GOVERNMENT OF RWANDA (MINECOFIN) v. VUZIMPUNDU

GOVERNMENT OF RWANDA (MINECOFIN) v. VUZIMPUNDU

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Decisions (Judgements) - Date: 2016-03-11 - Case/document no.: RADA0037/13/CS - Collection: Supreme Court

Text

Page 1

GOVERNMENT OF RWANDA (MINECOFIN) v.

VUZIMPUNDU [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RADA0037/13/CS (Mukanyundo, P.J., Rugabirwa and Ngagi, J.) March11, 2016] Administrative procedure – administrative appeal – for examining the admissibility of an administrative claim, the court does not consider the grounds based on during the administrative appeal rather it assesses whether that procedure was done – Law No18/2004 of 20/06/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 339. Administrative law – administrative decision – the administrator who has the power to do an act, he also has jurisdiction to do otherwise, this means that the used procedure to made the first act must be followed for doing it otherwise – Law N° 22/2002 of 09/07/2002 on general statutes for rwanda public service, article 119. Administrative law – grating the power – the power granted by the authority to do an act and to sign it, it should be clear in the approval document Administrative procedure – taking oath for the public servant – the public servant should not use the pretext of his or her belief for refusing to comply with the law and regulation of the government of Rwanda concerns with taking an oath for the civil servant, since the government of rwanda is secular – Constitution of the republic of rwanda of o4 June 2003 as it is amended in 2015, article 4 Fact : Vuzimpundu was an employee of MINECOFIN but the

latter dismissed her because she refused to take an oath on national flag. It led her to file a case against the government of Rwanda (MINECOFIN) stating that she was unlawfully dismissed because she did not refuse to take an oath rather she expresses that she must take an oath on Bible, therefore she realises that such kind of dismissal is contrary to the human rights, her belief and conscience; in additional to this she was dismissed by an incompentent administrato. That Court held that the dismissal decision is unlawful, and it ordered the government of Rwanda to pay her the salaries which she was not renumerated and the various damages. The Government of Rwanda appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that the previous Court refused to examine the objection of the admissibility of a claim due to the imperfection regard with the power of the one who decide about dismissing Vuzimpundu was not debated in administrative appeal. Vuzimpundu defends in stating that for examines the admissibility of the claim; the Court would not consider the grounds based on in administrative appeal rather it will assess whether that procedure was done. Vuzimpundu filed cross appeal in stating the religious right is inviolable, it is provided for by the constitution law and the international treaties, therefore there is not decision which can be made against a person contrary to those principles. She

realises that an employer should not dismiss her because of refusing to take an oath while she is already in services. Thus she prays the Court to award her the various damages. Government of Rwanda states that Vuzimpundu was not dismissed because of her belief, rather it is because of not comply with the laws, also the human rights are respected as provides for by the law, thefore she can not use the other provisions of the law so that she refuses to respect the national law.

Page 2

Held : 1. for examining the admissibility of an administrative claim, the court does not consider the grounds based on during the administrative appeal rather it assesses whether that procedure was done, thus the fact that the applicant of the administrative appeal did not raise the imperfection which regards with the power of the person who did the act of dismissing her, it will not prevent the admissibility of the claim.

2. The administrator who has the power to do an act, he also has jurisdiction to do otherwise, this means that the used procedure to made the first act must be followed for doing it otherwise; thefore the fact that an employee was dismissed by the permanent secretary of MINECOFIN while she was appointed by the cabinet meeting, it implies that she was unlawful dismissed.

3. Respondent should not use the pretext of his or her belief for refusing to comply with the law and regulation of the government of Rwanda concerns with taking an oath for the civil servant, since the government of Rwanda is secular, the fact that she did not perform it, it is the fault which can lead the compentent authority to dismiss her on service. 4. according the the provisions of the law Government of Rwanda must pay the respondent the counsel fees worth to a half of the fees that were awarded on the first instance. Appeal has no merit; Cross appeal has merit in partial; With the the court fees to the public treasury. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Constitution of the republic of Rwanda as it is amended in 2015, article 4 and 37 Law No 18/2004 of 20/06/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 339 Decree law 30/07/1888 relating to Contracts or obligations, article 258. Law N° 22/2002 of 09/07/2002 on general statutes for Rwanda public service, article 29 and 119. Law No 06/2013 of 27/02/2013 modifying and complementing Law n° 34/2008 of 08/08/2008 on characteristics, description, ceremonial and respect of the National Flag, article 13. Cases referred to: NYIRASAFARI Xavéra vs Komisiyo y’Abakozi ba Leta, RADA 0065/12/rendered by the Supreme Court, on 12/12/2014 NIYONSABA V Caisse Sociale du Rwanda- CSR (RSSB), RADA 0067/12/CS rendered by the supreme Court on 22/07/2014 SEMALI vs EWSA Ltd, RADA 0006/13/CS rendered by the supreme Court on 15/05/2015.

