RLR -V. 2- 2018

# RLR -V. 2- 2018

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Rwanda law reports - Date: 2018-03-01 - Collection: Supreme Court

## Text

## Page 1

REPUBLIC OF RWANDA SUPREME COURT P.o. Box. 2197 KIGALI www.judiciary.gov.rw

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Icyegeranyo V. 2 - 2018 Mata, 2018 Law Report, V. 2 - 2018 April, 2018 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 2

REPUBLIC OF RWANDA SUPREME COURT Po. Box. 2197 KIGALI www.judiciary.gov.rw

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Icyegeranyo V. 2 - 2018 Mata, 2018 Law Report , V. 2 - 2018 April, 2018 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 4

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO IKINYARWANDA

## Page 6

ISHAKIRO

ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI ................................. iii KOMITE YEMEZA IMANZA ............................................... iv IRIBURIRO........................................................................... vii IBIKUBIYE MURI IKI CYEGERANYO ............................. viii INYITO ................................................................................ viii AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO ........................................ ix IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE .................................................. xi AMAGAMBO MPINE .......................................................... xii CAPLAKI v. MUKANYIRINKWAYA ................................... 1 MUHIRWA ET AL v. NZEYIMANA ................................... 15 HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE N’UNDI (2)................ 33 MUKAGATARE v. SUCCESSION BWANAKEYE (2) ....... 51 IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA) v. UMURUNGI UMWIZERWA ..................................................................... 71 BAHOZE v. BANKI NKURU Y’U RWANDA (B.N.R) ........ 85 INTERSEC SECURITY COMPANY Ltd v. NSENGIYUMVA .............................................................................................. 99 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NTEZIRYAYO ............................ 115

i

## Page 8

ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI

ITSINDA RY’ABANYAMATEGEKO BATEGUYE IMANZA

KAGABO U. Stephanie

KAVUTSE M. Claude

KUBWIMANA Jean Claude

MUJABI K. Naphtal

MWIHOREZE Claudine

NTIHEMUKA Emmanuel

UWIMANA Gisèle

iii

## Page 9

KOMITE YEMEZA IMANZA

MUGENZI Louis Marie : Perezida wa Komite Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga

Dr. MUHIRE G. Yves : Visi Perezida wa Komite Umwalimu muri Kaminuza y’u Rwanda

RUTAZANA Angeline : Umwanditsi wa Komite Umugenzuzi w’Inkiko

BAGABO Faustin : Avoka mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka

BWIZA N. Blanche : Umugenzuzi w’Inkiko

GIRANEZA Clémentine : Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze

HABARUREMA Jean Pierre : Umushinjacyaha ku Rwego rw’Igihugu

KALIWABO Charles : Perezida w’Urukiko Rukuru

Me KAYIHURA Didas : Avoka mu Rugaga iv

## Page 10

rw’Abavoka

KIBUKA Jean Luc : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi

Major. MADUDU A. Charles : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare

MUREREREHE Saouda : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru

Prof. Dr. NGAGI M. Alphonse : Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga

RUBANGO K. Epimaque : Intumwa ya Leta

RUKUNDAKUVUGA F. Regis : Umugenzuzi Mukuru w’Inkiko UWANTEGE Yvette : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye

v ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI

## Page 12

IRIBURIRO Basomyi bacu, Tunejejwe no kubagezaho Icyegeranyo cy’ibyemezo by’Inkiko, Volime 2 [2018]. Nk’uko mu bizi, tubahitiramo imanza zirimo inyigisho zikubiyemo bimwe mu bisubizo by’ibibazo muhura nabyo kenshi, haba mu mirimo yanyu ndetse no buzima bwa buri munsi. Muri iyi nomero murasangamo imanza umunani (8) zirimo esheshatu (6) zaburanishijwe mu mizi zikurikira: ebyiri (2) mbonezamubano, rumwe (1) rw’ubucuruzi, rumwe (1) nshinjabyaha, rumwe (1) rw’ubutegetsi na rumwe (1) rw’umurimo, mu gihe ebyiri (2) zisigaye zerekeye imiburanishirize. Nk’uko mu maze kubimenyera kandi, imanza ziri muri iki cyegeranyo ziboneka no kurubuga rwa murandasi rw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ruborohereza kubona urubanza mukeneye mu buryo bwihuse, kuri http://decisia.lexum.com/rlr/kn/nav.do. Prof. RUGEGE Sam Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga Perezida w’Inama Nkuru y’Ubucamanza

vii

## Page 13

IBIKUBIYE MURI IKI CYEGERANYO Iki cyegeranyo gikubiyemo imanza zaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga n’Urukiko Rukuru zikoreshwa hakurikijwe inyito ivugwa hasi.

INYITO Imanza ziri muri iyi volime zikoreshwa muri ubu buryo: [2018] 2 RLR

viii

## Page 14

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO Itegeko Ngenga No02/2013 ryo kuwa 16/6/2013 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko ngenga No58/2009 ryo kuwa 09/09/2009 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Inkiko, ingingo ya 12.........4 Itegeko Ngenga Nº03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 28, igika cya 2(7º, 8º, 9º) n’igika cya 3...................17 Itegeko Ngenga Nº01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 105 na 78 (1º).........116 Itegeko Ngenga Nº51/2008 ryo ku wa 09/09/2008 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’inkiko, ingingo ya 164.....17 East African Community Customs Management Act, 2004, ingingo za 135, 203, 219, 220...................................................73 Itegeko N°86/2013 ryo kuwa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho sitati rusange igenga Abakozi ba Leta, ingingo ya 76, 77 na 78.......87 Itegeko N°43/2013 ryo ku wa 16/06/2013 rigenga ubutaka mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 10, 46 n’iya 47..........................................54 Itegeko Nº30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 187....17 Itegeko No21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 112, 113 n’iya 114.........................................4 ingingo ya 336 (1)..........................................................88 ingingo ya 9.................................................................101 Itegeko N°13/2009 ryo kuwa 27/05/2009 rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 1(21) n’iya 32.........................................101 ix

## Page 15

Itegeko No15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 3...................................................................37 ingingo ya 3 n’iya 13.....................................................54 Itegeko N°22/99 ryo ku wa 12/11/1999 ryuzuza Igitabo cya mbere cy’Urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano kandi rishyiraho igice cya gatanu cyerekeye imicungire y’umutungo w’abashyingiranywe, impano n’izungura, ingingo ya 21.........37 Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 33, iya 276 iya 306 n’iya 650......................36 ingingo ya 258.............................................................101

x ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 16

IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE Busingye v. Mukarushema, RCAA0029/12/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 08/03/2013, Icyegereanyo cy’ibyemezo by’inkiko, igitabo cya 3, No18, p.54.....................37 ELECTROGAZ v. Niwenshuti Nzaramba Valens, RADAA0038/09/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 25/03/2011.................................................................................88 Euro Trade International Sarl v. Rwakirenga Pascal, RSOCAA0027/11/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 13/3/2012…………………………………………………………...101 Munyaneza Evariste v. RRA RCOMA0047/10/CS, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwaciwe kuwa 29/07/2011...................73

xi

## Page 17

AMAGAMBO MPINE Amategeko agenga amasezerano – Igurisha – Iseswa ry’amasezerano – Igurisha ry’ikintu cy’undi ni imfabusa, kandi rishobora gutangirwa indishyi iyo umuguzi atamenye ko icyo kintu ari icy’undi – Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 33 n’iya 276. HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE N’UNDI(2)......33 Uburyarya – Ugomba gutanga ibimenyetso bw’uko habayeho uburyarya – Kutagira uburyarya bifatwa buri gihe nk'aho biriho kandi uwitwaza uburyarya bw'undi niwe ugomba kubutangira ikimenyetso – Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 650. HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE N’UNDI(2)......33 Igurisha – Ingaruka zo kuvutswa uburenganzira ku cyagurishijwe – Iyo umuguzi avukijwe uburenganzira bwe ku cyo yaguze, umugurisha agomba gusubiza amafaranga y'ikiguzi cyacyo – Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 306. HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE N’UNDI(2)......33 Amategeko agenga ibimenyetso – Inshingano yo gutanga ibimenyetso – Buri muburanyi agomba kugaragaza ukuri kw’ibyo aburana – Itegeko No15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 3. HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE N’UNDI(2)......33 xii

## Page 18

Amategeko agenga imanza z’ubutegetsi – Ibihano mu rwego rw’akazi – Uburyozwe bw’icyaha – Kuba urukiko nshinjabyaha rwaremeje ko umukozi ari umwere ku cyaha yari akurikiranyweho ntibyabuza umukoresha kumuhanira andi makosa yakoze mu rwego rw’akazi – Itegeko N°86/2013 ryo kuwa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho sitati rusange igenga Abakozi ba Leta, ingingo ya 76, 77 na 78. BAHOZE v. BANKI NKURU Y’U RWANDA (B.N.R).....................................................................................85 Amategeko yerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza Nshinjabyaha – Kurega utisunze ubushinjacyaha – Ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku bujurire bwa kabiri mu manza nshinjabyaha – Igihano cyonyine nicyo gishingirwaho mu kugena ububasha kabone n’ubwo abareze baba batarisunze Ubushinjacyaha – Itegeko Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, Ingingo ya 28(3). MUHIRWA ET AL v. NZEYIMANA..........................15 Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubucuruzi – Kugoboka ku bushake – Iyakirwa ry’ikirego cyo kugoboka ku bushake – Ikirego cyo kugoboka ku bushake kirakirwa, mu rwego rwa mbere cyangwa mu bujurire, keretse iyo ugobotse mu bujurire ashyikirije urukiko ikirego bwa mbere kitigeze gisuzumwa n’Inkiko zibanza – Itegeko No21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 113. CAPLAKI v. MUKANYIRINKWAYA.........................1 Guhindura kamere y’urubanza – Kugoboka ku bushake kw’Umujyi wa Kigali ntibihindura kamere y’urubanza xiii AMAGAMBO MPINE

## Page 19

rwatangiye ari urw’ubucuruzi ngo ruhinduke urw’ubutegetsi kuko ikiregerwa ari inshingano zikomoka ku masezerano y’ubugure impande zombi zagiranye – Itegeko Ngenga No02/2013 ryo kuwa 16/6/2013 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko Ngenga No58/2009 ryo kuwa 09/09/2009 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Inkiko ingingo ya 12. CAPLAKI v. MUKANYIRINKWAYA.........................1 Amategeko agenga imiburanishirije z’imanza z’ubutegetsi – Iyakirwa ry’ikirego – Gutakamba – Umukozi wa Leta ugomba kubanza gutakamba ni usaba ko icyemezo cyafashwe n’umuyobozi kivanwaho – Itegeko No21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 336(1). BAHOZE v. BANKI NKURU Y’U RWANDA(B.N.R)..........................................................85 Amategeko agenga imisoro – Amategeko agenga imisoreshereze ya gasutamo mu muryango w’ibihugu by’iburasirazuba bw’afurika – Imenyekanyisha rikosheje – Mu gihe hakozwe imenyekanisha ritari ryo kubera kwibeshya bigatuma hishyurwa imisoro micye, Komiseri wa za gasutamo afite ububasha bwo gusaba umusoreshwa kwishyura ikinyuranyo ku musoro yagombaga kwishyura utarishyuwe – Amategeko agenga imisoreshereze ya gasutamo mu muryango w’ibihugu by’iburasirazuba bw’Afurika 2004, ingingo ya 135. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA) v. UMURUNGI UMWIZERWA.......................................71 Amategeko agenga ubutaka – Inkomoko y’ubutaka bw’umuntu ku giti cye – Uregera ko ubutaka ari ubwe xiv ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 20

agomba kugaragaza inkomoko yabwo – Itegeko N°43/2013 ryo kuwa 16/06/2013 rigenga ubutaka mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 10. MUKAGATARE v. SUCCESSION BWANAKEYE(2)...........................................................51 Amakimbirane ku butaka – Igihe ubuzime bw’uburenganzira ku butaka budakoreshwa – Umuntu wihaye ubutaka bw’inkungu cyangwa indeka cyangwa ubw’undi muntu akoresheje uburiganya, ntashobora kwitwaza ubuzime – Itegeko N°43/2013 ryo kuwa 16/06/2013 rigenga ubutaka mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 46 n’iya 47. MUKAGATARE v. SUCCESSION BWANAKEYE(2)...........................................................51 Amategeko mpanabyaha – Kwitabara – Ugomba kugaragaza ibimenyetso – Uburanisha ko yakoze icyaha yitabara niwe ubitangira ibimenyetso – Itegeko Ngenga Nº01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, Ingingo ya 105. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NTEZIRYAYO..................115 Igabanyagihano – Gusaba kongera kugabanyirizwa igihano – Ntawasaba kongera kugabanyirizwa igihano mugihe mu Rukiko rubanza yagabanyirijwe bihagije ndetse agahabwa igihano gikwiranye n’icyaha yakoze. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NTEZIRYAYO..................115 Amategeko agenga umurimo – Kwirukanwa muburyo bunyuranyije n’amategeko – Ikosa rikomeye – Byitwa kwirukanwa mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko igihe umukoresha yirukanye umukozi kubera ikosa rikomeye ariko ntakurikize igihe giteganwa n’amategeko – Ikosa xv AMAGAMBO MPINE

## Page 21

rikomeye ni ikosa ry’umukozi ryica inshingano ze mu kazi cyangwa mu mikoranire ye n’umukoresha kuburyo bituma umukozi atakwihanganirwa kuguma mu kazi mu gihe cy’integuza – Itegeko N°13/2009 ryo kuwa 27/05/2009 rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda, ingingo 1(21) n’iya 32. INTERSEC SECURITY COMPANY Ltd v. NSENGIYUMVA...........................................................99 Amategeko agenga umuryango – Imicungire y’umutungo w’abashyingiranywe – Uko imicungire y’umutungo n’uburyo bawucunga byaba biri kose, ubwumvikane bw’abashyingiranywe ni ngombwa mu gutanga ikitimukanwa bwite n’umutungo bahuriyeho no kubitangaho ubundi burenganzira bwose – Itegeko N°22/99 ryo ku wa 12/11/1999 ryuzuza Igitabo cya mbere cy’Urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano kandi rishyiraho igice cya gatanu cyerekeye imicungire y’umutungo w’abashyingiranywe, impano n’izungura, ingingo ya 21. HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE N’UNDI(2)......33

xvi ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 22

IMANZA ZEREKERANYE N’IMIBURANISHIRIZE Y’IMANZA

## Page 24

IMANZA ZEREKERANYE N’IMIBURANISHIRIZE Y’IMANZA Z’IMBONEZAMUBANO, IZ’UBUCURUZI, IZ’UMURIMO N’IZ’UBUTEGETSI

## Page 26

CAPLAKI v. MUKANYIRINKWAYA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RCOMAA0043/14/CS (Kayitesi Z, P.J., Kayitesi R. na Nyirandabaruta, J.) 27 Gicurasi 2016] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubucuruzi – Kugoboka ku bushake – Iyakirwa ry’ikirego cyo kugoboka ku bushake – Ikirego cyo kugoboka ku bushake kirakirwa, mu rwego rwa mbere cyangwa mu bujurire, keretse iyo ugobotse mu bujurire ashyikirije urukiko ikirego bwa mbere kitigeze gisuzumwa n’Inkiko zibanza – Itegeko No21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 113. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubucuruzi – Guhindura kamere y’urubanza – Kugoboka ku bushake kw’Umujyi wa Kigali ntibihindura kamere y’urubanza rwatangiye ari urw`ubucuruzi ngo ruhinduke urw’ubutegetsi kuko ikiregerwa ari inshingano zikomoka ku masezerano y’ubugure impande zombi zagiranye – Itegeko Ngenga No02/2013 ryo kuwa 16/6/2013 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko Ngenga No58/2009 ryo kuwa 09/09/2009 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Inkiko ingingo ya 12. Incamake y’ikibazo: Umujyi wa Kigali wagiranye na sosiyete SOGECO amasezerano y’ubukode burambye bw’ikibanza No5810 uyiha n’ibyangombwa byo kucyubakamo, ariko nyuma yaho ayo masezerano aza guseswa n’umujyi wa Kigali ku mpamvu yuko wamenyeshejwe na Electrogaz ko icyo kibanza cyari kinyuzemo umuyoboro munini w’amazi washoboraga 1

## Page 27

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 2 kubangamirwa no kwangizwa icyo kibanza kiramutse cyubatswemo inyubako zikomeye. Nyuma yaho Umujyi wa Kigali waje gutiza icyo kibanza koperative yitwa CAPLAKI kugirango igicuruzemo ibihangano byayo ariko itemerewe ku cyubakamo, nyuma yahonayo iracyamburwa gihabwa bundi bushya Mukanyirinkwaya Adele, uyu agikodesha koperative CAPLAKI, nyuma yaho bumvikana kubugure bw’icyo kibanza ndetse bakorana amasezerano y’ubugure (promesse de vente), inamuha avansi kuri ubwo bugure. Koperative CAPLAKI yaje kumenya ko Mukanyirinkwaya nta burenganzira yari afite bwo kugurisha icyo kibanza maze isesa amasezerano y’ubugure bakoranye, maze imurega mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge isaba gusubizwa amafaranga y’ubukode bw’ikibanza hamwe na avansi yamuhaye, urukiko rwemeza ko ikirego gifite ishingiro, rutegeka Mukanyirinkwaya kwishyura amafaranga y’avansi yahawe na Koperative CAPLAKI hamwe indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’iz’igihembo cy’avoka. Ababuranyi bombi bajuririye mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, uru rukiko rwemeza ko ubujurire bwa koperative CAPLAKI bufite ishingiro, naho ubwa Mukanyirikinkwaya bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe, rwemeza nanone ko habaho guhuza imyenda, maze rutegekakoperative CAPLAKI gusubiza Mukanyirinkwaya ikibanza yayikodesheje, ikamuha indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’iz’igihembo cy’avoka. Koperative CAPLAKI yongeye ijurira mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga ivuga ko umucamanza wo mu rukiko rubanziriza uru yashingiye ku itegeko ritakiriho, ko kandi yagaragaje kwivuguruza gukabije mu rubanza rujuririrwa, ivuga kandi ko yirengagije

## Page 28

3 ibimenyetso yatanze byerekana ko icyo kibanza ari umutungo wa Leta. Umujyi wa Kigali wagobotse ku bushake mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga uvuga ko ufite inyungu muri uru rubanza kuko icyo kibanza amasezerano y’ubugure ashingiyeho ari umutungo wa Leta. Mukanyirinkwaya yatanze inzitizi yo kutakira ukugoboka kubushake kw’umujyi wa Kigali avuga ko kwakozwe ubwa mbere mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, kandi ko uko kugoboka kuramutse kwemewe kwahindura kamere y’urubanza, urubanzarugahinduka urw’ubutegetsi aho kuba urw’ubucuruzi kandi ikiregerwa ari ugusubizwa amafaranga. Koperative CAPLAKI ivuga ko ukugoboka ku bushake kw’umujyi wa Kigali bidahindura kamere y’urubanza ku buryo ikirego gihinduka icy’ubutegetsi mu gihe ikiburanwa gishingiye ku mutungo ivuga ko ari uwa Leta. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Ikirego cyo kugoboka ku bushake gishobora kwakirwa mu rwego rwa mbere cyangwa mu rwego rw’ubujurire, keretse iyo ugobotse mu bujurire ashyikirije Urukiko ikirego bwa mbere kitigeze gisuzumwa n’Inkiko zibanza. Bityo Umujyi wa Kigali ugomba kwemererwa kugoboka ku bushake mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga kuko utabaye umuburanyi mu nkiko zibanza kandi ukaba wari ufite inyungu muri uru rubanza. 2. Kugoboka ku bushake kw’Umujyi wa Kigali ntibihindura kamere y’urubanza rwatangiye ari urw’ubucuruzi ngo ruhinduke urw’ubutegetsi kuko ikiregerwa ari inshingano zikomoka ku masezerano y’ubugure impande zombi zagiranye. Inzitizi nta shingiro ifite. CAPLAKI v. MUKANYIRINKWAYA

## Page 29

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 4 Iburanisha mu mizi rizakomeza. Amagarama y’urubanza abaye asubitswe. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Ngenga No02/2013 ryo kuwa 16/6/2013 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko ngenga No58/2009 ryo kuwa 09/09/2009 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Inkiko, ingingo ya 12. Itegeko No21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 112, 113 n’iya 114. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Ibitekerezo by’Abahanga: Serge Guinchard “Droit et Pratique de la Procédure Civile”,Edition Dalloz, Paris, 2006. Jean Rivero na Jean Waline, “Droit Administratif”, Edition Dalloz, 20ème Edition, 2004. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Kuwa 9/5/2000, Umujyi wa Kigali wahaye Sosiyeti yitwa “SOGECO” ikibanza No5810 n’ibyangombwa byo kucyubaka, ariko kuwa 18/9/2002 Electrogaz yandikira Umujyi wa Kigali iwumenyesha ko muri icyo kibanza hanyuzemo umuyoboro w’amazi munini ugaburira igice kinini cya Kigali,

## Page 30

5 ko haramutse hubatswe byakwangiza ibyo bikorwa maze Umujyi wa Kigali usesa amasezerano y’ubukode bw’icyo kibanza kuwa 31/12/2002. [2] Kuwa 02/12/2003, Umujyi wa Kigali watije CAPLAKI ikibanza No5810 kugira ngo igicururizemo ibihangano byayo, ariko kuwa 28/4/2009 ugiha na none Mukanyirinkwaya Adèle maze nawe agikodesha CAPLAKI kuwa 14/5/2009 ndetse kuwa 09/06/2011 bakorana amasezerano y’ubugure, CAPLAKI yemera kuzagura icyo kibanza (Promesse de vente) iha Mukanyirinkwaya Adèle avansi ya 37.500.000Frw. [3] Kuwa 27/3/2012, CAPLAKI yasheshe “ Promesse de vente” nyuma yo kumenya y’uko Mukanyirinkwaya Adèle atari yemerewe kugurisha icyo kibanza, itanga ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge, isaba gusubizwa amafaranga y’ubukode na avansi yatanze n’indishyi zinyuranye, Urukiko ruca urubanza RCOM0279/14/TC/Nyge kuwa 30/5/2014, rwemeza ko ikirego cya CAPLAKI gifite ishingiro, rutegeka Mukanyirinkwaya Adèle kwishyura CAPLAKI 38.300.000Frw akubiyemo amafaranga y’avansi y’ikibanza, indishyi, ay’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’Avoka. [4] CAPLAKI na Mukanyirinkwaya bajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, ubujurire bwa Mukanyirinkwaya buhabwa RCOMA0353/14/HCC naho ubwa CAPLAKI buhabwa RCOMA0390/14/HCC, izo manza zirahuzwa, Urukiko ruca urubanza kuwa 19/09/2014, rwemeza ko ubujurire bwa Mukanyirinkwaya Adèle bufite ishingiro naho ubwa CAPLAKI bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe, rwemeza ko imikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe ihindutse mu ngingo zayo zose, rukiza ko habaho guhuza imyenda, rutegeka CAPLAKI gusubiza Mukanyirinkwaya Adèle ikibanza yayikodesheje, CAPLAKI v. MUKANYIRINKWAYA

## Page 31

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 6 itabikora urubanza rukimara gusomwa ikishyura Mukanyirinkwaya 34.948.000Frw y’ubukode imubereyemo, 1.000.000Frw y’indishyi zo kumushora mu manza, 1.500.000 Frw y’igihembo cy’Avoka na 500.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza. [5] CAPLAKI ihagarariwe na Me Nsengiyumva Niyondora yajuririye na none urwo rubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 14/10/2014, avuga ko Umucamanza yashingiye ku Itegeko ritakiriho, ko kandi yagaragaje kwivuguruza gukabije mu rubanza rujuririrwa no kuba yarirengagije ibimenyetso byerekana ko ikibanza CAPLAKI ikoreramo ari umutungo wa Leta, naho Umujyi wa Kigali ugoboka ku bushake muri uru rubanza. [6] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame kuwa 26/04/2016, CAPLAKI yitabye ihagarariwe na Me Nsengiyumva Niyondora, Mukanyirinkwaya Adèle ahagarariwe na Me Mwanayire Florentine na Me Semadwinga Claude naho Umujyi wa Kigali uhagarariwe na Me Rubango Epimaque. [7] Me Mwanayire Florentine na Me Semadwinga Claude batanze inzitizi yo kutakira ukugoboka ku bushake kw’Umujyi wa Kigali. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO Kumenya niba ukugoboka ku bushake kwakozwe n’Umujyi wa Kigali kugomba kwemerwa kandi niba gutuma kamere y’urubanza ihinduka.

## Page 32

7 [8] Me Rubango Epimaque avuga ko Umujyi wa Kigali wagobotse ku bushake ushingiye ku ngingo ya 112 na 113 y’Itegeko No21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi kuko ufite inyungu muri uru rubanza. [9] Asobanura ko mu mwaka wa 2000, Umujyi wa Kigali watije SOGECO ikibanza No5810, basinyana n’amasezerano y’ubukode ariko kuwa 31/10/2002 urayasesa kuko wasanze icyo kibanza kinyuramo umuyoboro w’amazi munini ugaburira igice kinini cya Kigali, ko guhera icyo gihe, icyo kibanza nta muntu ugifiteho uburenganzira, ko ibyo binashimangirwa no kuba Umujyi wa Kigali waragitije CAPLAKI kugira ngo icururizemo ibihangano byayo, ariko itemerewe kubakamo inyubako zikomeye no gukora ibikorwa bibangamira ibikorwa bya Electrogaz byari muri icyo kibanza. [10] Avuga ko kandi kuba Mukanyirinkwaya yaragiranye na CAPLAKI amasezerano y’ubugure (Promesse de vente) bw’uwo mutungo kandi utari uwe, ntibanagobokeshe Umujyi wa Kigali kugira ngo hasobanuke nyir’umutungo, bigaragaza umugambi wo gushaka gutwara umutungo utari uwabo, asaba Urukiko kwakira ukugoboka kw’Umujyi wa Kigali. [11] Me Mwanayire Florentine avuga ko kugoboka ku bushake kw’Umujyi wa Kigali kutagomba kwakirwa kuko kwakozwe bwa mbere mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga kandi wari usanzwe uzi ikibazo, ko Umujyi wa Kigali uvuze ko ikibanza kiburanwa ari icyawo, ikirego kigomba kuba icy’ubutegetsi, ukakiregera mu Rukiko ruburanisha imanza z’ubutegetsi, akomeza avuga ko Umujyi wa Kigali nta nyungu ufite muri uru rubanza kuko ikiregerwa ari ugusubizwa amafaranga. CAPLAKI v. MUKANYIRINKWAYA

## Page 33

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 8 [12] Me Semadwinga Claude avuga ko kugoboka ku bushake kw’Umujyi wa Kigali kutagomba kwakirwa kuko ikirego CAPLAKI iburana na Mukanyirinkwaya gishingiye ku masezerano y’ubukode n’ay’ubugure bw’ikibanza No5810, kikaba ari ikirego cy’Ubucuruzi, ashingira ku ihame mu mategeko rya (Continuité de pouvoir) avuga ko icyemezo cy’Ubuyobozi cyakozwe n’Ubuyobozi bwari bubifitiye ububasha icyo gihe, Umujyi wa Kigali ukagitesha agaciro bihindura urubanza urw’ubutegetsi, ko rero ikirego cy’Umujyi wa Kigali kidashobora kubangikana n’icy’ubucuruzi. [13] Me Niyondora Nsengiyumva avuga ko nta cyabuza Umujyi wa Kigali kugoboka ku bushake aho urubanza rwaba rugeze hose no ku rwego rw’ubujurire mu gihe ugaragaza ko ufite inyungu muri uru rubanza kuko nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo za 113, 114 na 115 z’Itegeko No21/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru ariwo watije CAPLAKI ikibanza No5810, ko kandi kuba Umujyi wa Kigali waragobotse mu rubanza ku bushake bidahindura kamere y’urubanza ku buryo ikirego gihinduka icy’ubutegetsi mu gihe ikiburanwa gishingiye ku mutungo uvuga ko ari uwawo. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [14] Ingingo ya 112 y’Itegeko No21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko “Umuntu wese afite uburenganzira bwo kugoboka mu rubanza ataregeye cyangwa atarezwemo, mu nkiko zose n’igihe cyose, iyo urwo rubanza rushobora kugira icyo rumurenganyaho”.

## Page 34

9 [15] Naho ingingo ya 113 y’iryo tegeko ikavuga ko “Kugoboka ku bushake ari igihe umuntu ku bushake bwe, yinjiye mu rubanza atareze cyangwa atarezwemo, kugira ngo yemeze ko ikiburanwa ari icye cyangwa kugira ngo yizere ko uburenganzira bwe budahungabanywa n’icyemezo cy’Urukiko” ndetse n’ingingo ya 114 y’iryo tegeko ikavuga ko “kugira ngo ikirego cye cyakirwe, ugoboka agomba kugaragaza inyungu yemewe n’amategeko, itaziguye kandi ye bwite, yaba ishingiye ku mutungo we cyangwa ku mutimanama”. [16] Izi ngingo zirebewe hamwe zumvikanisha ko umuntu wese yemerewe kugoboka mu rubanza ataregeye cyangwa atarezwemo, ku rwego rwose urubanza rwaba rugezeho iyo urwo rubanza rushobora kugira icyo rumurenganyaho, apfa gusa kugaragaza ko hari inyungu yemewe n`amategeko itaziguye kandi ye bwite yaba ishingiye ku mutungo we cyangwa umutimanama. Ibi kandi ni nabyo bishimangirwa n’ibivugwa n’Umuhanga mu mategeko witwa Serge Guinchard mu gitabo cye “Droit et Pratique de la Procédure Civile”, agira ati “Ikirego cyo kugoboka ku bushake kirakirwa, yaba ku rwego rwa mbere cyangwa mu rwego rw’ubujurire, keretse iyo ugobotse mu bujurire ashyikirije Urukiko ikirego bwa mbere kitigeze gisuzumwa n’Inkiko zibanza”1. [17] Ku birebana n`igoboka ku bushake ry’Umujyi wa Kigali bwa mbere kuri uru rwego, hashingiwe ku bisobanuro

1Droit et Pratique de la Procédure Civile, Edition Dalloz, Paris, 2006 C’est que l’intervention volontaire est receivable tant en première instance qu’en appel, sauf dans ce dernier cas l’interdiction de soumettre à la Cour un litige nouveau en la saisissant de prétentions qui n’ont pas subi le premier degré de juridiction. A chacun de ces degrés, l’intervention volontaire est possible en tout état de cause, même après l’ordonnance de clôture dans les procédures écrites devant les Tribunaux de première Instance et devant la Cour d’Appel. CAPLAKI v. MUKANYIRINKWAYA

## Page 35

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 10 by’amategeko bitanzwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga Umujyi wa Kigali ugomba kwemererwa kugoboka ku bushake mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga kuko utabaye umuburanyi yaba mu rubanza RCOM0279/14/TC/Nyge rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge, yaba mu manza RCOMA0353/14/HCC - RCOMA0390/14/HCC zijuririrwa, byongeye kandi Umujyi wa Kigali ufite inyungu muri uru rubanza kubera ko n’ubwo bwose ikiburanwa ari ugusubiza CAPLAKI amafaranga 60.572.000Frw n’indishyi zinyuranye, ariko ayo mafaranga akomoka ku bukode n’ubugure bw’ikibanza No5810 Umujyi wa Kigali uvuga ko ari icyawo. [18] Ku birebana n’ibirego birebana n`imanza z’ubutegetsi,Itegeko Ngenga No02/2013 ryo ku wa 16/6/2013 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko ngenga No58/2009 ryo kuwa 09/09/2009 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Inkikomu ngingo yaryo ya 12 riha Ingereko zihariye ziburanisha imanza z’ubutegetsi ububasha bwo kuburanisha ku rwego rwa mbere ibirego birebana n’ibyemezo by’ubutegetsi bifatwa ku rwego rwa nyuma n`abayobozi, ikanagaragaza urutonde rw’ibyo birego bigeze ku icumi (10), naho iya 15 igaha Urukiko Rukuru ububasha bwo kuburanisha ibirego bijyanye n’imanza z’ubutegetsi byerekeranye no gukuraho ibyemezo by’ubutegetsi byafashwe ku rwego rwa nyuma na Perezida wa Repubulika n’abayobozi bakuru b’igihugu, ikanerekana urutonde rw’ibyo birego bigarukiye kuri bitatu (3). [19] Ku bijyanye nuko “kugoboka ku bushake kw’Umujyi wa Kigali” byatuma ikirego cy’ubucuruzi gihinduka icy’ubutegetsi, n’ubwo Umushingamategeko atatanze igisobanuro mu buryo butaziguye “icyo ikirego cy`ubutegetsi aricyo” (définition), Urukiko rusanga harebewe hamwe ibyo ingingo zivuzwe

## Page 36

11 haruguru ziteganya, ibirego by`ubutegetsi ari ibirego bishingiye ku byemezo byafashwe ku rwego rwa nyuma n’abayobozi mu nzego z’ubutegetsi bwa Leta. Ibi kandi bihura na none n`ibivugwa n’ Abahanga mu mategeko Jean Rivero na JeanWaline, mu gitabo cyabo “Droit Administratif”, aho bagira bati: “ … iyo Ubuyobozi butubahirije amategeko, umucamanza uburanisha imanza z’ubutegetsi niwe utegeka ko yubahirizwa, utishimiye icyemezo cy’ubuyobozi yemerewe kuregera Urukiko asaba kuvanaho icyemezo cyafashwe hadakurikijwe amategeko cyangwa asaba indishyi zikomoka kuri icyo cyemezo anenga, ko ibyo birego by’ubutegetsi byerekanwa na kamere y’ikibazo cyashyikirijwe Umucamanza”2. [20] Nk’uko bigaragazwa n’inyandiko itanga ikirego, bigaragara ko ikiburanwa muri uru rubanza ari ugusubizwa amafaranga 60.572.000 n’indishyi zinyuranye, ayo mafaranga akaba akomoka ku masezerano yabaye hagati ya CAPLAKI na Mukanyirinkwaya Adèle (Promesse de vente) y’ubugure bw’ikibanza No5810. [21] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro by`amategeko n’ibivugwa n’abahanga mu mategeko bigaragajwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga kuba Umujyi wa Kigali waragobotse ku bushake muri uru rubanza, ugamije kugaragaza ko ikibanza Mukanyirinkwaya yashatse kugurisha ari icya Leta, bidahindura kamere y’urubanza rwatangiye ari urubanza rw’ubucuruzi, kuko

2: “…..Au fond, on considère que si l’administration manque au droit, c’est au Juge administrative qu’il revient de la sanctionner. Pour cela les administrés disposent d’un recours pour excès de pouvoir, le plein contentieux……….La classification moderne des recours repose sur la nature de la question posée au Juge par le requérant. Droit Administratif”, Edition Dalloz, 20ème Edition, 2004, page 27, paragr.44. CAPLAKI v. MUKANYIRINKWAYA

## Page 37

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 12 bidakuraho inshingano zikomoka kuri ayo masezerano y`ubugure impande zombi zagiranye, bityo kugoboka ku bushake bw’Umujyi wa Kigali muri uru rubanza rw’ubucuruzi bikaba bidashobora gutuma kamere yarwo ihinduka iy’ubutegetsi. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO. [22] Rwemeje ko inzitizi yatanzwe na Mukanyirinkwaya Adèle nta shingiro ifite; [23] Rwemeje ko Umujyi wa Kigali wemerewe kugoboka ku bushake mu rubanza rwajuririwe RCOMAA0043/14/CS muri uru Rukiko; [24] Rutegetse ko iburanisha ry’urubanza RCOMAA0043/14/CS mu mizi rizakomeza kuwa 12/7/2016; [25] Rutegetse ko amagarama y’uru rubanza abaye asubitswe.

## Page 38

URUBANZA RWEREKEYE IMIBURANISHIRIZE NSHINJABYAHA

## Page 40

MUHIRWA ET AL v. NZEYIMANA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RPAA0021/16/CS- RPAA0002/2016/CS (Kanyange, P.J., Nyirandabaruta na Gatete, J.) 12 Gicurasi 2017] Amategeko yerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza Nshinjabyaha – Kurega utisunze ubushinjacyaha – Ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku bujurire bwa kabiri mu manza nshinjabyaha – Igihano cyonyine nicyo gishingirwaho mu kugena ububasha kabone n’ubwo abareze baba batarisunze Ubushinjacyaha – Itegeko Ngenga No03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, Ingingo ya 28(3). Incamake y’ikibazo: Urubanza rwatangiriye mu rukiko rw’ibanze rwa Rusororo abarega barega Nzeyimana Bertin na Mukayisenga Cecile batisunze ubushinjacyaha, ibyaha by’ubuhemu, gukora no gukoresha inyandiko mpimbano no guhabwa kubw’uburiganya amafaranga cyangwa ibifite agaciro kayo. Urwo rukiko rwasanze bimwe mu byaha abaregwaga bari bakurikiranywe bitari mu bubasha bwarwo rwohereza urubanza mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo, narwo rufata icyemezo cyo kuvana mu rubanza Mukayisenga Cecile hashingiwe ku kuba atarigeze abazwa ku byaha yari akurikiranweho naho Nzeyimana Bertin rumuhamya icyaha cy’ubuhemu nicyo kwihesha ibyemezo bitangwa n’inzego zabugenewe rumuhanisha igifungo cy’umwaka umwe, ihazabu ya 500.000Frw no gusubiza abarega amafaranga y’amagarama y’urubanza. 15

## Page 41

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 16 Impande zombi zajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru, maze rwemeza ko Nzeyimana Bertin adahamwa n’ibyaha akurikiranyweho ndetse ko ubujurire bw’abaregera indishyi budafite ishingiro. Aba bajuriye mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga aho urukiko rwabanje gusuzuma niba ubujurire bwabo buri mu bubasha bwarwo. Kuriki kibazo, abajuriye bagaragajeko ububasha bw’urukiko bushingiye ku kimenyetso kigizwe n’amasezerano y’ubugure hagati ya Nzeyimana na Mukayaramba verediyana cyashingiweho mu icibwa ry’urubanza kandi cyaratanzwe nyuma y’iburanisha ndetse no ku gaciro k’amafaranga angana na 1.178.668.446. Uregwa mu bujurire we, yagaragazaga ko icyo kimenyetso cyaburanishijweho kikaba kigaragara muri dosiye ndetse banagishyikirijwe banagaragaza ko mu kugena ububasha bw’urukiko hatarebwa amafaranga asabwa n’ababuranyi ahubwo harebwa ayagenwe n’urukiko, bakavuga kandi ko mu manza nshinjabyaha igihano cyatanzwe aricyo kigenderwaho mu kugena ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. Ubushinjacyaha bwo bwagaragazagakokuba abajuriye baratanze ikirego batabwisunze, byakomeza muri uwo murongo, ko ariko mu nyungu z’ubutabera urubanza rutatandukanywa n’izindi manza nshinjabyaha n’ubwo ataribwo bwareze, hakibazwa niba ubujurire bwashingira ku ndishyi n’ aho urukiko rwashingira mu kuzigena nta kirego nshinjabyaha gihari mu gihe icyo kirego cyakwakirwa. Incamake y’icyemezo: Igihano nicyo cyonyine gishingirwaho mu kugena ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku bujurire bwa kabiri, kabone n’ubwo abareze baba batarisunze Ubushinjacyaha. Bityo rero, ubujurire bw’abarega ntiburi mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga.

