Re. GLIHD

Re. GLIHD

Paragraph 2 of Article 39 of Law No 59/2008 does not violate Articles 15, 16, or 34 of the Constitution because Supreme Court precedent already ensures that cohabitees who separate for any reason are entitled to share property acquired together, and the challenged provision does not exclude such persons from property rights. Where the law is silent, courts are empowered to interpret and apply general legal principles and precedent to protect constitutional rights.

Citation
RLR V.4-2020
Parties
Applicant: GLIHD; Respondent: Leta y’u Rwanda; Amicus Curiae: Kaminuza y’u Rwanda (Ishami ry’amategeko)
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
4 December 2019
Case Number
RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2019/SC
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment
Outcome
petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Right to Property, Non Discrimination, Equality Before the Law, Division of Property for Cohabitees, Interpretation of Statutory Provisions, Stare Decisis
Source Language
rw
Constitutional Law Family Law Property Law Right to Property Non Discrimination Equality Before the Law Division of Property for Cohabitees Interpretation of Statutory Provisions +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GLIHD

Applicant

Leta y’u Rwanda

Respondent

Kaminuza y’u Rwanda (Ishami ry’amategeko)

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraph 2 of Article 39 of Law No 59/2008 violates Articles 15, 16, and 34 of the Constitution of Rwanda by denying property rights to cohabitees who separate for reasons other than marriage to a third party.
  2. 2 Whether Supreme Court precedents have resolved the issue of property division for cohabitees separating for reasons other than marriage.

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph 2 of Article 39 of Law No 59/2008 does not violate Articles 15, 16, or 34 of the Constitution because Supreme Court precedent already ensures that cohabitees who separate for any reason are entitled to share property acquired together, and the challenged provision does not exclude such persons from property rights. Where the law is silent, courts are empowered to interpret and apply general legal principles and precedent to protect constitutional rights.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • The petition by GLIHD is dismissed for lack of merit.
  • Paragraph 2 of Article 39 of Law No 59/2008 is declared not to be in conflict with Articles 15, 16, or 34 of the Constitution.