Page 3

Authers cited: J. RIVERO et J.WALINE, Droit administratif, 20ème édtion, Dalloz, Paris, 2004

BACK GROUND OF THE CASE [1] This case begun in the High Court whereby Vuzimpundu Clarisse sued the Government of Rwanda through the General State Attorney claiming that she was dismissed from MIECOFIN where she worked on the ground that she refused to take the oath when moreover she did not refuse it but she indicated that she has to take the oath on the bible, she finds the dismissal unfair because its against the human rights, freedom of belief and she was dismissed by the authority which donot have the competence to do so (Permanent Secretary in Ministry of Finance and Economic planning “MINECOFIN”) and moreover she was appointed to that post by the Cabinet meeting. [2] On 19/04/2013, that Court rendered judgment No RAD 0125/11/HC/KIG, and held that the decision dismissing Vuzimpundu is repealed, it ordered the Government of Rwanda to to pay her 3.222.274 Frw of her arrears, 500.000Frw for moral damages and 300.000Frw for counsel fees. [3] In its ruling, the Court found that since VUzimpundu refused to take the oath it was a ground for her to be dismissed, but held that she was dismissed by the authority which do not have the competence to do so because she was dismissed by the permanent secretary in MINECOFIN and Secretary to the Treasury and more over the procedures carried out when instating Vuzimpundu Clarisse on the post of Administrative Assistant to the Director

General of National Budget” were the ones to be followed in her dismissal, thus that renders her claim to have ground in regards to being dismissed by the incompetent authority. [4] Through the General State Attorney, the Government of Rwanda appealed in the Supreme Court on the grounds that: The High Court did not examine the preliminary objection of inadmissibility which was founded, whereby it demonstrated that the irregularity regarding the competence of the authority which made the decision dismissing VUZIMPUNDU Clarisse was not raised during the administrative appeal; therefore raising it during the hearing should have been a ground for the Court to reject it.. Alternatively In additional, the fact that the Minister of Public Service and Labour delegated to VUZIMPUNDU Clarisse’s employer the power to receive her oath and to dismiss her in case she refuses to do so as indicated by the letter No 029/19.23 of 06/01/2011 of the Minister of the Public Service and Labour, demonstrates that she not dismissed by incompetent authority. [5] VUZIMPUNDU Clarisse raised a cross appeal stating that the High Court disregarded that her religion right as provided for by the Constitutional and International Human Right Conventions is inviolable, therefore she was unlawfully dismissed.

Page 4

[6] The hearing was conducted in public on 09 February 2016, the Government of Rwanda represented by State Attorney RUBANGO Epimaque, whereas VUZIMPUNDU Clarisse represented by Counsel NKURUNZIZA François-Xavier. Analysis of the legal issues Appeal of the Government of Rwanda whether not raising the issue of competency of the authority which made a decision dismissing the employee not being in the administrative appeal is a ground of inadmissibility of the claim [7] State Attorney RUBANGO Epimaque argues that at the first instance the Court did not rule on the preliminary objection of inadmissibility which was raised, it was demonstrated to the Court that during the administrative appeal VUZIMPUNDU Clarisse requested for annulation of the decision which prejudiced her religious beliefs, that she never raised the irregularity concerning the competency of the authority which made the decision dismissing her, therefore to raise it during the hearing was a ground for inadmissibility. [8] NKURUNZIZA François-Xavier, the Counsel for VUZIMPUNDU Clarisse states that in examining the admissibility of the claim, the Court examines do not examine the grounds of administrative appeal, rather it examines whether that procedure was performed and that the appellant does not demonstrate the law which provides for the contents that must be in the administrative appeal.