## Page 42

17 Ubujurire ntiburi mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga Amagarama y’urubanza aherereye ku bajuriye. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Ngenga Nº03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 28, igika cya 2(7º,8º,9º) n’igika cya 3. Itegeko Ngenga Nº51/2008 ryo ku wa 09/09/2008 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’inkiko, ingingo ya 164. Itegeko Nº30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 187. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Muhorakeye Grâce na Muhirwa Alexandre bavuga ko bafatanyije na Nzeyimana Bertin n’umugore we Mukayisenga Cécile gushinga ishuri ryitwa Collège de l’Espoir de Gasogi, Nzeyimana Bertin aba “Représentant Légal” w’icyo kigo, ashinzwe gukurikirana imikorere yacyo ya buri munsi no kucyagura, ko ari muri urwo rwego yakoresheje amafaranga y’Ikigo akigurira ibibanza, ariko abyandika ku mazina ye bwite, hanyuma yubaka amacumbi y’abanyeshuri, nayo ayandika ku mazina y’umugore we Mukayisenga Cécile, ko byageze aho hubakwa n’inyubako mu izina ry’Ikigo mu rwego rwo kwagura MUHIRWA ET AL v. NZEYIMANA

## Page 43

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 18 ishuri ariko nazo araziyitirira kandi ko hari n’ubugenzuzi bwakozwe (audit) bugasanga hari amafaranga atagaragarizwa uburyo yakoreshejwe. [2] Muhorakeye Grâce na Muhirwa Alexandre bareze Nzeyimana Bertin ubuhemu, gukora no gukoresha inyandiko mpimbano no guhabwa ku bw’uburiganya amafaranga cyangwa ibifite agaciro kayo. Nyuma yo gusangaibigize ibyaha bituzuye, Ubushinjacyaha bwashyinguye dosiye. [3] Muhorakeye Grâce na Muhirwa Alexandre baregeye Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Rusororo batisunze Ubushinjacyaha, mu rubanza no RP0012/013/TB/RUS rwaciwe ku wa 22/03/2013, urwo Rukiko rusanga bimwe mu byaha abaregwa bakurikiranyweho bitari mu bubasha bwarwo, rwohereza urubanza mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo. Urwo Rukiko rwasanze Mukayisenga Cécile atarigeze abazwa ku byaha akurikiranyweho, rufata icyemezo cyo kumuvana mu rubanza. [4] Ku birebana na Nzeyimana Bertin, Urukiko rwaciye urubanza RP0191/13/TGI/GSBO ku wa 19/06/2014, rwemeza ko ahamwa n’icyaha cy’ubuhemu n’icyo kwihesha ibyemezo bitangwa n’inzego zabugenewe, rumuhanisha igifungo cy’umwaka umwe (1) n’ihazabu ya 500.000Frw, akanasubiza Muhirwa na Muhorakeye amafaranga y’amagarama y’urubanza angana na 8.000Frw. [5] Nzeyimana Bertin n’abareze batisunze Ubushinjacyaha bajuririye Urukiko Rukuru/Kigali, Nzeyimana ajurira avuga ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwirengagije ibisobanuro yaruhaye bigaragaza ko ibibanza bivugwa muri dosiye ari we n’umugore we babiguze nk’umutungo wabo bwite, naho Muhirwa Alexandre na Muhorakeye Grâce bajurira bavuga ko Nzeyimana

## Page 44

19 Bertin yagabanyirijwe igihano mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, ko Urukiko rwashyikirijwe raporo y’igenzura (audit) igaragaza ko habuze 1.178.768.446Frw ariko ntirwagira icyo ruyivugaho, ko kandi hirengagijwe ko Nzeyimana Bertin akwiye gusubiza ibikomoka ku byaha yahamijwe no guha abamurega ibyo batakaje ku manza yabashoyemo. [6] Urwo Rukiko rwaciye urubanza RPA0488/14/HC/KIG- RPA0501/14/HC/KIG ku wa 22/12/2015, rwemeza ko ubujurire bwa Nzeyimana Bertin bufite ishingiro, ko ibyaha akurikiranyweho bitamuhama, rwemeza kandi ko ubujurire bw’abaregera indishyi nta shingiro bufite. [7] Muhirwa Alexandre na Muhoracyeye Grâce bajuririye mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, urubanza ruburanishwa mu ruhame ku wa 03/04/2017, Muhirwa na Muhorakeye baburanirwa na Me Kazungu Jean Bosco, Me Bayingana Janvier na Me Gasominari Jean Baptiste, Nzeyimana Bertin aburanirwa na Me Katushabe Mary, Me Shema Gakuba Charles na Me Ntaganda Kabare Festo, Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na Harindintwari Côme, hasuzumwa inzitizi y’iburabubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga yabyukijwe na Nzeyimana Bertin. II. IKIBAZO KIRI MU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYACYO Kumenya niba ubujurire bwa Muhirwa Alexandre na Muhorakeye Grâce butari mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. [8] Ababuranira Nzeyimana Bertin bavuga ko Muhirwa na Muhorakeye bashingira ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku MUHIRWA ET AL v. NZEYIMANA

## Page 45

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 20 kimenyetso kigizwe n’amasezerano y’ubugure bw’ikibanza yabaye hagati ya Mukayaramba Verediyana na Nzeyimana Bertin, ngo kuko yashingiweho kandi batayazikuko ataburanyweho, nyamara icyo kimenyetso cyaraburanishijweho kandi kikaba kigaragara kuri cote 38 ya dosiye, kikaba kandi kiri mu bimenyetso byashikirijwe abo baburana bikozwe n’umuhesha w’inkiko, kinashyikirizwa Me Rutabingwa Athanase wababuraniraga bikozwe na Me Shema Gakuba Charles. [9] Bavuga kandi ko ikibanza Nzeyimana yaguze na Mukayaramba gifite Nº309, ntaho gihuriye n’ibibanza biburanwa bifite Nº725 na 301, ko kandi kitashingiweho mu icibwa ry’urubanza kuko Nzeyimana yakiburanishije agamije gusa kugaragaza uko yabonye imitungo ye iri i Gasogi. [10] Na none kandi, ngo nta ndishyi zingana na 50.000.000Frw Urukiko rwagennye, ko kandi mu kugena ububasha bw’Urukiko hatarebwa amafaranga asabwa n’ababuranyi ahubwo harebwa ayagenwe n’Urukiko. Bavuga kandi ko mu manza nshinjabyaha igihano cyatanzwe ari cyo kigenderwaho mu kugena ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, nyamara Nzeyimana Bertin akaba yaragizwe umwere, kandi ikirego cy’indishyi kiba gishamikiye ku cy’inshinjabyaha. Basobanura ko kuba abatanze ikirego batarisunze Ubushinjacyaha, bitavanaho ko urubanza ari urw’inshinjabyaha, kandi indishyi zikaba zitangwa mu gihe uregwa yahamwe n’icyaha, ko rero atari zo zikwiye kurebwa mu kugena Ububasha bw’uru Rukiko ahubwo hakubahirizwa icyo Umushingamategeko yashatse. [11] Basanga kandi urubanza RPAA0001/15/CS abo baburana basaba ko rwashingirwaho, rutandukanye

## Page 46

21 n’uruburanwa kuko rwarebanaga n’ubujurire ku ndishyi aho uwaregwaga atari yakurikiranywe kubera ko ikirego cyashaje, mu gihe muri uru uregwa yagizwe umwere, akaba ataregwa indishyi. [12] Ababuranira Muhirwa na Muhorakeye bavuga ko ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga bushingiye ku ngingo ya 28 y’Itegeko Ngenga No03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, kuko hari ikimenyetso kigizwe n’amasezerano y’ubugure yabaye hagati ya Nzeyimana na Mukayaramba Verediyana, cyashingiweho mu icibwa ry’urubanza rujuririrwa ku rupapuro rwa 4, igika cya 6 kandi cyaratanzwe nyuma y’iburanisha kuko bakibonye mu rubanza, ko kandi kuba uwo baburana avuga ko afite inyandiko igaragaza ko abo baburana bacyakiriye, bidahagije kuko nta “invetaire” yakozwe igaragaza ibikubiye mu gitabo kirimo icyo kimenyetso, kandi Nzeyimana akaba ariwe ufite inshingano yo kugaragaza ko ayo masezerano yari muri icyo gitabo. [13] Bavuga kandi ko ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga bunashingiye ku gace ka 7, igika cya 2, cy’ingingo ya 28 y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru kuko agaciro k’amafaranga yarigishijwe kangana na 1.178.668.446Frw ndetse n’agaciro k’amafaranga y’ibyumba by’amashuri kakaba karenga 50.000.000Frw, ko kandi kuba nta mpaka zagiwe ku gaciro k’ikiburanwa bigaragaza ko ababuranyi bakemeraga, kakaba gahuye n’indishyi zakwa mu rubanza, bikaba bihuye n’ibyemejwe mu rubanza RPAA0001/15/CS rwaciwe n’uru Rukiko ku wa 14/10/2015, kuko rwemeje ko mu gihe agaciro k’indishyi kari mu bubasha bwarwo, ubujurire bukwiye kwakirwa kabone niyo MUHIRWA ET AL v. NZEYIMANA

## Page 47

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 22 uregwa yaba yarahanishijwe igifungo kiri munsi y’imyaka icumi. [14] Basanga kandi kuba ababuranira Nzeyimana Bertin bavuga ko nta ndishyi zigera kuri 50.000.000Frw zagenwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, bitiranya ibintu kuko uru rubanza rushingiye ku kirego cyatanzwe hatisunzwe Ubushinjacyaha (citation directe), agaciko k’amafaranga cyangwa k’imitungo kakaba katarigeze kagibwaho impaka (contestation) kuko byari gukorwa na “contre expertise”, ko kandi Muhirwa na Muhorakeye bareze bagamije kubona indishyi, ari nayo mpamvu bari bajuririye urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye. Byongeye kandi, ingingo ya 187 y’Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha hamwe n’iya 164 y’Itegeko Ngenga rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’inkiko, zemerera uregera indishyi kujuririra ibirebana n’indishyi, ko rero ikibazo atari uko Nzeyimana yagizwe umwere ahubwo hagomba kurebwa ko Muhirwa na Muhorakeye baregeye indishyi. [15] Ku kibazo cyabajijwe n’Urukiko cyo kumenya uko bumva igika cya gatatu cy’ingingo ya 28 y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru, bavuga ko icyo gika ari rusange ku manza nshinjabyaha, kikaba gikeneye gusobanurwa nkuko byakozwe mu rubanza RPAA0001/15/CS, ko kandi icyo gika kigomba kujyana n’agaciro k’indishyi zasabwe kuko ikirego kitatanzwe n’Ubushinjacyaha ahubwo cyatanzwe na Muhirwa na Muhorakeye. Basobanura ko iyo habaye kurega utisunze Ubushinjacyaha, haba hari ibirego bibiri bibangikanye (parallèles), ko ariko ikiba kigamijwe bwa mbere ari indishyi, ariko zigashingira ku kirego cy’inshinjabyaha.

## Page 48

23 [16] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko kuba abajuriye baratanze ikirego batabwisunze, byakomeza muri uwo murongo, ko ariko mu nyungu z’ubutabera, asanga hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 28 y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru, uru rubanza rutatandukanywa n’izindi manza nshinjabyaha n’ubwo Ubushinjacyaha atari bwo bwareze, ko rero mu gihe nta bihano byatanzwe mu rubanza rujuririrwa, hakwibazwa niba umuburanyi ashobora kujurira ashingiye ku ndishyi, ko mu gihe icyo kirego cyakwakirwa, hakwibazwa aho urukiko rwashingira mu kizigena mu gihe nta kirego nshinjabyaha gihari. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [17] Ingingo ya 28, igika cya kabiri, 3º, y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga iteganya ko “Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rufite kandi ububasha bwo kuburanisha murwego rw’ubujurire imanza zaciwe ku rwego rwa kabiri n’Urukiko Rukuru (…), iyo izo manza zaciwe hashingiwe ku kimenyetso, inyandiko cyangwaimyanzuro byatanzwe nyuma yo gupfundikira urubanza kandi hatarabayehogusubukura iburanisha”. [18] Mu gika cya gatatu, iyo ngingo iteganya ko “mu manza nshinjabyaha igihano cyagenwe ni cyo cyonyine gishingirwaho mu kugena ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga”. [19] Ku birebana n’ikimenyetso abajuriye bavuga ko cyatanzwe nyuma y’iburanisha kigizwe n’amasezerano y’ubugure bw’ikibanza hagati ya Nzeyimana Bertin na Mukayaramba Verediyana, Urukiko rurasanga ayo masezerano MUHIRWA ET AL v. NZEYIMANA

## Page 49

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 24 avugwa koko mu gika cya gatandatu cy’urubanza rwajuririwe, ariko bibaka bigaragara ko ayo masezerano (kimwe n’andi masezerano atandukanye), avugwa mu miburanire ya Nzeyimana Bertin n’abamwunganira mu rwego rwo kugaragaza ko hari ibibanza yagiye yiguriracyangwa bikagurwa n’umugore we. [20] N’ubwo ariko ayo masezerano yavuzwe mu miburanire ya Nzeyimana Bertin ndetse n’umwanzuro w’ubujurire watanzwe na Me Shema Gakuba Charles ukaba ugaragaza ko ayo masezerano ari ku mugereka wa 38, dosiye igaragaza ko atigeze atangwa, kuko urutonde ry’imigereka iherekeza uwo mwanzuro rugaragaza ko nta mugereka wa 38 uri muri dosiye. Urukiko rugasanga rero ayo masezerano atafatwa nk’ikimenyetso kivugwa mu ngingo ya 28, igika cya kabiri, 3º, y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru, kuko iyo ngingo ivuga ikimenyetso cyatanzwe nyuma yo gupfundikira urubanza. [21] Byongeye kandi, usibye no kuba ayo masezerano atafatwa nk’ikimenyetso cyatanzwe nyuma yo gupfundikira urubanza nk’uko bimaze gusobanurwa, nta n’ubwo yashingiweho mu rubanza rwajuririwe kuko mu mpamvu Urukiko rwashingiyeho zigaragara kuva ku gika cya 41 cy’urwo rubanza, ntaho ayo masezerano avugwa, kuko n’abayaburanisha bavuga ko avugwa mu gika cya 6 cy’urubanza, nyamara nk’uko byavuzwe icyo gika kireba imiburanira ya Nzeyimana Bertin, mu gihe ingingo ya 28 yavuzwe haruguru, yumvikanisha ko icyo kimenyetso kigomba kuba cyashingiweho mu icibwa ry’urubanza, bityo, ikimenyetso kigizwe n’amasezerano ya Mukayaramba Verediyana na Nzeyimana Bertin kikaba

## Page 50

25 kitatuma ubujurire bwa Muhirwa na Muhorakeye buba mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. [22] Ku birebana n’agaciro k’amafaranga angana na 1.178.668.446Frw abajuriye bavuga ko bakurikiranye kuri Nzeyimana Bertin, akaba arenze kure 50.000.000Frw ateganywa n’ingingo ya 28, igika cya 2, 7º, y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga kuba urubanza ruburanwa ari urw’inshinjabyaha kabone n’ubwo abareze batisunze Ubushinjabyaha, ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga bugomba kureberwa mu gika cya 3 cy’ingingo ya 28 y’Itegeko Ngenga rimaze kuvugwa, iteganya ko igihano cyo nyine ari cyo gishingirwaho mu kugena ubwo bubasha, icyo gika kikaba cyumvikanisha ko hatarebwa indishyi cyangwa agaciro k’ikiburanwa bivugwa mu gace ka 7º k’igika cya kabiri cy’iyo ngingo. [23] Urukiko rurasanga na none, ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga butashingira kubiteganywa n’ingingo ya 187 y’Itegeko Nº30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha cyangwa iya 164 y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº51/2008 ryo ku wa 09/09/2008 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’inkiko nkuko ababuranira abajuriye babivuga, kuko ntaho izo ngingo zihuriye n’ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga buteganywa mu ngingo ya 28 (ku birebana n’ububasha busanzwe) y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº03/2012/OL ryoku wa 13/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru. [24] Urukiko rurasanga rero, kuba mu rubanza rujuririrwa, nta gihano Nzeyimana Bertin yahawe kuko n’igifungo cy’umwaka umwe yari yahawe ku rwego rwa mbere cyavanyweho mu bujurire nyuma yo kugirwa umwere, MUHIRWA ET AL v. NZEYIMANA

## Page 51

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 26 byumvikana ko ubujurire bwatanzwe butari mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuko urwo Rukiko ruburanisha uwahanishijwe igihano cy’igifungo cya burundu cyangwa kingana nibura n’imyaka 10 mu gihe habaye kwica amategeko mu buryo bukomeye, nkuko bivugwa mu duce twa 8º na 9º, tw’igika cya kabiri cy’ingingo ya 28 y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru. [25] Ku birebana n’urubanza RPAA0001/15/CS rwaciwe n’uru Rukiko ku wa14/10/2015, abajuriye basaba ko rwashingirwaho hakemezwa ko ubujurirebwa Muhirwa na Muhorakeye buri mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, Urukiko rurasanga ntaho mu mikirize y’urwo rubanza hakozwe isesengurwa ry’ububasha bw’uru Rukiko rishingiye ku ngingo ya 28 y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru ku buryo ryashingirwaho no muri uru rubanza. [26] Hashingiwe ku byasobanuwe byose, Urukiko rurasanga ubujurire bwa Muhirwa Alexandre na Muhorakeye Grâce butari mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. III.ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [27] Rwemeje ko inzitizi y’iburabubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga yatanzwe na Nzeyimana Bertin ifite ishingiro, [28] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Muhirwa Alexandre na Muhorakeye Grâce butari mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga;

## Page 52

27 [29] Rutegetse Muhirwa Alexandre na Murorakeye Grâce gufatanya gutanga amagarama y’urubanza angana na 100.000Frw. MUHIRWA ET AL v. NZEYIMANA

## Page 54

IMANZA ZACIWE MU MIZI

## Page 56

IMANZA MBONEZAMUBANO

## Page 58

HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE N’UNDI (2) [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RCAA0009/14/CS (Mugenzi, P.J., Gatete naKarimunda, J.) 21 Nyakanga 2017] Amategeko agenga umuryango – Imicungire y’umutungo w’abashyingiranywe – Uko imicungire y’umutungo n’uburyo bawucunga byaba biri kose, ubwumvikane bw’abashyingiranywe ni ngombwa mu gutanga ikitimukanwa bwite n’umutungo bahuriyeho no kubitangaho ubundi burenganzira bwose – Itegeko No22/99 ryo ku wa 12/11/1999 ryuzuza Igitabo cya mbere cy’Urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano kandi rishyiraho igice cya gatanu cyerekeye imicungire y’umutungo w’abashyingiranywe, impano n’izungura, ingingo ya 21. Amategeko agenga amasezerano – Igurisha – Iseswa ry’amasezerano – Igurisha ry’ikintu cy’undi ni imfabusa, kandi rishobora gutangirwa indishyi iyo umuguzi atamenye ko icyo kintu ari icy’undi – Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 33 n’iya 276. Amategeko agenga amasezerano – Uburyarya – Ugomba gutanga ibimenyetso bw’uko habayeho uburyarya – Kutagira uburyarya bifatwa buri gihe nk'aho biriho kandi uwitwaza uburyarya bw'undi niwe ugomba kubutangira ikimenyetso – Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 650. Amategeko agenga amasezerano – Igurisha – Ingaruka zo kuvutswa uburenganzira ku cyagurishijwe – Iyo umuguzi 33

## Page 59

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 34 avukijwe uburenganzira bwe ku cyo yaguze, umugurisha agomba gusubiza amafaranga y'ikiguzi cyacyo – Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 306. Amategeko agenga ibimenyetso – Inshingano yo gutanga ibimenyetso – Buri muburanyi agomba kugaragaza ukuri kw’ibyo aburana – Itegeko No15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 3. Incamake y’ikibazo: Mirimo yagiranye na Habiyakare amasezerano y’ubugure bw’inzu ku gaciro k’amafaranga 80.000.000Frw kugirango yishyure umwenda yari abereyemo Banki. Gahongayire, umugore washyingiranywe na Mirimo mu buryo bwemewe n’amategeko, yaregeye Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge arusaba gusesa ayo masezerano kuko atamenyeshejwe ikorwa ryayo kandi inzu yagurishijwe ari umutungo w’umuryango. Uru Rukiko rwasheshe ayo masezerano kandi rutegeka ko inzu yaguzwe isubira mu mutungo wa Gahongayire na Mirimo kandi igacungwa na Mirimo wanategetswe gusubiza Habiyakare 80.000.000Frw y’ikiguzi cyayo. Mirimo na Habiyakare bajuririye Urukiko Rukuru bavuga ko Gahongayire yari azi ikorwa ry’ariya masezerano kandi ko inzu yagurishijwe mu nyungu z’umuryango, bityo basaba ko yagumana agaciro, bitaba bityo umuryango wa Mirimo na Gahongayire ugafatanya kwishyura Habiyakare agaciro iyo nzu igezeho mu gihe cy’urubanza kangana na 347.782.150Frw. Gahongayire avuga ko iriya nzu itagurishijwe mu nyungu z’umuryango kuko Mirimo yayigurishije rwihishwa atabana na

## Page 60

35 Gahongayire, atabimumenyesheje kandi ko n’umwenda wishyurwaga muri BCR kimwe n’ingwate zawo ntacyo aziziho. Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko urubanza rudahindutse kandi rutegeka ko Habiyakare yishyurwa na Mirimo 80.000.000Frw gusa y’ikiguzi cy’inzu cyumvikanyweho mu masezerano ndetse ko Gahongayire ataryozwa amasezerano atagizemo uruhare. Habiyakare yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, arega Mirimo na Gahongayire avuga ko umutungo wagurishijwe mu nyungu z’umuryango mu rwego rwo kwishyura ideni Mirimo yari afitiye BCR ndetse ubwo butaka bwari bumwanditseho wenyine, ikindi kandi akavuga ko Urukiko ruramutse rubibonye ukundi, yagenerwa agaciro k’iyo nzu kagaragazwa n’inyandiko y’umuhanga (expertise). Hagati aho Habiyakare yanatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi avuga ko igihe bagura inzu ivugwa mu masezerano, banaguze “Fonds de commerce”, icyakora uru Rukiko rwikuraho uru rubanza kugirango ngo ruburanishwe hamwe n’ubujurire bwe mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga. Mu gihe urubanza rwari rutaracibwa, Mirimo yitabye Imana, havuka ikibazo cyo kumenya ugomba gukomeza urubanza nyuma y’urupfu rwe. Kuri iki kibazo Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwemeje ko urubanza hagati ya Mirimo na Gahongayire rwarangiye kubera urupfu, bityo rukaba rugomba gukomezwa na Gahongayire ku byo Mirimo yaburanaga na Habiyakare, ku ruhande rumwe, no ku byo Gahongayire yaburanaga na Habiyakare ku rundi ruhande. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Kuba Mirimo yaragurishije umutungo asangiye n’umugore we batabyumvikanyeho, bituma amasezerano yakozwe agomba guseswa, umutungo waguzwe HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE N’UNDI (2)

## Page 61

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 36 ugasubira mu mutungo w’umuryango wegukanywe na Gahongayire nyuma y’urupfu rwa Mirimo ariko Habiyakare waguze nta buryarya akaba agomba kugenerwa indishyi. 2. Gahongayire usubijwe inzu yari yagurishijwe niwe ugomba gusubiza Habiyakare wari wayiguze nta buryarya ikiguzi cyayo kingana na 80.000.000Frw. 3. Kuba hashize igihe kingana n’iminsi 3265 Habiyakare yaratanze ikiguzi cy’inzu kingana na 80.000.000Frw ariko ntayihabwe cyangwa se ngo asubizwe ayo mafaranga yabashaga kugira ikindi akoresha, byamuteye igihombo akwiye guhererwa indishyi zibazwe ku gipimo cya 8,75% y’inyungu kiri mu rugero rw’izitangwa n’amabanki bityo, Habiyikare agomba guhabwa indishyi zingana na 63.486.111Frw. 4. Habiyakare uvuga ko yishyuye Mirimo 36.000.000Frw n’andi 30.000USD, bagura “Fonds de commerce”, nk’uko biboneka mu nyandiko itanga ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi, nta bimenyetso by’ubwo bugure agaragaza kandi na “bordereaux” ziboneka muri dosiye avuga ko zashingirwaho zikaba zitabonekaho icyo amafaranga yashyiriwe kuri konti ya Mirimo. Ubujurire bufite ishingiro. Ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi nta shingiro bufite. Amasezerano y’igurisha arasheshwe. Amagarama y’urubanza aherereye ku warezwe. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 33, iya 276, iya 306 n’iya 650.

## Page 62

37 Itegeko N°22/99 ryo ku wa 12/11/1999 ryuzuza Igitabo cya mbere cy’Urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano kandi rishyiraho igice cya gatanu cyerekeye imicungire y’umutungo w’abashyingiranywe, impano n’izungura, ingingo ya 21. Itegeko No15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 3. Imanza zifashishijwe: Busingye v. Mukarushema, RCAA0029/12/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 08/03/2013, Icyegeranyo cy’ibyemezo by’inkiko, igitabo cya 3, No18, p.54. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Gahongayire Winnifrida, umugore wa Mirimo, yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, asaba gutesha agaciro amasezerano y’ubugure Habiyakare Robert yagiranye na Mirimo Gaspard, ku wa 26/6/2008, agurisha inzu iri mu kibanza No4593/Kicukiro, ku giciro cya 80.000.000Frw yanyujijwe kuri konti ya Mirimo muri BCR (I&MBank) hishyurwa umwenda yari ayibereyemo, Gahongayire akavuga ko iyo nzu yagurishijwe atabizi. [2] Mu rubanza RC0249/12/TGI/NYGE, Urukiko rwemeje ko amasezerano yavuzwe asheshwe, inzu yaguzwe igasubira mu mutungo wa Gahongayire na Mirimo kandi igacungwa na Mirimo, uyu agasubiza Habiyakare 80.000.000Frw y’ikiguzi cy’inzu. HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE N’UNDI (2)

## Page 63

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 38 [3] Mirimo na Habiyakare bajuririye Urukiko Rukuru bavuga ko ayo masezerano akwiye kugumaho, kuko Gahongayire yari azi ikorwa ryayo, kandi inzu ikaba yaragurishijwe mu nyungu z’umuryango, ariko ko niba ayo masezerano ateshejwe agaciro, umuryango wa Mirimo na Gahongayire wafatanya kwishyura Habiyakare agaciro k’inzu kagaragajwe n’abahanga ka 347.782.150Frw. [4] Mu rubanza RCA0566/012 - RCA0581/012/HC, Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko urubanza rwa mbere rudahindutse, ko Habiyakare agomba kwishyurwa 80.000.000Frw yumvikanyweho mu masezerano, nk’uko biteganywa mu ngingo ya 263 y’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’Urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano, ariko ko Gahongayire ataryozwa amasezerano atagizemo uruhare. [5] Urukiko Rukuru rwasobanuye ko nta kigaragaza ko Gahongayire yamenye amasezerano avugwa cyangwa se ko iyo nzu yagurishijwe mu nyungu z’umuryango, ko ahubwo ubugure bwakozwe mu rwego rwo kurigisa umutungo w’umuryango nk’uko biboneka mu manza zaburanywe na Gahongayire, asaba ko iriya nzu ivanwa mu mitungo yatanzweho ingwate ku mwenda atazi, kandi ko Habiyakare akwiye kwishyurwa ikiguzi kigaragara mu masezerano. [6] Habiyakare yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, arega Mirimo na Gahongayire asaba ko hemezwa ko umutungo uburanwa wagurishijwe mu nyungu z’umuryango kuko hishyuwe ideni Mirimo yari afitiye BCR, ryari ryafashwe mu bikorwa by’umuryango, akaba kandi yaraguze azi ko umutungo ari uwa Mirimo wenyine, nk’uko biboneka ku cyangombwa cy’umutungo, ariko ko Urukiko rubibonye ukundi, yagenerwa 347.782.150Frw, agaciro k’inzu kagaragazwa na “expertise”,

## Page 64

39 hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 310 CCL.III, agahabwa 2.000.000Frw y’indishyi zo gusiragizwa mu rubanza na 1.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka, yose hamwe akaba 3.000.000Frw. [7] Habiyakare yari yatanze kandi ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge, asaba ko amasezerano y’ubugure bw’inzu yo ku wa 26/06/2008 yaseswa, agasubizwa 347.782.150Frw y’agaciro inzu igezeho, amafaranga ya “Fonds de commerce” 30.000.000Frw Habiyakare avuga ko yahaye Mirimo, n’andi 30.000USD, inyungu z’ayo mafaranga yose zibarwa kuri 20% kuva ku wa 30/07/2008 kugeza igihe yose azaba yishyuwe, n’indishyi z’akababaro zingana na 20.000.000Frw. Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi, rwasanze urwo rubanza RCOM0852/14/TC/NYGE rufitanye isano n’urubanza RCAA0009/14/CS rwaregewe mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, rurwohereza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, kugira ngo ziburanishirizwe hamwe. [8] Ku byerekeye inzitizi y’iburabubasha, yari yatanzwe n’uhagarariye Gahongayire asaba ko ikirego cya Habiyakare kitakwakirwa kuko mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye no mu Rukiko Rukuru yatsinzwe ku mpamvu zimwe, ku wa 19/02/2016, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwemeje ko iyo nzitizi nta shingiro ifite, maze urubanza rwongera kuburanishwa ku wa 22/11/2016 no ku wa 14/12/2016, hasuzumwa ikibazo cyo kumenya ugomba gukomeza urubanza, nyuma y’urupfu rwa Mirimo, nk’umwe mu baburanyi. [9] Ku wa 03/02/2017, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwemeje ko urubanza hagati ya Mirimo na Gahongayire rwarangiye kubera urupfu, ko urubanza rugomba gukomezwa na Gahongayire ku byo Mirimo yaburanaga na Habiyakare, ku ruhande rumwe, no HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE N’UNDI (2)

## Page 65

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 40 ku byo Gahongayire yaburanaga na Habiyakare ku rundi ruhande. [10] Iburanisha ry’urubanza ryakomeje ku matariki anyuranye, ruburanishwa bwa nyuma ku wa 28/06/2017, Habiyakare Robert ahagarariwe na Me Munyangabe Henri Pierre, Gahongayire Winnifrida yunganiwe na Me Niyomugabo Christophe na Me Rubasha Herbert, Urukiko rubanza kwemeza ko urubanza RCOM0852/14/TC/NYGE n’urubanza RCAA0009/14/CS zihujwe zikaba zigomba kuburanishirizwa hamwe kuko zifitanye isano. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO A. Kumenya niba amasezerano y’ubugure bw’inzu Habiyakare yagiranye na Mirimo yahabwa agaciro, Habiyakare agahabwa inzu yaguze. [11] Me Munyangabe Henry Pierre uhagarariye Habiyakare avuga ko inkiko zibanza zagombaga kwemeza ko amasezerano y’ubugure bw’inzu iri mu kibanza 4593/Kicukiro yagurishijwe mu nyungu z’umuryango kubera ko 80.000.000Frw zishyuye umwenda Mirimo yari afite muri BCR, wafashwe mu bikorwa by’umuryango, n‘ubwo icyangombwa cy’iyo nzu cyari cyanditse kuri Mirimo wenyine. [12] Gahongayire na Me Niyomugabo Christophe umwunganira, bavuga ko iriya nzu itagurishijwe mu nyungu z’umuryango kuko Mirimo yayigurishije rwihishwa atabana na Gahongayire, atabimumenyesheje, bikaba binagaragazwa n’imanza Gahongayire yarezemo umugabo, asaba ivanwa mu

## Page 66

41 ngwate ry’umutungo watanzweho ingwate atabizi, kandi ko n’umwenda wishyurwaga muri BCR Gahongayire atawumenye, bityo, n’ingwate ziwutanzweho ntiyazimenya. [13] Bavuga ko amasezerano y’ubugure akwiye gukomeza guteshwa agaciro nk’uko byemejwe n’inkiko zibanza, inzu ikaguma mu maboko ya Gahongayire, kuko nta n’igikorwa Habiyakare yigeze ayikoraho kuko atigeze anayihabwa, bongeraho ko n’ubwo Gahongayire ariwe wasigaranye inshingano zari iza Mirimo, adakwiye kuryozwa ibyakozwe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko. [14] Me Rubasha Herbert nawe wunganira Gahongayire, avuga ko amategeko atubahirijwe kuko Mirimo yitwaye nk’umuntu utarashyingiwe mu buryo bwemewe n’amategeko, kuko yagombaga kumenyesha Habiyakare ko afite umugore, ayo masezerano akaba nta gaciro yahabwa hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 51 y’Itegeko No45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano hanyuma Gahongayire agakomeza gucunga umutungo hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 6 y’Itegeko No27/2016 ryo ku wa 08/07/2016, rigenga imicungire y’umutungo w’abashyingiranywe, impano n’izungura. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [15] Ingingo ya 21 y’Itegeko N°22/99 ryo ku wa 12/11/1999 ryuzuza Igitabo cya mbere cy’Urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano kandi rishyiraho igice cya gatanu cyerekeye imicungire y’umutungo w’abashyingiranywe, impano n’izungura ryakoreshwaga igihe Mirimo yagurishaga inzu igira iti: “uko imicungire y’umutungo n’uburyo bawucunga byaba biri kose, ubwumvikane bw’abashyingiranywe ni ngombwa mu HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE N’UNDI (2)

## Page 67

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 42 gutanga ikitimukanwa bwite n’umutungo bahuriyeho no kubitangaho ubundi burenganzira bwose”. [16] Ku byerekeranye no kumenya niba Gahongayire yaramenyeshejwe amasezerano avugwa, Urukiko rurasanga, nk’uko byemejwe n’inkiko zibanza, ku masezerano yo ku wa 26/6/2008, Mirimo yagiranye na Habiyakare bagura inzu iri mu kibanza No593/Kicukiro, umutungo utimukanwa, hatagaragaraho umukono w’umugore we Gahongayire, nta n’ikindi kimenyetso cyagaragajwe na Habiyakare cyangwa na Mirimo akiriho aburana, cy’uko Gahongayire yamenyeshejwe igurishwa ry’uriya mutungo,akaba atarabyemeye nyuma y’ikorwa ry’amasezerano, kuko yaje gutanga ikirego, bikaba rero bigaragara ko Mirimo yagurishije umutungo utimukanwa w’umuryango atabimenyesheje uwo bashakanye, ibyo bikaba binyuranyije n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 21 y’Itegeko N°22/99 ryavuzwe haruguru, bityo, ayo masezerano akaba agomba guseswa nk’uko biteganywa mu ngingo ya 33 y’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’Urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano, iteganya ko amasezerano ashobora guseswa ku mpamvu zemewe n’amategeko. [17] Ku byerekeranye no kuba umutungo waragurishijwe mu nyungu z’umuryango, Urukiko rusanga nabyo, nk’uko byasobanuwe mu nkiko zabanje, nta kibigaragaza kuko n’ubwo 80.000.000Frw yishyuwe anyujijwe kuri konti ya Mirimo muri BCR, hishyurwa umwenda yari ayibereyemo, ariko ntihavuguruzwa ibivugwa na Gahongayire ko we atari azi uwo mwenda, ngo amenye n’icyo uzakoreshwa, bigashimangirwa n’imanza Gahongayire yaburanye agaragaza ko atazi ifatwa ry’umwenda anasaba kuvana mu ngwate imitungo yatanzwe atabizi, kandi nta mpamvu igaragara yari gutuma Mirimo agira

## Page 68

43 ibyo akora mu nyungu z’umuryango atabyumvikanyeho n’umugore we. [18] Ku byerekeranye no kumenya niba Habiyakare yaraguze mu buryarya, Urukiko rusanga hashingiwe ku cyangombwa cy’umutungo (contrat de location No L4156) cyatanzwe ku wa 15/03/2001 n’icyari Perefegitura y’Umujyi wa Kigali), uwo mutungo wanditswe kuri Mirimo wenyine, hakaba hataragaragazwa ubundi buryo Habiyakare yari kumenya ko umutungo ugurishwa ufite ikibazo, cyane ko ayo masezerano yananyujijwe kwa Noteri1 kandi muri yo harimo ingingo ivuga ko amafaranga yishyurwaga umwenda wa Mirimo kuri konti ya BCR, akaba rero ariwe wari ufite inshingano zo kumenyesha umugore we iby’iryo gurisha. [19] Urukiko rurasanga, ibivugwa na Gahongayire n’abamwunganira by’uko Habiyakare yaguze mu buryarya, nta bimenyetso babigaragariza kandi bizwi ko uburyarya bugomba kugaragazwa n’ububuranisha2, nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 650 y’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’Urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano, igira iti: “kutagira uburyarya bifatwa buri gihe nk’aho biriho kandi uwitwaza uburyarya bw’undi niwe ugomba kubutangira ibimenyetso”. [20] Urukiko rusanga rero, hashingiwe ku bisobanuro byagaragajwe haruguru, kuba Mirimo yaragurishije umutungo asangiye n’umugore we batabyumvikanyeho, bituma

1 Amasezerano y’ubugure yanyujijwe imbere ya Noteri (kote ya 12 muri dosiye y’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi). 2 Ibisobanuro by’uko uburanisha uburyarya ariwe ubitangira ibimenyetso, byatanzwe mu rubanza RCAA0029/12/CS rwaciwe ku wa 08/03/2013, BUSINGYE Pascaline aburana na Mukarushema Epiphrodosie, Icyegereanyo cy’ibyemezo by’inkiko, igitabo cya 3, No18 p.54. HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE N’UNDI (2)

## Page 69

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 44 amasezerano yakozwe agomba guteshwa agaciro, umutungo waguzwe ugasubira mu mutungo w’urugo wegukanywe na Gahongayire nyuma y’urupfu rwa Mirimo ariko Habiyakare waguze nta buryarya akaba agomba kugenerwa indishyi nk’uko biteganywa mu ngingo ya 276 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru, iteganya ko igurisha ry’ikintu cy’undi ari imfabusa, ko rishobora gutangirwa indishyi iyo umuguzi atamenye ko icyo kintu ari icy’undi. B. Kumenya niba hari ibyo Gahongayire agomba kwishyura Habiyakare. a. Ku bijyanye n’agaciro k’inzu Habiyakare asaba gusubizwa. [21] Habiyakare avuga ko mu gihe yaba adahawe inzu yaguze, yasubizwa na Gahongayire 80.000.000Frw yatanzeho ikiguzi cyayo, hongereweho agaciro inzu yiyongereyeho kangana na 267.782.150Frw, kuko yaguze nta buryarya, kandi ayo mafaranga akaba yarinjiye mu mutungo Gahongayire yari asangiye na Mirimo, none ubu akaba ariwe wawegukanye nyuma y’urupfu rwa Mirimo. Avuga ko yasubizwa agaciro inzu ifite uyu munsi, kuko n’ubwo nta bikorwa yayikozeho, igenda izamura agaciro uko ibihe bihita, akaba asaba yose hamwe 347.782.150Frw. [22] Gahongayire na Me Niyomugabo Christophe bavuga ko Habiyakare na Mirimo bakoze amasezerano hatubahirijwe amategeko, akaba adashobora guhindukira ngo abisabemo inyungu kandi Gahongayire akaba adakwiye kuryozwa ibikorwa byishe amategeko. Bavuga kandi ko nta n’ibindi bikorwa byakozwe na Habiyakare kuri iyo nzu ngo biyizamurire agaciro avuga, kuko atigeze ayihabwa nyuma y’amasezerano y’ubugure.

## Page 70

45 UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [23] Urukiko rusanga kubera ko Habiyakare yatanze 80.000.000Frw, agamije kugura inzu nk’uko inyandiko y’amasezerano yo ku wa 26/6/2008 ibigaragaza, nyamara bikaba bidashoboka ko ayihabwa kuko ubugure butubahirije amategeko nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, agomba gusubizwa ayo mafaranga na Gahongayire wegukanye umutungo yari asangiye na Mirimo wahawe ayo mafaranga, kuko iseswa ry’amasezerano nk’uko ryemejwe haruguru, risubiza inzu mu maboko ya Gahongayire, kudasubiza ikiguzi cyari cyarayitanzweho bikaba byaba kuvutsa Habiyakare uburenganzira ku bye bikaba n’indonke kuri Gahongayire. [24] Urukiko rurasanga kuba amasezerano yabaye hagati ya Habiyakare na Mirimo atarubahirije amategeko, bigira ingaruka ry’iseswa ryayo nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, ariko Gahongayire usubijwe inzu akaba nawe agomba gusubiza ikiguzi cyayo Habiyakare wari wayiguze nta buryarya, nk’uko biteganywa mu ngingo ya 306 y’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’Urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano3. [25] Ku bijyanye no kuba Habiyakare yakwishyurwa agaciro ka 347.782.150Frw avuga ko inzu igezeho akurikije raporo y’umuhanga wayimukoreye, Urukiko rusanga nta shingiro byahabwa kuko, nk’uko n’umuburanira abivuga, iyo nzu ntiyigeze igera mu maboko ye, nta n’imirimo yayikozeho, kuba hashize igihe kirekire atanze amafaranga y’ikiguzi cyayo,

3 Iyo ngingo iteganya ko “iyo umuguzi avukijwe uburenganzira bwe ku cyo yaguze, umugurisha agomba gusubiza amafaranga y'ikiguzi, keretse iyo uweguriwe ikintu yari azi ko ashobora kucyamburwa igihe yaguraga cyangwa yaraguze yemera n’ingaruka zose”. HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE N’UNDI (2)

## Page 71

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 46 bikaba atari byo byatuma asaba agaciro kaba karayiyongereyeho kandi atarigeze ayitunga ngo abe yagira imirimo ayikoraho. [26] Urukiko rurasanga ahubwo, kuba Habiyakare yaratanze amafaranga ye 80.000.000Frw kugira ngo ahabwe inzu, ariko hakaba hashize igihe kirekire atarayihawe cyangwa se ngo asubizwe ayo mafaranga yabashaga kugira ikindi akoresha, bigaragaza ko yagize igihombo akwiye guhererwa indishyi, zikaba zabarirwa ku gipimo cya 8,75% cy’inyungu kiri mu rugero rw’izitangwa n’amabanki ku bazibitsamo amafaranga4, bityo, mu gihe cy’iminsi 3265 kuva ku wa 26/6/2008 igihe amasezerano yakorewe kugeza uyu munsi wa 21/07/2017 urubanza ruciriwe, Habiyikare agomba guhabwa indishyi zibazwe muri ubu buryo: 80.000.000Frw x 3265jrs x 8,75 360 x 100 = 63.486.111Frw b. Ku bijyanye n’amafaranga 36.000.000Frw n’andi 30.000USD Habiyakare avuga ko yishyuye “Fonds de commerce”. [27] Habiyakare avuga ko yaguze na Mirimo “Fonds de commerce” ijyanye n’inzu yaguze, kuri 36.000.000Frw na 30.000USD n’ubwo nta masezerano yanditse agaragaza, kuko byakozwe mu bwumvikane mu magambo, no mu bwizerane nk’abacuruzi, hakaba hari “bordereaux” zinyuranye zerekana ko hari amafaranga Habiyakare yashyiraga kuri konte ya Mirimo, kandi uyu akiriho akaba yaremeraga ko yayakiriye, ndetse no mu ibaruwa yo ku wa 15/04/2011, Mirimo akaba yaremeraga gukora ihererekanya ry’uburenganzira ku mutungo (mutation), bibuzwa n’uko atari yakabonye icyemezo cy’uko afite umwenda mu Kigo cy’Igihugu cy’imisoro n’amahoro.

4 www.imbank.com, consulted on 21st July 2017.

## Page 72

47 [28] Gahongayire na Me Niyomugabo na Me Rubasha, bamwunganira, bavuga ko Habiyakare atagaragaza ko yatanze amafaranga avuga yishyuriwe “Fonds de commerce”, ngo abe yanagaragaza icyo yayishyuriye, kuko mu gihe hari hakozwe amasezerano y’ubugure bwanditse bw’inzu, nta cyari kubabuza gushyiramo n’ingingo yerekeranye n’igurwa rya “Fonds de commerce”, ndetse na “bordereaux de versement” zavuzwe zikaba zitagaragaza ko impamvu zayo ari iyishyurwa rya “Fonds de commerce”. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [29] Urukiko rusanga, hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 3 y’Itegeko No15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, iteganya ko buri muburanyi agomba kugaragaza ukuri kw’ibyo aburana, Habiyakare uvuga ko yishyuye Mirimo 36.000.000Frw n’andi 30.000USD, bagura “Fonds de commerce”, nk’uko biboneka mu nyandiko itanga ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi, yagombye kubigaragariza ibimenyetso, ariko Habiyakare ntagaragaza ibimenyetso by’ubwo bugure, kandi na “bordereaux” ziboneka muri dosiye avuga ko zashingirwaho zikaba zitabonekaho icyo amafaranga yashyiriwe kuri konti ya Mirimo. [30] Urukiko rusanga kandi, mu gihe amasezerano ya mbere yari yakozwe ku buryo bwanditse, nta mpamvu igaragazwa yari gutuma ayo masezerano yandi arebana no kugura “Fonds de commerce” adakorwa mu buryo bumwe n’aya mbere, ayo mafaranga rero akaba atakwishyurwa kuko hatagaragazwa ko yatanzwe n’icyo yatangiwe, bityo, Habiyakare akaba atayagenerwa kuko nta bimenyetso ayagaragariza. HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE N’UNDI (2)

## Page 73

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 48 c. Ku byerekeye amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka. [31] Me Munyangabe avuga ko Habiyakare akwiye kugenerwa indishyi zihwanye na 2.000.000Frw kubera gusiragizwa mu manza, akanagenerwa 1.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka. [32] Gahongayire n’abamwunganira bavuga ko nta ndishyi yategekwa kwishyura kuko uzisaba yakoze amakosa, ntiyubahiriza amategeko igihe yaguraga. Mu bujuririre bwuririye ku bundi bwatanzwe mu mwanzuro na Me Niyomugabo Christophe, yari yasabye indishyi zihwanye na 2.000.000Frw n’igihembo cya Avoka, naho mu iburanisha Gahongayire asaba indishyi za 10.000.000Frw kubera gusiragizwa mu manza na 5.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka. URUKIKO RUBIBONA [33] Urukiko rurasanga, hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 258 y’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’Urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano, iteganya ko nyir’ugukora ikosa ryangirije undi ategetswe kuriha ibyangiritse, Habiyakare wagurishijwe na Mirimo umutungo asangiye n’umugore we Gahongayire atabimumenyesheje, byaramuviriyemo kujya mu manza no kugira ibyo atakaza mu kuzikurikirana no guhemba Avoka mu nzego eshatu z’inkiko yaburaniyemo, akaba rero akwiye kubihererwa indishyi na Gahongayire wegukanye umutungo

## Page 74

49 yari asangiye na Mirimo5, kuko ariwe ugomba kwirengera ingaruka z’amasezerano yakozwe na nyakwigendera akiriho, ariko kuko Habiyakare nta mibare ifatika yerekana ashingiraho asaba 2.000.000Frw y’ikurikirana rubanza, akaba yagenerwa mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko 1.000.000Frw, akanagenerwa 1.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka nk’uko yayasabye, kuko ari mu rugero rukwiye. [34] Mu kwanzura rero, nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, usibye 80.0000.000Frw y’ikiguzi cy’inzu Gahongayire agomba gusubiza Habiyakare, agomba no kumwishyura inyungu z’ayo mafaranga zingana na 63.486.111Frw, 1.000.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza na 1.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka, yose hamwe akaba miliyoni ijana na mirongo ine n’eshanu, ibihumbi magana ane mirongo inani na bitandatu, n’ijana na cumi na rimwe (145.486.111Frw). [35] Ku byerekeranye n’ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwatanzwe na Gahongayire n’abamwunganira, bugamije kwaka indishyi, Urukiko rusanga ntazo yagenerwa, kuko ibyo azishingiraho nta shingiro byahawe nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru.

