HOTEL OKAPI v. BPR

HOTEL OKAPI v. BPR

HOTEL OKAPI is bound by the loan contract because it did not disown Nkunda Leatitia as its representative and benefited from the loan. The surety, Nkunda Leatitia, is liable to pay the loan jointly with HOTEL OKAPI because she waived the benefit of discussion in the suretyship contract. The bank did not act negligently as both signatories performed transactions on the account.

Citation
RLR V.2 - 2014
Parties
Appellant: HOTEL OKAPI; Forced Intervenor/surety: Nkunda Leatitia; Respondent/cross Appellant: Banque Populaire du Rwanda (BPR)
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
14 March 2014
Case Number
RCOMA 0032/12/CS
Procedural Posture
Commercial Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal of BPR allowed in part; cross-appeal of Nkunda Leatitia dismissed.
Legal Topics
Apparent Mandate, Suretyship, Company Representation, Loan Contracts
Source Language
en, rw
Commercial Law Contract Law Company Law Apparent Mandate Suretyship Company Representation Loan Contracts

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HOTEL OKAPI

Appellant

Nkunda Leatitia

Forced Intervenor/surety

Banque Populaire du Rwanda (BPR)

Respondent/cross Appellant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether HOTEL OKAPI is bound by a loan contract signed by an alleged unauthorized representative
  2. 2 Whether the surety (Nkunda Leatitia) is liable to pay the loan without prior recourse to the principal debtor's assets
  3. 3 Whether the bank negligently granted the loan to an incompetent person

Ratio Decidendi

HOTEL OKAPI is bound by the loan contract because it did not disown Nkunda Leatitia as its representative and benefited from the loan. The surety, Nkunda Leatitia, is liable to pay the loan jointly with HOTEL OKAPI because she waived the benefit of discussion in the suretyship contract. The bank did not act negligently as both signatories performed transactions on the account.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal of BPR allowed in part; cross-appeal of Nkunda Leatitia dismissed.

Orders

  • HOTEL OKAPI and Nkunda Leatitia to pay in solidum 40,670,040 Rwf (principal, interests, procedural and advocate fees) to Banque Populaire du Rwanda.
  • HOTEL OKAPI and Nkunda Leatitia to pay in solidum 44,400 Rwf of court fees.