RLR-V.3-2016

The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over appeals where the value of damages awarded by any court in the case meets or exceeds the statutory threshold, not only the amount awarded by the appellate court. Since the dispute concerns damages originally awarded by the Intermediate Court exceeding the threshold, the appeal...

Source-derived case information.

Parties: Appellant: Mbarushimana Boniface; Respondent: Succession Ntigurirwa Eustache; Respondent: Akarere ka Muhanga
Court: Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Rwanda
Judgment Date: 29 July 2016
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Preliminary Objection on Jurisdiction
Outcome: Objection dismissed; Supreme Court has jurisdiction.
Legal Topics: Jurisdiction of Supreme Court, Material Jurisdiction Based on Value of Damages, Objection on Lack of Jurisdiction

Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Jurisdiction of Supreme Court Material Jurisdiction Based on Value of Damages Objection on Lack of Jurisdiction

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

Mbarushimana Boniface

Appellant

Succession Ntigurirwa Eustache

Respondent

Akarere ka Muhanga

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Preliminary Objection on Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

1 Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction based on the value of damages awarded by lower courts, not just the appellate court
2 Whether the appeal falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Objection dismissed; Supreme Court has jurisdiction.

Orders

Objection of lack of jurisdiction is rejected.
The appeal is within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Full Case Text

Judgment text and source record

1251 paragraphs

# RLR-V.3-2016

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Rwanda law reports - Date: 2016-07-29 - Collection: Supreme Court

## Text

## Page 1

REPUBLIC OF RWANDA SUPREME COURT P.o. Box. 2197 KIGALI www.judiciary.gov.rw

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Icyegeranyo V. 3 - 2016 Nyakanga, 2016 Law Report , V. 3 - 2016 July, 2016 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 2

REPUBLIC OF RWANDA SUPREME COURT Po. Box. 2197 KIGALI www.judiciary.gov.rw

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Icyegeranyo V. 3 - 2016 Nyakanga, 2016 Law Report , V. 3 - 2016 July, 2016 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 4

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO IKINYARWANDA

## Page 6

ISHAKIRO

ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI ...................................iii IRIBURIRO .............................................................................. vii IBIKUBIYE MURI IKI CYEGERANYO ...............................viii INYITO ....................................................................................viii AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO .......................................... ix IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE .................................................... xii AMAGAMBO MPINE ............................................................xiii MBARUSHIMANA v. NTIGURIRWA N’ABANDI ................ 1 NANGAYOBAREMA v. MUNYARUGERERO.................... 13 KK SECURITY v. HARERIMANA N’ABANDI ................... 29 TWAGIRAYEZU N’ABANDI v. BANKI Y’ABATURAGE Y’U RWANDA (BPR) ............................................................. 51 BRD v. UWIMBABAZI ........................................................... 75 Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO .......................................................................... 95 FREIGHT AFRICA BVBA v. BONUS ENTERPRISES Ltd 115 IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO v. KAMBA GENERAL MARCHANDISE Ltd ............................................................. 127 SOCOGEDI SA v. BRALIRWA ............................................ 139 RE N.J ..................................................................................... 157

## Page 7

2 RADA 006/12/CS ii

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MANIRAGABA ........................... 169 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NIYONSABA ............................... 181 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NSHUTIRAKIZA ......................... 189

## Page 8

3 RADA 006/12/CS

iii

ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI

ITSINDA RY’ABANYAMATEGEKO BATEGUYE IMANZA

BAGABO Faustin

BAKAMURERA Jacqueline

KAGABO U. Stephanie

MUJABI K. Naphtal

MUNYENSANGA Chrysostome

MWIHOREZE Claudine

NTIHEMUKA Emmanuel

UWIMANA Gisèle

## Page 9

4 RADA 006/12/CS

KOMITE YEMEZA IMANZA

MUGENZI Louis Marie : Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga

Dr. MUHIRE G. Yves : Visi Perezida wa Komite Umwalimu muri Kaminuza y’u Rwanda

RUTAZANA Angeline : Umwanditsi wa Komite Umugenzuzi w’Inkiko

BWIZA N. Blanche : Umugenzuzi w’Inkiko

DUSHIMINAMA Claudine : Umushinjacyaha ku rwego Rw’Igihugu

Me GAKUNZI Valery : Avoka mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka

GIRANEZA Clémentine : Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze

HABARUREMA Jean Pierre : Umushinjacyaha ku Rwego rw’Igihugu

KALIWABO Charles : Perezida w’Urukiko Rukuru

## Page 10

v ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI

Me KAYIHURA Didas : Avoka mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka

KIBUKA Jean Luc : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi

MUREREREHE Saouda : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru

Prof. Dr. NGAGI M. Alphonse : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rw’Ikirenga

RUBANGO K. Epimaque : Intumwa ya Leta

RUKUNDAKUVUGA F. Regis : Umugenzuzi Mukuru w’Inkiko

UWANTEGE Yvette : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye

## Page 11

6 RADA 006/12/CS

## Page 12

7 RADA 006/12/CS

vii

IRIBURIRO Basomyi bacu, Urwego rw’ubucamanza runejejwe no gutangaza nomero ya gatatu y’icyegeranyo cy’ibyemezo by’inkiko mu mwaka wa 2016. Turongera gushishikariza abacamanza, abashinjacyaha, abavoka n’abandi banyamategeko bakoresha aka gatabo kuduha ibitekerezo byanyu kugirango turusheho kunoza imitegurire y’icyegeranyo cy’ibyemezo by’inkiko kuko intumbero yacu ari ugutegura icyegeranyo giteguye ku rwego mpuzamahanga. Muri iyi nomero y’icyegeranyo cy’ibyemezo by’inkiko murasangamo imanza cumi n’eshatu (13) zikubiyemo imanza ebyiri (2) zerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza, urubanza rumwe (1) rw’umurimo, urubanza rumwe ( 1) mbonezamubano, imanza eshanu (5) z’ubucuruzi, imanza enye (4) nshinjabyaha. Tuboneyeho kubamenyesha ko imanza ziri muri iki cyegeranyo ziboneka no ku rubuga rwa murandasi rw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ruborohereza kubona urubanza mukeneye mu buryo bwihuse, kuri http://decisia.lexum.com/rlr/kn/nav.do Prof. Sam RUGEGE Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga Perezida w’Inama Nkuru y’Ubucamanza

## Page 13

8 RADA 006/12/CS

viii

IBIKUBIYE MURI IKI CYEGERANYO Iki cyegeranyo gikubiyemo imanza zaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga n’Urukiko Rukuru zikoreshwa hakurikijwe inyito ivugwa hasi.

INYITO Imanza ziri muri iyi volime zikoreshwa muri ubu buryo: [2016] 3 RLR

## Page 14

9 RADA 006/12/CS

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO Itegeko Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo y a 28, agace ka 7...............................................4 ingingo 28(12)...............................................................15 Itegeko Ngenga No01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 165, 190……………159 Itegeko Nº30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/5/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 86…….171 Inyongera ku masezerano Nyafurika y’Uburenganzira bwa Muntu yerekeye Uburenganzira bw’Umugore muri Afurika, 2003, ingingo ya 14 (2) C)……………………..........................159 Itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/6/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ingingo ya 9.………………………………………………..99 ingingo ya 10 n’iya 117…………………………………...78 Itegeko No45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano ingingo ya 64 na 113...................................................117 Itegeko No74/2008 ryo kuwa 31/12/2008 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko No25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha, ingingo ya 5………………………..99 Itegeko N°16/2005 ryo ku wa 18/08/2005 rigena imisoro itaziguye ku musaruro, ingingo ya 16…………………............130 Itegeko No15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 3…………………………………………….........99 ingingo ya 3…………………………………………….........78

## Page 15

x ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Itegeko N°06/2001 ryo ku wa 20/01/2001 rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro, ingingo ya 4, 9 na 12……………………….99 Itegeko No42/1988 ryo ku wa 27/10/1988 rishyiraho interuro y’ibanze n’igitabo cya mbere cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano, ingingo ya 14………...................................117 Itegeko ryo ku wa 19/1/1920 ryerekeye intumwa mu bucuruzi n’abikorezi, ingingo ya 10 n’iya 11…………………………….117 Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 264. …………………………………………..54 ingingo ya 258………………………………………….......117 ingingo ya 258………………………………………….......130 ingingo ya 33 na 480……………………………................79 ingingo ya 258…………………………………...................99 Itegeko No25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu, ingingo ya 44……………………………………………………....130 Itegeko Nº18/2004 ryo kuwa 20/06/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo 149...................................15 Itegeko N°51/2001 ryo kuwa 30/12/2001 rishinga amategeko agenga umurimo, ingingo za 29, 30, 97, 102……………………32 Itegeko No27/2001 ryo ku wa 28/04/2001 ryerekeye uburenganzira bw’umwana n’uburyo bwo kumurinda ihohoterwa, ingingo ya 33.......................................................171 Itegeko - Teka Nº21/77 ryo ku wa 18/08/1977 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 82, 312 na 316………………………………...182 ingingo za 82, 83, 84……………….………………….......190

## Page 16

11 RADA 006/12/CS

Iteka ryo kuwa 15/05/1922 ryagengaga ubugwate ku mitungo itimukanwa, ingingo ya 12(1)…………………………................54

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO xi

## Page 17

12 RADA 006/12/CS

xii

IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE

Nteziryayo v. Rutabayiro, RCAA0003/13/CS, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, kuwa 31/01/2014…………………........54

## Page 18

xiii

AMAGAMBO MPINE Amategeko agenga amasezerano – Amategeko agenga amasezerano – Ubugure – Igihe impande zagiranye amasezerano y’ubugure zimaze kumvikana ku kigurishwa n’ikiguzi cyacyo, ubugure buba buriho, kabone n’ubwo ikigurishwa cyaba kitaratangwa cyangwa se ikiguzi kitarishyurwa – Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa , ingingo ya 264. TWAGIRAYEZU N’ABANDI v. BPR……………....51 Amasezerano y’inguzanyo – Inyungu zisanzwe n’iz’ubukererwe – Uwahawe inguzanyo na banki agomba kwishyura inyungu zisanzwe n’iz’ubukererwe igihe atubahirije amasezerano kuko amasezerano akozwe ku buryo bukurikije amategeko aba itegeko ku bayagiranye kandi akaba agomba kubahirizwa nta buryarya – Itegeko ryo ku wa 30/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 33 na 480. BRD v. UWIMBABAZI ……………............................75 Amasezerano y’inguzanyo – Inyungu – Agomba kwishyura inyungu z’inguzanyo yahawe mu gihe zumvikanyweho mu masezerano – Itegeko ryo ku wa 30/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 33. BRD v. UWIMBABAZI………………........................75 Amasezerano y’inguzanyo – Guhabwa inguzanyo y’inyongera – Banki zifite uburenganzira bwo gutanga inguzanyo cyangwa kutazitanga zitagombye kwisobanura; ahubwo igishingirwaho ahanini ni icyizere banki runaka

## Page 19

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO xiv igirira umukiliya wayo n’ubushobozi iba ibona afite bwo kwishyura inguzanyo asaba – Itegeko ryo ku wa 30/07/1988 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 33. BRD v. UWIMBABAZI………….................................75 Amasezerano y’inguzanyo – Indishyi zikomoka ku kutubahiriza amasezerano y’inguzanyo – Banki ntiyahabwa indishyi zo kutubahiriza amasezerano igihe yahawe indishyi zisanzwe n’iz’ubukererwe. BRD v. UWIMBABAZI……….....................................75 Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubucuruzi – Kwishyuza umwishingizi – Kuba yarishingiye umwenda ubwabyo ntibihagije ngo ategekwe kuwishyura mu gihe atabaye umuburanyi mu rubanza – Itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 10 n’iya 117. BRD v. UWIMBABAZI………….................................75 Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano – Inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego – Impaka zinshingiye ku ivuguruzanya ry’imanza – Urubanza rwaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma – Uwaciriwe urubanza adahari agomba kumenyeshwa imikirize y’urubanza mu buryo buteganywa n’itegeko, iyo bidakozwe ntibifatwa ko urubanza rwaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma kuko igihe abimenyeye yemerewe kurusubirishamo cyangwa kurujurira – Imanza zisabirwa gukemura impaka zishingiye ku ivuguruzanya ryazo zigomba kuba zaraciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma – Itegeko Nº18/2004 ryo kuwa 20/06/2004 ryerekeye

## Page 20

AMAGAMBO MPINE xv

imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo 149. NANGAYOBAREMA v. MUNYARUGERERO…....13 Amategeko agenga umurimo – Isezererwa mu kazi rishingiye ku mpamvu z’ubukungu – Nta kigaragaza ko umukozi usezerewe aba ari we ugomba gusezererwa mu bakozi b’ikigo iyo ibyo amategeko ateganya kugira ngo hakorwe ijonjora ry’abagomba gusezererwa cyangwa kugabanywa mu bakozi, hakurikijwe ubushobozi ku murimo, uburambe muri icyo kigo n’umubare w’abo batunze bitubahirijwe, bikaba bifatwa nko kwirukana umukozi nta mpamvu – Itegeko N°51/2001 ryo ku wa 30/12/2001 rishinga amategeko agenga umurimo, ingingo ya 29. KK SECURITY v. HARERIMANA N’ABANDI…...29 Umushahara – Ufite inshingano yo kugaragaza ikimenyetso cy’uko umukozi yahembwe – Ihagarara ry’igihe cy’ubuzime bw’uburenganzira bwo kwishyuza umushahara – Iyo umukozi atemeye ko yahembwe umushahara we kandi umukoresha akabura inyandiko yemeza ko yamuhembye cyangwa se kopi yayo, umukoresha agomba kumuhemba – Igihe cy’ubuzime bw’iyushyuzwa ry’umushahara gihagarikwa n’uko urubanza rw’umukozi rukiri mu nkiko cyangwa se n’uko ibiro bigenzura umurimo byasabwe kubakiranura bitaratanga umwanzuro wabyo – Itegeko N°51/2001 ryo ku wa 30/12/2001 rishinga amategeko agenga umurimo, ingingo ya 102. KK SECURITY v. HARERIMANA N’ABANDI…...29 Icyemezo cy’umurimo – Umukoresha ntaryozwa indishyi mu gihe umukozi yagombaga kujya gufata icyemezo cy’umurimo yakoze ariko ntajyeyo kugifata – Itegeko

## Page 21

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO xvi

N°51/2001 ryo ku wa 30/12/2001 rishinga amategeko agenga umurimo, ingingo ya 30. KK SECURITY v. HARERIMANA N’ABANDI…...29 Amategeko agenga ibimenyetso – Kugaragaza ibimenyetso by’ibyo aregera – Agomba kwishyura umusoro yaciwe kuko atagaragaje ko amafaranga agomba gusorera yari inyishyu y’inguzanyo – Itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/6/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegets, ingingo ya 9 n’Itegeko Nº15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 3. Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. RRA……………….96 Amategeko agenga ububasha bw’Inkiko – Ububasha bushingiye ku ifasi bw’inkiko zavuzwe mu masezerano – Inkiko zumvikanyweho mu masezerano ni zo zifite ububasha bwo kuburanisha ibibazo bivutse mu kubahiriza ayo masezerano. Bityo Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi nta bubasha bwo kuburanisha urubanza rwari rufite kuko atari rwo rwumvikanyweho muri ayo masezerano – Itegeko No45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano ingingo ya 64 na 113 – Itegeko ryo ku wa 19/1/1920 ryerekeye intumwa mu bucuruzi n’abikorezi, ingingo ya 10 n’iya 11 – Itegeko No42/1988 ryo ku wa 27/10/1988 rishyiraho interuro y’ibanze n’igitabo cya mbere “Abantu n’Umuryango”, by’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano, ingingo ya 14(2). FREIGHT AFRICA BVBA v. BONUS ENTERPRISES Ltd………………………………….115 Ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga – Inzitizi y’iburabubasha – Ububasha bushingiye ku indishyi

## Page 22

AMAGAMBO MPINE xvii

zagenwe mu rubanza – Mu kugena ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga bushingiye ku ndishyi harebwa ingano y’indishyi zagenwe n’Urukiko urwo arirwo rwose mu rubanza, aho kureba gusa indishyi zagenwe n’Urukiko rwaciye urubanza ku rwego rw’ubujurire – Itegeko Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 28, agace ka 7. MBARUSHIMANA v. NTIGURIRWA N’ABANDI..1 Amategeko agenga imisoro – Umusoro ku musaruro – Amafaranga y’ingwate atangwa n’abaguzi – Ayo mafaranga si umusaruro; ahubwo ni igikorwa cyo gushingana kidasoreshwa – Itegeko N°16/2005 ryo ku wa 18/08/2005 rigena imisoro itaziguye ku musaruro, ingingo ya 16. RRA v. KAMBA GENERAL MARCHANDISE Ltd……………………………………………………..127 Umusoro ku musaruro – Igisoreshwa – Ufite inshangano zo kugaragaza ibimenyetso by’igisoreshwa – Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro ni cyo gifite inshingano yo kugaragaza inyungu isoreshwa – Itegeko No25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu, ingingo ya 44. RRA v. KAMBA GENERAL MARCHANDISE Ltd……………..............................................................127 Kohereza ibicuruzwa mu mahanga – Kumenyekanisha ibicuruzwa byoherejwe mu mahanga – Gusonerwa umusoro ku bicuruzwa byoherejwe mu mahanga – Ntiyahabwa amahirwe itegeko rigenerauwohereje ibicuruzwa mu mahanga igihe atagaragaza ko

## Page 23

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO xviii yabimenyekanishije kuri gasutamo ngo nayo yemere ko bisohoka – Itegeko Nº21/2006 ryo kuwa 28/04/2006 rigena imikorere ya gasutamo, ingingo ya 177 na 179. Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. RRA….....................95 Ikigaragaza ko habayeho kohereza icicuruzwa mu mahanga – Kugaragariza RRA amazeserano yerekeye ibicuruzwa byoherejwe mu mahanga – N’ubwo ayo masezerano atayagaragarije RRA nayo ubwayo ntagaragaza ko habayeho kohereza ibicuruzwa mu mahanga – Itegeko Nº74/2008 ryo kuwa 31/12/2008 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko No25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha, ingingo ya 5. Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. RRA…………….....96 Kohereza ibicuruzwa mu mahanga – Ntibyitwa kohereza ibicuruzwa mu mahanga igihe ibyoherejwe bitakorewe mu Rwanda – Itegeko Nº21/2006 ryo kuwa 28/04/2006 rigena imikorere ya gasutamo, ingingo ya 2(33). Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. RRA.........................96 Umusoro ku bucuruzi bukorerwa mu mahanga – Utuye mu Rwanda agakorera imirimo ye mu mahanga agomba kwishyura imisoro ku nyongeragaciro – Itegeko N°06/2001 ryo ku wa 20/01/2001 rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro, ingingo za 4, 9 na 12. Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. RRA……………….95 Gutakambira Komiseri Mukuru w’Imisoro – Kuzamura mu bujurire ingingo itaragiweho impaka mu rukiko rubanza – Ikibazo cy’umusoro cyitashyiikirijwe Komiseri Mukuru w’Imisoro nticyafatwaho icyemezo; ni nako

## Page 24

AMAGAMBO MPINE xix

bigomba kugenda ku kibazo kizamuwe mu bujurire kitagiweho impaka n’ababuranyi mu rukiko rubanza. Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. RRA……………….96 Amategeko agenga amasezerano y’ubucuruzi – Amasezerano y’ubufatanye mu mu bucuruzi (partnership agreement of goods distribution) – Amasezerano y’ubucuruzi ashobora kugaragazwa n’imikoranire yaranze impande zombi n’iyo yaba atanditse dore ko n’amategeko y’ubucuruzi adateganya ko agomba kuba yanditse uko byagenda kose. SOCOGEDI SA v. BRALIRWA.................................139 Gusesa amasezerano – Indishyi – Ntihabayeho gusesa amasezearano mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko kuko icy’ingenzi ari uko usheshe amasezerano nk’aya bihagije ko agaragaza impamvu yabimuteye kandi si ngombwa ko atanga indishyi byanze bikunze. SOCOGEDI SA v. BRALIRWA.................................139 Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha – Uruhurirane rw’ibimenyetso – Urukiko ruhamya ku buryo butavuguruzwa ko ibimenyetso byose bishinja cyangwa bishinjura ari byo kandi bishobora kwemerwa – Itegeko Nº30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/5/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 86 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MANIRAGABA………….169 Amategeko mpanabyaha – Gusambanya umwana – Ubusobanuro bw’ingingo ya 190 n’iya 165 y’Itegeko ngenga No01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana – Kuba ingingo ya 190 y’Itegeko Ngenga No01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ikoresha ijambo “gusambanya umwana” mu mwanya w’ijambo

## Page 25

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO xx “gusambanya ku gahato” rivugwa mu ngingo ya 165 y’iri Tegeko Ngenga ntibihindura ko umwana atasambanyijwe ku gahato, kuko afatwa nk’udafite ubushobozi bwo kwifatira ibyemezo kubyerekeye imibonano mpuzabitsina, bikaba nabyo byitwa gusambanywa ku ngufu. RE N.J…………………………………........................157 Uburenganzira bwo gukuramo inda – Umwana wasambanyijwe afite uburenganzira ndetse n’inyungu zo kuvanamo inda atwite kuko ikomoka ku gusambanywa ku gahato. RE N.J………………………………………………....157 Gusambanya umwana – Imibonano yose mpuzabitsina cyangwa ishingiye ku bitsina ikorewe umwana uko yaba ikozwe kose, n’icyaba cyakoreshejwe cyose, ni icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana – Itegeko No27/2001 ryo ku wa 28/04/2001 ryerekeye uburenganzira bw’umwana n’uburyo bwo kumurinda ihohoterwa, ingingo ya 33. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MANIRAGABA.................169 Ubwicanyi burimo agashinyaguro – Azahanwa kimwe n’uwahotoye yabigambiriye, umuntu ushaka kwica undi, uko byakwitwa kose, akabanza kumushinyagurira cyangwa kumugaragura – Itegeko-Teka Nº21/77 ryo ku wa 18/08/1977 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 316. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NIYONSABA..……….......181 Kwemera icyaha mu buryo butuzuye – Gukorana icyaha ubugome ndengakamere – Ni impamvu zatuma igihano kitagabanywa – Itegeko-Teka Nº21/77 ryo ku wa 18/08/1977 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 82. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NIYONSABA…………………..181

## Page 26

AMAGAMBO MPINE xxi

Igabanyagihano – Umucamanza ubwe aha agaciro impamvu nyoroshyacyaha, ari izakibanjirije, ari izagiherekeje cyangwa izagikurikiye – igihe icyaha cyakoranywe ubugome bukabije, byaba impamvu yo kutagabanyirizwa igihano – Itegeko-Teka N°21/77 ryo kuwa 18 Kanama 1977 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 82. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NSHUTIRAKIZA.............189 Indishyi – Amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’avoka – Uwatsinze agomba kuyishyurwa kuko hari ibyo yatakaje akurikirana urubanza anishyura avoka wamuburaniye – Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258. RRA v. KAMBA GENERAL MARCHANDISE Ltd……………………………………………………..129 Indishyi zishingiye ku gihombo – Ntawuhabwa indishyi zishingiye ku gihombo igihe nta kosa uwo asaba ko zicibwa yamukoreye. BRD v. UWIMBABAZI……………………………….76 Igihembo cy’Avoka – Ntizitangwa igihe uzisaba yatsinzwe mu ngingo ze zose – Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/7/1888 rigena amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258. Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. RRA…………………......96 Kuzanwa mu rubanza ku maherere – Uwazanywe mu rubanza ku maherere agomba guhabwa amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza – Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/7/1888 rigena amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258. Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. RRA…………………......96

## Page 27

Ubujurire – Ntiyahabwa indishyi zishingiye ku bujurire bw’uwo baburanaga avuga ko yamuzanye mu rubanza ku maherere kuko kujuririra icyemezo atishimiye ari uburenganzira bwe kandi hakaba nta kigaragaza ayo maherere. SOCOGEDI SA v. BRALIRWA................................139 Indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’Avoka – Uwarezwe agomba kuzihabwa ariko zikagenwa mu bushishozi bw’urukiko – Itegeko ryo kuwa 10/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258. FREIGHT AFRICA BVBA v. BONUS ENTERPRISES Ltd………………………………….115

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO xxii

## Page 28

IMANZA ZEREKERANYE N’IMIBURANISHIRIZE Y’IMANZA

## Page 30

IMANZA ZEREKERANYE N’IMIBURANISHIRIZE Y’IMANZA Z’IMBONEZAMUBANO, IZ’UBUCURUZI, IZ’UMURIMO N’IZ’UBUTEGETSI

## Page 32

MBARUSHIMANA v. NTIGURIRWA N’ABANDI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RCAA0010/13/CS (Hatangimbabazi, P.J., Mukamulisa na Hitiyaremye, J.) 19 Kamena 2015] Amategeko agena ububasha bw’Inkiko – Ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga – Inzitizi y’iburabubasha – Ububasha bushingiye ku ndishyi zagenwe mu rubanza – Mu kugena ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga bushingiye ku ndishyi harebwa ingano y’indishyi zagenwe n’Urukiko urwo arirwo rwose mu rubanza, aho kureba gusa indishyi zagenwe n’Urukiko rwaciye urubanza ku rwego rw’ubujurire – Itegeko Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 28, agace ka 7. Incamake y’ikibazo: Ku wa 22/08/2005 hatejwe cyamunara yakoreshejwe n’ubuyobozi bw’Umujyi wa Gitarama, ubu wahindutse Akarere ka Muhanga, buhagarariwe n’Umuyobozi wungirije ushinzwe Ubukungu n’iterambere mu rwego rwo kurangiza urubanza N° R.C.4227/14/2005 - RCA9404/133, Iyamuremye na bagenzi be batsinzemo Mbarushimana n’Urubanza Nº 39320/03 Banki ya Kigali (BK) yatsinzemo Mbarushimana na Nyiransabimana. Hagurishijwe inzu n’igipangu hamwe n’imigereka yayo (annexes) n’inzu nini ikodeshwa biri i Gahogo mu Mujyi wa Gitarama, zose zigurwa na Ntigurirwa, amafaranga avuyemo agabanywa abo Mbarushimana yarabereyemo imyenda. Ntigurirwa amaze kugura izo nzu mu cyamunara yahise atangira kubaka muri icyo kibanza inzu y’amagorofa atatu maze izari zihasanzwe zimwe 1

## Page 33

2 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

arazisenya, anahabwa ibyangombwa byose byemeza ko ubwo butaka ari ubwe. Ku itariki ya 20/09/2005 Mbarushimana yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Muhanga avuga ko irangizarubanza ritakurikije amategeko, ko rero cyamunara yakozwe ikwiye guseswa. Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwaciye urubanza RC0174/05/TP/GIT rwemeza ko ikirego cya Mbarushimana gifite ishingiro, maze rusesa cyamunara ruvuga ko yakozwe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko kuko yakoreshejwe n’umukozi utabifitiye ububasha. Mu kurangiza uru rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye, Umuhesha w’Inkiko yasubije Mbarushimana zimwe mu nzu yasanze zigihari naho inzu nini ikodeshwa agaragaza ko asanze itagihari kuberako aho yari iri hubatswe inzu nini y’amagorofa atatu (3), asaba Mbarushimana kuzabiregera mu Rukiko. Ntigurirwa amaze kwamburwa uburenganzira kuri izo nzu, yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Muhanga asaba ko irangizarubanza ryamukuye muri zimwe mu nzu yaguze ryateshwa agaciro, hagati aho Mbarushimanana we atanga ikirego asaba ko Ntigurirwa yakurwa mu nzu yubatse mu kibanza cye (inzu y’igorofa). Bimaze kugaragara ko izi manza zombi zifitanye isano zahurijwe hamwe kandi ziburanishwa mu rubanza rumwe, maze uru Rukiko rwemeza ko ikirego cya Ntigurirwa ntashingiro gifite bityo ko irangizarubanza rigumaho naho ko icya Mbarushimana gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe bityo ko inzu y’amagorofa atatu (3) Ntigurirwa yayubatse kubutaka bwa Mbarushimana, rwemeza ko ariko iyo nzu Ntigurirwa ayigumana agaha Mbarushimana indishyi zingana na 83.300.000Frw, runategeka Ntigurirwa guha Akarere ka Muhanga 500.000Frw kuberako yagashoye mu manza nta mpamvu.

## Page 34

3 MBARUSHIMANA v. NTIGURIRWA N’ABANDI

Ntigurirwa yajuririye urubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza, maze uru Rukiko rwemeza ko ubwo bujurire bufite ishingiro, ko ikibanza cyubatsemo inzu ifite amagorofa atatu (3) ari icya Ntigurirwa bityo irangizarubanza ryakozwe kuwa 13/10/2010 rikabarikuweho, indishyi zingana na 83.300.000Frw yaciwe zivanyweho, kimwe na 500.000Frw yagenewe Akarere ka Muhanga. Mbarushimana yajuririye urubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko, umucamanza yivuguruje akemeza ko cyamunara ivuyeho nyamara ntabishingireho ngo yemeze ko ubwo iyo cyamunara ivuyeho uwaguze asubizwa amafaranga yatanze na nyirinzu akazisubirana bityo ko ibi yagombaga kubishingiraho akemeza ko irangiza rubanza rifite agaciro. Iburanisha rigitangira, Me Habineza Jean Paul uburanira abazungura ba Ntigurirwa yatanze inzitizi yo kutakira ubujurire bwa Mbarushimana avuga ko n’ubwo mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye Mbarushimana yari yaragenewe indishyi zihwanye 83.300.000Frw, ariko mu rubanza rujuririrwa izo ndishyi zavanyweho bityo ko ashingiye ku ngingo ya 28, igika cya kabiri, agace ka 7, y’Itegeko Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ubujurire bwe butari mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuko nta ndishyi zirenze 50.000.000Frw Urukiko rwajuririwe rwagennye. Me Kayiranga Bernard uburanira Akarere ka Muhanga nawe yunga mu rya Me Habineza Jean Paul, ashimangira ko indishyi zivugwa muri iyi ngingo ya 28, igika cya kabiri, agace ka 7, y’Itegeko Ngenga rivuzwe haruguru ari iziba zemejwe n’umucamanza wo mu Rukiko Rukuru bityo ko ubujurire bwa Mbarushimana Boniface butari mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. Me Nsengiyaremye Jean Claude uburanira Mbarushimana avuga ko kuba icyo baburana ari agaciro k’indishyi zagenwe

## Page 35

4 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

n’umucamanza wo mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye karengeje uwo mubare, bituma ubujurire bwabo bujya mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. Urukiko rwasanze rugomba kubanza gufata umwanzuro kuri iyi nzitizi maze iba ariyo yonyine igibwaho impaka. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Isesengura ry’agace ka 7 k’ingingo ya 28 y’Itegeko Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ryumvikanisha ko igihe habaye impaka ku gaciro k’indishyi zagenwe n’inkiko zibanza, umucamanza uvugwa wakemura izo mpaka, atari uw’Urukiko Rukuru gusa (cyangwa Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi cyangwa Urukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare), ahubwo ashobora no kuba umucamanza washyikirijwe ubujurire bityo ubujurire bushingiye kuri izo mpaka bukaba buri mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. Inzitizi nta shingiro ifite. Ubujurire buri mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. Amagarama y’urubanza arasubitswe. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 28, agace ka 7. Nta manza zifashishijwe.

## Page 36

5 MBARUSHIMANA v. NTIGURIRWA N’ABANDI Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Inkomoko y’uru rubanza ni cyamunara yakozwe ku itariki ya 22/08/2005 harangizwa urubanza N° R.C.4227/14/2005 - RCA9404/133 Iyamuremye Nathanaël na bagenzi be batsinzemo Mbarushimana Boniface n’Urubanza Nº 39320/03 Banki ya Kigali (BK) yatsinzemo Mbarushimana Boniface na Nyiransabimana Gaudence. Muri iyo cyamunara hagurishijwe inzu n’igipangu hamwe n’imigereka yayo (annexes) n’inzu nini ikodeshwa biri i Gahogo mu Mujyi wa Gitarama. Cyamunara yakoreshejwe n’ubuyobozi bw’Umujyi wa Gitarama, ubu wahindutse Akarere ka Muhanga, buhagarariwe n’Umuyobozi wungirije ushinzwe Ubukungu n’iterambere. [2] Amazu yose uko yatangajwe mu cyamunara yaguzwe na Ntigurirwa Eustache, amafaranga agabanywa hagati y’abacuruzi bari bafitanye ikibazo na Mbarushimana hamwe na BK kubera umwenda yari ayifitiye. Ntigurirwa amaze kugura ayo mazu mu cyamunara yahise atangira kubakamo andi mashya, ayari ahari ayakuraho yubakamo inzu y’amagorofa atatu, anahabwa ibyangombwa byose byemeza ko ubwo butaka ari ubwe. [3] Ku itariki ya 20/09/2005 Mbarushimana Boniface yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Muhanga avuga ko irangizarubanza ritakurikije amategeko, ko rero cyamunara yakozwe ikwiye guseswa. Ku itariki ya 8/02/2007 Urukiko rwaciye urubanza N° RC0174/05/TP/GIT rwemeza ko ikirego cya Mbarushimana gifite ishingiro, ko cyamunara isheshwe

## Page 37

6 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kubera ko yakozwe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko kuko yakoreshejwe n’umukozi utabifitiye ububasha. [4] Mu kurangiza uru rubanza, niho havutse ikibazo kubera ko Umuhesha w’Inkiko yashubije Mbarushimana Boniface amazu, avuga ko asanze amazu amwe agihari akaba ayamusubije, ko ariko inzu nini ikodeshwa asanze idahari kubera ko aho yari iri hubatswe inzu nini y’amagorofa atatu (3), asaba Mbarushimana kuzabiregera mu Rukiko. [5] Ku wa 28/10/2010 Ntigurirwa Eustache wari waraguze amazu mu cyamunara anafite ibyangombwa byayo hamwe n’ibyemezo bimwemerera kubaka kuri ubwo butaka bwose, yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Muhanga asaba ko irangizarubanza ryamukuye muri amwe mu mazu yaguze ryateshwa agaciro, Mbarushimana na we atanga ikirego asaba ko Ntigurirwa yakurwa mu nzu yubatse mu kibanza cye (inzu y’igorofa). Izi manza zombi zahurijwe mu rubanza rumwe ziraburanishwa, maze ku itariki ya 18/11/2011 Urukiko rwemeza ko ikirego cya Ntigurirwa nta shingiro gifite, ko irangizarubanza rigumaho. [6] Ku kirego cya Mbarushimana Boniface, Urukiko rwemeje ko gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe, rwemeza ko inzu y’amagorofa atatu (3) Ntigurirwa yayubatse ku butaka bwa Mbarushimana, rwemeza ko ariko iyo nzu Ntigurirwa ayigumana agaha Mbarushimana indishyi zingana na 83.300.000Frw, rutegeka Ntigurirwa guha Akarere ka Muhanga amafaranga ibihumbi magana atanu (500.000Frw) kubera ko yagashoye mu manza nta mpamvu. [7] Ntigurirwa Eustache yajuririye urubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza, ku itariki ya 26/06/2012 uru

## Page 38

7 MBARUSHIMANA v. NTIGURIRWA N’ABANDI

rukiko ruca urubanza rwemeza ko ubwo bujurire bufite ishingiro, ko ikibanza cyubatsemo inzu ifite amagorofa atatu (3) ari icya Ntigurirwa Eustache, ko irangizarubanza ryakozwe ku wa 13/10/2010 rikuweho, ko indishyi zingana na 83.300.000Frw yaciwe zivanyweho, kimwe n’amafaranga 500.000 yagenewe Akarere ka Muhanga. [8] Mbarushimana Boniface yajuririye urubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko mu cyemezo cye, umucamanza yivuguruje, aho yavuze ko cyamunara ivuyeho arangije ntiyabishingiraho afata icyemezo, ko nyuma yo kwemeza ko iyo cyamunara ivuyeho uwaguze asubizwa amafaranga yatanze na nyiri amazu akayasubirana yagombaga kubishingiraho akemeza ko irangizarubanza rifite agaciro. [9] Iburanisha mu ruhame ryabaye ku itariki ya 19/5/2015, Mbarushimana Boniface aburanirwa na Me Nsengiyaremye Jean Claude, abazungura ba Ntigurirwa Eustache baburanirwa na Me Habineza Jean Paul, naho Akarere ka Muhanga gahagarariwe n‘Intumwa ya Leta, Me Kayiranga Bernard. [10] Iburanisha rigitangira, Me Habineza Jean Paul uburanira abazungura ba Ntigurirwa Eustache yatanze inzitizi yo kutakira ubujurire bwa Mbarushimana Boniface avuga ko butari mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, Urukiko rufata icyemezo cyo kubanza kuyifataho umwanzuro maze iyo nzitizi aba ariyo yonyine igibwaho impaka.

## Page 39

8 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

II. ISESENGURWA RY’IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA Kumenya niba ubujurire bwa Mbarushimana Boniface butari mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. [11] Me Habineza Jean Paul avuga ko mbere yo kujya mu mizi y’urubanza habanza gusuzumwa ibijyanye n’ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga nk’uko buteganywa n’ingingo ya 28, igika cya kabiri, y’Itegeko Ngenga rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. Avuga ko mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye Mbarushimana Boniface yari yaragenewe indishyi zihwanye na miliyoni mirongo inani n’eshatu n’ibihumbi magana atatu by’amafaranga y’u Rwanda (83.300.000), ko ariko mu rubanza rujuririrwa izo ndishyi zavanyweho. [12] Avuga ko ashingiye ku ngingo ya 28, igika cya kabiri, agace ka 7, y’Itegeko Ngenga rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ubujurire bwa Mbarushimana Boniface butari mu bubasha bw’uru rukiko kubera ko urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, urugereko rwa Nyanza, ari narwo rujuririrwa,nta ndishyi zirenze miliyoni mirongo itanu z’amafaranga y’u Rwanda (50.000.000) rwagennye. [13] Me Nsengiyaremye Jean Claude uburanira Mbarushimana Boniface avuga ko bajurira bashingiye ku ngingo ya 28, igika cya kabiri, agace ka 7, y’Itegeko Ngenga rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga iteganya ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha imanza zaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku rwego rwa kabiri, iyo izo manza zagenwemo n’umucamanza indishyi nibura zifite agaciro ka miliyoni mirongo itanu (50.000.000),

## Page 40

9 MBARUSHIMANA v. NTIGURIRWA N’ABANDI

cyangwa se zifite agaciro gahwanye n’izo miliyoni. Avuga ko kuba rero icyo baburana ari agaciro k’indishyi zagenwe n’umucamanza wo mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye karengeje uwo mubare, bituma ubujurire bwabo bujya mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. [14] Me Kayiranga Bernard uburanira Akarere ka Muhanga yunga mu rya Me Habineza Jean Paul uburanira abazungura ba Ntigurirwa Eustache, avuga ko ubujurire bwa Mbarushimana Boniface butari mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, na we agashingira ku ngingo ya 28, igika cya kabiri, agace ka 7, y’Itegeko Ngenga rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ashimangira ko indishyi zivugwa muri iyi ngingo ari iziba zemejwe n’umucamanza wo mu Rukiko Rukuru. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [15] Ingingo ya 28 y’ltegeko Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012, rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, igika cya kabiri, agace ka 7° iteganya ko : “Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rufite kandi ububasha bwo kuburanisha mu rwego rw’ubujurire imanza zaciwe ku rwego rwa kabiri n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi cyangwa Urukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare, iyo izo manza zagenwemo n’urukiko indishyi zingana nibura na miliyoni mirongo itanu z’amafaranga y’u Rwanda (50.000.000Frw) cyangwa se zifite agaciro kagenwe n’umucamanza igihe habaye impaka, kangana nibura na 50.000.000Frw)”. [16] Urukiko rurasanga hakurikijwe agace ka 7, k’ingingo ya 28 imaze kuvugwa, hibazwa niba ibigomba gushingirwaho mu

## Page 41

10 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kugena ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ari indishyi zagenwe n’Urukiko Rukuru (cyangwa Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi cyangwa Urukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare) rwonyine zingana nibura na 50.000.000Frw, cyangwa indishyi zifite agaciro kagenwe n’umucamanza w’Urukiko Rukuru wenyine (cyangwa Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi cyangwa Urukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare) igihe habaye impaka, kangana nibura na 50.000.000Frw. [17] Urukiko rurasanga n’ubwo agace ka 7 kavugwa muri iyi ngingo kajyana n’interuro yose uko yanditse mu ntangiro y’ingingo ya 28 aho ivuga “imanza zaciwe ku rwego rwa kabiri n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi cyangwa Urukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare”, imyandikire yo mu gace ka 7, ntaho igaragaza ku buryo bweruye ko “urukiko” ruvugwamo, ari Urukiko Rukuru rwonyine (cyangwa Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi cyangwa Urukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare), ndetse mu gifaransa hakaba handitse “une juridiction de jugement ”, bisobanuye Urukiko muri rusange (atari Urukiko Rukuru gusa cyangwa Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi cyangwa Urukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare), ahubwo hashobora no kurebwa ingano y’indishyi zagenwe n’urukiko urwo ari rwo rwose muri urwo rubanza, hatarebwe gusa indishyi zagenwe n’urukiko rwaciye urubanza rujuririrwa. [18] Isesengura ry’iyi ngingo kandi ryumvikanisha ko igihe habaye impaka ku gaciro k’indishyi zagenwe n’inkiko zibanza, umucamanza uvugwa wakemura izo mpaka, atari uw’Urukiko Rukuru gusa (cyangwa Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi cyangwa Urukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare), ahubwo ashobora no kuba umucamanza washyikirijwe ubujurire mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga,

## Page 42

11 MBARUSHIMANA v. NTIGURIRWA N’ABANDI

ibyo kandi bikaba bihuza n’ibyemezo bimwe byagiye bifatwa mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga ku kibazo gisa n’iki. [19] Ku birebana n’uru rubanza, Urukiko rurasanga impaka zari mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza, zari zishingiye ku ngano y’indishyi zatanzwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye zingana na miliyoni mirongo inani n’eshatu n’ibihumbi magana atatu by’amafaranga y’u Rwanda (83.300.000) ahwanye n’indishyi zo kuba Ntigurirwa Eustache yarubatse inzu ku kibanza Urukiko rwemeje ko ari icya Mbarushimana Boniface, izo mpaka zikaba ari nazo zakomeje mu bujurire bwa Mbarushimana mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga nyuma y’aho Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza rukuriyeho izo ndishyi. [20] Hashingiwe rero ku bisobanuro byatanzwe haruguru, mu gihe bigaragara ko impaka zikigibwa ku gaciro k’indishyi zingana na miliyoni mirongo inani n’eshatu n’ibihumbi magana atatu by’amafaranga y’u Rwanda (83.300.000) zagenwe n’umucamanza w’Urukiko Rwisumbuye, Urukiko rurasanga ubujurire bushingiye kuri izo mpaka buri mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga hakurikijwe ibivugwa mu gace ka 7, k’ingingo ya 28 y’ltegeko Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012, rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [21] Rwemeje ko inzitizi yatanzwe na Succession Ntigurirwa nta shingiro ifite ; [22] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Mbarushimana Boniface buri mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga;

## Page 43

12 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[23] Rwemeje ko iburanisha ry’uru rubanza rizakomeza ku wa 15/09/2015; [24] Ruvuze ko amagarama y’urubanza abaye asubitswe.

## Page 44

NANGAYOBAREMA v. MUNYARUGERERO [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RC003/12/CS (Mutashya, P.J., Nyirinkwaya na Gatete, J.) 14 Ugushyingo 2014] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano – Inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego – Impaka zinshingiye ku ivuguruzanya ry’imanza – Urubanza rwaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma – Uwaciriwe urubanza adahari agomba kumenyeshwa imikirize y’urubanza mu buryo buteganywa n’itegeko, iyo bidakozwe ntibifatwa ko urubanza rwaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma kuko igihe abimenyeye yemerewe kurusubirishamo cyangwa kurujurira – Imanza zisabirwa gukemura impaka zishingiye ku ivuguruzanya ryazo zigomba kuba zaraciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma – Itegeko Nº03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 28(12) – Itegeko Nº18/2004 ryo kuwa 20/06/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo 149. Incamake y’ikibazo: Museka yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rwa mbere rw’Iremezo rwa Kigali asaba ko amasezerano y’ubugure bw’inzu yabaye hagati ye na Munyampundu aseswa agasubiza igice cy’amafaranga yari yarahaweho ikiguzi cyayo maze agashyirwa kuri Konti y’Urukiko kugira ngo nawe asubirane inzu ye kubera ko Munyampundu atubahirije amasezerano bagiranye. Urwo Rukiko rwemeje ko amasezerano asheshwe Museka agasubirana inzu ye nawe agashyira kuri konti 13

## Page 45

14 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

y’Urukiko amafaranga yari yarishyuwe mu ikorwa ry’amasezerano. Urubanza rwaje kurangizwa maze Museka asubizwa inzu, Munyarugerero wari ufite iyo nzu yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge asaba gukemura impaka zavutse mu irangiza ry’urubanza kuko yasohowe mu nzu ye kandi ko urwo rubanza rwanaburanishijwe adahari atanahamagajwe ngo areke kwitaba. Urukiko rwemejeko irangiza ry’urubanza Nº RC36.025/01 riteshejwe agaciro ndetse ibintu bigasubira uko byari biri mbere y’uko urubanza rurangizwa. Ngororukunda, umuhesha w’inkiko wari warezwe na Munyarugerero yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru, maze Munyarugerero atanga inzitizi avuga ko ubujurire butagakwiye kwakirwa kuko imanza zijyanye n’impaka zivutse mu irangiza ry’urubanza zitajuririrwa; urwo Rukiko rwemeza ko ubujurire butakiriwe. Nangayobarema umugore wa Museka yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge asaba gukemura impaka zishingiye ku irangiza ry’urwo rubanza, avuga ko Urukiko rwakuyeho icyemezo cy’umuhesha w’inkiko gusa ariko ko icyemezo cy’Urukiko cyagumyeho. Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko ikirego cya Nangayobarema nta shingiro gifite, ko nta mpamvu ihari yo guhagarika irangizarubanza ry’urubanza Nº RC0856/11/TGI/NYGE. Nangayobarema yatanze ikirego muri uru Rukiko avuga ko urubanza Nº RC0856/11/TGI/NYGE rumukura mu nzu nyamara hari urundi ruruvuguruza kandi rwanaciwe n’Urukiko rumwe ku rwego rwa nyuma, akaba asaba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga gukemura uko kuvuguruzanya.

## Page 46

15 NANGAYOBAREMA v. MUNYARUGERERO

Munyarugero yatanze inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego kuko izo manza Nangayobarema avuga ko zivuguruzanya zitaciwe ku rwego rumwe, kubera ko rumwe muri zo rwaciwe umwe mu baburanyi adahari kandi akaba atararumenyeshwa ngo arusubirishemo cyangwa arujuririre bityo rukaba rutafatwa nk’urwaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma. Incamake y’icyemezo: Nyiri urubanza agomba kumenyeshwa imikirize y’urubanza mu buryo buteganywa n’itegeko iyo bidakozwe ntibifatwa ko urubanza rwaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma kuko igihe abimenyeye yemerewe kurusubirishamo cyangwa kujurira; kuba rero nta kigaragaza ko urubanza Nº RC36.025/01 Munyampundu yarumenyeshejwe bituma rutaba ndakuka kuko agifite inzira zo kongera gusubirishamo cyangwa kurujuririra, bityo icyo kirego gisaba gukemura impaka hagati y’imanza zivuguruzanya ntigishobora kwakirwa ngo gisuzumwe kubera ko rumwe muri izo manza rutaracibwa ku rwego rwa nyuma kuko bigishoboka ko rwakongera kuburanishwa. Inzitizi ifite ishingiro. Amagarama y’urubanza aherereye ku wareze. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nº03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 28(12). Itegeko Nº18/2004 ryo kuwa 20/06/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 149.

## Page 47

16 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Inkomoko y’urubanza ni ikibanza Museka avuga ko yaguze na Mukaruhama Beline mu mafaranga y’inguzanyo yari yarahawe na BCR Ltd akacyubakamo inzu agamije kuyikodesha kugira ngo yishyure uwo mwenda. Avuga ko kuwishyura byaje kumunanira maze yumvikana na Munyampundu Cyprien ku wa 21/06/1993 ko agura iyo nzu kugira ngo abashe kwishyura umwenda. [2] Mu masezerano y’ubugure yo ku wa 21/06/1993, Munyampundu Cyprien yahaye Museka Jean Damascène 2.300.000Frw kuri 4.500.000Frw bari bumvikanye kuri iyo nzu hasigara 2.200.000Frw, bumvikana ko azayamuha ari uko bamaze guhinduza. Museka avuga ko nyuma y’intambara Munyampundu Cyprien atigeze yongera kuboneka bituma atishyurwa 2.200.000Frw yari asigaye ndetse n’ibijyanye no guhinduza ntibyakorwa kubera ko Munyampundu yabuze. [3] Museka Jean Damascene ku wa 13/09/2001, yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rwa mbere rw’Iremezo rwa Kigali cyandikwa kuri Nº RC36.025/01 asaba ko amasezerano yaseswa agasubiza 2.300.000Frw agashyirwa kuri Konti y’Urukiko nawe agasubirana inzu ye kubera ko Munyampundu Cyprien atubahirije amasezerano bagiranye. [4] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe Munyampundu Cyprien adahari kubera ko yahamagajwe ntaboneke, ku wa 20/05/2002

## Page 48

17 NANGAYOBAREMA v. MUNYARUGERERO

Urukiko rwa mbere rw’Iremezo rwa Kigali rwemeza ko ikirego cya Museka gifite ishingiro, rutegeka ko amasezerano asheshwe ko Museka asubiranye inzu ye nawe agashyira kuri Konti y’Urukiko 2.300.000Frw yari yarahawe ubwo yakoranaga amasezerano y’ubugure na Munyampundu Cyprien ku wa 21/06/1993. [5] Museka Jean Damascene muri 2011 yatanze ikirego gisaba gukosora urubanza Nº RC36.025/01 kubera ko rwarimo amakosa ajyanye n’imyandikire aho ku rupapuro rubanza hari handitswe ko urubanza rusomwe ku wa 20/05/2002 naho ku mpera zarwo hakandikwa ko rusomwe ku wa 17/05/2002. Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwasanze harabayeho kwibeshya ku itariki rwasomeweho, rwemeza ko urubanza rukosowe, ko itariki rwasomeweho ari ku wa 20/05/2002. [6] Nyuma y’uko urubanza rurangijwe ku wa 01/12/2011, umuryango wa Museka Jean Damascene ugasubizwa inzu, Munyarugerero Nsanze Damien wari ufite iyo nzu yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge asaba gukemura impaka zavutse mu irangiza ry’urubanza nº RC36.025/01 rwamusohoye mu nzu avuga ko inzu yari iye ko kandi urubanza rumukura muri iyo nzu rwaburanishijwe adahari atanahamagajwe ngo yange kwitaba. Muri urwo rubanza, Munyarugerero Nsanze Damien yari yareze Museka Jean Damascène na Huissier Ngororunkunda Clément, hagobokamo Ishyirahamwe Tubiteho kubera ko ryakuwe muri iyo nzu kandi ubukode bwaryo butari bwakarangiye. [7] Mu iburanisha ry’urubanza, Munyarugerero Nsanze Damien wareze yavuze ko aretse ikirego kuri Museka Jean Damascène Urukiko rurabimwemerera. Urukiko rwaciye urubanza ku wa 04/04/2012 rwemeza ko ikirego cya

## Page 49

18 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Munyarugerero Nsanze Damien gifite ishingiro, ko ikirego cy’Ishyirahamwe kitakiriwe kubera ko ritemerewe kurega kuva ridafite ubuzimagatozi, rwemeza ko irangiza ry’urubanza Nº RC36.025/01 ryabaye ku wa 01/12/2011 riteshejwe agaciro, ko ibintu bisubira uko byari biri mbere y’uko urubanza rurangizwa. [8] Huissier Ngororukunda Clément yajuririye urubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru, muri uru rubanza Me Gakwaya Etienne waburaniraga Munyarugerero Nsanze Damien yatanze inzitizi avuga ko ubujurire butagombye kwakirwa kuko imanza zijyanye n’impaka zivutse mu irangiza ry’urubanza zitajurirwa. Urukiko Rukuru rwaciye urubanza ku wa 26/07/2012 rwemeza ko ubujurire bwa Ngororukunda butakiriwe. [9] Nyuma y’uko irangizarubanza ryakozwe na Ngororukunda rikuriweho n’ubujurire ntibwakirwe, umuhesha w’inkiko Kamanzi Emmanuel yatangiye imihango yo kurangiza urubanza kugira ngo uwari warahawe inzu mu rubanza Nº RC36.025/01 ayikurwemo isubirane Munyarugerero Nsanze Damien wari uyisanganywe mbere y’uko urubanza nº RC6.025/01 rucibwa. [10] Nangayobarema Immaculée umugore wa Museka yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge asaba gukemura impaka zishingiye ku irangiza ry’urwo rubanza, avuga ko Urukiko rwakuyeho icyemezo cya Huissier gusa ariko ko icyemezo cy’Urukiko cyagumyeho. Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwaciye urubanza ku wa 19/11/2012 rwemeza ko ikirego cya Nangayobarema nta shingiro gifite, ko nta mpamvu ihari yo guhagarika irangizarubanza ry’urubanza Nº RC0856/11/TGI/NYGE.

## Page 50

19 NANGAYOBAREMA v. MUNYARUGERERO

[11] Nyuma y’uko izo manza zose zimaze gucibwa Nangayobarema yatanze ikirego muri uru Rukiko avuga ko urubanza Nº RC0856/11/TGI/NYGE rumukura mu nzu hari urundi ruruvuguruza kandi rwaciwe n’Urukiko rumwe, ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rukwiye gukemura uko kuvuguruzanya. [12] Iburanisha ry’urubanza ryashyizwe ku wa 14/10/2014, Nangayobarema Immaculée yitabye aburanirwa na Me Umurungi Providence, Munyarugerero Nsanze Damien nawe yitabye aburanirwa na Me Gakwaya Etienne, mbere y’uko urubanza rujya mu mizi Me Gakwaya Etienne uburanira Munyarugerero Nsanze Damien yatanze inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego kubera ko imanza Nangayobarema avuga ko zivuguruzanya zitaciwe ku rwego rumwe, rumwe muri zo rukaba rutaraciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma. II. IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYACYO Muri uru rubanza hagomba kubanza gusuzumwa niba urubanza NºRC36.025/01 rwaraciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma. [13] Me Gakwaya Etienne uburanira Munyarugerero avuga ko ashingiye ku ngingo ya 29 y’itegeko rigenga Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ikirego cya Nangayobarema kitagomba kwakirwa kubera ko imanza avuga ko zivuguruzanya, zombi zitaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma, ko urubanza Nº RC0856/11/TGI/Nyge arirwo rwaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma kubera ko rwarebanaga n’impaka zavutse mu irangiza ry’urubanza kandi bikaba bitajurirwa, naho urubanza Nº RC36.025/01 rukaba rutaraciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma kubera ko uregwa muri uru rubanza, yemerewe kuba yarusubirishamo kuko rwaburanishijwe adahari,

## Page 51

20 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

akaba kandi atarigeze abimenyeshwa kugira ngo abe yarusubirishamo cyangwa kurujurira. [14] Akomeza avuga ko kuba abavandimwe ba Munyampundu Cyprien baratambamiye urubanza, bitandukanye no gusubirishamo urubanza, ko kugeza ubu nta kimenyetso cyerekana ko Munyampundu Cyprien yamenyeshejwe urwo rubanza, ko yagombye kuba yaramenyeshejwe hakoreshejwe imenyesharuhame nk’uko byateganywaga mu itegeko ryakoreshwaga ubwo urubanza rwacibwaga, ko kuva hakozwe imenyesharuhame ry’imikirize y’urubanza uwaburanishijwe adahari aba afite iminsi 15 ibarwa nyuma yo gukora iryo menyesharuhame, ko rero kuba mushiki we yarakoze itambamirarubanza bitavuze ko Munyampundu Cyprien yabimenye kuko nta kimenyetso kibigaragaza. [15] Me Umurungi Providence uburanira Nangayobarema avuga ko inzitizi yatanzwe n’uburanira Munyarugerero nta shingiro ifite kubera ko imanza zose zaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma, urubanza Nº RC36.025/01 rukaba rwaraciwe Munyampundu Cyprien adahari kubera ko yashakishijwe akabura kugeza ubwo mushiki we atambamiye urubanza rukaza gusibwa kubera ko atari yararukurikiranye, kuba rero umuryango we waraje gutambamira urubanza bivuze ko nawe yabimenye kuko aramutse yarapfuye ntawundi wabimenya uretse abagize umuryango we. [16] Akomeza avuga ko urubanza rwamenyeshejwe mu buryo bumwe n’ubwo yatumijwemo akaba ari nako mushiki we yamenye ko urubanza rwaburanishijwe agahita ajya kurutambamira ariko kubera ko nta nyungu yari arufitemo bigatuma arureka rugasibwa, ko kuba rwaratambamiwe rukaza

## Page 52

21 NANGAYOBAREMA v. MUNYARUGERERO

gusibwa, bivuze ko inzira zose zafunzwe byerekana ko rwaciwe bwa nyuma. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [17] Urukiko rurasanga ikirego cyatanzwe na Nangayobarema Immaculée kigamije gusaba ko Urukiko rukemura ukuvuguruzanya kuri hagati y’imanza zaciwe RC36.025/01 rwaciwe ku wa 20/05/2002 na RC0856/11/TGI/NYGE rwaciwe ku wa 04/04/2012. [18] Ingingo ya 28, agace kayo ka 12º y’Itegeko Nº03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2014 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga nk’uko ryavuguruwe kugeza ubu iteganya ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rufite ububasha bwo gukemura ukuvuguruzanya kuri hagati y’imanza zaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma. [19] Urukiko rurasanga urubanza Nº RC36.025/01 rwaciwe ku wa 20/05/2002 rwaraburanishijwe Munyampundu Cyprien adahari kubera ko yahamagajwe ku buryo bwemewe n’amategeko ntiyitaba. [20] Ingingo ya 149 y’Itegeko Nº18/2004 ryo ku wa 20/06/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ryakoreshwaga ubwo uru rubanza rwacibwaga, ryateganya ko “ iyo umwe mu baburanyi atigeze amenyeshwa umunsi w’isomwa ry’urubanza cyangwa se ngo abe yarahagarariwe, amenyeshwa n’umwanditsi w’urukiko cyangwa umuhesha warwo uko urubanza rwaciwe hakurikijwe amategeko asanzwe agenga imenyesha ry’inyandiko z’urukiko”.

## Page 53

22 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[21] Urukiko rurasanga ku bijyanye n’uru rubanza mu nyandiko zirugize nta nyandiko n’imwe igaragaza ko Munyampundu Cyprien yamenyeshejwe imikirize y’urubanza mu buryo buteganyijwe n’itegeko nk’uko bimaze kuvugwa mu gika kibanziriza iki. Rurasanga kandi kuba abavandimwe be nyuma yo kubona ko Munyampundu Cyprien adashobora kuboneka bararutambamiye, bidashobora kuvanaho ko igihe nyir’urubanza utaramenyeshejwe imikirize yarwo abonekeye, yemerewe kurusubirishamo, bivuze ko kuri Munyampundu Cyprien agifite inzira zo kongera gusubirishamo cyangwa kujuririra urubanza Nº RC36.025/01 mu gihe cyose atararumenyeshwa mu buryo bukurikije amategeko. Rurasanga kandi kuba mushiki we yararumenye, bitavuga ko Munyampundu Cyprien nyir’urubanza yarumenye. [22] Urukiko rurasanga rero, hashingiwe ku bimaze kuvugwa ndetse no ku nyandiko zigize urubanza, nta kigaragaza ko urubanza Nº RC36.025/01 rwaciwe ku wa 20/05/2002 Munyampundu Cyprien adahari rwabaye ndakuka, bivuze ko rutafatwa nk’urubanza rwaciwe mu rwego rwa nyuma ruvugwa mu ngingo ya 29(12º) y’Itegeko Nº03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2014 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga nk’uko ryavuguruwe kugeza ubu, kuko bigishoboka ko rwakongera kuburanishwa. [23] Urukiko rurasanga, rushingiye ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 29(12º) y’Itegeko Nº03/2012/OL ryavuzwe haruguru, icyo kirego kidashobora kwakirwa ngo gisuzumwe kubera ko rumwe muri izo manza rutaracibwa ku rwego rwa nyuma kuko bigishoboka ko rwakongera kuburanishwa, bityo iki kirego kikaba kitakiriwe.

## Page 54

23 NANGAYOBAREMA v. MUNYARUGERERO

III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [24] Rwemeje ko inzitizi yatanzwe na Me Gakwaya Etienne uburanira Munyarugerero ifite ishingiro; [25] Rwemeje ko ikirego cya Nangayobarema Immaculée kitakiriwe kubera ko cyatanzwe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko. [26] Rutegetse Nangayobarema Immaculée gutanga amagarama.

## Page 56

IMANZA ZACIWE MU MIZI

## Page 58

URUBANZA RW’UMURIMO

## Page 60

KK SECURITY v. HARERIMANA N’ABANDI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – R.SOC.AA006/07/CS (Rugege, P.J., Ruyenzi na Mukanyundo, J.) 11 Mutarama 2008] Amategeko agenga umurimo – Isezererwa mu kazi rishingiye ku mpamvu z’ubukungu – Nta kigaragaza ko umukozi usezerewe aba ari we ugomba gusezererwa mu bakozi b’ikigo iyo ibyo amategeko ateganya kugira ngo hakorwe ijonjora ry’abagomba gusezererwa cyangwa kugabanywa mu bakozi, hakurikijwe ubushobozi ku murimo, uburambe muri icyo kigo n’umubare w’abo batunze bitubahirijwe, bikaba bifatwa nko kwirukana umukozi nta mpamvu – Itegeko N°51/2001 ryo ku wa 30/12/2001 rishinga amategeko agenga umurimo, ingingo ya 29. Amategeko agenga umurimo – Umushahara – Ufite inshingano yo kugaragaza ikimenyetso cy’uko umukozi yahembwe – Ihagarara ry’igihe cy’ubuzime bw’uburenganzira bwo kwishyuza umushahara – Iyo umukozi atemeye ko yahembwe umushahara we kandi umukoresha akabura inyandiko yemeza ko yamuhembye cyangwa se kopi yayo, umukoresha agomba kumuhemba – Igihe cy’ubuzime bw’iyushyuzwa ry’umushahara gihagarikwa n’uko urubanza rw’umukozi rukiri mu nkiko cyangwa se n’uko ibiro bigenzura umurimo byasabwe kubakiranura bitaratanga umwanzuro wabyo – Itegeko N°51/2001 ryo ku wa 30/12/2001 rishinga amategeko agenga umurimo, ingingo ya 102. Amategeko agenga umurimo – Icyemezo cy’umurimo – Umukoresha ntaryozwa indishyi mu gihe umukozi yagombaga 29

## Page 61

30 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kujya gufata icyemezo cy’umurimo yakoze ariko ntajyeyo kugifata – Itegeko N°51/2001 ryo ku wa 30/12/2001 rishinga amategeko agenga umurimo, ingingo ya 30. Incamake y’ikibazo: KK Security yahagaritse bamwe mu bakozi bayo ivuga ko yari igize ikibazo cy’ubukungu nyuma yo gusesa amasezerano yari ifitanye na SOGEA SATOM ndetse na ROKO CONSTRUCTION s.a.r.l. Harerimana n’abandi bamwe muri bo basezerewe ku mirimo biyambaje inkiko basaba indishyi zinyuranye, barega KK Security mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo. Urwo Rukiko rwemeje ko KK Security itsinzwe kandi itegetswe guha Harerimana n’abandi indishyi zinyuranye. KK Security yajuririye mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urwo Rukiko rwemeza ko KK Security itsinzwe, buri wese akaba agomba guhabwa amafaranga yagenewe n’urukiko rwabanje uretse gusa amafaranga yo kudahabwa icyemezo cy’uburambe mu kazi, hamwe n’ay’urugendo, ay’icumbi ndetse no kwivuza. Na none, KK Security yongeye kujuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga ivuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwirengagije ibisobanuro bya KK Security, abareze bagenewe indishyi z’amasaha y’ikirenga, n’ay’ikiruhuko kandi ngo byari bikubiye mu mushahara bahembwaga, ikanavuga ko habayeho ubuzime bw’ikirego. Harerimana n’abandi batanze n’inzitizi yo kutakira ubujurire bavuga ko KK Security yajuririye imanza 13 ariko itanga amagarama y’ikirego kimwe ndetse ko hakurikijwe amafaranga yagenewe buri muburanyi mu bareze atageze ku gaciro k’amafaranga agenwe kugirango urubanza rube mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, bityo ubujurire bukaba butari mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga.

## Page 62

31 KK SECURITY v. HARERIMANA N’ABANDI

Ku bijyanye n’ingingo z’ubujurire za KK Security bireguye bavuga ko kuvuga ko birukanwe kubera igihombo atari byo kubera ko KK Security itigeze yerekana igihombo yagize naho kubyerekeranye n’amafaranga KK Security ivuga ko yabahembye bakavuga ko umukoresha ari we utanga ibimenyetso ko yahembye umukozi we. Bavuga kandi ko inyandiko yatanzwe na KK Security batayemera kuko ari ubwa mbere bari bayibonye. Banatanga n’ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bavuga ko basaba kugenerwa indishyi zingana n’amezi atandatu y’umushahara wa buri muntu kubera ko umukoresha atabahaye icyemezo cy’imirimo bakoze n’amafaranga y’ingendo, icumbi no kwivuza. KK Security isubiza ko urubanza rwatangiye ari urubanza rumwe bisabwe n’abarega bifuzaga ko ibirego byabo bihuzwa, Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo rukaba rwarahaye urwo rubanza nimero imwe. Ariko Urukiko rwabibukije ko Itegeko rivuga “imanza”, ko ritavuga “ikirego” umwunganizi w’abaregwa mu bujurire ahita abwira Urukiko ko niba ari uko bimeze, inzitizi bari babyukije bayiretse. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Nta kigaragaza ko umukozi usezerewe aba ari we ugomba gusezererwa mu bakozi b’ikigo igihe hatubahirijwe ibyo amategeko ateganya kugira ngo hakorwe ijonjora ry’abagomba gusezererwa cyangwa kugabanywa mu bakozi, hakurikijwe ubushobozi ku murimo, uburambe muri icyo kigo n’umubare w’abo batunze, bikaba bifatwa nko kwirukana umukozi nta mpamvu. 2. Iyo umukozi atemeye ko yahembwe umushahara we kandi umukoresha akabura inyandiko yemeza ko yamuhembye cyangwa se kopi yayo, umukoresha agomba kumuhemba.