5Ingingo ya 8 agace ka 2 y’Itegeko No31/2016 ryo ku wa 01/08/2016 rigenga imicungire y’umutungo w’abashyingiranywe iteganya ko iyo uburyo bw’ivangamutungo rusange busheshwe kubera urupfu rw’umwe mu bari barashyingiranywe, umutungo wegukanwa n’uwapfakaye kugeza igihe izungura rikorewe, naho ingingo ya 52, igika cya 3, y’Itegeko rivuzwe haruguru, igatenya ko izungura ry’abashyingiranywe ritangira ari uko bombi bapfuye cyangwa umwe yongeye gushyingirwa, usibye igihe itegeko ribiteganya ukundi. HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE N’UNDI (2)

## Page 75

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 50 III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [36] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Habiyakare Robert bufite ishingiro; [37] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwatanzwe na Gahongayire Winnifrida nta shingiro bufite; [38] Rwemeje ko amasezerano y’ubugure yo ku wa 26/06/2008 bw’inzu iri mu kibanza No4593/Kicukiro hagati ya Mirimo Gaspard na Habiyakare Robert asheshwe; [39] Rutegetse ko inzu iri mu kibanza No4593/Kicukiro iguma mu mutungo wa Gahongayire Winnifrida; [40] Rutegetse Gahongayire Winnifrida kwishyura Habiyakare Robert igiteranyo cy’amafaranga miliyoni ijana na mirongo ine n’eshanu, ibihumbi magana ane mirongo inani na bitandatu, n’ijana na cumi na rimwe (145.486.111Frw); [41] Rumutegetse kwishyura amagarama y’urubanza, ahwanye na 100.000Frw.

## Page 76

MUKAGATARE v. SUCCESSION BWANAKEYE (2) [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/REV/INJUST/CIV 0003/14/CS (Mukanyundo, P.J., Hitiyaremye na Rugabirwa, J.) 03 Gashyantare 2017] Amategeko agenga ubutaka – Inkomoko y’ubutaka bw’umuntu ku giti cye – Uregera ko ubutaka ari ubwe agomba kugaragaza inkomoko yabwo – Itegeko N°43/2013 ryo ku wa 16/06/2013 rigenga ubutaka mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 10. Amategeko agenga ubutaka – Amakimbirane ku butaka – Igihe ubuzime bw’uburenganzira ku butakabudakoreshwa – Umuntu wihaye ubutaka bw’inkungu cyangwa indeka cyangwa ubw’undi muntu akoresheje uburiganya, ntashobora kwitwaza ubuzime – Itegeko N°43/2013 ryo ku wa 16/06/2013 rigenga ubutaka mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 46 n’iya 47. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uru rubanza rukomoka ku makimbirane yabaye hagati ya Mukagatare na Bwanakeye ashingiye ku kibanza Mukagatare yubatsemo mu 1995 avuga ko yahawe na Komini Ngoma nyuma yo guhunguka mu 1994. Mu 2000, Bwanakeye yareze Mukagatare mu nzego z’ubuyobozi avuga koyamwubakiye mu busitani bwe. Ikibazo kidacyemutse Bwanakeye yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye asaba ko ubwubatsi bukorerwa mu ikibanza cye buhagarara, urukiko rwemeza ko Mukagatare asenya Bingalo n’amazu yubatse mu kibanza cya Bwanakeye, mu gihe kitarenze iminsi mirongo itatu (30). 51

## Page 77

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 52 Mukagatare yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru maze rwemeza ko urubanza rwajuririwe rudahindutse mu ngingo zarwo zose, yarongeye ajuririra Urukiko rw’Ikirenga maze rwemeza ko ubujurire bwe butari mu bubasha bwarwo rushingiye ku nzitizi y’iburabubasha yari yazamuwe Bwanakeye. Bityo Mukagatare yagannye Urwego rw’Umuvunyi asaba ko urubanza RCA1633/06/HC/NYA rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rwandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusaba ko rwasubirwamo kuko hari impamvu z’akarengane zishingiye ku byangombwa Mukagatare yerekanye mu Rukiko Rukuru bigaragaza ko ikibanza cyaburanwaga ari icye, nyamara urwo Rukiko ntirubyiteho. Nyuma yo gutesha agaciro inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, iburanisha ryakomeje mu mizi, aho Mukagatare aburana avuga ko afite ibimenyetso byirengajijwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, bigizwe n’inyandiko zitandukanye zerekana ko ikibanza kiburanwa ari icye ariko ko Urukiko Rukuru rwabyirengagije, kandi nyamara Bwanakeye akaba nta kimenyetso na kimwe cyanditse yigeze agaragaza, akaba asanga ibi urukiko rwaragombaga kubiha agaciro rukurikije ubusumbane bw’ibimenyetso, akaba asaba n’indishyi zitandukanye. Abazungura ba Bwanakeye biregura bavuga ko impamvu urukiko rutitaye ku bimenyetso bya Mukagatare ari uko yatanganga inyandiko zitari umwimerere, kandi ko igihe kivugwa ko iyo sambu yeguriwe kaminuza Bwanakeye yari atuye aho hantu. Bakomeza bavuga ko inyandiko zigaragazwa n’uwajuriye ziterekana ingero z’ubutaka yahawe, mu gihe izindi zerekana ko yatijwe aho ashyira akabarike ariko atahawe ikibanza.

## Page 78

53 Bakomeza bavuga ko n’iyo ubwo butaka buburanwa bwari kuba ari ubwa Leta hari kuba harabayeho ubuzime kuko acte de cesssion du Laboratoire Vétérinaire de Butare yasinywe kuwa 12/02/1964 naho ibaruwa imuha ubwo butaka igasinywa n’Ubuyobozi bwa Komini y’Umujyi ya Ngoma ku wa 10/10/1995, ni ukuvuga nyuma y’imyaka mirongo itatu (30) iteganywa n’amategeko. Kubirebana n’ubuzime, Mukagatare avuga ko atabwemera kuko ubutaka buburanwa butigeze buba ubwa Bwanakeye, maze nawe asoza asaba indishyi zitandukanye. Incamake y’icyemezo:1. Ubutaka bw’umuntu ku giti cye n’ubwo yahawe n’ubuyobozi bubifitiye ububasha, ubwo yaguze, yahaweho impano, umurage, izungura, umunani, ingurane cyangwa isaranganya. Bityo rero kuba succession Bwanakeye itarabashije kugaragaza inkomoka y’ubutaka buburanwa bituma Mukagatare abutsindira kuko agaragaza ko yabuhawe n’ubuyobozi bubifitiye ububasha. 2. Umuntu wihaye ubutaka bw’inkungu cyangwa indeka cyangwa ubw’undi muntu akoresheje uburiganya, ntashobora kwitwaza ubuzime, kabone n’iyo yaba abutunze igihe kirenze imyaka y’ubuzime, bityo rero succession Bwanakeye ntikwiye kuvuga ko Leta itashoboraga gutanga ubutaka buburanwa ngo kuko yabwegukanye hamaze kubaho ubuzime. 3. Amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’avoko bigenerwa umuburanyi ufite ibyo yatakaje k’urubanza kandi agomba kuba yararutsinze. Ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane gifite ishingiro; MUKAGATARE v. SUCCESSION BWANAKEYE (2)

## Page 79

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 54 Urubanza RCA1633/06/HC/NYA rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanzaruhindutse mu ngingo zarwo zose; Amagarama y’urubanza aherereye kuri Succession Bwanakeye. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko N°15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa, ingingo ya 3 n’iya 13. Itegeko N°43/2013 ryo ku wa 16/06/2013 rigenga ubutaka mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 10, 46 n’iya 47. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Nyuma yo kugaruka mu Rwanda mu mwaka wa 1994, Mukagatare Grâce wari warahunze, yagiye gutura mu cyahoze ari Intara ya Butare. Mu mwaka wa 1995 yubatse mu kibanza avuga ko yari ahawe na Komini Ngoma. Mu mwaka wa 2000, Bwanakeye François yatangiye kurega Mukagatare Grâce avuga ko yubatse mu busitani bwe, ikibazo gikurikiranwa mu nzego z’Ubuyobozi. [2] Mu mwaka wa 2006, Bwanakeye François yareze Mukagatare Grâce mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Huye asaba guhagarikisha ubwubatsi bwakorerwaga mu murima we. Ku itariki ya 29/09/2006, Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Huye rwaciye urubanza RC0069/06/TGI/HYE-RC0002/06/TP/BUT rwemeza

## Page 80

55 ko Mukagatare Grâce asenya Bingalo n’amazu yubatse mu murima wa Bwanakeye François, akabivanamo mu gihe kitarenze iminsi mirongo itatu (30). [3] Mukagatare Grâce yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza, ruca urubanza RCA1633/06/HC/NYA ku itariki ya 03/11/2008, rwemeza ko Mukagatare Grâce atsinzwe, ko urubanza rwajuririwe rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Huye ku itariki ya 23/06/2006 rudahindutse mu ngingo zarwo zose. [4] Mukagatare Grâce yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, nyuma y’inzitizi y’iburabubasha yari yabyukijwe n’uhagarariye Bwanakeye François, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwemeza ko ubujurire bwakozwe ku rubanza RCA1633/06/HC/NYA rwaciwe ku itariki ya 03/11/2006 n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza, butari mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. [5] Mukagatare Grâce abonye icyo cyemezo yagannye Urwego rw’Umuvunyi asaba ko urubanza RCA1633/06/HC/NYA rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, maze ku itariki ya 27/03/2013, Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rwandikira Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusaba ko urubanza rumaze kuvugwa rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane rwagejejweho na Mukagatare Grâce. [6] Urwego rw’Umuvunyi ruvuga ko impamvu z’akarengane zigaragara muri urwo rubanza zishingiye ku byangombwa Mukagatare Grâce yerekanye mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza, bigaragaza ko ikibanza cyaburanwaga ari icye, nyamara urwo Rukiko ntirubyiteho. Ibyo akaba ari na MUKAGATARE v. SUCCESSION BWANAKEYE (2)

## Page 81

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 56 byo bikubiye mu mwanzuro watanzwe na Mukagatare Grâce mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga agaragaza akarengane yagiriwe. [7] Mu iburanisha ryo ku itariki ya 16/09/2014, Me Ngirabakunzi Evariste waburaniraga Succession Bwanakeye François yatanze inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego cya Mukagatare Grâce kuko kitubahirije ingingo ya 79 n’iya 81 z’Itegeko Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, maze ku wa 10/10/2014, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwemeza ko iyo nzitizi nta shingiro ifite, ko ikirego cya Mukagatare Grâce cyakiriwe kugira ngo kizasuzumwe mu mizi, iburanisha ry’urubanza rishyirwa ku itariki ya 13/01/2015. [8] Kuva icyo gihe, urubanza rwagiye rusubikwa ku mpamvu zitandukanye, ahanini biterwa n’ibura rya bamwe mu bazungura ba Bwanakeye François, kugeza ubwo iburanisha ryarwo ribaye ku wa 08/03/2016, Mukagatare Grâce yitabye yunganiwe na Me Hakizimana John, muri Succession Bwanakeye François hitabye igice kimwe gihagarariwe na Mukamunana Vénantie yunganiwe na Me Nizeyimana Boniface, Musada Jean Pierre, Ukuyemuye Jeanne, Nabonabana Jeannine, Nibakure Floriane, Tuyisenge Thaddée na Rutaganda Innocent barahamagawe mu bihe bitandukanye ariko ntibitabe Urukiko, naho Barandagiye Alphonse Marie, Uwimana Régine, Tuza M. Alice, Mukangamije Henriette, Mugeni Françoise, Bwanakeye Françoise, Bwanakeye M. Goretti, Bwanakeye M. Thérėse na Mukantagara Josephine barahamagajwe ahatazwi. [9] Isomwa ry’urubanza ryashyizwe ku wa 15/04/2016 ariko uwo munsi ntirwasomwa, ahubwo Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rufata icyemezo cy’uko mbere yo guca urubanza burundu, ari ngombwa gukora iperereza aho ikiburanwa kiri, ruvuga ko

## Page 82

57 iburanisha rizongera gufungurwa ku itariki ya 21/06/2016. Iryo perereza rikaba ryarabaye ku itariki ya 27/05/2016. [10] Ku itariki ya 21/06/2016, ababuranyi bongeye kwitaba Urukiko, Me Hakizimana John yunganira Mukagatare Grâce, Me Nizeyimana Boniface yunganiye Mukamunana Vénantie uhagarariye bamwe mu bazungura ba Bwanakeye François babimuhereye ububasha (procuration), maze uwo munsi Urukiko rumenyesha ababuranyi ko ari ngombwa gusaba Umuyobozi w’Ikigo cy’Igihugu gishinzwe umutungo kamere gutanga amakuru ku butaka buburanwa buri muri hegitari mirongo ine n’eshanu (45) Leta y’u Rwanda yahaye Kaminuza y’u Rwanda mu mwaka wa 1964 nk’uko Acte de Cession iri muri dosiye ibigaragaza. [11] Iburanisha ry’urubanza ryasubukuwe ku itariki ya 29/11/2016, ababuranyi bitabye kandi bunganiwe n’Abavoka babo, maze buri ruhande rugira icyo ruvuga ku iperereza ryakozwe no kuri raporo Umuyobozi w’Ikigo cy’Igihugu gishinzwe umutungo kamere yatanze. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO 1. Kumenya niba hari akarengane Mukagatare Grâce yagiriwe mu rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza, rwemeje ko umurima uburanwa ari uwa Bwanakeye François. [12] Me Hakizimana John uburanira Mukagatare Grâce, yabwiye Urukiko ko bafite urutonde rw’ibimenyetso bigizwe n’inyandiko Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza, MUKAGATARE v. SUCCESSION BWANAKEYE (2)

## Page 83

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 58 rwirengagije, akaba ari nacyo cyamuteye akarengane. Avuga ko ibyo bimenyetso ari acte de notoriété yo ku wa 30/03/2000, fiche cadastrale yo ku wa 24/04/2003 yakozwe n’Umujyi wa Butare, contrat de location y’ikibanza kiburanwa yakozwe ku wa 28/08/2005 hagati y’Akarere ka Huye na Mukagatare Grâce, facture au comptant yo ku wa 28/08/2006 y’amafaranga yishyuwe kugira ngo iki kibanza gishobore kubona plan cadastral, raporo ya Komisiyo yo ku wa 22/12/2000 yakozwe n’Ubuyobozi bwa Perefegitura (Préfecture) ya Butare ku kibazo Mukagatare Grâce yari yabugejejeho, ibaruwa ya Burugumesitiri (Bourgmestre) wa Komini y’Umujyi wa Ngoma yo ku wa 10/10/1995 yahaga Mukagatare Grâce uburenganzira bwo kubaka kiosque, ibaruwa Umuyobozi w’Akarere ka Huye yandikiye Umuvunyi Mukuru ku itariki ya 03/12/2009 amusobanurira ko ubutaka buburanwa ari ubwa Mukagatare Grâce anamubwira ko nta fiche cadastrale ya Bwanakeye François babonye mu bitabo, ndetse na acte de cession du laboratoire vétérinaire de Butare yo ku wa 12/02/1964 igaragaza inkomoko y’ubu butaka, aho Leta y’u Rwanda yabuhaga Kaminuza y’u Rwanda, iki kimenyetso kikaba kivuguruza imiburanire ya Bwanakeye François, aho yavugaga ko ubutaka buburanwa ari ubwo akomora kuri gakondo. [13] Me Hakizimana John akomeza avuga kandi ko kuva mu nkiko zo hasi, Mukagatare Grâce yagiye aburanisha ibi bimenyetso byanditse harimo n’inyandiko mvaho, nyamara Bwanakeye François we akaba nta kimenyetso na kimwe cyanditse yigeze agaragaza, Urukiko rukaba rwaragombaga kubiha agaciro rukurikije ubusumbane bw’ibimenyetso (hiérarchie des preuves).

## Page 84

59 [14] Ku birebana na raporo yakozwe n’abakozi b’Ikigo cy’Igihugu gishinzwe umutungo kamere, Me Hakizimana John avuga ko bemeranya nayo, kubera ko yerekana inkomoko y’ubutaka buburanwa, ko bwari ubwa Leta ari nayo yabuhaye Mukagatare Grâce, bitandukanye n’ibivugwa n’uruhande rw‘abazungura ba Bwanakeye François ko ubwo butaka babukomora kuri gakondo. [15] Mukamunana Vénantie, umwe mu bazungura ba Bwanakeye François akanahagararira bamwe mu bavandimwe be, avuga ko impamvu Urukiko rutitaye ku bimenyetso bya Mukagatare Grâce ari uko yatangaga inyandiko zitari umwimerere (photocopies). Asobanura ko isambu ya Bwanakeye François iva ku muhanda ikagera mu kabande, ko kandi nta bibanza byigeze bicibwamo, Mukagatare Grâce akaba yarayigezemo atira aho gushyira kiosque gusa, akaba atazi ukuntu yaje kuvamo inzu. [16] Akomeza asobanura ko mu mwaka wa 1964, igihe bavuga iyo sambu yegurirwaga Kaminuza, Bwanakeye François yari atuye aho hantu kimwe n’abandi baturage, akaba yarahaje aturutse i Kansi mu cyahoze ari Komini Nyaruhengeri, hamwe akaba yarahaguze uretse ko inyandiko yagiye aguriraho zabuze. Asobanura ko abandi baturage batuye aho bavuga ko ari mu isambu ya Kaminuza bafite ibyangombwa by’ubutaka ndetse banahubatse amazu akomeye, iyi acte de cession du laboratoire ikaba imenyekanye muri uru rubanza, mbere hose ikaba itarigeze igaragazwa, ndetse na Kaminuza ikaba nta na rimwe yari yarigeze ivuga ko isambu batuyemo ari iyayo. Arangiza asobanura ko aho Mukagatare Grâce yubatse hari mu busitani bwabo, ko yari yahahawe by’igihe gito ngo ahatereke kiosque yashoboraga kwimurwa igihe icyo ari cyo cyose. MUKAGATARE v. SUCCESSION BWANAKEYE (2)

## Page 85

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 60 [17] Me Nizeyimana Boniface asubiza ku bimenyetso bya Mukagatare Grâce, avuga ko acte de notoriété yo ku wa 30/03/2000 bayimuhaye bavuga ko afite Bar Isangano, ariko ko batemeje ko afite parcelle, kuko iyo biba ibyo bari kwandikaho nimero zayo. Ku byerekeye fiche cadastrale yo ku wa 24/04/2003 na contrat de location yo ku wa 28/08/2006, avuga ko bikwiye guteshwa agaciro kuko bigaragaza ingero, nyamara muri acte de notoriété ari naho izo ngero zagombaga kuva zitarimo. [18] Ku birebana na raporo ya Komisiyo (commission) yo ku itariki ya 22/08/2006, Me Nizeyimana Boniface agaragaza ko muri iyo raporo handitsemo ko aho hantu Mukagatare Grâce ahahawe kugira ngo ashobore gucuruza, adahawe parcelle, ibi akaba ari nabyo bigaragara mu ibaruwa ya Burugumesitiri (Bourgmestre) wa Komini Ngoma. Ku birebana n’ibaruwa Umuyobozi w’Akarere ka Huye yandikiye Umuvunyi Mukuru amubwira ko nta fiche cadastrale ya Bwanakeye François iboneka mu bitabo, avuga ko ibi atari ikibazo kuko n’abandi baturage batuye aho, izo fiches ntazo bari bafite. Ku byerekeye acte de cession du laboratoire vétérinaire, avuga ko iki kimenyetso kigaragaza inkomoko y’ubutaka buburanwa, aho Leta y’u Rwanda yabuhaga Kaminuza, ko iyo Mukagatare Grâce aza kubuhabwa hari kugaragazwa n’ingero z’aho yahawe. [19] Arangiza avuga ko, n’iyo ubwo butaka buburanwa bwari kuba ari ubwa Leta nk’uko bikubiye muri acte de cesssion du Laboratoire Vétérinaire de Butare mu gika cya nyuma cy’ingingo ya kabiri yayo, ko bwagombaga gusubizwa Centre urbain de Butare, habayeho ubuzime kuko iyo acte de cession yasinywe ku itariki ya 12/02/1964, ibaruwa iha ubwo butaka Mukagatare Grâce isinywa n’Ubuyobozi bwa Komini y’Umujyi

## Page 86

61 ya Ngomba ku itariki ya 10/10/1995, ni ukuvuga nyuma y’imyaka mirongo itatu (30) iteganywa n’amategeko. Agasanga rero Leta itarashoboraga gutanga ubutaka bwari bwararangije kwegukanwa na Bwanakeye François (prescription acquisitive). [20] Ku birebana n’ubuzime uburanira abazungura ba Bwanakeye François aburanisha, Me Hakizimana John avuga ko Mukagatare Grâce atemera buriya buzime (prescription acquisitive) kubera ko ubutaka buburanwa butigeze buba ubwa Bwanakeye François, ko Mukagatare Grâce ajya kuhasaba hari ubusitani (jardin) gusa nta nyubako ihari. Avuga ko, ku birebana n‘inkomoko y’ubutaka buburanwa, raporo y’Umuyobozi w’Ikigo cy’Igihugu gishinzwe umutungo kamere ishimangira imiburanire ya Mukagatare Grâce, kuko igaragaza inkomoko ya kure y’ubu butaka, mu gihe abazungura ba Bwanakeye François bavuga ko ari isambu gakondo, nyamara iyi raporo ikabivuguruza. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [21] Ingingo ya 3 y’Itegeko N°15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo iteganya ko “buri muburanyi agomba kugaragaza ukuri kw’ibyo aburana. Umucamanza ashobora nyamara gutegeka umuburanyi wese gutanga gihamya y’ibimenyetso afite”. [22] Ingingo ya 13, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko N°15/2004 rimaze kuvugwa, iteganya ko “Inyandikomvaho ikemura impaka kuri bose mu byerekeye ibiyivugwamo umukozi wa Leta ubigenewe yabereye umuhamya cyangwa yakoze ariko atarengeje ibyo yari ashinzwe gukora. Ibivuzwe muri iyo nyandiko mvaho ntawe ushobora kubihakana, keretse biramutse MUKAGATARE v. SUCCESSION BWANAKEYE (2)

## Page 87

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 62 bikurikiranywe mu rubanza rushinja icyaha cyo kubeshya mu nyandikomvaho cyangwa umuburanyi aregeye ko iyo nyandikomvaho ari impimbano”. [23] Mu nyandiko zigize dosiye y‘urubanza Mukagatare Grâce atanga nk’ibimenyetso ko ubutaka buburanwa ari ubwe, hagaragaramo acte de notoriété yo ku wa 30/03/2000, fiche cadastrale yo ku wa 24/04/2003 yakozwe n’Umujyi wa Butare, contrat de location y’ikibanza kiburanwa yakozwe ku wa 28/08/2005 hagati y’Akarere ka Huye na Mukagatare Grâce, facture au comptant yo ku wa 28/08/2006 y’amafaranga yishyuwe kugira ngo iki kibanza gishobore kubona plan cadastral, raporo ya komisiyo yo ku wa 22/12/2000 yakozwe n’Ubuyobozi bwa Perefegitura (Préfecture) ya Butare ku kibazo Mukagatare Grâce yari yabugejejeho, ibaruwa yo ku wa 10/10/1995 yanditswe na Burugumesitiri (Bourgmestre) wa Komini y’Umujyi wa Ngoma aha Mukagatare Grâce uburenganzira bwo kubaka kiosque, ibaruwa yo kuwa 03/12/2009 Umuyobozi w’Akarere ka Huye yandikiye Umuvunyi Mukuru asobanura ko ubutaka buburanwa ari ubwa Mukagatare Grâce anamubwira ko nta fiche cadastrale ya Bwanakeye François babonye mu bitabo, ndetse na acte de cession du Laboratoire vétérinaire de Butare yo ku wa 12/02/1964 igaragaza inkomoko y’ubu butaka, aho Leta y’u Rwanda yabuhaga Kaminuza y’u Rwanda. [24] Ibyo Mukamunana Vénantie, uhagarariye bamwe mu bazungura ba Bwanakeye François, avuga ko impamvu Mukagatare Grâce yatsinzwe mu Rukiko Rukuru ari uko inyandiko yatangaga nk’ibimenyetso zitari umwimerere, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga muri uru rubanza nta gaciro byagira kuko ibyo yatanze muri uru Rukiko noneho ari

## Page 88

63 umwimerere, kandi ibitari umwimerere hakaba harabonetse n’ibindi bibishyigikira birimo raporo y’Umuyobozi w’Ikigo cy’Igihugu gishinzwe umutungo kamere igaragaza ko ubutaka buburanwa atari gakondo ya Bwanakeye François nk’uko abiburanisha, ahubwo bwari ubwa Centre Urbain de Butare1. Ibyo avuga ko igice kimwe cy’ubutaka Bwanakeye François yakiguze nabyo nta gaciro bifite kuko atabitangira ibimenyetso nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 3 y’Itegeko N°15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryavuzwe haruguru. [25] Ku birebana n’ibyo Me Nizeyimana Boniface wunganira Mukamunana Vénantie avuga ko inyandiko Mukagatare Grâce agaragaza ziterekana ingero z’ubutaka yahawe, izindi zikerekana ko yatijwe aho ashyira Bar Isangano kuko atahawe parcelle, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusanga nabyo nta gaciro bifite kuko Fiche cadastrale igaragaza ko ubutaka Mukagatare Grâce yahawe bungana na are 5 na ca 40, naho kuba acte de notoriété yerekana ko Mukagatare Grâce afite Bar Isangano atari parcelle, nabyo ntibyatesha agaciro ibimenyetso yatanze kuko iyo Bar yubatse ku butaka. [26] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rumaze gusesengura inyandiko zimaze kuvugwa, rurasanga Mukagatare Grâce agaragaza inkomoko y’ubutaka yarezwe na Bwanakeye François kuko yerekana ko yabuhawe n’Ubuyobozi bubifitiye ububasha, nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 10 y’Itegeko N°43/2013 ryo ku

1 Ingingo ya 35 y’Itegeko N°15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo ivuga ko Kopi idateyeho icyemezo cy’uko ihuye n’inyandiko y’umwimerere igira agaciro igihe yunganiwe n’ikindi kimenyetso kitabujijwe n’amategeko iyo inyandiko y’umwimerere idashobora kuboneka. MUKAGATARE v. SUCCESSION BWANAKEYE (2)

## Page 89

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 64 wa 16/06/2013 rigenga ubutaka mu Rwanda2, mu gihe abazungura ba Bwanakeye François badashobora kwerekana aho bakomora ubutaka baburana, kuko hamwe Mukamunana Vénantie uhagarariye bamwe muri bo avuga ko babukomora ku muco, mu gihe nyamara na none avuga ko Se, Bwanakeye François yageze kuri ubwo butaka aturutse i Kansi ahahoze ari muri Komini Nyaruhegeri, ahandi akavuga ko ari aho yaguze nyamara ntabitangire ibimenyetso nk’uko byagarutsweho haruguru. [27] Ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba ubutaka bwahawe Mukagatare Grâce butari ubwa Leta, inyandiko zigize dosiye y’urubanza, zigaragaramo acte de cession du Laboratoire Vétérinaire de Butare par le Gouvernement de la République du Rwanda à l’Université Nationale du Rwanda yo ku wa 12/02/1964 yerekana ko Leta y’u Rwanda, ihagarariwe na Minisitiri w’Ubuhinzi ndetse na Minisitiri w’Uburezi, yahaye Kaminuza y’u Rwanda umutungo wa Laboratoire Vétérinaire urimo n’ubutaka bungana na hegitari mirongo ine n’eshanu (45 ha) nk’uko bigaragara muri iyo nyandiko, aho mu gika cya kabiri cy‘ingingo ya kabiri, bagaragaza ko ubuso bungana na hegitari esheshatu (6 ha) Laboratoire Vétérinaire yari yarahawe na Centre Urbain de Butare (Umujyi wa Butare) yagombaga guhita ibuyisubiza nyuma yo gusinya acte de cession.

2Ingingo ya 10 y’Itegeko N°43/2013 ryo ku wa 16/06/2013 rigenga ubutaka mu Rwanda iteganya ko ubutaka bw’umuntu ku giti cye bugizwe n’ubutaka atunze ku buryo bw’umuco cyangwa ubw’amategeko yanditse. Ubwo butaka abutunze yarabuhawe n’ubuyobozi bubifitiye ububasha, ubwo yaguze, yahaweho impano, umurage, izungura, umunani, ingurane cyangwa isaranganya.

## Page 90

65 [28] Raporo y‘Umuyobozi w’Ikigo cy’Igihugu gishinzwe umutungo kamere wiyambajwe n’Urukiko kugira ngo arugaragarize niba ubutaka buburanwa ari ubwa Leta, yerekana ko nyuma y’isesengura ry‘ikarita yakozwe mu mwaka wa 1957 yerekanaga aho Umujyi wa Astrida wagombaga kwagukira na acte de cession du Laboratoire Vétérinaire de Butare par le Gouvernement de la République du Rwanda à l’Université Nationale du Rwanda yo ku wa 12/02/1964, bigaragara ko hari ubutaka Centre Urbain yari yaratije laboratoire vétérinaire harimo n’uburi kuburanwa hagati ya Bwanakeye François na Mukagatare Grâce, bukaba bungana na hegitari esheshatu (6 ha) nk’uko biri mu ngingo ya kabiri ya acte de cession. [29] Hashingiwe kuri izo nyandiko, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga ubutaka buburanwa buherereye mu Murenge wa Tumba, mu Karere ka Huye, ari ubutaka bwa Leta kuko bwari ubwa Centre urbain de Butare, ubu ikaba itakiriho, ariko hashingiwe ku Itegeko Ngenga N°29/2005 ryo ku wa 31/12/2005 rigena inzego z’imitegekere y’Igihugu cy’u Rwanda hakaba harahindutse Akarere ka Huye. [30] Ku birebana n’ibivugwa na Me Nizeyimana Boniface ko Leta itashoboraga gutanga ubutaka buburanwa kuko Bwanakeye François yari yarabwegukanye hamaze kubaho ubuzime, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga Bwanakeye François atakwitwaza ubuzime ngo yigarurire ubutaka bwa Leta nk’uko biteganywa n‘ingingo ya 47 y’Itegeko N°43/2013 ryo ku wa 16/06/2013 rigenga ubutaka mu Rwanda, iteganya ko “Umuntu wihaye ubutaka bw’inkungu cyangwa indeka cyangwa ubw’undi muntu akoresheje uburiganya, ntashobora kwitwaza MUKAGATARE v. SUCCESSION BWANAKEYE (2)

## Page 91

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 66 ubuzime, kabone n’iyo yaba abutunze igihe kirenze imyaka y’ubuzime ivugwa mu ngingo ya 46 y’iri tegeko”3. [31] Hashingiwe ku bimaze kuvugwa haruguru, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga ubutaka buburanwa ari ubwa Mukagatare Grâce kuko abifitiye ibimenyetso bigizwe n’ibyangombwa yahawe n’Ubuyobozi bubifitiye ububasha, bityo urubanza RCA1633/06/HC/NYA rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza ku wa 03/11/2008 rukaba ruhindutse mu ngingo zarwo zose. 2. Kumenya niba indishyi ababuranyi basaba bakwiye kuzihabwa. [32] Me Hakizimana John asaba ko Succession Bwanakeye François iha Mukagatare Grâce indishyi zihwanye n’ibihumbi magana atanu by’amafaranga y’u Rwanda (500.000) kubera kumusiragiza mu manza no mu zindi nzego z’Ubuyobozi, n’ibihumbi magatanu (500.000) y’igihembo cya Avoka, ariko Me Nizeyimana Boniface we akavuga ko nta shingiro zifite kuko atabasha kwerekana akababaro yagize. [33] Ku rundi ruhande, Me Nizeyimana Boniface asaba ko Succession Bwanakeye François iramutse itsinze uru rubanza, Mukagatare Grâce yayiha indishyi mbonezamusaruro zihwanye na miliyoni ijana z’amafaranga y’u Rwanda (100.000.000) kubera ko ahantu haburanwa Bwanakeye François yateganyaga kuhakorera ubucuruzi ariko ntibyashoboka, izi ndishyi zikaba zarabazwe haherewe ku mubare w’abana makumyabiri (20) yagombaga gutunga. Asaba kandi ko Mukagatare Grâce yatanga

3 Igihe cy’ubuzime mu byerekeranye n’ubutaka ni imyaka mirongo itatu (30). Ubuzime bwemezwa n’icyemezo cy’urukiko rubifitiye ububasha.

## Page 92

67 indishyi z’akababaro zihwanye na miliyoni makumyabiri (20.000.000) kubera ko izi manza ziri mu byihutishije urupfu rwa Bwanakeye François, na miliyoni umunani (8.000.000) yahawe Abavoka bagiye baburana uru rubanza kuva rwatangira. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [34] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga, kuba Mukagatare Grâce yarakomeje gukurikirana uru rubanza kugera no kuri uru rwego yunganiwe na Avoka, akwiye kugenerwa amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka ahwanye n’ibihumbi magana atanu by‘amafaranga y’u Rwanda (500.000) asaba. Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga kandi indishyi zihwanye n’ibihumbi magana atanu by’amafaranga y’u Rwanda (500.000) kubera kumusiragiza mu manza no mu zindi nzego Mukagatare Grâce asaba nazo agomba kuzihabwa, kubera ko byagaragaye ko uru rubanza yakomeje kurukurikirana. [35] Ku birebana n’indishyi zisabwa na Succession Bwanakeye François, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga ntazo ikwiye guhabwa kuko ntacyo itsindiye muri uru rubanza. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [36] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza RCA1633/06/HC/NYA ku mpamvu z'akarengane cyatanzwe na Mukagatare Grâce gifite ishingiro; [37] Rwemeje ko urubanza RCA1633/06/HC/NYA rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru,Urugereko rwa Nyanza, ku wa 03/11/2008 ruhindutse mu ngingo zarwo zose; MUKAGATARE v. SUCCESSION BWANAKEYE (2)

## Page 93

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 68 [38] Rwemeje ko ubutaka buherereye mu Mudugudu wa Rimba, Akagari ka Gitwa, Umurenge wa Tumba, Akarere ka Huye mu Ntara y’Amajyepfo buburanwa hagati ya Mukagatare Grâce na Succession Bwanakeye François ari ubwa Mukagatare Grâce; [39] Rutegetse Succession Bwanakeye François guha Mukagatare Grâce ibihumbi magana atanu by’amafaranga y’u Rwanda (500.000) y‘indishyi zo gusiragizwa mu manza, n’ibihumbi magana atanu by‘amafaranga y’u Rwanda (500.000) y’igihembo cya Avoka, yose hamwe akaba miliyoni imwe y’amafaranga y’amafaranga y’u Rwanda (1.000.000); [40] Rutegetse Succession Bwanakeye François kwishyura amagarama y’urubanza angana n’ibihumbi ijana (100.000).

## Page 94

IMANZA Z’UBUCURUZI

## Page 96

IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA) v. UMURUNGI UMWIZERWA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA RCOMAA00066/2016/SC (Mukanyundo, P.J; Ngagi, J. na Rugabirwa, J.) 28 Nyakanga 2017] Amategeko agenga imisoro – Amategeko agenga imisoreshereze ya gasutamo mu muryango w’ibihugu by’iburasirazuba bw’afurika – Imenyekanyisha rikosheje – Mu gihe hakozwe imenyekanisha ritari ryo kubera kwibeshya bigatuma hishyurwa imisoro micye, Komiseri wa za gasutamo afite ububasha bwo gusaba umusoreshwa kwishyura ikinyuranyo ku musoro yagombaga kwishyura utarishyuwe – Amategeko agenga imisoreshereze ya gasutamo mu muryango w’ibihugu by’iburasirazuba bw’Afurika 2004, ingingo ya 135. Incamake y’ikibazo:Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro cyakoreye igenzura Umurungi Umwizerwa ku bintu yatumije mu mahanga kuva mu mwaka wa 2010 kugera muri 2014, maze bamuca umusoro ku byaguzwe ungana na 49.636.583Frw n’umusoro ku nyongera gaciro ingana na 8.934.585Frw, iyi misoro ikaba ituruka ku mamenyekanisha akosheje Umurungi yagiye akora ubwo yatumizaga imitobe y’imbuto muri Uganda aho yishyuye umusoro ku byaguzwe ku ijanisha rya 5% aho kuba iya 39%, ibi bituma yishyura umusoro mucye ku byaguzwe n’umusoro ku nyongera gaciro nkeya, umusoro yishyuzwa wose hamwe ukaba ungana na 58.571.168Frw. Umusoreshwa ntiyanyuzwe n’uburyo yaciwemo uyu musoro maze atanga ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge, avuga ko ikigo k’imisoro n’amahoro cyamuciye iyi misoro mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko kuko ashingiye ku itegeko 71

## Page 97

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 72 rigenga imisoreshereze ya gasutamo mu bihugu byo mu muryango w’iburasirazuba bw’Afurika Komiseri wa za Gasutamo adafite ububasha bwo guca umusoro mu gihe umusoreshwa atemera icyaha cyo gukora no gukoresha ibyemezo mpimbano. Na none kandi nta n’ububasha bwo kumusubiza afite anasaba ko uwo musoro wakurwaho. Urukiko rwemeje ko Umurungi atsinzwe ku ngingo zose yaregeraga, rumutegeka kwishyura umusoro wose yaciwe, rugenera ikigo cy’imisoro n’amahoro indishyi. Umusoreshwa yajuririye mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, rwemeza ko imikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe ihindutse ku ngingo zose, rutegeka ikigo cy’imisoro n’amahoro gusubiza Umusoreshwa igarama yatanze. Ikigo cy’imisoro n’amahoro ntikishimiye imikirize y’urwo rubanza, maze kijuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga kivuga ko ibivugwa n’umusoreshwa yuko komiseri wa za gasutamo nta bububasha yari afite bwo kumuca umusoro, ashingiye ku byemejwe mu rubanza RCOMA0047/10/CS rwa Munyaneza n’ikigo k’imisoro n’amahoro rwaciwe n’urukiko rw’ikirenga mu gihe izi manza zitandukanye kuko muri urwo rubanza urukiko rwashingiye ku ngingo ya 203 y’itegeko rigenga imisoreshereze ya gasutamo mu b’ibihugu byo mu mu muryango w’iburasirazuba bw’Afurika rutegeka umusoreshwa kwishyura umusoro mu gihe uru rubanza ruburanishwa urukiko rwashingiye ku ya 135 y’iryo tegeko, bityo umusoreshwa agomba kwishyura ikinyuranyo kuko yakoze imenyekanyisha rikosheje asora umusoro muke igereranyije nuwo yagombaga gusora isoza isaba ko yahabwa indishyi. Umusoreshwa nawe yisobanura avuga ko gukora imenyekanyisha rikosheje cyangwa ritari ryo ari icyaha giteganywa n’ingingo ya 203 y’itegeko ryavuzwe hejuru kandi ko icyo cyaha kigomba kubanza

## Page 98

73 gushyikirizwa inkiko zibifitiye ububasha hakagaragazwa uwakoze icyaha akanabiryozwa, akaba avuga ko kuberako atemera icyo cyaha, komiseri wa za Gasutamo nta bubasha yari afite bwo kumutegeka kwishyura uwo musoro nawe akaba abisabira indishyi. Incamake y’icyemezo: Mu gihe hakozwe imenyekanisha ritari ryo kubera kwibeshya bigatuma hishyurwa imisoro mike, Komiseri wa za gasutamo afite ububasha bwo gusaba umusoreshwa kwishyura ikinyuranyo ku musoro yagombaga kwishyura utarishyuwe. Kuko uko kwibeshya bitandukanye no gukora icyaha cyo gukora no gukoresha ibyemezo mpimbano biteganywa mu ngingo ya 203. Ubujurire bufite ishingiro. Imikirize y’urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi irandutse. Amategeko yashingiweho: East African Community Customs Management Act, 2004, ingingo za 135, 203, 219 n’iya 220. Urubanza zifashishijwe: Munyaneza Evariste v. RRA, RCOMA0047/10/CS, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwaciwe kuwa 29/07/2011.

IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA) v. UMURUNGI UMWIZERWA

## Page 99

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 74 Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge, Umurungi Umwizerwa arega Rwanda Revenue Authority kuba yaramuciye umusoro mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, kuko abakozi b’Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro (Ishami rya za Gasutamo) bamukoreye igenzura ku bintu yatumije mu mahanga mu mwaka wa 2010 kugera 2014, maze bamuca umusoro ku byaguzwe (Taxe de consommation) ungana na 49.636.583Frw na TVA ingana na 8.934.585Frw, wose hamwe ukaba ungana na 58.571.168Frw. [2] Uwo musoro yaciwe ukaba uturuka ku mamenyekanisha akosheje Umurungi Umwizerwa yagiye akora ubwo yatumizaga imitobe y’imbuto muri Uganda yishyura “taxe de consommation” ku ijanisha (rate) rya 5% aho kuba 39%, ibi bituma yishyura umusoro mucye ku byaguzwe (Taxe de consommation) na TVA nkeya. Mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge, Umurungi yari yaregeye ingingo eshatu avuga ko Komiseri Mukuru atamushubije bityo umusoro ukaba ukwiye kuvaho, ko Komiseri wa za Gasutamo adafite ububasha bwo kumusubiza no kuba atari afite ububasha bwo guca umusoro ukomoka ku cyaha kandi icyo cyaha atacyemera. [3] Mu rubanza RCOM1745/TC/NYGE rwaciwe ku wa 04/04/2016, Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge rwemeje ko Umurungi Umwizerwa atsinzwe ku ngingo zose yaregeraga, rumutegeka kwishyura umusoro wose yaciwe ungana na 58.571.168Frw, rugenera Rwanda Revenue Authority indishyi zingana na 500.000Frw.

## Page 100

75 [4] Umurungi Umwizerwa ntiyishimiye icyemezo cy’Urukiko ku ngingo zose, ariko ajuririra Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ku ngingo imwe gusa ijyanye nuko Komiseri wa za Gasutamo atari afite ububasha bwo guca umusoro ukomoka ku cyaha kandi icyo cyaha atacyemera anasaba ko n’umusoro ungana na 58.571.168Frw uhanagurwaho wose. [5] Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwaciye urubanza RCOMA00215/2016/CHC/HCC kuwa 06/10/2016, rwemeza ko imikirize y’urubanza RCOM1745/TC/NYGE ihindutse ku ngingo zose, rutegeka Rwanda Revenue Authority kwishyura Umurungi Umwizerwa 75.000Frw y’igarama. [6] Rwanda Revenue Authority ntiyishimiye imikirize y’urwo rubanza, ijuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga ivuga ko: (a) urubanza rwashingiweho n’urega ndetse n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rukarushingiraho rwemeza ko Komiseri wa za Gasutamo atari afite ububasha bwo guca Umurungi Umwizerwa umusoro ntaho ruhuriye n’urwaburanwaga muri urwo Rukiko; (b) Indishyi zasabwe na Umurungi Umwizerwa nta shingiro zifite, bityo akaba atazigenerwa, ko ahubwo Urukiko rwamutegeka kwishyura Rwanda Revenue Authority indishyi zingana na 1.000.000Frw kubera izi manza yashowemo ku mahere. [7] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku wa 11/07/2017, Rwanda Revenue Authority ihagarariwe na Me Karasira Sorezo Théogène, naho Umurungi Umwizerwa ahagarariwe na Me Nsengiyumva Abel.

IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA) v. UMURUNGI UMWIZERWA

## Page 101

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 76 II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISENGURWA RYABYO 1. Kumenya niba imenyekanisha ryakozwe na Umurungi Umwizerwa ryari rikosheje ku buryo Komiseri wa za Gasutamo yari afite ububasha bwo kumuca ikinyuranyo ku musoro atishyuye. [8] Me Karasira Sorezo Théogène avuga ko urubanza rwashingiweho n’urega ndetse n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rukarushingiraho rwemeza ko Komiseri wa Gasutamo atari afite ububasha bwo guca umusoro ntaho ruhuriye n’urwaburanishwaga muri urwo Rukiko, kubera ko muri urwo rubanza (RCOMA0047/10/CS), Munyaneza Evariste yari yaciwe umusoro hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 203 ya East African Community Customs Management (EACCMA) mu gihe mu rubanza rusuzumwa ubu, Umurungi yaciwe amahoro hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 135 ya EACCMA kubera ko icyo yakoresheje atari inyandiko zifite inenge (false or incorrect documents) nk’ibyabaye mu rubanza RCOMA0047/10/CS, ko ahubwo icyo yakoze ari imenyekanisha rikosheje ryanatumye asora make kuyo yagombaga gusora, bityo akaba agomba kwishyura ikinyuranyo, ibyo rero bikaba bitarebwa n’ingingo ya 203 ya EACCMA. [9] Akomeza avuga ko mu rubanza RCOMA0047/10/CS (igika cya 12), Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwasanze ingingo ya 135 ya EACCMA itashingirwaho hemezwa ko Komiseri wa za Gasutamo afite ububasha bwo kwishyuza umuntu bitabaye ngombwa kumukurikiranaho icyaha kuko iyi ngingo imaze kuvugwa ireba amafaranga umusoreshwa yishyuzwa iyo hari ikinyuranyo hagati y’amafaranga yagombaga kwishyura n’ayo

## Page 102

77 yishyuye cyangwa hagati y’ayo yagombaga gusubizwa n’ayo yasubijwe. [10] Me Nsengiyumva Abel, uburanira Umurungi Umwizerwa, avuga ko kuba Rwanda Revenue Authority ivuga ko hari gushingirwa ku ngingo ya 135 ya EACCMA atari byo, kuko ishaka kuyikoresha aho itakoreshwa. Avuga ko iyo ngingo irebana n’igihe umusoreshwa yasoze amafaranga make ugereranyije n’ayo yagombaga gusora cyangwa igihe yasubijwe amafaranga aruta ayo yagombaga gusubizwa iyo habanje kubaho imenyekanisha ry’agateganyo (provisional entry). [11] Akomeza avuga ko, nk’uko bigaragara ku rupapuro rwa 11 rwa raporo ya “audit”, abagenzuzi bavuga ko hakozwe “declaration” itari yo kuko “HS code” yakoreshejwe atari yo, gukora imenyekanisha ritari ryo bikaba ari icyaha giteganywa n’ingingo ya 203 y’itegeko rigenga za Gasutamo muri East Africa Community, naho ingingo ya 219 y’iri tegeko igaha Komiseri wa za Gasutamo uburenganzira bwo kwishyuza umusoreshwa iyo ubwe yiyemerera icyaha, ko kuba rero we nta cyaha yemera, bivuze ko Komiseri wa Gasutamo atari afite ububasha bwo kumutegeka kwishyura uriya musoro, ko ahubwo icyakorwa ari uko iki kibazo cyashyikirizwa inkiko zibifitiye ububasha nk’uko bivugwa mu ngingo ya 220 y’iryo tegeko hakagaragazwa uwakoze icyaha akanakiryozwa. Asoza avuga ko iyo habaye icyaha cya Gasutamo, nta bubasha bwo guca umusoro Komiseri wa Gasutamo aba afite, cyane cyane ko Umurungi Umwizerwa atanemera icyo cyaha.

IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA) v. UMURUNGI UMWIZERWA

## Page 103

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 78 UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [12] Ingingo (Section) ya 135 ya East African Community Customs Management Act, 2004, ugenekereje, iteganya ko: “Iyo hakiriwe umubare muto w’amahoro cyangwa hakagira ibisubizwa bitewe no kwibeshya, icyo gihe, umuntu uzaba yatanze umubare muto cyangwa uzasubizwa amahoro yibeshye, agomba, abisabwe n’umukozi wa Gasutamo ubifitiye ububasha, kwishyura umubare uburaho cyangwa agasubiza umubare yashubijwe kubera kwibeshya, hitawe kuri buri cyiciro; kandi uwo mubare w’amahoro ugomba kugaruzwa nk’aho ari amahoro yerekeye ibicuruzwa byakiriweho amahoro macye cyangwa ibicuruzwa byasubijwe amahoro bibeshye, bitewe na buri cyiciro”. [13] Ingingo (Section) ya 203 (a) ya EACCMA iteganya ko : “aba akoze icyaha cyo gukora no gukoresha ibyemezo mpimbano (false documents) umuntu wese, mu bijyanye na gasutamo, ukoze imenyekanisha ry’ibinyoma cyangwa ritari ryo”. [14] Dosiye igaragaza ko Umurungi Umwizerwa yaciwe umusoro ungana na 49.636.583Frw na TVA ingana na 8.934.585Frw uturuka kuba yaragendaga akora imenyekanisha ritari ryo bigatuma yishyura imisoro ibariwe kuri 5% aho kuba 39%) ku bicuruzwa by’imitobe y’imbuto yatumizaga mu gihugu cya Uganda, ibi bikaba byaratumye yishyura umusoro mucye. [15] Dosiye igaragaza na none ko mu baruwa yo ku wa 19/09/2016, Umurungi Umwizerwa yandikiye Komiseri wa Gasutamo, avuga ko yabwiwe ko yamenyekanishije “HS CODE” itari yo kuri “Joly Jus”, akaba asaba ko Rwanda

## Page 104

79 Revenue Authority yakwemera “HS CODE” yamenyekanishije kubera impamvu zinyuranye yagaragaje. [16] Dosiye igaragaza, na none, ko ku wa 04/10/2016, Komiseri wa za Gasutamo yandikiye Umurungi Umwizerwa, asubiza ibaruwa ye yo ku wa 19/09/2016, amubwira ko hakurikijwe ibiteganyijwe muri “Section” ya 135 y’Itegeko Nº01/2005 ryo ku wa 01/01/2005 ry’Umuryango w’Ibihugu by’Afurika y’Iburasirazuba, yamenyekanishije muri “HS Code 2106.9010” aho kumenyekanisha muri “HS Code ya 2106.9099”, bityo ko ibyemezo yamenyeshejwe kuri S.L Nº 22,23,24/CRMU/2016-2017 bidahindutse. [17] Urukiko rurasanga, kuba Umurungi Umwizerwa yaragiye akora imenyekanisharitari ryo bigatuma yishyura imisoro micye, nta cyari kubuza Komiseri wa za Gasutamo ubifitiye ububasha gusaba ko yishyura umubare ubura ku musoro yagombaga kwishyura utarishyuwe nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 135 EACCMA imaze kuvugwa haruguru, iyi ngingo ikaba iteganya ko iyo hakiriwe umubare muto w’amahoro bitewe no kwibeshya, icyo gihe, umuntu uzaba yatanze umubare muto yibeshye, agomba, abisabwe n’umukozi wa Gasutamo ubifitiye ububasha, kwishyura umubare uburaho kubera kwibeshya. [18] Urukiko rurasanga, ibyo uburanira Umurungi Umwizerwa avuga ko hagomba gushingirwa ku ngingo ya 203 ya EACCMA, 2004, iteganya ko: “aba akoze icyahacyo gukora no gukoresha ibyemezo mpimbano (false documents) umuntu wese, mubijyanye na Gasutamo, ukoze imenyekanisha ry’ibinyoma cyangwa ritari ryo”; ko ibyo Umurungi yakoze byafatwa ko ari icyaha, nubwo atabyemera, bikaba bigomba kubanza gushyikirizwa Ubushinjacyaha, bitahabwa ishingiro, IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA) v. UMURUNGI UMWIZERWA

## Page 105

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 80 kuko nubwo muri iyi ngingo havugwamo gukora imenyekanisha ritari ryo cyangwa ry’ibinyoma, umutwe wayo uvuga gukora no gukoresha ibyemezo mpimbano (false documents), ibi rero bikaba binyuranyije n’ibyo Umurungi yakoze, kuko icyo yakoze ari gukoresha “HS Code” itari yo, bituma umusoro wagombaga kwishyurwa ugabanuka. Urukiko rurasanga mu nyandiko zose Komiseri wa za Gasutumo yandikiye Umurungi Umwizerwa1, nta nahamwe yigeze avuga ko yakoze icyaha cyo gukoresha ibyemezo mpimbano (false documents) giteganywa n’ingingo ya 203 ya EACCMA, 2004, ngo noneho Rwanda Revenue Authority ibe irimo kwivuguruza ishingira ku ngingo ya 135 EACCMA. [19] Urukiko rurasanga koko mu rubanza RCOMA0047/10/CS rwashingiweho n’urega ndetse n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rukarushingiraho rwemeza ko Komiseri wa za Gasutamo atari afite ububasha bwo guca umusoro ntaho ruhuriye n’uru rubanza rwajuririwe, kuko muri urwo rubanza, Munyaneza Evariste yari yaciwe umusoro hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 203 ya EACCMA aregwa kuba yarakoresheje inyemezabuguzi zitari iz’ukuri (false or incorrect documents) agamije gutubya agaciro kabarirwaho umusoro, mu gihe urubanza rusuzumwa muri uru Rukiko rurebana n’imisoro yaciwe Umurungi hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 135 ya EACCMA kubera ko icyo yakoresheje atari inyandiko zifite inenge nk’ibyabaye mu rubanza RCOMA0047/10/CS, ko ahubwo ari imenyekanisha rikosheje ryanatumye asora amafaranga make kuyo yagombaga gusora, bityo akaba agombakwishyura ikinyuranyo, ibyo rero bikaba bitarebwa n’ingingo ya 203 ya EACCMA.

1 Reba urwandiko rufite Ref: 176/RRA/CCS/CED/PCA/2015 rwo ku wa 25/09/2015 n’urufite Ref: 2006/RRA/CCS/OAU/2016.

## Page 106

81 [20] Hashingiwe ku ngingo z’amategeko no ku bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga Komiseri wa za Gasutamo yari afite ububasha bwo gutegeka Umurungi Umwizerwa kwishyura umubare w’amahoro yaburaga, mu gihe yari asanze umubare wishyuwe ari muto, bityo uyu akaba agomba gutegekwa kwishyura umusoro yaciwe. 2. Kumenya niba hari indishyi zategekwa kwishyurwa muri uru rubanza. [21] Me Nsengiyumva Abel, uburanira Umurungi, avuga ko Rwanda Revenue Authority yategekwa kwishyura Umurungi igihembo cy'Avoka kingana na 1.000.000Frw ku rwego rw'ubujurire kubera kumushora mu manza nta mpamvu. [22] Me Karasira Sorezo Joseph, uburanira Rwanda Revenue Authority, avuga ko indishyi Umurungi asaba nta shingiro zifite, bityo akaba atazigenerwa, ko ahubwo Urukiko ko rwamutegeka kwishyura Rwanda Revenue Authority indishyi zingana na 1.000.000Frw. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [23] Urukiko rurasanga amafaranga y’igihembo cy’Avoka Umurungi asaba ko Rwanda Revenue Authority yishyura nta shingiro afite kuko atsinzwe uru rubanza. [24] Ku bijyanye n’indishyi zo gushorwa mu manza Rwanda Revenue Authority isaba, Urukiko rurasanga ikwiye kuzihabwa, ariko mu bushishozi bwarwo, rukaba ruyigeneye 500.000Frw yiyongera kuri 500.000Frw yahawe mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge, kuko 1.000.000Frw isaba ari menshi ndetse ikaba nta n’ibimenyetso iyatangira. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA) v. UMURUNGI UMWIZERWA

## Page 107

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 82 III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [25] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Rwanda Revenue Authority bufite ishingiro; [26] Rwemeje ko imikirize y’urubanza RCOMA00215/2016/CHC/HCC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ku wa 06/10/2016 ihindutse; [27] Rwemeje ko Komiseri wa za Gasutamo yaciye Umurungi Umwizerwa umusoro abifitiye ububasha; [28] Rutegetse Umurungi Umwizerwa kwishyura umusoro wose yaciwe; [29] Rutegetse Umurungi Umwizerwa guha Rwanda Revenue Authority 500.000Frw y’indishyi zo gushorwa mu manza, yiyongera kuri 500.000Frw yo mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge, yose hamwe akaba 1.000.000Frw; [30] Rutegetse Umurungi Umwizerwa gusubiza Rwanda Revenue Authority 100.000Frw y’ingwate y’amagarama yishyuye itanga ikirego.

## Page 108

IMANZA Z’UBUTEGETSI N’UMURIMO

## Page 110

BAHOZE v. BANKI NKURU Y’U RWANDA (B.N.R) [Rwanda URUKIKO RUKURU – RADA00159/2016/HC/KIG (Ndahayo, P.J.) 23 ukuboza 2016] Amategeko agenga imanza z’ubutegetsi – Ibihano mu rwego rw’akazi – Uburyozwe bw’icyaha – Kuba urukiko nshinjabyaha rwaremeje ko umukozi ari umwere ku cyaha yari akurikiranyweho ntibyabuza umukoresha kumuhanira andi makosa yakoze mu rwego rw’akazi – Itegeko N°86/2013 ryo kuwa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho sitati rusange igenga Abakozi ba Leta, ingingo ya 76, 77 na 78. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirije z’imanza z’ubutegetsi – Iyakirwa ry’ikirego – Gutakamba – Umukozi wa Leta ugomba kubanza gutakamba ni usaba ko icyemezo cyafashwe n’umuyobozi kivanwaho – Itegeko No21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 336 (1). Incamake y’ikibazo: Nyuma yaho uwajuriye akurikiranywe n’Inkiko nshinjabyaha ku bufatanya cyaha cyo kunyereza umutungo wa Leta ariko akagirwa umwere. Banki Nkuru y’u Rwanda (BNR) yaje kumwirukana mu kazi kubera uburangare yangije bwo kwandarika urufunguzo-banga yakoreshaga ku mashini y’akazi mu kwishyura amafaranga ava muri BNR ajya ku ma banki y’ubucuruzi. Nyuma yaho ashyizwe ku rutonde rw’abakozi bahoze bakorera Leta ariko batacyemerewe kuyikorera kubera amakosa bakoze, 85

## Page 111

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 86 yasabye BNR ko yamukura kuri urwo rutonde ariko imusubiza ko atari yo yarumushyizeho, ahubwo icyo yakoze n’ugushyikiriza MIFOTRA urutonde rw’abantu batakiri abakozi bayo kandi ikanagaragaza n’impamvu abo bantu batakiri abakozi bayo. Nyuma yaho, yareze BNR mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye avuga ko nta kosa yakoze ryari gutuma afatirwa icyemezo cyo kwirukanwa no gushyirwa kuri urwo rutonde. Urwo rukiko rwemeza ko ikirego cye nta shingiro gifite. Yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru avuga ko umucamanza yirengagije nkana ibyemezo by’inkiko nshinjabyaha kandi ko umukoresha we yamwirukanye binyuranyije n’amategeko kuko nta bushishozi cyangwa iperereza rihagaje yakoze amwirukana ndetse yihutira n’ukumuhamya icyaha, akaba arinayo mpamvu abisabira indishyi. BNR yiregura ivuga ko itaramwirukanye kubera ko yanyereje amafaranga yayo ahubwo nukubera ko yagize uburangare bwatumye ayo mafaranga anyerezwa, ubwo burangare bukaba bushingiye ku kuba yarandaritse urufunguzo banga wakoreshwaga mu guhererekanya amafaranga bituma rukoreshwa n’abandi bantu. Ikomeza ivuga ko nta kosa yakoze mu guha MIFOTRA urutonde kuko aribyo yari yasabwe gukora, naho kubijyanye n’iyishyurwa ry’amasaha y’ikirenga ivuga ko icyo kirego kitakwakirwa kuko ari ubwa mbere kigaragajwe mu rukiko, naho kubyerekeranye n’ indishyi, isanga atari zo asaba ahubwo ari ugusaba ko BNR yategekwa kumwishyura ibyo yamugombaga, bityo nabyo bikaba byaragombaga gutakambirwa ukwabyo. Isoza isaba ko yagenerwa indishyi

## Page 112

87 z’igihembo cy’avoka niz’ikurikiranarubanza ziyongera kuzo yari yagenewe mu Rukiko rubanza. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Kuba urukiko nshinjabyaha rwaremeje ko umukozi ari umwere ku cyaha yari akurikiranyweho ntibyabuza umukoresha kumuhanira andi makosa yakoze mu rwego rw’akazi, bityo kuba umukozi yabaye umwere ku cyaha cyo kunyereza umutungo wa Leta ntibikuraho ko umukoresha we yamuhanira ikosa yakoze ryo kwandarika urufunguzo-banga kuko ari uburangare bukabije. 2. Umukozi wa Leta ukoze amakosa akomeye mu kazi ashyirwa ku rutonde rwa MIFOTRA, rw’abakozi bahoze bakorera Leta ariko batacyemerewe kuyikorera kubera amakosa bakoze. 3. Umuburanyi ugomba kubanza gutakamba ni usaba ko icyemezo cyafashwe n’umuyobozi kivanwaho, bityo rero nta cyemezo cyeruye cyangwa kiteruye cyari cyafashwe na BNR ku bijyanye n’amafaranga y’amasaha y’ikirenga yagombaga kumwishyura ku buryo byari kuba ngombwa kubanza gutakamba mbere yo kubitangira ikirego. 4. Umubaranyi agomba kugaragaza ibimenyetso by’ibyo aburana, iyo abibuze aratsindwa. Ubujurire nta shingiro bufite. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko N°86/2013 ryo kuwa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho sitati rusange igenga Abakozi ba Leta, ingingo ya 76, 77 na 78. Itegeko No21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, BAHOZE v. BANKI NKURU Y’U RWANDA (B.N.R)

## Page 113

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 88 iz’ubucuruzi iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 336 (1). Urubanza rwifashishijwe: ELECTROGAZ v. Niwenshuti Nzaramba Valens, RADAA0038/09/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 25/03/2011. Ibitekerezo bya bahanga: Georges Dupuis, Marie-Josée Guédon et Patrice Chrétien, Droit administratif, 10e édition, p.381. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Madamu Bahoze Sifa yari umukozi wa Banki Nkuru y’u Rwanda kuva kuwa 14/01/1999 kugeza kuwa 24/03/2014 ubwo yazaga kuyivamo yirukanwe. BNR isobanura ko impamvu yatumye yirukanwaari ukubera uburangare (gross negligence) yagize bwo kwandarika/gutanga urufunguzo-banga (password) yakoreshaga ku mashini y’akazi mu kwishyura amafaranga ava muri BNR ajya ku ma banki y’ubucuruzi bitewe n’icyo BNR itegetswe kwishyura, uko kwandarika/kurutanga bikaba byarorohereje Bwana Kwisanga Theoneste kunyereza amafaranga ya Banki nk’uko n’icyo cyaha yacyemejwe n’inkiko. [2] Nyuma y’aho BNR yirukaniye Sifa Bahoze, MIFOTRA ndetse na Komisiyo y’Igihugu ishinzwe Abakozi ba Leta byaje gusaba BNR nk’uko ibikora mu bigo bya Leta byose

## Page 114

89 kuyigaragariza urutonde rw’abakozi BNR yakoreshaga ariko batakiyikorera no kugaragaza impamvu bagiye bahagarika akazi. BNR yatanze urwo rutonde ishyiramo na Sifa Bahoze igaragaza ko yamwirukaniye uburangare. MIFOTRA nayo iheraho imushyira ku rutonde rw’abantu bahoze bakorera Leta ariko ubu batemerewe kuyikorera kubera amakosa bakoze. [3] Madamu Sifa Bahoze yaje gusaba BNR ko yamukura kuri urwo rutonde (Black list) y’abantu birukanywe mu bigo bya Leta ariko BNR imugaragariza ko atari yo yarumushyizeho, ko icyo yakoze ari ugushyikiriza MIFOTRA urutonde rw’abantu batakiri abakozi bayo kandi ikagaragaza n’impamvu abo bantu batakiri abakozi ba BNR. [4] Sifa Bahoze we abona ko nta kosa yakoze ryari gutuma afatirwa icyemezo cyo kwirukanwa no gushyirwa ku rutonde rw’abakozi bahoze bakorera Leta ariko batacyemerewe kuyikorera kubera amakosa bakoze. Niyo mpamvu rero Bahoze Sifa yareze BNR mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge ariko urwo rukiko rwemeza ko ikirego cye nta shingiro gifite, nyuma ajuririra muri uru Rukiko Rukuru. [5] Ibibazo bigombwa gusuzumwa muri uru rubanza ni ibi bikurikira: Kumenya niba Bahoze Sifa hari ikosa yakoze ryari gutuma afatirwa icyemezo cyo kwirukanwa; Kumenya niba hari ikosa ryakozwe na BNR mu gusaba ko Bahoze ashyirwa kuri Blacklist; Ibyerekeye kwishyurwa amasaha y’ikirenga n’izindi ndishyi zasabwe muri uru rubanza; BAHOZE v. BANKI NKURU Y’U RWANDA (B.N.R)

## Page 115

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 90 II. ISESENGURA RY’IBIBAZO BIRI MURI URU RUBANZA Ibyerekeye kumenya niba Bahoze Sifa hari ikosa yakoze ryari gutuma afatirwa icyemezo cyo kwirukanwa. [6] Ababuranira Bahoze Sifa bavuga ko nta kosa yakoze ryari gutuma BNR ifata icyemezo cyo kumwirukana. Basobanura ko ngo nk’uko bigaragara mw’ibarwa yayo isezerera Bahoze Sifa mu kazi, BNR ivuga ko yamwirukanye ishingiye k’uburiganya bwavumbuwe aho Bahoze yagize uruhare mw’inyerezwa ry’amafaranga angana na 5.918.500Frw na 9.789.000Frw. Ariko nyamara nkuko byaburanywe mumanza nshinja byaha RP0179/14/TGI/NYGE na RPA0049/HC/KIG inkiko zemeje ko Bahoze Sifa nta ruhare namba yagize mw’inyerezwa ry’uriya mutungo wa BNR. [7] Bakomeza basobanura ko ngo umucamanza yirengangije nkana ibyemezo by’inkiko nshinjabyaha, ko ibyo BNR yashingiyeho yirukana Bahoze bidafite ishingiro. BNR rero ngo ikaba yarirukanye Bahoze Sifa ku kazi nta bushishozi cyangwa iperereza rihagaje ikoze ndetse ikora amakosa yo kwihutira k’umuhamya icyaha akaba ariyo mpamvu basaba ko yabitangira indishyi zasobanuwe. [8] Ababuranira BNR bo bavuga ko Bahoze Sifa atirukanwe kubera ko yanyereje amafaranga ya BNR ahubwo ko ngo yirukanywe kubera ko yagize uburangare bwatumye ayo mafaranga anyerezwa ubwo burangare bukaba bushingiye ku kuba ntacyo yakoze ngo arinde ko umubare we w’ibanga wakoreshwaga mu guhererekanya amafaranga ukoreshwa n’abandi bantu.

## Page 116

91 [9] Bakomeza bavuga ko n’umucamanza nshinjabyaha ari na we wamugize umwere mu bufatanyacyaha ku cyaha cyo kurigisa umutungo wa Leta, nawe ngo yahamije ko uburangare bwa Madamu Sifa Bahoze bwabaye icyuho cyo kurigisa amafaranga ya BNR. Yemeza ko iyo Madamu Sifa Bahoze abungabunga urufunguzo-banga rwe BNR itari kwibwa no guhomba amafaranga yahombye nk’uko bigaragara mu gika cya 18 na 19 cy’urubanza RPA0049/HC/KIG rwaciwe kuwa 25/06/2015. Ibyo kandi ngo ni nabyo binagaragara mu cyemezo kiri mu ibaruwa kimwirukana aho BNR yagaragaje ko imwirukanye kubera gross negligence bityo rero ngo ntabwo BNR yamwirukanye ishingiye ku cyaha cyo kunyereza umutungo wa Leta ahubwo yamwirukanye kubera uruhare rwe rw’uburangare bukabije yagize bwatumye amafaranga ya BNR anyerezwa. [10] Kuri iyi ngingo Urukiko Rukuru rurasanga nk’uko bigaragara mu nyandiko zose zanditswena Madamu Sifa Bahoze, yemera ko izina rye ryakoreshejwe mu kunyereza amafaranga, akemera ko umubare w’irufunguzo-banga yakoreshaga ari rwo rwakoreshejwe mu kunyereza ayo mafaranga, ahubwo akagaragaza ko uwari umuyobozi we yamuciye mu rihumye akarwukoresha atabizi. [11] Rurasanga kuba Bahoze Sifa yari umukozi wa Banki, akaba yari afite mu nshingano ze guhererekanya amafaranga n’abandi bantu, kugirango abashe kurangiza inshingano yari yarahawe na BNR, byari ngombwa ko akora ibishoboka byose kugirango habe umutekano usesuye kuri ayo mafaranga kugirango atajya mu maboko y’abantu batayafiteho uburenganzira. Ni muri urwo rwego yagombaga gukora ibishoboka byose kugirango hatagira undi muntu ushobora BAHOZE v. BANKI NKURU Y’U RWANDA (B.N.R)

## Page 117

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 92 gukoresha imashini ye akaba yakora za operations mu izina rye kuko byashoboraga gutera ingaruka zikomeye zaba izijyanye n’igihombo ashobora gutera umukoresha we ariwe we BNR ndetse n’ingaruka byashoboraga kumugiraho we ku giti cye. [12] Kuba rero hari umuntu utari Bahoze Sifa washoboye kwinjira mu mashini ye akoresheje umubare w’ibanga wa Bahoze Sifa, uwo muntu agakora za operations zijyanye no guhererakanya amafaranga bigaragaza uburangare bukabije Bahoze Sifa yagize bwatumye uwo muntu amenya umubare w’ibanga usanzwe ukoreshwa maze akabasha kunyereza umutungo wa BNR. [13] Urukiko Rukuru rero rurasanga ubwo burangare bukabije ku buryo bwakwitwa ikosa rikomeye ryashoboraga gutuma Bahoze Sifa afatirwa icyemezo cyo kwirukanwa n’umukoresha we, bityo rero kuba BNR yarafashe icyo cyemezo cyo kumwirukana bikaba bitari ukunyuranya n’amategeko kuko biteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 77 y’Itegeko N°86/2013 ryo kuwa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho sitati rusange igenga Abakozi ba Leta ivuga ko Igihe umukozi wa Leta adakoze ibyo ashinzwe cyangwa atubahirije ibyo asabwa biba ikosa rihanishwa kimwe mu bihano biteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 76 y’iri tegeko hakurikijwe uburemere bw’iryo kosa, muri ibyo bihano ashobora guhabwa biteganyijwe muri iyo ngingo ya 76 hakaba harimo no kwirukanwa burundu. [14] Kuba rero Madamu Sifa Bahoze Urukiko rwaremeje ko ari umwere ku cyaha cyo kunyereza umutungo, ntibyari kubuza ko umukoresha we amuhanira andi makosa yakoze mu rwego rw’akazi. Ibi bishingiwe ku ngingo ya 74 y’Amategeko agenga abakozi ba BNR iteganya ko Igihano cy’umukozi wa BNR mu rwego rw’akazi kitabangamira uburyozwe bw’icyaha kandi buri

## Page 118

93 kimwe kirigenga. Bisobanuye ko ikosa ry’umukozi rishobora kuba ikosa gusa ariko ntiribe icyaha cyangwa se rikaba ikosa rikaba n’icyaha icyarimwe. [15] Biteganyijwe kandi mu ngingo ya 78 y’Itegeko N°86/2013 ryo kuwa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho sitati rusange igenga Abakozi ba Leta ivuga ko igihano cy’umukozi wa Leta mu rwego rw’akazi kitabangamira uburyozwe bw’icyaha n’igihano giteganywa n’amategeko ahana, ku buryo ikosa ry’umukozi wa Leta rishobora gukurikiranwa mu kazi no mu nkiko. [16] Byemejwe kandi mu rubanza RADAA0038/09/CS haburana ELECTROGAZ na Niwenshuti Nzaramba Valens rwaciwe 25/03/2011. Muri urwo rubanza Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rukaba rwaranzuye ko Umukoresha adategetswe byanze bikunze kubahiriza ibyemezo nshinjabyaha. Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwifashishije ibitekerezo by’Abahanga mu mategeko barimo Georges Dupuis, Marie-Josée Guédon na Patrice Chrétien aho na bo babivuga mu gitabo cyabo, Droit administratif, 10e édition, page 381 aho bavuze ko “ De même, l’autorité disciplinaire n’est pas liée par la décision du juge pénal, sauf lorsque ce dernier s’est prononcé sur l’existence ou l’inexistence de certains faits: ses constatations matérielles s’imposent à l’autorité administrative” bisobanuye ko umukoresha adategetswe gukurikiza ibyemejwe n’umucamanza w’inshinjabyaha, keretse iyo uwo mucamanza hari icyemezo yafashe yerekana ko habayeho cyangwa hatabayeho ibikorwa bigize amakosa umukoresha arega umukozi ari na bwo umukoresha ategetswe kugendera kuri icyo cyemezo.

BAHOZE v. BANKI NKURU Y’U RWANDA (B.N.R)

## Page 119

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 94 Ibyerekeye kumenya niba hari ikosa ryakozwe na BNR mu gusaba ko Bahoze ashyirwa kuri Blacklist. [17] Ababuranira Bahoze Sifa bavuga kongo Umucamanza yitiranyije bikomeye uko ibintu byagenze. Basobanura ko ngo amaze kugirwa umwere n’inkiko, BNR nibwo yandikiye MIFOTRA iyiha list y’abahoze ari abakozi ba Leta birukanwe kubera amakosa akomeye, urwo rutonde yakoze irushyiramo na Bahoze Sifa ndetse igaragaza n’amafaranga ngo Bahoze Sifa yanyereje kandi yirengagije ko yagizwe umwere n’inkiko kuri ibyo byaha byose BNR yamuregaga. [18] Bakomeza bavuga ko MIFOTRA itangaza ikanandika ibyo yahawe n’inzego ndetse n’ibigo binyuranye bya Leta nka BNR. MIFOTRA yashyize mubikorwa ibyo BNR yayihaye ntabwo yabyibwirije kandi ko ngo Bahoze Sifa ntako atagize ngo asabe BNR ko yakwandikira MIFOTRA ikosora urutonde yohereje ariko ngo BNR irabyanga bityo rero ngo bakaba basaba urukiko rw’ubujurire kwemeza koibyo BNR yakoze ari amakosa akomeye cyane maze ikagenera Bahoze Sifa Indishyi zihwanye na 10.000.000Frw. [19] Ababuranira BNR bo bavuga ko ngo nk’uko byasabwe na Minisiteri y’Abakozi ba Leta n’Umurimo BNR yayishyikirijwe urutonde rw’abakozi birukanwe muri BNR kubera amakosa ibyo rero ngo bikaba bitanyuranye n’amategeko. [20] Urukiko Rukuru rurasanga mukuba Bahoze Sifa yarashyizwe kuri liste ya MIFOTRA y’abakozi bakoze amakosa atari ukunyuranya n’amategeko mu gihe yakoze amakosa akomeye mu kazi nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru ayo makosa

## Page 120

95 akaba ariyo yatumye habaho kunyereza umutungo wa BNR n’ubwo icyaha cyo kunyereza uwo mutungo kitamuhamye. Ibyerekeye iyakirwa ry’ikirego cyerekeye kwishyurwa amasaha y’ikirenga yakozwe. [21] Ababuranira BNR bavuga ko ikirego ku byerekeye kwishyurwa amasaha y’ikirenga kitagombaga kwakirwa kubera ko ngo kuko ngo Bahoze Sifa yakiragagaje bwa mbere mu Rukiko akaba atarigeze akigaragariza umukoresha we ngo abyange cyangwa abyemere kandi ngo icyo asaba akaba atari indishyi ahubwo ari ugusaba ko BNR yategekwa kumwishyura ibyo yamugombaga, ibyo rero ngo nabyo bikaba byaragombaga gutakambirwa ukwabyo, bityo rero ngo kuba nta gutakamba kwabayeho kuri icyo kibazo bikaba bigomba gutuma ikirego kitakirwa. [22] Ababuranira BNR bakomeza bavuga ko ngo BNR ifite policy igenga amasaha y’ikirenga igaragaza ibigomba gukurikizwa kugirango byemezwe ko umukozi yakoze amasaha y’ikirenga nyamara ngo kuri Bahoze Sifa akaba atariko byagenze bityo ngo akaba atagomba kuvuga ko yakoze amasaha y’ikirenga [23] Ababuranira Bahoze Sifa kuri iyi ngingo bavuga ko bo babona icyo kirego kigomba kwakirwa kubera ko kidashobora gutandukanywa n’ikirego cy’ibanze cyo kwirukanwa mu buryo budakurikije amategeko kuko ngo no kwishyurwa amasaha y’ikirenga nabyo biri mu ndishyi zishingi ku kwirukanwa mu buryo budakurikije amategeko, bityo rero ngo ibyo bikaba bitaragombaga gukorerwa itakamba mu buryo bwihariye. BAHOZE v. BANKI NKURU Y’U RWANDA (B.N.R)

## Page 121

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 96 [24] Urukiko Rukuru rurasanga nta cyemezo cyeruye cyangwa kiteruye cyari cyafashwe na BNR ku bijyanye n’amafaranga y’amasaha y’ikirenga yagombaga kwishyurwa BAHOZE Sifa ku buryo byari kuba ngombwa kubanza gutakamba mbere yo kubitangira ikirego nk’uko biteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 336 al.1 y’Itegeko No21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi kuko umuburanyi ugomba gutakamba ari usaba ko hari icyemezo cyafashwe kivaho (Recours en annulation d’une décision). [25] Urukiko Rukuru ahubwo rukaba rusanga ingingo yo kwiregura kwa BNR kuri ayo mafaranga y’amasaha y’ikirenga y’uko nta bimenyetso Bahoze Sifa yabitangiye ariyo ifite ishingiro kuko Bahoze Sifa atagaragaje ko ibikubiye muri Ordre de Service No18/2001 relatif à la prestation des heures supplémentaires byubahirijwe kugirango abe yabiheraho asaba amafaranga y’amasaha y’ikirenga avuga ko yakoze. Ibyerekeye indishyi zasabwe muri uru rubanza. [26] Ababuranira BNR bavuga ko ngo umucamanza wa mbere yageneye BNR indishyi za 500.000Frw gusa. BNR ikaba isanga izi ndishyi ari nke cyane kandi BNR yari yasabye indishyi z’ikurikirana rubanza ndetse n’igihembo cy’a Abavoka bayiburaniye zihwanye na 2.000.000Frw bityo indishyi BNR yagenewe muri urwo rubanza ikaba yarasanze ari nke cyane. Bityo BNR irgasaba uru Rrukiko rwajuririwe ko rwabikosora rukayigenera izo ndishyi yavukijwe ku rwego rwa mbere kandi zikwiye.

## Page 122

97 [27] Ababuranira Abahoze Sifa bo bavuga ko ari we ugomba guhabwa indishyi kubera ko ngo BNR ariyo yamwirukanye mu buryo budakurikije amategeko [28] Urukiko Rukuru rurasanga ababuranira BNR bemeza ko bagenewe indishyi nke ariko bakaba nta kimenyetso babitangira cyashingirwaho mu kwemeza ko izo basaba arizo zikwiye, ariko kubera ko uru rubanza rwageze mu bujuririre indishyi zagenwe mu rubanza rwajuririwe zikaba zigomba kongerwaho amafaranga 250.000Frw kubera gukomeza gushora BNR mu manza nta mpamvu. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [29] Rwemeye kwakira ubujurire rwashyikirijwe na BAHOZE Sifa. [30] Rwemeje ko ubwo bujurire nta shingiro bufite. [31] Rwemeje kudahindura imikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe arirwo RAD0114/15/TGI/NYGE rwaciwe n’urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge kuwa 10/05/2016. [32] Rutegetse Bahoze Sifa kwishyura Banki Nkuru y’u Rwanda (BNR) amafaranga 250.000Frw yiyongera kuri 500.000Frw yemejwe mu rubanza rwajuririwe kubera kuyishora mu manza nta mpamvu.

BAHOZE v. BANKI NKURU Y’U RWANDA (B.N.R)

## Page 124

INTERSEC SECURITY COMPANY Ltd v. NSENGIYUMVA [Rwanda URUKIKO RUKURU – RSOCA0120/15/HC/KIG (Murererehe, P.J.) 20 Ugushyingo 2015] Amategeko agenga umurimo – Kwirukanwa muburyo bunyuranyije n’amategeko – Ikosa rikomeye – Byitwa kwirukanwa mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko igihe umukoresha yirukanye umukozi kubera ikosa rikomeye ariko ntakurikize igihe giteganwa n’amategeko – Ikosa rikomeye ni ikosa ry’umukozi ryica inshingano ze mu kazi cyangwa mu mikoranire ye n’umukoresha kuburyo bituma umukozi atakwihanganirwa kuguma mu kazi mu gihe cy’integuza – Itegeko N°13/2009 ryo kuwa 27/05/2009 rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda, ingingo 1(21), 32. Incamake y’ikibazo: Nsengiyumva yagiranye amasezerano y’akazi na Intersec Security Company Ltd yo gukora nka Training officer mumwaka wa 2010, uwo mukoresha we yaje ku mwirukana mu mwaka 2015 atamuhaye integuza yitwaje ko yakoze ikosa rikomeye ryo gushyiramo abakozi batatsinze ibizamini mu kazi. Nsengiyumva yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasaboavuga ko yirukanwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko maze urwo rukiko rwemeza ko ikirego cye gifite ishingiro rumugenera n’indishyi zinyuranye. Intersec Security Company Ltd yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru ku mpamvu y’uko urukiko rubanza rwavuze ko Nsengiyumva yirukanywe hatubahirijwe amasaha 48 kandi baragaragaje ko 99

## Page 125

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 100 habanje gukorwa iperereza, rumugenera indishyi zukwirukanwa mu buryo bunyuranije n’amategeko, imperekeza, integuza n’indishyi zo gusiragizwa mu manza kandi ataragombaga kubigenerwa kuko yirukaniwe ikosa rikomeye. Nsengiyumva yiregura avuga ko igihe bavuga yakoreye iryo kosa yagumye mu kazi agakora iyo riza kuba ikosa rikomeye yari guhita yirukanwa naho kubijyanye n’indishyi yagenewe avuga ko zari ngombwa kuko urukiko rwari rwasanze yarirukanywe mu buryo budakurrikije amategeko, bityo akaba asaba ko urubanza rwajuririwe rugumaho. Nawe yatanze ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi avuga ko Urukiko rubanza rwibeshye mu giteranyo cy’indishyi rukamuha izituzuye, asaba ko yagenerwa n’amafaranga y’igihembo cy’avoka. Kubijyanye no kwibeshya mu giteranyo cy’indishyi, Intersec Security Company Ltd ivuga ko nta shingiro bifite kubera ntazo yari akwiye ku generwa na mbere kuko yirukaniwe ikosa rikomeye, naho kubijyanye n’igihembo cy’avoka ivuga ko ariyo ikwiye icyo gihembo cy’avoka kuko yashowe mu manza. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Ikosa rikomeye ni ikosa ry’umukozi ryica inshingano ze mu kazi cyangwa mu mikoranire ye n’umukoresha, kuburyo bituma umukozi atakwihanganirwa kuguma mu kazi mu gihe cy’integuza, kuba rero Nsengiyumva yarirukanywe kuwa 4/02/2015 amaze amezi arenga atatu akora, bigaragaza ko umukoresha atari yabifashe nk’ikosa rikomeye kuko ikosa rikomeye rihita rihagarika amasezerano hagati y’umukozi n’umukoresha mu gihe cya masaha 48 kuko gukorana biba bitagishobotse, bityo Nsengiyumva akaba yarirukanywe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko.

