I&M BANK v. SEBULIKOKO _en

I&M BANK v. SEBULIKOKO _en

The failure to re-register the security interests did not invalidate them as between I&M Bank and Sebulikoko, as the underlying debt remained unpaid and the contract stipulated continued validity. The auction of the securities was lawful. Damages sought by both parties were denied except for partial procedural and counsel fees awarded to I&M Bank.

Citation
RLR V.1-2019
Parties
Appellant: I&M Bank Ltd; Respondent/cross Appellant: Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel (representing ECSNE); Guarantor/respondent/cross Appellant: Rwasibo Mutesi Béatrice
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
9 June 2017
Case Number
RCOMAA00052/2016/SC- RCOMAA 0057/16/CS
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Security Interests, Registration of Security Interests, Mortgage Validity, Loan Default, Auction of Secured Property
Source Language
en, rw
Contract Law Secured Transactions Security Interests Registration of Security Interests Mortgage Validity Loan Default Auction of Secured Property

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

I&M Bank Ltd

Appellant

Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel (representing ECSNE)

Respondent/cross Appellant

Rwasibo Mutesi Béatrice

Guarantor/respondent/cross Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to re-register security interests invalidates them as against the debtor
  2. 2 Whether the auction of securities after expiry of registration was lawful
  3. 3 Whether damages are owed for alleged unlawful auction

Ratio Decidendi

The failure to re-register the security interests did not invalidate them as between I&M Bank and Sebulikoko, as the underlying debt remained unpaid and the contract stipulated continued validity. The auction of the securities was lawful. Damages sought by both parties were denied except for partial procedural and counsel fees awarded to I&M Bank.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal of I&M Bank Ltd has merit.
  • The cross appeal of Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel is dismissed.