## Page 63

32 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

3. Igihe cy’ubuzime bwo kwishyuza umushahara gihagarikwa n’uko urubanza rw’umukozi rukiri mu nkiko cyangwa se n’uko ibiro bigenzura umurimo byasabwe kubakiranura bitaratanga umwanzuro wabyo. 4. Abaregwa bagomba kugenerwa igihembo cy’Avoka cy’urubanza rumwe kuko umu Avoka yaburanye urubanza rumwe atanga n’imyanzuro y’urubanza rumwe. 5. Umukoresha ntaryozwa indishyi mu gihe umukozi yagombaga kujya gufata icyemezo cy’umurimo yakoze ariko ntajyeyo kugifata. Ubujurire nta shingiro bufite uretse ku byerekeye igihembo cy’Avoka; Amagarama y’urubanza aherereye kuri KK Security. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko N°51/2001 ryo kuwa 30/12/2001 rishinga amategeko agenga umurimo, ingingo za 29, 30, 97, 102. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Mu mwaka wa 2004, Sosiyete KK Security yahagaritse bamwe mu bakozi bayo ivuga ko yari yagize ikibazo gikomeye cy’ubukungu. Iyo Sosiyete ivuga ko byatewe n’uko yari imaze gusesa amasezerano yari ifitanye na SOGEA SATOM ndetse na

## Page 64

33 KK SECURITY v. HARERIMANA N’ABANDI

ROKO CONSTRUCTION s.a.r.l, aho hombi hakaba harakoraga abakozi benshi ba KK Security. [2] Bamwe muri abo bakozi basezerewe ku mirimo ntibishimiye uburyo byakozwe; biyambaza inkiko basaba indishyi. [3] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo kuri N° R.Soc.0006/06/TGI/GSBO Harerimana Enos, Munyaneza Jean, Safari Théogène, Gasore Jean Baptiste, Munyanshongore Théodore, Harindintwari Augustin, Uwizera Sadock, Sebagabo Prince, Hagenimana Moussa, Setakwe André, Mwungura André, Mberwa Innocent na Sebasoni Jérôme barega KK Security. Urubanza rwaciwe ku wa 20/10/2006, rwemeza ko KK Security itsinzwe, itegekwa kwishyura Harerimana Enos na bagenzi be amafaranga ahwanye n’ibyo buri wese mu bareze yagenewe, ni ukuvuga amafaranga y’amasaha y’ikirenga; ay’iminsi y’ikiruhuko, ay’icumbi, ay’urugendo n’ayo kwivuza; indishyi zo kwirukanwa binyuranije n’amategeko; indishyi zo kudahabwa icyemezo cy’akazi hamwe n’igihembo cya Avoka. [4] KK Security ntiyishimiye imikirize y’urubanza, iyijuririra mu Rukiko Rukuru rwa Repubulika ku cyicaro gikuru i Kigali, ubujurire bwandikwa kuri N° R.SOC.A0277/06/HC/KIG. Urwo rukiko rwaciye urubanza ku wa 13/4/2007, rwemeza ko KK Security itsinzwe, buri wese akaba agomba guhabwa amafaranga yagenewe n’urukiko rwabanje uretse gusa amafaranga yo kudahabwa icyemezo cy’uburambe mu kazi (“attestation de services rendus”) hamwe n’ay’urugendo, ay’icumbi ndetse no kwivuza. Urukiko rwemeje ko amafaranga yose hamwe KK Security igomba guha abareze ari 21.102.528, ikanatanga n’umusogongero wa Leta ungana na

## Page 65

34 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

4% y’ayo mafaranga, ni ukuvuga 844.101Frw, hamwe n’andi mafaranga 21.450 y’amagarama y’urubanza. [5] Na none, KK Security ntiyishimiye icyo cyemezo, ikijuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga mu ibaruwa yageze mu bwanditsi bw’urwo rukiko ku wa 9/5/2007; ikirego cyahawe N° R.SOC.AA0006/07/CS. Muri iyo baruwa, Me Rutabingwa Athanase wunganira KK Security yavuze ko ingingo bashingiraho ubujurire ari izi zikurikira: Urukiko Rukuru rwa Repubulika rwirengagije ibisobanuro bya KK Security kubera ko rwemeje ko impamvu yo kwirukana bariya bakozi ifite ishingiro, ngo ariko rwemeza ko ari ukwirukanirwa ubusa ngo kubera kutubahiriza ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko N°51/2001 ryo ku wa 30/12/2001 rishinga amategeko agenga umurimo. Ngo urukiko rwemeje ko abareze bagomba guhabwa indishyi z’amasaha y’ikirenga n’ay’ikiruhuko kandi ngo byari bikubiye mu mushahara bahembwaga. Ngo abareze ni bo bagombaga kugaragaza ko bakoze ntibayahembwa. Ngo Avoka yagombye guhemberwa dosiye imwe kubera ko akazi ari kamwe kuko ibirego byahurijwe hamwe. Ngo amafaranga aregerwa aratangirira mu 1996 kugeza 2004 kandi harabaye ubuzime nk’uko ingingo ya 102 y’Itegeko N°51/2001 ryo kuwa 30/12/2001 rishinga amategeko agenga umurimo ibivuga. Ngo asanga baregera ibyo badafiteho uburenganzira. [6] Ikirego cy’ubujurire bwa KK Security cyakorewe ibanzirizasuzuma. Mu cyemezo cye N° RSOC 0004/07/Pré-

## Page 66

35 KK SECURITY v. HARERIMANA N’ABANDI

ex/CS cyo ku wa 14/6/2007, umucamanza w’ibanzirizasuzuma yemeje ko ikirego cy’ubujurire KK Security yashyikirije Urukiko rw’Ikirenga cyatanzwe mu nzira no mu buryo bikurikije amategeko, ko kandi kiri mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. Iburanisha ry’urubanza R.SOC.AA0006/07/CS mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga. [7] Urubanza rwahamagajwe bwa mbere mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 07/8/2007 ariko ntirwaburanishijwe kubera ko Me Rutabingwa Athanase wunganira KK Security yari yanditse asaba ko rwahabwa indi tariki kubera ko yari yagize ibyago. Rwimuriwe ku wa 30/10/2007. Kuri iyo tariki, urukiko rwasanze ababuranyi bahari, Me Rutabingwa Athanase aburanira KK Security, Harerimana na bagenzi be baburanirwa na Me Kayitare Serge. [8] Me Rutabingwa yasabwe gusobanura ingingo ashingiraho ubujurire bwe. Akimara gutanga ibyo bisobanuro, Me Kayitare yasabye ijambo ahita abyutsa inzitizi ku iyakirwa ry’ubujurire bwa KK Security. Yavuze ko KK yajuririye imanza 13 ariko yatanze amagarama y’ikirego kimwe, akaba yumva ubujurire butari mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. [9] Urukiko rumaze kwumva impande zombi, rwariherereye kugira ngo rubanze rufate umwanzuro kuri iyo nzitizi. Icyakora, urukiko rwasanze hari ikindi kibazo cy’uko mu bacamanza bari bagize inteko, harimo umucamanza wafashe icyemezo cy’ibanzirizasuzuma ku iyakirwa ry’ubujurire n’ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga; bityo inteko ikaba igomba guhinduka, iburanisha rikimurirwa undi munsi kandi n’icyo kibazo kikazigwa icyo gihe. Urubanza rwimuriwe ku wa 12/11/2007.

## Page 67

36 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Kuri iyo tariki, urubanza rwarasubukuwe ruburanishwa n’inteko nshya. [10] Me Kayitare yahawe ijambo ngo yongere asobanure inzitizi yari yabyukije. Yavuze ko KK Security yari yarezwe n’abantu 13 buri wese atanga ikirego cye. Izo manza ngo zaje guhurizwa mu rubanza rumwe mu nkiko zabanje. Mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, KK Security ngo yajuririye imanza 13 itanga amagarama y’ikirego kimwe. Me Kayitare ngo yumvaga umucamanza w’ibanzirizasuzuma yari kureba ikirego cya buri muntu n’amagarama arebana na cyo. Ngo habayeho guhuza imanza atari ukugirango urubanza rube rumwe, ahubwo ari ukugirango imanza ziburanishirizwe hamwe. [11] Me Rutabingwa asubiza kuri iyo nzitizi ya Me Kayitare, yavuze ko urubanza rwatangiye ari urubanza rumwe bisabwe n’abarega bifuzaga ko ibirego byabo bihuzwa, Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo rukaba rwarahaye urwo rubanza nimero imwe. No mu bujurire mu Rukiko Rukuru rwa Repubulika ngo urwo rubanza rwahawe nimero imwe, kandi ngo bemeye kuruburana, nta nzitizi bigeze babyutsa. [12] Urukiko rwabajije Me Kayitare icyo avuga ku Itegeko rigenga Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku byerekeye ububasha. Me Kayitare yasubije ko iryo tegeko rivuga ko iyo ikiburanwa kingana cyangwa kirenze 20.000.000Frw kiba kiri mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga; ngo ariko we yumva muri uru rubanza ububasha bwareberwa ku gaciro ka buri kirego. Urukiko rwamwibukije ko Itegeko rivuga “imanza”, ko ritavuga “ikirego”. Me Kayitare yahise abwira Urukiko ko niba ari uko bimeze, inzitizi yari yabyukije ayiretse.

## Page 68

37 KK SECURITY v. HARERIMANA N’ABANDI

[13] Urukiko rwamenyesheje ababuranyi ko urubanza rugiye kuburanishwa mu mizi, rusaba Me Rutabingwa gusubiramo impamvu z’ubujurire bwa KK Security kubera ko inteko yahindutse. Me Rutabingwa yavuze ko bajuriye kubera impamvu zikurikira: Urukiko rwirengagije ibimenyetso n’ibisobanuro batanze. Urukiko rubanza rwemeje ko bariya bakozi birukanywe kubera ko KK Security yagize igihombo; ariko rwarivuguruje aho rwavuze ko ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko N°51/2001 ryo ku wa 30/12/2001 rishinga amategeko agenga umurimo bitubahirijwe. Ngo ingingo ya 26 y’iryo tegeko iteganya indishyi iyo impamvu yo kwirukanwa itumvikana; ntabwo ivuga ko indishyi zitangwa iyo “procédure” itubahirijwe, kandi ngo ingingo ya 29 nta bihano iteganya; Ngo Urukiko rwabanje ntirwitaye ku bisobanuro KK Security yatanze ku byerekeye amasaha y’ikirenga kimwe n’iminsi y’ikiruhuko; Ku byerekeye igihembo cya Avoka, ngo amafaranga 80.000 kuri buri muntu ni menshi kubera ko urubanza ari rumwe; Ngoingingo ya 102 y’Itegeko rigenga umurimo ntiyitaweho. Iyo ngingo ivuga ko imishahara irengeje imyaka itanu itaregerwa; kandi ngo urubanza rwaregewe muri 2004 ku bintu bimwe byabaye muri 1996. [14] Me Kayitare na we ahawe ijambo yavuze ko, nk’uko bigaragara kuri kopi y’urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo (urupapuro rwa 3, Rumaze ya 4) no kuri kopi y’urubanza rwo mu Rukiko Rukuru (urupapuro rwa

## Page 69

38 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

12, Rusanze ya 5) KK Security yemeye ko yishe ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko rigenga umurimo, ko ariko nta bihano itegeko riteganya. Yakomeje avuga ko, hakurikijwe ingingo ya 110 y’Itegeko N°15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/6/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, kwiyemerera mu rubanza bitsindisha uwemeye. [15] Me Kayitare yakomeje avuga ko, kuvuga ko abakozi birukanywe kubera igihombo atari byo kubera ko KK Security itigeze igaragaza icyo gihombo mu mibare. Icyakora ngo n’ubwo igihombo cyari kuba, hagakurikizwa ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko rigenga umurimo, nta cyerekana ko abo aburanira ari bo bari kwirukanwa. Bityo, ngo niba batari kwirukanwa, aribaza niba bitafatwa nk’aho birukanywe nta mpamvu. Ku byerekeye amasaha y’ikirenga n’iminsi y’ikiruhuko KK Security ivuga ko yabahembeye, ngo harebwa ingingo ya 97 y’Itegeko rigenga umurimo aho ivuga ko umukoresha ari we utanga ikimenyetso cy’uko yahembye abantu bavuga ko atabahembye. Ku gihembo cya Avoka, Me Kayitare yavuze ko yakuyeho inzitizi ye, ko ariko atavuze ko urubanza ari rumwe; bityo ngo uko bisanzwe umuntu yumvikana n’urega ku giti cye. Ku byerekeye ubusaze bw’ikirego cyerekeye umushahara, yavuze ko harebwa ingingo ya 102 y’Itegeko ryerekeye umurimo aho ivuga ko ubusaze buhagarara iyo habaye kuregera urwego rushobora kubakiranura. Yavuze ko uko kurega kwabayeho mu Bugenzuzi bw’umurimo, yerekana inyandiko mvugo yo ku wa 18/11/1998, anavuga ko iyo nyandiko no mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo bayitanze. [16] Me Kayitare yatanze n’ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi, avuga ko abo yunganira basaba kugenerwa indishyi zingana n’amezi atandatu y’umushahara wa buri muntu kubera ko KK

## Page 70

39 KK SECURITY v. HARERIMANA N’ABANDI

Security itabahaye icyemezo cy’imirimo bakoze (attestation de services rendus). Ikindi yavuze ko basaba muri ubwo bujurire ni amafaranga y’ingendo, icumbi no kwivuza, nk’uko ateganywa n’Iteka rya Minisitiri N°10/19 ryo ku wa 14/3/2003. [17] Me Rutabingwa yongeye gusaba ijambo, avuga ko KK Security itigeze yemera ko yishe amategeko; ngo ahubwo mu isesengura ry’ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko rigenga umurimo, bavuze ko iyo ngingo nta bihano yateganyije mu gihe “procedure” iteganya yaba itubahirijwe; kandi ngo urukiko ntirwateganya ibihano kuko rwaba rukoze umurimo w’umushingamategeko. [18] Ku bijyanye n’ubusaze bw’ikirego cyerekeye umushahara, Me Rutabingwa yavuze ko inyandikomvugo yo ku wa 18/11/1998 yavuzwe na Me Kayitare atayemera kubera ko atabonaho abayishyizeho umukono, kandi ngo ni ubwa mbere yari ayibonye. [19] Ku bujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwatanzwe na Me Kayitare, Me Rutabingwa yavuze ko icyemezo Urukiko Rukuru rwabifasheho cyumvikana kubera ko umukozi wese waje gufata icyemezo cy’imirimo yakoze yagihawe. Ku byerekeye amafaranga y’ingendo, icumbi no kwivuza, ngo ingingo ya 5 y’amasezerano bagiranye na KK Security, iteganya ko umushahara ukubiyemo indamunite z’urugendo, iz’icumbi n’izo kwivuza kandi ngo Iteka rya Minisitiri Me Kayitare avuga ntiriteganya ko ayo mafaranga atangwa ukwayo. [20] Ku kibazo yabajijwe n’urukiko niba yumva ingingo ya 29 yavuzwe haruguru yarubahirijwe, Me Rutabingwa yavuze ko yumva barayubahirije, ko gusa icyo batakoze ari inama yagombaga kubahuza n’abakozi.

## Page 71

40 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

II. ISESENGURA RY’INGINGO Z’UBUJURIRE (a) Ku kibazo cyo kwirukanwa nta mpamvu. [21] Mu bujurire bwayo, KK Security yavuze ko Urukiko Rukuru rwayirenganyije kubera ko rwemeje ko impamvu yo kwirukanwa ifite ishingiro kubera igihombo no gutakaza abakiriya, ariko ngo ruvuga na none ko kutubahiriza “procédure” iteganywa n’ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko rigenga umurimo bituma KK Security igomba kuriha indishyi. [22] Ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko N°51/2001 ryo ku wa 30/12/2001 rishinga amategeko agenga umurimo iteganya ko: “Iyo umukoresha ateganya kugabanya abakozi bitewe n’impamvu z’ubukungu, mbere yo gushyira icyemezo cye mu bikorwa, agomba kubanza kugirana inama n’abahagarariye abakozi mu kigo kugira ngo abamenyeshe impamvu ateganya iryo gabanya, ibyo ashingiraho arikora, itariki y’igabanya, akanabasaba kumuha inama zatuma iryo gabanya ritabaho cyangwa ritagendamo abakozi benshi. Abakozi bagabanywa mu kigo cy’ubukozi batondekwa hakurikijwe ubushobozi ku murimo, uburambe muri icyo kigo n’umubare w’abo batunze. Inyandiko mvugo y’iyo nama hamwe n’urutonde rw’abakozi bagabanyijwe, itariki n’impamvu zisobanura icyo cyemezo byohererezwa Minisitiri ufite umurimo mu nshingano ze mu minsi itarenze cumi n’itanu (15) ikurikira iyo nama”. [23] Iyo ngingo ya 29 yashyiriweho kugira ngo irengere abakozi, umukoresha atabarenganya mu gihe hagiye kuba

## Page 72

41 KK SECURITY v. HARERIMANA N’ABANDI

impinduka mu kigo irimo guhagarika bamwe mu bakozi bitewe n’impamvu zumvikana z’ubukungu. Nk’uko byavuzwe haruguru, iyo ngingo itegeka ko umukoresha agomba kugirana inama n’abahagarariye abakozi mu kigo kugira ngo abamenyeshe impamvu ateganya iryo gabanya, ibyo ashingiraho arikora, itariki y’igabanya, akanabasaba kumuha inama zatuma iryo gabanya ritabaho cyangwa ritagendamo abakozi benshi. Ni ukuvuga ko hagomba kuba imishyikirano igamije gushakisha uburyo abakozi bakomeza akazi kabo hatabayeho igabanya kandi bitabangamiye umukoresha. Ibi kandi bivuga ko gusezerera abakozi kubera impamvu z’ubukungu bitagomba kuba ari byo umuntu yahitamo mu ikubitiro, ahubwo bishobotse umuntu yabihitamo nk’amaburakindi (as a last resort). Igihe bibaye ngombwa kugabanya abakozi, bigomba gukorwa hashingiwe ku byateganyijwe n’amategeko, hatabayeho amarangamutima n’akarengane. Ibi bituma abasezererwa babona ko ibyakozwe byabaye mu mucyo (transparent), mu buryo buboneye (fairly) kandi ko nta kundi byari kugenda (unavoidable). Ibyo bigomba kugenderwaho (criteria/critère) biri mu ngingo ya 29, igika cya kabiri aho ivuga ngo: “Abakozi bagabanywa mu kigo cy’ubukozi batondekwa hakurikijwe ubushobozi ku murimo, uburambe muri icyo kigo n’umubare w’abo batunze”. Muri uru rubanza, nta cyerekana ko KK Security yabigendeyeho. [24] Mu iburanisha mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, ku kibazo Me Rutabingwa yabajijwe n’urukiko cyo kumenya niba KK Security yemeza ko ingingo ya 29 yubahirijwe, yasubije ko icyo KK Security itubahirije ari ukugirana inama n’abakozi, nk’aho ibyo ntacyo bitwaye. Inama ihuza umukoresha n’abakozi cyangwa ababahagarariye ntabwo ari umugenzo gusa, ahubwo bifasha abakozi, nk’abantu bafite inyungu mu kigo, kumva neza

## Page 73

42 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

impamvu zituma hagomba kubaho igabanya ry’abakozi. Nk’uko abahanga mu by’amategeko babivuga: “Important decisions, such as that to retrench, should be subject to the greatest possible degree of consultation with employees or their representatives, not merely for reasons of procedural fairness but as part of establishing whether substantive grounds for dismissal are present and, if so, the most appropriate manner of mitigating the consequences.”1 Ibi bivuga ngo: “Ibyemezo bikomeye nko kugabanya abakozi, byagombye kubanzirizwa no kugisha inama abakozi cyangwa ababahagarariye, bitari iby’umugenzo gusa, ahubwo ari ukugira ngo bifashe mu kumenya niba koko ari ngombwa gusezerera abakozi, basanga ari ngombwa bagashaka uko ingaruka z’icyo cyemezo zitaba nyinshi”. Abo bahanga bakomeza bavuga ngo: “The statutory requirement to seek alternatives to dismissal indicates that dismissal should be avoided if reasonably possible and that alternatives put forward by consulting parties should be considered seriously, even though the employer retains a broad discretion in taking final decision”. Ni ukuvuga ngo: “Mu bisabwa n’amategeko kugira ngo hafatwe icyemezo cyo gusezerera abakozi, harimo ko icyo cyemezo kigomba kwirindwa mu buryo bwose bushoboka, kandi ko imishyikirano ihuza impande zirebwa n’ikibazo igomba guhabwa agaciro gakomeye, n’ubwo bwose umukoresha ari we ufite ububasha bwo gufata icyemezo cya nyuma”. [25] Ku byerekeye inama hagati y’abakoresha n’abakozi mbere y’uko hafatwa icyemezo cyo gusezerera abakozi, iki kibazo cyasuzumwe kenshi n’inkiko z’ibindi bihugu. Urukiko

1 Du Toit, D. Woolfrey, J. Murphy, S. Godfrey, D. Bosch and S. Christie, Labour Relations Law: A Comprehensive Guide, Butterworths, 3rd Edition, p.382.

## Page 74

43 KK SECURITY v. HARERIMANA N’ABANDI

rw’Ubujurire rwa Afurika y’Epfo, mu rubanza Atlantis Diesel2, rwasuzumye ingingo y’itegeko ry’icyo gihugu igiye gusa n’iy’itegeko ry’u Rwanda, ruvuga ruti: “The purpose of the duty to consult is to give the employer an opportunity to explain the reasons for the proposed retrenchments, to hear representations on possible ways of avoiding or minimising the effects of retrenchments and to discuss and consider possible alternatives”. Ibi ni ukuvuga ngo: “Ikiba kigamijwe mu gutegeka ko hakorwa imishyikirano, ni ukugira ngo umukoresha abone akanya ko gusobanura impamvu hateganywa igabanya ry’abakozi, kumva ibitekerezo ku cyakorwa kugira ngo iryo gabanya ritabaho cyangwa uko ingaruka zaryo zitaba nyinshi, ndetse no gushakisha izindi nzira zishoboka”. Biragaragara ko iyi nzira igamije kurengera abakozi, kandi kutayikurikiza bigafatwa nko kwirukana mu buryo bw’akarengane (unfair dismissal). Urukiko rukaba rufite inshingano yo kureba ko amategeko yubahirijwe, n’abarengana bakarenganurwa. [26] Kuvuga ko itegeko ritateganije ibihano byo kutubahiriza ibivugwa mu ngingo ya 29, nk’uko Me Rutabingwa yavuze mu iburanisha, nta gaciro byahabwa. Uru ntabwo ari urubanza rw’inshinjabyaha. Niba harabaye akarengane kubera kudakurikiza itegeko, uwarenganye agomba kurenganurwa. Nk’uko Urukiko Rukuru rwa Repubulika rwabivuze muri Rusanze ya 7 ku rupapuro rwa 12, “Iyo KK Security iza kubahiriza ibyo amategeko ateganya kugira ngo hakorwe ijonjora ry’abagomba gusezererwa cyangwa kugabanywa mu bakozi bayo hakurikijwe ubushobozi ku murimo, uburambe muri icyo kigo n’umubare w’abo batunze, nta kigaragaza ko ari abo bakozi bavuzwe haruguru bari gusezererwa mu bakozi ba

2 National Union of Metalworkers of S.A v. Atlantis Diesel Engines (Pty) Ltd (1994) 15 ILJ 12 47 (A).

## Page 75

44 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

KK Security.” Ni ukuvuga ko abareze bavanywe ku kazi kubera kutubahiriza amategeko ku ruhande rwa KK Security; bikaba byarabateye igihombo, bakaba bafite uburenganzira bwo kubona indishyi. [27] Mu gusoza kuri iyi ngingo y’ubujurire ngo y’uko KK Security yarenganyijwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rwa Repubulika, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusanga KK Security itarubahirije “procédure” iteganywa n’ingingo ya 29 yavuzwe haruguru; iyo mikorere ikaba yaratumye abareze bahagarikwa ku kazi mu buryo budakurikije amategeko, Urukiko rukaba rwemeza ko ibi bigomba gufatwa nko kwirukana umukozi nta mpamvu (licenciement abusif). KK Security ntiyarenganyijwe n’inkiko zabanje. Bityo, iyo ngingo y’ubujurire ya KK Security ikaba nta gaciro igomba guhabwa. (b) Amasaha y’ikirenga n’iminsi y’ikiruhuko. [28] Indi ngingo y’ubujurire Me Rutabingwa wunganira KK Security yatanze ni iyerekeye amasaha y’ikirenga n’iminsi y’ikiruhuko. Yavuze ko Urukiko Rukuru rwa Repubulika rwongeye kwemeza ko amasaha y’ikirenga n’iminsi ine y’ikiruhuko bigomba gutangirwa indishyi, ariko rwirengagiza ko ibyo byari bikubiye mu mushahara. Icyakora, nta bimenyetso KK Security yigeze itanga byerekana ko ayo mafaranga y’amasaha y’ikirenga bayahawe. Kandi nk’uko ingingo ya 97 y’Itegeko N°51/2001 ryo ku wa 30/12/2001 rishinga amategeko agenga umurimo ibiteganya “Iyo umukozi atemeye ko yahembwe umushahara we kandi umukoresha akabura inyandiko yemeza ko yamuhembye […] cyangwa se kopi yayo, umukoresha agomba kumuhemba”. Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusanga hagomba kugumaho icyemezo cy’Urukiko Rukuru rwa Repubulika kuri iyi ngingo y’ubujurire.

## Page 76

45 KK SECURITY v. HARERIMANA N’ABANDI

(c) Ibyerekeye ubuzime bw’ikirego (prescription). [29] Me Rutabingwa yatanze na none ingingo y’ubujurire y’uko ngo amafaranga aregerwa atangirira mu 1996 kugeza 2004 kandi harabaye ubuzime nk’uko ingingo ya 102 y’Itegeko ry’Umurimo ibivuga. Ingingo ya 102 iteganya ko: “Umushahara umaze imyaka itanu (5) utarishyuzwa ntiwishyuzwa. Igihe cyo gutangira kutishyuzwa gihera umunsi umukozi yagombaga guhemberwaho”. Icyakora iyo ngingo yongeraho ko “Icyo gihe gihagarikwa n’uko […] urubanza rw’umukozi rukiri mu nkiko cyangwa se n'uko ibiro bigenzura umurimo byasabwe kubakiranura bitaratanga umwanzuro wabyo”. Inyandiko iri muri dosiye kuri cote ya 1 kugeza kuri 6, yerekana ko mbere y’uko ikibazo cy’abarega KK Security kigera mu nkiko, cyatangiriye mu bugenzuzi bw’umurimo ku wa 18/11/1998. Kuri yo tariki habaye inama yahuje umugenzuzi w’imirimo muri Perefegitura y’Umujyi wa Kigali, abayobozi ba KK Security n’abagarde, kandi inyandiko mvugo y’iyo nama yashyizweho umukono n’uwari umugenzuzi w’umurimo. Kuba uwunganira KK Security avuga ko iyo nyandiko batayemera, nta gaciro byahabwa kubera ko batigeze bayihakana mu nkiko zabanje, byongeye kandi bakaba ntacyo bagaragaje cyatuma Urukiko rushidikanya ko iyo nama yabaye; na none, abavugwa mu nyandiko mvugo y’inama ko bari bahari nta kimenyetso cyatanzwe cyerekana ko batari bahari. Bityo, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusanga uko kwiyambaza urwego rw’ubugenzuzi bw’umurimo bivanaho ubuzime bw’ikirego cyo kwishyuza amafaranga nk’uko ingingo ya 102 yavuzwe haruguru ibiteganya.

## Page 77

46 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

(d) Igihembo cy’Avoka [30] Ikindi Me Rutabingwa yavuze ko ajuririra ni igihembo cy’Avoka cyagenwe n’umucamanza w’Urukiko Rukuru rwa Repubulika. Me Rutabingwa yavuze ko amafaranga 80.000 kuri buri muntu ari menshi kubera ko urubanza ari rumwe. Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusanga iyi ngingo ifite ishingiro kubera ko urubanza rwaburanishijwe ari rumwe nk’uko byasobanuwe, ndetse na Me Kayitare akaba yararetse inzitizi ye aho yari yagerageje kwerekana ko ari imanza 13. Ikindi, Me Kayitare yatanze imyanzuro y’urubanza rumwe, akaba yaraburanye urubanza rumwe. Urukiko rusanga mu bushishozi bwarwo rugomba kumugenera igihembo cy’amafaranga y’u Rwanda 300.000. (e) Ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi [31] Me Kayitare, mu izina ry’abo yunganira, yatanze ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi. Yavuze ko ingingo ya mbere y’ubwo bujurire ari ugusaba ko abo yunganira bagenerwa indishyi zingana n’amezi atandatu y’umushahara wa buri muntu kubera ko KK Security itabahaye icyemezo cy’imirimo bakoze (attestation de services rendus). Ingingo ya 30 y’Itegeko N°51/2001 ryo ku wa 30/12/2001 rishinga amategeko agenga umurimo iteganya ko: “Iyo amasezerano y’umurimo arangiye, […], umukoresha ahita akorera umukozi icyemezo kivuga gusa uburambe bwe muri icyo kigo n’imirimo yagiye agikoreramo. Icyo cyemezo umukozi agiherwa rimwe n’umushahara we wa nyuma. Umukoresha wanze gutanga icyo cyemezo abitangira indishyi ingana n’umushahara umukozi yahembwaga ariko ntirenze uw’amezi atandatu”. Icyakora, nta kimenyetso cyatanzwe cyerekana ko hari uwagiye gufata icyo cyemezo KK Security ikakimwima; kandi ingingo imaze kuvugwa ireba

## Page 78

47 KK SECURITY v. HARERIMANA N’ABANDI

umukoresha wanze gutanga icyo cyemezo. Bigaragara ko umushahara wa nyuma w’abo bakozi wanyujijwe kuri konti zabo. Icyo gihe abo bakozi bagombaga kujya gufata ibyemezo by’imirimo bakoze kuri KK Security; kuba bataragiyeyo bikaba bitaryozwa KK Security. Bityo, iyi ngingo y’ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi nta gaciro yahabwa, ahubwo hagumishwaho icyemezo cy’Urukiko Rukuru rwa Repubulika. [32] Indi ngingo y’ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwatanzwe na Me Kayitare yerekeye amafaranga y’ingendo, ay’icumbi n’ayo kwivuza. Icyakora, amasezerano y’akazi KK Security yari yaragiranye n’abakozi bayirega yari yarateganyije uko ayo mafaranga bagombaga kuyahabwa, kandi nta wigeze abyutsa ikibazo cy’inenge kuri ayo masezerano. Ingingo ya 5 y’ayo masezerano, mu gika cya 4, iteganya ko: “imishahara fatizo y’abakozi iba ibumbatiye ibintu by’akarusho bidatangirwa ubu imisoro: akarusho k’icumbi ka 15% ;

akarusho ko gutwarwa mu modoka ka 10%;

akarusho ko kwivuza ka 8%”. Hakurikijwe ibimaze kuvugwa biteganywa n’iyi ngingo, Urukiko rusanga ayo mafaranga barayahabwaga hamwe n’umushahara nk’uko bari barabisezeranye. Bityo, iyi ngingo y’ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi na yo nta gaciro igomba guhabwa. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA [33] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwemeje:

## Page 79

48 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

- kwakira ubujurire bwa KK Security kuko bwatanzwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, rubusuzumye rusanga nta shingiro bufite uretse ku byerekeye igihembo cya Avoka. - rwemeje kwakira ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwatanzwe na Harerimana Enos na bagenzi be kuko bwatanzwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, ariko ruvuze ko nta shingiro bufite. [34] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwemeje ko KK Security itsinzwe. Ruvuze ko imikirize y’urubanza N° R.Soc.A0277/06/HC/KIG rwajuririwe ihindutse gusa ku byerekeye igihembo cya Avoka. [35] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga: - rutegetse KK Security gutanga amafaranga y’u Rwanda 300.000 y’igihembo cy’Avoka; bityo amafaranga yose hamwe akaba ari 20.362.528Frw aho kuba 21.102.528 yari yategetswe n’Urukiko Rukuru rwa Repubulika. - rutegetse KK Security kwishyura umusogongero wa Leta wa 4% w’ayo mafaranga uhwanye na 814.501Frw. [36] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rutegetse KK Security gutanga amafaranga y’u Rwanda 33.800 y’amagarama y’urubanza; ikayatanga mu gihe giteganyijwe n’amatageko, itayatanga akavanwa mu byayo ku ngufu za Leta.

## Page 80

IMANZA MBONEZAMUBANO

## Page 82

TWAGIRAYEZU N’ABANDI v. BANKI Y’ABATURAGE Y’U RWANDA (BPR) [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – NºRS/REV/INJUST/CIV0004/15/CS (Kayitesi Z., P.J., Hatangimbabazi, Gatete, Hitiyaremye na Ngagi, J.) 11 Nzeri 2015] Amategeko agenga amasezerano – Ubugure – Igihe impande zagiranye amasezerano y’ubugure zimaze kumvikana ku kigurishwa n’ikiguzi cyacyo, ubugure buba buriho, kabone n’ubwo ikigurishwa cyaba kitaratangwa cyangwa se ikiguzi kitarishyurwa – Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 264. Amategeko agenga ingwate – Amasezerano y’ ingwate ku mutungo utimukanwa – Amasezerano y’ingwate ku mutungo wagurishijwe ntagira agaciro kabone n’ubwo haba hatarakorwa ihererekanya mutungo kuko uwagurishije nta burenganzira abagifite bwo gutangaho ingwate umutungo utakiri uwe – Iteka ryo kuwa 15/05/1922 ryagengaga ubugwate ku mitungo itimukanwa, ingingo ya 12(1). Incamake y’ikibazo:Twagirayezu yagiranye na Rushirabwoba amasezerano y’ubugure bw’ikibanza No400 kiri mu Kagali ka Gasave, Umurenge wa Gisozi, Akarere ka Gasabo, Umujyi wa Kigali, ku mafaranga 770.000 maze bumvikana ko aba amwishyuye amafaranga 720.000Frw andi 50.000Frw asigaye akazayamuha nyuma y’ukwezi amaze kumushyikiriza ibyangombwa by’ikibanza; hagati aho yahise anemererwa gutangira ibikorwa muri icyo kibanza.Gusa kwa kwezi 51

## Page 83

52 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kwarashize Rushirabwoba ntiyaha Twagirayezu ibyangombwa by’ikibanza nk’uko yari yabimwijeje. Hashize igihe ayo masezerano abaye, Rushirabwoba yasabye inguzanyo muri Banki y’ abaturage y’ u Rwanda (BPR) ingana na miliyoni eshanu maze atanga ingwate ya cya kibanza yagurishije Twagirayezu ariko uyu n’umugore we batabizi. Rushirabwoba ntiyubahirije amasezerano y’inguzanyo yari yarahawe maze BPR ifatira wa mutungo ishaka kuwuteza cyamunara. Twagirayezu n’umugore we Mukantabana babimenye batanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo basaba ko iyo cyamunara ihagarara kandi Banki y’Abaturage ishami rya Gikondo igategekwa kurekura ibyangombwa.Urwo Rukiko rwategetse ko habaho ihinduramutungo(mutation), ikibanza kikava kuri Rushirabwoba kikandikwa kuri Twagirayezu na Mukantabana kubera ko bagifatanyije. Banki y’Abaturage yajuririye icyo cyemezo mu Rukiko Rukuru irega Twagirayezuna Mukantabana bonyine, urwo Rukiko rwemeza ko ubwo bujurire bufite ishingiro ko BPR itagomba guhatirwa kurekura ibyangombwa yahaweho ingwate mu gihe umwenda yahaye Rushirabwoba utarishyurwa. Twagirayezu na Mukantabana bajuririye icyo cyemezo mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga maze narwo rwemezako Banki y’Abaturage itagomba guhatirwa kurekura ibyangombwa kubera ko bigaragara ko yagihaweho ingwate na nyiri kibanza ikindi kandi kuba batarashishikariye guhabwa ibyangombwa hagashira imyaka 3 ndetse Rushirabwoba akageza aho atangaho ingwate uwo mutungo ari uburangare bagize n’icyizere gikabije bamugiriye.

## Page 84

53 TWAGIRAYEZU N’ABANDI v. BANKI Y’ABATURAGE Y’U RWANDA (BPR) Twagirayezu na Mukantabana bagejeje ikibazo cyabo ku Rwego rw’Umuvunyi basaba ko urubanza N° RCAA0149/11/CS rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane kubera ko rudashobora kurangizwa bitewe n’uko hari urundi rubanza N° RCA0111/08/TGI/GSBO baburanyemo ubutane rwemeje ko ikibanza N° 400 n’inzu icyubatsemo ari umutungo wabo ugomba kuzagurishwa bakagabana ikiguzi kivuyemo, ngo Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rukaba ntacyo rwaruvuzeho igihe cyo guca urubanza N° RCAA 0149/11/CS. Urwego rw’umuvunyi rwasabye ko urubanza N° RCAA0149/11/CS rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane ruvuga ko habayeho ibyemezo bibiri binyuranye ku mutungo umwe kandi byombi byabaye itegeko. Urwo rubanza rwemerewe gusubirishwano ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Igihe impande zagiranye amasezerano y’ubugure zimaze kumvikana ku kigurishwa n’ikiguzi cyacyo, ubugure buba buriho, kabone n’ubwo ikigurishwa cyaba kitaratangwa cyangwa se ikiguzi kitarishyurwa; kubw’ibyo Rushirabwoba nta burenganzira yari afite bwo gutangaho ingwate umutungo utari ukiri uwe. 2. Amasezerano y’ingwate yakozwe hagati ya Banki na Rushirabwoba nta gaciro yahabwa n’ubwo rwose hatarakorwa ihererekanya mutungo kuko yakozwe n’umuntu utari nyiri umutungo bityo Banki y’Abaturage itegetswe kurekura ibyangombwa by’ikibanza Nº400 yahaweho ingwate na Rushirabwoba mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, bikandikwa mu mazina ya Twagirayezu na Mukantabana kuko aribo ba nyiracyo.

## Page 85

54 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

3. Indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’avoka zigenwa mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko iyo izisabwa ari nyinshi kandi iyo umuburanyi uzisaba ntacyo yatsindiye mu rubanza ntazihabwa. Ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane gifite ishingiro; Amagarama y’urubanza ahererye kuri Banki y’Abaturage agashami ka Gikondo. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 264. Iteka ryo kuwa 15/05/1922 ryagengaga ubugwate ku mitungo itimukanwa, ingingo ya 12(1). Imanza zifashishijwe: Nteziryayo v. Rutabayiro, RCAA0003/13/CS, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 31/01/2014. Ibitekerezo by’abanga byifashishijwe: FRANCOIS T’KINT, L’hypothèque de l’immeuble d’autrui est nulle, 3e édition, Larcier, Rue des Minimes 39, B-1000 Bruxelles, p.301. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rukomoka ku masezerano Twagirayezu Thadée, washakanye na Mukantabana Consolée, yagiranye

## Page 86

n’uwitwa Rushirabwoba Aimable ku itariki ya 06/08/2004, uyu akemera kumugurisha ikibanza N° 400 kiri mu Kagali ka Gasave, Umurenge wa Gisozi, Akarere ka Gasabo, Umujyi wa Kigali, ku mafaranga ibihumbi magana arindwi na mirongo irindwi (770.000Frw). [2] Amasezerano akimara gushyirwaho umukono, ako kanya hatanzwe amafaranga ibihumbi magana arindwi na makumyabiri (720.000Frw), hanyuma andi ibihumbi mirongo itanu (50.000Frw) akaba yaragombaga gutangwa ibyangombwa by’ikibanza bimaze gushyikirizwa Twagirayezu Thadée. Kugira ngo Twagirayezu Thadée agire icyizere, Rushirabwoba yamuhaye ingwate ya sheki yagombaga kumara ukwezi kumwe, y’agaciro kangana n’amafaranga 720.000Frw Twagirayezu Thadée yarishye, ndetse uyu yemererwa gutangira ibikorwa muri icyo kibanza. [3] Uko kwezi gushize, Rushirabwoba Aimable ntiyahaye TwagirayezuThadée ibyangombwa by’ikibanza nk’uko yari yabimwijeje, Twagirayezu Thadéena we ntiyafata amafaranga ya sheki yahawe ngo yisubize ayo yatanze. Hagati aho Twagirayezu Thadée afatanyije n’umugore we MukantabanaConsolée, bubatse muri icyo kibanza inzu yari ihagaze ku gaciro kangana na 30.375.538Frw mu kwezi kwa cumi na kabiri 2011. [4] Mu mwaka wa 2007, nyuma y’imyaka itatu (3) amasezerano abaye hagati ya Twagirayezu Thadée na Rushirabwoba Aimable, uyu yasabye inguzanyo muri Banki y’Abaturage (BPR) atanga ingwate ku kibanza cyavuzwe haruguru TwagirayezuThadée na Mukantabana Consolée batabizi. Muri ayo masezerano y’inguzanyo hari hateganyijwe ko mu gihe Rushirabwoba Aimable adatanze amafaranga ageze TWAGIRAYEZU N’ABANDI v. BANKI Y’ABATURAGE Y’U RWANDA (BPR)

## Page 87

56 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

igihe cyo kwishyurwa, Banki izakurikirana ubwishyu ku ngwate nk’uko amategeko abiteganya, ko kandi ifite uburenganzira bwo gusaba ko ingwate zigurishwa bitagombye urubanza nk’uko amategeko abiteganya. [5] Kubera kutubahiriza ayo masezerano y’inguzanyo, mu mwaka wa 2009, Banki yafatiriye umutungo yahaweho ingwate ishaka kuwuteza cyamunara, maze Twagirayezu Thadée na Mukantabana Consolée barabimenya basaba ko cyamunara ihagarikwa, imanza zitangira ubwo. [6] Twagirayezu Thadée na Mukantabana Consolée baregeye Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo kuri N° RC006/10/TGI/GSBO, N° RC007/10/TGI/GSBO basaba guhinduza ikibanza n° 400 kikabandikwaho; Banki y’Abaturage ishami rya Gikondo nayo iraregwa kugira ngo itange ibyangombwa yari yarahawe na Rushirabwoba Aimable mu buryo bw’uburiganya. Ku wa 28/01/2011, urwo Rukiko rwaciye urubanza N° RC0006/10/TGI/GSBO//RC0007/TGI/GSBO rutegeka ko habaho guhindura (mutation), ikibanza kikava kuri Rushirabwoba Aimable kikandikwa kuri Twagirayezu Thadée na Mukantabana Consolée kubera ko bagifatanyije. [7] Banki y’Abaturage yajuririye icyo cyemezo mu Rukiko Rukuru kuri N° RCA0062/11/HC/KIG, irega Twagirayezu Thadée na Mukantabana Consolée bonyine, maze ku itariki ya 25/11/2011, urwo Rukiko rwemeza ko ubwo bujurire bufite ishingiro, ko imikirize y’urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo ihindutse kuri byose, ko BPR itagomba guhatirwa kurekura ibyangombwa yahaweho ingwate mu gihe umwenda yahaye Rushirabwoba Aimable utarishyurwa. Mu gufata icyo cyemezo, urwo Rukiko rwashingiye ku mpamvu z’uko Twagirayezu Thadée atahawe

## Page 88

ibyangombwa by’ikibanza byuzuye, ntanihatire kugira ngo Rushirabwoba Aimable abimushyikirize, bigatuma nawe abitanga muri Banki ngo abone inguzanyo. [8] Twagirayezu Thadée na Mukantabana Consolée bajuriye mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga kuri RCAA0149/11/CS, bavuga ko ihame ry’uko “ntawe uburanira undi atabimuhereye uburenganzira”, n’iry’uko urubanza ruba rureba ba nyirarwo rukaba aribo rugiraho inyungu cyangwa ingaruka, bakavuga ko ayo mahame yombi atubahirijwe mu rubanza rwajuririwe. Ikindi bavuze ni uko Umucamanza yahinduye icyaburanwaga avanaho icyemezo cyategekaga mutation kandi abo bireba bakoranye amasezerano y’ubugure batarabijuririye. [9] Ku itariki ya 16/11/2012, mu rubanza N° RCAA0149/11/CS, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga narwo rwemeje ko BPR itagomba guhatirwa kurekura ibyangombwa by’ikibanza yahaweho ingwate mu gihe umwenda yahaye Rushirabwoba Aimable wari nyiri ikibanza utarishyurwa. [10] Twagirayezu Thadée na Mukantabana Consolée bagejeje ikibazo cyabo ku Rwego rw’Umuvunyi basaba ko urubanza N° RCAA0149/11/CS rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane kubera ko rudashobora kurangizwa bitewe ni uko hari urundi rubanza N° RCA0111/08/TGI/GSBO baburanyemo ubutane rwemeje ko ikibanza N° 400 n’inzu icyubatsemo ari umutungo wabo ugomba kuzagurishwa bakagabana ikiguzi kivuyemo, ngo Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rukaba ntacyo rwaruvuzeho igihe cyo guca urubanza N° RCAA0149/11/CS. [11] Kuwa 16/07/2014 Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rwandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusaba ko urubanza N° RCAA0149/11/CS rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane TWAGIRAYEZU N’ABANDI v. BANKI Y’ABATURAGE Y’U RWANDA (BPR)

## Page 89

58 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ruvuga ko habayeho ibyemezo bibiri binyuranye ku mutungo umwe kandi byombi byabaye itegeko. [12] Nyuma yo gusuzuma raporo yakozwe n’Ubugenzuzi Bukuru bw’Inkiko, ku itariki ya 31/3/2015 Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga yafashe icyemezo Nº 11/2015 gitegeka ko uru rubanza rwoherezwa mu Bwanditsi bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kugira ngo rwandikwe mu bitabo byarwo ruzongere ruburanishwe, maze ruhabwa Nº RS/REV/INJUST/CIV0004/15/CS. [13] Mu myanzuro batanze, Twagirayezu Thadée na Mukantabana Consolée bavuga ko Urukiko rwabarenganyije kuko rwaciye urubanza rutitaye ku mvugo ya Rushirabwoba Aimable na we ubwe wiyemereye ko ikibanza yatanzeho ingwate kitari icye, kuko yari yarakibagurishije, ko kandi hari urubanza N° RCA0111/08/TGI/GSBO rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo rwabaye itegeko, rukemeza ko ikibanza N° 400 kirimo inzu ari umutungo wa Twagirayezu Thadée na Mukantabana Consolée. [14] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku itariki ya 30/06/2015, Mukantabana Consolée yunganiwe na Me Mukamazimpaka Hilarie afatanyije na Me Kaboyi Benoît, aba bakaba ari nabo baburanira Twagirayezu Thadée, naho Banki y’Abaturage y’u Rwanda, ishami rya Gikondo (muri uru rubanza ikaba iri bwitwe Banki y’Abaturage mu magambo magufi) ihagarariwe na Me Mubangizi Frank.

## Page 90

II. IBIBAZO BIRI MU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO Kumenya niba ikibanza N° 400 kiri ku Gisozi n’inzu ikirimo ari umutungo wa Twagirayezu Thadée na Mukantabana Consolée ugomba kubandikwaho. [15] Mukantabana Consolée avuga ko, nk’uko babigaragaje mu myanzuro bashyikirije urukiko, nta ngwate Bankiy’Abaturage ifite ku nzu iri mu kibanza N° 400, kubera ko uwo mutungo wanditse kuri Twagirayezu Thadée na Mukantabana Consolée, ko ikindi kigaragaza ko uwo mutungo utari mu bugwate, ari uko nta hantu banki yigeze iwandikisha nk’ingwate nk’uko amategeko abiteganya. [16] Avuga kandi ko Banki y’Abaturage yareze mu bujurire Twagirayezu Thadée na Mukantabana Consolée kandi nta masezerano y’umwenda bagiranye, uwo bayagiranye ari Rushirabwoba Aimable, ko kandi mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo ubwo haburanwaga ibirebana no guhinduza umutungo (mutation) yiyemereye ko umutungo yahayeho Banki y’Abaturage ingwate yari yarawubagurishije, ko kuba rero banki itarajuririye izo mvugo za Rushirabwoba Aimable bivuze ko yazemeye. [17] Me Kaboyi Benoit wunganira Mukantabana Consolée akaba anaburanira Twagirayezu Thadée, avuga ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwashimangiye icyemezo cy’Urukiko Rukuru kandi umucamanza wagifashe atarasobanuye impamvu yakuyeho icyemezo cyari cyarafashwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye kandi cyari gishingiye ku mategeko, mu gihe we yafashe icyemezo kidafite itegeko na rimwe gishingiyeho. TWAGIRAYEZU N’ABANDI v. BANKI Y’ABATURAGE Y’U RWANDA (BPR)

## Page 91

60 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[18] Asobanura ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwivuguruje ku bijyanye n’ingingo ya 264 y’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko y’imbonezamubano (CCLIII) rwashingiyeho, ruvuga ko hagumyeho icyemezo cy’Urukiko Rukuru, ko amasezerano Rushirabwoba Aimable yari yaragiranye na Twagirayezu Thadée atari yuzuye kugira ngo uyu afatwe nka nyiri ikibanza cyagurishwaga mu gihe yari atarahabwa ibyangombwa, nyamara iyo ngingo ivuga neza ko igurisha riba ryuzuye hagati y’abagiranye amasezerano kandi umugurisha akegurira burundu umuguzi icyagurishijwe mu gihe bumvikanye ku kintu no ku giciro cyacyo n’ubwo ikigurishwa kitari cyatangwa. [19] Avuga ko ku kibazo nk’iki hari urubanza rufite N° RCAA0003/13/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku itariki ya 31/1/2014 aho Rutabayiru Eric yagiranye amasezerano y’ubugure bw’ikibanza na Nteziryayo Eric, uwagurishije agashaka kwanga gutanga ibyangombwa by’ikibanza, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rukaba rwaranzuye rutegeka Nteziryayo Eric gukorera RutabayiruEric ihinduzamutungo kuko bari barumvikanye ku mazu yagurishwaga no ku giciro cyayo. [20] Asobanura ko amasezerano y’iguriza ya miliyoni eshanu (5.000.000Frw) yakozwe hagati ya Rushirabwoba Aimable na Bankiy’Abaturage nta gaciro afite, kubera ko mu ngingo yayo ya kabiri bavuze ko ugurizwa ahaye Banki ikibanza kiri ku Gisozi nk’ingwate y’uwo mwenda, ariko ntibagaragaza numero yacyo mu rwego rwo kwerekana icyo kibanza icyo aricyo kuko ku Gisozi hari ibibanza byinshi, ko rero ibyo binyuranye n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 8, agace ka gatatu, y’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko y’imbonezamubano, ivuga ko

## Page 92

kugira ngo amasezerano agire agaciro hagomba ikintu kidashidikanywa ari na cyo remezo ry’isezerano. [21] Me Kaboyi Benoit avuga ko byongeye kandi asanga nta n’ubugwate bwabayeho kubera ko ntaho bigaragara ko Banki y’Abaturage yigeze yandikisha iyo ngwate y’ikibanza gifite N°400 nk’uko yanabyiyemereye mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, ko kandi bitajyaga no gushoboka kuko icyo kibanza cyanditse kuri Twagirayezu Thadée naMukantabana Consolée. Akavuga ko ibyo binyuranye n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 19 y’Itegeko ryo ku wa 15/05/1922 rigena ubugwate ku kintu kitimukanwa ivuga ko nta bugwate ku kintu kitimukanwa bubaho butanditswe mu gitabo cy’inyandiko z’ubutaka. [22] Me Mukamazimpaka Hilarie na we wunganira Mukantabana Consolée, avuga ko urubanza basaba ko rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane rwabarenganyije kuko rutitaye ku mvugo za Rushirabwoba Aimable imbere y’Urukiko Rwisumbuye, icyo gihe na Banki y’Abaturage ikaba yari ihagarariwe, aho yemeye ko habaye kwibeshya ubwo yatangaga ikibanza kiburanwa ho ingwate kandi yari yaramaze kukigurisha, akaba yaremeraga ko habaho ihererekanyamutungo (mutation). Avuga ko kuba izo mvugo Banki itarazijuririye mu Rukiko Rukuru, no kuba kandi itaratambamiye urubanza N° RCA0111/08/TGI/GSBO rwaciwe ku itariki ya 30/1/2009 rwategetse ko inzu iburanwa igabanywa hagati ya Mukantabana Consolée na Twagirayezu Thadée kandi yararumenyeshejwe, bivuze ko yemeye ibyavuzwe na Rushirabwoba Aimable. [23] Avuga ko mu kugirana amasezerano y’iguriza na Rushirabwoba Aimable mu 2007, Banki y’Abaturage yagize uburangare ntiyajya kureba aho umutungo yari ihaweho ingwate uherereye ngo irebe n’isura yawo, ko iyo ijya kubikora yari TWAGIRAYEZU N’ABANDI v. BANKI Y’ABATURAGE Y’U RWANDA (BPR)

## Page 93

62 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kubona ko icyo yari ihaweho ingwate atari ikibanza ahubwo yari inzu ifite ba nyirayo batari Rushirabwoba Aimable wayibeshyaga. [24] Me Mukamazimpaka Hilarie na we agaruka ku ngingo ya 264 y’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko y’imbonezamubano n’iya 33 y’icyo gitabo, avuga ko kuba Rushirabwoba Aimable yari yaragiranye amasezerano y’ubugure bw’ikibanza na Twagirayezu Thadée icyo kibanza cyari cyarangije kuba icy’uwaguze, kabone n’ubwo yari atarahabwa ibyangombwa byacyo, ko rero atagombaga guhindukira ngo agitangeho ingwate muri banki. Avuga ko icyo kibazo Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwagifasheho icyemezo mu rubanza N° RCAA0003/13/CS. [25] Me Mubangizi Frank uburanira Banki y’Abaturage avuga ko impamvu zitangwa n’abarega nta shingiro zifite kuko Banki y’Abaturage yahaweho ingwate ibyangombwa by’ikibanza kiri ku Gisozi byagaragaraga ko ari we nyiracyo, akaba nta zindi mpungenge yagombaga kugira. Ku birebana no kuba ku Gisozi hari ibibanza byinshi nk’uko bivugwa n’uburanira abarega, avuga ko nta shingiro bikwiye guhabwa kubera ko ibyo bibanza byose bidafite N° 400 igaragara mu byangombwa Banki y’Abaturage yahawe, ko rero ingingo ya 8, agace ka gatatu, y’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano yubahirijwe. [26] Ku birebana no kuba ingwate yahawe itarandikishijwe hakurikijwe ibikubiye mu ngingo ya 19 y’Itegeko ryo ku wa 15/05/1922 rigena ubugwate ku kintu kitimukanwa, Me Mubangizi Frank avuga ko ibyo bitari ngombwa kubera ko iyo ngingo yarebaga ubugwate ku mutungo ufite “titre de propriété”. Yongeraho ko kuba uwatanze ingwate nta kibazo

## Page 94

63 TWAGIRAYEZU N’ABANDI v. BANKI Y’ABATURAGE Y’U RWANDA (BPR) afite, abarega bataza kubaza ibirebana n’iyo ngwate kubera ko ntaho bahuriye na yo. [27] Me Mubangizi Frank avuga ko mu gace ka 17 ka kopi y’urubanza, Urukiko rwasobanuye ko amasezerano hagati ya Twagirayezu Thadée na Rushirabwoba Aimable atari yuzuye kugira ngo Twagirayezu Thadée afatwe mu rwego rw’amategeko ko ari we nyiri ikibanza kuko atigeze ahabwa ibyangombwa byacyo. Avuga kandi ko mu gace ka 18 k’urubanza, Urukiko rwavuze ko mu rwego rw’amategeko, ufatwa nka nyiri ikibanza ari ubigaragariza ibyemezo bidashidikanywaho, akavuga ko ntaho abarega bahera bavuga ko Urukiko rwivuguruje ku bijyanye n’ingingo ya 264 CCLIII kuko rwayitanzeho ibisobanuro birambuye. [28] Ku birebana n’urubanza (jurisprudence) rwatanzwe na Me Kaboyi Benoît, Me Mubangizi Frank avuga ko ntaho ruhuriye n’uru rubanza baburana, kubera ko icyo Banki y’Abaturage iburana na Twagirayezu Thadée hamwe na Mukantabana Consolée kidashingiye ku masezerano y’ubugure nk’uko bimeze muri urwo rubanza. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [29] Mu nyandikozigize urubanzaharimo amasezerano y’ubugure bw’ikibanza yakozwe ku wa 06/08/2004 aho Rushirabwoba Aimable yemeye ko agurishije Twagirayezu Thadée ikibanza gifite Nº400 kiri mu Kagari ka Gasave, Umurenge wa Gisozi, Akarere ka Gasabo, ku mafaranga ibihumbi magana arindwi na mirongo irindwi (770.000Frw), aya masezerano kandi agaragaza ko abayagiranye bumvikanye ko uguze yishyuye amafaranga ibihumbi magana arindwi na

## Page 95

64 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO makumyabiri (720.000Frw), andi ibihumbi mirongo itanu (50.000Frw) asigaye akazatangwa nyuma y’uko ibyangombwa byerekana nyiri ikibanza bihawe uwaguze (Twagirayezu Thadée). Ikindi abagiranye amasezerano y’ubugure bumvikanye, ni uko Twagirayezu Thadée waguze yemerewe guhita atangira gukorera ibikorwa bye muri icyo kibanza amasezerano akimara gusinywa. [30] Mu nyandiko zigize urubanza, harimo kandi amasezerano y’iguriza Nº007/2007 yabaye ku itariki ya 22/05/2007 hagati ya Banki y’Abaturage na Rushirabwoba Aimable, muri ayo masezerano Rushirabwoba akaba yaragurijwe na Banki y’Abaturage amafaranga miliyoni eshanu (5.000.000Frw) yagombaga kwishyurwa mu myaka itatu (36mois), mu ngingo ya 2 y’ayo masezerano nyiri ukugurizwa akaba yaratanzeho ingwate z’uwo mwenda ikibanza cye kiri ku Gisozi. [31] Urukiko rurasanga mu rubanza Nº RC0006/10/TGI/GSBO//RC0007/10/TGI/GSBO Mukantabana Consolée na Twagirayezu Thadée barareze Rushirabwoba Aimable na Banki y’Abaturage basaba guhindurirwa ibyangombwa by’ikibanza baguze kikabandikwaho (mutation), Urukiko rugategeka ko ikibanza kigomba kwandikwa kuri Mukantabana Consolée na Twagirayezu Thadée, ko kandi Banki y’Abaturage igomba gusubiza ibyangombwa by’icyo kibanza kuko yabihaweho ingwate mu buryo butemewe n’amategeko. [32] Urukiko rurasanga kandi mu bujurire bw’urwo rubanza rumaze kuvugwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwaremeje ko Banki y’Abaturage itagomba guhatirwa kurekura ibyangombwa by’ikibanza Nº400 kiburanwa yahaweho ingwate na

## Page 96

Ruzirabwoba Aimable mu gihe umwenda yamuhaye utarishyurwa, ibi bikaba ari nabyo Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwemeje mu rubanza N° RCAA0149/11/CSrushingiye ku ngingo ya 264 y’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano, no ku ngingo ya 282 y’iryo tegeko. [33] Ingingo ya 264 y’Igitabo cy’urwunge rw’amategeko y’imbonezamubano iteganya ko “igurisha riba ryuzuye hagati y'abagiranye amasezerano kandi umugurisha akegurira burundu umuguzi icyagurishijwe mu gihe bumvikanye ku kintu no ku giciro cyacyo nubwo ikigurishwa kitari cyatangwa n’ikiguzi cyacyo kikaba kitari cyishyurwa”, naho ingingo ya 282 y’icyo gitabo yo “igateganya ko inshingano yo gushyikiriza ibitimukanwa iba yuzuye ku ruhande rw’umugurisha iyo atanze imfunguzo, niba ari inyubako cyangwa impapuro zigaragaza nyiri ikintu”. [34] Mu rubanza NºRCAA0149/11/CS rusabirwa gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwasobanuye ko amasezerano yo kuwa 06/08/2004 Rushirabwoba Aimable yagiranye na Twagirayezu Thadée mu rwego rw’amategeko atari yuzuye kugira ngo Twagirayezu Thadée afatwe ko ari we nyiri ikibanza kuko atigeze ahabwa ibyangomwa byacyo, ko imbere ya rubanda ndetse no mu rwego rw’amategeko Rushirabwoba ari we wakomeje kuba nyiri ikibanza kuko ari we wari ufite ibyangombwa biteganywa n’amategeko. [35] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga harabayeho kudakoresha neza ingingo z’itegeko zavuzwe haruguru, aho urubanza rusabirwa gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, mu gika cyarwo cya 17, rwavuze ko Twagirayezu Thadée atagombaga gufatwa nka nyiri ikibanza yaguze kuko Atari yagahabwa TWAGIRAYEZU N’ABANDI v. BANKI Y’ABATURAGE Y’U RWANDA (BPR)

## Page 97

66 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ibyangombwa byacyo, ibyo rukaba rwarabishingiraga ku ngingo ya 282 y’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko y’imbonezamubano yibukijwe haruguru, nyamara iyo ngingo igaragaza igihe uwagurishije aba yujuje inshingano ye mu rwego rwo gushyira mu bikorwa amasezerano y’ubugure, iyo nshingano akaba ari ugushyikiriza imfunguzo, niba icyaguzwe ari inyubako, cyangwa impapuro zigaragaza nyiri ikintu. Kuba rero uwagurishije yarenga ku nshingano ye bikaba bitagomba ubwabyo gutesha agaciro amasezerano y’ubugure nk’uko bisobanurwa mu ngingo ya 264 y’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko y’imbonezamubano na yo yavuzwe haruguru. [36] Urukiko rwaciye urubanza rusabirwa gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, rwasobanuye kandi ko Twagirayezu Thadée yemera ko mu myaka itatu (3) yose nyuma y’ubugure,atahawe ibyo byangombwa ntanashishikarire kubihabwa kugeza aho Rushirabwoba Aimable abitangaho ingwate ku nguzanyo, no kugeza igihe ikibanza n’ibirimo byenda gutezwa cyamunara na Banki y’Abaturage kubera ko Rushirabwoba Aimable atishyuye inguzanyo yahawe, ari uburangare yagize n’icyizere gikabije yamugiriye. [37] Urukiko rurasanga iyi myumvire inyuranye n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 264 y’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano, iteganya ko kuva igihe impande zagiranye amasezerano y’ubugure zimaze kumvikana ku kigurishwa n’ikiguzi cyacyo, ubugure buba buriho,kabone n’ubwo ikigurishwa cyaba kitaratangwa cyangwa se ikiguzi kitarishyurwa. [38] Urukiko rurasanga kandi ibisobanuro by’iyi ngingo ari nabyo byagarutsweho mu rubanza NºRCAA0003/13/CS aho

## Page 98

Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rushingiye ku bisobanuro byatanzwe n’umuhanga Laurent Collon, mu gitabo cye cyitwa Vente d’immeuble rwemeje ko igura riba ryuzuye mu gihe abagiranye amasezerano y’ubugure bumvikanye ku kigurishwa n’igiciro cyacyo kabone n’ubwo bo ubwabo bashobora kwiyongereramo izindi shingano1. [39] Urukiko rurasanga ibivugwa mu ngingo ya 282 yo mu gitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano,byo gushyikiriza uwaguze ibyangombwa by’icyo yaguze, ari inshingano abagiranye amasezerano bagira nyuma yo kugura atari impamvu zituma amasezerano y’ubugure ateshwa agaciro (formalités substantielles à peine de nullité), gusa umwe mu bagiranye amasezerano akaba ashobora kuririra kuri izo nshingano iyo zitubahirijwe, asaba ko amasezerano y’ubugure ateshwa agaciro, nyamara muri uru rubanza hakaba nta n’umwe mu bagiranye amasezerano wigeze asaba ko aseswa kubera ko hari inshingano runaka zitubahirijwe, ikibazo kikaba cyaravutse ahubwo kubera ko Twagirayezu Thadée yasabye gukorerwa ihererekanyamutungo (mutation) agasanga ikibanza yaguze cyaratanzweho ingwate muri Banki. [40] Urukiko rurasanga amasezerano yo ku wa 06/08/2004 yabaye hagati ya Rushirabwoba Aimable na Twagirayezu Thadée yaragize Twagirayezu Thadée nyiri ikibanza, ku buryo Rushirabwoba Aimablenta burenganzira yari agifite bwo kuba yagira icyo agikoraho yitwaje ko ataramuha ibyangombwa cyangwa se ko atarishyurwa amafaranga yose (kugitanga, kukigurisha cyangwa kugitangaho ingwate).

1Reba urubanza NºRCAA0003/13/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 31/01/2014 hagati ya Nteziryayo Eric na Rutabayiro Eric. TWAGIRAYEZU N’ABANDI v. BANKI Y’ABATURAGE Y’U RWANDA (BPR)

## Page 99

68 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[41] Urukiko rurasanga kandi, kuba impande zombi zarateganyije ko amafaranga ibihumbi mirongo itanu (50.000Frw) asigaye azatangwa ari uko Twagirayezu Thadée amaze gushyikirizwa ibyangombwa, nabyo atari inkomyi, ahubwo ari ubugure bwuzuye, indi mihango ibuherekeza ikazakorwa ari uko igiciro cyose cyuzuye. Iki akaba ari na cyo gitekerezo kiri mu rubanza rufite N° RCAA0003/13/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku itariki ya 31/1/2014, aho Rutabayiru Eric yagiranye amasezerano y’ubugure bw’amazu na Nteziryayo Eric, uwagurishije agashaka kwanga gutanga ibyangombwa by’ikibanza, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rukaba rwaranzuye ko amasezerano y’ubugure Nteziryayo Eric yagiranye na Rutabayiru Eric afite agaciro kuko bumvikanye ku mazu agurishwa no ku giciro cyayo, maze rutegeka Nteziryayo Eric gukorera Rutabayiru Eric ihererekanyamutungo. [42] Urukiko rurasanga rero, nk’uko bimaze gusobanurwa haruguru, Rushirabwoba Aimable nta burenganzira yari afite bwo gutangaho ingwate umutungo utari ukiri uwe kuko wari wararangije kugera mu maboko ya Twagirayezu Thadée na Mukantabana Consolée, bityo amasezerano y’ingwate yakozwe hagati ya Banki na Rushirabwoba Aimable akaba adashobora kugira agaciro nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 12, agace kayo ka mbere, y’Iteka ryo kuwa 15/05/1922 ryagengaga ubugwate ku mitungo itimukanwa2 ryakoreshwaga ubwo ikibanza Nº400 cyatangwagaho ingwate na Rushirabwoba, ibivugwa n’iyi ngingo bikaba ari nabyo byemezwa n’umuhanga mu mategeko

2 Il n’ya contrat d’hypothèque valable que: Si celui qui s’engage à la constituer est actuellement propriétaire de l’immeuble ou titulaire du droit à gréver ou s’il a un droit actuel à le devenir, et s’il a capacité d’aliéner [….]»

## Page 100

69 TWAGIRAYEZU N’ABANDI v. BANKI Y’ABATURAGE Y’U RWANDA (BPR)

François T’Kint mu gitabo cye cyitwa Sûretés et principes généraux du droit de poursuites des créances3. [43] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro byatanzwe haruguru, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga ikibanza Nº 400 kiri mu Kagari ka Gasave, Umurenge wa Gisozi, Akarere ka Gasabo, ari icya Twagirayezu Thadée na Mukantabana Consolée kuko bakiguze mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 264 y’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano yibukijwe haruguru, bityo urubanza NºRCA0062/11/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, n’urubanza NºRCAA0149/11/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 16/12/2012 zikaba zihindutse muri byose, Banki y’Abaturage ikaba itegetswe kurekura ibyangombwa by’ikibanza nº400 yahaweho ingwate na Rushirabwoba Aimable mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, bikandikwa mu mazina ya Twagirayezu Thadée na Mukantabana Consolée kuko aribo ba nyiracyo. Ku birebana n’indishyi zisabwa na buri ruhande muri uru rubanza. [44] Me Kaboyi avuga ko Twagirayezu Thadée na Mukantabana Consolée bakwiye guhabwa indishyi zingana n’amafaranga miliyoni umunani (8.000.000Frw) zijyanye n’ibyangiritse ku nzu yubatse mu kibanza N° 400 cya Twagirayezu Thadée na Mukantabana Consolée, miliyoni imwe (1.000.000Frw) y’ikurikiranarubanza kuva uru rubanza rwatangira, miliyoni imwe (1.000.000Frw) y’indishyi

3 Le constituant de l’hypothèque doit être propriétaire de l’immeuble qu’il grève ou, plus exactement, titulaire d’un droit réel sur l’immeuble. L’hypothèque de l’immeuble d’autrui est nulle, FRANCOIS T’KINT., 3e édition, Larcier, Rue des Minimes 39, B-1000 Bruxelles, 2000, p.301.

## Page 101

70 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

z’akababaro ko kuba bararezwe na Banki y’Abaturage nta nguzanyo yabahaye, hamwe na miliyoni ebyiri (2.000.000Frw) y’igihembo cya Avoka kuva imanza zitangira kugeza ubu. [45] Me Mubangizi Frank uburanira Bankiy’Abaturage, mu myanzuro ye avuga ko nta ndishyi abarega bakwiye guhabwa kubera ko atari Banki yabareze, ko ahubwo ari bo bareze, ko kuba Banki yaratsinzwe urubanza ikarujuririra ari uburenganzira yemererwa n’amategeko. Akomeza avuga ko hari indishyi bakeneye atari Banki y’Abaturage bazisaba, ko ahubwo bazisaba uwababeshye ko abagurishije. [46] Ashingiye ku ngingo ya 106 y’Itegeko N°21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/6/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, no ku ngingo ya 258 y’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko y’imbonezamubano, Me Mubangizi Frank arasabira Banki y’Abaturage indishyi zingana na miliyoni enye (4.000.000Frw) zo gushorwa mu manza ku maherere, hamwe na miliyoni imwe y’amafaranga y’u Rwanda (1.000.000Frw) y’igihembo cya Avoka. [47] Me Kaboyi Benoît avuga ko izo ndishyi Banki y’Abaturage ntazo igomba guhabwa kubera ko ari yo yarenganyije Twagirayezu Thadée na Mukantabana Consolée yanga kurega uwo yagombaga kurega ikabashora mu manza. [48] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga ku bijyanye n’indishyi Me Kaboyi Bénoit asaba zingana na miliyoni imwe y’amafaranga y’u Rwanda (1.000.000Frw) ntazo akwiye guhabwa kubera ko atazitangira ibisobanuro. Naho ku bijyanye n’indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka asabira abo aburanira, bakaba bakwiye guhabwa miliyoni imwe

## Page 102

71 TWAGIRAYEZU N’ABANDI v. BANKI Y’ABATURAGE Y’U RWANDA (BPR)

(1.000.000Frw) agenwe mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko kubera ko miliyoni ebyiri n’ibihumbi magana atanu (2.500.000Frw) asaba ari umurengera. [49] Ku birebana n’indishyi zisabwa na Banki y’Abaturagemu bujurire bwuririye ku bundi, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga itazihabwa kubera ko ntacyo yatsindiye muri uru rubanza. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [50] Rwemeje ko ikirego cya Mukantabana Consolée na Twagirayezu Thadée gisaba ko urubanza N° RCAA0149/11/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 16/11/2012rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane gifite ishingiro; [51] Rwemeje ko urubanza N°RCAA0149/11/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 16/11/2012 n’urubanza N° RCA0062/11/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku itariki ya 25/11/2011 zihindutse muri byose; [52] Rutegetse Banki y’Abaturage, agashami ka Gikondo, kurekura ibyangombwa by’ikibanza Nº400 kiri i Gasave, mu Murenge wa Gisozi, Akarere ka Gasabo, Umujyi wa Kigali, bigashyikirizwa Twagirayezu Thadée na Mukantabana Consolée bikabandikwaho. [53] Rutegetse Banki y’Abaturage, agashami ka Gikondo, guha Twagirayezu Thadée na Mukantabana Consolée miliyoni imwe y’amafaranga y’u Rwanda (1.000.000Frw) y’igihembo cya avoka;

## Page 103

72 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[54] Rutegetse Banki y’Abaturage, agashami ka Gikondo, kwishyura amagarama y’urubanza angana na 100.000.