## Page 126

101 2. Mu gihe umukozi yirukanywe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko agenerwa indishyi zinyuranye harimo ni zo kwirukanywa mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko. 3. Bigaragara ko habaye ho kwibeshya mu guteranya indishyi, bityo ibyo bikaba bigomba gukosorwa. 4. Amafaranga y’igihembo cy’avoka agenwa mu bushishozi bw’urukiko mu gihe umuburanyi ayo asaba ari ikirenga. Ubujurire ntashingiro bufite; Ubujurire bwuririye ku ubundi bufite ishingiro bufite; Amagarama y’urubanza ahwanye n’ibyakozwe mu rubanza. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko N°21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 9. Itegeko N°13/2009 ryo kuwa 27/05/2009 rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 1(21) n’iya 32. Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258. Urubanza rwifashishijwe: Euro Trade International Sarl v. Rwakirenga Pascal, RSOCAA0027/11/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 13/3/2012. Ibitekerezo bya bahanga: J.Pélissier, A.Supiot et A.Jeammaud, Droit du Travail, 22 éd., Paris, 2004, p.612. INTERSEC SECURITY COMPANY Ltd v. NSENGIYUMVA

## Page 127

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 102 Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Nsengiyumva avuga ko kuwa 17/3/2010 yagiranye amasezerano y’akazi na Intersec yo gukora nka Training officer iza kumwirukana mu 2015 itamuhaye integuza yitwaje ko yakoze ikosa rikomeye kandi ntaryabayeho. Mu urubanza RSOC0026/15/TGI/GSBO Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo rwemeje ko ikirego cya Nsengiyumva gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe, rwemeza ko yirukanywe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko rutegeka Intersec kumuha indishyi zose hamwe zihwanye na 2.401.800Frw no kumusubiza 50.000Frw y’amagarama yatanze. [2] Intersec ntiyishimiye imikirize y’urwo rubanza irujuririra muri uru rukiko, Me Kayihura Didace na Me Kalimba bayihagarariye bavuga ko bajuriye kuko urukiko rwavuze ko Nsengiyumva yirukanywe hatubahirijwe amasaha 48 kandi baragaragaje ko habanje gukorwa iperereza, nuko Nsengiyumva yaragenewe indishyi zinyuranye kandi atarirukaniwe ubusa kuko yirukaniwe ikosa rikomeye. [3] Me Kazayire uhagarariye Nsengiyumva avuga ko ubujurire bwayo butahabwa ishingiro kuko Nsengiyumva atari ashinzwe gukoresha ibizamini, we ko yari training officer kandi ko igihe bavuga yakoreye iryo kosa yagumya mu kazi agakora iyo riza kuba ikosa rikomeye yari guhita yirukanwa basaba ko urubanza rwajuririwe rwagumaho. Yakomeje avuga ko nabo bafite bujurire bwuririye ku bwabo bw’uko urukiko rwibeshye mu giteranyo rukamuha indishyi zituzuye nuko yagenerwa amafaranga y’igihembo cy’avoka.

## Page 128

103 [4] Muri uru rubanza harasuzumwa ibibazo bijyanye: Kuba urukiko rwaravuze ko Nsengiyumva yirukanywe hatubahirijwe amasaha 48 kandi baragaragaje ko habanje gukorwa iperereza; Kuba Nsengiyumva yaragenewe indishyi zinyuranye kandi atarirukaniwe ubusa kuko yirukaniwe ikosa rikomeye; Ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi: Kuba urukiko rwaribeshye mu giteranyo rukamuha indishyi zituzuye. Kumenya niba Nsengiyumva yagenerwa amafaranga y’igihembo cy’avoka. II. ISESENGURA RY’IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA Kuba urukiko rwaravuze ko Nsengiyumva yirukanywe hatubahirijwe amasaha 48 kandi baragaragaje ko habanje gukorwa iperereza. [5] Me Kayihura Didace na Kalimba Daniel bavuga ko urukiko rwavuze ko amasaha 48 atubahirijwe kandi Komite yarakoze raporo kuwa 30/1/2015 ikagaragaza abakozi bakoze amakosa yo gushyiramo abakozi batatsinze ibizamini ishyikirizwa abayobozi ba Intersec nabo bafata icyemezo kuwa 3/2/2015 cyo kubirukana hanyuma kuwa 4/2/2015 Nsengiyumva arahagarikwa nyuma yo gukora iperereza ku ikosa rikomeye yari yakoze ryo ku recruta mu manyanga, urukiko rwirengagije ko iperereza ryakozwe kugirango babone bimenyetso bihamya koko ko yakiriye ruswa hanagaragazwe INTERSEC SECURITY COMPANY Ltd v. NSENGIYUMVA

## Page 129

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 104 abantu Nsengiyumva yagiye ashyira mu kazi kandi ntamanota abibemerera bari bafite, ibyo bikaba bigize ikosa rikomeye bityo n’ibihe bikaba byarubahirijwe. [6] Me Kazayire uhagarariye Nsengiyumva avuga ko Nsengiyumva atari ashinzwe gukoresha ibizamini, we ko yari training officer kandi kuvuga ko ikosa ryabonetse le 3 sibyo kuko urutonde rugaragaza ko yakoresheje amahugurwa mu kwa 10 kandi igihe bavuga yakoreye iryo kosa yagumye mu kazi arakora iyo riza kuba ikosa rikomeye yari guhita yirukanwa, iyo raporo bavuga ya komite yo kuwa 30/1/2015 nubwo mbere batayigaragaje nta nicyo yabamarira kuko ari ibyo bikoreye mu mipango yo kumwirukana, bityo ko iryo kosa ntaryabayeho n’iyo ryaba ryarabayeho kandi ibihe by’amasaha 48 bikaba bitarubahirijwe. [7] Ingingo ya 32 y’Itegeko N°13/2009 ryo kuwa 27/05/2009 rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda iteganya ko “Iseswa ryose ry’amasezerano y’akazi y'igihe kitazwi, nta nteguza cyangwa se igihe cy’integuza kitarubahirijwe cyose, bituma uyasheshe aha undi indishyi y'amafaranga angana n'umushahara n’andi mashimwe yagombaga kubona mu gihe cy’integuza kitubahirijwe. Icyakora amasezerano y‘akazi ashobora guseswa nta nteguza iyo habaye ikosa rikomeye ry’umwe mu bayagiranye. Icyo gihe umwe mu basezeranye abimenyesha undi mu masaha mirongo ine n’umunani (48)”. [8] Urukiko rusanga ama liste avugwa ko yashyizweho abataratsinze ikizamini yarakozwe kuwa 1/10/2014 ibyo akaba ari nabyo umukoresha avuga ko bigize ikosa rikomeye kuko Nsengiyumva yashyize kuri liste abatatsinze ikizamini ahawe ruswa, ariko nkuko byasobanuwe mu rwego rwa mbere Nsengiyumva yirukanywe kuwa 4/2/2015 amaze amezi arenze

## Page 130

105 atatu akora, ibyo rero bigaragaza ko umukoresha ibyo atari yabifashe nk’ikosa rikomeye kuko ikosa rikomeye rihita rihagarika amasezerano hagati y’umukozi n’umukoresha kuko gukorana biba bitagishobotse kwihanganirwa ibyo akaba ariko bisobanurwa n’abahanga “La faute grave (lourde) est un fait ou un ensemble de faits imputable au salarié qui constituent une violation des obligations découlant du contrat de travail ou des relations de travail d’une importance telle qu’elle rend impossible le maintien du salarié pendant la durée du préavis”1; ugenekereje bisobanura ko ikosa rikomeye ari ikosa ry’umukozi ryica inshingano ze mu kazi cyangwa mu mikoranire ye n’umukoresha kuburyo bituma umukozi atakwihanganirwa kuguma mu kazi mu gihe cy’integuza; ibyo kandi akaba ariko byanasobanuwe mu urubanza RSOCAA0027/11/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga aho urwo rukiko rwagaragaje ko ikosa rikomeye risobanurwa nk’ikosa rifite uburemere rituma imikoranire hagati y’umukozi n’umukoresha itagishobotse ikaba itakwihanganirwa kuburyo ihita ihagarara hadategerejwe ko amasezerano agera igihe yagombaga kurangirira2. [9] Kuba rero Intersec ivuga ko yirukanye Nsengiyumva kubera ikosa rikomeye mu kazi ariko akaba yarakomeje gukora ibyo bigaragaza ko batubahirije inzira ziteganywa n’amategeko mu gusesa amasezerano ye y’akazi kuko ikosa rikomeye rimenyeshwa uwarikoze mu masaha 48 ibyo ariko bikaba atariko byagenze kuri Nsengiyumva kuko we nyuma y’itariki ya 1/10/2014 y’igihe amaliste avugwa ko yayashyizeho

1J.Pélissier, A.Supiot et A.Jeammaud, Droit du Travail, 22 éd., Paris, 2004, p.612. 2Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, urubanza RSOCAA0027/11/CS, Euro Trade International Sarl mu izina ry’umuyobozi wayo v. Rwakirenga Pascal, p.6, 13/3/2012. INTERSEC SECURITY COMPANY Ltd v. NSENGIYUMVA

## Page 131

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 106 abataratsinze akorewe, yakomeje gukora ibyo rero bigaragaza ko ubwo umukoresha atari yabifashe nk’ikosa rikomeye kuko ryo rihita risesa amasezerano y’akazi ariyo mpamvu rusanga amasezerano ye y’akazi yarahagaritswe mu buryo butakurikije amategeko. [10] Abahagarariye Intersec bavuga ko batahise bahagarika Nsengiyumva kuko babanje gukora iperereza ryashojwe na management meeting yafashe icyemezo ko yakwirukanwa kuwa 3/2/2015 bakamwirukana kuwa 4/2/2015 ko basanga ibihe bya amasaha 48 byarubahirijwe. [11] Urukiko rusanga ibyo abahagarariye Intersec bavuga bitahabwa ishingiro, ikosa rikomeye nkuko bisobanurwa n’abahanga n’ikosa rifite uburemere rituma imikoranire hagati y’umukozi n’umukoresha itagishobotse ikaba itakwihanganirwa kuburyo ihita ihagarara ibyo rero rusanga niba Intersec igihe yabibonaga niba byarayisabaga kubikoraho iperereza yagombaga kutarenza amasaha 48 ngo umukozi abimenyeshwe naho kumara amezi 3 arenga igashingira ko yari igikora iperereza ibyo rusanga bitashingirwaho ko ubwo byari bikiri ikosa rikomeye kuko bitubahirije uburyo buteganywa n’amategeko; ari naho hashimangirwa impamvu byitwa ikosa rikomeye nuko ari ikosa riba ribaye kuburyo umukoresha atakwihanganira gukomeza gukorana n’umukozi ariko niba Intersec yarakomeje gukorana na Nsengiyumva muri ayo mezi 3 arenga nuko bisobanura ko ibyo yari yakoze bitafashwe nk’ikosa rikomeye mu kazi (Faute Lourde), kuko amakosa yose mu kazi ataba ariko akomeye. Kuvuga kandi ko nyuma y’iperereza habayeho management meeting yafashe icyemezo ko yakwirukanwa kuwa 3/2/2015 bakamwirukana kuwa 4/2/2015 rusanga ibyo byaragombye kuba byarakozwe umukozi

## Page 132

107 akigaragaraho iryo kosa rikomeye ariko kuba byarategereje icyo gihe cyose ntibabe banagaragaza ko niba iyo management meeting ariyo yagombaga kwemeza iryo kosa rikomeye ko baba baramuhagaritse by’agateganyo ngo bategereze iyo nama nayo itari kumara icyo gihe kingana gityo itarafata icyemezo; bityo rusanga izo mpamvu Intersec itanga zitahabwa ishingiro. [12] Urukiko rero rusanga kubera izo mpamvu zose zasobanuwe haruguru niba Nsengiyumva yirukaniwe ikosa rikomeye hagombaga kubahirizwa amasaha 48 yo kurimenyeshwa kandi ibyo kuba bitarubahirijwe ariyo mpamvu afatwa nk’uwirukanywe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko rushingiye ku ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 1, 21 y’Itegeko N°13/2009 ryo kuwa 27/05/2009 rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda iteganya ko kwirukanwa nta mpamvu n’uguhagarika amasezerano y’akazi bikozwe n’umukoresha nta mpamvu igaragara cyangwa hadakurikijwe uburyo bwateganyijwe n’amategeko. [13] Abahagarariye Intersec bagarutse ku bijyanye n’iryo kosa rikomeye muri uru rubanza bavuga ko Nsengiyumva yirukaniwe ikosa rikomeye ryo gufata ruswa no guhimba inyandiko ubwo yakoreshaga ibizamini ababonye 0 akabashyira kuri litse y’abemerewe akazi. Nsengiyumva mu mwiregurire ye yaragaragaje ko akazi ke kari training officer ko atakoreshaga ibizamini. [14] Urukiko rusanga nkuko amasezerano y’akazi ya Nsengiyumva abigaragaza yari training officer wigishaga abamaze guhabwa akazi, kuba rero bavuga ko yakoresheje ibizamini agashyira kuri liste abatatsinze ibyo rusanga ntakimenyetso Intersec ibitangira kuko izo mpapuro z’ibizamini z’abatsinzwe ntahagaragara ko Nsengiyumva ariwe wari INTERSEC SECURITY COMPANY Ltd v. NSENGIYUMVA

## Page 133

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 108 wakoresheje ibyo bizamini akaba ndetse ari nta n’inyandiko y’ubuyobozi igaragaza ko ariwe wari washinzwe uwo murimo ngo bibe bisobanura ko ariwe wafashe abatsinzwe, mu gihe bigaragara ko mu kazi ke ibyo bitarimo. Kuvuga kandi ko mu ubuhamya bwe bwo kuwa 8/1/2015 yemeye ko yakoreshaga ibizamini ibyo bitandukanye n’ibyo bizamini Intersec ivuga kuko muri iyo nyandiko ye yagaragaje ko yari yatangiye training yabamaze guhabwa akazi abakoresheje ikizamini asanga harimo 18 batazi kwandika ibyo rero bitandukanye kuko atariwe watanze ikizamini gitanga akazi ahubwo we yatangaga training yabamaze gushyirwa ku urutonde rwabahawe akazi ari naho agaragaza ko yabibwiye Deputy operations wamubwiye ngo ari mu biki ko bamaze kwemererwa; ibyo rero bishimangira ko ntakimenyetso cyatanzwe kigaragaza ko Nsengiyumva ariwe waba warashyize kuri liste abatatsinze ikizamini kuko bitari no munshingano ze. [15] Urukiko rusanga kandi kuvuga ko Nsengiyumva mu gushyira kuri liste abatatsinze ikizamini yabikoze yakiriye ruswa yanahimbye inyandiko rusanga ibyo nabyo ari ntakimenyetso Intersec ibitangira kibihamya cy’uburyo yaba yarakiriye iyo ruswa cyangwa buryo ki yahimbye inyandiko, dore ko no mu mabazwa ye yo kuwa 1/6/2015 yanabayeho yaramaze gusezererwa mu kazi atigeze yemera ibyo yabazwagwa na Intersec ko hari uwo yaba yarinjije mu kazi atujuje ibyangombwa cyangwa se ngo habe hari uwamuhaye ruswa kuko byose yabihakanye anagaragaza ko we atangaja abakozi ko hari komite ibishinzwe abakozi bamara kwanganjwa amadosiye yabo akinjizwa muri HR Officer ko we yasigaranaga gusa liste y’abemejwe na komite ishinzwe kwanganja ari nabo yakoreshaga training; kuba rero ntakimenyetso ibyo Intersec ivuga ibitangira bikaba bitahabwa ishingiro rushingiye ku

## Page 134

109 ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko N°21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko urega agomba kugaragaza ibimenyetso by’ibyo aregera. [16] Urukiko rusanga kandi ibyo bigize ikosa rikomeye Intersec ivuga byo kwakira ruswa no guhimba inyandiko ibyo ari ibyaha bihanwa n’amategeko mpanabyaha y’u Rwanda bakaba batagaragaza ko Nsengiyumva yaba yarakurikiranyweho ibyo byaha bikamuhama bityo ngo bibe byaherwaho nk’ikimenyetso gihamya ko iryo kosa rikomeye koko ryabayeho; kuba rero ntarubanza rwaba rwarabayeho rumuhamya ibyo byaha rusanga ibyo nabyo bishimangira ko ibyo byitwa ikosa rikomeye ari ntakibihamya. [17] Urukiko rero rusanga uretse no kuba uburyo bwo kwirukana Nsengiyumva kubera ikosa rikomeye butarubahirijwe nkuko byasobanuwe haruguru kuko nyuma yuko havuzwe iryo kosa rikomeye yagumye mu kazi mu gihe kirenze amezi 3 ari naho haherewe hemezwa ko amasaha 48 atubahirijwe kandi runasanga n’ikitwa ikosa rikomeye Intersec yashingiyeho ntakimenyetso kirigaragaza nkuko byasobanuwe haruguru ariyo mpamvu ubujurire bwayo kuri iyi ngingo butahabwa ishigiro. Kuba Nsengiyumva yaragenewe indishyi zinyuranye kandi atarirukaniwe ubusa kuko yirukaniwe ikosa rikomeye. [18] Me Kayihura Didace na Kalimba Daniel bavuga ko Nsengiyumva yagenewe indishyi zo kwirukanwa mu buryo bunyuranije n’amategeko, imperekeza, integuza n’indishyi zo INTERSEC SECURITY COMPANY Ltd v. NSENGIYUMVA

## Page 135

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 110 gusiragizwa mu manza kandi baragaragaje ko yirukaniwe ikosa rikomeye izo ndishyi akaba ataragombaga kuzihabwa. [19] Me Kazayire uhagarariye Nsengiyumva avuga ko Nsengiyumva izo ndishyi zari ngombwa kuko urukiko rwari rwasanze yarirukanywe mu buryo budakurrikije amategeko. [20] Urukiko rusanga indishyi zo kwirukanwa mu buryo bunyuranije n’amategeko, imperekeza, integuza n’indishyi zo gusiragizwa mu manza Nsengiyumva yagenewe zari zifite ishingiro kuko urukiko rwari rwasanze yarirukanywe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko kandi n’uru rukiko rwasanze bifite ishingiro bityo akaba yaragombaga guhabwa indishyi zijyanye n’iryo yirukanwa ziteganywa n’Itegeko ry’umurimo. [21] Rusanga ku ibijyanye nuko yari yasabye indishyi zo kwirukanwa mu buryo bunyuranije n’amategeko za 450.000Frw urukiko rukamuha 1.200.000Frw zirenze izo yasabye, ibyo ataribyo mu mwanzuro we w’inyongera yagaragaza ko asaba indishyi za 1.813.800Frw nukuvuga zikubye inshuro 6 umushahara we ariko urukiko rumuha izikubye inshuro 4 za 1.209.200Frw, rusanga rero izo yahawe zarakurikije amategeko mu ngingo ya 33 y’Itegeko ry’umurimo ryavuzwe haruguru bityo ibyo bavuga bikaba bitahabwa ishingiro. Ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi Kuba urukiko rwaribeshye mu giteranyo rugaha Nsengiyumva indishyi zituzuye. [22] Me Kazayire uhagarariye Nsengiyumva avuga urukiko rwibeshye mu giteranyo rumuha indishyi zituzuye akaba yaragombaga guhabwa 2.513.800Frw aho kuba 2.401.800Frw, ko byakosorwa.

## Page 136

111 [23] Me Kayihura Didace na Me Kalimba Daniel bavuga ko bitahabwa ishingiro kuko indishyi yagenewe mbere nta shingiro kuko yirukaniwe ikosa rikomeye. [24] Urukiko rusanga ibyo Nsengiyumva avuga byahabwa ishingiro kuko indishyi zose yagenewe ari 1.209.200Frw zo kwirukanwa mu buryo bunyuranije n’amategeko, 302.300Frw y’imperekeza, 302.300Frw y’integuza na 700.000Frw y’indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’avoka yose hamwe uyateranyije aba 2.513.800Frw aho kuba 2.401.800Frw bigaragara ko urukiko rubanza rwibeshye mu guteranya bityo ibyo bikaba byakosorwa Nsengiyumva akaba agomba kugenerwa indishyi zose hamwe za 2.513.800Frw aho kuba 2.401.800Frw. Kumenya niba Nsengiyumva yagenerwa amafaranga y’igihembo cy’avoka. [25] Me Kazayire uhagarariye Nsengiyumva avuga ko yagenerwa igihembo cy’avoka cya 800.000Frw. [26] Me Kayihura Didace na Me Kalimba Daniel bavuga ko indishyi zigomba Intersec kuko ariyo yashowe mu manza. [27] Urukiko rusanga kuba rwasanze ubujurire bwa Intersec ntashingiro bufite kandi Nsengiyumva yarashatse umuburanira ariyo mpamvu rusanga ibyo asaba yabihabwa rushingiye ku ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 258 y’urwunge rw’amategeko y’imbonezamubano igitabo cya gatatu iteganya ko igikorwa cyose cy'umuntu cyangirije undi gitegeka nyirugukora ikosa rigikomokaho kuriha ibyangiritse; ariko amafaranga asaba rusanga ari ikirenga ariyo mpamvu agomba guhabwa INTERSEC SECURITY COMPANY Ltd v. NSENGIYUMVA

## Page 137

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 112 500.000Frw y’igihembo cy’avoka cyo mu rwego rw’ubujurire agenwe mu bushishozi bw’urukiko. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [28] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa INTERSEC SECURITY COMPANY Ltd mw’izina ry’umuyobozi wayo budafite ishingiro. [29] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwa Nsengiyumva Ndekezi J.Damascene bufite ishingiro. [30] Rwemeje ko urubanza rwajuririwe RSOC0026/15/TGI/GSBO ruhindutse kuri bimwe. [31] Rutegetse ko indishyi zose hamwe Nsengiyumva Ndekezi J. Damascene agomba guhabwa ari 2.513.800Frw aho kuba 2.401.800Frw zari zemejwe mu rwego rwa mbere. [32] Rutegetse INTERSEC SECURITY COMPANY guha Nsengiyumva Ndekezi J.Damascene 500.000Frw y’igihembo cy’avoka cyo mu rwego rw’ubujurire. [33] Rwemeje ko amagarama y’urubanza ahwanye n’ibyakozwe mu urubanza.

## Page 138

URUBANZA NSHINJACYAHA

## Page 140

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NTEZIRYAYO [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RPA0249/13/CS (Mukamulisa, P.J., Munyangeri na Hitiyaremye, J.) 25 Ugushyingo 2016] Amategeko Mpanabyaha – Kwitabara – Ugomba kugaragaza ibimenyetso – Uburanisha ko yakoze icyaha yitabara niwe ubitangira ibimenyetso – Itegeko Ngenga Nº01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, Ingingo ya 105. Amategeko Mpanabyaha – Igabanyagihano – Gusaba kongera kugabanyirizwa igihano – Ntawasaba kongera kugabanyirizwa igihano mugihe mu Rukiko rubanza yagabanyirijwe bihagije ndetse agahabwa igihano gikwiranye n’icyaha yakoze. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uwajuriye yakurikiranywe ku cyaha cy’ubwinjiracyaha bw’ubwicanyi bwakorewe Ndayambaje Emmanuel n’ubwicanyi bwakorewe Nkurunziza Emmanuel. Urukiko Rukuru urugereko rwa Musanze rwamuhamije ibyo byaha rumuhanisha igifungo cy’imyaka cumi n’ibiri (12) rumugabanyirije, rushingiye ku kuba yaremeye icyaha mu nzego zose. Ntiyishimiye imikirize y’urubanza ajuririra Urukiko rw’Ikirenga asaba imbabazi no kugabanyirizwa igihano, avugako akomeje kwemera ibyaha kandi agasaba n’imbabazi asobanurako atari yagambiriye kubikora, ko ahubwo yabikoze yitabara. Ubushinjacyaha bwo bwaburanye busaba ko igihano yahanishijwe gihamaho, buvuga ko mu gukora ibyo byaha atitabaraga, ko ahubwo yashakaga kuburizamo umugambi wo 115

## Page 141

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 116 kumuta muri yombi kuko yakekwagaho kwiba ibirayi, kandi ko iyo aza kubona abo bantu bafite umugambiwo kumugirira nabi yagombaga kwitabaza ubutabera aho kwihanira abyita kwitabara. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Ntawaburanisha kwitabara asaba kutaryozwa ibyaha mu gihe atabashije kubigaragaza. Bityo, imvugo z’uregwa kuriyo ngingo, nta shingiro zifite. 2. Ntawasaba kongera kugabanyirizwa igihano mu gihe mu Rukiko rubanza yagabanyirijwe bihagije ndetse agahabwa igihano gikwiranye n’icyaha yakoze. Bityo, uwajuriye ntakwiye kongera kugabanyirizwa igihano. Ubujurire nta shingiro bufite. Amagarama aherereye ku isanduku ya Leta Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Ngenga Nº01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 105 na 78(1º). Inyandiko z’abahanga zifashishijwe Bernard Bouloc, Droit penal General, 24ėme Edition, Dalloz, Paris, 2015, p.351. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Ku itariki ya 19/11/2012 mu ma saa kumi n’ebyiri n’igice za mu gitondo (06h30), Nteziryayo Emmanuel

## Page 142

117 yaketsweho ko ari we wibye ibirayi byabonetse ku mbuga yo kwa Twizerimana Jean de Dieu byari kumwe n’itoroshi, igitenge n’umuhoro, kubera ko yari asanzwe azwiho ingeso yo kwiba. [2] Nteziryayo Emmanuel nawe wari uri aho, yumvise batangiye kumushyira mu majwi yahise ahunga ariruka, abaturage bari aho baramukurikira ngo agaruke barangize ikibazo. Yafashe umwe mu bari bamukurikiye witwa Ndayambaje Emmanuel amutemesha umuhoro yari afite mu mutwe, uwitwa Nkurunziza Emmanuel aje atabaye agize ngo aramufashe nawe amutema ukuboko, amutera n’ibuye mu gatuza ahita apfa. Akigezwa mu Bugenzacyaha nyuma yo gufatwa, Nteziryayo Emmanuel yahise yemera icyaha, asobanura ko impamvu yabikoze ari uko yabonaga abari bamukurikiye bari bumute mu manga. [3] Nyuma y’iperereza, Ubushinjacyaha bwareze Nteziryayo Emmanuel mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, imbere y’Urukiko akomeza kwemera ibikorwa yaregwaga, ku itariki ya 20/06/2013 urwo Rukiko ruca urubanza rwemeza ko yakoze icyaha cy’ubwinjiracyaha bw’ubwicanyi kuri Ndayambaje Emmanuel n’ubwicanyi kuri Nkurunziza Emmanuel, rumuhanisha igifungo cy’imyaka cumi n’ibiri (12) rumugabanyirije kubera ko yemeye icyaha mu nzego zose. [4] Nteziryayo Emmanuel ntiyishimiye imikirize y’urubanza, arujuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko ibyaha aregwa yabikoze mu rwego rwo kwitabara, ko kandi akomeje gusaba imbabazi no kugabanyirizwa ibihano. [5] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku itariki ya 17/10/2016, Nteziryayo Emmanuel yunganiwe na Me Busogi UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NTEZIRYAYO

## Page 143

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 118 Cikoma Emmanuel, Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na Munyaneza Nkwaya Eric, Umushinjacyaha ku rwego rw’Igihugu. II. IKIBAZO KIRI MU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYACYO Kumenya niba Nteziryayo Emmanuel yarakoze ibyaha aregwa yitabara no kuba yagabanyirizwa igihano. [6] Nteziryayo Emmanuel avuga ko akomeje kwemera ibyaha aregwa kandi agasaba n’imbabazi. Asobanura ko ajya kubikora atari yabigambiriye, ko ahubwo byari mu rwego rwo kwitabara. Akomeza avuga ko umunsi ibyaha aregwa biba yahamagawe na Masengesho, agezeyo asanga hari ibintu byari byibwe biri kwa Nzayisenga Emmanuel, umugore we abajijwe uwo babiguze avuga ko ari we (Nteziryayo Emmanuel), nibwo abari muri urwo rugo bose batangiye kumukubita, bamujyana ku mugezi wa Kabuhanga ngo bamurohemo, na we afata umuhoro atema umwe mu bari bamukurikiye witwa Nkurunziza Emmanuel ku kaboko mu rwego rwo kwitabara arapfa, uwitwa Ndayambaje Emmanuel we amutema mu mutwe ariko ntiyapfa. Arangiza asaba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga imbabazi no kugabanyirizwa igihano. [7] Me Busogi Cikoma Emmanuel avuga ko akurikije uko Ndayambaje Emmanuel yasobanuye ko Nteziryayo Emmanuel yamutemye arimo yiruka, ibi bikaba byemezwa n’umutangabuhamya Nyirabikari Bellancilla wavuze ko abantu birutse kuri Nteziryayo Emmanuel bari benshi ari nabwo yateraga ibuye Nkurunziza Emmanuel akamwica, asanga ibi byaha Nteziryayo Emmanuel yarabikoze mu rwego rwo

## Page 144

119 kwitabara (légitime défense), bityo akaba adakwiye kubiryozwa nk’uko biteganywa mu ngingo za 105 na 106 z’Itegeko - Ngenga N°01/2012 ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana. [8] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko Nteziryayo Emmanuel yica Nkurunziza Emmanuel akanagerageza kwica Ndayambaje Emmanuel atitabaraga, kuko yakoze ibyo byaha ashaka kuburizamo umugambi wo kumuta muri yombi kubera ko yakekwagaho kuba ari we wibye ibirayi byabonetse ku mbuga yo kwa Twizerimana Jean de Dieu. Avuga kandi ko, iyo aza kubona abo bantu bari bafite umugambi wo kumugirira nabi, yagombaga kwitabaza ubutabera aho kwihanira abyita kwitabara. Arangiza asaba ko igihano cy’igifungo cy’imyaka cumi n’ibiri (12) Nteziryayo Emmanuel yahanishijwe gihamaho kuko gikwiranye n’ibyo yakoze. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [9] Ingingo ya 105 y’Itegeko-Ngenga N°01/2012 ryo ku wa 2/5/2012 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana iteganya ko “umuntu afatwa ko yitabara igihe: 1. yirukana nijoro uwinjiye ahantu hatuwe aciye urugi, yakoresheje ingufu cyangwa uburiganya; 2. ahanganye n’abajura cyangwa abandi bagizi ba nabi”. [10] Umuhanga mu mategeko Bernard Bouloc, avuga ko ku bijyanye n’amakuba yugarije uwitabara udafite ubundi buryo bwo kuyigobotora adakoze icyaha, ayo makuba agomba kuba aboneka koko atari ukwikanga baringa, (…..La condition d’actualité de l’agression consiste dans la menace d’un mal UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NTEZIRYAYO

## Page 145

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 120 imminent qui n’a pu être écarté qu’en commettant le délit. Ce mal imminent doit être objectivement vraisemblable et ne pas exister seulement dans l’imagination de l’agent)1. [11] Ku birebana n’uru rubanza, Nteziryayo Emmanuel n’umwunganizi we bavuga ko yakomerekeje Ndayambaje Emmanuel ndetse akica Nkurunziza Emmanuel mu rwego rwo kwitabara kuko bari mu bantu bamwirukankanaga bashaka kumuroha mu mugezi, akaba adakwiye guhanirwa ibi bikorwa. [12] Hakurikijwe ibyagaragajwe haruguru ku birebana n’ibihe habaho ukwitabara nk’uko Itegeko rishyiraho Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ribyerekana, ndetse n’uko abahanga mu mategeko babivuga, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga ibivugwa na Nteziryayo Emmanuel n’umwunganizi we nta shingiro bifite, kuko nta kintu na kimwe mu biteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 105 y’Itegeko - Ngenga N°01/2012 ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru, ibikorwa bye byashingirwaho ngo habe harabayeho kwitabara, kubera ko atakoze ibyaha aregwa hari umuntu yirukana ninjoro wari winjiye iwe, akaba ataranashoboye kwereka Urukiko ko abari bamukurikiye bari abajura cyangwa abagizi ba nabi. Abo bari bamukurikiye ahubwo baka bari abaturage bagenzi be bari bagamije kumugarura kuko yari ahunze, kugira ngo harangizwe ikibazo cy’ubujura yari yaketsweho. Ibyo avuga rero ko bari bagiye kumuroha mu mugezi bikaba nta shingiro byahabwa kuko nta bimenyetso abitangira, ahubwo ari ibyo we yitekerereje gusa. [13] Ku birebana no kugabanyirizwa igihano Nteziryayo Emmanuel asaba, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga kidakwiye

1 Bernard Bouloc,Droit Pénal Général, 24ėme Edition, Dalloz, Paris, 2015, p.351.

## Page 146

121 kongera kugabanywa kuko uburyo mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, bakigabanyije hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 78,1° y’Itegeko - Ngenga N°01/2012 ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana kubera ko yaburanye yemera icyaha, igihano kikavanwa ku gifungo cya burundu kigashyirwa ku gifungo cy’imyaka cumi n’ibiri (12), bihuye n’uburemere bw’ibyaha yakoze. [14] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, rushingiye ku bimaze kuvugwa haruguru, rurasanga ukwitabara umwunganizi wa Nteziryayo Emmanuel aburanisha asaba ko uwo yunganira ataryozwa ibyaha nta shingiro byahabwa, kuko atabashije kubigaragaza, ndetse no kugabanyirizwa igihano bisabwa na Nteziryayo Emmanuel bikaba bidakwiye kwemerwa kubera ko igihano yahawe mu rubanza yajuririye gikwiranye n’uburemere bw’ibyaha yakoze, bityo ubujurire bwe bukaba nta shingiro bufite. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [15] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Nteziryayo Emmanuel nta shingiro bufite, [16] Rwemeje ko igihano cy’igifungo cy’imyaka cumi n’ibiri (12) Nteziryayo Emmanuel yahanishijwe mu rubanza RP0077/12/HC/MUS rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, ku wa 20/06/2013 kidahindutse; [17] Rutegetse ko amagarama y’ibyakozwe muri uru rubanza aherera ku Isanduku ya Leta.

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NTEZIRYAYO

## Page 148

RWANDA LAW REPORTS ENGLISH VERSION

## Page 150

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TEAM OF EDITORS ............................................................. iii MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE ............................. iv PREFACE ............................................................................... vi SCOPE OF THE REPORTS ...................................................vii CITATION .............................................................................vii LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED .................................................................... viii LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED ............................................. x SUBJECT INDEX ................................................................... xi CAPLAKI v. MUKANYIRINKWAYA ................................... 1 MUHIRWA ET.AL v. NZEYIMANA .................................... 15 BAHOZE v. NATIONAL BANK OF RWANDA (B.N.R) ..... 33 INTERSEC SECURITY COMPANY Ltd v. NSENGIYUMVA ............................................................................................... 45 HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE ET AL (2) ................... 61 MUKAGATARE v. SUCCESSION BWANAKEYE (2) ........ 79 i

## Page 151

RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA) v. UMURUNGI UMWIZERWA ...................................................................... 99 PROSECUTION v. NTEZIRYAYO ..................................... 113

## Page 152

TEAM OF EDITORS

LAW REPORTING TEAM

KAGABO U. Stephanie

KAVUTSE M. Claude

KUBWIMANA Jean Claude

MUJABI K. Naphtal

MWIHOREZE Claudine

NTIHEMUKA Emmanuel

UWIMANA Gisèle

iii

## Page 153

MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE

MUGENZI Louis Marie : President of the Committee Supreme Court Judge

Dr. MUHIRE G. Yves : Vice President of the Committee Lecturer in the School of Law/UR

RUTAZANA Angeline : Secretary of the Committee Inspector of Courts

Me BAGABO Faustin : Advocate at Rwanda Bar Association

BWIZA N. Blanche : Inspector of Courts GIRANEZA Clémentine : Judge at Primary Court

HABARUREMA Jean Pierre : Prosecutor at National Level

KALIWABO Charles : President of High Court

Me KAYIHURA Didas : Advocate at Rwanda Bar Association

iv

## Page 154

KIBUKA Jean Luc : Judge at Commercial High Court

Major. MADUDU A. Charles : Judge at Military High Court

MUREREREHE Saouda : Judge at High Court

Prof. Dr. NGAGI M. Alphonse : Supreme Court Judge RUBANGO K. Epimaque : State Attorney RUKUNDAKUVUGA F. Regis : Inspector General of Courts

UWANTEGE Yvette : Judge at Intermediate Court

v

## Page 155

PREFACE Esteemed readers, We are pleased to present the Law Reports Volume 2 [2018] to you. As usual, we select cases that can handle some of issues you encounter, either in your career or in your daily life. This volume contains eight (8) cases including six (6) cases in merit; two (2) civil, one (1) commercial, one (1) penal, one (1) administrative and one (1) labor cases while the remaining two (2) are procedural ones. As you are accustomed, published cases can easily be accessed on the website of the judiciary: http://decisia.lexum.com/rlr/en/nav.do. Prof. Sam RUGEGE Chief Justice

vi

## Page 156

SCOPE OF THE REPORTS These reports cover cases decided by the Supreme Court and the High Court are cited under the heading below:

CITATION The Reports in this volume are cited thus: [2018] 2 RLR

vii

## Page 157

LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED Organic Law No02/2013 of 16/06/2013 modifying and complementing organic law No58/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of courts, article 12..........................................................................3 Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 28, paragraph 2, (7º,8º,9º) and paragraph 3.................17 Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, articles 105 and 78(1o)……………………………………114 Organic Law Nº51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of courts, article 164…………………………………………………………………….17 East African Community Customs Management Act, 2004, article 135, 203, 219 and 220..................................................101 Law N°86/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the general statutes for public service, article 76, 77 and 78....................................35 Law N°43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda, articles 10, 46 and 47………………………………………………82 Law Nº30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating to criminal procedure, article187…………………………………………………………....17 Law No21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 113........................................................................3 article, 336 (1)...............................................................35 article 9..........................................................................47 viii

## Page 158

ix LIST OF STATUTES Law N°13/2009 of 27/05/2009 regulating labour in Rwanda, article 1 (21); 32........................................................................47 Law No15/2004 of 12/06/2004 on evidence and its production, article 3..........................................................................64 article 3 and 13..............................................................82 Law N°22/99 of 12/11/1999 to supplement book one of the civil code and to institute part five regarding matrimonial regimes, liberalities and successions, article 21......................................64 Decree of 30/07/ 1888 relating to contracts or conventional obligations, article 258......................................................................47 article 33, 276,306 and 650...........................................64

## Page 159

LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED Busingye v. Mukarushema, RCAA0029/12/CS delivered by the Supreme Court on 08 March 2013, Law report, Booklet 3, No18, p.54............................................................................................65 ELECTROGAZ v. Niwenshuti Nzaramba Valens, RADAA0038/09/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 25/03/2011.................................................................................35 Euro Trade International Sarl v. Rwakirenga Pascal, RSOCAA 0027/11/CS, rendered by the Supreme Court on 13/3/2012.....47 Munyaneza v RRA, RCOMA0047/10/CS, rendered by the Supreme Court on 29/07/2011................................................101

x

## Page 160

SUBJECT INDEX Administrative law – Disciplinary sanction – Criminal liability – An employee can be given a disciplinary sanction for work related negligence despite being proved innocent by a criminal court – Law N°86/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the general statutes for public service, article 76, 77 and 78. BAHOZE v. NATIONAL BANK OF RWANDA (B.N.R)…………………………………………………33 Administrative procedure – Admissibility of a claim – Administrative appeal – An administrative appeal is lodged by a plaintiff requesting for annulment of the administrative decision – Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 336 (1). BAHOZE v. NATIONAL BANK OF RWANDA (B.N.R)............................................................................33 Commercial procedure – Voluntary intervention – The admissibility of the claim for voluntary intervention – The claim for voluntary intervention is admissible on first instance or on the appellate level, unless the intervener’s claim at the appellate level was never examined by the previous courts – Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 113. CAPLAKI v. MUKANYIRINKWAYA.........................1 Changing the nature of the case – The voluntary intervention of Kigali City does not change the nature of the case which begun as a commercial one, since it does xi

## Page 161

not extinguish the obligations resulting from that sale contract concluded by both parties – Organic Law No02/2013 of 16/06/2013 modifying and complementing organic law No58/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of courts, article 12 CAPLAKI v. MUKANYIRINKWAYA.........................1 Contracts or obligations law – Sale – Annulment of the contract – The sale of third party's property is void; it may give rise to damages where the buyer has not known that the thing belonged to third party – Decree Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or obligations, articles 33 and 276 HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE ET AL (2)…...61 Bad faith – The burden of proof of bad faith – Good faith is always presumed and the burden of proof of the bad faith relies on the one who alleges it – Decree Law 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or obligations, article 650. HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE ET AL (2)…...61 Sale – Effects of eviction of the buyer – In case of eviction of the purchaser, the seller is held to the restitution of the price – Decree Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or obligations, article 306. HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE ET AL (2)…...61 Criminal Law – Penalty reduction – Requesting further penalty reduction – None should claim for further penalty reduction when the penalty sentenced to him/her in previous court was considerably reduced and reflects the gravity of the offence committed. PROSECUTION v. NTEZIRYAYO………………...........113 xii RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 162

Excuse of self defence – Onus probandi – The onus probandi lies with the defendant who invokes the excuse of self defense – Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article 105. PROSECUTION v. NTEZIRYAYO………………..113 Criminal Procedure Law – Filing an action by private prosecution procedure – The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over the second appeal in criminal cases – Only the penalty that has been provided for shall determine the competence even though the plaintiffs sued by private prosecution procedure – Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 28(3). MUHIRWA ET.AL v. NZEYIMANA……………….15 Evidence Law – Burden of proof – Every plaintiff must prove a claim – Law N°15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 3. HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE ET AL (2)…...61 Family law – Matrimonial regime – Whatever be the matrimonial regime chosen and the management modalities of the patrimony of the spouses, the consent of both spouses shall be required for the donation of a personal immovable property and of any other property in the community, as well as for the acknowledgement of any right attached to these properties – Law N°22/99 of 12/11/1999 to supplement book one of the civil code and to institute part five regarding matrimonial regimes, liberalities and successions, article 21. HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE ET AL (2)…...61 xiii SUBJECT INDEX

## Page 163

Labour law – Unlawful dismissal – Gross negligence – It is unlawful dismissal when the employer dismisses an employee on the ground of gross negligence without respecting the time limit provided by the law – Gross negligence is a fault committed by the employee that constitutes a breach of the obligations arising from the employment contract or employment relationship to the extent that it lenders it impossible to maintain the employee for the duration of the notice period – Law N°13/2009 of 27/05/2009 regulating labour in Rwanda, article 1(21), 32. INTERSEC SECURITY COMPANY Ltd v. NSENGIYUMVA……………………………………...45 Land law – Modes of land acquisition – A person who claims ownership over the land should demonstrate the mode of its acquisition – Law N°43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda, article 10. MUKAGATARE v. SUCCESSION BWANAKEYE (2)……………………………………………………….79 Land disputes – Inapplicability of acquisitive statute of limitation on the right over the land – A person who, through fraudulent means, occupies vacant and escheat land or other people's land, cannot invoke the right to prescription to claim definite right on it – Law N°43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda, article 46 and 47. MUKAGATARE v. SUCCESSION BWANAKEYE (2)………………………………………………………79 Tax law – East African Community Customs Management Act – Erroneous declaration – In case of erroneous declaration that leads to the payment of less tax, Commissioner of xiv RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 164

customs is entitled to request the taxpayer to pay the balance of the tax he would have to pay – East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 section 135. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA) v. UMURUNGI UMWIZERWA………………………..99

xv SUBJECT INDEX

## Page 166

PROCEDURAL CASES

## Page 168

CASE RELATING TO CIVIL, COMMERCIAL, LABOUR AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

## Page 170

CAPLAKI v. MUKANYIRINKWAYA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCOMAA0043/14/CS – (Kayitesi Z., P.J., Kayitesi R. and Nyirandabaruta, J.) May 27, 2016] Law relating to commercial procedure – Voluntary intervention – The admissibility of the claim for voluntary intervention – The claim for voluntary intervention is admissible on first instance or on the appellate level, unless the intervener’s claim at the appellate level was never examined by the previous courts – Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 113. Law relating to commercial procedure – Changing the nature of the case – The voluntary intervention of Kigali City does not change the nature of the case which begun as a commercial one, since it does not extinguish the obligations resulting from the sale contract concluded by both parties – Organic Law No02/2013 of 16/06/2013 modifying and complementing organic law No58/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of courts, article 12. Fact: Kigali City leased plot No5810 to SOGECO and it also issued its construction permit, thereafter the lease was terminated by Kigali City due to the fact that Electrogaz notified it that a large water pipe traversed therein and it could be damaged in case heavy buildings are elected on that plot. Thereafter Kigali City lent that plot to CAPLAKI cooperative for it to sell therein its handcrafts products on the condition that it is not allowed to construct on it, thereafter it was also 1

## Page 171

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 2 dispossessed of it and given to Mrs. Mukanyirinkwaya Adele, who lent it to CAPLAKI, after they agreed on the sale of that plot whereby a sale contract was concluded between them, thereupon CAPLAKI as a buyer paid her the first instalment. After CAPLAKI learnt that Mukanyirinkwaya Adele had no right to sell that plot, unilaterally terminated the sale contract and sued her before Nyarugenge Commercial Court claiming for reimbursement of the money for rent and the first instalment it paid her, the court found the case with merit and ordered Mukanyirinkwaya Adele to reimburse CAPLAKI the money for the first instalment she received and also pay procedural and advocate fees. Both parties appealed before the Commercial High Court and the appeal of CAPLAKI was found with merit, while that of Mukanyirinkwaya Adele had merit on some grounds, and the Court decided that there should be compensation of debts and CAPLAKI was ordered to give her back the plot, pay procedural and advocate fees. Cooperative CAPLAKI appealed again before the Supreme Court arguing that the judge of the previous court based on repealed law, he was characterized by excessive contradiction and he ignored the evidences it submitted proving that the plot was a government property. Kigali City voluntarily intervened in the case at the Supreme Court arguing that it had interests in that case since the plot on which the sale contract was concluded was a government property. Mukanyirinkwaya Adéle raised an objection for inadmissibility of the voluntary intervention of Kigali City arguing that it was filed for the first time at the Supreme Court and if it happens to be admitted it will change the nature of the case to an

## Page 172

3 administrative one instead of being a commercial one while the subject matter is reimbursement of the money. CAPLAKI argues that the voluntary intervention of Kigali City does not change the nature of the case to the extent that the claim becomes an administrative one when the subject matter originates from the property it argues that it belongs to the government. Held: 1. The claim for voluntary intervention is admissible on first instance or on the appellate level, unless the intervener’s claim at the appellate level was never examined by the previous courts. Hence the voluntary intervention of Kigali City before the Supreme Court should be admitted since it was not a party before the previous courts and it has interest in this case. 2. The voluntary intervention of Kigali City does not change the nature of the case which begun as a commercial one, since it does not extinguish the obligations resulting from that sale contract concluded by both parties. Objection overruled. The hearing of the case on merit will continue. Court fees suspended. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Organic Law No02/2013 of 16/06/2013 modifying and complementing organic law No58/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of courts, article 12. Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 113. CAPLAKI v. MUKANYIRINKWAYA

## Page 173

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 4 No case referred to. Author cited: Serge Guinchard “Droit et Pratique de la Procédure Civile”, Edition Dalloz, Paris, 2006. Jean Rivero and Jean Waline, “Droit Administratif” Edition Dalloz, 20emè Edition, 2004. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] On 09/05/2000, a plot No5810 was leased to SOGECO cooperative by Kigali City, it also issued to them its construction permit, but on 18/09/2002 ELECTROGAZ wrote to Kigali City informing it that there is a large water pipe distributing water to many areas of Kigali, that in case the plot is constructed it would damage those infrastructure, and accordingly Kigali City terminated the lease contract for that plot on 31/12/2002. [2] On 02/12/2003, Kigali City rent plot No5810 to CAPLAKI so that it can use it to exhibit its products, then on 28/04/2009 Kigali City again gave the same plot to Mukanyirinkwaya Adèle and on 14/05/2009, the latter also rented it to CAPLAKI and on 09/06/2011, they entered into a sale contract, whereby CAPLAKI paid the first instalment of 37.500.000Frw to Mukanyirinkwaya Adèle.