VIEW OF THE COURT [9] Article 339 of Law No 18/2004 of 20/06/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure which was in force at the time administrative appeal was lodged, provides for that the action for annulment shall be accepted only if it relates to an explicit or implicit decision of an administrative authority. Before filing a claim, the aggrieved party who is against the administrative decision shall be required to first lodge an administrative appeal with the immediate superior authority vis-à-vis the one who took the concerned decision. The authority shall be required to respond in a period of two (2) months which runs from the date he/she received the administrative appeal. If he / she does not respond, the request shall be considered as if it is rejected. In case the applicant is not satisfied with the decision, he/she has a period of six (6) months to file a claim which runs from the date when he/she received the response, and if there is no response, such a period shall start running after two (2) months mentioned in previous paragraph of this [10] The case file indicate that on 31 May 2011 the Permanent Secretary of MINECOFIN1 wrote a letter No 2999/11/10/HR to VUZIMPUNDU Clarisse informing her that she has been discharged of her duties; due to noncompliance with law of Republic of Rwanda relating to taking of the oath by the public

civil servant. On 07 June 2011, VUZIMPUNDU Clarisse lodged an administrative appeal before the Permanent Secretary requesting to repeal the decision taken against her of being dismissed, whereby she explained that during 16 years she spent working for MINECOFIN; there is no disciplinary sanction ever taken against her, the fact that she follows her conscience which was embedded within her by the Bible as a Jehova witness should not be a ground for her dismissal. 1 Ministry of Finance and Economic Planing

Page 5

[11] The Court finds that the fact VUZIMPUNDU Clarisse did not raise the irregularity regarding the competence of the authority that made the decision to dismiss her from the job; cannot lead to the rejection of her a claim because the purpose of the administrative appeal is for the authority who made the decision to reconsider it, without considering whether the authority was competent or not, especially that article 339 mentioned above does not specify the essential elements or grounds which have to be contained in the administrative appeal, that whoever does not respected it, his or her claim is rejected. [12] Pursuant to the motivations given above, the Court overrules the preliminary objection of inadmissibility of the claim raised by State Attorney RUBANGO Epimaque. Whether the Permanent Secretary of MINECOFIN is competent to dismiss VUZIMPUNDU Clarisse from the job. [13] RUBANGO Epimaque, the State attorney argues that the judgment rendered on the first instance in paragraph 18, the Court motivated that even though the refusal of VUZIMPUNDU Clarisse to take the oath was a reasonable grounds for her dismissal, she was dismissed by an incompetent authority; the State Attorney states that he differs from that rationale of the court because she was dismissed by the Permanent Secretary of MINECOFIN who was delegated that power by the Minister of Public Servant and Labour in

the letter No 029/19.23 of 06/01/2011 which the Minister wrote stating that those who refused to take the oath for any reason have to be sanctioned. [14] NKURUNZIZA François-Xavier, the counsel for VUZIMPUNDU Clarisse argues that the Permanent Secretary of MINECOFIN was not delegated the power to dismiss VUZIMPUNDU Clarisse because no one can delegate the power he/she does not possess, VUZIMPUNDU Clarisse was appointed by the cabinet meeting, the Minister of Public Servant and Labour implement the cabinet appointment, therefore it should have been referred back to the Cabinet meeting in order to comply with the principle of parallelism of procedures. He further argues that when someone reads that letter he/she realises that there is no delegation of power and even though it contained that delegation of power, the delegate acts on behalf of the delegator which was not the case because the Permanent Secretary dismissed VUZIMPUNDU Clarisse in his/her name.

OPINION OF THE COURT [15] Article 119 of the law N° 22/2002 of 09/07/2002 on general statutes for rwanda public service which was in force by the time VUZIMPUNDU Clarisse was dismissed, provides that automatic resignation is a deed by which the authority competent in the field of Public Service decides to expel definitively an employee from the Government staff [16] Law scholars Jean RIVERO and Jean WALINE, also they explained that the principle is that the authority with the competency to make a decision, is also the competent one to revoke it, this means that the procedure used make the first decision is the one to be followed in revoking