## Page 104

IMANZA Z’UBUCURUZI

## Page 106

BRD v. UWIMBABAZI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RCOMA0052/12/CS (Hatangimbabazi, P.J., Mukamulisa na Hitiyaremye, J.) 04 Ukuboza 2015] Amategeko agenga amasezerano – Amasezerano y’inguzanyo – Inyungu zisanzwe n’iz’ubukererwe – Uwahawe inguzanyo na banki agomba kwishyura inyungu zisanzwe n’iz’ubukererwe igihe atubahirije amasezerano kuko amasezerano akozwe ku buryo bukurikije amategeko aba itegeko ku bayagiranye kandi akaba agomba kubahirizwa nta buryarya – Itegeko ryo ku wa 30/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 33 na 480. Amategeko agenga amasezerano – Amasezerano y’inguzanyo – Guhabwa inguzanyo y’inyongera – Banki zifite uburenganzira bwo gutanga inguzanyo cyangwa kutazitanga zitagombye kwisobanura; ahubwo igishingirwaho ahanini ni icyizere banki runaka igirira umukiliya wayo n’ubushobozi iba ibona afite bwo kwishyura inguzanyo asaba – Itegeko ryo ku wa 30/07/1988 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 33. Amategeko agenga amasezerano – Amasezerano y’inguzanyo – Indishyi zikomoka ku kutubahiriza amasezerano y’inguzanyo – Banki ntiyahabwa indishyi zo kutubahiriza amasezerano igihe yahawe indishyi zisanzwe n’iz’ubukererwe. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubucuruzi – Kwishyuza umwishingizi – Kuba yarishingiye umwenda ubwabyo ntibihagije ngo ategekwe kuwishyura mu gihe atabaye umuburanyi mu rubanza – Itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo ku wa 75

## Page 107

76 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 10 n’iya 117. Indishyi – Indishyi zishingiye ku gihombo – Ntawuhabwa indishyi zishingiye ku gihombo igihe nta kosa uwo asaba ko zicibwa yamukoreye. Incamake y’Ikibazo: Uwimbabazi Jean-Paul yagiranye amasezerano y’inguzanyo na BRD. BRD yayimuhaye mu byiciro bitandukanye. Nyuma yaje kongera kwaka indi nguzanyo y’inyongera kugirango yagure umushinga we ariko BRD ntiyayimuha ivuga ko yayashakiraga ibidakubiye mu masezerano. Ibi byatumye Uwimbabazi Jean-Paul arega BRD mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi avuga ko imyifatire yayo yamuteje igihombo n’akababaro. Mu guca urubanza, Urukiko rwamutegetse guha BRD 302.000.000Frw y’umwenda ayibereyemo, indishyi zo kutubahiriza amasezerano zingana na 5.000.000Frw, hamwe na 500.000Frw y’igihembo cy’Avoka n’ikurikiranarubanza, agatanga kandi 4% yayo angana na 220.000Frw y’umusogongero wa Leta na 6.900Frw y’amagarama y’urubanza. Mu gufata iki cyemezo urwo Rukiko rwavuze ko nta kosa BRD yakoze ryayiviramo kuryozwa indishyi, kuko amasezerano y’inguzanyo ashingiraho ikirego cye yarimo impamvu zatuma atubahirizwa (conditions résolutoires). Ku bijyanye n’indishyi zasabwaga na BRD Urukiko rwavuze ko zitagomba gutangwa kuko umushinga zatangiwe utigeze ukora. Rwavuze kandi ko uwari wishingiye umwenda atagomba gutegekwa gufatanya n’uwahawe inguzanyo kuyishyura kuko atigeze ahamagarwa.

## Page 108

77 BRD v. UWIMBABAZI

BRD yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ivuga ko umucamanza yanze kuyigenera inyungu z’umwenda wose Uwimbabazi yafashe inavuga ko Mukabutera nk’umwishingizi agomba gufatanya na Uwimbabazi kwishyura iyo nguzanyo. Uwimbabazi yasabye Urukiko ko rwakwimura iburanisha kugira ngo Mukabutera wishingiye inguzanyo nawe ahamagazwe. Yanavuze kandi ko hari n’imishyikirano yatangiye kugirana na BRD hashakwa uburyo ikibazo bafitanye cyakemuka. Kuri izi ngoboka, Urukiko rwemeje ko urubanza ruburanishwa umwishingizi adahari. Uwimbabazi avuga ko inyungu BRD isaba itazihabwa. Ahubwo yemeye gusubiza gusa amafaranga yahaweho inguzanyo kuko iyo nguzanyo yari iyo mu rwego rw’ishoramari bitandukanye n’inguzanyo y’ubucuruzi, avuga kandi ko BRD itari gukomeza kubara inyungu mu gihe yari yahaye uwimbabazi (delai de grace). Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Amasezerano akozwe ku buryo bukurikije amategeko aba itegeko ku bayagiranye kandi aba agomba kubahirizwa nta buryarya. Kuba rero impande zombi zaragiranye amasezerano zikagira ibyo zumvikana harimo inyungu zisanzwe ndetse n’izubukererwe nyamara Urukiko rukemeza ko Banki itagomba guhabwa izo nyungu rushingiye ku kuba umushinga iyo nguzanyo yatangiwe utarigeze ukora nyamara rwari rumaze kwemeza ko nta makosa yashyirwa kuri iyo banki, bigaragaza ukwivuguruza k’Urukiko ku bijyanye n’ibisobanuro kuri izo nyungu. Bityo, icyemezo rwazifasheho kigomba guhinduka. 2. Ntiyaburanisha ko banki ariyo yamushyizeho amananiza yanga kumuha inguzanyo y’inyongera kugira ngo yagure umushinga nk’uko yabyifuzaga kuko yamweretse ko

## Page 109

78 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

idashyigikiye ihinduka ry’umushinga yaherewe umwenda kandi ihame akaba ari uko banki zifite uburenganzira bwo kuzitanga cyangwa kutazitanga zitagombye no kwisobanura; ahubwo itangwa ry’inguzanyo rishingira ahanini ku cyizere banki igirira umukiriya wayo n’ubushobozi iba ibona afite bwo kwishyura inguzanyo asaba. 3. Ntawe ushobora gufatirwa icyemezo mu rubanza atabayemo umuburanyi. Umwishingizi rero ntiyategekwa gufatanya kwishyura umwenda n’uwo yishingiye mu gihe atigeze ahamagazwa muri urwo Rukiko kugira ngo agire ibyo ategekwa. 4. Ntawahabwa indishyi z’igihombo mu gihe atagaraje ikosa yakorewe n’uwo asaba ko zicibwa. 5. Banki ntiyahabwa indishyi zo kutubahiriza amasezerano mu gihe yahawe inyungu zisanzwe n’iz’ubukererwe; agomba ahubwo kuyishyura amagrama y’urubanza n’igihembo cy’avoka. Ubujurire bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe; Ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi nta shingiro bufite; Amagarama y’urubanza aherereye kuwareze. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 10 n’iya 117. Itegeko Nº15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 3.

## Page 110

79 BRD v. UWIMBABAZI

Itegeko ryo ku wa 30/07/1988 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 33 na 480. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uwimbabazi Jean-Paul yagiranye amasezerano y’inguzanyo na BRD, ibanza kumuguriza 235.000.000Frw hakurikijwe amasezerano Nº 106/2006/Uj/MM/MM yo kuwa 22/09/2006, nyuma imwongera andi 67.000.000Frw hakurikijwe amasezerano No 068/2008/UJ/NPJ/npj yo kuwa 13/10/2008. [2] Uwimbabazi avuga ko yongeye gusaba inguzanyo y’inyongera ingana na 225.000.000Frw yo gutangiza imirimo y’umushinga we, BRD irayimwemerera ariko nyuma iza kwifata, yanga kuyimuha kandi yari yarayimwemereye. Byatumye Uwimbabazi aregera Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi avuga ko iyo myifatire ya BRD yamuteje igihombo n’akababaro. [3] Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwaciye urubanza, rutegeka Uwimbabazi guha BRD 302.000.000Frw y’umwenda ayibereyemo, indishyi zo kutubahiriza amasezerano zingana na 5.000.000Frw, hamwe na 500.000Frw y’igihembo cy’Avoka n’ikurikiranarubanza, agatanga 4% yayo angana na 220.000Frw y’umusogongero wa Leta na 6.900Frw y’amagarama

## Page 111

80 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

y’urubanza. Rwemeje kandi ko Mukabutera ntacyo agomba gutegekwa muri uru rubanza. [4] Mu gusobanura icyemezo cyarwo, urwo Rukiko rwavuze ko nta kosa BRD yakoze ryayiviramo kuryozwa indishyi nk’uko uburanira Uwimbabazi ashaka kubyumvikanisha, kuko amasezerano y’inguzanyo ashingiraho ikirego cye yarimo impamvu zatuma atubahirizwa (conditions résolutoires), ibyo bikaba bihuje n’ingingo ya 81 y’Igitabo cya III cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano cyakurikizwaga igihe cy’amasezerano, bikanahuza kandi n’ingingo ya 18 y’Itegeko Nº45/2011 ryo kuwa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano. [5] Rwasanze ibyasabwe na BRD ko Uwimbabazi yategekwa kwishyura inguzanyo zose yari amaze guhabwa mu rwego rw’umushinga w’amata bifite ishingiro kuko iyo banki yagaragaje ko hari ibirarane ku nguzanyo za mbere Uwimbabazi atishyuye, bikaba biboneka ko atubahirije amasezerano yagiranye na BRD. [6] Rwanasobanuye ko igihe cy’inzibacyuho (délai de grâce) Uwimbabazi asaba atagaragaza icyo agishingiraho kuko umuburanira yavugiye mu Rukiko ko umushinga w’amata udashobora kunguka, akaba kandi atagaragaza ahandi ateganya kuvana ubwishyu n’igihe akeneye kugira ngo abe yabonye ubwo bwishyu. [7] Ku bijyanye n’inyungu ku nguzanyo BRD yasabye zibazwe kugeza ku munsi w’iburanisha ry’urubanza, Urukiko rwasanze nta gaciro byahabwa kuko nayo ubwayo izi neza ko umushinga yatangiye inguzanyo utigeze ukora, ko rero Uwimbabazi Jean Paul agomba gusubiza gusa inguzanyo yahawe zihwanye na 302.000.000Frw (ni ukuvuga

## Page 112

81 BRD v. UWIMBABAZI

235.000.000Frw + 67.000.000Frw). Rwasanze kandi Mukabutera Béatrice wasinye nk’umwishingizi ntaho rwahera rutegeka ko afatanya na Uwimbabazi Jean-Paul kwishyura kuko atigeze ahamagazwa mu rubanza. [8] BRD yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ivuga ko umucamanza yanze kuyigenera inyungu z’umwenda wose Uwimbabazi Jean-Paul yafashe zari zigeze kuri 510.657.673Frw kugeza kuwa 24/01/2012 (umunsi w’iburanisha ry’urubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi) mu gihe n’uwafashe umwenda atazihakana, rwanga no kugira icyemezo rufata kuri Mukabutera kandi yarasinye ku masezerano y’umwenda nk’umwishingizi, akaba yaragombaga gutegekwa gufatanya na Uwimbabazi Jean- Paul kwishyura uwo mwenda. [9] Iburanisha ry’urubanza ryabereye mu ruhame kuwa 28/04/2015, kuwa 28/07/20015 no kuwa 3/11/2015, hitabye Me Zitoni Pierre Claver wavuze ko aburanira gusa Uwimbabazi Jean Paul, naho Mukabutera atitabye nta n’impamvu yagaragarije Urukiko yatumye atitaba, BRD iburanirwa na Me Mafaranga Anastase. [10] Mbere y’uko urubanza ruburanishwa mu mizi, Me Zitoni yasabye Urukiko ko rwakwimura iburanisha kugira ngo Mukabutera azongere ahamagazwe kuko atabonetse kubera imirimo akorera i New York, ko rero rushyizwe mu kwezi kwa Kanama/2015 yaba yabonye umwunganira nawe akaba ahari agafatanya n’uzamwunganira, ko kandi hari n’imishyikirano yatangiye kugirana na BRD hashakwa uburyo ikibazo bafitanye cyakemuka. [11] Me Mafaranga uburanira BRD avuga ko urubanza rugomba kuburanishwa kuko ibyo Me Zitoni avuga ku bijyanye

## Page 113

82 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

na Mukabutera nta shingiro bifite mu gihe atamuhagarariye, ko kandi iyi tariki y’urubanza n’izindi zabanje ari we wagiye uzisaba, agasanga kwimura urubanza byaba ari ukurutinza gusa, ko ndetse na Me Zitoni ubwe yakunze kubura mu nama ntegura rubanza, akaba yitabye kuko yari azi ko iyi tariki ariyo ya nyuma urubanza rwahawe. [12] Naho ku bijyanye n’imishyikirano yavuzwe na Me Zitoni ko yatangiye hagati ya BRD n’abo baburana, Me Mafaranga avuga ko ibyo nabyo nta gaciro byahabwa, kubera ko ku mafaranga angana na 609.050.135 abo baburana basabwa kwishyura BRD, bo bavuga ko bakwishyura 302.000.000Frw gusa yategetswe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi. [13] Nyuma yo kumva icyo uburanira BRD n’uburanira Uwimbabazi Jean-Paul bavuga ku mpamvu Mukabutera atitabye, Urukiko rwasanze mu iburanisha ryo kuwa 19/02/2015 rwarategetse ko Me Mitsindo cyangwa na Me Zitoni nibatitaba kuwa 28/04/2015 urubanza ruzaburanishwa, rusanga kandi kuba Me Zitoni yemeza ko avugana na Mukabutera buri munsi bigaragaza ko Mukabutera yari azi itariki y’urubanza. Rushingiye ku ngingo ya 59 y’Itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi1,

1 Iyo ngingo ivuga ko: “Iyo mu iburanisha rya mbere uregwa atitabye nta mpamvu, urega ashobora gusaba ko urubanza rwimurirwa ku yindi tariki cyangwa se gusaba ko ruburanishwa uregwa adahari. Muri icyo gihe hasuzumwa imyanzuro y’urega kandi ikirego cye kikakirwa, kigahabwa ishingiro iyo gifite ireme kandi cyaratanzwe mu buryo no mu nzira bikurikije amategeko”.

## Page 114

83 BRD v. UWIMBABAZI

rwemeje ko urubanza ruburanishwa Mukabutera Béatrice adahari. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO - Kumenya niba inguzanyo BRD yahaye Uwimbabazi Jean Paul igomba kubarirwa inyungu. [14] Me Mafaranga Anastase uburanira BRD avuga ko amasezerano y’umwenda iyo Banki yatanze asobanura icyo uwo mwenda ugamije, ndetse ko hateganyijwemo inyungu zisanzwe n’inyungu z’ubukererwe. Anavuga ko ku munsi wa nyuma w’iburanisha ryo kuwa 24/01/2012, umwenda wari ugeze kuri 510.657.673Frw, kandi abaregwa bakaba batarigeze bawuhakana, ko rero Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwagombaga gutegeka Uwimbabazi gufatanya na Mukabutera kwishyura ayo mafaranga aho kwemeza ko bishyura 302.000.000Frw gusa, rutitaye ku nyungu zisanzwe n’inyungu z’ubukererwe. [15] Uburanira BRD yongeraho ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwivuguruje kuko rwasanze BRD nta kosa yakoze, rumaze no kwemeza ko hari ibirarane Uwimbabazi atishyuye, rumutegeka kwishyura BRD indishyi zingana na 5.000.000Frw, nyamara ku bijyanye n’inguzanyo yahawe, rwemeza ko hagomba kwishyurwa gusa umwenda remezo rudasobanuye impamvu inyungu zitakwishyurwa, mu gihe rwahawe ikimenyetso cy’ingano y’amafaranga yose BRD yishyuza n’uko yabazwe kugeza igihe urubanza rwaburanishwaga ku rwego rubanza.

## Page 115

84 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[16] Anasaba kandi Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ko mu kugena inyungu z’umwenda wose rwazashingira ku mibare BRD yarushyikirije igaragaza ko ku munsi urubanza rwaburanishijweho bwa mbere muri uru Rukiko, ni ukuvuga kuwa 28/04/2015, umwenda wose n’inyungu zawo byari bimaze kugera kuri 609.050.531Frw. [17] Ku bijyanye n’uburyo umwenda BRD yishyuza wabazwe, by’umwihariko ku byerekeye amafaranga 235.000.000 Uwimbabazi yahawe kuwa 22/09/2006, Me Mafaranga avuga ko uwagurijwe yemerewe kuba aretse kwishyura umwenda remezo kugeza kuwa 30/09/2007, nyuma yandikira BRD ayisaba kongererwa igihe cyo kwishyura, bituma hagati ye n’iyo banki haba andi masezerano ahindura aya mbere. Anavuga ko mu ngingo ya 1 y’ayo masezerano ya kabiri, impande zombi zumvikanye ko Uwimbabazi asonewe kwishyura umwenda remezo kugeza ku itariki ya 31/03/2009, ko ariko inyungu zizabarwa mu gihe uwagurijwe ataratangira kwishyura zikongerwa ku mwenda remezo, ariyo mpamvu nyuma y’aho mu kubara inyungu zisanzwe za 13% n’iz’ubukererwe zihwanye na 4% kuri uwo mwenda, BRD yagiye ihera kuri 264.000.000Frw nk’umwenda remezo. [18] Yongeraho ko uwo mwenda n’inyungu zawo BRD yawubaze ukangana na 467.446.136Frw, wateranyaho indi nguzanyo ya 67.000.000Frw Uwimbabazi yahawe, nayo ibariweho inyungu zisanzwe n’izubukererwe bumvikanye zimeze nk’izavuzwe haruguru, igiteranyo cy’iyo myenda yose kikaba gihwanye na 609.050.531Frw nk’uko yavuzwe haruguru. [19] Akomeza avuga ko ibyo Uwimbabazi na Mukabutera bireguza by’uko bari bafatanyije na BRD umushinga wabo nta shingiro bifite kubera ko badashobora kubitangira ibimenyetso

## Page 116

85 BRD v. UWIMBABAZI

by’uko BRD yari ifatanyije nabo umushinga wabo yabahereye umwenda, ndetse ko amasezerano y’inguzanyo asobanutse neza kuko nta na hamwe handitsemo ko BRD ifatanyije nabo umushinga basabiye inguzanyo. [20] Naho ku bijyanye na “abus de droit” uburanira Uwimbabazi Jean-Paul avuga ko yakozwe na BRD, Me Mafaranga avuga ko nabyo nta shingiro bifite, kubera ko nta kosa iyo banki yigeze ikora nk’uko n’Urukiko rwabyemeje mu rubanza rujuririrwa, icyabaye akaba ari uko BRD yanze ko umushinga uhindurwa kuko yabonaga harimo ibibazo, akaba ariyo mpamvu yahisemo kudakomeza guha Uwimbabazi indi nguzanyo yifuzaga, banki ikaba kandi idategetswe gutanga inguzanyo mu gihe ibona ko umushinga utazunguka. [21] Me Zitoni Pierre Claver uburanira Uwimbabazi Jean Paul avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi nta kosa rwakoze kuko rwagaragaje ko BRD yitwaye nabi ikarengera mu burenganzira bwayo (abus de droit) kubera ko ariyo yari ifite igisubizo cyo kugira ngo umushinga ugende neza, ndetse ikaba yari inafatanyije na Uwimbabazi uwo mushinga. [22] Akomeza avuga ko Uwimbabazi yasabye BRD kumworohereza ariko irabyanga, anayisabye kumusubiza ingwate ngo arebe ko yaguza ahandi amafaranga yari akeneye, nabyo irabyanga, iyi myitwarire ikaba ariyo yatumye Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rutegeka ko hishyurwa gusa umwenda utabariweho inyungu kubera ko rwasanze BRD nayo ifite uruhare mu kutagenda neza k’umushinga yateye inkunga. [23] Ku bijyanye n’inyungu BRD isaba, Me Zitoni avuga ko zidakwiye kubaho kuko amafaranga yatanzwe atari ayo mu rwego rw’inguzanyo y’ubucuruzi (crédit commercial) ko

## Page 117

86 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ahubwo yari ay’inguzanyo yo mu rwego rw’ishoramari (crédit d’investissement), akaba ari yo mpamvu BRD igomba gusubizwa amafaranga yatanze gusa kubera ko ariyo yananije Uwimbabazi bigatuma adakora ngo yunguke. [24] Me Zitoni avuga kandi ko bitumvikana ko BRD yari gukomeza kubara inyungu no mu gihe yahaye Uwimbabazi “délai de grâce”, ko kandi uwo yunganira atemera uburyo haba impinduka mu masezerano ariko agategekwa kwishyura inyungu zibyara izindi nyungu. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [25] Ingingo ya 33 y’Igitabo cya III cy’urwunge rw’amategeko y’imbonezamubano cyakurikizwaga igihe BRD na Uwimbabazi bagiranaga amasezerano ivuga ko “Amasezerano akozwe ku buryo bukurikije amategeko, aba itegeko ku bayagiranye. Ashobora guseswa ari uko babyumvikanyeho cyangwa ku mpamvu zemewe n'amategeko. Agomba kubahirizwa nta buryarya”. [26] Ingingo ya 3 y’Itegeko Nº15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo ivuga ko “buri muburanyi agomba kugaragaza ibimenyetso by’ibyo aburana”. [27] Urukiko rurasanga mu nyandiko zigize urubanza harimo amasezerano y’inguzanyo ya 235.000.000Frw n’ay’ingwate ku mutungo utimukanwa yabaye kuwa 22/09/2006 hagati ya Uwimbabazi Jean Paul na BRD afite Nº 106/2006/UJ/MM/MM, asobanura ko iyo nguzanyo yari igamije gukoreshwa mu mushinga wo gukora uruganda ruto rutunganya amata (mini

## Page 118

87 BRD v. UWIMBABAZI

laiterie) ruri i Runda mu Karere ka Kamonyi. Mu ngingo ya 4 yayo havugwamo ko impande zombi zumvikanye ko ugurijwe asonewe kwishyura umwenda remezo (délai de grâce) kugeza kuwa 30/09/2007, nyuma y’icyo gihe uwagurijwe akajya yishyura buri kwezi mu gihe cy’imyaka 7. Nanone kandi mu ngingo ya 5 y’ayo masezerano, abayagiranye bumvikanye ko umwenda uzabarirwaho inyungu zisanzwe zihwanye na 13% ku mwaka, n’inyungu z’ubukererwe zihwanye 4%. [28] Nanone ikiboneka muri dosiye ni uko kuwa 3/02/2009, hagati ya BRD na Uwimbabazi habaye andi masezerano Nº01/2009 yerekeye ihinduka ry’amasezerano Nº106/2006/UJ/MM/MM, agateganya mu ngingo yayo ya 1 ko: “uwagurijwe asonewe kwishyura umwenda remezo ku nguzanyo kugeza ku itariki ya 31/09/2009. Inyungu zibarwa mu gihe uwagurijwe ataratangira kwishyura zizongerwa ku mwenda remezo”. [29] Mu nyandiko zigize urubanza harimo kandi andi masezerano yasinywe kuwa 13/10/2008 y’inguzanyo yo mu rwego rumwe nk’urw’inguzanyo yo kuwa 22/09/2006 yavuzwe haruguru, y’amafaranga 67.000.000. Mu ngingo ya 4 y’ayo masezerano impande zombi zumvikanye ko inguzanyo izishyurwa mu gihe cy’imyaka 7 uhereye kuwa 31/03/2009, ko kandi inyungu zisanzwe zihwanye na 14% ku mwaka, naho inyungu z’ubukererwe zikaba 4%. [30] Mu nyandiko zigize urubanza harimo n’ibaruwa yo kuwa 23/04/2009 Uwimbabazi yandikiye BRD ayimenyesha ko umushinga we ushobora gutangira igihe icyo ari cyo cyose kubera ko imashini zo gukoresha zageze aho umushinga we ukorera, ariko anavuga ko yifuza guhindura umushinga yaherewe inguzanyo na BRD, maze akawagura akora

## Page 119

88 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

n’ibijyanye no gutunganya imitobe, amata abikwa igihe kirekire (U.H.T) hamwe n’amazi, kugira ngo ahangane n’abandi bari ku isoko. Muri iyi baruwa akaba yarasabye ko yakongererwa andi mafaranga angana na 45.000.000 yo gutangira gukora (fonds de roulement). [31] Nanone dosiye igaragaza ko nyuma y’iyo tariki, Uwimbabazi yagiye yandikirana na BRD andi mabaruwa, muri yo hakabamo iyo kuwa 03/12/2010 BRD yandikiye Uwimbabazi imumenyesha ko impamvu yatanze zituma areka umushinga bari barumvikanye agakora ibindi bitateganyijwe zidafatika, kubera ko zitemejwe n’abahanga, ko nta n’igihamya ko umushinga mushya afite uzunguka, ko rero ubwo atifuza gukomeza umushinga BRD yamuhereye inguzanyo, itakimuhaye inguzanyo y’inyongera ya 225.000.000Frw yari yaramwemereye (annulation du crédit). [32] Mu ibaruwa ya Uwimbabazi yo kuwa 3/12/2010 isubiza iya BRD imaze kuvugwa no mu ibaruwa ye yo kuwa 4/11/2010, yakomeje gusobanura impamvu yatumye ahindura umushinga n’icyo ashingiraho yemeza ko umushinga mushya yifuzaga gukora uzunguka. Naho mu ibaruwa yayo yo kuwa 15/12/2010, BRD yongeye kumenyesha Uwimbabazi ko itanyuzwe n’ibisobanuro yayihaye ku bijyanye n’igituma ashaka gukora amazi n’imitobe mbere yo gushyira mu bikorwa umushinga yaherewe inguzanyo wo gutunganya amata. Muri iyo baruwa BRD yamumenyeshaga ahubwo ko konti ye imaze kugira impayés zingana na 125.500.078Frw. [33] Hakurikijwe ibisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, ikigaragara ni uko BRD itigeze yemera icyifuzo cya Uwimbabazi cyo gukora ibindi batumvikanye mu mushinga iyo banki yamuhereye inguzanyo, ndetse imugaragariza uko umwenda we

## Page 120

89 BRD v. UWIMBABAZI

uhagaze kugeza icyo gihe, nyuma kuwa 08/02/2011 imuha integuza yo kwishyura. [34] Urukiko rurasanga mu gufata icyemezo cyo kutagenera inyungu BRD ku nguzanyo yahaye Uwimbabazi Jean Paul, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwarasobanuye ko igituma zitagomba gutangwa ari uko BRD nayo izi neza ko umushinga utakoze, kandi rwari rumaze kugaragaza ko nta makosa yashyirwa kuri iyo banki, ibisobanuro byarwo kuri izo nyungu bikaba birimo ukwivuguruza, ari yo mpamvu icyemezo cy’urwo Rukiko kigomba guhinduka. [35] Urukiko rurasanga kandi imvugo y’uburanira Uwimbabazi y’uko BRD ariyo yamushyizeho amananiza yanga kumuha inguzanyo y’inyongera kugira ngo yagure umushinga nk’uko yabyifuzaga, bitahabwa agaciro kubera ko yamweretse ko idashyigikiye ihinduka ry’umushinga yaherewe umwenda. Ikindi nanone, nk’uko abahanga mu bijyanye n’imikorere ya za banki babisobanura, ihame ku bijyanye n’itangwa ry’inguzanyo, ni uko banki zifite uburenganzira bwo kuzitanga cyangwa kutazitanga zitagombye no kwisobanura, igishingirwaho ahanini akaba ari icyizere banki runaka igirira umukiliya wayo n’ubushobozi iba ibona afite bwo kwishyura inguzanyo asaba2. [36] Urukiko rurasanga nanone ibyo uburanira Uwimbabazi avuga bijyanye n’uko inguzanyo y’ishoramari (crédit

2Thierry Bonneau: “Droit bancaire”, 2007, 7ème éd., Montchrestien, p.367 : “Si un droit au compte a été légalement consacré, en revanche, il n’y a pas de droit au crédit, les banquiers étant libres de consentir ou de refuser les crédits sollicités par leurs clients:…hors le cas où il est tenu par un engagement antérieur, le banquier est toujours libre , sans avoir à justifier sa décision qui est discrétionnaire, de proposer ou de consentir un crédit quelle qu’en soit la forme, de s’abstenir ou de refuser de le faire”.

## Page 121

90 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

d’investissement) itagomba kubarirwa inyungu nk’inguzanyo yo mu rwego rw’ubucuruzi (crédit commercial), cyangwa ko BRD yarengereye mu gukoresha ububasha bwayo, bitahabwa agaciro, kuko usibye n’uko nta bimenyetso abitangira, mu masezerano impande zombi zagiranye zemeranyijwe kuri izo nyungu, ari yo mpamvu agomba kubahirizwa. [37] Nyuma y’ibisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, Urukiko rurasanga mu gihe Uwimbabazi adahakana ko yagurijwe na BRD amafaranga yavuzwe haruguru, ko kandi yagombaga kubarirwa inyungu zisanzwe n’iz’ubukererwe n’ibindi bikubiye mu masezerano yamaze kuvugwa, bikanahuzwa n’ibivugwa mu ngingo ya 480 y’Igitabo cya III cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano3 cyakurikizwaga igihe amasezerano yasinywaga, byumvikana ko agomba gutegekwa kwishyura iyo banki inguzanyo yamuhaye zibariweho n’inyungu zisanzwe hamwe n’iz’ubukererwe, umwenda wose Uwimbabazi agomba BRD nk’uko yawubaze, ukaba uhwanye na 609.050.531Frw. - Kumenya niba ku rwego rubanza Mukabutera yaragombaga gutegekwa gufatanya na Uwimbabazi Jean Paul kwishyura umwenda wa BRD. [38] Me Mafaranga avuga ko Umucamanza yemeje ko ntacyo Mukabutera agomba gutegekwa kwishyura ku mpamvu y’uko ataburanishijwe muri urwo rubanza rwajuririwe, yirengagije amasezerano y’ubwishingire yagiranye na BRD (cautionnement) kuwa 09/10/2006 no kuwa 01/12/2008 kandi ko Mukabutera yiyemerera muri ayo masezerano ko azafatanya

3Ivuga ko “Ingano y’inyungu ikomoka ku masezerano ishyirwaho ku bwumvikane bw’abayagiranye, kubitangira ibimenyetso bikurikiza amategeko asanzwe”.

## Page 122

91 BRD v. UWIMBABAZI

n’uwagurijwe kwishyura BRD, agasanga nta yandi mananiza cyangwa kubanza kujya impaka kuri ubwo bwishyu, ko kandi kutaburanishwa kwa Mukabutera bitaryozwa BRD mu gihe yo yari yagaragaje mu mwanzuro wayo wo kwiregura icyo imusaba. [39] Me Zitoni uburanira Uwimbabazi avuga ko nta mpamvu abona Mukabutera yari kuzanwa mu rubanza mu gihe ari Uwimbabazi wareze, ko icyo BRD yasabye mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi nk’uko urubanza rujurirwa rubigaragaza, ari uko BRD yasabye gusa ko Mukabutera ategekwa kwishyura afatanyije na Uwimbabazi, nyamara itarigeze isaba ko ahamagazwa kugira ngo nawe yiregure kuri icyo kirego, agasanga Urukiko rutari gufata icyemezo ku muntu utarigeze uhamagazwa. Anavuga ko iyo BRD ishaka ko Mukabutera azanywa mu rubanza, yagombaga gukurikiza amategeko y’uburyo utarareze cyangwa ngo aregwe aruzamo. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [40] Ingingo ya 10 y’Itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko “Ntawe ushobora gufatirwa icyemezo atumviswe cyangwa ngo ahamagarwe”. [41] Ingingo ya 117 y’iryo tegeko yo iteganya ko “Guhatirwa kugoboka mu rubanza bikorwa ku muntu wese utaburana urubanza akaba ategereje ko rucibwa ngo arutambamire kandi hari umuburanyi ushaka kumufatanya n’uwo baburana ngo abatsindire mu rubanza rumwe”.

## Page 123

92 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[42] Inyandiko zigize urubanza zigaragaza ko Uwimbabazi Jean-Paul ari we watanze ikirego bwa mbere mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi arega BRD, n’ubwo mu myanzuro yayo yo kwiregura iyo banki yasoje isaba ko Mukabutera ategekwa kwishyura umwenda yishingiye afatanyije na Uwimbabazi wagurijwe, ntiyigeze isaba ko nawe ahamagazwa muri urwo Rukiko kugira ngo agire ibyo ategekwa, iburanisha ry’urubanza ririnda ripfundikirwa atabaye umuburanyi. [43] Hashingiwe ku bimaze kuvugwa no ku ngingo ya 117 y’Itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryavuzwe, Urukiko rurasanga kuba hari amasezerano Mukabutera yagiranye na BRD yishingira umwenda wafashwe na Uwimbabazi, ubwabyo bidahagije ngo ategekwe kwishyura uwo mwenda n’ibiwukomokaho kuko atigeze aba umuburanyi ku rwego rubanza. - Ku bijyanye n’Ubujurire bwa Uwimbabazi Jean-Paul bwuririye ku bwa BRD n’amafaranga asabwa na BRD. [44] Me Zitoni Pierre Claver avuga ko BRD ariyo yatumye umushinga wa Uwimbabazi utunguka nk’uko byari biteganyijwe, ikaba kandi yaranze kumuha amafaranga yari yaramwemereye bikamuteza igihombo, ko rero kubera iyo mpamvu ayisaba indishyi zingana na 50.000.000Frw. [45] Me Mafaranga Anastase avuga ko indishyi uburanira Uwimbabazi asaba nta shingiro zifite, ko ahubwo nayo nk’uko yabigaragaje mu mwanzuro wayo w’ubujurire, isaba ko Uwimbabazi yayiha amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka angana 1.000.000Frw.

## Page 124

93 BRD v. UWIMBABAZI

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [46] Urukiko rurasanga indishyi Me Zitoni Pierre Claver uburanira Uwimbabazi Jean-Paul asaba atazihabwa kubera ko nk’uko byagaragajwe muri uru rubanza, nta kosa yagaragaje BRD yakoze ryatuma icibwa indishyi. [47] Urukiko rurasanga amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka BRD isaba iyakwiye, ariko kubera ko ayo isaba ari ikirenga, Uwimbabazi Jean- Paul akaba agomba guha iyo banki 500.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka kuri uru rwego. [48] Urukiko rusanga nanone mu gihe BRD yagenewe inyungu zisanzwe n’iz’ubukererwe zijyanye n’umwenda yatanze, nta mpamvu indishyi yari yagenewe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi z’uko Uwimbabazi atubahirije amasezerano zahamaho, Uwimbabazi akaba agomba kuyiha gusa 500.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka yo ku rwego rubanza. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [49] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa BRD bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe; [50] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwa Uwimbabazi Jean-Paul nta shingiro bufite. [51] Rwemeje ko imikirize y’urubanza RCOM0119/11/HCC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi kuwa 02/03/2012

## Page 125

94 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ihindutse ku byerekeye amafaranga Uwimbabazi Jean-Paul agomba kwishyura. [52] Rutegetse Uwimbabazi Jean-Paul kwishyura BRD amafaranga y’umwenda yamuhaye n’inyungu zayo angana na 609.050.531Frw, hamwe na 1.000.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka yo ku nzego zombi urubanza rwaburanishijwemo, yose hamwe akaba 610.050.531Frw. [53] Rutegetse Uwimbabazi Jean Paul kwishyura amagarama y’urubanza angana na 100.000Frw.

## Page 126

Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RCOMA0028/13/CS (Mukanyundo, P.J., Ngagi na Nyirandabaruta, J.) 6 Ugushyingo 2015] Amategeko agenga imisoro – Kohereza ibicuruzwa mu mahanga – Kumenyekanisha ibicuruzwa byoherejwe mu mahanga – Gusonerwa umusoro ku bicuruzwa byoherejwe mu mahanga – Ntiyahabwa amahirwe itegeko rigenera uwohereje ibicuruzwa mu mahanga igihe atagaragaza ko yabimenyekanishije kuri gasutamo ngo nayo yemere ko bisohoka – Itegeko Nº21/2006 ryo kuwa 28/04/2006 rigena imikorere ya gasutamo, ingingo ya 177 na 179. Amategeko agenga imisoro – Ikigaragaza ko habayeho kohereza ibicuruzwa mu mahanga – Kugaragariza RRA amazeserano yerekeye ibicuruzwa byoherejwe mu mahanga – N’ubwo ayo masezerano atayagaragarije RRA nayo ubwayo ntagaragaza ko habayeho kohereza ibicuruzwa mu mahanga – Itegeko No74/2008 ryo kuwa 31/12/2008 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko No25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha, ingingo ya 5. Amategeko agenga imisoro – Kohereza ibicuruzwa mu mahanga – Ntibyitwa kohereza ibicuruzwa mu mahanga igihe ibyoherejwe bitakorewe mu Rwanda – Itegeko Nº21/2006 ryo kuwa 28/04/2006 rigena imikorere ya gasutamo, ingingo ya 2(33). Amategeko agenga imisoro – Umusoro ku bucuruzi bukorerwa mu mahanga – Utuye mu Rwanda agakorera imirimo ye mu 95

## Page 127

96 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

mahanga agomba kwishyura imisoro ku nyongeragaciro – Itegeko N°06/2001 ryo ku wa 20/01/2001 rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro, ingingo za 4, 9 na 12. Amategeko agenga ibimenyetso – Kugaragaza ibimenyetso by’ibyo aregera – Agomba kwishyura umusoro yaciwe kuko atagaragaje ko amafaranga agomba gusorera yari inyishyu y’inguzanyo – Itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/6/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegets, ingingo ya 9 – Itegeko Nº15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 3. Amategeko agenga imisoro – Gutakambira Komiseri Mukuru w’Imisoro – Kuzamura mu bujurire ingingo itaragiweho impaka mu rukiko rubanza – Ikibazo cy’umusoro cyitashyiikirijwe Komiseri Mukuru w’Imisoro nticyafatwaho icyemezo; ni nako bigomba kugenda ku kibazo kizamuwe mu bujurire kitagiweho impaka n’ababuranyi mu rukiko rubanza. Indishyi – Igihembo cy’Avoka – Ntizitangwa igihe uzisaba yatsinzwe mu ngingo ze zose – Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/7/1888 rigena amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258. Indishyi – Kuzanwa mu rubanza ku maherere – Uwazanywe mu rubanza ku maherere agomba guhabwa amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza – Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/7/1888 rigena amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258. Incamake y’ikibazo: Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro cyakoreye igenzura Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE cyiyica umusoro ku nyongeragaciro ku modoka eshatu harimo ebyiri yagurishirije mu mahanga. Uwo musoro ntiyawishimiye, iwujuririye kwa

## Page 128

97 Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO

Komiseri Mukuru ariko nabwo ntiyishimira igisubizo, aregera Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi. Muri uru Rukiko yinubiraga kuba yaraciwe TVA ku modoka eshatu yagurishije nyamara ebyiri muri zo yarazigurishirije mu mahanga (export) kandi uwohereje ibicuruzwa mu mahanga atagomba gucibwa umusoro uwo ari wo wose. Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwemeje ko Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE igomba gucibwa umusoro ku nyongewragaciro kuko amafaranga yagaragaye kuri konti akomoka ku modoka zagurishirijwe mu mahanga. Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE yajuririye icyo cyemezo mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga ivuga ko ibintu byoherezwa mu mahanga bitagomba gicibwa umusoro ku nyongeragaciro ndetse inongeraho ko 76.000.000Frw yanyuze kuri konti yayo muri Access Bank (Ex-BANCOR) atacibwa umusoro ku nyongeragaciro kuko ayo mafaranga ari ayo yagurijwe na Station Customer Care Services. RRA yo ivuga ko nta kimenyetso Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE yatanze cyo kohereza ibintu mu mahanga ko ndetse nta kimenyetso kigaragaza ko habayeho amasezerano y’iguriza ry’amafaranga yabaye hagati ya Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE na Station Customer Care Services” iherereye i Goma. RRA yavuze ko urubanza rujuririrwa rutagomba kuvaho ahubwo isaba guhabwa indishyi zo kuzanwa mu manza nta mpamvu. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Ibicuruzwa byose bigomba kugenerwa uko bifatwa muri Gasutamo bikorerwa imenyekanisha kandi bisohoka ku butaka ikoreraho ari uko imenyekanisha ryo gusohora ibicuruzwa rimaze kwemerwa. Kuba rero Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE yariyemereye ko izo modoka zisoreshwa zagurishijwe mu mahanga nyamara ntigaragaze imenyekanisha zakorewe muri gasutamo ngo

## Page 129

98 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

zemererwe gusohoka, bigaragaza ko iryo gurishwa ryabaye mu buryo butubahirije amategeko.Bityo, ntiyahabwa uburenganzira bugenerwa ugurisha ibintu mumahanga nkuko biteganywa n’amategeko. 2. Kohereza ibintu mu mahanga bisobanura uburyo Gasutamo ikoresha butuma ibintu byakorewe mu gihugu bisohoka ku butaka gasutamo ikoreraho. Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE ntiyavuga rero ko yohereje ibintu mu mahanga igihe atagaragaza ko ibyo ivuga ko yohereje byakorewe imbere mu Rwanda. 3. Kuba atuye mu Rwanda, imirimo ye akayikorera i Goma ariko ikamugirira akamaro ari mu Rwanda bigaragaza ko agomba gucibwa umusoro ku nyongeragaciro. 4. Buri mu buranyi agomba kugaragaza ukuri kw’ibyo aburana kandi urega agomba kugaragaza ibimenyetso by’ibyo aregera yabibura agatsindwa. Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE igomba gutsindwa rero kuko itagaragaza ko amafaranga yategetswe gusorera yari ayo yagurijwe dore ko bitanumvikana ukuntu ayo mafaranga atashyizwe muri banki ifitiwe umwenda ahubwo agashyirwa mu yindi banki hakaba nta n’ikigaragaza ko ayo mafaranga yari agenewe kwishyura uwo mwenda. Bityo agomba gutsindwa kuko atagaragaje ko ayo mafaranga atagomba gusoreshwa. 5. Nta cyemezo cyafatwa ku musoro igihe cyitashyikirijwe Komiseri Mukuru w’Imisoro kandi nticyanasuzumwa igihe ababuranyi batakigiyeho impaka mu rukiko rubanza. 6. Ets Kalinda SEKWEKWE Ntiyahabwa indishyi igihe ingingo zayo zose z’ubujurire nta shingiro zifite ahubwo kuba ubujurire bwayo nta shingiro bufite kandi RRA ikaba yarahamagawe mu

## Page 130

99 Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO

rubanza byumvikanisha ko hari ibyo yatakaje byumvikanisha ko RRA ikwiye guhabwa amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza. Ubujurire nta shingiro bufite; Ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe; Urubanza rwajuririwe ntiruhindutse uretse ku bijyanye n’indishyi uregwa agenewe kuri uru rwego; Amagarama y’urubanza yatanzwe mu bujurire ahwanye n’imirimo yakozwe. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/6/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegets, ingingo ya 9. Itegeko Nº21/2006 ryo kuwa 28/04/2006 rigena imikorere ya gasutamo, ingingo ya 2(33), 177 na 179. Itegeko No74/2008 ryo kuwa 31/12/2008 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko no 25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha , ingingo ya 5. Itegeko N°06/2001 ryo ku wa 20/01/2001 rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro, ingingo ya 4, 9 na 12. Itegeko Nº15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 3. Itegeko Nº30/7/1988 ryerekeye amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258. Nta manza zifashishijwe.

## Page 131

Urubanza I. IMITEREREY’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rukomoka ku igenzura Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE yakorewe n’Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro/ Rwanda Revenue Autority (RRA) ku myaka ya 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 na 2010, imuca umusoro ku nyongeragaciro (TVA) ungana na 53.202.550Frw, inamwemerera igihombo kingana na 181.516.897Frw. Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE yajuririye uwo musoro kwa Komiseri Mukuru w’Imisoro, ayihanaguraho umusoro (TVA) ungana na 4.729.535Frw hasigara 48.473.015Frw itegekwa kuyishyura. [2] Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE ntiyanyuzwe, ijuririra icyemezo cya Komiseri Mukuru w’Imisoro mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, ivuga ko itagombaga gucibwa TVA ingana na 48.473.535Frw hashingiwe ku kuba byaragaragaye ko imodoka imwe muri eshatu yari afite ariyo yasubije “Plaque”, kandi amakamyo abiri bashingiraho bamuca ayo mafaranga yaragurishirijwe hanze y’igihugu hakaba harabaye icyo bita “Exportation” kandi ko uwakoze “exportation” adacibwa umusoro uwo ariwo wose. [3] Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwaciye urubanza No RCOM0057/12/HCC ku wa 18/01/2013, rwemeza ko nta kigomba guhinduka ku cyemezo cyafashwe na Komiseri Mukuru w’Imisoro, rutegeka Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE gutanga umusoro wose ungana na 48.473.015Frw, ikishyura n’amagarama y’urubanza. 100 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 132

[4] Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE ntiyishimiye icyemezo cy’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, ikijuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, ivuga ko yaciwe imisoro kandi Itegeko rivuga ko kohereza ibintu mu mahanga aribyo “Exportation” bidasoreshwa, ko yaciwe TVA ku mafaranga 76.000.000Frw RRA yafashe nk’ayo yacuruje kandi ari umwenda “Station Customer Care Services” y’i Goma muri Repubulika Iharanira Demokarasi ya Congo yayigurije, ko hari na 12.032.500Frw akwiye kuvanwa mu byacurujwe ntasoreshwe, isaba guhanagurwaho TVA ingana na 48.473.015Frw yaciwe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko no gutegeka RRA kuyishyura 500.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka. [5] RRA yo ivuga ko Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE nta bimenyetso yatanze by’uko habayeho kohereza ibintu mu mahanga, ko itabashije kugaragaza amasezerano y’inguzanyo yabaye hagati yayo na “Station Customer Care Servises” iherereye mu Mujyi wa Goma, ko kandi ibindi birego bitasuzumwa, ko icyemezo cyafashwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi gikwiye kugumaho kandi RRA igahabwa indishyi zo kuzanwa mu manza nta mpamvu. [6] Iburanisha ryabaye ku wa 06/10/2015, ETS KALINDA SEKWEKWE ihagarariwe na Me Musafiri Alain naho RRA ihagarariwe na Me Kabibi Spéciose.

101 Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO

## Page 133

II. IBIBAZO BIGOMBA GUSUZUMWA MU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO 1. Kumenya niba Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE yaraciwe umusoro wa TVA kuri 86.000USD yacurujwe hakozwe “Exportation”. [7] Me Musafiri Alain uburanira Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rutahaye agaciro ibisobanuro batanze by`uko 86.000USD yanyuze kuri konti ya Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE, RRA ikayasoresha TVA ivuga ko akomoka ku modoka zagurishirijwe hanze y`Igihugu zikaba zinatungiweyo, akaba atagomba gucibwa umusoro wa TVA kuko izo modoka zifatwa mu rwego rw’ibintu byoherejwe mu mahanga nk’uko biteganywa n`ingingo ya 87 igika cya mbere, (a), y’Itegeko No06/2001 ryo ku wa 20/01/2001 rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro. Avuga ko Urukiko rwashingiye ku kuba atarubahirije ibisabwa ushaka kohereza ibintu mu mahanga (formalités d’exportation) biteganywa n’ingingo za 176, 177, 178 na 179 z’Itegeko No21/2006 ryagengaga imikorere ya Gasutamo igihe igenzura ryakorwaga, ko impamvu bitakozwe ari uko izo kamyo zari zarakoze (camions d’occasion); ko ihame ari uko iyo ibicuruzwa bigurishijwe hanze y’Igihugu bitishyura umusoro wa TVA, kandi ko nta hateganyijwe ko mu gihe ibisabwa byaba bitubahirijwe biba bivuze ko kohereza ibintu mu mahanga bitabayeho, ndetse ko Komiseri Mukuru atigeze ashingira kuri izo ngingo akuraho TVA ingana na 4.729.535Frw. [8] Avuga kandi ko ibyo bisabwa biteganyijwe ku bintu umuntu adashobora kumenya ibyo ari byo ku buryo bworoshye 102 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 134

(bitari facilement identifiable ) naho imodoka zikaba ubwazo zigaragara, ko imodoka uwo yunganira yaciriwe umusoro ari “Camions” ebyiri yari yaravanye muri Repubulika Iharanira Demokarasi ya Congo akazizana mu Rwanda, nyuma akaza kuzigurishiriza mu gihugu cya Uganda, akaba atumva uburyo yasabwe kwishyura umusoro wa TVA kandi ibyo yakoze bifatwa nko kohereza ibintu mu mahanga ( kugurisha ibicuruzwa bivuye mu gihugu ubijyana hanze mu kindi gihugu). Avuga na none ko n’ubwo “formalités d’exportation” zitakozwe, batanze ibimenyetso by’uko imodoka zagurishijwe, ko babinyujije mu iposita bagaruye ibiziranga (plaques), bakaziha RRA, ndetse ko Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE Ltd yari yavaniweho imisoro ingana na 4.729.535Frw igihe yari imaze gusubiza (plaque) y’imidoka imwe ya’’camion” imaze kwerekana ko itakiyanditseho, akaba yumva ko ibyo byakagombye gukorwa no ku zindi “Camions” ebyiri zari zisigaye. [9] Me Kabibi Spéciose uhagarariye RRA avuga ko ibivugwa n’uhagarariye Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE nta shingiro bifite, ko hasoreshejwe amafaranga yari kuri konti yayo y’ubucuruzi kandi ko amategeko y’ubucuruzi abyemera, uretse igihe nyiri konti ashoboye kwerekana ko ayo mafaranga cyangwa amwe muri yo atavuye mu bucuruzi cyangwa ko atasoreshwa. [10] Avuga kandi ko hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 176 kugeza ku ya 179 z’Itegeko Nº21/2006 ryo kuwa 28/04/2006 rigenga imikorere ya gasutamo, “Exportation regime” idakorwa uko umuntu yishakiye, ko ufite ibyo ashaka kugurisha mu mahanga abanza gukora imenyekanisha (déclaration) muri Gasutamo, babimwemerera akabona 103 Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO

## Page 135

104 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kugurisha ibicuruzwa bye aho ashaka hanze y’Igihugu kandi ko icyo gihe nko ku modoka nyirayo asubiza ibyangombwa byerekanaga ko ikoreshwa mu Rwanda, ko kuba Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE itarabashije kugaragariza Urukiko ko yaba yaramenyekanishije ko izo modoka igiye kuzigurisha hanze y’igihugu, bivuga ko niyo zaba zaragurishijwe zitahabwa amahirwe (avantages) yateganyirijwe kohereza ibintu mu mahanga ateganywa mu ngingo ya 87, igika cya 1, y’Itegeko rigenga umusoro ku nyongeragaciro (TVA) ryavuzwe haruguru, ko kandi nta n’ikigaragaza ko yazigurishije kuko aterekanye byibura imenyekanisha (déclaration) abaziguze baba barakoze iwabo, ko rero RRA isanga ari ntaho Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwari guhera rwemeza ko ibyo Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE ivuga bifite ishingiro. [11] Ku bijyanye na “plaques” z’izo modoka zagaruwe, uhagarariye RRA avuga ko bitaburanishijweho mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, ariko ko hashingiwe ku ngingo ya mbere, igika cya 5, y’Itegeko No74/2008 ryo kuwa 31/12/2008 rihindura kandi ryuzuza itegeko No25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha, inyandiko cyangwa ikimenyetso bitagaragaye mu gihe cy’igenzura bidahabwa agaciro, ko rero Urukiko rutazita kuri izo “plaques” kuko ziterekanywe mu igenzura. Avuga ko “Plaques” zagaruwe kuwa 11/09/2012 imanza zaratangiye, mu gihe igenzura ryakozwe muri 2006-2010, bivuga ko zagaruwe nyuma y’igenzura. Ikindi ni uko iyo “plaques” zigaruwe na “carte jaune” igarurwa hakuzuzwa “form” yerekana impamvu bigaruwe, ari nabyo bishingirwaho hakorwa igenzura, ariko ko Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE yagaruye “plaques” zonyine.

## Page 136

105 Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [12] Itegeko Nº21/2006 ryo kuwa 28/04/2006 rigena imikorere ya gasutamo ryakoreshwaga igihe cy’;igenzura ryakorewe Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE riteganya mu ngingo ya 177 ko ibicuruzwa byose bigomba kugenerwa uko bifatwa muri Gasutamo bikorerwa imenyekanisha, naho ingingo ya 179 igateganya ko ibicuruzwa bisohoka ku butaka Gasutamo ikoreraho ari uko imenyekanisha ryo gusohora ibicuruzwa rimaze kwemerwa. [13] Na none ingingo ya mbere, igika cya 5, y’Itegeko No74/2008 ryo kuwa 31/12/2008 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko No25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/20051 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha iteganya ko “umusoreshwa atemerewe gutanga, ku rwego urwo arirwo rwose rw’ubujurire, izindi nyandiko cyangwa ibitabo atagaragaje mu gihe cy’igenzura. Naho igika cya nyuma (art.1 in fine) cy’iyo ngingo giteganya ko umusoreshwa yabyerekana gusa (inyandiko cyangwa ibitabo) ari uko agaragaje impamvu zifatika zatumye atagaragaza ibyo bimenyetso mu gihe cy’igenzura. [14] Urukiko rurasanga uhagarariye Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE ubwe yiyemerera ko imodoka avuga ko zagurishijwe hanze y’Igihugu cy’u Rwanda zitigeze zikorerwa imenyekanisha muri Gasutamo nk’uko biteganywa n’amategeko ngo zemererwe gusohoka mu Gihugu zijya kugurishirizwa mu mahanga, iyo mvugo ye ubwayo ikaba igaragaza ko n’iyo izo modoka zaba zaragurishijwe hanze y’Igihugu byaba byarakozwe mu buryo butubahirije amategeko, ko rero

1 Ayo mategeko yombi yakoreshejwe igihe cy’igenzura.

## Page 137

106 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bitahesha Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE amahirwe Itegeko ryateganyirije abohereza ibintu mu mahanga (avantages prévus par la loi en cas d’exportation). [15] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza amasezerano yo kuwa 04/05/2006 yakorewe i Kigali hagati ya Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE ihagarariwe na Kalinda Donatien na Nduwumwami Victor, y’ubugure bw’imodoka “Camion Remorque” yo mu bwoko bwa Mercedes-Benz 2628 ifite “Plaque” RAA 864 M naho “Remorque” ifite “Plaque” RL 0246, amasezerano yo kuwa 26/07/2007 yabaye hagati ya Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE ihagarariwe na Kavunga Kalinda na Kipkemoi y’ubugure bwa “Camion Mercedes-Benz” 2635 ifite “Plaque” RAA 863M na “Remorque Doll” ifite “Plaque” RL 0244 nayo yakorewe i Kigali, n’ayo kuwa 22/08/2008 yabaye hagati ya Ets KALINDA ihagarariwe na Kavunga Kalinda na Bwana Ssebanakitta Hakim y’ubugure bw’imodoca “Camion Mercedes –Benz” 2628 ifite “Plaque” RAA 860, “Camion Iveco Eurotruck” ifite “Plaque” RAA 859 M na “Remorque Doll” ifite “Plaque” RL 0245, nayo yakorewe i Kigali; ayo masezerano yose Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE ikaba yarayatanze nk’ibimenyetso byerekana ko kamyo zayo zagurishirijwe mu mahanga. [16] Urukiko rurasannga ayo masezerano yose y’ubugure bw’imodoka, ari nta n’amwe bigaragara ko RRA yayabonye mu igenzura yakoze, ndetse yose akaba yarakorewe i Kigali, bivuze ko usibye no kuba ibyo bimenyetso bitashingirwaho hakurikijwe ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya mbere, igika cya 5, y’Itegeko No74/2008 ryo kuwa 31/12/2008 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko No25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha, ku mpa mvu z’uko atigeze

## Page 138

agaragarizwa RRA igihe cy’igenzura, nta n’ubwo yerekana ko imodoka zivugwa zagurishirijwe hanze y’Igihugu, bityo, rero, ingingo y’ubujurire y’uko 86.000USD akomoka ku modoka zagurishijwe atasoreshwa ikaba nta shingiro ifite. [17] Urukiko rurasanga kandi ingingo ya kabiri (2) y’Itegeko Nº21/2006 ryo kuwa 28/04/2006 ryavuzwe haruguru iteganya mu gace ka 33 ku bijyanye n’ibisobanuro by’amagambo n’ahantu iri tegeko rikurikizwa, ko: “Kohereza ibintu mu mahanga: bivuga uburyo Gasutamo ikoresha butuma ibintu byakorewe mu gihugu bisohoka ku butaka gasutamo ikoreraho”. Kuba rero uhagarariye Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE avuga ko habayeho kohereza imodoka ebyiri mu mahanga, akaba atari byo, kuko Itegeko rivuga ko kohereza ibintu mu mahanga ari ukohereza mu mahanga ibintu byakorewe mu gihugu, kandi izo modoka zikaba zitarakorewe mu Rwanda. Ibi nabyo bishimangira ko ku bijyanye n’izo modoka Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE idashobora guhabwa amahirwe itegeko ryateganyirije abohereza ibintu mu mahanga. 2) Kumenya niba 76.216.240Frw yageze kuri konti ya Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE ataragombaga gucibwa umusoro wa TVA. [18] Me Musafiri Alain avuga ko Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE yeretse Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ko 76.216.240Frw yanyuze kuri konti yayo avuye mu bucuruzi bwa “Station Customer Care Services” ya Kalinda Sekwekwe iri i Goma, ariko Urukiko rukavuga ko “bons de prélèvement” berekanye zidahagije, ko bagombaga kwerekana amasezerano yabaye hagati ya Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE n’iyo “Station” rwirengagije ko izo zombi ari “entreprises individuelles” za Kalinda Sekwekwe atari sosiyete 2 ziba zifite ubuzimagatozi 107 Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO

## Page 139

n’ubwo abanyamuryango bazo baba bamwe, ko umuntu umwe atakwandika amasezerano ngo abe ugujije n’ugurijwe. [19] Akomeza asobanuye ko 76.216.240Frw yanyuze kuri Konti ya Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE muri Access Bank (ex BANCOR) yaturukaga mu bucuruzi yari afite i Goma adakwiriye gufatwa nk’ayacurujwe mu Rwanda kubera ko yayahanyuzaga mu rwego rwo kumufasha kwishyura inguzanyo yahawe na Banki y’Ubucuruzi y’u Rwanda (BCR) agura “camions” muri “Leasing”, ariko nyuma zikabura akazi bigatuma agira igihombo gikomeye, ko iyo “station Customer Care Services” yahaye Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE ya hano mu Rwanda umwenda mu bihe bitandukanye mu mwaka wa 2007 ungana na 105.900USD akayavunja mu manyarwanda angana na 60.363.000Frw, agashyirwa kuri konti muri Access Bank Rwanda Ltd kugira ngo amufashe kwishyura umwenda wa BCR , ko ibyo bigaragara muri “Grand Livre” ndetse no muri “bons de prélèvement” zigaragaza aho ayo mafaranga yabaga aturutse. [20] Yasoje avuga ko ingingo ya 12 y’Itegeko No06/2001 ryo kuwa 20/01/2001 rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro iteganya ko ibintu n’imirimo bisoreshwa iyo ibintu bikorwa hagamijwe ikiguzi, bityo ko gusoresha Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE kuri 76.216.240Frw yanyuze kuri konti ye adaturutse mu bucuruzi bwe bwo mu Rwanda byaba ari ukwirengagiza ibiteganywa n’iyo ngingo, akaba atagombaga gusoreshwa kuko ataturutse ku bintu cyangwa serivisi yacuruje mu Rwanda. [21] Me Kabibi Spéciose avuga ko kuba nyiri Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE ikorera mu Rwanda ari nawe nyiri “Station Customer Care Services” ikorera i Goma bitavuze ko 108 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 140

109 Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO

amafaranga yajya ava muri sosiyete imwe akajya mu yindi yafatwa nk’inguzanyo mu gihe nta masezerano yabaye hagati y’izo “entreprises” ebyiri, akaba ariho Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwahereye ruvuga ko ibyo uhagarariye Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE avuga bidafite ishingiro. Avuga kandi ko ubucuruzi bwa Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE bugaragarira mu bitabo, ko nta kuntu ubucuruzi bwa sosiyete imwe bwagaragara mu gitabo cy’iyindi sosiyete bitanagaragaza byibura ko ari ayo yagurijwe. Avuga na none ko Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE yakoraga umurimo w’ubwikorezi bw’ibintu ibivana mu Rwanda ibijyana i Goma, bityo ko anibaza niba ariya 76.216.240Frw atari ubwishyu bwa serivisi yatanze z’ubwikorezi buva mu Rwanda. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA. [22] Ingingo ya 12(1) y’Itegeko N°06/2001 ryo ku wa 20/01/2001 rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro ryakoreshwaga igihe igenzura ryabereye, iteganya ko ibintu n'imirimo bisoreshwa, hakurikijwe iri tegeko, iyo ibintu bikorwa hagamijwe ikiguzi n'usoreshwa wiyandikishije ubwe, uwo bafatanije, cyangwa umukozi we, hakurikijwe ibisabwa bikubiye mu ngingo ya 4 n’iya 92 z’iri Tegeko.

2Ingingo ya 9: imirimo ifatwa nk'ikorerwa mu Rwanda iyo uyikora: a) afite icyicaro mu Rwanda kandi nta handi agifite; b) nta cyicaro afite mu Rwanda cyangwa ahandi hose, ariko akaba asanzwe atuye mu Rwanda; c) afite icyicaro mu Rwanda n'ahandi ariko icyicaro cy'ibikorwa bye byitirirwa uwo murimo ukorwa kikaba ikiri mu Rwanda; d) nta cyicaro afite mu Rwanda ahubwo akakigira ahandi ariko abo uwo murimo ukorerwa bawukenera cyangwa ukabagirira akamaro mu Rwanda. Mu gihe ingingo ya 4 y’itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru iteganya ko …ibintu bishyirwa mu rwego rw'ibigurwa mu Rwanda: a) igihe byoherezwa hanze y'u Rwanda ku buryo buhoraho

## Page 141

110 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[23] Urukiko rurasanga kuba Kalinda Sekwekwe atuye mu Rwanda ariko akaba afite “Station” i Goma kandi ikaba imugirira akamaro ari mu Rwanda, ariko akaba atabasha kugaragaza ko iyo “station” yamugurije amafaranga agera kuri 76.216.240Frw avuga ko yanyuze kuri konti ye mu Rwanda aturutse i Goma, rurasanga hashingiwe ku ngingo z’amategeko zavuzwe haruguru agomba gucibwa umusoro ku nyongeragaciro. [24] Ingingo ya 3 y’Itegeko Nº15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo iteganya ko: buri mu buranyi agomba kugaragaza ukuri kw’ibyo aburana, naho ‘ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/6/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, iteganya ko: Urega agomba kugaragaza ibimenyetso by’ibyo aregera. Iyo abibuze, uwarezwe aratsinda. [25] Urukiko rusanga na none kandi ari nta kimenyetso uhagarariye Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE yigeze ashyikiriza inkiko cyerekana ko 76.216.240Frw ari umwenda “Station Customer Care Services” yayigurije kugira ngo azayifashishe kwishyura umwenda ifite muri I&M Bank, bikaba bitanasobanutse ukuntu ayo mafaranaga aho gushyirwa muri banki yari ifitiwe umwenda, yajyanwe mu yindi banki, akaba nta n’ikigaragaza ko yari agenewe kwishyura uwo mwenda bavuga. Ikindi ni uko “Bons de prélèvement” zerekanywe nazo zitagaragaza ko ayo mafaranga yari agamije kwishyura uwo

cyangwa budahoraho. b) igihe kubishyira ku masoko bisaba ko bibanza gutunganywa no guteranyirizwa ku butaka bw'u Rwanda akaba ariho bihagurukira.

## Page 142

111 Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO

mwenda. Byongeye kandi kuba Kalinda Sekwekwe ariwe nyiri Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE akaba na nyiri Station Customer Care y’i Goma, bimworoheye ko yafata amafaranga ya sosiyete imwe akayakoresha agamije kuyabyaza inyungu mu bindi bikorwa bye, kuba rero Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE itarashoboye gutanga ibimenyetso bitarimo ugushidikanya na guke, byerekana ko 76.216.240 Frw atagombaga gusoreshwa igomba kubitsindirwa, bityo iyi ngingo y’ubujurire nayo ikaba nta shingiro ifite. 3) Gusuzuma niba 12.032.500Frw akwiye kuvanwa mu byacurujwe ntasoreshwe. [26] Me Musafiri Alain avuga mu mwanzuro yatanze muri uru rubanza ko hari 12.032.500Frw ya TVA yashyizwe kuri konti ya Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE n’umukiriya we HASS PETROLEUM, ajyanye n’inyemezabuguzi yari yamukoreye ariko ikiguzi cyo ntiyakimuha kuko yamwishyuraga umwenda nawe yari amufitiye, Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE ikaba yaramenyekanishije iyo TVA muri RRA iranayishyura. Iyi ngingo ye y’ubujurire ntacyo yayivuzeho mu gihe cy’iburanisha, ndetse n’uwari uhagarariye RRA akaba ntacyo yayivuzeho kabone no mu mwanzuro we. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [27] Urukiko rurasanga iki kibazo kitasuzumwe mu rubanza rwajuririwe ku mpamvu y’uko kitigeze kigezwa kwa Komiseri Mukuru w’Imisoro, no muri uru rubanza kitasuzumwa kuko ababuranyi batakigiyeho impaka.

## Page 143

112 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

4) Gusuzuma indishyi zasabwe mu rubanza. a) Ku byerekeye indishyi zasabwe na Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE. [28] Me Musafiri Alain yasabiye uwo ahagarariye 500.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka, Me Kabibi Spéciose avuga ko batazihabwa kuko nta shingiro zifite. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [29] Urukiko rurasanga nk’uko byagaragajwe haruguru, ingingo zose z’ubujurire zatanzwe na Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE ari nta shingiro zifite, bityo ikaba nta ndishyi yahabwa muri uru rubanza. b) Ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwatanzwe na Rwanda Revenue Authority bugamije gusaba indishyi. [30] Uhagarariye Rwanda Revenue Autority avuga ko ashingiye ku ngingo ya 258 y’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’Urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano, asaba indishyi zijyanye no gushorwa mu manza ku mpamvu z’amaherere no guteshwa igihe cy’ubusa kandi hari indi mirimo bakagombye gukora, asaba ko Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE yategekwa kubaha indishyi zingana na 2.000.000Frw. [31] Me Musafiri Alain avuga ko Me Kabibi yaje nka mandataire akaba nta ndishyi yahabwa.

## Page 144

113 Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [32] Urukiko rurasanga kuba Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE yarajuriye muri uru Rukiko, ubujurire bwayo bukaba budafite ishingiro nyamara RRA yararuhamagawemo, byumvikana ko hari icyo byayangirije, bityo hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 258 y’igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano, iteganya ko igikorwa cyose cyangirije undi gituma uwagiteje abiryozwa, Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE ikaba igomba kwishyura RRA amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza angana na 500.000Frw kuko 2.000.000Frw isaba ari ikirenga kandi ikaba nta bimenyetso yayatangiye. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO. [33] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwatanzwe na Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE nta shingiro bufite. [34] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwatanzwe na Rwanda Revenue Authority bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe. [35] Rwemeje ko urubanza No R.COM0075/12/HCC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ku wa 18/01/2013, rudahindutse uretse ku bijyanye n’indishyi Rwanda Revenue Authority igenewe kuri uru rwego. [36] Rutegetse Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE guha Rwanda Revenue Authority 500.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza. [37] Rutegetse ko amafaranga y’igarama yatanzwe mu bujurire ahwanye n’imirimo yakozwe mu rubanza.