## Page 174

5 [3] On 27/03/2012, CAPLAKI unilaterally cancelled the contract after it had realized that Mukanyirinkwaya Adèle had no right to sell that plot, it also went ahead and filed a claim before Nyarugenge Commercial Court claiming for the reimbursement of the money it paid for rent, the first instalment and also requesting for various damages. In the judgment RCOM0279/14/TC/Nyge rendered on 30/05/2014, the court found CAPLAKI’s claim with merit and ordered Mukanyirinkwaya Adèle to pay to CAPLAKI the money for the first instalment she received, moral damages, procedural fees and advocate fees all amounting to 38,300,000Frw. [4] Both CAPLAKI and Mukanyirinkwaya Adèle appealed before the Commercial High Court, Mukanyirinkwaya Adèle’s appeal was recorded on RCOMA0353/14/HCC while that of CAPLAKI was given RCOMA0390/14/HCC, both appeals were combined, on 19/09/2014, the Court rendered the judgment, whereby it found Mukanyirinkwaya Adèle’s appeal with merit while that of CAPLAKI had merit in parts and the appealed judgment was consequently overruled, ordered for compensation of the debts, ordered CAPLAKI to give back the plot to Mukanyirinkwaya Adèle immediately after the pronouncement of this judgment failure to do so it would pay to Mukanyirinkwaya Adèle 34,948,000Frw for the rent it owed to her, 1,000,000Frw for damages for dragging her in lawsuits, 1,500,000Frw for the advocate fees and 500,000Frw for procedural fees. [5] On 14/10/2014, CAPLAKI through his counsel Nsengiyumva Niyondora appealed the rulings in the Supreme Court, on the grounds that the Judge based on inexistence law, the judgment was characterized by excessive contradiction, and CAPLAKI v. MUKANYIRINKWAYA

## Page 175

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 6 the judge also ignored evidences proving that the plot occupied by CAPLAKI was a government property. Kigali City voluntarily intervened in the case. [6] The case was heard in public on 26/04/2016, CAPLAKI appeared represented by counsel Nsengiyumva Niyondora, Mukanyirinkwaya Adèle was represented by Counsel Mwanayire Florentine and Counsel Semadwinga Claude while Kigali City was represented by Counsel Rubango Epimaque. [7] Counsel Mwanayire Florentine and Counsel Semadwinga Claude raised a preliminary objection for inadmissibility of the voluntary intervention of Kigali City. II. LEGAL ISSUES AND THEIR ANALYSIS Whether the voluntary intervention by Kigali City is admissible and whether it changes the nature of the case. [8] Counsel Rubango Epimaque argues that Kigali City voluntarily intervened basing on article 112 and 113 of Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure because of interest it has in this case. [9] He explains that in 2000, Kigali City leased plot No5810 to SOGECO, and thereupon signed a lease contract on 31/10/2002 which was terminated because a large water pipe distributing water in many areas of Kigali traversed through that plot and since then no one owns it this is emphasized by the fact that Kigali City lent it to CAPLAKI to use it in exhibiting and

## Page 176

7 selling its products but not allowed to construct on it permanent structures and other activities which may damage the infrastructures of ELECTROGAZ which are in that plot. [10] He furthermore argues that the fact that Mukanyirinkwaya entered a sale contract with CAPLAKI on the property she does not own, without even requesting Kigali City to intervene so that the owner of the property can be determined, reveals the intention of snatching the property which is not theirs, he requests the Court to admit the voluntary intervention of Kigali City. [11] Counsel Mwanayire Florentine argues that the voluntary intervention of Kigali City should not be admitted because it was lodged for the first time before the Supreme Court and moreover it knew already the issue and in case Kigali City claims that it’s the owner of the contentious plot then the nature of the case should change to administrative one and hence be lodged in the administrative courts, he goes on to claim that Kigali City has no interests in this case since the subject matter of the case is reimbursement of the money. [12] Counsel Semadwinga Claude argues that the voluntary intervention of Kigali City should not be admitted because the claim of CAPLAKI against Mukanyirinkwaya originates from the lease and sale contract of plot N°5810 which makes it commercial in nature, basing on the principle of continuity of the authority, he states that the decision taken by a competent authority at that time, and later nullified by Kigali City, makes it an administrative one, therefore the claim of Kigali City cannot be joined with a commercial one. CAPLAKI v. MUKANYIRINKWAYA

## Page 177

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 8 [13] Counsel Niyondora Nsengiyumva argues that nothing prohibits Kigali City to voluntarily intervene at any instance even on the appellate level as long as it proves that it has interest in the case as provided by article 113, 114 and 115 of the aforementioned Law N°21/2012 since it’s the one which lent the plot N°5810 to CAPLAKI, and the voluntarily intervention of Kigali City does not change the nature of the case to the extent that the claim becomes administrative one when the subject matter originates from an asset it claims to own. VIEW OF THE COURT [14] Article 112 of the Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that “any person has the right to intervene in a case at all stages and at any time, if it is likely to affect his/her interests”. [15] While article 113 of the Law N°21/2012 mentioned above, provides that voluntary intervention is done when a person, on his or her own volition, intervenes in a case where he or she is neither a plaintiff nor a defendant in order to have it declared that the claim of the litigation belongs to him or her or to make sure that his or her interests are not compromised by the court’s decision. And article 114 of the same law states that in order for his/her claim to be admitted, the intervening party must prove legitimate interest, his/her direct personal material or moral interest”. [16] The two provisions read together, elucidate that any person has a right to intervene in a case in which s/he is not a party on any instance when s/he deems that the case could

## Page 178

9 compromise his/her interests, as long as s /he proves a legitimate direct personal interest based on material or moral interest. This is also emphasized by the statement of legal scholar Serge Guinchard in his book “Droit et Pratique de la Procédure Civile”, where he stated that “The claim for voluntary intervention is admissible on first instance or on the appellate level, unless the intervener’s claim at the appellate level was never examined by the previous courts”1. [17] With regard to the voluntary intervention of Kigali City for the first time on this instance, basing on the legal explanations mentioned above, the court finds that Kigali City should be allowed to voluntarily intervene before the Supreme Court since it was not a party in the case RCOM0279/14/TC/NYGE which was adjudicated by Nyarugenge Commercial Court or even in cases RCOMA0353/14/HCC - RCOMA0390/14/HCC which were appealed against and in addition to that Kigali City has interest in this case even though the subject matter of this case is reimbursing to COPLAKI 60,572,000Frw and other various damages, but that money originate from the lease and sale of the plot N°5810 which Kigali City claims to be the owner. [18] Regarding administrative cases, Organic Law No02/2013 of 16/06/2013 modifying and complementing Organic Law

1Droit et Pratique de la Procédure Civile, Edition Dalloz, Paris, 2006 C’est que l’intervention volontaire est recevable tant en première instance qu’en appel, sauf dans ce dernier cas l’interdiction de soumettre à la Cour un litige nouveau en la saisissant de prétentions qui n’ont pas subi le premier degré de juridiction. A chacun de ces degrés, l’intervention volontaire est possible en tout état de cause, même après l’ordonnance de clôture dans les procédures écrites devant les Tribunaux de première Instance et devant la Cour d’Appel. CAPLAKI v. MUKANYIRINKWAYA

## Page 179

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 10 No58/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of courts in its article 12 bestows jurisdiction to specialized administrative chambers to hear at the first instance the petitions relating to administrative decisions taken by authorities at the last instances, and it outlines those petitions which are ten (10) in numbers, and article 15 endows the High Court with jurisdiction over the disputes relating to decisions taken at last instance by the President of the Republic and High ranking Officials, and outlines those petitions which are limited to three (3). [19] On the issue of “the voluntary intervention of Kigali City” changing the commercial claim to an administrative one, even though the legislator did not give a direct definition of “an administrative claim”, the court finds that considering the provisions of the articles mentioned above, the administrative claims originate from the decisions taken at last instance by authorities in Government Institutions. These again goes corresponds with the statement of Law Scholars Jean Rivero and Jean Waline, in their book “Droit Administratif”, where they state that “when there is violation of the law by the authority violates, the judge in the administrative matters is the one to rule over it, a person not satisfied by the decision of the authority is allowed to seize the court claiming for the nullification of the decision that was illegally taken or claim for damages resulting from that contested decision, those petitions are distinguished by the nature of the claim filed to the judge”2.

2 ``….Au fond, on considère que si l’administration manque au droit, c’est au Juge administrative qu’il revient de la sanctionner. Pour cela les administrés disposent d’un recours pour excès de pouvoir, le plein contentieux………La classification moderne des recours repose sur la nature de la question posée au Juge par le requérant. Droit Administratif, Edition Dalloz, 20ème Edition, 2004, page 27, paragr.44.

## Page 180

11 [20] As demonstrated in the court submissions, it is evident that the subject matter in this case is reimbursement of 60,572,000Frw and other damages, which originates from the sale contract of plot No5810 entered between CAPLAKI and Mukanyirinkwaya Adèle. [21] Basing on the legal provisions and the opinion of legal scholars aforementioned, the court finds that the purpose of voluntary intervention of Kigali City in this case was to prove that the plot that Mukanyirinkwaya Adèle attempted to sell is a government asset, which does not change the nature of the case from being commercial one, since it does not extinguish the obligations resulting from that sale contract concluded by both parties, therefore, the voluntary intervention of Kigali City in this commercial case cannot change its nature to an administrative one. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [22] Overrules the preliminary objection raised by Mukanyirinkwaya Adèle; [23] It decides that Kigali City is allowed to voluntarily intervene in the appealed case RCOMAA0043/14/CS before this Court; [24] Orders that the hearing of the case RCOMAA0043/14/CS in merits will continue on 12/07/2016; [25] It orders the court fees to be suspended.

CAPLAKI v. MUKANYIRINKWAYA

## Page 182

CASE RELATING TO CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

## Page 184

MUHIRWA ET AL v. NZEYIMANA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RPAA0021/16/CS – RPAA0002/2016/CS (Kanyange, P.J., Nyirandabaruta and Gatete, J.) May 12, 2017] Criminal Procedure Law – Filing an action by private prosecution procedure – The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over the second appeal in criminal cases – Only the penalty that has been provided for shall determine the competence even though the plaintiffs sued by private prosecution procedure – Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 28(3). Facts: The case started in the Primary Court of Rusororo where the plaintiffs instituted a criminal action against Nzeyimana Bertin and Mukayisenga Cecile through the private prosecution procedure for the offences of breach of trust, forging documents and use of counterfeited document and fraudulently receiving funds or cash instruments. That court found that some of the offences were not under its jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Intermediate Court of Gasabo, that Court decided to remove Mukayisenga Cecile in the case basing on the fact that she was not interrogated on the offences for which she was prosecuted whereas it convicted Nzeyimana Bertin for the offence of breach of trust as well as fraudulent acquisition of documents issued by the competent authorities and sentenced him to one year (1) of imprisonment, the fine equivalent to 500,000Frw and to refund court fees to the plaintiffs. Both parties lodged an appeal to the High Court, the Court found Nzeyimana Bertin not guilty of the offences is being 15

## Page 185

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 16 charged of and the appeal of the claimants of damages was found to be without merit. They appealed to the Supreme Court where the Court first examined whether their appeal is under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. On this issue the appellants demonstrated that the competence of the Supreme Court is based on the evidence of the sale contract between Nzeyimana and Mukayaramba Verediyana which was referred to in the ruling whereas it was presented to the Court after the closure of the hearing. They also stated that the competence of the Court is based on the value of the money equivalent to 1,178,668,446Frw. The defendant argued that the evidence was presented and debated upon in hearing, it is contained in the case file and it was also communicated to them. Furthermore, he argued that in the determination of the jurisdiction of Court, the amount requested by the parties is not considered, rather, the amount ordered by the court. They also argue that in criminal cases, the penalty that has been provided for shall determine the competence of the Supreme Court. As for the Prosecution, since the appellants filed an action through private prosecution procedure, it would continue in such procedure, but in the interest of justice, the case should follow the same procedure as other criminal cases. They kept on explaining that even if the prosecution did not sue, the issues is whether the appeal would be based on damages, and the grounds on which the Court would base in determination of the damages in case such action is admitted, whereas there is no criminal action. Held: Only the penalty imposed is the one to determine the competence of the Supreme Court over the second appeal, even though the plaintiffs would have sued by the procedure of

## Page 186

17 private prosecution. The plaintiffs’ appeal is therefore not in jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Appeal does not fall into the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Court fees to the appellants. Statute and statutory instruments referred to: Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 28, paragraph 2(7º, 8º, 9º) and paragraph 3. Organic Law N°51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of courts, article 164. Law Nº30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure, article 187. No case referred to. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] Muhorakeye Grâce and Muhirwa Alexandre state that they founded a school known as Collège de l’Espoir de Gasogi jointly with Nzeyimana Bertin and his wife Mukayisenga Cécile, Nzeyimana Bertin became the legal representative of the school being in charge of following up daily activities of the MUHIRWA ET AL v. NZEYIMANA

## Page 187

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 18 school as well as its extension. It is in this context that he used the school’s funds to buy plots of land on its behalf but he has registered them in his names, he later built students’ accommodations and registered them in her wife’s names Mukayisenga Cécile. They further explained that later, they constructed the building in the school’s names for the purpose of its extension but he also misappropriated them and an audit was carried out and found that the use of some funds is not justifiable. [2] Muhorakeye Grâce and Muhirwa Alexandre sued Nzeyimana Bertin for breach of trust, forging documents and use of counterfeited document and fraudulently receiving funds or cash instruments. After finding that the elements of the offences were not complete, the Prosecution decided to close the file. [3] Muhorakeye Grâce and Muhirwa Alexandre filed an action before the Primary Court of Rusororo through private prosecution procedure, in judgment RP0012/013/TB/RUS rendered on 22 March 2013. The Court found that some of the offences were not under its jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Intermediate Court of Gasabo, which decided to remove Mukayisenga Cecile in the case basing on the fact that she was not interrogated about the offences for which she was prosecuted. [4] In regard to Nzeyimana Bertin, the Court rendered the judgment RP0191/13/TGI/GSBO on 19 June, 2014 and found him guilty of breach of trust as well as fraudulent acquisition of documents issued by the competent authorities and sentenced him to one year (1) of imprisonment and a fine of 500,000Frw

## Page 188

19 and ordered to refund court fees equivalent to 8,000Frw to Muhirwa and Muhorakeye. [5] Nzeyimana Bertin and the parties who filed the action through the procedure of private prosecution, both appealed to the High Court/Kigali, whereby Nzeyimana Bertin stated that the Intermediate Court disregarded his explanations demonstrating that the plots of land mentioned in case file were bought by himself and her wife as their personal property, whereas Muhirwa Alexandre and Muhorakeye Grâce’s appeal was meant to explain that Nzeyimana Bertin’s penalty was illegally reduced, that the Court was given the audit report proving that 1,178,668,446Frw was lacking but it omitted to react on it, and that it was disregarded that Nzeyimana Bertin has to refund the proceeds of the offences he was convicted for and deliver his plaintiffs the procedural damages for the trials in which he induced them. [6] That Court rendered the judgment RPA0488/HC/KIG- RPA0501/HC/KIG on 22 December 2015, deciding that the appeal for Nzeyimana Bertin has merit; that he is not guilty for the offences he is charged with. The court also decided that the appeal of the claimants for the damages has no merit. [7] Muhirwa Alexandre and Muhorakeye Grâce appealed to the Supreme Court, the case was heard in public on 03 April, 2017, Muhirwa and Muhorakeye represented by Counsel Kazungu Jean Bosco, Counsel Bayingana Janvier, Counsel Gasominari Jean Baptiste, Nzeyimana Bertin was represented by Counsel Katushabe Mary, Counsel Shema Gakuba Charles and Counsel Ntaganda Kabare Festo while the Prosecution was represented by Harindintwari Côme. The Court examined the objection of lack of jurisdiction raised by Nzeyimana Bertin. MUHIRWA ET AL v. NZEYIMANA

## Page 189

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 20 II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUE Whether Muhirwa Alexandre and Muhorakeye Grâce’s appeal is not in jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. [8] Counsels for Nzeyimana Bertin state that Muhirwa and Muhorakeye base the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on the element of evidence of the sale contract between Nzeyimana and Mukayaramba Verediyana because it was based on in the ruling whereas they were not aware of it because it was not included in the hearing, rather, that evidence was debated on and it is found on the identification mark 38 of the case file, it is also among the pieces of evidence communicated to the adverse parties by the Court bailiff and communicated to Counsel Rutabingwa Athanase who represented them by Counsel Shema Gakuba Charles. [9] They further argue that the plot of land Nzeyimana Bertin bought from Mukayaramba which registered under No309 is not linked in any way to the plots of land in litigation which are No725 and 301 and that it was not referred to in the ruling of judgment because Nzeyimana used it intending to justify the way he had got his properties located at Gasogi. [10] In addition, they state that there are no damages equivalents to 50,000,000Frw awarded by the Court, and that in the determination of the Courts competence, the amount ordered by the court is considered instead of the amount requested by the parties. They further state that in criminal cases, the penalty imposed determines the competence of the Supreme Court whereas Nzeyimana Bertin was found not guilty and the civil action is based on the criminal one. They explain that although the plaintiffs used the private prosecution procedure, it does not

## Page 190

21 prevent the case to be criminal nature and damages are awarded when one is convicted for an offence, hence the damages should not be considered in determining the jurisdiction of this Court, and instead the will of the legislator should apply. [11] They also find that the case law RPAA0001/15/CS that their adversary want it to give guidance, differs from the present case because it was about the appeal on damages where the accused was not prosecuted for prescriptive reasons, whereas for this case, the accused was found not guilty, hence he cannot be sued for damages. [12] Counsels for Muhirwa and Muhorakeye argue that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is based on article 28 of Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as there is evidence of the sale contract between Nzeyimana and Mukayaramba Verediyana which was used in the ruling of the appealed judgment on page 4 paragraph 6, whereas it was presented to the court after the closure of the hearing because they saw it in the judgment and the fact that his opposing party states that he possesses the document proving that his opposing parties received it, it is not enough because there is no inventory done to demonstrate the content of the book containing that evidence and the burden to prove that the contract was contained in the book lies with Nzeyimana. [13] They further state that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is based on part 7, paragraph 2 of article 28 of the Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 aforementioned, because the embezzled funds equivalent to 1,178,668,446Frw and the value of the money of the classrooms exceeds 50,000,000Frw, and the fact of the absence of contradictory MUHIRWA ET AL v. NZEYIMANA

## Page 191

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 22 positions on the value of the subject matter proves that the parties agreed on it. They added that these comply with the damages sought in the judgment and it is therefore in conformity with the ruling of the judgment RPAA0001/15/CS rendered by this Court on 14 October 2015 as it decided that when the value of damages is under its jurisdiction, the appeal is to be admitted even in case the accused was sentenced to the imprisonment of less than ten years. [14] They argue that Counsels for Nzeyimana Bertin confuses the facts in stating that there is no damages of 50,000,000Frw awarded by the High Court, because the present judgment derives from an action filed by the private prosecution procedure, the monetary value or that of the properties was not disputed because it would have been done by counter expertise, and that Muhirwa and Muhorakeye sued purposely to be awarded damages and this is the reason they appealed the judgment rendered by the Intermediate Court. In addition article 187 of the Law Nº30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure and article 164 of the Organic Law N°51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of courts allow the claimant for damages to appeal with respect to the civil conviction, that the issue is not that Nzeyimana was acquitted, instead, what matters is to consider that Muhirwa and Muhorakeye sued for damages. [15] With regard to the issue raised by the Court, to know how they interpret paragraph 3 of article 28 of the Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 aforementioned, they state that paragraph is common to criminal cases, that it needs to be interpreted as it was done in the judgment RPAA0001/15/CS, and that this paragraph has to conform to the value of the

## Page 192

23 requested damages as the action was not instituted by the prosecution but rather Muhirwa and Muhorakeye. They explained that when an action is filed by private prosecution procedure, there are two parallel actions, but the major aim is civil damages which again are based on the criminal action. [16] The prosecution states that the fact that the appellants filed an action by the private prosecution procedure, it should continue in such way, but that in interest of justice, he finds, basing on article 28 of the Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 aforementioned, this case would not be separated from other criminal cases even if the prosecution did not sue, that in case there are no penalties provided for in the appealed judgment, there is the question to know whether the party could appeal basing on damages; that in case such action is admitted, the issue is where the Court would base the determination of damages whereas there is no criminal action. THE VIEW OF THE COURT [17] Article 28, paragraph two, 3º of the Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court provides that “the Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction over cases heard and decided in the second instance by the High Court, if such cases are based on evidence and submissions presented to court after the closure of hearings yet no application to reopen the matter was made”. [18] In paragraph three, that article provides that in criminal cases, only the penalty that has been provided for shall determine that competence. MUHIRWA ET AL v. NZEYIMANA

## Page 193

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 24 [19] With regard to the element of evidence which the appellants allege that it was presented after the closure of the hearing which constitutes of the sale contract of the plot between Nzeyimana Bertin and Mukayaramba Verediyana, the court finds that the contract is mentioned in paragraph six of the appealed judgment, but it finds that contract (as for other various contracts), are referred to in the defense of Nzeyimana Bertin and his Counsels for the purpose of proving that there are plots of land he bought for himself or bought by his wife. [20] Even if the contract indicated in Nzeyimana Bertin’s defense as well as in the appeal submissions issued by Counsel Shema Gakuba Charles demonstrating that contract is on the appendix 38, the case file shows it was not presented, as the inventory of the appendices attached to those submissions demonstrate that there is no appendix 38 in the case file. The court finds therefore that contract would not be considered as evidence stated in article 28 paragraph two, 3º of the Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 mentioned above, because that article states the evidence presented after the closure of hearing. [21] In addition, apart from the fact that contract would not be considered as evidence presented after closure of hearing as just explained, and it was also not based on in the appealed judgment, as among the grounds that the court based on found from the paragraph 41 of that judgment, that contract is not invoked anywhere because even their users in hearing saying that it is found in paragraph 6 of the judgment, but as has been said, that paragraph concerns Nzeyimana Bertin’s hearings whereas article 28 mentioned above convinces that the evidence must have been used in the ruling of the judgment, hence the

## Page 194

25 evidence constituted of the contract between Mukayaramba Verediyana and Nzeyimana Bertin would not render Muhirwa and Muhorakeye’s appeal to be in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. [22] With regard to the value of money equivalent to 1,178,668,446Frw that the appellants are claiming against Nzeyimana Bertin and it highly exceeds 50,000,000Frw provided for in article 28, paragraph 2,7º of the Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 mentioned above, the Court finds the fact that the case being heard is criminal despite that the claimants sued by private prosecution procedure, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court has to be analyzed pursuant to paragraph 3 of article 28 of the just mentioned Organic Law which provides that only the penalty that has been provided for shall determine the competence, that paragraph implies that neither damages nor the value of the subject matter stated in part 7º of the paragraph 2 of that article are the one to be taken into consideration. [23] The Court further finds the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court would be based on neither what is provided for by article 187 of the Law Nº30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure nor article 164 of the Organic Law N°51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of courts as the appellants argue, because those articles are not linked in any way to the competence of the Supreme Court provided by article 28 (with regard to the ordinary competence) of the Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 cited above. [24] The Court finds, the fact that in the appealed judgment, no penalty was imposed on Nzeyimana Bertin because even the MUHIRWA ET AL v. NZEYIMANA

## Page 195

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 26 penalty of one year sentenced to him on first instance was overruled in appeal after being acquitted, it is understood that the appeal lodged does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as it hears the case in which a convict was sentenced to life imprisonment or to a term of imprisonment of at least ten (10) years if there was serious violation of legal provisions as provided in parts 8º and 9º of the paragraph two of the article 28 of the Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 mentioned above. [25] With regard to the judgment RPAA0001/15/CS rendered by this Court on 14 October, 2015, which the appellants request to be referred to in deciding that Muhirwa and Muhorakeye’s appeal is in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the Court finds that in the ruling of that judgment n the competence of this court based on the article 28 of the Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 mentioned above was not analyzed so that it would be useful in the present judgment. [26] Considering all that have been explained, the court finds that Muhirwa Alexandre and Muhorakeye Grâce’s appeal does not fall under the Supreme Court jurisdiction. III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [27] Finds the objection of lack of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court raised by Muhirwa Alexandre with merit. [28] Decides that Muhirwa Alexandre and Muhorakeye Grâce’s appeal does not fall into the Supreme Court jurisdiction

## Page 196

27 [29] Orders Muhirwa Alexandre and Muhorakeye Grâce to jointly pay Court fees equivalent to 100,000Frw.

MUHIRWA ET AL v. NZEYIMANA

## Page 198

CASES IN MERITS

## Page 200

ADMINISTRATIVE AND LABOR CASES

## Page 202

BAHOZE v. NATIONAL BANK OF RWANDA (B.N.R) [Rwanda HIGH COURT – RADA00159/2016/HC/KIG (Ndahayo, P.J.) December 23, 2016] Administrative law – Disciplinary sanction – Criminal liability – An employee can be given a disciplinary sanction for work related negligence despite being proved innocent by a criminal court – Law N°86/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the general statutes for public service, article 76, 77 and 78. Administrative procedure – Admissibility of a claim – Administrative appeal – An administrative appeal is lodged by a plaintiff requesting for annulment of the administrative decision – Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 336(1). Facts: The appellant was tried and found innocent for the offence of complicity in embezzlement of the government funds by the criminal Court. National Bank of Rwanda (BNR) dismissed her due to negligence for not safeguarding the password of the computer used in the transfer of money from BNR to commercial banks. After she was blacklisted by MIFOTRA , she requested BNR to erase her from that list and she was replied that it was not the one which blacklisted her, rather what it did was just to submit a list of employees who no longer work for it and its cause to MIFOTRA. 33

## Page 203

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 34 She filed a case against BNR in the Intermediate Court alleging that she committed no fault which would have led to her dismissal and later on be black listed. That Court found her claim without merit. She went on and appealed at the High Court arguing that the judge voluntarily disregarded the rulings of the criminal Courts and also her dismissal was unlawful because she was dismissed without sufficient investigation and also the employer made a preconceived conviction and that is the reason why they request for the damages. In its defence, BNR argue that it did not dismiss her because of embezzlement of its funds rather was due to negligence which led to that embezzlement, that negligence is based on exposing the password used in the transfer of money and got used by others. It further argues that it did not commit any fault in submitting the list to MIFOTRA because that is what it was requested to do, and for remuneration of the overtime, it states that the claim should not be admitted because it was raised for the first time in the Court and regarding the damages it finds that she is requesting that BNR be ordered to pay her entitlements, therefore, an administrative appeal should have been lodged separately. In its conclusion it prays to be awarded counsel and procedure fees in addition to what it was awarded in the previous judgment. Held: 1. An employee can be given a disciplinary sanction for work related negligence despite being proved innocent by a criminal court. Therefore, the fact an employee is innocent for

## Page 204

35 the crime of embezzlement does not prevent the employer to sanction her for the fault she committed of exposing the password because it is a gross negligence. 2. A public servant dismissed from work due to gross negligence is put on blacklist of MIFOTRA. 3. An administrative appeal is lodged by a plaintiff requesting for annulment of the administrative decision, therefore, there is no explicit or implicit decision which was taken by BNR regarding the remuneration of overtime which requires for an administrative appeal before filing the claim. 4. Plaintiff must prove a claim and failure to obtain proof he/she loses the case. Appeal lacks merit. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law N°86/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the general statutes for public service, article 76, 77 and 78. Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 336(1). Cases referred to: ELECTROGAZ v. Niwenshuti Nzaramba Valens, RADAA0038/09/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 25/03/2011. Authors Cited: Georges Dupuis, Marie-Josée Guédon et Patrice Chrétien, Droit administratif, 10e édition, page 381. BAHOZE v. NATIONAL BANK OF RWANDA (B.N.R)

## Page 205

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 36 Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] Mrs Bahoze Sifa was an employee of National Bank of Rwanda (BNR) since 14/01/1999 till her dismissal on 24/03/2014. BNR adduce that her dismissal was due to gross negligence of exposing/revealing the password for the computer she used in the payment transfers from BNR to commercial banks according to what BNR is instructed to pay. Its exposure/disclosure abetted Mr Kwisanga Theoneste to embezzle from the Bank as he was convicted by the courts. [2] After her dismissal, Sifa Bahoze, MIFOTRA together with the Public Service Commission requested BNR to provide them with a list of its former employees and the reason why they are longer working, as it always does with even other institutions. Consequently, BNR submitted list which included Sifa Bahoze demonstrating that she was dismissed due to gloss negligence. Basing on that list, MIFOTRA included her on the black list. [3] Mrs Sifa Bahoze later requested BNR to remove her from the black list and BNR responded that it is not the one which blacklisted her, what it did was to submit to MIFOTRA the list of persons who are no longer its employees and the reason why they are no longer working with for it. [4] On the part of Sifa Bahoze, she feels that she committed no fault which would have led to her dismissal and latter on be black listed. Therefore, it is on that background, that Sifa

## Page 206

37 Bahoze sued BNR at the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge. That Court found her claim without merit, thereafter she appealed to the High Court [5] The legal issues to be examined in this case are the following: Whether there is a fault committed by Bahoze Sifa that had to be sanctioned by dismissal. Whether BNR faulted in requesting Bahoze to be black listed. Issue regarding the payment of the extra hours and the other damages requested in this case. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUES [6] Whether there is a fault committed by Bahoze Sifa that had to be sanctioned by dismissal. The Counsel for Bahoze Sifa state that that she committed no fault which would have led to her dismissal. They argue that as indicated in her dismissal letter of Bahoze, BNR stated that she was dismissed due to the fraudulent act whereby Bahoze abetted in the embezzlement of 5,918,500Frw and later 9,789,000Frw. But is should be noted that in criminal cases RP0179/14/TGI/NYGE and RPA0049/HC/KIG, the Courts found Bahoze Sifa innocent in the embezzlement of BNR funds. [7] They continue explaining that the judge willingly disregarded the rulings of the criminal Courts, the grounds for dismissal of Bahoze lacks merit. Therefore, they aver that BNR dismissed Bahoze Sifa without verification or carrying out sufficient inquiry and also made a preconceived conviction and BAHOZE v. NATIONAL BANK OF RWANDA (B.N.R)

## Page 207

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 38 that is the reason why they request for the aforementioned damages. [8] The counsel for BNR alleges that Bahoze Sifa was not dismissed due to embezzlement of BNR funds; rather, she was dismissed due to negligence which led to the embezzlement of that fund. That negligence is because she not do anything to protect her password, which was used in the money transfers from being used by other people. [9] They continue arguing that even the judge in criminal case who cleared her of the offence of complicity of the embezzlement of the government fund also declared that the negligence of Mrs Sifa Bahoze was a loophole in embezzling the fund of BNR. He motivated that if Mrs Sifa Bahoze had protected her password, BNR would not have been embezzled those funds as indicated in paragraph 18 and 19 of the Judgment RPA0049/HC/KIG rendered on 25/06/2015. This is also what is contained in the dismissal letter whereby BNR demonstrated that it dismissed her due to gross negligence. Therefore BNR did not dismiss her because of the offence of embezzlement of the government funds; rather she was dismissed due to her gross negligence which led to embezzlement of the BNR funds. [10] On this ground the High Court also finds as it is indicated in all documents that were written by Mrs Sifa Bahoze she agrees that her name was used in embezzling of the funds and admits that the password she had was the one which was used in embezzling of that money, however insist that her immediate superior deluded her and used it without her notice. [11] Considering that Bahoze Sifa was an employee of Bank with the duty of transferring money, The court finds that in

## Page 208

39 order to discharge this duty conferred to her by BNR, she had to do whatever she could to ensure the safety of that money so that it could not be accessed by those who are not authorised to have access to it. It is in that aspect that she had to protect her computer from being accessed by another person because he could carry out some transactions in her name because it could produce grave consequences whether the loss which her employer may suffer or her personally. [12] The fact that a person who is not Bahoze Sifa succeeded in accessing her computer by using the password of Bahoze Sifa and carried out money transfers operations. It symbolises a grave negligence on the part of Bahoze Sifa which led to that person knowing the password used and consequently embezzle the BNR funds. [13] Therefore, the High Court finds that grave negligence to the extent that it should be qualified as gross negligence which can be a ground for Bahoze Sifa’s dismissal by her employer; thus, BNR’s decision to dismiss her was not contrary to the law because it is also provided for by article 77 of the Law N°86/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the general statutes for public service which provides that if a public servant breaches or fails to comply with the obligations assigned to him/her, this shall constitute a disciplinary fault punishable by one of sanctions provided for in article 76 of this Law in consideration of its seriousness, among those sanctions she shall be sanctioned by those which are provided under article 76 that also includes dismissal. [14] Therefore, the Court finding Mrs Sifa Bahoze innocent of the offence of embezzlement could not bar her employer to sanction her for other work related negligence. This is based on BAHOZE v. NATIONAL BANK OF RWANDA (B.N.R)

## Page 209

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 40 article 74 of the internal regulation of BNR which provides that the disciplinary sanction for an employee of BNR shall not be prevented by a criminal liability and each one is independent. This implies that the fault of an employee may be a fault but not a crime or it can be both a fault and crime at the same time. [15] It is also provided in article 78 of the Law N°86/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the general statutes for public service that the disciplinary sanction of a public servant shall be independent from criminal liability and punishment as provided by the criminal code to the extent that the same fault may cause both disciplinary procedure and criminal procedure. [16] Furthermore it position was also held in the Judgment RADAA0038/09/CS, ELECTROGAZ versus Niwenshuti Nzaramba Valens rendered on 23/03/2011. In that judgment, the Supreme Court held that an employer is not bound by criminal decisions. The Supreme Court relied on the doctrines of law scholars including Georges Dupuis, Marie-Josée Guédon and Patrice Chrétien whereby they argue in their book, Droit administratif, 10e édition, page 381 that “De même, l’autorité disciplinaire n’est pas liée par la décision du juge pénal, sauf lorsque ce dernier s’est prononcé sur l’existence ou l’inexistence de certains faits: ses constatations matérielles s’imposent à l’autorité administrative” which means that an employee is not bound by the decision of criminal judge, unless, when the latter ruled on whether there are acts which make up the faults which the employee is being accused of by the employer.

## Page 210

41 Whether BNR faulted in requesting Bahoze to be blacklisted. [17] Counsel for Bahoze Sifa argues that the judge confused the facts. They explain that after being found innocent by the Courts that is when BNR wrote to MIFOTRA submitting the list of former public servants who were dismissed due to the gross negligence, on that list, it included also Bahoze Sifa and it also went far as indicating the amount she embezzled disregarding that she was found innocent by the Courts on all those offences which BNR accused her. [18] They continue arguing that MIFOTRA compiles and publishes what it was given by various organs and public institutions like BNR. Therefore, MIFOTRA implemented what it was given for by BNR; it was not on its own initiative while Bahoze Sifa did everything possible requesting BNR to instruct MIFOTRA to rectify the list which it submitted but BNR did not comply. Therefore they pray that the appellant Court declares that the conduct of BNR is a gross negligence and awards damages worth 10,000,000Frw to Bahoze Sifa. [19] The Counsel for BNR argue that as it was requested by the Ministry of Public Service, what BNR did was to submit the list of its employees who were dismissed due to various faults, thus those are in breach of the law. [20] The High Court finds that putting Bahoze Sifa on the list made by MIFOTRA of employees who committed faults is not in breach of the law since she committed gross negligence at work as explained above, that negligence was the cause of embezzling the BNR funds, even if she was not found guilty of the offence of embezzling it. BAHOZE v. NATIONAL BANK OF RWANDA (B.N.R)

## Page 211

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 42 The issue concerning the admissibility of the claim for remuneration of overtime. [21] The counsel for BNR argues that the claim for remuneration of the overtime should not have been admitted because it was it was raised for the first time, because Bahoze Sifa raised it before the Court she did not raise it before her employer. Her request is not about damages, rather it is to order BNR to pay her entitlement, and thus, those should have been informally appealed separately. Therefore, the fact that the administrative appeal was not lodged on that issue lenders it inadmissible. [22] Furthermore the counsel for BNR argue that BNR has policy for regulating overtime which demonstrate the requirements to be followed in order to confirm that an employee worked overtime, however for Bahoze Sifa was not the case, therefore, she cannot claim to be remunerated for the overtime she worked. [23] On this ground, the counsel for Bahoze Sifa realises that the claim is admissible because it cannot be separated from the principle claim of unlawful dismissal because even remuneration of the overtime are among the damages which are based on unlawful dismissal, therefore, this should not be a subject of an administrative appeal on its own. [24] The High Court finds that there is no explicit or implicit decision which was taken by BNR regarding the compensation of overtime which it had to pay to Bahoze Sifa to the extent that it would be necessary to first lodge an administrative appeal before filing suing for it as provided by article 336 litera 1 of the Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil,

## Page 212

43 commercial, labour and administrative procedure because the party who lodge an administrative appeal is the one requesting for the annulment of the decision. [25] However, the High Court finds the ground of BNR's defense on the remuneration of the overtime that Bahoze Sifa did not produce substantive evidence for it with merit, because Bahoze Sifa failed to demonstrate that what are contained in the Ordre de Service No18/2001 relatif à la prestation des heures supplémentaires were respected in order to request for the payment of overtime. The basis of the damages requested in this judgment. [26] The counsel for BNR alleges that the previous judge awarded BNR just 500,000Frw in damages. It finds those damages insufficient and it had requested for 2,000,000Frw of procedure fees and counsel fees; therefore the damages it was awarded in that judgment are insufficient. Therefore, BNR prays to this appellate Court to award it those damages it was deprived at first instance while it deserved them. [27] Counsel for Bahoze Sifa states that she is the one who must be awarded damages because BNR dismissed her unlawful. [28] The High Court finds that the counsel for BNR confirms that they were awarded insufficient damages but they do not produce evidence to be based on in confirming that they deserved those damages they request for. However, because this case is on appellate level, the court wards it 250,000Frw in damaged in addition to those awarded in the appealed judgment for dragging BNR into unnecessary lawsuits. BAHOZE v. NATIONAL BANK OF RWANDA (B.N.R)

## Page 213

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 44 III. DECISION OF THE COURT [29] Admits the appeal of Bahoze Sifa. [30] Holds that the appeal lacks merit. [31] Overturns the rulings of the appealed judgment RAD0114/15/TGI/NYGE rendered on 10/05/2016 by the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge. [32] Orders Bahoze Sifa to pay to National Bank of Rwanda (BNR) 250,000Frw in addition to 500,000Frw awarded in appealed judgment for dragging it into unnecessary lawsuits.

