KAPERE v. IYAMUREMYE

KAPERE v. IYAMUREMYE

The Supreme Court held that it has jurisdiction to review a judgment already revised on new grounds for injustice under Organic Law Nº03/2012/OL. The cadastral map from Rubavu District is conclusive evidence that the disputed plot Nº2129 belongs to Iyamuremye, not Kapere. Kapere failed to prove his claim to the land or any injustice in the prior proceedings. Therefore, his application for revision is dismissed, and he is ordered to pay attorney fees and costs to Iyamuremye.

Citation
RLR V.2-2017
Parties
Applicant: Kapere George; Respondent: Iyamuremye Mbanza Jeannot
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
5 February 2016
Case Number
RS/REV/INJUST/CIV0005/14/CS
Procedural Posture
Civil Revision (review) / Supreme Court Final Judgment
Outcome
Application for revision dismissed; prior judgment upheld.
Legal Topics
Revision for Injustice, Land Ownership Dispute, Evidentiary Value of Cadastral Maps, Costs and Attorney Fees
Source Language
en, rw
Civil Procedure Land Law Revision for Injustice Land Ownership Dispute Evidentiary Value of Cadastral Maps Costs and Attorney Fees

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kapere George

Applicant

Iyamuremye Mbanza Jeannot

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Revision (review) / Supreme Court Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review a judgment already revised on new grounds for injustice
  2. 2 Whether the cadastral map is conclusive evidence of land ownership
  3. 3 Whether Kapere has legal interest in the case

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that it has jurisdiction to review a judgment already revised on new grounds for injustice under Organic Law Nº03/2012/OL. The cadastral map from Rubavu District is conclusive evidence that the disputed plot Nº2129 belongs to Iyamuremye, not Kapere. Kapere failed to prove his claim to the land or any injustice in the prior proceedings. Therefore, his application for revision is dismissed, and he is ordered to pay attorney fees and costs to Iyamuremye.

Court Disposition

Application for revision dismissed; prior judgment upheld.

Orders

  • Kapere George's application for revision is dismissed as unfounded.
  • Plot Nº2129 remains registered to Iyamuremye Mbanza Jeannot.