RLR-V.2-2019

# RLR-V.2-2019

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Rwanda law reports - Date: 2019-07-30 - Collection: Supreme Court

## Text

## Page 1

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

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Icyegeranyo V. 2 - 2019 Mata, 2019 Law Report, V. 2 - 2019 April, 2019 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 3

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

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Icyegeranyo V. 2 - 2019 Mata, 2019 Law Report , V. 2 - 2019 April, 2019 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 5

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO IKINYARWANDA

## Page 7

ISHAKIRO

ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI ...................................iii KOMITE YEMEZA IMANZA ................................................. iv IRIBURIRO .............................................................................. vii IBIKUBIYE MURI IKI CYEGERANYO...............................viii INYITO ....................................................................................viii AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO .......................................... ix IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE ..................................................... xi AMAGAMBO MPINE ............................................................. xii Re MUGISHA ............................................................................ 1 KAMATENESI v. KING FAYCAL HOSPITAL RWANDA Ltd ................................................................................................... 25 MBARUSHIMANA v. NKUNDABANYANGA .................... 39 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. KANGABE...................................... 55 SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd (SONARWA) v. NYIRAGANZA ............................................ 69 MUREKATETE v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHÔRO ( RRA) ....................................................................................... 89 RUBERANDINDA v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHÔRO ................................................................................................. 109 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NDIKUBWAYO ........................... 127 i

## Page 9

ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI

ITSINDA RY’ABANYAMATEGEKO BATEGUYE IMANZA

KAGABO U. Stephanie

KAVUTSE M. Claude

KUBWIMANA Jean Claude

MUJABI K. Naphtal

MWIHOREZE Claudine

iii

## Page 10

KOMITE YEMEZA IMANZA

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

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

Dr. KARIMUNDA M. Aimé : Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire

NDAHAYO Xavier : Perezida w’Urukiko Rukuru

RUTAZANA Angeline : Visi Perezida w’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi

NGENDAKURIYO Alice Umwanditsi wa Komite, Umugenzuzi w’Inkiko

BAGABO Faustin : Avoka mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka

BWIZA N. Blanche : Umugenzuzi w’Inkiko

GIRANEZA Clémentine : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye

HABARUREMA Jean Pierre : Umushinjacyaha ku Rwego rw’Igihugu

iv

## Page 11

KALIWABO Charles : Umucamanza w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire

Dr. KAYIHURA Didas : Umuyobozi wa ILPD

KIBUKA Jean Luc : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi

Lt. col. MADUDU A. Charles : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare

MUREREREHE Saouda : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru

BUNYOYE Grace : Umushinjacyaha ku Rwego rw’Igihugu

KABIBI Specioza : Intumwa ya Leta

RUKUNDAKUVUGA F. Regis : Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’ Ikirenga UWANTEGE Yvette : Perezida w’Urukiko Rwisumbuye

v ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI

## Page 13

IRIBURIRO Basomyi bacu,

Urwego rw’ubucamanza runejejwe no kubagezaho Icyegeranyo cy’Ibyemezo by’Inkiko V.II [2019] gisohoka buri gihembwe. Abanyamategeko mu nzego zitandukanye bakenera ibyemezo by’ inkiko kugira ngo babyifashishe mu kazi kabo ka buri munsi. Ku bw’ibyo, Icyegeranyo cy’Ibyemezo by’Inkiko gikoze mu buryo bworohereza abagikoresha kubona ibyo bashakamo. Icyakora, igitekerezo icyo ari cyo cyose kigamije kurushaho kunoza imyandikire y’icyegeranyo cyadushimisha kandi cyakwitabwaho. Muri iyi nomero murasangamo imanza umunani (8) zikubiyemo: urubanza rumwe (1) rurebana n’ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko itegeko rinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga, imanza eshatu (3) zaburanishijwe

mu mizi zirimo rumwe (1) rw’imbonezamubano, ebyiri (2) z’ubucuruzi, urubanza rumwe (1) nshinjabyaha naho izindi eshatu (3) zisigaye zerekeranye imiburanishirize y’imanza.

Tuboneyeho no kubibutsa ko imanza ziri muri iki Cyegeranyo ziboneka no ku rubuga rwa murandasi rw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ruborohereza kubona urubanza mukeneye mu buryo bwihuse, kuri: http://decisia.lexum.com/rlr/kn/nav.do Prof. RUGEGE Sam Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga akaba na Perezida w’Inama Nkuru y’Ubucamanza

vii

## Page 14

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

INYITO Imanza ziri muri iyi volime zikoreshwa muri ubu buryo: [2019] 2 RLR

viii

## Page 15

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO Itegeko N°30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko: - ingingo ya 27............................................................42 - ingingo ya 72 n’iya 80................................................3 - ingingo ya105...........................................................28 Itegeko No22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi: - ingingo ya 3................................................................3 - ingingo ya 6 n’iya 158…….…..………………………42 - ingingo ya 247 …………….…………………………...28 Itegeko N°27/2017 ryo ku wa 31/05/2017 ryerekeye amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi, ingingo ya 23 niya 95………………………………..92 Itegeko Nº37/2016 ryo ku wa 08/09/2016 rigena imitunganyirize, ifasi, ububasha n’imikorere bya Komite y’Abunzi, ingingo ya 10……………………………………………………………………...42 Itegeko No30/2013/OL ryo ku wa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha: - ingingo ya 165........................................................127 - ingingo ya 197 n’iya 279…………………..………….57 Itegeko N°34/2011 ryo ku wa 14/12/2011 ryerekeye uburenganzira bw’umwana n’uburyo bwo kumurinda no kumurengera, ingingo ya 56 igika cya 2…………………………57 Itegeko N°34/2010 ryo ku wa 12/11/2010 rishyiraho urwego rw’igihugu rushinzwe imfungwa n’abagororwa, rikanagena imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, ingingo ya 39 igika cya 2 ………………………………………………………………………...57 ix

## Page 16

Itegeko N°25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha: - ingingo ya 4, iya 5, iya 6 al 2° n’iya 32……………111 - ingingo ya 46 bis……….………………………………92 Itegeko Nº15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo: - ingingo ya 3……….……………………………………73 - ingingo ya 4 n’iya 119……………...………………..127 lteka rya Perezida N°31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka z’ibinyabiziga, ingingo ya 13……………73 Itegeko Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rigena miterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’lkirenga, ingingo ya 81…………………………………………………………………..73 Itegeko Ngenga Nº51/2008 ryo ku wa 09/09/2008 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha bw’inkiko, ingingo ya 67……42 Itegeko N°21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi: - ingingo ya 1, 190 n’iya 320……………...……………57 - ingingo ya 106, 107 n’iya 283………….……………92 Itegeko-teka ryo ku wa 30 Nyakanga 1888, rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, - ingingo ya 258……………….…………………………42 - ingingo ya 258…………….……………………………73 x ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 17

IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE Ferreira v Levin NO and Others; Vryenhoek and Others v Powell NO and Others (CCT5/95) [1995] ZACC 13; 1996 (1) SA 984 (CC); 1996 (1) BCLR 1 rendered on 6 December 1995 by the Constitutional Court of South Africa……………………………….4 Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro v. Munyampundu n’undi, RCOMAA00040/2016/SC rwaciwe n’urukiko rw’ikirenga ku wa 22/12/2017…………………………………………………………...92 Klass and others v Federal Republic of Germany, (Series A, NO 28) (1979-80) 2 EHRR 214, rendered on 6 September 1978 by the European Court of Human Rights…………………………………..4 Kruger v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT 57/07) [2008] ZACC 17; 2009 (1) SA 417 (CC); 2009 (3) BCLR 268 (CC) rendered on 2 October 2008 by the by the Constitutional Court of South Africa............................................4 Minister of Home Affairs v Eisenberg & Associates, (CCT15/03) [2003] ZACC 10; 2003 (8) BCLR 838 ; 2003 (5) SA 281 rendered on 27 June 2003 by the Constitutional Court of South Africa......4 Zantsi v Council of State, Ciskei and Others (CCT24/94) [1995] ZACC 9; 1995 (4) SA 615 (CC); 1995 (10) BCLR 1424 (CC) rendered on 22 September 1995 by the Constitutional Court of South Africa.................................................................................4

xi

## Page 18

AMAGAMBO MPINE Amategeko agenga amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi – Uburyozwe bw’abayobozi cyangwa abanyamigabane ba sosiyete – Abanyamigabane n’abayobozi ba sosiyete ntibaryozwa amakosa ya sosiyete keretse hari icyemezo cy’urukiko cyemeje uburyozwe bwabo – Itegeko N°25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha, ingingo ya 46 bis – Itegeko N°27/2017 ryo ku wa 31/05/2017 ryerekeye amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi, ingingo ya 23 na 95. MUREKATETE v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHÔRO (RRA)………………………………...89 Uburyozwe bw’abayobozi cyangwa abanyamigabane ba sosiyete – Itambamira ry’ihinduzamutungo – Imitungo y’abanyamigabane n’abayobozi ba sosiyete ku giti cyabo ntishobora gutambamirwa urukiko rubifitiye ububasha rutabanje kwemeza uruhare rwabo mu makosa sosiyete iryozwa. MUREKATETE v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHÔRO (RRA)………………………………...89 Amategeko agenga ibimenyetso – Ibimenyetso – Kwemera icyaha – Kuba uregwa yemera icyaha byonyine si ikimenyetso kihagije kugira ngo byemezwe ko ukuri kwabonetse ahubwo kigomba guherekezwa n’ibindi bimenyetso bihuje n’ikiburanwa UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NDIKUBWAYO………….125 Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza mbonezamubano – Impaka zavutse mu irangiza rubanza – Mu gihe uwatsinzwe urubanza adahakana ingano y’ubwishyu bwategetswe n’inkiko mu byemezo xii

## Page 19

birangizwa ahubwo yemera ko ariho kandi ko nta wundi ugomba kwishyura ibyo yatsindiwe, biba bigaragaza ko nta mpaka zavutse mu irangiza ry’urubanza. KAMATENESI v. KING FAYCAL HOSPITAL RWANDA Ltd………………………………………….25 Impaka zavutse mu irangiza rubanza – Iyo icyiswe impaka zavutse mu irangiza ry’urubanza ari urujijo uwatsinzwe urubanza yateje cyangwa ashaka guheza uwatsinze urubanza mu gihirahiro avuga ko hazishyura undi udafite aho ahuriye n’urubanza rurangizwa, Urukiko rufite inshingano zo kugaragaza ko imyitwarire y’uwatsinzwe urubanza yabereye intambamyi inzira zo kwishyura uwatsinze, rugategeka ko urubanza rurangizwa n’uwarutsinzwe nta yandi mananiza. KAMATENESI v. KING FAYCAL HOSPITAL RWANDA Ltd…………………………………………25 Amategeko agenga imisoro – Umusoro – Inshingano z’umusoreshwa n’umusoresha mu kohererezanya ibaruwa ishinganye – Iyo umusoresha cyangwa umusoreshwa akoresheje iposita mu kohererezanya ubutumwa, iyo uwohereza ubutumwa yabugejeje ku iposita, ikabwakira ikabuteraho kashe, aba yujuje inshingano ye, hatitawe ku gihe iposita y’uwohererejwe ubutumwa izabumugerezaho – Itegeko rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha, ingingo ya 4. RUBERANDINDA v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHÔRO………………………………………..107 Umusoro – Kugira ngo hagaragazwe ko umusoresha yohereje ibaruwa ishinganye igihe cy’iminsi 60 kitararenga, hagomba kurebwa itariki igaragazwa na kashe y’iposita yabyakiriye – Itegeko rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha, ingingo ya 4. xiii AMAGAMBO MPINE

## Page 20

RUBERANDINDA v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHÔRO………………………………………..107 Amategeko agenga ubwishingizi – Amasezerano y’ubwishingizi – Kuba uwahohotewe yandikiye ikigo cy’ubwishingizi agisaba kugena umuganga ugomba kujya mu kanama k’abaganga bemeza ko ajya kwivuza hanze ntikimusubize, ntibyamubuza kujya kwivuza hanze kuko byanze bikunze agomba kuramira ubuzima bwe, niyo mpamvu ikigo cy’ubwishingizi kigomba kwishyura amafaranga yose yakoreshejejwe mu kujya kwivuza – lteka rya Perezida N°31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka z’ibinyabiziga ingingo ya 13. SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd (SONARWA) v. NYIRAGANZA………………...69 Amategeko agenga ubwishingizi – Amasezerano y’ubwishingizi – Inyandiko itangirwaho amafaranga (formulaire), itegurwa n’ikigo cy’ubwishingizi igashyirwaho umukono n’umukiriya amaze kwishyurwa nta ruhare yagize mu kuyitegura, ni ikimenyetso cy’uko yishyuwe n’umubare w’amafaranga yakiriye, ariko ntiyafatwa nk’ikimenyetso cyuko bikiranuye no ku bindi ikigo cy’ubwishingizi cyaba kikimugomba. SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd (SONARWA) v. NYIRAGANZA………………...69 Amategeko yerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha – Irangizarubanza – Kugira abana bato ntibihagije kugira ngo habe ihagarikwa ryo kurangiza urubanza kuko hateganyijwe uburyo abo bana bitabwaho mu buryo bw’umwihariko – Itegeko No54/2011 ryo ku wa xiv ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 21

14/12/2011 ryerekeye uburenganzira bw’umwana, ingingo ya 56 igika cya 2. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. KANGABE………………...55 Itegeko Nshinga – Amategeko anyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga – Uruhare rwa Leta mu manza zirebana n’ibirego bisaba gukuraho itegeko rinyuranije n’Itegeko Nshinga – Leta ntabwo iza mu manza zisaba gukuraho itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga nk’umuburanyi ahubwo iza kugaragaza aho ihagaze ku myumvire y’itegeko risabirwa kuvanwaho, bityo ntabwo Leta ishobora gutanga inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego nk’umuburanyi. Re MUGISHA…………………………………………...1 Amategeko anyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga – Inyungu zo gutanga ikirego – Mu manza zisaba gukuraho itegeko rinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga, umuburanyi ashobora gusaba ko itegeko rivaho agamije kurengera inyungu rusange za rubanda bitabaye ngombwa kugaragaza inyungu bwite abifitemo. Re MUGISHA…………………………………………...1 Ububasha bw’inkiko – Isambu – Inkiko z’Ibanze ziburanisha ku rwego rwa mbere imanza zerekeye amasambu n’amatungo n’izungura kuri ibyo bintu – Itegeko Ngenga Nº51/2008 ryo ku wa 09/09/2008 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha bw’inkiko, ingingo ya 67. MBARUSHIMANA v. NKUNDABANYANGA…….39 Isesengura ry’amategeko – Ingingo ya 27,3º y’Itegeko Nº30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 igomba kumvikana ko Inkiko z’Ibanze ziburanisha ku rwego rwa mbere, imanza zerekeye umutungo utimukanwa ugizwe n’ubutaka xv AMAGAMBO MPINE

## Page 22

bugenewe ubuhinzi n’ubworozi zirengeje agaciro ka miliyoni eshatu. MBARUSHIMANA v. NKUNDABANYANGA……39

xvii ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 23

URUBANZA RUSABA KWEMEZA KO ITEGEKO RINYURANYIJE N’ITEGEKO NSHINGA

## Page 25

Re MUGISHA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/INCONST/SPEC00002/2018/SC (Rugege, P.J., Kayitesi Z, Mutashya, Kayitesi R na Cyanzayire, J.) 18 Mutarama 2019] Itegeko Nshinga – Amategeko anyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga – Uruhare rwa Leta mu manza zirebana n’ibirego bisaba gukuraho itegeko rinyuranije n’Itegeko Nshinga – Leta ntabwo iza mu manza zisaba kwemeza ko itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga ngo umuburanyi ahubwo iza kugaragaza aho ihagaze ku myumvire y’itegeko risabirwa kuvanwaho, bityo ntabwo Leta ishobora gutanga inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego nk’umuburanyi. Itegeko Nshinga – Amategeko anyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga – Inyungu zo gutanga ikirego – Mu manza zisaba gukuraho itegeko rinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga, umuburanyi ashobora gusaba ko itegeko rivaho agamije kurengera inyungu rusange za rubanda bitabaye ngombwa kugaragaza inyungu bwite abifitemo. Incamake y’ikibazo: Nyuma y’uko hatangajwe mu Igazeti ya Leta Itegeko N°68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, Me Mugisha yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga asaba urwo Rukiko kwemeza ko ingingo ya 233, 236, 136, 138, 154 n’iya 139 ziryo tegeko zinyuranije n’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda, mu ngingo zaryo za 15, 18 na 38. Akomeza avuga ko izo ngingo zisabirwa kuvanwaho ziri mu byiciro bibiri: icyiciro cya mbere kigizwe n’ingingo eshatu, iya 154, 233 n’iya 236 naho icyiciro cya kabiri nacyo kikaba kigizwe n’ingingo eshatu iya 136,138 n’iya 139. 1

## Page 26

Mw’iburanisha ry’urubanza intumwa ya Leta yatanze inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego ku mpamvu z’uko uwatanze ikirego nta nyungu afite zo kugitanga, ko atagaragaza inyungu ze bwite afite mu kirego, cyane cyane ko atigeze agaragaza aho izo ngingo zaba zimubangamiye. Asobanura ko ingingo ya 3 y’Itegeko rigenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, iteganya ko ikirego kidashobora kwakirwa mu gihe urega adafite inyungu n’ubushobozi, ariyo mpamvu uwatanze ikirego yagombye kugaragaza inyungu afite muri uru rubanza, nko kwerekana uburyo ziriya ngingo zimubangamiye, niba yaba yarahanwe hashingiwe kuri izo ngingo aho kugaragaza ko zibangamiye abanyamakuru, cyangwa se ko zibangamiye abashakanye, Intumwa ya Leta ikomeza ivuga ko kandi atagaragaza ko ahagarariye ababangamiwe n’izo ngingo, yongeraho ko hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 72 y’Itegeko rigena ububasha bw’Inkiko iteganya ko umuntu ku giti cye, ikigo cyangwa umuryango ufite ubuzimagatozi bashobora kuregera Urukiko rw’Ikirenga basaba kwemeza ko Itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga iyo abifitemo inyungu, kandi ko inyungu igomba kuba igaragarira buri wese atari ukugenekereza, Intumwa ya Leta isoza ivuga ko kuvuga ko ikirego cyatanzwe mu nyungu za rubanda atariko biri, kuko itegeko rivuga ubifitemo inyungu. Uwatanze ikirego yiregura kuriyo nzitizi avuga ko Itegeko rigena ububasha bw’inkiko riteganya ko umuntu ku giti cye, ikigo cyangwa umuryango ufite ubuzimagatozi bashobora kuregera Urukiko rw’Ikirenga basaba kwemeza ko Itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. Bityo ashingiye no ku kuba ari ku rutonde rw’abavoka mu Rwanda, yumva afite uruhare mu ishyirwaho ry’amategeko anoze kandi atanyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga kandi ko umunyarwanda uwo ariwe wese afite inyungu zo kurengera Itegeko Nshinga n’iyubahirizwa ryaryo, ndetse no kuba yareba niba amategeko atorwa atanga ubutabera bunoze ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 2

## Page 27

cyane cyane ko ibyo asaba ko bisuzumwa ari inyungu rusange, kuko bireba umunyarwanda wese. Mbere yo gusuzuma ibirebana n’inyungu z’uwatanze ikirego Urukiko rwabanje gusuzuma niba Leta ishobora gutanga inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego mu manza zisaba kwemeza ko itegeko rinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Leta ntabwo iza mu manza zisaba gukuraho itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga nk’umuburanyi ahubwo iza kugaragaza aho ihagaze ku myumvire y’itegeko risabirwa kuvanwaho, bityo ntabwo Leta ishobora gutanga inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego nk’umuburanyi. 2. Mu manza zisaba gukuraho itegeko rinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga, umuburanyi ashobora gusaba ko itegeko rivaho agamije kurengera inyungu rusange za rubanda bitabaye ngombwa kugaragaza inyungu bwite abifitemo. Uwatanze ikirego afite inyungu yo gutanga ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko ingingo z’itegeko zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. Iburanishwa ry’uru rubanza rizakomeza. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko N°30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, ingingo ya 72 niya 80. Itegeko No22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 3. Imanza zifashishijwe: 3 Re MUGISHA

## Page 28

Zantsi v Council of State, Ciskei and Others (CCT24/94) [1995] ZACC 9; 1995 (4) SA 615 (CC); 1995 (10) BCLR 1424 (CC) rendered on 22 September 1995 by the Constitutional Court of South Africa Klass and others v Federal Republic of Germany, (Series A, NO 28) (1979-80) 2 EHRR 214, rendered on 6 September 1978 by the European Court of Human Rights. Ferreira v Levin NO and Others; Vryenhoek and Others v Powell NO and Others (CCT5/95) [1995] ZACC 13; 1996 (1) SA 984 (CC); 1996 (1) BCLR 1 rendered on 6 December 1995 by the Constitutional Court of South Africa. Minister of Home Affairs v Eisenberg & Associates, (CCT15/03) [2003] ZACC 10; 2003 (8) BCLR 838; 2003 (5) SA 281 rendered on 27 June 2003 by the Constitutional Court of South Africa Kruger v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT 57/07) [2008] ZACC 17; 2009 (1) SA 417 (CC); 2009 (3) BCLR 268 (CC) rendered on 2 October 2008 by the by the Constitutional Court of South Africa. Ibitekerezo by’abahanga byifashishijwe: Serge Guinchard et Thierry Debard, Lexique des termes juridiques 2015-2016, 23e éd, Dalloz, 2015. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Me Mugisha Richard yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko nyuma y’uko hatangajwe mu Igazeti ya ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 4

## Page 29

Leta Itegeko N°68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, yarisomye agasanga ingingo za 136, 138, 139, 154, 233 n’iya 236 z’Itegeko N°68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, zinyuranije n’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo muri 2003 ryavuguruwe mu mwaka wa 2015. [2] Ingingo zisabirwa kuvanwaho kuko zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga ni esheshatu (6) ziri mu byiciro bibiri: icyiciro cya mbere kigizwe n’ingingo eshatu (3): iya 154, 233 n’iya 236. Ingingo ya 154 iteganya ko umuntu wese usebya mu ruhame imihango y’idini, ibimenyetso byaryo n’ibikoresho by’imihango yaryo akoresheje ibikorwa, amagambo, ibimenyetso, inyandiko, amarenga cyangwa ibikangisho abigiriye aho imihango y’idini igenewe gukorerwa cyangwa isanzwe ikorerwa, aba akoze icyaha. Iya 233 iteganya ko umuntu wese ukoza isoni mu magambo, mu bimenyetso cyangwa ibikangisho, inyandiko cyangwa ibishushanyo, umwe mu bagize Inteko Ishinga Amategeko mu gihe akora umurimo yatorewe cyangwa biturutse kuri uwo murimo, umwe mu bagize Guverinoma, abashinzwe umutekano cyangwa undi wese ushinzwe umurimo rusange w’Igihugu mu gihe akora umurimo ashinzwe cyangwa ari wo biturutseho, aba akoze icyaha. Naho iya 236 igateganya ko umuntu wese utuka cyangwa usebya Perezida wa Repubulika, aba akoze icyaha. Izi ngingo zinateganya ibihano kuri buri cyaha. [3] Me Mugisha Richard avuga ko izo ngingo zinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda, kuko zirengera ababarirwa mu byiciro bimwe hashingiwe ku mirimo bakora, kandi abantu bose bareshya imbere 5 Re MUGISHA

## Page 30

y’amategeko1. Anavuga ko izo ngingo zibangamiye ubwisanzure bw’Itangazamakuru, ryaba iryandika, ryaba irikoresha ibishushanyo ndetse n’amagambo, buteganywa n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga2, kuko hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’izo ngingo, Itangazamakuru ritemerewe kugira icyo ritangaza kuri ibyo byiciro by’abayobozi cyangwa amadini mu buryo bwo kunenga ibi n’ibi, kandi iyo ngingo iteganya ko ubwisanzure bw’Itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru bwemewe kandi bwubahirizwa na Leta. [4] Icyiciro cya kabiri kigizwe n’ingingo eshatu (3): iya 136 iteganya ko umuntu wese washyingiwe ukorana imibonano mpuzabitsina n’uwo batashyingiranywe, aba akoze icyaha. Iya 138 iteganya ko umuntu ubana nk’umugabo n’umugore n’uwo batashyingiranywe umwe muri bo cyangwa bombi bafite uwo bashyingiranywe, aba akoze icyaha. Naho iya 139 iteganya ko umwe mu bashyingiranywe uta urugo rwe mu gihe kirenze amezi abiri (2) nta mpamvu zikomeye akihunza ibyo ategetswe, aba akoze icyaha. Me Mugisha Richard asanga izi ngingo zinyuranye n’ingingo ya 18 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda iteganya ko Leta ifite inshingano yo gushyiraho amategeko n’inzego bishinzwe kurengera umuryango kugira ngo ugire ubwisanzure, nyamara ingingo za 136, 138 n’iya 139 zikaba

1 Ingingo ya 15 iteganya ko: “Abantu bose barareshya imbere y’amategeko. Itegeko ribarengera ku buryo bumwe”. 2 Ingingo ya 38 iteganya ko: “Ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru buremewe kandi bwubahirizwa na Leta. Ubwisanzure bwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru ntibugomba kubangamira ituze rusange rya rubanda n’imyifatire mbonezabupfura, ukurengera urubyiruko n’abana, n’uburenganzira bw’umwenegihugu bwo kugira icyubahiro n’agaciro, ubwo kutagira uwivanga mu mibereho ye bwite n’iy’umuryango we. Uko ubwo bwisanzure bukoreshwa n’iyubahirizwa ryabwo biteganywa n’amategeko” ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 6

## Page 31

ziteganya igihano cy’igifungo kuri umwe mu bashakanye kandi umuryango udashobora kurengerwa cyangwa ngo ugire ubwisanzure mu gihe umwe mu bawugize yaba afunzwe. [5] Iburanisha ry’urubanza ryabaye ku itariki ya 4/12/2018, Me Mugisha Richard yunganiwe na Me Nkundabarashi Moïse na Me Kabasinga Florida, naho Leta y’u Rwanda ihagarariwe n’Intumwa yayo, Me Kabibi Speciose. [6] Me Kabibi Speciose yatanze inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego cyatanzwe na Me Mugisha Richard ku mpamvu z’uko nta nyungu afite zo kugitanga, ko atagaragaza inyungu ze bwite afite mu kirego, cyane cyane ko atigeze agaragaza aho izo ngingo zaba zimubangamiye. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO Kumenya niba ikirego cyatanzwe na Me Mugisha Richard kitakwakirwa biturutse ku kuba nta nyungu afite [7] Me Kabibi Speciose asaba ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Me Mugisha Richard kitakwakirwa bitewe n’uko nta nyungu afite muri uru rubanza, ko mu gutanga ikirego atigeze agaragaza aho ingingo asabira kuvanwaho zaba zaramubangamiye. Asobanura ko ingingo ya 3 y’Itegeko rigenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, iteganya ko ikirego kidashobora kwakirwa mu gihe urega adafite inyungu n’ubushobozi, ariyo mpamvu Mugisha Richard yagombye kugaragaza inyungu afite muri uru rubanza, nko kwerekana uburyo ziriya ngingo zimubangamiye, niba yaba yarahanwe hashingiwe kuri izo ngingo aho kugaragaza ko 7 Re MUGISHA

## Page 32

zibangamiye abanyamakuru, cyangwa se ko zibangamiye abashakanye, kandi atagaragaza ko ahagarariye ababangamiwe n’izo ngingo. [8] Avuga ko hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 72 y’Itegeko rigena ububasha bw’Inkiko iteganya ko umuntu ku giti cye ashobora kuregera Urukiko rw’Ikirenga arusaba kwemeza ko Itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga iyo abifitemo inyungu, Mugisha Richard nka Avoka ufasha ubutabera ubwabyo bitafatwa nk’inyungu afite yatuma atanga ikirego cyane cyane ko inyungu igomba kuba igaragarira buri wese atari ukugenekereza, kandi ko kuvuga ko ari mu nyungu za bose atariko biri, kuko itegeko rivuga ubifitemo inyungu. Avuga ko imiterere y’ikirego cyatanzwe igaragaza ko kitagamije inyungu rusange, ahubwo ko yatanze ikirego ku giti cye, ariyo mpamvu agomba kugaragaza inyungu afite. [9] Asoza avuga ko Me Mugisha Richard, nka Avoka niba yaranatanze ikirego mu izina rya bagenzi be yagombye kugaragaza ko abahagarariye, akagaragaza aho izo ngingo zababangamiye n’uburenganzira bavukijwe mu ishyirwa mu bikorwa ryazo. [10] Me Mugisha Richard yiregura avuga ko ashingiye ku ngingo ya 72 y’Itegeko N°30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018, rigena ububasha bw’inkiko iteganya ko umuntu ku giti cye, ikigo cyangwa umuryango ufite ubuzimagatozi bashobora kuregera Urukiko rw’Ikirenga basaba kwemeza ko Itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, ashingiye no ku kuba ari ku rutonde rw’abavoka mu Rwanda, ufasha ubutabera, yumva afite uruhare mu ishyirwaho ry’amategeko anoze kandi atanyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, ko aho ariho akomora inyungu zo kuregera urukiko arusaba kwemeza ko ingingo zagaragajwe zinyuranyije ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 8

## Page 33

n’Itegeko Nshinga. Avuga kandi ko nk’umunyarwanda, afite inyungu mu guharanira ishyirwa mu bikorwa ry’Itegeko Nshinga haba uko ryanditse n’icyo rigamije. [11] Akomeza avuga ko atari ngombwa gutegereza igihe ibyaha bizakorerwa kugira ngo ariho hatangwa ikirego, ko kuba hari ibibazo kandi abibona adashobora kurebera ikintu kibangamiye umuryango kandi bizagira ingaruka ku bantu bose nawe arimo. Avuga ko ibyo ari nako bimeze no ku banyamakuru, akaba afite inyungu zo gutanga ikirego mu gihe abona hari ibyabangamira imikorere myiza y’itangazamakuru. [12] Me Nkundabarashi Moïse avuga ko umunyarwanda uwo ariwe wese afite inyungu zo kuregera Itegeko Nshinga n’iyubahirizwa ryaryo, ndetse no kuba yareba niba amategeko atorwa atanga ubutabera bunoze. Avuga ko by’umwihariko, kuba Me Mugisha Richard ari avoka, afite inyungu zo kugaragaza ko hari amategeko yatowe anyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, kandi ko ibyo asaba ko bisuzumwa ari inyungu rusange, kuko bireba umunyarwanda wese, ariyo mpamvu abona iby’uhagarariye Leta avuga ko Avoka adafite inyungu, atari byo kuko inyungu zitagombye kugaragazwa n’uko habaye ibibazo, ahubwo ko byakabaye byiza habaye kubungabunga Itegeko Nshinga kugira ngo ritabangamirwa. [13] Me Kabasinga Florida avuga ko Mugisha Richard afite inyungu bwite n’inyungu rusange zo gutanga ikirego kuko ingingo z’amategeko zisabirwa kuvaho zireba umuntu wese na Mugisha Richard arimo, ko buri muntu wese ashobora gukurikiranwaho ibyaha biteganywa n’ingingo zaregewe, ko rero Mugisha Richard afite inyungu, zo gutanga icyo kirego kugira ngo abe yarengera inyungu ze bwite n’iz‘abandi izo ngingo zabangamira. 9 Re MUGISHA

## Page 34

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA A. Kumenya niba Leta ishobora gutanga inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego [14] Mbere yo gusuzuma ibirebana n’inyungu z’uwatanze ikirego, Urukiko rurasanga ari ngombwa kumenya niba Leta ishobora gutanga inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego mu manza zisaba kwemeza ko itegeko rinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga. [15] Ingingo ya 72, igika cya gatatu y’Itegeko N°30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko iteganya ko iburanisha ry’ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rikorwa mu ruhame hari uhagarariye Leta. Mu birego bisaba kwemeza ko itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, ntaho biteganijwe ko ari Leta iregwa. Ahubwo Leta iza mu rubanza kugaragaza aho ihagaze ku myumvire y’Itegeko risabirwa kuvanwaho bitewe no kuba ariyo ihagarariye inyungu za rubanda kandi inzego zayo nizo zigira uruhare mu ishyirwaho ry ‘amategeko. [16] Bitewe n’uko Leta iza mu rubanza kugaragaza aho ihagaze ku myumvire y’itegeko risabirwa kuvanwaho nkuko byasobanuwe hejuru, ifite n’uburenganzira bwo kugaragaza aho ihagaze ku iyakirwa ry’ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko itegeko rinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga. Urukiko rusanga rero ibyavuzwe n’Intumwa ya Leta muri uru rubanza birebana n’inyungu z’uwatanze ikirego, bigomba gusuzumwa nk’ibitekerezo aho kuba inzitizi itanzwe n’umuburanyi mu rubanza. B. Ibirebana n’inyungu zo gutanga ikirego [17] Ibirego bisaba gukuraho ingingo z’amategeko kuko zinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga ntabwo biratangwa ari byinshi ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 10

## Page 35

muri uru Rukiko. By’umwihariko, ni ubwa mbere uhagarariye Leta avuze ko uwatanze ikirego nta nyungu afite. Niyo mpamvu, mu gusobanura icyemezo cyarwo, Urukiko rusesengura amategeko asanzwe akoreshwa mu Rwanda arebana n’iki kibazo, rukanifashisha imanza zaciwe mu bindi bihugu aho ibirego nk’ibi bimaze igihe bitangwa. [18] Ingingo ya 3, igika cya mbere y’Itegeko No22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko: “Ikirego cyakirwa mu rukiko iyo urega afite ububasha, inyungu n’ubushobozi byo kurega, keretse igihe itegeko ribiteganya ukundi”. Itegeko ntirisobanura izo nyungu, niba ari inyungu bwite cyangwa inyungu rusange. [19] Ubusanzwe, nk’uko abahanga mu by’amategeko babivuga, kugira ngo ikirego cy‘umuburanyi cyakirwe, umuburanyi asabwa kuba afite inyungu zigaragazwa n’ibyo asaba, zemewe n’amategeko, zitaziguye kandi ze bwite3. Inyungu mu rubanza zigamije kwerekana ko uwatanze ikirego hari uburenganzira ashaka guheshwa n’icyemezo cy’urukiko, cyangwa akaba ashaka ko urukiko hari ibyo rwemeza bimufitiye akamaro. Urega asabwa kuba afite inyungu mu kirego yatanze kugira ngo bikumire abashobora gutanga ibirego bagamije kwimenyekanisha cyangwa kumenyekanisha ibikorwa byabo ndetse n’abashobora gushaka guheshwa uburenganzira bugenewe abandi.

3 Serge Guinchard et Thierry Debard, Lexique des termes juridiques 2015- 2016, 23e éd, Dalloz, 2015 p 58. Intérêt pour agir: condition de recevabilité de l’action consistant dans l’avantage que procurerait au demandeur la reconnaissance par le juge de sa prétention. L’intérêt doit être personnel, direct, né, et actuel. 11 Re MUGISHA

## Page 36

[20] Ibirebana n’inyungu kandi byitabwaho kugira ngo amikoro make agenewe inkiko akoreshwe hakemurwa ibibazo bihari aho kurangarira ku bidahari. Kuri iki kibazo, Urukiko ruburanisha ibirego birebana n’Itegeko Nshinga muri Afurika y‘Epfo, mu rubanza Zantsi v Council of State, Ciskei and Other4, rwavuze ko bidasanzwe ko inkiko zifata imyanzuro ku bibazo bitariho n’ibitagibwaho impaka, isesengura nk’iryo rikorwa n’amashuri mu nyungu zo kwigisha. Rwabivuze muri aya magambo: “It is not ordinarily desirable for a court to give rulings in the abstract on issues which are not the subject of controversy and are only of academic interest [...]. Urukiko ruhereye ku bisobanuro bitanzwe mu bika bibanziriza iki, rurasanga ibyo Intumwa ya Leta ivuga bigendanye no kugira inyungu mu rubanza byumvikana cyane cyane mu manza zisanzwe. [21] Urukiko rusanga ariko hari itandukaniro ku birego bijyanye n’Itegeko Nshinga aho inyungu igomba kumvikana mu buryo bwagutse, cyane cyane mu gihugu nk’U Rwanda kikiri mu nzira y’iterambere aho abaturage batarasobanukirwa uburenganzira bwabo bagenerwa n’Itegeko Nshinga, bakaba bakeneye gufashwa kubugeraho hifashishijwe inkiko. Ingingo ya 72 igika cya mbere y’Itegeko N°30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko iteganya ko: “Umuntu ku giti cye, ikigo cyangwa umuryango ufite ubuzimagatozi bashobora kuregera Urukiko rw’Ikirenga basaba kwemeza ko itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga iyo babifitemo inyunguˮ Imiterere y’imanza zisaba kwemeza ko itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, igaragaza ko inyungu muri bene izo manza

4 Zantsi v Council of State, Ciskei and Others (CCT24/94) [1995] ZACC 9; 1995 (4) SA 615 (CC); 1995 (10) BCLR 1424 (CC) (22 September 1995). ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 12

## Page 37

ishingiye ku “kwemeza ko itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga” kuko ribangamiye uburenganzira bw‘abasaba ko rivaho, cyangwa se rituma icyari kigamijwe n’Itegeko Nshinga kitagerwaho kandi kigomba kurengerwa. [22] Muri uru rubanza, inyungu zaba kwemeza ko ingingo ya 233 irebana n’icyaha cyo gukoza isoni abayobozi b’Igihugu n’abashinzwe umurimo rusange w’Igihugu, iya 236 irebana n’icyaha cyo gutuka cyangwa gusebya Perezida wa Repubulika, iya 136 irebana n’icyaha cy’ubusambanyi, iya 138 irebana n’icyaha cy‘ubushoreke, iya 154 irebana n’icyaha cyo gusebya mu ruhame imihango y’idini n’iya 139 irebana n’icyaha cyo guta urugo, z’Itegeko N°68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda kuko hari uburenganzira zishobora kuba zibangamiye burimo ubwo kureshya imbere y’amategeko, ubwisanzure bw’Itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru, ndetse n’ubwisanzure bw’umuryango bugomba kurengerwa na Leta. [23] Itegeko N°68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, ni itegeko rireba abashobora gukurikiranwaho ibyaha biteganywa n’iryo tegeko mu buryo ryateganyije kandi rigomba kubahirizwa na buri wese na Me Mugisha Richard arimo. Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano, ntirireba gusa abakoze ibyaha cyangwa abashobora kubikora, rinareba buri wese uherereye aho rikoreshwa kuko rigena imwe mu myitwarire igomba kuranga abantu, kunyuranya niyo myitwarire bikaba aribyo biba icyaha. Ibyo bivuze ko mu buryo bumwe cyangwa ubundi, iri tegeko rireba Mugisha Richard watanze ikirego, Urukiko rurasanga rero afite inyungu zo gusaba kwemeza ko zimwe mu ngingo zaryo zinyuranyije n’Itegeko 13 Re MUGISHA

## Page 38

Nshinga nk’umwe mu bo rireba, ushobora gukurikiranwaho ibyaha byavuzwe hejuru. [24] Niba uwareze asanga hari itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, ntagomba gutegereza ngo abanze akurikiranweho ibyaha biteganywa n’iryo tegeko. Igihe asanze hari itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, afite uburenganzira bwo gusaba ko rivanwaho. Kuba haba hari itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga byafatwa nk’ikibazo gikomeye kigomba gukemurwa aho gufatwa nk’ikibazo kitariho. [25] Kuba uwatanze ikirego atarigeze ahanwa cyangwa ngo akurikiranwe hashingiwe ku ngingo avuga ko zinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga, Urukiko rurasanga bitafatwa nk’aho nta nyungu afite mu rubanza, kuko kuba izo ngingo z’itegeko avuga ko zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga ziriho, ubwabyo birahagije kugira ngo atange ikirego asaba ko zivanwaho bitabaye ngombwa kugaragaza ko hari aho zakoreshejwe mu kumukurikirana. Uyu murongo ninawo wafashwe na zimwe mu nkiko z’ibindi bihugu nko mu rubanza Klass and others v. Germany, Urukiko rw’Uburayi rushinzwe iyubahirizwa ry’uburenganzira bwa muntu (European Court of Human Rights) rwari rwasabwe n’abareze kuvanaho ingingo ya 10 ya Act of 13 August 1968 on Restrictions on the Secrecy of the Mail, Post and Telecommunications (Gesetz zur Beschränkung) rwemeje ko umuntu ashobora gusaba ko itegeko rivaho bitabaye ngombwa kugaragaza ko ryakoreshejwe kuri we. Rwabivuze muri aya magambo: “[....]The Court therefore accepts that an individual may, under certain conditions, claim to be the victim of a violation occasioned by the mere existence of secret measures or of legislation permitting secret measures, without having to ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 14

## Page 39

allege that such measures were in fact applied to him”5. Ibi bihujwe n’ikirego cyatanzwe na Mugisha Richard, kuba atarakurikiranwa hashingiwe ku ngingo yareze asaba ko zivaho, izo ngingo ziramureba kuko mu gihe yaba akoze ibinyuranye nazo, zashingirwaho mu kumukurikirana. Inyungu zishobora kuba iziriho cyangwa izishoboka. [26] Inyungu mu birego bisaba kwemeza ko Itegeko rinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga, zigomba kumvikana mu buryo bwagutse kuko zigera ku barebwa n’Itegeko bose aho kugarukira gusa ku watanze ikirego nkuko bimeze mu birego bisanzwe. Ibyo bigaragara cyane cyane iyo urukiko rwemeje ko itegeko rivaho kuko rinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga, icyo cyemezo kiba kireba buri wese haba uwatanze ikirego n’utaragitanze ku buryo nta n’ushobora kongera gusaba ko itegeko cyangwa ingingo yabisabiwe, ivanwaho kuko inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. Ni nayo mpamvu, ingingo ya 72, igika cya nyuma y’Itegeko N°30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko iteganya ko iyo Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwemeje ko itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, icyo cyemezo gitangazwa mu Igazeti ya Leta ya Repubulika y’u Rwanda. Ibi ni kugira ngo abantu bose barebwa n’itegeko (uwatanze ikirego n’abataragitanze) bamenye ko itegeko ritagifite agaciro. [27] Ibirebana n’imyumvire y’inyungu ku buryo bwagutse mu birego bisaba kwemeza ko Itegeko rinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga byagarutsweho n’Urukiko ruburanisha ibirego birebana n’Itegeko Nshinga muri Afurika y’Epfo mu rubanza Ferreira v

5 European Court of Human Rights, Klass and others v Federal Republic of Germany, (Series A, NO 28) (1979-80) 2 EHRR 214, 6 September 1978 available on http://hudoc.echr.coe.int

15 Re MUGISHA

## Page 40

Levin NO and Others; Vryenhoek and Others v Powell NO and Others muri aya magambo: “ As the arm of government which is entrusted primarily with the interpretation and enforcement of constitutional rights, it carries a particular democratic responsibility to ensure that those rights are honoured in our society. This role requires that access to the courts in constitutional matters should not be precluded by rules of standing developed in a different constitutional environment in which a different model of adjudication predominated. In particular, it is important that it is not only those with vested interests who should be afforded standing in constitutional challenges, where remedies may have a wide impact6.” [28] Nta kibuza ko ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko itegeko cyangwa ingingo zaryo zinyuranije n’Itegeko Nshinga gitangwa mu nyungu z’uwagitanze no mu nyungu za rubanda. N’ubwo hari indi ngingo7 y’Itegeko N°30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko itanga ububasha bwo gutanga ikirego ku mpaka zishingiye ku burenganzira bw’inyungu rusange, ntibibuza ko mu manza zisaba gukuraho Itegeko rinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga, umuburanyi yatanga ikirego agamije kurengera inyungu rusange za rubanda. Uyu ni nawo murongo wafashwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa Canada nko mu rubanza Minister of Justice (Can.) v. Borowski8, aho umucamanza

6 Ferreira v Levin NO and Others; Vryenhoek and Others v Powell NO and Others (CCT5/95) [1995] ZACC 13; 1996 (1) SA 984 (CC); 1996 (1) BCLR 1 (6 December 1995). Paragraph 230 7 Ingingo ya 80 y’Itegeko N°30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko ivuga ibireba n’iItangwa ry’ikirego n’icyemezo cy’Urukiko ku mpaka zishingiye ku burenganzira bw’inyungu rusange. 8 Minister of Justice (Can) v Borowski [1981] 2 SCR 575 at 598, per MARTLAND.J. for the majority. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 16

## Page 41

wanditse urwo rubanza amaze gusesengura izindi manza urwo Rukiko rwaciye yavuze ati: “I interpret these cases as deciding that to establish status as a plaintiff in a suit seeking a declaration that legislation is invalid, if there is a serious issue as to its invalidity, a person need only to show that he is affected by it directly or that he has a genuine interest as a citizen in the validity of the legislation and that there is no other reasonable and effective manner in which the issue may be brought before the Court. In my opinion, the respondent has met this test and should be permitted to proceed with his action” [29] Uretse ko ingingo z’itegeko zisabirwa kuvanwaho zimureba nk’umuntu ushobora kwandika inyandiko ku bayobozi zikaba zafatwa nk’izibakoza isoni agakurikiranwa, Me Mugisha Richard nk’umwenegihugu ushishikajwe n’iyubahirizwa ry’uburenganzira bwo gutanga amakuru no kuyahabwa bukubiyemo uburenganzira bw’itangazamakuru ndetse n’uburenganzira bwo gukurikira ko umuryango urengerwa nkuko bisabwa n’Itegeko Nshinga, afite inyungu zo gusaba kwemeza ko ingingo z’itegeko zibangamiye ubwo burenganzira zivanwaho. [30] Inyungu z’Avoka watanze ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko itegeko rinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga zigomba no kureberwa ku mwuga we nk’umunyamategeko, n’uruhare afite muri sosiyete rwo kuyateza imbere bikaba byamwemerera gutanga ikirego kabone nubwo byaba bigaragara ko nta nyungu zihariye agifitemo. Urukiko ruburanisha ibirego birebana n’Itegeko Nshinga muri Afurika y’Epfo (constitutional Court of South Africa), rwaciye urubanza Minister of Home Affairs v Eisenberg & Associates rwemeza ko abavoka bafite inyungu bwite zo gusaba ivanwaho ry’itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga ry’icyo Gihugu, bakagira n’inyungu nka bamwe muri rubanda zo 17 Re MUGISHA

## Page 42

gutanga icyo kirego. Urwo rukiko rwabivuze mu magambo akurikira: “Respondent,[Eisenberg & Associates] had an interest as a member of the public in asserting the right that it claimed to have and had standing to raise that issue in its own interests9”. Ibi ninabyo Me Mugisha Richard yaburanishije avuga ko nk’Avoka kandi nk’umwe mu baturage afite inyungu ku giti cye zo gutanga ikirego gisaba kuvanaho ingingo zaba zimubangamiye kandi zibangamiye rubanda no guharanira ko Itegeko Nshinga ryubahirizwa. Ntagomba kugaragaza ko ahagarariye abandi bavoka cyangwa irindi tsinda rya rubanda nk’uko uhagarariye Leta abivuga. [31] Avoka kandi nk’ umunyamwuga mu mategeko ufasha ubutabera, ushinzwe guhagararira, kunganira no kuburanira abantu mu nzego z’ubutegetsi, iz’ubucamanza n’izindi zose zifata ibyemezo, ashobora gutanga ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga akabikora atari kubwe ahubwo mu nyungu z’ubutabera (in the interest of the administration of justice). Ubumenyi mu mategeko avoka yagombye kuba afite buruta ubw’abaturage basanzwe cyangwa abandi batize amategeko, ndetse n’inshingano ahabwa n’umwuga bimushyira mu mwanya mwiza wo gutanga ibirego bisaba kwemeza ko hari ingingo zinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga, kuko niwe usobanukiwe kurusha abandi ibirebana n’amategeko n’inzira zo gusaba ko akurwaho iyo anyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. [32] Uyu murongo ninawo wafashwe mu rubanza Kruger v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others. Urukiko

9 Constitutional Court of South Africa, Minister of Home Affairs v Eisenberg & Associates, (CCT15/03) [2003] ZACC 10; 2003 (8) BCLR 838 ; 2003 (5) SA 281. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 18

