorewe ikosa ntabe ari nawe uyobora urwego Umwanditsi w’Urukiko abarizwamo.

## Page 69

35 MHAYIMANA vs URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA

- Umugenzuzi Mukuru w’Inkiko yagejeje ikibazo kuri Victor kuri e-mail adress ye bwite, aho kukimwoherereza nk'Umunyamabanga Nshingwabikorwa w’Urugaga, ngo nawe akigeze ku Mukuru w’Urugaga, mbere y’uko kiregerwa Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire. [23] Kuri iki kibazo, abahagarariye Urugaga batanga ibisobanuro bikurikira: - Ikirego cyo gukurikirana Me Mhayimana Isaïe cyatanzwe n’Umukuru w’Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda nk’uko bigaragara mu ibaruwa yandikiye Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire ku wa 23/12/2020; kuvuga rero ko uwatanze ikirego nta bubasha n’inyungu yari afite bikaba nta shingiro bifite. - Ingingo ya 171 y’Amategeko Ngengamikorere iteganya ko inzego zikurikirana ikirego zibyibwirije, cyangwa hari uwatanze ikirego, cyangwa bisabwe n’umuntu wese ubifitemo inyungu. Kuba hari uwatanze ikirego ariwe Umugenzuzi Mukuru w’Inkiko birahagije kugira ngo Komisiyo ishobore kugikurikirana. Umwuga w’Abavoka ni umwuga ufitiye abantu bose akamaro barimo n’Umugenzuzi Mukuru w’Inkiko, cyane cyane ko hari Urwego rw’Ubutabera ahagarariye, ku buryo uwo ari wese wabona Avoka yitwara nabi ashobora kubigeza ku nzego zibishinzwe.

Uregwa siwe ugena niba uwamureze afite inyungu cyangwa atayifite, kuko adashobora kwihanganira uwatumye amakosa yakoze amenyekana.

## Page 70

36 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [24] Ingingo ya 22 y’Amategeko Ngengamikorere, igika cya 2, agace ka 3, iteganya ko Umukuru w’Urugaga afite ubushobozi bwo kohereza Avoka muri Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire, iyo abona ko ibyo Avoka aregwa bishobora gutuma hafatwa ibihano byo mu rwego rw’imyitwarire kandi birenze ububasha bwe. Ingingo ya 75 y’Itegeko rigenga Urugaga nayo igateganya ko Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire iburanisha ibirego by’amakosa y’Abavoka; ikaregerwa n’Umukuru w’Urugaga, umwe mu bagize Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire cyangwa undi muntu wese ubifitemo inyungu. [25] Mu myanzuro yashyikirijwe Urukiko, urega n’abamwunganira bavuga ko Umukuru w’Urugaga yashingiye ikirego cye kuri e-mail yo ku wa 16/12/2020 yandikiwe n’Umugenzuzi Mukuru w’Inkiko, ashyikiriza ikibazo Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire ku wa 23/12/2020, ayisaba gukurikirana Me Mhayimana Isaïe. Mu kugaragaza ariko ko Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire yaregewe n’utabifitiye ububasha, bakavuga ko ikirego Komisiyo yashyikirijwe cyatanzwe n’Umugenzuzi Mukuru w’Inkiko, bikaba bivuguruza ibyo bari bavuze mbere. [26] Mu cyemezo nimero 008/CD/2021 gisabirwa kuvanwaho, havugwamo ko Umukuru w’Urugaga yanditse ibaruwa nimero Let.211/Bat/KJG/12/2020 ku wa 23/12/2020, asaba Komisiyo gusuzuma imyitwarire ya Me Mhayimana Isaïe. Urukiko rusanga ikirego Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire yashyikirijwe, kitaratanzwe n’Umugenzuzi Mukuru w’Inkiko nk’uko urega abivuga, ahubwo cyaratanzwe n’Umukuru w’Urugaga, kandi akaba ahabwa ubwo bubasha n’amategeko.

## Page 71

37 MHAYIMANA vs URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA

[27] Kuba Umukuru w’Urugaga yarahereye kuri e-mail Umugenzuzi Mukuru w’Inkiko yandikiye Umunyamabanga Nshingwabikorwa kuri aderesi ye bwite, nawe akamugenera kopi, Urukiko rusanga nta kibazo kirimo kuko icyo Umugenzuzi Mukuru w’Inkiko yakoze ari ukubagezaho amakuru. [28] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, Urukiko rurasanga Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire yararegewe n’ubifitiye inyungu n’ububasha. - Kumenya niba icyemezo nimero 008/CD/2021 cyarafashwe n’abatabifitiye ububasha  Kuba cyarafashwe na Perezida wa Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire hamwe n’Umunyamabanga wayo [29] Me Mhayimana Isaïe n’abamwunganira bavuga ko nta ngingo n’imwe y’itegeko iha Perezida wa Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire n’Umunyamabanga wayo ububasha (délégation) bwo gushyira umukono ku nyandiko za Komisiyo bonyine, ndetse n’uwasinye nk’Umunyamabanga wa Komisiyo akaba ntaho ateganyijwe mu mategeko agenga imyitwarire y’Abavoka mu Rwanda. [30] Bavuga kandi ko ibisobanuro bitangwa n’abahagarariye Urugaga ko ingingo ya 79 y’Amategeko Ngengamikorere yemerera Perezida wa Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire n’Umunyamabanga wayo gusinya ku cyemezo ari ukuvugisha iyo ngingo icyo itavuga, kuko icyemezo gihana kidakwiye kugereranywa n’inama yabaye. Bavuga ko n’iyo habayeho guhabwa ububasha bitangirwa impamvu, ko ariko iyo ubonye icyemezo cyafatiwe Me Mhayimana Isaïe usanga nta mpamvu

## Page 72

38 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

yatanzwe yatumye gisinywaho na Perezida wa Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire n’Umunyamabanga wayo gusa. [31] Abahagarariye Urugaga bireguye mu buryo bukurikira: - Icyemezo cyafashwe gisinywaho na Perezida n’Umunyamabanga wa Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire, ntabwo abagifashe bose bagaruka ngo bagisinyeho kuko atari urubanza ruba rwabayeho ku buryo rusinywaho n’abaruburanishije bose. - Ingingo ya 44 y’Amategeko Ngengamikorere irebana n’ imitunganyirize ya Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire iteganya ko buri raporo, inyandikomvugo cyangwa indi nyandiko y’iyo Komisiyo ishyirwaho umukono na Perezida w’inama n’Umwanditsi, ibyemezo bya Komisiyo bikaba biri mu nyandiko zivugwa, bivuze ko kuba icyemezo cyarashyizweho umukono na Perezida ndetse n’Umwanditsi nta kibazo biteye.  Kuba quorum y’abagize Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire itari yuzuye [32] Me Mhayimana Isaïe n’abamwunganira batanga ibisobanuro bikurikira: - Igihe Me Mhayimana Isaïe yitabaga Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire mu nama ya nyuma hari abayigize 6 gusa batujuje quorum, kandi nta n’ikigaragaza ko aribo bafashe icyemezo kuko batagishyizeho imikono yabo, ahubwo kigasinywaho n'abantu babiri bakitirira Komisiyo. - Ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko N° 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu

## Page 73

39 MHAYIMANA vs URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA

Rwanda rikanagena imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo7 iteganya ko umubare w’abagize Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire ari 11, naho ingingo ya 78 igateganya ko iyo Komisiyo iterana hari nibura 2/3 by’abayigize kandi igafata ibyemezo ku bwiganze bwa 2/3 by’abitabiriye inama8. Icyemezo cyari kuba

7 Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire igizwe n’aba bakurikira: 1º umwavoka uri mu nama y’ Urugaga urusha abandi uburambe mu mwuga; 2º abavoka batandatu (6) batorwa n’Inama Rusange. 3º uhagarariye amashami y’amategeko ya za Kaminuza zemewe mu Rwanda uri ku rutonde rw’abavoka utorwa na bagenzi be; 4º ukuriye ubuyobozi bukuru bw’Ikigo cyo Kwigisha no Guteza imbere Amategeko cyangwa umuhagarariye; 5º uhagarariye Komisiyo y’Igihugu ishinzwe uburenganzira bwa Muntu; 6ºuhagarariye Intumwa Nkuru ya Leta w’Umwavoka. Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire ishobora gutumira mu nama yayo undi muntu wese ibona wayigirira akamaro bitewe na dosiye iri ku murongo w’ibyigwa. Icyakora, uwatumijwe mu nama muri ubu buryo, ntiyemerewe gutora mu gihe cyo gufata ibyemezo. Umuntu wese wagenwe n’urwego ngo aruhagararire muri Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire abikora ku buryo buhoraho keretse habaye impamvu zikomeye zituma urwego rwamugennye rumusimbura. Abagize Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire bavugwa mu gace ka 3° n’aka 6° tw’igika cya mbere cy’iyi ngingo batorerwa manda y’imyaka itatu (3) ishobora kongerwa inshuro imwe (1). 8 Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire iterana hari nibura bibiri bya gatatu (2/3) by’abayigize. Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire igomba kuba yafashe icyemezo mu gihe kitarenze amezi abiri (2) uhereye ku munsi yagejejweho ikirego. Ifata

## Page 74

40 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

cyubahirije amategeko, iyo gishyirwaho umukono n’abantu 8 nibura kuri 11 bagize Komisiyo, kuko ari bwo 2/3 byaba byuzuye. - Quorum iteganywa mu ngingo ya 31 y’Itegeko rigenga Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda9 iburanishwa n’uhagarariye Urugaga ijyanye n’uburyo Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire ifata ibyemezo, ariko mu bibazo bitajyanye no guhana Avoka ukurikiranyweho amakosa y’umwuga. Iyo yateranye kugirango ihane Avoka, hakurikizwa quorum ivugwa mu ngingo ya 78 y’Itegeko rimaze kuvugwa. - Inyandiko yashyizwe muri dosiye yometse ku cyemezo cyahannye Me Mhayimana Isaïe, ni urutonde rw’abitabiriye inama ku munsi yahanweho

icyemezo kandi ku bwiganze bwa bibiri bya gatatu (2/3) by’abitabiriye inama. Umwanditsi w’Urugaga amenyesha umwavoka uregwa icyemezo cyose cyafashwe mu rubanza cyerekeye ibihano by’amakosa y’umwuga mu gihe cy’iminsi cumi n’itanu (15) hakoreshejwe uburyo bw’imenyesha ry’ibyemezo bukurikizwa mu mategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’ubutegetsi n’iz’umurimo. 9 Inama ya mbere ya Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire itumizwa n’Umukuru w’Urugaga mu gihe kitarenze ukwezi, uhereye igihe iri tegeko ritangarijwe mu Igazeti ya Leta ya Repubulika y’u Rwanda kugira ngo yitoremo Perezida, Visi Perezida n’Umunyamabanga bayo. Inama ya Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire iterana buri gihe cyose bibaye ngombwa itumijwe na adahari cyangwa se bisabwe nibura na kimwe cya gatatu (1/3) cy’abayigize. Iterana mu buryo bwemewe iyo yitabiriwe nibura na kimwe cya kabiri (1/2) cy’abayigize igafata icyemezo ku bwumvikane busesuye bw’abayigize bahari. Iyo bidashoboka mu kubona umubare wa ngombwa kugirango iterane, inama yongera gutumizwa mu gihe kitarenze iminsi irindwi (7) abayitabiriye bagafata ibyemezo hatitawe ku mubare w’abayitabiriye.

## Page 75

41 MHAYIMANA vs URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA

kandi banyuranye n’abafashe icyemezo. Me Mhayimana Isaïe yitabye Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire ku wa 20/05/2021 agiye kwisobanura ku kirego cy’uwitwa Mitali Calvin, urutonde rw’abitabiriye inama yize kuri icyo kibazo akaba arirwo bashyize ku cyemezo cyamuhannye kandi ari ibibazo bibiri binyuranye. [33] Abahagarariye Urugaga bavuga ko icyemezo gifatwa quorum yari yuzuye nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 31 y’Itegeko rigenga Urugaga10, na Me Mhayimana Isaïe akaba yaremeye kwisobanura kuko yabonaga quorum yuzuye. [34] Basobanura ko Komisiyo yari igizwe n’abantu 9 kuko hari imyanya itarimo abantu, bivuze ko quorum bari abantu 6, kandi bakaba aribo bamufatiye icyemezo, kigashyirwaho umukono na Perezida n’Umwanditsi nk’uko ingingo ya 44 y’Amategeko Ngengamikorere ibisobanura11.

10 Inama ya mbere ya Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire itumizwa n’Umukuru w’Urugaga mu gihe kitarenze ukwezi, uhereye igihe iri tegeko ritangarijwe mu Igazeti ya Leta ya Repubulika y’u Rwanda kugira ngo yitoremo Perezida, Visi Perezida n’Umunyamabanga bayo. Inama ya Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire iterana buri gihe cyose bibaye ngombwa itumijwe na Perezida wayo cyangwa Visi Perezida iyo Perezida adahari cyangwa se bisabwe nibura na kimwe cya gatatu (1/3) cy’abayigize. Iterana mu buryo bwemewe iyo yitabiriwe nibura na kimwe cya kabiri (1/2) cy’abayigize igafata icyemezo ku bwumvikane busesuye bw’abayigize bahari. Iyo bidashoboka mu kubona umubare wa ngombwa kugirango iterane, inama yongera gutumizwa mu gihe kitarenze iminsi irindwi (7) abayitabiriye bagafata ibyemezo hatitawe ku mubare w’abayitabiriye. 11 Uretse igihe Inama y’Urugaga yabyemeje ukundi, buri Komisiyo, mu nama yayo ya mbere nyuma y’ishyirwaho ry’abayigize, yitoramo Perezida, Visi Perezida n’Umwanditsi. Umwanditsi ashinzwe kwandika raporo yose n’inyandikomvugo by’inama ya Komisiyo. Buri raporo na buri

## Page 76

42 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

 Kuba manda y’abagize Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire yari yararangiye [35] Kuri iki kibazo, Me Mhayimana Isaïe n’abamwunganira batanga ibisobanuro bikurikira: - Ingingo ya 25 y’Itegeko N° 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda rikanagena imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, iteganya ko manda y’abagize Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire ari imyaka itatu. Ubwo icyemezo kiburanwa cyafatwaga, umunani mu bayigize bari bararangije manda yabo ku wa 01/03/2021, kuko bashyizweho n’Inteko Rusange y’Urugaga yateranye ku wa 02/03/2018. Urugaga rwaburanye rwemera ko manda y’abagize Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire yari yararangiye, ko ariko kubera ibibazo byatewe n’icyorezo cya Covid-19 abari baratowe bagumye mu mirimo yabo kugeza igihe ababasimbura bazatorerwa. - Ibihe by’icyorezo cya Covid-19 ntibyemereraga Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire yarangije manda gukomeza gukora, ahubwo Urugaga rwagombaga gukora ibiteganywa n’amategeko kugira ngo hashyirweho abandi bayigize cyangwa se abari bayisanzwemo bongererwe manda, nk’uko byagenze ku zindi nzego z’Igihugu zigendera kuri manda nk’ Urwego rw’Abunzi cyangwa Inzego z’Ibanze. Bongeraho ko dosiye yagombaga kuba isubitswe,

nyandikomvugo igomba gushyirwaho umukono n’uwayoboye inama n’Umwanditsi.

## Page 77

43 MHAYIMANA vs URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA

inzego zemewe n’amategeko zamara kujyaho ikabona gukurikiranwa. - Ibihe by’icyorezo cya Covid-19 byabaye urwitwazo, kuko Urugaga rwakoresheje inama y’Inteko Rusange yateranye ku wa 12/11/2021, hatorwa Umukuru w’Urugaga wasimbuye uwari warangije manda, hamwe n’abasimbura abagize Inama y’Urugaga (Conseil de l’Ordre), nyamara gusimbura abagize Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire bikaba bitarakozwe kandi nta cyabibuzaga, kuko n'ubusanzwe abagize izo nzego zombi batorerwaga mu iteraniro rimwe ry'Inteko rusange. - Urugaga rwagombaga gukoresha inama rusange ku buryo bw’ikoranabuhanga nk’uko rwabigenje ku bindi bikorwa harimo n’amahugurwa, ndetse nk’uko izindi nzego zagiye zibikora, rukaba rudashobora gutanga ibimenyetso by’uko bitari gushoboka. [36] Abahagarariye Urugaga batanze ibisobanuro bikurikira: - Ibibazo byatewe n’icyorezo cya Covid-19 byatumye Inteko Rusange y’Abavoka 1.500 itabasha guterana imbonankubone, ngo hakorwe amatora nk’uko Amategeko Ngengamikorere abiteganya mu ngingo ya 56 na 61. - Inama y’Abaminisitiri yateranye ku wa 19/02/2021 yemeje ko inama zihuza abantu imbonankubone zitemewe, iyo myanzuro akaba ari nayo yakurikizwaga igihe Me Mhayimana Isaïe yafatirwaga icyemezo kimuhagarika.

## Page 78

44 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

- Ibyo gukoresha ikoranabuhanga ngo hakorwe amatora nabyo ntibyari gushoboka, kuko binyuranye n’ibiteganywa n’amategeko agenga Urugaga. - Ingingo ya 33 y’Amategeko Ngengamikorere iteganya uko bigenda mu gihe hari icyuho mu bagize Komisiyo12, akaba ari muri urwo rwego Umukuru w’Urugaga yasabye abari bagize Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire gusuzuma ikibazo cya Me Mhayimana Isaïe, nk’uko bigaragara mw’ibaruwa yandikiye iyo Komisiyo, kuko byari mu bihe bidasanzwe. - Kuba harabaye Inteko Rusange yatorewemo Umukuru w’Urugaga n’abagize Inama y’Urugaga, si ingingo yaburanishwa kuko byabaye nyuma y’ikizwa ry’urubanza, bikaba ntacyo byahindura. Nyuma y’uko icyorezo cya Covid-19 kigenjeje make, Inama y’Urugaga yasanze ari ngombwa ko inzego nkuru z’Urugaga zibanza gutorwa, kuko arizo ziri hejuru ugereranyije na Komisiyo akaba ari nazo zagombaga gutegura amatora ya Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire. - Manda y’abagize Inzego z’Ibanze na Komite y’Abunzi ntikwiye kugereranywa n’iy’Inzego z’Urugaga, kuko izo nzego zidafatwa kimwe.

12 Iyo hari umwanya utarimo umuntu muri Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire, Umukuru w’Urugaga afata ingamba za ngombwa kugira ngo azibe icyo cyuho; ashobora gutegura amatora uwo muntu agatorwa n’Inama Rusange y’Urugaga, cyangwa agasaba Urwego bireba gushyiraho umusimbura.

## Page 79

45 MHAYIMANA vs URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA - Ku bijyanye no kuba icyemezo gihagarika Me Mhayimana Isaïe cyarafashwe na Perezida wa Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire n’Umunyamabanga wayo [37] Igika cya 1 cy’ingingo ya 29 y’Amategeko Ngengamikorere (yerekeye imitunganyirize ya Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire) giteganya ko mu nama yayo ya mbere ikurikira ishyirwaho ry’abayigize, Komisiyo yitoramo Perezida, Visi Perezida n’Umwanditsi. Naho mu gika cyayo cya 2, iyo ngingo igateganya ko Umwanditsi ashinzwe kwandika raporo, inyandikomvugo z’inama ndetse n’izindi nyandiko zoherezwa na Komisiyo. Buri raporo, inyandikomvugo cyangwa indi nyandiko ya Komisiyo igomba gushyirwaho umukono na Perezida w’inama n’Umwanditsi. [38] Icyumvikana muri izi ngingo zombi, ni uko mu nama ya mbere Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire yitoramo uyiyobora, umwungirije n’umwanditsi. Izo ngingo zikagaragaza noneho inshingano z’umwanditsi uba watowe arizo gutegura raporo, inyandikomvugo n’izindi nyandiko za Komisiyo; zigasoza zigaragaza abagomba gusinya kuri izo nyandiko zitegurwa n’Umwanditsi. [39] Urukiko rusanga raporo, inyandikomvugo n’izindi nyandiko zivugwa muri izi ngingo, zitareba inama ya mbere, ahubwo harashatswe kugaragazwa muri rusange inyandiko zigomba gutegurwa n’umwanditsi wa Komisiyo uba watowe, n’uburyo zishyirwaho umukono. Urukiko rurasanga kandi, icyemezo gihana cyumvikana mu zindi nyandiko za Komisiyo, Itegeko ngengamikorere ritashatse kurondora.

## Page 80

46 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[40] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, Urukiko rurasanga Perezida wa Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire n’Umwanditsi wayo bari bafite ububasha bwo gusinya ku cyemezo gihana cyafatiwe Me Mhayimana Isaïe. - Ku bijyanye no Kuba quorum y’abagize Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire itari yuzuye [41] Ababuranyi bemeranywa ko abagomba kuba bagize Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire ari 11 hakurikijwe ibiteganywa mu ngingo ya 29 y’Itegeko rigenga Urugaga, uretse ko abahagarariye Urugaga bavuga ko mu gihe Me Mhayimana Isaïe yafatirwaga igihano, abayigize bari 9 kuko hari imyanya itarimo abantu. Bemeranywa kandi ko inama ya nyuma Me Mhayimana Isaïe yitabyemo Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire, yari yitabiriwe n’abagize komisiyo 6. [42] Ingingo ya 31 y’Itegeko rigenga Urugaga, yerekeye inama za Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire, igira iti: Inama ya mbere ya Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire itumizwa n’Umukuru w’Urugaga mu gihe kitarenze ukwezi, uhereye igihe iri tegeko ritangarijwe mu Igazeti ya Leta ya Repubulika y’u Rwanda kugira ngo yitoremo Perezida, Visi Perezida n’Umunyamabanga bayo. Inama ya Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire iterana buri gihe cyose bibaye ngombwa itumijwe na Perezida wayo cyangwa Visi Perezida iyo Perezida adahari cyangwa se bisabwe nibura na kimwe cya gatatu (1/3) cy’abayigize. Iterana mu buryo bwemewe iyo yitabiriwe nibura na kimwe cya kabiri (1/2) cy’abayigize igafata icyemezo ku bwumvikane busesuye bw’abayigize bahari. Iyo bidashoboka kubona umubare

## Page 81

47 MHAYIMANA vs URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA

wa ngombwa kugirango iterane, inama yongera gutumizwa mu gihe kitarenze iminsi irindwi (7) abayitabiriye bagafata ibyemezo hatitawe ku mubare w’abayitabiriye. [43] Ingingo ya 78, igika cya 1, y’Itegeko rigenga Urugaga iteganya ko Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire iterana hari nibura bibiri bya gatatu (2/3) by’abayigize. Igika cya 2 kigateganya ko Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire igomba kuba yafashe icyemezo mu gihe kitarenze amezi abiri (2) uhereye ku munsi yagejejweho ikirego. Ifata icyemezo kandi ku bwiganze bwa bibiri bya gatatu (2/3) by’abitabiriye inama. [44] Abahagarariye Urugaga bavuga ko ingingo ya 31 ariyo igomba gukurikizwa mu gusuzuma niba quorum yari yuzuye igihe Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire yafatiraga Me Mhayimana Isaïe icyemezo gisabirwa kuvanwaho. We n’abamwunganira bakavuga ko ingingo ya 31 ijyanye n’uburyo Komisiyo ifata ibyemezo, ariko mu bibazo bitajyanye no guhana Avoka ukurikiranyweho amakosa y’umwuga, ko iyo yateranye kugirango ihane Avoka, hakurikizwa quorum ivugwa mu ngingo ya 78. [45] Ingingo ya 31 iri mu gice cy’Itegeko kirebana n’imikorere ya za Komisiyo zihoraho, naho ingingo ya 78, ikaba mu gice kirebana n’imyitwarire (discipline), by’umwihariko ahavugwa imiburanishirize y’ikirego kijyanye n’amakosa Avoka aregwa (procédure). Ingingo ya 78 yerekeye ifatwa ry’icyemezo, iza ikurikira ingingo zivuga ku buryo Avoka ahamagarwa, n’imyiregurire imbere ya Komisiyo. [46] Urukiko rurasanga, hakurikijwe ibice izi ngingo ziherereyemo mu Itegeko rigenga Urugaga, bigaragara ko ingingo ya 31 irebana n’ifatwa ry’ibyemezo igihe Komisiyo ishinzwe

## Page 82

48 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

imyitwarire yateranye mu mirimo isanzwe, ariko mu gihe ari uguhana, hagakurikizwa ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 78. [47] Urukiko rurasanga rero, quorum yasabwaga kugirango Me Mhayimana Isaïe afatirwe icyemezo ari 2/3 by’abagize Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire, kandi hakurikijwe ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko rigenga Urugaga, abagize iyo Komisiyo ni 11 nk’uko n’ababuranyi babyemeranywaho. Bivuga rero ko quorum yagombaga kuzura hari abagize Komisiyo nibura 7, nyamara hakaba hari 6 hakurikijwe inyandiko abahagarariye Urugaga bashyikirije Urukiko ndetse n’ibyo impande zombi zemeranywaho. [48] Ibivugwa n’abahagarariye Urugaga ko quorum igomba kubarirwa ku bantu 9 kubera ko hari imyanya itarimo abantu, Urukiko rusanga nta shingiro byahabwa kuko bidahuye n’ibiteganywa n’itegeko. [49] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, Urukiko rurasanga icyemezo gihana Me Mhayimana Isaïe cyarafashwe quorum isabwa n’amategeko kugirango Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire iterane kandi ifate ibyemezo ituzuye, bityo icyemezo nimero 008/CD/2021 iyo Komisiyo yamufatiye ku wa 20/05/2021 cyo guhagarikwa amezi 3, kikaba kigomba gukurwaho. [50] Urukiko rurasanga atari ngombwa gusuzuma izindi ngingo Me Mhayimana Isaïe yagejeje ku Rukiko agamije gusaba ko icyemezo nimero 008/CD/2021 cyafashwe na Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire y’Abavoka mu Rwanda ku wa 20/05/2021, cyakurwaho.

## Page 83

49 MHAYIMANA vs URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA

2. Ibijyanye n’indishyi [51] Me Mhayimana Isaïe n’abamwunganira bavuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwamutegetse kwishyura 1.000.000 Frw, kandi ikirego cyavuyemo ikosa ry’umwuga ryatumye ahanishwa guhagarikwa gukora amezi atatu kitaragombaga kwakirwa ku mpamvu z’inenge cyari gifite. Avuga ko n’iyo cyakirwa, nta kosa yakoze asubiza e-mail itaravugishaga ukuri yari yahawe abacamanza b’inkiko zose zo mu Rwanda. [52] Basobanura ko yahanwe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko, hagamijwe kumwumvisha no kumubabaza kuko igihano yahawe cyarangiye ku wa 26/08/2022, ariko Urugaga rukanga kumusubiza ku rutonde rw’Abavoka. Bavuga ko n’ubwo Urugaga rwagombaga kwibwiriza rukamusubiza ku rutonde, byageze ku munsi yatanzeho ikirego cy’akarengane atarasubizwaho, kandi yarandikiye Umunyamabanga w’Urugaga n’Umukuru warwo yibutsa. Ibyo ngo byatumye ajya mu nkiko bakanga kumuha ijambo, akaba yarasubijwe ku rutonde hashize hafi umwaka. [53] Bavuga ko gukurikiranwa by’amaherere byatumye yitaba Komisiyo incuro zinyuranye ajya kwisobanura, afata ku gihe yari gukoramo imirimo yindi imubeshejeho, afatirwa icyemezo cyo guhagarikwa adakora ku makosa atakoze, bimutesha agaciro imbere y’abakiriya asanganywe ndetse n’abateganya kumugana, akaba abisabira indishyi zingana na 40.000.000 Frw kubera igihombo birimo kumutera, ndetse n’indishyi z’akababaro zingana na 10.000.000 Frw. Basobanura ko mu buryo bugenekereje, Me Mhayimana Isaïe abara agasanga yarinjizaga 5.000.000 Frw buri kwezi, yakuba n’amezi 8 yamaze adakora bikaba 40.000.000 Frw.

## Page 84

50 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[54] Me Mhayimana Isaïe n’abamwunganira bavuga ko kubera gushorwa muri uru rubanza nta mpamvu, yari yasabye Urukiko Rukuru gutegeka Urugaga kumwishyura indishyi zingana na 1.580.000 Frw harimo gusubizwa ingwate y’igarama yatanze arega (40.000 Frw), ibihembo by’abahesha b’inkiko bamenyesheje Urugaga ikirego n’amahamagara (40.000 Frw), indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza (500.000 Frw), rukaba rwarazimwimye ku bw’akarengane. [55] Abahagarariye Urugaga bavuga ko indishyi zategetswe n’Urukiko Rukuru zitakurwaho kuko ari ingaruka z’urubanza Me Mhayimana Isaïe yatangije. [56] Bavuga ko ibindi bisabwa na Me Mhayimana Isaïe nta shingiro bifite, kuko yakoze amakosa y’umwuga kandi akaba yaragombaga kuyabazwa mu rwego rwo guhesha umwuga agaciro. Basobanura ko iyo aza kuba akomeye ku gaciro ke yari kwirinda imyitwarire n’imvugo ziciriritse yakoresheje yandikira Umwanditsi w’Urukiko, bityo kuvuga ko iki cyemezo aricyo cyamutesheje agaciro bikaba nta shingiro bifite, nta n’indishyi bigomba gutangirwa cyane ko atigeze anazigaragariza ibimenyetso. [57] Bavuga kandi ko Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire ikora mu nyungu z’umwuga ufitiye abantu bose akamaro no kuwuhesha icyubahiro hirindwa ko abawukora batandukira bitwara nabi, kuba Me Mhayimana Isaïe yarananiwe kubahiriza inshingano yo kwifata, kwigengesera no kwitwararika bikamuviramo gukurikiranwa, atabiheraho ngo abisabire indishyi. [58] Bongeraho ko Me Mhayimana Isaïe yakomeje gushora Urugaga mu manza z’amaherere, bityo bakaba basanga urega

## Page 85

51 MHAYIMANA vs URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA

yategekwa kwishyura amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’Avoka angana na 5.000.000. [59] Me Mhayimana Isaïe n’abamwunganira bavuga ko izo ndishyi nta shingiro zifite kuko yareze agamije kurenganurwa, zikaba kandi nta kimenyetso cyangwa igisobanuro zishingiyeho. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [60] Urukiko rurasanga amafaranga 1.000.000 y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’Avoka yategetswe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Me Mhayimana Isaïe asaba ko avanwaho, yabyemererwa kuko atsinze urubanza. [61] Ku bijyanye n’indishyi z’igihombo zingana na 40.000.000 Frw Me Mhayimana Isaïe avuga ko yabaze mu buryo bugenekereje, Urukiko rurasanga zitatangwa kuko igihombo kitabarwa mu buryo bugenekereje, ahubwo kiba kigomba gutangirwa ibimenyetso, bikaba ntabyatanzwe. [62] Ku bijyanye n’indishyi z’akababaro Me Mhayimana Isaïe asaba, Urukiko ruributsa ko bitabaye ngombwa kwinjira mu mizi ngo hasuzumwe niba icyemezo yafatiwe nta mpamvu cyari gishingiyeho, rukaba rwagarukiye gusa ku kuba cyarafashwe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko. Uburyo indishyi z’akababaro zitangwa mu gihe icyemezo cyavanyweho kubera kuba cyarafashwe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko, byasobanuwe mu manza zinyuranye zaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Umurimo rw’Umuryango w’Ubumwe bw’Ibihugu by’Uburayi; ibyo bisobanuro bikaba byakwifashishwa muri uru rubanza.

## Page 86

52 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[63] Mu rubanza uwiswe DD yaburanaga na Agence des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne (FRA), Urukiko rwasobanuye ko kuvanaho icyemezo cyafashwe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko ubwabyo ari indishyi ikwiye ku kababaro icyo cyemezo cyaba cyarateye, keretse igihe urega ashoboye kugaragaza akababaro gashobora gutandukanywa n’amakosa yatumye icyemezo kivanwaho, kadasubizwa no kuba kivuyeho (l’annulation d’un acte entaché d’illégalité constitue en elle-même la réparation adéquate et, en principe, suffisante de tout préjudice moral que cet acte peut avoir causé. Tel n’est toutefois pas le cas lorsque le requérant démontre avoir subi un préjudice moral qui, sans être détachable de l’acte lui-même, est détachable de l’illégalité fondant l’annulation et insusceptible d’être intégralement réparé par cette annulation…. Toutefois, le requérant se contente d’indiquer que la décision de résiliation lui a causé un traumatisme psychologique et a porté atteinte à sa réputation et à sa dignité, sans pour autant démontrer qu’un tel préjudice ne pourrait pas être intégralement réparé par le présent arrêt d’annulation de cette décision. Ainsi, les conclusions indemnitaires relatives au dommage moral causé par la décision de résiliation doivent être rejetées comme non fondées)13. [64] Ibyo nibyo bigaragara no mu rubanza Ingfried Hochbaum and Edward Rawes vs Commission of the European Communities14, mu rubanza Simona Murariu vs Autorité

13 Arrêt du Tribunal de la Fonction Publique de l’Union Européenne (deuxième chambre), 8 octobre 2015, para 105 & 107-108. 14 As regards the claim for damages in case 44/85, the cancellations in themselves adequately compensate for any non- material damage which mr hochbaum may have suffered in the circumstances. the claim for damages is therefore devoid of purpose and no decision need be given on it; Judgment of the court (second chamber) of 9 july 1987. - Ingfried Hochbaum and Edward

## Page 87

53 MHAYIMANA vs URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA

européenne des assurances et des pensions professionnelles (AEAPP)15, ndetse n’izindi. Zimwe muri izo manza zongeraho ko kuba umuntu atekereza ko yarenganye, n’imihangayiko ituruka ku kuba agomba gutanga ikirego kugirango aharanire uburenganzira bwe, bishobora gufatwa nk’akababaro katurutse ku makosa yakozwe n’urwego rw’ubuyobozi (en particulier, le sentiment d’injustice et les tourments qu’occasionne le fait, pour une personne, de devoir mener une procédure précontentieuse, puis contentieuse, afin de voir ses droits reconnus peut, dans certaines circonstances, constituer un préjudice pouvant découler du seul fait que l’administration a commis une illégalité).16 [65] Ku bijyanye n’uru rubanza, mu bisobanuro Me Mhayimana Isaïe atanga, harimo kuba yaritabye Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire inshuro nyinshi bagatuma afata ku gihe yari gukoramo imirimo yindi imubeshejeho, ibyo bikaba bijyanye n’indishyi z’igihombo cyangwa mbonezamusaruro zagize icyo

Rawes v Commission of the European Communities, Official - annulment of appointment, Joined cases 44/85, 77/85, 294/85 and 295/85, para 22. 15 Quant au préjudice moral allégué, il y a lieu de rappeler que, selon une jurisprudence constante, l’annulation d’un acte entaché d’illégalité, tel que la décision attaquée, constitue en elle-même la réparation adéquate et, en principe, suffisante de tout préjudice moral que cet acte peut avoir causé, sauf lorsque le requérant démontre avoir subi un préjudice moral détachable de l’illégalité fondant l’annulation et n’étant pas susceptible d’être intégralement réparé par cette annulation ; Arrêt du Tribunal de la Fonction Publique de l’Union Européenne (Première Chambre), 16 juillet 2015, para 150. 16 Arrêt du Tribunal de la Fonction Publique de l’Union Européenne (troisième chambre), FS vs Comité économique et social européen (CESE), 12 mai 2016, para 59. Arrêt du Tribunal de la Fonction Publique de l’Union Européenne (Première Chambre), Simona Murariu vs Autorité européenne des assurances et des pensions professionnelles (AEAPP), 16 juillet 2015, para 152.

## Page 88

54 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

zivugwaho mu gika cya 62. Ibindi bisobanuro atanga ni ukuba yarafatiwe icyemezo cyo guhagarikwa gukora hashingiwe ku makosa atakoze, bikamutesha agaciro imbere y’abakiriya asanganywe ndetse n’abateganya kumugana. Nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru ariko (mu gika cya 63), ibirebana no kuba amakosa yahaniwe yarayakoze cyangwa atarayakoze ntibyasuzumwe, kuko Urukiko rwagarukiye ku kuba hari ibiteganywa n’amategeko bitubahirijwe mu kumufatira icyemezo, bikaba rero bitanashingirwaho mu kugena indishyi z’akababaro. [66] Nk’uko byagiye bisobanurwa mu byemezo by’inkiko byagaragajwe hejuru, akababaro gashingiye ku kuba icyemezo cyarafashwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko karasubizwa no kuba icyemezo cyafashwe kivanyweho, kandi nta bisobanuro Me Mhayimana Isaïe yatanze ku kababaro kaba gashingiye ku bindi bitari ibyo, nk’imihangayiko yaba yaratewe no gukurikirana uburenganzira bwe cyangwa ibindi. [67] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, Urukiko rurasanga indishyi z’akababaro Me Mhayimana Isaïe asaba nta shingiro zifite. [68] Ku bijyanye n’indishyi zingana na 1.580.000 Frw harimo gusubizwa ingwate y’igarama yatanze arega (40.000 Frw), ibihembo by’abahesha b’inkiko bamenyesheje Urugaga ikirego n’amahamagara (40.000 Frw), indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’Avoka, Urukiko rurasanga Me Mhayimana Isaïe akwiye gusubizwa 40.000 Frw y’ingwate y’amagarama yatanze arega mu Rukiko Rukuru, agahabwa 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cy’Avoka na 300.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza agenwe mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko kuko byabaye ngombwa gushaka umwunganira no gukurikirana urubanza. Ku bijyanye na 40.000

## Page 89

55 MHAYIMANA vs URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA

y’ibihembo by’abahesha b’inkiko, Urukiko rurasanga agomba kubarirwa muri 300.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [69] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Me Mhayimana Isaïe, gisaba gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane urubanza RAD 00017/2021/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 28/10/2021, gifite ishingiro. [70] Rwemeje ko icyemezo nimero 008/CD/2021 cya Komisiyo ishinzwe imyitwarire y’Abavoka mu Rwanda cyo ku wa 20/05/2021 gihanisha Me Mhayimana Isaïe guhagarikwa amezi 3, gikuweho. [71] Rwemeje ko amafaranga 1.000.000 y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’Avoka Me Mhayimana Isaïe yategetswe n’Urukiko Rukuru, avuyeho. [72] Rutegetse Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda gusubiza Me Mhayimana Isaïe 40.000 Frw y’ingwate y’amagarama yatanze arega mu Rukiko Rukuru, no kumuha 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cy’Avoka na 300.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza, yose hamwe akaba 840.000 Frw.

## Page 91

57

KATABARWA v AKARERE KA NYARUGURU [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/INJUST/RAD 00001/2021/SC – (Nyirinkwaya, P., Muhumuza na Hitiyaremye, P.J.) 18 Werurwe 2022] Amategeko agenga umurimo – Kwirukanwa binyuranyije n’amategeko – Amafaranga y’indishyi agenerwa umukozi igihe yirukanwe – Iyo bigaragara ko umukozi yasezerewe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko ahabwa indishyi zibarwa ku rugero rw’umushahara yahembwe bwa nyuma, zikabarwa guhera igihe yahagarikiwe kugeza urubanza rusomwe, hagendewe ku mushahara yatahanaga mu ntoki ndetse n’ibindi yagenerwaga nk’umukozi byamufashaga kurangiza inshingano ze. Imiburanishirize y’imanza zisabirwa gusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane – Gusaba kurenganurwa ku ngingo itaragaragarijwe umucamanza mu rubanza rusabirwa gusubirwamo – Kuba umuburanyi yarashyiriweho inzira idasanzwe yo gusubirishamo urubanza rwabaye itegeko mu gihe yumva hari ingingo runaka yarenganyeho, ntibimuha uburenganzira bwo gutanga ibirego bishya bitari mu murongo w’ibyaregewe mu nyandiko isaba kurenganurwa. Incamake y’ikibazo: Katabarwa wari umukozi w’Akarere ka Nyaruguru yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyamagabe arega ako Karere ku bwo kumwirukana ku kazi nta mpamvu, asaba ko icyemezo yafatiwe cyateshwa agaciro anabisabira indishyi. Uregwa we yaburanye avuga ko Urega yirukanywe burundu mu bakozi b’Akarere kubera amakosa

## Page 92

58 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

akomeye yakoze mu rwego rw’akazi kandi ko kumwirukana byakozwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, bityo akaba nta ndishyi akwiye guhabwa, ko ahubwo ari we ukwiye gucibwa amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza yamutangishije. Urukiko rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe n’Urega nta shingiro gifite, ko icyemezo cyafashwe n’Umuyobozi w’Akarere ka Nyaruguru kimwirukana burundu ku kazi kigumana agaciro kacyo. Ibi byatumye Urega ajuririra Urukiko Rukuru, urugereko rwa Nyanza, avuga ko nta mpamvu yumvikana yari gutuma yirukanwa, ko ahubwo Uregwa ariwe utarubahirije amategeko y’ikurikiranwa ry’amakosa y’abakozi ba Leta, ko nta mutungo wa Leta yanyereje ndetse ko n’isoko ryo gusarura ibiti aregwa ryatanzwe bikurikije amategeko cyane ko mu manza nshinjabyaha yabigizweho umwere, akaba asaba guhabwa indishyi zose nk’uko yazisabye. Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko ubujurire bw’Urega bufite ishingiro, ko nta kosa rikomeye ryagaragajwe ryari gutuma Uregwa amwirukana burundu, bityo ko icyemezo kimwirukana burundu kivuyeho; rwemeza ko icyemezo cyafashwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye gihindutse. Urega yasabye ko urwo rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rwongera kuburanishwa, avuga ko rurimo akarengane, arabyemererwa, habanza gusuzumwa inzitizi yatanzwe n’Uregwa ivuga ko asanga ari ngombwa gusuzuma bundi bushya niba hari amakosa yagombaga gutuma Urega yirukanwa burundu mu bakozi ba Leta, hagasuzumwa niba imihango ya ngombwa yarubahirijwe mu kumukurikiranaho ikosa hanyuma ibindi bikaba inkurikizi z’ibyo asaba. Urega we avuga ko iyo nzitizi nta shingiro ifite kubera ko iyo hariho gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane, uwumva yararenganye agaragaza impamvu ashingiraho akarengane ke.

## Page 93

59 KATABARWA v AKARERE KA NYARUGURU

Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwafatiye icyemezo mu ntebe rwemeza ko atari inzitizi maze urubanza ruburanishwa mu mizi hasuzumwa impamvu Urega ashingiraho asaba ko urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, ababuranyi bajya impaka ku bibazo byo kumenya niba Urega yarabariwe indishyi mu buryo butari bwo, niba yasubizwa mu kazi, hamwe n’izindi ndishyi zasabwe n’ababuranyi. Ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba mu rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru harabazwe indishyi mu buryo butari bwo, Urega avuga ko ariyo mpamvu yasubirishijemo urwo rubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane kubera ko yari yasabye ko abarirwa indishyi uhereye igihe icyemezo kimuhagarika mu kazi cyafatiwe kugeza igihe urubanza rwaciriwe ku rwego rwa nyuma nkuko byagiye bikorwa mu zindi manza zaciwe mbere. Akomeza avuga ko Urukiko rwavuze ko atahabwa imishahara ye kuko atakibarirwa mu bakozi b’Akarere ngo kuko amategeko ateganya ko umushahara ari amafaranga yose ahabwa cyangwa agomba guhabwa umukozi kubera akazi aba yakoze; ko ibi bisobanuro asanga nta kuri kurimo. Asoza avuga ko yirukaniwe ubusa bituma avutswa imishahara ye y’amezi 48. Uregwa avuga ko yemera ko Urega yirukanywe ku mpamvu yumvikana ariko Urukiko rubisuzumye rugasanga yarirukanywe mu buryo bunyuranije n’amategeko ku buryo yagenerwa indishyi, zitashingira ku mushahara we mbumbe yahabwaga ku kwezi kubera ko n’iyo aza kuba akiri mu kazi atari guhabwa amafaranga y’umushahara mbumbe. Urega kandi avuga ko akwiye gusubizwa ku kazi kubera ko Urukiko rwemeje ko yirukanywe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko kuko icyemezo kimwirukana cyakuweho. Asaba ko mu gihe byaba bidashobotse gusubizwa mu kazi yahabwa

## Page 94

60 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

indishyi, hakabarwa umushahara we kuva igihe yahagarikiwe kugeza urubanza ruciwe burundu ndetse akanahabwa icyemezo cy’umukoresha. Uregwa avuga ko ibijyanye no gusubizwa ku kazi bitagomba gusuzumwa kubera ko bitigeze biburanwaho mu nkiko zabanje, ko kuvuga ko ari inkurikizi zo kwirukanwa atari byo kuko byagombye kuba byararegewe bigasuzumwa. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Iyo bigaragara ko umukozi yasezerewe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko ahabwa indishyi zibarwa ku rugero rw’umushahara yahembwe bwa nyuma, zikabarwa guhera igihe yahagarikiwe kugeza urubanza rusomwe, hagendewe ku mushahara yatahanaga mu ntoki ndetse n’ibindi yagenerwaga nk’umukozi byamufashaga kurangiza inshingano ze. 2. Kuba umuburanyi yarashyiriweho inzira idasanzwe yo gusubirishamo urubanza rwabaye itegeko mu gihe yumva hari ingingo runaka yarenganyeho, ntibimuha uburenganzira bwo gutanga ibirego bishya bitari mu murongo w’ibyaregewe mu nyandiko isaba kurenganurwa. Bityo, ikibazo cyo kuba Katabarwa Richard yasubizwa mu kazi n’icyo kudahabwa icyemezo cy’umurimo, ntibishobora gusuzumwa muri uru rubanza kubera ko bitigeze bigibwaho impaka mu rubanza rusabirwa gusubirwamo. Ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane gifite ishingiro. Urubanza rwaciwe n'Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza, ruhindutse kuri bimwe.

## Page 95

61 KATABARWA v AKARERE KA NYARUGURU

Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nº 017/2020 ryo ku wa 07/10/2020 rishyiraho Sitati igenga abakozi ba Leta. Itegeko Nº 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena Ububasha bw’Inkiko, ingingo ya 63. Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 9, 75 n’iya 111. Iteka rya Minisitiri w’Intebe Nº 003/03 ryo ku wa 16/01/2015 rigena uburyo amahugurwa y’abakozi akorwa, ingingo ya 20. Iteka rya Minisitiri w’Intebe Nº 136/03 ryo ku wa 25/10/2010. Imanza zifashishijwe: Road Solutions Pavement Products vs MAILCO Ltd, RS/INJUST/RCOM 00002/2020/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 29/09/2020. Magara Gahakwa et Crts, RS/INJUST/RP 00001/2020/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 21/02/2021 mu gika cyarwo cya 21. Ngirinshuti vs Muhima Giovani, RS/INJUST/RC 00024/2018/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 21/02/2020 ku gika cya 19-22. Leta y’u Rwanda na Ndahindurwa Kimenyi Jéremie, RADA 0006/12/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 04/01/2013. Inyandiko z’abahanga zifashishijwe: M. Long, P. Weil, G. Braibant, Les grands arrêts de la jurisprudence administrative, 20 éditions, Collection Dalloz 2015. P.260.

## Page 96

62 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Katabarwa Richard yari Umunyamabanga Nshingwabikorwa w’Umurenge wa Munini mu Karere ka Nyaruguru, aza kwirukanwa ku kazi ku wa 29/06/2015 kubera amakosa akurikira: - kudakurikirana isarurwa ry’ibiti mu Murenge wa Munini aho uwo Murenge wemerewe gutema ibiti 13 ariko ugatemesha ibiti 22; - gusuzugura inzego zimukuriye yanga kubahiriza amabwiriza yahawe; - kunyereza umutungo wa leta atwika akanabajisha imbaho amafaranga avuyemo ntayagaragaze. [2] Nyuma yo kwirukanwa ku kazi Katabarwa Richard yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyamagabe arega Akarere ka Nyaruguru ku bwo kumwirukana ku kazi nta mpamvu, asaba ko icyemezo yafatiwe cyateshwa agaciro anabisabira indishyi. Ikirego cye cyanditswe kuri RAD 00001/2017/TGI/NYBE. [3] Me Mbonigaba Eulade uburanira Akarere ka Nyaruguru we yaburanye avuga ko Katabarwa Richard yirukanywe burundu mu bakozi b’Akarere kubera amakosa akomeye yakoze mu rwego rw’akazi, kandi ko kumwirukana byakozwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, bityo akaba nta ndishyi akwiye guhabwa, ko ahubwo ari we ukwiye gucibwa amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza yatangishije Akarere ka Nyaruguru.

## Page 97

63 KATABARWA v AKARERE KA NYARUGURU

[4] Ku wa 09/11/2017, Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyamagabe rwaciye urubanza RAD 00001/2017/TGI/NYBE, rwemeza ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Katabarwa Richard nta shingiro gifite, ko icyemezo cyafashwe n’Umuyobozi w’Akarere ka Nyaruguru ku wa 29/06/2015 kimwirukana burundu ku kazi kigumana agaciro kacyo, rumutegeka guha Akarere ka Nyaruguru 500.000 Frw katanze mu rwego rw’ikurikiranarubanza. [5] Mu gufata iki cyemezo, Urukiko rwashingiye ku kuba ababuranyi bose bemera ko hatemwe ibiti 22 kandi hari gutemwa 13 gusa, ku buhamya bwatanzwe ndetse no ku iperereza rwakoze, rusanga yarirukanywe kubera amakosa ye kandi nta n’Itegeko ryishwe mu kumwirukana. [6] Katabarwa Richard yajuririye icyo cyemezo mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza, avuga ko nta mpamvu yumvikana yari gutuma yirukanwa kuko umubare w’ibiti watemwe ariwo bemerewe n’Akarere, ko ahubwo Akarere ari ko katubahirije amategeko y’ikurikiranwa ry’amakosa y’abakozi ba Leta, kuko kakiriye ibaruwa itanga ibisobanuro ntikayisubize mu minsi iteganyijwe n’amategeko, yongeraho ko nta mutungo wa Leta yanyereje ndetse ko n’isoko ryo gusarura ibyo biti ryatanzwe bikurikije amategeko cyane ko mu manza nshinjabyaha yabigizweho umwere, asaba guhabwa indishyi zose nk’uko yazisabye. [7] Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza, mu rubanza RADA 00014/2017/HC/NYZ rwaciwe ku wa 28/02/2019, rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Katabarwa Richard bufite ishingiro, ko nta kosa rikomeye ryagaragajwe ryari gutuma Akarere ka Nyaruguru kamwirukana burundu, bityo ko icyemezo kimwirukana burundu kivuyeho; rwemeza ko icyemezo

## Page 98

64 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

cyafashwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyamagabe mu rubanza RAD 00001/2017/TGI/NYBE rwaciwe n’urwo Rukiko ku wa 09/11/2017 gihindutse, rushingiye ku kuba: - nta kimenyetso gifatika kigaragaza ko Umurenge wa Munini wari wemerewe ibiti 13 gusa hanyuma Katabarwa Richard agatemesha ibirenze; - ibiti byari byashyizweho ikimenyetso ko bigombwa gutemwa ari 21; - ntakigaragaza ko Katabarwa Richard yakoresheje inyandiko mpimbano mu gihe nta kosa yakoze mu gutemesha ibiti. [8] Urukiko rwasanze ariko indishyi zisabwa na Katabarwa Richard avuga ko zabarwa hagendewe ku murongo watanzwe mu rubanza RADA 0006/12/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 04/01/2013 haburana Ndahindurwa Kimenyi Jeremie na Leta y’u Rwanda atazihabwa uko azisaba kuko muri urwo rubanza Urega yasabaga gusubizwa mu kazi bitandukanye n’ibisabwa muri uru rubanza, rwemeza ahubwo ko agomba guhabwa indishyi z’imishahara atahembwe akiri mu kazi kugera igihe yatangiye ikirego, zingana n’amafaranga y’u Rwanda miliyoni cumi, ibihumbi magana arindwi mirongo ine na bitandatu n’amafaranga mirongo itandu (10.746.060 Frw). [9] Ku wa 05/04/2019, Katabarwa Richard yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire, amusaba gusuzuma akarengane yagiriwe muri urwo rubanza kugira ngo rwongere ruburanishwe. Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga amusaba ko urubanza RADA 00014/2017/HC/NYZ rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, amaze gusuzuma ubwo busabe,

## Page 99

65 KATABARWA v AKARERE KA NYARUGURU

yafashe icyemezo nimero 177/CJ/2021, ko urubanza RADA 00014/2017/HC/NYZ rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza ku wa 28/02/2019 rwakongera kuburanishwa, ruhabwa RS/INJUST/RAD 00001/2021/SC. [10] Iburanisha ry’urubanza ryashyizwe ku wa 12/01/2022, ribera mu ruhame Katabarwa Richard yitabye yunganiwe na Me Ndatsikira Jean Marie Vianney, naho Akarere ka Nyaruguru kaburanirwa na Me Mbonigaba Eulade. Mbere y’uko Urukiko rwinjira mu mizi y’urubanza, rwabanje gusuzuma ikibazo Me Mbonigaba Eulade yatanze nk’inzitizi avuga ko hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 63 y’Itegeko Nº 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena Ububasha bw’Inkiko, asanga ari ngombwa gusuzuma bundi bushya niba hari amakosa yagombaga gutuma Katabarwa Richard yirukanwa burundu mu bakozi ba Leta, hagasuzumwa niba imihango ya ngombwa yarubahirijwe mu kumukurikiranaho ikosa hanyuma ibindi bikaba inkurikizi z’ibyo asaba. [11] Kuri iyi nzitizi Me Ndatsikira Jean Marie Vianney we avuga ko nta shingiro ifite kubera ko iyo hariho gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane, uwumva yararenganye agaragaza impamvu ashingiraho akarengane ke, ko iyo izo mpamvu zirimo gusuzumwa, urundi ruhande ruba rudahari, byagaragara ko harimo akarengane akaba ari bwo urubanza nyirizina rusubirwamo, ariko mu mbibi z’akarengane kagaragajwe. [12] Kuri iki kibazo, Urukiko rwafatiye icyemezo mu ntebe rwemeza ko atari inzitizi ahubwo ari uburyo Akarere ka Nyaruguru kumva iyo ngingo, kandi nkuko rwabitanzeho

## Page 100

66 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

umurongo mu manza zitandukanye1, ingingo ya 63 y’itegeko rigena ububasha bw’inkiko igomba kumvikana ko gusuzuma urubanza bundi bushya bidasobanuye ko hirengagizwa izindi manza ziba zaraciwe mbere, ko ahubwo urubanza rusuzumwa bundi bushya mu mbibi z’icyaregewe mu karengane; bivuze ko umuburanyi wumva yararenganye aba agomba kugaragaza ingingo avuga ko yarenganyeho akaba arizo zisuzumwa zigafatwaho umwanzuro. [13] Nyuma y’icyo cyemezo, urubanza rwakomereje mu mizi hasuzumwa impamvu Katabarwa Richard ashingiraho asaba ko urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, ababuranyi bajya impaka ku bibazo byo kumenya niba Katabarwa Richard yarabariwe indishyi mu buryo butari bwo, niba yasubizwa mu kazi, hamwe n’izindi ndishyi zasabwe n’ababuranyi, urubanza rurapfundikirwa ababuranyi bamenyeshwa ko ruzasomwa ku wa 25/02/2022. [14] Mu gihe urukiko rwari rwiherereye ruca urubanza, rwasanze hari ibyo rugikeneye gusobanuza ababuranyi, bityo hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 75, igika cya 4, y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko mbere yo gufata icyemezo kandi rubyibwirije, urukiko rushobora gupfundura

1 RS/INJUST/RCOM 00002/2020/SC Road Solutions Pavement Products Vs Mail Co Ltd rwaciwe ku wa 29/09/2020. RS/INJUST/RC 00024/2018/SC haburana Ngirinshuti vs Muhima Giovani rwaciwe ku wa 21/02/2020 ku gika cya 19 -22. RS/INJUST/RP 00001/2020/SC Magara Gahakwa et Crts rwaciwe ku wa 21/02/2021 mu gika cyarwo cya 21.

## Page 101

67 KATABARWA v AKARERE KA NYARUGURU

iburanisha mu gihe rusanga hari ibyo rukeneye gusobanukirwa kurushaho bitasobanutse mu iburanisha kugira ngo ukuri kugaragare, maze mu rubanza rubanziriza urundi Urukiko rusanga ari ngombwa ko iburanisha ry’urubanza ripfundurwa ababuranyi bakagira ibindi bisobanuro barugezaho. [15] Iburanisha ryapfunduwe ku wa 23/05/2022, Katabarwa Richard ahagarariwe na Me Ndatsikira Jean Marie Vianney naho Akarere ka Nyaruguru gahagarariwe na Me Mbonigaba Eulade. Ababuranyi bahawe umwanya kugira ngo basobanurire urukiko ikibazo kijyanye n’uburyo indishyi Katabarwa Richard asaba zabarwa (umushahara fatizo waherwaho mu kuzibara, ibyo bumva byabarirwamo ndetse n’ibitagomba kubarirwamo). Iburanisha ry’urubanza rirapfundikirwa, ababuranyi bamenyeshwa ko urubanza ruzasomwa ku wa 22/07/2022. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO 1. Kumenya niba mu rubanza RADA 00014/2017/HC/NYZ Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza rwarabariye Katabarwa Richard indishyi mu buryo butari bwo [16] Kuri iyi ngingo, Katabarwa Richard avuga ko impamvu ashingiraho asaba ko urubanza rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane ari uko yasabye guhabwa indishyi hashingiwe ku buryo Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwakoresheje ruzibara mu rubanza RADA 0006/12/CS rwavuzwe haruguru, aho rwageneye Ndahindurwa Kimenyi Jeremie indishyi zibazwe uhereye igihe icyemezo kimuhagarika mu kazi cyafatiwe kugeza igihe urubanza rwaciriwe ku rwego rwa nyuma, atanga n’ikimenyetso

## Page 102

68 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

cy’urubanza RADA 00008/2017/NYZ rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza ku kirego cya Bugingo birukaniwe rimwe no ku mpamvu zimwe, aho urwo Rukiko rwemeje ko hagumaho imikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyamagabe rwemeje ko BUGINGO ahabwa indishyi zibazwe hakurikijwe umurongo watanzwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza RADA 0006/12/CS rwavuzwe, ari narwo asaba ko rwashingirwaho, ariko ntibyahabwa agaciro. [17] Katabarwa Richard na Me Ndatsikira Jean Marie Vianney umwunganira bavuga ko mu rubanza RADA 00014/2017/HC/NYZ mu gika cya 40, Urukiko Rukuru rwavuze ko uburyo indishyi zabariwe Ndahindurwa Kimenyi Jeremie mu rubanza RADA 0006/12/CS atari ko zabarirwa Katabarwa Richard ngo kuko izi manza zitandukanye kubera ko icyo urega yari agamije kwari ugusubizwa mu kazi, ngo mu gihe icyo Katabarwa Richard yasabaga ari uguhabwa indishyi z’akababaro. Ibyasobanuwe n’Urukiko muri iki gika asanga nta kuri kurimo kubera impamvu zikurikira: - Kuba icyo Katabarwa Richard yaregeraga mu rubanza RADA 00014/2017/HC/NYZ, kwari ukuvanaho icyemezo kimwirukana burundu ku kazi cyafashwe n’Ubuyobozi, naho ibindi birego bishamikiyeho bikaba ingaruka zabyo kandi ko ibi bihuye neza n’ibyo Ndahindurwa Kimenyi Jeremie yaregeraga mu rubanza RADA 0006/12/CS kuko nawe yaregeraga kuvanaho icyemezo cyo kumwirukana burundu ku kazi cyafashwe n’Ubuyobozi mu Iteka rya Minisitiri w’Intebe Nº 136/03 ryo ku wa 25/10/2010.

## Page 103

69 KATABARWA v AKARERE KA NYARUGURU

- Kuba mu rubanza rwa Ndahindurwa Kimenyi Jeremie no mu rubanza rwa Katabarwa Richard zombi zaragaragayemo ko birukanywe bitari bikwiye, bivuze ko ubwo baregeraga kuvanaho icyemezo kibirukana mu kazi, kandi urukiko rukaba rwarakivanyeho kuri bose bityo bagombaga gusubizwa mu kazi no guhabwa indishyi z’imishahara batahembwe. Ko kuba rero Ndahindurwa Kimenyi Jeremie yaragize amahirwe yo gusubizwa mu kazi atari byo byari bwambure amahirwe Katabarwa Richard yo kubarirwa imishahara ye kugeza urubanza ruciwe burundu nk’uko byakorewe Ndahindurwa Kimenyi Jeremie. - Kuba kugira ngo yongere kubona akandi kazi ari uko urubanza ruba rwaciwe burundu akaba arirwo yashingiraho asaba kuvanwa kuri Black List, bityo ko kubara imishahara y’umukozi wa Leta wirukanywe nta mpamvu, kugeza ku munsi urubanza ruciriwe burundu basanga bifite ishingiro. [18] Bavuga ko mu gika cya 39 cy’urubanza RADA 00014/2017/HC/NYZ, Urukiko rwaravuze ko Katabarwa Richard atahabwa imishahara ye kuko atakibarirwa mu bakozi b’Akarere ngo kuko amategeko ateganya ko umushahara ari amafaranga yose ahabwa cyangwa agomba guhabwa umukozi kubera akazi aba yakoze; ko ibi bisobanuro basanga nta kuri kurimo kuko mu gika cya 41 Umucamanza yivuguruje agena n’ubundi indishyi zihwanye n’imishahara y’igihe Katabarwa Richard yari atakibarirwa mu bakozi b’Akarere, no mu bisobanuro biri mu gika 39 bigaragaza ko impamvu Katabarwa Richard yahabwa imishahara ye kugeza atanze ikirego ashingira

## Page 104

70 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ngo ku kuba yari akiri mu gihirahiro cyo kumenya niba yashaka akandi kazi cyangwa atagashaka. [19] Bongeraho ko ibyashingiweho n’Urukiko Rukuru mu gika cyavuzwe haruguru nta kuri kurimo kuko mu rubanza RADA 00008/2017/HC/NYZ rwa Bugingo rusa neza n’urwa Katabarwa Richard, Urukiko rwemeje ko Bugingo ahabwa imishahara ye yose kuva ahagaritswe by’agateganyo kugeza atanze ikirego ndetse runongera indishyi zo kwirukanirwa ubusa zingana n’imishahara y’amezi 6 ariko ibi bikaba bitarakorewe Katabarwa Richard. [20] Katabarwa Richard na Me Ndatsikira Jean Marie Vianney bakomeza bavuga ko iyo umukozi wa Leta yirukanywe ku kazi nta mpamvu yumvikana ahita avutswa umushahara we n’ibindi byose biwugize kandi ibyo byose bikaba ari ibishyirirwaho kumuteza imbere no gutuma akora akazi ke neza. Ko bitumvikana uburyo mu gihe bigaragaye ko ibyo byose yabivukijwe ku bw’amaherere atabisubizwa kuko ari bwo yaba arenganuwe. Bavuga ko indishyi Katabarwa Richard yagenerwa zashingira ku mushahara we mbumbe yahabwaga mu kwezi yirukanywemo hakavanwamo gusa amafaranga yagenerwaga mu rwego rwo koroshya ikorwa ry’akazi kuko atari akigakora. [21] Bavuga kandi ko kwirukana umukozi mu kazi bimushyira no ku rutonde rw’abatemerewe kubona akazi, byumvikanisha ko nta bushobozi aba agifite bwo kwishyura ideni, ari nabyo byabaye kuri Katabarwa Richard kuko muri 10.746.060 Frw yahawe yishyuyemo arenga 8.000.000 Frw kubera ko kwirukanwa kwe kwamuvukije lumpsum yishyuraga banki, kumuvutsa umushahara nawo yari bwifashishe ndetse binamuvutsa amahirwe yo kuba yabona akandi kazi ngo kamufashe kwishyura iryo deni. Bityo basaba ko mu kubarira

## Page 105

71 KATABARWA v AKARERE KA NYARUGURU

Katabarwa Richard indishyi atahawe azikwiye, hagenderwa ku mushahara we mbumbe ukuyemo gusa ayo yagenerwaga ya communication kuko ariyo yakoreshaga iby’akazi gusa. [22] Katabarwa Richard akomeza asobanura ko harebwe Iteka rya Minisitiri w’Intebe Nº 003/03 ryo ku wa 16/01/2015 rigena uburyo amahugurwa y’abakozi akorwa cyane cyane mu ngingo ya 20 aho biteganyijwe ko abakozi ba Leta bari mu mahugurwa atarengeje amezi 3 bagenerwa lumpsum nawe yagombye kuyihabwa, ko n’ubwo atari ari mu kazi akwiye guhabwa ayo mafaranga kuko ikirebwa ari uko ikinyabiziga kiba cyaraguzwe ku nguzanyo bakamurekera ayo mafaranga nawe rero amasezerano y’inguzanyo y’imodoka agikomeza. [23] Basoza bavuga ko Katabarwa Richard yirukaniwe ubusa bituma avutswa imishahara ye y’amezi 48 yo kuva ku kwezi kwa 3/2015 kugeza mu kwezi kwa 2/2019, kandi buri kwezi yabonaga 971.405 Frw, ko iyo atirukanwa muri icyo gihe yari kuba yarabonye 46.627.440 Frw ariko akaba yarahawe 10.746.060 Frw. Avuga ko mu kumurenganura asanga urukiko rukwiye gutegeka ko yishyurwa ikinyuranyo kingana na 35.881.360 Frw. [24] Me Mbonigaba Eulade uhagarariye Akarere ka Nyaruguru avuga ko bo bemera ko Katabarwa Richard yirukanywe ku mpamvu yumvikana; ariko ko Urukiko rubisuzumye rugasanga yarirukanywe mu buryo bunyuranije n’amategeko ku buryo yagenerwa indishyi, zitashingira ku mushahara we mbumbe yahabwaga ku kwezi kubera ko n’iyo aza kuba akiri mu kazi atari guhabwa amafaranga y’umushahara mbumbe. [25] Avuga ko lumpsum ari amafaranga umukozi ahabwa yo kumufasha igihe ari mu kazi, nyamara lumpsum Katabarwa

## Page 106

72 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Richard asaba ari iyo mu gihe atakoze, bityo akaba adakwiye kuyahabwa. [26] Asoza avuga ko urugero rutangwa na Katabarwa Richard rw’umukozi uri mu mahugurwa ukomeza guhabwa amafaranga ya lumpsum atari rwo kubera ko umukozi uri mu mahugurwa aba ari mu kazi, akaba ariyo mpamvu akomeza kugenerwa ayo mafaranga, bitandukanye n’uwirukanywe kuko nta nshingano n’imwe aba agifite ku kazi, ko lumpsum atari umushahara ahubwo ari uburyo umukozi agenerwa kugira ngo arangize neza inshingano ze z’akazi, ko mu gihe atari mu kazi kumuha lumpsum byaba ari ugutangira ubusa ibya Leta. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [27] Ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’Imbonezamubano, iz’Ubucuruzi, iz’Umurimo n’iz’Ubutegetsi iteganya ko umucamanza aca urubanza ashingiye ku ngingo z’amategeko zirebana n’ikirego yaregewe. Iyo nta tegeko rijyanye n’ikiburanwa ashingira ku mategeko asanga yashyiraho mu gihe yaba ashinzwe kuyashyiraho, yifashishije ibyemezo byagiye bifatwa n’inkiko, umuco, amahame rusange agenga amategeko n’inyandiko z’abahanga mu mategeko”; igika cya kabiri cy’iyo ngingo kigateganya ko umucamanza ntashobora kandi kwanga guca urubanza yitwaje impamvu iyo ari yo yose, n’iyo ntacyo itegeko ryaba riteganya, ridasobanutse mu buryo bwumvikana cyangwa ridahagije. [28] Ku birebana no kubara indishyi z’umukozi wa Leta wirukanywe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko bigatuma abura umushahara ku maherere, Urukiko rurasanga yaba Sitati

## Page 107

73 KATABARWA v AKARERE KA NYARUGURU

y’Abakozi ba Leta yakoreshwaga ubwo Katabarwa Richard yirukanwaga, n’Itegeko Nº 017/2020 ryo ku wa 07/10/2020 rishyiraho Sitati igenga abakozi ba Leta rikoreshwa ubu ntahateganyijwe uburyo izo ndishyi zigomba kubarwa, hashingiwe ku ngingo imaze kuvugwa mu gika kibanziriza iki, mu gukemura iki kibazo hakaba hakwiye kwifashishwa ibisobanuro by’abahanga mu mategeko (Doctrines) cyangwa imanza zagiye zicibwa ku bibazo bisa n’ikiburanwa muri uru rubanza. Abahanga mu mategeko arebana n’imanza z’ubutegetsi M. Long, P. Weil na G. Braibant2 bavuga ko mu kugena indishyi z’umukozi wa Leta wirukanywe nta mpamvu ifatika kandi yumvikana hagenderwa ku bintu bitatu: - Icyo umukozi aba yarangirijwe mu by’ukuri (préjudice effectivement subi par l’agent); - Amakosa yakozwe n’ubutegetsi (faute commise par l’administration): abo bahanga bavuga ko indishyi ziba nyinshi iyo habaye ikosa ry’ireme (vice de fond), ariko zikaba nkeya iyo ari ikosa ryo kutubahiriza umuhango (vice de forme); - Ikosa ryakozwe n’umukozi (faute commise par l’agent): abo bahanga bakavuga ko iryo kosa rishobora gutuma umukozi ahabwa indishyi nkeya, cyangwa ntanagire izo abona. [29] Ku birebana no kubara indishyi zigomba guhabwa umukozi wa Leta wirukanywe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko akavutswa umushahara ku maherere, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza RADA 0006/12/CS rwaciwe ku wa

2 M. Long, P. Weil, G. Braibant, Les grands arrêts de la jurisprudence administrative, 20 éditions, Collection Dalloz 2015. P.260.

## Page 108

74 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

04/01/2013 haburana Leta y’u Rwanda na Ndahindurwa Kimenyi Jéremie ku kibazo gisa n’ikiburanwa muri uru rubanza (Gutesha agaciro icyemezo cyo kwirukanwa mu buryo budakurikije amategeko) mu gika cyarwo cya 30 rwemeje ko izo ndishyi zibarwa ku rugero rw’umushahara umukozi yahembwe bwa nyuma, zikabarwa guhera igihe yahagarikiwe kugeza urubanza rusomwe, hagendewe ku mushahara yatahanaga mu ntoki (Net Salary). [30] Hashingiwe ku bimaze kuvugwa haruguru, Katabarwa Richard akaba agomba guhabwa indishyi zingana n’umushahara yagombaga guhembwa kuva ahagaritswe by’agateganyo (ku wa 16/03/2015, kuko kuva icyo gihe umushahara we wahise uhagarara) kugeza ku itariki ya 28/02/2019, itariki urubanza yasabye ko rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane rwaciriwe) ni ukuvuga ko ari amezi 47 n’iminsi 12, ukabarirwa ku mafaranga 467.2203. Bivuze ko indishyi agomba guhabwa ari: 467.220 Frw x 47 = 21.959.340 Frw + 186.888Frw y’iminsi 12 bingana na 22.146.228 Frw, hakuwemo amafaranga yahawe urubanza yasabye ko rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane rurangizwa. Ni ukuvuga ko agomba guhabwa 22.146.228 Frw -10.746.060 Frw = 11.400.168Frw. [31] Ku byerekeye ibyo Katabarwa Richard avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwamwimye lumpsum nyamara yari ayikwiriye, Urukiko rurasanga hari amasezerano yo ku wa 14/09/2011 yakozwe hagati ya Guverinoma y’u Rwanda ihagarariwe na Minisiteri y’ibikorwa remezo na Katabarwa Richard agamije kugura imodoka mu rwego rwo korohereza ingendo abakozi. Ingingo ya 2 y’ayo masezerano iteganya ko Guverinoma yishyurira umukozi uri

3 Umushahara wabariweho mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza, ntawawugizeho ikibazo yaba Katabarwa cyangwa se Akarere ka Nyaruguru.

## Page 109

75 KATABARWA v AKARERE KA NYARUGURU

muri iyo gahunda imisoro ya gasutamo, umusoro ku nyongeragaciro n’indi misoro ku itumizwa mu mahanga ry’imodoka nshya, ikanamuha buri kwezi amafaranga 208.731 Frw yaje kuba 300.000 Frw, nkuko bigaragara ku nyandiko igaragaza imiterere y’umushahara wa Katabarwa Richard, akaba avuga ko aya mafaranga ariyo yamufashaga kwishyura inguzanyo yafashe muri Banki y’Abaturage y’u Rwanda agura imodoka ivugwa mu masezerano yavuzwe haruguru. [32] Mu rubanza RADA 0003/14/CS, Dr. Karemangingo Charles yaburanaga na Leta y’u Rwanda rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 17/02/2017, Urukiko rwasanze lumpsum iri mu mafaranga agomba kubarirwa mu ndishyi umukozi wa Leta akwiye mu gihe bigaragara ko yasezerewe ku kazi mu buryo bunyuranije n’amategeko.4 [33] Urukiko rurasanga kuba Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza, rwaremeje ko yirukanywe ku maherere bivuze ko yavukijwe ibyo yagenerwaga nk’umukozi byamufashaga kurangiza inshingano ze, harimo no kutabasha gukomeza kwishyura inguzanyo avuga ko yishyuraga akoresheje lumpsum, bityo Akarere ka Nyaruguru kamwirukanye nta mpamvu kakaba kagomba kumuha indishyi zihwanye n’icyo gihombo yatewe no kudahabwa lumpsum yabonaga atarirukanwa. [34] Ku byerekeranye n’ingano ya lumpsum Katabarwa Richard yahabwa, Urukiko rurasanga amasezerano yagiranye na Leta yo kugura imodoka ari nayo yashingiweho ahabwa lumpsum yaragombaga kumara imyaka 4 uhereye igihe yasinyiwe ku wa 14/09/2011, bivuga ko yagombaga kurangira ku wa 14/9/2015. Dosiye igaragaza ko Katabarwa Richard

4 Reba igika cya 45 n’icya46 by’urwo rubanza.

## Page 110

76 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

yahagaritswe mu kazi mu kwezi kwa 3/2015 hasigaye amezi 6 ngo amasezerano yavuzwe haruguru arangire, bityo Urukiko rukaba rusanga ayo mafaranga yabarwa mu buryo bukurikira: 300.000 Frw inshuro esheshatu (300.000 X 6) bihwanye na 1.800.000 Frw. Aya mafaranga akaba agomba kongerwa kuri 11.400.168 Frw yavuzwe haruguru mu gika cya 30 cy’uru rubanza, yose hamwe akaba 11.400.168 Frw + 1.800.000 Frw = 13.200.168 Frw 2. Kumenya niba Katabarwa Richard yasubizwa mu kazi [35] Katabarwa Richard na Me Ndatsikira Jean Marie Vianney bavuga ko Katabarwa Richard akwiye gusubizwa ku kazi kubera ko Urukiko rwemeje ko yirukanywe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amateko, ko yagombye gusubizwa ku kazi kuko icyemezo kimwirukana cyakuweho. Bavuga ko ariko mu gihe byaba bidashobotse yahabwa indishyi, hakabarwa umushahara we kuva igihe yahagarikiwe kugeza urubanza ruciwe burundu, ndetse akanahabwa icyemezo cy’umukoresha (Attestation de services rendus); ko kuba ataragihawe ari akarengane. Basoza bavuga ko nubwo batabigaragaje mu nama ntegurarubanza bitatuma bidasuzumwa kubera ko ari inkurikizi z’icyemezo cyo kumwirukana kandi akaba yarabiburanye mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza. [36] Me Mbonigaba Eulade uburanira Akarere ka Nyaruguru avuga ko ibijyanye no gusubizwa ku kazi bitagomba gusuzumwa kubera ko bitigeze biburanwaho mu nkiko zabanje, ko kuvuga ko ari inkurikizi zo kwirukanwa atari byo, kuko byagombye kuba byararegewe bigasuzumwa, kubera ko umukozi wa Leta adatakaza akazi mu gihe yirukanywe gusa kuko ashobora no kukivanaho.

## Page 111

77 KATABARWA v AKARERE KA NYARUGURU

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [37] Ingingo ya 63 y’Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’Inkiko, iteganya ko iyo Urukiko rw’Ikirenga cyangwa urundi rukiko Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga agena rushyikirijwe urubanza rusabirwa gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, rurusuzuma mu mizi bundi bushya abarubayemo ababuranyi bose bahamagajwe. [38] Nk’uko byafashweho icyemezo mu manza zinyuranye5, kuba umuburanyi yarashyiriweho inzira idasanzwe yo gusubirishamo urubanza rwabaye itegeko mu gihe yumva hari ingingo runaka yarenganyeho, bidasobanuye ko hirengagizwa izindi manza ziba zaraciwe mbere, ko ahubwo urubanza rusuzumwa bundi bushya mu mbibi z’icyaregewe mu karengane, bikaba byumvikana ko iyi nzira idaha umuburanyi uburyo bwo gutanga ibirego bishya bitari mu murongo w’ibyaregewe urubanza rugishingwa mu rwego rwa mbere, ko kandi itamuha uburenganzira bwo gusaba ko hagira izindi ngingo zisuzumwa zirenze izo yatanze mu nyandiko isaba kurenganurwa kuko yaba avuye mu mbibi z’ibigomba gusuzumwa nk’akarengane yagiriwe. [39] Mu rubanza Katabarwa Richard asaba ko rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, bigaragara ko ikibazo cyo gusaba gusubizwa mu kazi cyangwa kubiherwa indishyi mu cyimbo cyabyo kitigeze gisuzumwa. Inyandiko yo ku wa 05/04/2019 Me

5 RCA/INJUST/RC 00007/2018/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 13/03/2020 haburana Nditiribambe Samuel na Gatera, Igika cya 66. RCAA 00008/2018/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 12/11/2021 haburana Gahire Athanase na Mukarushakiro Gloriose et Crts, igika cya 30.

## Page 112

78 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Ndatsikira Jean Marie Vianney mu izina rya Katabarwa Richard yagejeje kuri Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire, nayo igaragaza ko urubanza RADA 00014/2017/HC/NYZ rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza, icyo avuga ko rwamurenganyijeho ari ku ngingo imwe gusa irebana no kubara indishyi ku mukozi wa Leta wirukaniwe ubusa akabishingira ku manza zaciwe kuri icyo kibazo, muri zo akavugamo urubanza RADA 0006/12/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga haburana Ndahindurwa Kimenyi Jéremie na Leta y’u Rwanda, kimwe n’urubanza RADA 0008/2017/HC/NYZ rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, urugereko rwa Nyanza, haburana Bugingo Jean Chrysostome n’Akarere ka Nyaruguru, akavuga ko ashingiye kuri izo manza asaba kurenganurwa akabarirwa indishyi mu buryo bumwe nk’ubwakoreshejwe muri izo manza. [40] Rushingiye kuri ibyo bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa no ku byemezo byagiye bifatwa mu manza zinyuranye zirebana n’ububasha bw’umuburanyi mu manza zigamije gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane urubanza rwabaye itegeko zavuzwe haruguru, Urukiko rusanga ikibazo cyo kuba Katabarwa Richard yasubizwa mu kazi, kidashobora gusuzumwa kuri uru rwego kubera ko kitigeze kigibwaho impaka mu rubanza rusabirwa gusubirwamo. Ibi kandi ni nako bigomba kugenda ku birebana n’indishyi zo kudahabwa icyemezo cy’umurimo kubera ko Katabarwa Richard atigeze abigaragaza nk’ingingo yarenganyeho mu rubanza RADA 00014/2017/HC/NYZ ngo nabyo asabe ko byasuzumwa n’inzego zifite mu nshingano gusuzuma akarengane kavugwa mu manza zabaye ndakuka, cyane cyane ko kitaburanyweho mu rubanza yasabye ko rwasubirwamo.

## Page 113

79 KATABARWA v AKARERE KA NYARUGURU

3. Ibyerekeye izindi ndishyi zasabwe muri uru rubanza [41] Katabarwa Richard na Me Ndatsikira Jean Marie Vianney umwunganira bavuga ko hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 258 y'Igitabo cya gatatu cy'urwunge rw'amategeko mbonezamubano (CCLIII), no kuba mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga umuburanyi agomba kuba afite Avoka ndetse n’igihembo cyo mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga kikaba kitagomba kujya munsi ya 1.000.000 Frw, asaba ko Urukiko rwategeka ko Akarere ka Nyaruguru gasubiza Katabarwa Richard 1.000.000 Frw; ko no mu gukurikirana iki kirego, yakoresheje amafaranga anyuranye bityo asaba ko mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko yahabwa 300.0000 Frw yakoresheje haba mu ngendo, amacumbi, amafunguro, itumanaho n’insimburamubyizi. [42] Me Mbonigaba Eulade uhagarariye Akarere ka Nyaruguru avuga ko ku bijyanye n’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza akwiye gutangirwa ibimenyetso bitaba ibyo akagenwa mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko, ko ku birebana n’igihembo cya Avoka nacyo kigomba gutangirwa ibimenyetso bifatika ko ayo mafaranga asaba ariyo yishyuwe koko, yongeraho ko mu gihe amafaranga asaba nk’igihembo cya Avoka yaba arenze 500.000 Frw Katabarwa Richard agomba gutanga ibindi bisobanuro bifatika. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [43] Ingingo ya 111 y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’Imbonezamubano, iz’Ubucuruzi, iz’Umurimo n’iz’Ubutegetsi iteganya ko Ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza ni

## Page 114

80 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ikirego gishamikira ku kirego cy’iremezo kigamije kwishyuza ibyakoreshejwe mu rubanza. Igika cya kabiri cy’iyo ngingo kigateganya ko icyo kirego kiburanishirizwa hamwe n’ikirego cy’iremezo ko ndetse gishobora kwakirwa kabone n’ubwo icy’iremezo cyaba kitakiriwe. [44] Ku birebana n’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’Avoka Katabarwa Richard asaba angana na 1.300.000 Frw, Urukiko rurasanga hari amafaranga yatakaje agomba guhabwa n’Akarere ka Nyaruguru kuko kugira ngo abashe gusubizwa uburenganzira bwe yavukijwe no kwirukanwa binyuranyije n’amategeko byabaye ngombwa ko atanga ikirego mu rukiko akanashaka umwunganira kugira ngo abashe kwirengera. Urukiko rurasanga ariko 1.000.000 Frw ku gihembo cya Avoka asaba ari menshi kandi atagaragaza ko ariyo yamwishyuye, bityo mu bushishozi bwarwo rukaba rumugeneye 500.000 Frw, yose hamwe akaba 800.000 Frw habariwemo n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza 300.000 Frw kuko yo ari mu rugero rukwiye. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [45] Rwemeje ko ikirego rwashyikirijwe na Katabarwa Richard cyo gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane urubanza RADA 00014/2017/HC/NYZ rwaciwe n'Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza ku wa 28/02/2019, gifite ishingiro. [46] Rwemeje ko urubanza RADA 00014/2017/HC/NYZ rwaciwe n'Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza ku wa 28/02/2019, ruhindutse kuri bimwe.

## Page 115

81 KATABARWA v AKARERE KA NYARUGURU

[47] Rutegetse Akarere ka Nyaruguru guha Katabarwa Richard indishyi zo kwirukanwa mu buryo bunyuranye n’amategeko zingana na 13.200.168 Frw, nkuko zasobanuwe mu gika cya 34 cy’uru rubanza, yiyongera kuri 10.746.060 Frw yahawe mbere urubanza yasabye ko rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane rurangizwa. [48] Rutegetse kandi Akarere ka Nyaruguru guha Katabarwa Richard amafaranga ibihumbi magana inani (800.000 Frw) akubiyemo ay’igihembo cy’Avoka n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza, yose hamwe akaba miriyoni cumi n’enye n’amafaranga ijana na mirongo itandatu n’umunani (14.000.168 Frw.)

## Page 117

IMANZA MBONEZAMUBANO

## Page 119

85

N.A (mu izina ry’ umwana we I.A) v KIBUNGO MEDICAL CENTER [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’UBUJURIRE – RCAA 00008/2020/CA (Nyirandabaruta P.J; Kamere na Mukanyundo J.) 25 Kamena 2021] Amategeko agenga imanza mbonezamubano – Indishyi– Igenwa ry’indishyi zikomoka ku ikosa – Uburyozwe bushingiye kw’ikosa – Amakosa yakozwe n’abaganga mu mwuga wabo – uburyo bwo kubara indishyi z’amakosa y’abaganga bakoze bari mu azi kabo – Indishyi ku buryozwe bw’umuganga wakoze amakosa bikaviramo umurwayi gutakaza bimwe mu bice by’umubiri zibarwa mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko (ex aequo et bono). Amategeko agenga imanza mbonezamubano – Indishyi – Igenwa ry’indishyi – Iyo urukiko rugennye indishyi rushingiye ku itegeko ridafite aho rihuriye n’ikiburanwa mu rubanza, bifatwa nk’aho rwashingiye ku itegeko ritariho. Amategeko agenga imanza mbonezamubano – Ubujurire – Igenwa ry’indishyi zikomoka ku ikosa – Urukiko rwajuririwe ntirugomba guhindura icyemezo cyafashwe n’urukiko rwo hasi rutabanje kugaragaza icyo runenga icyo rukinenga. Imiterere y’Ikibazo: Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Ngoma, N.A mu izina ry’ umwana we I.A, arega Kibungo Medical Center (KMC) asaba indishyi mu izina ry'umwana we I.A zikomoka ku kuba umukozi wicyo kigo yarakasemo kabiri igitsina cyuwo mwana bikamuviramo kumugara, ubwo yamusiramuraga abikoranye ubushishozi buke

## Page 120

86 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

n’uburangare; muri urwo rubanza hagobokeshejwemo Prime Insurance Company Plc nk’umwishingizi wa KMC. Urukiko rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe na N.A mu izina ry’umwana we I.A gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe, ko KMC yishyura indishyi N.A mu izina ry'umwana we I.A zo kuba umukozi wayo yaramwangije igice cy’umubiri. Kibungo Medical Center ntiyishimiye imikirize y’urubanza ijuririra mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana ivuga ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwategetse KMC kwishyura indishyi zidashingiye ku gipimo na kimwe, runirengagiza ko hari amafaranga yari yarishyuye mu rwego rwo kuvuza umwana no kuba rutarasesenguye neza amategeko ajyanye n’uburyozwe mu gihe uregwa indishyi afite umwishingizi. Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana rwemeje ko ubujurire bwatanzwe na KMC bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe, ko urubanza rwajuririwe ruhindutse gusa ku bijyanye n’ikigero cy’indishyi N.A mu izina ry’umwana we I.A yagenewe, aho Urukiko rwazigabanije. N.A mu izina ry’umwana we I.A ntiyishimiye imikirize y’urubanza arujuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire, avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru, rwaciye urubanza rushingiye ku Itegeko ritabaho. Ababuranira Kibungo Medical Center bavuga ko basanga indishyi zaragenwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, ko Urukiko rwasuzuma niba zatangwa mu bushishozi bwarwo cyangwa se zigatangwa hakurikijwe inyandiko z’abahanga, cyangwa izagenwe hakurikijwe amategeko. Urukiko rwemeje ko ibarwa ry’indishyi zagenewe N.A mu izina ry’umwana we I.A zari kwemezwa hashingiwe ku kuba Kibungo Medical Center ubwayo yiyemerera ko hari ikosa ryakozwe

## Page 121

87 N.A (mu izina ry’ umwana we I.A) v KIBUNGO MEDICAL CENTER

n’umukozi wayo, zikabarwa hashingiwe ku bushishozi bw’umucamanza (ex aequo et bono) kuko nta tegeko ririho rigena uburyo n’igipimo fatizo biherwaho mu kuzibara. Incamake y’Icyemezo:1. Indishyi ku buryozwe bw’umuganga wakoze amakosa bikaviramo umurwayi gutakaza bimwe mu bice by’umubiri zibarwa mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko (ex aequo et bono) 2.Iyo urukiko rugennye indishyi rushingiye ku itegeko ridafite aho rihuriye n’ikiburanwa mu rubanza, bifatwa nk’aho rwashingiye ku itegeko ritariho. 3.Urukiko rwajuririwe ntirugomba guhindura icyemezo cyafashwe n’urukiko rwo hasi rutabanje kugaragaza icyo runenga icyo rukinenga. Ubujurire bufite ishingiro Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ingingo ya 9, 111 Imanza zifashishijwe: Urubanza Nº RCAA 00073/2018/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 19/07/2019 hagati ya Nyirabatesi Laurence n’Ibitaro byitiriwe Umwami Fayisali. Urubanza Nº RADA 0054/12/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 19/12/2014 haburana Kabayijuka Gaspard na MINISANTE.

## Page 122

88 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Inyandiko z’abahanga zifashishijwe : Bernard Dubuisson et Noel Simar (sous la direction de), Responsabilite, Indemnisation et recours”, Volume 174, Juin 2017, page 149 Henri De Page, Traité élémentaire de droit civil Belge, tome deuxième, Les incapables-Les obligations Bruylant, Bruxelles, 1964, P. 1070 Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Ngoma, N.A mu izina ry'umwana we I.A arega Kibungo Medical Center asaba indishyi zingana na 45.000.000 Frw zikomoka ku kuba umukozi wayo yarakasemo kabiri igitsina cy`umwana we I.A bikamuviramo kumugara, ubwo yamusiramuraga; muri urwo rubanza hagobokeshwamo Prime Insurance Company Plc nk’umwishingizi wa Kibungo Medical Center. [2] N.A mu izina ry'umwana we I.A yasobanuye ko ku wa 14/04/2017, Umuganga w’Ivuriro Kibungo Medical Center mu gusiramura uwo mwana, yabikoranye ubushishozi buke n’uburangare, aho umwana yitereye hejuru muri icyo gikorwa kubera ubwoba, umutwe w’igitsina cye ukatwaho igice, Kibungo Medical Center yihutira kumujyana mu Bitaro byitiriwe Umwami Faisal bakagiteranya ariko bikanga, ahubwo akaharwarira kugeza ubwo bakuyeho umutwe wose w’igitsina (gland) kubera ko ubwo ibyo bitaro byageragezaga guhomaho igice cyari cyaciwe, umutwe wose watangiye kubora, bituma bawukuraho hagamijwe kurengera urugingo rw’umwana

## Page 123

89 N.A (mu izina ry’ umwana we I.A) v KIBUNGO MEDICAL CENTER

rusigaye; bityo ko kuba byaramuviriyemo ubumuga buhoraho bwa 50% nk’uko byemejwe na muganga wamusuzumye, Kibungo Medical Center igomba kubitangira indishyi. [3] Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Ngoma rwaciye urubanza RC 00222/2017/TGI/Ngoma ku wa 31/07/2018, rwemeza ko ikirego cyatanzwe na N.A mu izina ry’umwana we I.A gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe, ko Kibungo Medical Center yishyura N.A mu izina ry'umwana we I.A indishyi zingana na 35.000.000Frw zo kuba umukozi wayo yaramwangije igice cy’umubiri, 500.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 50.000Frw y’ingwate y’igarama. [4] Kibungo Medical Center ntiyishimiye imikirize y’urubanza ijuririra mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana ivuga ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Ngoma rwategetse Kibungo Medical Center kwishyura indishyi zingana na 35.000.000Frw zidashingiye ku gipimo na kimwe, runirengagiza ko hari 2.900.000Frw yari yarishyuye mu rwego rwo kuvuza umwana no kuba rutarasesenguye neza amategeko ajyanye n’uburyozwe mu gihe uregwa indishyi afite umwishingizi. [5] Ku wa 30/07/2019, Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana rwaciye urubanza RCA00065/2018/HC/RWG, rwemeza ko ubujurire bwatanzwe na Kibungo Medical Center bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe, ko urubanza rwajuririwe ruhindutse gusa ku ndishyi N.A mu izina ry’umwana we I.A yagenewe, rutegeka ko yishyurwa indishyi zingana na 8.640.000Frw aho kuba 35.000.000Frw, rutegeka ko nta gihindutse ku bijyanye n’igihembo cya Avoka no ku ngwate y’igarama. Rwemeje kandi ko 2.993.000Frw Kibungo Medical Center yishyuye ivuza umwana I.A adakurwa mu ndishyi icibwa kubera ko yayatanze ikemura ikibazo yari yateje, ko 30.000Frw yishyuwe expertise

## Page 124

90 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

judiciaire adakurwamo kuko ariyo yabisabye kubw’ inyungu zayo, rutegeka ko mu ndishyi zingana na 8.640.000Frw Kibungo Medical Center igomba kwishyura N.A mu izina ry’umwana we I.A, yishyuramo 6.640.000Frw, PRIME Insurance Company Plc ikishyura 2.000.000Frw nk’uko amasezerano Nº 413/00021583- SG Police impande zombi zagiranye ku wa 24/06/2016 abiteganya, KIBUNGO Medical Center ikanamwishyura 650.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka no gukurikirana urubanza ku rwego rw’ubujurire. [6] N.A mu izina ry’umwana we I.A ntiyishimiye imikirize y’urubanza arujuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire, avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana rwaciye urubanza rushingiye ku Itegeko ritabaho maze rukirengagiza itegeko risanzweho ryashingiweho n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Ngoma mu guca urubanza, maze rugahimba itegeko ryarwo ridafite aho rihuriye n’igikorwa cy’ubugome cyakorewe I.A, kuba mu gika cya 16 cy’urubanza RCA00065/2018/HC/RWG, Urukiko Rukuru rwarashingiye ku itegeko ritabaho rwemeza ko ibyabaye ari impanuka nta kimenyetso rushingiyeho, no kuba rwaremeje ko 30.000Frw yishyuwe expertise judiciaire na KIBUNGO Medical Center kandi atari ko bimeze. [7] Iburanisha ry’urubanza mu ruhame ryashyizwe ku wa 21/12/2020, uwo munsi ugeze ntirwaburanishwa kubera ko umwe mu bacamanza bagize inteko yari arwaye, iburanisha ryimurirwa ku wa 26/01/2021, uwo munsi ugeze ntirwaburanishwa kubera ko Umujyi wa Kigali wari muri gahunda ya guma mu rugo mu rwego rwo kwirinda ikwirakwira rya virusi ya Corona itera indwara ya Covid-19, iburanisha ryimurirwa ku wa 02/06/2021, uwo munsi ruburaishwa mu ruhame, ababuranyi bose bitabye, N.A mu izina ry’umwana we

## Page 125

91 N.A (mu izina ry’ umwana we I.A) v KIBUNGO MEDICAL CENTER

I.A ahagarariwe na Me Rwenga Etienne, afatanyije na Me Gashugi Heron, Kibungo Medical Center ihagarariwe na Dr Kanimba Pierre Célestin yunganiwe na Me Mukaruzagiriza Chantal afatanyije na Me Ngerageze Bernard, Prime Insurance Company Plc ihagarariwe na Me Bagomora Charles, isomwa ry’urubanza rishyirwa ku wa 25/06/2021, ari nawo munsi rusomeweho. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO : a. Kumenya ishingiro mu mategeko ry’indishyi zagenewe N.A mu izina ry’umwana we I.A. [8] Me Gashugi Heron, uhagarariye N.A mu izina ry’umwana we I.A, avuga ko mu gika cya 16 n’icya 21 by’urubanza RCA00065/2018/HC/RWG, Urukiko Rukuru rwaciye urubanza rushingiye ku Itegeko ritabaho kuko rwahimbye itegeko1 ridafite aho rihuriye n’igikorwa cy’ubugome cyakorewe I.A, kandi rwari rwabonye ko ibyabaye bifite ingaruka ziremereye zitakwihanganirwa. [9] Akomeza avuga ko rwemeje ko kuba igitsina cya I.A cyaraciwemo kabiri ari impanuka, rukabyemeza nta kimenyetso rushingiyeho, bigatuma ruca urubanza rushingiye ku Iteka rya Perezida Nº 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/8/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga, rukaba rwaragereranyije ibintu bibera ahantu hatandukanye cyane, binakorwa n’abantu

1 Uzajya acibwa igitsina n’umuganga azajya afatwa nk’uwagongewe n’ikinyabiziga mu muhanda maze indishyi zo mu muhanda zigakubwa inshuro ebyiri (2).

