KANOBANA v DUKUZE

KANOBANA v DUKUZE

The Court of Appeal found that Kanobana Eddy and Dukuze Betty cohabited as husband and wife in a stable and continuous manner from 1995 to 2020, and that the disputed properties were acquired during this period. Under Article 39 of Law N˚59/2008, both parties are entitled to equal rights in property acquired during...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RCAA 0029/2022/CA
Parties
Appellant: Kanobana Eddy; Respondent: Dukuze Betty
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
18 May 2023
Case Number
RCAA 0029/2022/CA
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed; High Court decision reversed
Legal Topics
Cohabitation, Division of Property, Gender Based Violence, Burden of Proof, Compensation for Legal Costs
Family Law Property Law Cohabitation Division of Property Gender Based Violence Burden of Proof Compensation for Legal Costs

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

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

Parties

Kanobana Eddy

Appellant

Dukuze Betty

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

  1. 1 Whether Kanobana Eddy and Dukuze Betty cohabited as husband and wife for purposes of property division under Rwandan law
  2. 2 Whether the disputed properties should be registered solely in Dukuze Betty's name or jointly
  3. 3 Whether either party is entitled to damages or legal costs

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found that Kanobana Eddy and Dukuze Betty cohabited as husband and wife in a stable and continuous manner from 1995 to 2020, and that the disputed properties were acquired during this period. Under Article 39 of Law N˚59/2008, both parties are entitled to equal rights in property acquired during cohabitation, regardless of formal marriage or proof of individual contributions. The properties must remain jointly registered, and Dukuze Betty must compensate Kanobana Eddy for legal costs incurred at the appellate level.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; High Court decision reversed

Orders

  • Properties with UPI: 1/03/04/03/1789 and UPI: 1/03/04/03/1790 to remain jointly registered in the names of Dukuze Betty and Kanobana Eddy.
  • Dukuze Betty to pay Kanobana Eddy 800,000 Frw for legal costs and attorney fees at the appellate level, in addition to amounts previously awarded at the trial court.