RLR V. 2- 2025

# RLR V. 2- 2025

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Rwanda law reports - Date: 2025-04-03 - Collection: Supreme Court

## Text

## Page 1

i Re MIRONKO REPUBLIC OF RWANDA SUPREME COURT P.o. Box. 2197 KIGALI www.judiciary.gov.rw ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO RWANDA LAW REPORTS BY’INKIKO Icyegeranyo V. 2 - 2025 Ukwakira, 2025 Law Reports V. 2 - 2025 October, 2025

## Page 2

ii ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 3

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO RWANDA LAW REPORTS BY’INKIKO REPUBLIC OF RWANDA SUPREME COURT Po. Box. 2197 KIGALI www.judiciary.gov.rw Icyegeranyo V. 2 - 2025 Ukwakira, 2025 Law Reports V. 2 - 2025 October, 2025

## Page 4

iv ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 5

v Re MIRONKO ISHAKIRO ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI ...................................iii iRiBURiRO ............................................................................... ix iBiKUBiYE MURi iKi CYEGERANYO................................. xi AMATEGEKO YASHiNGiWEHO ........................................xiii iMANZA ZiFASHiSHiJWE ................................................... xix AMAGAMBO MPiNE ..........................................................xxiii Re MiRONKO ............................................................................ 1 Re FEMiNiST ACTiON DEvELOPMENT AMBiTiON (FADA) ..................................................................................... 49 Re ExCEL SECURiTY RWANDA LTD ................................ 81 UWAMURERA v UBUSHiNJACYAHA ............................. 121 UBUSHiNJACYAHA v TWAGiRUMUKiZA ..................... 137 SANLAM AG Plc v BiZiMANA ........................................... 151 MUKAKALISA N’ABANDI v SONARWA N’UNDi (ADD) ................................................................................................. 185 MUKAKALISA N’ABANDI v SONARWA N’UNDI (Fond) ................................................................................................. 205 KWiZERA v RADiANT iNSURANCE COMPANY LTD .. 227 CiMERWA LTD v KiGALi CERAMiCA FURNiTURE LTD N’UNDI .................................................................................. 247 NIYIGENA v. ECOBANK RWANDA PLC N’UNDI .......... 279 ISHAKIRO vii xiii xv xvii xxiii xxvii

## Page 6

vi ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO FARAJA HOTEL LTD v COGEBANQUE PLC N’UNDI ... 307

## Page 7

vii Re MIRONKO ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI

I. ITSINDA RY’ABANYAMATEGEKO BATEGUYE IMANZA

KAGABO U. Stephanie

KAvUTSE M. Claude

KUBWiMANA Jean Claude

MUJABi K. Naphtal

NZAYiSENGA Daniel

UWiNKiNDi Angelique

UWiMANA Jean Marie vianney

ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI

## Page 8

viii ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO i II. KOMITE YEMEZA IMANZA

Prof. Dr. NGAGI M. Alphonse : Perezida wa Komite, Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire

Dr. MUHIRE G. Yves : visi Perezida wa Komite, Umwarimu muri Kaminuza y’u Rwanda

BWIZA N. Blanche : Umwanditsi wa Komite, Umugenzuzi w’inkiko

RUKUNDAKUVUGA F. Regis : Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire

Dr. KARIMUNDA M. Aimé : Umuyobozi Mukuru wa iLPD

HABARUREMA Jean Pierre

KALIHANGABO Isabelle Perezida w’Urukiko Rukuru

Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga

KALIWABO Charles : Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire

NKURUNZIZA Valens :

BURAYOBERA UMUZAYIRE Bibiane : Umugenzuzi Mukuru w’inkiko

visi Perezida wa Komisiyo y`u Rwanda ishinzwe ivugururwa ry`Amategeko

## Page 9

ix Re MIRONKO NSENGIYUMVA Jean Claude : Umugenzuzi w’inkiko

KIBUKA Jean Luc : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi

NINAHAZWA Roselyne :

Lt Col KALIBU Phanuel

Dr. BIDERI Diogène :

Umushinjacyaha ku rwego rw’Igihugu

Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikale

Umushinjacyaha ku rwego rw’Igihugu KABIBI Specioza : intumwa ya Leta

MUREREREHE Saouda : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru

KAMALI Canisius :

Umwalimu muri ULK

Dr. NSHIMIYIMANA Didace :

GIRANEZA Clémentine :

Dr MBONIGABA Callixte : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru

Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye

Umwarimu muri iNES KOMITE YEMEZA IMANZA

## Page 10

x ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

- Ruhengeri

BAGABO Faustin :

Dr ZIKAMABAHARI Jean de Dieu :

KARAKE Canisius :

Dr. HABIMANA Pie :

UMUTESI Vestine :

MUKAMANA Valentine Avoka mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka

Umwarimu muri University of Kigali

Umwarimu muri UNiLAK

Avoka mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka

Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi

Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze

## Page 11

xi Re MIRONKO

## Page 12

xii ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 13

xiii Re MIRONKO IRIBURIRO Basomyi bacu, Tunejejwe no kubagezaho Icyegeranyo cy’Ibyemezo by’Inkiko, volime 2 [2025]. Nk’uko mubizi, tubahitiramo imanza zikubiyemo bimwe mu bisubizo by’ibibazo muhura nabyo kenshi, haba mu mirimo yanyu ndetse no mu buzima bwa buri munsi. Muri iyi nomero murasangamo imanza icumi (10) zikurikira: imanza eshatu (3) zerekeranye n’ibirego bisaba kwemeza ko Itegeko rinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga, imanza eshatu (3) z’imbonezamubano, imanza ibyiri (2) z’ubucuruzi n’imanza ebyiri (2) zerekeranye n’imiburanishirize y’imanza.

MUKANTAGANZWA Domitilla Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga akaba na Perezida w’Inama Nkuru y’Ubucamanza

IRIBURIRO

## Page 14

xiv ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 15

xv Re MIRONKO

IBIKUBIYE MURI IKI CYEGERANYO iki Cyegeranyo gikubiyemo imanza zaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire.

INYITO imanza ziri muri iyi volime zikoreshwa muri ubu buryo: [2025] 2 RLR

IBIKUBIYE MURI IKI CYEGERANYO

## Page 16

xvi ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 17

xvii Re MIRONKO iii AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO

a. Amategeko akoreshwa ubu Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015 kugeza ubu; ingingo ya 3, 29, 152 n’iya 153 10 ingingo ya 13, 15 n’iya 16 53 ingingo ya 15,16, 23, 37 n’iya 159 85 Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yerekeye uburenganzira mu by’imbonezamubano no mu bya politiki. ingingo ya 14 10 ingingo ya 26 53 ingingo ya 14, 17 n’iya 18 85 Amasezerano Nyafurika y’Uburenganzira bwa Muntu n’ubw’Abaturage, ingingo ya 7 10 ingingo ya 4, 91 n’iya 127 54 Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yerekeye guca burundu ivangura iryo ari ryo ryose rikorerwa abagore yo ku wa mbere Gicurasi 1980 yemejwe n’Iteka rya Perezida No 431/16 ryo ku wa 10/11/1981. ingingo ya 3 54 itegeko N° 026/2023 ryo ku wa 17/05/2023 rigenga Polisi y’u Rwanda; ingingo ya 9, 10 n’iya 34 85 AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO

## Page 18

xviii ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO i itegeko Nº 059/2023 ryo ku wa 04/12/2023 rihindura itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange; ingingo ya 2 139 itegeko Nº 027/2022 ryo ku wa 20/10/2022 rishyiraho imisoro ku musaruro; ingingo ya 14 230 itegeko No 27/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha; ingingo ya 137 10 itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange; ingingo ya 143 54 itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi; ingingo ya 81, 82, 103 n’iya 104 10 ingingo ya 75 n’iya 177 85 Itegeko Nᵒ 012/2018 ryo ku wa 04/04/2018 rigena imitunganyirize n’imikorere y’Urwego rw’Ubucamanza; ingingo ya 50 10 itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko; ingingo ya 72 54 ingingo ya 66 kugeza ku ya 80 10

## Page 19

xix Re MIRONKO AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO itegeko Nº 016 bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 rigenga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera; ingingo ya 5, 6, 13, 19, 30, 31, n’iya 37 85 itangazo Mpuzamahanga ryerekeye uburenganzira bwa muntu (Déclaration Universelle des Droits de l’Homme) ryo mu mwaka wa 1948; ingingo ya 10 n’iya 11 11 itegeko No 75/2018 ryo ku wa 07/09/2018 rigena inkomoko y’imari n’umutungo by’inzego z’imitegekere y’Igihugu zegerejwe abaturage; ingingo ya 5 230 itegeko No 48/2017 ryo ku wa 23/09/2017 rigenga Banki Nkuru y’u Rwanda; ingingo ya 6 85 itegeko No 41/2001 ryo ku wa 19/09/2001 ryerekeye imyishyurire y’abangirijwe n’impanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga bigenzwa na moteri kandi bigenda ku butaka; ingingo ya 2 154 ingingo ya 4 230 itegeko N° 10/2009 ryo ku wa 14/05/2009 ryerekeye ubugwate ku mutungo utimukanwa ingingo ya 4 n’iya 11 281 itegeko-Teka No 32/75 ryo ku wa 07/08/1975 ryerekeye ubwishingizi butegetswe ku buryozwe butewe n’ibigenzwa ku butaka bifite moteri, nk’uko ryahinduwe n’Itegeko No 02/2002 ryo ku wa 17/01/2002;

## Page 20

xx ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO i ingingo ya 3 154 itegeko–Teka No 20/75 ryo ku wa 20/06/1975 ryerekeye ubwishingizi muri rusange; ingingo ya 11 154 iteka rya Perezida N° 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga; ingingo ya 11, 12,23 187 ingingo ya 12; 22, 23 208 Amabwiriza No 006/2015 yo ku wa 16/09/2015 ya Banki Nkuru y’u Rwanda yerekeye sheki zitazigamiwe; ingingo ya 5 249 Amasezerano y’Ubumwe bw’Ibihugu by’Uburayi yerekeye Uburenganzira bwa Muntu nk’uko yahinduwe n’amasezerano yunganira No 11 na 14; ingingo ya 8 85 Amasezerano y’inyongera ku Masezerano y’Ibihugu by’Uburayi ku Burenganzira bwa Muntu n’ubwisanzure (Protocol no 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms); ingingo ya 2 10 b. Amategeko yakuweho ariko yakoreshwaga igihe ikibazo cyavukaga itegeko N° 09/2017 ryo ku wa 20/03/2017 rihindura kandi ryuzuza itegeko N° 46/2010 ryo ku wa 14/12/2010 rigena

## Page 21

xxi Re MIRONKO AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO ii ububasha, inshingano, imitunganyirize n’imikorere bya Polisi y’u Rwanda; ingingo ya 8 85 Itegeko ryo ku wa 30/07/1888 ry’urwuge rw’amategeko y’imbonezamubano; ingingo ya 555 281

## Page 22

xxii ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 23

xxiii Re MIRONKO IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE

RS/iNCOST/SPEC 0001/2022/SC, Re Murangwa Edward rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 16/12/2022. RS/iNCONST/SPEC00004/2020/SC, Asiimwe Frank na Leta y’u Rwanda rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 26/03/2021. RS/iNCONST/SPEC00003/2019/SC, Re Kabasinga rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 04/12/2019. RS/iNCONST/PEN0001/08/CS rwa Murorunkwere Spéciose rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 26/09/2008.