## Page 214

INTERSEC SECURITY COMPANY Ltd v. NSENGIYUMVA [Rwanda HIGH COURT – RSOCA0120/15/HC/KIG (Murererehe, P.J.) November 20, 2015] Labour law – Unlawful dismissal – Gross negligence – It is unlawful dismissal when the employer dismisses an employee on the ground of gross negligence without respecting the time limit provided by the law – Gross negligence is a fault committed by the employee that constitutes a breach of the obligations arising from the employment contract or employment relationship to the extent that it lenders it impossible to maintain the employee for the duration of the notice period – Law N°13/2009 of 27/05/2009 regulating labour in Rwanda, article 1 (21), 32. Facts: In 2010, Nsengiyumva concluded an employment contract as a training officer with Intersec Ltd; he was dismissed in 2015 without notice on accusation that he committed a gross negligence of recruiting employees who did not pass the job exam. Nsengiyumva filed a claim at Intermediate Court claiming that he was unlawful dismissed, that Court founds his claim with merit and awarded him the various damages. Intersec Security Company Ltd appealed to the High Court on the ground that the previous Court held that Nsengiyumva was dismissed without respecting the 48 hours provided by the law and moreover they demonstrated that they had to first conduct an inquiry and in addition to that it awarded him damages for unlawfully dismissal, compensation, notice and damages for 45

## Page 215

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 46 being dragged into unnecessary lawsuits which he did not deserve because he was dismissed due to a gross negligence. In his defence, Nsengiyumva argues that he continued to work during the period in which they allege that he committed a gross negligence, if at all he had committed it, he would have been immediately dismissed, regarding the damages he was awarded he argues that they were relevant because the Court found that he was unlawful dismissed, thus he prays that the appealed judgment be upheld. He also filed a cross appeal arguing that the previous Court made an error in adding the damages he was awarded and consequently he was not awarded the full amount and finally he requests to be awarded counsel fees. Concerning the total of damages which was wrongly added up, Intersec Security Company Ltd claims that it is groundless because he did not deserve it in the first place, since he was dismissed due to gross negligence. Regarding the counsel fees, it states that it is the one that deserves it since it was dragged into lawsuits. Held: 1. Gross negligence is a fault committed by the employee that constitutes a breach of obligations arising from the employment contract or employment relationship to the extent that it lenders it impossible to maintain the employee for the duration of the notice period, therefore the fact that Nsengiyumva was dismissed on 04/02/2015 after more than three months working that indicates that an employer did not consider it as a gross negligence. Gross negligence invokes immediate termination of the employment contract within 48 hours, because the employment relationship is no longer impossible, thus Nsengiyumva was unlawful dismissed.

## Page 216

47 2. An employee unlawfully dismissed is awarded various damages that include damages for unlawful dismissal. 3. It is evident that there was an error in the addition of damages, therefore it must be corrected. 4. When the counsel fees requested is excessive it can be awarded in court’s discretion. Appeal lacks merit. Cross appeal has merit. The Court fees deposits cover the expenses. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 9. Law N°13/2009 of 27/05/2009 regulating labour in Rwanda, article 1 (21) and 32. Decree of 30/07/ 1888 relating to contracts or conventional obligations, article 258. Cases referred to: Euro Trade International Sarl v. Rwakirenga Pascal, RSOCAA 0027/11/CS, rendered by the Supreme Court on 13/3/2012. Authors Cited: J.Pélissier, A.Supiot and A.Jeammaud, Droit du Travail, 22 éd., Paris, 2004, p.612.

INTERSEC SECURITY COMPANY Ltd v. NSENGIYUMVA

## Page 217

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 48 Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] On 17 March 2010 Nsengiyumva entered into an employment contract with Intersec for the post of training officer, until 2015 when he was dismissed without notice on allegation that he committed a gross negligence, which he did not commit. In the judgment RSOC0026/15/TGI/GSBO, the Intermediate Court of Gasabo found the claim of Nsengiyumva with merit on some grounds and held that he was unlawful dismissed, hence it ordered Intersec to pay damages worth 2,401,800Frw and reimburse 50,000Frw he deposited for court fees. [2] Intersec was not satisfied with the rulings and consequently appealed to this Court, Counsel Kayihura Didace and Kalimba, representing Intersec argue that their ground of appeal is the Court holding that Nsengiyumva was not dismissed within 48 hours despite the fact that they proved to the court that they had to first conduct the inquiries and also that Nsengiyumva was awarded various damages whereas he was not unfairly dismissed because he was dismissed due to a gross negligence. [3] Counsel Kazayire, assisting Nsengiyumva submit that the appeal lacks merit because Nsengiyumva was not in charge of supervising exams because he was a training officer and also that he continued working even during the period they allege that he committed that a gross negligence which would not be the case because he would have been immediately dismissed; he

## Page 218

49 prays that the appealed judgment be upheld. He also raise a cross appeal on the ground that the Court erred in adding up the total of the damages and consequently it awarded him insufficient damages and he also requests that his client be awarded the counsel fees. [4] The following issues will be examined in this judgment : The issue of the Court holding that Nsengiyumva was not dismissed within 48 hours despite demonstrating before it that inquires had to be conducted first. The issue of damages awarded to Nsengiyumva despite not having been unfairly dismissed, because he was dismissed due to a gross negligence. Cross appeal The issue of the Court awarding him insufficient damages due to error in adding up the sum. Whether Nsengiyumva should be awarded the counsel fees II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUES The issue of the Court holding that Nsengiyumva was not dismissed within 48 hours despite demonstrating before it that they had to first carry out an investigation. [5] Counsel Kayihura Didace and Kalimba Daniel state that the Court held that the time limit of the 48 hours were not respected, while the committee made a report on 3 January 2015 indicating the staffs who committed the fault of recruiting employees who did not pass the exam and submitted to the Intersec administration, which also took a decision of INTERSEC SECURITY COMPANY Ltd v. NSENGIYUMVA 30 January 2015

## Page 219

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 50 dismissing them on 03 February 2015 and Nsengiyumva was dismissed on 4 February 2015 after an inquiry into a gross negligence of the fraudulent recruitment he committed. The Court disregarded that the investigation was carried out purposely to collect evidence proving that he received that bribe and also expose those that Nsenguyimva recruited who were not qualified, this conduct constitutes a gross negligence, thus the time limit was respected. [6] Kazayire, the counsel for Nsenguyumva argues that the latter was not in charge of supervising exams because he was a training officer. And it is also not true that the fault was committed on 03rd because the list indicates that he conducted the training on 10th, and also that he continued working even during the period they allege that he committed that gross negligence which would not be the case because he would have been immediately dismissed. She further argues that the cited committee report of 30 January 2015 even though it was presented for the first time, it is of no use to them because they fabricated it with the purpose to dismiss him, therefore there is no gloss negligence committed and even if it was committed the time limit of 48 hours were not respected. [7] Article 32 of the Law N°13/2009 of 27/05/2009 regulating labour in Rwanda provides that “any termination of contract without notice or without having observed the notice period compels the responsible party to pay the other party an allowance corresponding to the salary and other benefits from which the worker would have benefited during the notice period that has not been effectively respected. However, a termination of contract may take place without notice in the case of gross

## Page 220

51 negligence by one of the parties. In that case, gross negligence is notified to the other party within forty-eight (48) hours” [8] The Court finds that the alleged lists on which the non- shortlisted candidates were included was made on 1/10/2014, and this is what the employer considers as a gross negligence because Nsengiyumva included on the list the candidates who did not pass the exam after receiving a bribe, nonetheless as it was motivated in first instance, Nsengiyumva was dismissed on 04/02/2015 after spending more than three months working, therefore, this implies that the employer did not consider it as a gross negligence because a gross negligence instantly terminates the contract between the employee and the employer, since their employment relationship is no longer possible as explained by the law scholars that “serious (gross) negligence is an act or set of acts imputable to the employee that constitutes a breach of the obligations arising from the employment contract or labor relations of such importance that it lenders it impossible to maintain the employee during the notice period”1 and it was also explained by the judgment RSOCAA0027/11/CS rendered by the Supreme Court whereby it ruled that the gross negligence is a grave fault which lenders the relationship between employer and employee impossible to the extent that it has to be terminated without waiting for the expiration of the contract 2. [9] Therefore, the fact that Intersec claims that it dismissed Nsengiyumva due to gross negligence but the employee remained in service demonstrates that there was procedural

1 J.Pélissier, A.Supiot et A. Jeammaud, Droit du Travail, 22 éd., Paris, 2004, p.612. 2 Supreme Court, judgment, RSOCAA 0027/11/CS, Euro Trade International S.a.r.l in the name of its representer v. Rwakirenga Pascal, p.6, 13/3/2012. INTERSEC SECURITY COMPANY Ltd v. NSENGIYUMVA

## Page 221

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 52 impropriety in the termination of his employment contract because the gross negligence is notified to the employee within 48 hours, which was not the case for Nsengiyumva because after 1/10/2014 on which the said lists which included those who did not pass the exam was done, remained in service; thus, this signifies that the employer did not consider it as a gross negligence since it would have immediately terminated the employment contract. This is the reason why the Court finds that his employment contract was unlawfully terminated. [10] The counsel for Intersec state that the reason Nsengiyumva was not immediately dismissed was because they had to first carry out the investigation which was concluded by the management meeting on 03/02/2015; that decided to dismiss him on 04/02/2015, therefore the time limit of 48 hours was respected. [11] The Court findings the statements of Intersec with no merit because a gross negligence as explained by the law scholars is a grave fault which lenders the relationship between the employee and employer impossible and have to be terminated immediately. Therefore accordingly this Court finds that when Intersec realised that it had to first carry out an inquiry, it had not to exceed the 48 hours to notify the employee about it thus spending over three months on the basis that it was still carrying out the inquiry, the court should not rely on it to consider it a gross negligence because the legal procedure were violated. The reason it is called gross negligence is because the committed fault is so grave to the extent that the employer could not continue to relate with the employee, but if the Intersec kept working with Nsengiyumva for more than those three months it means that his fault was not taken as a gross negligence since

## Page 222

53 not every faults at work is considered as gross negligence. And also to allege that after carrying out the investigation there was a management meeting on 03/02/2015 in which it was decided to dismiss him and he was effectively dismissed on 04/02/2015, this Court finds that those should have been done immediately after realising that the employee committed that gross negligence, but the fact that they waited for that period without proving that it is the management meeting which had to confirm that gross negligence so that he be temporary suspended in order to wait for that meeting which should also not take long like this without making a decision. Consequently, the grounds of Intersec lack merit. [12] Basing on the motivations above, the Court is of the view that if at all Nsengiyumva was dismissed due to gross negligence the time limit of 48 hours in which he should have notified of that gross negligence had to be respected, since it was not complied with that is why it is considered that he was unlawfully dismissed as provided by article 1(21) of the Law N°13/2009 of 27/05/2009 regulating labour in Rwanda which states that unfair dismissal is the termination of employment contract by the employer without justifiable reason or observance of procedures established by law. [13] On the issue concerning gross negligence in this case, the counsel for Intersec argue that Nsengiyumva was dismissed due to gross negligence which resulted from receiving a bribe and falsification of the document at the time he supervised the exam and included those who obtained 0 marks on the list of those qualified for the job. In his defence, Nsengiyumva argue that he working as a training officer not as an exam supervisor. INTERSEC SECURITY COMPANY Ltd v. NSENGIYUMVA

## Page 223

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 54 [14] The Court finds that as indicated by the employment contract, Nsengiyumva was a training officer for the new recruits. Therefore, the Court finds that the allegation that he supervised the exam and included those who failed the exam on the list groundless, because Intersec does not produce evidence to prove it even the exam copies of those who failed does not indicate that it was Nsengiyumva who supervised that exam and even there is no administrative document to prove that he was the one put in charge of supervision, so that it can be established that he was the one who included them on the list, because it is obvious that it was not in his duties. In addition to that also to allege that in his testimony of 8/1/2015, he agreed that he used to supervise exams, it is different from the exams which Intersec is talking about because in that document he demonstrated that when he was training the newly recruited personnel he gave them an exam and found out that eighteen (18) of them are illiterate, which is different because he did not supervise the job examination rather he conducted a training for those who were already put on the recruitment list and it is at this juncture that he indicated that he notified the Deputy operations, who asked him his hidden motivation as they were already recruited, therefore this emphasises that they did not produce evidence proving that Nsengiyumva was one who recruited those who failed the exam because it is not among his responsibilities. [15] Furthermore, the allegation that Nsengiyumva was bribed in order to recruit those who failed exams and also falsified the document, the court finds that they did not produce any evidence proving the modalities he received that bribe or falsified the document, especially that during his interrogation on 1/06/2015 after her dismissal he never admitted what he was being questioned that he recruited some people who were not

## Page 224

55 qualified after receiving a bribe, he denied all those allegations and demonstrated that he never recruited any employee as there is a committee in charge of that and after recruiting them their files were kept in HR Officer, he only remained with the list of those confirmed by the committee in charge of recruitment, who are the ones he trained. Therefore Intersec’s allegations are groundless because they are not substantiated as article 9 of Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure which provides that every plaintiff must prove a claim. [16] The Court further notes that those elements which Intersec alleges that constitute a gross negligence comprising of receiving a bribe and falsification of the document which are offences punishable by Rwanda criminal laws however they do not demonstrate that Nsengiyumva was prosecuted and convicted of those offences, in order to be relied on as an evidence proving that a gross negligence was indeed committed. Therefore, the fact that there is no judgment convicting him of those crimes, also emphases that gross negligence was not substantiated. [17] Therefore, the Court finds that besides the procedural flaw in the dismissal of Nsengiyumva due to the gross negligence as motivated above, when he continued working after accusing him of gross negligence for over a period of three months, on which the court based its ruling that the 48 hours were not respected, also the Intersec do not have evidence to support the alleged gross negligence as it was motivated above, hence this ground of appeal lacks merit. INTERSEC SECURITY COMPANY Ltd v. NSENGIYUMVA

## Page 225

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 56 The issue of damages awarded to Nsengiyumva despite not having been unfairly dismissed, because he was dismissed due to a gross negligence. [18] Counsel Kayihura Didace and Kalimba Daniel argue that Nsengiyumva was awarded damages for unlawful dismissal, compensation, notice and those for being dragged unnecessary into lawsuits despite the fact that they proved that his dismissal was due to a gross negligence he committed, thus those damages should not have been awarded. [19] Kazayire, the counsel for Nsengiyumva states that those damages are relevant since the Court found that he was unlawfully dismissed. [20] The Court finds that the damages for unfair dismissal, compensation, notice and those for being dragged into lawsuits awarded to Nsengiyumva are pertinent since the Court found that he was unlawfully dismissed and this Court finds the same; therefore, he had to be awarded damages resulting from that dismissal as are provided by the labor law. [21] With regards to the issue that he claimed for 450,000Frw in damages for unfair dismissal but instead the Court awarded him 1,200,000Frw which exceeds what he prayed for; the Court finds that is not true because in his additional submission he indicated that he is requesting for damages worth 1,813,800Frw which is equivalent to his salary multiplied six times, but the Court awarded him damages equivalent to his salary multiplied 4 times which is 1,209,200Frw, therefore, the damages he was awarded were conformity with article 33 of the aforementioned labour law, thus their arguments are groundless.

## Page 226

57 Cross appeal The issue of the Court awarding him insufficient damages due to wrong addition of the total amount. [22] Kazayire, the counsel for Nsengiyumva states that the Court miscalculated the total amount of the awarded damages and consequently was given little amount because he was supposed to be given 2,513,800Frw instead of 2,401,800Frw, which should be rectified. [23] Counsel Kayihura Didace and Kalimba Daniel argue that the claim should not be considered since the damages he was awarded had no basis because he was dismissed due to a gross negligence. [24] The Court finds merit in the arguments of Nsengiyumva because the damages he was awarded are 1,209,200Frw, for unfair dismissal, 302,300Frw for compensation, 302,300Frw for notice and 700,000Frw of the procedural and counsel fees all amounting to 2,513,800Frw instead of 2,401,800Frw, it is obvious that the Court wrongly added the total, therefore it should be rectified so that Nsengiyumva be awarded all damages worth 2,513,800Frw instead of 2,401,800Frw. Whether Nsengiyumva should be awarded counsel fees. [25] Kazayire, the counsel for Nsengiyumva argues that he should be awarded counsel fees worth 800,000Frw. [26] CounselKayihura Didace and Kalimba Daniel state that instead Intersec should be the one awarded damages because it was dragged into lawsuits. INTERSEC SECURITY COMPANY Ltd v. NSENGIYUMVA

## Page 227

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 58 [27] The Court finds that the appeal of Intersec has no merit and Nsengiyumva hired the service of the counsel. it is the reason why his claim should be granted basing on article 258 of the Civil code book III which provides that “any act of man, which causes damage to another obliges the person by whose fault it happened to repair it”, however, it awards 500,000Frw in the discretion of the Court on this instance of appeal because the amount he requests is excessive. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [28] Finds the appeal of INTERSEC SECURITY COMPANY Ltd in the name of its managing director without merit. [29] Holds that the cross appeal of Nsengiyumva Ndekezi J. Damascene has merit. [30] Overturns in part the appealed Judgment RSOC0026/15/TGI/GSBO. [31] Orders that the total amount of the damages which Nsengiyumva Ndekezi J.Damascene should be paid is 2,513,800Frw instead of 2,401,800Frw as had been held at the first instance. [32] Orders INTERSEC SECURITY COMPANY to pay 500,000Frw of the counsel fees on the appeal level to Nsengiyumva Ndekezi J. Damascene. [33] Holds that the Court fees deposits covers the expenses of the case.

## Page 228

CIVIL CASE

## Page 230

HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE ET AL (2) [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCAA0009/14/CS (Mugenzi, P.J., Gatete and Karimunda, J.) July 21, 2017] Family law – Matrimonial regime – Whatever the matrimonial regime chosen and the management modalities of the patrimony of the spouses, the consent of both spouses shall be required for the donation of a personal immovable property and of any other property in the community, as well as for the acknowledgement of any right attached to these properties – Law N°22/99 of 12/11/1999 to supplement book one of the civil code and to institute part five regarding matrimonial regimes, liberalities and successions, article 21. Law governing contracts – Sale – Annulment of the contract – The sale of third party's property is void; it may give rise to damages where the buyer has not known that the thing belonged to third party – Decree Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or conventional obligations, articles 33 and 276. Law governing contracts – Bad faith – The burden of proof of bad faith – Good faith is always presumed and the burden of proof of the bad faith relies on the one who alleges it – Decree Law 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or conventional obligations, article 650. Law governing contracts – Sale – Effects of eviction of the buyer – In case of eviction of the purchaser, the seller must restitute of the price – Decree Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or conventional obligations, article 306. 61

## Page 231

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 62 Evidence Law – Burden of proof – Every plaintiff must prove a claim – Law N°15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 3. Facts: Mirimo concluded a house sale contract with Habiyakare on the price of 80,000,000Frw in order to pay the loan he owed to the bank. Gahongayire, who is legally married to Mirimo, filed the case to the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge whereby she requested it to revoke that contract alleging that she was not notified of its conclusion whereas the sold house belongs to the household. This Court revoked the contract and ordered the restitution of the purchased house into the property of Gahongayire and Mirimo and be managed by the latter who was also ordered to pay its price of 80,000,000Frw to Habiyakare. Mirimo and Habiyakare lodged an appeal to the High Court alleging that Gahongayire was aware of the conclusion of the contract and that the house was sold in the interest of the household, therefore they prayed the Court to uphold the contract and if it finds otherwise, to order the couple of Mirimo and Habiyakare to pay the current value of the house at the time of the trial amounting to 347,782,150Frw. Gahongayire responds that the house was not sold in the interest of the household because Mirimo sold it in secret while he was not cohabiting with Gahongayire and without notifying her and that she never knew the existence of the loan which was being paid as well as attached property thereto. The High Court upheld the ruling and ordered Mirimo to pay Habiyakare 80,000,000Frw only of the price of acquisition of the house which was agreed upon in the contract and that

## Page 232

63 Gahongayire could not be held responsible of the contract in which she did not take part. Habiyakare appealed to the Supreme Court whereby he sued Mirimo and Gahongayire alleging that the property was sold in the interest of the household in order to reimburse the loan Mirimo owed to the BCR and indeed, that land was solely recorded in his names. He alleges in addition that if the High Court finds otherwise, he should be awarded the value of the house established by the valuation report. Meanwhile Habiyakare initiated a claim to Commercial Court advancing that at the time of purchase of the house involved in the contract, the goodwill was also included. However, this Court transferred the case to the Supreme Court in order to be tried jointly with his appeal judgment. Before the trial of the case, Mirimo died and the issue to determine the person who should succeed the proceeding arose. Concerning this issue, the Supreme Court decided that the trial between Mirimo and Gahongayire closed subsequent to the death, therefore, the Supreme Court held that Gahongayire should continue with the case on the disputes between Mirimo and Habiyakare on one hand and those between her and Habiyakare on the other hand. Held: 1. The sale by Mirimo of the co-owned property with his legally married spouse without mutual agreement is the ground to revoke the contract and the purchased property should be taken back into the household property which was entitled to Gahongayire subsequent to the death of Mirimo. However, Habiyakare should be awarded compensation given that he bought in good faith. HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE ET AL (2)

## Page 233

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 64 2. It is the obligation of Gahongayire who has been given back the house to reimburse 80,000,000Frw of its price to Habiyakare. 3. The fact that Habiyakare paid the price of the house amounting to 80,000,000Frw without being handed the house or being paid back the amount he would have invested for a period of 3265 days, resulted into the loss which should be repaired and compensation is computed on basis of interest rate of 8,75% awarded by commercial banks for money deposits. Therefore, he should be awarded 63,486,111Frw. 4. No evidence is produced by Habiyakare to support the allegations in relation to the payment of 36,000,000Frw and additional 30,000USD for goodwill acquisition as mentioned in the court submissions before Commercial Court and the payment slips found in the case file that he alleges would be relied on; do not indicate the purpose of money deposit effected on the account of Mirimo. Appeal with merit. Cross-appeal without merit. Sale contract revoked. Court fees to the respondent. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Decree Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or conventional obligations, articles 33, 276, 306 and 650. Law N°22/99 of 12/11/1999 to supplement book one of the civil code and to institute part five regarding matrimonial regimes, liberalities and successions, article 21. Law No15/2004 of 12/06/2004 on evidence and its production, article 3.

## Page 234

65 Case referred to: Busingye v. Mukarushema, RCAA0029/12/CS delivered by the Supreme Court on 08 March 2013, Law report, Booklet 3, No18, p.54. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] Gahongayire Winnifrida, spouse of Mirimo, initiated a claim to the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge, whereby she requested the cancellation of the sale contract of the house located on plot No4593/Kicukiro concluded between Habiyakare Robert and Mirimo Gaspard on 26 June 2008 on price of 80,000,000Frw transferred to the account of Mirimo open in BCR (I&M Bank) for the payment of the loan he owed this bank because this contract was concluded without her knowledge. [2] In the case RC0249/12/TGI/NYGE, the court cancelled the said contract and ordered hand back the sold house into the co-owned property of Gahongayire and Mirimo and that it will be managed by the latter, who should also reimburse 80,000,000Frw of the price of the house to Habiyakare. [3] Mirimo and Habiyakare lodged an appeal to the High Court alleging that the contract in dispute should remain valid given that Gahongayire was aware of its conclusion and that the house was sold in the interest of the household but that in case the cancellation is envisaged, the family of Mirimo and HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE ET AL (2)

## Page 235

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 66 Gahongayire should jointly pay the value of the house of 347,782,150Frw as indicated by valuators to Habiyakare. [4] In the case RCA0566/012 - RCA0581/012/HC, the High Court upheld the appealed judgment, therefore that Habiyakare should be paid 80,000,000Frw agreed in the contract and pursuant to article 263 of the civil code book III but that Gahongayire should not be held liable for the contract she was not engaged in. [5] The High Court explained that nothing indicates that Gahongayire was aware of the existence of the said contract or that the house was sold in the interest of the household, rather the sale was done to embezzle the property of the family as evidenced by cases initiated by Gahongayire whereby she was requesting the cancellation of the security over the said house from attached assets to secure the loan she was not aware of and that Habiyakare should be paid the price mentioned in the contract. [6] Habiyakare appealed to the Supreme Court suing Mirimo and Gahongayire whereby he requested the Court to consider the property in dispute to have been sold in the interest of the household because it was meant to reimburse the loan Mirimo owed BCR which was taken for family matters and that he bought it with the knowledge that it belonged to Mirimo only as indicated by the land title but that in case the Court finds otherwise, he should be awarded 347,782,150Frw, the value determined by the valuation report pursuant to article 310 of civil code book III, 2,000,000Frw of being dragged into unnecessary proceedings and 1,000,000Frw of counsel fees, the total being 3,000,000Frw.

## Page 236

67 [7] Habiyakare filed also a claim to Nyarugenge Commercial Court whereby he requested the resolution of the sale contract concluded on 26 June 2008 and be reimbursed 347,782,150Frw of the current value of the house, the value of the goodwill amounting to 30,000,000Frw and 30,000USD he alleged to have paid Mirimo, 20% of interests on the sum of these amounts from 30 July 2008 until the full payment as well as moral damages amounting to 20,000,000Frw. The Commercial Court realised that the case at hand RCOM0852/14/TC/NYGE is related to the trial RCAA0009/14/CS initiated to the Supreme Court, therefore it transferred it to the Supreme Court in order for both judgments to be joined and heard together. [8] Concerning the objection of lack of jurisdiction which was raised by the counsel for Gahongayire whereby he requested the inadmissibility of the claim of Habiyakare arguing that he lost the case on similar grounds before both the Commercial Court and Commercial High Court; the Supreme Court dismissed this objection on 19 February 2006 and the hearing of the case resumed on 22 November 2016 and 14 December 2016 whereby the issue for determination consists of who should pursue the proceedings after the death of Mirimo who was one of the parties. [9] On 03 February 2017, the Supreme Court decided that the judgment between Mirimo and Gahongayire closed due to the death of Mirimo therefore the case should be pursued by Gahongayire on claims of Habiyakare vis-a-vis Mirimo on one hand and claims of Gahongayire vis-a-vis Habiyakare on the other hand. HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE ET AL (2)

## Page 237

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 68 [10] The hearing of the case resumed on different dates and it was held at the last time on 28 June 2017, Habiyakare Robert represented by Counsel Munyangabe Henri Pierre while Gahongayire Winnifrida was represented by Niyomugabo Christophe and Rubasha Herbert. The Court decided first to join the case RCOM0852/14/TC/NYGE with that of RCAA0009/14/CS because they are related. II. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION A. Whether the sale contract concluded between Habiyakare and Mirimo should be considered valid and consequently Habiyakare be awarded the house he bought. [11] Counsel Munyangabe Henry Pierre representing Habiyakare states that the previous Courts should have been confirmed that the house at plot No4593/Kicukiro was sold in the interest of the household because 80,000,000Frw contributed to the payment of the loan Mirimo owed to the BCR for family activities even though it was only Mirimo who was mentioned on the title of the house. [12] Gahongayire and her Counsel Niyomugabo Christophe, argue that the house was not sold in the interest of the household because Mirimo sold it confidentially while he was in separation with Gahongayire without informing her and this is indicated by cases Gahongayire initiated against her husband whereby she was requesting the cancellation of the security over attached properties without her knowledge and that she was not even aware of the loan which was meant to be paid to BCR, therefore she could not even know securities furnished for that.

## Page 238

69 [13] They pursue that the sale contract should remain cancelled as decided by previous Courts, therefore the house remaining into the custody of Gahongayire especially that Habiyakare did not do any modification on it since he was not even awarded it. They add that even though Gahongayire is the one who succeeded the obligations of Mirimo, she should not be held liable for acts which were done in unlawful way. [14] Counsel Rubasha Herbert who also represents Gahongayire argues that the law was not followed because Mirimo behaved like someone who was not legally married because he ought to inform Habiyakare that he was married, therefore pursuant to article 51 of the law No45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, the said contract should not be considered valid and Gahongayire continues to administer the property in accordance to article 6 of the Law No27/2016 of 08/07/2016 on matrimonial regimes, liberalities and succession. OPINION OF THE COURT [15] Article 21 of the Law N°22/99 of 12/11/1999 to supplement book I of the civil code and to institute part five regarding matrimonial regimes, liberalities and successions which was into force at the time of the sale by Mirimo states that “Whatever be the matrimonial regime chosen and the management modalities of the patrimony of the spouses, the agreement of both spouses shall be required for the donation of a personal immovable property and of any other property in the community, as well as for the acknowledgement of any right attached to these properties”. HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE ET AL (2)

## Page 239

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 70 [16] Concerning whether Gahongayire was notified of the mentioned contract, the Court notes that as decided by previous Courts, there is neither signature of her wife Gahongayire was affixed to the contract of 26 June 2008 concluded between Habiyakare and Mirimo for the purchase of the house at plot No593/Kicukiro nor any other evidence was produced by Habiyakare or Mirimo when he was still alive proving that Gahongayire was notified about the sale of the concerned property and she did not ratify it later especially that she decided to initiate a claim, therefore it is clear that Mirimo sold the co-owned immovable property without informing her spouse which is in violation of the provision of article 21 of the stated Law N°22/99. Consequently, pursuant to article 33 of civil code book III which provides that contracts may only be revoked (…) for reasons based on law this contract should be revoked. [17] As far as the fact that the property was sold in the interest of the household is concerned, the Court finds that as explained by previous Courts, no evidence in support of it was produced because, though the amount of 80,000,000Frw was deposited on the account of Mirimo in BCR for the payment of loan he owed to it, but the statements of Gahongayire that she did not know about the loan and what it was meant for, were not refuted and this is supported by cases Gahongayire initiated in a bid to indicate that she never knew about the loan awarded and to cancel the attachment on the properties furnished without her knowledge. She argues also that no reliable reason would lead Mirimo to do anything in the interest of the household without consent of his wife. [18] Concerning whether Habiyakare bought the house in bad faith, the Court establishes that the finding of the lease contract

## Page 240

71 NoL4156 issued on 15 March 2001 by former the City of Kigali Prefecture, the said property was registered in the names of Mirimo only and it is not yet indicated any other way Habiyakare would know if this sold property was in dispute, especially that the contract was signed before the notary1 and it contains a provision which states that the payment of the loan owed by Mirimo was meant to be effected on the account of BCR. Therefore it was his duty to inform his wife about the stated sale. [19] The Court finds that the statements of Gahongayire and her advocates that Habiyakare bought with bad faith are not supported by evidence while the burden of proof of the bad faith relies on the one who alleges it2, as provided for by article 650 of civil code book III which states that: “Good faith is always presumed, and it is for anyone who alleges bad faith to prove it”. [20] The Court finds therefore that following the explanations stated above, the fact that Mirimo sold the property he jointly own with his spouse without the consent of all partners, this renders the contract voidable and the purchased house should be returned back into co-owned property of which Gahongayire took full enjoyment after the death of Mirimo. However, Habiyakare who purchased with good faith should be awarded damages in compliance with article 276 of the above stated law

1The purchase contract was signed in the presence of Notary (Page 12 in the file before Commercial Court). 2The explanations that the burden of proof relies on he/she who alleges the bad faith were provided in the judgment RCAA0029/12/CS delivered on 08 March 2013, Busingye Pascaline against Mukarushema Epiphrodosie, Law report, Booklet 3, No18, p.54. HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE ET AL (2)

## Page 241

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 72 which provides that “the sale of third party's property is void; it may give rise to damages where the buyer has not known that the thing belonged to third party”. B. Whether Gahongayire should pay some damages to Habiyakare. a. Concerning the value of the house which Habiyakare requests to be reimbursed. [21] Habiyakare states that in case he is not awarded the house he acquired; he should be reimbursed by Gahongayire 80,000,000Frw of the price he paid plus the value added amounting to 267,782,150Frw, because he purchased without bad faith and the money paid formed part of the property co- owned by Murimo and Gahongayire, who got entitled to it after the decease of Mirimo. He argues that he deserves to be paid the current value of the house because even though he did not renovate it, its value increases with time therefore he requests an amount of 347,782,150Frw. [22] Gahongayire and Counsel Niyomugabo Christophe state that Habiyakare and Mirimo concluded a contract unlawfully therefore he cannot at turn request for damages and that Gahongayire should not be held liable of unlawful acts. They state in addition that no modifications were made on the house by Habiyakare to increase the value as alleged it was not handed to him after the conclusion of the contract. FINDINGS OF THE COURT [23] The Court finds that due to the fact that Habiyakare paid 80,000,000Frw to purchase a house as indicated by the

## Page 242

73 document of the contract of 26/6/2018, while it is also impossible to be awarded it because the sale contract is not in compliance with the law as explained above, Habiyakare should be paid back the sum of money by Gahongayire who became entitled to the whole property she co-owned with Mirimo, who was paid that amount. This being said, the revocation of the contract as explained above, entails the house comes back into the ownership of Gahongayire, therefore the non-reimbursement of its price would constitute an impoverishment of Habiyakare and subsequently the enrichment of Gahongayire. [24] The Court finds that since the contract concluded between Habiyakare and Mirimo infringed the Laws, it entails its revocation as explained above, but given that Gahongayire is handed back the house; she should pay back its price to Habiyakare who had bought it with good faith as provided for by article 306 of civil code book III3. [25] Regarding whether Habiyakare would be compensated 347,782,150Frw which he alleges to be the current value of the house according to the established valuation, the Court considers that it should not be considered because as raised by his counsel, the house had never been handed to him and no renovation was made on it, therefore the fact that he paid the price from long ago does not constitute a reason for requesting the value added while he never owned it nor renovated it.

3This provision states that “In the same case of stipulation of non-guarantee, the seller, in case of eviction, is held to the restitution of the price, unless the purchaser knew at the time of the sale the danger of the eviction, or that he did buy at his perils and risks”. HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE ET AL (2)

## Page 243

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 74 [26] The Court finds in contrary that given that Habiyakare paid 80,000,000Frw in order to acquire the house which he did not receive from a long time nor reimbursed the amount which he would spend for other things; this entails that he incurred a loss which should be repaired, therefore damages should be awarded on the basis placement interest of 8,75% awarded by commercial banks for money deposits4, therefore, for a period of 3265 days from 26 June 2008, the date of the conclusion of the contract, till 21 July 2017, the date of the delivery of the judgment, Habiyakare should be paid compensation calculated as follow: 80.000.000Frw x 3265days x 8,75 360 x 100 = 63.486.111Frw. b. Regarding 36,000,000Frw and 30,000USD alleged by Habiyakare to have paid for the “goodwill”. [27] Habiyakare states that he acquired the goodwill attached to the house he bought at the price of 36,000,000Frw and 30,000USD without indicating any written contract because it was concluded verbally and mutual agreement as traders. He continues that there exist various payment slips indicating that he used to deposit some money to the bank account of Mirimo, who when still alive, admitted to have received the money and in the letter dated 15 April 2011, the latter admitted the transfer of the land, which was hindered by the fact that he was not yet delivered the tax clearance certificate by Rwanda Revenue Authority. [28] Gahongayire and her Counsel Niyomugabo as well as Counsel Rubasha, argue that Habiyakare does not produce evidence of the payment of the money alleged to have been paid for the goodwill nor indicate the purpose of it particularly that

4 www.imbank.com, consulted on 21st July 2017.

## Page 244

75 since the sale contract of the house was made in writing, nothing was likely to prevent the inclusion of the clause relating to the purchase of the goodwill and indeed, the alleged deposit slips do not indicate the payment in relation to it. FINDINGS OF THE COURT [29] The Court considers that pursuant to article 3 of the Law No15/2004 of 12/06/2004 on evidence and its production which provides that each party should prove his/her allegations, it is the duty of Habiyakare who alleges to have paid Mirimo 36,000,000Frw and 30,000USD for the purchase of the goodwill as mentioned in the case submission document before the Commercial Court, to provide reliable evidence. However, he does not indicate the supporting evidence of that purchase and even the payment slip found in the file do not indicate the purpose of the payment to the account of Mirimo. [30] The Court finds in addition that since the first contract was concluded in writing, no reason is advanced to substantiate the fact that the said contract relating to the goodwill was not made in the same form with the first; therefore that amount should not be compensated while it is not indicated that it was paid nor its purpose. Consequently, Habiyakare should not be awarded them because he did not provide evidence thereto. c. With regard to procedural and counsel fees. [31] Counsel Munyangabe states that Habiyakare should be awarded damages amounting to 2,000,000Frw for unnecessary proceedings initiated against him as well as 1,000,000Frw of counsel fees. HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE ET AL (2)

## Page 245

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 76 [32] Gahongayire and her counsels state that she should not be ordered to pay any damages because the opponent made mistakes by infringing the laws at the time of purchase. In the court submission of cross-appeal by Counsel Niyomugabo Christophe, he had requested 2,000,000Frw of counsel fees while in the hearing, Gahongayire requested 10,000,000Frw for being dragged into unnecessary proceedings and 5,000,000Frw of counsel fees. FINDINGS OF THE COURT [33] The Court considers that pursuant to article 258 of civil code book III which provides that the person that causes prejudice to another obliges the one whose fault caused prejudice to repair the damage, Habiyakare who acquired the property from Mirimo which he jointly owns with his wife Gahongayire who was not notified by him resulted in dragging him into lawsuits and he incurred expenses for their follow up and payment of counsel fees for three instance of proceedings, therefore he deserves to be awarded compensation by Gahongayire who became entitled to the property she co-owned with Mirimo5, because she is responsible for the effects of the contract concluded by the deceased in his lifetime, but since Habiyakare failed to demonstrate modalities of computation of 2,000,000Frw of procedural fees he requests, he should be awarded 1,000,000Frw under the discretion of the court as well

5Article 8, paragraph 2 of the Law No31/2016 of 01/08/2016 governing matrimonial regimes “where dissolution of such a regime occurs due to death of one of the spouses, the property is owned by the surviving spouse until succession execution”, while article 52, paragraph 3 of the same law provides that succession for spouses opens when they both decease or in case one of them remarries, unless otherwise provided by law.

## Page 246

77 as 1,000,000Frw of counsel fees as requested since the amount is in range. [34] In conclusion, as previously explained, apart from 80,000,000Frw of the price of the house Gahongayire is obliged to pay in compensation to Habiyakare, she should also pay him interests emanating from that sum of money amounting to 63,486,111Frw, 1,000,000Frw of procedural fees and 1,000,000Frw for counsel fees, the total being one hundred forty-five million, four hundred eighty-six thousand, one hundred eleven (145,486,111Frw). [35] Concerning cross-appeal raised by Gahongayire and her counsels for the request of damages, the Court finds that she should not be awarded them because the grounds she relied on were established without merit as explained above. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [36] Finds the appeal lodged by Habiyakare Robert with merit; [37] Finds the cross-appeal raised by Gahongayire Winnifrida without merit; [38] Annuls the purchase contract of 26 June 2008 for the house No4593/Kicukiro between Mirimo Gaspard and Habiyakare Robert; [39] Orders that the house at plot No4593/Kicukiro remains into the ownership of Gahongayire Winnifrida; HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE ET AL (2)

## Page 247

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 78 [40] Orders Gahongayire Winnifrida to pay the sum of Habiyakare Robert one hundred forty-five million, four hundred eighty-six thousand, one hundred eleven (145,486,111Frw); [41] Orders her to pay 100,000Frw of court fees.

