RLR V.1-2024

# RLR V.1-2024

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Rwanda law reports - Date: 2024-03-01 - 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 RWANDA LAW REPORTS Icyegeranyo V. 1 - 2024 Mutarama, 2024 Law Reports V. 1 - 2024 January, 2024

## Page 3

REPUBLIC OF RWANDA SUPREME COURT Po. Box. 2197 KIGALI www.judiciary.gov.rw ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO RWANDA LAW REPORTS Icyegeranyo V. 1 - 2024 Mutarama, 2024 Law Reports V. 1 - 2024 January, 2024

## Page 5

v

ISHAKIRO

ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI .................................... ii I. ITSINDA RY’ABANYAMATEGEKO BATEGUYE IMANZA................................................................................. ii II. KOMITE YEMEZA IMANZA .........................................iii IRIBURIRO .............................................................................. vii IBIKUBIYE MURI IKI CYEGERANYO................................. ix INYITO ...................................................................................... ix AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO .......................................... xi IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE ................................................... xiv AMAGAMBO MPINE ........................................................... xvii Re KAMANZI ............................................................................ 1 MURENZI N’UNDI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI (ADD) ............ 77 TABARUKA v AKARERE KA GICUMBI ............................ 97 MBESIGYE v MUKANGWIJE N’ABANDI ........................ 127 MURENZI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI ...................................... 153 KAMUGWIZA v HASHIM SAKINA ................................... 195 EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc vs DUSABE SANGANO .. 229 MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION N’ABANDI v QUALITY CONSTRUCTION N’ABANDI .......................... 253

## Page 6

vi

ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI

I. ITSINDA RY’ABANYAMATEGEKO BATEGUYE IMANZA

KAGABO U. Stephanie

KAVUTSE M. Claude

KUBWIMANA Jean Claude

MUJABI K. Naphtal

NZAYISENGA Daniel

UWINKINDI Angelique

UWIMANA Jean Marie Vianney

## Page 7

vii

II. KOMITE YEMEZA IMANZA

Prof. Dr. NGAGI M. Alphonse : Perezida wa Komite, Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire

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

BWIZA N. Blanche : Umwanditsi wa Komite, Umugenzuzi w’Inkiko

RUKUNDAKUVUGA F. Regis : Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire

Dr. KARIMUNDA M. Aimé : Umuyobozi wa ILPD

HABARUREMA Jean Pierre Perezida w’Urukiko Rukuru

KALIWABO Charles : Umucamanza w’ Urukiko rw’Ubujurire

BURAYOBERA UMUZAYIRE Bibiane : Visi Perezida wa Komisiyo y`u Rwanda ishinzwe Ivugururwa ry`Amategeko

NSENGIYUMVA Jean Claude : Umugenzuzi w’Inkiko

KIBUKA Jean Luc : Umucamanza w’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi

## Page 8

viii

BUNYOYE Grace : Umushinjacyaha ku Rwego rw’Igihugu

KABIBI Specioza : Intumwa ya Leta

MUREREREHE Saouda : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru

Lt. col. MADUDU A. Charles :

Umucamanza mu Rukiko rwa Gisirikare

Dr. NSHIMIYIMANA Didace :

GIRANEZA Clémentine :

Dr MBONIGABA Callixte :

Perezida w’Urukiko Rwisumbuye

Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye

Umwarimu muri INES - Ruhengeri

## Page 9

ix

BAGABO Faustin :

Dr ZIKAMABAHARI Jean de Dieu :

KARAKE Canisius :

HABIMANA Pie :

UMUTESI Vestine :

YANKURIJE Dorothée : Avoka mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka

Umwarimu muri University Of Kigali

Umwarimu muri UNILAK

Avoka mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka

Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi

Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ibanze

## Page 11

xi

IRIBURIRO Basomyi bacu, Tunejejwe no kubagezaho Icyegeranyo cy’Ibyemezo by’Inkiko, Volime 1 [2024]. Nk’uko mubizi, tubahitiramo imanza zikubiyemo bimwe mu bisubizo by’ibibazo muhura nabyo kenshi, haba mu mirimo yanyu ndetse no mu buzima bwa buri munsi. Muri iyi nomero murasangamo imanza icyenda (9) zikurikira: urubanza rumwe (1) rwerekeranye n’ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko Itegeko rinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga, imanza eshatu (3) z’imbonezamubano, urubanza rumwe (1) rw’ubutegetsi, imanza ebyiri (2) z’ubucuruzi, n’imanza ebyiri (2) zerekeranye n’imiburanishirize y’imanza. Nk’uko mumaze kubimenyera imanza ziri muri iki cyegeranyo ziboneka no ku rubuga rwa murandasi rw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga: http://decisia.lexum.com/rlr/kn/nav.do. Dr NTEZILYAYO Faustin Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga akaba na Perezida w’Inama Nkuru y’Ubucamanza

## Page 13

xiii

IBIKUBIYE MURI IKI CYEGERANYO Iki Cyegeranyo gikubiyemo imanza zaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire.

INYITO Imanza ziri muri iyi volime zikoreshwa muri ubu buryo: [2024] 1 RLR

## Page 15

xv

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO

a. Amategeko akoreshwa ubu Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo muri 2003 ryavuguruwe mu mwaka wa 2015, ingingo ya 15, 16 n’iya 29……………………………………………………………………….5 Itangazo ry’Umuryango w’Abibumbye ku burenganzira bwa muntu ryo mu mwaka wa 1948, ingingo ya 10 n’iya 11…………………………………………………………………...7 Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yerekeye uburenganzira mu by’imbonezamubano no mu bya Politiki yo mu mwaka 1966, ingingo ya 26……………………………………………………….…5 Amasezerano nyafurika ku burenganzira bwa Muntu n’ubw’Abaturage, ingingo ya 7……………………………………5 Amasezerano y’Ibihugu by’Iburayi ku burenganzira bwa muntu, ingingo ya 6 n’iya 14…………………………………………………5 Itegeko Ngenga N° 40/2000 ryo ku wa 26 Mutarama 2001 rishyiraho Inkiko Gacaca kandi rigena imiterere y’ikurikirana ry’ibyaha bigize icyaha cya Jenoside n’ibindi byaha byibasiye inyokomuntu, byakozwe hagati y’itariki y’itariki ya mbere Ukwakira 1990 n’iya 31 Ukuboza 1994……………………………5 Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 197……5 Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, ingingo ya 27,53 n’iya 100………………………………..81 ingingo ya 55 n’iya 63……………………………………160 ingingo ya 52………………………………………….…..255

## Page 16

xvi

Itegeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo 12n’iya 111…………………………………………... ingingo 111……………………………………………………. ingingo ya 111, 170 n’iya 273………………………………. ingingo ya 9 n’iya 11…………………………………………. ingingo ya 111 na 154………………………………………... ingingo ya 7……………………………………………………. Itegeko No 32/2016 ryo ku wa 28/08/2016 rigenga abantu n’umuryango, ingingo ya 192, 199, 201…………………………….. Itegeko N° 59/2008 ryo ku wa 10/09/2008 rikumira kandi rihana ihohoterwa iryo ari ryo ryose rishingiye ku gitsina, ingingo ya 39………………………………………………………………………... Itegeko N° 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 3………………………………………………….... ingingo ya 76 n’iya 93………………………………………... Iteka rya Minisitiri N°17/MOJ/AG/20 ryo ku wa 30/10/2020 rigena amafaranga atangwa mu manza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo, iz’ubutegetsi n’iz’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 2…………………………………………………………….. Rwanda Building Code yometswe ku Iteka rya Minisitiri N° 04/Cab.M/015 ryo ku wa 18/05/2015 rishyiraho amabwiriza ajyanye n’imitunganyirize y’imijyi n’imyubakire, ingingo ya 2.6.5.19.3; 2.6.5.19.4………………………………………………….

b. Amategeko yakuweho ariko yakoreshwaga igihe ikibazo cyavukaga

## Page 17

xvii

Itegeko Ngenga N° 03/2012 ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 86…………………………………………………………5 Itegeko Ngenga N°16/2004 ryo ku wa 19/06/2004 ryagenaga imiterere, ububasha n’imikorere by’Inkiko Gacaca……………...5 Itegeko No 86/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho sitati rusange igenga abakozi ba Leta, ingingo ya 40, 44 n’iya 93……………………………………………………………………101 Itegeko Nº 30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/5/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ inshinjabyaha ryariho icyo gihe, ingingo ya 99……………………………………………………….101 Itegeko No 22/2012 ryo ku wa 15/06/2012 rigena imenyekanisha n'ikurikizwa by'inyandiko za Leta, ingingo ya 5………………..101 Itegeko N° 45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, ingingo ya 64, 113………………………………………….50 ingingo ya 65 na 137……………………………………...232 Itegeko N° 11/2007 ryo ku wa 16/03/2007 rigena kwimurira muri Repubulika y’u Rwanda imanza zivuye mu Rukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda, ingingo ya 1………..6 Itegeko No 20/2003 ryo ku wa 03/08/2003 rigena imiterere y’uburezi, ingingo ya 34…………………………………………..101 Itegeko–Teka No 20/75 ryo ku wa 20 Kamena 1975 ryekeye Ubwishingire, ingingo ya 32……………………………………..161 Itegeko ryo ku wa 30 Nyakanga 1888 rishyiraho Igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano, ingingo ya 530…………………………………………………………………197

## Page 18

xviii

IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE Case of Carson and others v. The United Kingdom (Application number 42184/05), §61………………………………………………7 Case of Coertzee v. the Government of the Republic of South Africa 1995 (4) SA 631 (CC)………………………………………...6 Case of Inze v. Austria (Application number 8695/79), Strasbourg 28 October 1987, &41………………………………….7 Case of Thlimmenos v. Greece (Application number 34369/97), Strasbourg 6 April 2000, §44………………………………………7 Cass. Civ. 1ère, 21 décembre 1976, Bull.Civ. I, N° 421………..197 Cass. Civ. 3è, 26 mars 1997, N° 94-21, 808 Bull.Civ, III, N°69…………………………………………………………………161 Kamanzi Anaclet, Urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Gacaca rw’Umurenge wa Kigasha ku itariki ya 21/11/2006……………...6 Mrs. Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese Rep by Its Procurator Devssia’s Son Rev. Father Joseph Kappil, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rw’Ubuhinde, ku wa 01/04/2022, para 09, 17-18………………………………………197 Nkongoli John na Leta y’u Rwanda, RADA 0012/07/CS rwaciwe n'Urukiko rw'Ikirenga ku wa 27/03/2009…………………….…101 RCAA 0117/11/CS; Nibasenge na Nahayo; rwaciwe ku wa 24/04/2015……………………………………………………………... RCAA 0082/12/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 06/11/2015, igika cya 11……………………………………….…161

## Page 19

xix ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO xix

RCOM RS/ INJUST/ RC 00004/2019/SC rwaciwe ku wa 28/07/2020, haburana Mukamana, Havugimana, Umuhoza na Candali……………………………………………………..………161 RMP 3119/AM/KGL/NZF/98-RP 0019/CG-CS/99, Kamanzi Anaclet, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rwa Gisirikare ku itariki ya 18/03/1999……………………..……………………………………...6 RMP 3119/AM/KGL/NZF/98-RP 0019/CG-CS/99, L/Cpl Banamwana Alfred, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rwa Gisirikare………...6 RPA 0227/08/CS hagati y’Ubushinjacyaha na Sibomana Nathanael, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 19/02/2010…………………………….…………………………...161 RPAA 0321/10/CS Ubushinjacyaha bwaburanaga na Habimana Jean Claude, ruciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 18/03/2016………………………………………….……………...161 RS/INCONST/SPEC 00004/2021/SC, Ngendahayo Kabuye, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku itariki ya 10/02/2023….……6 RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2022/SC, Re Murangwa, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 16/12/2022…………………………6 RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC, Re Kabasinga, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku itariki ya 04/12/2019…………………6 RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/ 2019/SC, Re Murangwa Edward, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 29/11/2019…………..…..6 RS/INCONST/PEN/0001/13/CS, Bimenyimana André, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku itariki ya 04/10/2013…………………6 RS/INJUST/RC 00011/2019/SC; Mukamusoni v Nkundimana, rwaciwe ku wa 12/02/2021…………………………………………50

## Page 20

xx AMAGAMBO MPINE

RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2020/SC; Twagirayezu na Twagirayezu n’abandi rwaciwe ku wa 10/12/2021……………………………..51 RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2018/SC rwaciwe ku wa 13/03/2020, haburana Nditiribambe Samuel, Gatera Jason na Nyamaswa Faustin…………………………………………………………...…161 RS/INJUST/RC 00024/2018/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 21/02/2020, ibika bya 18-22………………………………161 RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS, Akagera Business Group, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku itariki ya 23/09/2016…………………6 The Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society v. M/s Ponniamman Educational Trust, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rw’Ubuhinde, ku wa 03/07/2012……..197 Urubanza No RCAA 0048/14/CS, Ahishakiye na Namagabira Venantie rwaciwe ku wa 11/03/2016, para 26-27………….…130 Urubanza No RCAA 0014/15/CS, Mutoni K. Jackline na Niwenshuti Aloys n’undi, rwaciwe ku wa 01/12/2017, para 33……………………………………………………………………130 Urubanza No RCAA 0022/13/CS, Ngangare John na Mukankuranga Grace rwaciwe ku wa 25/07/2014, para 24….130 Urubanza RCOMA 0090 /13/ CS; Publicell SARL v MTN Rwandacell SARL rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’ikirenga ku wa 28/03/2014………………………………………………………...256 Urubanza No RS/Inconst/Pen.0003/10/CS, Gatera Johnson na Kabarisa Teddy, rwaciwe ku wa 07/01/2011, para15…………130

## Page 21

xxi AMAGAMBO MPINE

AMAGAMBO MPINE 1. Amategeko agenga imanza mbonezamubano – Kugabana umutungo hagati y’ababanaga nk’umugabo n’ummugore batarashyingiranywe – Mu gihe ababanaga nk’umugabo n’umugore batashyingiranywe bahagaritse kubana, kugirango bagabane umutungo ni uko bagomba kuba bawufitanye cyangwa barawushakanye. Ntawe usabwa kugaragaza icyo yakoze cyangwa yashyizeho kugira ngo uwo mutungo ubeho cyangwa wiyongerere agaciro, ahubwo uwo mutungo ugomba kuba warabonetse muri cya gihe kidashidikanywaho babanaga, icya ngombwa ni uko buri wese aba yaragize ibyo akora byagize uruhare mu guteza imbere urugo MBESIGYE v MUKANGWIJE N’ABANDI…….....127 Gutesha agaciro ishyingirwa – Ingaruka zo gutesha agaciro ishyingirwa ku washyiranywe nta buryarya – Igihe ishyingirwa riteshejwe agaciro n’Urukiko, uwashyingiranywe utarangwaho uburyarya igihe ishyingirwa ryabaga, agira uburenganzira bwo kugabana umutungo n’uwo babanaga hakurikijwe amasezerano y’icungamutungo bari baragiranye MBESIGYE v MUKANGWIJE N’ABANDI……….127 Ibimenyetso bishingiye kuri raporo z’abahanga – Indahiro n’umukono by’umuhanga wakoze raporo –Kuba nta ndahiro yashyizwe kuri raporo cyangwa nta mukono w’umuhanga uyigaragaraho bitewe no kwibagirwa cyangwa kutamenya ko ari ngombwa, ubwabyo ntibyaba impamvu yo gutesha agaciro raporo y’umuhanga mu gihe ashobora guhamagazwa n’Urukiko izo nenge akazikosora

## Page 22

xxii ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ashyira umukono kuri raporo yatanze cyangwa arahirira imbere y’Urukiko indahiro yateganyijwe n’Itegeko MURENZI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI…………………153 Ibimenyetso bishingiye kuri raporo z’abahanga – Akamaro k’indahiro n’umukono by’umuhanga ku buhamya yatanze muri raporo – Akamaro k’indahiro y’umuhanga ni ukugaragaza ko yakoze inshingano yahawe n’Urukiko ntacyo yirengagije, yazikoze kinyamwuga, nta buhemu nta no kubogamira ku ruhande urwo ariwo rwose. Indahiro cyangwa umukono w’umuhanga ubwabyo sibyo Urukiko ruba rwashyiriyeho umuhanga kuko n’ubundi ntabwo biri mu nshingano ahabwa, ahubwo byombi, iyo bishyizwe kuri raporo, bituma icyizere igomba kugirirwa cyiyongera. MURENZI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI…………………153 Ibimenyetso bishingiye kuri raporo z’abahanga – Kwivuguruza k’umuhanga – Umuhanga wahamirije Urukiko ko yafatanyije na bagenzi be gukora raporo ndetse akayishyiraho umukono, ntashobora guhindukira ngo avuge ko atemera ibiyikubiyemo atabanje kugaragaza ko nta bushobozi yari afite bwo kwanga kuyisinya cyangwa kumenya ko agiye kuyisinya. MURENZI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI…………………153 Ibimenyetso bishingiye kuri raporo z’abahanga – Agaciro ka raporo y’umuhanga yakozwe hifashishijwe indi raporo y’umuhanga – Kuba umuhanga yarashingiye raporo ye ku byagaragajwe n’indi raporo ababuranyi batari bazi ndetse akanga kubatumira mu nama nyuma yo kubashyikiriza raporo ye, ubwabyo ntibyatuma raporo y’umuhanga iteshwa agaciro kuko nta kibuza ko, nyuma yo kuyibona, ababuranyi bagaragaza ibyo bayinenga MURENZI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI…………………153

## Page 23

xxiii AMAGAMBO MPINE

Ibimenyetso bishingiye kuri raporo z’abahanga – Akamaro ka raporo y’umuhanga – Ubuhamya bw’abahanga ni ubugamije guha urukiko ibisobanuro bishingiye ku bumenyi kimwe n’umwanzuro urenze ubumenyi busanzwe bw’umucamanza mu kazi ke bitewe n’uko ibiburanwa bishingiye ku buhanga bwihariye MURENZI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI………………....153 Kwirengera amakosa mu myubakire – Kurunda ibintu hejuru y’urukuta rw’umuturanyi kugeza ubwo ruridutse - Iyo umwubatsi yarunze ibintu ku rukuta bikarenga ubushobozi bwarwo agomba kwirengera ayo makosa kuko aba amureba ku giti cye. MURENZI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI…………………153 Ubutumwa bwo kwivanaho umutungo – Umuntu wahawe ubutumwa rusange afite gusa ububasha bwo gukora ibikorwa bisanzwe byo gucunga umutungo no kuwungura, naho igikorwa gikomeye nk’icyo kugurisha cyangwa kwivanaho umutungo mu buryo ubwo aribwo bwose, gisaba ubutumwa bweruye bugaragariza uwabuhawe nibura umwirondoro w’umutungo ugomba kugurishwa; ni ukuvuga ko bugomba kugaragaza uwo mutungo mu buryo bugaragara kandi budateye urujijo. KAMUGWIZA v HASHIM SAKINA………………...97 2. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza – Imanza mbonezamubano – Uburegeke – Urukiko rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha urubanza ruri mu buregeke - Iyo inkiko zitandukanye ziregewe urubanza rumwe kandi zose zirufitiye ububasha, rumwe muri zo rurwoherereza urundi. Bahitamo urukiko rwisumbuyeho ku rukiko rwo hasi MURENZI N’UNDI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI (ADD)…...........................................................................77

## Page 24

xxiv ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Imanza mbonezamubano – Uburegeke – Uburyo bwo kureba impamvu y’uburegeke – Impamvu y’uburegeke igomba kureberwa 1) mu kuba hari inkiko zitandukanye zaregewe urubanza rumwe, ni ukuvuga ikiburanwa kimwe n’ababuranyi bamwe, 2) mu kuba inkiko zose zaregewe zifite ububasha. Ikiburanwa kimwe bivuze ko ibirego byombi bigomba kuba bifite inkomoko (fait générateur) imwe n’impamvu (cause) imwe. Ababuranyi bamwe bivuze ko ababurana mu rubanza rumwe ari nabo bagomba kuba baburana mu rundi rubanza. MURENZI N’UNDI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI (ADD)…...........................................................................77 Imanza mbonezamubano – Ihame ryo gushyira mu gaciro – Urukiko ntirwiyambaza ihame ryo gushyira mu gaciro mu kwemeza ibyabaye (facts) cyangwa ibisanzwe biteganywa n’amategeko. Ahubwo iyo rumaze kubona ibyabaye n’amategeko agomba gushingirwaho, nibwo ruba rwemerewe gufata ibyemezo bitandukanye, icyo gihe rushobora gushingira ku gushyira mu gaciro. Iyo rutangiye kwibaza ruti: ni ikihe cyemezo gikwiriye kandi gitanga ubutabera? Ubwo ruba rutangiye inzira y’ugushyira mu gaciro MURENZI N’UNDI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI (ADD)…...........................................................................77 Imanza mbonezamubano – Urukiko rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha urubanza rwaregewe ku rwego rwa mbere mu rukiko rw’Ibanze n’urubanza rwatangiriye mu rukiko rwisumbuye – Urubanza rwaregewe ku rwego rwa mbere mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze ntirushobora kuba mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ndetse n’urubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye, rugacibwa ku rwego rwa nyuma

## Page 25

xxv AMAGAMBO MPINE

n’Urukiko Rukuru, nyuma yaho rugasubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane ntirushobora kuba mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ibanze kuko inkiko zifite ububasha bwo kuruburanisha ari Urukiko rw’Ubujurire cyangwa Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. MURENZI N’UNDI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI (ADD)…………………………………………………...77 Imanza z’akarengane – Gusuzuma ingingo nshya mu iburanisha ry’imanza z’akarengane – Umuburanyi utarajuririye ingingo atanyuzwe nazo hakurikijwe inzira zisanzwe kandi yari abyemerewe n’amategeko, aba yivukije inzira y’ubujurire yari gutuma ibyo yanengaga bikosorerwa mu bujurire, bityo akaba adashobora kwifashisha inzira yo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane, yirengagije ko hari izindi manza zabaye, ngo ingingo yanze kujuririra ku bushake asabe ko zisuzumwa mu karengane kuko byaba binyuranyije n’ibiteganywa n’amategeko. MURENZI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI…………………153 3. Amategeko agenga imanza z’ubucuruzi – Amasezerano y’inguzanyo – Abakozi bakorera amabanki – Kwirukanwa mu buryo budakurikije amategeko – Igipimo inyungu zibarirwaho ku wirukanywe – Iyo banki yirukanye umukozi mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko afite inguzayo yahawe ku gipimo kigenewe abakozi nicyo akomeza kuyishyuraho EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc vs DUSABE SANGANO……………………………………………229 Amafaranga yakaswe na banki bidakwiye –Inyungu yabyaye – Amahame ashingirwaho mu kubara inyungu – Igipimo inyungu zibarirwaho – Gusubizanya amafaranga

## Page 26

xxvi ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

n’inyungu zayo – Iyo banki yakase amafaranga umuntu mu buryo budakwiye kuko iba yarayacuruje nka banki y’ubucuruzi, iba igomba kuyasubizanya n’inyungu zayo zibariwe ku gipimo yagaragarijeho ko ari cyo yacuruzagaho amafaranga muri icyo gihe yayakataga. EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc vs DUSABE SANGANO……………………………………………229 4. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirije y’imanza zasabiwe gusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane – Igihe cyo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z'akarengane – Igihe cyo gushyikiriza ubusabe Urwego rw’Umuvunyi – Nubwo Umushingamategeko nta bihe yateganyije ku bijyanye no gushyikiriza ubusabe bwo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane Urwego rw’Umuvunyi, igihe cy’iminsi 30 ni cyo gikwiye gukurikizwa UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI N’ABANDI…………… Kubara igihe cy’iminsi mirongo itatu mu gihe umuburanyi yatanze ubujrire bubiri ku rubanza rumwe – Mu gihe umuburanyi yatanze ubujrire bubiri ku rubanza rumwe, igihe cy’iminsi 30 cyo gusaba ko urubanza rwaciwe rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane kigomba kubarwa guhera ku itariki Urukiko rwatangiyeho icyemezo cyo kutakira ubujurire bwa kabiri UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI N’ABANDI…………… Kutaburanisha bwa mbere mu rwego rw’akarengane ikitaraburanyweho mu rubanza rusabirwa gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane – Umuburanyi ntiyavuga ko yagize akarengane ku kibazo atigeze agaragaraza ngo asabe kugisuzuma UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI N’ABANDI……………

## Page 27

xxvii AMAGAMBO MPINE

5. Amategeko agenga ububasha bw’inkiko – Ububasha bw’urukiko ry’Ubujurire – ubujurire bwa kabiri – imanza zaciwe n’inkiko zitabifitiye ububasha - amasezerano ateganya ubukemurampaka – gusaba gukuraho ibyemezo by’inkiko zabanje hashingiwe ku kuba uwareze yaragombaga kubanza kwiyambaza ubukemurampaka – umuburanyi wiyambuye uburenganzira bwo kwiyambaza ubukemurampaka akaregera Urukiko, uwarezwe nawe akabyemera, nta wahindukira ngo avuge ko yaburanishijwe n’Urukiko rutabifitiye ububasha, asaba ko ubujurire bwa kabiri bwakirwa MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION N’ABANDI v QUALITY CONSTRUCTION N’ABANDI………253 6. Amategeko agenga ubutaka – Igurisha ry’umutungo w’undi – Nyir’umutungo afite uburenganzira bwo kuwukurikirana mu maboko y’uwufite bitabaye ngombwa gusaba ko amasezerano y’ubugure ateshwa agaciro, uwari uwufite akikurikiranira uwamugurishije UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI N’ABANDI…………… 7. Amategeko agenga umurimo – Guhagarikwa by’agateganyo ku murimo – Ifungwa ry’agateganyo – Gusezererwa ku murimo – Mu manza z’umurimo, ifungwa ry’agateganyo ry’umukozi wa Leta rituma asezererwa nta mpaka mu kazi mu gihe kirengeje amezi atandatu, gitangira kubarwa uhereye umunsi yafatiweho agafungwa by’agateganyo TABARUKA v AKARERE KA GICUMBI…………..97 Ikiruhuko cy’umukozi wa Leta – Ikiruhuko cy’umwaka – Iyo umukozi wa Leta atabashije gufata konji y’umwaka kubera impamvu z’akazi, ayifata mu kwezi kubanza k’umwaka ukurikiyeho, ariko akaba agomba kugaragaza ko yari yayisabye mu nyandiko – Umukozi wasabye konji

## Page 28

xxviii ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

mu nyandiko ntayihabwe kubera impamvu z’akazi, ntahabwa amafaranga ayisimbura, ahubwo ayisimbuza indi agomba gufata mu kwezi kwa mbere k’umwaka ukurikiyeho. TABARUKA v AKARERE KA GICUMBI…………..97 8. Itegeko Nshinga – Ihame ry’uko abantu bareshya imbere y’amategeko – Gutandukanya abantu – Nubwo abantu bafatwa kimwe imbere y’itegeko, nta busumbane cyangwa ivangura, ndetse n’itegeko rigiyeho rikaba rigomba gufata kimwe abo rireba, ariko kudafatwa kimwe cyangwa gushyirwa mu byiciro buri gihe cyose ntibyitwa ivangura mu gihe bikozwe hari impamvu zumvikana zishingiye ku ntego ifite ireme Re KAMANZI………………………………………….1 Uburenganzira bwo kureshya imbere y’amategeko no kurindwa ivangura – Kuba abakurikiranyweho icyaha cya Jenoside n’ibindi byaha byibasiye inyokomuntu mu miburanire yabo hari ibyo batemerewe kandi bikemererwa abandi, cyangwa kutareshya n’abandi imbere y’amategeko bitewe n’uko bari mu cyiciro kihariye ndetse n’uburyo icyaha bakurikiranyweho cyakozwemo, ntibyakwitwa ko ari ivangura bakorerwa Re KAMANZI………………………………………….1 Uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye – Kuba Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha ryarateganyije impamvu zitandukanye zituma abakatiwe n’Inkiko Gacaca n’abakatiwe n’inkiko zisanzwe bemererwa gusubirishamo ingingo nshya imanza zabo, ntibivuze ko nta butabera buboneye buba bwatanzwe, mu gihe buri cyiciro kigomba kurebwa ukwacyo bitewe

## Page 29

xxix ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

n’urukiko rwakiburanishije, ndetse hashingiwe no ku bwoko bw’ibyaha gikurikiranyweho Re AMANZI……………………………………………1

## Page 30

xxx AMAGAMBO MPINE

## Page 31

IBIREGO BYIHARIYE

## Page 33

IKIREGO GISABA KWEMEZA KO ITEGEKO RINYURANYE N’ITEGEKO NSHINGA

## Page 35

1

Re KAMANZI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2022/SC – (Mukamulisa, J. P., Nyirinkwaya, Cyanzayire, Muhumuza na Hitiyaremye, J.) 31 Werurwe 2023] Itegeko Nshinga – Ihame ry’uko abantu bareshya imbere y’amategeko – Gutandukanya abantu – Nubwo abantu bafatwa kimwe imbere y’itegeko, nta busumbane cyangwa ivangura, ndetse n’itegeko rigiyeho rikaba rigomba gufata kimwe abo rireba, ariko kudafatwa kimwe cyangwa gushyirwa mu byiciro buri gihe cyose ntibyitwa ivangura mu gihe bikozwe hari impamvu zumvikana zishingiye ku ntego ifite ireme. Itegeko Nshinga – Uburenganzira bwo kureshya imbere y’amategeko no kurindwa ivangura – Kuba abakurikiranyweho icyaha cya Jenoside n’ibindi byaha byibasiye inyokomuntu mu miburanire yabo hari ibyo batemerewe kandi bikemererwa abandi, cyangwa kutareshya n’abandi imbere y’amategeko bitewe n’uko bari mu cyiciro kihariye ndetse n’uburyo icyaha bakurikiranyweho cyakozwemo, ntibyakwitwa ko ari ivangura bakorerwa. Itegeko Nshinga – Uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye – Kuba Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha ryarateganyije impamvu zitandukanye zituma abakatiwe n’Inkiko Gacaca n’abakatiwe n’inkiko zisanzwe bemererwa gusubirishamo ingingo nshya imanza zabo, ntibivuze ko nta butabera buboneye buba bwatanzwe, mu gihe buri cyiciro kigomba kurebwa ukwacyo bitewe n’urukiko rwakiburanishije, ndetse hashingiwe no ku bwoko bw’ibyaha gikurikiranyweho.

## Page 36

2 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Incamake y’ikibazo: Kamanzi yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga arusaba kwemeza ko igika cya 4 cy’ingingo ya 197 y'Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha kinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rya Rupubulika y’u Rwanda mu ngingo zaryo, iya 15, iya 16 n’iya 29. Yasobanuye ko kuba igika kimaze kuvugwa giteganya ko abakatiwe n’Inkiko Gacaca bemererwa gusubirishamo imanza zabo ingingo nshya iyo berekanye ko abo bashinjwaga kwica bakiriho gusa, ari ivangura ribakorerwa kandi itegeko ritabareshyeshya n’abandi kubera ko abakatiwe n’inkiko zisanzwe bo hari izindi mpamvu zateganyijwe n’itegeko bashobora gushingiraho basaba gusubirishamo imanza zabo ingingo nshya. Yavugaga kandi kuba yarabonye ibimenyetso byatuma asubirishamo ingingo nshya urubanza yaciriwe n’Urukiko Gacaca ariko itegeko rikamuzitira, ibyo bibangamira ubutabera buboneye yemererwa n’Itegeko Nshinga kuko adashobora kugaragaza akarengane ke. Uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda muri uru rubanza avuga ko ikirego cya Kamanzi cy’uko ibiteganyijwe mu gika cya 4 cy’ingingo ya 197 y’Itegeko N° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru binyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga basanga nta shingiro gifite, kuko ibiteganyijwe muri izo ngingo bigomba gusuzumwa hagereranywa umuntu n’abo bahuje icyiciro. Asobanura ko kuba iyi ngingo iteganya impamvu zo gusubirishamo imanza ingingo nshya ishingiye ku nkiko zaziciye nta vangura ririmo dore ko gushyira abantu mu byiciro atari ukubavangura, cyane cyane iyo ibyo byiciro byashyizweho hagamijwe kugera ku ntego yumvikana, igaragarira buri wese, ishingiye ku mategeko, kandi ibyashingiweho bikaba bifite ireme mu nyungu rusange.

## Page 37

3 Re KAMANZI

Akomeza avuga ko byari ngombwa ko icyo gika kibaho, kubera ko gusubirishamo ingingo nshya imanza zaciwe n’Inkiko Gacaca ku mpamvu ibonetse yose byaba ari ugutesha agaciro umurimo wakozwe n’izo nkiko, bikaba byahembera umwiryane mu banyarwanda. Asoza avuga ko icyo gika cya 4 cy’ingingo ya 197 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru, cyaje kigamije kuziba icyuho, aho abakatiwe n’Inkiko Gacaca wasangaga bitabaza inkiko zisanzwe kugira ngo basubirishemo imanza zabo ingingo nshya bagamije kuzitesha agaciro batitaye ku mwihariko w’uburyo icyaha cya jenoside cyakozwemo. Ku bijyanye n’ihame ryo kudakorerwa ivangura no kureshya imbere y’amategeko ryasuzumwe muri uru rubanza hagaragajwe ko gufata abantu mu buryo butandukanye bikozwe hari impamvu igaragara kandi yumvikana binagamije intego yemewe, bigakorwa mu buryo bufitanye isano n’ikigamijwe kugerwaho, byemewe. Urukiko rwasanze abakurikiranyweho icyaha cya Jenoside n’ibindi byaha byibasiye inyokomuntu barashyizwe mu cyiciro cyihariye bashyirirwaho n’Inkiko zihariye zababuranishije mu buryo bwihariye hakurikijwe intego yari igamijwe kugerwaho. Kuba rero mu miburanire yabo itandukanye n’iy’abakurikiranwaho ibyaha bisanzwe hari ibyo batemerewe byemererwa abandi bitewe n’uburyo icyaha cya Jenoside bakurikiranyweho cyakozwemo, Urukiko rwasanze atari ivangura ribakorerwa cyangwa kutareshya n’abandi imbere y’amategeko kubera ko bagize icyiciro cyihariye, rwanzura ko igika cya 4 cy’ingingo ya 197 y'Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru kitanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga. Ku bijyanye n’ihame ryo guhabwa ubutabera buboneye hasobanuwe ko ubutabera buboneye bushingiye ku biteganywa

## Page 38

4 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

n’itegeko bubuza ishyirwaho ry’amategeko cyangwa izindi ngamba zidashyira mu gaciro zikanabangamira uburenganzira bw’abaturage nta mpamvu ihari igaragara. Hari kandi n’ubutabera buboneye bushingiye ku migendekere y’urubanza ishingiye ku ruhererekane rw’ibigomba kubahirizwa hashingiwe ku mahame ateganywa n’amategeko cyangwa amasezerano mpuzamahanga. Urukiko rwasanze abakatiwe n’Inkiko Gacaca mu migendekere y’imanza zabo nta burenganzira na bumwe mu buteganywa n’ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga kimwe n’amasezerano mpuzamahanga batabonye. Rwasanze kandi igika cya 4 cy’ingingo ya 197 y'Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru uwatanze ikirego anenga, nta na hamwe ibuza cyangwa ngo ibangamire uburenganzira ukurikiranyweho icyaha cya Jenoside afite mu migenderekere y’urubanza rwe. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Nubwo abantu bafatwa kimwe imbere y’itegeko, nta busumbane cyangwa ivangura, ndetse n’itegeko rigiyeho rikaba rigomba gufata kimwe abo rireba, ariko kudafatwa kimwe cyangwa gushyirwa mu byiciro buri gihe cyose ntibyitwa ivangura mu gihe bikozwe hari impamvu zumvikana zishingiye ku ntego ifite ireme. 2. Kuba abakurikiranyweho icyaha cya Jenoside n’ibindi byaha byibasiye inyokomuntu mu miburanire yabo hari ibyo batemerewe kandi bikemererwa abandi, cyangwa kutareshya n’abandi imbere y’amategeko bitewe n’uko bari mu cyiciro kihariye ndetse n’uburyo icyaha bakurikiranyweho cyakozwemo, ntibyakwitwa ko ari ivangura bakorerwa. 4. Kuba Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha ryarateganyije impamvu zitandukanye zituma abakatiwe n’Inkiko Gacaca n’abakatiwe n’inkiko zisanzwe

## Page 39

5 Re KAMANZI

bemererwa gusubirishamo ingingo nshya imanza zabo, ntibivuze ko nta butabera buboneye buba bwatanzwe, mu gihe buri cyiciro kigomba kurebwa ukwacyo bitewe n’urukiko rwakiburanishije, ndetse hashingiwe no ku bwoko bw’ibyaha gikurikiranyweho. Ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko ingingo y'itegeko inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, nta shingiro gifite. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo muri 2003 ryavuguruwe mu mwaka wa 2015, ingingo ya 15, 16 n’iya 29. Itegeko Ngenga N° 03/2012 ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 86. Itegeko Ngenga N°16/2004 ryo ku wa 19/06/2004 ryagenaga imiterere, ububasha n’imikorere by’Inkiko Gacaca. Itegeko Ngenga N° 40/2000 ryo ku wa 26 Mutarama 2001 rishyiraho Inkiko Gacaca kandi rigena imiterere y’ikurikirana ry’ibyaha bigize icyaha cya Jenoside n’ibindi byaha byibasiye inyokomuntu, byakozwe hagati y’itariki y’itariki ya mbere Ukwakira 1990 n’iya 31 Ukuboza 1994. Itangazo Mpuzamahanga rirebana n’uburenganzira bw’Ikiremwamuntu, ingingo ya 10 n’iya 11. Amasezerano nyafurika ku burenganzira bwa Muntu n’ubw’Abaturage, ingingo ya 7. Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yerekeye uburenganzira mu by’imbonezamubano no mu bya Politiki yo mu mwaka 1966, ingingo ya 26. Amasezerano y’Ibihugu by’Iburayi ku burenganzira bwa muntu, ingingo ya 6 n’iya 14.

## Page 40

6 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 197. Itegeko N° 11/2007 ryo ku wa 16/03/2007 rigena kwimurira muri Repubulika y’u Rwanda imanza zivuye mu Rukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda, ingingo ya 1. Imanza zifashishijwe: RS/INCONST/SPEC 00004/2021/SC, Ngendahayo Kabuye, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku itariki ya 10/02/2023. RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2022/SC, Re Murangwa, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 16/12/2022. RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC, Re Kabasinga, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku itariki ya 04/12/2019. RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/ 2019/SC, Re Murangwa Edward, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 29/11/2019. RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS, Akagera Business Group, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku itariki ya 23/09/2016. RS/INCONST/PEN/0001/13/CS, Bimenyimana André, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku itariki ya 04/10/2013. Kamanzi Anaclet, Urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Gacaca rw’Umurenge wa Kigasha ku itariki ya 21/11/2006. RMP 3119/AM/KGL/NZF/98-RP 0019/CG-CS/99, Kamanzi Anaclet, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rwa Gisirikare ku itariki ya 18/03/1999. RMP 3119/AM/KGL/NZF/98-RP 0019/CG-CS/99, L/Cpl Banamwana Alfred, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rwa Gisirikare. Case of Thlimmenos v. Greece (Application number 34369/97), Strasbourg 6 April 2000, §44. Case of Coertzee v. the Government of the Republic of South Africa 1995 (4) SA 631 (CC).

## Page 41

7 Re KAMANZI

Case of Carson and others v. The United Kingdom (Application number 42184/05), §61. Case of Inze v. Austria (Application number 8695/79), Strasbourg 28 October 1987, &41. Inyandiko z’Abahanga zifashishijwe: National Service of Gacaca courts, Gacaca courts closing report, Kigali, June 18, 2012, p. 77. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Ku itariki ya 07/05/2022 Kamanzi Anaclet yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga asaba gukuraho igika cya 4 cy’ingingo ya 197 y’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha avuga ko kinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15, iya 16 n’iya 29 z’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo muri 2003 ryavuguruwe mu mwaka wa 2015 (Itegeko Nshinga muri uru rubanza). [2] Asobanura ko ku itariki ya 21/11/2006, yahamijwe icyaha cya Jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwa Gacaca rw’Umurenge wa Kigasha, aho rwemeje ko yari mu gitero cyishe umuryango wa Munyengango Augustin wari utuye muri Segiteri Kigasha, Komini Ngarama, Perefegitura ya Byumba. [3] Avuga ko nyuma yo guhamwa n’icyo cyaha, ku itariki ya 25/04/2022, yabonye ibimenyetso bikurikira byatuma

## Page 42

8 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

asubirishamo ingingo nshya urwo rubanza yaciriwe n’Urukiko Gacaca: - Kopi y’urubanza RMP 3119/AM/KGL/NZF/98 – RP 0019/CG- CS/99 rwaciwe n’Urukiko rwa Gisirikare ku itariki ya 18/03/1999; - Inyandiko zitandukanye ziri muri dosiye y’uru rubanza. [4] Akomeza avuga ko izo nyandiko zigaragaza ko icyaha yahamijwe agakatirwa imyaka 25 cyakozwe n’abasirikare bari bafite ibirindiro (position) muri Segiteri ya Kigasha, kandi ko umwe muri abo basirikare witwa L/Cpl Banamwana Alfred yemeye icyaha, mu iburanisha no mu iperereza, akavuga ko babikoze bonyine nta musiviri bari kumwe. [5] Asobanura ko ingingo ya 197 y’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru, mu gika cyayo cya 4, hateganyijwe ko ku manza zaciwe n’Inkiko Gacaca, impamvu ishobora gutuma urubanza rusubirishwamo ingingo nshya ari impamvu imwe gusa: iyo uwakatiwe urubanza yerekanye ko uwo yashinjwaga kwica akiriho, ko izindi mpamvu 5 zivugwa mu gika cya mbere cy’iyi ngingo zirengera abahuye n’akarengane mu manza zaciwe n’inkiko zisanzwe gusa, abarenganyijwe n’Inkiko Gacaca bakaba batemerewe kurengerwa nazo. [6] Avuga ko mu nyungu ze bwite, ndetse no mu nyungu rusange nk’umunyarwanda uharanira ubutabera bwuzuye n’iterambere ry’amategeko, atanze iki kirego kugira ngo asabe Urukiko rw’Ikirenga gukuraho igika cya nyuma (cya 4) cy’ingingo ya 197 y’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru, kuko kinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga mu ngingo zaryo zikurikira:

## Page 43

9 Re KAMANZI

- iya 15 iteganya ko abantu bose bareshya imbere y’amategeko; - iya 16 ikumira ivangura iryo ariryo ryose; - n’iya 29 iha buri muntu wese uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye. [7] Iburanisha ryabereye mu ruhame ku itariki ya 18/01/2023, Kamanzi Anaclet ahagarariwe na Me Kayitana Evode, hari na Leta y’u Rwanda ihagarariwe n’Intumwa yayo Me Batsinda Aline, Urukiko rubanza gusuzuma ikibazo kirebana n’inyungu Kamanzi Anaclet afite mu rubanza. [8] Nyuma yo kumva Me Kayitana Evode uhagarariye Kamanzi Anaclet avuga ko nk’undi munyarwanda wese, afite inyungu ko Itegeko Nshinga kimwe n’andi mategeko byakubahirizwa, ko ariko by’umwihariko nk’umuntu wakatiwe n’Inkiko Gacaca, ingingo yasabye ko yakurwaho imubangamiye; [9] Rumaze kumva Me Batsinda Aline uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda, avuga ko Kamanzi Anaclet nta nyungu yihariye afite muri uru rubanza kubera ko, harebwe uburyo ingingo ya 197 y’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru iregerwa muri uru rubanza yanditse, ireba inyungu z’abanyarwanda bose muri rusange; [10] Urukiko rwafatiye mu ntebe icyemezo gikurikira: rushingiye ku cyemezo cyafashwe mu rubanza rubanziriza urundi RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2022/SC rwaciwe ku itariki ya 16/12/20221, aho uru Rukiko rwemeje ko kuba mu rubanza

1 Muri uru rubanza haburanagamo Murangwa Edward wasabaga ko ingingo zimwe na zimwe z’Itegeko Nº 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 rishyiraho

## Page 44

10 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

harimo kimwe muri ibi bikurikira, byihagije kugira ngo Urukiko rwemeze ko urega afite inyungu: - Niba itegeko riregerwa ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rireba urega cyangwa icyiciro arimo by’umwihariko ku buryo afite inyungu ku giti cye zo gutanga ikirego; - Niba itegeko riregerwa ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rireba abaturage bose muri rusange ku buryo rishobora kugira ingaruka ku burenganzira bwabo, ibyo bikaba aribyo bihesha umuntu uwo ariwe wese rishobora kuzagiraho ingaruka, inyungu zo kuriregera ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga; - Niba uwatanze ikirego ari umunyamwuga (pratictionner), mu nyungu z’ubutabera, uyu akaba yemerewe gutanga ikirego mu rwego rwo guteza imbere amategeko cyangwa uburenganzira bw’abarebwa n’iryo tegeko, kabone nubwo we nta nyungu ku giti cye yaba afite muri icyo kirego. [11] Ku birebana n’uru rubanza, Urukiko rwasanze muri dosiye harimo urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Gacaca rw’Umurenge wa Kigasha rwakatiye Kamanzi Anaclet igifungo cy’imyaka 25 nyuma yo kumuhamya kugira uruhare mu rupfu rw’umuryango wa Munyengango Augustin muri Jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi. Muri dosiye hagaragaramo kandi urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko rwa Gisirikare rwemeje ko L/Cpl

Urwego rw’Igihugu Rushizwe Ubugenzacyaha rikanagena inshingano, ububasha, imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, n’iz’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha zakurwaho kubera ko zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga.

## Page 45

11 Re KAMANZI

Banamwana Alfred ahamwa n’icyaha cy’ubufatanyacyaha mu bwicanyi bwakorewe umuryango wa Munyengango Augustin. [12] Hashingiwe kuri izo nyandiko no ku murongo watanzwe n’uru Rukiko wavuzwe haruguru, Urukiko rwasanze Kamanzi Anaclet afite inyungu itaziguye kandi ye bwite yo kuregera ingingo ya 197, igika cya 4, y’Itegeko N° 027/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru avuga ko imubangamiye mu gihe yaba ashaka gusubirishamo ingingo nshya urubanza rwamukatiye ku cyaha avuga ko cyahamye undi muntu kandi utarigeze amushinja ko bafatanyije. [13] Urukiko rwakomeje iburanisha hasuzumwa ibibazo bikurikira: - Kumenya niba igika cya 4 cy’ingingo ya 197 y’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha kinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga; - Kumenya niba igika cya 4 cy’ingingo ya 197 y’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha kinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga.

II. ISESENGURA RY’IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA

## Page 46

12 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

1. Kumenya niba igika cya 4 cy’ingingo ya 197 y’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha kinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga [14] Me Kayitana Evode uburanira Kamanzi Anaclet avuga ko ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga iteganya ko abantu bose bareshya imbere y’amategeko, ko kandi itegeko ribarengera ku buryo bumwe. Akomeza avuga ko n’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga u Rwanda rwashyizeho umukono nayo ateganya ubu burenganzira bwo kureshya imbere y’amategeko no gukumira ivangura iryo ariryo ryose. Atanga urugero rw’ingingo ya 26 y’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yerekeye uburenganzira mu by’imbonezamubano no mu bya Politiki (Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques) iteganya ko abantu bose bareshya imbere y’amategeko kandi ko bafite uburenganzira bwo kurengerwa n’amategeko ku buryo bungana nta kuvangura. Iyo ngingo igakomeza ivuga ko kubera izo mpamvu, amategeko agomba kubuza ivangura iryo ariryo ryose kandi hagashyirwaho uburyo bungana kandi buhamye bwo kurinda abantu bose ivangura mu mimerere iyo ariyo yose. [15] Avuga ko kuba ingingo ya 197, igika cya 4, y’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru, iteganya ko abakatiwe n’Inkiko Gacaca batemerewe gusubirishamo imanza zabo ingingo nshya nk’abaciriwe imanza n’inkiko zisanzwe, asanga harimo akarengane kuko itegeko ritabarengera kimwe n’abaciriwe imanza n’izindi nkiko zisanzwe. Avuga ko asanga kandi ingingo imaze kuvugwa inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 16 y’Itegeko Nshinga iteganya ko abanyarwanda bose bagomba kugira uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure bingana, kuko Kamanzi Anaclet adafite

## Page 47

13 Re KAMANZI

uburenganzira bungana n’ubw’abandi bwo gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya. [16] Me Kayitana Evode avuga ko yemera ko ivangura rishobora kubaho mu mategeko iyo hari impamvu zikomeye zituma ribaho, ko ibi byanemejwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza RS/INCONST/PEN 0005/12/CS. Asobanura ko uru rubanza rwari rushingiye ku cyemezo cya ICTR (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda) cyo kohereza Uwinkindi Jean ngo akurikiranwe n’inkiko zo mu Rwanda, aho yagombaga kuburanishwa n’Urukiko Rukuru ku rwego rwa mbere hashingiwe ku ngingo ya mbere y’Itegeko N° 11/2007 ryo ku wa 16/03/2007 rigena kwimurira muri Repubulika y’u Rwanda imanza zivuye mu Rukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda. Uwinkindi Jean yahise aregera Urukiko rw’Ikirenga arusaba gukuraho iyo ngingo kuko inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, aho yavugaga ko ituma habaho ivangura igatuma aburanishwa n’Urukiko Rukuru ku rwego rwa mbere, bityo ntagire uburenganzira abandi bafite bwo kujurira. [17] Akomeza avuga ko Urukiko rwanzuye ko gutandukanya abantu nta ruhande rubogamiweho, kandi ku mpamvu zumvikana, aribwo gusa bitakwitwa ivangura. Urukiko rwabivuze muri aya magambo: gushyira abantu mu byiciro ntabwo ari ukubavangura cyane cyane iyo ibyo byiciro byashyizweho hagamijwe kugera ku ntego yumvikana, igaragarira buri wese, ishingiye ku mategeko kandi ibyashingiweho bikaba bifite ireme mu nyungu rusange. [18] Asobanura ko iby’uko itegeko rishobora kuvangura abantu kandi byanavuzweho n’Akanama k’Umuryango w’Abibumbye Gashinzwe iyubahirizwa ry’Uburenganzira bwa Muntu (United Nations Human Rights Committee) mu mwanzuro

## Page 48

14 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kafashe mu nama yako ya 37, nako kavuze ku by’uko itegeko rishobora kuvangura abantu, aho kagize kati “…the committee observes that not every differentiation of treatment will constitute discrimination, if the criteria for such differentiation are reasonable and objective and if the aim is to achieve a purpose which is legitimate under the covenant”. [19] Avuga ko asanga ariko ibiteganywa mu gika cya 4 cy’ingingo ya 197 y’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru bidashobora kubonerwa ibisobanuro (justification) kuko nta mpamvu n’imwe yatuma akarengane ka bamwe gasuzumwa n’inkiko hanyuma ak’abandi ntigasuzumwe. [20] Akomeza asobanura kandi ko ku byerekeranye n’uburenganzira bwo kureshya imbere y’amategeko no kurengerwa kimwe na yo, n’ibihugu by’amahanga bifite icyo bibuvugaho. Urugero atanga ni muri Canada, aho itegeko ryerekeye uburenganzira bwa muntu (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) riteganya mu cyiciro (Section) cya 15(1) ko abantu bose bareshya imbere y’amategeko kandi itegeko ribarengera kimwe nta vangura. Avuga ko mu gusobanura icyo uku kureshya imbere y’amatego no kurengerwa kimwe bivuga, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa Canada mu rubanza “Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia”, rwashimangiye ko nk’ihame, imvugo kurengerwa kimwe yumvikanisha ko abari mu mimerere imwe bagomba gufatwa kimwe. [21] Ku birebana n’icyo ivangura aricyo, avuga ko urwo Rukiko rwasobanuye ko ivangura ari ugutandukanya abantu byaba bigambiriwe cyangwa bitagambiriwe, bishingiye ku mpamvu izo arizo zose, bigatuma bamwe batagira uburenganzira bungana n’ubw’abandi mu gihugu. Avuga ko rwabivuze muri aya magambo: “Discrimination is a distinction which, whether

## Page 49

15 Re KAMANZI

intentional or not but based on grounds relating to personal characteristics of the individual or group, has an effect which withholds or limits access to advantages available to other members of society.” [22] Asoza avuga ko nk’uko bigaragara mu gika cya 4 cy’ingingo ya 197 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru asaba ko cyavanwaho, itegeko ryagennye ibyiciro bibiri by’abantu atari ukugira ngo abari muri buri cyiciro bitabweho kimwe, ahubwo ari ukugira ngo icyiciro kimwe gihabwe uburenganzira ikindi kibwimwe. Avuga ko abakatiwe n’inkiko zisanzwe bafite uburenganzira bwo gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya, mu gihe abakatiwe n’Inkiko Gacaca bo ubwo burenganzira ntabwo bafite. Yanzura avuga ko iri ari ivangura kuko usibye no kutarengerwa kimwe n’itegeko, ahubwo kuri bamwe nta no kurengerwa naryo na gato guhari. [23] Me Batsinda Aline uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda, avuga ko ikirego cya Kamanzi Anaclet cy’uko ibiteganyijwe mu gika cya 4 cy’ingingo ya 197 y’Itegeko N° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryamaze kuvugwa binyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga basanga nta shingiro gifite, kuko ibiteganyijwe muri izo ngingo bigomba gusuzumwa hagereranywa umuntu n’abo bahuje icyiciro. [24] Asobanura ko ingingo ya 197 y’Itegeko N° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru iteganya ibyiciro bibiri by’imanza zishobora gusabirwa gusubirishwamo ingingo nshya: imanza zaciwe n’Inkiko zisanzwe zishobora gusubirishwamo ingingo nshya hashingiwe ku biteganyijwe mu gika cya mbere, icya 2 n’icya 3, n’imanza zaciwe n’Inkiko Gacaca nazo zishobora gusubirishwamo ingingo nshya ariko hashingiwe ku biteganyijwe mu gika cya 4 cy’iyo ngingo.

## Page 50

16 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[25] Akomeza avuga ko iyubahirizwa ry’amahame ateganyijwe mu ngingo ya 15 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga, ryakorwa hagereranywa ibyemerewe abantu bafite imanza zaciwe n’inkiko zisanzwe zisabirwa gusubirishwamo ingingo nshya hagati yabo cyangwa se ibyemerewe abasaba gusubirishamo ingingo nshya imanza zaciwe n’Inkiko Gacaca nabo hagati yabo, kandi ko byakorwa hasuzumwa impamvu ziteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 197 y’Itegeko N° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru. [26] Asobanura ko kuba iriya ngingo iteganya impamvu zo gusubirishamo imanza ingingo nshya ishingiye ku nkiko zaziciye nta vangura ririmo, kandi ko ibi byanashimangiwe mu rubanza RS/INCONST/PEN 0005/12/CS rwavuzwe haruguru, aho mu gika cyarwo cya 16, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwemeje ko kuba hashobora kubaho amategeko agena ko abantu baburanishirizwa mu nkiko zitandukanye bakekwaho gukora ibyaha bisa, ko ubwabyo atari ivangura, ko ahubwo bishobora gukorwa hagamijwe kugera ku ntego yumvikana mu rwego rwo gutanga ubutabera bunoze. [27] Akomeza asobanura ko gushyira abantu mu byiciro atari ukubavangura, cyane cyane iyo ibyo byiciro byashyizweho hagamijwe kugera ku ntego yumvikana, igaragarira buri wese, ishingiye ku mategeko, kandi ibyashingiweho bikaba bifite ireme mu nyungu rusange, ibyo bikaba bishimangira ko igika cya 4 cy’ingingo ya 197 y’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru kitanyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga mu ngingo yaryo ya 15 n’iya 16 kuko kireba icyiciro cyihariye. [28] Yongeraho ko byari ngombwa ko icyo gika kibaho, kubera ko gusubirishamo ingingo nshya imanza zaciwe n’Inkiko Gacaca ku mpamvu ibonetse yose byaba ari ugutesha agaciro

## Page 51

17 Re KAMANZI

umurimo wakozwe n’izo nkiko, bikaba byahembera umwiryane mu banyarwanda, kubera ko hari ahagiye hagaragara akagambane mu manza zaciwe n’izo nkiko kugira ngo zisubirishwemo ingingo nshya mu nkiko zisanzwe hagamijwe gusa kurekura abo zakatiye. [29] Akomeza asobanura ko impamvu y’igika cya 4 cy’ingingo ya 197 y’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru urega asaba ko cyakurwaho, ari uko mu gihe cy’Inkiko Gacaca, hagiye hagaragara ubwumvikane hagati y’abahamwe n’icyaha cya jenoside, umuntu ubona ko ashinjwa kwica abantu benshi akishyiraho n’undi atishe agamije kugira uwo ahishira. Avuga ko iyo usesenguye uburyo icyaha cya jenoside cyakorwagamo, usanga urupfu rw’umuntu umwe rwaragizwemo uruhare n’abantu benshi, nk’aho nk’umuntu wagaragayeho igikorwa cyo kujya kuri bariyeri, bigoye kumenya umubare w’abantu bayiciweho, cyangwa mu gihe ahamwe n’icyaha cyo gushishikariza abantu kwica, kugambanira abishwe cyangwa kujya mu gitero, usanga urupfu rw’uwishwe muri icyo gihe rufitwemo uruhare n’abantu benshi kuko bose ibyo bakoraga byabaga bigambiriye ko yicwa. Avuga ko muri icyo gihe hatahanwa gusa uwamwishe nyirizina, ngo abandi bumve ko ari abere, ariyo mpamvu Itegeko Ngenga ryagengaga Inkiko Gacaca ryashyize abantu mu byiciro hashingiwe ku mikorere y’icyaha, ibyo byose bikaba bigamije kumvikanisha uburyo abakatiwe n’Inkiko Gacaca batagomba gushingira ku mpamvu zimwe n’abakatiwe n’inkiko zisanzwe mu gusubirishamo imanza zabo ingingo nshya. [30] Uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda akomeza avuga ko mbere y’uko igika cya 4 cy’iriya ngingo gishyirwa mu itegeko, zimwe mu manza zaburanishijwe n’inkiko zisanzwe hasubirishwamo

## Page 52

18 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ingingo nshya imanza zaciwe n’Inkiko Gacaca, zagiye zigira abere abari barahamwe n’icyaha cya jenoside cyangwa zikabafungura mu buryo budasobanutse hirengagijwe umwihariko n’imiterere by’Inkiko Gacaca. Avuga ko hari aho inkiko zisanzwe zatesheje agaciro imanza zaciwe n’Inkiko Gacaca ku mpamvu y’uko hari undi muntu wahamijwe icyaha kizivugwamo, byongeye kandi anacyirega, ariko nyamara hakirengagizwa ko umuntu umwe yashoboraga kwicwa n’igitero kirimo abantu benshi nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru. [31] Avuga ko urugero ari urugaragara nyine mu manza ebyiri Kamanzi Anaclet yerekana, arizo: urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Gacaca rw’Umurenge wa Kigasha ku itariki ya 21/11/2006, hamwe n’urubanza RMP 3119/AM/KGL/NZF/98-RP 0019/CG- CS/99 rwaciwe n’Urukiko rwa Gisirikare ku itariki ya 18/03/1999, aho ibyaha yahamijwe mu rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Gacaca bifitanye isano n’ibyaha L/Cpl Banamwana Alfred yahamijwe mu rubanza RMP 3119/AM/KGL/NZF/98-RP 0019/CG-CS/99. [32] Asoza avuga ko igika cya 4 cy’ingingo ya 197 y’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru, cyaje kigamije kuziba icyuho, aho abakatiwe n’Inkiko Gacaca wasangaga bitabaza inkiko zisanzwe kugira ngo basubirishemo imanza zabo ingingo nshya bagamije kuzitesha agaciro batitaye ku mwihariko w’uburyo icyaha cya jenoside cyakozwemo.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA

## Page 53

19 Re KAMANZI

[33] Ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repulika y’u Rwanda iteganya ko abantu bose bareshya imbere y’amategeko, ko itegeko ribarengera ku buryo bumwe, naho iya 16 yaryo igateganya ko ivangura iryo ariryo ryose cyangwa kurikwirakwiza byaba bishingiye ku bwoko, ku muryango cyangwa ku gisekuru, ku nzu, ku ibara ry’umubiri, ku gitsina, ku karere, ku byiciro by’ubukungu, ku idini cyangwa ukwemera, ku bitekerezo, ku mutungo, ku itandukaniro ry’umuco, ku rurimi, ku bukungu, ku bumuga bw’umubiri cyangwa ubwo mu mutwe no ku rindi vangura iryo ari ryo ryose, bibujijwe kandi bihanwa n’amategeko. [34] Ingingo ya 197 y'Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, igika cyayo cya 4, ari nacyo urega asaba ko cyakurwaho avuga ko kinyuranye n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga, iteganya ko ku bijyanye n’imanza zaciwe n’Inkiko Gacaca, gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya byemerwa gusa iyo uwakatiwe urubanza yerekanye ko uwo yashinjwaga kwica akiriho. Ibi bikaba bisobanuye ko izindi mpamvu zose ziteganywa n’iyo ngingo2 zitemewe mu gusubirishamo ingingo nshya ku wakatiwe n’Inkiko Gacaca.

2 Urubanza rushobora gusubirishwamo ingingo nshya kubera imwe mu mpamvu zikurikira: 1° ushinjwa amaze gucirwa urubanza rw’uko yishe umuntu, hanyuma hakaboneka ibimenyetso bihagije byemeza ko uwo bakeka ko yishe atapfuye; 2° bamaze gucira ushinjwa urubanza ku cyaha yashinjwaga, hakaboneka urundi rubanza nk’urwo rwahannye undi muntu kandi rumuhanira icyo cyaha, izo manza zombi zivuguruzanya zikaba zigaragaje ko umwe mu bakatiwe yarenganye; 3° iyo habayeho ruswa muri urwo rubanza yemejwe n’urukiko kandi ikaba yaragize ingaruka ku mikirize yarwo;

## Page 54

20 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[35] Ihame ryo kureshya imbere y’amategeko no kudakorerwa ivangura, si mu Itegeko Nshinga ry’u Rwanda turisanga gusa, rigaragara no mu Masezerano Mpuzamahanga u Rwanda rwashyizeho umukono. Twavuga nk’ingingo ya 7 y’Itangazo ry’Umuryango w’Abibumbye ku burenganzira bwa muntu (Universal Declaration of Human Rights), ryo mu mwaka wa 1948, igira iti: “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination”. Hari kandi n’ingingo ya 26 y’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga arebana n’uburenganzira mu by’imbonezamubano no mu bya Politiki (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966) igira iti: “All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”. [36] Ibirebana n’uburyo ingingo ya 15 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga zigomba kumvikana, uru Rukiko rwabisobanuye mu

4° iyo haciwe urubanza bashingiye ku mpapuro, ku buhamya cyangwa indahiro byaje kugaragara cyangwa kwemezwa n’urukiko ko ari ibihimbano nyuma y’icibwa ry’urwo rubanza; 5° iyo kuva aho urubanza ruciriwe, habonetse ikimenyetso gishya kimara impaka kigaragaza neza akarengane katewe n’urubanza rusabirwa gusubirwamo; 6° iyo urubanza rushingiye ku byakozwe mu iburanisha bikozwe mu izina ry’umuntu utarigeze atanga ubwo bubasha mu buryo ubwo ari bwo bwose, cyangwa ngo yemere cyangwa yemeze ibyakozwe.

## Page 55

21 Re KAMANZI

rubanza RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS rwaciwe ku itariki ya 23/09/20163. Urukiko rwavuze ko ingingo ya 15 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga zifitanye isano ku buryo utasobanura icyo zishatse kuvuga uzitandukanyije. Rwasobanuye ko ingingo ya 15 ivuga ko abantu bose bareshya imbere y’amategeko kandi bakarengerwa n’amategeko mu buryo bumwe, bisobanuye ko hatagomba kubaho ivangura rituma abantu batarengerwa mu buryo bumwe cyangwa kutagira uburenganzira aho bakabugize, ingingo ya 16 igakomerezaho ivuga uburyo gutandukanya abantu bifatwa nk’ivangura kandi ko bitemewe n’Itegeko Nshinga. Izi ngingo zombi zafatwa nk’izikubiyemo ihame rimwe ryo kudasumbanya abantu mu byo bemerewe cyangwa babujijwe ugamije kugira abo uheza ku burenganzira bemererwa n’amategeko. Ibi kandi uru Rukiko rwongeye kubishimangira mu rubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 00004/2021/SC4. [37] Nk’uko bimaze kugaragazwa haruguru, ihame ry’uko abantu bareshya imbere y’amategeko rivuze ko abantu bafatwa kimwe imbere y’itegeko, nta busumbane cyangwa ivangura, ndetse n’itegeko rigiyeho rikaba rigomba gufata kimwe abo rireba. Iryo hame ariko rishobora kugira irengayobora (exception) igihe hari impamvu zumvikana zishingiye ku ntego ifite ireme (legitimate or rational purpose) nk’uko n’uwatanze ikirego abyemera, ibi bikaba byarashimangiwe n’uru Rukiko mu rubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/ 2019/SC rwaciwe ku itariki ya 29/11/20195. Muri urwo rubanza, Urukiko rushingiye ku byavuzwe n’umuhanga mu mategeko Erwin Hemerinsky,

3 Urubanza RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS, Akagera Business Group, igika cya 15. 4 RS/INCONST/SPEC 00004/2021/SC rwaciwe ku itariki ya 10/02/2023 haburana Ngendahayo Kabuye, para. 36. 5 Urubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/ 2019/SC haburana Murangwa Edward rwaciwe ku wa 29/11/2019, p.12, para. 35.

## Page 56

22 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

rwasobanuye ko ibigomba gufatwa kimwe ari ibimeze kimwe, naho ibintu bitandukanye bigafatwa ku buryo butandukanye hakurikijwe itandukaniro ryabyo (Things that are alike should be treated alike, and things that are unalike should be treated unalike in proportion to their unalikeness). Mu yandi magambo, abantu bagomba gufatwa kimwe, ariko hitawe ku byiciro byabo, ku buryo abantu bari mu byiciro bitandukanye batafatwa kimwe. [38] Iri hame ry’uko kugira ngo byitwe ko hari ivangura cyangwa ukutareshyeshya abantu ari uko abantu bari mu cyiciro kimwe baba bafashwe mu buryo butandukanye kandi nta mpamvu yumvikana, ryanagarutsweho mu rubanza rwa Thlimmenos v. Greece rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ibihugu by’Iburayi rushinzwe kurengera Uburenganzira bwa Muntu (European Court of Human Rights), aho rwavuze ko kugira ngo bifatwe ko igihugu cyarenze ku ngingo ya 14 y’Amasezerano ibuza ivangura6, ari uko kiba cyafashe mu buryo butandukanye abantu bari mu byiciro bimwe kandi nta mpamvu yumvikana gitanga. Rwabivuze muri aya magambo mu rurimi rw’icyongereza: “The Court has so far considered that the right under Article 14 not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under the Convention is violated when States treat differently persons in analogous situations without providing an objective and reasonable justification”.7

6 The article 14 of European Convention on Human Rights reads: The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status. 7 Case of Thlimmenos v. Greece (Application number. 34369/97), Strasbourg 6 April 2000, §44.

## Page 57

23 Re KAMANZI

[39] Mu rubanza rwa Carson and Others v. The United Kingdom, Urukiko rw’Ibihugu by’Iburayi rushinzwe kurengera Uburenganzira bwa Muntu, rushingiye ku zindi manza rwaciye, rwemeje ko gutandukanya abantu bihura n’igisobanuro cy’ingingo ya 14, ari mu gihe uko kutabafata kimwe biba bishingiye ku bintu runaka bibaranga. Byongeye kandi, kugira ngo bifatwe nk’ivangura, ni uko abo bantu badafashwe kimwe baba bari mu cyiciro kimwe, kandi bigakorwa nta ntego yumvikana ihari cyangwa nta sano iri hagati y’uko gutandukanya abantu n’ikigamijwe. Rwabivuze muri aya magambo mu rurimi rw’icyongereza: “The Court has established in its case-law that only differences in treatment based on an identifiable characteristic, or “status”, are capable of amounting to discrimination within the meaning of Article 14. Moreover, in order for an issue to arise under Article 14 there must be a difference in the treatment of persons in analogous, or relevantly similar, situations. Such a difference in treatment is discriminatory if it has no objective and reasonable justification; in other words, if it does not pursue a legitimate aim or if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised. […]8 [40] Nanone mu rubanza rwa Inze vs Austria, urwo Rukiko rwemeje ko ku birebana n’ingingo ya 14, byitwa ivangura, iyo gufata abantu mu buryo butandukanye bikozwe nta mpamvu ihari igaragara kandi yumvikana nta n’intego yemewe igamijwe cyangwa bigakorwa mu buryo budafitanye isano n’ikigamijwe kugerwaho. Rwavuze ko ibihugu bifite uburenganzira bwo gusesengura igihe ari ngombwa kudafata abantu kimwe mu itegeko, ibyo bigakorwa hitawe ku mateka yabyo. Rwabivuze

8 Case of Carson and others v. The United Kingdom (Application number. 42184/05), §61.

## Page 58

24 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

muri aya magambo mu rurimi rw’icyongereza: “For the purposes of Article 14, a difference of treatment is discriminatory if it "has no objective and reasonable justification", that is, if it does not pursue a "legitimate aim" or if there is not a "reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised". The Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment in law; the scope of this margin will vary according to the circumstances, the subject-matter and its background.”9 [41] Muri raporo yako, Akanama k’Umuryango w’Abibumbye gashinzwe kugenzura iyubahirizwa ry’uburenganzira bwa muntu (United Nations Human Rights Committee), kibukije ibyemezo byinshi kagiye gafata aho kemeje ko uburenganzira bwo kureshya imbere y’amategeko no kurengerwa nayo nta vangura iryo ariryo ryose budasobanuye ko kudafatwa kimwe buri gihe cyose byitwa ivangura. Kasobanuye ko gutandukanya abantu bishingiye ku mpamvu yumvikana bitagize ivangura ribujijwe mu ngingo ya 26 (Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga arebana n’uburenganzira mu by’imbonezamubano no mu bya Politiki). Kabivuze mu magambo akurikira mu rurimi rw’icyongereza: […] “The Committee reiterates its constant jurisprudence that the right to equality before the law and to equal protection of the law without any discrimination does not make all differences of treatment discriminatory. A differentiation based on reasonable and

9 Case of Inze v. Austria (Application number. 8695/79), Strasbourg 28 October 1987, &41.

## Page 59

25 Re KAMANZI

objective criteria does not amount to prohibited discrimination within the meaning of article 26).”10 [42] Nyuma y’ibisobanuro rusange bimaze gutangwa ku birebana n’icyo kutareshya imbere y’amategeko ndetse n’ivangura bishatse kuvuga, ko atari buri gihe cyose kudafatwa kimwe byitwa ivangura ribujijwe n’amategeko, igisigaye ni ukureba niba igika cya 4 cy’ingingo ya 197 y’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, kigaragaramo ukutareshya imbere y’amategeko ndetse n’ivangura nk’uko uwatanze ikirego abivuga. Nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, iyo ngingo isobanura ko ku bakatiwe n’Inkiko Gacaca, gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya byemerwa gusa iyo uwakatiwe urubanza yerekanye ko uwo yashinjwaga kwica akiriho, naho ku bakatiwe n’izindi nkiko hakaba hari izindi mpamvu ziteganyijwe muri iyo ngingo zishobora gutuma basaba gusubirishamo imanza zabo ingingo nshya.11

10 Muller and Engelhard v. Namibia, Communication number 919/2000, adopted on 26 March 2002, para. 6.7. 11 Reba ingingo ya 197, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha iteganya ko Urubanza rushobora gusubirishwamo ingingo nshya kubera imwe mu mpamvu zikurikira: 1° ushinjwa amaze gucirwa urubanza rw’uko yishe umuntu, hanyuma hakaboneka ibimenyetso bihagije byemeza ko uwo bakeka ko yishe atapfuye; 2° bamaze gucira ushinjwa urubanza ku cyaha yashinjwaga, hakaboneka urundi rubanza nk’urwo rwahannye undi muntu kandi rumuhanira icyo cyaha, izo manza zombi zivuguruzanya zikaba zigaragaje ko umwe mu bakatiwe yarenganye; 3° iyo habayeho ruswa muri urwo rubanza yemejwe n’urukiko kandi ikaba yaragize ingaruka ku mikirize yarwo;

## Page 60

26 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[43] Mu ngingo ya 197 y’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru, hagaragaramo ibyiciro bibiri: icyiciro cy’abaciriwe imanza bagakatirwa n’inkiko zisanzwe n’icyiciro cy’abakatiwe n’Inkiko Gacaca. Icyiciro uwatanze ikirego avuga ko cyakorewe ivangura ndetse akanongeraho ko hatabayeho gufatwa kimwe imbere y’amategeko, ni icy’abantu baburanishijwe bagakatirwa n’Inkiko Gacaca ukigereranyije n’icy’abakatiwe n’inkiko zisanzwe. Avuga ko itegeko ryagennye ibyo byiciro bibiri by’abantu atari ukugira ngo abari muri buri cyiciro bitabweho kimwe, ko ahubwo kwari ukugira ngo icyiciro kimwe gihabwe uburenganzira ikindi kibwimwe, kuko abakatiwe n’inkiko zisanzwe bafite uburenganzira bwo gusubirishamo imanza zabo ingingo nshya, mu gihe abakatiwe n’Inkiko Gacaca bo ubwo burenganzira ntabwo bafite. [44] Kugira ngo ikibazo kiri muri uru rubanza kirusheho kumvikana neza, ni ngombwa kubanza kureba impamvu yatumye hajyaho Inkiko Gacaca, icyo zari zigamije zijya kujyaho n’imikorere yazo itandukanye n’iy’inkiko zisanzwe. Nyuma yo guhagarika Jenoside yakorwe Abatutsi mu mwaka wa 1994 igahitana abarenga miliyoni, kimwe mu bibazo byagombaga gushakirwa ibisubizo kandi mu buryo bwihutirwa, cyari icyo guca imanza z’abakekwagaho kuyigiramo uruhare kugira ngo abayirokotse babone ubutabera. Ibi ariko ntibyari byoroshye

4° iyo haciwe urubanza bashingiye ku mpapuro, ku buhamya cyangwa indahiro byaje kugaragara cyangwa kwemezwa n’urukiko ko ari ibihimbano nyuma y’icibwa ry’urwo rubanza; 5° iyo kuva aho urubanza ruciriwe, habonetse ikimenyetso gishya kimara impaka kigaragaza neza akarengane katewe n’urubanza rusabirwa gusubirwamo; 6° iyo urubanza rushingiye ku byakozwe mu iburanisha bikozwe mu izina ry’umuntu utarigeze atanga ubwo bubasha mu buryo ubwo ari bwo bwose, cyangwa ngo yemere cyangwa yemeze ibyakozwe.

## Page 61

27 Re KAMANZI

bitewe n’umubare munini w’abagombaga gucirwa imanza, aho abarenga 120.000 bari bafunzwe by’agateganyo, kandi n’urwego rw’ubutabera rukaba rwari rwarazahaye cyane.12 [45] Nubwo Guverinoma y’u Rwanda yari yarakoze umurimo ukomeye kugira ngo imanza zirebana na Jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi zicibwe, byagaragaye ko ku muvuduko imanza zacibwagaho icyo gihe, byari kuzatwara imyaka myinshi kugira ngo nibura haburanishwe gusa abari bakurikiranywe bafunze, hatirengagijwe ko hari n’abandi bari batarafatwa13. Ni muri rwo rwego byabaye ngombwa gushaka bundi buryo budasanzwe hagamijwe gukemura icyo kibazo, Inkiko Gacaca zivuka ubwo zifite imikorere yihariye itandukanye n’iy’inkiko zisanzwe kubera ko nazo zari zije zigamije gukemura ikibazo kidasanzwe14. [46] Harebwe irangashingiro ry’Itegeko Ngenga n° 16/2004 ryo ku wa 19/06/2004 ryagenaga imiterere, ububasha n’imikorere by’Inkiko Gacaca zari zishinzwe gukurikirana no gucira imanza abakoze ibyaha bya Jenoside n’ibindi byaha byibasiye inyoko muntu byakozwe hagati y’itariki ya mbere Ukwakira 1990 n’iya 31 Ukuboza 199415, izo nkiko zari zifite intego zikurikira: - Kugaragaza ukuri kuri Jenoside;

12 Urwego rw’Igihugu Rushinzwe Inkiko Gacaca, Inkiko Gacaca mu Rwanda, Kamena 2012, urupapuro rwa 13. 13 National Service of Gacaca courts, Gacaca courts closing report, Kigali, June 18, 2012, p. 77. 14 Itegeko Ngenga N° 40/2000 ryo ku wa 26 Mutarama 2001 rishyiraho Inkiko Gacaca kandi rigena imiterere y’ikurikirana ry’ibyaha bigize icyaha cya Jenoside n’ibindi byaha byibasiye inyokomuntu, byakozwe hagati y’itariki y’itariki ya mbere Ukwakira 1990 n’iya 31 Ukuboza 1994. 15 Iri Tegeko Ngenga ryasimbuye iryo mu mwaka wa 2001.

## Page 62

28 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

- Kwihutisha imanza za Jenoside; - Guca umuco wo kudahana; - Gushimangira ubumwe n’ubwiyunge bw’abanyawanda; - Kugaragaza ubushobozi bw’umuryango nyarwanda mu kwikemurira ibibazo. Kubera izo ntego umushingamategeko yari afite, byatumye abari bakurikiranyweho icyaha cya Jenoside n’ibindi byaha byibasiye inyokomuntu, abaremera icyiciro cyihariye, abashyiriraho n’uburyo bw’imiburanishirize bwihariye ugereranyije n’icyiciro cy’abakurikiranyweho ibyaha bisanzwe. [47] Umwihariko w’Itegeko Ngenga ryashyiragaho Inkiko Gacaca ryavuzwe haruguru nk’uko ryagiye rihindurwa kandi rikuzuzwa urigereranyije n’andi mategeko ahana ibyaha ndetse n’ayerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ni uko ryo ryasobanuraga ubwaryo imiterere (organisation), imikorere (fonctionnement) n’ububasha (compétence) by’Inkiko Gacaca, ibyaha n’ababikurikiranyweho ndetse n’ibihano biteganyijwe. Mu yandi magambo, mu guca imanza zari mu bubasha bwazo, Inkiko Gacaca zakurikije imiburanishirize (procédure) yihariye iteganywa n’Itegeko Ngenga ryazishyiragaho itandukanye n’imiburanishirize y’imanza zisanzwe. [48] Tugarutse ku kibazo kiri muri uru rubanza aho uwatanze ikirego avuga ko abaciriwe imanza n’Inkiko Gacaca bakorerwa ivangura ndetse n’itegeko rikaba ritabarengera kimwe n’abaciriwe imanza n’izindi nkiko kubera ko bo bemererwa gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya berekanye gusa ko abo bashinjwaga kwica bakiriho, mu gihe abandi bo hari izindi

## Page 63

29 Re KAMANZI

mpamvu zituma bashobora kwemererwa gusubirishamo imanza zabo ingingo nshya, Urukiko rurasanga atari byo kubera ko, nk’uko byagaragajwe haruguru, ari abantu bakurikiranyweho ibyaha biri mu byiciro bitandukanye. Ku ruhande rumwe, abakurikiranyweho ibyaha bisanzwe, n’abakurikiranyweho ibyaha bya Jenoside n’ibindi byaha byibasiye inyoko muntu ku rundi ruhande. Umushingamategeko yashatse ko ibyo byaha bikurikiranwa mu buryo butandukanye harebwe intego yari afite zagaragajwe haruguru mu gika cya 46 cy’uru rubanza, ibi akaba ari nabyo bisobanura impamvu ku birebana no gusubirishamo imanza ingingo nshya, buri cyiciro cyashyiriweho ibigomba kubahirizwa kugira ngo ubusabe bwakirwe. [49] Urukiko rurasanga kandi ikibazo kimeze nk’ikiri muri uru rubanza aho inzira yo gusubirishamo imanza ku bari mu cyiciro cy’abaciriwe imanza n’Inkiko Gacaca zitandukanye n’iz’abaciriwe imanza n’inkiko zisanzwe ataribwo bwa mbere gishyikirijwe uru Rukiko. Mu rubanza RS/INCONST/PEN/0001/13/CS rwaciwe ku itariki ya 04/10/2013, uwitwa Bimenyimana André yatanze ikirego asaba ko ingingo ya 86, agace ka nyuma, y’Itegeko Ngenga N° 03/2012 ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga yateganyaga ko ibirebana no gusubirishamo imanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane bitareba imanza zaciwe n’Inkiko Gacaca, yakurwaho avuga ko yari inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 16 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo ku wa 04/06/2003 nk’uko ryari ryaravuguruwe ikirego gitangwa16. Urukiko rwasobanuye ko nta vangura ryabayeho kubera ko umushingamategeko ashyiraho ingingo ya 86 y’Itegeko Ngenga n° 03/2012 ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rimaze

16 Iyo ngingo yateganyaga ko abantu bose bangana imbere y’amategeko, ko itegeko ribarengera ku buryo bumwe nta vangura iryo ariyo ryose.

## Page 64

30 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kuvugwa, yari ashingiye cyane cyane ku mpamvu zatumye Inkiko Gacaca zishyirwaho, intego yazo n’icyo zari zagamije.17 Iki gisobanuro akaba ari nacyo gitangwa no muri uru rubanza ku mpamvu yatumye mu ngingo ya 197 y’Itegeko N° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha hashyirwamo igika cya kane kigena umwihariko ku manza zaciwe n’Inkiko Gacaca. [50] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro byose byatanzwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga ikirego cya Kamanzi Anaclet kigamije gusaba ko igika cya 4 cy’ingingo ya 197 y’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha kinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda nta shingiro gifite. 2. Kumenya niba igika cya 4 cy’ingingo ya 197 y’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha kinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda [51] Me Kayitana Evode uhagarariye Kamanzi Anaclet avuga ko ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda iteganya ko “buri muntu wese afite uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye (...)burimo uburenganzira bwo gufatwa nk’umwere. Avuga ko n’ubwo iyi ngingo itarondoye ibikubiye mu butabera buboneye byose, ko agace ka gatanu (5°) kayo kavuga ko ntawe ugomba kuryozwa icyaha atakoze, ko iryo ariryo shingiro ryo guha uwakatiwe n’Urukiko uburenganzira bwo gusubirishamo

17 Urubanza RS/INCONST/PEN/0001/13/CS, Bimenyimana André, igika cya 17.

## Page 65

31 Re KAMANZI

urubanza ingingo nshya iyo zibonetse kugira ngo agirwe umwere atazavaho aryozwa icyaha atakoze. [52] Asobanura ko icyo ubutabera buboneye aricyo n’ibibukubiyemo byasobanuwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC

rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku itariki ya 04/12/2014, aho rwasobanuye ko ubutabera buboneye bugizwe n’uruhererekane rw’ibigomba kubahirizwa mu migendekere y’urubanza hashingiwe ku mahame ateganywa n’amategeko (procedural due process) n’ubutabera buboneye bubuza ishyirwaho ry’amategeko cyangwa izindi ngamba zidashyira mu gaciro zibangamira uburenganzira bw’abaturage (substantive due process). [53] Avuga ko ikibazo gisigaye ari icyo kumenya niba “uburenganzira bwo gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya” ari bumwe mu bigize ubutabera buboneye. Asobanura ko mu rubanza rwavuzwe haruguru RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwavuze ko mu manza z’inshinjabyaha, uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye butangirana n’ibikorwa by’iperereza, bugakomereza ku bikorwa by’ikurikiranacyaha, iby’iburanisha n’itangwa ry’ibihano ku byaha biteganyijwe n’amategeko ahana. Avuga ko ibi bisobanuye ko n’ibijyanye n’uburenganzira bwo kujurira kimwe n’ubwo gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya biri mu gice cy’iburanisha, nabyo bikaba biri mu bigize uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye. [54] Me Kayitana Evode akomeza avuga ko kuba impamvu zaba zihari zemewe n’itegeko zigaragaza ko urubanza rukwiriye gusubirishwamo kugira ngo ubutabera butangwe, ariko zikirengagizwa hashingiwe ku mpamvu y’uko icyaha umuntu yagihamijwe n’Inkiko Gacaca, byaba bihabanye n’ihame

## Page 66

32 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ry’ubutabera buboneye. Asaba ko igika cya 4 cy’ingingo ya 197 y’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru kivanwaho kugira ngo Kamanzi Anaclet kimwe n’abandi bumva bararenganyijwe n’Inkiko Gacaca bagire uburenganzira bumwe n’ubw’abandi banyarwanda bafite ibimenyetso byerekana ko barenganyijwe n’inkiko kandi itegeko rikaba ryerekana ko biri mu bituma urubanza rusubirishwamo ingingo nshya. [55] Asobanura ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga nta cyarubuza gukuraho ingingo runaka cyangwa ibice byazo mu gihe rusanze binyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga nk’uko rwabyemeje mu rubanza no RS/INCONST/PEN0001/07/CS, kuko nta ngaruka byagira ku ntego y’itegeko. Avuga ko ibi ari na ko n’izindi nkiko zo hanze zibibona, urugero atanga akaba ari urubanza Coertzee v. the Government of the Republic of South Africa 1995 (4) SA 631 (CC) rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwo muri Afurika y’Epfo, aho urwo Rukiko rwavuze mu rurimi rw’Icyongereza ko, “that the bad and the good may be separated without prejudice to the main objective of the statute and the purpose of legislature.” [56] Mu gusoza, Me Kayitana Evode avuga ko asanga Kamanzi Anaclet nta butabera buboneye yahawe mu gihe yabonye ingingo nshya ituma urubanza rwe rusubirishwamo ingingo nshya, ariko itegeko rikamuzitira mu kugaragaza akarengane ke. [57] Me Batsinda Aline uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda, avuga ko uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye buteganywa n’ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga ntaho buhuriye n’ubwo Kamanzi Anaclet avuga ko yabujijwe, ari bwo burenganzira bwo kujurira n’ubwo gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya. Avuga ko uburenganzira bwo kujurira n’ubwo gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya yari abufite igihe yaburanaga mu Nkiko Gacaca

## Page 67

33 Re KAMANZI

nk’uko biteganyijwe mu Itegeko Ngenga N˚ 16/2004 ryo ku wa 19/06/2004 rigena imiterere, ububasha n’imikorere by’Inkiko Gacaca nk’uko ryagiye rivugururwa rikanuzuzwa n’Amategeko Ngenga atandukanye, ko kandi yabukoresheje igihe yaburanaga mu Nkiko Gacaca. [58] Ku birebana n’uburenganzira bwo gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya buteganyijwe mu gika cya 4 cy’ingingo ya 197 y’Itegeko N° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, Me Batsinda Aline avuga ko na bwo Kamanzi Anaclet abufite mu gihe yagaragaza impamvu iteganyijwe muri icyo gika, ko rero icyo gika ntaho kinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [59] Ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda igaragaza bimwe mu bigize ubutabera buboneye buri muntu wese afiteho uburenganzira. Ibyo ni ibi bikurikira: - Uburenganzira bwo kumenyeshwa imiterere n’impamvu z’icyaha umuntu akurikiranyweho, kwiregura no kunganirwa; - Gufatwa nk’umwere kugeza igihe urukiko rubifitiye ububasha rumuhamirije icyaha; - Kuburanira imbere y’urukiko rubifitiye ububasha; - Kudakurikiranwa, kudafatwa, kudafungwa cyangwa kudahanirwa ibyo yakoze cyangwa atakoze iyo amategeko y’Igihugu cyangwa amategeko mpuzamahanga atabifataga nk’icyaha

## Page 68

34 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

igihe byakorwaga. Ibyaha n’ibihano bijyanye nabyo biteganywa n’amategeko; - Kutaryozwa icyaha atakoze; uburyozwacyaha ni gatozi ku wakoze icyaha; - Kudahanishwa igihano kiruta icyari giteganyijwe n’amategeko mu gihe yakoraga icyaha; - Kudafungwa bitewe gusa no kutagira ubushobozi bwo kubahiriza inshingano ituruka ku masezerano; - Kudakurikiranwa cyangwa kudahanirwa icyaha cyashaje. Icyakora icyaha cya jenoside, ibyaha byibasiye inyokomuntu n’ibyaha by’intambara ntibisaza. […]. [60] Ku birebana n’ibigomba kubahirizwa mu rwego rwo gutanga ubutabera buboneye, uretse no mu Itegeko Nshinga, tubisanga no muri amwe mu masezerano mpuzamahanga akurikira: - Amasezerano mpuzamahanga mu by’imbonezamubano na politiki (Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques) aho ingingo ya 14 yayo irondora uburenganzira umuntu ukurikiranyweho icyaha agomba kuba afite;18

18Article 14 stipule: “Tous sont égaux devant les tribunaux et les cours de justice. […] Toute personne accusée d’une infraction pénale est présumée innocente jusqu’à ce que sa culpabilité ait été légalement établie. Toute personne accusée d’une infraction pénale a droit, en pleine égalité, au moins aux garanties suivantes :

## Page 69

35 Re KAMANZI

- Itangazo Mpuzamahanga rirebana n’uburenganzira bw’Ikiremwamuntu (Universal Declaration of Human Rights), aho ingingo ya 10 n’iya 11 zivuga ku burenganzira bw’ukekwaho icyaha;19 - Amasezerano nyafurika ku burenganzira bwa Muntu n’ubw’Abaturage (African Charter on

A être informée, dans le plus court délai, dans une langue qu’elle comprend et de façon détaillée, de la nature et des motifs de l’accusation portée contre elle ; A disposer du temps et des facilités nécessaires à la préparation de sa defense et à communiquer avec le conseil de son choix ; A être jugée sans retard excessif ; A être présente au procès et à se défendre elle-même ou à avoir l’assistance d’un défenseur de son choix ; si elle n’a pas de défenseur, à être informée de son droit d’en avoir un, et, chaque fois que l’intérêt de la justice l’exige, à se voir attribuer d’office un défenseur, sans frais, si elle n’a pas les moyens de le rémunérer ; A interroger ou faire interroger les témoins à charge et à obtenir la comparution et l’interrogatoire des témoins à décharge dans les mêmes conditions que les témoins à charge ; A se faire assister gratuitement d’un interprète si elle ne comprend pas ou ne parle pas la langue employée à l’audience ; A ne pas être forcée de témoigner contre elle-même ou de s’avouer coupable.” […] 19 Article 10 states: “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. And Article 11 reads: Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. 2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.”

## Page 70

36 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Human and Peoples’Rights) aho ingingo ya 7 yayo ivuga uburyo ukekwaho icyaha agomba gufatwa;20 - Amasezerano y’ibihugu by’Iburayi ku burenganzira bwa muntu (European Convention on Human Rights) aho ingingo ya 6 yayo ivuga uburyo ukurikiranyweho icyaha afatwa.21 [61] Mu gutanga igisobanuro cy’uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye, mu rubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC22, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwabusobanuye mu buryo bubiri: ubutabera

20 Article 7 of the Charter stipulates: “1. Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: (a) the right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts of violating his Fundamental rights as recognised and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in Force; (b) the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent court or tribunal; (c) the right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice; (d) the right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal. 2. No one may be condemned for an act or omission which did not constitute a legally punishable offence at the time it was committed. No penalty may be inflicted for an offence for which no provision was made at the time it was committed. Punishment is personal and can be imposed only on the offender.” 21 Article 6.1 of the Convention reads: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.” 22 RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC, Kabasinga Florida, igika cya 13.

## Page 71

37 Re KAMANZI

buboneye bushingiye ku biteganywa n’itegeko (substantive due process), n’ubutabera buboneye bushingiye ku migendekere y’urubanza (procedural due process). Ubutabera buboneye bushingiye ku biteganywa n’itegeko bubuza ishyirwaho ry’amategeko cyangwa izindi ngamba zidashyira mu gaciro zikanabangamira uburenganzira bw’abaturage nta mpamvu ihari igaragara, mu gihe ubutabera buboneye bushingiye ku migendekere y’urubanza bwo ari uruhererekane rw’ibigomba kubahirizwa mu migendekere yarwo hashingiwe ku mahame ateganywa n’amategeko cyangwa amasezerano mpuzamahanga. Ibi nibyo kandi byasobanuwe n’umuhanga mu mategeko Professor Erwin Chemerinsky muri aya magambo mu rurimi rw’icyongereza yifashishije urugero: “Substantive due process asks the question of whether the government's deprivation of a person's life, liberty or property is justified by a sufficient purpose. Procedural due process, by contrast, asks whether the government has followed the proper procedures when it takes away life, liberty or property. Substantive due process looks to whether there is a sufficient substantive justification, a good enough reason for such a deprivation”.23 [62] Harebwe uburyo uwatanze ikirego agisobanura, Urukiko rurasanga ikibazo kiri muri uru rubanza ari ukumenya niba igika cya 4 cy’ingingo ya 197 y’Itegeko N° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru, kibuza abari mu cyiciro cy’abakatiwe n’Inkiko Gacaca kubona ubutabera buboneye (Substantive due process) nk’uko uwagitanze abivuga. Mu yandi magambo, ni ukureba niba iki gika hari uburenganzira kibuza

23 Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, Substantive Due Process, Touro Law Review: Vol. 15: No. 4, Article 15, P. 1. Available at: https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/lawreview/vol15/iss4/15.

## Page 72

38 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

abakatiwe n’Inkiko Gacaca mu migendekere y’imanza zabo mu rwego rwo kubona ubutabera buboneye. [63] Hakurikijwe kandi uburyo uwatanze ikirego agisobanura, Urukiko rurasanga ikindi kibazo afite gifitanye isano n’uburenganzira bwo kureshya cyangwa gufatwa kimwe imbere y’inkiko, kubera ko avuga ko igika anenga kibuza ubutabera buboneye ku bakatiwe n’Inkiko Gacaca ngo kuko abari muri icyo cyiciro bemererwa gusubirishamo imanza zabo ingingo nshya iyo berekanye gusa ko abo bashinjwaga kwica bakiriho, mu gihe abari mu cyiciro cy’abakatiwe n’inkiko zisanzwe bo hari izindi mpamvu ziteganyijwe muri iyo ngingo zituma bashobora kubyemererwa. [64] Kugira ngo itegeko cyangwa ingingo yaryo ibangamire ubutabera buboneye, harebwe igisobanuro cyatanzwe n’umuhanga mu mategeko Erwin Chemerinsky cyagarutsweho haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga riba rigomba gukuraho uburenganzira umuntu yari afite nk’uko bwarondowe haruguru haba mu Itegeko Nshinga cyangwa mu masezerano mpuzamahanga, kandi ibyo bigakorwa nta mpamvu igaragara ihari. [65] Ku birebana n‘igika cya 4 cy’ingingo 197 y’Itegeko N° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 uwatanze ikirego anenga avuga ko hari abo kibuza ubutabera buboneye, harebwe ibigomba kubahirizwa ku muntu ukekwaho icyaha mu rwego rw’imigendekere y’urubanza rwe, Urukiko rurasanga nta hantu na hamwe igika anenga kivuga ko hari ibyo abakatiwe n’Inkiko Gacaca batari bemerewe mu migendekere y’imanza zabo kugira ngo bahabwe ubutabera buboneye, cyangwa ko hari ibyo babujijwe nko gufatwa nk’umwere cyangwa se kutaryozwa icyaha batakoze nk’uko uwatanze ikirego abivuga.

## Page 73

39 Re KAMANZI

[66] Ku birebana no gufatwa kimwe imbere y’inkiko, Urukiko rurasanga iki kibazo gisa n’icyasobanuwe haruguru ku birebana n’uburenganzira bwo kureshya imbere y’amategeko no kurindwa ivangura. Kureshya imbere y’inkiko bivuze ko abantu bari imbere y’inkiko zimwe bagomba kugira uburenganzira bumwe. Ibi bisobanuye ko abantu baburanira imbere y’inkiko zitandukanye, bitewe n’ubwoko bw’ibyaha bakurikiranyweho, atari ngombwa buri gihe ko bafatwa kimwe. Ibi ni nako byemejwe n’Akanama k’Umuryango w’Abibumbye gashinzwe iyubahirizwa ry’uburenganzira bwa muntu, ubwo kasobanuraga ingingo ya 14,1° y ‘Amasezerano mpuzamahanga mu by’imbonezamubano na politiki (International covenant on civil and political rights) kayihuza n’ubutabera buboneye. Kavuze ko kureshya imbere y’inkiko bigomba kumvikana ko ubwo burenganzira bureba abantu baburanira mu nkiko zimwe. Katanze urugero rw’uko hari ibyaha bidasanzwe biburanishwa mu buryo budasanzwe cyangwa bigashyirirwaho inkiko zidasanzwe, ariko ibyo bigakorwa kubera impamvu yumvikana. Kabivuze muri aya magambo mu rurimi rw’icyongereza: “Equality before courts and tribunals also requires that similar cases are dealt with in similar proceedings. If, for example, exceptional criminal procedures or specially constituted courts or tribunals apply in the determination of certain categories of cases, objective and reasonable grounds must be provided to justify the distinction.”24 [67] Nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru mu ngingo irebana no kureshya imbere y’amategeko, Urukiko rurasanga kuba harashyizweho Inkiko Gacaca zikaburanisha abakekwagaho

24 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32, Article 14: Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007). §14.

## Page 74

40 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kugira uruhare muri Jenoside n’ibindi byaha byibasiye inyokomuntu, icyo kikaba ari icyiciro cyihariye gitandukanye n’icy’abakurikiranwaho ibindi byaha baburanishwa n’inkiko zisanzwe, ibyo biremewe. Kuba hari ibyemerewe abari mu cyiciro kimwe ntibyemererwe abari mu kindi, ibyo ntibivuze ko nta butabera buboneye buba bwatanzwe, kubera ko buri cyiciro kigomba kurebwa ukwacyo bitewe n’urukiko rwakiburanishije hashingiwe no ku bwoko bw’ibyaha gikurikiranyweho. [68] Nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, kuba umushingamategeko yarashyizeho ibyiciro bibiri, icy’abakurikiranyweho ibyaha bya Jenoside n’ibindi byaha byibasiye inyokomuntu n’icy’abakurikiranyweho ibyaha bisanzwe, biremewe. Icyangombwa ni uko mu kubishyiraho hari hagamijwe intego yumvikana, kandi mu migendekere y’imanza zabo, uburenganzira bwose buteganywa n’amategeko bukaba bwarubahirijwe. Ibimaze kuvugwa bihura n’ibyemejwe n‘Urukiko rw’Ibihugu by’Iburayi rushinzwe kurengera uburenganzira bwa muntu mu rubanza rwa Taxquet C. Belgique, aho rwasanze ibihugu bifite uburenganzira busesuye bwo guhitamo uburyo inkiko zabyo zubahiriza ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 625. Rwasanze inshingano yarwo ari ukureba niba inzira igihugu cyafashe iganisha ku ntego itanyuranye n’amasezero ku burenganzira bwa muntu mu icibwa ry’urubanza runaka bitewe n’umwihariko warwo. Muri make, Urukiko rureba niba mu kuburanisha urubanza harubahirijwe ihame ry’ubutabera buboneye. Rwabivuze muri aya magambo mu rurimi rw’igifaransa: “En effet, les Etats contractants jouissent d’une grande liberté dans le choix des moyens propres à permettre à leur système judiciaire de respecter les impératifs de l’article 6.

25 Ni ingingo y’Amasezerano y’Ibihugu by’Iburayi ku burenganzira bwa muntu iteganya ibigize ubutabera buboneye.

## Page 75

41 Re KAMANZI

La tâche de la Cour consiste à rechercher si la voie suivie a conduit, dans un litige déterminé, à des résultats compatibles avec la Convention, eu égard également aux circonstances spécifiques de l’affaire, à sa nature et à sa complexité. Bref, elle doit examiner si la procédure a revêtu, dans son ensemble, un caractère équitable.”26 [69] Mu kwanzura, kuba ingingo ya 197 y’Itegeko N° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha iteganya impamvu zitandukanye ku bakatiwe n’Inkiko Gacaca n’abakatiwe n’inkiko zisanzwe kugira ngo bemererwe gusubirishamo imanza zabo ingingo nshya, aho igika cya 4 cy’iyo ngingo giteganya ko abari mu cyiciro cy’abakatiwe n’Inkiko Gacaca basabwa kugaragaza ko abo baregwa kuba barishe bakiriho gusa, mu gihe abari mu cyiciro cy‘abakatiwe n’inkiko zisanzwe bo hari izindi mpamvu bashobora gushingiraho, Urukiko rurasanga ibyo atari imbogamizi ku butabera buboneye. Icya ngombwa ni uko mu migendekere y’imanza zabo, uburenganzira buteganywa n’ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga kimwe n’ubuteganywa n’amasezerano mpuzamahanga buba bwarubahirijwe. [70] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro byose bimaze gutangwa, Urukiko rurasanga igika cya 4 cy’ingingo ya 197 y'Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha kitanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo muri 2003 ryavuguruwe muri 2015.

26 Affaire Taxquet c. Belgique (Requête nimero 926/05), §84.

## Page 76

42 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [71] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Kamanzi Anaclet gisaba kwemeza ko igika cya kane (4) cy’ingingo ya 197 y’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha kinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15, iya 16 n’iya 29 z’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo muri 2003 ryavuguruwe muri 2015, nta shingiro gifite. [72] Rwemeje ko icyo gika ntaho kinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15, iya 16 n’iya 29 z’Itegeko Nshinga.

## Page 77

IMANZA ZEREKERANYE N’IMIBURANISHIRIZE Y’IMANZA

## Page 79

URUBANZA RWEREKERANYE N’IMIBURANISHIRIZE Y’IMANZA ZASABIWE GUSUBIRISHWAMO KU MPAMVU Z’AKARENGANE

## Page 81

47

UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI N’ABANDI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/INJUST/RC 00001/2021/SC – (Ntezilyayo, P.J., Nyirinkwaya, Cyanzayire, Hitiyaremye na Karimunda) 17 Ukuboza 2021] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirije y’imanza zasabiwe gusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane – Igihe cyo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z'akarengane – Igihe cyo gushyikiriza ubusabe Urwego rw’Umuvunyi – Nubwo Umushingamategeko nta bihe yateganyije ku bijyanye no gushyikiriza ubusabe bwo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane Urwego rw’Umuvunyi, igihe cy’iminsi 30 ni cyo gikwiye gukurikizwa. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirije y’imanza zasabiwe gusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane – Kubara igihe cy’iminsi mirongo itatu mu gihe umuburanyi yatanze ubujrire bubiri ku rubanza rumwe – Mu gihe umuburanyi yatanze ubujrire bubiri ku rubanza rumwe, igihe cy’iminsi 30 cyo gusaba ko urubanza rwaciwe rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane kigomba kubarwa guhera ku itariki Urukiko rwatangiyeho icyemezo cyo kutakira ubujurire bwa kabiri. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirije y’imanza zasabiwe gusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane – Kutaburanisha bwa mbere mu rwego rw’akarengane ikitaraburanyweho mu rubanza rusabirwa gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane - Umuburanyi ntiyavuga ko yagize akarengane ku kibazo atigeze agaragaraza ngo asabe kugisuzuma.

## Page 82

48 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Amategeko agenga ubutaka – Igurisha ry’umutungo w’undi – Nyir’umutungo afite uburenganzira bwo kuwukurikirana mu maboko y’uwufite bitabaye ngombwa gusaba ko amasezerano y’ubugure ateshwa agaciro, uwari uwufite akikurikiranira uwamugurishije. Incamake y’ikibazo: Umulinga na Muberuka bari barashakanye mu buryo bwemewe n’amategeko, baje guhabwa ubutane ariko hari imitungo bari bataragabana irimo ibibanza maze biza kugurishwa n’uwitwa Ngirinshuti atabifitiye uburenganzira, abigurisha Nshimiyimana na Nsengiyumva. Ngirinshuti yarezwe mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, icyaha cyo kwihesha ibyangombwa mu buriganya n’icyaha cyo kugurisha ikintu cy’undi, maze Muberuka aregera indishyi muri urwo rubanza. Mu rubanza No RP 0356/15/TGI/NYGE, urwo rukiko rwamuhamije ibyo byaha byombi runamutegeka gusubiza Muberuka na Umulinga amafaranga angana na 30.356.500 y’agaciro k’uwo mutungo. Umulinga yatambamiye urwo rubanza ku bijyanye n’indishyi, asaba gusubizwa umutungo aho guhabwa ingurane yawo, Urukiko rwemeza ko ikirego kitakiriwe. Urega yajuririye mu Rukiko Rukuru, rusanga ikirego cyaragombaga kwakirwa, rucyohereza mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, narwo rugumishaho icyemezo cyafashwe mu rubanza No RP 0356/15/TGI/NYGE ku byerekeye indishyi. Umulinga yajuriye na none mu Rukiko Rukuru ruhamishaho urubanza rwajuririwe. Yajuririye kandi Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ariko rusanga ubujurire butari mu bubasha bwarwo kubera ko yatsinzwe kabiri ku mpamvu zimwe. Urega yanasubirishijemo kandi urwo rubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire, ikirego nticyakirwa bituma yiyambaza Urwego rw’Umuvunyi asaba ko urubanza rwe rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane.