RS/iNCONST/SPEC 00001/2022/SC, Re Murangwa Edward, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 16/12/2022. RS/iNCONST/SPEC 00004/2021/SC, Ngendahayo Kabuye na Leta y’u Rwanda rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 10/02/2023. RS/iNCONST/SPEC 00004/2019/SC, Me Nzafashwanayo Dieudonné na Leta y’u Rwanda rwaciwe ku wa 24/07/2020. RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS, Akagera Business Group (ABG), rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku itariki ya 23/09/2016. RS/INJUST/RC 00018/2022/SC, Niyonzima Léonidas n’abandi na SANLAM AG Plc rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 27/01/2023; IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE

## Page 24

xxiv ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO RS/iNJUST/RS 00021/2022/SC, Mukagatare Régine n’abandi na SANLAM AG Plc rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 17/03/2023. RCAA 0049/14/CS, SORAS AG Ltd C/ Umuhoza Pacifique n’abandi, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 25/11/2016; RS/iNJUST/RC 00010/2021/SC, Prime insurance Company Ltd na Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 02/12/2022. RS/iNJUST/RCOMOOOO3/2022/SC; Murwanashyaka Jean Damascène vs BAMU TRADE COMPANY Ltd rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 31/03/2023. RS/iNJUST/RCOM00014/2022/SC; Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine vs Bank of Kigali Plc rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 31/03/2023. RS/iNJUST/RCOM 00011/2022/SC; BUGiNGO Jean Claude, Ecobank vs KADOGI Jean Paul rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 08/03/2024. RCOMA 0138/12/CS; GAJU Cyinthia vs Access Bank Ltd rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 16/05/2014. Urubanza N° 13 of 2014 [2021] UGCC, Centre for Domestic Violence Prevention and Others n’Intumwa Nkuru ya Leta, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa Uganda ku wa 13 Kanama 2021. RPAA 00048/2020/CA, Ubushinjacyaha vs. Bimenyimana, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 26/05/2022.

## Page 25

xxv Re MIRONKO RPA 00060/2021/CA, Ubushinjacyaha vs. Nsabimana alias Sankara Et.Al., rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 04/04/2022. RPAA 00145/2021/CA, Ubushinjacyaha vs. Shirimpaka Jean Claude, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 30/10/2023. IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE

## Page 26

xxvi ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO xxvi

## Page 27

xxvii AMAGAMBO MPINE AMAGAMBO MPINE AMAGAMBO MPINE 1. Itegeko Nshinga – Amahame y’ubucamanza – Ntawe ushobora kwicira urubanza ubwe – ibyaha bikorewe mu rukiko – Kuba umucamanza yakorerwa icyaha mu iburanisha agahindukira agahana uwagikoze, nti byafatwa nko kwicira urubanza bibujijwe, mu gihe icyaha gikorewe mu iburanisha kiba atari icyaha gikorewe umucamanza ku giti cye, ahubwo ni icyaha kiba gikorewe ubutabera bwose muri rusange, buhagarariwe n’umucamanza muri iryo buranisha. Re MIRONKO 1 Amahame y’ubucamanza – Ihame ry’uko imanza ziburanishirizwa mu ruhame – ibyaha bikorewe mu rukiko – Kuba ukurikiranyweho icyaha kibereye mu iburanisha (delit d’audience) ari we usohorwa hagamijwe kugarura ituze, abari mu cyumba cy’iburanisha bakagumamo, nti byafatwa nko kutubahiriza ihame ry’uko imanza ziburanishirizwa mu ruhame. Re MIRONKO 1 Ubutabera buboneye – Uburenganzira bwo gufatwa nk’umwere – ibyaha bikorewe mu rukiko – Kuba umucamanza yandika urubanza ashingiye ku byabaye yiboneye, ubundi agasomera uregwa urubanza amuciriye ku cyaha yakoreye mu iburanisha; nti byafatwa nko kutubahiriza uburenganzira bwo gufatwa nk’umwere kugeza igihe urukiko rubifitiye ububasha rumuhamije icyaha, kuko igihe cyose umucamanza atarasomera ukurikiranweho icyo cyaha aba agifatwa nk’umwere. Re MIRONKO 1

## Page 28

xxviii ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko ingingo y’itegeko inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga – Kugira ngo uwatanze ikirego avuge ko ingingo runaka y’itegeko inyuranye n’Iteko Nshinga, agomba kubanza kugaragariza Urukiko aho iyo ngingo aregera ihurira n’Itegeko Nshinga. Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA 49 ihame ryo kureshya imbere y’amategeko n’iryo kutavangura – Kuba ibisabwa abikorera batanga serivise z’umutekano bitandukanye n’ibisabwa abakora ubundi bucuruzi bishingiye kuri kamere ya buri bucuruzi, ntibyafwa ko ari ivangura bakorerwa kuko abakora ubucuruzi butari mu cyiciro kimwe badashobora gufatwa kimwe, mu gihe n’amategeko abagenga aba atandukanye. Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD 81 Ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko ingingo y’itegeko inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga –Imigirire inyuranyije n’ibyo itegeko riteganya, ibaye iriho, ntikosorerwa mu kwemeza ko itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga mu gihe itegeko ubwaryo nta kibazo rifite. Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA) 49 itegeko Nshinga ryemereye umushingamategeko kugenera ububasha inkiko akoresheje itegeko – Kuba arashyizeho ingingo ya 81, igika cya mbere n’icya kabiri, y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, yari agamije ukubahiriza umutekano mu gihe cy’iburanisha, no kugira ngo habeho kubaha no guha agaciro imirimo ikorwa n’urukiko. Re MIRONKO 1

## Page 29

xxix AMAGAMBO MPINE Uburenganzira bwo kudahungabanywa k’umuntu – Kugira ngo habeho guhutaza uburenganzira bwo kudahungabanywa k’umuntu, hagomba kuba habayeho ibikorwa ibyo ari byo byose bivogera umubiri w’umuntu bigamije kuwugirira nabi bikozwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA) 49 Uburenganzira ku ubutabera buboneye – Kuba itakamba ku iyamburwa ry’icyemezo cyo gutanga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera ritangwa kwa Minisitiri mbere yo kuregera urukiko, ntibyafatwa ko ari ukuvutswa uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye, ahubwo ni mu rwego rwo gukosora icyemezo cyafashwe ku rwego rwa mbere mu gihe cyaba cyarafashwe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko, ariko ntibibuza uwagifatiwe kuba yakwiyambaza inkiko. Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD………….81 Ubutabera buboneye – ibyaha bikorewe mu rukiko – Ashyiraho ingingo ya 81, igika cya kabiri, y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, umushingamategeko yari agamije ko ukoreye icyaha mu iburanisha ahanwa n’ubwo icyo gika kinyuranyije n’ihame ry’ubutabera buboneye buteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 29, igika cya mbere, agace ka (a) y’Itegeko Nshinga, ku birebana no kumenyeshwa imiterere n’impamvu z’icyaha akurikiranyweho, kwiregura no kunganirwa – Mu kwirinda ko habaho icyuho cyaterwa n’uko nta ngingo y’itegeko ihana ibyaha bikorewe mu nkiko,

## Page 30

xxx ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO ingingo ya 81 y’iryo Tegeko yakuzuzwamo igika cya kabiri cyanditse mu buryo bukurikira: “Muri icyo gihe, umucamanza ahagarika iburanisha, agasaba abari mu iburanisha kugira ituze. Umwanditsi akora inyandiko mvugo y’ibyabaye. Umucamanza amenyesha uregwa ibyaha yakoze ndetse agasaba umwanditsi gusomera uregwa inyandiko mvugo y’ibyabaye. Umucamanza abaza uregwa n’umwunganira iyo ahari cyangwa ashobora guhita aboneka ako kanya, kugira icyo avuga kuri ibyo byaha. iyo uregwa afite imyitwarire idatanga ituze, umucamanza ategeka abashinzwe umutekano kumusohora. Umucamanza ahita yandika urubanza, hanyuma agasoma icyemezo afashe, agasubukura iburanisha”, bizatuma iyo ngingo itanyuranya n’Itegeko Nshinga. Re MIRONKO 1 Umutekano – inzego zishinzwe gucunga umutekano – Polisi y’u Rwanda – Inshingano za Polisi y’u Rwanda – Ibigo by’abikorera birinda umutekano w’abantu n’ibintu bisabwa guha Polisi y’u Rwanda raporo y’ibikorwa igaragaza uko umutekano wifashe, kuko biri mu nshingano zayo ndetse ni yo ifite inshingano y’ibanze yo gucunga umutekano w’abantu n’ibintu mu Gihugu hose. Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD 81 Umutekano – Umutekano w’Igihugu n’umutekano rusange w’abaturage – Ubucuruzi bwa serivisi zo gucunga umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera ntibwafatwa kimwe nk’ubundi bucuruzi bwose, mu gihe kamere yabwo yihariye n’uburyo bukorwamo cyangwa bugenzurwamo bukaba bugomba kuba uburyo bwihariye

## Page 31

xxxi AMAGAMBO MPINE kandi bigakorwa n’urwego rubifitiye ubumenyi n’ububasha. Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD 81 2. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza – ibyaha bikorewe mu rukiko – Ni ibikorwa byose bikorwa n’abari mu cyumba cy’iburanisha bibangamira imigendekere myiza y’iburanisha, bigamije gutesha agaciro no kubahuka urukiko, bikaba byatuma muri icyo cyumba habura ituze. Re MIRONKO 1 imirongo mu manza – itegeko ryavuyeho – Umurongo wari uriho ntushobora gukurikizwa mu gihe itegeko wari ushingiyeho ryavuyeho cyangwa ryahinduwe, icyo gihe hashingirwa ku ngingo y’itegeko ryayihinduye. UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRUMUKIZA 137 Ihinduka ry’umurongo – indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka zikozwe n’ibinyabiziga – Kutishyura indishyi kubera ikosa ryakozwe nkana – Ihinduka ry’umurongo - Kugirango umwishingizi areke kwishyura ashingiye ku ngingo y’amategeko cyangwa y’amasezerano ibuza kwishingira ikosa ryakozwe nkana, agomba gutanga ibimenyetso bigaragaza ko uwishingiwe yakoze ikosa agambiriye kwangiza (faute intentionnelle). Ibi bikaba bihindura umurongo watanzwe mu rubanza No RS/INJUST/RC 00002/2021/SC, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 30/12/2021, Akarere ka Kirehe na SAHAM Assurance Rwanda Ltd yahindutse SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc, abazungura ba Gatashya Ezra n’abandi; uwo murongo ukaba waravugaga ko umwishingizi ataryozwa amakosa uwishingiwe yakoze abizi kandi abishaka.