## Page 126

92 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

batandukanye cyane mu mwuga bakora, aho impanuka y’ikinyabiziga ishobora guterwa n’ibintu byinshibitandukanye birimo imodoka ubwayo, umushoferi ku giti cye, imiterere y’umuhanda imodoka igenderaho kimwe n’ibindi byaturuka ku ruhande bigahohotera imodoka n’abayirimo, bikaba ntaho bihuriye n’Umuganga wazaniwe umwana muzima akamuciramo kabiri igitsina akagitandukanya cyose; ko ahubwo rwagombaga guca urubanza rushingiye ku bushishozi bwarwo nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi2, urubanza RCAA00073/2018/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 19/07/2019, Nyirabatesi Laurence aburana n’Ibitaro byitiriwe Umwami Faisali, aho urwo Rukiko rwagennye indishyi rushingiye ku ngingo ya 260 y’Itegeko ryo ku wa 30/07/1888 rishyiraho interuro y’ibanze y’igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano3 n’inyandiko z’abahanga. [10] Asoza asaba Urukiko rw’Ubujurire gutegeka Kibungo Medical Center kwishyura indishyi zingana na 45.000.000Frw

2 Umucamanza aca urubanza ashingiye ku ngingo z’amategeko zirebana n’ikirego yaregewe. Iyo nta tegeko rijyanye n’ikiburanwa ashingira ku mategeko asanga yashyiraho mu gihe yaba ashinzwe kuyashyiraho, yifashishije ibyemezo byagiye bifatwa n’inkiko, umuco, amahame rusange agenga amategeko n’inyandiko z’abahanga mu mategeko. 3 Umuntu ntaryozwa gusa ibyangiritse kubera ibikorwa bye bwite, ahubwo anaryozwa ibyangijwe n'ibikorwa by'abantu yishingiye cyangwa n'ibintu ashinzwe kurinda. Ise w'umwana, na nyina iyo umugabo amaze kwitaba Imana, baryozwa ibyangijwe n'abana babo babana mu nzu imwe. Ba shebuja n'abakoresha baryozwa ibyangijwe n'abakozi babo mu gihe bakora imirimo babashinze. Abarimu n'abanyabubukorikori baryozwa ibyangijwe n'abanyeshuri n'abo bigisha imyuga mu gihe bibaye aribo bashinzwe kub...

## Page 127

93 N.A (mu izina ry’ umwana we I.A) v KIBUNGO MEDICAL CENTER

nk’uko zari zasabwe mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Ngoma kuko atari nyinshi ugereranyije n’ubumuga uwo mwana yatewe; byose bikemezwa hashingiwe kuri expertise médicale zakozwe, amafoto agaragaza uko igitsina cy’umwana cyaciwemo kabiri, n’ingingo ya 260 y’Itegeko ryo ku wa 30/07/1888 rishyiraho interuro y’ibanze y’igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano yakoreshwaga igihe urubanza RCA00065/2018/HC/RWG rwacibwaga kuko Itegeko No 020/2019 ryo ku wa 22/08/2019 rikuraho amategeko yagiyeho mbere y’Ubwigenge, ryasohotse mu igazeti ya Leta Nº 37 bis ku wa 23/09/2019. [11] Me Rwenga Etienne, uburanira N.A mu izina ry’umwana we I.A yongeraho ko umucamanza atari akwiye gushingira icyemezo cye ku ngingo z’amategeko zidafite aho zihuriye n’ikiburanwa, kuko mu gihe igikorwa cyo gukata umwana igitsina n’igihe urubanza rwaburanishwaga mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Ngoma, ingingo ya 260 y’Itegeko ryo ku wa 30/07/1888 rishyiraho interuro y’ibanze y’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano ariyo yashingirwagaho, cyangwa agashingira ku bindi byemezo byafashwe n’inkiko nk’urubanza RCAA00073/2018/CA rwavuzwe haruguru, inyandiko z’abahanga4, cyangwa se agashingira ku muco kuko bisanzwe bizwi ko mu muco w’Abanyarwanda uwangirije undi amuha indishyi; bityo ko Kibungo Medical Center ikwiye gutanga indishyi zose nk’uko

4 Bernard Dubuisson et Noel Simar (sous la direction de), Responsabilite, Indemnisation et recours”, Volume 174, Juin 2017, page 149) bavuze kuri “réparation des préjudices subis”, ko ku kibazo cyose umucamanza ashyikirijwe, bitewe n’icyabaye, ikibigaragaza by’umwihariko, atanga somme forfaitaire, asobanura ubumuga umwana afite, yibaza icyiciro cy’ubumuga azibonamo hakurikijwe ibyiciro byabwo gutanga indishyi, ariko zidakubye kabiri, kandi zigatangwa n’umwishingizi, yo igatanga ikinyuranyo cyazo.

## Page 128

94 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

zasabwe kuko ubumuga umwana afite budatuma yiyumva mu bandi, adashobora kugira amahirwe yo gushaka, atagira ubushake bwo gukora imibonano mpuzabitsina cyangwa ngo ashobore kuyikora, kuko cyakaswe, akaba yaratangiye kugira ipfunwe mu bandi bana bigana ku ishuri kuko bamuseka igihe cyose agiye kwihagarika akabanza gusutama, bakaba banibaza uko azibona amaze gukura ageze igihe cyo gushaka umugore, umukobwa uzemera kumushaka afite igitsina cy’igice. [12] Dr Kanimba Pierre Célestin nk’Umuyobozi wa Kibungo Medical Center avuga ko ikibazo gikwiye gusuzumwa hashingiwe ku mategeko kuko ikigenderewe ari uburyo bwo kubara indishyi zahabwa I.A. Akomeza avuga ko kuba umucamanza yarafashe icyemezo anyuranyije n’ibiri mu Iteka rya Perezida Nº 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/8/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga nk’aho mu gika cya 21 cy’urubanza yagize ati “Urukiko rurasanga ariko kubera inshingano umuganga uba afite ubuzima bw’abantu bamugana mu biganza bye iba iremereye cyane kurusha iy’utwaye ikinyabiziga kigendera mu muhanda, ni ngombwa ko iyo mibare itangwa n’ Iteka rya Perezida yifashishijwe, indishyi ziyivuyemo zikuba inshuro ebyiri, mu rwego rw’uburyozwe bw’amakosa y’umuganga y’indishyi”, ko Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusabwa kuzasuzuma ibijyanye n’indishyi zatanzwe hashingiwe ku Iteka rya Perezida Nº 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 ryavuzwe haruguru, ko umucamanza yazikubye kabiri kandi atariko biteganyijwe. Asaba Urukiko rw’Ubujurire kubikosora, kuko icyemezo cyafashwe cyashingiye ku itegeko rikoreshejwe nabi, ko kandi Kibungo Medical Center nayo yemera gutanga indishyi, ariko zidakubye kabiri, kandi zigatangwa n’umwishingizi, yo igatanga ikinyuranyo cyazo.

## Page 129

95 N.A (mu izina ry’ umwana we I.A) v KIBUNGO MEDICAL CENTER

[13] Me Mukaruzagiriza Chantal wunganira Dr Kanimba Pierre Célestin uhagarariye Kibungo Medical Center, avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana, rutashingiye ku itegeko ritariho, kuko rwaciye urubanza rushingiye ku byemejwe mu rubanza RADA 0054/12/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 19/12/2014, hagati ya Kabayijuka Gaspard na Minisiteri y’Ubuzima, wari warakomerekejwe n’umuntu wari wiyise umuforomo kandi ari umupulanto i Nyarubuye, amukomeretsa umutsi, bimuviramo ubumuga bwa burundu, kandi ko mu icibwa ry’urwo rubanza hifashishijwe Iteka rya Perezida Nº 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/8/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga, kandi ko bo batari gutegeka umucamanza icyo ashingiraho aca urubanza. [14] Akomeza avuga ko ingingo ya 260 y’Itegeko ryo ku wa 30/07/1888 rishyiraho interuro y’ibanze y’igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano abajuriye bashingiraho bavuga ko ariyo yagombaga gukurikizwa mu icibwa ry’urubanza, itagena uburyo indishyi zibarwa kandi ko Urukiko rudategetswe gutanga indishyi zisabwa n’umuburanyi zose, ko ahubwo ruzigena mu bushishozi bwarwo. Asoza avuga ko basanga indishyi zaragenwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, ko Urukiko rwasuzuma niba hatangwa izo zigenekereje hakurikijwe inyandiko z’abahanga, cyangwa izagenwe hakurikijwe amategeko; kandi ko ibindi byavuzwe byerekeye ipfunwe ry’umwana, icyiciro cy’ubumuga yibonamo, ntacyo abivugaho. [15] Me Ngerageze Bernard nawe wunganira Dr Kanimba Pierre Célestin uhagarariye Kibungo Medical Center, avuga ko uko urubanza rwaciwe nta kibazo abibonamo, ko kubaumucamanza yarashingiye ku ngingo ya 9 y’Itegeko Nº

## Page 130

96 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi akagena izo ndishyi atagiye kure y’ibiteganywa n’Itegeko, ndetse ko abajuriye batagaragaza uburyo byakosorwa uretse gushingira ku ngingo ya 260 y’Itegeko ryo ku wa 30/07/1888 rishyiraho interuro y’ibanze y’igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano idashobora kugaruka mu mategeko ngo ikoreshwe ubu kuko yavanyweho. Akomeza avuga ko baburana mu Rukiko Rukuru ababuranyi bose bari bemeranyijwe ko ibyabaye byari impanuka, ariyo mpamvu mu kugena indishyi hashingiwe ku Iteka rya Perezida Nº 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/8/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga. [16] Ku bijyanye n’inyandko z’abahanga zagaragajwe abajuriye bavuga ko zashingirwaho mu kugena indishyi, avuga ko ibitabo byandikiwe mu bindi bihugu bitasimbura Iteka rya Perezida ryavuzwe haruguru, ko n’ubwo rivuga ibijyanye no kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare butewe n’impanuka zo mu muhanda, rikwiye guhabwa agaciro kuko rikoreshwa imbere mu gihugu cyacu. [17] Ku bijyanye no kuba umucamanza yarashyizeho itegeko rivuga ko uzajya acibwa igitsina n’Umuganga azajya afatwa nk’uwagongewe n’ikinyabiziga mu muhanda maze indishyi indishyi zihabwa uwagonzwe n’ikinyabiziga zigakubwa inshuro 2, avuga ko Kibungo Medical Center isanga ibyo ari ukurengera kubera ko urubanza rujuririrwa rutigeze rushyirwa mu cyegeranyo cy’ibyemezo by’inkiko gitangazwa n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kugira ngo rujye rutanga umurongo ku bibazo

## Page 131

97 N.A (mu izina ry’ umwana we I.A) v KIBUNGO MEDICAL CENTER

bishyikirijwe inkiko bimeze nkabyo, ko iyo mvugo nta shingiro ifite. [18] Me Bagomora Charles uburanira Prime Insurance Company Plc avuga ko igihe baburanaga mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana ingingo ya 260 y’Itegeko ryo ku wa 30/07/1888 rishyiraho interuro y’ibanze y’igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano yari yaravuyeho, ko kandi babivuzeho, akaba nta handi Urukiko rwari gushingira uretse gutira ahandi cyangwase kureba uko ahandi bikorwa. Asaba Urukiko rw’Ubujurire kuzasuzuma igihe iryo tegeko ryaviriyeho n’igihe urubanza rujuririrwa rwaciriwe, ko kandi Urukiko rwashingiye ku ngingo ya 9 y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi mu rwego rwo gushaka igisubizo kubera ko iyo ngingo yari yaravuyeho. [19] Ku bijyanye na “mode de réparation” na “méthode d’évaluation” bivugwa mu nyandiko z’abahanga, avuga ko ibyo byasuzumwe, kuko Urukiko rwabajije abahagarariye umwana, “réparation” ijyanye na “préjudice” baregeye iyo ari yo, ntibashobora kubisobanura, ruca urubanza rushingiye ku Iteka rya Perezida Nº 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/8/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga, kubera ko ryateganyaga ibisa n’ikibazo rwari rwashyikirijwe, ko kandi byari bisobanutse neza.

## Page 132

98 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [20] Ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ibikurikira: “Umucamanza aca urubanza ashingiye ku ngingo z’amategeko zirebana n’ikirego yaregewe. Iyo nta tegeko rijyanye n’ikiburanwa ashingira ku mategeko asanga yashyiraho mu gihe yaba ashinzwe kuyashyiraho, yifashishije ibyemezo byagiye bifatwa n’inkiko, umuco, amahame rusange agenga amategeko n’inyandiko z’abahanga mu mategeko”. [21] Mu rubanza RCA00065/2018/HC/RWG rujuririrwa, mu gika cya 22 n’icya 23, Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana, rwageneye N.A uhagarariye umwana we I.A indishyi rushingiye ku gipimo giteganywa mu Iteka rya Perezida Nº 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/8/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga ndetse ruzikuba kabiri ku mpamvu y’uko umuganga ufite ubuzima bw’abantu bamugana mu biganza bye aba afite inshingano ziremereye cyane kurusha iz’utwaye ikinyabiziga kigendera mu muhanda. [22] Muri uru rubanza, indishyi ziregerwa ni izikomoka ku makosa yabereye kwa muganga yatumye I.A atakaza igice cy’igitsina cye mu gikorwa cyo kumusiramura, ibarwa ryazo rikaba rigomba gushingira ku bipimo byagenwe ku mpanuka nk’izo kwa muganga mu gihe bihari, ariko kandi n’iyo ibyo bipimo byaba bidahari, ntibyaba impamvu yo gushingira ku gipimo kigenwa n’ Iteka rya Perezida Nº 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/8/2003 ryavuzwe haruguru kuko ridahuje kamere n’ikiregerwa muri uru rubanza, ahubwo hakurikijwe ibiteganywa

## Page 133

99 N.A (mu izina ry’ umwana we I.A) v KIBUNGO MEDICAL CENTER

mu ngingo ya 9 y’Itegeko no 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru, iteganya ko iyo nta tegeko rijyanye n’ikiburanwa umucamanza ashingira ku mategeko asanga yashyiraho mu gihe yaba ashinzwe kuyashyiraho, yifashishije ibyemezo byagiye bifatwa n’inkiko, umuco, amahame rusange agenga amategeko n’inyandiko z’abahanga mu mategeko, igipimo cyagenwa mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko hitawe ku buremere bw’ikosa ryakozwe, ku buryo Inkiko zakemuye ibindi bibazo bisa n’ikiri muri uru rubanza, ndetse n’inyandiko z’abahanga. [23] Urukiko rurasanga nk’uko ababuranyi babyemeranwaho mu miburanire yabo, mu Rwanda, nta gipimo kizwi giherwaho habarwa indishyi zishingiye ku buryozwe bw’umuganga wakoze amakosa bikaviramo umurwayi gutakaza bimwe mu bice by’umubiri; aha akaba ariho ababuranyi batumvikana ku buryo Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana, rwabaze indishyi kuko N.A avuga ko rutagombaga kubara indishyi ruhereye ku bipimo bigenwa n’ Iteka rya Perezida Nº 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/8/2003 ryavuzwe haruguru kandi hataburanwa indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka yo mu muhanda, ko ahubwo zagombaga kugenwa mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko nk’uko biteganywa mu ngingo ya 9 y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru; naho Kibungo Medical Center na Dr Kanimba Pierre Célestin uyihagarariye bakavuga ko indishyi zagombaga kubarwa hifashishijwe ibipimo bigaragara muri iryo Teka rya Perezida nk’uko byakozwe n’Urukiko Rukuru mu rubanza rujuririrwa kuko nta gipimo kizwi ku bijyanye ry’uburyozwe bw’amakosa yo kwa muganga. [24] Urukiko rurasanga n’ubwo nta bipimo biriho bizwi byaherwaho habarwa indishyi zikomoka ku makosa yakozwe n’umuganga mu gihe cyo kuvura umurwayi, izo ndishyi

## Page 134

100 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

zitagenwa hashingiwe ku bipimo bivugwa mu Iteka rya Perezida Nº 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/8/2003 ryavuzwe haruguru, kuko ibiteganywa n’iryo Teka bidahuje kamere n’ikiburanwa muri uru rubanza. Rusanga ahubwo nk’uko byavuzwe haruguru, zikwiye kugenwa mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko hashingiwe kubyo rwagaragarijwe, harimo no kuba umwana watewe akababaro gasabirwa indishyi azagahorana mu buzima bwose asigaje kubaho, nk’uko uru Rukiko rw’Ubujurire rwabikoze mu rundi rubanza Nº RCAA00073/2018/CA rwaciwe ku kibazo kimeze nk’iki ku wa 19/07/2019 hagati ya Nyirabatesi Laurence n’Ibitaro byitiriwe Umwami Fayisali, haburanwa indishyi z’akababaro zo kuba King Faisal Hospital yarateye ibyago Nyirabatesi Laurence ubwo yari mu bitaro byabo5. [25] Urukiko rurasanga mu gihe ababuranyi bumvikana ku ikosa ryakozwe ryatumye I.A atakaza igice cy’umubiri bikamutera ubumuga, igisigaye ari ukwemeza ingano y’indishyi zikwiye guhabwa uwahohotewe hashingiwe ku buremere bw’ikosa n’ingaruka byagize k’uwahohotewe kandi hitawe ku myaka uwo mwana azamarana akababaro yatewe, zikagenwa mu bushishozi bw’umucamanza (ex aequo et bono6) kuko nta tegeko ririho rigena uburyo zibarwa, zikaryozwa Kibungo Medical Center ihagarariwe na Dr Kanimba Pierre Célestin,

5 Reba igika cya 37 cy’urubanza Nº RCAA 00073/2018/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 19/07/2019 hagati ya NYIRABATESI Laurence n’Ibitaro byitiriwe Umwami Fayisali. 6 6 L’évaluation du dommage ex aequo et bono ne peut être adoptée par le juge comme mode d’évaluation que si, d’une part, il donne la raison pour laquelle une autre base d’évaluation, proposée par une des parties, ne peut être admise en l’espèce, et si, d’autre part, l’évaluation ne peut, à défaut d’éléments plus sûrs, se faire qu’ex aequo et bono’’, in Henri De Page, Traité élémentaire de droit civil Belge, tome deuxième, Les incapables-Les obligations Bruylant, Bruxelles, 1964, P. 1070.

## Page 135

101 N.A (mu izina ry’ umwana we I.A) v KIBUNGO MEDICAL CENTER

nk’umukoresha w’umukozi wakoze ikosa risabirwa indishyi. Uwo kandi ni nawo murongo wafashwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ndetse n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire mu manza zitandukanye zaburanywemo indishyi zikomoka ku makosa yakozwe n’abakozi bo kwa muganga yateye abarwayi ubumuga, nk’urubanza Nº RADA 0054/12/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 19/12/2014 haburana Kabayijuka Gaspard na Minisante aho Kabayijuka Gaspard yagiye kwivuza agaterwa urushinge mu mutsi n’uwari umukozi w’Ibitaro bikamuviramo ubumuga, n’urubanza RCAA00073/2018/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 19/07/2019 hagati ya Nyirabatesi Laurence n’Ibitaro byitiriwe Umwami Fayisali, aho Nyirabatesi Laurence yagiye kubyara maze mu gihe cyo kumubaga bakamukomeretsa uruhago rw’inkari bikamutera indwara yo kujojoba (fistule). [26] Hashingiwe ku mategeko n’ibisobanuro byavuzwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga ibarwa ry’indishyi zagenewe N.A mu izina ry’umwana we I.A zari kwemezwa hashingiwe ku kuba Kibungo Medical Center ubwayo yiyemerera ko hari ikosa ryakozwe n’umukozi wayo, zikabarwa hashingiwe ku bushishozi bw’umucamanza (ex aequo et bono) kuko nta tegeko ririho rigena uburyo n’igipimo fatizo biherwaho mu kuzibara. b. Ku bijyanye n’ingano y’indishyi z’akababaro zisabwa [27] Me Rwenga Etienne Uhagarariye N.A mu izina ry’umwana we I.A asaba Urukiko rw’Ubujurire kwemeza indishyi zingana na 45.000.000Frw zo kuba umukozi wa Kibungo Medical Center yaraciyemo kabiri igitsina cy’umwana I.A bikamutera ubumuga bubabaje kandi buhoraho bungana na 50% nk’uko zari zasabwe mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Ngoma.

## Page 136

102 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[28] Dr Kanimba Pierre Célestin uhagarariye Kibungo Medical Center n’abunganizi be mu mategeko bavuga ko indishyi zingana na 45.000.000Frw ari umurengera, akaba atanazisobanura, ko kandi Kibungo Medical Center ifite ubwishingizi muri Prime Insurance Company Plc ku birebana n’indishyi. Basaba Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ko mu gihe rwazagena indishyi hazakurwamo 2.993.000Frw Kibungo Medical Center yishyuye uwo mwana avuzwa hamwe na 30.000Frw yishyuwe ingendo zirebana na Expertise. [29] Me Bagomora Charles uburanira Prime Insurance Company Plc avuga ko ubwishingizi Kibungo Medical Center ifite muri Prime Insurance Company Plc bugarukira gusa kuri 2.000.000 Frw nk’uko bigaragazwa n’amasezerano impande zombi zagiranye. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [30] Ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ibikurikira: “Umucamanza aca urubanza ashingiye ku ngingo z’amategeko zirebana n’ikirego yaregewe. Iyo nta tegeko rijyanye n’ikiburanwa ashingira ku mategeko asanga yashyiraho mu gihe yaba ashinzwe kuyashyiraho, yifashishije ibyemezo byagiye bifatwa n’inkiko, umuco, amahame rusange agenga amategeko n’inyandiko z’abahanga mu mategeko”. [31] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaramo expertise yakozwe n’Ibitaro bya Gisirikare bya Kanombe ku wa 31/05/2019, igaragaza ko umwana yagize ubumuga buhoraho bwa 50%.

## Page 137

103 N.A (mu izina ry’ umwana we I.A) v KIBUNGO MEDICAL CENTER

[32] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza kandi amasezerano y’ubwishingizi Police nº 413/00021583-SG yo ku wa 06/24/2016 yiswe Medical Malpractice Policy Clinic la Medicale yabaye hagati y’uwajuriye na Prime Insurance Company Plc, aho impande zombi zumvikanye ko Prime Insurance Company Plc yishingiye kugera kuri 2.000.000Frw indishyi zishobora gucibwa Kibungo Medical Center mu gihe hari ibyangiritse biturutse ku mpanuka y’umukozi mu kazi. [33] Mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Ngoma hagenwe indishyi zingana na 35.000.000Frw zabazwe mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko kuko nta tegeko ryari ririho rigaragaza uko zibarwa, zigenwa hashingiwe ku ngano y’ubumuga bwa 50% n’imyaka igera kuri 57 umwana asigaje kubaho; naho mu Rukiko Rukuru, urugereko rwa Rwamagana hagenwa indishyi zingana na 8.640.000 Frw, zibazwe hashingiwe ku bushishozi bw’Urukiko n’ibipimo bigaragara mu Iteka rya Perezida Nº 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/8/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga. [34] Mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana, mu gika cya 35 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, 2.993.000Frw Kibungo Medical Center yishyuye ivuza umwana nyuma y’ikosa umukozi wayo yari amaze gukora, rwasanze adakwiye kuvanwa mu ndishyi zagenwe n’Urukiko ku mpamvu y’uko Kibungo Medical Center ariyo yagombaga kwirengera ingaruka no gukemura ikibazo gikomoka ku ikosa ryakozwe kubw’uburangare no kudafata ingamba ziboneye zo gukumira ikosa ryabaye; ndetse ko na 30.000 Frw yishyuwe expertise itayasubizwa ku mpamvu y’uko Kibungo Medical Center yasabye ko ikorwa mu nyungu zayo nk’ikimenyetso cyo gukoresha mu rubanza.

## Page 138

104 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[35] Urukiko rurasanga inkiko zombi zibanza zarasanze nta tegeko ryihariye riteganya ibipimo byaherwaho mu kubara indishyi kuri iki kibazo, Urukiko Rwisumbuye ruzigena rushingiye ku bushishozi bwarwo, naho Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana, ruzigena rushingiye ku Iteka rya Perezida Nº 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/8/2003 ridafite aho rihuriye n’ikiburanwa muri uru rubanza, ruvuga ko izo ndishyi zigomba gukubwa inshuro ebyiri (mu gika cya 21), kuko inshingano y’umuganga uba ufite ubuzima bw’abantu bamugana iremereye cyane kurusha iy’utwaye ikinyabiziga mu muhanda nta tegeko ribiteganya. Ibyo Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana rwakoze, bikaba ari ugushingira ku itegeko ritariho kuko rwashingiye ku Iteka rya Perezida No 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/8/2003, ridafite aho rihuriye n’ikiburanwa, byongeye kandi n’indishyi rugennye ruzikuba kabiri ari ntaho biteganyijwe mu Iteka rwashingiyeho. [36] Urukiko rurasanga uko gushingira ku Itegeko ritariho kwaratumye indishyi zabazwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Ngoma zigabanuka, bituma N.A mu izina ry’umwana we I.A ajurira kuko indishyi yagenewe zashingiwe ku itegeko ridafite aho rihuriye n’ikiburanwa, uru Rukiko rukaba rusanga izemejwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Ngoma arizo zikurikije amategeko kuko mu kuzihindura Urukiko Rukuru rutabanje kugaragaza icyo runenga ubushishozi bw’umucamanza wa mbere, kandi bigakorwa mu buryo butari bwo kuko byakozwe hashingiwe ku itegeko ritariho, kuko iryashingiweho ridafite aho rihuriye n’ikiburanwa, zikaba zikwiye kugumaho zose nk’uko zemejwe mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko kuri urwo rwego rubanza, ariko Kibungo Medical Center, ihagarariwe na Dr Kanimba Pierre Célestin, ikazishyura ifatanyije n’umwishingizi wayo Prime Insurance Company Plc nk’uko babyumvikanyeho mu

## Page 139

105 N.A (mu izina ry’ umwana we I.A) v KIBUNGO MEDICAL CENTER

masezerano y’ubwishingizi Nº 413/00021583- SG Police impande zombi zagiranye ku wa 24/06/2016, no ku kigero kitarenze icyo impande zombi zumvikanyeho muri ayo masezerano y’ubwishingizi. [37] Ku bijyanye na 2.993.000Frw, Kibungo Medical Center yishyuye ivuza umwana ikaba isaba ko yakurwa mu ndishyi izategekwa kwishyura, Urukiko rurasanga nk’uko byemejwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, ayo mafaranga atakurwa mu ndishyi zigenwe n’Urukiko kuko Kibungo Medical Center yagombaga kwirengera ingaruka z’ikibazo umukozi wayo yari amaze guteza, ikavuza umwana yazaniwe n’umubyeyi we ari muzima, uwo mukozi akamukata igice cy’igitsina akamusigira ubumuga buhoraho bwa 50% bwemejwe n’inzobere z’abaganga. [38] Ku bijyanye na 30.000 Frw yishyuwe na Kibungo Medical Center igihe hakorwaga expertise ; Urukiko rurasanga nk’uko Urukiko Rukuru rwabibonye, expertise yakozwe hashingiwe ku busabe bwa Kibungo Medical Center igamije kuvuguruza ingano y’ubumuga bungana na 50% bwari bwahawe umwana I.A, ikaba rero idakwiye kuyasubizwa kuko byakozwe mu nyungu zayo. c. Ku bijyanye n’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka asabwa n’ababuranyi [39] Me Rwenga Etienne na Me Gashugi Heron bunganira N.A mu izina ry’umwana we I.A basaba Urukiko gutegeka Kibungo Medical Center, ihagarariwe na Dr Kanimba Pierre Célestin, gusubiza N.A mu izina ry’umwana we 1.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka ku rwego rw’ubu bujurire, 300.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza na 140.000Frw y’amagarama yishyuye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Ngoma no mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire.

## Page 140

106 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[40] Me Mukaruzagiriza Chantal na Me Ngerageze Bernard bunganira Dr Kanimba Pierre Celestin uhagarariye Kibungo Medical Center, basaba Urukiko rw’Ubujurire gutegeka N.A mu izina ry’umwana we guha Kibungo Medical Center 2.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka akubiyemo ayatanzwe mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana n’ayo mu Rukiko rw'Ubujurire. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [41] Ingingo ya 111 y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, iteganya ibikurikira: “Ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza ni ikirego gishamikira ku kirego cy’iremezo kigamije kwishyuza ibyakoreshejwe mu rubanza. Ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza kiburanishwa rimwe n’ikirego cy’iremezo. Gishobora kandi kwakirwa kikaburanishwa n’iyo ikirego cy’iremezo cyaba kitakiriwe“. [42] Urukiko rurasanga amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka asabwa na Kibungo Medical Center ihagarariwe na Dr Kanimba Pierre Célestin nta shingiro afite kuko itsindwa n’urubanza nk’uko bimaze gusobanurwa haruguru. [43] Urukiko rurasanga amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza, igihembo cya Avoka n‘igarama asabwa na N.A mu izina ry’umwana we I.A afite ishingiro akaba akwiye kuyabwa ariko ko agenwe mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko kuko ayo yasabye ari menshiñ, bityo akaba agenewe angana na 800.000Frw

## Page 141

107 N.A (mu izina ry’ umwana we I.A) v KIBUNGO MEDICAL CENTER

y’igihembo cya Avoka na 300.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza ku nzego zose uru rubanza rwaburanishijweho. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [44] Rwemeje ko ikirego cy’ubujurire cya N.A mu izina ry’umwana we I.A gifite ishingiro ; [45] Rwemeje ko imikirize y’urubanza RCA00065/2018/HC/RWG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Ramagana, ku wa 30/07/2019, ihindutse kuri byose ; [46] Rutegetse Kibungo Medical Center ihagarariwe na Dr Kanimba Pierre Célestin, guha N.A mu izina ry’umwana we I.A indishyi zingana na 35.000.000Frw, Prime Insurance Company Plc ikishyuramo 2.000.000Frw nk’uko impande zombi zabyumvikanyeho mu masezerano y’ubwishingizi Nº 413/00021583- SG yo ku wa 24/06/2016 ; [47] Rutegetse Kibungo Medical Center ihagarariwe na Dr Kanimba Pierre Célestin, guha N.A mu izina ry’umwana we I.A 800.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 300.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza ku nzego zose. [48] Rutegetse Kibungo Medical Center ihagarariwe na Dr Kanimba Pierre Célestin, gusubiza N.A mu izina ry’umwana we I.A igarama ryúrubanza yatanze mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Ngoma no mu Rukiko rwÚbujurire.

## Page 143

109

PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v UWIMANIMPAYE [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA - RS/INJUST/RC 00010/2021/SC (Cyanzayire, P.J., Karimunda, Hitiyaremye, J.) 02 Ukuboza 2022] Amategeko y’imanza z’imbonezamubano – Indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka - Gutakaza akazi - Umuntu utagaragaza ibimenyetso by’uko hari akazi yari afite igihe yakoraga impanuka, nta ndishyi zo kugatakaza agomba guhabwa. Amategeko y’imanza z’imbonezamubano – Indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka – Kugira igihombo kubera impanuka - Ku bantu badafite akazi bakoze impanuka, nta gihombo cy’ako kanya kigaturukaho gishobora kubaho, igishobora kwitabwaho ni amahirwe yo kuzabona akazi yavukijwe kubera iyo mpanuka. Amategeko y’imanza z’imbonezamubano – Imiburansihirize y’imanza – Kugira uburenganizra bwo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane – Ntabwo ari ngombwa ko umuburanyi abanza kwiyambaza inzira yo gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya kugira ngo agire uburenganzira bwo gusaba ko urubanza rwe rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane mu gihe we abona ko nta mpamvu n’imwe yujuje mu zo itegeko riteganya kugira ngo ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya cyakirwe. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uru rubanza rukomoka ku mpanuka yakorewe Uwimanimpaye wagonzwe n’ikinyabiziga gifite ubwishingizi bwa Prime Insurance Company Ltd. Iyo mpanuka umuganga wa Leta yemeje ko yamusigiye ubumuga buhoraho bungana na 78% n’ubusembwa bwa 65%. Yaje kwandikira

## Page 144

110 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Umwishingizi asaba ko yahabwa indishyi ku bwumvikane maze abaganga ba Prime Insurance Company Ltd bamukorera irindi suzuma bemeza ko yagize ubumuga buhoraho bwa 28%. Haje kubaho kugerageza kumvikana ariko birananirana kuko batumvikanye ku gipimo cy’ubumuga, umushahara muto ku munsi n’iminsi y’akazi. Uwimanimpaye yatanze ikirego mu rukiko rwisumbuye rwa Karongi uru rukiko rwemeza ko akwiye guhabwa indishyi zinyuranye. Uregwa yajuririje mu rukiko rukuru urugereko rwa Rusizi avuga ko Urukiko rwisumbuye rwagennye indishyi rutabanje gushyiraho umuganga wa gatatu wo kwemeza ingano y’ubumuga itarumvikanweho. Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko ubwo bujurire nta shingiro bufite rushingiye ko ntacyo uwajuriye yakoze nyuma yo kumenyeshwa n’Uwimanimpaye ko atemeye igipimo cy’ubumuga cyakozwe n’umuganga wa Prime Insurance Copmany Ltd kugeza aho aregeye mu rukiko bityo rwemeza ko nta gihindutse ku rubanza rwajuririwe. Uru rubanza rwaje kongera kuburanishwa n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Mbere y’iburanisha mu mizi, Uregwa yatanze inzitizi avuga ko urega yagombaga gutanga ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya mbere y’uko yiyambaza inzira yo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Urukiko rwemeje ko iyo nzitizi nta shingiro ifite rusaba ko iburanisha rikomeza. Urega avuga ko akarengane yagiriwe gashingiye ku kuba Urukiko Rukuru rwaravuze ko atagaragaje icyo yakoze ngo yumvikane n’ Uwimanimpaye ku ishyirwaho ry’umuganga nyuma y’uko ayigaragarije ko atemera raporo y’umuganga wo ku ruhande rw’umwishingizi kandi yarabigaragaje mu ibaruwa yamwandikiye abinyujije kuri Avoka we amusaba kugena umuganga wakorana n’uwayo kugira ngo bagene ingano

## Page 145

111 PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v UWIMANIMPAYE

y’ubumuga yagombaga gushingirwaho mu kumugenera indishyi, nyamara aho kubikora aregera urukiko. Uregwa we asobanura ko icyo itegeko rivuga ari uko we na Prime Insurance Company Ltd bashoboraga gushyiraho umuganga cyangwa itsinda ry’abaganga mu gihe babyumvikanyeho, ko ariko ibyo batigeze babyumvikanaho. Urukiko rwemeje ko hashyirwaho itsinda ry’abaganga rihuriweho n’impande zombi hanyuma iburanisha rikazakomeza nyuma hasuzumwa ingano y’indishyi zigomba gutangwa nyuma yo kubona raporo. Iryo tsinda ry’abaganga ryatanze raporo igaragza ko Uwimanimpaye afite ubumuga buhoraho bungana na 49% n’ubusembwa bw’umubiri buri ku kigero cya 4/6. Iburanisha ryakomeje mu mizi hasuzumwa ingano y’indishyi zikwiye gutangwa. Urega avuga ko indishyi zigomba kubarwa hagendewe kuri raporo ihuriweho izi ndishyi zikaba zikubiyemo indishyi z’ubukungu, ububabare n’ibangamira ry’uburanga. Naho indishyi z’itakaza amahirwe yo gushaka, igihembo cy’avoka n’amagarama agasaba ko byakurwaho. Ku kijyanye n’igipimo cy’ibitsa cyatumye badahuza ku ndishyi z’ibangamirabukungu, avuga ko mu gihe uwo baburana yazagaragaza ko igipimo yabariyeho aricyo cyashyizweho na Banki Nkuru y’Igihugu nta kibazo yabyemera. Naho ku birebana n’indishyi z’ibangamira ry’uburambe mu kazi, avuga ko ntazo Uwimanimpaye agomba guhabwa kubera ko nta kimenyetso yagaragaje cyerekana ko hari akazi kazwi yagiraga. Uregwa asobanura ko ku birebana n’igipimo cy’ibitsa impande zombi zidahurizaho mu kubara indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu, ko bo babariye kuri 5% kubera ko aricyo gipimo cyashyizweho n’amabwiriza ya Banki Nkuru y’Igihugu. Naho Ku birebana n’indishyi z’ibangamira ry’uburambe mu kazi (gutakaza akazi) avuga ko, n’ubwo adafite akazi kamuhemba ku kwezi, ariko hari

## Page 146

112 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

icyo impanuka yamubangamiyeho nk’umuntu ufite akazi asanzwe akora gatuma atahana 3.000 Frw ku munsi kuko ari nyakabyizi. Agasanga nawe agomba kubarirwa izo ndishyi hakurikijwe umushahara muto umuntu atahana ku munsi (SMIG) wa 3.000 Frw, kuko ubumuga yagize bwatumye atagishobora ako kazi yari asanzwe akora kubera ko ingufu yari afite atarizo agifite ubu. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Umuntu utagaragaza ibimenyetso ko hari akazi yari afite igihe yakoraga impanuka, nta ndishyi zo kugatakaza agomba guhabwa kubera ko nyine ntako yari afite, bityo na Uwimanimpaye akaba nta ndishyi zo gutakaza akazi agomba guhabwa kubera ko, n’ubwo avuga ko yari nyakabyizi, atagaragarije urukiko ibimenyetso by’ako kazi ka nyakabyizi yari afite. 2. Ntabwo ari ngombwa ko umuburanyi abanza kwiyambaza inzira yo gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya kugira ngo agire uburenganzira bwo gusaba ko urubanza rwe rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, mu gihe we abona ko nta mpamvu n’imwe yujuje mu zo itegeko riteganya kugira ngo ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya cyakirwe bityo ibyo Uwimanimpaye avuga by’uko Prime Insurance Company Ltd itabanje gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya nta shingiro bifte. 3. Ku birebana n’indishyi zitangwa ku mukozi wagize igihombo kubera impanuka, icyo gihombo kireberwa mu byo yinjizaga biturutse ku kazi ku munsi w’impanuka. Ku bantu badafite akazi, (abana, abanyeshuri, abageze mu zabukuru, abagore cyangwa abagabo baba mu rugo), nta gihombo cy’ako kanya gituruka ku kazi gishobora kubaho, igishobora kwitabwaho ni amahirwe yo kubona akazi kubera iyo mpanuka bityo Uwimanimpaye akaba

## Page 147

113 PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v UWIMANIMPAYE

adakwiye kuhabwa izo ndishyi kuko atagaragaza igihombo gituruka mu byo yinjizaga. Ikirego cyatanzwe na Prime Insurance Company Ltd isaba gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane urubanza N° RCA 00029/2019/HC/RSZ gifite ishingiro; Urubanza ruhindutse ku bijyanye n’indishyi Prime Insurance Company Ltd yagombaga guha Uwimanimpaye; Uwimanimpaye agomba gusubiza Prime Insurance Company Ltd 6.702.142,4 Frw. Amategeko yashingiweho: Iteka rya Perezida N° 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri biturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga, ingingo ya 19. Nta manza zifashishijwe Inyandiko z’abahanga zifashishijwe: Philippe Malaurie et alii, Droit des obligations, 10ème édition, 2018, Paris, LGDJ, § 241. Yvaine BUFFELAN-LANORE, Virginie LARRIBAU- TERNEYRE, Droit civil des obligations, 17ème édition 62020-2021, Paris, Dalloz, § 2508.

## Page 148

114 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude yareze Prime Insurance Company Ltd mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Karongi asaba indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka y’ikinyabiziga cyari gifite ubwishingizi muri icyo kigo. Yavugaga ko iyo mpanuka yabaye ku itariki ya 29/06/2018 yayikomerekeyemo ku buryo yamusigiye ubumuga buhoraho bwa 78% n’ubusembwa ku mubiri bwa 65% nk’uko byemejwe n’umuganga wa Leta wamukurikiranye. [2] Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude yasobanuriye Urukiko ko ku itariki ya 11/10/2018, Prime Insurance Company Ltd yakiriye ibaruwa ye asaba guhabwa indishyi zikomoka kuri iyo mpanuka mu bwumvikane, maze ku itariki ya 13/11/2018, abaganga bo ku ruhande rwayo bamukorera irindi suzuma bemeza ko ubumuga buhoraho yasigiwe n’impanuka buri ku kigero cya 28%. Avuga ko ku itariki ya 20/11/2018 yatumijwe mu muhango w’ubwumvikane, ariko birangira impande zombi zitumvikanye ku gipimo cy’ubumuga, umushahara muto ku munsi n’iminsi y’akazi, bituma agana Urukiko asaba indishyi zinyuranye. [3] Uhagarariye Prime Insurance Company Ltd yaburanye avuga ko iyo sosiyete yemera gutanga indishyi, ko ariko Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude hari umuhango atubahirije wo gukora irindi suzuma ry’ubumuga, agasaba ko wakorwa kugira ngo babone igipimo cy’ubumuga cyagenderwaho batanga indishyi.

## Page 149

115 PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v UWIMANIMPAYE

[4] Ku itariki ya 28/03/2019, Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Karongi rwaciye urubanza N° RC 00003/2019/TGI/KNG rwemeza ko ikirego cya Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude gifite ishingiro, rutegeka Prime Insurance Company Ltd kumuha indishyi zose hamwe zingana na 14.186.126 Frw zikubiyemo izi zikurikira :  indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu: 8.646.186 Frw,  indishyi z’akababaro : 1.620.000 Frw,  indishyi z’ibangamira ry’uburanga : 1.080.000 Frw,  indishyi zo gutakaza amahirwe yo gushaka : 2.160.000 Frw,  amafaranga y’ingendo no kwivuza n’ibindi : 100.000 Frw,  amafaranga yishyuye ingwate y’amagarama :20.000 Frw,  igihembo cya Avoka :500.000 Frw. [5] Prime Insurance Company Ltd yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi, ivuga ko nyuma y’aho uwahohotewe atemeye ibyagaragajwe muri contre-expertise yakozwe na muganga w’umwishingizi, Urukiko rwagombaga gutegeka ko hakurikizwa ibiteganywa mu ngingo ya 7 y’Iteka rya Perezida No 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw'umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga, ivuga ko buri ruhande rugomba kwihitiramo umuganga warwo, bombi bagakora raporo

## Page 150

116 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bumvikanyeho, ko kuba ibyo bitarakozwe ahubwo Urukiko rukagenera uwahohotewe indishyi ari amakosa. [6] Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude we yireguraga avuga ko gushyiraho umuganga wa gatatu ubusanzwe bidakorerwa mu rubanza, ko ahubwo Prime Insurance Company Ltd ikimenyeshwa ko uwahohotewe atemera ingano y'ubumuga yagaragajwe n'umuganga wayo aribwo yari kubivugaho, nyamara yarabimenyeshejwe iricecekera kugeza igihe Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude abonye ko ibikorwa byayo bigamije kumunaniza gusa ahitamo kuyimenyesha ko avuye mu nzira y'ubwumvikane akagana urukiko. Yarangije atanga ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi asaba amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka ku rwego rw’ubujurire. [7] Ku itariki ya 17/10/2019, Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi, rwaciye urubanza N° RCA 00029/2019/HC/RSZ, rwemeza ko ubujurire bwa Prime Insurance Company Ltd nta shingiro bufite, rwemeza ko ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwatanzwe na Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe, ruyitegeka kumuha 500.000 Frw akubiyemo ay’igihembo cya Avoka n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza ku rwego rw’ubujurire, rwemeza ko urubanza N° RC 00003/2019/TGI/KNG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Karongi ku itariki ya 28/03/2019 idahindutse. [8] Mu kugera kuri uwo mwanzuro, Urukiko Rukuru rwashingiye ku mpamvu y’uko kuba mu muhango w’ubwumvikane wabaye ku itariki ya 21/11/2018, Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude ataremeye igipimo cy’ubumuga cya 28% cyerekanywe n’abaganga bo ku ruhande rw’umwishingizi, Prime Insurance Company Ltd yagombaga kumvikana na Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude ku ishyirwaho ry’umuganga

## Page 151

117 PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v UWIMANIMPAYE

cyangwa itsinda ry’abaganga bo gukemura impaka. Rwavuze ko kuba ntacyo yakoze ngo ubwo bwumvikane bubeho kandi byari mu nshingano zayo kugeza Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude atanze ikirego mu Rukiko ku itariki ya 07/01/2019, yagombaga guhabwa indishyi zibazwe hashingiwe ku gipimo cy’ubumuga buhoraho bwa 78% n’ubusembwa ku mubiri bwa 65% hubahirijwe ibivugwa mu ngingo ya 6, agace ka 4, y’Iteka rya Perezida nº 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga. [9] Ku itariki ya 14/11/2019, Me Masumbuko NDE Emile, mu mwanya wa Prime Insurance Company Ltd, yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire asaba ko urubanza N° RCA 00029/2019/HC/RSZ rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi, ku itariki ya 17/10/2019, rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Perezida w'Urukiko rw'Ubujurire, amaze gusuzuma ubwo busabe, yandikiye Perezida w'Urukiko rw'Ikirenga asaba ko urwo rubanza rwakongera kuburanishwa. Perezida w'Urukiko rw'Ikirenga, amaze gusuzuma raporo yarukozweho, yemeje ko rwongera kuburanishwa ruhabwa Nº RS/INJUST/RC 00010/2021/SC. [10] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku itariki ya 23/05/2022, Prime Insurance Company Ltd ihagarariwe na Me Masumbuko NDE Emile, naho Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude ahagarariwe na Me Nsengiyumva Jean Claude. [11] Urukiko rwabanje kumva ababuranyi ku birebana n’inzitizi yari yatanzwe na Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude asaba ko ikirego cy'akarengane cyatanzwe na Prime Insurance Company Ltd kitakwakirwa ngo gisuzumwe kubera ko urubanza N° RCA 00029/2019/HC/RSZ rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane

## Page 152

118 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

rwagombaga kubanza gusubirishwamo ingingo nshya mbere yo kugana inzira y’akarengane. Nyuma yo gusuzuma iyo nzitizi, Urukiko rwafatiye icyemezo mu ntebe, rusobanura ko atari ngombwa ko umuburanyi abanza kwiyambaza inzira yo gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya kugira ngo agire uburenganzira bwo gusaba ko urubanza rwe rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, mu gihe we abona ko nta mpamvu n’imwe yujuje mu zo itegeko riteganya kugira ngo ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya cyakirwe. Urukiko rwemeje ko inzitizi yabyukijwe n’uregwa muri uru rubanza nta shingiro ifite rutegeka ko iburanisha rikomeza. [12] Ku bijyanye n’imizi y’urubanza, Prime Insurance Company Ltd ivuga ko akarengane yagiriwe gashingiye ku kuba mu cyemezo cy’urubanza Nº RCA 00029/2019/HC/RSZ, umucamanza yaravuze ko itagaragaje icyo yakoze ngo yumvikane na Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude ku ishyirwaho ry’umuganga cyangwa itsinda ry’abaganga nyuma y’uko ayigaragarije ko atemera raporo y’umuganga wo ku ruhande rw’umwishingizi kandi yarabigaragaje. Ivuga ko mu kugera kuri uwo mwanzuro, Urukiko rwirengagije email Prime Insurance Company Ltd yandikiye Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude ibinyujije ku mu Avoka we imusaba kugena umuganga wakorana n’uwayo kugira ngo bagene ingano y’ubumuga yagombaga gushingirwaho mu kumugenera indishyi, nyamara aho kubikora aregera urukiko. Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude we asobanura ko icyo itegeko rivuga ari uko we na Prime Insurance Company Ltd bashoboraga gushyiraho umuganga cyangwa itsinda ry’abaganga mu gihe babyumvikanyeho, ko ariko ibyo batigeze babyumvikanaho. [13] Ku itariki ya 22/07/2022, Urukiko rwaciye urubanza rubanziriza urundi, rwemeza ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Prime

## Page 153

119 PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v UWIMANIMPAYE

Insurance Company Ltd isaba gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane urubanza N° RCA 00029/2019/HC/RSZ, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi, ku itariki ya 17/10/2019 gifite ishingiro, rutegeka ko hagomba gushyirwaho umuganga cyangwa itsinda ry’abaganga impande zombi zumvikanyeho kugira ngo bafashe kugena igipimo cy’ubumuga bwa Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude, ruvuga ko iburanisha ry’urubanza rizakomeza hasuzumwa ingano y’indishyi zigomba gutangwa nyuma yo kubona raporo. [14] Nyuma y’uko hashyizweho itsinda ry’abaganga bumvikanyweho n’impande zombi, raporo yabo ikagaragaza ko Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude afite ubumuga buhoraho bwa 49% ndetse n’ubusembwa bw’umubiri buri ku kigero cya 4/6, impande zombi muri uru rubanza zatanze imyanzuro zigaragaza ko hari indishyi zumvikanyeho n’izitarumvikanyweho. [15] Urubanza rwongeye kuburanishwa mu ruhame ku itariki ya 14/11/2022, ababuranyi bahagarariwe nka mbere, hasuzumwa indishyi Prime Insurance Company Ltd igomba guha Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude n’ingano yazo, kimwe n’ikibazo cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO.  Kumenya indishyi Prime Insurance Company Ltd igomba guha Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude n’ingano yazo.

## Page 154

120 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[16] Me Masumbuko NDE Emile, uhagarariye Prime Insurance Company Ltd, avuga ko raporo yumvikanyweho n’impande zombi yagaragaje ko impanuka yasigiye Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude ubumuga buhoraho buri ku gipimo cya 49% n’ibangamira ry’uburanga riri ku kigero cya 4/6, Prime Insurance Company Ltd ikaba isanga igomba kwishyura indishyi zibazwe ku buryo bukurikira:  Indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu: 3000 x 30 x 12 x 49% x 41 = 5.431.578 Frw,  1+ (7.304% x 41) aho kuba 8.646.186 Frw

yishyuwe nyuma yo

kuyategekwa n’urukiko.  Indishyi z’ububabare (Pretium doloris): 3000 x 30 x 12 x 100% =  1.080.000 Frw, aho kuba 1.620.000 Frw yatanzwe;  Indishyi z’ibangamira ry’uburanga: 3000 x 30 x 12 x 40% = 432.000 Frw, aho kuba 1.080.000 Frw yishyuwe. [17] Avuga ko indishyi zikurikira Urukiko rwageneye Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude ntazo yari akwiye: o Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka; o 20.000 Frw y’igarama kubera ko iyo akora ibyo itegeko risaba Prime Insurance Company Ltd yari kwishyura ku neza bitabaye ngombwa ko ijyanwa mu nkiko; o 2.160.000 Frw y’indishyi zo gutakaza amahirwe yo gushaka kuko atarengeje

## Page 155

121 PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v UWIMANIMPAYE

50% hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 19 y’Iteka rya Perezida n° 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga. [18] Me Masumbuko NDE Emile avuga ko amafaranga yose hamwe yagombaga gutangwa ari 7.043.578 Frw, ko kuba Prime Insurance Company Ltd yaratanze 14.126.186 Frw ku bw’akarengane, asaba Urukiko gutegeka Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude kuyisubiza ikinyuranyo kingana na 14.126.186 Frw - 7.043. 578 Frw = 7.082.608 Frw. [19] Ku birebana n’igipimo cy’ibitsa cyatumye badahuza ku ndishyi z’ibangamirabukungu, Me Masumbuko NDE Emile avuga ko mu gihe uwo baburana yazagaragaza ko igipimo yabariyeho aricyo cyashyizweho na Banki Nkuru y’Igihugu nta kibazo yabyemera. Naho ku birebana n’indishyi z’ibangamira ry’uburambe mu kazi, avuga ko ntazo Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude agomba guhabwa kubera ko nta kimenyetso yagaragaje cyerekana ko hari akazi kazwi yagiraga. [20] Me Nsengiyumva Jean Claude, uhagarariye Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude, avuga ko nyuma yo kubona raporo y’abaganga igaragaza igipimo cy’ubumuga impanuka yasigiye Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude, hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 18 n’iya 19 z’Iteka rya Perezida n° 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw'umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga, asanga Prime Insurance Company Ltd ikwiye kwishyura indishyi zibazwe mu buryo bukurikira:

## Page 156

122 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

o Indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu: 3000 x 30 x 12 x 49% x 41 = 7.113.836 Frw, 1+ (5% x 41) o Indishyi z’ububabare bw’umubiri (Pretium doloris) buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga: 3000 x 30 x 12 x 100% = 1.080.000 Frw; o Indishyi z’ibangamira ry’uburanga hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 19 y’Iteka rya Perezida ryavuzwe haruguru: 3000 x 30 x 12 x 40% =432.000 Frw; o Indishyi z’ibangamira ry’uburambe mu kazi nazo zibazwe hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 19 y’Iteka rya Perezida ryavuzwe: 3000 Frw x 30 x 6 = 540.000 Frw. [21] Ku birebana n’igipimo cy’ibitsa impande zombi zidahurizaho mu kubara indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu, Me Nsengiyumva Jean Claude avuga ko bo babariye kuri 5% kubera ko aricyo gipimo cyashyizweho n’amabwiriza ya Banki Nkuru y’Igihugu. [22] Ku birebana n’indishyi z’ibangamira ry’uburambe mu kazi Prime Insurance Company Ltd itabaze ivuga ko impamvu ari uko izo ndishyi zibarwa ku muntu uhembwa ku kwezi, avuga ko, n’ubwo Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude adahembwa ku kwezi, ariko hari icyo impanuka yamubangamiyeho nk’umuntu ufite akazi asanzwe akora gatuma atahana 3.000 Frw ku munsi kuko ari nyakabyizi. Agasanga nawe agomba kubarirwa izo ndishyi hakurikijwe umushahara muto umuntu atahana ku munsi (SMIG) wa 3.000 Frw, kuko ubumuga yagize bwatumye atagishobora ako

## Page 157

123 PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v UWIMANIMPAYE

kazi yari asanzwe akora kubera ko ingufu yari afite atarizo agifite ubu. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [23] Impande zombi muri uru rubanza zemeranya ku ndishyi z’ibangamira ry’uburanga no ku ndishyi z’ububabare (pretium doloris), izo batumvikanaho akaba ari indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu bitewe n’igipimo cy’ibitsa badahurizaho. Prime Insurance Company Ltd yabariye kuri 7.304%, mu gihe Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude we yabariye 5%. Izindi ndishyi batumvikanaho ni iz’ibangamira ry’uburambe mu kazi, aho Prime Insurance Company Ltd ivuga ko ntazigomba gutangwa, mu gihe Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude we avuga ko agomba kuzihabwa hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 19 y’Iteka rya Perezida ryavuzwe haruguru. [24] Ku birebana n’igipimo cy’ibitsa, Urukiko rurasanga igipimo kigaragara ku rubuga (website) rwa Banki Nkuru y’Igihugu (Central Bank rate) ku munsi w’isomwa ry’urubanza ari 6.5%, bityo akaba aricyo kigomba gushingirwaho mu kubara indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu Prime Insurance Company Ltd igomba guha Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude. Habariwe kuri icyo gipimo rero, indishyi zigomba gutangwa ni 3000 x 30 x 12 x 41 x 49% = 5.912.043,6 Frw. 1 + (6.5% x 41) [25] Ku birebana n’indishyi z’ibangamira ry’uburambe mu kazi impande zombi zitumvikanaho, ingingo ya 19, igika cya 4, y’Iteka rya Perezida N° 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri

## Page 158

124 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

biturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga, iteganya ko […] bene izo ndishyi zitangwa ku bantu bakurikira : • Gutakaza amahirwe y’akazi ku munyeshuri wo mu mashuri yisumbuye, uwo mu mashuri y’imyuga, uwo mu mashuri makuru cyangwa andi angana na yo; • Gutakaza uburambe mu kazi ku muntu wari usanzwe akora. […] Mu rurimi rw’igifaransa iyi ngingo yanditswe muri aya magambo : Le préjudice de carrière s’entend : - soit de la perte de chance certaine d’une carrière à laquelle peut raisonnablement espérer un élève ou un étudiant de l’enseignement secondaire, technique, supérieur ou leur équivalent ; - soit de la perte de carrière subie par une personne déjà engagée dans la vie active. […] [26] Nubwo mu ndishyi zivugwa mu ngingo imaze kuvugwa hari izo mu kinyarwanda bise ko ari iz’ibangamira ry’uburambe mu kazi, Urukiko rurasanga ari izo gutakaza akazi nk’uko biri mu rurimi rw’igifaranga, hakaba harabayeho guhindura nabi ururimi hakurikijwe imiterere y’izo ndishyi, kuko iz’ibangamira ry’uburambe mu kazi zitabaho. [27] Ku birebana n’abahabwa indishyi zo gutakaza amahirwe yo kubona akazi kavugwa mu ngingo ya 19, igika cya 4, y’Iteka rya Perezida N° 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 ryavuzwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga abo umushingamategeko yazigeneye ari abanyeshuri gusa. Abandi bagenewe izo gutakaza akazi, ibyo bikaba bisobanuye ko bagomba kuba bari bagafite bakagatakaza kubera mpanuka. Ibi byumvikanisha ko umuntu utagaragaza ko

## Page 159

125 PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v UWIMANIMPAYE

hari akazi yari afite ubwo yakoraga impanuka nta ndishyi ashobora guhabwa kubera ko nyine ntacyo yatakaje. Ibi binahura n’ibyo abahanga mu mategeko bavuga ko kugira ngo hatangwe indishyi, iyo igihombo kidakomoka ku makosa ashingiye ku masezerano, icyo gihombo kigomba kugaragaza ibintu bitatu : kuba gihari mu buryo butaziguye, kuba kidashidikanywaho kandi kikaba cyaragabanuye umutungo w’uwakorewe ikosa. […] (Pour être réparable, le préjudice, quand il s’agit de responsabilité extracontractuelle, n’a à remplir que trois conditions : il doit être direct, certain et avoir amoindri le patrimoine propre de la victime)1. Ibi bikajyana n’ihame ry’uko ikiba kigamijwe mu gutanga indishyi ari uko nyir‘ugukora ikosa ryagize uwo ryangiriza, amwishyura indishyi zituma asubira kumera nk’uko yari kuba ameze iyo iryo kosa ritaza kubaho. (La réparation vise à remettre la victime dans l’état où elle se serait trouvée s’il n’y avait pas eu le fait dommageable)2. [28] Ku birebana n’indishyi zitangwa ku mukozi wagize igihombo kubera impanuka, abahanga mu mategeko kandi bavuga ko icyo gihombo kireberwa mu byo yinjizaga biturutse ku kazi ku munsi w’impanuka. Ku bantu badafite akazi, (abana, abanyeshuri, abageze mu zabukuru, abagore cyangwa abagabo baba mu rugo), nta gihombo cy’ako kanya gituruka ku kazi gishobora kubaho, igishobora kwitabwaho ni amahirwe yo kubona akazi kubera iyo mpanuka. (Les pertes de gains professionnels sont appréciées par rapport aux revenus dont diposait la victime au moment de l’accident. Il faut donc distinguer les inactifs et les personnes ayant une activité au

1 Philippe Malaurie et alii, Droit des obligations, 10ème édition, 2018, Paris, LGDJ, § 241. 2 Yvaine BUFFELAN-LANORE, Virginie LARRIBAU-TERNEYRE, Droit civil des obligations, 17ème édition 62020-2021, Paris, Dalloz, § 2508.

## Page 160

126 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

moment de l’accident. Pour les inactifs (enfants, étudiants, retraités, femmes ou homme au foyer), il ne peut y avoir de pertes de revenus actuels et seule l’incidence professionnelle et/ou scolaire du dommage peut être pris en compte (perte de chance de trouver un emploi par exemple)3. [29] Ku mpaka ziri hagati y’ababuranyi muri uru rubanza zo kumenya niba uhabwa indishyi zo gutakaza akazi ari ubona umushahara ku kwezi nk’uko byemezwa na Prime Insurance Company Ltd, mu gihe Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude we avuga ko n’udafite akazi kagaragara gahemberwa ku kwezi agenerwa bene izo ndishyi, Urukiko rurasanga, hashingiwe ku bisobanuro byatanzwe haruguru, umuntu utagaragaza ibimenyetso ko hari akazi yari afite igihe yakoraga impanuka, nta ndishyi zo kugatakaza agomba guhabwa kubera ko nyine ntako yari afite, bityo na Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude akaba nta ndishyi zo gutakaza akazi agomba guhabwa kubera ko, n’ubwo avuga ko yari nyakabyizi, atagaragarije urukiko ibimenyetso by’ako kazi ka nyakabyizi yari afite. [30] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro byose byatanzwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude agomba guhabwa Indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu zihwanye na 5.912.043,60 Frw, indishyi z’ububabare (Pretium doloris) zihwanye na 1.080.000 Frw; n’indishyi z’ibangamira ry’uburanga zihwanye na 432.000 Frw, zose hamwe zikaba 7.424.043,6 Frw. [31] Urukiko rurasanga, mu rwego rwo kurangiza urubanza rwasubiwemo mu rwego rw’akarengane, Prime Insurance Company Ltd yarishyuye Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude indishyi

3 Id. § 2315.

## Page 161

127 PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v UWIMANIMPAYE

zose hamwe zihwanye na 14.126.186 Frw. Kubera ko rero bigaragara ko amafaranga yagombaga kwishyura ari make kuri ayo, Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude akaba agomba gusubiza arengaho ahwanye na 14.126.186 Frw - 7.424.043,6 Frw = 6.702.142,4 Frw.  Kumenya niba amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’ay’igihembo cy’ Avoka yatangwa muri uru rubanza. [32] Uhagarariye Prime Insurance Company Ltd avuga ko isaba indishyi zingana na 2.000.000 Frw akubiyemo ay’ikurikiranarubanza n’ay’igihembo cya Avoka. Avuga ko indishyi zisabwa n’uruhande baburana nta shingiro zifite kuko yatanze ikirego ishingiye ku byo yemererwa n’amategeko. [33] Ku ruhande rwa Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude uregwa muri uru rubanza, bavuga ko indishyi Prime Insurance Company Ltd isaba ntazo ikwiye guhabwa kuko ariyo itarakoze ibyo yasabwaga ngo inereke umucamanza ko ibyo yaburanishaga byari ukuri. Bavuga ko ahubwo kuba Prime Insurance Company Ltd yarongeye kumuzana mu manza ari ukumurenganya, kubera iyo mpamvu bakaba basaba ko yamuha indishyi zingana na 1.000.000 Frw, n'igihembo cy’Avoka kingana nacyo na 1.000.000 Frw. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [34] Urukiko rurasanga indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka Prime Insurance Company Ltd isaba ikwiye kuzihabwa kubera ko ariyo itsinze urubanza kandi bikaba bigaragara ko yagombye gushaka Avoka wo kuyiburanira ikanakurikirana urubanza. Urukiko rurasanga ariko 2.000.000

## Page 162

128 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Frw yasabye ari menshi, bityo mu bushishozi bwarwo ikaba igenewe 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 300.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza. [35] Ku birebana n’indishyi zisabwa na Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude, Urukiko rurasanga ntazo agomba guhabwa kuko ntacyo atsindiye muri uru rubanza. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [36] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Prime Insurance Company Ltd isaba gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane urubanza N° RCA 00029/2019/HC/RSZ, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi, ku itariki ya 17/10/2019 gifite ishingiro ; [37] Rwemeje ko urwo rubanza ruhindutse ku bijyanye n’indishyi Prime Insurance Company Ltd yagombaga guha Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude ; [38] Rwemeje ko Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude yagombaga guhabwa indishyi zingana na 7.424.043,6 Frw ; [39] Rutegetse Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude gusubiza Prime Insurance Company Ltd 6.702.142,4 Frw. [40] Rutegetse Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude guha Prime Insurance Company Ltd 800.000 Frw akubiyemo ay’igihembo cya Avoka n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza.

## Page 163

IMANZA Z’UBUCURUZI

## Page 165

131

GATETE v. ECOBANK LTD [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RCOM 00011/2017/CS (Mutashya, P.J., Karimunda na Muhumuza, J.) 05 Mutarama 2018] Amategeko agenga imanza z’ubucuruzi – Gufatira – Gufatira Ingwate – Ubwishyu busabwa umwishingizi bugarukira mu mbibi z’ubwishingire bwo kwishyura umwenda. Iyo habaye guhindura amasezerano y’umwenda, biba na ngombwa ko nyiri ugutanga ingwate yemera ko ingwate yari yatanze inareba ayo masezerano mashya. Incamake y’ ikibazo: ECOBANK RWANDA LTD yagiranye amasezerano y’ inguzanyo na RUBIRIZI DAIRY, yagombaga kwishyurwa mu gihe cy’amezi mirongo ine n’umunani (48), uwitwa Gatete yishingira iyo nguzanyo, maze atanga ingwate y’ikibanza. RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl ntiyubahirije ayo masezerano ngo yishyure inguzanyo yahawe n`inyungu zayo mu gihe cyumvikanyweho, maze umwishingizi yandikira ECOBANK RWANDA LTD ayisaba kumusubiza ikibanza cyatanzweho ingwate agamije kukigurisha kugira ngo yishyure uwo umwenda RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl yari yishingiye, maze habaho kwandukuza ingwate, icyo kibanza bagicamo ibibanza 51 kugirango bimworohere kugurisha, biranandikwa, Gatete Polycarpe (umwishingizi) ashyikiriza banki ibyangombwa byabyo (Titres de propriété). Gatete(umwishingizi) yongeye kwandikira na none ECOBANK RWANDA LTD asaba kwishyura 39.000.000 Frw y’umwenda

## Page 166

132 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

wa sosiyete ECOGER na 110.000.000Frw y’umwenda wa RUBIRIZI DIARY sarl ideni ryose rikavanwaho, ariko banki imusubiza ivuga ko umwenda wa RUBIRIZI DIARY LTD agomba kwishyura ungana na 149.754.850 Frw. ECOBANK RWANDA LTD yaregeye Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge isaba gutegeka RUBIRIZI DAIRY SARL na Gatete Polycarpe kwishyura umwenda remezo wa 149.754.850 Frw, n’inyungu zigakomeza kubarwa kugeza umwenda n’indishyi zitandukanye byishyuwe. Urukiko rwaciye urubanza maze rwemeza ko amasezerano y’inguzanyo (convention d`ouverture de crédit avec constitution d`hypothèque) yo ku wa 29/05/2008 ECOBANK RWANDA LTD yagiranye na RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl na Gatete Polycarpe nka ‘’Propriétaire Constituant’’ afite agaciro kandi ko ariyo agomba gushingirwaho mu kubara umwenda iyo sosiyete itishyuye. RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl na GATETE bajuririye icyo cyemezo mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, maze rwemeza kandi ko imikirize y`urubanza RCOM 1418/14/TC/NYGE ihindutse ku bijyanye n’ingano y’umwenda, maze rwemeza ko rutategeka ko ingwate zigurishwa, ko atagomba nk umwishingizi gufatanya na RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl kwishyura nkuko byategetswe mu rwego rwa mbere. ECOBANK RWANDA LTD yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, maze rwemeza ko ifite uburenganzira bwo kwandikisha ingwate ku bibanza bikomoka ku kibanza cyatanzweho ingwate mu masezerano y’inguzanyo yakozwe n’ababuranyi bose, rwemeza kandi ko nta nyungu z’ubukerererwe RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl na GATETE P bagomba guhabwa. Rwategetse RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl na GATETE Polycarpe, mu mbibi z’ubwishingire bwe,

## Page 167

133 GATETE v. ECOBANK LTD

kwishyura ECOBANK RWANDA LTD 184.099.138Frw y’umwenda iyibereyemo. Nyuma yaho, Gatete yaje gutanga ikirego asaba urukiko gukemura impaka zavutse mu irangiza ry'urubanza, avuga ko Umuhesha w’Inkiko hamwe na ECOBANK RWANDA LTD batangiye kurangiza urubanza ariko bikorwa mu buryo bunyuranyije n'ibyo Urukiko rwategetse, kuko Umuhesha w’Inkiko yararengereye mu kurangiza urubanza agashyiramo n’imitungo itaremejwe muri urwo rubanza, bafatira imitungo ye Urukiko rutategetse, kandi itatanzweho ingwate, avuga ko ahubwo hari gufatirwa imitungo iri mu mbibi z’ubwishingire bwe nkuko Urukiko rwabitegetse, hagafatirwa ingwate zikomoka ku kibanza cyatanzweho ingwate gusa kuko ari bwo bwishingire bwe. ECOBANK nayo yatanze inzitizi ijyanye n’ibihe ikirego cyatangiwe kuko asanga ikirego cyaragombaga gutangwa mu gihe cy’amezi abiri kuko aricyo gihe Umuhesha w’Inkiko w’Umwuga yamenyeshereje Gatete ko urubanza rurimo kurangizwa. Gatete (umwishingizi) yiregura avuga ko asanga iyo nzitizi nta shingiro ifite kuko kuri we, Amabwiriza ya Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga yashyiriweho umuntu utarabaye umuburanyi mu rubanza kuko ariwe umenyeshwa imikirize y’urubanza, avuga kandi ko RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl ifite imitungo yimukanwa n'itimukanwa, bityo akaba ariyo yabanza kugurishwa mu gihe ubwishyu butavamo n'imitungo yatanzeho ingwate ikaba yagurishwa. Incamake y’icyemezo: N’ubwo Banki ifite inshingano zo kwandikisha ingwate no biyikomokaho byatanzweho ingwate,

## Page 168

134 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Ubwishyu bw umwishingizi bugarukira mu mbibi z’ubwishingire bwo kwishyura umwenda. Ikirego gifite ishingiro. Amagarama ahwanye nibyarukozwemo. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko N° 12/2013 ryo ku wa 22/03/2013 rigenga umurimo w’Abahesha b’Inkiko, ingingo ya 49. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Urubanza rukomoka ku masezerano y’inguzanyo ECOBANK RWANDA LTD yagiranye na RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl ku wa 29/05/2008, inguzanyo ingana na 133.379.294 Frw yagombaga kwishyurwa mu gihe cy’amezi mirongo ine n’umunani (48), Gatete Polycarpe arayishingira atanga ingwate y’ikibanza cye n⁰ 8957 kiri ku Kicukiro. [2] RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl ntiyubahirije ayo masezerano ngo yishyure inguzanyo yahawe n`inyungu zayo mu gihe cyumvikanyweho. Ku wa 16/05/2012, Gatete Polycarpe yandikiye ECOBANK RWANDA LTD ayisaba kumusubiza ikibanza cyatanzweho ingwate agamije kukigurisha kugira ngo yishyure umwenda RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl ibereyemo ECOBANK RWANDA LTD, maze ku wa 23/5/2012 haba

## Page 169

135 GATETE v. ECOBANK LTD

kwandukuza ingwate, icyo kibanza bagicamo ibibanza 51 kugirango bimworohere kugurisha, biranandikwa, Gatete Polycarpe ashyikiriza ECOBANK Rwanda Ltd ibyangombwa byabyo (Titres de propriété). [3] Ku wa 14/09/2014, Gatete Polycarpe na none yandikiye ECOBANK RWANDA LTD asaba kwishyura 39.000.000 Frw y’umwenda wa ECOGER na 110.000.000Frw y’umwenda wa RUBIRIZI DIARY sarl ideni ryose rikavanwaho, ariko ku wa 22/09/2014 ECOBANK RWANDA LTD imusubiza ko umwenda wa RUBIRIZI DIARY LTD agomba kwishyura kuri iyo tariki ungana na 149.754.850 Frw. [4] Ku wa 09/12/2014, ECOBANK RWANDA LTD yaregeye Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge isaba gutegeka RUBIRIZI DAIRY SARL na Gatete Polycarpe kwishyura umwenda remezo wa 149.754.850 Frw wabazwe kugeza ku wa 22/09/2014 n’inyungu zigakomeza kubarwa kugeza umwenda n’indishyi zitandukanye byishyuwe. Urukiko rwaciye urubanza ku wa 30/04/2015 rwemeza ko amasezerano y’inguzanyo (convention d`ouverture de crédit avec constitution d`hypothèque) yo ku wa 29/05/2008 ECOBANK RWANDA LTD yagiranye na RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl na Gatete Polycarpe nka ‘’Propriétaire Constituant’’ afite agaciro kandi ko ariyo agomba gushingirwaho mu kubara umwenda iyo sosiyete itishyuye. Rwemeje ko 150.000.000 Frw avugwa mu ibaruwa yo ku wa 16/05/2012 Gatete Polycarpe yandikiye ECOBANK RWANDA LTD, atari ingano y’umwenda RUBIRIZI DAIRY SARL yari irimo ahubwo ari agaciro kagombaga kugurishwa ikibanza yatanzeho ingwate nº 8957. Rwemeje ko iyo baruwa yo kuwa 16/05/2012 yagaragazaga ibihe byo kwishyuramo ayo 150.000.000 Frw sosiyete Green Estates Ltd yari kuba yaguze

## Page 170

136 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

icyo kibanza igihe ECOBANK RWANDA LTD yari kuba yemeye kukirekura ngo gicibwemo ibindi bibanza byinshi. Rwemeje ko ibaruwa, ‘’Acte de Main Levée’’ yo ku wa 23/05/2012 hamwe n’igurishwa rya bimwe mu bibanza bikomoka ku kibanza n⁰ 8957 Gatete Polycarpe yari yatanzeho ingwate mu masezerano y’inguzanyo yo ku wa 29/05/2008 bidatesha agaciro cyangwa ngo bihindure ayo masezerano. Rwemeje ko RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl igomba gufatanya na Gatete Polycarpe nka ‘’Propriétaire Constituant’’ kwishyura ECOBANK RWANDA LTD umwenda n`inyungu zawo ukomoka kuri iyo nguzanyo batishyuye nkuko bari babisezeranye, bagatanga n`indishyi z`ikurikiranarubanza n`igihembo cy`Avoka. Rwategetse RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl gufatanya na Gatete Polycarpe nka ‘’Propriétaire Constituant’’ guha ECOBANK RWANDA LTD 132.092.889 Frw (miliyoni ijana na mirongo itatu n`ebyiri, ibihumbi mirongo icyenda na bibiri, magana inani na mirongo inani n`icyenda). [5] RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl na GATETE Polycarpe bajuririye icyo cyemezo mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, ruca urubanza ku wa 30/6/2015 rwemeza ko RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl, ECOBANK RWANDA LTD na GATETE Polycarpe batemeranyijwe ko amasezerano yo ku wa 29/05/2008 avuyeho agasimburwa n`ayo ku wa 16/5/2012, ko nta masezerano yabayeho avuga ko inyungu za 15% ku mwaka zo mu masezerano yo ku wa 29/05/2008 zihagarara kubarwa, ko ECOBANK RWANDA LTD idategetswe kwishyurwa ari uko ibibanza byavuye mu kibanza nº 8957 bigurishijwe. Urukiko rwemeje kandi ko imikirize y`urubanza RCOM 1418/14/TC/NYGE ihindutse ku bijyanye n’ingano y’umwenda, igihembo cy’avoka no k’ugomba kwishyura umwenda, rutegeka RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl kwishyura ECOBANK RWANDA LTD

## Page 171

137 GATETE v. ECOBANK LTD

umwenda ungana na 45.607.219 Frw aho kuba 131.092.889 Frw. Urukiko rwasanze RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl irimo ECOBANK RWANDA LTD ayo mafaranga yemejwe ku rwego rwa mbere, hakiyongeraho 1.000.000 Frw y`indishyi z`ikurikirana rubanza n`igihembo cy`Avoka yaciwe ku rwego rwa mbere, na 500.000 Frw y`igihembo cy’Avoka ku rwego rw`ubujurire no kuyisubiza 50.000 Frw y`ingwate y`amagarama yatanze irega, yose hamwe akaba 47.157.129 Frw. Rwemeje kandi ko nta ndishyi z`ikurikiranarubanza n`igihembo cy`Avoka RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl ikwiriye kwishyurwa na ECOBANK RWANDA LTD, rwemeza ko rutategeka ko ingwate zatanzwe na Gatete Polycarpe zigurishwa, ko atagomba nk`umwishingizi gufatanya na RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl kwishyura ECOBANK RWANDA LTD nkuko byategetswe mu rwego rwa mbere, rwemeza ko urubanza rutarangizwa by`agateganyo ku mwenda wa 111.000.000 Frw. [6] ECOBANK RWANDA LTD yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, uru Rukiko rwaciye urubanza ku wa 30/06/2017, rwemeza ko ifite uburenganzira bwo kwandikisha ingwate ku bibanza bikomoka ku kibanza gifite nº 8957 kiri Kicukiro cyatanzweho ingwate mu masezerano y’inguzanyo yakozwe n’ababuranyi bose, rwemeza ko nta nyungu z’ubukerererwe RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl na Gatete Polycarpe bagomba guhabwa. Rwategetse RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl na GATETE Polycarpe, mu mbibi z’ubwishingire bwe, kwishyura ECOBANK RWANDA LTD 184.099.138 Frw y’umwenda iyibereyemo, rubategeka kwishyura ECOBANK RWANDA LTD amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka angana na 1.000.000 Frw, rubategeka gufatanya gusubiza ECOBANK RWANDA LTD 1.750.000 Frw ya avansi yishyuye ku gihembo cy’umuhanga, rubategeka kandi kwishyura igice cy’ igihembo cy’umuhanga Habimana José atishyuwe

## Page 172

138 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kingana na 1.750.000 frw, bakabikora bitarenze ku wa 31/07/2017. [7] Gatete Polycarpe yaje gutanga ikirego cyo gukemura impaka zavutse mu irangiza ry'urubanza RCOMAA 0046/15/CS avuga ko, ashingiye ku rupapuro rwa 15 rw'urwo rubanza, agace ka 57, Umuhesha w’Inkiko na ECOBANK RWANDA LTD batangiye kurangiza urubanza mu buryo bunyuranyije n'ibyo Urukiko rwategetse. [8] Iburanisha ry’urubanza mu ruhame ryabaye ku wa 03/01/2018, Gatete Polycarpe yunganiwe na Me Nzeyimana Boniface, naho ECOBANK RWANDA LTD iburanirwa na Me Nkundabarashi Moïse. [9] Muri urubanza, harasuzumwa ikibazo cy’inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego kubera kurenza igihe cyo kurega, no gusuzuma niba Umuhesha w’Inkiko yararengereye mu kurangiza urubanza agashyiramo n’imitungo itaremejwe muri urwo rubanza. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO. a. kumenya niba ikirego cya Gatete polycarpe kitagomba kwakirwa kubera ko yarengeje igihe cyo kurega. [10] Me Nkundabarashi Moïse uhagarariye ECOBANK yatanze inzitizi ijyanye n’ibihe ikirego cyatangiwe kuko asanga ikirego cyaragombaga gutangwa mu gihe cy’amezi abiri uhereye ku wa 25/08/2017 kuko aricyo gihe Umuhesha w’Inkiko w’Umwuga yamenyeshereje Gatete Polycarpe ko urubanza

## Page 173

139 GATETE v. ECOBANK LTD

rurimo kurangizwa. Ko kuba yaratanze ikirego ku wa 05/12/2017, yanyuranyije n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 50 y’Amabwiriza Nº 002/2015 yo ku wa 18/05/2015 ya Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ashyira mu bikorwa ibiteganywa mu ngingo ya 208 y’Itegeko Nº 21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ayo mabwiriza agateganya ko ibirego byerekeye impaka zivutse mu irangiza ry’imanza, bitangwa mu gihe kitarenze amezi abiri uhereye igihe urega amenyeye ko urubanza rurimo kurangizwa cyangwa rwarangijwe, akaba asanga rero ikirego cyatanzwe na Gatete Polycarpe kitagomba kwakirwa kuko yagitanze ku wa 05/12/2017 amezi abiri (2) yararenze. [11] Me Nizeyimana Boniface wunganira Gatete Polycarpe asanga iyo nzitizi nta shingiro ifite kuko kuri we, Amabwiriza ya Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga yashyiriweho umuntu utarabaye umuburanyi mu rubanza kuko ariwe umenyeshwa imikirize y’urubanza, bo bakaba bashingira ku ngingo ya 208 y’Itegeko Nº 21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko ibibazo bivutse mu irangizwa ry’urubanza, bishyikirizwa Urukiko rwaruciye bwa nyuma. [12] Akomeza avuga ko mu gihe Urukiko rwaba rubibonye ukundi, rwazirikana ko Gatete Polycarpe ahereye ku Itegeko ry’Umuhesha w’Inkiko ryishyuza ryo ku wa 25/08/2017 akarimumenyesha uwo munsi, yandikiye Umuhesha w’Inkiko w’Umwuga ku wa 19/10/2017 amubwira yuko ibyo ari gukora atari byo, Umuhesha w’Inkiko nawe amusubiza ku wa 26/10/2017, akaba asanga uwo munsi wo ku wa 26/10/2017

## Page 174

140 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

aribwo impaka zatangiye, ariho haherwa habarwa ibihe byo kurega. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [13] Ingingo ya 208 y’Itegeko Nº 21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, iteganya ko : ‘’Impaka zishingiye ku irangiza ry’urubanza ryaba riri gukorwa cyangwa ryararangiye zikemurwa n’Urukiko rwaruciye bwa nyuma cyangwa urwemeje ko urubanza rwo mu mahanga rurangirizwa mu Rwanda mu gihe kitarenze iminsi cumi n’itanu (15) guhera igihe Urukiko rwakiriye ikirego”. [14] Ingingo ya 50 y’Amabwiriza Nº 002/2015 yo ku wa 18/05/2015 ya Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, iteganya ko : ‘’Ikirego cyerekeranye n’impaka zishingiye ku irangiza ry’ibyemezo by’inkiko zivugwa mu ngingo ya 208 y’Itegeko nº 21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, gishyikirizwa urukiko rubifitiye ububasha mu gihe kitarenze amezi abiri (2) uhereye igihe urega amenyeye ko urubanza rurimo kurangizwa cyangwa rwarangijwe’’. [15] Mu nyandiko zigize urubanza, harimo Itegeko ry’Umuhesha w’Inkiko w’Umwuga Mwitende Jean Paul ryo ku wa 25/08/2017 ryishyuza Gatete Polycarpe ibyo urubanza RCOMAA 0046/2015/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 30/06/2017 rwategetse, kandi akaba yabikoze mu gihe cy’iminsi cumi n’itanu (15) uhereye igihe aboneye iri Tegeko,

## Page 175

141 GATETE v. ECOBANK LTD

akanamumenyesha ko natubahiriza iri Tegeko mu gihe cyavuzwe haruguru, azafatira imitungo ye itimukanwa. [16] Muri dosiye kandi, harimo inyandiko yo ku wa 19/10/2017 Gatete Polycarpe yanditse asubiza Umuhesha w’Inkiko w’Umwuga Mwitende Jean Paul, amugaragariza ko mu ifatira yakoze yarengereye ashyiramo n’ibyo Urukiko rutategetse, amusaba kurivanaho. [17] Muri dosiye hagaragaramo kandi urwandiko rwo ku wa 23/10/2017 Umuhesha w’Inkiko w’Umwuga Mwitende Jean Paul yanditse asubiza Gatete Polycarpe, uyu akarubona ku wa 26/10/2017, amumenyesha ko ifatira yakoze yarikoze mu rwego rwo kurangiza urubanza RCOMAA 0046/2015/CS, kandi akaba yararikoze mu buryo bwemewe n’amategeko. [18] Muri dosiye, harimo kandi inyandiko itanga ikirego kuri IECMS (Integrated Electronic Case Management System) igaragaza ko Gatete Polycarpe yatanze ikirego ku wa 05/12/2017 asaba Urukiko gukemura impaka zavutse mu irangiza ry’urubanza RCOMAA 0046/15/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 30/06/2017. [19] Urukiko rurasanga ruhereye ku buryo Gatete Polycarpe yagiye yandikirana n’Umuhesha w’Inkiko, impaka zavutse kuri iryo rangiza rubanza zaratangiye ku wa 26/10/2017 kuko nyuma yuko Gatete Polycarpe amweretse ko ifatira yakoze rinyuranyije n’ibyo Urukiko rwategetse, niho Umuhesha w’Inkiko yamushwishurije amubwira ko ifatira yakoze ridashobora kuvaho igihe cyose amafaranga yategetswe n’Urukiko atararangira kwishyurwa, ahongaho niho impaka ku irangizarubanza zivugwa mu ngingo ya 208 y’Itegeko Nº 21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru zatangiriye, bityo rukaba rusanga igihe

## Page 176

142 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

cy’amezi abiri (2) kivugwa mu ngingo ya 50 y’Amabwiriza Nº 002/2015 yo ku wa 18/05/2015 ya Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga yavuzwe haruguru kigomba gutangira kubarwa guhera ku wa 26/10/2017, icyo gihe cy’amezi abiri rero kikaba cyarubahirijwe kuko ikirego cyatanzwe ku wa 05/12/2017 nkuko bigaragazwa n’inyandiko itanga ikirego iri muri dosiye, bityo inzitizi yatanzwe na Me Nkundabarashi Moïse uhagarariye ECOBANK ikaba nta shingiro ifite. B. Kumenya niba Umuhesha w’Inkiko yararengereye mu kurangiza urubanza agashyiramo n’imitungo itemejwe muri urwo rubanza [20] Gatete Polycarpe avuga ko mu kurangiza urubanza RCOMAA 0046/15/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 30/06/2017, ECOBANK RWANDA LTD n’Umuhesha w'Inkiko barenze ku byo igika cya 57 cy’urubanza rurangizwa giteganya bafatira n’ibyo Urukiko rutategetse, ni ukuvuga ko ku bimwerekeye, hari gufatirwa imitungo iri mu mbibi z’ubwishingire bwe nkuko Urukiko rwabitegetse, bivuze ko hari gufatirwa ingwate zikomoka ku kibanza nº 8957 gusa kuko ari bwo bwishingire bwe, izo zikaba arizo mpaka asaba ko Urukiko rwakemura. [21] Avuga ko RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl ifite imitungo yimukanwa n'itimukanwa, bityo kuri we akaba ariyo yabanza kugurishwa mu gihe ubwishyu butavamo n'imitungo Gatete Polycarpe yatanzeho ingwate ikaba yagurishwa. Agasanga ECOBANK RWANDA LTD n'Umuhesha w'Inkiko bararengereye cyane, ko aho abimenyeye, yandikiye Umuhesha w'Inkiko w’Umwuga, amusaba kureka ibyo bintu ariko ntiyagira icyo abikoraho.

## Page 177

143 GATETE v. ECOBANK LTD

[22] ECOBANK RWANDA LTD yireguye ivuga ko kuri icyo kibazo isanga nta mpaka zavutse na gato kuko RUBILIZI DAIRY Sarl n ‘umwishingizi wayo bagomba kwishyura ECOBANK RWANDA LTD nkuko byemejwe n'Urukiko. Ikindi, bakaba ataribo bagena uburyo urubanza rurangizwa, ibi bikaba bisobanurwa mu buryo bwumvikana n ‘ingingo ya 194 y’Itegeko N° 21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, aho iteganya ko ibintu byimukanwa n’ibitimukanwa by’urimo umwenda ari ingwate rusange y’abo abereyemo umwenda. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [23] Ingingo ya 203 y’Itegeko Nº 21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko: ‘’Irangiza ry’ibyemezo by’inkiko cyangwa inyandiko rigomba gukorwa mu buryo no mu gihe cyategetswe n’ibyemezo byazo’’. [24] Ingingo ya 49 y’Itegeko N° 12/2013 ryo ku wa 22/03/2013 rigenga umurimo w’Abahesha b’Inkiko iteganya ko: ‘’Imirimo iri mu bubasha bw' umuhesha w'inkiko w’umwuga igizwe n’imirimo icyenda nkuko igaragara muri iyo ngingo harimo kurangiza ibyemezo by'inkiko, iby’inzego z’ubuyobozi zibifitiye ububasha n'izindi nyandikompesha”. [25] Muri dosiye, harimo amasezerano y’inguzanyo yo ku wa 29/05/2008, ECOBANK RWANDA LTD yagiranye na RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl, ECOBANK RWANDA LTD ikayiha inguzanyo ingana na 133.379.294Frw, Gatete Polycarpe

## Page 178

144 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

akayishingira agatanga ikibanza cye nº 8957 kiri Rubirizi- Kicukiro. [26] Muri dosiye, harimo kandi Itegeko ry’Umuhesha w’Inkiko ryishyuza Gatete Polycarpe ryo kuwa 25/08/2017 rimumenyesha ko natubahiriza iryo tegeko azafatira imitungo afatanyije n’umugore we igaragara mu mbonerahamwe iri hasi, akongeramo indi mitungo itari mu kibanza nº 8957 kiri Kicukiro- Rubirizi. [27] Mu rubanza rurangizwa RCOMAA 0046/15/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 30/06/2017, muri rwemeje yarwo ya 54, Urukiko rwemeje ko ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd ifite uburenganzira bwo kwandikisha ingwate ku bikomoka ku kibanza gifite nº 8957 cyatanzweho ingwate mu masezerano y’inguzanyo RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl na ECOBANK RWANDA LTD bagiranye, kugira ngo bibe byavamo ubwishyu bw’umwenda. Mu gika cyarwo cya 57 kandi, Urukiko rwategetse ko RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl ifatanya na Gatete Polycarpe mu mbibi z’ubwishingire bwe kwishyura ECOBANK RWANDA LTD 184.099.138 frw y’umwenda iyibereyemo. [28] Urukiko rurasanga Umuhesha w’Inkiko mu kurangiriza urubanza kuri Gatete Polycarpe nk’ uwishingiye inguzanyo, ataragombaga gushyiramo indi mitungo itari mu ngwate y’ibibanza bikomoka ku kibanza gifite Nº 8957 kiri Rubirizi- Kicukiro kuko nicyo cyatanzweho ingwate mu masezerano y’inguzanyo RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl na ECOBANK RWANDA LTD bagiranye, ibi kandi bikaba ari nabyo Urukiko rwemeje mu rubanza rurangizwa mu gika cyarwo cya 57. [29] Urukiko rurasanga ibyo uhagarariye ECOBANK RWANDA LTD avuga yuko GATETE Polycarpe na RUBIRIZI

## Page 179

145 GATETE v. ECOBANK LTD

DAIRY Sarl bagomba gufatanya kwishyura umwenda babereyemo ECOBANK RWANDA LTD hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 194 y’Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru, ibi byajyaga kumvikana iyo bombi bari kuba bafatanyije umwenda, ariko kuba GATETE Polycarpe yaraje mu masezerano nk’umwishingizi, ubwishyu bwe bugarukira ku byo yishingiye nkuko n’ubundi Urukiko rwabitegetse ko bugomba kugarukira mu mbibi z’icyo yishingiye ni ukuvuga ku kibanza gifite nº 8957 kiri Rubirizi- Kicukiro . C. Kumenya niba indishyi zisabwa muri uru rubanza zifite ishingiro. [30] ECOBANK RWANDA LTD yatanze ikirego cyuririye ku cya Gatete Polycarpe, isaba urukiko gutegeka urega kwishyura indishyi zo gushorwa mu manza z'amaherere zingana na 5.000.000 Frw, amafaranga y' ikurikiranarubanza angana na 2.000.000 Frw, n‘ay’igihembo cya Avoka angana na 3.000.000 Frw. [31] Gatete Polycarpe avuga ko ahubwo ariwe ugomba guhabwa indishyi kuko ECOBANK RWANDA LTD n'Umuhesha w'Inkiko batandukiriye bagatangira kurangiza urubanza ku bitarategetswe n'Urukiko, akaba asaba ko bamuha bafatanyije amafaranga y'ikurikiranarubanza n'igihembo cya Avoka bingana na 3.000.000Frw. [32] ECOBANK RWANDA LTD kuri izo ndishyi yireguye ivuga ko Gatete Polycarpe ariwe uhagarariye RUBILIZI Diary Sarl, ko kuba rero atarishyuye uyu mwenda ku neza atabyitwaza ngo asabe indishyi z’ibintu adafitiye ibimenyetso.

## Page 180

146 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [33] Urukiko rurasanga, ku byerekeye ikirego cyuririye ku kindi cya ECOBANK RWANDA LTD, nta shingiro cyahabwa kuko ariyo yatsinzwe muri uru rubanza, ikaba itagaragaza icyo yangirijwe muri uru rubanza. [34] Ku byerekeye amafaranga y’ikurikirarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka GATETE Polycarpe asaba, Urukiko rurasanga ayakwiye ariko rukayamugenera mu bushishozi bwarwo kuko ayo asaba atagaragaza ibimenyetso by’uko ariyo akwiriye, bityo akaba agomba guhabwa yose hamwe 1.000.000 Frw (miliyoni imwe). III. ICYEMEZO CY URUKIKO [35] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyo gukemura impaka zavutse mu irangiza ry’urubanza RCOMAA 0046/15/CS cyatanzwe na Gatete Polycarpe gifite ishingiro; [36] Rwemeje ko inzitizi yazamuwe na Me Nkundabarashi Moïse yo kutakira ikirego nta shingiro ifite; [37] Rwemeje ko ikirego cya ECOBANK RWANDA LTD cyuririye ku cya Gatete Polycarpe gisaba indishyi nta shingiro gifite; [38] Rwemeje ko ubwishyu bwa Gatete Polycarpe bugomba kugarukira mu mbibi z’icyo yishingiye nkuko Urukiko rwabitegetse ni ukuvuga ku kibanza gifite nº8957 kiri Rubirizi- Kicukiro

## Page 181

147 GATETE v. ECOBANK LTD

[39] Rutegetse ECOBANK RWANDA LTD guha Gatete Polycarpe 1.000.000 Frw y’ikurikirarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka; [40] Rutegetse ko amagarama y`urubanza ahwanye n’ibyarukozwemo.