Page 6

it2. They further explained that the authority can delegate the power to do an act and to sign it , but the delegation of power has to be clear in the authoring text3. [17] The case file demonstrates that VUZIMPUNDU Clarisse was appointed on the the post of Administrative Assistant to the Director General of National Budget in MINECOFIN, which was implemented by the Minister of Public Service and Labor as indicated by the letter No 282/19.23 of 15/09/2009. Also the letter 029/19.23 of 06/01/2011 which the Minister of Public Service and Labour wrote to the ministers and permanent secretaries requesting to receive the oaths of the public servants who did not take the oath due to the different reasons and to sanction those who refuse to take the oath for any reason as follows: a) an employee who refuses to take the oath will be given written notice of 15 days, and be informed that he/she is going to be dismissed because of the fault of not respecting the laws and regulations governing him or her; those are to be effectuated by her employer and serve a copy to the Public Service Commission and the Ministry of Public Service and Labour, b) within that period of 15 days, the concerned employee must submit his/her defence to his/her employer in writing and his/her decision, c) if an employee replies accepting to take the oath, his or her employer receives his or her oath and continues

with the work, d) if an employee replies refusing to take the oath for any reason, he/she must be automatically dismissed on his or her work by the competent authourity. [18] Pursuant to the provisions of article 119 of Law No22/2002 of 09/07/2002 mentioned above and also the explanations of the law scholars also mentioned above, the Court finds that the competent authority to dismiss VUZIMPUNDU Clarisse was the Minister of the Public Service and Labour basing on the resolutions of the cabinet meeting as it was done at the time she was appointed on that post. (Principle of parallelism of forms and competences) [19] The arguments of State Attorney RUBANGO Epimaque that the Minister of the Public Service and Labour delegated the power to dismiss VUZIMPUNDU Clarisse, are not grounded because the letter which was addressed to the Ministers and Permanent Secretaries (mentioned in paragraph 17) indicates that the delegated power was to write to the employee who refused to take the oath informing him/her that he/she is going to be dismissed on his or her service because of the fault of noncompliance with the laws and regulations. Whereas regarding the dismissal of that employee, The Minister of the Public Service and Labour stated that an employee who will reply that she/he has refused to take the oath or exceeds 15 days without replying, he/she will be immediately dismissed from the

service by the competent authority. This implies that the power to dismiss an employee was not delegated to the recipients of the letter mentioned above, rather it was delegated to the competent authority vis a vis VUZIMPUNDU Clarisse, that authority was the one mentioned in the previous paragraph. [20] Therefore the Court finds the fact that VUZIMPUNDU Clarisse was dismissed by an incompetent authority who is the Permanent Secretary of MINECOFIN, it means that she was unlawfully dismissed, thus the appeal of the Government of Rwanda has no merit. 2 In administrative law there is a principle of parallelism of competences (or, alternatively, of the contrary act) which requires that when an authority has jurisdiction to do an act it also has jurisdiction to do the opposite (for example, The person who has the power to revoke). Most often (but there are exceptions) this also implies the parallelism of forms, that is, the obligation to follow the same procedure as that of the initial act in order to accomplish the contrary act (J. RIVERO And J. WALINE, Administrative Law, 20th ed., Dalloz, Paris, 2004, p. 341, no. 404 in fine). 3 It would be physically impossible for certain administrative authorities - for example the Minister - to exercise effectively all their powers. In order for the system to function, it is therefore essential to use the system of delegations, which distinguishes delegation of authority and delegation of signature. Delegations are indispensable but must be limited to what is necessary, which explains their legal status: there is no delegation without a text authorizing it [...] (J. RIVERO and J.WALINE, op.cit. , Pp. 342, no. 405).

Page 7

Cross appeal of VUZIMPUNDU Clarisse Whether requesting VUZIMPUNDU Clarisse, as the public servant to take the oath before the national flag is unconstitutional and violates the international convetions. [21] NKURUNZIZA François-Xavier, the counsel for VUZIMPUNDU Clarisse states that in the previous court, he pleaded demonstrating the that the religious freedom is inviolable, it is provided for by the Constitution in its article 33 and 45, and also in the International Convetions, especially article 18 of international covenant on civil and political rights of 16/12/1966, article 14,15 and 19 of The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, that no decision may be taken for a person which is contrary to those principles, therefore the issue is to determine whether decision against a person can be taken which violates the Constitutional and those International Conventions and to assess whether the principle inviolability of religious freedom is violated if such a decision is made. He states further that the Judge did not rule on that issue. He goes to argue that article 29 of the General Statute of the Civil Servant stipulates that before taking office, every government employee shall takes the oath, consequently the employer should not have dismissed VUZIMPUNDU Clarisse on the ground that she refused to take oath because she was already employed. [22] RUBANGO Epimaque, the State Attorney argue that VUZIMPUNDU Clarisse was not dismissed because of her religious belief, rather she was dismissed because of not complying with the laws, the humans rights are enjoyed in accordance with the law, therefore VUZIMPUNDU Clarisse cannot use the pretext of other provisions to not comply with the national law.

