MBERABAGABO ET AL v. FIAT AMELIE ET AL

MBERABAGABO ET AL v. FIAT AMELIE ET AL

The Supreme Court held that the Commercial High Court was competent to review the judgment based on articles 186 and 189 of Law n° 21/2012, as the application was grounded in confusion of facts and injustice. Withdrawal of the appeal before applying for review meant respondents did not exercise two ways of appeal concurrently. The sale contract between Fiat Amélie and Dunia Bakarani was valid as proceeds were paid to the creditor before auction. Notary Kayitesi Judith and Mberabagabo Innocent were liable for depriving Fiat Amélie of rent, but Butera Jean-Pierre was not liable as he did not buy the house at auction. Damages and lawyer's fees were awarded accordingly.

Citation
[2015] 3 RLR
Parties
Applicant: Mberabagabo Innocent; Applicant: Kayitesi Judith; Applicant: Butera Jean-Pierre; Respondent: Fiat Amélie; Respondent: Dunia Bakarani; Intervener: I&M Bank (former Banque Commerciale du Rwanda)
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
28 March 2014
Case Number
RS/REV/INJUST/COM 0001/13/SC
Procedural Posture
Commercial Review / Supreme Court Final Judgment
Outcome
Applicants' claims dismissed except for Butera Jean-Pierre whose claim has merit; partial reversal of Commercial High Court judgment regarding Butera Jean-Pierre's liability.
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Competence of Court, Auction Procedure, Redemption of Seized Property, Damages for Lost Rent, Liability for Torts, Validity of Sale Contract
Source Language
en, rw
Commercial Law Civil Procedure Contract Law Tort Law Review of Judgment Competence of Court Auction Procedure Redemption of Seized Property +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mberabagabo Innocent

Applicant

Kayitesi Judith

Applicant

Butera Jean-Pierre

Applicant

Fiat Amélie

Respondent

Dunia Bakarani

Respondent

I&M Bank (former Banque Commerciale du Rwanda)

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Commercial Review / Supreme Court Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commercial High Court was competent to review the judgment for injustice
  2. 2 Whether applicants exercised two ways of appeal concurrently
  3. 3 Validity of the sale contract between Fiat Amélie and Dunia Bakarani

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the Commercial High Court was competent to review the judgment based on articles 186 and 189 of Law n° 21/2012, as the application was grounded in confusion of facts and injustice. Withdrawal of the appeal before applying for review meant respondents did not exercise two ways of appeal concurrently. The sale contract between Fiat Amélie and Dunia Bakarani was valid as proceeds were paid to the creditor before auction. Notary Kayitesi Judith and Mberabagabo Innocent were liable for depriving Fiat Amélie of rent, but Butera Jean-Pierre was not liable as he did not buy the house at auction. Damages and lawyer's fees were awarded accordingly.

Court Disposition

Applicants' claims dismissed except for Butera Jean-Pierre whose claim has merit; partial reversal of Commercial High Court judgment regarding Butera Jean-Pierre's liability.

Orders

  • Notary Kayitesi Judith and Mberabagabo Innocent to jointly pay Fiat Amélie 29,575,000 Frw for rent.
  • Notary Kayitesi Judith and Mberabagabo Innocent to jointly pay Fiat Amélie and Dunia Bakarani 1,000,000 Frw for lawyer's fees.