## Page 43

ruburanisha ibirego birebana n’Itegeko Nshinga muri Afurika y’Epfo rwahamije ko umunyamwuga ashobora gushingira ku nyungu zitaziguye no gushingira ku byo akora agatanga ikirego mu nyungu z’ubutabera. Rwabivuze muri aya magambo: “Where the practitioner can establish both that a proclamation is of direct and central importance to the field in which he or she operates, and that it is in the interests of the administration of justice that the validity of that proclamation be determined by a court, that practitioner may approach a court to challenge the validity of such a proclamation. Legal practitioners must not assume that they will be allowed to bring applications to this Court for a declaration of invalidity based purely on financial self- interest or in circumstances where they cannot show that it will be in the interest of the administration of justice that they do so.10 Me Mugisha Richard, nk’umunyamwuga w’amategeko, ufite ubumenyi mu mategeko, gutanga ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga asaba ko ingingo yavuze zivanwaho kuko zinyuranyije n’amategeko, Urukiko rurasanga biri mu nyungu z’ubutabera kuko ashobora gutanga ibisobanuro bifasha Urukiko kandi, icyemezo gifashwe kikagira inyungu ku butabera muri rusange. [33] Urukiko rusanga rero, hasesenguwe ibimaze kuvugwa, Me Mugisha Richard afite inyungu ku buryo butandukanye nk’uko byasobanuwe hejuru, zo gutanga ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko ingingo z’amategeko zinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga. [34] Kubera uburemere bw’ibibazo bizasuzumwa muri uru rubanza ruburanishwa mu mizi, hitawe no kuba nta zindi manza zaciwe n’inkiko z’u Rwanda ku bibazo bisa n’ibiri muri uru

10 Kruger v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT 57/07) [2008] ZACC 17; 2009 (1) SA 417 (CC); 2009 (3) BCLR 268 (CC) (2 October 2008). 19 Re MUGISHA

## Page 44

rubanza, Urukiko ruramenyesha abantu n’ibigo cyangwa imiryango itegamiye kuri Leta bifuza gutanga ibitekerezo muri uru rubanza nk’inshuti z’urukiko (Amicus Curiae) kandi babifitiye ubumenyi, ko babisaba binyujijwe ku Bwanditsi bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga bitarenze tariki ya 8/02/2019, bakanatanga inyandiko bifuza kugeza ku Rukiko bitarenze tariki ya 28/02/2019. III. CYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [35] Rwemeje ko Me Mugisha Richard afite inyungu yo gutanga ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko ingingo z’itegeko zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga; [36] Ruvuze ko iburanishwa ry’uru rubanza rizakomeza ku wa 18/03/2019. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 20

## Page 45

IMANZA ZEREKERANYE N’IMIBURANISHIRIZE Y’IMANZA

## Page 47

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

## Page 49

KAMATENESI v. KING FAYCAL HOSPITAL RWANDA Ltd [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RC00003/2018/SC (Mugenzi P.J., Karimunda na Muhumuza, J) 27 Kamena 2018] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza mbonezamubano – Impaka zavutse mu irangiza rubanza –Mu gihe uwatsinzwe urubanza adahakana ingano y’ubwishyu bwategetswe n’inkiko mu byemezo birangizwa ahubwo yemera ko ariho kandi ko nta wundi ugomba kwishyura ibyo yatsindiwe, biba bigaragaza ko nta mpaka zavutse mu irangiza ry’urubanza. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza mbonezamubano – Impaka zavutse mu irangiza rubanza – Iyo icyiswe impaka zavutse mu irangiza ry’urubanza ari urujijo uwatsinzwe urubanza yateje cyangwa ashaka guheza uwatsinze urubanza mu gihirahiro avuga ko hazishyura undi udafite aho ahuriye n’urubanza rurangizwa, Urukiko rufite inshingano zo kugaragaza ko imyitwarire y’uwatsinzwe urubanza yabereye intambamyi inzira zo kwishyura uwatsinze, rugategeka ko urubanza rurangizwa n’uwarutsinzwe nta yandi mananiza. Incamake y’ikibazo: Nyuma yaho urukiko rw’ikirenga ruciriye urubanza ku bujurire bwa King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd, aho ibyo bitaro byavugaga ko mu rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje indishyi zahawe Kamatenesi n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo zo kuba ibyo bitaro bitaramwitayeho nkuko bikwiye bituma atakaza ibice by’umubiri ndetse n’umwana yari atwite yitaba Imana, ibyo bitaro bivuga ko niba hari amakosa yakozwe akwiye kuryozwa umuganga wari ku 25

## Page 50

izamu, cyangwa bigafatwa nk’impanuka abagore nka we badakunze kugira ibise bahura nayo. Kamatenesi yatanze inzitizi y’iburabubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuko King FaycaL Hospital Rwanda Ltd yatsinzwe mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo no mu Rukiko Rukuru ku mpamvu zimwe. Urukiko rw’Ikirenga nyuma yo gusuzuma iyo nzitizi rwanzuye ko ifite ishingiro, runamugenera igihembo cy’Avoka. Nyuma y’imikirize y’urwo rubanza, Kamatenesi Jovia yashatse ko rurangizwa, King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd imubwira ko atariyo yakwishyura. Bityo bituma atanga ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga yagiye kwishyuza abura ubwishyu kuko King FaycaL Hospital Rwanda Ltd yamubwiye ko umutungo wayo wose waguzwe n’ikigo cyitwa Oshen Health Care Rwanda naho imyenda yayo yegurirwa Leta y’u Rwanda. Yongeraho ko bandikiye Oshen Health Care Rwanda bayisaba kwishyurwa nayo ibabwira ko itarangiza urubanza itabayemo umuburanyi. Kamatenesi yatanze ikirego mu rukiko rw’Ikirenga gishingiye ku mpaka zavutse mu irangizarubanza, mu kirego cye yanareze Oshen Health Care nayo itanga inzitizi yo kuvanwa mu rubanza kuko ivuga ko ntaho ihuriye n’urubanza rwateye impaka mu kururangiza ndetse isaba n’indishyi. Urukiko nyuma yo gusuzuma iyo nzitizi rwasanze King FaycaL Hospital Rwanda Ltd yaremeye mu rubanza rurangizwa ko iriho, kandi ko Oshen Health Care itabaye umuburanyi mu rubanza rurangizwa, hanyuma rutegeka ko Oshen Health Care ivanwe mu rubanza, rutegeka Kamatenesi kuyiha indishyi. King FaycaL Hospital Rwanda Ltd yatanze inzitizi y’iburabubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ivuga ko nyuma yaho Kamatenesi atangiye ikirego hasohotse Itegeko No30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko rigaragaza ko ikirego cya Kamatenesi Jovia kitari mu bubasha bwarwo. Urukiko ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 26

## Page 51

rwasanze mu itegeko rishya ry’ububasha bw’inkiko, hateganyijwe ko inkiko zisanzweho zikomeza ibyo zari zatangiye gukora, muri ibyo hakaba harimo no gukemura impaka zijyanye n’imanza zaciye. Urukiko rwanzura ko inzitizi nta shingiro ifite. Uhagarariye King FaycaL Hospital Rwanda Ltd, avuga ko icyemezo cy’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza rurangizwa gisobanutse kuko gitegeka King FaycaL Hospital Rwanda Ltd kwishyura kandi bikaba bidashoboka ko gihinduka. Yongeraho ko ibitaro bitanze kwishyura kandi ko byamwandikiye bimumenyesha ko azishyurwa na Leta y’u Rwanda binyuze muri Minisiteri y’Imari kuko ariyo yabyishingiye, ariko asanga byarakozwe mu buryo butari bwo kuko hari kwandikirwa Leta y’u Rwanda, Kamatenesi Jovia we akabimenyeshwa. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Mu gihe uwatsinzwe urubanza adahakana ingano y’ubwishyu bwategetswe n’inkiko mu byemezo birangizwa ahubwo yemera ko ariho kandi ko nta wundi ugomba kwishyura ibyo yatsindiwe, biba bigaragraza ko nta mpaka zavutse mu irangiza ry’urubanza. 2. Iyo icyiswe impaka zavutse mu irangiza ry’urubanza ari urujijo uwatsinzwe urubanza yateje cyangwa ashaka guheza uwatsinze urubanza mu gihirahiro avuga ko hazishyura undi udafite aho ahuriye n’urubanza rurangizwa, Urukiko rufite inshingano zo kugaragaza ko imyitwarire y’uwatsinzwe urubanza yabereye intambamyi inzira zo kwishyura uwatsinze, rugategeka ko urubanza rurangizwa n’uwarutsinzwe nta yandi mananiza. Nta mpaka ziri mu irangiza ry’urubanza RCAA00019/2017/CS. Urubanza RCAA00019/2017/CS rugomba kurangizwa mu gihe cy’ukwezi kumwe. 27 KAMATENESI v. KING FAYCAL HOSPITAL RWANDA Ltd

## Page 52

Amategeko yifashishijwe Itegeko No30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, ingingo ya 105. Itegeko No22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 247. Nta manza zifashishijwe Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rukomoka ku rubanza RCAA00019/2017/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 16/02/2018 ku bujurire bwa King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd. Muri urwo rubanza, King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd yavugaga ko mu rubanza RCA00056-00057/2016/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 21/04/2017 ku bujurire bw’urubanza rwari rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo, ibitaro byaciwe indishyi zo kuba zitaritaye uko bikwiye kuri Kamatenesi Jovia wahivurije akahatakariza ibice bimwe by’umubiri ndetse n’umwana yari atwite agapfa, nyamara habaye hari amakosa yakozwe akwiye kuryozwa Dr Rwibasira Muganda John wari ku izamu, cyangwa bigafatwa nk’impanuka abagore nka we, badakunze kugira ibise, bahura nayo. King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd yavugaga kandi ko yaciwe indishyi hashingiwe ku buhamya buvuguruzanya bwa Dr Rwibasira Muganda John ndetse hatitawe no ku mahirwe Kamatenesi Jovia afite yo kuzongera kubyara. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 28

## Page 53

[2] Muri urwo rubanza habanje gusuzumwa inzitizi yazamuwe na Kamatenesi Jovia, wavugaga ko ubujurire bwa King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd butari mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuko yatsinzwe mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo no mu Rukiko Rukuru ku mpamvu zimwe. Mu rubanza rubanziriza urundi rwaciwe ku wa 16/02/2018, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwasanze inzitizi y’iburabubasha yatanzwe na Kamatenesi Jovia ifite ishingiro, rwanzura ko ubujurire bwa King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd butari mu bubasha bwarwo, itegekwa guha Kamatenesi Jovia 500.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka, no guha Dr Rwibasira Muganda John 300.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza na 500.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka. [3] Kamatenesi Jovia avuga ko nyuma y’iki cyemezo yashatse kurangiza urubanza, King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd ibwira Umuhesha w’Inkiko w’umwuga ko yagurishijwe Oshen Health Care ku wa 25/04/2017, imyenda yayo yose yegurirwa Leta y’u Rwanda, naho Oshen Health Care imubwira ko ntaho ihuriye n’urubanza rurangizwa kandi ko ishinzwe gusa imicungire ya King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd, asaba ko uru Rukiko rukemura izo mpaka zavutse mu irangiza ry’urubanza kugira ngo abone ibyo yatsindiye. [4] Iburanisha mu ruhame ryashyizwe ku wa 19/06/2018, icyakora uwo munsi ntirwaburanishwa kuko Oshen Health Care yavuze ko itabonye umwanya wo gusubiza imyanzuro y’uruhande rurega, urubanza rwimurirwa ku wa 25/06/2018 kugira ngo ababuranyi bategure kandi bahererekanye imyanzuro ku nzitizi batanze no ku kirego cy’iremezo. [5] Kuri uwo munsi, Urukiko rwabanje gusuzuma inzitizi yazamuwe na Oshen Health Care yavugaga ko ntaho ihuriye 29 KAMATENESI v. KING FAYCAL HOSPITAL RWANDA Ltd

## Page 54

n’urubanza rurangizwa, ikaba itumva impamvu Kamatenesi Jovia yayireze, isaba uru Rukiko kuyivana mu rubanza no kumutegeka kuyiha 1.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka kuko yashowe mu rubanza rutayireba, yiyambaza avoka ubihemberwa. [6] Nyuma yo kumva ibisobanuro by’ababuranyi bose kuri iyo nzitizi, Urukiko rwariherereye, rusanga King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd yaburanye urubanza rurangizwa yivugira ko iriho, rusanga kandi Oshen Health Care itarabaye umuburanyi mu rubanza rurangizwa ari narwo rwabyaye impaka, rwanzura ko nta mpamvu y’uko yatagekwa kurangirizwaho urubanza itaburanye kandi uwaruburanye ahari, rutegeka ko ivanwe mu rubanza, Kamatenesi Jovia ategekwa kuyiha 500.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka kuko yayishoye mu rubanza rutayireba. [7] King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd yatanze inzitizi y’iburabubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ivuga ko nyuma yaho Kamatenesi Jovia atangiye ikirego (ku wa 17/05/2018), hasohotse Itegeko No30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko rigaragaza ko ikirego cya Kamatenesi Jovia kitari mu bubasha bwarwo. Ivuga kandi ko isesengura ry’Itegeko No22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ryumvikanisha ko impaka zavutse mu irangiza ry’urubanza zitagikemurirwa mu nkiko, ariko uru Rukiko rubibonye ukundi, rwakwemeza ko kuva aya mategeko mashya yasohoka, Kamatenesi Jovia yagombaga kuregera Urukiko Rwisumbuye kuko arirwo rufite ububasha bwo gukemura ibibazo bitari mu bubasha bw’izindi nkiko, cyangwa se akaba yararegeye Urukiko Rukuru kuko arirwo rwaciye, ku rwego rwa nyuma, urubanza rurangizwa bitewe n’uko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwagarukiye gusa ku nzitizi y’iburabubasha. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 30

## Page 55

[8] Nyuma yo kumva ibisobanuro byatanzwe n’ababuranyi bombi kuri iyi nzitizi, Urukiko rwariherereye, rusanga ikirego cya Kamatenesi Jovia ari igisaba gukemura impaka zavutse mu irangiza ry’urubanza rwaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ndetse hari n’ibyo uru Rukiko rwemeje King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd itarangije nk’uko ibisabwa n’amategeko, rusanga kandi ingingo ya 105 y’Itegeko No30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko isaba ko mu gihe hagitegerejwe ko inkiko nshya zitangira imirimo yazo, izari zisanzweho zikomeza ibyo zari zaratangiye gukora, muri ibyo hakaba harimo no gukemura impaka zijyanye n’imanza zaciye kuko izi manza ku mpaka zavutse mu irangizarubanza ziba zigamije gutanga umucyo ku byemejwe n’Urukiko. Urukiko rwanzuye ko ntaho rwahera rwemeza ko ikirego cya Kamatenesi Jovia cyari kwoherezwa mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye cyangwa mu Rukiko Rukuru mu gihe agifite amahirwe yo kuburanira imbere y’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, kandi ayo mahirwe akaba atayavutswa n’uko ibyo yahaburaniye byaba noneho biri mu bubasha bw’urundi Rukiko, rufatira icyemezo mu ntebe ko ikirego cye kiri mu bubasha bwarwo, rutegeka ko iburanisha rikomeza. [9] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame, Kamatenesi Jovia aburanirwa na Me Mwine Geoffrey naho King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd iburanirwa na Me Kayirangwa Claire.

31 KAMATENESI v. KING FAYCAL HOSPITAL RWANDA Ltd

## Page 56

II. IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYACYO a Kumenya niba hari impaka zavutse mu irangiza ry’urubanza RCAA00019/2017/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 16/02/2018. [10] Me Mwine Geoffrey, uburanira Kamatenesi Jovia, avuga ko Umuhesha w’Inkiko yagiye kwishyuriza Kamatenesi Jovia abura ubwishyu kuko King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd yamubwiye ko umutungo wayo wose waguzwe n’ikigo cyitwa OSHEN HEALTH CARE RWANDA naho imyenda yayo yegurirwa Leta y’u Rwanda. Asobanura ko bandikiye Oshen Health Care Rwanda bayisaba kwishyurwa nayo ibabwira ko itarangiza urubanza itabayemo umuburanyi. Avuga ko mu gihe King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd yaba noneho yemera kwishyura, yahabwa igihe ntarengwa yaba irangije kwishyuramo kuko Kamatenesi Jovia atajya kwishyuza Leta y’u Rwanda cyangwa Oshen Health Care Rwanda ataribo batsinzwe urubanza. [11] Me Kayirangwa Claire, uburanira King FaycaL Hospital Rwanda Ltd, avuga ko icyemezo cy’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza rurangizwa gisobanutse kuko gitegeka King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd kwishyura kandi bikaba bidashoboka ko gihinduka. Asobanura ko ibitaro bitanze kwishyura kandi ko byandikiye Kamatenesi Jovia bimumenyesha ko azishyurwa na Leta y’u Rwanda binyuze muri Minisiteri y’Imari kuko ariyo yabyishingiye, icyakora ko nawe asanga byarakozwe mu buryo butari bwo kuko hari kwandikirwa Leta y’u Rwanda (Minisiteri y’Imari), Kamatenesi Jovia akabimenyeshwa. Avuga ko King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd itakwohereza Kamatenesi Jovia ngo ajye kwiyishyuriza muri Leta y’u Rwanda (Minisiteri y’Imari) ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 32

## Page 57

cyangwa muri Oshen Health Care kuko ataribo batsinzwe urubanza, akaba asanga noneho ibitaro bigiye guhita byandikira Minisiteri y’Imari, Kamatenesi Jovia akabimenyeshwa. Avuga kandi ko iby’uko uregwa yahabwa igihe ntarengwa cyo kwishyura bitahabwa ishingiro kuko byaba bivuze ko Urukiko rufashe icyemezo ku irangiza ry’urubanza kandi ataribyo rwaregewe. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [12] Ingingo ya 247, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko No22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko “mu gihe cy’iminsi mirongo itatu (30) kuva urubanza rubaye itegeko […] uwatsinzwe yegera uwamutsinze amumenyesha uburyo yifuza gushyira mu bikorwa ibyo icyo cyemezo cy’urukiko […] gitegeka kugira ngo babyumvikaneho.” [13] Dosiye y’urubanza irimo inyandiko Me Mwine Geoffrey yandikiye Umuyobozi wa King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd ku wa 27/03/2018, amumenyesha ko ibyo bitaro byatsinzwe urubanza byaburanaga na Kamatenesi Jovia, bitegekwa kwishyura 31.100.000Frw, amusaba kuyishyura ku bwumvikane mu gihe cy’iminsi irindwi. Ku wa 18/04/2018, Umuyobozi Mukuru wa King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd yasubije Me Mwine Geofrey ko ibyo bitaro biriho ku izina gusa kuko byeguriwe Oshen Health Care n’umwishingize wayo Oshen Group S.A. kandi ko kuva ku wa 25/04/2016, imyenda yose ikomoka ku bikorwa by’ibitaro yishingiwe na Leta y’u Rwanda, amusaba kuzaganira na Leta y’u Rwanda, bakumvikana uburyo bazishyurwa. 33 KAMATENESI v. KING FAYCAL HOSPITAL RWANDA Ltd

## Page 58

[14] Dosiye y’urubanza irimo na none urwandiko Oshen Health Care yandikiye Me Mukeshimana Juliette, Umuhesha w’Inkiko, wagiye kurangiza urubanza, ko atariyo yakwishyuzwa ibyaryojwe King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd kuko ntaho ihuriye n’imanza yatsinzwe, kandi ko ibyo bitaro biriho mu buryo bwemewe n’amategeko, bifite n’Umuyobozi Mukuru ushinzwe gucunga uko bikwiye ibikorwa byayo bya mbere y’amasezerano yo ku wa 25/04/2016 bagiranye na Leta y’u Rwanda (King Faysal Hospital is still legally existent with an appointed Chief Executive Officer whose mandate is to ensure a proper management of any outstanding business of the hospital at the date of takeover by Oshen Health Care Rwanda and this is clearly explained in the Concession agreement signed between the Government of Rwanda herein represented by MINECOFIN and Oshen Health Care Rwanda). [15] Urukiko rurasanga King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd idahakana ingano y’ubwishyu bwategetswe n’inkiko mu byemezo birangizwa, yivugira ko ikiriho kandi yemera ko nta wundi, yaba Leta y’u Rwanda cyangwa Oshen Health Care Rwanda, ukwiye kubazwa iby’irangizwa ry’imanza yatsinzwe kuko ariyo ubwayo yategetswe kwishyura, ibi kandi byongeye gushimangirwa n’urwandiko Oshen Health Care Rwanda yandikiye Kamatenesi Jovia ivuga ko ibyo bitaro bikiriho ndetse byahawe n’Umuyobozi Mukuru ushinzwe gukemura ibibazo byaba byarasigaye nyuma y’amasezerano Oshen Health Care Rwanda yagiranye na Leta y’u Rwanda, byose byumvikanisha ko mu gihe uwatsinzwe urubanza yemera ko ari we ugomba kwishyura ibyo yategetswe n’inkiko, bigaragaza ko nta mpaka zavutse mu irangiza ry’urubanza. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 34

## Page 59

[16] Urukiko rurasanga ikiswe impaka zavutse mu irangiza ry’urubanza, ari urujijo King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd yateye Kamatenesi Jovia ikamuheza mu gihirahiro aho kwubahiriza ibyo yari yategetswe n’inkiko, ibitaro bikaba kandi byaremereye imbere y’uru Rukiko ko uburyo byitwaye mu kibazo cya Kamatenesi Jovia atari bwo, kuko aho kumwishyuriza ku mwishingizi wabyo (Leta y’u Rwanda) umwenda byemera ko ari uwabyo, byamusabye kugirana ibiganiro na Leta y’u Rwanda kandi bizi neza ko nta kimuhuza nayo, ibi byose bibikora byirengagije ko kubw’Itegeko byagombaga kwibwiriza, bikagaragariza KamatenesI Jovia uburyo bizishyura umwenda yatsindiye mu manza. [17] Urukiko rurasanga na none King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd yarakomeje guseta ibirenge mu kubahiriza ibyemezo by’inkiko, aho gukora ibikwiye byari gutuma Kamatenesi Jovia yishyurwa ibyo yatsindiye, imyitwarire yabyo ibera intambamyi inzira zo kwishyurwa kuko yari izi neza ko Kamatensi Jovia atari kujya mu mishyikirano yo kwishyurwa na Leta y’u Rwanda kandi ntakimuhuza nayo, ariyo mpamvu, hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 247, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko No22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd ikwiye guhabwa igihe kitarenze ukwezi kumwe kugira ngo ibe irangije kwishyura ibyo yategetswe n’inkiko mu manza yaburanaga na Kamatenesi Jovia. b. Kumenya niba indishyi zisabwa zifite ishingiro [18] Me Kayirangwa Claire, uburanira King FaycaL Hospital Rwanda Ltd, avuga ko uru Rukiko rusanze ikirego cya 35 KAMATENESI v. KING FAYCAL HOSPITAL RWANDA Ltd

## Page 60

Kamatenesi Jovia nta shingiro gifite nk’uko abibona, rwamutegeka gutanga 1.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka. [19] Me Mwine Geoffrey, uburanira Kamatenesi Jovia, avuga ko nta yindi nzira uyu yari asigaranye kugira ngo yishyurwe uretse iyo kugana Inkiko, ko asanga King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd ariyo nyirabayazana w’uru rubanza, ariyo mpamvu idakwiye guhabwa amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka isaba, ahubwo ko ikwiye gutegekwa kwishyura Kamatenesi Jovia 1.000.000Frw akubiyemo amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [20] Urukiko rurasanga nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, Kamatenesi Jovia yarongeye kugana inzira y’inkiko biturutse ku kuba King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd yaramusize mu gihirahiro, yiyambaza inkiko agirango zimurenganure, byumvikanisha ko iyo ibitaro byubahiriza ibyo byategetswe n’Urukiko nta rujijo biteye cyangwa bigasobanurira Kamatenesi Jovia uburyo bizamwishyura, bitari kuba ngombwa ko yongera kugana inkiko ariyo mpamvu amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd isaba itayakwiriye. [21] Urukiko rurasanga amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka Kamatenesi Jovia asaba ayakwiriye, ariko kuko atagaragaza ko 1.000.000Frw ari yo yatanze kuri uru rubanza, akaba agenewe 800.000Frw akubiyemo ay’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka.

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 36

## Page 61

III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [22] Rwemeje ko nta mpaka ziri mu irangiza ry’urubanza RCAA00019/2017/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 16/02/2018; [23] Rutegetse King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd kurangiza urubanza RCAA00019/2017/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 16/02/2018 mu gihe cy’ukwezi kumwe guhera igihe uru rubanza rusomewe; [24] Rutegetse King FaycaL Hospital Rwanda Ltd guha Kamatenesi Jovia 800.000Frw akubiyemo ay’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka; [25] Rutegetse King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd gutanga amagarama y’urubanza.

37 KAMATENESI v. KING FAYCAL HOSPITAL RWANDA Ltd

## Page 63

MBARUSHIMANA v. NKUNDABANYANGA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RCAA00022/2016/SC-RCAA 0022/16/CS (Mugenzi P.J., Nyirandabaruta na Kanyange, J.) 03 Nyakanga 2018] Ububasha bw’inkiko – Isambu – Inkiko z’Ibanze ziburanisha ku rwego rwa mbere imanza zerekeye amasambu n’amatungo n’izungura kuri ibyo bintu – Itegeko Ngenga Nº51/2008 ryo ku wa 09/09/2008 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha bw’inkiko, ingingo ya 67. Ububasha bw’inkiko – Isesengura ry’amategeko – Ingingo ya 27,3º y’Itegeko Nº30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 igomba kuzuzwa ko Inkiko z’Ibanze ziburanisha ku rwego rwa mbere, imanza zerekeye umutungo utimukanwa ugizwe n’ubutaka bugenewe ubuhinzi n’ubworozi zirengeje agaciro ka miliyoni eshatu Incamake y’ikibazo: Nkundabanyanga yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge asaba gukuraho amasezerano y’ubukode burambye afite Nº1020/KIC/GAT yahawe Mbarushimana ku isambu avuga ko yasigiwe n’umugabo we Birushyabagabo w’itababye Imana yavugaga ko mu mwaka wa 2007 yagiye kwivuza muri Kenya agarutse asanga iyo isambu Mbarushimana yayibarujeho kandi atari nyiri umutungo, nubwo bwose Nkundabanyanga ariwe ukorera muriyo sambu Urwo rukiko rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko isambu iburanwa ari iya Nkundabanyanga kuko afite abahamya bemeza ko iyo sambu ari iya Birushyabagabo wari umugabo wa Nkundabanyanga 39

## Page 64

hanyuma rutegeka ko icyangombwa cy’ubutaka cy’amasezerano y’ubukode burambye kuri iyo sambu cyabaruwe kuri Mbarushimana kivanyweho. Runategeka Mbarushimana kwishyura Nkundabanyanga amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’Avoka Mbarushimana ntiyishimiye imikirize y’urwo rubanza ajurira mu rukiko rukuru narwo ruca urubanza rwemeza ko ubujurire bwe nta shingiro bufite, rumutegeka guha Nkundabanyanga amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka. Mbarushimana ntiyishimiye nanone imikirize y’urwo rubanza ajurira mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga asaba ko hasuzumwa niba Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwari rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha ikirego cya Nkundabanyanga, yanasabye Urukiko ko rusuzuma niba uwo baburana afite ububasha n’inyungu byo gutanga ikirego. SENCO Ltd nayo yagobotse muri uru rubanza Nkundabanyanga yatanze inzitizi y’iburabubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ruyisuzumye rusanga nta shingiro ifite. Urukiko kandi rwanze ukugoboka kwa Senco Ltd kuko itubahirije icyemezo cy’urukiko cyayicaga ihazabu kandi rwari rwemeje ko izaburana ari uko igaragaje ko yayishyuye. Mbarushimana avuga ko ukurikije ko ikiburanwa ari ubutaka bw’ubuhinzi n’ibiteganyijwe n’itegeko ry’ububasha bw’inkiko Nº51/2008/OL ryo ku wa 09/09/2008 nkuko ryahinduwe kugeza ubu imanza zerekeye umutungo w’ubutaka ziburanishwa n’inkiko z’ibanze, bityo ngo kuba inkiko zombi zaraburanishije urubanza zidafitiye ububasha, ibyemezo zafashe byateshwa agaciro ibintu bigasubira uko byari bimeze. Nkundabanyanga avuga ko ibivugwa n’uwo baburana nta shingiro bifite kuko atigeze atanga inzitizi y’iburabusha imbere ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 40

## Page 65

y’Urukiko rw’Isumbuye.ko yayitanze mu Rukiko Rukuru ntiruyihe agaciro kuko rwasobanuye ko hataburanwe isambu ahubwo haregewe gukuraho amasezerano y’ubukode burambye yahawe utari nyiri umutungo. Incamake y’icyemezo:1. Mu kumenya icyaregewe, ntabwo hashingirwa gusa ku buryo cyanditse, ahubwo hagomba no kurebwa ibisabwa na buri buburanyi bigaragazwa n’inyandiko itanga ikirego n’imyanzuro yo kwiregura, nubwo rero inyandiko itanga ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye igaragaza ko haregewe gutesha agaciro amasezerano y’ubukode burambye yahawe Mbarushimana utari nyiri umutungo, ariko icyari kigamijwe ari ugusaba Urukiko kwemeza ko uwo mutungo ari uwa Nkundabanyanga. Bityo, kuba ikiregerwa ari isambu, ikirego cyagombaga gutangwa mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze ku rwego rwa mbere Bityo urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge kimwe n’urwarushingiyeho mu bujurire rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, zigomba kuvaho kuko zaciwe n’inkiko zitabifitiye ububasha. 2. Igingo ya 27,3º y’Itegeko Nº30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 igomba kuzuzwa mu buryo bukurikira: Inkiko z’Ibanze ziburanisha ku rwego rwa mbere, Imanza zerekeye umutungo utimukanwa ugizwe n’ubutaka bugenewe ubuhinzi n’ubworozi zirengeje agaciro ka miliyoni eshatu. 3. Indishyi nsimburamubyizi ntizitangwa mu gihe uzisaba atagaragaza ko urubanza aburana rwamuvukije umusaruro yagombaga kubona. 4. Indishyi z’akababaro ntizitangwa mu gihe uzisaba atagaragaza ikosa ry’uziregwa. 41 MBARUSHIMANA v. NKUNDABANYANGA

## Page 66

Ubujurire bufite ishingiro. Urubanza rwaciwe n’inkiko zibanza ruvanyweho kuko rwaciwe n’inkiko zitabifitiye ububasha. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nº22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi. Ingingo ya 6 niya 158. Itegeko Nº30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, ingingo ya 27. Itegeko Nº37/2016 ryo ku wa 08/09/2016 rigena imitunganyirize, ifasi, ububasha n’imikorere bya Komite y’Abunzi, ingingo ya 10. Itegeko Ngenga Nº51/2008 ryo ku wa 09/09/2008 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha bw’inkiko, ingingo ya 67. Itegeko-teka ryo ku wa 30 Nyakanga 1888, rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Inyandiko zabahanga zifashishijwe. J.F Perrin, Les règles d’interprétation-Principes communément admis par les jurisdictions, Note bibliographique de Marie Malaurie, in Revue Internationale de Droit Comparé, 1990, 42-3, P.1054

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 42

## Page 67

Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Nkundabanyanga Eugénie yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, arusaba gukuraho amasezerano y’ubukode burambye Nº1020/KIC/GAT kuko yahawe Mbarushimana Jean Pierre utari nyiri umutungo, ko ahubwo iyo sambu ari iyo yasigiwe n’umugabo we Birushyabagabo witabye Imana. Avuga ko mu mwaka wa 2007, yagiye kwivuza muri Kenya, agarutse asanga Mbarushimana Jean Pierre yaribarujeho iyo sambu n’ubwo ari we (Nkundabanyanga) uyikoreramo kugeza ubu. [2] Mu rubanza RC0055/15/TGI/NYGE rwaciwe ku wa 11/06/2015, Urukiko rwasanze kuba Nkundabanyanga Eugénie yerekana ko isambu ari iye ashingiye ku nyandikomvugo y’Ubuyobozi bw’Akagari ka Nyanza, aho abaturage basobanuye ko bazi ko iyo sambu ari iya Birushyabagabo wari umugabo we, bigaragaza ko isambu yabaruwe kuri Nº1020/KIC/GAT ari iya Nkundabanyanga, ko rero icyangombwa cy’ubutaka cy’amasezerano y’ubukode burambye kuri iyo sambu cyabaruwe kuri Mbarushimana Jean Pierre kivanyweho, runamutegeka kwishyura Nkundabanyanga 500.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’Avoka. [3] Mbarushimana Jean Pierre yajuririye mu Rukiko Rukuru, ruca urubanza RCA0393/15/HC/KIG ku wa 29/01/2015, rwemeza ko ubujurire bwe budafite ishingiro, rumutegeka guha Nkundabanyanga 500.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka. 43 MBARUSHIMANA v. NKUNDABANYANGA

## Page 68

[4] Mbarushimana Jean Pierre yajuriye mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko hasuzumwa niba urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwari rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha ikirego cya Nkundabanyanga, hakanasuzumwa niba uwo baburana afite ububasha n’inyungu byo gutanga ikirego mu gihe atabaho mu rwego rw’amategeko. SENCO Ltd yagobotse mu rubanza kuri uru rwego. [5] Mbere yo gusuzuma iby’igoboka rya SENCO LTD, habanje gusuzumwa inzitizi y’iburabubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga yatanzwe na Nkundabanyanga Eugénie, mu cyemezo cyo ku wa 17/12/2017, Urukiko rwemeza ko iyo nzitizi nta shingiro ifite. [6] Urubanza mu mizi rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku wa 29/05/2018, Mbarushimana Jean Pierre ahagarariwe na Me Habimana Adolphe, Nkundabanyanga Eugénie ahagarariwe na Me Gatera Kalisa Evariste, SENCO Ltd ihagarariwe na Karangwa Charles yunganiwe na Me Ntirenganya Seifu Jean Bosco. [7] Nyuma yo kubona ko SENCO Ltd itubahirije icyemezo cy’Urukiko cyo ku wa 06/02/2018 cyayiciye ihazabu ya 100.00Frw rukanemeza ko izaburana ari uko igaragaje ko yayishyuye ndetse n’uwunganira Karangwa Charles akabwira Urukiko ko yamugiriye inama yo kuyishyura aho gushingira ku biteganywa n’Itegeko ryasohotse nyuma y’icyemezo cy’Urukiko1, Urukiko rwafatiye icyemezo mu ntebe cyo

1 SENCO Ltd yanditse ivuga ko hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 119 y’Itegeko Nº22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 rigena imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ihazabu yaciwe yashyirwa kubyo izacibwa n’Urukiko mu rubanza, niba bizabaho. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 44

## Page 69

kutemerera SENCO Ltd kuburana urubanza nk’umuntu wifuje kurugobokamo, iburanisha rikomeza itarimo. II. IBIBAZO BIRI MU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO a. Kumenya niba Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rutari rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha ikirego cya Nkundabanyanga [8] Uburanira Mbarushimana Jean Pierre avuga ko uru rubanza rwerekeye umutungo w’ubutaka buhingwa nk’uko icyangombwa cyabwo kibigaragaza, kandi ingingo ya 67 y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº01/2015/OL ryo ku wa 05/05/2015 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko Ngenga Nº51/2008/OL ryo ku wa 09/09/2008 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’inkiko iteganya ko imanza zerekeye umutungo w’ubutaka ziburanishwa n’inkiko z’ibanze, naho iya 128 y’iryo tegeko ikavuga ko imanza zerekeye umutungo utimukanwa ziregerwa mu rukiko rw’aho ibyo bintu biri. [9] Avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwasobanuye ko rufite ububasha kuko haburanwa gutesha agaciro amasezerano y’ubukode burambye, nyamara imikirize y’Urubanza igaragaza ko umucamanza yanditse ko haburanwa isambu, ko rero kuba inkiko zombi zaraburanishije urubanza zidafitiye ububasha, ibyemezo zafashe byateshwa agaciro ibintu bigasubira uko byari bimeze.

45 MBARUSHIMANA v. NKUNDABANYANGA

## Page 70

[10] Uburanira Nkundabanyanga Eugenie avuga ko ibivugwa n’uwo baburana nta shingiro bifite kuko inzitizi y’iburabubasha bw’Urukiko Rwisumbuye atigeze ayitanga muri urwo Rukiko, ko yayitanze mu Rukiko Rukuru, rukagaragaza ko hataburanwe isambu ahubwo haregewe gukuraho amasezerano y’ubukode burambye yahawe utari nyiri umutungo, ko rero ikiburanwa atari isambu kuko iri mu maboko y’uwo aburanira, akaba ashaka kuyiherwa icyangombwa kuko cyanditse kuri Mbarushimana Jean Pierre. Avuga kandi ko hari urubanza nshinjabyaha (RP0475/14/TB/KGM) rugaragaza ko hagurishijwe umutungo wa Nkundabanyanga Eugénie bikozwe n’abakobwa be, uwo mutungo wagurishijwe ukaba uri mu masezerano basaba ko avanwaho, ko kandi hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 78 y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº01/2015/OL ryo ku wa 05/05/2015 ryavuzwe haruguru, Urukiko Rwisumbuye ari rwo rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha bene ibyo bibazo. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [11] Imikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe igaragaza ko mu kwemeza ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwari rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha uru rubanza, Urukiko Rukuru rwabishingiye ku mpamvu y’uko hataburanwe isambu ahubwo haburanwe gukuraho amasezerano y’ubukode burambye yahawe utari nyiri umutungo. [12] Urukiko rurasanga ariko n’ubwo inyandiko itanga ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye igaragaza ko haregewe gutesha agaciro amasezerano y’ubukode burambye yahawe Mbarushimana Jean Pierre utari nyiri umutungo, icyari kigamijwe ari ugusaba Urukiko kwemeza ko uwo mutungo ari uwa Nkundabanyanga ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 46

## Page 71

Eugénie nk’uko bigaragara mu byo yasabye urukiko2, ndetse bikaba bigaragara ko mu mikirize y’urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye kimwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, zashingiye ku bimenyetso bigaragaza ko isambu Mbarushimana Jean Pierre yaherewe amasezerano y’ubukode burambye ari iya Nkundabanyanga Eugénie. [13] Urukiko rurasanga rero mu kumenya icyaregewe, hatashingirwa gusa ku buryo cyanditse, ahubwo hagomba kurebwa ibisabwa na buri muburanyi nk’uko ingingo ya 6 y’Itegeko Nº22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi3 , bigaragazwa n’inyandiko itanga ikirego n’imyanzuro yo kwiregura, bikaba byagaragajwe haruguru ko icyo Nkundabanyanga Eugénie yari agamije arega, ari uko hemezwa ko isambu ari iye, ni ukuvuga kwemeza uburenganzira ayifiteho kuko n’ubwo avuga ko ari we uyitunze, ubwo burenganzira atabufite mu gihe nta cya ngombwa cyayo afite, bikaba kandi ari nabyo byumvikana kuko nyuma yo kubona ubwo burenganzira, ari bwo yasaba kwandikwaho iyo sambu. [14] Urukiko rurasanga rero, kuba ikiregerwa ari isambu, ikirego cyaragombaga gutangwa mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 67 y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº51/2008 ryo ku wa 09/09/2008 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha bw’inkiko ryakurikizwaga ubwo cyatangwaga4,

2Kwemeza ko isambu ibaruwe ku masezerano y’ubukode burambye Nº1020/KIC/GAT ari iya Nkundabanyanga Eugénie no gutegeka ko imwandikwaho 3 Ihura n’ingingo ya 4 y’Itegeko ryakoreshwaga ikirego gitangwa ku rwego rwa mbere. 4 Cyatanzwe ku wa 04/12/2014. 47 MBARUSHIMANA v. NKUNDABANYANGA

## Page 72

ivuga ko Inkiko z’Ibanze ziburanisha ku rwego rwa mbere imanza zerekeye amasambu n’amatungo n’izungura kuri ibyo bintu, bityo hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 158, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko Nº22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi5 , urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge kimwe n’urwarushingiyeho mu bujurire rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, zigomba kuvaho kuko zaciwe n’inkiko zitabifitiye ububasha, bikaba atari ngombwa gusuzuma indi ngingo y’ubujurire irebana n’ububasha n’inyungu bya Nkundabanyanga Eugénie, ahubwo hasuzumwa indishyi zisabwa na Mbarushimana Jean Pierre. [15] Ku byerekeye ububasha bushya bw’inkiko hakurikijwe Itegeko Nº30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, ingingo ya 27,3º ivuga ko Inkiko z’Ibanze ziburanisha ku rwego rwa mbere, “Imanza zerekeye umutungo utimukanwa utari ubutaka bugenewe ubuhinzi n’ubworozi, urengeje agaciro ka miliyoni eshatu z’amafaranga y’u Rwanda (3.000.000Frw) ariko katarengeje miliyoni makumyabiri (20.000.000Frw) n’izungura kuri uwo mutungo kimwe n’impaka ziri hagati y’uwahawe amasezerano y’ubukode burambye n’uwiyita nyir’umutungo ariko utayafiteˮ.

5 Iyo Urukiko rwajuririwe rusanze urubanza rwararegewe ku rwego rwa mbere mu buryo budakurikije amategeko cyangwa rwararegewe urukiko rudafite ububasha, nyamara urwo rukiko rukaba rwarafashe icyemezo cyo kurwakira kandi rutaragombaga kurwakira, urukiko rwajuririwe rwakira ubwo bujurire, rukagaragaza ko urwo rubanza rwajuririwe rwari rwararegewe urukiko rwa mbere mu buryo bunyuranije n’amategeko, rugatesha agaciro ibyemezo byose byashingiye kuri iryo kosa; ubifitemo inyungu akaba yakongera agatanga ikirego bundi bushya. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 48

## Page 73

[16] Imyandikire y’ingingo imaze kuvugwa ntituma humvikana vuba icyifuzo cy’Umushingamategeko ku bijyanye n’ububasha bw’Inkiko bushingiye ku mutungo utimukanwa, bikaba rero ari ngombwa ko hakorwa isesengura kugira ngo ibiteganyijwe muri iyo ngingo byumvikane, hazirikanwa ko, mu mahame agenga isesengura ry’Itegeko, hashyirwa imbere imyumvire ishingiye ku buryo ryumvikana mu myandikire, ariko hirindwa ko ryavanwamo imyumvire inyuranye cyangwa ivuguruza icyari kigamijwe n’Umushingamategeko6. [17] Muri icyo cyerekezo cy’isesengura ry’ingingo ya 27 yavuzwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga bitakumvikana na busa ko Umushingamategeko yaba yarashatse ko imitungo itimukanwa igenewe ubuhinzi n’ubworozi yavanwa mu bubasha bw’Inkiko z’Ibanze, ahanini ari zo zegeranye nayo mu bwinshi bwayo mu gihugu, zikaba ari nazo zari zisanzwe zifite ububasha bwo kuburanisha imanza zerekeye umutungo w’ubutaka7, bityo isesengura rikwiye rikaba ari iryumvikanisha ko imanza zerekeye ubutaka bugenewe ubuhinzi n’ubworozi ziri mu bubasha bw’Inkiko z’Ibanze hatitawe ku gaciro, haseguriwe ububasha bwagenewe Komite y’Abunzi ku mutungo utarengeje agaciro ka

6 La lettre l’emporte sur l’esprit de la loi, mais elle peut être écartée si son application conduit à des résultats déraisonnables (Cour de cassation belge) ou “insoutenables qui contrediraient la véritable intention du Législateur” (tribunal Fédéral Suisse des assurances): J.F Perrin, Les règles d’interprétation-Principes communément admis par les jurisdictions, Note bibliographique de Marie Malaurie, in Revue Internationale de Droit Comparé, 1990, 42-3, P1054. 7 Ingingo ya 67, 2º y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº01/2015/OL ryo ku wa 05/05/2015 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko Ngenga Nº51/2008/OL ryo ku wa 09/09/2008 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’inkiko, yateganyaga ko Inkiko z’ibanze ziburanisha ku rwego rwa mbere imanza zerekeye umutungo w’ubutaka. 49 MBARUSHIMANA v. NKUNDABANYANGA

## Page 74

3.000.000Frw mu manza z’imbonezamubano nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 10 y’Itegeko Nº37/2016 ryo ku wa 08/09/2016 rigena imitunganyirize, ifasi, ububasha n’imikorere bya Komite y’Abunzi. [18] Urukiko rurasanga hakurikijwe iryo sesengura ingingo ya 27,3º y’Itegeko Nº30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 igomba kumvikana mu buryo bukurikira: Inkiko z’Ibanze ziburanisha ku rwego rwa mbere: - Imanza zerekeye umutungo utimukanwa, utari ubutaka bugenewe ubuhinzi n’ubworozi, urengeje agaciro ka miliyoni eshatu z’amafaranga y’u Rwanda (3.000.000Frw) ariko katarengeje miliyono makumyabiri (20.000.000Frw) n’izungura kuri uwo mutungo kimwe n’impaka ziri hagati y’uwahawe amasezerano y’ubukode burambye n’uwiyita nyir’umutungo ariko utayafite; - Imanza zerekeye umutungo utimukanwa ugizwe n’ubutaka bugenewe ubuhinzi n’ubworozi zirengeje agaciro ka miliyoni eshatu z’amafaranga y’URwanda (3.000.000Frw). [19] Urukiko rurasanga rero ku birebana n’uru rubanza haburanwamo isambu (ubutaka bwagenewe ubuhinzi) kandi bukaba bufite agaciro karenze 3.000.000Frw nk’uko byemejwe n’uru Rukiko hasuzumwa ububasha bwarwo, Ububasha ku rwego rwa mbere bufitwe n’Urukiko rw’Ibanze, bityo hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 158 y’Itegeko Nº22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru, ufite inyungu akaba ariho ashobora kongera gutanga ikirego.

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 50

## Page 75

b. Ku birebana n’indishyi zisabwa [20] Uburanira Mbarushimana Jean Pierre amusabira 50.000Frw y’insimburamubyizi ku munsi mu gihe cy’iminsi 30, ni ukuvuga 1.500.000Frw, 5.000.000Frw y’indishyi z’akababaro kubera guhangayikishwa n’imanza, 1.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka kuri uru rwego na 500.000Frw mu nkiko zabanje. [21] Uburanira Nkundabanyanga Eugénie avuga ko nta ndishyi yacibwa kuko yaregeye ibye, ko ahubwo ari we wahabwa 1.500.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ikurikiranarubanza kuri uru rwego. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [22] Urukiko rurasanga indishyi nsimburamubyizi Mbarushimana Jean Pierre asaba atazigenerwa kuko atagaragaza uburyo urubanza aburana rwamuvukije umusaruro yagombaga kubona mu gihe cy’ukwezi, n’indishyi z’akababaro asaba nazo akaba atazigenerwa kuko atagaragaza ikosa Nkundabanyanga Eugénie yakoze usibye kumurega akurikiranye uburenganzira bwe, kandi ingingo ya 258 y’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’Urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano yumvikanisha ko indishyi zitangwa ari uko hagaragajwe ikosa ry’uziregwa. [23] Ku birebana n’amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka, Urukiko rurasanga Mbarushimana Jean Pierre yayagenerwa kuko byabaye ngombwa ko agira ibyo yishyura uwamuburaniye, mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko akaba agenewe 500.000Frw kuri uru rwego kuko 1.000.000Frw asaba ari ikirenga, na 500.000Frw yo mu Rukiko Rukuru aho yatanze inzitizi y’iburabubasha bw’Urukiko Rwisumbuye ntihabwe ishingiro, nayo akaba 51 MBARUSHIMANA v. NKUNDABANYANGA

## Page 76

agenwe mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko kuko 1.000.000Frw yasabaga ari menshi, yose akaba 1.000.000Frw. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [24] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Mbarushimana Jean Pierre bufite ishingiro; [25] Rwemeje ko urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge kimwe n’urwarushingiyeho mu bujurire rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, zivanyweho kuko zaciwe n’inkiko zitabifitiye ububasha; [26] Ruvuze ko ufite inyungu ashobora kongera kuregera urukiko rubifitiye ububasha; [27] Rutegetse Nkundabanyanga Eugénie guha Mbarushimana Jean Pierre 1.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka kuri uru rwego no mu Rukiko Rukuru; [28] Rutegetse Nkundabanyanga Eugénie gutanga amagarama y’urubanza.