## Page 248

MUKAGATARE v. SUCCESSION BWANAKEYE (2) [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/REV/INJUST/CIV0003/14/CS (Mukanyundo, P.J., Hitiyaremye and Rugabirwa, J.) February 03, 2017] Law governing land – Modes of land acquisition – A person who claims ownership over the land should demonstrate the mode of its acquisition – Law N°43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda, article 10. Law governing land – Land disputes – Inapplicability of acquisitive statute of limitation on the right over the land – A person who, through fraudulent means, occupies vacant and escheat land or other people's land, cannot invoke the right to prescription to claim definite right on it – Law N°43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda, article 46 and 47. Facts: This case originates from the disputes which rose between Mukagatare and Bwanakeye from the plot of land on which Mukagatare built in 1995, claiming that it was given to her by the Commune of Ngoma after returning from the exile in 1994. In the year 2000, Bwanakeye sued Mukagatare to local authority claiming that she built in his compound garden. The issue was not resolved and Bwanakeye filed a claim at the Intermediate Court requesting for the stay of the construction activities carried on at his plot of land. The Court held that Mukagatare should demolish the bungalow and the houses built 79

## Page 249

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 80 in the garden of Bwanakeye François within a period of 30 days. Mukagatare appealed to the High Court which sustained the rulings of the appealed judgment. She went on to appeal to the Supreme Court and basing on the objection raised by Bwanakeye, that Court held that her appeal does not fall within its jurisdiction. Consequently, Mukagatare sought redress from the Office of Ombudsman requesting for the review of the judgment RCA1633/06/HC/NYA due to injustice, and after scrutinizing it, the Ombudsman Office wrote to the President of the Supreme Court requesting for the review of the mentioned judgment on grounds that documents which Mukagatare produced before the High Court proving that the disputed plot was hers, were disregarded by that Court. After overruling the objection of inadmissibility in the Supreme Court, the hearing in merit commenced, whereby Mukagatare argues that she has elements of evidence which were disregarded by the High Court, comprised of different documents substantiating that the disputed plot belongs to her whilst in contrast, Bwanakeye did not produce any written evidence, therefore the Court should have examined them according to the hierarchy of evidence. She also requests for various damages. In their defence, the successors of Bwanakeye state that the reason why the Court disregarded the elements of evidence of Mukagatare is that she produced the documents which were not original, and that the period by which they allege that the disputed plot was allocated to the University of Rwanda; Bwanakeye François was already residing there. They further argue that the documents produced by the applicant do not indicate the measurements of the land she was given, while

## Page 250

81 others indicate that the plot was lent to her so that she can erect a bar but was not given a plot of land. Furthermore, they argue that even if that land belonged to the Government, that ownership would have been struck by the statute of limitation because the transfer deed of Butare veterinary laboratory of the land was signed on February 12, 1964, whereas the letter allocating that land to Mukagatare was signed by the administration of Ngoma Commune on October 10, 1995, after the expiry of thirty years (30) provided by the law. Regarding the statute of limitation, Mukagatare states that she rejects it because the disputed land never belonged to Bwanakeye, and she also requested for various damages. Held: 1. Private individual land is that s/he was allocated by the competent authorities, purchased or got through donation, inheritance, succession, ascending sharing, and exchange or sharing. Therefore, the fact that succession Bwanakeye failed to prove the origin of the disputed land leads this court to rule in favour of Mukagatare because she has proved that it was given to her by the competent authority. 2. A person who, through fraudulent means, occupies vacant and escheat land or other people's land, cannot invoke the right to prescription to claim definite right on it, even if he/ she has occupied it for a period longer than the prescription period; therefore, succession Bwanakeye should not argue that the Government could not transfer the disputed land alleging that he acquired it through prescription. 3. Procedural and counsel fees are awarded to a party who incurred expenses in lawsuits and s/he must have won the case. MUKAGATARE v. SUCCESSION BWANAKEYE (2)

## Page 251

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 82 Application for the review of the judgment due to injustice has merit; Overrules the judgment RCA1633/06/HC/NYA rendered by the High Court, Nyanza chamber; Court fees to Succession Bwanakeye. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law N°15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, articles 3 and 13. Law N°43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda, articles 10, 46 and 47. No case referred to. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] After returning to Rwanda from exile in 1994, Mukagatare Grâce, went to reside in the former Butare province. In 1995, she built a house in a piece of land she claims to have been given by the Commune of Ngoma. In the year 2000, Bwanakeye François began instituting lawsuits against Mukagatare Grâce arguing that she built in his garden and the issue was examined by the administration. [2] In 2006, Bwanakeye François sued Mukagatare Grâce at the Intermediate Court of Huye requesting for stay of the construction activities on his piece of land. On 29 December 2006, the Intermediate Court of Huye rendered the judgment

## Page 252

83 RC0069/06/TGI/HYE/RC0002/06/TP/BUT whereby it held that Mukagatare Grâce should demolish a bungalow and the houses which were built in the garden of Bwanakeye François within the period of 30 days. [3] Mukagatare Grâce appealed against that ruling to the High Court, Nyanza chamber, which, on November 03, 2008, rendered the judgment RCA1633/06/HC/NYA holding that Mukagatare Grâce loses the case and that the appealed judgment rendered by the Intermediate Court of Huye on 23/06/2006 is sustained. [4] Mukagatare Grâce appealed against the ruling to the Supreme Court and following the objection of lack of jurisdiction raised by the Counsel for Bwanakeye, the Supreme Court held that the appeal against the judgment RCA1633/06/HC/NYA rendered by the High Court, Nyanza chamber on 3 November 2006 does not fall into its jurisdiction. [5] After getting that decision, Mukagatare Grâce took the matter to the Office of the Ombudsman requesting for the review of the judgment RCA1633/06/HC/NYA due to injustice. On 27 March 2013, the Office of Ombudsman wrote to the President of the Supreme Court requesting that the judgment mentioned above which was submitted by Mukagatare Grâce be reviewed due to injustice. [6] The Office of the Ombudsman declares that the injustice in that judgment is demonstrated by the documents which Mukagatare produced at the High Court, Nyanza Chamber proving that the plot in litigation belongs to her, but which were disregarded by this Court. The same grounds were included in MUKAGATARE v. SUCCESSION BWANAKEYE (2)

## Page 253

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 84 the submission of Mukagatare to the Supreme Court to demonstrate the injustice she suffered. [7] In the course of the hearing held on16 September 2014, Counsel Ngirabakunzi Evariste assisting Succession Bwanakeye François raised an objection for inadmissibility of Mukagatare Grâce’s claim on the ground that it does not comply with the provision of articles 79 and 81 of the Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/6/2012 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. On 10 October 2014, the Supreme Court overruled the raised objection and admitted the claim of Mukagatare Grâce for examination on its merit. The hearing was scheduled on 13 January 2015. [8] Since that time, the hearing had been postponed for various reasons, but mostly due to the absence of some of the heirs of Bwanakeye François until it was conducted on 08 March 2016, whereby Mukagatare Grâce appeared before the Court, assisted by Counsel Hakizimana John, some of the members of Succession Bwanakeye François represented by Mukamunana Vénantie, who was assisted by Counsel Nizeyimana Boniface; Musada Jean Pierre, Ukuyemuye Jeanne, Nabonabana Jeannine, Nibakure Floriane, Tuyisenge Thaddée and Rutaganda Innocent were summoned on various occasions but they did not appear whereas Barandagiye Alphonse Marie, Uwimana Régine, Tuza M. Alice, Mukangamije Henriette, Mugeni Françoise, Bwanakeye Françoise, Bwanakeye M. Goretti, Bwanakeye M. Thérėse and Mukantagara Josephine were summoned to unknown place. [9] The pronouncement of the judgment was scheduled on 15/04/2016 but it was not conducted, rather, the Supreme Court held that before the deliberation of the case, it is necessary to

## Page 254

85 first carry out an inquiry at the place where the subject matter is situated and declared that the hearing will resume on 21/06/2016. The inquiry was conducted on 27/05/2016. [10] On 21 June 2016, both parties appeared before the Court, Counsel Mukagatare Grâce assisted by Hakizimana John, while Counsel Nizeyimana Boniface assisted Mukamunana Vénantie who was representing some of the heirs of Bwanakeye François who gave her the power of attorney. On that day, the Court informed parties that it is necessary to request the Director of Rwanda Natural Resources Authority to provide the information on the 45 hectares of land which is the subject of dispute which the Government of Rwanda offered to University of Rwanda in 1964 as demonstrated by the transfer deed. [11] The hearing of the judgment resumed on 29/11/2016, both parties being present and assisted by their counsels, Each side presented his/her opinion on both the conducted inquiry and the report of the Director of Rwanda Natural Resources Authority. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES 1. Whether there exists injustice suffered by Mukagatare Grâce in the judgment rendered by the High Court, Nyanza chamber by holding that the plot of land in litigation belongs to Bwanakeye François. [12] Hakizimana John, the Counsel for Mukagatare Grâce submitted before the Court that they hold a list of evidence comprising of documents which the High Court disregarded, which caused injustice. He states that those elements of evidence include the act of notoriety of 30 March 2000, MUKAGATARE v. SUCCESSION BWANAKEYE (2)

## Page 255

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 86 cadastral plan of 24 April 2003 issued by Butare Municipality, lease contract of the plot in litigation between Huye district and Mukagatare Grâce concluded on 28 August 2005, payment slip of 28 August 2006 for cadastral plan, settlement report of the commission of 22 December 2000 drafted by the administration of Butare province on the issue which Mukagatare Grâce submitted to it, the letter of Mayor for Ngoma Municipality of 10 October 1995 which authorized Mukagatare Grâce to build a kiosk, the letter of Mayor of Huye district addressed to the Ombudsman of 03 December 2009 explaining that the land in litigation belongs to Mukagatare Grâce and that they did not find the cadastral plan of Bwanakeye François in their records as well as the act of transfer of land belonging to Butare veterinary laboratory of 12 February 1964 which proves the origin of this land, whereby the Government of Rwanda awarded it to University of Rwanda, this evidence contradicting the pleadings of Bwanakeye François whereby he argued that he acquired the land in litigation from his ascendants. [13] Counsel Hakizimana John continues stating that beginning from previous Courts, Mukagatare Grâce relied on those written evidence which including the authentic deed, while Bwanakeye François did not produce any written evidence, therefore that the Court should have considered them according to the hierarchy of evidence. [14] Regarding the report of the officers from the Rwanda Natural Resources Authority, Counsel Hakizimana John states that they concur with it because it proves the origin of the contested land, that it belonged to the Government which allocated it to her, facts which differ from the arguments of the

## Page 256

87 successors of Bwanakeye François that it is their ancestors’ land. [15] Mukamunana Vénantie, one of the successors of Bwanakeye François and at the same time representing some of her siblings argues that the reason why the Court disregarded the elements of evidence submitted by Mukagatare Grâce is that she produced photocopies instead of original documents. She further explains that the plot of Bwanakeye François starts from the roadside to the valley and in addition to that no plots were demarcated in that piece of land. Instead, it was temporary let to Mukagatare Grâce for her to install her Kiosk but that she does not know how it turned into a house. [16] She further explains that during the year 1964, in which they allege that plot was given to the University of Rwanda Bwanakeye, François was already residing there like any other residents whereby he came from Kansi in former Municipality of Nyaruhengeri. She alleges that he bought a part of it, although the documents for that purchase were lost. Furthermore, she states that other residents who occupy the land alleged to belong to the University possessed the land titles and have constructed permanent buildings. She further goes on to state that the deed of transfer for the laboratory’s land was produced for the first time in this case, and even the university never claimed that piece of land they reside on. She concludes by explaining that the land where Mukagatare Grâce erected the building used to belong to their compound garden, which she was temporary given to install a kiosk likely to be shifted at any time. [17] Counsel Nizeyimana Boniface replying on the evidence produced Mukagatare Grâce, states that she was given the act of MUKAGATARE v. SUCCESSION BWANAKEYE (2)

## Page 257

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 88 notoriety of 30 March 2000 on the ground that she owns the Bar Isangano but they did not endorse that she owns a plot, because if it was the case they should have mentioned it’s numbering. Concerning the cadastral plan of 24 March 2003 and the lease contract of 28 August 2006, he argues that they should be rejected because they indicate the measurements while the act of notoriety which should contain those measurements lacks them. [18] Regarding the report of the commission of 22 August 2006, Counsel Nizeyimana Boniface demonstrates that the report indicates that Mukagatare Grâce was given that plot to facilitate her to carry out her commercial activities, rather than being given ownership over it .This is also evident in the letter of the Bourgmestre of Ngoma Municipality. Regarding the letter addressed by the Mayor of Huye District to the Ombudsman informing him that there exists no cadastral plan of Bwanakeye François in the records, he avers that this is not a matter of concern since even other occupants of that land do not have them. Regarding the transfer deed about the Butare veterinary laboratory land, he submits that this element of evidence proves the origin of the disputed land, whereby the Government of Rwanda transferred it to the University, therefore that, was the land allocated to Mukagatare Grâce, its measurements would had been indicated. [19] He concludes by arguing that, even if the disputed land had belonged to the Government as contained in the last paragraph of article two of the transfer deed of the land of Butare veterinary laboratory, it would have to be given back to the Centre Urbain de Butare, due to statute of limitation because that transfer deed was signed on 12 February 1964 while the letter granting Mukagatare Grâce that land was signed

## Page 258

89 by the administration of Ngoma Municipality on 10 October 1995,which implies after the expiry of thirty years (30) provided for by the law. Therefore he finds that the Government could have not allocated the land which had already been legally acquired by Bwanakeye François. [20] Regarding the prescription alleged by Counsel for successors of Bwanakeye François, Counsel Hakizimana John argues that Mukagatare Grâce rejects it (acquisitive prescription) because the land in litigation had never belonged to Bwanakeye François, and that at the time Mukagatare Grâce requested for that plot there was a compound garden without a building. Regarding the origin of the disputed land, the report of the Director of Rwanda Natural Resources Authority emphasizes the statements of Mukagatare Grâce since it indicates the long history of the origin of this land, while the successors of Bwanakeye François argue that the plot is their customary land, which is contradicted by this report. OPINION OF THE COURT [21] Article 3 of the Law 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production provides that “each party has the burden of proving the facts it alleges. A judge may nevertheless order any contending party to produce elements of proof they have”. [22] Article 13, paragraph one of the Law No15/2004 mentioned above provides that “the authentic deed is trustworthy and binding for all the parties as regard its contents are witnessed by a civil servant or where the latter worked them out within his or her mission. The contents of such a deed shall MUKAGATARE v. SUCCESSION BWANAKEYE (2)

## Page 259

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 90 not be challenged except where there is prosecution for falsification of authentic documents or where either party alleges forgery”. [23] Among the documents produced in the case file by Mukagatare Grâce as elements of evidences to prove that the disputed land belongs to her, includes the notoriety act of 30 March 2000, cadastral plan of 24 August 2003 issued by Butare Municipality, lease contract of that plot concluded on 28 August 2005 between Huye district and Mukagatare Grâce, payment bill of 28 August 2006 for cadastral plan of the plot, commission report of 22 December 2000 by the administration of Butare prefecture regarding the issue of Mukagatare Grâce, the letter of 10 October 1995 by the Bourgmestre of Ngoma Municipality authorizing Mukagatare Grâce to build a kiosk, the letter dated 03 December 2009 which the Mayor of Huye District wrote to the Ombudsman indicating that the disputed land belongs to Mukagatare Grâce and also informing him that there is no cadastral plan of Bwanakeye François in the records and the transfer deed of the land of Butare veterinary laboratory of 12 February 1964 which proves the origin of that land whereby the Government of Rwanda transferred it to University of Rwanda. [24] The Supreme Court finds that, the statements of Mukamunana Vénantie representing some of the successors of Bwanakeye François that the reason why the High Court did not rule in favour of Mukagatare Grâce is that the documents she produced were not original are groundless, because the present documents produced to this Court are original and the remaining ones are supported by other evidence which include the report of the Director of Rwanda Natural Resources Authority

## Page 260

91 indicating that the disputed land is not a customary land of Bwanakeye François as she argues, rather, it belonged to Centre Urbain de Butare1. In addition, the arguments that Bwanakeye François bought one part of that land also is groundless because she does not substantiate it with evidence as provided for by article 3 of Law No15/2004 of 12/06/2004 mentioned above. [25] The Supreme Court also finds no merit in the arguments of Nizeyimana Boniface, the counsel for Mukamunana Vénantie that the documents which Mukagatare Grâce produces do not indicate the measurements of land she was given, and others indicate that she borrowed it to construct the Bar Isangano; because she was not given that plot given that the cadastral plan indicates that Mukagatare Grâce was given 5a and 40ca,and even alleging that notoriety act demonstrates that Mukagatare Grâce owns Bar Isangano but not a plot, cannot invalidate the elements of evidence she produced since that Bar was erected on the land. [26] After examining the aforementioned documents, the Supreme Court finds that Mukagatare Grâce demonstrates the origin of the land she was sued for by Bwanakeye François because she proves that she was given that land by the competent authority in compliance with article 10 of Law N°43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda2,whereas

1 A copy, photocopy or other reproduction which has not been certified in conformity with the original is only valid if supported by other evidence not prohibited by law, when the original cannot be produced. 2Article 10 of the Law N°43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda provides that Private individual land shall comprise land acquired through custom or written law. That land has been granted definitely by competent authorities or acquired by purchase, donation, inheritance, succession, ascending sharing, and exchange or through sharing. MUKAGATARE v. SUCCESSION BWANAKEYE (2)

## Page 261

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 92 the successors of Bwanakeye François cannot demonstrate the origin of the disputed land, because sometimes Mukamunana Vénantie who represents some of successors states that they acquired it in accordance with the custom, and subsequently, she argues that her father Bwanakeye François came from Kansi, the former commune of Nyaruhengeri to settle on that land, and again that he bought it without providing supporting evidence as it was aforementioned. [27] On the issue of determining whether the land which was allocated to Mukagatare Grâce did not belong to the Government, the documents in the case file including the transfer deed of the Butare Veterinary Laboratory by the Government of the Republic of Rwanda to the National University of Rwanda dated 12 February 1964 which indicates that the Government of Rwanda represented by the Minister for agriculture and the Minister of Education transferred the property of veterinary laboratory including 45 hectares of land to the University of Rwanda as it is indicated in that document whereby in paragraph 2of article 2 they indicate that veterinary laboratory had to hand back six (6) hectares of land it was given by Centre Urbain de Butare after the signing of the transfer deed of the land. [28] The report of the Director of Rwanda Natural Resources Authority who was called upon by the Court in order to prove that the land in litigation belongs to the Government, indicates that after the analysis of the map drawn in 1957 indicating the proposed expansion of Astrida city and the transfer deed of the land of Butare veterinary laboratory made by the Government of Rwanda to the university of Rwanda of 12/02/1964, it is obvious that Centre Urbain lent some pieces of land to the

## Page 262

93 veterinary laboratory including the disputed one which is six (6) hectares located between Bwanakeye François and Mukagatare Grâce as it is stipulated in article 2 of the transfer deed. [29] Following those documents, the Supreme Court finds that the disputed land located at Tumba sector, Huye district is owned by the Government because it belonged to the Centre Urbain de Butare which no longer exists, but pursuant to the Organic Law N°29/2005 of 31/12/2005determining the administrative entities of the Republic of Rwanda, it turned into Huye district. [30] Regarding Counsel Nizeyimana Boniface’s arguments that the Government was no longer able to transfer the disputed land because Bwanakeye François had already owned it due to the prescription, the Supreme Court finds that Bwanakeye François should not pretend the right prescription to occupy the Government’s land as it is provided by article 47 of the Law N°43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda which states that a person who, through fraudulent means, occupies vacant and escheat land or other people's land, cannot invoke the right to prescription to claim definite right on it, even if he/ she has occupied it for a period longer than the prescription period provided under article 46 of this Law3. [31] Following the stated motivations, the Supreme Court finds that the disputed land belongs to Mukagatare Grâce because she has substantiating evidence which comprise of the documents issued to her by the competent authority. Consequently, the judgment RCA1633/06/HC/NYA rendered

3In land related matters, the prescription period shall be thirty (30) years. The prescription shall be ascertained by a decision of a competent court. MUKAGATARE v. SUCCESSION BWANAKEYE (2)

## Page 263

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 94 by the High Court, Nyanza Chamber on 03 November 2008 is overruled. 2. Whether the damages claimed by the parties should be awarded. [32] Counsel Hakizimana John claims that Succession Bwanakeye François pays to Mukagatare Grâce damages worth five hundred thousand Rwandan franc (500,000Frw) for being dragged into vexatious litigation in courts and other administrative organs and five hundred thousand Rwandan franc (500,000Frw) of the counsel fees whereas Counsel Nizeyimana Boniface argues that they are baseless since she does not prove the prejudice she suffered. [33] On the other side, Counsel Nizeyimana Boniface prays that if Succession Bwanakeye François wins this case, Mukagatare Grâce should pay pecuniary damages equivalent to one hundred million Rwandan francs (100,000,000) because Bwanakeye François had planned to carry out commercial activities on that land which is being litigated, which was not realized. These damages were computed taking into account twenty children he had to raise. He further requests that Mukagatare Grâce should pay twenty million (20,000,000Frw) in moral damages because these lawsuits are among the factors which accelerated his death and eight million (8,000,000Frw) which were paid to the counsels who pleaded this case from the beginning. OPINION OF THE COURT [34] The Supreme Court finds that the fact that Mukagatare Grâce continued following up the case till to this instance and

## Page 264

95 hired the services of the advocate, she should be awarded five hundred thousand Rwandan francs (500,000) for the counsel fees as she requests. In additional to that, the Supreme Court finds that damages amounting to five hundred thousand Rwandan francs (500,000) for being dragged into vexatious litigation before this Courts and other administrative organs she requests for should also be awarded to her because it is obvious that she incessantly followed up this case. [35] Concerning the damages requested by Succession Bwanakeye François, the Court finds that it should not be awarded because they lost this case. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [36] The application for review due to injustice of the judgment RCA1633/06/HC/NYA filed by Mukagatare Grâce has merit; [37] Overrules the judgment RCA1633/06/HC/NYA rendered on 03/11/2008 by the High Court, Nyanza Chamber; [38] Holds that the land located at Rimba village, Gitwa cell, Tumba sector, Huye district in South province in litigation between Mukagatare Grâce and Succession Bwanakeye François belongs to Mukagatare Grâce; [39] Orders the Succession Bwanakeye François to pay five hundred thousand Rwandan francs (500,000) in damages for vexatious litigation and five hundred thousand Rwandan francs (500,000) for the counsel fees, all amounting to one million Rwandan francs(1,000,000); MUKAGATARE v. SUCCESSION BWANAKEYE (2)

## Page 265

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 96 [40] Orders the Succession Bwanakeye François to pay the court fees of one hundred Rwandan francs (100,000).

## Page 266

COMMERCIAL CASE

## Page 268

RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA) v. UMURUNGI UMWIZERWA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCOMAA0020/16/CS (Mukanyundo, P.J; Ngagi and Rugabirwa, J.) July 28, 2017] Tax law – East African Community Customs Management Act – Erroneous declaration – In case of erroneous declaration that leads to the payment of less tax, Commissioner of customs is entitled to request the taxpayer to pay the balance of the tax he would have paid – East African Community Customs Management Act 2004, section 135. Facts: Rwanda Revenue Authority carried out a tax assessment for Umurungi Umwizerwa on the goods she imported from the fiscal year 2010 up to 2014, whereby it charged her a consumption tax of 49,636,583Frw and VAT of 8,934,585Frw, those taxes are due to erroneous declaration made by Umurungi when she imported fruit juice from Uganda and paid consumption tax at the rate of 5% instead of 39% this led her to pay less on both consumption tax and value added tax. She was charged a total of 58,571,168Frw. The taxpayer being unsatisfied with the tax she was charged, she filed a claim to the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge stating that the levied tax was unlawfully because basing on East African Community Custom Management Act, the Commissioner of customs does not have power to charge her tax when the taxpayer does not admit the offence of making and using forgery documents. In addition to this the Commissioner of customs is not the one supposed to make a decision on her 99

## Page 269

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 100 administrative appeal, and she prays that the levied tax be waved. The Court ruled in favour of the defendant and ordered her to pay the charged tax and awarded damages to Rwanda Revenue Authority. The taxpayer appealed to the Commercial High Court and the rulings of the appealed judgment was overturned and ordered RRA to refund the Court fees deposited by the taxpayer. Rwanda revenue authority not being satisfied with the rulings of that judgments, appealed to the Supreme Court stating that the statements of the taxpayer that the Commissioner of customs did not have powers to charge her tax basing on the ruling of the judgment RCOMA0047/10/CS of Munyaneza v. RRA rendered by Supreme Court are groundless because these cases do not have similar facts, because in that judgment the Court relied on article 203 of East African Community Customs Management Act and ordered the taxpayer to pay the tax while the case at hand, the Court based on article 135 of that Law. Thus, the taxpayer must pay the balance because she made erroneous declaration, which led her to pay less tax compared to what she was supposed to pay. In conclusion, RRA prays for damages. The taxpayer argues that, making a false or incorrect declaration is an offence provided by article 203 of the aforementioned Law and that offence must first be submitted to the competent Court and the culprit held liable, therefore the fact that she does not admit the offence, the Commissioner of customs did not have the powers to order her to pay that tax. She also requests for damages. Held: In case of erroneous declaration which leads to the payment of less tax, the Commissioner of customs has the powers to request the taxpayer to pay the balance of the tax

## Page 270

101 he/she would have paid which was not paid. Since that error differ from making and using forgery documents provided by article 203. Appeal has merit. Overturns the rulings of the Commercial High Court. Statutes and statutory instrument referred to Laws: East African Community Customs Management Act, 2004, article 135, 203, 219 and 220. Cases referred to: Munyaneza v RRA, RCOMA0047/10/CS, rendered by the Supreme Court on 29/07/2011. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] This case started in the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge, Umurungi Umwizerwa suing Rwanda Revenue Authority for being illegally taxed, because the Customs department assessed the goods she imported for the fiscal year 2010 up to 2014, and levied her consumption tax of 49,636,583Frw and VAT of 8,934,585Frw; all worth 58,571,168Frw. [2] The levied tax results from erroneous declaration made by Umurungi Umwizerwa while importing fruit juices from RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA) v. UMURUNGI UMWIZERWA

## Page 271

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 102 Uganda and paid a consumption tax on the rate of 5% instead of 39%; which resulted into paying less consumption tax and value added tax. Umurungi filed a case before the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge, on three grounds, stating that Commissioner General did not reply her, thus the tax must be waved, the Commissioner of Customs does not have the authority to give her a response nor charging her tax originating from offence while she does not admit the offence. [3] In judgment RCOM1745/TC/NYGE rendered on 04/04/2016, Umurungi Umwizerwa lost the case on all grounds and was ordered to pay the whole tax she was imposed amounting to 58,571,168Frw and RRA was awarded 500,000Frw in damages. [4] Umurungi Umwizerwa was not satisfied with the rulings of Nyarugenge Commercial Court, thus, she appealed against one issue relating to the capacity of the Commissioner of Customs to levy tax resulting from a criminal offence she does not admit in the Commercial High Court and she requested for the cancellation of the tax equal to 58,571,168Frw. [5] On 06/10/2016, the Commercial High Court rendered judgment RCOMA00215/2016/CHC/HCC, whereby it reversed the rulings of judgment RCOM1745/TC/NYGE and ordered Rwanda Revenue Authority to refund Umurungi Umwizerwa 75,000Frw of the Court fees. [6] Rwanda Revenue Authority unsatisfied with that ruling, it appealed at the Supreme court claiming that: (a) The case relied on by the plaintiff and Commercial High Court in holding that the Commissioner of

## Page 272

103 Customs did not have the authority to charge Umurungi Umwizerwa the tax does not have similar facts with the case at hand. (b) The damages requested by Umurungi Umwizerwa are not relevant, therefore they should not be awarded, rather, the Court should compel her to pay RRA damages amounting to 1,000,000Frw for being dragged into vexatious litigations. [7] The hearing of the case was held in public on 11/07/2017, Rwanda Revenue Authority represented by Counsel Karasira Sorezo Théogène, while Umurungi Umwizerwa was represented by Counsel Nsengiyumva Abel. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES 1. Whether the declaration made by Umurungi Umwizerwa was erroneous so that the Commissioner of customs was the proper officer to request her to pay the balance of the unpaid duty. [8] Counsel Karasira Sorezo Théogène states that the case law relied on by the plaintiff and based on by the Commercial High Court to rule that the Commissioner of Customs was not the proper officer to levy the duty does not have the similar facts with the case under litigation in this court, because the facts in that case law (RCOMA0047/10/CS), the duty levied on Munyaneza Evariste was based on the provisions of article 203 of East African Community Customs Management (EACCMA) whilst the case at hand, the duty levied on Umurungi was based on the provisions of article 135 of EACCMA because she did not used false or incorrect documents as it was in the case RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA) v. UMURUNGI UMWIZERWA

## Page 273

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 104 RCOMA0047/10/CS, rather she made erroneous declaration which led her to pay less than what he was supposed to pay, hence she must pay the balance therefore article 203 of EACCMA is not applicable in such a case. [9] He goes on further stating that in the judgment RCOMA0047/10/CS (paragraph 12), the Supreme Court found article 135 of EACCMA is not applicable in deciding that the Commissioner of Customs has the authority to levy tax without necessarily prosecuting the assessee of the offence because the aforementioned article concerns with the payment of the amount short levied or the repay of the amount erroneously refunded. [10] Nsengiyumva Abel, the Counsel for Umurungi Umwizerwa contends that the arguments of Rwanda Revenue Authority that article 135 of EACCMA should have been applied is misleading, it just wants to apply it inappropriately. He argues that the provision concerns the payment of the amount short levied or repay the amount erroneously refunded during the provisional entry. [11] He further argues that, as it is indicated on page 11 of the audit report, the inspectors stated that there was erroneous declaration because a wrong HS code was used, false declaration is an offence provided for by article 203 of East African community Custom management Act, while article 219 of the same Law bestows the Commissioner of Customs the powers to order the taxpayer to pay when the taxpayer admits the offence. Thus, the fact that she denies the offence, it implies that the Commissioner of customs did not have the power to order her to pay that tax, instead what could have been done is to submit the issue to the competent Court as is provided under article 220 of the same law so that the offender could be held

## Page 274

105 liable of that crime. He rests his case stating that in case of a custom offence, the Commissioner of Customs does not have the power to impose tax; especially that Umurungi Umwizerwa does not admit that offence. VIEW OF THE COURT [12] Section 135 of East African Community Customs Management Act, 2004, provides that any duty has been short levied or erroneously refunded, then the person who should have paid the amount short levied or to whom the refund has erroneously been made shall, on demand by the proper officer, pay the amount short levied or repay the amount erroneously refunded, as the case maybe; and any such amount may be recovered as if it were duty to which the goods in relation to which the amount was short levied or erroneously refunded, as the case maybe, were liable. [13] Section 203 of EACCMA provides that a person who, in any matter relating to the Customs -(a) makes any entry which is false or incorrect in any particular, commits an offence to make or use false documents. [14] The case file also demonstrates that Umurungi Umwizerwa was charged 49,636,583Frw of consumption tax and 8,934,585Frw of VAT all originating from her successive erroneous declaration which led her to pay tax computed on the rate of 5% instead of 39% on the fruit juice she imported from Uganda, this led her to pay less tax. [15] The case file also indicates that in the letter dated 19/09/2016 which Umurungi Umwizerwa wrote to RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA) v. UMURUNGI UMWIZERWA

## Page 275

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 106 Commissioner of Customs she states that, she was informed that she declared a “HS CODE” which is not for Joly Juice and she requested that Rwanda Revenue Authority accepts the “HS CODE” she used in her declaration because of various reasons she demonstrated. [16] Furthermore, the case file demonstrates that on 04/10/2016, the Commissioner of Customs wrote to Umurungi Umwizerwa in response to the letter mentioned in the preceding paragraph and informed her that pursuant to the provision of section 135 of the Law Nº01/2005 of 01/01/2005 of East African Community Custom Management Act, she declared under “HS Code 2106.9010” instead of “HS Code of 2106.9099”, thus, the decisions she was notified in S.L Nº22, 23, 24/CRMU/2016-2017 remain in place. [17] The Court finds the fact that nothing could stop the Commissioner of Customs from demanding Umurungi Umwizerwa to pay the balance of the unpaid tax because she made various erroneous declaration as provided by section 135 of the aforementioned EACCMA, which provides that where any duty has been short levied, then the person who should have paid the amount short levied shall, on demand by the proper officer, pay the amount short levied and any such amount may be recovered as if it were duty to which the goods in relation to which the amount was short levied were liable. [18] The Court finds that the arguments of the Counsel of Umurungi Umwizerwa that section 203 of EACCMA, 2004, which provides that a person who, in any matter relating to the Customs, makes any entry which is false or incorrect in any particular, commits an Offence to make or use false documents, should be based on, because the actions of Umurungi’ are

## Page 276

107 considered as an offence, though she denies it, and therefore it should first be submitted to the prosecution lacks merit, because even if this article mentions erroneous declaration, it’s title is make or use forgery documents, which are contrary to what Umurungi effectively did, because she used wrong “ HS Code” which led to the reduction of the tax. The Court finds that in all correspondences of Commissioner of Customs to Umurungi Umwizerwa1, there is no mention indicating that she committed an offence of using forgery documents which is provided under Section 203 of EACCMA, 2004,to consider that Rwanda Revenue Authority is contradicting itself by relying on section 135 of EACCMA. [19] The Court realizes that the judgment RCOMA0047/10/CS which the plaintiff and the Commercial High Court based on in holding that the Commissioner of Customs did not have powers to charge tax, its facts are not similar with the appealed judgment, because in that case Munyaneza Evariste had been charged tax on the basis of the provision of article 203 of EACCMA, he was accused for using forgery receipts (false or incorrect documents) with intention under evaluate the tax base, while the case at hand is related to taxes imposed on Umurungi on the basis of the provision of article 135 of EACCMA because she did not use improper documents as it was the issue in the case RCOMA0047/10/CS, rather it was erroneous declaration which resulted into paying less tax than what she was supposed to pay and she must pay the balance. Thus article 203 of EACCMA is not applicable.

1Look for the letter Ref: 176/RRA/CCS/CED/PCA/2015 of 25/09/2015 and that one Ref: 2006/RRA/CCS/OAU/2016.

RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA) v. UMURUNGI UMWIZERWA

## Page 277

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 108 [20] Basing on the legal provisions and the motivations provided above, the Court finds that the Commissioner of Customs had the powers to order Umurungi Umwizerwa to pay the amount of the remaining tax, since he found that the amount paid was little, thus she must pay the tax imposed. 2. Whether there are damages to be awarded in this case. [21] Nsengiyumva Abel, the Counsel for Umurungi states that Rwanda Revenue Authority must be ordered to pay 1,000,000Frw of the counsel fees to Umurungi on the appeal level for being dragged into unnecessary lawsuits. [22] Karasira Sorezo Theogene, the Counsel for Rwanda Revenue Authority contends that damages requested by Umurungi have no basis, thus they cannot be awarded, rather the Court should compel her to pay Rwanda Revenue Authority damages worth 1,000,000Frw. VIEW OF THE COURT [23] The Court finds that, since Umurungi has lost the case the Counsel fees she requests from Rwanda Revenue Authority lacks merit. [24] Regarding damages requested by Rwanda Revenue Authority for being dragged into unnecessary lawsuits, the Court finds that they should be awarded, but in the discretion of the court, therefore it is awarded 500,000Frw in addition to 500,000Frw allocated by Nyarugenge Commercial Court because 1,000,000Frw requested is excessive and it does not justify it.

## Page 278

109 III. DECISION OF THE COURT [25] It decides that the appeal of Rwanda Revenue Authority has merit; [26] Overturns the judgment RCOMA00215/2016/CHC/HCC rendered by Commercial High Court on 06/10/2016; [27] Declares that, it was in the powers of the Commissioner of Customs to impose tax on Umurungi Umwizerwa; [28] It orders Umurungi Umwizerwa to pay the imposed tax; [29] It orders Umurungi Umwizerwa to give Rwanda Revenue Authority 500,000Frw of damages for dragging it into unnecessary lawsuits in addition to 500,000Frw awarded by Nyarugenge Commercial Court, the total amount being 1,000,000Frw; [30] It orders Umurungi Umwizerwa to reimburse 100,000Frw of the court fees to Rwanda Revenue Authority which it deposited at the time of filing the claim.

RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA) v. UMURUNGI UMWIZERWA

## Page 280

CRIMINAL CASE

## Page 282

PROSECUTION v. NTEZIRYAYO [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RPA0249/13/CS (Mukamulisa, P.J., Munyangeri and Hitiyaremye, J.) November 25, 2016] Criminal Law – Excuse of self defence – Onus probandi – The onus probandi lies with the defendant who invokes the excuse of self defense – Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article 105. Criminal Law – Penalty reduction – Requesting further penalty reduction – None should claim for further penalty reduction when the penalty imposed to him/her in previous court was considerably reduced and reflects the gravity of the offence committed. Facts: The appellant was prosecuted for attempt of murder against Ndayambaje Emmanuel and murder against Nkurunziza Emmanuel. The High Court, Musanze chamber convicted and sentenced him to twelve years of imprisonment reducing the penalty basing on the fact that he confessed in all organs. Not pleased with the decision, he lodged an appeal before the Supreme Court seeking for pardon and penalty reduction stating that he continues to confess, he explains, he did not plot to commit such offences, it was rather a self defence. The Prosecution requests that the sentence be sustained, because he did not commit offences in self defence, instead, he wanted to prevent his arrest as he was suspicious for having stolen potatoes. In addition, if he saw that those people had planned to mistreat him, he would have resorted to justice instead of punishing for himself and qualifying his acts the self - defense. 113

## Page 283

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 114 Held: 1. It would not be considered as a self-defence when nothing reflects the provision of the Law in this regard. Therefore, the statements of the accused are irrelevant. 2. None should claim for further penalty reduction when the penalty sentenced to him/her in previous court was considerably reduced and reflects the gravity of the offence committed. Hence, the appellant cannot be granted further penalty reduction. Appeal has no merit. Court fees to the public treasury Statute and statutory instruments referred to: Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article 105 and 78(1º). Authors cited: Bernard Bouloc, Droit penal General, 24ėme Edition, Dalloz, Paris, 2015, p. 351.

## Page 284

115 Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] On 19 November 2012 around 6h30AM; Nteziryayo Emmanuel was suspected for having stolen the potatoes found at Twizerimana Jean de Dieu’s ground, because he was known for robbery. The potatoes were together with a flashlight, gitenge cloth and a machete. [2] Nteziryayo Emmanuel was present and when they started invoke his name, he ran away to escape, people who were on ground went behind him so that he returns back to resolve the matter. He took one of them named Ndayambaje Emmanuel and hit him on the head using the machete he possessed. Nkurunziza Emmanuel came for rescue and when he tried to catch Nteziryayo Emmanuel, the latter hit him on the arm using the machete, threw on his chest a stone and suddenly died. After his arrest, at the judicial police, Nteziryayo Emmanuel confessed, explaining that the reason behind his acts is that he saw those people behind him as they were going to throw him in a steep slope. [3] After investigation, the prosecution sued Nteziryayo Emmanuel in High Court, Musanze chamber. Before the court, he continued to confess the acts he was being accused, on 20/06/2013 that court rendered the judgment deciding that he committed the offence of attempt of murder against Ndayambaje Emmanuel, and murder against Nkurunziza Emmanuel, and sentenced him to 12 years of imprisonment PROSECUTION v. NTEZIRYAYO

## Page 285

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 116 reducing the penalty basing on the fact that he confessed in all organs. [4] Not pleased with the ruling, Nteziryayo Emmanuel appealed to the Supreme Court stating that he committed the offences he is accused of in the circumstances of self-defense, and that he continues to seek pardon and penalties reduction. [5] The trial was conducted in public on 17 October, 2016, Nteziryayo Emmanuel being assisted by Counsel Busogi Cikoma Emmanuel and the prosecution by Munyaneza Nkwaya Eric, The National Prosecutor. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES Whether Nteziryayo Emmanuel committed the offences he is being accused in self defense and whether the penalty would be reduced. [6] Nteziryayo Emmanuel states that he again admits the offences he is accused of and also requests for pardon. He explains that he had not premeditated to commit such offences, but rather, it was in self defense. He further argues that the day of the commission of the offence he is accused of, he was called by Masengesho, and when he reached the place, he found the stolen objects at Nzayisenga Emmanuel, and the wife of Nzayisenga Emmanuel declared that she bought them from him (Nteziryayo Emmanuel) when asked from whom she bought them, all people who were there started hitting him, brought him to the Kabuhanga river to throw him into that river and in self defense, he took a machete and hit one of them named Nkurunziza Emmanuel on the arm and he died, after he hit the one named Ndayambaje Emmanuel on the head but he survived.

## Page 286

117 He concludes requesting for pardon and penalty reduction from the Supreme Court. [7] Counsel Busogi Cikoma Emmanuel states that considering how Ndayambaje Emmanuel explained that Nteziryayo Emmanuel hit him when he was running, and which was witnessed by Nyirabikari Bellancilla who said that the people who ran after Nteziryayo Emmanuel were several and in such circumstances, he threw a stone at Nkurunziza Emmanuel and killed him, he finds, Nteziryayo Emmanuel committed these offences for the purpose of self defense, hence he should not be held responsible as provided for by articles 105 and 106 of the Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code. [8] The prosecutor states that when Nteziryayo Emmanuel killed Nkurunziza Emmanuel and attempted to kill Ndayambaje Emmanuel, it was not self defense because he committed those offences with the intention to prevent him from arrest because he was suspicious for having stolen potatoes found at Twizerimana Jean de Dieu’ground. He further states that if he saw that those people had plotted to mistreat him, he would have resorted to justice instead of punishing for himself and qualifying his acts as self defense. He concludes by requesting that the penalty of twelve years of imprisonment sentenced to Nteziryayo Emmanuel be sustained as it complies with the offence he committed. THE VIEW OF THE COURT [9] Article 105 of the Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code provides that a person PROSECUTION v. NTEZIRYAYO

## Page 287

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 118 shall be considered to act in self-defense when he/she commits an act to: Repel, during night, a person who breaks into an occupied place, enters it by force or trickery; Defends him/herself against perpetrators of theft or other criminals. [10] Law scholar Bernard Boulac states that with regard to the imminent danger to the person, which could only be avoided by committing an offense, that imminent danger must be real and not exist only in the agent's imagination, (…la condition d’actualité de l’agression consiste dans la menace d’un mal imminent qui n’a pu être écarté qu’en commettant le délit. Ce mal imminent doit être objectivement vraisembrable et ne pas exister seulement dans l’imagination de l’agent)1. [11] With regard to this case, Nteziryayo Emmanuel and his counsel state that he injured Ndayambaje Emmanuel and killed Nkurunziza Emmanuel in self defense because they were among the people who were running after him with intention to throw him into the river, hence he should not be held responsible of this acts. [12] Basing on what is demonstrated above in relation to the circumstances by which the self defense happens as the penal code states, and according to the doctrines , the Supreme Court finds Nteziryayo Emmanuel and his counsel’s statements to be irrelevant, because his acts are not justified anywhere in article 105 of the Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012

1 Bernard Bouloc, Droit Pénal Général, 24ėme Edition, Dalloz, Paris, 2015, p. 351.

## Page 288

119 instituting the penal code, cited above, to qualify his acts as self defense as he did not commit the offences he is accused of, to repel, during night, a person entering his house and he failed to prove to the court that the people walking behind him were the thieves or the perpetrators. They were rather his fellow who intended to bring him back as he was escaping, so that he resolves the matter of the theft he was suspected of. His statements that they were going to throw him into the river are therefore lacks merit as he does not also produce evidence to prove it, it is rather only his personal imagination. [13] With regard to penalty reduction that Nteziryayo Emmanuel seeks, the Supreme Court finds, it would not be reduced once more since the High Court, Musanze Chamber reduced it pursuant to article 78, 1° of Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code because he pleaded guilty, whereby the penalty was reduced from life imprisonment to twelve years (12) of imprisonment, which complies with the gravity of the offence committed. [14] The supreme Court finds, considering the aforementioned motivation, that the self defense that counsel for Nteziryayo Emmanuel alleges in his pleadings, seeking that his client be not held responsible is without merit, since he failed to prove it, and the penalty reduction requested by Nteziryayo Emmanuel would not be granted as the penalty sentenced to him in the appealed judgment complies with the gravity of the offences he committed, his appeal is therefore without merit.

PROSECUTION v. NTEZIRYAYO

## Page 289

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 120 III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [15] Finds Nteziryayo Emmanuel’s appeal without merit, [16] Decides that the penalty of twelve years (12) sentenced to Nteziryayo Emmanuel in judgment RP0077/12/HC/MUS rendered by the High Court, Musanze chamber on 20/06/2013 be sustained [17] Orders the court fees to be charged to the public treasury

## Page 290

Printed by PROGRAPH LTD P.o. Box 1882 Kigali - Rwanda Tel : (+250) 788303889 E-mail:hakizae2007@yahoo.fr