RLR- V.4 - 2020

RLR- V.4 - 2020

The Supreme Court held that paragraph 2 of article 39 of Law N° 59/2008 is not inconsistent with articles 15, 16, and 34 of the Constitution. The Court found that the rationale for property sharing among cohabiting partners is joint acquisition or ownership, and that Supreme Court precedents have already established...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: GLIHD; Respondent: State of Rwanda; Amicus Curiae: University of Rwanda, Faculty of Law
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
1 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment
Outcome
petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Property Rights of Cohabiting Partners, Doctrine of Precedent (stare Decisis), Equality Before the Law, Non Discrimination, Right to Property
Constitutional Law Family Law Property Law Property Rights of Cohabiting Partners Doctrine of Precedent (stare Decisis) Equality Before the Law Non Discrimination Right to Property

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GLIHD

Applicant

State of Rwanda

Respondent

University of Rwanda, Faculty of Law

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraph 2 of article 39 of Law N° 59/2008 is inconsistent with articles 15, 16, and 34 of the Constitution regarding property rights of cohabiting partners
  2. 2 Whether Supreme Court precedents have settled the issue of property rights for cohabiting partners separating for reasons other than marriage

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that paragraph 2 of article 39 of Law N° 59/2008 is not inconsistent with articles 15, 16, and 34 of the Constitution. The Court found that the rationale for property sharing among cohabiting partners is joint acquisition or ownership, and that Supreme Court precedents have already established that property acquired during cohabitation is to be shared upon separation, regardless of the reason. The absence of explicit statutory language does not deprive parties of constitutional rights, and lower courts are bound to follow Supreme Court precedents. The petition was dismissed as without merit.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • Petition by GLIHD is dismissed as without merit.
  • Paragraph 2 of article 39 of Law N° 59/2008 is not inconsistent with articles 15, 16, and 34 of the Constitution.