## Page 32

xxxii ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA 151 Ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire – Kwakira ubujurire bwa kabiri – izahura rya sosiyete – Ubujurire bwa kabiri ntibwakirwa iyo ikiburanwa kidashobora kugenerwa agaciro mu mafaranga. FARAJA HOTEL LTD v COGEBANQUE PLC N’UNDI 307 Ubujurire – Kugoboka mu rubanza – Ubujurire bw’uwagobotse mu rubanza ku bushake – Kuba umuburanyi ugobokeshejwe mu rubanza ku gahato ku rwego rw’ubujurire yemerewe kujuririra urubanza yagobokeshejwemo inshuro imwe iyo hari ibyo yaciwe, kabone n’aho urubanza rwaba ruciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma, ni umwihariko Umushingamategeko yahaye umuburanyi wagobokeshejwe mu rubanza ku gahato kuko aba yashyizwe mu rubanza atabishaka, ibi ntibireba umuburanyi wagobotse mu rubanza ku bushake kuko we aba yaniyemeje gufatira urubanza yagobotsemo aho rugeze. UWAMURERA v UBUSHINJACYAHA 121 3. Amategeko agenga ububasha bw’inkiko – ibyaha bikorewe mu rukiko – Urukiko rukorewemo icyaha gikorewe mu iburanisha ni rwo rufite ububasha bwo kukiburanisha mu rwego rwo kugarura ituze no gukomeza iburanisha – Umucamanza ukorewe imbere icyaha gikorewe mu iburanisha afite ububasha bwo gusobanura ibyo yiboneye, agahana ugikoze ashingiye ku mategeko. Re MIRONKO 1

## Page 33

xxxiii AMAGAMBO MPINE 4. Amategeko agenga imanza z’imbonezamubano – Amasezerano yo kwikiranura – Ukwikiranura ni amasezerano abayagiranye bakora barangiza ikibazo cyari hagati yabo, cyangwa se cyashoboraga kuvuka, buri wese agize ibyo yigomwa agakorwa hubahirizwa ibiteganywa n’amategeko rusange agenga ikorwa ry’amasezerano – Iyo bikozwe n’utabifitiye ububasha bwuzuye cyangwa se ibikorwa byakozwe n’intumwa birenze ububasha yahawe, bifatwa nkaho bitabayeho. MUKAKALISA N’ABANDI v SONARWA N’UNDI (ADD) 185 Indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka yatewe n’ibinyabiziga – Uburyozwe - Uburyozwe bubaho biturutse ku gikorwa cyakoranywe ubushake cyangwa kitakoranywe ubushake, bigatuma uwakoze ikosa agomba kwishyura iby’abandi byangijwe; ubwo buryozwe bukaba bwishingirwa. SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA 151 Indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka yatewe n’ibinyabiziga – Uburyozwe butishingirwa - Uburyozwe butishingirwa, ni ubuturutse ku ikosa rikozwe nkana (faute intentionnelle) ry’uwishingiwe, iryo kosa rikaba rikorwa hagambiriwe kwangiza - Nubwo umuntu yaba yakoze ikosa abizi, rifatwa nk’iryakozwe nkana mu gihe gusa bigaragara ko uwarikoze yari afite umugambi wo kwangiza. SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA 151 Indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka yatewe n’ibinyabiziga – ikosa ry’uwangirije rituma uwangirijwe adahabwa indishyi - ikosa rituma uwangirijwe adahabwa indishyi ni iryabaye intandaro y’impanuka ryonyine (ni ukuvuga ku

## Page 34

xxxiv ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO kigero cya 100%), kimwe n’iryo uwangirijwe yakoze nkana agambiriye ibyago byamubayeho SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA 151 Ubutumwa – Ubutumwa bwo guhara ikintu - Ubutumwa bwo guhara ikintu, gutanga ingwate ku bintu bitimukanwa cyangwa ikindi gikorwa cyemerewe nyir’ibintu gusa, bugomba kubigaragaza mu buryo bweruye. MUKAKALISA N’ABANDI v SONARWA N’UNDI (ADD) 185 Ubutumwa – Ubutumwa bwa rusange - Utanze ubutumwa bwo gukora icyo azabona gikwiye, ikiri mu nyungu ze cyangwa bwo gukora ibikorwa byose na we ubwe yashoboraga kwikorera, aba atanze ubutumwa bwa rusange, bene ubwo butumwa bukaba bureba ibikorwa byo gucunga umutungo. MUKAKALISA N’ABANDI v SONARWA N’UNDI (ADD) 185 Indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka yatewe n’ibinyabiziga – Indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu – Umuntu ufite imyaka y’ubukuru – Indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu zikomoka ku rupfu rwatewe n’impanuka yo mu muhanda zigenerwa gusa uwari usanzwe atunzwe n’uwapfuye kandi akabitangira ibimenyetso ko yari amutunze koko – Mu gihe uzisaba afite imyaka y’ubukure, agomba kwerekana ko yari asanzwe atunzwe na nyakwigendera, akagaragaza impamvu idasanzwe yatumaga amwitaho, nk’inyandiko zo kwa muganga zerekana ko hari ubumuga afite, uburwayi cyangwa ikindi kibazo kidasanzwe cyatuma atibeshaho.. MUKAKALISA N’ABANDI v SONARWA N’UNDI (Fond) 205

## Page 35

xxxv AMAGAMBO MPINE i Indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka yatewe n’ibinyabiziga – ibisabwa mu kwishyura indishyi – indishyi ku bantu bakora umwuga bigengaho - Abafite umwuga wigenga cyangwa abantu bakora umwuga bigengaho (nk’abamotari) bagomba kwerekana ibikorwa bigaragara byerekana inyungu zabo ziciriritse z’amezi 12 abanziriza impanuka. KWIZERA v RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD 227 Indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka yatewe n’ibinyabiziga – ibisabwa mu kwishyura indishyi – indishyi ku bantu bakora umwuga bigengaho batabasha kubona inyandiko mpamo zemeza umushahara wabo - iyo inyandiko mpamo zemeza umushahara zitabonetse, umwuga uwangirijwe akora ukaba uzwi neza, indishyi zigenwa hakoreshejwe kugereranya n’umushahara uvanze (brut) w’umuntu ukora umwuga bimeze kimwe cyangwa ujya kumera kimwe n’uwo akora. KWIZERA v RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD 227 Indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka yatewe n’ibinyabiziga – Uburyo bwo kubara indishyi – Umusaruro ugenderwaho mu kubara indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu - indishyi ku bantu bakora umwuga bigengaho - Mu kubara indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu ku bantu bakora umwuga bigengaho, harebwa umusaruro w’umwaka umuntu atahana (net) aho kuba umusaruro mbumbe aho bafata umusaruro mbumbe hagakurwamo umusoro uteganywa n’itegeko. KWIZERA v RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD 227

## Page 36

xxxvi ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 5. Amategeko agenga imanza z’ubucuruzi – ingwate – Amasezerano y’ubugwate – ingwate itangwa hishingirwa umwenda uriho, ishobora no kwishingira umwenda cyangwa imyenda izafatwa nyuma, ariko mu masezerano y’ubugwate bikwandikwamo neza ko iyo ngwate izishingira n’umwenda cyangwa imyenda runaka, hakagaragazwa ingano yayo, icyo izaba igamije, n’ibindi. NIYIGENA v. ECOBANK RWANDA PLC N’UNDI 279 inyungu – ibarwa ry’inyungu – inyungu zibarirwa ku kigereranyo cy’inyungu ku nguzanyo (taux moyen de prêt/average lending rate) gitangazwa na Banki Nkuru y’u Rwanda. CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD N’UNDI 247 Kwishyura umwenda –Sheki – Gutanga sheki hagamijwe kwishyura umwenda – Gutanga sheki k’uwo igenewe ubwabyo ntibihagije ngo uwasinye yumve ko yamaze kwishyura, ahubwo uwo wayisinye afite n’inshingano zo kwizeza uwayishyikirijwe ko kuri konti ye afiteho amafaranga ahagije ku itariki sheki igomba kwishyurirwaho kugeza igihe isaziye, kandi ko atazatambamira iyishyurwa ryayo. CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD N’UNDI 247

## Page 37

xxxvii Re MIRONKO

IBIREGO BYIHARIYE

## Page 38

xxxviii ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 39

xxxix Re MIRONKO

IBIREGO BISABA KWEMEZA KO ITEGEKO RINYURANYE N’ITEGEKO NSHINGA

## Page 40

xl ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 41

1 Re MIRONKO 1 Re MIRONKO [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’iKiRENGA – RS/iNCONST/SPEC00005/2023/SC (Hitiyaremye, J.P., Cyanzayire, Muhumuza, Kalihangabo na Kazungu, J.) 07 Werurwe 2025] Itegeko Nshinga – Ubutabera buboneye – Ibyaha bikorewe mu rukiko – Uregwa afite uburenganzira bwo kumenyeshwa imiterere n’impamvu z’icyaha akurikiranyweho, agahabwa umwanya wo kwiregura n’uburenganzira bwo kunganirwa n’umunyamategeko – Nta wavuga ko hubahirizwa ihame ry’ubutabera buboneye mu gihe umucamanza ategeka ushinzwe umutekano gusohora uwakoze icyaha gikorewe mu iburanisha, maze agahita amukatira igihano atabanje guhabwa umwanya wo kwiregura n’uburenganzira bwo kunganirwa. Itegeko Nshinga – Imikorere n’ububasha by’inkiko – Itegeko Nshinga ryemereye umushingamategeko kugenera ububasha inkiko akoresheje itegeko – Kuba Umushingamategeko yarashyizeho ingingo ya 81, igika cya mbere n’icya kabiri, y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, yari agamije ukubahiriza umutekano mu gihe cy’iburanisha, no kugira ngo habeho kubaha no guha agaciro imirimo ikorwa n’urukiko. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza – Ibyaha bikorewe mu rukiko – Ni ibikorwa byose bikorwa n’abari mu cyumba cy’iburanisha bibangamira imigendekere myiza y’iburanisha, bigamije gutesha agaciro no kubahuka urukiko, bikaba byatuma muri icyo cyumba habura ituze. 1

## Page 42

2 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza – Ibyaha bikorewe mu rukiko – Urukiko rukorewemo icyaha gikorewe mu iburanisha ni rwo rufite ububasha bwo kukiburanisha mu rwego rwo kugarura ituze no gukomeza iburanisha – Umucamanza ukorewe imbere icyaha gikorewe mu iburanisha afite ububasha bwo gusobanura ibyo yiboneye, agahana ugikoze ashingiye ku mategeko. Itegeko Nshinga – Amahame y’ubucamanza – Ntawe ushobora kwicira urubanza ubwe – Ibyaha bikorewe mu rukiko – Kuba umucamanza yakorerwa icyaha mu iburanisha agahindukira agahana uwagikoze, nti byafatwa nko kwicira urubanza bibujijwe, mu gihe icyaha gikorewe mu iburanisha kiba atari icyaha gikorewe umucamanza ku giti cye, ahubwo ni icyaha kiba gikorewe ubutabera bwose muri rusange, buhagarariwe n’umucamanza muri iryo buranisha. Itegeko Nshinga – Amahame y’ubucamanza – Ihame ry’uko imanza ziburanishirizwa mu ruhame – Ibyaha bikorewe mu rukiko – Kuba ukurikiranyweho icyaha kibereye mu iburanisha (delit d’audience) ari we usohorwa hagamijwe kugarura ituze, abari mu cyumba cy’iburanisha bakagumamo, nti byafatwa nko kutubahiriza ihame ry’uko imanza ziburanishirizwa mu ruhame. Itegeko Nshinga – Ubutabera buboneye – Uburenganzira bwo gufatwa nk’umwere – Ibyaha bikorewe mu rukiko – Ashyiraho ingingo ya 81, igika cya kabiri, y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, umushingamategeko yari agamije ko ukoreye icyaha mu iburanisha ahanwa n’ubwo icyo gika kinyuranyije n’ihame ry’ubutabera buboneye buteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 29, igika cya mbere, agace ka (a) y’Itegeko Nshinga, ku birebana no kumenyeshwa imiterere n’impamvu z’icyaha akurikiranyweho,