## Page 183

149

NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES Ltd v KASESE DISTILLERS Ltd [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/INJUST/RCOM 00004/2020/SC – (Mukamulisa, P.J., Muhumuza, Cyanzayire, Hitiyaremye na Karimunda, J.) 19 Ugushyingo 2021] Amategeko agenga amasezerano – Amasezerano y’ubucuruzi – Ibimenyetso mu manza z’ubucuruzi – Ihame rusange ni uko mu manza z’ubucuruzi nta busumbane bw’ibimenyetso bubaho – Ibikorwa by’ubucuruzi ntibigombera byanze bikunze amasezerano yanditse, ahubwo bishobora kugaragazwa hashingiwe ku bimenyetso by’ubwoko bwose harimo n’ubutumwa impande zombi zahererekanyije, inyemezabwishyu, ibitabo by’ibaruramari, ubuhamya cyangwa ibindi bintu bifatika – Singombwa ko iteka hagaragazwa umwimerere w’inyandiko ababuranyi bashingiraho nk’ibimenyetso. Amategeko agenga amasezerano – Amasezerano y’ubucuruzi – Ibimenyetso bishingirwaho mu manza z’ubucuruzi – Uburemere bw’inyandiko zitangwa nk’ibimenyetso mu manza z’ubucuruzi – Mu gusuzuma niba harabayeho imikoranire hagati y’abacuruzi ntibisaba buri gihe ko hagaragazwa ibimenyetso simusiga, ahubwo hitabwa ku buryo abacuruzi basanzwe bakorana hanyuma hagasuzumwa agaciro gakwiye guhabwa ibimenyetso biba byagaragarijwe Urukiko; narwo mu bushishozi bwarwo, rugasuzuma niba izo nyandiko zikiranuye kandi zifitanye isano na kamere y’ikiburanwa. Amategeko agenga amasezerano – Amasezerano y’ubucuruzi – Inkurikizi zo kwica amasezerano ku bigo cg sosiyete – Ibigo cyangwa Sosiyete z’ubucuruzi bishobora guhabwa indishyi

## Page 184

150 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

z’akababaro kuko nk’uko bimeze ku bantu, icyubahiro cyazo, icyizere zifitiwe n’uburyo zifatwa muri rubanda bishobora kubangamirwa kandi bikagira ingaruka ku mibereho yazo; bishoboka ko hangirizwa ibintu by’ingenzi bireba sosiyete kandi bidafite aho bihuriye n’inyungu zayo z’ubucuruzi cyangwa umutungo wayo. Amategeko agenga amasezerano – Amasezerano y’ubucuruzi – Indishyi z’akababaro zihabwa ibigo cyangwa sosiyete – Ni indishyi ziba zigamije gusa kugaruza agaciro iyo sosiyete yatakaje aho kuba ibyo yahombye kubera ko itasaba iz’uko yatewe agahinda, yababajwe ku mubiri cyangwa ku mutima cyangwa yasuzuguwe kuko ari umwihariko w’abantu. Mu kuzigena, Urukiko rusabwa ubushishozi no gushyira mu gaciro bihagije kugira ngo hatazamo gukabya, izatanzwe zikaba nke cyane ku buryo ntacyo zaba zivuze cyangwa zikaba umurengera ku buryo zakwitiranywa n’indishyi mbonezamusaruro cyangwa iz’igihombo sosiyete yatejwe. Amategeko agenga imisoro – Kumenyekanisha umusoro – Aho uburyozwe bw'uwamenyekanishije umusoro bugarukira – Iyo ibicuruzwa byamenyekanishirijwe umusoro mu Rwanda biburiwe irengero, ny’ir’ibicuruzwa ntabashe kugaragaza ko byibiwe mu nzira, niwe ukwiye kuryozwa umusoro n’ibihano Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro kiba cyaciye uwawumenyekanishije. Urukiko, mu bushishozi bwarwo, rumugenera indishyi z’akababaro iyo yagaragajwe nka bihemu kugeza ubwo abihaniwe ndetse agakurwa kuri serveur y’abamenyekanisha mu gihe amakosa yahaniwe yatewe na nyir’ibicuruzwa. Incamake y’ikibazo: New Kigali Business Services Ltd yareze Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda) ivuga ko yayihaye inshingano zo kuyimenyekanishiriza ibicuruzwa, irabikora ariko ibicuruzwa

## Page 185

151 NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES Ltd v KASESE DISTILLERS Ltd

ntibyagera mu Rwanda, bituma ibicirirwa umusoro n’ibihano byose hamwe bingana na 152.165.333 Frw. Yasabye ko uburyozwe bushyirwa kuri nyir’ibicuruzwa kuko ari we wari ufite inshingano zo kugeza ibyo bicuruzwa mu Rwanda. Yasabye kandi guhabwa indishyi z’akababaro kuko Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyayifashe nka bihemu bituma ivanwa kuri serveur y’abashinzwe kumenyekanisha umusoro, isaba na none guhabwa amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza, igihembo cya Avoka no gusubizwa amagarama yatanze. Urubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge rugenda rujuririrwa kugeza ubwo New Kigali Business Services Ltd irusubirishijemo ku mpamvu z’akarengane mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga. Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda) yagiye yiregura mu nkiko zose ivuga ko nta bicuruzwa yigeze itumiza mu mahanga kuko, uretse kuba igihe byatumizwaga yari yarahagaritswe gukora na Rwanda Bureau of Standard, ibimenyetso New Kigali Business Services Ltd iburanisha ishaka kugaragaza ko ariyo yaranguye ibicuruzwa mu mahanga byerekana ko ibarizwa Nyagatare- Iburasirazuba kandi ibarizwa muri Nyarugenge mu Mujyi wa Kigali. Yasobanuye ko itazi n’uburyo New Kigali Business Services Ltd yabonye inyandiko ibicuruzwa byaziyeho kuko ntazo yayihaye, ko hatagaragajwe umwimerere w’izo nyandiko, ko kandi nta masezerano y’imikoranire New Kigali Business Services Ltd yigeze igaragaza kugira ngo byemerwe ko yayihaye inshingano, ahubwo ko yavuze yakoranye ndetse ahabwa inyandiko z’ibicuruzwa na Byekwaso, umukozi wa Kasese Distillers Ltd (Uganda), usanzwe ukora magendu, ariyo mpamvu New Kigali Business Services Ltd ikwiye kwirengera amakosa yayo yo gukorana n’abantu basanzwe bakora magendu. Ivuga ko indishyi

## Page 186

152 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

zose zisabwa nta shingiro zifite kuko n’ubundi nta bicuruzwa byayo byigeze bimenyekanishirizwa umusoro. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Ihame rusange ni uko mu manza z’ubucuruzi nta busumbane bw’ibimenyetso bubaho. Ibikorwa by’ubucuruzi ntibigombera byanze bikunze amasezerano yanditse, ahubwo bishobora kugaragazwa hashingiwe ku bimenyetso by’ubwoko bwose harimo n’ubutumwa impande zombi zahererekanyije, inyemezabwishyu, ibitabo by’ibaruramari, ubuhamya cyangwa ibindi bintu bifatika. Singombwa ko iteka hagaragazwa umwimerere w’inyandiko ababuranyi bashingiraho nk’ibimenyetso. 2. Mu gusuzuma niba harabayeho imikoranire hagati y’abacuruzi ntibisaba buri gihe ko hagaragazwa ibimenyetso simusiga, ahubwo hitabwa ku buryo abacuruzi basanzwe bakorana hanyuma hagasuzumwa agaciro gakwiye guhabwa ibimenyetso biba byagaragarijwe Urukiko; narwo mu bushishozi bwarwo, rugasuzuma niba izo nyandiko zikiranuye kandi zifitanye isano na kamere y’ikiburanwa. 3. Ibigo cyangwa Sosiyete z’ubucuruzi bishobora guhabwa indishyi z’akababaro nk’uko bimeze ku bantu, kuko icyubahiro cyazo, icyizere zifitiwe n’uburyo zifatwa muri rubanda bishobora kubangamirwa kandi bikagira ingaruka ku mibereho yazo; bishoboka ko hangirizwa ibintu by’ingenzi bibireba kandi bidafite aho bihuriye n’inyungu zabyo z’ubucuruzi cyangwa umutungo wabyo. 4. Indishyi z’akababaro zihabwa ibigo cyangwa sosiyete ni indishyi ziba zigamije gusa kugaruza agaciro iyo sosiyete yatakaje aho kuba ibyo yahombye kubera ko itasaba iz’uko yatewe agahinda, yababajwe ku mubiri cyangwa ku mutima cyangwa yasuzuguwe kuko ari umwihariko w’abantu. Mu

## Page 187

153 NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES Ltd v KASESE DISTILLERS Ltd

kuzigena, Urukiko rusabwa ubushishozi no gushyira mu gaciro bihagije kugira ngo hatazamo gukabya, izatanzwe zikaba nke cyane ku buryo ntacyo zaba zivuze cyangwa zikaba umurengera ku buryo zakwitiranywa n’indishyi mbonezamusaruro cyangwa iz’igihombo sosiyete yatejwe. 5. Iyo ibicuruzwa byamenyekanishirijwe umusoro mu Rwanda biburiwe irengero, ny’ir’ibicuruzwa ntabashe kugaragaza ko byibiwe mu nzira, niwe ukwiye kuryozwa umusoro n’ibihano Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro kiba cyaciye uwawumenyekanishije. Urukiko, mu bushishozi bwarwo, rumugenera indishyi z’akababaro iyo yagaragajwe nka bihemu kugeza ubwo abihaniwe ndetse agakurwa kuri serveur y’abamenyekanisha mu gihe amakosa yahaniwe yatewe na nyir’ibicuruzwa. Ikirego gisaba gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane gifite ishingiro. Urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire, ruhindutse mu ngingo zarwo zose. Amategeko yashingiweho: East African Community Customs Management Act, 2004, ingingo ya 144, 147 n’iya 148. Itgeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 111. Itegeko No 45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, ingingo ya 75. Itegeko N° 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 9.

## Page 188

154 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Iteka rya Minisitiri N°133/moj/ag/18 ryo ku wa 04/06/2018 rigena amafaranga atangwa mu manza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi. Iteka rya Minisitiri Nº 002/08.11 ryo ku wa 11/02/2014 rigena amafaranga atangwa mu manza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi. Imanza zifashishijwe: Prime Insurance Ltd na Kansiime James, RS/INJUST/RCOM 00005/2018/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikrenga ku wa 12/06/2020. Bralirwa Ltd a na Kazigaba André n’abagenzi be, RCOMAA 0015/14/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 23/06/2017. Rock Global Consulting Ltd na Impact Distributors East Africa Ltd, RCOMA0041/13/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 3 Werurwe 2016. Unidare Plc v Cohen and Dermot Power [2006] Ch 489, para 19. Jafa na La Pizzeria, Com. 15 mai 2012, no 11-10-278 Bulletin Civil IV n° 101. Metropolitan Internationa Schools Ltd v Designtechnica Corporation, Google UK Ltd na Google Inc, [2010] EWHC 2411 (QB) 35. Comingersoll S.A.v. Portugal, CEDH, 6 Avril 2000, para 32-37. Inyandiko z’abahanga zifashishijwe: Memento Expert, Baux Commerciaux 2015-2016, Francis Lefebvre, Levallois, La liberté de preuves l’égard des commerçants exclut … la formalité du double original, 2015, verbo 19105.

## Page 189

155 NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES Ltd v KASESE DISTILLERS Ltd

Georges Decocq na Aurélie Ballot-Léna, Droit Commercial, Paris, Dalloz, 2015, pp. 84-85. Véronique Wester-Ouisse, Le préjudice moral des personnes morales: quand la perversion de la cité commence par la fraude des mots, JCP, G n° 39,24 Septembre 2012. Philippe Le Tourneau, Droit de la responsabilité et des contrats: Régimes d’Indemnisation, Paris, Dalloz, 2014, 2014, pp.664-665. Philippe Malaurie, Laurent Aynès na Philippe Stoffel-Munck, Droit des obligations, Paris, LDGJ, 2015, p.126. I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge, New Kigali Business Services Ltd ivuga ko yamenyekanishije ibicuruzwa bya Kasese Distillers Ltd byavaga Dar-Es-Salaam muri Tanzania bigana mu Rwanda ariko bigeze mu nzira biburirwa irengero, ibajije Freight World Ltd yabyikoreye, iyibwira ko byapakururiwe mu nzira, amakamyo asubira Dar-Es-Salaam. New Kigali Business Services Ltd yavuze ko ku wa 30/06/2016, yamenyesheje Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro iby’uko ibyo bicuruzwa bitageze mu Rwanda, aho kugira ngo kibyiteho, ku wa 25/07/2016, itungurwa no kubona iciwe umusoro n’ibihano bingana na 152.165.330 Frw no kubona ivanywe kuri serveur y’abamenyekanisha umusoro, isaba ko isubizwa kuri serveur, Kasese Distillers Ltd ikaryozwa umusoro n’ibihano yaciwe. [2] Kasese Distillers Ltd yireguye ivuga ko ikirego cyaburanwe mu rundi rubanza rwabaye itegeko (urubanza RCOM 00492/2017/TC/NYGE) ubwo New Kigali Business Services Ltd yaregeraga kuvanirwaho icyemezo cya Komiseri,

## Page 190

156 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ivuga kandi ko ibijyanye n’ibyaha byo kunyereza umusoro biregerwa inkiko ziburanisha imanza nshinjabyaha, bityo ko bitari mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi. Ku bijyanye n’imizi y’urubanza, Kasese Distillers Ltd yavuze ko nta nshingano zo kumenyekanisha ibicuruzwa byayo yigeze iha New Kigali Business Services Ltd kuko baterekana ko hari umuyobozi cyangwa umukozi wa Kasese Distillers Ltd bigeze bakorana amasezerano y’uko izabamenyekanishiriza ibicuruzwa. [3] Ku wa 16/03/2018, Urukiko rwaciye urubanza rubanziriza urundi mu rubanza RCOM 02196/2017/TC/NYGE, habanza gusuzumwa inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego kuko cyaburanwe mu rubanza RCOM 00492/2017/TC/NYGE rwabaye ndakuka, Urukiko rusanga muri urwo rubanza ikirego kitarakiriwe kubera kutubahiriza ibihe byo kurega, rusanga kandi ababuranyi muri izo manza zombi atari bamwe, rwemeza ko urubanza RCOM 00492/2017/TC/NYGE rutazitiraga New Kigali Business Services Ltd gutanga ikirego gishya. [4] Ku wa 10/05/2018, Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge rwabanje na none gufata icyemezo ku nzitizi ijyanye no kumenya niba urubanza rugomba kuburanishwa n’inkiko ziburanisha imanza nshinjabyaha, rusanga umusoro waraciwe nta kurikiranacyaha ribayeho, bityo ko inzitizi y’iburabubasha yatanzwe na Kasese Distillers Ltd nta shingiro ifite kubera ko ikirego Urukiko rufite atari icy’inshinjabyaha ahubwo ari icy’ubucuruzi. Naho ku bijyanye n’imizi y’urubanza, rwasanze kuba New Kigali Business Services Ltd yaramenyekanishije ibicuruzwa hanyuma bikaburirwa irengero ikwiye gufatwa nka nyirabyo ikishyura imisoro n’ibihano nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 147 ya East African Community Customs Management Act, 2004 cyane cyane ko itagaragaza ibimenyetso

## Page 191

157 NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES Ltd v KASESE DISTILLERS Ltd

by’uko ibicuruzwa yamenyekanishije byajimijwe na Kasese Distillers Ltd ku buryo ariyo yaryozwa umusoro n’ibihano yaciwe, rwanzura ko ikirego cya New Kigali Business Services Ltd nta shingiro gifite, itegekwa kwishyura umusoro n’ibihano yaciwe bingana na 152.165.330 Frw no guha Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka.1 [5] New Kigali Business Services Ltd yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ivuga ko yagaragaje Certificate of origin na Bill of lading byerekana ko hari ibicuruzwa bya Kasese Distillers Ltd yamenyekanishije bikiri ku cyambu cya Dar-Es- Salaam kandi ko Kasese Distillers Ltd imaze kubura ibicuruzwa byayo yaregeye Ubugenzacyaha bwa Tanzania, bigaragaza ko ibyo bicuruzwa byabayeho koko kandi ko byari byoherejwe mu Rwanda, aho guha agaciro ibyo bimenyetso, Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi ruyisaba amasezerano y’imikoranire rwirengagije ko ariyo yari isanzwe imenyekanisha ibicuruzwa bya Kasese Distillers Ltd, ikishyurwa hakoreshejwe sheki, isaba Urukiko guha ishingiro ubujurire bwayo, Kasese Distillers Ltd ikaryozwa umusoro n’ibihano yaciwe. [6] Mu rubanza RCOMA 00441/2018/CHC/HCC rwaciwe ku wa 15/11/2018, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwasanze New Kigali Business Services Ltd nta masezerano yo kumenyekanisha ibicuruzwa bya Kasese Distillers Ltd igaragaza, rusanga iterekana uburyo yabonye Certificate of origin na Bill of lading by’ibicuruzwa ivuga ko ari ibya Kasese Distillers Ltd kuko iyi sosiyete yavugaga ko izo nyandiko yazibonye bwa mbere igeze mu rubanza, rwanzura ko nta bimenyetso bifatika kandi bidashidikanywaho New Kigali Business Services Ltd yagaragaje byerekana ko ibicuruzwa yamenyekanishije ari ibya

1 Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro ntabwo cyari umuburanyi muri urwo rubanza

## Page 192

158 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Kasese Distillers Ltd n’uburyo byaburiwe irengero, bityo ko nta gihindutse ku mikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe. [7] New Kigali Business Services Ltd yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ivuga ko kuba yaramenyekanishije ibicuruzwa bikiri ku cyambu cya Dar-Es-Salaam nta makosa arimo, ndetse ko kuba ibyo bicuruzwa bitarageze mu Rwanda atariyo yabibazwa cyangwa ngo ibiryorezwe umusoro n’ibihano, ahubwo ko byabazwa Kasese Distillers Ltd n’umwikorezi wayo, isaba ko uburyozwe bushyirwa kuri nyir’ibicuruzwa. [8] Kasese Distillers Ltd yireguye ivuga ko hari ibimenyetso bigaragaza ko habayeho ikurikirana ry’icyaha cyo kunyereza umusoro, ko iyo nzitizi yatanzwe ku rwego rwa mbere, Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge rusanga nta shingiro ifite, ibijuririye, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwibagirwa kuyisuzuma, isaba Urukiko rw’Ubujurire gutesha agaciro imanza zose zaciwe kuko ikirego cyagombaga kuburanishwa n’inkiko mpanabyaha, ariko rwabibona ukundi, rukemeza ko ubujurire nta shingiro bufite kubera ko New Kigali Business Services Ltd itashoboye kugaragaza ibimenyetso bifatika kandi bidashidikanywaho bihamya ko hari ibicuruzwa bya Kasese Distillers Ltd yamenyekanishije. [9] Mu rubanza RCOMAA 00038/2019/CA rwaciwe ku wa 06/12/2019, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwasanze ikirego cyatanzwe kidafite kamere y’ikirego nshinjabyaha, rwemeza ko inzitizi ya Kasese Distillers Ltd nta shingiro ifite, naho ku bijyanye n’imizi y’urubanza, rusanga New Kigali Business Services Ltd itagaragaza uburyo Kasese Distillers Ltd yayihaye Certificate of origin, Facture Commerciale na Lettre de chargement iburanisha cyane cyane ko imyirondoro ya Kasese Distillers Ltd yanditse kuri izo nyandiko idahura n’imyirondoro yayo y’ukuri ndetse

## Page 193

159 NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES Ltd v KASESE DISTILLERS Ltd

Rutagengwa Emmanuel, umuyobozi wa New Kigali Business Services Ltd akaba ahamya ko hari hashize amezi atandatu badakorera Kasese Distillers Ltd imenyekanishamusoro, rwanzura ko ubujurire bwa New Kigali Business Services Ltd nta shingiro bufite, ko nta gihindutse ku mikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe. [10] Ku wa 05/01/2020, New Kigali Business Services Ltd, yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga isaba ko urubanza RCOMAA 00038/2019/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 06/12/2019, rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Mu cyemezo 261/CJ/2020 cyo ku wa 18/05/2020, Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga amaze gusuzuma ubwo busabe, yemeje ko rwoherezwa mu Bwanditsi bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kugira ngo ruzongere ruburanishwe. [11] Iburanisha mu ruhame ryabaye ku wa 12/01/2021, ku wa 15/03/2021 no ku wa 12/10/2021, New Kigali Business Services Ltd ihagarariwe na Me Ngirumpetse Jean Marie Vianney, naho Kasese Distillers Ltd ihagarariwe na Me Butare Emmanuel na Me Nsengiyumva Abel. [12] Urukiko rwabanje gusuzuma ibijyanye n’inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego yatanzwe na Kasese Distillers Ltd yavugaga ko inkiko z’ubucuruzi zitari zifite ububasha bwo kuburanisha uru rubanza kubera ko ikirego cyatanzwe cyari icy’inshinjabyaha. [13] Ku wa 12/01/2021, Urukiko rwafatiye icyemezo mu ntebe, rusanga iyi nzitizi yari yaratanzwe mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire, urwo Rukiko ruyifataho umwanzuro, Kasese Distillers Ltd ntiyigera igaragaza ko itanyuzwe, bityo ko hashingiwe ku murongo uru Rukiko rwatanze mu rubanza Prime

## Page 194

160 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Insurance Ltd yaburanaga na Kansiime James,2 w’uko umuburanyi adashobora kuririra ku kirego cy’akarengane cyatanzwe n’uwo baburana ngo nawe agire ibyo anenga urubanza rwari rwamunyuze, rusanga iyo nzitizi nta shingiro ifite, rwemeza ko iburanisha rikomeza hasuzumwa ibibazo bigize imizi y’urubanza. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO 1. Kumenya niba Kasese Distillers Ltd ariyo ikwiye kuryozwa imisoro n’ibihano byaciwe New Kigali Business Services Ltd [14] Me Ngirumpetse Jean Marie Vianney, uburanira New Kigali Business Services Ltd avuga ko akarengane kayo gashingiye ku kuba harirengagijwe ibimenyetso byari muri dosiye byerekana ko hari ibicuruzwa Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda) yatumije mu mahanga kandi ko yahaye New Kigali Business Services Ltd inshingano zo kuyimenyekanishiriza umusoro. Asobanura ko izi sosiyete zombi zatangiye gukorana mu mwaka wa 2015 nk’uko bigaragazwa n’amamenyekanishamusoro (déclarations) ari muri dosiye, ko Kasese Distillers Ltd yabanzaga kuyiha bonds kugira ngo hakorwe imenyekanishamusoro, igakurikizaho Bill of lading kugira ngo hakorwe inyemezabuguzi (iya EBM n‘isanzwe), umusoro wishyuzwa waba urenze 500.000 Frw, ikishyura ikoresheje sheki. Avuga ko iyo mikoranire itasabaga byanze bikunze amasezerano yanditse ahubwo ko akenshi yari ishingiye

2 Urubanza RS/INJUST/RCOM 00005/2018/SC rwaciwe ku wa 12/06/2020, para 41.

## Page 195

161 NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES Ltd v KASESE DISTILLERS Ltd

ku cyizere, inyandiko zigahererekanywa mu ntoki, Kasese Distillers Ltd ikagumana imyimerere y’inyandiko yatanze. [15] Avuga ko Certificat d’enregistrement igaragaza imyirondoro ya Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda), Bill of lading, Packing list, Commercial invoice, Certificate of origin n’urutonde rw’abashoferi n’amakamyo ya Freight World Ltd yikoreye ibicuruzwa, bigahamya ko hari ibicuruzwa byatumijwe ku myirondoro na TIN 102959519 bya Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda). Asobanura ko impapuro z’umwimerere z’ibicuruzwa zahawe Byekwaso Rogers, nyiri Kasese Distillers Ltd (Uganda), nawe azishyikiriza Ruzindana Hassan, wari ushinzwe gushakira Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda) umu déclarant i Kigali, uyu akaba ariwe wahaye New Kigali Business Services Ltd inyandiko iburanisha, ibyo bikaba bigaragazwa na e-mails bahererekanyije n’inyandiko Byekwaso Rogers yahaye abashoferi ba Freight World Ltd bikoreye ibicuruzwa. [16] Avuga ko hejuru y’ibyo, hari ikirego Byekwaso Rogers, nyiri Kasese Distillers Ltd (Uganda), mother company ya Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda) yatanze kuri Polisi ya Nyakato (Mwanza) muri Tanzania, avuga ko ibicuruzwa bye byibwe, hakaba email Byekwaso Rogers yandikiye Rutayisire Emmanuel, Umuyobozi wa Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda), amumenyesha ko ibicuruzwa byibwe, uyu nawe akayoherereza New Kigali Business Services Ltd, ndetse ko hari n’amabaruwa Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyandikiye Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda) kiyimenyesha ko yanyereje umusoro, uwo musoro ukaba waraciwe New Kigali Business Services Ltd nk‘umwishingizi wayo. Asoza avuga ko ibi bimenyetso byose byirengagijwe n’inkiko nyamara bigaragaza ko ibicuruzwa byabayeho, akaba ari ibya Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda) kandi

## Page 196

162 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ko New Kigali Business Services Ltd yari yarahawe inshingano zo kuyimenyekanishiriza umusoro, ariyo mpamvu isaba kurenganurwa, uru Rukiko rukemeza ko nyir’ibicuruzwa ariwe ukwiye kubiryorezwa umusoro n’ibihano. [17] Rutayisire Emmanuel, Umuyobozi wa Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda), avuga ko iyi sosiyete ari iye ku giti cye guhera mu mwaka wa 2014, ikaba ntaho ihuriye na Kasese Distillers Ltd (Uganda), ko ikorera i Kigali kandi ko nta bicuruzwa yigeze itumiza mu mahanga ku wa 13/06/2016. Avuga ko amakuru y’ibyo bicuruzwa no kuba New Kigali Business Services Ltd yarabimenyekanishirije umusoro yayamenye bwa mbere ku wa 30/06/2016, ayabwiwe na Murekatete Sonia, umukozi wa New Kigali Business Services Ltd, akaba yibaza uburyo yari kurangura Ibicuruzwa ntabimenye, inyandiko z’umwimerere yabiranguriyeho n’iz’Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro zigahabwa aba déclarants atabizi. [18] Avuga ko hashize igihe, Murekatete Sonia yamusabye nimero za telefoni za Byekwaso Rogers, amubwira ko ibicuruzwa byari ibye kandi ko byibwe, naho Rutagengwa Emmanuel, Umuyobozi wa New Kigali Business Services Ltd amubwira ko aba fraudeurs bashutse umukozi we akora inyandiko zituma ibicuruzwa byoherezwa mu Rwanda. Avuga ko, kubera ko yari azi ko Byekwaso Rogers asanzwe anyereza imisoro, kuva ubwo yagize amakenga atangira kujya afata Murekatete Sonia amajwi, akaba asanga rero nta karengane kabaye mu rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire. [19] Me Butare Emmanuel na Me Nsengiyumva Abel, baburanira Kasese Distillers Ltd bavuga ko New Kigali Business Services Ltd yabajijwe ibimenyetso byerekana ko hari akazi yahawe, yerekana Certificate of origin na Bill of lading nyamara

## Page 197

163 NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES Ltd v KASESE DISTILLERS Ltd

izo nyandiko Kasese Distillers Ltd itazizi, zitanditswe ku myirondoro yayo, ko hari naho yabajijwe amerekezo y’ibicuruzwa, ivuga ko byohererejwe Kasese Distillers Ltd (Uganda). Basobanura ko kuba New Kigali Business Services Ltd yarigeze gukorana na Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda) atari ikimenyetso gihamya ko mu mwaka wa 2016 yayihaye inshingano zo kumenyekanisha ibicuruzwa byayo, ko Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda) itashoboraga gutumiza ibicuruzwa hanze y’igihugu ku wa 13/06/2016 kandi yari yarahagaritswe by’agateganyo na Rwanda Bureau of Standards (RBS), ko n’ibyo yari yaratumije mbere y’uko ihagarikwa, byinjiye mu gihugu ibanje kubisabira uruhushya, bihageze RBS ibifungirana mu bubiko kuko itari yakadohorewe. [20] Bavuga ko Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda) imaze kwemererwa gukomeza gukora, yahereye kuri spirit yari isanganywe mu bubiko, yongera gutumiza ibicuruzwa mu mahanga ku wa 24/04/2017, ko n’ibivugwa na New Kigali Business Services Ltd ko hari e-mails zihuza Byekwaso Rogers na Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda) cyangwa ko Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyemeje ko ibicuruzwa byari ibyayo kubera ko byatumijwe ku myirondoro no kuri TIN byayo nta shingiro bikwiye guhabwa kubera ko emails na Bill of lading zitagaragaramo Byekwaso Rogers cyangwa Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda), kandi Murekatete Sonia, umukozi wa New Kigali Business Services Ltd akaba yarivugiye ko yari yaribwiye ko Byekwaso Rogers ari we nyiri Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda). Bavuga ko iyi sosiyete yamenye iby’ibura ry’ibicuruzwa ibibwiwe na New Kigali Business Services Ltd nyuma y’ibyumweru bitatu byibwe, ko itazi n’uburyo New Kigali Business Services Ltd yabonye inyandiko iburanisha kuko atariyo yazitanze, bityo Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda) ikaba

## Page 198

164 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

itaryozwa magendu yashatse gukorwa na Kasese Distillers Ltd (Uganda) kuko itari ishami ryayo cyangwa ngo ibe umunyamigabane wayo. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [21] Ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko N° 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo iteganya ko ibimenyetso bihamya amasezerano cyangwa ibindi bikorwa bishobora gutangwa hakoreshejwe inyandiko, ubuhamya, uburyo bwo gucukumbura, ukwiyemerera k’umuburanyi cyangwa herekanywe ibindi bintu bifatika. [22] Ingingo ya 75 y’Itegeko No 45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, iteganya ko ibisanzwe bimenyerewe gukorwa mu bucuruzi bishingira ku miterere y’ubwo bucuruzi. Iyo ibyo bimenyerewe byashyizwe mu gitabo cy’amategeko agenga ubucuruzi cyangwa mu kindi gitabo byenda gusa, isesengurwa ryayo rikorwa n’urukiko hakurikijwe amategeko. [23] Iyo izi ngingo z’amategeko zisomewe hamwe ndetse zigahuzwa na kamere y’ibirego by’ubucuruzi, zumvikanisha ko ibikorwa by’ubucuruzi bitagombera byanze bikunze amasezerano yanditse, ahubwo bishobora kugaragazwa hashingiwe ku bimenyetso by’ubwoko bwose harimo n’ubutumwa impande zombi zahererekanyije (correspondance) inyemezabwishyu (factures), ibitabo n’inyandiko by’ibaruramari, ubuhamya cyangwa ibindi bintu bifatika. Byongeye kandi Urukiko ubwarwo, mu bushishozi bwarwo, nirwo rusuzuma niba inyandiko zishingirwaho nk’ibimenyetso

## Page 199

165 NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES Ltd v KASESE DISTILLERS Ltd

mu manza z’ubucuruzi zikiranuye kandi zifitanye isano na kamere y’ikiburanwa. [24] Ku bijyanye n’ireme ry’inyandiko zishingirwaho mu manza z’ubucuruzi cyangwa uburemere bw’inyandiko zitangwa nk’ibimenyetso mu manza z’ubucuruzi (force probante / probative value), uru Rukiko rwabisobanuye mu rubanza ROCK GLOBAL CONSULTING Ltd yaburanaga na IMPACT DISTRIBUTORS EAST AFRICA Ltd aho rwavuze ko mu gusuzuma niba harabayeho imikoranire hagati y’abacuruzi bidasaba buri gihe ko hagaragazwa ibimenyetso simusiga, ahubwo ko hitabwa ku buryo abacuruzi basanzwe bakorana hanyuma hagasuzumwa agaciro gakwiye guhabwa ibimenyetso biba byagaragarijwe Urukiko.3 [25] Urukiko rurasanga iri hame ry’uko mu manza z’ubucuruzi nta busumbane bw’ibimenyetso bubaho, ari naryo rishimangirwa n’inkiko z’ahandi, by’umwihariko mu rubanza rwa Unidare Plc v Cohen and Another, Urukiko Rukuru rwa Wales and England rukaba rwarasanze iyo hagaragajwe inyandiko zerekana uburyo ibikorwa by’ubucuruzi byagenze, kandi koko bikaba bigaragara ko bene ibyo bikorwa bisanzwe bikorwa muri ubwo buryo bwagaragajwe, Urukiko rukwiye gufata ko uburyo byagaragajwe ari uko byakozwe,4 ibi ni nabyo bigarukwaho n’abahanga mu mategeko y’ubucuruzi aho bavuga

3 Reba urubanza RCOMA0041/13/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 3 Werurwe 2016, kuva ku gika cya 8 kugeza ku gika cya 12. 4… When parties to a transaction involving the execution of multiple documents intend them to be executed in a particular order which is necessary to give effect to the intended transaction, the Court should be ready to presume that they were executed in the correct order to give effect to the transaction. Reba Unidare Plc v Cohen and Dermot Power [2006] Ch 489, para 19.

## Page 200

166 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ko kuba mu manza z’ubucuruzi hashobora gushingirwa ku bimenyetso by’ubwoko bwose, bivuze ko atari ngombwa ko iteka hagaragazwa umwimerere w’inyandiko ababuranyi bashingiraho nk’ibimenyetso.5 [26] Hashingiwe ku mahame agenga ibimenyetso mu manza z’ubucuruzi amaze gusobanurwa, Urukiko rurasanga mu gihe ababuranyi bemera ko bari basanzwe bakorana, bikanagaragazwa n’impapuro z’imenyekanishamusoro ziri muri dosiye, kuba nta masezerano y’imikoranire yanditse yabaye hagati ya New Kigali Business Services Ltd na Kasese Distillers Ltd, sibyo bivanaho ko iyo mikoranire yabayeho hagati y’izo sosiyete. [27] Ku bivugwa na Kasese Distillers Ltd by’uko ikigaragaza ko atari yo yatumye New Kigali Business Services Ltd kuyimenyekanishiriza ibicuruzwa ari uko ku nyandiko iburanisha handitseho ko ikorera Nyagatare kandi aderesi yayo ari Nyarugenge, Urukiko rurasanga uwo mwirondoro wa Nyagatare waratanzwe na Rutayisire Emmanuel, nyiri Kasese Distillers Ltd, ubwo yandikishaga iyo sosiyete muri Rwanda Development Board (RDB), iyo aderesi ikaba ariyo yakomeje gukoreshwa n’iyo sosiyete itumiza ibicuruzwa byayo mu mahanga, nk’uko bigaragazwa n’inyandiko zinyuranye ziri muri dosiye, zirimo: - Full registration for foreign company na Certificate of foreign company registration. - Inyandiko y’ubugure bw’imigabane (Shares Sale Agreement) ya Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda)

5 La liberté de preuves à l’égard des commerçants exclut … la formalité du double original. Reba Memento Expert, Baux Commerciaux 2015-2016, Francis Lefebvre, Levallois, 2015, verbo 19105. Reba kandi Georges Decocq na Aurélie Ballot-Léna, Droit Commercial, Paris, Dalloz, 2015, pp. 84-85.

## Page 201

167 NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES Ltd v KASESE DISTILLERS Ltd

yakozwe ku wa 17/11/2014 igaragaza ko sosiyete iguzwe na Rutayisire Emmanuel, ubarizwa mu Karere ka Nyagatare, Umurenge wa Rwempasha. - Inyandiko yitwa Certificate of origin yakozwe na Superior Spirits PvT Ltd ku wa 06/05/2016 na Bill of lading yakozwe na Mideterranean Shipping Company S.A. ku wa 22/05/2016 bigaragaza ko uwaguze ibicuruzwa biri kuri izo nyandiko kandi ari nawe ugomba kubyohererezwa ari Kasese Distillers Ltd, Iburasirazuba, Nyagatare, Kigali, Rwanda. [28] Urukiko rurasanga kandi mu bimenyetso Kasese Distillers Ltd iburanisha, kuba ntaho igaragaza ko mu Rwanda haba hari indi sosiyete byitiranwa ikorera Nyagatare mu Ntara y’Iburasirazuba ku buryo, bayigeretseho inshingano z’iyo sosiyete yindi kubera kutabasha kuzitandukanya, nabyo bigaragaza ko ibyo ivuga ko atariyo yatumije ibicuruzwa bivugwa muri uru rubanza nta shingiro bifite. [29] Ku bivugwa nanone na Kasese Distillers Ltd ko nta bicuruzwa yari yararanguye mu mahanga mu mwaka wa 2016, Urukiko rurasanga ataribyo ku mpamvu zikurikira: - Muri dosiye hagaragaramo inyandiko yitwa “Batch Certificate of Analysis” yakozwe n’uruganda rwa Superior Spirits Pvt Ltd ku wa 06/05/2016 igaragaza ko haguzwe amalitiro 198.000 ya Ethyl Alcohol (Extra Neutral Alcohol) AT Min 96%, akaba yarapakiwe muri container esheshatu zikurikira: MEDU 8229568, MEDU 8532194, MEDU 8795502, MEDU 8883007, GLDU 7375930 na MESU 8533288. Urwo ruganda rwakoze kandi indi nyandiko yitwa Certificate of Origin ku wa 06/05/2016,

## Page 202

168 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

igaragaza ko nyir’ibyo bicuruzwa ari Kasese Distillers Ltd, Iburasirazuba, Nyagatare, Kigali, Rwanda kandi ko ibicuruzwa bivuye ahitwa Ludhiana, mu Buhindi, bikazanyuzwa Dar-Es Salaam, Tanzania, byerekeza mu Rwanda. - Dosiye y’urubanza na none igaragaramo Bill of Lading yakozwe ku wa 22/05/2016 igaragaza containers zavuzwe haruguru, ikavuga ko ari iza Kasese Distillers Ltd, Iburasirazuba, Nyagatare, Kigali, Rwanda. Ivuga kandi ko ibicuruzwa byoherejwe mu Rwanda (country of final destination), bikaba bigaragara ko Freight World yaje koherereza Kasese Distillers Ltd iyi nyandiko ku wa 30/05/2016 no ku wa 01/06/2016, ariko na nyuma yaho yohererezwa Rutayisire Emmanuel muri email yo ku wa 13/08/2016. [30] Urukiko rurasanga kandi ku wa 28/06/2016, Freight World yari yikoreye ibicuruzwa ibizanye i Kigali yaramenyesheje New Kigali Business Services Ltd ko byapakururiwe mu nzira ndetse ko amakamyo yatangiye gusubira Dar-Es-Salaam, iyisaba kubikurikirana ibaza uwitwa Byekwaso Rogers kuko uyu yari i Kigali. Bigaragara kandi ko ku wa 03/08/2016, Umuyobozi wa Nyakato Police Station (Tanzania) yandikiye Kasese Distillers Ltd, Kigali, Rwanda, ayimenyesha ko containers zikurikira MEDU 8229568, MEDU 8532194, MEDU 8795502, MEDU 8883007, GLDU 7375930 na MESU 8533288, zari zerekeje i Kigali zibwe kandi ko iperereza rigikomeza, muri urwo rwandiko havugwamo ko ibyibwe byari umutungo ubaruwe kuri Rogers S/O Byekwaso, naho ku wa 07/10/2016 Byekwaso Rogers yandikiye Rutayisire Emmanuel, Umuyobozi wa Kasese Distillers Ltd, amusaba ko mu gihe

## Page 203

169 NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES Ltd v KASESE DISTILLERS Ltd

ihamagara ry’Urukiko rwa Mwanza (Tanzania) rwaregewe ubujura ribonetse yahita abimumenyesha (please let me know as soon as you recorve (sic) it), ku wa 27/10/2016, Byekwaso Rogers yongera kumwandikira ariko anamenyesha New Kigali Business Services Ltd aboherereza ihamagara ry’Urukiko. [31] Urukiko rurasanga containers Polisi ya Nyakato yavuze ko zaburiwe irengero ari zimwe n’izari kuri Bill of Lading, Certificate of Origin na Batch Certificate of Analysis, zikaba zari zohererejwe Kasese Distillers Ltd nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru; ubwo kandi ibicuruzwa byari bimaze gupakururirwa mu nzira, Rutayisire Emmanuel, nyiri Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda) yarabimenyeshejwe ndetse atangira kubishakisha, bikaba bitumvikana uburyo yavuga ko sosiyete ye ntaho ihuriye n’ibyo bicuruzwa ngo bibe byaramushishikaje ako kageni abishakisha kugeza ubwo yiyambaje Polisi n’Inkiko za Tanzania. [32] Urukiko rurasanga kandi ibyo Kasese Distillers Ltd ivuga ko itari gutumiza ibyo bicuruzwa mbere yo ku wa 08/09/2016 kuko yari yarahagaritswe mu mirimo yayo na Rwanda Bureau of Standard ndetse itemerewe gutumiza spirits mu mahanga nta shingiro bikwiye guhabwa kubera ko nubwo ku wa 28/09/2015 yabujijwe kwinjiza mu gihugu izindi spirits itarakemura ikibazo cyo gukorera inzoga mu macupa ya pulastiki, ntibyayibujije kurenga kuri icyo cyemezo nk’uko byerekanywa n’ibimenyetso byagaragajwe haruguru. Ibi kandi Rutayisire Emmanuel, nyiri Kasese Distillers Ltd yabyiyemereye mu kiganiro yakoranye na Murekatete Sonia nkuko bigaragazwa n’amajwi yashyizwe muri dosiye. [33] Ku bijyanye n’ukwiye kuryozwa imisoro, Urukiko rurasanga Komiseri wa za Gasutamo yarafashe icyemezo nimero 1776/RRA/CCS/OAU/2016 kimenyesha New Kigali Business

## Page 204

170 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Services Ltd ko mu gihe ariyo yishingiye ibicuruzwa yamenyekanishirije umusoro bikaburirwa irengero bikiri mu nzira, ariyo igomba kwishyura ingwate ku musoro ingana na 57.894.334 Frw n’ihazabu ingana na 94.270.996 Frw. Iki cyemezo cyafashwe hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 147 ya East African Community Customs Management Act, 2004 ivuga ko iyo hakozwe amakosa atuma ibicuruzwa bitagera aho byari byerekeje, umenyekanishije umusoro afatwa nka nyir’ibicuruzwa akaryozwa imisoro n’amahoro nkaho ari we nyirabyo,6 bityo ko mu gihe hatagaragajwe ko ibicuruzwa byibwe kugira ngo umusoro wishyuwe usubizwe nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 144 y’iryo Tegeko,7 uwabimenyekanishirije umusoro ariwe uryozwa inkurikizi zo kuba ibicuruzwa bitarageze mu Rwanda. [34] Urukiko rurasanga mu gihe New Kigali Business Services Ltd yaciwe umusoro n’ihazabu ku bicuruzwa bya Kasese Distillers Ltd, kuko n’ubwo iyi sosiyete ivuga ko nta bicuruzwa yigeze itumiza mu mahanga, ibimenyetso byose byagaragajwe haruguru byerekana ko ariyo yabitumije; Kasese Distillers Ltd ikaba itabasha kugaragaza ko ibyo bicuruzwa byibwe koko nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 144 ya East African Community

6 A duly authorized agent who performs any act on behalf of the owner of any goods shall, for the purpose of this act, be deemed to be the owner of such goods, and shall accordingly, be personally liable for the payment of any duties to which the goods are liable and for the performance of all acts in respect of the goods which the owner is required to perform under this Act: Provided that nothing herein contained shall relieve the owner of such goods from such liability. 7 (1) Subject to any regulations, the Commissioner shall refund any customs duty paid on the importation of the goods- a) Of any import duty, or part thereof which has been paid in respect of goods which have been … pillaged during the voyage…

## Page 205

171 NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES Ltd v KASESE DISTILLERS Ltd

Customs Management Act, 2004 yibukijwe haruguru. Niyo rero igomba kuryozwa umusoro n’ibihano nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 148 ya East African Community Customs Management Act, 2004, ivuga ko iyo uwakoze imenyekanishamusoro mu izina rya nyir’ibicuruzwa nta makosa yakoze mu nshingano ze, nyir’ibicuruzwa watanze izo nshingano zo kumenyekanishirizwa umusoro ari we uryozwa ibikorwa byose n’imenyekanishamusoro byakozwe n’intumwa ye.8 [35] Hashingiwe ku bimaze gusobanurwa haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga Kasese Distillers Ltd ariyo igomba kwishyura umusoro ungana na 57.894.334 Frw n’ihazabu ingana na 94.270.996 Frw, byose hamwe bingana na 152.165.330 Frw, byaciwe New Kigali Business Services Ltd kuko Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda) itabashije kugaragaza impamvu ibicuruzwa byayo bitageze mu Rwanda. 2. Kumenya niba Ikigo cy’imisoro n’Amahôro cyaragombaga kugenerwa igihembo cya Avoka kandi kitarabaye umuburanyi [36] Me Ngirumpetse Jean Marie Vianney, uburanira New Kigali Business Services Ltd, avuga ko iyi sosiyete itagombaga gucibwa igihembo cya Avoka cyagenewe Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro kandi iki kigo kitarabaye umuburanyi mu rubanza.

8 An owner of any goods who authorizes an agent to act for him or her in relation to such goods for any of the purposes of this Act shall be liable for acts and declarations of such duly authorized agent …”

## Page 206

172 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [37] Ingingo ya 111 y’Itgeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi igira iti: ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza ni ikirego gishamikiye ku kirego cy’iremezo kigamije kwishyuza ibyakoreshejwe mu rubanza. Ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza kiburanishirizwa rimwe n’ikirego cy’iremezo. Gishobora kandi kwakirwa kikanaburanishwa n’iyo ikirego cy’iremezo cyaba kitakiriwe.” Hakurikijwe ibivugwa muri iyi ngingo, ushobora guhabwa amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza ni uwarubayemo, akishyuza ibyo yakoresheje arukurikirana, harimo n’ibyo yishyuye Avoka. [38] Urukiko rurasanga, n’ubwo muri dosiye hagaragaramo urubanza RCOM 00492/2017/TC/NYGE rwaciwe ku wa 15/09/2017, Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge rwategetsemo New Kigali Business Services Ltd guha Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro igihembo cya Avoka kingana na 500.000 Frw, bigaragara ko urwo rubanza rutandukanye n’urubanza RCOM 02196/2017/TC/NYGE rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge ku wa 10/05/2018 ari narwo rukomokaho ikirego kiri mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro kitarurezwemo. [39] Urukiko rurasanga kuba Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwarategetse New Kigali Business Services Ltd kwishyura Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro igihembo cya Avoka kandi kitari umuburanyi mu rubanza, harabayeho kwibeshya, bityo igihembo cya Avoka cyagenewe icyo Kigo mu rubanza RCOM 02196/2017/NYGE kikaba kigomba kuvaho.

## Page 207

173 NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES Ltd v KASESE DISTILLERS Ltd

3. Kumenya niba indishyi zisabwa zifite ishingiro [40] Me Ngirumpetse Jean Marie Vianney avuga ko kuba Kasese Distillers Ltd yarakoze amakosa yo kutageza mu Rwanda ibicuruzwa yari yasabye ko bimenyekanishirizwa umusoro, byateje New Kigali Business Services Ltd aburanira akababaro n’igihombo mu buryo bukurikira: - Yaterewe icyizere n’urwego rwa Leta rubagenzura. - Yabuze amafaranga yari kwinjiza kuko yahagaritswe gukora guhera ku itariki ya 28/06/2016 kugeza uyu munsi. - Yatakaje amafaranga akurikirana uburenganzira bwayo mu nzego za Leta no mu nkiko. [41] Avuga ko kubera izo mpamvu, asaba uru Rukiko gutegeka Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda) guha New Kigali Business Services Ltd indishyi z’akababaro zingana na 50.000.000 Frw, 3.000.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka no kuyisubiza 140.000 Frw y’ingwate y’amagarama yatanze mu nkiko. [42] Me BUTARE Emmanuel na Me NSENGIYUMVA Abel, baburanira Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda), bavuga ko ibicuruzwa bivugwa muri uru rubanza atari ibya Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda) kandi ko iyi sosiyete itigeze iha New Kigali Business Services Ltd inshingano zo kuyimenyekanishiriza umusoro, ariyo mpamvu ntacyo ikwiye kuryozwa. Basobanura ko Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda) yakomeje gushorwa mu manza z’amaherere, ikaba ariyo ikwiye guhabwa 3.000.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka nk’uko bigaragazwa n’amasezerano iyo

## Page 208

174 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

sosiyete yagiranye n’abayiburanira na 1.000.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [43] Ingingo ya 111 y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018, ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza ni ikirego gishamikira ku kirego cy’iremezo kigamije kwishyuza ibyakoreshejwe mu rubanza. Ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza kiburanishirizwa rimwe n’ikirego cy’iremezo. Gishobora kandi kwakirwa kikanaburanishwa n’iyo ikirego cy’iremezo cyaba kitakiriwe. [44] Urukiko rurasanga amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza New Kigali Business Services Ltd isaba, igomba kuyahabwa kuko byabaye ngombwa gukurikirana urubanza no gushaka uyunganira. Icyakora kubera ko 3.000.000 Frw isaba itagaragaza uburyo ariyo yagiye kuri uru rubanza, mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko ikaba igenewe 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 300.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza, yose hamwe akaba 800.000 Frw. [45] Ku bijyanye n’indishyi z’akababaro New Kigali Business Services Ltd isaba, Urukiko rurasanga atari ubwa mbere iki kibazo gisuzumwa n’inkiko kuko mu rubanza Bralirwa Ltd yaburanaga na Kazigaba André na bagenzi be, Bralirwa Ltd yasabye indishyi z’akababaro zishingiye ku kuba mu makosa menshi yaregaga Kazigaba André na bagenzi be harimo no gushaka kuyumvisha no kuyisuzugura. Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwasanze indishyi zisabwa nta shingiro zifite kubera ko bene izo

## Page 209

175 NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES Ltd v KASESE DISTILLERS Ltd

ndishyi zigenwa hashingiwe ku ihungabana ry’amarangamutima umuntu (personne physique) yagize, bityo ko uko guhungabana kudashoboka ku bisamuntu (personne morale).9 [46] Urukiko rurasanga icyakora inkiko z’ibindi bihugu zaravuye kuri uwo murongo. Urugero ni urubanza rwari hagati ya Jafa na La Pizzeria, sosiyete ebyiri zo mu Bufaransa. Urukiko Rusesa Imanza mu Bufaransa rwasanze Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwa Pau rwarakoze amakosa yo kudaha ishingiro ikirego cy’izo sosiyete gisaba indishyi z’akababaro, rwemeza ko, kuri iyo ngingo, urubanza rusheshwe ibintu bigasubira uko byari biri kugira ngo rwongere ruburanishwe.10 Naho mu rubanza Metropolitan International Schools Limited yaburanaga na Designtechnica Corporation, Google UK Ltd na Google Inc, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubwongereza rwasanze kuba Designtechnica Corporation yaravuze ko icyo kigo gikora uburiganya n’ubujura kibwira abanyeshuli ko kibigisha bataje ku ishuri (distance learning) byasebeje Metropolitan International Schools Limited bituma abanyeshuli bacika intege zo kucyiyandikishaho, rwemeza ko gihabwa indishyi z’akababaro zingana na 50.000 £.11

9 Reba urubanza RCOMAA 0015/14/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 23/06/2017, igika cya 39. 10 Attendu que pour rejeter les demandes de la sosciété La Pizzeria et de la société Jafa au titre du préjudice moral, l’arrȇt retient que s’agissant des sociétés elles ne peuvent prétendre à un quelconque préjudice moral; …Casse et Annule, mais seulement en ce qu’il a rejeté les demandes des sociétés La Pizzeria et Jafa au titre du préjudice moral, l’arrȇt rendu le 12 juillet 2010, … remet en conséquence, sur ce point, la cause et les parties dans l’état ou elles se trouvaient avant ledit arrȇt… Reba urubanza Com. 15 mai 2012, no 11-10- 278 Bulletin Civil IV n° 101. 11 Metropolitan Internationa Schools Ltd v Designtechnica Corporation, Google UK Ltd na Google Inc, [2010] EWHC 2411 (QB) 35.

## Page 210

176 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[47] Urukiko rurasanga kandi n’Urukiko rw’Uburayi rushinzwe uburenganzira bw’ikiremwamuntu, rwarabigarutseho mu rubanza Comingersoll S.A. yaburanaga na Portugal, ruvuga ko ataribyo gufata icyemezo rusange cy’uko sosiyete zidakwiye guhabwa indishyi z’akababaro hatitawe ku mwihariko wa buri rubanza. Rwasobanuye ko akamaro k’indishyi z’akababaro ari ukugaruza agaciro (réputation) sosiyete iba yaratakaje, rimwe na rimwe kakaba kadashobora gushyirwa mu mibare mu buryo bufatika.12 [48] Urukiko rurasanga umurongo Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwari rwaragendeyeho mu gufata icyemezo mu rubanza Bralirwa Ltd yaburanaga na Kazigaba André na bagenzi be, rwifashishije inyandiko z’abahanga,13 ariwo inkiko z’ibindi bihugu zasubiyeho, ndetse n’inyandiko nshya z’abahanga mu mategeko mbonezamubano zivuga ko utakijyanye n’igihe. Muribo hari Véronique Wester Ouisse uvuga ko ntawari ukwiye guhakana ko sosiyete zishobora gusaba indishyi z’akababaro kubera ko nk’uko bimeze ku bantu, icyubahiro cyazo, icyizere zifitiwe n’uburyo zifatwa muri rubanda bishobora kubangamirwa kandi bikagira ingaruka ku mibereho yazo, bityo ko ikibazo kidakwiye kureberwa gusa ku bikorwa by’ubucuruzi. Icyakora, asobanura

12 On ne doit pas) écarter de manière générale la possibilité d’octroyer une réparation pour le prejudice moral allégué par les personnes morales; cela dépend des circonstances de chaque espèce… Le préjudice autre que matériel peut en effet comporter, pour une telle société, des éléments plus au moins objectifs et subjectifs. Parmi ces éléments, il faut réconnaitre la réputation de l’entreprise, mais également l’incertitude dans la planification des décisions à prendre, les troubles causés à la gestion de l’entreprise elle-mȇme, dont les conséquences ne se pretent pas à un calcul exact… Reba Comingersoll S.A. Portugal, CEDH, 6 Avril 2000, para 32-37. 13www.business.leschos.fr/entrepreneurs/juridique/10021714-prejudice- moral-d’une societe 34118?pJiLTS CoGVKQ

## Page 211

177 NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES Ltd v KASESE DISTILLERS Ltd

ko sosiyete yifuza indishyi z’akababaro igomba kubanza kugaragaza icyo yangirijwe.14 [49] Naho Philippe Le Tourneau avuga ko nubwo iby’indishyi z’akababaro kuri za sosiyete bishobora gusa n’ibitangaje, bishoboka ko hakwangirizwa ibintu by’ingenzi biyireba kandi bidafite aho bihuriye n’inyungu zayo z’ubucuruzi cyangwa umutungo wayo. Atanga ingero z’umusoreshwa wabeshyera umusoresha ko mu gihe cyo kumusoresha hakoreshejwe inyandikomvugo y’impimbano cyangwa ikirango cya sosiyete y’ubucuruzi gishobora gukoreshwa mu buryo bukabije mu mashusho y’urukozasoni.15 Philippe Malaurie, Laurent Aynès na

14 Au vrai, nul ne disconvient qu’une société commerciale puisse subir un dommage moral, au sens d’une atteinte à la personnalité sociale qu’elle a pu se forger aux yeux du public: la considération, la réputation voire l’honneur ne sont pas propres aux personnes physiques. Mais une société ne devrait pas pouvoir entirer réparation que si un préjudice en résulte. Or, pour admettre qu’elle puisse subir un préjudice moral, il faudrait reconnaitre que son image, son crédit, sa réputation lui servent à autre chose qu’à développer l’activité commerciale qui borne son objet social et donc sa personnalité juridique. Reba Véronique Wester-Ouisse, Le préjudice moral des personnes morales: quand la perversion de la cité commence par la fraude des mots, JCP, G n° 39,24 Septembre 2012. 15 Il peut sembler étrange d’étendre aux personnes morales la notion de préjudice extrapatrimonial…Mais il arrive qu’un dommage véritablement extrapatrimonial soit en cause, en ce sens que le fait dommageable atteint un intérȇt qui ne participe pas du patrimoine de la personne, au sens juridique du terme. Il en va ainsi quand sont atteints certains traits d’une personne morale qui participent de son essence et fondent ainsi son identité foncière, sa personnalité au sens social du terme, si tant qu’elle en ai une… Voici des exemples de préjudice moral, en liaison ou non avec une atteinte à la réputation: ● de l’administration des douanes, pour une inscription de faux faite à tort par un contrevenant contre un procès verbal, …● d’une société,

## Page 212

178 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Philippe Stoffel-Munck, nabo bavuga ko nubwo akababaro ka sosiyete cyangwa ibigo gatandukanye n’ak’abantu ku giti cyabo (personnes physiques), inkiko zemeje ko sosiyete cyangwa ibigo bikwiye kujya bihabwa indishyi z’akababaro kuko bishoboka ko byangirizwa mu cyubahiro (honneur) cyangwa mu buryo zifatwa muri rubanda (réputation).16 [50] Hashingiwe ku bimaze gusobanurwa haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga iby’uko sosiyete z’ubucuruzi cyangwa ibigo bishobora guhabwa indishyi z’akababaro bimaze kuba ihame ry’amategeko agenga uburyozwe. Icyakora izo ndishyi ziba zigamije gusa uburyozwe bushingiye ku buryo rubanda ishobora gutakariza icyizere sosiyete cyangwa ikigo (réputation/reputation) cyangwa bukaba bushingiye ku kugaruza icyubahiro cya sosiyete cyangwa ikigo kubera ko izina ryacyo ryasebejwe (honneur/honor). Ibi byumvikanisha ko ikigo cyangwa sosiyete (k) itasaba indishyi z’akababaro z’uko (c) yatewe agahinda (angoisse/distress), (c) yababajwe ku mubiri cyangwa ku mutima (blessure physique ou mental/ physical or mental hurt) cyangwa (c) yasuzuguwe (humiliation) kuko ibi ari umwihariko w’abantu (personne physique). Byongeye kandi sosiyete ntiyahabwa indishyi z’akababaro itabanje kugaragaza icyo yangirijwe.

dont la marque a été utilisée de façon massive dans un film pornographique, …Reba Philippe Le Tourneau, Droit de la responsabilité et des contrats: Régimes d’Indemnisation, Paris, Dalloz, 2014, 2014, pp.664-665. 16 Les tribunaux admettent la réparation du préjudice moral éprouvé par les personnes morales, bien que ce préjuduce soit différent de celui que subissent les personnes physiques. Il s’agit d’une atteinte à leur patrimoine moral, par exemple leur honneur, …ou leur réputation…Philippe Malaurie, Laurent Aynès na Philippe Stoffel-Munck, Droit des obligations, Paris, LDGJ, 2015, p.126.

## Page 213

179 NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES Ltd v KASESE DISTILLERS Ltd

[51] Urukiko rurasanga kandi indishyi z’akababaro zihabwa sosiyete cyangwa ikigo ziba zigamije gusa kugaruza agaciro iyo sosiyete cyangwa ikigo byatakaje aho kuba ibyo yahombye (restoration de l’honneur ou de la réputation/ restoration of the honor or reputation), bityo mu kuzigena, Urukiko rukaba rusabwa ubushishozi no gushyira mu gaciro bihagije kugira ngo hatazamo gukabya indishyi zatanzwe zikaba nke cyane ku buryo ntacyo zaba zivuze cyangwa zikaba umurengera ku buryo zakwitirwanywa n’indishyi mbonezamusaruro cyangwa iz’igihombo sosiyete cyanga ikigo byatejwe. [52] Urukiko rurasanga hashingiwe ku byagaragajwe haruguru, indishyi z’akababaro New Kigali Business Services Ltd yasabye Kasese Distillers Ltd ikwiye kuzihabwa kubera ko mu maso ya rubanda ndetse no mu maso y’Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro yagaragaye nk’umuhemu bituma inabihanirwa ndetse ikurwa kuri serveur y’aba déclarants biturutse ku makosa ya Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda) yo kuba yarapakururiye ibicuruzwa byayo mu nzira nyuma y’uko bimenyekanishirijwe umusoro mu Rwanda. Icyakora kubera ko miliyoni mirongo itanu (50.000.000 Frw) isaba zikabije kuba nyinshi cyane, Urukiko rurasanga mu bushishozi bwarwo igomba kugenerwa miliyoni imwe (1.000.000 Frw). [53] Ku birebana n’ibyo New Kigali Business Services Ltd isaba byo gusubizwa 140.000 Frw y’amagarama, Urukiko rurasanga kuva urubanza rutangiye, harabayeho ihindagurika ry’amagarama atangwa mu nkiko,17 mu myanzuro ye Me

17 Reba Iteka rya Minisitiri Nº002/08.11 ryo ku wa 11/02/2014 rigena amafaranga atangwa mu manza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ryasimbuwe n’Iteka rya Minisitiri

## Page 214

180 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ngirumpetse Jean Marie Vianney akaba atagaragaza uburyo yageze ku mubare wa 140.000 Frw nta n’ibimenyetso yayatangiyeho yashyize muri dosiye, bityo Urukiko rukaba ntaho rwahera ruyagenera uwo aburanira. [54] Ku bijyanye n’amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda) isaba, Urukiko rurasanga ntayo ikwiriye kubera ko ntacyo itsindiye muri uru rubanza. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [55] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe na New Kigali Business Services Ltd gisaba gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane urubanza RCOMAA 00038/2019/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 06/12/2019, gifite ishingiro. [56] Rwemeje ko urubanza RCOMAA 00038/2019/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 06/12/2019, ruhindutse mu ngingo zarwo zose. [57] Rwemeje ko Kasese Distillers Ltd ariyo igomba kuryozwa imisoro n’ibihano byaciwe New Kigali Business Services Ltd bingana na 152.165.330 Frw. [58] Rutegetse Kasese Distillers Ltd kwishyura New Kigali Business Services Ltd 152.165.330 Frw y’imisoro n’ibihano New Kigali Business Services Ltd yatanze ku bicuruzwa bya Kasese Distillers Ltd.

N°133/moj/ag/18 ryo ku wa 04/06/2018 rigena amafaranga atangwa mu manza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi.

## Page 215

181 NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES Ltd v KASESE DISTILLERS Ltd

[59] Rutegetse Kasese Distillers Ltd kwishyura New Kigali Business Services Ltd 1.000.000 Frw y’indishyi z’akababaro. [60] Rutegetse Kasese Distillers Ltd kwishyura New Kigali Business Services Ltd amafaranga ibihumbi magana atanu (500.000 Frw) y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ibihumbi magana atatu (300.000 Frw) y’ikurikiranarubanza, yose hamwe akaba amafaranga ibihumbi magana inani (800.000 Frw). [61] Ruvuze ko amafaranga ibihumbi magana atanu (500.000 Frw) y’igihembo cya Avoka, New Kigali Business Services Ltd yategetswe guha Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro mu rubanza RCOM 02196/2017/TC/NYGE rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge ku wa 10/05/2018 avuyeho.

## Page 217

183

MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/INJUST/RCOM 00014/2022/SC (Mukamulisa, P.J., Muhumuza na Karimunda, J.) 31 Werurwe 2023] Amategeko agenga imanza z’imbonezamubano – Inshingano – Inshingano z'umwuga – Umukiliya afite inshingano zo kwita ku gatabo k’inyandiko isaba kwishyura cyangwa ubundi buryo ahabwa na banki bwatuma yishyura, ariko ibyo ntibivaniraho banki inshingano yo kugira no gukoresha ubushishozi mbere yo kwishyura. Amategeko agenga imanza z’imbonezamubano – Inshingano – Inshingano z'umwuga – Amafaranga y’umuntu banki ibitse ntagomba gukorwaho nyirayo atabitangiye uruhushya, iyo iyahaye umuntu utabifitiye uburenganzira, bifatwa nk’aho ayo mafaranga atigeze ava kuri konti ye, icyo gihe banki ikaba ariyo ibyirengera. Inyungu z’ubukererwe – Ibarwa ry’inyungu z’ubukererwe – Inyungu z’ubukererwe zibarirwa ku gipimo cy’indishyi zihabwa umuguzi wa serivisi z’imari kidashobora kujya munsi y’ikigereranyo cy’inyungu ku nguzanyo (taux moyen de prêt) ariko zitarenze umwenda wishyuzwa. Incamake y ikibazo: Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge, Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine arega Bank of Kigali (BK) Ltd, avuga ko ubwo yakoraga igenzura kuri konti ze muri iyo Banki, yasanze ku wa 12/08/2015

## Page 218

184 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

uwitwa Twajeneza Olivier yarabikujeho 310.000 Frw kuri konte nº 00051-0609850-07 yabitsaga akanabikuzaho amafaranga y’u Rwanda, naho ku wa 26/08/2015, uwitwa Sinayobye Siméon abikuza 11.500 USD kuri konti Nº 00040-0294342-77 yabitsaga akanabikuzaho amadorari. Avuga ko nyuma y’uko konti ze zivogerewe, yasabye BK Ltd kumusubiza amafaranga n’amadolari yibwe, irabyanga, bituma ahitamo kuregera inkiko. BK Ltd yireguye ivuga ko nta kosa yakoze, isaba ko ikirego cya Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine kitahabwa ishingiro kuko uyu yari afite inshingano zo kubika neza carnet d’ordre de paiement yahawe na banki abajura bifashishije babikuza ayo mafaranga n’ayo madolari kandi ko banki yagenzuye igasanga impapuro zakoreshejwe mu bujura zaratanzwe na nyiri konti ubwe. Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge rwasanze, hari urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge ku wa 18/03/2016, rwahamije Sinayobye Siméon icyaha cyo gukoresha inyandiko mpimbano, igihe yabikuzaga 11.500 USD kuri konti Nº 00040-0294342-77 ya Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine, nkuko nawe abyiyemerera; Inyandiko mvugo z’iperereza zakorewe mu rubanza nshinjabyaha zigaragaza ko umukono (signature) wari uri kuri ordre de paiement yakoreshejwe habikuzwa ayo madolari ari umuhimbano ndetse ko kugira ngo yibwe byagizwemo uruhare n’umukozi wa banki wafashije Sinayobye Siméon; Banki nk’umunyamwuga itarubahirije inshingano zayo zo kurinda amafaranga yari yabikijwe; ariko ko kubirebana na nta bimenyetso bigaragaza ko 310.000 Frw yabikujwe hakoreshejwe sheki y’impimbano, bityo ko ikirego cya Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe, maze rwemeza ko BK Ltd igomba kumusubiza 11.500 USD, hiyongereyeho 2.012 USD, y’indishyi z’igihombo yatejwe na banki (manque à gagner) abariye ku gipimo cya 15%.

## Page 219

185 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

BK Ltd yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ivuga ko itagombaga gutegekwa gusubiza Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine 11.500 USD yabikujwe kuri konti ye, ndetse ko idakwiye no gutegekwa kwishyura inyungu ya 15%, isaba indishyi zo gushorwa mu manza nta mpamvu. Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine yireguye avuga ko ubujurire bwa BK Ltd nta shingiro bugomba guhabwa kuko mu rubanza RCOM 00860/2016/TC/NYGE rwaciwe ku wa 21/10/2016, Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge rwasobanuye ko Banki nk’umunyamwuga itubahirije inshingano zayo zo kurinda konti ze bituma ikura 11.500 USD kuri konti ye. Ku kibazo kijyanye n’inyungu zibariwe kuri 15%, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwasanze BK Ltd itaryozwa ubujura bwakorewe kuri konti ya Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine, bityo ko n’izo nyungu ntacyo ziyirebaho, rwanzura ko ubujurire bwa BK Ltd bufite ishingiro. Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine yandikiye Urwego rw’Umuvunyi asaba ko urubanza RCOMA 00642/2016/CHC/HCC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, avuga ko Sinayobye Siméon yifashishije carnet d’ordre de paiement ye abikuza amafaranga kuri konti ye atabiherewe uburenganzira na nyirayo, bityo ko BK Plc yagize uburangare nk’umunyamwuga, kuko itubahirije inshingano zayo zo kurinda umutekano wa konti y’umukiriya. Mugwaneza avuga kandi ko ku bijyanye na 11.500 USD, mu rubanza RCOM 00860/2016/TC/NYGE, yagenewe inyungu za 15% nyamara amabanki y’ubucuruzi asanzwe abarira inyungu kuri 18%, akaba asaba uru Rukiko gukosora ayo makosa, agabahwa inyungu zibariye ku rugero banki zisanzwe zitangiraho inyungu kuva ku wa 12/08/2015. Avuga ko mu gihe cy’imyaka

## Page 220

186 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

irindwi n’amezi ane n’igice ishize, inyungu agomba kwishyurwa zingana na 15.266,25 USD ariko ko asaba uru Rukiko kuzazibara kugeza urubanza ruciwe; asaba kandi gusubizwa 310.000 frw yakuwe kuri konti ye hiyongereyeho inyungu zayo zibariye kuri 18%. BK Plc yiregura ivuga ko mu masezerano Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine yakoranye na banki buri ruhande rwari rufite inshingano rugomba kwubahiriza, bityo akaba asanga banki idakwiye kuryozwa ayo mafaranga kuko Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine ari we wateshutswe ku nshingano ze zo kwita ku gatabo yahawe na banki, ariyo mpamvu agomba kwirengera ibyabaye kuri konti ye. BK ivuga kandi ko yakoze ubugenzuzi isanga ordre de paiement yakoreshejwe habikuzwa 11.500 USD yaracishijwe mu mashini yabugenewe, hemezwa ko ari iya Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine kandi ko ari we wayisinye, kandi ko mbere y’uko ayo madolari abikuzwa, banki yahamagaye Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine, uyu atanga uruhushya rw’uko uwahawe ordre de paiement yishyurwa. BK ikomeza ivuga ko mu rubanza rw’inshinjabyaha Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine aburanisha, Urukiko rwagaragaje ko umujura ari Sinayobye Siméon, ko ntaho rwagaragaje uruhare urwo arirwo rwose rwa banki mu ibura ry’amadolari aburanwa, ariyo mpamvu asaba uru Rukiko kwemeza ko banki itaryozwa uburangare bwa Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine wateshutse ku nshingano ze zo kurinda neza carnet d’ordres de paiement yahawe. Incamake y icyemezo: 1. Umukiliya afite inshingano zo kwita ku gatabo k’inyandiko isaba kwishyura cyangwa ubundi buryo

## Page 221

187 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

ahabwa na banki bwatuma yishyura, ariko ibyo ntibivanaho inshingano y’ubushishozi kuri banki mbere yo kwishyura; 2. Amafaranga y’umuntu Banki ibitse ntagomba gukorwaho nyirayo atabitangiye uruhushya, iyo iyahaye umuntu utabifitiye uburenganzira, bifatwa nk’aho ayo mafaranga atigeze ava kuri konti ye, icyo gihe banki ikaba ariyo ibyirengera. 3. Inyungu z’ubukererwe zibarirwa ku gipimo cy’indishyi zihabwa umuguzi wa serivisi z’imari kidashobora kujya munsi y’ikigereranyo cy’inyungu ku nguzanyo (taux moyen de prêt) ariko zitarenze umwenda wishyuzwa. Ikirego cyasabaga gusbirishwamo urubanza ku mpavu z akarengane gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe. Amagarama y urubanza ahwanye n ibyarukozwemo. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko nº 47/2017 ryo ku wa 23/9/2017 rigena imitunganyirize y’imirimo y’amabanki, ingingo ya 112. Amabwiriza rusange n° 12/2017 yo ku wa 23/11/2017 ku ishyirwa mu byiciro ry’imyenda no guteganya ingoboka, ingingo ya 8. Itegeko n° 25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha (iyi ngingo niyo ya 12 y’Itegeko n° 1/2012 ryo ku wa 03/02/2012 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko n° 25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha), ingingo ya 59. Amabwiriza Rusange N°07/2010 yo ku wa 27/12/2010 ya Banki Nkuru y’u Rwanda, ingingo ya 2.

## Page 222

188 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Imanza zifashishijwe: Urubanza RS/INJUST/RC 00012/2021/SC Nsengiyumva v Ntagungira n’abandi rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 22/07/2022. Urubanza RS/INJUST/RCOM 00006/2022/SC; Banque Populaire du Rwanda Plc v Akarere ka Nyamasheke rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 27/01/2023. Urubanza RS/INJUST/RC 00024/2018/SC; Ngizweninshuti v Muhima rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 21/02/2020. Urubanza RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2018/SC Nditiribambe v Gatera rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 13/03/2020 Urubanza RS/INJUST/RC 00021/2022/SC; Mukagatare Régine n’abandi v SANLAM AG Plc rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 17/03/2022. urubanza RCOMA 0171/12/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 03/01/2014, ibika bya 16-20. Urubanza RS/INJUST/RCOM 00001/2017/SC; Sebahizi Jules yaburanaga v Equity Bank Rwanda Ltd, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 26/01/2018. Imanza zamahanga zifashishijwe: Urubanza Re (II ZR 185/85), (1987) E.C.C. 254 (1985). Urubanza Stokes v. Commonwealth, 49 Va.App. 401 (2007). Urubanza Central Nat. Bank of Richmond v. First & Merchants Nat. Bank..., 171 Va. 289 (1938). Urubanza Cairo Banking Co. v West, 187 Ga. 666 (1939). Urubanza Stokes v Commonwealth, 49 Va.App. 401 (2007).

## Page 223

189 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge, Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine arega Bank of Kigali (BK) Ltd, ubu yabaye Bank of Kigali Plc, yitwa BK Plc muri uru rubanza, ko ubwo yakoraga igenzura kuri konti ze muri iyo Banki, yasanze ku wa 12/08/2015 uwitwa Twajeneza Olivier yarabikujeho 310.000 Frw kuri konte nº 00051-0609850-07 yabitsaga akanabikuzaho amafaranga y’u Rwanda, naho ku wa 26/08/2015, uwitwa Sinayobye Siméon abikuza 11.500 USD kuri konti nº 00040-0294342-77 yabitsaga akanabikuzaho amadorari. Avuga ko nyuma y’uko konti ze zivogerewe, yasabye BK Ltd kumusubiza amafaranga n’amadolari yibwe, irabyanga, bituma ahitamo kuregera inkiko. [2] BK Ltd yireguye ivuga ko nta kosa yakoze, isaba ko ikirego cya Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine kitahabwa ishingiro kuko uyu yari afite inshingano zo kubika neza carnet d’ordre de paiement yahawe na banki abajura bifashishije babikuza ayo mafaranga n’ayo madolari kandi ko banki yagenzuye igasanga impapuro zakoreshejwe mu bujura zaratanzwe na nyiri konti ubwe. [3] Mu rubanza RCOM 00860/2016/TC/NYGE rwaciwe ku wa 21/10/2016, Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge rwasanze: i. Hari urubanza RP 0762/15/TGI/NYGE rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge ku wa 18/03/2016, rwahamije Sinayobye Siméon icyaha cyo gukoresha inyandiko mpimbano, igihe yabikuzaga

## Page 224

190 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

11.500 USD kuri konti nº 00040-0294342-77 ya Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine, nkuko nawe abyiyemerera; ii. ii. Inyandiko mvugo z’iperereza zakorewe mu rubanza nshinjabyaha zigaragaza ko umukono (signature) wari uri kuri ordre de paiement yakoreshejwe habikuzwa ayo madolari ari umuhimbano ndetse ko kugira ngo yibwe byagizwemo uruhare n’umukozi wa banki wafashije Sinayobye Siméon; iii. Banki nk’umunyamwuga itarubahirije inshingano zayo zo kurinda amafaranga yari yabikijwe; iv. Nta bimenyetso bigaragaza ko 310.000 Frw yabikujwe hakoreshejwe sheki y’impimbano. [4] Urukiko rwanzuye ko ikirego cya Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe, rwemeza ko BK Ltd igomba kumusubiza 11.500 USD, hiyongereyeho 2.012 USD, y’indishyi z’igihombo yatejwe na banki (manque à gagner) abariye ku gipimo cya 15%, 1.000.000 Frw y’indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka ndetse na 50.000Frw y’ingwate y’igarama yari yaratanze. [5] BK Ltd yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ivuga ko itagombaga gutegekwa gusubiza Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine 11.500 USD yabikujwe kuri konti ye, ndetse ko idakwiye no gutegekwa kwishyura inyungu ya 15%, isaba indishyi zo gushorwa mu manza nta mpamvu. [6] Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine yireguye avuga ko ubujurire bwa BK Ltd nta shingiro bugomba guhabwa kuko mu rubanza RCOM 00860/2016/TC/NYGE rwaciwe ku wa 21/10/2016, Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge rwasobanuye ko Banki

## Page 225

191 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

nk’umunyamwuga itubahirije inshingano zayo zo kurinda konti ze bituma ikura 11.500 USD kuri konti ye. [7] Mu rubanza RCOMA 00642/2016/CHC/HCC rwaciwe ku wa 06/01/2017, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwasanze: ‹Ǥ Kuba Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine yaramenye ko sheki ze zibwe ariko ntabimenyeshe BK Ltd kugira ngo ihagarike iyishyurwa ryazo ari amakosa ye, bityo akaba ataryozwa banki, kuko ari we wari ufite inshingano zo kurinda sheki ze, nk’uko biteganywa na general conditions za BK Ltd mu gace ka receipt booklets, ivuga ko “nyiri payment order ari we ufite inshingano zo kuyicunga kandi ko mu gihe hari urupapuro rwibwemo yihutira kubimenyesha banki; ‹‹Ǥ Kuba nta kibazo kiri mu mukono (signature) wakoreshejwe kuri sheki yabikujweho amadorari, nta ruhare cyangwa uburangare banki yagize kuko mbere yo kwishyura ibanza gukora igenzura; ‹‹‹Ǥ Nta kimenyetso kigaragaza ko telefoni ya Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine yavanywe ku murongo amasaha atatu; ‹˜Ǥ Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine yagize uburangare bukabije mu kwandarika carnet d’ordre de paiement ye, binaba intandaro yo kwibwa kwe, bityo akaba agomba kwikurikiranira Sinayobye Siméon wamwibye cyane cyane ko yiyemerera icyaha.

## Page 226

192 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[8] Ku kibazo kijyanye n’inyungu zibariwe kuri 15%, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwasanze BK Ltd itaryozwa ubujura bwakorewe kuri konti ya Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine, bityo ko n’izo nyungu ntacyo ziyirebaho, rwanzura ko ubujurire bwa BK Ltd bufite ishingiro, ko imikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe ihindutse kuri byose, rutegeka Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine kwishyura BK Ltd 500.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza no gusubiza BK Ltd 75.000 Frw y’ingwate y’amagarama. [9] Ku wa 22/12/2017, Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine yandikiye Urwego rw’Umuvunyi asaba ko urubanza RCOMA 00642/2016/CHC/HCC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ku wa 06/01/2017 rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rumaze gusuzuma ubwo busabe, rwandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusaba ko urwo rubanza rwasubirwamo. Nyuma yo gusuzuma raporo yakozwe n’Ubugenzuzi Bukuru bw’Inkiko, Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga yafashe Icyemezo no 158/CJ/2022 cyo ku wa 29/08/2022, ategeka ko urubanza rwoherezwa mu Bwanditsi bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kugira ngo ruzongere ruburanishwe. [10] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku wa 20/02/2023, Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine yunganiwe na Me Bizumuremyi Isaac, naho BK Plc ihagarariwe na Me Rutagengwa Jean-Damascène. [11] Ababuranyi bagiye impaka ku bibazo byo kumenya niba Urukiko rwategeka BK Plc gusubiza 11.500USD na 310.000Frw yabikujwe kuri konti za Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine, kumuha inyungu ziyakomokaho zibariwe ku gipimo cya 18% ku mwaka banki z’ubucuruzi zisanzwe zitangiraho inguzanyo no kumenya niba hari indishyi zatangwa muri uru rubanza.

## Page 227

193 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO. II.1. Kumenya niba BK Plc igomba gusubiza Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine 11.500USD yabikujwe kuri konti ye N° 00040-0294342-77. [12] Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine na Me Bizumuremyi Isaac umwunganira, bavuga ko Sinayobye Siméon yifashishije carnet d’ordre de paiement ifite no AA21910409 abikuza 11.500 USD kuri konti no 00040-0294342-77 atabiherewe uburenganzira na nyirayo. Bavuga ko BK Plc, nk’umunyamwuga, itubahirije inshingano zayo zo kurinda umutekano wa konti y’umukiriya, kuko iyo igenzura neza yari kubona ko ordre de paiement yifashishijwe yasinywe na Twajeneza Olivier aho gusinywa na Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine. Bavuga ko ayo madolari atari kubikuzwa bitagizwemo uruhare n’umukozi wa banki ukorera ku Gisimenti, ari nabyo bigaragaza ko mu guca urubanza, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwirengagije inyandiko-mvugo zashingiweho mu rubanza no RP 0762/15/TGI/NYGE n’amategeko yariho icyo gihe, cyane cyane ingingo ya 4821 n’iya 4932 z’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano, bituma rutemeza ko banki yagize uburangare bukabije. [13] Bavuga ko umunsi ordre de paiement yatanzwe muri BK Plc, Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine yari mu mahanga, ko ibyo

1 Iyo ngingo yategenyaga ko “Ububitsi, muri rusange, ari igikorwa umuntu yiyemeza cyo kwakira ibintu by’abandi, akagira inshingano zo kubirinda no kuzabisubiza uko biri”. 2 Iyo ngingo yateganyaga ko “uwabikijwe agomba kurinda ibintu yabikijwe abyitayeho ku buryo bumwe nubwo arindamo ibye bwite”.

## Page 228

194 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

binashimangirwa n’ibyo banki yivugira ko yagerageje guhamagara nimero ye ya telefoni ya 0788308017 yatanze muri BK Plc isanga koko itariho. Basobanura ko nyuma y’uko banki isanze telefoni ye itariho byayiteye amakenga, ariko nyuma y’iminsi ibiri, bigizwemo uruhare n’umukozi wa banki, ngo ihamagara indi nimero ya 0785978930 bahawe na Sinayobye Siméon, ndetse batazi nyirayo kuko basanze ibaruye k’uwitwa Akayezu Delphine, uyu ngo atanga uruhushya rw’uko amadolari yishyurwa. Basanga banki itagaragaza icyayimaze amakenga nyuma yuko isanze telefoni 0788308017 itariho kuko itabasha no kwerekana ko telefoni 0785978930 yayihamagaye koko kandi ko ibaruye kuri Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine. Naho ku bijyanye na telepfoni ya 0788867979, bavuga ko yigeze kuba iya Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine ariko amaze kubona 0788308017 arekeraho kuyikoresha. [14] Bavuga ko umukozi wa banki ukorera ku Gisimenti ari we wabwiye Sinayobye Siméon ko hari amadolari ari kuri konti ya Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine, ari nacyo cyatumye aba ariho ajya kuyafatira aho kujya kuyabikuriza kuri BK Plc Ishami rya Nyamirambo aho yafungurije konti. Basobanura ko ibyo BK Plc ivuga ko yamaze iminsi icyenda ishakisha Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine mbere yo kwishyura ordre de paiement atari byo kuko Sinayobye Siméon yivugiye ko yishyuwe hashize iminsi ibiri gusa. Basanga nyuma y’uko banki igize amakenga kuri ordre de paiement ndetse imaze no kubona ko telefoni yahawe na nyiri konti itariho, itagombaga kwihutira kwemeza ko ayo madolari akurwa kuri konti ye. Basaba uru Rukiko kubona ko BK Plc itabashije gucunga ibyo yabikijwe, bityo ikaba ifite inshingano zo gusubiza Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine ibyo yibwe.

## Page 229

195 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

[15] Me Rutagengwa Jean-Damascène uburanira BK Plc avuga ko nyuma yo gufunguza konti no guhabwa agatabo (carnet d’ordres de paiement), Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine yahise agira inshingano zo kukarinda neza nk’uko arinda amafaranga abitse iwe. Asobanura ko ikibazo kimaze kumenyekana, banki yakoze ubugenzuzi isanga ordre de paiement yakoreshejwe habikuzwa 11.500 USD yaracishijwe mu mashini yabugenewe, hemezwa ko ari iya Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine kandi ko ari we wayisinye. Avuga ko mbere y’uko ayo madolari abikuzwa, banki yategereje iminsi icyenda, hanyuma iza guhamagara Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine kuri nimero no 0785978930, uyu atanga uruhushya rw’uko uwahawe ordre de paiement yishyurwa. [16] Avuga ko ayo madolari yageze kuri konti ya Sinayobye Siméon ku wa 26/08/2016, ayabikuza ku wa 27/08/2016, uwo munsi, nyuma y’amasaha abiri amadolari abikujwe, Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine atanga ikibazo muri BK Plc avuga ko hari amadolari yavanwe kuri konti ye, kuba yarahise abimenya kandi adafite uburyo bwa SMS banking bikaba bigaragaza ko yari aziranye na Sinayobye Siméon. Yongeraho ko ibi bishimangirwa kandi n’imvugo za Niyoyita Cyprien wemeza ko yahamagaye Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine kuri no 0788308017, amumenyesha ko agiye kwibwa kuri konti ye, ariko Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine aho kubimenyesha banki cyangwa Polisi akuraho telefoni yari yarabaruje muri banki. Yongeraho ko amadolari yabikujwe Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine ari mu Rwanda kuko Sinayobye Siméon yavuze ko ordre de paiement yayihawe na nyirayo. [17] Me Rutagengwa Jean Damascène akomeza avuga ko nta nshingano banki ifite zo guhamagara nyiri konti mbere y’uko yishyura ibyo yategetse, ko kuba yarahamagaye kuri 0785978930

## Page 230

196 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ari uko yari yagize amakenga gusa, kandi ko iyi nimero yahoze ari iya Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine hanyuma iza gukorerwa simswap. Asobanura ko kuba amadolari yarabikujwe ku Ishami rya Gisimenti aho kubikurizwa i Nyamirambo, ubwabyo atari ikibazo kuko umukiliya yemerewe kubikuriza ku ishami rimwegereye kandi ko umukozi wa banki witirirwa kuba yarafashije Sinayobye Siméon kwiba ayo madolari atagaragajwe ngo abiryozwe. [18] Asoza avuga ko mu rubanza rw’inshinjabyaha Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine aburanisha, Urukiko rwagaragaje ko umujura ari Sinayobye Siméon, ko ntaho rwagaragaje uruhare urwo arirwo rwose rwa banki mu ibura ry’amadolari aburanwa, ariyo mpamvu asaba uru Rukiko kwemeza ko banki itaryozwa uburangare bwa Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine wateshutse ku nshingano ze zo kurinda neza carnet d’ordres de paiement yahawe. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [19] Ingingo ya 2 y’Amabwiriza Rusange N°07/2010 yo ku wa 27/12/2010 ya Banki Nkuru y’u Rwanda yerekeye iyohererezanya Koranabuhanga ry’amafaranga n’ihererekanya koranabuhanga ry’amafaranga yakoreshwaga muri 2015 ubwo amadolari n’amafaranga aburanwa yavanwaga kuri konti ya Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine,3 ivuga ko inyandiko isaba kwishyura (ordre de paiement) ari amabwiriza yo kwishyura akozwe n’uyohereje ku kigo kiyakira, byoherejwe mu mvugo, mu buryo bw’ikoranabuhanga cyangwa mu nyandiko, hagamijwe

3 Aya Mabwiriza yasimbuwe n’Amabwiriza Rusange n° 31 /2019 yo ku wa 16/12/2019 agamije kurengera abakoresha serivisi z’imyishyuranire.

## Page 231

197 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

kwishyura cyangwa gutuma indi banki cyangwa ikigo gitanga serivisi zo kwishyurana ku bishyura uberewemo umwenda, amafaranga azwi cyangwa yagenwa. [20] Iyi ngingo ivuga kandi ko uburyo bwo kwirinda (procédure de sécurité) ari ubushyirwaho mu bwumvikane hagati y’umukiriya n’ikigo cyakira hagamijwe : (a) Kugenzura ko uburyo busaba kwishyura cyangwa ubutumwa buhindura cyangwa bukuraho inyandiko isaba kwishyura ari iby’umukiriya cyangwa ; (b) Gushakisha amakosa aba mu kohereza cyangwa mu bigize inyandiko isaba kwishyura cyangwa ubutumwa. Uburyo bwo kwirinda bushobora gusaba ikoreshwa ry’imibare cyangwa indi mibare y’ibanga, hagaragazwa amagambo cyangwa imibare, irindanyandiko, uburyo bwo kwibutsa cyangwa ibikoresho by’ubwirinzi bisa n’ibi…” [21] Amabwiriza Rusange ya Bank of Kigali Ltd agenga inyandiko isaba kwishyura (ordre de paiement) yo mu mwaka wa 2005 ateganya ko umukiliya agomba kwita ku gatabo k’inyandiko isaba kwishyura yahawe kandi ko banki itaryozwa ingaruka zo kuba hari urupapuro rwatakayemo cyangwa rwavanwemo, ko biramutse bibaye, nyiri agatabo asabwa kwihutira kubimenyesha banki kugira ngo hirindwe ikoreshwa ritemewe ry’urwo rupapuro rwibwe cyangwa rwatakaye (He (the customer) is also required to take great care of payment order booklet. The bank declines any liability for any damage arising from loss or removal of a form. Should this happen, the holder

## Page 232

198 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

must urgently inform the bank in order to avoid any malpractice through the abusive use of a stolen or lost form.) [22] Dosiye y’urubanza irimo ordre de paiement (O.P.) ya Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine ya 11.500 USD yahawe Sinayobye Siméon ku wa 14/08/2015. Kuri iyo O.P. byanditse n’intoki ko nimero ya telefoni ya Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine ari 0788867979. Iyo O.P. yakiriwe na banki ku wa 17/08/2015 nk’uko bigaragazwa na bordereau yo ku wa 17/08/2015, umukozi wayakiriye yabanje gusaba umuyobozi we uruhushya rwo kwishyura ayo madolari (dérogation démandée), umuyobozi asanga nimero ya telefoni ya Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine ari 0788308017, ategeka umukozi wa banki kutishyura ayo madolari mu gihe cyose nyiri konti atabanje kubyemeza (0788308017, do not force if the owner is not confirming). Kuri iyo bordereau hariho kandi ubundi butumwa bugira buti “We spoke to her on 0785978930. She confirmed the ID and OP”. Muri dosiye harimo kandi indi bordereau yo ku wa 26 Aout 2015 igaragaza ko Sinayobye Siméon yishyuwe 11.500 USD. [23] Dosiye y’urubanza irimo na none ibaruwa Banki of Kigali Ltd yandikiye Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine ku wa 08/09/2015, ibanza kugaragaza ko nimero ye ya telefoni ari 0788308017, kandi ko amadolari yishyuwe Sinayobye Siméon mu buryo bukurikije amategeko kuko banki yasanze ordre de paiement yakoreshejwe ari iyahawe Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine, umukono uyiriho ari uwe, kandi ko mu rwego rwo gusuzuma ko nta kindi kibazo cy’umutekano iyo ordre de paiement ifite, banki yamuhamagaye kuri telefoni, akemeza ko ayo madolari yishyurwa (As a further security check, the Bank called you and confirmed the payment to be effected, then the transaction was processed.)

## Page 233

199 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

[24] Dosiye irimo na none urwandiko Bank of Kigali Ltd yandikiye Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine ku wa 10/09/2015, isubiza ibaruwa ye isaba irangamuntu ya Sinayobye Siméon n’ikimenyetso cy’uko banki yamuhamagaye akemeza ko Sinayobye Siméon yishyurwa. Banki na none ibanza kwibutsa kuri en-tête y’urwandiko ko nimero ya telefoni ya Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine ari 0788308017, igakomeza ivuga ko ikimenyetso yasabye cy’uko yahamagawe kuri telefoni 0785978930 mbere y’uko amadolari yishyurwa kitasabwa banki ahubwo cyatangwa gusa n’ikigo cya MTN (the proof you requested the bank to provide indicating that you were called on Mobile N° 0785978930 : before paying the amount above can only be given by the telecommunication company MTN not the bank). [25] Urukiko rurasanga ikibazo kigibwaho impaka muri uru rubanza ari ukumenya niba banki yarateshutswe ku nshingano zayo z’ubushishozi bigatuma itarindira umutekano konti n’amafaranga by’umukiliya nk’uko ibisabwa nk’umunyamwuga ku buryo igomba gusubiza Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine 11.500 USD yabikujwe kuri konti ye N° 00040-0294342-77. [26] Ikibazo cy’umutekano w’amakonti n’amafaranga y’abakiliya cyagarutsweho n’uru Rukiko mu manza zitandukanye. Mu rubanza I & M Bank Rwanda Plc yaburanaga na Coffee Business Center (CBC) Ltd, uru Rukiko rwibukije ko mbere yo kwishyura, banki igomba kubanza gusuzuma niba inyandiko ishyikirijwe ngo zishyurwe zujuje ibyangombwa. Mu byo isuzuma harimo imiterere y’iyo nyandiko, umukono uyiriho, uburyo yahererekanyijwe no kumenya niba itaratambamiwe. Muri urwo rubanza Urukiko rwasanze ibyo banki yavugaga ko yasuzumye inyandiko yashyikirijwe mbere yo kwishyura

## Page 234

200 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ataribyo kuko iyo iba yarabikoze yari kubona ko umukono uziriho atari uwa nyiri konti.4 [27] Naho mu rubanza Sebahizi Jules yaburanaga na Equity Bank Rwanda Ltd, Urukiko rwasanze iyo banki yarabikuje 30.000 USD kuri konti y’umukiliya, iyohereza muri Singapore ishingiye kuri e-mail indemnity na Diaspora Application for Funds Transfers yuzurishijwe imashini ndetse banki itabanje kumuhamagara ngo abyemeze nyamara amasezerano ateganya ko Diaspora Application for Funds Transfers izajya yuzurishwa intoki kandi ko nta madolari azavanwa kuri konti ye banki itabanje kumuhamagara kuri telefoni yayihaye ngo abyemeze. Urukiko rwasanze kuba Equity Bank Rwanda Ltd yemera ko itabanje guhamagara Sebahizi Jules mbere yo kohereza ayo madolari binyuranyije n’amabwiriza yayo ndetse “n’imikorere y’ama banki (pratique) yo mu Rwanda ayategeka kubanza guhamagara abakiliya bayo batanze amasheki mbere yo kwishyura.”5 [28] Ibijyanye n’inshingano za banki zo kurinda konti z’abakiliya bazo byagarutsweho na none mu rubanza II ZR 185/85 rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rw’Ubudage (Bundesgerichtshof) ubwo rwasuzumaga ikirego cy’umuturage wibwe agapapuro ka sheki, hanyuma umujura akiganana ubuhanga umukono wa nyiri sheki akajya kuyibikuza kuri banki. Umukozi wa banki amaze kubona ko amafaranga asabwa

4 Reba urubanza RCOMA 0171/12/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 03/01/2014, ibika bya 16-20. 5 Reba urubanza Sebahizi Jules yaburanaga na Equity Bank Rwanda Ltd, n° RS/INJUST/RCOM 00001/2017/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 26/01/2018, igika cya 26. 6 Reba urubanza Re (II ZR 185/85), (1987) E.C.C. 254 (1985).