## Page 146

FREIGHT AFRICA BVBA v. BONUS ENTERPRISES Ltd [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RCOMA0031/13/CS (Mutashya, P.J., Munyangeri na Gakwaya, J.) 31 Nyakanga 2015] Amategeko agenga ububasha bw’Inkiko – Ububasha bushingiye ku ifasi bw’inkiko zavuzwe mu masezerano – Inkiko zumvikanyweho mu masezerano ni zo zifite ububasha bwo kuburanisha ibibazo bivutse mu kubahiriza ayo masezerano – Itegeko Nᵒ45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, ingingo ya 64 na 113 – Itegeko ryo ku wa 19/1/1920 ryerekeye intumwa mu bucuruzi n’abikorezi, ingingo ya 10 n’iya 11 – Itegeko Nᵒ42/1988 ryo ku wa 27/10/1988 rishyiraho interuro y’ibanze n’igitabo cya mbere “Abantu n’Umuryango”, by’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano, ingingo ya 14(2). Indishyi – Indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’Avoka – Uwarezwe agomba kuzihabwa ariko zikagenwa mu bushishozi bw’urukiko – Itegeko ryo kuwa 10/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258. Incamake y’ikibazo: BONUS ENTERPRISES Ltd yareze FREIGHT AFRICA BVBA mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi iyisaba kuyishyura ibicuruzwa byayo byangiritse hashingiwe ku masezerano y’ubwikorezi bagiranye, amafaranga y’ubwikorezi yishyuwe n’indishyi zitandukanye. AFRICA FREIGHT SERVICES Ltd nayo yagobokeshejwe ku ngufu muri uru rubanza. Urukiko rwategetse FREIGHT AFRICA BVBA hamwe na AFRICA FREIGHT SERVICES Ltd gufatanya

115

## Page 147

kwishyura BONUS ENTERPRISES Ltd amafaranga angana na 29.330.752Frw. FREIGHT AFRICA BVBA yajuririye mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga ivuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rutari rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha ikirego rwaregewe hashingiwe ku masezerano yabaye hagati yabo agaragaza ko impande zombi zari zumvikanye ko inkiko za Envers mu Bubiligi ari zo zifite ububasha bwo kuziburanisha. AFRICA FREIGHT SERVICES Ltd nayo yarajuriye ivuga ko inkiko zo mu Rwanda nta bubasha zifite bwo kuburanisha icyo kirego hashingiwe ku ihame rivuga ko amategeko mbonezamubano yunganira amasezerano abantu bagiranye ariko akaba atayasimbura. Bonus Enterprise Ltd isubiza ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwari rufite ububasha kubera ko ukwangirika cyangwa impanuka byabereye mu Rwanda. Bongeyeho ko kuba Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi arirwo ruri aho amasezerano yashyiriwe mu bikorwa ndetse akaba ari naho yagombaga kurangirizwa bigaragaza ko nta tegeko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwishe. Yatanze ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi isaba urukiko gutegeka FREIGHT AFRICA BVBA kuyishyura indishyi mbonezamusaruro, iz’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’Avoka. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Inkiko zumvikanyweho mu masezerano ni zo zifite ububasha bwo kuburanisha ibibazo bivutse mu kubahiriza ayo masezerano. Bityo, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ntirwari rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha uru rubanza mu gihe abagiranye amasezerano y’ubwikorezi bumvikanye ko mu gihe haba havutse ikibazo cyangwa impaka izo arizo zose, ibyo bizaba biri mu bubasha bw’Inkiko za Antwerp (Anvers), bityo urubanza rwaciwe rukaba rugomba kuvanwaho. 116 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 148

2. Indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy‘avoka zigomba guhabwa uwarezwe ariko zikagenwa n’ubushishozi bw’Urukiko kuko izo isaba ari ikirenga. Ubujurire bufite ishingiro. Urubanza ruvanyweho. Amagarama y’urubanza aherereye ku wareze. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko No45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano ingingo ya 64 na 113, Itegeko ryo ku wa 19/1/1920 ryerekeye intumwa mu bucuruzi n’abikorezi, ingingo ya 10 n’iya 11. Itegeko No42/1988 ryo ku wa 27/10/1988 rishyiraho interuro y’ibanze n’igitabo cya mbere “Abantu n’Umuryango”, by’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano, ingingo ya 14(2). Itegeko ryo kuwa 10/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Urubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, Bonus Enterprise Ltd irega Freight Africa BVBA isaba kwishyurwa ibyangiritse mu gutwara ibicuruzwa, amafaranga y’ubwikorezi (transport) yishyuwe hamwe 117 FREIGHT AFRICA BVBA v. BONUS ENTERPRISES Ltd

## Page 149

118 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

n’indishyi zitandukanye. Africa Freight Services Ltd yari yagobokeshejwe ku ngufu muri urwo rubanza. [2] Urukiko rwafashe icyemezo ku wa 21/01/2013, rutegeka Freight Africa Bvba na Africa Freight Services Ltd gufatanya kwishyura Bonus Enterprise Ltd 29.330.752Frw, hamwe na 9.750 Frw y’amagarama y’urubanza. [3] Freight Africa Bvba yajuririye mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, ivuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rutari rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha ikirego rwaregewe hashingiwe ku masezerano bagiranye na Bonus Enterprise Ltd. [4] Africa Freight Services Ltd nayo yarajuriye, ivuga ko Inkiko z’u Rwanda nta bubasha zifite bwo kuburanisha icyo kirego hashingiwe ku ihame rivuga ko amategeko mbonezamubano yunganira amasezerano abantu bagiranye ariko ntayasimbura, ko yazanywe mu rubanza rutayireba kandi Urukiko rwari rwamaze kubifataho icyemezo kuwa 21/9/2012 ndetse Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwitiranije Umuyobozi wa Africa Freight Services Ltd na sosiyete abereye Umuyobozi. [5] Bonus Enterprise Ltd yatanze ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi, isaba uru Rukiko gutegeka Freight Africa Bvba na Africa Freight Services Ltd kuyishyura indishyi mbonezamusaruro, iz’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya avoka. [6] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame kuwa 9/6/2015, Freight Africa Bvba ihagarariwe na Me Nzamwita Toy, Africa Freight Services Ltd ihagarariwe na Me Idahemuka Tharcise naho Bonus Enterprise Ltd ihagarariwe na Me Ingabire Joséline na Me Bugingo Jean-Bosco.

## Page 150

119 FREIGHT AFRICA BVBA v. BONUS ENTERPRISES Ltd

II. ISESENGURA RY’IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA a. Kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwari rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha uru rubanza. [7] Me Nzamwita Toy avuga ko nta bubasha Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwari rufite bwo kuburanisha ikirego rwaregewe hashingiwe ku masezerano yabaye hagati ya Freight Africa Bvba na Bonus Enterprise Ltd kuko bari bumvikanye ko Inkiko za Anvers mu Bubiligi arizo zifite ubwo bubasha. Avuga ko ibyo bishimangirwa n’ibyemejwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza RCOMA0038/09/CS rwaciwe kuwa 19/02/2010, aho rwavuze ko “imanza zerekeye ama sosiyete y’ubucuruzi n’indi miryango ifite ubuzima gatozi itari iya Leta ziburanishirizwa mu rukiko rwo mu ifasi irimo icyicaro cyabyo gikuru cyangwa aho ikiburanwa kiri, keretse iyo byateganijwe ukundi mu masezerano hagati y’impande ziburana”. [8] Me Idahemuka Tharcisse avuga ko Bonus Enterprises Ltd na Freight Africa Bvba bumvikanye urukiko rushobora kubaburanisha haramutse habaye impaka ndetse hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 64 y’Itegeko No45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, bigaragara ko bishyiriyeho itegeko rigomba kubahirizwa na buri wese. [9] Me Idahemuka Tharcisse akomeza avuga ko ingingo ya 121, igika cya 1 y’Itegeko Ngenga No51/2008 ryo ku wa 9/9/2008 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Inkiko iteganya ko “Uretse mu gihe hari andi mategeko abiteganya ukundi, urukiko rw’aho uregwa atuye ni rwo rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha urubanza” ndetse ingingo ya 125 y’iryo Tegeko iteganya ko “Iyo hari ahantu hatoranyijwe ko

## Page 151

120 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

harangirizwa amasezerano, urukiko rw’aho hantu nirwo ruregerwa urubanza ruyerekeye”, bityo akaba asanga kuba harasezeranywe ko igikorwa cyo kurega bizabera ku cyicaro cya Freight Africa Bvba, itegeko rigomba kubahirizwa. [10] Me Idahemuka Tharcisse asoza avuga ko hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 89 y’Itegeko No21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/6/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi no ku manza nyinshyi zaciwe n’Inkiko aho zafashe icyemezo cy’uko Inkiko z’u Rwanda zidafite ububasha bwo kuvuguruza amasezerano ababuranyi bagiranye bihitiramo inkiko, ari Urukiko rw’Iremezo rwa Anvers (Tribunal de Première Instance d’Anvers) rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha uru rubanza. [11] Me Ingabire Joséline na Me Bugingo Jean-Bosco bavuga ko Bonus Enterprise Ltd isanga Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwari rufite ububasha kubera ko ukwangirika cyangwa impanuka byabereye mu Rwanda. Bakomeza basaba Urukiko gusuzuma niba ingingo y’amasezerano irebana n’Urukiko rufite ububasha bwo kubaburanisha “clause de juridiction”, basinye bombi isimbura amategeko y’u Rwanda. Basoza bavuga ko kuba Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi arirwo ruri aho amasezerano yashyiriwe mu bikorwa ndetse akaba ari naho yagombaga kurangirizwa, bakaba basanga hashingiwe ku ingingo ya 124 y’Itegeko Ngenga No51/2008 ryo ku wa 9/9/2008 ryavuzwe haruguru, rwaraciye urubanza nta Tegeko na rimwe rwishe.

## Page 152

121 FREIGHT AFRICA BVBA v. BONUS ENTERPRISES Ltd

UKO RUKIKO RUBIBONA [12] Ingingo ya 64 y’Itegeko No45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano iteganya ko “Amasezerano akozwe ku buryo bukurikije amategeko aba itegeko ku bayagiranye. Ashobora guseswa ari uko babyumvikanyeho cyangwa ku mpamvu zemewe n’amategeko. Agomba kubahirizwa nta buriganya”. [13] Ingingo ya 113, igika cya 1 y’Itegeko No45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 ryavuzwe haruguru iteganya ko “Amasezerano agira inkurikizi ku bayagiranye gusa, ntabangamira undi wese kandi amugirira akamaro gusa mu biteganyijwe bijyanye no gusezerana ibifitiye undi akamaro”. [14] Ingingo ya 10 y’Itegeko ryo ku wa 19/1/1920 ryerekeye intumwa mu bucuruzi n’abikorezi iteganya ko “Amasezerano y’ubwikorezi agaragazwa n’ibimenyetso byose biteganywa n’amategeko mbese nko ku byerekeye ibicuruzwa hakoreshwa impapuro z’ipakira”. [15] Ingingo ya 11, igika cya 2 y’Itegeko ryo ku wa 19/1/1920 ryavuzwe haruguru iteganya ko “Urwandiko rw’ipakira rukorwa mu nyandiko ebyiri, imwe muri zo igenewe uwohereje ibicuruzwa kandi iriho umukono w’umwikorezi naho indi, ihabwa umwikorezi, iriho umukono w’uwohereje ibicuruzwa”. [16] Ingingo ya 14, igika cya 2 y’Itegeko No42/1888 ryo ku wa 27/10/1888 rishyiraho interuro y’ibanze n’igitabo cya mbere “Abantu n’Umuryango”, by’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano nyarwanda iteganya ko “Uretse iyo abagiranye amasezerano babishatse ukundi, ibyo bemereranijwe, ku

## Page 153

122 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

byerekeye uko bimeze, inkurikizi zabyo, no ku byerekeye guhamya ko byabaye koko, bigengwa n’itegeko ry’aho ibyo bumvikanyeho byabereye”. [17] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga amasezerano y’ubwikorezi (bill of lading ou le connaissement)1 No RWA3993 yo kuwa 5/12/2009 aburanwa muri uru rubanza, ari hagati ya Freight Africa NV, wohereje ibicuruzwa n’umwikorezi Elleci Service&Leuenberger+C&Cartiera Galliera, ndetse hakagaragaramo na Bonus Entrepise Ltd nk‘uwo ibicuruzwa bigomba gushyikirizwa (consignataire ou consignee, destinataire et donneur d’ordre). [18] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga ayo masezerano ateganya ko abayagiranye bumvikanye ko ubwo bwikorezi buzishingirwa na nyir’ibicuruzwa, ko agengwa n’amategeko yo mu Bubiligi, kandi ko mu gihe havutse ikibazo cyangwa impaka izo arizo zose, ibyo bizaba biri mu bubasha bw’Inkiko za Antwerp (Anvers). [19] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga n’ubwo inyandiko y’ipakira (le connaissement ou la la lettre de chargement) iza gushyira mu bikorwa amasezerano y’ubwikorezi, ishobora gutuma byumvikana ko ayo masezerano ari gusa hagati y’uwohereje ibicuruzwa n’umwikorezi ariko mu by‘ukuri, mu gihe uwohereje ibicuruzwa agiranye amasezerano n’umwikorezi, aba abikora mu nyungu (au profit) z’uwo

1 “Le connaissement (en anglais bill of lading: bon de chargement, de fret, abrégéB/L) est le document matérialisant le contrat de transport maritime conclu entre le chargeur et le transporteur maritime”, in le connaissement, https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/connaissement, consulté le 20/7/2015.

## Page 154

ibicuruzwa byohererejwe (destinataire) kuko ariwe bifitiye akamaro2. [20] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga kandi mu gihe bigaragara mu nyandiko y’ipakira ko uwo ibicuruzwa byohererejwe (destinataire) ariwe wasabye ko ayo amasezerano y‘ubwikorezi akorwa (donneur d’ordre), byumvikana nta shiti ko ari mu bagiranye aya masezerano, ndetse ko uwohereje ibicuruzwa yabikoze mu izina ry’uwo byohererejwe. Byongeye kandi, kuba izina ry’uwo ibicuruzwa byohererejwe rigaragara ku nyandiko, bigaragaza ko yiyemeje inshingano yo kubahiriza amasezerano y’ubwikorezi3.

2 “Le destinataire rentre en ligne de compte (comme partie à un contrat auquel il apparaît qu’il ne lui a pas été donné possibilité de manifester sa volonté) dans le cadre du contrat de transport en vertu de la stipulation pour autrui”, RWANKUBITO Prudence, Droit du transport, printerSet, Kigali, 1993, p.41. “Les auteurs proposent deux explications pour justifier cette association du destinataire à un contrat à la formation duquel il n’a pas directement pris part. Une partie de la doctrine retient l’opération juridique de la stipulation pour autrui pour expliquer cette association. L’expéditeur, estime-t-on, aurait stipulé du transporteur en faveur du destinataire. D’autres auteurs, au contraire, préfèrent reconnaître que le contrat de transport est un contrat tripartite. Quelle que soit la théorie juridique à laquelle l’on adhère, il ne fait plus de nos jours de doute que le contrat peut être invoqué par le destinataire aussi bien que par l’expéditeur et opposé par le transporteur, aussi bien à l’un qu’à l’autre’’, Alain COMLAN, Traité de droit commercial congolais, Nouvelles Editions Africaines, Paris, 1972. 3 “Si le donneur d’ordre n’est pas l’expéditeur réel, celui-ci doit être considéré comme ayant agi au nom de celui-là et avoir pris des engagements vis-à-vis du transporteur par l’indication de son nom sur la lettre de chargement. Mais si le donneur d’ordre s’est indiqué sur la lettre de chargement, le chargeur réel n’est alors que l’agent d’exécution de l’expédition au nom et pour compte de l’expéditeur qui est en même temps donneur d’ordre”, Rwankubito Prudence, op.cit., p.43. 123 FREIGHT AFRICA BVBA v. BONUS ENTERPRISES Ltd

## Page 155

124 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[21] Ku birebana n’ingingo y’amasezerano igaragaza Inkiko zifite ububasha bwo kuburanisha abagiranye amasezerano igihe havutse ikibazo cyangwa impaka izo arizo zose mu kuyubahiriza, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga, hashingiwe ku byasobanuwe haruguru, kuba bigaragara ko Bonus Entrepises Ltd (destinataire et donneur d’ordre) iri mu bagiranye amasezerano y’ubwikorezi kuko ifite inshingano zo kuyubahiriza ndetse umwikorezi n‘uwohereje ibicuruzwa (Freight Africa NV: expéditeur) nabo bafite inshingano zo kuyubahiriza, iyo ngingo y’amasezerano iha Inkiko ububasha bwo kuburanisha (clause attributive de compétence) abayagiranye, bityo, akaba atayaca iruhande kuko nawe imureba kandi igomba kubahirizwa. [22] Hashingiwe ku ngingo z‘amategeko zavuzwe haruguru no ku bisobanuro byatanzwe, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga Inkiko z’u Rwanda nta bubasha zifite bwo kuburanisha uru rubanza, bityo nk’uko bigaragara mu nyandiko y’ipakira igize amasezerano y‘ubwikorezi, Inkiko za Antwerp (Anvers) zonyine zikaba arizo zifite ububasha bwo kuruburanisha. [23] Kubera izo mpamvu, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga ubujurire bwa Freight Africa BVBA (ubu NV) n’ubwa Africa Freight Services Ltd bufite ishingiro, bityo Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rukaba rutari rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha uru urubanza. Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rukaba rusanga urwo rubanza rwaciwe rugomba kuvanwaho. b. Kumenya niba Africa Freight Services Ltd ikwiye guhabwa indishyi isaba. [24] Me Idahemuka Tharcisse avuga ko Africa Freight Services Ltd isaba Urukiko gutegeka Bonus Enterprises Ltd

## Page 156

125 FREIGHT AFRICA BVBA v. BONUS ENTERPRISES Ltd

kuyishyura 3.500.000Frw y’ikurikirana urubanza n’igihembo cya avoka. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [25] Ingingo ya 258 y’Igitabo cya III cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano iteganya ko “Igikorwa cyose cy’umuntu cyangirije undi gitegeka nyirugukora ikosa rigikomokaho kuriha ibyangiritse”. [26] Ku bijyanye n’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n‘igihembo cy’avoka Africa Freight Services Ltd isaba, usibye ko Bonus Enterprises Ltd ntacyo iyavugaho, Urukiko rw‘Ikirenga rurasanga igomba kuyahabwa, ariko kubera ko 3.500.000Frw isaba ari ikirenga, mu bushishozi bwarwo rukaba ruyigeneye 800.000Frw. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [27] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwatanzwe na Freight Africa BVBA (ubu NV) na Africa Freight Services Ltd bufite ishingiro. [28] Rwemeje ko urubanza RCOM0038/12/HCC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ruvanyweho. [29] Rutegetse Bonus Enterprises Ltd kwishyura Africa Freight Services Ltd 800.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya avoka. [30] Rutegetse Bonus Enterprises Ltd kwishyura amagarama y’urubanza angana na 100.000Frw.

## Page 158

IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO v. KAMBA GENERAL MARCHANDISE Ltd [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RCOMA0152/12/CS (Mugenzi, P.J., Karimunda na Gatete, J.) 22 Mutarama 2016] Amategeko agenga imisoro – Umusoro ku musaruro – Amafaranga y’ingwate atangwa n’abaguzi – Ayo mafaranga si umusaruro; ahubwo ni igikorwa cyo gushingana kidasoreshwa – Itegeko N°16/2005 ryo ku wa 18/08/2005 rigena imisoro itaziguye ku musaruro, ingingo ya 16. Amategeko agenga imisoro – Umusoro ku musaruro – Igisoreshwa – Ufite inshangano zo kugaragaza ibimenyetso by’igisoreshwa – Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro ni cyo gifite inshingano yo kugaragaza inyungu isoreshwa – Itegeko No25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu, ingingo ya 44. Indishyi – Amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’avoka – Uwatsinze agomba kuyishyurwa kuko hari ibyo yatakaje akurikirana urubanza anishyura avoka wamuburaniye – Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258. Incamake y’ikibazo: Ikigo cy’imisoro n’Amahoro cyakoreye igenzura KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd kimuca 37.447.020Frw y’umusoro. KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd ntiyishimiye umwanzuro w’ubugenzuzi bituma ajuririra Komiseri Mukuru maze nawe ayisubiza ko 2.790.000Frw 127

## Page 159

yasubijwe muri Kigali Multi Choice Ltd avanywe mu musoro yishyuzwa ikaba igomba kwishyura asigaye. KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd yajuririye uwo mwanzuro mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi isaba ko umusoro ungana na 22.957.627Frw wavanwa mu musoro yishyuzwa kubera ko adakomoka ku bucuruzi ahubwo ari ingwate yatangwaga n’abaguzi. Urwo Rukiko rwemeje ko umusoro ungana na 22.957.627Frw uvanwa mu wemejwe na Komiseri Mukuru, rutegeka kandi RRA kwishyura indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka no gutanga amagarama y’urubanza. RRA ntiyishimiye icyo cyemezo akijuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko igenzura ku musoro ryakorewe KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd riri mu bwoko by’isoresha rikorwa hakoreshejwe inyandiko y’ikosora aho mu kubara umusoro hagenderwa ku mahame remezo y’ibaruramari kuko mbere y’uko amafaranga ajyanwa muri Banki agomba kubanza gushyirwa mu bitabo byerekana ko yanyuze muri “caisse”, ariko ko kubirebana n’uru rubanza, amafaranga yajyanywe muri Banki atanyujijwe muri “caisse” ari nayo mpamvu agomba gusoreshwa. Ikindi kandi iyo ayo amafaranga aza kuba ingwate hari kugaragara “bordereaux” za banki zibyemeza. Ikindi cyerekana ko atari ingwate ni uko bamwe mubo avuga ko batanze ayo mafaranga atayabasubizaga yose, kandi KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd ivuga ko ayo abakiriya basubijwe adahura n’ayo yakiriye. KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd yiregura ivuga ko kubika amafaranga y’ingwate kuri banki no gusubiza uje kuyaka hakoreshejwe ari muri caisse nta kosa ririmo. Isobanura kandi ko icyangombwa ari uko amafaranga aba ahari kugira ngo uwatanze ingwate ashobore kuyasubizwa igihe ashakiye. 128 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 160

KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd isoza isaba indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’Avoka kubera gushorwa mu manza nta mpamvu. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Inyungu ku bikorwa by’ubucuruzi ingana n’umusaruro wakiriwe ku bikorwa byose hakuwemo ibyasohowe byose ku birebana n’ibyo bikorwa. Inyungu ku bikorwa irimo kandi umusaruro uva mu igurisha ry’umutungo uwo ari wo wose no ku mafaranga ava mu irangizamutungo yakiriwe mu gihe cy’umusoro. Iyo nyungu kandi ibarwa hashingiwe ku ibarwa ry’inyungu cyangwa igihombo hakurikijwe amahame remezo y’ibaruramari ry’igihugu. Kuba rero urega yarakiriye amafaranga akayajyana kuri banki atayanyujije kuri kesi si byo bigaragaza ko akomoka ku bikorwa by’ubucuruzi kuko ibitabo bye by’ibaruramari bigaragaza ko yari ingwate zatanzwe n’abakiriya be kandi urega (RRA) akaba adahakana ukuri kubikubiyemo. Bityo amafaranga y’ingwate si umusaruro; ahubwo ni igikorwa cyo gushingana kidasoreshwa. 2. Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amaharo ni cyo gifite inshingano yo kugaragaza inyungu isoreshwa. Kuba rero kitaragaragaje inyungu KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd yaba yarakuye mu ngwate yakaga abaguzi bayo cyangwa ko yashyiraga amafaranga y’ingwate kuri konti imwe n’iy’ubucuruzi igamije kuyironkamo (ingwate) inyungu runaka, byerekana ko kidafite ibimenyetso by’ibyo kivuga. 3. Igikorwa cyose cy’umuntu cyangirije undi, gitegeka nyiri ugukora ikosa rigikomokaho kuriha ibyangiritse. Bityo rero KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd igenewe amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka kuko hari ibyo yatakaje mu gukurikirana uru rubanza ndetse binaba ngobwa ko yiyambaza Avoka uhembwa. 129 IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO v. KAMBA GENERAL MARCHANDISE Ltd

## Page 161

Ubujurire nta shingiro bufite; Urubanza rwajuririwe ntiruhindutse; Uwajuriye ategetswe kwishyura amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’avoka; Amagarama y’urubanza aherereye ku wajuriye. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko N°16/2005 ryo ku wa 18/08/2005 rigena imisoro itaziguye ku musaruro, ingingo ya 16. Itegeko No25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu, ingingo ya 44. Itegeko ryo kuwa 30/07/1888 rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd yakorewe igenzura ry’umusoro ku nyungu, umusoro ku nyongeragaciro n’umusoro ku bihembo ku myaka ya 2006, 2007 na 2008 maze icibwa umusoro wose hamwe ungana na 37.447.020Frw. KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd ntiyishimiye umwanzuro w’abagenzuzi, ijuririra Komiseri Mukuru, nawe asubiza ku wa 10/01/2012, ayimenyesha ko 2.790.000Frw yasubijwe Kigali Multi Choice Ltd avanywe mu musoro wishyuzwa, ikishyura 34.825.340Frw. 130 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 162

[2] KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd ntiyishimiye uwo mwanzuro iregera Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi isaba ko umusoro ungana na 22.957.627Frw uvanwa mu wemejwe na Komiseri Mukuru kubera ko ari amafaranga adakomoka ku bucuruzi ahubwo ari ingwate (caution) abaguzi bashyira kuri konti yayo mu gihe bagitegereje ibicuruzwa. [3] Mu rubanza No RCOM0026/12/HCC rwaciwe ku wa 06/09/2012, urwo Rukiko rwasanze amafaranga ari kuri konti ya Kamba General Marchandise Ltd atarakomotse ku bikorwa by’ubucuruzi ahubwo ari ingwate yashyizweho n’abaguzi, umusoro ucibwa ku gikorwa kijyanye no kugurisha mu gihe ingwate ijyana n’igikorwa cyo gushingana kandi nta mpamvu yo gusesengura ibijyanye n’ingano y’urwunguko kubera ko mu Rwanda amategeko y’ubucuruzi yemerera ugura n’ugurisha kumvikana ku nyungu ndetse n’ababuranyi bakaba bataragaragaje ingano y’urwunguko yumvikanyweho, rwemeza ko umusoro ungana na 22.957.627Frw uvanwa mu wemejwe na Komiseri Mukuru, rutegeka kandi Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro kwishyura indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka zingana na 500.000Frw no gutanga amagarama y’urubanza. [4] Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro nticyishimiye icyo cyemezo kijuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, iburanisha mu ruhame riba kuwa 22/12/2015 KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd iburanirwa na Me Twilingiyemungu Joseph naho Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro gihagarariwe na Me Gasana Raoul.

131 IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO v. KAMBA GENERAL MARCHANDISE Ltd

## Page 163

II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO 1. Kumenya niba amafaranga y’ingwate yasubijwe beneyo yasoreshwa nk’akomoka ku bikorwa by’ubucuruzi. [5] Me Gasana Raoul uburanira Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro avuga ko igenzura ku musoro ryakorewe KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd riri mu bwoko by’isoresha rikorwa hakoreshejwe inyandiko y’ikosora (principe du contradictoire) aho mu kubara umusoro hagenderwa ku mahame remezo y’ibaruramari kuko mbere y’uko amafaranga ajyanwa muri Banki agomba kubanza gushyirwa mu bitabo byerekana ko yanyuze muri “caisse”, ariko ko kubirebana n’uru rubanza, amafaranga yajyanywe muri Banki atanyujijwe muri “caisse” ari nayo mpamvu agomba gusoreshwa. [6] Asobanura ko igenzura ry’ibitabo by’ibaruramari bigaragaza ko hari amafaranga KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd yita ingwate (caution) y’abaguzi yashyize kuri konti yayo, abo baguzi bayasubizwa bamaze guhabwa ibicuruzwa, nyamara umusoresha akaba agaragaza ko ayo mafaranga atari ingwate (Caution) kubera ko Kamugisha, nyiri KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd, na Sibomana Augustin, Umujyanama wayo mu by’imisoro (Tax Advisor) babwiye abagenzuzi b’imisoro ko, kubera ko amafaranga y’ingwate atari ayabo, bayakiraga mu ntoki (cash), nyuma bakayajyana kuri Banki atanyuze muri “caisse”, aribyo bituma ayo mafaranga atagaragara mu bitabo byabo by’ibaruramari. [7] Asoza avuga ko amafaranga yashyizwe kuri banki iyo aza kuba ingwate (caution) hari kugaragara “bordereaux” za banki zibyemeza, ikindi cyerekana ko atari ingwate (caution) 132 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 164

133

akaba ari nkaho uwitwa Nzaramba yabanje gutanga 5.580.000Frw ku wa 10/09/2007, arongera atanga 3.260.000Frw ku wa 12/10/2007, ariko wareba amafaranga yasubijwe ugasanga ari 3.260.000Frw, bivuze ko amafaranga KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd yita ingwate itayasubije yose, kandi nayo bavuga ko bashubije adahura n’ayo bakiriye. [8] Me Twilingiyemungu Joseph uburanira KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd avuga ko hakorwa igenzura ry’umusoro ku nyungu, umusoro ku nyongeragaciro n’umusoro ku bihembo ku myaka ya 2006, 2007 na 2008 hagendewe ku ibaruramari ryakozwe na KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd, hemezwa ko hishyurwa umusoro ndakuka ungana na 37.447.020Frw, ariko mu guca uwo musoro hirengagizwa amategeko. Asobanura ko Komiseri Mukuru yagejejweho icyo kibazo akemeza ko umusoro ungana na 2.621.716Frw uvanwa mu waciwe ariko ikibazo nyamukuru cy’uko umusoro waciwe hirengagijwe amategeko ntagikemure, ari nacyo cyatumye Kamba General Marchandise Ltd iregera Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi kugira ngo hasuzumwe niba amafaranga y’ingwate yasubijwe beneyo akwiye gusoreshwa nk’akomoka ku bikorwa by’ubucuruzi. [9] Avuga kandi ko kubika amafaranga y’ingwate (caution) kuri banki no gusubiza uje kuyaka hakoreshejwe ari muri caisse nta kosa ririmo, ko icyangombwa aruko aba ahari kuko iyo atahaba byari gutera icyuho mu ibaruramari aribyo byitwa “caisse négative”, asobanura ko uwatanze ingwate ashobora kuyisubizwa igihe ashakiye, kandi ko ibyo Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro kiburanisha ko iyo ngwate ariyo yaherwagaho abaguzi bishyura nta shingiro bifite kubera ko nta tegeko rivuga IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO v. KAMBA GENERAL MARCHANDISE Ltd

## Page 165

134 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ko ingwate iherwaho mu kwishyura ahubwo isubizwa nyirayo iyo impamvu yatumye itangwa itakiriho. [10] Asoza avuga ko ibitabo by’ibaruramari ndetse na “historique bancaire” bigaragaza ko hari 26.825.000Frw yashyizwe kuri konti n’abaguzi nk’ingwate yo guhabwa ibicuruzwa kandi ko ibaruramari ryerekana ko ayo mafaranga yasubijwe bene yo, umusoresha akaba kugeza ubu adahakana ibyakozwe n’ibaruramari ari naho mu rubanza rujuririrwa umucamanza yagaragaje ko niba Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro kitavuguruza ibyanditse mu bitabo by’ibaruramari bya KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd kigomba gutsindwa hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 44 y’Itegeko N°25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [11] Ingingo ya 16, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko N°16/2005 ryo ku wa 18/08/2005 rigena imisoro itaziguye ku musaruro iteganya ko “Inyungu ku bikorwa by’ubucuruzi ingana n’umusaruro wakiriwe ku bikorwa byose hakuwemo ibyasohowe byose ku birebana n’ibyo bikorwa. Inyungu ku bikorwa irimo kandi umusaruro uva mu igurisha ry’umutungo uwo ari wo wose no ku mafaranga ava mu irangizamutungo yakiriwe mu gihe cy’umusoro. “Naho igika cya kabiri cy’iyo ngingo kivuga ko “Inyungu ku bikorwa by’ubucuruzi ibarwa kuri buri gihe cy’umusoro hashingiwe ku ibarwa ry’inyungu cyangwa igihombo rikorwa hakurikijwe amahame remezo y’ibaruramari ry’igihugu…”. [12] Ingingo ya 44 y’Itegeko No25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha nk’uko

## Page 166

ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu, iteganya ko Ubuyobozi bw’Imisoro aribwo bufite inshingano zo kugaragaza ibimenyetso iyo bukosora imenyesha ry’umusoro w’umusoreshwa. [13] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza ko igenzura ry’umusoro wishyuzwa KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd ryashingiye ku nyandiko y’ikosora (principe du contradictoire) ritandukanye n’isoresha nta nteguza (procédure d’imposition d’office) kuko ibitabo by’ibaruramari byerekana ko hari amafaranga angana na 26.825.000Frw yatanzwe mu ntoki (cash) n’abaguzi ba Kamba General Marchandise Ltd nk’ingwate kugira ngo bazahabwe ibicuruzwa, ayo mafaranga akaba yarashyizwe kuri banki asubizwa ba nyirayo ku mataliki atandukanye anyujijwe muri caisse (Cote 5), kandi ko hanabaye iperereza ryakozwe n’Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro kugira ngo hamenyekane umusoro ugomba kwishyurwa hagendewe ku byagaragajwe n’ibaruramari KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd yakoze (Cote 20-21). [14] Urukiko rurasanga kuba amafaranga yarakiriwe mu ntoki akajyanwa kuri banki n’abakozi ba KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd atabanje kunyuzwa muri caisse ataribyo bigaragaza ko akomoka ku bikorwa by’ubucuruzi, kandi mu gihe ibitabo by’ibaruramari bya KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd bigaragaza ko ayo mafaranga yari ay’ingwate yo gushingana ibicuruzwa yaje gusubizwa bene yo, Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro kikaba ntacyo kinenga ibitabo by’ibaruramari bya KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd, ahubwo cyemera ko igisoreshwa ari umusaruro kandi ingwate ikaba atari umusaruro kuko ari igikorwa cyo gushingana kidacibwa 135 IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO v. KAMBA GENERAL MARCHANDISE Ltd

## Page 167

136 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

umusoro, bituma ntaho uru Rukiko rwahera rwemeza ko amafaranga y’ingwate yasubijwe bene yo atangirwa umusoro. [15] Urukiko rurasanga kandi, nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 44 y’Itegeko No25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 ryibukijwe hejuru, Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro aricyo gifite inshingano yo kugaragaza inyungu isoreshwa KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd yaba yaravanye mu ngwate yakaga abaguzi bayo, bityo mu gihe icyo kigo kitagaragaza ko KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd yacuruzaga ingwate yakaga abaguzi bayo cyangwa se ko icyatumye ishyira ingwate kuri konti imwe n’iyibicuruzwa ari uko yayivanagamo inyungu runaka, bikwiye gufatwa ko Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro kitagaragaza ibimenyetso by’ibyo kivuga, bityo ubujurire bukaba nta shingiro bufite. 2. Kumenya niba KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd yahabwa indishyi isaba muri uru rubanza. [16] Me Twilingiyemungu Joseph avuga ko KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd ikomeje gushorwa mu manza nta mpamvu, ikaba ibisabira indishyi zingana na 1.000.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka. [17] Me Gasana Raoul avuga ko ibijyanye n’indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka zisabwa na KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd byasuzumwa mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko kuko zisabwa zishingiye ku kirego cy’iremezo cyatanzwe. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [18] Urukiko rurasanga kuba KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd yararezwe mu Nkiko byaratumye igira ibyo itakaza mu

## Page 168

IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO v. KAMBA GENERAL MARCHANDISE Ltd 137

gukurikirana uru rubanza ndetse biba ngombwa ko yiyambaza na Avoka uhembwa, bityo hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 258 y’Igitabo cya Gatatu cy’Urwunge rw’Amategeko Mbonezamubano, iteganya ko “igikorwa cyose cy’umuntu cyangirije undi, gitegeka nyiri gukora ikosa rigikomokaho kuriha ibyangiritse”, KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd ikaba igenewe, kuri uru rwego, amafaranga ibihumbi magana atanu (500.000Frw) y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [19] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bw’Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro nta shingiro bufite; [20] Ruvuze ko nta gihindutse ku mikirize y’urubanza RCOM0026/12/HCC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ku wa 06/09/2012; [21] Rutegetse Ikigo cy’imisoro n’Amahôro kwishyura KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd amafaranga ibihumbi magana atanu (500.000Frw) y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka kuri uru rwego yiyongera kuyo yari yaciwe ku rwego rwa mbere; [22] Rutegetse Ikigo cy’imisoro n’Amahôro kwishyura amagarama y’urubanza ahwanye n’amafaranga ibihumbi ijana (100.000Frw).

## Page 170

SOCOGEDI SA v. BRALIRWA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – R.COM.A0156/11/CS (Mukanyundo, P.J., Havugiyaremye na Mukamulisa, J.) 7 Ukuboza 2012] Amategeko agenga amasezerano – Amasezerano y’ubufatanye mu bucuruzi – Amasezerano y’ubufatanye mu bucuruzi ashobora kugaragazwa n’imikoranire yaranze impande zombi n’iyo yaba atanditse dore ko n’amategeko y’ubucuruzi adateganya ko agomba kuba yanditse uko byagenda kose. Amategeko agenga amasezerano – Indishyi zo gusesa amasezerano – Ntihabayeho gusesa amasezerano mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko kuko icy’ingenzi ari uko usheshe amasezerano nk’aya bihagije ko agaragaza impamvu yabimuteye kandi si ngombwa ko atanga indishyi byanze bikunze. Indishyi – Indishyi zo gushorwa mu manza ku rwego rw’ubujurire – Ntiyahabwa indishyi zishingiye ku bujurire bw’uwo baburanaga avuga ko yamuzanye mu rubanza ku maherere kuko kujuririra icyemezo atishimiye ari uburenganzira bwe kandi hakaba nta kigaragaza ayo maherere. Incamake y’ikibazo: SOCOGEDI SA (Ubu yabaye SOCOGEDI Ltd) yagiranye amasezerano y’ubufatanye na BRALIRWA. Ayo masezerano yari yerekeye ubucurizi bw’ibinyobwa. Amasezerano yanditse yararangiye ariko na nyuma bakomeza gukorana. Nyuma BRALIRWA yasheshe amasezerano bitewe n’uko SOCOGEDI itari yasubije ibaruwa yari yandikiwe isabwa ibisobanuro bijyanye no kutubahiriza masezerano bari baragiranye. 139

## Page 171

Nyuma y’iryo seswa SOCOGEDI yandikiye BRALIRWA iyisaba ko bakemura ibibazo mu bwumvikane. Byarananiranye SOCOGEDI irega BRALIRWA mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ivuga ko BRALIRWA yasheshe amasezerano nta mpamvu isaba kwishyurwa indishyi zitandukanye. BRALIRWA yo yisobanuye ivuga ko amasezerano y’ubufatanye bari baragiranye yari yararangiye (amasezerano yanditse). Urwo rukiko rwemeje ko ikirego nta shingiro gifite kuko ayo amasezerano yari yarasheshwe. SOCOGEDI yajuriye mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga ivuga ko itishimiye imikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe kuko rurimo ukwivuguruza bigaragazwa n’uko Urukiko rwemeye ko n’ubwo amasezerano nyiri MDF DDV izina yanditse yabaye hagati ya SOCOGEDI na BRALIRWA yagombaga kurangira ku itariki ya 30/04/2010, nyuma yaho impande zombi zakomeje gukorana nk’uko bishimangirwa n’ibikorwa binyuranye bagiranye mu gihe yongeye kwemeza ko ayo masezerano yari yararangiye. Bongeyeho kandi ko mu masezerano y’ubucurizi inyandiko atari ngombwa. Kuri izi ngingo z’ubujurire, BRALIRWA yasubije ko amasezerano y’ubufatanye yari yararangiye kandi nta ngingo yateganyaga ko ashobora kwongerwa bitabaye ngombwa gukora andi. Yongeraho ko niyo haba hari ibikorwa bagiranye nyuma, ntibishobora gufatwa nkahobyari bishingiye ku masezerano; ahubwo ko ari ibikorwa umuguzi wese yagirana na buri mucuruzi. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. N’ubwo nta masezerano yanditse yabaye nyuma y’irangira ry’ayanditse, ibikubiye mu mabaruwa atandukanye impande zombi zagiye zandikirana bigaragaza nta gushidikanya ko imikoranire hagati yazo yari inashingiye ku masezerano yanditse zari zagiranye mbere yari igihari, dore ko 140 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 172

amategeko adateganya ko amasezerano y’ubucuruzi agomba kugaragazwa n’inyandiko gusa; ahubwo icy’ingenzi ni ibimenyetso bigaragaza ko hari ibyo impande zombi zemeranyijweho kandi bishobora gutangirwa ibimenyetso byose bishoboka. 2. BRALIRWA ntiyasheshe amasezerano mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko kuko yagaragaje impamvu zatumye iyasesa bikubitiye ku bibazo bari bafitanye birimo imikoranire itari myiza kandi mu gusesa amasezerano nk’ayo bari bagiranye (contrat de partenariat), bikaba bihagije ko uyasheshe abitangira ibisobanuro akaba adategetswe byanze bikunze gutanga indishyi. 3. Nta ndishyi zicibwa uwajuriye utarishimiye imikirize y’urubanza iyo bigaragaye ko atakuruye undi mu manza nta mpamvu; ahubwo ni uburenganzira bwe. Ubujurire bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe; Ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi nta shingiro bufite; Ababuranyi bombi bagomba gufatanya kwishyura amagarama y’urubanza. Nta mategeko yashingiweho. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Ibitekerezo by’abahanga byifashishijwe: Dimitri Houtcieff, Droit du commerce et des affaires, 2è éd., Sirey, 2008, Nº779. P. Fernandez, “Contrats commerciaux” disponible sur http://www.avocat.fernandez.com/contrats commerciaux.php 141 SOCOGEDI SA v. BRALIRWA

## Page 173

142 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] SOCOGEDI SA (Ubu yabaye SOCOGEDI Ltd) yagiranye amasezerano y’ubufatanye na BRALIRWA Ltd arebana n’ubucuruzi bw’ibinyobwa byaba ibisembuye n’ibidasembuye, SOCOGEDI ikavuga ko n’ubwo amasezerano ya nyuma yanditse bagiranye yagombaga kurangira kuwa 30/04/2010, na nyuma y’iyo tariki impande zombi zakomeje gukorana, kugeza ubwo BRALIRWA isheshe amasezerano kuwa 23/12/2010 ku mpamvu z’uko SOCOGEDI itasubije ibaruwa yayandikiye iyisaba gutanga ibisobanuro ku kutubahiriza ibyo bari barumvikanye mu masezerano bagiranye. Nyuma y’iryo seswa ry’amasezerano, SOCOGEDI yandikiye BRALIRWA iyisaba ko bakemura ibibazo bafitanye binyuze mu bwumvikane, binaniranye yitabaza inkiko. BRALIRWA yiregura ivuga ko ntacyo igomba SOCOGEDI kubera ko amasezerano y’ubufatanye bari baragiranye yarangiye kuwa 30/04/2010. [2] SOCOGEDI yareze BRALIRWA mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi kuba yarasheshe amasezerano bari baragiranye nta mpamvu, isaba guhabwa 860.410.433Frw kubera igihombo yagize, 15.000.000Frw y’indishyi na 10.000.000Frw y’igihembo cy’avocat, urwo Rukiko rwemeza ko ikirego cya SOCOGEDI nta shingiro gifite ku mpamvu z’uko nta masezerano y’ubufatanye yari akiri hagati yayo na BRALIRWA kuko yari yarasheshwe.

## Page 174

143 SOCOGEDI SA v. BRALIRWA

[3] SOCOGEDI yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, dosiye ikorerwa ibanzirizasuzuma, umucamanza ubishinzwe yemeza ko ubujurire bwayo bwakiriwe. [4] Iburanisha ry’urubanza ryabaye kuwa 1/11/2012 SOCOGEDI iburanirwa na Me Niyomugabo Christophe hamwe na Me Kayiranga Cyrille, BRALIRWA iburanirwa na Me Mpayimana Isaie na Me Basomingera Alberto. II. IBIBAZO BIRI MU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO a) Ku bijyanye no kumenya niba inyandiko SOCOGEDI iburanisha zidakwiye kwitabwaho. [5] Ababuranira BRALIRWA batanze inzitizi y’uko inyandiko SOCOGEDI yashingiyeho ijurira muri uru Rukiko zirimo izijyanye n’agahimbazamusyi ivuga ko BRALIRWA yagiye iyiha, zidakwiye gushingirwaho ngo Urukiko runazihe agaciro kubera ko abo baburana banze kuzibashyikiriza, ndetse ko na nyuma yo kuzisaba, ababuranira SOCOGEDI batashatse gusubiza ibaruwa yazibasabaga. [6] Ababuranira SOCOGEDI basubiza ko inyandiko BRALIRWA ivuga zavuzweho kuva mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, kuko urwo Rukiko rwasubitse iburanisha kugira ngo ababuranyi bahererekanye imyanzuro n’inyandiko bazashingiraho baburana, barabikora, iburanisha risubukurwa baburana imizi y’urubanza, ndetse BRALIRWA yiregura ku kirego cya SOCOGEDI, ko rero inzitizi yatanzwe n’ababuranira BRALIRWA nta shingiro ifite.

## Page 175

144 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[7] Urukiko rusanga nk’uko dosiye y’urubanza ibigaragaza, mu iburanisha ry’ibanze ryo kuwa 31/03/2011, uburanira BRALIRWA yarasabye imbabazi z’uko atagejeje ku bo baburana imyanzuro yo kwiregura, anongeraho ko gutinda byatewe n’uko hari inyandiko yari gukoresha yagombaga guhabwa n’abazungu ba BRALIRWA ngo ariko bakaba batari bahari, Urukiko rwimurira imuranisha kuwa 14/04/2011 kugira ngo narwo ruzabanze rusuzume imyanzuro ya BRALIRWA rwari rwabonye ku munsi w’iburanisha. [8] Iburanisha ryasubukuwe kuwa 14/04/2011, uwo munsi BRALIRWA itanga inzitizi zirimo kuba SOCOGEDI itarayigejejeho ibimenyetso bimwe yashingiyeho irega, bituma nanone iburanisha ryimurirwa kuwa 16/06/2011, kuwa 29/07/2011 Urukiko ruca urubanza rubanziriza urundi ku nzitizi zatanzwe na BRALIRWA, maze ku bijyanye n’ihererekanya ry’inyandiko, rutegeka ko SOCOGEDI igomba guha BRALIRWA ibimenyetso byose itayihaye, iburanisha rindi ryimurirwa kuwa 03/10/2011. Kuri uyu munsi iburanisha mu mizi ryarakomeje, impande zombi zigeza ku Rukiko ingingo zishingiraho. [9] Ku buryo bw’umwihariko, ku bijyanye n’inzitizi BRALIRWA yatanze isaba ko inyandiko SOCOGEDI iburanisha ivuga ko yakoraga neza kuko BRALIRWA yanabiyihereye agahimbazamusyi, hamwe n’ibindi bimenyetso, n’ubwo BRALIRWA ivuga ubu ko zidakwiye gushingirwaho kubera ko zagaragaye bwa mbere kuri uru rwego, ibyo ivuga binyuranye n’ibikubiye mu nyandiko mvugo y’iburanisha ryo kuwa 16/06/2011 mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi kuko yerekana ko iby’izo nyandiko byaburanyweho mbere muri urwo Rukiko. Byongeye kandi, inyandiko BRALIRWA ivuga ko

## Page 176

145 SOCOGEDI SA v. BRALIRWA

itazi, uretse ko byanaburanyweho mbere, zaturutse iwabo, ku buryo bitumvikana ko yavuga ko itazizi. [10] Hakurikijwe ibimaze gusobanurwa, Urukiko rusanga kuba kuri uru rwego BRALIRWA yongera kugarura ikibazo yari yaratanze mu Rukiko Rukuru rukagifataho umwanzuro ndetse nyuma ikiregura ku ngingo zose z’ikirego cya SOCOGEDI, kandi ikaba itarajuririye urubanza rwa mbere, bituma inzitizi yayo yavuzwe haruguru yo kudaha agaciro ibimenyetso SOCOGEDI iburanisha nta shingiro ifite. b) Ku bijyanye no kumenya niba amasezerano y’ubufatanye hagati ya BRALIRWA na SOCOGEDI yarakomeje nyuma yo kuwa 30/04/2010. [11] Ababuranira SOCOGEDI bavuga ko icyatumye batishimira imikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe, ari uko rurimo ukwivuguruza kugaragazwa n’uko umucamanza mu gika cya 13 ku rupapuro rwa gatatu rw’incarubanza, yemeye ko n’ubwo amasezerano nyiri izina yanditse yabaye hagati ya SOCOGEDI na BRALIRWA yagombaga kurangira ku itariki ya 30/04/2010, nyuma yaho impande zombi zakomeje gukorana nk’uko bishimangirwa n’ibikorwa binyuranye bagiranye, nyamara mu gika cya 18, urupapuro rwa 6 rw’incarubanza yemeza ko ayo masezerano yari yararangiye kuwa 30/04/2010. [12] Banavuga ko hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 1 CCL.III ivuga icyo amasezerano ari cyo, ntaho hategetswe ko mu masezerano y’ubucuruzi hagomba inyandiko byanze bikunze, ndetse ko ibivugwa na BRALIRWA ko amasezerano bagiranye yari yarangiye kuwa 30/04/2010, binyomozwa n’uko bakomeje gukorana, ikajya iha SOCOGEDI ibicuruzwa byayo nk’uko yari isanzwe ibigenza, ndetse ko kimwe mu bigaragaza ko

## Page 177

146 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

imikoranire yakomeje, ari ibaruwa BRALIRWA yandikiye SOCOGEDI kuwa 14/05/2010 yavugaga ngo hagati aho hazakomeza kubahirizwa ingingo zikubiye mu masezerano twari dufitanye hamwe n’ingingo zikubiye mu ibaruwa yacu Div Nº037/com.27/2010 yo kuwa 25/03/2010 zizakomeza kubahirizwa”. Bagasanga ibikubiye muri iyo baruwa bigaragaza ko amasezerano atarangiye kuwa 30/04/2010 nk’uko Umucamanza yabyemeje. [13] Bongeraho ko ikindi kigaragaza ko amasezerano yakomeje, ari uko BRALIRWA yemeje ko SOCOGEDI yakomeje gukora neza kuko kuwa 30/06/2010 yayibihereye igihembo (bonus) cya 10.360.738Frw ndetse SOCOGEDI ikaba yararangije kwishyurwa ayo mafaranga, no kuwa 30/09/2010 igenerwa agahimbazamusyi kajyanye n’igihembwe cya gatatu n’ubwo ko itarakishyurwa. [14] Ababuranira BRALIRWA basubiza ko nk’uko Urukiko rubanza rwabyemeje, amasezerano yabaye hagati yayo na SOCOGEDI yarangiye kuwa 30/04/2010, kandi nta ngingo iteganya ko ashobora kwongerwa bitabaye ngombwa gukora andi. Banavuga ko niba hari n’ibikorwa baba barakoranye nyuma, bidashingiye ku masezerano bagiranye, ahubwo bakomeje kugirana imikoranire buri muguzi wese yagirana na buri mucuruzi wese (relations commerciales simples) bitandukanye n’amasezerano y’ubufatanye mu by’ubucuruzi- “relations de partenariat commercial” yari ateganyijwe mu masezerano yarangiye nk’uko n’umucamanza wa mbere yabyemeje. [15] Banavuga ko kuva BRALIRWA yatangira gukorana na SOCOGEDI, hakorwaga buri mwaka amasezerano y’ubufatanye kandi ni nako byakorwaga no ku bandi bacuruzi,

## Page 178

147 SOCOGEDI SA v. BRALIRWA

ko ariko kubera ko SOCOGEDI yaranzwe n’imikorere itaranyuze BRALIRWA, byatumye itongererwa amasezerano nk’uko byakorewe abandi bakoranaga, maze igenda ihabwa amasoko adahoraho (contrats ponctuels) mu gihe BRALIRWA yari ikiyigerageza (période d’observation) ngo irebe ko ibibazo yari ifite byarangira. [16] Bongeraho ko mu mabaruwa yayo anyuranye, BRALIRWA yagiye kenshi igaragariza SOCOGEDI iyo mikorere mibi, ko n’ikindi cyerekana ibibazo SOCOGEDI yari ifite, ari uko ubu iri mu nzira zo gufunga (faillite). Ku bijyanye n’agahimbazamusyi SOCOGEDI ivuga ko yahawe, ababuranira BRALIRWA basubiza ko ari aka mbere y’itariki ya 30/04/2010. [17] Urukiko rusanga impande zombi zemeranya ko amasezerano ya nyuma yanditse yari kurangira kuwa 30/04/2010, icyo zitemeranyaho ni ukuba ubwo bufatanye bwarakomeje n’ubwo nta yandi masezerano yanditse yasinywe, kugeza ubwo BRALIRWA yasesaga amasezerano kuwa 23/12/2010. [18] N’ubwo BRALIRWA ivuga ko imikoranire yayo na SOCOGEDI nyuma y’itariki ya 30/04/2010 yari ishingiye ku bikorwa by’igihe gito bidashingiye ku masezerano yanditse bajyaga bagirana, Urukiko rusanga hari ibimenyetso binyuranye bigaragaza ko ubufatanye bw’ubucuruzi bari bafitanye butahagaze ku itariki ya 30/04/2010 yavuzwe haruguru, binyuranye n’ibyo Urukiko rubanza rwemeje. Bimwe muri ibyo bimenyetso ni ibi bikurikira: - Mu ibaruwa yayo yo kuwa 14/05/2010 BRALIRWA yandikiye SOCOGEDI, igaragaza ko impamvu yayo ari: “kuvugurura amasezerano y’imikoranire”;

## Page 179

148 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

- Muri iyo baruwa kandi, BRALIRWA igaruka ku biganiro bagiranye kuwa 25/02/2010, igakomeza ivuga ko amasezerano mashya azaba akubiyemo ingingo bemeranyijweho azashyirwaho umukono n’impande zombi muri Kamena 2010; iyo baruwa kandi ikomeza ivuga ko hagati aho hazakomeza kubahirizwa ingingo zikubiye mu masezerano bari bafitanye hamwe n’ingingo zikubiye mu ibaruwa ya BRALIRWA yo kuwa 25/03/2010; - Mu ibaruwa imaze kuvugwa yo kuwa 25/03/2010, ni ukuvuga ukwezi kumwe mbere y’itariki ya 30/04/2010, yerekeranye no “Kongera gushimangira amasezerano mufitanye na BRALIRWA” yavugaga ku buryo bw’imikoranire n’abakiriya ba BRALIRWA, barimo SOCOGEDI, bashyiriweho kugira ngo barusheho kunoza imikorere; - Nanone kandi, mu ibaruwa BRALIRWA yandikiye SOCOGEDI kuwa 23/06/2010, ivuga iby’urugendo abakozi bakuru ba BRALIRWA bakoreye mu gace SOCOGEDI icururizamo ibinyobwa bya BRALIRWA (ari byo Kamonyi, Gitarama na Ruhango), ibyo banenze n’uburyo SOCOGEDI igomba gukoresha ngo ikemure ibitaragenze neza. - Mu ibaruwa yayo kuwa 9/11/2010, mu byo BRALIRWA yamenyeshaga SOCOGEDI, harimo ko ihangayikishijwe n’abakiriya bayo bari mu gace SOCOGEDI ikoreramo binubiraga ko batagerwaho n’ibicuruzwa bya BRALIRWA, inayimenyesha ko yakukiriza ibyo BK yasabye bijyanye na sheki yishyuriraho.

## Page 180

149 SOCOGEDI SA v. BRALIRWA

[19] N’ubwo nta masezerano yanditse yabaye nyuma yo kuwa 30/04/2010, Urukiko rusanga ibikubiye mu mabaruwa yavuzwe haruguru bigaragaza nta gushidikanya ko imikoranire hagati ya BRALIRWA na SOCOGEDI yakomeje ndetse ishingira ku byo bari barumvikanye mu masezerano ya mbere. Byongeye kandi, ntaho amategeko ateganya ko amasezerano y’ubucuruzi agomba kugaragazwa n’inyandiko gusa. Ibi bihura n’ibisobanuro bitangwa n’abahanga mu mategeko, ko mu mategeko y’ubucuruzi, ihame ari uko amasezerano yanditse atari shinganwa mu gihe hari ibimenyetso bigaragaza ko hari ibyo impande zombi zemeranyijweho kandi bishobora gutangirwa ibimenyetso byose bishoboka1. c) Ku bijyanye no kumenya niba BRALIRWA yarasheshe amasezerano ku buryo budakurikije amategeko ku buryo yabitangira indishyi. [20] Ababuranira SOCOGEDI bavuga ko nyuma y’igihe kitari gito ikorana neza na BRALIRWA, iyi yasheshe amasezerano bari bafitanye mu buryo budakurikije amategeko, ndetse ko n’impamvu itanga yatumye iyasesa y’uko SOCOGEDI yari yarahagaritse gutumiza ibinyobwa byayo batayemera, kubera ko yagiye ikora “commandes” y’ibyo

1 Kureba, Pierre FERNANDEZ, Contrats commerciaux, disponible sur http://www.avocat.fernandez.com/contrats commerciaux.php : “En droit commercial, le principe veut que la rédaction d’un contrat écrit ne soit pas obligatoire, la relation contractuelle existant dès l’échange des consentements et pouvant être démontrée par tout moyen. ….Tous les moyens de preuve peuvent être admis en justice : écrits, témoins, aveux, indices, présomptions, etc…”; na Dimitri HOUTCIEFF, Droit du commerce et des affaires, 2è éd., Sirey, 2008, Nº779, p.318: “Les contrats commerciaux sont généralement consensuels, ils se forment par la simple rencontre de l’offre et de l’acceptation”.

## Page 181

150 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

binyobwa, ahubwo BRALIRWA ikanga kuyibiha yitwaje ko sheki zayo zitabanje kwemerwa na Banki ya Kigali (BK), nyamara iyi banki mu ibaruwa yayo yo kuwa 21/12/2010 yandikiye BRALIRWA yaremezaga ko izakomeza gukorana na SOCOGEDI (confirmation du soutien financier à la SOCOGEDI). Bongeraho ko ikindi kigaragaza ko ibyo BRALIRWA ivuga bijyanye n’izo sheki ari urwitwazo, ari uko kuwa 21/12/2010 yakiriye sheki zayo za 60.000.000Frw kandi zitarabanje kwemerwa na BK. [21] Ababuranira BRALIRWA basubiza ko iseswa ry’amasezerano ryaturutse ku mikorere mibi ya SOCOGEDI, kandi ko kimwe mu bibigaragaza ari ibaruwa BRALIRWA yayandikiye kuwa 23/06/2010 nyuma yo gusura akarere SOCOGEDI yakoreragamo, ikaba yarayibukije amakosa yayiranze ku buryo yabangamiraga inyungu za BRALIRWA. [22] Banavuga ko SOCOGEDI idakwiye kwitwaza “bonus” yaba yarabonye kuko ari iza mbere y’uko ihindura imikorere yayo, kubera ko yagezaho igahagarika “commandes” z’ibicuruzwa bya BRALIRWA, kandi ko ibyo ivuga bijyanye na sheki zayo nta gaciro byahabwa, kubera ko kuba BRALIRWA yarayisabye ko sheki zayo zizajya zibanza kwemerwa na BK byatewe n’ibyasabwe n’iyo banki nk’uko biboneka mu ibaruwa yayo yo kuwa 21/12/2010. Bagasanga ibi nabyo bigaragaza ko iyo banki nta cyizere yari igifitiye SOCOGEDI, kandi koko n’ubu ikaba iri mu nzira zo gufunga. [23] Urukiko rusanga n’ubwo BRALIRWA na SOCOGEDI bari bamaze igihe bafite amasezerano y’ubufatanye mu bucuruzi, imikoranire yabo yarageze aho ntikomeze kugenda neza nk’uko bigaragazwa n’amabaruwa atandukanye bagiye bandikirana, urugero akaba ari ibaruwa yo kuwa 23/06/2010

## Page 182

151 SOCOGEDI SA v. BRALIRWA

yavuzwe haruguru, aho nyuma yo gusura agace SOCOGEDI ikoreramo, BRALIRWA yayigejejeho impungenge zayo zijyanye n’ibyo ivuga yasanze bitagenda neza. Nanone mu ibaruwa yayo yo kuwa 09/11/2010, BRALIRWA yamenyesheje SOCOGEDI impungenge yagejejweho n’abakiriya bayo bari mu gace SOCOGEDI ikoreramo ngo binubiraga kuba batagerwaho n’ibicuruzwa bya BRALIRWA, iyo baruwa ikaba inasaba SOCOGEDI kwegera BRALIRWA mu buryo bwo kwirinda ko ibura ry’ibinyobwa byayo ryakongera kubaho. [24] Nanone muri iyo baruwa imaze kuvugwa, BRALIRWA yamenyesheje SOCOGEDI ko BK yayisabye kutazongera kwakira sheki zayo itabanje (BK) kuzemera, inayigira inama yo gukurikiza ibyasabwaga na BK; ibi bikaba binahura n’ibikubiye mu ibaruwa ya BK yo kuwa 21/12/2010 yavuzwe haruguru, aho iyo banki, n’ubwo yemezaga ko izakomeza gufasha SOCODEGI, yavugaga ko ibyo bizamara amezi atatu mu gihe yari itegereje ko yongera gusinyana andi masezerano na BRALIRWA, ariko cyane cyane ikavuga ko igiye gushyiraho uburyo bwo kugenzura ibikorwa bya SOCOGEDI bijyanye n’amasheki yayo yagombaga kubanza kwemezwa, bihujwe kandi na stock yari kuba ifite. Hashingiwe ku bimaze kuvugwa, n’iyo haba hari sheki za SOCOGEDI zaba zarakiriwe na BRALIRWA kandi zitabanje kwemerwa na BK, ntibikuraho amabwiriza ajyanye n’izo sheki nk’uko yavuzwe haruguru. [25] Urukiko rusanga hakurikijwe ibimaze gusobanurwa, SOCOGEDI itavuga ko yatunguwe no kuba BRALIRWA yarasheshe amasezerano, cyangwa ko iryo seswa ryakozwe bidakurikije amategeko bityo ngo ibisabire indishyi, mu gihe mu ibaruwa yayo, BRALIRWA yagaragaje impamvu itumye iyasesa, kandi bikaba byaraje bikurikira ibindi bibazo byari

## Page 183

bisanzwe nk’uko byavuzwe. Ibi kandi bihura n’ibyemezwa n’abahanga mu mategeko, ko mu gihe amasezerano nk’ayari hagati ya BRALIRWA na SOCOGEDI (contrat de distribution) asheshwe, icya ngombwa ari uko uyasheshe abitangira ibisobanuro, ariko ko adategetswe byanze bikunze gutanga indishyi ku wo bakoranaga2. [26] Kubera iyo mpamvu, Urukiko rusanga indishyi zinyuranye SOCOGEDI isaba idakwiye kuzihabwa. c) Ku bijyanye n’ubujurire bwa BRALIRWA bwuririye ku bundi [27] BRALIRWA yatanze ubujurire bwuririye ku bwa SOCOGEDI, ikaba isaba ko ku mafaranga yahawe mu Rukiko rubanza, hakwiyongeraho 500.000Frw SOCOGEDI igomba kuyiha kubera kuyishora mu manza nta mpamvu. [28] SOCOGEDI isubiza ko ibyo BRALIRWA isaba nta shingiro bifite kubera ko ariyo yasheshe amasezerano. [29] Urukiko rusanga mu gihe SOCOGEDI itishimiye imikirize y’urubanza rwa mbere, nta cyayibuzaga kujurira kuko ari uburenganzira bwayo, kandi nta kigaragaza ko yakuruye BRALIRWA mu manza ku maherere, bityo indishyi BRALIRWA isaba kuri uru rwego ikaba itazikwiye.

2 Kureba François COLLARD DUTILLEUL na Philippe DELEBECQUE, Contats civils et commerciaux, 8è éd., Dalloz, 2007, Nº929, pp.908-909: “….Le contractant qui prendrait l’initiative de rompre le contrat devrait avoir à se justifier sans être tenu, bien entendu, d’indemniser automatiquement la victime de la résiliation. Il lui appartiendrait simplement de faire état des raisons fondant la cessation des relations contractuelles”. 152 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 184

153 SOCOGEDI SA v. BRALIRWA

III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [30] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa SOCOGEDI Ltd bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe. [31] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwa BRALIRWA nta shingiro bufite. [32] Rutegetse SOCOGEDI Ltd gutanga ½ cy’amagarama y’urubanza angana na 35.750Frw, ni ukuvuga 17.875Frw, itayatanga mu gihe cy’iminsi umunani, agakurwa mu byayo ku ngufu za Leta.

## Page 186

IMANZA NSHINJABYAHA

## Page 188

RE N.J [Rwanda URUKIKO RUKURU – RPA0787/15/HC/KIG (Kaliwabo P.J, Mukakalisa na Kabagambe, J.) 10 Ukwakira 2015] Amategeko mpanabyaha – Gusambanya umwana – Ubusobanuro bw’ingingo ya 190 n’iya 165 y’Itegeko Ngenga No01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana – Kuba ingingo ya 190 y’Itegeko Ngenga No01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ikoresha ijambo “gusambanya umwana” mu mwanya w’ijambo “gusambanya ku gahato” rivugwa mu ngingo ya 165 y’iri Tegeko Ngenga ntibihindura ko umwana atasambanyijwe ku gahato, kuko afatwa nk’udafite ubushobozi bwo kwifatira ibyemezo kubyerekeye imibonano mpuzabitsina, bikaba nabyo byitwa gusambanywa ku ngufu. Amategeko mpanabyaha – Uburenganzira bwo gukuramo inda n’inyungu zabyo – Umwana wasambanyijwe afite uburenganzira ndetse n’inyungu zo gukuramo inda atwite mu gihe ikomoka ku gusambanywa ku gahato. Incamake y’ikibazo: N.J yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge asaba ko umwana we w’imyaka 13 witwa I.C yahabwa uburenganzira bwo gukuramo inda kuko yayitewe n’umuntu wamufashe kungufu amaze kumuha inzoga. Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwanze icyifuzo cya N.J, rushingiye ku kuba nta rubanza nshinjabyaha rwarirwarahamije icyo cyaha ukekwa. Urukiko rwavuze kandi ko binashoboka ko umuntu atwara inda ntawamusambanyije 157

## Page 189

ndetse ko nta kimenyetso N.J yagaragaje cyerekana ko I.C abangamiwe n’inda atwite. N.J yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru avuga ko imibonano mpuzabitsina yakorewe umwana we nta kundi yakwitwa uretse ugusambanywa ku gahato, ko umucamanza adasobanura ubundi buryo bwakoreshejwe kugira ngo asame inda atwite. Ubushinjacyaha bwo buvuga ko ingingo ya 165 y’Itegeko Ngenga rihana ibyaha mu Rwanda yemerera umugore watwaye inda asambanyijwe ku gahato uburenganzira bwo gusaba ko avanamo iyo nda, ko iyi ngingo itareba umwana wasambanyijwe, bityo ikaba itahuzwa n’ingingo ya 190 y’Itegeko Ngenga rivuzwe haruguru. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Kuba ingingo ya 190 y’Itegeko Ngenga No01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ikoresha ijambo ‘gusambanya umwana’ mu mwanya w’ijambo ‘gusambanya ku gahato rivugwa mu ngingo ya 165 y’iri Tegeko Ngenga ntibihindura ko umwana atasambanyijwe ku gahato, kuko afatwa nk’udafite ubushobozi bwo kwifatira ibyemezo kubyerekeye imibonano mpuzabitsina, bikaba nabyo byitwa gusambanywa ku ngufu. 2. Umwana wasambanyijwe afite uburenganzira ndetse n’inyungu zo kuvanamo inda atwite kuko inda atwite iba ikomoka ku gusambanywa ku gahato. Bityo, umwana wareze afite uburenganzira bwo gukuramo inda. Ubujurire bufite ishingiro. Urubanza rujuririrwa ruvanyweho. I.C ahawe uburenganzira bwo gukuramo inda. Amagarama aherera ku isanduku ya Leta. 158 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 190

Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko ngenga No01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 165 n’iya 190. Inyongera ku Masezerano Nyafurika ku burenganzira bwa Muntu n’abantu ku burenganzira bw’abagore muri Afrika, 2003, ingingo ya 14 (2) C. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] I.C w’imyaka 13 y’amavuko avuga ko afite inda yatewe n’uwitwa Nizeyimana Bruce ngo wamusambanije ku gahato amaze kumuha inzoga. Umubyeyi we N.J yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge asaba ko I.C yahabwa uburenganzira bwo kuvanamo inda yatewe ku gahato, ko kandi iyi nda ibangamiye ubuzima bwa I.C. Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwanze icyifuzo cya N.J, rushingiye ku kuba nta rubanza nshinjabyaha rwari rwahamya Nizeyimana ko yasambanije ku gahato I.C, ko binashoboka ko umuntu atwara inda ntawamusambanije, ko kandi nta kimenyetso N.J yagaragaje cyerekana ko I.C abangamiwe n’inda atwite. [2] Kuwa 08/10/2015, N.J yajuriye avuga ko imibonano mpuzabitsina yakorewe I.C w’imyaka 13 y’amavuko nta kundi yakwitwa uretse ugusambanywa ku gahato, ko umucamanza adasobanura ubundi buryo bwakoreshejwe kugira ngo I.C asame inda atwite. 159 RE N.J

## Page 191

160 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[3] Ubushinjacyaha bwo buvuga ko ingingo ya 165 y’Itegeko Ngenga rihana ibyaha mu Rwanda yemerera umugore watwaye inda asambanijwe ku gahato uburenganzira bwo gusaba ko avanamo iyo nda, ko iyi ngingo itareba umwana wasambanijwe, ngo iyo ngingo ikaba itahuzwa n’ingingo ya 190 y’Itegeko ngenga rivuzwe haruguru. [4] Urukiko rurasuzuma: - Igitekerezo cy’Ubushinjacyaha cyo kuba ingingo ya 165 y’Itegeko Ngenga rihana ibyaha mu Rwanda kitareba umwana wasambanijwe; - Niba I.C yarasambanijwe ku gahato; - Niba I.C yakwemererwa kuvanamo inda atwite. II. ISESENGURA RY’URUBANZA 9Igitekerezo cy’Ubushinjacyaha ku burenganzira bwo gukuramo inda kuri I.C. [5] Umushinjacyaha yavuze ko kutaryozwa icyaha cyo gukuramo inda kuvugwa mu ngingo ya 165(1o) y’Itegeko Ngenga No01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, kareba umugore watewe inda yakoreshejwe imibonano mpuzabitsina ku ngufu, ko bitadukanye n’icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana giteganywa n’ingingo ya 190 y’itegeko ngenga ryavuzwe akaba abona ar’ibyaha bibiri bitandukanye, ko gusambanya umuntu ku ngufu bitakwitiranywa no gusambanya umwana. Igitekerezo cye akaba aruko iyi ngingo itareba I.C w’imyaka 13 wasambanyijwe agaterwa inda.

## Page 192

161 RE N.J

[6] Uburenganzira I.C asaba bushingiye ku kuba yarasambanyijwe ari umwana w’imyaka 13 byitwa icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana nk’uko giteganywa n’ingingo ya 190 y’itegeko ngenga rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ibyaha mu Rwanda iteganya ko: “Gusambanya umwana ni imibonano mpuzabitsina yose cyangwa ishingiye ku gitsina ikorewe umwana uko yaba ikozwe kose n’icyaba cyakoreshejwe cyose”. Ibi nibyo I.C ashingiraho asaba ko inda atwite ivamo ashingiye ku ngingo ya 165 y’Itegeko Ngenga ryavuzwe, iteganya impamvu zitandukanye zituma umugore utwite ashobora kwemererwa ko inda atwite ivamo, kimwe muri byo akaba aruko umugore yaba yaratwaye inda atayishaka kubera gukoreshwa imibonano mpunzabitsina ku ngufu. [7] Ijambo [Umugore] mu Kinyarwanda, [Woman] mu cyongereza, [Femme] mu gifaransa ryagiye rigarukwaho n’Umushinjacyaha agaragaza mu ngingo yavuzwe haruguru hatavugwamo umwana wasambanyijwe ahubwo ko ari umugore, akaba abona bivuze ko uhabwa uburenganzira bwo gukuramo inda ari umuntu mukuru wasambanyijwe ku ngufu wenyine. [8] Urukiko rurasanga urwo rujijo rukurwaho no kuba icyo byombi bihuriyeho aruko uwasambanijwe aba nta bushake yabigizemo. Ku birebana n’umwana, iyo afite imyaka iri munsi ya 18 afatwa nk’udafite ubushobozi bwo kwifatira ibyemezo kubyerekeye n’imibonano mpuzabitsina, bikaba nabyo byitwa gusambanywa ku ngufu [viol]. Kuba ingingo ya 190 y’Itegeko Ngenga ryavuzwe ikoresha ijambo “gusambanya umwana” mu mwanya w’ijambo “gusambanya ku gahato” rivugwa mu ngingo ya 165 y’iri Tegeko ngenga ntibihindura ko umwana atasambanijwe ku gahato, kuko nta bushake aba yabigizemo.