## Page 43

3 Re MIRONKO kwiregura no kunganirwa – Mu kwirinda ko habaho icyuho cyaterwa n’uko nta ngingo y’itegeko ihana ibyaha bikorewe mu nkiko, ingingo ya 81 y’iryo Tegeko yakuzuzwamo igika cya kabiri cyanditse mu buryo bukurikira: “Muri icyo gihe, umucamanza ahagarika iburanisha, agasaba abari mu iburanisha kugira ituze. Umwanditsi akora inyandiko mvugo y’ibyabaye. Umucamanza amenyesha uregwa ibyaha yakoze ndetse agasaba umwanditsi gusomera uregwa inyandiko mvugo y’ibyabaye. Umucamanza abaza uregwa n’umwunganira iyo ahari cyangwa ashobora guhita aboneka ako kanya, kugira icyo avuga kuri ibyo byaha. Iyo uregwa afite imyitwarire idatanga ituze, umucamanza ategeka abashinzwe umutekano kumusohora. Umucamanza ahita yandika urubanza, hanyuma agasoma icyemezo afashe, agasubukura iburanisha”, bizatuma iyo ngingo itanyuranya n’Itegeko Nshinga. Incamake y’ikibazo: Mironko yatanze ikirego muri uru Rukiko rw’Ikirenga asaba ko rwemeza ko ingingo ya 81 igika cya mbere n’icya kabiri, y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi nk’uko ryahinduwe kugeza ubu, inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 29 igika cya mbere, agace ka (a), (b) n’aka (c) n’iya 152, igika cya mbere, agace ka (a) n’aka (c) z’Itegeko Nshinga. Mbere yo gusuzuma iki kibazo, urukiko rwabanje gusuzuma niba Urega afite inyungu zo gutanga iki kirego, maze rwemeza ko ayifite kuko ingingo y’itegeko aregera ireba abanyarwanda bose na we arimo. Urubanza rwakomeje mu mizi, Urega asobanura impamvu yatanze iki kirego avuga ko ku itariki ya 22/02/2023, mu iburanisha ry’urubanza RS/INJUST/RCOM00001/2019/SC, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwashingiye ku ngingo aregera ruhagarika

## Page 44

4 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO iburanisha hanyuma ruca urubanza RP00001/2023/SC rumuha igihano ku cyaha cyakorewe mu iburanisha. Avuga ko muri urwo rubanza yahanwe hashingiwe kuri iyo ngingo ya 81 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru, iteganya ko mu gihe cy’iburanisha iyo hakozwe icyaha gihanishwa igihano kitarenga igifungo cy’imyaka itanu (5), urukiko rushobora guhera ko ruhana uwagikoze kabone n’iyo rwaba rudasanganywe ububasha bwo kuburanisha mu rwego rwa mbere bene ibyo byaha. Muri icyo gihe, umucamanza ahagarika iburanisha, agategeka ushinzwe umutekano gusohora uwakoze icyaha, agasaba abari mu iburanisha kugira ituze. Umwanditsi akora inyandiko mvugo y’ibyabaye. Umucamanza ahita yandika urubanza ashingiye ku byabaye n’amategeko yishwe, hanyuma agahamagaza uwo bari basohoye, akamusomera urubanza amuciriye mu ngingo zarwo zose, agasubukura iburanisha. Nta yindi mihango ikorwa cyangwa ngo ababuranyi bahabwe ijambo kugira ngo bagire icyo bavuga ku cyaha cyakozwe. We asanga iyi ngingo inyuranyije n’uburenganzira bw’umuburanyi ku butabera buboneye, bityo akaba asaba uru Rukiko gutegeka ko ikurwaho agamije kugira ngo akarengane kamubayeho muri urwo rubanza katazongera kumubaho cyangwa kakagira n’undi muntu uwo ari we wese kagirirwa. Urega avuga ko mu burenganzira ku butabera buboneye buteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga butubahirijwe, harimo uburenganzira bwo kumenyeshwa ibikorwa bigize icyaha yahaniwe ngo abyiregureho, uburenganzira bwo kuburanira imbere y’urukiko rubifitiye ububasha kuko yaburaniye imbere y’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ruruta izindi bikamuvutsa uburenganzira bwo kujuririra icyemezo yafatiwe. Bivuze ko ingingo ya 81 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru yamwimye uburenganzira bwo kujuririra icyemezo yafatiwe mu rubanza RP00001/2023/SC.

## Page 45

5 Re MIRONKO Asobanura kandi ko ingingo ya 81, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru, na none inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 29, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko Nshinga kubera ko iteganya ko ukekwaho icyaha ahita ahanwa adahawe umwanya wo kumenyeshwa ibyo aregwa ngo anabyiregureho, ndetse agahita ahanwa adahawe uburenganzira bwo kunganirwa nk’uko abyemererwa n’Itegeko Nshinga. Avuga ko indi mpamvu asaba ko iyo ngingo yakurwaho, ari uko itanga icyuho kuko itigeze iteganya uko byagenda mu gihe rwaba ari urukiko rwa nyuma rufashe icyemezo cyo guhana umuntu atamenyeshejwe icyaha yakoze, ataburanye ndetse atemerewe no kujurira kandi harateganyijwe uburyo bw’ubujurire ku cyaha gikorewe mu iburanisha. indi mpamvu Urega atanga ko iyo ngingo ikurwaho ni uko inyuranyije n’ihame ry’uko umuntu afatwa nk’umwere kugeza ahamijwe icyaha n’urukiko ku rwego rwa nyuma. Bisobanuye ko iha urukiko ububasha rutari rufite bwo kuburanisha urubanza rwiregeye, byumvikana ko nta butabera urwo rukiko rwatanga kuko rufata icyemezo cyo kwiregera rwamaze guhamya umuntu icyaha kandi rutabanje gusuzuma niba ibigize icyaha byuzuye. Avuga kandi ko kuba uregwa ahita ahanwa bwa mbere n’ubwa nyuma iyo icyaha cyakorewe mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga bituma atagira uburenganzira bwo kujurira, nyamara mu gihe icyo cyaha cyakorewe mu zindi nkiko uwagikoze yemerewe kujurira. Urega asanga mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga hari uburenganzira aba avukijwe, bityo iyo nenge ikaba igomba gukosorwa. Avuga kandi ko iyo ngingo ya 81 yaregeye inyuranyije n’ihame riteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 152, igika cya mbere, agace ka (a), y’itegeko Nshinga, ry’uko ubutabera butangwa mu izina ry’abaturage, kandi ko ntawe ushobora kwicira urubanza, ndetse ikaba inanyuranyije n’ihame ry’uko imanza zose zibera mu

## Page 46

6 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO ruhame riteganyijwe muri iyo ngingo ya 152 mu gace kayo ka (b). Urega asoza avuga ko bitumvikana uburyo umucamanza wakorewe icyaha yahindukira akaba ari we uburanisha urubanza rw’icyaha yakorewe, iyi ikaba ari inenge ikomeye kuko biba bisa nko kwiregera warangiza ukanicira urubanza. Uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda muri uru rubanza, avuga ko igika cya mbere cy’ingingo ya 81 y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru kigaragaza uburyo bwo kwiregera k’urukiko rubyibwirije, ikagaragaza uburyo bwo guhana mu buryo bwihuse; ndetse igaha n’ububasha izindi nkiko zidasanzwe zifite bwo kuba zaburanisha ibyaha bikorewe mu iburanisha; mu gihe igika cya kabiri cy’iyi ngingo cyo gisobanura uburyo iburanisha ry’ibyo byaha rikorwa. Uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda avuga ko ku byaha bikorewe mu iburanisha, Urukiko bikorewemo ruhita rugira ububasha rushobora gukomora mu mategeko cyangwa mu kuba rugomba kugira icyo rukora mu gutanga ituze mu iburanisha. iyi ngingo ya 81 ntabwo ivuguruza itegeko Nshinga kuko ubwaryo ritigeze riteganya urukiko rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha bene ibyo byaha, ahubwo ni uko itegeko ryo mu Rwanda ryateganyije ko urukiko rwakorewemo bene ibyo byaha ari rwo rufite ububasha bwo kubiburanisha. Asobanura k’uby’Urega avuga ko ku byaha bikorewe mu iburanisha, umucamanza ari we wiregera akwicira urubanza kandi binyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga atari byo kuko icyaha cyakorewe mu iburanisha kidafatwa nk’icyakorewe umucamanza ku giti cye, ko ahubwo kiba cyakorewe rubanda. Avuga kandi ko ibyo ari ibyaha bihungabanya umudendezo wa rubanda, ku buryo Urukiko ruba rugomba kugira icyemezo cyihuse rubifataho kugira ngo habeho uburyo bwihuse bwo guhana ibikorwa bihungabanya umutekano w’iburanisha, kandi

## Page 47

7 Re MIRONKO ntaho ubwo buryo bunyuranyije n’ingingo ya 29 n’iya 152 z’Itegeko Nshinga. Ku kibazo Urega avuga ko ingingo ya 81 iregerwa yamuvukije uburenganzira bwe bwo kujurira, Uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda avuga ko nta shingiro bifite kuko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga nk’Urukiko rukuriye izindi nkiko mu gihugu rufite ubwo bubasha bwo kuburanisha ku rwego rwa mbere n’urwa nyuma ibyaha bimwe na bimwe bitewe n’umwihariko w’abakekwaho ibyo byaha, bityo akaba atari umwihariko ku cyaha Urega yahaniwe. Aha Uhagarariye Leta avuga ko na we yemera ko umuburanyi afite uburenganzira bwo kujurira uretse ku birebana n’ibyemezo byafashwe n’inkiko zisumba izindi kuko uburenganzira bwo kujurira bufite aho bugarukira. Ku byo Urega avuga ko yavukijwe uburenganzira bwo kumenyeshwa ibyo aregwa no ku byisobanuraho, Uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda avuga ko yemeranywa na we ko kuba umucamanza ategeka ushinzwe umutekano gusohora uwakoze icyaha, maze agahita yandika urubanza ashingiye ku byabaye n’amategeko yishwe, hanyuma agahamagaza uwo bari basohoye, akamusomera urubanza amuciriye mu ngingo zarwo zose, uregwa adahawe ijambo kugira ngo agire icyo avuga ku cyaha cyakozwe, asanga binyuranyije n’ihame ry’ubutabera buboneye, cyane cyane ku bijyanye no kumenyeshwa imiterere n’impamvu z’icyaha akurikiranyweho, kwiregura no kunganirwa biteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 29, igika cya mbere, agace ka (a), y’Itegeko Nshinga. Ashingiye ku bisobanura yatanze, Uhagarariye Leta ay’u Rwanda asoza asaba ko ingingo yaregewe ya 81 y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru, amagambo arimo amagambo anyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga yakurwamo