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 52

## Page 77

URUBANZA RWEREKEYE IMIBURANISHIRIZE NSHINJABYAHA

## Page 79

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. KANGABE [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RPA0027/16/CS (Kayitesi Z, P.J. Kanyange na Ngagi, J.) 09 Kamena 2016] Amategeko yerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha – Irangizarubanza – Kugira abana bato ntibihagije kugira ngo habe ihagarikwa ryo kurangiza urubanza kuko hateganyijwe uburyo abo bana bitabwaho mu buryo bw’umwihariko – Itegeko No54/2011 ryo ku wa 14/12/2011 ryerekeye uburenganzira bw’umwana, ingingo ya 56 igika cya 2. Incamake y’ikibazo: Mu Rukiko Rukuru urugereko rwa Rwamagana, Kangabe yatanze ikirego gisaba gusubirishamo ingingo nshya imanza RPA0207/15/HC/RWG, RPA0253/15/HC/RWG, RPA0254/15/HC/RWG na RPA0266/15/HC/RWG (zakomatanyirijwe hamwe), we na bagenzi be bahamijwemo icyaha cyo kurigisa umutungo n’icyaha cyo gukora no gukoresha inyandiko mpimbano. Mu gihe urubanza rwo gusubirishamo ingingo nshya rutararangira, Kangabe yatanze ikirego cyihutirwa, asaba guhagarika irangizwa ry’imanza yasubirishijemo kubera ko afite abana bato, umugabo we akaba afite uburwayi buhoraho bwa Hepatite B, ndetse nawe ubwe akaba afite uburwayi buhoraho bw’igifu. Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana rwaciye urwo rubanza, ruvuga ko ikirego cyihutirwa cya Kangabe nta shingiro gifite, nyuma yo gusanga ataragaragarije Urukiko uburyo impamvu atanga ari ibibazo byihuta mu rubanza rw’iremezo. 55

## Page 80

Yajuririrye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwirengagije ibimenyetso bigaragaza impamvu asaba guhagarika kurangiza imanza yasubirishijemo ingingo nshya birimo ibigaragazako afite uburwayi buhoraho bw’igifu ndetse n’umugabo we akaba afite uburwayi buhoraho bwa Hepatite B, bakaba banafite abana babiri bato. Ubushinjacyaha bwo bukaba bwaragaragazako impamvu uwajuriye atanga zaburanywe mu Rukiko Rukuru, urugereko rwa Rwamagana, bukaba busanga ikirego cyihuritwa ari uburyo bwo gutinza urubanza kugira ngo rutarangizwa, bityo ko kitakwakirwa. Uru rubanza kandi rwarimo na BPR Ltd, yo ikagaragazako nta nyungu ifite zo kuba Kangabe yafungwa ariko ko muri gereza hari uburyo bafata abafite uburwayi nk’ubwe. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Impamvu z’uburwayi za Kangabe ntizatuma habaho ihagarikwa ryo kurangiza imanza yasubirishijemo ingingo nshya kuko bidahagije kwitwaza uburwayi hasabwa ko habaho ihagarikwa ryo kurangiza urubanza, kuko gereza ifite uburyo bwo kwita ku barwayi bafunze. 2. Kugira abana bato ntibihagije kugira ngo habe ihagarikwa ryo kurangiza urubanza kuko hateganyijwe uburyo abo bana bitabwaho mu buryo bw’umwihariko. Bityo impamvu itangwa na Kangabe yo kugira abana bato ntiyatuma habaho ihagarikwa ryo kurangiza imanza yasubirishijemo ingingo nshya. Ubujurire nta shingiro bufite; Imikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe ntihindutse; Amagarama aherereye ku wajuriye. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 56

## Page 81

Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Ngenga No30/2013/OL ryo ku wa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo yi 197 niya 279. Itegeko N°21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 1,190 niya 320. Itegeko N°34/2011 ryo ku wa 14/12/2011 ryerekeye uburenganzira bw’umwana n’uburyo bwo kumurinda no kumurengera, ingingo ya 56 igika cya 2 Itegeko N°34/2010 ryo ku wa 12/11/2010 rishyiraho urwego rw’igihugu rushinzwe imfungwa n’abagororwa, rikanagena imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, ingingo ya 39 igika cya 2 Nta manza zifashishijwe Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Nyuma y’uko Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana ruciye imanza RPA0207/15/HC/RWG, RPA0253/15/HC/RWG, RPA0254/15/HC/RWG na RPA0266/15/HC/RWG (zakomatanyirijwe hamwe), aho Kangabe Christine na bagenzi be baregwagamo icyaha cyo kurigisa umutungo, gukora no gukoresha inyandiko mpimbano, Kangabe Christine yatanze ikirego gisaba kuzisubirishamo ingingo nshya, gihabwa NoRPA 0134/16/HC/RWG. 57 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. KANGABE

## Page 82

[2] Mu gihe urwo rubanza RPA0134/16/HC/RWG rutaracibwa, Kangabe Christine yatanze ikirego cyihutirwa, gihabwa NoRPA0139/016/HC/RWG, akaba yarasabaga Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana guhagarika irangizwa ry’imanza RPA0207/15/HC/RWG, RPA0253/15/HC/RWG, RPA0254/15/HC/RWG na RPA0266/15/HC/RWG, kubera ko afite abana bato, umugabo afite uburwayi buhoraho (maladie chronique) bwa Hepatite B, ndetse nawe ubwe akaba afite uburwayi buhoraho bw’igifu. [3] Ku wa 22/04/2016, Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana rwaciye urwo rubanza, ruvuga ko ikirego cyihutirwa cya Kangabe Christine nta shingiro gifite, ko ikirego cyo gusubirishamo ingingo nshya kitagomba guhagarika irangizwa ry’imanza zavuzwe haruguru, iki cyemezo kikaba cyarafashwe nyuma yo gusanga Kangabe Christine ataragaragarije Urukiko uburyo impamvu atanga ari ibibazo byihuta mu rubanza rw’iremezo (RPA0134/16/HC/RWG), cyane cyane ko Me Nizeyimana Léopord umwunganira avuga ko ibiri mu rubanza rw’ingingo nshya bitandukanye n’ibyihutirwa, bityo ko byumvikana neza ko impamvu zitangwa ntaho zihuriye n’urubanza rw’iremezo. [4] Kangabe Christine yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana rwanze guha agaciro ibimenyetso biri muri dosiye bigaragaza ko afite uburwayi buhoraho bw’igifu, ko umugabo we Nyagatare Janvier afite uburwayi buhoraho bwa Hépatite B guhera mu mwaka wa 2010, ndetse bakaba bafite utwana tubiri duto, kamwe gafite amezi ane n’igice (4,5mois) gakeneye kwitabwaho kandi bikaba bishimangirwa n’ingingo ya 56 y’Itegeko No54/2011 ryo ku wa 14/12/2011 ryerekeye uburenganzira bw’umwana n’uburyo bwo ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 58

## Page 83

kumurinda no kumurengera, iteganya ko mu gihe umugore afite umwana utaregeza ku myaka 3 y’amavuko akurikiranweho icyaha, umucamanza akora ibishoboka byose kugira ngo ahabwe ikindi gihano kitari igifungo. [5] Uru rubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku wa 06/06/2016, Kangabe Christine yunganiwe na Me Nizeyimana Léopold, Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na Munyaneza nkwaya Eric, Umushinjacyaha ku rwego rw’Igihugu, BPR Ltd iburanirwa na Me Ntwari Justin. II. IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYACYO Kumenya niba irangizwa ry’imanza RPA0207/15/HC/RWG, RPA0253/15/HC/RWG, RPA0254/15/HC/RWG na RPA0266/15/HC/RWG ryahagarikwa mu gihe urubanza ruzisubirishamo ingingo nshya rutaracibwa [6] Kangabe Christine n’umwunganizi we, Me Nizeyimana Léopold, bavuga ko umucamanza wa mbere yavuze ko nta cyihutirwa kiri mu rubanza, ariko ko yibeshye kuko gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya ubwabyo bidahagarika irangiza ryarwo, ahubwo ko bisabwa Urukiko rwaregerwe, ko Kangabe Christine yaburanye imanza zabanje ari hanze, bityo akaba ari byo aheraho asaba ko n’urubanza rwo gusubirishamo ingingo nshya rwaburanishwa ari hanze, cyane cyane ko afite umwana muto w’amezi 5, akaba afite uburwayi bw’igifu buhoraho, ndetse n’umugabo we akaba arwaye uburwayi buhoraho bwa Hépatite B. 59 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. KANGABE

## Page 84

[7] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko impamvu zitangwa na Kangabe Christine zishingiye ku ngingo ya 56 y’Itegeko No54/2011 ryo ku wa 14/12/2011 ryerekeye uburenganzira bw’umwana n’uburyo bwo kumurinda no kumurengera no ku ngingo ya 322 y’Itegeko No 21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ariko ko izo mpamvu zaburanwe mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana, ko igika cya kabiri cy’ingingo ya 56 yavuzwe haruguru gifite icyo giteganya k’umugore utwite cyangwa ufite umwana muto. Avuga ko gutanga ikirego cyihuritwa ari uburyo bwo gutinza urubanza kugira ngo rutarangizwa, bityo ko kitakwakirwa. [8] Me Ntwari Justin, uburanira BPR Ltd, avuga ko nta nyungu BPR Ltd ifite zo kuba Kangabe Christine yafungwa, ariko ko muri Gereza hari uburyo bafata abafite uburwayi nk’ubwe, ko Kangabe Christine yari yaraburanye mbere asaba guhabwa igihano gisubitswe hashingiwe ku burenganzira bw’umwana, hanyuma Urukiko rugira icyo rubivugaho. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [9] Ingingo ya 279 y’Itegeko No30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, iteganya ko ku bindi bidateganyijwe muri iri tegeko bijyanye n’imiburanishirize, hakurikizwa itegeko rigenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, keretse mu gihe amahame ateganywa n’iryo tegeko adashobora gukoreshwa mu miburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha. Iyi ngingo ishimangirwa n’ingingo ya 1 y’Itegeko No21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 60

## Page 85

iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, iteganya ko iri tegeko rigenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi. Ni na ryo rigenga imiburanishirize y’izindi manza mu gihe nta yandi mategeko yihariye agenga iyo miburanishirize yindi, keretse mu gihe amahame ateganywa n’iri tegeko adashobora gukoreshwa mu zindi manza. [10] Ingingo ya 190 y’Itegeko No21/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru, iteganya ko gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya ntabwo birubuza kurangizwa, keretse iyo iryo rangizwa ryahagaritswe bitangiwe impamvu n’urukiko rwaregewe gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya. Ingingo ya 320, igika cya mbere, y’iryo Tegeko, iteganya ko umucamanza uburanisha ibirego byihutirwa afata icyemezo ku bibazo byose byihuta, ariko mu buryo butabangamiye urubanza rw’iremezo mu mizi yarwo. […]. [11] Muri uru rubanza, dosiye igaragaza ko Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana rwanze guhagarika irangiza ry’imanza RPA0207/15/HC/RWG, RPA0253/15/HC/RWG, RPA0254/15/HC/RWG na RPA0266/15/HC/RWG, kubera ko Kangabe Christine atashoboye kurugaragariza ko impamvu ashingiraho abisaba ari ibibazo byihuta mu rubanza rw’iremezo (RPA0134/16/HC/RWG) rutaracibwa, izo mpamvu zikaba ari uko afite abana bato, ndetse we n’umugabo we bakaba bafite uburwayi buhoraho (maladies chroniques). Ikindi kigaragara ni uko kuva imanza zatangira kugeza ubu, Kangabe Christine yaburanye adafunzwe. [12] Urukiko rurasanga mu manza z’imbonezamubano, irangizarubanza rihagarikwa mu buryo bw’ibirego byihutirwa kugira ngo bigire icyo biramira ku buryo bitinze haba ingaruka 61 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. KANGABE

## Page 86

zitagira igaruriro1 (préjudice irréparable), nko kuba ikiburanwa gishobora kwangirika burundu ku buryo usaba ihagarikwa ry’irangizarubanza adashobora kukibona mu gihe agitsindiye mu rubanza rw’iremezo. Mu manza z’inshinjabyaha, ibijyanye n’ihagarikwa ry’irangizarubanza ku gihano bigaragara ko, biramutse bikozwe, byaba bishingiye ku muntu wahamwe n’icyaha, ku buryo aramutse afunzwe, habaho ingaruka zitagira igaruriro, ariko Urukiko rurasanga izo ngaruka zidashobora kubaho mu buryo bumwe n‘ubwasobanuwe mu manza z’imbonezamubano, kuko ingingo ya 1972 y’Itegeko No30/2013 ryavuzwe haruguru yateganyije ko mu gihe uwasubirishijemo ingingo nshya abaye umwere, ashobora guhabwa indishyi y’akababaro kubera umubabaro icyo gihano kiba cyaramuteye, yaba yarapfuye, izo ndishyi zikakwa n’abazungura be, ibi bikaba bisobanura ko, nyuma y’ishyirwa mu bikorwa ry’urubanza rwasubirishijwemo ingingo nshya, Kangabe Christine afite uburenganzira bwo kuzaregera indishyi y’akababaro, mu gihe yafungwa nyuma akagirwa umwere. [13] Ku bijyanye n’impamvu Kangabe Christine atanga avuga ko afite abana bato, Urukiko rurasanga iyo mpamvu itatuma habaho ihagarikwa ry’imanza yasubirishijemo ingingo nshya kuko ingingo ya 56, igika cya kabiri, y’Itegeko No54/2011 ryo ku wa 14/12/2011 ryerekeye uburenganzira bw’umwana n’uburyo bwo kumurinda no kumurengera, iteganya ko iyo guhanisha ikindi gihano kitari igifungo bidashoboka k’umugore ufite

1 Urubanza RCA0008/10/CS rwo ku wa 21/01/2011, Mukamurenzi Diane na Akingeneye Jean de Dieu vs Karangwa Elisé na Mukarutesi Espérance. 2 Iyo ngingo ya 197 igira iti: “Bisabwe n’umuburanyi, urubanza rwasubirishijwemo ingingo nshya rukagaragaza ko uwatsinzwe yarenganye, urukiko rushobora kumuha indishyi y’akababaro kubera umubabaro icyo gihano kiba cyamuteye. Iyo uwahaniwe ubusa yapfuye, uburenganzira bwo kwaka indishyi y’akababaro buhabwa, kuri ubwo buryo, abazungura be” ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 62

## Page 87

umwana utarageza ku myaka 3 y’amavuko, afungirwa mu gice cya gereza gifungirwamo abagore bafite abana batarageza ku myaka 3 y’amavuko, byongeye kandi n’Itegeko No34/2010 ryo ku wa 12/11/2010 rishyiraho urwego rw’Igihugu rushinzwe imfungwa n’abagororwa, rikanagena imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, iteganya uburyo abo bana bitabwaho mu buryo bw’umwihariko3 [14] Naho ku bijyanye n’impamvu y’uburwayi bwe (bwa Kangabe), Urukiko rurasanga iyo mpamvu nayo itatuma habaho ihagarikwa ry’imanza yasubirishijemo ingingo nshya kuko Gereza ifite uburyo bwo kwita ku barwayi bafunzwe nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 39, igika cya kabiri, y’Itegeko No34/2010 ryo ku wa 12/11/2010 rishyiraho urwego rw’Igihugu rushinzwe imfungwa n’abagororwa, rikanagena imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo4, ku buryo ntawakwitwaza uburwayi afite ngo asabe ko atafungwa. [15] Ku mpamvu ijyanye n’uburwayi bw’umugabo we, Urukiko rurasanga ubwo burwayi butafatwa nk’impamvu yatuma

3 Ingingo ya 33 y’Itegeko No34/2010 ryo ku wa 12/11/2010 rishyiraho urwego rw’Igihugu rushinzwe imfungwa n’abagororwa, rikanagena imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, iteganya ko: “Umugore utwite cyangwa wonsa ufunzwe yitabwaho by’umwihariko. Umwana uri ku ibere ahabwa ibimutunga bigenerwa abana bato, agahabwa umuryango we amaze imyaka itatu (3) y’amavuko. Iyo nta muryango ushobora kwakira uwo mwana, Leta imushakira aho arererwa.” 4 Ingingo ya 39, igika cya 2, y’Itegeko No34/2010 ryavuzwe, iteganya ko: “ […]Umuntu ufunzwe afite uburenganzira bwo kuvurwa nk‟ubw'umuturarwanda wese udafunzwe. Buri gereza igira ahantu abarwayi bavurirwa hakorana n’ibigo by’ubuzima by’aho gereza yubatswe. Iyo umuntu ufunzwe adashoboye kuhavurirwa yoherezwa ahandi yashobora kuvurirwa. […]”. 63 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. KANGABE

## Page 88

irangizwa ry’imanza zavuzwe rihagarara kuko ntaho buhuriye n’urubanza rugomba kurangizwa. [16] Hakurikijwe ibimaze gusobanurwa haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga ntaho rwahera ruhagarika irangizwa ry’imanza RPA0207/15/HC/RWG, RPA0253/15/HC/RWG, RPA0254/15/HC/RWG na RPA0266/15/HC/RWG, bityo urubanza RPA0139/016/HC/RWG rwaciwe ku wa 22/04/2016 n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana rukaba rudahindutse. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [17] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Kangabe Christine nta shingiro bufite. [18] Rwemeje ko imikirize y’urubanza RPA0139/016/HC/RWG rwaciwe ku wa 22/04/2016 n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana, idahindutse. [19] Rutegetse ko ingwate y’igarama yatanzwe na Kangabe Christine ajurira ihwanye n’ibyakozwe mu rubanza.

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 64

## Page 89

IMANZA ZACIWE MU MIZI

## Page 91

IMANZA Z’IMBONEZAMUBANO

## Page 93

SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd (SONARWA) v. NYIRAGANZA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/INJUST/RC 00047/2017/SC (Rugege P.J, Kayitesi na Mutashya, J) 23 Nzeri 2018] Amategeko agenga ubwishingizi – Amasezerano y’ubwishingizi – Kuba uwahohotewe yandikiye ikigo cy’ubwishingizi agisaba kugena umuganga ugomba kujya mu kanama k’abaganga bemeza ko ajya kwivuza hanze ntikimusubize, ntibyamubuza kujya kwivuza hanze kuko byanze bikunze agomba kuramira ubuzima bwe, niyo mpamvu ikigo cy’ubwishingizi kigomba kwishyura amafaranga yose yakoreshejejwe mu kujya kwivuza – lteka rya Perezida N°31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka z’ibinyabiziga ingingo ya 13. Amategeko agenga ubwishingizi – Amasezerano y’ubwishingizi – Inyandiko itangirwaho amafaranga (formulaire), itegurwa n’ikigo cy’ubwishingizi igashyirwaho umukono n’umukiriya amaze kwishyurwa nta ruhare yagize mu kuyitegura, ni ikimenyetso cy’uko yishyuwe n’umubare w’amafaranga yakiriye, ariko ntiyafatwa nk’ikimenyetso cyuko bikiranuye no ku bindi ikigo cy’ubwishingizi cyaba kikimugomba. Incamake y’ikibazo: Imodoka ifite ubwishingizi muri SONARWA yagonze indi modoka ikomerekeramo abantu barindwi barimo Nyiraganza wasigiwe ubumuga bungana na 60%. Nyiraganza yageragije kumvikana na SONARWA 69

## Page 94

ntibyashoboka hanyuma atanga ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge asaba indishyi zitandukanye zirimo indishyi mbonezamusaruro, iz’ububabare, iz’iburaburanga, iz’uburambe ku kazi n’amafaranga yakoreshejwe yivuza. Uru rukiko rwemeje ko SONARWA igomba guha Nyiraganza amafaranga akomoka ku mpanuka yagize, maze rumugenera indishyi z’ibangamira bukungu, iz’ububabare, izikomoka ku itakaza ryuburambe mu kazi, n’amafaranga atandukanye yakoresheje kwa muganga mu gihugu no hanze. Nyiraganza yajuriye mu Rukiko Rukuru, avuga ko indishyi mbonezamusaruro yahawe zagenwe hashingiwe ku mafaranga 2.500 ku munsi kandi yaragaragaje ko ari umucuruzi winjizaga 10.000Frw ku munsi, ko atahawe indishyi z’ibangamiraburanga kandi yaraziregeye. SONARWA nayo yajuririye urwo rubanza ivuga ko yagaragaje ko iminsi y’akazi mu kwezi ari 25, nyamara urukiko rukabarira ku minsi 30, kandi ko Urukiko rwatanze amafaranga yo kwivuza hanze n’ay’ingendo kandi Nyiraganza yarijyanyeyo SONARWA itabigizemo uruhare. Urukiko Rukuru rwaciye urubanza, rutegeka SONARWA kwishyura Nyiraganza amafaranga y’indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka, ay’ingendo, ay’ikurikiranarubanza hamwe nay’igihembo cya Avoka, ruvuga ko urubanza rwajuririwe ruhindutse ku birebana n’indishyi z’amafaranga yakoresheje yivuza hanze atagomba guhabwa kuko yagiyeyo atabiherewe uburenganzira n’akanama kabishinzwe. Nyiraganza yandikiye Urwego rw’Umuvunyi, arusaba gusuzuma akarengane yagiriwe mu rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru kajyanye nuko atagomba gusubizwa amafaranga yakoresheje yivuriza mu Buhindi. Nyuma yo gusuzuma ikibazo cye, ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 70

## Page 95

Umuvunyi Mukuru yasanze koko imikirize yurwo rubanza igaragaramo akarengane, nawe yandikira Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, asaba ko uru rubanza rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Nyuma yo gusuzuma raporo y’Ubugenzuzi bukuru bw’Inkiko kuri urwo rubanza, Perezida w’Urukiko rw’lkirenga yemeje ko uru rubanza rugomba kongera kuburanishwa ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Iburanisha ritangiye, SONARWA yatanze inzitizi yo kudasuzuma ikirego cy’akarengane cyatanzwe na Nyiraganza kuko nta nyungu afite zo gukurikirana urubanza kandi harabayeho kwikiranura hagati ye na SONARWA. Nyiraganza avuga ko nta kwikiranura kwigeze kubaho, kubera ko amafaranga yakiriye, SONARWA iheraho ivuga ko habayeho kwikiranura, akomoka ku irangizwa ry’urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru bityo avuga ko iyo nzitizi nta shingiro ifite. Urukiko nyuma y’isuzuma rwanzuye ko iyi nzitizi nta shingiro ifite. Urubanza rwakomeje Nyiraganza avuga ko muganga we yakoze raporo igaragaza ko agomba kujya kwivuriza mu mahanga kubera ko uburyo yagombaga kuvurwamo mu Rwanda budahari, kandi ko ntako atakoze kugira ngo hajyeho akanama k’abaganga kamwemerera kujya kwivuriza mu mahanga kuko, yandikiye SONARWA ayisaba gushyiraho umuganga wayo afatanyije n’uwe kugira ngo bagene uwa gatatu, SONARWA iramwihorera. SONARWA yiregura ivuga ko Nyiraganza nta nyungu afite zo kurega, bityo ko nta mpamvu SONARWA yakwirirwa yisobanura ku mafaranga yakoresheje yivuza mu Buhindi, ivuga kandi ko Nyiraganza yumvikanye na SONARWA ko nta kindi azongera kuyikurikiranaho, bityo akwiriye kwemera ingaruka 71 SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd (SONARWA) v. NYIRAGANZA

## Page 96

z’amategeko zirebana n’ibyo bumvikanye, iavuga kandi ko amatike, visa n’amafaranga yo gutunga umurwaza mu Buhindi adateganyijwe n’Iteka rya Perezida rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Inyandiko itangirwaho amafaranga (formulaire), itegurwa n’ikigo cy’ubwishingizi igashyirwaho umukono n’umukiriya amaze kwishyurwa nta ruhare yagize mu kuyitegura, ni ikimenyetso cy’uko yishyuwe n’umubare w’amafaranga yakiriye, ariko ntiyafatwa nk’ikimenyetso cyuko bikiranuye no ku bindi ikigo cy’ubwishingizi cyaba kikimugomba. 2. Fagitire cyangwa se kuba umuntu yishyura umusoro sicyo kimenyetso kigaragaza ko akora umwuga w’ubucuruzi. 3. Kuba uwahohotewe yandikiye ikigo cy’ubwishingizi agisaba kugena umuganga ugomba kujya mu kanama k’abaganga bemeza ko ajya kwivuza hanze ntikimusubize, ntibyamubuza kujya kwivuza hanze kuko byanze bikunze agomba kuramira ubuzima bwe, niyo mpamvu ikigo cy’ubwishingizi kigomba kwishyura amafaranga yose yakoreshejejwe mu kujya kwivuza. Bityo icyo kigo ntigikwiye kwitwaza guceceka kwacyo ngo kimane ubwishyu. Kuko bitabaye ibyo, igihe cyose ikigo cy’ubwishingizi kidashaka kwishyurira umuntu kwivuza mu mahanga, cyajya kicecekera ntigishyireho umuganga wo gufatanya n’abandi bagize akanama kagomba kwemeza ko umurwayi agomba kuzajya kwivuza hanze. 4. Urubanza rwaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma nirwo rushobora gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Bityo, ntabwo umuburanyi yaregera bwa mbere mu rubanza rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane ibyo ataregeye mu manza zabanje. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 72

## Page 97

Inzitizi y’iburabubasha nta shingiro ifite; Ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rigena miterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’lkirenga, ingingo ya 81. Itegeko No15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 3. Itegeko-teka ryo ku wa 30/07/1888 ryerekeye amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258. lteka rya Perezida N°31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka z’ibinyabiziga, ingingo ya 13. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rukomoka ku mpanuka yabaye ku wa 13/01/2010 ubwo imodoka Camionette Mitsubishi Fuso UAL 879 H ifite ubwishingizi muri SONARWA yagonze imodoka RAB 220 G igakomerekeramo abantu barindwi barimo na Nyiraganza Ramu wakomeretse ku buryo bukabije akagira ubumuga bungana na 60%. [2] Nyiraganza Ramu yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge asaba indishyi zitandukanye 73 SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd (SONARWA) v. NYIRAGANZA

## Page 98

zirimo indishyi mbonezamusaruro, iz’ububabare, iz’iburaburanga, iz’uburambe ku kazi n’amafaranga yakoreshejwe yivuza, zose zingana na 45.468.032Frw. [3] Uburanira SONARWA yavugaga ko ayo mafaranga y’indishyi SONARWA isabwa ari menshi, ko ku birebana n’indishyi mbonezamusaruro, nta kigaragaza ko Nyiraganza Ramu yari umucuruzi, akaba ahubwo yafatwa nk’umuntu usanzwe, maze kandi ayo mafaranga akabarirwa ku minsi 25, amafaranga yo kwivuza hanze, SONARWA ikaba yumva itagomba kuyishyura kuko yagiye atabyemerewe, naho amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka akaba yabarwa mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko. [4] Mu Rubanza RC0548/13/TGI/Nyge, rwaciwe ku wa 31/10/2013, Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwemeje ko SONARWA igomba guha Nyiraganza Ramu amafaranga akomoka ku mpanuka yagize, maze rumugenera indishyi z’ibangamira bukungu zingana na 3.709.923Frw, iz’ububabare zingana na 900.000Frw, indishyi zikomoka ku itakaza ry’uburambe mu kazi zingana na 450.000Frw, n’amafaranga atandukanye yakoresheje kwa muganga angana na 10.129.924Frw (agizwe na 90.877Frw atarishyuwe, 9.638.047Frw yakoresheje yivuriza mu Buhindi, 401.000Frw yakoresheje mu ngendo ajya kwivuza),100.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza hamwe na 300,000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka yagenwe mu bushishozi bw’urukiko. [5] Nyiraganza Ramu ahagarariwe na Me Ruzindana yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru, avuga ko indishyi mbonezamusaruro yahawe zagenwe hashingiwe ku mafaranga 2500 ku munsi kandi yaragaragaje ko yakoraga akazi ko gucuruza inkweto kamwinjiriza 10.000Frw ku munsi, ko atahawe indishyi ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 74

## Page 99

z’ibangamiraburanga kandi yaraziregeye, no kuba yaragenewe amafaranga make y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka. [6] SONARWA nayo yajuririye urwo rubanza ivuga ko Urukiko rutitaye ku myiregurire yayo, yagaragazaga ko iminsi y’akazi mu kwezi ari 25, nyamara urukiko rukabarira ku minsi 30 hadakuwemo iminsi y’ikiruhuko, aribyo byatumye Nyiraganza Ramu abona indishyi zikabije kuba nyinshi. Yajuriye nanone ivuga ko urukiko rwatanze amafaranga yo kwivuza hanze n’ay’ingendo kandi uwaregaga yarijyanyeyo SONARWA itabigizemo uruhare. [7] Urukiko Rukuru rwaciye urubanza RCA649/13/HC/KIG- RCA651/13/HC/KIG ku wa 20/6/2014, rwemeza ko ubujurire bwa Nyiraganza Ramu n’ubwa SONARWA bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe, rutegeka SONARWA kwishyura Nyiraganza Ramu amafaranga y’indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka, ay’ingendo, n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza hamwe n’igihembo cya Avoka angana na 6.851.800Frw harimo n’indishyi z’ibangamiraburanga (zitagenwe n’urukiko rubanza), ruvuga ko urubanza RC0548/13/TGI/NYGE ruhindutse gusa ku birebana n’indishyi atagomba guhabwa z’amafaranga 9.638.047Frw yakoresheje yivuriza hanze atagomba gusubizwa kuko yagiye ku bushake bwe atoherejwe n’akanama kabishinzwe. [8] Nyiraganza Ramu yandikiye Urwego rw’Umuvunyi ku wa 03/10/2014, arusaba gusuzuma akarengane yagiriwe mu icibwa ry’ubanza rwe RCA649/13/HC/KIG- 651/13/HC/KIG, kajyanye nuko atagomba gusubizwa amafaranga yakoresheje yivuriza hanze mu Buhindi. Nyuma yo gusuzuma ikibazo cye, Umuvunyi Mukuru yasanze koko imikirize y’urubanza igaragaramo akarengane ko kuba Nyiraganza atemerewe gusubizwa amafaranga yakoresheje yivuriza hanze, nawe 75 SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd (SONARWA) v. NYIRAGANZA

## Page 100

yandikira Nyakubahwa Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, asaba ko uru rubanza rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane yamugaragarije. Nyuma yo gusuzuma raporo y’Ubugenzuzi Bukuru bw’Inkiko kuri urwo rubanza, Perezida w’Urukiko rw’lkirenga yemeje ko uru rubanza rugomba kongera kuburanishwa ku mpamvu z’akarengane. [9] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe ku wa 27/07/2018, Nyiraganza Ramu ahagarariwe na Me Ruzindana lgnace, naho SONARWA ihagarariwe na Me Munderere Léopold. Iburanisha ritangiye, uburanira SONARWA yatanze inzitizi yo kudasuzuma ikirego cy’akarengane cyatanzwe na Nyiraganza Ramu kuko nta nyungu afite zo gukurikirana urubanza kandi harabayeho kwikiranura hagati ye na SONARWA. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO 1. Kumenya niba harabayeho kwikiranura hagati ya SONARWA na Nyiraganza Ramu ku buryo ikirego cye kitagombaga gusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. [10] Me Munderere Lepold uhagarariye SONARWA avuga ko Nyiraganza Ramu nta nyungu afite zo gukomeza gukurikirana uru rubanza, kuko habayeho kwikiranura hagati ye na SONARWA nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 591 y’igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano, kubera ko Nyiraganza Ramu yishyuwe 274.958Frw yo kwivuza, no ku wa 24/09/2014 yishyurwa 6.851.800Frw, bityo ko kuba yaremeye kwakira ayo mafaranga nta kindi yagombye gukurikirana kubera ko yasinye ko nta kindi kintu azabaza. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 76

## Page 101

[11] Me Ruzindana Ignace uhagarariye Nyiraganza Ramu avuga ko nta kwikiranura kwigeze kubaho, kubera ko Nyiraganza Ramu mbere y’uko aregera urukiko yabanje kwegera SONARWA agira ngo imuhe indishyi ziteganywa n’Iteka rya Perezida SONARWA irabyanga. Naho amafaranga Nyiraganza yakiriye SONARWA iheraho ivuga ko habayeho kwikiranura, akaba akomoka ku irangizwa ry’urubanza RCA0649/13/HC/KIG, kandi Nyiraganza amaze kuyahabwa, akaba yarashyize umukono kuri « formulaire » itegurwa mu rurimi rw’igifaransa na SONARWA, yemeza ko yakiriye ayo mafaranga. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [12] Ingingo ya 81 y’Itegeko Ngenga 03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rigena miterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga yakoreshwaga igihe ikirego cyatangwaga iteganya ko urubanza rwaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma rushobora gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane […] iyo mu icibwa ry’urubanza hirengagijwe amategeko n’ibimenyetso bigaragarira buri wese [...]. [13] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza ko hari inyandiko ya SONARWA yiswe quittance partielle de reglement d’indemnites, dommage corporels N°2/2012 Nyiraganza Ramu yakiriyeho 274.958Frw n’indi yiswe quittance definitive de reglement d’lndemnites dommages corporels No793/2014 igaragaza ko Nyiraganza Ramu yahawe 6.851.800Frw. [14] Urukiko rurasanga ayo mafaranga yose Nyiraganza Ramu yahawe na SONARWA ajyanye na zimwe mu ndishyi yatsindiye, Urukiko Rukuru rwategetse mu rubanza RCA0649, 77 SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd (SONARWA) v. NYIRAGANZA

## Page 102

0651/13/HC/KIG rwaciwe ku wa 20/06/2014, byumvikanisha ko SONARWA itayamuhaye mu rwego rwo kwikiranura, ahubwo ko yayamuhaye kubera ko yabitegetswe n’urukiko, akaba yarayakiriye mu rwego rw’irangizwa ry’urubanza. [15] Urukiko rurasanga rero, kuba Nyiraganza Ramu yarakiriye izo ndishyi yatsindiye, urubanza rwarabaye itegeko, ariko akabona ko hari aho yarenganyijwe kuko hari izindi ndishyi atemerewe, bitamubuza gutanga ikirego gisaba gusubirishamo urubanza rwe ku mpamvu z’akarengane. [16] Naho ibyo SONARWA ivuga by’uko Nyiraganza Ramu mu kwakira ayo mafaranga yasinyiye ko nta kindi azongera kubaza, Urukiko rurasanga ibyo bitashingirwaho kubera ko urupapuro Nyiraganza Ramu yahereweho amafaranga ari “formulaire” isanzwe (standard form) itegurwa na SONARWA nta ruhare umukiriya ayigiramo, kenshi ndetse abakiriya bakaba bayisinya batabanje no gusoma ibiyanditsemo. Ku ba “clients” bayujuje bakayishyiraho umukono bamaze kwishyurwa, Urukiko rusanga ari ikimenyetso cy’uko bishyuwe n'umubare w’amafaranga yakiriwe, ariko itafatwa nkikimenyetso cyuko bikiranuye no ku bindi SONARWA yaba ikibagomba. Muri uru rubanza, Nyiraganza Ramu akaba atari yarabonye ibyo yasabye byose aregera inkiko. [17] Urukiko rusanga rero iyo “formulaire” yasinye ari ikimenyetso cy’amafaranga yishyuwe, ariko bidakuraho uburenganzira bwe bwo gukurikirana ibindi yumvaga agomba kugenerwa, bityo ikaba itashingirwago ngo ikirego cye gisaba ko urubanza rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane ku bijyanye n’amafaranga yakoresheje ajya kwivuza mu gihugu cy’Ubuhindi cyo kutakirwa. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 78

## Page 103

2. Kumenya niba indishyi Nyiraganza Ramu asaba muri uru rubanza yari akwiriye kuzihabwa a. Ku bijyanye n’amafaranga Nyiraganza Ramu yakoresheje ajya kwivuza mu gihugu cy’Ubuhindi [18] Me Ruzindana lgnace uhagarariye Nyiraganza Ramu avuga ko raporo ya muganga we yakozwe ku wa 18/11/2011 yagaragazaga ko Nyiraganza Ramu agomba kujya kwivuriza mu mahanga kubera ko uburyo yagombaga kuvurwamo, bujyanye n’ubushobozi mu Rwanda badafite, kandi ko ntako Nyiraganza Ramu atakoze kugira ngo hajyeho akanama k’abaganga kamwemerera kujya kwivuriza mu mahanga kuko ku wa 29/02/2012, yandikiye SONARWA ayisaba gushyiraho umuganga wayo afatanyije n’uwe kugira ngo bagene uwa gatatu, SONARWA iramwihorera, ariko kuko nta bundi bushobozi Nyiraganza Ramu yari afite, umugabo we Serugira Thomas yitabaza ikigo yakoragamo Kist Savings and Credit Cooperative Society kimuguriza 1.416.000Frw, na Banki ya Kigali imuha inguzanyo ya 5.000.000Frw. [19] Me Ruzindana lgnace avuga ko kuba Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwarabyumvise, ariko Urukiko Rukuru rukavuga ko kuba SONARWA itaramusubije bidahagije ngo abe yarafashe icyemezo cyo kujya kwivuriza mu mahanga, asanga ari akarengane kuko SONARWA itashingira ku makosa yayo ngo iyireguze. [20] Me Munderere Leopold akomeza kuvuga ko mu gihe cyose Nyiraganza nta nyungu afite zo kurega, nta mpamvu SONARWA yakwirirwa yisobanura kuri aya mafaranga yakoresheje yivuza mu Buhindi, avuga ko ajya ya kwemera 79 SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd (SONARWA) v. NYIRAGANZA

## Page 104

kumvikana na SONARWA kuneza ko nta kindi azongera kuyikurikiranaho, ntawamushyizeho agahato, ko akwiriye kwemera ingaruka z’amategeko zirebana na ‟transaction” yakoze, avuga kandi ko amatike, visa n’amafaranga yo gutunga umurwaza mu Buhindi adateganyijwe n’Iteka rya Perezida N°31/01 ryo ku wa 25/8/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [21] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza ko hari raporo yakozwe na muganga yo ku wa 18/11/2011 yemezaga ko Nyiraganza Ramu agomba kujya kwivuriza mu gihugu cy’Ubuhindi kubera ko uburyo yagombaga kuvurwamo, mu Rwanda budahari. [22] Ku byerekeye kwivuriza hanze y’u Rwanda, ingingo ya 13 y’Iteka rya Perezida N°31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka z’ibinyabiziga, iteganya ko: […] lyo harimo ukwivuriza ahandi hatari mu Rwanda, uwahohotewe agenda bimaze kwemezwa n’akanama k’ubuvuzi kagizwe n’umuganga w’uwahohotewe, n’umuganga w’umwishingizi hamwe n’impuguke yasabwe n’abo bombi. [23] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza ko ku itariki ya 27/02/2012 Nyiraganza Ramu yandikiye SONARWA ayisaba kugena umuganga wayo kugira ngo ahure n’uwe bemeze uwa gatatu bafatanye kwemeza ko akwiriye kujya kwivuriza hanze y’u Rwanda, ariko iyo baruwa ikaba itarigeze ihabwa igisubizo. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 80

## Page 105

[24] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza kandi ko hari amasezerano y’inguzanyo yo ku wa 09/03/2012 Serugira Thomas (umugabo wa Nyiraganza Ramu) yagiranye na Bank of Kigali Ltd imuha amafaranga 5.000.000Frw yo kuvuza umugore we, hakaba n’andi mafaranga Serugira Thomas yagujije muri Kist Savings and Credit Cooperative Society yo kuvuza umugore we, maze nayo imuguriza 1.416.000Frw ku wa 30/04/2012. Kandi hakaba hari n’inyemezabwishyu Nyiraganza Ramu yagaragarije urukiko zemeza amafaranga yose yakoresheje ajya kwivuza hanze. [25] Urukiko rurasanga ku byerekeye kuvurwa ubwabyo, SONARWA ifite ishingano zo kwishyura amafaranga Nyiraganza Ramu yatanze yivuriza hanze y’u Rwanda hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’igika cya kabiri cy’ingingo ya 13 y’Iteka rya Perezida rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka z’ibinyabiziga. [26] Urukiko rusanga rero kuba ibaruwa Nyiraganza Ramu yandikiye SONARWA itarigeze ihabwa igisubizo ku ruhande rwa SONARWA, bitari kumubuza kujya kwivuza mu gihe yumvaga akomeje kumererwa nabi, kuko byanze bikunze yagombaga kuramira ubuzima bwe, kubera ko Iteka ryavuzwe haruguru ritateganyije uko bizagenda mu gihe ikigo cy’ubwishingizi kizaba kitashubije, cyangwa igihe ntarengwa kigomba kuba hatanzwe igisubizo. Bikaba bigaragara ko SONARWA ariyo yakoze amakosa yo kudasubiza ibaruwa yandikiwe; ngo yemere cyangwa ihakane icyifuzo yari yagejejweho na Nyiraganza Ramu, ari nayo mpamvu idakwiriye kwitwaza uko guceceka kwayo ngo yimane amafaranga yakoreshejwe mu kujya kwivuza, kandi ari inshingano zayo. Bitabaye ibyo, igihe cyose “Societe d’assurance” idashaka kwishyurira umuntu kwivuza mu mahanga, yajya yicecekera 81 SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd (SONARWA) v. NYIRAGANZA

## Page 106

ntishyireho umuganga wo gufatanya n’abandi bagize akanama kagomba kwemeza ko umurwayi agomba kuzajya kwivuza hanze. [27] Urukiko rurasanga SONARWA igomba ndetse kwishyura amafaranga Nyiraganza Ramu yakoresheje ku murwaza wamuherekeje kubera ko atagombaga kugenda wenyine kandi arembye. Bityo akaba agomba gusubizwa amafaranga yose yakoresheje ajya kwivuza mu gihugu cy’ubuhindi angana na 10.129.924Frw nk’uko agaragara mu rubanza RC0548/13/TGl/Nyge rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge ku wa 31/10/2013, mu gika cyarwo cya 4. b. Ku bijyanye n’indishyi mbonezamusaruro [28] Me Ruzindana lgnace avuga ko hari ibimenyetso by’uko Nyiraganza Ramu yakoze impanuka avuye gucuruza, kandi ko yishyuraga umusoro, akaba rero ataragombaga kubarirwa ku mafaranga 2.500 y’insimburamubyizi nk’umuntu udafite akazi kazwi, ahubwo yagombye kubarirwa ku mafaranga 10.000 ku munsi, akaba yaragombaga guhabwa 14.839.694Frw aho kuba 3.709.000Frw, akaba rero asaba ko uwo aburanira yayahabwa. [29] Me Munderere Léopold avuga ko udupapuro 2 gusa Nyiraganza Ramu agaragaza yasoreyeho tutashingirwaho ngo hemezwe ko ari umucuruzi. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [30] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza ko mu gutanga ibimenyetso by’uko Nyiraganza Ramu yari umucuruzi yaragaragaje udupapuro tubiri twitwa “inyemezabwishyu y’umusanzu” tw’amezi 2, buri kamwe kanditseho 4.000Frw. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 82

## Page 107

[31] Urukiko rurasanga utu dupapuro tutafatwa nk’ikimenyetso cy’umusoro wishyuwe, kandi tugaragaza ko ari umusanzu, uretse ko n’ubwo twakwitwa utw’umusoro, tutafatwa nk’ikimenyetso cy’uko Nyiraganza Ramu ari umucuruzi, kuko fagitire ataricyo kimenyetso kigaragaza ko umuntu akora umwuga w’ubucuruzi, Nyiraganza Ramu wajuriye akaba agomba gutsindwa n’ibura ry’ibimenyetso by’uko yakoraga umwuga w’ubucuruzi, hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 3 y’Itegeko No15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo iteganya ko urega agomba kugaragaza ibimenyetso by’ibyo aregera, yabibura uwarezwe agatsinda. c. Ku bijyanye n’amafaranga Nyiraganza Ramu yakoresheje nyuma yo kwivuriza mu Buhindi. [32] Me Ruzindana lgnace avuga ko kugeza n’ubu Nyiraganza Ramu arwaye, ko hari amafaranga 363.000Frw yishyuye mu bitaro bya Kibogora, akaba asaba ko nayo yayasubizwa. [33] Me Munderere Leopold uhagarariye SONARWA avuga ko ibijyanye n’amafaranga Nyiraganza Ramu yakoresheje yivuza nyuma y’aho aviriye mu Buhindi, ntaho ahuriye n’akarengane. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [34] Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 13 y’Iteka rya Perezida N°31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka z’ıbinyabiziga iteganya ko uwakomeretse biturutse ku mpanuka y’ikinyabiziga asubizwa amafaranga yakoreshejwe mu kwivuza, ariko Nyiraganza Ramu akaba adakwiriye kuyaregera muri uru rubanza kuko atigeze ayaregera mu manza RC0548/13/TGI/NYGE na RCA649/13/HC/KIG-RCA 83 SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd (SONARWA) v. NYIRAGANZA

## Page 108

651/13/HC/KIG, mu gihe ingingo ya 81 y’Itegeko No03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’lkirenga ryakoreshwaga igihe Nyiraganza Ramu yatangaga ikirego mu nkiko, iteganya ko urubanza rwaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma arirwo rushobora gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. 3. Ku bijyanye n’izindi ndishyi zisabwa n’ababuranyi. [35] Me Ruzindana lgnace avuga ko SONARWA yategekwa kwishyura 7.000.000Frw zo kwanga kwishyura, bigatuma ajya mu manza kandi urukiko rukayitegeka kwishyura inyungu za 17,25% kuko byatumye Nyiraganza Ramu n’umugabo we Serugira Thomas basaba ideni muri Banki ya Kigali no muri Kist Savings and Credit Cooperative Society, kugira ngo ashobore kwivuza, kandi iryo deni naryo ryarabyaraga iyo nyungu za 17,25%, nuko byabahungabanyije bashakisha uburyo bwose bwo kwivuza, kuko umwishingizi yari yirengagije inshingano ze no gukurikiza amategeko, izo nyungu rero ni SONARWA igomba kuzirengera. [36] Avuga ko SONARWA yanze kwishyura ku neza uwo aburanira amafaranga yo kwivuza hanze kandi ariyo yishe amategeko kuko itashyizeho akanama k’abaganga bagombaga gufata icyemezo cyo kumwemerera kujya kwivuriza hanze, ko rero yamuha 1.000.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza na 2.000.000Frw y’igihembo cy’avoka. [37] Me Munderere Leopold avuga ko indishyi Nyiraganza Ramu asaba adakwiye kuzihabwa kuko ariwe wishe amasezerano agarura SONARWA mu nkiko, ko ahubwo ariwe ukwiye kuzitanga, maze ashingiye ku ngingo ya 106 y’Itegeko No21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 84

## Page 109

y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, asaba ko Nyiraganza yakwishyura SONARWA indishyi zo kuyikurura mu nkiko kubw’amaherere (action temeraire et vexatoire), ndetse na 1.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [38] Ku byerekeye indishyi zo kuba SONARWA yararuhije Nyiraganza Ramu yanga kumwishyura ibyo yari izi neza ko afiteho uburenganzira, kandi yari yaranze ku bushake gukora ibyangombwa ngo ashobore kujya kwivuriza mu mahanga nkuko abaganga bari babigaragaje, Urukiko rurasanga SONARWA yanga gusubiza Nyiraganza Ramu amafaranga yatanze yivuriza mu Buhindi, itarakoze inshingano yayo, yirengagije ko umuganga yari yagaragaje ko uburwayi bwe burenze ubushobozi bw’ibitaro byo mu Rwanda, bituma agana inkiko, ndetse bigera naho aregera akarengane, ikaba igomba kubimuhera indishyi hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 258 y’Igitabo cya Gatatu cy’Urwunge rw’Amategeko Mbonezamubano, iteganya ko ‟igikorwa cyose cy’umuntu cyangirije undi, gitegeka nyiri gukora ikosa rigikomokoho kuriha ibyangiritseˮ.Urukiko rurasanga ariko indishyi za 7.000.000Frw asaba ari ikirenga, mu bushishozi bwarwo, rukaba rwamugenera 3.000.000Frw, naho inyungu za 17,25% ku nguzanyo yahawe na Banki ya Kigali, Me Ruzindana Ignace akaba ataragaragaje ibimeyetso by’izo banki yamuciye cyangwa ngo yerekane uko azibara. [39] Ku birebana na 1.000.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza na 2.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka, Urukiko rusanga Nyiraganza Ramu ayakwiye kuko atsinze urubanza, akaba agomba kugenerwa ibyo yatanze arukurikirana n’igihembo cya 85 SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd (SONARWA) v. NYIRAGANZA

