UBUSHINJACYAHA v MANIRAFASHA

UBUSHINJACYAHA v MANIRAFASHA

The sale agreement between Rutagengwa Georges (and wife) and Sibomana Jean Claude, executed before a Notary on 20/07/2018, is the only legally valid contract for the transfer of the disputed property, as required by Rwandan law. The earlier private agreement between Rutagengwa and Mambo Kalisa Charles (17/05/2010)...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RPAA 00194/2022/CA
Parties
Appellant: Mambo Kalisa Charles; Respondent: Rutagengwa Georges; Respondent: Matter Rutagengwa Elisabeth; Respondent: Sibomana Jean Claude
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
30 May 2023
Case Number
RPAA 00194/2022/CA
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sale of Immovable Property, Formal Validity of Contracts, Land Registration, Remedies for Breach of Contract
Source Language
rw
Property Law Contract Law Sale of Immovable Property Formal Validity of Contracts Land Registration Remedies for Breach of Contract

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mambo Kalisa Charles

Appellant

Rutagengwa Georges

Respondent

Matter Rutagengwa Elisabeth

Respondent

Sibomana Jean Claude

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

  1. 1 Which sale agreement for the immovable property UPI: 1/03/07/01/1559 is legally valid between the parties?
  2. 2 Are the parties entitled to damages or other monetary reliefs?

Ratio Decidendi

The sale agreement between Rutagengwa Georges (and wife) and Sibomana Jean Claude, executed before a Notary on 20/07/2018, is the only legally valid contract for the transfer of the disputed property, as required by Rwandan law. The earlier private agreement between Rutagengwa and Mambo Kalisa Charles (17/05/2010) is invalid for purposes of land transfer. No sufficient evidence was provided to support claims of fraud or disguised loan (banki lambert) in the notarial transaction. Damages for loss of use or emotional distress were denied for lack of proof; only legal costs were awarded to Sibomana.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal by Mambo Kalisa Charles is dismissed as unfounded.
  • The High Court judgment RCA00053/2021/HC/KIG is upheld in full.