## Page 48

8 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO agasimbuzwa bigatuma uko kunyuranya n’Itegeko Nshinga bivaho ariko hatanasigayeho icyuho mu mategeko. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Uregwa afite uburenganzira bwo kumenyeshwa imiterere n’impamvu z’icyaha akurikiranyweho, agahabwa umwanya wo kwiregura n’uburenganzira bwo kunganirwa n’umunyamategeko. Nta wavuga ko hubahirizwa ihame ry’ubutabera buboneye mu gihe umucamanza ategeka ushinzwe umutekano gusohora uwakoze icyaha gikorewe mu iburanisha, maze agahita amukatira igihano atabanje guhabwa umwanya wo kwiregura n’uburenganzira bwo kunganirwa. 2. Kuba Umushingamategeko yarashyizeho ingingo ya 81, igika cya mbere n’icya kabiri, y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, yari agamije ukubahiriza umutekano mu gihe cy’iburanisha, no kugira ngo habeho kubaha no guha agaciro imirimo ikorwa n’urukiko. 3. Ibyaha bikorewe mu rukiko ni ibikorwa byose bikorwa n’abari mu cyumba cy’iburanisha bibangamira imigendekere myiza y’iburanisha, bigamije gutesha agaciro no kubahuka urukiko, bikaba byatuma muri icyo cyumba habura ituze. 4. Urukiko rukorewemo icyaha gikorewe mu iburanisha ni rwo rufite ububasha bwo kukiburanisha mu rwego rwo kugarura ituze no gukomeza iburanisha. Umucamanza ukorewe imbere icyaha gikorewe mu iburanisha afite ububasha bwo gusobanura ibyo yiboneye, agahana ugikoze ashingiye ku mategeko. 5. Kuba umucamanza yakorerwa icyaha mu iburanisha agahindukira agahana uwagikoze, nti byafatwa nko kwicira urubanza bibujijwe, mu gihe icyaha gikorewe mu iburanisha kiba

## Page 49

9 Re MIRONKO atari icyaha gikorewe umucamanza ku giti cye, ahubwo ni icyaha kiba gikorewe ubutabera bwose muri rusange, buhagarariwe n’umucamanza muri iryo buranisha. 6. Kuba ukurikiranyweho icyaha kibereye mu iburanisha ari we usohorwa abari mu cyumba cy’iburanisha bakagumamo, urukiko rukiherera; nti byafatwa nko kutubahiriza ihame ry’uko imanza ziburanishirizwa mu ruhame, mu gihe uwari wasohowe agaruka mu cyumba cy’iburanisha, urukiko rukamumenyesha mu ruhame icyemezo cyamufatiwe. 7. Kuba umucamanza yandika urubanza ashingiye ku byabaye yiboneye, ubundi agasomera uregwa urubanza amuciriye ku cyaha yakoreye mu iburanisha; nti byafatwa nko kutubahiriza uburenganzira bwo gufatwa nk’umwere kugeza igihe urukiko rubifitiye ububasha rumuhamije icyaha, kuko igihe cyose umucamanza atarasomera ukurikiranweho icyo cyaha aba agifatwa nk’umwere. 8. Ashyiraho ingingo ya 81, igika cya kabiri, y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, umushingamategeko yari agamije ko ukoreye icyaha mu iburanisha ahanwa n’ubwo icyo gika kinyuranyije n’ihame ry’ubutabera buboneye buteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 29, igika cya mbere, agace ka (a) y’Itegeko Nshinga, ku birebana no kumenyeshwa imiterere n’impamvu z’icyaha akurikiranyweho, kwiregura no kunganirwa – Mu kwirinda ko habaho icyuho cyaterwa n’uko nta ngingo y’itegeko ihana ibyaha bikorewe mu nkiko, ingingo ya 81 y’iryo Tegeko yakuzuzwamo igika cya kabiri cyanditse mu buryo bukurikira: “Muri icyo gihe, umucamanza ahagarika iburanisha, agasaba abari mu iburanisha kugira ituze. Umwanditsi akora inyandiko mvugo y’ibyabaye. Umucamanza amenyesha uregwa ibyaha yakoze ndetse agasaba

## Page 50

10 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 10 umwanditsi gusomera uregwa inyandiko mvugo y’ibyabaye. Umucamanza abaza uregwa n’umwunganira iyo ahari cyangwa ashobora guhita aboneka ako kanya, kugira icyo avuga kuri ibyo byaha. iyo uregwa afite imyitwarire idatanga ituze, umucamanza ategeka abashinzwe umutekano kumusohora. Umucamanza ahita yandika urubanza, hanyuma agasoma icyemezo afashe, agasubukura iburanisha”, bizatuma iyo ngingo itanyuranya n’Itegeko Nshinga. Ikirego gisaba gukuraho ingingo y’itegeko inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe. Urubanza rutangazwa mu Igazeti ya Leta ya Repubulika y’u Rwanda. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015 kugeza ubu, ingingo ya 3, 29, 152 n’iya 153. itangazo Mpuzamahanga ryerekeye uburenganzira bwa muntu (Déclaration Universelle des Droits de l’Homme) ryo mu mwaka wa 1948, ingingo ya 10 n’iya 11. Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yerekeye uburenganzira mu by’imbonezamubano no mu bya politiki, ingingo ya 14. Amasezerano y’inyongera ku Masezerano y’Ibihugu by’Uburayi ku Burenganzira bwa Muntu n’ubwisanzure (Protocol no 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms), ingingo ya 2. Amasezerano Nyafurika y’Uburenganzira bwa Muntu n’ubw’Abaturage, ingingo ya 7. itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, ingingo ya 66 kugeza ku ya 80.

## Page 51

11 Re MIRONKO 11 Itegeko Nᵒ 012/2018 ryo ku wa 04/04/2018 rigena imitunganyirize n’imikorere y’Urwego rw’Ubucamanza, ingingo ya 50. itegeko No 27/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 137. itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 81, 82, 103 n’iya 104. Imanza zifashishijwe: RS/iNCOST/SPEC 0001/2022/SC, Re Murangwa Edward rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 16/12/2022. RS/iNCONST/SPEC00004/2020/SC, Asiimwe Frank na Leta y’u Rwanda rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 26/03/2021. RS/iNCONST/SPEC00003/2019/SC, Re Kabasinga rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 04/12/2019. RS/iNCONST/PEN0001/08/CS rwa Murorunkwere Spéciose rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku itariki ya 26/09/2008. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, 14 (1). Cooke v. US, 267 U.S. 517 (1925), United States Supreme Court, No. 311, Argued: March 20, 1925. Decided: April 13, 1925. Supreme Court of india, inherent jurisdiction Contempt Petition (CiviL) no. 196-197 of 2024 in special leave petition (CiviL), no 12081-12082 of 2023. Case of Allen v. The United Kingdom (Application no. 25424/09) Judgment Strasbourg 12 July 2013. Article 6 § 2.

## Page 52

12 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Inyandiko z’abahanga zifashishijwe: Charles Chauncey, Contempt of Court, Texas Municipal Courts Education Center, 2023, p.1. S., Jajati Keshari, Contempt of Court as Defined in Contempt of Courts Act 1971. Journal of Advance Research in Social Science and Humanities (iSSN 2208-2387), 2017: 9-14. David J. Bodine, The Nature and Function of Contempt in Modern Legal Systems, 2019, p.36. Justice Natalie Adams na Belinda Baker, sentencing for Contempt of Court, National judicial college of Australia and the australian national university sentencing, conference, 29 February, 2020, §. 80. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Ku itariki ya 13/09/2023, Mironko François xavier yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga asaba kwemeza ko ingingo ya 81, igika cya mbere n’icya kabiri, y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi nk’uko ryahinduwe kugeza ubu, ndetse n’ingingo ya 137, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko No 27/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, zinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 29, igika cya mbere, agace ka (a), (b) n’aka (c) n’iya 152, igika cya mbere, agace ka (a) n’aka (c) z’Itegeko Nshinga. [2] Mironko François xavier asobanura ko impamvu yatanze iki kirego ari uko ku itariki ya 22/02/2023, mu iburanisha

## Page 53

13 Re MIRONKO ry’urubanza RS/INJUST/RCOM00001/2019/SC, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwashingiye ku ngingo aregera ruhagarika iburanisha hanyuma ruca urubanza RP 00001/2023/SC rumuha igihano ku cyaha ruvuga ko cyakorewe mu iburanisha. [3] Uhagarariye Leta avuga ko izo ngingo nta na hamwe zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, cyakora ko Urukiko rusanze hari aho zishobora kumvikana nabi rwazisobanura mu buryo bwagutse zikumvikana mu buryo butanyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. [4] Urubanza rwaburanishirijwe mu ruhame ku itariki ya 05/11/2024, MiRONKO François xavier ahagarariwe na Me Ngezahayo Bernard, Leta y’u Rwanda ihagarariwe na Me Kabibi Spéciose, habanza gusuzumwa ikibazo kijyanye n’inyungu Mironko François xavier afite muri uru rubanza. - Ku bijyanye n’inyungu Mironko François Xavier afite mu rubanza [5] Nyuma yo gusuzuma ibyo Mironko François xavier yavuze mu myanzuro ye ku bijyanye n’inyungu afite mu rubanza, Urukiko rwafatiye icyemezo mu ntebe rushingiye ku rubanza rubanziriza urundi RS/iNCOST/SPEC00001/2022/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku itariki ya 16/12/2022 haregamo Murangwa Edward, aho rwasobanuye ko mu gusuzuma inyungu z’urega hagomba kurebwa ibintu bikurikira, kuba hariho nibura kimwe muri byo bikaba bihagije kugira ngo Urukiko rwemeze ko urega afite inyungu: a) Niba itegeko riregerwa ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rireba urega cyangwa icyiciro abarizwamo by’umwihariko ku buryo afite inyungu ku giti cye zo

## Page 54

14 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO gutanga ikirego. Urugero ni nk’itegeko rireba abanyamakuru, abaganga, abarimu n’abandi; b) Niba itegeko riregerwa ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rireba abaturage muri rusange ku buryo rishobora kugira ingaruka ku burenganzira bwabo, ibyo akaba ari byo bihesha umuntu uwo ari we wese rishobora kuzagiraho ingaruka, inyungu zo kuriregera ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga; c) Niba uwatanze ikirego ari Avoka, uyu mu nyungu z’ubutabera akaba yaremerewe gutanga ikirego mu rwego rwo guteza imbere amategeko cyangwa uburenganzira bw’abarebwa n’iryo tegeko, kabone n’ubwo nta nyungu we ku giti cye yaba afite muri icyo kirego. [6] Ku birebana n’iki kirego, Urukiko rwasanze ingingo ya 81 y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi nk’uko ryahinduwe kugeza ubu, ndetse n’ingingo ya 137 y’Itegeko No 27/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha nk’uko ryahinduwe kugeza ubu, Mironko François Xavier aregera ko zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga agasaba ko zakurwaho, zireba abaturage bose muri rusange na we arimo. Kubera iyo mpamvu akaba afite inyungu muri uru rubanza. [7] Ku bijyanye n’urubanza mu mizi, Me Ngezahayo Bernard uhagarariye Mironko François xavier, nyuma yo kumva ibitekerezo binyuranye ku ngingo yari yaregeye, yabwiye Urukiko ko ikibazo cya kabiri yari yashyikirije Urukiko ngo rugisuzume akiretse kubera ko yasanze ingingo ya 137 y’Itegeko N° 27/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha nk’uko ryahinduwe kugeza ubu