## Page 110

Avoka, rukaba rumugeneye mu bushishozi bwarwo 300.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza na 1.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka, yose hamwe akaba 1.300.000Frw. [40] Ku bijyanye n'indishyi zo gukururwa mu manza ku maherere n’igihembo cya Avoka SONARWA isaba, Urukiko rusanga nta nakimwe ikwiye kugenerwa kuko itsinzwe. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [41] Rwemeye kwakira no gusuzuma ikirego cy’akarengane cya Nyiraganza Ramu, rugisuzumye rusanga gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe; [42] Rwemeje kutakira ikirego ku bijyanye n’amafaranga Nyiraganza Ramu yakoresheje nyuma yo kwivuriza mu Buhindi [43] Rwemeje ko indishyi mbonezamusaruro Nyiraganza Ramu aregera adakwiriye kuzihabwa; [44] Rutegetse SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd gusubiza Nyiraganza Ramu amafaranga yakoresheje ajya kwivuza mu gihugu cy’Ubuhindi angana na miliyoni icumi n’ibihumbi ijana na makumyabiri n’icyenda na Magana cyenda na makumyabiri n’ane (10.129.924Frw); [45] Rutegetse SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd kwishyura Nyiraganza Ramu indishyi zingana na 3.000.000Frw na 1.300.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka, yose hamwe akaba miliyoni enye n’ibihumbi Magana atatu (4.300.000Frw). ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 86

## Page 111

IMANZA Z’UBUCURUZI

## Page 113

MUREKATETE v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHÔRO (RRA) [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RCOMAA0038/2016/CS - RCOMAA0043/16/CS (Mutashya, P.J., Nyirinkwaya na Karimunda, J.) 12 Mutarama 2018] Amategeko agenga amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi – Uburyozwe bw’abayobozi cyangwa abanyamigabane ba sosiyete – Abanyamigabane n’abayobozi ba sosiyete ntibaryozwa amakosa ya sosiyete keretse hari icyemezo cy’urukiko cyemeje uburyozwe bwabo – Itegeko N°25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha, ingingo ya 46 bis – Itegeko N°27/2017 ryo ku wa 31/05/2017 ryerekeye amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi, ingingo ya 23 niya 95. Amategeko agenga amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi – Uburyozwe bw’abayobozi cyangwa abanyamigabane ba sosiyete – Itambamira ry’ihinduzamutungo – Imitungo y’abanyamigabane n’abayobozi ba sosiyete ku giti cyabo ntishobora gutambamirwa urukiko rubifitiye ububasha rutabanje kwemeza uruhare rwabo mu makosa sosiyete iryozwa. Incamake y’ikibazo: Nyuma yaho Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro gitambamiye ihinduzamutungo y’inzu ya Murekatete ku mpamvu yuko hari imisoro DISCOME Ltd yari abereye umuyobozi n’umunyamigabane ikibereyemo, Murekatete yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge asaba ko iryo tambamira rivanwaho kuko umutungo w’umunyamigabane utandukanye n’uwa sosiyete, asaba n’indishyi zinyuranye. Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro nacyo 89

## Page 114

gitanga ikirego kiregera kwiregura gisaba ko yategekwa kwishyura umusoro waciwe iyo sosiyete. Urwo Rukiko rwemeje ko iryo tambamira rikuweho kuko Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro nta burenganzira cyari gifite bwo gutambamira ihinduzamutungo ry’inzu ye mu gihe cyose bitemejwe n’Urukiko ko agomba kwishyura uwo musoro waciwe iyo sosiyete; naho kubijyanye n’ikirego kiregera kwiregura rwemeza ko kitakiriwe kuko ari ikirego kihariye. Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyajuririye Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi kivuga ko cyatambamiye ihinduzamutungo ry’umutungo utimukanwa wa Murekatete bitewe n’uko mu gihe DISCOME Ltd yakorerwaga igenzura, Murekatete yakoze ibikorwa byo kugurisha imitungo yayo, bituma itishyura umwenda w’imisoro yagombaga, ndetse ko ikirego cyayo kiregera kwiregura cyagombaga kwakirwa kuko kigamije kwiregura kandi kikaba gifitanye isano n’icyatanzwe n’urega. Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwasobanuye ko gutambamira ihinduzamutungo ari igikorwa cy’agateganyo, bityo kikaba gishobora kuza mbere y’uko Urukiko rubifitiye ububasha ruregerwa ngo rwemeze uburyozwe bw’abanyamigabane cyangwa bw’abayobozi ba sosiyete, cyane cyane ko ingingo ya 46 bis y’Itegeko N°25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha ntaho ivuga ko kuregera urukiko bigomba gukorwa mbere y’ikindi gikorwa icyari cyo cyose ku mitungo yabo bwite bityo rero urubanza rwajuririwe rukaba ruhindutse. Kandi rwasanze ko ikirego kiregera kwiregura cyagombaga kwakirwa kuko gifitanye isano n’icyatanzwe na Murekatete, ariko ko rutagisuzuma bwa mbere mu bujurire. Murekatete yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwirengagije ko ikigo ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 90

## Page 115

cy’ubucuruzi gifite ubuzima gatozi gikurikiranwa kikanaryozwa ku giti cyacyo, hadakurikiranwa abayobozi cyangwa abanyamigabane bacyo kuko batandukanye na sosiyete kandi ko ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 46 bis y’itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru bikorwa gusa igihe Urukiko rubifitiye ububasha rwabyemeje. Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyiregura kivuga ko nubwo mu bisanzwe umutungo wa sosiyete utandukanye n’umutungo w’abanyamigabane bayo, ntibibuza ko mu gihe bigaragaye ko bagize uruhare mu gutuma sosiyete ituzuza inshingano zayo zijyanye n’imisoro, babiryozwa hashingiye ku ngingo ya 46 bis y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru, kandi ko ntaho iyo ngingo ivuga ko urukiko rugomba kubanza kwemeza uburyozwe bw’abayobozi n’abanyamuryango ba sosiyete mbere y’uko habaho itambamira ry’ihinduzamutungo ku mitungo yabo bwite, ndetse ko itegereje ko urubanza rucibwa yasanga imitungo yavanamo ubwishyu yaranyerejwe cyangwa yarahishwe, gisaba ko ikirego kiregera kwiregura cyatanze guhera mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi cyakwakirwa kigasuzumwa. Ababuranyi bose basoza basaba amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’avoka. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Abanyamigabane n’abayobozi ba sosiyete ntibaryozwa amakosa ya sosiyete keretse hari icyemezo cy’Urukiko cyemeje uburyozwe bwabo. 2. Imitungo y’abanyamigabane n’abayobozi ba sosiyete ku giti cyabo ntishobora gutambamirwa Urukiko rubifitiye ububasha rutabanje kwemeza uruhare rwabo mu makosa sosiyete iryozwa bityo rero itambamira ry’ihinduzamutungo ryakozwe ku mutungo utimukanwa wa Murekatete rikaba rigomba kuvanwaho kuko ryakozwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko. 91 MUREKATETE v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHÔRO ( RRA)

## Page 116

3. Ikirego kijyanye n’uburyozwe bw’abayobozi n’abanyamigabane ba sosiyete y’ubucuruzi ni ikirego kihariye nticyafatwa nk’ikirego kiregera kwiregura ku cyatanzwe n’urega kuko nta sano bifitanye. Bityo rero ikirego kiregera kwiregura cyatanzwe Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro kigaba kitagomba kwakirwa. Ubujurire bufite ishingiro; Ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi nta shingiro bufite; Amagarama y’urubanza aherereye ku Kigo cy’Imisoro; n’Amahôro. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko N°25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha, ingingo ya 46 bis. Itegeko N°27/2017 ryo ku wa 31/05/2017 ryerekeye amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi, ingingo ya 23 niya 95. Itegeko N°21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 106, 107 niya 283. Imanza zifashishijwe: Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro v. Munyampundu n’undi, RCOMAA00040/2016/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 22/12/2017.

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 92

## Page 117

Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Tariki ya 11/02/2015, Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyatambamiye ihinduzamutungo (opposition à mutation) y’inzu ya Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde iri mu kibanza N°UPI1/02/13/02/631, mu nyandiko cyandikiye Umuyobozi Mukuru w’Ikigo gishinzwe Umutungo Kamere mu Rwanda, kikagenera kopi Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde, kivuga ko iryo tambamira rishingiye ku misoro akibereyemo. [2] Ku wa 12/05/2015, Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge, asaba ko itambamira ry’ihinduzamutungo ryakozwe ku nzu ye rivanwaho kuko umutungo w’umunyamigabane utandukanye n’uwa sosiyete, asaba n’indishyi zinyuranye. [3] Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyireguye kivuga ko itambamira ry’ihinduzamutungo cyakoze ku mutungo utimukanwa wa Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde rishingiye ku ngingo ya 46 bis y’Itegeko N°25/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha iteganya ko abayobozi n’abanyamigabane ba sosiyete baryozwa imisoro yayo iyo bafite uruhare mu micungire yayo cyangwa mu mikoreshereze mibi y’umutungo wayo ku buryo idashobora kuzuza inshingano zayo zijyanye n’imisoro, bitewe n’uko Murekatete nk’umuyobozi n’umunyamigabane umwe rukumbi wa sosiyete DISCOME Ltd, yagize uruhare mu gutuma iyo sosiyete itishyura imisoro yaciwe. [4] Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyatanze ikirego kiregera kwiregura, gisaba ko Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde 93 MUREKATETE v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHÔRO ( RRA)

## Page 118

yategekwa kwishyura umusoro waciwe DISCOME Ltd ungana na 25.490.933, indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka. [5] Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge rwaciye urubanza RCOM0783/15/TC/NYGE ku wa 23/11/2015, rwemeza ko itambamira ry’ihinduzamutungo ryakozwe ku nzu ya Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde rikuweho kuko, nubwo ingingo ya 46 bis y’Itegeko N°25/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha iteganya uburyozwe bw’abayobozi n’abanyamigabane ba sosiyete iyo hujujwe ibisabwa muri iyo ngingo, inateganya ko ubwo buryozwe bugomba kwemezwa n’urukiko rubifitiye ububasha, ibi bikaba bivuze ko nta burenganzira Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyari gifite cyo gutambamira ihinduzamutungo ry’inzu ya Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde mu gihe cyose urukiko rutaremeza ko agomba kwishyura umusoro waciwe DISCOME Ltd. [6] Ku birebana n’indishyi Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde yasabye, Urukiko rwemeje ko nta ndishyi yahabwa z’uko inzu ye yafunzwe kuko nta bimenyetso abitangira. Ku byerekeye amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka, rwasanze zikwiye, rumugenera 500.000 Frw. [7] Ku birebana n’ikirego kiregera kwiregura cyatanzwe n’Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro gisaba urukiko gutegeka Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde kwishyura umusoro waciwe DISCOME Ltd, Urukiko rwemeje ko kitakiriwe kuko ari ikirego cyihariye giteganywa n’ingingo ya 46 bis y’Itegeko N°25/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha, kikaba kitagomba gufatwa nk’ikirego cyo kwiregura ku cyatanzwe n’urega, giteganywa n’ingingo ya 107 z’Itegeko N°21/2012 ryo ku wa ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 94

## Page 119

14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi. [8] Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi kivuga ko cyihutiye gutambamira ihinduzamutungo ry’umutungo utimukanwa wa Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 46 bis y’Itegeko rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha ryavuzwe no ku ngingo ya 283, igika cya 1 y’Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi naryo ryavuzwe, bitewe n’uko mu gihe DISCOME Ltd yakorerwaga igenzura, Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde yakoze ibikorwa byo kugurisha imitungo yayo, bituma itishyura umwenda w’imisoro yagombaga, ndetse ko ikirego cyayo kiregera kwiregura cyagombaga kwakirwa hashingiye ku ngingo ya 107 y’Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi kuko kigamije kwiregura kandi kikaba gifitanye isano n’icyatanzwe n’urega. [9] Urwo rukiko, mu rubanza RCOMA0672/15/HCC rwaciwe ku wa 13/05/2016, rwemeje ko urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge ruhindutse, ruvanaho indishyi Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyategetswe kwishyura mu rwego rwa mbere, runategeka Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde kugiha 300.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka. [10] Mu gufata icyo cyemezo, Urukiko rwasobanuye ko gutambamira ihinduzamutungo ari igikorwa cy’agateganyo, bityo kikaba gishobora kuza mbere y’uko urukiko rubifitiye ububasha ruregerwa ngo rwemeze uburyozwe bw’abanyamigabane cyangwa bw’abayobozi ba sosiyete, cyane 95 MUREKATETE v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHÔRO ( RRA)

## Page 120

cyane ko ingingo ya 46 bis y’Itegeko rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha ntaho ivuga ko kuregera urukiko bigomba gukorwa mbere y’ikindi gikorwa icyari cyo cyose ku mitungo yabo bwite. [11] Rwasobanuye kandi ko gutegereza ko uruhare rw’abayobozi n’abanyamigabane ba sosiyete rugaragazwa n’inkiko mbere yo gufatira cyangwa gukora ikindi gikorwa cy’agateganyo kibabuza kurigisa imitungo yabo bishobora gutuma ahubwo abo bantu bihuta kuyirigisa kugira ngo itazakoreshwa mu kwishyura imyenda ya sosiyete iyo hagaragara ko bagize uruhare mu kutishyura iyo myenda. [12] Ku birebana n’ikirego kiregera kwiregura cyatanzwe n’Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro guhera mu rwego rwa mbere, Urukiko rwavuze ko ibyo urukiko rubanza rwashingiyeho rwanga kwakira icyo kirego nta shingiro bifite kubera ko icyo kirego cyari kigamije kwiregura kandi gifitanye isano n’icyatanzwe na Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde, ariko ko rutagisuzuma mu bujurire kubera ko byaba ari ukugisuzuma bwa mbere mu bujurire. [13] Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde yajuririye uru rubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwirengagije amategeko agenga amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi n’amategeko agenga imisoro, Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro kibyutsa inzitizi y’iburabubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirega ishingiye ku gaciro k’ikiburanwa, iyo nzitizi imaze kugibwaho impaka no gufatwaho icyemezo mu rubanza rubanziriza urundi rwo ku wa 30/06/2017, Urukiko rukemeza ububasha bwarwo, Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyatanze ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bugamije gusaba ko Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde yategekwa kwishyura imisoro ya sosiyete DISCOME Ltd nk’uko cyabisabye guhera mu rwego rwa mbere mu kirego kiregera kwiregura. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 96

## Page 121

[14] Urubanza mu mizi rwaburanishijwe ku wa 05/12/2017, Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde ahagarariwe na Me Zawadi Stephen, naho Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro gihagarariwe na Me Byiringiro Bajeni. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO Kumenya niba itambamira ry’ihinduzamutungo ryakozwe ku mutungo utimukanwa wa Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde uri mu kibanza gifite nomero UPI 1/02/13/02/631 rigomba kuvanwaho. [15] Uburanira Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde avuga ko ingingo ya 137 y’Itegeko N°07/2009 ryo ku wa 27/04/2009 rigenga amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi iteganya ko nta na rimwe umuntu ku giti cye ashobora kubazwa inshingano za sosiyete ku mpamvu z'uko afitemo imigabane gusa. [16] Akomeza avuga ko Ikigo cy'ubucuruzi gifite ubuzima gatozi gikurikiranwa kikanaryozwa ku giti cy’ayo, ko hatakurikiranwa abayobozi cyangwa abanyamigabane bacyo, kuko ari abantu batandukanye na sosiyete, ko iyi ishobora kurega ikanaregwa, igatanga imisoro, ikagira n'abakozi ndetse n'ibindi byose abantu bakora ku giti cyabo. [17] Avuga kandi ko ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 46 bis y’Itegeko N°25/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha, bikorwa igihe urukiko rubifitiye ububasha rwabyemeje, ko ku birebana na Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde, nta rukiko rwabyemeje mbere y’uko Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro gitambamira 97 MUREKATETE v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHÔRO ( RRA)

## Page 122

ihinduzamutungo ry’umutungo we utimukanwa, bivuze ko icyo gikorwa kinyuranije n'amategeko agenga imisoro. [18] Uburanira Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro avuga ko nubwo mu bisanzwe umutungo wa sosiyete utandukanye n’umutungo w’abanyamigabane bayo, ntibibuza ko mu gihe bigaragaye ko bagize uruhare mu gutuma sosiyete ituzuza inshingano zayo zijyanye n’imisoro, babiryozwa hashingiye ku ngingo ya 46 bis y’Itegeko N˚25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha, kandi ko ntaho iyo ngingo ivuga ko urukiko rugomba kubanza kwemeza uburyozwe bw’abayobozi n’abanyamuryango ba sosiyete mbere y’uko itambamira ihinduzamutungo ry’imitungo yabo bwite, ndetse ko itegereje ko urubanza rucibwa yasanga imitungo yavanamo ubwishyu yaranyerejwe cyangwa yarahishwe. [19] Akomeza avuga ko Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyatambamiye ihinduzamutungo ry’inzu ya Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde kuko, akimara kubona umushinga w’umusoro wa sosiyete, yahise yihutira kugurisha imodoka zayo ebyiri, bituma nayo yihutira gutambamira ihinduzamutungo ry’umutungo we utimukanwa kugira ngo hato nawo atawuburizamo agambiriye gutuma umusoro utishyurwa. [20] Avuga kandi ko Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyatambamiye ihinduzamutungo ry’inzu ya Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde gishingiye ku ngingo ya 283, agace ka 1, y’Itegeko N°21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, yemerera ufitiwe umwenda gusaba itambama hinduranya ry’umutungo w’ufite umwenda.

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 98

## Page 123

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [21] Ingingo ya 46 bis y’Itegeko N°25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha iteganya ko “abayobozi bafite uruhare mu buryo butaziguye mu igenzura no mu micungire y’isosiyete idahamagarira rubanda kuyiguramo imigabane, baryozwa bose hamwe imisoro iyo sosiyete ibazwa, iyo bigaragaye ko, ku bushake cyangwa ku burangare bwabo batumye isosiyete iryozwa iyo misoro. Abanyamigabane nabo baryozwa imisoro y’isosiyete iyo bafite uruhare mu micungire y’isosiyete cyangwa mu mikoreshereze mibi y’umutungo wayo ku buryo bituma idashobora kuzuza inshingano zayo zijyanye n’imisoro. Urukiko rubifitiye ububasha rwemeza uburyozwe bw’abayobozi n’abanyamigabane buvugwa muri iyi ngingo”. [22] Ibivugwa muri iyi ngingo bigaragara ko ari umwihariko (exception) ku ihame rusange rivuga ko sosiyete igira ubuzima gatozi bwite butandukanye n’ubw’abanyamigabane bayo, nk’uko bivugwa mu ngingo ya 23 y’Itegeko N° 27/2017 ryo ku wa 31/05/2017 ryerekeye amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi, ari nayo mpamvu, nk’uko bivugwa na none mu ngingo ya 95 y’iryo tegeko, umuntu ufite umugabane mu isosiyete ifite uburyozwe bugarukira ku migabane, adashobora kubazwa inshingano y’isosiyete ku mpamvu yo kuba afitemo umugabane gusa, uburyozwe bwe bukaba bugarukira gusa ku mafaranga atarishyuwe ku mugabane afite (1), ku bundi buryozwe bwateganyijwe mu buryo butaziguye (expressement) n’inyandiko z’ishingwa rya sosiyete (2), ku byahawe umunyamigabane ariko bikaba bigomba kugaruzwa (3). 99 MUREKATETE v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHÔRO ( RRA)

## Page 124

[23] Ku bijyanye no gutambamira ihinduzamutungo ry’ibintu bitimukanwa, ingingo ya 283 y’Itegeko N°21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya, mu gace kayo ka 1 ko “uberewemo umwenda wese cyangwa umuntu wese ubifitemo inyungu ashobora gusaba Umubitsi w’Inyandikompamo z’ubutaka cyangwa Umunyamabanga Nshingwabikorwa w’Umurenge cyangwa uw’Akarere w’aho ikitimukanwa kiri kubuza umubereyemo umwenda gukora ihinduzamutungo ry’ibintu bye bitimukanwa”. [24] Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 46 bis y’Itegeko rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha ryavuzwe, Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro kivuga ko cyashingiyeho gitambamira ihinduzamutungo ry’umutungo utimukanwa wa Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde, igiha gusa uburenganzira bwo kuregera Urukiko rubifitiye ububasha kugira ngo rwemeze uburyozwe bw’abayobozi n’abanyamigabane buvugwa muri iyi ngingo, ariko ubwayo itagiha uburenganzira bwo gutambamira ihinduzamutungo ry‘umutungo utimukanwa w’abayobozi cyangwa abanyamigabane ba sosiyete bavugwa muri iyo ngingo. [25] Ku birebana n’ingingo ya 283, agace ka mbere, y’Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, nayo Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro kivuga ko cyashingiyeho gitambamira ihinduzamutungo ry’inzu ya Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde, Urukiko rurasanga iyo ngingo itanga inzira yo gukumira by’agateganyo ihinduranya ry’umutungo utimukanwa w’ubereyemo undi umwenda, ariko itakoreshwa hakumirwa ihinduzamutungo y’inzu ya Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde kuko Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro nta mwenda w’umusoro ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 100

## Page 125

cyagaragaje yaba akibereyemo, akaba adashobora kuryozwa umusoro waciwe sosiyete DISCOME Ltd mu gihe cyose nta rukiko rubifitiye ububasha ruremeza ko agomba kuryozwa uwo musoro. [26] Urukiko rurasanga ibimaze kuvugwa ko inzu ya Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde itatambamirwa kugurishwa hashingiye ku musoro waciwe sosiyete DISCOME Ltd bihuye n’ibyemejwe n’uru rukiko mu manza zitandukanye, harimo n’urwo Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyaburanye na Munyampundu Antoine na Mukarugambwa Béatrice, aho rwasobanuye, mu gika cya 26, ko uburyozwe bw’abayobozi cyangwa abanyamigabane ba sosiyete ari umwihariko (exception) wemezwa gusa n’Urukiko1. [27] Hashingiye ku mategeko no ku bisobanuro byatanzwe, Urukiko rurasanga itambamira ry’ihinduzamutungo ryakozwe ku mutungo utimukanwa wa Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde uri mu kibanza gifite N° UPI 1/02/13/02/631 rigomba kuvanwaho kuko ryakozwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko. Kumenya niba Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde yategekwa kwishyura imisoro ya sosiyete DISCOME Ltd [28] Uburanira Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwagaragaje ko ikirego kiregera kwiregura cyatanzwe guhera mu rwego ra mbere, gisaba ko Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde aryozwa imisoro ya sosiyete DISCOME Ltd hashingiye ku ngingo ya 46 bis y’Itegeko N°25/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha kubera uruhare afite mu gutuma iyo sosiyete itishyura imisoro yaciwe,

1 Urubanza RCOMAA00040/2016/SC rwaciwe ku wa 22/12/2017. 101 MUREKATETE v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHÔRO ( RRA)

## Page 126

cyagombaga kwakirwa kigasuzumwa kuko gifitanye isano n’ikirego fatizo cyatanzwe na Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde cyo gukuraho itambamira ry’ihinduzamutungo ryakozwe ku nzu ye, ariko igitangaje, akaba ari uko mu gace ka 36 k’urubanza Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwavuze ko rutasuzuma icyo kirego ubwa mbere mu bujurire. [29] Akomeza avuga ko iyi myumvire y’umucamanza inyuranyije n‘ingingo ya 171 y’Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ryavuzwe, iteganya ko “Urukiko rwajuririwe iyo ruhinduye icyemezo cyajuririwe, ruburanisha urwo rubanza mu mizi yarwo keretse iyo ruruhinduye ku mpamvu y’uko rwaregewe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko cyangwa ku mpamvu y‘iburabubasha”, ari nayo mpamvu asaba uru rukiko gusuzuma ikirego Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyatanze guhera ku rwego rwa mbere, rukemeza ko Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde aryozwa umusoro waciwe sosiyete DISCOME Ltd. [30] Avuga kandi ko igituma Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro gisanga Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde agomba kuryozwa imisoro ibazwa DISCOME Ltd ari uko, mu gihe sosiyete DISCOME Ltd yakorerwaga igenzurwa, yakoze ibikorwa byo kugurisha imitungo yayo, bifatwa nk’ibyatumye itishyura imisoro yaciwe, ingero zifatika akaba ari amasezerano y’ubugure bw’imodoka zayo ebyiri yakozwe hagati ya sosiyete DISCOME Ltd (ugurisha) n’indi sosiyete yitwa DITRAC Solution Ltd (ugura) ku wa 30/04/2013. [31] Avuga ko ikindi kigaragaza ko Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde yagize uruhare mu gutuma sosiyete DISCOME Ltd idashobora kuzuza inshingano zayo zijyanye n’imisoro, ari uko ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 102

## Page 127

yagurishije imitungo ya sosiyete DISCOME Ltd yaramaze guhabwa inyandiko ikosora yo ku wa 05/03/2013, aho kugira icyo ayivugaho mu gihe cy’iminsi mirongo itatu (30) nk’uko amategeko abimwemerera mu ngingo ya 27 y‘Itegeko rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha, ahubwo yihutiye kugurisha imitungo ya sosiyete, ibi akaba ari uburyo yakoze bwo kunyereza imitungo ya sosiyete DISCOME Ltd agamije kuburizamo iyishyurwa ry’umwenda w’imisoro iyi sosiyete ibazwa, kuko iyo aza kuba yaragize ubushake bwo kugira ngo yuzuze inshingano yayo yo kwishyura imisoro, yari kubikora kuko ugereranyije umusoro yasabwaga kwishyura mu nyandiko isoza igenzura yakiriye ku itariki ya 26/06/2013 ungana na 19.895.201Frw, ukareba mu by‘ukuri n’amafaranga yagurishije ziriya modoka ebyiri za DISCOME Ltd ku giciro cya 38.000.000Frw, aya mafaranga yashoboraga kuvamo ubwishyu bw’umwenda w’imisoro DISCOME Ltd igomba Ubuyobozi bw’Imisoro. [32] Uburanira Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwabisobanuye neza ko ikirego cyatanzwe n’Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro kitasuzumwa bwa mbere mu bujurire, akaba asanga n’uru rukiko rutagisuzuma bwa mbere mu bujurire bwa kabiri. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA: [33] Mu bujurire bwacyo bwuririye ku bundi, Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro gisaba ko ikirego kiregera kwiregura cyatanzwe guhera mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi cyakwakirwa kigasuzumwa, Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde akaryozwa imisoro ya sosiyete DISCOME Ltd hashingiye ku ngingo ya 46 bis y’Itegeko N°25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena 103 MUREKATETE v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHÔRO ( RRA)

## Page 128

imitunganyirize y’isoresha kubera uruhare ngo afite mu gutuma iyo sosiyete itishyura imisoro yaciwe [34] Ingingo ya 106 y’Itegeko N°21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ivuga ko ikirego kiregera kwiregura ari igitangwa n’uregwa agamije gusaba ko urega agira ibyo acibwa, naho ingingo ya 107 y’iryo tegeko, mu gace kayo ka 2, igateganya ko ibirego bigamije kwiregura byakirwa gusa iyo bigamije kwiregura k’uregwa ku kirego cy’iremezo cyangwa bifitanye isano nacyo (1°), bigamije kwaka indishyi ku makosa yakozwe mu rubanza (2°), cyangwa bigamije guhwanya imyenda kugira ngo ababuranyi babe bishyuranye (3°). [35] Urukiko rurasanga ikirego cyatanzwe n’Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro gisaba ko uregwa yategekwa kwishyura imisoro ya sosiyete DISCOME Ltd kitagamije kwiregura ku kirego cy’iremezo cyatanzwe na Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde asaba ko itambamira ry’ihinduzamutungo y’inzu ye rivanwaho kubera ko ryakozwe mu buryo butubahirije amategeko, hagaragazwa ko itambama ryakozwe ryubahirije amategeko, ndetse nta n’isano gifitanye nacyo kuko, nk’uko byasobanuwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi, ari ikirego cyihariye gishingiye ku mpamvu itandukanye irebana n’uburyozwe bw’abayobozi n’abanyamigabane ba sosiyete y’ubucuruzi ku birebana n’imisoro yaciwe iyo sosiyete, nk’uko bisobanurwa mu ngingo ya 46 bis y’Itegeko rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha, kikaba rero kitagomba kwakirwa. [36] Urukiko rurasanga kandi nta yindi mpamvu ishingiye ku ngingo ya 107, agace ka 2, y‘Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 104

## Page 129

n’iz’ubutegetsi ryavuzwe yatuma ikirego kiregera kwiregura cyatanzwe n’Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyakirwa, bityo ubujurire bwayo bwuririye ku bundi bukaba nta shingiro gifite. Ku bijyanye n’amafaranga y'ikurikirana rubanza n'igihembo cya Avoka asabwa n’ababuranyi [37] Uburanira Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde asaba ko Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyashoye uwo ahagararariye mu nkiko ku maherere, cyakwishyura indishyi za 5.000.000Frw kubera ko yambuwe ibyangombwa by’inzu ye, bigatuma adashobora kubona abayikodesha, kikanishyura amafaranga y’ igihembo cya Avoka angana na 1.000.000Frw kuri uru rwego na 1.100.000Frw ku nzego ebyiri zabanje. [38] Uburanira Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro avuga ko indishyi Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde asaba nta shingiro zifite kuko ibyangombwa by’inzu bitigeze bifatirwa, itambamira ry’ihinduzanya rikaba ritabuza ko inzu ikodeshwa, ko n’amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka asaba adakwiye kuyahabwa kuko ari we washoye Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro mu rubanza. [39] Asoza asaba ko Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyagenerwa 2.000.000Frw y’ ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA: [40] Urukiko rurasanga nta ndishyi zishingiye ku gihombo yagize Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde yagenerwa kuko nta bimenyetso atanga byerekana icyo gihombo, ariko akwiye kugenerwa amafaranga y’ikurikirana rubanza n’igihembo cya 105 MUREKATETE v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHÔRO ( RRA)

## Page 130

Avoka ku nzego eshatu yaburaniyemo kuko Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyamushoye mu manza bitari ngombwa, bikaba byarabaye ngombwa ko asohora amafaranga yo gutegura urubanza, akaniyambaza umunyamategeko umuburanira, bityo mu bushishozi bwarwo, hagendeye ku miterere y’urubanza, igihe rumaze n’inzego eshatu yaburanyiyemo, akaba agenewe 2.600.000Frw yose hamwe. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO: [41] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde bufite ishingiro; [42] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwatanzwe n’Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro nta shingiro bufite; [43] Rwemeje ko urubanza RCOMA0672/15/HCC rwaciwe ku wa 13/05/2016 n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ruhindutse; [44] Rwemeje ko itambamira ry’ihinduzamutungo ryakozwe ku mutungo utimukanwa wa Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde, uri mu kibanza gifite N° UPI 1/02/13/02/631 rivanyweho;  [45] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe n’Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro, gisaba ko Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde yategekwa kwishyura imisoro ya sosiyete DISCOME Ltd kitagomba kwakirwa ngo gisuzumwe; [46] Rutegetse Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro kwishyura Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka angana na 2.600.000Frw ku nzego eshatu baburanyiyemo; [47] Rutegetse kandi Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro kwishyura amagarama y’urubanza ahwanye na 100.000 Frw. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 106

## Page 131

RUBERANDINDA v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHÔRO [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RCOMAA 00030/2017/CS (Kayitesi R, P.J., Gakwaya na Mukandamage, J.) 25 Gicurasi 2018] Amategeko agenga imisoro – Umusoro – Inshingano z’umusoreshwa n’umusoresha mu kohererezanya ibaruwa ishinganye – Iyo umusoresha cyangwa umusoreshwa akoresheje iposita mu kohererezanya ubutumwa, iyo uwohereza ubutumwa yabugejeje ku iposita, ikabwakira ikabuteraho kashe, aba yujuje inshingano ye, hatitawe ku gihe iposita y’uwohererejwe ubutumwa izabumugerezaho – Itegeko rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha, ingingo ya 4. Amategeko agenga umusoro – Umusoro – Kugira ngo hagaragazwe ko umusoresha yohereje ibaruwa ishinganye igihe cy’iminsi 60 kitararenga, hagomba kurebwa itariki igaragazwa na kashe y’iposita yabyakiriye – Itegeko rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha, ingingo ya 4. Incamake y’ikibazo: Nyuma yuko Ruberandinda akorewe igenzura nta nteguza n’Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro (RRA) maze acibwa Umusoro ku Nyungu hamwe n’Umusoro ku Nyongeragaciro (TVA) ungana na 81.587.393Frw w’imyaka wa 2009 n’uwa 2010, ku wa 29/9/2015 yajuriye kwa Komiseri Mukuru asaba kugabanyirizwa akishyura gusa 11.415.245Frw, ibaruwa igera kuri Komiseri Mukuru ku wa 01/10/2015 nawe amusubiza ku itariki 27/11/2015 amumenyesha ko ubujurire bwe 107

## Page 132

bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe, bityo ko agomba kwishyura umusoro ungana na 62.639.977Frw. Ruberandinda ntiyanyuzwe nicyo cyemezo maze atanga ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Huye avuga ko igisubizo cya Komiseri Mukuru ku bujurire bwe cyamugezeho gitinze kuko cyageze mu gasanduku k’ iposita ye ya Muhanga cyararengeje iminsi 60 iteganywa n’amategeko. Uru Rukiko rwemeza ko ikirego cye gifite ishingiro, rwemeza ko agomba kwishyura umusoro ungana na 11.415.245Frw ku myaka ya 2009 na 2010 hamwe n’ibihano bijyanye niyo myaka ibiri, RRA nayo itegekwa kumuha indishyi zo kumushora mu manza hamwe n’igihembo cya avoka. Umusoresha yajuririye mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi avuga ko urukiko rubanza rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Ruberandinda kwa Komiseri Mukuru bufite ishingiro kandi ataribyo, uru Rukiko rwemeza ko ubujurire bwa RRA bufite ishingiro kuko rushingiye ku ibaruwa urega yandikiye Komiseri Mukuru, n’ibaruwa nawe yamusubije ishinganye, igashyikirizwa iposita ya Kigali igera k’iposita ya Muhanga aho urega abarizwa rwasanze umusoreshwa yarabonye igisubizo cya Komiseri Mukuru mu minsi 60 yateganyijwe n’itegeko. Ruberandinda yajuriye mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko ingingo z’ubujurire batanze zihuriye ku ngingo imwe gusa igamije kumenya aho icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru kigomba kunyuzwa kugira ngo kigere ku musoreshwa kuko Komiseri Mukuru wa RRA yashyize ubutumwa bwe kw’iposita ya Kigali kandi we abarizwa i Muhanga, akaba kandi yarahaye RRA aderesi ya Muhanga, ko rero RRA yagombaga gushyikiriza ubutumwa bwe ku iposita ya Muhanga. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 108

## Page 133

Akomeza avuga ko itariki yagombaga guherwaho habarwa iminsi 60 RRA yagombaga kuba yamugejejeho ubutumwa, ari igaragazwa na kashe y’iposita ya Muhanga igomba kuba iri ku ibaruwa irimo ubutumwa, avuga ko ubujurire bwa Ruberandinda bwakiriwe ku wa 01/10/2015, kandi umunsi wa nyuma wo ku wa 30/11/2015, aribwo igisubizo cyagombaga kuba kigeze ku iposita ya Muhanga, mu gihe ibaruwa yandikiwe na Komiseri Mukuru iriho kashe igaragaza ko yageze mu iposita ya Muhanga ku wa 02/12/2015, iminsi 60 yararangiye. Bityo akaba asaba n’indishyi hamwe n’inyungu yagombaga kubona mu gihe cy’iminsi 82 yamaze akurikirana urubanza. Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro kivuga ko gisanga iminsi 60 yateganyijwe n’itegeko yarubahirijwe kuko Komiseri Mukuru yabonye ubujurire bwa Ruberandinda Viateur ku wa 01/10/2015, ishyikiriza igisubizo iposita ku wa 27/11/2015, kandi kuvuga ko aderesi y’iposita umusoreshwa yatanze ari iyi Muhanga, nta shingiro bifite kuko inshingano zo gushyira ubutumwa mu gasanduku k’iposita, bikorwa n’iposita, bidakorwa n’Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro. Isoza ivuga ko kuba kashe iri ku ibaruwa ari iy’iposita y’i Muhanga, asanga ari ibisanzwe, bigaragaza ko umusoreshwa yakiriye ubutumwa bwe, ko ariko hari n’icyemezo cyerekana ko ibaruwa yatanzwe ku Iposita y’i Kigali ikayakira. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Iyo umusoresha cyangwa umusoreshwa akoresheje iposita mu kohererezanya ubutumwa, iyo uwohereza ubutumwa yabugejeje ku iposita, ikabwakira ikabuteraho kashe, aba yujuje inshingano ye, hatitawe ku gihe iposita y’uwohererejwe ubutumwa izabumugerezaho. Bityo, icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru w’Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro ku bujurire bwa Ruberandinda cyubahirije ibihe by’iminsi 60 biteganywa n’itegeko. 109 RUBERANDINDA v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHÔRO

## Page 134

2. Iposita yakira ubutumwa ni iposita iyari yo yose umusoresha cyangwa umusoreshwa yakoresheje atanga ubutumwa bwe, apfa gusa kuba yashyizeho amazina y’uwo abwoherereje hamwe na numero y’agasanduka k’iposita yatanze mu Kigo cy’imisoro n’amahôro. 3. Kugira ngo hagaragazwe ko umusoresha yohereje ibaruwa ishinganye igihe cy’iminsi 60 kitararenga, hagomba kurebwa itariki igaragazwa na kashe y’iposita yabyakiriye. 4. Imyumvire iri mu rubanza RCOMAA00070/2016/CS – RCOMAA0076/16/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko w’Ikirenga ku wa 03/11/2017, haburana Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’amahôro na Murebwayire Agnès, ivuga ko ingingo ya 6, 2° y’Itegeko N°25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha , yumvikanisha ko iposita ivugwa muri iyo ngingo atari iy’i Kigali cyangwa iposita iyo ariyo yose mu gihugu, ko ahubwo ari iposita y’aho umusoreshwa abarizwa, iyi myumvire ikaba itariyo, kuko iyo ngingo ivuga ahubwo ko iposita igomba gushyikirizwa ubutumwa ari iposita Nkuru i Kigali ku Kigo cy’Imisoro n’amahôro cyangwa ku musoreshwa utuye i Kigali, naho ku musoreshwa ubarizwa mu Ntara, iposita igomba gushyikirizwa ubutumwa ageneye Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’amahoôro , ni iposita y’aho atuye yatangiye address mu Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’amahôro , ikaba ariyo izabwoherereza Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’amahôro. Ubujurire nta shingiro bufite. Imikirize y’urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi igumyeho. Amagarama y’urubanza urega yatanze ahwanye n’ibyakozwe mu rubanza. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 110

## Page 135

Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko N°25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha, ingingo ya 4, iya 5, iya 6 agace ka 2°, niya 32. Nta manza zifashijwe: Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Ruberandinda Viateur yakorewe igenzura nta nteguza n’Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’amahôro (RRA), acibwa umusoro ku nyungu n’umusoro ku nyongeragaciro (TVA) bingana na 81.587.393Frw y’umwaka wa 2009 na 2010. [2] Ruberandinda Viateur yajuririye Komiseri Mukuru ku wa 29/09/2015, avuga ko atemera imisoro yombi yaciwe, asaba kurenganurwa akishyura uwo yemera ungana na 11.415.245Frw, ibaruwa imugeraho ku wa 01/10/2015, Komiseri amusubiza ku wa 27/11/2015, ko ubujurire bwe bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe, ko akwiye guhanagurwaho 18.947.416Frw, amugaragariza ko azishyura umusoro wa 62.639.977Frw. [3] Ruberandinda Viateur ntiyanyuzwe, atanga ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Huye avuga ko inyandiko ya Komiseri Mukuru isubiza ubujurire bwe, yamugezeho yararengeje iminsi 60 iteganywa n’Itegeko, kuko yageze mu gasanduku ke k’iposita y’i Muhanga ku wa 02/12/2015, asaba ko umusoro yemera ariwo yakwishyura. 111 RUBERANDINDA v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHÔRO

## Page 136

[4] Urukiko rwaciye urubanza RCOM 0472/15/TC/HYE ku wa 13/05/2016, rwemeza ko ikirego cye gifite ishingiro, ruvuga ko kuba yaramenyeshejwe igisubizo cya Komiseri Mukuru igihe giteganywa n’amategeko cyararenze, ibyo yajuririye bifatwa ko bifite ishingiro, maze rwemeza ko agomba kwishyura 11.415.245Frw y’umusoro ku nyungu n’umusoro ku nyongeragaciro ku mwaka wa 2009 na 2010, n’ibihano bijyanye n’iyo myaka ibiri (2). Rwategetse kandi RRA kumuha 500.000Frw y’indishyi zo kumushora mu manza harimo n’igihembo cya Avoka. [5] RRA yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, ivuga ko Umucamanza yemeje ko ubujurire bwa Ruberandinda Viateur kwa Komiseri Mukuru bufite ishingiro, kuko Komiseri Mukuru wa RRA yasubije ku bujurire bwe iminsi 60 iteganywa n’Itegeko yararenze, kandi ataribyo, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwaciye urubanza RCOMA00320/2016/CHC/HCC, ku wa 10/03/2017, rwemeza ko Ruberandinda Viateur yabonye igisubizo cya Komiseri Mukuru ku bujurire bwe mu gihe cyateganyijwe n’amategeko1, bityo ko ubujurire bwa RRA bufite ishingiro. [6] Urukiko rufata icyemezo, rwashingiye ko ibaruwa urega yandikiye Komiseri Mukuru ku wa 29/9/2015, yageze kuri RRA ku wa 01/10/2015, nawe asubiza ku bujurire bwe, akoresheje ibaruwa ishinganye, ishyikirizwa iposita y’i Kigali ku wa

1 Rwashingiye ku ngingo ya 32 y’Itegeko N°25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha nkuko ryahinduwe rikuzuzwa kugeza ubu, iteganya ko “Komiseri mukuru afata icyemezo ku bujurire mu gihe cy’iminsi 30 akakigeza ku musoreshwa. Komiseri Mukuru cyangwa undi mukozi wese w’ubuyobozi bw’imisoro ubifitiye ububasha washyizweho na Komiseri Mukuru, ashobora kongera indi minsi 30 kuri iki gihe inshuro imwe gusa akabimenyesha umusoreshwa”. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 112

## Page 137

27/11/2015, igera mu gasanduku ke k’iposita N° 169 i Muhanga ku wa 02/12/2015 aho urega abarizwa, ko rero iminsi 60 iteganywa n’ingingo ya 32 y’Itegeko N°25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha nkuko ryahinduwe rikuzuzwa kugeza ubu, yubahirijwe, ruvuga kandi ko n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 5, igika cya 22 y’iryo y’Itegeko, nabyo byubahirijwe. [7] Ruberandinda Viateur yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 08/04/2017, avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwemeje ko icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru wa RRA ku bujurire bwe, cyatanzwe mu bihe byemewe n’amategeko kandi atari byo, kuko cyagejejwe mu gasanduku ke k’iposita i Muhanga, iminsi 60 iteganywa n’Itegeko yararenze, ibyo bikaba byaratumye acibwa imisoro ingana na 62.639.977Frw, atagombaga kwishyura, asaba indishyi zinyuranye zikubiyemo igihembo cya Avoka, n’inyungu yagombaga kubona mu gihe cy’iminsi 82 yatakaje akurikirana imanza. [8] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku wa 03/04/2018, Ruberandinda Viateur ahagarariwe na Me Nsengiyumva Abel, Rwanda Revenue Authority ihagarariwe na Me Twahirwa Jean -Baptiste.