## Page 83

49 UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI N’ABANDI

Nyuma yo gushyikirizwa dosiye n’Urwego rw’Umuvunyi, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwaburanishije urubanza, habanza kugibwa impaka ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba ubusabe bwarashyikirijwe Urwego rw’Umuvunyi impitagihe nkuko byavugwaga n’abaregwa ariko urega we akavuga ko yabikoze ku gihe. Hasuzumwe kandi ikibazo cyo kumenya niba Muberuka n’ Umulinga bagomba gusubizwa umutungo uburanwa aho guhabwa agaciro kawo. Urega asaba gusubizwa uburenganzira ku mutungo asangiye na Muberuka, ngo kuko abawufite bawubonye bishingiye ku buriganya bw’uwawubahaye, ko Urukiko rutari rukwiye kwirengagiza ko nyir’umutungo nawe awukeneye kugira ngo awubyaze umusaruro. Asobanura ko afite uburenganzira bwo gukurikirana umutungo we ku bawufite uyu munsi maze nabo bakikurikiranira uwawubagurishije azi neza ko atari uwe. Akomeza avuga ko kuba Urukiko rwaremeje ko ubutaka bugumana ababuguze kandi nta bikorwa bashyizeho ari ukwigwizaho umutungo. Abaregwa bavuga ko ikitabujijwe kiba cyemewe, ko ahubwo Umulinga yagaragaza icyo ahomba mu kuba atarahawe ubutaka, agahabwa agaciro kabwo mu mafaranga, kuko ibi babishingiye ku kuba abaguze barabikoze nta buryarya. Incamake y’icyemezo:1. Nubwo Umushingamategeko nta bihe yateganyije, igihe cy’iminsi 30 cyo gushyikiriza Perezida w’Urukiko ubusabe bwo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane ni nacyo cyakurikizwa habarwa ibihe byo gushyikiriza ubusabe Urwego rw’Umuvunyi, kuko icyari kigamijwe n’Umushingamategeko atari ukureka ngo umuburanyi azabikorere igihe ashakiye bityo ubusabe bwatanzwe ku gihe. 2. Igurisha ry’umutungo w’undi ni imfabusa, nyirawo afite uburenganzira bwo kuwukurikirana mu maboko y’uwufite

## Page 84

50 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bitabaye ngombwa gusaba ko amasezerano y’ubugure ateshwa agaciro, uwari uwufite akikurikiranira uwamugurishije bityo kuba Nsengiyumva na Nshimiyimana baraguze umutungo utimukanwa na Ngirinshuti, utari nyir’umutungo w’ukuri, bagomba kuwusubiza ba nyirawo, Ngirinshuti wabagurishije iyo mitungo akabasubiza agaciro kayo kabazwe ku munsi bayisubirijeho. Ikirego cyatanzwe cyo gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane urubanza No RCA 00123/2018/HC/KIG, gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe; Imikirize y’urubanza No RP 0356/15/TGI/NYGE ihindutse ku bijyanye n’ibyo Ngirinshuti agomba gusubiza; Nsengiyumva agomba gusubiza Umulinga igice kingana n’icya kabiri cy’ubutaka UPI:1/01/08/04/1861 yaguze na Ngirinshuti. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko N° 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 3; Itegeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo 12, 111. Itegeko N° 45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, ingingo ya 64, 113. Imanza zifashishijwe: RS/INJUST/RC 00011/2019/SC; Mukamusoni na Nkundimana, rwaciwe ku wa 12/02/2021

## Page 85

51 UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI N’ABANDI

RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2020/SC; Twagirayezu na Twagirayezu n’abandi rwaciwe ku wa 10/12/2021; RCAA 0117/11/CS; Nibasenge na Nahayo; rwaciwe ku wa 24/04/2015. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Umulinga Consilde na Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard bari barashakanye mu buryo bwemewe n’amategeko ku wa 26/04/1961 mu Rwanda, nyuma bagiye gutura mu gihugu cy’Ububiligi. Ku wa 17/06/1998, baje guhabwa ubutane n’Urukiko rwo muri icyo gihugu. Umulinga Consilde avuga ko yari afitanye na Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard imitungo bari bataragabana irimo ibibanza biherereye mu Murenge wa Nyamirambo, maze biza kugurishwa n’uwitwa Ngirinshuti Michel, abigurisha Nshimiyimana Augustin na Nsengiyumva Karim. [2] Ngirinshuti Michel yaje gukurikiranwaho n’Ubushinjacyaha icyaha cyo kwihesha ibyangombwa bitangwa n’inzego zabugenewe mu buriganya n’icyaha cyo kugurisha ikintu cy’undi, maze Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard aregera indishyi muri urwo rubanza. Ku wa 23/12/2015, Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwaciye urubanza No RP 0356/15/TGI/NYGE, ruhamya Ngirinshuti Michel ibyo byaha byombi, rumukatira igihano cy’igifungo cy’imyaka 7, runamutegeka kwishyura amafaranga 30,356,500 angana n’agaciro k’umutungo wa Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard na Umulinga Consilde.

## Page 86

52 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[3] Umulinga Consilde yatambamiye urwo rubanza ku bijyanye n’indishyi, arega Ngirinshuti Michel na Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard, anarugobokeshamo Nshimiyimana Augustin na Nsengiyumva Karim, avuga ko Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard yaregeye indishyi wenyine kuko atari kumuhagararira kandi baratandukanye, ko urukiko rutigeze ruvuga ku masezerano y’ubugure n’uburyo bagomba gusubirana umutungo wabo kandi batarigeze batuma Ngirinshuti Michel kuwubagurishiriza. Asaba Urukiko guhindura icyo cyemezo kuko kibangamiye inyungu ze n’uburenganzira yari afite ku mutungo we wagurishijwe n’utari nyirawo. [4] Ku wa 31/07/2017, Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwaciye urubanza No RCA 00373/2016/TGI/NYGE, rwemeza ko ikirego cya Umulinga Consilde kitakiriwe ngo gisuzumwe, rushingiye ku kuba ikirego cy’inshinjabyaha cyatanzwe mu Bugenzacyaha gitangiza urubanza No RP 0356/15/TGI/NYGE rutambamirwa cyaratanzwe n’ Umulinga Consilde afatanyije na Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard, ibyo bikaba ari ikimenyetso kigaragaza ko urubanza Umulinga Consilde atambamira yari asanzwe aruzi. [5] Umulinga Consilde ntiyishimiye imikirize y’urubanza arujuririra mu Rukiko Rukuru mu rubanza No RCA 00288/2017/HC/KIG. Ku wa 26/01/2018, Urukiko Rukuru rwaciye urubanza, rwemeza ko ubujurire bwa Umulinga Consilde bufite ishingiro, ko ikirego cye cyo gutambamira urubanza RP 0356/15/TGI/NYGE no gutesha agaciro amasezerano y’ubugure ku mutungo afiteho uruhare gikwiye kwakirwa kigasuzumwa, rutegeka ko urubanza rwoherezwa mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge kugira ngo ruruburanishe ku rwego rwa mbere.

## Page 87

53 UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI N’ABANDI

[6] Urukiko Rukuru rwafashe icyemezo rushingiye ku kuba mu gihe cy’iburanisha ry’urubanza rutambamirwa, Umulinga Consilde yari yaratandukanye na Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard, ko rero uyu atari amuhagarariye muri urwo rubanza, kandi hakaba ntakigaragaza ko Ubushinjacyaha bujya kuregera dosiye bwabanje kubimenyesha Umulinga Consilde kugira ngo amenye ko urwo rubanza ruhari. [7] Urwo rubanza rwoherejwe mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge ruhabwa No RC 00133/2018/TGI/NYGE. Ku wa 22/03/2018, urukiko rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko Umulinga Consilde atsinzwe ku byerekeranye n’iseswa ry’amasezerano yasabaga, rutegeka ko ubugure bwabaye hagati ya Ngirinshuti Michel na Nshimiyimana Augustin na Nsengiyumva Karim bugumyeho, rugumishaho urubanza No RP 0356/15/TGI/NYGE ku bijyanye n’ikirego cy’indishyi, ariko rutegeka ko Ngirinshuti Michel agomba guha Umulinga Consilde 2.000.000 Frw yiyongera ku yo yategetswe mu rubanza rutambamirwa kuko yamugurishirije umutungo atamumenyesheje. [8] Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwafashe icyemezo rushingiye ku kuba ababuranyi bose bemeranywa ko Ngirinshuti Michel ariwe wagurishije mu buryarya ariko Nshimiyimana Augustin na Nsengiyumva Karim bo baguze na Ngirinshuti Michel abanje kubereka ibyangombwa bigaragaza ko ariwe nyir’umutungo (propriétaire apparent), rusobanura ko ku bw’ibyo amasezerano y’ubugure bagiranye atagomba guteshwa agaciro, ahubwo Ngirinshuti Michel agomba guha Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard na Umulinga Consilde bari ba nyir’umutungo 30.356.500 Frw y’agaciro k’ubutaka nk’uko kari kagenwe mu rubanza rutambamirwa.

## Page 88

54 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[9] Umulinga Consilde yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru, atanga impamvu zikurikira: • Kuba Urukiko rwarirengagije ingingo ya 276 y’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano ivuga ko igurisha ry’ikintu cy’undi ari imfabusa, ko ibyo Urukiko rwemeje binyuranyije n’amategeko kuko bifatwa nk’igurisha ku gahato (vente forcée); • Kuba Urukiko rwarirengagije ibimenyetso bitandukanye yatanze birimo imanza zaciwe n’inkiko zatanze umurongo ukwiye kugenderwaho, inyandiko yo muri 2009 ishinganisha umutungo, ibaruwa yanditswe n’Umunyamabanga Nshingwabikorwa w’Umurenge wa Nyamirambo, ibaruwa y’Ikigo gishinzwe imicungire n’imikoreshereze y’ubutaka mu Rwanda igaragaza uburyo Nshimiyimana Augustin yibarujeho uwo mutungo; • Kuba n’ubwo Ngirinshuti Michel ariwe wagurishije mu buryarya n’abaguze barabikoze mu buryarya. [10] Ku wa 10/09/2018, Urukiko Rukuru rwaciye urubanza N˚ RCA 00123/2018/HC/KIG, rwemeza ko urubanza No RC 00133/2018/TGI/NYGE rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rudahindutse mu ngingo zarwo zose. [11] Umulinga Consilde yajuririye na none urwo rubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire, ubujurire bwandikwa kuri N˚ RCAA 00068/2018/CA. Ku wa 29/05/2020, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwaciye urubanza, rwemeza ko ubujurire bwe butakiriwe kuko butari mu bubasha bwarwo kubera ko yatsinzwe mu Rukiko

## Page 89

55 UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI N’ABANDI

Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge no mu Rukiko Rukuru ku mpamvu zimwe. [12] Umulinga Consilde yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire asaba gusubirishamo urubanza RCA 00123/2018/HC/KIG ku mpamvu z’akarengane, maze ku wa 17/09/2020 Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire amusubiza ko ikirego cye kitagomba kwakirwa, kuko yiyambaje icyarimwe inzira ebyiri z’ubujurire. [13] Umulinga Consilde ntiyishimiye uwo mwanzuro, maze ku wa 29/09/2020 yandikira Urwego rw’Umuvunyi asaba gusubirishamo urubanza RCA 00123/2018/HC/KIG ku mpamvu z’akarengane, nawe amaze gusuzuma ubusabe bwe ku wa 04/11/2020, yandikira Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko urubanza rumaze kuvugwa rushobora kuba rwarabayemo akarengane, ko byasuzumwa hakemezwa niba rwasubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane.\ [14] Ku wa 22/12/2020, Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu cyemezo no 069/CJ/2020, yemeje ko urwo rubanza rwoherezwa mu bwanditsi bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rukandikwa mu bitabo byabugenewe kugira ngo ruzongere ruburanishwe. [15] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku wa 09/09/2021, ababuranyi bitabye uretse Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard, wahamagajwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko ntiyitabe. Naho Umulinga Consilde yitabye yunganiwe na Me Mukarusanga Florence na Me KAGAMBA Christophe, Ngirinshuti Michel yunganiwe na Me Niyibizi Diogène, Nshimiyimana Augustin yunganiwe na Me Habakurama François Xavier, Nsengiyumva Karim yunganiwe na Me Ndacyayisenga Schadrack.

## Page 90

56 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[16] Me Habakurama François Xavier yatanze inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego gisubirishamo urubanza N˚ RCA 00123/2018/HC/KIG ku mpamvu z’akarengane avuga ko Umulinga Consilde atubahirije iminsi 30 iteganywa mu ngingo ya 56 y'Itegeko no 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw'inkiko, kuko urubanza N˚ RCA 00123/2018/HC/KIG rwaciwe n'Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 10/9/2018, arujuririra mu Rukiko rw'Ubujurire, rucibwa ku wa 29/05/2020. Maze yandikira Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire asaba kurusubirishamo ku mpamvu z'akarengane, nawe ku wa 17/09/2020 amusubiza ko ubusabe bwe butakiriwe kuko yiyambaje inzira ebyiri z’ubujurire, bituma ku wa 29/09/2020 Umulinga Consilde yandikira Urwego rw'Umuvunyi asaba ko rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Ku ruhande rwa Umulinga Consilde bavuga ko yatanze ikirego asaba gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane ku Rwego rw’Umuvunyi mu gihe giteganywa n’amategeko, rero ko iyo nzitizi nta shingiro ifite. [17] Nyuma yo kumva ababuranyi kuri iyi ngingo, Urukiko rwafatiye icyemezo mu ntebe, rusanga igihe cy’iminsi 30 cyo gusaba ko urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane kigomba kubarwa guhera ku itariki Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwatangiyeho icyemezo cyo kutakira ubujurire bwa kabiri hashingiwe ku mirongo yatanzwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu zindi manza.1 Rwasanze kandi, nubwo Umushingamategeko nta bihe yateganyije ku bijyanye no gushyikiriza ubusabe Urwego rw’Umuvunyi, igihe cy’iminsi 30 cyo gushyikiriza Perezida w’Urukiko ubusabe bwo

1 Urugero ni nko mu rubanza N˚RS/INJUST/RC 00011/2019/SC rwaciwe ku wa 12/02/2021, mu gika cya 36, haburana Mukamusoni Petronille na Nkundimana Edison.

## Page 91

57 UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI N’ABANDI

gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane ari nacyo cyakurikizwa, kuko icyari kigamijwe n’Umushingamategeko atari ukureka ngo umuburanyi azabikorere igihe ashakiye. Rwasanze urubanza N˚ RCA 0123/2018/HC/KIG rusabirwa gusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane rwaraciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 12/09/2018 maze Umulinga Consilde arujuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire, rwandikwa kuri N˚ RCAA 00064/2018/CA rucibwa ku wa 29/05/2020, yongera kwandikira Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire arusubirishamo nawe amusubiza ku wa 17/09/2020. Byumvikana neza ko ibihe by’iminsi 30 byo gutanga ikirego ku Rwego rw’Umuvunyi ari kuri iyo tariki ya nyuma bitangira kubarwa, kuba rero Umulinga Consilde yaragitanze ku wa 29/09/2020, igihe cy’iminsi 30 cyarubahirijwe. Bityo inzitizi yatanzwe na Nshimiyimana Augustin nta shingiro ifite. [18] Iburanisha ryakomereje mu mizi y’urubanza. Umulinga Consilde yasabye Urukiko kubaza abatangabuhamya Kabanda Eugène na Murinda Fidèle kugira ngo batange amakuru ajyanye n’uburiganya bwabaye mu igurisha ry’ikibanza kiburanwa, naho abaregwa bavuga ko kubaza abatangabuhamya bitari ngombwa muri uru rubanza kuko no mu nkiko zabanje batabajijwe. Urukiko rushingiye ku buhamya bwabo batanze mu nyandiko, rwafashe icyemezo cyo kwakira indahiro zabo zemeza ubwo buhamya, kandi ababuranyi bemererwa kugira icyo babaza kuri ubwo buhamya. Nyuma yo kujya impaka ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba Umulinga Consilde yaragombaga gusubizwa umutungo wagurishijwe na Ngirinshuti Michel aho gusubizwa agaciro kawo, iburanisha ryarapfundikiwe, ababuranyi bamenyeshwa ko urubanza ruzasomwa ku wa 08/10/2021.

## Page 92

58 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[19] Mu mwiherero w’Urukiko, rwasanze mbere y’uko urubanza rucibwa burundu, rugomba kubanza kugera aho umutungo Umulinga Consilde asaba gusubizwa uherereye, kugira ngo haboneke umucyo ku bibazo biri mu rubanza. [20] Iperereza ryakozwe ku wa 25/10/2021, rikorerwa aho ikiburanwa giherereye mu Mudugudu wa Runyinya, Akagari ka Rugarama, Umurenge wa Nyamirambo, Akarere ka Nyarugenge, Umujyi wa Kigali. Iburanisha ry’urubanza ryasubukuwe ku wa 18/11/2021, ababuranyi bitabye kandi bunganiwe nk’ibisanzwe, uretse Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard utaritabye kandi yari yaramenyeshejwe itariki y’iburanisha. Kuri uwo munsi, ababuranyi bagiye impaka kuri raporo y’iperereza ryakozwe n’Urukiko. [21] Ikibazo cy’ingenzi cyasuzumwe muri uru rubanza kijyanye no kumenya niba Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard na Umulinga Consilde baragombaga gusubizwa umutungo wagurishijwe na Ngirinshuti Michel aho gusubizwa agaciro kawo. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO A. Kumenya niba Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard na Umulinga Consilde bagomba gusubizwa umutungo uburanwa aho guhabwa agaciro kawo [22] Mu myanzuro no mu miburanire yabo imbere y’Urukiko, Umulinga Consilde n’abunganizi be bavuga ko urubanza N˚ RP 0356/15/TGI/NYGE rwemeje ko Ngirinshuti Michel yagurishije umutungo w’undi akoresheje uburiganya, ko ariko Urukiko

## Page 93

59 UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI N’ABANDI

rwabambuye uburenganzira bwo gukoresha umutungo wabo uko babyumva kuko Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard yaregeye gusubizwa imitungo ye Ngirinshuti Michel yagurishije, ariko Urukiko rumugenera ingurane y’agaciro kabazwe n’umuhanga, bakaba basanga binyuranyije n’ibiteganywa n’Itegeko N˚ 43/2013 ryo ku wa 16/06/2013 ryagengaga ubutaka mu Rwanda igihe ikirego cyatangwaga, mu ngingo ya 34 igika cyayo cya 2.2 [23] Umulinga Consilde asaba gusubizwa uburenganzira ku mutungo asangiye na Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard, ngo kuko abawufite bawubonye bishingiye ku buriganya bw’uwawubahaye, ko Urukiko rutari rukwiye kwirengagiza ko nyir’umutungo nawe awukeneye kugira ngo awubyaze umusaruro. Asobanura ko afite uburenganzira bwo gukurikirana umutungo we ku bawufite uyu munsi maze nabo bakikurikiranira Ngirinshuti Michel wawubagurishije azi neza ko atari uwe. [24] Ku bijyanye n’ingurane y’amafaranga yemejwe n’Urukiko, Umulinga Consilde n’abamwunganira basobanura ko raporo y’Ikigo Gishinzwe Imicungire n’Imikoreshereze y’Ubutaka mu Rwanda igaragaza ko ubwo butaka bwanditse kuri no 1860 ari bwa Nsengiyumva Karim kandi hakaba nta bikorwa birimo, ndetse ko bukwiye guhuzwa n’ikibanza n˚ 1861 bitewe n’uko ari bumwe kuva mu ntangiriro. Bakaba basanga kuba Urukiko rwaremeje ko ubutaka bugumana ababuguze kandi nta bikorwa bashyizeho ari ukwigwizaho umutungo (enrichissement sans cause), bakaba basaba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kubikosora.

2 Leta yishingira uburenganzira bwo gutunga ubutaka mu mudendezo kandi ikanarinda nyirabwo kubwamburwa ku maherere, bwaba bwose cyangwa igice cyabwo, keretse gusa mu gihe cyo kwimura abantu ku mpamvu z’inyungu rusange.

## Page 94

60 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[25] Bavuga kandi ko iyo raporo ari ikimenyetso kigaragaza ko Nshimiyimana Augustin na Nsengiyumva Karim babuguze mu buryo bw’uburyarya kuko Nsengiyumva Karim yabuguze na Mbabazi Felix mu mwaka wa 2011, ariko mu ihererekanyamutungo hagaragaramo Ngirinshuti Michel, uko kuvuguruzanya mu makuru bagasanga ari indi mpamvu ishimangira uburiganya bwabayeho, bikanashimangirwa no kuba Nshimiyimana Augustin bigaragara ko yabanje kwandikisha mu Kigo cy’Ubutaka ko yarazwe ubwo butaka, ubundi akandika ko ari ubugure. Basaba Urukiko gusubiza Umulinga Consilde ubutaka bwe, kuko kumuha ingurane yabwo bidafite ishingiro mu mategeko. [26] Me Mukarusanga Florence wunganira Umulinga Consilde avuga ko abaguze ubutaka babikoze bazi neza ko atari ubwa Ngirinshuti Michel kandi ko kugurisha ikintu cy’undi bitemewe. Akomeza avuga ko icyo ashingiraho yemeza ko Nsenguyimva Karim na Nshimiyimana Augustin baguze ubutaka buburanwa mu buryarya ari uko ingano y’ubutaka bwanditse ku cyangombwa cya Nsengiyumva Karim usanga idahura na 25m/30 avuga yaguze na Ngirinshuti Michel, ariko mu kwisobanura akavuga ko ikindi gice yakiguze na Mbabazi Felix maze ahuriza ubwo butaka kuri nomero imwe bituma ubuso bwiyongera, nyamara atari ko byagenze, ahubwo ko bwari ubutaka bumwe inkomoko ari imwe babugabanyamo kabiri. Ikindi kandi uwo Mbabazi Felix nawe avuga ko yaguze n’uwitwa Jasmini nyamara uyu ntaho ahurira n’uyu mutungo. [27] Me Kagamba Christophe na we wunganira Umulinga Consilde yongeraho ko uyu yamenye ko hari expropriation igiye gukorwa asaba ababishinzwe kubihagarika ntibabikora, asaba Urukiko kuzasuzuma uwagombaga guhabwa ingurane kuko

## Page 95

61 UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI N’ABANDI

Nshimiyimana Augustin yari yarihaye isambu. Akomeza avuga ko icyangombwa gifite UPI: 1/01/08/04/1635 kigaragaza ko isambu afite ingana na metero kare 2290, nyamara amasezerano y’ubugure akagaragaza metero kare 750, ashingira ku rubanza N˚ RCAA 0117/11/CS haburana Nibasenge Anathalie na Nahayo François Xavier rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga asaba Urukiko gutegeka ko ubutaka bwose bubaruye kuri UPI: 1/01/08/04/1635 ari ubwa Umulinga Consilde bitabaye ngombwa gusesa amasezerano y’ubugure kubera ko Nshimiyimana Augustin nta kimenyetso agaragaza cyerekana inkomoko y’uwo mutungo wose, uretse kuvuga gusa ko yawuguze n’umukecuru utazwi. [28] Ngirinshuti Michel na Me Niyibizi Diogène umwunganira biregura bavuga ko Umulinga Consilde atari akwiye kwanga amafaranga 30.356.500 yagenwe n’Urukiko kuko urubanza rwayagennye rwabaye itegeko, kandi rukaba atari rwo yasubirishijemo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Ikindi, bavuga ko gusubiza Umulinga Consilde ubutaka bitashoboka kubera ko mu butaka bwagurishijwe hari ahakorewe expropriation n’Akarere ka Nyarugenge, kandi kakaba kataragobokeshejwe mu rubanza. [29] Nsengiyumva Karim n’umwunganira bavuga ko umuzi w’ikibazo ari urubanza nshinjabyaha ruhamya Ngirinshuti Michel icyaha cyo kugurisha umutungo w’undi; basobanura ko aho Nsengiyumva Karim yaguze hari hafite UPI: 1/01/08/04/1861, anashyiramo ibikorwa nta buryarya nk’uko Urukiko rwabyemeje. Basobanura ko mu bujurire basanze hafite indi nomero irimo UPI: 1/01/08/04/1860 nyamara icyo gice ari aho yaguze na Mbabazi Felix. [30] Basobanura ko Umulinga Consilde yandikiye Ikigo Gishinzwe Imicungire n’Imikoreshereze y’Ubutaka mu Rwanda kugira ngo babereke isano y’ubwo butaka, bamuha igisubizo ko

## Page 96

62 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ikibanza n˚1860 cyegeranye n’ikibanza n˚1861 kandi ko byose byanditse kuri Nsengiyumva Karim, ko kimwe kidakomoka ku kindi n’imyaka bwaguriwemo itandukanye kuko yaguze na Mbabazi Felix mu mwaka wa 2011, ikindi akigura na Ngirinshuti Michel mu mwaka wa 2014, aha hakaba hatanubatse ahubwo ari ishyamba. [31] Me Habakurama François Xavier uhagarariye Nshimiyimana Augustin, avuga ko ikitabujijwe kiba cyemewe, ko ahubwo Umulinga Consilde yagaragaza icyo ahomba mu kuba atarahawe ubutaka, agahabwa agaciro kabwo mu mafaranga, kuko ibi babishingiye ku kuba abaguze barabikoze nta buryarya, dore ko n’ubwo butaka atari ubutaka yari atuyemo kuko n’ubundi yari amaze imyaka irenga 15 mu Gihugu cy’Ububiligi ari naho havuye ko Ngirinshuti Michel abugurisha kuko nta nyirabwo bwagiraga, kandi ubwo butaka bukaba buri mu manga, ko asanga ahubwo Umulinga Consilde yafata amafaranga yabwo akagura ahantu heza. [32] Anavuga ko urubanza rwaciwe hashingiwe kuri théorie de l'apparence, kandi ko atari umwihariko w'urubanza N˚ RC 0133/2018/TGI/NYGE cyangwa N˚ RCA 0123/2018/HC/KIG kuko n'Urukiko rw'Ikirenga ruyikoresha mu kurengera abaguze nta buryarya. Atanga urugero rw’urubanza N˚ RCOMA 0002/2013/CS rwaciwe ku wa 23/10/2015 haburana KOBIL PETROLEUM RWANDA SARL na GARAJE AUTO IMPERIAL hakagobokamo Mukaremera Francine, aho Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwemeje ko Mukaremera Francine atamburwa Petrol Station kuko yayiguze nta buryarya kubera ko atari azi ibibazo byabaye mbere, bityo rero ko aya masezerano ataseswa, ahubwo Umulinga Consilde yakwishyurwa na Ngirinshuti Michel bafitanye amasano kandi wabahemukiye.

## Page 97

63 UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI N’ABANDI

[33] Asobanura kandi ko ibyo Umulinga Consilde asaba byo gusubizwa ubutaka bitashoboka kuko iyo sambu avuga yamaze gukorerwa expropriation n’Akarere ka Nyarugenge, ko kandi amafaranga yishyuwe muri expropriation atahabwa Umulinga Consilde kuko ibikorwa byashyizwemo na Nshimiyimana Augustin. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [34] Kugirango Urukiko rubashe gusubiza ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard na Umulinga Consilde bagomba gusubizwa umutungo uburanwa aho guhabwa agaciro kawo, ni ngombwa kubanza gusuzuma ibibazo bikurikira: - Kumenya ubutaka bwaburanywe mu rubanza N° RP 0356/15/TGI/NYGE, ari narwo iki kirego gishingiyeho; - Kumenya niba amasezerano y’ubugure yabaye hagati ya Ngirinshuti Michel, Nsengiyumva Karim na Nshimiyimana Augustin yarakozwe mu buriganya; - Kumenya niba Nsengiyumva Karim na Nshimiyimana Augustin bakwiye gusubiza umutungo baguze na Ngirinshuti Michel a. Ku bijyanye no kumenya ubutaka bwaburanywe mu rubanza N° RP 0356/15/TGI/NYGE [35] Dosiye y’urubanza rusabirwa gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane igaragaza ko urubanza N° RCA 00123/2018/HC/KIG rukomoka ku gutambamira urubanza No RP 0356/15/TGI/NYGE rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa

## Page 98

64 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Nyarugenge ku wa 23/12/2015, rwahamije Ngirinshuti Michel icyaha cyo kwihesha ku buriganya ibyemezo bitangwa n’inzego zabugenewe ndetse n’icyaha cyo kugurisha imitungo itari iye, rumuhanisha igifungo cy’imyaka irindwi, runamutegeka guha Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard na Umulinga Consilde amafaranga 30.356.500 ahwanye n’agaciro k’ubutaka bwabo yagurishije n’indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza. [36] Dosiye igaragaza kandi ko icyaha cyo kwihesha ku buriganya ibyemezo bitangwa n’inzego zabugenewe ndetse n’icyaha cyo kugurisha imitungo itari iye Ngirinshuti Michel yahamijwe bikomoka ku kuba yaragurishije Nsengiyumva Karim ubutaka bubaruye kuri UPI: 1/01/08/04/1861 buherereye mu Mudugudu wa Runyinya, Akagali ka Rugarama, mu Murenge wa Nyamirambo, Akarere ka Nyarugenge n’ikibanza gifite UPI: 1/01/08/04/1635, n’uburebure bwa 25m/30m yagurishije Nshimiyimana Augustin. [37] Ibyo kandi binashimangirwa no kuba ku wa 27/8/2014 Umunyamabanga Nshingwabikorwa w’Umurenge wa Nyamirambo Nkurunziza Alexis yarandikiye Umuyobozi wa Polisi mu Karere ka Nyarugenge, amusaba gukurikirana Ngirinshuti Michel kubera kugurisha ikibanza gifite UPI: 1/01/08/04/1635 cyaguzwe na Nshimiyimana Augustin n’ishyamba ryaguzwe na Nsengiyumva Karim. [38] Urukiko rurasanga rero umutungo waburanyweho mu rubanza rw’inshinjabyaha ari ufite UPI: 1/01/08/04/1861, ugizwe n’ishyamba Ngirinshuti Michel yagurishije Nsengiyumva Karim ku wa 27/02/2014 na UPI: 1/01/08/04/1635, ufite ubuso bwa 750 metero kare (25 x30 m), Nshyimiyimana Augustin yaguze na Ngirinshuti Michel.

## Page 99

65 UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI N’ABANDI

[39] Urukiko rurasanga mu iburanisha ry’uru rubanza ndetse no mu iperereza Urukiko rwakoreye aho ikuburanwa giherereye, Umulinga Consilde yarakomeje kwerekana ko umutungo aburana urenze imbibi z’uwaburanyweho mu rubanza rw’inshinjabyaha nk’uko wagaragajwe mu gika kibanza. Urukiko rusanga, mu gusuzuma iki kibazo, rugomba kureba gusa umutungo waburanyweho mu rubanza rw’inshinjabyaha kuko ari narwo rwafashwemo icyemezo cy’imbonezamubano Umulinga Consilde yatambamiye, kugeza ubwo atanga ikirego cyo gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru. [40] Urukiko rurasanga kuba mu rubanza nshinjabyaha rukomokaho urwasabiwe gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard cyangwa Umulinga Consilde batarigeze bagaragariza Urukiko ikibazo cy’ingano y’ibibanza Ngirinshuti Michel yagurishije Nsengiyumva Karim na Nshimiyimana Augustin, byumvikanisha ko bitaburanyweho bityo Umulinga Consilde akaba atavuga ko Urukiko rwabimurenganyijeho. [41] Kutaburanisha bwa mbere mu rwego rw’akarengane ikitaraburanyweho mu rubanza rusabirwa gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane ni nawo murongo wafashwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza GAHIRE Athanase yaburanaga na MUKARUSHAKIRO Gloriose na bagenzi be, aho rwemeje ko umuburanyi atavuga ko yagize akarengane ku kibazo atigeze agaragariza Umucamanza ngo amusabe kugisuzuma.3

3 Urubanza n° RS/INJUST/RC 00008/2019/SC haburana GAHIRE Athanase na MUKARUSHAKIRO Gloriose na bagenzi be, rwaciwe kuwa 12/11/2021, urupapuro rwa 14, igika cya 30.

## Page 100

66 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

b. Kumenya niba amasezerano y’ubugure yabaye hagati ya Ngirinshuti Michel, Nsengiyumva Karim na Nshimiyimana Augustin yarakozwe mu buriganya. [42] Mu bimenyetso Umulinga Consilde ashingiraho avuga ko Nshimiyimana Augustin na Nsengiyumva Karim baguze ubutaka buburanwa mu buryo bw’uburyarya, harimo kuba hari itandukaniro ry’ubuso bw’ubutaka bwanditse ku byangombwa n’ubwanditse mu masezerano y’ubugure yabaye hagati ya Nsengiyumva Karim na Ngirinshuti Michel no kuba Nsengiyumva Karim aburanisha ko yabuguze na Mbabazi Felix mu mwaka wa 2011, ariko mu ihererekanyamutungo hakaba hagaragaramo Ngirinshuti Michel gusa. Naho kuri Nshimiyimana Augustin, ubwo buriganya asobanura ko bugaragarira mu kuba yarabanje kwandikisha mu Kigo gishinzwe imikoreshereze n’imicungire y’ubutaka ko yarazwe ubwo butaka, ubundi akandika ko ari ubugure. [43] Ingingo ya 3, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko N° 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo iteganya ko “buri muburanyi agomba kugaragaza ukuri kw’ibyo aburana.” Ibivugwa muri iyo ngingo bihura n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 12 y’Itegeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko “urega agomba kugaragaza ibimenyetso by’ibyo aregera. Iyo abibuze, uwarezwe aratsinda.” [44] Ibyerekeye ubuso bw’ubutaka Ngirinshuti Michel yagurishije Nshimiyimana Augustin n’ubwo yagurishije Nsengiyumva Karim, yakurikiranyweho mu rubanza rw’inshinjabyaha ari narwo rwakomotseho ikirego cy’imbonezamubano Umulinga Consilde yatanze, byasobanuwe

## Page 101

67 UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI N’ABANDI

mu gusuzuma ingingo ya mbere y’uru rubanza. Ubundi butaka Umulinga Consilde avuga burimo n’ubwo Nsengiyumva Karim avuga ko yaguze na Mbabazi Felix, cyangwa ubwo Nshimiyimana Augustin avuga ko yongeye ku bwo yari yaguze na Ngirinshuti Michel, ariko bwose Umulinga Consilde akavuga ko bugize umutungo we aburana, bukaba butaraburanyweho mu rubanza rusabirwa gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, bityo Urukiko rukaba ntaho rwahera rugira icyemezo rubifataho kuri uru rwego. [45] Ku kibazo cyerekeranye n’uko Nshimiyimana Augustin yaba yarabanje kwandikisha mu Kigo gishinzwe imicungire n’imikoreshereze y’ubutaka mu Rwanda ko ubutaka yaburazwe, ubundi akandika ko bukomoka ku bugure, mu iburanisha ryo ku wa 18/11/2021, Nshimiyimana Augustin yari yitabiriye ubwe, yavuze ko ubutaka buvugwa abukomora ku bugure, ko iby’uko bwaba bukomoka ku irage atazi aho byaturutse. Ikigaragarira Urukiko ni uko hari amasezerano yemeza ko ubwo butaka bukomoka ku bugure, Ngirinshuti Michel wabugurishije akaba abihamya, n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rukaba rwarabyemeje rutyo mu rubanza No RP 0356/15/TGI/NYGE; iby’uko bwaba bukomoka ku irage bikaba bigaragara nko kwibeshya mu kwandika ku cyangombwa. [46] Urukiko rusanga kandi Nsengiyumva Karim na Nshimiyimana Augustin baraguze na Ngirinshuti Michel abereka ko ari nyiri umutungo, akabereka ibyangombwa byatanzwe n’inzego zibifitiye ububasha. Byumvikane rero ko ingingo ya 35, igika cya 2 y’Itegeko N° 43/2013 ryo ku wa 16/06/2013 rigenga

## Page 102

68 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ubutaka mu Rwanda Umulinga Consilde ashingiraho itakurikizwa.4 [47] Kubera impamvu zose zimaze gusobanurwa, Urukiko rurasanga nta kimenyetso Umulinga Consilde yagaragaje cyerekana ko amasezerano y’ubugure yabaye hagati ya Ngirinshuti Michel, Nsengiyumva Karim na Nshimiyimana Augustin yakozwe mu buriganya. c. Kumenya niba Nsengiyumva Karim na Nshimiyimana Augustin bakwiye gusubiza umutungo baguze na Ngirinshuti Michel [48] Umulinga Consilde asaba ko amasezerano y’ubugure yabaye hagati ya Nsengiyumva Karim, Nshimiyimana Augustin, na Ngirinshuti Michel yaseswa, agasubirana umutungo asangiye na Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard. Ingingo ya 64 y’Itegeko N° 45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano iteganya ko amasezerano akozwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko aba itegeko ku bayagiranye, akaba yaseswa ari uko abayagiranye babyumvikanyeho cyangwa ku zindi mpamvu zemewe n’amategeko. Naho ingingo ya 113, igika cya mbere y’iryo Tegeko iteganya ko amasezerano agira inkurikizi hagati y’abayagiranye gusa, akaba atabangamira undi cyangwa ngo amugirire akamaro hejuru y’ibyayateganyijwemo bimufitiye akamaro. [49] Urukiko rusanga Umulinga Consilde adashobora gusaba ko amasezerano atabayemo ateshwa agaciro, ariko akaba afite uburenganzira bwo gukurikirana umutungo avuga ko ari uwe ku

4 .Icyakora, ntibibujije ko umuntu ashobora gutunga inyubako, ibihingwa n’ibindi bikorwa ku butaka bw’undi muntu mu gihe bikurikije iri tegeko, andi mategeko cyangwa amasezerano na nyir’ubutaka.

## Page 103

69 UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI N’ABANDI

wo awusanganye. Ikibazo kijyanye n’uburenganzira bwo gukurikirana umutungo utimukanwa ku wo uwusanganye bitabaye ngombwa gusaba ko amasezerano y’ubugure ateshwa agaciro, cyasuzumwe n’uru Rukiko mu manza zitandukanye, nko mu rubanza Mukaruhanga Alexia yaburanaga na Nyirahabimana Emertha na KOLD HANSEN Jesper. Muri uru rubanza, Urukiko rwasobanuye ko atari ngombwa ko habanza kubaho gutesha agaciro amasezerano y‘ubugure bw’ikintu cy’undi kugirango nyiracyo ashobore kuregera kukigaruza. 5 [50] Urukiko rusanga, kuba Nsengiyumva Karim na Nshimiyimana Augustin baraguze umutungo utimukanwa na Ngirinshuti Michel, utari nyir’umutungo w’ukuri, byumvikana ko bagomba kuwusubiza ba nyirawo, ariko Ngirinshuti Michel wabagurishije iyo mitungo akabasubiza agaciro kayo.6 Ariko kubera ko Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard yemeye imikirize y’urubanza N° RP 0356/TGI/NYGE rwategetse ko we n’Umulinga Consilde bagomba guhabwa na Ngirinshuti Michel amafaranga 30.35.,500 Frw, Umulinga Consilde we agahitamo indi nzira itambamira imikirize y’urubanza, Ngirinshuti Michel azishyura Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard 15.178.250 Frw. [51] Urukiko rusanga ku byerekeye isambu yaguzwe na Nshimiyimana Augustin ibaruye kuri UPI: 1/01/08/04/16357

5Reba urubanza N° RCAA 00045/2016/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 24/05/2019, kuva ku bika bya 25 kugeza ku cya 34. 6Uru Rukiko rwafashe icyemezo gisa n’iki mu Rubanza RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2020/SC haburana Twagirayezu Alice na Twagirayezu Alphonsine na bagenzi be rwaciwe ku wa 10/12/2021, igika cya 40 na 41; Urubanza RCAA 0117/11/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 24/04/2015 haburana Nibasenge Anathalie na Nahayo Francois Xavier. 7Nk’uko byasobanuwe, UPI: 1/01/08/04/1835 ibaruweho isambu Nshimiyimana Augustin yaguze na Ngirinshuti Michel yari ifite metero kare

## Page 104

70 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

nk’uko byagarutsweho haruguru yakorewe expropriation n’Akarere ka Nyarugenge, Nshimiyimana Augustin agomba gusubiza Umulinga Consilde kimwe cya kabiri cy’agaciro yahawe muri expropriation y’aho yari yaguze na Ngirinshuti Michel hangana na (25m/30m) (sqm 750). Bisobanura (20,666,286 frw ÷ 2,039 sqm) × 750sqm=7,601,625 frw ÷2 = 3.800.812 Frw. Ibyo bivuze ko ayo mafaranga ari nayo Ngirinshuti Michel agomba gusubiza Nshimiyimana Augustin. [52] Urukiko rusanga ku byerekeye umutungo ufite UPI: 1/01/08/04/1861 waguzwe na Nsengiyumva Karim, Umulinga Consilde agomba gusubizwa kimwe cya kabiri cy’uwo mutungo, ikindi gice cyagombaga guhabwa Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard kikaguma mu maboko ya Nsengiyumva Karim, kuko Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard atigeze ajuririra urubanza N° RP 0356/15/TGI/NGE nk’uko byagarutsweho haruguru. Nsengiyumva Karim, nk’uko byagaragariye Urukiko mu gihe cy’iperereza, ntacyo yongeye kuri ubwo butaka, bityo akaba agomba gusubizwa na Ngirinshuti Michel agaciro k’icyo gice cy’ubwo butaka buzasubizwa Umulinga Consilde, kabazwe hashingiwe ku biciro fatizo by’ubutaka mu Rwanda bya 2021.8 Ni ukuvuga ko kuri 750 sqm, hakoreshejwe Weighted Average Value per sqm, agaciro k’ubutaka kaba 31.483 Frw x 750 = 23.612.250 Frw, bivuze ko Ngirinshuti Michel yasubiza Nsengiyumva Karim icya kabiri cy’aka gaciro gihwanye na 11.806.125 Frw.

750, ukongeraho indi sambu yahuje nayo bibyara isambu ifite ubuso bungana na metero kare 2,039 nk’uko bigaragara ku cyangombwa cy’umutungo. 8Reba Ibiciro Fatizo by’Ubutaka mu Rwanda 2021, byateguwe n’Urugaga rw’Abagenagaciro ku Mutungo Utumikanwa mu Rwanda (IRPV), Official Gazette No. Special of 01/12/2021, p. 192. Urukiko rurakoresha Weighted Average Value per sqm.

## Page 105

71 UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI N’ABANDI

B. Kumenya niba indishyi ababuranyi basaba bakwiye kuzihabwa [53] Umulinga Consilde n’abunganizi be bavuga ko yavukijwe uburenganzira ku mutungo we, ubu akaba amaze imyaka igera kuri irindwi (7) awukurikirana mu manza zamuteje igihombo, kuko yagiye akora ingendo ziva zikanajya mu gihugu cy’Ububiligi, akagera mu Rwanda akishyura icumbi rimuhenze, akishyura amazi n’amashanyarazi, ndetse n’ibiribwa bijyanye no kuba arwaye diabete, agatanga n’amafaranga yo kwivuza igihe ari mu Rwanda kuko mu Bubiligi ho yivuriza ubuntu. Ibyo abisabira indishyi zihwanye na miliyoni cumi n’eshanu (15.000.000 Frw). Ibimenyetso bashingiraho bikaba ari factures z’amazi n’amashanyarazi na factures z’imiti no kwivuza. [54] Bakomeza bavuga ko kubera gushorwa mu manza nta mpamvu, Umulinga Consilde asaba amafaranga miliyoni eshatu (3.000.000 frw) y’ikurikiranarubanza, zishingiye ku gushaka inyandiko, kuzifotoza, kwandikira no gukurikirana iki kibazo mu nkiko zitandukanye, kwandikira no gushaka ibisubizo mu nzego z’ubuyobozi, gutega taxi voiture uko avuye mu rugo, akanasaba gusubizwa igihembo cya Avoka kingana na miliyoni eshanu (5.000.000 frw). [55] Ngirinshuti Michel n’umwunganizi we bavuga ko basanga Umulinga Consilde nta ndishyi agomba guhabwa kuko nta karengane kari muri uru rubanza. Basaba Urukiko ahubwo kuzategeka Umulinga Consilde kwishyura Ngirinshuti Michel indishyi z’akababaro zingana na 2.000.000 Frw kubera kumusiragiza mu manza nta mpamvu. [56] Nsengiyumva Karim n’umwunganizi we nabo bavuga ko basanga nta ndishyi Umulinga Consilde akwiye guhabwa kuko

## Page 106

72 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ariwe wishoye mu manza zidafite ishingiro, ahubwo ko ariwe ugomba guha Nsengiyumva Karim indishyi z’akababaro zingana na 2.000. 000 Frw kubera kumushora mu manza z’amaherere, akamuha 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 500.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza. [57] Me Habakurama François Xavier uhagarariye Nshimiyimana Augustin avuga ko indishyi Umulinga Consilde asaba nta shingiro zifite, ko ahubwo hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 111 y’Itegeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, Umulinga Consilde yategekwa kwishyura Nshimiyimana Augustin 1.500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka kuri uru rwego na 500.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza ku bwo gukomeza kumusiragiza mu nkiko. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [58] Ingingo ya 111 y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018, ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko “ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza ni ikirego gishamikira ku kirego cy’iremezo kigamije kwishyuza ibyakoreshejwe mu rubanza. Ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza kiburanishirizwa rimwe n’ikirego cy’iremezo. Gishobora kandi kwakirwa kikanaburanishwa n’iyo ikirego cy’iremezo cyaba kitakiriwe.” [59] Urukiko rurasanga amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza Umulinga Consilde, Nsengiyumva Karim na Nshimiyimana Augustin basaba bagomba kuyahabwa kuko byabaye ngombwa gukurikirana urubanza bitewe no kuba

## Page 107

73 UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI N’ABANDI

Ngirinshuti Michel yaragurishije uwo mutungo azi neza ko ari uwa Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard na Umulinga Consilde, bikaba ngombwa gushaka ababunganira. Icyakora kubera ko ayo basaba ari umurengera, mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko bakaba bagenewe buri wese 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 300.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza, yose hamwe akaba 800.000 Frw kuri buri wese, agatangwa na Ngirinshuti Michel. [60] Urukiko rurasanga kandi, ruhereye ku bisobanuro Umulinga Consilde atanga asaba amafaranga 15.000.000, ayo mafaranga atayagenerwa kuko ibimenyetso atanga bitagaragaza ko ibyo asaba byakoreshejwe koko mu ikurikirana ry’uru rubanza. [61] Ku bijyanye n’indishyi zingana na 2.000.000 Frw zo gushorwa mu manza zasabwe na Nsengiyumva Karim, ndetse n’indishyi zingana nk’izo Ngirinshuti Michel yasabye, Urukiko rurasanga batagomba kuzihabwa kubera ko ataribo batanze ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Ikindi kandi ni uko Ngirinshuti Michel we nta n’icyo atsindiye muri uru rubanza. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [62] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Umulinga Consilde asaba gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane urubanza No RCA 00123/2018/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 10/09/2018 rukemeza ko nta gihindutse ku mikirize y’urubanza No RP 0356/15/TGI/NYGE rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge ku wa 23/12/2015, gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe;

## Page 108

74 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[63] Rwemeje ko imikirize y’urubanza No RP 0356/15/TGI/NYGE rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge ku wa 23/12/2015 ihindutse ku bijyanye n’ibyo Ngirinshuti Michel agomba gusubiza; [64] Rutegetse Ngirinshuti Michel guha Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard amafaranga 15.178.250; [65] Rutegetse Nshimiyimana Augustin gusubiza Umulinga Consilde amafaranga 3.800.812; [66] Rutegetse Nsengiyumva Karim gusubiza Umulinga Consilde igice kingana n’icya kabiri cy’ubutaka UPI:1/01/08/04/1861 yaguze na Ngirinshuti Michel; [67] Rutegetse Ngirinshuti Michel gusubiza Nshimiyimana Augustin amafaranga 3.800.812; [68] Rutegetse Ngirinshuti Michel guha Nsengiyumva Karim 11.806.125 Frw ahwanye n’agaciro k’ubutaka bugomba gusubizwa Umulinga Consilde; [69] Rutegetse Ngirinshuti Michel guha Umulinga Consilde, Nshimiyimana Augustin na Nsengiyumva Karim, buri wese amafaranga 800.000 akubiyemo ay’igihembo cy’avoka n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza.

## Page 109

URUBANZA RWEREKERANYE N’IMIBURANISHIRIZE Y’IMANZA MBONEZAMUBANO, IZ’UBUCURUZI, IZ’UMURIMO N’IZ’UBUTEGETSI

## Page 111

77

MURENZI N’UNDI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI (ADD) [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA - RS/INJUST/RC 00009/2021/SC (Ntezilyayo, P.J., Cyanzayire na Karimunda, J.) 14 Mata 2022] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza – Imanza mbonezamubano – Uburegeke – Urukiko rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha urubanza ruri mu buregeke – Iyo inkiko zitandukanye ziregewe urubanza rumwe kandi zose zirufitiye ububasha, rumwe muri zo rurwoherereza urundi. Bahitamo urukiko rwisumbuyeho ku rukiko rwo hasi. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza – Imanza mbonezamubano – Uburegeke – Uburyo bwo kureba impamvu y’uburegeke – Impamvu y’uburegeke igomba kureberwa 1) mu kuba hari inkiko zitandukanye zaregewe urubanza rumwe, ni ukuvuga ikiburanwa kimwe n’ababuranyi bamwe, 2) mu kuba inkiko zose zaregewe zifite ububasha. Ikiburanwa kimwe bivuze ko ibirego byombi bigomba kuba bifite inkomoko (fait générateur) imwe n’impamvu (cause) imwe. Ababuranyi bamwe bivuze ko ababurana mu rubanza rumwe ari nabo bagomba kuba baburana mu rundi rubanza. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza – Imanza mbonezamubano – Ihame ryo gushyira mu gaciro – Urukiko ntirwiyambaza ihame ryo gushyira mu gaciro mu kwemeza ibyabaye (facts) cyangwa ibisanzwe biteganywa n’amategeko. Ahubwo iyo rumaze kubona ibyabaye n’amategeko agomba gushingirwaho, nibwo ruba rwemerewe gufata ibyemezo bitandukanye, icyo gihe rushobora gushingira ku gushyira mu

## Page 112

78 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

gaciro. Iyo rutangiye kwibaza ruti: ni ikihe cyemezo gikwiriye kandi gitanga ubutabera? Ubwo ruba rutangiye inzira y’ugushyira mu gaciro. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza – Imanza mbonezamubano – Urukiko rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha urubanza rwaregewe ku rwego rwa mbere mu rukiko rw’Ibanze n’urubanza rwatangiriye mu rukiko rwisumbuye – Urubanza rwaregewe ku rwego rwa mbere mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze ntirushobora kuba mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ndetse n’urubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye, rugacibwa ku rwego rwa nyuma n’Urukiko Rukuru, nyuma yaho rugasubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane ntirushobora kuba mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ibanze kuko inkiko zifite ububasha bwo kuruburanisha ari Urukiko rw’Ubujurire cyangwa Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu rukiko rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo aho Mutabazi na Muhawenimana baregaga Murenzi na Uwamahoro bavuga ko kubera imyubakire mibi yabo, urukuta rw’inzu yabo rwasenyutse rukangiza imitungo yabo irimo imodoka n’inzu bagasaba urukiko ko bahabwa indishyi z’ibyangiritse. Abaregwa bo bavuga ko nta ruhare bagize mu isenyuka ry’urukuta rwa Mutabazi ahubwo ko isenyuka ryarwo ryatewe n’ibiza byasanze uyu yarubatse nabi kuko yubatse nta cyangombwa cyo kubaka afite. SORAS AG Ltd (ubu ni SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc) yagobotse mu rubanza isaba ko yakwishyurwa amafaranga yakoresheje isana imodoka yangijwe n’urwo rukuta. Urukiko mu rubanza No RC 00203/2018/TGI/GSBO rwifashishije raporo z’abahanga ndetse n’abatangabuhamya rwasanze urwo rukuta rwasenyutse biturutse ku gutsikamirwa n’uburemere bw’itaka Murenzi yakoresheje

## Page 113

79 MURENZI N’UNDI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI (ADD)

nawe yubaka urukata rwe ndetse rukaba rwarasaga n’urwegamiye urukuta rwa Mutabazi nuko rutegeka Murenzi na Uwamahoro kwishyura abarega indishyi zinyuranye. Murenzi na Uwamahoro bajuririye Urukiko Rukuru bavuga ko urukiko rwabanje rwirengagije ko urukuta rwasenywe no kuba rwarubatswe na Murenzi na Uwamhaoro badafite icyangombwa cyo kubaka bityo rwubakwa nabi hatubahirijwe ibipimo kandi ko raporo y’abahanga idakurikije amategeko kuko abayikoze batumvikanye ku mwanzuro, ko ataribo bayishyikirije urukiko kandi ko batayirahiriye. Mutabazi na Muhawenimana nabo bajuririye Urukiko rukuru bavuga ko hari indishyi batahawe zikomoka ku modoka zakodeshejwe zo gutwara itaka. SANLAM nayo yatanze ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi isaba ko indishyi yagenewe mu rukiko rubanza zashyirwa muri uru rubanza. Ubwo bujurire bwahurijwe hamwe mu rubanza N° RCA 00499/2019/HC/KIG-CMB RCA 00506/2019/HC/KIG hanyuma Urukiko Rukuru rusanga kuba abahanga batararahiye mbere yo gutanga raporo ari ikosa ry’imyandikire bityo bashobora guhamagazwa bakaza gusobanura ibikubiye muri iyo raporo ndetse bakabanza kurahizwa; kuba abakoze raporo batumvikana ku mwanzuro ko ntacyo bitwaye ko ikingenzi ari uko bayumvikanaho nk’abayikoze bafatanyije ndetse rwemeza ko ubujuri bwatanzwe nta shingiro bufite. Murenzi yasabye ko urwo rubanza rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane maze ruhabwa Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ngo rwongere ruruburanishe maze rusuzuma ibibazo by’ingenzi bikurikira: Kumenya niba raporo y’abahanga yashingiweho mu icibwa ry’urubanza No RCA 00499/2019/HC/KIG- CMB RCA 00506/2019/HC/KIG ikwiye guteshwa agaciro no kumenya icyateye isenyuka ry’urukuta rw’urugo rwa Mutabazi na Muhawenimana.

## Page 114

80 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Usubirishamo urubanza yatanze inzitizi y’uburegeke avuga ko hari ikirego Mutabazi yatanze mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Gasabo kandi kikaba gifitanye isano n’Uru rubanza akaba aribyo byabanza gusuzumwa. Asobanura ko muri urwo rubanza haregerwa ubwishyu bw’urukuta rushya rwubatswe n’agaciro k’amazu ya annexes yasenywe rwubakwa. Icyo kirego gisaba kubanza kwemeza nyir’uburyozwe, hakaba hari impungenge z’uko icyemezo urwo rukiko rwafata cyaza kinyuranye n’ikizafatwa n’uru Rukiko bityo agasaba ko zahurizwa hamwe ngo hirindwe ko ibyemezo byafatwa byaba bivuguruzanya. Uregwa nawe avuga ko izo manza ari zimwe ko kuzihuriza hamwe byatuma zirangirizwa rimwe. Akomza avuga ko mu gihe Urukiko rwasanga nta buregeke burimo ko rufite ububasha bwo guhamagaza urubanza ruri mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze kuko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga nubundi rufite ububasha buruta ubw’Urukiko rw’Ibanze hanyuma izi manza zombi zikaburanishwa n’uru rukiko. Incamake y’icyemezo:1. Iyo inkiko zitandukanye ziregewe urubanza rumwe kandi zose zirufitiye ububasha, rumwe muri zo rurwoherereza urundi hagahitwamo urukiko rwisumbuyeho ku rukiko rwo hasi. Ibyaregewe mu rubanza N° RC 00 177/2022/TB/GSBO bitandukanye n’ibiregerwa muri uru rubanza kuko n’ababuranyi batandukanye bityo nta buregeke burimo. 2. Impamvu y’uburegeke igomba kureberwa mu kuba hari inkiko zitandukanye zaregewe urubanza rumwe, no mu kuba inkiko zose zaregewe zifite ububasha. Ikiburanwa kimwe bivuze ko ibirego byombi bigomba kuba bifite inkomoko imwe. Ababuranyi bamwe bivuze ko ababurana mu rubanza rumwe ari nabo bagomba kuba baburana mu rundi rubanza bikaba bitandukanye

## Page 115

81 MURENZI N’UNDI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI (ADD)

rero n’uru rubanza bityo nabyo bigahamya ko nta buregeke burimo. 3. Urubanza rwaregewe ku rwego rwa mbere mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze ntirushobora kuba mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ndetse n’urubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye, rugacibwa ku rwego rwa nyuma n’Urukiko Rukuru, nyuma yaho rugasubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane ntirushobora kuba mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ibanze kuko inkiko zifite ububasha bwo kuruburanisha ari Urukiko rw’Ubujurire cyangwa Urukiko rw’Ikirenga bityo akaba nta buregeke buri mu rubanza RS/INJUST/RC 00009/2021/SC ruri muri uru Rukiko n’ikirego N° RC 00177/2022/TB/GSBO. Inzitizi yatanzwe nta shingiro ifite; Nta buregeke buri hagati y’urubanza No RS/INJUST/RC 00009/2021/SC n’ikirego cyanditswe kuri No RC 00177/2022/TB/GSBO bityo zikaba zitagomba kuburanishirizwa hamwe. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, ingingo ya 27,53,100. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Inyandiko z’abahanga zifashishijwe: Serge Guinchard (eds), Droit et pratique de la procédure civile, Paris, Dalloz, 2014, p. 293. Reba Loïc Cadiet na Emmanuel Jeuland, Droit judiciaire privé, 11e éd., Paris, 2019, p.222.

## Page 116

82 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

The Judge as Lawmaker: An English Perspective” in Tom Bingham, The Business of Judging: Selected Essays and Speeches 1985-1999, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000, p.36. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA. [1] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo, Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude na Muhawenimana Joselyne bavuga ko ku bw’amakosa y’imyubakire mibi ya Murenzi Alphonse na Uwamahoro Jacqueline, ku wa 25/05/2018, urukuta rw’urugo rwabo rwasenyutse, rwangiza imodoka ebyiri, amazu ya annexes, ibigega by’amazi n’inkingi z’ibyuma byari bibifashe. Basabye ko iryo senyuka n’ibyangijwe biryozwa Murenzi Alphonse na Uwamahoro Jacqueline, bagategekwa kubaha indishyi zitandukanye. [2] MurenzI Alphonse na Uwamahoro Jacqueline bavuze ko nta ruhare bagize muri iryo senyuka ry’urukuta rwabo, ko Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude atagaragaza ko ubwo Murenzi Alphonse yubakaga aribwo haje umututu muri urwo rukuta. Yasobanuye ko isenyuka ry’urukuta ryatewe n’ibiza byasanze Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude yarubatse nabi kuko yubatse atabiherewe uruhushya, asaba Urukiko kwemeza ko ikirego nta shingiro gifite. [3] SORAS AG Ltd (yahindutse SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc) yagobotse mu rubanza, isaba ko Murenzi Alphonse na Uwamahoro Jacqueline bategekwa kuyishyura

## Page 117

83 MURENZI N’UNDI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI (ADD)

2.183.000 Frw yakoreshejwe hasanwa imodoka RAD 995F yangiritse bitewe n’isenyuka ry’urukuta rwabo. [4] Mu rubanza No RC 00203/2018/TGI/GSBO rwaciwe ku wa 08/11/2019, Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo rwasanze imvugo z’abatangabuhamya, raporo y’Ubugenzuzi bw’Imyubakire mu Karere ka Gasabo, iy’Umuhanga mu by’ubutaka ndetse n’iy’Itsinda ry’abahanga basuzumye ibyabaye bihuriza ku kwemeza ko urukuta rutari gusenyuka iyo rutagira ibirutsikamira kuko rwari rukomeye; rusanga kandi Murenzi Alphonse yarubatse urukuta rwe asa n’urwegamije kurwa Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude, arangije aharunda itaka, rwanzura ko urukuta rwa Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude rwasenywe n’uko rwatsikamiwe n’ibikorwa bya Murenzi Alphonse, rumutegeka gufatanya na Uwamahoro Jacqueline kwishyura Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude na Muhawenimana Joselyne indishyi zingana na 22.159.538 Frw, ndetse n’amadorali ya Amerika angana na 6.173. [5] Murenzi Alphonse na Uwamahoro Jacqueline bajuririye Urukiko Rukuru bavuga ko Urukiko rwirengagije ko kuba urukuta rwa Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude rutarihanganiye amazi byatewe n’uko atubahirije ibipimo kuko yubatse atabiherewe uruhushya. Bavuga ko na raporo y’Abahanga yashingiweho hafatwa icyemezo ku rwego rwa mbere yakozwe mu buryo bunyuranije n’amategeko kuko abayikoze batumvikana ku mwanzuro yagezeho, ko ataribo bayishikirije Urukiko ndetse ko batayirahiriye. Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude na Muhawenimana Joselyne nabo bajuririye Urukiko Rukuru bavuga ko hari indishyi batahawe kandi bazikwiriye, ko bagenewe amafaranga make kuyo bakodesheje imodoka nyamara ibimenyetso batanze

## Page 118

84 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bihamya ko imodoka RAD 586 M yishyuwe 850.00 Frw naho RAC 847 Y yishyurwa 360.000 Frw. [6] SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc yatanze ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi, isaba ko 2.183.000 Frw yemejwe ku rwego rwa mbere ashyirwa mu cyemezo cy’Urukiko Rukuru. [7] Ubujurire bwose bwahurijwe hamwe mu rubanza no RCA 00499/2019/HC/KIG-CMB RCA 00506/2019/HC/KIG rwaciwe ku wa 19/02/2021, Urukiko rusanga: i. ibyo gufatanya kubaka urukuta bitararegewe ku rwego rwa mbere, bityo bikaba bidakwiye gusuzumwa mu bujurire; ii. kuba abahanga batararahiye mbere yo gutanga raporo ari ikosa ry’imyandikire rishobora gukosorwa hahamagazwa abakoze raporo kuza kuyisobanurira Urukiko, mbere yo kuyisobanura bakabanza kurahizwa; iii. kuba abakoze raporo batumvikana ku mwanzuro wayo atari impamvu yatuma iteshwa agaciro kuko icy’ingenzi ari uko benshi muri bo baba bayumvikanaho; iv. nta muhanga wemeje ko ibiza aribyo byasenye urukuta, kuko raporo y’Ubuyobozi bw’Umudugudu yo ku wa 22/05/2018 igaragaza ko na mbere y’isenyuka ryarwo icyo kibazo cyari gihari, byumvikanisha ko itaka Murenzi Alphonse yageretse kuri urwo rukuta ariryo ryarusenye; v. nta makosa Urukiko rubanza rwakoze rutanga 720.000 Frw y’imodoka mu bushishozi bwarwo kuko rutari rutegetswe gushingira ku bimenyetso ababuranyi batanze rutabihuje n’ibiciro biri ku isoko cyane cyane ko

## Page 119

85 MURENZI N’UNDI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI (ADD)

Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude nawe yari afite inshingano zo kugabanya igihombo; vi. indishyi z’akababaro zingana na 20.000.000 Frw Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude na Muhawenimana Joselyne basaba batazihabwa kuko batagaragaje uburyo ububabare, agahinda no guhangayika batewe n’ibyabaye babibariye ayo mafaranga; vii. indishyi zingana na 2.183.000 Frw zagenewe SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc zigomba gushyirwa mu cyemezo cy’Urukiko Rukuru ariko zigakurwa mu ndishyi zagenewe Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude na Muhawenimana Joselyne; viii. indishyi zari zagenewe Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude na Muhawenimana Joselyne zikuweho 3.369.336 Frw y'agaciro k’amazu ya annexes na 2.183.000 Frw yagombaga kugenerwa SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc. [8] Urukiko rwanzuye ruvuga ko urubanza rwajuririwe ruhindutse kuri bimwe, rutegeka Murenzi Alphonse na Uwamahoro Jacqueline guha Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude na Muhawenimana Joselyne 740.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza, igihembo cya Avoka n’igarama, rubategeka kandi gusubiza SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc Ltd 2.183.000 Frw yakoresheje imodoka. [9] Murenzi Alphonse yandikiye Perezida w'Urukiko rw'Ubujurire asaba ko urubanza No CMB RCA 00499/2019/HC/KIG-RCA 00506/2019/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 19/02/2021, rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z'akarengane. Perezida w'Urukiko rw'Ubujurire amaze gusuzuma

## Page 120

86 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ubwo busabe, yandikiye Perezada w'Urukiko rw'Ikirenga asaba ko urwo rubanza rwasubirwamo, maze mu cyemezo No 243/CJ/2021 cyo ku wa 07/10/2021, Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga yemeza ko rwoherezwa mu Bwanditsi bw’Urukiko kugira ngo ruzongere ruburanishwe. [10] Iburanisha mu ruhame ryabaye ku wa 08/03/2022, Me Habyarimana Christine aburanira Murenzi Alphonse na Uwamahoro Jacqueline, Me Yaramba Ruhara Athanase na Me Niyitegeka Epaphrodite bunganiye Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude kandi bahagarariye Muhawenimana Joselyne, naho Me Mafaranga Anastase ahagarariye SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc. [11] Iburanisha rigitangira, Me Habyarimana Christine yavuze ko Murenzi Alphonse arwaye, ko mu busanzwe amwunganira, ariko noneho yamuhaye ububasha bwo kumuhagararira ku bijyanye n’inzitizi y’uburegeke batanze nyuma y’inama ntegurarubanza bitewe n’uko impamvu yayo yabonetse nyuma y’iyo nama. Avuga ko iyo nzitizi ishingiye ku kirego gishya Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude yatanze mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Gasabo ku wa 24/02/2022 gihabwa N° RC 00177/2022/TB/GSBO, ko aho Murenzi Alphonse abimenyeye, yasanze icyo kirego gifitanye isano n’uru rubanza, amusaba gutegura inzitizi y’uburegeke, bityo akaba yumva ariyo yaherwaho.

## Page 121

87 MURENZI N’UNDI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI (ADD)

II. IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYACYO. Kumenya niba hari uburegeke hagati y’urubanza no RS/INJUST/RC 00009/2021/SC n’ikirego cyanditswe kuri No RC 00177/2022/TB/GSBO mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Gasabo [12] Me Habyarimana Christine, uhagarariye Murenzi Alphonse na Uwamahoro Jacqueline, avuga ko ikirego Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude yatanze mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Gasabo gifitanye isano n’uru rubanza kuko haregerwa ubwishyu bw’urukuta rushya rwubatswe n’agaciro k’amazu ya annexes yasenywe rwubakwa. Avuga ko ikirego kiri mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Gasabo gisaba kubanza kwemeza nyir’uburyozwe, hakaba hari impungenge z’uko icyemezo rwafata cyaza kinyuranye n’ikizafatwa n’uru Rukiko. Asaba ko izo manza zahurizwa hamwe zikaburanishwa n’uru Rukiko mu rwego rwo kwirinda ibyemezo by’inkiko bivuguruzanya no kugira ngo ubutabera buzatangwe nta kibazo gisigaye inyuma. [13] Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude n’abamwunganira bakanahagararira Muhawenimana Joselyne bavuga ko izo manza ari zimwe, bityo kuzihuriza hamwe bikaba byanatuma zirangirizwa rimwe. Bavuga ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusanze izo manza zirimo uburegeke, rwahamagaza urubanza ruri mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze, zikaburanishirizwa hamwe, ariko ko nubwo bwaba butarimo nta kibuza Urukiko rw’Ikirenga guhamagaza urubanza ruri mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze kuko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga nubundi rufite ububasha buruta ubw’Urukiko rw’Ibanze (Qui peut le plus, peut le moins).

## Page 122

88 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[14] Me Mafaranga Anastase, uburanira SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc, avuga ko uru Rukiko rusanze koko Murenzi Alphonse na Uwamahoro Jacqueline bararenganye byabangamira ikirego cyatanzwe mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze, ariyo mpamvu nawe ashyigikiye ko izo manza zihuzwa, zikaburanishirizwa hamwe. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA: [15] Ingingo ya 100, igika cya mbere, agace ka 3, y’Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko iteganya ko « Iyo inkiko zitandukanye ziregewe urubanza rumwe kandi zose zirufitiye ububasha, rumwe muri zo rurwoherereza urundi. Bahitamo: urukiko rwisumbuyeho ku rukiko rwo hasi; » [16] Urukiko rurasanga iyi ngingo yumvikanisha ko impamvu y’uburegeke igomba kureberwa 1) mu kuba hari inkiko zitandukanye zaregewe urubanza rumwe, ni ukuvuga ikiburanwa kimwe n’ababuranyi bamwe, 2) mu kuba inkiko zose zaregewe zifite ububasha. Ikiburanwa kimwe bivuze ko ibirego byombi bigomba kuba bifite inkomoko (fait générateur) imwe n’impamvu (cause) imwe. Ababuranyi bamwe bivuze ko ababurana mu rubanza rumwe ari nabo bagomba kuba baburana mu rundi rubanza. [17] Ku bireba uru rubanza, bigaragara ko icyaregewe mu rubanza N° RC 00 177/2022/TB/GSBO ari ukwishyuza Murenzi Alphonse na Uwamahoro Jacqueline uruhare rwabo ku rukuta rwubatswe na Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude no kwishyura amazu ya annexes yasenywe bitewe n’imyubakire mibi yabo n’indishyi zitandukanye. Muri urwo Rukiko SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc ntiri mu rubanza nk’uwagobotse. Ibisabwa mu

## Page 123

89 MURENZI N’UNDI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI (ADD)

Rukiko rw’Ibanze ntibisa n’ibisabwa mu rubanza N° RS/INJUST/RC 00009/2021/SC. Mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze harasabwa uruhare rwa Murenzi Alphonse na Uwamahoro Jacqueline ku rukuta n’amazu ya annexes yubatswe nyuma y’isenyuka ry’urukuta rwa Murenzi Alphonse. Mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga harasabwa ibintu umunani (8), ku bijyanye n’urukuta n’amazu ya annexes, harasabwa ikiguzi cya 34.038.316 Frw z’ibyangiritse, bityo kwishyuza ikiguzi cy’ibyubatswe no kwishyuza ikiguzi cy’ibyangiritse bikaba bitakwitiranywa cyane cyane ko ntaho bigaragara ko agaciro kishyuzwa kubyangijwe kangana n’agasabwa kubyubatswe. Nubwo rero ababuranyi ari bamwe, ndetse n’inkomoko y’imanza zombi akaba ari uko hari urukuta rwa Murenzi Alphonse rwaridutse rukagira ibyo rwangiza cyangwa rusenya kwa Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude, ikiburanwa muri izi nkiko zombi si kimwe kandi n’ingano (portée/scope) yacyo si imwe. [18] Urukiko rurasanga impamvu ya kabiri ishingirwaho hemezwa uburegeke ari ukuba inkiko zaregewe zose zifite ububasha bwo kuburanisha ibyo birego. Kuri iyi ngingo, umuhanga Serge Guinchard avuga ko uburegeke bubaho iyo inkiko zaregewe ikirego kimwe zigifitiye ububasha, bivuze ko iyo rumwe muri izo nkiko rudafite ububasha, hatangwa inzitizi y’iburabubasha aho kuba iy’uburegeke.1 Loïc Cadiet na Emmanuel Jeuland nabo bashimangira ko uburegeke bubaho iyo

1 “La litispendance ne peut avoir lieu que lorsque le même litige est porté devant deux juridictions également compétentes. Si l’une des juridictions est incompétente, ce n’est pas une exception de litispendance qui doit être présentée mais une exception d’incompétence devant la jurisdiction estimée incompétente. Mais la litispendance pourrait etre invoquée ensuite, si la jurisdiction se déclare compétente et si sa décision n’est pas contestée, …” Serge Guinchard (eds), Droit et pratique de la procédure civile, Paris, Dalloz, 2014, p. 293.

## Page 124

90 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

inkiko ebyiri zaregewe urubanza ruhuriye ku kiburanwa kimwe hagati y’ababuranyi bamwe kandi zombi zirufitiye ububasha.2 [19] Urukiko rurasanga dosiye igaragaza ko ikirego kiri mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Gasabo aribwo kigitangira, kikaba cyaratanzwe hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 27 y’Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 igena ububasha bw’inkiko z’ibanze mu manza mbonezamubano. Naho urubanza N° RS/INJUST/RC 00009/2021/SC ruri kuburanishwa n’uru Rukiko rwarangirije inzira z’ubujurire zisanzwe n’izidasanzwe mu Rukiko Rukuru. Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ruri kuruburanisha mu rwego rwo kurusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 53, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko n° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru, iruha ububasha bwo kuburanisha imanza zose zisubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarangane cyane cyane izigamije gutanga umurongo wihariye ku zindi nkiko. [20] Urukiko rurasanga urubanza rwaregewe ku rwego rwa mbere mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze rudashobora kuba mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ndetse n’urubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye, rugacibwa ku rwego rwa nyuma n’Urukiko Rukuru, nyuma yaho rugasubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane ntirushobora kuba mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ibanze kuko inkiko zifite ububasha bwo kuruburanisha ari Urukiko rw’Ubujurire cyangwa Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, bityo ibyo Me Habyarimana Christine avuga ko hari uburegeke hagati y’urubanza N°RS/INJUST/RC 00009/2021/SC ruri muri uru

2 “Il y a litispendance lorsque deux juridictions également compétentes sont saisies d’un même litige, ce qui suppose un litige portant sur le même objet, reposant sur la même cause et opposant les mêmes parties”. Reba Loïc Cadiet na Emmanuel Jeuland, Droit judiciaire privé, 11e éd., Paris, 2019, p.222.

## Page 125

91 MURENZI N’UNDI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI (ADD)

Rukiko n’ikirego N° RC 00177/2022/TB/GSBO kiri mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Gasabo bikaba nta shingiro bifite. [21] Urukiko rurasanga kandi ibivugwa n’ababuranyi ko nubwo nta buregeke bwaba buriho izo manza zombi zahuzwa mu nyungu z’ubutabera kuko n’ubundi Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rufite ububasha buruta ubw’Urukiko rw’Ibanze nabyo nta shingiro bifite. Nubwo ingingo ya 100, igika cya mbere, agace ka 3, y’Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru iteganya ko iyo hari uburegeke Urukiko rwisumbuyeho ruhabwa ibanze (priorité/ primacy) ku rukiko rwo hasi, ntibivanaho ko hagomba kubanza kubahirizwa amahame ateganywa n’icyo gika y’uko inkiko ziba zararegewe ikirego kimwe hagati y’ababuranyi bamwe kandi zikaba zose zigifitiye ububasha. [22] Urukiko rurasanga kubibona ukundi hakemezwa ko imanza zihuzwa bitewe gusa n’uko urubanza rumwe ruri mu Rukiko rukuriye urundi bitaba bitewe n’uko hari uburegeke hagati y’ibirego ahubwo byafatwa ko bishingiye ku gushyira mu gaciro k’Urukiko. Nyamara kandi gushyira mu gaciro k’Urukiko bigomba kwitonderwa. Tom Bingham wahoze ari Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rw’Ubwongereza, kimwe mu bihugu bizwiho cyane guteza imbere iryo hame, yibutsa ko Urukiko rutiyambaza iryo hame mu kwemeza ibyabaye (facts) cyangwa ibasanzwe biteganywa n’amategeko. Ahubwo ko iyo rumaze kubona ibyabaye n’amategeko agomba gushingirwaho, aribwo ruba rwemerewe gufata ibyemezo bitandukanye, icyo gihe rushobora gushingira ku gushyira mu gaciro. Iyo rutangiye kwibaza ruti: ni ikihe cyemezo gikwiriye kandi gitanga ubutabera? Ubwo ruba rutangiye inzira y’ugushyira mu gaciro.3

3 “… an issue falls within a judge’s discretion if, being governed by no rule of law, its resolution depends on the individual judge’s assessment of what it

## Page 126

92 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Ibimaze gusobanurwa byumvikanisha ugushyira mu gaciro kutaba igipimo (standard) cyaherwaho hemezwa uburegeke. [23] Hashingiwe ku bimaze gusobanurwa haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga inzitizi y’uburegeke yatanzwe na Murenzi Alphonse na Uwamahoro Jacqueline nta shingiro ifite. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [24] Rwemeje ko inzitizi yatanzwe na Murenzi Alphonse na Uwamahoro Jacqueline nta shingiro ifite; [25] Rwemeje ko nta buregeke buri hagati y’urubanza no RS/INJUST/RC 00009/2021/SC n’ikirego cyanditswe kuri no RC 00177/2022/TB/GSBO mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Gasabo, bityo zikaba zitagomba kuburanishirizwa hamwe; [26] Ruvuze ko iburanisha mu mizi rizakomeza ku wa 18/05/2022 saa mbiri n’igice.

is fair and just to do in the particular case. He has no discretion in making his findings of fact. He has no discretion in his rulings on the law. But when having made any necessary finding of fact and any necessary ruling of law, he has to choose between different courses of action, orders, penalties or remedies he then exercises discretion. It is only when he reaches the stage of asking himself what is the fair and just thing to do or order in the instant case that he embarks on the exercise of a discretion.” Reba “The Judge as Lawmaker: An English Perspective” in Tom Bingham, The Business of Judging: Selected Essays and Speeches 1985-1999, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000, p.36.

## Page 127

IMANZA ZACIWE MU MIZI

## Page 129

URUBANZA RW’UBUTEGETSI

## Page 131

97

TABARUKA v AKARERE KA GICUMBI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/INJUST/RAD 00003/2021/SC – (Ntezilyayo, P.J., Cyanzayire, Nyirinkwaya na Hitiyaremye, J.) 20 Gicurasi 2022] Amategeko agenga umurimo – Guhagarikwa by’agateganyo ku murimo – Ifungwa ry’agateganyo –Gusezererwa ku murimo – Mu manza z’umurimo, ifungwa ry’agateganyo ry’umukozi wa Leta rituma asezererwa nta mpaka mu kazi mu gihe kirengeje amezi atandatu, gitangira kubarwa uhereye umunsi yafatiweho agafungwa by’agateganyo. Amategeko agenga umurimo – Ikiruhuko cy’umukozi wa Leta – Ikiruhuko cy’umwaka – Iyo umukozi wa Leta atabashije gufata konji y’umwaka kubera impamvu z’akazi, ayifata mu kwezi kubanza k’umwaka ukurikiyeho, ariko akaba agomba kugaragaza ko yari yayisabye mu nyandiko – Umukozi wasabye konji mu nyandiko ntayihabwe kubera impamvu z’akazi, ntahabwa amafaranga ayisimbura, ahubwo ayisimbuza indi agomba gufata mu kwezi kwa mbere k’umwaka ukurikiyeho. Incamake y’ikibazo: Tabaruka wari umuyobozi w’ishami ry’imari mu Karere ka Gicumbi, aza gukekwaho icyaha cyo kunyereza umutungo wa Leta bituma afatwa arafungwa. Akarere ka Gicumbi kamwandikiye kamumenyesha ko ahagaritswe by’agateganyo kubera ibyaha akurikiranyweho nyuma asezererwa nta mpaka mu bakozi ba Leta. Amaze guhanagurwaho ibyo byaha, yandikiye Akarere asaba gusubizwa mu kazi avuga ko yirukanywe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko ariko kamusubiza ko icyemezo cyo kumuhagarika cyafashwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko.

## Page 132

98 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Nyuma yo kwiyambaza inzego zose zishinzwe kumurenganura, Tabaruka yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gicumbi, asaba gukuraho icyemezo kimuhagarika mu kazi, indishyi zirebana n’iryo yirukanwa mu buryo budakurikije amategeko, amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’Avoka ariko uru Rukiko rwemeza ko ukwirukanwa kwe kutanyuranyije n’amategeko. Tabaruka yajuririye urubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rwemeza ko nta gihindutse ku mikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe. Ibi byatumye yandikira Urukiko rw’Ubujurire asaba ko rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z'akarengane. Nyuma yo kwemererwa ubwo busabe, uru Rukiko rwabanje gufata icyemezo ku byasabwe gusuzumwa mu rwego rw’akarengane bitaraburanyweho mu nkiko zabanje maze rwemeza ko indishyi Tabaruka asaba zitasuzumwa kuri uru rwego, kuko zitari mu byaregewe ngo biburanishweho mu rwego rwa mbere. Urubanza rwakomeje mu mizi habanza gusuzumwa ikibazo cyo kumenya niba icyemezo gihagarika Tabaruka by’agateganyo n’icyemezo kimusezerera nta mpaka mu bakozi ba Leta bitarubahirije amategeko. Tabaruka avuga ko Umuyobozi w' Akarere ka Gicumbi yanditse ibaruwa imumenyesha ko ahagaritswe ku kazi by’agateganyo ku mpamvu z’uko guhera ku wa 07/03/2017 yafashwe n’Ubushinjacyaha agafungwa kubera ibyaha yari akurikiranyweho. Akomeza avuga ko ibaruwa yamugezeho ku wa 04/04/2017 aho yari afungiye muri Gereza ya Kimironko, hakaba hari handitsemo ko agaciro k’icyemezo gahera ku wa 07/03/2017. Asoza avuga ko asanga hari amatariki atatu anyuranye, ni ukuvuga igihe icyemezo cyafatiwe, igihe kigomba gutangira gushyirwa mu bikorwa n’itariki cyakiriweho, akibaza igihe ishyirwa mu bikorwa ry’iki cyemezo ritangira kugira agaciro muri aya matariki uko ari atatu. Asanga icyemezo

## Page 133

99 TABARUKA v AKARERE KA GICUMBI

kimuhagarika by’agateganyo n’ikimusezerera nta mpaka byarafashwe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko, kuko mu ibarwa ry'amezi 6 hagendewe ku itariki ya 07/03/2017 aho kuba itariki ya 04/04/2017 yamenyesherejweho icyemezo kimuhagarika by’agateganyo. Akarere ka Gicumbi kavuga ko Urega agaragaza ko yirukanywe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko kandi katarigeze kamwirukana ahubwo yarasezerewe nta mpaka. Ibi bikaba nta nkurikizi bigira nk’izo kwirukanwa, ariyo mpamvu adakwiye kuvuga ko yirukanywe. Ikindi ni uko atari icyemezo kafashe ahubwo ari itegeko ribiteganya rityo. Ku birebana no kubara ibihe by’ifungwa ry’agateganyo, Akarere kavuga ko byakozwe neza kuko kuva ku itariki ya 07/03/2017 ubwo Tabaruka yafatwaga agafungwa n’Ubushinjacyaha kugeza ku wa 08/09/2017 ubwo yandikiwe ibaruwa imusezerera nta mpaka, ikamugeraho ku wa 15/09/2017, amezi atandatu yari yarageze. Kuba Urega yaragiye agaragaza ko amezi atandatu (6) y’ ifungwa ry’ agateganyo yabazwe nabi mu nkiko zabanje, ngo kuko bari guhera igihe icyemezo kimufunga by’agateganyo cyabereye ndakuka, ubu akaba avuga ko amezi atandatu (6) yabarwa uhereye igihe yaboneye ibaruwa imuhagarika by’ agateganyo ku wa 04/04/2017, Akarere gasanga ari ugushaka kujijisha no kuyobya ubutabera. Ku kibazo kijyanye n’indishyi zikomoka ku gusezererwa ku murimo nta mpaka mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, Tabaruka avuga ko kuba ataramenyeshejwe ku gihe icyemezo kimuhagarika ku kazi by’agateganyo ari amakosa yakozwe n'Akarere ka Gicumbi katubahirije ibyo amategeko ateganya, akaba akwiye kubiherwa indishyi zo kwirukanwa mu bakozi ba Leta binyuranyije n'amategeko.

## Page 134

100 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Akarere ka Gicumbi kavuga ko indishyi Tabaruka asaba atazihabwa kuko atirukanywe ku kazi mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, ahubwo yasezerewe ku kazi nta mpaka kuko yafunzwe by’agateganyo mu gihe kirengeje amezi atandatu (6). 0783133129 Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Mu manza z’umurimo, ifungwa ry’agateganyo ry’umukozi wa Leta rituma asezererwa nta mpaka mu kazi mu gihe kirengeje amezi atandatu, gitangira kubarwa uhereye umunsi yafatiweho agafungwa by’agateganyo. Bityo, Tabaruka Dieudonné yasezerewe ku murimo nta mpaka ku wa 08/09/2017 hashingiwe ku ibaruwa nimero 3201/07.04.05/01 yandikiwe n’Umuyobozi w’Akarere ka Gicumbi, hakaba hari hashize amezi 6 afunzwe by’agateganyo guhera tariki 07/03/2017 yafatiweho n’Ubushinjacyaha agafungwa. 2. Iyo umukozi wa Leta atabashije gufata konji y’umwaka kubera impamvu z’akazi, ayifata mu kwezi kubanza k’umwaka ukurikiyeho, ariko akaba agomba kugaragaza ko yari yayisabye mu nyandiko. Umukozi wasabye konji mu nyandiko ntayihabwe kubera impamvu z’akazi, ntahabwa amafaranga ayisimbura, ahubwo ayisimbuza indi agomba gufata mu kwezi kwa mbere k’umwaka ukurikiyeho. Gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane, bifite ishingiro kuri bimwe. Imikirize y’urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, ihindutse kuri bimwe.

## Page 135

101 TABARUKA v AKARERE KA GICUMBI

Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018, ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo 111. Itegeko No 86/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho sitati rusange igenga abakozi ba Leta, ingingo ya 40, 44 n’iya 93 Itegeko Nº 30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/5/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ inshinjabyaha ryariho icyo gihe, ingingo ya 99. Itegeko No 22/2012 ryo ku wa 15/06/2012 rigena imenyekanisha n'ikurikizwa by'inyandiko za Leta, ingingo ya 5. Itegeko No 20/2003 ryo ku wa 03/08/2003 rigena imiterere y’uburezi, ingingo ya 34. Imanza zifashishijwe: Nkongoli John na Leta y’u Rwanda, RADA 0012/07/CS rwaciwe n'Urukiko rw'Ikirenga ku wa 27/03/2009. Inyandiko z’abahanga zifashishijwe: J. Auby et R. Drago, Traité de contentieux administratif, Tome 1, 3ème édition, 1984, p.915. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Tabaruka Dieudonné yari umuyobozi w’ishami ry’imari mu Karere ka Gicumbi, aza gukekwaho icyaha cyo kunyereza umutungo wa Leta, bituma ku wa 07/03/2017 afatwa arafungwa.

## Page 136

102 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Mu ibaruwa nimero 1203/07.04.05/01 yo ku wa 28/03/2017, Akarere ka Gicumbi kamwandikiye kamumenyesha ko ahagaritswe by’agateganyo kubera ibyaha akurikiranyweho; ku wa 08/09/2017 asezererwa nta mpaka mu bakozi ba Leta. Icyemezo cya burundu kimufunga by’agateganyo hamwe n’abo baregwaga hamwe cyafashwe ku wa 18/04/2017, urubanza ruregerwa mu mizi mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gicumbi ku cyaha cyo gutanga inyungu zidafite aho zishingiye n’icyaha cyo kurigisa umutungo wa Leta. Uru Rukiko rwamuhamije ubwinjiracyaha mu cyaha cyo kurigisa umutungo, ariko mu bujurire abihanagurwaho. [2] Tabaruka Dieudonné amaze guhanagurwaho icyaha, yandikiye Akarere ka Gicumbi asaba gusubizwa mu kazi avuga ko yirukanywe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko, ku mpamvu z’uko icyemezo kimufunga by’agateganyo cyafashwe ku wa 18/04/2017, akirukanwa ku wa 08/09/2017, amezi atandatu ateganyijwe n’ingingo ya 40 igika cya mbere y’Itegeko rishyiraho Sitati Rusange y’abakozi ba Leta atararangira. Akarere ka Gicumbi kamusubije ko icyemezo cyafashwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko. [3] Nyuma yo kwiyambaza inzego zose zishinzwe kumurenganura, yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gicumbi, asaba gukuraho icyemezo nimero 1203/07.04.05/01 cyo ku wa 28/03/2017, indishyi zirebana no kwirukanwa mu buryo budakurikije amategeko, amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’Avoka. Urubanza rwanditswe kuri RAD 00002/2018/TGI/GIC, rucibwa ku wa 30/07/2018, Urukiko rwemeza ko yirukanywe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko. [4] Ku birebana n’indishyi Tabaruka Dieudonné yasabye zirebana n’imanza z’inshinjabyaha yaburanye akaba umwere,

## Page 137

103 TABARUKA v AKARERE KA GICUMBI

izituruka ku bihano yaciwe na Banki yari afitemo umwenda ntiyishyure kubera ko yirukanywe ku kazi, Urukiko rwasanze atazihabwa kubera ko ukwirukanwa kwe kutanyuranyije n’amategeko. Ku birebana n’imperekeza, integuza n’indishyi z’uko atahawe icyemezo cy’umukoresha, Urukiko rwasanze nk’uko nawe abyiyemerera yarahawe ibyo amategeko amwerera. [5] Tabaruka Dieudonné yajuririye urubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru, rwandikwa kuri RADA 00140/2018/HC/KIG, rucibwa ku wa 30/07/2019, Urukiko rwemeza ko nta gihindutse ku mikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe. Mu gufata icyemezo, Urukiko rwasobanuye ko: - Ingingo ya 40 y’Itegeko No 86/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho sitati rusange igenga abakozi ba Leta iteganya ko imwe mu mpamvu zituma umukozi wa Leta ahagarikwa by’agateganyo mu mirimo, ari igihe afunzwe by’agateganyo mu gihe kitarenze amezi atandatu. - Impamvu y’iyi ngingo ari ugusobanura uko bigenda ku mukozi udashobora kuza ku kazi kubera impamvu zitandukanye zitamuturutseho, harimo iyo kuba yafashwe agafungwa. Ruvuga ko iyi ngingo igaragaza ko adahita areka kuba umukozi wa Leta, ariko bikumvikana ko Leta itamutegereza ubuziraherezo, ariyo mpamvu nyuma y’amezi atandatu atakaza uwo mwanya. - Ifungwa ry’agateganyo rivugwa mu ngingo ya 40 ya Sitati rusange igenga abakozi ba Leta atari ifungwa rishingiye ku cyemezo gifunga umuntu by’agateganyo cyafashwe n’umucamanza kandi cyabaye ndakuka, ahubwo ko ari ifungwa ryose

## Page 138

104 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ryitwa iry’agateganyo kubera ko umuntu aba atarakatirwa ngo byitwe ko afunzwe arimo kurangiza igihano. Ifungwa nk’iryo ry’agateganyo rikaba rishobora gutangirana n’uko umuntu afashwe agafungwa ku nyandiko yo gufata no gufunga (procès-verbal d’arrestation), bigakomeza mu gihe akomeje gufungwa hashingiwe ku rwandiko rw’Umushinjacyaha rumufunga by’agateganyo (mandat d’arrêt provisoire), bigakomeza igihe hafashwe icyemezo cy’umucamanza gitegeka ko afungwa by’agateganyo kugeza kibaye ndakuka. [6] Ku birebana n’indishyi zijyanye no kwirukanwa binyuranyije n’amategeko Tabaruka Dieudonné yasabye, Urukiko Rukuru rwasobanuye ko atazihabwa kubera ko yirukanywe mu buryo bwemewe n’amategeko, naho izindi ndishyi asaba zikaba zitasuzumwa kubera ko zitaregewe mu kirego yatanze mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gicumbi. [7] Nyuma y’icibwa ry’urubanza, Tabaruka Dieudonné yandikiye Perezida w'Urukiko rw'Ubujurire asaba ko urubanza RADA 00140/2018/HC/KIG rwaciwe n'Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 30/07/2019 rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z'akarengane. Perezida w'Urukiko rw'Ubujurire amaze gusuzuma ubusabe, yakoreye raporo Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, nawe nyuma yo kuyisuzuma afata icyemezo ko urwo rubanza rwongera kuburanishwa n’Urukiko rw'Ikirenga, ruhabwa RS/INJUST/RAD 00003/2021/SC. [8] Iburanisha ry’urubanza ryashyizwe ku wa 11/04/2022, ruburanishwa mu ruhame Tabaruka Dieudonné yunganiwe na Me Karemera Pierre Claver, naho Akarere ka Gicumbi kaburanirwa na Me Ndengeyingoma Louise. Mbere y’uko urubanza rwinjira

## Page 139

105 TABARUKA v AKARERE KA GICUMBI

mu mizi, Urukiko rwabanje gufata icyemezo ku byasabwe gusuzumwa mu rwego rw’akarengane bitaraburanyweho mu nkiko zabanje. [9] Nyuma yo kumva icyo buri ruhande rubivugaho, Urukiko rwafashe icyemezo cy’uko indishyi zikurikira Tabaruka Dieudonné asaba zitasuzumwa kuri uru rwego, kuko zitari mu byaregewe ngo biburanishweho mu rwego rwa mbere: - 21.720.371 Frw zijyanye n’ubwiteganyirize bw’amashuri y’abana n’ubwiteganyirize bw’ubuzima; - 2.000.000 Frw zirebana no kudakorerwa isuzumabushobozi ry’umwaka wa 2016/2017 no gutinda kuzamurwa mu ntera; - 500.000 Frw zo gusiragizwa muri Komisiyo y’Abakozi ba Leta no mu zindi nzego ajuririra ibyemezo binyuranye n’amategeko yafatiwe n’Akarere ka Gicumbi. [10] Urubanza rwakomeje mu mizi, buri ruhande rugira icyo ruvuga ku myanzuro rwatanze, Urukiko rumenyesha ababuranyi ko urubanza ruzasomwa ku wa 20/05/2022. Ibibazo nyamukuru byasuzumwe ni ibi bikurikira: - Kumenya niba icyemezo nimero 1203/07.04.05/01 cyo ku wa 28/03/2017 n’icyemezo nimero 3201/07.04.05/01 cyo ku wa 08/09/2017 bitarubahirije amategeko; - Indishyi zinyuranye zasabwe.

## Page 140

106 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO 1. Kumenya niba icyemezo nimero 1203/07.04.05/01 cyo ku wa 28/03/2017 n’icyemezo nimero 3201/07.04.05/01 cyo ku wa 08/09/2017 bitarubahirije amategeko [11] Tabaruka Dieudonné n’umwunganira bavuga ko ku wa 28/03/2017, Umuyobozi w' Akarere ka Gicumbi yanditse ibaruwa ifite nimero 1203/07.04.05/01 imumenyesha ko ahagaritswe ku kazi by’agateganyo ku mpamvu z’uko guhera ku wa 07/03/2017 yafashwe n’Ubushinjacyaha agafungwa kubera ibyaha yari akurikiranyweho. Bavuga ko ibaruwa yamugezeho ku wa 04/04/2017 aho yari afungiye muri Gereza ya Kimironko, hakaba hari handitsemo ko agaciro k’icyemezo gahera ku wa 07/03/2017. [12] Bavuga ko basanga hari amatariki atatu anyuranye, ni ukuvuga igihe icyemezo cyafatiwe (28/03/2017), igihe kigomba gutangira gushyirwa mu bikorwa (07/03/2017) n’itariki cyakiriweho (04/04/2017), bakibaza igihe ishyirwa mu bikorwa ry’iki cyemezo ritangira kugira agaciro muri aya matariki uko ari atatu. Bavuga ko basanga itariki yacyakiriyeho ariyo igomba guherwaho habarwa agaciro k’icyo cyemezo nk’uko Itegeko No 22/2012 ryo ku wa 15/06/2012 rigena imenyekanisha n'ikurikizwa by'inyandiko za Leta ibiteganya mu ngingo yaryo ya 5 igika cya kabiri.1

1 inyandiko zidafite inyungu rusange kuri rubanda zigira agaciro guhera umunsi zamenyesherejweho ba nyirazo.

## Page 141

107 TABARUKA v AKARERE KA GICUMBI

[13] Basobanura ko n’abahanga mu mategeko bavuga ko ku muntu udafite ubushobozi (incapable) iryo menyeshwa rikorwa k'umuhagarariye mu rwego rw'amategeko, yaba afunze rikajyanwa muri gereza afungiyemo2, bikaba ari nabyo biri mu rubanza RADA 0012/07/CS rwaciwe n'Urukiko rw'Ikirenga ku wa 27/03/2009 haburana Nkongoli John na Leta y’u Rwanda. Basoza bavuga ko basanga icyemezo kimuhagarika by’agateganyo n’ikimusezerera nta mpaka byarafashwe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko, kuko mu ibarwa ry'amezi 6 hagendewe ku itariki ya 07/03/2017 aho kuba itariki ya 04/04/2017 yamenyesherejweho icyemezo kimuhagarika by’agateganyo. [14] Me Ndengeyingoma Louise uburanira Akarere ka Gicumbi avuga ko Tabaruka Dieudonné agaragaza ko yirukanywe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko kandi Akarere katarigeze kamwirukana ahubwo yarasezerewe nta mpaka. Asobanura ko gusezererwa nta mpaka bitagira inkurikizi nk’izo kwirukanwa, ariyo mpamvu adakwiye kuvuga ko yirukanywe. Avuga kandi ko atari icyemezo Akarere kafashe, ahubwo ari itegeko ribiteganya rityo. Avuga ko mu kumusezerera nta mpaka hakurikijwe ibyateganywaga n’ingingo ya 93 y’Itegeko N° 86/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho Sitati rusange igenga abakozi ba Leta ryakoreshwaga icyo gihe.3

2 Si l’intéressé est incapable, la notification doit être faite à son représentant légal. S’il est seulement interné, elle doit être adressée à l’établissement où il réside; J. Auby et R. Drago, Traité de contentieux administratif, Tome 1, 3ème édition, 1984, p.915). 3 Umukozi wa Leta asezererwa ku kazi nta mpaka iyo: afunzwe by’agateganyo mu gihe kirengeje amezi atandatu (6).

## Page 142

108 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[15] Ku birebana no kubara ibihe by’ifungwa ry’agateganyo, uhagarariye Akarere avuga ko byakozwe neza kuko kuva ku itariki ya 07/03/2017 ubwo Tabaruka Dieudonné yafatwaga agafungwa n’Ubushinjacyaha kugeza ku wa 08/09/2017 ubwo yandikiwe ibaruwa imusezerera nta mpaka, ikamugeraho ku wa 15/09/2017, amezi atandatu yari yarageze, kandi ko hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 99 y’ Itegeko Nº 30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/5/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ inshinjabyaha ryariho icyo gihe4, Ubushinjacyaha bushobora gufunga ukekwaho icyaha by’agateganyo. [16] Asobanura ko nk’uko ingingo ya 40 y’ Itegeko N° 86/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho Sitati rusange igenga abakozi ba Leta ryavuzwe haruguru yabiteganyaga, Leta ntiyari gutegereza umukozi ubuziraherezo, amategeko akaba yarateganyije ko iyo umukozi afunzwe by’agateganyo mu gihe kirenze amezi atandatu (6) asezererwa ku kazi nta mpaka. Kuba Tabaruka Dieudonné yaragiye agaragaza ko amezi atandatu (6) y’ ifungwa ry’ agateganyo yabazwe nabi mu nkiko zabanje, ngo kuko bari guhera igihe icyemezo kimufunga by’agateganyo cyabereye ndakuka, ubu akaba avuga ko amezi atandatu (6) yabarwa uhereye igihe yaboneye ibaruwa imuhagarika by’ agateganyo ku wa 04/04/2017, Akarere gasanga ari ugushaka kujijisha no kuyobya ubutabera.

4 Iyo impamvu zose zituma umuntu afungwa mbere y’urubanza zibonetse, umushinjacyaha ashobora, amaze kumva imvugo y’ukurikiranyweho icyaha yisobanura cyangwa ari kumwe n’umwunganira, kumufunga by’agateganyo.

## Page 143

109 TABARUKA v AKARERE KA GICUMBI

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [17] Ingingo ya 40, agace ka mbere, y’Itegeko N° 86/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho Sitati rusange igenga abakozi ba Leta ryakoreshwaga igihe Tabaruka Dieudonné yafatirwaga ibyemezo byavuzwe haruguru, iteganya ko umukozi wa Leta ahagarikwa by’agateganyo ku murimo iyo afunzwe by’agateganyo mu gihe kitarenze amezi atandatu (6), naho ingingo ya 44, agace ka kane, y’iryo Tegeko igateganya ko ihagarikwa ry’agateganyo ku kazi ry’umukozi wa Leta rirangira iyo yirukanywe cyangwa asezerewe nta mpaka mu bakozi ba Leta. [18] Ingingo ya 93, agace ka kabiri, y’Itegeko rimaze kuvugwa iteganya ko umukozi wa Leta asezererwa nta mpaka iyo afunzwe by’agateganyo mu gihe kirengeje amezi atandatu (6). [19] Icyumvikana muri izi ngingo zisomewe hamwe, ni uko igihe umukozi wa Leta afunzwe by’agateganyo ariko iryo fungwa rikaba ritararenga amezi 6, umukoresha afite uburenganzira bwo kuba amuhagaritse ku murimo mu nyungu z’akazi kuko aba atarimo gukora. Iyo iryo fungwa rirengeje amezi 6, itegeko ryemerera umukoresha kumusezerera nta mpaka kuko atakomeza kumutegereza, ihagarikwa ry’agateganyo n’ibyo umukozi yagenerwaga bijyanye naryo bigahita birangira. [20] Mu miburanire ya Tabaruka Dieudonné kuva urubanza rutangira mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gicumbi kugeza mu Rukiko Rukuru, yagaragazaga ko icyo ashingiraho avuga ko

## Page 144

110 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

yasezerewe ku murimo nta mpaka5 mu buryo budakurikije amategeko, ari uko yasezerewe ku wa 08/09/2017 kandi icyemezo kimufunga by’agateganyo cyarabaye ndakuka ku wa 18/04/2017, akavuga ko yasezerewe amezi 6 atararangira kuko yagombaga kubarwa kuva ku wa 18/04/2017. Muri uru Rukiko, yaburanye avuga ko mu ibarwa ry'amezi 6 hagendewe ku itariki ya 07/03/2017 yafatiweho n’Ubushinjacyaha agafungwa, aho kuba itariki ya 04/04/2017 yamenyesherejweho icyemezo kimuhagarika ku kazi by’agateganyo. Urukiko rusanga rero ipfundo ry’ikibazo kiri muri uru rubanza, ari ukumenya igihe amezi atandatu avugwa mu ngingo z’Itegeko N° 86/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 zavuzwe haruguru atangirira kubarwa. [21] Nk’uko byagaragajwe haruguru, umukozi wa Leta asezererwa nta mpaka iyo afunzwe by’agateganyo mu gihe kirengeje amezi 6, ni ukuvuga ko amezi atandatu abarwa guhera ku itariki umukozi yafungiweho by’agateganyo. Ingingo ya 99 y’Itegeko Nº 30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/5/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha yakoreshwaga ubwo Tabaruka Dieudonné yafatwaga agafungwa, yateganyaga ko iyo impamvu zose zituma umuntu afungwa mbere y’urubanza zibonetse, umushinjacyaha ashobora, amaze kumva imvugo y’ukurikiranyweho icyaha yisobanura cyangwa ari kumwe n’umwunganira, kumufunga by’agateganyo, akamushyikiriza Urukiko urwo ari rwo rwose ruri hafi y’aho yafatiwe uretse Urukiko Rukuru, Urukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare, n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. Ibivugwa muri iyi ngingo byumvikanisha nta gushidikanya ko umuntu aba afunzwe by’agateganyo kuva igihe Umushinjacyaha yamufatiye akamufunga.

5 Hari aho akoresha ijambo kwirukanwa, ariko ikigaragara mu ibaruwa No 3201/07.04.05/01 yo ku wa 08/09/2017 ni uko yasezerewe ku murimo nta mpaka atari ukwirukanwa.