## Page 55

15 Re MIRONKO itanyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. Ikibazo cyasuzumwe muri uru rubanza akaba ari ikijyanye no kumenya niba ingingo ya 81, igika cya mbere n’icya kabiri, y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi nk’uko ryahinduwe kugeza ubu inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 29, igika cya mbere, agace ka (a), (b) n’aka (c) n’ingingo ya 152, igika cya mbere, uduce twa (a) na (b) z’Itegeko Nshinga. [8] iburanisha rirangiye, ababuranyi bamenyeshejwe ko urubanza ruzasomwa ku itariki ya 29/11/2024, iyo tariki igeze ntirwasomwa kubera ko hari ibyari bigisuzumwa, ryimurirwa ku itariki ya 20/12/2024. Mbere y’uko iyo tariki igera, byabaye ngombwa ko umwe mu bacamanza bagize inteko ayivamo, bituma iburanisha ry’urubanza ryongera gufungurwa rishyirwa ku itariki ya 13/01/2025, kugira ngo inteko ihinduke. Nyuma y’iburanisha ababuranyi bamenyeshejwe ko urubanza ruzasomwa ku itariki ya 13/02/2025, ariko uwo munsi na bwo ntirwasomwa kubera ko rwari rutararangira, isomwa ryarwo ryimurirwa ku itariki ya 07/03/2025. I. IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYACYO Kumenya niba ingingo ya 81, igika cya mbere n’icya kabiri, y’Itegeko no 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi nk’uko ryahinduwe kugeza ubu inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 29, igika cya mbere, agace ka (a), (b) n’aka (c) n’ingingo ya 152, igika cya mbere, uduce twa (a) na (b) z’Itegeko Nshinga

## Page 56

16 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO [9] Me Ngezahayo Bernard avuga Mironko François xavier ahagarariye yatanze ikirego asaba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga gukuraho ingingo ya 81, igika cya mbere n’icya kabiri, y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi kuko inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. Iyo ngingo aregera iteganya ko mu gihe cy’iburanisha iyo hakozwe icyaha gihanishwa igihano kitarenga igifungo cy’imyaka itanu (5), urukiko rushobora guhera ko ruhana uwagikoze kabone n’iyo rwaba rudasanganywe ububasha bwo kuburanisha mu rwego rwa mbere bene ibyo byaha. Muri icyo gihe, umucamanza ahagarika iburanisha, agategeka ushinzwe umutekano gusohora uwakoze icyaha, agasaba abari mu iburanisha kugira ituze. Umwanditsi akora inyandiko mvugo y’ibyabaye. Umucamanza ahita yandika urubanza ashingiye ku byabaye n’amategeko yishwe, hanyuma agahamagaza uwo bari basohoye, akamusomera urubanza amuciriye mu ngingo zarwo zose, agasubukura iburanisha. Nta yindi mihango ikorwa cyangwa ngo ababuranyi bahabwe ijambo kugira ngo bagire icyo bavuga ku cyaha cyakozwe. [10] Avuga ko icyatumye aregera ingingo imaze kuvugwa ari uko yaciriwe urubanza RP00001/2023/SC agahanwa hakoreshejwe iyo ngingo hatubahirijwe uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye. Akaba asaba ko iyo ngingo yakurwaho agamije kugira ngo akarengane kamubayeho muri urwo rubanza katazongera kumubaho cyangwa kakagira n’undi muntu uwo ari we wese kagirirwa, ibyo akabishingira ku ngingo ya 3, igika cya kabiri, y’Itegeko Nshinga iteganya ko icyemezo cyose cyangwa itegeko binyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga nta gaciro biba bifite.

## Page 57

17 Re MIRONKO [11] Avuga ko ingingo ya 29, igika cya mbere, agace ka (a) na (c) y’Itegeko Nshinga iteganya ko buri muntu wese afite uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye, burimo ubwo kumenyeshwa imiterere y’icyaha akurikiranyweho, kwiregura no kunganirwa, akagira n’uburenganzira bwo kuburanira imbere y’Urukiko rubifitiye ububasha ; naho ingingo ya 152, igika cya mbere, agace ka (a) n’aka (b) y’Itegeko Nshinga, igateganya ko imanza zose ziburanishwa mu ruhame, uretse igihe urukiko rwemeje ko habaho umuhezo mu buryo buteganyijwe n’amategeko. [12] Avuga ko mu burenganzira ku butabera buboneye butubahirijwe, harimo uburenganzira bwo kumenyeshwa ibikorwa bigize icyaha yahaniwe ngo abyiregureho buteganywa n'ingingo ya 29, igika cya mbere, agace (a), y’Itegeko Nshinga, uburenganzira bwo kuburanira imbere y’urukiko rubifitiye ububasha kuko yaburaniye imbere y’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ruruta izindi bikamuvutsa uburenganzira bwo kujuririra icyemezo yafatiwe. Avuga kandi ko ibyo binyuranye n’Amasezerano Nyafurika y’Uburenganzira bwa muntu n’ubw’Abaturage (Charte Africaine des Droits de l’Homme et des Peuples) u Rwanda rwashyizeho umukono, cyane cyane mu ngingo yayo ya 7, 10 (A) na (C) iteganya uburenganzira bwa buri wese: Uburenganzira bwo kugana inkiko zibifitiye ububasha mu gihe uburenganzira bw’ibanze bwa muntu yemererwa n’amategeko, amasezerano mpuzamahanga n’ibindi bisa nk’ibyo butubahirijwe. Uburenganzira bwo kwisobanura ku cyaha aregwa no guhagararirwa mu rukiko. [13] Ku birebana n’igisobanuro cy’ubutabera buboneye, Me Ngezahayo Bernard avuga ko mu rubanza RS/iNCONST/SPEC00003/2019/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko

## Page 58

18 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO rw’Ikirenga ku itariki ya 04/12/2019, mu gika cya 13, Urukiko rwabusobanuye mu magambo akurikira: Ubutabera buboneye busobanurwa mu buryo butandukanye, hari ubutabera buboneye bushingiye ku migendekere. Bivuze ko ubutabera buboneye ari uruhererekane rw’ibigomba kubahirizwa mu migendekere y’urubanza hashingiwe ku mahame ateganywa n’amategeko; ko hari n’ubutabera buboneye bushingiye ku biteganywa n’itegeko bubuza ishyirwaho ry’amategeko cyangwa izindi ngamba zidashyira mu gaciro zibangamira uburenganzira bw’abaturage. [14] Mu burenganzira ku butabera buboneye, avugamo kandi n’uburenganzira bwo kujurira aho avuga ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwabisobanuye mu rubanza RS/iNCONST/SPEC00004/2020/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 26/03/2021 haburana Asiimwe Frank na Leta y’u Rwanda, mu gika cya 18, aho rwavuze ko ingingo ya 14, igika cya mbere n’icya 5, y’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yerekeye uburenganzira mu by’imbonezamubano no mu bya politiki (International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights) igaragaza uburenganzira bwo kuburanira imbere y’urukiko rubifitiye ububasha n’uburenganzira bwo kujurira nka bimwe mu bigize uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye. [15] Akomeza avuga ko abahanga mu mategeko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwashingiyeho basobanura ubujurire nk’uburenganzira bufitwe na buri muburanyi utishimiye icyemezo yafatiwe n’urukiko bwo gusaba mu rukiko rwisumbuyeho guhindura cyangwa gukosora icyo cyemezo, ko mu gika cya 19 cy’urwo rubanza, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwavuze ko ihame ry’ubujurire rishingiye ku burenganzira bw’uregwa n’ubw’umushinjacyaha bwo guhabwa amahirwe yo kujuririra urubanza rwaciwe ku rwego rwa mbere kugira ngo hakosorwe

## Page 59

19 Re MIRONKO amakosa ashobora kuba yarakozwe n’urukiko rwaruciye, ubwo burenganzira bukaba buhamiriza ababuranyi ko ihame ryo kuburana ku nzego ebyiri rizubahirizwa. Akavuga rero ko kuba ingingo ya 81, igika cya mbere n’icya kabiri, y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru, yima uregwa uburenganzira bwo kujuririra icyemezo kimufatiwe, inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga irebana n’uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye. [16] Asobanura kandi ko ingingo ya 81, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru, nanone inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 29, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko Nshinga kubera ko iteganya ko ukekwaho icyaha ahita ahanwa adahawe umwanya wo kumenyeshwa ibyo aregwa ngo anabyiregureho, ndetse agahita ahanwa adahawe uburenganzira bwo kunganirwa nk’uko abyemererwa n’Itegeko Nshinga. Kubera iyo mpamvu, kuba umushingamategeko yarabiteganyije atyo kandi bibangamiye abaturage kuko bibavutsa uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye, icyo gika kikaba kigomba gukurwaho. Avuga ko indi mpamvu asaba ko iyo ngingo yakurwaho, ari uko itanga icyuho kuko itigeze iteganya uko byagenda mu gihe rwaba ari urukiko rwa nyuma rufashe icyemezo cyo guhana umuntu atamenyeshejwe icyaha yakoze, ataburanye ndetse atemerewe no kujurira kandi harateganyijwe uburyo bw’ubujurire ku cyaha gikorewe mu iburanisha. [17] Akomeza avuga ko kuba ingingo imaze kuvugwa iha urukiko ububasha rutari rufite bwo kuburanisha urubanza rwiregeye, byumvikana ko nta butabera urwo rukiko rwatanga kuko rufata icyemezo cyo kwiregera rwamaze guhamya umuntu icyaha kandi rutabanje gusuzuma niba ibigize icyaha byuzuye. Akavuga ko ibi binyuranye n’ihame ry’uko umuntu afatwa

## Page 60

20 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 20 nk’umwere kugeza ahamijwe icyaha n’urukiko ku rwego rwa nyuma nk’uko byagarutsweho mu Masezerano y’Ibihugu by’Uburayi ku burenganzira bwa Muntu (Convention Européenne des Droits de l’Homme) cyane cyane mu ngingo yayo ya 5, agace ka 3, iteganya ko umuntu afite uburenganzira bwo gusobanukirwa imiterere y’icyaha mu gihe cya bugufi, guhabwa umwanya uhagije wo gutegura ibisobanuro ku birego aregwa no kubyisobanuraho cyangwa guhagararirwa mu nkiko1. [18] Avuga kandi ko kuba uregwa ahita ahanwa bwa mbere n’ubwa nyuma iyo icyaha cyakorewe mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga bituma atagira uburenganzira bwo kujurira, nyamara mu gihe icyo cyaha cyakorewe mu zindi nkiko uwagikoze yemerewe kujurira. Agasanga mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga hari uburenganzira aba avukijwe, bityo iyo nenge ikaba igomba gukosorwa. Yongeraho ko kutagira uburenganzira bwo kujurira binyuranyije n’amahame akubiye mu Masezerano Mpuzamahanga u Rwanda rwashyizeho umukono, nk’Itangazo Mpuzamahanga ryerekeye uburenganzira bwa muntu (Déclaration Universelle des Droits de

1Toute personne arrêtée ou détenue, dans les conditions prévues au paragraphe 1.c du présent article, doit être aussitôt traduite devant un juge ou un autre magistrat habilité par la loi à exercer des fonctions judiciaires et a le droit d’être jugé dans un délai raisonnable, libérée pendant la procédure. La mise en liberté peut être subordonnée à une garantie assurant la comparution de l’intéressé à l’audience.