## Page 235

201 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

kubikuzwa ari menshi ugereranyije n’ayo nyiri konti asanzwe abikuza kandi uyu akaba atarahamagaye banki kuri telefoni ngo yemeze ko iyo sheki yishyurwa nk’uko yari asanzwe abigenza, yasabye umuyobozi w’Ishami rya banki kwemeza ko iyo sheki yishyurwa, nawe arabyemera.6 [29] Mu gusuzuma niba kuba banki yaremeye ko iyo sheki yishyurwa bigomba gufatwa nk’uburangare, Urukiko rwasanze: ‹Ǥ Banki iba yishe inshingano zayo z’ubushishozi ziri mu masezerano yakoranye n’umukiliya wayo iyo yeretswe sheki isaba kwishyura amafaranga arenze cyane ingano y’ay’umukiliya asanzwe yishyura akoresheje sheki, ikabikora itabanje kubaza niba koko iyo sheki ari umwimerere; ‹‹Ǥ Banki iba yishe inshingano zayo z’ubushishozi iyo yishyuye sheki itabanje kubaza umukiliya wayo kandi kuri sheki zabanje umukiliya yarabanzaga guhamagara banki kugira ngo ayihe uburenganzira bwo kubikuza amafaranga kuri konti ye; ‹‹‹Ǥ Nubwo atari ingano y’amafaranga yanditse kuri sheki igomba gutuma buri gihe iyo sheki ikemangwa, iyo sheki yanditseho amafaranga menshi ugereranyije n’ayo umukiliya asanzwe yishyura ni ikintu cy’ingenzi kigomba guherwaho hasuzumwa niba harabayeho uburangare bwa banki, kandi icyo gihe gukeka ko banki itakoze inshingano zayo

6 Reba urubanza Re (II ZR 185/85), (1987) E.C.C. 254 (1985).

## Page 236

202 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

yishyura iyo sheki birusha uburemere iby’uko sheki yari yanditsweho amafaranga menshi.7 [30] Muri urwo rubanza, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rw’Ubudage rwasanze mu gihe banki ibonye ko sheki yanditsweho amafaranga arenze ayo umukiliya asanzwe abikuza cyangwa yishyura, igomba guhita itekereza ko bishoboka ko iyo sheki irimo gukoreshwa mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, icyo gihe igahita isaba ko hatangwa umucyo kuri iyo sheki. Urukiko rwasanze bidakozwe bityo bishobora gushyira abakiliya benshi mu kaga, bityo ko Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwari rufite ukuri mu kwemeza ko banki yari ifite inshingano zo gutelefona nyiri konti mbere yo kwishyura sheki kugira ngo imenye neza niba koko ari we wayitanze.8

7 “A bank is in breach of its duty of care under its contract with its customer if, on presentation of an unusually large cheque payable to cash, albeit one which would still leave a sizeable credit balance in the account, it does not make inquiries as to the genuineness of the cheque… A bank which is presented with a cheque which appears genuine on the face of it but is made out for a sum many times higher than the customer would normally write such cheques for, and where the customer on earlier occasions when large amounts were drawn had telephoned the bank to authorise it to pay to a named bearer, the bank's natural suspicions regarding the cheque should be aroused. It is settled case law that, although a cheque made out for a large amount is not in itself suspicious, the question whether a cheque is for an unusually large amount in the normal course of business transactions between the parties is relevant to the question whether the bank was negligent in paying out. The suspicion that there may be a wrongful application of the cheque outweighs the assumption that the customer has by exception written an unusually large cheque.” Reba urubanza Re (II ZR 185/85), (1987) E.C.C. 254 (1985). 8 “A bank which, as in this case, knows of circumstances from which it must be inferred that a cheque to cash for a large sum exceeds by an aunuasual amount the sums involved in in other cheque transactions usually affected by the customer must take account of the possibility that the cheque is being misused…If the bank were allowed to refrain from doing so there would an

## Page 237

203 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

[31] Urukiko rurasanga umuhanga Thierry Bonneau, mu gitabo cyitwa Droit bancaire, nawe ashimangira ko nubwo banki idakwiye kwivanga mu bikorwa by’abakiliya bayo, ariko nk’umunyamwuga, ifite inshingano y’ubushishozi (devoir de vigilance), ikaba igomba gukurikirana no kugenzura (vigilance surveillance) ndetse igashaka n’amakuru (vigilance-information) kugira ngo imenye ko ibikorerwa kuri konti byose biciye mu mucyo cyane cyane iyo ibona ko hari ikintu kigiye gukorerwa kuri konti mu buryo butamenyerewe. Naho Jérome Lasserre Capdeville na bagenzi be, nabo mu gitabo cyitwa Droit Bancaire, bavuga ko n’ubwo nyiri konti ari we ufite inshingano zo gukurikirana ibiyiberaho, banki igomba kugira ubushishozi, ikamenya ko abantu basaba kuyibikuzaho amafaranga babifitiye uburenganzira koko.9 [32] Urukiko rurasanga inshingano y’ubushishozi kuri za banki ndetse n’ibindi bigo by’imari iri muzo Umushingamategeko yagarutseho mu ngingo ya 3 y’Itegeko No 017/2021 ryo ku wa 03/03/2021 ryerekeye kurengera umuguzi wa serivisi y’imari. N’ubwo iri tegeko ridakwiye gushingirwaho mu gufata icyemezo muri uru rubanza kuko ritari ririho ubwo

increase to a no longer justifiable extent in the risk borne by the customer in the context of the apportionment of risks… In the results there are no grounds in law for objecting the appeal court’s findings in the circumstances of the case that the defendant (the bank) was under a duty to telephone to the plaintif before paying out on the cheque in order to ascertain whether he had drawn it.” Reba urubanza Re (II ZR 185/85), (1987) E.C.C. 254 (1985). 9 “Le client de la banque est, en principe, seul titulaire des pouvoirs sur son compte. Cela est plus particulièrement le cas pour les operations débitrices, et découle du devoir de restitution…Il est donc demandé au banquier d’être vigilant et de s’assurer que les personnes réalisant des opérations au débit d’un compte sont bien en droit d’agir de la sorte.” Reba Jérôme Lasserre Capdeville et les autres, Droit bancaire, Dalloz, Paris, 2021, p.392.

## Page 238

204 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

konti ya Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine yavogerwaga, ritanga icyereko cy’uko utanga serivisi y’imari agomba … gukorana ubwitonzi, ubuhanga n’ubushishozi mu bijyanye n’igicuruzwa cy’imari cyangwa serivisi y’imari atanga. [33] Iki cyerekezo ni nacyo kigaragara mu Mabwiriza Rusange N° 55/2022 yo ku wa 27/10/2022 yerekeye kurengera umuguzi wa serivisi z’imari. Mubyo ateganya harimo kuba utanga serivisi z’imari agomba gushyira mu muco w’ikigo cye cy’ubucuruzi ibirebana no kurengera umuguzi (ingingo ya 3), gushyiraho uburyo bwo kuvugana n’umuguzi wa serivisi y’imari harimo no guhamagara kuri telefoni kandi umukiliya yaba yahamagawe kuri telefoni, banki igakora ku buryo byunganirwa n’ubundi buryo bw’itumanaho bufasha kugaragaza ibimenyetso (ingingo ya 21) no kumenyesha umuguzi wa serivisi y’imari igikorwa cyose gikorewe kuri konti ye (ingingo ya 22). [34] Ibimaze gusobanurwa haruguru birebewe hamwe, byumvikanisha ko : ‹Ǥ Umukiliya wa banki afite inshingano zo kwita ku gatabo k’inyandiko isaba kwishyura cyangwa ubundi buryo ahabwa na banki bwatuma yishyura, ariko ibyo ntibivanaho inshingano y’ubushishozi kuri banki mbere y’uko yemeza ko ubwishyu bukorwa ; ‹‹Ǥ Banki ifite inshingano zo kugenzura ko uburyo busaba kwishyura bwatanzwe n’umukiliya wayo koko ndetse no gusuzuma ko nta makosa yabaye mu gutanga ubutumwa busaba banki kwishyura ;

## Page 239

205 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

‹‹‹Ǥ Iyo hari ikintu kitamenyerewe nk’uburyo ubutumwa busaba kwishyura bukozwemo cyangwa ingano y’amafaranga arenze cyane ayo umukiliya asanzwe asaba banki kumwishyurira, banki ifite inshingano yo gushaka amakuru ku mukiliya mbere yo kwishyura ibyo ubwo butumwa butegeka. [35] Ku bijyanye n’uru rubanza, Urukiko rurasanga banki yarabanje kugira amakenga kuri ordre de paiement yagaragarijwe na Sinayobye Siméon ku wa 17/08/2015 bituma ndetse umukozi wayakiriye ajya gusaba uruhushya rwo kuyishyura, ntiyaruhabwa kuko nimero ya telefoni Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine yari yarahaye banki itari iriho. Kuba banki yarabanje guhamagara nyiri konti kuri nimero ye yari yarahaye banki bigaragaza ko nayo yemera inshingano yayo yo gushaka amakuru (vigilance-information) mu gihe ibonye hari igikorwa kitamenyerewe kigiye gukorerwa kuri konti y’umukiliya. Kuba kandi umuyobozi wa banki yarategetse ko kwishyura bihagarara kugeza igihe nyiri konti yemereje ko ari we watanze ubutumwa, ni ikindi kimenyetso gihamya ko banki yemera inshingano zayo zo gushishoza mbere yo kwishyura. Iyi myitwarire ya banki inyomoza kandi ibyo iburanisha by’uko itari itegetswe guhamagara Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine mbere yo kwishyura, kuko iyo iba itabitegetswe itari kumuhamagara cyangwa se ngo nyuma yo kumumahagara ntimubone isabe ko kwishyura bitegereza akabanza kuboneka. [36] Urukiko rurasanga mu iburanisha imbere y’uru Rukiko, BK Plc yaremeje ko nimero ya telefoni Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine yayihaye ari 0788308017, kandi koko niyo yabanje guhamagarwaho na banki, imubuze itegeka ko ordre de paiement itegereza uwayitanze akabanza kuyemeza. Byongeye kandi

## Page 240

206 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

inyandiko zose BK Plc yandikiye Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine, yashyizeho ko abarizwa kuri telefoni 0788308017. Banki ntisobanura aho yakuye nimero 0788867979 yanditse kuri ordre de paiement, ndetse no mu mikorere ya kinyamwuga ntibyari bikwiye ko banki ihabwa nimero 0785978939 na Sinayobye Siméon wari uje kubikuza ordre de paiement, noneho ngo iyo nimero banki ifate ko ari iya Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine nta handi ibishingiye nyamara uyu hari indi nimero yayihaye ngo ijye imushakiraho mu gihe imukeneye. [37] Urukiko rurasanga BK Plc itabasha kugaragaza ko telefoni 0785978939 ivuga ko yahamagaye bwa nyuma mbere yo gufata umwanzuro wo kwishyura ibaruye kuri Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine, nta nubwo igaragaza ko uyu yaba yarayitanze nk’iyo bamushakiraho mu gihe yaba abuze kuri 0788308017 (alternative telephone). Kuba rero harahamagawe umuntu utazwi akemeza ko ayo madolari abikuzwa, bikwiye gufatwa nko kuba banki yaremeye ko ayo madolari abikuzwa nyirayo atabyemeje, nyamara banki yari imaze kwivugira ko atazabikuzwa uwatanze ordre de paiement ataraboneka kuri telefoni yahaye banki ngo abyemeze. [38] Urukiko rurasanga bank statement ya Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine kuri konti y’amadolari nº 00040-0294342-77 igaragaza ko kugeza ku wa 17/08/2015 ubwo ordre de paiement iburanwa yagezwaga muri BK Plc, amadolari menshi yari yarabikuje ari 1.629 USD yavanywe kuri konti ku wa 28/01/2015, avanyweho na Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine. Kuba rero kuri konti hari hagiye kuvanwaho 11.500 USD hashingiwe kuri ordre de paiement yahawe umuntu ku giti cye cyari igikorwa kitamenyerewe kuri iyo konti cyategeka banki gushishoza kurushaho mbere yo kwishyura.

## Page 241

207 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

[39] Urukiko rurasanga nk’uko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwabisanze mu gika cya 26 cy’urubanza rusubirishwamo, Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine yari afite koko inshingano zo kurinda neza carnet d’ordres de paiement ndetse no kumenyesha banki cyangwa izindi nzego ko ordre de payment yibwe. Ibyo ariko sibyo byatuma banki ikurwaho inshingano isanganywe nk’umunyamwuga zo gushishoza buri gihe mbere yo kwishyura, cyane cyane ko nayo ubwayo yivugira ko yabanje kugira amakenga mbere yo kwishyura. Nk’uko byibukijwe haruguru, banki ntigaragaza icyaje kuyimara ayo makenga. [40] Urukiko rurasanga inshingano y’umukiliya yo kurinda carnet d’ordre de paiement ndetse n’iyo kwihutira kumenyesha banki n’izindi nzego ko yibwe zitaburizamo burundu ibyago byo kwibwa kuko hari igihe yamenya ko yibwe ari uko abonye amakuru ko amafaranga ye yabikujwe. Kumenya amakuru ya konti bishobora gutinzwa n’impamvu zitandukanye harimo no kuba umukiliya adakoresha ikoranabuhanga, agatinda kubona amakuru cyangwa akayabona ari uko agiye aho banki ikorera. N’abakoresha ikoranabuhanga bashobora kugira imbogamizi cyangwa rikabatenguha ntibabone amakuru cyangwa bagatinda kuyabona. [41] Urukiko rurasanga gushaka gukumira ikoresha rya konti y’umukiliya mu buryo budakwiye ari byo mu ntangiriro biha umukiliya inshingano zo gucunga neza inyandiko cyangwa andi makuru yahawe na banki ariko bigaha na banki inshingano z’ubushishozi nk’urwego ruri aho amafaranga y’umukiliya asohokera. Ibi bituma ibitabashije gukumirirwa hamwe bikumirirwa ahandi. Byumvikanisha ko banki iramutse ivaniweho inshingano y’ubushishozi bishobora gushyira konti z’abakiliya benshi mu kaga. Inkiko zasanze iyi nshingano

## Page 242

208 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

y’ubushishozi ariyo ituma mu mikorere ya za banki zigomba guteganyiriza abakiliya bazo icyitwa affidavit form of forgery kugira ngo mu gihe amafaranga y’umukiliya yaba yibwe hakoreshejwe inyandiko mpimbano, banki izabashe kuyakurikirana no kuyagaruza.10 [42] Ku bijyanye n’ingaruka zo kutubahiriza inshingano y’ubushishozi ku ruhande rwa banki, mu rubanza I & M Bank Rwanda Ltd yaburanaga na Coffee Business Center (CBC) Ltd, uru Rukiko rwasanze “banki isubiza amafaranga nyirayo, iyo yayahaye umuntu yibeshye, cyane cyane umutekamutwe, kubera ko ubwishyu buba iyo amafaranga yafashwe n’ubifitiye uburenganzira. Keretse banki ishoboye kubona ibimenyetso ku makosa y’umukiliya … cyangwa se ko yabitewe n’impamvu zidasanzwe.”11 Naho mu rubanza Sebahizi Jules yaburanaga na Equity Bank Rwanda Ltd rwavuzwe haruguru, uru Rukiko rwasanze “kuba nta ruhare Sebahizi Jules yagize mu ibikuzwa rya 30.000 USD kuri konti ye …n’iyoherezwa ryayo mu gihugu cya Singapore, bigaragaza ko Equity Bank Rwanda Ltd yabikoze kubera uburangare bwayo, (ikaba) ikwiye kuyamusubiza uko yakabaye…”12 [43] Uruhare rwa banki rumaze igihe rugarukwaho n’inkiko z’ibindi bihugu, nkaho mu rubanza Central Nat. Bank of Richmond yaburanaga na First & Merchants Nat. Bank, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa Leta ya Virginia muri Leta Zunze Ubumwe za Amerika rwavuze ko ihame rusange ari uko amafaranga

10 Reba urubanza Stokes v. Commonwealth, 49 Va.App. 401 (2007). 11 Reba urubanza RCOMA 0171/12/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 03/01/2014, igika cya 17. 12 Reba urubanza RS/INJUST/RCOM 00001/2017/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 26/01/2018, igika cya 27.

## Page 243

209 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

y’umuntu Banki ibitse atagomba gukorwaho nyirayo atabitangiye uruhushya, ko banki iramutse iyahaye umuntu utabifitiye uburenganzira, ibyo bitareba nyiri amafaranga ndetse ko bifatwa nk’aho ayo mafaranga atigeze ava kuri konti ye, icyo gihe banki ikaba ariyo ibyirengera.13 Uyu murongo ni nawo wemejwe mu rubanza Cairo Banking Co. yaburanaga na West et al., aho Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa Georgia rwasanze iyo umukiliya abikije amafaranga muri banki, bifatwa ko banki iba imugiyemo umwenda, kugira ngo rero banki yigobotore izo nshingano igomba kwishyura uwayibikije amafaranga kandi ko inshingano za banki zitavanwaho n’uko yemeye kwishyura sheki y’impimbano.14 [44] Naho mu rubanza Sheila Michelle Stokes yaburanaga na Commonwealth of Virginia, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwa Virginia, rushingiye ku murongo watanzwe muri urwo rubanza rwa Central Nat. Bank of Richmond, rwasanze imikorere igezweho y’amabanki ari uko iyo hishyuwe sheki y’impimbano, banki

13 “The general rule is conceded that a depositor's funds in a bank are unaffected by any unauthorized payment. If a bank pays out money to the holder of a check, upon which the name of its depositor is forged, it is simply no payment as between the bank and the depositor; the account between the bank and the depositor and the legal liability of the bank remain just the same as if the pretended payment had not been made. The pretended payment does not diminish the funds of the depositor…In the payment by a bank of a forged check, it acts at its own peril, and not that of the depositor”. Reba urubanza Central Nat. Bank of Richmond v. First & Merchants Nat. Bank..., 171 Va. 289 (1938). 14 “Where a person deposits money in a bank on general deposit, the relation of debtor of the bank to the depositor as creditor immediately arises, and in order to discharge itself from this liability the bank must pay the depositor. The liability can not be discharged by accepting a forged check drawn in the name of the depositor against the bank.” Reba urubanza Cairo Banking Co. v. West, 187 Ga. 666 (1939).

## Page 244

210 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

igomba gukosora iryo kosa ryo kubikuza amafaranga y’umukiliya itabiherewe uruhushya, igakura amafaranga kuri konti yayo ikishyura umukiliya.15 [45] Urwo Rukiko rwavuze ko : ‹Ǥ Ibikuza ry’amafaranga ryakorewe muri banki mu buriganya nta ngaruka rigomba kugira ku mukiliya kuko banki iba itahawe ububasha bwo kubikuza amafaranga kuri konti y’umukiliya ;16 ‹‹Ǥ Banki yishyuye sheki y’impimbano igomba gufatwa nk’iyishyuye ku mafaranga yayo, ikazikurikiranira uwo yishyuye.17 [46] Iby’uko banki yishyuye umuntu kubwo kwibeshya cyangwa uburangare igomba gusubiza umukiliya wayo amafaranga ye binagarukwaho na Jérôme Lassere Capdeville na bagenzi be bavuga ko ari ihame ko banki igomba gukora neza

15 “Appellant argues, …that once a depositor's account is debited, the funds automatically belong to the depositor …. We disagree with this argument, as it requires this Court to ignore modern banking practice and the debtor/creditor relationship …At present, a bank generally would debit the depositor's account when it pays the person presenting the forged check. The bank then must correct the unauthorized withdrawal of funds by debiting its own funds and crediting the depositor's account to fully make it whole…” Reba urubanza Stokes v. Commonwealth, 49 Va. App. 401 (2007). 16 “Where a fraudulent transaction has occurred at a bank, that transaction does not affect the depositor, for the purposes of identifying the victim of a larceny based on the fraudulent transaction, because the bank did not possess the authority to disburse the funds from that depositor's account.” 17 “A bank, in paying a forged check, must be considered as making the payment out of its own funds, for the purposes of identifying the bank as the victim of the larceny that arises from the payment on the forged check.”

## Page 245

211 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

ibyo isabwa n’umukiliya wayo, ko mu gihe yishyuye undi muntu cyangwa yamwoherereje amafaranga ku bwo kwibeshya, igomba gusubiza nyiri konti amafaranga ye, hanyuma ikaba ariyo yikurikiranira uwohererejwe ayo mafaranga.18 [47] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro byatanzwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga BK Plc itarubahirije ishingano yo gukorana ubushishozi ubwo yavanaga 11.500 USD kuri konti ya Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine ikayishyura Sinayobye Siméon, bityo BK Plc ikaba igomba kuyamusubiza ikazikurikiranira uwayahawe. II.2. Kumenya niba Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine yahabwa inyungu zikomoka ku 11.500 USD zibariwe kuri 18% ku mwaka. [48] Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine na Me Bizumuremyi Isaac umwunganira bavuga ko ku bijyanye na 11.500 USD, mu rubanza RCOM 00860/2016/TC/NYGE, Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine yagenewe inyungu za 15% nyamara amabanki y’ubucuruzi asanzwe abarira inyungu kuri 18%, akaba asaba uru Rukiko gukosora ayo makosa, agabahwa inyungu zibariye ku rugero banki zisanzwe zitangiraho inyungu kuva ku wa 12/08/2015. Avuga ko mu gihe cy’imyaka irindwi n’amezi ane n’igice ishize, inyungu agomba kwishyurwa zingana na

18 “Tout d’abord il est acquis que (le) banquier doit correctement passer les opérations souhaitées par son client. Ainsi, en cas de paiements ou de virements opérés par erreur au bénéfice d’un tiers, l’obligation de restitution implique que le banquier reste tenu de restituer la chose reçue à son véritable bénéficiaire. Il devra alors procéder au remboursement du client victime de l’erreur et, le plus souvent, prétendre à un remboursement par le tiers.” Reba Jérôme Lasserre Capdeville et les autres, Droit bancaire, Dalloz, Paris, 2021, p.388.

## Page 246

212 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

15.266,25 USD ariko ko asaba uru Rukiko kuzazibara kugeza urubanza ruciwe. [49] Me Rutagengwa Jean-Damascène, uburanira BK Plc avuga ko Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine atahabwa izo nyungu kuko ari we wateshutse ku nshingano ze zo kurinda agatabo ke, ko iyo aza kuba yarabitse neza agatabo ke n’umukono we, ayo madolari atari kubikuzwa, bityo akaba adakwiye kungukira mu makosa ye. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [50] Ingingo ya 137 y’Itegeko N° 45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano iteganya ko “uruhande rwarenganyijwe rufite uburenganzira bwo kubona indishyi zitanzwe n’urundi ruhande rutubahirije ibisabwa mu masezerano, keretse iyo ikirego kigamije kubona indishyi cyahagaritswe cyangwa cyaravuyeho.” [51] Ingingo ya 94, igika cya kabiri n’icya kane, y’Amabwiriza Rusange N° 55/2022 yo ku wa 27/10/2022 yerekeye kurengera umuguzi wa serivisi z’imari ivuga ku Indishyi ihabwa umuguzi wa servisi y’imari, igira iti: “Iyo uburangere bw’utanga serivisi y’imari buteje umuguzi wa serivisi y’imari igihombo cy’amafaranga, umuguzi wa serivisi y’imari aba afite uburenganzira bwo gusaba indishyi y’igihombo. Kubara indishyi bishingira kuri ibi bikurikira :

1° umubare w’amafaranga y’igihombo cyatewe n’uburangare ; 2° ikiguzi cy’amahirwe yabuze kubera uburangare ;

## Page 247

213 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

3° indishyi zishyuwe n’umuguzi wa serivisi y’imari niba zihari. Ibyo ari byo byose, igipimo cy’indishyi ntigishobora kujya munsi y’ikigereranyo cy’inyungu k’unguzanyo (taux moyen de prêt/ average lending rate) nk’uko cyatangajwe n’urwego rw’ubugenzuzi.” [52] Mu rubanza Sebahizi Jules yaburanaga na Equity Bank Rwanda Ltd,19 uru Rukiko rwasanze kuba banki yaravanye amafaranga kuri konti ya Sebahizi Jules nta burenganzira abitangiye byaramuteye igihombo kuko atashoboye kuyakoresha mu buryo ubwo aribwo bwose, haba kuyatungisha umuryango cyangwa kuyarekera muri banki ngo abyare inyungu, uku kandi ni nako bimeze muri uru rubanza kuko banki yishyuye Sinayobye Siméon 11.500 USD kandi Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine, nyiri konti yavanweho ayo madolari, atabitangiye uburenganzira, igihe cyose Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine amaze adafite ayo madolari bikaba byaramuvukije inyungu yari kuyavanamo iyo aba yarayakoresheje cyangwa yarayabikije agamije kuyungukiramo. [53] Muri urwo rubanza rwa Sebahizi Jules,20 uru Rukiko rwagennye indishyi rushingiye ku gipimo cy’inyungu z’amafaranga abakiliya babitsa mu mabanki kugira ngo abungukire (taux moyen créditeur). Uyu murongo ni nawo uherutse kwemezwa mu rubanza Nsengiyumva Théoneste yaburanaga na Ntagungira Jérôme na bagenzi be, aho uru Rukiko rwasanze Nsengiyumva Théoneste agomba gusubizwa

19 Reba urubanza RS/INJUST/RCOM 00001/2017/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 26/01/2018, igika cya 33 n’icya 34. 20 Reba urubanza RS/INJUST/RCOM 00001/2017/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 26/01/2018, igika cya 34.

## Page 248

214 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

amafaranga yari yaraguze isambu yatsindiwe hiyongereyeho inyungu zibariwe ku gipimo cy’inyungu kingana na 8% amabanki aheraho abakiriya bayo babikije amafaranga kugira ngo abungukire.21 [54] Urukiko rurasanga icyakora uburyo bwo kubara inyungu bwavuzwe haruguru aribwo Banki Nkuru y’u Rwanda yasubiyeho mu mabwiriza yavuzwe haruguru ateganya ko igipimo cy’indishyi zihabwa umuguzi wa serivisi z’imari kidashobora kujya munsi y’ikigereranyo cy’inyungu ku nguzanyo (taux moyen de prêt/ average lending rate) nk’uko cyatangajwe n’urwego rw’ubugenzuzi.” Inyandiko yitwa Interest Rate Structure yatangajwe na Banki Nkuru y’u Rwanda ku rubuga rwayo www.bnr.rw/browse-in/financial-market/money- marketinterest-rates/monthly-interest-rates ndetse inagarukwaho n’urubuga rwa www.tradingeconomics.com/rwanda/interest-rate igaragaza ko icyo gipimo mu Rwanda kigeze kuri 15.81%,22 bityo akaba ari cyo kigomba kubarirwaho inyungu Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine agomba guhabwa na BK Plc. [55] Urukiko rurasanga rero BK Plc igomba guha Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine inyungu zingana na 11.500 USD x 15.81 % guhera ku wa 27/08/2015, ni ukuvuga umunsi ukurikira uwo amadolari yavanwe kuri konti, kugeza ku wa 31/03/2023, ni ukuvuga igihe kingana n’imyaka irindwi, amezi arindwi n’iminsi ine, bihwanye n’iminsi 2.734, bityo akangana na:

21 Reba urubanza n° RS/INJUST/RC 00012/2021/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 22/07/2022, igika cya 50. 22 Byasomwe ku wa 29/03/2023.

## Page 249

215 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

[56] Urukiko rurasanga nubwo inyungu BK Plc yakagombye kwishyura Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine zingana na 13.807,8 USD, izi nyungu zirenze kure 11.500 USD BK Plc yahaye Sinayobye Siméon kubera uburangare. Mu rubanza Banque Populaire du Rwanda Plc yaburanaga n’Akarere ka Nyamasheke,23 uru Rukiko rwasanze inyungu zo gutinda kwishyura umwenda zitagomba kuba umurengera. Rwasobanuye ko igipimo cyo kugena inyungu z’ubukererwe ari ukwirinda ko zihinduka inzira yo kwikungahaza nta mpamvu k’uzihawe, ariyo mpamvu ari inshingano y’Urukiko kugarura ku gipimo gikwiye inyungu z’umurengera.  [57] Muri urwo rubanza, uru Rukiko rwasanze igipimo gikwiye cy’inyungu z’ubukererwe kigenwa n’Urukiko mu bushishozi bwarwo. Inyungu ariko ntizigomba kurenga izikenewe mu gukosora ibyangijwe ariko kandi zigomba kuba zihagije ku buryo zitanga isomo kugira ngo ibyatumye zitangwa bitazasubira, rwemeza ko inyungu z’ubukererwe zitagomba kurenga ingano y’umwenda wishyuzwa. [58] Urukiko rurasanga iki cyerekezo cy’uko inyungu ku mwenda remezo zihagarara kubarwa iyo zimaze kungana n’umwenda remezo wari usigaye kwishyurwa aricyo kigaragara mu yandi mategeko yihariye nk’aho ingingo ya 72, agace ka 4, y’Itegeko n° 031/2022 ryo ku wa 21/11/2022 rigenga Amasoko ya Leta,24 iya 112, agace ka 2, y’Itegeko nº 47/2017 ryo ku wa

23 Reba urubanza RS/INJUST/RCOM 00006/2022/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 27/01/2023, igika cya 52. 24 “Inyungu z’ubukererwe zivugwa mu gika cya kabiri (2) n’icya gatatu (3) by’iyi ngingo ntizirenga ingano y’agaciro k’ingwate yatanzwe.” 11.500 USD x 15.81 x 2.734= 13.807,8 USD

360 x 100

## Page 250

216 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

23/09/2017 rigena imitunganyirize y’imirimo y’amabanki25 n’iya 59 y’Itegeko nº 25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu,26 buri tegeko kubyo rireba, inyungu zikaba zidashobora kurenga ingano y’ingwate yatanzwe ku bijyanye n’amasoko ya Leta cyangwa kurenga ingano y’umwenda wishyuzwa ku bijyanye n’imyenda yatanzwe na banki cyangwa kurenga ingano y’umusoro wishyuzwa ku bireba imisoro yatinze kwishyurwa. [59] Hashingiwe ku bimaze gusobanurwa haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga BK Plc igomba guha Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine inyungu zingana na 11.500 USD.

25 Ingingo ya 112 y’Itegeko nº 47/2017 ryo ku wa 23/9/2017 rigena imitunganyirize y’imirimo y’amabanki igira iti: “Mu kwishyuza imyenda itishyurwa, banki ntigomba kurenza umubare w’amafaranga ntarengwa akurikira: umwenda shingiro utarishyuwe igihe inguzanyo yageraga mu rwego rwo kutishyurwa; inyungu zitarenze umwenda shingiro igihe inguzanyo yageraga mu rwego rwo kutishyurwa hakurikijwe amasezerano banki ifitanye n’uyifitiye umwenda; amafaranga yakoreshejwe mu gihe cyo kwishyuza amafaranga yose y’ufitiye umwenda banki.” Reba kandi ingingo ya 8 y’ Amabwiriza rusange n° 12/2017 yo ku wa 23/11/2017 ku ishyirwa mu byiciro ry’imyenda no guteganya ingoboka iteganya ko: “Banki ntigomba kurenza mu byo ikura ku wo yahaye umwenda mu bijyanye n’imyenda itishyurwa neza hashingiwe ku bipimo ntarengwa bikurikira: ingano y’amafaranga atarishyuwe ku mwenda w’ibanze mu gihe umwenda wasibwe; inyungu ku birarane zitishyuwe, zibarwa hakurikijwe amasezerano uwahawe umwenda yagiranye na banki, ariko ntizirenge umwenda wagombaga kwishyurwa mu gihe umwenda wasibwe; n’ amafaranga banki yatanze mu kwishyuza abayifitiye imyenda.” 26 “Ubwiyongere bw’inyungu z’ubukererwe ntiburenga ijana ku ijana (100%) by’umusoro.” Reba ingingo ya 59 y’Itegeko n° 25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha (iyi ngingo niyo ya 12 y’Itegeko n° 1/2012 ryo ku wa 03/02/2012 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko n° 25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha).

## Page 251

217 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

II.3. Kumenya niba BK Plc igomba kwishyura Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine 310.000 Frw yabikujwe kuri konti ye n’inyungu zayo zibariwe kuri 18%. [60] Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine na Me Bizumuremyi Isaac umwunganira bavuga ko ku wa 12/08/2015, Twajeneza Olivier yabikuje 310.000 Frw kuri konti ye ifite nº 00051-0609850-07 ku burangare bwa BK Ltd cyangwa se iyo banki ibigizemo uruhare kandi nta burenganzira Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine yatanze ngo ayo mafaranga abikuzwe, bityo ko Urukiko rwategeka banki kuyamusubiza hiyongereyeho inyungu zayo zibariye kuri 18% zihwanye na 418.500 Frw, yose hamwe akaba 728.500 Frw (310.000 Frw +418.500Frw). Bavuga ko ayo mafaranga Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine yayaregeye ariko ntayahabwe. [61] Me Rutagengwa Jean-Damascène, uburanira BK Plc, avuga ko mu masezerano Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine yakoranye na banki buri ruhande rwari rufite inshingano rugomba kwubahiriza, ko banki yubahirije izayo zo kugenzura ubuziranenge bw’inyandiko za ordre de paiement zakoreshejwe ndetse n’umukono wa Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine, bityo akaba asanga banki idakwiye kuryozwa ayo mafaranga kuko Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine ari we wateshutswe ku nshingano ze zo kwita ku gatabo yahawe na banki, ariyo mpamvu agomba kwirengera ibyabaye kuri konti ye.

## Page 252

218 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [62] Urukiko rurasanga nk’uko bigaragara mu nyandiko zigize dosiye y’urubanza, ingingo ijyanye na 310.000 Frw yarasuzumwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge. Mu gika cya 17 cy’urubanza RC 00860/2016/TC/NYGE rwaciwe ku wa 21/10/2016, Urukiko rwasanze “ku bijyanye n’amafaranga 310.000 Frw Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine avuga ko yakuwe kuri konti ye na Twajeneza Olivier akoresheje sheki y’impimbano, nta bimenyetso abigaragariza, kuko sheki n° 00051-0609850-07/Rwf igaragaza ko iriho umukono we, akaba rero atagaragaza ko iyo sheki ari impimbano cyangwa se yashyizweho umukono utari uwe, bityo Urukiko rukaba ntaho rwahera rutegeka ko ayo mafaranga ayasubizwa.” [63] Urukiko rurasanga ntaho bigaragara muri dosiye y’urubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ko Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine yigeze ajuririra icyemezo cyavuzwe mu gika kibanza. Nyamara kandi ingingo ya 55 y’Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko iteganya ko umuburanyi wari ufite uburenganzira bwo kwiyambaza izindi nzira z’ubujurire zisanzwe n’izidasanzwe ariko ntabikore mu gihe giteganywa n’amategeko ntiyemerewe gusaba ko urubanza yatsinzwe rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Ubwo rwasesenguraga iyi ngingo mu manza zitandukanye harimo n’urwo Ngizweninshuti Albert yaburanaga na Muhima Giovani, uru Rukiko rwasanze umuburanyi utaranyuzwe n’icyemezo cy’Urukiko ariko ntasabe ko amakosa akinenga akosorerwa mu bujurire cyangwa ngo atange ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi mu gihe uwo baburana yajuriye nyamara yari abifitiye uburenganzira, aba yivukije inzira y’ubujurire, bityo akaba adashobora kwifashisha inzira yo gusubirishamo urubanza ku

## Page 253

219 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

mpamvu z’akarengane ngo asabe ko iyo ngingo yongera gusuzumwa kuko byaba binyuranyije n’amategeko.27 [64] Hashingiwe ku bimaze gusobanurwa haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga kuba Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine yari afite inzira yo kujuririra icyemezo cyafashwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge ku ngingo ijyanye n’amafaranga 310.000 ntabikore, bisobanuye ko ari uko yari yemeye imikirize y’urwo Rukiko kuri iyo ngingo, bityo akaba atahindukira ngo avuge ko yayirenganyeho, ari nayo mpamvu ibijyanye n’iyo ngingo bidakwiye kwakirwa ngo bisuzumwe kuri uru rwego. II.4. Kumenya ishingiro ry’indishyi zisabwa muri uru rubanza. [65] Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine na Me Bizumuremyi Isaac umwunganira basaba uru Rukiko gutegeka BK Plc guha Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine 2.000.000 Frw y’indishyi z’akababaro ku bwo kumara imyaka ine akurikirana amafaranga ye muri BK Plc, mu nkiko no ku Rwego rw’Umuvunyi, 4.000.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza, 1.500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka kuri uru rwego no kumusubiza 2.500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka yatanze mu nkiko zabanje. [66] Me Rutagengwa Jean-Damascène, uburanira BK Plc, avuga ko nta ndishyi BK Plc ikwiye guha Mugwaneza Carine

27 Reba urubanza RS/INJUST/RC 00024/2018/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 21/02/2020, igika cya 19. Reba kandi urubanza RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2018/SC Nditiribambe Samuel yaburanaga na Gatera Jason rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 13/03/2020 ndetse n’urubanza RS/INJUST/RC 00021/2022/SC Mukagatare Régine na bagenzi be baburanaga na SANLAM AG Plc rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 17/03/2022.

## Page 254

220 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Sandrine kuko uyu ari we wishoye mu manza anazishoramo banki, ariyo mpamvu akwiye kuyiha 2.000.000 Frw y’indishyi zo kuyishora mu manza nta mpamvu, 500.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza, 1.000.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka, yose hamwe akaba 3.500.000 Frw. [67] Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine na Me Bizumuremyi Isaac, umwunganira, bavuga ko indishyi BK Plc isaba ntazo ikwiriye kuko iyo itaza guteshuka ku nshingano zayo nta manza ziba zarabayeho. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [68] Ku bijyanye n’indishyi z’akababaro za 2.000.000 Frw zisabwa na Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine, Urukiko rurasanga koko igikorwa cya BK Plc cyo kuvana 11.500 USD kuri konti ye ku bw’uburangare agahabwa Sinayobye Siméon cyarangirije Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine, kuva muri 2015 akaba ahangayikishijwe no gushaka uburyo yagaruza ayo madolari kugira ngo ayikenuze cyangwa ayabyaze umusaruro, bityo mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko akaba agenewe indishyi z’akababaro zingana na 1.000.000 Frw. [69] Naho ku bijyanye n’amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ay’ibyagiye ku rubanza asabwa na Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine ndetse na BK Plc, Urukiko rurasanga ntayo bakwiriye kuko buri wese afite ibyo atsindiye n’ibyo atsindiwe muri uru rubanza. [70] Urukiko rurasanga kandi muri dosiye y’urubanza nta bimenyeteso birimo bigaragaza ko Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine

## Page 255

221 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

yishyuye 2.500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge no mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, bityo Urukiko rukaba ntaho rwahera rutegeka ko ayo mafaranga ariyo akwiye gusubizwa nk’uko abisaba. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [71] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine cyo gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane urubanza RCOMA 00642/2016/CHC/HCC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ku wa 06/01/2017, gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe; [72] Rwemeje ko imikirize y’urubanza RCOMA 00642/2016/CHC/HCC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ku wa 06/01/2017, ihindutse mu ngingo zayo zose; [73] Rutegetse Bank of Kigali Plc, kwishyura Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine 11.500 USD yavanwe kuri konti ye y’amadolari nº 00040-0294342-77 hiyongereyeho inyungu zingana na 11.500 USD, yose hamwe akaba 23.000 USD; [74] Rutegetse Bank of Kigali Plc guha Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine 1.000.000 Frw y’indishyi z’akababaro.

## Page 257

223

TRADEMET SA v CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD, [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’UBUJURIRE – RCOMAA 00116/2022/CA, (Ngagi, P.J.,) 28 Gashyantare 2023] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’ imanza z’ ubucuruzi – Gutambamira umutungo utimukanwa – Itambama ku mutungo rivanwaho iyo ryakozwe ku mutungo wagurishijwe mu buryo bwemewe n’ amategeko n’ ubwo uwawegukanye atabashije kuwiyandikaho ku mpamvu zitamuturutseho. Incamake y’ ikibazo: Uwitwa Kalinda Valens n’umugore we Nyirahabufite Epiphanie bagurishije imutungo yabo itimukanwa na sosiyete CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd ihagarariwe na Frank Lyonson mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, maze bakorana amasezerano y’ ubugure mbere yo kwa notaire ariko uwaguze ntiyakora mutation ku mpamvu avuga zitamuturutseho. Sosiyete yitwa TRADEMET S.A itanga ikirego cyihutirwa mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi irega KALINDA Valens isaba ko imitungo ye yagurishije sosiyete CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd itambamirwa mu gihe hategerejwe ko urubanza ruri hagati yabo ruba itegeko. CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd nayo yatanze ikirego cyo kurutambamira mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi isaba ko iryo tambama rivanwaho, ivuga ko yamenyeshejwe n’Ikigo gishinzwe imicungire y’ubutaka ko ubutaka butambamiwe hashingiwe ku rubanza rwategetse ko imitungo yanditse kuri Kalinda itambamirwa.

## Page 258

224 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

KARINDA yaburanye yemera ko itambama ryabaye uwo mutungo waramaze kugurishwa, bityo ko ikirego cya CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd gifite ishingiro. TRADEMET yaburanye ivuga ko ikirego kidakwiye kwakirwa kuko imanza zabaye zose KALINDA Valens yari azirimo kandi akaba atarigeze agaragaza ko umutungo ufatirwa utakiri uwe. Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwaciye urubanza maze rwemeza ko ikirego cyatanzwe na CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd gifite ishingiro, bityo ko itambama rivanyweho. TRADEMET ijuririra mu Rukiko rw Ubujurire isaba ko itambama ryashyizwe ku mitungo iburanwa rigumaho kuko ryakozwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko. CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd yiregura ivuga ko ubutaka yaguranye na KALINDA arubwayo kuko ntaho buhuriye n’urubanza ruri hagati ya KALINDA Valens na TRADEMET SA kandi ko amasezerano yose aba bombi bagiranye adashobora kugira ingaruka kuri CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd. Kalinda avuga ko nta kosa Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwakoze ryo gukuraho itambama ryashyizwe ku mutungo wa CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd kubera ko barishyizeho bawita umutungo we kandi yarawugurishije kuko wari ingwate ya BRD hanyuma itangiye inzira zo kuwugurisha mucyamunara, maze awugurisha CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd kugira ngo hishyurwe umwenda wa BRD, ko kubera ikibazo cyari muri za UPI's byabaye ngombwa ko hitabazwa Ikigo cy'ubutaka kugira ngo kibikosore ari yo mpamvu iharerekanyamutungo (mutation) ryatinze, kandi ko imanza zose zabaye nyuma y’uko hakorwa amasezerano y'ubugure hagati ya KALINDA Valens na CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd.

## Page 259

225 TRADEMET SA v CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD,

Incamake y’ icyemezo: Itambama ryakozwe ku mutungo rivanwaho iyo ryakozwe ku mutungo wagurishijwe mu buryo bwemewe n’amategeko nubwo uwawegukanye atabashije kuwiyandikaho ngo hakorwe mutation ku mpamvu zitamuturutseho. Ubujurire nta shingiro. Amagarama y urubanza ahwanye nibyarukozwemo. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 12 niya 150. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rukomoka ku kirego cyihutirwa cyatanzwe na TRADEMET S. A. mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi irega KALINDA Valens isaba ko imitungo ye itambamirwa mu gihe hategerejwe ko urubanza Nº RCOM 00104/2022/TC ruba itegeko. Urwo rubanza rwarajuririwe mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ruhabwa No RCOMA 00214/2022/HCC rucibwa ku wa 04/04/2022. Nyuma y’uko urubanza No RCOMA 00214/2022/HCC ruciwe, CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd yatanze ikirego cyo kurutambamira mu Rukiko Rukuru

## Page 260

226 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

rw’Ubucuruzi ivuga ko ku wa 09/09/2022 yamenyeshejwe n’Ikigo gishinzwe imicungire y’ubutaka ko ubutaka bwanditse kuri UPI:1/01/04/03/2330 na UPI:1/01/04/03/2335 butambamiwe hashingiwe k’urubanza Nº RCOMA 00214/2022/HCC rwo ku wa 04/04/2022 rwategetse ko imitungo yanditse kuri KALINDA Valens itambamirwa. [2] Ivuga kandi ko ubwo butaka bwafashweho icyemezo mu rubanza RCOMA 00214/2022/HCC rwo ku wa 04/04/2022 kandi butakiri ubwa KALINDA Valens, kuko bwari bwaraguzwe na CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd, ko kandi muri urwo rubanza Urukiko rwafashe icyemezo ku mitungo ya CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd itararubayemo umuburanyi, akaba ari yo mpamvu basaba ko ruhinduka ku byerekeranye no gutambamira ubwo butaka. [3] KARINDA Valens yaburanye yemera ko itambama ryabaye uwo mutungo waramaze kugurishwa, bityo akavuga ko ikirego cya CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd gifite ishingiro. [4] TRADEMET S.A. yaburanye ivuga ko ikirego kidakwiye kwakirwa kuko imanza zabaye zose KALINDA Valens yari azirimo kandi akaba atarigeze agaragaza ko umutungo ufatirwa utakiri uwe. Akaba abona ari uburyo bwo kugira ngo abure ubwishyu bw’umwenda afitiwe. [5] Ku wa 02/11/2022, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwaciye urubanza RCOMA 00635/2022/HCC rwemeza ko ikirego cyatanzwe na CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd gifite ishingiro, ko icyemezo cyafashwe mu rubanza RCOMA 00214/2022/HCC rutambamirwa gihindutse gusa ku bijyanye n’itambamirwa ry’imitungo y’ubutaka bubaruye kuri UPI

## Page 261

227 TRADEMET SA v CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD,

:1/01/04/03/2330 na UPI :1/01/04/03/2335, ko itambamira ry’imitungo y’ubutaka ibaruwe kuri UPI: 1/01/04/03/2330 na UPI :1/01/04/03/2335 rikuweho; rutegeka KALINDA Valens guha TRADEMET S.A. na CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd buri wese indishyi zingana na 600 000 Frw, kandi ko amafaranga y’igarama yatanzwe aguma mu Isanduku ya Leta. [6] TRADEMET S.A. ntiyishimiye imikirize y’urubanza iyijuririra muri uru Rukiko isaba ko itambama ryashyizwe ku mutungo ubaruye kuri UPI: 1/01/04/03/2330 na UPI :1/01/04/03/2335 rigumaho ndetse ikanahabwa 5.000.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka kuko ayo yagenewe mu rubanza rujuririrwa ari make ugereranyije n’ayo imaze gutakaza muri uru rubanza. Ubujurire bwayo bwandikwa kuri No RCOMAA 00116/2022/CA. CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd yireguye ivuga ko ubutaka UPI:1/01/04/03/2330 na UPI:1/01/04/03/2335 ari CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd bukaba ntaho buhuriye n’urubanza ruri hagati ya KALINDA Valens na TRADEMET S.A. [7] Uru rubanza rwari rwahamagajwe ku wa 06/02/2023, ariko rwimurirwa ku wa 14/02/2023 kubera ko Me MUHIRE Jean Marie Eugene yari arwaye. Uwo munsi nabwo ntirwaburanishwa kubera ko Umucamanza yari yagize ibyago, hanyuma rwimurirwa ku wa 21/02/2023. Iyo tariki igeze, urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame, TRADEMET S.A. ihagarariwe na Me UWIZEYIMANA Jean Eric, KALINDA Valens ahagarariwe na Me NKANIKA Alimasi, naho CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd ihagarariwe na Me MUHIRE Jean Marie Eugene.

## Page 262

228 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[8] Ikibazo nyamukuru cyasuzumwe n’icyo kumenya niba hari ikosa Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwakoze ryo gukuraho itambama ryashyizwe ku mutungo ubaruye kuri UPI: 1/01/04/03/2330 na UPI :1/01/04/03/2335, hiyongera n’ikijyanye n’indishyi zitandukanye. III. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO 1. Kumenya niba hari ikosa Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwakoze ryo gukuraho itambama ryashyizwe ku mutungo ubaruye kuri UPI: 1/01/04/03/2330 na UPI :1/01/04/03/2335 [9] Uhagarariye TRADEMET S A avuga ko icyo banenga urubanza rujuririrwa ari uko rwemeje ko itambama rivaho kandi ryakozwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko. Asobanura ko itambama ryashyizwe ku mitungo ya KALINDA Valens rikurikije amategeko, kandi nk’uko bigaragara mu manza RCOM 00291/0222/TC na No RCOMA 00214/204/2022/HCC, KALINDA Valens yabayemo umuburanyi ndetse n’ibyangombwa byagaragajwe byerekanaga ko ari we nyir’umutungo, akaba nta na rimwe yigeze agaragaza ko mu mutungo wasabirwaga gutambamirwa harimo utari uwe, ko rero itambama ryakozwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko ritagomba kuvaho. [10] Asobanura kandi ko ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 74 y'Itegeko no 27/2021 ryo ku wa 10/06/2021 rigenga ubutaka mu Rwanda, ndetse n’ibyo ingingo ya 213 y’Itegeko nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z‘imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi,

## Page 263

229 TRADEMET SA v CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD,

iteganya ko ubusabe bwo gutambamira imitungo itimukanwa bisabwa Umubitsi w'impapurompamo z'ubutaka, hanyuma mu gihe cy'ukwezi hakaba hatanzwe ikirego, ko byubahirijwe byose ndetse n’urukiko narwo rukabona ko byubahirijwe, ndetse nyuma y’icyemezo cy’urukiko Nº RCOMA 00214/2022/HCC cyashyikirijwe Ikigo gishinzwe imicungire y’ubutaka itambama rigakorwa, ko rero basanga nta gushidikanya ko ibyo byose byakozwe ku mutungo wa KALINDA Valens ukaba waratambamiwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, ariyo mpamvu iryo tambama rigomba kugumana agaciro karyo, bityo basaba Urukiko rujuririwe kwemeza ko rigumyeho. [11] Uhagarariye CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd avuga ko ubutaka UPI:1/01/04/03/2330 na UPI:1/01/04/03/2335 ari CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd bukaba ntaho buhuriye n’urubanza ruri hagati ya KALINDA Valens na TRADEMET SA. Asobanura ko ibivuga na TRADEMET S A bidakwiye guhabwa ishingiro kuko nk’uko byasobanuwe mu rubanza rujuririrwa ubutaka UPI:1/01/04/03/2330 na UPI:1/01/04/03/2335 bwafashweho icyemezo mu rubanza No RCOMA 00214/2022/HCC rwo ku wa 04/04/2022 kandi butakiri ubwa KALINDA Valens, kuko yari yarabugurishije CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD nk’uko bigaragara mu masezerano yo ku wa 18/12/2020, bigashimangirwa n’inyandiko isaba ihererekanya ry’ubutaka yo ku wa 15/03/2021. [12] Asobanura kandi ko mu rubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko rwasanze urubanza Nº RCOMA 00214/2022/HCC rwo ku wa 04/04/2022 rwarafashe icyemezo ku mitungo ya CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd kandi itarabaye umuburanyi muri urwo rubanza, rusanga urwo rubanza rukwiye guhinduka ku byerekeranye no gutambamira ubutaka bufite

## Page 264

230 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

UPI:1/01/04/03/2330 na UPI:1/01/04/03/2335 kandi nyirabwo atarabaye umuburanyi muri urwo rubanza. Ko rero bashingiye ku ngingo ya 64 y’Itegeko N° 45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano iteganya ko amasezerano akozwe ku buryo bukurikije amategeko aba itegeko ku bayagiranye, basanga ibisabwa na TRADEMET S.A. bidakwiye guhabwa ishingiro kuko amasezerano yose TRADEMET S.A. yaba yaragiranye na KALINDA Valens adashobora kugira ingaruka kuri CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd nk’uko iyo ngingo yavuzwe haruguru ibigaragaza. [13] Uhagarariye KALINDA Valens avuga ko nta kosa Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwakoze ryo gukuraho itambama ryashyizwe ku mutungo wa CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd kubera ko barishyizeho bawita umutungo we kandi yarawugurishije kuko wari ingwate ya BRD hanyuma itangiye inzira zo kuwugurisha mucyamunara, KALINDA Valens awugurisha CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd kugira ngo hishyurwe umwenda wa BRD, ko kubera ikibazo cyari muri za UPI's byabaye ngombwa ko hitabazwa Ikigo cy'ubutaka kugira ngo kibikosore ari yo mpamvu iharerekanyamutungo (mutation) ryatinze. [14] Asobanura kandi ko imanza RCOM 00291/0222/TC ndetse na RCOMA 00214/204/2022/HCC zabaye nyuma y’uko hakorwa amasezerano y'ubugure hagati ya KALINDA Valens na CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd zikaba zitambamira umutungo utakiri uwe, kuko ku wa 18/12/2020 yari yaramaze kuwugurisha kandi itambama yarimenyeshejwe ku wa 23/02/2022. KALINDA Valens akaba asanga ikirego cya CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd cyasabaga gukura itambama kuri uwo mutungo cyari gifite ishingiro n'Urukiko

## Page 265

231 TRADEMET SA v CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD,

rubibona rutyo rurivanaho, bakaba rero basanga ubujurire bwa TRADEMET S.A. nta shingiro bufite kuko igamije gutambamira umutungo wa CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd kandi ntaho KALINDA Valens agihuriye nawo. [15] Avuga kandi ibivugwa n’uhagarariye TRADEMET S.A. ko nta na hamwe KALINDA Valens yigeze avuga ko uwo mutungo atari uwe nta nshingiro bifite, kuko yaburanye agaragaza ko itambama nta shingiro rifite. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [16] Ingingo ya 12, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ibikurikira: “Urega agomba kugaragaza ibimenyetso by’ibyo aregera. Iyo abibuze, uwarezwe aratsinda”. Ingingo ya 150, agace ka 5 y’iryo Tegeko iteganya ko ubujurire bugomba kugaragaza urutonde rw’inenge z’urubanza zisabirwa gukosorwa. [17] Urukiko rusomeye hamwe izi ngingo rusanga zumvikanisha ko urega agomba kugaragaza ibimenyetso bishimangira ibyo aregera, ni ukuvuga ibimenyetso bigaragaza ko ibyo asaba mu kirego cye ari ukuri, kandi ko ujurira nawe agomba kugaragaza inenge ziri mu rubanza rujuririrwa, akanagaragaza ibimenyetso bishimangira ibyo asaba mu bujurire bwe, ni ukuvuga ibimenyetso byerekana inenge ziri muri urwo rubanza, ndetse n’ibimenyetso bigaragaza uburyo izo nenge zigomba gukosorwa.

## Page 266

232 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[18] osiye y’urubanza igaragaza amasezerano y’ubugure bw’umutungo utimukanwa ufite UPI: 1/01/04/03/187 na 1/01/04/03/190 yo ku wa 18/12/2020, KALINDA Valens n’umugore we NYIRAHABUFITE Epiphanie bagiranye na CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd ihagarariwe na Frank Lyonson.

[19] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza kandi ibaruwa yanditswe n’Ikigo gishyinzwe imicungire y’ubutaka mu Rwanda/ Urwego rw’Umubitsi w’impapurompamo z’ubutaka cyandikiye KALINDA Valens ku wa 21/09/2021, igaragaza ko ubutaka bufite UPI: 1/01/04/03/2335 ikomoka kuri UPI: 1/01/04/03/190 na UPI: 1/01/04/03/2330 ikomoka kuri UPI: 1/01/04/03/187. Iyo baruwa igaragaza kandi ko ubwo butaka bwavuye mu mbibi z’igishanga kandi ko ubutaka bufite UPI: 1/01/04/03/2335 na UPI: 1/01/04/03/2330 bwanditswe kuri CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd hakurikijwe amasezerano y’ubugure yagiranye na KALINDA Valens hamwe n’umugore we NYIRAHABUFITE Epiphanie imbere ya Noteri mu by’ubutaka ku wa 15/03/2021. [20] Imikirize y’urubanza RCOMA 00214/2022/HCC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ku wa 04/04/2022, igaragaza ko urwo Rukiko rwemeje ko nta gihindutse ku mikirize y’urubanza RCOM 00291/2022/TC, ko kandi ibyarutegetswemo bishyirwa mu bikorwa ari byo ko imitungo itimukanwa ibaruye kuri UPI 1/01/04/03/2330, UPI 1/01/04/03/2335, UPI 1/01/04/03/1011, UPI 1/01/04/03/243, UPI 3/07/05/05/6377, UPI 3/07/05/05/6378, UPI 3/07/05/05/4871, UPI 3/07/05/05/6377, UPI 3/07/05/05/5607, UPI 3/07/05/05/4862, UPI 3/07/05/05/3147 na UPI 3/07/05/05/4831 ya KALINDA Valens

## Page 267

233 TRADEMET SA v CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD,

itambamirwa kugeza igihe urubanza RCOM 00104/2022/TC, KALINDA Valence yarezwemo na TRADEMET S.A. rubereye itegeko. [21] Imikirize y’urubabanza rujuririrwa RCOMA 00635/2022/HCC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ku wa 02/11/2022 igaragaza ko CROSS INVESTIMENT yagaragaje ibimenyetso byemeza ko imutungo ibaruye kuri UPI:1/01/04/03/2330 na UPI:1/01/04/03/2335 yawuguze na KARINDA Valens mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, akaba atarabashije kuwandikwaho ku mpamvu zitamuturutseho, ariko ibyo bikaba bitamwambura uburenganzira kuri uwo mutungo, ko CROSS INVESTIMENT Plc itemerewe kwandikwaho ubwo butaka n’Ikigo cy’Igihugu gishinzwe imicungire n’imikoreshereze y’ubutaka, kuko bwashyizweho itambamira hashingiwe ku rubanza RCOMA 00214/2022/HCC kandi amenyeshwa ko kugira ngo itambamirwa rikurweho ari uko yabisaba Urukiko. Rurasanga TRADEMET nta bimenyetso bivuguruza ibyatanzwe n’urega, bityo ko itambama ryashyizwe ku mitungo UPI:1/01/04/03/2330 na UPI:1/01/04/03/2335 mu rubanza RCOMA 00214/2022/HCC, rigomba gukurwaho. [22] Nk’uko byagaragajwe haruguru, CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd yaguze umutungo ufite UPI:1/01/04/03/2330 na UPI:1/01/04/03/2335 wa KALINDA Valens ku wa 18/12/2020, ihererekanyamutungo imbere ya Noteri w’ubutaka rikorwa ku wa 21/09/2021, naho itambama ry’uwo mutungo ryemezwa n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ku wa 04/04/2022, Urukiko rukaba rusanga itambama ryarakozwe nyuma y’uko CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd iguze uwo mutungo na KALINDA Valens, bivuze ko ryabaye uwo mutungo utakiri uwa

## Page 268

234 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

KALINDA Valens ahubwo ari uwa CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd. [23] Urukiko rurasanga kuba TRADEMET S.A. yaratambamiye umutungo ufite UPI:1/01/04/03/2330 na UPI:1/01/04/03/2335 iwita uwa KALINDA Valens kandi yarawugurishije CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, kuba itambama ryarashyizwe ku mutungo wa CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd idafite aho ihuriye n’urubanza ruri hagati ya KALINDA Valens na TRADEMET S.A, kuba kandi CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd itarigeze iba umuburanyi mu rubanza No RCOMA 00214/2022/HCC rwemeje ko uwo mutungo ushyirwaho utambamirwa, birumvikana ko nta kosa riri mu rubanza rujuririrwa rwemeje ko iryo tambama rikurwaho, bityo ubujurire bwa TRADEMET S.A. nta shingiro bufite. 2. Kumenya niba indishyi KALINDA Valens yaciwe mu rubanza rujuririrwa zigomba kuvanwaho [24] Uhagarariye KALINDA Valens avuga ko mu Rukiko Rukuru, KALINDA Valens yaciwe amafaranga adafite impamvu kandi nta muntu numwe yashoye mu rubanza ku mpamvu imuturutseho, akaba asanga rero yararenganyijwe agacibwa amafaranga adafite impamvu.

[25] Uhagarariye TRADEMET S.A. avuga ko Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwemeje itambama hanyuma KALINDA Valens ajuririra Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ariko mu bujurire bwe avuga gusa ko Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rutahaye agaciro inzitizi yatanze kandi ko rwemeje itambama kandi yaratanze ingwate, akaba nta na hamwe yigeze avuga ko uwo mutungo

## Page 269

235 TRADEMET SA v CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD,

yawugurishije, bityo ko indishyi KALINDA Valens yaciwe zifite ishingiro kuko ariwe wategeje izi manza. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [26] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza inyandiko isaba gutambamira ihererekanya ry’ubutaka (caveat) yanditswe na Me KAYIGIRWA Viateur, Umuhesha w’inkiko w’umwuga ku wa 07/02/2022, aho yasabye gutambamira imitungo ya KALINDA Valens. Igaragaza n’ibaruwa Me KAYIGIRWA Viateur yandikiye KALINDA Valens ku wa 08/02/2022 amumenyesha ko imitungo ye UPI 1/01/04/03/2330, UPI 1/01/04/03/2335, UPI 1/01/04/03/243, UPI 3/07/05/05/6377, UPI 1/01/04/03/1011, UPI 3/07/05/05/6378, UPI 3/07/05/05/4871, UPI 3/07/05/05/5607, UPI 3/07/05/05/4862, UPI 3/07/05/05/3147, UPI 3/07/05/05/4831 na UPI 3/07/05/05/6377 itambamiwe. [27] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza kandi ko mu rubanza No RCOMA 00214/2022/HCC KALINDA Valens yajuririye impamvu ebyiri, harimo iyo kuba Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwarirengagije inzitizi yatanze n’iyo kuba rwaremeje ko imitungo ye itambamirwa kandi umwenda waratangiwe ingwate. [28] Imikirize y’urubanza rujuririrwa RCOMA 00635/2022/HCC igaragaza ko KALINDA Valens yari umuburanyi mu manza zose zafashe icyemezo cyo gushyiraho itambama ku mitungo ye, akaba yari azi neza ko yagurihije imitungo iburanwa, nyamara ntiyabigaragaza muri izo manza yaburanye na TRADEMET S.A, bikaba byaratumye iyo mitungo ishyirwaho itambama kandi bitari ngombwa, maze rwemeza ko ari we ugomba guha TRADEMET S.A. na CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd buri wese 100 000 Frw y’ibyo

## Page 270

236 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

yatakarije ku rubanza mu kurukurikirana na 500 000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka. [29] Hashingiwe ku mpamvu zimaze gutangwa mu gika kibanziriza iki, Urukiko rurasanga ikosa KALINDA Valens yakoze ari ryo ryatumye izi manza zibaho, bityo nta kosa Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwakoze ryo kumutegeka guha TRADEMET S.A. na CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd buri wese indishyi z’ibyo batakaje mu rubanza zingana na 600 000 Frw, ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwatanzwe na KALINDA Valens bukaba nta shingiro bufite. 3. Kumenya niba indishyi, amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka bisabwa muri uru rubanza bifite ishingiro [30] Uhagarariye TRADEMET S.A. avuga ko mu cyemezo cy'urukiko kijuririrwa TRADEMET S.A. yagenewe indishyi zingana na 600,000 Frw gusa nyamara bashingiye ko TRADEMET S.A. izi manza yazishowemo n’imyitwarire ya KALINDA Valens kandi ikaba ikomeza guhura n'ibihombo byo kutishyurwa ndetse no gukurikirana uburenganzira bwayo, basanga amafaranga yagenwe n'Urukiko mu rubanza rujuririrwa adahuye n’ibyo TRADEMET S.A. ikomeje gutakariza mu manza bakaba basaba ko mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko KALINDA Valens akwiye gutegekwa kwishyura 5.000.000 Frw akubiyemo ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka. [31] Uhagarariye KALINDA Valens yiregura avuga ko indishyi zisabwa na TRADEMET S.A. nta shingiro zifite kubera ko umutungo TRADEMET S.A. yatambamiye atari uwa KALINDA Valens nk'uko inzego zibishinzwe zabigaragaje. Avuga kandi ko mu gihe Urukiko rwasanga ubujurire bwa

## Page 271

237 TRADEMET SA v CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD,

TRADEMET S.A. nta shingiro bufite yacibwa 800.000 Frw akubiyemo ay'ikurikiranarubanza n'igihembo cya Avoka. [32] CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd ivuga ko amafaranga asabwa na TRADEMET S.A. areba KALINDA Valens. Ivuga kandi mu rubanza rujuririrwa Urukiko rwagaragaje neza ko iriya mitungo itagombaga gutambamirwa ariko TRADEMET S.A. ikaba yarakomeje gutsimbarara ishora CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd mu manza kandi mu rubanza Nº RCOMA 00214/2022/HCC rwo ku wa 04/04/2022 rwarabaye hagati ya KALINDA Valens na TRADEMET SA, CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd ikaba itararubayemo umuburanyi. Ibi biteza igihombo CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd, bituma itabasha kubyaza umusaruro umutungo wayo ndetse ijya mu manza. Bityo bakaba basaba Urukiko ko rwategeka TRADEMET SA kwishyura CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd 20.000.000 Frw y’indishyi zo kutabasha kubyaza umusaruro umutungo wayo kuko wari utambamiwe ;5,000,000 Frw y’indishyi zo gusiragizwa mu nzego z’ubuyobozi; 1,500,000 Frw y’Ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’Avoka, yiyongera kuyategetswe mu rubanza rujuririrwa. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [33] Ku birebana n’amafaranga y’ibyakoreshejwe mu rubanza, ingingo ya 111 y’Itegeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 28/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza mbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ibikurikira: “Ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza ni ikirego gishamikira ku kirego cy’iremezo kigamije kwishyuza ibyakoreshejwe mu rubanza. Ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza kiburanishirizwa

## Page 272

238 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

rimwe n’ikirego cy’iremezo. Gishobora kandi kwakirwa kikanaburanishwa n’iyo ikirego cy’iremezo cyaba kitakiriwe”. [34] Urukiko rurasanga kubera ubujurire bwa TRADEMET SA byarabaye ngombwa ko CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd ishaka Avoka wo kuyiburanira kuri uru rwego, bityo amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka isaba afite ishingiro, mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko ruyigeneye 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 200.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza agomba gutangwa na TRADEMET SA. [35] Ku bijyanye indishyi zo kutabasha kubyaza umusaruro umutungo wayo kuko wari utambamiwe n’indishyi zo gusiragizwa mu nzego z’ubuyobozi zisabwa na CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd, Urukiko zitagomba gusuzumwa muri uru rubanza kuko itigeze izisaba mu rubanza rujuririrwa. [36] Urukiko rurasanga 600.000 Frw akubiyemo amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka TRADEMET SA yagenewe mu rubanza rujuririrwa yaragenwe mu bushishizo bw’Urukiko, ibyo rero TRADEMET SA ivuga ko ari make nta shingiro bifite, cyane ko itagaragaza icyo inenga ubushishozi bw’Urukiko. Rusanga kandi ntayo igomba kugenerwa kuri uru rwego, kuko ubujurire bwayo nta shingiro bwahawe. [37] Urukiko rurasanga KALINDA Valens nta mafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka agomba kugenerwa muri uru rubanza kuko nk’uko byagaragajwe haruguru niwe watumye habaho izi manza kandi n’ubujurire yatanze bwuririye ku bundi asaba gukurirwaho indishyi yaciwe nta shingiro bwahawe.

## Page 273

239 TRADEMET SA v CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD,

III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [38] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwatanzwe na TRADEMET S.A. nta shingiro bufite. [39] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwatanzwe na KALINDA Valens nta shingiro bufite, naho ubwatanzwe na CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe. [40] Rwemeje ko urubanza No RCOMA 00635/2022/HCC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ku wa 02/11/2022 rudahindutse. [41] Rutegetse TRADEMET S.A. kwishyura CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd, [42] 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 200.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza, kuri uru rwego, yiyongera ku 600.000 Frw yagenewe mu rubanza rujuririrwa agomba gutangwa na KALINDA Valens. [43] Ruvuze ko amagarama yatanzwe ahwanye n’ibyakozwe mu rubanza.

## Page 275

IMANZA INSHINJABYAHA

## Page 277

243

UBUSHINJACYAHA v NSENGIYAREMYE [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’UBUJURIRE – RPAA 00466/2021/CA (Nyirandabaruta, P.J.) 27 Mutarama 2023] Amategeko agenga imanza nshinjabyaha – Impamvu nyoroshyacyaha – Imihanire y’umuntu mukuru ariko umaze igihe gito avuye mu bwana/young adult n’iy’umuntu ukuze urengeje imyaka 25 (adult) ikwiye gutandukana mu rwego rwo gutanga ubutabera buboneye kuri buri muntu, hitawe no kuburemere bw’icyaha, ingaruka zacyo n’amahirwe y’uko uhanwe ashobora kugororwa (rehabilitation). Incamake y’ikibazo: Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa rwa Ngoma, uregwa akurikiranweho n’Ubushinjacyaha icyaha cyo kubika no gucuruza ibiyobyabwenge byo mu bwoko bw’urumogi, buvuga ko inzego z’umutekano zamufatiye mu Nkambi ya Mahama zimusangana utubure mirongo itatu (30) tw’urumogi yarimo gucuruza. Urwo Rukiko rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko uregwa ahamwa n’icyaha cyo kubika, kunywa no kugurisha ibiyobyabwenge bihambaye byo mu bwoko bw’urumogi, ariko kuko yaraburanye yemera icyaha mu buryo budashidikanywaho rumuhanisha igifungo cy’imyaka makumyabiri (20) n’ihazabu ya miliyoni makumyabiri n’imwe (21,000,000Frw). Uregwa yajuririye iyo mikirize y’urubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana avuga ko icyaha aregwa acyemera akagisabira imbabazi bityo asaba ko yagabanyirizwa igihano ndetse n’inyito y’icyaha igahinduka. Urwo narwo rwaciye

## Page 278

244 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

urubanza rusanga nta mpamvu ishingiye ku itegeko yatuma inyito y’icyaha ihinduka nk’uko uregwa yabisabaga, naho ku bijyanye no kugabanyirizwa ibihano, rusanga atakongera kugabanyirizwa kuko yagabanyirijwe ku rwego rwa mbere. Uregwa yarongeye ajuririra imikirize y’urwo rubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire asaba ko inyito y’icyaha yahamijwe yahinduka ngo kuko atigeze acuruza urumogi nk’uko yabirezwe, ko n’abatangabuhamya bamushinja bavuga ibyo batabonye n’amaso yabo, ubuhamya bwabo bukaba bushidikanywaho, ko habayeho kugenekereza mu kumuhamya icyaha cyo gucuruza urumogi kuko urwo yafatanwe rwari urwo kunywa. Ubushinjacyaha bwo bwaburanye buvuga ko ubujurire bw’uregwa nta shingiro bufite kuko mu Bugenzacyaha yemeye ko yafatanywe udupfunyika 30 tw’urumogi (30boules) kandi yemera ko yaruranguye kandi ko akuramo inyungu ngo abone ibyo kurya. Incamake y’icyemezo: Imihanire y’umuntu umukuru ariko umaze igihe gito avuye mu bwana/young adult n’iy’umuntu ukuze urengeje imyaka 25 (adult) ikwiye gutandukana mu rwego rwo gutanga ubutabera buboneye kuri buri muntu, hitawe no kuburemere bw’icyaha, ingaruka zacyo n’amahirwe y’uko uhanwe ashobora kugororwa (rehabilitation), bityo kuba uregwa yarakoze icyaha afite imyaka 20 y’amavuko, byamubera impamvu nyoroshyacyaha, akaba akwiye kugabanyirizwa igihano. Ubujurire bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe; Urubanza ruhindutse gusa ku birebana n’igihano.

## Page 279

245 UBUSHINJACYAHA v NSENGIYAREMYE

Imanza zifashishijwe: Re Kabasinga, RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwaciwe kuwa 04/12/2019. Ubushinjacyaha v. Niyonsaba, RS/INJUST/RP 00003/2019/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 28/01/2022. Ubushinjacyaha v. Ahimpereye, RPAA 00436/2020/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 28/06/2022. Ubushinjacyaha v. Hakizimana, RPAA 00091/2021/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 19/07/2022. Ubushinjacyaha v. Shakabatenda, RPAA 00039/2021/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 02/07/2021. Ubushinjacyaha v. Nzafashwanimana, RPAA 00032/2019/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 28/02/2020. Inyandiko zifashishijwe: House of Commons Justice Committee, The Treatment of Young Adults in the Criminal Justice System Seventh Report of Session 2016–17 (2016), HC 169, p.9. NCBI, Young Adults in the 21st Century - Investing in the Health and Well-Being of Young Adults. Available online at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK284782/ , accessed on 16th Jan.2023 Cosmin Peneoașum Judicial Individualization of Punishment in Special Situations. Judge's Role in these Cases, EIRP Proceedings, Vol 10 (2015). Available online at https://proceedings.univ- danubius.ro/index.php/eirp/article/view/1673/1657 , accessed on 18th Jan.2023.

## Page 280

246 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Ngoma, Nsengiyaremye Elie akurikiranweho n’Ubushinjacyaha icyaha cyo kubika no gucuruza ibiyobyabwenge byo mu bwoko bw’urumogi, buvuga ko tariki ya 23/05/2019 inzego z’umutekano zamufatiye mu Nkambi ya Mahama zimusangana utubure mirongo itatu (30) tw’urumogi yarimo gucuruza. [2] Nsengiyaremye yaburanye avuga ko urumogi yafatanwe rutari uwo gucuruza, ko rwari urwo kunywa. Mu rubanza No RP 00506/2019/TGI/NGOMA rwaciwe ku wa 18/06/2019, Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Ngoma rushingiye k’ukwiyemerera icyaha kw’uregwa kuba kandi yarashyize umukono ku nyandikomvugo y’ifatira ndetse akaba ashinjwa na Ntezimana Jean Claude na Bushyitse Désiré bamufashe arimo kugurisha urumogi mu Nkambi ya Mahama, rwemeje ko Nsengiyaramye ahamwa n’icyaha cyo kubika, kunywa no kugurisha ibiyobyabwenge bihambaye byo mu bwoko bw’urumogi, ariko kuko yaraburanye yemera icyaha mu buryo budashidikanywaho rumuhanisha igifungo cy’imyaka makumyabiri (20) n’ihazabu ya miliyoni makumyabiri n’imwe (21,000,000Frw). [3] Nsengiyaremye yajuririye iyo mikirize y’urubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana avuga ko icyaha aregwa acyemera akagisabira imbabazi bityo asaba ko yagabanyirizwa igihano ndetse n’inyito y’icyaha igahinduka. [4] Mu rubanza No RPA 00565/2019/HC/RWG rwaciwe ku wa 15/02/2021, Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana

## Page 281

247 UBUSHINJACYAHA v NSENGIYAREMYE

rushingiye ku kuba uregwa mu ibazwa rye Mu Bugenzacyaha yaravuze ko yaguze urumogi n’umunyarwanda agafatwa arujyanye mu nkambi ya Mahama kurucuruza ngo aronke amafaranga yo kurya ko kandi yari asanzwe arucuruza, kuba Ntezimana na Bushyitse bamufashe bemeza ko yafatanywe urwo rumogi, ko kandi yababwiye ko asanzwe arucuruza no kuba yarashyize n’umukono ku nyandiko mvugo y’ifatira, rwasanze nta mpamvu ishingiye ku itegeko yatuma inyito y’icyaha ihinduka nk’uko uregwa n’umwunganira babisabaga, naho ku bijyanye no kugabanyirizwa ibihano, rusanga Nsengiyaremye Elie atakongera kugabanyirizwa kuko yagabanyirijwe ku rwego rwa mbere. [5] Nsengiyaremye Elie yarongeye ajuririra imikirize y’urwo rubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire asaba ko inyito y’icyaha yahamijwe yahinduka ngo kuko atigeze acuruza urumogi nk’uko yabirezwe, ko n’abatangabuhamya bamushinja bavuga ibyo batabonye n’amaso yabo, ubuhamya bwabo bukaba bushidikanywaho, ko habayeho kugenekereza mu kumuhamya icyaha cyo gucuruza urumogi kuko urwo yafatanwe rwari urwo kunywa. [6] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku wa 06/01/2023, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusuzuma ikibazo cyo kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru Urugereko rwa Rwamagana hari ikosa rwakoze mu kudahindura inyito y’icyaha Nsengiyaremye yahamijwe cyo kunywa no kugurisha ibiyobyabwenge bihambaye byo mu bwoko bw’urumogi, n’icyo kumenya niba Nsengiyaremye Elie yakongera kugabanyirizwa ibihano.

## Page 282

248 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

II. ISESENGURWA RY’URUBANZA Kumenya niba Urukiko rwaragombaga guhindura inyito y’icyaha Nsengiyaremye Elie agahanirwa kunywa ibinyobyabwenge aho kuba kubinywa no kubicuruza. [7] Nsengiyaremye Elie, avuga ko anenga Urukiko Rukuru kuba rutarahinduye inyito y’icyaha yahamijwe kandi yararugaragarije ko atigeze acuruza urumogi nk’uko yabirezwe kandi n’ibyo yemereye mu Bugenzacyaha yabihatiwe, ko kandi n’abatangabuhamya bamushinja bavuga ibyo batabonye n’amaso yabo, hakaba hari ugushidikanya ku buhamyabwabo, ko habayeho kugnekereza mu kumuhamya icyaha cyo gucuruza urumogi kuko urwo yafatanwe rwari urwo kunywa kandi ko nta bandi yaruhayeho. [8] Avuga ko umutangabuhamya witwa Ntezimana Jean Claude atamwemera kuko bapfuye umukobwa atangira kumuhiga, ko atumva impamvu atari yaramureze mbere ko yamubwiye ko acuruza urumogi; avuga ko Bushyitse we ntacyo bapfa, ko ari we wamufashe anavuga ko yasanze anywa urumogi. [9] Nsengiyaremye Elie yakomeje avuga ko Urukiko rutari gushingira ku mvugo z’abatangabuhamya bavuga ibyo batabonye kuko zirimo ugushidikanya, kandi nta kindi kimenyetso Ubushinjacyaha bwagaragaje cyerekana ko acuruza urumogi, uwo yaruhereje, uwamuhaye amafaranga n’ibindi. [10] Me Uwiduhaye Julienne umwunganira avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko Nsengiyaremye Elie yacuruzaga urumogi kandi nta bimenyetso bifatika rushingiyeho, kuko kuva yafatwa, yemera ko

## Page 283

249 UBUSHINJACYAHA v NSENGIYAREMYE

yafashwe anywa urumogi, kandi akaba yari afite “boules” 30 z’urumogi mu mufuka zo kunywa, umuntu nk’uwo wanyaga urumogi akaba nta kintu kizima yavuga ndetse ko n’Ubushinjacyaha mu kumushinja, nta kindi kimenyetso bushingiraho uretse imvugo ya Bushyitsi idafite ibindi bimenyetso biyishimangira. Ikindi, avuga ko nk’uko byemejwe mu rubanza No RPAA 0057/15/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 11/05/2018 haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Sikubwabo Emmanuel, kwemera icyaha k’ushinjwa kudahagije nk’ikimenyetso. [11] Avuga ko Urukiko ruramutse rusanze uwo yunganira ahamwa n’icyaha cyo kunywa no gucuruza ibiyobyabwenge byo mu bwoko bw’urumogi, rwamugabanyiriza ibihano rushingiye ku mpamvu y’uko aribwo bwa mbere akoze icyaha, agahabwa igihano gito gishoboka, hashingiwe ku rubanza NO RS/INCONST/SPEC/00003/2019/SC rwitiriwe Kabasinga Floride, igika cyarwo cya [47] [12] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko impamvu z’ubujurire za Nsengiyaremye Elie n’umwunganira nta shingiro zifite kuko Nsengiyaremye abazwa mu Bugenzacyaha yemeye ko yafatanywe udupfunyika 30 tw’urumogi (30boules) kandi yemera ko yaruranguye n’umunyarwanda amafaranga igihumbi (1,000Frw), kandi ko akuramo inyungu ngo abone ibyo kurya, ko iyo harebwe izo details byerekana ko ibyo avuga ari ukuri. [13] Avuga ko umutangabuhamya Ntezimana Jean Claude na Bushyitse Désiré bemeza ko uregwa yafatanywe ikiyobyabwenge cy’urumogi kingana n’udupfunyika 30 kandi ko yababwiye ko acuruza urumogi. Bityo ko ibyo asaba ko yahindurirwa inyito y’icyaha bitashoboka kubera ko icyaha uregwa cyo kubika no gucuruza ikiyobyabwenge cy’urumogi

## Page 284

250 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

aricyo yarezwe kandi yahamijwe hagendewe mvugo ye yo mu Bugenzacyaha aho yiyemereye ko yacuruzaga urumogi, kandi ko kuva yafatwa atigeze avuga ko hari icyo apfa n’abatangabuhamya bavuzwe haruguru, inyito y'icyaha ikaba idashobora guhinduka ku bw' ibyifuzo bye guşa adatangira ikimenyetso, bityo iyo mpamvu ikaba itahabwa ishingiro. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [14] Imiburanire y’impande zombi igaragaza ibibazo bibiri by’ingenzi uru Rukiko rugomba gusuzuma, icyo kumenya niba inyito y’icyaha Nsengiyaremye Elie aregwa kandi yahamijwe ku rwego rubanza yaragombaga guhinduka n’icyo kumenya niba mu gihe inyito yaba idahindutse nabwo yagabanyirizwa ibihano. [15] Mu rubanza No RPA 00565/2019/HC/RWG rujuririrwa rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana kuwa 15/02/2021, Nsengiyaremye Elie yaburanye avuga ko yemera icyaha aregwa, ariko akavuga ko inyito yacyo ikwiye guhinduka kuko urumogi yafatanywe rwari urwo kwinywera. Urukiko rwasanze Nsengiyaremye Elie ari imbere y’Umugenzacyaha yarabajijwe impamvu acuruza urumogi asubiza ko yashakaga amafaranga kandi hari n’abatangabuhamya bamushinje ko yababwiye ko yari asanzwe acuruza urumogi, rwanzura ko Nsegiyaremye Elie aterekana uko yari kuvana amafaranga mu rumogi yafatanywe atarucuruje kandi ko Ntezimana Jean Claude na Bushyitse Désiré bemeje ko yababwiye ko yari asanzwe arucuruza urumogi1.

1 Urubanza RPA 00565/2019/HC/RWG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru- Urugereko rwa Rwamagana kuwa 15/02/2021, haburana Nsengiyaremye Elie n’Ubushinjacyaha, igika cya 13_15.

## Page 285

251 UBUSHINJACYAHA v NSENGIYAREMYE

[16] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza inyandikomvugo ya Nsengiyaremye Elie abazwa mu Bugenzacyaha, yerekana ko yabajijwe aho yavanye urumogi yafatanywe agasubiza ko yaruhawe n’umunyarwanda baruguze 1000Frw, akaba yari arujyanye mu nkambi ngo arebe ko yaronga amafaranga yo kurya. Yavuze ko ari ubwa mbere yaragerageje gucuruza urumogi kuko yashakaga amafaranga, ariko ko yafashwe n’ubundi ataragera mu nkambi. [17] Dosiye igaragaza nanone inyandikomvugo y’ibazwa ry’umutangabuhamya witwa Bushyitse Désiré n’undi witwa Ntezimana Jean Claude, ari nabo bafatanye Nsengiyaremye Elie udupfunyika 30 tw’urumogi nawe ubwe yemera kuba yaradufatanywe, bemeza ko bakimufata yababwiye ko urwo rumogi ari urwo gucuruza, ko asanzwe acuruza urumogi. [18] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga nk’uko Urukiko Rukuru rwabibonye, kuba Nsengiyaremye Elie yarafatanywe udupfunyika (boules) mirongo itatu (30) tw’urumogi ubwe akavuga ko yarushakagamo amafaranga kugira ngo abonye ibyo kurya, nta kundi byafatwa uretse kwemeza ko yarucuruzaga, kubera ko aterekana uburyo yari kurunwa gusa akarubonamo ayo mafaranga atarucuruje, bigaragara ahubwo ko yari yiteguye kuruha umuntu wese urukeneye nawe akamuha amafaranga akeneye. Umurongo watnzwe n’uru Rukiko mu rubanza Nº RPAA 00436/2020/CA rwaciwe ku wa 28/06/2022 haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Ahimpereye Ndeze François, uvuga ko igihe cyose umuntu afite ibiyobyabwenge kandi yiteguye kubiha umuntu wese umugana ashaka ibyo agurisha, aba ari umucuruzi

## Page 286

252 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

w’ibiyobyabwenge2. Kuba rero Nsengiyaremye Elie yari yiteguye kugurisha ibiyobyabwenge by’urumogi yafatanywe umuntu wese umugana, kugira ngo abone amafaranga yashakaga, bimugira umucuruzi w’ibiyobyabwenge. [19] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga nubwo Nsengiyaremye Elie ahakana imvugo ye yo mu Bugenzacyaha igihe yasubizaga ko yari agiye gushaka amafaranga mu rumogi yafatanwe kugira ngo abone ibyo arya, ibyo bitayitesha agaciro, kuko uburyo yasobanuye neza impamvu arucuruza n’aho yarukuye byerekana ko yabisobanuye yisanzuye, ahubwo nyuma akigira inama yo guhakana kurucuruza akavuga ko ari urwo yanyaga gusa kuko n’ubwo kunywa no gucuruza ibiyobyabwenge byose ari ibikorwa bihanwa n’amategeko bidahanwa kimwe kuko kubicuruza ari byo bihanwa ku buryo bukomeye kuruta kubinywa. [20] Urukiko rurasanga uko gutesha agaciro imvugo ye yo mu Bugenzacyaha kwe nta shingiro bifite kuko umucamanza uburanisha urubanza mu mizi ariwe ureba agaciro imvugo y’uwiyemerera icyaha mu rwego rw’iperereza ifite, kabone n’iyo nyirayo yageze imbere y’Urukiko akayihindura nk’uko Nsengiyaremye Elie yabikoze3. Rusanga rero imvugo ya Nsengiyaremye Elie imbere y’urwego rw’Ubugenzacyaha itateshwa agaciro, kuko ishimangirwa n’imvugo za Ntezimana Jean Claude na Bushyitse Désiré bavuze ko yababwiye ko yari asanzwe arucuruza urumogi, ibyo Nsengiyaremye Elie avuga ko ubuhamya bwatanzwe na Ntezimana Jean Claude

2 Urubanza Nº RPAA 00436/2020/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 28/06/2022 haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Ahimpereye Ndeze François, igika cya 19. 3 urubanza N° RPAA 00091/2021/CA rwaciwe n’uru Rukiko ku wa 19/07/2022 haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Hakizimana Gilbert

## Page 287

253 UBUSHINJACYAHA v NSENGIYAREMYE

butakwitabwaho kuko bapfaga umukobwa bakundaga bombi bikaba nta shingiro bikwiye guhabwa kubera ko nta kibigaragaza kandi na Bushyitse Désiré avuga ko ntacto bapfaga akaba amushinja. [21] Hashingiwe kuri iryo sesengura, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga kuba Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana rutarahinduye inyito y’icyaha Nsengiyaremye Elie yahamijwe ku rwego rwa mbere cyo kunywa no gucuruza ibiyobyabwenge bihambaye byo mu bwoko bw’urumogi nta kosa rwakoze kuko ari cyo cyaha kimuhama, bityo ubujurire bwe kuri iyo ngingo y’ubujurire bukaba nta shingiro bufite.  Kumenya niba Nsengiyaremye Elie yakongera kugabanyirizwa ibihano [22] Nsengiyaremye Elie avuga ko yahawe igihano kiri hejuru cyane y’icyaha yakoze kuko Inkiko zibanza zemeje ko ahamwa n’icyaha cyo gucuruza ibiyobyabwenge bihambaye bigatuma ahanishwa igihano cy’igifungo cy’imyaha 20 kandi icyaha we yemera ari nacyo cyabaye ari icyo kunywa no gufatanwa ibiyobyabwenge, gihanishwa igifungo kuva ku mwaka 1 kugeza ku myaka 2. [23] Me Uwiduhaye Julienne wunganira Nsengiyaremye Elie, asaba ko yahanirwa kunywa urumogi atari gucuruza, agahabwa igiho gito gishoboka, Urukiko rwabibona ukundi, rukamugabanyiriza ibihano kuko ari ubwa mbere akoze icyaha, rukita ku myaka ye no mu rwego rwo kugorora, agahabwa igihano kigereranyije hashingiwe ku rubanza NORS/INCOST/SP/ RP 00003/2019 rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, agahabwa igihano kiri munsi y'igiteganywa n’itegeko. Asaba kandi Urukiko rw’Ubujuririre gushingira ku

## Page 288

254 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

rubanza RPAA 00156/2022/CA rwaciwe kuwa 27/5/2022, rugahanisha Nsengiyaremye igihano cy’igifungo cy’umwaka 1 kuko ataruhije ubutabera kandi akaba ari ubwa mbere akurikiranyweho icyaha. [24] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko igihano cyo gufungwa imyaka makumyabiri (20) n’ihazabu ya 21,000,000Frw Nsengiyaremye yahawe aricyo gikwiye kugumaho kubera ko mu ubujurire bwe atashoboye kuvuguruza ibimenyetso byagendeweho ashinjwa mu rwego rwa mbere. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [25] Mu rubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC rwaciwe kuwa 04/12/2019, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwatanze umurongo ku bijyanye n’igabanyagihano mu gihe hari impamvu nyoroshyacyaha, aho rwagaragaje ko kutagabanyiriza igihano ushinjwa mu gihe hari impamvu nyoroshyacyaha binyuranye n’amahame y’ubutabera, rubivuga muri aya magambo: “umucamanza agomba guhabwa ubwisanzure bwo gutanga igihano akurikije uburemere bw'icyaha, ingaruka icyaha cyateye, impamvu zatumye agikora, uko uwagikoze yari asanzwe yitwara, imibereho ye bwite n’uburyo icyaha cyakozwemo.”4 Uyu murongo niwo Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwakurikije mu mikirize y’izindi manza nyinshi rwaciye, nk’urubanza nº RPAA

4 Urubanza no.RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwaciwe kuwa 04/12/2019, Kabasinga Florida, igika cya 48.

## Page 289

255 UBUSHINJACYAHA v NSENGIYAREMYE

00039/2021/CA rwaciwe ku wa 02/07/20215, urubanza no RPAA 00032/2019/CA rwaciwe ku wa 28/02/20206 n’izindi. [26] Urukiko rurasanga Nsengiyaremye Elie wavutse mu mwaka wa 1999, igihe yafatwaga afite utubure mirongo itatu (30) tw’urumogi yacuruzaga kuwa 23/05/2019, yari afite imyaka 20 y’amavuko. Bumwe mu bushakashatsi bwakozwe na komite y’ubutabera yashyizweho n’inteko Nshingamategeko y’Ubwongereza (The Justice Committee appointed by the House of Commons) bwagaragaje ko abantu bafite imyaka y’amavuko kuva kuri cumi n’umunani (18) batarageza imyaka makumyabiri n’itanu (18 to 25 years) bari mu cyiciro cyabo cyihariye gitandukanye n’icy’abana ndetse n’icy’abantu bakuru bafite cyangwa barengeje imyaka 25.7 Iki cyiciro cy’abantu bari hagati y’imyaka 18 na 25 aribo biswe “Young adults” imikorere y’ubwonko n’imiterereze byabo biba bigikura, bigira ingaruka ku igenamigambi ry’abo hamwe n’amahitamo yabo nk’uko byemejwe n’ubushakashatsi bwakozwe na The National Center for Biotechnology Information muri Leta zunze ubumwe za America busohoka ku rubuga

5 Urubanza Nº RPAA 00039/2021/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 02/07/2021 haburana Shakabatenda Jean de Dieu n’Ubushinjacyaha igika cya 37. 6 Urubanza RPAA 00032/2019/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 28/02/2020 haburana Nzafashwanimana Jean de Dieu n’Ubushinjacyaha, igika cya 16-18 7 “Research from a range of disciplines strongly supports the view that Young adults are a distinct group with needs that are different both from children under 18 and adults older than 25, underpinned by the developmental maturation process that takes place in this age group.” House of Commons Justice Committee, The Treatment of Young Adults in the Criminal Justice System Seventh Report of Session 2016–17 (2016), HC 169, p.9.

## Page 290

256 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK284782/ rwa National Library of Medicine .8 [27] Urukiko rurasanga nubwo Nsengiyaremye Elie ahamwa n’icyaha kiremereye cyo kunywa no gucuruza ibiyobyabwenge bihambaye byo mu bwoko bw’urumogi, akaba atanacyemera kuko avuga ko icyaha yemera ari icyo kurunywa gusa, kuba aribwo bwa mbere akurikiranwe n’ubutabera kandi igihe yakoraga icyo cyaha akaba yari akiri muri icyo kigero cya young adults kuko yari afite imyaka 20, atarashoboraga kugira igenamigambi rihamye ry’ubuzima bwe; rusanga Nsengiyaremye Elie akwiye kugabanyiriza igihano yahawe kuko mu mpamvu zishobora koroshya icyaha zirimo no kuba uwakoze icyaha ari mu kigero cy’iyo myaka nk’uko byanashimangiwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza Nº RS/INJUST/RP 00003/2019/SC rwaciwe kuwa 28/01/20229. [28] Urukiko rurasanga kuba Nsengiyaremye nta kindi cyaha yigeze akurikiranwaho atafatwa nk’umuntu usanzwe ari

8“Brain systems supporting motivational and socioemotional processing are still maturing in young adulthood, influencing a more developed prefrontal executive system capable of more sophisticated and effective planning and resulting in unique influences on decision making, such as adaptive choices or risk-taking behavior.” NCBI, Young Adults in the 21st Century - Investing in the Health and Well-Being of Young Adults. Available online at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK284782/ , accessed on 16th Jan.2023 9 izindi ngero z’impamvu zishobora koroshya icyaha, muri zo hakavugwamo kuba nta bindi byaha uwahamwe n’icyaha yakurikiranyweho mbere (les bons antécédents du coupable), imyaka y’uwakoze icyaha by’umwihariko ukigera mu myaka y’ubukure kuva kuri 18 kugeza kuri 21(jeune adulte de 18 à 21 ans)” Urubanza Nº RS/INJUST/RP 00003/2019/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 28/01/2022, haburana Niyonsaba Eric n’Ubushinjacyaha igika cya 30.

## Page 291

257 UBUSHINJACYAHA v NSENGIYAREMYE

umunyarugomo, ndetse akaba yarakoze icyaha afite imyaka 20 y’amavuko, akwiye kugabanyirizwa igihano yahawe cy’igifungo cy’imyakamakumyabiri (20) n’ihazabu ya miliyoni makumyabiri n’imwe (21,000,000Frw) yari yaraciwe kubera ko Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana mu rubanza rujuririrwa rutigeze rwita k’ uko yanganaga igihe yakoraga icyaha, kandi bimwe mubyo umucamanza agomba kwitaho atanga igihano, birimo n’imibereho bwite y’uwakoze icyaha urugero: ikigero cy’imyaka ye y’amavuko kikaba ari indi mpamvu nyoroshyacyaha nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru. [29] Rurasanga imihanire y’umuntu mukuru ariko umaze igihe gito avuye mu bwana/young adult ndetse n’iy’umuntu ukuze urengeje imyaka 25 (adult) ikwiye gutandukana mu rwego rwo gutanga ubutabera buboneye kuri buri muntu, hitawe no kuburemere bw’icyaha, ingaruka zacyo n’amahirwe y’uko uhanwe ashobora kugororwa (rehabilitation) agasubira mu muryango nyarwanda. Rurasanga guhana kimwe umuntu ukiva mu bwana cyangwa umaze igihe gito abuvuyemo/Young adult kimwe n’umuntu wari usanzwe ukuze/adult, bitaba ari ugutanga ubutabera ndetse byaba binyuranye n’ihame ryo guha umwihariko buri muntu ukurikiranweho icyaha igihe agiye guhanwa (indivudualisation of punishment10). [30] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rushingiye kuri iryo sesengura, rurasanga kuba Nsengiyaremye Elie yarakoze icyaha afite

10 From a legal perspective, the term of individualization expresses strictly the punishment adaptation in relation to individuality, personality of each offender.” Cosmin Peneoașum Judicial Individualization of Punishment in Special Situations. Judge's Role in these Cases, EIRP Proceedings, Vol 10 (2015). Available online at https://proceedings.univ- danubius.ro/index.php/eirp/article/view/1673/1657 , accessed on 18th Jan.2023 .