## Page 193

[9] Ibimaze kuvugwa bishimangirwa n’umurongo ngenderwaho w’Igihugu cy’u Rwanda w’uburyo igikorwa cy’abemerewe gukuramo inda kigenda washyizweho na Ministeri y’ubuzima [National Protocol for operationalization of exemptions for arbotion in penal code 2012], aho ku rupapuro rwa 9 handitse ko abagore bato [young women] bari munsi y’imyaka 18 batwaye inda byitwa gusambanya umwana mu buryo buteganywa n’ingingo ya 190 y’Itegeko Ngenga rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana nabo bagomba gufatwa nk’abasambanyijwe ku ngufu1. 9Kumenya niba I.C yarasambanyijwe ku gahato no gusuzuma niba byaba impamvu yo kwemererwa gukuraho inda. [10] N.J kimwe n’abamwunganira bavuga ko banenga icyemezo cy’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge cyo kuba I.C yaravukijwe uburenganzira bwo kuvanamo inda yatewe ku gahato ngo kuko Urukiko rutakagombye gutegereza igihe uwasambanije I.C azahamwa n’icyaha, mu gihe ntawushidikanya ku myaka y’amavuko ya I.C. Bavuga kandi ko nta muntu ushidikanya ku kuba I.C atwite kuko byagaragajwe na raporo ya muganga, ndetse baboneraho kwerekana urupapuro rugaragaza ko I.C yasuzumiwe mu bitaro bya Muhima kuwa 27/10/2015, aho Dr Kajeneza Delphine yagaragaje ko I.C atwite inda y’ibyumweru 18 n’iminsi 3. [11] Abunganira N.J bavuze kandi ko banenga icyemezo cy’urukiko rubanza, aho rwavuze ko umugore ashobora gutwita

1 Young women under the age 18, who become pregnant are also considered as child defilement according to article 3 of Law No54/2011 of 14/12/2011 relating to the rights and the protection of children and article 190 of the penal code, and should be treated as rape cases. 162 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 194

163 RE N.J

inda nta muntu wamusambanije, ariko ngo rukaba rutaragaragaje ubundi buryo I.C yaba yarasamye inda atwite. Bavuze ko uburenganzira N.J asabira umwana we I.C abwemererwa n’ingingo ya 165 y’Itegeko Ngenga rihana ibyaha mu Rwanda, ndetse n’amasezerano mpuzamahanga urwanda rwashyizeho umukono. [12] Urukiko rurasanga hakurikijwe ingingo ya 190 y’itegeko ngenga ryavuzwe n’ingingo ya 217 iteganya ko umwana ari umuntu wese utarageza ku myaka cumi n’umunani (18) y’amavuko uretse mu gihe andi mategeko abiteganya ukundi. [13] Kuba bigaragara ko I.C yavutse ku itariki ya 12/07/2002 nk’uko bigaragazwa n’icyemezo cy’amavuko cyatanzwe n’Umunyamabanga Nshingwabikorwa w’Akagari ka Kicukiro kuwa 20/08/2015, akaba afite imyaka 13 y’amavuko. [14] Kuba I.C yarasambanijwe, bigaragazwa na raporo ya muganga aho avuga ko I.C atakiri isugi kandi ko atwite2. Iyi raporo iravuguruza kandi imvugo y’Urukiko rubanza aho rwavuze ko umuntu ashobora gutwita atasambanijwe, akaba ataragaragaje ubundi buryo bwaba bwarakoreshejwe kugira ngo I.C abe atwite inda asabira kuvanamo. [15] Urukiko rushingiye ku myaka y’amavuko ya I.C, no kuri raporo ya muganga yavuzwe haruguru, rurasanga igikorwa yakorewe ari icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 190 y’Itegeko Ngenga ryavuzwe

2 Examination form in case of alleged rape or other sexual offence, made by Kacyiru Police Hospital on 07/30th /2014: pregnancy positive, hymen not intact, multiple old tears.

## Page 195

haruguru, mu yandi magambo akaba ari ugusambanywa ku gahato. [16] Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 165 y’itegeko N°01/2012 ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana iteganya ko nta buryozwacyaha ku mugore no ku muganga wakuyemo inda bitewe n’imwe mu mpamvu zikurikira: 1° kuba umugore yatwaye inda atayishaka kubera gukoreshwa imibonano mpuzabitsina ku ngufu (…); Ukutaryozwa icyaha kuvugwa mu gace ka mbere, aka 2° n’aka 3° tw’igika cya mbere cy’iyi ngingo kwemerwa gusa iyo nyirugusaba gukurwamo inda yagaragarije muganga icyemezo cy’urukiko rubifitiye ububasha cyemeza kimwe mu bivugwa muri utwo duce. [17] Rurasanga kandi ingingo ya 14(2)C y’Amasezerano y’ingereka ku masezerano y’Afurika y’uburenganzira bw’ikiremwamuntu n’ubw’abaturage yerekeye uburenganzira bw’abagore muri Afurika , u Rwanda rwashyizeho umukono, kandi rukemeza ko akoreshwa mu Rwanda mu Iteka rya Perezida No05/01 ryo kuwa 03/05/2012 rikuraho ukwifata kwa Repubulika y’u Rwanda ku iyubahirizwa ry’ingingo ya 14.2.c, iteganya ko ibihugu bigomba guharanira uburenganzira bw’imyororokere, by’umwihariko bikemerera abaganga gukuramo inda mu gihe bigaragara ko habayeho gusambanywa ku gahato3.

3 Art. 14 (2) C Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa: States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to protect the reproductive rights of women by authorizing medical abortion in cases of sexual assault, rape, incest, and where the continued pregnancy endangers the mental and physical health of the mother or the life of the mother or the foetus. http://www.achpr.org/fr/instruments/women-protocol/ consulté le 28/10/2015. 164 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 196

165 RE N.J

[18] Urukiko rukaba rusanga N.J afite uburenganzira bwo gusabira I.C ko yakwemererwa gukuramo inda kuko bigaragara ko yasambanyijwe afite imyaka 13 y’amavuko, kandi ugusambanya umwana uko byaba byakozwe kose bifatwa nko gusambanywa ku gahato, kuko nta bushake bw’umwana mu gikorwa cy’imibonano mpuzabitsina. 9Kubyerekeye inyungu I.C afite zo gusaba kwemererwa gukuramo inda. [19] N.J yasobanuriye Urukiko ko I.C abangamiwe n’inda atwite ngo kuko yatumye adasubira mu ishuri, ndetse ngo uyu mwana akaba atayishimiye kugeza ubwo ashaka kuyivanamo akoresheje imiti yishakiye ishobora no guhitana ubuzima bwe. Urukiko rwabajije I.C (wari watumijwe ngo atange amakuru) niba ari icyifuzo cye cyo kuvanamo inda atwite n’impamvu ibimutera, asobanura ko abangamiwe n’iyo nda ngo kuko imutera ipfunwe muri bagenzi be kandi ikaba itamwemerera gukomeza ishuri. Avuga kandi ko yasambanijwe n’uwitwa Bruce wabanje kumuha inzoga yitwa “coffee”, ngo akaba yarasambanijwe yataye ubwenge kubw’iyo nzoga. [20] Hashingiwe ku kigero cy’umwana I.C ufite imyaka 13, akaba yiga mu mwaka wa gatanu w’amashuli abanza, nta gushidikanya ko gutwita byamuteye ipfunwe muri bagenzi be nk’uko abivuga kuko akiri muto, bigashimangirwa no kuba yaragerageje kuyikuriramo nk’uko nyina yabivuze mw’iburanisha. Urukiko rurasanga kandi bigoye I.C w’imyaka 13 y’amavuko gufata inshingano z’ububyeyi ugereranyije n’imyaka y’ubukure 21 iteganywa n’amategeko mbonezamubano aho umuntu ashobora kuba yaba umubyeyi ndetse n’imyaka 18 yemerera umuntu kuba yakwifatira

## Page 197

166 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ibyemezo kubyerekeye n’imibonano mpuzabitsina nk’uko biteganywa n’andi mategeko. [21] Urukiko rurasanga kandi, impamvu yo kuba I.C acyeneye gukomeza amasomo ye nayo yumvikana kuko akiri umunyeshuri mu mwaka wa gatanu w’amashuri abanza, kubyara no kurera umwana we bikaba byamubangamira mu ishuli ndetse bikanabangamira n’ubuzima bwe bw’ejo ahazaza. [22] Urukiko rurasanga I.C w’imyaka 13 y’amavuko afite uburenganzira ndetse n’inyungu zo kuvanamo inda atwite nk’uko byasabwe na nyina N.J kuko iyi nda atwite ikomoka ku gusambanywa ku gahato nk’uko byasobanuwe. Urukiko rurasanga kandi, nk’uko byemejwe na muganga Kajeneza Delphine wamusuzumye kuwa 27/10/2015, inda I.C asaba kuvanamo itarageze ku byumweru 22 bivugwa muri “National Protocol for operationalization of exemptions for abortion in penal code 2012”. [23] Nk’uko byifujwe na N.J n’abamwunganira, Urukiko rurasanga igikorwa cyo kuvanamo inda I.C atwite kigomba gukorwa n’ibitaro bya polisi bikorera Kacyiru kuko bibifitiye ubushobozi, kandi iki cyemezo kikaba kigomba guhita kimenyeshwa umuyobozi w’ibi bitaro kugira ngo inda ivanwemo itarageza ku byumweru 22 nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [24] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa N.J bufite ishingiro;

## Page 198

167 RE N.J

[25] Rwemeje ko imikirize y’urubanza RP0561/15/TGI/NYGE ihindutse mu ngingo zarwo zose. [26] Rwemeje ko I.C yemerewe gukuramo inda atwite; [27] Rutegetse ibitaro bya Police bikorera Kacyiru mw’izina ry’umuyobozi wabyo gukora igikorwa cyo gukuramo inda I.C atwite kandi bigakorwa mbere yuko inda ikwiza ibyumweru 22; [28] Rutegetse ko iki cyemezo gihita kimenyeshwa umuyobozi w’ibitaro bya polisi bikorera kacyiru; [29] Rutegetse ko amagarama y’urubanza aherera ku isanduku ya Leta kuko ikirego cyatanzwe mu nyungu y’umwana.

## Page 200

169

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MANIRAGABA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RPAA0257/10/CS (Hatangimbabazi, P.J., Karimunda na Munyangeri, J.) 11 Nzeri 2015] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha – Uruhurirane rw’ibimenyetso – Urukiko ruhamya ku buryo butavuguruzwa ko ibimenyetso byose bishinja cyangwa bishinjura ari byo kandi bishobora kwemerwa – Itegeko Nº30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/5/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 86. Amategeko mpanabyaha – Gusambanya umwana – Imibonano yose mpuzabitsina cyangwa ishingiye ku bitsina ikorewe umwana uko yaba ikozwe kose, n’icyaba cyakoreshejwe cyose, ni icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana – Itegeko No27/2001 ryo ku wa 28/04/2001 ryerekeye uburenganzira bw’umwana n’uburyo bwo kumurinda ihohoterwa, ingingo ya 33. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uregwa yakurikiranywe n’Ubushinjacyaha mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Musanze, ku cyaha cyo gusambanya umwana ufite imyaka 17 y’amavuko. Urwo Rukiko rwamuhamije icyo cyaha, rumuhanisha igifungo cy’imyaka 20 n’ihazabu ya 100.000Frw, rusobanura ko agabanyirijwe ibihano kubera ko yemera icyaha akagisabira n’imbabazi. Byatumye ajuririra mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, narwo rwemeza ko ubujurire bwe nta shingiro bufite, rwemeza kandi ko ikirego cy’indishyi cya nyina w’umwana wasambanyijwe gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe, rutegeka uregwa kumwishyura 200.000Frw y’indishyi.

## Page 201

Uregwa yajuriye mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko yemera ko yasambanye na N.A, babyumvikanyeho, nyuma akaza kumenya ko uwo mukobwa yaje afite umugambi wo kuryamana nawe kubera inda yari afite, akavuga ko asaba imbabazi z’uko yaryamanye n’uwo mukobwa, uyu amusembuye, ndetse amutunguye, kandi ko icyo gihe yari afite imyaka 18 cyangwa ayirengeje. Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha we yavuze ko ku kibazo cy’imyaka ya N.A, hari “attestation de naissance” ye igaragaza ko yavutse ku wa 03/03/1990, hakaba hari n’indangamuntu ya nyina iriho urutonde rw’abana yabyaye igaragaza ko yavutse mu mwaka wa 1990, ko rero Urukiko rudakwiye kwemera ibyo uregwa avuga by’uko uwo mukobwa yavutse mu mwaka wa 1988, mu gihe “fiche individuelle” ashingiraho ikemangwa kuko itujujwe mu buryo bwuzuye, ikaba idasa na za “attestations“ zitangwa mu gihugu hose, ndetse n‘uwayisinye akaba atari Umuyobozi w’Umurenge, ahubwo ari uwasinye mu mwanya we (P.O). Nyina w’umwana wasambanyijwe we yavuze ko yagiye mu buyobozi bw’Umurenge, bukamuha icyemezo cy’amavuko cy’umwana we, ko kandi amaze kugitanga mu Rukiko. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Urukiko ruhamya ku buryo butavuguruzwa ko ibimenyetso byose bishinja cyangwa bishinjura ari byo kandi bishobora kwemerwa. 2. Nyuma yo gusesengura ibimenyetso bitandukanye, Urukiko rurasanga N.A yarasambanyijwe n’uregwa ataruzuza imyaka 18 y’ubukure, bityo ibyo kuvuga ko basambanye babyumvikanyeho bikaba bitahabwa agaciro kuko bigaragara ko yakoresheje amayeri kugirango asambanye uriya mwana yarushaga ubwenge, kuko imibonano yose mpuzabitsina 170 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 202

cyangwa ishingiye ku bitsina ikorewe umwana uko yaba ikozwe kose, n’icyaba cyakoreshejwe cyose ari icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana. Ubujurire nta shingiro. Urubanza rwajuririwe ntiruhindutse. Amagarama aherereye ku isanduku ya Leta. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nº30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/5/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 86. Itegeko N°15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 119. Itegeko No27/2001 ryo ku wa 28/04/2001 ryerekeye uburenganzira bw’umwana n’uburyo bwo kumurinda ihohoterwa, ingingo ya 33. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Ubushinjacyaha bwareze Maniragaba Eugène mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Musanze, rumukurikiranyeho icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana witwa N.A ufite imyaka 17 y’amavuko. Urwo Rukiko rwamuhamije icyo cyaha, rumuhanisha igifungo cy’imyaka 20 n’ihazabu ya 100.000Frw, 171 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MANIRAGABA

## Page 203

rusobanura ko agabanyirijwe ibihano kubera ko yemera icyaha akagisabira n’imbabazi. [2] Maniragaba Eugène yajuririye mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, uru Rukiko rwemeza ko ubujurire bwe nta shingiro bufite, rwemeza kandi ko ikirego cy’indishyi cya Nyirarugendo Madeleine, nyina wa N.A, gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe, rutegeka Maniragaba Eugène kumwishyura 200.000Frw y’indishyi. [3] Maniragaba Eugène yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, urubanza ruburanishwa mu ruhame ku wa 11/05/2015, iburanisha risozwa ku wa 13/07/2015, Maniragaba Eugène yunganiwe na Me Mbonyimpaye Elias, uregera indishyi N.A ahagarariwe na nyina Nyirarugendo Madeleine yunganiwe na Me Kayirangwa Marie Grace, naho Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na Niyonkuru Françoise, Umushinjacyaha ku rwego rw’Igihugu. II. IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYACYO Kumenya niba N.A yarasambanyijwe na Maniragaba Eugène afite imyaka y’ubukure. [4] Maniragaba Eugène avuga ko yemera ko yasambanye na N.A ku wa 27/02/2008, babyumvikanyeho, ko icyo gihe yaje iwe kumureba, amubwira ko aje kumuhemba kubera ko yigeze kumuherekeza, akaba yaramubwiraga ko yakomeje kumushaka akamubura. 172 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 204

173 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MANIRAGABA

[5] Akomeza avuga ko yaje kumenya ko uwo mukobwa yaje afite umugambi wo kuryamana nawe kubera inda yari afite, ko kandi hari agatsiko kari kabyihishe inyuma karimo Umuyobozi w’Akarere ka Gakenke yakoreraga. Avuga ko asaba imbabazi z’uko yaryamanye n’uwo mukobwa, uyu amusembuye, ndetse amutunguye, kandi ko icyo gihe yari afite imyaka 18 cyangwa ayirengeje. [6] Ku kibazo cy’iyo myaka ya N.A, Maniragaba Eugène avuga ko muri dosiye harimo icyemezo cye cy’amavuko kivuga ko yavutse mu mwaka wa 1990, kikanavuga ko yari umunyeshuri (élève), nyamara yari yararivuyemo mu mwaka wa 2006, byongeye kandi muri dosiye hakaba harimo ikindi cyemezo cy’amavuko kivuga ko yavutse ku wa 03/03/1990, iki kikaba cyaratanzwe hashingiwe ku ndangamuntu ya Nyirangorore Anastasie iteye amakenga. [7] Maniragaba Eugène avuga ko yabonye ibyo byemezo bidasobanutse, yandikira Ubuyobozi bw’Umurenge kugirango butange icyemezo cy’ukuri, nabwo bumusubiza ko badashobora kugiha umudamu we yari yatumye, aribwo yifashishaga umwanditsi w’urukiko, uyu akaba ariwe ubwe wazanye “fiche individuelle” ahawe n’Ubuyobozi bw’Umurenge igaragaza ko N.A yavutse mu mwaka wa 1988, ariko Urukiko rukaba rutarabihaye agaciro, ariyo mpamvu yongeye gusaba ko hagaragazwa “registre des actes de naissance”. Avuga ko ariko n’ubwo iyo “registre des actes de naissance“ itaboneka, akomeza kwemeza ko yasambanyije N.A atari umwana, ko kandi atari we wamuteye inda yari asanzwe afite igihe baryamanaga. [8] Me Mbonyimpaye wunganira Maniragaba Eugène avuga ko hari ibimenyetso bibiri bigaragaza imyaka itandukanye ya

## Page 205

174 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

N.A, ikimenyetso cya mbere kikaba icyo kuba Maniragaba Eugène ubwe yarishakiye icyemezo cyavuye ku Buyobozi bw’Umurenge kivuga ko yavutse mu mwaka wa 1988, ariko Urukiko ntirubihe agaciro, ahubwo rugaha agaciro icyazanywe na N.A cy’uko yavutse mu mwaka wa 1990, akaba asanga ibyo byemezo bibiri bivuguruzanya bitera gushidikanya ku myaka y’ubukure bwa N.A. [9] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko ku kibazo cy’imyaka ya N.A, hari “attestation de naissance” ye igaragaza ko yavutse ku wa 03/03/1990, hakaba hari n’indangamuntu ya nyina iriho urutonde rw’abana yabyaye igaragaza ko N.A yavutse mu mwaka wa 1990, ko rero Urukiko rudakwiye kwemera ibyo Maniragaba Eugène avuga by’uko uwo mukobwa yavutse mu mwaka wa 1988, mu gihe “fiche individuelle“ ashingiraho ikemangwa kuko itujujwe mu buryo bwuzuye, ikaba idasa na za “attestations“ zitangwa mu gihugu hose, ndetse n’uwayisinye akaba atari Umuyobozi w’Umurenge, ahubwo yarasinye P.O. [10] Akomeza avuga ko ibyo Maniragaba Eugène aburanisha by’uko yasambanyije N.A uyu ari we umusembuye ari amagambo gusa kuko atabitangira ibimenyetso. Asaba urukiko ko rwazashingira kuri raporo ya muganga (rapport médical ) aho igaragaza ko uwo mukobwa yasambanyijwe mu mwaka wa 2007 atarageza ku myaka 18. [11] Nyirarugendo Madeleine, nyina wa N.A nawe yahawe ijambo, avuga ko yagiye mu Buyobozi bw’Umurenge, bukamuha icyemezo cy’amavuko cy’umwana we, ko kandi amaze kugitanga mu Rukiko, Maniragaba Eugène yanditse urwandiko asaba N.A imbabazi, amubwira ko umwana azabyara

## Page 206

175 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MANIRAGABA

bazafatanya kumurera, ndetse icyo gihe akaba yaramuhaye 25.000Frw. [12] Mu rwego rwo kuvanaho urujijo ku myaka ya N.A, Urukiko rwafashe icyemezo cy‘uko Ubushinjacyaha buzajya mu Murenge watanze ibyo byemezo byombi, bugasobanuza ukuntu ibyemezo bibiri byatanzwe n’Ubuyobozi bw’Umurenge umwe bidahuye. [13] Nyuma y’iryo perereza ryategetswe n’Urukiko, Ubushinjacyaha bwarumenyesheje ko bwasanze icyemezo cy’amavuko cya N.A gihura n’icyo bwatanze mbere muri uru rubanza, cyerekana ko yavutse ku wa 03/03/1990, ndetse iyo myaka ikaba ihura n‘iy’amavuko iri ku ndangamuntu no ku ikarita ye ya batisimu, noneho mu iburanisha ryo ku wa 13/07/2015, busaba ko icyemezo cyatanzwe na Maniragaba Eugène cyateshwa agaciro. [14] Maniragaba Eugène avuga ko atemera ibyo Ubushinjacyaha buvuga, kubera ko bwagiye busaba icyemeza ko N.A yavutse mu mwaka wa 1990, hashingiwe ku ndangamuntu ye aho gushingira kuri “fiche individuelle”, akaba yibaza niba N.A yaragize indangamuntu ebyiri. Akomeza avuga ko ifishi ya batisimu itashingirwaho kuko N.A avuka ku babyeyi batabana mu buryo bwemewe n’amategeko, bikumvikanisha ko imyaka bandikishije ishobora kuba idashingiye kuri “fiche individuelle”, akaba yifuza nk’uko yakomeje kubisaba, ko hashingirwa kuri “registre des actes de naissance” kugirango urujijo ruveho. [15] Me Mbonyimpaye wunganira Maniragaba Eugène avuga ko impungenge bagaragaje ubwo urukiko rwafataga icyemezo cy’uko ubushinjacyaha bujya gushaka itariki N.A yavukiye

## Page 207

zigifite ishingiro, bitewe n’uko Ubushinjacyaha ari umuburanyi nkabo, bukaba butarashoboraga gushaka ibimenyetso bibutsindisha, ari yo mpamvu butigeze bubaza “fiche individuelle”, akaba asanga rero iperereza ryakozwe n’Ubushinjacyaha ridakwiye gushingirwaho kuko rituzuye mu gihe ryagendeye ku ruhande rumwe, asaba Urukiko kwikorera irindi perereza rijyanye na “fiche individuelle”, kuko irangamuntu bagaragaje bavuga ko yatanzwe mu mwaka wa 1980 inyuranya n’icyemezo cyatanzwe n’ubuyobozi kivuga ko N.A yavutse mu kwezi kwa gatatu 1990, nyamara iyo rangamuntu yanditseho ukwezi kwa kabiri. Asoza avuga ko ifishi ya batisimu n’ikarita ya “mutuelle de santé” byo bidakwiye gushingirwaho kuko atari inyandiko z’irangamimerere. [16] Nyirarugendo Madeleine nawe yongeye guhabwa ijambo avuga ko irangamuntu ye bwite yayibonye mu mwaka wa 1980 avuye muri Zaire, ikaba yari yanditsemo ko N.A yavutse ku wa 20/02/1990, hakaba hari n’ikarita y’ishuri yakozwe ku wa 01/06/2015 igaragaza ko yavutse mu mwaka wa 1990, hamwe n’ifishi ya batisimu kimwe n’ikarita ya “mutuelle de santé” byose bigaragaza ko N.A yavutse mu mwaka wa 1990. [17] Me Kayirangwa wunganira Nyirarugendo Madeleine avuga ko Urukiko rukwiye guha agaciro ibimenyetso bimaze kuvugwa bigaragaza ko N.A yavutse mu mwaka wa 1990, ndetse rukanashingira ku nyandiko yakozwe na Maniragaba Eugène ubwe aho yemeraga ko yakoreye N.A icyaha, iyo nyandiko ikaba igaragaza ko yakimukoreye azi ko ari umwana. [18] Ku birebana n’uko indangamuntu ya Nyirarugendo Madeleine idahura neza n’iya N.A, avuga ko byatewe no kwibeshya, bitewe n’uko irangamuntu afite handitseho imyaka 176 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 208

177 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MANIRAGABA

gusa, ariko ko iyo afite ya kera hakaba handitsemo igihe N.A yavukiye (ukwezi), akaba asaba ko ari yo yashingirwaho. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [19] Urukiko rurasanga n’ubwo mbere hose kuva mu Bugenzacyaha, mu Bushinjacyaha, no mu Rukiko rubanza, Maniragaba Eugène yakomeje guhakana atsemba ko atigeze asambanya N.A, ikigaragara ni uko yahinduye noneho imiburanire ye ageze mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, akavuga ko yemera ko yasambanye n’uwo mukobwa, ko ariko atari umwana nk’uko bivugwa n’Ubushinjacyaha, ko ahubwo yari mukuru, kuko yavutse mu mwaka wa 1988, icyaha aregwa kigakorwa mu mwaka wa 2007, bityo rero ngo akaba yari mukuru, kuko yari afite imyaka cumi n’umunani 18. Yongeraho kandi ko yaryamanye na N.A babyumvikanyeho, ko ariko atari we wateye inda uwo mukobwa avuga ko afite. [20] Ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba koko N.A yari mukuru, Urukiko rurasanga hari urwuzuzanye rw’ibimenyetso biri muri dosiye y’uru rubanza bigaragaza ko N.A yavutse mu mwaka wa 1990, birimo: Irangamuntu ye igaragaza ko yavutse ku wa 03/03/1990; Icyemezo cy’umwirondoro wuzuye wa N.A (attestation d’identité complète) cyatanzwe n’umunyamabanga nshingabikorwa w’umurenge wa mugunga ku wa 07/05/2008, kigaragaza ko yavutse mu mwaka wa 1990; Icyemezo cy’amavuko (attestation de naissance) cyatanzwe ku wa 27/05/2015, n’umunyamabanga nshingwabikorwa w’umurenge wa Mugunga, ubushinjacyaha bukagishyikiriza uru rukiko nk’uko

## Page 209

178 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bwari bwabisabwe, kigaragaza ko N.A yavutse ku wa 03/03/1990. Ikarita ya batisimu ya N. A n’ikarita ye ya “mutuelle de santé” byose bigaragaza ko yavutse mu mwaka wa 1990. [21] Ingingo ya 86 y’Itegeko Nº30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/5/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha hamwe n’iya 119 y’Itegeko N°15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo ziha uburenganzira umucamanza bwo gusesengura ibimenyetso byose ashyikirijwe mu rubanza rw’inshinjabyaha, aho zivuga ko ibimenyetso bishobora gushingira ku mpamvu zose z’ibyabaye n’ibyemejwe n’amategeko, ababuranyi bapfa kuba barabigiyeho impaka, ko Urukiko ruhamya ku buryo butavuguruzwa ko ibimenyetso byose bishinja cyangwa bishinjura ari byo kandi bishobora kwemerwa1. [22] Hasesenguwe ibiteganywa n’ingingo zimaze kuvugwa, Urukiko rurasanga ibyo Maniragaba Eugène aburanisha byo guhakana inyandiko zose zavuzwe haruguru, agashaka ko

1 Ingingo ya 86 y’Itegeko Nº30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/5/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha iteganya ibikurikira:“Ibimenyetso bishobora gushingira ku mpamvu zose z’ibyabaye n’ibyemejwe n’amategeko, ababuranyi bapfa kuba barabigiyeho impaka. Urukiko ruhamya ku buryo butavuguruzwa ko ibimenyetso byose bishinja cyangwa bishinjura ari byo kandi bishobora kwemerwa”. Ingingo ya 119 y’Itegeko N°15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa iteganya ibikurikira: “Mu manza nshinjabyaha, ibimenyetso bishingira ku mpamvu zose z’ibyabaye n’ibyemejwe n’amategeko, ababuranyi bapfa kuba barahawe uburyo bwo kuhaba ngo banyomozanye. Urukiko ruhamya ku buryo butavuguruzwa ko ibimenyetso byose birega cyangwa biregura ari byo kandi ko bishobora kwemerwa”.

## Page 210

hashingirwa kuri “fiche individuelle“ yishakiye ngo igaragaza ko N.A yavutse mu mwaka wa 1988 nta shingiro bifite, kuko atagaragaza uburyo iyo“fiche individuelle“ ishobora kuvuguruza ibimenyetso bimaze kuvugwa haruguru, byongeye kandi akaba atagaragaza uburyo ziriya nyandiko zaba zatanzwe zigamije guhindura igihe N.A yavukiye, ku bw’iyo mpamvu zikaba zigomba gufatwaho ukuri mu kwemeza koko ko N.A yavutse mu mwaka wa 1990. [23] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, Urukiko rurasanga N.A yarasambanyijwe na Maniragaba Eugène ataruzuza imyaka 18 y’ubukure, bityo ibyo kuvuga ko basambanye babyumvikanyeho bikaba bitahabwa agaciro kuko bigaragara ko Maniragaba Eugène yakoresheje amayeri kugirango asambanye uriya mwana yarushaga ubwenge, ibyo rero nabyo bikaba bigomba kwitwa gusambanya ku gahato. [24] Ibyo kandi bihuza n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 33 y‘Itegeko No27/2001 ryo ku wa 28/04/2001 ryerekeye uburenganzira bw’umwana n’uburyo bwo kumurinda ihohoterwa, iteganya ko “imibonano yose mpuzabitsina cyangwa ishingiye ku bitsina ikorewe umwana uko yaba ikozwe kose, n’icyaba cyakoreshejwe cyose, ari icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana”. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [25] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Maniragaba Eugène nta shingiro bufite; 179 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MANIRAGABA

## Page 211

180 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[26] Rwemeje ko urubanza rwajuririwe RPA0241/09/HC/MUS rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, rudahindutse; [27] Rutegetse ko amagarama y’uru rubanza aherera ku Isanduku ya Leta.

## Page 212

181

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NIYONSABA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RPAA0126/11/CS (Mutashya, P.J., Gakwaya na Hitiyaremye, J.) 8 Gicurasi 2015] Amategeko Mpanabyaha – Ubwicanyi burimo agashinyaguro – Azahanwa kimwe n’uwahotoye yabigambiriye, umuntu ushaka kwica undi, uko byakwitwa kose, akabanza kumushinyagurira cyangwa kumugaragura – Itegeko-Teka Nº21/77 ryo ku wa 18/08/1977 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 316. Amategeko Mpanabyaha – Kwemera icyaha mu buryo butuzuye – Gukorana icyaha ubugome ndengakamere – Ni impamvu zatuma igihano kitagabanywa – Itegeko-Teka Nº21/77 ryo ku wa 18/08/1977 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 82. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uregwa yakurikiranywe mu Rukiko Rukuru, urugereko rwa Musanze ku cyaha cy’ubuhotozi bwakorewe Nzabanita Nsangiranabo. Ubushinjacyaha bwasobanuye ko bagiranye amakimbirane, nyuma yaho umurambo we ukaza kuboneka mubuvumo hafi y’aho bari bacumbitse. Uregwa yaraketswe ndetse ahita yemera icyaha agifatwa anasobanura uko yagikoze ariko ageze mu Bushinjacyaha aragihakana. Urukiko Rukuru, rwahamije uregwa icyaha cy’ubuhotozi, rumuhanisha igifungo cya burundu. Uregwa yajuririye mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwamukatiye rushingiye ku buhamya bw’ibinyoma bwatanzwe n’umubyeyi wa nyakwigendera, ko kandi

## Page 213

182 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

rwirengagije ibimenyetso bimurenganura yarushyikirije birimo n’ubuhamya bw’uwitwa Dusabimana, cyakora iburanisha rigitangira amenyesha Urukiko ko imyanzuro yanditse yari yaratanze atakiyishingiyeho, ko icyaha cy’ubuhotozi aregwa acyemera, ko ndetse imiburanire ye mu Rukiko Rukuru ayitesheje agaciro, ubu akaba asaba imbabazi no kugabanyirizwa igihano. Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha we avuga ko uburyo uregwa yemeramo icyaha budasobanutse kandi nta kuri avugisha kubera ko avuga ko yahiritse nyakwigendera akagusha agatuza, yarangiza akamuca ururimi akamukuramo n’ijisho, mu gihe raporo ya muganga yo igaragaza ko umurambo wari ufite ibikomere mu maso no mu mutwe ari nabyo byabaye intandaro y’urupfu rwe, ko ahandi nta kibazo kidasanzwe muganga yabonyeho. Arangiza asaba ko ukwemera icyaha kwa Niyonsaba Boniface kutafatwaho ukuri, cyangwa se bibaye ngombwa muganga wakoze raporo akaba yahamagazwa akayisobanura. Incamake y’icyemezo: Kuba uregwa atemera icyaha ku buryo budasubirwaho no kuba icyaha aregwa yaragikoranye ubugome ndengakamere, bituma imbabazi asaba atagomba kuzihabwa. Bityo, igifungo cya burundu yahawe mu rubanza rujuririrwa kikaba kigomba kugumaho. Ubujurire nta shingiro. Urubanza rwajuririwe ntiruhindutse. Amagarama y’urubanza aherereye ku isanduku ya Leta. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko -Teka Nº21/77 ryo ku wa 18/08/1977 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 82, 312 n’iya 316.

## Page 214

Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko Nzabanita Nsangiranabo yagiye mu kabari Niyonsaba Boniface yacururizagamo, aricara acira ku meza, ndetse arahipfunira, Niyonsaba aramwegera amukubita urushyi n’umugeri nyuma amusohora hanze. Nyina umubyara Mukayezu Vérédiana yagiye gutabaza nyiri akabare Niyibizi Jean Damascène, ari na we wari ubacumbikiye, araza abategeka gutaha, hashize iminsi ibiri (2) umurambo wa Nzabanita wabonetse mu buvumo buri hafi y’aho bari bacumbitse. [2] Niyonsaba Boniface yaketswe kugira uruhare mu rupfu rwa Nzabanita, abajijwe imbere y’Ubugenzacyaha yemera icyaha anasobanura uburyo yagikoze, ariko ageze mu Bushinjacyaha aragihakana. Nyuma y’iperereza dosiye yashyikirijwe Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, ku itariki ya 23/9/2010 ruca urubanza N° RP0115/09/HC/MUS rwemeza ko icyaha cy’ubuhotozi Niyonsaba Boniface aregwa kimuhama, rumuhanisha igifungo cya burundu. [3] Niyonsaba Boniface ntiyishimiye imikirize y’urubanza, ku itariki ya 18/10/2010 arujuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwamukatiye rushingiye ku buhamya bw’ibinyoma bwatanzwe n’umubyeyi wa nyakwigendera, ko kandi rwirengagije ibimenyetso bimurenganura yarushyikirije birimo n’ubuhamya bw’uwitwa Dusabimana. 183 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NIYONSABA

## Page 215

184 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[4] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku itariki ya 30/3/2015 Niyonsaba Boniface yunganiwe na Me Musabwa Frédéric, Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na Mukurarinda Alain, Umushinjacyaha ku rwego rw’Igihugu. [5] Iburanisha rigitangira, Niyonsaba Boniface yamenyesheje Urukiko ko imyanzuro yanditse yari yaratanze atakiyishingiyeho, ko icyaha cy’ubuhotozi aregwa acyemera, ko ndetse imiburanire ye mu Rukiko Rukuru ayitesheje agaciro, ubu akaba asaba imbabazi no kugabanyirizwa igihano. II. IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYACYO ¾ Kumenya niba ukwemera icyaha kwa Niyonsaba Boniface kwamubera impamvu nyoroshyacyaha. [6] Niyonsaba Boniface asobanura ko Nzabanita Nsangiranabo yamusanze mu kabari yakoreragamo bakahatonganira kugeza barwanye bapfa imyifatire mibi yari ahagaragarije ariko abantu barabakiza. Avuga ko nyuma y’iyo mirwano Nzabanita yasohotse atashye, ariko ageze hanze akomeza kumutuka yinjira no mu buzima bwe bwite, nuko kubera ko yari yanyoye inzoga agira umujinya afata icyuma yakatishaga ibitunguru amusanga iwabo aho yari ari aramufata aramujyana, bageze ku buvumo buri hafi aho amukubita ku mabuye yari ahari abanzaho agatuza, mu gihe yari atarashiramo umwuka amukata ururimi amukuramo n’ijisho akoresheje cya cyuma mu rwego rwo kuzimangatanya ibimenyetso. Ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba akora ibyo ntawamubonye, Niyonsaba Boniface yashubije Urukiko ko yatwaye nyakwigendera nyina

## Page 216

amureba, amubajije aho atwaye umwana we aramubwira ngo naceceke na we atamukubita. [7] Me Musabwa Frédéric wunganira Niyonsaba Boniface, avuga ko uwo yunganira agifatwa yabanje kwemera icyaha ariko ageze mu Bushinjacyaha no mu Rukiko Rukuru aragihakana, agasaba ko ubwo noneho yemera icyaha nk’uko n’ababibonye bakimushinja kandi akaba anagisabira imbabazi, Urukiko rwashingira ku ngingo ya 83 y’Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana cyakoreshwaga icyaha gikorwa, rukamugabanyiriza igihano kubera ko imyaka itanu n’amezi arindwi amaze muri gereza yatekereje bihagije. [8] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko uburyo Niyonsaba Boniface yemeramo icyaha budasobanutse kandi nta kuri avugisha kubera ko avuga ko yahiritse nyakwigendera akagusha agatuza, yarangiza akamuca ururimi akamukuramo n’ijisho, mu gihe raporo ya muganga yo igaragaza ko umurambo wari ufite ibikomere mu maso no mu mutwe ari nabyo byabaye intandaro y’urupfu rwe, ko ahandi nta kibazo kidasanzwe muganga yabonyeho. Arangiza asaba ko ukwemera icyaha kwa Niyonsaba Boniface kutafatwaho ukuri, cyangwa se bibaye ngombwa muganga wakoze raporo akaba yahamagazwa akayisobanura. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [9] Niyonsaba Boniface yabanje kuburana mu Rukiko Rukuru ahakana icyaha cyo kuba ari we wishe Nzabanita Nsangiranabo, nyuma asubiza agatima impembero yemera icyaha ntacyo asize inyuma, ndetse asobanura ko impamvu zamuteye gukora icyaha ari inzoga zatumye agira umujinya 185 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NIYONSABA

## Page 217

186 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

nyuma yo gushotorwa na nyakwigendera, ndetse akomeza avuga ko yicuza icyaha, akaba anagisabira imbabazi. [10] Ingingo ya 82 y’Itegeko-Teka Nº21/77 ryo ku wa 18/08/1977 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ibyaha mu Rwanda cyakoreshwaga igihe icyaha cyakorwaga, ivuga ko “umucamanza ari we ubwe uha agaciro impamvu zigabanya ubugizi bwa nabi bw’uwakoze icyaha, ari izakibanjirije, ari izagiherekeje cyangwa izagikurikiye”. [11] Ingingo ya 316 y’Itegeko-Teka Nº21/77 rimaze kuvugwa, iteganya ko “azahanwa kimwe n’uwahotoye yabigambiriye, umuntu ushaka kwica undi, uko byakwitwa kose, akabanza kumushinyagurira cyangwa kumugaragura”. [12] Ingingo ya 312 y’iryo Tegeko-Teka iteganya ko “ukwica. umuntu byagambiriwe cyangwa byategewe igico, byitwa ubuhotozi, bihanishwa igihano cyo kwicwa”1. [13] Ku birebana n’uru rubanza, Urukiko rurasanga ababajijwe bose barimo Niyibizi Jean Damascène, nyiri akabari kabereyemo amakimbirane hagati ya Niyonsaba Boniface na nyakwigendera, Dusabimana Jean Baptiste wari uhari ayo makimbirane aba, bose bemeza ko Niyonsaba Boniface yakubise nyakwigendera akamuhunga ariko agakomeza kumukurikirana n’ubwo abari aho bamubuzaga gukomeza gukurura amahane. Urukiko rurasanga kandi, Mukayezu Vérédiana ari we nyina wa nyakwigendera, avuga ko yumvise

1 Ingingo ya 3 y’Itegeko Ngenga N°31/2007 ryo ku wa 25/07/2007 rikuraho igihano cyo kwicwa yagisimbuje igifungo cya burundu n’igifungo cya burundu cy’umwihariko.

## Page 218

187 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NIYONSABA

induru yajya kureba agasanga Niyonsaba Boniface ari gukubita umuhungu we amupfukamye imbere amusaba imbabazi. [14] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rushingiye kuri izo mvugo, rurasanga bigaragara ko nyirabayazana ari Niyonsaba Boniface kuko nyuma yo kugirana amakimbirane nyakwigendera yamuhunze undi akamukurikirana aho yamuhungiye nk’uko byemejwe na Mukayezu Vérédiana ko yaje abakurikiye n’icyuma, bikaba bitandukanye n’ibyo avuga ko nyakwigendera yakomeje kumushotora. [15] Urukiko rurasanga kandi, ku birebana n’uburyo icyaha cyakozwemo, Niyonsaba Boniface yemera imbere y’Ubugenzacyaha, ko nyuma y’uko ayo makimbirane ahosha, yasanze nyakwigendera iwabo akamutwara bagera ku buvumo buri hafi aho akamukubita ku ibuye akabanzaho agatuza agahita apfa, ko ndetse yamukase umunwa akamukuramo n’ijisho, imbere y’uru Rukiko akaba yarashimangiye ko ari we wishe nyakwigendera agasobanura ko yamukase ururimi atarashiramo umwuka akamuvanamo n’ijisho agamije kuyobya uburari. [16] Ku bijyanye n’ibigomba gushingirwaho mu gutanga igihano, hagomba kurebwa uko uhanwa yakoze icyaha, kureba impamvu zabimuteye, uko uwakoze icyaha yari asanzwe yitwara, uburyo icyaha cyakozwemo n’imibereho ye bwite. [17] Urukiko rurasanga, mu kwica Nzabanita Nsangiranabo, Niyonsaba Boniface yarabikoranye ubugome bwinshi kubera ko yabanje kumushinyagurira amukata bimwe mu bice by’umubiri nk’uko nawe ubwe abyiyemerera. [18] Ku birebana no kuba raporo ya muganga iri muri dosiye itagaragaza ko hari ibice by’umubiri byakaswe ku murambo,

## Page 219

188 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Ubushinjacyaha bukaba busanga ntabyayeho, Urukiko rurasanga, n’ubwo muganga atabyanditse muri raporo ye, rutabishidikanyaho kubera ko uregwa ubwe yiyemerera ko ibyo bice yabikase, kandi akaba nta nyungu yakura mu kubyemera atarabikoze. [19] Hashingiwe ku byavuzwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga Niyonsaba Boniface adasobanura neza impamvu zamuteye gukora icyaha, kuko avuga ko yashotowe na nyakwigendera mu gihe abari bahari bemeza ko ahubwo ari we wabaye nyirabayazana nk’uko byasobanuwe, ikindi kandi icyaha aregwa yagikoranye ubugome ndengakamere nk’uko byasobanuwe, bityo imbabazi asaba akaba atagomba kuzihabwa, igifungo cya burundu yahawe mu rubanza rujuririrwa kikaba kigomba kugumaho. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [20] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Niyonsaba Boniface nta shingiro bufite; [21] Ruvuze ko igihano cya burundu yakatiwe mu rubanza RP0115/09/HC/MUS rwaciwe ku itariki ya 23/9/2010 n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, kidahindutse. [22] Rutegetse ko amagarama y’uru rubanza aherera ku isanduku ya Leta.

## Page 220

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NSHUTIRAKIZA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RPA0047/11/CS (Mutashya, P.J., Gakwaya na Hitiyaremye, J.) 27 Werurwe 2015] Amategeko Mpanabyaha – Igabanyagihano –Umucamanza ubwe aha agaciro impamvu nyoroshyacyaha, ari izakibanjirije, ari izagiherekeje cyangwa izagikurikiye – Igihe icyaha cyakoranywe ubugome bukabije, byaba impamvu yo kutagabanyirizwa igihano – Itegeko-Teka N°21/77 ryo kuwa 18/8/1977 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 82. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uregwa yakurikiranywe ku cyaha cy’ubuhotozi mu Rukiko Rukuru Urugereko rwa Rusizi, aregwa kuba yaratemaguye mu mutwe umugore we Bayavuge Francine, kugeza apfuye. Urukiko rwamuhamije icyaha cy’ubuhotozi, rumuhanisha igifungo cy’imyaka 20, rusobanura ko agabanyirijwe ibihano kubera ko yemera icyaha akanagisabira imbabazi kandi ko ari ubwa mbere akurikiranyweho icyaha mu nkiko. Yajuririye mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, avuga ko yaburanye mu Rukiko Rukuru yemera icyaha ariko ko rwamuhannye nk’utarigeze yemera icyaha. Akomeza avuga ko yemera icyaha ashinjwa, akanagisabira imbabazi. Asobanura ko yasabye imbabazi umuryango w’umufasha we ndetse n’umuryango nyarwanda, akaba asaba rero kongera kugabanyirizwa ibihano kuko yemera icyaha. Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko iyi ngingo y’ubujurire bwa Nshutirakiza nta shingiro ifite kuko yagabanyirijwe ibihano n’Urukiko Rukuru hashingiwe kukuba atigeze arushya

189

## Page 221

ubutabera kuko yahereye mu Bugenzacyaha yemera icyaha, yagera no mu Rukiko akacyemera, akanagisabira imbabazi, bityo bukaba busanga ibyo asaba yaramaze kubihabwa n’Urukiko Rukuru. Incamake y’icyemezo: Igabanyagihano uregwa asaba ntakwiye kurihabwa kuko uru Rukiko rwemeranya n’Urukiko Rukuru ko hashingiwe ku buryo icyaha aregwa cyakozwemo n’uburemere bwacyo, nta yindi mpamvu yatuma yongera kugabanyirizwa igihano yakatiwe mu rwego rwa mbere, bityo igihano yagenewe n’Urukiko Rukuru gikwiranye n’icyaha yakoze. Ubujurire nta shingiro bufite. Urubanza rwajuririwe ntiruhindutse. Amagarama y’urubanza aherereye ku isanduku ya Leta. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko-Teka N°21/77 ryo kuwa 18 Kanama 1977 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo za 82, 83, 84. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi, Ubushinjacyaha bukurikiranyeho Nshutirakiza Narcisse, icyaha cy’ubuhotozi. Busobanura ko kuwa 9/2/2008, nka saa kumi n’imwe za mu gitondo, 190 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 222

Nshutirakiza Narcisse, akoresheje umupanga n’icyuma, yatemaguye mu mutwe umugore we Bayavuge Francine, kugeza apfuye bitewe n’uko ngo batari babanye neza kuko yari yaramutaye, akazana undi mugore, akaba yarabikoze ashaka kumwikiza ngo yibanire n’iyo nshoreke ye Nzayisaba Patricia. [2] Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi, kuwa 30/11/2010, rwaciye urubanza RP0027/08/HC/RSZ, rwemeza ko icyaha cy’ubuhotozi gihama Nshutirakiza Narcisse, rumuhanisha igifungo cy’imyaka 20, rusobanura ko agabanyirijwe ibihano kubera ko yemera icyaha akanagisabira imbabazi kandi ko ari ubwa mbere akurikiranyweho icyaha mu Nkiko. [3] Nshutirakiza Narcisse ntiyishimiye imikirize y’urubanza, kuwa 13/12/2010, arujuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, asaba kongera kugabanyirizwa ibihano. [4] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame kuwa 23/2/2015, Nshutirakiza Narcisse yunganiwe na Me Mujawamariya Immaculée, Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na Ntawangundi Béatrice, Umushinjacyaha ku rwego rw’Igihugu. II. IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYACYO Kumenya niba Nshutirakiza Narcisse yakongera kugabanyirizwa igihano. [5] Nshutirakiza Narcisse avuga ko yaburanye mu Rukiko Rukuru yemera icyaha ariko ko rwamuhannye nk’utarigeze yemera icyaha. Akomeza avuga ko yemera icyaha ashinjwa, 191 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NSHUTIRAKIZA

## Page 223

akanagisabira imbabazi. Asobanura ko yasabye imbabazi umuryango w’umufasha we ndetse n’umuryango nyarwanda, akaba asaba rero kongera kugabanyirizwa ibihano kuko yemera icyaha. [6] Nshutirakiza Narcisse avuga kandi ko atigeze ategura umugambi wo kwica umugore we, ko batonganye mu ma saa kumi n’imwe, agafata umupanga akamutemagura ku gikanu agapfa. Asobanura ko nyuma yaho yamukereye ijosi ariko ntiryavaho kuko hasigaye akantu gatoya kinyuma. Yongeraho ko icyo bapfaga ari umutungo w’urutoki kuko umugore we yagurishaga ibirimo batabyumvikanyeho. Asoza avuga ko ubwo yicaga umugore we, yari yaramaze gutandukana na mukeba we. [7] Me Mujawamariya Immaculée avuga ko Nshutirakiza Narcisse yemeye icyaha ku buryo busesuye kuva mu Bugenzacyaha kugeza mu Rukiko, akagisobanura neza ariko Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi rukaba rutaramugabanyirije bihagije rushingiye ku kuba yarishe umugore we ashaka kubana na Nzayisaba Patricie kandi ataribyo kuko yari amaze umwaka batabana. [8] Me Mujawamariya Immaculée akomeza avuga ko Nshutirakiza Narcisse afite abana bane bakiri batoya, bakaba bandagaye kandi ko imyaka irindwi amaze muri gereza bigaragara ko yamaze kwicuza rwose, bityo akaba asaba uru Rukiko kongera kumugabanyiriza ibihano kugeza ku gifungo cy’imyaka irindwi amaze muri gereza. [9] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko iyi ngingo y’ubujurire bwa Nshutirakiza Narcisse nta shingiro ifite kuko yagabanyirijwe ibihano n’Urukiko Rukuru hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 83 n’iya 84 z’Itegeko-Teka No21/77 ryo kuwa 18/8/1977 rishyiraho Igitabo 192 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 224

cy’amategeko ahana kubera ko atigeze arushya ubutabera kuko yahereye mu Bugenzacyaha yemera icyaha, yagera no mu Rukiko akacyemera, akanagisabira imbabazi, bityo rukaba rusanga ibyo asaba yaramaze kubihabwa n’Urukiko Rukuru. [10] Ubushinjacyaha bukomeza buvuga ko ukurikije ubugome yakoranye icyo cyaha, ni ukuvuga gufata umugore we akamutema ijosi, ko ari inzika yari amaranye iminsi, ko yashoboraga guhanishwa igifungo cya burundu ariko ko yahanishijwe igifungo cy’imyaka makumyabiri gusa, bityo bukaba busanga yahamana igihano yakatiwe n’Urukiko Rukuru. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [11] Ingingo ya 82 y’Itegeko-Teka No21/77 ryo kuwa 18/8/1977 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana yakoreshwaga igihe icyaha cyakorwaga iteganya ko “Juji ubwe aha agaciro impamvu zigabanya ubugizi bwa nabi bw’uwakoze icyaha, ari izakibabanjirije ari izagiherekeje cyangwa izagikurikiye”. [12] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga mu gika cya gatanu n’icya karindwi by’urubanza rwajuririwe, hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 82 n’iya 83 z’Itegeko-Teka No21/77 ryo kuwa 18/8/1977 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana cyakoreshwaga igihe icyaha cyakorwaga, Urukiko Rukuru, mu bushishozi bwarwo, rwaragabanyirije Nshutirakiza Narcisse ibihano yagombaga gukatirwa ku cyaha yakoze, ni ukuvuga igihano cy’igifungo cya burundu, rumuhanisha igifungo cy’imyaka makumyabiri gusa (20) kuko yaburanye yemera icyaha aregwa kandi akaba ari ubwa mbere akora icyaha. 193 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NSHUTIRAKIZA

## Page 225

[13] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga kandi mu rubanza rwajuririwe, cyane cyane mu gika cyarwo cya karindwi, Urukiko Rukuru rwarasobanuye ko kuba Nshutirakiza Narcisse yarahotoye umugore we, akabikorana ubugome n’agashinyaguro amutemagura n’umuhoro, agacoca umutwe we ndetse n’igikanu cye, atagabanyirizwa bya cyane. [14] Ku byerekeranye n’ibivugwa na Me Mujawamariya Immaculée y’uko Urukiko rwa mbere rutagabanyirije bihagije Nshutirakiza Narcisse igihano kuko ngo yishe umugore we ashaka kubana na Nzayisaba Patricie, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga ataribyo kuko rwasobanuye neza, nk’uko bigaragara mu bika bibanziriza iki, ko atagabanyirijwe bya cyane kubera ubugome n’agashinyaguro yakoresheje mu guhotora umugore we. [15] Ku byerekeranye n’impamvu Nshutirakiza Narcisse atanga zatuma yongera kugabanyirizwa igihano yakatiwe mu rwego rwa mbere, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga ugukomeza kwemera icyaha no kuba afite abana bane bakiri batoya bandagaye, bidahagije mu kongera kumugabanyiriza igihano yakatiwe, hakurikijwe imikorere y’icyaha aregwa, impamvu zabiteye n’uburyo cyakozwemo nk’uko byasobanuwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, bityo izo mpamvu zikaba nta gaciro zikwiye guhabwa. [16] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga rero igabanya ry’igihano, Nshutirakiza Narcisse asaba, adakwiye kurihabwa kuko uru Rukiko rwemeranya n’Urukiko Rukuru ko hashingiwe ku buryo icyaha aregwa cyakozwemo n’uburemere bwacyo nk’uko bivugwa mu gika cya 6 n’icya 13 cy’uru rubanza, nta yindi mpamvu yatuma yongera kugabanyirizwa igihano yakatiwe mu 194 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 226

rwego rwa mbere, bityo rukaba rusanga igihano yagenewe n’Urukiko Rukuru gikwiranye n’icyaha yakoze. [17] Kubera izo mpamvu zose, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga ubujurire bwa Nshutirakiza Narcisse nta gaciro bwahabwa, bityo igihano yakatiwe n’Urukiko Rukuru kikaba kigomba kugumaho. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [18] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Nshutirakiza Narcisse nta shingiro bufite. [19] Rwemeje ko igihano cy’igifungo cy’imyaka makumyabiri (20ans) Nshutirakiza Narcisse yakatiwe mu rubanza RP0027/08/HC/RSZ rwaciwe kuwa 30/11/2010 n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi kidahindutse. [20] Rwemeje ko amagarama y’uru rubanza aherera ku Isanduku ya Leta.

195 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NSHUTIRAKIZA

## Page 228

RWANDA LAW REPORTS ENGLISH VERSION

## Page 230

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TEAM OF EDITORS ................................................................ iii PREFACE ................................................................................. vi SCOPE OF THE REPORTS .................................................... vii CITATION ............................................................................... vii LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ viii LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED .............................................. x SUBJECT INDEX ..................................................................... xi MBARUSHIMANA v. NTIGURIRWA ET AL ........................ 1 NANGAYOBAREMA v. MUNYARUGERERO ................... 13 KK SECURITY v. HARERIMANA ET AL ........................... 29 TWAGIRAYEZU ET AL v. BANK POPULAIRE DU RWANDA (BPR) ..................................................................... 51 BRD v. UWIMBABAZI .......................................................... 75 Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY ........................................................................... 95 FREIGHT AFRICA BVBA v. BONUS ENTERPRISES Ltd 113 RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY v. KAMBA G ENERAL MARCHANDISE Ltd ............................................................ 125 SOCOGEDI SA v. BRALIRWA ........................................... 137

## Page 231

RE N.J. ................................................................................... 155 PROSECUTION v. MANIRAGABA .................................... 165 PROSECUTION v. NIYONSABA ........................................ 177 PROSECUTION v. NSHUTIRAKIZA .................................. 185

## Page 232

iii

TEAM OF EDITORS

LAW REPORTING TEAM

BAGABO Faustin

BAKAMURERA Jacqueline

KAGABO U. Stephanie

MUJABI K. Naphtal

MUNYENSANGA Chrysostome

MWIHOREZE Claudine

NTIHEMUKA Emmanuel

UWIMANA Gisèle

## Page 233

MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE

MUGENZI Louis Marie : President of the Committee Supreme Court Judge

Dr. MUHIRE G. Yves : Vice President of the Committee Lecturer in the School of Law/UR

RUTAZANA Angeline : Secretary of the Committee Inspector of Courts

BWIZA N. Blanche : Inspector of Courts

DUSHIMINAMA Claudine : Prosecutor at National Level

Me GAKUNZI Valery : Advocate at Rwanda Bar Association

GIRANEZA Clémentine : Judge at Primary Court

HABARUREMA Jean Pierre : Prosecutor at National Level

KALIWABO Charles : President of High Court

## Page 234

Me KAYIHURA Didas : Advocate at Rwanda Bar Association

KIBUKA Jean Luc : Judge at Commercial High Court

MUREREREHE Saouda : Judge at High Court

Prof. Dr. NGAGI M. Alphonse : Supreme Court Judge RUBANGO K. Epimaque : State Attorney RUKUNDAKUVUGA F. Regis : Inspector General of Courts

UWANTEGE Yvette : Juge at Intermediate Court

## Page 235

PREFACE Dear Readers, The Rwandan Judiciary is pleased to publish the third volume of Rwanda Law Report for the year 2016. We encourage judges, prosecutors, advocates and other legal professionals to give us ideas on how we can improve the preparation of Law Reports since our main intention is to prepare a law report which meets the international standards. In this volume of Rwanda Law Reports, you will find thirteen (13) cases including two (2) procedural cases, one (l) labour case, one (1) civil case, five (5) commercial cases and four (4) criminal cases. We are pleased to inform you that published cases can be accessed on the website of the judiciary which facilitates the users to find cases easily and quickly on http://decisia.lexum.com/rlr/en/nav.do Prof. Sam RUGEGE President of the Supreme Court President of the High Council of Judiciary

## Page 236

vii

SCOPE OF THE REPORTS These reports cover cases decided by the Supreme Court and High Court listed under the heading of “Citation” below.

CITATION The Reports in this volume are cited thus: [2016] 3 RLR

## Page 237

viii

LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of Supreme Court, article 28, paragraph 2, litera 7°……………………………1 article 28(12)……… ……………………………….............13 Organic Law No01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the Penal Code, articles 165(1) and 190…………………………………...156 Law Nº30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure, article 86……………………………………………...167 Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles 10 and 117…………………………………………..78 article 9……………………………………………………….99 Law No45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, articles 64 and 113……………………………………………………………..115 Law N°74/2008 of 31/12/2008 modifying and complementing Law No25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures, article 5…..99 Law No21/2006 of 28/04/2006 establishing the customs system, articles 1(33), 177 and 179………………………………………..99 Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures, article 44………128 Law No16/2005 of 18/08/2005 on Direct taxes on income, article 16……………………………………………………………128 Law N°15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 119…………………………………………………...167 article 3………………………………………………………78

## Page 238

article 3………………………………………………………99 Law N°06/2001 of 20/01/2001 on the code of value added tax, articles 4, 9 and 12…………………………………………………99 Law No42/1988 of 27/10/1988 instituting the preliminary title and the civil code Book I relating to persons and family law, article 14(2)………………………………………………………..115 Law of 30/07/1888 relating to the contracts or obligations, articles 33 and 480…………………………………………..78 article 258…………………………………………………….99 article 258…………………………………………………...115 article 258…………………………………………………...128 article 264………………………………………………54 Law of 19/1/1920 relating to mandate in commerce and transporters, articles 10 and 11…………………………………115

LIST OF STATUTES ix

## Page 239

LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED Nteziryayo v. Rutabayiro, RCAA0003/13/CS, rendered by the Supreme Court on 31/01/2014…………………………………….54

## Page 240

SUBJECT INDEX Civil procedure – Objection for inadmissibility of the claim – Disputes arising from contradictions between judgments – Final judgment – The party whose the case was rendered in default must be legally notified of the ruling of the judgment, failure of which the judgment is not considered as rendered at last instance because he /she is allowed to apply for opposition or to lodge an appeal from the time he became aware of it – The petition for resolution of contradictions between judgments should be initiated for final judgments – Law Nº18/2004 of 20/06/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 149. NANGAYOBAREMA v. MUNYARUGERERO……13 Commercial procedure – Demanding the surety to pay – The fact for the surety to have guaranteed the payment of the loan only is not enough to condemn him/her to repay in case he/she was not party to the case – Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the Civil, Commercial, Labour and Administrative Procedure, articles 10 and 117. BRD v. UWIMBABAZI………………………………75 Contracts law – Loan contract – Interests and penalty for late payment – The borrower has to pay to the bank interests and fee for late payment in case he/she does not respect the contract since any contract made in accordance with the law shall be binding between parties and it shall be performed in good faith – The law of 30/07/1888 relating to the contracts or contractual obligations, articles 33 and 480. BRD v. UWIMBABAZI……………………………………75

## Page 241

xii RWANDA LAW REPORTS Loan contract – Award of top-up loan – The banks have the rights of granting or not the loan without even providing explanations; because the basis, most of the time, is the trust that any bank may have in its client and the capacity it assesses that he/she will repay the loan he/she is requesting for – Law of 30/07/1888 relating to the contracts or contractual obligations, article 33. BRD v. UWIMBABAZI…………………………….…75 Loan contract – Damages resulting from the breach of the loan contract – The bank cannot be awarded the damages for the breach of the loan contract in case it has been awarded the interests and fee for late payment. BRD v. UWIMBABAZI………………………………75 Agreement for commercial partnership – Agreement for commercial partnership may be proven by relationships that characterized both parties even when it is unwritten especially that commercial law does not provide that it must be. SOCOGEDI SA v. BRALIRWA……………………137 Damages for termination of the contract – There was no unlawful termination of the contract because it is sufficient for the party who opts to terminate contract of this kind to demonstrate the grounds which drove him/her to do it and it is not a requirement to pay damages at any cost. SOCOGEDI SA v. BRALIRWA……………………137 Contracts or obligations law – Sale – The moment the contracting parties on sale agree on the subject matter and its price, the sale is valid, even if the object has not yet

## Page 242

xiii SUBJECT INDEX been delivered or the price paid – Law of 30/07/1888 relating to Contracts or obligations, article 264. TWAGIRAYEZU ET AL v. BPR…………………….51 Criminal Law – Child defilement – Interpretation of articles 190 and 165 of the Organic Law No01/2012 of 02/05/2012 instituting the Penal Code – The fact that article 190 of the Organic Law No01/2012 of 02/05/2012 instituting the Penal Code uses the word child defilement instead of rape which is mentioned in article 165 of this Organic Law, this does not mean that the child was not raped since she is considered as a minor with no capacity to decide on sexual intercourse, and this incidence is also considered as rape. Criminal Law – Right to abortion and its benefits – A child who has been defiled has right and interests to abort as long as she was impregnated as a result of defilement. RE N.J………………………………………………...155 Child defilement – Any sexual relations with a child, whatever the means or methods used, are considered as rape – Law No27/2001 of 28/04/2001 relating to the rights and protection of the child against violence, article 33. PROSECUTION v. MANIRAGABA……………….165 Murder accompanied by inhuman and degrading treatment – Shall be punished by the same penalty as the one who killed with intent, anyone, in whatever circumstances, kills a person by inhuman and degrading treatment – Decree-Law Nº21/77 of 18/08/1977 instituting the penal code, article 316. PROSECUTION v. NIYONSABA………………….177

## Page 243

xiv Guilty plea which is not sincere – Offence committed with cruelty – It is a ground for not reducing the penalty – Decree-Law Nº21/77 of 18/08/1977 instituting the penal code, article 82. PROSECUTION v. NIYONSABA………………….177 Penalty reduction – The judge may consider the appropriateness of mitigating circumstances which preceded, accompanied or followed an offence – When the offence was committed with serious cruelty, it may be the ground for non-reduction of the penalty – Decree-Law N°21/77 of 18 August 1977 instituting the penal code, articles 82, 83 and 84. PROSECUTION v. NSHUTIRAKIZA……………..185 Criminal procedure Law – Concurrence of evidence – The court shall decide at its sole discretion on the veracity and admissibility of incriminating or exculpatory evidence – Law Nº30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure, article 86. PROSECUTION v. MANIRAGABA……………….165 Damages – Damages resulting from the loss – None can be awarded the damages resulting from the loss in case he/she cannot establish the prejudice caused by the defendant. BRD v. UWIMBABAZI……………………………….75 Advocate fees – They are not awarded to the requester who lost the case on all his grounds of appeal – Law No30/07/1888 relating to contract or obligation, article 258. Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. RRA……………….95 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 244

xv Being dragged into unjust proceedings – Whoever is dragged into unjust proceedings must be awarded procedural fees – Law No30/07/1888 relating to contract or obligation, article 258. Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. RRA……………….95 Procedural and advocate fees – The defendant must be awarded those fees but in the discretion of the court – The Law of 10/07/1888 governing contracts or obligations, article 258. FREIGHT AFRICA BVBA v. BONUS ENTERPRISES Ltd………………………………….113 Procedural and advocate fees – The winner must be awarded these damages because there are incurred expenses in the follow-up of the proceedings in addition to the hired advocate – Law of 30/07/1888 governing contracts or obligations, article 258. RRA v. KAMBA GENERAL MARCHANDISE Ltd…...125 Damages for being dragged into proceedings at appeal level – The respondent cannot be awarded damages based on appeal of the appellant alleging to have been dragged into unnecessary litigations as long as there is no evidence of the vexatious character of the appeal since an appeal by whoever unsatisfied with the ruling is his/her right. SOCOGEDI SA v. BRALIRWA……………………137 Evidence law – Burden of proof – He must pay tax because he failed to demonstrate that the taxed money was intended to pay the loan – Law No15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 3 and Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012; relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 9. Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. RRA……………………..95 SUBJECT INDEX

## Page 245

Labour laws – Dismissal for economic reasons – There is no proof that the employee who was dismissed or laid off was the actual one to dismiss or layoff in the Institution when the employer did not comply with the legal procedure in ranking those to be laid off according to the performance, professional qualification, the seniority in the institution and the family charges and that dismissal is qualified as unfair dismissal – Law N°51/2001 of 30/12/2001 establishing the labour code, article 29. KK SECURITY v. HARERIMANA ET AL………...29 Salary – If the employee does not admit that he was paid his or her salary and the employer fails to produce the document proving otherwise, the employer has to pay him or her – Interruption for the prescription of salary payment – The period of prescription for the salary payment is interrupted where the employer has computed all the monies, has agreed with the worker that the monies are the debt, the employee’s case pending before the court or due to the fact that the labour inspectorate that was requested to settle the dispute is yet to take the decision – Law N°51/2001 of 30/12/2001 establishing the labour code, article 102. KK SECURITY v. HARERIMANA ET AL………...29 Employment certificate – The employer is not liable in case the employee had to collect the employment certificate but failed to collect it – Law N° 51/2001 of 30/12/2001 establishing the labour code, article 30. KK SECURITY v. HARERIMANA ET AL………...29 Law determining jurisdiction of courts – Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court – Objection on lack of jurisdiction – Material jurisdiction in relation to the value of awarded RWANDA LAW REPORTS xvi

## Page 246

SUBJECT INDEX xvii damages – In case of determination of the material jurisdiction in relation to the value of damages awarded in the case, it is taken into account the amount of damages awarded by any court rather than considering the amount of damages awarded by appellate court only – Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme court, article 28, paragraph 2, litera 7°. MBARUSHIMANA v. NTIGURIRWA ET AL………1 A forum selection clause – It is the courts referred to in forum selection clause which are competent to settle the matters emanating from implementation of that contract – Law No45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, articles 64 and 113 – Law of 19/1/1920 relating to agent in trade and transport, articles 10 and 11 – Law No42/1988 of 27/10/1988 instituting the preliminary title and the civil code Book I relating to persons and family law, article 14(2). FREIGHT AFRICA BVBA v. BONUS ENTERPRISES Ltd………………………………….113 Mortgage law – The mortgage contract on immovable property – The mortgage contract on the sold property cannot be valid even if the transfer of ownership is not yet performed because the seller has no right to mortgage the property which does no longer belong to him/her – Decree Law of 15/05/1922 that governs the mortgage on the immovable property, article 12(1). TWAGIRAYEZU ET AL v. BPR…………………….51 Tax law – Exportation of goods – Export declaration – Exemption of exported goods from levy –The exemption from the levy as provided for by the law for the exported

## Page 247

RWANDA LAW REPORTS xviii goods is not benefited in case it is not proved that export declaration was made to the customs for release – Law Nº21/2006 of 28/04/2006 establishing the customs system, articles 177 and 179. Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. RRA……………….95 Evidence of export – Declaration of contract relating to exported goods to Rwanda Revenue Authority – Though the contract was not declared to Rwanda Revenue Authority, it does not even demonstrate that there has been export – Law No74/2008 of 31/12/2008 modifying and complementing Law No25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on Tax procedure, article 1(5). Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. RRA……………….95 Exportation of goods – It is not export in case goods that are said to have been exported have not been manufactured in Rwanda – Law Nº21/2006 of 28/04/2006 establishing the customs system, article 2(33). Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. RRA……………….95 Levy for Commercial activities carried out on the territory other than Rwandan – Whoever has a place of residence in Rwanda but with a place of business elsewhere must pay value added tax – Law N°06/2001 of 20/01/2001 on the code of value added tax, articles 4, 9 and 12. Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. RRA……………….95 Appeal to the Commissioner General – Issue raised for the first time at appeal level – Tax issue that has not been submitted to the Commissioner General cannot be ruled on, this is the same for any issue raised before the appellate court while it has not been debated on at the first instance court. Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. RRA……………………..95

## Page 248

SUBJECT INDEX xix Taxable income – Money deposited by buyers as caution – This money is not an income, it is rather the caution which is not taxable – Law Nº16/2005 of 18/08/2005 2005 on Direct taxes on income, article 16. RRA v. KAMBA GENERAL MARCHANDISE Ltd…...125 Tax base – Taxable income – Who has the burden to prove the tax base – Rwanda Revenue Authority has the burden to prove the taxable profit – Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures, article 44. RRA v. KAMBA GENERAL MARCHANDISE Ltd…...125

## Page 250

PROCEDURAL CASES

## Page 252

CASES RELATING TO CIVIL, COMMERCIAL, LABOUR AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

## Page 254

MBARUSHIMANA v. NTIGURIRWA ET AL [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCAA0010/13/CS (Hatangimbabazi, P.J., Mukamulisa and Hitiyaremye, J.) June 19, 2015] Law determining jurisdiction of courts – Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court – Objection on lack of jurisdiction – Material jurisdiction in relation to the value of awarded damages – In case of determination of the material jurisdiction in relation to the value of damages awarded in the case, it is taken into account the amount of damages awarded by any court rather than considering the amount of damages awarded by appellate court only – Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme court, article 28, paragraph 2, litera 7°. Facts: On 22 August 2005, the municipal Administration of Gitarama, which later become Muhanga District, represented by its Vice Mayor in charge of Economic development conducted an auction in the context of executing the judgment N° R.C.4227/14/2005 - RCA9404/133 in which Iyamuremye and others won the case against Mbarushimana, and the judgment Nº 39320/03, in which Bank of Kigali (BK) won the case against Mbarushimana and Nyiransabimana. The auction concerned the main house in the enclosure and its annexes as well as a big house for rent; all located in Gahogo in Gitarama town. All properties were acquired by Ntigurirwa, and the proceeds were apportioned among Mbarushimana’s creditors. After he purchased them, Ntigurirwa begun to erect a floor with 1

## Page 255

2 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

three levels in the plot of land and consequently, he demolished some of the existing houses and he was awarded all documents confirming his ownership. On 20 September 2005, Mbarushimana filed a case before the Intermediate Court of Muhanga stating that the execution of the judgment contravened the law, and thus requested that it should be annulled. The Intermediate Court decided in the case RC 0174/05/TP/GIT that Mbarushimana’s claim has merit, and it annulled the auction alleging that it was conducted by an incompetent authority. In executing this judgment rendered by the Intermediate Court, the Court bailiff reinstated Mbarushimana in ownership of the house left after demolition while for the big house which was for rent; he established a notice of inexistence because it was replaced by a floor with three levels and thus requested Mbarushimana to seize the court to resolve the issue of the missing house. After Ntigurirwa was deprived of those properties, he filed a case to the Intermediate Court of Muhanga requesting for the nullification of the auction which deprived him of the properties he acquired, and meanwhile, Mbarushimana filed the case to the Court requesting for the expulsion of Ntigurirwa from the floor of the house he erected on his plot. After it was realised that both cases are related, they were joined together and heard in a single lawsuit, and this court decided that the claim of Ntigurirwa lacks merit, therefore that the public auction remains valid and It decided that the claim of Mbarushimana has partial merit, and consequently that the building with three levels was erected by Ntigurirwa on the plot of land belonging to Mbarushimana. However, in order for this building to remain in the ownership of Ntigurirwa should pay 83,300,000Frw of compensation to Mbarushimana and ordered him to pay

## Page 256

3 MBARUSHIMANA v. NTIGURIRWA ET AL

500,000Frw to Muhanga District because he dragged it into unnecessary lawsuits. Ntigurirwa appealed to the High Court, Chamber of Nyanza which found it with merit, and therefore the plot in which a house was erected with three levels belongs to Ntigurirwa and consequently the public auction conducted on 13th October 2010 is nullified. It discharged him of 83,300,000Frw of compensation he was ordered to pay as well as 500,000Frw which was awarded to Muhanga District. Mbarushimana appealed against the case to the Supreme Court alleging that the judge contradicted himself whereby he nullified the public auction but did not rely on that nullification to order the successful purchaser to be paid back the price he paid and the owner of the houses to hold their ownership. Therefore, he should have relied on these grounds and confirm the auction to be valid. At the beginning of the hearing, Counsel Habineza Jean Paul representing the heirs of Ntigurirwa, raised an objection of inadmissibility of the appeal claim initiated by Mbarushimana alleging that even if Mbarushimana was awarded compensation amounting to 83,300,000Frw by the Intermediate Court, but that they were abolished in the appealed judgment; therefore in accordance with article 28, litera 7 of its paragraph 2 of the Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, his appeal claim does not fall into the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court because the amount awarded as damages by the appealed Court does not reach 50,000,000Frw. Counsel Kayiranga Bernard who represented Muhanga District supports the arguments of Counsel Habineza Jean Paul and affirms that damages stated in this article 28, paragraph 2 and litera 7 of the

## Page 257

4 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

aforementioned organic law relates to those awarded by the High Court judge, therefore the appeal claim of Mbarushimana does not fall into the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Counsel Nsengiyumva Jean Claude for Mbarushimana states that if the subject matter of the case consists of the amount of damages awarded by the judge of the Intermediate Court which is higher than the said amount; the appeal falls into the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Court found that it should hear and decide on the objection first, and then it was the only issue debated on. Held: 1. The analysis of litera 7 of article 28 of the Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court implies that in case of objection on the value of damages awarded by privious courts, the judge who is stated as competent to address such objection is not only that of the High Court (or the Commercial High Court or Military High Court), rather he/she can be even that of the court which was seized with the appeal claim, therefore the appeal claim based on this objection falls within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Objection rejected. Appeal falls within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Court fees is suspended. Statutes and Statutory instruments referred to: Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 28, paragraph 2, litera 7°.