VIEW OF THE COURT [23] Article 33 of the Constitution of 04 June 2003 (which is article 37 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda revised in 2015), provides: “ for that Freedom of thought, conscience religion, worship and public manifestation thereof is guaranteed by the State in accordance with the law. [...]. Whereas article 45 of that constitutional law provided that all citizens have the right to participate in the government of the country, whether directly or through freely chosen representatives in accordance with the law. [24] Article 29 of Law n° 22/2002 of 09/07/2002 on General Statutes for Rwanda Public Service, which provides: “ Before taking office, every Government employee takes the following oath: “«I, …………………………, in the name of God Almighty, solemnly do swear before the Nation to loyally carry out my duties, to remain faithful to the Republic of Rwanda, to respect the Head of State and Government institutions and to promote the Rwandese people’s interests, in abiding by the Fundamental Law and other laws»”. [25] Article 13 of Law No 06/2013 of 27/02/2013 modifying and complementing Law n° 34/2008 of 08/08/2008 on characteristics, description, ceremonial and respect of the National Flag, provides: “Any person taking the oath of office before the National Flag holds the National Flag with his/her left hand and raises the right hand. In case a person with disability obliged to take oath of office before the National Flag cannot comply with the provisions of paragraph One of this Article, he/she shall be caused to wear it”. [26] In this judgment, the case file indicates that there is a letter N° 029/19.23 of 06 January 2011 which was mentioned above, minister of the public service and labour wrote to the

Page 8

Ministers and the Permanent secretaries instructing them to receive the oath of the public service who did not take the oath for various reasons and informed them that the employee who will not take the oath for any reasons should be dismissed after the notice of 15 days by the competent authority on the ground of noncompliance with the laws and regulations governing them. Pursuant to the regulations of the Minister of the Public Service and Labour In October 2010 the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning wrote to Vuzimpundu Clarisse a letter No 6155/10/10/HR requesting her to take the oath. On 06/01/2011, VUZIMPUNDU Clarisse replied the that she cannot take the oath on the National Flag because it contradicts her belief, but she can take the oath on the Bible. [27] The Court finds that Vuzimpundu Clarisse as the public servant should take an oath mentioned above as it is provided for by article 13 of the law N° 34/2008 of 08/08/2008 mentioned above. The fact that she did not perform it, it is a fault which led the competent authority to dismiss her and the pretext she uses that she already employed in order to state that there was the right of denying to take an oath on the national flag that was annoyed since the action of receiving the oath for the public servants who did not take it had purpose of the regularisation, especially it is obvious

that at the beginning of her job the oath should been taken before commencing the job as it is provided for by article 29 of the law No 22/2002 of 09/07/2002 mentioned above. [28] The Court finds that VUZIMPUNDU Clarisse should not use the pretext of her belief inorder to not comply with the laws and instructions of the government of Rwanda concerns taking oath for the public servants, because the government of Rwanda is secular as it is provided for by article 1, paragraph 1of the constitution of the republic of Rwanda of o4 June 2003 (which become article 4 of the constitution law as it is amended in 2015). This jurisprudence was maintained in the various judgments rendered by this Court, like judgment RADA 0065/12/CS rendered on 12 December 2014 between NYIRASAFARI Xavéra vs Public Service Commission, judgment RADA 0067/12/CS rendered on 22 July 2014(NIYONSABA Jean Claude) and the judgment RADA 0006/13/CS rendered on 15 May 2015 (SEMALI Alfred vs EWSA Ltd now Rwanda Energy Group Ltd). Also in the issue which the one named Paul WESTERMAN submitted to Human Rights Committee sued his country Holland, on what concerning he was engaged in military service against his will, and then after he did not comply with the regulation to wear the military uniform. That committee realised that the freedom of religious could not be considered as the right to not respect the obligation