## Page 145

111 TABARUKA v AKARERE KA GICUMBI

[22] Mu myanzuro yashyikirije uru Rukiko, Tabaruka Dieudonné avuga ko yafashwe agafungwa n’Ubushinjacyaha Bukuru bwa Repubulika ku wa 07/03/2017, iyi tariki ikaba ariyo igomba guherwaho habarwa amezi 6 umukozi agomba kuba amaze afunze by’agateganyo kugirango abe yasezererwa nta mpaka ku murimo, nk’uko biteganywa mu ngingo ya 93, agace ka kabiri, y’ Itegeko N° 86/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 ryavuzwe haruguru. Ni nayo igomba guherwaho habarwa igihe kitarenze amezi 6 kivugwa mu ngingo ya 40, agace ka mbere, y’iryo Tegeko. [23] Tabaruka Dieudonné yasezerewe ku murimo nta mpaka ku wa 08/09/2017 hashingiwe ku ibaruwa No 3201/07.04.05/01 yandikiwe n’Umuyobozi w’Akarere ka Gicumbi, hakaba hari hashize amezi 6 afunzwe by’agateganyo. Mbere yo gusezererwa nta mpaka kandi yari yabanje guhagarikwa by’agateganyo ku murimo ku wa 28/03/2017, hashingiwe ku ibaruwa No 1203/07.04.05/01 y’Umuyobozi w’Akarere ka Gicumbi, akaba yari ataramara amezi 6 afunze b’agateganyo. [24] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, Urukiko rurasanga icyemezo nimero 1203/07.04.05/01 cyo ku wa 28/03/2017 n’icyemezo nimero 3201/07.04.05/01 cyo ku wa 08/09/2017 byarubahirije amategeko, bivuga ko Tabaruka Dieudonné atasezerewe nta mpaka ku murimo mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko. 2. Gusuzuma indishyi zinyuranye zasabwe Ǧ Indishyi zikomoka ku gusezererwa ku murimo nta mpaka mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko [25] Tabaruka Dieudonné avuga ko kuba icyemezo nimero 1203/07.04.05/01 cyo ku wa 28/03/2017 kimuhagarika

## Page 146

112 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

by’agateganyo n’icyemezo nimero 3201/07.04.05/01 cyo ku wa 08/09/2017 cyamusezereye nta mpaka binyuranyije n’amategeko, nta cyamubuza gusaba indishyi zikomoka ku kwirukanwa ku kazi mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko. Avuga ko kuba ataramenyeshejwe ku gihe icyemezo kimuhagarika ku kazi by’agateganyo ari amakosa yakozwe n'Akarere ka Gicumbi katubahirije ibyo amategeko ateganya, akaba akwiye kubiherwa indishyi zo kwirukanwa mu bakozi ba Leta binyuranyije n'amategeko. Izo ndishyi zabarwa mu buryo bukurikira hakurikijwe ubwoko bwazo: - Indishyi z’akababaro (dommages moraux): 10.000.000Frw; - Indishyi mbonezamusaruro (dommages matériels): Ǧ Ibihombo by’imishahara kuva ku wa 09/09/2017 kugera ku munsi wa nyuma w’ukwezi gukurikira itariki y’isomwa ry’urubanza habariwe ku ngano y’umushahara yahembwaga ungana na 811.660 Frw, gukuba n’umubare w’amezi ari muri icyo gihe kivuzwe haruguru; Ǧ Ibihombo by’amafaranga y’ingendo (transport allowance) kuva ku wa 09/09/2017 kugera ku munsi wa nyuma w’ukwezi gukurikira itariki y’isomwa ry’urubanza, habariwe ku mafaranga yahabwaga angana na 69.577 Frw buri kwezi, gukuba n’umubare w’amezi ari muri icyo gihe kivuzwe haruguru.

## Page 147

113 TABARUKA v AKARERE KA GICUMBI

[26] Avuga ko indishyi asaba ari 34.901.380 Frw, kongeraho 2.991.811 Frw arebana n’ibihombo by’amafaranga y’urugendo, yose hamwe akaba 37.893.191 Frw. Avuga kandi ko amafaranga y’umusanzu wa RAMA atakatwa kuri aya mafaranga kuko icyo gihe cyose batamuvuzaga n’umuryango we, ahubwo icyakatwaho ari imisanzu ya RSSB n’umusoro wa Leta (TPR). [27] Uburanira Akarere ka Gicumbi avuga ko indishyi Tabaruka Dieudonné asaba atazihabwa kuko atirukanywe ku kazi mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, ahubwo yasezerewe ku kazi nta mpaka kuko yafunzwe by’agateganyo mu gihe kirengeje amezi atandatu (6). Avuga kandi ko usaba indishyi z’akababaro agomba gutanga ibimenyetso by’ako kababaro akanagaragaza icyo yahombye. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [28] Indishyi z’akababaro kimwe n’indishyi mbonezamusaruro Tabaruka Dieudonné asaba, avuga ko yasezerewe ku murimo nta mpaka mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, Urukiko rurasanga atazihabwa kuko rwagaragaje ko atasezerewe ku murimo nta mpaka mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko. Ibi kandi birareba n’izindi ndishyi yasabye zo gufungwa ku maherere no kwanduza isura ye bavuga ko yashatse kunyereza umutungo wa Leta, ndetse n’iz’ibihano by’ubukererwe ku nguzanyo ya BK itarishyuriwe igihe kubera gutakaza akazi. - Izindi ndishyi [29] Tabaruka Dieudonné n’umwunganira bavuga ko akwiye guhabwa izindi ndishyi zikurikira:

## Page 148

114 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

- Imisanzu y’ubwiteganyirize bw’abakozi y’amezi 33 yakaswe n’Akarere ka Gicumbi ariko ntimenyekanishwe ngo inishyurwe muri RSSB, iteye mu buryo bukurikira: Ǧ Umwaka wa 2005: ukwezi kwa 10,11, 12; Ǧ Umwaka wa 2009: ukwezi kwa 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12; Ǧ Umwaka wa 2010: ukwezi kwa 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8; Ǧ Umwaka wa 2011: ukwezi kwa 5,7,8,9,10,11,12; Ǧ Umwaka wa 2017: ukwezi kwa 3,4,5,6,7,8,9. - Indishyi zingana na 2.000.000 Frw zo guhabwa icyemezo cy’imirimo umukozi yakoreye umukoresha (attestation de services rendus) kituzuye kuko kitagaragaza imirimo yose yakoze mu Karere, ariyo ushinzwe imari n’ubuyobozi (finance and administration manager) mu Murenge wa Byumba, umucungamutungo wa Koleji Rushaki, n’umuyobozi w’agateganyo ushinzwe imari mu Karere. Bavuga ko bakurikije ibiteganywa n’Amabwiriza ya Minisitiri w’Intebe No 002/03 yo ku wa 06/12/2012 yerekeye itangwa ry’icyemezo cy’imirimo yakozwe, ibyemezo biri muri dosiye byatanzwe n’abatabifitiye ububasha kandi akabibona impitagihe. - Insimburakiruhuko (Congés annuels non payés) zingana na

## Page 149

115 TABARUKA v AKARERE KA GICUMBI

15j/2012+15j/2013+20j/2015=50x811,160/30=1. 351.933 Frw. Bavuga ko ibimenyetso bashingiraho ari ibaruwa yo ku wa 08/05/2014 yakiriwe n’Akarere ka Gicumbi ku wa 08/05/2014, yasabaga ikiruhuko cy’iminsi 15 cy’umwaka wa 2012, n’ikiruhuko cy’iminsi 15 cy’umwaka wa 2013. Bagaragaza kandi ibaruwa yo ku wa 22/09/2015 Umunyamabanga Nshingwabikorwa w’Akarere yanditse amwemerera iminsi 10 gusa mu minsi 15 yari yasinyiwe, bivuga ko ku mwaka wa 2015 hasigaye iminsi 5 n’indi 15 atari yahawe. - Indishyi mbonezamusaruro z’amafaranga 793.161 Frw y’umushahara wagabanyijwe igihe yari yaramanuwe mu ntera kuva ku wa 30/11/2016 kugeza igihe yishyuriwe ku wa 05/03/2018, kuko yari kuba yarungutse iyo aza kwishyurirwa igihe akayashora mu bikorwa bye bwite. [30] Me Ndengeyingoma Louise uburanira Akarere ka Gicumbi avuga ko Tabaruka Dieudonné yivugira ko amafaranga yose yayishyuwe, kandi bikaba byarakozwe ku bwumvikane bw’ impande zombi, akabisinyira. Avuga ko Akarere karangije kumwishyura, ko ahubwo basanga ibyo avuga ari ibyifuzo bye bidashingiye ku mategeko. [31] Yongeraho ko ku birebana n’icyemezo cy’umurimo Tabaruka Dieudonné avuga ko kituzuye, atigeze agaragariza Ubuyobozi bw’Akarere ka Gicumbi ibiburamo kugirango byongerwemo, bivuga ko yemeraga ko nta nenge gifite. Naho ku birebana n’uko uwamuhaye icyemezo cy’umurimo atari abifitiye

## Page 150

116 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ububasha, asanga ataribyo kuko uwakimuhaye atasinye mu mwanya we ahubwo yasinye mu mwanya w’ Umunyamabanga Nshingwabikorwa wabimuhereye ububasha (délégation de pouvoir). UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA - Imisanzu y’ubwiteganyirize bw’abakozi y’amezi 33 yakaswe n’Akarere ka Gicumbi ariko ntimenyekanishwe ngo inishyurwe muri RSSB [32] Mu nyandiko zashyikirijwe Urukiko, harimo urupapuro rwerekana uburyo Tabaruka Dieudonné yatangiwe imisanzu y’ubwiteganyirize rwatanzwe n’Ikigo cy’Igihugu kibifite mu nshingano (RSSB), rukaba rugaragaza ko koko imisanzu avuga yo mu myaka ya 2005, 2009, 2010 na 2017 itatanzwe, ariko ko iyo mu mwaka wa 2011 yatanzwe uretse ay’igice cy’ukwezi kwa gatanu kuko bigaragara ko yatangiye akazi ku wa 16/05/20116. [33] Ku bijyanye n’imisanzu yo mu mwaka wa 2005, muri dosiye harimo icyemezo cy’imirimo yakozwe cyatanzwe n’uwari Umuyobozi w’Akarere ka Rebero, kigaragaza ko Tabaruka Dieudonné yakoreye ako Karere kuva ku wa 01/06/2005 kugeza ku wa 30/12/2005, kandi ababuranyi bakaba bemeranya ko Akarere ka Rebero kari mu twahindutse Akarere ka Gicumbi igihe cy’amavugurura y’inzego z’ibanze. Bivuga rero ko imisanzu y’ubwiteganyirize Tabaruka Dieudonné atatangiwe n’Akarere ka Rebero, agomba kuyitangirwa n’Akarere ka Gicumbi.

6 Hakurikijwe ibaruwa y’Umuyobozi w’Akarere yo ku wa 25/04/2012, yahawe akazi by’agateganyo k’ushinzwe ibaruramari ku wa 16/05/2011.

## Page 151

117 TABARUKA v AKARERE KA GICUMBI

[34] Ku bijyanye n’imisanzu yo mu mwaka wa 2009 na 2010, muri dosiye harimo ibaruwa yanditswe n’Umuyobozi w’Akarere ka Gicumbi ku wa 22/04/2009 imenyesha Tabaruka Dieudonné ko agizwe umucungamutungo w’Ishuri Ryisumbuye rya Koleji Rushaki, hakaba n’icyemezo cy’imirimo yakozwe cyatanzwe ku wa 14/02/2018 n’Umuyobozi w’iryo shuri Abbé Joseph Bukenya Wetaase, kigaragaza ko yahakoze kuva ku wa 08/05/2009 kugeza ku wa 6/08/2010. Hashingiwe kandi ku ngingo ya 347 y’Itegeko No 20/2003 ryo ku wa 03/08/2003 rigena imiterere y’uburezi, Leta ishobora kugirana amasezerano n’ibigo by’amashuri byigenga, ikabifasha gushyiramo abakozi bakenewe no kubagenera imishahara. Bigaragara ko ari muri urwo rwego Tabaruka Dieudonné yahawe akazi n’Akarere ka Gicumbi ko kuba umucungamutungo w’Ishuri Ryisumbuye rya Koleji Rushaki, bivuga ko yagombaga kugenerwa imishahara n’Akarere, kakaba ari nako kamwishyurira imisanzu y’ubwiteganyirize. Kuba imisanzu yavuzwe haruguru yo mu mwaka wa 2009 na 2010 itarishyuwe rero, bigomba kubazwa Akarere. [35] Ku bijyanye n’imisanzu yo mu mwaka wa 2017, bigaragara ko itaratanzwe muri RSSB ari iy’igihe Tabaruka Dieudonné yari afunzwe, kuko yafunzwe kuva ku wa 07/03/2017. Muri icyo gihe yari umukozi w’Akarere ka Gicumbi nk’uko bigaragazwa n’amabaruwa amuha akazi, ibaruwa imumenyesha ko asezerewe ku mirimo yakoraga nta mpaka guhera ku wa 08/09/2017, n’icyemezo cy’imirimo yakoze.

7 Mu mashuri y’abafatanya na Leta ku bw’amasezerano, imiryango yayashinze niyo ifite inshingano y’ibanze yo kuyubaka, kuyasana, kuyagura no kuyashakira ibikoresho. Muri ayo mashuri, Leta niyo ishyiramo abanyeshuri, abarimu n’abandi bakozibagengwa n’amategeko agenga umurimo kandi ikabahemba.

## Page 152

118 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Urukiko rurasanga rero Akarere ariko kagomba gutanga imisanzu bigaragara ko itashyikirijwe RSSB. - Indishyi zo guhabwa icyemezo cy’imirimo yakozwe kituzuye kandi kigatangwa impitagihe [36] Muri dosiye yashyikirijwe Urukiko, hagaragaramo icyemezo cy’imirimo yakozwe cyatanzwe ku wa 07/02/2018 na Higiro Damas nk’Umuyobozi ushinzwe abakozi n’ubutegetsi (Directeur des Ressources Humaines et Administration) wabiherewe ububasha (par délégation des pouvoirs), kigaragaza ko Tabaruka Dieudonné yakoze mu Karere ka Gicumbi ku myanya ikurikira: - Umubaruramari (Accountant) kuva ku wa 16/05/2011 kugeza ku wa 02/09/2015; - Umuyobozi ushinzwe imari (Director of Finance) kuva ku wa 03/09/2015 kugeza ku wa 08/09/2017. [37] Muri dosiye hagaragaramo kandi ibaruwa y’Umuyobozi w’Akarere yo ku wa 16/05/2011 ishyira Tabaruka Dieudonné ku mwanya w’ushinzwe ibaruramari, ndetse n’ibaruwa yo ku wa 03/09/2015 imugira Umuyobozi ushinzwe imari by’agateganyo (yemezwa burundu muri uwo mwanya ku wa 17/08/2016). Hashingiwe kuri aya mabaruwa, Urukiko rurasanga imirimo Tabaruka Dieudonné yakoze kuva ku wa 16/05/2011 kugeza ku wa 08/09/2017 yaragaragajwe mu cyemezo cy’imirimo yakozwe. Ibijyanye n’umwanya wa finance and administration officer mu Murenge wa Byumba avuga ko utagaragajwe, Urukiko rusanga yarawushyizweho ariko akawuvanwaho nyuma yo gutakambira Komisiyo y’abakozi ba Leta, agahita asubizwa ku mwanya w’

## Page 153

119 TABARUKA v AKARERE KA GICUMBI

Umuyobozi ushinzwe imari mu Karere8, ndetse agahabwa n’ikinyuranyo cy’imishahara yari yatakaje ijyanye n’ukwezi kwa 11, ukwa 12 /2016 n’ukwa 1 /20179. Urukiko rukaba rusanga rero nta mpamvu yari ihari yo gushyira uwo mwanya ku cyemezo cy’imirimo yakozwe. [38] Urukiko rusanga ibivugwa na Tabaruka Dieudonné ko yahawe icyemezo n’umuyobozi utabifitiye ububasha bitahabwa ishingiro, kuko Umuyobozi ushinzwe abakozi n’ubutegetsi wagisinye yabiherewe ububasha n’Umunyamabanga Nshingwabikorwa w’Akarere mu ibaruwa yo ku wa 03/02/2016. [39] Ku bijyanye n’imirimo Tabaruka Dieudonné yakoze muri Koleji ya Rushaki nk’umucungamutungo, Urukiko rusanga yarayiherewe icyemezo ku wa 14/02/2018 n’Umuyobozi w’iryo shuri (nk’Umuyobozi w’Ikigo cy’ishuri ryigenga ryagiranye amasezerano na Leta), kigaragaza ko yahakoze kuva ku wa 08/05/2009 kugeza ku wa 16/08/2010. [40] Ku bijyanye no kuba ibyemezo byaratanzwe bitinze, ingingo ya 4 y’ Amabwiriza ya Minisitiri w’Intebe No 002/03 yo ku wa 06/12/2012 yerekeye itangwa ry’icyemezo cy’imirimo yakozwe, iteganya ko umukoresha agomba guha umukozi icyemezo cy’imirimo yakozwe iyo uwo mukozi ahagaritse imirimo yakoraga kubera impamvu izo ari zo zose, ariko ayo mabwiriza akaba atarateganyaga igihe ntarengwa ngo kibe cyarirengagijwe. Kuba atagaragaza ko yaba yarasabye icyo cyemezo bakakimwima, bikamugiraho ingaruka, Urukiko rusanga nta ndishyi agomba guhabwa.

8 Reba ibaruwa yo ku wa 06/02/2017 y’Umuyobozi w’Akarere imusubiza ku mwanya w’umuyobozi ushinzwe imari yari yavanyweho ku wa 02/11/2016 9 Inyandiko yashyizwe muri dosiye igaragaza régularisation yakorewe

## Page 154

120 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

- Insimburakiruhuko (Congés annuels non payés) [41] Ingingo ya 20 y’Itegeko N° 86/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho Sitati rusange igenga abakozi ba Leta ryakurikizwaga igihe Tabaruka Dieudonné yasezererwaga ku murimo nta mpaka, iteganya ko iyo umwaka ushize umukozi wa Leta adashoboye gufata ikiruhuko kubera impamvu z’akazi kandi yaracyatse mu nyandiko, agomba kugifata mu kwezi kubanza k’umwaka ukurikiyeho. [42] Iyi ngingo yumvikanisha ko iyo umukozi wa Leta atabashije gufata konji y’umwaka kubera impamvu z’akazi, ayifata mu kwezi kubanza k’umwaka ukurikiyeho, ariko akaba agomba kugaragaza ko yari yayisabye mu nyandiko. Ikindi cyumvikana muri iyi ngingo ni uko umukozi wasabye konji mu nyandiko ntayihabwe kubera impamvu z’akazi, adahabwa amafaranga ayisimbura, ahubwo ayisimbuza indi agomba gufata mu kwezi kwa mbere k’umwaka ukurikiyeho nk’uko bimaze kuvugwa. [43] Muri dosiye y’urubanza hagaragaramo ibaruwa yo ku wa 08/05/2014 Tabaruka Dieudonné yandikiye Umuyobozi w’Akarere asaba ikiruhuko cy’iminsi 15 cy’umwaka wa 2012, n’icy’iminsi 15 cy’umwaka wa 2013, atahawe kandi yarabisabye. Hashingiwe ku byasobanuwemu bika bibanza, Urukiko rusanga Tabaruka Dieudonné yaragombaga gusaba ikiruhuko cy’umwaka wa 2012 atahawe bitarenze ukwezi kwa mbere kwa 2013, naho icy’umwaka wa 2013 akaba yaragombaga kugisaba bitarenze ukwezi kwa mbere kwa 2014. Kuba yaranditse asaba ibiruhuko byombi mu kwezi kwa gatanu 2014, bigaragara ko yanditse igihe cyararenze ku buryo atagomba kubisabira indishyi.

## Page 155

121 TABARUKA v AKARERE KA GICUMBI

[44] Ku bijyanye n’ikiruhuko cy’umwaka wa 2015, muri dosiye harimo ibaruwa yo ku wa 22/09/2015 Umunyamabanga Nshingwabikorwa w’Akarere yandikiye Tabaruka Dieudonné, igaragaza ko yamwemereye konji y’iminsi 10 ku minsi 15 yari yasinyiye. Icyakora, nta kimenyetso kigaragaza ko Tabaruka Dieudonné yasabye gufata iminsi 5 yari yasigaye kuyo yari yemerewe bitarenze ukwezi kwa mbere kwa 2016 ngo abyangirwe. Nta n’ikimenyetso kigaragaza ko yigeze asaba indi minsi 15 y’umwaka wa 2015 ngo ayimwe. Urukiko rukaba rusanga rero nta ndishyi Tabaruka Dieudonné agomba gusaba zo kuba atarahawe konji y’umwaka wa 2015. - Indishyi mbonezamusaruro z’amafaranga 793.161Frw y’umushahara wagabanyijwe igihe yari yaramanuwe mu ntera kuva ku wa 30/11/2016 kugeza igihe yishyuriwe ku wa 05/03/2018 [45] Ikirego Tabaruka Dieudonné yatanze mu rwego rwa mbere ku bijyanye n’uru rubanza rusabirwa gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, kirebana no gukuraho icyemezo kimuhagarika by’agateganyo n’ikimusezerera nta mpaka ku murimo kubera igihe yari amaze afunze by’agateganyo, n’indishyi zikomoka ku kwirukanwa binyuranyije n'amategeko. [46] Urukiko rusanga ibyo asaba bijyanye n’ibyo yahombye igihe yari yaramanuwe mu ntera, agasubizwa mu mwanya nyuma yo kwiyambaza Komisiyo y’Abakozi ba Leta, ari ibindi bidafite aho bihuriye n’ibyaregewe muri uru rubanza, bikaba rero bidakwiye gusuzumwa.

## Page 156

122 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

- Amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’Avoka [47] Tabaruka Dieudonné asaba kwishyurwa: - 3.000.000Frw akubiyemo 1.500.000 Frw y’igihembo cy’ Avoka mu manza zabanje na 1.500.000Frw ku rwego rw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga; - 1.000.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza mu nkiko zose; - 125.000 Frw yatanzeho ingwate y’amagarama mu nkiko zabanje. [48] Asaba kandi ko 700.000 Frw yaciwe mu Rukiko Rukuru yavanwaho kuko Akarere ariko kabaye nyirabayazana. Ku birebana n’amafaranga uburanira Akarere ka Gicumbi asaba, Tabaruka Dieudonné n’umwunganira bavuga ko kuregera Urukiko ari uburenganzira bwe, akaba rero adashobora kubitangira indishyi. [49] Uburanira Akarere ka Gicumbi avuga ko asaba Urukiko gutegeka Tabaruka Dieudonné kukishyura amafaranga angana na 3.000.000 Frw akubiyemo igihembo cy’ Avoka n'ikurikiranarubanza, kuko uko aje kuburana azana n’Abakozi b’Akarere. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [50] Ingingo ya 111 y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018, ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza ari

## Page 157

123 TABARUKA v AKARERE KA GICUMBI

ikirego gishamikira ku kirego cy’iremezo kigamije kwishyuza ibyakoreshejwe mu rubanza. [ ] [51] Urukiko rurasanga buri muburanyi afite ibyo atsindiye mu rubanza, ku buryo nta wategekwa guha undi indishyi. Ibyo ni nako bimeze ku birebana n’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’Avoka. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [52] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Tabaruka Dieudonné cyo gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane urubanza RADA 00140/2018/HC/KIG, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 30/07/2019, gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe. [53] Rwemeje ko imikirize y’urubanza RADA 00140/2018/HC/KIG, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 30/07/2019, ihindutse kuri bimwe. [54] Rwemeje ko icyemezo nimero 1203/07.04.05/01 cyo ku wa 28/03/2017 n’icyemezo nimero 3201/07.04.05/01 cyo ku wa 08/09/2017 byubahirije amategeko, ko Tabaruka Dieudonné atasezerewe nta mpaka ku murimo mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko. [55] Rwemeje ko Akarere ka Gicumbi kagomba kwishyurira Tabaruka Dieudonné, muri RSSB, imisanzu y’ubwiteganyirize bw’abakozi katatanze iteye mu buryo bukurikira: - Amezi 3 yo mu mwaka wa 2005: kuva mu kwezi kwa 10 kugeza mu kwa 12.

## Page 158

124 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

- Amezi 8 yo mu mwaka wa 2009: kuva mu kwezi kwa 5 kugeza mu kwa 12. - Amezi 8 yo mu mwaka wa 2010: kuva mu kwezi kwa 1 kugeza mu kwa 8. - Igice cy’ukwezi kwa gatanu mu mwaka wa 2011, uhereye ku wa 16/05/2011. - Amezi 7 yo mu mwaka wa 2017: kuva mu kwezi kwa 3 kugeza mu kwa 9.

## Page 159

IMANZA Z’IMBONEZAMUBANO

## Page 161

127

MBESIGYE v MUKANGWIJE N’ABANDI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA - RS/INJUST/RC 00001/2022/SC (Cyanzayire, P.J., Karimunda na Hitiyaremye, J.) 20 Mutarama 2023] Amategeko y’imanza mbonezamubano – Kugabana umutungo hagati y’ababanaga nk’umugabo n’ummugore batarashyingiranywe – Mu gihe ababanaga nk’umugabo n’umugore batashyingiranywe bahagaritse kubana, kugirango bagabane umutungo ni uko bagomba kuba bawufitanye cyangwa barawushakanye. Ntawe usabwa kugaragaza icyo yakoze cyangwa yashyizeho kugira ngo uwo mutungo ubeho cyangwa wiyongerere agaciro, ahubwo uwo mutungo ugomba kuba warabonetse muri cya gihe kidashidikanywaho babanaga, icya ngombwa ni uko buri wese aba yaragize ibyo akora byagize uruhare mu guteza imbere urugo Amategeko y’imanza mboneza mubano – Gutesha agaciro ishyingirwa – Ingaruka zo gutesha agaciro ishyingirwa ku washyiranywe nta buryarya – Igihe ishyingirwa riteshejwe agaciro n’Urukiko, uwashyingiranywe utarangwaho uburyarya igihe ishyingirwa ryabaga, agira uburenganzira bwo kugabana umutungo n’uwo babanaga hakurikijwe amasezerano y’icungamutungo bari baragiranye. Incamake y’ikibazo: Mukangwije yashakanye na Niyodusenga mu buryo bwemewe n’amategeko ku wa 22/11/2002, basezerana ivangamutungo rusange. Mu mwaka wa 2007, Mukangwije yagize uburwayi bukomeye bituma ajya kurwarira iwabo

## Page 162

128 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

amarayo igihe kinini. Muri icyo gihe, Niyodusenga yabanye na Mbesigye, basezerana imbere y’amategeko ku wa 23/11/2012 isezerano rya mbere ritaraseswa. Aho Mukangwije akiriye yagarutse mu rugo asanga umugabo yarashakanye n’undi mugore. Ubushinjacyaha bwareze Niyodusenga icyaha cyo gushyingirwa kabiri kiza kumuhama. Nyuma y’urwo rubanza, Mukangwije yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu asaba ko amazina ya Mbesigye yakurwa ku byangombwa by’ubutaka yagaragaje gihuzwa n’ikindi cyari cyatanzwe na Mbesigye asaba kugabana imitungo yashakanye na Niyodusenga. Urukiko rwemeje ko iyo mitungo yandikwaho Niyodusenga na Mukangwije bituma Mbesigye ajurira mu Rukiko Rukuru Urugereko rwa Musanze. Urwo rukiko narwo rwemje ko urubanza rwajuririwe rudahindutse. Urega yaje kwandikira Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire asaba ko urwo rubanza rwasubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane nawe yandikira Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga hanyuma urwo rubanza ruhabwa Urukiko rw’Ikirenga aba arirwo ruruburanisha hasuzumwa ingingo yo kumenya niba Mbesigye yagira uruhare rungana na 50% ku mutungo ubaruye kuri UPI: 3/03/11/04/5600; UPI: 3/03/11/01/60; UPI:3/03/04/06/383; UPI:3/03/04/06/481. Urega avuga ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu ndetse n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, zemeje ko nta ruhare afite ku mitungo yavuzwe haruguru, kandi yarayishakanye na Niyodusenga babanaga, mu gihe Mukangwije yari yarigendeye. Akomeza avuga ko ibyavuzwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ko ntaho agaragara mu masezerano y’ubugure nk’ufatanyije imitungo na Niyodusenga, ko ataribyo kuko yatezaga imbere urugo rwe yita ku bana ndetse anashakisha n’amafaranga akayaha umugabo bagafatanya bakagura ibibanza byagiye bigurwa.

## Page 163

129 MBESIGYE v MUKANGWIJE N’ABANDI

Mukangwije avuga ko umutungo uburanwa awusangiye na Niyodusenga kuko basezeranye mu buryo bukurikije amategeko. Niyodusenga avuga ko ibisabwa na Mbesigye ko bagabana umutungo buri wese agahabwa 50%, nta shingiro bifite kuko atigeze asezerana nawe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko ahubwo akaba yarasezeranye na Mukangwije. Avuga kandi ko yatangiye kubana n’urega guhera mu mwaka wa 2007 aho kuba muri 2006. Incamake y’icyemezo: Mu gihe ababanaga nk’umugabo n’umugore batarashyingiranywe bahagaritse kubana, kugirango bagabane umutungo ni uko bagomba kuba bawufitanye cyangwa barawushakanye bityo Mbesigye akaba agomba guhabwa 50% y’imitungo yashakanye na Niyodusenga guhera mu mwaka wa 2007 ukuyemo agaciro k’ibyo yongeyeho. Ikirego cyo gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, urubanza Nº RCA 00028/2019/HC/MUS, gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe; Mbesigye afite uruhare rungana na 50% ku mitungo iburanwa ukuyemo UPI: 3/03/11/04/5600 n’ agaciro k’ibyo Niyodusenga yayongeyeho. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko No 32/2016 ryo ku wa 28/08/2016 rigenga abantu n’umuryango, ingingo ya 192, 199, 201. Itegeko N° 59/2008 ryo ku wa 10/09/2008 rikumira kandi rihana ihohoterwa iryo ari ryo ryose rishingiye ku gitsina, ingingo ya 39.

## Page 164

130 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Imanza zifashishijwe: Urubanza No RS/Inconst/Pen.0003/10/CS, Gatera Johnson na Kabarisa Teddy, rwaciwe ku wa 07/01/2011, para15 Urubanza No RCAA 0022/13/CS, Ngangare John na Mukankuranga Grace rwaciwe ku wa 25/07/2014, para 24. Urubanza No RCAA 0048/14/CS, Ahishakiye na Namagabira Venantie rwaciwe ku wa 11/03/2016, para 26-27. Urubanza No RCAA 0014/15/CS, Mutoni K. Jackline na Niwenshuti Aloys n’undi, rwaciwe ku wa 01/12/2017, para 33. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Mukangwije Espérance yashakanye na Niyodusenga Anaclet mu buryo bwemewe n’amategeko ku wa 22/11/2002, basezerana ivangamutungo rusange. Mu mwaka wa 2007, Mukangwije Espérance yagize uburwayi bukomeye bituma ajya kurwarira iwabo i Rusizi amarayo igihe kinini. Mu gihe Mukangwije Espérance yari yaragiye iwabo, Niyodusenga Anaclet yabanye na Mbesigye Marguerite, basezerana imbere y’amategeko ku wa 23/11/2012 isezerano rya mbere ritaraseswa, babyarana abana babiri. [2] Mukangwije Espérance amaze gukira yagarutse ku Gisenyi, asanga umugabo we yarasezeranye na Mbesigye Marguerite ari nawe babana. Ubushinjacyaha bwareze Niyodusenga Anaclet icyaha cyo gushyingirwa kabiri kandi isezerano rya mbere rikiriho (bigamie). Mbesigye Marguerite

## Page 165

131 MBESIGYE v MUKANGWIJE N’ABANDI

yisunze ikirego cy’Ubushinjacyaha, aregera indishyi muri urwo rubanza. Ku wa 31/05/2017, Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Gisenyi rwaciye urubanza Nº RP 00147/2016/TB/GIS, rwemeza ko icyo cyaha gihama Niyodusenga Anaclet, rumuhanisha ihazabu y’amafaranga 300.000, rumutegeka guha Mbesigye Marguerite indishyi z’akababaro zingana na 800.000 Frw. Ubushinjacyaha bwajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu, urubanza rwandikwa kuri Nº RPA 00292/2017/TGI/RBV, rucibwa ku wa 03/11/2017, Urukiko rwemeza ko urubanza ruhindutse ku ndishyi gusa zigomba guhabwa Mbesigye Marguerite. [3] Nyuma y’imanza nshinjabyaha, Mukangwije Espérance yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu asaba ko amazina ya Mbesigye Marguerite akurwa ku byangombwa by’ubutaka bifite UPI: 3/03/11/04/5600; 3/03/11/06/60;

3/03/04/06/383 na 3/03/04/06/481. Iki kirego cyahujwe n’icyo Mbesigye Marguerite yari yatanze asaba kugabana umutungo yashakanye na Niyodusenga Anaclet ugizwe n’amazu. Urubanza rwanditswe kuri Nº RC 00063/2018/TGI/RBV- CMB RC 00068/2018/TGI/RBV, rucibwa ku wa 22/02/2019, Urukiko rwemeza ko imitungo itimukanwa yavuzwe haruguru iherereye mu Karere ka Rubavu yandikwa kuri Niyodusenga Anaclet na Mukangwije Espérance buri wese akagira uruhare rungana na 50%, Mbesigye Marguerite akayandukurwaho. Rwategetse Mbesigye Marguerite guha Niyodusenga Anaclet indishyi zingana na 100.000 Frw, runamutegeka guha Mukangwije Espérance indishyi zingana 825.000 Frw. [4] Mbesigye Marguerite yajuririye urubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, urubanza rwandikwa kuri Nº

## Page 166

132 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

RCA 00028/2019/HC/MUS, rucibwa ku wa 31/07/2019. Urukiko rwemeje ko urubanza rwajuririwe rudahindutse, rutegeka Mbesigye Marguerite gusubiza Mukangwije Espérance amafaranga 250.000 yakoresheje mu gukurikirana urubanza. Urukiko rwashingiye ku mpamvu zikurikira: a. Niyodusenga Anaclet yerekanye amasezerano agaragaza ko imitungo iburanwa ariwe wayiguze, Mbesigye Marguerite akaba ayagaragaraho nk’umutangabuhamya1; b. Yerekanye kandi ko amafaranga yo kugura iyo mitungo yayakuye mu mirimo yagiye akora ahantu hatandukanye, harimo muri Kaminuza y’u Rwanda, mu Karere ka Rubavu, mu Muryango FPR Inkotanyi; c. Iyo mitungo yayiguze afitanye amasezerano y’ivangamutungo rusange na Mukangwije Espérance, bivuze ko uyu ariwe uyifiteho uruhare; d. Ikimenyetso Mbesigye Marguerite afite cyatuma agira uburenganzira kuri iyo mitungo, kigizwe no kuba yaratezaga imbere urugo akita no ku bana, ntigihagije ku muntu wabanye n’umugabo wari usanzwe afite umugore w’isezerano ndetse wanashoboye kwerekana uko yagiye abona uwo mutungo. [5] Nyuma y’icibwa ry’urubanza, Mbesigye Marguerite yandikiye Perezida w'Urukiko rw'Ubujurire asaba ko urubanza N° RCA 00028/2019/HC/MUS rwaciwe n'Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze ku wa 31/07/2019 rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z'akarengane. Yasobanuye ko yashyingiranywe na

1 Amasezerano y’ubugure bw’inzu yo ku wa 21/07/2006; ayo ku wa 01/03/2010; ayo ku wa 11/10/2011, n’ayo mu mwaka wa 2013.

## Page 167

133 MBESIGYE v MUKANGWIJE N’ABANDI

Niyodusenga Anaclet nta buryarya, bakaba bagombye kugabana umutungo bashakanye igihe babanaga hakurikijwe amasezerano y’ivangamutungo bagiranye, agahabwa ½ nk’uko ingingo ya 199 y’Itegeko Nº 32/2016 ryo ku wa 28/08/2016 rigenga abantu n’umuryango ibiteganya2. Perezida w'Urukiko rw'Ubujurire amaze gusuzuma ubusabe, yakoreye raporo Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, nawe nyuma yo kuyisuzuma afata icyemezo ko urwo rubanza rwongera kuburanishwa n'Urukiko rw'Ikirenga, ruhabwa No RS/INJUST/RC 00001/2022/SC. [6] Iburanisha ry’urubanza ryabereye mu ruhame ku wa 12/09/2022, Mbesigye Marguerite yunganiwe na Me Mukansanga Ziada; Mukangwije Espérance ahagarariwe na Me Bizimungu Vita Guido, naho Niyodusenga Anaclet yunganiwe na Me Mwanangu Alexis. Urukiko rwapfundikiye iburanisha rumenyesha ababuranyi ko urubanza ruzasomwa ku wa 07/10/2022. [7] Ubwo Urukiko rwari rwiherereye rusesengura ibibazo bigize urubanza, rwasanze mbere yo guca urubanza burundu ari ngombwa ko hashyirwaho umuhanga wo kugaragaza agaciro k’umutungo uburanwa, n’ibyaba byarongeweho nyuma y’icibwa ry’urubanza rusabirwa gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane n’agaciro kabyo. Ku wa 24/10/2022, Urukiko rwagennye Dushime Justine nk’umuhanga wo gushyira mu bikorwa icyemezo cyarwo cyo ku wa 07/10/2022, rumuha inshingano zo kugaragaza ibi bikurikira:

2 Iyo Urukiko rwemeje ko ishyingirwa nta gaciro rifite, rigira inkurikizi ku bashyingiranywe ku buryo bumwe iyo ryakozwe nta buryarya. Kugabana umutungo w’abashyingiranywe bikorwa hakurikijwe amategeko agenga amasezerano yabo y’icungamutungo.

## Page 168

134 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

a. Ibiranga buri mutungo uburanwa, ni ukuvuga nimero yawo, aho uherereye n’ibindi byose yabona ari ngombwa; b. Agaciro buri mutungo uburanwa wari ufite urubanza Nº RCA 00028/2019/HC/MUS rusabirwa gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane rukimara gucibwa ku wa 31/07/2019, kabazwe ku munsi raporo y’igenagaciro ikoreweho; c. Ibyaba byarongewe kuri uwo mutungo nyuma y’icibwa ry’urubanza rumaze kuvugwa, n’agaciro kabyo. [8] Umuhanga yashyikirike Urukiko raporo igaragaza ko: a. Umutungo ubaruwe kuri UPI: 3/03/11/04/5600, uherereye mu Mudugudu wa Bushenge, Akagari ka Gikombe, Umurenge wa Rubavu, Akarere ka Rubavu, ufite agaciro kangana na 10.432.312 Frw. Agaciro k’imirimo yongeweho kangana na 705.520 Frw. b. Umutungo ubaruwe kuri UPI: 3/03/04/06/481, uherereye mu Mudugudu wa Munini, Akagari ka Rubavu, Umurenge wa Gisenyi, Akarere ka Rubavu, ufite agaciro kangana na 17.055.205 Frw. Agaciro k’imirimo yongeweho kangana na 18.000 Frw. c. Umutungo ubaruwe kuri UPI: 3/03/04/06/383, uherereye mu Mudugudu wa Munini, Akagari ka Rubavu, Umurenge wa Gisenyi, Akarere ka Rubavu, ufite agaciro kangana na 49.294.061 Frw. Agaciro k’imirimo yongeweho kangana na 1.922.970 Frw. d. Umutungo ubaruwe kuri UPI: 3/03/11/01/60, uherereye mu Mudugudu wa Gabiro, Akagari ka Buhaza, Umurenge wa RUBAVU, Akarere ka Rubavu, ufite

## Page 169

135 MBESIGYE v MUKANGWIJE N’ABANDI

agaciro kangana na 17.816.908 Frw. Agaciro k’imirimo yongeweho kangana na 85.618 Frw. [9] Urubanza rwongeye gushyirwa kuri gahunda y’iburanisha ku wa 19/12/2022, ababuranyi bose bitabye, Mbesigye Marguerite yunganiwe na Me Munyensanga Gisèle, abandi bunganiwe nka mbere; Dushime Justine wakoze raporo y’igenagaciro ry’imitungo iburanwa nawe ahari, abanza kurahira ko yakoze imirimo yahawe n’Urukiko mu buryo no mu nzira biteganyijwe n’amategeko, hanyuma asobanura raporo yashyikirije Urukiko. [10] Umugenagaciro yamenyesheje Urukiko ko yageze aho imitungo iburanwa iherereye, yinjira muri buri nzu kugirango arebe imirimo yongeweho mu bwisanzure. Yasobanuye ko agaciro yatanze kadashobora guhura n’akari mu igenagaciro ryatanzwe n’urega mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu, kuko ubuso bw’amazu yabonye budahura n’ubwagendeweho n’uwa mbere, kandi n’agaciro k’aho imitungo iri kakaba kariyongereye cyane bitewe n’ibikorwa remezo bimaze kuhagera. [11] Niyodusenga Anaclet yavuze ko atemeranya n’igenagaciro ryakozwe, kuko agaciro k’umutungo kazamutse mu buryo butumvikana, ugereranyije n’akari kagaragajwe mu igenagaciro ryatanzwe n’urega urubanza rutangira mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu. Yavuze kandi ko igenagaciro ryapfobeje agaciro k’ibikorwa yongeyeho. Abandi baburanyi bavuze ko ntacyo bongera ku byagaragajwe n’igenagaciro. [12] Nyuma yo kumva icyo buri ruhande ruvuga kuri raporo y’umuhanga, Urukiko rwapfundikiye iburanisha, rumenyesha ababuranyi ko urubanza ruzasomwa ku wa 20/01/2023.

## Page 170

136 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[13] Muri uru rubanza, hasuzumwe ibibazo bikurikira: a. Kumenya niba Mbesigye Marguerite yagira uruhare rungana na 50% ku mutungo ubaruye kuri UPI: 3/03/11/04/5600; UPI: 3/03/11/01/60; UPI:3/03/04/06/383; UPI:3/03/04/06/481; b. Ibijyanye n’indishyi. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO.  Kumenya niba Mbesigye Marguerite yagira uruhare rungana na 50% ku mutungo ubaruye kuri UPI: 3/03/11/04/5600; UPI: 3/03/11/01/60; UPI:3/03/04/06/383; UPI:3/03/04/06/481. [14] Mbesigye Marguerite n’umwunganira bavuga ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu ndetse n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, zemeje ko nta ruhare afite ku mitungo yavuzwe haruguru, kandi yarayishakanye na Niyodusenga Anaclet babana, mu gihe Mukangwije Espérance yari yarigendeye. Bavuga kandi ko ibarura ry’imitungo ryabaye Mukangwije Espérance ahari, ntiyashyirishaho amakimbirane, ko ibyo avuga ko yari afite uburwayi bwo mu mutwe ari amayeri yacuranye na Niyodusenga Anaclet kugirango bamuhuguze ibye. [15] Bakomeza bavuga ko ibyavuzwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze ko ntaho agaragara mu masezerano y’ubugure nk’ufatanyije imitungo na Niyodusenga Anaclet, ko uburenganzira bwe bugarukira ku kuba umutangabuhamya gusa, ari ukwirengagiza ko ari umutungo yashyizeho icyuya cye,

## Page 171

137 MBESIGYE v MUKANGWIJE N’ABANDI

uruhare rwe rukaba rugaragarira mu buryo yatezaga imbere urugo, akita ku bana, ibyo byose bikaba bigomba guhabwa agaciro. Bongeraho ko yahaga umugabo we amafaranga yo kugura umutungo ku bw'icyubahiro cye akayiyandikaho, we agasinya nk'umuhamya, kandi ko igihe uwo mutungo waguriwe mu 2007-2014 nta kazi Niyodusenga Anaclet yagiraga ku buryo yavuga ko yavanye imitungo mu kazi yakoraga. Basobanura kandi ko yumvaga atari ngombwa gusigarana ikimenyetso igihe ahaye umugabo amafaranga, kuko yumvaga ko byose babisangiye. [16] Bavuga ko kuva mu mwaka wa 2007 kugeza mu wa 2012, Niyodusenga Anaclet yari umunyeshuri, Mbesigye Marguerite akaba ariwe urwana n'urugo wenyine, yabona amafaranga bakagura ikibanza. Bagaragaza ko mu rubanza No RS/INCONST/PEN 0003/10/CS rwaciwe n’uru Rukiko ku wa 07/01/2011, igika cya 12, hemejwe ko ubutaka bwanditse ku mugabo gusa yabugabana n'uwo babanaga nk'umugore n'umugabo bagendeye ku kuba barafatanyije mu bikorwa bitandukanye biteza imbere urugo rwabo. [17] Bavuga kandi ko ingingo ya 193 n’iya 199 z’Itegeko No 32/2016 ryo ku wa 28/08/2016 rigenga abantu n’umuryango, iteganya ko mu gihe habayeho gutesha agaciro isezerano ry’ishyingirwa ku buryo budasubirwaho, abashyingiranywe bagabana umutungo bari bafitanye hakurikijwe isezerano bari barahisemo, itegeko rikaba rimwemerera guhabwa 50% by’imitungo yabonetse mu gihe isezerano ryari rifite agaciro. Basoza basaba Urukiko kuzatesha agaciro imanza zose zahaye Mukangwije Espérance uburenganzira bwo kwandikwa ku mutungo, rugategeka ko we yongera kwandikwaho 50%.

## Page 172

138 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[18] Bongeraho ko Mbesigye Marguerite yabanye na Niyodusenga Anaclet mu mwaka wa 2006, bikaba bigaragazwa n’amasezerano y’ubugure bw’iyo mitungo asaba ko bagabana. Bavuga kandi ko ibyo Niyodusenga Anaclet yaba yarongeye ku mitungo iburanwa atabisubizwa, kuko amafaranga yo kubyongeraho yayakuraga mu bukode bw’amazu yasigayemo. [19] Mukangwije Espérance n’umwunganira bavuga ko, nk’uko byasobanuwe mu manza zitandukanye, umutungo uburanwa awusangiye na Niyodusenga Anaclet kuko basezeranye mu buryo bukurikije amategeko. Bavuga ko bashingiye ku ngingo ya 6 y’Itegeko Nº 27/2016 ryo ku wa 08/7/2016 rigenga imicungire y’umutungo w’abashyingiranywe, impano n’izungura3, basanga ibyo Mbesigye Marguerite asaba nta shingiro bifite. Basobanura ko ku bijyanye n’umwaka Mukangwije Espérance yaviriye mu rugo, ari mu 2007 aho kuba mu 2006, ko urega agenda yivuguruza ku myaka. [20] Niyodusenga Anaclet n’umwunganira bavuga ko ibisabwa na Mbesigye Marguerite ko bagabana umutungo ugizwe n’amazu ane yavuzwe, buri wese agahabwa 50%, nta shingiro bifite kuko atigeze asezerana nawe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, ko uwo basezeranye ari Mukangwije Espérance ku wa 22/11/2002 nk’uko icyemezo cyo gushyingirwa kibigaragaza, akaba ariwe ufite uburenganzira ku mutungo bashakanye nk’uko byemejwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze. Niyodusenga Anaclet asobanura kandi ko yabanye na Mbesigye

3Abashyingiranwe bahisemo ivangamutungo rusange bacungira hamwe umutungo wabo, kandi bakagira ububasha bungana bwo kuwukurikirana no kuwuhagararira. Ko umutungo wose wanditse kuri umwe mubashyingiranywe ubarurwa mu mutungo w’abashyingiranywe uburyo bw’ivangamutungo rusange.

## Page 173

139 MBESIGYE v MUKANGWIJE N’ABANDI

Marguerite guhera mu mwaka wa 2007 aho kuba mu mwaka wa 2006. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [21] Ingingo ya 192 y’Itegeko No 32/2016 ryo ku wa 28/08/2016 rigenga abantu n’umuryango iteganya ko guta agaciro k’ishyingirwa gutegekwa n’urubanza……, naho ingingo ya 199 y’iryo Tegeko igateganya ko iyo Urukiko rwemeje ko ishyingirwa nta gaciro rifite, rigira inkurikizi ku bashyingiranywe ku buryo bumwe iyo ryakozwe nta buryarya. Kugabana umutungo w’abashyingiranywe bikorwa hakurikijwe amategeko agenga amasezerano yabo y’icungamutungo. Ingingo ya 201 y’Itegeko rimaze kuvugwa yo iteganya ko ishyingirwa riteshejwe agaciro riha uwashyingiranywe utarangwaho uburyarya kimwe n’abana barikomokaho uburenganzira bwose bukomoka ku ishyingirwa. [22] Icy’ingenzi cyumvikana mu ngingo zimaze kuvugwa, ni uko ari urubanza rutegeka guta agaciro kw’ishyingirwa, kandi ko igihe ishyingirwa riteshejwe agaciro n’Urukiko, uwashyingiranywe utarangwaho uburyarya, ni ukuvuga utaramenye ko hari impamvu yatuma iryo shyingirwa rita agaciro igihe yarikoraga, agira uburenganzira bukomoka ku ishyingirwa, harimo n’uburenganzira bwo kugabana umutungo n’uwo babanaga hakurikijwe amasezerano y’icungamutungo bari baragiranye. [23] Ku bijyanye n’uru rubanza, muri dosiye hagaragaramo urubanza No RP 00147/2016/TB/GI rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Gisenyi ku wa 31/05/2017, rwemeza ko Niyodusenga Anaclet ahamwa n’icyaha cyo gushyingirwa kabiri

## Page 174

140 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kandi amasezerano ya mbere akiriho (bigamie). Iki cyemezo cyashimangiwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu mu bujurire nk’uko byagaragajwe haruguru. Muri izo manza, inkiko zasanze nta kigaragaza ko Mbesigye Marguerite yasezeranye na Niyodusenga Anaclet azi ko afite irindi sezerano ry’ishyingirwa, rumugenera indishyi. [24] Ikindi kigaragara muri dosiye ni uko nyuma y’uru rubanza rw’inshinjabyaha, Mukangwije Espérance yareze asaba ko amasezerano yo gushyingirwa yabaye hagati ya Niyodusenga Anaclet na Mbesigye Marguerite yateshwa agaciro, ariko ikirego cye nticyakirwa kuko yari yagobotse mu rubanza narwo rutakiriwe Mbesigye Marguerite yaregagamo Niyodusenga Anaclet asaba ubutane. Muri dosiye Urukiko rufite, nta kigaragaza ko Mukangwije Espérance yongeye gutanga icyo kirego, ahubwo yareze asaba ko Mbesigye Marguerite akurwa ku byangombwa by’ubutaka buburanwa. [25] Urukiko rurasanga, kuba nta cyemezo cy’Urukiko cyagaragajwe gitesha agaciro amasezerano yo gushyingirwa yabaye hagati ya Niyodusenga Anaclet na Mbesigye Marguerite, hadashobora gushingirwa ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 199 n’iya 201 z’Itegeko No 32/2016 ryo ku wa 28/08/2016 ryavuzwe haruguru ku bijyanye n’uburenganzira ku mutungo ku babanaga mu buryo budakurikije amategeko, nk’uko urega abisaba. [26] Icyakora, Urukiko rusanga hari ikibazo gisa n’iki cyasuzumwe mu rubanza No RS/REV/INJUST/CIV0007/15/CS rwaciwe ku wa 04/12/2015, Nyirakamana Marciana n’abo bari kumwe baregagamo Mukasharangabo Eugénie n’abandi. Muri urwo rubanza, uru Rukiko rumaze kwibutsa ibiteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda n’andi mategeko by’uko isezerano ry’umugabo umwe n’umugore umwe ari ryo

## Page 175

141 MBESIGYE v MUKANGWIJE N’ABANDI

ryemewe, rwagaragaje ko Karimunda Gérard ajya gusezerana na Nyirakamana Marciana, yari atarajya mu Rukiko gusaba gutandukana n’umugore we wa mbere, ibyo bikumvikanisha ko ubushyingiranwe bagiranye icyo gihe butari bwemewe n’amategeko, ari yo mpamvu nta gaciro bukwiye kugira. [27] Muri urwo rubanza kandi, Urukiko rushingiye ku ngingo ya 39 y’Itegeko N° 59/2008 ryo ku wa 10/09/2008 rikumira kandi rihana ihohoterwa iryo ari ryo ryose rishingiye ku gitsina4, rwasanze Nyirakamana Marciana, n’ubwo atari umugore w’isezerano bitewe n’uko yatangiye kubana na Karimunda Gérard ataratandukana ku bw’amategeko n’umugore w’isezerano, afite uburenganzira bwo guhabwa kimwe cya kabiri (½) cy’umutungo yari afitanye cyangwa yahahanye na Karimunda Gérard kuva batangiye kubana nk’umugore n’umugabo. [28] Uwo murongo ugaragara no mu zindi manza zaciwe n’uru Rukiko ku birebana n’uburenganzira ku mutungo ku bantu babanaga nk’umugore n’umugabo mu buryo budakurikije amategeko. Mu rubanza Gatera Johnson na Kabarisa Teddy baregeraga kuvanaho ingingo ya 39 imaze kuvugwa, kuko

4Ababanaga nk’umugore n’umugabo batashyingiranywe mu buryo buteganywa n’amategeko, bashyingirwa hakurikije ihame ry’ubushyingiranywe bw’umugabo umwe n’umugore umwe. Mu gihe umwe mu barebwa n’ibivugwa mu gika kibanziriza iki, yabanaga n’abagore cyangwa n’abagabo benshi, abanza kugabana ku buryo bungana na buri wese mu bo babanaga, umutungo bari bafitanye cyangwa bahahanye mbere y’uko ashyingirwa. Igabana ry’umutungo rivugwa mu gika cya 2 cy’iyi ngingo ntirivutsa abana babyaranye uburenganzira bahabwa n’amategeko. Ibikurikizwa muri iryo gabana bigenwa n’Iteka rya Minisitiri ufite ubutegetsi bw’Igihugu mu nshingano ze.

## Page 176

142 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

inyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda, Urukiko rwasobanuye ko mu gihe ababanaga nk’umugabo n’umugore batarashyingiranywe bahagaritse kubana, kugirango bagabane umutungo ari uko bagomba kuba bawufitanye cyangwa barawushakanye. Rwongeyeho ko kugira uburenganzira ku mutungo bidashingiye gusa ku kuba barabanye nk’umugabo n’umugore batarashyingiranywe, ahubwo bigomba kuba bigaragara ko bawufitanye cyangwa ko bawushakanye5. [29] Mu rubanza Ngangare John na Mukankuranga Grace baburanagamo kugabana imitungo, Urukiko ruhereye ku byavuzwe mu rubanza rwa Gatera Johnson na Kabarisa Teddy, rwasobanuye ko ikigamijwe mu ngingo ya 39 y’Itegeko N° 59/2008 ryo ku wa 10/09/2008 ryavuzwe haruguru, ari ukurengera uburenganzira ku mutungo bwa buri wese mu bari basanzwe babana nk’umugabo n’umugore ariko batarashyingiranywe, kubera uruhare yagize mu guteza imbere urugo yabanagamo na mugenzi we, ariyo mpamvu umutungo bahahanye cyangwa bari bafatanyije bagomba kubanza kuwugabana mu gihe umwe yifuza gushyingiranwa n’undi utari we 6. [30] Na none mu rubanza Ahishakiye Jean yaburanaga na Namagabira Venantie ibijyanye no kugabana imitungo, Urukiko rushingiye ku ngingo ya 39 imaze kuvugwa no ku rubanza rwa Gatera Johnson na Kabarisa Teddy, rwasobanuye ko kuba Ahishakiye Jean na Namagabira Venantie barabanye nk’umugabo n’umugore ariko batarashyingiranywe, bakunguka imitungo, bagomba kuyigabana mu gihe batagishoboye

5Urubanza No RS/Inconst/Pen.0003/10/CS, Gatera Johnson na Kabarisa Teddy, rwaciwe ku wa 07/01/2011, para15 6Urubanza No RCAA 0022/13/CS rwaciwe ku wa 25/07/2014, para 24.

## Page 177

143 MBESIGYE v MUKANGWIJE N’ABANDI

gukomeza kubana, Ahishakiye Jean akaba adakwiye kuyikubira mu gihe bigaragara ko yabonetse ari we na Namagabira Venantie babigizemo uruhare, kuko atashoboye kuvuguruza imvugo ya Namagabira Venantie ko yamufashaga mu bucuruzi bakoraga n’indi mirimo yafashaga guteza imbere urugo7. [31] Ibyo guha agaciro imirimo yafashije mu guteza imbere urugo, mu gihe cyo kugabana imitungo yabonetse abantu babana nk’umugore n’umugabo, byagarutsweho no mu rubanza Mutoni K. Jackline yaburanaga na Niwenshuti Aloys na Mukambuguje Alodie, aho Urukiko rwasobanuye ko amagambo « bawufitanye » cyangwa « barawushakanye » atavuga ko buri wese agomba kugaragaza ingano (quantité) y’ibyo yakoze kugirango umutungo ubeho cyangwa ngo yerekane ibyo yawushyizeho kugirango wiyongere agaciro, ahubwo uwo mutungo ugomba kuba warabonetse muri cya gihe kidashidikanywaho bombi babanaga, kuko icya ngombwa ari uko muri iyo mibanire buri wese aba afite ibyo akora mu guteza imbere urugo8. [32] Muri urwo rubanza, Urukiko rwanasobanuye ko ingano y’ibyakozwe n’umugore cyangwa umugabo kugirango umutungo uburanwa uboneke cyangwa utubuke ubwayo atariyo ihesha umugore cyangwa umugabo uburenganzira bwo kugabana umutungo uburanwa n’uwo avuga ko babanaga, ahubwo igomba kuza yiyongera ku bimenyetso by’uko uwo mutungo wabonetse cyangwa wongerewe agaciro bombi babana nk’umugore n’umugabo kabone niyo umwe muri bo atabasha kugaragaza mu buryo burondoye (détaillé/detailed) ibyo yakoze kugirango uboneke cyangwa utubuke9.

7Urubanza No RCAA 0048/14/CS rwaciwe ku wa 11/03/2016, para 26-27. 8 Urubanza No RCAA 0014/15/CS rwaciwe ku wa 01/12/2017, para 33. 9 Ibidem, para 35.

## Page 178

144 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[33] Mu rubanza Twahirwa Ahmed yaburanaga na Kaligirwa Rehema, uru Rukiko rushingiye ku ngingo ya 39 y’Itegeko N° 59/2008 ryo ku wa 10/09/2008 ryibukijwe haruguru, rwasanze barungutse inzu iburanwa mu gihe babanaga nk’umugabo n’umugore ariko batarashyingiranywe nk’uko bombi babyemeranywaho, bakaba bagomba kuyigabana mu gihe batagishoboye gukomeza kubana, kuko bigaragara ko yabonetse bombi babigizemo uruhare, mu gihe babanaga buri wese akaba hari ibyo yinjizaga mu rugo kandi byagize uruhare mu kurutunga no kurwungura imitungo, bityo hakaba ntawe ugomba kuyiharira. [34] Mu manza zimaze kuvugwa zagiye zisobanura ibikubiye mu ngingo ya 39 y’Itegeko N° 59/2008 ryo ku wa 10/09/2008 rikumira kandi rihana ihohoterwa iryo ari ryo ryose rishingiye ku gitsina, hagaragaramo ibintu by’ingenzi bikurikira: a. Mu gihe ababanaga nk’umugabo n’umugore batarashyingiranywe bahagaritse kubana, kugirango bagabane umutungo ni uko bagomba kuba bawufitanye cyangwa barawushakanye; b. Amagambo « bawufitanye » cyangwa « barawushakanye » ntavuga ko buri wese agomba kugaragaza ingano (quantité) y’ibyo yakoze kugirango umutungo ubeho cyangwa ngo yerekane ibyo yawushyizeho kugirango wiyongere agaciro, ahubwo uwo mutungo ugomba kuba warabonetse muri cya gihe kidashidikanywaho bombi babanaga; c. Icya ngombwa ni uko muri iyo mibanire buri wese aba yaragize ibyo akora byagize uruhare mu guteza imbere urugo.

## Page 179

145 MBESIGYE v MUKANGWIJE N’ABANDI

[35] Ku bijyanye n’uru rubanza, ababuranyi bose bemeza ko Niyodusenga Anaclet yabanye na Mbesigye Marguerite kuva aho Mukangwije Espérance aviriye mu rugo akajya iwabo kubera uburwayi, bakaza no gusezerana imbere y’ubuyobozi bw’irangamimerere mu 2012. Bakomeje kubana kugeza igihe Mukangwije Espérance yagarukiye, Niyodusenga Anaclet agahamwa n’icyaha cyo gushyingirwa kabiri kandi isezerano rya mbere rikiriho (bigamie), urubanza kuri icyo cyaha rugacibwa ku wa 31/05/2017. [36] Ababuranyi bemeranywa kandi ko Mukangwije Espérance yavuye mu rugo rwe mu mwaka wa 2007. Ibyo biboneka mu mvugo za Mbesigye Marguerite mu myanzuro yashyikirije Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu no muri kopi y’urubanza rwaciwe n’urwo Rukiko (igika cya 2), ndetse no mu mvugo za Niyodusenga Anaclet na Mukangwije Espérance aho bagiye baburana hose. Bikaba bivuga rero ko Niyodusenga Anaclet yabanye na Mbesigye Marguerite kuva mu mwaka wa 2007, Mukangwije Espérance amaze kuva mu rugo rwe. [37] Ibivugwa na Mbesigye Marguerite ko yatangiye kubana na Niyodusenga Anaclet mu mwaka wa 2006 ntibyahabwa ishingiro kuko yivugira ko babanye Mukangwije Espérance atagihari. Ibyo bishimangirwa n’ibyo Mbesigye Marguerite yavuze mu myanzuro itanga ikirego cy’ubutane mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Gisenyi, ko atangira kubana na Niyodusenga Anaclet yamusanganye abana 3 yamufashije kurera, harimo uwavutse mu 2006, bivuga ko Mukangwije Espérance yari agihari muri uwo mwaka. [38] Urukiko rusanga imitungo Mbesigye Marguerite na Niyodusenga Anaclet bakwiye kugabana ari iyabonetse babana, ni ukuvuga kuva mu mwaka wa 2007 nk’uko byasobanuwe

## Page 180

146 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

haruguru, kugeza mu mwaka wa 2017 hacibwa urubanza ku cyaha cyo gushyingirwa kabiri kandi isezerano rya mbere rikiriho. [39] Muri dosiye y’urubanza hagaragaramo amasezerano y’ubugure bw’imitungo akurikira: a. Amasezerano y’ubugure bw’inzu yo ku wa 21/07/2006; b. Amasezerano y’ubugure bw’inzu yo ku wa 01/03/2010; c. Amasezerano y’ubugure bw’ikibanza yo ku wa 11/10/2011; d. Amasezerano y’ubugure bw’ikibanza yo ku wa 07/01/2013.  Hakurikijwe ibisobanuro byatanzwe na Niyodusenga Anaclet mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu, mu iburanisha ry’urubanza No RC 00063/2018/TGI/RBV ryo ku wa 13/02/2019, ibibanza bimaze kuvugwa haruguru byahawe UPI mu buryo bukurikira: a. Ikibanza cyaguzwe ku wa 21/07/2006 cyanditswe kuri UPI: 3/03/11/04/5600; b. Icyaguzwe ku wa 01/03/2010 gihabwa UPI: 3/03/11/01/60; c. Icyaguzwe ku wa 11/10/2011 gihabwa UPI: 3/03/04/06/481;

## Page 181

147 MBESIGYE v MUKANGWIJE N’ABANDI

d. Icyaguzwe ku wa 07/01/2013 gihabwa UPI: 3/03/04/06/383. [40] Hashingiwe ku masezerano y’ubugure yagaragajwe mu gika kibanza, Urukiko rurasanga umutungo ufite UPI: 3/03/11/04/5600 waguzwe ku wa 21/07/2006 udashobora kujya mu mitungo igabanwa hagati ya Niyodusenga Anaclet na Mbesigye Marguerite, kuko wabonetse mbere ya 2007 bataratangira kubana nk’umugore n’umugabo; ukaba ahubwo ari umutungo Niyodusenga Anaclet asangiye na Mukangwije Espérance. Urukiko rurasanga imitungo Niyodusenga Anaclet na Mbesigye Marguerite bagomba kugabana ari iyabonetse babana, ni ukuvuga nyuma ya 2007 nk’uko byasobanuwe, ariyo: a. Umutungo waguzwe ku wa

01/03/2010, ufite UPI: 3/03/11/01/60; b. Uwaguzwe ku wa 11/10/2011, ufite UPI: 3/03/04/06/481; c. Uwaguzwe ku wa 07/01/2013, ufite UPI: 3/03/04/06/383. [41] Ku bijyanye n’uruhare rwa buri wese ku mitungo igomba kugabanwa, Urukiko rurasanga Niyodusenga Anaclet na Mbesigye Marguerite, buri wese afite uburenganzira bungana na 50% kuri buri mutungo. Urukiko rurasanga ariko mu kuyigabana, hagomba kubanza kuvanwamo agaciro k’ibyo Niyodusenga Anaclet yayongeyeho, kagaragajwe n’umuhanga washyizweho n’Urukiko. [42] Muri raporo y’igenagaciro umuhanga yakoze, yagaragaje ko:

## Page 182

148 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

a. Ibyongewe ku mutungo wanditse kuri UPI: 3/03/11/01/60, bifite agaciro ka 85.618 Frw; b. Ibyongewe ku mutungo wanditse kuri UPI: 3/03/04/06/481, bifite agaciro ka 18.000 Frw; c. Ibyongewe ku mutungo wanditse kuri UPI: 3/03/04/06/383, bifite agaciro ka 1.922.970 Frw. [43] Ku bivugwa na Niyodusenga Anaclet ko atemera igenagaciro ryakozwe n’umuhanga ngo kuko imitungo iburanwa yayihaye agaciro kari hejuru ugereranyije n’akagaragajwe ikirego gitangira, akanatubya agaciro k’ibyo yongeyeho, Urukiko rurasanga nta shingiro byahabwa kuko ibyo umuhanga yagendeyeho yabisobanuye mu buryo bwumvikana mu iburanisha ryo ku wa 19/12/2022, kandi Niyodusenga Anaclet, uretse kutabyemera gusa, ntagagaraza icyo ashingiraho anyomoza umwanzuro w’umuhanga. [44] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro byose byatanzwe, Urukiko rurasanga Mbesigye Marguerite afite uruhare rungana na 50% ku mitungo yagaragajwe hejuru ko ariyo igomba kugabanwa, hakuwemo agaciro k’ibyo Niyodusenga Anaclet yayongeyeho kuva aho urubanza rusabirwa gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane ruciriwe.  Ibijyanye n’indishyi [45] Mbesigye Marguerite avuga ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwamutegetse guha Mukangwije Espérance indishyi z'akababaro zo gushorwa mu manza hamwe n'igihembo cy'Avoka bingana na 825.000 Frw, kandi ari Mukangwije Espérance wamureze, akaba rero nta mpamvu yo kuvuga ko yamushoye mu manza. Avuga ko asanga izo ndishyi yazisaba Niyodusenga Anaclet, kuko ariwe uri

## Page 183

149 MBESIGYE v MUKANGWIJE N’ABANDI

kumushora mu manza. Avuga kandi ko n’Urukiko Rukuru rwamurenganyije rugumishaho indishyi yaciwe, rukongeraho n’andi 250.000 Frw y’igihembo cy’Avoka, bityo akaba asaba ko indishyi zose yaciwe zavanwaho. [46] Asaba ko kuri uru rwego Urukiko rwategeka Niyodusenga Anaclet kumuha indishyi zingana na 1.000.000 Frw zo kumushora mu manza, ndetse na 1.000.000 Frw y’igihembo cy’Avoka n’ikurikiranarubanza, kuko akomeje kumushora mu manza kandi azi ko umutungo uburanwa bawushakanye. Avuga ko indishyi Niyodusenga Anaclet asaba atazihabwa kuko ariwe nyirabayazana w’ibibazo byose, naho ku ndishyi zasabwe na Mukangwije Espérance avuga ko asanga zaryozwa umugabo we, kuko ariwe warenze ku isezerano agakora irindi. [47] Mukangwije Espérance avuga ko Mbesigye Marguerite nk’inshuti y’umuryango yabonye arwaye agashuka umugabo we ngo babane, bikagera n’aho amushuka bagasezerana imbere y’amategeko kandi azi neza ko isezerano rya mbere rigihari, akiyandikishaho imitungo, none akaba akomeje kumushora mu manza. Avuga ko asanga Mbesigye Marguerite yaraciwe amafaranga make, kuko akomeje gutuma ashaka Abavoka bo kumuburanira no gutakaza amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza. [48] Avuga ko kuva mu mwaka wa 2016 Mbesigye Marguerite yakomeje kumushora mu manza, akaba asaba indishyi zingana na 5.000.000 Frw akubiyemo 4.000.000 Frw y’indishyi z’akababaro n’ikurikiranarubanza, na 1.000.000 Frw y’igihembo cy’ Avoka mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga. [49] Niyodusenga Anaclet avuga ko asanga Mbesigye Marguerite akwiye guha Mukangwije Espérance indishyi zingana na 825.000 Frw nk’uko yabitegetswe n’Urukiko, kuko

## Page 184

150 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ariwe wamushoye mu manza, bigatuma yifashisha umwunganizi ku rwego rwa mbere no ku rwego rwa kabiri. [50] Asaba Urukiko gutegeka Mbesigye Marguerite kumuha indishyi zingana na 2.000.000 Frw zo kumushora mu manza, 500.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza, na 1.000.000 Frw z’igihembo cy’Avoka wamwunganiye muri uru Rukiko, yose hamwe akaba 3.500.000 Frw yiyongera ku ndishyi Urukiko Rukuru rwari rwamutegetse. Avuga ko indishyi asabwa na Mbesigye Marguerite adakwiye kuzitanga. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [51] Urukiko rurasanga indishyi zose zasabwe muri uru rubanza zitagomba gutangwa kuko buri wese afite icyo atsindiye. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [52] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Mbesigye Marguerite cyo gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, urubanza Nº RCA 00028/2019/HC/MUS rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze ku wa 31/07/2019, gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe; [53] Rwemeje ko urwo rubanza ruhindutse kuri bimwe; [54] Rwemeje ko nta ruhare Mbesigye Marguerite afite ku mutungo ufite UPI: 3/03/11/04/5600; [55] Rwemeje ko Mbesigye Marguerite afite uruhare rungana na 50% ku yindi mitungo iburanwa, habanje kuvanwamo agaciro k’ibyo Niyodusenga Anaclet yayongeyeho kuva aho urubanza

## Page 185

151 MBESIGYE v MUKANGWIJE N’ABANDI

rusabirwa gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane ruciriwe, gateye mu buryo bukurikira: a. 85.618 Frw kuri UPI: 3/03/11/01/60; b. 18.000 Frw kuri UPI: 3/03/04/06/481; c. 1.922.970 Frw kuri UPI: 3/03/04/06/383. [56] Rutegetse Niyodusenga Anaclet na Mukangwije Espérance buri wese gusubiza Mbesigye Marguerite amafaranga 116.667 ahwanye n’uruhare rwabo ku mafaranga yishyuye umuhanga wakoze igenagaciro ryategetswe n’Urukiko.

## Page 187

153

MURENZI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA - RS/INJUST/RC 00009/2021/SC (Ntezilyayo, P.J., Cyanzayire na Karimunda, J.) 30 Kamena 2022] Amategeko agenga imanza mbonezamubano – Ibimenyetso bishingiye kuri raporo z’abahanga – Indahiro n’umukono by’umuhanga wakoze raporo – Kuba nta ndahiro yashyizwe kuri raporo cyangwa nta mukono w’umuhanga uyigaragaraho bitewe no kwibagirwa cyangwa kutamenya ko ari ngombwa, ubwabyo ntibyaba impamvu yo gutesha agaciro raporo y’umuhanga mu gihe ashobora guhamagazwa n’Urukiko izo nenge akazikosora ashyira umukono kuri raporo yatanze cyangwa arahirira imbere y’Urukiko indahiro yateganyijwe n’Itegeko. Amategeko agenga imanza mbonezamubano – Ibimenyetso bishingiye kuri raporo z’abahanga – Akamaro k’indahiro n’umukono by’umuhanga ku buhamya yatanze muri raporo – Akamaro k’indahiro y’umuhanga ni ukugaragaza ko yakoze inshingano yahawe n’Urukiko ntacyo yirengagije, yazikoze kinyamwuga, nta buhemu nta no kubogamira ku ruhande urwo ariwo rwose. Indahiro cyangwa umukono w’umuhanga ubwabyo sibyo Urukiko ruba rwashyiriyeho umuhanga kuko n’ubundi ntabwo biri mu nshingano ahabwa, ahubwo byombi, iyo bishyizwe kuri raporo, bituma icyizere igomba kugirirwa cyiyongera. Amategeko agenga imanza mbonezamubano – Ibimenyetso bishingiye kuri raporo z’abahanga – Kwivuguruza k’umuhanga – Umuhanga wahamirije Urukiko ko yafatanyije na bagenzi be gukora raporo ndetse akayishyiraho umukono, ntashobora

## Page 188

154 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

guhindukira ngo avuge ko atemera ibiyikubiyemo atabanje kugaragaza ko nta bushobozi yari afite bwo kwanga kuyisinya cyangwa kumenya ko agiye kuyisinya. Amategeko agenga imanza mbonezamubano – Ibimenyetso bishingiye kuri raporo z’abahanga – Agaciro ka raporo y’umuhanga yakozwe hifashishijwe indi raporo y’umuhanga – Kuba umuhanga yarashingiye raporo ye ku byagaragajwe n’indi raporo ababuranyi batari bazi ndetse akanga kubatumira mu nama nyuma yo kubashyikiriza raporo ye, ubwabyo ntibyatuma raporo y’umuhanga iteshwa agaciro kuko nta kibuza ko, nyuma yo kuyibona, ababuranyi bagaragaza ibyo bayinenga. Amategeko agenga imanza mbonezamubano – Ibimenyetso bishingiye kuri raporo z’abahanga – Akamaro ka raporo y’umuhanga – Ubuhamya bw’abahanga ni ubugamije guha urukiko ibisobanuro bishingiye ku bumenyi kimwe n’umwanzuro urenze ubumenyi busanzwe bw’umucamanza mu kazi ke bitewe n’uko ibiburanwa bishingiye ku buhanga bwihariye. Amategeko agenga imanza mbonezamubano – Kwirengera amakosa mu myubakire – Kurunda ibintu hejuru y’urukuta rw’umuturanyi kugeza ubwo ruridutse – Iyo umwubatsi yarunze ibintu ku rukuta bikarenga ubushobozi bwarwo agomba kwirengera ayo makosa kuko aba amureba ku giti cye. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza – Imanza z’akarengane – Gusuzuma ingingo nshya mu iburanisha ry’imanza z’akarengane – Umuburanyi utarajuririye ingingo atanyuzwe nazo hakurikijwe inzira zisanzwe kandi yari abyemerewe n’amategeko, aba yivukije inzira y’ubujurire yari gutuma ibyo yanengaga bikosorerwa mu bujurire, bityo akaba adashobora kwifashisha inzira yo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane, yirengagije ko hari izindi manza zabaye,

## Page 189

155 MURENZI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI

ngo ingingo yanze kujuririra ku bushake asabe ko zisuzumwa mu karengane kuko byaba binyuranyije n’ibiteganywa n’amategeko. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu rukiko rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo aho Mutabazi na Muhawenimana baregaga Murenzi na Uwamahoro bavuga ko kubera imyubakire mibi yabo, urukuta rw’inzu yabo rwasenyutse rukangiza imitungo yabo irimo imodoka n’inzu bagasaba urukiko ko bahabwa indishyi z’ibyangiritse. Abaregwa bo bavuga ko nta ruhare bagize mu isenyuka ry’urukuta rwa Mutabazi ahubwo ko isenyuka ryarwo ryatewe n’ibiza byasanze uyu yarubatse nabi kuko yubatse nta cyangombwa cyo kubaka afite. SORAS AG Ltd (ubu ni SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc) yagobotse mu rubanza isaba ko yakwishyurwa amafaranga yakoresheje isana imodoka yangijwe n’urwo rukuta. Urukiko mu rubanza No RC 00203/2018/TGI/GSBO rwifashishije raporo z’abahanga ndetse n’abatangabuhamya rwasanze urwo rukuta rwasenyutse biturutse ku gutsikamirwa n’uburemere bw’itaka Murenzi yakoresheje nawe yubaka urukata rwe ndetse rukaba rwarasaga n’urwegamiye urukuta rwa Mutabazi nuko rutegeka Murenzi na Uwamahoro kwishyura abarega indishyi zinyuranye. Murenzi na Uwamahoro bajuririye Urukiko Rukuru bavuga ko urukiko rwabanje rwirengagije ko urukuta rwasenywe no kuba rwarubatswe na Murenzi na Uwamhaoro badafite icyangombwa cyo kubaka bityo rwubakwa nabi hatubahirijwe ibipimo kandi ko raporo y’abahanga idakurikije amategeko kuko abayikoze batumvikanye ku mwanzuro, ko ataribo bayishyikirije urukiko kandi ko batayirahiriye. Mutabazi na Muhawenimana nabo bajuririye Urukiko rukuru bavuga ko hari indishyi batahawe zikomoka ku modoka zakodeshejwe zo gutwara itaka. SANLAM

## Page 190

156 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

nayo yatanze ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi isaba ko indishyi yagenewe mu rukiko rubanza zashyirwa muri uru rubanza. Ubwo bujurire bwahurijwe hamwe mu rubanza N° RCA 00499/2019/HC/KIG-CMB RCA 00506/2019/HC/KIG hanyuma Urukiko Rukuru rusanga kuba abahanga batararahiye mbere yo gutanga raporo ari ikosa ry’imyandikire bityo bashobora guhamagazwa bakaza gusobanura ibikubiye muri iyo raporo ndetse bakabanza kurahizwa; kuba abakoze raporo batumvikana ku mwanzuro ko ntacyo bitwaye ko ikingenzi ari uko bayumvikanaho nk’abayikoze bafatanyije ndetse rwemeza ko ubujuri bwatanzwe nta shingiro bufite. Murenzi yasabye ko urwo rubanza rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane maze ruhabwa Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ngo rwongere ruruburanishe maze rusuzuma ibibazo by’ingenzi bikurikira: Kumenya niba raporo y’abahanga yashingiweho mu icibwa ry’urubanza No RCA 00499/2019/HC/KIG- CMB RCA 00506/2019/HC/KIG ikwiye guteshwa agaciro no kumenya icyateye isenyuka ry’urukuta rw’urugo rwa Mutabazi na Muhawenimana. Usubirishamo urubanza yatanze inzitizi y’uburegeke avuga ko hari ikirego Mutabazi yatanze mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Gasabo kandi kikaba gifitanye isano n’Uru rubanza akaba aribyo byabanza gusuzumwa. Urukiko rwasuzumye iyo nzitizi rusanga ibiburanwa bitandukanye ndetse n’ikiburanwa mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze kitaba mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kandi urubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rugakomeza rudashobora kuba mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ibanze maze rwemeza ko iyo nzitizi nta shingiro ifite urubanza rukomeza kuburanishwa mu mizi.

## Page 191

157 MURENZI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI

Usubirishamo urubanza avuga ko raporo y’abahanga yakozwe ku iriduka ry’urukuta ifite inenge kuko yakozwe hatubahirijwe imigenzo ya ngombwa isabwa. Muri iyo migenzo harimo kuba imikono y’abahanga itabanjirijwe n’indahiro no kuba umwe muri abo bahanga avuga ko iyo raporo irimo amakosa ndetse ko atahawe umwanya wo gushyiramo ibitekerezo bye, kubwo ibyo agasaba ko itahabwa agaciro. Uregwa yiregura avuga ko abo bahanga bakoze iyo raporo Urukiko Rukuru mu gihe cy’iburansiha, rwabahamagaje bakayisobanura babanje kurahirira ibyo bakoze n’ibisobanuro batanze bikaba bikuraho inenge y’ibura ry’indahiro yari muri iyo raporo. Akomeza avuga ko kukijyanye n’umwe muri bo utemeranya na bagenzi be ngo kuko atahawe n’umwanya wo gushyiramo ibitekerezo bye ku mwanzuro wa raporo, ko nta kibigaragaza dore ko nawe yashyize umukono kuri iyo raporo. Ku kijyanye n’ugomba kuryozwa igihembo cy’abahanga, usubirishamo urubanza avuga ko abahanga bashyizweho n’Urukiko bagomba guhembwa n’impande zombi nyuma utsinzwe agazasubiza uruhare rw’uwatsinze. Akomeza avuga ko Mutabazi we yabikoze wenyine akihererana abahanga bakumvikana igiciro kandi mu madorari y’Amerika atabanje kumumenyesha bityo akaba agomba kwirengera kubishyura wenyine. Uregwa we avuga ko iyi ngingo itari ikwiye gusuzumwa kuri uru rwego kuko itigeze ijuririrwa mu Rukiko Rukuru ariko nanone iramutse isuzumwe Urukiko rwareba uko ibyo bihembo byagenwe kuko abahanga ku mpande zombi aribo babyumvikanyeho banga ko buri ruhande rwagirana amasezerano n’uwarushyizeho. Akomeza avuga ko kuvuga ko igihembo cy’abahanga gihenze kandi kitumvikanweho n’impande zombi atari ukuri bityo agasaba ko Murenzi ariwe wakwishyura icyo gihembo kuko ariwe wakoze amakosa yatumye urukuta rusenyuka.

## Page 192

158 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Mu kumenya icyateye isenyuka ry’urukuta, Murenzi avuga ko rwasenyutse kubera ibiza no kuba Mutabazi yararwubatse nabi kuko yubate mu buryo bunyuranije n’amategeko adafite icyangombwa cyo kubaka, ndetse n’amazi yari mu byobo biyafata byo mu rugo rwe byose akaba aribyo byatumye urwo rukuta ruriduka. Yongeraho kandi ko mu gihe uru Rukiko rwasanga koko hari indishyi zigomba gutangwa, zikwiye kubarwa kinyamwuga hadashingiwe ku marangamutima kandi zikagaragaza agaciro nyakuri k’ibyangiritse. Kuri iki kibazo uregwa avuga ko itaka Murenzi yarunze hejuru y’urugo rwe ari ryo ryateye isenyuka ry’urukuta kubera uburemere bwaryo kandi ko mu kubara indishyi hatagendewe ku marangamutima ahubwo hifashishijwe raporo y’abahanga. Ku bijyanye n’agaciro k’ibyangiritse, akomeza asobanura ko ntacyo Murenzi yanenze raporo y’abahanga ku rwego rwa mbere kuko yari ikoze kinyamwuga, ndetse ko no mu Rukiko Rukuru atabijuririye kuko yemeranyaga n’icyemezo cy’Urukiko Rwisumbuye bityo bikaba bitasuzumwa mu gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Umuhanga urangije inshingano ze atanga raporo iriho indahiro n’umukono we. Icyakora nta kibuza ko uwo muhanga yahamagarwa n’Urukiko kugira ngo asobanure ibyo yakoze, ibisobanuro akaba abitanga na none amaze kurahira bityo kuba raporo iriho imikono idaherekejwe n’indahiro ntabwo biyitesha agaciro kuko iyo nenge yakosowe mu Rukiko Rukuru aho abayikoze barahiye mbere yo kuyisobanurira. 2. Akamaro k’indahiro ni ukugaragaza ko umuhanga yakoze inshingano yahawe n’Urukiko ntacyo yirengagije, azikora kinyamwuga, nta buhemu nta no kubogamira ku ruhande urwo ariwo rwose. Indahiro cyangwa umukono w’umuhanga ubwabyo

## Page 193

159 MURENZI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI

sibyo Urukiko ruba rwashyiriyeho umuhanga kuko n’ubundi ntabwo biri mu nshingano ahabwa, ahubwo byombi, iyo bishyizwe kuri raporo, bituma icyizere igomba kugirirwa cyiyongera. Umukono n’indahiro by’umuhanga bihamya ko umuhanga azi, yemera kandi yirengera ibikubiye muri raporo yashyikirije Urukiko. 3. Kuba nta ndahiro yashyizwe kuri raporo cyangwa nta mukono w’umuhanga uyigaragaraho bitewe no kwibagirwa cyangwa kutamenya ko ari ngombwa, ubwabyo ntibyaba impamvu yo gutesha agaciro raporo y’umuhanga mu gihe ashobora guhamagazwa n’Urukiko izo nenge akazikosora ashyira umukono kuri raporo yatanze cyangwa arahirira imbere y’Urukiko indahiro yateganyijwe n’Itegeko. 4. Umuhanga wahamirije Urukiko ko yafatanyije na bagenzi be gukora raporo ndetse akayishyiraho umukono, ntiyahindukira ngo avuge ko atemera ibiyikubiyemo atabanje kugaragaza ko nta bushobozi yari afite bwo kwanga kuyisinya cyangwa kumenya ko agiye kuyisinya bityo ibivugwa n’uwasubirishijemo urubanza ko umwe mu bahanga atemeranya n’ibiri muri raporo bikaba nta shingiro bifite. 5. Kuba umuhanga yarashingiye raporo ye ku byagaragajwe n’indi raporo ababuranyi batari bazi ndetse akanga kubatumira mu nama nyuma yo kubashyikiriza raporo ye, ubwabyo ntibyatuma raporo y’umuhanga iteshwa agaciro kuko nta kibuza ko, nyuma yo kuyibona, ababuranyi bagaragaza ibyo bayinenga akaba ari nako byagenze kuri raporo yashingiweho muri uru rubanza. 6. Iyo umwubatsi yarunze ibintu ku rukuta bikarenga ubushobozi bwarwo (dépassement des charges maximales autorisées sur un mur de soutainement), agomba kwirengera ayo makosa kuko aba

## Page 194

160 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

amureba ku giti cye bityo Murenzi akaba agomba kurozwa isenyuka ry’urwo rukuta. 7. Umuburanyi utarajuririye ingingo atanyuzwe nazo hakurikijwe inzira zisanzwe kandi yari abyemerewe n’amategeko, aba yivukije inzira y’ubujurire yari gutuma ibyo yanengaga bikosorerwa mu bujurire, bityo akaba adashobora kwifashisha inzira yo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane, yirengagije ko hari izindi manza zabaye, ngo ingingo yanze kujuririra ku bushake asabe ko zisuzumwa mu karengane kuko byaba binyuranyije n’ibiteganywa n’amategeko. 8. Iby’uko igiciro cy’abahanga cyumvikanweho mu madolari ya Amerika, ntibyaba impamvu yatuma uwafashe umwenda atishyura igihembo cy’abahanga kuko impande zombi zumvikanye ku mirimo igomba gukorwa n’igihembo cyayo, nta cyabuza rero ko amasezerano bumvikanyeho ashyirwa mu bikorwa kuko ayo masezerano aba yabaye itegeko hagati y’abayakoranye. Urubanza N° RC 00203/18/TGI/GSBO rwasubirishijwemo ruhindutse kuri bimwe; Amagarama ahwanye yatanzwe ahwanye n’ibyakozwe muri uru rubanza. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko No 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 76, 93. Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, ingingo ya 55, 63. Itegeko N°22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano,

## Page 195

161 MURENZI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI

iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, Ingingo ya 111, 170, 273 Rwanda Building Code yometswe ku Iteka rya Minisitiri N° 04/Cab.M/015 ryo ku wa 18/05/2015 rishyiraho amabwiriza ajyanye n’imitunganyirize y’imijyi n’imyubakire, ingingo ya 2.6.5.19.3; 2.6.5.19.4 Amategeko yifashishijwe atagikoreshwa: Itegeko–Teka No 20/75 ryo ku wa 20 Kamena 1975 ryekeye Ubwishingire, ingingo ya 32. Imanza zifashishijwe: RPA 0227/08/CS hagati y’Ubushinjacyaha na Sibomana Nathanael, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 19/02/2010. RPAA 0321/10/CS Ubushinjacyaha bwaburanaga na Habimana Jean Claude, ruciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 18/03/2016. RCAA 0082/12/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 06/11/2015, igika cya 11. RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2018/SC rwaciwe ku wa 13/03/2020, haburana Nditiribambe Samuel, Gatera Jason na Nyamaswa Faustin. RS/INJUST/RC 00024/2018/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 21/02/2020, ibika bya 18-22. RCOM RS/ INJUST/ RC 00004/2019/SC rwaciwe ku wa 28/07/2020, haburana Mukamana, Havugimana, Umuhoza na Candali. Cass. Civ. 3è, 26 mars 1997, N° 94-21, 808 Bull.Civ, III, N°69.

## Page 196

162 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Inyandiko z’abahanga zifashishijwe: Serge Guinchard (eds), Droit et pratique de la procédure civile, Paris, Dalloz, 2014, pp. 293, 1062, 1063 Loïc Cadiet na Emmanuel Jeuland, Droit judiciaire privé, 11ème éd., Paris, 2019, p.222. Tom Bingham, The Business of Judging: Selected Essays and Speeches 1985-1999, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000, p.36. Etienne Vergès, Géraldine Vial et Olivier Leclerc, Droit de la preuve, Paris, PUF, 2015, p.688. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA. [1] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo, Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude na Muhawenimana Joselyne barega Murenzi Alphonse na Uwamahoro Jacqueline, bavuga ko ku bw’amakosa y’imyubakire mibi, ku wa 25/05/2018, urukuta rw’urugo rwabo rwasenyutse, rwangiza imodoka ebyiri, amazu ya annexes, ibigega by’amazi n’inkingi z’ibyuma byari bibifashe. Basabye ko iryo senyuka n’ibyangijwe biryozwa Murenzi Alphonse na Uwamahoro Jacqueline, bagategekwa kubaha indishyi zitandukanye. [2] Murenzi Alphonse na Uwamahoro Jacqueline bavuze ko nta ruhare bagize mu isenyuka ry’urukuta rwa Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude, ko uyu atagaragaza ko ubwo Murenzi Alphonse yubakaga aribwo haje umututu muri urwo rukuta, ahubwo ko isenyuka ry’urukuta ryatewe n’ibiza byasanze Mutabazi Abayo

## Page 197

163 MURENZI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI

Jean Claude yarubatse nabi kuko yubatse atabiherewe uruhushya, asaba Urukiko kwemeza ko ikirego nta shingiro gifite. [3] SORAS AG Ltd (yahindutse SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc) yagobotse mu rubanza, isaba ko Murenzi Alphonse na Uwamahoro Jacqueline bategekwa kuyishyura 2.183.000 Frw yakoreshejwe hasanwa imodoka RAD 995 F yangiritse bitewe n’isenyuka ry’urukuta rwabo. [4] Mu rubanza No RC 00203/2018/TGI/GSBO rwaciwe ku wa 08/11/2019, Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo rwasanze imvugo z’abatangabuhamya, raporo y’Ubugenzuzi bw’Imyubakire mu Karere ka Gasabo, iy’Umuhanga mu by’ubutaka ndetse n’iy’Itsinda ry’abahanga basuzumye ibyabaye bihuriza ku kwemeza ko urukuta rutari gusenyuka iyo rutagira ibirutsikamira kuko rwari rukomeye; rusanga kandi Murenzi Alphonse yarubatse urukuta rwe asa n’urwegamije ku rwa Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude, arangije aharunda itaka, rwanzura ko urukuta rwa Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude rwasenywe n’uko rwatsikamiwe n’ibikorwa bya Murenzi Alphonse, rumutegeka gufatanya na Uwamahoro Jacqueline kwishyura Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude na Muhawenimana Joselyne indishyi zingana na 22.159.538 Frw, ndetse n’amadorali ya Amerika angana na 6.173. [5] Murenzi Alphonse na Uwamahoro Jacqueline bajuririye Urukiko Rukuru, bavuga ko Urukiko rwirengagije ko kuba urukuta rwa Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude rutarihanganiye amazi byatewe n’uko atubahirije ibipimo kuko yubatse atabiherewe uruhushya. Bavuga ko na raporo y’Abahanga yashingiweho hafatwa icyemezo ku rwego rwa mbere yakozwe mu buryo bunyuranije n’amategeko kuko abayikoze batumvikana ku mwanzuro yagezeho, ko ataribo bayishyikirije Urukiko ndetse ko

## Page 198

164 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

batayirahiriye. Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude na Muhawenimana Joselyne nabo bajuririye Urukiko Rukuru bavuga ko hari indishyi batahawe kandi bazikwiriye, ko bagenewe amafaranga make kuyo bakodesheje imodoka nyamara ibimenyetso batanze bihamya ko imodoka RAD 586 M yishyuwe 850.000 Frw naho RAC 847 Y yishyurwa 360.000 Frw. [6] SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc yatanze ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi, isaba ko 2.183.000 Frw yemejwe ku rwego rwa mbere ashyirwa mu cyemezo cy’Urukiko Rukuru. [7] Ubujurire bwose bwahurijwe hamwe mu rubanza N° RCA 00499/2019/HC/KIG-CMB RCA 00506/2019/HC/KIG rwaciwe ku wa 19/02/2021, Urukiko rusanga: i. ibyo gufatanya kubaka urukuta bitararegewe ku rwego rwa mbere, bityo bikaba bidakwiye gusuzumwa mu bujurire; ii. kuba abahanga batararahiye mbere yo gutanga raporo ari ikosa ry’imyandikire rishobora gukosorwa hahamagazwa abakoze raporo kuza kuyisobanurira Urukiko, mbere yo kuyisobanura bakabanza kurahizwa; iii. kuba abakoze raporo batumvikana ku mwanzuro wayo atari impamvu yatuma iteshwa agaciro kuko icy’ingenzi ari uko benshi muri bo baba bayumvikanaho; iv. nta muhanga wemeje ko ibiza aribyo byasenye urukuta, kuko raporo y’Ubuyobozi bw’Umudugudu yo ku wa 22/05/2018 igaragaza ko na mbere y’isenyuka ryarwo icyo kibazo cyari

## Page 199

165 MURENZI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI

gihari, byumvikanisha ko itaka Murenzi Alphonse yageretse kuri urwo rukuta ariryo ryarusenye; v. nta makosa Urukiko rubanza rwakoze rutanga 720.000 Frw y’imodoka mu bushishozi bwarwo kuko rutari rutegetswe gushingira ku bimenyetso ababuranyi batanze rutabihuje n’ibiciro biri ku isoko cyane cyane ko Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude nawe yari afite inshingano zo kugabanya igihombo; vi. indishyi z’akababaro zingana na 20.000.000 Frw Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude na Muhawenimana Joselyne basaba batazihabwa kuko batagaragaje uburyo ububabare, agahinda no guhangayika batewe n’ibyabaye babibariye ayo mafaranga; vii. indishyi zingana na 2.183.000 Frw zagenewe SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc zigomba gushyirwa mu cyemezo cy’Urukiko Rukuru ariko zigakurwa mu ndishyi zagenewe Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude na Muhawenimana Joselyne; viii. indishyi zari zagenewe Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude na Muhawenimana Joselyne zikuweho 3.369.336 Frw y'agaciro k’amazu ya annexes na 2.183.000 Frw yagombaga kugenerwa SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc. [8] Urukiko rwanzuye ruvuga ko urubanza rwajuririwe ruhindutse kuri bimwe, rutegeka MurenzI Alphonse na Uwamahoro Jacqueline guha Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude na MuhawenimanA Joselyne 740.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza, igihembo cya Avoka n’igarama, rubategeka kandi gusubiza

## Page 200

166 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc 2.183.000 Frw yakoresheje imodoka. [9] Murenzi Alphonse yandikiye Perezida w'Urukiko rw'Ubujurire asaba ko urubanza no RCA 00499/2019/HC/KIG- CMB RCA 00506/2019/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 19/02/2021, rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z'akarengane. Perezida w'Urukiko rw'Ubujurire amaze gusuzuma ubwo busabe, yandikiye Perezada w'Urukiko rw'Ikirenga asaba ko urwo rubanza rwasubirwamo, maze mu cyemezo no 243/CJ/2021 cyo ku wa 07/10/2021, Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga yemeza ko rwoherezwa mu Bwanditsi bw’Urukiko kugira ngo ruzongere ruburanishwe. [10] Iburanisha mu ruhame ryabaye ku wa 08/03/2022, Me Habyarimana Christine aburanira Murenzi Alphonse na Uwamahoro Jacqueline, Me Yaramba Ruhara Athanase na Me Niyitegeka Epaphrodite bunganiye Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude kandi bahagarariye Muhawenimana Joselyne, naho Me Mafaranga Anastase ahagarariye SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc. [11] Iburanisha rigitangira, Me Habyarimana Christine yavuze ko Murenzi Alphonse arwaye, ko mu busanzwe amwunganira, ariko noneho yamuhaye ububasha bwo kumuhagararira ku bijyanye n’inzitizi y’uburegeke batanze nyuma y’inama ntegurarubanza bitewe n’uko impamvu yayo yabonetse nyuma y’iyo nama. Avuga ko iyo nzitizi ishingiye ku kirego gishya Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude yatanze mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Gasabo ku wa 24/02/2022, gihabwa N° RC 00177/2022/TB/GSBO, ko aho Murenzi Alphonse abimenyeye, yasanze icyo kirego gifitanye isano n’uru rubanza, amusaba

## Page 201

167 MURENZI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI

gutegura inzitizi y’uburegeke, bityo akaba yumva ariyo yaherwaho. [12] Mu rubanza rubanziriza urundi rwaciwe ku wa 14/04/2022, Urukiko rwasanze ikiburanwa muri uru rubanza ndetse n’ingano yacyo (portée/scope) atari kimwe n’icyaregewe mu rubanza N° RC 00177/2022/TB/GSBO, rusanga kandi urubanza rwaregewe mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze rudashobora kuba mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ndetse n’urubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye, rugacibwa ku rwego rwa nyuma n’Urukiko Rukuru, nyuma yaho rugasubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane rudashobora kuba mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ibanze kuko inkiko zifite ububasha bwo kuruburanisha ari Urukiko rw’Ubujurire cyangwa Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, rwanzura ko nta buregeke buri hagati y’uru rubanza n’ikirego cyanditswe kuri No RC 00177/2022/TB/GSBO mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Gasabo, bityo ko izo manza zitagomba guhuzwa. [13] Iburanisha ryakomeje ku wa 18/05/2022, Me Habyarimana Christine yunganiye Murenzi Alphonse anahagarariye Uwamahoro Jacqueline, Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude yunganiwe na Me Yaramba Athanase na Me Niyitegeka Epaphrodite kandi bahagarariye Muhawenimana Joselyne. SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc nayo yari yitabye kandi ihagarariwe nka mbere. Urukiko rwabanje kwibutsa Me Habyarimana Christine ko kuba Uwamahoro Jacqueline ataratanze ikirego gisubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane, ashobora kumvwa gusa ariko ntagire ibyo asaba mu rubanza. [14] Ibibazo byasumwe n’ibyo kumenya niba raporo y’abahanga yashingiweho n’Urukiko Rukuru mu gufata

## Page 202

168 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

icyemezo yateshwa agaciro, kumenya icyateye isenyuka ry’urukuta rw’urugo rwa Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude na Muhawenimana Joselyne, kumenya agaciro k’ibyangiritse kubera isenyuka ry’urwo rukuta n’ukwiye kubiryozwa, kumenya ugomba kuryozwa indishyi zishyuwe na Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc, kumenya ingano y’igihembo cy’umuhanga n’ugomba kucyishyura hamwe n’ikibazo cy’indishyi zitandukanye zisabwa mu rubanza. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO. II.1. Kumenya niba raporo y’abahanga yashingiweho mu icibwa ry’urubanza No RCA 00499/2019/HC/KIG- CMB RCA 00506/2019/HC/KIG ikwiye guteshwa agaciro [15] Murenzi Alphonse avuga ko ingingo ya mbere y’akarengane ishingiye ku kuba raporo y’abahanga yasuzumye iriduka ry’urukuta yashingiweho n’Urukiko Rukuru yarakozwe hatubahirijwe imigenzo ya ngombwa isabwa (conditions de forme), harimo kuba imikono y’abahanga itabanjirijwe n’indahiro iteganywa n’itegeko,1 no kuba Ir Hirwa Eugène, umwe muri bo, yemeza ko iyo raporo irimo amakosa kandi ko atahawe umwanya wo gushyiramo ibitekerezo bye. Asobanura

1 Ingingo ya 93 y’Itegeko No 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo iteganya ko “... Raporo ishyirwaho umukono n’abahanga bose. Umukono w’abahanga kugira ngo utaba impfabusa ubanzirizwa n’indahiro mu nyandiko iteye itya: « Jyewe, ……… ndahiye ko nakoze umurimo nashinzwe ntacyo nirengagije, nywukora uko ugomba gukorwa nta buhemu. Niba ntawukoze uko bikwiye nzabihanirwe n’amategeko».

## Page 203

169 MURENZI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI

ko bamwe mu bahanga bavuze ko batari bazi ko bagomba kurahira mbere, nyamara ntawakwitwaza kuba atazi ibyo amategeko ariho ateganya. Naho ku bijyanye na raporo ya Laboratoire yapimye ubutaka, avuga ko nayo nta gaciro ikwiye guhabwa bitewe n’uko itasabwe n’Urukiko ndetse naho ibonekeye, akaba yarihannye umwe mu bahanga bayikoze witwa Nkurunziza Alphonse kubera kubogama, izo nenge zose zikaba zitaragombaga kwirengagizwa n’Urukiko Rukuru rwitwaje ko ari iz’imyandikire kuko ari inenge z’ireme zikwiye gutuma ibyakozwe byose biteshwa agaciro. [16] Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude n’abamwunganira kandi bagahagararira Muhawenimana Joselyne, bavuga ko abahanga bakoze raporo yashingiweho n’Urukiko Rukuru bahamagajwe mu iburanisha hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 99 y’Itegeko ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, barahirira ibyo bakoze n’ibisobanuro batanze, ibyo bihita bivanaho inenge y’ibura ry’indahiro yari muri raporo batanze. Bavuga ko ibyo kurahiriza mu iburanisha abahanga batashyize umukono kuri raporo bashyikirije Urukiko bihuye n’umurongo watanzwe n’uru Rukiko mu rubanza Ubushinjacyaha bwaburanaga na Sibomana Nathanel, ndetse n’urwo Ubushinjacyaha bwaburanaga na Habimana Jean Claude.2 [17] Basobanura ko Ir Hirwa Eugène atari gusanga raporo y’abahanga irimo amakosa cyangwa hatarimo ibitekerezo bye ngo ayisinye, kandi ko yahamirije imbere y’Urukiko ko yayikoranye na bagenzi be, ayisinya nta gahato. Bavuga ko kuba

2 Reba urubanza N° RPA 0227/08/CS hagati y’Ubushinjacyaha na Sibomana Nathanael, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 19/02/2010 n’urubanza No RPAA 0321/10/CS Ubushinjacyaha bwaburanaga na Habimana Jean Claude, ruciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 18/03/2016.

## Page 204

170 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

umuhanga adahuza ibitekerezo na bagenzi be bigengwa n’ingingo ya 94 y’Itegeko ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, icyo gihe utemeranya n’abandi akaba agomba kubitangira impamvu atagaragaje igitekerezo cya buri wese, ko ku bijyanye n’uru rubanza atari uko byagenze, ariko ko niyo bigenda bityo ataribyo byari gutesha agaciro ibyemejwe n’abandi bahanga kuko ibyemezo bifatwa ku bwiganze bw’amajwi. Basanga raporo y’abahanga ari kimwe mu bimenyetso biri muri dosiye, ko uretse yo, Urukiko rwashingiye icyemezo cyarwo no kuri raporo yakozwe n’Umugenzuzi ushinzwe imiturire mu Karere ka Gasabo, Abatangabuhamya batandukanye barimo uwagurishije Murenzi Alphonse ikibanza, abamwubakiye urukuta n’umusingi ndetse n’imvugo z’abaturanyi bigeze gusenyerwa na Murenzi Alphonse. [18] Bavuga ko bemeranya na MurenzI Alphonse ko raporo ya Laboratoire itasabwe n’Urukiko ariko ko ibyo bitabuza undi muhanga kuba yayifashisha mu gihe ari gukora imirimo ye, ndetse ko kuri iyi ngingo Murenzi Alphonse yivuguruza kuko mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye yasabaga ko iyo raporo ahubwo ariyo ishingirwaho, none akaba avuga ko nta gaciro ikwiye guhabwa. Basanga kuba Murenzi Alphonse yarihannye umuhanga Nkurunziza Alphonse ntacyo byamumarira muri uru rubanza kuko ubwo bwihane bwasuzumwe, Urukiko rusanga nta shingiro bufite, ibyo rero akaba ataribyo byahindukira ngo bifatwe nk’inenge kuri raporo yakozwe n’uwo muhanga. Basobanura ko nta nenge Murenzi Alphonse agaragaza zatuma hakorwa raporo nshya, uretse ko nubwo byakwemezwa bitashoboka kuko ahasenyutse harangije kubakwa, ariyo mpamvu basaba uru Rukiko kwemeza ko ku bijyanye n’iyi ngingo nta karengane kari mu rubanza rwasubirishijwemo.