## Page 61

21 Re MIRONKO 21 l’Homme) ryo mu mwaka wa 1948, cyane cyane mu ngingo zaryo, iya 102 n’iya 113. [19] Me Ngezahayo Bernard avuga ko mu rubanza rwavuzwe haruguru MiRONKO François xavier yahereyeho atanga ikirego, hatubahirijwe n'ihame ry'uko ubutabera butangwa mu izina ry’abaturage, kandi ko ntawe ushobora kwicira urubanza, riteganywa n'ingingo ya 152, igika cya mbere, agace ka (a), y’itegeko Nshinga, n’ihame ry’uko imanza zose zibera mu ruhame riteganywa n’ingingo imaze kuvugwa mu gace kayo ka (b) bitewe nuko ukoze icyaha asohorwa mu rukiko, akongera guhamagarwa asomerwa urubanza umucamanza yamuciriye ataburaniye mu ruhame, bityo akaba atabonye ubutabera buboneye. [20] Agarutse ku mahame amaze kuvuga, asoza avuga ko bitumvikana uburyo umucamanza wakorewe icyaha yahindukira akaba ari we uburanisha urubanza rw’icyaha yakorewe, ko asanga iyo ari inenge ikomeye kuko biba bisa nko kwiregera warangiza ukanicira urubanza. Avuga ko icyaha kitaba gikorewe Urukiko nk’uko uhagarariye Leta ashaka kubyumvikanisha, kubera ko bizwi neza ko Urukiko ruba ruhagarariwe n’abacamanza, bityo akaba ari bo baba bakorewe icyo cyaha. [21] Me Kabibi Spéciose uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda, avuga ko igika cya mbere cy’ingingo ya 81 y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo

2 Umuntu wese afite uburenganzira bwo kuburanishwa mu buryo buboneye kandi mu mucyo n’urukiko rudafite aho rubogamiye, mu kugena uburenganzira bwe n’inshingano ze mu gihe akurikiranyweho icyaha icyo aricyo cyose. 3 Umuntu wese afatwa nk’umwere ku cyaha aregwa igihe cyose kitaramuhama burundu hakurikijwe amategeko mu rubanza rwabereye mu ruhame kandi ruboneye, yahawe uburenganzira bwose bwa ngombwa bwo kwiregura.

## Page 62

22 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 22 ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru kigaragaza uburyo bwo kwiregera k’urukiko rubyibwirije (saisine d’office); ikagaragaza uburyo bwo guhana mu buryo bwihuse (summary sentencing); ndetse igaha n’ububasha izindi nkiko zidasanzwe zifite bwo kuba zaburanisha ibyaha bikorewe mu iburanisha; igika cya kabiri cy’iyi ngingo cyo kigasobanura uburyo iburanisha ry’ibyo byaha rikorwa. [22] Ku bijyanye n’ibyo Mironko François Xavier avuga ko ingingo ya 81 yavuzwe haruguru yamuvukije uburenganzira bwo kuburanira imbere y’urukiko n’umucamanza babifitiye ububasha kandi badashobora kubogama, Me Kabibi Spéciose avuga ko ku byaha bikorewe mu iburanisha, Urukiko bikorewemo ruhita rugira ububasha rushobora gukomora mu mategeko (statutory inherent powers) cyangwa mu kuba rugomba kugira icyo rukora mu gutanga ituze mu iburanisha (auxialliary inherent powers). Avuga ko by’umwihariko mu Rwanda, itegeko ryateganyije ko urukiko rwakorewemo bene ibyo byaha ari rwo rufite ububasha bwo kubiburanisha (statutory inherent jurisdiction), ko itegeko Nshinga ubwaryo ridateganya urukiko rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha bene ibyo byaha, ku buryo iyi ngingo yaba irivuguruza. [23] Ku bivugwa na Mironko François xavier ko kuba ingingo aregera iteganya ko urukiko rugira ububasha bwo kuburanisha ibyaha bikorewe mu iburansiha biba ari ukwiregera no kwicira urubanza kandi binyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, Me Kabibi Spéciose avuga ko atari byo, ko icyaha cyakorewe mu iburanisha kidafatwa nk’icyakorewe umucamanza ku giti cye, ko ahubwo kiba cyakorewe rubanda, bitandukanye no kuba uwakoze icyaha yakora ibikorwa bigambiriwe bihungabanya umucamanza ku giti cye.

## Page 63

23 Re MIRONKO 23 [24] Asobanura ko ibyaha bikorewe mu iburanisha, ari ibyaha bihungabanya umudendezo wa rubanda, ku buryo Urukiko ruba rugomba kugira icyemezo cyihuse rubifataho kugira ngo habeho uburyo bwihuse bwo guhana ibikorwa bihungabanya umutekano w’iburanisha, kandi ntaho ubwo buryo bunyuranyije n’ingingo ya 29 n’iya 152 z’Itegeko Nshinga. [25] Ku bijyanye n’ibyo Mironko François xavier avuga ko ingingo aregera yamuvukije uburenganzira bwo kujurira ngo kubera ko byabereye mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, Me Kabibi Spéciose avuga ko ibyo nta shingiro bifite kuko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ari rwo rukuriye izindi nkiko zose mu Gihugu, ibyemezo byarwo bikaba bitajuririrwa cyangwa ngo bisubirwemo uretse gusa ibyerekeye imbabazi za Perezida wa Repubulika cyangwa gusubira ku cyemezo cyarwo rubyibwirije ku nyungu z’itegeko4. Yongeraho ko kuba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwaburanisha urubanza ku rwego rwa mbere n’urwa nyuma atari umwihariko ku cyaha MiRONKO François xavier yahaniwe, kuko rusanzwe rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha ku rwego rwa mbere n’urwa nyuma ibyaha bimwe na bimwe bitewe n’umwihariko w’abakekwaho ibyo byaha (privillège de juridiction)5. Akomeza avuga ko n’ubwo ingingo ya 82 y’Itegeko no 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru iteganya ko ubujurire ku byaha bikorewe mu iburanisha bushyikirizwa urukiko rukuriye urwaciye urubanza, ibyo bitareba ibyaha bikorewe mu iburanisha mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga kuko ari rwo rukuriye izindi mu Gihugu, cyakora ko yemera ko umuburanyi afite uburenganzira bwo kujurira uretse ku birebana n’ibyemezo

4Ingingo ya 50, 1 y’Itegeko Nᵒ 012/2018 ryo ku wa 04/04/2018 rigena imitunganyirize n’imikorere y’Urwego rw’Ubucamanza. 5Urugero rutangwa n’ingingo ya 66 y’Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko.

## Page 64

24 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 24 byafashwe n’inkiko zisumba izindi kuko uburenganzira bwo kujurira bufite aho bugarukira. [26] Akomeza yibutsa ko kimwe n’ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga, itangazo mpuzamahanga ryerekeye uburenganzira bwa muntu, Amasezerano Nyafurika y'Uburenganzira bwa Muntu n’ubw’Abaturage ndetse n’Amasezerano y’Ibihugu by’Uburayi yerekeranye n’uburenganzira bwa Muntu urega yagiye ashingiraho, nta na hamwe bagaragaza uburenganzira bwo kujurira nk’igipimo (indicator) cy’ubutabera buboneye, ahubwo ingingo ya 2 ya Protocol No 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, igaragaza ko uburenganzira bwo kujurira bufite aho bugarukira cyane cyane ku manza zaciwe n’Urukiko ruruta izindi. Ku bw’izo mpamvu agasanga ingingo ya 81, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru nta na hamwe inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. [27] Ku bivugwa na Mironko François xavier ko ibiteganyijwe mu gika cya 2 cy’ingingo ya 81 y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru byamuvukije uburenganzira bwo kumenyeshwa ibyo aregwa no kubyiregureho, Me Kabibi Spéciose avuga ko yemeranya na we, kuko kuba umucamanza ategeka ushinzwe umutekano gusohora uwakoze icyaha, maze agahita yandika urubanza ashingiye ku byabaye n’amategeko yishwe, hanyuma agahamagaza uwo bari basohoye, akamusomera urubanza amuciriye mu ngingo zarwo zose, uregwa adahawe ijambo kugira ngo agire icyo avuga ku cyaha cyakozwe, asanga binyuranyije n’ihame ry’ubutabera buboneye, cyane cyane ku bijyanye no kumenyeshwa imiterere n’impamvu z’icyaha akurikiranyweho, kwiregura no kunganirwa

## Page 65

25 Re MIRONKO 25 biteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 29, igika cya mbere, agace ka (a), y’Itegeko Nshinga. [28] Mu kwanzura kuri iyi ngingo, Me Kabibi Spéciose avuga ko asanga ibimaze kuvugwa mu gika kibanziriza iki bitatuma ingingo ivanwaho, ko ahubwo amagambo yo muri iyo ngingo anyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga yakurwamo agasimbuzwa, bigatuma kunyuranya n’Itegeko Nshinga bivaho ariko hatanasigayeho icyuho mu mategeko. Avuga ko ku bwa Leta y’u Rwanda ahagarariye yumva icyo gika cyakwandikwa mu buryo bukurikira: muri icyo gihe, umucamanza ahagarika iburanisha, agasaba abari mu iburanisha kugira ituze. Umwanditsi akora inyandiko mvugo y’ibyabaye. Umucamanza amenyesha uregwa ibyaha yakoze ndetse agasaba umwanditsi gusomera uregwa inyandiko mvugo y’ibyabaye. Umucamanza abaza uregwa n’abamwunganira kugira icyo bavuga kuri ibyo byaha. Umucamanza ahita yandika urubanza ashingiye ku byabaye n’amategeko yishwe, hanyuma akamusomera urubanza amuciriye mu ngingo zarwo zose, agasubukura iburanisha. Akomeza avuga ko ibi bitaba ari ubwa mbere bibayeho kuko ubu buryo bwakoreshejwe no mu rubanza RS/iNCONST/PEN0001/08/CS rwa Murorunkwere Spéciose rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku itariki ya 26/09/2008. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [29] Mironko François xavier avuga ko ingingo ya 81, igika cya mbere n’icya kabiri, y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi nk’uko ryahinduwe kugeza ubu, yateshwa agaciro kuko