## Page 292

258 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

imyaka 20 y’amavuko, ubu akaba afite 24 byamubera impamvu nyoroshyacyaha, bityo akaba akwiye kugabanyirizwa igihano kikagera ku gifungo cy’imyaka icumi (10) n’ihazabu y’amafaranga miliyoni icumi (5,000,000Frw), cyane cyane ko hakiri amahirwe y’uko ashobora kugororwa, agasubira mu muryango nyarwanda agifite imbaraga zatuma akomeza gufatanya n’abandi kubaka igihugu akaba uw’ingirakamaro. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [31] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Nsengiyaremye Elie bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe; [32] Rwemeje ko urubanza n°RPA 00565/2019/HC/RWG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru; Urugereko rwa Rwamagana kuwa 15/02/2021, ruhindutse gusa ku birebana n’igihano; [33] Ruhanishije Nsengiyaremye Elie igifungo cy’imyaka icumi (10) n’ihazabu y’amafaranga y’u Rwanda miliyoni eshanu (5,000,000Frw); [34] Ruvuze ko amagarama y’urubanza aherera ku isanduku ya Leta.

## Page 293

259 UBUSHINJACYAHA v NSENGIYAREMYE

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NDIKUMANA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’UBUJURIRE – RPA 00014/2019/CA (Nyirandabaruta, P.J.) 23 Ukwakira 2020] Amategeko nshinjabyaha – Icyaha cyo gucuruza abantu – Ku gikorwa cyo kubyaza umuntu inyungu mu cyaha cyo gucuruza abantu, si ngombwa ko intego iba yagezweho, icy’ingenzi nuko hagaragazwa icyari kigamijwe, mu ikorwa ry’icyo gikorwa kuko igihanwa ari icyari kigambiriwe nukuvuga kubyaza umuntu inyungu zitemewe aho kuba icyagezweho. Amategeko nshinjabyaha – Icyaha cyo gucuruza abantu – Ku cyaha cyo gucuruza abantu, uregwa ntashobora kwireguza ko uwakorewe icyaha nawe yari yiyemereye gukorerwa igikorwa cyo gucuruza abantu. Incamake y’ikibazo: Urubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko ruburanisha ibyaha mpuzamahanga n’ibyaha byambuka imbibi, uregwa akurikiranywe ku cyaha cyo gucuruza abantu, nyuma yuko hari umukobwa wavuye iwabo i Burundi, yambuka umupaka agera mu Rwanda ku biro by’abinjira n’abasohoka maze abakozi bamubajije iyo agiye biramushobera, batangira kwibaza uwo bari kumwe hakekwa uwitwa Ndikumana(uregwa) wasaga nk’aho akurikiranira hafi ibyuwo mukobwa, nuko hakorwa iperereza rishojwe uregwa akurikiranwaho icyaha cyo gucuruza abantu. Urukiko Rukuru, Ugereko ruburanisha ibyaha byo mu rwego mpuzamahanga n’ibyaha byambuka imbibi rwaciye urubanza, rwemeza ko uregwa ahamwa n’icyaha cyo gucuruza abantu, rumuhanisaha igifungo cy’imyaka irindwi (7) n’ihazabu ingana na miliyoni icumi z’amafaranga y’u Rwanda (10.000.000 FRW).

## Page 294

260 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Uregwa yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire avuga ko yahamijwe icyaha cyo gutunda no gucuruza abantu hashingiwe ku mpamvu y’uko yari mu rugendo rumwe na Shurweryimana(victim) kandi nta kuntu yari kumushuka ari umuntu mukuru, ko nta n’ukuntu yari gushakira akazi umuntu bataziranye, ko Urukiko rwashingiye ku kuba yaremeye icyaha mu Bugenzacyaha kandi yaragaragaje ko yakubiswe agata ubwenge, ko rwirengagije ubuhamya bwa muganga wagaragaje ugusenzekazwa kwe. Nyuma yaho yaje gushyikiriza Urukiko rw’Ubujurire umwanzuro w’inyongera, avuga yahinduye imiburanire, ko noneho yemera icyaha kuko umutimanama we umukomanga, asaba ko ukwemera icyaha kwe kwahabwa agaciro, kukamubera impamvu nyoroshyacyaha akagabanyirizwa igihano, yanasabye kandi gusubikirwa igihano yahabwa kubera ko ngo asanganywe imyitwarire myiza kandi akaba yiyemeje kwisubiraho. Yongeye ho kandi ko Urukiko Rukuru rwakabaye rwaramuhamije icyaha cy’ubwinjiracyaha mu bikorwa byo gucuruza abantu aho kumuhamya icyaha cyo gucuruza abantu kuko igikorwa cyari kitaragerwaho. Ubushinjacyaha bwo buvuga ko icyaha cyatsotsobwe igihe uwakorewe icyaha(victim) yajyanwaga nk’intama, ko bigaragara ko yari yahindutse nk’igicuruzwa, azi ko agiye mu kazi, mu gihe Ndikumana we yari yabonye inyungu kuko yajyanaga umuntu akabona amafaranga. Buvuga kandi ko hakurikijwe amasezerano mpuzamahanga ku cyaha cyo gucuruza abantu, hakoreshwa ibimenyetso bicukumbuwe, ko ibikorwa byose byakozwe na Ndikumana nta kugerageza kurimo. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Ku gikorwa cyo kubyaza umuntu inyungu mu cyaha cyo gucuruza abantu, si ngombwa ko intego

## Page 295

261 UBUSHINJACYAHA v NSENGIYAREMYE

iba yagezweho, icy’ingenzi nuko hagaragazwa icyari kigamijwe, mu ikorwa ry’icyo gikorwa kuko igihanwa ari icyari kigambiriwe nukuvuga kubyaza umuntu inyungu zitemewe aho kuba icyagezweho, bityo impamvu y’ubujurire bw’uregwa ko Urukiko rwakabaye rwamuhamije icyaha cy’ubwinjiracyaha mu bikorwa byo gucuruza abantu nta shingiro ifite. 2. Ku cyaha cyo gucuruza abantu, uregwa ntashobora kwireguza ko uwakorewe icyaha nawe yari yiyemereye gukorerwa igikorwa cyo gucuruza abantu. Ubujurire nta shingiro bufite. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nº 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, Ingingo ya 2. Itegeko Ngenga N° 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, Ingingo ya 76, 77,78, 85, 250, 251 n’iya 252. Amasezerano y’inyongera ku masezerano y’Umuryango w’Abibumbye agamije gukumira, kurwanya no guhana icuruzwa ry’abantu, by’umwihariko abagore n’abana, ingingo ya 3. Imanza zifashishijwe: Ubushinjacyaha v. Mukankusi, RPA 0246/09/CS, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 14/12/2012, Icyegeranyo cy’ibyemezo by’inkiko, Igitabo cya kabiri 2013, n⁰ 17 cyasohotse muri Mata, 2013.

## Page 296

262 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Urubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko ruburanisha ibyaha mpuzamahanga n’ibyaha byambuka imbibi, Ubushinjacyaha burega Ndikumana Clovis icyaha cyo gucuruza abantu, aho ku wa 31/03/2018, saa cyenda z’amanywa, umukobwa witwa Shurweryimana yavuye iwabo i Burundi, yambuka umupaka agera mu Rwanda ku biro by’abinjira n’abasohoka maze abakozi bamubajije iyo agiye biramushobera, batangira kwibaza uwo bari kumwe. Haketswe uwitwa Ndikumana Clovis wasaga nk’aho akurikiranira hafi ibya Shurweryimana, arabazwa, maze birangira bigaragaye ko bombi bari kumwe, bahita bakeka ko Shurweryimana yaba yari agiye gucuruzwa, Ndikumana Clovis arafatwa, iperereza riratangira. Rishojwe akurikiranwaho icyaha cyo gucuruza abantu. [2] Ndikumana Clovis yaburanye avuga ko atigeze akora icyaha, ko yari kumwe na Shurweryimana nk’uwari wamuhawe n’uwitwa Laruma ngo amushyikirize uwari kuzamuha akazi muri Uganda, ku buryo abona nta cyaha kiri mu byo yakoze. [3] Ku wa 18/10/2018 Urukiko Rukuru, Ugereko ruburanisha ibyaha byo mu rwego mpuzamahanga n’ibyaha byambuka imbibi rwaciye urubanza No RP 00017/2018/HC/HCCIC, rwemeza ko Ndikumana Clovis ahamwa n’icyaha cyo gucuruza abantu, rumuhanisaha igifungo cy’imyaka irindwi (7) n’ihazabu ingana na miliyoni icumi z’amafaranga y’u Rwanda (10.000.000 FRW). [4] Ndikumana Clovis yajuririye urwo rubanza muri uru Rukiko, avuga ko yahamijwe icyaha cyo gutunda no gucuruza

## Page 297

263 UBUSHINJACYAHA v NSENGIYAREMYE

abantu hashingiye ku mpamvu y’uko yari mu rugendo rumwe na Shurweryimana Inѐs kandi nta kuntu yari kumushuka ari umuntu mukuru, ko nta n’ukuntu yari gushakira akazi umuntu bataziranye, ko Urukiko rwashingiye ku kuba yaremeye icyaha mu Bugenzacyaha kandi yaragaragaje ko yakubiswe agata ubwenge, rwirengagije ubuhamya bwa muganga wagaragaje ugusenzekazwa kwe, rukaba rwaravuze ko ibijyanye n’urugendo rwa Shurweryimana Inѐs byari mu maboko ye kandi atari byo, kuko uyu yari umuntu mukuru umuruta, akaba atari kumurandata nk’urandata impumyi. [5] Ku wa 8/10/2019, Ndikumana Clovis yashyikirije Urukiko rw’Ubujurire umwanzuro w’inyongera, avuga yahinduye imiburanire, ko noneho yemera icyaha kuko umutimanama we umukomanga, ko atakomeza guhakana icyaha gifitiwe ibimenyetso bihagije, asaba ko ukwemera icyaha kwe kwahabwa agaciro, kukamubera impamvu nyoroshyacyaha akagabanyirizwa igihano, anasaba gusubikirwa igihano yahabwa kubera ko ngo asanganywe imyitwarire myiza kandi akaba yiyemeje kwisubiraho. [6] N’ubwo ariko avug ko yemera icyaha, avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwakabaye rwaramuhamije icyaha cy’ubwinjiracyaha mu bikorwa byo gucuruza abantu aho kumuhamya icyaha cyo gucuruza abantu kuko igikorwa cyari kitaragerwaho, anavuga ko urwo Rukiko rutaramugabanyirije ibihano kandi yaremeye icyaha. [7] Iburanisha ryabereye mu ruhame ku wa 21/9/2020, Ndikumana Clovis yunganiwe na Me Nkundabatware Bigimba Felix, naho Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na Habarurema Jean Pierre, Umushinjacyaha ku rwego rw’Igihugu.

## Page 298

264 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

II. IBIBAZO BIGARAGARA MU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO Kumenya niba Ndikumana Clovis yari guhanirwa ubwinjiracyaha cyo gucuruza abantu aho kuba icyaha cyo gucuruza abantu. [8] Ndikumana Clovis avuga ko impamvu yajuririye ari uko umugambi we utagezweho, kubera ko nyuma y’uko bafatiwe ku mupaka Shurweryimana Ines yasubijwe inyuma we bakamufata, bigaragaza ko atigeze agera ku mugambi we, ariyo mpamvu asaba ko icyaha cyahindurirwa inyito, kikitwa ubwinjiracyaha cyo gucuruza abantu nk’uko byemejwe mu rubanza No RPA 00022/2019/CA rwa Good Luck Asser Marahaba rwaciwe n’uru Rukiko ku wa 17/7/2020, aho kuba icyaha cyo gucuruza abantu. [9] Me Nkundabatware Bigimba Felix, avuga ko kuba icyaha Ndikumana Clovis aregwa cyo gucuruza abantu atarakigezeho, ariho bahera basaba ko inyito y’icyaha yahinduka, ko nk’uko byemejwe mu rubanza RPA 00022/2019/CA rwa Good Luck Asser Marahaba, rwaciwe ku wa 17/7/2020, hakoreshwa ingingo ya 251 aho gukoreshwa iya 252 z’Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana cya 2012. [10] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko urubanza No RPA 00022/2019/CA rwaciwe rwa GOOD Luck Asser Marahaba rutagenderwaho kuko atari ihame ko urubanza rugenderwaho, cyane ko ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko no 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, itaganya ko umucamanza ashingira ku mategeko, kandi icyaha

## Page 299

265 UBUSHINJACYAHA v NSENGIYAREMYE

Ndikumana Clovis akurikiranyweho kikaba ari icyaha cyihariye, harebwe uburyo abantu bagenda bahererekanya abantu nk’ibicuruzwa, binjizwa, batundwa, hagamijwe kubona inyungu. [11] Avuga ko kuri Shurweryimana Ines, icyaha cyatsotsobwe igihe yajyanwaga nk’intama, ko harebwe ibyo ingingo ya 250 y’Itegeko rishyiraho Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ibyaha ryari ubwo icyaha cyakorwaga iteganya, bigaragara ko yari yahindutse nk’igicuruzwa, azi ko agiye mu kazi, mu gihe Ndikumana Clovis we yari yabonye inyungu kuko yajyanaga umuntu kwa Eddy akabona amafaranga nk’uko babisobanuye mu myanzuro, akaba yarakoze igikorwa cyo gushakisha, kwimura, gukoresha uburiganya hagamijwe kubyaza inyungu uwo yabikoreye igihe bari kuba bageze aho yari amujyanye. [12] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga kandi ko hakurikijwe amasezerano mpuzamahanga ku cyaha cyo gucuruza abantu, hakoreshwa ibimenyetso bicukumbuwe, ko ibikorwa byose byakozwe na Ndikumana Clovis nta kugerageza kurimo, ariyo mpamvu Ubushinjacyaha busanga atahanwa hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 251 y’Itegeko no 01/2012 ryo ku wa 01/05/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru, ko ahubwo hakurikizwa ingingo yaryo ya 252. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [13] Ingingo ya 2 y’Itegeko Nº 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, iteganya ko ikimenyetso cyo mu rubanza ari uburyo bukoreshwa kugira ngo ukuri kw’ibyabaye kugaragare, naho ingingo yaryo ya 3 igateganya ko buri muburanyi agomba kugaragaza ukuri kw’ibyo aburana.

## Page 300

266 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[14] Ingingo ya 250 y’Itegeko Ngenga N° 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana itanga ubusobanuro bwo gucuruza abantu, ko harimo ibikorwa bihindura umuntu igicuruzwa bijyanye no gushakisha cyangwa kwimurira umuntu ahandi mu gihugu cyangwa mu mahanga hakoreshejwe uburiganya, ibikangisho, imbaraga cyangwa agahato, ububasha ubikora aba amufiteho, akenshi hagamijwe kumwangiriza ubuzima cyangwa kumubyaza inyungu zitemewe akoreshwa mu biterasoni, mu buraya …..Bifatwa kandi nko gucuruza abantu, kubashakamo inyungu hakoreshejwe kubagira abasabirizi ku gahato, kubabera ababyeyi batarababyaye hakoreshejwe ikiguzi mu buryo butemewe n’amategeko…. Gushakwamo inyungu ni uburyo bwose bwo gushaka inyungu zishingiye ku gitsina, imirimo y’agahato, ubucakara n’ibindi bisa na bwo cyangwa guca urugingo rw’umuntu… [15] Ingingo ya 251 y’Itegeko Ngenga no 01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru igira iti: “Umuntu wese ugira uruhare, ku buryo ubwo ari bwo bwose, ari we cyangwa abicishije ku wundi, mu gutorokesha umuntu avanywe mu Rwanda ajyanywe mu mahanga agamije kumucuruza, akoresheje ubushukanyi, imbaraga, ibikangisho n’ubundi buryo bw’agahato, 2° yishingikirije ibibazo umuntu afitanye n’ubuyobozi, ubutabera, ubupfubyi, ubukene, kwibana, ubumenyi buke, imirimo ivunanye, umuryango w’indahekana, ibura ry’akazi, uburwayi, ubumuga bw’umubiri cyangwa bwo mu mutwe, icyuho mu itegeko n’ibindi byatuma umuntu muzima akora ibyo atatekereje; ahanishwa igifungo kuva ku mwaka umwe (1) kugeza ku myaka itatu (3) n’ihazabu y’amafaranga y’u Rwanda kuva ku bihumbi magana atanu (500.000) kugeza kuri miliyoni ebyiri (2.000.000)”.

## Page 301

267 UBUSHINJACYAHA v NSENGIYAREMYE

[16] Ingingo ya 252 y’iryo Tegeko Ngenga, iteganya ko “Umuntu wese utwara cyangwa utuma batwara, ufata cyangwa ufatisha, ufunga cyangwa ufungisha, utunda cyangwa utundisha abantu abo ari bo bose, agamije kubahindura abacakara cyangwa kubagurishiriza kuba abacakara, kubagira abasabirizi ku gahato, kubabera umubyeyi utarababyaye mu buryo butemewe n’amategeko hakoreshejwe ikiguzi kubakoresha mu mashusho y’urukozasoni, mu masiporo ateye ubwoba, kubashora mu ntambara, kubana na bo nk’umugore n’umugabo hagamijwe iyicarubozo cyangwa icuruzwa ry’ingingo z’imibiri yabo, ahanishwa igifungo kuva ku myaka irindwi (7) kugeza ku myaka icumi (10) n’ihazabu y’amafaranga y’u Rwanda kuva kuri miliyoni eshanu (5.000.000) kugeza kuri miliyoni icumi (10.000.000 Frw). [17] Mu rubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwasanze Ndikumana Clovis yaragiye akora ibishoboka byose ngo bitamenyekana ko ari kumwe na Shurweryimana Ines, ko mu gihe barimo kumusaka amaze kwinjira mu Rwanda yabwiye umukozi wo mu biro by’abinjira n’abasohoka witwa Niyonzima Godefroid ko ataziranye na Shurweryimana Ines bahuriye mu modoka gusa, ariko bikarangira bigaragaye ko bari kumwe. [18] Urukiko Rukuru rwasanze kandi mu gihe Ndikumana Clovis yari atwaye Shurweryimana Ines muri ubwo buryo, we yari afite aho azagarukira n’inyungu y’amadorali hagati ya 600 $ na 700 $ yari guhabwa amugejejeyo, ko ikigaragara muri iyo migirire ari uko itundwa rya Shurweryimana Ines, atari ubufasha busanzwe nk’uko Ndikumana Clovis yashatse kubyumvikanisha, ahubwo ryari rifite intego yo kumubyaza inyungu zitemewe mu buryo “Eddy” wari kumusigirwa yari kugena uko abishaka, agamije no kwiyishyura ibyo yari kuba yamutakajeho byose,

## Page 302

268 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

cyane cyane ko Shurweryimana Ines yari kumugeraho bataziranye nta n’icyo basezeranye, akemera gukoreshwa ibyo atagakoze aramutse afite ubwinyagamburiro. [19] Urukiko Rukuru rwasanze uruhurirane rw’uburyo Shurweryimana Ines yavanywe i Burundi n’inyungu ifatika y’amadorali uregwa yari abifitemo, byerekana ko igikorwa Ndikumana Clovis yafatiwemo cyari gifite intego yo kumucuruza, rubishingiraho rwemeza ko ahamwa n’icyaha cyo gucuruza abantu. [20] Dosiye igaragaza ko mu ibazwa rya Ndikumana Clovis mu Bugenzacyaha ryo ku wa 31/3/2018, yavuze ko yemera icyaha cyo gucuruza abantu mu mahanga, asobanura ko yabitewe n’ubukene, ko hari umuntu biganye witwa Eddy, umaze igihe yarinjiye muri ubu bucuruzi bwo gushakisha abakobwa bakabacuruza babajyana mu bihugu by’abarabu, ko kandi amaze kugurisha umwe witwa Adija ariko bakaba barasanze afite ikibazo cya Hepatite, ko iyo babagejejeyo babishyura amadolari hagati ya 600 na 700, Eddy akabajyana Kenya kubashakira Visa. [21] Dosiye igaragaza inyandiko yakozwe na Niyonzima Godefroid ku wa 2/4/2018, umukozi w’Ibiro by’abinjira n’abasohoka, wemeje ko ku wa 31/03/2018 ahagana saa cyenda (z’amanywa) yabonye Ndikumana Clovis azanye Shurweryimana Ines bavanye i Burundi, ababona baganira amubajije aho bagiye aramuhakanira noneho abajije Shurweryimana Ines aho agiye amusubiza ko agiye kwiga, akomeza kugira amakenga, bituma yaka Ndikumana Clovis telefone ye, abona abo bavuganaga bahuje umwuga wo gucuruza abantu, ahita amushyikiriza umugenzacyaha. Ibi kandi ninako Nirora Peter nawe wafashe Ndikumana Clovis yabisobanuye, aho

## Page 303

269 UBUSHINJACYAHA v NSENGIYAREMYE

yanavuze ko muri telephone bamufatanye harimo ibiciro ahabwa iyo agejeje umuntu Uganda bagiye ku mucuruza. [22] Dosiye igaragaza ko mu nyandikomvugo y’ibazwa rya Shurweryimana Ines yo ku wa 31/3/2018, yemeje ko Ndikumana Clovis bamufashe bari kumwe ku mupaka w’Akanyaru, amujyanye Uganda, kandi ko yari yishingiye kumuha ibintu byose akaba ari nawe wamushakiye Passeport. [23] Urukiko Rukuru mu guhamya Ndikumana Clovis icyaha aregwa, rwagaragaje ko ikitagibwaho impaka ari ukuba Ndikumana Clovis yafashwe ajyanye Shurweryimana Ines muri Uganda kandi akaba ari we wishingiye ibikenerwa byose mu rugendo n’amatike, amujyanye nk’umuntu wijejwe akazi ariko utarasobanuriwe neza imiterere yako, utazi neza uzamukoresha n’aho azakorera, utazi uzamugeza kuri uwo mukoresha, uretse kugenda ahererakanywa hagati y’abantu atazi, atanazi uburyo bakorana hagati yabo; adafite ubushobozi n’uburyo bwo kwifatira icyemezo cyo gukomeza urugendo cyangwa kugaruka i Burundi, kuko ibijyanye n’imibereho bye byose byari mu maboko ye. [24] Urukiko rusanga ku gira ngo ushinjwa ahamwe n’icyaha cyo gucuruza abantu, ari ngombwa ko akora kimwe mu bikorwa bivugwa mu ngingo ya 252 ari byo gutwara cyangwa gutuma batwara, gufata cyangwa gufatisha, gufunga cyangwa gufungisha, gutunda cyangwa gutundisha abantu abo ari bo bose, ukurikiranywe akabikora agamije kubyaza inyungu zitemewe umuntu cyangwa korohereza undi ugamije kumubyaza inyungu zitemewe. [25] Urukiko rurasanga kuba Ndikumana Clovis avuga ko nta bushukanyi bwabayeho kuri Shurweryimana wari ushyiriwe

## Page 304

270 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Eddy kubera ko ngo yari yabyemeye, nta shingiro bifite kubera ko uretse n’uko yamufatiranye mu bukene adafite akazi mu gihugu cye cy’i Burundi, yamwijeje ko agiye kumushakira akazi kazamuhemba amafaranga menshi, bituma amushakira pasiporo, aramujyana ariko Shurweryimana Ines akaba adafite amakuru ahagije y’uko aho agiye azagerayo, igihe azagererayo, icyo azakora, uwo azakorera n’icyo azahembwa, kuko Ndikumana Clovis ari we wari wishingiye ibirebana n’ibyo azakenera byose mu rugendo. [26] Urukiko rusanga kandi n’iyo Shurweryimana Ines yari kuba yemeye, bitari kuvanaho Ndikumana Clovis icyaha cyo gucuruza abantu, mu gihe bigaragara ko yari yarangije kumwizeza akazi amubeshya, agamije kumubyaza inyungu1, kuko mu byaha byo gucuruza abantu, harebwa amayeri yakoreshejwe k’ukurikiranweho gucuruza abantu kugira ngo uwo ateganya gucuruza, yemere ibyo amubwiye. [27] Ku bijyanye no kuba Ndikumana Clovis yakurikiranwaho ubwinjiracyaha mu cyaha cyo gucuruza abantu, aho kuba icyaha cyo gucuruza abantu, abahanga mu mategeko bavuga ko igikorwa cyo kubyaza umuntu inyungu mu cyaha cyo gucuruza abantu, atari ngombwa ko intego igikorwa cyakoranywe iba yagezweho, ko icy’ingenzi ari uko hagaragazwa icyari kigamijwe mu ikorwa ry’icyo gikorwa, kuko igihanwa ari icyari

1 L’article 3.b) du Protocole relatif à la traite des personnes: “Le consentement d’une victime de la traite des personnes à l’exploitation envisagée est indifférent lorsqu’il a été démontré que la duperie, la contrainte, la force ou d’autres moyens interdits ont été utilisés. Le consentement ne peut donc pas être invoqué à titre de défense pour exonérer une personne de sa responsabilité pénale”. https://www.unodc.org/documents/congress/background information/Human_Trafficking/TIP_Manual_fr_module_01.pdf , visité le 16/10/2020

## Page 305

271 UBUSHINJACYAHA v NSENGIYAREMYE

kigambiriwe, ni ukuvuga kubyaza umuntu inyungu zitemewe aho kuba icyagezweho.2 [28] Ibivugwa n’abo bahanga bihura kandi n’ibiteganywa mu ngingo ya 3 y’Amasezerano y’inyongera ku masezerano y’Umuryango w’Abibumbye agamije gukumira, kurwanya no guhana icuruzwa ry’abantu, by’umwihariko abagore n’abana, yashyiriweho umukono i Palermo mu Butaliyani ku wa 15/11/2000, u Rwanda rukaba rwarayemeje ku wa 26/09/20033,

2 L’“objectif de l’exploitation” est un élément moral de type dolus specialis: le dolus specialis peut être défini comme l’objectif visé par l’auteur du crime lorsqu’il commet les actes matériels de l’infraction. C’est l’objectif qui importe et non le résultat concret auquel est parvenu l’auteur du crime. Ainsi, la satisfaction de l’élément de dolus specialis ne nécessite pas que le but soit effectivement atteint. En d’autres termes, les ”actes” et les “moyens” de l’auteur du crime doivent viser à exploiter la victime. Il n’est par conséquent pas nécessaire que l’auteur du crime exploite effectivement celle-ci. P.5. (https://www.unodc.org/documents/congress/background information/Human_Trafficking/TIP_Manual_fr_module_01.pdf visité le 16/10/2020 3 https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/glotip/Annex_II_- _Definition_and_mandate.pdf visité le 16/10/2020. Article 3, paragraph (a) of the Protocol states that trafficking in persons “Trafficking in persons” shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs. Article 3, (b) states that: “The consent of a victim of trafficking in persons to the intended exploitation set forth in subparagraph (a) of this article shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth in subparagraph (a) have been used.”

## Page 306

272 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

iteganya ko ushinjwa adashobora kwireguza ko uwakorewe icyaha yabyemeye, igihe cyose bigaragara ko hari bimwe mu bikorwa bivugwa muri iyo ngingo yakoze. [29] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga kuba Urukiko Rukuru rwarahamije Ndikumana Clovis icyaha cyo gucuruza abantu rukakimuhanira nta kosa rwakoze, kuko ibikorwa yakoze byo kuvana Shurweryimana Ines mu Burundi amubeshya ko yamuboneye akazi, akamunyuza mu Rwanda amujyanye Uganda aho yari amushyiriye Eddy wagombaga kumwishyura 600$ cyangwa 700 $ akabona kumumusigira ngo nawe amujyana kumucuruza muri Arabia Saoudite, bigize icyaha cyo gucuruza abantu giteganywa kandi gihanwa n’ingingo ya 250 na 252 z’Itegeko Ngenga n⁰01/2012 ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru, kandi bisobanurwa n’amasezerano y’inyongera ku masezerano y’Umuryango w’Abibumbye agamije gukumira, kurwanya no guhana icuruzwa ry’abantu, by’umwihariko abagore n’abana, yavuzwe haruguru. [30] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rushingiwe ku bisobanuro byose byatanzwe, rurasanga ubujurire bwatanzwe na Ndikumana Clovis ku ngigo yo guhindura inyito y’icyaha yahamijwe hagendewe ku byemejwe mu rubanza RPA 00022/2019/CA rwa Good Luck Asser Marahaba rwaciwe ku wa 17/7/2020 nta shingiro bufite, kubera ko muri urwo rubanza Urukiko rwasanze kubera ko Ngowe Goodluck yafatiwe mu nzira atarageza Kwizera Marie Claire muri Uganda aho yari amujyanye, ntashobore kugera ku mugambi, icyaha kimuhama ari ubwinjiracyaha ku cyaha cyo kugira uruhare mu kuvana umuntu mu gihugu agamije kumucuruza nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 27 y’Itegeko Ngenga n⁰ 01/2012/OL, mu gihe muri uru rubanza byasobanuwe neza ko icy’ingenzi muri ibi byaha byo gucuruza

## Page 307

273 UBUSHINJACYAHA v NSENGIYAREMYE

abantu, ari uko hagaragazwa icyari kigamijwe mu ikorwa ry’icyo gikorwa, kuko igihanwa ari icyari kigambiriwe, ni ukuvuga ku byazwa umuntu inyungu zitemewe, aho kuba icyagezweho. Kumenya niba Ndikumana Clovis yaremeye icyaha nta gabanyirizwe ibihano kandi niba yagabanyirizwa kuri uru rwego [31] Ndikumana Clovis na Me Nkundabatrware Bigimba Felix umwunganira, bavuga ko ataruhije ubutabera, ko mu Rukiko Rukuru yaburanye yemera icyaha akerekana inyungu yari kuvana muri icyo cyaha ariko ntirumugabanyirize igihano. bavuga kandi ko icyaha yakoze nta ngaruka cyateje, ariyo mpamvu basaba Urukiko kumugabanyiriza ibihano rushingiye ku ngingo za 77 na 78 z’Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana cyariho ubwo icyaha cyakorwaga, byashoboka igihano ahawe kigasubikwa. [32] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko icyo itegeko riteganya atari uko umuntu agabanyirizwa ibihano ageze mu bujurire, ko ahubwo yateganyije ko uwemeye mu ntangiriro ari we ushobora kugabanyirizwa, ko Ndikumana Clovis yemeye icyaha mu Bugenzacyaha yagera mu Rukiko akagihakana, ko rero atagabanyirizwa ibihano kuko itegeko ritabyemera, ko binakozwe byaba binyuranyije n’itegeko (contra legem). UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [33] Ingingo ya 76 y’Itegeko Ngenga N° 01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ryakoreshwaga igihe icyaha cyakorwaga, iteganya ko umucamanza ubwe aha agaciro impamvu nyoroshyacyaha, ari izakibanjirije, ari izagiherekeje cyangwa izagikurikiye kandi ko

## Page 308

274 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kwemeza impamvu zoroshya uburemere bw’icyaha bigomba gusobanurwa. Ingingo yaryo ya 77 iteganya ko zimwe mu mpamvu nyoroshya cyaha zirimo ko.mu ntangiriro z’iburanisha ku rwego rwa mbere, ushinjwa yireze akemera icyaha mu buryo budashidikanywa n‘igihe icyaha cyakozwe nta ngaruka zikomeye cyateje. [34] Ingingo ya 78, 1°, y’Itegeko Ngenga N° 01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rimaze kuvugwa haruguru iteganya ko: “iyo hari impamvu zoroshya uburemere bw’icyaha, igihano cyo gufungwa burundu cyangwa cya burundu y’umwihariko gisimbuzwa igihano cy’igifungo kitari munsi y’imyaka icumi (10). Naho inginngo yaryo ya 85 iteganya ko: Muri iri Tegeko Ngenga, isubikagihano ni icyemezo cy‟umucamanza gihagarika irangizarubanza ku gihano cy‟igifungo kitarengeje imyaka itanu (5) iyo uwagikatiwe atigeze ahanishwa mbere mu rubanza rwabaye ndakuka igihano cy‟igifungo cyangwa igihano nsimburagifungo cy‟imirimo ifitiye igihugu akamaro kirenze amezi atandatu (6). [35] Mu rubanza rujuririrwa, Ndikumana Clovis yaburanye avuga ko ibyo yavuze abazwa n’ibyo yanditse yabivuze akubitwa, ko kandi inyandiko zo kwa muganga ari ikimenyetso gihamya ibyo avuga nta shingiro bifite, kuko ikigaragara ari uko yari arwaye igifu akagira n’ukwiheba ari na byo byatumye ajyanwa mu Bitaro bya Munini avanywe mu Kigo Nderabuzima cya Nyamyumba, urwo Rukiko rusanga kuba muganga yemeza ko arwara igifu akagira n’ukwiheba gukabije (dépression) bitafatwa ku buryo budashidikanywaho nk’ikimenyetso cy’uko yakubiswe bigatuma yishinja ibyo atakoze, kuko no gufatirwa mu byaha ubwabyo byamutera uko kwiheba.

## Page 309

275 UBUSHINJACYAHA v NSENGIYAREMYE

[36] Urukiko rurasanga mu Rukiko Rukuru, Ndikumana Clovis ataraburanye yemera icyaha nk’uko abivuga, kuko n’ibyo yari yaremeye mu nzego z’iperereza yavuze ko yabyemejwe n’inkoni, ibyo avuga ko atagabanyirijwe igihano kandi yaraburanye yemera icyaha akanorohereza ubutabera bikaba nta shingiro bifite. [37] Ku bijyanye n’uru rubanza, Urukiko rurasanga imvugo y’uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha y’uko Ndikumana Clovis atagabanyirizwa ibihano bitewe n’uko atemeye icyaha mu ntangiriro, nta shingiro ifite, kubera ko ingingo ya 76 y’Itegeko Ngenga ryavuzwe haruguru, iteganya ko umucamanza ubwe aha agaciro impamvu nyoroshyacyaha, ari izakibanjirije, ari izagiherekeje cyangwa izagikurikiye, bivuze ko ushinjwa ashobora gutangira ahakana icyaha, ariko nyuma yo ku gikora akaba ashobora kwemera icyaha ku rwego yaba agezeho urwo ari rwo rwose, haba mu Bushinjacyaha cyangwa imbere y’Urukiko. Ibyo kandi bihura n’ibyemejwe mu rubanza no RPA 0246/09/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 14/12/2012, haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Mukankusi Victoire, aho rwemeje ko nta cyabuza ko Urukiko rugabanyirizwa uregwa igihano mu gihe rusanze ukwemera icyaha kwe kuzuye kandi kudashidikanywaho, kuko kwemera icyaha utinze ubwabyo atari impamvu yamubuza kugabanyirizwa igihano, kandi ko nta gihe cyateganyijwe cyo kuba uregwa yasubiza agatima impembero ngo yiyemeze kwisubiraho avugishe ukuri imbere y’inkiko4. [38] Urukiko rusanga kuri uru rwego Ndikumana Clovis yaremeye icyaha akurikiranyweho asaba imbabazi kandi akicuza,

4 Urubanza nº RPA 0246/09/CS, rwaciwe ku wa 14/12/2012 n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, Icyegeranyo cy’ibyemezo by’inkiko, Igitabo cya kabiri 2013, n⁰ 17 cyasohotse muri Mata, 2013.

## Page 310

276 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bigaragara ko acyemera mu buryo budashidikanywaho, ariko hakurikijwe ko Ndikumana Clovis yari asanzwe akora bene ibi byaha, kuko ubwe yivugira ko atari ubwa mbere yinjiye muri ibyo bikorwa byo gucuruza abantu, kuko yabanje kujyana uwitwa Hadija yamugeza Uganda akarokorwa n’uko basanze arwaye umwijima bikaba ngombwa ko amusubiza iwabo i Burundi, nyuma akabona kujyana Shurweryimana Ines, no kuba iki cyaha ari icyaha kigira ingaruka zikomeye k’uwagikorewe, aho umuntu wacurujwe aburana n’umuryango we, agahohoterwa bikabije ndetse bikaba bishobora kubyara urupfu, bituma atagomba kugabanyirizwa ibihano. [39] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rushingiye ku bisobanuro byose bwatanzwe, rurasanga ubujurire bwa Ndikumana Clovis nta shingiro bufite, bityo akaba nta kigomba guhinduka ku rubanza no RP 00017/2018/HC/HCCIC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko ruburanisha ibyaha mpuzamahanga n’ibyambuka imbibi ku wa 18/10/2018. [40] Urukiko rurasanga ibyo Ndikumana Clovis asaba by’uko yasubikirwa igihano bitashoboka kuko nk’uko ingingo ya 85 y’Itegeko no 01/2012 ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 yavuzwe haruguru ibiteganya, isubkagihano rishoboka mu gihe urisaba yahanishijwe igifungo kitarenze imyaka itanu (5) kandi akaba yarahawe igihano kiyirenze kuko yahanishijwe kufungwa imyaka irindwi (7ans). III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [41] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwatanzwe na Ndikumana Clovis nta shingiro bufite;

## Page 311

277 UBUSHINJACYAHA v NSENGIYAREMYE

[42] Rwemeje ko nta gihindutse ku rubanza no RP 00017/2018/HC/HCCIC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko ruburanisha ibyaha mpuzamahanga n’ibyambuka imbibi ku wa 18/10/2018; [43] Rutegetse ko amagarama y’urubanza aherera ku isanduku ya Leta.

## Page 312

RWANDA LAW REPORTS ENGLISH VERSION

## Page 315

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TEAM OF EDITORS ................................................................ iii I. LAW REPORTING TEAM ............................................. iii II. MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE ..................... v PREFACE ................................................................................. ix SCOPE OF THE REPORTS ..................................................... xi CITATION ................................................................................ xi LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ xiii LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED .......................................... xvii SUBJECT INDEX ................................................................... xxi Re FAST TRUCK INTERIOR AND HARDWARE LTD ........ 1 MHAYIMANA V. RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION ........... 19 KATABARWA v NYARUGURU DISTRICT ....................... 55 N.A (on behalf of his child I.A) vs KIBUNGO MEDICAL CENTER .................................................................................. 83 PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v UWIMANIMPAYE ................................................................................................ 107 GATETE v. ECOBANK LTD ............................................... 129 NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES LTD v. KASESE DISTILLERS LTD ................................................................. 145 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD ....................... 177 TRADEMET S.A v. CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD ................................................................................................ 215

## Page 316

ii

PROSECUTION v. NSENGIYAREMYE ............................. 233 PROSECUTION v. NDIKUMANA ...................................... 249

## Page 317

iii

TEAM OF EDITORS

I. LAW REPORTING TEAM

KAGABO U. Stephanie

KAVUTSE M. Claude

KUBWIMANA Jean Claude

MUJABI K. Naphtal

NZAYISENGA Daniel

UWINKINDI Angelique

UWIMANA Jean Marie Vianney

## Page 319

v

II. MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE

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

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

BWIZA N. Blanche : Secretary of the Committee, Inspector of Courts

RUKUNDAKUVUGA F. Regis : President of Court of Appeal

Dr. KARIMUNDA M. Aimé : Rector of ILPD

HABARUREMA Jean Pierre :

KALIHANGABO Isabelle : President of High Court

Judge of Supreme Court

KALIWABO Charles : Judge of the Court of Appeal

NKURUNZIZA Valens :

BURAYOBERA UMUZAYIRE : Bibiane

Inspector General of Courts Vice-Chairman of Rwanda Law Reform Commission

NSENGIYUMVA Jean Claude : Inspector of Courts

KIBUKA Jean Luc : Judge at Commercial High Court

## Page 320

NINAHAZWA Roselyne :

Dr. BIDERI Diogène :

Prosecutor at National Level Prosecutor at National Level KABIBI Specioza : State Attorney

MUREREREHE Saouda : Judge at High Court

Lt Col CYUBAHIRO NSENGIYUMVA Narcisse :

Judge at Military Court

Dr. NSHIMIYIMANA Didace : Judge of the High Court

GIRANEZA Clémentine :

Dr MBONIGABA Callixte :

Judge of the Intermediate Court

Lecturer at INES- Ruhengeri

## Page 321

BAGABO Faustin :

Dr ZIKAMWABAHARI Jean de Dieu :

KARAKE Canisius :

Dr.HABIMANA Pie :

UMUTESI Vestine :

YANKURIJE Dorothée : Advocate at Rwanda Bar Association

Lecturer at the University of Kigali Lecturer at UNILAK

Advocate at Rwanda Bar Association Judge of Commercial Court

Judge of Primary Court

## Page 323

ix

PREFACE Dear Readers, We are pleased to present to you the Law Reports Volume 2 [2024]. As usual, we select cases that solve some of the legal issues you encounter, either in your career or in your daily life. This volume contains nine (10) cases, which includes; one (1) case relating to the petition seeking to declare the law unconstitutional, two (2) civil cases, two (2) administrative cases, thre (3) commercial cases and two (2) penal cases. Dr NTEZILYAYO Faustin President of the Supreme Court and President of the High Council of Judiciary

## Page 325

xi

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

CITATION The Reports in this volume are cited as: [2024] 2 RLR

## Page 327

xiii

LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED

a. Current laws The Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, articles 29 and 61……………………………………………...3 United Nations Additional Protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children, article 3……………………………………………………………..251 East African Community Customs Management Act, 2004, articles 144, 147 and 148…………………………………………148 Law n°017/2020 of 07/10/2020 establishing the general statute governing public servants………………………………………….59 Law n0 026/2019 of 18/09/2019 on Tax Procedures, article 98……………………………………………………………………….3 Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, articles 72 and 74…………………………………………….3 article 63…………………………………………………….59 Law n°22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles 9, 75 and 111………………………………………59 articles 9 and 111…………………………………………..85 article 111………………………………………………….148 articles 12 and 150………………………………………..217 Law Nº 47/2017 of 23/9/2017 governing the organisation of banking, article 112……………………………………………….181

## Page 328

xiv

Law no 83/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the Bar Association in Rwanda and determining its organisation and functioning, articles 25, 29, 31,74, 75 and 78…………………………………..21 Law n° 12/2013 of 22/03/2013 governing the bailiff function, article 49……………………………………………………………131 Law nº 01/2012 of 03/02/2012 modifying and complementing law n° 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures as modified and complemented to date), article 59……………………………….181 Law no 45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, article 75…………………………………………………………………….148 Law n° 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 9…………………………………………………….148 article 2…………………………………………………….251 Presidential Order N° 31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury due to accidents caused by motor vehicles, article 19…………………………………………………………………….111 Prime Minister’s Order nº 003/03 of 16/01/2015 determining modalities for training for public servants, article 20…………..59 Prime Minister’s Order nº 136/03 of 25/10/2010……………….59 Ministerial order n°133/MOJ/AG/18 of 04/06/2018 on court fees in civil, commercial, social and administrative matters………148 Ministerial order nº 002/08.11 of 11/02/2014 on court fees in civil, commercial, social and administrative matters………….148 Regulation n°12/2017 of 23/11/2017 on credit classification and provisioning, article 8…………………………………………….181

## Page 329

xv

Regulation N°07/2010 of 27/12/2010 of the National Bank of Rwanda on electronic fund transfers and electronic money transactions, article 2……………………………………………..181

b. Repealed laws Organic Law no 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal law, articles 76,77,78, 85, 250, 251 and 252……………………251 Law n0 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on Tax procedures, articles 30 and 64……………………………………………………………........3

## Page 331

LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED Arrêt du Tribunal de la Fonction Publique de l’Union Européenne (Première Chambre), Simona Murariu vs Autorité européenne des assurances et des pensions professionnelles (AEAPP), 16 Juillet 2015, para. 152……………………………...22 Arrêt du Tribunal de la Fonction Publique de l’Union Européenne (deuxième chambre), 8 Octobre 2015, para. 105 & 107-108………………………………………………………………22 Arrêt du Tribunal de la Fonction Publique de l’Union Européenne (troisième chambre), FS vs Comité économique et social européen (CESE), 12 Mai 2016, para. 59………………...22 Bralirwa Ltd vs Kazigaba André et al, RCOMAA 0015/14/CS rendered by the Supreme Court, on 23/06/2017………………..148 Case No RCAA 00073/2018/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 19/07/2019 opposing Nyirabatesi Laurence to King Faisal Hospital………………………………………………………………85 Case N0 RADA 0054/12/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 19/12/2014 opposing Kabayijuka Gaspard to MINISANTE…...85 Civil Appeal Nos. 823-827 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.2001-2005 of 2021)…………………………………………..…3 Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal, CEDH, 6 Avril 2000, para 32- 37…………………………………………………………………….149 Government of Rwanda v. Ndahindurwa Kimenyi Jéremie, RADA 0006/12/CS decided by the Supreme Court on 04/01/2013…….59 Jafa vs La Pizzeria, Com. 15 mai 2012, no 11-10-278 Bulletin Civil IV n° 101………………………………………………………................149

## Page 332

xviii

Judgment Cairo Banking Co. v West, 187 Ga. 666 (1939)……182 Judgment Central Nat. Bank of Richmond v. Bank of Richmond v. Bank..., 171 Va. 289 (1938)……………………………………182 Judgment Stokes v. Commonwealth, 49 Va.App. 401 (2007)…182 Judgment of the court (second chamber) of 9 July 1987. Ingfried Hochbaum and Edward Rawes vs Commission of the European Communities, Official - annulment of appointment, Joined cases 44/85, 77/85, 294/85 and 295/85, para. 22……………………....22 Judgment Re (II ZR 185/85), (1987) E.C.C. 254 (1985)………182 Judgment RS/INJUST/RC 00012/2021/SC for Nsengiyumva v Ntagungira et al. rendered by the Supreme Court on 22/07/2022………………………………………………………….181 Magara Gahakwa et al., RS/INJUST/RP 00001/2020/SC decided by the Supreme Court on 21/02/2021, paragraph 21……………59 Metropolitan International Schools Ltd v. Designtechnica Corporation, Google UK Ltd and Google Inc, [2010] EWHC 2411 (QB) 35……………………………………………………….149 Ngirinshuti v. Muhima Giovani, RS/INJUST/RC 00024/2018/SC decided by the Supreme Court on 21/02/2020, paragraphs 19- 22……………………………………………………………………...59 Prime Insurance Ltd vs Kansiime James, RS/INJUST/RCOM 00005/2018/SC rendered by the Supreme Court, on 12/06/2020………………………………………………………….148 Prosecution v. Ahimpereye, RPAA 00436/2020/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 28/06/2022………………………………234 Prosecution v. Hakizimana, RPAA 00091/2021/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 19/07/2022………………………………235

## Page 333

xix

Prosecution v Mukankusi with judgment RPA 0246/09/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 14/12/2012, Rwanda Law Report, no 17 of volume 2, 2013, published in April, 2013………………………………………………………………....251 Prosecution v. Niyonsaba, RS/INJUST/RP 00003/2019/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 28/01/2022……………..….234 Prosecution v. Nzafashwanimana, RPAA 00032/2019/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 28/02/2020……………….235 Prosecution v. Shakabatenda, RPAA 00039/2021/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 02/07/2021…………………………..235 RCA 00280/2016/HC/KIG Counsel Nduwamungu Jean Vianney v. Rwanda Bar Association, rendered by the High Court on 12/01/2017…………………………………………………………...22 RCOMA 0171/12/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 03/01/2014, paragraphs 16-20…………………………………..182 Re Kabasinga, RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 04/12/2019……………………………….234 Rock Global Consulting Ltd vs Impact Distributors East Africa Ltd, RCOMA0041/13/CS rendered by the Supreme Court, on 3 March 2016………………………………………………………...149 RS/INJUST/RAD 00003/2021/SC Tabaruka v. Gicumbi District, rendered by the Supreme Court on 20/05/2022………………….21 RS/INJUST/RCOM 00006/2022/SC; Banque Populaire du Rwanda Plc v Nyamasheke District rendered by the Supreme Court on 27/01/2023………………………………………………182 RS/INJUST/RC 00021/2022/SC; Mukagatare Régine et al. v SANLAM AG Plc rendered by the Supreme Court on 17/03/2022………………………………………………………….182

## Page 334

xx

RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2018/SC Nditiribambe v Gatera rendered by the Supreme Court on 13/03/2020……………………………182 RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2018/SC Ndatiribambe Samuel v. Gatera Jason et Crts, rendered by the Supreme Court on 13/03/2020…………………………………………………………...22 RS/INJUST/RC 00024/2018/SC; Ngizweninshuti v Muhima rendered by the Supreme Court on 21/02/2020………………...182 RS/INJUST/RCOM 00001/2017/SC; Sebahizi Jules v Equity Bank Rwanda Ltd, rendered by the Supreme Court on 26/01/2018………………………………………………………….182 Road Solutions Pavement Products v. MAILCO Ltd, RS/INJUST/RCOM 00002/2020/SC decided by the Supreme Court on 29/09/2020………………………………………………..59 Speaker of the National Assembly and Another v. Land Access Movement of South Africa and Others [2019] ZACC 10, rendered on19/03/2019………………………………………………………….3 Unidare Plc v. Cohen and Dermot Power [2006] Ch 489, para 19…………………………………………………………………….149

## Page 335

xxi

SUBJECT INDEX 1. Civil Law – Damages – Determination of tort-related damages – Tort liability – Medical malpractice liability – Modalities of computation of damages resulting from the torts of medical practitioners on duty – The damages against a medical practitioner whose tort causes the loss of some parts of the patient’s body are determined in the court’s own discretion (ex aequo et bono) N.A (on behalf of his child I.A) vs KIBUNGO MEDICAL CENTER………………………………….83 2. Civil procedure – Damages – Determination of damages – When a court determines damages basing on a law that is irrelevant to the subject matter in a case, such damages shall be considered as if they were based on a non-existing law. N.A (on behalf of his child I.A) vs KIBUNGO MEDICAL CENTER………………………………….83 Appeal –The determination of damages for tort liability – The appellate court cannot overrule the appealed judgement without indicating its defects N.A (on behalf of his child I.A) vs KIBUNGO MEDICAL CENTER………………………………….83 Damages resulting from accident– Loss of job – A person who does not provide evidence to prove that he/she had a job at the time of the accident, should not be granted damages for its loss because he/she never had it PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v UWIMANIMPAYE………………………………….107 Damages resulting from accident –Loss due to an accident – Regarding the damages granted to an employee who

## Page 336

xxii RWANDA LAW REPORTS

suffered a loss due to an accident, such loss is considered based on the income from work on the day of the accident. For unemployed people (children, students, elderly, women or men living at home), no immediate loss resulting from work can occur, what can be taken into account is the opportunity to find job due to the accident PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v UWIMANIMPAYE……………………………….....107 Proceedings of the cases – Right for the review of the case on grounds of injustice – It is not necessary for a party to first invoke the procedure for case review in order to be entitled to the application for review on grounds of injustice, while he/she considers that he/she does not meet any requirement provided under the law for filing the application for admissibility of the case review PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v UWIMANIMPAYE………………………………….107 Responsibilities – Professional responsibilities – It is the bank client's responsibility to take care of the payment order book or any other means made available to him/her for making the payment, but this does not relieve the bank of its responsibility to exercise due diligence before making the payment MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD……….177 Responsibilities – Professional responsibilities – A person's money deposited in the bank should not be withdrawn without the owner's permission. If the bank gives it to someone who is not entitled to it, it is considered that the money has not left the owner's account, in which case the bank is liable. MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD……….177

## Page 337

xxiii SUBJECT INDEX

3. Commercial law – Seizure – Seizure of a mortgage – The obligation of payment of the surety is limited to the limits of the secured loan – In case of restructuring of the loan agreement, the consent of the surety is obligatory in order for the previous mortgage to secure the restructured loan. GATETE v. ECOBANK LTD……………………….129 Loan – The interest on arrears – Calculation of the interest on arrears – The interest on arrears is calculated at a compensation rate granted to the consumer of financial services, which may not be lower than the average interest rate on loans, but may not exceed the amount of the debt to be paid MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD……….177 4. Commercial procedure – Caveat on immovable property – A caveat registered on the property can be cancelled in case it was registered on the property legally sold even if the seller failed to register the acquired property for the transfer purpose due to the reasons beyond his/her control TRADEMET S.A v. CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD……………………………………..215 5. Constitution – Unconstitutional law – For a law to be petitioned for unconstitutionality, must be a law which is still inforce. When the challenged law or its provisions are no longer into force the petition against it is inadmissible Re FAST TRUCK INTERIOR AND HARDWARE LTD……………………………………………………...1 6. Contract law – Commercial contract – Evidence in commercial cases – The general principle is that in commercial cases, the hierarchy of elements of evidence does not apply – The evidence of commercial activities

## Page 338

xxiv RWANDA LAW REPORTS

should not necessarily be in written form; instead, they can be supported by any form of evidence as long as it demonstrates the situation of commercial activities performed. It is sufficient for the evidence to establish that such activities are generally conducted in the manner described. Therefore, it is not necessary to produce the original versions of the documents relied upon by the parties as evidence. No exclusive evidence is required to prove the existence of undertakings between traders. On the contrary, when examining whether business undertakings occurred between them, their existing undertakings are taken into consideration. NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES LTD v. KASESE DISTILLERS LTD………………………..145 Commercial contract – Effects of the breach of contract with regard to business organizations or companies – Business organizations or companies can be awarded moral damages for the loss of their reputation, trust, and public trust, similar to the case with individuals NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES LTD v. KASESE DISTILLERS LTD………………………..145 Commercial contracts – Awarding moral damages to business organizations or companies – In determining the amount of moral damages to be awarded, the court is required to exercise caution and reasonableness to prevent the damages from being too low and inadequate, or excessively high to the point of being mistaken for pecuniary damages or damages for the loss suffered by the company. NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES LTD v. KASESE DISTILLERS LTD………………………..145

## Page 339

xxv SUBJECT INDEX

7. Criminal law – The offence of the trafficking in persons – For the offence of human exploitation, it is not necessary for the intended objective of the offence to be achieved, rather, what matters is the criminal intent of the suspect, since it is this criminal intent, that is to say, human exploitation, that is to be punished, rather than the outcome of the offense PROSECUTION v. NDIKUMANA…………………249 The offence of the trafficking in persons – For the offence of trafficking in persons, the suspect might not invoke the victim’s consent for defence PROSECUTION v. NDIKUMANA…………………249 8. Criminal procedure – Mitigating circumstances – Punishment of a young adult should differ from the sentence imposed to an adult aged of more than 25 for the sake of fair trial in consideration of the gravity of offence, its effects and the opportunities for rehabilitation PROSECUTION v. NSENGIYAREMYE………......233 9. Labour procedure – Unfair dismissal – The amount of damages awarded to the employee upon dismissal – When it is determined that an employee has been unfairly dismissed, he/she is entitled to receive damages that are calculated based on the last salary. These damages are calculated from the time of suspension until the pronouncement of the judgment on basis of the net salary and any other allowances that were provided to him/her to facilitate the performance of his/her duties KATABARWA v NYARUGURU DISTRICT…….....55 10. Law governing the Bar Association – Discipline of Advocates – Disciplinary Committee – Time limit for lodging a case with the Disciplinary Committee – When the

## Page 340

xxvi RWANDA LAW REPORTS

President of the Bar Association is informed of the faults of which an advocate is accused and finds that such faults are under the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Committee, he/she refers the matter to the Disciplinary Committee within three months from the date he/she was informed of the faults MHAYIMANA V. RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION………………………………………..19 Discipline of Advocates – Disciplinary Committee – Taking the decision – When the Disciplinary Committee is convened for the purpose of administering a sanction, a required quorum for sitting and taking a decision shall be 2/3 of its members provided by law. MHAYIMANA V. RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION………………………………………..19 11. Procedure for the review of cases on the grounds of injustice – the Principle of Non Ultra petita – The new claims that have not been previously litigated in the case that seeks review are not admissible for injustice related case review MHAYIMANA V. RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION………………………………………..19 Application for review with regard to an issue that has not been adjudicated by the judge in the case under review – The fact that the party has been granted an extraordinary remedy for review of a final judgment when he/she thinks that he/she has been wronged on a specific issue does not grant to him/her the right to introduce new claims that are outside the scope of the subject matter mentioned in the application KATABARWA v NYARUGURU DISTRICT……….55

## Page 341

xxvii SUBJECT INDEX

12. Tax law – Tax declaration – Liability of the taxpayer who submitted the tax declaration – If it is evident that the imported goods disappeared en route without evidence that they had been really stolen, the owner remains liable for taxes. NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES LTD v. KASESE DISTILLERS LTD………………………..145

## Page 343

SPECIAL CLAIMS

## Page 345

PETITION SEEKING TO DECLARE A LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL

## Page 347

1

Re: FAST TRUCK INTERIOR AND HARDWARE LTD [Rwanda SUPREME COURT-RS/INCONST/RCOM 00001/2022/SC- Ntezilyayo, P.J., Nyirinkwaya, Hitiyaremeye, Muhumuza and Karimunda, J.) 19 May 2023] Constitution – Unconstitutional law – For a law to be petitioned for unconstitutionality, must be a law which is still inforce – When the challenged law or its provisions are no longer into force the petition against it is inadmissible. Facts: When the Commercial High Court was examining the appeal filed by Rwanda Revenue Authority in the judgment RCOMA 00443/2021/HCC, Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd, as party to the case, raised an objection about the unconstitutionality of a law, it states that the article 64 of the Law n0 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures is unconstitutional. The President of the Commercial High Court referred to article 74 of the Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts and wrote to the President of the Supreme Court and notified him of the above raised issue, the Court’s Registry received and registered the issue. The Government of Rwanda on the behalf Rwanda Revenue Authority raised the objection about the inadmissibility of the claim filed by Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd, arguing that the law challenged by Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd has already been repealed and it therefore cannot be challenged for unconstitutionality. It expounds that when a law is no longer into force, it cannot be examined to determine whether it is contrary

## Page 348

2 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

or not to the Constitution, because normally when a Court declares a law unconstitutional, it is consequently repealed. The fact that the claimant states that law affected it even if it was repealed is not a ground to challenge it while it is no longer into force, especially it affected it because it contravened it while it was still into force. Fast Truck and Hardware Ltd pleaded by stating that though the above law had been repealed, its article 64 kept applying since it is the very article that Rwanda Revenue Authority applied for charging with the Value-added Tax. It is not necessary to notify the Parliament in case a Court declares a law contrary to the Constitution as that law was repealed, rather it can affect the decisions taken by the Court on basis of that law that should be invalidated. Held: 1. A claim seeking the unconstitutionality of a law is admissible in case the claimant indicates the challenged law and its annexes if any, it is repealed by a competent court in case it finds that it violates the human rights provided under the Constitution. 2. A law challenged for unconstitutionality must be into force, applicable and enforced. When a law or its article is no longer into force nor applied, the claim is ungrounded and inadmissible. Therefore, the claim by Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd is not admitted since article 64 of the Law n0 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures no longer exists. Objection sustained. Petition rejected.

## Page 349

3 Re: FAST TRUCK INTERIOR AND HARDWARE LTD

Statutes referred to: The Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003, revised in 2015, articles 29 and 61; Law n0 026/2019 of 18/09/2019 on Tax Procedures, article 98; Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 relating to jurisdiction of courts, articles 72 and 74; Law n0 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on Tax procedures, articles 30 and 64. Cases referred to: Speaker of the National Assembly and Another v. Land Access Movement of South Africa and Others [2019] ZACC 10, rendered on19/03/2019. Civil Appeal Nos. 823-827 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.2001-2005 of 2021) Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd seized the Commercial Court and sued Rwanda Revenue Authority, seeking waiver of the Value-Added Tax amounting to 32,258,138 Frw allegedly unlawfully charged. On 12/05/2021, the above Court heard the case RCOM 00257/2021/TC and found the claim justified, and it waived the charged tax.

Rwanda Revenue Authority appealed the above ruling before the Commercial High Court. During the hearing of the case RCOMA 00443/2021/HCC, whereby Counsel Hategeka Placide representing Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd raised

## Page 350

4 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

an objection and submitted that the article 64 of the Law n0 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures is unconstitutional.

With reference to article 74 of the law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 relating to jurisdiction of courts, the President of the Commercial High Court wrote to the President of the Supreme Court on 28/12/2022 and notified him of the raised objection, the Supreme Court’s Registry received the claim and docketed it as RS/INCONST/RCOM 00001/2022/SC, its examination was fixed on 25/01/2023, but on that date, upon the request of the State Attorney, the case was not heard.

The case was heard on 19/04/2023, Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd was represented by Counsel Hategeka Placide while the Government of Rwanda was represented by Counsel Kabibi Spéciose together with Counsel Twahirwa Jean Baptsite.

By its submissions and even through its pleading, the Government of Rwanda raised an objection and argued that Law n0 25/12/2005 of 04/12/2005 on Tax Procedures which Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd alleges to be unconstitutional has been repealed; arguing that it can therefore not be challenged for unconstitutionality, adding that such a claim should not be admitted.

In reaction to the above objection, Counsel Hategeka Placide submitted that the Supreme Court should admit and examine the claim lodged by Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd adding that though the above mentioned Law n0 25/2005 had been repealed, its article 64 kept applying since it is this very article that Rwanda Revenue Authority used when it imposed it with 32,258,138 Frw for Value-Added Tax.

## Page 351

5 Re: FAST TRUCK INTERIOR AND HARDWARE LTD

The underlying issue that the Court has to examine in this case is to determine whether a repealed law can be challenged for unconstitutionality. II. ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUE OF THE CASE 1. Whether a repealed law can be challenged for unconstitutionality

Counsel Kabibi Spéciose representing the Government of Rwanda submits that the article 98 of the Law n0 026/2019 of 18/09/2019 on Tax Procedures provides that “Law nº 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on Tax Procedures as modified and complemented to date and all prior legal provisions contrary to this Law are repealed”. This means that the challenged Law n0 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 is no longer into force.

She further submits that a repealed law cannot be challenged to determine whether it is contrary or not to the Constitution, because normally when a Court declares a law unconstitutional, it is consequently repealed, the Parliament and the Government are notified, it is therefore impossible to repeal a law that no longer exists.

She also explains that for such claims, the decision of the Supreme Court is “ex-nunc” meaning that it is effective since the date it is taken and it has no retroactive effects.

She adds that the claimant’s allegation that the repealed law affected it even if it was repealed is not a ground to challenge

## Page 352

6 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

it while it is no longer into force, especially it affected it because it contravened it while it was still into force.

Concerning the procedure used by the persons affected by the allegedly unconstitutional acts to file the claims against them, Counsel Kabibi Spéciose argues that the claim by Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd submitted with reference to article 74 of Law n0 30/2018 is different from the applications for remedies of unconstitutional acts and the claimant intends to change the claim, she requests the Court to adjudicate the case within the limits of the subject-matter, delimiting the case on the sole issue of determining whether it is possible to challenge the Law n0 25/2005 for unconstitutionality while it no longer exists.

She cited the example of similar cases that were rendered from other countries. She cited case Civil Appeal Nos. 823-827 of 2022 (arising out SLP (C) Nos. 2001-2005 of 2021) point 16, whereby under this case, there was an Assam Act1 that was published in 2004, later the Manipular Act was published in 2012, which is exactly similar to the Act of 2004, and this is the Act that had been attacked before the Supreme Court of India for grounds of unconstitutionality and the Court found the claim justified. Later, the Act of 2012 was challenged for unconstitutionality on basis of the case rendered in 2004, but pending the Court’s decision, the Parliament repealed the Act of 2012 and replaced it with that of 2018 and the High Court upheld that the Parliament had no power to replace it because the Act of 2012 was unconstitutional. But the Supreme Court upheld that by the publication of the Act of 2018, the Act of 2012 was repealed,

1 The Assam Parliamentary Secretaries (Appointment, Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004.

## Page 353

7 Re: FAST TRUCK INTERIOR AND HARDWARE LTD

the High Court should not have examined the issue related to the constitutionality as it was repealed.

She further submits that the above issue decided by the Supreme Court of India is similar to the case that Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd brought to this Court since the challenged Law n0 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 has been repealed ; and she therefore requests the Court to refer to the position set by the Supreme Court of India to uphold that a repealed law cannot be challenged for unconstitutionality as it is no longer into force.

Counsel Twahirwa Jean Baptiste supplements her by adding that a law is challenged for unconstitutionality for being repealed ; it is evident that such procedure is only possible when the law is still valid and therefore applicable ; since the challenged law no longer exists, it is thus obvious that it cannot be challenged for unconstitutionality.

With regard to the statements by Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd that the law is challenged as it has been applied for levying the Value-Added Tax, he submits that such issue should not be examined by the Supreme Court, rather in case of any prejudice caused by the application of the Law n0 25/2005 of 04/12/2005, it should bring the matter under the tax-related cases.

Pleading about such issue, Counsel Hategeka Placide submits that Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd did not seize the Court to uphold that the article 64 of the Law n0 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures is unconstitutional in usual procedure for filing such claims, rather it lodged it as a matter of unconstitutionality of the law arising in the hearing of the case before the Commercial High Court.

## Page 354

8 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

He further sustains that the reason why Fast Truck and Interior Ltd requested the Court to uphold that the article 64 of the above mentioned Law n0 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 is unconstitutional even if it is repealed is that Rwanda Revenue Authority applied it for imposing it a tax just as it is indicated in the last paragraph of the notice about the violations committed on 13/10/2020 as it concerns the acts performed when it was into force, it is therefore obvious that though the above law has been repealed, it kept applying and it can be challenged for its unconstitutionality.

Concerning the notification to the Parliament in case the court declares it unconstitutional, he submits that such is not necessary more so that the concerned law has already been repealed, rather it affected the decisions taken by the Court with reference to the above law and they should be revoked. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Paragraph one of article 72 of the Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts provides that “The Supreme Court is petitioned by any person or company and associations with legal personality over petitions seeking to declare unconstitutional a law if they have any interest”. Paragraph 2 provides that “The applicant must put in the annex to the complaint a copy of the law that is the subject of the dispute and its annexes, if any”. Paragraph 5 provides that “When the Supreme Court holds that such a law is unconstitutional, it shall inform the Parliament and the Government thereof. Such a declaration is published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda”.

## Page 355

9 Re: FAST TRUCK INTERIOR AND HARDWARE LTD

Article 74, paragraphs one and two of the above mentioned Law n0 30/2018 provide that when the Supreme Court hears other cases than those related to the examination of the unconstitutionality of a law and a matter of unconstitutionality of the law arises, it handles the issue before the adjudication of the case on the merits. When such issue is raised by parties or upon the court own motion, during the case hearing before the lower courts, the latter immediately suspend the hearing of the main case and refer the issue to the Supreme Court for a related ruling.

As above reminded, the main issue in this case on which both parties do not agree is to determine whether a repealed law can be challenged for unconstitutionality whereby the State Attorneys assert that such procedure is impossible whereas the counsel of Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd argues that nothing prohibits it in case such law was still applied, even after it was repealed, on the acts that occurred when it was into force.

The Court finds that the issue related to the fact that a repealed law can be challenged for unconstitutionality was examined by other constitutional courts of other countries.

Before the Constitutional Court of South Africa with the case of Speaker of National Assembly and other v Land Access Movement of South Africa and others [2019] ZACC 10, rendered on 19/03/2019, whereby under paragraph 8, “The applicants challenged the constitutionality of the repealed Amendment Act on two grounds: first, that the NCOP2 and the provincial legislatures respectively breached section 72(1)(a) of the Constitution by failing to “facilitate public involvement” in the passing of the Bill that preceded the repealed Amendment

2 National Council of Provinces.

## Page 356

10 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Act” and under paragraph 10, “It also declared the repealed Amendment Act to be invalid, thereby accepting the LAMOSA respondent’s first argument3”.

The Supreme Court of India, in the case above cited in the State Attorney submissions, holds that due to the fact that a repealed law is no longer into force, the Court cannot examine its unconstitutionality, to that extent, the High Court committed an error in declaring a non-existing law as unconstitutional4.

The Court observes that the aforementioned two cases rendered by courts of other countries indicate that the issue of determining whether a repealed law can be challenged for unconstitutionality, was not similarly upheld by those courts; therefore, in examining the claim filed to it, the Court has to determine, on basis of the existing legal provisions, whether it is possible for a party to request to this Court to examine whether a repealed law is unconstitutional.

Considering the article 72 and article74, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the above mentioned law n0 30/2018, the Court finds that the legislator did not explicitly precise grounds on which the Court

3 Speaker of the National Assembly and Another v Land Access Movement of South Africa and Others [2019] ZACC 10, rendered on 19/03/2019, accessed on http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2019/10.html. 4 (…) “The aforesaid judgments leave no room for doubt that after enactment of the Repealing Act, 2018, the 2-12 Act did not survive and the High Court ought not to have considered the constitutional validity of the same. To that extent, the High Court committed an error in declaring a non-existing law as unconstitutional.” The State of Manipur & Ors Vs Surjakumar Okram & Ors, Civil Appeal Nos. 823 – 827 of 2022, 1 February 2022, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/118737687/

## Page 357

11 Re: FAST TRUCK INTERIOR AND HARDWARE LTD

relies to examine the admissibility of a claim for unconstitutionality of a law raised by a party in the case hearing, therefore, it is evident that such claim should be examined through the same procedure that is usually used for unconstitutionality-related claims as per the provisions of article 72.

The Court finds that one of the conditions for the admissibility of unconstitutionality-related claims is that the applicant must indicate the challenged law and its annexes, if any. It is therefore understandable that such claims seek for the repealing of the challenged law in case the Supreme Court finds that it violates the human constitutional rights.

With regard to the repealing of unconstitutional laws as highlighted by the fact that in the paragraph 5 of article 72 of the above mentioned law n0 30/2018, the Legislator has provided that once a law is declared unconstitutional, the Supreme Court informs the competent organs for being rectified or repealed. The Competent organs are the Parliament and the Government.

Considering the conditions for filing the claims seeking to confirm the unconstitutionality of a law and the subsequent formalities in instances where such is the case, the Court finds that the formalities are important so that if they are not respected, the decision taken by the Court would be invalidated because the Supreme Court could not inform the Parliament and the Government for repealing a non-existing law or publishing in the Official Gazette the judgment upholding that a law is repealed while it has been published that it was repealed. This is not different with the statements of Counsel Hategeka Placide during the hearing whereby he submitted that it is not necessary to

## Page 358

12 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

inform the Parliament because the concerned law has already been repealed.

The effects of repealing a law have been well explained under the case “ The State of Manipur vs Surjakumar Okram” rendered by the above mentioned Supreme Court of India, especially on page 6, under paragraph 15, whereby the Supreme Court of India held that “the effect of repealing a statute is to obliterate it as completely from the records of Parliament as if it had never been passed; and it must be considered as a law that never existed except for the purpose of those actions which were commenced, prosecuted and concluded whilst it was an existing law. It is a settled legal proposition that whenever an Act is repealed, it must be considered as if it had never existed. Repeal is not a matter of mere form but is of substance. Therefore, on repeal, the earlier provisions stand obliterated/abrogated/wiped out wholly”5.

Considering all the elucidations provided under the preceding paragraphs, the Court undoubtedly finds that a law challenged for unconstitutionality should be an existing law, meaning a law which is into force, as sustained by the State Attorneys.

The Court finds that the statements Counsel Hategeka Placide representing Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd which challenged the repealed Law n0 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on Tax Procedures because Rwanda Revenue Authority applied to levy a tax amounting to 32,258,138 Frw, are unfounded given that the

5 The State of Manipur vs Surjakumar Okram on 1 February, 2022 rendered by the Supreme Court, accessed on https://indiankanoon.org/doc/118737687/.

## Page 359

13 Re: FAST TRUCK INTERIOR AND HARDWARE LTD

tax-related decisions are administrative and they can be challenged by an appeal before the Commissioner General as article 30 of the same Law so provides, and in case aggrieved party is not satisfied by such decision, he/she seizes the court.

The foregoing elucidations indicate that there is a procedure provided for a taxpayer aggrieved by the article 64 of the aforementioned Law n0 25/2005 for seeking justice ; Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd had already recourse to the procedure by applying for the waiver of the tax, such procedure is different from challenging a non-existing law for its unconstitutionality while and it has been obliterated from the legal books as above explained.

Basing on the foregoing elucidations, the Court finds that the claim filed by Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd challenging the article 64 of the above mentioned Law n0 25/2005 for its unconstitutionality, is not admitted as the law no longer exists. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the objection raised by the Government of Rwanda has merit.

Holds that the claim filed by Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd seeking to confirm that the article 64 of the Law n0 25/2005 on Tax Procedures is contrary to articles 29 and 61 of the Constitution, is not admitted for examination.

## Page 360

14 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Decides that the hearing of the case RCOMA 00443/2021/ HCC before the Commercial High Court shall be resumed.

## Page 361

CASES IN MERIT

## Page 363

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE

## Page 365

19

MHAYIMANA V. RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION Rwanda SUPREME COURT-RS/INJUST/RAD 00002/2022/SC - (Ntezilyayo, P.J. Nyirinkwaya, Cyanzayire, Hitiyaremye and Kalimunda, J) 17 February 2023] Procedure for the review of cases on the grounds of injustice – the Principle of Non Ultra petita – The new claims that have not been previously litigated in the case that seeks review are not admissible for injustice related case review. Law governing the Bar Association – Discipline of Advocates – Disciplinary Committee – Time limit for lodging a case with the Disciplinary Committee – When the President of the Bar Association is informed of the faults of which an advocate is accused and finds that such faults are under the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Committee, he/she refers the matter to the Disciplinary Committee within three months from the date he/she was informed of the faults. Law governing the Bar Association – Discipline of Advocates – Disciplinary Committee – Taking the decision – When the Disciplinary Committee is convened for the purpose of administering a sanction, a required quorum for sitting and taking a decision shall be 2/3 of its members provided by law. Summary of facts: Counsel Mhayimana sued Rwanda Bar Association and requested the Court for the revocation of the decision of the Disciplinary Committee that suspended him from exercising his profession for a period of three months for his behaviour when the Registrar of the Intermediate Court of

## Page 366

20 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Nyarugenge notified him of a court decision that fined him for delaying the case. The case started from the High Court, Counsel Mhayimana lost it, he applied for injustice-related case review and his application was admitted. He requested for the revocation of the Disciplinary Committee decision that suspended him from exercising his profession, arguing that the decision was taken by unauthorised persons; he stated that the decision was taken by only two committee members while it was legally supposed to be taken by 2/3 of eleven members of the Bar Association Disciplinary Committee. He also submitted that the Committee has disregarded the circumstances about the prescription of the disciplinary action of which he is accused and he claimed that they did not consider laws and evidence proving that the decision taken against him violated the procedure pertaining to the disciplinary action provided by the law. The Bar Association argues that the ruling by the High Court should remain valid since the decision of suspending the accused from exercising his profession for a period of three months has been lawfully made. It explains that in the normal circumstances the decision is taken within a period of two (2) months, but since the concerned decision was issued in the course of COVID-19 and the measures taken for fighting against such pandemic hindered the normal working conditions. Stating that the disciplinary action is null when the time limit elapsed is the misconstruction of the law. The main issue that was hereby examined was about determining whether the decision taken by the Bar Association Disciplinary Committee should be revoked due to various grounds that were presented by the applicant. These grounds include the fact that

## Page 367

21 MHAYIMANA V. RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

the quorum of the Disciplinary Committee members was incomplete when it held the meeting and took the decision. Held 1: The new claims that have not been previously litigated in the case that seeks review are not admissible for injustice- related case review. 2.When the President of the Bar Association is informed of the faults of which an advocate is accused and finds that such faults are under the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Committee, he/she refers the matter to the Disciplinary Committee within three months from the date he/she was informed of the faults. 3. When the Disciplinary Committee is convened for the purpose of administering a sanction, a required quorum for sitting and taking a decision shall be 2/3 of its members provided by law. Therefore, the required quorum for making a decision against Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe was should be 7 members out of 11 provided by the law instead of 6/9 in consideration of vacant posts. Application for review of the judgment due to injustice has merit. Statutes referred to: Law no 83/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the Bar Association in Rwanda and determining its organisation and functioning, articles 25, 29, 31,74, 75 and 78. Cases referred to: RS/INJUST/RAD 00003/2021/SC Tabaruka v. Gicumbi District, rendered by the Supreme Court on 20/05/2022

## Page 368

22 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2018/SC Ndatiribambe Samuel v. Gatera Jason et Crts, rendered by the Supreme Court on 13/03/2020; RCA 00280/2016/HC/KIG Counsel Nduwamungu Jean Vianney v. Rwanda Bar Association, rendered by the High Court on 12/01/2017; Arrêt du Tribunal de la Fonction Publique de l’Union Européenne (troisième chambre), FS vs Comité économique et social européen (CESE), 12 Mai 2016, para. 59. Arrêt du Tribunal de la Fonction Publique de l’Union Européenne (deuxième chambre), 8 Octobre 2015, para. 105 & 107-108 Arrêt du Tribunal de la Fonction Publique de l’Union Européenne (Première Chambre), Simona Murariu vs Autorité européenne des assurances et des pensions professionnelles (AEAPP), 16 Juillet 2015, para. 152. Judgment of the court (second chamber) of 9 July 1987. Ingfried Hochbaum and Edward Rawes vs Commission of the European Communities, Official - annulment of appointment, Joined cases 44/85, 77/85, 294/85 and 295/85, para. 22. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

On 20/05/2021, Rwanda Bar Association Disciplinary Committee (hereby referred to as the Disciplinary Committee) took the decision n0 008/CD/2021 and punished Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe by suspending him from exercising his

## Page 369

23 MHAYIMANA V. RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

profession for a period of three months due to his behaviour when the Registrar of Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge notified him of a court decision that fined him for having delayed the case.

Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe lodged a claim with the High Court and requested for the revocation of the Committee ‘s decision and he based his claim on the following grounds: - The fact that the decision was taken by unauthorised persons; - The fact that those who took the decision against him could not prove that they were the rightful members of the Bar Association Disciplinary Committee, since their term of office had already ended; - The fact that the decision was taken after the prescription of the disciplinary action; - The fact that the procedure for the disciplinary action was not respected; - The fact that the Bar Association Disciplinary Committee was seized by a person who had neither interest nor capacity to sue for this case.

For the case RAD 00017/2021/HC/KIG of 28/10/2021, the High Court held that the claim filed by Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe has no justification, and the Court upheld that the decision n0 008/CD/2021 issued by Rwanda Bar Association Disciplinary Committee remains valid since it has been legally taken and the Court ordered to Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe to pay to Rwanda Bar Association 1,000,000 Frw for both the counsel and procedural fees.

## Page 370

24 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe petitioned the President of the Court of Appeal and requested for the review of the judgment RAD 00017/2021/KIG for injustice-related grounds. The President of the Court of Appeal analysed the petition and requested the President of the Supreme Court to have the case reviewed. After the analysis of the submitted report, the President of the Supreme Court ordered for the review of the case by the Supreme Court, and the case was docketed as RS/INJUST/RAD 00002/2022/SC.

The case hearing was scheduled on 21/11/2022, but on that date, the case was not heard because Counsel Mhayimana disqualified one of the judges on the bench, the hearing was suspended for examining the disqualification. The decision on the disqualification was taken on 30/11/2022, the Court held that the claim filed by Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe for disqualification of a judge is not admitted.

The hearing was resumed on 16/01/2023, all the litigants appeared before the Court, Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe was assisted by Counsel Abijuru Emmanuel, Counsel Basomingera Albert and Counsel Rwigema Vincent while Rwanda Bar Association was represented by Counsel Nizeyimana Boniface, Counsel Uwanyirigira Delphine and Counsel Rushikama Niyo Justin.

Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe together with his advocates explained that the injustice is based on the following grounds: - The fact that the decision against him was taken by unauthorised persons as it was only taken by two members while it should be taken by 2/3 of the 11

## Page 371

25 MHAYIMANA V. RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

members of the Bar Association Disciplinary Committee in Rwanda; - The fact that the decision for which he seeks revocation was taken by people who claim to be members of the Bar Association Disciplinary Committee while they had no authority to do so (since their term of office had already ended); - The fact that they ignored the circumstances about the prescription of the disciplinary action against him while it was one of the grounds for such decision invalidation; - Disregarding the laws and elements of evidence which prove that the decision taken against him violated the procedure provided by the law for the disciplinary action.

The Bar Association legal counsels argue that the High Court’s ruling on the issue should not be revoked since the decision for suspending Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe from exercising his profession for a period of three months has been legally taken.

Issues that have been examined in this case are the following: - Whether the decision number 008/CD/2021 that was issued by the Bar Association Disciplinary Committee on 20/05/2021 should be revoked.  Whether there has been the prescription of the disciplinary action;

## Page 372

26 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

 Whether the Bar Association Disciplinary Committee has been seized by a person who has neither interest nor capacity;  Whether the decision number 008/CD/2021 was taken by unauthorised persons;  Whether it was taken by the Chairperson of the Disciplinary Committee and its Secretary;  Whether the required quorum for holding the meeting of the Disciplinary Committee was not complete;  Whether the term of office of the members of the Disciplinary Committee had already expired;  Whether the procedure for the disciplinary action was respected;  Whether Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe was imposed an illegal sanction without reasonable ground. - Issues related to damages.

Furthermore, Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe requested to the Court to order to Rwanda Bar Association to publish its decision in case he wins the case. The Court informed the litigants that the issues cannot be examined as they were not litigated in the case

## Page 373

27 MHAYIMANA V. RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

under review on grounds of injustice; such issues were settled in various judgments rendered by the Supreme Court.1

Following the debate of the parties on the issues to be examined, the Court closed the hearing and informed the parties that the judgments should be pronounced on 17/02/2023. II. ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUES OF THE CASE 1. Whether the decision number 008/CD/2021 taken by the Bar Association Disciplinary Committee on 20/05/2021 should be revoked. Whether there has been the prescription of the disciplinary action

Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe and his legal counsel argue that the prescription of the disciplinary action against him had already ended and they provided the following explanations: - The President of the Bar Association based his claim on e-mail that he received from the Inspector General of Courts on 16/12/2020, he lodged his claim with the Bar Disciplinary Committee on 23/12/2020, and he requested the Committee to make a follow-up on the issue of Mhayimana Isaïe; the latter was repeatedly

1 Case RS/INJUST/RAD 0003/2021 rendered by the Supreme Court on the 20/05/2022 with Tabaruka Dieudonné v Gicumbi District (paragraph 9) and case RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2018/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 13/03/2020 between Ndatiribambe Samuel and Gatera Joson et Crts (paragraph 66)

## Page 374

28 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

summoned on 12/03/2021, on 25/03/2021 and on 30/04/2021, and the decision was taken on 20/05/2021. - With reference to the paragraph 2 of article 78 of the Law n0 83/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing Rwanda Bar Association and determining its organisation and functioning that provides for the time limit for taking a decision2, Mhayimana finds that the two-month period that is provided by the law had already ended on 22/02/2021; by this date, he had not even been summoned since he was summoned for the first time on 12/03/2021; therefore, the time limit for disciplinary action had ended. - The pretext of special circumstances due tpCOVID-19 pandemic is not founded as they are not legally provided for, more so that there was a possibility of extensions due to a situation of special circumstances. Besides, COVID-19 related lockdown ended on 07/02/2021; therefore, they had no reason of giving to him the invitation on 02/03/2021 requesting him to appear before the Disciplinary Committee on 12/03/2021. - The time limit for information collection and investigation that are provided under article 74 of the above mentioned Law are of public order, and the

2 The Disciplinary Committee must take a decision within two (2) months from the date on which the complaint is referred to it. Its decision shall be taken by a two-third (2/3) majority of its members present. The Secretary of the Bar Association shall communicate to the defended Advocate any disciplinary sanction taken for him/her, within fifteen (15) days and through the means for decisions notification provided for by the Code of civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure

## Page 375

29 MHAYIMANA V. RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

above article specifies that the information collection and investigation shall be completed within one-month period. This article must be strictly applied since it gives an order; otherwise, the sanction procedure should be considered null as it is stipulated under article 172 of the Internal Rules and Regulations of the Bar Association3. And this is what applied for case RCA 00280/2016/HC/KIG rendered by the Supreme Court on 12/01/2017 with Counsel Nduwamungu Jean Vianney v. Rwanda Bar Association (see paragraph 28).

Rwanda Bar Association legal counsels submit that the arguments presented by Counsel Mhayimana are baseless and they provided the following reasons: - The fact that the decision should be taken within a two- month period in the normal circumstances and the measures taken for fighting against COVID-19 pandemic hindered the normal working conditions. This is illustrated by the fact that due to the spreading of COVID-19 contaminations across the Country, on 18/01/2021 the whole Kigali City was confined under lockdown; - The law does not explicitly mention that the failure to respect the period of two months results in the invalidation of the undertaken activities, leading to the prescription;

3 The competent organ must communicate the file to the involved Advocate, and invite him/her to submit his/her defense in writing within a period of seven (7) to fourteen (14) calendar days. Failing this may lead to the nullity of the entire procedure

## Page 376

30 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

- Stating that the disciplinary action becomes null when the time limit elapsed is misconstruction of the law, normally, when the Legislator has provided that the summary procedure is heard within a determined time limit, exceeding such time limit does not preclude taking the decision nor lead to invalidation of the taken decision, unless it is so provided by the law. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Prescription can be defined as a process that leads to loss of rights due to the fact that a person who had such rights or capacity did not use it within determined time limits4. The prescriptive period starts running from the time a person knew or ought to know the acts that allow him/her to exercise his/her rights. 5

Article 22, paragraphs 2 and 3 of Rwanda Bar Association Rules and Regulations of 16/09/2014 (hereby referred to as Rules and Regulations) provide that the President of the Bar has the

4 Moyen d'éteindre un droit par non-usage ; JuriBistro Edictionnaire, Dictionnaire de droit québécois et canadien, 2016, https://dictionnairereid.caij.qc.ca/, accessed on 15/02/2023. Un mode d’extinction d'un droit résultant de l'inaction de son titulaire pendant un certain laps de temps, Ooreka Droit, 2023, p.2, https://justice.ooreka.fr/, accessed on 15/02/2023 5 L’article 2224 du Code civil dispose que, les actions personnelles ou mobilières se prescrivent par 5 ans à compter du jour où le titulaire d'un droit a connu, ou aurait dû connaître, les faits lui permettant de l'exercer. Cette prescription est considérée comme celle de droit commun. Elle est donc la règle par principe; Ooreka Droit, ibidem p. 2.

## Page 377

31 MHAYIMANA V. RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

power to send the Advocate before the Disciplinary Committee when he/she considers the allegations against the Advocate are likely to result in a disciplinary sanction greater than that of within his/her competence.

Article 171 of the above mentioned Rules and Regulations concerning the disciplinary proceedings provides for different disciplinary organs that include the President of the Bar, that can initiate action for disciplinary faults. Sub-paragraph (3) of the above article provides that an action can be initiated upon complaint by any interested person. For such a scenario, the complaint shall be made within three (3) months from the date on which the person concerned became aware of the facts or from the end of related investigations. The very article reads that the same time limit applies in case of referral to the Disciplinary Committee by the President of the Bar Association or a member of the Committee.

The provisions of articles 22 and 171 of the above mentioned Rules and Regulations of the Bar Association well reflect the provision of article 75 of the Law n0 83/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing Rwanda Bar Association and determining its organisation and functioning ( see Bar Association Law)6.

6 The Disciplinary Committee shall handle cases related to the discipline of Advocates. It shall receive complaints from the President of the Bar Association, a member of the Disciplinary Committee or any other interested person. In case one (1) of the persons referred to in Paragraph One of this Article considers that the offending Advocate might be answerable, he/she shall bring the case within three (3) months from the date on which he/she gets the information or the date on which the investigation is completed.

## Page 378

32 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

The provision of the above cited article indicates that when the President of the Bar is informed of the disciplinary faults charged against an Advocate, he/she refers the case to the Disciplinary Committee within a three-month period starting from the date he/she was informed of the concerned faults.

In this instant case, the documents contained in the case file indicate that on 16/12/2020, the Inspector General of Courts sent an e-mail to Mugabe Victor ( Secretary- General of Rwanda Bar Association) and informed him of the misconduct of Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe, and sent a carbon copy to the President of the Bar Association via e-mailjulien@ksolutions-law.com. It is also clear that on 23/12/2020, the President of the Bar Association sent the letter number Let.211/Bat/KJG/12/2020 to the Bar Association Disciplinary Committee requesting it to make a follow-up on the issue of Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe.

On basis of the documents mentioned in the foregoing paragraph, it is evident that the President of the entitled to seize the Bar Association Disciplinary Committee was informed about the conduct of Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe on 16/12/2020, and he referred the matter to the Disciplinary Committee on 23/12/2020, that is within a period of 7 days. The Court has therefore finds that the three- month time limit for the disciplinary proceedings has been observed by the President of the Bar Association.

Considering the above provided explanations, the Court finds that the statements of Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe that there has been the prescription of the disciplinary action, are ungrounded.

## Page 379

33 MHAYIMANA V. RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

- Whether the Bar Association Disciplinary Committee has been seized by a person who had neither interest nor capacity

Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe and his legal counsel argue that the person who seized the Bar Assiation Disciplinary Committee had neither interest nor capacity to sue for this case. - The claim was filed to the Disciplinary Committee by the Inspector General of Courts, who based the filed claim on a misconduct allegedly committed against the Court Registrar, while the misconduct was not committed against the Inspector General of Courts; neither does he represent the Organ the offended Registrar works for. - The Inspector General of Courts forwarded the complaint to Mr. Victor via the latter’s personal e- mail address, while he was supposed to send the claim to the e-mail of the Bar Association Executive Secretary who in turn, forwards it to the President of the Bar Association, before it is submitted to the Disciplinary Committee.

For the above issue, the Bar Association legal counsels give the following explanations: - The claim against Counsel Mhayimana was lodged by the President of the Rwanda Bar Association as it is evidenced by a related letter addressed to the Disciplinary Committee on 23/12/2020; stating that the claimant lacks capacity and interest is unfounded.

## Page 380

34 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

- Article 171 of the Bar Association Internal Rules and Regulations provides that the organs take actions upon their own initiative or upon the applicant’s complaint or on the initiative of any other interested person. The fact that the claim was lodged by the Inspector General of Courts was enough to initiate the disciplinary action by the Disciplinary Committee. The Advocates’ profession is a profession that is meant for the general public and it is for the service of all people including the Inspector General of Courts, especially the latter represents the Judicial Organ, so that anyone who happens to learn about Advocate’s misconduct has a capacity to report the case to the competent organ. It is not the respondent who decides whether the claimant has interest or not, because he cannot tolerate anyone who discloses the misconduct committed. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 22, paragraph 2, sub-paragraph 3 of the Bar Association Internal Rules and Regulations provides that the President of the Bar Association has the power to send an Advocate before the Disciplinary Committee when he/she deems that the allegations against the Advocate are likely to result in a disciplinary sanction greater than that of within his/her competence while the article 75 of the Bar Association Law provides that the Disciplinary Committee shall handle cases related to the discipline of Advocates. It shall receive complaints from the President of the Bar Association, a member of the Disciplinary Committee or any other interested person.

## Page 381

35 MHAYIMANA V. RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

Through the submissions provided to the Court, the claimant and his lawyers argue that the President of the Bar Association based his claim on the e-mail he received from the Inspector General of Courts on 16/12/2020 and the President lodged a related case to the Disciplinary Committee on 23/12/2020 requesting it to initiate a disciplinary action against Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe. But for proving that the claim was filed by a person who did not have the capacity to sue, they explained that the claim was thereby lodged by the Inspector General of Courts, thus contradicting their previous statements.

The decision number 008/CD/2021 for which the claimant seeks a revocation indicates that the President of the Bar Association wrote a letter n0 Let.211/Bat/KJG/12/2020 on 23/12/2020 and he requested the Disciplinary Committee to analyse the behaviour of Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe. The Court finds that the claim submitted to the Disciplinary Committee was not filed by the Inspector General of Courts as the respondent alleges, as it was submitted by the President of the Bar Association and the law entitles him to do so.

Concerning the fact that the President of the Bar Association based his claim on an e-mail that the Inspector General of Courts sent to the Executive Secretary through the personal account and copied to the President, the Court finds that there is no irregularity since what the Inspector General of Courts did is limited to the sharing of the concerned information.

Considering all the above provided explanations, the Court finds that the Disciplinary Committee has been seized with a person who thereby had capacity and interest to sue for the case.

## Page 382

36 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

- Whether the decision number 008/CD/2021 was taken by unauthorised persons.  Whether it was taken by the Chairperson of the Disciplinary Committee and its Secretary

Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe and his legal counsel argue that there is no legal provision that confers power to the Chairperson of the Disciplinary Committee and its Secretary for signing the act alone and the person who signed as the Committee’s Secretary is not provided under the Rules and Regulations of Rwanda Bar Association.

They also argue that the statements made by the Bar Association lawyers by which they submitted that the article 79 of the Bar Association Internal Rules and Regulations entitles to the Chairperson of the Disciplinary Committee and its Secretary to sign alone the act, are misconstruction of the article as a punitive act cannot be compared to the minutes of the meeting. They state that the delegation of power should be justified and in consideration of the decision taken against Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe there is no reason that justifies why it was signed by the Committee’s Chairperson and the Secretary alone.

The Bar Association lawyers pleaded as follows: - The Disciplinary Committee’s decision is always co- signed by the Committee’s Chairperson together with its Secretary. It is not necessarily signed by all the sitting members more so that the taken decision is not a court judgement that has to be compulsorily signed by all the members of the bench.

## Page 383

37 MHAYIMANA V. RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

- Article 44 of the Bar Association Internal Rules and Regulations pertaining to the organisation of the Bar Association Disciplinary Committee provides that each report, record and minutes must be signed by the Chairperson of the meeting and the Rapporteur, the Committee’s decisions are part of the mentioned documents; the fact that the decision was signed by the Chairperson and the rapporteur is not irregularity.  Whether the required quorum of the Disciplinary Committee members was not complete

Counsel Mhayimana and his lawyers gave the following explanations: - When Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe appeared before the Disciplinary Committee for the last meeting, only 6 Committee members were present, they did not reach the required quorum, nothing indicates that the concerned decision was taken by these members since it did not carry their signatures as it was only signed by two persons who appropriated it to the Disciplinary committee. - Article 29 of the Law n0 83/2013 of 11/09/2013 that establishing the Bar Association in Rwanda and determining its organisation and functioning7

7 The Disciplinary Committee shall have the following members: 1º the senior Advocate member of the Council of the Bar Association; 2º six (6) Advocates elected by the General Assembly. 3º a representative of the Faculties of Law from Universities that are authorized in Rwanda and who is registered on the roll and elected by his/her peers;

## Page 384

38 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

provides that members of the Bar Association Disciplinary Committee shall be 11, while article 78 of the same law stipulates that the Disciplinary Committee shall meet and deliberate lawfully when at least two thirds (2/3) of its members are present and its decisions shall be taken by a two-third (2/3) majority of its members present8. - The quorum provided under article 31 of the Law establishing Bar Association9 that the Bar Association

4º the Head of the General Directorate of the Institute of Legal Practice and Development or his/her representative; 5º a representative of the National Human Rights Commission; 6º the Advocate representing the Attorney General; The Disciplinary Committee may invite, in its meeting, any resourceful person depending on the issue on the agenda. However, this invitee shall not be allowed to vote during the decision-making process. Any person designated for representing a given institution to the Disciplinary Committee shall perform his/he duties on a permanent basis unless his/her institution decides to replace him/her on sound reasons. Members of the Disciplinary Committee referred to in items 3º and 6º of Paragraph One of this Article shall be elected for a three (3) year term of office renewable once (1). 8 The Disciplinary Committee shall meet and deliberate lawfully when at least two thirds (2/3) of its members are present. The Disciplinary Committee must take a decision within two (2) months from the date on which the complaint is referred to it. Its decision shall be taken by a two-third (2/3) majority of its members present. The Secretary of the Bar Association shall communicate to the defended Advocate any disciplinary sanction taken for him/her, within fifteen (15) days and through the means for decisions notification provided for by the Code of civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure. 9 The first meeting of the Disciplinary Committee shall be convened by the President of the Bar Association within a month from the date of publication of this Law in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda for electing from among its members the Chairperson, the Vice-Chairperson and the Secretary. The meeting of the Disciplinary Committee shall be convened whenever

## Page 385

39 MHAYIMANA V. RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

lawyers are putting forth, is a quorum that is required for the Committee’s decisions, but when the Committee sits for the punishment purposes, it is the quorum specified under article 78 of the aforementioned Law that must be observed. - The document that was attached to the decision imposing sanction to Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe, as the case file indicates it, it is just a list of members who attended the meeting on the day he was punished, but these members are different from the persons who took the concerned punitive decision. Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe appeared before the Bar Association Disciplinary Committee on 20/05/2021 as he was summoned to present his defence on an urgent claim that had been lodged by Mitali Calvin, and it is the list of people who attended the meeting that got enclosed to the decision that punished him, yet the two issues were far different from each other.