## Page 205

171 MURENZI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI

[19] Me Mafaranga Anastase, uburanira SANLAM AG Plc, avuga ko ku wa 22/05/2018, aribwo itaka ryaturutse kwa Murenzi Alphonse ryasenyaga inkuta, ryangiza imodoka Toyota Prado RAD 995F ya Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude, yari ifite ubwishingizi muri SANLAM AG Plc (ex-SORAS AG Ltd), ko hishyuwe 2.183.000 Frw kugira ngo iyo modoka ikorwe, akaba asaba uru Rukiko gushimangira icyemezo cy’Urukiko Rukuru cy’uko izo ndishyi zigomba kuryozwa Murenzi Alphonse na Uwamahoro Jacqueline. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [20] Ingingo ya 93 y’Itegeko No 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo ivuga ko raporo y’umuhanga ishyirwaho umukono n’abahanga bose babanje kurahirira umurimo bakoze. Naho ingingo ya 99 y’iryo Tegeko iteganya ko mu bujurire, urukiko rushobora guhamagara umuhanga kugira ngo arusobanurire mu magambo raporo yarushyikirije, nabwo akabikora abanje kubirahirira. Izi ngingo zumvikanisha ko umuhanga urangije inshingano ze atanga raporo iriho indahiro n’umukono we. Icyakora nta kibuza ko uwo muhanga yahamagarwa n’Urukiko kugira ngo asobanure ibyo yakoze, ibisobanuro akaba abitanga na none amaze kurahira. [21] Urukiko rurasanga akamaro k’indahiro imaze kuvugwa ari ukugaragaza ko umuhanga yakoze inshingano yahawe n’Urukiko ntacyo yirengagije, azikora kinyamwuga, nta buhemu nta no kubogamira ku ruhande urwo ariwo rwose. Indahiro cyangwa umukono w’umuhanga ubwabyo sibyo Urukiko ruba rwashyiriyeho umuhanga kuko n’ubundi ntabwo biri mu nshingano ahabwa, ahubwo byombi, iyo bishyizwe kuri raporo,

## Page 206

172 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bituma icyizere igomba kugirirwa cyiyongera.3 Umukono n’indahiro by’umuhanga bihamya ko umuhanga azi, yemera kandi yirengera ibikubiye muri raporo yashyikirije Urukiko. [22] Urukiko rurasanga kuba nta ndahiro yashyizwe kuri raporo cyangwa nta mukono w’umuhanga uyigaragaraho bitewe no kwibagirwa cyangwa kutamenya ko ari ngombwa, ubwabyo ntibyaba impamvu yo gutesha agaciro raporo y’umuhanga mu gihe ashobora guhamagazwa n’Urukiko izo nenge akazikosora ashyira umukono kuri raporo yatanze cyangwa arahirira imbere y’Urukiko indahiro yateganyijwe n’Itegeko. [23] Mu rubanza Ngingo Damien yaburanaga na Akaje Alexis,4 uru Rukiko rwasanze nta kibuza ko bene izo nenge zo kuba umuhanga atarasinye raporo cyangwa atarayirahiriye zishobora gukemurwa (régulariser) no guhamagaza uwakoze raporo akaza kubishyiraho. Urukiko rurasanga mu gihe raporo yakozwe n’abahanga benshi, buri wese mu bayikoze agomba kuyishyiraho umukono. Icyakora, inkiko n’abahanga bemeranywa ko kuba umwe mu bahanga atarashyize umukono kuri raporo yemejwe na bagenzi be bitafatwa nk’impamvu yatuma iyo raporo iteshwa agaciro, hapfa kuba hari ibimenyetso bihamya ko utarayisinye yafatanyije na bagenzi be kuyikora no kugera ku mwanzuro uyikubiyemo.5

3 “L’expert doit réaliser ses opérations avec conscience, objectivité et impartialité…Pour obtenir la garantie que les experts respectent cette obligation, la loi s’en remet pour l’essentiel au serment qu’ils prêtent d’accomplir leur mission en honneur et conscience.” Reba Etienne Vergès, Géraldine Vial et Olivier Leclerc, Droit de la preuve, Paris, PUF, 2015, p.688. 4 Reba urubanza N° RCAA 0082/12/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 06/11/2015, igika cya 11. 5 “Mais attendu que c'est à bon droit que la cour d'appel a décidé que " la preuve de la collaboration et de la conformité de l'avis des deux experts Z...

## Page 207

173 MURENZI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI

[24] Urukiko rurasanga ibi bishimangira ko umuhanga wahamirije Urukiko ko yafatanyije na bagenzi be gukora raporo ndetse akayishyiraho umukono, atahindukira ngo avuge ko atemera ibiyikubiyemo atabanje kugaragaza ko nta bushobozi yari afite bwo kwanga kuyisinya cyangwa kumenya ko agiye kuyisinya. Bityo, ibyo Murenzi Alphonse avuga ko raporo yitwa Panel Expert’s Technical Report yakozwe ku wa 02/07/2019 ikwiye guteshwa agaciro kuko Ir Hirwa Eugène atumvikanye n’abandi bahanga ku mwanzuro bagezeho nta shingiro bikwiye guhabwa, kuko nawe ubwe yemeye ko yakoranye na bagenzi be, ndetse ashyira umukono kuri iyo raporo, kuba yarayisinye bikaba byihagije mu guhamya ko yemeraga ibiyikubiyemo. [25] Urukiko rurasanga dosiye y’urubanza irimo raporo y’abahanga yitwa Panel Expert’s Technical Report yakozwe ku wa 02/07/2019 na Ir Hirwa Eugène (washyizweho n’uruhande rwa Murenzi Alphonse), Ir Kassana B. Leonard (washyizweho n’uruhande rwa MutabazI Abayo Jean Claude), na Ir Dr Nkurunziza Alphonse, wari ubayoboye bitegetswe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo mu cyemezo rwafashe ku wa 08/05/2019. Aba bahanga uko ari batatu basinye kuri iyo raporo, icyakora, imikono yabo ntaho ibanzirizwa n’indahiro iteganywa n’ingingo ya 93 y’Itegeko No 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryibukijwe haruguru kandi ntaho bigaragara ko baba bararahiriye imirimo bakoze imbere y’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo.

Rapportée, il n'y avait pas lieu de s'arrêter à une omission materielle qui n'entrainait aucun préjudice pour les parties." Reba Civ 1re, 24 juillet 1973, Bull Civ I, N° 224. “l’omission de la signature d’un des experts n’entraînerait aucun préjudice pour les parties dès lors qu’étaient établies la collaboration des experts et la conformité de leurs avis.” Reba Serge Guinchard (Eds), Droit et pratique de la procedure civile, Paris, Dalloz, 2014, p.1062.

## Page 208

174 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[26] Urukiko rurasanga iyo nenge yo kuba abahanga batararahiriye iyo raporo, yarakosowe mu Rukiko Rukuru kuko mu gika cya 22 cy’urubanza rusabirwa gusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, urwo Rukiko rwibukije ko abahanga bakoze raporo yavuzwe haruguru batumijwe kuyisobanura kandi babanza kurahira. Uru Rukiko rukaba rwemeranya n’isesengura Urukiko Rukuru rwakoze rw’uko inenge yo kutarahira yavanweho n’iyo ndahiro yakorewe mu iburanisha mu rubanza rwari rwajuririwe. [27] Urukiko rurasanga raporo y’abahanga yitwa Panel Expert’s Technical Report yakozwe ku wa 02/07/2019 igaruka ku byagaragajwe na Report of Geotechnical Investigation yo muri Kamena 2019, ibyo ariko bikaba ataribyo byatuma raporo yakozwe n’abahanga bashyizweho n’Urukiko iteshwa agaciro nk’uko Murenzi Alphonse abivuga kuko uretse kuba nta cyabuzaga umuhanga kwiyambaza uburyo ubwo aribwo bwose bwemewe n’amategeko bwamufasha gukora umurimo we cyangwa bwamuha umucyo kurushaho ku bijyanye n’inshingano ze, ntagaragaza icyo anenga imyanzuro yagezweho na Report of Geotechnical Investigation. [28] Urukiko rurasanga ku kibazo nk’iki, umuhanga Serge Guinchard avuga ko Urukiko Rusesa Imanza rwo mu Bufaransa rwasanze kuba umuhanga yarashingiye raporo ye ku byagaragajwe n’indi raporo ababuranyi batari bazi ndetse akanga kubatumira mu nama nyuma yo kubashyikiriza raporo ye, ubwabyo bitatuma raporo y’umuhanga iteshwa agaciro kuko nta kibuza ko, nyuma yo kuyibona, ababuranyi bagaragaza ibyo bayinenga.6 Ku bijyanye n’uru rubanza, Murenzi Alphonse akaba

6 “…dans une espèce ou l’expert a eu recours aux éléments d’une autre expertise à laquelle les parties étaient étrangères et a refuse de tenir une

## Page 209

175 MURENZI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI

atavuga gusa ko atemera Report of Geotechnical Investigation kandi atagaragaza icyo ayinenga, nabyo bikaba bishimangira ko ibyo aburanisha kuri iyi ngingo nta shingiro bifite. II.2. Kumenya icyateye isenyuka ry’urukuta rw’urugo rwa Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude na Muhawenimana Joselyne [29] Murenzi Alphonse na Me Habyarimana Christine, umwunganira bavuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko urukuta rwa Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude rwasenywe n’itaka ryarutsikamiye, hirengagizwa uruhare rw’umusingi w’amabuye yubatse urwo rukuta, no kuba umusingi wari mugufi kandi wubakijishije amabuye ameze nka Rugarika, ibi bikaba byaremejwe na raporo z’abahanga ziri muri dosiye. Basobanura ko imiyoboro y’amazi yaturukaga kuri annexes za Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude yayaganishaga mu byobo bicukuye hafi y’uwo musingi, amazi akajya ajenga avuye muri ibyo byobo kugeza ubwo acengeye mu musingi bituma woroha, uzana imitutu ndetse n’inzu zose za Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude zizamo ubukonje (humidité) kugeza ubwo azisenye, yubaka bushyashya. Bavuga ko ayo mazi byageze aho aba menshi kubera ikibazo cy’ibiza nk’uko bigaragazwa na raporo zitandukanye za Ministeri y’ibiza n’iz’inzego z’ibanze zihamya ko ubwo urukuta

réunion après communication des rapports de cette expertise, la première chamber a rejeté le moyen tire de la nullité du rapport en raison de la méconnaissance du principe du contradictoire aux motifs que l’expert a communiqué les documents aux parties, les invitants à formurer leurs observations… dès lors que (l’expert) a rendu compte aux parties, qu’il leur a comminiqué les pieces ayant servi à l’élaboration du rapport et que les intéréssés ont eu la possibilité de fournir à l’expert toutes les explications utiles, (ils ne peuvent pas encore demander la nullité du rapport d’expertise). Reba Serge Guinchard (sous la dir.), Droit et pratique de la procédure civile, Paris, Dalloz, 2014, p. 1063.

## Page 210

176 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

rwasenyukaga hari hashize igihe hagwa imvura nyinshi kandi ko yangije ibintu byinshi muri ako gace. [30] Basoza bavuga ko amazi yaturutse kwa Murenzi Alphonse atariyo yasenye urukuta kuko amenshi yafatwaga n’ibigega, asagutse akagana mu byobo bicukuye ahitaruye kwa Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude. Naho ibijyanye n’itaka bivugwa ko ryari ritsikamiye urukuta kugeza ubwo rirusenye kubera kururusha uburemere bavuga ko atari ukuri, ko icyabaye ari ugusiza no gutera ubusitani, bakaba basanga kuba Urukiko Rukuru rutarahaye agaciro imyubakire ya Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude yatumye urukuta rwe rwubakwa mu buryo butuma rutihanganira ibibazo biturutse hanze no kuba harirengagijwe uruhare rw’ibiza mu isenyuka ryarwo aribyo byateye akarengane. [31] Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude n’abamwunganira bakanahagararira Muhawenimana Joselyne bavuga ko dosiye irimo ibimenyetso bitandukanye bigaragaza ko itaka Murenzi Alphonse yarunze hejuru y’urugo rwe ariryo ryabaye nyirabazana w’isenyuka ry’urukuta rwe. Bavuga ko abahanga basanze ibyobo by’amazi ataribyo ntandaro y’isenyuka ry’urwo rukuta nk’uko Murenzi Alphonse abivuga kuko nta mazi yari abiretsemo, bitegereye cyane urukuta rwasenyutse kandi ko aho biri hacuritse ku buryo amazi atatemba azamuka. Bavuga ko iyo ibyo byobo biba aribyo nyirabayazana w’iriduka ry’urukuta byari gusenya n’inzu kuko ariyo ibyegereye cyane kurusha uko byegereye urukuta, ndetse ko urwo rukuta rutari kuba rwarihanganye imyaka umunani yose rwamaze. [32] Bavuga ko iby’uko amazi yiyongereye bitewe n’ibiza ntaho bigaragara muri raporo y’abahanga ndetse ko imvura yose iguye itakwitwa ikiza kuko ikiza gifite inyito yacyo mu mategeko, kugeza ubu Murenzi Alphonse akaba atagaragaza ko

## Page 211

177 MURENZI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI

urukuta rwe rwasenywe n’umwuzure waturutse ku mvura nyinshi kandi hakaba nta mpamvu yatuma urukuta rwe rugereranywa n’imihanda cyangwa imisozi yo mu bindi bice by’igihugu byaridutse kuko raporo ya Meteo Rwanda yo ku wa 21 no ku wa 22/05/2018 igaragaza ingano y’imvura yaguye mu gace batuyemo, kandi igahamya ko iyo mvura itakwitwa ikiza. Bavuga ko Murenzi Alphonse yarangije kubaka mu mwaka wa 2017, inkuta ziriduka muri Gicurasi 2018, ko uwamwubakiye witwa Nzabandora Elie ndetse n’amashusho ya google bihamya ko ku wa 22/05/2018, nta kigega na kimwe gifata amazi Murenzi Alphonse yari yagashyize ku nyubako. [33] Basoza bavuga ko Murenzi Alphonse yemereye imbere y’Urukiko amakosa mu myubakire y’inzu ye, ayo makosa yongera kugaragazwa na raporo y’abahanga bashyizweho n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo, raporo yakozwe n’Umugenzuzi ushinzwe imiturire mu Karere ka Gasabo, Abatangabuhamya batandukanye (barimo uwamugurishije ikibanza, uwamwubakiye urukuta rwahirimye, uwacukuye fondation n’abandi), imvugo z’abaturanyi mu gihe cy’iperereza harimo n’iz’abantu babiri basenyewe na Murenzi Alphonse mbere y’ihirima ry’urukuta rwa Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude hamwe na raporo z’inzego z’ibanze. Basanga ibyo bimenyetso byose byarasesenguwe uko bikwiye ku buryo ahubwo kutabiha agaciro aribyo byatera akarengane. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA: [34] Ingingo ya 76 y’Itegeko No 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo igira iti: “ubuhamya bw’abahanga ni ubugamije guha urukiko ibisobanuro bishingiye ku bumenyi kimwe n’umwanzuro urenze

## Page 212

178 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ubumenyi busanzwe bw’umucamanza mu kazi ke bitewe n’uko ibiburanwa bishingiye ku buhanga bwihariye”. [35] Dosiye y’urubanza irimo raporo y’abahanga yitwa Experts’ Panel Technical Report igaragaza ko inzu ya Murenzi Alphonse yuzuye mu Kuboza 2017, icyo gihe hakaba harakoreshwaga ingingo ya 2.6.5.19.3 ya Rwanda Building Code yometswe ku Iteka rya Minisitiri N°04/Cab.M/015 ryo ku wa 18/05/2015 rishyiraho amabwiriza ajyanye n’imitunganyirize y’imijyi n’imyubakire iteganya ko inkuta zigamije gutangira ubutaka, amazi cyangwa ibindi byose bishobora kurutsikamira zigomba kubakwa mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, hagakoreshwa reinforced concrete, ibyuma cyangwa ibindi bikoresho byemewe, hagateganywa kandi imiyoboro y’amazi mu butaka itunguka inyuma y’urukuta, n’uburyo ayo mazi azayoborwa kugira ngo atibika mu rukuta.7 Naho ingingo ya 2.6.5.19.4 y’icyo Gitabo yateganyaga ko nta bintu birenze ibyateganyijwe bigomba gushyirwa inyuma y’urukuta mu ntera ingana nibura n’uburebure bwarwo.8 [36] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza ko mu kwemeza ko urukuta rwa Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude rwasenyutse biturutse ku makosa y’imyubakire ya Murenzi Alphonse, Urukiko Rukuru rwashingiye ku bimenyetso bikurikira:

7 “Walls built to retain or support the lateral pressure of earth or water or other superimposed loads shall be designed and constructed of approved masonry, reinforced concrete, steel sheet piling or other approved materials within the allowable stresses specified in this Code and the subsoil drainage shall be required behind the retaining wall together with sufficient weep outlets in such wall in order to prevent the accumulation of water.” 8 “No surcharge of fill shall be permitted to be placed behind the retaining wall within a distance equal to the height of the wall.”

## Page 213

179 MURENZI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI

i. Isesengura ryakozwe n’abahanga bakoze raporo yitwa Experts’ Panel Technical Report ryemeje ko urukuta rwa Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude rwari rukomeye bihagije ahubwo rutsikamirwa n’itaka Murenzi Alphonse yarushyizeho bituma rugwa; ii. Isesengura ryakozwe n’abahanga muri raporo ya Geotechnical Investigations ryemeje ko urukuta rwa Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude rwari rukomeye ariko ntirwabasha kwihanganira ibyarugeretsweho; iii. Raporo yakozwe na Sibomana Adolphe, Umugenzuzi w’Imyubakire mu Karere ka Gasabo wemeje ko isenyuka ry’urukuta ryatewe n’imyubakire ya Murenzi Alphonse itubahirije amategeko kuko itaka yamennye azamura ikibanza cye (backfill), ari ryo ryaremereye urukuta rwa Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude bituma rusenyuka; iv. Ibyavuye mu iperereza ryakozwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo, rugasanga Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude yubatse munsi y’ikibanza cya Murenzi Alphonse kandi ko urukuta rwaridutse rwari rwegamiye umusozi, rugasanga Murenzi Alphonse yararunze itaka mu kibanza cye mu rwego rwo kukiringaniza ndetse n’ibyobo bifata amazi ava kwa Murenzi Alphonse biri mu butumburuke buri inyuma y’urugo rwa Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude; v. Abatangabuhamya b’abaturanyi babajijwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo ubwo rwari

## Page 214

180 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

mu iperereza bahamije ko itaka Murenzi Alphonse yarunze hejuru y’urugo rwa Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude ariryo ryasenye urukuta rwe, ko bitari ubwa mbere kuko hari n’abandi baturanyi iryo taka ryasenyeye, Murenzi Alphonse akabubakira. [37] Urukiko rurasanga raporo y’abahanga yitwa Experts’ Panel Technical Report igaragaza ko amabuye y’urukuta rwa Murenzi Alphonse yaheraga aho amatafari y’urukuta Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude atangiriye kandi ko ayo mabuye (ya Murenzi Alphonse) yari ateretse ku itaka risanzwe (stable soil), agerekeranye impagarike, amazi y’imvura ayoborwa mu byobo bibiri byacukuwe mu busitani inyuma y’urukuta rwa Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude, ko rero isenyuka ry’urukuta ryatewe n’impamvu zikurikira: i. Uburemere bw’itaka Murenzi Alphonse yarunze mu kibanza cye kugira ngo akiringanize; ii. Umusingi w’urukuta rwa Murenzi Alphonse rutari rwubahirije ibiteganywa n’amategeko nko kuba rwari rushushanyije nabi, rwubatse impagarike kandi bibujijwe n’amategeko ndetse n’imigenzereze y’imyubakire, no kuba rutarimo ibyuma bituma rukomera; iii. Ubwoko bw’itaka Murenzi Alphonse yakoresheje bwa clay silt buremera cyane iyo buhuye n’amazi; iv. Kuba Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude yarubatse urukuta rukomeye adateganyije ko hejuru ye bazaharunda itaka ryo mu bwoko bwa clay silt bigatuma adakoresha inkingi z’ibyuma (reinforced concrete).

## Page 215

181 MURENZI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI

[38] Urukiko rurasanga raporo yakozwe n’ubugenzuzi bw’Akarere ka Gasabo ku wa 23/05/2018, bukeye bw’umunsi urukuta rwa Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude rwasenyutse igira iti: “… bigaragara ko isenyuka ry’urukuta … ryatewe n’imyubakire itubahirije amategeko ya Murenzi, kuko backfill (ubutaka yatinze ashaka kuringaniza ikibanza) yakoze yabaye surcharge kuri retaining wall Abayo yari yarubatse kandi retaining wall Murenzi yari yarubatse ikaba nta weep outlets yigeze ayiha kuko yayubatse ifatanye n’urukuta rw’amatafari rwa Abayo yari yarubatse mbere.” [39] Urukiko rurasanga Raporo y’Akarere ka Gasabo ntacyo Murenzi Alphonse ayinenga, kandi iyo ihujwe n’iyitwa Experts’ Panel Technical Report zumvikanisha ko mu kubaka urukuta rwe MurenzI Alphonse yakoze amakosa akurikira yatumye urukuta rwa Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude ruriduka: i. Kudacukura umusingi ngo arenge ubutaka busanzwe mbere yo gutangira kubaka amabuye; ii. Kubakira amabuye ku butaka busanzwe ntashyiremo weep outlets zari kuzajya ziyobora amazi mu gihe yinjiye mu butaka; iii. Kurunda ubutaka burusha uburemere urukuta rwubatswe mbere na Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude akabutangiriza umusingi w’amabuye utaracukuriwe ubujyakuzimu buhagije ndetse utarahawe imiyoboro y’amazi. [40] Urukiko rurasanga Urukiko Rusesa Imanza mu Bufaransa rwarasanze iyo umwubatsi yarunze ibintu ku rukuta bikarenga ubushobozi bwarwo (dépassement des charges maximales autorisées sur un mur de soutainement), agomba kwirengera ayo makosa kuko aba amureba ku giti cye.9

9Cass. Civ. 3è, 26 mars 1997, N° 94-21, 808 Bull.Civ, III, N°69.

## Page 216

182 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[41] Kubera impamvu zose zatanzwe mu bika bibanziriza iki, Urukiko rusanga, mu gihe nta raporo n’imwe ishimangira ibivugwa na Murenzi Alphonse by’uko isenyuka ry’urukuta rwa Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude ryatewe no kuba hari ibyobo uyu yari yaracukuye hafi y’urukuta rwe bituma rujenga kugeza rusenyutse, ndetse hakaba nta n’itangazo ry’inzego zibishinzwe ryemeza ko mu gace urwo rukuta rwarimo hibasiwe n’ibiza (déclaration de catastrophe naturelle) ku buryo rwaba rwararituwe n’ibiza by’imvura yari imaze igihe igwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwari rufite ukuri ko kwemeza ko urukuta rwa Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude rwaridutse biturutse ku makosa y’imyubakire ya Murenzi Alphonse. II.3. Kumenya agaciro k’ibyangiritse kubera isenyuka ry’urukuta rw’urugo rwa Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude na Muhawenimana Joselyne [42] Murenzi Alphonse na Me Habyarimana Christine, umwunganira bavuga ko raporo y’abahanga yashingiweho hatangwa indishyi itagaragaza agaciro nyakuri k’ibyangiritse, ko Urukiko rwabaze indishyi rwagennye rugendeye ku marangamutima bituma rutanga iz’umurengera, bikungahaza Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude nta mpamvu, bakaba basaba ko mu gihe uru Rukiko rwasanga koko hari indishyi zigomba gutangwa, zikwiye kubarwa kinyamwuga kandi zikagaragaza agaciro nyakuri k’ibyangiritse. [43] Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude n’abamwunganira kandi bagahagararira Muhawenimana Joselyne bavuga ko Murenzi Alphonse ari we nyirabayazana w’isenyuka ry’inkuta zombi kubera amakosa y’imyubakire, ko abahanga mu by’igenagaciro bashyizweho n’Urukiko bagaragaje ibyangiritse n’agaciro kabyo ku ruhande rwa Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude, aba aribyo inkiko

## Page 217

183 MURENZI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI

zombi zabanje zishingiraho. Basobanura ko iby’uko agaciro k’ibyangiritse kashingiwe ku marangamutima aho gushingira kuri raporo y’abahanga atari ukuri cyane cyane ko na annexes Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude yifuzaga ko zishyurwa na Murenzi Alphonse, Urukiko rwazivanye mu bigomba kwishyurwa. Bavuga ko ku bijyanye n’agaciro k’ibyangiritse, ntacyo Murenzi Alphonse yanenze raporo y’abahanga ku rwego rwa mbere kuko yari ikoze kinyamwuga, ndetse ko no mu Rukiko Rukuru atabijuririye kuko yemeranyaga n’icyemezo cy’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo, bityo akaba adakwiye kugarura icyo kibazo bwa mbere mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [44] Ku bijyanye n’ikibazo cy’agaciro k’ibyangiritse kubera isenyuka ry’urukuta rw’urugo rwa Mutabazo Abayo Jean Claude na Muhawenimana Joselyne, dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza ko ingingo Me Turatsinze Emmanuel waburaniraga Murenzi Alphonse yajuririye mu Rukiko Rukuru yagiraga iti: “Kuba Urukiko rwaragennye indishyi zishingiye ku isenyuka ry’ibintu byubatswe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko (report y’Akarere)”. Mu gusobanura iyi ngingo, ntaho yinubiraga uburyo agaciro k’ibyangijwe kabazwe, ahubwo yavugaga ko raporo y’Akarere ka Gasabo yemeje ko Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude yubatse mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, bityo akaba nta ndishyi yagombaga kugenerwa. [45] Ikibazo cyo kumenya niba ingingo zafashweho icyemezo ntizijuririrwe zishobora kugarurwa mu gihe cyo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane, cyasuzumwe n’uru Rukiko mu manza zitandukanye harimo n’urwo Ngizweninshuti Albert

## Page 218

184 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

yaburanaga na Muhima Giovani,10 rusanga iyo ingingo ya 55, igika cya nyuma,11 n’iya 6312 z’Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko zisomewe hamwe, zumvikanisha ko umuburanyi utarajuririye ingingo atanyuzwe nazo hakurikijwe inzira zisanzwe kandi yari abyemerewe n’amategeko,13 aba yivukije inzira y’ubujurire yari gutuma ibyo yanengaga bikosorerwa mu bujurire, bityo akaba adashobora kwifashisha inzira yo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane, yirengagije ko hari izindi manza zabaye, ngo ingingo yanze kujuririra ku bushake asabe ko zisuzumwa mu karengane kuko byaba binyuranyije n’ibiteganywa n’amategeko. [46] Urukiko rurasanga rero kuba Murenzi Alphonse atarajuririye ingingo ijyanye n’agaciro k’ibyangiritse kubera isenyuka ry’urukuta rw’urugo ngo bisuzumwe n’Urukiko

10 Reba urubanza N° RS/INJUST/RC 00024/2018/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 21/02/2020, ibika bya 18-22. Reba kandi urubanza N° RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2018/SC rwaciwe ku wa 13/03/2020, haburana Nditiribambe Samuel, Gatera Jason na Nyamaswa Faustin n’urubanza N° RCOM RS/ INJUST/ RC 00004/2019/SC rwaciwe ku wa 28/07/2020, haburana Mukamana, Havugimana, Umuhoza na Candali. 11“…umuburanyi wari ufite uburenganzira bwo kwiyambaza izindi nzira z’ubujurire zisanzwe n’izidasanzwe ariko ntabikore mu gihe giteganyijwe n’amategeko ntiyemerewe gusaba ko urubanza yatsinzwe rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane …” 12 « iyo Urukiko rw’Ikirenga cyangwa urundi rukiko Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga agena rushyikirijwe urubanza rusabirwa gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, rurusuzuma mu mizi bundi bushya abarubayemo ababuranyi bose bahamagajwe » 13 Ingingo ya 170 y’Itegeko N°21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ryakoreshwaga ubwo uru rubanza rwaburanishwaga yagiraga iti:” Urukiko rwajuririwe ruburanisha gusa ubujurire mu mbibi z’icyajuririwe. Rufata icyemezo ku ngingo zatumye uwatanze ubujurire ajurira cyangwa uwabwuririyeho na we akajurira.”

## Page 219

185 MURENZI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI

Rukuru, uru Rukiko ntaho rwahera rusuzuma iyo ngingo mu rubanza rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. II.4. Kumenya niba Murenzi Alphonse na Uwamahoro Jacqueline bagomba kuryozwa indishyi SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc isaba. [47] Murenzi Alphonse na Me Habyarimana Christine umwunganira bavuga ko amasezerano yabaye hagati ya Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude na SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc atabareba, ko batumva impamvu aribo bagomba kuryozwa indishyi ziturutse ku makosa ya Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude yo guparika imodoka ze ahantu yabonaga ko hajemo imitutu yashoboraga gutuma urukuta ruriduka. [48] Me Mafaranga Anastase, uburanira SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc avuga ko impamvu Murenzi Alphonse na Uwamahoro Jacqueline aribo bagomba kuryozwa indishyi zishyuwe na SANLAM AG Plc ari uko iyo sosiyete ariyo yari yarafashwemo ubwishingizi bw’impanuka, aba ari nayo yishyura 2.183.000 Frw yakoreshejwe imodoka zangiritse biturutse ku makosa y’imyubakire ya Murenzi Alphonse yatumye urukuta rwe n’urwa Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude zisenyuka zikangiza imodoka ebyiri. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [49] Ingingo ya 32 y’Itegeko–Teka no 20/75 ryo ku wa 20 Kamena 1975 ryekeye Ubwishingire (Assurances) yakoreshwaga ubwo ikirego cyatangwaga yateganyaga ko: “uwishingiye wishyuye indishyi z’ubwishingire asimbura uwo yishingiye, mu rugero rw’indishyi yatanze, mu byerekeye uburenganzira no

## Page 220

186 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

gukurikirana abandi bantu batumye yishyura kubera ibikorwa byabo.”14 [50] Urukiko rurasanga dosiye y’urubanza garagaza ko mu RukikoRwisumbuye rwa Gasabo ndetse no mu Rukiko Rukuru indishyi zingana na 2.183.000 Frw zagenewe SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc kubera ko raporo y’abahanga yagaragaje ko impanuka yatumye imodoka za Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude zangirika yaturutse ku makosa y’imyubakire ya Murenzi Alphonse, imbere y’uru Rukiko Murenzi Alphonse akaba atabasha kugaragaza ko haba hari ikindi cyangije izo modoka kitari iriduka ry’urukuta rwe n’urwa Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude biturutse ku makosa ye y’imyubakire nk’uko byagaragajwe haruguru. [51] Urukiko rurasanga kandi iby’uko imodoka za Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude zangijwe n’iriduka ry’urukuta rwa Murenzi Alphonse byatangiwe raporo n’Ubuyobozi bw’Umudugudu wa Nyirabwana ku wa 22/03/2018. Muri raporo yitwa “Raporo y’ibyabaye mu Mudugudu wa Nyirabwana”, uwo muyobozi ahamya ko intandaro ry’iyangirika ry’izo modoka ari itaka Murenzi Alphonse yarunze ku rukuta rwa Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude, noneho ryakwinjiramo amazi y’imvura, rikaremerera urwo rukuta kugeza ubwo rusenyutse. Kuba urukuta rwari rwajemo imitutu sibyo kandi byatuma Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude aryozwa ingaruka zatewe n’itaka Murenzi Alphonse yarunze ku rukuta rwe. Bari bumvikanye ko Murenzi Alphonse ashyira imiyoboro y’amazi muri iryo taka, ntiyabikora, Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude akaba rero ataregwa ubuteganye buke kuko

14 Iri Tegeko-Teka ryavanweho n’Itegeko N° 030/2021 ryo ku wa 30/06/2021 rigenga imitunganyirize y’umurimo w’ubwishingizi ryatangajwe mu Igazeti ya Leta ku wa 02/08/2021.

## Page 221

187 MURENZI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI

atari kumenya igihe imvura izagwira, ingano yayo cyangwa ingano y’uburemere izatera iryo taka ngo bitume adaparika imodoka ze aho yari asanzwe aziparika kubera gutinya ko urukuta rwaziridukira. [52] Urukiko rurasanga kandi kuba Murenzi Alphonse atari mu masezerano y’ubwishingizi bw’imodoka ataribyo byamuvanaho uburyozwe, kuko mu gihe ariwe nyirabayazana w’impanuka yangije imodoka, akaba atararishye ibyangijwe n’ibikorwa bye bikimara kuba, afite inshingano zo kwishyura SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc yabyishyuye nk’uko byateganywaga n’ingingo ya 32 y’Itegeko-Teka N° 20/75 ryo ku wa 20 Kamena 1975 yibukijwe haruguru. II.5. Kumenya niba Murenzi Alphonse adakwiye kuryozwa igihembo cy’abahanga [53] Murenzi Alphonse na Me Habyarimana Christine umwunganira bavuga ko abahanga bashyizweho n’Urukiko bagombaga guhembwa n’impande zombi ariko utsinzwe akazasubiza uruhare rw’uwatsinze. Basobanura ko atari uko byagenze kuko Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude yaje kwihererana abahanga bose bumvikana igihembo gihanitse kandi mu madolari ya Amerika Murenzi Alphonse atabanje kubimenyeshwa, bityo bakaba basanga Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude agomba kubyirengera. [54] Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude n’abamwunganira kandi bagahagararira Muhawenimana Joselyne bavuga ko iyi ngingo itari ikwiye gusumwa mu rwego rw’akarengane kuko itajuririwe mu Rukiko Rukuru. Basobanura ariko ko iramutse isuzumwe, uru Rukiko rwabona ko ibihembo by’abahanga byashyizweho n’itsinda ryabo kuko bangaga ko buri wese akorana amasezerano

## Page 222

188 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

n’uwamushyizeho, muri iryo tsinda hakaba harimo na Ir Hirwa Eugène washyizweho na Murenzi Alphonse. Bavuga ko e-mails n’inyandiko ziri muri dosiye bigaragaza uburyo abahanga n’ababuranyi baganiriye ku kiguzi, bumvikana 6.173 USD, buri wese ahabwa 1/3 cyayo kandi ko Ir Hirwa Eugène yemereye Urukiko Rukuru ko yishyuwe. Bavuga kandi ko iby’uko igihembo cy’abahanga gihenze, cyatanzwe mu madolari ya Amerika kandi kitumvikanweho n’ababuranyi bombi atari ukuri, bakaba basaba uru Rukiko kwemeza ko nta kibuza Murenzi Alphonse kwishyura igihembo cy’abahanga kuko urukuta rwaridutse biturutse ku makosa ye y’imyubakire. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [55] Ingingo ya 273, igika cya 3, y’Itegeko N°22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ivuga ko “…Utsinze urubanza yishyurwa n’uwatsinzwe amafaranga yatanze ku nzobere…” [56] Urukiko rurasanga dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza ko mu iburanisha ryabaye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye ku wa 22/05/2019, MurenzI Alphonse yavuze ko atanga kwishyura abahanga ahubwo ko ashaka kumvikana nabo ku kiguzi, bigeze mu Rukiko Rukuru, mu iburanisha ryabaye ku wa 16/10/2020, avuga ko Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude yihereranye abahanga bituma bumvikana igiciro cy’umurengera kugira ngo raporo izasohoke irimo ibitekerezo bye gusa, asaba ko hashyirwaho irindi tsinda ry’abahanga, buri muburanyi akihitaramo umuhanga, hanyuma abatoranyijwe bakishakira uwa gatatu, kandi bakumvikana n’ababuranyi ku gihembo cyabo. Urukiko rwasanze iyo ngingo nta shingiro ifite, byumvikanisha ko ibyo Mutabazi Abayo Jean

## Page 223

189 MURENZI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI

Claude avuga ko icyo kibazo kitashyikirijwe Urukiko Rukuru ngo kigibweho impaka nta shingiro bifite. [57] Urukiko rurasanga mu gika cya 25 cy’urubanza rusabirwa gusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, Urukiko Rukuru rwarasanze Ir Dr Nkurunziza Alphonse wari ukuriye itsinda ry’abahanga yarabanje gusaba ko bahembwa 500 USD ku munsi, ariko nyuma y’imishyikirano bakoranye na Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude, bemeranya ko bazahembwa 300 USD ku munsi. Ntaho Murenzi Alphonse agaragaza ko ibyo avuga ko yumvikanye na Ir Hirwa Eugene Valery igiciro gito, uyu yavugiraga itsinda ryose ry’abahanga kandi ko babyanzuyeho, cyane cyane ko nyuma yaho Ir Hirwa Eugene Valery yagendeye ku bwumvikane bwagezweho n’uwari ukuriye itsinda ry’abahanga ndetse yemera igihembo uyu yumvikanyeho na Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude mu izina ry’itsinda ryose. [58] Urukiko rurasanga kandi iby’uko igiciro cy’abahanga cyumvikanweho mu madolari ya Amerika, nabyo bitaba impamvu yatuma Murenzi Alphonse atubahiriza inshingano ze zo kwishyura igihembo cy’abahanga kuko impande zombi zumvikanye ku mirimo igomba gukorwa n’igihembo cyayo, nta cyabuza rero ko amasezerano bumvikanyeho ashyirwa mu bikorwa kuko ayo masezerano aba yabaye itegeko hagati y’abayakoranye. [59] Hashingiwe ku bimaze gusobanurwa haruguru no kuba ingingo z’ingenzi Murenzi Alphonse ashingiraho akarengane nta shingiro zifite, Urukiko rurasanga Murenzi Alphonse agomba kwishyura igihembo cy’abahanga nk’uko cyumvikanweho kandi byemejwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo.

## Page 224

190 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

II.6. Kumenya ishingiro ry’indishyi zisabwa muri uru rubanza [60] Murenzi Alphonse na Me Habyarimana Christine umwunganira bavuga ko kuba Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude yarubatse atabifitiye uruhushya, ntagene uburyo bukwiye bwo gufata amazi aturuka ku nyubako ze byatumye urukuta rwa Murenzi Alphonse na Uwamahoro Jacquéline ruriduka, bakaba basaba uru Rukiko kumutegeka gufatanya na Muhawenimana Joselyne kubaha 4.000.000 Frw yo kongera kurwubaka, 5.000.000 Frw y’indishyi z’akababaro bateye Murenzi Alphonse n’umuryango we, 1.000.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza ku nzego zose, 3.000.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo no mu Rukiko Rukuru, 5.000.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka muri uru Rukiko na 80.000 Frw y’igarama ryatanzwe mu Rukiko Rukuru bajurira. [61] Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude n’abamwunganira kandi bagahagararira Muhawenimana Joselyne bavuga ko indishyi zose zisabwa na Murenzi Alphonse ntacyo zishingiyeho kuko ari we nyirabayazana w’isenyuka ry’urukuta nk’uko raporo zose zabigaragaje. Bavuga ko Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude na Muhawenimana Joselyne aribo bakwiye guhabwa indishyi z’akababaro zingana na 10.000.000 Frw, 1.000.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza na 3.000.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga. [62] Me Mafaranga Anastase, uburanira SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc, avuga ko bakomeje gushorwa mu manza nta mpamvu, asaba uru Rukiko gutegeka Murenzi Alphonse na Uwamahoro Jaqueline kuyishyura indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka zingana na 1.500.000 Frw.

## Page 225

191 MURENZI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [63] Ingingo ya 111 y’Itegeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, iteganya ko “ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza ni ikirego gishamikira ku kirego cy’iremezo kigamije kwishyuza ibyakoreshejwe mu rubanza. Ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza kiburanishirizwa rimwe n’ikirego cy’iremezo. Gishobora kandi kwakirwa kikanaburanishwa n’iyo ikirego cy’iremezo cyaba kitakiriwe.” [64] Urukiko rurasanga indishyi zose zisabwa na Murenzi Alphonse ntazo akwiye kuko ntacyo atsindiye muri uru rubanza. [65] Urukiko rurasanga na none indishyi z’akababaro zisabwa na Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude muri uru rubanza adakwiye kuzihabwa kuko uretse kuba adasobanura uburyo iriduka ry’urukuta rw’uruzitiro rw’urugo rwe byaba byaratumye agira agahinda, ntiyakwuririra ku kirego cyatanzwe na Murenzi Alphonse mu rwego gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane ngo nawe agire ibyo asaba kandi bigaragara ko ntacyo yanengaga urubanza rwasabiwe gusubirishwamo. [66] Urukiko rurasanga amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude na Muhawenimana Joselyne basaba bayakwiriye kuko bakurikiranye uru rubanza ndetse bashyiraho n’aba Avoka bababuranira. Icyakora 1.000.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza na 3.000.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka basaba kuri uru rwego ntibagaragaza ko koko ariyo yagiye kuri uru rubanza, bityo mu

## Page 226

192 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bushishozi bw’Urukiko bakaba bagenewe 300.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza na 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka. [67] Urukiko rurasanga na none SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc nayo nta bimenyetso yatanze bigaragaza ko 1.500.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka isaba aricyo yatanze ku rubanza kuri uru rwego, nayo ikaba igenewe 300.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza na 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka, agenwe mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO. [68] Rwemeje ko ikirego cya Murenzi Alphonse gisubirishamo urubanza No RCA 00499/2019/HC/KIG- CMB RCA 00506/2019/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 19/02/2021 nta shingiro gifite; [69] Rwemeje ko nta gihindutse ku mikirize y’urubanza N° RCA 00499/2019/HC/KIG- CMB RCA 00506/2019/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 19/02/2021 hagashyirwa mu bikorwa icyemezo cyarwo giteye gitya: - “78. Rukijije ko urubanza N° RC 00203/18/TGI/GSBO rwaciwe kuwa 8/11/2019 n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo ruhindutse kuri bimwe; - 79. Rutegetse ko indishyi Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude na Muhawenimana Alphonsine15 bari bahawe ku rwego rwa mbere zikuwemo 3.369.336 frw y ‘agaciro k’annexe na

15 Habaye kwibeshya ni Muhawenimana Joselyne.

## Page 227

193 MURENZI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI

2.183.000frw yagombaga kugenerwa SANLAM AG PLC Ltd; - 80. Rutegetse Murenzi Alphonse na Uwamahoro Jacqueline guha Mutabazi abayo Jean Claude na Muhawenimana Joselyne amafaranga y’igihembo cy’Avoka, ikurikiranarubanza n’igarama yose hamwe angana 740.000frw; - 81. Rutegetse Murenzi Alphonse na Uwamahoro Jacqueline gusubiza SANLAM AG PLC Ltd 2.183.000frw yakoresheje imodoka ya Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude na Muhawenimana Joselyne; - 82. Rwemeje ko amagarama Murenzi Alphonse na Uwamahoro Jacqueline batanze bajurira ahwanye n’ibyakozwe muri uru rubanza;” [70] Rutegetse Murenzi Alphonse guha Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude na Muhawenimana Joselyne 300.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza na 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka kuri uru rwego, yose hamwe akaba 800.000 Frw; [71] Rutegetse Murenzi Alphonse guha SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc 300.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza na 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka kuri uru rwego, yose hamwe akaba 800.000 Frw.

## Page 229

195

KAMUGWIZA v HASHIM SAKINA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA - RS/INJUST/RC 00008/2020/SC (Mukamulisa, P.J., Nyirinkwaya, Hitiyaremye, Muhumuza na Kalimunda, J.) 20 Gicurasi 2022] Amategeko mbonezamubano – Ubutumwa bwo kwivanaho umutungo – Umuntu wahawe ubutumwa rusange afite gusa ububasha bwo gukora ibikorwa bisanzwe byo gucunga umutungo no kuwungura, naho igikorwa gikomeye nk’icyo kugurisha cyangwa kwivanaho umutungo mu buryo ubwo aribwo bwose, gisaba ubutumwa bweruye bugaragariza uwabuhawe nibura umwirondoro w’umutungo ugomba kugurishwa; ni ukuvuga ko bugomba kugaragaza uwo mutungo mu buryo bugaragara kandi budateye urujijo. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo Hashim arega Mukuralinda ko yamugurishirje ikibanza mu buryo bunyuranije n’amategeko aho avuga ko yamuhaye ububasha bwo kujya amugurira ibibanza akanamwubakira amazu ariko nyuma Mukuralinda aza kuvuga ko indangamuntu ye yatakaye bityo ko hakwiye gukorwa indi nyandiko mpeshabubasha isimbura iya mbere, hanyuma iyo nyandiko iza gukorerwa imbere ya Noteri ariko hiyongeramo ijambo kugurisha bituma uwahawe ububasha agurisha ikibanza cya Hashim ntiyanamuha n’amafaranga akivuyemo. Urukiko rwisumbuye rwasanze Hashim atabasha gusobanura uko yatanze ububasha bwo kugurisha bituma atsindwa. Yaje kujurira mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire, nyuma yo gusuzuma ubujurire bwe, rusanga bufite ishingiro ko amasezerano y’ubugure yakozwe ku wa 21/03/2015 ku butaka bubaruye kuri UPI 5/07/09/02/984,

## Page 230

196 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

n’ibyangombwa by’ubukode burambye byanditswe kuri Kamugwiza byatanzwe ku wa 20/02/2015 no ku wa 13/07/2015 biteshejwe agaciro. Urwo rubanza nirwo Kamugwiza, uvuga ko yaguze ikibanza kiburanwa yajuririye mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire ariko urwo rukiko rusanga ubujurire bwe nta shingiro bufite, noneho bituma atanga ikirego gisubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Mu iburanisha mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, Kamugwiza asobanura ko akarengane ke gashingiye ku kuba Urukiko rubanza rutarahaye agaciro inyandiko itanga ububasha burimo no kugurisha bigatuma rutesha agaciro amasezerano y’ubugure bw’ikibanza nyamara mu rwego rw’amategeko ntahagaragajwe inenge ayo masezerano y’ubugure afite kuko yakozwe n’abantu babifitiye ububasha. Hashim we avuga ko atigeze atanga ububasha bwo kugurisha ko icyabaye ari uko bamusomeye inyandiko, itanga ububasha bwo kugura no kumwubakira amazu gusa hanyuma bakamusinyisha ku nyandiko ebyiri bamubwira ko zombi zisa iya kabiri ikaba ariyo yari yongewemo ijambo kugurisha. Yasobanuye kandi ko yizeraga Mukuralinda kuko bakuranye hanyuma we akaza kugira ikibazo cyo kutabona neza bitewe n’uburwayi bituma amuha ububasha bwavuzwe hejuru. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Umuntu wahawe ubutumwa (mandat) rusange afite gusa ububasha bwo gukora ibikorwa bisanzwe byo gucunga umutungo no kuwagura. Naho ibikorwa bikomeye nk’icyo kugurisha kivugwa muri uru rubanza, bisaba ubutumwa bweruye bugaragariza uwabuhawe nibura umwirondoro w’umutungo ugomba kugurishwa; kubwo ibyo kandi ubutumwa bwo kwivanaho umutungo mu buryo ubwo aribwo bwose bugomba kuba butari rusange, bugomba kugaragaza uwo mutungo mu buryo bugaragara kandi budateye urujijo.

## Page 231

197 KAMUGWIZA v HASHIM SAKINA

2. Inyandiko mpeshabubasha yanditswe mu buryo rusange ikwiye gufatwa nk’igamije gucunga umutungo mu rwego rwo kurengera uwayitanze kuko bitashoboka ko umuntu ukiriho, ufite ubushobozi n’ububasha atanga uburenganzira bw’uko imitungo yose afite n’iyo azagira igurishwa n’undi. Ikirego cyatanzwe cyo gusubirishamo urubanza No RCAA 00001/2019/CA ku mpamvu z’akarengane nta shingiro gifite; Amategeko yifashishijwe Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 9, 11 Amategeko yifashishijwe atagikoreshwa Itegeko ryo ku wa 30 Nyakanga 1888 rishyiraho Igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano, ingingo ya 530. Imanza zifashishijwe Cass. Civ. 1ère, 21 décembre 1976, Bull.Civ. I, N° 421. The Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society v. M/s Ponniamman Educational Trust, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rw’Ubuhinde, ku wa 03/07/2012 Mrs. Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese Rep by Its Procurator Devssia’s Son Rev. Father Joseph Kappil, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rw’Ubuhinde, ku wa 01/04/2022, para 09, 17-18.

## Page 232

198 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Inyandiko z’abahanga Authority given to the agent by explicit agreement, either orally or in writing. B.A. Garner, Black’s law dictionary, ST. PAUL, MINN., WEST PUBLISHING CO., 2019, 11th ed., p.128. Philippe Malaurie, Laurent Aynès na Pierre Yves Gautier, Droit des contrats spéciaux, Paris, L.G.D.J., 2018, pp.345-346. Francois Collart Dutilleul et Philippe Delebecque, Contrats civils et commerciaux, Paris, Dalloz, 2019, p.548. Jacques Raynard et Jean-Baptiste Seube, Droit des contrats spéciaux, Lexis-Nexis, Paris, 2019, p.397, 398. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA. [1] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo, Sakina Hashim arega Kamugwiza Phoebe kuba yaragiranye amasezerano y’ubugure ya baringa na Mukuralinda Alain Bernard, uyu akagurisha ikibanza cye kibaruye kuri UPI 5/07/09/02/984, giherereye mu Karere ka Bugesera, Umurenge wa Ntarama, Akagali ka Kanzenze, Umudugudu wa Kabeza yitwaje ko atumwe na Sakina Hashim kukimugurishiriza, nyamara nta burenganzira bwo kugurisha, kwakira amafaranga cyangwa ubwo guhinduza ibyangombwa mu izina rye yatanze, asaba Urukiko kwemeza ko ibyakozwe na Mukuralinda Alain Bernard byo kugurisha mu izina rye icyo kibanza nta kuri kurimo, bityo ko nta n’amasezerano y’ubugure yabayeho. [2] Kamugwiza Phoebe yireguye avuga ko amasezerano y’ubugure yabayeho, ko icyo kibanza yakiguze 45.000.000 Frw,

## Page 233

199 KAMUGWIZA v HASHIM SAKINA

yishyura Mukuralinda Alain Bernard wari uhagarariye Sakina Hashim kuko uyu yari yaramuhaye procuration, asaba Urukiko kudaha ishingiro ikirego cya Sakina Hashim ahubwo rukemeza ko amasezerano y’ubugure yakozwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko kuko ntawigeze ayatesha agaciro cyangwa ngo ayatambamire. [3] Mu nama ntegurarubanza, ababuranyi basabye ko Famida Hashim na MukuralindA Alain Bernard bagobokeshwa mu rubanza. Mu gihe cy’iburanisha, Urukiko rwasanze nta kigaragaza ko Mukuralinda Alain Bernard yamenyeshejwe iby’uko afite urubanza ndetse n’ibyavugwaga na Me Nizeyimana Boniface by’uko amuhagarariye, atabyemererwa kuko ari we uburanira Kamugwiza Phoebe wasabye ko Mukuralinda Alain Bernard agobokeshwa, ruvuga ko Mukuralinda Alain Bernard adakwiye gufatwa nk’umuburanyi mu rubanza. [4] Ku bijyanye n’imizi y’ikirego, urubanza no RC 00303/2016/TGI/GSBO rwaciwe ku wa 29/06/2017, Urukiko rusanga inyandiko y’impeshabubasha (procuration) Mukuralinda Alain Bernard yahawe na Sakina Hashim nta nenge ifite kuko yakorewe imbere ya Noteri, Sakina Hashim ayisinyaho, akuze, ari muzima kandi nta gahato yashyizweho, byumvikanisha ko Mukuralinda Alain Bernard yari afite ububasha bwo kugurisha imitungo ya Sakina Hashim mu gihe abona ari ngombwa, rwanzura ko amasezerano y’ubugure atagomba guteshwa agaciro. Naho ku bijyanye n’indishyi zasabwaga n’abaregwa, Urukiko rwasanze zifite ishingiro, rutegeka Sakina Hashim guha Kamugwiza Phoebe na Famida Hashim, kuri buri wese, indishyi zingana na 1.300.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka n’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza.

## Page 234

200 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[5] Sakina Hashim yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru avuga ko Kamugwiza Phoebe atari kugura ikibanza ku wa 21/03/2015 kandi bigaragara ko yari yaragiherewe icyangombwa cy’ubukode burambye ku wa 20/02/2015, ndetse ko na nyuma yaho, ku wa 13/07/2015 yongeye guhabwa ikindi cyangombwa kuri uwo mutungo, bikaba bitumvikana uburyo yari guhabwa ibyangombwa bibiri ku mutungo umwe. Yavuze kandi ko nawe yari yarahawe icyangombwa cy’ubukode burambye kuri uwo mutungo ku wa 20/02/2015, bivuze ko kuri iyo tariki hatanzwe ibyangombwa bibiri, bihabwa abantu batandukanye ku mutungo umwe, ibyo bikaba bitera urujijo, asaba kurenganurwa agasubizwa ikibanza cye Mukuralinda Alain Bernard yagurishije atabimuhereye uburenganzira. [6] Mu iburanisha ryabaye ku wa 19/04/2018, ababuranyi basabye ko Mukuralinda Alain Bernard agobokeshwa mu bujurire ariko ntagire ibyo acibwa. Urukiko rwasanze ubwo busabe bufite ishingiro, rutegeka ko Mukuralinda Alain Bernard agobokeshwa, akaba umuburanyi mu rubanza. [7] Mu rubanza no RCA 00265/2017/HC/KIG rwaciwe ku wa 09/11/2018, Urukiko rwanzuye ko ubujurire bwa Sakina Hashim bufite ishingiro, ko amasezerano y’ubugure yakozwe ku wa 21/03/2015 ku butaka bubaruye kuri UPI 5/07/09/02/984, n’ibyangombwa by’ubukode burambye byanditswe kuri Kamugwiza Phoebe byatanzwe ku wa 20/02/2015 no ku wa 13/07/2015 biteshejwe agaciro. Mu gufata icyemezo, Urukiko rwasanze: i. Ikigo gishinzwe imicungire y’ubutaka mu Rwanda kivuga ko ku bijyanye n’ikibanza kibaruye kuri UPI 5/07/09/02/984, nta byangombwa bibiri byatanzwe ku wa 20/02/2015 kuko hatanzwe icya Sakina Hashim

## Page 235

201 KAMUGWIZA v HASHIM SAKINA

gusa, rusanga nubwo Kamugwiza Phoebe afite amasezerano y’ubukode burambye yo ku wa 20/02/2015 n’ayo ku wa 13/07/2015, atabasha kugaragaza ibyangombwa yahawe

n’uwamugurishije n’igihe yakorewe ihererekanyamutungo; ii. Sakina Hashim atari kuba yagurishije Kamugwiza Phoebe uwo mutungo ngo agumane icyangombwa cyawo cy’umwimerere; iii. Bitumvikana uburyo Mukuralinda Alain Bernard yari kwishyurwa 45.000.000 Frw, yajya kuyaha nyirayo akayatanga mu ntoki. [8] Nyuma yo gukoresha igenagaciro ry’umutungo uburanwa ryagaragaje ko ufite agaciro ka 182.165.000 Frw, Kamugwiza Phoebe yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ubujurire avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rutagombaga gutesha agaciro amasezerano y’ubugure yo ku wa 21/03/2015, kuko yakozwe mu buryo bwemewe n’amategeko, kubera ko mu burenganzira Sakina Hashim yari yarahaye Mukuralinda Alain Bernard harimo n’ubwo kugurisha imitungo ye. [9] Sakina Hashim yatanze inzitizi y’iburabubasha, avuga ko agaciro k’ikiburanwa katageze kuri 75.000.000 Frw ziteganywa n’Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko kuko haburanwa gutesha agaciro amasezerano y’ubugure bw’ubutaka bwaguzwe 45.000.000 Frw, agaciro ka 182.165.000 Frw kavugwa muri raporo y’igenagaciro yatanzwe n’uwajuriye kakaba katashingirwaho kuko ntaho kagaragara mu masezerano y’ubugure kandi kakaba kataragiweho impaka kuva urubanza rugitangira.

## Page 236

202 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[10] Ku wa 08/11/2019, Urukiko rwafashe icyemezo ku nzitizi y’iburabubasha mu rubanza N° RCAA 00001/2019/CA, rusanga uregwa ataranyomoje igenagaciro ryatanzwe na Kamugwiza Phoebe, bityo ko nta cyarubuza kwemeza ko agaciro k’ikiburanwa ari akatanzwe n’uwajuriye, rwanzura ko inzitizi nta shingiro ifite. [11] Naho ku wa 06/05/2020, Urukiko rwaciye urubanza mu mizi ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba amasezerano y’ubugure hagati ya Kamugwiza Phoebe na Mukuralinda Alain Bernard akwiye guteshwa agaciro, rusanga Urukiko Rukuru rwari rufite ukuri ubwo rwemezaga ko ayo masezerano ateshwa agaciro. Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwageze kuri uwo mwanzuro rushingiye ku mpamvu zikurikira: i. Kuba ubutaka bubaruye kuri UPI 5/07/09/02/984 bwaranditswe kuri KamugwizA Phoebe ku wa 20/02/2015, ariko amasezerano y’ubugure na Sakina Hashim akandikwa ko yakozwe ku wa 21/03/2015, bikaba bidashoboka ko yagura ubutaka busanzwe bumwanditsweho; ii. Kuba hari ibaruwa Mukuralinda Alain Bernard yandikiye Umuyobozi w’Akarere ka Bugesera ku wa 24/06/2015 asaba ko Kamugwiza Phoebe yandikwaho ikibanza yaguze na Sakina Hashim kibaruye kuri UPI 5/07/09/02/984, iyo baruwa ikaba yaranditswe Kamugwiza Phoebe yaramaze kwiyandikishaho ubwo butaka ku wa 20/2/2015; iii. Kuba procurations Mukuralinda Alain Bernard ashingiraho avuga ko zamuhaga ububasha bwo kugurisha uwo mutungo mu izina rya Sakina Hashim zigaragaza ko zitandukanye, iyo ku wa

## Page 237

203 KAMUGWIZA v HASHIM SAKINA

15/01/2009 ikaba imuha ububasha bwo kugurira Sakina Hashim ubutaka no kumwubakira inzu, naho iyo ku wa 09/05/2014 ikamuha uburenganzira busesuye harimo n’ubwo kugurisha, kuba izo procurations zombi zarakorewe imbere ya Noteri umunsi umwe wo ku wa 09/05/2014 bikaba bigaragaza ko zakozwe mu buriganya; iv. Kuba nta hererekanya ry’ubutaka ryabayeho hagati ya Kamugwiza Phoebe na Sakina Hashim kuko uyu agifite icyangombwa cy’ubwo butaka, nyamara mu ngingo ya 4 n’iya 5 z’amasezerano y’ubugure yo ku wa 21/03/2015, Mukuralinda Alain Bernard wari uhagarariye Sakina Hashim akaba yaravuze ko ahaye Kamugwiza Phoebe ibyangombwa by’ubutaka aguze, ko kuba inyandiko z’umwimerere zari zikibitswe na Sakina Hashim ari ikimenyetso cy’uko uyu atigeze abugurisha. v. Kamugwiza Phoebe yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga asaba ko urubanza no RCAA 00001/2019/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 06/05/2020, rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Mu cyemezo No 057/CJ/2020 cyo ku wa 16/11/2020, Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga amaze gusuzuma ubwo busabe, yemeje ko rwoherezwa mu Bwanditsi bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kugira ngo ruzongere ruburanishwe.

## Page 238

204 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[12] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku wa 12/10/2021, Kamugwiza Phoebe ahagarariwe na Me Nizeyimana Boniface, Sakina Hashim ahagarariwe na Me Nsabimana Jean- Baptiste, Mukuralinda Alain Bernard ahagarariwe na Me Niyitegeka Eraste naho Famida Hashim ahagarariwe na Me Nsabayezu Evariste, haherwa ku kibazo cyazamuwe na Me Nsabimana Jean- Baptiste wasabye ko hasuzumwa niba Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwari rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha ubujurire bwa kabiri bwa Kamugwiza Phoebe. Ku wa 29/10/2021, Urukiko rwaciye urubanza rubanziriza urundi, rusanga umuburanyi utarasabye ko urubanza rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, atakwuririra ku kirego cyatanzwe n’uwo baburana, ngo nawe asabe Urukiko gusuzuma ibyo atishimiye muri urwo rubanza, rwanzura ko inzitizi y’iburabubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire yatanzwe muri urwo rukiko itakongera gusuzumwa muri uru rubanza. [13] Iburanisha ry’urubanza mu mizi ryabaye ku wa 11/01/2022, ababuranyi bahagarariwe nka mbere, bajya impaka ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba Mukuralinda Alain Bernard yari yarahawe na Sakina Hashim ububasha bwo kugurisha ikibanza kibaruye kuri UPI 5/07/09/02/984 n’icy’indishyi zisabwa na buri ruhande, urubanza rurapfundikirwa, ababuranyi bamenyeshwa ko ruzasomwa ku wa 18/02/2022. [14] Mu gihe ariko Urukiko rwari rwiherereye ngo ruce urubanza, rwasanze ari ngombwa guhamagaza bamwe mu baburanyi kugira ngo rubone amakuru ahagije ku bimenyetso biri muri dosiye bitavugwaho rumwe. Rushingiye ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 60 y’Itegeko no 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko Urukiko

## Page 239

205 KAMUGWIZA v HASHIM SAKINA

rushobora gutegeka ko ababuranyi barwitaba ubwabo, Urukiko rwemeje ko Sakina Hashim, Mukuralinda Alain Bernard na Famida Hashim barwitaba ubwabo. [15] Iburanisha ryongeye gupfundurwa ku wa 13/04/2022, Kamugwiza Phoebe ahagarariwe na Me Nizeyimana Boniface, Sakina Hashim yunganiwe na Me Nsabimana Jean-Baptiste, Mukuralinda Alain Bernard yunganiwe na Me Niyitegeka Eraste naho Famida Hashim yunganiwe na Me Nsabayezu Evariste. [16] Iburanisha rigitangira, Me NsabimanA Jean-Baptiste, uburanira Sakina Hashim, yasabye ko iburanisha rihagarara mu nyungu rusange z’ubutabera kugira ngo uru urubanza rutegereze urubanza No RPA 00360/2020/HC/KIG – RPA 00419/2020/HC/KIG ruri mu Rukiko Rukuru. Yavuze ko ibyo abishingira ku ihame rya le pénal tient le civil en état. Asobanura ko muri urwo rubanza rw’inshinjabyaha, Sakina Hashim aregwa icyaha cyo guhimba cyangwa guhindura amasezerano y’ubukode burambye ari muri dosiye iri muri uru Rukiko. Me Nsabayezu Evariste yashyigikiye ko uru rubanza ruhagarara ashingiye ku kuba imanza zasubirishijwemo ku mpamvu z’akarengane zitajuririrwa. [17] Me Nzeyimana Boniface we yavuze ko nta busobekerane buri hagati y’izo manza, ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga atari rwo rwategereza urubanza ruri mu Rukiko Rukuru, ndetse ko icyo kibazo cyazamuwe mu nkiko zabanje kigafatwaho icyemezo kitajuririwe cyangwa ngo gitangwe nk’impamvu y’akarengane, akaba asanga Sakina Hashim ashaka gusa gutinza urubanza. [18] Nyuma y’izo mpaka, Urukiko rwafatiye icyemezo mu ntebe, rusanga ubusabe bwa Me Nsabimana Jean-Baptiste bwaraje impitagihe kuko uru rubanza rwari rwarapfundikiwe,

## Page 240

206 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

rupfundurwa mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko kuko hari ibyo rwari rukeneye gusobanuza ababuranyi. Byongeye kandi, rwasanze icyaha Sakina Hashim akurakiranyweho n’Ubushinjacyaha mu rubanza No RPA 00360/2020/HC/KIG – RPA 00419/2020/HC/KIG ari icyo guhimba cyangwa guhindura inyandiko no kuyikoresha, naho muri uru rubanza ikibazo nyamukuru gisuzumwa akaba aricyo kumenya niba Sakina Hashim yarahaye ububasha Mukuralinda Alain Bernard bwo kugurisha ikibanza cye, rwanzura ko nta mpamvu yatuma iburanisha risubikwa, rutegeka ko urubanza rukomeza humvwa ababuranyi nk’uko byari biteganyijwe. [19] Muri uru rubanza harasuzumwa ingingo yo kumenya niba Mukuralinda Alain Bernard yari yarahawe na Sakina Hashim ububasha bwo kumugurishiriza umutungo utimukanwa ubaruye kuri N° UPI: 5/07/09/02/984 n’iyo kumenya ishingiro ry’indishyi zisabwa na buri ruhande. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO. II. 1. Kumenya niba Mukuralinda Alain Bernard yari afite ububasha bwo kugurisha ikibanza cya Sakina Hashim kibaruwe kuri Nº UPI: 5/07/09/02/984 nk’umuhagarariye. [20] Me Nizeyimana Boniface, uburanira Kamugwiza Phoebe, avuga ko akarengane gashingiye ku kuba harirengagijwe procuration yo ku wa 09/05/2014, Sakina Hashim yahaye Mukuralinda Alain Bernard, akayisinyira imbere ya Noteri mu buryo bukurikije amategeko kugira ngo imufashe kumugurishiriza umutungo uburanwa. Asobanura ko

## Page 241

207 KAMUGWIZA v HASHIM SAKINA

kwirengagiza icyo kimenyetso byatumye Urukiko rutesha agaciro amasezerano y’ubugure yo ku wa 21/03/2015, Kamugwiza Phoebe yakoranye na Mukuralinda Alain Bernard, n’icyangombwa cy’umutungo Kamugwiza Phoebe yahawe ku wa 13/07/2015, nyamara mu rwego rw’amategeko ntahagaragajwe inenge ayo masezerano y’ubugure afite kuko yakozwe n’abantu babifitiye ububasha. Naho ku bijyanye n’icyangombwa cy’umutungo, avuga ko Ikigo gishinzwe imicungire n’imikoreshereze y’ubutaka cyahamije mu ibaruwa yo ku wa 11/07/2018, cyanditse ku busabe bw’Urukiko Rukuru, n’iyo ku wa 29/11/2017 yandikiwe Me Nizeyimana Boniface, ko ubutaka bwanditswe kuri Kamugwiza Phoebe ku wa 12/07/2015 hashingiwe ku masezerano y’ubugure yo ku wa 30/06/2015 yakorewe imbere y’umubitsi w’impapurompamo, ahabwa icyangombwa ku wa 13/07/2015. [21] Avuga ko Ikigo gishinzwe imicungire n’imikoreshereze y’ubutaka cyasobanuye kandi ko icyangombwa cy’umutungo Sakina Hashim avuga ko yahawe ku wa 20/02/2015, ndetse n’ikindi cyo kuri iyo tariki uyu yitirira Kamugwiza Phoebe ntabyabayeho. Yongeraho ko ibivugwa na Sakina Hashim ko yari azi ko yasinye procuration imwe gusa ku wa 09/05/2014 ariko nyuma aza gusanga hari n’indi bamuteze ivuga ko yemereye Mukuralinda Alain Bernard kugurisha umutungo we atari ukuri, kuko kuri uwo munsi hasinywe procuration imwe gusa. Akomeza avuga ko ibimenyetso biri muri dosiye bigaragaza ko Kamugwiza Phoebe yaguze umutungo uburanwa ndetse akawubonera ibyangombwa mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, bityo bikaba bitarasabaga Urukiko rw’Ubujurire gucukumbura byihariye kugeza ubwo rushingiye icyemezo cyarwo ku ngingo ya 104 n’iya 108 z’Itegeko N° 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye

## Page 242

208 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo,1 ahubwo ko rwari gushingira ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 13 y’iryo Tegeko rukabona ko procuration yahawe Mukuralinda Alain Bernard ku wa 09/05/2014 yakorewe imbere ya Noteri, bityo hamwe n’icyangombwa cy’umutungo cyahawe Kamugwiza Phoebe ku wa 13/07/2015, bikaba ari inyandiko-mvaho zidashobora guteshwa agaciro zitabanje kwemezwa ko ari impimbano. [22] Sakina Hashim avuga ko Mukuralinda Alain Bernard ari nk’umuvandimwe kuko bakuranye. Asobanura ko kuva mu mwaka wa 2000 yatangiye kugira ikibazo cyo kutabona neza bitewe n’ingaruka za diabète, guhera mu mwaka wa 2001, akajya ashaka abamufasha iyo yabaga afite aho ashaka kujya, akaba ari muri urwo rwego muri 2009 yiyambaje Mukuralinda Alain Bernard kugira ngo ajye amugurira ibibanza kuko bari baziranye, amufitiye icyizere kuko yabonaga ari umuntu uzi ubwenge kandi w’umunyamategeko. Avuga ko atigeze amuha ububasha bwo kumugurishiriza imitungo ahubwo yamuhaye ubwo kumugurira. Akomeza avuga ko mu mwaka wa 2014, Mukuralinda Alain Bernard yaje kumutwara mu rugo, amubwira ko yifuza ko amuhindurira procuration kuko irangamuntu ye yanditse muri procuration ya mbere yatakaye, nawe yumva koko ari ngombwa. Asobanura ko yamusabye ko yashaka umuherekeza, Mukuralinda Alain Bernard amubwira ko atari ngombwa ko aza kumufasha, bageze kwa Noteri bamusomera procuration ya mbere, bamubwira ko iya kabiri isa n’iyo amaze gusomerwa,

1 Ingingo ya 104 iteganya ko “Ibimenyetso bicukumbuwe ni ingingo amategeko cyangwa urukiko bisesengura bishingiye ku kintu kizwi kugira ngo hagaragazwe ikitazwi” naho ingingo ya 108 igateganya ko “Ibimenyetso bicukumbuwe no gusesengura urubanza ni ibimenyetso bitacukumbuwe n’amategeko, bicukumburwa n’ubwenge n’ubushishozi bw’abacamanza. Abacamanza bagomba kwemera gusa ibyo bimenyetso iyo bikomeye, bisobanuye kandi bihuje.”

## Page 243

209 KAMUGWIZA v HASHIM SAKINA

nawe arabyizera kuko bari bamaze iminsi bakorana abona nta kibi yamukorera. [23] Me Nsabimana Jean-Baptiste, uburanira Sakina Hashim, avuga ko procuration yo ku wa 09/05/2014 ariyo yashyikirijwe Ikigo gishinzwe ubutaka nk’ikimenyetso kigaragaza ko Mukuralinda Alain Bernard yari afite ububasha bwo kugurisha ubwo butaka. Anavuga ko nyamara iyo procuration atari yo yashingiweho Mukuralinda Alain Bernard agura ubwo butaka na Nzamwita Alphonse ku wa 14/07/2009 cyangwa agura ubutaka bwa Umutesi Assia na Umuhoza Zamda ku wa 27/06/2009 ari nabwo bwaje guhurizwa hamwe bukabyara ikibanza kibaruye kuri UPI: 5/07/09/02/984, ko iyo icyo Kigo gishishoza cyari kubona ko iyo procuration itari gukoreshwa isubira inyuma. Avuga ko ikindi gituma procuration yo ku wa 09/05/2014 itafatwa nk’iyahaye Mukuralinda Alain Bernard ububasha bwo kugurisha ari uko ntaho bigaragara ko ariyo yashingiweho hakorwa amasezerano y’ubugure yo ku wa 21/03/2015, ko ntaho ivuga ko itanze ububasha bwo kugurisha ikibanza kibaruwe kuri UPI: 5/07/09/02/984, ndetse ko nta n’ikimenyetso Mukuralinda Alain Bernard agaragaza gihamya ko icyo kibanza kigurishwa byunguye Sakina Hashim, cyane cyane ko avuga ko cyagurishijwe ku busabe bwa Famida Hashim, ibintu bitumvikana. [24] Avuga na none ko gutesha agaciro amasezerano y’ubugure yakozwe ku wa 21/03/2015 nta karengane byateye Kamugwiza Phoebe ku mpamvu zikurikira: i. Hagurishije Mukuralinda Alain Bernard nyamara haragombaga kugurisha Sakina Hashim; ii. Hagurishijwe umutungo wagaragarijwe ubuso bwa 36.433 m2, nyamara haragombaga no kugaragazwa

## Page 244

210 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

UPI: 5/07/09/02/984, kutayigaragaza bikaba byaratewe n’uko Mukuralinda Alain Bernard agurisha nta cyangombwa yari afite; iii. Kamugwiza Phoebe yavuze ko yabanje gusura iyo sambu ndetse yishyura 45.000.000 Frw amasezerano y’ubugure akimara gusinywa, nyamara Mugwiza Aimable na Tambwe Obed babaye abatangabuhamya kuri ayo amasezerano y’ubugure bemeza ko amasezerano bayasinyiye mu biro bya Kamugwiza Phoebe, ko batigeze bajya gusura iyo sambu, kandi ko nta mafaranga y’ikiguzi yigeze ahererekanywa hagati y’impande zombi. iv. Mukuralinda Alain Bernard yavuze ko, mu izina rya Sakina Hashim, ahaye Kamugwiza Phoebe ibyangombwa by’umutungo uguzwe nyamara igihe ubwo ubugure bwakorwaga ku wa 21/03/2015, Kamugwiza Phoebe yari afite icyangombwa cy’uwo mutungo yari yarahawe ku wa 20/02/2015. [25] Me Nsabimana Jean-Baptiste akomeza avuga ko urwandiko rw’umubitsi w’impapuro mpamo rwo ku wa 29/11/2017 rugaragaza ko ubutaka buburanwa bwabanje kwandikwa kuri Mukuralinda Alain Bernard na Gatabazi Martine, byumvikanisha ko Mukuralinda Alain Bernard yari yarabwambuye Sakina Hashim akabugira ubw’umuryango we. Avuga ko aya makuru atagaragara mu ibaruwa yanditswe n’Ikigo gishinzwe ubutaka ku wa 11/07/2018, ndetse ko iyi baruwa itavugisha ukuri ku ngingo nyinshi harimo n’izikurikira: i. Kuba ivuga ko Mukuralinda Alain Bernard yashyikirije Ikigo gishinzwe ubutaka ibyangombwa by’umwimerere byanditse kuri Sakina Hashim nyamara ibyo byangombwa ari Sakina Hashim

## Page 245

211 KAMUGWIZA v HASHIM SAKINA

wabyitangiye ubwo yari agiye gukorerwa icyangombwa gishya ku wa 16/04/2019;

ii. Kuba ku wa 24/06/2015 aribwo Mukuralinda Alain Bernard yandikiye Akarere ka Bugesera asaba ko ubutaka buburanwa bwandikwa kuri Kamugwiza Phoebe, dosiye ibisaba ikakirwa mu biro by’umubitsi w’impapurompamo ku wa 30/06/2015, igasuzumwa, icyangombwa kigakorwa ndetse kigahabwa nimero Folio 160/VOL IV, ariko Ikigo gishinzwe ubutaka kikaba kivuga ko ubusabe bwa Mukuralinda Alain Bernard bwabaye ku wa 08/07/2015; iii. Kuba itagaragaza amakuru ari muri raporo y’umunyamategeko w’Ikigo gishinzwe ubutaka yo ku wa 10/04/2018, ihamya ko kugeza kuri iyo tariki hari transactions esheshatu zari zimaze gukorwa ku butaka buburanwa harimo enye zatumye hasohoka ibyangombwa by’ubutaka, ko icyangombwa cyasohotse ku wa 13/07/2015 cyahagitswe hagati y’icyasohotse ku wa 18/02/2015 n’icyasohotse ku wa 20/02/2015, ko aya makuru ashimangirwa na raporo y’Ubugenzacyaha yo ku wa 29/03/2019 igaragaza ko Mukuralinda Alain Bernard nta bubasha yari yarahawe bwo kugurisha ubutaka bwa Sakina Hashim. [26] Me Nsabimana Jean-Baptiste avuga ko kuva urubanza rwatangira mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo kugeza ruciwe ku wa 29/06/2017, Kamugwiza Phoebe nta kindi cyangombwa cy’ubutaka yaburanishaga uretse icyo ku wa 20/02/2015, bivuze ko icyo ku wa 13/07/2015 yagishatse nyuma. Avuga ko ikindi yibaza ari ukuntu mu Rukiko Rukuru, mu iburanisha ryabaye ku

## Page 246

212 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

wa 23/04/2018, Mukuralinda Alain Bernard yavuze ko yagurishije ubutaka buburanwa abisabwe na Famida Hashim, nyamara procuration yari yarayihawe na Sakina Hashim. Yibaza icyari gutuma Famida Hashim amuha izo nshingano kandi uyu yarareze Mukuralinda Alain Bernard n’umugore we kumwambura 10.000.000 Frw yabagurije ku wa 15/10/2013 nk’uko byemejwe n’urubanza N° RCA 00056/2019/TGI/NYGE rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge ku wa 27/09/2019. [27] Me NsabimanA Jean-Baptiste asoza avuga ko nta makosa Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwakoze rucukumbura ibimenyetso rwashyikirijwe kubera ko hari urujijo muri procurations Mukuralinda Alain Bernard yaburanishaga, ndetse n’amakuru yerekeye ibyangombwa by’umutungo Kamugwiza Phoebe yishingikirizagaho akaba adafututse, naho kuba ibyangombwa by’umutungo byari bifitwe na Kamugwiza Phoebe byarateshejwe agaciro bikaba byaratewe n’uko Urukiko rwasanze yari yariyandikishijeho umutungo uburanwa atabikwiye, kubitesha agaciro bikaba bihura n’umurongo watanzwe n’uru Rukiko mu rubanza Harerimana Emmanuel yaburanaga na Sebukayire Tharcisse. [28] Famida Hashim nawe avuga ko Mukuralinda Alain Bernard ari nk’umuntu wo mu muryango, baziranye kuva bakiri bato. Avuga ko mu mikoranire yabo yagiye kumwereka imitungo ya Sakina Hashim muri Banki ya Kigali. Asobanura ko ubusanzwe ari we usinyira Sakina Hashim inyandiko zisohora amafaranga kubera ko atabona, ko ari muri urwo rwego yaherekeje Sakina Hashim bajya gusinya procuration ya mbere, ariko bigeze ku ya kabiri, Mukuralinda Alain Bernard yihererana Sakina Hashim, amujyana wenyine. Avuga ko atigeze asaba

## Page 247

213 KAMUGWIZA v HASHIM SAKINA

Mukuralinda Alain Bernard kugurisha ikibanza cya Sakina Hashim kugira ngo hishyurwe ihazabu ingana na 7.300.000 Frw yaciwe n’Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro nk’uko abivuga, ko ahubwo ubwo icyo kibanza cyagurishwaga atari akivugana na Mukuralinda Alain Bernard kuko yari yaramwambuye. Avuga ko uburiganya bwa Mukuralinda Alain Bernard bugaragazwa n’uko ikibanza yakigurishije nyirabukwe, amasezerano asinywaho n’umushoferi we na muramu we, akibaza impamvu atashyizwe kuri procuration ya kabiri cyangwa mu masezerano y’ubugure kandi yitirirwa kuba ari we watanze uburenganzira bwo kugurisha ikibanza cy’umuvandimwe we. [29] Me Nsabayezu Evariste, uburanira Famida Hashim, avuga ko bitumvikana uburyo Mukuralinda Alain Bernard yaba yaragurishije ikibanza kugira ngo hishyurwe ihazabu Famida Hashim yari yaciwe ngo namara kugurisha ntahite amuha amafaranga yavuye muri ubwo bugure, ko kuba Mukuralinda Alain Bernard avuga ko yamuhaye ayo mafaranga urusorongo ahubwo byumvikanisha ko nta bwihutirwe bwari buhari. Asobanura ko kugeza ubu nta kimenyetso Mukuralinda Alain Bernard agaragaza cyerekana ko yari yemerewe kugurisha ikibanza kiburanwa. [30] Me Nsabayezu Evariste asobanura ko procurations ebyiri Mukuralinda Alain Bernard aburanisha zigaragaza uburiganya kuko iyo ku wa 09/05/2014 yagombaga gusimbura iyo ku wa 15/01/2009, ariko ko atari uko byagenze, ndetse ko na procuration ya gatatu ahakana, iri muri dosiye kuva urubanza rwatangira ariko ntiyigeze ayiregera ko ari inyandiko mpimbano. Avuga ko bitumvikana uburyo Kamugwiza Phoebe yakorewe ihererekanyamutungo kandi ibyangombwa by’umwimerere bikibitswe na Sakina Hashim, bisobanuye ko kugeza ubu

## Page 248

214 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Kamugwiza Phoebe atabasha kugaragaza inkomoko y’umutungo aburana, ariyo mpamvu hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 104 n’iya 108 z’Itegeko ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 34 y’Iteka rya Minisitiri No 002/2008 ryo ku wa 01/04/2008 rigena uburyo iyandikisha ry’ubutaka rikorwa ndetse n’umurongo watanzwe n’uru Rukiko mu rubanza Harerimana Emmanuel yaburanaga na Sebukayire Tharcisse, nta karengane kabaye mu rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire, asaba uru Rukiko kwemeza ko ikirego cya Kamugwiza Phoebe nta shingiro gifite. [31] Mukuralinda Alain Bernard avuga ko aziranye na Sakina Hashim kuva kera kuko bari baturanye, ababyeyi babo bacururiza hamwe. Asobanura ko Sakina Hashim yabanje kumuha procuration yo ku wa 15/01/2009 yaguriyeho ibibanza bitanu, ariko amafaranga akayahabwa na Famida Hashim ntaho bandikiranye kuko bakoreraga ku cyizere. Avuga ko bigeze mu mwaka wa 2014, Famida Hashim yamubwiye ko Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyamuciye ihazabu, bityo kugira ngo aryishyure agomba kugurisha ikibanza kiri mu Bugesera, bituma ategura procuration yo ku wa 09/05/2014, Sakina Hashim yasinyiye imbere ya Noteri amaze kuyimusomera, ko rero nta procurations ebyiri zabayeho umunsi umwe. Ku kibazo cyo kumenya impamvu atashyize muri procuration umwirondoro w’umutungo ugurishwa kandi yari awuzi, avuga ko icyo yacyibagiwe, ariko ko bari babiziranyeho, kandi ko nta handi yakoresheje iyo procuration uretse ku mutungo ubaruye kuri UPI: 5/07/09/02/984. [32] Ahakana ibivugwa na Sakina Hashim by’uko yagize ibibazo byo kutabona neza kuva mwaka wa 2001, kuko bajyanye kwa Noteri muri 2009 nta kibazo afite, ndetse ko n ‘impamvu

## Page 249

215 KAMUGWIZA v HASHIM SAKINA

hakozwe procuration ya kabiri yo ku wa 09/05/2014 atari uko yamubwiye ko irangamuntu ye yatakaye, ko n ‘ubwo nimero ze z’irangamuntu zitandukanye kuri procurations yo mu mwaka wa 2009 n’iyo mu mwaka wa 2014, ataricyo cyatumye procuration ya kabiri ikorwa kuko mu mwaka 2014 atari akigurira Sakina Hashim imitungo. Avuga na none ko kuba ikibanza kiburanwa cyarigeze kumwandikwaho we n’umugore atari uko bari bagamije kugihuguza, ahubwo ko habayeho kwibeshya biturutse ku kuba ari we wari warakiguze, ariko ko byahise bikosorwa cyandikwa kuri Sakina Hashim. [33] Akomeza avuga ko impamvu hari kugurishwa umutungo wa Sakina Hashim kugira ngo hishyurwe ihazabu yaciwe Famida Hashim, ari uko uyu yari yaramubwiye ko asangiye umutungo na Sakina Hashim, n’ikimenyemenyi bakaba bari basangiye konti muri Banki ya Kigali. Avuga ko icyatumye yizera Famida Hashim ari uko ari we wasohoraga amafaranga y’ibyakorwaga buri munsi, ko rero atari kumubwira ko bashaka kugurisha ikibanza cyo mu Bugesera, akanamuzanira irangamuntu ya Sakina Hashim n’icyangombwa cy’umwimerere ngo abyange kuko yibwiraga ko icyo kibanza nacyo bagifatanyije. Asobanura ko ikibanza yakigurishije Kamugwiza Phoebe kuri 45.000.000 Frw akacyishyura mu mafaranga yari amufitiye, kandi ko amafaranga atayahaye Sakina Hashim, ko ahubwo yafashwe na Famida Hashim urusorongo kugeza ashize. [34] Me Niyitegeka Eraste, uburanira MukuralindA Alain Bernard, avuga ko Sakina Hashim na Famida Hashim bakoreraga hamwe, ari nacyo cyatumye Famida Hashim aha Mukuralinda Alain Bernard ibyagombwa bya Sakina Hashim kugira ngo akore procuration ya kabiri. Asobanura ko Sakina Hashim atagaragaza igikorwa Mukuralinda Alain Bernard yakoze kirenze ububasha

## Page 250

216 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

yahawe, kuko yabanje kumuha procuration yo ku wa 15/01/2009, igihe cyayo kirangiye, amuha indi, isinyirwa imbere ya Noteri ku wa 09/05/2014, iyi ikaba yarongereye Mukuralinda Alain Bernard ububasha ndetse aba ari nayo ashingiraho akorana na Kamugwiza Phoebe amasezerano y’ubugure yo ku wa 21/03/2015. Avuga kandi ko Ikigo gishinzwe ubutaka mu Rwanda cyemeje ko nta cyagombwa cyatanze ku wa 20/02/2015, ko icyangombwa kizi ari icyahawe Kamugwiza Phoebe ku wa 13/07/2017, bivuze ko ibyangombwa Sakina Hashim aburanisha ari ibihimbano. Avuga ko bemeranya na Kamugwiza Phoebe ko ibimenyetso bigaragaza ko yaguze kandi akegukana umutungo uburanwa mu buryo bukurikije amategeko nta rujijo biteye ku buryo byari gutuma Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rushingira icyemezo cyarwo ku bimenyetso bicukumbuye, ari naho akarengane gashingiye. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [35] Ingingo ya 9, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko iyo Urukiko rusanze nta tegeko rijyanye n’ikiburanwa rihari, rushobora gushingira ku mategeko rusanga rwashyiraho mu gihe rwaba rushinzwe kuyashyiraho rwifashishije ibyemezo byagiye bifatwa n’inkiko, umuco, amahame rusange agenga amategeko n’inyandiko z’abahanga mu mategeko. [36] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza ko procuration yo ku wa 09/05/2014, Mukuralinda Alain Bernard avuga ko yashingiyeho agurisha ikibanza cya Sakina Hashim kibaruwe kuri Nº UPI: 5/07/09/02/984 nk’umuhagarariye igira iti: “Bwana Mukuralinda

## Page 251

217 KAMUGWIZA v HASHIM SAKINA

Alain Bernard afite ububasha bwose busesuye bwo gukora mw‘izina ryanjye ibikorwa byose byo kwagura no kwongera uwo mutungo agura ibiwongera cyangwa agurisha ibiwugize igihe cyose abona ari ngombwa ariko buri gihe, akabikora agamije igituma umutungo wunguka, kandi yubahiriza ibyo amategeko y‘u Rwanda ateganya. Ibyo yongeye ku mutungo wanjye byose abinyandikishaho.” [37] Iyo procuration ababuranyi ntibayemeranywaho kuko Mukuralinda Alain Bernard avuga ko Sakina Hashim yayimuhaye mu buryo bukurikije amategeko kandi ko yamuhaga ububasha bwo kugurisha ikibanza kiburanwa, naho Sakina Hashim akavuga ko Mukuralinda Alain Bernard yayimusinyishije mu buriganya, ayisinya atazi ko bamuteze ijambo ˝ kugurishaʺ, bityo ko n’ubugure bushingiye kuri iyo procuration nta gaciro bufite. Icyakora, mbere yo gusuzuma niba uburiganya buvugwa na Sakina Hashim bwarabayeho cyangwa butarabayeho, ni ngombwa gusuzuma niba imiterere ya procuration yahawe Mukuralinda Alain Bernard ituma afatwa nk’wahawe ububasha bwo kugurisha ikibanza cya Sakina Hashim. [38] Itegeko ryo ku wa 30 Nyakanga 1888 rishyiraho Igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano ryariho iyo procuration ikorwa ryateganyaga, mu ngingo yaryo ya 530, igika cya mbere, ko “ubutumwa butanzwe mu buryo rusange burebana gusa n'ibikorwa byo gucunga umutungo/ Le mandat conçu en termes généraux n'embrasse que les actes d'administration”, mu gika cya kabiri igateganyaga ko “Iyo ari ibikorwa byerekeye guhara cyangwa gutanga ingwate ku bitimukanwa, cyangwa ikindi cyemerewe nyir’ibintu gusa, amasezerano y'ubutumwa agomba kubigaragaza ku buryo

## Page 252

218 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bweruye/. S'il s'agit d'aliéner ou hypothéquer ou de quelque autre acte de propriété, le mandat doit être exprès”. [39] Urukiko rurasanga igika cya kabiri cy’ingingo ya 530 y’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko cyakoreshwaga Sakina Hashim aha Mukuralinda Alain Bernard ubutumwa bwo ku wa 09/05/2014, cyumvikanisha ko iyo ubutumwa bureba ibikorwa byerekeye guhara ikintu (aliénation) cyangwa gutanga ingwate ku bintu bitimukanwa cyangwa ikindi gikorwa cyemerewe nyiri umutungo gusa, amasezerano y’ubutumwa agomba kubigaragaza ku buryo bweruye (exprès). Ubutumwa bweruye, bwaba butanzwe mu magambo cyangwa mu nyandiko ni ubuha uwatumwe ububasha mu buryo busobanutse neza (clearly), burambuye (detailed) ndetse budateye urujijo (without confusion).2 [40] Urukiko rurasanga abahanga Philippe Malaurie na bagenzi be bavuga ko ubutumwa bweruye ari ubugaragaza ibikorwa byasobanuwe cyangwa ubureba umutungo runaka wagaragajwe. Basobanura ko akamaro ko gutanga ubutumwa bweruye ari ukurengera uwabutanze kugira ngo butamugiraho ingaruka mbi, ko iyo ubutumwa ari rusange buba bugamije gucunga gusa. Bavuga ko umuntu wahawe ubutumwa rusange aba ameze nk’uwashinzwe kurengera inyungu z’umwana utarageza imyaka y’ubukure cyangwa umuntu mukuru udafite ubushobozi bwo kwifatira ibyemezo. Bavuga kandi ko ibikorwa byose bikomeye nko kwivanaho umutungo burundu cyangwa

2 Authority given to the agent by explicit agreement, either orally or in writing. B.A. Garner, Black’s law dictionary, ST. PAUL, MINN., WEST PUBLISHING CO., 2019, 11th ed., p.128.

## Page 253

219 KAMUGWIZA v HASHIM SAKINA

kuwushyira mu bugwate bisaba ubutumwa bweruye.3 Naho François Collart Dutilleul na Philippe Delebecque bavuga ko iyo ibikorwa bisabwa uwahawe ubutumwa ari ibyo kwivanaho umutungo, kuwutangaho ingwate cyangwa kuwukodesha igihe kirekire, uwahawe ubutumwa agomba kwerekana ko yahawe ubutumwa bweruye.4 [41] Urukiko rurasanga ibimaze kuvugwa haruguru byongera gushimangirwa na Jacques Raynard na Jean-Baptiste Seube nabo bavuga ko akamaro k’ubutumwa kagaragarira mu gikorwa kirebwa n’ubwo butumwa mu rwego rw’amategeko, icyo gikorwa kikaba kigomba kuba kigaragara cyangwa gishobora kugaragazwa, bityo ko ubutumwa bwo kugurisha ikintu kitagaragajwe cyangwa kidashobora kugaragazwa hashingiwe kuri ubwo butumwa ari imfabusa kubera ko nyine amasezerano y’ubutumwa aba atagaragaza ikigomba gukorwa.5

3 “Le pouvoir peut être spécial, c’est-à-dire n’avoir pour objet que des actes limitativement énumérés, par exemple un acte déterminé ou un bien déterminé… Lorsque le mandat est conçu en termes généraux, le Code civil précise qu’il n’embrasse que les actes d’administration… sous couvert d’interprétation, la loi impose une règle de fond, non parce que la volonté du mandant serait obscure mais afin de le protéger contre lui-même. Le mandataire a alors les mêmes pouvoirs que ceux que la loi donne au tuteur d’un majeur protégé et à l’administrateur légal d’un mineur, c’est-à-dire qu’il a le pouvoir de faire les actes normaux et courants. Les actes les plus graves (aliénation définitive et hypothèque) impliquent un mandat exprès.” Reba Philippe Malaurie, Laurent Aynès na Pierre Yves Gautier, Droit des contrats spéciaux, Paris, L.G.D.J., 2018, pp.345-346. 4 “Si les actes qu’on lui demande de faire sont des actes de disposition (aliénation, constitution d’hypothèque, bail de longue durée, il doit justifier d’un mandat exprès.” Reba Francois Collart Dutilleul et Philippe Delebecque, Contrats civils et commerciaux, Paris, Dalloz, 2019, p.548. 5 “L’objet du mandat résidant dans l’acte juridique à accomplir, cet acte doit être suffisamment déterminé ou déterminable. Ainsi le mandat de vendre un bien non précisé et impossible à identifier serait certainement nul en raison de

## Page 254

220 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

By’umwihariko bavuga ko ubutumwa bwo kugurisha umutungo utimukanwa budashobora kwitirirwa inyandiko itavuga mu buryo bweruye uwo mutungo uwo ariwo.6 [42] Urukiko rurasanga ibimaze gusobanurwa haruguru byumvikanisha ko umuntu wahawe ubutumwa rusange afite gusa ububasha bwo gukora ibikorwa bisanzwe byo gucunga umutungo no kuwungura, naho igikorwa gikomeye nk’icyo kugurisha, kivugwa muri uru rubanza, gisaba ubutumwa bweruye bugaragariza uwabuhawe nibura umwirondoro w’umutungo ugomba kugurishwa. Bitabaye ibyo, uwatanze ubutumwa yakwisanga ayoborwa n’ubushake bw’uwabuhawe cyangwa uwatanze ubutumwa akaba yafatwa nk’utakiriho. Niyo mpamvu procuration yanditswe mu buryo bwa rusange ikwiye gufatwa nk’iyari igamije gucunga umutungo mu rwego rwo kurengera uwayitanze kuko bitashoboka ko umuntu ukiriho, ufite ubushobozi n’ububasha atanga uburenganzira bw’uko imitungo yose afite n’iyo azagira igurishwa n’undi. Ibi byumvikanisha ko ubutumwa bwo kwivanaho umutungo mu buryo ubwo aribwo bwose bugomba kuba butari rusange, bugomba kugaragaza uwo mutungo mu buryo bugaragara kandi budateye urujijo. [43] Uru Rukiko rwemeranya kandi n’umurongo watanzwe n’Urukiko Rusesa Imanza rwo mu Bufaransa7 ndetse n’Urukiko

l’indétermination de son objet.” Reba Jacques Raynard et Jean-Baptiste Seube, Droit des contrats spéciaux, Lexis-Nexis, Paris, 2019, p.397. 6 “le mandat d’aliéner un immeuble ne peut se voir déduit d’une correspondance qui ne le mentionne pas de manière nette et précise.” Reba Jacques Raynard et Jean-Baptiste Seube, Droit des contrats spéciaux, Lexis- Nexis, Paris, 2019, p.398. 7 Reba imanza Cass. Civ. 1ère, 21 décembre 1976, Bull.Civ. I, N° 421

## Page 255

221 KAMUGWIZA v HASHIM SAKINA

rw’Ikirenga rw’Ubuhindi8 w’uko isesengura ry’ubutumwa ritagomba gukorwa ku buryo bugenekereje, ahubwo ko amagambo agize ubutumwa agomba gufatwa uko ari, bityo kugira ngo habeho igurisha, intumwa ikaba isabwa guhabwa ubutumwa bweruye bwo gukora amasezerano y’ubugure, harimo no gushyikiriza inyandiko ndetse no kwemererwa ishyirwa mu bikorwa ry’izo nyandiko imbere y’inzego zibifitiye ububasha, ariko ko ububasha bwo gucunga butavuze ubwo guciririkanya, ubwo guciririkanya butavuze ubwo kugurisha, n’ubwo kugurisha butavuze ubwo kwakira igiciro. [44] Urukiko rurasanga procuration yo ku wa 09/05/2014, Mukuralinda Alain Bernard yashingiyeho agurisha ikibanza cya Sakina Hashim ifite inenge y’ibanze yo kutagaragaza umwirondoro w’ikibanza cyagombaga kugurishwa, yaba nimero yacyo, aho giherereye cyangwa ubuso bwacyo. Ariko na none ntigaragaza igiciro fatizo cyari guherwaho iyo sambu Mukuralinda Alain Bernard avuga ko yari aziranyeho na Sakina Hashim igurishwa, uburyo igiciro kizatangwa n’uzakira amafarangacyangwa uburyo ibyaguzwe bizashyikirizwa umuguzi.

8 … “It is settled that a power of attorney has to be strictly construed. In order to agree to sell or effect a sale by a power of attorney, the power should also expressly authorize the power to agent to execute the sale agreement/sale deed i.e., (a) to present the document before the Registrar; and (b) to admit execution of the document before the Registrar. Reba urubanza rwa The Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society v. M/s Ponniamman Educational Trust, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rw’Ubuhinde, ku wa 03/07/2012, para 14. Reba urubanza rwa Mrs. Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese Rep By Its Procurator Devssia’s Son Rev. Father Joseph Kappil, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rw’Ubuhinde, ku wa 01/04/2022, para 09, 17-18.

## Page 256

222 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[45] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro byatanzwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga procuration yo ku wa 09/05/2014 itarashoboraga gushingirwaho hagurishwa umutungo uwo ariwo wose wa Sakina Hashim kuko yari ikozwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, bityo Mukuralinda Alain Bernard akaba nta bubasha yari afite bwo kugurisha ikibanza cya Sakina Hashim kibaruye kuri UPI 5/07/09/02/984 kuko inyandiko avuga ko yashingiyeho akigurisha itari yubahirije ibiteganywa n’amategeko. [46] Kubera iyo mpamvu, Urukiko rurasanga ibyakozwe byose hashingiwe kuri iyo procuration, harimo n’amasezerano y’ubugure bw’ikibanza yakozwe hagati ya Mukuralinda Alain Bernard na Kamugwiza Phoebe ku wa 21/03/2015 ndetse n’icyangombwa cy’umutungo cyahawe Kamugwiza Phoebe ku wa 13/07/2015, nta gaciro bifite, bityo bikaba bitakiri na ngombwa gusuzuma izindi ngingo zijyanye n’ubugure bw’ikibanza cya Sakina Hashim. II.2. Kumenya ishingiro ry’indishyi zisabwa muri uru rubanza. [47] Me Nizeyimana Boniface avuga ko kuba Kamugwiza Phoebe aburanira, yaravukijwe uburenganzira ku mutungo we ku maherere kandi yarawuguze mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, Urukiko rw'Ikirenga rugomba gutegeka Sakina Hashim kumusubiza 1.500.000 Frw yishyuye arangiza imanza No RCA 00265/2017/HC/KIG na No RCAA 00001/2019/CA, kumwishyura 10.000.000 Frw y’indishyi zo kumushora mu manza nta mpamvu no kumuha 5.000.000 Frw akubiyemo amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka. [48] Mukuralinda Alain Bernard asaba ko Urukiko rwategeka Sakina Hashim kumwishyura 3.000.000 Frw y’indishyi

## Page 257

223 KAMUGWIZA v HASHIM SAKINA

z’akababaro na 2.000.000 Frw akubiyemo ay’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka. [49] Me Nsabimana Jean-Baptiste uhagarariye Sakina Hashim avuga ko indishyi zisabwa na Kamugwiza Phoebe ndetse na Mukuralinda Alain Bernard nta shingiro zifite, kuko bigaragara ko Kamugwiza Phoebe ariwe wishoye mu manza ashutswe n’umukwe we Mukuralinda Alain Bernard wamufashije kubona ibyangombwa by’ubutaka ataguze. Asaba ko Kamugwiza Phoebe yategekwa guha Sakina Hashim 20.000.000 Frw y’indishyi z’akababaro kubera kumushora mu manza z’amaherere kugeza n’ubwo ashatse kumufungisha na 1.500.000 Frw akubiyemo ay’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka. [50] Me Nsabayezu Evariste avuga ko kuba Kamugwiza Phoebe akomeje gushora Famida Hashim aburanira mu manza z’amaherere, asaba Urukiko gutegeka Kamugwiza Phoebe kumwishyura 3.000.000 Frw y’indishyi z’akababaro, 2.000.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 500.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza. [51] Ku bijyanye n’indishyi zisabwa na Sakina Hashim, uburanira Kamugwiza Phoebe avuga ko nta shingiro zifite kubera ko Sakina Hashim yatanze ikirego kandi azi ko umutungo yawugurishije mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, bityo akaba agomba kwirengera ibyakozwe mu rubanza yashoje nta mpamvu. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [52] Ingingo ya 111 y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi,

## Page 258

224 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

iteganya ko “ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza ni ikirego gishamikira ku kirego cy’iremezo kigamije kwishyuza ibyakoreshejwe mu rubanza. Ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza kiburanishirizwa rimwe n’ikirego cy’iremezo. Gishobora kandi kwakirwa kikanaburanishwa n’iyo ikirego cy’iremezo cyaba kitakiriwe.” [53] Urukiko rurasanga indishyi zisabwa na Kamugwiza Phoebe n’izisabwa na Mukuralinda Alain Bernard batazihabwa kuko ntacyo batsindiye muri uru rubanza. [54] Urukiko rurasanga kandi indishyi z’akababaro zisabwa na Sakina Hashim ndetse n’izisabwa na Famida Hashim, badakwiye kuzihabwa kuko mu gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane, Kamugwiza Phoebe yarimo ashyira mu bikorwa uburenganzira yemererwa n’amategeko, ibyo akaba ataribyo byatera abaregwa akababaro ku buryo babisabira indishyi. [55] Ku birebana n’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza ndetse n’igihembo cya Avoka basaba, Urukiko rurasanga, hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 111 y’Itegeko no 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 yibukijwe haruguru, bakwiye kuyahabwa kuko bashowe mu manza bituma biyambaza ababunganira mu mategeko, icyakora bakaba bagomba kuyagenerwa mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko kuko ayo bagaragaje baterekana uburyo yabazwemo ngo banabitangire ibimenyetso bihamya ko ariyo yagiye kuri uru rubanza. Kubera iyo mpamvu, mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko, Sakina Hashim na Famida Hashim bakaba bagenewe 800.000Frw buri wese, akubiyemo 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 300.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza, agomba gutangwa na Kamugwiza Phoebe.

## Page 259

225 KAMUGWIZA v HASHIM SAKINA

III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [56] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Kamugwiza Phoebe cyo gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z'akarengane urubanza No RCAA 00001/2019/CA rwaciwe n'Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 06/05/2020, nta shingiro gifite; [57] Rutegetse Kamugwiza Phoebe kwishyura Sakina Hashim na Famida Hashim amafaranga ibihumbi magana inani (800.000 Frw) buri wese, akubiyemo ay’igihembo cya Avoka n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza.

## Page 261

IMANZA Z’UBUCURUZI

## Page 263

229

EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc v DUSABE SANGANO [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’UBUJURIRE – RCOMAA 00057/2022/CA (Kamere, PJ.) 09 Nzeri 2022] Amategeko agenga imanza z’ubucuruzi – Amasezerano y’inguzanyo – Abakozi bakorera amabanki – Kwirukanwa mu buryo budakurikije amategeko – Igipimo inyungu zibarirwaho ku wirukanywe – Iyo banki yirukanye umukozi mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko afite inguzayo yahawe ku gipimo kigenewe abakozi nicyo akomeza kuyishyuraho. Amategeko agenga imanza z’ubucuruzi – Amafaranga yakaswe na banki bidakwiye – Inyungu yabyaye – Amahame ashingirwaho mu kubara inyungu – Igipimo inyungu zibarirwaho – Gusubizanya amafaranga n’inyungu zayo – Iyo banki yakase amafaranga umuntu mu buryo budakwiye kuko iba yarayacuruje nka banki y’ubucuruzi, iba igomba kuyasubizanya n’inyungu zayo zibariwe ku gipimo yagaragarijeho ko ari cyo yacuruzagaho amafaranga muri icyo gihe yayakataga. Incamake y’ikibazo: Equity Bank yashizeho uburyo bworohereza abakozi bayo kubona inguzanyo ku gipimo cy’inyungu (8%) gitoya kiri munsi y’igipimo 18.25% iyo banki atangiraho inguzanyo ku bakiliya basanzwe, bityo Sangano nk’ umukozi w’iyo Banki nawe yafashe inguzanyo ibariwe kuri iyo nyungu. Nyuma iyo banki yahinduye igipimo cy’inyungu ku nguzanyo zihabwa abakozi bayo kiva ku 8% kijya kuri 6%, bituma n’inguzanyo yari yarahaye Sangano ishyirwa kuri icyo gipimo ku mwaka.

## Page 264

230 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Nyuma Sangano yarirukanye ku kazi ahita atangira kubarirwa inyungu ku nguzanyo yari asigayemo ku gipimo cy’inyungu cya 18.25% iyo banki itangiraho inguzanyo ku bakiliya basanzwe. Kuko atariyishimiye icyemezo cyo kwirukanwa mu kazi n’icyo guhita azamurirwa igipimo cy’inyungu ku nguzanyo yatanze ibirego bibiri, ikirego kirebana n’iby’inguzanyo mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi asaba ko Equity Bank yagaragaza imbonerahamwe y’uko umwenda uhagaze ndetse no kumumanurira ijanisha ry’inyungu kuri uwo mwenda rigasubira kuri 6%, kuyitegeka kumusubiza ikinyuranyo cy'amafaranga yose yishyuye ku gipimo cy’inyungu cya 18.25% hiyongereyeho inyungu zayo urwo rukiko rwemeza ko ikirego cye kidafite ishingiro, ajuririra Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwo rwemeza ko inguzanyo yagombaga kuguma kuri 6%. , ikindi kirego cy’umurimo agitanga mu rundi rukiko rubifitiye ububasha avuga ko yirukanywe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko, aho urwo Rukiko rwemeje ko y’irukanywe muburyo bunyuranije n’amategeko, EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ivuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwasobanuye nabi amasezerano y’inguzanyo yahawe urega kuko rwavuze ko igikorwa kizaba gitewe na Sangano gituma ava ku kazi ari cyo kizafatwa nk’imbarutso yo guhindura igipimo cy’inyungu, ko kuba Equity Bank Rwanda Plc yaramwirukanye mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, inyungu zigomba gukomeza kubarirwa kuri 6% kandi mu masezerano y’inguzanyo impande zombi zagiranye hadateganyijwe uburyo umukozi azatandukana n’umukoresha kugira ngo igipimo cy’inyungu gihinduke, ko ahubwo mu gihe uko gutandukana gutewe n’impamvu iyo ari yo yose ari byo bizatuma igipimo cy’inyungu gihinduka.