## Page 258

5 MBARUSHIMANA v. NTIGURIRWA ET AL

No case referred to. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] This case derived from a public auction which was conducted on 22/08/2015 in execution of the judgment N° R.C.4227/14/2005 - RCA9404/133 in which Iyamuremye Nathanaël and others won the case against Mbarushiman Boniface and the judgment Nº39320/03 in which Bank of Kigali (BK) won against Mbarushimana Boniface and Nyiransabimana Gaudence. In the course of the auction, the house was sold, its fence and annexes, as well as the main house which was for rent, all located in Gahogo in Gitarama town. This aution was conducted by the administration of Gitarama Minicipality which later become Muhanga District, represented by its Vice Mayor in charge of economic development. [2] All published houses for auction were purchased by Ntigurirwa Eustache and the proceeds were apportioned among traders with whom Mbarushimana had disputes and BK resulting from the debt he owed it. Just after acquisition of those buildings in auction, Ntigurirwa started to build new houses including a building with three floors and therefore demolished the existing houses and was handed with all land titles indicating his owerneship over that land. [3] On 20 September 2005, Mbarushimana Boniface initiated a claim before the Intermediate Court of Muhanga

## Page 259

6 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

alleging that the public auction was not conducted in compliance with the law, therefore that it should be nullified. On 8 February 2007, the court decided in the judgment RC0174/05/TP/GIT that the claim of Mbarushimana has merit and that the auction is nullified because it was held in contradiction with the law because it was conducted by an incompetent officer. [4] It is in the course of execution of this ruling that a dispute arose because the court bailiff restored Mbarushimana Boniface into owernership of houses, consenquently he noted that some of the houses are available and restored to him back but the main house for rent was missing as in its place, it was erected a big building with three floors. He therefore informed Mbarushimana to file a case to court for that issue. [5] On 28 October 2010, Ntigurirwa Eustache who bought the houses through auction, and holds the titles over them and a contruction permit over the whole land, filed the claim to the Intermediate Court of Muhanga requesting for the nullification of the auction on the basis of which he was expulsed from his buildings. Subsenquently, Mbarushimana also filed the claim, requesting for expulsion of Ntigurirwa from the building (floor) he constructed on his plot. These two cases were joined together and heard in the same lawsuit, and on 18 November 2011, the court decided that Ntigurirwa’s claim lacks merit and upheld the validity of the auction. [6] Concerning Mbarushimana Boniface’s claim, the court found it with merit partialy, and decided that the three floor building which was erected to the land belonging to Mbarushimana by Ntigurirwa, should remain in his ownership and pay 83,300,000Frw of compensation to Mbarushimana and

## Page 260

7 MBARUSHIMANA v. NTIGURIRWA ET AL

500,000Frw of damages to Muhanga District for dragging it into unecessary lawsuits. [7] Ntigurirwa Eustache appealed to the High Court, Chamber of Nyanza which in its decision of 26 June 2012 found his appeal with merit, and therefore decided that the plot in which it is erected a floor of three levels belongs to Ntigurirwa and consequently the public auction conducted on 13 October 2010 is nullified. It discharged him of 83,300,000Frw as compensation as well as 500,000Frw which was awarded to Muhanga District. [8] Mbarushimana Boniface appealed to the Supreme Court alleging that in his decision, the judge contradicted himself whereby he nullified the public auction but did not rely on that nullification to order the successful purchaser to be paid back the price he paid and the owner of the houses to hold ownership over them. Therefore, he should have relied on these grounds and confirm the auction to be valid. [9] The public hearing was held on 19th May 2015, whereby Mbarushiman Boniface was represented by Counsel Nsengiyumva Jean Claude while the heirs of Ntigurirwa Eustache were represented by Counsel Habineza Jean Paul, and the State Attorney Kayiranga Bernard representing Muhanga District. [10] At the beggining of the hearing, Counsel Habineza Jean Paul on behalf of the heirs of Ntigurirwa Eustache raised an objection of inadmissibility of the appeal claim initiated by Mbarushimana Boniface, alleging that it does not fall into the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Court found that it

## Page 261

8 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

should hear and decide on the objection first, and it was the only issue debated on. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUE To exmine whether the appeal claim initiated by Mbarushimana Boniface does not fall into the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. [11] Counsel Habineza Jean Paul states that before the examination of the merit of the case, the court should examine the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided for by article 28, paragraph two of the Organic Law determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. He states again that in the Intermediate Court, Mbarushimana Boniface was awarded damages amounting to eight three millions, three hundered thousands (83,300,000Frw), but that in appealed case, those damages were discharged. [12] He argues that in accordance with article 28, paragraph 2, litera 7 of the Organic Law determining the Orgnisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the appeal claim lodged by Mbarushimana Boniface does not fall into the jurisdiction of this court, because damages awarded in the judgment which was rendered by the High Court, Chamber of Nyanza which is the same judgment appealed against, do not exceed fifty millions Rwandan francs (50,000,000Frw). [13] Counsel Nsengiyaremye Jean Claude for Mbarushimana Boniface argues that their appeal relied on article 28, paragraph 2 and litera 7 of the Organic Law determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court which provides that the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over

## Page 262

9 MBARUSHIMANA v. NTIGURIRWA ET AL

cases heard and decided in the second instance by the High Court, involve a judgment in respect of which there was an award of damages of at least fifty million Rwandan francs (50,000,000Frw), or when the value of the case , as determined by the judge in the case of a dispute, is at least fifty million Rwandan francs (50,000,000Frw) or its equivalent. He therefore argues that given that the dispute relies on the amount of damages awarded by the judge of Intermediate Court which exceeds the given amount, which implies that their appeal falls into the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. [14] Counsel Kayiranga Bernard for Muhanga District supports the statements of Counsel Habineza Jean Paul who represents the heirs of Ntigurirwa Eustache by stating that the appeal of Mbarushimana Boniface does not fall into the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. He also relies on the article 28, paragraph 2, litera 7 of Organic law determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and confirms that damages stated in this provision consist of those awarded by the High Court. REASONS FOR THE COURT DECISION [15] Article 28, pararaph 2 and litera 7 of Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012, determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court provides that: “The Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction over cases heard and decided in the second instance by the High Court, the Commercial High Court or by the Military High Court if such cases, involve a judgment in respect of which there was an award of damages of at least fifty million Rwandan

## Page 263

10 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

francs (50,000,000Frw), or when the value of the case, as determined by the judge in case of a dispute, is at least fifty million Rwandan francs (50,000,000Frw)”. [16] The Court finds that in accordance with the aforementioned litera 7 of article 28, it is wondered if it should be relied on damages awarded by the High Court (or by Commercial High Court or by the Military High Court) only amounting to at least 50,000,000Frw for the determination of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, or damages awarded by the judge of the High Court or by Commercial High Court or by the Military High Court) only amounting to at least 50,000,000Frw in case of the dispute thereto. [17] The Court is of the view that even if the litera 7 stated in this article relates to the whole sentence as expressed at the beggining of article 28 whereby it states that “cases heard and decided upon in the second instance by the High Court, the Commercial High Court or by the Military High Court if such cases”, nowhere it is indicated explicitely in the reading of litera 7 that the court which it states consists of the High Court only (or Commercial High Court or the Military High Court), and indeed, it is written in french “une juridiction de jugement”, which means the court in general (or Commercial High Court or the Military High Court), therefore it is possible to consider the amount of damages awarded by any Court in that judgment without taking into account the only damages awarded by the court which rendered the appealed case. [18] The analysis of this provision implies again that when a dispute arises in relation to amount of damages awarded by the previous courts, the judge mentioned who can rule on those disputes is not only the judge of the High Court (or Commercial

## Page 264

11 MBARUSHIMANA v. NTIGURIRWA ET AL

High Court or the Military High Court), rather it can be even the judge of the Supreme Court who was seized with appeal, and this reasoning is similar to some case laws of the Supreme Court on the similar issue. [19] Concerning this case, the court finds that the dispute in the High Court, Chamber of Nyanza was based on the amount of compensation awarded by the Intermediate Court equivalent to eigth three million, three hundred thousand Rwandan francs (83,300,000Frw) representing compensation for the edification of the building on the plot of land of Mbarushimana Boniface by Ntigurirwa Eustache. This dispute continued even to the Supreme Court as a ground of appeal lodged by Mbarushimana after the High Court, Chamber of Nyanza discharged that compensation. [20] In accordance with reasons mentioned above, as it is clear that there is still debate on the amount of compensation equivalent to eigth three million, three hundred thousand Rwandan francs (83,300,000Frw) awarded by the judge at Intermediate Court level; the Court is of the view that the appeal claim based on this dispute falls into the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the provision of litera 7 of article 28 of the Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012, determining the organisation, functioning and juirsdiction of the Supreme Court. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [21] Court decided that the objection raised by Succession of Ntigurirwa is without merit.

## Page 265

12 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

[22] Court decided that the appeal lodged by Mbarushimana Boniface falls into the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. [23] Court Scheduled the hearing of the case and put it on 15th September 2015. [24] Court suspended the payment of court fees.

## Page 266

NANGAYOBAREMA v. MUNYARUGERERO [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RC003/12/CS (Mutashya, P.J., Nyirinkwaya and Gatete, J.) November 14, 2014] Civil procedure – Objection for inadmissibility of the claim – Disputes arising from contradictions between judgments – Final judgment – The party whose the case was rendered in default must be legally notified of the ruling of the judgment, failure of which the judgment is not considered as rendered at last instance because he /she is allowed to apply for opposition or to lodge an appeal from the time he became aware of it – The petition for resolution of contradictions between judgments should be initiated for final judgments – Organic Law Nº03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 28(12) – Law Nº18/2004 of 20/06/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 149. Facts: Museka filed a claim at the First Instance Court of Kigali requesting for termination of the contract of sale of a house concluded between him and Munyampundu and thereafter he would give back the part of money he was paid as its price which would be deposited on the Court’s bank account and in return he would repossess his house because Munyampundu breached the contract they entered into. That Court ruled that the contract is terminated, and therefore Museka is entitled to repossess his house after he deposits on the Court bank account the amount he was paid at the time of the conclusion of the contract. 13

## Page 267

14 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

The judgment was executed and Museka was handed back the house. Munyarugerero who owned that house filed a claim with Intermediate Court requesting for resolution of disputes arisen from execution of the judgment because he was expulsed from his house and on top of that, the said judgment was rendered by default even without having been summoned and deny the exercise of his right to appear. The Court nullified the execution of the judgment RC36.025/01 and ordered restoration of pristine state as before the execution of the judgment. The court bailiff Ngororukunda who was sued by Munyarugerero appealed to the High Court and then Munyarugerero raised the objection stating that the appeal should not be admitted because judgments relating to the disputes arising from execution of the judgment shall not be subject to appeal; and that Court dismissed the appeal. Nangayobarema, the wife of Museka, filed a claim to the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge requesting for resolution of the disputes arising from the execution of that judgment. She states that the Court has invalidated the order of the Court bailiff only, but it has left intact the judgment on the merits. The Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge rendered the judgment whereby it held that the claim of Nangayobarema has no merit and that there is no reason to suspend the execution of the judgment NºRC0856/11/TGI/NYGE. Nangayobarema filed a claim to this Court stating that the judgment NºRC0856/11/TGI/NYGE which ordered her expulsion from her house whereas there exists another final judgment which is in contradiction with it and rendered by the same Court. Therefore, she prays the Supreme Court to decide on that contradiction.

## Page 268

15 NANGAYOBAREMA v. MUNYARUGERERO

Munyarugero raised an objection for inadmissibility of the claim because those judgments which Nangayobarema states that they contradict each other were not rendered at the same instance because one of them was rendered by default of the party and he was not notified about in order to apply for opposition or lodge an appeal, therefore it should not be considered as final. Held: The party to the case must be legally notified of the ruling of the judgment, failure of which the judgment is not considered as rendered at last instance because he/she is allowed to apply for opposition or to lodge an appeal whenever he/she becomes aware of it. Therefore, the judgment Nº RC36.025/01 is not final, given the lack of evidence indicating that Munyampundu was notified of it, and the fact that he still is entitled to application for opposition and lodge an appeal against it. Consequently, that petition for resolution of contradictions between judgments should not be admitted and examined because one of those judgments is not yet final since there is a possibility that it can be reopen for hearing. Appeal has merit; The court fees to the plaintiff. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Organic Law Nº03/2012 OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 28(12). Law Nº18/2004 of 20/06/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 149.

## Page 269

16 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

No case referred to. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] The origin of this judgment is the plot of land which Museka alleges he bought from Mukaruhama Beline paid through the credit he was granted by BCR Ltd and he built a house thereon for leasing it in order to pay back that loan. He states that he failed to pay the debt and on 21 June 1993 he entered into a sale contract of that house with Munyampundu Cyprien so that he could pay back that loan. [2] In the sale contract of 21 June 1993, Munyampundu Cyprien paid to Museka Jean Damascène 2,300,000Frw out of 4,500,000Frw they had agreed as the purchasing price of that house and there remained a balance of 2,200,000Frw which will be paid after the transfer of ownership.. Museka states that after the war period, Munyampundu Cyprien disappeared and this prevented the payment of the balance of 2,200,000Frw and transfer was not performed due to the absence of Munyampundu. [3] On 13 September 2001, Museka Jean Damascene filed a claim with the First Instance Court of Kigali which was recorded on NºRC36.025/01 whereby he requested for termination of the contract and committed to pay back 2,300,000Frw which would be deposited on the Court’s bank

## Page 270

17 NANGAYOBAREMA v. MUNYARUGERERO

account in order for him to repossess his house because Munyampundu Cyprien breached the contract they concluded. [4] The case was heard in default of Munyampundu Cyprien because he was summoned but he did not appear. On 20 May 2002, the First Instance Court of Kigali held that the claim of Museka has merit, and ordered the termination of the contract, therefore Museka repossesses his house and he should in return deposit 2,300,000Frw on the bank account he was paid at the time of conclusion of the sale contract with Munyampundu Cyprien on 21 June 1993. [5] In 2011 Museka Jean Damascene filed a claim for rectification of the judgment Nº RC36.025/01 because it contained typographical error where on the first page it was written that the judgment was delivered on 20 May 2002 whereas at the end it was written that it was delivered on 17 May 2002. The Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge found that there was a mistake on its delivery date and ruled that judgment is rectified; therefore the date of its delivery is 20 May 2002. [6] After the execution of the judgment on 1st December 2011, through which the family of Museka Jean Damascene repossessed the house, Munyarugerero Nsanze Damien who used to possess that house filed a claim with Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge requesting for resolution of disputes arising from the execution of the judgment Nº RC36.025/01 which resulted in his expulsion from the house. He argues that he was its owner and that the judgment which ordered his expulsion from it was rendered in his default without having been summoned and denies appearing. In that judgment, Munyarugerero Nsanze Damien sued Museka Jean Damascène and court bailiff Ngororunkunda Clément, and Association Tubiteho also made a

## Page 271

18 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

voluntary intervention in the case because it was expelled from that house while its lease had not yet expired. [7] During the hearing of the case, Munyarugerero Nsanze Damien who filed a claim stated that he deprives himself of the right to action with regard to Museka Jean Damascène which the Court granted to him. On 04 April 2012 the Court rendered the judgment and held that the claim of Munyarugerero Nsanze Damien has merit, it rejected the claim of Association because it is not entitled the right to seize the court as long as it does not have legal personality, it invalidated the execution of the judgment Nº RC36.025/01 of 01 December 2011 and ordered the pristine state as before the execution of the judgment. [8] Court bailiff Ngororukunda Clément appealed against the judgment before the High Court. In this case, Gakwaya Etienne, Counsel for Munyarugerero Nsanze Damien, raised an objection arguing that the appeal should not be admitted because the judgments about the disputes arising from the execution of judgments shall not be subject to appeal. The High Court rendered the judgment on 26 July 2012 and ruled that the appeal of Ngororukunda is not admitted. [9] After cancellation of the execution of the judgment performed by Ngororukunda and the dismissal of appeal, the court bailiff Kamanzi Emmanuel began the process of executing the judgment so that the one who was awarded the house by the judgment NºRC36.025/01 be expelled from the house in order to be handed back to Munyarugerero Nsanze Damien, who was its owner before delivery of the judgment Nº RC36.025/01. [10] Nangayobarema Immaculée, the wife of Museka, filed a claim with the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge requesting to

## Page 272

19 NANGAYOBAREMA v. MUNYARUGERERO

resolve the disputes which have arisen from the execution of that judgment. She argues that the Court set aside only the decision of the court bailiff order, but the Court decision remained valid. On 19 November 2012, the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge rendered the judgment and ruled that the claim of Nangayobarema has no merit and that there is no reason to suspend the execution of judgment Nº RC0856/11/TGI/NYGE. [11] After delivery of all those judgments, Nangayobarema filed a claim with this Court arguing that the judgment Nº RC0856/11/TGI/NYGE expelling her from the house conflicts with another one which was rendered by the same Court and that the Supreme Court should decide on that contradiction. [12] The hearing was scheduled on 14 October 2014, Nangayobarema Immaculée was present and was represented by Counsel Umurungi Providence, Munyarugerero Nsanze Damien also appeared and was represented by Counsel Gakwaya Etienne. Before the hearing of the judgment on merits, Gakwaya Etienne, the Counsel for Munyarugerero Nsanze Damien, raised the objection of inadmissibility of the claim because the judgments which Nangayobarema argues that they contradict each other were not rendered at the same instance since one of them was not rendered at the last instance. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUE In this judgment it should be first examined whether the judgment NºRC36.025/01 was rendered at the last instance. [13] Gakwaya Etienne, the Counsel for Munyarugerero, states that basing on article 29 of the law determining the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the claim of Nangayabarema

## Page 273

20 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

should not be admitted because the judgments which she alleges they contradict each other were not all rendered at the last instance. He submits that only the judgment Nº RC0856/11/TGI/Nyge was rendered at the last instance because it concerned the disputes that arose in the judgment execution and it is not subject to appeal, whereas the judgment Nº RC36.025/01 was not rendered at the last instance because the respondent in this judgment is allowed to apply for opposition because it was heard in his default and he was not notified of it so that he could apply for opposition or lodge an appeal against it. [14] He further argues that the fact that the siblings of Munyampundu Cyprien applied for third party opposition against the judgment is different from the application for opposition. He adds that until now there is no evidence demonstrating that Munyampundu Cyprien was notified of that judgment and that he should have been notified by way of publication as it was provided by the law which was into force at the time of delivery of the judgment. He adds that from the day of publication of the ruling of the judgment rendered in default of the defendant, the latter has fifteen days computed after that notification by public notice. Therefore, he argues, the fact that his sister has exercised the third party opposition does not imply that Munyampundu Cyprien is aware of it because there is no evidence proving that. [15] Umurungi Providence, the Counsel for Nangayobarema, states that the objection raised by the Counsel for Munyarugerero has no basis because all the judgments were rendered at the last instance and the judgment NºRC36.025/01 was rendered in default of Munyampundu Cyprien because the

## Page 274

21 NANGAYOBAREMA v. MUNYARUGERERO

attempts to trace him were futile until his sister applied for third party opposition against the judgment and her claim was later struck off because she did not follow up it. She adds that the fact that his family lodged a third party opposition against the judgment implies that he was also aware of it because in case he might be dead none would be aware of that apart from his family. [16] She continues stating that the judgment was notified in the same procedure as he was summoned and this is how his sister came to know that the case was heard and she immediately applied for third party opposition against it; but because she did not have any interest therein, she did not follow it up and it was struck off. She adds the fact that it was contested through third party opposition which was later struck off means that all remedies were exhausted and, therefore, it was rendered at the last instance. VIEW OF THE COURT [17] The Court finds that the claim filed by Nangayobarema Immaculée is meant to pray the Court to resolve contradictions between the judgments RC36.025/01 rendered on 20 May 2002 and RC0856/11/TGI/NYGE rendered on 04 April 2012. [18] Article 28(12) of Law Nº03/2012 OL of 13/06/2014 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as it is amended to date provides that the Supreme Court shall have the jurisdiction to resolve contradictions that arise among court decisions at the last instance.

## Page 275

22 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

[19] The Court finds that the judgment NºRC36.025/01 rendered on 20 May 2002 was heard in default of Munyampundu Cyprien because he was lawfully summoned but he did not appear. [20] Article 149 of Law Nº18/2004 of 20/06/2004 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure which was into force at the time of delivery of this judgment provided that “if one of the parties was not notified of the date of the pronouncement of the judgment or was not represented, he/she is notified of the decision by a court registrar or bailiff in accordance with the ordinary procedure regarding notification of judicial documents”. [21] With regard to this judgment, the Court finds that there is no document in the file, which demonstrates that Munyampundu Cyprien was legally notified of the ruling of the judgment in accordance with the procedure set out in the law as already explained in the previous paragraph. It finds, in addition, that the fact that his siblings lodged the third party opposition after realizing that Munyampundu Cyprien could not appear does not preclude the right of the party who was not notified of the judgment to apply for opposition against it when he/she turns up. This means that Munyampundu Cyprien still has the right to apply for opposition or lodge an appeal against the judgment Nº RC36.025/01 as long as he is not yet legally notified of it. It also finds the fact that his sister has got knowledge of it does not mean that Munyampundu Cyprien, who is party to it, has become aware of it. [22] Therefore, the Court finds that, basing on the above explanations and the documents which are part of the case, there is nothing which demonstrates that the judgment

## Page 276

23 NANGAYOBAREMA v. MUNYARUGERERO

NºRC36.025/01 rendered on 20 May 2002 in default of Munyampundu Cyprien has become final. This means that it cannot be considered as the judgment rendered at the last instance mentioned in article 29(12) of Law Nº03/2012/OL of 13/06/2014 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as amended to date, because it is still possible to hear it again. [23] The Court finds that, basing on provisions of article 29(12) of Law Nº03/2012/OL mentioned above, that claim should not be admitted for examination because one of those judgments has not been rendered at the last instance because it is still possible to hear it again; thus this claim is dismissed. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [24] The Court decides that the objection raised by Gakwaya Etienne, the Counsel for Munyarugerero, has merit; [25] The Court rejects the claim of Nangayobarema Immaculée because it was unlawfully submitted; [26] The Court orders Nangayobarema Immaculée to pay the court fees.

## Page 278

CASES IN MERITS

## Page 280

LABOUR CASE

## Page 282

KK SECURITY v. HARERIMANA ET AL [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – R.SOC.AA006/07/CS (Rugege, P.J., Ruyenzi and Mukanyundo, J.) January 11, 2008] Labour laws – Dismissal for economic reasons – There is no proof that the employee who was dismissed or laid off was the actual one to dismiss or layoff in the Institution when the employer did not comply with the legal procedure in ranking those to be laid off according to the performance, professional qualification, seniority in the institution and family charges and that dismissal is qualified as unfair dismissal – Law N°51/2001 of 30/12/2001 establishing the labour code, article 29. Labour laws – Salary – Burden to prove the payment of the salary – Interruption of time limitation of the claim relating to salary payment – If the employee does not admit that he was paid his or her salary and the employer fails to produce the document proving otherwise, the employer has to pay him or her – The period of prescription for the salary payment is interrupted where the employee’s case is pending before the court or due to the fact that the labour inspectorate that was requested to settle the dispute is yet to take the decision – Law N°51/2001 of 30/12/2001 establishing the labour cod, article 102. Labour laws – Employment certificate – The employer is not liable in case the employee had to collect the employment certificate but failed to do so – Law N°51/2001 of 30/12/2001 establishing the labour code, article 30. 29

## Page 283

30 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Facts: KK Security dismissed some of its employees asserting that it was experiencing economic hardship as a result of termination of its contracts it had with SOGEA SATOM and ROKO Construction s.a.r.l. Harerimana and others among the dismissed employees, resorted to courts whereby they sued KK Security before the Intermediate Court of Gasabo claiming various damages. That Court ruled that KK security lost the case and was ordered to pay Harerimana and others various damages. KK Security appealed before the High Court, that Court held that KK Security loses the case, and each one has to be paid the amount awarded by the previous court except for the damages for not being given the work certificate, the transport, accommodation and medical insurance fees. Again, KK Security appealed before the Supreme Court asserting that the High Court disregarded the arguments of KK Security according to which the plaintiffs were awarded damages for overtime and leave yet they were included in their salaries and it also asserted that the claim was struck by the statute of limitation. Harerimana and others raised a preliminary objection on inadmissibility of the appeal on the ground that KK Security appealed against 13 cases but it paid the court fees deposit for one case and also that in consideration of the damages awarded to each person who brought a case against it, it doesn’t amount to the required amount for the Supreme Court to have pecuniary jurisdiction over it. On the grounds of appeal of KK Security where it claimed that their dismissal relied on the loss incurred, they qualified it unfounded, because KK Security never demonstrated the loss incurred, and with regard to the salary which KK Security

## Page 284

31 KK SECURITY v. HARERIMANA ET AL

alleges to have paid them, they argue that the onus of proof is on the employer to prove that he or she paid their employee. They contest the document produced by KK Security on the ground that it was produced for the first time in Court. They also lodged a cross appeal requesting to be awarded damages equal to six months’ salary for each person for not being given a work certificate, transport allowance, accommodation and medical assurance allowance. KK Security rebutted that the case started as a single case upon the request of the parties who requested the joining of their claims and as a result, the Intermediate Court of Gasabo registered the case on the single number. However, the Court recalled that the law provides for the “cases”, not the “claim” and their advocate immediately submitted to the court that if that is the case they withdraw the raised objection. Held: 1. When the employer does not comply with the procedure of ranking the employees to be dismissed or to be laid off in accordance with the performance, professional qualification, work experience in the enterprise and social charges of each worker, there is no proof that the dismissed employee is the one who ought to be dismissed among the employees of the institution hence it is qualified as unfair dismissal. 2. If the employee does not admit that he was paid his or her salary and the employer fails to produce the document proving otherwise, the employer has to pay him or her. 3. The period of prescription for the salary payment is interrupted by the employee’s case pending before the court or due to the fact that the labour inspectorate that was requested to settle the dispute is yet to take the decision.

## Page 285

32 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

4. The respondents have to be awarded the counsel’s fees for a single case because their counsel dealt with a single case and the submissions he made were meant for a single case. 5. The employer is not liable when the employee failed to collect his/her employment certificate. The appeal lacks merit except for the counsel fees; Court fees are borne by KK Security. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law N°51/2001 of 30/12/2001 establishing the labour code, articles 29, 30, 97 and 102. No case referred to. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] In 2004, the company known as KK Security dismissed some of its employees due to economic hardship. That company asserts that it was due to the termination of the contracts it had between ROKO CONSTRUCTION s.a.r.l and SOGEA SATOM, were many of its employees were deployed. [2] Some of those dismissed employees were not contended with the procedure of that dismissal thus they resorted to courts claiming damages.

## Page 286

33 KK SECURITY v. HARERIMANA ET AL

[3] This case begun in the Intermediate Court of Gasabo registered on N°R.SOC.0006/06/TGI/GSBO whereby Harerimana Enos, Munyaneza Jean, Safari Théogène, Gasore Jean Baptiste, Munyanshongore Théodore, Harindintwari Augustin, Uwizera Sadock, Sebagabo Prince, Hagenimana Moussa, Setakwe André, Mwungura André, Mberwa Innocent and Sebasoni Jérôme were against KK Security. The judgment was rendered on 20/10/2006, and it held that KK Security loses the case and it was ordered to pay Harerimana Enos and others what had been awarded to each of them, that is to say, the bonus for extra-time, leave allocation, housing allowance, transport fee, medical fee, damages due to unfair dismissal, damages for not being given the work certificate and the counsel’s fees. [4] KK Security was not contended with the ruling and appealed before the High Court of the Republic on its headquater in Kigali, and the appeal was registered on N°R.SOC.A0277/06/HC/KIG. That court rendered the judgment on 13/4/2007 and held that KK Security loses the case, and each plaintiff had to be paid the amount awarded by the previous court except the amount for non-delivery of the work certificate, transport fee, accommodation fee and medical expenses. The Court found that the total of amount that KK Security has to pay the plaintiffs is 21,102,528Frw and the prorated fees of 4% of that amount, which is 844,101Frw and other 21,450Frw of the court fee. [5] Again KK Security was not contended with the ruling and appealed before the Supreme Court, the letter that was received in the registry of that court on May 9, 2007; the claim was registered on N° R.SOC.AA0006/07/CS. In that letter, the

## Page 287

34 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

counsel for KK Security Rutabingwa Athanase mentioned the following as their grounds of appeal: The High Court of the Republic disregarded the explanations of KK Security since it held that the ground for the dismissal of those employees was just and fair but again it held that it is unfair dismissal due to the violation of article 29 of the law No51/2001 of 30/12/2001 instituting the labour code. The Court ordered that the plaintiffs must be paid allowances for extra-time and leave yet they were included in their salary. It was the onus of the plaintiffs to prove that they worked but they were not paid for that. The Counsel should have been paid for one case file since he had a single task as the claims were joined together. The amount claimed is computed from 1996 to 2004 yet there has been the prescription as provided for by article 102 of the Law No51/2001 of 30/12/2001 instituting the labour code. Thus, he finds that they are claiming what they are not entitled to. [6] The appeal of KK Security underwent the screening and in his decision N°RSOC0004/07/Pré-ex/CS, the judge who pre- screened the case held that the appeal of KK Security submitted to the Supreme Court was instituted in accordance with the law and that it falls into the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

## Page 288

35 KK SECURITY v. HARERIMANA ET AL

The hearing of the case R.SOC.AA0006/07/CS before the Supreme Court. [7] The case was first summoned in the Supreme Court on August 07, 2007 but it was not heard because Counsel Rutabingwa Athanase assisting KK Security applied for its adjournment as he had misfortune. It was adjourned on October 30, 2007. On that date, all parties were present, Counsel Rutabingwa Athanase representing KK Security and Harerimana and others represented by Counsel Kayitare Serge. [8] Counsel Rutabingwa Athanase was requested to explain the grounds of his appeal. After his explanations, Counsel Kayitare requested for the audience and raised a preliminary objection of inadmissibility of the KK Security’s appeal. He argues that KK appealed against 13 judgments but paid the court fee for one claim only, thus the appeal is not in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. [9] After hearing both parties, the Court went to deliberate on that objection. However, another issue came into limelight that among the judges who constituted the bench included the judge who screened the appeal on the admissibility and the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, therefore the bench has to be changed and the hearing adjourned on the other date on which that objection will be examined. The case was adjourned on November 12, 2007. On that date, the hearing of the case resumed and was heard by a new bench. [10] Counsel Kayitare took the floor to elaborate on the preliminary objection he raised. He averred that KK Security was sued by 13 persons where each one instituted his own claim. Those cases were joined together in lower courts. Before

## Page 289

36 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

the Supreme Court, KK Security appealed against 13 judgments and paid the court fee for a single claim. Counsel Kayitare submitted that the judge who pre-screened the appeal should have considered each claim separately in regard to the court fee. The joining of those cases was not for turning them into a single case but it was that they be heard jointly. [11] Counsel Rutabingwa rebuts that objection raised by Counsel Kayitare by asserting that the case started as a single case upon the request of the plaintiffs that their claims be joined. Even at the appellate level before the High Court of the Republic that case was given a single number and they accepted to plead without raising objection. [12] The Court asked Counsel Kayitare his view on the law determining the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Where he responded that it provides that when the subject matter of the case has a value amounting to or exceeding 20,000,000Frw then it falls in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but in this instant case, the jurisdiction should be viewed on the value of each claim. The court reminded him that the law states “the case”, not “the claim”. Counsel Kayitare responded to the Court that if that is the case he withdraws his objection. [13] The Court informed the parties that the case was going to be heard in its merits and asked Counsel Rutabingwa Athanase to reiterate the grounds of KK Security’s appeal, since the bench had changed. Counsel Rutabingwa Athanase asserted that they appealed due the following grounds: The Court disregarded the evidence and explanations submitted. The previous court held that those employees were dismissed because KK Security incurred a loss; but

## Page 290

37 KK SECURITY v. HARERIMANA ET AL

it contradicted itself where it stated that the provisions of article 29 of the law No51/2001 of 30/12/2001 instituting the labour law were not respected. Article 26 of that law provides for damages when the cause of dismissal is unjust, it does not provide that damages are awarded when the procedure was not respected and article 29 does not provide for penalties; The first instance Court did not take into consideration the explanations of KK Security with regard to extra- time and leave; With regard to the counsel fees, 80,000Frw for each is excessive since it is a single case; Article 102 of the law regulating labour was not considered. That article provides that the salaries that have exceeded the period of 5 years cannot be claimed before the court, and the case was instituted in 2004 on the facts that occurred in 1996. [14] Counsel Kayitare argued that as indicated in the judgment rendered by the Intermediate Court of Gasabo (page 3, paragraph 4) and the judgment of the High Court (page 12, paragraph 5) KK Security admitted that it breached article 29 of the law governing labour, but there are no penalties provided for by this law. He further asserted that pursuant to article 110 of the law No15/2004 of 12/6/2004 of evidence and its production, the admission makes its author lose the case. [15] Counsel Kayitare further averred that the assertion that the employees were dismissed due to the loss is not true because KK Security never demonstrated the amount of that loss. However, even though there was a loss, according to the

## Page 291

38 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

provisions of article 29 of the law regulating labour there is no single evidence indicating that his clients were the ones who would have been dismissed. Therefore, if they had not been dismissed, he wonders whether it can be considered as if they were unfairly dismissed. With regard to extra-time and leave allowances which KK Security asserts to have paid to employees, the reference should be made to article 97 of the Law regulating labour which provides that the onus of proof lies on the employer who asserts that he paid the employees who claims otherwise. For the counsel’s fees, Counsel Kayitare asserted that he withdrew the objection he raised, without however admitting the case to be one, therefore as usual one negotiates with the plaintiff on his own. With regard to the prescription of the claim regarding the salary, he argued that the consideration should be given to article 102 of the Law regulating labour where it provides that the prescription is suspended when the matter is submitted to the organ that can settle it. He asserted that the complaint was made before the labour inspectorate, and he produced the written statement of 18/11/1998 which was even produced before the Intermediate Court of Gasabo. [16] Counsel Kayitare raised also a cross appeal, on the ground that his clients request to be awarded damages equal to the salary of six months of each person since KK Security did not give them the work certificate. And they request for the transport allowance, accommodation fee and medical expenses as provided under Ministerial Order No10/19 of 14/3/2003. [17] Counsel Rutabingwa again requested for the floor and argued that KK Security did not concede that it violated the law, but in the analysis of article 29 of the law regulating labour,

## Page 292

39 KK SECURITY v. HARERIMANA ET AL

they asserted that it does not provide for penalties in case of irregularities in the procedure and the court cannot provide for penalties since that would be usurping in the legislative power. [18] With regard to the prescription of the claim relating to the salary, Counsel Rutabingwa Athanase asserted that he does not accept the written statement of 18/11/1988 raised by Counsel Kayitare, because it does not bear the names of its signatories and this is his first time to see it. [19] With regard to the cross appeal lodged by Counsel Kayitare, Counsel Rutabingwa asserted that the ruling of the High Court on these issues is clear since every employee who came to collect his/her work certificate received it. With regard to the transport allowance, accommodation and medical fees, article 5 of the contract they concluded with KK Security stipulates that the salary includes all indemnities of transport, accommodation and medical fees and the Ministerial order invoked by Counsel Kayitare does not provide that those indemnities are paid separately. [20] With regard to the question he was asked by the Court if he is of the view that article 29 stated above was respected, Counsel Rutabingwa asserts that he is of the view that it was complied with except that they did not convene the meeting with employees. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUE (a) The issue of unfair dismissal [21] In its appeal, KK Security claimed to have experienced injustice from the decision of the High Court where it held that

## Page 293

40 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

the ground of dismissal has merit due to the loss incurred and the loss of clients, and at the same time it compelled KK Security to pay damages due to irregularities in the procedure provided for under article 29 of the Law regulating labour. [22] Article 29 of the law No51/2001 of 30/12/2001 instituting the labour code provides that: “When the employer plans to dismiss more than one employee, for economic reasons, he/she must inform, before implementing his/her decision, the staff’s delegates about the causes of projected dismissals, retained criteria, as well as the date of dismissal and consult with them as regards measures that could be taken to prevent or limit the projected dismissals. The company’s employee dismissals’ order is set up taking into account the professional qualification, the seniority in the establishment and the family charges. The written statement of that meeting and the list of workers who were laid off, date and grounds justifying that decision are sent to the Minister in charge of labour within 15 days from the day of that meeting”. [23] That article of 29 was enacted for the purpose of protecting employees, so that the employer could not prejudice them in case of the restructure in the institution that may lead to lay off some of employees due to just economic reasons. As stated above, that article commands that the employer has to hold the meeting with the staff’s delegates in the institution so that he can notify them the causes for the projected layoff, its basis, its date and requests for their advice that would prevent or reduce it. That is to say that there must be negotiation aiming at

## Page 294

41 KK SECURITY v. HARERIMANA ET AL

finding solution of how the workers can continue their work without layoff and without being detrimental to the employer. This means that the layoff should not be the first alternative, rather it can be opted for as a last resort. In case it is inevitable to lay off the workers, it has to be done according to the provisions of the law, without sentiment or injustice. This makes those who were laid off feel that what took place was in transparency, fair and it was inevitable. Those criteria are set under article 29, paragraph 2 which states that “the employees to be laid off is set up taking into account the professional qualification, the seniority in the establishment and the family charges…”. As far as this case is considered, there is no single evidence indicating that KK Security based on these criteria. [24] During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, regarding the question asked to Counsel Rutabingwa concerning whether he confirms that KK Security respected article 29, he replied that what KK Security did not respect was to hold a meeting with the workers, as if it is of no importance. The meeting bringing together the employer and employees or their representatives is not a mere formality, but it helps employees as stakeholders in the institution to understand why there must be a layoff. As stated by legal scholars “Important decisions, such as that to retrench, should be subject to the greatest possible degree of consultation with employees or their representatives, not merely for reasons of procedural fairness but as part of establishing whether substantive grounds for dismissal are present and, if so, the most appropriate manner of mitigating the consequences”1. Those scholars further state that:

1 Du Toit, D. Woolfrey, J. Murphy, S. Godfrey, D. Bosch and S. Christie, Labour Relations Law: A Comprehensive Guide, Butterworths, 3rd Edition, p.382.

## Page 295

42 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

“The statutory requirement to seek alternatives to dismissal indicates that dismissal should be avoided if reasonably possible and that alternatives put forward by consulting parties should be considered seriously, even though the employer retains a broad discretion in taking final decision”. [25] With regard to the meeting between the employers and employees before taking the decision to lay off the employees, this issue was examined by courts in other forum for several occasions. The South African Court of Appeal, in Atlantis Diesel2, examined the provision of the law of that country that is similar to that of Rwandan law, it held that: “The purpose of the duty to consult is to give the employer an opportunity to explain the reasons for the proposed retrenchments, to hear representations on possible ways of avoiding or minimising the effects of retrenchments and to discuss and consider possible alternatives”. It is obvious that this procedure aims at the protection of employees and the failure to respect it is considered to be an unfair dismissal. Thus, the Court has the duty to oversee the respect of the law, and render justice to those who are oppressed. [26] The allegation by Counsel Rutabingwa that the law did not provide for penalties for non-compliance with article 29, , lacks substance as this is not a criminal case. If there has been injustice due to the non-compliance of the law, the victim has to get justice. As the High Court of the Republic held in 7th paragraph of motivation on page 12, “if KK Security had respected the provisions of the law in selecting those who were to be laid off according to the professional qualification, the

2 National Union of Metalworkers of S.A v. Atlantis Diesel Engines (Pty) Ltd (1994) 15 ILJ 12 47(A).

## Page 296

43 KK SECURITY v. HARERIMANA ET AL

seniority in the establishment and the family charges there is no evidence that those employees who were laid off were the one who had to be laid off among all KK Security employees. That is to say that the plaintiffs were dismissed due to the non- compliance of the law on the side of KK Security, and this caused them a loss thus they are entitled to damages. [27] Concluding on this ground of appeal that KK security has suffered injustice from the High Court of the Republic, the Supreme Court finds that KK security did not comply with the procedure provided for under article 29 stated above, and such conduct led to the unfair dismissal of the plaintiffs and the Court holds that this should be considered to be an unlawful dismissal (licenciement abusif). KK Security did not face in lower courts. Thus, this ground of appeal of KK Security is dismissed. (b) Extra-time and leave. [28] Another ground of appeal that Counsel Rutabingwa, representing KK Security raised is that relating to extra-time and leave. He asserted that the High Court of the Republic upheld that damages have to be paid for the extra-time and the four days of leave, but it disregarded that they were included in the salary. However, no evidence produced by KK Security indicating that they received those indemnities of extra-time. And as article 97 of the law No51/2001 of 30/12/2001 provides “In case of an employee contests payment of the salary, and when the employer is not in a position to show the document indicating that he paid him/her [...] the employer must pay the employee”. The Supreme Court finds that the ruling of the High Court of the Republic on this ground of appeal should be upheld.

## Page 297

44 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

(c) With regard to the prescription of the claim [29] Counsel Rutabingwa also invoked another ground of appeal that the amount claimed was computed from 1996 up to 2004 yet there has been prescription as provided under article 102 of the labour law. Article 102 provides that: “Prescription in a salary payment suit expires after five years. Prescription is effective as from the date at which the salary is due. But it goes further to state that “It is suspended in case of [...] where the employee’s case is still waiting for trial or where the Labour Inspectorate has not yet settled the dispute”. The document that is in the file under paragraph 1 up to 6, indicates that before the claim of the plaintiffs against KK Security reached the courts, it was initiated in the Labour inspectorate on 18/11/1998. On that date, there was a meeting that brought together the labour inspector in the prefecture of Kigali City, the administration of KK Security and the guards, and the written statement of that meeting was signed by the then labour inspector. The fact that the counsel of KK Security asserts that they do not accept that written statement, should not be considered, since they did not contest it in lower courts, moreover, there is no evidence they put forward that would lead the court to doubting on the occurrence of that meeting. Besides, no evidence was produced to prove that those who are mentioned in the written statement to have been present were not. Thus, the Supreme Court finds that the resort to the labour inspectorate suspends the prescription of the judicial action to recover the salary as provided under article 102 stated above. (d) The counsel’s fees. [30] Another ground against which Counsel Rutabingwa appeals is the counsel’s fees awarded by the Judge of the High

## Page 298

45 KK SECURITY v. HARERIMANA ET AL

Court of the Republic. Counsel Rutabingwa argues that 80,000Frw for each person is excessive since there is a single case. The Supreme Court finds that this ground is founded since the case heard is single as explained and Counsel Kayitare withdrew his objection where he tried to indicate that they are 13 cases. Another point is that, Counsel Kayitare submitted one court submission and he pleaded a single case. Upon its discretion, the court finds that it has to award him the counsel fees equal to 300,000Frw. (e) Cross appeal [31] Counsel Kayitare, on behalf of his clients, lodged a cross appeal. He asserted that the first ground of that appeal is to request that his clients be awarded damages equal to their respective salaries of six months because KK Security did not give them their work certificates. Article 30 of the Law No51/2011 of 30/12/2001 instituting the labour code provides that: “When the employee’s contract of employment [...] his/her employer immediately gives him/her a certificate showing exclusively the period and which kind of work he/she has been carrying out in the establishment. The certificate is given to the employee along with his/her final discount. Every employer who deliberately refuses to provide his/her former employee the certificate must compensate it with a sum not exceeding the employee’s monthly salary times six”. However, there is no evidence produced indicating that any one approached KK Security requesting the work certificate and then it refused to give it to him, and the article stated above concerns the employer who refused to award that certificate. It is obvious that the last salary of those employees was deposited on their account. In that case, those employees had to go take their work certificates at KK Security, the fact that they did not go there to

## Page 299

46 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

pick it, KK Security should not be held answerable. Thus, this ground of cross appeal lacks merit; hence the decision of the High Court of the Republic is upheld. [32] Another ground of cross appeal invoked by Counsel Kayitare relates to transport, accommodation and medical allowances. However, the employment contract that KK Security concluded with employees who sued it stipulated how those indemnities should be awarded and no one raised an issue of irregularity of that contract. Clause 5 of that contract, in its paragraph 4 stipulates that: “The basic salaries of employees cover non-taxable bonuses”: The bonus of accommodation of 15%; The bonus of being transported in the vehicle of 10%; The bonus of medical care of 8%. Pursuant to the aforementioned provisions of this clause, the Court finds that those bonuses were paid to them alongside their salaries as they agreed. Thus, this ground of cross appeal also lacks merit. III. COURT DECISION [33] The Supreme Court: Admit the appeal of KK Security as it was instituted in accordance with the law, but upon its examination it finds that it lacks merit except for the counsel’s fees. Admits the cross appeal lodged by Harerimana Enos and others for it was instituted in accordance with the law, but lacks merit.

## Page 300

47 KK SECURITY v. HARERIMANA ET AL

[34] The Supreme Court holds that KK Security lost the case. Declares that the rulings in the judgment N°R.SOC.A0277/06/HC/KIG is reversed only with regard to the counsel’s fees. [35] The Supreme Court: Orders KK Security to pay 300,000Frw of the counsel’s fees; thus the whole amount totalling 20,362,528Frw instead of being 21,102,528Frw ordered by the High Court of the Republic. Orders KK Security to pay the proportional tax of 4% of that amount which is equal to 814,501Frw. [36] The Supreme Court orders KK Security to pay 33,800Frw of court fee, to be paid in the period provided for by the law, the failure of which will lead to the forceful recovery by the government coercion.

## Page 302

CIVIL CASE

## Page 304

TWAGIRAYEZU ET AL v. BANQUE POPULAIRE DU RWANDA (BPR) [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/REV/INJUST/CIV 0004/15/CS (Kayitesi Z., P.J., Hatangimbabazi, Gatete, Hitiyaremye and Ngagi, J.) September 11, 2015] Contracts or obligations law – Sale – The moment the contracting parties on sale agree on the subject matter and its price, the sale is valid, even if the object has not yet been delivered or the price paid – Law of 30/07/1888 relating to Contracts or obligations, article 264. Mortgage law – The mortgage contract on immovable property – The mortgage contract on the sold property cannot be valid even if the transfer of ownership is not yet performed because the seller has no right to mortgage the property which does no longer belong to him/her – Decree Law of 15/05/1922 that governs the mortgage on the immovable property, article 12(1). Facts: Twagirayezu entered into a sale contract with Rushirabwoba of the plot No400 located at Gasave cell, Gisozi sector, Gasabo district, Kigali City on the price amounting to 770,000Frw and they agreed that he pays him 720,000Frw, and the balance amounting to 50,000Frw to be paid after one month following the handover of the documents of the plot. Meanwhile he was allowed to begin the activities on that plot. After the expiry of the agreed month, Rushirabwoba did not hand over to Twagirayezu the documents of the plot as he had promised him. A long time after the conclusion of that contract, Rushirabwoba applied for the loan of five Million to Bank Populaire (BPR)

## Page 305

52 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

and he mortgaged that plot he sold to Twagirayezu without the knowledge of the latter and his wife. Rushirabwoba failed to fulfil the contractual obligations of the loan he was granted, and then BPR seized that property with purpose to auction it. After realising that, Twagirayezu and Mukantabana filed a claim to the Intermediate Court of Gasabo requesting to suspend that auction and Bank Populaire Gikondo branch be ordered to release the documents. The Court ordered the transfer of ownership (mutation) and the plot to be registered from Rushirabwoba to Twagirayezu and Mukantabana because they co-own it. Bank Populaire appealed against that decision to the High Court against Twagirayezu and Mukantabana and the Court held that the appeal has merit; therefore BPR should not be compelled to release the document it was given in mortgage while the loan it granted to Rushirabwoba was not yet paid. Twagirayezu and Mukantabana appealed against that decision to the Supreme Court, and the latter also held that it should not be compelled to release the document because it is obvious that he is the owner of the plot, and indeed the fact that they did not attempt to obtain the documents for three (3) years until Rushirabwoba mortgaged that property; is an indication of their negligence and the excessive trust they had in him. Twagirayezu and Mukantabana submitted their claim to the ombudsman office requesting the judgment N°RCAA0149/11/CS to be reviewed for injustice reasons because it is unlikely to be executed because there exists another judgment N° RCA0111/08/TGI/GSBO concerning their divorce proceedings whereby the court decided that the plot No400 and the house it accommodates falls into their

## Page 306

53 TWAGIRAYEZU ET AL v. BANQUE POPULAIRE DU RWANDA (BPR)

property which will be sold in order to share the proceeds of sale, but the Supreme Court disregarded it in the course of deliberation of the judgment N° RCAA0149/11/CS. The office of the ombudsman requested for the review of the judgment N° RCAA0149/11/CS for injustice reasons alleging that there are two final different Court decisions regarding unique property. The application for case review due to injustice was admitted. Held: 1. When parties agree on the object and its price, the sale is valid, even if the object has not yet been delivered or the price paid; therefore Rushirabwoba had no right to mortgage the property which is not still belonging to him. 2. The mortgage contract entered into between Bank Populaire and Rushirabwoba should not be valid even if the transfer of ownership is not yet performed because it was done by the person who is not the owner of the property therefore Bank Populaire is ordered to release the documents of the plot No400 it was given in mortgage illegally and be registered on Twagirayezu and Mukantabana because they are its owners. 3. Procedural damages and Counsel Fees are awarded at the discretion of the Court if what are requested is excessive and when the requesting party lost the case, he/she cannot be awarded them. Application for case review due to injustice has merit; With the court fees to Bank Populaire, Gikondo branch.

## Page 307

54 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law of 30/07/1888 relating to Contracts or obligations, article 264. Decree Law of 15/05/1922 governing mortgages on the immovable property, article 12(1). Case referred to: Nteziryayo v. Rutabayiro, RCAA0003/13/CS, rendered by the Supreme Court on 31/01/2014. Authors Cited: FRANCOIS T’KINT, L’hypothèque de l’immeuble d’autrui est nulle, 3e édition, Larcier, Rue des Minimes 39, B-1000 Bruxelles, p.301. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] This case originates from the contract Twagirayezu Thadée who is married to Mukantabana Consolée concluded with Rushirabwoba Aimable on 06 August 2004, where the latter agreed to sell to him a plot N° 400, located at Gasave cell, Gisozi Sector, Gasabo district, Kigali city, on seven hundred seventy thousands Rwandan franc (770,000Frw). [2] Just after the conclusion of the contract, there was immediate payment of seven hundred and twenty thousand Rwandan francs (720,000Frw) and other fifty thousand Rwandan francs (50,000Frw) should have been paid after

## Page 308

submission of the plot's title to Twagirayezu Thadée. In order to ensure Twagirayezu Thadée, Rushirabwoba gave to him a cheque in pledge which was valid for one month and had value of seven hundred twenty thousand Rwandan francs (720,000Frw) equivalent to the amount of price paid by Twagirayezu who consequently was allowed to start activities on that plot. [3] After one month, Rushirabwoba Aimable did not hand the plot’s title as he had promised him, and Twagirayezu Thadée also did not use the cheque he was given to withdraw the money in reimbursement of what he had paid. Meanwhile Twagirayezu Thadée together with his wife Mukantabana Consolée erected on that plot a house with the value of 30,375,538Frw by December 2011. [4] In 2007, after three years (3) following the conclusion of the contract between Twagirayezu Thadée and Rushirabwoba Aimable, Rushirabwoba Aimable requested for the loan at Bank populaire (BPR) and he offered the plot mentioned above in mortgage, without knowledge of Twagirayezu Thadée and his wife Mukantabana Consolée. In that loan contract, there was a provision stating that in case Rushirabwoba Aimable fails to pay, the Bank will realize the payment on the mortgage as provided for by the law, and also that it has the right to request the auction of the mortgage without recourse to judicial proceedings. [5] Due to non-performance of the contract in 2009, the Bank seized the property he was given as mortgage with intention to auction it, when Twagirayezu Thadée and Mukantabana Consolée realised it, they initiated a claim to TWAGIRAYEZU ET AL v. BANQUE POPULAIRE DU RWANDA (BPR)

## Page 309

56 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

request for suspension of the auction and this was the beginning of court proceedings. [6] Twagirayezu Thadée and Mukantabana Consolée filed a claim at the Intermediate Court of Gasabo which was recorded to N° RC006/10/TGI/GSBO and N°RC007/10/TGI/GSBO requesting the Court to change and register the plot No 400 in their names and the Bank Populaire, branch of Gikondo was also sued so that it hand back documents it was submitted by Rushirabwoba Aimable in bad faith. On 28 January 2011; that Court rendered the judgment N°RC0006/10/TGI/GSBO/RC0007/TGI/GSBO and ordered the transfer (mutation) of the plot from Rushirabwoba Aimable and be registered on Twagirayezu Thadée and Mukantabana Consolée as they jointly own it. [7] Bank populaire appealed against that decision to the High Court and the appeal claim was recorded to N°RCA0062/11/HC/KIG, whereby it directed the appeal to only Twagirayezu Thadée and Mukantabana Consolée, and on 25 November 2011; this Court held that the appeal has merit and the ruling of the judgment of the Intermediate Court of Gasabo is overturned in whole, that BPR should not be compelled to give back the documents that it was given in mortgage as long as the loan that it granted to Rushirabwoba Aimable is not yet paid. In taking this decision, the Court based on the ground that Twagirayezu Thadée did not receive full titles of the plot since he did not encourage Rushirabwoba Aimable to deliver them to him, and the result was that the latter handed them to the bank in order to secure a loan. [8] Twagirayezu Thadée and Mukantabana Consolée appealed against this decision to the Supreme Court and the

## Page 310

case was registered to RCAA0149/11/CS. He states that the principle according to which “no one can legally represent a person before the court without the power of attorney granted to him/her by the principal” and that relating to the relativity of the judgment according to which “the judgment concerns the parties to the case and they are the ones who benefit or incur consequences; were disregarded by the appealed decision. They also allege that the judge modified the subject matter whereby he reversed the decision ordering the transfer of ownership whereas the concerned parties with whom they concluded the sell contract did not appeal against it. [9] On 16 November 2012, the Supreme Court also held in the judgment N°RCAA0149/11/CS that BPR should not be forced to release the titles that it was given in mortgage as long as the loan it granted to Rushirabwoba Aimable is not paid. [10] Twagirayezu Thadée and Mukantabana Consolée submitted their claim to the ombudsman’s office requesting the revision of the judgment N°RCAA0149/11/CS for injustice reasons because it could not be executed due to the fact that there exists another judgment N°RCA0111/08/TGI/GSBO concerning their divorce proceedings whereby the court decided that the plot No400 and the house it accommodates constitutes their joint property which will be sold in order for them to share the proceeds of sale, However, they allege that the Supreme Court disregarded these statements at the time of deliberation with respect to the judgment N°RCAA0149/11/CS. [11] On 16 July 2014, the office of the ombudsman wrote to the President of the Supreme Court, requesting that the judgment N°RCAA0149/11/CS should be reviewed for injustice reasons. This states that there have been two different Court TWAGIRAYEZU ET AL v. BANQUE POPULAIRE DU RWANDA (BPR)

## Page 311

58 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

decisions relating to one property; both of which have become final. [12] After analysing the report of the general inspectorate of Courts, on 31 March 2015, the President of the Supreme Court took an order Nº11/2015, ordering this judgment be transferred to the Supreme Court registry in order to be recorded in their registers for revision, and consequently, it was recorded on NºRS/REV/INJUST/CIV0004/15/CS. [13] In their submissions, Twagirayezu Thadée and Mukantabana Consolée argued that the Court ruled in their disadvantage because it rendered its decision in disregard of the statements of Rushirabwoba Aimable who affirmed that the plot he mortgaged did not belong to him because he had sold it to them and that there is even a judgment N°RCA0111/08/TGI/GSBO rendered by the Intermediate Court of Gasabo which became final that held that the plot N°400 on which it is erected a house is the property of Twagirayezu Thadée and Mukantabana Consolée. [14] The hearing was conducted in public on 30 June 2015, where Mukantabana Consolée was represented by Counsel Mukamazimpaka Hilarie together with Counsel Kaboyi Benoît, who also represents Twagirayezu Thadée while Bank Populaire du Rwanda, Gikondo branch (which shall be referred to as Bank Populaire in short words in this case) is represented by Counsel Mubangizi Frank. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUES To determine whether the plot N° 400 located at Gisozi and the house which is on it, is the property of Twagirayezu

## Page 312

Thadée and Mukantabana Consolée which must be registered on them. [15] Twagirayezu Thadée and Mukantabana Consolée argues that as they indicated in their Court submissions, Bank Populaire does not have the right of mortgage on the house located on plot N° 400, because that property is registered on Twagirayezu Thadée and Mukantabana Consolée. They add that another evidence of the absence of the security mortgage on this property, is that there is nowhere the bank registered it as mortgage in compliance with the law. [16] He states in addition that Bank Populaire filed a case at appeal level against Twagirayezu Thadée and Mukantabana Consolée while they did not conclude a loan contract with it; instead the one it concluded it with was Rushirabwoba Aimable. She went ahead to state that at the Intermediate Court of Gasabo when they were debating about the transfer of the property, Rushirabwoba Aimable admitted that the property he mortgaged at Bank Populaire was sold to them, therefore, the fact that Bank populaire did not appeal against those statements of Rushirabwoba Aimable, implies that it admitted them. [17] Kaboyi Benoit, the Counsel for Mukantabana Consolée and Twagirayezu Thadée states that the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, while the judge who took it did not motivate the reason why he quashed the decision that was taken by the Intermediate Court and replace it with a decision devoid of any legal basis yet the quashed one relied on the law. [18] He explains that the Supreme Court erred in law with regard to article 264 of the Civil Code book III (CCLIII) which it based on to uphold the decision of the High Court, to declare TWAGIRAYEZU ET AL v. BANQUE POPULAIRE DU RWANDA (BPR)

## Page 313

60 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

that the contract Rushirabwoba Aimable concluded with Twagirayezu Thadée was not valid so as to be considered as the owner of the plot which was on sale before being delivered its titles, whereas in contrast, that article stipulates well that a sale contract is valid when the parties agreed on the thing and the price, although the sold thing has not yet been delivered. [19] He argues that on the similar issue to this one, there is a judgment N°0003/13/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 31 January 2014 whereby Rutabayiru Eric concluded a sale contract regarding a plot with Nteziryayo Eric, where the seller tried to refuse to handover the plot’s titles, and the Supreme Court ordered Nteziryayo Eric to cooperate in order to operate the transfer of ownership in favor of Rutabayiru Eric because they agreed on the sold houses and on their costs. [20] He explains that the loan contract of five millions concluded between Rushirabwoba Aimable and Bank Populaire should not be considered, because in its article 2, they stipulated that the creditor gives to the bank the plot located at Gisozi in mortgage to secure the payment of the loan, without indicating its number for the purpose of its identification due to the fact that there are many plots at Gisozi. Therefore this is contrary to the provision of paragraph 3 of article 8 of the Civil Code Book III, which stipulates that in order for the contract to be valid, there must be exist a certain subject matter constitutes the cause of the agreement. [21] Counsel Kaboyi Benoit states also that there was no mortgage registered because there is evidence of mortgage registration by Bank Populaire over that plot No 400 as he admitted before the Supreme Court, moreover it would have not been possible because that plot is registered on Twagirayezu

## Page 314

Thadée and Mukantabana Consolée. He goes on to state that this is contrary to the statements of article 19 of the law of 15 May 1922 governing mortgages, according to which there is no mortgage over immovable property without being registered in the land registration book. [22] Counsel Mukamazimpaka Hilarie who also represents Mukantabana Consolée states that the case which is subject to review due to injustice, was not was unjust toward them because it disregarded the statement of Rushirabwoba Aimable before the Intermediate Court while Bank Populaire was then represented, where it consented to the error made relating to the fact that the seller who gave the plot in litigation in mortgage while he had already sold it and the latter admitted the transfer of ownership (mutation). he argues in addition that the fact that Banque Populaire did neither lodge an appeal against those statements before the High Court nor apply for the third party opposition against the judgment N°RCA0111/08/TGI/GSBO rendered on 30 January 2009 which ordered that the house in litigation should be apportioned between Mukantabana Consolée and Twagirayezu Thadée with it was notified to him, this implies that it was in agreement with the statements of Rushirabwoba Aimable. [23] She argues that at the time of the conclusion of the loan contract with Rushirabwoba Aimable in 2007, Bank Populaire had negligence because it did not go to visit the property it was given in mortgage in order to see its condition, because if this was done, it would have found out that the subject of mortgage was not a plot of land, rather, a house belonging to third parties who are different from Rushirabwoba Aimable who misled it. TWAGIRAYEZU ET AL v. BANQUE POPULAIRE DU RWANDA (BPR)

## Page 315

62 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

[24] Counsel Mukamazimpaka Hilarie also stresses the provisions of article 264 of the Civil Code Book III and article 33 of that book, where she argues that by entering into the sale contract of the plot between Rushirabwoba Aimable and Twagirayezu Thadée; the ownership of that plot passed directly to the buyer, even if he was not given its titles yet. Therefore, he could not encumber it as mortgage to the bank. He states also that the Supreme Court has already decided on such issue in the judgment N°RCAA0003/13/CS. [25] Mubangizi Frank, Counsel for Bank Populaire argues that the grounds that are presented by the appellants are groundless because Bank Populaire was given the documents of the plot located at Gisozi as mortgage indicating that he was the owner, thus it should not have any other worry. Concerning the fact that there are many plots at Gisozi as it is stated by the Counsel for the appellant, he argues that this should not be considered because all those plots do not have No400 which is in the documents Bank Popular was given; therefore, article 8(3) of the Civil Code Book III was complied with. [26] Concerning the fact that the mortgage it was given was not registered in compliance with the provision of article 19 of the Law of 15 May 1922 governing mortgage over immovable property, counsel Mubangizi Frank says that this was not necessary since that article concerns the mortgage over the property which has the title of ownership. He adds that given that the mortgagor has no problem; it is not up to the appellants to ask about that mortgage because they are not concerned with it. [27] Counsel Mubangizi Frank states that in paragraph 17 of the judgment minutes, the Court explained that the contract

## Page 316

concluded between Twagirayezu Thadée and Rushirabwoba Aimable was not valid in order to consider Twagirayezu Thadée as the lawful owner of the plot because he was not given its titles. In addition, he states that in paragraph 18 of the judgment, the Court declared that he/she who is legally considered as the owner of the plot is the one who presents its authentic titles. He also states that the statements of the appellants in respect of which they allege that the court contradicted itself concerning the interpretation of article 264 of Civil Code Book III, are groundless because it provided its motivation in details. [28] Concerning the case law relied on by Counsel Kaboyi Benoît, Counsel Mubangizi Frank declares its facts to be different from those in the case law at hand, because the subject matter of the case between Bank Populaire against Twagirayezu Thadée and Mukantabana Consolée does not relate to the sale contract as it is the case in that case law. VIEW OF THE COURT [29] Among the documents of the case file including the sale contract of the plot that was concluded on 06 August 2004 whereby Rushirabwoba Aimable agreed to sell to Twagirayezu Thadée a plot which has No400, located at Gasave cell, Gisozi sector, Gasabo district on seven hundred seventy thousand Rwandan francs (770,000Frw). This contract also demonstrates that the parties to the contract agreed that the buyer paid seven hundred twenty thousand Rwandan francs (720,000Frw) and the balance of fifty thousand Rwandan francs would be paid after the buyer (Twagirayezu Thadée) receives the titles which indicate the owner of the plot. The other element if the contract agreed between parties to the sale contract, is that Twagirayezu TWAGIRAYEZU ET AL v. BANQUE POPULAIRE DU RWANDA (BPR)

## Page 317

64 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Thadée as the acquirer of the plot is allowed begin his activities in that plot immediately after the signature of the contract. [30] In addition, it included also in the file of the case, the loan contract Nº007/2007 concluded on 22 May 2007, between Bank Populaire and Rushirabwoba Aimable whereby Rushirabwoba received a loan from the Bank Populaire amounting to five million Rwandan francs (5,000,000Frw) scheduled to be paid in three years (36 months), and in article 2 of that contract, the borrower furnished his plot located at Gisozi in mortgage to secure its payment.. [31] The Court finds that in the case Nº RC0006/10/TGI/GSBO//RC0007/10/TGI/GSBO Mukantabana Consolée and Twagirayezu Thadée sued Rushirabwoba Aimable and Bank Populaire where they requested for the transfer of ownership over the plot they bought and to be registered in their names. The Court ordered that the plot should be registered on Mukantabana Consolée and Twagirayezu Thadée, and also that Bank Populaire should hand back its titles because it was furnished as mortgage unlawfully. [32] The Court finds also that in the appeal decision of the mentioned judgment, the High Court held that Bank Populaire shall not be compelled to hand back the titles of the plot Nº 400 which is in litigation that it was furnished in mortgage by Rushirabwoba Aimable as long as the loan was not yet paid, and this coincides with the decision of the Supreme Court taken in the judgment N°RCAA0149/11/CS on the basis of articles 264 and 282 of the Civil Code Book III. [33] Article 264 of the Civil Code provides that “sale is valid between the parties, and the seller hands over to the buyer the

## Page 318

sold property; the moment they agree on the object and its price, although the object has not yet been delivered or the price paid”, whereas article 282 of that book provides that “the obligation to deliver the property is fulfilled by the seller when he handed over the keys, if it is a building, or when handed property titles”. [34] In the judgment Nº RCAA0149/11/CS which is subject to review due to injustice, the Supreme Court motivated that the contract of 06 August 2004 which Rushirabwoba Aimable entered into with Twagirayezu Thadée was not lawfully valid in order to consider Twagirayezu Thadée as the rightful owner of the plot because he was not given its titles, therefore Rushirabwoba continued to be perceived as an owner erga omnes of the plot because he had the titles as provided for by the law. [35] The Supreme Court finds that there was misapplication of the provisions mentioned above, whereby it was held in paragraph 17 of the judgment subject to review due to injustice, that Twagirayezu Thadée should not be considered as the owner of the plot he bought because he was not yet given its titles. This decision was relied on article 282 of the Civil Code Book III as aforementioned, yet this provision indicates when the seller fulfills his/her obligation towards the performance of sale contract; and that obligation consists of handing over of the keys, in case of a building, or handing over of the property titles. The fact therefore for the seller to eventually breach his/her obligation could not invalidate the sale contract as it is motivated in article 264 of the Civil Code Book III mentioned above. [36] The Court that rendered the judgment which is subject to review due to injustice, explained also that the fact that TWAGIRAYEZU ET AL v. BANQUE POPULAIRE DU RWANDA (BPR)

## Page 319

66 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Twagirayezu Thadée admits that during three years after the sale, he was not given the titles and he did not take measures to be given them till the time Rushirabwoba Aimable furnished them in mortgage to secure the payment of the loan, and till the time the plot and its accessories were under auction proceedings by Bank Populaire because Rushirabwoba Aimable failed to pay the loan he was given; constitutes negligence and the excessive trust he had in him. [37] The Court finds that this entrenches are contrary to what are provided for by article 264 of the Civil Code Book III, where it provides that since the parties to the sale contract already agreed on the object and its price, the sale exists, although the object has not yet been delivered or the price paid. [38] The Court finds in addition that the motivation of this article was also mentioned in the judgment Nº RCAA0003/13/CS whereby the Supreme Court relied on the opinion of the law scholar Laurent Collon, in his book named Vente d’immeuble where it held that the sale is valid in case the parties to the sale contract agree on the object and its price even if they themselves can add in some other obligations1. [39] The Court finds that what is provided for in article 282 of the Civil Code Book III relating to the handover of the title of the property to the buyer, constitutes an obligation that the parties shall have after sale, which is not therefore the essential formality, the breach of which the contract is void, instead, one

1 See the judgment NºRCAA0003/13/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 31st/01/2014 between Nteziryayo Eric and Rutabayiro Eric.