2 “Iyo umusoreshwa cyangwa ubuyobozi bw’imisoro byakoresheje iposita mu kohererezanya ubutumwa, bifatwa nkaho byujuje inshingano yabyo umunsi ubwo butumwa bwashyikirijwe iposita”. 113 RUBERANDINDA v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHÔRO

## Page 138

II. ISESENGURA RY’IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA. 1. Kumenya niba igisubizo cy’ibaruwa ishinganye cya RRA ku bujurire bwa Ruberandinda Viateur cyaratangiwe ku gihe. [9] Me Nsengiyumva Abel, uburanira Ruberandinda Viateur, avuga ko ingingo z’ubujurire batanze zihuriye ku ngingo imwe gusa igamije kumenya aho icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru kigomba kunyuzwa kugira ngo kigere ku musoreshwa, kuko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwagaragaje ko iyo ubutumwa bugeze ku iposita bifatwa nk’aho umusoreshwa aba yahawe ubutumwa bwe. Asobanura ko ubutumwa bwa Komiseri Mukuru wa Rwanda Revenue Authority bwashyizwe ku iposita ya Kigali kandi Ruberandinda Viateur atuye i Muhanga, nyamara adresi y’aho atuye ari: B.P 169 Muhanga, ari nayo yahaye Rwanda Revenue Authority, ndetse n`inyandiko ya Komiseri Mukuru ikaba iriho iyo adresi nk’uko bigaragara muri dosiye, ko rero RRA yagombaga gushyikiriza ubutumwa bw’uwo aburanira ku iposita ya Muhanga, ko igitekerezo cye gishingiye ku ngingo ya 4 y’Itegeko rya “procédure fiscale” ryo muri 2005, ivuga ko aharebwa ari aho umuntu atuye, ko ndetse igika cya nyuma cy’ingingo ya 5 y’iryo Tegeko ivuga “bureau de poste ’’y’aho umuntu atuye, ko atari Iposita nini nka “Institution’’ kuko ntaho ivugwa mu itegeko. [10] Uburanira Ruberandinda Viateur avuga ko itariki yagombaga guherwaho habarwa iminsi 60 RRA yagombaga kuba yamugejejeho ubutumwa, ari igaragazwa na “cachet” y’iposita ya Muhanga igomba kuba iri ku ibaruwa irimo ubutumwa, avuga ko ubujurire bwa Ruberandinda Viateur bwakiriwe ku wa 01/10/2015, kandi umunsi wa nyuma wo ku wa 30/11/2015, ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 114

## Page 139

aribwo igisubizo cyagombaga kuba kigeze ku iposita ya Muhanga, mu gihe ibaruwa Ruberandinda Viateur yandikiwe na Komiseri Mukuru iriho kashe, igaragaza ko yageze mu iposita ya Muhanga ku wa 02/12/2015, iminsi 60 yararangiye. [11] Me Nsengiyumva Abel avuga ko ubujurire bwa Ruberandinda Viateur babushingira kandi ku rubanza RCOMAA00070/2016/CS – RCOMAA0076/16/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, hagati ya RRA na Murebwayire Agnès, ko ibikubiye muri iyi “jurisprudence’’ bihura neza n’uru rubanza ruburanwa, kuko uru Rukiko rwasanze Murebwayire Agnès yarandikiye Komiseri Mukuru ku wa 01/09/2015, ajuririra umusoro yaciwe, Komiseri Mukuru yamumenyesheje icyemezo yafashe ku bujurire bwe ku wa 05/11/2015 nyuma y`iminsi 67, binyuranyije n’ibitegenywa n`ingingo ya 32 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe, rwemeza ko igisubizo cya komiseri cyashyikirijwe umusoresha ibihe byararenze, rushingiye ku ngingo ya 6, igika cya 2 hamwe n`ingingo ya 4 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe, maze rwemeza ko ubujurire bwa Murebwayire bufite ishingiro, akaba agomba guhanagurwaho umusoro, asaba Urukiko ko rwaruheraho rufata icyemezo. [12] Me Twahirwa Jean Baptiste uhagarariye Rwanda Revenue Authority, avuga ko iby’uko ubutumwa bugenewe umusoreshwa bugomba kunyuzwa ku iposita y’aho atuye, ari uburyo bumwe bukoreshwa, kuko hari igihe umusoreshwa we ubwe ashobora kwiyizira ku biro bya Rwanda Revenue Authority agahabwa igisubizo, ko rero icyo gihe itamubwira gusubira i Muhanga ngo abe ariho afata igisubizo. [13] Avuga ko we adatandukanya Iposita Nkuru n’amashami yayo kuko amashami atagira ubuzima gatozi, ko iyo icyemezo cyashyikirijwe ku cyicaro cy’Iposita cyangwa Iposita Nkuru, iba 115 RUBERANDINDA v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHÔRO

## Page 140

yakibonye, akaba yumva igisubizo cyaratanzwe aho cyagombaga gutangwa, ko rero asaba Urukiko gusuzuma ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 4 n’iya 5 z’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru. [14] Ku bijyanye n’iminsi 60 urega avuga ko itubahirijwe, avuga ko asanga yarubahirijwe kuko Rwanda Revenue Authority yabonye ubujurire bwa Ruberandinda Viateur ku wa 01/10/2015, ishyikiriza igisubizo iposita ku wa 27/11/2015. Akomeza asobanura ko ibyo Ruberandinda Viateur avuga by’uko yatanze “address” y’iposita i Muhanga, asanga nta shingiro bifite kuko yayitanga i Kigali, cyangwa i Muhanga, asanga inshingano zo gushyira ubutumwa mu gasanduku k’iposita, bikorwa n’iposita, bidakorwa na Rwanda Revenue Authority. Avuga kandi ko kuba kashe iri ku ibaruwa ari iy’iposita y’i Muhanga, asanga ari ibisanzwe, bigaragaza ko umusoreshwa yakiriye ubutumwa bwe, ko ariko hari n’icyemezo cyerekana ko ibaruwa yatanzwe ku Iposita y’i Kigali ikayakira. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA. [15] Ibijyanye no kumenya niba RRA yaratanze igisubizo ku bujurire bwa Ruberandinda Viateur mu minsi 60 iteganywa n’Itegeko, bigomba kureberwa mu buryo ingingo zinyuranye zirebana n’ihererekanya ry’ubutumwa hagati y’umusoresha n’umusoreshwa, ryubahirijwe. [16] Ku birebana n’aho ubutumwa bugomba koherezwa, ingingo ya 43 y’Itegeko N°25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena

3 Ingingo ya 4 y’Itegeko N°25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha nkuko ryahinduwe rikuzuzwa kugeza ubu, iteganya ko Ubuyobozi bw'imisoro bwoherereza amabaruwa, amatangazo ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 116

## Page 141

imitunganyirize y’isoresha nkuko ryahinduwe kandi rikuzuzwa kugeza ubu, ryakurikizwaga igihe RRA yatangaga ubutumwa, yumvikanisha ko mu koherereza umusoreshwa cyangwa undi muntu ubutumwa bwe, Ubuyobozi bwa RRA bufite inshingano zo gukoresha adresi buba bwarahawe nuwo musoreshwa cyangwa undi muntu, ku buryo niyo adresi ihindutse, RRA igomba kubimenyeshwa, ikabyubahiriza. Naho ku byerekeye uburyo bw’ihererekanya ry’inyandiko hagati ya RRA n’umusoreshwa, ingingo ya 54 y’iryo Tegeko igaragaza uburyo bugeze kuri bune (4) butandukanye, umusoresha yakwifashisha kugira ngo ageze ubutumwa bwe ku musoreshwa cyangwa undi muntu, harimo n`ibaruwa ishinganye, ndetse ikaba ariyo yifashishijwe muri uru rubanza, Komiseri Mukuru asubiza ku bujurire bwa Ruberandinda Viateur. [17] Ku bijyanye n’iposita (poste d’expédition) itangwaho ubutumwa bw’ibaruwa ishinganye (lettre recommandée), ingingo ya 6, igika cya kabiri, y’iryo Tegeko N°25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 ryavuzwe haruguru, igateganya ko “Iyo umusoreshwa cyangwa Ubuyobozi bw’imisoro byakoresheje iposita mu kohererezanya ubutumwa, bifatwa nk’aho byujuje inshingano yabyo umunsi ubwo butumwa bwashyikirijweho iposita”.

cyangwa ubundi butumwa umusoreshwa cyangwa umuntu ku cyicaro cye cyangwa aho atuye hazwi. 4 Ingingo ya 5 y’Itegeko N°25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 nk’uko ryavuguruwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu, iteganya ko “Ubutumwa bwose butanzwe hagati ya Minisitiri, Ubuyobozi bw'Imisoro, Komiseri Mukuru cyangwa Komisiyo y’Ubujurire n’umusoreshwa cyangwa undi muntu butangwa hifashishijwe bumwe muri ubu buryo bukurikira: 1° ibaruwa ishinganye; […]”. 117 RUBERANDINDA v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHÔRO

## Page 142

[18] Urukiko rusanga iyi ngingo yumvikanisha ko iyo umusoresha (Ubuyobozi bw’imisoro) cyangwa umusoreshwa bakoresheje iposita mu kohererezanya ubutumwa, iyo uwohereza ubutumwa yabugejeje ku iposita, ikabwakira ikabuteraho “cachet’’, aba yujuje inshingano ye, hatitawe ku gihe iposita y’ubwohererejwe izabumugerezaho, byumvikana neza ko iposita yakiriye ubutumwa ivugwa muri iyi ngingo ni iposita iyari yo yose umusoresha cyangwa umusoreshwa yakoresheje atanga ubutumwa bwe, apfa gusa kuba yarashyizeho aderesi y’iposita y’uwo abwoherereje (poste de destination), ni ukuvuga n’amazina ye, numero y’agasanduka k’iposita y’aho atuye nk’uko bivugwa mu ngingo ya 4 y’iri Tegeko yasobanuwe haruguru. [19] Ku birebana n’uru rubanza, kugira ngo hagaragazwe ko RRA yoherereje Ruberandinda Viateur ibaruwa ishinganye isubiza ku bujurire bwe igihe cy’iminsi 60 kitararenga, Urukiko rusanga hagomba kurebwa itariki igaragazwa na ‘’cachet’’ y’iposita nkuru ya Kigali RRA yahaye ibaruwa ishinganye yamugeneye, kugira ngo izayohereze kuri adresi ya Ruberandinda Viateur yahaye RRA, ni ukuvuga amazina ye, n’iposita y’aho abarizwa, nkuko bivugwa mu ngingo ya 4 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru. [20] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza ko inyandiko yo ku wa 02/09/2015 ya Rwanda Revenue Authority5 isoza igenzura ry’umusoro ku nyungu Ruberandinda Viateur yagombaga kwishyura mbere y’uko ajuririra Komiseri Mukuru, yerekana ko

5 Yanditswe n’abakozi bayo, Ndatabaye Maurice (Investigation Officer), Mwirere Delphine Acting Group Leader, Niyigaba Faustin, Acting Pricipal Investigation Officer, na Mugabe Robert, Deputy Commisiionner for Revenue Investigation and Enforcement Department. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 118

## Page 143

atuye i Muhanga kuko yandikiwe ku mwirondo ukurikira: “Ruberandinda Viateur, TIN: 100845349, B.P. 169 Muhanga, Tél: 0788324023”. [21] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza kandi ko ibaruwa ishinganye N° 517/15/CG/LLBS/RPA yo ku wa 27/112015 Komiseri Mukuru wa Rwanda Revenue Authority yandikiye Ruberandinda Viateur amugenera igisubizo ku bujurire bwe, igaragaza ko yayohereje kuri iyo aderesi yitangiye muri RRA: “Ruberandinda Viateur, C/O AFICCO Ltd, TIN: 100845349, B.P. 169 Muhanga. Tél: 0788324023”. [22] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza na none ko ibaruwa y’ubujurire bwa Ruberandinda Viateur yagejejwe kuri Komiseri Mukuru wa Rwanda Revenue Authority ku wa 01/10/2015 (urupapuro rwa 14 rwa dosiye yo mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Huye), nawe amugenera igisubizo hakoreshejwe uburyo bw’ibaruwa ishinganye yacishijwe ku iposita i Kigali ku wa 27/11/2015 (annexe 5 y’ibimenyetso bya RRA), kandi ikaba yarashyikirijwe Ruberandinda Viateur ku gasanduku ke k’iposita N°169 i Muhanga ku wa 02/12/2015. [23] Urukiko rusanga rero, kuba Ubuyobozi bwa RRA bwarabonye ubujurire bwa Ruberandinda Viateur ku wa 01/10/2015, mu gutanga igisubizo, bugashyikiriza Iposita Nkuru i Kigali, ibaruwa ishinganye isubiza ku bujurire bwe, ku wa 27/11/2015, mu gihe cy’iminsi 57, itageze ku minsi 60, hakoreshejwe adresi yatanzwe na Ruberandinda Viateur ubwe, hashingiwe ku biteganywa n`ingingo ya 6, igika cya mbere y’Itegeko N°25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 ryavuzwe haruguru iteganya ko :“ Iyo itegeko rigenga imisoro rigena igihe igikorwa runaka, iyemeza cyangwa ubutumwa bigomba gukorwamo cyangwa gutangwa, itariki nyayo igaragaza iyubahirizwa 119 RUBERANDINDA v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHÔRO

## Page 144

ry'ibisabwa, igaragazwa na kimwe muri ibi bikurikira: 1° kashe y’iposita igomba kuba yashyizwe ku ibaruwa bitarenze umunsi umwe w’akazi uhereye igihe iposita yakiriyeho ubutumwa buvugwa mu gace ka mbere k’igika cya mbere cy’ingingo ya 5 y’iri tegeko’’. [24] Ku birebana n’urubanza RCOMAA00070/2016/CS – RCOMAA0076/16/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko w’Ikirenga ku wa 03/11/2017, haburana RRA na Murebwayire Agnès, Ruberandinda Viateur ashingiraho asaba ko uru Rukiko rwarugenderaho mu gufata icyemezo ku bujurire bwe, Urukiko rusanga rutashingirwaho, kuko ruvuga ko ingingo ya 6, 2° y’Itegeko N°25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 ryavuzwe haruguru, yumvikanisha ko iposita ivugwa muri iyo ngingo atari iy’i Kigali cyangwa iposita iyo ariyo yose mu gihugu, ko ahubwo ari iposita y’aho umusoreshwa abarizwa, nyamara iyi myumvire ikaba itariyo, kuko, nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, iyo ngingo ivuga ahubwo ko iposita igomba gushyikirizwa ubutumwa ari iposita Nkuru i Kigali kuri RRA cyangwa ku musoreshwa utuye i Kigali, naho ku musoreshwa ubarizwa mu Ntara, iposita igomba gushyikirizwa ubutumwa ageneye RRA, ni iposita y’aho atuye yatangiye adresi muri RRA, ikaba ariyo izabwoherereza RRA. [25] Hashingiwe ku ngingo z’amategeko zagaragajwe n’ibisobanuro byatanzwe haruguru, Urukiko rusanga icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru wa Rwanda Revenue Authority ku bujurire bwa Ruberandinda Viateur cyarubahirije ibihe by’iminsi 60 iteganywa n’ingingo ya 32 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru, ubujurire bwe nta shingiro bufite, Urukiko Rukuru rukaba narwo ari uko rwabibonye, imikirize y`urubanza rwaciye ikaba igomba kugumaho.

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 120

## Page 145

2. Kumenya niba indishyi zisabwa na RRA mu bujurire bwuririye ku bundi zifite ishingiro [26] Me Twahirwa Jean Baptiste avuga ko Rwanda Revenue Authority ahagarariye, isaba 5.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka kuri buri rwego baburaniyemo kubera ko yakuruwe mu rubanza, bituma yifashisha Avoka, hakiyongeraho 500.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza. [27] Me Nsengiyumva Abel avuga ko Rwanda Revenue Authority iramutse itsinze urubanza, Urukiko rwazayigena mu bushishozi bwarwo indishyi n’igihembo cya Avoka biri mu rugero, kuko izo isaba ari ikirenga. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [28] Urukiko rusanga Ruberandinda Viateur agomba guha Rwanda Revenue Authority 500.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka kuri uru rwego, na 500.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza, agenwe mu bushishozi bwarwo kuko atsinzwe muri uru rubanza, kandi RRA yaburanye ihagarariwe na Avoka, inakurikirana iby’ubujurire mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [29] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Ruberandinda Viateur nta shingiro bufite; [30] Rwemeje ko imikirize y’urubanza RCOMA00320/2016/CHC/HCC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ku wa 10/03/2017 igumyeho; 121 RUBERANDINDA v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHÔRO

## Page 146

[31] Rutegetse Ruberandinda Viateur guha Rwanda Revenue Authority 500.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 500.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza yiyongera ku yatanzwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi; [32] Rutegetse ko amagarama y’urubanza angana na 100.000Frw Ruberandinda Viateur yatanze, ahwanye n’ibyakozwe mu rubanza. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 122

## Page 147

URUBANZA NSHINJACYAHA

## Page 149

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NDIKUBWAYO [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RPAA0057/15/CS (Mukanyundo, P.J., Munyangeri na Hitiyaremye, J.) 11 Gicurasi 2018] Amategeko agenga ibimenyetso – Ibimenyetso – Kwemera icyaha – Kuba uregwa yemera icyaha byonyine si ikimenyetso kihagije kugira ngo byemezwe ko ukuri kwabonetse ahubwo kigomba guherekezwa n’ibindi bimenyetso bihuje n’ikiburanwa. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, Ndikubwayo akurikiranyweho n’Ubushinjacyaha kuba yarasambanyije umwana w’umukobwa w’imyaka umunani (8), wo mu muryango yari amaze amezi abiri akorera nk’umukozi wo mu rugo. Se w’umwana, avuga ko yaje gufata Ndikubwayo arimo kumusambanyiriza umwana, amubajije ahita amubwira ko yari agiye kubikora ariko ko umwana yanze, ko ahubwo yaraye amusambanyije. Uregwa yaburanye ahakana icyaha avuga ko ntacyo yakoze, ko ibyo bavuga ko yacyemeye, yabitewe n’inkoni yakubiswe na se w’umwana afatanyije n’inkeragutabara, nuko agahitamo kucyemera kugira ngo akize ubuzima bwe, ariko ko mu by’ukuri icyo yaziraga ari amafaranga ye y’umushahara yabishyuzaga. Urwo rukiko rwamuhamije icyaha hashingiwe ku kuba yaracyiyemereye rugikubita imbere y’inzego z’ubuyobozi bw’umudugudu ndetse n’imbere y’ubugenzacyaha maze urwo rukiko rumuhanisha igihano cy’igifungo cya burundu. 125

## Page 150

Uregwa yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru akomeza guhakana icyaha maze urwo rukiko ruca urubanza rwemeza ko ubujurire bwe nta shingiro bufite. Yaje kongera kujuririra Urukiko rw’Ikirenga agaragaza ko ukwemera kwe inkiko zibanza zashingiyeho kwatewe n’inkoni yakubitwaga na se w’umwana afatanyije n’inkeragutabara kandi ko se w’umwana yamuhimbiye kiriya cyaha agamije kumwambura amafaranga ye y’umushahara w’amezi abiri atamuhembye.Yakomeje avuga Urukiko rwashingiye ku buhamya bwa U.A bwonyine kandi ari umwana utarageza ku myaka y’ubukure ndetse ko raporo ya muganga nta cyaha igaragaza cyakorewe umwana, anongeraho ko Urukiko Rukuru rwagendeye ku byo Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwemeje maze rurabishimangira aho gusaba Ubushinjacyaha ibindi bimenyetso bikomeye bivanaho urujijo urwo ari rwo rwose. Ubushinjacyaha bwo bugaragaza ko ibikubiye muri dosiye ndetse n’imikirize y’urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru nta hagaragara inyandikomvugo y’ibazwa ry’umwana, ko imvugo y’umwana itigeze ishingirwaho ko ahubwo icyashingiweho aruko se w’umwana yisangiye ubwe arimo gusambanywa, kandi n’uregwa yabyemereye se w’umwana, anabyemera mu buyobozi bw’umudugudu no mu bugenzacyaha. Ku bijyanye na raporo ya muganga Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko uregwa yakoze icyaha mu buryo buhisha ibimenyetso kuko mu ibazwa rye yiyemereye ko yasambanyije umwana ariko yirinda kumwangiza. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Kuba uregwa yemera icyaha byonyine si ikimenyetso kihagije kugira ngo byemezwe ko ukuri kwabonetse ahubwo kigomba guherekezwa n’ibindi bimenyetso bihuje n’ikiburanwa. Bityo uwajuriye ntahamwa n’icyaha nubwo yakemereye imbere y’ubuyobozi bw’umudugudu n’imbere ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 126

## Page 151

y’ubugenzacyaha, kubera ko nta kigaragariza urukiko mu buryo budashishikanywaho ko koko icyaha aregwa cyabayeho. Ubujurire bufite ishingiro; Imikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe ihindutse kuri byose; Amagarama aherereye ku isanduku ya Leta. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko N°30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 165. Itegeko No15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo ingingo ya 4 niya 119. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Inyandiko z’abahanga zifashishijwe: Jean Larguier, La procédure pénale, 5ème édition mise à jour, 4ème trimestre 1981, p.45 Henri-D-Bosly & Damien Vandermeersch, Droit de la Procédure Pénale, 2ème édition, 2001, p.9 Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, Ubushinjacyaha bukurikiranyeho Ndikubwayo Emmanuel, kuba ku wa 02/04/2014, yarasambanyije umwana 127 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NDIKUBWAYO

## Page 152

w’umukobwa w’imyaka umunani (8) witwa U. A., wo mu muryango yari amaze amezi abiri akorera nk’umukozi wo mu rugo. Se w’umwana witwa Gasirikare Gaspard, avuga ko yaje gufata Ndikubwayo Emmanuel arimo kumusambanyiriza umwana, amubajije ahita amubwira ko yari agiye kubikora ariko ko umwana yanze, ko ahubwo yaraye amusambanyije. [2] Ndikubwayo Emmanuel yaburanye ahakana icyaha avuga ko ntacyo yakoze, ko ibyo bavuga ko yacyemeye, yabitewe n’inkoni yakubiswe na se w’umwana afatanyije n’inkeragutabara, nuko agahitamo kucyemera kugira ngo akize ubuzima bwe, ariko ko mu by’ukuri icyo yaziraga ari amafaranga ye y’umushahara yabishyuzaga. Ku wa 20/06/2014, Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwaciye urubanza RP0241/14/TGI/NYGE, rwemeza ko Ndikubwayo Emmanuel ahamwa n’icyaha aregwa, rumuhanisha igifungo cya burundu. [3] Ndikubwayo Emmanuel yajuriye mu Rukiko Rukuru akomeza guhakana icyaha, ku wa 03/03/2015, ruca urubanza RPA0454/14/HC/KIG, rwemeza ko ubujurire bwe nta shingiro bufite. [4] Ndikubwayo Emmanuel yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, we na Me Mugabo Fidèle umwunganira bavuga ko Urukiko rwamuhamije icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana rushingiye ku buhamya bw’uwo mwana utarageza ku myaka 18 y’amavuko kandi binyuranyije n’amategeko, ntirwita ku bimenyetso bimushinjura yarugaragarije birimo raporo ya muganga yerekana ko umwana atasambanyijwe. [5] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku wa 09/04/2018, Ndikubwayo Emmanuel yunganiwe na Me Mugabo ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 128

## Page 153

Fidèle naho Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na Ntawangundi Béatrice, Umushinjacyaha ku rwego rw’Igihugu. II. ISESENGURA RY’IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA Kumenya niba hari ibimenyetso bidashidikanywaho bihamya Ndikubwayo Emmanuel icyaha aregwa [6] Ndikubwayo Emmanuel avuga ko impamvu ya mbere y’ubujurire irebana no kuba Inkiko zabanje zamuhamije icyaha zishingiye ko yemera icyaha kandi yaragiye asobanura ko yacyemereye mu Mudugudu abitewe n’inkoni yakubiswe na se w’umwana afatanyije n’inkeragutabara, ariyo mpamvu yageze mu Rukiko akaburana agihakana kuko ntacyo yakoze. Avuga ko ibyo Inkiko zivuga ko umwana yabwiye se ahubwo ari ibyo se yamwoheje kuvuga mu rwego rwo kumuhimbira icyaha agamije kumwambura amafaranga y’amezi abiri yari amaze kumukorera ariko barananiranywe kumvikana ku mushahara. [7] Me Mugabo Fidèle avuga ko kuba Urukiko rwarashingiye ku buhamya bwa U.A. bwonyine kandi ari umwana muto utarageza ku myaka 18 y’ubukure binyuranyije n’ibiteganywa n‘ingingo ya 63 y’Itegeko ry’ibimenyetso, ivuga ko abantu batarengeje imyaka 14 kimwe n’abantu bakuru badafite ubushobozi bwemewe, bashobora gutanga ubuhamya mu nkiko ariko ubwo buhamya bukunganirwa n’ibindi bimenyetso, ko rero Urukiko rutagombaga kugendera gusa ku buhamya bwa Gasirikare, Se w’umwana kuko imvugo ze zishingiye ku byo umwana we yamubwiye ko Ndikubwayo Emmanuel yamusambanyije. 129 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NDIKUBWAYO

## Page 154

[8] Ndikubwayo Emmanuel n’umwunganira bavuga ko Inkiko zamuhamije icyaha cyo gusambanya U.A. zirengagije ko raporo yakozwe na muganga Jules Mukeshimana ku wa 08/04/2014, nyuma yo gupima uwo mwana, nyamara iyi raporo yivuguruza kuko muganga avuga ko umwana atasambanyijwe, ariko yageraho akavuga ko yamuhaye imiti ya "infection", mu gihe ubusanzwe iyo miti itangwa iyo habaye gukeka ko umwana yafashwe ku ngufu, kugira ngo imurinde (prévention). [9] Me Mugabo Fidèle avuga ko kuba ubuhamya bwatanzwe ari ibyo umwana yavuze, kandi raporo ya muganga ikaba nta cyaha igaragaza cyakorewe umwana, Urukiko Rukuru rwagombaga gusaba Ubushinjacyaha ibindi bimenyetso simusiga, kuko nta kimenyetso cya kamarampaka gihamya Ndikubwayo Emmanuel icyaha bwatanze, ariyo mpamvu basaba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga gushingira ku ngingo ya 87 n’iya 165 z’Itegeko N°30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/5/2013, ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, rukagira umwere Ndikubwayo Emmanuel kubera gushidikanya. [10] Ndikubwayo Emmanuel na Me Mugabo umwunganira bavuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwagendeye ku byo Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwemeje maze rurabishimangira aho gusaba Ubushinjacyaha ibindi bimenyetso bikomeye bivanaho urujijo urwo ari rwo rwose hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 85 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha kuko inyandikomvugo ya Se w’umwana igaragaza ko Ndikubwayo Emmanuel yumvise aje nuko akitwikira ikiringiti nyuma akoze ku gitsina cye asanga gifite umurego. Bavuga rero ko kuba raporo ya muganga imushinjura ndetse no kuba we ubwe atarapimwe, nta kimenyetso na kimwe kiri muri dosiye kimuhamya icyaha ku buryo butavuguruzwa, bityo Urukiko rukaba rwakwima agaciro ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 130

## Page 155

ibimenyetso by’Ubushinjacyaha ahubwo rugashingira ku ngingo ya 87 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha rukabona ko nta kimenyetso cya kamarampaka Ubushinjacyaha bwatanze cyerekana ko Ndikubwayo Emmanuel yakoze kiriya cyaha maze rukamugira umwere. [11] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko impamvu z’ubujurire Ndikubwayo Emmanuel atanga nta shingiro zifite, ko ibikubiye muri dosiye ndetse n’imikirize y’urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru nta hagaragara inyandikomvugo y’ibazwa ry’umwana, ko imvugo y’umwana itigeze ishingirwaho, ko ahubwo icyashingiweho ari uko Gasirikare yisangiye ubwe Ndikubwayo Emmanuel ari gusambanya umwana we, bikubitiraho ibyo umwana yamubwiye n’ibyo Ndikubwayo Emmanuel yemeye. [12] Avuga ko ku birebana na raporo ya muganga, ntaho yavuze ko umwana afite infection yatewe no kumusambanya, ndetse ko n’iyo urebye mu myanzuro ye, usanga nta ndwara zandurira mu mibonano mpuzabitsina yasanganye U. Akomeza asobanura ko raporo ya muganga ahubwo yerekana ko Ndikubwayo Emmanuel atinjije igitsina cye mu cy’umwana (pénetration), ibi bikaba bihura n’ibyo yiyemereye ko yamusambanyirizaga inyuma, ariyo mpamvu banasanze akugara karanga ubusugi k’umwana ntacyo kabaye (hymen encore intact). [13] Ku birebana n’imvugo ya Ndikubwayo Emmanuel y’uko raporo ya muganga itahabwa agaciro kuko yivuguruza, avuga ko ataribyo kuko hakurikijwe uburyo yakozemo icyaha ntabwo byashobokaga ko muganga avuga ko habayeho gusambanya umwana kuko nkuko amaze kubivuga, Ndikubwayo Emmanuel yivugiye mu ibazwa rye ko yakoreraga inyuma akarangiriza 131 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NDIKUBWAYO

## Page 156

hanze, ko yirindaga kumwangiza, bivuze ko yakoraga ku buryo ahisha ibimenyetso, ibi kandi akaba yarabivuze ku bushake bwe kuko bamubajije niba yemeye abihatiwe, asubiza ko nta gahato ashyizweho. [14] Avuga ko muganga yahaye umwana imiti mu rwego rwo kumurinda (prévention) ingaruka mbi zaza nyuma. [15] Avuga ko imvugo ya Ndikubwayo Emmanuel n’umwunganira ko nta bimenyetso bimuhamya icyaha Ubushinjacyaha bwatanze itahabwa agaciro, kuko ukurikije uko icyaha cyakozwe, nuko Gasirikare Gaspard yasanze Ndikubwayo Emmanuel asambanya umwana we, kandi Ndikubwayo Emmanuel agahita abyemera, ageze imbere y’ubuyobozi bw’Umudugudu naho arabyemera kimwe n’imbere y’Ubugenzacyaha. Byongeye kandi nta kimenyetso atanga kigaragaza ko mbere y’uko afungwa yari afitanye ikibazo n’umukoresha we ngo maze giherweho nk’ikimenyetso kimushinjura cyane cyane ko mu ibazwa rye yavuze ko atazi impamvu bamubeshyera. [16] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko muri rusange ibimenyetso Urukiko rwashingiyeho birimo ukwemera icyaha kwa Ndikubwayo Emmanuel, imvugo ya Gasirikare Gaspard wasanze aryamanye n’umwana, raporo ya muganga yemeza ko umwana yahohotewe ariko hatabaye kwinjiza igitsina mu cye, bityo ikaba itamushinjura kuko yagaragaje uko umwana ahagaze, kandi bihura n’imvugo y’Ubushinjacyaha mu gusobanura uko yakoze icyaha, bigahura n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 190 y’Itegeko Nº01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 132

## Page 157

igitabo cy'amategeko ahana1. Avuga ko gupimwa kwa Ndikubwayo Emmanuel ntacyo byari kumarira ubutabera kuko ntacyo bari kubona nkuko no kuri U.A. ntacyo byagaragaje. [17] Mu gusoza, avuga ko amaze gusoma inyandikomvugo ya se w’umwana aho avuga ko iki cyaha nta ngaruka cyagize ku mwana we maze agasaba ko yanafungurwa, ko asanga nta mpamvu Ndikubwayo Emmanuel atafungwa, ko ariko ashingiye ku ngingo ya 40 y’Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ivuga ko igifungo cy’igihe kimara nibura umunsi umwe ariko ntikirenze imyaka 25, asaba ko Urukiko rubibonye ukundi rwamugabanyiriza ibihano rukamuhanisha igifungo cy ‘imyaka 25 kuko icyaha yakoze nta ngaruka cyagize ku mwana. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [18] Ingingo ya 4 y’Itegeko N°15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004, ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, iteganya ko urukiko ruca urubanza rwaregewe hakurikijwe ibimenyetso bihuje na kamere y’ikiburanwa. Ingingo ya 65 y’Itegeko N°15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004, ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, iteganya ko urukiko ari rwo rwonyine rupima ko imikirize y’abatangabuhamya ihuye n’ikiburanwa, ifite ingingo zikiranuye kandi ikaba ikwiye kwemerwa cyangwa guhakanwa...». Naho ingingo ya 119 y’Itegeko N°15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 rimaze kuvugwa, iteganya ko “Urukiko ruhamya ku buryo butavuguruzwa ko ibimenyetso byose birega cyangwa biregura ari byo kandi bishobora kwemerwa”.

1 Iyi ngingo iteganya ko gusambanya umwana ni imibonano mpuzabitsina yose cyangwa ishingiye ku bitsina ikorewe umwana uko yaba ikozwe kose n’icyahba cyakoreshejwe cyose. 133 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NDIKUBWAYO

## Page 158

[19] Inyandiko zigize dosiye y’urubanza zigaragaza ko Ndikubwayo Emmanuel yarezwe icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana U.A. ufite imyaka umunani (8) y’amavuko, ibimenyetso Ubushinjacyaha bushingiraho akaba ari uko yemera ko yamusambanyije ariko ko yakoreraga inyuma, agasohorera hanze kuko yangaga kumubabaza, ikindi ni ukuba U.A. yarabwiye Se ko Ndikubwayo Emmanuel yamumennyeho ibintu bishyushye ndetse uyu mubyeyi witwa Gasirikare Gaspard akaba mu ibazwa rye avuga ko yamwifatiye aryamanye n’umwana we, akoze ku gitsina cye yumva gifite umurego ndetse agahita amusaba imbabazi amubwira ko yari atarabikora ariko ko ejo hashize ho yari yabikoze. Imbere y’uru Rukiko, Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko raporo ya muganga yerekana ko umwana ntacyo yabaye, ibyo bukabihuza n’uburyo Ndikubwayo Emmanuel asobanura yakozemo icyaha ubwo yacyemeraga mu ibazwa rye. [20] Raporo ya muganga yo ku wa 08/04/2014, igaragaza ko U.A. uvugwa ko yahohotewe muri uru rubanza yapimwe na Dr Jules Mukeshimana, agasanga nta bimenyetso byo gusambanywa bigaragara ku gitsina cye, haba ku myanya y’inyuma ndetse n’iy’imbere, kandi ko n’akugara karanga ubusugi nako yasanze kagihari. [21] Urukiko rurasanga Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwarahamije Ndikubwayo Emmanuel icyaha rushingiye ko yacyiyemereye rugikubita imbere y’ubuyobozi bw’Umudugudu bihita binakorerwa raporo, akomeza kucyemera ageze no mu Bugenzacyaha, ko kuba yarageze imbere y’Urukiko akagihakana avuga ko yakemejwe n’inkoni yakubiswe n’inkeragutabara atabigaragariza ibimenyetso, ko rero uko guhindagura imvugo umucamanza ariwe ufite ubushishozi bwo gusesengura imvugo z’uregwa akoresheje umutimanama we. Urukiko Rukuru narwo ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 134

## Page 159

mu gushimangira imikirize yo mu rukiko rwa mbere rwavuze ko Ndikubwayo Emmanuel uretse no kuba yemera icyaha, ko ahubwo asobanura n’imikorere yacyo, kandi ko iyo imvugo ze zihujwe n’ibyo umwana yavuze ko amaze kumusambanya kabiri akamumenaho ibintu bishyushye, rwanzura ruvuga ko uko kwemera kwe nubwo yageze mu Rukiko akaguhindura kugaragaza ukuri ku byabaye cyane ko nta kimenyetso atanga kigaragaza ko yemejwe n’inkoni. [22] Mu miburanire ye imbere y’uru rukiko Ndikubwayo Emmanuel akomeje guhakana icyaha avuga ko Ubushinjacyaha butigeze butanga ibimenyetso bifatika bikimushinja kuko no kwemera icyaha kwe inkiko zose zagiye zishingiraho yabikoze arengera ubuzima bwe kubera inkoni yakubitwaga n’inkeragutabara. [23] Urukiko rurasanga na none mu miburanire ye, Ndikubwayo Emmanuel avuga ko se w’umwana yamuhimbiye kiriya cyaha agamije kumwambura amafaranga ye y’amezi abiri y’umushahara atamuhembye. [24] Isesengura ry’ibimenyetso inkiko zagiye zishingiraho zihamya Ndikubwayo Emmanuel icyaha, rigaragaza ko, nubwo imbere y’Ubugenzacyaha yemeye icyaha akanasobanura uburyo yagikoze, kuba yarageze imbere y’Inkiko akagihakana, kandi na raporo ya muganga ikaba iterekana ko hari igikorwa icyo ari cyo cyose cyaba cyarahungabanyije igitsina cy’umwana, ndetse na se Gasirikare akaba mu ibazwa rye yaravuze ko umwana we ntacyo yabaye, akanavuga ko inzego z’ubutabera zishatse zarekura Ndikubwayo Emmanuel uretse ko ngo atamuhemba amafaranga amurimo kubera ko yatanze amafaranga menshi kuri iyi dosiye, Urukiko rukaba rusanga izi mbabazi Gasirikare Gaspard yagiriye Ndikubwayo Emmanuel ziteye urujijo ko ahubwo kuba 135 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NDIKUBWAYO

## Page 160

yarivugiye nawe ko ataramuhemba bishimangira imiburanire ya Ndikubwayo Emmanuel ko yamuhimbiye icyaha agamije kumwambura amafaranga ye . [25] Nubwo kwiyemerera icyaha ari kimwe mu bimenyetso Urukiko rushobora gushingiraho ruhamya uregwa icyo cyaha, ndetse bamwe mu banyamategeko mu bihe byashize bakaba barabibonaga nk’ikimenyetso gihatse ibindi, umuhanga mu mategeko Jean Larguier mu gitabo cye La procédure pénale2 avuga ko icyo cyizere cyagiye kiyoyoka kubera ko byagiye bigaragara ko hari abaregwa bemera icyaha kandi bataragikoze bagamije nko gukingira ikibaba umwe wo mu muryango, gushaka kumenyekana, gukiza ubuzima bwe nk’igihe akorerwa ibikorwa by’iyicarubozo, kubona ubuzima bwo muri Gereza buruta ubwo wari urimo iwawe n’ibindi. Nyuma y’ibi, kuba uregwa yemera icyaha byonyine si ikimenyetso kihagije kugira ngo byemezwe ko ukuri kwabonetse, kuko nkuko ziriya ngero zibyerekana, ukwemera icyaha ni ikimenyetso mu bindi, kikaba kigira akamaro iyo giherekejwe n’ibindi bimenyetso bihuje n’ikiburanwa. [26] Nubwo Ndikubwayo Emmanuel yemereye icyaha imbere y’Inzego z’ibanze ndetse akabikomeza n’imbere y’Ubugenzacyaha, ariko ubu akaba ahakana ko atigeze asambanya uriya mwana, Urukiko rurasanga hari urujijo mu

2 Jean Larguier, La procédure pénale, 5ème édition mise à jour, 4ème trimestre 1981, p.45.: “ L’aveu longtemps considéré comme “ reine des preuves ”- et sollicité le cas échéant par la torture-, l’aveu suscite aujourd’hui plus de défiance. Mille et mille, disait Montaigne, se sont chargés de fausses confessions: on peut avouer par vanité---, heureux de voir ainsi sa photographie dans le journal---, par crainte à l’égard du vrai coupable, par amour de l’être cher qui a commis l’infraction, voire par amour du confort pénitentiaire” ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 136

## Page 161

mikorere ya kiriya cyaha kuko yaba imvugo za Se w’umwana ku byo avuga yiboneye, haba ibyo yabwiwe n’umwana ubwe, nta kigaragariza Urukiko mu buryo budashidikanywaho ko koko kiriya cyaha cyabayeho ngo rube rwabishingiraho rwemeza ko Ndikubwayo Emmanuel yasambanyije U.A., kuko na raporo ya muganga itagaragaza nibura ko haba hari n’udukomere igitsina cya Ndikubwayo Emmanuel cyaba cyarateye ku gitsina cy’umwana, bityo ngo bigaragare ko koko yajyaga amusambanya. Ibi kandi birahura n’inyandiko z’abahanga mu mategeko aho bavuga ko umucamanza adashobora kwemeza ko umuntu ahamwa n‘icyaha atabanje kugaragarizwa ibimenyetso bidashidikanywaho kandi byagiweho impaka mu iburanisha ko icyaha yagikoze, bisesenguwe mu bushishozi bwe3. [27] Kuba Ubushinjacyaha butarashoboye kugaragaza ibimenyetso simusiga bihuje n’imikorere y’icyaha ku buryo budashidikanywaho (au-delà de tout doute raisonnable)ko Ndikubwayo Emmanuel yaba yarasambanyije U.A., hagendewe kandi no ku mvugo za Gasirikare Gaspard zitagaragaza nta shiti ko U. yasambanyijwe koko, kuko na raporo ya muganga yerekana ko nta gikorwa cy’ihohoterwa umwana yigeze akorerwa, Urukiko rurasanga hari ugushidikanya ko Ndikubwayo Emmanuel yaba yarakoze icyaha yahamijwe n’Inkiko zabanje, bityo akaba agomba kugihanagurwaho hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 165, 2° y’ Itegeko N°30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha ivuga ko gushidikanya birengera ushinjwa. Iyo urubanza rwakurikiranywe mu buryo bwose, ntihagire ibimenyetso nyakuri biboneka

3 Henri-D-Bosly & Damien Vandermeersch, Droit de la Procédure Pénale, 2ème édition, 2001, p.929: « Le juge ne peut déclarer un prévenu coupable que s’il a acquis l’intime conviction de sa culpabilité au-delà de tout doute raisonnable sur la base d’éléments de preuve qui lui ont été régulièrement produits et soumis à la contradiction et qu’il apprécie souverainement » 137 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NDIKUBWAYO

## Page 162

byemeza nta shiti abacamanza ko ushinjwa yakoze icyaha koko, bagomba kwemeza ko atsinze. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [28] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Ndikubwayo Emmanuel bufite ishingiro. [29] Rwemeje ko Ndikubwayo Emmanuel adahamwa n’icyaha akurikiranyweho kubera ugushidikanya, akaba agomba kurekurwa. [30] Rwemeje ko urubanza RPA0454/14/HC/KIG, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, ku wa 03/03/2015 ruhindutse kuri byose. [31] Rutegetse ko amagarama y’urubanza aherera ku Isanduku ya Leta.

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 138

## Page 163

KANYARUKIKO v. WORLD VISION RWANDA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA– RS/REV/SOC 0001/16/CS – RSOCAA 00002/2016/SC (Mutashya, P.J., Karimunda na Ngagi, J.) 09 Werurwe 2018] Amategeko agenga imiburanshirize y’imanza z’umurimo – Inzitizi – Ihamagazwa ry’amashyirahamwe adafite ubuzima gatozi – Ishyirahamwe ridafite ubuzima gatozi iyo ryabaye umuburanyi mu rubanza nyuma rigahagarika imirimo yaryo,rishobora kwongera kuhamagazwa mu rubanza rihagarariwe n’uwari umuyoboi waryo kuko ibikorwa iryo shyirahamwe ryitirirwa ari ibikorwa by’abanyamuryango akaba ari nabo baba bari mubufatanye – Itegeko N°21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi.ingingo ya 3. Incamake y’ikibazo: Kanyarukiko yareze World Vision Rwanda mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo ayirega kutamuha ibyo amategeko amugenera harimo n’agenga abakozi bakorera World Vision Rwanda, avuga ko atahawe umushahara n’ibindi agenerwa n’amategeko ku mwanya mushya wa “SD Operator” yari yatangiye gukoraho, kwanga nkana gushyira mu nyandiko amasezerano y’akazi bagiranye, kwirukanwa binyuranyije n’amategeko. Akaba abisabira indishyi; urwo rukiko rwategetse WVR guha Kanyarukiko indishyi. 1 RWANDA LAW REPORTS ENGLISH VERSION

## Page 165

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TEAM OF EDITORS ................................................................ iii MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE .............................. iv PREFACE ................................................................................. vi SCOPE OF THE REPORTS .................................................... vii CITATION ............................................................................... vii LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ viii LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED .............................................. x SUBJECT INDEX ..................................................................... xi Re MUGISHA ............................................................................ 1 MBARUSHIMANA v. NKUNDABANYANGA ................... 25 PROSECUTION v. KANGABE .............................................. 41 KAMATENESI v. KING FAYCAL HOSPITAL RWANDA Ltd .................................................................................................. 55 SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd(SONARWA) v. NYIRAGANZA………………………...69 MUREKATETE v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA) ....................................................................................... 89 RUBERANDINDA v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA) ..................................................................................... 105 PROSECUTION v. NDIKUBWAYO ................................... 123

i

## Page 167

TEAM OF EDITORS

LAW REPORTING TEAM

KAGABO U. Stephanie

KAVUTSE M. Claude

KUBWIMANA Jean Claude

MUJABI K. Naphtal

MWIHOREZE Claudine

iii

## Page 168

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

Dr.KARIMUNDA M. Aimé : President of Court of Appeal

NDAHAYO Xavier : President of High Court

RUTAZANA Angeline : Vice President of Commercial High Court

NGENDAKURIYO Alice : Secretary of the Committee, Inspector of Courts

Me BAGABO Faustin : Advocate at Rwanda Bar Association

BWIZA N. Blanche : Inspector of Courts GIRANEZA Clémentine : Judge of the Intermediate Court

HABARUREMA Jean Pierre : Prosecutor at National Level

KALIWABO Charles : Judge of the Court of Appeal Dr. KAYIHURA Didas : Rector of ILPD iv

## Page 169

KIBUKA Jean Luc : Judge at Commercial High Court

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

MUREREREHE Saouda : Judge at High Court

BUNYOYE Grace : Prosecutor at National Level

KABIBI Specioza : State Attorney

RUKUNDAKUVUGA F. Regis : Judge of the Supreme Court

UWANTEGE Yvette : President of the Intermediate Court

v

## Page 170

PREFACE Dear Readers, The Judiciary is grateful to present to you Rwanda Law Reports V.II [2019], which is published quarterly. Lawyers in different sectors need precedents to refer to in their daily activities. Therefore, the Rwanda Law Reports is compiled in such a way that may facilitate the users to easily access what they search for. However, suggestions for the enhancement of this publication are warmly welcome. This volume contains eight (8) cases including one (1) petition seeking to declare a law unconstitutional, three (3) cases in merit; one (1) civil case, two (2) commercial cases, and one (1) penal case while the remaining three (3) are procedural ones. We seize this opportunity to remind you that published cases can easily be accessed on the website of the judiciary: http://decisia.lexum.com/rlr/en/nav.do. Prof. Sam RUGEGE President of the Supreme Court and President of the High Council of Judiciary

vi

## Page 171

SCOPE OF THE REPORTS These Reports cover cases decided by the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and the High Court, cited under the heading below:

CITATION The Reports in this volume are cited as: [2019] 2 RLR

vii

## Page 172

LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED Law N°30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of Courts: - article 27..................................................................28 - articles 72 and 80.......................................................3 - article 105................................................................58 Law No22/2018 of 29/04/2018 Law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure: - article 3......................................................................3 - article 6 and 158.......................................................28 - article 247................................................................58 Law N°27/2017 of 31/05/2017 governing companies, article 23 and 95……………………………………………………………...…92 Law No37/2016 of 08/09/2016 determining organisation, jurisdiction, competence and functioning of Abunzi Committee, article 10……………………………………………….………….…28 Law Nº30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure: - article 165..............................................................125 - article 197 and 279...................................................42 Law N°54/2011 of 14/12/2011 relating to the rights and the protection of the child, article 56(2)………………………………43 Law N°34/2010 of 12/11/2010 on the establishment, functioning and organisation of Rwanda correctional service, article 39(2)………………………………………………………………….43 Law N°25/2005 on tax procedure: - article 46 bis.............................................................92 viii

## Page 173

- article 4, 5, 6 al 2 and 32.........................................109 Law No15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production: - article 3....................................................................73 - article 4, 65 and 119...............................................125 Presidential order N°31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury due accident caused by motor vehicles, article 13……………………………………………………………..……….73 Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 81…………………………………………………….……….73 Organic Law N°51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of Courts, article 67…………………………………………………………...…………28 Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure: - article 1, 190 and 320...............................................43 - article 106, 107 and 283...........................................92 Law of 30/07/1888 relating to Contracts or conventional obligations: - article 258…………….…………………………..........28 - article 258................................................................73

ix LIST OF STATUTES

## Page 174

LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED Ferreira v Levin NO and Others; Vryenhoek and Others v Powell NO and Others (CCT5/95) [1995] ZACC 13; 1996 (1) SA 984 (CC); 1996 (1) BCLR (6 December 1995)……………...………….4 Klass and others v Federal Republic of Germany, European Court of Human Rights (Series A, NO 28) (1979-80) 2 EHRR 214………………………………………………………………..…….4 Kruger v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT 57/07) [2008] ZACC 17; 2009 (1) SA 417 (CC); 2009 (3) BCLR 268 (CC) rendered on 2 October 2008 by the by the Constitutional Court of South Africa………………………….……4 Minister of Home Affairs v Eisenberg & Associates, (CCT15/03) [2003] ZACC 10; 2003 (8) BCLR 838; 2003 (5) SA 281 rendered on 27 June 2003 by the Constitutional Court of South Africa…...4 RRA v. Munyampundu et.al, RCOMAA00040/2016/SC rendered on 22/12/2017 by the Supreme Court……………………………..92 Zantsi v Council of State, Ciskei and Others (CCT24/94) [1995] ZACC 9; 1995 (4) SA 615 (CC); 1995 (10) BCLR 1424 (CC)…...4

x

## Page 175

SUBJECT INDEX Civil procedure – disputes relating to execution of judgment – when the unsuccessful party does not deny the amount of the payment ordered by the Court in its decision and admits that he exits and no one else must be ordered to pay on his behalf, this indicate that there are no disputes in the execution of the judgment KAMATENESI v. KING FAYCAL HOSPITAL RWANDA Ltd…………………………………………55 disputes relating to the execution of the judgment – when so qualified as disputes relating to execution of judgment are the confusion that the the unsuccessful party creates into the winner of the case by stating that he will be paid by someone else who is not linked to the case, the Court has obligation to indicate that the conduct of the unsuccessful party is a barrier toward the payment to the winner, and orders that the case must be executed by the unsuccessful party without any other complication. KAMATENESI v. KING FAYCAL HOSPITAL RWANDA Ltd…………………………………………55 Company law – Piercing the corporate veil – Shareholders and directors of a company shall not be liable for the company’s deeds, except when there is a court decision which ruled on their liability – Law N°25/2005 on tax procedure, article 46 bis – Law N°27/2017 of 31/05/2017 governing companies, article 23 and 95. MUREKATETE v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)……………………………….…89 Piercing the corporate veil – Caveat – A caveat cannot be put on the personal properties of shareholders and directors xi

## Page 176

of company before a compentent court hold them liable for the faults committed by the company. MUREKATETE v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)……………………………….…89 Constitution – Unconstitutionality of laws – The role of the State in the petition seeking to declare a law unconstitutional – The State does not participate in the petition seeking to declare a law unconstitutional as a party but rather it appears to express its opinion on the law which is sought to be repealed. Consequently, it cannot raise a preliminary objection concerning the admissibility of the petition. Re MUGISHA…………………………………………...1 Unconstitutionality of laws – Interest in petitioning to declare a law unconstitutional – A person lodging a petition seeking to declare a law unconstitutional does not need to demostrate the personal interests he/she has in the petition as along as the purpose is to protect the public interest. Re MUGISHA…………………………………...…...….1 Criminal Procedure – Execution of the judgment – Having little children is not a sufficient ground to stay the execution of the judgment because those children are accorded special care in prison – Law N°54/2011 of 14/12/2011 relating to the rights and the protection of the child, article 56 paragraph 2. PROSECUTION v. KANGABE……………………...41 Evidence Law – Evidence – Confession – Confession of the accused is not a conclusive element of evidence, rather, it has to be corroborated with other relevant elements of evidence of the case. PROSECUTION v. NDIKUBWAYO……………...123 xii RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 177

Insurance Law –Insurance contract – If a victim writes to the insurance company requesting it to appoint a doctor who has to join the medical commission which decides on his transfer medical treatment abroad but does not get a response, this cannot prevent him to travel because he has to save his life, reason why the insurance company has to refund all expenses used for medical treatment abroad – Presidential Order N°31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury due to accident caused by motor vehicles, article 13. SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd(SONARWA) v. NYIRAGANZA…………………69 Insurance contract – The document which serves as receipt of money (form) prepared by the insurance company and signed by the client after the payment who is not involved in its preparation, is evidence that he has been paid and the amount he received, but it cannot be considered as evidence of transaction for even other demands not settled by the insurance company. SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd(SONARWA) v. NYIRAGANZA…………………69 Law determining the jurisdiction of Courts – Land – Primary Courts try in first instance cases relating to disputes related to land and livestock and their succession – Organic Law N°51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of Courts, article 67. MBARUSHIMANA v. NKUNDABANYANGA…….25 Interpretation of Laws – Article 27,3º of the Law Nº30/2018 of 02/06/2018 has to be completed as follows: Primary Court try in first instance, cases relating to xiii SUBJECT INDEX

## Page 178

immovable property composed of land used for agriculture which exceed the value of three million Rwandan Francs. MBARUSHIMANA v. NKUNDABANYANGA.…….25 Tax Law – Taxation – Communication between the Tax administrator and the Taxpayer through the registered letter – When the tax administration or the taxpayer uses the post office to communicate, the sender is deemed to have discharged his obligations when the letter is received by the post office and puts a stamp on it, irrespective of when the recipient will receive it. Therefore, the decision of the Commissioner General on the appeal of Ruberandinda was delivered within 60 days as required by the law – Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures, article 4. RUBERANDINDA v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)………………….….………….105 Taxation – The post office to which a registered letter is delivered is any post office which the Tax Administration or the taxpayer uses to send it as long as that letter has the recipient name and the number of the post office box, which the taxpayer recorded in Rwanda Revenue Authority – Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures, article4. RUBERANDINDA v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)………………………..……….105

xiv RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 179

PETITION SEEKING TO DECLARE A LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL

## Page 181

Re MUGISHA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2018/SC (Rugege, P.J., Kayitesi Z, Mutashya, Kayitesi R, Cyanzayire, J.) 18 January 2019] Constitution – Unconstitutionality of laws – The role of the State in the petition seeking to declare a law unconstitutional – The State does not participate in the petition seeking to declare a law unconstitutional as a party but rather it appears to express its opinion on the law which is sought to be repealed. Consequently, it cannot raise a preliminary objection concerning the admissibility of the petition. Constitution – Unconstitutionality of laws – Interest in petitioning against a law for being unconstitutional – A person lodging a petition seeking to declare a law unconstitutional does not need to demostrate the personal interests he/she has in the petition as along as the purpose is to protect the public interest. Facts: After the publication of the Law N°68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general in the Official Gazette, Advocate Mugisha petitioned the Supreme Court seeking adeclaration that articles 233, 236, 136, 138, 154 and 139 of that law infringe articles 15, 18 and 38 of the Constitution. He further stated that the articles which he seeks to have repealed are in two categories the first one contains three articles: 154, 233 and 236 and the second has three articles; 136,138 and 139. During the hearing, the State Attorney raises a preliminary objection of inadmissibility of the petition on the ground that Advocate Mugisha does not demonstrate a personal interest he 1

## Page 182

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 2

has in petitioning the court and in particular that he does not demonstrate how those provisions were detrimental to him. She further elaborates that pursuant to article 3 of the Law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure which provides that a claim cannot be admissible in court if the claimant does not have the interest and capacity to sue, that is the reason why the petitioner should establish the interest he has in the petition such as demonstrating how those provisions are detrimental to him, for instance if he has ever been punished based on those provisions.He should not just state that they prejudice the press or the married couples, without even demonstrating that he is representing those prejudiced by those provisions. She further argues that pursuant to article 72 of the Law determining the jurisdiction of courts which provides that the Supreme Court may be petitioned by any person institution or association with legal personality seeking to have a law declared unconstitutional if they have any interest. She claimed that the interest must be real and obvious not speculation and that alleging that he petitioned the court for the general interest is misleading because the law provides for those with the interest. In his defence on the raised objection, the petitioner states that the Law determining the jurisdiction of courts provides that the Supreme Court is petitioned by any person or company or associations with legal personality seeking to have a law declared unconstitutional. Thus basing on the fact that he is on the roll of advocates, he feels that he has a part to play in the establishment of fair laws which are consistent with the Constitution, and moreover as any Rwandan who has the interest in protecting the Constitution and also to ensure that the enacted laws guarantee fair justice, especially as issues he seeks to be examined are in the general interests, since they concern every Rwandan.