## Page 265

231 EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc v DUSABE SANGANO

Uregwa yiregura avuga ko avuga ko ikibazo kiri mu rubanza ari icyo kumva neza context ayo masezerano y’inguzanyo yakozwemo, ko yakoraga mu yindi banki , uwajuriye aramureshya kubera ko ari umukozi mwiza yari akeneye nyuma aramwirukana, kandi ko mu gihe atagaragaza ko yamukoreye nabi biba bigaragaza ko yamwirukanye mu buryo budakurikije amategeko, ko ku rwego rwa mbere mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi yatsinzwe n’uko nta kimenyetso yari afite kigaragaza ko yirukanwe arenganyijwe kuko urubanza rw’umurimo rwari rutararangira, ariko ko urubanza rwageze mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ikimenyetso cy’urubanza rw’umurimo cyaramaze kuboneka kikagaragaza ko yirukanywe arenganyijwe. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Iyo banki yirukanye umukozi mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko afite inguzayo yahawe ku gipimo kigenewe abakozi nicyo akomeza kuyishyuraho, bityo kuba uregwa yarirukanywe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko nk’uko byemejwe n’urubanza rw’umurimo, inyungu zigomba gukomeza kubarirwa kuri 6%. 2. Iyo banki yakase amafaranga umuntu mu buryo budakwiye kuko iba yarayacuruje nka banki y’ubucuruzi, iba igomba kuyasubizanya n’inyungu zayo zibariwe ku gipimo yagaragarijeho ko ari cyo yacuruzagaho amafaranga muri icyo gihe yayakataga hatagendewe ku kuba uwo yayakase atari umucuruzi, bityo kuba uregwa yakatagwa amafaranga abariwe ku gipimo cy’inyungu cya 18.25%, mu gihe cy’amezi 22 mu buryo butari bwo kandi iyo Banki ikaba itarayabitse ahubwo yarayacuruje nka banki y’ubucuruzi, ikaba igomba kuyasubizanya n’inyungu zayo zibariwe na zo kuri 18.25% yayacururizagaho.

## Page 266

232 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

3.Ku kibazo kitarakemurwa n’amategeko y’u Rwanda Urukiko rwifashisha imvugo z ‘abahanga n’iz’amategeko y’amahanga 4. Iyo ari amazezerano yo kwemezwa (Contrat d’adhésion) isesengura rikorwa ritaberera ku wayateguye. Ubujurire nta shingiro bufite. Ubujurire bwa bwuririye ku bundi bufite ishingiro. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 111 na 154. Itegeko n°45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, ingingo ya 65 na 137. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Kuwa 04/01/2016, DUSABE SANGANO Javan yagiranye amasezerano y’umurimo na EQUITY BANK RWANDA PLC ariko mbere yo kuba umukozi wa EQUITY BANK akaba yari umukozi wa KCB Bank yari yaranamuhaye inguzanyo yishyuraga ku gipimo cy’inyungu cya 7% ku mwaka cyari cyemerewe guhabwa abakozi bayo gusa. DUSABE SANGANO avuga kandi ko kimwe mu byo EQUITY BANK yamusezeranyije kugira ngo yemere kuva muri KCB Bank kwari ukumwimurira iyo nguzanyo yari afite muri KCB akajya ayishyurira muri EQUITY BANK ariko ku ijanisha ry’inyungu ryagenewe abakozi ba EQUITY BANK.

## Page 267

233 EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc v DUSABE SANGANO

[2] Kuwa 28/02/2018, Equity Bank Rwanda Plc yagiranye amasezerano y’inguzanyo ya 146.536.603 Frw na DUSABE SANGANO Javan, igice kinini cy’iyo nguzanyo cyakoreshejwe mu kurangiza kwishyura inguzanyo yo muri KCB Bank yavuzwe haruguru kandi iyo nguzanyo yagombaga kujya yishyurirwa ku gipimo cy’inyungu cya 8% ku mwaka kubera ko SANGANO nawe yari amaze kuba umukozi wa Equity Bank. Ingingo ya 4 y’ayo masezerano yateganyaga kandi ko mu gihe SANGANO yaba avuye mu kazi ka Equity Bank, igipimo cy’inyungu kizahinduka nta yindi nteguza kikaba igipimo amabanki atangiraho inguzanyo [“Should you leave the employment of Equity Bank Rwanda LTD, the interest will be charged at the prevailing commercial rate without prior notice to the borrower”]. Nanone kandi Ingingo ya 6 igika cya 5 y’Amabwiriza agenga inguzanyo yateganyaga ko inguzanyo izishyurwa mu gihe cyagenwe kandi ko mu gihe umukoresha ahindutse inguzanyo izatangira kwishyurwa ku gipimo cy’ inyungu amabanki atangiraho inguzanyo [ “Loan to be repaid within agreed period and if there is a change of the Employer, facility to assume commercial rate of interest”]. [3] Kuwa 11/09/2019, ubuyobozi bwa Equity Bank bwafashe icyemezo cyo guhindura igipimo cy’inyungu ku nguzanyo zihabwa abakozi bayo kiva ku 8% kijya kuri 6%, bituma n’inguzanyo yavuzwe haruguru yari yarahawe SANGANO Javan ivanwa ku gipimo cy’inyungu cya 8% ishyirwa ku cya 6% ku mwaka. [4] Kuwa 30/4/2020, Equity Bank Rwanda Plc yirukanye mu kazi DUSABE SANGANO Javan, maze ishingiye ku ngingo ya 4 n’iya 6 igika cya 5 by’amasezerano y’inguzanyo zavuzwe haruguru SANGANO wari utakiri umukozi wa Equity Bank ariko atemera uburyo yirukanywemo ahita atangira kubarirwa inyungu ku

## Page 268

234 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

nguzanyo yari asigayemo ku gipimo cy’inyungu cya 18.25% ku mwaka. [5] SANGANO utarishimiye icyemezo cyo kwirukanwa mu kazi n’icyo guhita azamurirwa igipimo cy’inyungu ku nguzanyo yatanze ikirego kirebana n’iby’inguzanyo mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi asaba ko Equity Bank yagaragaza imbonerahamwe y’uko umwenda uhagaze ndetse no kumumanurira ijanisha ry’inyungu kuri uwo mwenda rigasubira kuri 6%, anatanga ikindi kirego cy’umurimo mu rundi rukiko rubifitiye ububasha avuga ko yirukanywe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko. [6] Kuwa 31/03/2021, Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwaciye urubanza ku bijyanye n’inguzanyo, rwemeza ko ikirego cya DUSABE SANGANO Javan kidafite ishingiro, maze rutegeka ko akomeza kwishyura inguzanyo ku gipimo cya 18.25%. [7] DUSABE SANGANO Javan ntiyishimiye imikirize y’urwo rubanza ajurira mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, avuga ko Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwasobanuye nabi ingingo ya 4 y’amasezerano y’inguzanyo yagiranye na Equity Bank ngo kuko guhagarika kuyibera umukozi byaturutse ku kuba yarirukanwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko. [8] Mu gika cya 16 cy’urubanza RCOMA 00349/2021/HCC, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwasobanuye ko ingingo ya 4 y’amasezerano y’inguzanyo iteganya ko mu gihe DUSABE SANGANO Javan ari we wateye iseswa ry’amasezerano y’umurimo ari bwo ijanisha ry’inyungu ku mwenda riziyongera, ariko ko mu gihe ari Equity Bank yatera iryo seswa azakomeza kwishyurira ku ijanisha riri mu masezerano (6%). Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rushingiye kuri icyo gisobanuro (interpretation) no ku rubanza rw’umurimo RSOCA 00103/2021/HC/KIG rwari rwaramaze kwemeza ko EQUITY BANK yirukanye DUSABE mu

## Page 269

235 EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc v DUSABE SANGANO

buryo budakurikije amategeko, rwemeje ko EQUITY BANK idafite uburenganzira bwo guhindura ijanisha inguzanyo yishyurirwagaho, bivuze ko inguzanyo yagombaga kuguma kuri 6%. [9] Ku wa 08/04/2022, EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ubujurire, ubujurire bwandikwa kuri nº RCOMAA 00057/2022/CA, ivuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwasobanuye nabi ingingo ya 4 n’iya 6 agace ka 5 by’amasezerano y’inguzanyo kuko rwongeyeho conditions zitari ziteganyijwe muri ayo masezerano. [10] DUSABE SANGANO Javan avuga ko yemera icyemezo cyafashwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ariko ntiyishimira uburyo Urukiko rutategetse EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc kumusubiza 18.449.618 Frw arenga ku yo yagombaga kwishyura kuri 6%, hiyongereyeho inyungu ya 18.25% ku mwaka bivuze 5.297.063 Frw akomeza kwiyongera kugeza urubanza ruciwe. DUSABE Javan SANGANO akaba yaratanze ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi asaba kuyasubizwa. [11] Impaka ziri mu rubanza zishingiye ku masezerano y’iguriza yabaye hagati ya EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc na DUSABE Javan SANGANO, aho impande zombi zitumvikana ku bikubiye mu ngingo ya 4 n’iya 6 al 5 z’amasezerano yo ku wa 22/02/2018, aho Equity Bank Rwanda Plc isanga Inkiko zabanje zarasesenguye nabi izo ngingo bigatuma zifata icyemezo kiyirenganya, naho DUSABE Javan SANGANO we akavuga ko Inkiko zabanje zasobanuye neza izo ngingo, ngo uretse ko zitategetse ko asubizwa 18.449.618 Frw yakaswe nyuma y’uko Equity Bank Rwanda Plc ihinduye ijanisha ry’inyungu, ari na yo mpamvu y’ubujurire bwe bwuririye ku bwa Equity Bank Rwanda Plc.

## Page 270

236 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[12] Iburanisha ry’urubanza ryashyizwe ku wa 06/07/2022, EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc ihagarariwe na Me KAREMERA Frank, naho DUSABE SANGANO Javan yunganiwe na Me TUYISHIME Jean Pierre. Isomwa ry’urubanza rikaba ryarashyizwe isomwa ry’urubanza rigashyirwa ku wa 29/07/2022 ariko uwo munsi ryimurirwa nyuma y’ikiruhuko cy’abacamanza ku wa 09/09/2022. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO Kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwarasesenguye neza ingingo ya 4 n’iya 6, igika cya 5, z’amasezerano y’inguzanyo yo ku wa 28/02/2018 [13] Me KAREMERA Frank uhagarariye EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc avuga ko inkiko zabanje zasobanuye mu buryo butandukanye amasezerano y’inguzanyo, iteganya ko: “… Should you leave the employment of EQUITY BANK RWANDA Ltd; the interest will be charged at the prevailing commercial rate without prior notice to the borrower”, aho Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwasobanuye ingingo ya 4 n’iya 6 z’ayo masezerano ruvuga ko mu gihe DUSABE Javan SANGANO azaba atakiri umukozi wa EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc azatangira kubarirwa ku nyungu z’ubucuruzi zisanzwe, naho Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi mu gika cya 17 cy’urubanza RCOMA 00349/2021/HCC rujuririrwa rugasobanura ko ijambo “leave”, rivuga kimwe na “abandon”, “desert” na “quit”, rigaragara mu masezerano bishatse kuvuga ko igikorwa kizaba gitewe na DUSABE Javan SANGANO gituma ava ku kazi ari cyo kizafatwa nk’imbarutso yo guhindura igipimo cy’inyungu, ko kuba EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc yaramwirukanye mu

## Page 271

237 EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc v DUSABE SANGANO

buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, inyungu zigomba gukomeza kubarirwa kuri 6%. Avuga ko Urukiko rwasobanuye nabi iyo ngingo, kuko mu bisobanuro rwatanze rwongeyemo ibitari bikubiye mu masezerano nk’uko bigaragara mu gika cya 16 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, aho rwavuze ko “Should you leave” ari igikorwa kizaba cyatewe na SANGANO Javan DUSABE, mu gika cya 21 rukavuga ko impamvu ituma uwahawe inguzanyo adakomeza kubarirwa mu bakozi ba EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc igomba kwitabwaho, yaba ikomoka kuri banki, inyungu zigakomeza kubarirwa ku gipimo zabarirwagaho mu gihe yari akiri umukozi wayo. [14] Avuga kandi ko mu masezerano y’inguzanyo impande zombi zagiranye hatateganyijwe uburyo umukozi azatandukana n’umukoresha kugira ngo igipimo cy’inyungu gihinduke, ko ahubwo mu gihe uko gutandukana gutewe n’impamvu iyo ari yo yose ari byo bizatuma igipimo cy’inyungu gihinduka, ko rero Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwirengagije ko DUSABE Javan SANGANO yahawe inguzanyo ku nyungu zo hasi mu rwego rwo guha avantages abakozi bayo, mu gukora interprétation y’ingingo ya 4 n’iya 6 al. 5 rukaba ngo rwaragombaga kureba ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 66 y’Itegeko n°45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano iteganya ko “Gusesengura amasezerano cyangwa imwe mu ngingo zayo ari ugusobanura icyo ayo masezerano agamije n’icyasezeranyijwe.” [15] Uburanira EQUITY BANK avuga kandi ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwagombaga kwita ku ngingo ya 68 y’Itegeko rimaze kuvugwa haruguru na yo iteganya ko “Imvugo n’indi myitwarire bigamije amasezerano bisesengurwa hakurikijwe uko ibintu biteye, kandi iyo ikigamijwe cy’ibanze ku mpande zigirana amasezerano gishobora kumenyekana neza, byitabwaho”, ibyo ngo bikaba bisobanuye ko mu gihe DUSABE

## Page 272

238 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Javan SANGANO yari kuba atakiri umukozi wa EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc atagombaga gukomeza guhabwa avantage zihabwa abakozi bayo, ari na yo mpamvu mu masezerano y’inguzanyo hatigeze hateganywa ikigomba gushingirwaho kugira ngo umukozi utandukanye na Equity Bank ashyirwe ku nyungu zisanzwe. [16] Akomeza avuga ko Urukiko rubanza rwiregangije ko mu rubanza RSOCA 00103/2021/HC/KIG, DUSABE Javan SANGANO yarezemo EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc ibyo kumwirukana mu kazi mu buryo butemewe n’amategeko yagenewe 29.000.000 Frw nk’indishyi z’akababaro kubera kuva ku kazi, ko ibyo bisobanuye ko mu kuva ku kazi hari inyungu (advantages) nyinshi yatakaje Urukiko rwashingiyeho rumugenera izo ndishyi, mu nyungu yatakaje hakaba ngo harimo no kuba agomba kuzamurirwa ijanisha mu kwishyura umwenda afitiye banki. Bityo akaba asaba Urukiko kongera gusuzuma ingingo ya 4 n’iya 6 igika cya 5 by’amasezerano y’inguzanyo yo ku wa 22/02/2018, rukabona ko mu ngingo ya 6 igika cya 5 ku bijyanye na condition of sanction hateganya ko mu gihe umukoresha ahindutse atakiri Equity Bank Plc iyo nguzanyo izakomeza kwishyurwa hakurikijwe igipimo cy’inyungu gitangwa n’amabanki y’ubucuruzi, bityo ngo rukemeza ko DUSABE Javan SANGANO agomba gukomeza kwishyura inguzanyo ku nyungu za 18.25% ku mwaka. [17] DUSABE Javan SANGANO n’umwunganizi we Me TUYISHIME Jean Pierre biregura kuri iyi ngingo y’ubujurire bavuga ko mu rubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwasesenguye neza ingingo ya 4 y’amasezerano y’inguzanyo, ko ibyo EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc ivuga ko rwasobanuye iyo ngingo rutitaye ku bikubiye mu ngingo ya 66 n’iya 68 z’Itegeko n°45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, nta shingiro byahabwa, kuko mu gika cya 21 n’icya 22 by’urubanza RCOMA

## Page 273

239 EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc v DUSABE SANGANO

00349/2021/HCC Urukiko rwasesenguye ibikubiye mu ngingo ya 66, aho rwasobanuraga impamvu ingingo z’amasezerano zivugwa zabayeho, aho rwavuze ko impamvu irebana no kuba DUSABE Javan SANGANO yari atakiri umukozi wa Banki yagombaga kwitabwaho, kandi ko n’ingingo ya 68 rwayitayeho mu gusobanura icyo amasezerano yari agamije nk’uko bigaragara mu gika cya 16 cy’urubanza rwajuririwe, aho rwasobanuye ko amasezerano yari agamije ko mu gihe DUSABE Javan SANGANO yivanye ku kazi inyungu zizazamuka, ibyo bikaba bisobanuye ko igihe yari kuguma ku kazi cyangwa akakavanwaho bitamuturutseho, EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc nta burenganzira yari ifite bwo kuzamura inyungu. [18] Bakomeza bavuga ko EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc yakuye DUSABE Javan SANGANO aho yakoraga muri KCB imwizeza ko izamugurira inguzanyo itazamuye inyungu, kandi ikazamara igihe kirekire, aho impande zombi zumvikanye ko izishyurwa mu gihe kingana n’amezi 180. [19] DUSABE Javan SANGANO avuga ko ikibazo kiri mu rubanza atari icyongereza, ko ahubwo ari icyo kumva neza context ayo masezerano y’inguzanyo yakozwemo, ko atari ubwa mbere akoze muri Banki, ko yakoraga muri KCB Bank, EQUITY BANK ikamureshya kubera ko ari umukozi mwiza yari ikeneye, ikamuha umushahara munini, ikanamugurira umwenda yari afite muri KCB, ariko ko mu gihe batagaragaza ko yabakoreye nabi bamwirukanye mu buryo budakurikije amategeko. Yongeraho ko ku rwego rwa mbere mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi yatsinzwe n’uko nta kimenyetso yari afite kigaragaza ko yirukanwe arenganyijwe kuko urubanza rw’umurimo rwari rutararangira, ariko ko urubanza rwageze mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ikimenyetso cy’urubanza rw’umurimo cyaramaze kuboneka kikagaragaza ko yirukanywe arenganyijwe.

## Page 274

240 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[20] DUSABE SANGANO Javan avuga kandi ko EQUITY BANK ikimara kumwirukana yahise imukura ku gipimo cy’inyungu cya 6% ikamushyira ku cya 18.25%, ko kugeza ubwo Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwemezaga ko banki itagombaga kumuzamurira inyungu yari amaze gukatwa kuri compte ye amafaranga arenga ayo yagombaga gukatwa agera kuri 18.449.618 Frw, muri ubu bujurire akaba asaba kuyasubizwa kuko mu rubanza rujuririrwa yari yayasabye ariko Urukiko ntirugire icyo ruyavugaho, kandi ko hagomba kwiyongeraho inyungu zayo za 18,25% nawe yari kuyabyaza iyo banki itaza kuba yarayamukase. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [21] Ingingo ya 64 y’Itegeko n°45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano iteganya ibi bikurikira: “Amasezerano akozwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, aba itegeko ku bayagiranye. Ashobora guseswa ari uko babyumvikanyeho cyangwa ku mpamvu zemewe n'amategeko. Agomba kwubahirizwa nta buryarya″. [22] Ingingo ya 70 y’iryo Tegeko yo igateganya ko: “Buri ruhande rufite inshingano yo kurangiza amasezerano nta buriganya kandi rukarangwa n’imikorere myiza yemerwa ku bagiranye amasezerano”. [23] Dosiye y’uru rubanza igaragaza amasezerano y’inguzanyo yateguwe na EQUITY BANK Plc (Contrat d’adhésion) DUSABE SANGANO Javan agomba kuyemeza, iyo nguzanyo y’umwenda ingana na 146.535.630 Frw ibarwa guhera ku wa 15/02/2018 kugera ku wa 28/02/2033, ikishyurwa ku nyungu za 8% zaje kumanurwa n’icyemezo cy’ubuyobozi bw’iyo banki zikagera kuri 6%. Ayo masezerano akaba arimo imvugo ababuranyi batumvikanaho “Should you leave the employment of EQUITY BANK RWANDA

## Page 275

241 EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc v DUSABE SANGANO

Ltd”; the interest will be charged at the prevailing commercial rate without prior notice to the borrower” buri ruhande ruyaha igisobanuro kirubereye, Urukiko rukaba rugomba kuyasobanura ngo rukize impaka ziri hagati yabo. Uru Rukiko rurasanga kandi mu gusobanura aya magambo rudakwiye kwirengagiza ko amasezerano y’inguzanyo yabaye hagati y’impande zombi atari kuba yarakozwe mu buryo yakozwemo iyo atazakuba yarabanjirijwe n’andi masezerano y’umurimo hagati y’izo mpande. [24] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire, mu gusesengura iyo mvugo “Should you leave the employment of EQUITY BANK RWANDA Ltd” yateje impaka hagati y’ababuranyi bombi rurasanga rugomba kugendera mu murongo w’inzira ebyiri (règles), gushaka kutemeranya n’icyo abagiranye amasezerano bari bagamije (La recherche exclusive de la commune intention des parties1) no kwihanangirizwa guhindura uburyo cyangwa amerekezo y’imvugo z’ukuri kandi zihamye(L’interdiction absolue de dénaturer le sens ou la portée de stipulations claires et précises). Urukiko rurifashisha imvugo z‘Abahanga n’iz’amategeko y’amahanga kuri iki kibazo kitarakemurwa n’amategeko y’u Rwanda2. [25] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire, mu gusesengura iyo mvugo Should you leave the employment of EQUITY BANK RWANDA Ltd” rurasanga rugomba kwita cyane ku cyo iyo mvugo yari imariye ayo masezerano (l’interprétation en considération de l’utilité de la clause3) no gusesengura hitawe ku ruhare rwa buri

1 https://aurelienbamde.com/2017/07/10/linterpretation-du-contrat-et-le-juge; 2 Aurérien Bambé, Droit des contrats, Droit des obligations, Effets du contrat, Force obligatoire, Posted Juil 10, 2017, et le Code Civil français consultés ce 21/07/2022. 3 Aux termes de l’article 1191 du Code civil, « lorsqu’une clause est susceptible de deux sens, celui qui lui confère un effet l’emporte sur celui qui ne lui en fait produire aucun.»

## Page 276

242 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ruhande mu bagiranye amasezerano (l’interprétation en considération de la qualité d’une partie4), kuko mu gihe ari amazezerano yo kwemezwa (Contrat d’adhésion), isesengura rikorwa ritaberera ku wayateguye5; [26] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rushingiye kuri izo ngingo z’amategeko yavuzwe hejuru, rushingiye kandi kuri ibyo bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, rurasanga imvugo igaragara mu masezerano y’inguzanyo hagati ya EQUITY BANK na DUSABE SANGANO “Should you leave the employment of EQUITY BANK RWANDA Ltd”, idahita igaragaza ubwayo uburyo SANGANO yagombaga kuba atandukanyemo na EQUITY BANK niba ari ukuhikura ku bushake bwe cyangwa se kuhavanwa atabishakaga. Urukiko rurasanga ariko iyo ruhuje iyo mvugo na context yariho yo guha akazi SANGANO DUSABE Javan avanywe mu kandi kazi ka banki ya KCB akaza mu ka EQUITY Bank, agahita ahahabwa inguzanyo y’igihe kirekire kingana n’amezi 180, byerekana ko ingaruka SANGANO nk’umukozi yari kugira kubera kudakomeza gukorera EQUITY BANK zigomba gusuzumwa hitawe ku buryo umukozi n’umukoresha bitwaye kugira ngo habeho uko gutandukana, iyi mvugo “Should you leave the employment of EQUITY BANK RWANDA Ltd”, ikaba muri iyi context itumvikanisha ko mu gihe uko gutandukana gutewe n’impamvu iyo ari yo yose ari byo bizatuma igipimo cy’inyungu gihinduka nk’uko EQUITY BANK ishaka kubyumvikanisha, ahubwo ko mu gihe byari bimaze kwemezwa n’inkiko mu rubanza rw’umurimo ko Equity Bank ari yo yakoze amakosa yo kwirukana SANGANO DUSABE ikamuvutsa amahirwe yo gukomeza kubahiriza

4 Aux termes de l’article 1190 du Code civil « dans le doute, le contrat de gré à gré s’interprète contre le créancier et en faveur du débiteur, et le contrat d’adhésion contre celui qui l’a proposé. » 5 L’article 1190 du Code civil prévoit que, en cas de doute, le contrat d’adhésion s’interprète contre celui qui l’a propose.

## Page 277

243 EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc v DUSABE SANGANO

amasezeranyo y’inguzanyo ashamikiye ku y’umurimo mu gihe yari kumara cy’amezi 180, byari bimaze no kugaragara ko Equity Bank ari yo yishe ingingo z’amategeko agenga amasezerano zibukijwe haruguru ku buryo atari yo yabyungukiramo yemererwa kuzamura igipimo cy’inyungu ku nguzanyo ngo DUSABE SANGANO Javan wubahirije ayo masezerano abe ari we ubihomberamo asabwa kwishyura inyungu z’umurengera atari kwishyuzwa iyo EQUITY Bank iguma mu murongo mwiza wo kubahiriza amasezerano y’umurimo bari baragiranye. [27] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rushingiye kuri iryo sesengura rimaze gukorwa rurasanga nta makosa Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwakoze mu gusobanura ko ijambo Leave, abandon, desert, quit rigaragara mu masezerano bishatse kuvuga ko igikorwa kizaba gitewe na DUSABE Javan SANGANO gituma ava ku kazi ari cyo kizafatwa nk’imbarutso yo guhindura igipimo cy’inyungu, no kwemeza ko kuba EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc yaramwirukanye mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko nk’uko byemejwe n’urubanza rw’umurimo byaburanwemo, inyungu zigomba gukomeza kubarirwa kuri 6%6, bityo impamvu y’ubujurire yatanzwe na EQUITY BANK kuri iyi ngingo ikaba idahawe ishingiro. Gusuzuma niba EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc yategekwa gusubiza DUSABE SANGANO Javan amafaranga yishyuye arenga ku yo yagombaga kwishyura ku gipimo cy’inyungu cya 6% ku mwaka, hiyongereyeho n’inyungu ziyabariweho ku gipimo cya 18.25% ku mwaka [28] DUSABE Javan SANGANO avuga ko mu rubanza RCOMA 00349/2021/HCC rujuririrwa yari yasabye Urukiko

6 Reba igika cya 17 na 18 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa.

## Page 278

244 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

gutegeka EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc kumusubiza amafaranga angana na 18.449.618 Frw arenga ku yo yagombaga kwishyura kuri 6%, hiyongereyeho n’inyungu zibarwa kugeza urubanza ruciwe, ariko ko rutayamugeneye. Asobanura ko kuva ku wa 28/6/2020 kugeza ku wa 28/3/2022 aho Urukiko rutegekeye ko EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc itemerewe kuzamura inyungu, DUSABE Javan SANGANO yakatwaga 2.239.000 Frw ku kwezi mu gihe cy’amezi 22 bitewe no kuzamura inyungu, zivuye kuri 6% zikajya kuri 18.25%, mu gihe amasezerano y’inguzanyo yateganyaga ko yagombaga kujya yishyura 1.400.381 Frw ku kwezi, ariko hakajya hiyongeragaho 838.619 Frw ku kwezi, kuko ibyo byabayeho mu gihe cy’amezi 22, ay’inyongera yakaswe bitemewe akaba yose hamwe yarabaye 18.449.618 Frw. [29] Asaba ko kuba EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc yaratwaye ayo mafaranga mu buryo bunyuranye n’amategeko, Urukiko rukwiye kuyitegaka kuyamusubiza kandi hakiyongeraho n’inyungu ziyabariweho ku gipimo cya 18.25% nk’uko na yo yabimukoreraga mu kumwishyuza, ndetse zigakomeza kubarwa kugeza igihe urubanza ruciriwe. Ibyo avuga ko abishingira ku ngingo ya 137 y’Itegeko n°45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, iteganya ko: « Uruhande rwarenganyijwe rufite uburenganzira bwo kubona indishyi zitanzwe n’urundi ruhande rutubahirije ibisabwa mu masezerano, keretse iyo ikirego kigamije kubona indishyi cyahagaritswe cyangwa cyaravuyeho». [30] Uhagarariye EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc yiregura kuri ubu bujurire bwuririye ku bundi avuga ko budakwiye kwakirwa kuko amafaranga asabwa impande zombi zitigeze ziyaburanaho mu manza zabanje, ko ari ikirego gishya gitanzwe ku rwego rw’ubujurire kinyuranye n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 154 y’Itegeko no 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize

## Page 279

245 EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc v DUSABE SANGANO

y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegtsi, iteganya ibikurikira : ″Ku rwego rw’ubujurire ntihashobora gutangirwa ikirego gishya keretse kuregera guhwanya imyenda, cyangwa gutanga ikirego cyo kwiregura ku kirego cy’ibanze cyatanzwe mu Rukiko rw’ubujurire; [31] DUSABE SANGANO Javan n’umwunganizi we bavuga ko ayo mafaranga atari ikirego gishya, gifatwa nk’ingaruka kuri iryo zamurwa ry’inyungu, ko ari ibintu byumvikana ko niba Urukiko ruvuze ko batari bemerewe kuzamura inyungu, ku bijyanye n’ayiyongereyeho adakwiye batari guceceka. Bavuga kandi ko babiburanye mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, ko biri mu myanzuro yabo no mu nyandikomvugo y’iburanisha bikaba byaragarutsweho, n’ubwo mu rubanza bitashyizwemo, ko na nyuma y’urubanza rwajuririwe Umwunganizi we yagiye kubaza muri Banki iby’ayo mafaranga yagiye akatwa kuri izo nyungu n’uko azayasubizwa, anababaza niba bazajurira, bityo ko aho banki ijuririye na bo babishyize mu bujurire bwuririye ku bundi. [32] Kuri iyo ngingo Me Frank KAREMERA uhagarariye EQUITY BANK avuga ko Urukiko ruramutse rusanze hari inyungu akwiye guhabwa (à titre subsidiaire), kuri izo nyungu za 18%, atazihabwa kuko atari umucuruzi w’amafaranga, agasaba Urukiko gukurikiza amategeko. Naho ku bijyanye no kuba hari amafaranga yiyongereye ku yo SANGANO yari asanzwe akatwa, yasubije ko ntacyo yabivugaho mu buryo bw’imibare, bityo akaba ataragaragarije Urukiko niba hari amafaranga DUSABE yishyuye koko, niba ayo avuga ari yo koko cyangwa se niba ari andi bitandukanye.

## Page 280

246 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [33] Ingingo ya 154 y’Itegeko no 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishyirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, iteganya ibikurikira: ″Ku rwego rw’ubujurire ntihashobora gutangirwa ikirego gishya keretse kuregera guhwanya imyenda, cyangwa gutanga ikirego cyo kwiregura ku kirego cy’ibanze cyatanzwe mu Rukiko rw’ubujurire. Icyakora ababuranyi bashobora kwaka inyungu, ibyishyuwe ku bukode n’ibindi bintu by’inyongera byabonetse kuva aho urubanza rwaciriwe n’indishyi z’igihombo umuburanyi yagize kuva urubanza ruciwe”. [34] Ingingo ya 65 y’Itegeko n°45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano iteganya ibi bikurikira: “Amasezerano ntategeka gusa icyemejwe, ahubwo yongeraho n'ingaruka ugushyira mu kuri, imigenzereze cyangwa amategeko byageneye inshingano bikurikije kamere yayo”. [35] Ingingo ya 137 y’iryo tegeko rimaze kuvugwa haruguru nayo iteganya ibikurikira: « Uruhande rwarenganyijwe rufite uburenganzira bwo kubona indishyi zitanzwe n’urundi ruhande rutubahirije ibisabwa mu masezerano, keretse iyo ikirego kigamije kubona indishyi cyahagaritswe cyangwa cyavuyeho ». [36] Urukiko rw’ubujurire rurasanga dosiye y’urubanza rujuririrwa igaragaza ko mu myanzuro yo kurega ya DUSABE SANGANO Javan hari agace yavuzemo ikibazo cy’aya mafaranga avuga ko yagiye akatwa ku ijanisha rya 18.25% agasaba

## Page 281

247 EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc v DUSABE SANGANO

kuyasubizwa7, kandi no mu iburanisha ryo ku wa 16/02/2021 SANGANO n’umwunganizi bakaba barongeye kubigarukaho basaba ko EQUITY BANK Yamugarurira amafaranga y’ikirenga yishyujwe n’inyungu ndetse n’indishyi z’akababaro8, ariko Urukiko ntirwigeze rubigarukaho mu cyemezo rwafashe. [37] Rushingiye ku biteganywa n’ingingo z’amategeko zimaze kwibutswa haruguru no ku bisobanuro by’uko atari ubwa mbere mu bujurire DUSABE SANGANO Javan aregeye amafaranga aburanwa aha, Urukiko rurasanga ikirego kiamije kugaruza amafaranga arenga ku yo DUSABE SANGANO Javan yagombaga kwishyura kuri 6%, n’inyungu ya 18.25% atari ikirego gishya gitangiwe bwa mbere kuri uru rwego nk’uko EQUITY BANK ishaka kubyumvikanisha, ahubwo ari ingaruka zo kwica amasezerano nk’uko DUSABE SANGANO abivuga ndetse kikaba cyari cyaratanzwe uru rubanza rugitangira. [38] Urukiko rurasanga kandi nk’uko bivugwa n’urega amafaranga yakatwaga 1.400.381 Frw ku kwezi ku ijanisha rya 6%, mu kuzamura inyungu ijanisha rishyizwe kuri 18.25%, atangira

7 Aho agira ati: “Turasaba Urukiko kwemeza ko EQUITY BANK yahinduye interest rate mu buryo bunyuranije n'amategeko no gutegeka EQUITY BANK gusubiza Javan SANGANO ikinyuranyo cy'amafaranga yose yishyuye kuri interest rate ya 18.25% hiyongereyeho inyungu zayo. Ubundi Javan SANGANO yishyuraga 1.400.381 Frw ku kwezi kuri interest rate ya 6% nyamara kuva ukwezi kwa 6/2020 kugeza ukwezi kwa 12/2021 Javan SANGANO yishyuraga 2,239,000 Frw ku kwezi kuri interst rate ya 18.25% bivuze ko harimo ikinyuranyo cya 838.619 Frw Javan SANGANO yishyuye mugihe cy'amezi 19, bityo banki ikwiye kumusubiza 15.933.761 Frw n'inyungu zayo zibariwe ku gipimo cya BNR nk’uko Urukiko Rukuru rw'Ubucuruzi rwabitegetse muri RCOMA 00644/2018/HCC” 8 Aho bavuga bati: “Banki yakoze amakosa ku nguzanyo ikaba yakwirengera ingaruka kuko ariyo yishe amasezeran, biyo ikirengera ingaruka zayo, hakarebwa umwanzuro batanze, bakamugarurira amafaranga y’ikirenga n’inyungu ndetse na intérêt na DI”.

## Page 282

248 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kujya akatwa 2.239.000 Frw ku kwezi, hajya hiyongeragaho 838.619 Frw ku kwezi, mu gihe cy’amezi 22 ayiyongereyeho agera kuri 18.449.618 Frw yakaswe mu buryo butari bwo Bank itarayabitse yarayacuruje nka banki y’ubucuruzi, ikaba igomba kuyasubizanya n’inyungu zayo zibariwe na zo kuri 18.25%, hatagendewe ko DUSABE SANGANO Javan atari umucuruzi nk’uko uhagarariye EQUITY abivuga, ahubwo hagendewe ku kuba ari cyo gipimo Equity Bank nayo yamugaragarijeho ko ari cyo yacuruzagaho amafaranga muri icyo gihe yayamukataga mu buryo budakwiye, iki gipimo kikaba kitanatandukanye cyane n’igipimo mpuzandengo banki z’ubucuruzi na EQUITY BANK irimo zitangiraho inguzanyo, nk’uko zabazwe mu rubanza rwaciwe n’uru Rukiko9, aha zikaba zigomba kubarwa mu gihe cy’amezi 22 yayakase, ni ukuvuga 838.619 Frw X 22 mois X 18.25%= 3.367.055 Frw. Gusuzuma ibijyanye n’amafaranga y’ibyagenze ku rubanza asabwa n’ababuranyi  [39] Uhagarariye EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc asaba Urukiko gutegeka DUSABE Javan SANGANO gusubiza EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc 1.000.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza na 4.000.000 Frw y’ibihembo bya Avoka yishyuwe kuva urubanza rutangiye kugera kuri uru rwego. [40] DUSABE Javan SANGANO yiregura ku mafaranga Equity Bank Rwanda Plc isaba avuga ko nta shingiro afite, kuko ari yo yamwirukanye mu buryo bunyuranije n’amategeko nk’uko

9 Mu rubanza RCAA 00003-00004/2021/CA rwaciwe ku wa 15/07/2022, igika cya 50 & 53 aho Urukiko rugira ruti: ”kuko kuba yasubizwa amafaranga yishyuye hiyongereyeho inyungu zibariwe ku gipimo cya 18% atari ugucuruza amafaranga, ahubwo ari uko uwayatanze ahanini aba nawe yayasabye muri banki, kandi akaba ari cyo gipimo mpuzandengo banki z’ubucuruzi zitangiraho inguzanyo”.

## Page 283

249 EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc v DUSABE SANGANO

byemejwe mu rubanza RSOCA 00103/2021/HC/KIG rwamaze kuba Itegeko, ikaba ikwiye kwirengera ingaruka zabyo. [41] DUSABE Javan SANGANO asaba ahubwo Urukiko gutegeka EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc kumuha indishyi zo gusiragizwa kuri banki zingana na 2.000.000 Frw, igihembo cy’umwunganizi kuva ku rwego rwa mbere kugera mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire kingana na 3.500.000 Frw, n’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza angana na 1.500.000 Frw, kubera ko yamuhemukiye ikamusiragiza mu manza zitari ngombwa bigatuma agira ibyo atakaza. [42] Uhagarariye EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc yiregura kuri izi ndishyi DUSABE Javan SANGANO asaba avuga ko nta shingiro zifite, kuko EQUITY BANK Plc yahinduye ijanisha ry’inyungu hashingiwe ku masezerano y’inguzanyo impande zombi zagiranye, ko kandi kuba DUSABE Javan SANGANO yaratangije uru rubanza bitari ngombwa nta ndishyi akwiye guhabwa. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [43] Ingingo ya 111 y’Itegeko n°22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, iteganya ibikurikira: "Ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza ni ikirego gishamikira ku kirego cy’iremezo kigamije kwishyuza ibyakoreshejwe mu rubanza. Ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza kiburanishirizwa rimwe n’ikirego cy’iremezo. Gishobora kandi kwakirwa kikanaburanishwa n’iyo ikirego cy’iremezo cyaba kitakiriwe”. [44] Ingingo ya 34 y’Amabwiriza nº 01/2014 yo ku wa 18/07/2014 agena ibihembo mbonera by’Abavoka iteganya

## Page 284

250 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ibikurikira: “Avoka afite uburenganzira bwo kugena igihembo ashyize mu gaciro ariko kitari munsi ya 500.000 Frw kandi kitarenze 3.000.000 Frw”. [45] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rushingiye ku biteganywa n’izo ngingo, rurasanga amafaranga y’ikuririkiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc isaba itayagenerwa kuko itsindwa n’urubanza, naho ayo DUSABE SANGANO Javan akwiye kuko ariwe utsinda urubanza akaba agomba kugenwa mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko kuko ayo asaba ari umurengera, bityo akaba agenewe 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 200.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza kuri uri rwego yiyongera ku byategetswe mu rubanza rwajuririwe. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [46] Rwemeje ko ubujurire ku rubanza n° RCOMA 00349/2021/HCC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ku wa 11/03/2022 bwatanzwe na EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc nta shingiro bufite [47] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa DUSABE SANGANO Javan bwuririye ku bundi bufite ishingiro, ko Equity Bank Rwanda Plc igomba kumusubiza amafaranga 18.449.618 Frw y’inyungu yamukase itabyemerewe hiyongereyeho inyungu zayo zingana na 3.367.055 Frw nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru; [48] Rutegetse EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc kwishyura DUSABE SANGANO Javan 18.449.618 Frw n’inyungu zayo zingana na 3.367.055 Frw

## Page 285

251 EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc v DUSABE SANGANO

[49] Rutegetse EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc kwishyura DUSABE SANGANO Javan 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 200.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza, kuri uru rwego [50] Ruvuze ko uretse ku byiyongereyeho byategetswe muri uru rubanza, ku bindi nta gihindutse ku mikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe; [51] Ruvuze ko ingwate y’amagarama y’uru rubanza yatanzwe na EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc ihwanye n’ibyarukozwemo.

## Page 287

253

MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION N’ABANDI v QUALITY CONSTRUCTION N’ABANDI [Rwanda – URUKIKO RW’UBUJURIRE – RCOMAA 00107/2022/CA CMB RCOMAA 00108/2022/CA (Nyirandabaruta, P.J., Kamere na Ngagi, J.) 25 Gicurasi 2023] Amategeko agenga ububasha bw’inkiko – Ububasha bw’urukiko ry’Ubujurire – ubujurire bwa kabiri – imanza zaciwe n’inkiko zitabifitiye ububasha - amasezerano ateganya ubukemurampaka – gusaba gukuraho ibyemezo by’inkiko zabanje hashingiwe ku kuba uwareze yaragombaga kubanza kwiyambaza ubukemurampaka – umuburanyi wiyambuye uburenganzira bwo kwiyambaza ubukemurampaka akaregera Urukiko, uwarezwe nawe akabyemera, nta wahindukira ngo avuge ko yaburanishijwe n’Urukiko rutabifitiye ububasha, asaba ko ubujurire bwa kabiri bwakirwa. Incamake y’ikibazo: Mukeramirimo Construction Ltd na Club House La Palisse Hotels Ltd zagiranye amasezerano y’imikoranire ijyanye n’ubwubatsi, nyuma, Mukeramirimo Construction Ltd ihereye kuri ayo masezerano, igirana andi masezerano (subcontract agreement) na Quality Construction Ltd zumvikana ku mirimo inyuranye iyi sosiyete ya nyuma yagombaga gukora ku nyubako za club house la palisse hotels Ltd, muri ayo masezerano banumvikana ko nibagirana ibibazo bazabikemura mu bwumvikane, byananirana bakiyambaza ubukemurampaka.

## Page 288

254 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Mukeramirimo Construction Ltd yagiye kandi igura bimwe mu bikoresho by’ubwubatsi ihawe na Active CM Investment. Mukeramirimo Construction Ltd yaje kutumvikana na Club House La Palisse Hotels Ltd, amasezerano zari zifitanye araseswa, bituma Quality Construction Ltd na Active CM Investment zishyira hamwe zirega mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi Mukeramirimo Construction Ltd kutubahiriza amasezerano, bagobokesha ku gahato Club House La Palisse Hotels Ltd na Zigama CSS kugirango hafatirwe amafaranga iyo hotel yishyuye Mukeramihigo ari kuri konti yayo iri muri Zigama CSS. Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwemeje ko ikirego cya Quality Construction Ltd na Active CM Investment Ltd gifite ishingiro ariko nta shingiro gifite kuri Zigama CSS na Club La Palisse Hotels Ltd rutegeka Mukeramirimo Construction Ltd kwishyura Quality Construction Ltd na Active CM Investment Ltd amafaranga izibereyemo ndetse n’indishyi. Mukeramirimo Construction Ltd yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, Quality Construction Ltd na Active CM Investment Ltd nazo zajuririye imikirize y’urubanza rwavuzwe haruguru izo manza zombi zirahuzwa kugira ngo ziburanishirizwe hamwe mu rubanza rumwe. Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwategetse Mukeramirimo Construction Ltd, na Club House La Palisse Hotel Ltd gufatanya kwishyura Quality Construction Ltd na Active CM Investment Ltd umwenda n’indishyi zitandukanye. Mukeramirimo Construction Ltd na Club House La Palisse Hotels Ltd zajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire zivuga ko ubujurire bwa kabiri zibushingira ku mpamvu yuko inkiko zabanje nta bubasha zari zifite bwo kuburanisha uru rubanza, kuko rwagombaga kuba rwarakemuwe mu

## Page 289

255 MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION N’ABANDI v QUALITY CONSTRUCTION N’ABANDI

bukemurampaka nkuko biri mu masezerano impande zombi zagiranye , zisaba gutesha agaciro ibyemezo byafashwe n’izo nkiko, Ababuranyi ku rundi ruhande batanze inzitizi zitandukanye zigamije gusaba kutakira ubujurire bakavugako haba mu nama ntegurarubanza ababuranyi bumvikana ku bubasha bw’inkiko ndetse no ku ba mu rubanza hari harimo ababuranyi batandukanye harimo n’abadafitanye amasezerano na Mukeramihigo Construction Ltd ntihagire utanga inzitizi y’iburabubasha bw’urukiko mu Nkiko z’ubucuruzi bakavuga ko babona ko bumvikanye ku bubasha bw’izo Nkiko. Incamake y’icyemezo: Umuburanyi wiyambuye uburenganzira bwo kwiyambaza ubukemurampaka akaregera Urukiko, uwarezwe nawe akabyemera, nta wahindukira ngo avuge ko yaburanishijwe n’Urukiko rutabifitiye ububasha, asaba ko ubujurire bwa kabiri bwakirwa Amategeko yifashishijwe: Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 7. Itegeko No 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, Ingingo ya 52. Iteka rya Minisitiri N°17/MOJ/AG/20 ryo ku wa 30/10/2020 rigena amafaranga atangwa mu manza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo, iz’ubutegetsi n’iz’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 2.

## Page 290

256 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Imanza zifashishijwe: Urubanza RCOMA 0090 /13/ CS; Publicell SARL v MTN Rwandacell SARL rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’ikirenga ku wa 28/03/2014. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Ku wa 17/12/2020, Quality Construction (QUALICONS) Ltd, yagiranye na Mukeramirimo Construction Ltd amasezerano yo gukora imirimo y’ubwubatsi kuri Club House La Palisse Hotels Ltd, irimo gusenya, gucukura, kubaka igikuta cy’amabuye, gutera ibipande, kubaka amatafari no gutunganya aho izakorera, ikaba yaragombaga kujya yishyuza kuri buri metero kibe igatanga fagitire ikishyurwa. [2] Active CM Investment Ltd ivuga ko ibisabwe na Mukeramirimo Construction Ltd, ku wa 04/01/2021, yatanze ibikoresho by’ubwubatsi birimo sima, “concassé” n’amabuye bifite agaciro ka 21,727,600 Frw. [3] Quality Construction (QUALICONS) Ltd na Active CM Investment Ltd zareze Mukeramirimo Construction Ltd na Mbaduko Jimmy uyihagarariye, mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi, zirusaba kubategeka kubahiriza amasezerano bagiranye bakishyurwa imirimo bakoze n’indishyi zitandukanye, ikirego cyabo gihabwa RCOM 00554/2021/TC. Muri urwo rubanza bagobokesheje kandi Zigama CSS na Club House La Palisse Hotels Ltd kugira ngo hafatirwe amafaranga iyo hoteli yishyuye yari kuri konti ya Mukeramirimo Construction Ltd muri Zigama

## Page 291

257 MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION N’ABANDI v QUALITY CONSTRUCTION N’ABANDI

CSS. Rubayiza Alexis na Twagirimana Jean Claude bagobotse ku bushake muri urwo rubanza, kugira ngo Active CM Investment Ltd niyishyurwa, nayo itegekwe kubishyura umwenda ibabereyemo. [4] Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwaciye urubanza RCOM 00554/2021/TC ku wa 10/11/2021 rwemeza ko ikirego cya Quality Construction Ltd na Active CM Investment Ltd gifite ishingiro kuri Mukeramirimo Construction Ltd na Mbaduko Jimmy, ko ari nta shingiro gifite kuri Zigama CSS no kuri Club House La Palisse Hotels Ltd; ko ikirego cya Rubayiza Alexis n’icya Twiringiyimana Jean Claude bifite ishingiro; rutegeka Mukeramirimo Construction Ltd na Mbaduko Jimmy kwishyura Quality Construction Ltd 71,258,767 Frw no kwishyura Active CM Investment Ltd 10,291,666 Frw ndetse no kwishyura buri sosiyete 580,000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka. [5] Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwategetse kandi Active CM Investment Ltd kwishyura Rubayiza Alexis 21,311,986 Frw, Twiringiyimana Jean Claude 4,555,658 Frw ndetse no kubishyura 530,000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ikurikiranarubanza kuri buri umwe ; runategeka ko mu gihe umwenda Mukeramirimo Construction Ltd na Mbaduko Jimmy babereyemo Active CM Investiment Ltd waramuka wishyuwe mbere, wabanza kwishyura Rubayiza Alexis na Twiringiyimana Jean Claude ku myenda ibabereyemo. Urwo Rukiko kandi rwategetse Mukeramirimo Construction Ltd na Mbaduko Jimmy gusubiza Quality Construction Ltd na Active CM Investment Ltd 20,000 Frw y’ingwate y’amagarama na Active CM Investment Ltd gusubiza Rubayiza Alexis na Twiringiyimana Jean Claude 20,000 Frw y’ingwate y’amagarama buri umwe yatanze.

## Page 292

258 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[6] Mukeramirimo Construction Ltd yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, ubujurire bwayo bwandikwa kuri RCOMA 00794/2021/HCC, isaba urwo Rukiko kongera gusuzuma niba indishyi Quality Construction Ltd na Active CM Investment Ltd zagenewe zifite ishingiro kandi ari zo zitubahirije amasezerano bagiranye ; gusuzuma niba habaho uburyozwe bwa Mbaduko Jimmy ku mwenda uregwa sosiyete ye MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd, inasaba kugenerwa indishyi yasabye ku rwego rwa mbere no mu bujurire. [7] QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd na ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd nazo zajuririye imikirize y’urubanza rwavuzwe haruguru, ubujurire bwazo bwandikwa kuri RCOMA 00801/2021/HCC. Izo sosiyete ubujurire bwazo bwari bushingiye ku kuba Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwaranze kwemeza ko CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd ifatanya na MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd ndetse na Mbaduko Jimmy mu kuryozwa umwenda ndetse n’indishyi ; kuba urwo Rukiko rwaranze kwemeza ko ZIGAMA CSS ifatanya na MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd na Mbaduko Jimmy kuryozwa umwenda ndetse n’indishyi (responsabilité in solidum); kuba zaragenewe indishyi zo kutubahiriza amasezerano nkeya. ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd inajuririra kuba mu mwenda MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd na Mbaduko Jimmy bategetse gufatanya kuyishyura harakuwemo umwenda wa EGE Ltd kandi yaratanze “procuration”. QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd na ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd zisoza zisaba kugenerwa amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza mu bujurire. [8] Izo manza zombi zarahujwe kugira ngo ziburanishirizwe hamwe mu rubanza rumwe Nº RCOMA 00794/2021/HCC-CMB

## Page 293

259 MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION N’ABANDI v QUALITY CONSTRUCTION N’ABANDI

RCOMA 00801/2021/HCC rwaciwe ku wa 16/09/2022, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwemeza ko ubujurire bwatanzwe na MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd n’ubwatanzwe na QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd na ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe; ko imikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe ihindutse gusa ku ngano y’umwenda MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd ibereyemo QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd no ku ruhare rwa CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTEL Ltd muri uru rubanza. [9] Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwategetse MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd, MBADUKO Jimmy na CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTEL Ltd gufatanya kwishyura QUALITY CONSTRUCTION LTD umwenda wa 59,240,260 Frw hiyongereyeho 2,019,507 Frw y’inyungu, indishyi z’ubukererwe no kwica amasezerano, 580,000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka yo ku rwego rwa mbere, na 1,000,000 Frw yo mu bujurire na 20,000 Frw y’ingwate y’amagarama, yose hamwe akaba 62,859,767 Frw, rwazitegetse gufatanya kwishyura ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd umwenda wa 10,000,000 Frw hiyongereyeho 291,666 Frw y’inyungu, indishyi z’ubukererwe no kwica amasezerano, ndetse na 20,000 Frw y’ingwate y’amagarama. yose hamwe akaba 10,311,666 Frw. Rwategetse kandi ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd kwishyura Rubayiza Alexis 21,311,986 Frw no kwishyura Twiringiyimana Jean Claude 4,555,658Frw no kwishyura buri umwe muri bo 530,000 Frw y’igihembo cy’Avoka n’ikurikiranarubanza; runategeka ko mu gihe umwenda MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd ibereyemo ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd waramuka wishyuwe mbere, wabanza kwishyura Rubayiza Alexis na Twiringiyimana Jean Claude ku myenda ibabereyemo;

## Page 294

260 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

runayitegeka kubasubiza 20,000 Frw y’ingwate y’amagarama buri umwe yatanze. [10] MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd yajuririye urwo rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi muri uru Rukiko, ubujurire bwayo buhabwa RCAA 00107/2022/CA, ijurira ivuga ko ishingira ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku mpamvu yuko inkiko zabanje nta bubasha zari zifite bwo kuburanisha uru rubanza, iyo kandi ikaba ari nayo ngingo y’ubujurire, isaba uru Rukiko gutesha agaciro ibyemezo byafashwe n’izo nkiko, inasaba kugenerwa indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka. [11] CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd nayo yajuririye urwo ubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire, ubujurire bwayo buhabwa RCOMAA 00108/2022/CA, rusaba gusuzuma niba Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwari rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha ikirego rwashyikirijwe no gusuzuma niba rutarishe amategeko, isaba kwishyurwa indishyi zo gusiragizwa mu manza, amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ay’ingwate y’amagarama yatanze. [12] QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd, ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd, Rubayiza Alexis na Twiringiyimana Jean Claude mbere yo kwiregura kuri ubwo bujurire batanze inzitizi yo kutabwakira kubera impamvu zikurikira: kuba MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd itaratanze ingwate y’igarama; kuba mu rubanza rujuririrwa haragenwe indishyi zitageze kuri 75,000,000 Frw; no kuba MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd na CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd zaratsinzwe mu nkiko zombi zabanje hashingiwe ku mpamvu zimwe, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rukaba nta bubasha rufite bwo kuburanisha ubujurire bwabo bwa kabiri.

## Page 295

261 MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION N’ABANDI v QUALITY CONSTRUCTION N’ABANDI

[13] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhamwe ku wa 08/05/2023, MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd ihagarariwe na Me Nyirasuku Jeanne, CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd ihagarariwe na Me Sebukonoke Innocent, QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd ihagarariwe n’ Umuyobozi wayo Nkurikiyimfura Alexis, yunganiwe na Me Bangamwabo Octave wari unahagarariye ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd, Rubayiza Alexis yunganiwe na Me Munyamasoko Jovith wari unahagarariye Twiringiyimana Jean Claude, naho ZIGAMA CSS ihagarariwe na Me Kayigirwa Télesphore, impaka zijyibwa ku nzitizi zatanzwe, ariko mbere y’uko impaka zitangira Me Kayigirwa Télesphore yagaragarije Urukiko ko ZIGAMA CSS ahagarariye ntacyo isaba nta n’icyo ibazwa ndetse ko nta n’icyemezo yafatiwe mu rubanza rujuririrwa, asaba ko yakurwa mu rubanza. Nyuma yo kumva icyo abandi baburanyi babivugaho, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwafatiye icyemezo mu ntebe, rwemeza ko ZIGAMA CSS ikuwe mu rubanza kuko nta mpamvu yatuma irugumamo. [14] Nyuma yo kubona impamvu abajuriye bashingiraho ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire muri uru rubanza no kubona inzitizi zatanzwe n’abaregwa, Urukiko rwasanze hagomba gusuzuma ibi bikurikira : - Gusuzuma niba nta ngwate y’igarama MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd yatanze ijurira ku buryo ubujurire bwayo butakwakirwa ; - Gusuzuma niba inkiko zabanje zaraciye urubanza zidafite ububasha ku buryo byaba impamvu ituma ubujurire bwa kabiri bwatanzwe na MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd

## Page 296

262 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

n’ubwatanzwe na CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd bwakirwa mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ; - Gusuzuma niba ubujurire bwa kabiri budakwiye kwakirwa muri uru Rukiko kuko mu rubanza rujuririrwa hagenwe indishyi zitageze kuri 75,000,000 Frw ; - Gusuzuma niba MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd na CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd zaratsinzwe mu nkiko zombi zabanje hashingiwe ku mpamvu zimwe. II. IBIBAZO BIRI MU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO 1. Kumenya niba MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd itaratanze ingwate y’igarama, ubujurire bwayo bukaba budakwiye kwakirwa [15] Me Bangamwabo Octave, wunganira Nkurikiyimfura Alexis uhagarariye QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd akanahagararira ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd, yatanga inzitizi yo kutakira ubujurire bwatanzwe na MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd kubera kudatanga ingwate y’igarama, avuga ko muri IECMS bigaragara ko uwatanze igarama ari Mbaduko Jimmy ufite indangamuntu Nº 119888014786172, nubwo handitse ko iryo garama ari irya MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd. Akomeza avuga ko hatanzwe igarama rimwe rya Mbaduko Jmmy nyamara we atarajuriye, ko kuba MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd yari ifite TN n’imyirondoro yayo ntabe ari yo yandikwa hakandikwa amazina

## Page 297

263 MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION N’ABANDI v QUALITY CONSTRUCTION N’ABANDI

na nomero y’indangamuntu bya Mbaduko Jimmy bivuze ko MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd itajuriye. [16] Me Nyirasuku Jeanne, uhagarariye MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd na Mbaduko Jimmy, yiregura kuri iyi nzitizi avuga ko nta shingiro ifite, kuko muri IECMS mu gice cya GENERAL ndetse no mu cya COURT FEES bigaragara ko ari MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd yajuriye, kandi ko kuba handitsemo indangamuntu ya Mbaduko Jimmy na e-mail ye nta tegeko ribibuza, ko icya ngombwa ari uko igarama ryatanzwe; ko kuba Mbaduko Jimmy uhagaririye iyo sosiyete nk’umunyamigabane rukumbi wayo ari we wishyuye amafaranga y’ingwate y’amagarama akoresheje telephone ye ari nk' uko byari gukorwa na “Agent” mu izina ry'umuburanyi MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd. [17] Me Sebukonoke Innocent, uhagarariye CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE Hotes Ltd, avuga ko bo basanga ari MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd yajuriye igatanga n’igarama. [18] Rubayiza Alexis na Me Munyamasoko Jovith umwunganira, akanahagararira Twiringiyimana Jean Claude, bavuga ko mu Rukiko rubanza Mbaduko Jimmy na MUKERAMIRIMO Construction Ltd bari ababuranyi, ko bishoboka ko yatanze igarama ariko ntajurire, ariko mu myanzuro bakavuga ko ari MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd yajuriye, nyamara ko iyo iza kuba ariyo yajuriye hari kugaragara TIN number na e-mail byayo. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA

## Page 298

264 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[19] Ingingo ya 7 y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi nk’uko ryahinduwe kugeza ubu iteganya ko urega afite inshingano zikurikira : “1° gutanga ingwate y’amagarama, uretse igihe itegeko ribiteganya ukundi”. [20] Ingingo ya 2 y’Iteka rya Minisitiri N°17/MOJ/AG/20 ryo ku wa 30/10/2020 rigena amafaranga atangwa mu manza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo, iz’ubutegetsi n’iz’inshinjabyaha iteganya ko mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire ingwate y’amagarama ari amafaranga y’u Rwanda ibihumbi mirongo itanu (50,000Frw). [21] Dosiye y’urubanza muri IECMS, ahanditse “Court fees”, igaragaza ko MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTIONS Ltd (Payee), yishyuye 50.000 Frw nk’ikiguzi cya serivisi ya Court fees (amagarama)1. Igaragaza kandi muri “General information” ko uwatanze ubujurire (Appelant) ari MBADUKO Jimmy, wabikoze on behalf of MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd. [22] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga kuba Mbaduko Jimmy, nk’uhagarariye MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd, yarayitangiye ubujurire akanayitangira igaragama kandi bikandikwa ko igarama ritanzwe na MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd yajuriye nk’uko IECMS ibigaragaza, ntaho binyuranyije n’amategeko, kuko ingwate y’igarama yishyuwe kandi ikandikwa ku mazina yayo ari nayo muburanyi muri uru rubanza, inzitizi yo kutakira ubujurire bwayo ku

1 IECMS Case no. RCOMAA 00107/2022/CA, Court fees.

## Page 299

265 MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION N’ABANDI v QUALITY CONSTRUCTION N’ABANDI

mpamvu yuko butagombaga kwandikwa nta ngwate y’amagarama yishyuye, ikaba nta shingiro ifite. 2. Kumenye niba inkiko zabanje nta bubasha zari zifite bwo kuburanisha uru rubanza [23] Me Nyirasuku Jeanne, uhagarariye MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd na Mbaduko Jimmy, avuga ko inkiko zibanza zitari zemerewe kuburanisha uru rubanza kuko byari binyuranye n’amategeko n’amasezerano ikiburanwa cyari gishingiyeho aho bari bemeranyijwe kuko mu masezerano yo ku wa 17/12/2020 (subcontract agreement), MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd yagiranye na QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd bumvikanye uburyo bwo gukemura impaka (dispute resolution) mu ngingo yayo ya 92, iteganya ko nihaba amakimbirane bazabanza kubikemura mu bwumvikane, byakwanga hakiyambazwa ubukemurampaka. [24] Me Nyirasuku Jeanne avuga ko bisunze ingingo ya 158 y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, iteganya ko iyo urukiko rwajuririwe rusanze urubanza rwararegewe mu rwego rwa mbere mu buryo budakurikije amategeko cyangwa rwararegeye urukiko rudafite ububasha, nyamara urwo rukiko rukaba rwarafashe icyemezo cyo kurwakira kandi rutaragombaga kurwakira, urukiko rwajuririrwe rwakira ubwo bujurire, rukagaragaza ko urwo rubanza rwajuririwe rwari rwararegewe urukiko rwa mbere mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko rugatesha agaciro ibyemezo byose

2 Article 9: all matters concerning the breach of this agreement shall be settled amicably by both parties before being submitted to the competent arbitration in accordance with Rwandan law.

## Page 300

266 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

byashingiye kuri iryo kosa, ubifitemo inyungu akaba yakongera agatanga ikirego bundi bushya, asaba Urukiko rw’Ubujurire kwakira ubujurire bwabo ahagarariye, rugatesha agaciro ibyemezo byose byafashwe n’inkiko zabanje. [25] Me Sebukonoke Innocent, uhagarariye CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd, nawe avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rutari rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha urubanza rujuririrwa, ko ingingo ya 9 y’amasezerano (ayo ku wa 17/12/2020) yavugaga ko bazakemura ibibazo bagirana biyashingiyeho mu bwumvikane, bananiranwa bakiyambaza ubukemurampaka, bityo ko ubujurire bwabo bukwiriye kwakirwa, ibyemezo byafashwe n’urwo Rukiko bigateshwa agaciro. [26] Me Bangamwabo Octave, avuga ko Urukiko rw'Ubujurire rwavuze kuri QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd gusa kandi ko ari nayo MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd yari yavuzeho gusa ajurira ndetse anagaragaza amasezerano bari bagiranye ari nayo Urukiko rwahereyeho rwakira ikirego ruvuga ko muri ayo masezerano harimo ingingo (clause) ivuga ko baziyambaza ubukemurampaka, nyamara ko ibyo bitari kugenderwaho kuko ingingo abajuriye bashingiraho ya 158 y’Itegeko NO 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru ibyo ivuga bisuzumwa mu bujurire bwa mbere, ubu akaba ari ubujurire bwa kabiri, ibyo bikaba bivuze ko birengagiza ko habayeho inama ntegurarubanza aho ababuranyi bumvikanaga ku byerekeye ububasha bw'inkiko. [27] Me Bangamwabo Octave avuga kandi ko kuburanishwa n’inkiko byanatewe n'uko mu rubanza harimo ababuranyi batandukanye badafitanye amasezerano na MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd, bituma bose bumvikana ko baburanira

## Page 301

267 MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION N’ABANDI v QUALITY CONSTRUCTION N’ABANDI

mu nkiko z'ubucuruzi, kandi ko yaba ku rwego rwa mbere ndetse n'urwa kabiri nta muntu wigeze atanga inzitizi (y’iburabubasha bw’urukiko), kuko bari barumvikanye ku bubasha bw'inkiko. [28] Avuga ko ACTIVE CM INVESTIEMENT Ltd ihagararariwe na Uwamahro Claudine, nta masezerano ifitanye na MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd, ko ahubwo hagendewe ku nyandiko z'imikoranire uwaregwaga atigeze ahakana, agatsindwa hagendewe kuri izo nyandiko, ko rero Urukiko rw'Ubujurire rutagombaga guceceka ku bireba ACTIVE CM INVESTIMENT Ltd, ko rwagombaga gufuta umwanzuro wo kutakira ikirego ku biyireba, cyane ko ACTIVE CM INVESTIMENT Ltd yanatsindiye amafaranga atageze kuri 75,000,000 Frw, ko rero iki kirego kitakwakirwa. [29] Me Munyamasoko Jovith avuga ko ubu bujurire Ubwanditsi bw’Urukiko butari kubwandika, kandi ko Urukiko nirusanga bwaragombaga kwandikwa rwazavuga ko nta shingiro bufite kuko ikibazo cy’uko inkiko nta bubasha zari zifite bwo kuburanisha uru rubanza kitigeze kigibwaho impaka mu nkiko, ikindi ko impande zose zemeje imishinga y’inama ntegurarubanza n’ibizasumwa n’Urukiko, ikindi kandi ikirego kikaba cyaratanzwe n’abasangiye inyungu mu rubanza babiri ndetse ko uru rubanza rwanagobokeshejwemo ku gahato runagobokwamo ku bushake abantu badafite aho bahuriye n’ayo masezerano y’ubukemurampaka. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [30] Impaka kuri iyi ngingo y’urubanza zishingiye ku kumenya niba ikibazo QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd na ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd bafitanye na

## Page 302

268 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd na Mbaduka Jimmy, cyatumye CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTESLS Ltd igobokeshwa mu rubanza ndetse na Rubayiza Alexis na Twiringiyimana Jean Claude bakarugobokamo ku bushake, inkiko zabanje nta bubasha zari zifite bwo kukiburanisha, harebwe ko ingingo ya 9 y’amasezerano QUALITY CONSTRUCTIONS Ltd yagiranye na MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd ku wa 17/12/2020 yateganyaga ko impaka zizavuka zishingiye kuri ayo masezerano bazazikemura mu bwumvikane bananiranwa hakiyambazwa ubukemurampaka, niba kandi kuba icyo kibazo cyarajyanywe mu nkiko zagiciriyego imanza, byatuma icyo kibazo kitakirwa ngo kiburanishwe mu bujurire bwa kabiri (2) n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku mpamvu yuko urubanza rujuririrwa rwaciwe n’inkiko zitabifitiye ububasha, nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 52, igika cya 2, 3o, y’Itegeko NO 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko. Mu magambo magufi, ni ukumenya niba kuba urubanza rujuririrwa rwaraciwe n’inkiko zisanwze kandi mu masezerano MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd yagiranye na QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd hateganyijwe Ubukemurampaka bihagije kugira ngo hemezwe ko urwo rubanza rwaciwe n’inkiko zitabifitiye ububasha. [31] Ku byerekeye ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire, ingingo ya 52, igika cya 2, 3º, y’Itegeko no 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko iteganya ibikurikira : “Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rufite kandi ububasha bwo kuburanisha mu rwego rw’ubujurire bwa kabiri imanza zaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi n’Urukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare, iyo izo manza : 3° zashingiye ku itegeko ritariho, ingingo z’amategeko zitakiriho cyangwa zaciwe n’urukiko rutabifitiye ububasha”.

## Page 303

269 MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION N’ABANDI v QUALITY CONSTRUCTION N’ABANDI

[32] Ku byerekeye ikirego cyaregewe inkiko kandi hari amasezerano ateganya ubukemurampaka, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza RCOMA 0090 /13/ CS rwaciwe ku wa 28/03/2014, rwasanze kuba mu masezerano ababuranyi bagiranye baribujije kuburanishwa n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi itegeko ribateganyiriza, ubwo bubasha bakabuha Ubukemurampaka ku bwumvikane bwabo, bari bagaragaje ko babona ko ubwo bubasha atari ndemyagihugu, ko rero nta cyabuza ko nyuma y’uko ubwo bubasha batabugizeho ikibazo mu iburanisha ry’ibanze, bakomeza kuburanira mu nkiko3. Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwasanze kandi kuba ingingo ya 10 y’Itegeko N° 005/2008 ryo kuwa 14/02/2008 ryerekeye ubukemurampaka n’ubwunzi mu bibazo by’ubucuruzi iteganya ko Urukiko rwaregewe ikirego cyerekeye ikibazo kijyanye n’amasezerano y’ubukemurampaka rucyohereza mu bukemurampaka ari uko hari umuburanyi ubisabye, bivuze ko ububasha bw’Ubukemurampaka atari ndemyagihugu, rubiheraho rwanzura ko iby’uko ikibazo cy’ababuranyi cyagombaga gukemurwa hakurikijwe inzira y’ubukemurampaka nk’uko PUBLICELL ibivuga nta shingiro bufite. [33] Ku byerekeye uru rubanza, dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza amasezerano yo ku wa 17/12/2020 yiswe Subcontract agreement, MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd ihagarariwe na Mbaduko Jimmy yagiranye na QUALITY CONSTRACTION (QUALICONS) Ltd ihagarariwe na Nkurikiyimfura Alexis, aho ingingo yayo ya 9 ivuga ibyerekeranye no gukemura impaka (despute resolution) igira iti: “All matters concerning the breach of this agreement shall be settled amicably by both parties before being submitted to the competent arbitration in accordance with

3 Urubanza no RCOMA 0090 /13/ CS rwaciwe ku wa 28/03/ 2014 haburana PUBLICELL SARL na MTN RWANDACELLSARL, igika cya 10, 3.

## Page 304

270 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Rwandan law”, bivuze ko impaka zose zishingiye ku kutubahirizwa kw’aya masezerano abayagiranye bazazikemura mu bwumvikane bitashoboka zikiyambaza ubukemurampaka. [34] Nk’uko Me Bangamwabo Octave abivuga ndetse bikanagarazwa na dosiye y’urubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi, atanga ikirego cya QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd na ACTIVE IM INVESTMENT Ltd yabitangiye rimwe ku ngwate imwe y’igaragama, yisunze ingingo ya 334 y’Itegeko NO 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru, QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd irega MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd n’Umuyobozi wayo Mbaduko Jimmy kutubahiriza amasezerano, yirengagije ko ayo masezerano ateganya uko ibibazo byose bagirana biyashingiyeho bigomba gukemurwa mu bwumvikane byananirana bakiyambaza ubukemurampaka, igobokesha CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd. [35] Muri urwo Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi, haba mu myanzuro yayo, mu Nama ntegurarubanza cyangwa mu iburanisha mu mizi, MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd na Mbaduko Jimmy bireguye ku byo baregwa, nta na hamwe bigaragara ko bigeze basaba Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi kohereza icyo kirego mu

4 Iyo abasangiye inyungu mu rubanza ari benshi, barega cyangwa baregwa, buri wese ku bimureba afite uburenganzira n’inshingano by’umuburanyi. Icyakora abasangiye inyungu mu rubanza batanga ibirego byabo mu mwanzuro umwe, bagatanga ingwate y’amagarama imwe. Ibivugwa mu gika cya mbere cy’iyi ngingo binareba abazungura cyangwa abibumbiye hamwe baregera mu rubanza rumwe ikirego kimwe. Uregwa umutungo asangiye n’abandi, afite inshingano zo kugaragaza abandi bawusangiye. Iyo ikiburanwa gisangiwe n’abantu benshi, urega afite inshingano zo kubagobokesha.

## Page 305

271 MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION N’ABANDI v QUALITY CONSTRUCTION N’ABANDI

bukemurampaka, no mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ntabyo basabye. [36] Urukiko rurasanga nk’uko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwabibonye mu rubanza RCOMA 0090/13/CS rwaciwe ku wa 28/03/2014 rwavuzwe haruguru, kuba QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd yarahisemo kwiyambura uburenganzira bwo kwiyambaza ubukemurampaka ikaregera inkiko, MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd na Mbaduko Jimmy nabo bari basanzwe bazi ayo masezerano bagahitamo kudasaba Urukiko kubohereza mu Bukemurampaka, bivuze ko nabo bahisemo kwiyambura ubwo burenganzira bwo kwiyambaza ubukemurampaka. [37] Rurasanga na none kuba izo mpande zombi zarahisemo guhindura ibyo zari zarasezeranye mbere zikemeranya kuburanishwa n’inkiko, zikumvikana no ku kiburanwa mu nama ntegurarubanza, bivuze ko zahisemo mu buryo buteruye (tacitement) guhindura amasezerano zari zagiranye mbere ku byerekeranye n’uburyo bwo gukemura amakimbirane ashingiye ku masezerano bagiranye ku wa 17/12/2020, zigahitamo noneho kuburanishwa n’inkiko, bityo zikaba rero muri zo (QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd yareze na MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd) nta wahindukira ngo avuge ko yaburanishijwe n’Urukiko rutabifitiye ububasha. [38] Urukiko rurasanga ku byerekeye ACTIVE CM CONSTRUCTION, nta cyari kuyibuza kurega MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd mu nkiko z’ubucuruzi mu gihe isanga hari uburenganzira bwayo yifuza kugaruza bushingiye ku bikorwa by’ubucuruzi bakoranye, cyane cyane ko nta masezerano zagiranye ateganya uburyo ibibazo bahura nabyo byakemuka.

## Page 306

272 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[39] Rurasanga na none ibyo CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS ivuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwishe amategeko kuko rwirengagije ingingo ya 9 y’amasezerano yavuzwe yo ku wa 17/12/2020 iteganya gukemura amakimbirane binyuze mu bukemurampaka, nta shingiro byahabwa, kuko ayo masezerano atayireba, bityo akaba ari nta cyari kubuza QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd na ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd kuyigobokesha mu rubanza mu gihe zibona ari ngombwa. [40] Urukiko rurasanga kuba mu kujurira kwabo, abahagarariye MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd na CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTES Ltd bavuga ko ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire bwo kuburanisha ubujurire bwazo babushingira ku ngingo ya 52, igika cya 2, 3o, y’Itegeko no 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, iteganya ko: “Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rufite kandi ububasha bwo kuburanisha mu rwego rw’ubujurire bwa kabiri imanza zaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi n’Urukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare, iyo izo manza: 3° zashingiye ku itegeko ritariho, ingingo z’amategeko zitakiriho cyangwa zaciwe n’urukiko rutabifitiye ububasha”, bikaba byagaragajwe ko Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi zari zifite ububasha kubera ko impande zombi zabyumvikanyeho, bivuze ko ubujurire bwa MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd n’ubwa CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTES Ltd budashobora kwakirwa mu bubasha bw’uru Rukiko, dore ko nta n’ahandi abahagarariye izo sosiyete berekanye hashingirwa ububasha bwarwo. [41] Rurasanga rero mu gihe ubujurire bwatanzwe na MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd n’ubwatanzwe na CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd butakiriwe kuko

## Page 307

273 MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION N’ABANDI v QUALITY CONSTRUCTION N’ABANDI

butari mu bubasha bw’uru Rukiko kubera ko rwasanze impamvu imwe rukumbi bashingiraho ububasha bwarwo, ari nayo ibahesha uburenganzira bwo kuzana ubujurire bwabo muri uru Rukiko, nta shingiro ifite, bitakiri ngombwa gusuzuma izindi nzitizi zatanzwe n’abaregwa mu bujurire, nazo zari zigamije kwerekana ko ikirego cyabo kidakwiriye kwakirwa mu bubasha bw’uru Rukiko. Ibyerekeye amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza [42] Me Nyirasuku Jeanne uhagarariye MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd, asaba Urukiko rw’Ubujurire gutegeka QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd kwishyura MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd 2.000.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanzanza, n’igihembo cya Avoka kuva mu nkiko zibanza kugeza kuri uru rwego. [43] Me Bangamwabo Octave, wunganira Nkurikiyimfura Alexis uhagarariye QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd akanahagararira ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd, yiregura kuri ibyo MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd isaba avuga ko nta shingiro bifite, kuko mu kirego cyayo ivuga ko Inkiko ari zo zayirenganyije zanga kwiyambura ububasha, bityo ko zitatangwa n'abatarayirenganyije, ko ahubwo MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd ari yo igomba kuzitanga, kuko itigeze itanga inzitizi ngo inkiko zange kuzisuzuma. Asaba ahubwo gutegeka MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd guha ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd 2000.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 500.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza. Naho Nkurikiyimfura Alexis asaba Urukiko gutegeka MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd guha QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd 2.000.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na

## Page 308

274 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

500.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza, yose hamwe akaba 2.500.000 Frw. [44] Me Nyirasuku Jeanne, uhagarariye MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd yiregura kuri ayo mafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza yasabwe na QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd na ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd, avuga ko ibyo izo sosiyete zisaba nta shingiro bifte kuko ari zo zaregeye inkiko zitabiiftiye ububasha. [45] Me Sebukonoke Innocent uhagarariye CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd, avuga ko QUALITY CONSTRACTION Ltd na ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd zirengagije ibikubiye mu masezerano zagiranye na MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd ziyirega nta masezerano zagiranye, ndetse ziregera Urukiko rutabifitiye ububasha, ziyisiragiza mu manza z’amaherere bituma yiyambaza umunyamategeko wo kuyiburanira, asaba Urukiko gutegeka QUALITY CONSTRACTION Ltd na ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd kuyiha 1.000.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avocat, 2.000.000 Frw yo gusiragizwa mu nkiko no kuyisubiza 50.000 Frw y’ingwate y’amagarama. [46] Ku byo CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd isaba, Me Bangamwabo Octave uhagarariye QUALITY CONSTRUCTION LTD na ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT LTD, avuga ko ibyo isaba bitashoboka kuko utsinzwe ari we wishyura, ko ahubwo ari yo igomba kuryozwa indishyi. [47] Me Munyamasoko Jovith, uhagarariye Twiringiyimana Jean Claude akunganira Rubayiza Alexis, asaba urukiko rw’ubujurire gutegeka abajuriye kwishyura Rubayiza Alexis na Twiringiyimana Jean Claude 2.000.000 Frw y’igihembo cya

## Page 309

275 MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION N’ABANDI v QUALITY CONSTRUCTION N’ABANDI

Avoka, kuri buri wese, kubera gukomeza gutinza urubanza ikamuhombya bigatuma atakariza mafaranga muri uru rubanza, yanga kwemera ibyemezo byafashwe n’inkiko zabanje, bigatuma batinda kubona ibyo batsindiye, ikajurira bwa kabiri yirenganigije ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 158 y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryibukijwe haruguru kuko ibyo isaba yakabaye yarabisabye ku rwego rw’ubujurire bwa mbere. [48] Me Nyirasuku Jeanne, uhagarariye MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd yiregura ku mafaranga Twiringiyimana Jean Claude na Rubayiza Alexis basaba avuga ko nta shingiro, kuko kuba MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd yarajuriye ari uburenganzira yemererwa n’amategeko. [49] Kuri izo ndishyi Twiringiyimana Jean Claude na Rubayiza Alexis basaba, Me SEbukonoke Innocent Uhagarariye CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd nawe avuga ko nta shingiro ryayo. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [50] Ingingo ya 111 y’Itegeko no 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ibikurikira : Ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza ni ikirego gishamikira ku kirego cy’iremezo kigamije kwishyuza ibyakoreshejwe mu rubanza. Ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza kiburanishirizwa rimwe n’ikirego cy’iremezo. Gishobora kandi kwakirwa kikanaburanishwa n’iyo ikirego cy’iremezo cyaba kitakiriwe.

## Page 310

276 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[51] Urukiko rurasanga amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd isaba, ndetse n’asabwa na CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd batayahabwa kuko batsindwa n’urubanza. [52] Urukiko rurasanga amafaranga QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd na ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd zisaba ziyakwiye kuko zishyuye Avoka wo gukurikirana urubanza rwazo no kuziburanira, ariko kuko 2000.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 500.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza buri imwe izaba akaba ari menshi kandi nta bimenyetso byerekana ko ariyo zakoresheje, mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko buri imwe ikaba yahabwa 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 200.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza. [53] Urukiko rurasanga amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza Twiringiyimana Jean Claude na Rubayiza Alexis baka MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd batayahabwa kuko bagobotse mu rubanza ku bushake bwabo atariyo yabagobokesheje, ikaba itabazwa ibyo batakaje ku rubanza bajemo bagamije kugira ngo inyungu zabo zitazabangamirwa. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [54] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwatanzwe na MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd n’ubwatanzwe na CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd butakiriwe kuko butari mu bubasha bw’uru Rukiko ;

## Page 311

277 MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION N’ABANDI v QUALITY CONSTRUCTION N’ABANDI

[55] Rutegetse MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd kwishyura QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd na ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd, buri wese 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 200.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza kuri uru rwego ; [56] Ruvuze ko ingwate y’amagarama abajuriye batanze ahwanye n’ibyakozwe mu rubanza.

## Page 312

RWANDA LAW REPORTS ENGLISH VERSION

## Page 313

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TEAM OF EDITORS ................................................................ iii I. LAW REPORTING TEAM ............................................. iii II. MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE ..................... v PREFACE ................................................................................. ix SCOPE OF THE REPORTS ..................................................... xi CITATION ................................................................................ xi LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ xiii LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED ........................................... xvi SUBJECT INDEX ................................................................... xix Re KAMANZI ............................................................................ 1 UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI ET AL. ................................. 43 MURENZI ET AL. v MUTABAZI ET AL (ADD) ................. 73 TABARUKA v GICUMBI DISTRICT ................................... 93 MBESIGYE v MUKANGWIJE ET.AL ................................ 121 MURENZI v MUTABAZI ET AL. ....................................... 147 KAMUGWIZA v HASHIM SAKINA ................................... 187 EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc v DUSABE SANGANO ... 219 MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION ET AL. v QUALITY CONSTRUCTION ET AL. .................................................... 239

## Page 315

iii

TEAM OF EDITORS

I. LAW REPORTING TEAM

KAGABO U. Stephanie

KAVUTSE M. Claude

KUBWIMANA Jean Claude

MUJABI K. Naphtal

UWINKINDI Angelique

UWIMANA Jean Marie Vianney

## Page 317

v

II. MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE

Prof. Dr. NGAGI M. Alphonse : President of the Committee, Judge of the Court of Appeal

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

BWIZA N. Blanche : Secretary of the Committee, Inspector of Courts

RUKUNDAKUVUGA F. Regis : President of Court of Appeal

Dr. KARIMUNDA M. Aimé : Rector of ILPD

HABARUREMA Jean Pierre : President of High Court

KALIWABO Charles : Judge of the Court of Appeal

BURAYOBERA UMUZAYIRE : Bibiane

Vice-Chairman of Rwanda Law Reform Commission

NSENGIYUMVA Jean Claude : Inspector of Courts

KIBUKA Jean Luc : Judge at Commercial High Court

## Page 318

vi RWANDA LAW REPORTS

BUNYOYE Grace : Prosecutor at National Level

KABIBI Specioza : State Attorney

MUREREREHE Saouda : Judge at High Court

Lt. Col. MADUDU A. Charles : Judge at Military Court

Dr. NSHIMIYIMANA Didace : Peresident of Intermediate Court GIRANEZA Clémentine :

Dr MBONIGABA Callixte :

Judge of the Intermediate Court

Lecturer at INES- Ruhengeri BAGABO Faustin :

Dr ZIKAMWABAHARI Jean de Dieu :

Dr. SHEMA Pierre :

KARAKE Canisius :

HABIMANA Pie : Advocate at Rwanda Bar Association

Lecturer at the University of Kigali Lecturer at ULK

Lecturer at UNILAK

Advocate at Rwanda

## Page 319

vii MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE

UMUTESI Vestine :

YANKURIJE Dorothée : Bar Association Judge of Commercial Court

Judge of Primary Court

## Page 321

ix

PREFACE Dear Readers, We are pleased to present to you the Law Reports Volume 4 [2024]. As usual, we select cases that solve some of the legal issues you encounter, either in your career or in your daily life. This volume contains nine (9) cases, which includes; one (1) case relating to the petition seeking to declare the law unconstitutional, three (3) civil cases, one (1) administrative case, two (2) commercial cases and two (2) procedural cases. These cases can be accessed on the website of the judiciary: http://decisia.lexum.com/rlr/en/nav.do. Dr NTEZILYAYO Faustin President of the Supreme Court and President of the High Council of Judiciary

## Page 323

xi

SCOPE OF THE REPORTS These reports cover cases decided by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal.

CITATION The Reports in this volume are cited as: [2024] 1 RLR

## Page 325

xiii

LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED

a. Current laws The Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, articles 15, 16 and 29………………………………………..5 Universal declaration of human rights of 1948, Articles 7, 10 and 11……………………………………….5 International Covenant on Civil and political Rights of 1966, article 26………………………………………………………………6 African Charter on human and People's rights, article…………..7 The European Convention on Human Rights, articles 6 and 14……………………………………………………………………….6 Organic Law nº 40/2000 of 26/01/2001 establishing the organisation, competence and functioning of Gacaca courts charged with prosecuting and trying the perpetrators of the crime of genocide and other crimes against humanity, committed between October 1, 1990 and December 31, 1994………………5 Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure, article 197……………………………………………………………..5 Law no 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the Jurisdiction of Courts, articles 27,53, and 100…………………………………….77 article 55 and 63…………………………………………..153 article 52…………………………………………………...244 Law N° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles 12 and 111…………………………………………46

## Page 326

xiv

article 111…………………………………………………...96 articles 111, 170 and 273………………………………...153 articles 9 and 11………………………………………………. articles 111 and 154………………………………………222 article 7…………………………………………………….244 Law no 32/2016 of 28/08/2016 governing persons and family, articles 192,199 and 201………………………………………….124 Law no 59/2008 of 10/09/2008 relating to Prevention and Punishment of Gender-based violence, article 39……………..114 Law N° 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 on evidence and its production, article 3……………………………………………………..46 articles 76 and 93…………………………………………154 The Ministerial Order N° 17/MOJ/AG/20 of 30/10//2020 determining court fees in civil, commercial, social and administrative matter, article 2…………………………………..244 Rwanda Building Code annexted to the Ministerial Order n° 04/Cab.M/015 of 18/05/2015 determining urban planning and building regulations, articles 2.6.5.19.3; 2.6.5.19.4…………..153

b. Repealed laws Organic law n° 03/2012 of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 86………………………………………………………………5 Organic Law n° 11/2007 of 16/03/2007 concerning transfer of cases to the Republic of Rwanda from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and from other States, article 1……………6

## Page 327

xv

Organic Law n°16/2004 of 19/06/2004 determining organization, competence and functioning of Gacaca Courts…………………………………………………………………5 Organic Law n° 20/2003 of 03/08/2003 organizing Education, article 34……………………………………………………………..97 Law n° 86/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the general statutes for public service, article 40, 44 and 93………………………….96 Law nº 30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure, article 99………………………………………………..96 Law n°22/2012 of 15/06/2012 determining the publication, notification and commencement of official acts, article 5………97 Law N° 45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, articles 64 and 113…………………………………………46 articles 65 and 137………………………………………..222 Decree- Law no 20/75 of 20 June 1975 governing insurance, article 32……………………………………………………………153 Law of 30 July 1888 instituting Civil Code Book III, article 530………………………………………………………………….189

## Page 328

xvi

LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED Akagera Business Group, RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 23/09/2016………………………………………6 Bimenyimana André, RS/INCONST/PEN/0001/13/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 04/10/2013………………………………6 Case of Carson and others v. The United Kingdom (Application number 42184/05), §61……………………………………………...7 Case of Coertzee v. the Government of the Republic of South Africa 1995 (4) SA 631 (CC)………………………………………...7 Case of Inze v. Austria (Application number 8695/79), Strasbourg 28 October 1987, &41………………………………….7 Case RCAA 0048/14/CS of 11/03/2016 with Ahishakiye v. Namagabira Venantie, paragraph 26-27……………………….124 Case RCAA 0014/15/CS of 01/12/2017 with Mutoni K. Jackline v. Niwenshuti Aloys et al. paragraph 33………………………...124 Case RCAA 0022/13/CS of 25/07/2014 with Ngangare John v. Mukankuranga Grace, pargraph 24…………………………….124 Case RS/Inconst/ Pen. 0003/10/CS of 07/01/2011 with Gatera Johnson v. Kabarisa Teddy, para 15…………………………….124 Case of Thlimmenos v. Greece (Application number 34369/97), Strasbourg 6 April 2000, §44………………………………………..6 Cass. Civ. 1ère, 21 Décembre 1976, Bull.Civ. I, N° 421………189 Judgment RCOMA 0090 /13/ CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 28/03/2014 with PUBLICELL SARL v. MTN RWANDACELL SARL………………………………………………………………244

## Page 329

xvii

Kamanzi Anaclet, rendered by Gacaca Court in Kigasha sector on 21/11/2006………………………………………………………...6 Kamanzi Anaclet, RMP 3119/AM/KGL/NZF/98-RP 0019/CG- CS/99 rendered by the Military Court on 18/03/1999……………6 L/Cpl Banamwana Alfred, RMP 3119/AM/KGL/NZF/98-RP 0019/CG-CS/99 rendered by the Military Court………………….6 Murangwa Edward, RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/ 2019/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 29/11/2019…………………...6 Mrs. Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese Rep by Its Procurator Devssia’s Son Rev. Father Joseph Kappil, of 01/04/2022 by the Supreme Court of India, paragraph 09, 17-18……………………………………………………………189 Ngendahayo Kabuye, RS/INCONST/SPEC 00004/2021/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 10/02/2023…………………...6 Nkongoli John v Government of Rwanda, RADA 0012/07/decided by Supreme Court on 7/03/2009……………………………...…...97 Re Kabasinga, RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 04/12/2019…………………………………6 Re Murangwa, RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2022/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 16/12/2022…………………………………6 RCAA 0117/11/CS; Nibasenge and Nahayo; rendered on 24/04/2015…………………………………………………………47 RCAA 0082/12/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 06/11/2015, paragraph 11………………………………………..153 RS/INJUST/RC 00011/2019/SC; Mukamusoni and Nkundimana, rendered on 12/02/2021……………………………………………46

## Page 330

xviii

RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2018/SC rendered on 13/03/2020, Nditiribambe Samuel, Gatera Jason vs Nyamaswa Faustin….153 RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2020/SC; Twagirayezu and Twagirayezu et al, rendered on10/12/2021………………………………………46 RPAA 0321/10/CS, Prosecution vs Habimana Jean Claude, rendered by the Supreme Court on 18/03/2016……………..….153 RPA 0227/08/CS, Prosecution vs Sibomana Nathanael, rendered by the Supreme Court on 19/02/2010…………………………..153 The Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society V. M/s Ponniamman Educational Trust, rendered by the Supreme Court of India on 03/07/2012………………………….189

## Page 331

xix

SUBJECT INDEX 1. Civil Law – Property sharing between spouses who live under a simple cohabitation – When spouses living under a simple cohabitation decide to dissolve their cohabitation life, they can partition the existing property on the sole condition that such a property is either “co-owned” or “jointly acquired”. Terms “co-owned” or “jointly acquired” do nevertheless mean that every spouse needs to prove his or her quantified contribution to creation of the concerned property; they rather mean that the concerned property must have been generated within the exact time limits of their cohabitation period- And, what matters most is a logic that while the separating spouses were still living together, everyone has, in one way or the other, contributed for the family prosperity – Law no 59/2008 of 10/09/2008 on Prevention and Punishment for Gender-based violence, article 39. MBESIGYE v MUKANGWIJE ET.AL…………….121 Mandate – Mandate for disposal of property – A person entrusted with general mandate has solely the powers to carry out ordinary activities related to the property management and growth; whereas extraordinary activities such as property sale or disposal in any manner presuppose a specific mandate providing to the mandatary at least with the nature on the property to be sold; the mandate should clearly and unequivocally indicate the property KAMUGWIZA v HASHIM SAKINA………………187 Mandate – General mandate – The power of attorney issued in general terms has to be construed as meant for the property management in the interests of the mandator since it is impossible for a living person with abilities and powers

## Page 332

xx RWANDA LAW REPORTS

to provide the power of attorney for selling by another person of his/her real and potential assets KAMUGWIZA v HASHIM SAKINA………………187 2. Civil procedure –The nullity of marriage contract – Effects of the nullified marriage on the well-intended spouse – When the marriage contract is nullified by the Court’s decision, the good-faith spouse that is a spouse who honestly did not know and had no single reason to know that such a marriage is defective reserve all rights arising from the marriage contract including the right on the property partition as provided for by their chosen type of matrimonial regime. Law n0 32/2016 of 28/08/2016 relating to Persons and Family, articles 199 and 201. MBESIGYE v MUKANGWIJE ET.AL…………….121 Evidence based on expert’s report – Lack of expert’s oath and signature in the expert’s report – The lack of oath or signature in the expert’s report due to oblivion or negligence does not itself constitute a reason to invalidate such an expert’s report when that expert may be summoned by the Court in order to rectify those defects by signing that report or taking his/her oath before the Court as per the law. MURENZI v MUTABAZI ET AL…………………..147 Evidence based on expert’s report – Expert self- contradiction – An expert who testified to the Court that he/she cooperated with his/her colleagues to prepare a report and then signed it, cannot later reject such a report without first proving that he/she had no capacity to refuse to sign such a report or that he/she was unaware that he/she was going to sign it. MURENZI v MUTABAZI ET AL…………………..147

## Page 333

xxi SUBJECT INDEX

Accountability for the construction failures – Loading your things on the wall until it collapses –The property owner who loads his/her things on the wall which it cannot support, should be held accountable of problems arising from that act for he/she is personally liable for such problems, and no one else. MURENZI v MUTABAZI ET AL…………………..147 3. Constitution – Principle of equality before the law – Differentiation of persons – Although persons are treated equally before the law, without any distinction or discrimination of any kind, and the newly enacted law must treat equally the persons for whom it is enacted, differentiation or categorisation does not always amount to discrimination, as long as it is done for a rational and legitimate purpose. Re KAMANZI…………………………………………1 Right to equality before the law and protection against discrimination – The fact that genocide suspects and other persons accused of crimes against humanity are subject to some exceptional limitations in their defence, limitations that are not imposed on other suspects, should not be construed as discrimination or inequality before the law done to them because they constitute a special category and because of the nature of the crimes of which they are accused. Re KAMANZI…………………………………………1 Fair justice – Fair justice consists of a set of requirements for the trial of cases in accordance with the principles laid down in the law, as well as fair administration of justice, which does not allow the enactment of irrational laws or the

## Page 334

xxii RWANDA LAW REPORTS

adoption of inappropriate policies that violate people's rights. Re KAMANZI…………………………………………1 Right to fair justice – The fact that in the course of the trial of criminal cases, different grounds have been provided for convicts of Gacaca courts and other convicts of ordinary courts in matters relating to the review of cases, does not mean a lack of fair justice, while each category must be given special treatment in accordance with the court concerned and the nature of their crimes. Re KAMANZI…………………………………………1 4. Judicial procedure – Civil Litigations – Lis pendens – a Court that has a jurisdiction to hear a case in lis pendens – When different competent courts were seized for a same case, one of the seized courts cedes and transfers the case to the other. And it is the higher court that takes precedence MURENZI ET AL. v MUTABAZI ET AL (ADD)…...73 Civil litigations – Lis pendens – Determination of lis pendens – grounds that justify lis pendens: 1) There must be different courts that were seized for a same case, that is, carrying on a same litigation matter, and between same litigants. 2) The seized courts must all be equally competent. The same litigation matter means that the claim must be of the same root, and must be for the same cause. Same litigants mean that parties litigating in one case must be exactly the very parties litigating in the other case. MURENZI ET AL. v MUTABAZI ET AL (ADD)……... Civil Litigations – Jurisdiction of Courts – The Court that has jurisdiction to hear cases that came from an Intermediate Court – A case whose first instance was heard

## Page 335

xxiii SUBJECT INDEX

by a Primary Court cannot be under the jurisdiction of the Supreme. Similarly, a case whose first instance was heard by an Intermediate and whose last instance was heard by the High Court, and which later was reviewed for injustice- related grounds cannot be brought under the jurisdiction of the Primary Court, since the sole courts that have jurisdiction for such a case are only the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. MURENZI ET AL. v MUTABAZI ET AL (ADD)…...73 5. Labour procedure – Provisional suspension at work – provisional detention – removal from office – In labour cases, the provisional detention of a public servant for a period of more than six months makes him automatic removed from office, starting from the date of his arrest and provisional detention. TABARUKA v GICUMBI DISTRICT……………….93 Public servant leave – Annual leave – In case a public servant is unable to take annual leave due to working conditions, s/he shall take it in the first month of the following year, but s/he must prove that he had requested it in writing – An employee who has requested a leave in writing and was not granted it due to work reasons, should not be given money to compensate it, but replaces it with another one that s/he must take in the first month of the following year TABARUKA v GICUMBI DISTRICT……………….93 6. Land law – Selling someone else's property – The owner of a property has the right to pursue his property out of the hands of the possessor, without the need to invalidate the contract of sale, and the possessor must then deal with the seller of that property.

## Page 336

xxiv RWANDA LAW REPORTS

UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI ET AL………………43 7. Law governing the jurisdiction of courts – Jurisdiction of Court of Appeal – Second appeal – Judgments rendered by competent courts – Agreement providing for arbitration – Claim for quashing the lower court decisions on basis of the fact that the claimant should have resorted to the arbitration. In case a party deprives himself/herself of the right of resorting to the arbitration and seizes the court, and the respondent admits it, no one can pretend that he/she was tried by the court lacking the jurisdiction for claiming for the admissibility of the second appeal. MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION ET AL. v QUALITY CONSTRUCTION ET AL………………..... 8. Procedure for the review of cases on the grounds of injustice –Time-limit for the review of cases on the grounds of injustice – Time limit for submitting a request for review of a case on grounds of injustice to the Office of the Ombudsman – Although the legislator has not specified the time limit for submitting a request for review of a case on grounds of injustice to the Office of the Ombudsman, the time limit for submitting such a request should be 30 days UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI ET AL………………43 Calculation of the thirty-day period where a litigant has lodged two appeals in a single case – Where a litigant has lodged two appeals in a single case, the thirty-day time limit for applying for a review of a judgment on grounds of injustice should be calculated from the date of the Court's decision declaring the second appeal inadmissible. UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI ET AL………………43

## Page 337

xxv SUBJECT INDEX

Failure to raise for the first time at the review of the judgment on grounds of injustice a new issue not raised at the hearing of the case under review on grounds of injustice – There can be no claim of injustice on the part of a litigant in respect of an issue which has not been raised for consideration. UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI ET AL………………43

## Page 339

SPECIAL CLAIMS

## Page 341

PETITION SEEKING TO DECLARE A LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL

## Page 343

1

Re KAMANZI [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2022/SC – (Mukamulisa, J. P., Nyirinkwaya, Cyanzayire, Muhumuza and Hitiyaremye, J.) March 31, 2023] Constitution – Principle of equality before the law – Differentiation of persons – Although persons are treated equally before the law, without any distinction or discrimination of any kind, and the newly enacted law must treat equally the persons for whom it is enacted, differentiation or categorisation does not always amount to discrimination, as long as it is done for a rational and legitimate purpose. Constitution – Right to equality before the law and protection against discrimination – The fact that genocide suspects and other persons accused of crimes against humanity are subject to some exceptional limitations in their defence, limitations that are not imposed on other suspects, should not be construed as discrimination or inequality before the law done to them because they constitute a special category and because of the nature of the crimes of which they are accused. Constitution – Fair justice – Fair justice consists of a set of requirements for the trial of cases in accordance with the principles laid down in the law, as well as fair administration of justice, which does not allow the enactment of irrational laws or the adoption of inappropriate policies that violate people's rights. Constitution – Right to fair justice – The fact that in the course of the trial of criminal cases, different grounds have been provided for convicts of Gacaca courts and other convicts of ordinary courts in matters relating to the review of cases, does not mean a

## Page 344

2 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

lack of fair justice, while each category must be given special treatment in accordance with the court concerned and the nature of their crimes. Facts: Kamanzi filed a petition with the Supreme Court asking it to declare paragraph 4 of Article 197 of Law no 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to Criminal Procedure inconsistent with Articles 15, 16 and 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda. He explains that the fact that the above-mentioned paragraph provides that Gacaca court convicts may apply for a review of the case upon proof that the people they are accused of murdering are still alive, discriminates against them and does not treat them equally before the law, as other grounds for such a procedure are provided for convicts of other ordinary courts. He adds that the fact that a convicted person who finds additional evidence that could lead to a review of the verdict of the Gacaca court, but who is denied by law the use of this procedure, violates his/her right to a fair trial as guaranteed by the Constitution, since he/she is not given the opportunity to prove the injustice he/she has suffered. The representative of the Government of Rwanda in this case states that Kamanzi's allegation that the provisions of paragraph 4 of the aforementioned Law no 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 are inconsistent with Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution is unfounded, as the provisions of these articles should be analysed when comparing persons belonging to the same category. He points out that the fact that the contested article gives reasons for the review of cases on the basis of the courts that have heard those cases does not constitute discrimination, especially since the categorisation of persons does not discriminate them if it is done

## Page 345

3 Re KAMANZI

for a clear, rational and legitimate purpose and is based on a reason of public interest. He goes on to say that the existence of the controversial paragraph is so necessary because the review of cases decided by the Gacaca courts for any reason could be interpreted as a lack of respect for the work done by these courts, and this can lead to conflicts among Rwandans. In his conclusion, he states that the disputed paragraph 4 of article 197 of the aforementioned Law was enacted with the intention of filling the gap whereby convicts of Gacaca courts used to appeal to ordinary courts to review their cases, with the intention of disproving those courts, regardless of the nature of the commission of the crime of genocide. With regard to the principle of non-discrimination and equality before the law examined in the present case, it was explained that it is lawful to differentiate persons for a clear, rational and legitimate purpose by means of procedures appropriate to that purpose. The Court noted that suspects of genocide and other crimes against humanity have been placed in a special category, special courts have been established for them, and they have been tried in accordance with a special procedure in line with the intended purpose. The fact that their trial procedure is different from the normal procedures for the trial of other suspects of other ordinary crimes, thus subjecting them to some limitations specific to them, is due to the nature of the commission of the crime of genocide, therefore, the Court found that this does not constitute discrimination against them or non-equal treatment before the law, since they constitute a special category, and the same Court therefore ruled that paragraph 4 of article 197 of the aforementioned Law no 027/2019 is not inconsistent with articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution.

## Page 346

4 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

With regard to the right to fair justice, it was explained that fair justice is based on the provisions of the law that prohibit the enactment of irrational laws or the adoption of inappropriate policies that violate people's rights without a clear and rational reason. There is also fair justice, which is based on the fair administration of justice, which is based on a set of requirements for the trial process, based on legal principles or international treaties. The Court found that those convicted by the Gacaca courts enjoyed all the rights provided for in Article 29 of the Constitution, as well as the rights provided for in international covenants, during their trial. The same Court also found that paragraph 4 of Article 197 of the aforementioned Law no 027/2019 of 19.09.2019, in the context of the present petition, does not in any way deprive or violate the rights of the suspect of the crime of genocide for his trial proceedings. Held: 1. Although persons are treated equally before the law, without any distinction or discrimination of any kind, and the newly enacted law must treat equally the persons for whom it is enacted, differentiation or categorisation does not always amount to discrimination, as long as it is done for a rational and legitimate purpose. 2. The fact that genocide suspects and other persons accused of crimes against humanity are subject to some exceptional limitations in their defence, limitations that are not imposed on other suspects, should not be construed as discrimination or inequality before the law done to them because they constitute a special category and because of the nature of the crimes of which they are accused.

## Page 347

5 Re KAMANZI

3. Fair justice consists of a set of requirements for the trial of cases in accordance with the principles laid down in the law, as well as fair administration of justice, which does not allow the enactment of irrational laws or the adoption of inappropriate policies that violate people's rights. 4. The fact that in the course of the trial of criminal cases, different grounds have been provided for convicts of Gacaca courts and other convicts of ordinary courts in matters relating to the review of cases, does not mean a lack of fair justice, while each category must be given special treatment in accordance with the court concerned and the nature of their crimes. The petition for a declaration that a provision of a law is inconsistent with the Constitution is unfounded. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: The Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, articles 15, 16 and 29; Organic law n° 03/2012 of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 86; Organic Law n°16/2004 of 19/06/2004 determining organization, competence and functioning of Gacaca Courts; Organic Law nº 40/2000 of 26/01/2001 establishing the organisation, competence and functioning of Gacaca courts charged with prosecuting and trying the perpetrators of the crime of genocide and other crimes against humanity, committed between October 1, 1990 and December 31, 1994; United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, article 7, 10 and 11.

## Page 348

6 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

African Charter on human and People's rights, Article 7; International Covenant on Civil and political Rights of 1966, article 26; The European Convention on Human Rights, articles 6 and 14; Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure, article 197; Organic Law n° 11/2007 of 16/03/2007 concerning transfer of cases to the Republic of Rwanda from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and from other States, article 1; Cases referred to: Ngendahayo Kabuye, RS/INCONST/SPEC 00004/2021/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 10/02/2023; Re Murangwa, RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2022/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 16/12/2022; Re Kabasinga, RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 04/12/2019; Murangwa Edward, RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/ 2019/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 29/11/2019; Akagera Business Group, RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 23/09/2016; Bimenyimana André, RS/INCONST/PEN/0001/13/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 04/10/2013; Kamanzi Anaclet, rendered by Gacaca Court in Kigasha sector on 21/11/2006; Kamanzi Anaclet, RMP 3119/AM/KGL/NZF/98-RP 0019/CG- CS/99 rendered by the Military Court on 18/03/1999; L/Cpl Banamwana Alfred, RMP 3119/AM/KGL/NZF/98-RP 0019/CG-CS/99 rendered by the Military Court; Case of Thlimmenos v. Greece (Application number 34369/97), Strasbourg 6 April 2000, §44;

## Page 349

7 Re KAMANZI

Case of Coertzee v. the Government of the Republic of South Africa 1995 (4) SA 631 (CC); Case of Carson and others v. The United Kingdom (Application number 42184/05), §61; Case of Inze v. Austria (Application number 8695/79), Strasbourg 28 October 1987, &41. Authors quoted: National Service of Gacaca courts, Gacaca courts closing report, Kigali, June 18, 2012, p. 77. Judgment BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

On 07/05/2022, Kamanzi Anaclet petitioned the Supreme Court to strike down paragraph 4 of Article 197 of the Law no 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to Criminal Procedure on the grounds that it is inconsistent with Articles 15, 16 and 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003, as revised in 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution).