## Page 320

of the parties to the sale contract may request to invalidate the sale contract when those obligations are not respected. However, in this case, none among the parties to the contract requested for the termination of the sale contract because of non-performance of the obligation. Rather, the issue has arisen when Twagirayezu Thadée requested for the transfer of ownership and realised that the plot he bought was furnished as mortgage to the bank. [40] The Court finds the contract concluded on 06 August 2004 entered into between Rushirabwoba Aimable and Twagirayezu Thadée entitled Twagirayezu Thadée the right of ownership over the plot, to the extent that Rushirabwoba Aimable had no right to use it with the pretext that he did not hand to him property title or he was not yet paid the total amount (to offer it, to sale it or to mortgage it). [41] The Court also finds the fact that parties provided that the balance amounting to fifty thousand Rwandan francs would be paid after Twagirayezu Thadée is handed the titles, does not also constitute a resolutive condition, rather the contract is effective, pending the fulfillment of other formality after the payment of the balance of the price. This is the position of the Supreme Court in its judgment N°RCAA0003/13/CS of 31 January 2014, whereby Rutabayiru Eric entered into a sale contract of the houses with Nteziryayo Eric, and the seller tried to refuse to hand over the titles of the plot. The Supreme Court declared that sale contract which Nteziryayo Eric concluded with Rutabayiru Eric valid because they agreed on the sold house and its price, and then it ordered the latter to operate the transfer of property in favor of Rutabayiru Eric. TWAGIRAYEZU ET AL v. BANQUE POPULAIRE DU RWANDA (BPR)

## Page 321

68 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

[42] Therefore, the Court finds that as it is already explained above, Rushirabwoba Aimable had no right to furnish the property which no longer belonged to him in mortgage because it was already in the ownership of Twagirayezu Thadée and Mukantabana Consolée, thus the mortgage contract which was performed between the Bank and Rushirabwoba Aimable should not be valid, as it is provided for by the first litera of article 12 of the decree of 15/05/1922 which governed the mortgage over immovable property2 that was into force when the plot Nº400 was mortgaged by Rushirabwoba. Indeed, the provision of this article collaborates with the opinion of the law scholar François T’Kint in his book “Sûretés et principes généraux du droit de poursuites des créances”3. [43] Basing on the motivation provided above, the Supreme Court finds that the plot Nº400 located at Gasave cell, Gisozi Sector, Gasabo District belong to Twagirayezu Thadée and Mukantabana Consolée because they lawfully bought it on the basis of article 264 of the Civil Code Book III which is refered to above, therefore the judgment Nº RCA0062/11/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court and the judgment Nº RCAA0149/11/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 16 December 2012 are overturned in whole and Bank populaire is ordered to release the documents of the plot Nº400 which it was furnished in mortgage unlawfully by Rushirabwoba Aimable

2 There are valid mortgage contract: If the person agrees to be currently building owner or holder of the right to encumber or has a present right to become, and if has capacity to alienate [….] 3 The grantor of the mortgage must be owner of the building that he strikes – or, more accurately, holder of a real right on the property. The mortgage of another's property is null, FRANCOIS T’KINT, 3rd edition, Larcier, Rue des Minimes 39, B-1000 Bruxelles, 2000, p.301.

## Page 322

and be registered in the names of Twagirayezu Thadée and Mukantabana Consolée because it belongs to them. Concerning the Damages requested for by every side in this case; [44] Counsel Kaboyi states that Twagirayezu Thadée and Mukantabana Consolée should be given damages which are amounting to eight million Rwandan francs (8,000,000Frw) as a result of what were damaged on the house built on the plot N°400 belonging to Twagirayezu Thadée and Mukantabana Consolée; one Million (1,000,000Frw) of the procedural fees, considered from the beginning of this case; one Million (1,000,000Frw) of moral damages for being taken to court by Bank Populaire while it did not give them the loan, and two million (2,000,000Frw) of the Counsel fees since the beginning of the lawsuits till now. [45] Mubangizi Frank, the Counsel for Bank Populaire, states in his submissions, that appellants should not be given damages because the bank did not file against them, rather they filed against it, and the fact that the Bank lost the case and appealed against it, is its right provided by the law. He continued to argue that if they want damages, they could not request them from Bank Populaire but they could have requested them from the one who lied to them about sale. [46] Basing on article 106 of the Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the Civil, Commercial, Labour and Administrative Procedure and article 258 of the Civil Code book III, Counsel Mubangizi Frank requested damages worth of four million (4,000,000Frw) for being vexatiously dragged into TWAGIRAYEZU ET AL v. BANQUE POPULAIRE DU RWANDA (BPR)

## Page 323

70 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

litigation and one million Rwandan francs (1,000,000Frw) as counsel fees. [47] Counsel Kaboyi Benoît states that those damages should not be given to Bank Populaire because it rather made injustice toward Twagirayezu Thadée and Mukantabana Consolée in refusing to sue the right person therefore dragged them in vexatious litigation. [48] The Supreme Court finds that; concerning damages of one million (1,000,000Frw) requested for by Counsel Kaboyi Bénoit should not be awarded to them because he failed to produce the explanations thereto. Whereas concerning the procedural and counsel fees he requested for on behalf of his clients, they should be awarded one million Rwandan franc (1,000,000Frw) which is awarded upon Court discretion because the two million and five hundred thousand (2,500,000Frw) Rwandan francs he requests is excessive. [49] Concerning the requested damages by Bank Populaire in the cross appeal, the Supreme Court finds that it should not be awarded them because it has lost the case in whole. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [50] The Court holds that the claim of Mukantabana Consolée and Twagirayezu Thadée requesting the revision of the judgment RCAA0149/11/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on the 16 November 2012 due to injustice has merit. [51] It overturns in whole the judgment RCAA0149/11/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 16 November 2012 and the

## Page 324

judgment N° RCA0062/11/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court on the 25 November 2011. [52] It orders Bank Populaire, Gikondo Branch to release the titles of the plot Nº400 located at Gasave cell, Gisozi Sector, Gasabo district, Kigali city and be handed and registered to Mukantabana Consolée and Twagirayezu Thadée. [53] It orders Bank Populaire, Gikondo Branch to also pay Mukantabana Consolée and Twagirayezu Thadée one million Rwandan francs (1,000,000Frw) for counsel fees. [54] It orders Bank Populaire, Gikondo Branch to pay the court fees equal to one hundred thousand Rwandan francs (100,000Frw).

TWAGIRAYEZU ET AL v. BANQUE POPULAIRE DU RWANDA (BPR)

## Page 326

COMMERCIAL CASES

## Page 328

BRD v. UWIMBABAZI [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCOMA0052/12/CS (Hatangimbabazi, P.J., Mukamulisa and Hitiyaremye, J.) December 4, 2015] Contracts law – Loan contract – Interests and penalty for late payment – The borrower has to pay to the bank interests and fee for late payment in case he/she does not respect the contract since any contract made in accordance with the law shall be binding between parties and it shall be performed in good faith – Law of 30/07/1888 relating to the contracts or contractual obligations, articles 33 and 480. Contracts law – Loan contract – Award of top-up loan – The banks have the rights of granting or not the loan without even providing explanations; because the basis, most of the time, is the trust that any bank may have in its client and the capacity it assesses that he/she will repay the loan he/she is requesting for – The law of 30/07/1888 relating to the contracts or contractual obligations, article 33. Contracts law – Loan contract – Damages resulting from the breach of the loan contract – The bank cannot be awarded the damages for the breach of the loan contract in case it has been awarded the interests and fee for late payment. Commercial procedure – Action against the surety – The fact for the surety to have guaranteed the payment of the loan only is not enough to condemn him/her to repay in case he/she was not party to the case – Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the Civil, Commercial, Labour and Administrative procedure, articles 10 and 117. 75

## Page 329

76 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Damages – Damages resulting from the loss – None can be awarded the damages resulting from the loss in case he/she cannot establish the prejudice caused by the defendant. Facts: Uwimbabazi Jean Paul concluded a loan contract with BRD. BRD disbursed the agreed loan in different instalments. Thereafter, he requested for additional loan to expand his project but BRD refused since the new objective was different from that agreed in the principal loan contract. Uwimbabazi Jean Paul decided to sue BRD before the Commercial High Court submitting that its acts caused to him loss. In its decision, the Court condemned him to repay to BRD 302,000,000Frw for the owed debt, the damages for breach of the contract amounting to 5,000,000Frw together with 500,000Frw for advocate and procedural fees, and 4% amounting to 220,000Frw for the prorated fees and 6,900Frw for the court fees. In deciding on this case, the Court held that BRD committed no fault to be condemned to pay the damages, since the loan contract on which he based his claim had the resolutive conditions. With regard to the damages requested by BRD, it decided that they cannot be awarded since the financed project was not implemented. It decided again that the loan surety should not be condemned to jointly repay the loan with the borrower since he was not summoned into the proceedings. BRD appealed to the Supreme Court deploring that the judge refused to grant the interests of the whole loan that Uwimbabazi had taken and that Mukabutera as the surety together with Uwimbabazi had to repay that loan. Uwimbazi requested the court to adjourn the hearing so that Mukabutera who guaranteed the loan could also be summoned. He also stated that there were

## Page 330

77 BRD v. UWIMBABAZI

on-going negotiations with BRD towards the settlement of the problem between them. On these incidences, the court decided the case to be heard in the absence of the guarantor. Uwimbabazi claimed that BRD may not be awarded the interests it requests. Instead, he accepted to repay only the money he was given as the loan because this loan was for investment which is different from the business loan. He adduced further that BRD could not consider the accrual of the interests in case it had given the grace period to Uwimbabazi. Held: 1. The contract concluded in accordance with the law shall be binding between parties and shall be performed in good faith. Therefore, the fact that both parties have concluded the contract and agreed upon some terms such as the interests and fee for late payment but the court decided that the Bank could not be awarded those interests basing on the fact that the financed project was not implemented while it decided that no fault can be attributed to that bank; this indicates the contradiction of the Court with regard to the explanation on these interests. Thus, the decision thereon should be overturned. 2. He cannot pretend that it is the Bank which debilitated him by refusal to grant an additional loan to expand his project, as he desired since it demonstrated to him that it was no enchanted with the modification of the project as long as the principle is that the Bank has right of granting loan or not without even giving explanations; instead, most of the time, the award of the loan is determined by the confidence that any Bank may have in its client and the capacity it assesses that he/she will repay the loan. 3. No decision can be taken against someone who has not been party to the case. Thus, the guarantor cannot jointly be

## Page 331

78 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

condemned with the debtor to repay the debt in case he/she has not been summoned. 4. None can be awarded damages resulting from the loss in case he/she cannot establish the prejudice occasioned by the fault of the defendant. 5. The bank cannot be awarded damages for breach of the loan contract in case it has been awarded the interests and fees for late payment; instead it has to be paid the procedural and lawyer’s fees. Appeal has merit in part; Cross appeal has no merit. Appealed judgment only changed with regard to the amount of money that the plaintiff has to pay. Orders the plaintiff to pay the loan and its interests, procedural and advocate fees on both instances. The court fees to the plaintiff. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles 10 and 117. Law Nº15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 3. Law of 30/07/1888 relating to the contracts or obligations, articles 33 and 480. No case referred to.

## Page 332

79 BRD v. UWIMBABAZI

Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] Uwimbabazi Jean-Paul concluded a loan contract with BRD, it first disbursed 235,000,000Frw according to the contract Nº106/2006/Uj/MM/MM of 22/09/2006 and then 67,000,000Frw according to the contract No068/2008/UJ/NPJ/npj of 13/10/2008. [2] Uwimbabazi states that he requested again the additional loan amounting to 225,000,000Frw to start his project which BRD accepted but thereafter refrained. This made Uwimbabazi to seize the Commercial High Court submitting that the behaviours of BRD caused to him both a loss and harm. [3] The Commercial High Court decided the case, and condemned Uwimbabazi to pay to BRD 302,000,000Frw for the debt he owed to it, the damages for breach of the contract amounting to 5,000,000Frw together with 500,000Frw for advocate and procedural fees and its 4% amounting to 220,000Frw for the prorated fees and 6,900Frw for the court fees. It released Mukabutera from any charge in the case. [4] While motivating its decision, the Court stated that BRD committed no fault to be held liable for the payment of damages, as the counsel for Uwimbabazi wanted it to be understood because the loan contract on which he bases his claim contained the resolutive condition which is in conformity with article 81 of Civil Code Book III and article 18 of Law Nº45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts.

## Page 333

80 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

[5] It found that the requests of BRD to order Uwimbabazi to pay the entire loan he acquired for running the project of diary has basis because the Bank proved that Uwimbabazi had arrears on the initial loans, and it is evident that he breached the contract he concluded with BRD. [6] It motivated further that the grace period that Uwimbabazi requests, could not be proved because his counsel admitted before the Court that the milk project cannot generate interests, and he does not demonstrate alternative source of payment and the needed period of time for the payment to be executed. [7] With regards to the interests on the loan that according to BRD must accrue until the date of the hearing of the case, the Court held that this cannot be considered since BRD itself knows that the financed project did not run. It concluded that Uwimbabazi Jean Paul must repay the loans he had been granted amounting to 302,000,000Frw (235,000,000Frw + 67,000,000Frw). It realised further that it had no basis to condemn Mukabutera Béatrice who signed as the guarantor, to jointly pay with Uwimbabazi Jean Paul, because she has not been summoned in this case. [8] BRD appealed to the Supreme Court contesting that the judge refused to grant the interests on the loan that Uwimbabazi Jean Paul had taken which amounted to 510,657,673Frw until 24/01/2012 (date of the hearing of the case in the Commercial High Court) while even the borrower does not deny them, and also refused to decide with regard to Mukabutera while she had signed on the loan contract as the guarantor; hence, she had to be ordered together with Uwimbabazi Jean Paul, to pay the outstanding loan.

## Page 334

81 BRD v. UWIMBABAZI

[9] The public hearing was held on 28/04/2015, 28/07/20015 and on 03/11/2015 and counsel Zitoni Pierre Claver who was present informed the Court that he only pleads on behalf of Uwimbabazi Jean Paul, while Mukabutera did not appear and she had not presented to the Court the reasons of her absence, while counsel Mafaranga Anastase appeared on behalf of BRD. [10] Before hearing the case on merit, Zitoni Pierre Claver, the counsel, requested the court to postpone the hearing for Mukabutera to be summoned again because she was absent due to the activities she carries in New York and that if it is fixed in August 2015, she would be available to jointly defend the cause of action together with her lawyer. He added that he had started the negotiations with BRD to get how to settle the problem amicably. [11] Mafaranga, counsel for BRD, states that the case has to be heard since the objection raised by counsel Zitoni about the absence of Mukabutera has no basis in case he does not represent her. In addition, he stated that this same date and other previous ones have been fixed upon his request, and to his view, the postponement of the hearing would be only to delay the case. He emphasized that even counsel Zitoni himself has been defaulting in preliminary hearings, and he has only appeared because he knew that this day is the last date which was fixed for this case. [12] With regard to the negotiations that had started between BRD and its debtor as mentioned by counsel Zitoni, counsel Mafaranga argues that it cannot be considered, since on 609,050,135Frw that the defendants owes BRD, they accepts

## Page 335

82 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

only to pay 302,000,000Frw which was ordered by Commercial High Court. [13] After hearing the submissions of both parties about the default of Mukabutera, the Court realised that, during the hearing of 19/02/2015, it ordered that if neither counsel Mitsindo nor Counsel Zitoni does not appear on 28/04/2015, the case will be heard. It realised further that the fact that counsel Zitoni admits that he talks to Mukabutera every day, proves that the latter knew about the date of the hearing. Basing on article 59 of the Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labor and administrative procedure1, the court decided to hear the case in Mukabutera’s absence. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES Whether the interests on the loan that BRD granted to Uwimbabazi Jean Paul should be considered. [14] Mafaranga Anastase, counsel for BRD argues that the loan contract clearly shows the purpose, and even provides for the interests and fee for late payment. He added further that on the last date of the hearing of 24/01/2012, the debt was amounting to 510,657,673Frw, and the defendant did not refute

1 That article provides that “if the defendant does not appear to the first hearing without valid reason, the plaintiff may apply for adjournment of the case or for the case to proceed in the absence of the defendant. In the latter situation, the submissions of the plaintiff shall be considered, his/her claim received and given basis if well founded and if it has been lodged in compliance with the procedure provided for by the Law”.

## Page 336

it; and therefore, the Commercial High Court would have condemned both Uwimbabazi and Mukabutera to pay that money instead of ordering them to pay only 302,000,000Frw without considering the interests and the fee for late payment. [15] The counsel for BRD added that the Commercial High Court contradicted itself because it held that BRD was at no fault, and later it held that there were arrears that Uwimbabazi did not pay. it condemned him to pay to BRD the damages amounting to 5,000,000Frw while with regard to the loan, it decided that he had to pay the principle debt only without motivating exclusion of the payment of interests whereas there was evidence of the quantum of the money which BRD seeks payment and the modalities of their computation until the case was heard at the first instance. [16] Moreover, he requests the Supreme Court that in determining the interests from the whole loan, it would base on the calculations that BRD had submitted demonstrating that on 22/09/2006, the first date of the hearing before this court, the total debt including its interests was 609,050,531Frw. [17] With regard to how the debt that BRD demands the payment was calculated, particularly with regard to the amount of 235,000,000Frw that Uwimbabazi was granted on 22/09/2006, counsel Mafaranga states that the borrower was allowed by the bank the grace period until September 30, 2007, thereafter he wrote again to BRD requesting more time and this led both parties to the operation of the novation of the contract. He states further that in article one (1) of the new contract, both parties agreed that Uwimbabazi is allowed another extension of payment of the principal debt until 31/03/2009 but, however, the interests will accrue in case the borrower will not yet have 83 BRD v. UWIMBABAZI

## Page 337

84 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

started paying and be added to the principal loan, which is the reason why after that time, the calculated interests of 13% and fee for late payment on the rate 4%, BRD considered 264,000,000Frw as the principle loan. [18] He added that BRD calculated the loan and its interests and amounted to 467,446,136Frw, and when added to another loan of 67,000,000Frw that Uwimbabazi was granted, which is also calculated together with its interests and the fee for late payment that they have agreed upon like those mentioned above, the total debt amounted to 609,050,531Frw as mentioned above. [19] He goes on submitting that the defense of both Uwimbabazi and Mukabutera that BRD had partnered in their project, has no basis because they cannot prove it and the contract is clear because it does not provide that BRD partners with them in that project. [20] With regards to the abuse of rights by BRD as invoked by counsel for Uwimbabazi Jean Paul, counsel Mafaranga argues that it also has no merit because the Bank committed no fault as held by the Court in the appealed judgment. However, he conceded, what happened is that BRD refused the modification of the project since it found it worrisome, the reason why it refused granting additional loan as Uwimbabazi desired and even the bank is not bound to grant the loan in case it realizes that the project would not generate interests. [21] Zitoni Pierre Claver, counsel for Uwimbabazi Jean Paul submits that the Commercial High Court cannot be blamed since it demonstrated that BRD misbehaved through its abuse of

## Page 338

85 BRD v. UWIMBABAZI

rights because it hold the key for the success of the project in which it had partnered with Uwimbabazi. [22] He went on arguing that Uwimbabazi requested BRD to allow her relief measures but it refused and it refuted also his request to allow him to have possession of the pledged security so that he could get loan of the needed amount of money. He deplored in consequence that it is because of these behaviours that the Commercial High Court decided that he must only pay the debt without computation of interests, because it has found that BRD also played an active role in the failure of the financed project. [23] With regard to the interests that BRD claims, Zitoni, the counsel argues that they cannot be granted since the disbursed amount of money is not for commercial loan rather it was the loan for investment, the reason why BRD has only to be paid the principal debt because it is it which debilitated Uwimbabazi and led to the failure of his project. [24] Counsel Zitoni argues moreover that it is not understandable how BRD could have continued computing the interest even during the extension of the time of payment allowed to Uwimbabazi, and that his client does not accept how the contract can be amended to give rise to compound interests. THE VIEW OF THE COURT [25] Article 33 of the Civil Code Book III which was into force when BRD and Uwimbabazi concluded the contract provides that “Contracts concluded in accordance with the law shall be binding between parties. They may only be revoked at

## Page 339

86 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

the consent of the parties or for reasons based on law. They shall be performed in good faith”. [26] Article 3 of the Law Nº15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production provides that “each party proves the veracity of what he/she claims”. [27] The Court finds that the case file includes the instrumentum of loan contract of 235,000,000Frw and the one of mortgage Nº106/2006/UJ/MM/MM which took effect on 22/09/2006 between Uwimbabazi Jean Paul and BRD. These contracts indicate that the loan was for running the project of mini-dairy which is located in Runda, Kamonyi District. In its article 4, it is proved that both parties agree that the borrower is allowed grace period for the payment of the principle debt until 30/09/2007 and after that period, the payment would be executed monthly within the period of 7 years. Moreover, in article 5, the parties to the contract agreed that the rate for interest was 13% per year and fee for late payment at the rate of 4%. [28] Again, the case file indicates that on 03/02/2009 BRD and Uwimbabazi concluded another contract Nº01/2009 relating to the amendment of the contract Nº106/2006/UJ/MM/MM, which provides in its article 1 that “the borrower is allowed the grace period to pay the principle debt on the loan until 31/09/2009, and the interests which shall be calculated before the commencement of payment by the borrower shall be added to the principle debt”. [29] The documents of the case file contain another loan contract signed on 13/10/2008 for 67,000,000Frw of the same kind as the loan of 22/09/2006 mentioned above. In article 4 of

## Page 340

87 BRD v. UWIMBABAZI

that contract, both parties agreed that the loan should be paid within the period of 7 years from 31/03/2009 at the interest rate of 14% per year, and fee for late payment at the rate of 4%. [30] The case file includes a letter of 23/04/2009 that Uwimbabazi wrote to BRD notifying it that his project may run at any time since the machines to use are available to the project site, but he added that he wanted to expand the project to the production of juice, ultra-high temperature milk (UHT) and mineral water in order to compete with others on the market. Within this letter, he requested to be granted the additional amount of money equaling to 45,000,000Frw for starting this project expansion. [31] In addition, the case file demonstrates that after that date, Uwimbabazi wrote other letters to BRD, among them there is that of 03/12/2010 that BRD replied to notifying him that the grounds that he had advanced to abandon the project that had been agreed upon are not valid because they were not approved by experts, and there is no evidence that the new project will be successful. Therefore, BRD decided, if he opts to abandon the project that it had started financing, and then it cannot grant the loan of 225,000,000Frw that they had agreed earlier (cancellation of loan). [32] In his letter of 03/12/2010 in response to that of BRD mentioned above, and his letter dated 4/11/2010, Uwimbabazi explained the grounds of changing the project, and the basis for his confirmation that the new project would generate interests while in its letter of 15/12/2010, BRD notified again Uwimbabazi that it was not convinced with regard to his desire of producing mineral water and juice before implementing the project of milk production for which he had been granted the

## Page 341

88 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

loan. In that letter however, BRD notified him of arrears amounting to 125,500,078Frw. [33] Taking into account the above mentioned holdings, it is evident that BRD did not accept Uwimbabazi’s proposal of introducing in the projects other products than that which both parties had agreed upon. The Bank seized that opportunity to inform him about the aspect of the debt and addressed to him a payment order, effective after 08 February 2011.. [34] The Court is of the view that while deciding of not granting the interests accrue from the loan BRD granted to Uwimbabazi Jean Paul, the Commercial High Court grounded on the fact that BRD itself clearly knew that the project had never ran, while on the other hand it had demonstrated that the Bank was not at fault; hence, its motivations with regard to those interests contain the contradictions; that is why the decision of this court has to be changed. [35] The Court again found that the pleadings of counsel for Uwimbabazi that it is BRD which debilitated him when it refused to grant him an additional loan to enable him to expand the project as he planned, cannot be considered because it demonstrated to him that it was not satisfied with the modification of the project that it had financed. Furthermore, as explained by experts in banking, the leading principle on granting the loan, is that the banks have the rights of granting them or not without even giving justifications; but the motive is, most of times, the credibility that any bank may have towards

## Page 342

its client and the capacity it assesses that he/she will repay the requested loan2. [36] The Court again realised that the pleading of counsel for Uwimbabazi regarding the fact that the calculation of interests for the investment loan should not be similar to that of the commercial loan, and that BRD abused its rights, cannot be considered, because given that he cannot even prove it, in the contract entered into by both parties, they agreed on those interests. That is why it must bind them. [37] After the explanations above, the Court finds that as far as Uwimbabazi does not contradict that he has been indebted by BRD the amount of money mentioned above which had to generate interests and the fee for late payment and other things specified in the aforementioned contract while these explanations are subject to the reading the of article 480 of the third book of the Civil Code3 which was in force when the contract was signed, it is understandable that he must be condemned to pay to that Bank the loan it has granted to him together with its interests in addition to the fee for late payment, the total debt that Uwimbabazi owes to BRD as it has calculated it, being of 609,050,531Frw.

2 Thierry Bonneau: “Droit bancaire”, 2007, 7ème éd., Montchrestien, p.367: “Si un droit au compte a été légalement consacré, en revanche, il n’y a pas de droit au crédit, les banquiers étant libres de consentir ou de refuser les crédits sollicités par leurs clients:…hors le cas où il est tenu par un engagement antérieur, le banquier est toujours libre , sans avoir à justifier sa décision qui est discrétionnaire, de proposer ou de consentir un crédit quelle qu’en soit la forme, de s’abstenir ou de refuser de le faire”. 3 It states that “the interest rate resulting from the contract is fixed by the agreement of the contractants, and to prove it respects the ordinary laws”. 89 BRD v. UWIMBABAZI

## Page 343

90 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Whether at the first instance Mukabutera had to be jointly condemned together with Uwimbabazi Jean Paul to pay the debt she owes BRD. [38] Counsel Mafaranga adduces that the judge decided that Mukabutera could not be condemned to pay because she was not party to the appealed judgment in disregard of the suretyship contract she concluded with BRD on 09/10/2006 and on 01/12/2008 whereby she committed herself to jointly pay BRD with the borrower. To him, no any other constraints or discussions on that payment must be constituted. In addition, BRD cannot be held responsible of the absence of Mukabutera in the hearing while in its defense submissions it had detailed what it claimed from her. [39] Zitoni, the counsel for Uwimbabazi argues that there was no ground that Mukabutera would have been brought in the case while it is Uwimbabazi who filed the claim. He added further that what BRD claimed before the Commercial High Court as the judgment appealed against demonstrates it, is the condemnation of Mukabutera with Uwimbabazi to jointly pay, while no request to summon her to defend herself on this claim was made. To him, the court could not take the decision against someone who was not summoned. He states in addition that, if BRD wanted Mukabutera to appear in this case, it should have respected the procedure of intervention of a third party. THE VIEW OF THE COURT [40] Article 10 of Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labor and administrative procedure

## Page 344

91 BRD v. UWIMBABAZI

provides that “no party to the case shall be subject to a court ruling without being heard or summoned”. [41] Article 117 of that law provides that “forced interventions may be instituted by any interested party against all persons who are third parties to a case against which they can sue by a third party opposition in order to challenge them in one case. [42] The documents in the case file demonstrate that Uwimbabazi Jean Paul is the initiator of the claim before the Commercial High Court against BRD and even if in its defence submissions, the Bank concluded requesting to jointly condemn Uwimbabazi, the borrower, and Mukabutera to pay the debt she had guaranteed, it did not request her summon to appear before this Court to be condemned till the debates were closed without being party to the case. [43] Basing on the aforementioned holdings and on the provisions of article 117 of Law Nº21/2012 of 14/06/2012 mentioned above, the court realised that the fact that there is a contract entered into between Mukabutera and BRD securing the loan taken by Uwimbabazi, is not itself sufficient to condemn her to pay that debt together with its interests since she has not been a party at the first instance. With regards to cross appeal raised by Uwimbabazi Jean Paul as incidental to the principal appeal lodged by BRD and the amount of money claimed by BRD. [44] Zitoni Pierre Claver, the counsel, submits that it is BRD which caused the project of Uwimbabazi to fail generating interests as expected, and that it denied granting to him the loan

## Page 345

92 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

it assured which caused him such a loss, and therefore, based on this ground he claims 50,000,000Frw of damages. [45] Mafaranga Anastase, the counsel, states that the requests of damages submitted by counsel for Uwimbabazi are baseless; instead, as it has demonstrated within its appeal submissions, it requests the Court to order Uwimbabazi to pay it the procedural and advocate fees amounting to 1,000,000Frw. THE VIEW OF THE COURT [46] The Court finds that the damages that Zitoni Pierre Claver, counsel for Uwimbabazi Jean Paul, claims cannot be granted because, as demonstrated in this case, he did not prove the fault that BRD committed in a such a way that it may be ordered to pay damages. [47] The Court finds that the procedural and advocate fees requested by BRD must be granted but because it is excessive, Uwimbabazi Jean Paul must pay to that Bank 500,000Frw for the procedural and advocate fees at this instance. [48] The Court finds further that as long as BRD is awarded the interests and the fee for late payment accruing from the loan it has granted, there is no ground to maintain the damages for breach of contract as granted by the Commercial High Court. Therefore, Uwimbabazi has only to pay 500,000Frw for the procedural and advocate fees at the first instance.

## Page 346

93 BRD v. UWIMBABAZI

III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [49] Decides that the appeal of BRD has merit in part. [50] Decides that cross appeal filed by Uwimbabazi has no merit. [51] Decides that the ruling of the judgment Nº RCOM0119/11/HCC decided by the Commercial High Court on March 2, 2012, is reversed with regards the amount of money that Uwimbabazi has to pay. [52] Condemns Uwimbabazi Jean Paul to pay to BRD the money for the debt it has granted to him and its interests, all amounting to 609,050,531Frw and 1,000,000Frw for the procedural and advocate fees at both instances in which the case has been heard, which amounts to 610,050,531Frw. [53] Orders Uwimbabazi Jean Paul to pay also the court fees amounting to 100,000Frw.

## Page 348

Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCOMA0028/13/CS (Mukanyundo, P.J., Ngagi and Nyirandabaruta, J.) November 6, 2015] Tax law – Exportation of goods – Export declaration – Exemption of exported goods from levy – The exemption from the levy as provided for by the law for the exported goods is not benefited in case it is not proved that export declaration was made to the customs for release – Law Nº21/2006 of 28/04/2006 establishing the customs system, articles 177 and 179. Tax law – Evidence of export – Declaration of contract relating to exported goods to Rwanda Revenue Authority – Though the contract was not declared to Rwanda Revenue Authority, it does not even demonstrate that there has been export – Law No74/2008 of 31/12/2008 modifying and complementing Law No25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on Tax procedure, article 1(5). Tax law – Exportation of goods – It is not export in case goods that are said to have been exported have not been manufactured in Rwanda – Law Nº21/2006 of 28/04/2006 establishing the customs system, article 2(33). Tax law – Levy for Commercial activities carried out on the territory other than Rwandan – Whoever has a place of residence in Rwanda but with a place of business elsewhere must pay value added tax – Law N°06/2001 of 20/01/2001 on the code of value added tax, articles 4, 9 and 12. 95

## Page 349

96 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Evidence law – Burden of proof – He must pay tax because he failed to demonstrate that the taxed money was intended to pay the loan – Law Nº15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 3 – Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 9. Tax law – Appeal to the Commissioner General – Issue raised for the first time at appeal level – Tax issue that has not been submitted to the Commissioner General cannot be ruled on, this is the same for any issue raised before the appellate court while it has not been debated on at the first instance court. Damages – Advocate fees – They are not awarded to the requester who lost the case on all his grounds of appeal – Law No30/07/1888 relating to contract or obligation, article 258. Damages – Being dragged into unjust proceedings – Whoever is dragged into unjust proceedings must be awarded procedural fees – Law No30/07/1888 relating to contract or obligation, article 258. Facts: Rwanda Revenue Authority carried out tax audit and subsequently imposed Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE to pay value added tax for the sale of three trucks two of which had been sold abroad. Being dissatisfied with audit results, it appealed to the Commissioner General but again it was not contented by the decision hence filing the claim to the Commercial High Court. Before this Court, it was challenging the imposed VAT on the basis of three trucks that he sold abroad (export) while goods released to export are exempted from any taxed levy. The Commercial High Court held that the decision of the

## Page 350

97 Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY

Commissioner General must not be changed and ordered ETS KALINDA SEKWEKWE to pay the value added tax as the money found on its account is the proceeds of the trucks that have been sold abroad. ETS KALINDA SEKWEKWE appealed to the Supreme Court alleging that no VAT must be imposed on goods released to export and even added that the same tax must not be imposed on 76,000,000Frw which transited on his bank account opened in Access Bank (Ex-BANCOR) given that such amount was borrowed from Customer Care Services Petrol Station. As to RRA, no evidence presented by Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE that there was export, and that there is no evidence proving the conclusion of loan contract between Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE and Station Customer Care Service based in Goma. RRA requested to uphold the appealed judgment and also requested damages for being unjustly dragged into proceedings. Held: 1. All goods must be placed under customs declaration procedure of declaration and must leave the customs territory upon acceptance of the export declaration. Therefore, the fact that Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE had conceded that the vehicles on which tax is imposed have been sold on the territory other than Rwandan while it does not demonstrate declaration on the customs so as to be released for export is evidence of unlawful sale. Hence, it cannot enjoy the benefit granted to the exporter as provided for by the law. 2. Export means the customs procedure which allows locally manufactured goods to leave the customs territory. Therefore, Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE cannot allege that it had exported

## Page 351

98 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

goods in case of failure to demonstrate that the said goods have been manufactured on Rwandan territory. 3. The fact that it has a place of residence in Rwanda, while it runs its business in Goma implies that it must pay value added tax. 4. Every plaintiff must prove a claim. Failure to obtain proof, the defendant wins the case and each party has the burden of proving the facts it alleges. Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE must lose the case therefore, since it failed to demonstrate that the money for which it must pay tax was from the loan especially that it would be illogic how that money was not deposited on the account opened in the lending bank but instead deposited in another bank and there is no evidence that such money was to pay back the loan. Therefore, it fails to prove that such money is not taxable. 5. No decision about a fiscal dispute can be admitted in case such dispute was not submitted to the Commissioner General and it cannot be examined if it was not debated on at the first instance court. 6. Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE cannot be awarded damages in case all of its grounds of appeal have no merit. Rather, the fact that its appeal has no merit while RRA has been summoned in the proceedings implies that it incurred expenses on its side. Hence, it must be awarded procedural fees. Appeal has no merit. Cross appeal has merit in apart. Appealed judgment not changed, save for damages awarded on this instance.

## Page 352

Deposited court fees are equivalent to the works of the court to the case. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 9. Law N°74/2008 of 31/12/2008 modifying and complementing Law Nº25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures, article 5. Law Nº21/2006 of 28/04/2006 establishing the customs system, articles 1(33), 177 and 179. Law N°06/2001 of 20/01/2001 on the code of value added tax, articles 4, 9 and 12. Law Nº15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 3. Law of 30/7/1888 governing contracts or obligations, article 258. No case was referred to. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] This case arose from tax audit that was carried out by Rwanda Revenue Authority for the years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 for Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE. Following that audit, 53,202,550Frw for TVA was imposed and acknowledged its loss of 181,516,897Frw. Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE appealed against that imposed tax and it was 99 Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY

## Page 353

exempted VAT equivalent to 4,729,535Frw hence 48,473,015Frw remained and it was ordered to pay it. [2] Unsatisfied with the decision, Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE appealed against the decision of Commissioner General to the Commercial High Court alleging that the tax liability of 48,473,535Frw should not be imposed as VAT based on the fact that it hand back number plate of one of the three vehicles that it owned and the rest two trucks for which this tax was levied were sold abroad. It added that exported goods are exempted from value added tax. [3] In its judgment RCOM0057/12/HCC rendered on January 18, 2013, the Commercial High Court upheld the decision of the Commissioner General of Tax. It ordered in consequence Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE to pay the total of the imposed tax equivalent to 48,473,015Frw and the court fees. [4] Unsatisfied with the decision of the Commercial High Court, Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE appealed to the Supreme Court claiming that it was ordered to pay value added tax on exports while the law provides that exported goods are exempted from value added tax. It deplored further the VAT that was imposed on 76,000,000Frw, the amount that RRA had considered as business profit while it was a debt that it borrowed from Customer Care Services Petrol Station based in Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo and that there is other 12,032,500Frw that must be excluded from sales turnover on which tax is levied. It requested to be released from 48,473,015Frw that was unlawfully imposed and order RRA to pay 500,000Frw for advocate fees. 100 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 354

101 Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY

[5] RRA states that Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE submitted no evidence that it exported the trucks and that the loan contract with “Station Customer Care Servises” that is located in Goma Town. RRA requested the Court to dismiss its other claims and to uphold the decision rendered by the Commercial High Court and the payment of damages from Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE for being dragged into court proceedings. [6] The hearing was conducted on October 6, 2015; Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE was represented by Counsel Musafiri Alain while RRA was represented by Kabibi Spéciose, the counsel. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES 1. Whether Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE was imposed to pay VAT on 86,000USD from exported goods. [7] Musafiri Alain, counsel for Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE argued that Commercial High Court did not consider the explanation submitted about the fact that 86,000USD that was deposited on its account and latter taxed for VAT by RRA considering it as a return from trucks which had been sold and used abroad. This ignored that those vehicles should be considered in the same context as those which had been exported (export) as provided for by article 87(1) (a) of Law No06/2001 of 20/01/2001 on the code of value added tax. He states that the Court based on the fact that it did not fulfill the requirements set for the exportation as provided for by articles 176, 177, 178 and 179 of Law No21/2006 establishing the customs system at the time when the verification was conducted because they were used trucks. He added that it is a

## Page 355

102 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

principle that no VAT shall be levied on exported goods and that the non-respect of formalities does not mean there is no exportation of goods. He pleaded further that even the Commissioner did not base on those grounds to levy the VAT equivalent to 4,729,535Frw. [8] It argued further that those formalities for exportation of goods were set for goods which are not easily identifiable while trucks are tangible things. It argued further that the trucks which are taxed are two in number and had been brought in Rwanda from Republic Democratic of Congo and later sold in Uganda. He insisted that it is not comprehensible how VAT was imposed on that sale while this is considered as export (the sale of commodities from inside the country to another country). He adduced further that though the formalities for export had not been respected, they submitted evidence proving the sale of those trucks through the post mail and the plates which were submitted back to RRA and that Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE Ltd was exonerated from paying the tax of 4,729,535Frw after the submission of the plate of one of those trucks after it was declared that this truck was no longer registered on its names, which it thinks it would be the same practice for other two remaining trucks. [9] Kabibi Spéciose, the counsel for RRA submitted that the statements of Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE have no merit because it is the money deposited on the commercial account that was taxed and this is accepted by commercial law unless the trader demonstrates that such money or its portion is neither the profit gained from commercial activities nor can it be levied. [10] She pleaded further that according to the provisions of article 176 of Law Nº21/2006 of 28/04/2006 establishing the

## Page 356

103 Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY

customs systems, exportation of goods is not done in contradiction of the law; rather he/she who intends to exports goods must first resort to declarations before the customs. She adds that for vehicles, there must be a prior submission of legal papers that proves that they were in use in Rwanda. In addition, the fact that Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE failed to demonstrate to the Court that those trucks were intended to be sold abroad, they must not be granted the advantages of exported goods which are provided for by article 87(1) of Law on value added tax (VAT) as referred to above and that there is no evidence that this sale was declared in home countries of the buyers. Therefore, she concluded that the Commercial High Court could not find basis to hold that the claims of Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE have merit. [11] With regard to the trucks plates that were submitted back, the counsel for RRA states that it has not been debated on before the Commercial High Court, and based on article 1(5) of Law N°74/2008 of 31/12/2008 modifying and complementing the Law Nº25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures, documents or evidence which had not been submitted during tax audit must not be considered and therefore, the Court could not consider those plates since they were not revealed during the tax audit that was conducted on September 11, 2012. Whereas the proceedings were ongoing, the plates were returned after the tax audit 2006 – 2010. She states further that, the plates are normally handed back with the yellow card that serve as basis for tax audit after they are returned, but Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE returned the plates only.

## Page 357

104 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [12] Article 177 of Law Nº21/2006 of 28/04/2006 establishing the customs systems which was into effect at the time when tax audit was carried out against Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE provides that with the exception of goods placed under the outward processing procedure or a transit procedure, all locally manufactured goods intended for export must be placed under the export procedure. While article 179 provides that goods concerned must immediately leave the customs territory, upon acceptance of the export declaration. [13] Likewise, article 1(5) of Law No74/2008 of 31/12/2008 modifying and complementing Law No25/2005 of 04/12/20051 on tax procedures provides that a taxpayer shall not be allowed to provide at any stage of appeal, any additional evidence that had not been produced during the audit. The last paragraph of that article provides that the preceding paragraph shall not apply in cases where the taxpayer has reasonable grounds justifying his/her inability to provide the required evidence during the audit period. [14] The Court finds that the representative of Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE admits that no declaration was done at the customs as imposed by the law for the trucks that are alleged to have been sold overseas so that they can be released for export upon acceptance of the export declaration. His statement itself demonstrates that though those trucks might have been sold overseas, it would have been unlawfully done. Therefore Ets

1All those legislations were applied during tax audit.

## Page 358

105 Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY

KALINDA SEKWEKWE cannot benefit the advantages granted by the Law for exportation. [15] The case file includes the contract dated May 4, 2006 that was concluded in Kigali between Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE, Kalinda Donatien and Nduwumwami Victor. The contract concerned the sale of vehicle Trailer of type Mercedes-Benz 2628 with plate number RAA864M, the sale contract dated July 26, 2007 for trailer with plate number RL0246 and “Mercedes-Benz” 2635 with plate RAA863M and trailer Doll with plate number RL0244 was concluded also in Kigali between Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE represented by Kavunga Kalinda and Kipkemoi and lastly the contract dated August 22, 2008 concluded also in Kigali and concerning the sale of Camion Mercedes–Benz 2628 with plate number RAA860, Camion Iveco Eurotruc with plate number RAA859M and trailer Doll with plate number RL0245 between Ets KALINDA represented by Kavuga Kalinda and Mr Ssebanakitta Hakim. All these contracts were submitted to prove that its trucks were sold abroad. [16] The Court finds that RRA received no declaration over all of those sale contracts of the vehicles in the course of tax audit that had been carried out. It finds further that all of those contracts were entered into in Kigali. Basing on article 1(5) of Law No74/2008 of 31/12/2008 modifying and complementing Law No25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures, since these contracts were not presented to RRA at the time of tax audit nor demonstration that the said vehicles were exported. Therefore the ground of appeal that 86,000USD which is the proceeds of the sold vehicles should not be taxable is groundless.

## Page 359

106 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

[17] The Court further finds that article 2 of the Law Nº21/2006 of 28/04/2006 referred to above provides in its litera 33 with regard to the definitions of terms and the scope of its application that exportation means the customs procedure which allows locally made goods to leave the customs territory. Therefore, the fact that the representative of Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE states that two vehicles were exported is not true since the Law provides that exportation is selling of goods manufactured in Rwanda while those vehicles were not manufactured in Rwanda. These holdings also stress that, with regard to those vehicles, Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE cannot benefit from the advantages that the law reserves for exporters. 2) Whether no VAT had to be levied to 76,216,240Frw that was deposited to the account of Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE. [18] Counsel Musafiri Alain argues that Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE showed to the Commercial High Court 76,216,240Frw that was deposited to its account was made from the sale of the products of Station Customer Care Services owned by Kalinda Sekwekwe located in Goma; however, the Court held that bons de prélèvement that they had showed are not sufficient, but they had to show the contract that was concluded between Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE and that Station disregarding that all of those companies are sole proprietorships owned by Kalinda Sekwekwe and not two companies with legal personality though they may be having the same shareholders and that no contract can be drafted in these circumstances to have the borrower and the lender. [19] He explained that 76,216,240Frw that was deposited to the account of Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE opened in Access

## Page 360

107 Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY

Bank (ex BANCOR) belonged to his business based in Goma and must not be considered as money that had been generated from commercial activities in Rwanda because it used to be deposited on that account to help in paying the loan that he had got from Banque Commercial du Rwanda (BCR) while buying the trucks that he sold due to the lack of clients and led to a serious loss. He added that he borrowed 105,900USD from Station Customer Care Services to Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE based in Rwanda in different periods of time equivalent to 60,363,000Frw which was deposited to the account opened in Access Bank Rwanda Ltd so as to enable him to pay the loan he had for BCR. He added further that this is found in the ledger and even in the bons de prélèvement which clearly demonstrate the source of that money. [20] He ended arguing that article 12 of the Law N°06/2001 of 20/01/2001 on code of value added tax provides that goods or services shall be deemed as taxable supplies when the supply of the same is made by a taxable person, a partner or agent, for consideration. Therefore, the tax that Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE was asked to pay on 76,216,240Frw that was deposited on his account from his business not based in Rwanda contradicts the provisions mentioned above. Hence, no tax must be imposed since it is not goods or services which are traded in Rwanda. [21] Kabibi Spéciose, counsel for RRA argued that the fact that the owner of Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE based in Rwanda, is also the owner of Station Customer Care Services based in Goma does not mean that the money which circulates from one company to another one will be automatically be considered as credit (loan) in case of absence of the contract

## Page 361

108 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

between the two companies, this is also has been the ground relied on by the Commercial High Court to reject the arguments of the counsel for Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE. She added further that the business activities of Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE is only identified from account books and that it is illogical how the commercial activities of one company can be recorded in the books of another company without demonstrating that that money has been acquired through lending contract. She adduced further that Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE used to perform the transport activities of goods from Rwanda to Goma and hence she wonders whether 76,216,240Frw was not the payment of transport services from Rwanda. THE VIEW OF THE COURT [22] Article 12(1) of Law N°06/2001 of 20/01/2001 on the code of value added tax which was into effect at the time of tax audit provides that Goods or services shall be deemed as taxable supplies when the supply of the same is made by a taxable person, a partner or agent, for consideration, under the conditions set forth in articles 4 and 92 of this law.

2Services shall be regarded as supplied in Rwanda if the supplier of the services: a) has a place of business in Rwanda and no place of business elsewhere; b) has no place of business in Rwanda or elsewhere but his usual place of residence is in Rwanda, c) has places of business in Rwanda and elsewhere but the place of business most directly concerned with the supply of the services in question is the one in Rwanda; or d) has no place of business in Rwanda, has place of business elsewhere but the recipient of the services uses or obtains the benefit of the services in

## Page 362

109 Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY

[23] The Court finds that the fact that Kalinda Sekwekwe has a place of residence in Rwanda while he owns a petrol station in Goma and he gets all the benefits thereon being in Rwanda, while he failed to demonstrate that it is such a petrol station that lent him the amount of money totaling approximately 76,216,240Frw that he says was deposited to his account opened in Rwanda from Goma, leads to the conclusion that per provisions of the Law referred to above, he is liable and must pay the VAT. [24] Article 3 of Law Nº15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production provides that each party has the burden of proving the facts it alleges while article 9 of Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that every plaintiff must prove a claim. Failure to obtain proof, the defendant wins the case. [25] The Court finds further that there is no any other evidence that the representative for Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE submitted to the Court to prove that 76,216,240Frw is a debt that it borrowed from Station Customer Care Services so that it could pay the loan that it had acquired from I&M Bank. It is further not understandable how that money, instead of being deposited on the loan account, it was deposited in another bank, in addition, there is no evidence that such amount of money was intended to pay the said loan.

Rwanda likewise, article 4 of the Law referred to above provides that, goods shall be regarded as being supplied in Rwanda if: a) they are exported or temporarily exported from Rwanda; b) their supply involves their installation, processing or assembly at a place in Rwanda from which they are removed.

## Page 363

110 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Moreover, Bons de prélèvement that were submitted do not demonstrate that such amount of money was intended to pay the debt. In addition, the fact that Kalinda Sekwekwe is the owner of Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE and Station Customer Care based in Goma, it is simple for him to take the money of one company and use it in his own activities generating interests. Therefore, Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE must lose on this issue for its failure to demonstrate beyond any doubt that 76,216,240Frw must not be subject to tax levy. Therefore, this ground of appeal has no merit. 3) Whether 12,032,500Frw must be excluded from the sold goods hence not taxable. [26] Musafiri Alain, the counsel, argued in his submissions in this proceeding, that there is 12,032,500Frw from which VAT was levied that was deposited on the account of Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE by its client HASS PETROLIUM about the payment receipts that Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE had done for it but without specifying the price since it was paying the debt that it owed it and that Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE had declared the VAT to Rwanda Revenue Authority and later paid it. He added that the Court did not address this ground of appeal during the hearing and the counsel for RRA did not reply about it even through its submissions. THE VIEW OF THE COURT [27] The Court finds that this issue was not examined at appeal on the ground that it was not submitted to the Commissioner General and cannot be assessed in this proceeding as it was not debated on by parties.

## Page 364

111 Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY

4) Assessment of the requested damages in this proceeding. a) Regarding damages requested by Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE. [28] Musafiri Alain requested damages of 500,000Frw for advocate fees. Counsel Kabibi Spéciose replied that they must not be awarded as they do not have merit. THE VIEW OF THE COURT [29] As held above, the Court finds that all the grounds of appeal submitted by Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE have no merit. Hence, he must not be awarded damages in this case. b) Regarding the cross appeal filed by Rwanda Revenue Authority in which it requests damages. [30] Counsel for Rwanda Revenue Authority based on article 258 of Civil Code Book III, requested damages relating to being dragged into unjustified proceedings and for the loss of time. She requested to order Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE to pay damages amounting to 2,000,000Frw. [31] Musafiri Alain states that Kabibi is in the proceeding as a state attorney and hence no damages must be awarded. [32] The Court finds that the fact that Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE appealed to this Court and that its appeal has no merit while RRA was summoned, implies that there is a prejudice. Consequently, based on article 258 of Civil Code Book III which provides that any act of man, which causes damage to another obliges the person by whose fault it

## Page 365

112 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

happened to repair it; Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE must pay RRA the procedural fees equivalent to 500,000Frw because 2,000,000Frw that it requests is excessive and is not supported by evidence. III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [33] Decides that appeal lodged by Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE has no merit. [34] Decides that cross-appeal filed by Rwanda Revenue Authority has merit in part. [35] Decides that the judgment No R.COM0075/12/HCC rendered by the Commercial High Court on January 18, 2013 is not changed save damages that are awarded to Rwanda Revenue Authority at this instance. [36] Orders Ets KALINDA SEKWEKWE to pay Rwanda Revenue Authority 500,000Frw for procedural fees. [37] Decides that the deposited amount for court fees is equivalent to the cost of the works done in this case.

## Page 366

FREIGHT AFRICA BVBA v. BONUS ENTERPRISES Ltd [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCOMA0031/13/CS (Mutashya, P.J., Munyangeri and Gakwaya, J.) July 31, 2015] Law determining the jurisdiction of courts – A forum selection clause – It is the courts referred to in forum selection clause which are competent to settle the matters emanating from implementation of that contract – Law No45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, articles 64 and 113 – Law of 19/1/1920 relating to agent in trade and transport, articles 10 and 11 – Law No42/1988 of 27/10/1988 instituting the preliminary title and the civil code Book I relating to persons and family law, article 14(2). Damages – Procedural and advocate fees – The defendant must be awarded those fees but in the discretion of the court – The Law of 30/07/1888 governing contracts or obligations, article 258. Facts: BONUS ENTERPRISES Ltd filed a case against FREIGHT AFRICA BVBA in the Commercial High Court requesting to order it to pay its damaged goods based on the transport contract concluded between them and requesting for the refund of the transportation fees paid, as well as to award it different damages. ARICA FREIGHT SERVICES Ltd also was forced to intervene into this case. The Court ordered FEIGHT AFRICA BVBA and ARICA FREIGHT SERVICES Ltd to jointly pay BONUS ENTERPRISES Ltd damages equivalent to 29,330,752Frw. 113

## Page 367

114 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

FREIGHT AFRICA BVBA appealed to the Supreme Court stating that the Commercial High Court was not competent to hear the case grounding on the contract concluded between them which provide that it is the Courts in Envers, Belgium, which are competent to settle the matters. AFRICA FREIGHT SERVICES Ltd also appealed submitting that Rwandan Courts are not competent to hear the case based on the principle that civil laws are suppletive to the contract entered into by parties. BONUS ENTERPRISES Ltd responded that the Commercial High Court was competent because both damage and accident occurred in Rwanda. Additionally, BONUS ENTERPRISE Ltd submitted, the fact that the Commercial High Court is located at the place where the contract was supposed to be executed indicates that the Commercial High Court infringed no law. BONUS ENTERPRISES Ltd filed cross appeal requesting the Court to order AFRICA FREIGHT BVBA to pay damages and procedural and advocate fees. Held: 1. It is Courts agreed upon in the contract which are competent to settle matters emanating from its execution. Thus, the Commercial High Court was not competent to hear this case while the parties to the transport contract had agreed that any prospective matter or dispute would fall in the jurisdiction of Courts in Antwerp (Envers). Therefore, the rendered judgment must be overturned. 2. Procedural and advocate fees should be awarded to the defendant but they are determined in the discretion of the court as those requested are excessive. Appeal has merit. The judgement is quashed.

## Page 368

115 FREIGHT AFRICA BVBA v. BONUS ENTERPRISES Ltd

Court fees to the plaintiff. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law No45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, articles 64 and 113. Law of 19/1/1920 relating to mandate in commerce and transporters, articles 10 and 11. Law No42/1988 of 27/10/1988 instituting the preliminary title and the civil code Book I relating to persons and family law, article 14(2). Law of 30/07/1888 Governing Contracts or obligations, article 258. No case is referred to. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] The case commenced in the commercial High Court, Bonus Enterprise Ltd suing Freight Africa Bvba requesting the Court to order it to pay for the destroyed goods during the transportation, the refund of transportation fees and different damages. Africa Freight Services Ltd was forced to intervene. [2] In its decision dated 21/01/2013, the Court ordered Freight Africa Bvba and Africa Freight Services Ltd to jointly pay to Bonus Enterprise Ltd 29,330,752Frw and 9,750Frw for the Court fees.

## Page 369

116 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

[3] Freight Africa Bvba appealed to the Supreme Court, submitting that consideration made of the contract it entered into with Bonus Enterprise Ltd; the Commercial High Court was not competent to hear the case. [4] Africa Freight Services Ltd also appealed alleging that according to the principle according to which the private laws are suppletive to contracts concluded by the parties, Rwandan Courts are not competent to hear that case. Africa Freight Services Ltd insisted further that it was brought in a case in which it is not involved while the Court had already decided on this issue on 21/9/2012. It added that the Commercial High Court confused the Managing Director of Africa Freight Services Ltd with company under his management. [5] Bonus Enterprise Ltd filed a cross appeal requesting the Court to order Freight Africa Bvba and Africa Freight Services Ltd to pay it pecuniary damages, procedural and the advocate fees. [6] The case was heard in public on 9/6/2015, Freight Africa Bvba represented by Counsel Nzamwita Toy, Africa Freight Services Ltd represented by Idahemuka Tharcise, the counsel while Bonus Enterprise Ltd was represented by Ingabire Joséline, the counsel and Bugingo Jean-Bosco, the counsel. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES a. Whether the Commercial High Court was competent to hear this case. [7] Nzamwita Toy, the counsel, states that the Commercial High Court had no competence to hear the case based on the

## Page 370

117 FREIGHT AFRICA BVBA v. BONUS ENTERPRISES Ltd

contract signed between Freight Africa Bvba and Bonus Enterprise Ltd because they had agreed that the courts of ”Anvers” in Belgium are the ones with this competence. He submits that this position is emphasized by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case RCOMA0038/09/CS decided on 19/02/2010, where it ruled that “Cases regarding commercial companies and other non-government organizations with legal personality are heard by the court in the jurisdiction of its headquarters or where the object of the claim is located, unless it was provided otherwise in the contract by the parties in a conflict”. [8] Idahemuka Tharcisse, the counsel, submits that Bonus Enterprises Ltd and Freight Africa Bvba had agreed upon competent court to hear the case for prospective disputes and based on article 64 of the Law No45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, it is clear that they agreed on a clause which stands as a provision of the law that must be respected by either party. [9] Idahemuka Tharcisse, the counsel, goes on stating that article 121(1) of Organic Law N°51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of Courts provides that unless the law provides otherwise, the Court situated where the defendant ordinarily resides shall have jurisdiction and also article 125 of that Law provides that “If there is a place chosen for the execution of a deed, any related action shall be brought before the Court situated in the place”, therefore, to him, the fact that they agreed that in case of a conflict the competent court will be at the headquarters of Freight Africa Bvba, implies that the law must be respected.

## Page 371

118 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

[10] Counsel Idahemuka Tharcisse concluded that based on article 89 of Law No21/2012 of 14/6/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedures and several case laws, whereby in their different position they decided that Rwandan courts are not competent to contradict contracts whereby parties elected competent courts; it is the Court of First Instance of Antwerp (Tribunal de Première Instance d’Anvers) which is competent to hear the case. [11] Ingabire Joséline and Bugingo Jean-Bosco, counsels for Bonus Enterprise Ltd replied that Commercial High Court is competent because the damage or the accident occurred in Rwanda. They continued requesting the court to examine whether the clause of the contract signed by both parties relating forum selection clause “clause de jurisdiction” replaces the Rwandan Laws. They concluded that, the fact that the Commercial High Court is situated in the territorial jurisdiction where the contract was concluded and even was supposed to be executed, and based on article 124 of the Organic Law No51/2008 of 9/9/2008 mentioned above, they find therefore that the Court which decided the case did not violate any Law. THE VIEW OF THE COURT [12] Article 64 of the Law No45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts provides that “contracts made in accordance with the law shall be binding between parties. They may only be revoked at the consent of the parties or for reasons based on law. They shall be performed in good faith”. [13] Article 113, paragraph 1 of the Law No45/2011 of 25/11/2011 mentioned above provides that “contracts shall have

## Page 372

119 FREIGHT AFRICA BVBA v. BONUS ENTERPRISES Ltd

effect only on contracting parties. They shall not cause any prejudice to a third party and shall only benefit to him/her in case of provisions in favour of a third party”. [14] Article 10 Law of 19/1/1920 relating to mandate in commerce and transporters provides that “transport contract is proved by all sort of evidence provided for by the law, especially like those relating to the commodities using the bill of lading”. [15] Article 11, paragraph 2 of the Law of 19/1/1920 mentioned above provides that “the bill of lading is drafted in two copies, one of them for the exporter with the transporter’s signature, while the other is given to the transporter, bearing the signature of the exporter of the commodities”. [16] Article 14, paragraph 2 of the Law No42/1988 of 27/10/1988 instituting the preliminary title and Civil Code, Book I relating to persons and family law provides that “unless otherwise agreed by the parties, contracts are governed as to their substance, their effects and their evidence, by the law of the place where they are concluded”. [17] The Supreme Court finds the transport contract (bill of landing ou le connaissement)1 NoRWA3993 of 5/12/2009 under dispute was concluded between Freight Africa NV, the consignor and Elleci Service & Leuenberger + C & Cartiera

1 “Le connaissement (en anglais bill of landing: bon de chargement, de fret, abrégé/L) est le document matérialisant le contrat de transport maritime conclu entre le chargeur et le transporteur maritime”, in le connaissement, https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/connaissement, consulté le 20/7/2015.

## Page 373

120 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Galliera, the carrier and Bonus Entreprise Ltd is also involved as consignee. [18] The Supreme Court finds that this contract provides that the parties agreed that this transport would be guaranteed by the owner of the commodities, that he is governed by the Belgian Law, and that in case of any conflict or disagreement of any kind, all this will be in the competence of Antwerp (Anvers) courts. [19] The Supreme Court finds that though the bill lading (le connaissement ou la lettre de chargement) is involved to put in execution the transport contract, it may mislead that this contract was only between the consignor and the carrier while actually, when the consignor concludes a contract with the carrier, it is concluded in the interests (au profit) of the consignee (destinataire) because he/she is the beneficiary2.

## Page 374

121 FREIGHT AFRICA BVBA v. BONUS ENTERPRISES Ltd

[20] The Supreme Court finds further that as long as it is clear in the bill of lading that the consignee (destinataire) is the one who requested this contract to be concluded (donneur d’ordre), it should be understood that he/she is a party to it, and that the consignor did it in the name of the consignee. Additionally, the fact that the name of the consignee is identified on the bill of lading; this is sufficient enough to justify that he/she committed to the obligation of respecting the transport contract3. [21] Regarding article in the contract indicating the competent courts to hear the case with regard to the prospective conflicts in its execution, the Supreme Court finds that, based on the holdings above, it is clear that Bonus Enterprises Ltd (destinataire et donneur d’ordre) is a party to the transport contract because it has the obligation to respect it, and both the carrier and the consignor (Freight Africa NV: expéditeur) also have the obligation to respect it. That article of the contract attributes to courts the competence to hear the case between parties to the contract (clause attributive de compétence). Thus, he/she cannot ignore it because he/she is also responsible and has to respect it. [22] Based on articles of the Laws mentioned above and the explanations given, the Supreme Court finds that Rwandan

3 “Si le donneur d’ordre n’est pas l’expéditeur réel, celui-ci doit être considéré comme ayant agi au nom de celui-là et avoir pris des engagements vis-à-vis du transporteur par l’indication de son nom sur la lettre de chargement. Mais si le donneur d’ordre s’est indiqué sur la lettre de chargement, le chargeur réel n’est alors que l’agent d’exécution de l’expédition au nom et pour compte de l’expéditeur qui est en même temps donneur d’ordre, Rwankubito Prudence, op.cit., p.43.

## Page 375

122 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

courts lack jurisdiction to hear this case, thus as indicated in the bill of lading involved in the transport contract, only the Courts of Antwerp (Anvers) are competent to hear it. [23] For those reasons, the Supreme Court finds that appeal filed by Freight Africa BVBA (now NV) and that of Africa Freight Services Ltd have merit. Thus, the Commercial High Court had no competence to hear this case, therefore the judgment it rendered should be quashed. b. Whether Africa Freight Services Ltd must be awarded damages requested for. [24] Idahemuka Tharcisse, counsel, states that Africa Freight Services Ltd requests the court to order Bonus Enterprises Ltd to pay 3,500,000Frw for the procedural and advocate fees. THE VIEW OF THE COURT [25] Article 258 of the Civil Code Book III provides that “any act of man, which causes damage to another obliges the person by whose fault it happened to repair it”. [26] Regarding the procedural and the advocate fees requested by Africa Freight Services Ltd, though Bonus Enterprises Ltd remains silent about it, the Supreme Court finds that it should be awarded, but because the 3,500,000Frw requested is excessive, in its discretion, the Court awards 800,000Frw.

## Page 376

123 FREIGHT AFRICA BVBA v. BONUS ENTERPRISES Ltd

III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [27] Decides that the appeal filed by Freight Africa BVBA (now NV) and Africa Freight Services Ltd has merit. [28] Quashes the judgment RCOM0038/12/HCC decided by the Commercial High Court. [29] Orders Bonus Enterprises Ltd to pay Africa Freight Services Ltd 800,000Frw for procedural and advocate fees. [30] Orders Bonus Enterprises Ltd to pay court fees equal to 100,000Frw.

## Page 378

RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY v. KAMBA GENERAL MARCHANDISE Ltd [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCOMA0152/12/CS (Mugenzi, P.J., Karimunda and Gatete, J.) January 22, 2016] Tax law – Taxable income – Money deposited by buyers as caution – This money is not an income, it is rather the caution which is not taxable – Law Nº16/2005 of 18/08/2005 2005 on Direct taxes on income, article 16. Tax law – Tax base – Taxable income – Who has the burden to prove the tax base – Rwanda Revenue Authority has the burden to prove the taxable profit – Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures, article 44. Damages – Procedural and advocate fees – The winner must be awarded these damages because there are incurred expenses in the follow-up of the proceedings in addition to the hired advocate – Law of 30/07/1888 governing contracts or obligations, article 258. Facts: Rwanda Revenue Authority conducted tax audit for Kamba General Merchandise Ltd and imposed the tax of 37,447,020Frw. Not satisfied with the outcome of the audit, Kamba General Merchandise Ltd appealed to the General Commissioner and the latter responded that 2,790,000Frw was returned to Kigali Multi Choice Ltd being deducted from the due tax and hence must pay the difference. Kamba General Merchandise Ltd filed a claim to the Commercial High Court against that decision requesting for the deduction of 22,957,627Frw from the due tax because it was not the proceeds of commercial activities, rather the caution of the buyers. The 125

## Page 379

126 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Court held that the tax equivalent to 22,957,627Frw had to be deducted from the one imposed by the Commissioner General and ordered RRA to pay procedural, advocate and court fees. Dissatisfied of that decision, RRA appealed to the Supreme Court lamenting that tax audit that was carried out for Kamba General Marchandise Ltd is of the type of levy which is conducted through tax rectification whereby in collecting tax, fundamental principles of accounting apply because prior to the deposit of the money in the bank, it must first be recorded in the accounting books that prove that it had been recorded in the cash books but with regard to this case, the money was deposited on the bank without prior record in the cash book, the reason why it must be taxed. Moreover, had the money been the caution, it would have been proven by the bank slips. Furthermore, another evidence to show that it is not the caution is that it did not refund in entirety the persons whom he refers to as the depositors of that money while Kamba General Merchandise Ltd concedes that the money refunded to clients is not equivalent to the money they received as caution. Kamba General Marchandise Ltd explained in response that keeping the money for caution on the bank account and the reimbursement to whosever claims it back with the help of what is recorded in the cash book is not a fault. Kamba General Marchandise Ltd explains further that what is essential is that the money must be available so that the depositor of the caution who claims it back can be refunded at any time. Kamba General Merchandise Ltd ended up requesting for damages for procedural and advocate fees for being dragged into unjustified proceeding.

## Page 380

127 RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY v. KAMBA GENERAL MARCHANDISE Ltd

Held: 1. Business profit is determined as the income from all business activities reduced by all business expenses. Business profit also includes proceeds of sale of any business asset and liquidation proceeds received during the tax period. That profit is also computed based on the computation of the profit or loss grounding on national accounting fundamental principles. Therefore, the fact that the defendant had transferred money to the bank account without recording it in the cash book, is not evidence that it is the business profit because its books of accounts indicate that it was the caution that were pledged by clients while RRA does not deny the veracity therein. Therefore, the money pledged as caution is not business profit; it is rather the act of guaranty on which tax must not be levied. 2. The burden to figure out the taxable profit lies to Rwanda Revenue Authority. Therefore, the fact that it did not demonstrate the profit that Kamba General Marchandise Ltd might have gained from the caution deposited by its buyers, nor it demonstrated that it deposited money for caution on the same bank account with intention of profits indicates that RRA has no evidence of its allegations. 3. Any act of man, which causes damage to another obliges the person by whose fault it happened to repair it. Hence, Kamba General Marchandise Ltd is awarded procedural and advocate’s fees because there are expenses incurred during the follow-up of the case and it necessitated to hire an advocate. Appeal lacks merit; Appealed judgment upheld; Appellant is ordered to pay the procedural and advocate fees; Court fees to the appellant.