## Page 183

3

Before examining the issue of the interest of the petitioner, the Court first examined whether the State has the standing to raise the objection of inadmissibility in the hearings of the petition seeking to declare a law unconstitutional. Held: 1. The State does not participate of the State in the petition seeking to declare a law unconstitutional as a party but rather it appears to express its opinion on the law which is sought to be repealed. Consequently, it cannot raise a preliminary objection concerning the admissibility of the petition. 2. A person lodging a petition seeking to declare a law unconstitutional does not need to demostrate the personal interests he/she has in the petition as along as the purpose is to protect the public interest. The petitioner has the interest in petitioning the court seeking to declare a Law unconstitutional. The hearing will proceed on the merits. Statutes and Statutory instruments referred to: Law N°30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of Courts, articles 72 and 80. Law No22/2018 of 29/04/2018 Law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 3.

Re MUGISHA

## Page 184

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 4

Case referred to: Zantsi v Council of State, Ciskei and Others (CCT24/94) [1995] ZACC 9; 1995 (4) SA 615 (CC); 1995 (10) BCLR 1424 (CC). European Court of Human Rights, Klass and others v Federal Republic of Germany, (Series A, NO 28) (1979-80) 2 EHRR 214. Ferreira v Levin NO and Others; Vryenhoek and Others v Powell NO and Others (CCT5/95) [1995] ZACC 13; 1996 (1) SA 984 (CC); 1996 (1) BCLR (6 December 1995). Minister of Home Affairs v Eisenberg & Associates, (CCT15/03) [2003] ZACC 10; 2003 (8) BCLR 838; 2003 (5) SA 281 rendered on 27 June 2003 by the Constitutional Court of South Africa Kruger v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT 57/07) [2008] ZACC 17; 2009 (1) SA 417 (CC); 2009 (3) BCLR 268 (CC) rendered on 2 October 2008 by the by the Constitutional Court of South Africa. Doctrines: Serge Guinchard et Thierry Debard, Lexique des termes juridiques 2015-2016, 23e éd, Dalloz, 2015 Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] Advocate Mugisha Richard petitioned the Supeme Court arguing that after the publication in the Official Gazette, the Law Nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in

## Page 185

5

general, he found article 136, 138, 139, 154, 233 and 236 of that law inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015. [2] The articles sought to be repealed because they are inconsistent with the Constitution are six (6) grouped into two categories: the first category consists of three (3) provisions: article 154, 233 and 236. Article 154 provides that any person who publicly defames religious rituals, symbols and religious cult objects by use of actions, words, signs, writings, gestures or threats, whether carried out at the place where rituals are intended to be performed or where they are normally performed, commits an offence. Article 233 provides any person who, verbally, by gestures or threats, in writings or cartoons, humiliates a member of Parliament when exercising his/her mandate, a member of the Cabinet, security officers or any other person in charge of a public service in the performance or in connection with the performance of his/her duties, commits an offence. Lastly article 236 provides that any person who insults or defames the President of the Republic, commits an offence. Those articles also provide penalties for each offence. [3] Advocate Mugisha Richard argues that those provisions contradict article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda because they protect those in particular classes depending on their positions whilst all persons are equal before the law.1 He also argues that those provisions infringe on the freedom of press, of the print media, that of images (cartoons) pictures and even those of broadcasting which are guaranteed by

1 Article 15 provides that all persons are equal before the law. They are entitled to equal protection of the law. Re MUGISHA

## Page 186

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 6

article 38 of the Constitution,2 because pursuant to those provisions, the press is not allowed to publish anything criticising those classes of public officials or religion while that article of the Constitution provides that the freedom of expression and that of access to information are recognised and respected by the State. [4] The second category is made up of three provisions (3): article 136 which provides that any spouse who has sexual intercourse with a person other than his/her spouse, commits an offence. Article 138 provides that a person who lives as a husband and wife with a person other than his/her spouse while one or both of them are married, commits an offence, while article 139 provides that a spouse who, without serious reasons, deserts his/her marital home for more than two (2) months and evades his/her obligations, commits an offence. Advocate Mugisha Richard finds that those articles infringe article 18 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda which provides that the State puts in place appropriate legislation and organs for the protection of the family, yet articles 136, 138 and 139 provide for a prison sentence for one of the spouse which makes it impossible for the family to be protected or to flourish when one of them is in prison. [5] The hearing of the case took place on 4/12/2018, Advocate Mugisha Richard assited by Advocate Nkundabarashi

2 Freedom of press, of expression and of access to information are recognized and guaranteed by the State. Freedom of expression and freedom of access to information shall not prejudice public order, good morals, the protection of the youth and children, the right of every citizen to honour and dignity and protection of personal and family privacy. Conditions for exercising and respect for these freedoms are determined by law

## Page 187

7

Moïse and Advocate Kabasinga Florida, while the State of Rwanda was represented by the State Attorney, Advocate Kabibi Speciose. [6] State Attorney Kabibi Speciose raised a preliminary objection of the inadmissibility of the petition lodged by Advocate Mugisha Richard on the ground that he does not demostrate his personal interest in that petition especialy that he did not demostrate how those provisions were prejudicial to him. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUES Whether the petition lodged by Advocate Mugisha Richard is inadmissible on the ground that he lacks interest. [7] State Attorney Kabibi Speciose requests that the petition should be rejected on the ground that Advocate Mugisha Richard lacks interest and failed to prove how those provisions he seeks to be repealed prejudiced him. She explains that article 3 of the Law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, provides that a claim is inadmissible in court if the claimant has no interest and capacity to sue, that is the reason why Advocate Mugisha Richard has to demonstrate the interest he has in the petition, such as indicating how those provisions prejudiced him, whether he was penalized basing on those provisions instead of arguing that they prejudiced the press or are detrimental to the married couple and he does not demonstrate that he is representing those prejudiced by those provisions. [8] She argues that pursuant to article 72 of the Law determining the jurisdiction of courts which provides that the Supreme Court can be petitioned by a person seeking to have a Re MUGISHA

## Page 188

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 8

law declared unconstitutional if he/she has any interest. The fact that Mugisha Richard is an advocate who assists in the administration of justice, should not be considered as according him the interest to lodge the petition especially given that the interest must be apparent to everyone but not merely presuming or claiming that it is in the general interest. She adds that the nature of the petition demonstrates that it was not lodged in the public interest but rather in his own personal interest, that is why he must demonstrate the interest he has in lodging that petition. [9] She concludes arguing that if Advocate Mugisha Richard as an advocate lodged a petition in the name of his colleagues he should demonstrate that he is representing them and also demonstrate how those provisions prejudiced them and how their execution was detrimental to them. [10] In his defense, Advocate Mugisha Richard states that basing on article 72 of the Law N° 30/2018 of 02/06/2018, determining the jurisdiction of courts which provides that the Supreme Court is petitioned by any person or company and associations with legal personality over petitions seeking to declare a law unconstitutional if they have any interest, and basing on the fact that he is on the roll of advocates, assisting justice, he believes that he has a role in the establishment of fair laws which are consistent with the Constitution, that is where he bases his interest to petition the Court requesting it to declare the stated provisions inconsistent with the Constitution. He also states that as a Rwandan he has an interest in upholding the Constitution either in its text or purpose. [11] He argues that it is not necessary to wait for offences to be committed and before a petition can be lodged, that he cannot sit aside and just watch, when there are issues which are

## Page 189

9

detrimental to the family and which will have negative consequences to the general public including him. He states that the same applies to the press. He has the interest of petitioning the court in case there are things detrimental to the proper functioning of the press. [12] Counsel Nkundabarashi Moïse states that every Rwandan has a right to petition the Court on the matters concerning the Constitution and upholding it and even to make sure that the laws which are passed provide fair justice. He further argues that Mugisha Richard, being an advocate in particular , has the interest to show that there are laws which were passed that are inconsistent with the Constitution, and that what he petitioned for is in the public interest because it concerns every Rwandan, that is why he finds the statements of the State Attorney that an advocate does not have an interest to be groundless because the interest should not only be demonstrated when there is a problem, instead it would be better to act in order to protect and uphold the Constitution. [13] Counsel Kabasinga Florida argues that Mugisha Richard has both personal and public interest to lodge a petition because the impugned provisions concern everybody including Mugisha Richard, since any person can be prosecuted for the offences prescribed by those provisions and that therefore Mugisha Richard has interest in lodging that petition so that he can defend his personal interest and the those of others who can be victimized by those provisions.

Re MUGISHA

## Page 190

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 10

VIEW OF THE COURT Whether the State has the capacity to raise a preliminary objection of inadmissibilityof the petition [14] Before deciding whether the petitioner has the required interest, the Court finds it necessary to first establish whether the State can raise an objection of inadmissibility in cases relating to the petitions seeking to declare a law unconstitutionalit. [15] Article 72 paragraph three of the Law N° 30/2018 of 02/06/2018, determining the jurisdiction of courts provides that the hearing of petitions seeking to declare a law unconstitutional is conducted in public and in the presence of a Government representative. It’s not provided that the State is the respondent in the petitions seeking to declare a law unconstitutional, instead the State appears in order to give its opinion on the understanding of the law which it is sought to have it repealed as the State represents the public interest and its institutions participate in drafting and passing of laws. [16] Since the appearance of the State in the case is to give its opinion on the law which the petitioner seeks to have repealed as motivated above, it also has the right to express its opinion on the issues of admissibility of the petition seeking to declare a law unconstitutional. The Court therefore finds the arguments of the State Attorney should be considered as an opinion instead of being an objection raised by a party to the case Regarding the interest to lodge a petition [17] This Court is yet to be seized with many petitions seeking to declare a law unconstitutional. In particular, it’s the first time the State Attorney has argued that the petitioner has no interest.

## Page 191

That is the reason why in motivating its decision, the Court interprets the laws that apply in Rwanda which relate to this issue and also refer to case law of other countries where such petitions have been decided over a time. [18] Article 3 paragraph one Law No22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, provides that unless otherwise provided by law, a claim is admissible in court only if the claimant has standing, interest and capacity to sue. The law does not explain whether its personal or public interest. [19] Usually, as explained by the legal, scholars for a claim to be admissible, the claimant has to have interest manifested by the advantages that would be obtained based on his claim, which is legitimate, personal and direct.3 The interest in a case is aimed at demonstrating that there is a right which the claimant wants to be granted by a court decision or he wants the court to decide on the issues which are of importance to him. The claimant is required to have interest in the claim so that it prevents those who may file claims with an agenda to get fame or advertise their services or those who may want to get the rights intended for others. [20] The interest is again put into consideration so that the meagre resources allocated to courts be utilized to resolve real issues other than using them on abstract issues. On this matter, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of South Africa in the

3 Serge Guinchard et Thierry Debard, Lexique des termes juridiques 2015- 2016, 23e éd, Dalloz, 2015 p 58. Intérêt pour agir: condition de recevabilité de l’action consistant dans l’avantage que procurerait au demandeur la reconnaissance par le juge de sa prétention. L’intérêt doit être personnel, direct, né, et actuel 11 Re MUGISHA

## Page 192

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 12

case of Zantsi v Council of State,4 Ciskei and Other held that it is not ordinarily desirable for a court to give rulings in the abstract on issues which are not the subject of controversy and are only of academic interest [...]". Pursuant to the motivations given above, the Court finds that the arguments of the State Attorney regarding interest in the case are more appropriate in ordinary cases. [21] The Court is of the view that there is a difference with the constitutional petitions whereby the interest should be perceived in broad way, especially in a developing country like Rwanda where the citizens are not yet aware of their constitutional rights, and there is a need to assist them to realize them through courts. Article 72 paragraph of the Law N°30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts provides that the Supreme Court is petitioned by any person or company and associations with legal personality seeking to declare unconstitutional a law if they have any interest. The nature of the cases seeking to declare a law unconstitutional indicate that the interest lies in the seeking to declare a law unconstitutional because it is detrimental to the rights of the claimants or it renders it impossible to realize the objectives of the Constitution which must be achieved. [22] In this petition, the interest is to have article 233 relating to the offence of humiliation of national authorities and persons in charge of public service, article 236 relating to the offence of insults or defamation against the President of the Republic, article 136 relating to the offence of adultery, article 138 relating to the offence of concubinage, article 154 relating to the offence of public defamation of religious rituals and article 139 relating to

4 Zantsi v Council of State, Ciskei and Others (CCT24/94) [1995] ZACC 9; 1995 (4) SA 615 (CC); 1995 (10) BCLR 1424 (CC) (22 September 1995)

## Page 193

the offence of desertion of the marital home of the Law N° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general declared inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda because they may be detrimental to some rights including equality before the law, freedom of press, freedom of expression and that of access to information and even the flourishing of the family which has to be protected by the State. [23] The Law N°68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general is a law which applies to all who may be subjected to prosecution for the offences provided in that law and have to be respected by all including Advocate Mugisha Richard. The law which provides for the offences and penalties does not apply only to the offenders or those who may commit crimes, it applies to everyone in its jurisdiction because it determines how people are to behave in certain circumstances and failure comply becomes an offence. This implies that in one way or another, that law applies to the petitioner, Mugisha Richard. Therefore, the Court finds that as a person who is subjected to that law the law, who can be prosecuted for the offences mentioned above, he an interest to request that some of its provisions be declared unconstitutional. [24] If the petitioner believes that a certain law is unconstitutional he does not need to wait until he is prosecuted of the offences provided by that law. He has the right to request for it to be repealed. The probability of a law being unconstitutional law should be considered as an important issue which needs to be addressed rather than considering it as an abstract issue. [25] the Court finds that the fact that the petitioner was never prosecuted or convicted based on the provisions he claims to be 13 Re MUGISHA

## Page 194

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 14

unconstitutional, it should not be interpreted as lack of interest in the petition because the mere existence of those provisions he claims that are unconstitutional is enough for him to petition the court seeking that those provisions be repealed without necessarily proving that they were used to prosecute him. This was also the position of some courts of other jurisdictions like in the case of Klass and others v. Germany, whereby the European Court of Human Right was petitioned seeking the repeal of article 10 of Act of 13 August 1968 on Restrictions on the Secrecy of the Mail, Post and Telecommunications (Gesetz zur Beschränkung). The Court held that a person can seek the repeal of the law without first proving that it was applied on him. The Court motivated its decision in these words: “[…] The Court therefore accepts that an individual may, under certain conditions, claim to be the victim of a violation occasioned by the mere existence of secret measures or of legislation permitting secret measures, without having to allege that such measures were in fact applied to himˮ.5 When these findings is considered together with the petition lodged by Mugisha Richard, it is found the fact that he has never been prosecuted based on provisions he seeks to have repealed, does not mean those provisions do not apply to him too because in case he violates them, they will be based on to prosecute him. Interest can be current or prospective. [26] Interest in the petition seeking to declare a law unconstitutional must be perceived in a broader sense because it reaches all those who are subject that Law rather than the petitioner only as it is the case in ordinary cases. This is evident

5 European Court of Human Rights, Klass and others v Federal Republic of Germany, (Series A, NO 28) (1979-80) 2 EHRR 214, 6 September 1978 available on http://hudoc.echr.coe.int

## Page 195

especially when the Court decides to repeal a law that is inconsistent with the Constitution as that decision concerns every one, the petitioner or anyone else to the extent that nobody can again request for the repeal of that law or article on the ground that it is unconstitutional. That is the reason article 72, the last paragraph of the Law N°30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts provides that when the Supreme Court holds that such a law is unconstitutional, that declaration is published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda. This is done in order to inform all the concerned people (petitioner or anyone else) to know that the law is no longer in force. [27] The issue regarding the broad interpretation of interest in petitions seeking to declare a law unconstitutional was also emphasized by the Constitutional Court of South Africa in the case of Ferreira v Levin NO and Others; Vryenhoek and Others v Powell NO and Others, whereby it held that “ As the arm of government which is entrusted primarily with the interpretation and enforcement of constitutional rights, it carries a particular democratic responsibility to ensure that those rights are honored in our society. This role requires that access to the courts in constitutional matters should not be precluded by rules of standing developed in a different constitutional environment in which a different model of adjudication predominated. In particular, it is important that it is not only those with vested interests who should be afforded standing in constitutional challenges, where remedies may have a wide impact6.

6 Ferreira v Levin NO and Others; Vryenhoek and Others v Powell NO and Others (CCT5/95) [1995] ZACC 13; 1996 (1) SA 984 (CC); 1996 (1) BCLR 1 (6 December 1995). Paragraph 230 15 Re MUGISHA

## Page 196

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 16

[28] The petition seeking to declare a law or some of its provisions unconstitutional can be lodged in the interest of the petitioner or in the public interest. Even though another article7 of the Law N°30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, provides for the right of filing a petition in the general interest, it does not bar a petitioner seeking to declare a law unconstitutional from filing the petition with the aim of protecting the public interest .This was the position of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Minister of Justice (Can.) v. Borowski,8 whereby the judge stated that “I interpret these cases as deciding that to establish status as a plaintiff in a suit seeking a declaration that legislation is invalid, if there is a serious issue as to its invalidity, a person need only to show that he is affected by it directly or that he has a genuine interest as a citizen in the validity of the legislation and that there is no other reasonable and effective manner in which the issue may be brought before the Court. In my opinion, the respondent has met this test and should be permitted to proceed with his actionˮ. [29] Besides the fact that the provisions sought to be repealed concern him as a person who may write documents about the public officials which can be considered as defamatory and subsequently cause him to be prosecuted, Advocate Mugisha Richard as a citizen who is committed to ensuring respect for the rights to give and access information including the freedom of press and even the protection of the family as provided for by the

7 Article 80 of the Law No30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts. 8 Minister of Justice (Can) v Borowski [1981] 2 SCR 575 at 598, per MARTLAND.J. for the majority.

## Page 197

Constitution, has the interest to petition the court seeking to repeal of the provisions which infringe on those rights. [30] The interest of an Advocate who petitioned the court seeking to declare a law unconstitutional should be viewed in the perspective of his legal profession and his role in the development of laws which makes him eligible to lodge a petition even if he does not have a particular interest. In the case of Minister of Home Affairs v Eisenberg & Associates, the Constitutional Court of South Africa held that Advocates have a particular interest to seek for the repeal of laws that are inconsistent with the Constitution of that Country, and also have an interest as members of the public to lodge that petition. That Court held as follows : “Respondent,[Eisenberg & Associates] had an interest as a member of the public in asserting the right that it claimed to have and had standing to raise that issue in its own interests9“. This is similar to the arguments of Advocate Mugisha Richard whereby he argued that as an advocate and as one of the citizens, he has an interest to petition the Court seeking to invalidate the provisions of a law which is detrimental to him, to the general public and to ensure that the Constitution is upheld. He does not need to prove that he is representing other advocates or a particular group of the public as the State Attorney claims. [31] The Advocate as a professional in law who assists in the administration of justice, who is responsible for representing, assisting and pleading for people before the executive, before the courts and in other institutions can petition against laws that are inconsistent with the Constitution not in his personal interest but

9 Constitutional Court of South Africa, Minister of Home Affairs v Eisenberg & Associates, (CCT15/03) [2003] ZACC 10; 2003 (8) BCLR 838 ; 2003 (5) SA 281 17 Re MUGISHA

## Page 198

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 18

in the interest of the administration of justice. The legal knowledge an advocate is expected to have is more than that of the ordinary citizen or those who did not study the law and moreover the duties bestowed to him by that profession, places him in a better position to lodge a petition seeking to declare unconstitutional some provisions of the law, because he is more conversant with the laws and the procedure of repealing them, in case they are inconsistent with the Constitution. [32] This approach is similar to that in the case of Kruger v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others. The Constitutional Court of South Africa held that a practitioner can base his claim on both direct and professional interest, whereby it held that : “Where the practitioner can establish both that a proclamation is of direct and central importance to the field in which he or she operates, and that it is in the interest of the administration of justice that the validity of that proclamation be determined by a court, that practitioner may approach a court to challenge the validity of such a proclamation. Legal practitioners must not assume that they will be allowed to bring applications to this Court for a declaration of invalidity based purely on financial self- interest or in circumstances where they cannot show that it will be in the interest of the administration of justice that they do so.10. For Mugisha Richard, as a legal practitioner, with experience in law, to petition the Supreme Court seeking the repeal of the mentioned articles because they infringe on the Constitution, the Court finds that it is in the interest of administration of justice because he can give explanations which

10 Kruger v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT 57/07) [2008] ZACC 17; 2009 (1) SA 417 (CC); 2009 (3) BCLR 268 (CC) (2 October 2008)

## Page 199

can guide the Court and the decision taken be of importance to the justice in general. [33] In light of the foregoing, the Court holds that Advocate Mugisha Richard has interest in different ways as explained to petition the court seeking to declare certain provisions of the law unconstitutional. [34] Due to the significance of the issues to be examined in the hearing of this case on the merits and considering that there are no precedents on similar cases tried by the courts of Rwanda, the Court invites persons, institutions and non-government organizations with expertise who wish to act as Amicus Curiae, to submit requests to that effect through the Court registry of the Supreme Court not later than 8/02/2019, and submit written documents they wish to produce before the court not later than 28/02/2019. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [35] Holds that Advocate Mugisha Richard has an interest to lodge a petition seeking to declare unconstitutional certain provisions of the law; [36] Declares that the hearing will proceed on the merits on 18/03/2019.

19 Re MUGISHA

## Page 201

PROCEDURAL CASES

## Page 203

CASE RELATING TO CIVIL, COMMERCIAL, LABOUR AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

## Page 205

MBARUSHIMANA v. NKUNDABANYANGA [Rwanda Supreme Court – RCAA 00022/2016/SC-RCAA 0022/16/CS (Mugenzi P.J., Nyirandabaruta and Kanyange, J.) 03 July 2018] Law determining the jurisdiction of Courts – Land – Primary Courts try in first instance cases relating to disputes on land and livestock and their succession – Organic Law N° 51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of Courts, article 67. Law determining the jurisdiction of Courts – Interpretation of Laws – Article 27,3º of the Law Nº 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 must be completed as follows: Primary Court try in first instance, cases relating to immovable property composed of land reserved for agriculture and livestock which exceed the value of three million Rwandan Francs. Facts: Nkundabanyanga filed a claim to the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge requesting for the annulment of the emphteutic lease contract Nº1020/KIC/GAT awarded to Mbarushimana on the land which she states that she inherited it from her late husband Birushyabagabo, she stated that in 2007 she travelled to Kenya for seeking medical treatment and when she came back she found that Mbarushimana registered that land on his name while he is not the owner, though Nkundabanyanga is the one who occupies it. That Court held that the land in litigation belongs to Nkundabanyanga because she has witnesses who testify that the 25

## Page 206

land belongs to Birushyabagabo who was her husband, then the Court ordered for the annulment of the emphteutic lease contract on that land registered on Mbarushimana.it further ordered Mbarushimana to pay Nkundabanyanga procedural and counsel fees. Mbarushimana was not contented with the rulings of that judgment and appealed before the High Court whereby it held that his appeal has no merit, and ordered him to give Nkundabanyanga counsel fees. Mbarushimana was not contented with that rulings and appealed to the Supreme Court requesting to examine whether the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge had jurisdiction to try the claim of Nkundabanyanga, he requested also the Court to examine whether his opponent has quality and interest to file a claim. SENCO Ltd intervened in this case. Nkundabanyanga raised an objection of lack of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court which the Court overruled. The Court also rejected the intervention of SENCO Ltd because it did not comply with the decision of the Court which charged it a fine and the court decided that SENCO Ltd will be heard after proving that it has paid it. Mbarushimana states that, considering that the object of litigation is a land reserved for agriculture and the provisions of the Law of jurisdiction of Courts Nº 51/2008/OL of 09/09/2008 as modified to date, the cases related to properties of land are tried by Primary Courts, thus, if both Courts heard a case which is not in their competence, the decisions taken by those Courts should be quashed and the situation return to the way it was before filing the lawsuit. RWANDA LAW REPORTS 26

## Page 207

Nkundabanyanga states that the statement of her opponent is groundless because he did not raise the objection of lack of jurisdiction before the Intermediate Court. It raised it before High Court which overruled it because the object in litigation was not the land rather it was the annulment of emphteutic lease contract awarded to the person who is not the owner of the property. Held: 1. In the determination of the subject matter it is not enough to base on how the claim is written, rather it is determined by the claims of each party which are demonstrated by the document instituting proceedings and the defence submissions, even though the document instituting proceedings to the Intermediate Court indicates that the subject matter was the annulment of emphyteutic lease contract awarded to Mbarushimana who is not the owner of the property, but the purpose was to request the Court to hold that the property belongs to Nkundabanyanga. Therefore, the subject matter is a land, the claim should have been filed to the Primary Court in first instance, thus, the judgment rendered by the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge even that one rendered in appeal by the High Court have to be quashed because they were rendered by incompetent Courts. 2. Article 27,3º of the Law Nº 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 should be completed as follows Primary Court try in first instance, cases relating to immovable property composed of land reserved for agriculture and livestock which exceed three million Rwandan Francs (3,000,000Frw). 3.Damages for dairy income compensation are not awarded while the claimant is not proving that the case proceedings deprived him/her an expected income 27 MBARUSHIMANA v. NKUNDABANYANGA

## Page 208

Moral damages are not awarded while the claimant is not proving the fault of the defendant Appeal has merit. The judgment rendered by previous Courts are quashed because it was rendered by incompetent Courts. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 6 and 158. Law N°30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, article 27. Law No 37/2016 of 08/09/2016 determining organisation, jurisdiction, competence and functioning of Abunzi Committee, article 10. Organic Law N° 51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of Courts, article 67. Decree -Law of 30/07/1888 relating to Contracts or conventional obligations, article 258. No cases referred to. Authors cited: J.F Perrin, Les règles d’interprétation-Principes communément admis par les jurisdictions, Note bibliographique de Marie Malaurie, in Revue Internationale de Droit Comparé, 1990, 42-3, P.1054

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 28

## Page 209

Judgment I.BACKGROUND OF THE CASE. [1] Nkundabanyanga Eugénie filed a claim to Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge, requesting for annulment of emphyteutic lease contract Nº1020/KIC/GAT because it was awarded to Mbarushimana Jean Pierre who is not the owner, rather she inherited that land from her deceased husband Birushyabagabo. She stated that in year 2007, she travelled to Kenya to seek medical treatment, and when returning she found her land was registered on Mbarushimana Jean Pierre though she is the one who occupies it. [2] In judgment RC0055/15/TGI/NYGE rendered on 11/06/2015, the Court found that as Nkundabanyanga Eugénie proves that the land belongs to her basing on the reports of Nyanza cell authorities, whereby the local population explained that they are aware that the land belongs to Birushyabagabo who was her husband, this demonstrates that the land recorded on Nº 1020/KIC/GAT belongs to Nkundabanyanga, thus, the emphyteutic lease contract awarded to Mbarushimana Jean Pierre is annuled, and it ordered him to pay 500.000Frw to Nkundabanyanga for procedural and counsel fees. . [3] Mbarushimana Jean Pierre appealed to the High Court, which rendered the judgment RCA0393/15/HC/KIG on 29/01/2015, and found his appeal without merit, it ordered him to pay 500.000Frw to Nkundabanyanga for counsel fees. [4] Mbarushimana Jean Pierre appealed to the Supreme Court requesting it to examine whether the Intermediate Court of 29 MBARUSHIMANA v. NKUNDABANYANGA

## Page 210

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 30

Nyarugenge had jurisdiction to hear Nkundabanyanga’s claim and whether his opponent has quality and interest for filing a claim while she does not exist according to the Law. SENCO Ltd intervened at this case at this instance. [5] Before the examination of the intervention of SENCO LTD, it was examined firstly the objection of lack of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court raised by Nkundabanyanga Eugénie, in a Court order of 17/12/2017, the Court overruled that objection. [6] The case on merit was heard in public on 29/05/2018, Mbarushimana Jean Pierre represented by Counsel Habimana Adolphe, Nkundabanyanga Eugénie was represented by Counsel Kalisa Evariste while SENCO Ltd represented by Karangwa Charles assisted by Counsel Ntirenganya Seifu Jean Bosco. [7] After finding that SENCO Ltd failed to comply with the Court order of 06/02/2018 which ordered it to pay a fine of 100,000Frw and that it will be heard after proving that it has paid that fine, even the counsel who assists Karangwa Charles told the Court that he advised him to pay that fine instead of basing on the Law published after the Court order.1 The Court took decision on the bench to reject the intervention of SENCO Ltd and the hearing continued without it.

1 SENCO Ltd wrote stating that basing on article 119 0f the Law Nº22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure it twill pay the fine it was charged in addition to what it will be ordered to pay by the Court in this case if any.

## Page 211

31

II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES Whether the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge had no competence to hear Nkundabanyanga’s claim. [8] Counsel for Mbarushimana Jean Pierre argues that this case concerns the property of land reserved for agriculture as it is indicated on its deed, and article 67 of the organic Law Nº 01/2015/OL of 05/05/2015 modifing and complementing the organic Law Nº 51/2008/OL of 09/09/2008 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of Courts provides that cases relating to property of land are in jurisdiction of primary Courts, while article 128 of that Law provides that cases concerning immovable property shall be heard by Courts situated where the property is located. [9] He states that the High Court motivated that it has jurisdiction because the subject matter is about the annullation of emphyteutic lease contract, but the Court’s rulings indicate that the judge wrote the land as the subject matter, thus, as both Courts tried a case which is not in their jurisdiction, the decisions taken can be nullified and the situation returns to the way it was before filing the case. [10] Counsel for Nkundabanyanga Eugenie argues that the statment of her opponent has no merit because he did not raise the objection of lack of jurisdiction of Intermediate Court in that Court, that he raised it in the High Court, whereby it motivated that the subject matter was not a land rather the annulment of emphyteutic lease contract awarded to the person who is not the owner of the property, thus the subject matter is not a land because it is occupied by his client, she is requesting for the certifiate of emphyteutic lease because it is registered on MBARUSHIMANA v. NKUNDABANYANGA

## Page 212

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 32

Mbarushimana Jean Pierre.He states further that there is a criminal case (RP 0475/14/TB/KGM) indicating that the daugthers of Nkundabanyanga Eugénie sold her property, that sold property is part of the emphyteutic lease contract for which they are requesting for annulment, and basing on article 78 of the organic Law Nº 01/2015/OL of 05/05/2015 aforementioned, the Intermediate Court is the one which has the jurisdiction over that issues. VIEW OF THE COURT [11] The rulings of the appealed judgment indicate that, in deciding that the Intermediate Court had jurisdiction to hear this case, the High Court based on the fact that the subject matter concerned the annulation of emphyteutic lease contract awarded to a person who is not the owner of the property rather than a land. [12] The Court finds that, though the document instituting proceedings before intermediate Court demonstrates that the subject-matter was the annulment of emphyteutic lease contract awarded to Mbarushimana Jean Pierre who is not the owner of the property, but the purpose was to request the Court to held that the concerned property belongs to Nkundabanyanga Eugénie, as it is clear in her requests to the Court.2 It is even clear in the decision taken by the intermediate Court and the High Court, which based on the evidence indicating that the land for which Mbarushimana Jean Pierre was given emphyteutic lease contract belongs to Nkundabanyanga Eugénie.

2 To hold that the land with emphyteutic lease contract Nº 1020/KIC/GAT belongs to Nkundabanyanga Eugénie and to order its registration on her name.

## Page 213

33

[13] The Court finds that, the subject matter is not determined by how it is written, rather by parties’s respective requests as it is provided by article 6 of the Law Nº 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure3, it is determined by the document instituting proceedings and the defence submissions, it was motivated above that the purpose of filing a claim by Nkundabanyanga Eugénie was to request the Court to hold that the land belongs to her, this means, her rights over that land because though she states that she possesses that land, she has no right over it, as long as she has no emphyteutic lease contract.This is indeed reasonable because after re-establishing her rights , she can request to be registered on that land. [14] The court finds, the fact that the subject matter is land, the claim should have been filed to the Primary Court basing on the provisions of article 67 of Organic Law Nº 51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of Courts which was into force at the time of filing the claim4 , which provides that Primary Courts shall try on the first instance the cases related to the disputes of land and livestock and their succession; thus, basing on article 158, paragraph one, of the Law Nº 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure5, the

3 It matches with article 4 of the Law wich was into force at time of filing a claim at first instance. 4 It was filed on 04/12/2014 5 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 MBARUSHIMANA v. NKUNDABANYANGA

## Page 214

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 34

judgment rendered by the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge as well as that one rendered by the High Court must be quashed, because they were rendered by the Courts which lack the jurisdiction , it is not necessary to examine other ground of appeal relating to quality and interests of Nkundabanyanga Eugénie, instead the Court should examine the basis of damages requested by Mbarushimana Jean Pierre. [15] With regard to the new jurisdiction of Courts pursuant to the Law Nº 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 relating to jurisdiction of Courts, article 27,3º provides that Primary Courts shall try at first instance ‟cases relating to immovable property other than land used for agriculture and livestock of a value of more than three million Rwandan francs (FRW 3,000,000), but which does not exceed twenty million Rwandan Francs (FRW 20,000,000) and succession in respect thereof as well as disputes between the emphyteutic lease and the so-called landowner with no certificateˮ [16] The phrasing of the article aforementioned does not allow expressly to know the will of the legislator as regards to the jurisdiction of Courts on immovable property, therefore, it is necessary to interpret in order to clarify the provisions of that article, by taking into consideration that the principles of interpretation of Law, the spirit of phrasing is first considered, however it is needed to avoid the spirit which can contradict the will of the regislator.6

6La lettre l’emporte sur l’esprit de la loi, mais elle peut être écartée si son application conduit à des résultats déraisonnables (Cour de cassation belge) ou “insoutenables qui contrediraient la véritable intention du Législateur”(tribunal Fédéral Suisse des assurances): J.F Perrin, Les règles d’interprétation-Principes communément admis par les jurisdictions, Note

## Page 215

35

[17] In this regards the interpretation of article 27 aforementioned, the Court finds that it is not reasonable that the will of the legislator was to remove the land for the agriculture use in the jurisdiction of the Primary Courts, while they are the ones close to those properties accross the country and they used to be competent to hear the cases related to property of land7, thus appropriate interpretation will be the one which suggesting that cases relating to Land used for agriculture are in the jurisdiction of Primary Courts regardless the value, notwithstanding the competence of abunzi commitee over property not exceeding the value equivalent to 3,000,000Frw in civil cases as provided by article 10 0f the Law Nº37/2016 of 08/09/2016 on organization, jurisdiction, competence and functioning of abunzi committee [18] The Court finds that according to that intepretation of article 27,3º of the Law Nº30/2018 of 02/06/2018 has to be understood as follows : Primary Courts try in first instance : - cases relating to immovable property other than land used for agriculture and livestock of a value of more than three million Rwandan francs (FRW 3,000,000), but which does not exceed twenty million Rwandan Francs (FRW 20,000,000) and succession in respect thereof as

bibliographique de Marie Malaurie, in Revue Internationale de Droit Comparé, 1990, 42-3, P1054 7 In this regards of interpretation of article 27 aforementioned, the Court finds that it is mpossible that the legislature’s intention was to withdraw the immovable property used for agriculture within the competence of Primary Courts, while they are the ones close to those properties accross the country and they used to be competent to hear those cases related to property of land. MBARUSHIMANA v. NKUNDABANYANGA

## Page 216

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 36

well as disputes between the emphyteutic lessee and the so-called landowner with no certificate ; - Cases relating to immovable property composed of land used for agriculture and livestock which value exceed three million Rwandan Francs (3,000,000Frw) [19] The Court finds that withregards to this case, the object in litigation is a land (land reserved for agriculture) which value is above 3,000,000Frw as held by this Court in examination of its competence, the primary Court has competence in first instance, thus, basing on the provisions of article 158 of the Law Nº 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 aforementioned, whoever has interest can file again a claim in that Court. 2. Regarding the damages requested [20] Counsel for Mbarushimana Jean Pierre requests on his behalf 50,000Frw for dairy income compensation for 30 days, equals to 1,500,000Frw, moral damages of 5,000,000Frw for being disturbed by Lawsuits, 1,000,000Frw for counsel fees at this instance and 500,000Frw for previous Courts. [21] Counsel for Nkundabanyanga Eugénie states that his Client should not be charged damages because she filed a claim for her property, instead she should be the one to be awarded 1,500,000Frw for counsel and procedural fees at this instance. VIEW OF THE COURT [22] The Court finds that the diary income compensation requested by Mbarushimana Jean Pierre are not awarded because he fails to prove how this case deprieved him the income he

## Page 217

37

should have earned within a month, and the moral damages he requests are not also awarded because he does not prove the fault committed by Nkundabanyanga Eugénie unless to sue him in pursuing her rights, article 258 of civil code book three provides that damages are awarded if the fault of the person to whom are claimed is proven. [23] Regarding counsel fees, the Court finds that Mbarushimana Jean Pierre has to be awarded it, because it was necessary to pay for counsel services, in discretion of the Court he is awarded 500,000Frw at this instance because 1,000,000Frw he requested is excessive, and it awards 500,000Frw in its discretion for the High Court whereby he raised the objection of lack of jurisdiction of Intermediate Court which was overruled, because 1,000,000Frw requested is excessive , all damages are amounting to 1,000,000Frw. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [24] Finds with merit the appeal of Mbarushimana Jean Pierre; [25] Decides that the judgment rendered by the intermediate Court of Nyarugenge and that one rendered in appeal by the High Court, are quashed because they were rendered by incompetent Courts ; [26] Holds that any person who has interest can file again a claim to the competent Court [27] Orders Nkundabanyanga Eugénie to give Mbarushimana Jean Pierre 1,000,000frw for counsel fees at this level and at the High Court level ; MBARUSHIMANA v. NKUNDABANYANGA [28] Orders Nkundabanyanga Eugénie to pay the Court fees.

## Page 219

CASE RELATING TO CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

## Page 221

PROSECUTION v. KANGABE [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RPAA0027/16/CS (Kayitesi Z, P.J., Kanyange and Ngagi, J.) June 09, 2016] Criminal Procedure law – Execution of the judgment – Having little children is not a sufficient ground to stay the execution of the judgment because those children are accorded special care in prison – Law N°54/2011 of 14/12/2011 relating to the rights and the protection of the child, article 56 paragraph 2. Facts: Before the High Court, chamber of Rwamagana, Kangabe filed a claim for the case review of the judgments RPA0207/15/HC/RWG, RPA0253/15/HC/RWG, RPA0254/15/HC/RWG and RPA0266/15/HC/RWG (combined cases), in which she and her colleagues were convicted for embezzlement, counterfeit and use of counterfeited document. While the case was pending, Kangabe filed a claim of summary procedure requesting to suspend the execution of the judgments for which she applied for the review on the ground that she has little children, her husband suffers from chronic illness of hepatitis B and herself suffers from chronic illness of ulcers. The High Court, chamber of Rwamagana rendered the judgment, holding that Kangabe’s claim of summary procedure lacks merit after finding out that she failed toprove to the Court that her grounds of the claim are urgent issues in principal suit. She appealed to the Supreme Court stating that the High Court disregarded the elements of evidence which prove her claim requesting to suspend the execution of the judgments which she applied to be reviewed, those elements of evidence include the 41

## Page 222

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 42

ones demonstrating that she has chronic ulcers, her husband suffers from chronic illness of hepatitis B and that they also have two young children. The Prosecution argued that the grounds raised by the appellant were discussed before the High Court, chamber of Rwamagana and it finds the claim of the summary procedure as a delaying tactics to avoid the execution of the judgment, therefore it prays that the claim be rejected. BPR Ltd which was also party to the case, stated that it has no interest in incarcerating Kangabe, but it adds that in prison, patients with the same illness are given special treatment. Held: 1. Kangabe’s illness is not a ground to stay the execution of the judgments for which she applied for the case review because that ground is not sufficient to request the stay of the execution because the prison has special treatment to the incarcerated patients. 2. Having little children is not a sufficient ground to stay the execution of the judgment because those children are accorded special care in prison. Therefore, this ground raised by Kangabe cannot stay the execution of the judgments for which she applied for the case review. Appeal lacks merit; The rulings of the appealed judgment sustained; Court fees deposits cover the expenses of the case. Statute and statutory instruments referred to: Law Nº30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure, article 197 and 279.

## Page 223

43

Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 1,190 and 320. Law N°54/2011 of 14/12/2011 relating to the rights and the protection of the child, article 56(2). Law N°34/2010 of 12/11/2010 on the establishment, functioning and organisation of Rwanda correctional service, article 39(2). No case laws referred to: Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] After the High Court, chamber of Rwamagana rendered judgments RPA0207/15/HC/RWG, RPA0253/15/HC/RWG, RPA0254/15/HC/RWG and RPA0266/15/HC/RWG (combined cases) whereby Kangabe Christine and her co-accused were prosecuted for embezzlement, counterfeit and use of counterfeited document, Kangabe Christine applied for the case review and it was recorded on number RPA0134/16/HC/RWG. [2] Before the case RPA0134/16/HC/RWG was closed, Kangabe Christine filed for the summary procedure claim which was recorded on number RPA0139/16/HC/RWG, praying to the High Court, chamber of Rwamagana to suspend the execution of the judgments RPA0207/15/HC/RWG, RPA0253/15/HC/RWG, RPA0254/15/HC/RWG and RPA0266/15/HC/RWG, on the ground that she has young children, her husband suffers from chronic disease of hepatitis B and that herself, she suffers from chronic ulcers. PROSECUTION v. KANGABE

## Page 224

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 44

[3] On 22 April 2016, the High Court, chamber of Rwamagana adjudicated that case, holding that Kangabe Christine’s claim of summary procedure lacks merit, that the claim of the case review cannot suspend the execution of the judgments mentioned above, it was decided so, due to the failure of Kangabe Christine to prove that her grounds are urgent issues in the principal suit (RPA0134/16/HC/RWG), especially that her Counsel Nizeyimana Léopord, states that the issues of the case review are different from those of the summary procedure, therefore it implies that the grounds of the summary procedure are not linked to the principal suit. [4] Kangabe Christine appealed to the Supreme Court stating that the High Court, chamber of Rwamagana disregarded the elements of evidence contained in the case file which prove that she has chronic ulcers, her husband Nyagatare Janvier suffers chronic disease of hepatitis B since 2010, and they have two young children, one of them is 4 month and half old that needs to be cared for,this is emphasized by article 56 of the Law N°54/2011 of 14/12/2011 relating to the rights and the protection of the child which provides that in case a mother with a child under three(3)years old is prosecuted for an offense,the judge will do his/her utmost to impose against such a mother a penalty other than imprisonment. [5] This case was held in public on 06/06/2016, Kangabe Christine assisted by Counsel Nizeyimana Léopord while the Prosecution was represented by Munyaneza Nkwaya Eric, the National Prosecutor and BPR Ltd was represented by Counsel Ntwari Justin.