He claims that on 21 November 2006, he was found guilty of the crime of genocide by the Gacaca Appeal Court in the Kigasha sector, which found that he had participated in the attack that killed the family of Munyengango Augustin in the Kigasha sector, Ngarama commune, Byumba prefecture.

He states that after his conviction, on 25 April 2002, he found the following evidence, which could lead him to request a review of the judgment rendered by the Gacaca court:

## Page 350

8 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

- Acopy of the judgment RMP 3119/AM/KGL/NZF/98 – RP 0019/CG- CS/99 rendered by the Military Court 18/03/1999; - Various documents in the casefile.

He further states that the said documents indicate that the crime of which he was convicted and for which he was sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment was committed by soldiers who were camped in the barracks located in the Kigasha sector, and that one of these soldiers, L/Cpl Banamwana Alfred, admitted the charges both during the investigation and at the hearing, confirming that such a crime was committed by them as soldiers and that no civilian was involved.

He explains that paragraph 4 of article 197 of the aforementioned Law no 027/2019 of 19 September 2019 stipulates that, with regard to cases heard by a Gacaca court, a review of the case is only accepted if the convicted person establishes that the person he or she is accused of killing is alive, and that the other five grounds referred to in paragraph 1 of this article apply only to persons who have suffered injustice by decisions of ordinary courts, and that victims of injustice by Gacaca courts are not entitled to use these grounds.

He states that in his personal interest and in the interest of the general public, as a Rwandan trying to fight for fair justice and the development of the legal system, he filed this petition to have the Supreme Court annul the last paragraph (4) of Article 197 of the aforementioned Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the Constitution in its subsequent articles:

## Page 351

9 Re KAMANZI

- article 15 providing that all people are equal before the law; - article 16 prohibiting discrimination of any kind; - article 29 entitling right to fair justice to everybody.

The hearing was held in public on 18 January 2002, with Kamanzi Anaclet represented by Counsel Kayitana Evode and the Government represented by Counsel Batsinda Aline, and the Court first considered issues relating to Kamanzi Anaclet's interest in the case.

After hearing from Counsel Kayitana Evode, representing Kamanzi Anaclet, who stated that he, like any other Rwandan, had an interest in maintaining respect for the Constitution and other legal instruments, but in particular, as a convict of the Gacaca court, he was violated by the disputed provision.

Having heard Counsel Batsinda Aline, representing the Government of Rwanda, who stated that Kamanzi Anaclet had no particular interest in the case, given the wording of Article 197 of the aforementioned Law no 027/2019 of 19/09/2019, which concerns all Rwandans in general;

On the bench, the Court ruled as follows: based on the decision of the preliminary judgment RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2022/SC rendered on 16/12/20221, whereby this Court

1 in this case, Murangwa Edward petitioned the for the repeal of some articles of the Law nº 12/2017 of 07/04/2017 establishing Rwanda Investigation Bureau and determining its responsibilities, competence, organisation and functioning, and some articles of the Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating

## Page 352

10 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

held that if one of the following conditions is met, it suffices for the Court to confirm that the applicant has an interest in the case: - If the law alleged to be inconsistent with the Constitution concerns the petitioner or his/her category in particular, to the extent that he/she has a personal interest in the petition; - If the law alleged to be inconsistent with the Constitution concerns all persons in general, in so far as such a law infringes their rights, and thus everyone who will be affected by that law has an interest in petitioning for its inconstitutionality; - If the petitioner is a practitioner, and in the interest of justice, he/she is entitled to petition in order to contribute to the development of legal systems or to protect the rights of persons affected by that law, even if he/she has no interest to protect in the petition.

With regard to the present case, the Court noted that the file contained the judgment of the Gacaca court of the Kigasha sector, which sentenced Kamanzi Anaclet to 25 years' imprisonment for his role in the death of the family of Munyengango Augustin during the genocide against the Tutsis. The same file also contains the judgement of the military court which convicted L/Cpl Banamwana Alfred of being an accomplice in the murder of the family of Munyengango Augustin.

to criminal procedure, on grounds that those articles are inconsistent with the Constitution.

## Page 353

11 Re KAMANZI

On the basis of the foregoing documents and the aforementioned position adopted by this Court, this Court finds that Kamanzi Anaclet has a direct and personal interest in challenging Article 197, paragraph 4, of the aforementioned Law no 027/2019 on the grounds that it does not allow him to apply for a review of the judgment which allegedly convicted him of the same offence for which the court convicted another person who did not accuse the petitioner of being his accomplice.

The Court resumed the hearing and the following issues were analysed: - Whether the paragraph 4 of article 197 of the Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure is inconsistent with articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution; - Whether the paragraph 4 of article 197 of the Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure is inconsistent with article 29 of the Constitution; II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES  1. Whether the paragraph 4 of article 197 of the Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure is inconsistent with articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution

Counsel Kayitana Evode assisting Kamanzi Anaclet states that article 15 of the Constitution provides that all persons are equal before the law and they are entitled to equal protection of the law. He further states that International covenants ratified by Rwanda also provides for this right of equality before the law

## Page 354

12 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

and prevention of any kind of discrimination. He gives an example of article 26 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques) provides that all persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. The same article further provides that in this respect, the law must prohibit all discrimination and guarantee all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination.

He states that the fact that article 197, paragraph 1, of the above-mentioned Law no 027/2019 provides that convicts of Gacaca courts are not allowed to request a review of their case, as is the case for convicts of ordinary courts, constitutes an injustice against them, since the law does not treat them in the same way as convicts of ordinary courts. He considers that the aforementioned article is incompatible with Article 16 of the Constitution, which provides that all Rwandans are born and remain equal in rights and freedoms, because Kamanzi Anaclet does not enjoy the same right to case review as others.

Counsel Kayitana Evode admits that discrimination can be allowed by the law for serious grounds, and this has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the judgment RS/INCONST/PEN 0005/12/CS. He elucidates that this case was based on the decision of ICTR (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda) for the transfer of Uwinkindi Jean to be tried by Rwandan courts, where he had to be tried by the High Court at the first instance as per article one of the Law n° 11/2007 of 16/03/2007 concerning transfer of cases to the Republic of Rwanda from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and from other States. Uwinkindi Jean immediately petitioned the Supreme Court to repeal the said article on the grounds that it is

## Page 355

13 Re KAMANZI

inconsistent with the Constitution, stating that such an article will lead to injustice and that he will be tried by the High Court in the first instance, thus depriving him of the right to appeal as is the case for others.

He adds that the Court has held that a distinction between persons is not discriminatory unless it is neutral and is made for a rational purpose. The Court stated this as follows: The categorisation of persons is not discriminatory, especially if these categories are established to achieve a reasonable puprpose, which is visible to everyone, is based on the law and is valid in the public interest.

He explains that matters relating to possible differentiation of persons by the law were also reiterated by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, in its resolution of the meeting of 37, where this Committee, on this matter of differentiating persons by the law, stated that “…the committee observes that not every differentiation of treatment will constitute discrimination, if the criteria for such differentiation are reasonable and objective and if the aim is to achieve a purpose which is legitimate under the covenant”.

He stated that, in his opinion, the provisions of paragraph 4, article 197 of the aforementioned Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 can be justified, since there is no single reason that can justify allowing some people to have their injustice examined by the courts and depriving others of the same right.

He goes on to explain that foreign countries have a say in matters relating to the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law. He cited the example of Canada, where section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states

## Page 356

14 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

that all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection of the law without discrimination. He states that in defining the said equality before before the law and equal protection of the law, the Canadian Supreme Court, in the case of “Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia”, upheld that, as a principle, equal protection means that people in similar circumstances must be treated equally.

With regard to the meaning of discrimination, he states that the very Court defined it as follows: “Discrimination is a distinction which, whether intentional or not but based on grounds relating to personal characteristics of the individual or group, has an effect which withholds or limits access to advantages available to other members of society.”

In his conclusion, he states that, as mentioned in paragraph 4 of Article 197 of the aforementioned Law, a paragraph which is the subject of the request for repeal, the Law provides for two categories of persons without any intention to treat persons in each category equally, but rather the intention was to grant a right to one category and to deprive another category of such a righ He explains that those convicted in ordinary courts have the right to request a review of their case, while those convicted in Gacaca courts have no such right. He concludes by arguing that this constitutes discrimination because, in addition to unequal legal protection, some people do not have even the slightest protection.

Counsel Batsinda Aline, representing the Government of Rwanda, states that Kamanzi Anaclet's contention that the provisions of paragraph 4 of Article 197 of the aforementioned Law no 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 are inconsistent with Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution is unfounded, as such provisions

## Page 357

15 Re KAMANZI

should be analysed for the purpose of comparing a person with those in the same category.

She submits that article 197 of the above-mentioned Law n° 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 provides for two categories of cases that may be the subject of a request for review, namely: cases heard by ordinary courts may be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, and cases heard by Gacaca courts may be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 4 of the same article.

She further states that the principles provided for in Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution can be respected by comparing what convicts of ordinary courts are allowed to do with each other for case review, or comparing what convicts of Gacaca courts are allowed to do with each other for case review, and this can be done by considering the grounds provided for in Article 197 of the aforementioned Law no 027/2019 of 19/09/2019.

She elucidates that the fact that the said article provides for the grounds for requesting a review of the case on the basis of the courts that have heard the case does not constitute discrimination, and that this has been confirmed in the above- mentioned judgment RS/INCONST/PEN 0005/12/CS, paragraph 16, where the Supreme Court ruled that the fact that the law provides for litigants sued for similar offences to be tried in different courts does not constitute discrimination, but may be done for a rational purpose in order to provide fair justice.

She further states that the categorisation of persons does not imply discrimination, especially when that categorisation is made for a rational, obvious and legitimate purpose and that it is

## Page 358

16 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

made in the interest of the public, and this confirms that paragraph 4, article 197 of the aforementioned Law no 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 does not contradict articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution on matters relating to special categories.

The Counsel adds that this paragraph is necessary because the review of cases tried by the Gacaca courts, for whatever reason, can be seen as a lack of respect for the work done by these courts, which then leads to disputes and conflicts among Rwandans, as in some cases a conspiracy has been identified behind the review of cases tried by these courts with the intention of releasing those convicted by them.

The counsel further explains that the purpose of the contested paragraph 4 of Article 197 of Law no 027/2019 is that, during the period of the Gacaca courts, a compromise was made between those convicted of a crime of genocide, whereby a person accused of killing many people would add another victim whom he didn't kill, with the intention of covering up the crime committed by someone else. She states that if one analyses the way a crime of genocide is committed, it is clear that the death of a victim involves many people, for example, a person who participated in barricade activities and it is not easy to know the exact number of people who were killed there, or if that person is convicted of an offence of incitement to kill, conspiracy or participation in the attacks, you find that the death of the victim in that period involves many people because all the said acts were aimed at killing that person. In this case, she states, the real killer of the victim cannot be punished alone and let his/her accomplices feel no guilt, and it is in this framework that the Organic Law governing Gacaca Courts puts people in different categories based on how they committed crimes, and all this aims

## Page 359

17 Re KAMANZI

to justify why convicts of Gacaca Courts should not base on the same grounds as those based by convicts of ordinary courts in applying for case review.

The representative of the Government of Rwanda added that prior to the inclusion of paragraph 4 of the said article in the Law, some cases heard by the Gacaca courts and reviewed by the ordinary courts had declared those convicted of the crime of genocide not guilty or even released them unjustly, disregarding the specificity and nature of the Gacaca courts. She explains that in some cases, ordinary courts have overturned judgements handed down by Gacaca courts on the grounds that there is another person convicted of the same crime who has confessed to having committed it, ignoring the fact that one person could be killed in an attack involving many people, as explained above.

She cites an example of two cases referred to by Kamanzi Anaclet, namely the case heard by Gacaca court of Kigasha sector on 21/11/2006, and the case RMP 3119/AM/KGL/NZF/98-RP 0019/CG-CS/99 decided by the Military Court on 18/03/1999, in which he was convictef of crimes related to those convicted to L/Cpl Banamwana Alfred in the judgment RMP 3119/AM/KGL/NZF/98-RP 0019/CG-CS/99.

In her conclusion, she states that paragraph 4 of article 197 of the aforementioned Law no 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 was introduced to fill the gap whereby convicts of Gacaca courts used to turn to ordinary courts to review their cases, with the intention of overturning the verdicts against them, without taking into account the specificity of the commission of the crime of genocide.

## Page 360

18 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda provides that all persons are equal before the law and that they are entitled to equal protection of the law, and article 16 of the same Constitution reads that all Rwandans are born and remain equal in rights and freedoms. Discrimination of any kind or its propaganda based on, inter alia, ethnic origin, family or ancestry, clan, skin colour or race, sex, region, economic categories, religion or faith, opinion, fortune, cultural differences, language, economic status, physical or mental disability or any other form of discrimination are prohibited and punishable by law.

Article 197 of the Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure, paragraph 4 under application for repeal on grounds that it is inconsistent with articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution, stipulates that regarding cases heard by a Gacaca Court, case review is accepted only if the convicted person identifies that the person he or she is alleged to have killed is a live. This means that any grounds other than those provided for in this article2 are inadmissible for the review of the case of the person convicted by the Gacaca courts.

2 A case can be reviewed due to one of the following grounds: 1° if a person convicted of homicide and later, sufficient evidence is discovered to confirm that the person the convict is alleged to have killed is alive; 2° if, after the accused is convicted of an offence, and it is subsequently found that there is a judgment sentencing another person for the same offence, so that the contradiction between both judgments shows that one of the convicted persons is innocent; 3° if the court finds that corruption was involved in the case and had effects on the judgment;

## Page 361

19 Re KAMANZI

The principle of equality before the law and non- discrimination is not only enshrined in the Rwandan Constitution, but also in the international covenants ratified by Rwanda. For instance, Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 reads that: “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination”. There is also article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 which reads that: “All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”.

With regard to the interpretation of Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution, the Court explained this in its judgment RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS of 23/09/20163. The Court stated that Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution are closely related to each other so that they cannot be interpreted in isolation from each other. The Court explained that Article 15, which states that all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to equal

4° if the judgment was rendered on the basis of documents, testimonies or oaths which later turn out to be or are subsequently declared false by the court after the judgment; 5° if, after the judgment, new conclusive evidence sufficiently showing injustice caused by judgment subject to review is revealed; 6° if the judgment is based on the proceedings conducted on behalf of a person who did not explicitly or implicitly grant permission to do so or prove or confirm such proceedings. 3 Judgment RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS, Akagera Business Group, paragraph 15

## Page 362

20 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

protection of the law, means that any discrimination that results in unequal protection of the law or deprivation of the right to which one is entitled is unconstitutional, while Article 16, as a continuation of Article 15, states how differentiation between persons can be considered discrimination and that such discrimination is unconstitutional. These two articles can be considered as containing a principle of equality of persons in what they are allowed or forbidden to do, with the intention of excluding some persons from the right to which they are entitled. The very Court further upheld this in the judgment RS/INCONST/SPEC 00004/2021/SC4.

As noted above, the principle of equality before the law means that people are treated equally before the law, without inequality or discrimination, and that the law should treat those affected equally. There may be an exception to this principle if there are reasonable grounds based on a legitimate or reasonable purpose, as the applicant acknowledges, which was confirmed by this Court in case RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2019 /SC, decided on 29/11/20195. In this case, the Court, relying on the words of legal expert Erwin Hemerinsky, stated that things that are alike should be treated alike, and things that are unalike should be treated unalike in proportion to their unalikeness. In other words, people should be treated equally, but regardless of their class, so that people from different classes are not treated the same.

This principle that people within the same category must be treated differently and without reasonable justification in order

4 RS/INCONST/SPEC 00004/2021/SC rendered on 10/02/2023, Ngendahayo Kabuye, paragraph 36. 5 Judgment RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/ 2019/SC, Murangwa Edward rendered on 29/11/2019, p.12, paragraph 35.

## Page 363

21 Re KAMANZI

for it to be considered discrimination or non-discrimination was also reiterated in the case of Thlimmenos vs. Greece decided by by the European Court of Human Rights, which said that for a country to be found in breach of Article 14 of the Convention against discrimination6, it must have treated people in the same category differently without a rational and legitimate reason. The Court stated this as follows: “The Court has so far considered that the right under Article 14 not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under the Convention is violated when States treat differently persons in analogous situations without providing an objective and reasonable justification”.7

In the case of Carson and Others v. The United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights has confirmed, on the basis of other cases, that differentiation falls within the definition of Article 14 if it is based on certain characteristics. Furthermore, for this to be considered as discrimination, those people who are not treated equally must be in the same category, and it must be done without a rational purpose or when there is no connection between such a difference and the purpose sought to be realised. The Court stated this as follows: “The Court has established in its case-law that only differences in treatment based on an identifiable characteristic, or “status”, are capable of amounting to discrimination within the meaning of Article 14. Moreover, in order for an issue to arise under Article 14 there must be a

6 The article 14 of European Convention on Human Rights reads: The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status. 7 Case of Thlimmenos v. Greece (Application number. 34369/97), Strasbourg 6 April 2000, §44.

## Page 364

22 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

difference in the treatment of persons in analogous, or relevantly similar, situations. Such a difference in treatment is discriminatory if it has no objective and reasonable justification; in other words, if it does not pursue a legitimate aim or if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised. […]8

In the Inze vs. Austria case, the Court also confirmed that, in the context of Article 14, discrimination occurs when people are treated differently without a clear and reasonable justification, without a legitimate aim, or in a way that is unrelated to the aim to be achieved. The Court said that countries have the right to analyse when it is necessary not to treat people equally under the law, taking into account their history. The Court stated this as follows: “For the purposes of Article 14, a difference of treatment is discriminatory if it "has no objective and reasonable justification", that is, if it does not pursue a "legitimate aim" or if there is not a "reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised". The Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment in law; the scope of this margin will vary according to the circumstances, the subject- matter and its background.”9

In its report, the United Nations Human Rights Committee stated as follows: […] “The Committee reiterates its constant jurisprudence that the right to equality before the law

8 Case of Carson and others v. The United Kingdom (Application number. 42184/05), §61. 9 Case of Inze v. Austria (Application number. 8695/79), Strasbourg 28 October 1987, &41.

## Page 365

23 Re KAMANZI

and to equal protection of the law without any discrimination does not make all differences of treatment discriminatory. A differentiation based on reasonable and objective criteria does not amount to prohibited discrimination within the meaning of article 26).”10

Following the general explanations on the definition of unequal treatment before the law and discrimination, the Court finds that unequal treatment does not always imply discrimination prohibited by law, and the remaining question to be analysed is whether paragraph 4 of Article 197 of Law no 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 on criminal proceedings contains unequal treatment before the law and discrimination, as alleged by the applicant. As elucidated above, the very article explains that regarding cases heard by a Gacaca Court, case review is accepted only if the convicted person identifies that the person he or she is alleged to have killed is a live, whereas there exist other grounds provided under the same article for convicts of other courts to apply for case review.11

10 Muller and Engelhard v. Namibia, Communication number 919/2000, adopted on 26 March 2002, para. 6.7. 11 See article 197, paragraph one, of the Law Nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure, which reads that a case can be reviewed due to one of the following grounds: 1° if a person convicted of homicide and later, sufficient evidence is discovered to confirm that the person the convict is alleged to have killed is alive; 2° if, after the accused is convicted of an offence, and it is subsequently found that there is a judgment sentencing another person for the same offence, so that the contradiction between both judgments shows that one of the convicted persons is innocent; 3° if the court finds that corruption was involved in the case and had effects on the judgment;

## Page 366

24 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Article 197 of the aforementioned Law Nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 contains two categories : the category of those tried and convicted by ordinary courts; and the category of those tried and convicted of Gacaca courts. The category of persons alleged by the applicant to have been discriminated against and subjected to unequal treatment before the law is that of those tried and convicted by the Gacaca courts as compared to the category of those convicted by the ordinary courts. The applicant submits that the purpose of the law in providing for these two categories of persons was not to treat them equally, but rather to grant some rights to one category by depriving the other category of such rights, since those convicted by ordinary courts are entitled to apply for a review of the case, while those convicted by Gacaca courts are not.

In order to better understand the issue in this case, it is better to first examine the rationale behind the establishment of Gacaca courts, their purpose and how they function differently from ordinary courts. After the end of the genocide against the Tutsi in 1994, which claimed the lives of more than one million people, one of the most pressing issues was to bring to justice those suspected of having participated in the genocide so that the victims could receive justice. This was not an easy task, given the large number of suspects to be tried, with more than 120,000

4° if the judgment was rendered on the basis of documents, testimonies or oaths which later turn out to be or are subsequently declared false by the court after the judgment; 5° if, after the judgment, new conclusive evidence sufficiently showing injustice caused by judgment subject to review is revealed; 6° if the judgment is based on the proceedings conducted on behalf of a person who did not explicitly or implicitly grant permission to do so or prove or confirm such proceedings.

## Page 367

25 Re KAMANZI

suspects in provisional detention, and the fact that the justice sector had been severely damaged by the genocide.12

Although the Government of Rwanda had done much to bring cases relating to the genocide against the Tutsi to trial, it was noted that at the rate at which these cases were being tried at the time, it could take many years to try at least those in provisional detention, although there were still other wanted suspects13. In this context, it was considered necessary to resort to another special procedure to deal with the issue, and then Gacaca courts were established, which functioned differently from ordinary courts, because these courts were also meant to deal with a special issue14.

Considering the rationale of Organic Law n° 16/2004 of 19/06/2004 establishing the organisation, competence and functioning of Gacaca courts charged with prosecuting and trying the perpetrators of the crime of genocide and other crimes against humanity, committed between October 1, 1990 and December 31, 1994 15, such courts had the following goals: - Establishing truth about what happened; - Accelerate the legal proceedings for those accused of Genocide Crimes;

12 The National Service of Gacaca Courts, Gacaca jurisdictions in Rwanda, June 2012, page 13. 13 National Service of Gacaca courts, Gacaca courts closing report, Kigali, June 18, 2012, p. 77. 14 Organic Law nº 40/2000 of 26/01/2001 establishing the organisation, competence and functioning of Gacaca courts charged with prosecuting and trying the perpetrators of the crime of genocide and other crimes against humanity, committed between October 1, 1990 and December 31, 1994. 15 This Law repealed the one of 2001.

## Page 368

26 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

- Eradicating the culture of impunity; - Reconciling Rwandans and reinforcing their unity; - Showing the capacities of Rwandan society to deal with its problems through a justice-based Rwandan custom. Based on those goals, the Legislator created a special category for suspects of the crime of genocide and other crimes against humanity, and also established a special procedure for their trial compared to other suspects in ordinary courts for ordinary crimes.

The peculiarity of the aforementioned Organic Law establishing the Gacaca Courts, which has been subject to repeal and amendment, compared to other penal codes and criminal procedures, is that such an organic law itself defines the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Gacaca Courts, crimes, suspects and penalties. In other words, the Gacaca courts, in deciding cases under their jurisdiction, respected the special procedure provided for in the organic law establishing them, a procedure different from that for ordinary cases.

Returning to the issue in the present case, in which the applicant alleges that those convicted by the Gacaca courts are discriminated against and do not enjoy the same protection as those convicted by ordinary courts because they are entitled to apply for a review of their case only if they manage to prove that the person they are accused of killing is still alive, whereas other convicts have other grounds for applying for a review of their case, the Court finds, as explained above, that this allegation is unfounded, since they are suspected of crimes belonging to different categories. On the one hand, we have suspects of ordinary crimes and, on the other, suspects of genocide and other crimes against humanity. The purpose of the legislator was to

## Page 369

27 Re KAMANZI

establish a different procedure for such crimes, taking into account the objectives presented in paragraph 46 of the present case, and this explains the reason why, in matters relating to the review of cases, special grounds have been established for each category to be authorised to apply for the review of cases.

The Court also finds that the same issue as that in the present case, namely the procedure for reviewing the cases of those in the category of convicts of Gacaca courts, as distinct from those convicted in ordinary courts, is not a new issue before this Court. In Judgment RS/INCONST/PEN/0001/13/CS of 04/10/2013, in which Bimenyimana André filed a petition requesting the repeal of Article 86, last paragraph, of Organic Law no 03/2012 of 13/06/2012 on the Organisation, Functioning and Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which provides that matters relating to the review of judgments for injustice do not concern cases decided by Gacaca courts, be repealed because it is inconsistent with Article 16 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 04/06/2003, as revised at the time the petition was filed16. The same court explained that there was no discrimination because, in enacting Article 86 of the aforementioned Organic Law no 03/2012 of 13/06/2012, the legislator relied, inter alia, on the grounds of the establishment of Gacaca courts, their rationale and purpose.17 The same motivation is also given in the present case with regard to the reasons for inserting the fourth paragraph of Article 197 of Law no 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 on criminal procedure, which establishes a speciality for cases decided by Gacaca courts.

16 This article provides that all persons are equal before the law and that they are entitled to equal protection of the law. 17 Urubanza RS/INCONST/PEN/0001/13/CS, Bimenyimana André, paragraph 17.

## Page 370

28 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Based on the foregoing elucidations, the Court finds the petition filed by Kamanzi Anaclet requesting the repeal of paragraph 4 of article 197 of the Nº 027/2019 of 027/2019 relating to criminal procedure, for being inconsistent with articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda, lacks merit. 2. Whether the paragraph 4 of article 197 of the Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure is inconsistent with article 29 of the Constitution

Counsel Kayitana Evode representing Kamanzi Anaclet states that article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda reads that” Everyone has the right to due process of law (…), which includes the right to be presumed innocent. He states that this article does not provide all the details on the content of due process of law, that subsection five (5°) of this article states that no one shall be held liable for an offence which he or she has not committed, that this is the basis for giving the person convicted by the court the right to request a review of his or her case in order to be declared innocent and not liable for a crime which he or she has not committed.

He submits that the definition and content of due process of law have been explained by the Supreme Court in the judgment RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC of the Supreme Court of 4 December 2014, in which the Court explained that due process of law consists of criteria to be followed in judicial proceedings based on legal provisions that are based on the principles of procedural due process and fair administration of justice, which prohibits the adoption of inappropriate legal instruments or other measures that violate people's rights (substantive due process).

## Page 371

29 Re KAMANZI

He states that the remaining issue to be analysed is "whether the authorisation to apply for a review of the case" is part of the content of due process of law. He submits that in the above-mentioned judgment RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC, the Supreme Court stated that in criminal cases, the due process of law begins with the investigation, prosecution and then the trial and sentencing of the offences provided for in the Criminal Codes. This means, he says, that issues relating to the right to appeal and case review are part of the trial process, which is also part of due process.

Counsel Kayitana Evode also argues that the fact that there are legitimate reasons for reviewing a case in order to ensure the fair administration of justice, but that these reasons are disregarded simply because the person has been convicted by a Gacaca court, violates the principle of due process of law. He requests that paragraph 4 of Article 197 of the above-mentioned Law no 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 be repealed so that Kamanzi Anaclet, as well as other persons who feel that they have been wronged by the Gacaca courts, enjoy the same rights as other Rwandans who have evidence that they have been wronged by the courts and that the law includes this among the grounds for reviewing the case.

He submits that there is nothing to prevent the Supreme Court from repealing any legal provision or part of it if it is inconsistent with the Constitution, as ruled in judgment RS/INCONST/PEN0001/07/CS, since this cannot have any effect on the statute. He adds that this position is similar to that adopted by other foreigh courts, such as the case of Coertzee v. the Government of the Republic of South Africa 1995 (4) SA 631 (CC) rendered by the Supreme Court of South Africa, where the

## Page 372

30 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

very Court stated that “the bad and the good may be separated without prejudice to the main objective of the statute and the purpose of legislature.”

In conclusion, Counsel Kayitana Evode states that Kamanzi Anaclet did not receive due process of law as he received new evidence that allowed him to have his case reviewed, but he was prevented by the law from presenting the injustice he suffered.

Counsel Batsinda Aline, representing the Government of Rwanda, argues that the due process of law provided for in Article 29 of the Constitution has nothing to do with the right that Kamanzi Anaclet claims to have been deprived of, namely the right to appeal and the right to review. It states that the petitioner had the right of appeal and the right of review when he was tried by the Gacaca courts, in accordance with the Organic Law N˚ 16/2004 of 19 June 2004 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Gacaca courts, as revised and supplemented by various organic laws, and that he exercised these rights before the Gacaca courts.

With regard to the right to a review of the case provided for in paragraph 4 of Article 197 of Law no 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 on Criminal Procedure, Counsel Batsinda Aline submits that Kamanzi Anaclet can exercise this right once he manages to prove that it is provided for in the said paragraph, and therefore this paragraph is in no way inconsistent with Article 29 of the Constitution.

## Page 373

31 Re KAMANZI

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda highlights some of the elements of due process to which everyone is entitled. Those are the following: - The right to be informed of the nature and cause of charges and the right to defence and legal representation; - To be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent Court; - to appear before a competent Court; - not to be subjected to prosecution, arrest, detention or punishment on account of any act or omission which did not constitute an offence under national or international law at the time it was committed. Offences and their penalties are determined by law; - not to be held liable for an offence he or she did not commit. Criminal liability is personal; - not to be punished for an offence with a penalty that is severer than the penalty provided for by the law at the time that offence was committed; - not to be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation; - not to be prosecuted or punished for a crime which has reached its statute of limitations. However, the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are not subject to statute of limitations. […].

## Page 374

32 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

In terms of what should be respected to ensure due process of law, in addition to the Constitution, it can be found in the following international covenants: - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights where its article 14 enumerates the rights entitled to a suspect;18

18Article 14 stipule: 1. “Tous sont égaux devant les tribunaux et les cours de justice. […] 2. Toute personne accusée d’une infraction pénale est présumée innocente jusqu’à ce que sa culpabilité ait été légalement établie. 3. Toute personne accusée d’une infraction pénale a droit, en pleine égalité, au moins aux garanties suivantes: a) A être informée, dans le plus court délai, dans une langue qu’elle comprend et de façon détaillée, de la nature et des motifs de l’accusation portée contre elle; b) A disposer du temps et des facilités nécessaires à la préparation de sa defense et à communiquer avec le conseil de son choix; c) A être jugée sans retard excessif; d) A être présente au procès et à se défendre elle-même ou à avoir l’assistance d’un défenseur de son choix; si elle n’a pas de défenseur, à être informée de son droit d’en avoir un, et, chaque fois que l’intérêt de la justice l’exige, à se voir attribuer d’office un défenseur, sans frais, si elle n’a pas les moyens de le rémunérer; e) A interroger ou faire interroger les témoins à charge et à obtenir la comparution et l’interrogatoire des témoins à décharge dans les mêmes conditions que les témoins à charge; f) A se faire assister gratuitement d’un interprète si elle ne comprend pas ou ne parle pas la langue employée à l’audience; g) A ne pas être forcée de témoigner contre elle-même ou de s’avouer coupable.” […]

## Page 375

33 Re KAMANZI

- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where its articles 10 and 11 provides on the rights entitled to a suspect;19 - African Charter on Human and Peoples’Rights, where its article 7 provides on how the suspect should be treated;20 - European Convention on Human Rights, where its article 6 provides on how the suspect should be treated.21

19 Article 10 states: “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. And Article 11 reads: Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. 2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.” 20 Article 7 of the Charter stipulates: “1 Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: (a) the right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts of violating his Fundamental rights as recognised and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in Force; (b) the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent court or tribunal; (c) the right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice; (d) the right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal. 2. No one may be condemned for an act or omission which did not constitute a legally punishable offence at the time it was committed. No penalty may be inflicted for an offence for which no provision was made at the time it was committed. Punishment is personal and can be imposed only on the offender.” 21 Article 6.1 of the Convention reads: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society,

## Page 376

34 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

In defining the due process of law, in the judgment RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC22, the Supreme Court provided such a definition in two ways: substantive due process and procedural due process. Substantive due process prevents the enactment of unreasonable laws and measures that violate people's rights without a rational purpose, while procedural due process is based on due process of law, i.e. criteria to be followed in judicial proceedings based on legal provisions based on the principles of due process of law and fair administration of justice provided for in statutes or international covenants. This is what was explained by a legal scholar Professor Erwin Chemerinsky in the following words: “Substantive due process asks the question of whether the government's deprivation of a person's life, liberty or property is justified by a sufficient purpose. Procedural due process, by contrast, asks whether the government has followed the proper procedures when it takes away life, liberty or property. Substantive due process looks to whether there is a sufficient substantive justification, a good enough reason for such a deprivation”.23

In light of the petitioner's submissions, the Court finds that the issue in the present case is to determine whether paragraph 4 of Article 197 of the aforementioned No. 027/2019 of 19 September 2019 prohibits convicts of Gacaca courts from receiving substantive due process, as alleged by the petitioner. In

where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.” 22 RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC, Kabasinga Florida, paragraph 13. 23 Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, Substantive Due Process, Touro Law Review: Vol. 15: No. 4, Article 15, P. 1. Available at: https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/lawreview/vol15/iss4/15.

## Page 377

35 Re KAMANZI

other words, the question is whether this paragraph prohibits those convicted by the Gacaca courts from receiving due process of law in their trials.

Also on the basis of the petitioner's submissions, the Court finds that his second concern in relation to the right to equality or equal treatment before the Court, since he alleges that the disputed paragraph prevents convicts of Gacaca courts from receiving due process, since such convicts are only entitled to apply for a review of their case if they are able to prove that the person they are accused of killing is still alive, whereas convicts of ordinary courts benefit from other grounds for applying for such a review of their case.

In order for a law or its article to violate due process of law, in the light of the aforementioned definition by the legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky, the Court finds that such a law must deprive, without clear justification, all of the aforementioned rights to which a person is entitled under the Constitution or international covenants.

With regard to paragraph 4 of Article 197 of Law no 027/2019 of 19/09/2019, which the applicant claims prevents some persons from receiving due process of law, in the light of the criteria to be followed for the judicial proceedings of the suspect, the Court finds that nowhere in the disputed paragraph is it mentioned that the convicts of the Gacaca courts were deprived of what they were entitled to in their judicial proceedings in order to receive due process of law, or that some restrictions were imposed on them, such as the presumption of innocence or not being held liable for crimes he/she did not commit, as alleged by the petitioner.

## Page 378

36 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Regarding equal treatment before the court, the Court finds that this issue is similar to the one explained above on matters relating to the right to equality before the law and equal protection by the law. The principle of equality before the Court of Justice means that all persons before the Court should enjoy the same rights. This means that people appearing before different courts, depending on the nature of the offences at hand, are not necessarily meant to be treated equally. This has been upheld by the UN Human Rights Committee, when explaining article 14,1° of the International covenant on civil and political rights in relation to due processs of law. The Committee stated that equality before the courts should be understood as the rights of persons appearing before the same court. The Committee gave the example of the existence of special crimes that require special judicial procedures or the establishment of special courts, but this must be based on a rational justification. The Committee stated this as follows: “Equality before courts and tribunals also requires that similar cases are dealt with in similar proceedings. If, for example, exceptional criminal procedures or specially constituted courts or tribunals apply in the determination of certain categories of cases, objective and reasonable grounds must be provided to justify the distinction.”24

As explained above in relation to issues of equality before the law, the Court finds that the establishment of Gacaca courts with a mandate to try suspects of genocide and other crimes against humanity, which is a special category distinct from that of suspects of other ordinary crimes before ordinary courts, is legitimate. The fact that some rights are granted in one category

24 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32, Article 14: Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007). §14.

## Page 379

37 Re KAMANZI

and not in the other does not constitute a lack of due process of law, since each category should be examined independently of the other, depending on the court hearing the case and also on the nature of the crime.

As explained above, it is legitimate for the legislator to provide for two categories, i.e. that of suspects of genocide and other crimes against humanity and that of suspects of ordinary crimes. What is important is that there is a legitimate reason for the establishment of these categories and that in their judicial proceedings the rights to which they are entitled by the law have been respected. This is confirmed by the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Taxquet C. v. Belgium, where the Court held that States have the full right to decide how their courts comply with the provisions of Article 625. For that Court, the Court's task is to ascertain whether the course followed by a State in judicial proceedings has led to results compatible with the Convention, taking into account the nature and complexity of the proceedings. In short, the Court must examine whether the procedure as a whole was fair. That Court stated it as follows in French: “En effet, les Etats contractants jouissent d’une grande liberté dans le choix des moyens propres à permettre à leur système judiciaire de respecter les impératifs de l’article 6. La tâche de la Cour consiste à rechercher si la voie suivie a conduit, dans un litige déterminé, à des résultats compatibles avec la Convention, eu égard également aux circonstances spécifiques de l’affaire, à sa nature et à sa complexité. Bref, elle doit examiner si la procédure a revêtu, dans son ensemble, un caractère équitable.”26

25 This is a provision of the European Convention on Human Rights which provides for elements of a due process of law. 26 Affaire Taxquet c. Belgique (Requête nimero 926/05), §84

## Page 380

38 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

To conclude, the fact that Article 197 of the Law N° 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure provides for different grounds for convicted persons of Gacaca courts and convicted persons of ordinary courts to be entitled to apply for a review of the case, where its paragraph 4 reads that in cases heard by a Gacaca court, a review of the case shall be accepted only if the convicted person establishes that the person he or she is alleged to have killed is alive, while those convicted by ordinary courts have additional grounds allowing them to apply for a review of the case, the Court finds that this does not constitute an obstacle to the due process of law. What is important is that their rights as provided for in Article 29 of the Constitution, as well as international covenants, have been respected in their judicial proceedings.

Based on all the foregoing elucidations, it is in the finding of the Court that paragraph 4 of article 197 of the Law Nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure is not inconsistent with article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the petition filed by Kamanzi Anaclet requesting declaration that paragraph 4 of article 197 of the Law Nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure is inconsistent with article 15, 16 and 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwnda of 2003 revised in 2015, lacks merit;

Decides that the contested paragraph is in no way inconsistent with articles 15, 16 and 29 of the Constitution.

## Page 381

PROCEDURAL CASES

## Page 383

CASE RELATING TO PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW OF A JUDGMENT DUE TO INJUSTICE

## Page 385

43

UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI ET AL. [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/INJUST/RC 00001/2021/SC – (Ntezilyayo, P.J., Nyirinkwaya, Cyanzayire, Hitiyaremye and Karimunda) December 17, 2021] Procedure for the review of cases on the grounds of injustice – Time-limit for the review of cases on the grounds of injustice – Time limit for submitting a request for review of a case on grounds of injustice to the Office of the Ombudsman – Although the legislator has not specified the time limit for submitting a request for review of a case on grounds of injustice to the Office of the Ombudsman, the time limit for submitting such a request should be 30 days. Procedure for the review of cases on the grounds of injustice – Calculation of the thirty-day period where a litigant has lodged two appeals in a single case – Where a litigant has lodged two appeals in a single case, the thirty-day time limit for applying for a review of a judgment on grounds of injustice should be calculated from the date of the Court's decision declaring the second appeal inadmissible. Procedure for the review of cases on the grounds of injustice – Failure to raise for the first time at the review of the judgment on grounds of injustice a new issue not raised at the hearing of the case under review on grounds of injustice – There can be no claim of injustice on the part of a litigant in respect of an issue which has not been raised for consideration. Land law – Selling someone else's property – The owner of a property has the right to pursue his property out of the hands of

## Page 386

44 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

the possessor, without the need to invalidate the contract of sale, and the possessor must then deal with the seller of that property. Facts: Umulinga and Muberuka, who were legally married, were later divorced, but there were still jointly owned properties, including plots land, which Ngirinshuti dared to sell to Nshimiyimana and Nsengiyumva without the owners' permission. Ngirinshuti was prosecuted in the Nyarugenge Intermediate Court for fraud and selling someone else's property, and Muberuka filed a civil suit against him. In judgment No RP 0356/15/TGI/NYGE, the same court convicted him of both offences and also ordered him to reimburse Muberuka and Umulinga FRW 30,356,500 for the value of this property. Umulinga opposed that judgement on matters relating to civil suit, requesting to be given back her property and not its substitute, but the Court did not admit her request. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court, which found her appeal admissible and then remitted the case to the Nyarugenge Intermediate Court, which upheld the judgment No RP 0356/15/TGI/NYGE on civil matters. Umulinga appealed to the High Court, which upheld the contested judgment. She also appealed to the Court of Appeal, which said it did not have jurisdiction because she had lost twice on similar grounds. The plaintiff even applied to the Court of Appeal for a review of this judgment on the grounds of injustice, but her application was not granted and she turned to the Office of the Ombudsman for a review of the judgment on the grounds of injustice. After receiving the case file from the Office of the Ombudsman, the case was heard by the Supreme Court and the first issue discussed was whether the complaint had been submitted to the Office of the Ombudsman very late, as alleged by the defendants,

## Page 387

45 UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI ET AL.

while the complainant claimed that she had complied with the time limit. The issue of whether Muberuka and Umulinga should be given back their disputed land, rather than its value, was also examined. The plaintiff seeks to have her right to the property she co-owns with Muberuka restored, arguing that those who own it received it from the person who defrauded her, and that the court should not have ignored the fact that the real owner of the property also needs it in order to use it. She explains that it is her right to pursue her property from the current owners, who should also pursue the person who sold it to them, knowing full well that it was not his. She also states that the fact that the Court ruled that the land should remain in the possession of the purchasers, while they have not carried out any additional activities on it, constitutes illicit enrichment. The defendants argue that what is not prohibited is permitted, and that Umulinga should explain what she is losing by not getting her land back and be paid its monetary value, given that the buyers bought in good faith. Held: 1. Although the legislator did not provide for a time limit, the 30-day time limit for submitting an application to the President of the Court for a review of the judgment on the grounds of injustice should also apply to the time limit for submitting the application to the Office of the Ombudsman, since the intention was not to allow the litigant to do so whenever he/she wished, and therefore, the application was submitted in due time. 2. The sale of someone else's property is void, the owner of a property has the right to pursue his property out of the hands of the possessor without the need to invalidate the contract of sale, and the possessor must then deal with the seller of that property,

## Page 388

46 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

and therefore, the fact that Nsengiyumva and Nshimiyimana bought the property from Ngirinshuti, who is not the real owner of that property, that property should be returned to the real owners, and Ngirinshuti, who sold them that property, should refund to the buyers the value of that property, calculated at the current rate. The application filed for the review of the judgment No RCA 00123/2018/HC/KIG for being vitiated by injustice, has merit in part; The ruling of the judgment No RP 0356/15/TGI/NYGE is reversed on matters relating to what Ngirinshuti has to refund; Nsengiyumva must return to Umulinga half of the land registered under UPI:1/01/08/04/1861 that he bought from Ngirinshuti. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law N° 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 on evidence and its production, article 3; Law N° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles 12 and 111; Law N° 45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, articles 64 and 113. Cases referred to: RS/INJUST/RC 00011/2019/SC; Mukamusoni and Nkundimana, rendered on 12/02/2021; RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2020/SC; Twagirayezu and Twagirayezu et al, rendered on10/12/2021.

## Page 389

47 UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI ET AL.

RCAA 0117/11/CS; Nibasenge and Nahayo; rendered on 24/04/2015. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Umulinga Consilde and Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard were legally married on 26/04/1961 in Rwanda, and they later moved Belgium. On 17/06/1998, they were granted divorce by the Court in that country. Umulinga Consilde states that there are still properties that she co-owns with Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard, including land in the Nyamirambo sector that was later sold by Ngirinshuti Michel to Nshimiyimana Augustin and Nsengiyumva Karim.

Ngirinshuti Michel was later charged by the Public Prosecution with the offence of fraudulent acquisition of forged documents and papers issued by a competent authority and selling the property of another person, and Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard filed a civil suit in this case. On 23/12/2015, the Nyarugenge Intermediate Court delivered judgement No RP 0356/15/TGI/NYGE, convicting Ngirinshuti Michel of both offences, sentencing him to seven years’ imprisonment and ordering him to pay FRW 30,356,500, representing the value of the property belonging to Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard and Umulinga Consilde.

Umulinga Consilde opposed this judgment on the issue of damages and sued Ngirinshuti Michel and Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard, and she also requested the intervention of

## Page 390

48 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Nshimiyimana Augustin and Nsengiyumva Karim, stating that Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard had filed a civil suit on his own because he could not represent her as they were divorced, and that the court had remained silent on the sale contract and the modalities of recovering their property, while they had not given Ngirinshuti Michel the power to sell it on their behalf. She then asked the court to overturn the decision, arguing that it was against her interests and her right to the property, which had been sold by a person who was not the owner.

On 31/07/2017, the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge issued judgment No. RCA 00373/2016/TGI/NYGE, declaring the application filed by Umulinga Consilde inadmissible for consideration, based on the fact that a criminal complaint had been filed to the Investigation by Umulinga Consilde and Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard t initiating case No. RP 0356/15/TGI/NYGE, which is an indication that Umulinga Consilde was aware of the existence of the case she was opposing.

Umulinga Consilde was not satisfied with this decision and appealed to the High Court in case number RCA 00288/2017/HC/KIG. On 26/01/2018, the High Court delivered its judgment and held that Umulinga Consilde's appeal had merit in part, that her appeal against judgment RP 0356/15/TGI/NYGE and her application to set aside the agreement of sale of the property in which she has an interest should be admitted for consideration, and ordered that the case be transferred to the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge for trial at first instance.

The High Court based its decision on the fact that Umulinga Consilde was already divorced from Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard at the time of the opposition hearing, that he was

## Page 391

49 UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI ET AL.

not representing her in the case and that there was no evidence that the prosecution was in the habit of informing Umulinga Consilde of the case file before sending it to the court.

The case was transferred to the Nyarugenge Intermediate Court and docketed under number RC 00133/2018/TGI/NYGE. On 22/03/2018, the court delivered its judgment and ruled that Umulinga Consilde had lost the case on the issues relating to the invalidity of the sale contract as requested, and ordered that the sale concluded between Ngirinshuti Michel and Nshimiyimana Augustin and Nsengiyumva Karim be upheld, and the same court also upheld judgment No RP 0356/15/TGI/NYGE on the issues relating to damages, but ordered Ngirinshuti Michel to pay 2,000,000 Frw in addition to the amount ordered in the judgment under appeal, since he had sold her property without her consent.

The Nyarugenge Intermediate Court based its ruling on the fact that all parties agree that Ngirinshuti Michel was the one who sold the property in bad faith, but that Nshimiyimana Augustin and Nsengiyumva Karim bought it from Ngirinshuti Michel after he had presented them with documents proving that he was the apparent owner, and the same court relied on these grounds to explain that the contested sale contract should not be annulled, but that Ngirinshuti Michel should pay Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard and Umulinga Consilde, who were the real owners of the disputed property, 30,356,500 CFA francs for the value of the land, as established in the judgment under opposition.

Umulinga Consilde appealed before the High Court, based on the following grounds: • The fact that the court disregarded Article 276 of the Civil Code, Book III, which states that the sale of

## Page 392

50 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

another person's property is null and void, that the court's decision is contrary to the law because it is interpreted as a forced sale; • The fact that the court ignored various pieces of evidence presented, including various positions taken by courts, a 2009 document imposing the caveat on the property, a letter from the Executive Secretary of the Nyamirambo sector, a letter from the National Land Use and Management Authority showing how Nshimiyimana Augustin registered the disputed property in his name. • The fact that although Ngirinshuti Michel was the one who sold the property in bad faith, so were the buyers.

On 10/09/2018, the High Court delivered its judgment N˚ RCA 00123/2018/HC/KIG, and ruled that the judgment No RC 00133/2018/TGI/NYGE rendered by Nyarugenge Intermediate Court is sustained.

Umulinga Consilde again appealed against that ruling to the Court of Appeal, and her appeal was docketed under N˚ RCAA 00068/2018/CA. On 29/05/2020, the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment, declaring her appeal inadmissible on the grounds that such an appeal was not within its jurisdiction, since she had lost the case before the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge and the High Court on the same grounds.

Umulinga Consilde wrote to the President of the Court of Appeal requesting a review of judgment RCA 00123/2018/HC/KIG on the ground that it was vitiated by injustice. The President of the Court of Appeal replied to her letter on 17 September 2020, stating that her request was

## Page 393

51 UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI ET AL.

inadmissible because she was simultaneously pursuing two avenues of appeal.

Umulinga Consilde was not satisfied with this decision and on 29/09/2020 she wrote to the Office of the Ombudsman requesting a review of judgment RCA 00123/2018/HC/KIG on the basis that it was vitiated by injustice. After considering this request, on 04/11/2020, this Office wrote to the President of the Supreme Court stating that the said judgment may be vitiated by injustice and that an analysis is required to decide whether it can be reviewed on the basis of injustice.

On 22/12/2020, the President of the Supreme Court, in his decision no. 069/CJ/2020, ordered that the case be transferred to the Registry of the Supreme Court for rehearing.

The hearing was held in public on 09.09.2021 and the parties appeared except for Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard who was summoned in accordance with the law but did not appear. Umulinga Consilde appeared assisted by Counsel Mukarusanga Florence and Counsel KAGAMBA Christophe, Ngirinshuti Michel assisted by Counsel Niyibizi Diogène; Nshimiyimana Augustin assisted by Counsel Habakurama François Xavier, whereas Nsengiyumva Karim was assisted by Counsel Ndacyayisenga Schadrack.

Counsel Habakurama François Xavier raised an objection of inadmissibility of the application for the review of the judgment N˚ RCA 00123/2018/HC/KIG on the ground that it is vitiated by injustice, arguing that Umulinga Consilde did not comply with the thirty-day period provided under article 56 of the no 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, since the judgment N˚ RCA 00123/2018/HC/KIG was delivered

## Page 394

52 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

by the the High Court on 10/9/2018, and she lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal, and the decision on this appeal was issued on 29/05/2020. She then wrote to the President of the Court of Appeal requesting a review of this judgment on the grounds that it was vitiated by injustice, who replied on 17/09/2020 that her request was inadmissible on the grounds that she had used two appeal procedures, which prompted Umulinga Consilde to write to the Office of the Ombudsman requesting a review of this judgment on the grounds that it was vitiated by injustice. Umulinga Consilde's side argues that she complied with the time limit for writing to the Ombudsman's office, as required by law, and that this objection is therefore unfounded.

After hearing both parties on this issue, the Court ruled that, in accordance with the Supreme Court's precedents, the 30- day period for applying for a review of the High Court judgment on the ground that it was vitiated by an irregularity should be counted from the date of the Court of Appeal's decision not to admit the second appeal.1 The very Court also found that, although the legislator did not provide for a time limit, the 30-day time limit for submitting an application to the President of the Court for a review of the judgment on the grounds of injustice should also apply to the time limit for submitting the application to the Office of the Ombudsman, since the intention was not to allow the litigant to do so whenever he/she wished. The very Court found that the judgment N˚ RCA 0123/2018/HC/KIG under the application for review on grounds of injustice was delivered by the High Court on 12/09/2018 and Umulinga Consilde appealed against it to the Court of Appeal, her

1An example cited here is of the judgment N˚RS/INJUST/RC 00011/2019/SC, paragraph 36, rendered on 12/02/2021, for Mukamusoni Petronille vs Nkundimana Edison.

## Page 395

53 UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI ET AL.

application was docketed under N˚ RCAA 00064/2018/CA and delivered on 29/05/2020 and she again wrote to the President of the Court of Appeal and it was reviewed on 17/09/2020. It is very clear that the 30-day period for submitting an application to the Office of the Ombudsman starts from this very last date, and Umulinga Consilde having submitted her application on 29/09/2020, she has complied with the 30-day period. Thus, the objection raised by Nshimiyimana Augustin is unfounded.

The hearing resumed with the merits of the case. Umulinga Consilde asked the court to hear the witnesses Kabanda Eugène and Murinda Fidèle to provide information on the fraud committed in the sale of the disputed land, while the defendants argued that the witnesses were not necessary as they had not been heard by previous courts. On the basis of their written testimonies, the Court itself asked the witnesses to take the oath for their testimonies, and the parties were allowed to question the witnesses about their testimonies. After discussing the question of whether Umulinga Consilde should be given back the property sold by Ngirinshuti Michel instead of its value, the hearing was closed and the parties were informed that the judgment would be delivered on 08/10/2021.

The Court, in its discretion, decided that before making a final decision on the case, it must first visit the place where Umulinga Consilde's property is located in order for the Court to clarify the issues in the case.

An investigation was conducted on 25/10/2021, on the location of the subject matter in Runyinya village, Rugarama cell, Nyamirambo sector, Nyarugenge district, City of Kigali. The hearing resumed on 18/11/2021 and the parties appeared with legal assistance as before, with the exception of Muberuka Jean

## Page 396

54 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Claude Bernard who did not appear although he had been notified of the hearing date in accordance with the law. On that day, the parties debated the report of the investigation carried out by the Court.

The main issue in this case is whether Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard and Umulinga Consilde should be given back their property sold by Ngirinshuti Michel instead of its value. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES A. Whether Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard and Umulinga Consilde should be given back their property instead of its value

In their submissions and arguments before the Court, Umulinga Consilde and her lawyers state that the judgment in case N˚ RP 0356/15/TGI/NYGE ruled that Ngirinshuti Michel fraudulently sold another person's property, that the Court deprived them of their right to use their property as they wish because Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard sued to recover his property sold by Ngirinshuti Michel, but instead the Court awarded him its value as compensation, as determined by the property valuer, and that such a decision is contrary to the provisions of Law N˚ 43/2013 of 16/06/2013 on Land, Article 34, paragraph 2, which was in force at the time the action was brought.2

2The State recognizes the right to freely own land and shall protect the land owner from being dispossessed of the land whether totally or partially, except in case of expropriation due to public interest.

## Page 397

55 UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI ET AL.

Umulinga Consilde wants her right to the property she co- owns with Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard restored, arguing that those who now own it have been defrauded by the person who sold it to them, and that the court should not have ignored the fact that the real owner of the property also needs it to use it. She maintains that it is her right to pursue her property from those who now own it, who must also pursue Ngirinshuti Michel, who sold it to them, knowing full well that it was not his.

With regard to the money awarded by the Court as compensation, Umulinga Consilde and her lawyers submit that the report of the National Land Use and Management Authority indicates that the disputed land registered under number 1860 belongs to Nsengiyumva Karim and that no additional activities are taking place on it, and that this land should be merged with plot number 1861 because these two parcels of land have constituted one plot since the beginning. They therefore believe that the fact that the court ruled that the land remains in the possession of those who bought it, without any other activities being added to it, constitutes unlawful enrichment, and they are asking the Supreme Court to rectify such an error.

They further state that such a report is clear evidence that Nshimiyimana Augustin and Nsengiyumva Karim bought the disputed land fraudulently, since Nsengiyumva Karim bought from Mbabazi Felix in 2011, but during the transfer of the property, Ngirinshuti Michel appeared to be the one doing so, and such a contradiction of information is further evidence of fraud, and this is corroborated by the fact that Nshimiyimana Augustin first registered the land with the Land Authority as inherited land, but later registered it as purchased land. They are asking the court

## Page 398

56 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

to return the property to its rightful owner, Umulinga Consilde, as there is no legal basis for awarding her its value as a substitute.

Counsel Mukarusanga Florence, who is assisting Umulinga Consilde, states the buyers of the land were fully aware that Ngirinshuti Michel did not own it and that selling someone else's property is illegal. She further states that her basis for confirming that Nsengiyumva Karim and Nshimiyimana Augustin fraudulently acquired the disputed land is that the size/area of the land which appears on Nsengiyumva Karim's land titles is different from the 25m/30m which he claims to have bought from Ngirinshuti Michel, but in his submissions he stated that he bought another portion from Mbabazi Felix and later merged both portions of land under one number, thereby increasing the size of this land, which is untrue as the land was originally one with one origin, instead it was later divided into two portions. In addition, Mbabazi Felix also claims to have bought the land from Jasmini, however, this person has nothing to do with the land in question.

Counsel Kagamba Christophe, who is also assisting Umulinga Consilde, adds that after receiving information that there had been an expropriation, she asked the people in charge to stop it, but they refused, and she asked the court to decide who should receive the compensation, since Nshimiyimana Augustin had appropriated the land for himself. He adds that the land title with UPI: 1/01/08/04/1635 shows that the size of her land is 2290 square metres, but the sale agreement indicates that the size is 750 square metres, and she refers to the judgment N˚ RCAA 0117/11/CS for Nibasenge Anathalie vs Nahayo François Xavier, delivered by the Supreme Court, and asks the Court to order that the entire land under UPI be registered: 1/01/08/04/1635 belongs

## Page 399

57 UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI ET AL.

to Umulinga Consilde, without necessarily annulling the contract of sale, since Nshimiyimana Augustin has no proof of the origin of this whole property, apart from his simple statements that he bought it from an old woman.

Ngirinshuti Michel, assisted by his Counsel Niyibizi Diogène, argues that Umulinga Consilde should not refuse to accept the 30,356,500 Frw awarded by the court as the judgment is already final and not the one she sought to have reviewed on the grounds of injustice. They add that it is not possible to return the land to Umulinga Consilde because part of it is land expropriated by Nyarugenge District, which has not been asked to intervene in this case.

Nsengiyumva Karim and his Counsel argue that the root cause of the problem is a criminal judgment convicting Ngirinshuti Michel of the crime of selling another person's property; and they submit that the land purchased by Nsengiyumva Karim was registered under UPI: 1/01/08/04/1861, and that he carried out some activities on that land and did so in good faith as found by the court. They submit that in the appeal, they found it with a different number, which is UPI: 1/01/08/04/1860 while he had bought such portion from Mbabazi Felix.

They claim that Umulinga Consilde wrote to the National Land Use and Management Authority asking for the relationship between the two plots of land, and that the Authority replied to her that plot n˚1860 was adjacent to plot n˚1861, both registered to Nsengiyumva Karim, that the two plots of land do not have the same origin and that they were bought in different years, as he bought one from Mbabazi Felix in 2011 and another from

## Page 400

58 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Ngirinshuti Michel in 2014, and that the latter is not even built on but has trees (forest) on it.

Counsel Habakurama François Xavier representing Nshimiyimana Augustin, states that what is not prohibited is accepted, that instead, Umulinga Consilde should expalin what she may lose by accepting the money as the value of the land instead of the land itself, and they base this on the fact that they did it in good faith, especially since she had never resided in that land, since she had spent over 15 years in Belgium, which pushed Ngirinshuti Michel to sell it because, it was a non-owner's land, and that land was located in a hilly area, and they find that Umulinga Consilde should accept the money and buy a good location.

It further states that the judgment was based on the theory of appearance, and this is not a peculiarity of the judgment N˚ RC 0133/2018/TGI/NYGE or N˚ RCA 0123/2018/HC/KIG, as it is also referred to by the Supreme Court to protect those who bought in good faith. He cites as an example the judgment N˚ RCOMA 0002/2013/CS of 23/10/2015 for KOBIL PETROLEUM RWANDA SARL vs. GARAJE AUTO IMPERIAL, with the intervention of Mukaremera Francine, where the Supreme Court ruled that Mukaremera Francine should remain in possession of a petrol station as she had bought it in good faith as she had no prior knowledge of what had happened before, rather Umulinga Consilde should be paid by Ngirinshuti Michel with whom she had a relationship and who had offended her.

He also argues that Umulinga Consilde's request for the return of her land is not possible because the land in question has already been expropriated by Nyarugenge District, and the money from the expropriation cannot be given to Umulinga

## Page 401

59 UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI ET AL.

Consilde because the activities on that land were carried out by Nshimiyimana Augustin. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

In order for the Court to be able to address the question of whether Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard and Umulinga Consilde should be returned the disputed property in lieu of its value, it is important to analyse the following issues: - To determine the land contested in the case N° RP 0356/15/TGI/NYGE, which is the main subject matter in this case; - Whether the purchase agreement between Ngirinshuti Michel, Nsengiyumva Karim and Nshimiyimana Augustin was concluded in bad faith; - Whether Nsengiyumva Karim and Nshimiyimana Augustin should return back the property they bought from Ngirinshuti Michel. a. To determine the land contested in the case N° RP 0356/15/TGI/NYGE

According to the case file of the judgment subject to the application for review on grounds of injustice, judgment No RCA 00123/2018/HC/KIG stems from the opposition against judgment No. RP 0356/15/TGI/NYGE of the Nyarugenge Intermediate Court of 23/12/2015, in which Ngirinshuti Michel was convicted of the offence of fraudulent acquisition of forged documents and papers issued by a competent authority and of selling the property of another person and was therefore sentenced to seven years imprisonment and ordered to pay

## Page 402

60 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard and Umulinga Consilde 30,356,500 Frw as the equivalent of the value of their land which he sold, including the cost of the proceedings.

The case file further indicates that the offence of fraudulent acquisition of forged documents and papers issued by a competent authority and selling the property of another person, for which Ngirinshuti Michel was convicted, stems from the fact that he sold to Nsengiyumva Karim the land registered under UPI: 1/01/08/04/1861 located in Runyinya village, Rugamama cell, Nyamirambo sector, Nyarugenge district, and the land with UPI: 1/01/08/04/1635, as well as the 25m/30m of land he sold to Nshimiyimana Augustin.

The foregoing is also confirmed by the fact that on 27 August 2014, Nkurunziza Alexis, who was the Executive Secretary of the Nyamirambo sector, wrote to the District Police Commander of the Nyarugenge district, requesting him to prosecute Ngirinshuti Michel for selling the land with UPI: 1/01/08/04/1635 to Nshimiyimana Augustin and the forest purchased by Nsengiyumva Karim.

The Court therefore finds that the property at issue in the criminal proceedings is the property registered under UPI: 1/01/08/04/1861, consisting of the forest sold by Ngirinshuti Michel to Nsengiyumva Karim on 27 February 2014, and the property registered under UPI: 1/01/08/04/1635, measuring 750 square metres (25x30 m), sold by Ngirinshuti Michel to Nshyimiyimana Augustin.

The Court finds that, both during the hearing of the present case and during the investigation carried out by the Court on the spot, Umulinga Consilde continued to argue that the size

## Page 403

61 UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI ET AL.

of the property in dispute exceeded the size of the property in dispute in the criminal case, as indicated in the previous paragraph. In analysing this issue, the Court notes that it has to consider only the property at issue in the criminal proceedings, since it was in that case that a civil judgment was given, which Umulinga Consilde opposed until she applied to the High Court for a review of the judgment on the grounds that it was vitiated by injustice.

The Court finds that the fact that Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard or Umulinga Consilde never raised the issue of the size of the plots of land sold by Ngirinshuti Michel to Nsengiyumva Karim and Nshimiyimana Augustin before the Court in the Criminal case on which the judgment under review due to injustice was based, which means that such an issue was not raised before the Court, does not allow Umulinga Consilde to claim that the Court erred in this respect.

Not hearing an issue for the first time at the level of injustice, which was not raised in the judgment under review, is the same position adopted by the Supreme Court in the case of GAHIRE Athanase vs. MUKARUSHAKIRO Gloriose et al., where the Court held that a litigant cannot claim to have suffered injustice on an issue which he/she did not raise before the judge for consideration.3

3 Judgment n° RS/INJUST/RC 00008/2019/SC for GAHIRE Athanase vs MUKARUSHAKIRO Gloriose et al., rendered on 12/11/2021, page 14, paragraph 30.

## Page 404

62 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

b. Whether the purchase agreement between Ngirinshuti Michel, Nsengiyumva Karim and Nshimiyimana Augustin was concluded in bad faith

Among the evidence relied upon by Umulinga Consilde to establish that Nshimiyimana Augustin and Nsengiyumva Karim purchased the disputed land in bad faith, is the difference between the size of the land appearing on the titles and the size appearing in the sale agreement concluded between Nsengiyumva Karim and Ngirinshuti Michel, and the fact that Nsengiyumva Karim states that he purchased this land from Mbabazi Felix in 2011, but during the transfer of title, only Ngirinshuti Michel appears. With regard to Nshimiyimana Augustin, she claims that such fraud is justified by the fact that he first registered the land with the National Land Use and Management Authority as inherited land and then later registered it as purchased land.

Article 3, paragraph one, of the Law N° 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 on evidence and its production in courts provides that “Each party has the burden of proving the facts it alleges”. Provisions of this article corroborates with the provisions of article 12 of the Law N° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure reads that “The claimant must prove a claim, failing which the respondent wins the case”.

The size of the land sold by Ngirinshuti Michel to Nshimiyimana Augustin and that which he sold to Nsengiyumva Karim, who was prosecuted in the criminal case from which the civil action brought by Umulinga Consilde arose, was clarified in the examination of the first question in this case. Other land claimed by Umulinga Consilde includes the land that

## Page 405

63 UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI ET AL.

Nsengiyumva Karim claims to have bought from Mbabazi Felix, or the land that Nshimiyimana Augustin claims to have annexed to the land he bought from Ngirinshuti Michel, but both parts constitute the land that Umulinga Consilde claims to be hers, which was not an issue in the judgment under review on grounds of injustice, so the Court has no basis to decide this issue at this level.

With regard to the issue of Nshimiyimana Augustin first registering the land with the National Land Use and Management Authority as inherited land and then later registering it as purchased land, at the hearing on 18 November 2001, where Nshimiyimana Augustin himself appeared and stated that he had acquired the land by sale, he stated that he had no idea about the statement that it had been acquired by inheritance. What is clear to the Court is that there is the contract of sale which confirms that the disputed land was acquired by sale, which is supported by Ngirinshuti Michel who sold to them, and even the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge took the same position in Judgment No RP 0356/15/TGI/NYGE; and the statement that it was acquired by inheritance is considered to be a typographical error on the land titles.

The Court also finds that Nsengiyumva Karim and Nshimiyimana Augustin bought from Ngirinshuti Michel, who convinced them that he was the owner of the property by presenting documents issued by the competent authorities. Meaning that article 35, paragraph 2 of the Law N° 43/2013 of

## Page 406

64 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda referred to by Umulinga Consilde should not be applied.4

For all the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Umulinga Consilde has not adduced any evidence to prove that the sale and purchase agreement concluded between Ngirinshuti Michel, Nsengiyumva Karim and Nshimiyimana Augustin was fraudulent. c. Whether Nsengiyumva Karim and Nshimiyimana Augustin should return back the property they bought from Ngirinshuti Michel

Umulinga Consilde requests that the sale contract between Nsengiyumva Karim, Nshimiyimana Augustin and Ngirinshuti Michel be declared null and void and that the property she co-owns with Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard be returned to her. Article 64 of the Law N° 45/2011 of 25/11/2011 provides that Contracts made in accordance with the law shall be binding between parties. They may only be revoked at the consent of the parties or for reasons based on law. And article 113, paragraph one of the same Law reads that Contracts shall have effect only on contracting parties. They shall not cause any prejudice to a third party and shall only benefit to him/her in case of provisions in favour of a third party.

The court ruled that Umulinga Consilde should not seek the annulment of a contract to which she was not a party, but that she has the right to claim the property she claims is hers from the person who owns it. The issue of the right to pursue an

4 However, this does not prohibit any other person to own buildings, crops and any other works on other person land in accordance with procedures provided for by this Law, other laws or agreement with the land owner.

## Page 407

65 UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI ET AL.

immovable property from the person who owns it without necessarily to seek for the annulment of the contract of sale has been analysed by the instant Court in various cases, such as in the case of Mukaruhanga Alexia vs Nyirahabimana Emertha and KOLD HANSEN Jesper. In this case, the Court elucidated that it is not necessary to first invalidate the contract of sale of another person's property in order for the true owner of that property to sue for its return.5

The Court finds that the fact that Nsengiyumva Karim and Nshimiyimana Augustin bought a property from Ngirinshuti Michel, who is not the true owner, means that they must return that property to its true owner, but that Ngirinshuti Michel, who sold it to them, must pay them its value.6 However, as Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard is satisfied with the judgement N° RP 0356/TGI/NYGE, which ordered Ngirinshuti Michel to pay him and Umulinga Consilde 30,35,500 Frw, while Umulinga Consilde decided to oppose this judgement, Ngirinshuti Michel will pay 15,178,250 Frw to Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard.

The Court finds that, on matters relating to the land bought by Nshimiyimana Augustin registered under UPI: 1/01/08/04/16357, as reiterated above, that was expropriated by

5See judgment N° RCAA 00045/2016/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 24/05/2019, from paragraph 25 to 34. 6This Court took the same decision in the judgment RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2020/SC for Twagirayezu Alice vs Twagirayezu Alphonsine et al., rendered on 10/12/2021, paragraphs 40 and 41; Judgment RCAA 0117/11/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 24/04/2015 for Nibasenge Anathalie vs Nahayo Francois Xavier. 7As explained, UPI: 1/01/08/04/1835 registered as the land Nshimiyimana Augustin bought from Ngirinshuti Michel measures 750 sqm, and the land

## Page 408

66 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Nyarugenge district, Nshimiyimana Augustin has to return to Umulinga Consilde a half of the value of that land received from the expropriation of the portion he bought from Ngirinshuti Michel measuring (25m/30m) (sqm 750). Meaning (20,666,286 frw ÷ 2,039 sqm) × 750sqm=7,601,625 frw ÷2 = 3,800,812 Frw. This is also the same amount Ngirinshuti Michel has to refund to Nshimiyimana Augustin.

With regard to the land with UPI: 1/01/08/04/1861 bought by Nsengiyumva Karim, the Court finds that Umulinga Consilde has to be given back a half of that land, and another half reserved for Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard to remain in the possession of Nsengiyumva Karim, since Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard has not appealed against the judgment N° RP 0356/15/TGI/NGE as reiterated above. Nsengiyumva Karim, as presented to the Court during the investigation, did not add anything to this land, therefore he must be reimbursed by Ngirinshuti Michel the value of the part of the land to be returned to Umulinga Consilde, calculated by reference to Rwanda's 2021 land reference prices.8 This means that for 750 sqm, by using Weighted Average Value per sqm, the value of the land should be 31,483 Frw x 750 = 23,612,250 Frw, meaning that Ngirinshuti Michel should refund to Nsengiyumva Karim a half of this amount equal to 11,806,125 Frw.

merged with it to come up with 2.039 sqm land as it is indicated on the land titles. 8 Rwanda land reference prices 2021, prepared by the Institute of Real Property Valuers in Rwanda (IRPV), Official Gazette No. Special of 01/12/2021, p. 192. The Court uses Weighted Average Value per sqm.

## Page 409

67 UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI ET AL.

B. Whether requested damages should be awarded

Umulinga Consilde and her Counsels claim that she has been deprived of her right to her property and she has been pursuing it for seven (7) years now in legal proceedings that have caused her loss as she has been travelling to and from Belgium, paying for an expensive accommodation, electricity and water, food to cope with the diabetes she suffers from, medical fees while in Rwanda as this type of medical treatment is free in Belgium. She is thereof requesting damages amounting to fifteen million Rwandan francs (15,000,000 Frw). They base this on water, electricity, medical care and drugs invoices.

They also state that because Umulinga Consilde has been dragged into unnecessary lawsuits, she is asking for three million francs (3,000,000 frw) as procedural fee, based on the search for documents and their copies, the cost of correspondence with various courts, correspondence with various administrative bodies, transport costs (taxi voiture) for any time to and from her home, and she is also asking for the reimbursement of the counsel fee of five million francs (5,000,000 frw).

Ngirinshuti Michel and his Counsel argue that Umulinga Consilde should not be awarded damages because there is no injustice in this case. Instead, they are asking the court to order Umulinga Consilde to pay Ngirinshuti Michel moral damages in the sum of 2, 000, 000 Frw for dragging him through unnecessary lawsuits.

Nsengiyumva Karim and his Counsel also find that no damages should be awarded to Umulinga Consilde since she is the one who dragged herself in unnecessary, rather, she is the one

## Page 410

68 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

to pay Nsengiyumva Karim moral damages in the amount of 2,000 000 Frw for dragging him in unnecessary lawsuits, 500,000 Frw for Counsel fee and 500,000 Frw for procedural fee.

Counsel Habakurama François Xavier repredenting Nshimiyimana Augustin finds damages requested by Umulinga Consilde baseless, rather, based on article 111 of the Law N° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, Umulinga Consilde should be ordered to pay Nshimiyimana Augustin 1,500,000 Frw for Counsel fee at this instance and 500,000 Frw for procedural fee for frequently dragging him in unnecessary lawsuits. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 111 of the Law N° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that “The claim for representation fees is an incidental claim to the principal claim aiming to repay expenses incurred during judicial proceedings. The claim for legal costs is adjudicated at the same time with the principal claim. It can also be admitted and adjudicated even if the principal claim has not been admitted”.

The Court finds that Umulinga Consilde, Nsengiyumva Karim and Nshimiyimana Augustin deserve the representation fees and costs that they have requested, as it has been necessary for them to pursue their case because Ngirinshuti Michel sold the disputed property in full knowledge that it belonged to Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard and Umulinga Consilde, and they were well obliged to engage lawyers to assist them. However, since the requested amount is excessive, in the discretion of the Court, they

## Page 411

69 UMULINGA v NGIRINSHUTI ET AL.

are each awarded 500,000 Frw for counsel fee and 300,000 Frw for procedural fee, making a total of 800,000 Frw, to be paid by Ngirinshuti Michel.

The Court further finds that, on the basis of Umulinga Consilde's submissions requesting 15,000,000 Frw, this amount should not be awarded as she is unable to provide evidence that such an amount was actually used in the follow-up of this case.

With regard to damages in the amount of 2,000,000 Frw for being dragged in unnecessary lawsuits requested by Nsengiyumva Karim, as well as the same amount requested by Ngirinshuti Michel, the Court finds that those damages should not be awarded to them since they are not the ones who applied for the review of the judgment due to injustice. In addition, Ngirinshuti Michel won nothing in this case. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the application filed by Umulinga Consilde seeking the review on grounds of injustice of the judgment No RCA 00123/2018/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court on 10/09/2018 where it maintained the judgment No RP 0356/15/TGI/NYGE rendered by Nyarugenge Intermediate Court on 23/12/2015, has merit in part;

Decides that the ruling in the judgment No RP 0356/15/TGI/NYGE rendered by Nyarugenge Intermediate Court on 23/12/2015 is reversed on matters relating to what Ngirinshuti Michel has to return back;

## Page 412

70 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Orders Ngirinshuti Michel to pay Muberuka Jean Claude Bernard 15,178,250 Frw;

Orders Nshimiyimana Augustin to reimburse Umulinga Consilde 3,800,812 Frw;

Orders Nsengiyumva Karim to return back to Umulinga Consilde a half of the land with UPI:1/01/08/04/1861 bought from Ngirinshuti Michel;

Orders Ngirinshuti Michel to refund Nshimiyimana Augustin 3,800,812 Frw;

Orders Ngirinshuti Michel to pay Nsengiyumva Karim 11,806,125 Frw as the value of the land to be returned back to Umulinga Consilde;

Orders Ngirinshuti Michel to pay Umulinga Consilde, Nshimiyimana Augustin and Nsengiyumva Karim 800,000 Frw each for both counsel fee and procedural fee.

## Page 413

CASE RELATING TO CIVIL, COMMERCIAL, LABOUR AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

## Page 415

73

MURENZI ET AL. v MUTABAZI ET AL (ADD) [Rwanda Supreme Court –RS/INJUST/RC 00009/2021/SC (Ntezilyayo, P.J., Cyanzayire and Karimunda, J.) 14 April 2022] Judicial procedure – Civil Litigations – Lis pendens – a Court that has a jurisdiction to hear a case in lis pendens – When different competent courts were seized for a same case, one of the seized courts cedes and transfers the case to the other. And it is the higher court that takes precedence. Judicial procedure – Civil litigations – Lis pendens – Determination of lis pendens – grounds that justify lis pendens: 1) There must be different courts that were seized for a same case, that is, carrying on a same litigation matter, and between same litigants. 2) The seized courts must all be equally competent. The same litigation matter means that the claim must be of the same root, and must be for the same cause. Same litigants mean that parties litigating in one case must be exactly the very parties litigating in the other case. Judicial Procedure – Civil litigations – the application of a principle of Court’s own discretion. The Court cannot apply the principle of court’s own discretion for the confirmation of facts, neither can it apply such a principle on the existing usual legal provisions. Instead, when the Court has already determined the related facts and it has as well identified the applicable laws, it can now proceed with the making of different decisions and it is this time that the Court can apply the principle of own discretion. Judicial procedure – Civil Litigations – Jurisdiction of Courts – The Court that has jurisdiction to hear cases that came from an

## Page 416

74 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Intermediate Court – A case whose first instance was heard by a Primary Court cannot be under the jurisdiction of the Supreme. Similarly, a case whose first instance was heard by an Intermediate and whose last instance was heard by the High Court, and which later was reviewed for injustice-related grounds cannot be brought under the jurisdiction of the Primary Court, since the sole courts that have jurisdiction for such a case are only the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Facts: This case started from The Intermediate Court of Gasabo with Mutabazi and Muhawenimana suing Murenzi together with Uwamahoro, lamenting that due to their poor construction methods, their house wall collapsed and damaged a house and a car, the plaintiffs’ properties, for which they claimed for compensation. The defendants pleaded faultless, arguing that they had no tort in the collapsing of the wall, alleging that the wall fell owing to effects of natural disasters that came adding to the plaintiffs’ poor construction since he had constructed without the construction permit. (SORAS AG Ltd (now SANLAM Assurance Générales Plc), the insurer, intervened in the case and prayed for the recovery of funds that they paid for the repairing of the damaged car. In case RC 00203/2018/GSBO, the Court referred to Experts’ reports and testimonies from the witnesses and held that the collapsed wall fell owing to the weight of soil that Murenzi had heaped against it, and ordered Murenzi together with Uwamahoro to thereof pay for a variety of damages. Murenzi and Uwamahoro appealed the ruling before the High Court and they argued that the previous court disregarded a fact that the wall collapsed due the plaintiffs’ faults as they constructed without a construction permit, neither did they observe the required construction standards. They also added that

## Page 417

75 MURENZI ET AL. v MUTABAZI ET AL (ADD)

the submitted Expert report is not legal since its authors never concurred on it; leave alone that it is not the authors that submitted it to the Court, it was even not sworn about. Mutabazi and Muhawenimana, they too, appealed to the High Court and lamented that they hired vehicles to transport the heaped soil, and they claimed for a related compensation. SANLAM, the insurer, made a cross-appeal, and prayed that a compensation the previous court allowed them should be recaptured and feature in this case. All the above appeals were combined under case RCA 00499/2019/HC/KIG-CMB RCA 00506/2019/HC/KIG, and the Court found that the oath giving is simply a defect in form, and that the Experts who did not present an oath about the report, could be invited to present their findings and give the oath thereof. For the disagreement among the report’s authors, the court moved that such a disagreement is not material, since the authors agree on some important details, and the Court has therefore held that the lodged appeal has no justification. Murenzi applied for injustice related case-review. The case was sent to the Supreme Court for retrial, and the Court examined the following main issues: Whether the Expert report that led to the ruling of case RCA 00499/2019/HC/KIG-CMB RCA 00506/2019/HC/KIG should be nullified; and the Court was as well to determine the causes that lead to the collapsing of Mutabazi and Muhanimana’s fence wall. Meanwhile, the applicant for injustice related case-review raised an objection of lis pendens, arguing that Mutabazi, the claimant, has lodged a related claim before Gasabo Primary Court and he suggests the Court to first sort issues of the pending claim. He explained that the pending case is a new claim that the plaintiff lodged whereby he requested for compensation for the newly constructed wall and for the ancillary buildings that were

## Page 418

76 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

relatedly demolished. He argues that the new claim will certainly bring about the determination of liability and he is worried that both courts may end up with conflicting decisions and that is why he requests for a joint trial, and hence a smooth end For the other party, the joinder of both cases causes no harm, since it will make the case end at once and thus smoothly. He even adds that in case of no lis pendens, the Supreme Court, as the Highest court, still has a jurisdiction to call for a case that pends before a Primary Court and have both the cases tried by this very Court. Held: 1 When different competent courts were seized for a same case, one of the seized courts cedes and transfers the case to the other. And it is the higher court that takes up the case. Nonetheless, the subject matter under case RC 00 177/2022/TB/GSBO is actually different from the litigation matter under this very case. Therefore, this case has no situation of lis pendens. 2. Grounds that justify a situation of lis pendens must include that different courts were seized for a same case, and the seized courts must be of a same jurisdiction. A same litigation refers to a case with the same root origin, and same litigants’ Same litigants means that parties litigating in one case must be exactly the very parties litigating in the other case. This case is therefore different from the above criterion, and it is another indicator that nature of this case contains no situation of lis pendens. 3. A case whose first instance was heard by a Primary Court cannot under the jurisdiction of the Supreme. Similarly, a case whose first instance was heard by an Intermediate and whose last instance was heard by the High Court, and which later was reviewed for injustice-related grounds cannot be brought under

## Page 419

77 MURENZI ET AL. v MUTABAZI ET AL (ADD)

the jurisdiction of the Primary Court, since the sole courts that have jurisdiction for such a case are only the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Therefore, case RS/INJUST/RC 00009/2021/SC that pends before this Court and case RC 00177/2022/TB/GSBO contain no situation of lis pendens. The raised objection has no justification, Case RS/INJUST/RC 0000/2021/SC and claim RC 00177/2022/TB/GSBO present no situation of lis pendens, and therefore, they should not be combined. Statutes referred to: Law no 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the Jurisdiction of Courts, articles 27,53, and 100. No cases were referred to. Doctrines referred to : Serge Guinchard (eds), Droit et pratique de la procédure civile, Paris, Dalloz, 2014, p. 293. Loïc Cadiet and Emmanuel Jeuland, Droit judiciaire privé, 11e éd., Paris, 2019, p.222. The Judge as Lawmaker: An English Perspective” in Tom Bingham, The Business of Judging: Selected Essays and Speeches 1985-1999, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000, p.36.

## Page 420

78 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Judgment I. THE BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

This case started from the Primary Court of Gasabo, with Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude together with Muhawenimana Joselyne suing Murenzi Alpphonse and Uwamahoro Jacqueline, lamenting that due their poor construction methods, their fence wall collapsed and damaged two cars, ancillary buildings, water tanks and their supporting metal pillars. The plaintiffs put the damage liability on Murenzi Alphonse and Uwamahoro Jacqueline, and they claimed for a variety of damages compensations.

Murenzi Alphonse and Uwamahoro Jacquelined pleaded no tortness in the collapsing of their fence wall, and they lamented that Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude, the claimant, cannot prove that the collapsed wall contained any cracking at the time of its erecting. He explained that the collapsing of the wall owed to the natural disasters that came adding to a shallow construction by Mutabazi Aboayo Jean Claude since he had put up his buildings without a construction permit; and he therefore requested the court to move that the lodged claim lacks merit.

SORAS AG Ltd (now NANLAM Assurance Générales Plc) intervened into the case and prayed the Court to order Murenzi Alhonse and Uwamahoro Jacqueline to pay 2,183,000 Frw that SORAS AG Ltd spent for repair of car RAD 995 F damaged by their collapsed wall.

In case RC 00203/2018/TGI/GSBO of 08/11/2019, Gasabo Intermediate Court found that witnesses’ testimonies

## Page 421

79 MURENZI ET AL. v MUTABAZI ET AL (ADD)

together with Gasobo District Construction Inspection Authority, Land Surveying Technician, and a ground of commissioned Experts concurred to affirm that the collapsed wall fell off due to a mass that weighed against it, and that had it not been a weighing weight, the wall would not have collapsed since it looked to be strong and firm. The has Court has also found that when Murenzi Jean Claude was constructing his fence wall, he leaned it against the one of Mutabazi Abayo Jean de Claude, and he heaped thereby a pile of soil and that is what made the wall to collapse. And the Court moved that the wall of Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude collapsed owing to the activities of Murenzi Alphonse and Uwamahoro Jacqueline, and it ordered them to jointly pay Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude and Muhawenimana Joselyne a sum of 22,159,538 Frw and 6,173 US dollars for compensation of the caused damages.

Murenzi Alphonse and Uwamahoro Jacqueline appealed the ruling before the High Court and lamented that the previous court disregarded a fact that the collapsed wall could not resist the flooding waters since it was poorly built and with extreme violations of construction required standards since the owner had constructed it without a building permit. They also added that the submitted Expert report is not legal since its authors never concurred on it; leave alone that it is not the authors that submitted it to the Court, it was even not sworn about. Mutabazi and Muhawenimana, they too, appealed to the High Court and lamented that they hired vehicles to transport the piled soil, and that they were not given a related compensation yet they had proof for having hired car RAD 586 M for 850,000 Frw and car RAC 847 Y for 360,000 Frw

## Page 422

80 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

SANLAM, the insurer, made a cross-appeal, and prayed the Court to move that a refund of 2,183,000 Frw that the previous court had allowed them be recaptured and feature under the ruling of the High Court.

All the above appeals have been combined under case RCA 00499/2019/HC/KIG-CMB RCA 00506/2019/HC/KIG, it was heard on the 19/02/2021 and the Court held the following: i. the issue of jointly building a condominium wall was not litigated at the first instance; therefore, it cannot be examined at the appeal level. ii. the absence of the oath by the authors of the presented report only constitutes a defect of form, and this can be rectified by summoning the concerned authors to came and give a related oath and then present their findings before the Court. iii. the authors disagreement on the report’s conclusion is not a material issue that might call for the report’s revocation, as long the majority of its authors concur with its content. iv. No Expert has even concluded that the concerned wall collapsed due to effects of natural disasters, and a report made by the Village leader on the 22/05/2018 highlighted this issue as an old conflict, and it makes clear that the wall collapsed due to a pile of soil that Murenzi Aphonse heaped against it. v. The previous court that has discretionally awarded the plaintiffs with 720,000 Frw as compensation for the car hiring did no wrong, since the Court

## Page 423

81 MURENZI ET AL. v MUTABAZI ET AL (ADD)

was not bound to abide by the sole evidence submitted by litigants with assessing the current market prices. Besides, Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude, the plaintiff, him too had a contribution to give for loss sharing. vi. A sum of 20,000,000 Frw that Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude and Muhawenimana Joselyne requested for moral damages is not granted since they cannot account for it, neither can they prove for the pain, sorrow nor the desperation they went through due the concerned incident. vii. A refund of 2,183.000 Frw granted to SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc must be recaptured along the ruling of the High Court, but the very sum should be deducted from the plaintiffs’ damage compensation. viii. The damage compensation allowed to Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude and Muhawenimana Joselyne is deducted of 3,369,336 Frw, a value of the ancillary buildings and 2,183,000 Frw for insurance refund to SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc.

The Court held that the appealed ruling changes in part, and it ordered Murenzi Alphonse together with Uwamahoro Jacqueline to jointly to pay 740,000 Frw to Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude and Muhawenimana Joselyne for Counsel fee, court fee, and the incurred case related costs, and the Court ordered them to refund SANLAM Assurences Générales Plc with a sum of 2,183, 0000 Frw spent on the car repair.

## Page 424

82 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Murenzi Alphonse petitioned the President of the Court of Appeal, and prayed to have case CMB RCA 00499/2019/HC/KIG-RCA 00506/2019/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court on the 19/02/2021 reviewed for injustice-related ground. The President of the Court of Appeal analysed the application and wrote to the President of the Supreme Court and requested him to have the case retried. And on 07/10/2021 the President of the Supreme Court issued a writ n0 243/CJ/2021 and sent the case to the Court’s Registry for retrial.

The hearing was conducted in public on 08/03/2022 with Counsel Habyarimana Christine assisting Murenzi Alphonse and Uwamahoro Jacqueline, while Counsel Yaramba Ruhara Athanase together with Counsel Niyitegeka Epaphrodite represented Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude together with Muhawenimana Joselyne whereas SANLAM Assurence Générales Plc was represented by Counsel Gafaranga Anastase.

At the opening of the hearing, Counsel Habyarimana Christine informed the Court that Murenzi Alphonse that she is representing is sick, and she added that she normally assists him in the court, but she now has a mandate and a power of Attorney to represent him on the matter pertaining to the objection of lis pendens that they have filed following the pre-trial meeting; and she explained that the above objection came in late since they learnt of it shortly later after the pre-trial conference . She argued that the raised objection results from a new claim that Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude, the plaintiff, has lodged with Gasabo Intermediate Court on the 24/02/2022, registered under case n0 RC 00177/2022/TB/GSBO. She added that When Murenzi Alphonse learnt of the new claim, he found it related to the pending case, and he requested to raise an objection of lis

## Page 425

83 MURENZI ET AL. v MUTABAZI ET AL (ADD)

pendens, and that is why she suggests the Court to first look into the raised objection II. THE ISSUE OF THE CASE AND ITS ANALYSIS.  Whether case RS/INJUST/RC 00009/2021 and claim RC 00177/2022/TB/GSBO pending before the Primary Court of Gasabo create a situation of lis pendens

Counsel Habyarimana Christine representing Murenzi Alphonse and Uwamahoro Jacqueline argues that the new claim that Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude lodged with the Primary Court of Gasabo is closely related to this very case since the plaintiff sued requesting for compensation for the newly constructed wall, and for the thereby demolished ancillary buildings. She argues that the new claim will certainly bring about the determination of liability and she is worried that both courts may end up with conflicting decisions and that is why he requests for a joint trial by this Court and hence a smooth end of the case.

Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude and his legal advisors, and yet representatives of Muhawenimana Joselyne, they too agree that the concerned cases are the same, and that their joint trial will yield a smooth end. They submit that in case the Supreme Court finds a lis pendens thereof, it can call for the case that pends before the Primary Court and have both cases jointly tried; and they add that in case of no situation of lis pendens, still nothing bars the Supreme Court, the highest court, to call for a case from a Primary Court for a joint trial (he who does much, does little)

## Page 426

84 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Counsel Gafaranga Anastase who represents SANLAM Assurence Générales Plc, him too, submits that the two cases should be combined and jointly tried. Lest, if at all this court finds Murenzi Alphonse and Uwamahoro Jacqueline flawless, that would jeopardize the ruling on the case lodged with the Primary Court. DETERMIANTION OF THE COURT:

Sub- paragraph 3 of paragraph one of article 100 of the law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the Jurisdiction of Courts provides that “Where a case is filed in two different courts with competent jurisdiction, one of the courts sends the case to the other by selecting : a higher court which takes precedence over a lower court,…”

The Court finds that the above article puts it clear that grounds that justify case lis pendens are : 1) There must be different courts that were seized for a same case, that is, carrying on a same litigation matter, and between same litigants. 2) The seized courts must all be equally competent. The same litigation matter means that the claim must be of the same root, and must be for the same cause. Same litigants means that parties litigating in one case must be exactly the very parties litigating in the other case.

With regard to this case, the litigation matter of case RC 00177/2022/TB/GSBO is a request to compel Murenze Alphonse and Uwamahoro Jacqueline for the payment of a compensation for a new fence wall that Mutabazi Aboyo Jean Claude has constructed, together with a compensation for the thereby demolished ancillary buildings all due to the defendant’s poor

## Page 427

85 MURENZI ET AL. v MUTABAZI ET AL (ADD)

construction methods, and the plaintiffs requested for a variety of other damage compensations. Before the Primary Court, SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc did not intervene into the case, the requests submitted before the Primary Court are different from the pleas presented under case RS/INJUST/RC 00009/2021/SC. For the Primary Court, the claim is about ordering Murenzi Alphonse and Uwamahoro Jacqueline for the payment of a contribution for the construction of a new fence wall, and a payment for compensation of the thereby demolished ancillary buildings; arguing it all due to the collapsing of Murenzi’s fence wall; Whereas for the Supreme Court, a total of 8 requests were made: a sum of 34,038,316 Frw was requested for the compensation of both the collapsed wall and the demolished ancillary buildings

The Court moves that a second justification of lis pendens is when both the seized courts have the required jurisdiction to hear the lodged litigation. For this matter, Serge Guinchard, a renowned scholar in the realm, says that lis pendens only exists if the courts seized of a same litigation are equally competent for it. Otherwise, when one of the seized courts has no jurisdiction to hear the lodged litigation, such a scenario raises an objection to do with lack of jurisdiction, but not of lis pendens1. Loïc Cadiet and Emmanuel Jeuland, they too concur with the above, they as well assert that a situation of lis pendens only exists when

1 “La litispendance ne peut avoir lieu que lorsque le même litige est porté devant deux juridictions également compétentes. Si l’une des juridictions est incompétente, ce n’est pas une exception de litispendance qui doit être présentée mais une exception d’incompétence devant la juridiction estimée incompétente. Mais la litispendance pourrait être invoquée ensuite, si la juridiction se déclare compétente et si sa décision n’est pas contestée, …” Serge Guinchard (eds), Droit et pratique de la procédure civile, Paris, Dalloz, 2014, p. 293

## Page 428

86 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

competent courts were equally seized for a same litigation with a same subject matter and between the same litigants2.

The Court finds that the case that pends before the Primary Court of Gasabo is about a newly lodged claim and it was filed with reference to provisions of article 27 of the Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the Jurisdiction of Primary Courts for civil cases; while case n0 RS/INJUST/RC 0009/2021/SC pending under this very Court is a case that has already exhausted all its ordinary and extraordinary judicial remedies from the High Court. The Supreme Court is now reviewing this case for injustice related grounds as per the provisions of paragraph one of article 53 of the above mentioned Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 which requests the Supreme Court to review some cases with injustice related issues, more especially cases that are likely to set a judicial precedent for other courts of law.

The Court finds that a case whose first instance was heard by a Primary Court cannot be under the jurisdiction of the Supreme. And that a case whose first instance was heard by an Intermediate and whose last instance was heard by the High Court, and which later was reviewed for injustice-related grounds cannot be brought under the jurisdiction of the Primary Court, since the sole courts that have jurisdiction for such a case are only the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Therefore, an objection of lis pendens that Counsel Habyarimana Christine alleges to be between case n0 RS/INJUST/RC 00009/2021/SC

2 “Il y a litispendance lorsque deux juridictions également compétentes sont saisies d’un même litige, ce qui suppose un litige portant sur le même objet, reposant sur la même cause et opposant les mêmes parties”. See Loïc Cadiet and Emmanuel Jeuland, Droit judiciaire privé, 11e éd., Paris, 2019, p.222.

## Page 429

87 MURENZI ET AL. v MUTABAZI ET AL (ADD)

that pends under this Court and a claim n0 RC 00177/2022/TB/GSBO pending before Gasabo Intermediate Court has no justification.

Similarly, the Court finds no point into the litigants’ requests for the joinder of cases arguing that, regardless of a situation of lis pends, the Supreme Court can still order for the sought joinder since it even has a higher jurisdiction than a Primary Court. Though sub-paragraph 3 of paragraph one of article 100 of the above mentioned Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 provides that in a scenario of case lis pendens, the higher court takes a precedence ; this stance does not nullify an obligation of first complying with principles of the very paragraph which state that different competent courts must have seized for a same litigation and by the same litigants.

The Court finds that an otherwise alternative that might lead to the joinder of these cases, might not be justified by a sole fact that a same litigation pends before a higher court, it can instead be linked to the Court’s own discretion. Nevertheless, the Court’s own has governing principles. Tom Bingham, the former President of the Supreme Court of England, one of the countries that known for the promotion of the principle of Court’s own discretion, says that the Court cannot apply the principle of court’s own discretion for the confirmation of facts, neither can it apply such a principle on the existing usual legal provisions. Instead, when the Court has already determined the related facts and it has as well identified the applicable laws, it can now proceed with the making of different decisions and it is this time that the Court can apply the principle of own discretion. When the Court starts wondering and deliberating about a more appropriate and fair decision to take, then it has embarked on the

## Page 430

88 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

application of the principle of court’s own discretion3. And, all the above said indicates that the Court’s own discretion cannot be taken an acceptable standard to justify the existence of a case lis pendens.

Considering all what has been above elucidated, the Court finds that the objection of case lis pendens as raised by Murenzi Alphonse and Uwamahoro Jacqueline has no justification. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the objection raised by Murenzi Alphonse and Uwamahoro Jacqueline has no justification.

Holds that there no situation of case lis pendens between case n0 RS/INJUST/RC 00009/2021/SC and claim n0 RC 00177/2022/TB/GSBO pending before the Intermediate Court of Gasabo, and therefore, these cases are not for a joint trial.

Moves that the hearing on the merit of the case will proceed on the 18/05/2022 from 8:30 am.

3 “… an issue falls within a judge’s discretion if, being governed by no rule of law, its resolution depends on the individual judge’s assessment of what it is fair and just to do in the particular case. He has no discretion in making his findings of fact. He has no discretion in his rulings on the law. But when having made any necessary finding of fact and any necessary ruling of law, he has to choose between different courses of action, orders, penalties or remedies he then exercises discretion. It is only when he reaches the stage of asking himself what is the fair and just thing to do or order in the instant case that he embarks on the exercise of a discretion.” Reba “The Judge as Lawmaker: An English Perspective” in Tom Bingham, The Business of Judging: Selected Essays and Speeches 1985-1999, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000, p.36.

## Page 431

CASES ON MERIT

## Page 433

ADMINISTRATIVE CASES

## Page 435

93

TABARUKA v GICUMBI DISTRICT [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/INJUST/RAD 00003/2021/SC – (Ntezilyayo, P.J., Cyanzayire, Nyirinkwaya and Hitiyaremye, J.) May 20, 2022] Labour procedure – Provisional suspension at work – provisional detention – removal from office– In labour cases, the provisional detention of a public servant for a period of more than six months makes him automatic removed from office, starting from the date of his arrest and provisional detention. Labour Law – Public servant leave – Annual leave – In case a public servant is unable to take annual leave due to working conditions, s/he shall take it in the first month of the following year, but s/he must prove that he had requested it in writing. - An employee who has requested a leave in writing and was not granted it due to work reasons, should not be given money to compensate it, but replaces it with another one that s/he must take in the first month of the following year. Facts: Tabaruka, who was the Director of Finance Unit in Gicumbi District, was suspected of embezzling public funds which made him be arrested and imprisoned. Gicumbi District wrote to him informing him that he was provisional suspended due to the crimes he was prosecuted for and later he was automatic removed from the Public servants. After he was found acquitted of those crimes, he wrote to the District asking to be reinstated, saying that he was dismissed illegally, but they replied that the decision to suspend him was made in accordance with the law.

## Page 436

94 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

After exhausting all for remedies from responsible authorities, Tabaruka filed a case before the Intermediate Court of Gicumbi, asking for the invalidation of the decision suspending him from work, damages related to his unfair dismissal, procedural and court's fees, but this instant Court declared his dismissal lawful. Tabaruka appealed the judgment to the High Court which sustained the appealed decision. This made him write to the Court of Appeal asking for a review on grounds of injustice. After the approval of his request, this instant Court first made a decision on the request to be reviewed on the grounds of injustice which have not been tried in the previous courts and ruled that the damages requested by Tabaruka should not analysed at this instant, because they were not among the complaints that should be tried in the first instant. The case continued in merits by first examined of the issue of whether the decision to provisionally suspend Tabaruka and the decision to automatic remove him from public servants were unlawful. Tabaruka says that the Mayor of Gicumbi District has written a letter informing him that he has been provisionally suspended from work on the grounds that since 07/03/2017 he was arrested by the Prosecution and imprisoned for the crimes he was being prosecuted for. He further adds that the letter reached him on 04/04/2017 where he was detained in Kimironko Prison, and it indicated that the decision takes effect from 03/07/2017. He concludes by saying that he finds that there are three different dates, that is, the time the decision was taken, the time for its execution and the time it was received, and wonder the time for the decision to take effect among these three dates. He finds that the decision suspending him provisionally and that of automatic removing him from office were unfairly taken, because in calculation of 6 months, they based on the date of 07/03/2017

## Page 437

95 TABARUKA v GICUMBI DISTRICT

instead of 04/04/2017 of which he was notified of the decision suspending him provisionally. Gicumbi District defends that the Plaintiff proves that he was dismissed illegally and that he was not dismissed but rather was automatic removal from office. This does not have the same effect as being dismissed, which is why he should not say that he was dismissed. Another thing is that it is not a decision of the district but a law that provides for it. Regarding to the calculation of the provisional detention period, the District says that it was done accordingly because from the date of 07/03/2017 when Tabaruka was arrested and detained by the Prosecution until 08/09/2017 when a letter automatically removed him from office was to him, and it reached him on 15/09/2017, six months had passed. The fact that the Plaintiff has been claiming that the six (6) months of provisional detention were wrongly calculated in the previous courts, because they would start from the time the decision of provisional detention became final, and now he says that the six (6) months would be counted from the time he received the letter suspending him provisionally on 04/04/2017, the District finds that it is an attempt to confuse and mislead justice. On the issue related to the damages resulting from unfair automatic removal from office, Tabaruka says that the fact that he was not notified in due time the decision provisionally suspending him from work is a mistake made by Gicumbi District of not complying with the provisions of the law, and should be entitled to damages resulting from unfair dismissal from public servants. Gicumbi District says that the damages requested by Tabaruka should not be awarded because he was not dismissed from work

## Page 438

96 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

illegally, but rather was automatically removed from office because he was provisionally detained for a period of more than six (6) months. Held: 1. In labour cases, the provisional detention of a public servant for a period of more than six months makes him automatic removed from office, starting from the date of his arrest and provisional detention. Thus, Tabaruka Dieudonné was automatically removed from office on 08/09/2017 based on letter number 3201/07.04.05/01 written by Gicumbi District Mayor, 6 months ago being provisionally detained from 07/ 03/2017 when he was arrested by the Prosecution and imprisoned. 2. When a public servant is unable to take annual leave due to working conditions, s/he shall take it in the first month of the following year, but he must prove that he had requested it in writing. An employee who has requested a leave in writing and was not granted it due to work reasons, should not be given money to compensate it, but replaces it with another one that s/he must take in the first month of the following year. An application for review on grounds of injustice is justified. The ruling of the High Court is changed in parts. Statutes and Statutory referred to: Law n°22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 111. Law n° 86/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the general statutes for public service, article 40, 44 and 93 Law nº 30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure, article 99.

## Page 439

97 TABARUKA v GICUMBI DISTRICT

Law n°22/2012 of 15/06/2012 determining the publication, notification and commencement of official acts, article 5. Organic Law n° 20/2003 of 03/08/2003 organizing Education, article 34. Case laws reffered to: Nkongoli John v Government of Rwanda, RADA 0012/07/decided by Supreme Court on 7/03/2009. Doctrines referred to: J. Auby et R. Drago, Traité de contentieux administratif, Tome 1, 3ème édition, 1984, p.915. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Tabaruka Dieudonné was the Director of Finance Unit in Gicumbi District, later he was suspected of embezzling public funds, which led to his arrest and imprisonment on 03/07/2017. In letter number 1203/07.04.05/01 dated 28/03/2017, Gicumbi District wrote to him informing that he has been provisionally suspended due to the crimes he is being prosecuted for; on 09/08/2017 he was automatically removed from office from the public service. The final decision provisionally detaining him and his co-accussed was taken on 18/04/2017, the case was lodged in the Intermediate Court of Gicumbi for the crime of providing unjustified benefits and the crime of embezzlement of public funds. The Court found him guilty of attempt of embezzlement, but on appeal it was overturned.

## Page 440

98 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

After Tabaruka Dieudonné found acquitted, he wrote to Gicumbi District asking to be reinstated saying that he was dismissed illegally, on the grounds that the decision to provisionally detain him was made on 18/04/2017, and he was dismissed on 08/09 /2017, the six months provided for by paragraph one, article 40 of the Law establishing the general statutes for public service has not yet expired. Gicumbi District replied that the decision was made in accordance with the law.

After exhausting all for remedies from responsible authorities, he filed a complaint in the Intermediate Court of Gicumbi, requesting the invalidation of the decision number 1203/07.04.05/01 of 28/03/2017, unfair dismissal related damages, the Procedural and Counsel’s fees. The case was registered on RAD 00002/2018/TGI/GIC, decided on 30/07/2018, the Court upheld that he was dismissed in accordance with the law.

Regarding to the damages requested by Tabaruka Dieudonné relating to the criminal cases against him which he was found acquitted, others resulting from the penalties imposed by the Bank in which he had a debt he did not pay because he was dismissed from work, the Court found that it would not be entitled to them because his dismissal was lawful. Regarding the terminal benefits, notice allowance and damages of not being given work certificate, the Court found that as he admitted, he was given what he was entitled to by the law.

Tabaruka Dieudonné appealed the case to the High Court, registered under number RADA 00140/2018/HC/KIG, decided on 30/07/2019, the Court declared that there is no change in the appealed case. In making the decision, the Court explained that:

## Page 441

99 TABARUKA v GICUMBI DISTRICT

Article 40 of Law No. 86/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing a general statute governing public servants provides that one of the reasons for a public servant to be provisionally suspended from work is when he is provisionally detained for less than six months.

The purpose of this article is to explain what happens to an employee who cannot come to work for various reasons beyond his control, including when he is arrested and detained. It says that this article shows that he does not immediately stop being a public servant, but it is clear that the government does not wait for him forever, that’s why he lost his position after six months.

The provisional detention referred to in article 40 of the General Statute governing public servants is not a detention based on a decision of a provisional detention taken by a judge and that has been final, but it is any detention named provisional because a person has not yet been sentenced to mean that he is imprisoned serving his sentence. This type of provisional detention can start from when a person is arrested and detained on arrest warrant (procès-verbal d'arrestation), and continues while he is still detained based on a provisional arrest warrant (mandat d' arrêt provisoire), which continues until a judge's provisional detention taken until becomes final.

Regarding to the damages related to the unfair dismissal requested by Tabaruka Dieudonné, the High Court explained that it could not be granted because he was dismissed according to the

## Page 442

100 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

law, while other damages he requests should not be considered because they were not sued in the complaint filed in the Intermediate Court of Gicumbi.