## Page 381

128 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures, article 44. Law Nº16/2005 of 18/08/2005 on Direct taxes on income, article 16. Law of 30/07/1888 governing contracts or obligations, article 258. No case referred to Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] Tax audit on business profit tax, value added tax and income tax for the tax periods of 2006, 2007 and 2008 were conducted for Kamba General Marchandise Ltd. Then, the tax equivalent to 37,447,020Frw was imposed. Kamba General Marchandise Ltd was not satisfied with that audit and appealed to the Commissioner General and in his notice of January 10, 2012 he informed it that 2,790,000Frw was submitted back to Kigali Multi Choice Ltd being deducted from the imposed tax. He was ordered to pay 34,825,340Frw. [2] Not satisfied with that decision, Kamba General Marchandise Ltd sued to the Commercial High Court requesting the waiver of the tax equivalent to 22,957,627Frw imposed by the Commissioner General because it was not business profit, but rather the advance payments that clients generally deposit on its account while waiting for commodities.

## Page 382

129

[3] In the judgment RCOM0026/12/HCC rendered on September 6, 2012, the Court found that the money on the account of Kamba General Marchandise Ltd was not the profit from the commercial activities, but rather the advance payments which were deposited by the buyers. The imposed tax had a base on the sale of goods while the advance payments concerned the security and that there is no reason to analyze the matter concerning the quantum of the profit since commercial law in Rwanda allows both the buyer and the seller to agree on the price and even the litigants did not agree on the quantum of the profit and the Court held that tax equivalent to 22,957,627Frw must be deducted from that confirmed by the Commissioner General. The Court further ordered Rwanda Revenue Authority to pay damages for procedural and advocate fees equivalent to 500,000Frw and also the payment of court fees. [4] Dissatisfied of the decision, Rwanda Revenue Authority appealed to the Supreme Court. Public hearing was fixed on December 22, 2015 whereby Kamba General Marchandise Ltd was represented by Counsel Twagilimana Joseph while Rwanda Revenue Authority was represented by Gasana Raoul, the counsel. 1. Whether the money which was refunded to their owners was generated from commercial activities. [5] Gasana Raoul, counsel for Rwanda Revenue Authority states that tax audit that was conducted for Kamba General Marchandise Ltd is of the type of the tax collection which is done through the principle of “Audiatur et altera pars” whereby in the course of computation of the tax, fundamental principles of accounting apply because prior to the deposit of the money RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY v. KAMBA GENERAL MARCHANDISE Ltd

## Page 383

130 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

on the bank account, there must be the entry into the books which demonstrate that it was initially recorded into the cash books. However, with regard to this case, the money was deposited to the bank account without initial entry into the cash book, and this is the reason why it must be taxed. [6] He explains that assessment of accounting books indicates that there is money that Kamba General Marchandise Ltd identifies as caution pledged by buyers that it deposited to its account and it is paid back after the buyers have received their commodities while the tax administration demonstrates that the money in question is not caution because, Kamugisha, the owner of Kamba General Marchandise Ltd and Sibomana Augustin, the Tax adviser, informed the tax auditors that, since the money deposited as caution was not their own, they used to receive that money in hands and after make the deposit to the bank account without initial entry into the cash books which is the reason why that money is not identified from the books of accounts. [7] He concluded that if the money which was deposited to the bank account was the caution, then it would have been justified by the bank slips. He added that another indication that the money was not caution is for example the case of Nzaramba who had deposited 5,580,000Frw on September 10, 2007 and again 3,260,000Frw on October 12, 2007 but he was refunded 3,260,000Frw. This means that Kamba General Marchandise Ltd did not refund the entirety of the money that it qualifies as caution. In addition, the money they say they refunded does not equal to the entire amount they received. [8] Twilingiyemungu Joseph, counsel for Kamba General Marchandise Ltd the conduct of the audit on profit tax, value

## Page 384

131

added tax, and professional income tax on the tax periods of 2006, 2007 and 2008 based on the accounting done by Kamba General Marchandise Ltd which demonstrated that the conclusive due tax was 37,447,020Frw , however in imposing that tax, laws were disregarded. He added that they submitted the issue to the Commissioner General and the latter concluded that the tax equivalent to 2,621,716Frw be deducted from that which was imposed but disregarded the main issue regarding the tax which was imposed unlawfully being the cause of action of Kamba General Marchandise Ltd to the Commercial High Court so that the latter can assess whether the advance payments which was refunded to the owners can be taxed as business profit. [9] He states further that keeping the money for caution on the bank account and refunding whoever requests using the available cash, is not a fault because what matters is its availability because, if it was not available, it would cause the vacuum in accounting. He explains further that the person who pledged the caution can recover it any time. He insisted that the allegations of Rwanda Revenue Authority that the caution money served as the initial payment by the buyers has no merit because no specific laws indicate that the caution serves as initial payment. It is rather reimbursed to the owner when the cause of its constitution never exists. [10] He concluded that both the books of accounts and bank statement indicate that there is 26,825,000Frw which was deposited on the account by the buyers as the caution of the delivery of the commodities and that, the accounting indicates that this money was collected by the buyers and the tax administrator who till now does not deny the outcome of the RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY v. KAMBA GENERAL MARCHANDISE Ltd

## Page 385

132 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

accounting which is the reason of the holding of the judge in the appealed judgment that in the case, Rwanda Revenue Authority fails to rebut the content in the books of accounts of Kamba General Marchandise Ltd, and must lose the case grounding on article 44 of the Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures. THE VIEW OF THE COURT [11] Article 16(1) of Law Nº16/2005 of 18/08/2005 2005 on Direct taxes on incomes provides that Business profit is determined as the income from all business activities reduced by all business expenses. Business profit also includes proceeds of sale of any business asset and liquidation proceeds received during the tax period. That profit is also computed based on the computation of the profit or loss based on the national accounting fundamental principles, while paragraph two of the same article provides that business profit is determined per tax period on the basis of the profit or loss account drawn up in accordance with the National Accounting Plan. [12] Article 44 of Law No25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedure as modified and complemented to date, provides that the burden of proof lies with the Tax Administration when rectifying tax declaration of the tax payer. [13] The case file demonstrates that the audit on the tax that KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd is imposed to pay is grounded on the rectification note which is different from the Assessment procedure without notice, given that the books of accounts indicated that there is an amount of money equivalent to 26,825,000Frw which was paid cash by the clients of

## Page 386

133

KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd as caution so that they could have the commodities and that amount was deposited to the bank accounts and refunded to their owners on different dates after the entry in the cash books which were made (identification code 5). In addition, there is an investigation which was conducted by Rwanda Revenue Authority so that the latter could reassure of the due tax based on the accounting records done by KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd (pages 20- 21). [14] The Court finds that, the fact that the money was received cash and later deposited to the bank account by the employees of KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd without prior entry into the cash books does not constitute evidence that it is the profit from business and in case the books of accounting of KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd demonstrates that such amount is constituted of the caution for commodities and that their owners later recovered it, while Rwanda Revenue Authority does not challenge the books of accounts of KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd, rather confirming that the tax base is the profit while caution is not a profit since it is the security which must not be taxed, led the Court to the conclusion that there is no base to confirm that the money for caution which was later refunded to the owners must be taxed. [15] The Court further notes that as provided for by article 44 of Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 as cited above, the burden to prove the taxable profit that KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd might have gained from the caution that it used to request its clients to constitute, lies to Rwanda Revenue Authority. Hence, as long as this Institution cannot prove that KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd used in commercial activities the money it RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY v. KAMBA GENERAL MARCHANDISE Ltd

## Page 387

ordered from its clients to give as caution nor proves that the reason of the deposit of the money for caution on the same bank account as the one for commercial activities was to make profit of any kind, must be considered as failure for Rwanda Revenue Authority to present evidence of its allegations. Hence, its appeal has no merit. 2. Whether KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd can be awarded the requested damages in this proceeding. [16] Twilingiyemungu Joseph states that KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd continues being dragged into proceedings and hence requests for damages equivalent to 1,000,000Frw for procedural and advocate fees. [17] Counsel Gasana Raoul states that the issue of damages for procedural and advocate fees which are requested by KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd must be assessed in the discretion of the court because they are requested based on the main suit. THE VIEW OF THE COURT [18] The Court notes that given that KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd was sued in courts caused it to incur expenses in follow-up of the case and it necessitated to hire an advocate. Therefore, based on article 258 of the Civil Code Book III, which provides that any act of man, which causes damage to another, obliges the person by whose fault it happened to repair it, KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd is therefore awarded at this instance, 500,000Frw for procedural and advocate fees. 134 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 388

III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [19] Decides that appeal of Rwanda Revenue Authority has no merit; [20] Upholds the ruling of the judgment RCOM0026/12/HCC rendered by the Commercial High Court on September 6, 2012; [21] Orders Rwanda Revenue Authority to pay KAMBA General Marchandise Ltd 500,000Frw for procedural and advocate fees on this instance in addition to that which was imposed at the first instance; [22] Orders Rwanda Revenue Authority to pay the court fees equivalent to 100,000Frw.

135 RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY v. KAMBA GENERAL MARCHANDISE Ltd

## Page 390

SOCOGEDI SA v. BRALIRWA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – R.COM.A0156/11/CS (Mukanyundo, P.J., Havugiyaremye and Mukamulisa, J.) December 7, 2012] Contract law – Agreement for commercial partnership – Agreement for commercial partnership may be proven by relationships that characterized both parties even when it is unwritten especially that commercial law does not provide that it must be. Contract law – Damages for termination of the contract – There was no unlawful termination of the contract because it is sufficient for the party who opts to terminate contract of this kind to demonstrate the grounds which drove him/her to do it and it is not a requirement to pay damages at any cost. Damages – Damages for being dragged into proceedings at appeal level – The respondent cannot be awarded damages based on appeal of the appellant alleging to have been dragged into unnecessary litigations as long as there is no evidence of the vexatious character of the appeal since an appeal by whoever unsatisfied with the ruling is his/her right. Facts: SOCOGEDI SA (changed to SOCOGEDI Ltd) concluded a partnership contract with BRALIRWA. That agreement was about the commercialisation of beverages. After the written agreement had ended, the activities between them did not stop. Later on, BRALIRWA terminated the contract on the ground that SOCOGEDI had failed to respond to its letter 137

## Page 391

138 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

requesting explanations about breach of the terms of the contract that they had concluded. After termination, SOCOGEDI wrote to BRALIRWA requesting amicable settlement of the matter. After parties failed to reach the compromise, SOCOGEDI sued BRALIRWA before the Commercial High Court stating that BRALIRWA had terminated the contract unlawfully and requested various damages. BRALIRWA replied that the written contract that they had concluded had ended. The Court held that the claim had no merit as the contract had been terminated. SOCOGEDI appealed to the Supreme Court disputing that it was not satisfied with the ruling of the appealed judgment because it contains contradictions demonstrated by the fact that the court accepted that though the main written contract between SOCOGEDI and BRALIRWA was supposed to expire on 30/04/2010, but thereafter the business relationships between both parties continued as it is emphasised by various activities they took on, while on the other hand it confirmed that the contract had expired. Additionally, the court confirmed that, as far as commercial contracts are concerned, written documents are not necessary for proof. In regard to these grounds of appeal, BRALIRWA submitted that partnership agreement had expired and there was no clause providing for its renewal without resorting to the conclusion of the new one. It added further that even though both parties had a business relationship after, it cannot be regarded as if it was in connection with the contract; instead, it is a relationship into which any buyer can be with any trader. Held: 1. Though there was no written agreement after the expiration of the initial written contract, the contents of the

## Page 392

139 SOCOGEDI SA v. BRALIRWA

correspondences between both parties prove with no doubt that the relationships between them which was even based on the initial written contract continued being in existence especially that the commercial law does not provide that the commercial agreements must only be in writing. Instead, the essential is evidence proving the commitments of each party and which the latter can prove by all sorts of possible evidence. 2. BRALIRWA did not unlawfully terminate the contract since it demonstrated the grounds of the termination in addition to different disagreements that they had including bad relationship and that in terminating of agreement such that concluded between them, it is sufficient for the party who took the initiative to give explanations thereon and he/she is not bound to pay damages. 3. No damages must be paid by the appellant as long as it is found that it did not drag the other party in unnecessary proceedings since it is his/her rights. Appeal of SOCOGEDI has merit in part; Cross appeal has no merit; They must jointly pay court fees. No statute and statutory instrument referred to. No case was referred to. Authors cited: P. Fernandez, “contrats commerciaux”, disponible sur http://www.avocat.fernandez.com/contrats commerciaux.php

## Page 393

140 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Dimitri Houtcieff, droit du commerce et des affaires, 2è éd., Sirey, 2008, Nº779. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] SOCOGEDI SA (changed to SOCOGEDI Ltd) entered into a partnership contract with BRALIRWA Ltd. The agreement concerned the trade of beverages either alcoholic or non-alcoholic. From that agreement SOCOGEDI announced that though the latest written contract they had entered into was supposed to expire by April 30, 2010, even after that date their partnership continued till BRALIRWA terminated the contract on December 23, 2010 on the ground that SOCOGEDI had not responded to its letter requesting explanations about the non- respect of the terms of the contract. After the termination of the contract SOCOGEDI wrote to BRALIRWA requesting amicable settlement of the matter. After the above request had failed, it made recourse to courts. BRALIRWA presented its defense that it has no obligation towards SOCOGEDI as the partnership agreement had expired on April 30, 2010. [2] SOCOGIDI sued BRALIRWA in Commercial High Court alleging that it had unlawfully terminated the contract. It requested 860,410,433Frw due to the loss incurred, 15,000,000Frw for damages and 10,000,000Frw for advocate fee. The Court ruled that the claim of SOCOGEDI has no merit on the ground that there was no partnership agreement between it and BRALIRWA as it had been terminated.

## Page 394

141 SOCOGEDI SA v. BRALIRWA

[3] SOCOGEDI appealed to the Supreme Court and the screening, the appointed judge found that the appeal should be admitted. [4] The case hearing was conducted on November 1, 2012 where SOCOGEDI was represented by both Niyomugabo Christophe and Kayiranga Cyrille, the counsels, while BRALIRWA was represented by Mpayimana Isaie alongside Basomingera Alberto, counsels. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES a. Whether the document that SOCOGEDI presents as defence must not be considered. [5] The defense for BRALIRWA raised an objection that the documents on which SOCOGEDI bases its appeal to this instance which include the ones concerning the bonus that BRALIRWA used to allocate to it; must not be considered because their opponent had denied to submit them and that after the written request of those document was addressed to them, they had denied to respond. [6] Counsels for SOCOGEDI responded that the documents that BRALIRWA invoked had been debated on since before the Commercial High Court as that very Court had adjourned the hearing so that parties could exchange their submissions and documents they will present in the proceeding. It added that all of that have been done and the hearing in merit resumed whereby BRALIRWA presented its defense against the claim of SOCOGEDI in respect of which it alleged that the objection raised by BRALIRWA has no merit.

## Page 395

142 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

[7] The Court finds that as indicated by the case file, during the preliminary hearing of the case dated March 31, 2011, the counsel for BRALIRWA apologized for not having submitted to his opponent the defense submissions explaining that the delay was due to lack of the documents that he was supposed to use and that was supposed to be issued by the white men from BRALIRWA who were unfortunately absent and the Court adjourned the hearing to April 14, 2011 so as to have time to assess the submissions of BRALIRWA that were submitted before it on the day of the hearing. [8] The hearing was re-opened on April 4, 2011. On that day BRALIRWA raised objections including SOCOGEDI failure to hand evidence that constituting the ground of its claim and this also led to another adjournment to June 16, 2011. On July 29, 2011 the Court issued a verdict on the preliminary hearing about the objection that had been raised by BRALIRWA about the exchange of the documents whereby it ordered that SOCOGEDI must hand to BRALIRWA all set of evidence and another hearing was fixed on October 3, 2011. On that day, the hearing continued and all parties submitted to the Court the grounds of their claims. [9] In particular, with regard to the objection that BRALIRWA had raised requesting the Court reject the documents that SOCOGEDI presents as a proof of successful partnership between it and BRALIRWA as the latter used to allocate the bonus as well as other evidence, though BRALIRWA pleads that those document must not be considered because they are for the first time presented on this instance; these statements differ from the content of the minute of the hearing dated June 16, 2011 of the Commercial High

## Page 396

143 SOCOGEDI SA v. BRALIRWA

Court since it indicates that the disputes relating to those document have been debated on before that Court. In addition, though the documents that BRALIRWA denies the acknowledgement were debated on before, they were found from BRALIRWA, therefore it is not comprehensible how it rejects them. [10] Based on the above explanations, the Court finds that the fact that at this instance, BRALIRWA raised again the objection that it had raised before the Commercial High Court which even decided on that and the fact that BRALIRWA presented the full defense on all grounds of the claim of SOCOGEDI without lodging an appeal against the first instance decision; this leads to the conclusion that the objection raised as stated above which relates to the request the rejection of the evidence presented by SOCOGEDI lacks merit. b) Whether the partnership agreement between BRALIRWA and SOCOGEDI was still in force even after April 30, 2010. [11] Counsels for SOCOGEDI argue that the reason behind their dissatisfaction of the appealed judgment relies on the existence of the contradictions in the appealed judgment whereby in paragraph 13 page 3 the judge conceded that even though the written contract between SOCOGEDI and BRALIRWA was supposed to expire on April 30, 2010, parties continued their mutual activities as stressed by different activities while on paragraph 18 page 6 of the judgment he conceded that the contract had expired at the occurrence of the said date.

## Page 397

144 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

[12] They state further that based on article 1 of CCB III which provides for the meaning of the contract, and the law does not set that in commercial contracts, there must at any cost be in a written form. They added that the defense of BRALIRWA that the contract had already taken the end on April 30, 2010 is refuted by their continuous cooperation evidenced by its continual supply of its products to SOCOGEDI as it used to be. They added further that evidence that illustrates that their relationship was maintained is the letter dated May 14, 2010 that BRALIRWA wrote to SOCOGEDI admitting, “in the meantime the terms of the former contact will still be binding as well as the clauses in our letter Div Nº037/com.27/2010 dated March 25, 2010”. According to them, the content of that letter proves that the contract did not take the end on April 30, as held by the judge. [13] They insisted further that another evidence that the contact was still into force is that BRALIRWA conceded that their relationship was good to the extent that it allocated to it a bonus equivalent to 10,360,738Frw and that payment had been already made and that on September 30, 2010 it allowed another bonus for the third term even though it is not yet paid. [14] Counsels for BRALIRWA replies that as held by the previous Court, the agreement between it and SOCOGEDI ended on April 30, 2010 and there is no clause in which provides that the latter may be extended without the conclusion of the new contract. They further stated that though there might be another commercial relationship that had subsequently existed, it is not related to the contract that they had concluded before. Rather, they articulated, it is simple commercial relationship that may exist between any client and the trader

## Page 398

145 SOCOGEDI SA v. BRALIRWA

which is different from the commercial partnership which was provided for in contract that came to an end as held by the previous judge. [15] They further argue that from the time when the partnership agreement between BRALIRWA and SOCOGEDI came into existence, new agreement used to be entered into every year and this was the practice for other traders. They allege however that since SOCOGEDI was characterized by practices of which BRALIRWA was not satisfied, the contract was not renewed as it was the practice for other partners and it led to non-regular contracts while BRALIRWA was inspecting it and seek how to sort out the problem. [16] They stressed further that in their different correspondences, BRALIRWA has repeatedly showed to SOCOGEDI its breach of business cooperation and that another evidence of SOCOGEDI’s struggles is that it is subject of insolvency proceedings. With regard to the bonus that SOCOGEDI is alleging to have been given, counsels for BRALIRWA replied that it was done before April 30, 2010. [17] The Court notes that both parties are in agreement with the latest written contract which was supposed to end on April 30, 2010. They disagree on the fact that the partnership agreement was still in effect even if there was no written agreement till BRALIRWA terminated it on December 23, 2010. [18] Though BRALIRWA argues that the collaboration between it and COCOGEDI after April 30, 2010 was based on temporary activities and not on the written contract that used to bind them, the court finds that there is series of evidence

## Page 399

146 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

proving that their commercial relationship had never stopped on April 30, 2010 as above highlighted, which differs from the holdings of the previous court. Some of those series of evidence includes: - In its correspondence dated May 14, 2010 BRALIRWA wrote to SOCOGEDI demonstrating that its objective was “the renewal of the partnership agreement”; - In the very correspondence, BRALIRWA comes back to the discussions that they had on February 25, 2010 whereby it cleared that the new agreement would be containing the terms as agreed on and that would be signed in June 2010. That correspondence further demonstrates that in the meantime, the terms of the previous contract shall apply as well as the terms in the correspondence dated March 25, 2010; - In the letter as referred to above dated March 25, 2010, that is one month prior to April 30, 2010; concerns the “revision of the agreement between you and BRALIRWA” which related to its collaboration with its clients including SOCOGEDI, and these collaborators were chosen to enhance the running of the business; - Furthermore, in its letter to SOCOGEDI dated June 23, 2010, BRALIRWA talks about its senior officials’ trip in the area where SOCOGEDI distributes BRALIRWA products (those areas include Kamonyi, Gitarama and Ruhango) the points which they were not satisfied on, and the strategy that SOCOGEDI must adopt to put things right;

## Page 400

147 SOCOGEDI SA v. BRALIRWA

- Among the notices of BRALIRWA to SOCOGEDI in its letter dated November 9, 2010, included its worry concerning the area of distribution of SOCOGEDI whereby clients have been lamenting of lack of BRALIRWA products. In addition, BRALIRWA requested it comply with the request of BK about the cheques used for payment. [19] Even though there was no written agreement after April 30, 2010, the Court finds that the content of the correspondences listed above demonstrate without any doubt that the partnership between BRALIRWA and SOCOGEDI had continued and it was based on the terms in the previous contract. In addition, the law does not provide that the commercial agreement must be only proven by written agreement. This assertion corresponds to the opinion of the law scholars who assert that the principle in commercial law is that the written agreement is not a condition in case there is evidence that parties committed themselves to perform obligations and which may be proven by all sorts of possible evidence1.

1See, Pierre FERNANDEZ, Contrats commerciaux, disponible sur http://www.avocat.fernandez.com/contrats commerciaux.php : In commercial law, the principle is that the drafting of a written contract is not required, the contractual relationship from the exchange of consent and can be demonstrated by any means ... .All evidence can be admitted in court : written, witnesses, confessions, indices, assumptions, etc ...“ see also Dimitri HOUTCIEFF, Trade and Business Law, 2nd ed., Sirey, 2008, No.779, p.318. “Commercial contracts are generally consensual; they are formed by the simple meeting of the offer and acceptance”.

## Page 401

148 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

c) With regard to whether BRALIRWA had unlawfully terminated the contract and if this is likely to result in the payment of damages. [20] Counsels for SOCOGEDI argued that after a long time of good commercial relationship between it and BRALIRWA, the latter had unlawfully terminated the contract and that they do not agree on the ground that BRALIRWA pretends that SOCOGEDI had stopped to order the supply of its beverage since it had regularly made ''supply order'' of the beverage but BRALIRWA denied pretending that their cheques were not initially certified by BK while the latter in its letter to BRALIRWA dated December 21, 2010 was admitting that it would keep its relation with SOCOGEDI (confirmation of financial support for SOCOGEDI). They add that another evidence that the defense of BRALIRWA about the concerns over those cheques is a pretext is that on December 21, it received its cheques equivalent to 60,000,000Frw while they had not been initially certified by BK. [21] Counsels for BRALIRWA responded that the termination of the contract was a result of poor execution by SOCOGEDI and the evidence related to that is a letter that BRALIRWA wrote to it on June 23, 2010 after it had inspected in the area it distributed whereby it showed the mistakes which obstructed the interests of BRALIRWA. [22] They further submitted that SOCOGEDI must not refer to the bonus it gained because they were allocated before it had changed its poor performance since it had finally stopped ordering BRALIRWA products and that its defense about the cheques must not be considered due to the fact that BRALIRWA asked it to have its cheques be certified by BK as

## Page 402

149 SOCOGEDI SA v. BRALIRWA

a result of the bank request as expressed in its letter dated December 21, 2010. According to them, this indicates that the bank had no longer trust in SOCOGEDI and indeed, the latter is under insolvency process. [23] The Court finds that even though both BRALIRWA and SOCOGEDI had been for so long in commercial partnership, their relationship got damaged as indicated by different correspondences that they had been exchanging. For example in the latter dated June 23, 2010 as highlighted above, after visiting the area of the activities of SOCOGEDI, BRALIRWA submitted to the latter the concern about the non-respect of the contract. Furthermore, in its letter of November 9, 2010 BRALIRWA notified SOCOGEDI about the claims of its clientele about the lack of the products of BRALIRWA in the area of activities of SOCOGEDI. That letter requests also SOCOGEDI to come closer to BRALIRWA to avoid another lack of its products. [24] Moreover, in that aforementioned correspondence, BRALIRWA notified SOCOGEDI of BK request of not accepting their payment cheques prior to its (BK) certification and herewith advised it to comply with this request. This correspond to the content of the letter of BK dated December 21, 2010 as above mentioned whereby the bank, though admitting that it would continue financially supporting SOCODEGI, it had stated that the support was supposed to last for three months while waiting for the renewal of the contract with BRALIRWA. It however stated that it was going to set the new system of monitoring the activities of SOCOGEDI with regard to its cheques which has first to be certified in connection with its stock. Based on the above holdings, though there might

## Page 403

150 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

be cheques of SOCOGEDI which may have been received by BRALIRWA while they have not been certified by BK, this is unlikely to invalidate those instructions about those cheques as highlighted above. [25] The Court finds that in accordance with explanations above, SOCOGEDI does neither state that it was surprised of contract termination by BRALIRWA nor it deny that the contract termination was lawful so that it can seek reparation while in its letter BRALIRWA notified it of the grounds for the termination of the contract in addition to some other existing problems as underlined. Furthermore, this is in accordance with the opinions of the law scholars that in case of the termination of agreement like that which was between BRALIRWA and SOCOGEDI (distribution agreement) what is essential is that the party which opts to terminate it communicates explanations thereon but is not bound to give damages to the other party at any cost2. [26] Given the ground above, the court is of the view that various damages requested by SOCOGEDI should not be awarded.

2See François COLLARD DUTILLEUL na Philippe DELEBECQUE, Contrats civils et commerciaux, 8è éd., Dalloz, 2007, Nº 929, pp.908-909: “….Le contractant qui prendrait l’initiative de rompre le contrat devrait avoir à se justifier sans être tenu, bien entendu, d’indemniser automatiquement la victime de la résiliation. Il lui appartiendra simplement de faire état des raisons fondant la cessation des relations contractuelles”.

## Page 404

151 SOCOGEDI SA v. BRALIRWA

c. With regard to cross-appeal filed by BRALIRWA [27] BRALIRWA raised a cross appeal as incidental to the appeal t lodged by SOCOGEDI whereby it requests that damages it was granted by the previous instance should be increased by 500,000Frw for being dragged into unnecessary litigations by SOCOGEDI. [28] SOCOGEDI responded that the above claimed damages are groundless because it is the one which had unlawfully terminated the contract. [29] The Court finds that as long as SOCOGEDI was not satisfied with the ruling of the court at first instance, nothing would hinder it from lodging an appeal in exercise of its right and as far as there is no evidence that it dragged BRALIRWA into litigations; damages requested by BRALIRWA on this instance have no merit. III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [30] Holds that appeal of SOCOGEDI has merit in part. [31] Cross appeal filed by BRALIRWA has no merit. [32] Orders SOCOGEDI to pay a half (½) of the court fees equivalent to 35,750Frw within eight (8) days, which is 17,875Frw which payment would be followed by government coercion in case of default.

## Page 406

CRIMINAL CASES

## Page 408

RE N.J. [Rwanda HIGH COURT – RPA0787/15/HC/KIG (Kaliwabo, P.J., Mukakalisa and Kabagambe, J.) October 30, 2015] Criminal Law – Child defilement – Interpretation of articles 190 and 165 of the Organic Law No01/2012 of 02/05/2012 instituting the Penal Code – The fact that article 190 of the Organic Law No01/2012 of 02/05/2012 instituting the Penal Code uses the word child defilement instead of rape which is mentioned in article 165 of this Organic Law, this does not mean that the child was not raped since she is considered as a minor with no capacity to decide on sexual intercourse, and this incidence is also considered as rape. Criminal Law – Right to abortion and its benefits – A child who has been defiled has right and interests to abort as long as she was impregnated as a result of defilement. Facts: N.J. filed a case in the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge requesting that her daughter of 13 years old called I.C be entitled the right to abortion since she was impregnated through defilement after being given alcohol. The Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge rejected the request of N.J. basing on the fact that there was no criminal judgment which convicted the suspect. The Court also stated that it is also possible for someone to be pregnant without having sexual intercourse. In addition to that, the court based on the fact that N.J. did not prove that I.C. has complications from continuous pregnancy which seriously jeopardizes her health. N.J. lodged an appeal to the High Court stating that acts related to sexual intercourse that were committed to her daughter has to 155

## Page 409

156 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

be qualified as child defilement while the judge did not explain how she was impregnated. The prosecution states that article 165 of the Organic Law No01/2012 of 02/05/2012 instituting the Penal Code in Rwanda entitles the right to abortion to a woman who was raped and that this does not concern a child who was defiled, therefore this article cannot be interpreted together with article 190 of the Organic Law above mentioned. Held: 1. The fact that article 190 of the Organic Law No01/2012 of 02/05/2012 instituting the Penal Code uses the word child defilement instead of rape which is mentioned in article 165 of this Organic Law, does not mean that the child was not raped since she is considered without discernment ability as far as sexual intercourses are concerned, therefore this is also considered as rape. 2. A child who has been defiled is entitled the right and has interests to abortion as long as she was impregnated through defilement. Therefore, I.C. has the right to abortion. Appeal has merit. Appealed case is reversed. I.C. has right to abortion. The court fees to the public treasury. Statutes and Statutory instruments referred to: Organic Law No01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the Penal Code, articles 165(1) and 190. The Protocol to African Charter on Human and People’s rights on the rights of Women in Africa, article 14(2)C.

## Page 410

157 RE N.J.

No case law was referred to. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] I.C. of 13 years old, says that she was impregnated by Nizeyimana Bruce through rape after giving her an alcoholic drink. Thereafter, her mother N.J. filed the case at Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge requesting that court to grant her daughter the permission to exercise abortion since she was raped and the pregnancy was a threat to I.C.’s life. The Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge rejected N.J.’s request on the ground that there was no criminal charge yet convicting Nizeyimana of a crime of rape against I.C.; that it could as well be possible to be pregnant without being raped and that there was no evidence submitted by N.J. proving that pregnancy was a threat to I.C’s health. [2] On 8 October 2015, N.J. appealed on the grounds that sexual intercourse engaged with I.C. aged 13 years, could not be interpreted in any other way than rape and that the judge did not describe any other way through which I.C. got pregnant. [3 The prosecution argues that according to article 165 of the Organic Law instituting the Criminal Code of Rwanda, only a woman pregnant as a result of rape is entitled to request for an authorization to abort and that the above article does not concern a defiled child, therefore it cannot be linked with article 190 of the same code cited above.

## Page 411

158 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

[4] Legal issues to be examined by the court in this case include: • The prosecution’s opinion on whether article 165 of the Organic Law instituting the Penal Code of Rwanda does not provide for child defilement; • Whether I.C. was raped; • Whether I.C. can be granted the right to abort. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUES 9The prosecution’s opinion regarding right to abort by I.C. [5] The prosecution argued that the exemption from criminal liability for the offence of abortion provided in article 165(1o) of Organic Law No01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the Penal Code, concerns only women impregnated through rape and it does not apply to the offence of Child defilement which is provided for by article 190 of the same code. The prosecution concludes that rape and child defilement are two different offences thus article 165 cannot be applicable to the situation of I.C. of 13 years of age who was defiled and impregnated. [6] The right for abortion claimed by I.C. is based on the fact that she was engaged in sexual intercourse at the age of 13 years and thus an offence of child defilement provided for by article 190 of Organic Law instituting the Penal Code of Rwanda that “Child defilement means any sexual intercourse or any sexual act with a child regardless of the form and the means used”. This the ground I.C. relies on to request authorization to carry out abortion with reference to article 165 of the same code

## Page 412

159 RE N.J.

which provides various conditions under which a pregnant woman can be permitted to abort, one of those being in circumstances whereby a woman was unwillingly impregnated as a result of rape. [7] The word [Umugore] in Kinyarwanda, [Woman] in English, [Femme] in French was continuously repeated in the Prosecution’s arguments with the aim to describe that there is no child stated in the above provision of article 165, rather only women are granted the right to exercise abortion in the case of rape. [8] The Court finds that the confusion between child defilement and rape is resolved by the fact that in the occurrence of both offences, there is no consent of the victim. With regard to a child, when he/she is under 18 years, he/she is considered to be a minor with no capacity to decide on sexual intercourse, and in this case, it is also assimilated to rape. Therefore, In spite of the fact that article 190 of the Penal code stated above mentions the word “child defilement” instead of “rape” as mentioned in article 165 of the same code, it does not change the fact that a child is raped since his/her consent is ever absent. [9] The above is also supplemented by the Rwanda National Protocol for operations of exemptions for abortion in the Penal Code, set out by the Ministry of Health in 2012, where it is provided at page 9 that cases of young women who become pregnant while they are less than 18 years of age should also be treated as rape cases1.

1 Young women under the age 18, who become pregnant are also considered as child defilement according to Article of Law No54 of 14/12/2011 relating

## Page 413

160 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Determining whether I.C. was raped and whether this could be a basis for granting the permission to carry out abortion. [10] N.J. and her lawyers challenged the decision of the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge which deprived I.C. the right to abort her pregnancy which resulted from rape, because as long as there was no doubt on I.C.’s age, the Court could not wait until the accused is found guilty. Furthermore, they argued that there is no doubt that I.C. is pregnant as it was clarified by the medical report submitted after her medical test carried out at Muhima Hospital on 27 October 2015, whereby Dr. Kajeneza Delphine affirmed that I.C. was 18 weeks and 3 days pregnant. [11] The lawyers of N.J. added that they criticize the appealed Court decision whereby it held that a woman could become pregnant without necessarily being raped, without however clarify other means by which I.C. might have become pregnant than being raped. Her lawyer furthermore argued that the right N.J. seeks on behalf of her daughter I.C. is provided for by article 165 of the Organic Law instituting the Penal Code of Rwanda as well as the International conventions ratified by Rwanda. [12] The Court finds that pursuant to articles 190 and 217 of the Organic Law mentioned above, it is provided that a child is any person under eighteen (18) years unless provided otherwise by other laws.

to the rights and the protestation of children and article 190 of the penal code, and should be treated as rape cases.

## Page 414

161 RE N.J.

[13] The fact that I.C. was born on 12 July 2002 as evidenced by her Birth Certificate issued on 20th August 2015 by the Executive Secretary of Kicukiro Cell, this indicates that she is 13 years old. [14] The defilement of I.C. is indicated by the medical report which states that I.C. lost her virginity and is also pregnant2. Therefore, this report contradicts the first instance court’s decision which held that a woman could become pregnant without necessarily being raped, without describing any other ways through which I.C. could have been pregnant of the fetus she requests to abort. [15] Basing on I. C.’s age written on her Birth Certificate and the doctor’s report mentioned above, the Court finds that the crime committed against her is qualified as child defilement as provided for under article 190 of the above mentioned Organic Law, which in other words is rape. [16] The Court finds that article 165 of Organic Law No01/2012 of 02/05/2012 instituting the Penal Code provides that “There is no criminal liability for a woman who commits abortion and a medical doctor can help a woman to abort if one of the following conditions is met: 1o When a woman has become pregnant as a result of rape (…); the exemption from criminal liability under items 1°, 2° and 3° of Paragraph One of this article shall be permitted only if the woman who seeks

2Examination form in case of alleged rape or other sexual offence, made by Kacyiru Police Hospital on 07/30th /2014: pregnancy positive, hymen not intact, multiple old tears.

## Page 415

162 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

abortion submits to the doctor an order issued by the competent Court recognizing one of the cases under these items”. [17] The court also finds that article 14(2) C of the Protocol to African Charter on Human and People's rights on the rights of Women in Africa ratified by Rwanda and domesticated by Presidential Order No05/01 of 03/05/2015 reserving article 14.2.c, provides that State Parties shall take all appropriate measures to protect the reproductive rights of women by authorizing medical abortion in cases of sexual assault and rape3. [18] The Court therefore finds that N.J. has the right to request for an abortion on behalf of I.C. because it is evident that I.C. was defiled at the age of 13 years, and child defilement is considered as rape regardless of any mean used due to the absence of the child’s consent in the act of sexual intercourse. 9In regard to I.C.'s interests/benefits to request for abortion. [19] N.J. explained before the Court that I.C. was uncomfortable with her pregnancy because it hindered her from returning back to school, and furthermore, the later was frustrated to the extent that she tried to illegally abort through

3Article 14(2) C of the Protocol to African Charter on Human and People's rights on the rights of Women in Africa: States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to protect the reproductive rights of women by authorizing medical abortion in cases of sexual assault, rape, incest, and where the continued pregnancy endangers the mental and physical health of the mother or the life of the mother or the fetus. See http://www.achpr.org/files/instruments/womenprotocol/achpr_instr_proto_w omen_eng.pdf, accessed on 28th October 2015.

## Page 416

163 RE N.J.

the use of some drugs that are likely to endanger her life. The Court asked I.C. (who was summoned for informational purpose) if it was her wish to abort and her reasons for that, and she said that the pregnancy embarrasses her among her fellow children and hinders her from pursuing her studies. Furthermore, she says that she was defiled by a person called “Bruce” after being given an alcoholic drink called “coffee” and hence she was consequently defiled unconsciously. [20] Basing on the age of I.C. who is 13 years old, a pupil in Fifth form of Primary school (P.5), the Court finds no doubt that her pregnancy embarrasses her as she declares because she is still young. This assertion is emphasized by the fact that she tried to illegally abort as her mother stated in court. The Court also finds that, it is difficult for I.C. to assume parental responsibility at the age of 13 years consideration made of the majority age which is 21 years as provided for by the Rwanda Civil laws whereby an individual is able to assume parental responsibilities as well as 18 years of age whereby a person is allowed to decide on sex related issues as provided for by other laws. [21] The Court also finds with merit the need for I.C.’s to pursue her education, given that she is a primary five (P.5) pupil; thus giving birth and caring of the baby would obstruct her education as well as her life in future. [22] The Court finds that I.C. who is 13 years old has the right and interest to abort as requested for by her mother, N.J., because her pregnancy was a consequence of child defilement as explained above. The Court also finds that as approved by Doctor Kajeneza Delphine who carried out tests on her on 27th October 2015, the fetus I.C. requests to abort has not yet

## Page 417

164 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

reached 22 weeks provided for by the “National Protocol for operations of exemptions for abortion in penal code 2012”. [23] As requested by N.J. and her lawyers, the Court rules that I.C.’s abortion should be carried out at Kacyiru Police Hospital because it holds the capacity to do so. Furthermore, this court’s decision must be immediately communicated to the concerned Director of the Hospital in order to carry out the abortion before the fetus reaches 22 weeks as explained above. III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [24] The Court Affirms that N.J.’s appeal is well-founded. [25] The Court declares the ruling of the judgment RP0561/15/TGI/NYGE modified. [26] The Court declares that I.C. has a right to carry out abortion. [27] The Court orders Kacyiru Police Hospital through its representative director, to carry out the act of abortion for I.C. immediately before the fetus reaches 22 weeks. [28] The Court orders this judgment to be communicated to the Director of Kacyiru Police Hospital with immediate effect. [29] The Court orders that the Court’s fees incurred are charged to the Government Treasury since this case was filed in the interests of the child.

## Page 418

PROSECUTION v. MANIRAGABA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RPAA0257/10/CS (Hatangimbabazi, P.J., Kalimunda and Munyangeli, J.) September 11, 2015] Criminal procedure Law – Concurrence of evidence – The court shall decide at its sole discretion on the veracity and admissibility of incriminating or exculpatory evidence – Law Nº30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure, article 86. Criminal Law – Child defilement – Any sexual relations with a child, whatever the means or methods used, are considered as rape – Law No27/2001 of 28/04/2001 relating to the rights and protection of the child against violence, article 33. Facts: The prosecution accused the accused before the Intermediate Court of Musanze, for having defiled 17 years old girl. The court convicted and sentenced him to a reduced penalty of twenty years of imprisonment and a fine of 100,000Frw, on the ground that he pleaded guilty and sought forgiveness. He appealed against the decision before the High Court, chamber of Musanze, where the court sustained the appealed judgment, and found the civil claim filed by the defiled child’s mother with merit in part, therefore ordered Maniragaba Eugène to pay her 200,000Frw for damages. The accused lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court, admitting to have had a consented sexual intercourse with the concerned girl, and that later, he came to know that she intended to have sexual intercourse with him because she was pregnant, therefore 165

## Page 419

166 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

he apologises to have had sexual intercourses with her under provocation and improvisation but emphasizing that she was 18 years old or older. The prosecutor argues that with regard to the issue of the age of N.A, there is a birth certificate proving that she was born on 3 March 1990, identity card of her mother proving that N.A was born in 1990, therefore, the court could not take into consideration the allegations of Maniragaba Eugène that the girl was born in 1988, while the individual form he based on is not trustworthy as it was not adequately filled, and differs from other forms issued countrywide, especially that the one who signed on it was not the Executive Secretary of the sector, rather someone who signed in lieu of the Executive Secretary (P.O.). The victim’s mother stated that she went to the Sector administration, where she got the birth certificate of her daughter, and that she has already communicated it to the court. Held: 1. The court shall decide at its sole discretion on the veracity and admissibility of incriminating or exculpatory evidence. 2. After analyzing different documents, the court finds that N.A was defiled by the accused when she was less than 18 years. Therefore, alleging that they consented to have sexual intercourses cannot be given any consideration, because it is obvious that he used ruse to defile the child who was younger than him, as any sexual relations with a child, whatever the means or methods used, are considered as rape”. Appeal lacks merit. Appealed judgment sustained. Court fees charged to the public treasury.

## Page 420

167 PROSECUTION v. MANIRAGABA

Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law Nº30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure, article 86. Law N°15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 119. Law No27/2001 of 28/04/2001 relating to the rights and protection of the child against violence, article 33. No case law referred to. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] The prosecution brought Maniragaba Eugène before the Intermediate Court of Musanze, accusing him to have defiled a 17 years girl named N.A. The court convicted and sentenced him to twenty years of imprisonment and a fine of 100,000Frw, reducing his penalty because he pleads guilty and seeks forgiveness. [2] Maniragaba Eugène appealed against the decision before the High Court, chamber of Musanze, where the court sustained the appealed judgment and decided that the civil claim filed by Nyirarugendo Madeleine, the mother of N.A, has merit in part, therefore it ordered Maniragaba Eugène to pay her 200,000Frw for damages. [3] Maniragaba Eugène lodged an appeal in the Supreme Court, and the public hearing was held on 11 May 2015, and

## Page 421

168 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

closed on 13 July 2015. Maniragaba Eugène was assisted by Counsel Mbonyimpaye Elias, the claimant for damages named N.A was represented by her mother Nyirarugendo Madeleine assisted by counsel Kayirangwa Marie Grace, while the Prosecution was represented by Niyonkuru Françoise, the National Prosecutor. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUE. To determine whether when N.A was defiled by Maniragaba Eugène she was an adult. [4] Maniragaba Eugène admits to have had a consented sexual intercourse with N.A on 27 February 2008, explaining that she came to his home telling him that it was for thanking him because he had once accompanied her, as she could not found him before. [5] He keeps on explaining that he finally discovered that the girl intended to have sexual intercourse with him because she was pregnant and that there were other people who helped her in that plot including the Mayor of Gakenke, with whom he used to work. He states that he repents for having had sexual intercourse with the girl, under provocation and improvisation by her, and that she was 18 years old or older at that time. [6] With regard to the age of N.A, Maniragaba Eugène argues that in the case file there is the birth certificate proving that she was a student born in 1990, while she had dropt out of school in 2006. Furthermore, he alleges that there is another birth certificate in the case file proving that she was born on 3 March 1990 which was issued based on the doubtful identity card of Nyirangorore Anastasie.

## Page 422

169 PROSECUTION v. MANIRAGABA

[7] Maniragaba Eugène argues that after realising that there were confusion in those certificates, he wrote to the executive secretary for him to issue the authentic one, but he was relied that it could not be given to his wife that he had sent. He added that he asked the registrar of the court for help and the latter brought the individual form issued by the administration of the sector proving that N.A was born in 1988 but the court disregarded it, the reason why he requested to make available the registry of births, but even without it, he keeps emphasizing that he had sexual intercourses with N.A at the adult age, and denying to be responsible for her pregnancy, as she was already pregnant during the sexual intercourses. [8] Counsel Mbonyimpaye, assisting Maniragaba Eugène states that there are two documents both proving differently the age of N.A, the first being the one Maniragaba Eugène got from the administration of the sector proving that she was born in 1988, but which was disregarded by the court in favour of the one N.A brought proving that she was born in 1990. Therefore, he finds that the two are contradicting documents which result in doubt on the real age of N.A. [9] The prosecutor argues that with regard to the issue of the age of N.A, there is a birth certificate proving that she was born on 3 March 1990, ana an identity card of her mother proving that N.A was born in 1990, therefore, the court could not take into consideration the statements of Maniragaba Eugène whereby he alleges that the girl was born in 1988, while the individual form he based on is not trustworthy as it was not adequately filled, and differs from other cridentials format issued countrywide, especially that the one who signed on it was

## Page 423

170 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

not the Executive Secretary of the sector, as he signed in the capacity of a commissioned servant(P.O.). [10] He keeps stating that the grounds of Maniragaba Eugène whereby he alleges that he had sexual intercourses with N.A under provocation by the latter are mere statements, because he failed to produce supporting evidence. He requests the court to consider the medical report where it is proven that the girl was defiled in 2007 when she was under 18 years old. [11] Nyirarugendo Madeleine, N.A’s mother was given the floor and stated that she went to the Sector administration, where she got the birth certificate of her daughter, and that after she communicated it to the court, Maniragaba Eugène wrote an apology letter to N.A, telling her that they will raise the child together and gave her 25,000Frw. [12] In order to waive the confusion on the age of N.A, the court decided that the prosecution would go to the sector where the two contradicting documents were issued to seek information on how that could be. [13] After the investigation requested by the court, the prosecution informed that they found that the birth certificate of N.A coincides with the one they had handed to the court for the purpose of this case, and this indicates that she was born on 3 March 1990, the age which is even similar to that mentioned on her identity and baptism cards, and during the hearing held on 13 July 2015, the prosecution requested that the document presented by Maniragaba Eugène be rejected. [14] Maniragaba Eugène states that he does not agree with the prosecution, because they requested the certificate proving that

## Page 424

171 PROSECUTION v. MANIRAGABA

N.A was born in 1990, basing on his identity card instead of relying on her individual form, therefore he wonders whether N.A got two identity cards. He kept on stating that the baptism card should not be relied on as the parents of N.A are not legally married, which implies that the declared and registered age would not rely on individual form. Therefore, he requested the court as he always did to consider the registry of births in order to exclude any confusion. [15] Consel Mbonyimpaye, assisting Maniragaba Eugène states that their concern raised when the court requested the prosecution to inquire and find the reliable date of birth of N.A still has merit, as the prosecution is considered as a party to the case as his client is, implying they could not collect the evidence against them, the reason why they did not even search for the individual form. Therefore, he finds that the investigation carried out by the prosecution should not be relied onbecause it is incomplete as to have been conducted on only one side. He requested the court to conduct its own investigation with regard to the personal form, as the identity card they alleges to have been issued in 1980 differs from the certificate issued by the administration which proves that N.A was born in March 1990, whereas on the identity card, it is mentioned February. He closed his grounds stating that the baptism card and insurance cards commonly known as “mutuelle de santé” could not be relied on as they are cridentials relating to civil status documents. [16] Nyirarugendo Madeleine was given the floor again and stated that she got the identity card in 1980 when she came from Zaire, in which it was mentioned that N.A was born on 20 February 1990. She added that there is even a student’s card

## Page 425

172 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

issued on 1 June 2015, a baptism card, medical insurance commonly known as “mutuelle de santé”, all proving that N.A was born in 1990. [17] Counsel Kayirangwa, assisting Nyirarugendo Madeleine, states that the court should consider the presented evidence proving that N.A was born in 1990, and taking into consideration the document written by Maniragaba Eugène, acknowledging to have defiled N.A, as it proves that he committed the offence with knoweledge that she was minor. [18] With regard to the fact that the identity card of Nyirarugendo Madeleine does not correspond to the one of N.A, she states that it was due to mistake, due to the fact that on her identity card only the year is mentioned while the old one mentions even the month when N.A was born, therefore requesting the latter to be taken into consideration. OPINION OF THE COURT [19] The Court finds that though Maniragaba Eugène started denying to have defiled N.A, before the Judicial Police, the Prosecution and the courts, it is clear that he changed his position before the Supreme Court, affirming that he had sexual intercourse with her but emphasizing that she was not minor as pretended by the Prosecution, because she was born in the year 1988, while the offence he was charged with was committed in 2007, therefore, she was adult, aged 18 years old. He added that the sexual intercourse with N.A was consented, and denied to be the one who made her pregnant as pretended by the concerned girl.

## Page 426

173 PROSECUTION v. MANIRAGABA

[20] Concerning whether N.A. was adult, the Court notices that there are complementing evidence in the case file proving that N.A. was born in the year 1990, including: Her Identity card proving that she was born on 3 March 1990; N.A.’s identity form issued by the Executive Secretary of Mugunga sector, on 7 May 2008, proving that she was born in the year 1990; Birth certificate issued on 27 May 2015, by the Executive Secretary of Mugunga sector, presented by the prosecution as requested by the court, proving that N.A was born on 3 March 1990. N.A.’ baptism card and medical insurance known as “mutuelle de santé” both proving that she was born in the year 1990. [21] Article 86 of Law Nº30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure and article 119 of Law N°15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production entitle the judge to analyse every single evidence that is communicated to him/her in a criminal case, where they state that evidence shall be based on all the facts and legal considerations provided that parties are given an opportunity to present adversary arguments. The court shall decide at its sole discretion on the veracity and admissibility of incriminating or exculpatory evidence1.

1 Article 86 of the Law Nº30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure provides: “Evidence shall be based on all the facts and legal considerations provided that parties are given an opportunity to present adversary arguments. The court shall decide at its sole discretion on the veracity and admissibility of incriminating or exculpatory evidence”.

## Page 427

174 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

[22] Considering the provisions of the above mentioned articles, the Court finds baseless; the pleadings of Maniragaba Eugène, in respect of which he denies all documents as mentioned in the previous paragraphs, pretending that an individual form that he himself collected mentionning that N.A. was born on 1988 be solely taken into consideration, because he does not prove how that individual form can discard all documents as mentioned in the previous paragraph. Furthermore, he does not prove that those documents were issued in order to mislead about the time when N.A. was born. Therefore, they must be taken into consideration to prove that N.A. was born in 1990. [23] Considering the explanations as given above, the Court finds that N.A. was defiled by Maniragaba Eugène when she was under 18 years. Therefore, alleging that they consented to have sexual intercourse cannot be given any consideration, because it is obvious that Maniragaba Eugène used ruse to defile the child who was younger than him, and this should be qualified as child defilement. [24] The above mentioned qualification coincide with the provisions of article 33 of the Law No27/2001 of 28/04/2001 relating to the rights and protection of the child against violence which states that “Any sexual relations with a child, whatever the means or methods used, are considered as rape”.

Article 119 of the Law N°15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production provides the following: “In criminal cases, evidence is based on all grounds, factual or legal provided that parties have been given a chance to be present for cross-examination. The courts rule on the validity of the prosecution or defence evidence”.

## Page 428

175 PROSECUTION v. MANIRAGABA

III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [25] Finds the appeal lodged by Maniragaba Eugène without merit; [26] Upholds the appealed judgment NoRPA0241/09/HC/MUS rendered by the High Court, chamber of Musanze; [27] Orders that the court fees be charged to the public treasury.

## Page 430

PROSECUTION v. NIYONSABA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RPAA0126/11/CS (Mutashya, P.J, Gakwaya and Hitiyaremye, J.) May 8, 2015] Criminal Law – Murder accompanied by inhuman and degrading treatment – Shall be punished by the same penalty as the one who killed with intent, anyone, in whatever circumstances, kills a person by inhuman and degrading treatment – Decree-Law Nº21/77 of 18/08/1977 instituting the penal code, article 316. Criminal Law – Guilty plea which is not sincere – Offence committed with cruelty – It is a ground for not reducing the penalty – Decree-Law Nº21/77 of 18/08/1977 instituting the penal code, article 82. Facts: The accused appeared before the High Court, Chamber of Musanze for murder committed against Nzabanita Nsangiranabo. The Prosecution was alleging that they had quarrels and his corpse was found in the cave nearby their home. The accused was suspected, he immediately admitted the offence and explained how he committed it but he had denied it before the Prosecution. The High Court convicted him of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, stating that the High Court had convicted him basing on false testimony given by the mother of the deceased, and disregarding his discharging facts including the statements made by Dusabimana. However, at the beginning of the hearing, he informed the court that the written statements he had communicated to it before were to be 177

## Page 431

178 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

disregarded, as he was then pleading guilty for the offence he was charged with; assassination. He added that he was even rejecting his pleading before the High Court, as he was then seeking forgiveness and penalty reduction. The Prosecutor contends that the way the accused pleads guilty is not accurate because he states that he pushed the deceased and fell down on the chest, and after he cut his tongue and removed his eye, while the medical report reveals that the corpse was covered with wounds in the face and the head, something that was the cause of his death as the medical practitioner could not find anything on the rest of the body. He ended requesting for the guilty plea Niyonsaba Boniface made to be disregarded and to hear the medical practitioner who had issued the medical report before the court. Held: The fact that the accused does not sincerely plead guilty and the offence he is charged with was accompanied by a lot of atrocity, imply that the forgiveness he is seeking should not be granted. Therefore, life imprisonment inflicted to him in the appealed judgment must be sustained. Appeal with merit. Appealed judgment sustained. Court fees charged to the public treasury. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Decree-Law Nº21/77 of 18/08/1977 instituting the penal code, articles 82, 312 and 316. No case referred to.

## Page 432

179 PROSECUTION v. NIYONSABA

Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND TO THE CASE [1] The prosecution states that Nzabanita Nsangiranabo went to the pub of Niyonsaba Boniface, sat on the table, and blew his nose. Niyonsaba approached and slapped and kicked him and threw him out. His mother Mukayezu Vérédiana called the person who was lodging them and who was the pub owner called Niyibizi Jean Damascène for help. When he came, he asked them to go home and two days later, the corpse of Nzabanita was found near their home. [2] Niyonsaba Boniface was suspected to be involved in the killing of Nzabanita, and when he was interrogated before the Judicial Police, he admitted the offence and explained how he committed it but denied it before the Prosecution. After the investigation was completed, the case N°RP0115/09/HC/MUS was filed before the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, and the verdict was rendered on 23 September 2010, where Niyonsaba Boniface was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. [3] Not satisfied with the decision, Niyonsaba Boniface appealed to the Supreme Court on 18 October 2010, stating that the High Court had convicted him basing on false testimony given by the mother of the deceased, and disregarding his discharging facts including the statements made by Dusabimana. [4] The public hearing took place on 30 March 2015, where Niyonsaba Boniface was assisted by Counsel Musabwa

## Page 433

180 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Frédéric, while the prosecution was represented by Mukurarinda Alain, a National Prosecutor. [5] At the beginning of the hearing, Niyonsaba Boniface informed the court that the written statements he had communicated to it before were to be disregarded, as he was then pleading guilty for the offence he was charged with; assassination. He added that he was even rejecting his pleading before the High Court, as he was then seeking forgiveness and penalty reduction. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUE ¾ Whether the guilty plea made by Niyonsaba Boniface could serve as mitigating circumstance. [6] Niyonsaba Boniface explains that Nzabanita Nsangiranabo met him in the bar where he used to work and they quarrelled until they fought due to his bad manners but people stopped them. He states that after the fight, Nzabanita got out intending to go home but he kept insulting him even involving himself in his private life. Niyonsaba kept stating that as he was drunk, he became angry and took the knife he used to cut onions with and fallowed him home where he stayed and took him, and when they reached the cave, he hit him against the stones which were there and he fell on his chest. He kept stating that before he died, he cut his tongue and removed his eye using the knife in order to make conceal evidence. Concerning whether none saw him doing so, Niyonsaba Boniface replied that when he took the deceased from home, his mother was around and when she asked her where he was taking his son, he ordered her to keep her mouth shut otherwise he would beat her.

## Page 434

181

[7] Musabwa Frédéric, Counsel for Niyonsaba Boniface, argues that when his client was arrested he had admitted the offence till when he pleaded not guilty before the Prosecution and High Court, but that as he was then pleading guilty as witnessed against him and repent, the Court could rely on article 83 of the penal code that was into force at the time the offence was committed to reduce his penalty, because five years and seven months spent in prison led him to heartfelt repentance. [8] The Prosecutor contends that the way Niyonsaba Boniface pleads guilty is not genuine because he states that he pushed the deceased and fell down on his chest, and after he cut his tongue and removed his eye, while the medical report reveals that the corpse was covered with wounds in the face and the head, which was the cause of his death as the medical practitioner could not find anything on the rest of the body. He ended requesting for the guilty plea Niyonsaba Boniface made to be disregarded and to hear the medical practitioner who had issued the medical report before the court. OPINION OF THE COURT [9] Niyonsaba Boniface started denying to have killed Nzabanita Nsangiranabo before the High Court and after the reflection, he pleaded guilty in accurate way, explaining that he became that angry due to drunkenness after being provoked by the deceased. Furthermore, he kept stating that he really regrets what he did and seeks forgiveness. [10] Article 82 of the Decree-Law Nº21/77 of 18/08/1977 instituting the penal code in Rwanda that was into force at the time the offence was committed states: “The judge may consider PROSECUTION v. NIYONSABA

## Page 435

182 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

the appropriateness of mitigating circumstances which preceded, accompanied or followed an offence”. [11] Article 316 of the Decree-Law Nº21/77 mentioned above provides: “Shall be punished same as the one who killed with intent, anyone in whatever the circumstances, kills a person by inhuman and degrading treatment”. [12] Article 312 of the mentioned Decree-Law states: “deliberate killing or by ambush is assassination punishable by the death penalty”1. [13] With regard to this case, the Court finds that all interrogated people including Niyibizi Jean Damascène, the owner of the pub where the quarrels between Niyonsaba Boniface and the deceased happened, and Dusabimana Jean Baptiste who was in the place at the time of the quarrels, all confirm that Niyonsaba Boniface beat the deceased and the latter ran away from him but he kept involving him in quarrels though people around were advising him to end it. Furthermore, the Court finds that Mukayezu Vérédiana, mother of the deceased, states that she heard the cry and when she went to see what was going on, she found Niyonsaba Boniface beating his son who was on his knees before him begging to be forgiven. [14] Considering the statements, the Supreme Court finds that the conflicts started with Niyonsaba Boniface as the deceased ran away from him and he pursued him till he threw him out as proved by Mukayezu Vérédiana who stated that he followed

1 Article 3 of the Organic Law N°31/2007 of 25/07/2007 abolishing the death penalty and replacing it with the life imprisonment and life imprisonment with special provisions.

## Page 436

183

them holding a knife, which is contrary to the statements of the accused that the deceased kept on inciting him to fight. [15] Furthermore, the Court finds that regarding the circumstances in which the offence was committed, Niyonsaba Boniface admitted before the Judicial Police that after the quarrel was ended, he found the deceased at his home, he took him and reaching the cave, he hit him against a stone, against which he fell on his chest provoking immediate death. He also admitted to have cut his tongue and removed his eye. Before this Court, he affirmed to have killed the deceased, whereby he cut his tongue before he was dead and removed his eye in order to conceal evidence. [16] With regards to factors that must be considered while determining the penalty, it is necessary to consider how the accused committed the offence, the grounds behind the offence, his behaviour before the offence, circumstances in which the offence was committed and his private life. [17] The Court finds that Niyonsaba Boniface has atrociously killed Nzabanita Nsangiranabo, as he first of all tortured him by cutting some parts of his body as he admitted. [18] With regard to the fact that the medical report in the case file does not reveal that some parts of the corpse were cut, which makes the Prosecution to believe that it has not happened, the Court finds that despite the fact that it is not written in the medical report, no doubt that it happened as the accused admitted to have cut those parts, and he would not gain anything to falsely admit such an act. PROSECUTION v. NIYONSABA

## Page 437

184 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

[19] Considering the aforementioned grounds, the Court finds that Niyonsaba Boniface does not explain well the grounds which led him to commit the offence, because even if he states that he was provoked by the deceased, but people who were around affirm that he started the quarrel as explained above. Furthermore, the offence he is charged with was done with a lot of atrocity as explained above. Therefore, the mitigation relating to admission of the offence he is seeking could not be granted and life imprisonment pronounced against him in the appealed judgment must be sustained. III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [20] Finds appeal of Niyonsaba Boniface without merit; [21] Sustains the life imprisonment inflicted by the High Court, Musanze Chamber on 23rd September 2010 in the judgment RP0115/09/HC/MUS. [22] Orders the court fees to be charged to the public treasury.

## Page 438

PROSECUTION v. NSHUTIRAKIZA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RPA0047/11/CS (Mutashya, P.J., Gakwaya and Hitiyaremye, J.) March 27, 2015] Criminal Law – Penalty reduction – The judge may consider the appropriateness of mitigating circumstances which preceded, accompanied or followed an offence – When the offence was committed with serious cruelty, it may be the ground for non- reduction of the penalty – Decree-Law N°21/77 of 18 August 1977 instituting the penal code, articles 82, 83 and 84. Facts: The accused was prosecuted for assassination before the High Court, chamber of Rusizi, where he was charged with stabbing his wife Bayavuge Francine’s head to death. The Court convicted him of murder and sentenced him to twenty years of imprisonment (20) on ground that it has reduced his penalty because he was the first offender and that he pleaded guilty and sought forgiveness. He lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court claiming that the High Court sentenced him as if he had pleaded not guilty while he did. He kept on arguing that he admits the charges and seeks forgiveness, and that he repented to his family in law as well as the Rwandan society, and he thus requests for a further penalty reduction. The Prosecution contends that the appeal ground of Nshutirakiza Narcisse lacks merit as his penalty was reduced by the High Court considering the fact that he had been co-operative with justice entities, pleaded guilty and repented from the Judicial Police to the court. Thus, it finds that his prayers were already granted by the High Court. 185

## Page 439

186 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Held: The penalty reduction the accused requested cannot be granted as this Court is of the same view with the High Court that considering the circumstances in which the offence was committed and its gravity, there is no other ground that could lead to further reduction of the penalty imposed on him by the previous court. Therefore, the penalty inflicted on him by the High Court corresponds to the offence he committed. Appeal lacks merit. Appealed judgment sustained. Court fees charged to the public treasury. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Decree-Law N°21/77 of 18 August 1977 instituting the penal code, articles 82, 83 and 84. No case law referred to. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] The case started in the High Court, Rusizi Chamber where the Prosecution charged Nshutirakiza Narcisse of assassination. They explained that on 9 February 2008, around 5:00AM, Nshutirakiza Narcisse, hit his wife Bayavuge Francine’s head to death with the machete and knife, allegedly because they had conflicts due to the fact that he had abandoned

## Page 440

187 PROSECUTION v. NSHUTIRAKIZA

her for a concubine, therefore he killed her so that he could live peacefully with his concubine called Nzayisaba Patricia. [2] On 30 November 2010, The High Court, the Chamber of Rusizi, rendered the verdict RP0027/08/HC/RSZ convicting Nshutirakiza Narcisse for assassination and sentencing him to twenty (20) years of imprisonment. The Court explained that his penalty was reduced due to the fact that he was the first offender and that he pleaded guilty and sought forgiveness. [3] Not pleased with the decision, on 13 December 2010, Nshutirakiza Narcisse lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court requesting for a further penalty reduction. [4] The case was heard in public on 23 February 2015, where Nshutirakiza Narcisse was assisted by Counsel Mujawamariya Immaculée while the Prosecution was represented by the National Prosecutor Ntawangundi Béatrice. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUE Whether Nshutirakiza Narcisse could be granted a further penalty reduction. [5] Nshutirakiza Narcisse argues that he pleaded guilty before the High Court but he was sentenced as if he had never done so. He kept on arguing that he pleads guilty of the crime he is charged with and seeks forgiveness. He explains in addition that he asked for pardon from his family in law as well as the Rwandan society and he therefore, requests for further penalty reduction.

## Page 441

188 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

[6] Nshutirakiza Narcisse states that he did not plan to kill his wife, but they rather quarreled around 5:00AM and it was then that he hit her with the machete on the neck and she died. He keeps explaining that after he cut her neck, it did not fall off as it remained tied with a small back part. He explained that their conflict resulted from their property of banana plantation, because his wife used to sell the harvest without his consent. He concluded stating that when he killed his wife, he had already left his concubine. [7] Counsel Mujawamariya Immaculée states that Nshutirakiza Narcisse heartily pleaded guilty from the Judicial Police until his appearance before the Court, but that the High Court, Chamber of Rusizi, disregarded to sufficiently reduce his penalty considering that he killed his wife in order to live with his concubine Nzayisaba Patricie while it was false as a year elapsed since they stopped cohabiting. [8] Counsel Mujawamariya Immaculée keeps on arguing that Nshutirakiza Narcisse has 4 young children who have none else to look after them. She added that seven years he served in prison prove that he has really regretted his act and he thus requests this Court to further reduce his penalty and sentence him to seven years of imprisonment he has already served in prison. [9] The Prosecution contends that the appeal ground of Nshutirakiza Narcisse lacks merit as his penalty was reduced by the High Court pursuant to articles 83 and 84 of the Decree- Law No21/77 of 18/8/1977 instituting the penal code as he had been co-operative with justice entities by pleading guilty and seeking forgiveness from the Judicial Police to the court. Thus, she added, his prayer was already granted by the High Court.

## Page 442

189 PROSECUTION v. NSHUTIRAKIZA

[10] In addition, the Prosecution argues that, considering the cruelty according to which he committed the offence when he cut the neck of his wife, it is clear that he premeditated for it since many days as he was having grudge for her. They added that he was sentenced to twenty years of imprisonment while he should have been sentenced to the life imprisonment. Therefore, the Prosecution concludes that the penalty inflicted on him by the High Court should be sustained. THE VIEW OF THE COURT [11] Article 82 of Decree-Law No21/77 of 18/8/1977 instituting the penal code that was into force at the time the offence was committed states that “The judge may consider the appropriateness of mitigating circumstances which preceded, accompanied or followed an offence”. [12] The Supreme Court finds that under paragraphs 5 and 7 of the appealed judgment, and pursuant to articles 82 and 83 of Decree-Law No21/77 of 18/8/1977 instituting the penal code that was into force at the time the offence was committed, the High Court, at its discretion, reduced the penalty for Nshutirakiza Narcisse from the life imprisonment, the sentence which he would have been sentenced to, to twenty years of imprisonment as he pleaded guilty and that he was the first offender. [13] Furthermore, the Supreme Court finds that in the appealed judgment, especially under paragraph seven, the High Court explained that Nshutirakiza Narcisse assassinated his wife with cruelty and mockery, when he cut off her neck with the machete, thus, he could not get a large penalty reduction.

## Page 443

190 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

[14] With regard to the statements made by his Counsel Mujawamariya Immaculée that the previous Court did not reduce Nshutirakiza Narcisse’s penalty because he allegedly killed his wife in order to cohabit with his concubine Nzayisaba Patricie, the Supreme Court finds it wrong, as explained in the previous paragraphs and he could not get the large penalty reduction due to the cruelty and mockery with which he killed his wife. [15] Regarding the grounds Nshutirakiza Narcisse submits requesting for further reduction of his penalty, the Supreme Court finds that his continuous guilty plea and his young four children without anyone to care for them are not ample grounds for further reduction of his penalty, considering the circumstances in which he committed the offence and the mens rea behind as explained by the High Court. Therefore, those grounds are baseless. [16] The Supreme Court finds, therefore, that the penalty reduction Nshutirakiza Narcisse requested for cannot be granted as this Court is of the same view as the High Court that considering the circumstances in which the offence was committed and its gravity as explained in paragraphs 6 and 13 of this judgment, there is no other ground that could serve him to get further reduction of his by the previous court. Therefore, the penalty inflicted on him by the High Court corresponds to the offence he committed. [17] Considering the above, the Supreme Court finds that the appeal lodged by Nshutirakiza Narcisse is baseless, thus the penalty inflicted on him by the High Court is sustained.

## Page 444

191 PROSECUTION v. NSHUTIRAKIZA

III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [18] Finds the appeal lodged by Nshutirakiza Narcisse without merit. [19] Decides that the penalty of twenty (20) years of imprisonment inflicted on Nshutirakiza Narcisse in the judgment RP0027/08/HC/RSZ rendered by the High Court, chamber of Rusizi, on 30 November 2010 is sustained. [20] Decides that the court fees are to be charged to the public treasury.

## Page 445

Printed by PROGRAPH LTD P.o. Box 1882 Kigali - Rwanda Tel : (+250) 788303889

## Page 446

Printed by PROGRAPH LTD P.o. Box 1882 Kigali - Rwanda Tel : (+250) 788303889 E-mail:hakizae2007@yahoo.fr

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.