The Bar Association lawyers argue that the decision was taken by a complete quorum as per the provision of article 31 of the Law establishing the Bar Association in Rwanda10 and

necessary by its Chairperson or in case of his/her absence by the Vice- Chairperson or upon request by at least one third (1/3) of its members. It shall be lawfully held when at least a half (1/2) of its members are present and its decisions shall be made by an absolute majority of members present. If the quorum is not attained, the meeting shall be re-convened within seven (7) days and deliberations made irrespective of the number of members present. 10 The first meeting of the Disciplinary Committee shall be convened by the President of the Bar Association within a month from the date of publication of this Law in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda for electing from among its members the Chairperson, the Vice-Chairperson and the Secretary. The meeting of the Disciplinary Committee shall be convened whenever

## Page 386

40 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe conceded to present his defence since he himself could see that the required quorum was complete.

They submitted that the Committee is normally composed of 9 members; adding that only three posts were by then vacant, meaning that the Committee counted 6 members present and these are the members who took the decision against him, and it was co-signed by the Committee‘s Chairperson together with the Rapporteur as article 44 of the Bar Association Internal Rules and Regulations so provides11.  Whether the term of office of the members of the Disciplinary Committee had already expired

For the above issue, Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe together with his lawyers provide the following explanations: - Article 25 of the Law n0 83/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the Bar Association in Rwanda and determining its organisation and functioning provides that the term of office for members on the Disciplinary Committee shall be three years. By the time the contested decision was taken, eight of the

necessary by its Chairperson or in case of his/her absence by the Vice- Chairperson or upon request by at least one third (1/3) of its members. It shall be lawfully held when at least a half (1/2) of its members are present and its decisions shall be made by an absolute majority of members present. If the quorum is not attained, the meeting shall be re-convened within seven (7) days and deliberations made irrespective of the number of members present. 11 Unless otherwise decided by the Council of the Bar, at their first meeting after the appointment of its members, each Committee shall elect within its members a Chairperson, a Vice-Chairman and a Rapporteur. The rapporteur is responsible for the preparation of any report, minutes or record of the meeting of the Committee. Each report, record and minutes must be signed by the Chairperson of the meeting and the Rapporteur.

## Page 387

41 MHAYIMANA V. RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

Committee’s members had already ended their term of office on 01/03/2021, since they had been appointed by the Bar Association General Assembly on 02/03/2018. The Bar Association admitted that the concerned Committee members had already ended their term of office, but due to Covid- 19 pandemic, the appointed members remained in their positions till later elections. - The Covid-19 pandemic could not justify the unlawfully extension of term of office for the members of the Disciplinary Committee. The Bar Association could have observed the law and could have arranged for the election of the new members or could have proceeded for legal extension of the term of office, as it has been the case for other organ members ‘term of office such as Committees of Abunzi or decentralized entities. - Covid-19 pandemic is just a pretext, since the Bar Association was able to convene the General Assembly on 12/11/2021, whereby a new President of the Bar Association was elected and the outgoing was thus replaced and whereby new members of the Bar Association Council were as well elected and the Bar Association did not bother for the replacement of the members on the Disciplinary Committee yet nothing could reasonably oppose their replacement, more so that all those organs were, by the usual practice, concomitantly elected within a single meeting of the General Assembly.

## Page 388

42 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

- The Bar should hold virtual general assembly as it did for some other activities such as trainings, or as it has always been the case for some other institutions, the Bar cannot provide evidence to prove that such alternatives were equally impossible.

The Bar Association legal counsel provided the following explanations: - Covid-19 related restrictions made it impossible to convene a face-to- face meeting of 1,500 Advocates for the General Assembly, and thus hindering the election of the new Disciplinary Committee members as provided under articles 56 and 61 of the Bar Association Internal Rules and Regulations. - The Cabinet meeting convened on 19/02/2021 resolved for the suspension of face-to-face conferences, and it is in the course of that restriction that Counsel Mhayimana was suspended from the exercise of his profession. - Conducting online and virtual elections was equally not possible since conducting such elections would be the violation of the related provisions of the Bar Association. - Article 33 of the Bar Association Internal Rules and Regulations provides for the replacement of the members of the Disciplinary Committee12 and it is in

12 In case of a vacancy within the composition of the Disciplinary Committee, the President of the Bar Association shall take steps to fill this vacancy, including through the organization of the elections of a member who shall be

## Page 389

43 MHAYIMANA V. RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

this context that the President of the Bar Association requested the Bar Association Disciplinary Committee to examine the issue of Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe, as it is evidenced by a letter he addressed to the Committee, since it was in exceptional circumstances. - The fact that the meeting of the General Assembly for the election of the President of the Bar Association and members of the Bar Association Council does not constitute a relevant ground for the pleading, since this occurred after the judgment pronouncement and cannot change anything. When Covid-19 became less threatening, the Council of Bar Association deemed necessary to elect the members of the Bar Association high organs, because they are high-ranking in comparison to the Commissions and they should organise the elections of the members of the Bar Association Disciplinary Committee. - The terms of office for the decentralised entities and the Committees of Abunzi cannot hereby be compared to the Bar Association Organs since those organs cannot be similarly considered.

elected by the General Assembly of the Bar, or by inviting the Head of the Institution concerned to appoint the replacement.

## Page 390

44 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT - Whether the decision that suspended Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe was taken by the Committee’s Chairperson and the rapporteur alone.

Article 29, paragraph one of the Bar Association Internal Rules and Regulations (rules pertaining to the organisation of the Disciplinary Committee) provides that at its first meeting following the appointment of its members, the Committee shall elect among its members a Chairperson, a Vice-Chairman and a Rapporteur. While paragraph two of the same article stipulates that the rapporteur is responsible for the preparation of any report, minutes of the meeting and correspondence from the Committee. Each report, minutes, correspondence, must be signed by the Chairperson of the meeting and the Rapporteur.

The two articles denote that the first meeting of the Disciplinary Committee serves for the election of the Chairperson of the Committee, the Vice-Chairperson and the Rapporteur of the Committee. These articles again indicate the duties of the Rapporteur and these include the preparation of reports, the minutes of the meetings and other records of the Committee; the two articles conclude by indicating the person who is entitled for the signing of the Committee’s documents.

The Court finds that the Committee’s reports, the minutes of the meetings and any other documents of the Committee have nothing to do with the committee’s first meeting. The article intended to specify about the documents that the elected rapporteur should have to prepare, and their signing modalities. The Court also finds that the decision imposing the sanction falls

## Page 391

45 MHAYIMANA V. RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

in the category of the Committee’s other documents that the Bar Association Rules and Regulations did not enumerate.

Considering the foregoing explanations, the Court finds that the Committee’s Chairperson together with the Rapporteur of the Committee have the authority to co-sign the decision that was taken against Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe. - Whether the Committee’s quorum was incomplete.

Both parties concur on the fact that the Bar Association Disciplinary Committee should be composed of 11 members as per the provision of article 29 of Law establishing the Bar Association in Rwanda, even if the Bar Association lawyers submit that by the time Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe was imposed the sanction, the Committee’s members were 9 as there were vacant posts. The parties again agree that when Counsel Mhayimana appeared before the Disciplinary Committee for the last meeting, 6 Committee members were present.

Article 31 of the Law establishing Bar Association in Rwanda pertaining to the meetings of the Disciplinary Committee provides that the first meeting of the Disciplinary Committee shall be convened by the President of the Bar Association within a month from the date of publication of this Law in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda for electing from among its members the Chairperson, the Vice- Chairperson and the Secretary The meeting of the Disciplinary Committee shall be convened whenever necessary by its Chairperson or in case of his/her

## Page 392

46 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

absence by the Vice-Chairperson or upon request by at least one third (1/3) of its members. It shall be lawfully held when at least a half (1/2) of its members are present and its decisions shall be made by an absolute majority of members present. If the quorum is not attained, the meeting shall be re-convened within seven (7) days and deliberations made irrespective of the number of members present.

Article 78, paragraph one of the Law establishing the Bar Association Law provides that The Disciplinary Committee shall meet and deliberate lawfully when at least two thirds (2/3) of its members are present. Whereas paragraph two stipulates that the Disciplinary Committee must take a decision within two (2) months from the date on which the complaint is referred to it. Its decision shall be taken by a two-third (2/3) majority of its members present.

The Bar Association lawyers argue that the article 31 should be applied in determining whether the quorum was complete when the Disciplinary Committee took the decision for which Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe seeks revocation. Counsel Mhayimana and his advocates argue that article 31 can only apply for the modalities in which the Committee takes the decisions, but concerning the issues related to sanctioning the advocates for profession-related faults, when the Committees holds the meeting for sanctioning the advocate, it is the quorum specified under article 78 that must be observed.

Article 31 is under the section related to the Permanent Committees while article 78 is under the section concerning the Discipline, especially pertaining to the procedure. Article 78

## Page 393

47 MHAYIMANA V. RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

provides for taking decision, following the provisions related to the summoning of Advocates and their defence before the Disciplinary Committee.

Considering the sections of the concerned articles under the Law establishing the Bar Association, it is clear that article 31 provides for taking decisions in ordinary meeting of the Disciplinary Committee, but in case of sanctioning, it is article 78 that must be applied.

The Court finds that the required quorum for deciding on the punishment against Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe was 2/3 of all the Disciplinary Committee members as per the provision of article 29 of the Law establishing the Bar Association and the litigating parties agree that the Disciplinary Committee is composed of 11 members. This means that the required quorum was supposed to be 7 members while there were 6, according to the documents presented by the Bar Association advocates submitted to the Court and both parties’ agreement.

Concerning the statements of the Bar Association lawyers that the quorum should be 9 members as there were vacant posts, the Court finds that they should not be considered since such they are contrary to the legal provisions.

Basing on the foregoing explanations, the Court finds that the disciplinary decision against Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe was taken without the legally required quorum of the Disciplinary Committee members; therefore, the decision number 008/CD/2021 that the Disciplinary Committee took on 20/05/2021 suspending him from exercising his profession for a period of three months must be revoked.

## Page 394

48 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

The Court finds that there is no reason for examining other issues that Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe submitted to the Court seeking for revocation of the decision number 008/CD/2021 taken by the Bar Association Disciplinary Committee on 20/05/2021. 2. Regarding the claimed damages

Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe and his advocates state that the High Court charged him with 1,000,000 Frw and the claim ended up at the profession-related fault leading to his suspension from exercising his profession for a period of three months, the claim should not be admitted for its defects. He adds that even if the claim was admitted, he did nothing wrong in responding to untrue e-mail that was sent to the judges of all Courts of Rwanda.

They submit that he was illegally punished and the punishment simply intended to prejudice and harm him as the imposed sanction ended by 26/08/2022, but the Bar Association refused to enroll him again. They submit that, even if the Bar Association should, on its initiative, enroll him again, he remained so disbarred till the date he applied for injustice-related case review, yet he had written to the Secretary and the President of the Bar Association reminding his issue. He had recourse o the Courts and he found no redress and it took almost a full year for him to be enrolled gain.

They argue that due to the unfair accusation against him he repeatedly appeared before the Disciplinary Committee for providing explanations, he unnecessarily spent the time which be used for other productive activities, he was suspended from his profession for the faults he did not commit, he was discredited towards his current and potential clients and he requested for

## Page 395

49 MHAYIMANA V. RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

40,000,000 Frw for the related incurred loss and 10,000,000 Frw for moral damages; arguing that Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe has an approximated professional income of 5,000,000 Frw per month, meaning 40,000,000 Frw for the 8 months he spent without working.

Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe and his lawyers submit that since he has been dragged into unnecessary lawsuits, he requested to the High Court to order to the Bar Association to pay him 1,580,000 Frw for damages including 40,000 Frw for the deposited court fee, 40, 000 Frw to pay Court bailiffs who notified the Bar Association of the claim and related summons, and 500,000 Frw for case follow-up costs, but the Bar Association has unfairly declined to pay him for the above damages.

The Bar Association lawyers submitted that the damages that Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe was charged with should remain valid as they resulted from a case that he himself initiated.

They argue that other claims of Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe have no justification since he committed profession-related faults and he must be held liable for them for the sake of upholding the values of the profession. They state that if he had been so professional in his career, he would have avoided uncivil behaviour and language in the letter that he addressed to the offended Court Registrar. He can therefore not claim that it is the taken decision that dishonoured him, and besides, he cannot thereof claim for damages for which he does not even produce supporting evidence.

They also argue that the Disciplinary Committee serves for general interest and it is meant for the good and the honour of

## Page 396

50 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

profession as it prevents the practising Advocates misconduct, the fact that Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe deviated from his duty of discretion, care and precaution, does not give him rights to claim for damages.

They as well submitted that Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe has dragged the Bar Association into unnecessary lawsuits, and they requested to the Court to order to him to pay 5,000,000 Frw for both the counsel and procedural fees.

Counsel Mhayimana and his lawyers argue that the claimed damages have no justification since he seized the Court seeking redress and justice and besides, the claimants present neither the rationale nor justification for such damages. DETERMINATION OF THE COUT

The Court finds that the counsel and procedural fees amounting to 1,000,000 Frw ordered by the High Court should be revoked as requested by Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe because he wins the case.

With regard to the 40,000,000 Frw that Counsel Mhayimana requested for the approximated incurred loss, the Court holds that they should not be awarded, because the incurred loss is not approximately calculated, rather it must be proved by elements of evidence and they were not produced.

Concerning the moral damages that Counsel Mhayimana requested for, the Court reminds that it was not necessary to deeply analyse whether the decision taken against him was not grounded, it only limited to determine whether it was illegally

## Page 397

51 MHAYIMANA V. RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

taken. The procedures for determining the moral damages in case a decision was revoked because it was illegal taken were elucidated along a variety of judgments that have been rendered by the European Court of Labour, and the same procedures can apply in this case.

In the case DD v. Agence des droits fondamentaux de l’Union Européenne (FRA), the Court explained that the invalidation of the decision illegally taken is itself a fair compensation for the prejudice caused by such decision, unless the offended complainant proves the prejudice which can be differentiated from the faults that triggered the invalidation of the decision and cannot be compensated by the annulment of such decision13.

It is the same position set in the case Ingfries Hochbaum and Eduard Rawes vs Commission of the European Communities14, or in the case of Simora Murariu vs Autorité

13 « L’annulation d’un acte entaché d’illégalité constitue en elle-même la réparation adéquate et, en principe, suffisante de tout préjudice moral que cet acte peut avoir causé. Tel n’est toutefois pas le cas lorsque le requérant démontre avoir subi un préjudice moral qui, sans être détachable de l’acte lui- même, est détachable de l’illégalité fondant l’annulation et insusceptible d’être intégralement réparé par cette annulation…. Toutefois, le requérant se contente d’indiquer que la décision de résiliation lui a causé un traumatisme psychologique et a porté atteinte à sa réputation et à sa dignité, sans pour autant démontrer qu’un tel préjudice ne pourrait pas être intégralement réparé par le présent arrêt d’annulation de cette décision. Ainsi, les conclusions indemnitaires relatives au dommage moral causé par la décision de résiliation doivent être rejetées comme non fondées », Arrêt du Tribunal de la Fonction Publique de l’Union Européenne (deuxième chambre), 8 octobre 2015, para 105 & 107-108. 14 As regards the claim for damages in case 44/85, the cancellations in themselves adequately compensate for any non- material damage which mr

## Page 398

52 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

européenne des assurances et des pensions professionnelles (AEAPP)15 and others. Some of these case-laws hold that the fact that a person believes that he was harmed and the prejudice results from the fact that he must file a claim in the pursuit of his/her right, might be considered as the prejudice resulting from the faults committed by an administrative organ.16

For the purpose of this case, some of the arguments provided by Counsel Mhayimana include the fact that he has for several times appeared before the Disciplinary Committee and this has encroached on his precious time that he would otherwise spend for productive activities, this is in line with compensation

hochbaum may have suffered in the circumstances. the claim for damages is therefore devoid of purpose and no decision need be given on it; Judgment of the court (second chamber) of 9 july 1987. - Ingfried Hochbaum and Edward Rawes v Commission of the European Communities, Official - annulment of appointment, Joined cases 44/85, 77/85, 294/85 and 295/85, para 22 15 Quant au préjudice moral allégué, il y a lieu de rappeler que, selon une jurisprudence constante, l’annulation d’un acte entaché d’illégalité, tel que la décision attaquée, constitue en elle-même la réparation adéquate et, en principe, suffisante de tout préjudice moral que cet acte peut avoir causé, sauf lorsque le requérant démontre avoir subi un préjudice moral détachable de l’illégalité fondant l’annulation et n’étant pas susceptible d’être intégralement réparé par cette annulation ; Arrêt du Tribunal de la Fonction Publique de l’Union Européenne (Première Chambre), 16 juillet 2015, para 150. 16 « En particulier, le sentiment d’injustice et les tourments qu’occasionne le fait, pour une personne, de devoir mener une procédure précontentieuse, puis contentieuse, afin de voir ses droits reconnus peut, dans certaines circonstances, constituer un préjudice pouvant découler du seul fait que l’administration a commis une illégalité », Arrêt du Tribunal de la Fonction Publique de l’Union Européenne (troisième chambre), FS vs Comité économique et social européen (CESE), 12 mai 2016, para 59. Arrêt du Tribunal de la Fonction Publique de l’Union Européenne (Première Chambre), Simona Murariu vs Autorité européenne des assurances et des pensions professionnelles (AEAPP), 16 juillet 2015, para 152.

## Page 399

53 MHAYIMANA V. RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

for loss or for pecuniary loss evoked in the paragraph 62 of this case. Another reason he puts forth concerns the unfair suspension from his work, and the dishonor he endured towards his current and potential clients. As it has been put under paragraph 63 of this case, the issues related to whether he committed or not the faults for which he has sanctioned, were not examined, as the Court limited its analysis to the determination of whether the disciplinary decision taken against him was or was not legally issued, cannot be relevant in determining the moral damages.

As it has been explained through the above provided case- laws, the prejudice caused by an illegal decision is compensated by decision annulment and Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe did not provide the explanations about the prejudice based on different issues, like the stress he endured in the pursuit of his rights and others.

Considering all the above provided explanations, the Court finds that the moral damages that Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe has requested for, have no justification.

With regard to 1,580,000 Frw that includes a refund of 40,000 Frw for the deposited court fee, and 40,000R Frw paid to Court bailiffs who notified the Bar Association of the case and related summons, along with the counsel and procedural fees, the Court finds that Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe deserves 40,000 Frw for the court fee he deposited before the High Court. The Court has as well and in its own discretion awarded him 500,000 Frw for the counsel fee and 300,000 Frw for the procedural fee. Regarding the 40,000 Frw psid to the bailiffs, the Court finds that they shall be included in 300,000 Frw as procedural fee.

## Page 400

54 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the application filed by Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe for the injustice-related review of the judgment RAD 00017/2021/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court on 28/10/2021 has justification.

Holds that the decision number 008/CD/2021 taken by the Bar Association Disciplinary Committee on 20/05/2021 that suspended Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe from exercising his profession for a period of 3 months, is revoked.

Holds that the sum of 1,000,000 Frw that Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe was charged with by the High Court for both the counsel and procedural fees, is hereby removed.

Orders to Rwanda Bar Association to refund to Counsel Mhayimana Isaïe with 40,000 Frw for the court fee he deposited to file a claim before the High Court, 500,000 Frw for the counsel fee and 300,000 Frw for the procedural fee, the total is 840,000 Frw.

## Page 401

55

KATABARWA v NYARUGURU DISTRICT [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/INJUST/RAD 00001/2021/SC – (Nyirinkwaya, P.J., Muhumuza and Hitiyaremye, J.) March 18, 2022] Labour procedure – Unfair dismissal – The amount of damages awarded to the employee upon dismissal – When it is determined that an employee has been unfairly dismissed, he/she is entitled to receive damages that are calculated based on the last salary. These damages are calculated from the time of suspension until the pronouncement of the judgment on basis of the net salary and any other allowances that were provided to him/her to facilitate the performance of his/her duties. Procedure for the review of cases on the grounds of injustice – Application for review with regard to an issue that has not been adjudicated by the judge in the case under review – The fact that the party has been granted an extraordinary remedy for review of a final judgment when he/she thinks that he/she has been wronged on a specific issue does not grant to him/her the right to introduce new claims that are outside the scope of the subject matter mentioned in the application. Facts: Katabarwa who was employee of Nyaruguru District filed a claim in the Intermediate Court of Nyamagabe suing the District for unfairly dismissing him and he requested for the invalidation of such decision as well as the damages. The respondent argued that the claimant was dismissed from the District staff due to serious misconduct committed in the course of his work and the

## Page 402

56 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

dismissal was carried out in accordance with the law, and therefore, the claimant should not be entitled to damages, instead, he should be charged the judicial fees incurred by the District. The Court ruled that the applicant's claim was unfounded, it sustained the decision of the Mayor of Nyaruguru District of definitively dismissing him. Subsequently, the claimant appealed to the High Court, Chamber of Nyanza, contending that there was no justifiable reason for his dismissal. He argued that the respondent had failed to adhere to the proper disciplinary procedure for public servants, he did not embezzle the public property and the tree harvesting tender for which he was accused had been awarded in compliance with the law. Additionally, he stated that he had been acquitted of any criminal charges, and therefore, he seeks all damages as previously claimed. The High Court ruled that the claimant’s appeal is justified. It has determined that there is no evidence of gross misconduct that would warrant his dismissal by the respondent, therefore, the decision concerning his dismissal is invalidated; it held that the decision of the Intermediate Court is overtuned. The claimant requested that the case decided by the High Court should be readjudicated, arguing that it was tainted with injustice. This request was admitted, and the Court first examined the objection raised by the respondent for which he finds that it is necessary to reexamine whether there are disciplinary faults that would warrant the claimant’s dismissal and whether the basic procedures were followed in conducting the disciplinary proceedings and the remaining issues are the consequences of the claimant’s requests. The claimant argues that such objection is unfounded because, in cases of the judgment review on grounds

## Page 403

57 KATABARWA v NYARUGURU DISTRICT

of injustice, the interested party presents the reasons for alleging injustice. The Supreme Court made a decision on the bench, ruling that the objection was not valid and that the case should be heard on its merits, by examining the grounds on which the claimant relied for requesting the review of the judgment decided by the High Court, Chamber of Nyanza, on the grounds of being vitiated by injustice, the parties debated on the issues for determining whether the damages for the claimant were inaccurately calculated, whether he can be reinstated, and other damages claimed by both parties. Regarding the issue of whether the damages were inaccurately calculated in the case decided by the High Court, the claimant asserts that it is the reason for requesting for the review of the judgment based on the grounds of injustice because he had requested for damages from the time of his dismissal until the court decision at the last instance as it has been upheld in other rendered cases. The claimant argues that the Court determined that he should not be paid the salaries as he is no longer considered as employee of the District, because the salary refers to all the remuneration received or due to an employee for the work performed and these explanations are untrue. He concludes by stating that he was unfairly dismissed and deprived of his 48- month salaries. The respondent argues that he believes that the claimant was dismissed for a valid reason but the Court determines that the claimant was unlawfully dismissed so that he deserves the damages which should not be based on the claimant's monthly gross salary because, even if the claimant was still in service, he would not have received his gross salary.

## Page 404

58 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

The claimant further asserts that he should be reinstated because the Court ruled that he was unfairly dismissed and the decision to dismiss him has been invalidated. He requests that in case his reinstatement is not possible, he should be granted damages, calculated from the time of the suspension until the pronouncement of the last judgment and provided with the work certificate. The respondent argues that the issue of reinstatement should not be analysed as it was not litigated in the previous courts, stating that the reinstatement is a direct consequence of the dismissal is untrue as it should have been filed before the courts for analysis. Held: 1. When it is determined that an employee has been unfairly dismissed, he/she is entitled to receive damages that are calculated based on the last salary. These damages are calculated from the time of suspension until the pronouncement of the judgment on basis of the net salary and any other allowances that were provided to him/her to facilitate the performance of the duties. 2. The fact that the party has been granted an extraordinary remedy for review of a final judgment when he/she thinks that he/she has been wronged on a specific issue does not grant to him/her the right to introduce new claims that are outside the scope of the subject matter mentioned in the application.Therefore, the issue of reinstatement of Katabarwa Richard and the issuance of a work certificate cannot be examined in this particular case because it was not analysed during the judgment under review. An application for review on grounds of injustice is justified.

## Page 405

59 KATABARWA v NYARUGURU DISTRICT

The case decided by the High Court, Chamber of Nyanza, is reversed on some issues. Statutory and statutes referred to: Law n°017/2020 of 07/10/2020 establishing the general statute governing public servants. Law n°30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, article 63. Law n°22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles 9, 75 and 111. Prime Minister’s Order nº 003/03 of 16/01/2015 determining modalities for training for public servants, article 20. Prime Minister’s Order nº 136/03 of 25/10/2010. Case laws referred to: Road Solutions Pavement Products v. MAILCO Ltd, RS/INJUST/RCOM 00002/2020/SC decided by the Supreme Court on 29/09/2020. Magara Gahakwa et al., RS/INJUST/RP 00001/2020/SC decided by the Supreme Court on 21/02/2021, paragraph 21. Ngirinshuti v. Muhima Giovani, RS/INJUST/RC 00024/2018/SC decided by the Supreme Court on 21/02/2020, paragraphs 19-22. Government of Rwanda v. Ndahindurwa Kimenyi Jéremie, RADA 0006/12/CS decided by the Supreme Court on 04/01/2013.

## Page 406

60 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Authors cited : M. Long, P. Weil, G. Braibant, Les grands arrêts de la jurisprudence administrative, 20 éditions, Collection Dalloz 2015, p.260. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Katabarwa Richard served as the Executive Secretary of Munini Sector in Nyaruguru District. He was dismissed from his position on 29/06/2015 due to the following faults: - Failure to monitor the harvesting of trees in Munini Sector, where the Sector was authorized to cut down 13 trees but ended up by cutting down 22 trees; disrespecting his superiors and refusing to comply with the instructions given to him; - Embezzlement of public property through the unauthorized burning of charcoal and sawing of lumber without disclosing the income.

After being dismissed, Katabarwa Richard filed a lawsuit in the Intermediate Court of Nyamagabe against Nyaruguru District, alleging unfair dismissal and seeking the annulment of the decision, as well as damages. His claim was registered under the docket number RAD 00001/2017/TGI/NYBE.

Counsel Mbonigaba Eulade, representing Nyaruguru District, argued that Katabarwa Richard was definitively dismissed from the District's staff due to gross misconduct committed at work. He maintained that the dismissal was carried

## Page 407

61 KATABARWA v NYARUGURU DISTRICT

out in accordance with the law, and therefore, Katabarwa should not be entitled to damages. Instead, he contended that he should be held responsible for the judicial expenses incurred by Nyaruguru District.

On 09/11/2017, the Intermediate Court of Nyamagabe rendered the judgment RAD 00001/2017/TGI/NYBE, and ruled that the claim filed by Katabarwa Richard was unfounded. The Court sustained the validity of the decision made by the Mayor of Nyaruguru District on 29/06/2015 to definitively dismiss him from his job. Furthermore, the Court ordered to Katabarwa to pay 500,000 Frw to Nyaruguru District as damages for the incurred judicial expenses.

In reaching this decision, the Court took into account the unanimous agreement of all parties regarding the cutting down of 22 trees instead of the authorized 13. The Court also considered the testimonies presented and the results of the investigation it conducted. Based on these findings, it concluded that Katabarwa's dismissal was a consequence of his own faults and determined that no legal provision was violated in the dismissal process.

Katabarwa Richard lodged an appeal against the decision to the High Court, Chamber of Nyanza. In his appeal, he argued that there was no justifiable reason for his dismissal, pointing out that the number of trees cut down was authorized by the District. He further contended that the District failed to comply with the disciplinary regime as it did not respond to his letter requesting explanations within the specified time limit. Additionally, Katabarwa asserted that he did not embezzle any public property and that the tender process for harvesting the trees was conducted in accordance with the law. He emphasized that he had been

## Page 408

62 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

acquitted in criminal proceedings and he requests to be awarded all the damages he had claimed.

The High Court, Chamber of Nyanza, in the judgment RADA 00014/2017/HC/NYZ delivered on 28/02/2019, ruled that Katabarwa Richard's appeal is justified and found no evidence of gross misconduct that would warrant the dismissal of Katabarwa by Nyaruguru District. Consequently, the decision to dismiss him was overturned. Furthermore, the High Court ruled that the decision rendered by the Intermediate Court of Nyamagabe in case RAD 00001/2017/TGI/NYBE, which was pronounced on 09/11/2017, is modified. This decision was based on the following grounds : - There is no evidence to substantiate that Munini Sector was only authorized to cut down 13 trees and that Katabarwa Richard exceeded this number ; - 21 trees were marked for being cut down ; - There is no evidence indicating that Katabarwa Richard used forged documents while he did not commit any fault in cutting the trees.

The Court concluded that the damages claimed by Katabarwa Richard, which were anticipated to be calculated based on the precedent set in the case RADA 0006/12/CS involving Ndahindurwa Kimenyi Jeremie and the Government of Rwanda, would not be awarded in the same manner. This is because the circumstances of the present case differ from that case, where the claimant sought reinstatement to work. Instead, the Court determined that Katabarwa should be granted damages for unpaid salaries during the period of his employment until he

## Page 409

63 KATABARWA v NYARUGURU DISTRICT

filed the case, amounting to ten million seven hundred forty-six thousand and sixty Rwandan francs (10,746,060 Frw).

On 05/04/2019, Katabarwa Richard wrote a letter to the President of the Court of Appeal, requesting the review of the judgment for the injustice he had experienced in the case, with the aim of its reexamination. Subsequently, the President of the Court of Appeal sent a letter to the President of the Supreme Court requesting the review of the case RADA 00014/2017/HC/NYZ on the grounds of injustice. After carefully considering the request, the President of the Supreme Court took the decision N0 177/CJ/2021 according to which the judgment RADA 00014/2017/HC/NYZ decided by the High Court, Chamber of Nyanza on 28/02/2019, should be re-adjudicated. The judgment was then registered under the docket number RS/INJUST/RAD 00001/2021/SC.

The hearing of the case was scheduled on 12/01/2022 and conducted in public. Katabarwa Richard was assisted by Counsel Ndatsikira Jean Marie Vianney, while Nyaruguru District was represented by Counsel Mbonigaba Eulade. Prior to addressing the merits of the case, the Court first examined the objection raised by Counsel Mbonigaba Eulade. Referring to Article 63 of Law n°30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, he argued that it was necessary to reexamine whether any misconduct had occurred that could justify Katabarwa Richard's definitive dismissal from the public service and whether the proper disciplinary procedures for public servants had been followed for initiating the disciplinary proceedings and the remaining issues are the consequences of the claimant’s requests.

On this objection, Counsel Ndatsikira Jean Marie Vianney argues that it has no basis because in case of the

## Page 410

64 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

judgment review on grounds of injustice, the concerned party must provide the elements of evidence to support his/her claim of injustice, when those elements of evidence are under analysis, the other party is not present. If it is established that the judgment is tainted with injustice, such judgment should be reviewed, but within the scope of the identified injustice.

Regarding this issue, the Court ruled in the bench that this was not an objection, but rather it is the interpretation of Nyaruguru District of such provision. According to the position that the Court had taken in various cases1, Article 63 of the law determining the jurisdiction of courts should be understood as follows: a review of the case does not mean disregarding other cases that have already been decided. Rather, the case is reexamined within the scope of the subject matter based on the claim of injustice. This implies that the party alleging injustice must specify the holdings that cause to him/her injustice and that those are what the Court would analyze and decide upon.

After that decision, the hearing was resumed on the merits by examining the grounds on which Katabarwa Richard relied for requesting the review of the judgment rendered by the High Court, Chamber of Nyanza, on grounds of being vitiated by injustice. The parties debated about the issues of whether Katabarwa Richard had been compensated inappropriately, whether he should be reinstated, together with other damages

1 RS/INJUST/RCOM 00002/2020/SC Road Solutions Pavement Products Vs Mail Co Ltd decided on 29/09/2020. RS/INJUST/RC 00024/2018/SC Ngirinshuti vs Muhima Giovani decided on 21/02/2020 paragraph 19 -22. RS/INJUST/RP 00001/2020/SC Magara Gahakwa and Crts decided 21/02/2021 in its paragraph 21.

## Page 411

65 KATABARWA v NYARUGURU DISTRICT

claimed by the parties. The hearing was closed and the parties were notified that the judgment would be delivered on 25/02/2022.

While the Court was deliberating, it found that it still needed some clarifications from the parties, therefore, based on the provisions of paragraph 4 of article 75 of the Law n°22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure stating that before taking the decision and upon its own motion, the Court may reopen the hearing if it finds that it needs further clarifications on some facts that remained unclarified in the previous hearing for the establishment of the truth, the Court decided, through the interlocutory judgment, to reopen the hearing to get more clarifications from the parties.

The hearing was reopened on 23/05/2022, Katabarwa Richard was represented by Counsel Ndatsikira Jean Marie Vianney, and Nyaruguru District by Counsel Mbonigaba Eulade. During the hearing, both parties were given opportunity to explain to the Court the mode for calculating the damages claimed by Katabarwa Richard (including the base salary and what should be included and excluded in the damage calculation). Subsequently, the hearing of the case was concluded, and the parties were notified that the Court's decision would be delivered on 22/07/2022.

## Page 412

66 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES 1. Whether in the case RADA 00014/2017/HC/NYZ, the High Court, Chamber of Nyanza miscalculated the damages awarded to Katabarwa Richard

On this issue, Katabarwa Richard argues that the basis for his application for the judgment review on the grounds of injustice is that he claimed to be awarded the damages calculated according to the method adopted by the Supreme Court in the case RADA 0006/12/CS abovementioned in which Ndahindurwa Kimenyi Jéremie was awarded damages calculated from the time when the decision to suspend him from work was made until the judgment on the last instance. He produced as evidence the judgment RADA 00008/2017/NYZ rendered by the High Court, Chamber of Nyanza, about the claim filed by Bugingo who was dismissed like him at the same time and for the same reasons, whereby the High Court sustained the appealed judgment decided by the Intermediate Court of Nyamagabe, which upheld that Bugingo should receive damages calculated according to the position set by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned case RADA 0006/12/CS which should serve as basis as he requested it, but the request was not taken into consideration.

Katabarwa Richard and his legal counsel, Ndatsikira Jean Marie Vianney, allege that the High Court, in paragraph 40 of the case RADA 00014/2017/HC/NYZ, ruled that the method of calculating damages for Ndahindurwa Kimenyi Jeremie in the case RADA 0006/12/CS should not be applied to Katabarwa Richard's case, since the two cases are different, especially considering that the plaintiff's claim in Ndahindurwa Kimenyi Jéremie's case was reinstatement, whereas Katabarwa Richard's claim was the awarding of moral damages. They contend that the

## Page 413

67 KATABARWA v NYARUGURU DISTRICT

Court's holdings in the present paragraph are untrue for the following reasons: - The main claim of Katabarwa Richard in the case RADA 00014/2017/HC/NYZ was the annulment of the decision to definitively dismiss him from his work, which was made by the Administration. The other connected claims were considered as ancillary to the main claim. These claims are similar to those of Ndahindurwa Kimenyi Jeremie in the case RADA 0006/12/CS, as he also sought the annulment of the dismissal decision made by the Administration in the Prime Minister's Order nº 136/03 of 25/10/2010. - Both Ndahindurwa Kimenyi Jeremie and Katabarwa Richard were found to have been unlawfully dismissed in their respective cases. This implies that since they both sued for the annulment of the dismissal decision, the Court invalidated the decision for both and they should have been reinstated and awarded damages for their unpaid salaries. The fact that Ndahindurwa Kimenyi Jeremie had the opportunity to be reinstated should not have deprived Katabarwa Richard of his right to receive salaries until the judgment at the last instance, just as it was the case for Ndahindurwa Kimenyi Jeremie. - They note that in order to secure another job, it is necessary for the judgment to be tried at the last instance, which serves as the basis for requesting removal from the Black List, therefore, the computation of the salaries of the public servant unfairly dismissed should run until the judgment pronouncement at the last instance.

## Page 414

68 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

They argue that in paragraph 39 of the case RADA 00014/2017/HC/NYZ, the Court ruled that Katabarwa Richard should not receive his salaries because he is no longer considered as the employee of the District, as the law specifies that a salary is any remuneration paid to an employee for work performed. They further assert that these explanations are false because in paragraph 41, the judge contradicted himself by awarding compensation equivalent to the salaries for the period when Katabarwa Richard was no longer employed by the District. Additionally, the explanations provided in paragraph 39 indicate that Katabarwa Richard would be paid his salaries until the time he filed a claim, as he was uncertain about whether he would or not seek alternative employment.

They further argue that the grounds for the High Court's decision in the aforementioned paragraph are invalid. They point out that in the case RADA 00008/2017/HC/NYZ involving Bugingo, which bears a striking resemblance with Katabarwa Richard's case, the Court declared that Bugingo should be awarded all his salaries from the day he was dismissed until the day he filed a claim. Furthermore, Bugingo was granted damages equivalent to six- month salaries for unfair dismissal. However, these same considerations were not applied to Katabarwa Richard.

Katabarwa Richard and Counsel Ndatsikira Jean Marie Vianney further emphasize that when a public servant is unjustly dismissed from the job, he/she is immediately deprived of the salary and other related benefits which are meant to support his/her well-being and work performance. Therefore, it is not understandable why in case it is evident that he/she has been unjustly deprived of them, he cannot regain them as it is the way

## Page 415

69 KATABARWA v NYARUGURU DISTRICT

of restoring his/her rights. They argue that the damages which can be awarded to Katabarwa Richard should be based on his monthly gross salary at the time of dismissal, deducting the allowances granted for work performance facilitation since he was no longer performing his duties.

They also highlight that the dismissal of a public servant places him/her on the black list, this denotes that he/she has no longer the ability to repay any debts. This is precisely what happened to Katabarwa Richard as out of 10,746,060 Frw he was granted he paid more than 8,000,000 Frw as his dismissal prevented him from receiving his lump sum used for repaying the bank loan, he was deprived of the salary which he could use for loan repayment and he was also deprived of the opportunity to get another job which should allow him to reimburse the debt. Therefore, they request that the calculation of Katabarwa Richard's unpaid damages should be based on his gross salary, deducting the communication allowances which he spent only for the job purpose.

Katabarwa Richard further explains that according to the Prime Minister’s Order nº 003/03 of 16/01/2015 determining modalities for training for public servants, particularly in Article 20, it states that public servants undergoing training for a duration not exceeding 3 months are entitled to receive a lump sum as usual, he also deserves it, even if he was not in service, he deserves such lump sum, because what is taken into consideration is the fact that the car was purchased on credit and he should continue receiving such money and the loan contract is still valid.

They conclude that Katabarwa Richard was unfairly dismissed so that he was deprived of his salary for 48 months from March 2015 to February 2019. His monthly salary during

## Page 416

70 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

that period was 971,405 Frw. If he had not been dismissed, he would have received a total of 46,627,440 Frw. However, he was only given 10,746,060 Frw. He alleges that in order to redress him in his rights, the Court should order the payment of the balance amounting to 35,881,360 Frw.

Counsel Mbonigaba Eulade representing Nyaruguru District argues that they agree that Katabarwa Richard was dismissed for a reasonable reason. However, if the Court, after examination, determines that the claimant was unfairly dismissed so that he deserves damages, they should not be based on his monthly gross salary, because, even if he was still in service, he would not have been paid the gross salary.

He states that the lump sum is money provided to an employee for work performance facilitation, whereas the lump sum claimed by Katabarwa Richard covers the period when he was not employed; therefore, he does not deserve it.

He concludes by submitting that the example given by Katabarwa Richard concerning a public servant in training who continues to receive the lump sum is incorrect because a public servant in training is still in service, the reason why he/she continues to receive it; this is different from the case of a dismissed one because he has no longer official duty, the lump sum is not part of salary, rather it is facilitation granted to the public servant for fulfilling his/her duties; in case he/she is no longer in service, allocating it to him/her amounts to the misuse of public property.

## Page 417

71 KATABARWA v NYARUGURU DISTRICT

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 9 of the Law n°22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that “A judge adjudicates a case on the basis of relevant rules of law. In the absence of such rules, the judge adjudicates according to the rules that he/she would establish if he/she had to act as legislator, relying on precedents, customs, general principles of law and doctrine. A judge cannot refuse to decide a case on any pretext of silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the law”.

Regarding the calculation of damages for a public servant who was illegally dismissed, resulting in the loss of his salary unfairly, the Court finds that neither the general statute governing public servants into force at the time when Katabarwa Richard was dismissedand nor the current Law No 017/2020 of 07/10/2020 establishing the general statute governing public servants, provide for the modalties of such damages calculation. On basis of the article mentioned in the preceding pargraph, for settling that issue, it is necessary to rely on the legal doctrines or precedents tried on the issues similar to the subject-matter of this case. Legal scholars in administrative matters, namely M. Long, P. Weil, and G. Braibant2 suggest that three factors should be taken into account when determining the damages for a public servant dismissed without a reasonable reason: - the real prejudice suffered by the public servant; - administrative irregularities: These scholars opine that compensation is higher when there is a

2 M. Long, P. Weil, G. Braibant, Les grands arrêts de la jurisprudence administrative, 20 Edition, Collection Dalloz 2015. p.260.

## Page 418

72 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

substantive irregularity, but lower when it is a procedural irregularity; - a fault committed by the public servant: These scholars state that such a fault can result into the fact that the agent is granted low or no damages.

Regarding the calculation of compensation for a public servant who has been unlawfully dismissed and unfairly deprived of the salary, the Supreme Court, in paragraph 30 of the case RADA 0006/12/CS rendered on 04/01/2013 between the Government of Rwanda and Ndahindurwa Kimenyi Jeremie (Invalidation of the decision for unfair dismissal), ruled that the damages should be calculated based on the employee's last net salary from the time of dismissal until the pronouncement of the judgment.

Based on the aforegoing, Katabarwa Richard should receive damages equal to the salary he would have been paid from the time of his provisional suspension (on 16/03/2015, as his salary was immediately suspended) until 28/02/2019 (the date on which was rendered the judgment for which he claimed for the review on the grounds of injustice), meaning 47 months and 12 days, calculated at 467,220 Frw3. Therefore, the total compensation he should be awarded is: 467,220 Frw x 47 = 21,959,340 Frw + 186,888 Frw for 12 days, amounting to 22,146,228 Frw, deducting the fee granted to him by the time of the execution of the judgment for which he claimed for review on grounds of injustice. Hence, he should receive 22,146,228 Frw - 10,746,060 Frw = 11,400,168 Frw.

3 The base salary for the calculation by the High Court, Chamber of Nyanza, nobody complained about it neither Katabarwa nor Nyaruguru District.

## Page 419

73 KATABARWA v NYARUGURU DISTRICT

Regarding the statements of Katabarwa Richard that the High Court denied him the lump sum while he was entitled to it, the Court finds that there is the contract concluded on 14/09/2011 between the Government of Rwanda, represented by the Ministry of Infrastructure, and Katabarwa Richard under the fleet policy. Article 2 of the contract states that the Government will cover the customs duties, value-added tax, and other taxes related to the importation of new cars for employees in the program. Additionally, the Government will provide the employee with a monthly payment of 208,731 Frw, which was later increased to 300,000 Frw, as indicated by Katabarwa Richard's pay slip. He states that he used such money for the repayment of the loan granted by Banque Populaire du Rwanda to purchase the car specified in the aforementioned contract.

In the case RADA 0003/14/CS between Dr. Karemangingo Charles and the Government of Rwanda, decided by the Supreme Court on 17/02/2017, the Court ruled that the lump sum should be included in the compensations awarded to a public servant who has been unlawfully dismissed from job.4

The Court concludes that the fact that the High Court, Chamber of Nyanza, ruled that Katabarwa Richard was unjustly dismissed indicates that he was deprived of the allowances granted to him as employee and which facilitated him to fulfil his duties, including the inability to continue repaying the loan allegedly reimbursed by means of the lump sum; consequently, Nyaruguru District dismissed him without justifiable grounds, it is liable for granting to him the damages equivalent to the loss incurred for not receiving the lump sum awarded to him before his dismissal.

4 See paragraphs 45 and 46 of that judgment.

## Page 420

74 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Regarding the amount of the lump sum that Katabarwa Richard is entitled to, the Court finds that the contract between him and the Government for the car purchase, which also served as the basis for the lump sum payment, was intended to last for four years from the date of its signing on 14/09/2011. This implies that the contract was due to expire on 14/09/2015. It is evident from the case file that Katabarwa Richard was dismissed in March 2015, six months prior to the contract expiration. Consequently, the Court determines that the damages should be calculated as follows: 300,000 Frw 300,000 x 6 amounting to 1,800,000 Frw. This amount should be added to the 11,400,168 Frw mentioned in paragraph 30 of the present case, totalling to 13,200,168 Frw. 2. Whether Katabarwa Richard should be reinstated

Katabarwa Richard and Counsel Ndatsikira Jean Marie Vianney argue that, since the Court has ruled that Katabarwa Richard was unlawfully dismissed and the decision has been overturned, he should be reinstated. However, if the reinstatement is not possible, they contend that he should be awarded damages based on his salary from the time of his dismissal until the case trial at the last instance. Additionally, they assert that he should be issued a work certificate because the denial of such certificate constitutes an act of injustice. They conclude that even though these issues were not raised during the pre-trial conference, such fact cannot preclude their determination since they constitute direct consequence of the decision to dismiss him and he pleaded on them before the High Court, Chamber of Nyanza.

Counsel Mbonigaba Eulade, representing Nyaruguru District, argues that the issue of reinstatement should not be

## Page 421

75 KATABARWA v NYARUGURU DISTRICT

considered since it was not raised in previous court proceedings, stating that they constitute direct consequence of his dismissal is incorrect, as they should have been submitted before the courts for determination, because a public servant does not lose the job only when he is dismissed, he/she can resign. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 63 of the Law n°30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts provides that “When the Supreme Court or any other court designated by the President of the Supreme Court receives an application for review of a judgement on grounds of being vitiated by injustice, it examines the merits of the case anew and in the presence of all parties”.

As it has been upheld in various cases5, the fact that a party has been granted an extraordinary remedy to review a final judgment based on a claim of injustice does not imply the disregard of prior decided cases. Instead, the case is re-examined within the specific scope of the claimed injustice. This means that such a remedy does not grant to the party the right to introduce new claims that are unrelated to the subject matter mentioned in the first application before the trial court, it does not grant to the party the right to request for the examination of additional claims beyond those which were recorded in the application for review on grounds of injustice, as the party would act out of the scope of the application for review on grounds of injustice.

5 RCA/INJUST/RC 00007/2018/SC decided by the Supreme Court on 13/03/2020 Nditiribambe Samuel v. Gatera, Paragraph 66. RCAA 00008/2018/CS decided by the Supreme Court on 12/11/2021 Gahire Athanase v. Mukarushakiro Gloriose and Crts, paragraph 30.

## Page 422

76 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

In the judgment against which Katabarwa Richard applied for review on the grounds of injustice, it appears that the issue of reinstatement or damages in lieu thereof was not examined. The document dated 05/04/2019, which Counsel Ndatsikira Jean Marie Vianney submitted to the President of the Court of Appeal on behalf of Katabarwa Richard, also indicates that the only injustice he faced as a result of the judgment RADA 00014/2017/HC/NYZ decided by the High Court, Chamber of Nyanza, relates to the calculation of damages for a public servant unfairly dismissed, on basis of the judgment RADA 0006/12/CS rendered by the Supreme Court between Ndahindurwa Kimenyi Jeremie and the Government of Rwanda, as well as the judgment RADA 0008/2017/HC/NYZ between Bugingo Jean Chrysostome and Nyaruguru District, delivered by the High Court, Chamber of Nyanza. On basis of these judgments, he requests to be redressed in his rights and the damages should be calculated in the same manner as established in those cases.

Based on the explanations above provided and the rulings on the rights of the parties in cases related to the review of judgments on the grounds of injustice, the Court finds that the issue of Katabarwa Richard reinstatement cannot be examined in this instance as it was not addressed in the judgment under review. Similarly, the issue of damages for not being provided with the work certificate should not be considered as Katabarwa Richard did not raise it as an issue of injustice in the case RADA 00014/2017/HC/NYZ for analysis by the relevant organs responsible for examining the injustice alleged in the final judgments, especially it was not examined in the judgment for which he applied for the review.

## Page 423

77 KATABARWA v NYARUGURU DISTRICT

3. With regard to other damages claimed in this instant case

Katabarwa Richard and Counsel Ndatsikira Jean Marie Vianney, adduce that based on article 258 of the Civil Code, Book Three (CCLIII), and the fact that before the Supreme Court, a party must be assisted by a legal counsel and where counsel fees should not go below 1,000,000 Frw, they request the Court to order to the District of Nyaruguru to reimburse to Katabarwa Richard 1,000,000 Frw as well as the amount of 300,000 Frw determined in the discretion of the Court for judicial expenses he incurred for travel, accomodation, meals, communication and allowances for his case follow-up.

Counsel Mbonigaba Eulade, representing Nyaruguru District, argues that the judicial expenses should be supported by elements of evidence, otherwise, they should be determined in the discretion of the Court. Regarding the counsel fees, it is necessary to provide concrete elements of evidence demonstrating that the claimed amount is indeed what was paid. Furthermore, as long as Katabarwa Richard is claiming an amount exceeding 500,000 Frw for counsel fees, he must provide additional relevant explanations. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 111 of Law n°22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that “the claim for representation fees is an incidental claim to the principal claim aiming to repay expenses incurred during judicial proceedingsThe claim for legal costs is adjudicated at the same time with the principal claim. It can be admitted even if the principal claim has not been admitted”.

## Page 424

78 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Regarding the judicial and counsel fees claimed by Katabarwa Richard, amounting to 1,300,000 Frw, the Court finds that the incurred expenses shall be reimbursed by Nyaruguru District, because, for being redressed in his rights which he was deprived of and for unfair dismissal, it was necessary for him to seize the Court and hire the advocate for his defense. However, the Court finds that the claimed amount of 1,000,000 Frw for counsel fees is excessive and he did not prove that he paid such amount to him, therefore, in its discretion, he awards to him 500,000 Frw for counsel fees, the total is 800,000 Frw, which includes 300,000 Frw for judicial expenses, as this amount is in a reasonable range. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the claim filed by Katabarwa Richard for review on the grounds of injustice of the judgment RADA 00014/2017/HC/NYZ, rendered by the High Court, Chamber of Nyanza on 28/02/2019, has merit.

Holds that the judgment RADA 00014/2017/HC/NYZ tried by the High Court, Chamber of Nyanza on 28/02/2019, is reversed on some issues.

Orders to Nyaruguru District to pay to Katabarwa Richard the damages amounting to 13,200,168 Frw for unfair dismissal, as described in paragraph 34 of this judgment, in addition to 10,746,060 Frw previously awarded during the execution of the judgment against which he applied for review on grounds of injustice.

## Page 425

79 KATABARWA v NYARUGURU DISTRICT

Orders to Nyaruguru District to pay to Katabarwa Richard eight hundred thousand Rwandan francs (800,000 Frw), including the counsel and procedural fees, the total amount is fourteen million one hundred and sixty-eight Rwandan francs (14,000,168 Frw).

## Page 427

CIVIL CASES

## Page 429

83

N.A (on behalf of his child I.A) vs KIBUNGO MEDICAL CENTER [Rwanda COURT OF APPEAL – RCAA 0008/2020/CA (Nyirandabaruta P.J, Kamere and Mukanyundo J) 25 June 2021 Civil law – Damages – Determination of tort related damages – Tort liability – Medical malpractice liability – Modalities of computation of damages resulting from the torts of medical practitioners on duty – The damages against a medical practitioner whose tort causes the loss of some parts of the patient’s body are determined in the court’s own discretion (ex aequo et bono). Civil procedure – Damages – Determination of damages – When a court determines damages basing on a law that is irrelevant to the subject matter in a case, such damages shall be considered as if they were based on a non-existing law. Civil procedure –Appeal–The determination of damages for tort liability – The appellate court cannot overrule the appealed judgement without indicating its defects. Facts: The case started from the Intermediate Court of Ngoma, N.A on behalf of his child I.A, sued Kibungo Medical Center (KMC) seeking the damages on behalf of his child I.A whose the sexual organ was cut off by the employee of Kibungo Medical Center due to recklessness and carelessness, while being circumcised. Prime Insurance Company Plc, as KMC Insurer, intervened in the case.

## Page 430

84 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

The Court held that the claim filed by N.A on behalf of I.A has merits in part and KMC shall pay the compensation to N.A on behalf of his child I.A because its employee has damaged his body organ. Kibungo Medical Center was not satisfied with the above ruling, and appealed it before the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana, arguing that the Intermediate Court had ordered to Kibungo Medical Center to pay the ungrounded damages, it never considered that it paid an amount of money for the child’s medical treatment and it did not thoroughly analyse the liability- related laws in case the defendant is insured. The High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana, held that the appeal filed by KMC has merits in part, the appealed judgment was reversed solely on the issue pertaining to the sum of damages granted to N.A on behalf of his child I.A and the Court decreased them. N.A on behalf of his child I.A was not satisfied with the above ruling and appealed it before the Court of Appeal submitting that the High Court rendered the judgment basing on the non-existing law. Kibungo Medical Center legal counsel argue that the damages were computed in accordance with the law, the Court has to determine whether the damages should be awarded in the Court’s own discretion or with reference to the doctrines or in accordance with laws. The Court upheld that the computation of damages awarded to N.A on behalf of his child I.A should be determined on basis of the fact that Kibungo Medical Center admits that its employee committed a tort and they should be determined in the Court’s

## Page 431

85 N.A (on behalf of his child I.A) vs KIBUNGO MEDICAL CENTER

own discretion (ex aequo et bono), because there is so far no law relating to the modalities and the rate for damages computation. Held :1. The damages related to the liability of a medical practitioner whose tort causes the loss of some parts of the patient’s body are determined and computed in the court’s own discretion (ex aequo et bono). 2. When a court determines damages based on a law that is irrelevant to the subject matter in a case, such damages shall be considered as if they were based on a non-existing law. 3. The appellate court cannot overrule the appealed judgment without indicating its defects. Appeal has mert. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles 9 and 111 Cases referred to: Case No RCAA 00073/2018/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 19/07/2019 opposing Nyirabatesi Laurence to King Faisal Hospital Case N0 RADA 0054/12/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 19/12/2014 opposing Kabayijuka Gaspard to MINISANTE.

## Page 432

86 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Authors cited: Bernard Dubuisson et Noel Simar (sous la direction de), “Responsabilité, Indemnisation et recours”, Volume 174, Juin 2017, page 149; Henri De Page, Traité élémentaire de droit civil Belge, tome deuxième, Les incapables-Les obligations, Bruylant, Bruxelles, 1964, P. 1070. Judgment BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

This case started from the Intermediate Court of Ngoma, N.A on behalf of his child I.A sued Kibungo Medical Center seeking damages amounting to 45,000,000 Frw for his child I.A whose the sexual organ was cut off while being circumcised, causing to him the invalidity. Prime Insurance Company Plc, as Kibungo Medical Canter’s insurer, intervened in this case.

N.A on behalf of his child I.A, submitted that on 14/04/2017, a medical employee of Kibungo Medical Center, while circumcising his child, cut off the part of the glans of the child’s sexual organ because of recklessness and carelessness, the child agitated himself due to fear, the part of glans of his sexual organ was cut off; Kibungo Medical Center rushed the child to King Faisal Hospital which tried to suture the part but in vain; he got sick in the same Hospital until the whole glans was cut off, because when the Hospital tried to suture the part which was cut off, the whole glans got rotten so that the Hospital decided to ablate the damaged part in a bid to protect the remaining part of organ of the child. Due to the fact that the child experienced the

## Page 433

87 N.A (on behalf of his child I.A) vs KIBUNGO MEDICAL CENTER

permanent invalidity at the level of 50% as asserted by the medical doctor, Kibungo Medical Center is liable for damages.

The Intermediate Court of Ngoma rendered the judgment RC 00222/2017/TGI/Ngoma on 31/07/2018 and held that the claim filed by N.A on behalf of his child I.A has merits in part and Kibungo Medical Center shall pay the damages amounting to 35,000,000 Frw because its employee has damaged the child’s sexual organ, in addition to 500,000 Frw for the counsel fee and 50,000 Frw for the court fee.

Kibungo Medical Center was not satisfied with the ruling, it appealed it before the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana, arguing that the Intermediate Court of Ngoma charged it with the damages amounting to 35,000,000 Frw without any related reference ; it disregarded 2,900,000 Frw paid for the child’s medical treatment, and it did not thoroughly analyse the liability- related laws in case the defendant is insured.

On 30/07/2019, High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana, rendered the judgment RCA 00065/2018/HC/RWG, and held that the appeal filed by Kibungo Medical Center has merits in part, and the appealed judgment was solely reversed on the issue pertaining to the amount of the damages awarded to N.A on behalf of his child I.A, it fixed the damages to 8,640,000 Frw instead of 35,000,000 Frw, it sustained the lawyer and court fees. The Court has as well held that 2,993,000 Frw that Kibungo Medical Center paid for the child’s medical treatment should not be deducted from the awarded damages, since Kibungo Medical Center paid the above sum to settle the issue it caused; 30,000 Frw paid for judicial expertise should not be deducted as it requested it for its own interest, it held that that out of 8,640,000 Frw determined as damages, Kibungo Medical Center will pay a

## Page 434

88 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

sum of 6,640,000 Frw to N.A on behalf of his child I.A, Prime Insurance Company shall pay 2,000,000 Frw, as per their insurance contract No 413/00021583-SG Police of 24/06/2016 so provides; Kibungo Medical Center will again pay to him 650,000 Frw for counsel fee and procedural fee at the appeal instance.

N.A on behalf of his child I.A was not satisfied with the ruling of the case, and he appealed it before the Court of Appeal, arguing that the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana, rendered the judgment on basis of non-existent law and disregarded the law into force on which relied the Intermediate Court of Ngoma in its ruling, and it coined its own law that is irrelevant with the criminal act committed against I.A, in the paragraph 16 of the judgment RCA 00065/2018/HC/RWG, the High Court referred to a non-existent law to hold that the fact was an accident without any supporting evidence, and it held that Kibungo Medical Center paid 30,000 Frw for the judicial expertise while it is not true.

The hearing in public was fixed on 21/12/2020, but on that date, the case was not heard since one of the judges of the bench was not present owing to illness, the hearing was adjourned on 26/01/2021, on that date, the case was again not heard as the whole City of Kigali was placed under lockdown in the context of preventing the spread of Covid – 19 , the hearing was postponed 02/06/2021, on that date, the case was heard in public and all the litigants were present, N.A on behalf of his child I.A was represented by Counsel Rwenga Etienne together with Counsel Gashugi Heron, while Kibungo Medical Center was represented by Dr. Kanimba Pierre Célestin assisted by Counsel Nkurunziza Chantal together with Counsel Ngerageze Bernard whereas Prime Insurance Company Plc was represented by

## Page 435

89 N.A (on behalf of his child I.A) vs KIBUNGO MEDICAL CENTER

Counsel Bagomora Charles, the pronouncement of the judgment was scheduled on 25/06/2021 on which it was pronounced. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES Determining the legal basis for the damages awarded to N.A on behalf of his child I.A.

Counsel Gashugi Heron, assisting N.A who pleads on behalf of I.A, argues that paragraphs 16 and 21 of the judgment RCA 00065/2018/RWG indicate that the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana, based its ruling on a non-existing law, since the Court coined1 a law irrelevant to the criminal act committed against I.A, while the Court had already found that the fact had serious and unbearable consequences.

He further submits that the Court held that the fact that the sexual organ of I.A was cut off is an accident and it so ruled without any supporting evidence, so that it rendered the judgment on basis of the Presidential Order N0 31/01 of 25/08/2003 establishing the modalities of payment of damages for bodily injuries resulting from accidents caused by automobiles, it compared the facts occurring in different contexts, involving different actors by their profession, whereby a vehicle accident might be caused by a number of varying factors that might include its mechanical conditions, the driver him/herself, the conditions of the road on which the vehicle is driven, and other external elements that might fall on the vehicle and passengers; such fact is far different from a scenario of a medical practitioner

1 Anyone whose sexual organ is chopped off by a medical practitioner shall be considered as a person who got injured in the road accident and the related damages shall be doubled.

## Page 436

90 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

who received a healthy child and cut off his sexual organ. He further submits that the Court should base its ruling on its own discretion as per the provision of article 9 of the Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure2, the judgment RCAA 0073/2018/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 19/07/2019 opposing Nyirabatesi Laurence to King Faisal Hospital whereby the Court of Appeal determined the damages with reference to article 260 of the Law of 30/07/1888 instituting the preliminary title of Civil Code Book III3 and to doctrines.

He concluded by praying the Court to order to Kibungo Medical Center to pay the damages of 45,000,000 Frw as it had earlier been decided by the Intermediate Court of Ngoma, as they are not excessive in comparison to the invalidity that the child has sustained, as it is evidenced by the medical expertise, the photographs that illustrate how the child’s sexual organ was cut off and the article 260 of the Law of 30/07/1888 instituting the Preliminary Title of the Civil Code Book III into force when the judgment no RCA 00065/2018/HC/RWG was rendered because the Law No 020/2019 of 22/08/2019 repealing all the laws

2 A judge adjudicates a case on the basis of relevant rules of law. In the absence of such rules, the judge adjudicates according to the rules that he/she would establish if he/she had to act as legislator, relying on precedents, customs, general principles of law and doctrine. 3 Tort liability is not always direct and personal, it can as well be indirect, as it can be brought about by subjects or objects that are under ones’ responsibility; a father or a mother takes up the liability for torts committed by their children with whom they live in the same house. Employers are responsible for torts committed by their employees on duty; teachers and vocational trainers are liable for torts committed by their students and trainees under their authority…

## Page 437

91 N.A (on behalf of his child I.A) vs KIBUNGO MEDICAL CENTER

enacted before the Independence was published in the Official Gazette No 37 of 23/09/2019.

Counsel Rwenga Etienne assisting N.A who pleads on behalf of his child I.A adds that the judge should not have based his ruling on legal provisions which are irrelevant to the subject- matter because by the time when his child’s sexual organ was cut off and the judgment rendered by the Intermediate Court of Ngoma, the article 260 of the Law of 30/07/1888 instituting the Preliminary Title of the Civil Code Book III applied , or he should refer to other courts ‘decisions such as the judgment RCAA 00073/2018/CA abovementioned, the doctrines4 or customs as it is well known that in Rwandan custom, the person who causes prejudice to another is liable to pay damages to him/her; therefore, Kibungo Medical Center is liable to pay all damages as they have been claimed, because the invalidity caused to the child makes him to feel rejected by others, he cannot marry, he has no need for sexual intercourse and he cannot have it, since his sexual organ was cut off; he is feeling shame towards his fellow classmates who laugh at him when he urinates seated; they wonder themselves about his future when he will be enough mature to marry, the girl who will accept to marry him while his sexual organ is cut off.

4 Bernard Dubuisson et Noel Simar (sous la direction de), «Responsibilité, Indemnisation et Recours » Volume 174, Juin 2017, page 149), they wrote about « réparation des préjudices subis » arguing that on any issue filed to a judge, depending on the fact, the specific evidence, he/she awards an inclusive amount, he/she details the child’s incapacity, he/she questions about the category of incapacity in consideration of the categories of awarding damages which are not doubled and should be paid by the insurer and it has to pay the balance.,

## Page 438

92 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Dr. Kanimba Pierre Célestin, as Managing Director of Kibungo Medical Center, argues that the issue should be examined on basis of the laws for determining the modalities of the computation of the damages to be awarded to I.A. He further states that the judge has decided in contradiction with the Presidential Order no 31/01/ of 25/08/2003 establishing the modalities of payment of damages for bodily injuries resulting from accidents caused by automobiles whereby, for example, in the paragraph 21 of the judgement, he stated that “ However, the Court finds that, due to the fact that a medical practitioner has heavier responsibility on the life of patients than the driver of the automobile on the road, it is necessary that the figures provided by the Presidential Order were taken into consideration, the determined damages were doubled for medical tort liability”, the Court of Appeal has to examine the issue related to the damages granted on basis of the above mentioned Presidential Order No 31/01 of 25/08/2003, the judge doubled them while it was not the case. He requests the Court of Appeal to rectify the defects as the decision was based on the law misapplied, Kibungo Medical Center accepts to pay damages which are not doubled and paid by the Insurer, and it has to pay the balance.

Counsel Mukaruzagiriza Chantal assisting Dr Kanimba Pierre Célestin, the representative of Kibungo Medical Center, submits that the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana, has not based its ruling on the non-existing law as it rendered the judgment on basis of the case RADA 0054/12/CS decided by the Supreme Court on 19/12/2014 opposing the Ministry of Health to Kabayijuka Gaspard who was injured by a so-called nurse while the latter was attendant at Nyarubuye, he damaged his vein, he sustained permanent incapacity, the judgment was rendered on basis of the Presidential Order No 31/01 of 25/08/2003

## Page 439

93 N.A (on behalf of his child I.A) vs KIBUNGO MEDICAL CENTER

establishing the modalities of payment of damages for bodily injuries resulting from accidents caused by automobiles, they could not impose to the judge the reference for the case adjudication.

She also adds that the article 260 of a Law of 30/07/1888 establishing the Preliminary Title of the Civil Code Book III on which rely the appellants to state that it should serve as reference for the adjudication of the case, does not provide for the modalities of the damages computation and the Court is not required to award all damages claimed by a party, it determines them in its own discretion. She concludes by submitting that they note that the damages were determined in accordance with the law, the Court has to examine whether the damages estimated in accordance with the doctrines or laws should be granted; she cannot retort about other issues related to the child’s shame, the category of the incapacity in which he classifies himself.

Counsel Ngerageze Bernard who also assists Dr Kanimba Pierre Célestin in this case, submits that he does not question the case ruling, the fact that the judge based the ruling on the article 9 of the Law N0 22/2018 of the 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure for determination of the damages without setting aside the legal provisions; the appellants do not indicate the rectification modalities, apart from merely citing the article 260 of the Law of 30/07/1888 establishing the Preliminary Title of the Civil Code Book III which cannot be currently applied as it has been repealed. He further avers that, before the High Court, all the parties have agreed that what occurred was accident; the reason why the determination of the damages was based on the Presidential Order No 31/01 of the 25/08/2003 establishing the

## Page 440

94 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

modalities of payment of damages for bodily injuries resulting from accidents caused by automobiles.

With regard to the doctrines which should serve for the damages determination as alleged by the appellants, he argues that the textbooks published in foreign countries cannot replace the aforementioned Presidential Order, though it provides for the bodily injuries caused by the road-related accidents; it should be taken into consideration as it applies in our country.

With regard to the fact that the judge ruled that a person whose the sexual organ is cut off by a medical practitioner, shall be considered as the victim of the road-related accident and the damages for the victim of the road-related accident are doubled, he states that Kibungo Medical Center notes that such is misinterpretation as the appealed judgment was not published in the Law Reports by the Supreme Court for setting a position for similar claims filed to the courts, therefore, such statement is unfounded.

Counsel Bagomora Charles representing Prime Insurance Company Plc submits that, while litigating before the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana, the article 260 of the Law of 30/07/1888 establishing the Preliminary Title of the Civil Code Book III was repealed, they debated about that issue, and the Court had no any reference, except borrowing from other source or learning from other countries’ practices. He requests the Court of Appeal to examine the date on which the law was repealed and the appealed judgement rendered, the Court referred to the article 9 of the Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure in a bid to settle the issue because that article had already been repealed.

## Page 441

95 N.A (on behalf of his child I.A) vs KIBUNGO MEDICAL CENTER

With regard to the reparation mode and the evaluation method detailed by the doctrines, he states that those issues had been examined, the Court required to the child’s representatives to specify the reparation related to the prejudice for which they filed the claim, they failed to explain it, the Court therefore referred its ruling on the Presidential Order No 31/01 of the 25/08/2003 establishing the modalities of payment of damages for bodily injuries resulting from accidents caused by automobiles as it clearly provided for the issues similar to the claim filed to it. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 9 of the Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that: “A judge adjudicates a case on the basis of relevant rules of law. In the absence of such rules, the judge adjudicates according to the rules that he/she would establish if he/she had to act as legislator, relying on precedents, customs, general principles of law and doctrine.”

In the appealed judgment No RCA 00065/2018/HC/RWG, especially in its paragraphs 22 and 23, the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana, awarded the damages to N.A on behalf of his child I.A with reference to the Presidential Order No 31/01 of the 25/08/2003 establishing the modalities of payment of damages for bodly injuries resulting from accidents caused by automobiles and it doubled them due to the fact that a medical practitioner has heavier responsibility on the life of patients than the driver of the automobile on the road.

## Page 442

96 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

For this case, the claimed damages result from the tort committed in the medical facility for which I.A lost apart of his sexual organ while being circumcised, their computation should be based on the rate fixed for the accidents like those which occur in the medical facility if any and the lack of such rate cannot be a reason for referring to the Presidential order No 31/01 of 25/08/2003 abovementioned as it does not have the same nature with the subject-matter of this case while the article 9 of the above mentioned Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 provides that “ In the absence of such rules, the judge adjudicates according to the rules that he/she would establish if he/she had to act as legislator, relying on precedents, customs, general principles of law and doctrine”.

The Court finds that both parties concur that in Rwanda, there is so far no rate for determination and computation of damages based on the liability of a medical practitioner whose torts result into the loss of some parts of the patient’s body; the litigants disagree on this issue so that the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana, calculated the damages because N.A states that it should not have based the computation of damages to the rate fixed by the above mentioned Presidential Order No 31/01 of 25/08/2003, while the litigation was not related to the road- related accident; instead, they should be determined in the court’s own discretion as per the article 9 of the above mentioned Law No 22/2018 of the 29/04/2018; whereas Kibungo Medical Center and Dr Kanimba Pierre Célestin, its representative, submit that the damages should be based on the rate provided under the aforementioned Presidential Order as held by the High Court in the appealed judgment as there is no specified rate applied to the liability for the medical torts.

## Page 443

97 N.A (on behalf of his child I.A) vs KIBUNGO MEDICAL CENTER

The Court finds that, though there is no rate applied to calculate the damages for torts committed by a medical practitioner when treating a patient, those damages should not be computed in reference to the abovementioned Presidential Order No 31/01 of the 25/08/2003, since the provisions of the Presidential Order has not the same nature with the subject-matter of the case. Instead, the Court finds that, as above indicated, the damages should be determined in the court’s discretion on basis of parties ‘submissions, including the fact that the child who suffered injuries for which the damages are claimed will always endure them during his life, as upheld by this Court of Appeal in the judgment No RCAA 00073/2018/CA rendered on 19/07/2019 opposing Nyirabatesi Laurence to King Faisal Hospital in which the subject-matter was the determination of compensation for moral loss for injuries caused by King Faisal Hospital to Nyirabatesi Laurence5 when she was being treated in that Hospital.

The Court finds that, since both litigating parties agree on the committed tort following which I.A lost a part of his body and causing to him the incapacity, the remaining issue is the determination of damages that should be awarded to the victim on basis of the tort gravity and its effects on the victim and in consideration of the period during which the child will endure the injuries caused to him, they should be computed in the judge’s discretion ( ex aequo et bono)6, because there is no law

5 See paragraph 37 of judgment n0 RCAA 00073/2018/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 19/07/2019 opposing Nyirabatesi Laurence against King Faisal Hospital. 6 L’évaluation du dommage ex aequo et bono ne peut être adoptée par le juge comme mode d’évaluation que si, d’une part, il donne la raison pour laquelle une autre base d’évaluation, proposée par une des parties, ne peut être admise en l’espèce, et si, d’autre part, l’évaluation ne peut, à défaut d’éléments plus

## Page 444

98 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

establishing the damages computation modalities; they should be charged to Kibungo Medical Center, represented by Dr Kanimba Pierre Célestin, as the employer of the medical practitioner who committed the tort for which the compensation is sought. Such is the position set by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal in different judgments for which the subject-matter was the damages resulting from torts committed by medical practitioners and which caused the incapacity to patients; for example, the judgment No RDA 0054/12/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 19/12/2014 opposing the Ministry of Health to Kabayijuka Gaspard who came for medical treatment and had been injected in the vein by the employee of the Hospital, the injection caused to him the invalidity and the judgment RCAA 00073/2018/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 19/07/2019 opposing King Faisal Hospital to Nyirabatesi Laurence who went to the Hospital for delivering and by the time of operating her, her urinary bladder was damaged so that she got fistula.

Basing on all the above provided elucidations, the Court finds that the determination of damages awarded to N.A on behalf of I.A should be determined on basis of the fact that Kibungo Medical Center admits that there is a tort committed by its employee and the judge’s discretion (ex aequo et bono), because there is no law providing for the modalities and the rate applied to the damages determination.

sûrs, se faire qu’ex aequo et bono’’, in Henri De Page, Traité élémentaire de droit civil Belge, tome deuxième, Les incapables-Les obligations Bruylant, Bruxelles, 1964, P. 1070.

## Page 445

99 N.A (on behalf of his child I.A) vs KIBUNGO MEDICAL CENTER

b. The amount of the claimed damages

Counsel Rwenga Etienne representing N.A pleading on behalf of his child I.A requests the Court to hold the damages amounting to 45,000,000 Frw as claimed before the Intermediate Court of Ngoma because the employee of Kibungo Medical Center cut off the sexual organ of his child I.A, causing to him serious and permanent incapacity at the level of 50%.

Dr Kanimba Pierre Célestin representing Kibungo Medical Center together with his legal counsel state that the damages amounting to 45,000,000 Frw are excessive, they are not justified, Kibungo Medical Center subscribed for insurance in Prime Insurance Company Plc as regards the compensation. They request the Court of Appeal that in computing the damages, it shall deduct 2,993,000 Frw paid by Kibungo Medical Center for the child’s medical treatment, and 30,000 Frw paid for the medical expertise.

Counsel Bagomora Charles representing Prime Insurance Company Plc submits that the insurance for which Kibungo Medical Center subscribed in Prime Insurance Company Plc is limited to 2,000,000 Frw as per the insurance contract concluded by both parties. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 9 of the Law No 22/2018 of the 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that “A judge adjudicates a case on the basis of relevant rules of law. In the absence of such rules, the judge adjudicates according to the rules that he/she would establish if

## Page 446

100 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

he/she had to act as legislator, relying on precedents, customs, general principles of law and doctrine.”

The case file contains a medical expertise issued by Kanombe Military Hospital on 31/05/2019 indicating that the victim sustained the permanent incapacity at the level of 50%.

The case file also contains the insurance contract No 413/00021583-SG of 06/24/2016 entitled “Medical Malpractice Policy Clinic La Médicale concluded between the appellant and Prime Insurance Company Plc, whereby both contracting parties agreed that Prime Insurance Company Plc insures up to 2,000,000 Frw for damages that can be charged to Kibungo Medical Center in case of prejudice resulting from employee’s work-related accident.

The Intermediate Court of Ngoma awarded the damages amounting to 35,000,000 Frw determined in the Court’s own discretion since there was no law establishing the modalities of damages determination, they are determined on basis of the incapacity level of 50% and 57 years of the child remaining life expectancy while the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana, fixed the damages to 8,640,000 Frw determined in the Court’s own discretion and the rate indicated in the Presidential Order No 31/01 of 25/08/2003 establishing the modalities of payment of damages for bodily injuries resulting from accidents caused by automobiles.

The High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana, found that, in the paragraph 35 of the appealed judgment, the amount of 2,993,000 Frw paid by Kibungo Medical Center for the child’s medical treatment should not be deducted from the damages determined by the Court since Kibungo Medical Center should

## Page 447

101 N.A (on behalf of his child I.A) vs KIBUNGO MEDICAL CENTER

be held liable for the consequences and settle the problem resulting from the tort committed for recklessness and lack of appropriate measures to prevent the tort committed, the amount of 30,000 Frw paid for medical expertise should not be reimbursed to Kibungo Medical Center which requested for it in its own interest as evidence in the case.

The Court finds that both the lower courts found that there was no specific law establishing the rate to determine the damages for this issue; the Intermediate Court of Ngoma based its ruling on the Court’s own discretion, whereas the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana referred to the Presidential Order No 31/01 of 25/08/2003 which is irrelevant to the subject-matter of the case, it held that the damages should be doubled (paragraph 21) because a medical practitioner has heavier responsibility on the patients’ life than a driver on the road, there is no law that so provides. The High Court, Chamber of Rwanda, based on the non-existent law, as it referred to the Presidential Order No 31/01 of 25/08/2003 which is irrelevant to the subject-matter, in addition, the determined damages were doubled while there is no underpinning legal provision in the Presidential Order on which it relied.

The Court finds that referring to a non-existent law led to the decrease of the damages determined by the Intermediate Court of Ngoma so that N.A on behalf of his child I.A filed appeal because the awarded damages were based on the law irrelevant to the subject-matter, this Court finds that the damages determined by the Intermediate Court of Ngoma were fixed in accordance with the law because by decreasing them the High Court did not firstly point out the defects about the previous judge’s discretion and it was not appropriate as it referred to the

## Page 448

102 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

non-existent law sincethe applied law was irrelevant with the subject-matter, all damages should be maintained as determined in the Court’s discretion at the first instance; however, Kibungo Medical Center, represented by Dr Kanimba Pierre Célestin, shall pay jointly with its insurer Prime Insurance Company Plc as agreed upon within the insurance contract N0 413/00021583-SG Police concluded by both parties on 24/06/2016 and on the rate which does not exceed the range agreed upon by both parties within the insurance contract.

With regard to the amount of 2,993,000 Frw paid by Kibungo Medical Center for the child’s medical treatment and the latter requests that the amount should be deducted from the damages that it shall be ordered to pay, the Court finds that, as held by the High Court, such amount should not be deducted from the damages determined by the Court because Kibungo Medical Center should be held liable for the consequences of the issue caused by its employee, it should pay for the medical treatment of a child who was brought healthy by his parent, the employee cut off a part of the child’s sexual organ causing to him the permanent incapacity at the level of 50% certified by the medical experts.

With regard to the amount of 30,000 Frw paid by Kibungo Medical Center for the processing of the medical expertise, this Court finds that, as held by the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana, the expertise was processed upon request of Kibungo Medical Center in order to challenge the incapacity level of 50% initially certified for the child I.A, it should not be refunded such amount as the expertise was processed in its interest.

## Page 449

103 N.A (on behalf of his child I.A) vs KIBUNGO MEDICAL CENTER

c. Regarding the counsel and procedural fees claimed by the parties Counsel Rwenga Etienne and Counsel Gashugi Heron assisting N.A who pleads on behalf of his child I.A request the Court to order to Kibungo Medical Center represented by Dr Kanimba Pierre Célestin to refund to N.A the amount of 1,000,000 Frw for the counsel fee spent at this level of appeal, 300,000 Frw for the procedural fee and 140,000 Frw for the court fee deposited in the Intermediate Court of Ngoma and the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana. Counsel Mukaruzagiriza Chantal and Counsel Ngerageze Bernard who assist Dr Kanimba Pierre Célestin, representing Kibungo Medical Center, request to the Court of Appeal to order to N.A on behalf of his child to refund to Kibungo Medical Center the amount of 2,000,000 Frw for the counsel fee including the amount paid in the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana and the Court of Appeal. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 111 of the Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides the following: “The claim for representation fees is an incidental claim to the principal claim aiming to repay expenses incurred during judicial proceedings. The claim for legal costs is adjudicated at the same time with the principal claim. It can also be admitted and adjudicated even if the principal claim has not been admitted”.

## Page 450

104 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

The Court finds that the counsel and procedural fees claimed by Kibungo Medical Center represented by Dr Kanimba Pierre Célestin are not grounded since it loses the case as above elucidated.

The Court finds that the counsel, procedural and court fees claimed by N.A on behalf of his child I.A are grounded and he deserves them, but they are determined in the Court’s discretion as the claimed fees are excessive, therefore he is awarded 800,000 Frw for the counsel fee and 300,000 Frw for the procedural fee at all levels of this case proceedings. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the appeal filed by N.A on behalf of his child I.A has merits;

Decides that the judgment RCA 00065/2018/HC/RWG rendered by the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana, on 30/07/2019 is entirely reversed;

Orders to Kibungo Medical Center represented by Dr Kanimba Pierre Célestin to pay the amount of 35,000,000 Frw to N.A on behalf of his child I.A, whereby Prime Insurance Company shall pay 2,000,000 Frw as agreed upon within the insurance contract no 413/00021583-SG of 24/06/2016;

Orders to Kibungo Medical Center represented by Dr Kanimba Pierre Célestin to pay to N.A on behalf of his child I.A, 800,000 Frw for the counsel fee, and 300,000 Frw for the procedural fee at all levels.

## Page 451

105 N.A (on behalf of his child I.A) vs KIBUNGO MEDICAL CENTER

Orders to Kibungo Medical Center represented by Dr. Kanimba Pierre Célestin to refund to N.A on behalf of his child I.A the court fee he deposited in the Intermediate Court of Ngoma and the Court of Appeal.

## Page 453

107

PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v UWIMANIMPAYE [Rwanda SUPREME COURT - RS/INJUST/RC 00010/2021/SC (Cyanzayire, P.J., Karimunda, Hitiyaremye, J.) December 02, 2022] Civil procedure – Damages resulting from accident– Loss of job – A person who does not provide evidence to prove that he/she had a job at the time of the accident, cannot be awarded damages for its loss because he/she never had it. Civil Procedure – Damages resulting from accident –Loss due to an accident – For unemployed people who have had an accident, there is no immediate loss, what can be taken into account is the loss of the opportunity due to that accident. Civil Procedure – Proceedings of the cases - Right for the review of the case on grounds of injustice–It is not necessary for a party to first invoke the procedure for case review in order to be entitled to the application for review on grounds of injustice, while he/she considers that he/she does not meet any requirement provided under the law for filing the application for admissibility of the case review. Facts: This case stems from an accident happened to Uwimanimpaye who was hit by a vehicle insured by Prime Insurance Company Ltd. The recognized medical doctor ascertained that it caused to him the permanent incapacity of 78% and the aesthetic damages of 65%. He then wrote to the Insurer requesting for damages by consent and the medical doctors of Prime Insurance Company Ltd conducted another diagnosis and confirmed that he had the permanent incapacity of 28%. There

## Page 454

108 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

was an attempt to reach an agreement but it failed because they did not agree on the incapacity rate, daily minimum wage and working days. Uwimanimpaye filed a claim in the Intermediate Court of Karongi, which ruled that he should be granted various damages. The respondent appealed to the High Court, Rusizi Chamber, stating that the Intermediate Court determined the damages without appointing a third medical doctor to confirm the incapacity rate which was not agreed upon. The High Court declared the appeal unfounded based on the fact that the appellant did not react after being informed by Uwimanimpaye that he did not accept the incapacity rate assessed by the medical doctor of Prime Insurance Company Ltd until he lodged a claim before the Court which sustained the appealed judgment. Prime Insurance Company Ltd wrote to the President of the Court of Appeal seeking for justice and he wrote to the President of the Supreme Court seeking for the case rehearing and who later decided that it should be reheard. Before the hearing on the merits, the respondent raised an objection stating that the claimant should have filed an application for case review before invoking the procedure for the application for review on grounds of injustice. The Court declared the objection unfounded and ordered the trial to be resumed. The claimant states that the injustice was based on the fact that the High Court ruled that he did not produce any evidence to prove that he agreed with Uwimanimpaye on the appointment of a medical doctor after he showed that he did not accept the medical doctor's report from the side of the Insurer and he showed it in a letter he wrote to it through his legal counsel requesting it

## Page 455

109 PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v UWIMANIMPAYE

to appoint a medical doctor who would work with theirs to determine the incapacity rate that should be based on for the determination of damages, instead of doing so, it went to court. The respondent explains that the law provides that he and Prime Insurance Company Ltd could appoint a medical doctor or a team of medical doctors if they agree, but they did not agree accordingly. The Court ruled for the appointment of a joint medical team from both sides and the hearing would continue after by determining the amount of damages to be granted following the issuance of the report. The medical team issued a report stating that Uwimanimpaye has a permanent incapacity rate of 49% and aesthetic damages of 4/6. The hearing continued on the merits by determining the amount of damages that should be awarded. The claimant states that the damages should be calculated based on a joint report and these damages should include economic, moral and aesthetic damages. He claims for the waiver of damages for loss of marriage opportunities, counsel's fees and court fees. Regarding the rate of deposits that caused them not to agree on the economic damages, he adds that in case the respondent would prove that the rate they were paying was the one set by the National Bank of Rwanda, he would have no problem to accept it. As for the compensation for the loss of work experience, he submits that Uwimanimpaye should not be granted any because he did not produce any evidence to prove that he had any formal work. The respondent explains that with regard to the rate of deposits, the two parties do not agree in determination of economic damages, that they calculated at 5% because that is the rate set by the regulations of the National Bank. Regarding the damages for the loss of work experience, he submits that, although he does not have a monthly job, the accident caused to him prejudice as a

## Page 456

110 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

person who has a regular job with daily earning of 3,000 Frw because he is a casual work. He also found that he should be compensated according to the daily minimum wage (SMIG) of 3,000 Frw, because his incapacity made him unable to do the work he used to do as the energy he had is not currently the same. Held: 1. A person who does not provide evidence that he had a job at the time of the accident, should not be granted the damages for its loss because he did not have any, so Uwimanimpaye should not be granted the damages for the loss of work because, even though he claims to have casual work, he failed to produce evidence before the Court of that casual work he had. 2. It is not necessary for a party to first invoke the procedure for case review in order to be entitled to the application for review on grounds of injustice, while he/she considers that he/she does not meet any requirement provided under the law for filing the application for admissibility of the case review, therefore the statement of Uwimanimpaye that Prime Insurance Company Ltd did not apply for the case review on grounds of injustice lacks merit. 3. Regarding the damages granted to an employee who suffered a loss due to an accident, the loss is considered on basis of the income from work on the day of the accident. For unemployed people, (children, students, elderly, women or men living at home), there is no immediate loss from work that can occur, what can be taken into account is the opportunity to find work due to the accident and therefore Uwimanimpaye should not be granted these damages because he does not prove the loss suffered from his income.

## Page 457

111 PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v UWIMANIMPAYE

The application seeking the review of the case N° RCA 00029/2019/HC/RSZ on grounds of injustice has merit Uwimanimpaye to repay 6,702,142.4 Frw to Prime Insurance Company Ltd Statutory and statutes referred to: Presidential Order N° 31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury due to accidents caused by motor vehicles, article 19. No case law referred to. Doctrines referred to: Philippe Malaurie et alii, Droit des obligations, 10ème édition, 2018, Paris, LGDJ, § 241. Yvaine BUFFELAN-LANORE, Virginie LARRIBAU- TERNEYRE, Droit civil des obligations, 17ème édition 62020-2021, Paris, Dalloz, § 2508. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude sued Prime Insurance Company Ltd before the Intermediate Court of Karongi claiming damages arising from an accident involving a vehicle insured by that Company. He claimed that that accident happened on 29/06/2018, it caused to him the permanent incapacity of 78%

## Page 458

112 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

and the aesthetic damages of 65% as ascertained by the recognized medical doctor who diagnosed him.

Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude explained to the Court that on 11/10/2018, Prime Insurance Company Ltd received his letter requesting for amicable compensation from the accident and on 13/11/2018, the doctors on their side conducted another diagnosis and assertained that the permanent incapacity caused by the accident is at the rate of 28%. He states that on 20/11/2018 he was invited to a conciliation meeting, but both parties ended up by disagreeing on the rate of incapacity, the minimum wage per day and working days, so he seized the Court seeking various damages.

The Counsel for Prime Insurance Company Ltd submits that the Company agrees to pay damages, but there is a procedure that Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude did not comply with which is to carry out another incapacity diagnosis and requests that it should be undergone so that they can find the incapacity rate to base on in the determination of damages.

On 28/03/2019, the Intermediate Court of Karongi rendered the judgment n° RC 00003/2019/TGI/KNG and declared that the claim of Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude is justified, it ordered to Prime Insurance Company Ltd to pay to him the total damages amounting to 14,186,126 Frw as follows: - economic damages: 8,646,186 Frw, - moral damages: 1,620,000 Frw, - aesthetic damages: 1,080,000 Frw, - damages for loss of employment opportunities: 2,160,000 Frw,

## Page 459

113 PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v UWIMANIMPAYE

- travel and medical expenses, etc.: 100,000 Frw, - court fees: 20,000 Frw, - counsel's fee: 500,000 Frw..

Prime Insurance Company Ltd appealed to the High Court, Rusizi Chamber, stating that after the victim did not accept the findings of the counter-expertise conducted by the insurer's medical doctor, the Court should have ordered the application of the provisions of article 7 of the Presidential Order n0 31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury due to accidents caused by motor vehicles, which reads that each party shall choose his/her own mmedical doctor, and both prepare a report on which they agree, the fact that this has not been done and the Court awarded damages to the victim, is an error.

Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude defended himself by stating that the appointment of a third medical doctor is usually not done during the trial, instead, Prime Insurance Company Ltd, after being informed that the victim did not accept the incapacity rate issued by their medical doctor, would react about the matter, but it was informed and did not react until Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude notices that its acts are only meant to discourage him, he decides to inform it that he withdraws from the process of conciliation for seizing the Court. He filed a cross-appeal seeking for counsel's fees on appeal level.

On 17/10/2019, the High Court, Rusizi Chamber, rendered the judgment n° RCA 00029/2019/HC/RSZ and ruled that the appeal of Prime Insurance Company Ltd is unfounded, it declared the cross-appeal filed by Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude justified in parts, it ordered it to pay him 500,000 Frw including counsel's fee and the procedural fee at the level of appeal, it

## Page 460

114 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

sustained the judgment n° RC 00003/2019/TGI/KNG decided by the Intermediate Court of Karongi on 28/03/2019.

In reaching that decision, the High Court relied on the reason that in the conciliation meeting that took place on 21/11/2018, Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude did not accept the incapacity rate of 28% shown by the medical doctors of the side of the Insurer, Prime Insurance Company Ltd had to agree with Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude on the appointment of a medical doctor or a team of medical doctors to resolve the dispute. It decided that since it did nothing to make this agreement happen while such was in its responsibilities until Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude filed a claim in Court on 07/01/2019, he should have been granted damages calculated on basis of the permanent incapacity rate of 78% and aesthetic damages of 65% in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of article 6, of Presidential Order n° 31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury due to accidents caused by motor vehicles.

On 14/11/2019, Counsel Masumbuko NDE Emile, on behalf of Prime Insurance Company Ltd, wrote to the President of the Court of Appeal requesting that the judgment n° RCA 00029/2019/HC/RSZ decided by the High Court, Rusizi Chamber, on 17/10/2019, should be reviewed on grounds of injustice. The President of the Court of Appeal, after reviewing the request, wrote to the President of the Supreme Court requesting that such case should be reheard. The President of the Supreme Court, after reviewing the report thereof, decided that it should be reheard and registered under nº RS/INJUST/RC 00010/2021/SC.

The case was heard in public on 23/05/2022, Prime Insurance Company Ltd was represented by Counsel

## Page 461

115 PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v UWIMANIMPAYE

Masumbuko NDE Emile, while Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude was represented by Counsel Nsengiyumva Jean Claude.

The Court first heard the parties regarding the objection raised by Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude requesting that the application for review on grounds of injustice filed by Prime Insurance Company Ltd should not be admitted for consideration because the judgment n° RCA 00029/2019/HC/RSZ under application for review on grounds of injustice had to be first reviewed before proceeding to the procedure for the application for review on grounds of injustice. After considering the objection, the Court made a decision in the bench, explaining that it is not necessary for the party to first apply for case review in order to have the right to request that his/her case be reviewed on the grounds of injustice, while he/she considers that he/she does not meet any requirement provided under the law for filing the application for admissibility of the case review. The Court ruled that the objection raised by the respondent in the instant case was unfounded and ordered that the hearing should be resumed.

Regarding the merits of the case, Prime Insurance Company Ltd states that the injustice was based on the fact that in the decision of the case nº RCA 00029/2019/HC/RSZ, the judge decided that he did not indicate what he did in order to agree with Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude on the appointment of a medical doctor or a team of medical doctors after being informed that he does not agree with the report of the mediacl doctor on the side of the insurer and has expressed such disagreement. It sustains that in reaching such decision, the Court disregarded the email Prime Insurance Company Ltd sent to Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude through his lawyer asking him to appoint a medical doctor who would work with his to determine the incapacity rate that

## Page 462

116 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

should be based on in awarding him damages, instead of doing so, he seized the Court. Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude himself explains that the law provides that he and Prime Insurance Company Ltd should appoint a medical doctor or a team of medical doctors in case they agree on it, but they did not agreed on that issue.

On 22/07/2022, the Court rendered an interlocutory judgment, it declared that the application filed by Prime Insurance Company Ltd seeking the review on grounds of injustice of the case n° RCA 00029/2019/HC/RSZ decided by the High Court, Rusizi Chamber, on 17/10/2019, is founded, it ruled for the appointment of a medical doctor or a team of doctors agreed on by both sides in orde to contribute to the determination of the incapacity rate of Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude, it declares that the hearing should be resumed with respect to the determination of the amount of damages to be paid on basis of the medical report.

After having appointed a team of medical doctors agreed on by both sides, their medical report indicates that Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude has a permanent incapacity of 49% and aesthetic damages of 4/6, both parties in this instant case produced before the Court the submissions indicating the damages upon which they agree and disagree.

The case was reheard in public on 14/11/2022, the parties were represented as before, in determination of the damages that Prime Insurance Company Ltd should pay to Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude and the amount thereof, as well as the issue of procedural and counsel’s fees.

## Page 463

117 PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v UWIMANIMPAYE

II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES

Determine the damages to be paid by Prime Insurance Company Ltd to Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude and their amount

Counsel Masumbuko NDE Emile, representing Prime Insurance Company Ltd, argues that the medical report agreed on by both parties indicated that the accident caused to Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude a permanent incapacity rate of 49% and aesthetic damages rate of 4/6, Prime Insurance Company Ltd finds that it is liable for payment of damages calculated as follows: - Economic damage: 3000 x 30 x 12 x 49% x 41 = 5,431,578 Frw, - 1+ (7,304% x 41) instead of 8,646,186 Frw which was paid after court order. - Moral damages (Pretium doloris): 3000 x 30 x 12 x 100% = - 1,080,000 Frw, instead of 1,620,000 Frw paid; - Aesthetic damages: 3000 x 30 x 12 x 40% = 432,000 Frw, instead of 1,080,000 Frw paid.