After the ruling of the case, Tabaruka Dieudonné wrote to the President of the Court of Appeal requesting that the case RADA 00140/2018/HC/KIG decided by the High Court on 30/07/2019 be reviewed on grounds of injustice. The President of the Court of Appeal after examining the request, made a report to the President of the Supreme Court, who after reviewing it decided that the case will be reheard by the Supreme Court, registered under number RS/INJUST/RAD 00003/2021/SC.

The hearing of the case was scheduled on 11/04/2022, held in public Tabaruka Dieudonné assisted by Counsel Karemera Pierre Claver, and Gicumbi District represented by Counsel Ndengeyingoma Louise. Before the case went into the merits, the Court first made a decision on what was requested to be analysed at the level of injustice that which have not been tried in the previous courts.

After hearing each party’s concern, the Court decided that the following damages requested by Tabaruka Dieudonné should not be examined at this instance, because they are not among the complaints that should be tried at the first instance: - 21,720,371 Frw related to children's education insurance and health insurance; - 2,000,000 Frw related to the failure to conduct the 2016/2017 performance evaluation and the delay in promotion;

## Page 443

101 TABARUKA v GICUMBI DISTRICT

- 500,000 Frw of expenses when he frequently went to the Public Service Commission and other organs to appeal against the decisions made by Gicumbi District.

The case continued in merits, each part commented about its submissions the presented, the Court notified the parties that the case will be pronounced on 20/05/2022. The main legal issues which were analysed are the following: - To determine whether the decision number 1203/07.04.05/01 of 28/03/2017 and the decision number 3201/07.04.05/01 of 08/09/2017 did not comply with the law; - Various requested damages. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES 1. To determine whether the decision number 1203/07.04.05/01 of 28/03/2017 and the decision number 3201/07.04.05/01 of 08/09/2017 did not comply with the law

Tabaruka Dieudonné and his counsel say that on 28/03/2017, the Mayor of Gicumbi District wrote a letter with the number 1203/07.04.05/01 informing him that he is provisionally suspended from work on the grounds that from On 07/03/2017, he was arrested by the Prosecution and detained for the crimes he was being prosecuted for. They say that the letter reached him on 04/04/2017 where he was detained at Kimironko Prison, and it was stated that the validity of the decision takes effect from 03/07/2017.

## Page 444

102 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

They say that there are three different dates, that is, the time by which the decision was made (28/03/2017), the starting time of its implementation (07/03/2017) and the date it was received (04/04/2017), and wondering about the starting time of the validity of the implementation of this decision of these three dates. They say that they find that the date it was received is the one that should be taken into account for the validity of the decision as per paragraph two of article 5 of Law n°22/2012 of 15/06/2012 determining the publication, notification and commencement of official acts.1

They explain that legal experts say that for a person who is incapable (incapable) the notification is made by a legal representative, in case s/he is detained, it is taken to the prison where he is detained from2, which is also what is included in the case RADA 0012/07/CS which was decided by the Supreme Court on 27/03/2009 against Nkongoli John v. the State of Rwanda. They conclude that they find that the decision provisionally suspending him and that of automatically removing him from office were taken unlawfully, because in calculation of 6 months, they based on the date of 07/03/2017 instead of 04/04/2017 of which he was notified of the decision provisionally suspending him.

Counsel Ndengeyingoma Louise, Counsel for Gicumbi District, says that Tabaruka Dieudonné shows that he was unfairly

1 acts of individual interest shall have effect from the date of their notification to the concerned parties. 2 Si l’intéressé est incapable, la notification doit être faite à son représentant légal. S’il est seulement interné, elle doit être adressée à l’établissement où il réside; J. Auby et R. Drago, Traité de contentieux administratif, Tome 1, 3ème édition, 1984, p.915).

## Page 445

103 TABARUKA v GICUMBI DISTRICT

dismissed and that the District never dismissed him, instead he was automatically removed from office. She explains that automatic removal from office does not have the same effects as dismissal, which is why he should not say that he was dismissed. She also says that it is not a decision made by the District, instead it is a law that provides for it. He says that in automatically removing him from office was in accordance with the provisions of article 93 of Law n° 86/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the general statutes for public service which was into force at that time.3

Regarding to the calculation of the period of provisional detention, the Counsel for the District says that it was done accordingly because from 07/03/2017 when Tabaruka Dieudonné was arrested and detained by the Prosecution until 08/09/2017 when he was sent a letter dismissed him without argument, reaching him on 15/09/2017, six months had passed, and based on the provisions of article 99 of Law no 30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure which was in force at that time4, the Prosecution may provisionally detain the suspect.

She explains that according to article 40 of Law n° 86/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the general statutes for public service above-mentioned provided for, the State would not wait for the employee forever, the law provided that if the employee is provisionally detained for a period of more than six (6) months, s/he is subjected to be automatically removed from office. The fact

3 a public servant shall be subject to automatic removal from office if he/she is placed in provisional detention for a period exceeding six (6) months. 4 If all the conditions of provisional detention are met, a Prosecutor may, after interrogating the suspect with or without his/her legal counsel, hold the suspect in provisional detention.

## Page 446

104 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

that Tabaruka Dieudonné has been claiming that the six (6) months of provisional detention were wrongly calculated in the previous courts, saying that they would start from the time the provisional detention becomes final, now he says that six (6) months should be counted from the time he received the letter provisionally suspending him on 04/04/2017, which the District finds to be trying to confuse and mislead justice. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Point one of article 40 of Law n° 86/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the general statutes for public service which was into force when Tabaruka Dieudonné was imposed the above decisions, provides that a public servant shall be suspended from duties if he/she is provisionally detained for a period not exceeding six (6) months; and point four of article 44, of that Law provides that the suspension from duties of a public servant shall come to an end if he/she is dismissed or automatically removed from office.

Point two of article 93 of the above-mentioned Law stipulates that a public servant shall be subject to automatic removal from office if he/she is placed in provisional detention for a period exceeding six (6) months.

What is clear from these articles, when read together, is that when a public servant is provisionally detained but the detention does not exceed 6 months, the employer has the right to suspend him from work for the benefits of work because he is not working. When the detention exceeds 6 months, the law allows the employer to automatically remove him office because s/he does not keep on waiting for him/her, the provisional

## Page 447

105 TABARUKA v GICUMBI DISTRICT

suspension and the related benefits thereof of the employee immediately end.

In the hearing of Tabaruka Dieudonné from the beginning of the case at the Intermediate Court of Gicumbi to the High Court, he showed that what he is basing on is that he was automatically removed from office5 unfairly, that he was automatically removed from office on 08/09/2017 and the decision provisionally detained him became final on 18/04/2017, and he said that he was automatically removed from office before 6 months end because it was supposed to be counted from 18/04/2017. In this instant Court, he argued that in the determination of 6 months, they based on the date of 07/03/2017 he was arrested by the Prosecution and detained, instead of being the date of 04/04/2017 of which he was notified of the decision provisionally suspending him from work. The court therefore finds that the root cause of the issue in this instant case is to determine the period from when the six months mentioned in the articles of Law n0 86/2013 of 11/09/2013 mentioned above start to be counted.

As stated above, a public servant is automatically removed from office if he is provisionally detained for more than 6 months, that is, six months are counted from the date of the employee's provisionally detention. Article 99 of Law nº 30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure which was into force when Tabaruka Dieudonné was arrested and detained, provided that if all the conditions of provisional detention are met, a Prosecutor may, after interrogating the

5 There is somewhere he uses the word dismissal, but what is clear in a letter no 3201/07.04.05/01 of 08/09/2017 is that he was automatically removed from office which is not dismissal.

## Page 448

106 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

suspect with or without his/her legal counsel, hold the suspect in provisional detention and take him/her to the court that is nearest to the place where he/she was arrested with the exception of the High Court, the Military High Court and the Supreme Court. What is mentioned in this article no dout means that a person is under provisional detention from the time the Prosecution arrests him and detains him.

In the court’ submissions presented to this instant Court, Tabaruka Dieudonné says that he was arrested and detained by National Public Prosecution Authority on 07/03/2017, which is the date that must be taken into account for the 6 months the employee must have been detained in order to be subject to automatic removal from office, as stipulated in point two of article 93 of Law n0 86/2013 of 11/09/2013 mentioned above. It must also be the basis counted from for the period not exceeding 6 months stipulated in point one of article 40 of that Law.

Tabaruka Dieudonné was automatically removed from office on 08/09/2017 based on letter N0 3201/07.04.05/01 written by Gicumbi District Mayor, 6 months ago he was provisionally detained. Prior to his automatic removal from office, he was provisionally suspended from work on 28/03/2017, based on letter N0 1203/07.04.05/01 of Gicumbi District Mayor, he had not yet spent 6 months in provisional detention.

Based on the aforementioned, the Court finds that decision number 1203/07.04.05/01 of 28/03/2017 and decision number 3201/07.04.05/01 of 08/09/2017 complied with the law, which means that Tabaruka Dieudonné was not unfairly automatically removed from office.

## Page 449

107 TABARUKA v GICUMBI DISTRICT

2. Determination of various requested damages  Damages relating to unlawful automatic removal from office

Tabaruka Dieudonné says that decision number 1203/07.04.05/01 of 28/03/2017 provisionally suspends him and decision number 3201/07.04.05/01 of 08/09/2017 automatically removes him from office are unlawful, nothing can prevent him from claiming damages of unfair dismissal. He adds that the fact that he was not notified on time the decision to provisionally suspend him from work is a mistake made by Gicumbi District that did not comply with the provisions of the law, and he should be entitled to the unfair dismissal from public servants related. These damages are calculated as follows according to their type : - Moral damages (dommages moraux): 10.000.000Frw; - Material damages (dommages matériels): - Salary losses from 09/09/2017 to the last day of the month following the date of the pronouncement of the judgment calculated based on the salary rate equal to 811,660 Frw, times the number of months in included in that time mentioned above ; - Losses of travel transport allowance from 09/09/2017 to the last day of the month following the date of the pronouncement of the judgment, calculated based on the amount received equal to 69,577 Frw per month, times 'the number of months in included in that time mentioned above.

## Page 450

108 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

He claims that the damages he is seeking is 34,901,380 Frw, plus 2,991,811 Frw for transport allowances, totalling to 37,893,191 Frw. He also says that the RAMA contribution should not be deducted from this amount because he and his family were not treated at that time, but what should be deducted can be the RSSB contribution and the Income Tax (TPR).

The Counsel for Gicumbi District defends that the damages Tabaruka Dieudonné is requesting should not give granted because he was not dismissed from his job illegally, but he was automatically removed from office because he was provisionally detained for more than six (6) months. He also says that the claimant for moral damages must provide evidence of such grief and prove his/her loss. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The moral damages as well as the material damages that Tabaruka Dieudonné is requesting, saying that he was automatically removed from office illegally, the Court finds that they cannot be granted because it has shown that he was not automatically removed from office illegally. This also applies to other damages he requested for unjustified detention and defamation for allegedly embezzling public funds, as well as late penalties for BK loans that were not paid on time due to loss of job.  Other damages

Tabaruka Dieudonné and his lawyer argue that he deserves the following additional damages :

## Page 451

109 TABARUKA v GICUMBI DISTRICT

- Social security contributions for 33 months collected by Gicumbi District but not reported as paid in RSSB, as follows : - Year of 2005: month of 10, 11, 12; - Year of 2009: month of 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12; - Year of 2010: month of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8; - Year of 2011: month of 5,7,8,9,10,11,12; - Year of 2017: month of 3,4,5,6,7,8,9. - Damages equal to 2,000,000 Frw for receiving an incomplete work certificate (attestation de services rendus) because it does not indicate all works done in the District, namely finance and administration officer in Byumba Sector, accountant of Koleji Rushaki, and the acting Director of Finance in the District. They say that in accordance with the provisions of the Prime Minister’s instructions n0 002/03 of 06/12/2012 on granting certificate of services, the certificates in the file were issued by incompetent authorities and he did not find them on time. - Unpaid annual leaves (Congés annuels non payés) equal to 15j/2012+15j/2013+20j/2015=50x811,160/30=1,351,93 3 Frw. They say that the evidence they base on is a letter dated 08/05/2014 received by Gicumbi District on 08/05/2014, which requested a 15-day leave for the year 2012, and a 15-day leave for the year of 2013. They also show the letter dated 22/09/2015 written by the Executive Secretary of the District, allowing him only 10 days out of the 15 days that had been signed, saying that there are

## Page 452

110 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

5 days left for the year 2015 and another 15 that have not been received. - Material damages of 793,161 Frw of the decreased salary when he was demoted from 30/11/2016 until it was paid on 05/03/2018, because he would have benefited if he had been paid on time invested it in his personal activities.

Counsel Ndengeyingoma Louise, Counsel for Gicumbi District, says that Tabaruka Dieudonné claims that all the money was paid, and that it was done with the consent of both parties, and signed it. She says that the District has finished paying him, that instead they find that what he is saying is his wishes that are not based on the law.

She further adds that with regard to the work certificate Tabaruka Dieudonné claims it to be incomplete, he has not presented to the Gicumbi District Administration what is missing so that it can be added, therefore he believed that it had no defects. Regarding to the fact that the person who granted him the work certificate is not competent, she finds it not because the person who gave him the certificate did not sign on his behalf but instead signed on behalf of the Executive Secretary who delegated him (délégation de pouvoir). DETERMINATION OF THE COURT  Social security contributions for 33 months collected by Gicumbi District but not reported as paid in RSSB

Among the documents submitted to Court, there is a paper showing how Tabaruka Dieudonné contributed social security contributions issued by the National Organ having it in its

## Page 453

111 TABARUKA v GICUMBI DISTRICT

attributions (RSSB), which really indicates that the contributions he mentions are from the years 2005, 2009, 2010 and 2017 were not paid, but that of 2011 it was paid except for the half part of the month because it appears that he started working on 16/05/20116.

Regarding to the contributions of the year 2005, in the case file there is a work certificate issued by the District Administrator of Rebero, which shows that Tabaruka Dieudonné worked for that District from 01/06/2005 to of 30/12/2005, and the parties agree that the Rebero District was among those that became Gicumbi District during the reforms of the local authorities. Which means that the unpaid social security contributions of Tabaruka Dieudonné by Rebero District, should be paid by Gicumbi District.

Regarding to the contributions of the year 2009 and 2010, in the case file there is a letter written by the Mayor of Gicumbi District on 22/04/2009 informing Tabaruka Dieudonné that he was appointed to accountant of Rushaki High School College, and a work certificate issued on 14/02/2018 by the Director of the school, Abbé Joseph Bukenya Wetaase, showing that he worked there from 08/05/2009 to 08/06/2010. Also based on article 347 of Organic Law n° 20/2003 of 03/08/2003 organizing Education, the State can enter into agreements with private educational institutions, helping them to appoint the necessary staff and

6 Based on the letter of the Mayor of the District dated 25/04/2012, he was provisionally appointed to the position of accountant on 16/05/2011. 7 For schools the State enters into agreements with private educational institutions, the establishing organisations are the ones who have the basic obligation of constructing them, renovation, buying and looking for them the materials. Within those schools, the State helping them to enrol students. teachers and other staff regulated by labour law and allocates to them salaries.

## Page 454

112 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

allocates to them salaries. It appears that it is in this context that Tabaruka Dieudonné was appointed by Gicumbi District to be the accountant of Secondary School of Rushaki College, which means that he was supposed to be paid by the District, which also paid him social security contributions. The fact that the above- mentioned contributions for the year 2009 and 2010 have not been paid, should be held accountable by the District.

Regarding to the contributions for the year 2017, it appears that they have not been submitted to the RSSB for the time when Tabaruka Dieudonné was detained, because he was detained from 07/03/2017. At that time, he was an employee of Gicumbi District as proved by the appointment letters, the letter informing him that he is automatically removed from office of 08/09/2017, and the work certificate. The court therefore finds that the District must pay contributions that have not been submitted to RSSB.  Damages for being given incomplete certificate and given late

In the case file submitted to Court, there is a work certificate issued on 07/02/2018 by Higiro Damas as the Director of Human Ressource and Administration (Directeur des Ressources Humaines et Administration) who was delegated (par délégation des pouvoirs), It shows that Tabaruka Dieudonné worked in Gicumbi District in the following positions: - Accountant from 16/05/2011 to 02/09/2015; - Director of Finance from 03/09/2015 to 08/09/2017.

The case file also contains a letter from the District Mayor dated 16/05/2011 appointing Tabaruka Dieudonné to the position

## Page 455

113 TABARUKA v GICUMBI DISTRICT

of accountant, as well as a letter dated 03/09/2015 appointing him to the acting Director of Finance (approved permanently in that position on 17/08/2016). Based on these letters, the Court finds that the positions occupied by Tabaruka Dieudonné from 16/05/2011 to 08/09/2017 was stated in the work certificate. Regarding to the position of finance and administration officer of Byumba Sector, he says that it was not stated, the Court finds that he was appointed but removed after appealing to the Public Service Commission, and immediately appointed to the position of District Director of Finance8, and was given the difference of the unpaid salaries related to the 11th, 12th months of 2016 and 1st month of 20179. The Court Therefore, finds that there was no reason to write that position on the work certificate.

The court finds that Tabaruka Dieudonné's statement that he was given a certificate by an unauthorized administrative authority is unfounded, because the Director of Human Resources and Administration who signed it was authorized by the Executive Secretary of the District in a letter dated 02/03/2016.

Regarding to the work performed by Tabaruka Dieudonné at Rushaki College as n accountant, the Court finds that a decision was made on 14/02/2018 by the Director of the school (as the Director of the private school that contracted with the State), showing that he worked there from 08/05/2009 to 16/08/2010.

8 See letter of 06/02/2017 of the Mayor of the District reinstating him on the position of the Director of Finance which he was demoted on 02/11/2016. 9 Document which was put in the case file showing adjustment (régularisation) applied to him.

## Page 456

114 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Regarding to the fact that the certificates were issued late, article 4 of the Prime Minister's Directive No. 002/03 of 06/12/2012 regarding to the issuance of certificates of work done, provides that the employer must give the employee the work certificate when the worker stops his/her work due to any reasons, but such directives did not provide for a deadline for it to prove it be ignored. The fact that he did not prove that he would have requested the certificate and they denied him, and affected him, the Court finds that he should not be compensated.  Annual leave compensation indemnity (Congés annuels non payés)

Article 20 of Law n° 86/2013 of 11/09/2013 Law establishing the general statutes for public service was in force when Tabaruka Dieudonné was automatically removed from office, providing that when a public servant does not take his/her annual leave within a period of one year for work related reasons though he/she had applied for it in writing, he/she must take his/her annual leave in the first month of the subsequent year.

This article implies that in case a public servant is unable to take annual leave due to work reasons, he/she shall take it in the first month of the following year, but he/she must prove that he/she had applied for it in writing. Another thing that is clear in this article is that the employee who requested the leave in writing is not given it for work reasons, he/she is not given money as its compensation, but instead he/she has to take it in the first month of the following year as already mentioned.

The case file contains a letter dated 08/05/2014 that Tabaruka Dieudonné wrote to the Mayor of the District asking for 15 days of leave in 2012 and 15 days in 2013, which were not

## Page 457

115 TABARUKA v GICUMBI DISTRICT

granted though he asked for them. Based on the aforementioned previous paragraphs, the Court finds that Tabaruka Dieudonné should have applied for the 2012 leave he had not been granted no later than the first month of 2013, and for 2013 he should have applied for it no later than the first month of 2014. The fact that he applied for both in May 2014, it appears that he applied for it too late so that he should not ask for compensation.

Regarding to the annual leave of 2015, the case file includes a letter dated 22/09/2015 from the Executive Secretary of the District wrote to Tabaruka Dieudonné, stating that he granted him a leave of 10 days out of the 15 days he had signed. However, there is no evidence that Tabaruka Dieudonné asked to take the 5 days he was allowed not later than the first month of 2016 that they denied him. And there is no evidence to prove that he ever asked for another 15 days of the year 2015 and denied him. The court therefore finds no compensation for Tabaruka Dieudonné to claim for not having granted the annual leave of 2015.  Material damages equal to 793.161Frw of the decreased salary when he was demoted from 30/11/2016 until 05/03/2018 when he was paid.

Tabaruka Dieudonné's complaint filed in the first instance regarding to this case is requested to be reviewed on the grounds of injustice, regarding to the cancellation of the decision provisionally suspending him and automatically removing him from office due to the time he was provisionally detained, and damages related to unfair dismissal.

The court finds that his request related to his bankruptcy when he was demoted, and reinstated after appealing to the Public

## Page 458

116 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Service Commission, are other things that are not related to the subject matter of this case, and therefore should not be considered.  Procedural and counsel’s fees

Tabaruka Dieudonné claims for payment of: - 3.000.000Frw containing 1.500.000 Frw of counsel’s fee in previous cases and 1.500.000Frw for the Supreme Court instance ; - Frw of procedural fee in all courts; - 125.000 Frw of court fees deposit in the previous courts.

He also requests that the 700,000 Frw was charged in the High Court should be removed because the District was responsible. Regarding to the money requested by the Counsel for Gicumbi District, Tabaruka Dieudonné and his Counsel say that it is his right to sue to Court, and therefore he cannot be held responsible of damages thereof.

The Counsel for Gicumbi District says that he is asking the Court to order Tabaruka Dieudonné to pay an amount of 3,000,000 Frw including the counsel’s and procedural fees, because when he comes to the hearing, he brings the District Employees. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 111 of Law n°22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, provides that the claim for representation fees is an incidental claim

## Page 459

117 TABARUKA v GICUMBI DISTRICT

to the principal claim aiming to repay expenses incurred during judicial proceedings. [ ]

The court finds that each party has something won in the case, so that no one is required to pay damages to the other. The same relating to the procedural and counsel's fees. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Declares the claim filed by Tabaruka Dieudonné to review the case RADA 00140/2018/HC/KIG, which was decided by the High Court on 30/07/2019 on grounds on injustice founded in parts.

Declares the ruling of the case RADA 00140/2018/HC/KIG, decided by the High Court on 30/07/2019, changed in parts.

Declares decision number 1203/07.04.05/01 of 28/03/2017 and decision number 3201/07.04.05/01 of 08/09/2017 complied with the law, that Tabaruka Dieudonné was not automatically removed from office illegally.

Decides that the Gicumbi District must pay Tabaruka Dieudonné, in the RSSB, social security contributions they did not pay as follows: - 3 months of the year 2005: from the October to December. - 8 months of the year 2009: from May to December. - 8 months of the year 2010: from January to August. - A half of May of the year 2011, from 16/05/2011.

## Page 460

118 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

- 7 months of the year 2017: from March to September.

## Page 461

CIVIL CASE

## Page 463

121

MBESIGYE v MUKANGWIJE ET.AL [Rwanda SUPREME COURT-RS/INJUST/RC 0001/2022/SC (Cyanzayire, P.J., Kalimunda and Hitiyaremye, J.) 20 January 2023] Civil Law – Property sharing between spouses who live under a simple cohabitation – When spouses living under a simple cohabitation decide to dissolve their cohabitation life, they can partition the existing property on the sole condition that such a property is either “co-owned” or “jointly acquired”. Terms “co- owned” or “jointly acquired” do nevertheless mean that every spouse needs to prove his or her quantified contribution to creation of the concerned property; they rather mean that the concerned property must have been generated within the exact time limits of their cohabitation period- And, what matters most is a logic that while the separating spouses were still living together, everyone has, in one way or the other, contributed for the family prosperity – Law no 59/2008 of 10/09/2008 on Prevention and Punishment for Gender-based violence, article 39. Civil procedure – the nullity of marriage contract – Effects of the nullified marriage on the well-intended spouse – When the marriage contract is nullified by the Court’s decision, the good- faith spouse that is a spouse who honestly did not know and had no single reason to know that such a marriage is defective reserve all rights arising from the marriage contract including the right on the property partition as provided for by their chosen type of matrimonial regime. Law n0 32/2016 of 28/08/2016 relating to Persons and Family, articles 199 and 201.

## Page 464

122 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Facts: Mukagwije got legally married to Niyodusenga on the 22/11/2002 and they got married under the regime of community of property. In 2007, Mukangwije got seriously sick and she went back home for treatment and she took longer to return. In the meantime, Niyodusenga cohabitated with Mbesigye and they also got legally married on the 23/11/2012 with the former his marriage contract still viable. When Mukangwije came back, he found her husband legally living with another wife and Niyonsenga was convicted to the offence of bigamy. Following his conviction, Mukangwije seized the Intermediate Court of Rubavu and she prayed the Court to remove the names of Mbesigye Marguerite on her Land Titles. Her request was joined to the claim by Mbesigye who had prayed the Court to allow partake on the property that she and Niyodusenga had jointly acquired. The Court held that the concerned property should be registered under the names of Niyodusenga and Mukangwije, and this ruling made Mbesigye lodge an appeal before Musanze High Court Chamber, and the latter held to stay the appealed judgement. The Appellant petitioned the President of the Court of Appeal and sought for the reviewing of the case for injustice-related grounds. The President of the Court of Appeal wrote to the President of the Supreme Court notifying him of the petition, and the case was now handed over to the Supreme Court which had to examine whether Mbesigye should be entitled with a portion of 50% on the concerned property registered under UPI: 3/03/11/04/5600; UPI: 3/03/11/01/60; UPI: 3/03/04/06/383 and UPI: 3/03/04/481. The appellant laments that the Intermediate Court of Rubavu and Musanze High Court Chamber have both held that she deserves no share on a set of property that she co-acquired with

## Page 465

123 MBESIGYE v MUKANGWIJE ET.AL

Niyodusenga, a man she married while Mukangwije had left the family. She rebuts the High Court’s stance by which she should partake on the concerned property since nothing proves that she co-owns the concerned property, arguing that she is a partaker on the family property since she worked hard for the family prosperity and she contributed with funds that Niyodusenga, her husband, used for the purchase of the disputed plots. Mukangwije submits that she co-owns the disputed property with Niyodusenga to whom she is legally married. Niyodusenga argues that the argument and request by Mbesigye for 50% of the disputed property has no justification as she is not his legally married wife since he is legally married to Mukangwije. Besides, he adds that he cohabitated with the claimant from 2007, and not 2006 as she alleges. Held: When spouses living under a simple cohabitation decide to dissolve such a cohabitation, they can partition the existing property on the sole condition that such a property is either “co- owned” or “jointly acquired”. It is therefore fair that Mbesigye deserves 50% of the property she co-acquired with Niyodusenga from the year 2007, with a sole exclusion of the property added value. The application for injustice-related review of case n0 RCA 00028/2019/HC/MUS has justification in part. Mbesigye has a share of 50% on the disputes property with a sole exception on the property registered under UPI: 3/03/11/04/5600 together with its added value.

## Page 466

124 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Statutes referred to: Law no 32/2016 of 28/08/2016 governing persons and family, articles 192,199 and 201; Law no 59/2008 of 10/09/2008 relating to Prevention and Punishment of Gender-based violence, article 39 Cases referred to: Case no RS/Inconst/ Pen. 0003/10/CS of 07/01/2011 with Gatera Johnson v. Kabarisa Teddy, para 15 Case no RCAA 0022/13/CS of 25/07/2014 with Ngangare John v. Mukankuranga Grace, pargraph 24 Case no RCAA 0048/14/CS of 11/03/2016 with Ahishakiye v. Namagabira Venantie, paragraph 26-27; Case no RCAA 0014/15/CS of 01/12/2017 with Mutoni K. Jackline v. Niwenshuti Aloys et al. paragraph 33. Judgment I. THE BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Mukangwije Espérance got legally married to Niyodusenga Espérence on the 22/11/2002, and they got married under the regime of community of property. In the year 2007, Mukangwije Espérence got seriously sick and she went back home in Rusizi District for treatment and she took long to return. By the time she come back, she found Niyodusenga Anaclet, her husband, now living with Mbesigye Marguerite to whom he again got legally married and with whom he had two children, yet the former marriage contract was still valid.

## Page 467

125 MBESIGYE v MUKANGWIJE ET.AL

When Mukangwije Espérence recovered she come back to her home in Gisenyi, and she found her husband in marriage and in cohabitation with Mbesigye Marguerite. The prosecution accused Niyodusenga Anaclet for bigamy and Mbesigye took advantage of her husband’s arraignment and she sued him for damage compensation. On 31/05/2017 the Primary Court of Gisenyi heard case RP 00147/2016/TB/GIS and convicted Niyodusenga Anaclet to the charged offence and sentenced to a fine of 300,000 Rwf and ordered him to give Mbesigye Marguerite 800,000 Rwf for moral damage compensation. The prosecution appealed the verdict before the Intermediate Court of Rubavu and the appeal was docketed as RPA 00292/2017/TGI/RBV. The case was heard on 3/11/2017, and the appellant court held to stay the criminal verdict with a sole change on Mbesigye Marguerite’s damage compensation.

Following the criminal verdict, Mukangwije Espérence seized the Intermediate Court of Rubavu and prayed the Court to remove the names of Mbesigye Marguerite on the Land Titles with UPI: 3/03/11/04/5600; UPI: 3/03/11/06/60; UPI: 3/03/04/06/383 and UPI: 3/03/04/06/481. This was combined with a claim that Mbesigye Marguerite had earlier lodged whereby she prayed the court to allow her a share on the houses that she co-owned with Niyodusenga Anaclet. The joinder was recorded as RC 00063/2018/TGI/RBV-CBM RC 00068/2018/TGI/RBV and it was heard on the 22/02/2019. The Court held that the above mentioned immovable property should be registered under the names of Niyodusenga Anaclet and Mukangwije Espérence on a pro rata of 50% per each. The Court has as well ordered that Mbesigye Marguerite should be deregistered on the disputed land titles and it ordered him to give

## Page 468

126 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Niyodusenga Anaclet 100,000 Rwf and then Mukangwije Espérence 825,000 Rwf for the caused damage compensation.

Mbesigye Marguerite appealed the ruling before Musanze High Court Chamber, the appeal was recorded as RCA 0028/2019/HC/MUS and the case was heard on the 31/07/2019. The appellate Court stayed the appealed judgement and it ordered Mbesigye Marguerite to refund Mukangwije Espérence with 250,000 Rwf for case-related expenses. In so holding, the Court based on the following grounds : a. Niyodusenga Anaclet produced an evidence proving that he unilaterally owns the disputed property, and the proof indicates that Mbesigye Marguerite only featured as a witness1. b. He as well proved for the source of funds that he used for the purchase of the disputed property ; submitting that he worked for the University of Rwanda, then Rubavu District and RPF Inkotanyi for different times. c. He acquired the disputed property while in legal marriage with Mukangwije Espérence, and this construes that it is rather with this latter that he co- owns the purchased property. d. The sole evidence that Mbesigye Marguerite puts forth is not convincing enough to earn her a right on the disputed property, since she only claims that she worked for the family prosperity and she took care of the children. Her proof remains

1 House purchase agreement of 21/07/2006, that of 01/03/2010, that of 11/10/2011 and that of 2013.

## Page 469

127 MBESIGYE v MUKANGWIJE ET.AL

insignificant to win a share from a legally married man, who additional proved for his absolute acquisition of the disputed property.

Following the ruling on the case, Mbesigye Marguerite petitioned the President of the Court of Appeal and prayed him for the reviewing of case n0 RCA 00028/2019/HC/MUS rendered by Musanze High Court Chamber, and she lamented of injustice. She argued that she married Niyodusenga Anaclet with good faith, and she requested for a portion on their jointly acquired property as per the terms of their marriage regime; arguing that she deserves ½ of the disputed property as per the provision of article 199 of the Law n0 32/2016 of 28/08/2016 that governs Persons and Family2. Upon the examination of the petition, the President of the Court of Appeal reported the case to Chief Justice, who in turn, verified the application, and thereof ordered the Supreme Court to rehear the case, and the claim was thereby registered as RS/INJUST/RC 00001/2022/SC.

The case was heard in public on the 12/09/2022 with Mbesigye Marguerite assisted by Counsel Mukansanga Ziada, Mukangwije Espérance assisted by Counsel Bizimungu Vita Guido while Niyodusenga Anaclet was assisted by Counsel Mwanamungu Alexis. The Court closed the hearing and slated the pronouncement on the 07/10/2022.

While in the deliberation on case’s issues, the court found it so important to first look for an Expert for property valuation and task her with the valuation of the disputed property,

2 Where the Court declares a marriage null, it produces same effects towards spouses if it was contracted in good faith. The property is shared in accordance with laws governing their matrimonial regime.

## Page 470

128 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

additional developments with their added value computed as from the date the contested ruling has been pronounced. On 24/10/2022, the Court appointed Madam Dushime Justine, as a property valuation Expert to execute its order of 07/10/2022 and mandated her make a report on the following: The physical characteristics of the disputed property, that is, its identification number (UPI), its location and any other details that she deems important. The value of the disputed property as at 31/07/2019 the date at which case RCA 00028/2019/HC/MUS that hereby seeks for a review has been pronounced. The property value must be as current as the report submission date. The disputed property additional developments and their corresponding added value computed from the pronouncement of the contested ruling.

The Property Valuation Expert submitted her report to the Court and it indicated the following: a. The property registered under UPI: 3/03/11/04/5600 is located in Bushenge Village, Gikombe Cell of Rubavu Sector in Rubavu Distirct. Its value stands at 10,432,312 Rwf and the value of the additional developments amounts to 705,520 Rwf;

## Page 471

129 MBESIGYE v MUKANGWIJE ET.AL

b. The property registered on UPI: 3/03/04/481 is located in Munini Village, Rubavu Cell of Gisenyi Sector of Rubavu District. Its current value stood at 17,055,205 Rwf and the additional developments amounted to 18,000 Rwf; c. The property registered on UPI: 3/03/04/06/383 is located in Munini Cell of Rubavu Cell, of Gisenyi Sector in Rubavu District. Its current value is 49,294,061 Rwf and the additional developments stood at 1,922,970 Rwf. d. The property registered under UPI: 3/03/11/01/60 is located in Gabiro Village of Buhaza Cell in Rubavu Sector of Rubavu District. It has a value of 17,816.908 Rwf, and the additional developments amounted to 85,618 Rwf.

The hearing was conducted on the 19/12/2022 with all litigants present. Mbesigye Marguerite was for this time assisted by Counsel Munyensanga Gisèle while the rest of the litigants were assisted as before. Madam Dushime Justine, the Property Valuation Expert was as well present, and she first made the duty- related oath and then presented the details her report to the Court.

The Expert reported to the Court that she reached and visited the disputed property and she entered every single house for a thorough inspection of the property. She explained that value she submits may not be equal to the value presented by the previous Valuator whose valuation report was presented before the Intermediate Court of Rubavu due to a fact that she thereby

## Page 472

130 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

found different surface areas for the houses, coupled with a reality that the disputed property location area has considerably appreciated due to its growing infrastructural development.

Niyodusenga Anaclet submitted that he is not agreeing with the results from the valuation report, arguing that the disputed property value has been hiked, and more heightened than the version that the claimant has presented before the Intermediary Court of Rubavu. Besides, he complained that the value of the additional developments has been terribly underestimated. However, the rest of the litigants made no objections.

fter the Court has from each litigant on the presented report, the hearing was closed and the ruling pronouncement was slated on the 20/01/2023.

Along this case, the court examined the following issues: a. Whether Mbesigye Marguerite deserves 50% of the property registered under UPI: 3/03/11/04/5600; UPI: 3/03/11/01/60; UPI: 3/03/06/383 and UPI: 3/03/04/481 b. Damages

## Page 473

131 MBESIGYE v MUKANGWIJE ET.AL

II. THE ISSUES OF THE CASE AND THEIR ANALYSIS  Whether Mbesigye Marguerite deserves 50% of the property registered under UPI: 3/03/11/04/5600; UPI: 3/03/11/01/60, UPI: 3/03/06/383 and UPI: 3/03/04/481;

Mbesigye Marguerite and her legal advisor lament that the Intermediate Court of Rubavu and Musanze High Court Chamber have both held that she deserves no share on a set of property that she co-acquired with Niyodusenga Anaclet, a man she married while Mukangwije had lelft the family. They also add that by the time of immovable property general census and registration, Mukangwije Espérence was thereby present, but she never bothered to oppose the initial registration process, arguing that the story of her mental illness is just a mere narrative that she and Niyonsenga Anaclet have fabricated to dispossess her of the disputed property.

They also lament that the stance by Musanze High Court Chamber by which she does not co-own the disputed property since she only features the disputed property purchasing agreements as a witness not as a partner; arguing that such a position is unfair since the court has disregarded a fact that she tediously contributed o the acquisition of the disputed property as she worked for the prosperity of the family and she took good of the children and she wants her contribution to be valued. They also added that Mbesigye Marguerite, as a respectful woman, used to give funds to her husband, who could then buy the assets and have them registered under his name while the wife would only come as a witness ; adding that by time the disputed assets were being bought (2007-2014) Niyodusenga Anaclet was

## Page 474

132 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

actually unemployed and he had no income to purchase the concerned assets. They argue that the wife acted in faith, and she had no possible to keep funds disbursement evidence as she always believed that all the transactions were effected in a perfect partnership.

Mbesigye Marguerite and his legal advisor further add that from the year 2007 to 2012, Niyodusaba Anaclet was still a student, and for all that time, it is actually Mbesigye who struggled with the family alone, and whenever she got money, she always gave it to the husband for the purchasing of the plots. For reference, they cited case no RS/ INCONST/PEN 0003/10/CS rendered by this Court on 07/01/2011 where he has, under paragraph 12, held that a piece of land that is unilaterally registered on the husband should be equally co-owned by his spouse guided by the logic that both spouses have jointly contributed for the projects of family prosperity.

They also quote articles 193 and 199 of the Law n0 32/2016 of 28/08/2016 governing Persons and Family whereby this law provides that when causes leading to the absolute nullity of marriage arise, the family property is shared in accordance with the spouses’ matrimonial regime. They therefore argue the law allows Mbesigye Marguerite a portion of 50% of the whole family property which spouses generated while their marriage contract was still valid. The concluded by requested the court for revocation of all court’s orders that permitted Mukangwije Espérance to register the disputed property under name, and they prayed the court to have 50% of the disputed property registered under the names of Mbesigye Marguerite.

Furthermore, they submitted that Mbesigye Marguerite cohabited with Niyodusaba Anaclet since the year 2006, as it

## Page 475

133 MBESIGYE v MUKANGWIJE ET.AL

evidenced by the documents of disputed property purchasing agreements. They also rebut the idea of refund for the property additional development, arguing that any property added valued was self-funded by the income that Niyodusenga Anaclet kept earning as rentals from the family houses.

Mukangwije Espérence refers to all the previous case rulings and submits that she co-owns the disputed property with Niyodusenga Anaclet to whom she is legally married. They made a reference to article 6 of the Law n0 27/2016 of 08/07/2016 governing matrimonial regimes, succession and liberalities3, and argued that the request by Mbesigye Marguerite has no justification. They also highlighted that Mukangwije Espérence lelft the conjugal home in 2006 and not in 2007 as she alleges, arguing that she keeps contradicting herself on time references.

Niyodusenga Anaclet and his legal advisor argue that the argument and request by Mbesigye Marguerite for 50% of the disputed property has no justification as she is not his legally married wife since he was legally married to Mukangwije Espérence on the 22/11/2002 as their marriage certificate so indicates. He adds that it is therefore Mukangwije Espérence who co-owns the family property as it was previously held by Musanze Hihg Court Chamber. In addition, he submits that he started cohabitating with Mbesigye Marguerite from the year 2007 and not 2006 and the latter alleges.

3 Spouses under the community of property regime manage the property together and have the same right to recover the property if taken, and act as legal representative of the property; and ny property registered in one spouse’s name is part of the property belonging to spouses under the community of property regime

## Page 476

134 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 192 of the Law n0 32/2016 of 28/08/2016 on Persons and Family provides that the nullity of marriage can only be ordered by judgment…, while article 199 of the same law provides that when the court declares the marriage null, it produces same effects towards spouses if it was contracted in good faith. The property is shared in accordance with laws governing their matrimonial regime. Article 201 of the above mentioned law provides that the nullified marriage grants to the spouse who acted in good faith and to children from such marriage all rights related to marriage.

The most important point from the above mentioned articles specifies that it is the Court’s order that declares the nullity of marriage; the articles still make it clear that in case of nullity of marriage, the spouse in good faith, that is, the one who never knew or who had no reason to know of any marriage related defects that might lead to its nullity, such a spouse reserves all the marriage related rights including the right of share on the family property as per their matrimonial regime agreement.

With regard to this case, the file contains a verdict of case n0 RP 00147/2016/TB/GIS rendered by the Primary Court of Gisenyi on the 31/05/2017 whereby this court convicted Niyodusenga Anaclet to the offence of Bigamy. At the appeal level, the same verdict was again confirmed by the Intermediate Court of Gisenyi just as it has been above mentioned. For the both instances, the Courts have found that by the time Mbesigye Marguerite married Niyodusenga Anaclet, nothing indicates she knew or was likely to know of her partner’s previous marriage, and the Court allowed her some damage compensation.

## Page 477

135 MBESIGYE v MUKANGWIJE ET.AL

Again, the file indicates that following the criminal case, Mukangwije Espérence took advantage of Mbesigye’s divorce claim, and she intervened into the case and prayed for the invalidation of the marriage contract between Niyodusenga Anaclet and Mbesigye Marguerite. Nevertheless, her claim was not admitted owing to a fact that the principal divorce claim was as well not admitted. The case file contains no evidence to prove that Mukangwije Espérence has again lodged the same claim, it rather contains an evidence that she instead lodged a different case, and she prayed the Court to have Mbesigye Marguerite removed on Titles of the disputed land.

The Court found that due the absence of the Court’s order invalidating the marriage contract between Niyodusenga Anaclet and Mbesigye Marguerite, the Court cannot apply the provisions of articles 199 and 201 of the above mentioned Law n0 32/2016 of 28//08/2016 relating to right on property among cohabitating spouses just as the claimant so requests.

However, the Court found a similar precedent along case n0 RS/REV/INJUST/CIV 0007/15/CS rendered by this Court on the 04/12/2015 with Nyirakamana Marciana and others suing Mukasharangabo Eugenie and others. For the above case, the Court first reminded that the Constition of the Republic of Rwanda and other laws only recognise the monogamous marriages, and found that Karimunda Gérard married Nyirakamana Marciana before he legally divorces with his former wife and that made his second marriage illegal and therefore invalid.

For the above case, the court referred to article 39 of the Law n0 59/2008 of 10/09/2008 relating to the Prevention and

## Page 478

136 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Punishment of Gender-based Violence4, and found that Nyirakamana Marciana, though not legally married to Karimunda Gérard due to a fact that she married him before he legally divorces his former wife, she still reserves a right to ½ of the property that she co-acquired with Karimunda Gérard, computing from the onset of their cohabitation life.

The same precedent features in some other similar litigations where this Court has adjudicated the issue of the right on property among spouses who live their conjugal life under a simple cohabitation. For a case Gatera Johnson and Kabarisa Teddy attacked the above mentioned article 39 for its alleged unconstitutionality to the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda, the Court held that when spouses living under a simple cohabitation decide to dissolve such a cohabitation, they can partition the existing property on the sole condition that such a property is either “co-owned” or “jointly acquired”. The court has thereby added that the right on spouses property does not rise from a mere fact the concerned spouses cohabitated, it must be proven that such a property is either co-owned or jointly- acquired5.

For a conjugal property case that Ngangare John litigated with Mukankuranga Grace, The Court made a reference to the case with Gatera Johnson and Kabarisa Teddy, and explained that

4 Those people entertaining unlawful marriages shall be married in accordance with the monogamous principle. If a person concerned with the provision of previous paragraph of this Article was living with many husbands/wives, he shall first of all share the commonly owned belongings with those husbands/wives equally. The property distribution referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article shall not encroach on the children’s legally recognized rights. 5 Case n0 RS/Incost/Pen. 0003/10/CS with Gatera Johnson and Kabarisa Teddy, rendered on the 07/01/2011, para 15.

## Page 479

137 MBESIGYE v MUKANGWIJE ET.AL

the purpose of article 39 of the above mentioned Law n0 59/2008 of 10/09/200 is to ensure the protection of the right on property for the good of any of the spouses living their conjugal life under a simple cohabitation. By the virtue of each spouse’s common contributions to their cohabitation prosperity, such spouses must first partition and share the co-owned property, before their cohabitation life dissolves and before any of the spouses marries a different person.

There is another property partitioning related case between Ahishakiye Jean and Namagabira Venantie whereby the Court made a reference to the above mentioned Article 39, and to the ruling on the case of Gatera Johnson and Kabarisa Teddy, and it moved that since Ahishakiye Jean has cohabitated with Namagabira Venantie as husband and wife, and they together generated a set of property, they must have it partitioned and shared before they put an end to their cohabitation life. The court moved that Ahishakiye should not take all the concerned property alone since he is not able to rebut Namagabira Venantie on the argument that they both contributed to the acquisition of the disputed property since Namagabira Venantie argued that she always seconded the husband in their business activities, and she as well helped with some other contributions that led to family prosperity achievements.

The issue of quantification of spouses’ contributions for the family property has always been a challenge for property sharing. This concern featured in the case of Mutoni K. Jackline v. Newenshuti Aloys and Mukambuguje Alodie whereby the Court had to clarify the terms “co-owned” or “ jointly acquired” the Court moved that these terms do not meant that every spouse needs to prove his or her quantified contribution to creation of the

## Page 480

138 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

concerned property; they rather mean that the concerned property must have been generated within the exact time limits of their cohabitation period- And, that what matters most is a logic that while the separating spouses were still living together, everyone has, in one way or the other, contributed for the family prosperity6.

For the above litigation, the Court explained that it is not the spouses quantifiable contributions for the acquired property that gives a right to the concerned property sharing, as such quantification can only come as an additional evidence that proves that the concerned property has been generated or and developed while the litigating spouses were still cohabitating as husband and wife; regardless of any spouse’s ability to quantify and account for their own contribution for the generation or the development of the concerned property7.

For a certain dispute between Twahirwa Ahmed and Kaligirwa Rehema, this Court referred to article 39 of the above mentioned Law n0 59/2008 of 10/09/2008 and found that the disputed house was acquired while the litigating spouses where still living together as husband and wife under a simple cohabitation, and the court moved that if at all they cannot keep up with their cohabitation life, they should then both partake the disputed house since it is logically understandable that they both contributed to the acquisition of the disputed house since everyone made a contribution for the family support and property; the court has therefore moved that no spouse should think of an absolute ownership.

6 Case n0 RCAA 0014/15/CS rendered on the 01/12/2017, Para 33. 7 Ibidem, para 35.

## Page 481

139 MBESIGYE v MUKANGWIJE ET.AL

For all the above mentioned cases that all came around to the content of article 39 of the Law n0 59/2008 of 10/09/2008 relating to the Prevention and Punishment of Gender-based violence, they all feature the following important aspects: a. Those who live under a simple cohabitation as husband and wife decide to separate and end their cohabitation life, can only partition and share the existing family property on the sole condition that such property is either co-owned or has been jointly acquired. b. Terms “co-owned” or “jointly acquired” do nevertheless mean that every spouse needs to prove his or her quantified contribution to creation of the concerned property; they rather mean that the concerned property must have been generated within the exact time limits of their cohabitation period. c. What matters most is that each spouse has, in one way or the other, contributed to their family prosperity achievements.

With regard to this case, all litigants concur on the fact that Noyodusenga Anaclet cohabitated with Mbesigye Marguerite from since the time Mukangwije left the conjugal house and went back to her parents due to illness. Litigants also agree that Niyodusenga Anaclet has later on legalised his cohabitation with Mbesigye Marguerite and legally married her in the 2012. The newly formed couple kept living together till Mukangwije Espérence came back. Niyodusenga Anaclet was convicted the offence of bigamy and a related verdict was pronounced on the 31/05/2017.

## Page 482

140 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Litigants again concur on the fact that Mukangwije Espérence left her marital home since 2007. Such an assertion features from the submission that Mbesigye Marguerite has filed to the Intermediate Court of Rubavu and in the paragraph 2 of the court’s judgement copies ; such affirmation is still deducted from the statements by both Niyodusenga Anaclet and Mukangwije Espérence while in the proceedings. All the above confirms that Mbesigye Marguerite cohabitated with Niyodusenga Anaclet from 2007, the year Mukangwije Espérence left the marital home.

The arguments by wich Mbesigye Marguerite alleges to have lived with Niyodusenga Anaclet from 2006 makes no sense as she herself admits that she joined Niyodusenga Anaclet when Mukagwije Espérence had left the house. This also concurs what she said in the submission of her devorce claim to the Primary Court of Gisenyi, where she admitted that she joined Niyodusenga with his three children, yet one the children was born in 2006, and this makes clear that by this time, Mukangwije Espérence was still around.

The court has found that the property that is subjectable to sharing between Niyodusenga Anaclet an Mbesigye Marguerite is the sole property that was generated within the time limits of their cohabitation period, and that is from the year 2007 up to 2017, the year the verdict for his bigamy was pronounced.

The file contains the purchasing agreements for the following assets: a. The house purchase agreement of 21/07/2006; b. The house purchase agreement of 01/03/2021, c. The plot purchase agreement of 11/10/2011

## Page 483

141 MBESIGYE v MUKANGWIJE ET.AL

d. The plot purchase agreement of 07/01/2013.  Considering the explanations provided by Niyodusenga Anaclet to the Intermediate Court of Rubavu, the pleadings of case n0 RC 00063/2018/TGI/ RBV of 13/02/2019, the above mentioned plots were given the following UPI numbers: a. The plot of 21/07/2006 was registered under UPI: 3/03/11/04/5600; b. The plot of 01/03/2021 was registered under UPI: 3/03/11/01/60; c. The plot of 11/10/2011 was recorded under UPI: 3/03/04/481; d. The plot of 07/01/2013 was registered under UPI: 3/03/04/383.

Considering the purchase agreements provided in the preceding paragraph, the Court has found the property under UPI: 3/03/11/04/5600 purchased on the 21/07/2006 not subjectable to the property sharing between Niyodusenga Anaclet and Mbesigye Marguerite due to a fact that the above property was acquired before 2007, and thus before the duo cohabitate as husband and wife. It is therefore obvious that such a property is a separate portion that unilaterally belongs to Niyodusenga Anaclet and Mukangwije Esperence. The court has hence moved that Niyodusenga Anaclet and Mbesigye Marguerite can only share a set of property generated within the time limits of their cohabitation period, and that is from 2007 just as it has been above mentioned. And that property includes: a. The property purchased on the 01/03/2010 and registered under UPI: 3/03/11/01/60;

## Page 484

142 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

b. The property purchased on the 11/10/2011 and registered with UPI: 3/03/04/06/481; c. The property purchased on the 3/03/04/06/383 and registered with 3/03/04/06/383.

With regard to the exact share devolving on each on the litigating spouses, the Court has found that Niyodusenga Anaclet and Mbesigye Anaclet each deserves 50% of the disputed property. The Court has however found that before the disputants share the concerned property, the court moved that the concerned property’s added value, as computed and presented by the property valuator, should first be deducted from the value of the disputed property.

The disputed property valuation report indicated the following: a. The property registered under UPI: 3/03/11/01/60, had an added value of 85,618 Rwf; b. The property registered under UPI: 3/03/04/06/481 had an added value of 18,000 Rwf; c. The Property registered under UPI: 3/03/04/06/383 had an added value of 1,922,970 Rwf.

Concerning the complaint by Niyodusenga Anaclet by which rebuts the presented property Valuation Report, arguing that it extremely heightened the disputed property value, and that it unacceptably underestimated the concerned property added value; the Court has thereof found his argument meritless, since the appointed Expert has unquestionably presented her findings in the hearing of 19/12/2022, and Niyodusenga Anaclet, if not

## Page 485

143 MBESIGYE v MUKANGWIJE ET.AL

disagreeing for the sake of a disagreement, he presents no alternative reference to debunk the Expert’s valuation report.

With all the above provided explanations, the Court has moved that Mbesigye Marguerite has a right to 50% of the above highlighted property, and that is the sole property that is subject to the related partition and sharing. But before the sharing, the court ordered the concerned property should first be deducted of the exact value that Niyodusenga Anaclet has thereof added computing from the pronouncement of the ruling on this case that seeks for a review.  About the damage compensations

Mbesigye Marguerite laments that the Intermediate Court ordered her to pay Mukagwije Espérerence 825,000 Rwf for damage compensation over dragging her into unnecessary lawsuits and for the Counsel fee yet it is Mukangwije Espérence who initiated the case, and she submits that she sees no reasons as to why she should be charged for such damages, and she suggests that the complainant should seek damages from Niyodusenga Anaclet since it is him who brought the claimant into the lawsuits. She also adds that even the High Court has equally prejudiced her as it stayed the pronounced damages and it recharged her for more 250,000 Rwf for the Counsel fee. And, she prayed the Court to have all the charged damages nullified.

She requested the Court to order Niyodusenga Anaclet to give her 1,000,000 Rwf over dragging her into unnecessary lawsuits, and 1,000,000 Rwf for both the Counsel fee and the incurred case-related expenses at this instance since he kept bringing her in courts cases yet he well knew that the disputed property was jointly acquired. She submitted that Niyodusenga

## Page 486

144 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Anaclet deserves no damage compensation as it him who initiated the whole mess. She added that Mukangwije Esperance damages’ request should be addressed to Niyodusenga Anaclet, her husband, as it the latter who breached their marriage agreement and unlawfully remarried.

Mukangwije Esperérence laments and blames Mbesigye Marguerite, the family friend who took advantage of her sickness and mislead her husband into an unlawful cohabitation and later into an illegal remarriage, yet she well that his former marriage contract is still valid. She as well blamed her for having dared to appropriate herself the family property and registering it under her own names, and now dragging her into court cases. She laments that Mbesigye Marguerite was not enough fined, compared to her continued intentions of prolonging the lawsuits and making her incur more loss for Counsel fees and other case follow-up costs.

She laments that since the year 2016, Mbesigye Marguerite kept dragging her into unnecessary lawsuits, and she requested for 5,000,000 Rwf that includes 4,000,000 Rwf for both the damage compensation and the incurred case-related expenses, and 1,000,000 Rwf to pay the Counsel fee for the Supreme Court instance .

Niyodusenga Anaclet submits that Mbesigye Marguerite should give Mukangwije Espérence a sum of 850,000 Rwf as she was instructed by the Court since it is Mbesigye who brought Mukangwije into court cases, and this compelled the latter to seek for lawyers to assistance her with the case at the first and last instances.

## Page 487

145 MBESIGYE v MUKANGWIJE ET.AL

He also requested the Court to order Mbesigye Marguerite to give 2,000,000 Rwf for dragging him into lawsuits, 500,000 for case follow-up expenses, and 1,000,000 Rwf for the Counsel fee at this level of instance; and it all came to 3,500,000 Rwf adding to the damages that the High Court had previously charged her with. And he then says the damage compensation that Mbesigye Marguerite requests from him are simply unworthy. DETERMIATION OF THE COURT

The Court moved that all the damage compensation requests that were made along this case are all not worthy-giving since every litigating party won the case for a certain interest. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the application by Mbesigye Marguerite of injustice-related review of case n0 RCA 00028/2019/HC/MUS rendered on the 31/07/2019 by Musanze High Court Chamber, has merit in part;

Holds the reviewed case has changed in part.

Rules that Mbesigye Marguerite has no share right on the property registered under UPI: 3/03/11/04/5600;

Holds that Mbesigye Marguerite has a right to 50% on the rest of the disputed property. But before the partition and sharing, the disputed property shall be first deducted of the précised value that Niyodusenga Anaclet thereof added, computed from the pronouncement of the ruling on this case that arose for a review; and the property added value is as follows:

## Page 488

146 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

a. 85, 618 Rwf as added on UPI: 3/03/11/01/60; b. 18,000 Rwf as added on UPI: 3/03/04/06/481; c. 1,922,970 Rwf as added on UPI: 3/03/04/06/383.

Orders Niyodusenga Anaclet and Mukangwije Espérence to each give Mbesigye Marguerite 116,667 Rwf as a refund for their contribution for the payment for the property valuation report that was produced upon the Court’s request.

## Page 489

147

MURENZI v MUTABAZI ET AL. [Rwanda SUPREME COURT - RS/INJUST/RC 00009/2021/SC (Ntezilyayo, P.J., Cyanzayire and Kalimunda, J.) June 30, 2022] Civil procedure – Evidence based on expert’s report – Lack of expert’s oath and signature in the expert’s report – The lack of oath or signature in the expert’s report due to oblivion or negligence does not itself constitute a reason to invalidate such an expert’s report when that expert may be summoned by the Court in order to rectify those defects by signing that report or taking his/her oath before the Court as per the law. Civil procedure – Evidence based on expert’s report – Expert self-contradiction – An expert who testified to the Court that he/she cooperated with his/her colleagues to prepare a report and then signed it, cannot later reject such a report without first proving that he/she had no capacity to refuse to sign such a report or that he/she was unaware that he/she was going to sign it. Civil procedure – Accountability for the construction failures – Loading your things on the wall until it collapses –The property owner who loads his/her things on the wall which it cannot support, should be held accountable of problems arising from that act for he/she is personally liable for such problems, and no one else. Facts: This case started before Gasabo Intermediate Court, Mutabazi and Muhawenimana suing Murenzi and Uwamahoro for having failures in their construction activities which led to the collapsing of their house wall that damaged their assets including

## Page 490

148 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

their car and house, hence requesting the Court to award them compensation for damages occurred. The defendants deny their role in the collapsing of Mutabazi’s wall, rather, such incident resulted from ordinary disasters and his poor buildings since the claimant built them with no construction permit. SORAS AG Ltd (currently named SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc) intervened in the case claiming for the money they paid for the reparation of the car damaged by the collapsed wall. In the judgment no RC 00203/2018/TGI/GSBO, the Court referred to experts’ report and witnesses and found that the collapsing of the wall was caused by the pressure of the weight of the soil used by Mutabazi in the construction of his wall which seemed to have pressurized Mutabazi’s wall, and such Court ordered Murenzi and Uwamahoro to pay claimed damages. Murenzi and Uwamahoro appealed before the High Court alleging that the previous Court disregarded that the collapsing of the wall was caused by the fact that Mutabazi and Muhawenimana built such wall without having a construction permit, meaning that it was poorly built under sub-standards and the experts’ report is not lawful as experts who prepared it failed to arrive at a common conclusion, and they are not the ones who submitted it, furthermore, they did not take an oath for it. Mutabazi and Muhawenimana also appealed before the High Court claiming that they were not paid damages relating to vehicles used to take out the soil. SANLAM also lodged a cross- appeal claiming for including in this judgement damages awarded to them. All those appeals were joined in the case n° RCA 00499/2019/HC/KIG-CMB RCA 00506/2019/HC/KIG, and the High Court found that the fact that experts did not take their oath before submitting their report, it is a typing error, and concerned

## Page 491

149 MURENZI v MUTABAZI ET AL.

experts may be summoned to provide details on their report after taking their oath; and their failure to agree on the report conclusion is not an issue because what matters is that they all agree on it as people who did it together, and the High Court held that the lodged appeal lacks merit. Murenzi applied for the review of that judgment due to injustice, and the case was transferred to the Supreme Court for being heard anew, and the very Court analysed the main following issues: Whether the expert report of which in the judgment no RCA 00499/2019/HC/KIG- CMB RCA 00506/2019/HC/KIG based on, should be invalidated; and to determine the real cause of the collapsing of the wall of Mutabazi and Muhawenimana. The applicant for the case review raised an objection relating to lis pendens stating that there exists a claim filed by Mutabazi before Gasabo Primary Court, and that claim is related to instant case, and it should be examined first. The Court analysed that objection and come to the conclusion that the subject matters are different, in addition, the subject matter in the case before the Primary Court cannot be in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and the case which started from the Intermediate Court up to the higher courts cannot be under the jurisdiction of the Primary Court, and the very Court found such an objection unfounded, and ordered for the resuming of the hearing in merit of the case. The applicant to case review states that the experts’ report on the collapsing of the wall is defectuous as it was not done in accordance with required procedures. Among those procedures include signature and oath of the experts, and one of those experts claimed that the report contains errors and that he/she was not allowed to provide his/her opinions, and based on that, the applicant requests for the invalidation of this report. The defendant submits that in the course of hearing, the said experts

## Page 492

150 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

were summoned by the High Court and they provided clarifications on after taking their oath, and this removes the defects of lack of oath in the said report. He further submits that on the issue of one of the expert who does not agree with his/her colleagues on the impugned report for he/she was not given an opportunity to provide his/her opinions, this is not evidenced, especially since he/she signed that report. With regard to the issue of the person who should pay the expert fee, the applicant to case review submits that, such a fee should be jointly paid by both parties, and the parts who loses the case would refund the winner. He further states that Mutabazi secretly negotiated with the experts on their fee in US dollars, and he did it without informing him, and therefore, he has to pay them alone. The defendant submits that this issue should not be raised at this instance since it has not been appealed in the High Court, and if it is examined, the Court should analysed the determination of the expert fee since experts on both parties agreed on it with the intention to avoid concluding a contract between each party and the one who hired them. He adds that the allegation that the expert fee is so high and that it was not agreed on by both parties, it is not true, and he therefore requests that Murenzi be held liable for that fee since he is the one who provoked the collapsing of the wall. With regard to the cause of the collapsing of the wall, Murenzi avers that the wall collapsed due to natural disasters and the poor construction of it since Mutabazi dared to build it illegally and without a construction permit, and the water pits in his yard contributed to the collapsing of the wall. Murenzi adds that, in case the very Court finds necessary to award damages, such damages should be professionally computed, and not based on emotions, and the real value of the damages should be

## Page 493

151 MURENZI v MUTABAZI ET AL.

determined. On this issue, the defendant states that the soils loaded by Murenzi in his house provoked the collapsing of the wall due to the weight of that soils, and that the damages were determined by experts’ report and not on emotions. With regard to the value of damages, he adds that Murenzi did not criticize the experts’ report at the first instance since it was done professionally, and even before the High Court, he did not appeal against it, because he was satisfied with the decision of the Intermediate Court, and thus, this issue should not be analyzed in the review of the judgment due to injustice. Held: 1. After his/her work, an expert submits a report containing his/her signature and oath. However, nothing prevents the Court to summon that expert in order to provide clarifications on his/her work done, and this is done after he/she takes an oath, and therefore, the lack of an oath on a signed expert report does not constitute a reason for its invalidation for such an error has been rectified before the High Court whereby experts who did it took their oath before providing details thereof. 2. The role of an oath is to prove that the hired expert has fully performed his/her duties as required by the Court, with professionalism, in honesty and with impartiality. The Court does not appoint an expert for his/her oath and signature, since the latter are not included in his/her duties, rather, both are included in his/her report to increase the trust for the produced report. The expert’s oath and signature prove that such an expert understands, agrees with, and is liable of the content of the report he/she submits to the Court. 3. The lack of oath or signature in the expert’s report due to oblivion or negligence does not itself constitute a reason to invalidate such an expert report when that expert may be

## Page 494

152 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

summoned by the Court in order to rectify those defects by signing that report or taking his/her oath before the Court as per the law. 4. An expert who testified to the Court that he/she cooperated with his/her colleagues to prepare a report and then signed it, cannot later reject such a report without first prove that he/she had no capacity to refuse to sign such a report or that he/she was unaware that he/she was going to sign it, therefore, the statements of the applicant for the case review that one of the experts does not agree with his/her colleagues on the content of the report, are unfounded. 5. The fact that an expert has referred his/her report to another report of which parties were not aware, by also refusing to invite them in the meeting after submitting to them his/her report, this does not constitute a reason for the invalidation of such an expert report, since parties are allowed to criticize it after reception, and this is what happened for the report based on in the instant case. 6. When the mason loads his/her things on the wall which exceeds the maximum authorised loads on a retaining wall (dépassement des charges maximales autorisées sur un mur de soutainement), such a mason should be personally held accountable of problems arising from that act, and no one else, therefore Murenzi should pay for the collapsing of that wall. 7. Any party entitled to ordinary of remedies of appeal but that fails to use such a right provided by law, deprives his/herself of the right to appeal procedure which could enable him/her to get his/her issues resolved at the appellate level, and such a party is not allowed to apply for review of a case he/she lost because of injustice, by disregarding other adjudicated cases, and then requests for the examination of the issues of injustice of which

## Page 495

153 MURENZI v MUTABAZI ET AL.

he/she him/herself refused to appeal against, since this is against the law. Judgment N° RC 00203/18/TGI/GSBO under review due to injustice is reversed in part; Deposited Court fees cover expenses incurred in this case. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law no 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 on evidence and its production, articles 76 and 93; Law n° 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, article 55 and 63; Law n°22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labor and administrative procedure, articles 111, 170 and 273; Rwanda Building Code annexted to the Ministerial Order n° 04/Cab.M/015 of 18/05/2015 determining urban planning and building regulations, articles 2.6.5.19.3; 2.6.5.19.4. Repealed laws referred to: Decree- Law no 20/75 of 20 June 1975 governing insurance, article 32. Cases referred to: RPA 0227/08/CS, Prosecution vs Sibomana Nathanael, rendered by the Supreme Court on 19/02/2010; RPAA 0321/10/CS, Prosecution vs Habimana Jean Claude, rendered by the Supreme Court on 18/03/2016; RCAA 0082/12/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 06/11/2015, paragraph 11; RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2018/SC rendered on 13/03/2020, Nditiribambe Samuel, Gatera Jason vs Nyamaswa Faustin;

## Page 496

154 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

RS/INJUST/RC 00024/2018/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 21/02/2020, paragraphs 18-22; RCOM RS/ INJUST/ RC 00004/2019/SC rendered on 28/07/2020, Mukamana, Havugimana, Umuhoza vs Candali; Cass. Civ. 3è, 26 mars 1997, n° 94-21, 808 Bull.Civ, III, N°69. Authors quoted: Serge Guinchard (eds), Droit et pratique de la procédure civile, Paris, Dalloz, 2014, pp. 293, 1062, 1063 Loïc Cadiet na Emmanuel Jeuland, Droit judiciaire privé, 11ème éd., Paris, 2019, p.222. Tom Bingham, The Business of Judging: Selected Essays and Speeches 1985-1999, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000, p.36. Etienne Vergès, Géraldine Vial et Olivier Leclerc, Droit de la preuve, Paris, PUF, 2015, p.688. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The present case started from Gasabo Intermediate Court, Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude and Muhawenimana Joselyne suing Murenzi Alphonse and Uwamahoro Jacqueline, for the latters’ poor construction activities led to the collapsing of the claimants’ wall, which damaged their 2 cars, annexed houses, as well as water tanks and their retaining steel pillars. The claimants requested that Murenzi Alphonse and Uwamahoro Jacqueline be held liable of the collapsing of their wall and pay damages thereof.

## Page 497

155 MURENZI v MUTABAZI ET AL.

Murenzi Alphonse and Uwamahoro Jacqueline denied their role in the collapsing of the wall belonging to Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude, since the latter failed to prove that the construction activities of Murenzi Alphonse provoked the linkage in the wall, that rather, the collapsing of the wall was caused by natural disasters and the poor building of Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude, since the latter built without a construction permit, and thus requested the Court to declare the filed claim unfounded.

SORAS AG Ltd (currently named SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc) intervened in the case requesting that Murenzi Alphonse and Uwamahoro Jacqueline be ordered to refund 2,183,000 FRW spent for the reparation of the car the money they paid for the rehabilitation of the car RAD 995 F damaged by the collapsing of their wall.

In the judgment no RC 00203/2018/TGI/GSBO rendered on 08/11/2019, the Intermediate Court of Gasabo found that witnesses 'testimonies, report of building inspectors from Gasabo district and the report of land expert as well as the report submitted by experts who analyzed the issue, all indicate that the collapsing of the wall could not be possible if it was not due to heavy weight that pressurized it, since the wall was so tight; the very Court further found that, in building his wall, Murenzi Alphonse seemingly put the pressure on the impugned wall of Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude, and then loaded much soils on that wall, and thus the same Court concluded that the collapsing of the wall of Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude was caused by the building activities of Murenzi Alphonse, hence ordering the latter and Uwamahoro Jacqueline to jointly pay Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude and Muhawenimana Joselyne damages amounting to 22,159,538 FRW as well as 6,173 $.

## Page 498

156 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Murenzi Alphonse and Uwamahoro Jacqueline appealed to the High Court alleging that the previous Court disregarded that the fact that the wall of Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude failed to resist the water due to the latter’s failure to abide by the construction standards since he built without a construction permit. They state that the experts’ report referred to is not lawful since experts who prepared it failed to arrive at a common conclusion, and they are not the ones who submitted it to the Court, furthermore, they did not take an oath for it. Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude and Muhawenimana Joselyne also appealed to the High Court alleging that they were not awarded damages they were worth to, and the amount awarded was too small since they rented a car, while the evidences they produced prove that the car RAD 586 M was paid 850,000 FRW and the car RAC 847 Y was paid 360,000 Frw.

SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc lodged a cross- appeal requesting that 2,183,000 Frw awarded at the first instance be included in the decision of the High Court.

All lodged appeals were joined in the case n° RCA 00499/2019/HC/KIG-CMB RCA 00506/2019/HC/KIG decided on 19/02/2021, and the Court found that: i. the issue of joint construction of the wall was not sued to the Court, therefore it should not be examined on the appeal level; ii. the issue of experts who did not take their oath is a typing error that can be resolved by summoning those who prepared the report in order to provide details on it to the Court, of course after swearing in;

## Page 499

157 MURENZI v MUTABAZI ET AL.

iii. differing opinions among experts on the conclusion of their report is not a reason for the invalidation of such a report, because what matters is that the majority of them share assumption on it; iv. no expert concluded that the collapsing of the wall was caused by natural disasters, because the report of 22/05/2018 from the Village authority indicated that that issue was raised before the collapsing of the wall, meaning the collapsing was provoked by the pressure of the soils loaded by Murenzi Alphonse on the said wall; v. the previous Court did not err in awarding 720,000 Frw for the car in its discretion, because that Court was not compelled to base its decision on the evidence produced by the parties, rather the Court had to refer to the market price, especially since Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude had also the duty to reduce the loss; vi. moral damages amounting to 20,000,000 Frw claimed by Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude and Muhawenimana Joselyne, should not be awarded, since they failed to prove their pain, torment or stress caused by what happened, that should be covered by such an amount; vii. damages amounting to 2,183,000 Frw awarded to SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc have to be included in the decision of the High Court, but they have to be removed from damages awarded to Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude and Muhawenimana Joselyne; viii. 3,369,336 Frw for annexed houses and 2,183,000 Frw that should be awarded to SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc are deducted from damages that had been

## Page 500

158 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

awarded to Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude and Muhawenimana Joselyne.

The Court held that the judgment under appeal is reversed in part, and ordered MurenzI Alphonse and Uwamahoro Jacqueline to pay to Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude and MuhawenimanA Joselyne 740,000 Frw for procedural, counsel and court fees, and also ordered them to refund to SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc 2,183,000 Frw used to repair the car.

Murenzi Alphonse wrote to the President of the Court of Appeal requesting that the judgment no RCA 00499/2019/HC/KIG- CMB RCA 00506/2019/HC/KIG be reviewed due to injustice. After examining his request, the President of the Court of Appeal wrote to the President of the Supreme Court requesting for the review of that judgment, and in the decision no 243/CJ/2021 of 07/10/2021, the President of the Supreme Court ordered that the case be transferred to the Court Registry for it to be reheard.

The hearing was conducted in public on 08/03/2022, Murenzi Alphonse and Uwamahoro Jacqueline being assisted by Counsel Habyarimana Christine, Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude and Muhawenimana Joselyne assisted by Counsel Yaramba Ruhara Athanase and Counsel Niyitegeka Epaphrodite, while SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc was represented by Counsel Mafaranga Anastase.

As soon as the hearing has started, Counsel Habyarimana Christine informed that Murenzi Alphonse was sick, that she was used to assist him, but that she was given the power to represent him on the objection related to lis pendens they raised after the pre-trial conference due to the fact that the reason for it came

## Page 501

159 MURENZI v MUTABAZI ET AL.

after. She stated that such an objection is based on a new claim filed by Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude to the Primary Court on 24/02/2022, a claim which was docked to n° RC 00177/2022/TB/GSBO, that after Murenzi Alphonse knew about that claim, he found that it was linked to instant case, and he then to prepare a lis pendens objection, and she thus think that such objection should be examined first.

In the preliminary judgment rendered on 14/04/2022, the Court found that the subject matter and its scope is different from the subject matter in the case n° RC 00177/2022/TB/GSBO. The same Court also found that the case filed to the Primary Court cannot fall under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and the case initiated in the Intermediate Court, then heard in the High Court, which is the last instance, and later brought to review due to injustice cannot fall under the jurisdiction of the Primary Court, since the only the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court are competent to hear such a case, and the very Court thus found no lis pendens between the instant case and the claim docked to no RC 00177/2022/TB/GSBO in Gasabo Primary Court, therefore, those cases should not be joined.

The hearing resumed on 18/05/2022, with Counsel Habyarimana Christine assisting Murenzi Alphonse and representing Uwamahoro Jacqueline, while Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude was assisted by Counsel Yaramba Athanase and Counsel Niyitegeka Epaphrodite, who were also representing Muhawenimana Joselyne. SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc also appeared being represented as before. The Court first reminded Counsel Habyarimana Christine that, though Uwamahoro Jacqueline has not applied for the review of the

## Page 502

160 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

judgment due to injustice, she may be heard before the Court, but she is not allowed to request anything in this case.

Issues analysed in this case were about determining whether an expert report on which the High Court based its ruling should be invalidated; to determine the cause of the collapsing of the wall of the house of Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude and Muhawenimana Joselyne; determining the value of damages caused by the collapsing of the said wall and the person liable thereof; determining the person liable for damages paid by Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc; determining the amount to be paid as counsel fee and the person liable for it, as well as the issue of various damages requested in this case. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES II.1. Whether the exepert report based on in the judgment no RCA 00499/2019/HC/KIG- CMB RCA 00506/2019/HC/KIG should be invalidated

Murenzi Alphonse states that the first ground for the injustice suffered is based on the fact that the expert report based on by the High Court was not done under required procedures and conditions (conditions de forme), which include the fact that experts signed before taking their oath as per the Law, 1 and the fact that Eng. Hirwa Eugène, one of the experts, confirms that the

1 Article 93 of the Law no 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 on evidence and its production in courts reading that “... The report shall be signed by all the experts. The signing of experts shall be invalid, if not preceded by the following declaration: «I ……., swear that I have fulfilled my mission completely and conscientiously, with accuracy and honesty. May I face the law if I did not do it with the due accuracy».

## Page 503

161 MURENZI v MUTABAZI ET AL.

report contains errors and that he was not given an opportunity to provide his opinions thereof. He states that some of the experts appointed stated that they were not aware that they had to take their oath before, while it is known that no one is supposed to be ignorant of the current law. And with regard to the report from the Laboratory that was used to test the soil, he states that it should not be considered since it was not ordered by the Court, and even when it came out, he disowned one of the experts who did it named Nkurunziza Alphonse due to his partiality, and all those defects should not have been ignored by the High Court by simply stating that they are typing errors, while they constitute substantial defects that may lead to the invalidation of everything done.

Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude and his Counsels, who also represent Muhawenimana Joselyne, state that the said experts who did the report referred to by the High Court have been summoned as per article 99 of the Law on evidence and its production in courts, and they took their oath for explanations they had provided, and this rectified the defect of lack of oath in the report they had submitted. They further state that the swearing in in the course of hearing for the experts who did not sign the report they submitted to the Court concurs with the position adopted by this Court in the judgment for the Prosecution vs Sibomana Nathanel, and that of the Prosecution vs Habimana Jean Claude.2

2 See judgment n° RPA 0227/08/CS, Prosecution vs Sibomana Nathanael rendered by the Supreme Court on 19/02/2010, and the judgment no RPAA 0321/10/CS, Prosecution vs Habimana Jean Claude, rendered by the Supreme Court on 18/03/2016.

## Page 504

162 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

They aver that Eng. Hirwa Eugène could not find errors in expert report or find it lacking his personal opinions and then sign it, while he had confirmed before the Court that he jointly prepared it together with his colleagues, and that he voluntarily signed it. They state that an expert who does not share assumptions with his/her colleagues on an expert report may provide evidence thereof but without indicating opinions of every expert involved, as per article 94 of the Law on evidence and its production in courts, which has not been the case in the instant case, and even if it was so, this should not constitute a reason for the invalidation of what has been concluded by other experts since the decision is adopted upon the majority. They find that the expert report is one of elements of evidence in this case, and apart from it, the Court also based its ruling on the report made by the Building Inspector of Gasabo district, various witnesses including the person who sold the plot to Murenzi Alphonse, masons who built his wall and basement, and the statements of the neighbours of Murenzi Alphonse whose buildings had also been damaged by Murenzi Alphonse’s activities.

They state that they are of the opinion of Murenzi Alphonse that the Laboratory test was not ordered by the Court, but that this cannot prevent another expert to refer to it when performing his/her work, and MurenzI Alphonse contradicts himself on this point, since he is the one who requested the use of this Test report in the Intermediate Court, and now he claims for its invalidation. They find that Murenzi Alphonse cannot benefit from disowning an expert named Nkurunziza Alphonse in this case since such a disownment has been examined and the Court found it baseless, therefore, this should not be considered as a defect for the report prepared by that expert. They aver that Murenzi Alphonse is unable to indicate defects that could lead to

## Page 505

163 MURENZI v MUTABAZI ET AL.

the preparation of a new report, and even though his request is considered, it cannot be possible because the collapsed building has been restored, and this is the reason why they request the Court to held that there is no injustice in the case under review on this issue.

Counsel Mafaranga Anastase representing SANLAM AG Plc, states that on 22/05/2018, the soils coming from the house of Murenzi Alphonse destroyed walls, damaged the car type Prado RAD 995F belonging to Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude under the insurance of SANLAM AG Plc (ex-SORAS AG Ltd), and 2,183,000 Frw was paid to repair it, and he thus requests the instant Court to sustain the decision of the High Court and hold Murenzi Alphonse and Uwamahoro Jacqueline liable of these damages caused. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 93 of the Law no 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 on evidence and its production in courts reads that the report shall be signed by all the experts after taking their oath for their work. Article 99 of the same Law provides that on appeal, a court can summon an expert so that he or she can give verbal explanations on a report that is in the case file, and before making a report, an expert shall swear before the Court. Both articles imply that an expert submits his/her report containing his/her signature and oath. However, nothing prevents the Court to summon the concerned expert to provide verbal explanations on his/her report, of course after swearing in.

The Court finds that the role of the oath is to prove to the Court that an expert has fully fulfiled his/her duties with

## Page 506

164 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

professionalism, honesty and impartiality. The expert’s signature and oath themselves are not the main reason for the Court to appoint an expert, since that is not among his/her duties, rather, when both are included in the report, they increase the trust for it.3 The signature and oath prove that an expert understands, believes and is responsible of the content of the report he/she submitted to the Court.

The Court finds that the lack of oath or signature in the expert’s report due to oblivion or negligence does not itself constitute a reason to invalidate such an expert report when that expert may be summoned by the Court in order to rectify those defects by signing that report or taking his/her oath before the Court as per the law.

In the case of Ngingo Damien against Akaje Alexis, 4 the very Court found that nothing prevents the alleged defects of lack of an expert’s signature and oath to be rectified by summoning the concerned expert for him/her to sign and take his/her oath for his/her work. It is in the finding of the Court that in case the report is done by many experts, every expert has to sign it. However, both courts and scholars agree on that lack of the signature of one of the experts on the report approved by his/her colleagues cannot be a reason for the invalidation of that report, in case there exists

3 “L’expert doit réaliser ses opérations avec conscience, objectivité et impartialité…Pour obtenir la garantie que les experts respectent cette obligation, la loi s’en remet pour l’essentiel au serment qu’ils prêtent d’accomplir leur mission en honneur et conscience.” Reba Etienne Vergès, Géraldine Vial et Olivier Leclerc, Droit de la preuve, Paris, PUF, 2015, p.688. 4 See judgment N° RCAA 0082/12/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 06/11/2015, paragraph 11.

## Page 507

165 MURENZI v MUTABAZI ET AL.

evidences that the said expert contributed to that report from its preparation up to its conclusion.5

The Court finds that the foregoing upholds that an expert who testified to the Court that he/she cooperated with his/her colleagues to prepare a report and then signed it, cannot later reject such a report without first prove that he/she had no capacity to refuse to sign such a report or that he/she was unaware that he/she was going to sign it. Therefore, the statements of Murenzi Alphonse that the report entitled Panel Expert’s Technical Report done on 02/07/2019 should be invalidated on ground that Eng. Hirwa Eugène does not share assumption with his colleagues on the conclusion reached, this should not be considered, since he himself agreed that he collaborated with other experts, and signed the said report, and his signature proves that he agreed with its content.

The Court finds that the case file contains the report entitled Panel Expert’s Technical Report done on 02/07/2019 by Eng. Hirwa Eugène (appointed by Murenzi Alphonse’s party), Eng. Kassana B. Leonard (appointed by the side of MutabazI Abayo Jean Claude), and Eng. Dr Nkurunziza Alphonse, who was their leader, upon the order of Gasabo Intermediate Court in their decision of 08/05/2019. All the three experts signed that report, however, their signing was not preceded by swearing in

5 “Mais attendu que c'est à bon droit que la cour d'appel a décidé que " la preuve de la collaboration et de la conformité de l'avis des deux experts Z... Rapportée, il n'y avait pas lieu de s'arrêter à une omission materielle qui n'entrainait aucun préjudice pour les parties." See Civ 1re, 24 juillet 1973, Bull Civ I, N° 224. “l’omission de la signature d’un des experts n’entraînerait aucun préjudice pour les parties dès lors qu’étaient établies la collaboration des experts et la conformité de leurs avis.” See Serge Guinchard (Eds), Droit et pratique de la procedure civile, Paris, Dalloz, 2014, p.1062.

## Page 508

166 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

as per article 93 of the aforementioned Law no 15/2004 of 12/06/2004, and there is no evidence that they took their oath before the Intermediate Court of Gasabo before they were assigned their tasks.

It is in the finding of the Court that the raised defect of swearing in for that report, was rectified by the High Court, since in the paragraph 22 of the judgment under review due to injustice, the very Court reminded that experts who prepared the impugned report had been summoned in order to provide verbal explanations and before doing so, they took their oath. Therefore, the instant Court is of the view of the High Court that the raised defect of not swearing in was rectified by the said swearing in conducted during the hearing of the appealed case.

The Court finds that the expert’s report entitled Panel Expert’s Technical Report done on 02/07/2019 reiterates what have been highlighted by Report of Geotechnical Investigation of June 2019, but this does not constitute a reason for the invalidation of the report prepared by experts appointed by the Court as requested by Murenzi Alphonse, since apart from nothing prevented the appointed expert to use any lawful means that could help him/her to perform his/her work or that could provide him/her with more elucidations on his/her duties, Murenzi Alphonse does not indicate any defect in the conclusions of the Report of Geotechnical Investigation.

With regard to this kind of issue, the Court finds that, a legal scholar Serge Guinchard states that the Cassation Court of France found that the fact that the expert had recourse to the elements of another expertise to which the parties were foreign and refused to hold a meeting after communication of the report, this itself cannot lead to the invalidation of an expert’s report,

## Page 509

167 MURENZI v MUTABAZI ET AL.

since nothing prevents parties to criticize it, after reception of it.6 With regard this case, Murenzi Alphonse simply states that he does not accept Report of Geotechnical Investigation without indicating its defects, and this itself is a proof that his statements are unfounded. II.2. Determination of the cause of the collapsing of the wall of Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude and Muhawenimana Joselyne

Murenzi Alphonse and his Counsel Habyarimana Christine state that the High Court ruled that the collapsing of the wall of Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude was caused by the pressure of the soils, hence disregarding the poor construction of the foundation made of stones for the said wall, in addition, the wall was too short and seemed to be made of seamless stones, and this has been approved by experts’ report in the case file. They elucidate that water canals from the annexed houses of Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude were heading to pits nearby the said foundation, and as time passed, water started to enter the wall until it began to crack, hence causing humidity to all houses of Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude until they collapsed, and he was

6 “…dans une espèce ou l’expert a eu recours aux éléments d’une autre expertise à laquelle les parties étaient étrangères et a refuse de tenir une réunion après communication des rapports de cette expertise, la première chamber a rejeté le moyen tire de la nullité du rapport en raison de la méconnaissance du principe du contradictoire aux motifs que l’expert a communiqué les documents aux parties, les invitants à formurer leurs observations… dès lors que (l’expert) a rendu compte aux parties, qu’il leur a comminiqué les pieces ayant servi à l’élaboration du rapport et que les intéréssés ont eu la possibilité de fournir à l’expert toutes les explications utiles, (ils ne peuvent pas encore demander la nullité du rapport d’expertise). Reba Serge Guinchard (sous la dir.), Droit et pratique de la procédure civile, Paris, Dalloz, 2014, p. 1063.

## Page 510

168 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

compelled to rebuild them. They aver that the waters became too heavy due to natural disasters as indicated by the various reports from the Ministry of emergency management as well as local administration authorities which confirmed that before the wall collapsed, they had been too heavy rains in a long period, and that rain caused many damages.

In their conclusion, they state that the collapsing of the wall was not caused by waters form Murenzi Alphonse’s house, because much of them were captured by tanks, and the remaining ones are kept by pits located in some meters far in the compound of Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude. With regard to the soils alleged to have pressurized the wall until it collapsed due to heavier pressure, they find this untrue, rather, what they did was to prepare the land and then plant the garden, and they thus the injustice suffered was due to the fact that the High Court disregarded the poor construction of the wall by Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude in way that such wall could not resist obstacles from outside, and the non consideration of the role of natural disasters in the collapsing of the wall.

Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude and his counsels, who also represent his wife Muhawenimana Joselyne, state that the casefile contains various elements of evidence, all indicating that the collapsing of the wall was caused by the soils loaded on his house by Murenzi Alphonse. They state that experts found out that the collapsing of the wall was not provoked by water pits as alleged by Murenzi Alphonse, because there was no water in those pits, they are far from the collapsed wall, and their location cannot allow the water to flow upward. They add that if the collapsing of the disputed wall was caused by such pits, the house should have also collapsed since it is nearer the pits as compared to the

## Page 511

169 MURENZI v MUTABAZI ET AL.

wall, and the disputed wall should have not resisted for the whole period of eight years.

They add that the statement that the level of water increased due to natural disasters is found nowhere in the experts report and that all kind of rain cannot be considered as a disaster, because all natural disaster are classified and defined by the law, and till now, Murenzi Alphonse failed to prove that the collapsing of his wall was caused by the flooding caused by heavy rains, and there is no reason to compare his wall to roads or hills in various places countrywide damaged, since the report by Meteo Rwanda of 21 and 22/05/2018 indicates the level of rain fallen in their region, and the same report confirmed that such a rain cannot be considered as a natural disaster. They state that Murenzi Alphonse completed his building activities in 2017, and the collapsing of the walls happened in May 2018, that his mason named Nzabandora Elie, and videos from google confirm that there was no single water pit Murenzi Alphonse has put in his yard up to 22/05/2018.

In their conclusion, they state that Murenzi Alphonse accepted before the Court that some mistakes were done during his building activities, and the same mistakes were confirmed by the report of experts appointed by Gasabo Intermediate Court, the report by Building Inspector in Gasabo District, various witnesses (including the person who sold a plot to him, the mason of the wall which collapsed, the person who build the foundation, among others), neighbors’ statements during investigation including those whose buildings were destroyed by Murenzi Alphonse before the collapsing of the wall of Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude, as well report from local authorities. For them, all

## Page 512

170 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

the foregoing elements of evidence have been so duly examined that failure to consider them could lead to injustice. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 76 of the Law no 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 on evidence and its production in courts reads that: “Evidence by experts is that which is intended to give to the court, explanations based on expertise as well as conclusion which is beyond the ordinary knowledge of a judge in his or her duties, depending on the underlying special expertise”.

The case file contains experts’ report entiltled Experts’ Panel Technical Report indicate that the construction of the house of Murenzi Alphonse was completed in 2017, and at that time, the article that was applicable was 2.6.5.19.3 of Rwanda Building Code annexed to Ministerial Order n°04/Cab.M/015 of 18/05/2015 determining urban planning and building regulations, which provides that walls built to retain or support the lateral pressure of earth or water or other superimposed loads shall be designed and constructed of approved masonry, reinforced concrete, steel sheet piling or other approved materials within the allowable stresses specified in this Code and the subsoil drainage shall be required behind the retaining wall together with sufficient weep outlets in such wall in order to prevent the accumulation of water.7 And article 2.6.5.19.4 of the same Code

7 “Walls built to retain or support the lateral pressure of earth or water or other superimposed loads shall be designed and constructed of approved masonry, reinforced concrete, steel sheet piling or other approved materials within the allowable stresses specified in this Code and the subsoil drainage shall be required behind the retaining wall together with sufficient weep outlets in such wall in order to prevent the accumulation of water.”

## Page 513

171 MURENZI v MUTABAZI ET AL.

reads that no surcharge of fill shall be permitted to be placed behind retaining wall within a distance equal to the height of the wall. 8

The case file indicates that, in ruling that the collapsing of the wall of Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude was caused by construction failures by Murenzi Alphonse, the High Court based on the following elements of evidence:

Analysis made by experts who prepared the report entitled Experts’ Panel Technical Report confirmed that the wall of Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude was strong enough, rather, its collapsing was caused by the pressure from the soils loaded on it by Murenzi Alphonse;

Analysis made by experts who prepared the report entitled Geotechnical Investigations confirmed that the wall of Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude was strong but that it failed to resist what was loaded on it;

The report prepared by Sibomana Adolphe, Building Inspector of Gasabo district concluded that the collapsing of the wall resulted from substandard construction activities by Murenzi Alphonse because the soils he loaded for the backfill of his plot overweighed the wall of Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude, hence causing its destruction;

8 “No surcharge of fill shall be permitted to be placed behind the retaining wall within a distance equal to the height of the wall.”

## Page 514

172 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

The investigation by Gasabo Intermediate Court revealed that the house of Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude is downside the plot of Murenzi Alphonse, and the collapsed wall was supported to the hillside, and that Murenzi Alphonse loaded the soils for the backfill of his plot, and the pits for containing waters from Murenzi Alphonse are at upward side at the back of the compound of Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude;

Parties’ witnesses interviewed by Gasabo Intermediate Court during investigation confirmed that the collapsing of the wall was caused by the soils that Murenzi Alphonse loaded at the upside of the house of Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude, and this was not the first time for this to happen, since there are other neighboring buildings which suffered the same fate, and Murenzi Alphonse rebuilt them.

It is in the finding of the Court that the experts’ report entitled Experts’ Panel Technical Report indicates that stones making the wall of Murenzi Alphonse started at the level of bricks making the wall of Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude, and those stones (of the wall of Murenzi Alphonse) were built using stable soil, on each other in the upward side, and the waters were channeled in two pits in the garden located in the backside of the wall of Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude, therefore, the collapsing of the wall was caused by the following: i. The pressure from the soils that Murenzi Alphonse loaded in his plot for backfilling; ii. The foundation of the wall of Murenzi Alphonse which was sub standardly built and that was badly designed, build upwardly, which is contrary to the code and

## Page 515

173 MURENZI v MUTABAZI ET AL.

standards on building, and the fact that such wall had not steels to make it strong; iii. The clay silt soil used by Murenzi Alphonse become heavy once it absorbs water; iv. The fact that, in building his wall, Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude was not expecting the clay slit soils to be loaded on his wall, hence not using reinforced concrete.

The Court found that the report prepared by the Inspection of Gasabo district on 23/05/2018, a day after the collapsing of the wall, reads that: “…it is evident that the collapsing of the wall … was caused by substandard construction activities of Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude, because the backfilling of his plot overweighed the retaining wall built by Abayo Jean Claude while the retaining wall built by Murenzi had no weep outlets because he joined it with the wall in bricks that was previously built by Abayo”.

It is in the finding of the Court that MurenzI Alphonse does not criticize anything for the report by Gasabo district, and when such report is joined to Experts’ Panel Technical Report, they both indicate that in building his wall, MurenzI Alphonse made the following mistakes which provoked the collapsing of the wall of Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude: i. The foundation which does not reach the underneath of the ordinary level of the soil before starting building stones; ii. Building stones on the stable soil without putting there weep outlets for channeling water once entered the soil;

## Page 516

174 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

iii. Loading soils that overweigh the wall previously built by Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude, and retain such soils with a foundation in stones which is not deep enough and with no weep outlets.

The Court finds that the Cassation Court of France found that when the mason has exceeded the maximum authorised loads on a retaining wall (dépassement des charges maximales autorisées sur un mur de soutainement), he/she has to be individually held liable of such mistakes, and no one else.9

Based on all the foregoing reasons in the previous paragraphs, the Court finds that, since there is no report to support the statements of Murenzi Alphonse that the collapsing of the wall of Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude was a result of the water from pits that entered the wall near those pits until it collapsed, and there exists no declaration from natural disaster management (déclaration de catastrophe naturelle) stating that there had been serious natural disasters in the area where the disputed wall is located proving that the collapsing of the wall might have been provoked by frequent previous heavy rains, the High Court was right in ruling that the collapsing of the wall of Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude was caused by building failures by Murenzi Alphonse. II.3. Determination of the value of damages caused by the collapsing of the wall of Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude and Muhawenimana Joselyne

Murenzi Alphonse and his Counsel Habyarimana Christine state that the experts’ report referred to in awarding

9Cass. Civ. 3è, 26 mars 1997, N° 94-21, 808 Bull.Civ, III, N°69.

## Page 517

175 MURENZI v MUTABAZI ET AL.

compensation does not indicate the real value of damages, that the Court awarded compensation based on emotional computing of damages, hence awarding excessive compensations and unreasonably increasing the wealth of Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude, and they thus request that in case the instant Court decides to award compensations, such compensations have to be professionally computed by indicating the real value of damages.

Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude and his counsels, who also represents Muhawenimana Joselyne state that construction failures by Murenzi Alphonse are the real cause of the collapsing of both walls, and that both the previous Courts based on the experts’ report appointed by the Court which indicated damages and their value on the side of Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude. The aver that the statements that the value of damages was determined based on emotions instead of referring on experts’ report, are untrue, especially since the annexed houses of which Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude wished that they be compensated by Murenzi Alphonse, the Court removed them from damages to compensated. They state that Murenzi Alphonse did not cricize the experts’ report at the first instance for it was professionally prepared, and even in the High Court, he did not appeal for it, because he was satisfied with the ruling of Gasabo Intermediate Court, therefore, he should not raise such an issue for the first time in the Supreme Court. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

With regard to the issue of the value of damages caused by the collapsing of the wall of the house belonging to Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude and Muhawenimana Joselyne, as it is indicated in the case file, the ground of appeal lodged by Counsel

## Page 518

176 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Turatsinze Emmanuel representing Murenzi Alphonse in the High Court, stated that: “The fact that the Court awarded damages based on the collapsing of properties built contrary to the law (district report)”. In motivating this ground, he did not criticize the value of computed damages, rather, he stated that the report from Gasabo district confirmed that Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude carried out construction activities contrary to the law, and therefore, he should not be awarded any compensation.

The issue of whether decided issues which have not been appealed can be reintroduced during the review of the judgment due to injustice, has been examined by this Court in various cases including that of Ngizweninshuti Albert against Muhima Giovani, 10 where the very Court found that article 55, last paragraph, 11 and article 63 12 of the Law n° 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, both jointly read, they imply that any party entitled to ordinary of remedies of appeal but that fails to use such a right provided by law, deprives his/herself of the right to appeal procedure which could enable him/her to get his/her issues resolved at the appellate level, and such a party is not allowed to apply for review of a case

10 See judgment N° RS/INJUST/RC 00024/2018/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 21/02/2020, paragraphs 18-22. See also judgment N° RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2018/SC rendered on 13/03/2020, for Nditiribambe Samuel, Gatera Jason vs Nyamaswa Faustin and judgment N° RCOM RS/ INJUST/ RC 00004/2019/SC rendered on 28/07/2020, for Mukamana, Havugimana, Umuhoza vs Candali. 11 “…any party entitled to ordinary and extraordinary remedies but that fails to assert his/her right within the time limit provided by law, is not allowed to apply for review of a case he/she lost because of injustice … “ 12 “When the Supreme Court or any other court designated by the President of the Supreme Court receives an application for review of a judgement on grounds of being vitiated by injustice, it examines the merits of the case anew and in the presence of all parties”.

## Page 519

177 MURENZI v MUTABAZI ET AL.

he/she lost because of injustice, by disregarding other adjudicated cases, and then requests for the examination of the issues of injustice of which he/she him/herself refused to appeal against, since this is against the law.13

It is therefore in the finding of the instant Court that since Murenzi Alphonse has not lodged an appeal against the issue of the value of damages caused by the collapsing of the the disputed wall before the High Court, the instant Court finds unfounded to analyse such an issue in the review due to injustice. II.4. Whether Murenzi Alphonse and Uwamahoro Jacqueline should be held liable for damages claimed by SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc

Murenzi Alphonse and his Counsel Habyarimana Christine state that they are not concerned with the contract concluded between Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude and SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc, and they do not understand how they could be held liable of the damages caused by Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude when deciding to park his cars near the wall with fractures that could seemingly lead to its collapsing.

Counsel Mafaranga Anastase, representing SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc states that Murenzi Alphonse and Uwamahoro Jacqueline should be held liable of the damages paid by SANLAM AG Plc because this company had provided

13 Article 170 of the Law n°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure that was applicable by the time of adjudicating this case, reads that: “The subject matter to be decided by the appeal court shall be limited to what is in the appeal. The court may only decide on the issues brought forth by the appellant and respondent at the appeal level”.

## Page 520

178 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

insurance for accidents, and it therefore paid 2,183,000 Frw used for the reparation of the two cars damaged due to construction failures by Murenzi Alphonse, failures which lead to the collapsing of his wall and that of Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 32 of the Decree- Law no 20/75 of 20 June 1975 relating to insurances that was applicable at the time of filing a claim, provided that: “An insurer who paid damages for what he/she agreed to insure replaces the insuree, in accordance with the paid damages, on matters relating to rights and pursuing persons who made him/her pay because of their activities”. 14

The Court finds that the case file indicates that both Gasabo Intermediate Court and High Court awarded damages amounting to 2,183,000 Frw to SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc on ground that, as per the experts’ report, the accident that led to the damaging of cars belonging to Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude was caused by construction failures by Murenzi Alphonse, and the latter failed to indicate before this Court the other cause of the damaging of the said cars other than the collapsing of the wall of Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude provoked by the aforementioned construction failures.

It is also in the finding of this Court that the statements that the damaging of the cars of Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude was caused by the collapsing of the wall of Murenzi Alphonse, have been approved by the report by Nyirabwana village

14 This Decree- Law was repealed by the Law N° 030/2021 of 30/06/2021 governing organisation of insurance business published in the Official Gazette of 02/08/2021.

## Page 521

179 MURENZI v MUTABAZI ET AL.

authorities. In that report entitled “Statements on what happened in Nyirabwana village”, this report confirms that the damaging of the said cars was provoked by the soils loaded on the wall of Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude by Murenzi Alphonse, and such wall absorbed water until it collapsed. The statements that the wall had started to crack cannot be a reason for holding Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude liable of the consequences of the soils loaded on his wall by Murenzi Alphonse. They had agreed that Murenzi Alphonse had to build weep outlets in the said soils, and did not, therefore, Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude cannot be accused of poor forecasting since he could not predict when it would rain, the kind of that rain or its impacts on the loaded soils, so as not to park his cars in the ordinary parking for fear of the collapsing of the wall.

The Court finds that Murenzi Alphonse should not be acquitted of the liability of damages by the fact that he is not a party to the insurance contract for the said cars, because since he is the one who caused the damaging of the cars, and he did not immediately pay for damages caused by his activities, he has the duty to refund SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc the amount paid for those damages as per article 32 of the aforementioned Decree- Law n° 20/75 of 20 1June 1975. II.5. Whether Murenzi Alphonse should not pay the expert fee

Murenzi Alphonse and his Counsel Habyarimana Christine argue that the experts appointed by the Court should be paid by both parties, but the party who will loose the case has to refund the winning party. They explain that this has not been the case since Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude secretly negotiated with all experts on the expert fee, which is excessive and in US dollars,

## Page 522

180 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

without communicating Murenzi Alphonse, and consequently, Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude should be pay such a fee alone.

Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude and his counsels who also represent Muhawenimana Joselyne state that such an issue should not be examined at the level of the review due to injustice since it was not appealed in the High Court. They explain that in case that issue is analysed, the instant Court will find that the expert fee has been determined a team of experts in order to avoid that each expert concludes a contract with the person who hired him/her, and in that team includes Eng. Hirwa Eugène who was hired by Murenzi Alphonse. They state that e-mails and documents in the case file indicate how experts and parties negotiated on the expert fee, and they agreed on 6,173 USD, and each expert was given 1/3 of that amount, and Eng. Hirwa Eugène confirmed before the High Court that he received that amount. They further add that the statements that the expert fee is excessive, counted in US dollars, and that it was not agreed on by both parties, are untrue, and they thus pray the Court to hold that Murenzi Alphonse has to pay the expert fee since the collapsing of the wall was caused by his construction failures. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 273, paragraph 3, of the Law n°22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, reads that “… The losing party refunds to the winning party the honoraria paid to experts and interpreters…”

The Court finds that, as per the content of the case file, during the hearing of 22/05/2019 before the Intermediate Court,

## Page 523

181 MURENZI v MUTABAZI ET AL.

Murenzi Alphonse stated that he does not refuse to pay the expert fee, rather, he wanted to negotiate the price with them, and in the hearing of 16/10/2020, he stated that Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude secretly agreed with the experts on an exorbitant fee with the intention to come up with the report containing his opinions only, thus requesting to create a new team of experts allowing each party to have an expert of their choice, and later allow chosen experts to appoint the third expert, and then agree with parties on the fee. The Court found such point baseless, meaning that the statement of Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude that such an issue has not been submitted to the High Court for examination, unfounded.

The Court finds that in the paragraph 25 of the judgment under review due to injustice, the High Court found that Eng. Dr Nkurunziza Alphonse who was the team leader of the appointed experts at first requested 500 USD per day as expert fee, but after negotiations with Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude, they agreed on 300 USD per day. Murenzi Alphonse is unable to prove the veracity of his statement that he negotiated with Eng. Hirwa Eugene Valery and agreed on a low price, while this one was representing the team of experts, especially since Eng. Hirwa Eugene Valery later on adopted the agreement reached on by the team leader of experts and accepted the price agreed on with Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude on the behalf of the entire team.

The Court further finds that the issue that the agreed price was in US dollars, this should not be a reason for Murenzi Alphonse to refuse to perform his obligations of paying an expert fee, since both parties agreed on the duties of experts and their fee thereof, nothing can therefore prevent the execution of

## Page 524

182 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

concluded agreement since such agreement are binding for parties to it.

Based on the foregoing elucidations as well as the lack of merit for grounds on which Murenzi Alphonse bases the alleged injustice he suffered, it is in the finding of the Court that Murenzi Alphonse has to pay the expert fee as agreed on by parties and as decided by Gasabo Intermediate Court. II.6. Determination of the merit of damages requested in this case

Murenzi Alphonse and his Consel Habyarimana Christine state that, the fact that Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude built with no construction permit, and did not built proper management of water from his buildings, which led to the collapsing of the wall of Murenzi Alphonse and Uwamahoro Jacquéline, and they thus request the instant Court to order him and Muhawenimana Joselyne to jointly pay them 4,000,000 Frw for the rehabilitation of the wall, 5,000,000 Frw as moral damages for the pain suffered by Murenzi Alphonse and his family, 1,000,000 Frw for procedural fee at all levels, 3,000,000 Frw for the Counsel fee at the level of Gasabo Intermediate Court and High Court, 5,000,000 Frw for Counsel fee at this level, as well as 80,000 Frw for court fees deposited for the appeal in the High Court.

Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude and his counsels who also represent Muhawenimana Joselyne find all damages requested by Murenzi Alphonse unfounded, since he is the one who provoked the collapsing of the wall as confirmed by all reports. They state that, instead, Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude and Muhawenimana Joselyne should be the ones to be awarded damages amounting to 10,000,000 Frw, meaning 1,000,000 Frw for procedural fee

## Page 525

183 MURENZI v MUTABAZI ET AL.

and 3,000,000 Frw for counsel fee at the level of the Supreme Court.

Counsel Mafaranga Anastase representing SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc, allege to be frequently dragged in unnecessary lawsuits, hence requesting the instant Court to order Murenzi Alphonse and Uwamahoro Jaqueline to pay them 1,500,000 Frw for procedural and counsel fees. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 111 of the Law n° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, reads that: “The claim for representation fees is anincidental claim to the principal claim aimingto repay expenses incurred during judicial proceedings. The claim for legal costs is adjudicated at the same time with the principal claim. It can alsobe admitted and adjudicated even if theprincipal claim has not been admitted.

The Court finds that all the damages requested by Murenzi Alphonse should not be awarded to him since he won nothing in this case.

The Court further finds that the moral damages requested by Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude in this case should not be awarded to him, because, apart from the fact that he is unable to explain how the collapsing of the wall of his house fence engrieved him, he cannot use the application filed by Murenzi Alphonse for the review of the judgment due to injustice, to submit any request while he was satisfied with the judgment under review.