provided by the law or the penal liability4 . Therefore in case the law does not provide for the other way to take oath before the beginning of the work apart from using the national flag, the refuse to take an oath should be liable the effect of his/her decision. Therefore VUZIMPUNDU Clarisse should be liable for the effects for not comply with the provisions of the laws. [29] The Court finds in addition that to take an oath on the national flag does not contradict with the constitution law, article 33( which became 37) and that was article 45, article 185 of 4 Dans une affaire où l’interessé s’étant vu refusé le statut d’objecteur, a été incorporé dans l’armé et condamné pour refus d’obéissance (port de l’uniforme), le Comité a fait observer que le droit à la liberté de conscience en tant que tel ne peut être interprété comme donnant le droit de refuser de s’acquitter de toutes les obligations imposées par la loi ou comme déchargeant une personne de sa responsabilité pénale à l’égard de chaque refus ainsi opposé. (Communication No 682/1996: Paul WESTERMAN c. Pays-Bas, CCPR/C67/D/682/1996, §9.3, Cité par Jean- Bernard MARIE et Patrice MEYER-BISCH, in La liberté de conscience dans le champ de la religion, p.25 https://www.unifr.ch/iiedh/assets/files/.../publicdt04.pdf ) 5 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; This right implies the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of one's choice, as well as the freedom to manifest one's religion or belief, individually or in common, both in public and private, through worship and The performance of rites, practices and teaching

Page 9

“Pacte International relatif aux Droits Civils et Politiques du 16/12/1966”, article 146, 157 and 198 of “Charte Africaine des Droits de l’homme et des peuples”, which counsel NKURUNZIZA François-Xavier relies on , because common understanding of all those articles is that all persons have the right on their belief and religion and also all are equal before the law either for getter work or right on property, however those believes would not spoil the national laws as it is motivated above, or a person may use his /her belief in refusing to perform the legal obligations. [30] According to what explained above, the court finds that to dismiss VUZIMPUNDU Clarisse on the ground for not taking the oath on the national flag, they are in conformity with the constitution law and the international treaties. Whether VUZIMPUNDU Clarisse would be awarded the requested damages in this judgment [31] NKURUNZIZA François-Xavier, the counsel for VUZIMPUNDU Clarisse states that the government of rwanda should give her the counsel fees of 1,500,000Frw, which will be added on the awarded damages. [32] RUBANGO Epimaque, the state attorney states that requested fees are groundless because the government of Rwanda is allowed to use the remedy provided by the law, but in case will realise otherwise, it will assess whether the counsel fees is equal to the requested fees. View of the court [33] Article

258 of the civil code book III provides for that “any act of man which causes damage to another obliges the person by whose fault it happened to repair it”. Article 33 of the regulations of the Bar Association of Rwanda No 01/2014 of 18/07/2014 regulating the counsel fees provides that on the appeal level the counsel for the appellant and for the respondent they are entitled to a half of the agreed price on the first instance”. [34] The case file in this judgment indicates that the submission of filing a case to the high court is on cotes1-5 , whereby VUZIMPUNDU Clarisse requested that the Government of Rwanda would be ordered to pay her 600,000Frw of the counsel fees , this amount is like it was agreed on at the first instance. [35] According to the provision of article 33 of the Regulation No 01/2014 mentioned above , the Government of Rwanda must pay Vuzimpundu Clarisse the counsel fees equivalent to a half (½) of 600,000Frw that is to say 300,000Frw.

DECISION OF THE COURT [36] It holds that the appeal submitted by the Government of Rwanda (MINECOFIN) has no merit. 6 The right to property is guaranteed. It may be infringed only by public necessity or in the general interest of the community, in accordance with the provisions of the appropriate laws 7 Everyone has the right to work under fair and satisfactory conditions and to receive equal pay for equal work 8 All peoples are equal; They enjoy the same dignity and have the same rights. Nothing can justify the domination of one people by another

Page 10

[37] It holds that the cross appeal filed by VUZIMPUNDU Clarisse has merit in parts [38] It rules that the judgment No RAD 0125/11/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court on 19 April 2013 overturns only on what concerns with the counsel fees which must be increased. [39] It orders that the Government of Rwanda (MINECOFIN) to pay VUZIMPUNDU Clarisse three hundred thousand Rwandan franc (300,000Frw) of the Counsel fees who pleaded the judgment on this instance. [40] It orders that the court fees are on the side of public treasury.