Re MUHOZA (PETITION FOR THE REPEAL OF A LEGAL PROVISION INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTION)

Re MUHOZA (PETITION FOR THE REPEAL OF A LEGAL PROVISION INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTION)

Paragraph 2 of article 176 of Law no 21/2012 is not inconsistent with article 29 of the Constitution because, in cases involving family property, one spouse represents the other in litigation, and allowing both to file third party opposition would contradict the purpose of that remedy and undermine the finality of judgments.

Citation
RLR V.1 - 2014
Parties
Petitioner: Muhoza Consolée; Respondent: Ministry of Justice (Rwanda)
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
25 October 2013
Case Number
RS/INCONST/CIV 0001/13/CS
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment
Outcome
petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Unconstitutionality of Statutory Provision, Third Party Opposition, Property Rights, Matrimonial Property
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Unconstitutionality of Statutory Provision Third Party Opposition Property Rights Matrimonial Property

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhoza Consolée

Petitioner

Ministry of Justice (Rwanda)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraph 2 of article 176 of Law no 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 is inconsistent with article 29 of the Constitution of Rwanda

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph 2 of article 176 of Law no 21/2012 is not inconsistent with article 29 of the Constitution because, in cases involving family property, one spouse represents the other in litigation, and allowing both to file third party opposition would contradict the purpose of that remedy and undermine the finality of judgments.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • Petition is without merit.
  • Article 176(2) of Law no 21/2012 is not inconsistent with article 29 of the Constitution.