KWIHANGANA v COOPTHE MULINDI

KWIHANGANA v COOPTHE MULINDI

The court held that the SAIC Ltd report did not constitute new evidence within the meaning of the law, as the applicant could have obtained such a report during the original proceedings, and the alleged discrepancies did not fundamentally contradict the evidence previously presented. Therefore, the application for review was inadmissible and the original judgment remains in force.

Citation
RCA 00100/2022/HC/KIG
Parties
Applicant: Kwihangana Eudi; Respondent: COOPTHE Mulindi
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
14 December 2023
Case Number
RCA 00100/2022/HC/KIG
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Review Based on New Evidence
Outcome
application for review dismissed as inadmissible
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, New Evidence, Burden of Proof, Compensation, Costs
Source Language
rw
Civil Procedure Review of Judgment New Evidence Burden of Proof Compensation Costs

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kwihangana Eudi

Applicant

COOPTHE Mulindi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Review Based on New Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the report by SAIC Ltd constitutes new evidence justifying review of the prior judgment under Article 170 and 171 of Law No 22/2018
  2. 2 Whether the application for review was filed within the statutory time limit
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to additional compensation based on the alleged new evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the SAIC Ltd report did not constitute new evidence within the meaning of the law, as the applicant could have obtained such a report during the original proceedings, and the alleged discrepancies did not fundamentally contradict the evidence previously presented. Therefore, the application for review was inadmissible and the original judgment remains in force.

Court Disposition

application for review dismissed as inadmissible

Orders

  • The application for review by Kwihangana Eudi is not admitted.
  • The original judgment RCA 0263/10/HC/KIG of 27/09/2013 remains unchanged.