## Page 225

45

II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUE Whether the execution of the judgments RPA0207/15/HC/RWG, RPA0253/15/HC/RWG, RPA0254/15/HC/RWG and RPA0266/15/HC/RWG would be suspended pending the judgment on their case review. [6] Kangabe Christine and his Counsel Nizeyimana Léopold state that on first instance, the judge erred in deciding that there is no urgent issues in the case, because the case review does not authomatically stay its execution, instead, it is requested before the seized court, that Kangabe Christine pleaded the previous cases at liberty for that reason, she also requests that the case review be heard still at liberty,especially that she has a little child of 5 months and that she also has ulcers and in addition, her husband suffers from chronic disease of hepatitis B. [7] The Prosecution states that Kangabe Christine’s grounds are based on article 56 of the Law N°54/2011 of 14/12/2011 relating to the rights and the protection of the child and article 322 of the Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, however, those grounds were discussed before the High Court, chamber of Rwamagana and paragraph two of article 56 mentioned above, contains some provisions with regard to a pregnant woman or that who has a little child. It further argues that filling of the summary procedure is a tactic intended to delay the case so that it cannot be executed, therefore the claim should not be admitted. [8] Ntwari Justin, the counsel for BPR Ltd states that BPR Ltd has no interests in imprisoning Kangabe Christine, but he adds that in prison, there are facilities for the prisoners with the same illness, that Kangabe Christine pleaded requesting for PROSECUTION v. KANGABE

## Page 226

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 46

suspension of the penalty basing on child rights and the Court decided on it. THE VIEW OF THE COURT [9] Article 279 of the Law Nº30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure provides that all matters that are not provided for under this law shall be handled in accordance with civil procedure rules, unless the civil procedure principles cannot be applicable in criminal matters. This article is supported by article 1 of the Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure which provides that this law governs the procedure applied by courts in civil, commercial, labour and administrative cases. It shall also apply to all other cases in the absence of specific laws governing such procedures, unless the principles provided for by this Law cannot apply to other cases. [10] Article 190 of the Law N°21/2012 mentioned above, provides that an application for review shall not prevent the execution of the contested judgment, unless the execution has been suspended by the court to which the review has been referred for justified reasons. Article 320 paragraph one of that law provides that the summary procedure judge shall decide by way of orders, but without prejudicing the merits of the principal suit […]. [11] In the present case, the case file demonstrates that the High Court, chamber of Rwamagana did not suspend the execution of the judgments RPA0207/15/HC/RWG, RPA0253/15/HC/RWG, RPA0254/15/HC/RWG and RPA0266/15/HC/RWG due to the fact that Kangabe Christine

## Page 227

47

failed to prove that the grounds of her claim were urgent issues in the principal suit (RPA0134/16/HC/RWG) pending to be adjudicated, those grounds include having little children, and that she and her husband has chronic disease. It is also noted that since the beginning of the proceedings, Kangabe Christine pleaded while at liberty. [12] The Court finds that in civil cases, the execution of the judgment is suspended through summary procedure to save some interests in order to avoid irreparable harm in case of the delay1, such as in case the object in litigation can totally perish to the extent that the claimant for suspension of the execution may not be able to get it up when he/she wins the principal suit. In criminal case, with regard to the issues of suspending the execution, it is obvious that if it is granted, it would be applied on the person convicted and if he is imprisoned, it would cause irreparable harm, however, the Court finds that the consequences cannot be the same as those in the civil cases, because article 1972 of the Law No30/2013 mentioned above provides that when a party applied for review and the case subject to review shows that a person was convicted despite his/her innocence, the court may award him/her damages for moral prejudice suffered as a result of the penalty imposed on him/her. If the person sentenced as a result of miscarriage of justice is dead, the right to apply for moral damages shall devolve under the same conditions upon his/her

1 The judgment RCA0008/10/CS of 21/01/2011, Mukamurenzi Diane &Akingeneye Jean de Dieu vs Karangwa Elysé & Mukarutesi Espérance 2 Article 197 provides that upon request by the party applying for review, when the case subject to review shows that a person was convicted despite his/her innocence, the court may award him/her damages for moral prejudice suffered as a result of the penalty imposed on him/her. If the person sentenced as a result of miscarriage of justice is dead, the right to apply for moral damages shall devolve under the same conditions upon his/her heirs. PROSECUTION v. KANGABE

## Page 228

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 48

heirs, this proves that after execution of the judgment subjected to the case review, Kangabe Christine has rights to sue and claim for moral damages when she is imprisoned and aquitted latter. [13] With regard to the ground of having little chidren, the Court finds that this ground cannot stay the execution of the judgments for which she applied for the case review, because article 56 paragraph two of the Law N°54/2011 of 14/12/2011 relating to the rights and the protection of the child provides that if it is impossible to pronounce a penalty other than imprisonment, a pregnant woman or a mother of a child under three (3) years is detained in a special ward of the prison reserved for mothers with children under three (3) years, in addition, the Law N°34/2010 of 12/11/2010 on the establishment, functioning and organisation of Rwanda correctional service provides that those children are accorded special consideration.3 [14] Whereas concerning the ground of her illness (Kangabe), the Court also finds that this cannot stay the execution of the judgments for which she applied for the case review, because the prison has medical facilities to the incarcerated patients as provided by article 39 the Law N°34/2010 of 12/11/2010 on the establishment, functioning and organisation of Rwanda

3 Article 33 of the Law N°34/2010 of 12/11/2010 on the establishment, functioning and organisation of Rwanda correctional service provides that any incarcerated pregnant or breastfeeding woman shall be accorded special consideration. A child who is still breast feeding shall be entitled to adequate and nutritional food as required for infants, and shall be removed from the prison and given to his/her family at three (3) years of age. In case the child has no family to receive him/her, the State shall provide a place where he/she shall be cared for.

## Page 229

49

correctional service,4 hence no one should use illness as a pretext to request for not being incarcerated. [15] Concerning the ground of illness of her husband, the Court finds that illness cannot be ground of suspending the execution of the judgments mentioned because it is not related to the judgment to be executed. [16] Considering the motivations given above, the Court finds no ground of staying the execution of the judgments RPA0207/15/HC/RWG, RPA0253/15/HC/RWG, RPA0254/15/HC/RWG and RPA0266/15/HC/RWG, therefore the judgment RPA0139/16/HC/RWG rendered on 22/04/2016 by the High Court, chamber of Rwamagana is sustained. III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [17] Finds without merit the appeal lodged by Kangabe Christine. [18] Sustains the rulings of the judgment RPA0139/16/HC/RWG rendered on 22/04/2016 by the High Court, chamber of Rwamagana [19] Holds that the Court fees deposited by Kangabe Christine covers the expenses of the case.

4 Article 39 paragraph 2 of the Law N°34/2010 states that every incarcerated person has the same right to medical care as any other citizen. Every prison shall have an infirmary from where patients receive medical care and that collaborates with the health centers nearest to the prison. In case an incarcerated person cannot receive appropriate medical care from the infirmary, he/she shall be transferred to another heath centre. PROSECUTION v. KANGABE

## Page 231

CASES ON MERITS

## Page 233

CIVIL CASE

## Page 235

KAMATENESI v. KING FAYCAL HOSPITAL RWANDA Ltd [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RC00003/2018/SC (Mugenzi J.P, Karimunda and Muhumuza J). 27 June, 2018] Civil procedure – Disputes relating to execution of the judgment – When the unsuccessful party does not deny the amount of payment ordered by the Court in its decision and admits that he still existant and no one else must be ordered to pay on his behalf, this indicate that there are no disputes in the execution of the judgment. Civil procedure – Disputes relating to the execution of the judgment – When the claim qualified as disputes relating to execution of judgment is the confusion caused by the unsuccessful party or delibaretly putting the winner in uncertainty by stating that he will be paid by some one else who is not linked to the case, the Court has obligation to indicate that the conduct of the unsuccessful party is a hinderance to the payment of the winner, and orders that the case must be executed by the unsuccessful party without any other complication. Facts: After the judgment rendered by Supreme Court on the appeal of King FaycaL Hospital Rwanda Ltd, whereby that Hospital argued that the judgment rendered by the high Court sustained the damages awarded to Kamatenesi by the intermediate Court of Gasabo for the negligence of that Hospital which caused her to lose some parts of her body and the death of her fetus, the Hospital argued that if there are faults commited, the doctor who was on duty that night should be the one held 55

## Page 236

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 56

liable, or consider what happened as an accident which occurs to women like her who usually don’t have contraceptions. Kamatenesi raised an objection of lack of jurisdiction of Supreme Court because King FaycaL Hospital Rwanda Ltd lost the case in intermediate Court and in High Court on same grounds. The Supreme Court after examination of that objection sustained it, and awarded her counsel fee. After the adjudication of that case, Kamatenesi wanted it to be executed, King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd notified her that it is not the one to pay. Thus, she filed a case before Supreme Court stating that she went to execute the judgment and failed to get the payment because King FaycaL Hospital Rwanda Ltd notified her that all its property was sold to Oshen Health Care Rwanda while all its debts were guaranted by the Government of Rwanda Ltd, she added that they wrote to Oshen Health Care Rwanda requesting it to pay and replied that it can not execute the judgment in which it was not a party. She requested the court to solve the disputes relating to the execution of the judgment. Her claim was also against Oshen Health Care which raised an objection of removing it from the case because it has no link with the judgment from which the disputes arose and it requested damages. The Court after examination of that objection, it found that in the judgment under execution, King FaycaL Hospital Rwanda Ltd admitted that it is existant, also that, Oshen Health Care was not party to the case, then it ordered the removal of Oshen Health Care in the case and ordered Kamatenesi to give it damages. King FaycaL Hospital Rwanda Ltd raised an objection of lack of jurisdiction of Supreme Court, arguing that after kamatenesi filed her claim, the Law No30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts was published, which indicates that, the

## Page 237

57

claim of Kamatenesi Jovia is not in the jurisdiction of Supreme Court. The Court found that in the new Law determining the jurisdiction of courts it is provided that the existing courts continue the work they had started, which include solving disputes relating to judgments they rendered. Therefore, the Court overruled that objection. The counsel for King FaycaL Hospital Rwanda Ltd, states that the decision of the Supreme Court is clear because it orders King FaycaL Hospital Rwanda Ltd to pay and is irreversible. He added that the Hospital does not refuse to pay and wrote to Kamatenesi for notifing her that she will be paid by the Government of Rwanda through ministry of Finance because it is, its guarantor, however he found that, it was a mistake because the recipient would have been the Government of Rwanda and a copy for information given to Kamatenesi Jovia. Held: 1. when the unsuccessful party does not deny the amount of payment ordered by the Court in its decision and admits that he still existant and no one else must be ordered to pay on his behalf, this indicate that there is no disputes in the execution of the judgment. 2.When the claim qualified as disputes relating to execution of judgment is the confusion caused by the unsuccessful party or delibaretly putting the winner in uncertainty by stating that he will be paid by some one else who is not linked to the case, the Court has obligation to indicate that the conduct of the unsuccessful party is a hinderance to the payment of the winner, and orders that the case must be executed by unsuccessful party without any other complication. KAMATENESI v. KING FAYCAL HOSPITAL RWANDA Ltd

## Page 238

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 58

There are no disputes relating to the execution of the judgment RCAA00019/2017/CS. The judgment RCAA00019/2017/CS must be executed within one month.

Statutes and statutory insruments referred: Law No30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, article 105. Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 247. No cases referred to. Judgment

I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] This case originates from the judgment RCAA00019/2017/SC rendered on 16/02/2018 by the Supreme Court on the appeal of King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd. In that case, King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd argued that in the judgment RCA00056-00057/2016/HC/KIG rendered on 21/04/2017 by High Court on the appeal against the judgment rendered by the intermediate Court of Gasabo, the Hospital was charged damages due to its negligence over Kamatenesi Jovia who was their patient and lost some of her body parts and her fetus died, rather if there was fault commited, the responsible person should be Dr Rwibasira Muganda John who was on duty that night or this might be considered as an accident which occurs to women like her who don’t always have contraceptions. King

## Page 239

59

Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd stated also that it was charged damages based on contradictory testimony of Dr Rwibasira Muganda John and the Court also disregarded the fact that Kamatenesi Jovia may give birth again. [2] The Court first examined the objection raised by Kamatenesi Jovia, who argued that the appeal of King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd is not in the jurisdiction of Supreme Court because it lost the case in intermediate Court of Gasabo and in High Court on the same grounds. In interlectory judgment rendered on 16/02/2018, the Supreme Court sustained the objection of lack of jurisdiction raised by Kamatenesi Jovia and decided that the appeal of King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd is not under its jurisdiction, thus King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd was ordered to pay Dr Rwibasira Muganda John 300,000Frw of procedural fees and 500.000Frw of counsel fees. [3] Kamatenesi Jovia states that, after this decision, she wanted to execute the judgment then King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd told the Court bailiff that it was sold to Oshen Health Care on 25/04/2017, all its debts are guaranted by Gornment of Rwanda, and Oshen Health Care told him that it has nothing to do with the judgment to be executed and is only in charge of the management of King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd, she requests the Court to solve those disputes regarding the execution of the judgment so that she can obtain what she was awarded by the Court. [4] 4.The public hearing was scheduled on 19/06/2018, but it did not take place on that day because Oshen Health Care stated that, it did not get time to respond to claimant’s submissions, the hearing was postponed on 25/06/2018 so that parties to the case KAMATENESI v. KING FAYCAL HOSPITAL RWANDA Ltd

## Page 240

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 60

prepare and share submissions on both the objection raised and on the claim on merits. [5] On that day, the Court first examined the objection raised by Oshen Health Care that it has no link with the judgment under execution, it does not understand why Kamatenesi Jovia filed a claim against it, it requests the Court to remove it from the case and to order her to pay 1,000,000Frw of counsel fee because it has been dragged into unnecessary lawsuit which obliged it to hire an advocate. [6] After hearing the explanations of all parties on that objection, the Court in its deliberations found King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd was party to the case under execution and it stated that it exists, it found also that Oshen Health Care, was not party to the case under execution from which disputes arose, it decided that, there is no ground to order it to execute the judgment since it was not party to it, while the concerned party is available, it ordered to remove it from the case, and Kamatenesi Jovia was ordered to pay it 500,000Frw for counsel fee because it dragged it in a case which it has no link with. [7] King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd raised an objection of lack of jurisdiction of Supreme Court, arguing that after the filing of the claim by Kamatenesi Jovia (on 17/05/2018), the Law No 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 regulating jurisdiction of Courts was published indicating that the claim of Kamatenesi Jovia is not in the jurisdiction of Supreme Court. It argues also that, the interpretation of the Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure demonstrates that disputes relating to execution of judgment are no longer solved by courts, but if this Court finds it otherwise, it should decide that since the publication of these new laws,

## Page 241

61

Kamatenesi Jovia had to file the case in intermediate Court because it is the one that hears all cases that are outside the jurisdiction of other courts, or she should have filed the claim in High Court because it is the one which rendered the case under execution at the last instance, since the Supreme Court stopped on the objection of lack of jurisdiction. [8] After hearing the explanations provided by both parties on this objection, the Court deliberated and found the subject matter of Kamatenesi Jovia’s claim is to request the Court to solve disputes relating to the execution of judgment rendered at last instance by the Supreme Court, there even decisions taken against King FaycaL Hospital Rwanda Ltd which it refuse to execute, it found also that article 105 of the Law No 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of Courts requires that while awaiting for new Courts to begin their work, the existing Courts continue working on what they have already started, among that work they have to solve the dispute relating to execution of judgment they rendered because the judgment on these kind of disputes are aimed at clarifing the decision of the Court . The Court concluded that, there is no legal basis to transfer the claim of Kamatenesi Jovia to intermediate Court or to High Court while she still has chances to be heard by Supreme Court and she can not be deprieved those chances by the fact that the subject matter of her case in Supreme Court is now under the jurisdiction of another Court, the Court took decision on the bench that the concerned claim is within its jurisdiction and ordered the hearing to continue. [9] The case was heard in public, Kamatenesi Jovia was represented by Counsel Mwine Geoffrey while King FaycaL KAMATENESI v. KING FAYCAL HOSPITAL RWANDA Ltd

## Page 242

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 62

Hospital Rwanda Ltd was represented by Counsel Kayirangwa Claire. II.ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUE II.1. Whether there are disputes relating to execution of the case RCAA 00019/2017/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 16/02/2018. [10] Counsel Mwine Geoffrey, representing Kamatenesi Jovia, states that the Court bailiff went to recover the payment of Kamatenesi Jovia but failed because King FaycaL Hospital Rwanda Ltd told him that all its property were sold to Oshen Health Care Rwanda however its debts are guaranted by the Governement of Rwanda. He explains how they wrote to Oshen Health Care Rwanda requesting for payment and replied that it can not execute the judgment in which it was not party. He states that if King FaycaL Hospital Rwanda Ltd now admits to pay, it must be given time limit in which it must complete the payment because Kamatenesi Jovia can not recover her payments from the Government of Rwanda or from Oshen Health Care Rwanda while they are the ones who lost the case. [11] Counsel Kayirangwa Claire, representing King FaycaL Hospital Rwanda Ltd, states that the decision of the Supreme Court in judgment under execution is clear because it ordered King FaycaL Hospital Rwanda Ltd to pay and it is impossible to reverse it. She explains that the hospital does not refuse to pay and it wrote to Kamatenesi Jovia notifing her that she will be paid by the Governement of Rwanda through ministry of finance because it is its guarantor, but she finds herself that there was a mistake because the recipient might be the Governement of

## Page 243

63

Rwanda (ministry of finance) and inform Kamatenesi Jovia. She states that King FaycaL Hospital Rwanda Ltd can not send Kamatenesi Jovia to recover her payments from the Governement of Rwanda (ministry of finance) or from Oshen Health Care because they are not the ones who lost the case, she finds then that, the Hospital must write to ministry of finance and inform Kamatenesi Jovia. She states also that, the statement that the defendant must be given a time limit to pay is groundless because this would mean that the Court has decided on the execution of judgment while it is not the subject matter. VIEW OF THE COURT [12] Article 247, paragraph one, of the Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that within thirty (30) days from the day when the judgment is final […], the party that lost the case may contact the winning party in order to make an agreement on the execution of the court decision […] [13] The case file contains a document wrote on 27/03/2018, by Counsel Mwine Geoffrey to the manager of King FaycaL Hospital Rwanda Ltd informing him that the Hospital lost the case against Kamatenesi Jovia, and was ordered to pay 31,100,000Frw, and he requested it to pay amicably within seven days. On 18/04/2018, the Director of King FaycaL Hospital Rwanda Ltd replied to Counsel Mwine Geofrey that the Hospital exists only by name because it has been sold to Oshen Health Care and its guarantor Oshen Group S.A. and also beggining from 25/04/2016, all debts from its operations are guaranted by the Government of Rwanda, he requested him then to discuss with KAMATENESI v. KING FAYCAL HOSPITAL RWANDA Ltd

## Page 244

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 64

the Government of Rwanda, and make an agreement on how they will be paid. [14] The case file also contains, a letter written by Oshen Health Care to Mukeshimana Juliette, a Court bailiff, who went to execute judgment, to inform her that it is not the one to pay for the liabilities of King FaycaL Hospital Rwanda Ltd because it has no link with the cases it lost, also that King Faysal Hospital is still legally existant with an appointed Chief Executive Officer whose mandate is to ensure a proper management of any outstanding business of the hospital at the date of takeover by Oshen Health Care Rwanda and this is clearly explained in the Concession agreement signed between the Government of Rwanda herein represented by MINECOFIN and Oshen Health Care Rwanda. [15] The Court finds that King FaycaL Hospital Rwanda Ltd does not deny the amount it was ordered to pay in the courts’ decisions and it states that it is still existant and it also aknwolegdes that neither the Government of Rwanda or Oshen Health Care Rwanda should be liable for the execution of judgments it lost because King FaycaL Hospital Rwanda Ltd is the only one which was ordered to pay, this was also emphasized by the letter written by Oshen Health Care Rwanda to Kamatenesi Jovia which states that the Hospital is still existant and has a Chief Executive Officer whose mandate is to ensure the proper management of any outstanding business of the hospital at the date of takeover by Oshen Health Care Rwanda according to the agreement it made with the Government of Rwanda, all this implies that, if the unsuccessful party in a Court case admits that he/she is the one to pay what the Court decided, this indicates that there are no disputes relating to the execution of judgment.

## Page 245

65

[16] The Court finds that what was qualified as disputes relating to execution of judgment, is rather a confusion that King FaycaL Hospital Rwanda Ltd created in Kamatenesi Jovia instead of respecting the Court’s decision, the Hospital has admitted before the Court that it mishandled Kamatenesi Jovia’s issue, because instead of claiming the payment from its guarantor ( Government of Rwanda) for the debts it acknwoledges, it asked her to discuss this with the Government of Rwanda while it was aware that there is no link between them, it did all this, disregarding that the Law requires it to take initiative and indicate to Kamatenesi Jovia how to pay its debts from the case she won. [17] The Court also finds that King FaycaL Hospital Rwanda Ltd kept on delaying the execution of the Court’s decision, instead of doing what was required so that Kamatenesi Jovia gets the payment for what she won in the case, its conduct became a barrier to means of payment because it was aware that Kamatenesi Jovia could not discuss with the Governement of Rwanda to get paid while they have no link, that is why basing on the provisions of article 247 paragraph one of the Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administraive procedure King FaycaL Hospital Rwanda Ltd has to be given a deadline of one month within which it must complete the payment of what it was ordered by the Court in the case it had against Kamatenesi Jovia. I.2 Whether the damages requested have merit [18] Counsel Kayirangwa Claire representing King FaycaL Hospital Rwanda Ltd states that if the Court finds with no merit the claim of Kamatenesi Jovia as she expects, it should order her to pay 1,000,000Frw for counsel fees. KAMATENESI v. KING FAYCAL HOSPITAL RWANDA Ltd

## Page 246

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 66

[19] Counsel Mwine Geoffrey, representing Kamatenesi Jovia, states that, there was no other way to get paid rather than resort to Courts, he finds that King FaycaL Hospital Rwanda Ltd is the one which caused this case, reason why it can not be awarded counsel fee it requests, rather it should be ordered to pay Kamatenesi Jovia 1,000,000Frw which includes counsel and procedural fees. VIEW OF THE COURT [20] As motivated above, the Court finds that Kamatenesi Jovia resorted to Courts again to seek justice due to the confusion she was put in by King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd, this implies that if the Hospital had complied with the decision of the Court without creating confusion or had explained to Kamatenesi Jovia how to get payment, it will not have been necessary to resort again to courts, the reason why counsel fee requested by King Faycal Hospital Rwanda Ltd is not awarded. [21] The Court finds that procedural and counsel fee requested by Kamatenesi Jovia are worthy, however, as she can not prove that she spent 1,000,000Frw on this case, she is awarded 800,000Frw including procedural and counsel fees. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [22] Decides that there are no disputes relating to the execution of the judgment RCAA00019/2017/CS rendered on 16/02/2018 by the Supreme Court.

## Page 247

67

[23] Orders King FaycaL Hospital Rwanda Ltd to execute the judgment NoRCAA 00019/2017/CS rendered on 16/02/2018 by the Supreme Court within one month; [24] Orders King FaycaL Hospital Rwanda Ltd to give Kamatenesi Jovia 800,000Frw which includes procedural and counsel fees. [25] Orders King FaycaL Hospital Rwanda Ltd to pay court fees.

KAMATENESI v. KING FAYCAL HOSPITAL RWANDA Ltd

## Page 249

SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd(SONARWA) v. NYIRAGANZA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/INJUST/RC 00047/2017/SC (Rugege P.J, Kayitesi R. and Mutashya, J) 23 september 2018] Insurance law – Insurance contract – If a victim writes to the insurance company requesting it to appoint a doctor who has to join the medical commission which decides on his transfer for medical treatment abroad but does not get a response, this does not prevent him to travel because he has to save his/her life, it’s the reason why the insurance company has to refund all expenses used for medical treatment abroad – Presidential Order N°31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury due to accident caused by motor vehicles, article 13. Insurance Law – Insurance contract – The document which serves as receipt of money (form) prepared by the insurance company and signed by the client who was not involved in its preparation, is an evidence that he/she has been paid and the amount he received, but it can not be considered as an evidence of transaction for even other demands not settled by the insurance company. Facts: A vehicle insured by SONARWA hit another vehicle in which seven people including Nyiraganza who was left with disability of 60%, after Nyiraganza tried in vain to conclude a transaction with SONARWA, she filed a claim before the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge requesting various damages 69

## Page 250

which include damages for financial loss, damages for pain indured, aesthetic damages, carreer damages and different fees spent for medical treatment. This court decided that Sonarwa must pay to Nyiraganza damages originating from the accident she had and awarded her damages for financial loss, damages for pain endured, carreer damages and different fees spent for medical treatment in and outside the country. Nyiraganza appealed to High Court stating that damages for financial loss she was awarded were computed basing on 2,500Frw per day while she demonstrated that she is a businesswoman earning 10,000Frw per day and also, was not awarded aesthetic damages though she claimed for them. SONARWA also appealed against that judgment arguing that it demonstrated that working days in a month are 25, but the Court calculated damages basing on 30 days, and that also, the Court awarded medical treatment and transport fee spent by Nyiraganza abroad while she travelled on her own initiative without the role of SONARWA. The High Court rendered the judgment and ordered SONARWA to pay Nyiraganza damages resulting from the accident, transport fee, procedural and counsel fee, it also held that the appealed judgment is reversed with regards to expenses for medical treatment abroad which can not be refunded because she went there without medical commission’s permission. Nyiraganza wrote to Ombudsman’s office requesting to examine the injustice she suffered from the judgment rendered by the High Court regarding the decision that she can not be refunded the money she spent for medical treatment in India. After examining her request, the Ombudsman found indeed that the ruling of that RWANDA LAW REPORTS 70

## Page 251

case is vitiated by injustice and wrote to the President of Supreme Court requesting for the review of this case due to injustice. After examinination of the inspectorate general of Court’s report on that case, the president of Supreme Court decided the review of this case on the grounds of injustice. At the biggining of the hearing, Sonarwa raised an objection of inadmissibility of the claim of injustice lodged by Nyiraganza because she has no interests of following up the case while there is a transaction between her and Sonarwa. Nyiraganza states that there was no transaction between them because the money she received which Sonarwa bases on to state that there was a transaction, is from the execution of the judgment rendered by the High Court. Thus, she states that the objection lacks merit. After examination, the Court overruled that the objection. The case resumed whereby Nyiraganza states that the medical report from her doctor indicates that she has to go abroad for medical treatment because treatment she requires is not available in Rwanda, also that she did everything in her ability to put in place the medical commission which had to decide on her transfer abroad for medical treatment because she wrote to SONARWA requesting it to appoint its doctor so that together with hers they may designate the third, but SONARWA did not reply. SONARWA in its defence stated that Nyiraganza has no interests to sue, thus, there is no reason it should defend itself on the money she used for medical treatment in India, it also, states that Nyiraganza has concluded a contract with SONARWA that she won’t have any other claim against it, thus she has to bear the consequences of what they agreed, it states also that, transport fees, visa and fees for sick care taker in India are not provided by 71 SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd (SONARWA) v. NYIRAGANZA

## Page 252

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 72

the Presidential Order on compensation for personal injury due accident caused by motor vehicles. Held: 1. The document which serves as receipt of money (form) prepared by the insurance company and signed by the client after the payment who is not involved in its preparation, is an evidence that he has been paid and the amount he received, but it can not be considered as an evidence of transaction for even other demands not settled by the insurance company. 2. Invoices or being a taxpayer is not a proof of a profession of business. 3. If a victim writes to the insurance company requesting it to appoint a doctor who has to join the medical commission which decides on his transfer medical treatment abroad but does not get a response, this can not prevent him to travel because he has to save his life, reason why the insurance company has to refund all expenses used for medical treatment abroad. Thus, that company can not base on its silence and refuse to pay damages. Otherwise whenever an insurance company does not want to pay will keep silence and don’t appoint the doctor who has to join others on medical commission which has to decide on the transfer of the patient to go abroad for medical treatment. 4. The judgment rendered as final decision is the one subjected for review due to injustice. Thus, a party to the case can not raise a claim for the first time in case review due to injustice. The objection of lack of jurisdiction is overruled. The claim of injustice has merit in parts.

## Page 253

73

Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 81. Law No15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 3. Decree - Law of 30/07/1888 relating to Contracts or conventional obligations, article 258. Presidential Order N°31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury due to accident caused by motor vehicles, article 13. No cases referred to. Judgment I.BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] This case originates from a road accident wich occured on 13/01/2010 when a vehicle Mitsubishi Fuso UAL 879 H insured by Sonarwa hit a vehicle RAB 220 G whereby 7 persons were injured including Nyiraganza Ramu who was seriously injured because she got disability of 60%. [2] Nyiraganza Ramu filed a claim to the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge requesting for various damages which include pecuniary damages, damages for pain endured, aesthetic damage, medical fee she used, damages related to experience for work, all equal to 45,468,032Frw. SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd (SONARWA) v. NYIRAGANZA

## Page 254

[3] The counsel for SONARWA argued that, the damages claimed from SONARWA are excessive, concerning pecuniary damages, he finds that, there is no evidence indicating that Nyiraganza Ramu was a business woman, whose damages should be computed at Guaranteed minimum inter-professional wage then calculate those damages for 25 days, as regards to medical expenses she incurred abroad, SONARWA argues that it cannot be refunded because she travelled without a permission, finally the procedural and the counsel fee can be awarded in Court’s discretion. [4] In the judgment RC0548/13/TGI/Nyge rendered on 31/10/2013, the intermediate Court of Nyarugenge held that Sonarwa should pay to Nyiraganza Ramu damages resulting from the accident she had, then it awarded her pecuniary damages equal to 3,709,923Frw, damages for pain equal to 900,000Frw, damages related to the experience of work equal to 450,000Frw and various medical expenses amounting to 10,129,924Frw (comprising of unpaid 90,877Frw, 9,638,047Frw used for medication in India and 401,000Frw used for transport ), 100,000Frw for procedural fee and 300,000Frw of counsel fee awarded in Court’s discretion. [5] Nyiraganza Ramu represented by Counsel Ruzindana appealed to High Court, stating that pecuniary damages she was awarded, were based on 2,500Frw per day while she proved that she was running a business of trading shoes which generated 10,000Frw per day, she was not awarded easthetic damages while she claimed for them and also that, she was awarded insufficient procedural and counsel fee. [6] Sonarwa nayo yajuririye urwo rubanza ivuga ko Urukiko rutitaye ku myiregurire yayo, yagaragazaga ko iminsi y’akazi mu RWANDA LAW REPORTS 74

## Page 255

kwezi ari 25, nyamara urukiko rukabarira ku minsi 30 hadakuwemo iminsi y’ikiruhuko, aribyo byatumye Nyiraganza Ramu abona indishyi zikabije kuba nyinshi. Yajuriye nanone ivuga ko urukiko rwatanze amafaranga yo kwivuza hanze n’ay’ingendo kandi uwaregaga yarijyanyeyo Sonarwa itabigizemo uruhare. [7] The High Court rendered the judgment RCA649/13/HC/KIG-RCA651/13/HC/KIG on 20/6/2014, and held that the appeal of Nyiraganza Ramu and that of SONARWA have merit in part, it ordered SONARWA to pay Nyiraganza Ramu damages resulting from the accident, transport, procedural and counsel fee equal to 6,851,800Frw comprising of easthetic damages (which were not awarded by the previous Court), it held that the judgment RC0548/13/TGI/NYGE is reversed only with regards to damages she should not have been awarded of 9,638,047Frw used for medication abroad because she travelled on her intiative without the permission of the committee which has this duty. [8] Nyiraganza Ramu wrote to Ombudsman on 03/10/2014, requesting to examine the injustice she suffered which is contained in the judgment RCA649/13/HC/KIG- 651/13/HC/KIG, regarding the decision that she should not be refunded the money she used as medical expenses abroad in India. After the review of her request, the Ombudsman found that, the adjudication of the case is vitiated with injustice of the decision that SONARWA shall not refunding Nyiraganza the medical expenses she used abroad, the Ombudsman wrote to the President of Supreme Court, requesting for the review of the impugned case on the ground he indicated. After examination of report of the inspectorate general of Courts regarding that case, 75 SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd (SONARWA) v. NYIRAGANZA

## Page 256

the President of Supreme Court decided to review that case on the grounds of injustice. [9] The case was heard on 27/07/2018, whereby Nyiraganza Ramu was represented by Counsel Ruzindana lgnace, while SONARWA was represented by Counsel Munderere Léopold. At the beggining of the hearing, the representative of SONARWA raised an objection of inadmissibility of the claim of injustice filed by Nyiraganza Ramu because she has no interests to persue the lawsuit while there is a transaction between her and SONARWA. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES Whether there was a transaction between Sonarwa and Nyiraganza Ramu, so that her claim should not be reviewed due to injustice. [10] Counsel Munderere Lepold representing SONARWA states that, Nyiraganza Ramu has no interest to persue this lawsuit, because there was a transaction between her and SONARWA as provided by article 591 of civil code book three, whereby Nyiraganza Ramu was paid 274,958Frw for medical treatment and on 24/09/2014 was paid 6,851,800Frw, thus, as long as she accepted that payment, there should be no other claim as she signed for it. [11] Counsel Ruzindana Ignace representing Nyiraganza Ramu states that there was no transaction, because before filing a claim to Court, Nyiraganza Ramu approached SONARWA claiming for damages provided by the presidential order but SONARWA refused. With regards to the money received by Nyiraganza on which SONARWA bases on to evoke the RWANDA LAW REPORTS 76

## Page 257

transaction, originates from the execution of the judgment RCA0649/13/HC/KIG, and after she received the money Nyiraganza Ramu signed a form drafted in french language by SONARWA, proving that she received that money. VIEW OF THE COURT [12] Article 81 of the Organic Law 03/2012/OL 0f 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court which was into force at time of filing the claim provides that a final decision shall be reviewed due to injustice […] When there are provisions and irrefutable evidence that the judge ignored in rendering the judgment […]. [13] The case file indicates that there is a document titled quittance partielle de reglement d’indemnites, dommage corporels N°2/2012 Nyiraganza Ramu where she received 274,958Frw and another one titled quittance definitive de reglement d’lndemnites dommages corporels No793/2014 which indicates that Nyiraganza Ramu was paid 6,851,800Frw. [14] The court finds that all that amount paid to Nyiraganza Ramu by SONARWA is related to damages she was awarded by the High Court in the judgment RCA0649, 0651/13/HC/KIG rendered on 20/06/2014, this implies that SONARWA did not give her that money in terms of transaction, instead it was paid for the execution of the Court’s decision. [15] The Court therefore finds, that, though Nyiraganza Ramu received damages she won in a case which became binding, nothing prevents her to file a claim for review of injustice if she 77 SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd (SONARWA) v. NYIRAGANZA

## Page 258

found that she was prejudiced by the refusal of the Court to award other damages. [16] With regards to the statement of SONARWA that Nyiraganza Ramu discharged it from any further claim when she signed for that document while receiving that money, the Court finds it groundless, because the document signed by Nyiraganza Ramu is a standard form drafted by SONARWA without the involvement of the client, more often the clients sign it without reading its content. For the clients to fill and sign it after the receipt of their payment, the Court finds that, it is an evidence that they have been paid and the amount they received, but it can not be considered as an evidence of transaction for other demands not settled by Sonarwa. In this case, Nyiraganza Ramu was not awarded all damages she requested to Court. [17] The Court finds then that the form she signed is a proof of money she received but it does not waive her rights to pursue for other damages she felt entitled to, thus, it can not be based on to reject her Whether the damages requested by Nyiraganza Ramu should be awarded. a. Regarding medical expenses incurred by Nyiraganza Ramu in India. [18] Counsel Ruzindana lgnace representing Nyiraganza Ramu states that the medical report from her Doctor dated 18/11/2011 indicates that Nyiraganza Ramu has to go abroad for medical treatment because treatment she requires is not available in Rwanda and Nyiraganza Ramu did everything in her ability to put in place the medical commission which had to decide on her transfer abroad for medical treatment, because she wrote to RWANDA LAW REPORTS 78

## Page 259

SONARWA on 29/02/2012 requesting it to appoint its doctor so that together with hers they may designate the third, but SONARWA did not reply, as Nyiraganza Ramu had no other option, her husband Serugira Thomas took a loan of 1,416,000Frw in Kist Savings and Credit Cooperative Society where he was working and in Bank of Kigali which gave him a loan of 5,000,000Frw. [19] Counsel Ruzindana lgnace states that the intermediate Court found that ground with merit, but the High Court stated that if SONARWA did not reply, it was not enough for her to decide to travel abroad for medical treatment, he found that it is injustice because SONARWA can not base on its own triputude to defend itself. [20] Counsel Munderere Leopold continues stating that as long as Nyiraganza has no interest to sue, there is no reason that SONARWA should defend itself on that money she spent for medical treatment in India, he states that, as she agreed to compromise with SONARWA amicably that she won’t claim anything further from it, thus, she has to accept legal consequences related to the transaction she did, he further states that, transport fee, the visa and the expenses for the sick care taker spent in India are not provided by the pesidential order N°31/01 of 25/8/2003 on compensation for personal injury due to accident caused by motor vehicles. VIEW OF THE COURT [21] The case file indicates that, there is a medical report dated 18/11/2011 reccomending that Nyiraganza Ramu has to go to 79 SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd (SONARWA) v. NYIRAGANZA

## Page 260

India for medical treatment because the treatment she requires is not available in Rwanda. [22] Regarding medical treatment abroad, article 13 of Presidential Order N°31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury due to accident caused by motor vehicles, provides that: […] In case of medical treatment outside Rwanda, transfer shall be decided beforehand by medical commission made up with the victim’s doctor, the insurer’s doctor and a third one requested by both. [23] The case file indicates that on 27/02/2012 Nyiraganza Ramu wrote to SONARWA requesting it to appoint its doctor to meet with hers and decide on the third one whom together they decide on her transfer for medical treatment abroad, but that letter was never answered. [24] The case file also indicates that on 09/03/2012 Serugira Thomas (the husband of Nyiraganza Ramu) concluded a loan contract with Bank of Kigali Ltd of 5,000,000Frw for medical treatment of his wife, there is another loan equal to 1,416,000Frw that Serugira Thomas requested on 30/04/2012 from Kist Savings and Credit Cooperative Society, also for the same purpose. In addition, there are invoices that Nyiraganza Ramu produced to Court proving the total amount she spent while abroad for medical treatment. [25] The Court finds that, as long as medical treatment is concerned, SONARWA has the obligation to pay for expenses that Nyiraganza Ramu incurred from the treatment abroad based on the provisions of article 13 paragraph 2 of the Presidential Order on compensation for personal injury due accident caused by motor vehicles. RWANDA LAW REPORTS 80

## Page 261

[26] Nyiraganza Ramu’s letter, the Court finds that this would not prevent her to travel for medical treatment when she felt that her health is deteriorating, because she had to save her life, though the Presidential Order did not povide for the situation where, either the insurance company does not reply or the time limit for response. It is clear that Sonarwa is at fault for not replying the letter it received and accept or reject the request of Nyiraganza Ramu, reason why it can not base on its silence and refuse to pay the money spent for medical treatment, while it is its duty. Otherwise, whenever the insurance company does not want to pay for medical treatment abroad, it will just keep silent and refuse to appoint the doctor to join the medical commission which decides on the transfer of the patient abroad. [27] The Court finds that SONARWA must also pay for the money that Nyiraganza Ramu spent for sick care taker who accompanied her because she could not travel alone while she was seriously sick. Thus, she must be refunded whole amount of money she spent during her medical treatment in India, amounting to 10,129,924Frw as indicated in paragraph 4 of the judgment RC0548/13/TGl/Nyge rendered on 31/10/2013 by the intermediate Court of Nyarugenge. b. Regarding damages for financial loss. [28] Counsel Ruzindana lgnace states that there are evidence proving that Nyiraganza Ramu had an accident on her way back from trading and she has been paying tax, thus, her financial loss damages could not be computed basing on guaranteed minimum inter-professional wage of 2,500Frw which is based on to compute damages for informal jobs, but they should have been computed basing on 10,000Frw per day, and would have been 81 SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd (SONARWA) v. NYIRAGANZA

## Page 262

awarded 14,839,694Frw instead of 3,709,000Frw, therefore he requests to award that money to his client. [29] Counsel Munderere Leopold states that the two pieces of paper produced by Nyiraganza Ramu as evidence of paying tax, can not be based on to decide that she is a businesswoman. VIEW OF THE COURT [30] The case file indicates that in proving that Nyiraganza Ramu was a businesswoman, she produced two pieces of paper titled ‟invoice of contributionˮ for two months, where on each one was written 4,000Frw. [31] The Court finds that these pieces of paper can not be considered as evidence of paid tax while they indicate that it is a contribution, eventhough they were meant for tax, it is not the evidence for a person to be qualified as conducting business, Nyiraganza Ramu who appealed has to loose due to lack of evidence to prove that her profession of trading, basing on article 3 of the Law No15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production which provides that each party has the burden of proving the facts it alleges other wise its oponent wins. c. Regarding the money spent by Nyiraganza Ramu after medical treatment in India. [32] Counsel Ruzindana lgnace states that till now Nyiraganza Ramu is sick, that there is 363,000Frw which she paid to Kibogora Hospital, he requests to refund that money. RWANDA LAW REPORTS 82

## Page 263

[33] Counsel Munderere Leopold representing SONARWA states that, regarding the money that Nyiraganza Ramu spent after returning from India has no link with injustice. VIEW OF THE COURT [34] The Court finds that article 13 of the Presidential Order N°31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury due accident caused by motor vehicles, provides that the injured person from the motor vehicle accident is refunded the money used for medical treatment, however Nyiraganza Ramu can not claim for it in this case while she did not claim for it in cases RC0548/13/TGI/NYGE and RCA649/13/HC/KIG-RCA 651/13/HC/KIG, because article 81 of the Law No03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court which was in use when Nyiraganza Ramu filed a Court case, provides that the judgment rendered as final decision is the one subjected for review due to injustice. 3. Regarding other damages requested by parties. [35] Counsel Ruzindana lgnace argues that SONARWA be ordered to pay 7,000,000Frw for refusing to pay which lead to lawsuits and the Court should order it to refund the interests of 17,25% because this situation lead Nyiraganza Ramu and her husband Serugira Thomas to request for a loan in bank of Kigali and in Kist Savings and Credit Cooperative Society for her to get medical treatment, and that loan was producing an interest of 17,25%, because they were psychologically disturbed by looking for all means to get treatment, as the insurer disregarded his 83 SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd (SONARWA) v. NYIRAGANZA

## Page 264

obligations and the Law, therefore those interests must be bone by SONARWA. [36] He states that SONARWA refused to pay amicably to his client the money she used for medical treatment abroad and disregarded the Law because it did not put in place the medical commission which had to decide on her transfer abroad for medical treatment, thus, it should pay 1,000,000Frw for procedural fee and 2,000,000Frw of counsel fee. [37] Counsel Munderere Leopold states that the damages requested by Nyiraganza Ramu should not be awared because, she breached the contract and brought back Sonarwa in Courts, instead she should be the one to pay damages, therefore basing on article 106 of the Law No21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, he requests that Nyiraganza should pay to SONARWA damages for vexatious lawsuits (action temeraire et vexatoire), and 1,000,000Frw for counsel fee. VIEW OF THE COURT [38] With regards to damages claimed from SONARWA due to its refusal to pay what it knew that Nyiraganza was entitled to, also that it willingly refused to do the necessary for her to go abroad for medical treatment as it was recommended by doctors, the Court finds that SONARWA disregarded its obligations by refusing to refund Nyiraganza Ramu the expenses she incurred for medical treatment in India, it disregarded the fact that the doctor indicated that her illness requires the means which are not available in Rwandan Hospitals, this lead her to resort to Courts, to te extent that she applied for case review due to injustice, thus, RWANDA LAW REPORTS 84

## Page 265

SONARWA has to pay damages for this, based on article 258 civil code book three which provides that ‟any act of a man which causes damage to another obliges the person by whose fault it happened to repair itˮ. The Court finds however that the requested damages of 7,000,000Frw are excessive, it awards in its discretion 3,000,000Frw, but regarding the interests of 17,25% on the loan given by Bank of kigali, Counsel Ruzindana Ignace failed to produce evidence of the interests charged by the bank or indicates how he computed them. [39] Regarding 1,000,000Frw of procedural fee and 2,000,000Frw of counsel fee, the Court finds that, Nyiraganza Ramu deserves them because she wins the case, it awards in its discretion 300,000Frw of procedural fee and 1,000,000Frw of counsel fee, all amounting to 1,300,000Frw. [40] Regarding damages for vexatious lawsuits and counsel fee requested by SONARWA, the Court finds that none of them can be awarded because it loses the case. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [41] Decides to admit and examine the claim of injustice of Nyiraganza Ramu and finds it with merit in part; [42] Decides to reject the claim relating to fees spent by Nyiraganza Ramu after her medical treatment in India; [43] Decides that damages for financial loss claimed by Nyiraganza Ramu can not be awarded; 85 SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd (SONARWA) v. NYIRAGANZA

## Page 266

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 86

[44] Orders SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd to refund Nyiraganza Ramu the money she spent for medical treatment in India equivalent to ten million one hundred and twenty-nine thousand and nine hundred twenty-four (10,129,924Frw); [45] Orders SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd to pay Nyiraganza Ramu damages equal to 3,000,000Frw and 1.300.000Frw for procedural and counsel fees, all amounting to four million and three hundred thousand (4,300,000Frw).

