GASORE N’ABANDI v. UMUHOZA N’ABANDI

GASORE N’ABANDI v. UMUHOZA N’ABANDI

The appeal was not based solely on the clarification decision but sought to challenge the principal judgment after the statutory appeal period had expired. The law does not permit using clarification or correction as a means to reopen appeal of the main judgment after the deadline. Therefore, the appeal was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RSA/INTERT/RC 00001/2024/CA
Parties
Applicant: Gasore Jean de Dieu; Applicant: Niyitegeka Jean Marie Vianney; Applicant: Tuyishimire Aliavan; Applicant: Uwamariya Justine; Respondent: Kuradushime Marie Blanche; Respondent: Mugisha Jean Claude; Respondent: Mwiseneza Emile; Respondent: Sebagenzi Jean; Respondent: Mbarushimana Jean Bosco; Respondent: Umuhoza Alice; Respondent: Nyirabisabo Jacqueline; Respondent: Ndayisaba Célestin
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
29 September 2025
Case Number
RSA/INTERT/RC 00001/2024/CA
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment at Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed as inadmissible for lateness
Legal Topics
Appeal Timelines, Judgment Clarification, Inheritance Distribution, Costs and Attorney Fees
Source Language
rw
Civil Procedure Succession Law Appeal Timelines Judgment Clarification Inheritance Distribution Costs and Attorney Fees

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

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

Parties

Gasore Jean de Dieu

Applicant

Niyitegeka Jean Marie Vianney

Applicant

Tuyishimire Aliavan

Applicant

Uwamariya Justine

Applicant

Kuradushime Marie Blanche

Respondent

Mugisha Jean Claude

Respondent

Mwiseneza Emile

Respondent

Sebagenzi Jean

Respondent

Mbarushimana Jean Bosco

Respondent

Umuhoza Alice

Respondent

Nyirabisabo Jacqueline

Respondent

Ndayisaba Célestin

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment at Court of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the appeal was filed within the legal time limit
  2. 2 Whether clarification or correction of a judgment allows for appeal of the principal judgment after the appeal period has lapsed
  3. 3 Entitlement to costs and attorney fees

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was not based solely on the clarification decision but sought to challenge the principal judgment after the statutory appeal period had expired. The law does not permit using clarification or correction as a means to reopen appeal of the main judgment after the deadline. Therefore, the appeal was inadmissible for being out of time.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed as inadmissible for lateness

Orders

  • Applicants to jointly pay respondents Kuradushime Marie Blanche, Mbarushimana Jean Bosco, Mwiseneza Emile, Sebagenzi Jean, and Mugisha Jean Claude a total of 500,000 Frw as attorney fees.
  • Applicants to jointly pay respondents Umuhoza Alice and Nyirabisabo Jacqueline a total of 500,000 Frw as attorney fees.