GASORE N’ABANDI vs KURADUSHIME N’ABANDI

GASORE N’ABANDI vs KURADUSHIME N’ABANDI

The appeal was not based solely on the clarifying judgment but challenged the principal judgment, and was filed nearly four months after the principal judgment, exceeding the statutory one-month period. The law does not permit late appeals on the principal judgment via clarification or correction. Therefore, the...

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: Mbarushimana Jean Bosco; Respondent: Mwiseneza Emile; Respondent: Sebagenzi Jean; Respondent: Mugisha Jean Claude; Intervener: Umuhoza Alice; Intervener: Nyirabisabo Jacqueline; Intervener: 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
Outcome
appeal dismissed as inadmissible
Legal Topics
Inheritance, Late Appeal, Interpretation of Judgments, Distribution of Estate
Source Language
rw
Family Law Succession Inheritance Late Appeal Interpretation of Judgments Distribution of Estate

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 4
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

Mbarushimana Jean Bosco

Respondent

Mwiseneza Emile

Respondent

Sebagenzi Jean

Respondent

Mugisha Jean Claude

Respondent

Umuhoza Alice

Intervener

Nyirabisabo Jacqueline

Intervener

Ndayisaba Célestin

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the appeal was filed within the statutory period
  2. 2 Whether the appeal can be based on a judgment clarifying or correcting the principal judgment
  3. 3 Entitlement to legal fees and costs

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was not based solely on the clarifying judgment but challenged the principal judgment, and was filed nearly four months after the principal judgment, exceeding the statutory one-month period. The law does not permit late appeals on the principal judgment via clarification or correction. Therefore, the appeal is inadmissible.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed as inadmissible

Orders

  • Applicants must jointly pay respondents 500,000 Frw as legal fees for their advocates.
  • Applicants must jointly pay interveners Umuhoza Alice and Nyirabisabo Jacqueline 500,000 Frw as legal fees.