He submits that Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude did not deserve the following damages granted to him by the Court: - 1.000,000 Frw for Counsel's fee; - 20,000 Frw for court fee because if he did what the law requires to Prime Insurance Company Ltd he would have voluntarily paid without suing the Company before the Courts;

## Page 464

118 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

- 2,160,000 Frw of damages for the loss of the opportunity to marry because it does not exceed 50% based on the provisions of article 19 of the Presidential Order n° 31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury due to accidents caused by motor vehicles.

Counsel Masumbuko NDE Emile sustains that the total amount that should have been paid is 7,043,578 Frw, due to the fact that Prime Insurance Company Ltd has unfairly paid 14,126,186 Frw, he requests the Court to order to Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude to return the balance equal to 14,126,186 Frw - 7,043. 578 Frw = 7,082,608 Frw.

Regarding the rate of deposits that caused them to disagree on the economic damages, Counsel Masumbuko NDE Emile avers that if the respondent proves that the rate on which he based in determination of damages was set by the National Bank of Rwanda, he would accept it. As for damages for the loss of work experience, he adds that Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude should not be given any because he did not provide any evidence to prove that he had a formal work.

Counsel Nsengiyumva Jean Claude, representing Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude, asserts that after noticing the medical report showing the incapacity rate the accident caused to Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude, basing on articles 18 and 19 of the Presidential Order n° 31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury due to accidents caused by motor vehicles, he finds that Prime Insurance Company Ltd should pay damages calculated as follows:

## Page 465

119 PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v UWIMANIMPAYE

- Economic damages: 3000 x 30 x 12 x 49% x 41 = 7,113,836 Frw,1+ (5% x 41) - Moral damages (Pretium doloris) from motor vehicle accidents: 3000 x 30 x 12 x 100% = 1,080,000 Frw; - Aesthetic damages based on article 19 of the above Presidential Order: 3000 x 30 x 12 x 40% = 432,000 Frw; - damages for the loss of work experience also calculated based on article 19 of the abovementioned Presidential Order: 3000Frw x 30 x 6 = 540,000 Frw.

Regarding the rate of deposits that the two parties do not agree on in determination of the economic damages, Counsel Nsengiyumva Jean Claude submits that they should be calculated at 5% because it is the rate set by the regulations of the National Bank.

Regarding the damages for the loss of work experience not calculated by Prime Insurance Company Ltd stating that they are considered for the person with monthly pay, even though Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude is not monthly paid, the accident caused to him prejudice as a person who has a regular job with daily earning of 3,000 Frw beacuse it is a casual work. He also finds that he should be compensated according to the daily minimum wage (SMIG) of 3,000 Frw, because his incapacity made him unable to do the work he used to do as the energy he had is not currently the same. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

## Page 466

120 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

[23] Both parties in this case agree on aesthetic damages and moral damages (pretium doloris), incontested damages are those of economic damages due to the amount of deposits upon which they disagree. Prime Insurance Company Ltd calculated on 7.304%, while Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude calculated on 5%. The other damages upon which they disagree concern the loss of work experience, whereby Prime Insurance Company Ltd states that they should not be awarded, while Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude submits that they should be given based on the provisions of article 19 of the aforementioned Presidential Order. [24] Regarding the rate of deposits, the Court finds that the rate that appears on the website of the National Bank on the day of the pronouncement of the judgment is 6.5%; therefore, it is the one that should be based on to determine the economic damages that Prime Insurance Company Ltd must pay to Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude. Based on that rate, the damages to be paid are 3000 x 30 x 12 x 41 x 49% = 5,912,043.6 Frw. 1 + (6.5% x 41) [25] With regard to damages for loss of work experience upon which both parties disagree, the paragraph 4 of article 19 of Presidential Order n° 31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury due to accidents caused by motor vehicles, provides that […] such damages are awarded to the following persons: • Loss of employment opportunities for high school, vocational, higher learning institutions or their equivalent students; • Loss of work experience for a person who was already working. […] In the French language this article is written in these words: Le préjudice de carrière s'entend:

## Page 467

121 PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v UWIMANIMPAYE

soit de la perte de chance certaine d’une carrière à laquelle peut raisonnablement espérer un élève ou un étudiant de l’enseignement secondaire, technique, supérieur ou leur équivalent ; soit de la perte de carrière subie par une personne déjà engagée dans la vie active. […]

Although among the damages mentioned in the aforementioned article, there are those in Kinyarwanda that are qualified to be for the loss of the work experience, the Court finds that it is for the loss of work as it is in the French language, and there has been a wrong translation according to the nature of those damages, because of those of loss of work experience do not exist.

Regarding those who receive damages for the loss of employment opportunities referred to in paragraph 4 of article 19 of Presidential Order n° 31/01 of 25/08/2003 mentioned above, the Court finds that the legislator entitled such damages only to students. Others were granted the damages for the loss of work, which means they must have a work and lose it because of the accident. This means that a person who fails to prove that he had a work at the time of the accident cannot be awarded damages because he/she did not lose anything. This is in line with the legal experts’opinions that in order to be compensated, inc ase the loss is not caused by a breach of contract, such loss must meet three conditions: it must be direct, it must be certain and it has reduced the property of the victim of the mistake1. This is in line with the

1 […] (Pour être réparable, le préjudice, quand il s’agit de responsabilité extracontractuelle, n’a à remplir que trois conditions: il doit être direct, certain et avoir amoindri le patrimoine propre de la victim”, Philippe Malaurie et alii, Droit des obligations, 10ème édition, 2018, Paris, LGDJ, § 241

## Page 468

122 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

principle that the purpose of reparation is to restore the victim to the state he or she would have been in if the harmful event had not occurred2.

Regarding the damages granted to an employee who suffered a loss due to an accident, legal experts also state that the loss is considered in the income from work on the day of the accident. For unemployed persons, (children, students, elderly, women or men living at home), no immediate loss of work can occur, what can be taken into account is chance to find work due to the accident3.

Concerning the dispute between the parties in this instant case to determine whether a person who is entitled to damages for a loss of work is a person who receives a monthly salary as submitted by Prime Insurance Company Ltd while Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude argues that even a person who does not have a monthly job is entitled to such damages, the Court finds that, based on the explanations provided above, a person who does not produce evidence to prove that he/she had a job at the time of the accident, he/she should not be entitled to damages

2 “La réparation vise à remettre la victime dans l’état où elle se serait trouvée s’il n’y avait pas eu le fait dommageable” Yvaine BUFFELAN-LANORE, Virginie LARRIBAU-TERNEYRE, Droit civil des obligations, 17ème édition 2020-2021, Paris, Dalloz, § 2508. 3 (Les pertes de gains professionnels sont appréciées par rapport aux revenus dont diposait la victime au moment de l’accident. Il faut donc distinguer les inactifs et les personnes ayant une activité au moment de l’accident. Pour les inactifs (enfants, étudiants, retraités, femmes ou homme au foyer), il ne peut y avoir de pertes de revenus actuels et seule l’incidence professionnelle et/ou scolaire du dommage peut être pris en compte (perte de chance de trouver un emploi par exemple), Id. § 2315

## Page 469

123 PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v UWIMANIMPAYE

for loss of work because he/she himself did not have any, and therefore the Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude can not be awarded damages for loss of work because, although he claims to be a casual worker, he did not produce before the Court the evidence of such casual work he had.

Basing on all the aforementioned elucidations, the Court finds that Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude shall be awarded economic damages equal to 5,912,043.60 Frw, moral damages (Pretium doloris) equal to 1,080,000 Frw ; and aesthetic damages equal to 432,000 Frw, all totaling to 7,424,043.6 Frw.

The Court finds that, for the case of the execution of the judgment that has been reviewed at the level of of review due to injustice, Prime Insurance Company Ltd paid Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude a total damages amounting to 14,126,186 Frw. Since it is clear that the amount he had to pay was less, Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude must reimburse excess amount equals to 14,126,186 Frw - 7,424,043.6 Frw = 6,702,142,4 Frw. Determine whether the procedural and counsel's fees should be awarded in this instant case.

Counsel for Prime Insurance Company Ltd states that it claims for damages amounting to 2,000,000 Frw including procedural and counsel's fees. He maintains that the damages requested by the opposing party are baseless because he filed an application based on his legal entitlement.

On the side of Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude who is the respondent in this instant case, they submit that the damages requested by Prime Insurance Company Ltd should not be granted because they did not comply with what was requested for

## Page 470

124 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

proving to the judge that their pleading was true. They claim that the fact that Prime Insurance Company Ltd brought him again before the Court is an injustice to him and for that reason they request that it should pay to him the damages equal to 1,000,000 Frw, and Counsel's fee equal to 1,000,000 Frw. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The Court finds that the procedural and counsel's fees claimed by Prime Insurance Company Ltd should be granted because it is the winner of the case and it is clear that it hired a lawyer to defend them and make follow-up of the case. The Court finds that the amount of 2,000,000 Frw claimed is too much, so in its discretion it awards 500,000 Frw for the counsel's fee and 300,000 Frw for the procedural fee.

Regarding the damages claimed by Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude, the Court finds that he should not be awarded them because he does not win the case. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the application filed by Prime Insurance Company Ltd for review the case n° RCA 00029/2019/HC/RSZ decided by the High Court, Rusizi Chamber, on 17/10/2019, is founded;

Holds that the judgment is overruled in relation to the damages to be paid by Prime Insurance Company Ltd to Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude;

## Page 471

125 PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v UWIMANIMPAYE

Holds that Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude should have been granted the damages amounting to 7,424,043.6 Frw;

Orders to Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude to reimburse to Prime Insurance Company Ltd 6.702.142,4 Frw.

Orders to Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude to pay to Prime Insurance Company Ltd 800.000 Frw including the procedural and counsel's fees.

## Page 473

COMMERCIAL CASES

## Page 475

129

GATETE v. ECOBANK LTD [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCOM 00011/2017/CS (Mutashya, P.J., Karimunda and Muhumuza, J.) January 05, 2018] Commercial law – Seizure – Seizure of a mortgage –The obligation of payment of the surety is limited to the limits of the secured loan – In case of restructuring of the loan agreement, the consent of the surety is obligatory in order for the previous mortgage to secure the restructured loan. Facts: ECOBANK RWANDA LTD entered into a loan agreement with RUBIRIZI DAIRY, which was to be repaid within forty-eight (48) months, Gatete was the guarantor for the loan, and secured as guarantee a plot of land. RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl did not comply with the agreement to pay the loan received with its interest within the agreed period of time, and the guarantor wrote to ECOBANK RWANDA LTD requesting it to return the mortgaged land with the intention of selling it to pay off the loan owed by RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl, and there was a de-registration of the mortgage, the land was subdivided into 51 plots for facilitating the sale, they were also registered and Gatete Polycarpe (the guarantor) submitted to the Bank their titles. Gatete (the guarantor) also wrote to ECOBANK RWANDA LTD requesting to pay 39,000,000 Frw of the loan of ECOGER Company and 110,000,000 Frw of the loan of RUBIRIZI DAIRY sarl so that all loans are refunded, but the Bank responded to him

## Page 476

130 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

by stating that the loan of RUBIRIZI DAIRY LTD to be paid equals to 149,754,850 Frw. ECOBANK RWANDA LTD seized the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge requesting to order to RUBIRIZI DAIRY SARL and Gatete Polycarpe to pay the principal loan of 149,754,850 Frw, and interests that accrue until the payment of the loan and various damages. The Court declared that the loan agreement dated 29/05/2008 concluded between ECOBANK RWANDA LTD and RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl and Gatete Polycarpe as "Propriétaire Constituant" is valid and should be based on for the calculation of company's defaulted loan. RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl and GATETE appealed that decision to the Commercial High Court which held that the ruling of the case RCOM 1418/14/TC/NYGE is reversed regarding the amount of the loan, and ruled that it cannot order that the securities be sold, that as guarantor, he should not repay jointly with RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl as ordered in the first instance. ECOBANK RWANDA LTD appealed to the Supreme Court, which declared that it has the right to register the mortgage secured on the plots of land derived from the mortgaged plot of land in the loan agreement concluded by both parties, and ruled that no interest for delays should be granted to RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl and GATETE P. It ordered to RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl and GATETE Polycarpe, within the limits of his guarantorship, to pay to ECOBANK RWANDA LTD 184,099,138 Frw of the loan owed to it. Afterwards, Gatete filed a claim requesting the Court to settle the disputes that arose during the execution of the judgment, he states that the Professional Bailiff and ECOBANK RWANDA LTD

## Page 477

131 GATETE v. ECOBANK LTD

had initiated the execution of judgment in violation of the Court's decisions, because the Professional Bailiff overrided by including the property not decided by the judgment; they seized his property which was not in the limits of guarantorship, he argues that they should seize the properties that were within the limits of his guarantorship as the Court ordered, the seizure should have been limited to the mortgage associated with the specific plot of land, as such was his gurantorship. ECOBANK also raised an objection relating to the time limit for filing the claim as it found that the claim would have been filed within two months because that was the time the Professional Bailiff notified to Gatete that the judgment was under execution. Gatete (the guarantor) pleads that he finds that the objection has no basis because for him, the Chief Justices’s Practice Directions were issued for a person who was not a party to the case because s/he is the one to be notified of the ruling of the case, and he also submits that RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl has movable and immovable properties; therefore, they should be firstly sold, if the payment is not covered, the mortgaged properties should be sold. Held: Although the Bank has the obligation to register the mortgage and its proceeds, the guarantor's payment is limited to the guarantorship to pay the loan. A claim has merit. Court fees cover the expenses incurred. Statutes and statutory referred to: Law n° 12/2013 of 22/03/2013 governing the bailiff function, article 49.

## Page 478

132 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

No cases referred to. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The case derives from the loan agreement concluded between ECOBANK RWANDA LTD and RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl on 29/05/2008 for a loan amounting to 133,379,294 Frw to be paid within forty-eight (48) months; Gatete Polycarpe, as its guarantor, mortgaged his plot of land n⁰ 8957 located in Kicukiro.

RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl did not comply with the agreement to pay the loan received and its interests within the agreed period of time. On 16/05/2012, Gatete Polycarpe wrote to ECOBANK RWANDA LTD requesting it to return the mortgaged land with the intention of selling it in order to pay the loan RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl owes to ECOBANK RWANDA LTD, and on 23/5/2012 the mortgage was de-registered, the land was subdivided into 51 plots in order to facilitate the sale, they were also registered, Gatete Polycarpe submitted to ECOBANK Rwanda Ltd their titles.

On 14/09/2014, Gatete Polycarpe again wrote to ECOBANK RWANDA LTD requesting to pay 39,000,000 Frw of ECOGER's loan and 110,000,000 Frw of RUBIRIZI DAIRY sarl's loan so that all loans are refunded, but on 22/09/2014 ECOBANK RWANDA LTD responded to him that the due loan

## Page 479

133 GATETE v. ECOBANK LTD

of RUBIRIZI DAIRY LTD on that date to be paid equals to 149,754,850 Frw.

On 09/12/2014, ECOBANK RWANDA LTD seized the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge requesting to order to RUBIRIZI DAIRY SARL and Gatete Polycarpe to pay the principal loan of 149,754,850 Frw calculated up to 22/09/2014 and the interests which accrue until the payment of the loan and various damages. The Court rendered the judgment on 30/04/2015 and declared that the loan agreement concluded on 29/05/2008 by ECOBANK RWANDA LTD, RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl and GATETE Polycarpe as "Propriétaire Constituant" is valid and should be based on in calculating the company's defaulted loan. It declared that the 150,000,000 Frw mentioned in the letter dated 16/05/2012 written by Gatete Polycarpe to ECOBANK RWANDA LTD, is not the amount of RUBIRIZI DAIRY SARL's loan owed, but it was the value that should be sold for the mortgaged plot of land nº 8957. It declared that the letter dated 16/05/2012 indicating the period of payment of 150,000,000 Frw Green Estates Ltd Company would have bought the plot of land in case ECOBANK RWANDA LTD would have agreed to release it to be subdivided into several other plots of land. It declared that the letter, "Acte de Main Levée" dated 23/05/2012 and the sale of some of the plots of land subdivided from the plot n⁰ 8957 Gatete Polycarpe had mortgaged in the loan agreement dated 29/05/ 2008 does not invalidate nor modify this Agreement. It held that RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl together with Gatete Polycarpe as "Propriétaire Constituant" must pay to ECOBANK RWANDA LTD the loan and interests arising from the loan they did not pay as they have agreed upon, and to pay procedural and counsel’s fees. It ordered to RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl together with Gatete Polycarpe as "Propriétaire Constituant"

## Page 480

134 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

to pay to ECOBANK RWANDA LTD 132,092,889 Frw (one hundred and thirty-two million, ninety-two thousand, eight hundred and eighty-nine).

RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl and GATETE Polycarpe appealed the decision to the Commercial High Court, which rendered the judgment on 30/6/2015 and declared that RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl, ECOBANK RWANDA LTD and GATETE Polycarpe did not agree that the contract of 29/05/2008 was terminated and replaced by that of 16/5/2012, that there was no agreement stating that the interest rate of 15% per year in the agreement of 29/05/2008 stops being calculated, that ECOBANK RWANDA LTD is not obliged to be paid as long as the plots of land subdivided from the plot nº 8957 are sold. The Court also declared that the judgment RCOM 1418/14/TC/NYGE is reveresed with regard to the amount of the loan, the counsel's fee and the debtor, it ordered to RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl to pay to ECOBANK RWANDA LTD a loan amounting to 45,607,219 Frw instead of 131,092,889 Frw. The Court found that RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl owed to ECOBANK RWANDA LTD the amount of money decided at the first instance, adding 1,000,000 Frw of procedural and counsel’s fees decided at the first instance, and 500,000 Frw of the counsel's fee at the appeal level and to repay 50,000 Frw deposited as court fee by filing the claim, the total is 47,157,129 Frw. It also ruled that there are no procedural and counsel’s fees to be paid by RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl to ECOBANK RWANDA LTD; it held that it cannot order that the mortgage secured by Gatete Polycarpe should be sold, that he should not as a guarantor together with RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl to pay to ECOBANK RWANDA LTD as ordered in the first instance; it declared that the judgment should not be provisionally executed on the loan of 111,000,000 Frw.

## Page 481

135 GATETE v. ECOBANK LTD

ECOBANK RWANDA LTD appealed to the Supreme Court, this Court rendered the judgment on 30/06/2017 and held that it has the right to register the mortgage on the plots of land subdivided from the plot nº 8957 located in Kicukiro which was secured as mortgage in the loan agreement concluded by both parties; it declared that no interest for delay shall be paid to RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl and Gatete Polycarpe. It ordered to RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl and GATETE Polycarpe, within the limits of his guarantorship, to pay to ECOBANK RWANDA LTD 184,099,138 Frw for the loan owed to it; it ordered to them to jointly pay to ECOBANK RWANDA LTD the counsel's fees amounting to 1,000,000 Frw, and ordered to them again to jointly repay to ECOBANK RWANDA LTD 1,750,000 Frw for advance payment for the expert's award, it ordered to them again to pay a part of the unpaid expert’s award of Habimana José amounting to 1,750,000 frw, not later than 31/07/2017.

Gatete Polycarpe later filed a claim seeking the resolution of disputes arising from the execution of the judgment RCOMAA 0046/15/CS, arguing that, based on page 15 of that judgment, paragraph 57, the Professional Bailiff and ECOBANK RWANDA LTD began to execute the judgment in violation of the Court ruling.

The hearing in public was held on 03/01/2018, Gatete Polycarpe was assisted by Counsel Nzeyimana Boniface, and ECOBANK RWANDA LTD represented by Counsel Nkundabarashi Moïse.

In this instant case, the Court shall analyse the issue related to the claim inadmissibility because the time limit for lodging a claim has elapsed, and examine whether the

## Page 482

136 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Professional Bailiff overrided in the execution of the judgment by including the property not decided by the judgment. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES a. Determine whether Gatete Polycarpe's claim should not be admitted because the time limit has elapsed

Counsel Nkundabarashi Moïse representing ECOBANK raised the objection relating to the time limit for filing the claim as he found that the claim should have been lodged within a period of two months from 25/08/2017 because it was the time when the Professional Bailiff notified to Gatete Polycarpe that the judgment was being executed. Due to the fact that he filed a claim on 05/12/2017, he violated the provisions of article 50 of Practice Directions n° 002/2015 of 18/05/2015 by the Chief Justice governing civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure for enforcing the provisions of article 208 of Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, those Practice Directions provide that the claims on the disputes arising from the execution of the judgment shall be filed within two months(2) from the date the applicant knew that a judgement is being enforced or was enforced, and therefore, he notes that the claim filed by Gatete Polycarpe would not have been admitted because it was lodged on 05/12/2017 when two (2) months have elapsed.

Counsel Nizeyimana Boniface assisting Gatete Polycarpe observes that the objection is unfounded because for him, the Practice Directions of the Chief Justice was issued for a person who has not been a party to the case because he/she is the one who is notified of the ruling of the judgment; they rely on of

## Page 483

137 GATETE v. ECOBANK LTD

the article 208 of the Law n° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure which provides that “the disputes regarding the execution of judgement shall be brought before the court that rendered the final judgment”.

He further submits that in case the Court finds otherwise, it shall take into account the fact that Gatete Polycarpe, based on the Order of the Professional Bailiff issued on 25/08/2017 which was notified to him on that day, he wrote to the Professional Bailiff on 19 /10/2017 stating that what he was doing was wrong, and the Professional Bailiff responded to him on 26/10/2017, and he notes that the disputes arose from 26/10/2017, the time limit for filing the claim should be calculated from that date. DETERMINATION OF COURT

Article 208 of the Law Nº 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, provides that: “Disputes regarding the execution of judgement shall be brought before the court that rendered the final judgment or that made a foreign judgement enforceable in Rwanda. The court decides thereon within fifteen (15) days of the date of receipt of the application”.

Article 50 of Practice Directions n° 002/2015 of 18/05/2015 by the Chief Justice governing civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides: “A claim on the execution of judgement regarding disputes stipulated in Article 208 of the law nº 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedures, shall be filed in a competent court within two months (2) from the date the

## Page 484

138 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

applicant knew that a judgement is being enforced or was enforced”.

The case file contains the order of the Professional Bailiff called Mwitende Jean Paul of 25/08/2017 requiring Gatete Polycarpe to pay the amount of money decided in the judgment RCOMAA 0046/2015/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 30/06/2017, and do so within fifteen (15) days from the time he received this Order, and he informed him that failure to comply with this Order in the above-mentioned period, he will seize his immovable properties.

In the case file, there is also a document dated 19/10/2017 written by Gatete Polycarpe in response to the Professional Bailiff Mwitende Jean Paul, indicating him that in the seizure he conducted, he overrided by including the property not decided in the judgment and requesting him to nullify it.

The case file also contains the letter dated 23/10/2017 written by the Professional Bailiff Mwitende Jean Paul in response to Gatete Polycarpe, who received it on 26/10/2017, informing him that the seizure was made in order to execute the judgment RCOMAA 0046 /2015/CS, and was lawfully done.

In the case file, there is also a document submitting a claim into IECMS (Integrated Electronic Case Management System) indicating that Gatete Polycarpe filed a claim on 05/12/2017 requesting to the Court to resolve the disputes that arose during the execution of the judgment RCOMAA 0046/15/CS decided by the Supreme Court on 30/06/2017.

The Court finds that, according to the correspondence between Gatete Polycarpe and the Professional Bailiff, the

## Page 485

139 GATETE v. ECOBANK LTD

disputes arising from the execution of the judgment began on 26/10/2017 because when Gatete Polycarpe informed the Professional Bailiff that the conducted seizure contradicted with Court ruling, the Professional Bailiff rejected his request, stating that the seizure could not be nullified as long as the amount of money ordered by the Court is not yet fully paid, the disputes in the execution of judgment stated in article 208 of the Law n0 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 mentioned above arose, and thus it finds that the period of two (2) months referred to in article 50 of Practice Directions n° 002/2015 of 18/05/2015 by the Chief Justice mentioned above must start running from 26/10/2017, the period of two months has been observed since the claim was filed on 05/12/2017, as evidenced by the court submission included in the case file. Consequently, the objection raised by Counsel Nkundabarashi Moïse, representing ECOBANK, lacks merit. B. Determine whether the Professional Bailiff overrided by including the property not decided in the judgment

Gatete Polycarpe contends that in executing the judgment RCOMAA 0046/15/CS decided by the Supreme Court on 30/06/2017, ECOBANK RWANDA LTD and the Professional Bailiff violated the provisions of paragraph 57 of the final judgment and seized what the Court did not order, that is, in his case, the seizure would be conducted on the properties which were within the limits of his guarantorship as the Court ordered, the seizure should have been conducted solely on collaterals proceeding from the plot N08957 which serves as his guarantorship. These are the disputes he requests the Court to resolve.

He states that RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl owns movable and immovable properties, and according to him, these properties

## Page 486

140 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

would be the primary assets to be sold, and if the payment is not fully covered, the properties mortgaged by Gatete Polycarpe could be sold. Thus, he finds that ECOBANK RWANDA LTD and the Professional Bailiff seriously overrided, upon being aware of the situation, he wrote to the Professional Bailiff, requesting him to cease the proceeding, unfortunately, his request was declined.

ECOBANK RWANDA LTD pleaded that there are no disputes at all on that issue because RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl and its insurer must pay to ECOBANK RWANDA LTD as decided by the Court. In addition, they are not the ones who decide how the judgment should be executed, this is clearly explained by the article 194 of the Law nº 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure which provides that “the movable and immovable assets of a debtor shall constitute a common and general security of his/her creditors”. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 203 of Law Nº 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that “Judgments must be executed in the manner and time limits provided for in their rulings’’.

Article 49 of the Law N° 12/2013 of 22/03/2013 of Law governing the Bailiff Function provides that a professional bailiff has nine competences as outlined in that article including the execution of judicial decisions, the administrative decisions of competent organs and other enforcement orders.

## Page 487

141 GATETE v. ECOBANK LTD

In the case file, there is the loan agreement dated 29/05/2008, ECOBANK RWANDA LTD entered into with RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl, ECOBANK RWANDA LTD granted to it a loan amounting to 133,379,294Frw, Gatete Polycarpe provided was the guarantor for the loan and mortgaged his plot, nº 8957 located in Rubirizi - Kicukiro.

In the case file, there is also the Court Bailiff’s Order of 25/08/2017 requesting Gatete Polycarpe to pay, it notified him that in case of the failure to comply with the Order, he will seize the properties co-owned with his wife mentioned in the table below, adding other properties that are not included in the plot nº 8957 located in Kicukiro - Rubirizi.

In the judgment under execution RCOMAA 0046/15/CS decided by the Supreme Court on 30/06/2017, the Court, in paragraph 54, ruled that ECOBANK RWANDA Ltd is entitled to register a mortgage derived from the plot of land nº 8957 which was pledged in the loan agreement between RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl and ECOBANK RWANDA LTD, in order to cover the payment of the loan. In its paragraph 57, the Court ordered that RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl should jointly with Gatete Polycarpe within the limits of his guarantorship pay to ECOBANK RWANDA LTD 184,099,138 Frw for the loan owed to it.

The Court finds that the Professional Bailiff, in the execution of the judgment against Gatete Polycarpe as the guarantor of the loan, should refrain from incorporating additional properties not covered by the collateral of the plots subdivided from the plot n0 8957 located in Rubirizi-Kicukiro because it was the specific collateral provided in the loan agreement between RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl and ECOBANK

## Page 488

142 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

RWANDA LTD, this was the decision of the Court in the judgment under execution, in its paragraph 57.

The Court finds that the counsel for ECOBANK RWANDA LTD argues that GATETE Polycarpe and RUBIRIZI DAIRY Sarl must jointly pay the loan owed to ECOBANK RWANDA LTD based on the article 194 of the Law N° 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 mentioned above, this should be understood in case the two would have shared the loan, but since GATETE Polycarpe entered into the agreement as guarantor, his payment is limited to his guarantorship as the Court ordered that it is restricted to the collateral he provided, that is the plot nº 8957 located in Rubirizi - Kicukiro. C. Determine whether the damages claimed in this instant case are founded

ECOBANK RWANDA LTD filed a claim incidental to the one of Gatete Polycarpe, requesting to the Court to order to the respondent to pay damages for being dragged in unnecessary lawsuits amounting to 5,000,000 Frw, procedural fees of 2,000,000 Frw, and counsel's fees of 3,000,000 Frw.

Gatete Polycarpe contends that he is the one who deserves the damages as ECOBANK RWANDA LTD and the Professional Bailiff overrided and executed the judgment on the property not decided by the Court, and he requests that they should pay to him the procedural and counsel's fee amounting to 3,000, 000 Frw.

Regarding these damages, ECOBANK RWANDA LTD pleaded by stating that Gatete Polycarpe is the representative of RUBIRIZI Dairy Sarl, due to the fact that he did not voluntarily

## Page 489

143 GATETE v. ECOBANK LTD

pay the loan, he has no excuse to request for unevidenced claims- related damages. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The Court finds that the incidental claim filed by ECOBANK RWANDA LTD should not be considered as it lost this judgment and it does not justify the prejudice suffered in this instant case.

Regarding the procedural and counsel’s fees claimed by Counsel GATETE Polycarpe, the Court finds that he deserves them, but it awards them to him in its discretion because the applicant does not provide evidence supporting that he deserves such amount, so he should be awarded a total of 1,000,000 Frw (one million). III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Declares founded the claim for the settlement of the disputes that arose from the execution of the judgment RCOMAA 0046/15/CS filed by Gatete Polycarpe;

Declares unfounded the objection raised by Counsel Nkundabarashi Moïse for the claim inadmissibility;

Declares unfounded the claim of ECOBANK RWANDA LTD incidental to that of Gatete Polycarpe for damages;

Holds that the payment of Gatete Polycarpe shall be limited to his guarantorship as ordered by the Court, that is, on the plot nº8957 located in Rubirizi-Kicukiro;

## Page 490

144 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Orders to ECOBANK RWANDA LTD to pay to Gatete Polycarpe 1,000,000 Frw for the procedural and counsel’s fees;

Orders that the court fee covers the expenses of the judicial proceedings.

## Page 491

145

NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES LTD v. KASESE DISTILLERS LTD [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/INJUST/RCOM 00004/2020/SC – (Mukamulisa, P.J., Muhumuza, Cyanzayire, Hitiyaremye and Karimunda, J.) November 19, 2021] Contracts law – Commercial contract – Evidence in commercial cases – The general principle is that in commercial cases, the hierarchy of elements of evidence does not apply – The evidence of commercial activities should not necessarily be in written form; instead, they can be supported by any form of evidence as long as it demonstrates the situation of commercial activities performed. It is sufficient for the evidence to establish that such activities are generally conducted in the manner described. Therefore, it is not necessary to produce the original versions of the documents relied upon by the parties as evidence. No exclusive evidence is required to prove the existence of undertakings between traders. On the contrary, when examining whether business undertakings occurred between them, their existing undertakings are taken into consideration. Contracts law – Commercial contract – Effects of the breach of contract with regard to business organizations or companies – Business organizations or companies can be awarded moral damages for the loss of their reputation, trust, and public trust, similar to the case with individuals. Contracts law – Commercial contracts – Awarding moral damages to business organizations or companies – In determining the amount of moral damages to be awarded, the court is required to exercise caution and reasonableness to prevent the damages

## Page 492

146 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

from being too low and inadequate, or excessively high to the point of being mistaken for pecuniary damages or damages for the loss suffered by the company. Tax law – Tax declaration – Liability of the taxpayer who submitted the tax declaration – If it is evident that the imported goods disappeared en route without evidence that they had been really stolen, the owner remains liable for taxes. Facts: New Kigali Business Services Ltd filed a lawsuit against Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda), alleging that it entrusted the latter with the task of making tax declaration of its products, it so did, but the products did not reach Rwanda. As a result, New Kigali Business Services Ltd was charged of taxes and fines amounting to 152,165,333 Frw. It requested that the owner of the goods should be held liable because it had the responsibility to import the goods into Rwanda. It also requested to be awarded moral damages because Rwanda Revenue Authority deemed it untrustworthy, leading to its removal from the server where tax declaring agents are listed. Additionally, it requested for procedural fee, counsel fee and reimbursement of the court fee it had deposited. The case was initiated before the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge and it it was successively appealed until New Kigali Business Services Ltd applied for review on grounds of injustice before the Supreme Court. Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda) presented its defense throughout all court instances, arguing that it had never imported any goods. Furthermore, it stated that during the time the goods were allegedly ordered, it was prohibited from operating by the Rwanda Bureau of Standards. Kasese Distillers Ltd also pointed out that the evidence provided by New Kigali Business Services Ltd to

## Page 493

147 NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES LTD v. KASESE DISTILLERS LTD

prove that they were responsible for importing the goods from abroad indicated a location in Nyagatare, Eastern Province, while Kasese Distillers Ltd is actually located in Nyarugenge, Kigali City. It explained that it does not know how New Kigali Business Services Ltd obtained the documents pertaining to the importation of the goods, as it did not provide them. New Kigali Business Services Ltd did not disclose the original documents or submit any contract or agreement to establish that it was entrusted with the duty, instead, it alleged that it interacted with and was given goods-related documents by Byekwaso, employee of Kasese Distillers Ltd (Uganda), who is known to be a fraudster, the reason why New Kigali Business Services Ltd should be held responsible for engaging with well-known fraudsters. New Kigali Business Services Ltd argues that all the requested damages lack merit because its goods were not normally declared for tax purposes. Held: 1. The evidence of commercial activities should not necessarily be in written form; instead, they can be supported by any form of evidence as long as it demonstrates the situation of commercial activities performed. It is sufficient for the evidence to establish that such activities are generally conducted in the manner described. Therefore, it is not necessary to produce the original versions of the documents relied upon by the parties as evidence. No exclusive evidence is required to prove the existence of undertakings between traders. On the contrary, when examining whether business undertakings occurred between them, their existing undertakings are taken into consideration. 2. Business organizations or companies can be awarded moral damages for the loss of their reputation, trust, and public trust, similar to the case with individuals.

## Page 494

148 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

3. In determining the amount of moral damages to be awarded, the court is required to exercise caution and reasonableness to prevent the damages from being too low and inadequate, or excessively high to the point of being mistaken for pecuniary damages or damages for the loss suffered by the company. 4. If it is evident that the imported goods disappeared en route without evidence that they had really stolen, the owner remains liable for taxes. The application for review due to injustice has merit. The judgment rendered by the Court of Appeal is overruled. Stutatues and statutory instruments referred to: East African Community Customs Management Act, 2004, articles 144, 147 and 148. Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 111. Law no 45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, article 75. Law n° 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 9. Ministerial order n°133/MOJ/AG/18 of 04/06/2018 on court fees in civil, commercial, social and administrative matters. Ministerial order nº 002/08.11 of 11/02/2014 on court fees in civil, commercial, social and administrative matters. Cases referred to: Prime Insurance Ltd vs Kansiime James, RS/INJUST/RCOM 00005/2018/SC rendered by the Supreme Court, on 12/06/2020. Bralirwa Ltd vs Kazigaba André et al, RCOMAA 0015/14/CS rendered by the Supreme Court, on 23/06/2017.

## Page 495

149 NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES LTD v. KASESE DISTILLERS LTD

Rock Global Consulting Ltd vs Impact Distributors East Africa Ltd, RCOMA0041/13/CS rendered by the Supreme Court, on 3 March 2016. Unidare Plc v. Cohen and Dermot Power [2006] Ch 489, para 19. Jafa vs La Pizzeria, Com. 15 mai 2012, no 11-10-278 Bulletin Civil IV n° 101. Metropolitan International Schools Ltd v. Designtechnica Corporation, Google UK Ltd and Google Inc, [2010] EWHC 2411 (QB) 35. Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal, CEDH, 6 Avril 2000, para 32-37. Authors cited: Memento Expert, Baux Commerciaux 2015-2016, Francis Lefebvre, Levallois, La liberté de preuves à l’égard des commerçants exclut … la formalité du double original, 2015, verbo 19105. Georges Decocq na Aurélie Ballot-Léna, Droit Commercial, Paris, Dalloz, 2015, pp. 84-85. Véronique Wester-Ouisse, Le préjudice moral des personnes morales: quand la perversion de la cité commence par la fraude des mots, JCP, G n° 39,24 Septembre 2012. Philippe Le Tourneau, Droit de la responsabilité et des contrats: Régimes d’Indemnisation, Paris, Dalloz, 2014, pp.664- 665. Philippe Malaurie, Laurent Aynès na Philippe Stoffel-Munck, Droit des obligations, Paris, LDGJ, 2015, p.126.

## Page 496

150 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

This case was initially brought before the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge, where New Kigali Business Services Ltd alleged that it proceeded with the tax declaration for goods belonging to Kasese Distillers Ltd transported from Dar-Es- Salaam to Rwanda but they missed during the shipment. When New Kigali Business Services Ltd inquired with Freight World Ltd, the company responsible for transportation, it was informed that the goods had been unloaded midway, and the trucks returned to Dar-Es-Salaam. New Kigali Business Services Ltd stated that on 30/06/2016, it notified to Rwanda Revenue Authority about the fact that the goods in question did not arrive in Rwanda, instead of taking this into consideration, it was surprised to discover on 25/07/2016 that it had been imposed taxes and fines amounting to 152,165,330 Frw, and subsequently removed from the server for tax declaration agents. New Kigali Business Services Ltd requested to be reinstated on the server and held Kasese Distillers Ltd liable for the taxes and fines imposed upon them.

Kasese Distillers Ltd submits that the claim has already been heard in another judgment which became final (RCOM 00492/2017/TC/NYGE) in which New Kigali Business Services sought for the annulment of the Commissioner's order, it states that criminal matters related to tax fraud should be filed in criminal courts and, therefore, they do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court. Regarding the merits of the case, Kasese Distillers Ltd stated that it never entrusted New Kigali Business Services Ltd with the duty of making tax declaration because it did not indicate any manager nor employee of Kasese Distillers

## Page 497

151 NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES LTD v. KASESE DISTILLERS LTD

Ltd who concluded the contract for the tax declaration of their goods.

On 16/03/2018, the Court heard the interlocutory judgment (RCOM 02196/2017/TC/NYGE), it was firstly examined the objection of inadmissibility raised against the claim on the grounds that it had already been heard in the judgment (RCOM 00492/2017/TC/NYGE) that became final. The Court determined that in the previous judgment, the claim was not admitted due to non-compliance with time limit for filing a claim and that the parties involved in both cases were different. It concluded that the judgment (RCOM 00492/2017/TC/NYGE) did not prevent New Kigali Business Services Ltd from filing a new claim.

On 10/05/2018, the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge also addressed the objection regarding whether the case should be tried in criminal courts. After considering the matter, the Court determined that the imposition of taxes did not involve criminal prosecution. Therefore, the objection of inadmissibility raised by Kasese Distillers Ltd lacks merit, as the claim filed with the Court is a commercial case, not a criminal one. Regarding the merits of the case, the Court found that since New Kigali Business Services Ltd had made tax declarations for goods that subsequently went missing, it should be considered the owner and be responsible for paying the taxes and fines, as stipulated in Article 147 of the East African Community Customs Management Act, 2004, especially that it failed to provide evidence that the declared goods got missed by Kasese Distillers Ltd so that it can be held liable for the imposed taxes and fines. Consequently, the Court concluded that the claim filed by New Kigali Business Services Ltd lacks merit and ordered to it to pay the taxes and fines amounting to

## Page 498

152 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

152,165,330 Frw, as well as 500,000 Frw as counsel fees to Rwanda Revenue Authority.1

New Kigali Business Services Ltd appealed to the Commercial High Court, claiming that it provided a Certificate of Origin and the Bill of Lading, which indicate that it had declared Kasese Distillers Ltd's goods while the goods were still at the port of Dar-Es-Salaam. They further argued that Kasese Distillers Ltd had filed a complaint with the Tanzanian judicial police after losing their goods, which served as evidence that the goods had existed and intended for transit to Rwanda. However, the Commercial Court disregarded this evidence and instead ordered to New Kigali Business Services Ltd to produce a contract of collaboration by disregarding that it usually performed tax declaration for Kasese Distillers Ltd's goods and was paid in the form of bank checks, it requested the Court to consider the merits of its appeal and hold Kasese Distillers Ltd liable for the taxes and fines that were imposed upon it.

In the judgment RCOMA 00441/2018/CHC/HCC rendered on 15/11/2018, the Commercial High Court found that New Kigali Business Services Ltd failed to provide the agreement for the tax declaration of Kasese Distillers Ltd's goods. It also failed to prove the circumstances in which it got the Certificate of Origin and Bill of Lading for the goods it claimed that they belonged to Kasese Distillers Ltd because this Company stated that it was aware of those documents for the first time during the judicial proceedings the Court concluded that New Kigali Business Services Ltd did not provide relevant and unequivocal elements of evidence to substantiate their claim that the goods they

Rwanda Revenue Authority was not a party to that case.

## Page 499

153 NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES LTD v. KASESE DISTILLERS LTD

declared belonged to Kasese Distillers Ltd and that they got missed, therefore, the appealed judgment was upheld.

Kasese Distillers Ltd filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal, contending that the mere act of performing a tax declaration for goods while they were in Dar-Es-Salaam port does not constitute fault on its part, it should not be held responsible for the goods not delivered in Rwanda and should not be held liable for the resulting taxes and fines, instead, it asserts that the liabilities should fall upon Kasese Distillers Ltd and its transporter, it requests that the liability should be held by the owner.

Kasese Distillers Ltd countered by stating that there is evidence of the prosecution of a tax fraud offense, and that it had raised this objection in the initial proceeding. However, the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge found this objection to be without merit, and when it appealed, the Commercial High Court overlooked this issue, it requests the Court of Appeal to overturn all previous judgments on the basis that the case should have been tried in criminal courts, but if it otherwise determines the issue, it shall declare the appeal unfounded due to New Kigali Business Services Ltd's failure to provide relevant and irrefutable evidence proving that Kasese Distillers Ltd performed a tax declaration for the goods in question.

In the judgment RCOMAA 00038/2019/CA rendered on 06/12/2019, the Court of Appeal determined that the filed claim was not of a criminal nature, dismissing the objection raised by Kasese Distillers Ltd on these grounds. In terms of the merits of the case, the Court observed that New Kigali Business Services Ltd failed to provide evidence regarding the circumstances in which Kasese Distillers Ltd had provided it with the Certificate of

## Page 500

154 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Origin, Commercial Invoice and Bill of Lading upon which they relied. Furthermore, the information regarding Kasese Distillers Ltd on these documents did not align with their actual particulars. Additionally, Rutagengwa Emmanuel, the chairperson of New Kigali Business Services Ltd, testified that six months had passed without performing tax declarations on behalf of Kasese Distillers Ltd. As a result, the Court of Appeal concluded that the appeal brought by New Kigali Business Services Ltd lacked merit, and it upheld the decision of the appealed judgment.

On 05/01/2020, New Kigali Business Services Ltd submitted a letter to the President of the Supreme Court, requesting a review of the case RCOMAA 00038/2019/CA, which was rendered by the Court of Appeal on 06/12/2019, citing grounds of injustice. Per Order no 261/CJ/2020 issued on 18/05/2020, the President of the Supreme Court examined the application and directed its transfer to the court registry for being re-adjudicated.

The public hearing was held on 12/01/2021, 15/03/2021 and 12/10/2021. New Kigali Business Services Ltd was represented by Counsel Ngirumpetse Jean Marie Vianney, while Kasese Distillers Ltd was represented by Counsel Butare Emmanuel and Counsel Nsengiyumva Abel.

The Court initially addressed the objection of inadmissibility raised by Kasese Distillers Ltd which contended that the commercial courts lacked competence to hear the case on the basis that the filed claim constituted a criminal action.

On 12/01/2021, the Court deliberated in the bench and determined that the objection had already been raised before the Court of Appeal and that the Court of Appeal had made a decision

## Page 501

155 NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES LTD v. KASESE DISTILLERS LTD

on it, Kasese Distillers Ltd did not express any dissatisfaction abaout it. In light of the position taken by the present Court in the judgment Prime Insurance Ltd vs Kansiime James,2 which held that a litigant is not permitted to take advantage of the application for review based on injustice filed by another for challenging a judgment of which he/she was satisfied, this Court finds the objection to be without merit. It then proceeded to resume the hearing by examining the issues related to the merits of the case. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES 1. Whether Kasese Distillers Ltd should be held liable for the taxes and fines imposed on New Kigali Business Services Ltd

Counsel Ngirumpetse Jean Marie Vianney, representing New Kigali Business Services Ltd, argues that the injustice they have suffered is linked to the disregard of the elements of evidence included in the case file, which indicate the existence of the goods imported by Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda) and the fact that it entrusted New Kigali Business Services Ltd with the duty of performing tax declaration. He explains that both companies entered into undertakings for the first time in the year 2015, as evidenced by the tax declarations found in the case file. Kasese Distillers Ltd used to issue to it a bond for the purpose of effecting tax declaration. Subsequently, it would be provided with a bill of lading to establish an invoice (including an Electronic Billing Machine (EBM) invoice and an ordinary one). In the event that the tax due exceeds 500,000 Frw, the payment would be made by check. He states that for such undertakings, a written contract was not necessarily required. Instead, in most cases, they were based

2 Judgment RS/INJUST/RCOM 00005/2018/SC rendered on 12/06/2020, para 41.

## Page 502

156 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

on trust with documents being exchanged in person while Kasese Distillers Ltd retained the original copies of the documents they provided.

He states that the registration certificate, bill of lading, packing list, commercial invoice, certificate of origin and the list of lorry drivers from Freight World Ltd who transported the goods all serve as evidence that goods were indeed ordered using the particulars and TIN (Tax Identification Number) 102959519 of Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda). He explains that the original documents of the goods were handed to Byekwaso Rogers, the owner of Kasese Distillers Ltd (Uganda). Byekwaso Rogers then passed them to Ruzindana Hassan, who was responsible for finding a tax declaration agent for Kasese Distillers Ltd in Kigali. Ruzindana Hassan, in turn, remitted the documents to New Kigali Business Services Ltd. This can be supported by the emails they exchanged and the documents that Byekwaso Rogers handed to the drivers of Freight World Ltd, who transported the goods.

He adds that Byekwaso Rogers, the owner of Kasese Distillers Ltd (Uganda) and the mother company to Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda), filed a claim at the police station in Nyakato (Mwanza), Tanzania, stating that his goods were stolen. Furthermore, Byekwaso Rogers sent an email to Rutayisire Emmanuel, the Managing Director of Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda), informing him about the theft of the goods. Rutayisire Emmanuel then forwarded the email to New Kigali Business Services Ltd. Additionally, there are correspondence records from the Rwanda Revenue Authority sent to Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda), notifying them of tax fraud. The tax was imposed on New Kigali Business Services Ltd, as they were the guarantor in this situation. They conclude that all these elements of evidence

## Page 503

157 NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES LTD v. KASESE DISTILLERS LTD

were disregarded by the courts, despite clearly proving the existence of the goods belonging to Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda) and the fact that New Kigali Business Services Ltd was entrusted with the responsibility of handling tax declarations on their behalf. This is why they appeal for justice to be rectified and for the Court to hold that it is the owner of the goods who should be held liable for the taxes and fines.

Rutayisire Emmanuel, the Managing Director of Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda), declares that this company has belonged to him personally since 2014. He further clarifies that Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda) has no affiliation with Kasese Distillers Ltd (Uganda), operates solely in Kigali, and did not place any orders for goods from abroad on 13/06/2016. He states that he learned about such goods and the fact that New Kigali Business Services Ltd carried out the tax declaration for them for the first time on 30/06/2016, as informed by Murekatete Sonia, an employee of New Kigali Business Services Ltd. He wonders how he could have been unaware that he placed an order for the goods and, at the same time, how the original importation documents and those of the Rwanda Revenue Authority were handed over to tax declaration agents without his knowledge.

He states that a long time ago, Murekatete Sonia asked him for the telephone number of Byekwaso Rogers and she informed him that the goods belonged to him and were stolen. Meanwhile, Rutagengwa Emmanuel, the Managing Director of New Kigali Business Services Ltd, told him that fraudsters manipulated his employee to create documents that facilitated the transfer of such goods to Rwanda. He argues that since he knew that Byekwaso Rogers used to commit tax fraud, he has been cautious and started to record conversations with Murekatete Sonia. Therefore, he

## Page 504

158 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

believes that the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeal did not result in injustice.

Counsel Butare Emmanuel and Counsel Nsengiyumva Abel, representing Kasese Distillers Ltd, state that New Kigali Business Services Ltd was instructed to provide evidence that they were entrusted with the consultancy. However, the only documents provided by New Kigali Business Services Ltd were the Certificate of Origin and the Bill of Lading, which are unknown to Kasese Distillers Ltd and not recorded in their records. Additionally, when asked about the destination of the goods, they replied that the goods were transferred to Kasese Distillers Ltd in Uganda. They explain that the fact that New Kigali Business Services Ltd had previously engaged in undertakings with Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda) does not serve as evidence to prove that in the year 2016, New Kigali Business Services Ltd was entrusted with the duty of making tax declarations for their goods. They argue that Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda) could not have imported goods on 13/06/2016 because they were under provisional suspension by the Rwanda Bureau of Standards (RBS). Furthermore, even for the goods that were imported before the suspension, they had to request authorization to enter the country, and upon arrival, the RBS locked the goods in the warehouse due to the absence of the necessary authorization.

They argue that when Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda) was authorized to resume operations, they began with the spirits that were still in store and reimported goods on 24/04/2017. In response to the allegations made by New Kigali Business Services Ltd, which claim the existence of emails establishing a connection between Byekwaso Rogers and Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda), as well as the determination by Rwanda Revenue Authority that

## Page 505

159 NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES LTD v. KASESE DISTILLERS LTD

the goods belonged to Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda) due to being ordered under their particulars and using their Tax Identification Number (TIN), they argue that these claims should not be given any merit. This is because the emails and Bill of Lading do not mention Byekwaso Rogers or Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda). Furthermore, Murekatete Sonia, an employee of New Kigali Business Services Ltd, expressed her belief that Byekwaso Rogers is also the owner of Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda). They state that their company learned about the missing goods when New Kigali Business Services Ltd informed them two weeks after the theft occurred. They also mention that they are unaware of how New Kigali Business Services Ltd obtained the document they are relying on since it was not provided by Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda) themselves. Therefore, they argue that they should not be held liable for the intended tax fraud allegedly conducted by Kasese Distillers Ltd (Uganda), as there is no affiliation between them as a branch or shareholder. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 9 of the Law n° 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production provides that an evidence based on a legal issue or on fact can be proved by the use of written evidence, testimony, presumption or circumstancial evidence, admission of a party or any other material evidence.

Article 75 of the Law no 45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts provides that the usage of trade shall be determined by the nature of the trade. If a usage is embodied in the trade code or any similar writing, the interpretation shall be done by the court in accordance with the law.

## Page 506

160 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Upon a concurrent reading of these provisions of the law and considering the nature of commercial claims, it is suggested that commercial activities do not necessarily require written evidence alone, instead, they can be proven through various means of evidence, such as correspondences exchanged between the parties, invoices, registries, books of accounts, testimony or material evidence. In addition, the Court, at its own discretion, assesses whether the documents presented as evidence in commercial cases are relevant and applicable to the nature of the case.

Regarding the substance of the documents relied upon in commercial cases or the weight of the documents submitted as evidence in such cases (probative value), the Court clarified this matter in the case of ROCK GLOBAL CONSULTING Ltd vs IMPACT DISTRIBUTORS EAST AFRICA Ltd. In that case, the Court stated that determining whether there have been undertakings between traders does not necessarily require the presentation of irrefutable evidence. Instead, it takes into account the usual collaboration among traders, followed by an examination of the value to be attributed to the elements of evidence submitted to the court.3

The Court finds that the principle that the hierarchy of elements of evidence does not apply in commercial cases is consistent with the stance taken by courts in other jurisdictions. For instance, in the case of Unidare Plc v Cohen and Another, the High Court of Wales and England, it was established that when documents were provided indicating how commercial activities were managed, and if it is proven that such activities did indeed

3 See the judgment RCOMA0041/13/CS rendered by the Court of Appeal on March 3, 2016, from paragraph 8 to paragraph 12.

## Page 507

161 NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES LTD v. KASESE DISTILLERS LTD

occur in that manner, the court should accept that the presentation aligns with the actual occurrence.4 This viewpoint is also echoed by legal scholars in commercial law, as they assert that the fact that evidence can be based on any mode implies that it is not always necessary to present the original document being invoked as evidence.5

Based on the principles governing evidence in commercial matters above explained, the Court finds that since the litigants concur that they used to engage in undertakings, which is also proved by tax declaration documents filed in the dossier, the absence of written undertakings agreement between New Kigali Business Services Ltd and Kasese Distillers Ltd, is not enough to negate that such undertakings occurred between those companies.

Regarding Kasese Distillers Ltd's assertion that the evidence indicating that they did not entrust New Kigali Business Services Ltd with the duty of making tax declarations for goods is based on the mention of an operating location in Nyagatare, while their registered address is in Nyarugenge, the Court notes the following:The mentioned operating location in Nyagatare was declared by Rutayisire Emmanuel, the owner of Kasese Distillers Ltd, during the company's registration with the Rwanda Development Board (RDB). Despite this discrepancy, the

4 When parties to a transaction involving the execution of multiple documents intend them to be executed in a particular order which is necessary to give effect to the intended transaction, the Court should be ready to presume that they were executed in the correct order to give effect to the transaction. See Unidare Plc v Cohen and Dermot Power [2006] Ch 489, para 19. 5 La liberté de preuves à l’égard des commerçants exclut … la formalité du double original. See Memento Expert, Baux Commerciaux 2015-2016, Francis Lefebvre, Levallois, 2015, verbo 19105. See also Georges Decocq et Aurélie Ballot-Léna, Droit Commercial, Paris, Dalloz, 2015, pp. 84-85.

## Page 508

162 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

company continued to use the registered address for importing goods. This is supported by various documents found in the case file, including: - Full registration for foreign company and Certificate of foreign company registration. - The Shares Sale Agreement of Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda), established on 17/11/2014, indicating that the company was purchased by Rutayisire Emmanuel, with an address in Nyagatare District, Rwempasha Sector. - The document known as the Certificate of Origin, established by Super Spirits PvT Ltd on 06/05/2016, and the Bill of Lading issued by Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A on 22/05/2016, indicate that the purchaser of the goods mentioned in those documents, and the intended recipient, is Kasese Distillers Ltd, located in Eastern Province, Nyagatare, Kigali, Rwanda.

The Court also finds that among the elements of evidence presented by Kasese Distillers Ltd, its failure to indicate the existence of another company with the same name operating in Nyagatare, Eastern Province, Rwanda, which would have resulted in them being incorrectly charged for the duties of that other company, serve as an indication that their claims of not being the company that imported the goods in question lack merit. [29] In addition, concerning the statements made by Kasese Distillers Ltd claiming that they did not import any goods from abroad in 2016, the Court finds that these statements are not accurate for the following reasons:

## Page 509

163 NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES LTD v. KASESE DISTILLERS LTD

- There is a document in the case file called the "Batch Certificate of Analysis," issued by Superior Spirits Pvt Ltd on 06/05/2016. This document indicates the purchase of 198,000 liters of Ethyl Alcohol (Extra neutral Alcohol) AT Min 96%. The alcohol was loaded into six containers, as described below: MEDU 8229568, MEDU 8532194, MEDU 8795502, MEDU 8883007, GLDU 7375930 and MESU 8533288. The factory also issued another document called the "Certificate of Origin" on 06/05/2016. This document states that the owner is Kasese Distillers Ltd, located in Eastern Province, Nyagatare, Kigali, Rwanda. It further indicates that the goods originated from Ludhiana, India, and were intended to transit through Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania, en route to Rwanda. - Furthermore, the case file includes the Bill of Lading issued on 22/05/2016, which specifically identifies the aforementioned containers and confirms that they belong to Kasese Distillers Ltd, located in Eastern Province, Nyagatare, Kigali, Rwanda. It also states that the goods were transferred to Rwanda, the country of final destination. This information is further supported by Freight World, which subsequently sent such documents to Kasese Distillers Ltd on 30/05/2016 and 01/06/2016. Additionally, the document was later sent to Rutayisire Emmanuel via email on 13/08/2016.

The Court also finds that on 28/06/2016, Freight World, the Company responsible for transporting the goods to Kigali, informed New Kigali Business Services Ltd that the goods had been unloaded midway, and the trucks had turned back to Dar-Es- Salaam. They requested New Kigali Business Services Ltd to

## Page 510

164 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

follow up on the matter by contacting Byekwaso Rogers, as he was in Kigali at the time. It is also evident that on 03/08/2016, the Head of Nyakato Police Station in Tanzania wrote a letter to Kasese Distillers Ltd in Kigali, Rwanda, informing them that the following containers: MEDU 8229568, MEDU 8532194, MEDU 8795502, MEDU 8883007, GLDU 7375930, and MESU 8533288, which were heading to Kigali, had been stolen. The correspondence indicated that an investigation was underway and the stolen goods were registered under the name of Rogers S/O Byekwaso.Furthermore, on 07/10/2016, Byekwaso Rogers wrote to Rutayisire Emmanuel, the Managing Director of Kasese Distillers Ltd, requesting him to immediately notify him if the summon issued by the Court of Mwanza in Tanzania, which was handling the theft case, becomes available (Please let me know as soon as you recover (sic) it). On 27/10/2016, Byekwaso Rogers wrote to him again and also sent the summon issued by the court to New Kigali Business Services Ltd.

The Court finds that the containers referred to by the Nyakato Police Station, which were reported missing, are the same containers mentioned on the Bill of Lading, Certificate of Origin, and Batch Certificate of Analysis, and were intended for Kasese Distillers Ltd, as mentioned previously. When the goods were unloaded midway, Rutayisire Emmanuel, the owner of Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda), was notified of the situation and actively sought to locate them. Therefore, it is perplexing that he claims that his company has no connection to these goods when he demonstrated such concern and took active measures, involving the police and courts in Tanzania, to search for and recover them.

The Court also finds that the allegations made by Kasese Distillers Ltd, claiming that they could not have imported the

## Page 511

165 NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES LTD v. KASESE DISTILLERS LTD

goods before 08/09/2016 due to their suspension by Rwanda Bureau of Standards and the prohibition on importing spirits from abroad, should not be given merit. This is because, despite being prohibited on 28/09/2015 from importing other spirits until resolving the issue related to packaging alcohol in plastic bottles, Kasese Distillers Ltd violated this decision, as evidenced by the proofs presented earlier. Rutayisire Emmanuel, the owner of Kasese Distillers Ltd, admitted this fact during a conversation he had with Murekatete Sonia, as demonstrated by the audio recordings submitted in the case file.

Regarding the issue of who should be held liable for taxes, the Court finds that the Commissioner for Customs made a decision with reference number 1776/RRA/CCS/OAU/2016. In this decision, New Kigali Business Services Ltd was notified that as they had guaranteed the goods for which they made tax declarations and subsequently went missing midway, they were responsible for paying the withholding tax amounting to 57,894,334 Frw and a fine of 94,270,996 Frw. This decision was made based on Section 147 of the East African Community Customs Management Act, 2004. According to this section, when certain faults are committed that prevent the goods from reaching their intended destination, an agent who handles tax declarations is considered the owner of the goods and is personally responsible for paying any duties applicable to the goods6. Therefore, since it has not been proven that the goods were stolen in order to qualify

6 A duly authorized agent who performs any act on behalf of the owner of any goods shall, for the purpose of this act, be deemed to be the owner of such goods, and shall accordingly, be personally liable for the payment of any duties to which the goods are liable and for the performance of all acts in respect of the goods which the owner is required to perform under this Act: Provided that nothing herein contained shall relieve the owner of such goods from such liability.

## Page 512

166 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

for a refund of the paid duties, as stated in Section 144 of the mentioned Act,7 an agent who handled tax declarations is personally liable for the consequences arising from the fact that the goods did not reach Rwanda.

The Court finds that New Kigali Business Services Ltd was indeed subject to tax and fines on the goods belonging to Kasese Distillers Ltd, despite Kasese Distillers Ltd's claim of never importing the goods, all the presented elements of evidence mentioned above demonstrate that it was indeed the company that imported them. Furthermore, Kasese Distillers Ltd has failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its assertion that the goods were actually stolen, as outlined in Section 144 of the East African Community Customs Management Act, 2004, which was referenced to earlier. For these reasons, Kasese Distillers Ltd is liable for the taxes and fines, as stated in Section 148 of the East African Community Customs Management Act, 2004. This section specifies that if the agent responsible for tax declaration on behalf of the owner of the goods did not commit any fault in the performance of their duties, the owner of the goods who authorized the agent to make the tax declaration shall be held liable for the actions and declarations of the authorized agent.8

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Kasese Distillers Ltd is responsible for paying the tax amounting to 57,894,334 Frw and the fine of 94,270,996 Frw, totaling

7 (1) Subject to any regulations, the Commissioner shall refund any customs duty paid on the importation of the goods- a) Of any import duty, or part thereof which has been paid in respect of goods which have been … pillaged during the voyage… 8 An owner of any goods who authorizes an agent to act for him or her in relation to such goods for any of the purposes of this Act shall be liable for acts and declarations of such duly authorized agent …”

## Page 513

167 NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES LTD v. KASESE DISTILLERS LTD

152,165,330 Frw, which were imposed on New Kigali Business Services Ltd. This is because Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda) failed to provide sufficient evidence to explain why the goods did not reach Rwanda. 2. Whether Rwanda Revenue Authority should have been awarded counsel fees despite even if it was not a party to the case

Counsel Ngirumpetse Jean Marie Vianney, representing New Kigali Business Services Ltd, argues that his client should not have been ordered to pay the counsel fees awarded to Rwanda Revenue Authority, as this institution was not a party to the case. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 111 of the Law n° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that “the claim for representation fees is an incidental claim to the principal claim aiming to repay expenses incurred during judicial proceedings. The claim for legal costs is adjudicated at the same time with the principal claim. It can also be admitted and adjudicated even if the principal claim has not been admitted.” Following the provisions of this article, the person likely to be awarded the procedural fee is the one who was involved as a party in the case and can claim the expenses incurred for case follow-up, including counsel fees.

The Court finds that, despite the presence of judgment RCOM 00492/2017/TC/NYGE dated 15/09/2017 in the case file, in which the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge ordered to New Kigali Business Services Ltd to pay 500,000 Frw as counsel fees to Rwanda Revenue Authority, this suggests that the

## Page 514

168 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

aforementioned judgment is distinct from the judgment RCOM 02196/2017/TC/NYGE rendered by the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge on 10/05/2018, which is the basis of the claim before the Supreme Court. Notably, Rwanda Revenue Authority was not involved as a respondent in the latter case.

The Court finds that the order for New Kigali Business Services Ltd to pay counsel fees to Rwanda Revenue Authority, even if the latter was not a party to the case, was a mistake. Therefore, the counsel fees awarded to Rwanda Revenue Authority in the case RCOM 02196/2017/NYGE should be nullified. 3. Whether the requested damages are justified

Counsel Ngirumpetse Jean Marie Vianney argues that the fact that Kasese Distillers Ltd failed to bring the declared goods into Rwanda, resulted in prejudice and financial loss for his client, New Kigali Business Services Ltd. The specific damages are as follows: - It lost the trust of the supervising public institution. - It incurred a loss of expected income as it was suspended from 28/06/2016 to date. - It incurred expenses for defending its rights before government institutions and courts.

He argues that, for these reasons, he requests to the Court to order to Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda) to pay to New Kigali Business Services Ltd moral damages amounting to 50,000,000 Frw, 3,000,000 Frw for procedural and counsel fees, and to reimburse them 140,000 Frw for court fees.

## Page 515

169 NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES LTD v. KASESE DISTILLERS LTD

Counsel BUTARE Emmanuel and Counsel NSENGIYUMVA Abel, representing Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda), submit that the goods mentioned in this case do not belong to Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda) and that the company has never authorized New Kigali Business Services Ltd to make tax declarations on its behalf. Therefore, they contend that Kasese Distillers Ltd should not be held liable for any wrongdoing in this matter. They explain that Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda) has been unnecessarily involved in multiple legal proceedings, and therefore, they request to be awarded counsel fees amounting to 3,000,000 Frw as stipulated in the contract between the company and its legal counsel. Additionally, they request 1,000,000 Frw as procedural fees. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 111 of the Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, provide that “The claim for representation fees is an incidental claim to the principal claim aiming to repay expenses incurred during judicial proceedings. The claim for legal costs is adjudicated at the same time with the principal claim. It can also be admitted and adjudicated even if theprincipal claim has not been admitted”.

The Court finds that the counsel and procedural fees requested by New Kigali Business Services Ltd should be awarded, as it was necessary to diligently pursue the case and engage legal representation. However, since it has not been specified how the amount of 3,000,000 Frw represents the actual expenses incurred, the Court awards a discretionary amount of

## Page 516

170 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

500,000 Frw as counsel fees and 300,000 Frw as procedural fees, resulting in a total amount of 800,000 Frw.

Regarding the claim for moral damages made by Kigali Business Services, the Court finds that this is not the first instance where such an issue has been adjudicated. In the case of Bralirwa Ltd v. Kazigaba André and co-respondents, Bralirwa Ltd also sought moral damages based on various allegations, including the intention to cause difficulties and contempt towards them. The Supreme Court found that the requested damages lack merit because damages of such nature are determined based on the emotional distress experienced by an individual (natural person). Therefore, as a legal entity, Kigali Business Services Ltd cannot experience such emotional distress.9

The Court observes, however, that courts in foreign jurisdictions have taken a stance on this matter. For instance, the case between Jafa and La Pizzeria, both companies from France, serves as an example. The Court of Cassation in France found that the Court of Appeal of Pau erred by dismissing the claim for moral damages made by those companies. It held that the judgment in this regard is overturned, and the case is remanded for being re- adjudicated10 .In contrast, in the case between Metropolitan

9 See the judgment RCOMAA 0015/14/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 23/06/2017, paragraph 39. 10 Attendu que pour rejeter les demandes de la sosciété La Pizzeria et de la société Jafa au titre du préjudice moral, l’arrȇt retient que s’agissant des sociétés elles ne peuvent prétendre à un quelconque préjudice moral; …Casse et Annule, mais seulement en ce qu’il a rejeté les demandes des sociétés La Pizzeria et Jafa au titre du préjudice moral, l’arrȇt rendu le 12 juillet 2010, … remet en conséquence, sur ce point, la cause et les parties dans l’état ou elles se trouvaient avant ledit arrȇt… See the judgment Com. 15 mai 2012, no 11-10-278 Bulletin Civil IV n° 101.

## Page 517

171 NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES LTD v. KASESE DISTILLERS LTD

International Schools Limited and Designtechnica Corporation, Google UK Ltd, and Google Inc, the High Court of England recognized that the defamatory statements made by Designtechnica Corporation, alleging scam and theft in relation to distance learning offered by Metropolitan International Schools Limited, resulted in the defamation of the latter and discouraged potential students from enrolling. Consequently, the Court awarded moral damages amounting to £50,000.11

The Court also acknowledges that the European Court of Human Rights reaffirmed this principle in the case between Comingersoll S.A. and Portugal. It stated that it is not appropriate to establish a general rule that companies cannot be awarded moral damages without considering the specific circumstances of each case. They explained that the purpose of awarding moral damages is to restore the reputation that the company has lost, and such restoration cannot be easily quantified in monetary terms.12

The Court finds that the position referenced by the Supreme Court in the case between Bralirwa Ltd and Kazigaba André and co-respondents, taking into account scholarly

11 Metropolitan Internationa Schools Ltd v Designtechnica Corporation, Google UK Ltd na Google Inc, [2010] EWHC 2411 (QB) 35. 12 On ne doit pas) écarter de manière générale la possibilité d’octroyer une réparation pour le prejudice moral allégué par les personnes morales; cela dépend des circonstances de chaque espèce… Le préjudice autre que matériel peut en effet comporter, pour une telle société, des éléments plus au moins objectifs et subjectifs. Parmi ces éléments, il faut réconnaitre la réputation de l’entreprise, mais également l’incertitude dans la planification des décisions à prendre, les troubles causés à la gestion de l’entreprise elle-mȇme, dont les conséquences ne se pretent pas à un calcul exact… See Comingersoll S.A. Portugal, CEDH, 6 Avril 2000, para 32-37.

## Page 518

172 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

writings13 , is consistent with the stance upheld by courts in other countries. Furthermore, recent scholarly writings in the field of civil law have deemed this position as outdated. Among the scholars is Véronique Wester Ouisse, who argues that it should not be denied that a company can seek moral damages. Just like natural persons, a company's honor and reputation in the eyes of the public can be affected, which can have implications for their overall situation. Therefore, the consideration of moral damages should not be limited solely to commercial activities. However, she explains that a company seeking moral damages should first demonstrate the harm it has suffered.14

In addition, Philippe Le Tourneau states that although the concept of moral damages in relation to companies may come as a surprise, it is possible for significant aspects of a company to be harmed without any direct connection to its commercial interests or property. He cites instances such as a taxpayer making false accusations against the tax administration, claiming that forged documents were used during the tax assessment process, or a commercial company's trademark being used in an exaggerated

13www.business.leschos.fr/entrepreneurs/juridique/10021714-prejudice- moral-d’une societe 34118?pJiLTS CoGVKQ 14 Au vrai, nul ne disconvient qu’une société commerciale puisse subir un dommage moral, au sens d’une atteinte à la personnalité sociale qu’elle a pu se forger aux yeux du public: la considération, la réputation voire l’honneur ne sont pas propres aux personnes physiques. Mais une société ne devrait pas pouvoir entirer réparation que si un préjudice en résulte. Or, pour admettre qu’elle puisse subir un préjudice moral, il faudrait reconnaitre que son image, son crédit, sa réputation lui servent à autre chose qu’à développer l’activité commerciale qui borne son objet social et donc sa personnalité juridique. See Véronique Wester-Ouisse, Le préjudice moral des personnes morales: quand la perversion de la cité commence par la fraude des mots, JCP, G n° 39,24 Septembre 2012.

## Page 519

173 NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES LTD v. KASESE DISTILLERS LTD

manner in obscene videos15 . Philippe Malaurie, Laurent Aynès, and Philippe Stoffel-Munck also state that while the concept of moral damages for companies differs from that of natural persons, courts have ruled that companies are entitled to be awarded moral damages. This is because companies can suffer harm to their honor or reputation.16

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the possibility of awarding moral damages to companies has became an established principle in civil liability law. Nonetheless, such damages are intended to address liability based on the public's perception of the company's reputation or to restore the honor of the company that has been lost as a result of defamation. This leads to the understanding that a company (k) should not seek moral damages for experiencing distress, physical injury, moral hurt, or humiliation, as these are experiences that are particularly

15 Il peut sembler étrange d’étendre aux personnes morales la notion de préjudice extrapatrimonial…Mais il arrive qu’un dommage véritablement extrapatrimonial soit en cause, en ce sens que le fait dommageable atteint un intérȇt qui ne participe pas du patrimoine de la personne, au sens juridique du terme. Il en va ainsi quand sont atteints certains traits d’une personne morale qui participent de son essence et fondent ainsi son identité foncière, sa personnalité au sens social du terme, si tant qu’elle en ai une… Voici des exemples de préjudice moral, en liaison ou non avec une atteinte à la réputation: ● de l’administration des douanes, pour une inscription de faux faite à tort par un contrevenant contre un procès verbal, …● d’une société, dont la marque a été utilisée de façon massive dans un film pornographique, …Reba Philippe Le Tourneau, Droit de la responsabilité et des contrats: Régimes d’Indemnisation, Paris, Dalloz, 2014, 2014, pp.664-665. 16 Les tribunaux admettent la réparation du préjudice moral éprouvé par les personnes morales, bien que ce préjuduce soit différent de celui que subissent les personnes physiques. Il s’agit d’une atteinte à leur patrimoine moral, par exemple leur honneur, …ou leur réputation…Philippe Malaurie, Laurent Aynès na Philippe Stoffel-Munck, Droit des obligations, Paris, LDGJ, 2015, p.126.

## Page 520

174 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

associated with natural persons (c). In addition, a company cannot be awarded moral damages without first providing evidence of the harm it has suffered.

The Court also finds that damages awarded to a company are intended solely to restore the honor and reputation it has lost. Therefore, when determining the amount of damages, the Court is required to exercise caution and common sense to avoid both inadequate awards that would be insufficient and excessive awards that would be mistaken for pecuniary damages or compensation for financial losses suffered by the company.

The Court finds that based on the aforementioned reasons, the moral damages requested by New Kigali Business Services Ltd from Kasese Distillers Ltd should be awarded. The reputation of New Kigali Business Services Ltd was tarnished in the eyes of the public and Rwanda Revenue Authority, resulting in penalties and removal from the server of tax declaration agents. These negative consequences were a direct result of the actions of Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda) in unloading its goods midway after they had been declared for tax purposes in Rwanda. Nonetheless, since the requested amount of fifty million (50,000,000Frw) is excessively high, the Court, in its discretion, finds that one million (1,000,000Frw) should be awarded instead.

Regarding the request for reimbursement of 140,000Frw as court fees by New Kigali Business Services Ltd, the Court finds that there have been changes in court fees since the beginning of the case17 . In his court submissions, Counsel Ngirumpetse Jean

See the Ministerial order nº 002/08.11 of 11/02/2014 oncourt fees in civil, commercial, social and administrative matters replaced by Ministerial order

## Page 521

175 NEW KIGALI BUSINESS SERVICES LTD v. KASESE DISTILLERS LTD

Marie Vianney does not demonstrate how he arrived at the amount of 140,000Frw, and he did not provide any evidence in the file to support his claim. Therefore, the Court has no basis to award this amount to his client.

Regarding the counsel and procedural fees requested by Kasese Distillers Ltd (Rwanda), the Court finds that they should not be awarded, as Kasese Distillers Ltd did not win in this case. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Decides that the application for the review of the judgment RCOMAA 00038/2019/CA, rendered by the Court of Appeal on 06/12/2019, submitted by New Kigali Business Services Ltd due to injustice, has merit.

Decides tthe judgment RCOMAA 00038/2019/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 06/12/2019 is entirely overruled.

Decides that Kasese Distillers Ltd is liable for the payment of taxes and fines amounting to 152,165,330Frw, which were initially imposed on New Kigali Business Services Ltd.

Orders to Kasese Distillers Ltd to reimburse to New Kigali Business Services Ltd the amount of 152,165,330Frw, which represents the taxes and fines paid by New Kigali Business Services Ltd for the goods of Kasese Distillers Ltd.

n°133/MOJ/AG/18 of 04/06/2018 on court fees in civil, commercial, social and administrative matters.

## Page 522

176 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Orders to Kasese Distillers Ltd to pay to New Kigali Business Services Ltd the amount of 1,000,000Frw as moral damages.

Orders to Kasese Distillers Ltd to pay to New Kigali Business Services Ltd a total amount of eight hundred thousand (800,000Frw) consisting of five hundred thousand (500,000Frw) for counsel fees and three hundred thousand (300,000Frw) for procedural fees.

Holds that the five hundred thousand (500,000Frw) counsel fees ordered to be paid by New Kigali Business Services Ltd to Rwanda Revenue Authority in the judgment RCOM 02196/2017/TC/NYGE rendered by the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge on 10/05/2018 are hereby quashed.

## Page 523

177

MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/INJUST/RCOM 00014/2022/SC (Mukamulisa, P.J., Muhumuza and Karimunda, J.) March 31, 2023] Civil procedure – Responsibilities – Professional responsibilities – It is the bank client's responsibility to take care of the payment order book or any other means made available to him/her for making the payment, but this does not relieve the bank of its responsibility to exercise due diligence before making the payment. Civil procedure – Responsibilities – Professional responsibilities – A person's money deposited in the bank should not be withdrawn without the owner's permission. If the bank gives it to someone who is not entitled to it, it is considered that the money has not left the owner's account, in which case the bank is liable. Commercial law – Loan – The interest on arrears – Calculation of the interest on arrears – The interest on arrears is calculated at a compensation rate granted to the consumer of financial services, which may not be lower than the average interest rate on loans, but may not exceed the amount of the debt to be paid. Facts: This case started at the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge, where Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine sued Bank of Kigali (BK) Ltd, claiming that when she checked her accounts at that Bank, she found that on 12/08/2015, a person named Twajeneza Olivier withdrew 310,000 Frw from account number 00051-0609850-07, opened in Rwandan franc currency, and on 26/08/2015, Sinayobye

## Page 524

178 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Siméon withdrew 11,500 USD from account number 00040- 0294342-77, opened in USD currency. She claims that after her accounts were broken into, she asked BK Ltd to return the stolen money and dollars, but it refused, so she decided to seize the court. BK Ltd claims that it did not commit any error and that the claim by Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine is unfounded because she was responsible for safekeeping the payment order book given to her by the Bank, which the thieves used to withdraw the money and dollars, and that the Bank checked and found that the document used in the fraud was provided by the account holder herself. The Commercial Court of Nyarugenge noted that there was a case decided by the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge on 18 March 2016, in which Sinayobye Siméon was convicted of using forged documents when he withdrew USD 11,500 from the account no 00040-0294342-77 of Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine, as he himself admits; that the records of the investigation carried out in the criminal case show that the signature on the payment order used to withdraw the dollars was forged and that the Bank employee who helped Sinayobye Siméon was involved in the theft; that the Bank, as a professional, did not fulfil its obligations to protect deposited funds; but that there is no evidence that 310,000 Frw was withdrawn using forged cheques, so that Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine's claim is partially justified and she confirmed that BK Ltd should pay her 11,500 USD, in addition to 2,012 USD as financial damage caused by the Bank, calculated at a rate of 15%. BK Ltd appealed to the Commercial High Court, claiming that it should not be ordered to return to Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine the 11,500 USD that was withdrawn from her account, and that it should not be ordered to pay 15% interest, thus seeking compensation for being dragged into unncessary lawsuits.

## Page 525

179 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine submitted that the appeal of BK Ltd should not be admitted because the Nyarugenge Commercial Court, in its judgment RCOM 00860/2016/TC/NYGE of 21/10/2016, explained that the Bank, as a professional, failed to comply with its obligations to protect her account by allowing the withdrawal of 11,500 USD from her account. With regard to the interest calculated at 15%, the Commercial High Court found that BK Ltd was not liable for the theft committed on Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine's account, that the Bank was not concerned by such interest, and therefore ruled that BK Ltd's appeal was justified. Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine wrote to the Office of the Ombudsman requesting a review of the judgment RCOMA 00642/2016/CHC/HCC rendered by the Commercial High Court on grounds of injustice, stating that Sinayobye Siméon used her payment order book to withdraw money from her account, which he was not authorized to do by the owner, and that BK Plc was negligent as a professional, because it failed to discharge its responsibility of ensuring the security of the customer's account. Mugwaneza further states that in respect of 11,500 USD, she was awarded 15% interest in judgment RCOM 00860/2016/TC/NYGE, whereas commercial banks normally charge 18% interest, and she requests this Court to correct the error and therefore the interest awarded to her should be calculated at the rate used by regular banks with effect from 12/08/2015. She states that the interest due to her for the past seven years and four and a half months’ amounts to USD 15,266.25, but that she requests the Court to calculate this interest until the judgment is delivered; she also requests the return of 310,000 Frw that were

## Page 526

180 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

withdrawn from her account, together with its interest calculated at 18%. BK Plc submits that in the contract Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine entered into with the Bank, each party had an obligation to comply with, so they consider that the Bank should not be held responsible for the money because Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine was the one who failed in her responsibility to take care of the payment order book given to her by the Bank, therefore she must take full responsibility for what happened to her account. BK further states that it carried out an audit and found that the payment order document used for the withdrawal of USD 11, 500 passed through the machine designed for that purpose and it was confirmed that such an order document was issued and signed by Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine herself and that before the alleged dollars were withdrawn, the Bank called Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine and she issued a payment authorisation to the bearer of that order document. BK added that in the criminal case referred to by Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine, the Court has shown that the robber is Sinayobye Siméon, that she did not invoke any involvement of the Bank in the robbery of the dollars in question, therefore she asks this Court to confirm that the Bank is not responsible for the negligence of Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine, who failed in her duty to properly safeguard the payment order book issued to her. Held: 1. It is the bank client's responsibility to take care of the payment order book or any other means made available to him/her for making the payment, but this does not relieve the bank of its responsibility to exercise due diligence before making the payment.

## Page 527

181 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

2. A person's money deposited in the bank should not be touched without the owner's permission. If the bank gives it to someone who is not entitled to it, it is considered that the money has not left the owner's account, in which case the bank is liable. 3. The interest on arrears is calculated at a compensation rate granted to the consumer of financial services, which may not be lower than the average interest rate on loans, but may not exceed the amount of the debt to be paid. The application requesting the review of the judgment due to injustice has merit in part; Court fees deposited cover expenses incurred in this case. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law Nº 47/2017 of 23/9/2017 governing the organisation of banking, article 112; Regulation n°12/2017 of 23/11/2017 on credit classification and provisioning, article 8; Law n° 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedure (this article is referred to as articl 12 of the Law nº 01/2012 of 03/02/2012 modifying and complementing law n° 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures as modified and complemented to date), article 59; Regulation N°07/2010 of 27/12/2010 of the National Bank of Rwanda on electronic fund transfers and electronic money transactions, article 2. Cases referred to: Judgment RS/INJUST/RC 00012/2021/SC for Nsengiyumva v Ntagungira et al. rendered by the Supreme Court on 22/07/2022.

## Page 528

182 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

RS/INJUST/RCOM 00006/2022/SC; Banque Populaire du Rwanda Plc v Nyamasheke District rendered by the Supreme Court on 27/01/2023. RS/INJUST/RC 00024/2018/SC; Ngizweninshuti v Muhima rendered by the Supreme Court on 21/02/2020. RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2018/SC Nditiribambe v Gatera rendered by the Supreme Court on 13/03/2020 RS/INJUST/RC 00021/2022/SC; Mukagatare Régine et al. v SANLAM AG Plc rendered by the Supreme Court on 17/03/2022. RCOMA 0171/12/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 03/01/2014, paragraphs 16-20. RS/INJUST/RCOM 00001/2017/SC; Sebahizi Jules v Equity Bank Rwanda Ltd, rendered by the Supreme Court on 26/01/2018. Foreign cases referred to: Judgment Re (II ZR 185/85), (1987) E.C.C. 254 (1985). Judgment Stokes v. Commonwealth, 49 Va.App. 401 (2007). Judgment Central Nat. Bank of Richmond v. Bank of Richmond v. Bank..., 171 Va. 289 (1938). Judgment Cairo Banking Co. v West, 187 Ga. 666 (1939). Judgment Stokes v Commonwealth, 49 Va.App. 401 (2007). Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

This case started at the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge, where Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine sued Bank of Kigali (BK) Ltd, currently changed to Bank of Kigali Plc, hereinafter referred to as

## Page 529

183 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

BK Plc, claiming that when she checked her accounts at that Bank, she found that on 12/08/2015, a person named Twajeneza Olivier withdrew 310,000 Frw from her account number 00051-0609850- 07, opened in Rwandan franc currency, and on 26/08/2015, Sinayobye Siméon withdrew 11,500 USD from her another account number 00040-0294342-77, opened in USD currency. She claims that after her accounts were broken into, she asked BK Ltd to return the stolen money and dollars, but it refused, so she decided to seize the court.

BK Ltd claims that it did not commit any error and that the claim by Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine is unfounded because she was responsible for safekeeping the payment order book given to her by the Bank, which the thieves used to withdraw the Rwandan francs and dollars, and that the Bank checked and found that the document used in the fraud was provided by the account holder herself.

In the judgment RCOM 00860/2016/TC/NYGE rendered on 21/10/2016, Nyarugenge Commercial Court found that: i. There exists the judgment RP 0762/15/TGI/NYGE rendered by Nyarugenge Intermediate Court on 18/03/2016, in which Sinayobye Siméon was convicted of the crime of using forged documents when withdrawing 11,500 USD from the account nº 00040- 0294342-77 of Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine, as he himself admits it. ii. There are statements from the investigation carried out in the criminal case that indicate that the signature on the payment order used to withdraw the disputed dollars was not authentic (forged) and that the robbery was

## Page 530

184 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

carried out with the involvement of a Bank agent (employee) who helped Sinayobye Siméon; iii. The Bank, as a professional, failed to perform its duties of safeguarding the deposited funds; iv. There exists no evidence that the 310,000 Frw was withdrawn using a forged cheque.

The Court ruled that the claim filed by Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine has merit in part, and held that BK Ltd should return to her 11,500 USD, in addition to 2,012 USD as financial damage caused by the Bank , calculated at a rate of 15%, 1,000,000 Frw for the procedural and counsel fees as well 50,000 Frw for court fee she had allready deposited.

BK Ltd appealed to the Commercial High Court, claiming that it should not be ordered to return to Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine the 11,500 USD that was withdrawn from her account, and that it should not be ordered to pay 15% interest, thus seeking compensation for being dragged into unncessary lawsuits.

Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine submitted that the appeal of BK Ltd should not be admitted because the Nyarugenge Commercial Court, in its judgment RCOM 00860/2016/TC/NYGE of 21/10/2016, explained that the Bank, as a professional, failed to comply with its obligations to protect her account by allowing the withdrawal of 11,500 USD from her account.

In the judgment RCOMA 00642/2016/CHC/HCC rendered on 06/01/2017, the Commercial High Court found that: ‹Ǥ The fact that Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine admitted that her cheque books had been stolen, but did not inform BK

## Page 531

185 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

Ltd so that it could stop payment using such cheques, is her fault and the Bank should not be held liable for this, as per BK Ltd's General Conditions in the section on receipt books, where it is stated that the responsibility for protecting the payment order rests with its holder, and the latter is obliged to notify the Bank in the event that one of its pages/paper is stolen; ‹‹Ǥ The fact that the signature on the cheque used to withdraw the dollars was not found to be faulty means that the Bank was not negligent or complicit, as it is required to check before making a payment; ‹‹‹Ǥ There is no evidence that Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine's phone was taken out of service for three hours; ‹˜Ǥ Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine has been extremely negligent in putting her payment order book at the reach of the public, hence resulting in her suffering robbery; therefore, she bears herself the responsibility to sue Sinayobye Siméon who robbed her, especially since he admits to having done it.

On the issue of the interest calculated at a rate of 15%, the Commercial Court held that BK Ltd was not liable for the theft committed on Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine's account, so that the Bank was not liable for this interest, and held that BK Ltd's appeal was well-founded, that the judgment under appeal is reversed and that Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine should pay BK Ltd 500,000 Frw for the procedural fee and return to BK Ltd 75,000 Frw deposited as court fee.

## Page 532

186 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

On 22/12/2017, Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine wrote to the Office of the Ombudsman requesting for the review of the judgment RCOMA 00642/2016/CHC/HCC rendered by the Commercial High Court on 06/01/2017 for being vitiated by injustice. After examining that request, the Office of the Ombudsman wrote to the President of the Supreme Court requesting for the review of the said judgment. After examining the report of the Inspectorate General of Courts, the President of the Supreme Court issued a decision no. 158/CJ/2022 of 29 August 2002, ordering that the case be transferred to the registry of the Supreme Court for rehearing.

The case was heard in public on 20/02/2023, Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine being assisted by Counsel Bizumuremyi Isaac, and BK Plc represented by Counsel Rutagengwa Jean- Damascène.

The parties debated whether the Court should order BK Plc to return the USD 11,500 and 310,000 Frw withdrawn from Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine's accounts, to pay her the interest earned thereon, calculated at the rate of 18% per annum at which commercial banks normally make loans, and to determine whether any compensation should be awarded in this case. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES II.1. Whether BK Plc should return to Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine 11,500USD withdrawn from her account N° 00040- 0294342-77

Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine and her Counsel Bizumuremyi Isaac allege that Sinayobye Siméon used the

## Page 533

187 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

payment order book with the number AA21910409 to withdraw USD 11,500 from the account number 00040-0294342-77 without her authorisation. They allege that BK Plc, as a professional, failed in its responsibility to protect the security of the client's account because, if it had properly checked, it would have seen that the payment order used was signed by Twajeneza Olivier instead of Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine. They state that these dollars could not have been withdrawn without the involvement of a Bank employee working at the Gisimenti branch, which also shows that, in reaching its decision, the Commercial High Court ignored the statements referred to in the judgment no RP 0762/15/TGI/NYGE and the laws in force at the time, in particular articles 4821 and 493 2 of the Civil Code, Book III, making it impossible to confirm that the Bank was grossly negligent.

They state that Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine was abroad on the day the payment order was used at BK Plc, and this is confirmed by the bank's statement that they tried to contact her telephone number 0788308017, which she gave at BK Plc, and found that it was not available. Two days later, with the involvement of a Bank employee, the Bank called another number, 0785978930, given to them by Sinayobye Siméon, whose owner they did not know, as they later found out that it was registered to a person called Akayezu Delphine, who supposedly authorised them to withdraw the disputed dollars. They found that the Bank failed to indicate what had removed their suspicion after they

1 This article stipulated that “In general, a deposit is an act by which a person receives something from another, with the obligation to keep it and return it in kind”. 2This article stipulated that “The depositary must take the same care in the safekeeping of the thing deposited as he takes in the safekeeping of the things belonging to him”.

## Page 534

188 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

found that the phone number 0788308017 was unavailable because they could not prove that the phone number 0785978930 they had actually called was registered to Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine. And with regard to the phone number 0788867979, they claim that it was once registered to Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine, and she stopped using it after getting a new phone number 0788308017.

They claim that the Bank employee who works at the Gisimenti branch is the one who informed Sinaobye Siméon that there were dollars in Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine's account, this is why he went there to withdraw them instead of going to the BK Plc Nyamirambo branch where she opened the account. They argue that BK Plc's claim that it spent nine days searching for Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine before approving the payment order is not true because Sinayobye Siméon admitted that he was paid after only two days. They found that once the Bank became suspicious of the payment order and realised that the phone number provided by the account holder was not available, it did not have to rush to authorise the withdrawal of those dollars from the account. They therefore ask this Court to declare that BK Plc failed to protect what was deposited with it and is therefore liable to return to Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine what was stolen from her.

Counsel Rutagengwa Jean-Damascène, representing BK Plc, argues that once Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine opened an account and received a booklet (payment order booklet), she immediately had a responsibility to protect it in the same way she protects her cash at home. He submits that once the problem was known, the Bank carried out an audit and found that the payment order used to withdraw USD 11 500 had been checked on the

## Page 535

189 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

designated machine and it was confirmed that it belonged to Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine and that the signature on it was hers. He submits that the Bank waited nine days before withdrawing the dollars, then called Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine at 0785978930 and she authorised the bearer of the payment order to be paid.

He states that the dollars were transferred to Sinayobye Siméon's account on 26/08/2016, and he withdrew them on 27/08/2016. On the same day, two hours after the withdrawal of the dollars, Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine raised a question in BK Plc, saying that there were dollars withdrawn from her account, and having noticed this transaction while she was not registered in SMS banking, it is a clear indication that she was in contact with Sinayobye Siméon. He adds that this is also upheld by the statements of Niyoyita Cyprien, who confirms that he called Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine on 0788308017, informing her that she was going to be robbed on her account, but Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine, instead of informing the Bank or the Police, disconnected the phone number she had provided to the Bank. He also states that when the dollars were withdrawn, Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine was in Rwanda, as Sinayobye Siméon stated that he had received the payment order from the owner.

Counsel Rutagengwa Jean Damascène further argues that the Bank has no obligation to call the account holder before issuing payment to the person bearing the payment order signed by the owner, that the Bank called 0785978930 only because it was suspicious, and that this number used to belong to Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine before it was subjected to sim swap. He submits that the fact that the dollars were withdrawn from the Gisimenti Branch instead of Nyamirambo branch, in itself is not a problem because the customer is allowed to borrow from the

## Page 536

190 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

nearest branch and that the Bank employee who is accused of helping Sinayobye Siméon to steal those dollars was not revealed in order to be held liable.

He concludes by stating that, in the criminal judgment cited by Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine, the court identified the thief as Sinayobye Siméon, and the court did not implicate the bank in the theft of the contested dollars. Consequently, he urges this Court to declare that the Bank is not accountable for the negligence of Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine, who failed in her responsibilities to safeguard the payment order booklet issued to her. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 2 of the Regulation N°07/2010 of 27/12/2010 of the National Bank of Rwanda on electronic fund transfers and electronic money transactions into force in 2015 at the time the disputed dollars were withdrawn from the account of Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine, 3reads that “Payment order is a payment instruction by a sender to a receiving institution, transmitted orally, electronically, or in writing, to pay, or to cause another bank or payment service provider to pay, a fixed or determinable amount of money to a beneficiary.

The same article also reads that "Security procedure refers to a procedure established by agreement of a customer and a receiving institution for the purpose of:

3 The present Regulation was repealed by the Regulation n° 31 /2019 on protection of payment service users.

## Page 537

191 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

- Verifying that a payment order or communication amending or cancelling a payment order is that of the customer, or - Detecting error in the transmission or the content of the payment order or communication. A security procedure may require the use of algorithms or other codes, identifying words or numbers, encryption, call-back procedures, or similar security devices…”

The Regulation of 2005 of the Bank of Kigali Ltd on payment order provides that: (He (the customer) is also required to take great care of payment order booklet. The bank declines any liability for any damage arising from loss or removal of a form. Should this happen, the holder must urgently inform the bank in order to avoid any malpractice through the abusive use of a stolen or lost form.)

The case file contains the payment order (O.P) of Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine with 11,500 USD issued to Sinayobye Siméon on 14/08/2015. In the mentioned payment order, it is handwritten that Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine's phone number is 0788867979. When the payment order was received by the Bank on 17/08/2015, as evidenced by the bankslip dated 17/08/2015, the first employee to handle it sought approval from their superior to proceed with the payment of the specified dollars (requested derogation). The superior, upon review, identified Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine's phone number as 0788308017. The explicit instruction given to the bank employee was not to authorize the payment unless confirmation was obtained from the account holder (0788308017, do not force if the owner is not confirming). The bankslip also featured an additional message

## Page 538

192 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

stating, “We spoke to her on 0785978930. She confirmed the ID and OP”. The case file also includes another bankslip dated 26 August 2015, indicating that Sinayobye Siméon received 11,500 USD.

The case file also contains the letter dated 08/09/2015, in which Bank of Kigali Ltd wrote to Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine. In the communication, the Bank initially stated her phone number as 0788308017. The letter further clarified that the dollars were disbursed to Sinayobye Siméon in accordance with the law. This decision was based on the Bank's verification, which confirmed that the payment order used was the one issued to Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine, bearing her signature. Additionally, for security validation of the payment order, the Bank contacted her by phone, and she confirmed the payment of those dollars (As a further security check, the Bank called you and confirmed the payment to be effected, then the transaction was processed.)

The case file also contains the letter dated 10/09/2015, in which Bank of Kigali Ltd responded to her letter, wherein she requested the identity card of Sinayobye Siméon and proof that the Bank contacted her by phone and that she confirmed the payment to Sinayobye Siméon. The Bank reiterated on the letter's heading that Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine's phone number was 0788308017. Furthermore, the Bank clarified that the requested proof of her being contacted on the phone number 0785978930 before the payment of the disputed dollars should not be sought from the Bank. Instead, the Bank specified that this proof should only be provided by the company MTN (the proof you requested the bank to provide indicating that you were called on Mobile N° 0785978930: before paying the amount above can only be given by the telecommunication company MTN not the bank).

