KABANDA v DEVELOPMENT BANK OF RWANDA Plc N’UNDI

KABANDA v DEVELOPMENT BANK OF RWANDA Plc N’UNDI

The Court held that BRD was entitled to lodge third-party opposition because the decision in the prior appeal concerned property over which BRD claimed a security interest, and that Kabanda Benjamin had purchased UPI 1/02/10/04/1100 on 05/03/2012, before the parcel was constituted as security to BRD on 21/11/2012....

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant/respondent in the Intercepted Case: Kabanda Benjamin; Respondent/applicant for Interception: DEVELOPMENT BANK OF RWANDA Plc (BRD); Interested Party: Koperative GOBOKA
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Against a Judgment on Third Party Opposition/intervention / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal partially upheld; contested judgment reversed in all its provisions; prior judgment maintained
Legal Topics
Third Party Opposition/intervention, Mortgage Over Immovable Property, Sale of Land Before Mortgage, Standing/interest to Intervene, Damages and Legal Costs
Source Language
rw
Civil Procedure Property Law Security Interests Third Party Opposition/intervention Mortgage Over Immovable Property Sale of Land Before Mortgage Standing/interest to Intervene Damages and Legal Costs

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kabanda Benjamin

Appellant/respondent in the Intercepted Case

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF RWANDA Plc (BRD)

Respondent/applicant for Interception

Koperative GOBOKA

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Against a Judgment on Third Party Opposition/intervention / Appeal Judgment

  1. 1 Whether BRD had standing to file a third-party opposition against judgment No RCA 00255/2020/HC/KIG
  2. 2 Whether Kabanda Benjamin bought UPI 1/02/10/04/1100 before it was given as security to BRD
  3. 3 Whether the challenged judgment should be upheld or reversed

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that BRD was entitled to lodge third-party opposition because the decision in the prior appeal concerned property over which BRD claimed a security interest, and that Kabanda Benjamin had purchased UPI 1/02/10/04/1100 on 05/03/2012, before the parcel was constituted as security to BRD on 21/11/2012. Since the property had already been sold, the later mortgage could not prejudice Kabanda’s ownership rights. Consequently, the High Court erred in maintaining the parcel on GOBOKA’s name as BRD’s security; the appealed judgment was reversed in all its provisions.

Court Disposition

appeal partially upheld; contested judgment reversed in all its provisions; prior judgment maintained

Orders

  • Judgment No RC 00012/2022/HC/KIG of 15/02/2024 reversed in all its provisions.
  • Judgment No RCA 00255/2020/HC/KIG of 08/10/2021 maintained.