KHALID v. AHMED N’ABANDI

KHALID v. AHMED N’ABANDI

The Supreme Court held that third party opposition is not an admissible remedy against its final judgments, as the law restricts remedies to revision or prerogative of mercy, and extraordinary remedies like third party opposition are prevented by article 84 of the Organic Law.

Citation
RC 0002/09/CS
Parties
Applicant: Khalid Foz; Respondent: Ahmed Abdulatif; Respondent: Succession Yussuf Bin Abdulaziz; Respondent: Assini Omar; Respondent: Ali Fikirini
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
19 March 2010
Case Number
RC 0002/09/CS
Procedural Posture
Third Party Opposition / Final Judgment
Outcome
claim rejected
Legal Topics
Third Party Opposition, Supreme Court Jurisdiction, Extraordinary Remedies, Admissibility of Claims
Source Language
rw

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khalid Foz

Applicant

Ahmed Abdulatif

Respondent

Succession Yussuf Bin Abdulaziz

Respondent

Assini Omar

Respondent

Ali Fikirini

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Third Party Opposition / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Is a third party opposition claim admissible against a Supreme Court judgment under Rwandan law?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that third party opposition is not an admissible remedy against its final judgments, as the law restricts remedies to revision or prerogative of mercy, and extraordinary remedies like third party opposition are prevented by article 84 of the Organic Law.

Court Disposition

claim rejected

Orders

  • Rejects the third party opposition claim initiated by Khalid Foz against judgment RCAA 0006/08/CS.
  • Orders Khalid Foz to pay 12,500 Frw of court fees, to be deducted from assets if unpaid within 8 days.