## Page 526

184 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

The Court finds that Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude and Muhawenimana Joselyne deserve the requested counsel and procedural fees since they followed up the proceedings of this case and hired legal counsels to assist them. However, they failed to prove the use of 1,000,000 Frw for the procedural fee and 3,000,000 Frw requested at this level in this case, therefore, in its discretion, the Court awarded to them 300.000 Frw for procedural fee and 500,000 Frw for counsel fee.

The Court further finds that 1,500,000 frw for the procedural and counsel fees requested by SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc should not be awarded since they failed to prove the use this amount at this level, therefore, in its discretion, the Court awards to them 300.000 Frw for procedural fee and 500,000 Frw for counsel fee. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the application filled by Murenzi Alphonse for the review of the judgment no RCA 00499/2019/HC/KIG- CMB RCA 00506/2019/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court on 19/02/2021, lacks merit;

Holds that the ruling of the judgment n° RCA 00499/2019/HC/KIG- CMB RCA 00506/2019/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court on 19/02/2021, is sustained, and the decision to be executed is as follows: - “78. Ruled that the judgment n° RC 00203/18/TGI/GSBO rendered on 8/11/2019 by Gasabo Intermediate Court is reversed in part;

## Page 527

185 MURENZI v MUTABAZI ET AL.

- 79. Orders that 3,369,336 Frw for the value of the annexed houses and 2,183,000 Frw that was awarded to SANLAM AG PLC Ltd, are removed from damages awarded to Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude and Muhawenimana Alphonsine15 at the first instance; - 80. Orders Murenzi Alphonse and Uwamahoro Jacqueline to pay 740,000 Frw for counsel, procedural and court fees to Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude and Muhawenimana Joselyne; - 81. Orders Murenzi Alphonse and Uwamahoro Jacqueline to refund to SANLAM AG PLC Ltd 2,183,000frw used for the reparation of the car of Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude and Muhawenimana Joselyne; - 82. Holds that court fees deposited by Murenzi Alphonse and Uwamahoro Jacqueline for the appeal cover expenses incurred in this case;”

Orders Murenzi Alphonse to pay Mutabazi Abayo Jean Claude and Muhawenimana Joselyne 300,000 Frw for procedural fee and 500,000 Frw for counsel fee at this level, all amounting to 800,000 Frw;

Orders Murenzi Alphonse to pay SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc 300,000 Frw for procedural fee and 500,000 Frw for counsel fee at this level, all amounting to 800,000 Frw.

15 This is a typing error; it is Muhawenimana Joselyne.

## Page 529

187

KAMUGWIZA v HASHIM SAKINA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT-RS/INJUST/RC 00008/2020/SC (Mukamulisa, P.J., Nyirinkwaya, Hitiyaremye, Muhumuza and Karimunda, J.) 20 May 2022] Civil law – Mandate – Mandate for disposal of property – A person entrusted with general mandate has solely the powers to carry out ordinary activities related to the property management and growth; whereas extraordinary activities such as property sale or disposal in any manner presuppose a specific mandate providing to the mandatary at least with the nature on the property to be sold; the mandate should clearly and unequivocally indicate the property. Civil law – Mandate – General mandate – The power of attorney issued in general terms has to be construed as meant for the property management in the interests of the mandator since it is impossible for a living person with abilities and powers to provide the power of attorney for selling by another person of his/her real and potential assets. Facts: This case started from the Intermediate Court of Gasabo, Sakina sued Kamugwiza for having concluded with Mukuralinda the forged contract to illegally sell his plot, he states that he had mandated Mukuralinda to buy plots and build houses for him; but later on, Mukuralinda averred that he lost his identity card, and it was necessary to issue a new power of attorney ,the new power of attorney was then signed before the Notary, but the the word “ selling” was added so that the mandatary sold Sakina’s plot and he never gave him the proceeds from such sale. The Intermediate Court found that Sakina failed to explain how he issued the power

## Page 530

188 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

of attorney for property selling and consequently lost the case. Sakina appealed the ruling before the High Court which invalidated the sale contract with Kamugwiza as well as the sale agreement of 21/03/2015 on the plot UPI: 5/07/09/02/984, the land titles of emphyteutic lease issued to Kamugwiza on 20/02/2015 and 13/07/2015. Kamugwiza who submits that she legally acquired the disputed plot filed appeal against the ruling before the Court of Appeal which declared baseless his claim; therefore, she lodged application for the judgment review on grounds of injustice. In the hearing before the Supreme Court, Kamugwiza submits that the suffered injustice is based on the fact that the lower Court did not take into consideration the power of attorney authorising, inter alia, the property sale so that it nullified the contract for the plot sale without indicating the defects of the agreement in accordance with the law as the it was concluded by the persons with capacity to do so. Sakina submits that he has never issued the power of attorney for selling the plot, the issue is that they read to her the power of attorney for only buying and building the houses for him, they presented to him two documents telling him that they were identical, the second text contained the added term “selling”. He added that he so much trusted Mukuralinda with him he grew up and later he got short-sighted due to sickness so that he issued to him the above-mentioned power of attorney. Held: 1 - A person entrusted with general mandate has solely the powers to carry out ordinary activities related to the property management and growth. Extraordinary activities such as property sale or disposal in any manner presuppose a specific mandate providing to the mandatary at least with the nature on the property to be sold; to that effect, the mandate for property

## Page 531

189 KAMUGWIZA v HASHIM SAKINA

disposal should not be general, it should clearly and unequivocally indicate such property; therefore, the power of attorney of 09/05/2014 should not serve as basis for selling any property of Sakina since it was unlawfully drawn up. 2. The power of attorney issued in general terms has to be construed as meant for the property management in the interests of the mandator since it is impossible for a living person with abilities and powers to provide the power of attorney for selling by another person of his/her real and potential assets; therefore the power of attorney issued to Mukuralinda was only meant for the property management. The application for injustice-related review of the judgment RCAA 00001/2019/CA lacks merits. Statute referred to: Law N0 22/2018/ of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles 9 and 11 Repealed statutes referred to: Law of 30 July 1888 instituting Civil Code Book III, article 530 Cases referred to: Cass. Civ. 1ère, 21 Décembre 1976, Bull.Civ. I, N° 421. The Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society V. M/s Ponniamman Educational Trust, rendered by the Supreme Court of India on 03/07/2012 Mrs. Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese Rep by Its Procurator Devssia’s Son Rev.

## Page 532

190 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Father Joseph Kappil, of 01/04/2022 by the Supreme Court of India, paragraph 09, 17-18. Doctrines Authority given to the agent by explicit agreement, either orally or in writing. B.A. Garner, Black’s law dictionary, ST. PAUL, MINN., WEST PUBLISHING CO., 2019, 11th ed., p.128. Philippe Malaurie, Laurent Aynès and Pierre Yves Gautier, Droit des contrats spéciaux, Paris, L.G.D.J., 2018, pp.345-346. Francois Collart Dutilleul and Philippe Delebecque, Contrats civils et commerciaux, Paris, Dalloz, 2019, p.548. Jacques Raynard and Jean-Baptiste Seube, Droit des contrats spéciaux, Lexis-Nexis, Paris, 2019, p.397, 398. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

This case started from the Intermediate Court of Gasabo, Sakina Hashim sued Kamugwiza Phoebe for having concluded the forged sale contract with Mukuralinda Alain Bernard, the latter sold his plot registered on UPI: 5/07/09/02/984 located in Kabeza Village, Kanzenze Cell, Ntarama Sector in Bugesera District he pretexted that he was mandated by Sakina Hashim to sell such plot, while he did never issued any power of attorney to sell, to receive payment or to proceed with the ownership transfer on his behalf; he requested to the Court to hold that the sale by Mukuralinda Alain Bernard of his plot is void, and consequently the plot sale agreement was not concluded.

## Page 533

191 KAMUGWIZA v HASHIM SAKINA

In her defence, Kamugwiza Phoebe argued that the sale agreement was concluded, she bought the plot at 45,000,000 Frw paid to Mukuralinda Alain Bernard who represented Sakina Hashim by means of the power of attorney; she therefore prayed the Court to declare Sakina’s claim baseless and hold that the plot sale agreement was lawfully concluded as nobody requested for its invalidation nor filed third party opposition against it.

During the pre-trial conference, the parties requested for the intervention of Famida Hashim and Mukuralinda Alain Bernard in the case. During the hearing, the Court realised that nothing proves that Mukuralinda has been notified of this case and the statement of Counsel Nizeyimana Boniface who pretended to represent him was not admitted as he represented Kamugwiza Phoebe who requested for the intervention of Mukuralinda Alain Bernard, it decided that Mukuralinda Alain Bernard should not be considered as party in this case.

With regard to the merits of the claim, the judgment N0 RC 00303/2016/TGI/GSBO was rendered on 29/06/2017, and the Court held that the power of attorney issued to Mukuralinda Alain Berbnard by Sakina Hashim had no defects since it was drawn up before the Notary and Sakina Hashim signed on it as adult, healthy person and without duress. It is evident that Mukuralinda Alain Bernard had the mandate to sell Sakina Hashim’s property whenever he deemed it necessary; and the Court held that the sale agreement should not be invalidated. Concerning the damages claimed by the respondents, the Court declared them grounded and it ordered to Sakina Hashim to pay to Kamugwiza Phoebe and Famida Hashim 1,300,000 Frw for each one as lawyer and procedural fees.

## Page 534

192 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Sakina Hashim appealed against the ruling before the High Court submitting that Kamugwiza Phoebe could not by the plot on 21/03/2015 while it is clear that she was issuedthe land title for emphyteutic lease on 20/02/2015 and later on 13/07/2015 she was again given another land title for the same property; it was questionable how she should be given two different titles on the same property. Sakina Hashim adds that he also had been issued with land title for emphyteutic lease on 20/02/2015 for the same property, it is evident that on the very date, two land titles on the same property were issued to two different persons, this fact is confusing; he requests to be redressed in his rights and regain his plot sold by Mkuralinda Alain Bernard without his permission.

During the hearing of 19/04/2018, the parties requested for the intervention of Mukuralinda Alain Bernard at the appeal level, but he should not be imposed any damage. The Court declared the request grounded and it ordered to Mukuralinda Alain Bernard to interne in the case as litigant.

In the judgment RCA 00265/2017/HC/KIG rendered on 09/11/2018, the Court held that the appeal filed by Sakina Hashim had merits and nullified the sale agreement of 21/03/2015 on the plot under UPI: 5/07/09/02/984 as well as the land title for emphyteutic lease issued to Kamugwiza Phoebe on 20/02/2015 and on 13/07/2015. For so deciding, the Court found that: i.With regard to the plot registered under UPI: 5/07/09/02/984, Rwanda Land Management and Use Authority indicated that two land titles were not issued on 20/02/2015, one land title was only issued to Sakina Hashim. The Court found that tough Kamugwiza

## Page 535

193 KAMUGWIZA v HASHIM SAKINA

Phoebe has land title for emphyteutic lease issued on 20/02/2015 and 13/07/2015, she failed to produce the documents got from the seller and indicate the date of ownership transfer. ii.ii. Sakina Hashim could not have sold the disputed property and keep the original copies of land titles. iii. It is not understandable that Mukuralinda Alain Bernard could be paid 45,000,000 Frw and give such amount to the owner in hands.

Following the property valuation report which indicated that the disputed property has the value of 182,165,000 Frw, Kamugwiza Phoebe appealed against the ruling before the Court of Appeal, submitting that the High Court should not have nullified the sale agreement of 21/03/2015 since it was lawfully concluded and Sakina Hashim has, inter alia, authorised Mukuralinda Alain Bernard to sell his property.

Sakina Hashim raised the objection related to the court’s lack of jurisdiction, he argues that the value of the subject-matter does not amount to 75,000,000 Frw as per the requirements set by the Law N0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts as the subject-matter concerns the nullification of the sale agreement over the plot sold for 45,000,000 Frw, the value of 182,165,000 Frw indicated in the property valuation report produced by the appellant should not serve as basis because it does not appear in the sale agreement, neither was it litigated from the beginning of the case.

On 08/11/2019, the Court examined the objection raised on the lack of jurisdiction in the judgment N0 RCAA 00001/2019/CA, and found that the respondent did not challenge

## Page 536

194 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

the valuation report produced by Kamugwiza Phoebe; therefore nothing precludes it to uphold that the value of the subject-matter is the one presented by the appellant, it held that the objection is unfounded.

On 06/05/2020, the Court rendered the judgment on the merits on the issue of determining whether the sale agreement between Kamugwiza Phoebe and Mukuralinda Alain Bernard should be nullified; and it found that the High Court did not err by deciding that such agreement should be nullified. The Court of Appeal so decided with reference to the following reasons: i. The fact that the land registered under UPI 5/07/09/02/984 was registered on Kamugwiza Phoebe on 20/02/2015, but the sale agreement with Sakina Hashim was concluded on 21/03/2015, it is not possible for her to buy a plot already registered under her names; ii. The fact that Mukuralinda Alain Bernard addressed a letter to the Mayor of Bugesera District on 24/06/2015 applying for the registration to Kamugwiza Phoebe of the plot UPI 5/07/09/02/984 she bought from Sakina Hashim; the letter was written when the plot was already registered to Kamugwiza Phoebe on 20/02/2015; ii. The fact that the documents providing the power of attorney on which Mukuralinda Alain Bernard allegedly relies to sell such property on behalf of Sakina Hashim are clearly different, the one of 15/01/2009 mandates him to buy plots and build houses for Sakina Hashim, and the other one of

## Page 537

195 KAMUGWIZA v HASHIM SAKINA

09/05/2014 grants to him general mandate including the property sale; both documents were signed before the Notary on the same date of 09/05/2014; it is evident that they were fraudulently drawn up; iii. The fact that the ownership transfer between Kamugwiza Phoebe and Sakina Hashim was not performed as the latter still holds the land title, while as per the articles 4 and 5 of the sale agreement of 21/03/2015, Mukuralinda Alain Bernard who then represented Sakina Hashim has stated that he thereby handed to Kamugwiza Phoebe all land titles related to the plot she sold, and the fact that Sakina Hashim still keeps the original land titles proves that he did not sell the plot. iv. Kamugwiza Phoebe petitioned the President of the Supreme Court, and prayed him to have the judgment RCAA 0001/2019/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 06/05/2020 reviewed for injustice-related grounds. Following the analysis of her petition, the President of the Supreme Court took the decision n0 057/CJ/2020 of 16/11/2020 and forwarded the case to the Registry of the Supreme Court for being re-adjudicated.

The case was heard in public on 12/10/2021, Kamugwiza Phoebe was represented by Counsel Nizeyimana Boniface, Sakina Hashim by Counsel Nsabimana Jean Baptiste, Mukuralinda Alain Bernard by Counsel Niyitegeka Eraste while Famida Hashim was represented by Counsel Nsabayezu Evariste;

## Page 538

196 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

the first issue was the objection raised by Counsel Nsabimana Jean Baptiste who requetsed to determine whether the Court of Appeal had the jurisdiction to hear Kamugwiza Phoebe’s second appeal. On 29/10/2021, the Court heard the interlocutory judgement and held that a litigant who did not apply for the judgment review on grounds of injustice cannot file incidental claim to request to the Court to examine the challenged judgment decisions, it ruled that the objection over the Court of Appeal’s lack of jurisdiction raised in that Court cannot be re-examined in this case.

The case on the merits was heard on 11/01/2022, all the parties again were represented as before, and they then debated about the issue of whether Sakina Hashim had mandated Mukuralinda Alain Bernard for the selling of a plot under UPI: 5/07/09/02/984, they also pleaded about the damages claimed by each party, and the Court notified all the litigants that the judgment will be pronounced on 18/02/2022.

During the deliberations, the Court found that it was necessary to summon some of the litigants for collecting further information on the diverging elements of evidence contained in the case file. Basing on the article 60 of the Law N0 22/2018/ of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure which provides that the court may order the personal appearance of the parties before it, the Court ordered to Sakina Hashim, Mukuralinda Alain Bernard and Famida Hashim to appear before it in person.

The hearing was reopened on 13/04/2022, Kamugwiza Phoebe was represented by Counsel Nizeyimana Boniface, Sakina Hashim assisted by Counsel Nsabimana Jean-Baptiste, Mukuralinda Alain Bernard assisted by Counsel Niyitegeka

## Page 539

197 KAMUGWIZA v HASHIM SAKINA

Eraste while Famida Hashim was assisted by Counsel Nsabayezu Evariste.

At the opening of the hearing, Counsel Nsabimana Jean- Baptiste who represented Sakina Hashim, argued that for the interest of the justice, the hearing should be suspended, pending the ruling of the case RPA 00360/2020/HC/KIG-RPA 00419/2020/HC/KIG before the High Court. He averred that he based his statement on the principle by which a criminal action takes precedence over a civil action. He submits that in the criminal case, Sakina Hashim is prosecuted for forgery and falsification of emphyteutic land lease title that has been submitted in the case file. Counsel Nsabayezu Evariste also supports the suspension basing on the fact that the judgment under review on grounds of injustice are not appealable.

Counsel Nzeyimana Boniface states that there is no connexity between those cases, and that the Supreme Court cannot wait for the case before the High Court; he adds that this issue had been raised in the previous instances, a related decision was taken and it was not appealed nor submitted for review on grounds of injustice, he notes that Sakina Hashim only intends to delay the judgment.

Following the above debates, the Court decided on the bench and found that the request of Counsel Nsabimana Jean- Baptiste was submitted too late because the case had already been closed, it was reopened in the Court’s discretion as it sought to collect further information from litigants. Besides, the Court found that Sakina Hashim in the case RPA 00360/2020/HC/KIG- RPA 00419/2020/HC/KIG is prosecuted for forgery or falsification of a document and it use, while the underlying issue of this case is to determine whether Sakina Hashim has or has not

## Page 540

198 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

mandated Mukuralinda Alain Bernard for the selling of the plot of land. The Court found that there is no material reason for the hearing suspension and it ordered that the case should proceed by hearing the parties as planned.

In this case, the Court will examine whether Sakina Hashim had mandated Mukuralinda Alain Bernard for selling the plot UPI: 5/07/09/02/984 and whether the damages claimed by each party are grounded. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES II.1. Whether Mukuralinda Alain Bernard was mandated to sell Sakina Hashim’s plot registered under UPI: 5/07/09/02/984 as representative

Counsel Nizeyimana Boniface, assisting Kamugwiza Phoebe, submits that the injustice resides in the fact that the previous court disregarded the power of attorney issued on 09/05/2014 by Sakina Hashim to Mukuralinda Alain Bernard to mandate him to sell the disputed property on his behalf, it was legally signed before the Notary. He explains that disregarding such evidence led the Court to nullify the sale agreement of 21/03/2015 concluded by Mukuralinda Alain Bernard and Kamugwiza Phoebe and the land title registered to Kamugwiza secured on 13/07/2015, but the defects of the sale agreement were not legally pointed out, as it was concluded by the persons having the capacity to do so. Concerning the land title, he submits that Rwanda Land Management and Use Authority asserted by a letter of 11/07/2018, written upon the request of the High Court together with the letter of 29/11/2017 sent to Counsel Nizeyimana Boniface, that the land was registered on

## Page 541

199 KAMUGWIZA v HASHIM SAKINA

Kamugwiza Phoebe on 12/07/2015 on basis of the sale agreement of 30/06/2015 signed before the registrar of land titles, the title was issued to her on 13/07/2015.

He submits that the Land Use and Management Authority explained that the title Sakina claims to have secured on 20/02/2015, together with a title allegedly issued to Kamugwiza Phoebe on the same date, have never existed. The National Land Use and Management Authority goes on to clarify that Sakina Hashim’s statement by which she claims to have signed a single power of attorney of 09/05/2014, adding they later tricked her and made her sign a different mandate that permits Mukuralinda Alain Bernard to sell out her property, such a statement is not true since the Land Authority testifies that on 09/05/2014, only one power of attorney was signed. He goes further to add that the elements of evidence contained in the case file sufficiently prove that Kamugwiza Phoebe has legally acquired the disputed property; and so lawfully that the Court of Appeal should not resort to the presumptions to the extent of referring its ruling on the articles 104 and 108 of the Law N0 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to Evidence1 and its production ; arguing that the Court should instead base its ruling on the article 13 of the same Law, and should decided that Mukuralinda Alain Bernard was issued with a lawful power of attorney as witnessed by the Notary on 09/05/2014, he therefore prays the Court to decide that such power of attorney together with the related land title issued to

1 Article 104 provides that “Presumptions are made of inferences that the law or the Court makes from a known fact to discern unknown fact. Whereas article 108 provides that presumptions that have not been established by the law are left to the discretion and wisdom of the Court, the latter shall only admit such presumptions if they are important, precise and consistent.

## Page 542

200 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Kamugwiza Phoebe on 13/07/2014, are authentic deeds that cannot easily be revoked, unless first proved forged.

Sakina Hashim submits that she considered Mukuralinda Alain Bernard as her own brother since they grew up together; she adds that from 2000 she got a challenge of short-sightedness owing to diabetes, and that from 2001, she started resorting to people who could help her every time she wanted to travel; and it is under this circumstance that in 2009 she approached Mukuralinda Alain Bernard and requested him to help buying some plots of land since she knew him not only as a trustworthy person but also as a lawyer. She submits that he was never mandated to sell out her property, instead he was mandated to buy property on her behalf. Shee adds that in 2014, Mukuralinda Alain Bernard came to pick her from her home, telling her that a certain detail of his power of attorney needs to be updated since it no longer matches with his new identity card number as his former identity card got lost. Sakina states that such a reason made sense, but when she told him as she looked for a person to accompany her, Mukuralinda Alain Bernard eased her the worry, and promised to come and pick her up by himself and it so happened. When they reached the Notary’s office, they read to her a text, and they told her the duplicate was exactly identical, and she so believed since she had been working with him for so long and she trusted him.

Counsel Nsabimana Jean-Baptiste who assists Sakina Hshim in this case adds that it is actually the power of attorney of 09/05/2014 that was handed to National Land Use and Management Authority, as a proof indicating that Mukuralinda Alain Bernard was mandated to sell out such plot. However, such power of attorney was not based on by Mukuralinda Alain

## Page 543

201 KAMUGWIZA v HASHIM SAKINA

Bernard for purchasing the plot on 14/07/2009 from Nzamwita Alphonse, and on 27/06/2009 from Umutesi Assia and Umuhoza Zamda, those plots were later combined to make the plot under UPI 5/07/09/02/984, if the National Land Use and Management Authority had been careful enough, it could have detected that the submitted power of attorney was not to be used retroactively. Another fact that indicates that the power of attorney of 09/05/2014 cannot be considered as conferring the mandate to Mukuralinda Alain Bernard for selling the disputed property, but there is no proof that it served for concluding the sale agreement of 21/03/2015, neither did it mention that it permits the selling of plot registered under UPI: 5/07/09/02/984, Mukuralinda Alain Bernard has no single evidence that proves that he sold the concerned land in the best interest of Sakina Hashim, more so that he states that it was sold upon request by Famida Hashim, this is not understandable.

He also adds that the annulment of sale agreement of 21/03/2015 did not cause any injustice to Kamugwiza Phoebe, especially due to the following reasons: i. The property was sold out by Mukuralinda Alain Bernard instead of Sakina Hashim; ii. The land with the surface area of36,433 m2 was sold, while the plot with UPI 5/07/09/02/984 should be disclosed, non-disclosure of such plot was due to the fact that Mukuralinda Alain Bernard it was not mandated to sell the property; iii. Kamugwiza Phoebe submitted that after touring the concerned plot, they proceeded with the conclusion of the sale agreement and she immediately paid 45,000,000 Frw as a price. However, Mugwiza

## Page 544

202 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Aimable and Tambwe Obed who had been witnesses for the sale agreement testified that they signed on the agreement in the office of Kamugwiza Phoebe, they did not go to the plot, and neither did they witness any handing of money between both parties. iv. Mukuralinda Alain Bernard stated that, on the behalf of Sakina Hashim, he handed to Kamugwiza Phoebe the title for the sold property; while when the sale agreement was concluded on 21/03/2015, Kamugwiza Phoebe already possessed the related land title from 20/02/2015.

Counsel Nsabimana Jean-Baptiste further submits that the letter of 29/11/2017 by the Land Registrar indicated that the disputed land was fist registered under the names of Mukuralinda Alain Bernard and Gatabazi Martine, denoting that Mukuralinda Alain Bernard had already grabbed the property of Sakina Hashim and mischievously registered it on his family. He states that such information was not provided in the of the Land Use and Management Authority of 11/07/2018, such letter is not trustworthy on a number of details that include the following: i. The fact that it indicates that Mukuralinda Allain Bernard has submitted to the National Land Use and Management Authority the original land titles registered to Sakina Hashim while these titles were submitted by Sakina Hashim herself on 16/04/2019 when she applied for a new land title; ii. The fact that on 24/06/2015, Mukuralinda Alain Bernard requested to the Mayor of Bugesera District to register the disputed land under the names of Kamugwiza Phoebe, the application was received by the office of the Land Registrar on 30/06/2015, and

## Page 545

203 KAMUGWIZA v HASHIM SAKINA

this application was examined, and the title was generated under Folio number 160/VOL IV; but the Land Use and Management Authority states that the application of Mukuralinda Alain Bernard was submitted on 07/07/2015. iii. The fact that the letter is silent about the information contained in the report of 10/04/2018 presented by Land Use and Management Authority legal officer who highlighted that up the above date, six transactions have been made on the disputed land, and four of the six generated land titles, the report indicated that the tile of 13/07/2015 was issued before the oneof 18/02/2015 and the one generated on 20/02/2015, such information is confirmed by the report of 29/03/2019 from the Prosecution Authority which indicates that Mukuralinda Alain Bernard had no mandate to sell a land that belongs to Sakina Hashim.

Counsel Nsabimana Jean- Baptiste further submits that from the opening of this case before the Intermediate Court of Gasabo till the ruling of 29/06/2017, Kamugwiza Phoebe kept producing the title of 20/02/2015, which means that the title of 13/07/2015 was issued to her later. The Counsel also wonders about why, before the High Court, in the hearing of 23/04/2018, Mukuralinda Alain Bernard submitted that he sold the disputed plot upon the request of Famida Hashim while the power of attorney was issued by Sakina Hashim. He still wonders why Famida Hashim should confer to him such mandate while the latter filed a claim against Mukuralinda Alain Bernard for having exorted her 10,000,000 Frw that she lented to them on 15/10/2013 as it was held under the case RCA 00056/2019/TGI/NYGE

## Page 546

204 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

rendered by the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge on 27/09/2019.

Counsel Nsabimana Jean-Batiste concludes by maintaining that the Court of Appeal did not err by thouroughly examined the elements of evidence submitted to it because there is confusion within the power of attorney produced by Mukuralinda Alain Bernard for his defence and the titles on which rely Kamugwiza Phoebe are not clear. The nullification of the land titles possessed by Kamugwiza was due to the fact that the Court has found that the disputed property was unlawfully registered on under her names, and such annulment is in line with the position set by this very Court in the case Harerimana Emmanuel v. Sebukayire Tharcisse.

Famida Hashim also states that Mukuralinda Alain Bernard is like a family member, they are familiar since their childhood. She adds that, in consideration of their dealings, she disclosed to him Sakina Hashim accounts from the Bank of Kigali. She explains that she is actually the one who signs for funds disbursement on the behalf of Sakina Hashim since the latter is blind, in that context, she accompanied Sakina Hashim as they went to sign on the first power of attorney, but when it came to the second power of attorney, Mukuralinda Alain Bernard kept it secret and took Sakina Hashim alone for the singing in his house. She states that she never requetsed Mukuralinda Alain Bernard to sell Sakina Hashim’s plot for the payment of the fine of 7,300,000 Frw imposed by Rwanda Revenue Authority as he alleges, rather, by the time of selling the disputed plot, she did not interact with Mukuralinda Alain Bernard who had extorted her the money. She submits that the fraud of Mukuralinda Alain Bernard is reflected by the fact that

## Page 547

205 KAMUGWIZA v HASHIM SAKINA

he sold the disputed plot to his mother-in-law and the sale contract was only signed by his brother-in-law and his driver; she then wonders why she was not invited for the signing of the second power of attorney and the sale agreement while she allegedly gave the permission to sell her sister’s property.

Counsel Nsabayezu Evariste representing Famida Hashim in this case submits that it is not understandable how Mukuralinda Alain Bernard sold out the disputed plot for paying the fine imposed to Famida Hashim and he did not immediately hand over to her the sale proceeds; the fact that Mukuralinda Alain Bernard gave to her the money in instalments indicates that there was no emergency. She explains that Mukuralinda Alain Bernard has so far produced no evidence that proves that he was mandated to sell out the disputed plot.

Counsel Nsabayezu Evariste submits that the two power of attorney produced by Mukuralinda Alain Bernard for his defencepoint out the fraud because the power of attorney of 09/05/2014 should be replaced by the one of 12/01/2009 but that was not the case and the third power of attorney he rejects, is included in the case file from the start of this case, he did not challenge it as forged document. He submits that it is not understandable how the plot transfer was made for Kamugwiza Phoebe while the original documents were still kept by Sakina Hashim, it means that Kamugwiza Phoebe cannot still account for the origin of the property under litigation. Basing on the articles 104 and 108 of the Law relating to Evidence and its Production, together with article 34 of the Ministerial Order N0 01/04/2008 relating to Land Registration Procedures in Rwanda and the position set by this Court in the case Harerimana Emmanuel v. Sebukayire Tharcisse, there is no evidence of

## Page 548

206 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

injustice in the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeal, he requests to this Court to declare unfounded the claim filed by Kamugwiza Phoebe.

Mukuralinda Alain Bernard submits that he is familiar with Sakina Hashim for a long time since they grew up in the same neighbourhood and their parents worked together. He adds that Sakina Hashim has first given him the first power of attorney on 15/01/2009 which served for buying the five plots, but he was provided with the money by Famida Hashim without any written document as they mutually trusted in their dealings. He aversin 2014, Famida Hashim told him that Rwanda Revenue Authority has charged her with a fine, for paying such fine, she should sell the plot located in Bugesera District, he prepared the power of attorney of 09/05/2014 signed by Sakina Hashim before the Notary after reading it to her, there are no two power of attorney signed on the same day. With regard to the issue of determining why she did not capture the full specifications of the concerned property which she knew it very well, she states that she forgot the details but they all know them, he exclusively used such power of attorney on the property registered under UPI 5/07/09/02/984.

He rejects the arguments by Sakina Hashim who alleges that she got visually impaired in 2001, because they both went to meet the Notary in 2009 while she had no problem. The reason of the issuance of the second power of attorney on 09/05/2014 is not that he told her that his identity card was lost. The fact that there are different identity card numbers on the power of attorney issued in 2009 and 2014 did not lead to the issuance of the second power of attorney because in 2014 he was no longer buying plots for Sakina Hashim. He also states that the fact that the disputed

## Page 549

207 KAMUGWIZA v HASHIM SAKINA

plot was registered under his own names and of his wife does not mean that the intended to fraudulently appropriate it themselves, rather it was an error resulting from the fact that it is himself who bought it but the error was later corrected and the plot got registered under the names of Sakina Hashim.

He further submits that the reason for selling the property of Sakina Hashim to pay the fine charged to Famida Hashim who worked together with him is that she had told him that she co- owns the property with Sakina Hashim, the evidence is that they had a joint account in Bank of Kigali. He avers that the reason why he trusted Famida Hashim is that she was always the one who disbursed all the needed funds for daily transactions; therefore, he could not refuse to sell the plot when she told him that they intended to sell the plot located in Bugesera District, and provided him with Sakina Hashim’s identity card together with the original land titles, as he thought that they co-owned the concerned plot. He maintains that he sold the plot to Kamugwiza Phoebe on 45,000,000 Frw, she paid it by the money she owed to her, also the money was not given to Sakina Hashim, rather it was given to Famida Hashim in instalments until it was completely provided.

Counsel Niyitegeka Eraste assisting Mukuralinda Alain Bernard submits that Sakina Hashim and Famida Hashim worked together, that is why Famida Hashim handed to him Sakina Hashim’s documents for processing the second power of attorney. He explains that Sakina Hashim does not indicate the act of Mukuralinda Alain Bernard that is out of his mandate, because she first issued to him the power of attorney of 15/01/2009 and when it got expired, she again issued to him the second power of attorney signed before the Notary on

## Page 550

208 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

09/05/2014, it extended the mandate and he based on it to enter into the sale agreement with Kamugwiza Phoebe on 21/03/2015. He also adds that Rwanda Land Use and Management Authority has confirmed that no land title has been issued on 20/02/2015; it recognized the title issued to Kamugwiza Phoebe on 13/07/2017, this means that the land titles produced by Sakina Hashim for her defence are forged. He adds that they concur with Kamugwiza Phoebe that the elements of evidence proving that she bought and lawfully acquired the disputed property are not confusing so that the Court of Appeal base its ruling on presumptions, and that is the basis of injustice. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Paragraph one of article 9 of the Law N0 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that a judge adjudicates a case on the basis of relevant rules of law. In the absence of such rules, the judge adjudicates according to the rules that he/she would establish if he/she had to act as legislator, relying on precedents, customs, general principles of law and doctrine.

The casefile contains the power of attorney of 09/05/2014 on which Mukuralinda Alain Bernard allegedly relied for selling the plot of Sakina Hashim registered under UPI: 5/07/09/02/984 as her representative. It stipulates that “Mr. Mukuralinda Alain Bernard has the full mandate to carry out on my behalf all the transactions that intend to expand and develop such property by purchasing the assets increasing the assets or selling its parts as he deems it necessary, but, at all the time, he shall so act for the purpose of the property expansion and in observance of

## Page 551

209 KAMUGWIZA v HASHIM SAKINA

applicable Rwandan laws. All property developments shall be registered under my names”.

Both parties do not concur on the content of the above power of attorney because Mukuralinda Alain Bernard argues that Sakina Hashim lawfully issued it to him, she mandated him to sell out the disputed plot; whereas Sakina Hashim argues that Mukuralinda Hashim has tricked her with the word “sell” and he mischievously made her sign the document, the sale resulting from such power of attorney is null and void. Nonetheless, before examining the fraud alleged by Sakina Hashim occurred or not, it is important to first determine whether the nature of the power of attorney issued to Mukuralinda Alain Bernard makes him to be considered as mandated to sell out a plot that belongs to Sakina Hashim.

Paragraph one of article 530 of the Law of 30 July 1888 instituting the Civil code Book III, then in force when the power of attorney was issued, provided that “a general mandate on the property limits to the sole management acts while the second paragraph of the same article provides that “when it comes to dispose off, mortgage the property or to any other related act, the mandate must be explicit”.

The Court finds that the second paragraph of article 530 of Civil code Book III, then in force when Sakina Hashim issued to Mukuralinda Alain Bernard the power of attorney of 09/05/2014 denotes when the mandate is related to the acts of disposing off or mortgaging an immovable property, or any other act that is exclusively reserved to the property owner, such mandate has to be so explicit. An explicit mandate, whether

## Page 552

210 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

verbal or in written, gives authority to the mandatary in a clear, detailed manner and without confusion.2

The Court finds that Philippe Malaurie et al. affirm that an explicit mandate indicates the specific acts or properety They explain that the explicit mandate protects the mandator for avoiding its negative effect, while a general mandate limits to the sole acts of property management. A person with general mandate is considered as in charge of protecting the interests of a minor or an adult unable to decide himself/herself. They also state that the serious acts such disposing off or mortgaging property require explicit mandate3. François Collart Dutilleul and Philippe Delebecque write that a mandate that assigns for disposing off, mortgaging or leasing the property requires the mandatary to prove that he/she was issued with an explicit mandate.4

2 Authority given to the agent by explicit agreement, either orally or in writing. B.A. Garner, Black’s law dictionary, ST. PAUL, MINN., WEST PUBLISHING CO., 2019, 11th ed., p.128. 3 “Le pouvoir peut être spécial, c’est-à-dire n’avoir pour objet que des actes limitativement énumérés, par exemple un acte déterminé ou un bien déterminé… Lorsque le mandat est conçu en termes généraux, le Code civil précise qu’il n’embrasse que les actes d’administration… sous couvert d’interprétation, la loi impose une règle de fond, non parce que la volonté du mandant serait obscure mais afin de le protéger contre lui-même. Le mandataire a alors les mêmes pouvoirs que ceux que la loi donne au tuteur d’un majeur protégé et à l’administrateur légal d’un mineur, c’est-à-dire qu’il a le pouvoir de faire les actes normaux et courants. Les actes les plus graves (aliénation définitive et hypothèque) impliquent un mandat exprès.” See Philippe Malaurie, Laurent Aynès na Pierre Yves Gautier, Droit des contrats spéciaux, Paris, L.G.D.J., 2018, pp.345-346. 4 “Si les actes qu’on lui demande de faire sont des actes de disposition (aliénation, constitution d’hypothèque, bail de longue durée, il doit justifier d’un mandat exprès.” See Francois Collart Dutilleul et Philippe Delebecque, Contrats civils et commerciaux, Paris, Dalloz, 2019, p.548.

## Page 553

211 KAMUGWIZA v HASHIM SAKINA

The Court finds that the foregoing statements are highlighted by Jacques Raynard and Jean-Baptiste Seube who write that the purpose of the mandate lies in the legal act to be performed, this act must be sufficiently determined or determinable. Thus, a mandate to sell property that is not specified and impossible to identify would certainly be null and void due to the indeterminacy of its object5. Specifically, the mandate to dispose off a property cannot be inferred from a document that does not clearly and precisely mention it.6

The Court finds that the foregoing explanations denote that a person assigned with a general mandate has authority limits to the sole acts of the property management and development while serious act such as selling the property, which is the issue of this case, requires an explicit mandate that defines to the mandatary at least the specifications about the property to be sold. Otherwise, the mandator will thereof be reduced to the sole mercy of the mandatary, or else considered non-existent. That is why the power of attorney issued in general terms must be construed as meant for the property management and thus, for the protection of the mandatory since it is actually inexplicable to think that a legally capable living person can entrust all her current and future property into the hands of another person. This simply implies

5 “L’objet du mandat résidant dans l’acte juridique à accomplir, cet acte doit être suffisamment déterminé ou déterminable. Ainsi le mandat de vendre un bien non précisé et impossible à identifier serait certainement nul en raison de l’indétermination de son objet.” See Jacques Raynard et Jean-Baptiste Seube, Droit des contrats spéciaux, Lexis-Nexis, Paris, 2019, p.397. 6 “le mandat d’aliéner un immeuble ne peut se voir déduit d’une correspondance qui ne le mentionne pas de manière nette et précise.” See Jacques Raynard et Jean-Baptiste Seube, Droit des contrats spéciaux, Lexis- Nexis, Paris, 2019, p.398.

## Page 554

212 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

that any mandate that intends for disposing off the property in any manner must explicitly specify the property, without confusion.

This Court concurs with the position set by the Court of Cassation of France7 and the Supreme Court of India8 whereby the precedent prohibits resorting to analogy for the interpretation of the content of a mandate, the courts held that terms of the mandate should be strictly interpreted in their right meanings. Therefore, for a sale mandate, the mandatary should be issued with a specific mandate that explicitly allows them to conclude the sale agreement together with a permission to process related documents and having them approved by relevant competent authorities; highlighting that a mandate of management differs from the mandate of negotiation, while that of negotiating differs from the mandate of selling, which is as well different from that of receiving the price.

The Court found the mandate of 9/05/2014 which Mukuralinda Alain Bernard used for selling Sakina Hashim’s plot with one main defect of not providing specifications of the concerned plot on sale. The mandate said nothing neither about

7 See cases of Cass. Civ. 1ère, 21 décembre 1976, Bull.Civ. I, N° 421 8 … “It is settled that a power of attorney has to be strictly construed. In order to agree to sell or effect a sale by a power of attorney, the power should also expressly authorize the power to agent to execute the sale agreement/sale deed i.e., (a) to present the document before the Registrar; and (b) to admit execution of the document before the Registrar. See case: The Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society v. M/s Ponniamman Educational Trust, rendered by the Supreme Court of India on the 03/07/2012, para 14. See case between Mrs. Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese Rep by Its Procurator Devssia’s Son Rev. Father Joseph Kappil, rendered by the Supreme Court of India on the 01/04/2022, para 09, 17-18.

## Page 555

213 KAMUGWIZA v HASHIM SAKINA

the plot registration number, its geographical location, nor its surface area. Besides, though Mukuralinda Alain Bernard argues that the plot well known to him and to Sakina as well, the mandate contained nothing of the price estimates, neither did it mention anything about who will receive the price payment, and no clause about the procedure for ownership transfer was made thereof.

Factoring all that has been above mentioned, the Court found that the mandate of 09/05/2014 was not lawful for the selling of any property that belongs to Sakina Hashim since it was unlawfully drawn; and consequently, Mukuralinda Alain Bernard had no authority whatsoever to sell a plot registered under UPI 5/07/09/02/984 that belongs to Sakina Hashim since the mandate he brings is not lawfully acceptable.

For that matter, the Court held that all the transactions that resulted for the above mandate, including the sale agreement that Mukuralinda Alain Bernard has concluded with Kamugwiza Phoebe on the 21/03/2015 together with a related land title that was issued to Kamugwiza Phoebe on the 13/07/2015, all to be null and void. And the Court moved that it is therefore not necessary to examine any other issue relating to Sakina Hashim’s plot. II. 2. The damages requested.

Counsel Nizeyimana Boniface who assists Kamugwiza Phoebe argues that his client has unfairly deprived the enjoyment of a property that she has lawfully acquired, and he requested the Supreme Court to order Sakina Hashim to pay his client 1,500,000 Frw that she spent while executing the ruling of case RCA n0 00265/2017/HC/KIG and case n0 RCAA 00001/2019/CA; he also requested for 10,000,000 Rwf for

## Page 556

214 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

having been dragged into unnecessary lawsuits, and he requested for 5,000,000 R wf for both Counsel fee and the the incurred case-related expenses.

Mukuralinda Alain Bernard has prayed the Court to order Sakina Hashim to give him 3,000,000 Rwf for moral damage- compensation and 2,000,000 Rwf for both the Counsel fee and the incurred case-related costs.

Counsel Nsabimana Jean-Batiste who represents Sakina Hashim in this case, argues that the damage-compensations that Kamugwiza Phoebe and Mukuralinda Alain Bernard have asked for have no justification; adding that it is Kamugwiza Phoebe who initiated the lawsuits, instigated by Mukuralinda Alain Bernard, his son-in-law who help her to obtain titles for a land she did not buy. And he requested the Court to order Kamugwiza Phoebe to give Sakina Hashim a sum of 20,000,000 Rwf as damage-compensation from dragging her into unnecessary law cases and for attempting to have her jailed, and he also asked for 1,500,000 Rwf for both the Counsel fee and the incurred case- related expenses.

Counsel Nsabayezu Evariste who assists Famida Hashim requests the Court to order Kamugwiza Phoebe to give his client 3,000,000 Rwf for moral damage-compensation over dragging her into unnecessary lawsuits, and 2,000,000 Rwf for the counsel fee and 500,000 Rwf for the incurred case-related costs.

With regard to damage-compensation that Sakina Hashim has requested for, Kamugwiza Phoebe’s representative argues that Sakina Hashim deserves no damage-compensation since she is the one who unnecessarily initiated the case yet she knew very

## Page 557

215 KAMUGWIZA v HASHIM SAKINA

well that she had lawfully sold out her property, adding that she therefore has to bear all the case-related consequences. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 111 of the Law n0 22/2018 of the 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure stipulates that “the claim for representation fees is an incidental claim to the principal claim aiming to repay expenses incurred during judicial proceedings. The claim for legal costs is adjudicated at the same time with the principal claim. It can also be admitted and adjudicated even if the principal claim has not been admitted”

The Court found that Kamugwiza Phoebe and Mukaralinda Alain Bernard deserve no damage- compensation since they won nothing in this case.

The Court has a well found that Sakina Hashim and Famida Hashim, they too, deserve no moral damage- compensation over the case-review since Kamugwiza Phoebe who sought for the case-review has a legal right for such a review, moving that the defendants cannot prove for the undergone moral damage to an extent of deserving a related compensation.

With regard to compensation for both the Counsel fee and the incurred case-related expenses, the Court referred to article 111 of the above mentioned Law n0 22/2018 of the 29/04/2018, and held to allow such a compensating owing to a fact they were dragged into a case and they ended up hiring a lawyer to stand with them in the case. However, since they could not account for it and neither could provide a related payment proof, the court has

## Page 558

216 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

held to allow them a compensation on its own discretion. And it therefore allowed Sakina Hashim and Famida Hashim a compensation of 800,000 Frw for each, which includes 500,000 Rwf for the Counsel fee and 300,000 Rwf for the incurred case- related costs, and the sum will be borne and paid by Kamugwiza Phoebe. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the application by Kamugwiza Phoebe for injustice-related review of case n0 RCAA 0001/2019/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on the 06/05/2020, has no justification.

Orders Kamugwiza Phoebe to give Sakina Hashim and Famida Hashim a sum of 800,000 Rwf each, a compensation for both the Counsel fee and the incurred case-related costs.

## Page 559

COMMECIAL CASES

## Page 561

219

EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc v DUSABE SANGANO [Rwanda COURT OF APPEAL – RCOMAA 00057/2022/CA (Kamere, PJ.) September 09, 2022] Commercial law – Loan contract – Bank employees – Unfair dismissal – The rate for the calculation of the interest for the dismissed employee – If a bank unfairly dismisses an employee with a loan granted at the rate set for salaried employees, that rate remains used for him/her to repay the loan. Commercial law – Unfair bank deductions – Accrued interests – Principles for calculating interest – Interest rate – Recovery of loan and interests thereof – If a bank unfairly deducts money from a person's account because it was acting as a commercial bank, it must return the money with accrued interests calculated at the rate at which it proved that it was conducting financial transactions by the time it deducted the money. Facts: Equity Bank established modalties to facilitate its employees to get loans at an interest rate (8%) which is lower than 18.25% at which the bank grants loans to ordinary customers, and in this framework, Sangano, as an employee of the Bank, was granted a loan calculated at that interest rate. Later, the Bank decreased the interest rate on the loans granted to its employees from 8% to 6%, and consequently, the loan it had granted to Sangano was fixed at that rate per year. Afterwards, Sangano was dismissed from his job and the Bank immediately started to calculate the loan offered to him at the interest rate of 18.25% to which the Bank normally grants the loans to its ordinary customers. Being not satisfied with the decision dismissing him from his job

## Page 562

220 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

and the immediate increase of the interest rate on the loan, he filed two claims, a claim relating to the loan filed in the Commercial Court, requesting that Equity Bank must indicate the bank statement of the debt's status and decrease the loan interest rate to be reset at 6%, and to order to the Bank to reimburse to him the balance of all money he paid at the interest rate of 18.25%, plus the interests thereof; the Court declared that his claim is unfounded, and he appealed against that decision to the Commercial High Court which declared that the loan should remain at the interest rate of 6%; and he filed the second claim about the labour issues to the competent court claiming that he was illegally dismissed, whereby the Court declared that he was unfairly dismissed. EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc appealed to the Court of Appeal submitting that the Commercial High Court misinterpreted the loan agreement concluded with the claimant by ruling that any act of Sangano that will lead to his dismissal shall be considered as trigger for the modification of the interest rate; due to the fact that Equity Bank Rwanda Plc unfairly dismissed him, the interest rate must remain at 6% while in the loan agreement both parties entered into, there is no provision on the modalities in which the employee will leave the employment so that the interest rate is changed; rather, in case the employment contract termination is due to any reason, such fact shall lead to the modification of the interest rate. The claimant submitted that the issue in the instant case is to clearly understand the context in which the loan agreement was concluded, he was working in another bank, the appellant headhunted him as he was a skilled employee needed by the Bank; later, he was dismissed, and because the Bank cannot prove that he poorly performed his job, it is evident that he was illegally fired, at the first instance in the Commercial Court he lost the case because he failed to prove

## Page 563

221 EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc v DUSABE SANGANO

that he was unfairly dismissed because the labor case had not yet been decided, but by the time the case was in the Commercial High Court, the available evidence in the labor case indicated that he was unfairly dismissed. Held: 1. If a bank unfairly dismisses an employee whith a loan granted at the rate set for salaried employees, that rate remains applicable to him/her for repaying the loan; therefore, due to the fact that the respondent was illegally dismissed as held in the labour case, the interest rate must remain at 6%. 2. If a bank unfairly deducts money from a person's account because it was acting as a commercial bank, it must reimburse the money with accrued interests calculated at the rate at which it proved that it was carrying out financial transactions by the time of the money deduction, regardless of the fact that the victim was not engaged in the business; therefore, the fact that the respondent suffered the unfair deduction of his money calculated at the interest rate of 18.25%, for a period of 22 months and such Bank has never saved it, instead it used it in financial transactions as a commercial Bank, such deducted amount has to be refunded to the respondent with accrued interests calculated at the rate of 18.25% at which it used to carry out financial transactions. 3. On the issue that has not yet been resolved under Rwandan legislation, the Court resorts to doctrines as well as international laws. 4. In the case of contract of adhesion, the interpretation is done independently to the drafter. The lodged appeal lacks merits. The cross-appeal has merits.

## Page 564

222 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law N°22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles 111 and 154; Law N°45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, articles 65 and 137. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

On 04/01/2016, DUSABE SANGANO Javan entered into an employment contract with EQUITY BANK RWANDA PLC, but before being recruited by EQUITY BANK, he was employed by KCB Bank which had granted to him a loan that he paid at an interest rate of 7% per year, the rate that was only accorded to KCB staff members. DUSABE SANGANO states that among factors that convinced him to accept the offer of EQUITY BANK includes a promise that his loan in KCB Bank would be transferred to EQUITY BANK at the interest rate set for its employees.

On 28/02/2018, Equity Bank Rwanda Plc entered into a loan agreement of 146,536,603 Frw with DUSABE SANGANO Javan, and the main part of the loan was used to complete the repayment of the loan from KCB Bank mentioned above and that loan was to be paid at an interest rate of 8% per annum because he was then the employee of Equity Bank. Article 4 of the agreement provided that in the event that SANGANO decides to leave the employment from Equity Bank, the interest will be charged at the prevailing cmmercial rate without further notice. Futhermore, paragraph 5 of article 6, of the Credit Regulations provides that the Loan is to be repaid within agreed period and if there is a change of the Employer, there will be a facility to assume commercial rate of interest.

## Page 565

223 EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc v DUSABE SANGANO

On 11/09/2019, the Management of Equity Bank decided to change the interest rate on the loans granted to its employees from 8% to 6%, meaning that the disputed loan that was given to SANGANO Javan was removed from the interest rate of 8% to 6% per annum.

On 30/4/2020, Equity Bank Rwanda Plc dismissed DUSABE SANGANO Javan, and based on article 4 and paragraph 5 of article 6 of the aforementioned loan agreement, for SANGANO, who was no longer an employee of Equity Bank though he claimed to be unfairly dismissed, the interest rate on his outstanding loan immediately started to be computed at 18.25% per year.

SANGANO who was not satisfied with the decision of dismissing him and immediately raising the interest rate on his loan, filed a claim related to the loan in the Commercial Court, requesting that Equity Bank must indicate the bank statement of the status of the debt and decrease the interest rate to be reset at 6%; he also filed a labour claim in another competent court stating that he was unfairly dismissed.

On 31/03/2021, the Commercial Court rendered the case about the loan, and declared DUSABE SANGANO Javan's claim unfounded, and ordered to him to continue paying the loan at the rate of 18.25%.

Dissatisfied with the above metioned ruling, DUSABE SANGANO Javan appealed to the Commercial High Court, stating that the Commercial Court misinterpreted the article 4 of the loan agreement he entered into with Equity Bank, because the termination of the employment contract resulted from his unfair dismissal.

In paragraph 16 of the judgment RCOMA 00349/2021/HCC, the Commercial High Court explained that article 4 of the loan agreement provides that in case DUSABE SANGANO Javan is the one who causes the

## Page 566

224 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

termination of the employment contract, the interest rate on his loan will increase thereof, but in instances where it is Equity Bank which causes such termination, he will continue repaying on the interest rate of 6% specified in the agreement. The Commercial High Court held that, basing on that interpretation and the labour case RSOCA 00103/2021/HC/KIG which had already ruled that EQUITY BANK illegally dismissed DUSABE, EQUITY BANK did not have the right to change the interest rate on the set loan, which means that the loan would have remained at the interest rate of 6%.

On 08/04/2022, EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc appealed to the Court of Appeal, the appeal was docked under RCOMAA 00057/2022/CA, stating that the Commercial High Court misinterpreted article 4 and paragraph 5 of article 6 of the loan agreement because the Court added the conditions that were not provided under the agreement.

DUSABE SANGANO Javan states that he agrees with the decision taken by the Commercial High Court but he is not satisfied with the fact that the Court did not order to EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc to pay to him 18,449,618 Frw exceeding to the amount he should have paid at 6%, plus the interest of 18.25% per annum, meaning the amount of 5,297,063 Frw which continues to increase until the case is decided. Therefore, DUSABE Javan SANGANO has filed a cross-appeal seeking for refund.

The debates within the case are resulting from the loan agreement between EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc and DUSABE SANGANO Javan, whereby both parties disagree on the contents of article 4 and paragraph 5 of article 6 of the agreement dated 22/02 /2018, where Equity Bank Rwanda Plc finds that the previous Courts misinterpreted those provisions hence leading them to make

## Page 567

225 EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc v DUSABE SANGANO

an unfair decision thereof, while DUSABE SANGANO Javan submitted that the previous Courts clearly motivated those provisions, except that they did not order the return of 18,449,618 Frw deducted after Equity Bank Rwanda Plc changes the interest rate, which is the reason for his cross- appeal against Equity Bank Rwanda Plc.

The hearing of the case was scheduled on 06/07/2022, EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc was represented by Counsel KAREMERA Frank, while DUSABE SANGANO Javan was assisted by Counsel TUYISHIME Jean Pierre. The pronouncement of the judgment was scheduled on 29/07/2022, but was adjourned to 09/09/2022 after the judicial recess. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES  Whether the Commercial High Court properly interpreted the article 4 and the article 6, paragraph 5 of the loan agreement dated 28/02/2018

Counsel KAREMERA Frank representing EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc states that the previous courts have differently interpreted the statement of the loan agreement, providing that: “…Should you leave the employment of EQUITY BANK RWANDA Ltd, the interest will be charged at the prevailing commercial rate without prior notice to the borrower", where the Commercial Court interpreted articles 4 and 6 of the agreement stating that once DUSABE Javan SANGANO will no longer be the employee of EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc, the interest rate on his loan will start to be charged at the prevailing commercial rate, and the Commercial High Court, in paragraph 17 of the appealed judgment RCOMA 00349/2021/HCC, held that the word "leave" has the same

## Page 568

226 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

meaning with "abandon", "desert" and "quit", mentioned in the contract, meaning that the act of DUSABE Javan SANGANO which leads to his dismissal, will be considered as a trigger to change the interest rate; due to the fact that EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc unfairly dismissed him, the interest rate must continue to be calculated at 6%. He submits that the Court misinterpreted this article because, in the explanations it provided, it added the elements not contained in the agreement, as indicated in the paragraph 16 of the appealed judgment, where it held that "should you leave" is an act that will be caused by SANGANO Javan DUSABE; in paragraph 21, it ruled that the reason why the borrower is no longer considered as employee of EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc should be taken into account, in the event that the reason is due to the Bank, the interest will continue to be calculated at the rate applied when he was still an employee of the Bank.

He also avers that in the loan agreement between the two parties, there is no provision on the modalities in which the employee will leave the employment so that the interest rate is changed, rather, in case the employment contract termination is due to any reason, the interest rate shall be changed; therefore, the Commerial High Court disregarded the fact that DUSABE Javan SANGANO was offered a loan at a low interest rate as an advantage reserved for Bank employees; by interpreting the article 4 and the article 6, paragraph 5, it should refer to the article 66 of the Law n° 45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts which reads that " Interprete a contract or a clause thereof is to give the meaning of the purpose and promise under the contract.”

The Legal Counsel for EQUITY BANK also states that the Commercial High Court should have taken into account Article 68 of the above-mentioned Law, which provides that " Language and other conduct relating to a

## Page 569

227 EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc v DUSABE SANGANO

contrat shall be interpreted in the light of circumstances, and if the principal purpose of the parties is ascertainable, it shall be given substantial value", this means that in case DUSABE Javan SANGANO was no longer the employee of EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc, he would no longer be entitled to the advantages granted to its employees, the reason why the loan agreement did not provide for the modalities in which the loan of the employee whose the contract with Equity Bank Rwanda is terminated should be charged at the prevailing commercial rate.

He further adds that the previous Court disregarded that in the case RSOCA 00103/2021/HC/KIG, DUSABE Javan SANGANO sued EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc for the unfair dismissal and he was awarded 29,000,000 Frw as moral damages ; this means that by leaving the work, he missed many advantages on which the Court based in awarding him those damages, including an increase of the interest rate on the loan he owes to the Bank. Therefore, he requests to the Court to re- examine article 4 and paragraph 5 of article 6 of the loan agreement dated 22/02/2018, and it shall note that in paragraph 5 of article 6 relating to the condition of sanction, it is provided that in case the employer is no longer Equity Bank Plc, the loan will continue to be repaid according to the interest rate offered by the commercial banks, thus it shall rule that DUSABE Javan SANGANO must continue paying the loan at the interest rate of 18.25% per annum.

DUSABE Javan SANGANO and his Counsel TUYISHIME Jean Pierre pleading on this ground of appeal state that in the appealed judgment, the Commercial High Court correctly interpreted article 4 of the loan agreement, that the statements of EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc that it interpreted that article regardless of the provisions of articles 66 and 68 of Law n° 45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, are unfounded, because in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the judgment RCOMA 00349/2021/HCC the Court analyzed

## Page 570

228 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

the provisions of article 66, where it explained the rationale of the mentioned clauses of the agreement, where it held that the reason related to the fact that DUSABE Javan SANGANO was no longer an employee of the Bank should have been taken into account, and that article 68 has been taken into account in explaining the purpose of the contract as indicated in the paragraph 16 of the appealed judgment, where it explained that the purpose of the contract was that if DUSABE Javan SANGANO resigned from the job, the interest rate would increase, this means that in case he stays at work or is unintentionally fired, EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc has no right to increase an interest rate.

They further add that EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc headhunted DUSABE Javan SANGANO from KCB by promising him to redeem his loan without increasing the interest rate, and by extending the loan repayment period, where both parties agreed that it will be repaid in a period of 180 months.

DUSABE Javan SANGANO states that the issue in the case is not English, rather it is about well understanding the context in which the loan agreement was concluded, it is not the first time he works in the Bank, he worked in KCB Bank, and EQUITY BANK headhunted him because he was the skilled employee it needed, it paid him a good salary, and it redeemed his loan owed to KCB, but because it never proved that he did not perform well his job, it illegally dismissed him. He adds that at the first instance in the Commercial Court he lost the case because he had no evidence proving that he was unfairly dismissed as the labour case had not yet been decided, but by the time the case was in the Commercial High Court, the available evidence in the labor case indicated that he was unfairly dismissed.

## Page 571

229 EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc v DUSABE SANGANO

DUSABE SANGANO Javan also states that when EQUITY BANK dismissed him, it immediately changed the interest rate from 6% to 18. 25%, until the Commercial High Court ruled that the Bank should not increase the interest rate, it had already deducted from his account the amount of money exceeding the amount that should have been deducted up to 18,449,618 Frw, in the present appeal he claims to be refunded such amount because in the appealed judgment he had claimed for it but the Court did not decide about it, in addition to the interest rate of 18.25% that he would have received if the Bank did not deduct such amount. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 64 of the Law n0 45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts provides that : " Contracts made in accordance with the law shall be binding between parties. They may only be revoked at the consent of the parties or for reasons based on law. They shall be performed in good faith".

Article 70 of the abovementioned Law provides that : “Each party shall have obligation to perfom the contract in good faith and fair dealing between parties”.

The case file contains the loan agreement drawn up by EQUITY BANK Plc (Contract of adhesion) and DUSABE SANGANO Javan had to adhere to it, the loan was amounting to 146,535,630 Frw calculated from 15/02/2018 until 28/02/2033, and the interest rate of 8% was decreased to 6% by the decision of the Bank's management. The loan agreement contains a statement on which the parties disagree : "Should you leave the employment of EQUITY BANK RWANDA Ltd, the interest will be charged at the prevailing commercial rate without prior notice to the borrower”, each party conveniently interprets it and the Court must interpret it to settle the dispute between them. This

## Page 572

230 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

instant Court also finds that in interpreting such statement, it should not disregard that the loan agreement between the two parties would not have been drawn up in the way it was if it had not been preceded by another employment contract between the parties.

The Court of Appeal finds that, in analyzing the statement "Should you leave the employment of EQUITY BANK RWANDA Ltd" which caused a dispute between the parties, it shall apply two rules, exclusive search of common intention of contracting parties77 and absolute prohibition on distorting the meaning or scope of clear and precise stipulations. The Court relies on doctrines and international laws on this issue that has not been set by Rwandan laws78.

The Court of Appeal finds that, in analyzing the statement "Should you leave the employment of EQUITY BANK RWANDA Ltd", it should take into account the interpretation in consideration of the usefulness of the clause 79 and the interpretation in consideration of a party's quality 80; in the case of a contract of adhesion, the interpretation is done independently of the drafter81.

The Court of Appeal finds that, basing on the aforementioned articles, as well as the explanations that

77 https://aurelienbamde.com/2017/07/10/linterpretation-du-contrat-et- le-juge; 78 Aurérien Bambé, Droit des contrats, Droit des obligations, Effets du contrat, Force obligatoire, Posted Juil 10, 2017, et le Code Civil français, acceded on 21/07/2022. 79 Aux termes de l’article 1191 du Code civil, « lorsqu’une clause est susceptible de deux sens, celui qui lui confère un effet l’emporte sur celui qui ne lui en fait produire aucun. » 80 Aux termes de l’article 1190 du Code civil « dans le doute, le contrat de gré à gré s’interprète contre le créancier et en faveur du débiteur, et le contrat d’adhésion contre celui qui l’a proposé. » 81 L’article 1190 du Code civil prévoit que, en cas de doute, le contrat d’adhésion s’interprète contre celui qui l’a proposé.

## Page 573

231 EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc v DUSABE SANGANO

have already been provided, the statement "Should you leave the employment of EQUITY BANK RWANDA Ltd", appearing in the loan agreement between EQUITY BANK and DUSABE SANGANO does not itself immediately indicate the modalities in which SANGANO should have left the job from EQUITY BANK, whether it was voluntary or involuntary leaving. However, the Court finds that, if it relates that statement to the existing context of recruiting SANGANO DUSABE Javan from KCB Bank to EQUITY Bank, and who was immediately granted a loan for a long term equal to 180 months, it is an indication that the effects of the loss of employment that SANGANO should have suffered as an employee of EQUITY BANK should be examined in light of the attitude of the employee and the employer that led to such separation; this statement "Should you leave the employment of EQUITY BANK RWANDA Ltd", in this context, does not mean that the separation for any reason will cause the change of the interest rate, as submitted by EQUITY BANK; rather, as already held by the courts in the labour case that Equity Bank mistakenly dismissed SANGANO DUSABE, hence depriving him of the opportunity of complying with employment-related loan agreement which would last for 180 months, it was already evident that Equity Bank violated the provisions governing the contract mentioned above so that it should not be the one to benefit from this fact by being authorised to raise the interest rate on the loan and victimising DUSABE SANGANO Javan who managed to comply with the agreement by requiring him to pay excessive interests that would not be charged if EQUITY Bank had complied with the employment contract they concluded.

Basing on the aforegoing analysis, the Court of Appeal finds that the Commercial High Court did not err in explaining that the terms Leave, abandon, desert, quit, used in the contract mean that any act of Sangano that will lead to his dismissal shall be considered as trigger for the modification

## Page 574

232 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

of the interest rate and in holding that EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc illegally dismissed him as decided in the labour case which examined such issues, the interest rate should remain at 6%82, so the ground of appeal raised by EQUITY BANK on this issue lacks merits. Whether EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc should be ordered to repay to DUSABE SANGANO Javan the amount he paid in excess of what he would pay at the interest rate of 6% per annum, plus interest thereon calculated at the rate of 18.25% per annum

DUSABE Javan SANGANO states that in the appealed judgment RCOMA 00349/2021/HCC he had requested to the Court to order to EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc to refund to him the amount of 18,449,618 Frw in excess of what he would pay at 6%, plus interests calculated until the pronouncement of the judgment, but the Court did not award to him such amount. He explains that from 28/6/2020 to 28/3/2022 when the Court ordered to EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc not to raise the interest rate, DUSABE Javan SANGANO was charged 2,239,000 Frw per month for a period of 22 months due to the increase of such interest rate, meaning from 6% to 18.25%, while the loan agreement stipulated that he had to pay was 1,400,381 Frw per month, but there was an increase of 838,619 Frw per month, and this happened over a period of 22 months, and the extra amount charged illegally was totally amounting to18,449,618 Frw.

He requests that since EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc illegally took the money, the Court should order it to refund it to him together with the interests calculated at the rate of 18.25% as it used to charge him, and those interests must be calculated until the judgment pronouncement. He

82 See paragraph 17 and 18 of the appealed case.

## Page 575

233 EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc v DUSABE SANGANO

bases his statements on article 137 of the Law n°45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, which reads that : “The aggrieved party has right to damages from the party failing to perform his/her contractual obligations, unless the claim for damages has been suspended or withdrawn”.

Pleading on this cross-appeal, Counsel for EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc states that such appeal should not be admitted because the money claimed against both parties were not debated in the previous cases, it is a new claim filed at the appeal level, and this is contrary to the provisions of the article 154 of the Law n°22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure which reads that “ No new claim may be lodged at the appeal level, unless it concerns compensation or if the new claim constitutes a defence to the principal action before the court of appeal”;

DUSABE SANGANO Javan and his Counsel state that such amount is not a new claim, it is rather considered as a result of the increase of the interest rate, it is clear that if the Court had ruled that they were not allowed to increase the interest rate, the increase was not appropriate, they would not have kept silent. They also add that the issue was raised in the Commercial High Court, it is included in their submissions and it was also reiterated in the hearing report, even though it was not analysed in the judgment, even after the case was appealed, his Counsel inquired the Bank about the money that he was charged on the increased rate and refunding modalities thereof, and he inquired if it will lodge appeal, and following the appeal filed by the Bank, they also raised that issue in the cross- appeal.

On this issue, Counsel Frank KAREMERA, representing EQUITY BANK states that if the Court finds that he should be subsidiarily granted the interests on the interest rate of 18%, he should not be awarded such interest as he was

## Page 576

234 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

not a money trader, and he requests to the Court to apply the law. As for the fact that there is an additional amount that SANGANO used to be charged, he replies that he cannot retort about it in the form of figures, so he has not yet proved to the Court if there is the money that DUSABE has really paid, if the alleged money is the same or different amount. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 154 of Law n°22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, provides the following : ″ No new claim may be lodged at the appeal level, unless it concerns compensation or if the new claim constitutes a defence to the principal action before the court of appeal. However, parties may claim interests, rents and other accessories which were realized since the pronouncement of the judgement and moral damages for the loss suffered from the time the judgement was delivered.”

Article 65 of Law n°45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts provides that: “A contract shall not only cover the subject matter but also the effects that equity, practices or law impute to the obligations according to the nature of the contract”.

Article 137 of the above-mentioned law also provides the following : “The aggrieved party has right to damages from the party failing to perform his/her contractual obligations, unless the claim for damages has been suspended or withdrawn”.

The Court of Appeal finds that the case file of the appealed judgment indicates that in the submissions of DUSABE SANGANO Javan he mentioned the issue of this money, stating that he has been charged at a rate of 18.25% and

## Page 577

235 EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc v DUSABE SANGANO

he claimed to be reimbursed83, and also in the hearing of 16/02/2021, SANGANO and his counsel have reiterated this matter requesting that EQUITY BANK must return to him the exceeding amount that was charged including interests and moral damages84, but the Court did not address the issue in its decision.

Basing on the aforementioned legal provisions and on the explanations that it is not for the first time in the appeal that DUSABE SANGANO Javan claims for the disputed money, the Court finds that the claim for the reimbursement of the amount of the money exceeding the sum that DUSABE SANGANO Javan had to pay at 6%, and the interest rate of 18.25% is not new claim lodged at this level as alleged by EQUITY BANK; rather, it is the effect of the contract breach as stated by DUSABE SANGANO and the claim had already been filed just at the beginning of this case.

The Court also finds that, as alleged by the claimant, he was deducted 1,400,381 Frw per month at the interest rate of 6%, when the interest rate was raised to 18.25%, he was deducted 2,239,000 Frw per month, with an increase of 838,619 Frw per month, for a period of 22 months, the excess

83 Where he states: “We pray the Court to declare that EQUITY BANK illegally changed interest rate and to order to EQUITY BANK to repay Javan SANGANO the difference paid on interest rate of 18.25% plus the accrued interests. Normally Javan SANGANO was paying 1,400,381 Frw per month at an interest rate of 6%, however from 6/2020 to 12/2021 Javan SANGANO was paying 2,239,000 Frw per month at an interest rate of 18.25% which means that there is a difference of 838,619 Frw Javan SANGANO paid within 19 months, so the Bank should reimburse him 15,933,761 Frw and its interest calculated at the BNR rate as ordered by the Commercial High Court in RCOMA 00644/2018/HCC” 84 The Court states: “The Bank made a mistake on the loan and it should be responsible for its effects as it is the one that breached the contract, therefore it should be liable of its effects, and consider the decision taken, and they will refund the excess money and its interests as well as damages”.

## Page 578

236 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

money is amounting to 18,449,618 Frw unfairly deducted, the Bank did not capitalize such amount, it used it for financial transactions as commercial Bank, it must repay it with accrued interests calculated at a rate of 18. 25%, irrespective of the fact that DUSABE SANGANO Javan was not a trader, as alleged by the lawyer for EQUITY; rather, on basis of the fact that this is the rate that Equity Bank indicated to him as the rate fixed for the Bank financial transactions by the time when the money was unfairly deducted, this rate is not much different from the average rate at which the commercial banks, including EQUITY BANK, offer the loans, as determined in the judgment decided by this instant Court85, they should be calculated for a period of 22 months during which the money was deducted, this means 838,619 Frw x 22 months x 18. 25% = 3.367.055 Frw.   Determination of the costs incurred in proceeding with the case as requested by the parties

The Counsel for EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc requests to the Court to order to DUSABE Javan SANGANO to repay to EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc 1,000,000 Frw for procedural fee and 4,000,000 Frw for counsel's fees paid since the beginning of the case up to this instance.

Pleading on this issue of money requested by Equity Bank Rwanda Plc, DUSABE Javan SANGANO finds their request unfounded, because it illegally dismissed him as held in the judgment RSOCA 00103/2021/HC/KIG which

85 In the judgment RCAA 00003-00004/2021/CA decided on 15/07/2022, paragraphs 50 & 53 where the Court held that:” because the fact that he would be reimbursed the amount he paid plus the interest calculated at the rate of 18% is not to carry out financial transactions; rather, the person who paid the money has requested it from the bank, and that is the average rate at which the commercial banks offer loans”.

## Page 579

237 EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc v DUSABE SANGANO

has became final, and thus, it should be held liable for consequences thereof.

DUSABE Javan SANGANO requests to the Court to order to EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc to pay to him the damages of 2,000,000 Frw for unnecessary appointments to the Bank, 3,500,000 Frw for Counsel fee from the first instance up to the Court of Appeal, and 1,500,000 Frw for having dragged him into unnecessary lawsuits.

The Counsel for EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc pleaded about the damages claimed by DUSABE Javan SANGANO and stated that they are unfounded because EQUITY BANK Plc changed the interest rate based on the loan agreement between the two parties, and due to the fact that DUSABE Javan SANGANO unnecessarily initiated this case, he should not be awarded any damages. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 111 of the Law n°22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, provides the following : “The claim for representation fees is an incidental claim to the principal claim aiming to repay expenses incurred during judicial proceedings. The claim for legal costs is adjudicated at the same time with the principal claim. It can also be admitted and adjudicated even if the principal claim has not been admitted.”.

Article 34 of Regulation fixing the scale of fees for Advocates provides the following : "The Advocate has the right to charge reasonable fees with a minimum of 500,000 RWF and a maximum of 3,000,000 RWF”.

The Court of Appeal finds that, on the basis of these articles, the procedural and legal fees claimed by EQUITY

## Page 580

238 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

BANK RWANDA Plc should not be granted because it loses the case, but the damages claimed by DUSABE SANGANO Javan should be granted because he is the one who wins the case; however, as he has claimed excessive amount, such damages should be determined in the discretion of the Court, therefore, he is awarded 500,000 Frw for counsel fee and 200,000 Frw for procedural fee at this instance, in addition to the fees decided in the appealed judgment. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the appeal of the judgment RCOMA 00349/2021/HCC decided by the Commercial High Court on 11/03/2022 filed by EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc lacks merits ;

Holds that the cross-appeal lodged by DUSABE SANGANO Javan is grounded, Equity Bank Rwanda Plc must reimburse to him 18,449,618 Frw for unauthorized interests deduction, plus accrued interests amounting to 3,367,055 Frw as above detailed ;

Orders to EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc to pay to DUSABE SANGANO Javan 18,449,618 Frw and accrued interests amounting to 3,367,055 Frw;

Orders to EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc to pay to DUSABE SANGANO Javan 500,000 Frw for counsel fee and 200,000 Frw for procedural fee at this instance ;

Rules that, apart from the additional issues decided in this case, the appealed judgment is sustained ;

Rules that the court fee deposited by EQUITY BANK RWANDA Plc covers the expenses incurred in this case.

## Page 581

239

MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION ET AL. v QUALITY CONSTRUCTION ET AL. [Rwanda – COURT OF APPEAL– RCOMAA 00107/2022/CA CMB RCOMAA 00108/2022/CA (Nyirandabaruta, P.J., Kamere and Ngagi, J.) 25 May 2023] Jurisdiction of courts – Jurisdiction of Court of Appeal – Second appeal – Judgments rendered by competent courts – Agreement providing for arbitration – Claim for quashing the lower court decisions on basis of the fact that the claimant should have resorted to the arbitration. In case a party deprives himself/herself of the right of resorting to the arbitration and seizes the court, and the respondent admits it, no one can pretend that he/she was tried by the court lacking the jurisdiction for claiming for the admissibility of the second appeal. Facts: QUALITY CONSTRUCTION (QUALICONS) Ltd (Sub-contractor), concluded with MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd the contract for the construction works at CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd, including the demolition, excavation and construction of the stone wall, cementing, laying bricks, and constructing its office, it should bill by cubic meter. Upon request by MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd, ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd supplied the construction equipment including cement, crashed stones and stones amounting to 21,727,600 Frw.

## Page 582

240 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

The contract between MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd and CLUB LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd was terminated due to the disagreement between both parties so that QUALITY CONSTRUCTION (QUALICONS) Ltd and ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd sued MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd and Mbaduko Jimmy, its representative, before the Commercial Court requesting it to order to them to perform the contract concluded between them together with the damages. ZIGAMA CSS and CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd forcibly intervened for seizing the money paid by that Hotel and deposited on the account of MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd in ZIGAMA CSS. Rubayiza Alexis and Twagirimana Jean Claude voluntarily intervened for ordering to ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd to pay the owed debt in case it is paid. The Commercial Court upheld that the claim of QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd and ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd is grounded for MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd and Mbaduko Jimmy, but ungrounded for ZIGAMA CSS and CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd; the claim of Rubayiza Alexis andTwiringiyimana Jean Claude is grounded, it ordered to MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd and Mbaduko Jimmy to pay to QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd 71,258,767 Frw and ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd 10,291,666 Frw and to pay to each company 580,000 Frw as procedural and lawyer fees, it held that in case the debt owed by MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd and Mbaduko Jimmy to ACTIVE CM INVESTIMENT Ltd is paid, Rubayiza Alexis and Twiringiyimana Jean Claude shall be firstly paid for the debt it owes to them.

## Page 583

241 MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION ET AL. v QUALITY CONSTRUCTION ET AL.

MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd lodged appeal against such judgment in the Commercial High Court claiming for reexamining whether the damages granted to QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd and ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd are founded while they did not perform the contract they concluded; determine whether Mbaduko Jimmy should be held liable for the debt of which his company MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd is accused, it claimed for the damages claimed at the first and appeal instances. QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd and ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd also filed appeal against the judgment, their appeal was based on the fact that the Commercial Court did not hold that CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS was jointly liable with MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd and Mbaduko Jimmy for the debt and the damages; the very Court did not uphold that ZIGAMA CSS was jointly liable with MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd and Mbaduko Jimmy for the debt and damages (liability in solidum); the fact that they were charged less damages for non-performance of contract. ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd filed appeal due to the fact that MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd and Mbaduko Jimmy were jointly ordered to pay the debt by deducting the debt owed to EGE Ltd while it had issued the power of attorney. The cases were combined for being heard in the same case, the Commercial High Court held that the appeal filed by MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd, by QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd and ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd are founded in parts; the appealed judgment was only reversed on the quantity of the debt owed by MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd to QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd

## Page 584

242 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

and on the involvement of CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTEL Ltd in the case. The Commercial High Court ordered to MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd, Mbaduko Jimmy and CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTEL Ltd to jointly pay to QUALITY CONSTRUCTION LTD the debt amounting to 59,240,260 Frw plus 2,019,507 Frw as the interests and compensation for delay and breach of contract, 580,000 Frw as procedural and lawyer fees at the first instance and 1,000,000 Frw at the appeal instance and 20,000 Frw as court fees, the total is 62,859,767 Frw, it ordered to them to pay to ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd the debt amounting to 10,000,000 Frw, plus 291,666 Frw as interests, the compensation for delay and breach of contract and 20,000 Frw as court fees, the total is 10,311,666 Frw. It ordered to ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd to pay to Rubayiza Alexis 21,311,986 Frw and to Twiringiyimana Jean Claude 4,555,658Frw and to pay to each one 530,000 Frw as procedural and lawyer fees; it ordered that in case the debt owed by MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd to ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd is paid, Rubayiza Alexis and Twiringiyimana Jean Claude shall be firstly paid; it ordered to reimburse to them 20,000 Frw as court fees for each one. Dissatisfied with the court decision, MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd filed appeal against the judgment rendered by the Commercial High Court before the Court of Appeal stating that it bases the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal on the fact that the lower courts lacked the jurisdiction to hear the case and such issue was the appeal ground, it requested the very Court to quash the rulings of the lower courts. CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd also filed appeal against such judgment in the Court of Appeal claiming

## Page 585

243 MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION ET AL. v QUALITY CONSTRUCTION ET AL.

to determine whether the Commercial High Court had the jurisdiction to hear the case filed to it and determine whether it did not violate the law. Before pleading on the appeal, QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd, ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd, Rubayiza Alexis and Twiringiyimana Jean Claude raised the objection on its inadmissibility as MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd did not deposit the court fees; the fact that in the appealed judgment the damages less than 75,000,000 Frw were granted; MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd and CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd lost the cases in both lower courts for the same reason, the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to hear its second appeal. The judgment was held in public, MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd was represented by Counsel Nyirasuku Jeanne, CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd by Counsel Sebukonoke Innocent, QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd by its Managing Director Nkurikiyimfura Alexis, assisted by Counsel Bangamwabo Octave who also assisted by ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd, Rubayiza Alexis was assisted by Counsel Munyamasoko Jovith who also assisted Twiringiyimana Jean Claude, ZIGAMA CSS was represented by Counsel Kayigirwa Télesphore; the debates were held on the raised objection, but before the commencement of the debates, Counsel Kayigirwa Télesphore indicated to the Court that ZIGAMA CSS that he represented did not claim anything and is not held liable for anything and there is no decision of the appealed judgment that concerns it, he claims that it should be dissociated from the case. After hearing the statements of other parties, the Court of Appeal decided on the bench and decided

## Page 586

244 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

that ZIGAMA CSS is dissociated from the case because there is no ground for being party to it. Held: 1. The fact that a party opted for depriving himself/herself of the right to resort to the arbitration and seizes the courts while the respondent was normally aware of the contract they concluded and opts for not requesting to the court to submit the issue to the arbitration means that they implicitly prefer to modify their contract regarding the resolution of disputes arising from the concluded contract and they prefer to be tried by the courts. Therefore, no one can allege that they were tried by the court lacking the jurisdiction. The appeal is not addmissible. Statutes and statutory referred to: The Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 7 The Law N°30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, article 52 The Ministerial Order N° 17/MOJ/AG/20 of 30/10//2020 determining court fees in civil, commercial, social and administrative matter, article 2. Case referred to: Judgment RCOMA 0090 /13/ CS, PUBLICELL SARL v. MTN RWANDACELL SARL.rendered by the Supreme Court on 28/03/2014

## Page 587

245 MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION ET AL. v QUALITY CONSTRUCTION ET AL.

JUDGMENT I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

On 17/12/2020, QUALITY CONSTRUCTION (QUALICONS) Ltd concluded with MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd the contract for the construction works on CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd, including the demolition, excavation and construction of the stone wall, cementing, laying bricks, and constructing its office, it should bill by cubic meter.

ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd states that, upon the request of MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd, on 04/01/2021 it supplied the construction equipment including cement, crashed stones and stones amounting to 21,727,600 Frw.

QUALITY CONSTRUCTION (QUALICONS) Ltd and ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd sued MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd and Mbaduko Jimmy who represented it, before the Commercial Court, requesting it to order to them to perform the contract they concluded for paying for the completed works and various damages. ZIGAMA CSS and CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd forcibly intervened for seizing the money paid by that Hotel and deposited on the account of MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd in ZIGAMA CSS. Rubayiza Alexis and Twagirimana Jean Claude voluntarily intervened for ordering

## Page 588

246 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

to ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd to pay the owed debt in case it is paid.

The Commercial Court rendered the judgment RCOM 00554/2021/TC on 10/11/2021and upheld that the claim of QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd and ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd is grounded for MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd and Mbaduko Jimmy, but ungrounded for ZIGAMA CSS and CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd; the claim of Rubayiza Alexis and Twiringiyimana Jean Claude is grounded, it ordered to MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd and Mbaduko Jimmy to pay to QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd 71,258,767 Frw and ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd 10,291,666 Frw and to pay to each company 580,000 Frw as procedural and lawyer fees.

The Commercial Court ordered to ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd to pay to RUBAYIZA Alexis 21,311,986 Frw, to Twiringiyimana Jean Claude 4,555,658 Frw and to pay 530,000 Frw as procedural and lawyer fees to each one; it ordered that in case the debt owed by MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd and Mbaduko Jimmy to ACTIVE CM INVESTIMENT Ltd is paid, Rubayiza Alexis and Twiringiyimana Jean Claude should be firstly paid for the debt it owes to them. The same Court also ordered to MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd and Mbaduko Jimmy to reimburse to QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd and ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd 20,000 Frw as court fees and ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd to repay to RUBAYIZA Alexis and Twiringiyimana Jean Claude 20,000 Frw as court fees deposited by each one.

## Page 589

247 MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION ET AL. v QUALITY CONSTRUCTION ET AL.

MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd appealed against that judgement before the Commercial High Court, the appeal was registered on RCOMA 00794/2021/HCC, it requested the Court to determine whether the damages granted to QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd and ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd were founded while they did not perform the contract they concluded; determine whether Mbaduko Jimmy should be held liable for the debt owed by his company MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd and requested to be granted the damages claimed at the first and appeal instances.

QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd and ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd also appealed against the court ruling, their appeal was registered on RCOMA 00801/2021/HCC. Their appeal was based on the fact that the Commercial Court did not decide on the joint liability of CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd, MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd and Mbaduko Jimmy for the debt and the damages; the very Court did not hold for the joint liability of ZIGAMA CSS, MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd and Mbaduko Jimmy for the debt and damages; the fact that they were charged less damages for non-performance of the contract. ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd filed appeal due to the fact that MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd and Mbaduko Jimmy were jointly ordered to pay the debt by deducting the debt owed to EGE Ltd while it had issued the power of attorney. QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd and ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd concluded by requesting to be granted the procedural and lawyer fees.

## Page 590

248 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Both cases were combined for being jointly heard in the same judgment RCOMA 00794/2021/HCC-CMB RCOMA 00801/2021/HCC rendered on 16/09/2022, the Commercial High Court upheld that the appeal filed by MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd, by QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd and ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd is grounded in parts; the judgment is only reversed on the quantity of the debt owed by MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd to QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd and CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTEL Ltd in this case.

The Commercial High Court ordered to MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd, MBADUKO Jimmy and CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTEL Ltd to jointly pay to QUALITY CONSTRUCTION LTD the debt amounting to 59,240,260 Frw, plus 2,019,507 Frw for the interests, the compensation for delay and breach of contract, 580,000 Frw as procedural and lawyer fees at the first instance and 1,000,000 Frw at the appeal instance and 20,000 Frw as court fees, the total is 62,859,767 Frw, it ordered to them to jointly pay to ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd 10,000,000 Frw, plus 291,666 Frw for the interests, the compensation for delay and breach of contract and 20,000 Frw as court fees, the total is 10,311,666 Frw. It ordered to ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd to pay to Rubayiza Alexis 21,311,986 Frw and to pay to Twiringiyimana Jean Claude 4,555,658Frw and to pay to each one 530,000 Frw as procedural and lawyer fees; it ordered that in case the debt owed by MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd to ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd is paid, Rubayiza Alexis and Twiringiyimana Jean Claude should be firstly paid for the debt it owes to them; it ordered to it to repay 20,000 Frw as court fees deposited by each one.

## Page 591

249 MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION ET AL. v QUALITY CONSTRUCTION ET AL.

MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd lodged appeal against the judgment rendered by the Commercial Court and the Commercial High Court before this Court, the appeal was registered on RCAA 00107/2022/CA, it stated that it bases the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal on the reason that the lower courts lacked the jurisdiction to hear the case, such issue is the appeal ground, it requests this Court to quash the rulings of the lower courts, it requests to be granted the procedural and lawyer fees.

CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd also lodged appeal against that judgment before the Court of Appeal, its appeal was registered on RCOMAA 00108/2022/CA, it claims to determine whether the Commercial High Court had the jurisdiction to hear the case filed to it and it did not violate the law, it claims for damages for being unnecessarily dragged in lawsuits, the procedural and lawyer fees.

Before pleading on the appeal, QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd, ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd, Rubayiza Alexis and Twiringiyimana Jean Claude raised the objection on its inadmissibility for the following reasons: MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd did not deposit the court fees; the fact that in the appealed judgment the damages less than 75,000,000 Frw were granted; MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd and CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd lost the cases in both lower courts for the same reasons, the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to hear its second appeal.

The judgment was held in public on 08/05/2023, MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd was represented

## Page 592

250 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

by Counsel Nyirasuku Jeanne, CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd by Counsel Sebukonoke Innocent, QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd by its Managing Director Nkurikiyimfura Alexis, assisted by Counsel Bangamwabo Octave who also assisted ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd, Rubayiza Alexis was assisted by Counsel Munyamasoko Jovith who also assisted Twiringiyimana Jean Claude, ZIGAMA CSS was represented by Counsel Kayigirwa Télesphore; the debates were held on the raised objection, but before the commencement of the debates, Counsel Kayigirwa Télesphore indicated to the Court that ZIGAMA CSS that he represented did not claim anything and is not held liable for anything and there is no decision of the appealed judgment that concerns it, he claims that it should be dissociated from the case. After hearing the statements of other parties, the Court of Appeal decided on the bench and held that ZIGAMA CSS is dissociated from the case because there is no ground for being party to it.

After analyzing the reasons on which the appellants base the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal in this case and the objections raised by the respondents, the Court found that the following legal issues should be examined: - Determine whether MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd did not deposit the court fees by lodging the appeal so that its appeal should not be admitted; - Determine whether the lower courts lacked the jurisdiction to hear the case so that it can be the ground for the admissibility of the second appeal filed by MUKERAMIRIMO

## Page 593

251 MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION ET AL. v QUALITY CONSTRUCTION ET AL.

CONSTRUCTION Ltd and by CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd basing on the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal; - Determine whether the second appeal should not be admitted by this Court as in the appealed judgment the granted damages were less than 75,000,000 Frw; - Determine whether MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd and CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd lost in both lower courts for the same reasons. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES 1. Determine whether MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd did not deposit the court fees by lodging the appeal so that its appeal cannot be admitted

Counsel Bangamwabo Octave, assisting Nkurikiyimfura Alexis who represents QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd and ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd, raised the objection related to the inadmissibility of the appeal lodged by MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd for failing to deposit the court fees. He states that IECMS indicates that the court fees were deposited by Mbaduko Jimmy holding the identification card Nº 119888014786172, even it is specified that such court fees were for MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd. He further submits that the court fees were deposited by Mbaduko Jimmy who did not lodge appeal, the fact that the TIN and identification of MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd were not uploaded in the system, instead the names and the number of the identification card of

## Page 594

252 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Mbaduko Jimmy were mentioned, means that MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION did lodge appeal.

Counsel Nyirasuku Jeanne, representing MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd and Mbaduko Jimmy, by pleading on this issue, avers that the objection is not grounded because the parts of GENERAL and COURT FEES of IECMS indicate that it is MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd which lodged appeal, and the fact that the number of the identification card and the e-mail of Mbaduko Jimmy are mentioned is not prohibited by the law, the essential is that the court fees have been deposited; the fact that Mbaduko Jimmy who is the unique shareholder deposited the court fees using his telephone is the same like if it was done by an agent on behalf of MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd.

[Counsel Sebukonoke Innocent representing CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd, submits that they note that it is MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION which lodged the appeal after depositing the court fees.

Rubayiza Alexis and Counsel Munyamasoko Jovith who assists him together with Twiringiyimana Jean Claude, maintain that in the lower court Mbaduko Jimmy and MUKERAMIRIMO Construction Ltd were parties, probably it deposited the court fees, but it did not file appeal, by their submissions they state that it is MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd which lodged appeal, however, in case it has filed appeal, its TIN and e-mail should have been indicated.

## Page 595

253 MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION ET AL. v QUALITY CONSTRUCTION ET AL.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 7 of the Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure as amended to date provides that “The claimant has the following obligations : to deposit court fees, unless otherwise provided by law”.

Article 2 of the Ministerial Order N° 17/MOJ/AG/20 of 30/10//2020 determining court fees in civil, commercial, social and administrative matter provides that in the Court of Appeal the court fees are fifty thousand (50,000 Frw).

In IECMS, the part “Court fees” indicates that MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTIONS Ltd (Payee) paid 50,000 Frw as court fees86. The part “General Information” indicates that the appellant is MBADUKO Jimmy who acted on behalf of MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd.

The Court of Appeal finds that the fact that Mbaduko Jimmy as the representative of MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd had, on its behalf, deposited the court fees and filed the appeal and it was registered that the court fees were deposited by MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd as appellant as indicated in IECMS is not illegal because the court fees were deposited and they were recorded on its names and it is the party in this case; the objection of inadmissibility of the appeal because the court fees were not deposited is not founded.

86 IECMS Case no. RCOMAA 00107/2022/CA, Court fees.

## Page 596

254 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

2. Determine whether the lower courts lacked the jurisdiction to hear the case

Counsel Nyirasuku Jeanne, representing MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd and Mbaduko Jimmy, states that the lower courts should not adjudicate this case as it was contrary to the law and the contract on which the subject matter was based as by the article 987 of the subcontract agreement of 17/12/2020, MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd and QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd agreed that the disputes shall be amicably settled, in case of failure, they shall resort to arbitration.

Basing on the article 158 of the Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure which provides that “When the appeal court finds that the first-instance court has been seized irregularly or the court seized is not competent, but the lower court has decided to decide on the case whereas it should not; the appeal court receives that appeal and motivates that the appeal case was irregularly filed at the first level, and the appellate court quashes all the decisions taken on the basis of this error; the interested party may file a new claim”, Counsel Nyirasuku Jeanne requests to the Court of Appeal to admit the appeal of her clients and quash all the decisions taken by the lower courts.

Counsel Sebukonoke Innocent, representing CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd, also avers that the

87 Article 9: all matters concerning the breach of this agreement shall be settled amicably by both parties before being submitted to the competent arbitration in accordance with Rwandan law.

## Page 597

255 MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION ET AL. v QUALITY CONSTRUCTION ET AL.

Commercial High Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the appealed case as the article 9 of the agreement of 17/12/2020 stipulated that the disputes arising from the agreement performance shall be amicably settled, in case of failure, they shall resort to the arbitration, therefore, their appeal should not be admitted and the decisions it took should be quashed.

Counsel Bangamwabo Octave submits that the Court of Appeal only decided on QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd and MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd only evoked it by filing the appeal and it produced the agreement they concluded on which the Court relied by admitting the claim and motivating that the agreement provides that they shall resort to the arbitration, while such should not be based on as the provisions of the article 158 of the Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure on which the appellants base their statement are examined at the first appeal instance, while this is the second appeal, this means that they disregard that there had been the pre-trial conference in which the parties agreed on the court jurisdiction.

Counsel Bangamwabo Octave maintains that the court hearing was due to the fact that there are different parties in the case who do not conclude the agreement with MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd, all parties agree to seize the commercial courts and at the first and second instances, no party raised the objection related to the lack of jurisdiction as they had agreed on the court jurisdiction.

He states that ACTIVE CM INVESTIEMENT Ltd represented by Uwamahro Claudine did not conclude any agreement with MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd,

## Page 598

256 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

rather, basing on the memorandum of understanding which was not denied by the respondent who lost the case on basis of such document, the Court of Appeal should not remain silent on issues related to ACTIVE CM INVESTIMENT Ltd, it should not admit the claim concerning it, especially that ACTIVE CM INVESTIMENT Ltd was granted the damages less than 75,000,000 Frw; therefore this claim should not be admitted.

Counsel Munyamasoko Jovith submits that the Registry of the Court of Appeal should not record this appeal, and in case the Court finds that it should be registered, it shall hold that it lacks merits because the issue related to the lack of the court jurisdiction was not debated before the courts, also both parties agreed on the draft pretrial conference report and the issues to be examined by the Court; also, the claim was filed by two parties who shared the interest in the case and the persons who are not parties to the arbitration agreement forcibly and voluntarily intervened in the case. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The debates on the issue of this case are based on determining whether there is dispute opposing QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd and ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd to MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd and Mbaduka Jimmy, that triggered the forced intervention of CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd as well as the voluntary intervention of Rubayiza Alexis na Twiringiyimana Jean Claude, the lower courts lacked the jurisdiction to hear the case; taking into consideration the article 9 of the agreement concluded by QUALITY CONSTRUCTIONS Ltd and MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd on 17/12/2020

## Page 599

257 MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION ET AL. v QUALITY CONSTRUCTION ET AL.

which provides that the disputes arising from the agreement execution shall be amicably settled, in case of failure, the parties shall resort to the arbitration; due to the fact that the issue was submitted to the courts which rendered the related judgments, such issue should not be admitted and tried at the second instance (2) by the Court of Appeal because the appealed judgment was adjudicated by the courts who lack the jurisdiction as provided under the article 52, al. 2, 30 of the Law NO 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 governing the jurisdiction of courts. Briefly, the issue is to determine whether the fact that the appealed judgment was rendered by the ordinary courts while the agreement between MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd and QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd provides for the arbitration is conclusive to decide that the judgment was tried by the courts lacking the jurisdiction.

Article 52, al. 2, 30 of the Law NO 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 governing the jurisdiction of courts provides that “The Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear at the first level of appeal cases tried at first instance by the High Court, the Commercial High Court and the Military High Court, if such cases are decided based on a non-existing law, refer to repealed legal provisions or are tried by a court lacking jurisdiction”.

Regarding the claim filed to the courts while the agreement stipulated for arbitration, the Supreme Court, in the judgment RCOMA 0090 /13/ CS rendered on 28/03/2014 upheld that, due to the fact that by their agreement the parties deprived themselves of the right of being tried by the Commercial High Court as provided under the law and mutually conferred such right to the arbitration, they had realized that such right is not of public order; therefore, in case

## Page 600

258 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

they do not have any challenge on such right in the preliminary hearing, they can continue proceeding with the hearing before the courts88. The Supreme Court found that the article 10 of the Law N° 005/2008 of 14/02/2008 on arbitration and conciliation in commercial matters which provides that “An ordinary court before which an action regarding an arbitration agreement is seized shall submit it to the arbitration, if a party so requests”, means that the right to arbitration is not of public order, it based on such provision to decide that the statement of PUBLICELL that the dispute of the parties should be settled through arbitration is not founded.

Concerning this judgment, the case file contains the subcontract agreement of 17/12/2020 concluded by MUKERAMIRIMO CONCTRUCTION Ltd represented by Mbaduko Jimmy and QUALITY CONSTRACTION (QUALICONS) Ltd represented by Nkurikiyimfura Alexis, its article 9 provides that “All matters concerning the breach of this agreement shall be settled amicably by both parties before being submitted to the competent arbitration in accordance with Rwandan law”, the disputes arising from the breach of the agreement shall be amicably by the contracting parties, in case of failure, they shall resort to arbitration.

As stated by Counsel Bangamwabo Octave and indicated by the case file in the Commercial Court, he filed the claims of QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd and ACTIVE IM INVESTMENT Ltd in one motion instituting proceedings and

88 Judgment no RCOMA 0090 /13/ CS rendered on 28/03/ 2014: PUBLICELL SARL v. MTN RWANDACELLSARL, paragraph 10, 3.

## Page 601

259 MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION ET AL. v QUALITY CONSTRUCTION ET AL.

paid only one filing fee, in accordance with the article 3389 of the abovementioned Law NO 22/2018 of 29/04/2018, QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd sued MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd together with its Managing Director Mbaduko Jimmy for the breach of the agreement, by disregarding that such agreement provides that the disputes arising from the agreement should be amicably settled, in case of failure, they should resort to arbitration and it claimed for the forced intervention of CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd.

In the Commercial Court, MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd and Mbaduko Jimmy pleaded on the charges by their submissions, within the pretrial conference or the hearing, they never requested the Commercial Court to submit the issue to arbitration, nor the Commercial High Court to do so.

As upheld by the Supreme Court in the abovementioned judgment RCOMA 0090/13/CS rendered on 28/03/2014, the Court finds that the fact that QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd opted for depriving itself of the right to resort to arbitration and seized the courts, MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd

89 If several parties have shared interests in a case, and sue or are sued, each of them assume the rights and obligations of parties to proceedings on his/her own behalf. However, persons with shared interests in a case file their claims in one motion instituting proceedings and pay only one filing fee. The provisions of paragraph One of this Article also apply in case of successors or members of associations who file a joint claim. A person against whom a claim is filed with respect to jointly owned property has the obligations to indicate his/her co-owners. If the subject-matter is jointly owned by many persons, the claimant has the obligation to seek their intervention.

## Page 602

260 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

and Mbaduko Jimmy who were aware of the agreement opted for not requesting the Court to submit the issue to arbitration means that they preferred to deprive themselves of that right to resort to arbitration.

It also finds that the fact that both parties opted for modifying the agreement and accepted to be tried by the courts and agreed on the subject matter in the pretrial conference means that they implicitly opted for the modification of their agreement concerning the modalities of settling the disputes arising from the agreement concluded on 17/12/2020, they preferred to be tried by the courts; therefore, no one (QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd which filed the claim and MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd) cannot pretend that the case was adjudicated by the court lacking the jurisdiction.

Concerning ACTIVE CM CONSTRUCTION, the Court finds that nothing could not preclude it to sue MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd before the commercial courts in case it requests to be redressed in its rights resulting from the joint commercial activities, especially that they did not conclude any agreement that provides for the modalities of settling the potential disputes.

It also finds that the statement of CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS that the High Court violated the law as it disregarded the article 9 of the abovementioned agreement of 17/12/2020 which provides for the amicable settlement of the disputes is not founded because it is not a party to that agreement; therefore, nothing could preclude QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd and ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd

## Page 603

261 MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION ET AL. v QUALITY CONSTRUCTION ET AL.

to request for its forced intervention in case they deem it necessary.

The Court finds that the fact that by filing the appeal, the representatives of MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd and CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTES Ltd state that they base the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to hear their appeal on the article 52, al. 2, 30 of the Law NO 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 governing the jurisdiction of courts which provides that “The Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear at the first level of appeal cases tried at first instance by the High Court, the Commercial High Court and the Military High Court, if such cases are decided based on a non-existing law, refer to repealed legal provisions or are tried by a court lacking jurisdiction” and it had been held that the Commercial Court and the High Commercial Court had the jurisdiction as both parties agreed on, means that the appeal of MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd and of CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTES Ltd cannot be admitted in the jurisdiction of this Court, especially that the representatives of those companies did not indicate any other basis of its jurisdiction.

It finds that in case the appeals filed by MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd and by CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd were not admitted because they did not fall under the jurisdiction of this Court because it found that the unique reason on which they base its jurisdiction confers to them the right to file their appeal before this Court, is not founded; it was not necessary to examine other objections raised by the respondent at the appeal instance, they were meant to indicate that their claim should not be admitted in the jurisdiction of this Court.

## Page 604

262 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

3. Regarding the lawyer and procedural fees

Counsel Nyirasuku Jeanne representing MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd requests the Court of Appeal to order to QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd to pay to MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd 2.000.000 Frw as procedural and lawyer fees from the lower courts to this level.

Counsel Bangamwabo Octave, assisting Nkurikiyimfura Alexis representing QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd and ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd pleading about the request of MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd, states that such request is unfounded, by its claim it avers that the Courts unjustly treated it by refusing to deprive of their jurisdiction; therefore, the fees should not be awarded by those who did not unjustly treat it, rather, MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd should pay them because it did not raise the objections which were not examined by the courts. He requests to order to MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd to pay to ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd 2,000,000 Frw as lawyer fee and 500,000 Frw for procedural fee. Nkurikiyimfura Alexis requests the Court to order to MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd to pay to QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd 2,000,000 Frw for lawyer fee and 500.000 Frw for procedural fee, the total is 2,500,000 Frw.

Counsel Nyirasuku Jeanne, representing MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd pleading about the lawyer and procedural fees claimed by QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd and ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd, submits that the requests of those companies are not founded

## Page 605

263 MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION ET AL. v QUALITY CONSTRUCTION ET AL.

because they filed the claim before the courts lacking the jurisdiction.

Counsel Sebukonoke Innocent representing CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd, avers that QUALITY CONSTRACTION Ltd and ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd disregarded the content of the agreement concluded with MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd by filing a claim against it while they did not conclude any agreement, and they lodged the claim before the courts lacking the jurisdiction, they dragged it in unnecessary lawsuits so that it hired the legal counsel, he requests the Court to order to QUALITY CONSTRACTION Ltd and ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd to pay to it 1,000,000 Frw as lawyer fee, 2,000,000 Frw for being dragged in courts and repay 50,000 Frw deposited as court fees.

Concerning the request of CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd, Counsel Bangamwabo Octave representing QUALITY CONSTRUCTION LTD and ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT LTD, maintains that its request is impossible because it is the losing party who pays, rather it should be held liable for damages.

Counsel Munyamasoko Jovith, representing Twiringiyimana Jean Claude and assisting Rubayiza Alexis, requests the Court of Appeal to order to the appellants to pay to Rubayiza Alexis and Twiringiyimana Jean Claude 2,000,000 Frw as lawyer fee, for each one, for having delayed the case so that they incurred the loss, they spent money for this case by rejecting the rulings of the lower courts, they delayed them to be granted the damages won in the case, it filed the second appeal by disregarding the provisions of article 158 of the

## Page 606

264 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

abovementioned Law Nº 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 because its request should have been submitted at the first appeal.

Counsel Nyirasuku Jeanne, representing MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd, pleading about the damages claimed by Twiringiyimana Jean Claude and Rubayiza Alexis, he states that they are not justified because the fact that MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd had lodged appeal was its right entitled to it by the law.

Concerning the damages claimed by Twiringiyimana Jean Claude and Rubayiza Alexis, Counsel Sebukonoke Innocent representing CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd submits that they are not justified. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The article 111 of the Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that “The claim for representation fees is an incidental claim to the principal claim aiming to repay expenses incurred during judicial proceedings. The claim for legal costs is adjudicated at the same time with the principal claim. It can also be admitted and adjudicated even if the principal claim has not been admitted”.

The Court finds that the lawyer and procedural fees claimed by MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd and CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd shall not be granted to them as they lose the case.

## Page 607

265 MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION ET AL. v QUALITY CONSTRUCTION ET AL.

The Court finds that the fees claimed by QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd and ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd shall be granted to them as they paid the legal counsel to follow up their case and represent them, but because 2,000,000 Frw as lawyer fee and 500,000 Frw as procedural fee for each one are excessive and there is no proof evidencing that they spent such amount, in the discretion of the Court, each one shall be granted 500,000 Frw as lawyer fee and 200,000 Frw as procedural fee.

The Court finds that the lawyer and procedural fees claimed by Twiringiyimana Jean Claude and Rubayiza Alexis against MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd shall not be granted to them as they voluntarily intervened in the case, it did not claim for their forced intervention, it cannot be held liable for the expenses for the case in which they were parties for protecting their interests. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the appeal lodged by MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd and by CLUB HOUSE LA PALISSE HOTELS Ltd is not admitted as it does not fall under the jurisdiction of this Court ;

Orders to MUKERAMIRIMO CONSTRUCTION Ltd to pay to QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Ltd and ACTIVE CM INVESTMENT Ltd, for each one, 500,000 Frw as lawyer fee and 200,000 Frw as procedural fee at this instance ;

Declares that the court fees deposited by the appellants cover the expenses of the judicial proceedings.