## Page 267

COMMERCIAL CASES

## Page 269

MUREKATETE v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA) [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCOMAA0038/2016/CS – RCOMAA0043/16/CS (Mutashya, P.J., Nyirinkwaya and Karimunda, J.) January,12, 2018] Company law – Piercing the corporate veil – Shareholders and directors of a company shall not be liable for the company’s deeds, except when there is a court decision which ruled on their liability – Law N°25/2005 on tax procedure, article 46 bis – Law N°27/2017 of 31/05/2017 governing companies, article 23 and 95. Company law – Piercing the corporate veil – Caveat – A caveat cannot be put on the personal properties of shareholders and directors of company before a compentent court hold them liable for the faults committed by the company. Fact: After Rwanda Revenue Authority put a caveat on the house of Murekatete on the ground that there are taxes which DISCOME Ltd owes, for which she is a director and shareholder, Murekatete filed a claim to the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge requesting for the removal of the caveat because the property of the shareholder is separate from that of the company, she also requested for various damages. RRA also filed a counterclaim requesting that Murekatete be compeled to pay the tax imposed on that company. That court ordered for removal of that caveat on the ground that RRA did not have the right to put a caveat on her house as long as there was no decision by the Court ordering her to pay the tax 89

## Page 270

imposed on that company; regarding the counterclaim, it held that it is inadmissible because it is a separate claim. Rwanda Revenue Authority appealed to the Commercial High Court stating that it put a caveat on Murekatete’s immovable property due to the fact that when DISCOME Ltd was audited, Murekatete sold its properties; which led it to not pay the tax, and also its counterclaim should have been admitted because it is was submitted in its defense and it is also related to the principal claim. The Commercial High Court motivated that a caveat on the immovable property is the temporary measure, which can be put in place before filing a claim to the competent court to decide on the liability of shareholders and directors of a company, especially that article 46 bis of the Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedure does not provide that filing a claim to the court precceds any act carried out on their personal assets. Therefore, the appealed judgment is overturned. It also finds that the counterclaim should have been admitted because it is related to the principal claim filed by Murekatete, but it can not be examined for the first time at appeal level. Murekatete appealed against that judgment to the Supreme Court arguing that the Commercial High Court disregarded that a commercial company with legal personality is liable on its own, that its directors or shareholders are not held liable for its deeds because they are distinct from the company and the provisions of article 46 bis of the above mentioned Law are only applicable after the decision of the court. In its defense, Rwanda Revenue Authority it states that even though normally the company’s property is separate from that of its shareholders, that does not exonerate them from liability when RWANDA LAW REPORTS 90

## Page 271

it is established that they had a role which led the company to default on its obligation of paying tax, basing on article 46 bis of the Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedure, and that article does not provide that the court should first decide on the liability of directors and shareholders of company before putting a caveat on their private properties, and also if it waits for the ruling, it will find the properties from which the tax would be got embezelled or concealed, it also requests that the counterclaim it lodged beginning from the first instance be admitted and examined. Both parties conclude requesting for procedural and counsel fees. Held: 1. Shareholders and directors of a company shall not be liable for the company’s deeds, except when there is a court decision which ruled on their liability. 2. A caveat cannot be put on the personal properties of shareholders and directors of company before a compentent court hold them liable for the faults committed by the company; therefore, the caveat put on the immovable property of Murekatete should be removed because it is unlawful. 3. The claim for the liability of directors and shareholders of commercial company is a separate claim which should not be considered as a counterclaim of the principal suit filed by the plaintiff because they are not related. Thus, the counterclaim submitted by RRA is inadmissible. Appeal has merit; Cross appeal lacks merit; Court fees to RRA. 91 MUREKATETE v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)

## Page 272

Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law N°25/2005 on tax procedure, article 46 bis. Law N°27/2017 of 31/05/2017 governing companies, article 23 and 95. Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 106, 107 and 283. Cases referred to: RRA v. Munyampundu et.al, RCOMAA00040/2016/SC rendered on 22/12/2017 by the Supreme Court. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] On 11/02/2015, Rwanda Revenue Authority applied for a caveat on the house of Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde located on plot N°UPI 1/02/13/02/631, in the letter, it wrote to the Director General of Rwanda Natural Resources Authority and copied to Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde, stating that the caveat is due to the tax she owes it. [2] On 12/05/2015, Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde filed a claim to the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge requesting for the removal for the caveat on her house because the assets of the shareholder are separate from those of the company and requested for various damages. [3] In its defense, Rwanda Revenue Authority argues that the caveat put on the immovable property of Murekatete Clémentine RWANDA LAW REPORTS 92

## Page 273

Vervelde is in accordance with article 46 bis of the Law N°25/2005 on tax procedures which provides that directors and shareholders who are directly involved in the control and management of company shall be jointly liable for any tax liability if they led to the company’s inability to meet its tax obligations, due to the fact that as the director and a sole shareholder of DISCOME Ltd is responsible for the company failure to pay tax. [4] Rwanda Revenue Authority filed a counterclaim requesting that Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde be ordered compelled to pay the tax which DISCOME Ltd was charged amounting to 25,490,933Frw, procedural and counsel fees. [5] On 23/11/2015, the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge rendered the judgment RCOM0783/15/TC/NYGE and ordered the caveat on Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde’s house to be removed because eventhough article 46 bis of the Law N°25/2005 on tax procedures provides for the liabilities of directors and shareholders of the company when all in that article conditions are fulfiled , but it also provides that such liability shall be determined by a competent court, this implies that RRA did not have the right to put a caveat on Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde’s house as long as the court has not yet ordered her to pay the tax imposed on DISCOME Ltd. [6] Regarding the damages which Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde requested, the Court ruled that she should not be awarded damages originating from the closure for her house because she does not prove it. Concerning procedure and counsel fees, the court awarded her 500,000Frw. 93 MUREKATETE v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)

## Page 274

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 94

[7] Concerning the counterclaim filed by RRA requesting the Court to compel Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde to pay the tax imposed on DISCOME Ltd, the Court held that the claim is inadmissible because it is a separate claim which is provided by article 46 bis of the Law N°25/2005 on tax procedure, thus it should not be considered as a counterclaim provided by article 107 of the Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure filed by the plaintiff. [8] RRA appealed against that judgment to the Commercial High Court stating that it urgently put a caveat on the house of Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde basing on article 46 bis of the mentioned Law on tax procedure and on article 283, paragraph 1 of the Law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure also cited above, this is due to the fact that when DISCOME Ltd was audited, Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde sold its properties which led it to default on tax and also tha its counterclaim should have been admitted basing on article 107 of the law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative because it is a counterclaim and it is related to the one which was filed by the plaintiff. [9] In the Judgment RCOMA0672/15/HCC rendered on 13/05/2016, that court reversed the judgment rendered by Commercial Court of Nyarugenge set aside the damages which RRA was ordered to pay at the first instance, and ordered Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde to pay RRA 300,000Frw for procedure and counsel fees. [10] In its decision, the Court motivated that caveat is a temporary measure, thus it could be put in place before filing a claim to the competent court so that it rules on the liability of

## Page 275

95

shareholders or directors of the company, especially that article 46 bis of the law on procedure tax does not provide that filing a claim to the court precedes any act on their personal assets. [11] It further motivated that waiting for the liability of directors and shareholders of the company to be established by the courts before seizing or carrying any provisional act to prevent them from misappropriating their properties can rather be a loophole to disguise them purposely not to pay company’s debts when they liability in not paying those debts have been established. [12] Concerning the counterclaim filed by RRA beginning from the first instance, the Court declared that the grounds based on by the previous Court to reject the claim have no merit because it was purposely for defense and it is related to the one submitted by Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde, however it should not be examined on appeal because it would be examining any issue for the first time at appeal level. [13] Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that the High Court disregarded the company Law and tax Law, RRA raised the objection of lack of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court basing on value of the subject matter, after that objection being debated upon and deliberated on, in the interlocutory judgment of 30/06/2017, the Court decided that it has the jurisdiction over it, RRA filed a cross appeal requesting to compel Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde to pay the tax imposed on DISCOME Ltd as it requested since the hearing at the first instance in counterclaim it filed. MUREKATETE v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)

## Page 276

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 96

[14] The case on merit was heard on 05/12/2017, Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde represented by counsel Zawadi Stephen whereas RRA was represented by counsel Byiringiro Bajeni. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUES Whether the caveat put on the property of Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde located on plot number UPI 1/02/13/02/631 has to be removed [15] The counsel for Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde argues that article 137 of the Law N°07/2010 of 27/04/2009 relating to companies provides that a shareholder shall not be liable for an obligation of the company by reason only of being a shareholder. [16] He further argues that a commercial company with legal personality is liable on its own, that its directors or shareholders are not held liable because they are distinct from the company, that the latter can sue and be sued, pay tax, hire employees and do any other thing which people does. [17] He futher states that the provisions of article 46 bis of the Law N°25/2005 on tax procedure are applied after the decision of the compentent court, concerning Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde, there is no such decision rendered by the court before RRA put a caveat on her immovable property, which means that it was contrary to the tax laws. [18] The counsel for RRA states that even though normally the company’s property is separate from that of its shareholders, that does not exonerate them from liability when it is established that they had a role which led the company to default on its obligation of paying tax, basing on article 46 bis of the Law N°25/2005 of

## Page 277

97

04/12/2005 on tax procedure, and that article does not provide that the court should first decide on the liability of directors and shareholders of company before putting a caveat on their private properties, and also if it waits for the ruling, it will find the properties from which the tax would be got embezelled or concealed. [19] He continues stating that RRA put a caveat on Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde’s house because after seeing the draft of the company’s tax she immediately sold 2 vehicles of the company, which made RRA to also instantly put a caveat on heir immovable property so that she does not conceal it with the purpose of not paying the tax. [20] He further states that RRA put a caveat on Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde’s house on the basis of article 283, litera 1 of the Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, which allows a creditor to submit a request to put a caveat on immovable property belonging to the debtor. VIEW OF THE COURT [21] Article 46 bis of the Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedure provides that directors who are directly involved in the control and management of a private company shall be jointly liable for any tax liabilities incurred by the company if it can be reasonably concluded that they intentionally or negligently caused the company to incur the tax liabilities. Shareholders who become involved in the management of the company and/or misuse company’s funds shall also be liable for any tax liability if they led to the company’s inability to meet its tax obligations. MUREKATETE v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)

## Page 278

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 98

A competent court shall determine the liability of the directors and shareholder(s) under this article. [22] The provisions of this article are exception to the principle which provides that a company has legal personality which is distinct from that of its shareholders, as it is provided under article 23 of the Law N°27/2017 of 31/05/2017 governing companies, this is the reason why, as it is mentioned also under article 95 of that law, a shareholder in limited company shall not be held liable for the obligations of a company only because of being a shareholder, his/her liability is limited to any amount unpaid on a share held by the shareholder(1), any liability expressly provided for in the company's incorporation documents(2), any distribution received by the shareholder to the extent that the distribution is recoverable(3). [23] Regarding caveat on immovable property, article 283 of the Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, provides that “any creditor or interested party may submit a request to the Registrar of land titles or to the Sector or the District Executive Secretary in the area the property is located in order to prevent any transfer of the immovable property belonging to the debtor”. [24] The court finds that article 46 bis of the Law on the tax procedure mentioned, which RRA relied on putting caveat on immovable property of Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde, only gives it the right to file a claim to the compentent court seeking to establish the liability of directors and shareholders stated in that article, however, it does not grant the right of putting a caveat on the immovable property of directors or shareholders of the company.

## Page 279

99

[25] Regarding article 283, litera 1 of the Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure which is also based on by RRA in putting a caveat on the house of Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde, the court finds that it provides for a provisional measure of preventing the transfer of immovable property of the debtor, but it cannot be applied to prevent the the transfer of Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde’house because RRA did not prove the debt of tax which she ows it, therefore she should not be held liable of the tax imposed to DISCOME Ltd as long as no compentent court has yet decided that she should be liable of that tax. [26] The court finds that what have been stated above that Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde’s house should not be prevented from being sold because of the tax which was imposed on DISCOME Ltd, is consistent with various case laws of this court including that of RRA vs. Munyampundu Antoine and Mukarugambwa Béatrice, whereby in paragraph 26, it motivated that the liability of directors and shareholders of company is an exception which is decided only by the court.1 [27] Basing on the laws and motivations provided above, the Court finds that the caveat which was put on Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde’s immovable property located on plot N° UPI 1/02/13/02/631 should be removed because it is unlawful.

1 Judgment RCOMAA00040/2016/SC rendered on 22/12/2017 by the Supreme Court MUREKATETE v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)

## Page 280

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 100

Whether Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde should be compelled to pay the tax imposed on DISCOME Ltd [28] Counsel for RRA states that the Commercial High Court motivated that the counterclaim filed beginning from the first instance requesting that Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde be held liable for the taxes of DISCOME Ltd basing on article 46 bis of the Law N°25/2005 on tax procedure on the ground that she led the company to default on the tax it was charged should have been admitted because it is related to the principal claim which seeks to remove the caveat filed by Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde, but surprisingly in paragraph 36 of the judgment, the Commercial High Court declared that it cannot examine that counterclaim for the first time on appeal. [29] He further argues that the motivations of the judge are contrary to the above mentioned article 171 of the Law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure which provides that “when the appeal court overrules the appealed judgment, the court shall hear the case in substance unless the overruling was done because there were irregularities in lodging the appeal or for lack of jurisdiction”, that is the reason why he requests this court to examine the counterclaim of RRA which it filed beginning from the first instance, so that this Court holds that Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde is liable for the tax imposed on DISCOME Ltd. [30] He goes further to state that the reason why RRA finds Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde should be held liable for the taxes imposed on DISCOME Ltd is that when DISCOME Ltd was audited, she sold its assets, which is considered as the reason for not paying the tax it was imposed, typical example is the sale

## Page 281

101

agreement of two vehicles concluded between DISCOME Ltd (seller) and DITRAC Solution Ltd ( buyer) on 30/04/2013. [31] He states that the other reason which proves that Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde was involved in invasion of the tax imposed on DISCOME Ltd is that she sold its properties after getting a letter which was rectifying that of 05/03/2013, and instead of responding to it within thirty days as provided by article 27 of the law on tax procedure, she immediately sold the properties of DISCOME Ltd with the purpose of evading the tax which the company was charged, because if she was willing to fulfill her obligation of paying tax, she would have done it because considering the tax she was required to pay as indicated in the letter concluding the audit which she received on 26/06/2013 worth 19,895,205Frw, and if compared to 38,000,000Frw she received for selling the two vehicles belonging to DISCOME Ltd, this money should have been used to pay the tax which DISCOME Ltd owes RRA. [32] Counsel for Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde states that it was well motivated by the High Court that the claim submitted by RRA should not be examined for the first time on the appeal level, thus, he finds that also this Court could not examine it for the first time on the second appeal. VIEW OF THE COURT [33] In its cross appeal, RRA prays to the Court to admit and examine the counterclaim filed beginning from Commercial Court so that Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde is held liable for the tax imposed on DISCOME Ltd basing on article 46 bis of the law N° 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedure because of her MUREKATETE v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)

## Page 282

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 102

alleged role in the failure of the company to pay the taxes it was charged. [34] Article 106 of the Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that a counterclaim is any claim filed by the defendant, seeking judgment against the plaintiff, whereas article 107 of that law in litera 2, provides that the counterclaim shall be admissible only if they constitute a defence to the main suit or those that are related to it (1), they are intended to claim for damages for abuse of process in the case(2), or they seek compensation between the parties(3). [35] The court finds that the claim filed by RRA requesting that the defendant be compel to pay the tax imposed on DISCOME Ltd, it is not counterclaim to the principal suit filed by Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde requesting to remove the caveat because it was unlawful, and it was demonstrated by the Commercial Court that it is not related to the principal suit, because it is a separate claim based on different ground of liabilities of directors and shareholders of a commercial company relating to the tax imposed on that company, as it is explained under article 46 bis of the law on tax procedure, therefore, it should not be admitted. [36] The court also finds that there is no other ground which is in line with the above mentioned article 107, litera 2 of the Law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure for the counterclaim filed by RRA can be admitted, therefore, its cross appeal has no merit.

## Page 283

103

Concerning the procedural and counsel fees requested by the parties [37] The counsel for Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde states that because RRA dragged his client into unnecessary lawsuits should pay her 5,000,000Frw in damages because her house title were taken and consequently could not get tenants ; that it should also pay counsel fees worth 1,000,000Frw on this instance and 1,100,000Frw for the two previous instance. [38] The counsel for RRA states that the damages which Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde requests for are groundless because the title deeds of the house were not seized, the caveat on the house can not prevent it from being rented and that she should not be awarded counsel fees she requests for since she was the one who dragged RRA into lawsuit. [39] He concludes requesting that RRA be awarded 2,000,000Frw for the counsel and procedure fees. VIEW OF THE COURT: [40] The Court finds that Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde should not be awarded the damages resulting from the loss suffered because she does not prove it, but she should be awarded procedure and counsel fees on three instances she pleaded, because RRA dragged her in unnecessary lawsuits, this made her to incur the expenses in preparation of the case and to hire a lawyer to defend her, therefore, in its discretion, basing on the nature of the case, the time spent, the three instances, she is awarded 2,600,000Frw.

MUREKATETE v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)

## Page 284

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 104

III. DECISION OF THE COURT [41] Finds with merit the appeal of Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde; [42] Finds without merit the cross appeal of Rwanda Revenue Authority; [43] Overturns the Judgment RCOMA0672/15/HCC rendered on 13/05/2016 by the Commercial High Court ; [44] Decides that the caveat put on immovable property located on plot N° UPI 1/02/13/02/631 of Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde be removed ; [45] Decides that the claim filed by RRA requesting that Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde be ordered to pay the tax imposed on DISCOME Ltd should not be admitted ; [46] Orders RRA to pay 2,600,000Frw of the counsel and procedure fees to Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde for the three instances in which she pleaded ; [47] It also orders RRA to pay the court fees of 100,000Frw.

## Page 285

RUBERANDINDA v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA) [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCOMAA00030/2017/CS (Kayitesi R, P.J., Gakwaya and Mukandamage, J.) 25 May 2018] Tax law – Taxation – Communication between the Tax administrator and the Taxpayer through the registered letter – When the tax administration or the taxpayer uses the post office to communicate, the sender is deemed to have discharged his obligations when the letter is received by the post office and puts a stamp on it, irrespective of when the recipient will receive it. Therefore, the decision of the Commissioner General on the appeal of Ruberandinda was delivered within 60 days as required by the law – Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures, article 4. Tax law – Taxation – The post office to which a registered letter is delivered is any post office which the Tax Administration or the taxpayer uses to send it as long as that letter has the recipient name and the number of the post office box, which the taxpayer recorded in Rwanda Revenue Authority – Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures, article4. Facts: After Ruberandinda was assessed without notice, Rwanda Revenue Authority charged him Value added tax and income tax worth 81.587.393Frw for the fiscal year of 2009 and 2010, subsequently on 29/9/2015 he appealed to the Commissioner General requesting the tax to be reduced to 11.415.245Frw, the Commisioner General received his appeal on 01/10/2015 and 105

## Page 286

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 106

replied him on 27/11/2015, informing him that his appeal has merit in parts and therefore he should pay 62.639.977Frw. Ruberandinda was not contented with that decision and filed a claim to the Commercial Court of Huye arguing that he did not receive the response of the Commissioner General on his appeal within the provided timelimit because the letter got into his post office box at Muhanga after the expiry of the 60 days which is provided by the law. The Court found his claim with merit and held that he should pay the tax of 11,415,245Frw for the year 2009 and 2010 plus the penalties for those two years, RRA was also ordered to pay him damages for dragging him into lawsuits and that for counsel fees. The Tax Administration appealed to the Commercial High Court claiming that the previous court erred in holding that the appeal of Ruberandinda to the Commmissioner General had merit, the Court found the appeal of RRA with merit basing on the letter which Ruberandinda wrote to the Commmissioner General and also on the registered letter replied to him which was delivered to the post office of Kigali and reached to Muhanga where the plaintiff resides, it found that the tax payer received the response of the Commmissioner General within 60 days provided by the law. Ruberandinda appealed to the Supreme Court stating that the grounds of his appeal are all summed up in one which purposely intends to establish where the decision of the Commmissioner General should be delivered in order to reach the taxpayer, because RRA took the letter to the Post office of Kigali while he resides at Muhanga and that is the address he gave to RRA, thus RRA had to deliver its letter to the Post of Muhanga.

## Page 287

107

He further argues that the date which should have been based on in counting 60 days in which RRA had to have delivered the response to him is the one which is indicated by the stamp of the Post Office of Muhanga which is on the letter containing the notification, he further states that his appeal was received on 01/10/2015 and the last day for the notification to be delivered to the Post Office of Muhanga was 30/11/2015, while the letter of the Commmissioner General bears a stamp which indicates that it was received by the Post Office of Muhanga on 02/12/2015 after the expiry of the 60 days, therefore he requests for damages and the compensation for the profit he should have got within 82 days he spent following up the case. Rwanda Revenue Authority argues that the period of 60 days was respected because the Commissioner General got the appeal of Ruberandinda on 01/10/2015 and it delivered its response to the Post Office on 27/11/2015. And alleging that the post office address of the post which the taxpayer gave to RRA is that of Muhanga, is groundless because it is the duty of the post office to put letters in the post office box but not that of Rwanda Revenue Authority. It concludes that it is normal the letter to bear the stamp of the post office of Muhanga, because that indicates that the taxpayer received his letter, but there is also a proof that it was submitted to the Post office of Kigali and it received that letter. Held: 1. When the tax administration or the taxpayer uses the post office to communicate, the sender is deemed to have discharged his obligations when the letter is received by the post office and puts a stamp on it, irrespective of when the recipient will receive it. Therefore, the decision of the Commissioner RUBERANDINDA v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)

## Page 288

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 108

General on the appeal of Ruberandinda was delivered within 60 days as required by the law. 2. The post office to which a registered letter is delivered is any post office which the Tax Administration or the taxpayer uses to send it as long as that letter has the recipient name and the number of the post office box, which the taxpayer recorded in Rwanda Revenue Authority. 3. The date indicated on the stamp of the post office which received the registered letter is the one based on to determine whether that letter was sent bythe Tax Administration within 60 days. 4. The motivations contained in the Judgment RCOMAA 00070/2016/CS – RCOMAA 0076/16/CS, between RRA and Murebwayire Agnès rendered on 03/11/2017 by the Supreme Court, that article 6, 2° of the Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on the tax procedure, is interpreted to mean that the post office mentioned in that article is the one located at the place where the taxpayer resides but not the one located at Kigali or any other post office in the country, is misconstrued, because that article provides that the post office to which the letter should be delivered is the main post office at Kigali for Rwanda Revenue Authority or a taxpayer who resides in Kigali, and for the taxpayer residing in provinces, the post office that receives the letter designated for Rwanda Revenue Authority is the one where he resides, whose address he gave to Rwanda Revenue Authority, which then sends the letter to Rwanda Revenue Authority. Appeal lacks merit. The rulings of the Commercial High Court sustained. The court fees deposited by the plaintiff is equivalent to the expenses incurred in this case.

## Page 289

109

Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures article 4, 5, 6 al 2 and 32. No cases referred to. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] Rwanda Revenue Authority assessed Ruberandinda Viateur without notice and charged him value added tax of 81,587,393Frw for the fiscal year of 2009 and 2010. [2] On 29/09/2015, Ruberandinda Viateur appealed to the Commissioner General stating that he does not acknowledge the taxes he was charged, he requests that he should only pay the tax of 11,415,245Frw which he acknowledges, the Commissioner General received that letter on 01/10/2015 and he replied it on 27/11/2015, informing him that his appeal has merit in parts and that the tax amount to 18,947,416Frw should be waved and he pays 62,639,977Frw. [3] Ruberandinda Viateur was not contented with that decision and sued to the Commercial Court of Huye claiming that he received the letter of the Commissioner General responding to his appeal after the expiry of the 60 days which are provided by the Law, because that letter got into his post office box in Muhanga on 02/12/2015, he prays that he pays only the amount of tax he acknowledges. [4] In the Judgment RCOM0472/15/TC/HYE rendered on 13/05/2016, the Court found his claim with merit on the ground RUBERANDINDA v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)

## Page 290

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 110

that he was notified of the Commissioner General’s response after the expiry of the legally provided period, and ruled that he pays 11,415,245Frw for both income tax and Value Added Tax for fiscal year of 2009 and 2010, plus the penalties for those two years. It ordered RRA to give him 500,000Frw in damages for both dragging him into lawsuits and for counsel fees. [5] RRA appealed to the Commercial High Court arguing that the Judge erred in holding that the appeal of Ruberandinda Viateur to the Commissioner General had merit on the ground that the Commissioner General responded on his appeal after the expiry of the 60 days period provided by the Law1, on 10/03/2017, the Commercial High Court rendered a judgment RCOMA 00320/2016/CHC/HCC, and held that Ruberandinda Viateur got the response from the Commissioner General on his appeal within the timelimit provided by the law, therefore his appeal lacks merit. [6] In its decision, the Court based on the letter which the plaintiff wrote to the Commissioner General on 29/09/2015, received by the RRA on 01/10/2015 and the Commissioner replied his appeal through a registered letter which was deposited to the Post Office of Kigali on 27/11/2015, and reached in the post office box N°169 at Muhanga, the domicile of the plaintiff on 02/12/2015, and thus concluded that the period of 60 days provided by article 32 of the above mentioned Law and the

1 It relied on article 32 of the law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures as amended and completed to date which provides “The Commissioner General makes a decision on the appeal within a period of thirty (30) days and sends it to the taxpayer. The Commissioner General may extend this period once for another thirty (30) days and informs the taxpayer. When no decision is taken within this period, the appeal is assumed to have a basis.”.

## Page 291

111

provisions of article 5 paragraph 22 of the same law were both respected. [7] On 08/04/2017, Ruberandinda Viateur appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that the Commercial High Court erred in holding that the decision of the Commisioner General on his appeal was issued within the period provided by the law , because it reached his post office at Muhanga after the expiry of the 60 days provided by the law, this caused him to be charged 62,639,977Frw of tax, which he should not have paid, he requests for counsel fees and the compensation profit he was supposed to get within 82 days he spent following up on the lawsuits. [8] The case was heard in public on 03/04/2018, Ruberandinda Viateur represented by Counsel Nsengiyumva Abel while Rwanda Revenue Authority represented by Counsel Twahirwa Jean -Baptiste. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUES. 1. Whether the decision of RRA on the appeal of Ruberandinda Viateur contained in the registered letter was issued on time. [9] Counsel Nsengiyumva Abel representing Ruberandinda Viateur, states that the grounds of appeal they submitted are all summed up in one which seeks to establish where the decision of the Commmissioner General have to be passed or sent in order to

2 When a taxpayer and the tax administration send each other a letter by post, they shall be deemed to have discharged their respective obligations as of the date of receipt of such a letter by the post office

RUBERANDINDA v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)

## Page 292

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 112

reach the taxpayer, because the Commercial High Court held that the letter is considered to have reached the taxpayer when it is deposited at the Post Office. He further explains that the letter of the Commissioner General of Rwanda Revenue Authority was deposited at the Post Office of Kigali while Ruberandinda Viateur lives in Muhanga, and the address of his residence is B.P 169 Muhanga, it is also the same adress which he gave to Rwanda Revenue Authority, he also noted that the letter of the Comissioner General bears the same address as it can be found in the case file, therefore RRA had to take the letter of his client to the Post Office of Muhanga, he bases his arguement on article 4 of the Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures which provides that the considered address is that of residence , and that the last paragraph of article 5 of the same Law states the post office located where a person resides but not the Post Office as an institution because its not provided for by the law. [10] The counsel for Ruberandinda Viateur claims that the date which should have been based on in counting the 60 days in which RRA had to have given him the notification is the one which is indicated on the stamp of the post Office of Muhanga on the letter which contained the notification, he also states that the appeal of Ruberandinda Viateur was received on 01/10/2015, thus the last day for the notification to reach the Post Office of Muhanga was 30/11/2015, while the letter which the Commmissioner General wrote to Ruberandinda Viateur bears a stamp which indicates that it reached in the Post Office of Muhanga on 02/12/2015 after the expiry of the 60 days. [11] Counsel Nsengiyumva Abel states that the appeal of Ruberandinda Viateur is based on the judgment RCOMAA00070/2016/CS – RCOMAA0076/16/CS between

## Page 293

113

RRA and Murebwayire Agnès rendered by the Supreme Court because it has similar facts with the case at hand, the court found that Murebwayire Agnès wrote to the Commissioner General on 01/09/2015 appealing against the tax, the Commisioner General notified her of his decision on her appeal on 05/11/2015, 67 days after, which is contrary to the provisions of article 32 of the law mentioned above, basing on article 6, paragraph 2 and article 4 of the same law, that Court decided that the decision of the Commisioner was communicated to the taxpayer after the legally provided period had expired, therefore it found her appeal with merit and ordered that tax to be waived, therefore he prays that the Court should reffer to that jurisprudence when making its ruling. [12] Counsel Twahirwa Jean Baptiste representing Rwanda Revenue Authority argues that for the letter meant for the taxpayer to be sent through the post office located where he resides is one of the various means used, because sometimes the taxpayer can pick it himself from RRA offices, in that case it cannot tell him to go and get the decision on his appeal from Muhanga. [13] He state that for him he does not separate the headquater of the Post Office from its branches because the branches do not have the legal personality, because when a letter is submitted to the headquater or the main Post Office that means that it has received it, he finds that the letter which contains the decision was sent to the right place, thus, he requests the court to apply the provisions of article 4 and 5 of the above mentioned law. [14] Regarding the period of 60 days which the plaintiff allege that were not respected by Rwanda Revenue Authority, he finds that it respected that period because it received the appeal of RUBERANDINDA v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)

## Page 294

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 114

Ruberandinda Viateur on 01/10/2015 and it took the letter containing the decision to the Post Office on 27/11/2015. He further states that the allegations of Ruberandinda Viateur that the address he gave RRA is that of the post office of Muhanga, has no ground because whether it took it to Kigali or Muhanga, the duty of putting letters in the post office box belongs to the Post Office not Rwanda Revenue Authority. He finds that it’s normal that the letter bears the stamp of the post office of Muhanga, because it indicates that the taxpayer received his letter, he adds that there is also an evidence indicating that it was submitted to the Post office of Kigali and it received it. THE VIEW OF THE COURT. [15] Regarding whether Rwanda Revenue Authority replied the appeal of Ruberandinda Viateur within 60 days as required by the law, it has to be determined by establishing whether various provisions relating to communication between the Taxpayer and tax collector were repected. [16] Regarding where the letter has to be delivered, article 43 of the Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures as amended to date, which was in force when RRA sent that letter, is construed to mean that in sending the information to a taxpayer or any other person, the Tax Administration sends it to the address given to it by the taxpayer or any other person, to the extent that in case of change of that address RRA must be notified. Regarding the methods of sending of documents

3 Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures as amended to date provides that the Tax Administration sends letters, information or any other communication to the taxpayer or any otherperson at his or her official seat or known residence

## Page 295

115

between RRA and the taxpayer, article 54 of that Law indicates four various methods which the Tax administration can use to send the information, which includes a registered letter, the one used when the Commissioner General was replying to the appeal of Ruberandinda Viateur in this case. [17] Regarding the Post Office where the regestered letter has to be delivered, article 6 paragraph two of the Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 mentioned above provides that when a taxpayer and the tax administration send each other a letter by post, they shall be deemed to have discharged their respective obligations as of the date of receipt of such a letter by the post office. [18] The Court finds that this article is construed to mean that when the Tax administration or the taxpayer use the post office to communicate, the sender is deemed to have discharged his obligations when it is received by the post office and puts a stamp on it, irrespective of when the recipient will receive it, it is obvious that the post office mentioned in this article is any post office which the tax administration or the tax payer uses, as long as he has indicated on it the post office address of the recipient, that is to say the names, number of the post office box where he lives as provided by article 4 of the law interpreted above. [19] Regarding this case, in order to establish that RRA sent a registered letter responding to the appeal of Ruberandinda Viateur before the expiry of the 60 days period, the Court finds

4 Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures as amended to date, provides that any information between the Minister, the Tax Administration, the Commissioner General or the Appeals, Commission and the taxpayer or any other person is delivered through any of the following means: 1° a registered letter… RUBERANDINDA v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)

## Page 296

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 116

that it should be determined by the date indicated on the stamp of the main Post office of Kigali, which RRA gave the registered letter to send it to the address which Ruberandinda Viateur gave to RRA, that is to say his names and the post office address of the place where he lives, as provided by article 4 of the Law mentioned above. [20] The documents in the case file demostrate that the document dated 02/09/2015 of Rwanda Revenue Authority5 concluding the assessment on the income tax which Ruberandinda Viateur had to pay before he appealed to the Commissioner General, indicates that he lives in Muhanga because it had the following indentification: “Ruberandinda Viateur, TIN: 100845349, B.P. 169 Muhanga, Tél: 0788324023”. [21] The documents in the case file also demostrate that the registered letter N°517/15/CG/LLBS/RPA dated 27/11/2015 which the Commissioner General of Rwanda Revenue Authority wrote to Ruberandinda Viateur in response to his appeal, indicates that he sent it to the address which he gave to RRA : “Ruberandinda Viateur, C/O AFICCO Ltd, TIN : 100845349, B.P. 169 Muhanga. Tél : 0788324023”. [22] Furthermore, it demostrates that the letter containing the appeal of Ruberandinda Viateur was received by the Commissioner General of Rwanda Revenue Authority on 01/10/2015 (page 14 of the case file of the Commercial Court of Huye) and on 27/11/2015, he also replied him using a registered

5 Written by its employees, Ndatabaye Maurice (Investigation Officer), Mwirere Delphine Acting Group Leader, Niyigaba Faustin, Acting Pricipal Investigation Officer, and Mugabe Robert, Deputy Commisiionner for Revenue Investigation and Enforcement Department.

## Page 297

117

letter through the Post Office of Kigali (annex 5 of the evidences submitted by RRA), which was delivered to Ruberandinda Viateur on the post office box of N°169 at Muhanga on 02/12/2015. [23] Therefore the Court finds, on 01/10/2015 the administration of RRA received the appeal of Ruberandinda Viateur and in responding to that appeal, it delivered a registered letter to the Main Post Office at Kigali on 27/11/2015, within 57 days, before the expiry of the 60 days, using the address which Ruberandinda Viateur himself gave to RRA, as provided by the first paragraph of article 6, of the Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 mentioned above which provides that “when the tax law sets a time in which certain act, confirmation or communication has to be made or given, the time is calculated from one day after the date shown by one of the following: 1° the post office stamp on the letter mentioned under point 1° of paragraph one of article 5 of this law; 2° the day of receipt of the letter or communication mentioned under point 2° of paragraph one of article 5 of this law”. [24] Regarding the Judgment RCOMAA00070/2016/CS – RCOMAA0076/16/CS, between RRA and Murebwayire Agnès rendered on 03/11/2017 by the Supreme Court, which Ruberandinda Viateur seeks to be referred to by the Court in reaching its decision on his appeal, the Court finds that it should not be referred to because it states that article 6, 2° of the Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 mentioned above, is interpreted to mean that the post office mentioned in that article is the one located at the place where the taxpayer resides but not the one located at Kigali or any other post office in the country, which is misconstrued, because as explained above that article provides RUBERANDINDA v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)

## Page 298

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 118

that the post office to which the letter should be delivered is the main post office at Kigali for Rwanda Revenu Authority or a taxpayer who resides in Kigali, and for the taxpayer residing in provinces, the post office that receives the letter designated for RRA is the one where he resides, whose address he gave to RRA, which then sends the letter to RRA. [25] Basing on the legal provisions and motivations given above, the Court finds that the response of the Commissioner General of Rwanda Revenue Authority on the appeal of Ruberandinda Viateur was issued within the 60 days period as required by article 32 of the Law stated above, therefore his appeal lacks merit, as it was also found by the Commercial High Court, therefore the judgment it rendered is sustained. 2. Whether the damages requested by RRA in the cross appeal has merit [26] Counsel Twahirwa Jean-Baptiste states that Rwanda Revenue Authority, which he is representing requests for 5,000,000Frw of the counsel fees on each instance because it was dragged into lawsuits which required to hire the service of the counsel, and also 500,000Frw for procedural fees. [27] Counsel Nsengiyumva Abel argues that in case the judgment comes out in favour of Rwanda Revenue Authority the Court in its discretion awards it reasonable amount for counsel and procedural fees, because what it is requesting for is excessive. VIEW OF THE COURT [28] The Court finds that Ruberandinda Viateur must give Rwanda Revenue Authority 500,000Frw for counsel fees on this

## Page 299

119

instance and 500,000Frw for the procedural fees awarded in its discretion because he has lost the case and RRA was represented by an advocate and also followed up the case in the Supreme Court. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [29] Holds that the appeal of Ruberandinda Viateur lacks merit; [30] Holds that the rulings of the judgment RCOMA00320/2016/CHC/HCC rendered on 10/03/2017 by the Commercial High Court is sustained; [31] Orders Ruberandinda Viateur to pay to Rwanda Revenue Authority 500,000Frw for counsel fees and 500,000Frw for procedural fees in addition to that awarded by the Commercial High Court; [32] Orders that the court fees of 100,000Frw paid by Ruberandinda Viateur is equivalent to the costs in this case.

RUBERANDINDA v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)

## Page 301

CRIMINAL CASES

## Page 303

PROSECUTION v. NDIKUBWAYO [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RPAA0057/15/CS (Mukanyundo, P.J., Munyangeri and Hitiyaremye, J.) May 11, 2018] Evidence law – Evidence – Confession – Confession of the accused is not a conclusive element of evidence, rather, it has to be corroborated with other relevant elements of evidence of the case. Facts: This case started at the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge whereby Ndikubwayo was prosecuted for having defiled a girl of eight (8) years, in the family he was working for as house boy for two months. The child’s father states that he caught Ndikubwayo red-handed defiling his child, on asking him, Ndikubwayo replied that he was about to defile the child but she refused, that rather he committed it yesterday. The accused pleaded not guilty, stating that he is innocent because the statements of confession were due to the flogging by the child’s father together with inkeragutabara, thus he confessed to save his life, he adds that the reason behind the case was his salary that he was claiming. That Court found him guilty basing on his confession before village authorities and judicial police and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The accused appealed to the High Court and he maintains to plead not guilty, that Court rendered the judgment deciding that his appeal lacks merit. He appealed again before the Supreme Court demonstrating that his confession which was relied on by the previous courts was 123

## Page 304

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 124

due to the flogging of the child’s father together with inkeragutabara and that the child’s father falsely accused him with the intention of not paying his two months’ wage. He further stated that the court based only on the the statement of U.A. whereas she is still minor and that the medical report does not indicate that the child was defiled, he also added that the High Court based on the rulings of the Intermediate Court instead of ordering the Prosecution to produce other elements of evidence which clear any doubt. The Prosecution stated that the documents contained in the case file as well as the rulings of the judgment rendered by the High Court there is no statement of the child, therefore the child’s statement was not considered, rather, the court based on the fact that the child’s father found her being defiled and that the accused confessed it to the father of the child, before village authorities and in the judicial police. With regard to the medical report, the Prosecution argues that in the commission of the offence, the accused concealed the evidence because during his interrogation, he confessed having defiled the child but avoided injuring her. Held: 1. The confession of the accused is not a conclusive element of evidence, rather, it has to be corroborated with other relevant elements of evidence of the case. Therefore, the appellant is not guilty despite his confession before village authorities and in the judicial police because nothing proves to the Court beyond any reasonable doubt that the offence was committed. Appeal has merit; The ruling of the appealed judgment is overruled; Court fees to the public treasury.

## Page 305

125

Statute and statutory instruments referred to: Law Nº30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure, article 165. Law N°15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 4,65 and 119. No case laws referred to. Authors cited: Jean Larguier, La procédure pénale, 5ème éditionmise à jour: 4ème trimestre 1981, p.45. Henri-D-Bosly & Damien Vandermeersch, Droit de la Procédure Pénale, 2ème édition, 2001, p.929 Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] This case started at the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge, whereby Ndikubwayo Emmanuel was prosecuted for having defiled a girl child of eight (8) years old named U.A, a child of the family he worked for as house boy for two months. Gasirikare Gaspard, father of the child states that he caught in red-handed Ndikubwayo Emmanuel defiling his child, that he asked him but the later replied that he was about to commit it but the child refused, that rather he committed it yesterday. [2] Ndikubwayo Emmanuel pleaded not guilty, the allegations that he confessed, it was made as a result of flogging by the child’s father together with inkeragutabara, consequently PROSECUTION v. NDIKUBWAYO

## Page 306

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 126

he confessed to save his life, he adds that the reason behind that was his salary he claimed. On 20/06/2014, the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge rendered the judgment RP0241/14/TGI/NYGE and found Ndikubwayo Emmanuel guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment. [3] Ndikubwayo Emmanuel appealed to the High Court, mantained pleading not guilty, on 03/03/2015, the Court rendered the judgment RPA0454/14/HC/KIG holding that his appeal lacks merit. [4] Ndikubwayo Emmanuel appealed to the Supreme Court, together with his counsel Mugabo Fidèle state that the court convicted him for having defiled a child basing on the statements of that child who is under 18 years old while it contradicts the laws, that the court disregarded the exculpatory elements of evidence which include medical report that proves that the child was not defiled. [5] The hearing was held in public on 09/04/2018, Ndikubwayo Emmanuel was assisted by Counsel Mugabo Fidèle whilst the Prosecution was represented by Ntawangundi Béatrice, the National Prosecutor. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUE Whether there is incriminating evidence against Ndikubwayo Emmanuel for the offence he is accused of. [6] Ndikubwayo Emmanuel states that his first ground of appeal concerns the fact that the previous Courts convicted him basing on his confession regardless of the fact that in his defense

## Page 307

127

he explained that he confessed in village due to the flogging by the child’s father together with inkeragutabara, that is the reason he pleaded not guilty before the Court , he adds that what the courts considered as the statements of the child to her father she was rather induced by her father in order to concoct a crime against him with the intention of not paying his two months wage which they failed to agree on the amount. [7] Counsel Mugabo Fidèle states, the fact that the court relied on the testimony of U.A. who is underage child, below of 18 years, age of majority contradicts the provisions of article 63 of the evidence law which provides that Children of 14 years and below as well as adults persons with incapacity are allowed to testify in court but their testimony must be corroborated by other evidence, hence, the Court should not have solely relied on the testimony of Gasirikare, the father of the child because his statements base on what his child told him that Ndikubwayo Emmanuel defiled her. [8] Ndikubwayo Emmanuel and his counsel state that courts convicted him for having defiled U.A. disregarding the medical report issued by physician Jules Mukeshimana after having examined that child on 08/04/2014, however this report contradicts itself as the physician indicated that the child was not defiled, butthe child was treated with infection medicines whilst those medicines are recommended in case the defilement is suspiciously to have been committed in order to prevent. [9] Counsel Mugabo Fidèle states, the fact that the testimony made was the statement of the child and the medical report does not reveal an act of the offence against the child, the High Court should have asked the Prosecution to produce other irrefutable elements of evidence because there is no incriminating evidence PROSECUTION v. NDIKUBWAYO

## Page 308

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 128

against Ndikubwayo Emmanuel, hence, they prays to the Supreme Court to base on article 87 and article 165 of the Law Nº30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure and acquit Ndikubwayo Emmanuel because of doubt. [10] Ndikubwayo Emmanuel and his counsel Mugabo state that the High Court relied on the findings of the Intermediate Court and emphasized them instead of ordering the Prosecution to produce other elements of evidence beyond any doubt basing on article 85 of the law relating to the code of criminal procedure because the affidavit of the child’s father demonstrates that Ndikubwayo Emmanuel heard him coming, he covered himself with a bed cover and then when the child’s father touched his private organ, he found it in state of erection. They asserted, the fact that the medical report discharges him and the fact that he was not examined, there is no any irrevocable incriminating evidence against him, thus, the court should disregard the evidence of the Prosecution, instead, the court should base on article 87 of the law relating to the code of criminal procedure and finds that there is no irrefutable incriminating evidence produced by the Prosecution against Ndikubwayo Emmanuel and consequently acquits him. [11] The Prosecution argues that Ndikubwayo Emmanuel’s grounds of appeal are groundless, that there is no statement of the child either in the case file or in the rulings of the judgment rendered by the High Court, that the statement of the child was not relied on, rather, the court based on the fact that Gasirikare caught Ndikubwayo Emmanuel red-handed defiling his child, this collaborates with what the child told him and the confession of Ndikubwayo Emmanuel.

## Page 309

129

[12] With regard to the medical report, the Prosecution argues that the report does not indicate that the child had the infection caused by the defilement , that even in his conclusion he found U.A. with no any sexually transmitted diseases, the Prosecution further explained that the medical report demonstrates that Ndikubwayo Emmanuel did not penetrate his genital organs into that of the child, this corroborates with his confession that he defiled her using her external genital organs, this is also why it was found that her hymen was still intact. [13] With regard to Ndikubwayo Emmanuel’s statement that the medical report should not be considered because it contradicts itself, it stated that considering how the offence was committed, it was not possible that the physician could notice that the child was defiled as Ndikubwayo Emmanuel admitted in his interrogation that he defiled her by using her external genital organs and injaculated outside in order to avoid injuring the child, this proves that he committed the offence in concealing evidence, he willingly revealed this because he was asked if his confession is extracted under duress but he replied that was not under forced constraint. [14] The Prosecution states that the phyisician treated the child with medicines in order to prevent harmful consequences. [15] It prays for not taking into account the statement of Ndikubwayo Emmanuel and his counsel that there are no incriminating evidence produced by the Prosecution, because considering the way the offence was committed, how Gasirikare Gaspard caught Ndikubwayo Emmanuel red-handed in defiling his child and the fact that Ndikubwayo Emmanuel confessed immediately before him, to the village authorities as well as in judicial police. In addition, he does not prove that he had conflict PROSECUTION v. NDIKUBWAYO

## Page 310

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 130

with his employer before he was detained so that it can serve as discharging evidence especially that in his interrogation he stated that he does not know the reason they falsely accused him. [16] The prosecution argues that the elements of evidence based on in court’s ruling which include Ndikubwayo Emmanuel’s confession, the statement of Gasirikare Gaspard who caught him sleeping with the child, the medical report proving that the child was defiled without penetration, it finds that this report does not discharge him because it indicated the child’s health conditions, this corroborates with the Prosecution’s arguments in proving its case and it also concurs with the provisions of article 190 of the Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code.1 It also states that a medical test of Ndikubwayo Emmanuel could not help in the administration of the justice because the report demonstrated nothing to him as well as to U.A. [17] It concluded stating that after reading the affidavit of the child’s father whereby he indicated that the offence did not cause harmful consequences to his child and he requested to release him, it finds that nothing should prevent him from being imprisoned however basing on article 40 of the penal code which states that fixed-term imprisonment is not less than one (1) day and not more than twenty-five (25)years, it prays that in case the court finds it otherwise, it can reduce the penalty and sentence him to 25years of imprisonment, because the offence did not cause harmful consequences to the child.

1This article provides that child defilement means any sexual intercourse or any sexual act with a child regardless of the form or means used.

## Page 311

131

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [18] Article 4 of the Law N°15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production provides that a court decides a case before it in accordance with the rules of evidence applicable to the nature of the case. Article 65 of the Law N°15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production provides that only the court can assesses the relevance, pertinence and admissibility or rejection of testimonial evidence […] while article 119 of the Law N°15/2004 of 12/06/2004 mentioned provides that the courts rule on the validity of the prosecution or defence evidence. [19] The documents of the case file demonstrate that Ndikubwayo Emmanuel was accused of defilement of the child U.A. of eight (8) years old, the Prosecution’s evidence include Ndikubwayo Emmanuel’s confession that he defiled the child using her external parts to avoid injuring her, and that U.A. told her father that Ndikubwayo Emmanuel poured on her warm fluid and that Gasirikare Gaspard (parent) in his interrogation he stated that he caught him sleeping with his child and when he touched his genital organ, he found that he had penile erection, and Ndikubwayo instantly apologized stating that he had not yet done it , except yesterday. Before this Court, the Prosecution states that the medical report indicates that the child was not injured, it links this with how Ndikubwayo Emmanuel explained the commission of the offence during his confession in interrogation. [20] The medical report of 08/04/2014 indicates that U.A.the alleged victim was examined by Dr. Jules Mukeshimana, he found no signs of defilement on her genital organs, be it internal and external parts and thatthe hymen was still intact. PROSECUTION v. NDIKUBWAYO

## Page 312

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 132

[21] The Court finds that the Intermediate Court convicted Ndikubwayo Emmanuel basing on his confession before the village authorities who made a report, he also confessed it before the judicial police, that he pleaded not guilty before the court stating that he was flogged by by inkeragutabara but he failed to prove it, that because of that contradiction, in his conviction, the judge is entitled to analyse the statement of the accused. The High Court in sustaining the rulings of the previous court held that Ndikubwayo Emmanuel apart from his confession, he also explained the commission of the offence, and that when his statements are considered together with those of the child that he defiled her twice, pouring to her some warm fluids, then it ruled that his confession proves the truth despite pleading not guilty before the court, especially that he failed to prove that his confession was extracted under duress. [22] In his pleadings before this Court, Ndikubwayo Emmanuel still pleads not guilty, stating that the Prosecution did not produce concrete incriminating evidence because even his confession based on by previous courts, was extracted by being flogged by Inkeragutabara. [23] The Court also finds that in his pleadings, Ndikubwayo Emmanuel argues that the child’s father falsely accused him with intention of not paying his two months wage. [24] Analysis of the elements of evidence relied on by previous courts to convict Ndikubwayo Emmanuel, it indicates that even though he confessed and explained the commission of the offence before the judicial police, but the fact that he pleaded not guilty before court and the medical report does not demonstrate any sign of sexual violence to the child’s genital organs and Gasirikare the child’s father in his interrogation,

## Page 313

133

stated that his child was not injured, moreover, he said that the justice organs can release Ndikubwayo Emmanuel but he unfortunately said that due to a lot of expenses he incurred to this case, he will not pay the money he owes him, the Court finds that the sympathy of Gasirikare Gaspard for Ndikubwayo Emmanuel are baffling, rather, the fact that he stated that he has not yet paid him supports the pleadings of Ndikubwayo Emmanuel that Gasirikare falsely accused him with intention of not paying him. [25] Even if the confession is one of the elements of evidence which can be based on by the court to convict the accused, especially that for long time it had been considered as the darling evidence among others by some jurists, the Law scholar Jean Larguier in his book titled la procédure pénale 23states that its trust has gradually been lost because it has been noticed that people confessed while not guilty with the intention of concealing an offender in his/her family, to be famous,to save his/her life in case of torture, penitentiary comfort compared to your living conditions, etc.for that, the fact that the accused has admitted the offence, it is not conclusive evidence to hold that the truth has been found because as motivated in given circumstances, the confession is one of the elements of evidence which have value when corroborated with other elements of evidence.

2 Jean Larguier, La procédure pénale, 5ème edition mise à jour: 4ème trimestre 1981, p.45: “L’aveu longtemps considéré comme “reine des preuves ”- et sollicité le cas échéant par la torture-, l’aveu suscite aujourd’hui plus de défiance. Mille et mille, disait Montaigne, se sont chargés de fausses confessions: on peut avouer par vanité---, heureux de voir ainsi sa photographie dans le journal---, par crainte à l’égard du vrai coupable, par amour de l’être cher qui a commis l’infraction, voire par amour du confort pénitentiaire”.

PROSECUTION v. NDIKUBWAYO

## Page 314

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 134

[26] Even if Ndikubwayo Emmanuel confessed the offence before local authorities and in the judicial police, but this time he denies having defiled that child, the Courts finds that there is confusion in the commission of that offence because the statement of the child’s father on what he pretends to have seen and on what he was told by his child, nothing proves to the Court beyond reasonable doubt that the offence was committed so that the court may rely on it to hold that Ndikubwayo Emmanuel defiled U.A, in addition, the medical report does not indicate any wounds on the child’s genital organ caused by Ndikubwayo Emmanuel’s genital organ to prove that he used to defile her. This is also what was demonstrated by law scholars whereby they state that the judge cannot convict a person, without concrete evidence which were also subject to defense during the hearing, those elements of evidence have to be assessed by the discretion of the judge.4 [27] The fact that the Prosecution failed to produce irrefutable elements of evidence in relation to the commission of the offence beyond any reasonable doubt that Ndikubwayo Emmanuel defiled U.A. and basing on the statements of Gasirikare Gaspard which do not demonstrate that U.A. was actually defiled, especially that the medical report indicates no signs of sexual violence, the Court finds that there is s doubt whether Ndikubwayo Emmanuel committed the offence for which he was convicted by the previous courts, hence he has to be acquitted pursuant to article 165 of the Law Nº30/2013 of 24/5/2013

4Henri-D-Bosly & Damien Vandermeersch, Droit de la Procédure Pénale, 2ème édition, 2001, p.929 : « Le juge ne peut déclarer un prévenu coupable que s’il a acquis l’intime conviction de sa culpabilité au-delà de tout doute raisonnable sur la base d’éléments de preuve qui lui ont été régulièrement produits et soumis à la contradiction et qu’il apprécie souverainement ».

## Page 315

135

relating to the code of criminal procedure which provides that the benefit of doubt shall be given in favour of the accused. If the proceedings conducted as completely as possible do not enable judges to find reliable evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence, the judges shall order his/her acquittal. III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [28] Finds Ndikubwayo Emmanuel’s appeal with merit. [29] Holds that Ndikubwayo Emmanuel is not guilty of the offence for which he is prosecuted because of doubt, hence he has to be released. [30] Decides that the judgment RPA0454/14/HC/KIG rendered on 03/03/2015 by the High Court is reversed. [31] Orders that the court fees be charged to the public treasury. PROSECUTION v. NDIKUBWAYO

## Page 316

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

## Page 318

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