## Page 539

193 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

The Court finds that the issue for debate in the instant case is to determine whether the Bank failed in its responsibility to being vigilant, thus failing to protect the account and money of its customer, as a professional institution, so that it has to return to Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine 11,500 USD withdrawn from her account N° 00040-0294342-77.

The issue of the security of customers’ accounts and funds has been reiterated by this Court in various cases. In the case of I & M Bank Rwanda Plc v. Coffee Business Center (CBC) Ltd, this Court emphasized that, prior to making any payments, the bank is obligated to conduct a thorough examination to ensure that the submitted documents meet all necessary requirements. The bank's examination encompasses various aspects, including the nature of the document, the authenticity of its signature, the method of transfer, and whether it has been placed under the caveat. In the referenced case, the Court determined that the bank's assertion of having verified the document submitted to it before making the payment was deemed untrue, because, had the bank indeed conducted a proper verification, it would have detected that the signature on the document did not match that of the account holder.4

In the case of Sebahizi Jules v. Equity Bank Rwanda Ltd, the court found that the bank had withdrawn funds from the customer's account and transferred the amount to Singapore based on the e-mail indemnity and Diaspora Application for Funds Transfers filled in with a machine. The bank did not even bother to call the account holder, despite the agreement stipulating that the Diaspora Application for Funds Transfers would be filled in

4 See judgment RCOMA 0171/12/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 03/01/2014, paragraphs 16-20.

## Page 540

194 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

manually. Furthermore, the agreement explicitly stated that no dollars could be withdrawn from the account without prior communication via a telephone call for approval. In the court's findings, it was established that Equity Bank Rwanda Ltd admitted to not calling Sebahizi Jules before transferring the disputed dollars. This action was found to be in violation of the bank's regulations, as well as the general banking practices in Rwanda, which typically require banks to contact customers who have signed cheques for payment to others before executing the transfer”.5

The issue concerning the bank's duty to protect customers' accounts was underscored in the case II ZR 185/85 as determined by the Supreme Court of Germany (Bundesgerichtshof). This case involved a citizen whose cheque page was stolen, and the thief meticulously replicated his cheque. Subsequently, the imitated cheque was deposited with the bank, and payment was received by the thief. After the bank employee discovered that the withdrawal amount was significantly larger than what the account holder typically withdrew, and considering that the account holder had not contacted the bank to authorize the payment of the cheque as was customary, the bank employee sought approval for the payment from the branch manager. Subsequently, the branch manager granted approval for the payment. 6

In determining whether the bank was negligent in allowing the payment of the said cheque, the Court found that:

5 See judgment of Sebahizi Jules v. Equity Bank Rwanda Ltd, n° RS/INJUST/RCOM 00001/2017/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 26/01/2018, paragraph 26. 6 See judgment Re (II ZR 185/85), (1987) E.C.C. 254 (1985). 6 See judgment Re (II ZR 185/85), (1987) E.C.C. 254 (1985).

## Page 541

195 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

‹Ǥ A bank breaches its duty of discretion outlined in the agreement with its customer when it processes a cheque demanding payment of an amount significantly higher than the customer's usual check payments without verifying the authenticity of the cheque; ‹‹Ǥ A bank contravenes its duty of prudence when it honors a check without obtaining authorization from the customer, especially if, in previous instances, the customer had consistently initiated contact with the bank to approve withdrawals from their account before the transaction was executed; ‹‹‹Ǥ Even though the amount specified on a check may not always be the sole factor rendering the cheque suspicious, the fact that the cheque exceeds the usual payment amount by the customer is a significant consideration in cases of bank negligence. In such situations, the suspicion of potential bank failure and the bank's failure to fulfill its obligation to scrutinize and verify the cheque can outweigh the mere fact that the cheque is written for a substantial sum.7

7 “A bank is in breach of its duty of care under its contract with its customer if, on presentation of an unusually large cheque payable to cash, albeit one which would still leave a sizeable credit balance in the account, it does not make inquiries as to the genuineness of the cheque… A bank which is presented with a cheque which appears genuine on the face of it but is made out for a sum many times higher than the customer would normally write such cheques for,

## Page 542

196 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

In that particular case, the German Supreme Court determined that when a bank observes a cheque written for an amount surpassing the customer's typical withdrawal or payment pattern, it should promptly consider the possibility that the cheque is being employed for illicit purposes. Consequently, the court held that the bank is obligated to promptly request clarification regarding the legitimacy of such a cheque. The court found that this crucial step was not taken, which could potentially jeopardize many customers. Therefore, the Court of Appeal was justified in its decision, asserting that the bank had a responsibility to contact the account holder before processing the cheque to verify the authenticity of the transaction and ensure that it was indeed the person who issued the cheque.8

and where the customer on earlier occasions when large amounts were drawn had telephoned the bank to authorise it to pay to a named bearer, the bank's natural suspicions regarding the cheque should be aroused. It is settled case law that, although a cheque made out for a large amount is not in itself suspicious, the question whether a cheque is for an unusually large amount in the normal course of business transactions between the parties is relevant to the question whether the bank was negligent in paying out. The suspicion that there may be a wrongful application of the cheque outweighs the assumption that the customer has by exception written an unusually large cheque.” See judgment Re (II ZR 185/85), (1987) E.C.C. 254 (1985). 8 “A bank which, as in this case, knows of circumstances from which it must be inferred that a cheque to cash for a large sum exceeds by an aunuasual amount the sums involved in in other cheque transactions usually affected by the customer must take account of the possibility that the cheque is being misused…If the bank were allowed to refrain from doing so there would an increase to a no longer justifiable extent in the risk borne by the customer in the context of the apportionment of risks… In the results there are no grounds in law for objecting the appeal court’s findings in the circumstances of the case that the defendant (the bank) was under a duty to telephone to the plaintif before paying out on the cheque in order to ascertain whether he had drawn it.” See judgment Re (II ZR 185/85), (1987) E.C.C. 254 (1985).

## Page 543

197 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

The Court acknowledges the perspective of expert Thierry Bonneau, as articulated in the book "Droit bancaire." Bonneau emphasizes that while a bank should refrain from interfering in its clients' activities, it bears a duty of prudence. This duty entails monitoring and exercising control, even proactively seeking information to ensure transparency in all activities conducted on the account. This duty becomes particularly crucial if the bank observes any activity on the account that deviates from the usual or appears unusual in nature. And Jérome Lasserre Capdeville and his colleagues, as outlined in the book "Droit Bancaire," assert that while the primary responsibility for monitoring account activities lies with the account owner, the bank must exercise prudence. They emphasize that the bank should be cognizant of the fact that individuals are legitimately seeking to withdraw the funds to which they are entitled.9

Although this law should not be relied upon in making a decision in this case because it did not exist at the time Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine's account was compromised, it does provide evidence that a financial service provider must ... act with care, skill and discretion in relation to the financial product or service it provides.

Among other things, it requires financial service providers to integrate consumer protection into the culture of their business centres (Article 3), to establish effective channels of

9 “Le client de la banque est, en principe, seul titulaire des pouvoirs sur son compte. Cela est plus particulièrement le cas pour les operations débitrices, et découle du devoir de restitution…Il est donc demandé au banquier d’être vigilant et de s’assurer que les personnes réalisant des opérations au débit d’un compte sont bien en droit d’agir de la sorte.” Reba Jérôme Lasserre Capdeville et les autres, Droit bancaire, Dalloz, Paris, 2021, p.392.

## Page 544

198 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

communication with consumers, including telephone calls, with the provision that calls made by the bank should be supported by other means of communication that can serve as evidence (Article 21), and to inform the consumer of financial services of any operation carried out on his account (Article 22). The foregoing elucidations, when read together, mean that: i. It is the responsibility of the bank's client to take care of the document requesting the payment or any other means given to him by the bank to make the payment, but this does not remove the bank's obligation to exercise due diligence before confirming the payment; ii. It is the bank's responsibility to check that the payment order has actually been submitted by its customer and that there have been no errors in sending the message requesting payment to the bank; iii. If there are unusual aspects in a payment order, such as an atypical manner in which it is made or if the requested amount exceeds the customer's usual transaction pattern, the bank bears a responsibility to seek additional information from the customer before processing the payment.

In relation to this case, the Court finds that the Bank was initially suspicious of the payment order presented by Sinayobye Siméon on 17/08/2015. This suspicion led the employee who received it to request permission to process the payment. However, the permission was not granted because the telephone number provided by Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine to the Bank was not available at that moment. The fact that the Bank first called the account owner on the number she had given to the Bank

## Page 545

199 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

demonstrates its acceptance of the duty to seek information when unusual activity is detected on the client's account. Furthermore, the Bank manager's decision to halt payments until the account holder admits to issuing the payment order serves as additional proof that the Bank acknowledges its duty of due diligence before processing payments. This behaviour on the part of the Bank also contradicts its claim that it was not obliged to call Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine before making the payment, because if it had not been obliged to do so, it would not have called her or even after calling her, it would not have suspended the payment wait until she is available.

The Court notes that BK Plc confirmed during the hearing before this Court that the telephone number given to it by Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine was 0788308017, and indeed this is the number on which the Bank first called her, after failing to reach her, the Bank instructed that the payment order await confirmation from the person who issued it. In addition, all letters sent by BK Plc to Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine state that her telephone number is 0788308017. The Bank does not explain where it obtained the number 0788867979 written on the payment order. Even in professional practice, it was not appropriate for the Bank to accept the number 0785978939 from Sinayobye Siméon, who came to collect the payment order. The Bank then assumes that the number belongs to Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine, whereas she has another number that she provided to the Bank for contact in case she was needed.

The Court finds that BK Plc has not proved that the telephone number 0785978939, which it claims to have called last before deciding to process the payment, is registered to Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine, nor has it proved that she would

## Page 546

200 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

have given it as an alternative telephone number if she was not available at 0788308017. Therefore, the fact that an unknown person was called to confirm the withdrawal of these dollars should be considered as the Bank accepting the withdrawal of these dollars without the authorisation of the account holder, whereas the Bank had already stated that the withdrawal would only take place if the person who gave the order was available on the telephone number she had given to the Bank to authorise the payment.

The Court finds that the bank statement of Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine on the dollar account no. 00040-0294342-77 indicates that until 17/08/2015, when the payment order in question was delivered to BK Plc, the largest amount of dollars she had withdrawn from her account was USD 1,629, which she withdrew herself on 28/01/2015. Therefore, the fact that USD 11,500 was withdrawn from the account based on the payment order given to an individual was an unusual activity for that account, which would have required the Bank to be more cautious before making the payment.

The Court finds that, in line with the Commercial High Court's ruling in paragraph 26 of the judgment under review, Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine had a duty to properly safeguard the payment order book and to promptly notify the bank or other authorities in the event of the payment order being stolen. However, this does not imply that the Bank is absolved of its professional responsibility to conduct thorough checks before executing a payment, especially considering its claim of being diligent before processing payments. As mentioned earlier, the Bank has failed to substantiate what alleviated its suspicion.

## Page 547

201 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

The Court finds that the client's obligation to safeguard the payment order booklet and promptly notify the Bank and other authorities of its theft does not entirely eliminate the risk of theft. In some instances, the client might only become aware of the theft upon receiving information about a withdrawal from their account. Account information may be delayed for various reasons, such as customers not utilizing technology, encountering delays in accessing information, or discovering it only upon visiting the bank. Even those who use technology may face challenges, and technological issues can result in delayed or missed information.

The Court finds that the clients’ responsibility to prevent the improper use of their account initially entails proper management of documents or information received from the bank. Simultaneously, this responsibility endows the bank with the discretion to determine the level at which the client's funds are accessed. This discretion provides numerous avenues for preventive measures. Essentially, if a bank is absolved of its duty of prudence, it could expose many customer accounts to risks. The Court recognizes that the duty of discretion is the rationale behind banks providing customers with an affidavit form for forgery. This form allows the bank to trace and recover funds if the customer's money is stolen using forged documents10.

In the case of I & M Bank Rwanda Ltd v. Coffee Business Center (CBC) Ltd, this Court determined that “the consequences of a failure to comply with the duty of prudence by the bank involve the return of the owner's money, particularly if it has been given to the wrong person, especially a fraudster. This is because the payment is considered to occur when the money is taken by the rightful owner. However, the Court also noted that unless the

10 See Judgment Stokes v. Commonwealth, 49 Va. App. 401 (2007).

## Page 548

202 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

bank can provide evidence of the client's wrongdoing … or demonstrate that the error occurred due to extraordinary reasons, the responsibility for returning the money lies with the bank”.11 In the case of Sebahizi Jules against Equity Bank Rwanda Ltd, as mentioned above, the Court found that "the fact that Sebahizi Jules had no role in the withdrawal of 30,000 USD from his account... and its transfer to Singapore, shows that Equity Bank Rwanda Ltd was not diligent in doing so. Therefore, the bank has to return to him the entire amount withdrawn."12

The role of the bank has long been reiterated by the courts of other countries, as seen in the case of Central Nat. Bank of Richmond v. First & Merchants Nat. Bank. The Supreme Court of the State of Virginia in the United States of America stated that the general principle is that a person's money deposited in a bank should not be touched without the owner's permission. If the bank releases it to an unauthorized person, that does not concern the owner of the money, and it is considered "as if the money has not left his account ; in that case, the bank bears full responsibility."13 This position was also upheld in the case of Cairo Banking Co. v.

11 See judgment RCOMA 0171/12/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 03/01/2014, paragraph 17. 12 See judgment RS/INJUST/RCOM 00001/2017/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 26/01/2018, paragraph 27. 13 “The general rule is conceded that a depositor's funds in a bank are unaffected by any unauthorized payment. If a bank pays out money to the holder of a check, upon which the name of its depositor is forged, it is simply no payment as between the bank and the depositor ; the account between the bank and the depositor and the legal liability of the bank remain just the same as if the pretended payment had not been made. The pretended payment does not diminish the funds of the depositor…In the payment by a bank of a forged check, it acts at its own peril, and not that of the depositor”. See judgment Central Nat. Bank of Richmond v. First & Merchants Nat. Bank..., 171 Va. 289 (1938).

## Page 549

203 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

West et al., where the Supreme Court of Georgia ruled that when a customer deposits money in a bank, it is assumed that the bank is indebted to him. In order to be discharged from that liability, the bank must refund the depositor, and the bank's liability is not removed by its acceptance of cashing a forged cheque.14

In the case of Sheila Michelle Stokes v. Commonwealth of Virginia, the Virginia Court of Appeal, relying on the precedent set by the case of Central Nat. Bank of Richmond, found that the current practice of banks is that when a fake cheque is paid, the bank then must correct the unauthorized withdrawal of funds by debiting its own funds and crediting the depositor's account.15

The Court stated that: i. Where a fraudulent transaction has occurred at a bank, that transaction does not affect the depositor, for the purposes of identifying the victim of a larceny based on the fraudulent transaction, because the bank did not possess

14 “Where a person deposits money in a bank on general deposit, the relation of debtor of the bank to the depositor as creditor immediately arises, and in order to discharge itself from this liability the bank must pay the depositor. The liability can not be discharged by accepting a forged check drawn in the name of the depositor against the bank.” See Judgment Cairo Banking Co. v. West, 187 Ga. 666 (1939). 15 “Appellant argues, …that once a depositor's account is debited, the funds automatically belong to the depositor …. We disagree with this argument, as it requires this Court to ignore modern banking practice and the debtor/creditor relationship …At present, a bank generally would debit the depositor's account when it pays the person presenting the forged check. The bank then must correct the unauthorized withdrawal of funds by debiting its own funds and crediting the depositor's account to fully make it whole…” See judgment Stokes v. Commonwealth, 49 Va. App. 401 (2007).

## Page 550

204 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

the authority to disburse the funds from that depositor's account.16 ii. A bank, in paying a forged check, must be considered as making the payment out of its own funds, and it has to pursue the person who received payment.17

The issue of a bank making a payment to the wrong person and the subsequent obligation to refund the customer has been reiterated by Jérôme Lassere Capdeville and his colleagues. They state that it is a principle that a bank has to efficiently respond to the client's request. When it mistakenly pays or sends money to the wrong person, the bank must return the money to the account holder, and then it will be the responsibility of the bank to pursue the person who received the payment. 18

In light of the foregoing elucidations, the Court finds that BK Plc failed to comply with its duty of due diligence when it withdrew 11,500 USD from Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine's account and paid it to Sinayobye Siméon. Therefore, BK Plc must

16 “Where a fraudulent transaction has occurred at a bank, that transaction does not affect the depositor, for the purposes of identifying the victim of a larceny based on the fraudulent transaction, because the bank did not possess the authority to disburse the funds from that depositor's account.” 17 “A bank, in paying a forged check, must be considered as making the payment out of its own funds, for the purposes of identifying the bank as the victim of the larceny that arises from the payment on the forged check.” 18 “Tout d’abord il est acquis que (le) banquier doit correctement passer les opérations souhaitées par son client. Ainsi, en cas de paiements ou de virements opérés par erreur au bénéfice d’un tiers, l’obligation de restitution implique que le banquier reste tenu de restituer la chose reçue à son véritable bénéficiaire. Il devra alors procéder au remboursement du client victime de l’erreur et, le plus souvent, prétendre à un remboursement par le tiers.” See Jérôme Lasserre Capdeville et les autres, Droit bancaire, Dalloz, Paris, 2021, p.388.

## Page 551

205 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

return that amount and pursue the person who received the payment. II.2. Whether Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine should be awarded the interest arising from 11,500 USD calculated at the rate 18% per annum

Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine and her Counsel Bizumuremyi Isaac allege that, in respect of 11,500 USD, she was awarded 15% interest in judgment RCOM 00860/2016/TC/NYGE, whereas commercial banks normally charge 18% interest, and she requests this Court to correct the error and therefore the interest awarded to her should be calculated at the rate used by regular banks with effect from 12/08/2015. She states that the interest due to her for the past seven years and four and a half months’ amounts to USD 15,266.25, but that she requests the Court to calculate this interest until the judgment is delivered.

Counsel Rutagengwa Jean-Damascène, representing BK Plc, argues that Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine should be awarded no interest. This is based on the assertion that she failed in her duty to safeguard the payment order booklet issued to her. According to the Counsel, if she had ensured the security of her booklet and signature, the unauthorized withdrawal of dollars would not have occurred. Therefore, she should not benefit from her own failures. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 137 of the Law n° 45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts reads that “The aggrieved party has right to damages from the party failing to perform his/her contractual

## Page 552

206 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

obligations, unless the claim for damages has been suspended or withdrawn”.

Article 94, paragraphs two and four, of the Regulation N° 55/2022 of 27/10/2022 relating to financial service consumer protection on Compensation to the financial service consumer reads that: “In case of negligence by the financial service provider that causes monetary loss to the financial service consumer, the latter shall have the right to claim for compensation on the loss. The computation of the compensation shall be based on the following factors: - amount lost due to negligence; - opportunity cost lost due the negligence; - damages paid by the financial service consumer if any. In any case, the compensation rate cannot go below the average lending rate as published by the Supervisory Authority.

In the case of Sebahizi Jules vs. Equity Bank Rwanda Ltd19, the Court found that the bank debited money from Sebahizi Jules' account without his authorization. This action caused him financial loss, as he was unable to use the funds for his family's needs or leave them in the bank to accrue interest. The same issue is present in the current case involving the bank's payment of USD 11,500 to Sinayobye Siméon without the authorization of the account holder, Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine. This unauthorized transaction deprived Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine of the opportunity to use the funds or leave them in the Bank to earn interest.

19 See Judgment RS/INJUST/RCOM 00001/2017/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 26/01/2018, paragraphs 33 and 34.

## Page 553

207 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

In the case of Sebahizi Jules20, the Court awarded compensation based on the average loan rate. This stance was recently reaffirmed in the case of Nsengiyumva Théoneste v. Ntagungira Jérôme et al., where the Court determined that Nsengiyumva Théoneste should receive compensation for the funds he had utilized to purchase the lost land. Additionally, interest was to be calculated at the rate of 8%, mirroring the interest charged by banks to customers who deposit money in their accounts with the intention of earning interest21.

The Court finds however that the foregoing modality of calculating interest is the same one reiterated by the National Bank of Rwanda in the aforementioned Regulation providing that the the compensation rate cannot go below the average lending rate as published by the Supervisory Authority. The document entitled Interest Rate Structure published by the National Bnk of Rwanda on its website www.bnr.rw/browse-in/financial-market/money- marketinterest-rates/monthly-interest-rates, which was also reiterated by www.tradingeconomics.com/rwanda/interest-rate indicates that that the rate in Rwanda has reached 15.81%22; therefore, this rate should also serve as the basis for computing the interests that BK Plc is obligated to pay to Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine.

The Court, therefore, finds that BK Plc must pay to Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine an interest amounting to USD 11,500 x 15.81% from 27/08/2015, i.e., the day after the dollars

20 See judgment RS/INJUST/RCOM 00001/2017/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 26/01/2018, paragraph 34. 21 See judgment n° RS/INJUST/RC 00012/2021/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 22/07/2022, paragraph 50. 22 Accessed on 29/03/2023

## Page 554

208 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

were withdrawn from the account, until 31/03/2023, covering a period of seven years, seven months, and four days, equal to 2,734 days. This amount is calculated as follows : 11,500 USD x 15.81 x 2,734= 13.807,8 USD

360 x 100

The Court finds that although the interest that BK Plc should pay to Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine amounts to 13,807.8 USD, these interests significantly exceed the 11,500 USD that BK Plc paid to Sinayobye Siméon due to carelessness. In the case of Banque Populaire du Rwanda Plc v. Nyamasheke District23, this Court established that the interest rate for debt arrears should not be excessive. The same Court clarified that the determination of the interest rate on arrears aims to prevent this process from becoming a means of inappropriate enrichment for the beneficiary. Hence, the Court has the responsibility to establish a reasonable rate.

In that case, this Court found that the appropriate rate of overdue interest is determined by the court in its discretion. The interest must not exceed what is necessary to repair the damage but must also be sufficient to impart a lesson so that the reasons given will not be repeated, confirming that the delayed interest must not exceed the amount of the debt to be paid.

The Court finds that the interest on the principal debt ceases to be calculated when it equals the principal debt that remains unpaid. This principle is evident in other specific laws,

23 See judgment RS/INJUST/RCOM 00006/2022/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 27/01/2023, paragraph 52.

## Page 555

209 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

such as Article 72, Section 4, of Law No. 031/2022 of 21/11/2022, governing Public procurement24, Article 112, Section 2, of Law No. 47/2017 of 23/09/2017, governing the organisation of banking25, and Article 59 of Law No. 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedure as modified and complemented to date26. Each law, as it pertains, specifies that the interest may not exceed the amount of the security issued in relation to public procurement, nor does it exceed the amount of arrears in respect of bank loans, or exceed the amount of tax payable in respect of the overdue taxes.

In light of the foregoing elucidations, the Court finds that BK Plc has to pay interest amounting to 11,500 USD to Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine.

24 « The late payment interests referred to in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article cannot exceed the amount of the security furnished ». 25 Article 112 of the Law No. 47/2017 of 23/09/2017, governing the organisation of banking reads that:« A bank is limited in what it may recover from a debtor with respect to a nonperforming loan to the following maximum amount: 1° the unpaid balance of the principal when the loan becomes nonperforming; 2° interests, in accordance with the contract between the debtor and a bank, not exceeding the principal owed when the loan becomes nonperforming; 3° expenses incurred in the recovery of any amounts owed by the debtor ». See also article 8 of the Regulation n° 12/2017 of 23/11/2017 on credit classification and provisioning stipulating that : « A bank shall be limited in what it may recover from a debtor with respect to a non-performing loan to the following maximum amount : a) the unpaid balance of the principal when the loan becomes written off; b) unpaid arrear interests, computed in accordance with the contract between the debtor and a bank, not exceeding the principal owed when the loan becomes written off; and c) expenses incurred in the recovery of any amounts owed by the debtor ». 26 “Interest accrues can not exceed one hundred percent (100%) of the amount of tax”. See Article 59 of the Law n° 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedure (This is article 12 of Law No. 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedure modifying and complementing Law n° 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedure).

## Page 556

210 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

II.3. Whether BK Plc has to pay to Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine 310,000 Frw withdrawn from her account plus interests arising from that amount calculated at the rate of 18%

Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine and her legal Counsel Bizumuremyi Isaac, claim that on 12/08/2015, Twajeneza Olivier withdrew 310,000 Frw from her account (account no. 00051- 0609850-07) due to the negligence of BK Ltd or with the involvement of the Bank, without the authorization of Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine. Therefore, the Court should order to the Bank to repay the amount plus interest calculated at 18%, amounting to 418,500 Frw, making a total of 728,500 Frw (310,000 Frw + 418,500 Frw). They assert that Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine has filed a claim for this money but has not received it.

Counsel Rutagengwa Jean-Damascène, representing BK Plc, submits that in the agreement Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine entered into with the Bank, each party had a duty to comply with. The Bank contends that it fulfilled its obligation by checking the quality of the payment order documents used and verifying the signature of Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine. Therefore, the Bank asserts that it should not be held liable for the claimed money because Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine failed in her responsibility to take care of the payment order booklet given to her by the Bank. As a result, she should bear full responsibility for what happened to her account. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The Court finds that, as per the documents in the case file, the issue relating to 310,000 Frw was considered by the

## Page 557

211 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

Nyarugenge Commercial Court. In paragraph 17 of the judgment RC 00860/2016/TC/NYGE rendered on 21/10/2016, the Court found that "with regard to the 310,000 Frw alleged to have been withdrawn by Twajeneza Olivier on Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine's account using a forged cheque, there is no evidence to prove it because the cheque n° 00051-0609850-07/Rwf bears her signature. She does not prove that the cheque was forged, nor does she prove that the signature on it is not hers. Therefore, the court has no basis to order that the money be returned to her."

The Court finds that there is no indication in the case file before the Commercial High Court that Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine has appealed against the decision mentioned in the previous paragraph. However, article 55 of the Law n° 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determing the jurisdiction of courts provides that any party entitled to ordinary and extraordinary remedies but that fails to assert his/her right within the time limit provided by law, is not allowed to apply for review of a case he/she lost because of injustice. When analysing this article in various cases including the case of Ngizweninshuti Albert v. na Muhima Giovani, this Court found that, any party who is not satisfied with a court ruling but fails to apply for the correction of alleged errors at the level of appeal or lodge a cross-appeal, even when entitled to such a procedure, deprives themselves of the right to appeal. Consequently, they cannot resort to a review of the case due to injustice in order to seek the reexamination of that article, as it is against the law27.

27 See judgment RS/INJUST/RC 00024/2018/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 21/02/2020, paragraph 19. See also judgment RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2018/SC for Nditiribambe Samuel against Gatera Jason rendered by the Supreme Court on 13/03/2020 as well as judgment RS/INJUST/RC

## Page 558

212 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

On the basis of what has been explained above, the Court finds that the fact that Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine did not appeal against the decision of the Nyarugenge Commercial Court on the matter relating to the 310,000 Frw, although she had the right to do so, means that she was satisfied with the decision of that court on this matter, so that there is no way in which she can claim to have suffered injustice in this matter, this is why her request for a reexamination of the said article at this level should not be granted. II.4. Determining the basis for the compensation claimed in this case

Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine and Counsel Bizumuremyi Isaac, assisting her, request this Court to order to BK Plc to pay Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine 2,000,000 Frw as moral damages for spending four years pursuing her money in BK Plc, in the courts, and at the Ombudsman's level. Additionally, they seek 4,000,000 Frw for procedural fees, 1,500,000 Frw for counsel fees at this level, and reimbursement of the 2,500,000 Frw she paid for counsel fees in previous courts.

Counsel Rutagengwa Jean-Damascène, representing BK Plc, submits that BK Plc should not pay any compensation to Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine because she is the one who initiated the lawsuits against herself and the Bank. Therefore, he argues that she should pay 2,000,000 Frw as compensation for involving the Bank in unnecessary lawsuits, 500,000 Frw for procedural fees, and 1,000,000 Frw for counsel fees, totaling 3,500,000 Frw.

00021/2022/SC Mukagatare Régine et al. Against SANLAM AG Plc rendered by the Supreme Court on 17/03/2022.

## Page 559

213 MUGWANEZA v. BANK OF KIGALI LTD

Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine and Counsel Bizumuremyi Isaac, assisting her, submit that BK Plc deserves no compensation because if it had not failed to perform its duties, there would have been no lawsuits. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

With regard to the compensation of 2,000,000 Frw requested by Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine, the Court finds that the negligent act of BK Plc, withdrawing USD 11,500 from her account and paying that amount to Sinayobye Siméon, caused damage to Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine. She has been distressed since 2015, attempting to find a way to recover those dollars for use or income generation. Therefore, at the discretion of the Court, she is awarded the compensation of 1,000,000 Frw.

As for the counsel and procedural fees requested by Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine and BK Plc, the Court finds that neither of them deserves such compensation because each of them has something to lose and to gain in this case.

The Court also finds in the case file that there is no evidence that Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine has paid 2,500,000 Frw for counsel fees at both the Nyarugenge Commercial Court and the Commercial High Court. Therefore, the Court has no basis to order that this amount should be the one to be returned to her, as she requested. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the application filed by Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine for the review of the judgment RCOMA

## Page 560

214 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

00642/2016/CHC/HCC rendered by the Commercial High Court on 06/01/2017 for being vitiated by injustice, has merit in part ;

Decides that the ruling in the judgment RCOMA 00642/2016/CHC/HCC rendered by the Commercial High Court on 06/01/2017, is reversed ;

Orders to Bank of Kigali Plc to pay to Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine 11,500 USD withdrawn from her dollar account nº 00040-0294342-77 plus interests amounting to 11,500 USD, all totaling to 23,000 USD ;

Orders to Bank of Kigali Plc to pay to Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine 1,000,000 Frw as moral damages.

## Page 561

215

TRADEMET S.A v. CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD [Rwanda Court of Appeal-RCOMAA 00116/2022/CA, (Ngagi, PJ.,) 28 February 2023 Commercial procedure – Caveat on immovable property – A caveat registered on the property can be cancelled in case it was registered on the property legally sold even if the seller failed to register the acquired property for the transfer purpose due to the reasons beyond his/her control. Facts: Kalinda Valens and his wife Nyirahabufite Epiphanie have legally sold their immovable property to CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd represented by Frank Lyonson and they signed a related agreement before the Notary, but they did not finalise with the registration of ownership transfer owing to reasons they termed to be beyond their control. A company by the name of TRADEMET S.A lodged a summary procedure claim before the Commercial Court suing Kalinda Valens and requested for caveat on the property that Kalinda Valens sold to CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd pending the ruling of the case opposing them. CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd filed the third party opposition against the judgment before the Commercial High Court and requested for the caveat cancellation, stating that it got informed by the National Land Authority that there is caveat on the properties registered on Kalinda upon by the court’s ruling.

## Page 562

216 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Kalinda pleaded by admitting that the caveat was registered after the property had already been sold off, and he added that the claim by CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY has merit. TRADEMET pleaded requesting for the inadmissibility of the above claim, arguing that Kalinda Valens has been a litigant in all of the related cases and he has never indicated that the property under caveat was not his own. The Commercial High Court heard the case and ruled that the claim by CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd has justification and that the caveat is cancelled. TRADEMET appealed the above ruling before the Court of Appeal and requested for maintaining the caveat on the property under litigation because it was legally registered. CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd pleaded by submitting that the land bought from Kalinda Valens belongs to it, and that it is not concerned with the case that exists between Kalinda Valens and TRADEMET SA, and that any agreement that might be between the two parties has no effects on CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd. Kalinda Valens submits that the Commercial High Court did no err in cancelling the caveat on the property of CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd arguing that they registered the caveat on the pretext that the property belongs to him while he had sold it because it was mortgaged with BRD and when the Bank started the process of auctioning it, he sold the property to CROSS INVESTMENT Ltd in a bid to repay BRD’s loan, because the issue was about UPI’s it was necessary to seize the National Land Authority for rectification, the reason why the procedure of ownership transfer was delayed and all the related cases were heard after the sale contract between KALINDA Valens and CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd.

## Page 563

217 TRADEMET S.A v. CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD

Held 1: A caveat registered on the property can be cancelled in case it was registered on the property legally sold even if the seller failed to register the acquired property for the transfer purpose due to the reasons beyond his/her control. The appeal lacks merit. Statutes referred to: Law n0 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles 12 and 150. No cases referred to. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

This case originates from a summary procedure claim that TRADEMET S.A lodged before the Commercial Court whereby it sued Kalinda Valens and requested for the registration of a caveat on his properties pending the ruling of the case RCOM 00104/2022/TC. The above case was appealed before the Commercial High Court and it was docketed as RCOMA 00214/2022/HCC and it was heard on 04/04/2022. After the pronouncement of the case RCOMA 00214/2022/HCC, CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd opposed the ruling and submitted that on 09/09/2022, he got informed by the National Land Authority that properties registered under UPI: 1/01/04/03/2330 and UPI: 1/01/04/03/2335 are under caveat upon the ruling of the case RCOMA 00214/2022/HCC of 04/04/2022

## Page 564

218 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

which ruled that the caveat should be registered on all the properties belonging Kalinda Valens.

It supports that a decision concerning the land was taken in the judgment RCOMA 00214/2022/HCC of 04/04/2022 and it does no longer belong to KALINDA Valens because it was sold by CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd and it took a decision on the property of CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd which was not the party to the judgment, the reason why it requests that the judgment should be reversed as regards the caveat on the land.

KARINDA Valens pleaded by admitting that the caveat was registered on the property after the property sale; therefore, the claim of CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd is founded.

TRADEMET S.A pleaded by requesting for the inadmissibility of the claim, arguing that Kalinda Valens has been litigant in all of the related cases and he has never indicated that the property under caveat does no longer belong to him. It is a maneuver to justify the lack of the payment for the owed loan.

On 02/11/2022, the Commercial High Court heard the case RCOMA 00635/2022/HCC and ruled that the claim of CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd has merit and the decision of the opposed case RCMA 00214/2022/HCC is reversed only on the caveat on the properties registered on UPI: 1/01/04/03/2330 and UPI: 1/01/04/03/2335 and it held that the caveat registered on the properties UPI: 1/01/04/03/2330 and UPI: 1/01/04/03/2335 is hereby cancelled and it ordered to Kalinda Valens to pay to TRADEMET S.A and CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd a sum of 600,000 Frw for each, and decided that the deposited court fee covers the expenses of the proceeding.

## Page 565

219 TRADEMET S.A v. CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD

TRADEMET S.A was not satisfied with the judgment ruling and it appealed against it before this very Court pleading for keeping the caveat on the properties registered under UPI: 1/01/04/03/2330 and UPI: 1/01/04/03/2335, and they requested for 5,000,000 Frw for the procedural and counsel fees because the fees awarded in the appealed judgment are few compared to the expenses it incurred in this case. The appeal was registered on RCOMAA 00116/2022/CA.

CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd pleaded by arguing that the land registered under UPI: 1/01/04/03/2330 and UPI: 1/01/04/03/2335 belongs to CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd and that it is not concerned with the case between Kalinda Valens and TRADEMET S.A.

The hearing of this case was fixed on 06/02/2023 but it was postponed on 14/02/2023 because Counsel Muhire Jean Marie Eugene was then sick. On that date, the case was not heard because the judge had lost a family member and the case was then adjourned to 21/02/2023. On that date, the case was heard in public, TRADEMET S.A represented by Counsel Uwizeyimana Jean Eric, Kalinda Valens represented by Counsel Nkanika Alimasi, while CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd was represented by Counsel Muhire Jean Marie Eugene.

The main issue to be examined is to determine whether the Commercial High Court erred by cancelling the caveat on the properties registered under UPI: 1/01/04/03/2330 and UPI: 1/01/04/03/2335, in addition to the issue of various damages.

## Page 566

220 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES 1. Whether the Commercial High Court erred by cancelling the caveat on the properties registered under UPI: 1/01/04/03/2330 and UPI: 1/01/04/03/2335

The Counsel of TRADEMET S.A submits that the defect of the appealed ruling is that it decided that the caveat should be cancelled while it was legally registered. He explains that the caveat is legally registered on the properties of KALINDA Valens and according to the judgments RCOM 00291/0222/TC and RCOMA 00214/2022/HCC, Kalinda Valens was party and the land titles indicate that he was the rightful owner of the concerned properties, he never indicated that among the properties under caveat, there was a property which does not belong to him, the caveat legally registered should not be cancelled.

He explains the provisions of article 74 of the Law n0 27/2021 of 10/06/2021 governing land in Rwanda and the provisions of article 213 of the Law n0 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure which provides that the application for a caveat on immovable properties is submitted to the Registrar of Land titles and within one month, a related claim is filed, have all been complied with and in consideration of the decision of the judgment RCOMA 00214/2022/HCC submitted to National Land Authority for registration of the caveat, they find that the caveat was legally registered on the properties belonging to Kalinda Valens, the reason why the caveat remains valid, they request the appealed Court to decide that it remains valid.

The Counsel of CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd submits that the land registered under UPI: 1/01/04/03/2330 and

## Page 567

221 TRADEMET S.A v. CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD

UPI: 1/01/04/03/2335 belong to CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd and it is not concerned with the case between Kalinda Valens and TRADEMET S.A. He explains that the statements of TRADEMET S.A should not be given any consideration because, as it was expounded in the appealed judgement, the decision on the land under UPI: 1/01/04/03/2330 and UPI: 1/01/04/03/2335 was taken in the judgment RCOMA 00214/2022/HCC of 04/04/2022 while it does no longer belong to Kalinda Valens since he sold it to CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd as indicated by the agreement of 18/12/2020 and confirmed by the application of 15/03/2021 for land transfer.

He adds that, according to the appealed judgement, the Court found that the ruling of the case RCOMA 00214/2022/HCC of 04/04/2022 made a decision concerning a property belonging to CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd, without the latter being a litigant to the case; the Court therefore found that the above mentioned ruling should be reversed especially on matters pertaining to the caveat registered on UPI: 1/01/04/03/2330 and UPI: 1/01/04/03/2335 since the properties’ owner has never been a party to the concerned case. Basing on the article 64 of the Law n0 45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts which provides that contracts made in accordance with the law shall be binding between parties, they find that the requests made by TRADEMET S.A should not be accorded consideration since any agreement that might be concluded by TRADEMET S.A and Kalinda Valens has no effects on CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY as provided under the above mentioned article.

The Counsel for Kalinda Valens admits that the Commercial High Court did no err by cancelling the caveat on properties of CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd because it

## Page 568

222 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

was registered by considering the properties as belonging to him while he had sold it as it was mortgaged with BRD, and when the Bank initiated the procedure of mortgage auctioning, Kalinda Valens sold the properties to CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd in a bid to repay a loan he owed to BRD; due to issue in UPI’s of the concerned property, it was necessary to approach the National Land Authority for the rectification of the UPI’s issue, the reason why the procedure of land transfer delayed.

He goes on to add that both cases RCOM 00291/0222/TC and RCOMA 00214/204/2022/HCC were held after the sale contract between Kalinda Valens and CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd, they ruled for the caveat on the properties that do no longer belong to him because by 18/12/2020, the concerned property had already been sold off, and the caveat was notified to him by 23/02/2022. Kalinda Valens argues that the claim by CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd for the caveat cancellation had a justification and that is why the seized Court cancelled it; he therefore submits that the appeal by TRADEMET S.A is void since it seeks for a caveat on the property belonging to CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd while Kalinda Valens is not concerned by it.

He sustains that the statements of TRADEMET S.A that Kalinda Valens has never indicated that the concerned property does not belong to him, are unfounded, as he pleaded by indicating that the caveat is invalid. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 12, paragraph one of the Law n0 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and

## Page 569

223 TRADEMET S.A v. CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD

administrative procedure provides that “The claimant must prove a claim, failing which the respondent wins the case”. Article 150, paragraph 5 of the same Law provides that “The application for appeal is done by means of submissions filing the claim and containing: the list of grievances from the judgement and other issues to be analysed again”.

Putting together these two articles, the Court finds that they denote that the claimant has to provide the elements of evidence of his/her allegations, meaning the elements of evidence that prove that his/her claim is true, similarly, the appellant must indicate the defects of the appealed judgement and the elements of evidence supporting his/her appeal, meaning the elements of evidence indicating the defects of the judgment and the elements of evidence that might lead to the rectification of those defects.

The case file contains a copy of an agreement about the sale of immovable properties registered under UPI: 1/01/04/03/187 and UPI: 1/01/04/03/190 concluded on 18/12/2020 between CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd represented by Frank Lyonson and Kalinda Valens together with his wife Nyirahabufite Epiphanie.

The case file contains a letter addressed by the National Land Authority / Office of Registrar of land titles to Kalinda Valens on 21/09/2021, indicating that the land registered under UPI: 1/01/04/03/2335 originates from UPI: 1/01/04/03/190 while the land with UPI: 1/01/04/03/2330 originates from UPI: 1/01/04/03/187. The very letter indicates that the mentioned land is demarcated out of the marshland boundaries and the land with UPI: 1/01/04/03/2335 and the land with UPI: 1/01/04/03/2330 are now registered under CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd as per the sale agreement that Kalinda Valens together with his wife

## Page 570

224 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Nyirahabufite Epiphanie concluded with CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd as witnessed by the Land Notary on 15/03/2021.

The ruling of the judgment RCOMA 00214/2022/HCC rendered by the Commercial High Court on 04/04/2022 indicates that the Court sustained the judgement RCOM 00291/2022/TC and ordered for the execution of its ruling. The execution was about registration of caveat on the following immovable properties: UPI 1/01/04/03/2330, UPI 1/01/04/03/2335, UPI 1/01/04/03/1011, UPI 1/01/04/03/243, UPI 3/07/05/05/6377, UPI 3/07/05/05/6378, UPI 3/07/05/05/4871, UPI 3/07/05/05/6377, UPI 3/07/05/05/4862, UPI 3/07/05/05/3147 and UPI 03/07/05/05/4831 of Kalinda Valens, pending the ruling of the case RCOM 00104/2022/TC between Kalinda Valens and TRADEMET S.A.

The ruling of the appealed case RCOMA 00635/2022/HCC rendered by the Commercial High Court on 02/11/2022 indicates that CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd proved that it legally acquired the property registered on UPI: 1/01/04/03/2330 and UPI: 1/01/04/03/2335 from Kalinda Valens, and that due to circumstances beyond their control, they have not been able to proceed with the registration of ownership transfer. Besides, the ruling indicates that CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd cannot secure ownership registration by National Land Authority owing to an order from the ruling of the case RCOMA 00214/2022/HCC that ordered the registration of caveat on the concerned properties. The Court found that TRADEMET S.A produces no evidence to rebut the claimant’s allegations and the Court decided that the caveat on properties with UPI: 1/01/04/03/2330 and UPI: 1/04/03/2335 by the ruling of the judgment 00214/2022/HCC should be cancelled.

## Page 571

225 TRADEMET S.A v. CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD

As it has been above highlighted, CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd bought a property registered under UPI: 1/01/04/03/2330 and UPI: 1/01/04/03/2335 from Kalinda Valens, and the land transfer was witnessed by the Land Notary on 21/09/2021 and the registration of caveat was decided by the Commercial High Court on 04/04/2022. Therefore, the Court found that the caveat was registered after the property sale by CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd from Kalinda Valens, meaning that the caveat was registered when the concerned properties no longer belonged to Kalinda Valens as they were possessed by CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd.

The Court finds that the fact that TRADEMET S.A applied for the registration of caveat on the property with UPI: 1/01/04/03/2330 and UPI: 1/01/04/03/2335 considering it as belonging to Kalinda Valens while the latter had lawfully sold it to CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd, the fact that the caveat was registered on a property that belongs to CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd while the Company is not concerned with the case pending between Kalinda Valens and TRADEMET S.A, the fact that CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd has not been a party to the case RCOMA 00214/2022/HCC that ordered the registration of caveat on the concerned property, it is obvious that the appealed ruling contains no defect, and the Court ruled that the appeal by TRADEMET S.A is unfounded. 2. Whether the damages charged to Kalinda Valens in the appealed judgment should be set aside

The Counsel to Kalinda Valens submits that, before the High Court, KALINDA Valens was charged of unjustified damages while he had no intention to drag someone into

## Page 572

226 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

unnecessary lawsuits, and he was unfairly charged of unjustified damages.

The Counsel to TRADEMET S.A submits that when the Commercial Court ordered for the registration of caveat on the concerned properties, Kalinda Valens lodged a related appeal to the Commercial High Court, but in the course of the appeal, he only sustained that the Commercial Court disregarded the objection he raised and it ruled for the registration of caveat while he mortgaged the property, but he never indicated that he had sold such property; therefore, the damages charged to KALINDA Valens are grounded because he initiated the cases. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The case file contains the application for the caveat registration made on 07/02/2022 by Counsel Kayigirwa Viateur, professional bailiff, whereby he requested for the registration of caveat on all properties of Kalinda Valens. It also contains the letter that Counsel Kayigirwa Viateur addressed to Kalinda Valens notifying him of the caveat registered on his properties registered under UPI: 1/01/04/03/2330, UPI: 1/01/04/03/2335, UPI: 1/01/04/03/243, UPI: 3/07/05/05/6377/ UPI:1/01/04/03/1011, UPI: 3/07/05/05/6378, UPI: 3/07/05/05/4871, UPI: 3/07/05/05/5607, UPI 3/07/05/05/4862 and UPI 3/07/05/05/6377.

The case file indicates that in the judgment RCOMA 00214/2022/HCC, Kalinda Valens appealed against the ruling for two reasons: the Commercial Court disregarded the objection he raised and it ordered for the registration of caveat on properties that were already loan mortgaged.

## Page 573

227 TRADEMET S.A v. CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD

[28] The ruling of the appealed judgment RCOMA 00635/2022/HCC indicates that Kalinda Valens has been a party to the judgments that ruled for the registration of caveat on his properties while he was well aware that the disputed properties had been sold off, but he never indicated that it in the cases between him and TRADEMET S.A, the caveat was registered on those properties while it was unnecessary, it decided that he should pay damages to TRADEMET S.A. and CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd 100,000 Frw each for the incurred case-related expenses, and 500,000 Frw each for counsel fee.

[29] Basing on the explanations provided in the preceding paragraph, the Court finds that it is Kalinda Valens who has unnecessarily initiated all these cases, and the Court finds that the Commercial High Court did not err by ordering to him to pay to TRADEMET S.A and CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd 600,000 Frw to each one as damages for the incurred case-related expenses, the cross-appeal lodged by Kalinda Valens is unfounded. 3. Whether the damages, procedural fee and lawyer fee are founded

The Counsel to TRADEMET S.A states that in the appealed judgment, TRADEMET S.A was only awarded 600,000 Frw for damages while basing on the fact that it is Kalinda Valens who dragged TRADEMET S.A in all these unnecessary lawsuits and it incurs losses for non-payment and follow up of its rights, they find that the damages awarded by the Court in the appealed judgment do not cover the expenses that TRADEMET S.A. continues incurring in the lawsuits, they request to the Court to order in its discretion to KALINDA Valens to pay 5,000,000 Frw as procedural and lawyer fees.

## Page 574

228 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

The Counsel to Kalinda Valens pleads by submitting that TRADEMET S.A deserves no damages because TRADEMET S.A applied for the registration of caveat on a property which does not belong to Kalinda Valens as indicated by the competent organs. He also adds that in case the Court finds that the appeal of TRADEMET S.A is unfounded, he should be charged of 800,000 Frw as procedural and lawyer fees.

CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd argues that the damages claimed by TRADEMET S.A concerns KALINDA Valens alone. It states that in the appealed judgement, the Court upheld that the caveat should not be registered on those properties, but TRADEMET S.A continued dragging CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd into unnecessary lawsuits it had never been a party to the judgment RCOMA 00214/2022/HCC of 04/04/2022 between Kalinda Valens and TRADEMET S.A. Such situation caused to CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY a related loss as it could not exploit their bought properties and it got dragged into unnecessary lawsuits. It therefore requests to the Court to order to TRADEMET S.A to pay to CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY a sum of 20,000,000 Frw for non- exploitation of the property on which the caveat was registered, 5,000,000 Frw for being dragged into unnecessary lawsuits, 1,500,000 Frw as procedural and lawyer fees in addition to the damages awarded in the appealed judgment. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

With regard to case-related expenses, article 111 of the Law n0 22/2018 of 28/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that “the claim for representation fees is an incidental claim to the principal claim

## Page 575

229 TRADEMET S.A v. CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD

aiming to repay expenses incurred during judicial proceedings. The claim for legal costs is adjudicated at the same time with the principal claim. It can also be admitted and adjudicated even if the principal claim has not been admitted”

The Court finds that due to the appeal by TRADEMET S.A, CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd hired a lawyer to assist it at this level; therefore, the claimed procedural and lawyer fees are grounded, in its discretion, it awards 5,000,000 Frw for the lawyer fee and 200,000 Frw for the procedural fee to be paid by TRADEMET S.A.

With regard to the damages for non-exploitation of the property on which the caveat was registered and for being dragged into different administrative organs as requested by CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd, the Court finds that the damages should not be examined because it did not make a related request in the appealed judgement.

The Court finds that the 600,000 including the procedural and lawyer fees awarded to TRADEMET S.A in the appealed judgment were awarded in the Court’s discretion, the statements of TRADEMET S.A that they are too few are baseless, especially that it does not challenge the Court’s discretion. The Court finds that TRADEMET S.A deserves no damages at this level, since its appeal is unfounded.

The Court finds that Kalinda Valens does not deserve the procedural and lawyer fees in this case because, as above expounded, it is him who initiated the lawsuits and it does not take into consideration his cross-appeal seeking the revocation of damages of which he was charged.

## Page 576

230 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

III. DECISION OF THE CASE

Holds that the appeal lodged by TRADEMET S.A lacks merit.

Holds that the cross-appeal filed by Kalinda Valens lacks merit, while the appeal by CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd has merit in parts.

Holds that the judgment RCOMA 00635/2022/HCC rendered by the Commercial High Court on 02/11/2022 is sustained.

Orders to TRADEMET S.A to pay to CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd a sum of 500,000 Frw for counsel fee, and 200,000 Frw for procedural fee at this instance, in addition to 600,000 Frw awarded in the appealed judgment to be paid by KALINDA Valens.

Holds that the court fee covers the expenses of the judicial proceedings.

## Page 577

CRIMINAL CASES

## Page 579

233

PROSECUTION v. NSENGIYAREMYE [Rwanda COURT OF APPEAL – RPAA 00466/2021/CA (Nyirandabaruta, P.J.) 27 January 2023] Criminal procedure – Mitigating circumstances – Punishment of a young adult offender should differ from the sentence imposed to an adult aged of more than 25 for the sake of fair trial in consideration of the gravity of offence, its effects and the opportunities for rehabilitation. Facts: The case was initiated in the Intermediate Court of Ngoma, the defendant was accused by the Prosecution for storing and selling the narcotic drugs in the category of cannabis, it states that the security organs arrested him in Mahama Camp with 30 packs of cannabis he was selling. The Court rendered the judgment and held that the accused was convicted of storing, smoking and selling severe narcotic drugs in the category of cannabis, but as he unequivocally pleaded guilty, it sentenced him to the imprisonment for a term of twenty (20) years and a fine of twenty-one million Rwandan francs (21,000,000 Frw). The accused lodged appeal before the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana, stating that he pleaded guilty and apologized for the charge; therefore, he requests for the penalty reduction and the change of the offence qualification. The very Court held that there is no legal reason for the change of the offence qualification as requested by the accused; concerning the penalty reduction, it found that the reduction is no longer possible as the penalty was reduced at the first instance.

## Page 580

234 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

The accused filed appeal against the judgment before the Court of Appeal claiming for the change of the qualification of the offence for which he has been convicted because he never sold the cannabis as he had been charged of, the prosecution witnesses related the facts to which they did not assist themselves, their testimonies are equivocal, he was convicted of selling the cannabis by analogy because he was arrested with the cannabis used for smoking. The Prosecution retorted that the appeal of the accused is not founded because before the Investigation Bureau he admitted that he was arrested with 30 packs of cannabis and he admitted that he wholesaled it and he gains interest for providing himself with food. Held: Punishment of a young adult should differ from the sentence imposed to an adult aged of more than 25 for the sake of fair trial in consideration the gravity of offence, its effects and the opportunities for rehabilitation; therefore, the fact that the accused committed the offence aged of 20 should be a mitigating circumstance, leading to the penalty reduction. The appeal has merits. The judgment is only reversed in regard to the offence. Cases referred to: Re Kabasinga, RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 04/12/2019. Prosecution v. Niyonsaba, RS/INJUST/RP 00003/2019/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 28/01/2022. Prosecution v. Ahimpereye, RPAA 00436/2020/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 28/06/2022.

## Page 581

235 PROSECUTION v. NSENGIYAREMYE

Prosecution v. Hakizimana, RPAA 00091/2021/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 19/07/2022. Prosecution v. Shakabatenda, RPAA 00039/2021/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 02/07/2021. Prosecution v. Nzafashwanimana, RPAA 00032/2019/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 28/02/2020. Authors referred to: House of Commons Justice Committee, The Treatment of Young Adults in the Criminal Justice System Seventh Report of Session 2016–17 (2016), HC 169, p.9. NCBI, Young Adults in the 21st Century - Investing in the Health and Well-Being of Young Adults. Available online at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK284782/, accessed on 16th Jan.2023 Cosmin Peneoașum, Judicial Individualization of Punishment in Special Situations. Judge's Role in these Cases, EIRP Proceedings, Vol 10 (2015). Available online at https://proceedings.univdanubius.ro/index.php/eirp/article/view/ 1673/1657, accessed on 18th Jan.2023 Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The case was initiated in the Intermediate Court of Ngoma, Nsengiyaremye Elie was accused by the Prosecution for storing and selling the narcotic drugs in the category of cannabis; it states that on 23/05/2019 the security organs arrested him in Mahama Camp with 30 packs of cannabis he was selling.

## Page 582

236 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Nsengiyaremye pleaded that the cannabis with which he was arrested was not for selling, it was used for smoking. In the judgment No RP 00506/2019/TGI/NGOMA rendered on 18/06/2019, the Intermediate Court of Ngoma based on the admission of the offence by the defendant and the fact that he signed on the seizure statement and he was incriminated by Ntezimana Jean Claude and Bushyitse Désiré to whom he was selling the cannabis when he was arrested in Mahama Camp, it held that Nsengiyaremye is convicted of storing, smoking and selling the severe narcotic drugs in the category of cannabis. However, because he unequivocally pleaded guilty, he was sentenced to the imprisonment for a term of twenty (20) and a fine of twenty-one million Rwandan francs (21,000,000 Frw).

Nsengiyaremye lodged appeal against the judgment ruling before the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana stating that he pleaded guilty and apologized for the offence; therefore, he requests for the penalty reduction and the change of the offence qualification.

In the judgment No RPA 00565/2019/HC/RWG rendered on 15/02/2021, the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana based on the fact that, during the interrogation before the Investigation Bureau, the accused maintained that he bought the cannabis from a Rwandan and he was arrested when he was bringing it in the Mahama Camp for selling it in order to gain the money to buy food and he usually sold it, the fact that Ntezimana and Bushyitse who arrested him asserted that he was arrested with the cannabis, he told them that he usually sold it and the fact that he signed on the seizure statement and it found that there is no legal reason for the change of the offence qualification as requested by the accused and his legal counsel. Concerning the penalty reduction,

## Page 583

237 PROSECUTION v. NSENGIYAREMYE

it found that the reduction is no longer possible for Nsengiyaremye Elie as the penalty was reduced at the first instance.

Nsengiyaremye Elie once again lodged appeal against the judgment ruling before the Court of Appeal claiming for the change of the qualification of the offence for which he was convicted because he never sold the cannabis as he was charged, the prosecution witnesses related the facts to which they did not assist themselves, their testimonies are equivocal, he was convicted of selling the cannabis by analogy because he was arrested with the cannabis used for smoking.

The case was heard in public on 06/01/2023, the Court of Appeal examined the issue related to determining whether the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana erred in maintaining the qualification of the offence for which Nsengiyaremye was convicted which was smoking and selling the severe narcotic drugs in the category of cannabis and whether Nsengiyaremye Elie should be subjected to the penalty reduction. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES Determine whether the Court should change the offence qualification and Nsengiyaremye Elie be sentenced for smoking the narcotic drugs instead of smoking and selling them

Nsengiyaremye Elie submits that he challenges the High Court for not having changed the qualification of the offence for which he was convicted while he pleaded that he never sold the cannabis as he was charged and he was forced to make admissions before the Investigation Bureau, also the prosecution

## Page 584

238 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

witnesses related the facts to which they did not assist themselves, their testimonies are equivocal, he was convicted of selling the cannabis by analogy because he was arrested with the cannabis used for smoking and he never gave it to others.

He submits that he does not accept the witness named Ntezimana Jean Claude as the disputes arose between them due to a girl, he started to run after him, he does not understand why he did not accuse him before as he told him that he sells the cannabis; he states that he has any problem with Bushyitse, it is him who arrested him and he found him when he was smoking the cannabis.

Nsengiyaremye Elie further avers that the Court should not rely on the testimonies of the witnesses who relate the facts to which they did not assist themselves as they are equivocal and the Prosecution did not produce any other element of evidence that proves that he sells the cannabis, the person to whom he gave it and the one who gave him the money, etc.

Counsel Uwiduhaye Julienne who assists him maintains that the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana rendered the judgment and held that Nsengiyaremye Elie sold the cannabis without basing on sufficient elements of evidence because since his arrest he admits that he was smoking the cannabis when he was arrested and he held in his pocket 30 packs of cannabis for smoking, such a person who smokes the cannabis cannot make any valid statement and by accusing him, the Prosecution does not rely on any other evidence than the statements of Bushyitsi which have any other supporting evidence. Also, he states that, as upheld in the judgment No RPAA 0057/15/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 11/05/2018 opposing the Prosecution to

## Page 585

239 PROSECUTION v. NSENGIYAREMYE

Sikubwabo Emmanuel, the admission of guilt by the accused is not sufficient evidence.

She submits that in case the Court finds that her client is convicted of smoking and selling the narcotic drugs in the category of cannabis, it shall apply the penalty reduction for him because it is the first time he committed the offence and sentence him to a lesser penalty, basing on the judgment NO RS/INCONST/SPEC/00003/2019/SC of Kabasinga Floride, paragraph [47].

The Prosecutor avers that the appeal grounds of Nsengiyaremye Elie and his counsel are not founded because, during his interrogation before the Investigation Bureau, Nsengiyaremye admitted that he was arrested with 30 packs of cannabis and he wholesaled it from a Rwandan for one thousand Rwandan francs (1,000 Frw) and he gains profit for buying the food; in consideration of those details, the statements of the accused are true.

He submits that the witnesses called Ntezimana Jean Claude and Bushyitse Désiré assert that the accused was arrested with 30 packs of cannabis and he told them that he sells cannabis. His request for changing the qualification of the offence is not possible because the defendant was accused and convicted of storing and selling the narcotic drugs in the category of cannabis on basis of his own statements before the Investigation Bureau where he admitted himself that he sold the cannabis, since his arrest he never stated that he has a problem with the abovementioned witnesses, the qualification of the offence cannot be changed merely for his claim for which he does not produce any evidence; therefore, such ground is not founded.

## Page 586

240 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The pleading of both parties indicate two main issues to be examined by this Court: determine whether the qualification of the offence for which Nsengiyaremye Elie is accused and convicted should be changed and whether, in case the qualification is not changed, he could be subjected to the penalty reduction.

In the appealed judgment No RPA 00565/2019/HC/RWG rendered by the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana, on 15/02/2021, Nsengiyaremye Elie pleaded that he admitted the charge, but he submits that its qualification should be changed because he was arrested with the cannabis used for smoking. The Court found that before the Investigation Bureau, Nsengiyaremye Elie was interrogated about the reason why he sells the cannabis, he replied that he intended to gain money and there are the witnesses who asserted that he told to them that he usually sells the cannabis; it concluded that Nsengiyaremye Elie does not prove how he could gain money from the cannabis he was arrested with without selling it while Ntezimana Jean Claude and Bushyitse Désiré asserted that he told to them that he usually sells the cannabis1.

The case file contains the statement of the interrogation of Nsengiyaremye Elie before the Investigation Bureau, he indicates that he was interrogated about where he got the cannabis he was arrested with and he replied that he bought it from a Rwandan at 1,000 Frw, he brought it to the camp for gaining the

1 Judgment RPA 00565/2019/HC/RWG rendered by the High Court- Chamber of Rwamagana on 15/02/2021, opposing Nsengiyaremye Elie to the Prosecution, paragraph 13_15

## Page 587

241 PROSECUTION v. NSENGIYAREMYE

money for buying the food. He submitted that it was the first time he tried to sell the cannabis because he intended to gain money, but he was arrested before reaching the camp.

The case file also contains the statement of the interrogation of the witnesses named Bushyitse Désiré and Ntezimana Jean Claude who arrested Nsengiyaremye Elie with 30 packs of cannabis and he admits that he was arrested with them, they assert that after arresting him, he told them that the cannabis was meant for the sale and he usually sells the cannabis.

The Court of Appeal finds that, as upheld by the High Court, the fact that Nsengiyaremye Elie was arrested with 30 packs of cannabis and he stated that he intended to get money from it for getting the food, he must be considered as he sold it, because he does not indicate how he could only smoke it and get money without selling it; rather, it is evident that he intended to give it to anyone who needs it and must give to him the money he needs. The position set by this Court in the judgment Nº RPAA 00436/2020/CA rendered on 28/06/2022 opposing the Prosecution to Ahimpereye Ndeze François, provides that whenever a person holds the narcotic drugs and intends to give them to anyone who approaches him/her seeking the narcotic drugs to be sold, he/she is a trader of narcotic drugs2. The fact that Nsengiyaremye Elie intended to sell the cannabis he was arrested with to anyone who approaches him for getting the money he needs makes him a trader of narcotic drugs.

2 Judgment Nº RPAA 00436/2020/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 28/06/2022 opposing the Prosecution to Ahimpereye Ndeze François, paragraph 19.

## Page 588

242 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

The Court of Appeal finds that, even if Nsengiyaremye Elie denies his statement before the Investigation Bureau when he replied that he intended to gain money from the cannabis he was arrested with for getting the food, such does not diminish its value, because the manner in which he well explained the reason why he sells it and the place where he got it, indicates that he freely provided the explanations; but, afterwards he changed his statement by denying that he sells it and stating that it was only meant for smoking because even if smoking and selling the narcotic drugs are acts punished under the law, the penalties are different as the penalties for selling them are more severe than for smoking them.

The Court finds that the modification of his statements before the Investigation Bureau cannot be taken into account because the judge hearing the case on the merits considers the substance of the statements of the suspect who admits the offence at the investigation level, even if he/she changes his statements before the Court as did Nsengiyaremye Elie3. It finds that the statements of Nsengiyaremye Elie before the Investigation Bureau should be taken into consideration, because they are emphasized by Ntezimana Jean Claude and Bushyitse Désiré who submitted that he usually sells the cannabis, the statement of Nsengiyaremye Elie that the testimonies of Ntezimana Jean Claude should not be taken into consideration as there was quarrel between them for a girl they both loved should not be taken into account because there is no supporting evidence and Bushyitse Désiré incriminating him avers that there was no dispute between them.

3 Judgment N° RPAA 00091/2021/CA rendered by this Court on 19/07/2022 opposing the Prosecution to Hakizimana Gilbert

## Page 589

243 PROSECUTION v. NSENGIYAREMYE

Basing on that analysis, the Court of Appeal finds that the fact that the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana did not change the qualification of the offence for which Nsengiyaremye Elie was convicted at the first instance, the offence was smoking and selling the severe narcotic drugs in the category of cannabis and it did not err as it is the offence for which he is convicted; therefore, his appeal about that issue is not grounded. b. Determine whether Nsengiyaremye Elie should be subjected to the penalty reduction

Nsengiyaremye Elie states that he was sentenced to the penalty more severe than the offence of selling the severe narcotic drugs so that he was punished to the imprisonment for a term of 20 years and the offence he committed and admitted was to smoke and be arrested with the narcotic drugs which is punished of 1 to 2 years.

Counsel Uwiduhaye Julienne assisting Nsengiyaremye Elie requests that he should be punished for smoking the cannabis instead of selling it and sentenced to a lesser penalty; in case the Court otherwise finds, it should reduce penalties for him because it is the first time he committed the offence, it should take into consideration his age and in the context of rehabilitation, he should be punished with the reasonable penalty on basis of the judgment NORS/INCOST/SP/ RP 00003/2019 rendered by the Supreme Court, and punished with the penalty lesser than the one provided under the law. She requests the Court of Appeal to rely on the judgment RPAA 00156/2022/CA rendered on 27/5/2022 and sentence Nsengiyaremye Elie to the imprisonment for a term of 1 year as he cooperated with the justice and it is the first time he is accused.

## Page 590

244 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

The Prosecutor avers that the penalties of imprisonment for a term of twenty (20) years and a fine of 21,000,000 Frw imposed to Nsengiyaremye Elie should be maintained because by his appeal he failed to contradict the elements of evidence supporting his conviction at the first instance. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

By the judgment RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC rendered on 04/12/2019, the Supreme Court set the position on the penalty reduction in case of the mitigating circumstances, it held that the refusal for the penalty reduction for the accused in case of the mitigating circumstances is contrary to the judicial principles, it upheld that “the judge should be granted with the independence of sentencing in accordance with the offence gravity, its effects, its causes, the behavior of the offender, his/her privacy and the circumstances of committing the offence4”. The Court of Appeal followed that position by rendering various judgments, for example the judgment nº RPAA 00039/2021/CA adjudicated on 02/07/20215, the judgment no RPAA 00032/2019/CA pronounced on 28/02/20206 and others.

The Court finds that Nsengiyaremye Elie was born in 1999 and aged of 20 years when he was arrested on 23/05/2019

4 Judgment no.RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 04/12/2019, Kabasinga Florida, paragraph 48. 5 Judgment Nº RPAA 00039/2021/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 02/07/2021 opposing Shakabatenda Jean de Dieu to the Prosecution paragraph 37. 6 Judgment RPAA 00032/2019/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 28/02/2020 opposing Nzafashwanimana Jean de Dieu to the Prosecution, paragraph 16-18

## Page 591

245 PROSECUTION v. NSENGIYAREMYE

with 30 packs of cannabis he was selling. The research conducted by The Justice Committee appointed by the House of Commons pointed out that “Research from a range of disciplines strongly supports the view that Young adults are a distinct group with needs that are different both from children under 18 and adults older than 25, underpinned by the developmental maturation process that takes place in this age group”.7 Brain systems supporting motivational and socioemotional processing are still maturing in young adulthood, influencing a more developed prefrontal executive system capable of more sophisticated and effective planning and resulting in unique influences on decision making, such as adaptive choices or risk-taking behavior8”.

The Court finds that, even if Nsengiyaremye Elie is convicted of the severe offence of smoking and selling the severe narcotic drugs in the category of cannabis and he does not admit it because he states that he admits the offence of smoking the cannabis, the fact that it is the first time he is tried by the courts and by the time of the offence commission he was a young adult aged of 20 years, he had no effective planning; Nsengiyaremye Elie should be subjected to the penalty reduction because the mitigating circumstances include the fact that the offender was a young adult as upheld by the Supreme Court in the judgment Nº RS/INJUST/RP 00003/2019/SC rendered on 28/01/20229.

7 House of Commons Justice Committee, The Treatment of Young Adults in the Criminal Justice System Seventh Report of Session 2016–17 (2016), HC 169, p.9. 8 NCBI, Young Adults in the 21st Century - Investing in the Health and Well- Being of Young Adults. Available online at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK284782/, accessed on 16th Jan.2023 9 “Other mitigating circumstances include the fact that the accused has never been convicted, especially for a young adult between 18 and 21 years”

## Page 592

246 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

The Court finds that due to the fact that Nsengiyaremye was not accused of any other offence, he cannot be considered as he was usually offender and he committed the offence when he was aged of 20 years, he should be subjected to the reduction of the penalty of 20 years of imprisonment and a fine of 21,000,000 Frw imposed to him by the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana in the appealed judgment which did not take into account his age by the time of the offence commission and for imposing the penalty, the judge should consider the privacy of the offender so that his age should be considered as mitigating circumstance as above expounded.

It finds that the punishment of a young adult should differ from the sentence imposed to an adult aged of more than 25 for the sake of fair trial in consideration of the gravity of offence, its effects and the opportunities for rehabilitation in Rwandan society. It finds that sentencing a young adult like an adult is not fair trial and contrary to the principle of individualization of the punishment10.

[30] Basing on that analysis, the Court of Appeal finds that Nsengiyaremye Elie committed the offence aged of 20 years, he is currently aged of 24 years, such shall be a mitigating circumstance; therefore, he shall be subjected to the penalty

Judgment Nº RS/INJUST/RP 00003/2019/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 28/01/2022, opposing Niyonsaba Eric to the Prosecution, paragraph 30. 10 From a legal perspective, the term of individualization expresses strictly the punishment adaptation in relation to individuality, personality of each offender.” Cosmin Peneoașum Judicial Individualization of Punishment in Special Situations. Judge's Role in these Cases, EIRP Proceedings, Vol 10 (2015). Available online at https://proceedings.univ- danubius.ro/index.php/eirp/article/view/1673/1657, accessed on 18th Jan.2023

## Page 593

247 PROSECUTION v. NSENGIYAREMYE

reduction so that the penalty shall be the imprisonment for a term of ten (10) years and a fine of five million (5,000,000 Frw), especially that there are opportunities for rehabilitation and reintegration in the Rwandan society with abilities to collaborate with others for the country development. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the appeal of Nsengiyaremye Elie has merits in parts;

Holds that the judgment n°RPA 00565/2019/HC/RWG rendered by the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana on 15/02/2021 is reversed only on the penalty;

Sentences Nsengiyaremye Elie to the imprisonment for a term of ten (10) years and a fine of five million (5,000,000 Frw);

Decides that the court fees are borne to the Public Treasury.

## Page 595

249

PROSECUTION v. NDIKUMANA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT–RPA 00014/2019/CA (Nyirandabaruta, P.J.) October 23, 2020] Criminal law – The offence of the trafficking in persons – For the offence of human exploitation, it is not necessary for the intended objective of the offence to be achieved, rather, what matters is the criminal intent of the suspect, since it is this criminal intent, that is to say, human exploitation, that is to be punished, rather than the outcome of the offense. Criminal law – The offence of the trafficking in persons – For the offence of trafficking in persons, the suspect might not invoke the victim’s consent as defence. Facts: This case began before the High Court, Specialized Chamber hearing international and transnational crimes, with a suspect being prosecuted for the offence of trafficking in persons. The case involved a female victim who travelled from Burundi and crossed into Rwanda. Upon her arrival at the Rwanda border post, Immigration and Emigration Officers questioned her about her destination, a question to which she failed to provide an answer. This failure led the Immigration officers to suspect her as a victim of trafficking in persons. Consequently, they immediately initiated investigations, which implicated a certain Ndikumana as the suspect. Ndikumana was found to have closely monitored every detail related to the movement of the victim. Upon completion of the investigation, the suspect was arrested for the offense of the trafficking in persons. The High Court, Specialized Chamber hearing international and transnational crimes, heard the case and convicted the accused of the offence

## Page 596

250 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

of trafficking in persons. The Court sentenced him to a term of 7 years of imprisonment and a fine of ten million Rwandan Francs (10,000,000 FRW). The accused appealed against the decision before the Court of Appeal, contending that the previous Court unjustly convicted him of the offence of transporting and trafficking in persons solely on the basis of being seen travelling with Shurweryimana, the victim. He added that it was implausible for him to have deceived a mature person with promises of employment, especially when both individuals did know each other. Additionally, he alleges that the Court relied on his guilty plea before the Investigation Bureau, disregarding the fact that he had pleaded guilty due to a loss of mental faculties after enduring severe beatings. This was confirmed by a medical doctor who attested to the ordeal he had endured. Later on, the accused changed his plea and filed an additional submission before the Court of Appeal, stating that he changed his pleading, he pleads guilty to the charged offense and requests that his guilty plea be considered as a mitigating circumstance for reducing the penalty, along with a subsequent suspension. He further asserts that he is typically a person of good conduct and intends to improve his behaviour. Additionally, he argues that the High Court should not have convicted him of the offense of trafficking in persons. Instead, he contends that he should have been convicted of attempt to trafficking in persons, particularly since the intended offence had not yet been committed. For the Prosecution, the charged offense was committed when the victim was blindly transported, akin to a lamb, and treated as a commodity for sale under pretext of employment. Ndikumana, being aware of his acts, had already profited from his role in transporting persons for monetary gain. Additionally, the

## Page 597

251 PROSECUTION v. NDIKUMANA

Prosecution refers to related international conventions and argues that for human trafficking offence, the procedure favours presumed evidence. It further asserts that the entire prosecution procedure against Ndikumana follows a direct path and contains no analogies. Held 1: For the offence of human exploitation, it is not necessary for the intended objective of the offense to be achieved, rather, what matters is the criminal intent of the suspect, since it is this criminal intent, that is to say, human exploitation, that is to be punished, rather than the outcome of the offence. Therefore, the suspect’s appeal, by which he argues that he should instead have been convicted to the offence of attempted human trafficking lacks merit. 2. For trafficking in persons offence, the suspect might not invoke the victim’s consent for defence. The appeal lacks merits. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law no 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 2; Organic Law no 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal law, articles 76,77,78, 85, 250, 251 and 252; United Nations Additional Protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children, article 3. Cases referred to: The Prosecution v Mukankusi with judgment RPA 0246/09/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 14/12/2012, Rwanda

## Page 598

252 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Law Report, no 17 of volume 2, 2013, published in April, 2013. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The case commenced in the High Court, Specialized Chamber hearing international and transnational crimes, wherein the Prosecution accused Ndikumana Clovis of the crime of trafficking in persons. It was alleged that on 31/03/2018, at three o'clock in the morning, a girl named Shurweryimana left her home in Burundi and crossed the border to Rwanda. Upon her arrival at the Immigration Office, officers asked her where she was going. She failed to provide an answer, raising suspicions about who she was with. Immigration officers then questioned a person named Ndikumana Clovis, who appeared to be closely monitoring Shurweryimana. It was discovered that the two were together, leading authorities to suspect that the girl was a victim of trafficking in persons. Ndikumana was subsequently arrested, and the investigation was launched. At the conclusion of the investigation, the suspect was charged with the offence of trafficking in persons.

Ndikumana Clovis claimed his innocence and argued that he met Shurweryimana, the victim, as he got her from another person by the name of Laruma, who commissioned him to take the lady for a job in Uganda, he therefore saw nothing wrong in all he did.

## Page 599

253 PROSECUTION v. NDIKUMANA

On 18/10/2018, the High Court, Specialized Chamber hearing international and transnational crimes adjudicated the judgment RP 00017/2018/HC/HCCIC and convicted Ndikumana Clovis to the offence of trafficking in persons and sentenced him to 7 years of imprisonment and a fine of ten million Rwandan Francs (10,000,000 Frw).

Ndikumana Clovis appealed against the decision before the Court of Appeal, contending that the previous Court unjustly convicted him of the offence of transporting and trafficking in persons solely on the basis of being seen travelling with Shurweryimana, the victim. He added that it was implausible for him to have deceived a mature person with promises of employment, especially when both individuals did not know each other. Additionally, he alleges that the Court relied on his guilty plea before the Investigation Bureau, disregarding the fact that he had pleaded guilty due to a loss of mental faculties after enduring severe beatings. This was confirmed by a medical doctor who attested to the ordeal he had endured. He also argued that the Court's ruling that he was in charge of all travel matters for Shurweryimana Inѐs is inaccurate. This is because the lady is a mature individual, even older than him. Therefore, it is implausible that he could have blindly manipulated her.

On 8/10/2019, Ndikumana Clovis filed an additional submission to the Court of Appeal, and stated to have changed his pleading. He submitted that he has now made up his mind, and he cannot keep denying the guilt of an offence that is supported with such enough evidence, and that he thereby pleaded guilty, and he requested for penalty reduction and a subsequent penalty suspension. He submitted that he is normally

## Page 600

254 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

a man of good behaviour and he is now ready to mend his conduct.

Nonetheless, though he pleads guilty to the offence, he still submits that the High Court should not have convicted him to the offence of trafficking in persons, arguing that the Court should instead have convicted him to an offence of attempted human trafficking, more so that the charged offence had not been committed and he then states that the Court did not reduce his penalty yet he thereof pleaded guilty.

The hearing was conducted in public on 21/09/2020, with Ndikumana Clovis assisted by Counsel Nkundabatware Bigimba Felix, while the Prosecution was represented by Habarurema Jean Pierre, National Prosecutor. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES Whether Ndikumana Clovis should be convicted to the offence of attempted trafficking in persons rather than the offence of trafficking in persons

Ndikumana Clovis submits that he lodged an appeal on the grounds that his plan had not yet been completed. After their arrest at the border post, the Immigration officials sent Shurweryimana Ines back and arrested him, indicating that his plan had not been completed. Therefore, he requests that the offence should be requalified as attempted trafficking in persons instead of trafficking in persons, citing the judgment RPA 00022/2019/CA for Good Luck Asser Marahaba, rendered by this Court on 17/7/2020, in support of his argument.

## Page 601

255 PROSECUTION v. NDIKUMANA

Counsel Nkundabatware Bigimba Felix argues that their request for the reclassification of the alleged offence is based on the fact that the offence of trafficking in persons of which Ndikumana Clovis is charged, has not been committed. This argument is grounded in the ruling of the judgment RPA 00022/2019/CA for Good Luck Asser Marahaba rendered on 17/7/2020, which states that Article 251 should be applied instead of Article 252 of the Criminal Code of 2012.

The Prosecutor states that the judgment RPA 00022/2019/CA for Good Luck Asser Marahaba cannot be relied on because it is not a principle that a judgment should serve as reference, especially that Article 9 of Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that a judge adjudicates a case on basis of relevant rules of law and Ndikumana Clovis is prosecuted for special offence in consideration of the circumstances in which the persons are exchanged as commodities, brought, transported for the profit purpose.

Concerning Shurweryimana Ines, the victim, the offence has already been completed by the time she was taken like a sheep, in consideration of article 250 of the code of criminal procedure that was into force when the offence was committed, it is obvious that the victim was thereby reduced to a sale commodity, with a sole misconception that was reporting for a job, yet Ndikumana Clovis was already assured of his profit, as he brought a person to Eddy in Uganda for payment as they indicated it by their submissions, he undertook the acts of recruiting, transferring and deceiving with the intention of exploiting the victim for a profit once arrived at the destination.

## Page 602

256 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

The Prosecutor also submits that, with reference to the protocol on trafficking in persons, the objective elements of evidence should be applied, there is no issue of attempt in all the acts committed by Ndikumana Clovis, for which reason, the Prosecution considers that Ndikumana should not be punished on the basis of Article 251 of the above-mentioned Law No 01/2012 of 01/05/2012, instead, his sentence should be determined based on Article 252 of the same Law. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 2 of the Law no 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production in courts provides that evidence is the demonstration of the truth of a fact while article 3 of the same law stipulates that every party has a burden of proving his/her allegations.

Article 250 of the Organic Law n0 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code defines the offence of human trafficking, and the definition includes acts of recruitment, transfer of a person to another part of the country or to another country by use of deception, threat, force or coercion, position of authority over the person, in most cases for the purpose of harming his/her life or unlawfully exploiting them through acts of indecency, prostitution etc… Human trafficking also means the exploitation of people by involving them in forced begging and paid illegal adoption arrangements etc… Exploitation means any form of interests based on sex, forced labour, slavery and other similar practices or the removal of an organ of a human being…

## Page 603

257 PROSECUTION v. NDIKUMANA

Article 251 of the above-mentioned Organic Law no 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 provides that : “Any person who by any means participates , personally or through an intermediary , in trafficking a person out of Rwanda to a foreign country by: 1° means of deception, use of force, threat or any other form of coercion; 2° taking advantage of his/her troubles with the authorities, conflict with the law , being an orphan, a destitute, lonely, limited knowledge, hard labour, living in a family with children close in age, unemployment, disease, physical or mental disability, a loophole in the law or any other situation likely to impair a normal person to act; shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of one (1) year to three (3) years and a fine of five hundred thousand (500,000) to two million (2,000,000) Rwandan francs”.

Article 252 of the same Organic Law reads that “any person who abducts or causes to be abducted, arrests or causes to be arrested, detains or causes to be detained, transports or causes to be transported any person in order to make them slaves, sell them as slaves, force them into begging, illegally adopt them on payment of a consideration, take them in indecent pictures, in dangerous sports, in armed conflicts, live together as husband and wife for the purpose of torturing them or selling their organs shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of seven (7) years to ten (10) years and a fine of five million (5,000,000) to ten million (10,000,000) Rwandan francs”.

For the judgment under appeal, the High Court found that Ndikumana Clovis has done all his best to conceal his deal with Shurweryimana Ines, adding that while at Rwanda border-post, and when being checked by Immigration and Emigration officers, he submitted to Niyonzima Godfroid, one of the

## Page 604

258 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Immigration officers and told him that he does not know Shurweryimana Ines, adding that he only met her on the bus, but it was later discovered that both Ndikumana Clovis and Shurweryimna Ines, the victim, had all along been together.

The High Court has as well found that Ndikumana Clovis took Shirweryimana Ines out of her country with a planned deal; as he was well aware of his final destination, and he was expecting a payment of between 600 and 700 $ upon delivery. This indicates that the acts of Ndikumana Clovis did not constitute a genuine help to Shurweryimana Ines as alleged by the accused, as he instead intended to exploit her and thereof make an illicit profit out of her as he had planned to transfer her over to a person by the name of “Eddy”, who in turn, could decide the ultimate fate of Shurweryimana Ines with the intention to recover all that he would have spent on her, more so that the victim would be a stranger and unknown to her host, to whom she has no agreement whatsoever, and she would put to the sole mercy of her host, and consent to do anything that she would not otherwise do.

The High Court found that the concurrence of all facts around the victim’s situation from the Republic of Burundi, her country, to Rwanda; as well as the considerable profit in terms of dollars that the accused was expecting upon delivery indicates that Ndikumana Clovis had an intention to traffic her victim by committing the act he was arrested for, and it convicted him to an offence of human trafficking.

The case file contains a statement of Ndikumana Clovis submitted to the Investigation Bureau on 31/03/2018, in which he pleaded guilty to the offence of trafficking in persons to foreign countries. He acknowledged that he became involved in such

## Page 605

259 PROSECUTION v. NDIKUMANA

offence due to poverty constraints. He narrated that he has a former classmate named Eddy who resides in Uganda and with whom they have partnered in the recruitment, trafficking, and selling of girls to Arabic countries. He admitted that he has sold one girl named Hadija, but unfortunately, she has been diagnosed positive with Hepatitis. Additionally, he stated that upon the girl’s delivery, he receives a payment ranging between 600 and 700 dollars, while Eddy takes the victims to Kenya for visa application processing.

The case file contains a statement dated 02/04/2018 drawn by Niyonzima Godfroid, an officer of the Rwanda Immigration and Emigration Service. He testified that on 31/03/2018 at around 3 pm, he encountered Ndikumana Clovis together with Shurweryimana Ines coming from the Republic of Burundi. He observed both of them discussing, but when he asked Ndikumana Clovis about their destination, he replied negatively. The officer then questioned Shurweryimana Ines about her destination, to which she replied that she was travelling for study purposes. This response raised suspicion for the Immigration officer, prompting him to check Ndikumana's mobile phone. He discovered that Ndikumana had been chatting with other traffickers of persons, leading him to immediately report the case to an Investigation Officer. The similar narrative was also submitted by Nirora Peter, who arrested Ndikumana Clovis. Additionally, it was noted that the suspect’s mobile phone contained messages regarding price negotiations upon the victim’s delivery into the Republic of Uganda.

The case file also contains a statement made by Shurweryimana on 31/03/2018, wherein she admitted that she was with Ndikumana Clovis when the latter was arrested at

## Page 606

260 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Akanyaru border-post, and that Ndikumana was taking her to Uganda. She further stated that Ndikumana Clovis had promised to cover all expenses for her, and that he is the one who had also processed her passport.

In convicting Ndikumana Clovis to the offence of human trafficking, the High Court underscored that it is undoubtedly proven that Ndikumana Clovis was arrested while attempting to cross Shurweryimana Ines over into the Republic of Uganda. Besides, he has undertaken to pay for the victim’s tickets and all other related travelling expenses. He took her with a false promise for a job but with no details about the nature of the job, neither about his future employer nor her work station or any intermediary brokerage, adding that the victim was left to the sole mercy of strangers who were passing her over to each other with no possibility of making her own decision of whether proceeding with the journey or returning back to her country since all her life was now left in the hands of Ndikumana Clovis.

The Court found that for the accused to be convicted to the offence of human trafficking, one of the acts highlighted under article 252 of the above mentioned law suffices for the conviction of the accused, and these include acts o abducting or causes to be abducted, arresting or causes to be arrested, detaining or causes to be detained, transporting or causes to be transported with a sole intention of having unlawfully exploited.

With regard to the suspect’s defence by which he argues that he did not deceive Shurweryimana since the latter had herself consented to the deal of crossing the border and meeting Eddy in Uganda, the Court has found it unfounded, more so that he took advantage of her destitute situation and unemployment from Burundi, her own country and promised her of a well-paying job,

## Page 607

261 PROSECUTION v. NDIKUMANA

and that is why he undertook to find her the passport and crossed her over the border-posts; yet Shurweryimana Ines, the victim, had no idea of her destination, arrival time, the nature of the promised job, her future employer, not even the salary expectations. Besides, it is Ndikumana Clovis, the suspect, who has undertaken to pay for all her travel-related expenses.

The Court has also found that even if Shurweryimana Ines, the victim, had consented to the journey; that might not absolute Ndikumana Clovis for the offence of human trafficking since he had already made her an empty promise for an employment for a hidden intention of exploiting her for his own profit1. It found that for the offences of trafficking in persons, what matters most is not the consent of the victim, it is rather the tricks that human traffickers use to make their victims fall prey.

With regards to request of Ndikumana Clovis by which he requested to be convicted to the offence of attempted human trafficking, and not to human trafficking, the scholars argue that for acts of human exploitation in the context of the offence of human trafficking, it is not the offence consumption that is so important, what matters most is the offender’s intent, since it is

1 Article 3.b) of Protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons provides that “The consent of a victim of trafficking in persons to the intended exploitation set forth in subparagraph (a) of this article shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth in subparagraph (a) have been used. Consent cannot therefore be invoked as a defence to exonerate a person from criminal liability.”https://www.unodc.org/documents/congress/background information/Human_Trafficking/TIP_Manual_fr_module_01.pdf , accessed on 16/10/2020.

## Page 608

262 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

such criminal intention, human exploitation, that must be deterred, and not the offence consumption2.

The argument by the above law scholars concurs with the provision of article 3 of the United Nations Additional Protocol to prevent, suppress and punish the trafficking in persons, especially women and children signed at Palermo in Italy on 15/11/2000, and which Rwanda has ratified on 26/09/20033, and

2 L’“objectif de l’exploitation” est un élément moral de type dolus specialis: le dolus specialis peut être défini comme l’objectif visé par l’auteur du crime lorsqu’il commet les actes matériels de l’infraction. C’est l’objectif qui importe et non le résultat concret auquel est parvenu l’auteur du crime. Ainsi, la satisfaction de l’élément de dolus specialis ne nécessite pas que le but soit effectivement atteint. En d’autres termes, les ”actes” et les “moyens” de l’auteur du crime doivent viser à exploiter la victime. Il n’est par conséquent pas nécessaire que l’auteur du crime exploite effectivement celle-ci. P.5, https://www.unodc.org/documents/congress/background information/Human_Trafficking/TIP_Manual_fr_module_01.pdf accessed on 16/10/2020 3 https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/glotip/Annex_II_- _Definition_and_mandate.pdf visité le 16/10/2020. Article 3, paragraph (a) of the Protocol states that trafficking in persons “Trafficking in persons” shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs. Article 3, (b) states that: “The consent of a victim of trafficking in persons to the intended exploitation set forth in subparagraph (a) of this article shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth in subparagraph (a) have been used.”

## Page 609

263 PROSECUTION v. NDIKUMANA

the article provides that the accused might not invoke the victim’s consent for defence as long as some acts under the above mentioned article have been committed.

The Court of Appeal finds no irregularity into the High Court’s verdict as the latter convicted Ndikumana Clovis to an offence of human trafficking since he took Shurweryimana Ines, the victim, from the Republic of Burundi, and crossed her to Rwanda border-post taking her to Uganda on an empty promise of a job; yet he well knew that he was taking her to a person by the name of Eddy in the Republic of Uganda for a payment of between 600$ and 700 $ upon the victim’s delivery and then be flown to Saudi Arabia for trade. The Court of Appeal finds that the above acts constitute an offence of human trafficking as provided under articles 250 and 252 of the above mentioned Law n0 01/2012 of 02/05/2012 together with the aforementioned United Nations Additional Protocol to prevent, supress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children.

With regard to Ndikumana Clovis’ request for the requalification of the offence for which he was convicted, citing a precedent set by the judgment RPA 00022/2019/CA for Good Luck Asser Marahaba rendered on 17/07/2020, the Court of Appeal has found his request meritless since for the cited case, Ngowi Good Luck Asser Marahaba was arrested on his way before he crosses Kwizera Marie Claire into the Republic of Uganda, the ultimate destination, and his plan got foiled. The Court convicted him to his role into the acts taking a person out of her country with a purpose of trafficking her as per the provisions of article 27 of the Organic Law n0 01/2012/OL; while for this case, it has been underscored that for human trafficking offences, it is not the offence consumption that is so important,

## Page 610

264 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

adding that what matters most is the offender’s intent, since it is such criminal intention of human exploitation that must be deterred, and not the offence consumption. Whether Ndikumana Clovis pleaded guilty and was not granted the penalty reduction and whether he can be granted the penalty reduction at this level

Ndikumana Clovis together with Counsel Nkundabatware Bigimba Felix, his legal counsel, argue that the accused has been so cooperative to the courts, in the High Court, he pleaded guilty, he pointed out the interest he expected from the offence commission, but he was not granted the penalty reduction. They further add that his offence has not yet caused any serious damages and he thus prays to the Court to refer to articles 77 and 78 of the Penal code then into force, and have his penalty reduced, and subsequently suspended, if possible.

The Prosecutor argues that the law provides no penalty reduction at the appellate instance, rather it provides that the accused who pleads guilty at the onset of the proceedings can be granted the penalty reduction, Ndikumana Clovis has only pleaded guilty before the Investigation Bureau, but before the Court, he did not plead guilty, and therefore he cannot be granted the penalty reduction because the law does not provide for such procedure and in case such procedure is applied, it would be illegal (contra legem). DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 76 of the Organic Law no 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code that was then into force at the time the offence was committed provides that the judge may

## Page 611

265 PROSECUTION v. NDIKUMANA

consider the appropriateness of mitigating circumstances which preceded, accompanied or followed an offence. The decision to accept mitigating circumstances must be justified. Article 77 of the same law stipulates that offence mitigating facts include when … the accused, before the commencement of prosecution at the first instance happens to sincerely plead guilty, and when the committed offence has caused no serious harm.

Article 78, 10 of the above mentioned Law no 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 provides that life imprisonment or life imprisonment with special provisions is replaced by a penalty of imprisonment of not less than ten (10) years, while article 85 of the same Law provides that for the purpose of this very Organic Law, the suspension of penalty is a judge’s decision to order the stay of execution of a penalty of imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years if the convict has not been previously sentenced to imprisonment or to community service as an alternative penalty to imprisonment of more than six (6) months as a result of a final judgement.

In the judgment under appeal, Ndikumana Clovis claims that his oral and written submissions to the Investigation Bureau, as well as his guilty plea, were extracted through beatings. However, the Court decided not to consider this submission since the medical report supporting his allegation indicated that he was transferred to Munini Hospital from Nyamyumba Health Centre due to stomach ulcers and depression-related ailments. The appealed judgment held that medically proven conditions of stomach ulcers and extreme depression-related ailments cannot justify allegations of beatings for false self-incrimination. Additionally, it stated that even the sole arrest for criminal prosecution could induce depression.

## Page 612

266 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

The Court of Appeal finds that Ndikumana Clovis has never pleaded guilty before the High Court, as he just alleges it. Even the little he admitted before the Investigation Bureau, he later changed it and submitted that he pleaded guilty due to the exerted beatings. The Court determined that his claim for sentence reduction in return for his guilty plea has no justification.

For the purpose of this case, the Court has finds no point in the Prosecution submission by which Ndikumana Clovis deserves no sentence reduction because he failed to plead guilty at the onset of the proceedings. The Court holds that since article 76 of the above mentioned Organic Law provides that the judge may consider the appropriateness of mitigating circumstances which preceded, accompanied or followed an offence, this means that the suspect can start denying the charges brought against him/her, but he/she reserves a right of pleading guilty at any stage of the proceedings, whether before the Prosecution or before the court. That concurs with the ruling of the case RPA 0246/09/CS decided by the Supreme Court with the Prosecution v. Mukankusi Victoire whereby the Court held that nothing forbids the Court to reduce the suspects’ penalty as long as he/she sincerely pleads guilty to their offence, the late guilty plea might not be a ground for denying suspects a favor for penalty reduction, more so that there no set time limit that bars the offence suspects from being remorseful and deciding to express the truth before the courts of law4.

4 Judgment no RPA 0246/09/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on14/12/2012, Rwanda Law Report, n0 17, Volume II, 2013, published in April 2023

## Page 613

267 PROSECUTION v. NDIKUMANA

At this instance, the Court finds that Ndikumana Clovis has sincerely pleaded guilty to his offence and he apologises and regrets his acts. Nevertheless, since Ndikumana Clovis is a recidivist to such crimes, more so that he himself admits to have ever engaged into an offence of human trafficking as he once trafficked a certain Burundian girl by the names of Hadija, whom he later returned back to Burundi as she was diagnosed with hepatitis sickness, and he again recruited Shurweryimana Ines, another victim; all adding to a fact that this is a serious crime with horrible effects on the victim, who suffers the whole trauma of being abducted and separated from her family, a desolation that can lead to the victim’s death, he does not deserve the penalty reduction.

Considering all the above provided elucidations, the Court of Appeal holds that the appeal by Ndikumana Clovis has no justification and the Court sustains the previous judgment RP 00017/2018/HCC/HCCIC rendered on 18/10/2018 by the High Court, Specialized Chamber hearing international and transnational crimes.

The Court finds that the request of Ndikumana Clovis for the suspension of penalty cannot be granted, because as provided under the Article 85 of the aforementioned Law No 01/2012 of 02/05/2021, the suspension of penalty is applicable in case the convict has been sentenced to a penalty of imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, Ndikumana Clovis has been sentenced to 7 years of imprisonment.

## Page 614

268 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the appeal lodged by Ndikumana Clovis has no justification;

Holds that the ruling of the judgment RP 00017/2018/HC/HCCIC rendered on 18/10/2018 by the High Court, Specialized Chamber hearing international and transnational crimes is sustained;

Orders that the court fee are borne to the Public Treasury.