## Page 66

26 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO inyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga, mu ngingo ya 29 n’iya 152, akaba ayinenga kutubahiriza uburenganzira bukurikira: a) Kuba idaha uregwa uburenganzira bwo kumenyeshwa imiterere n’impamvu z’icyaha akurikiranyweho, kwiregura no kunganirwa; b) Kuba idaha uregwa uburenganzira bwo gufatwa nk’umwere kugeza igihe urukiko rubifitiye ububasha rumuhamije icyaha; c) Kuba idaha uregwa uburenganzira bwo kuburanira imbere y’urukiko rubifitiye ububasha; d) Kuba idaha uwahamwe n’icyaha uburenganzira bwo kujurira. Ayinenga kandi kuba itubahiriza amahame akurikira: a) Imanza zicibwa mu izina ry’abaturage kandi ntawe ushobora kwicira urubanza ubwe; b) imanza ziburanishirizwa mu ruhame, keretse iyo urukiko rwemeje ko habaho umuhezo mu buryo buteganywa n’amategeko. [30] iyo ngingo uwatanze ikirego aregera, iteganya ibi bikurikira: mu gihe cy’iburanisha iyo hakozwe icyaha gihanishwa igihano kitarenga igifungo cy’imyaka itanu (5), urukiko rushobora guhera ko ruhana uwagikoze kabone n’ubwo rwaba rudasanganywe ububasha bwo kuburanisha mu rwego rwa mbere bene ibyo byaha. Muri icyo gihe, umucamanza ahagarika iburanisha, agategeka ushinzwe umutekano gusohora uwakoze icyaha, agasaba abari mu iburanisha kugira ituze. Umwanditsi akora inyandiko mvugo

## Page 67

27 Re MIRONKO y’ibyabaye. Umucamanza ahita yandika urubanza ashingiye ku byabaye n’amategeko yishwe, hanyuma agahamagaza uwo bari basohoye, akamusomera urubanza amuciriye mu ngingo zarwo zose, agasubukura iburanisha. Nta yindi mihango ikorwa cyangwa ngo ababuranyi bahabwe ijambo kugira ngo bagire icyo bavuga ku cyaha cyakozwe. [31] ingingo imaze kuvugwa yumvikanisha ibintu bikurikira: a) Urukiko rukorewemo icyaha ni rwo ruhita rugira ububasha bwo kukiburanisha; b) Ukoze icyaha ahita asohorwa n’abashinzwe umutekano ku itegeko ry’umucamanza; c) Umwanditsi w’urukiko akora inyandikomvugo y’ibyabaye; d) Umucamanza ahita yandika urubanza ashingiye ku byabaye n’amategeko yishwe; f) Uwakoze icyaha arahamagarwa akongera akinjira mu cyumba cy’iburanisha agasomerwa urubanza aciriwe mu ngingo zarwo zose; g) Ababuranyi nta jambo bahabwa kugira ngo bagire icyo bavuga ku cyaha cyakozwe. [32] ingingo ya 29, igika cya mbere, uduce twa (a), (b) na (c), y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda Mironko François xavier watanze ikirego avuga ko itubahirijwe, iteganya ibi bikurikira: buri muntu afite uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye, burimo uburenganzira bwo: a) Kumenyeshwa imiterere n’impamvu z’icyaha akurikiranyweho, kwiregura no kunganirwa;

## Page 68

28 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 28 b) gufatwa nk’umwere kugeza igihe urukiko rubifitiye ububasha rumuhamije icyaha; c) kuburanira imbere y’urukiko rubifitiye ububasha d) […]. [33] Naho ingingo ya 152, igika cya mbere, agace ka (a) na (b) y’Itegeko Nshinga uwatanze ikirego na yo avuga ko itubahirijwe, igateganya ko Ubucamanza bugengwa n’amahame akurikira: a) Imanza zicibwa mu izina ry’abaturage kandi ntawe ushobora kwicira urubanza ubwe; b) imanza ziburanishirizwa mu ruhame, keretse iyo urukiko rwemeje ko habaho umuhezo mu buryo buteganywa n’amategeko; c) […]. [34] ibikubiye muri izi ngingo binateganywa mu masezerano mpuzamahanga u Rwanda rwashyizeho umukono akurikira: a) itangazo Mpuzamahanga ryerekeye Uburenganzira bwa muntu mu ngingo yaryo ya 106 riteganya ko umuntu wese afite uburenganzira bwuzuye bwo kuburanishwa mu buryo buboneye kandi mu mucyo n’urukiko rudafite aho rubogamiye, mu kugena uburenganzira n’inshingano ze cyangwa igihe akurikiranyweho icyaha icyo ari cyo cyose. Mu ngingo ya 11, igika cya mbere7, iryo tangazo

6“Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him”. 7“Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence”.

## Page 69

29 Re MIRONKO 29 riteganya ko umuntu wese afatwa nk’umwere ku cyaha aregwa igihe cyose kitaramuhama burundu hakurikijwe amategeko mu rubanza rwabereye mu ruhame kandi ruboneye yahawe uburenganzira bwose bwa ngombwa bwo kwiregura. b) Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yerekeye Uburenganzira mu by’imbonezamubano no mu bya politiki mu ngingo yayo ya 148, mu gika cya 2, icya 3, agace ka (a), aka (b) n’aka (d) n’icya 5, ateganya ibi bikurikira: i. Uregwa icyaha giteganywa n’amategeko ahana afatwa nk’umwere kugeza igihe bigaragariye ko icyaha aregwa kimuhama (igika cya 2); ii. Umuntu wese uregwa icyaha giteganywa n’amategeko ahana yemerewe ku buryo bureshya n’ubw’abandi nibura ibi bikurikira (igika cya 3): a) Kumenyeshwa vuba kandi mu buryo burambuye, mu rurimi yumva imiterere y’icyaha ashinjwa n’impamvu akiregwa;

8“Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law”. “In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality: (a) To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him; (b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defense and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing; (d) to be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it.

## Page 70

30 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 30 b) Guhabwa igihe n’ibyangombwa akeneye kugira ngo ategure imyiregurire ye kandi ashobore kuvugana n’uwo yahisemo kumuburanira; c) […]; d) Kwitaba ubwe mu rubanza no kwiburanira cyangwa kunganirwa n’umuburanira yihitiyemo, niba adafite umuburanira akamenyeshwa uburenganzira bwe bwo kumugira, kandi ku bwo kurengera inyungu z’ubutabera, igihe cyose bibaye ngombwa akaba yahabwa umuburanira nta mpaka, nta mafaranga aciwe, mu gihe adafite uburyo bwo kumuhemba. iii. Umuntu wese wahamijwe icyaha n’urukiko afite uburenganzira bwo kujuririra urukiko rwisumbuye kugira ngo rusuzume niba icyaha kimuhama kandi runasuzume ibyerekeye igihano yakatiwe, nk’uko amategeko abiteganya (igika cya 5). c) Amasezerano Nyafurika y’Uburenganzira bwa Muntu n’ubw’Abaturage mu ngingo ya 7, igika cya mbere, uduce twa (b) na (c), ateganya ibi bikurikira: i. Umuntu wese afite uburenganzira bwo gufatwa nk’umwere ku cyaha aregwa igihe cyose ataracyemezwa n’inkiko zibifitiye ububasha9;

9“Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: […] T he right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent court or tribunal”.

## Page 71

31 Re MIRONKO 31 ii. Umuntu wese afite uburenganzira bwo kwiregura harimo n’ubwo kunganirwa n’umwavoka yihitiyemo10; [35] Urukiko rusanga, haba mu itegeko Nshinga, haba no mu Masezerano Mpuzamahanga u Rwanda rwashyizeho umukono amaze kugaragazwa, kugira ngo umuburanyi abone uburenganzira ku butabera boboneye (Fair trial) ari uko mu rubanza rwe haba hubahirijwe nibura ibi bikurikira: a) Ukurikiranyweho icyaha agomba kumenyeshwa ibyo aregwa agahabwa n’umwanya wo kubyisobanuraho; b) Yemerewe kwitaba ubwe mu rubanza no kwiburanira cyangwa kunganirwa n’umuburanira yihitiyemo, yaba atamufite akamenyeshwa uburenganzira bwe bwo kumugira; c) Ukurikiranyweho icyaha agomba gufatwa nk’umwere kugeza igihe bigaragariye ko icyaha aregwa kimuhama; d) Umuntu wese afite uburenganzira bwo kuburanishwa mu rukiko rwashyizweho n’amategeko rubifitiye ububasha, rwigenga kandi rutabogamye, ibi bikajyana n’ihame ry’uko nta muntu ushobora kwicira urubanza; e) imanza zose ziburanishirizwa mu ruhame, uretse mu gihe urukiko rwategeka umuhezo rushingiye ku mpamvu yemewe n’amategeko kandi nabwo rubanje kubisobanura.

10“Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: […] The right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice”.

## Page 72

32 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO [36] Mbere yo gusesengura ibyo uwatanze ikirego anenga ingingo ya 81, igika cya mbere n’icya kabiri, y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru, hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’amategeko bimaze kugaragazwa, Urukiko rurasanga ari ngombwa kubanza gusobanura ibirebana n’ibyaha bikorewe mu iburanisha (direct contempt of Court) bivugwa muri iyo ngingo. [37] Ibyaha bikorewe mu iburanisha birebwa n’ingingo imaze kuvugwa (direct contempt of court), ni ibikorwa byose bikorwa n’abari mu cyumba cy’iburanisha bibangamira imigendekere myiza y’iburanisha, bigamije gutesha agaciro no kubahuka urukiko, ibyo bikaba byatuma muri icyo cyumba habura ituze. Muri icyo gihe, abacamanza bakaba bafite ububasha bwo guhita bafata ibyemezo byihuse bigamije kugarura ituze kugira ngo imirimo y’urukiko ishobore gukomeza uko bikwiye nta nkomyi. [38] Umuhanga mu mategeko Charles Chauncey, avuga ko icyaha gikorewe mu iburanisha ari igikorwa icyo ari cyo cyose kijyanye no kutubaha urukiko, ku buryo bisaba ko umucamanza ahita afata icyemezo ako kanya mu rwego rwo kugarura ituze mu iburanisha. Avuga ko muri rusange urukiko icyaha cyabereyemo ari rwo ruhita rufata icyemezo gihana uwakoze icyaha ako kanya icyaha kikimara gukorwa11. [39] Undi muhanga mu mategeko Jajati Keshari avuga ko icyaha gikorewe mu iburanisha ari igikorwa icyo ari cyo cyose kibangamira imigendekere myiza y’iburanisha ahanini kiganisha

11 “[….] Direct contempt of court” is an act which occurs in the judge's presence and under circumstances that require the judge to act immediately to quell the disruption, violence, disrespect, or physical abuse and maintain order. In many instances, direct contempt is punished summarily by the offended court at the time the act occurs”. Charles Chauncey, Contempt of Court, Texas Municipal Courts Education Center, 2023, P.1.

## Page 73

33 Re MIRONKO mu kubahuka no guhangara icyubahiro cyagenewe urukiko, bikaba bishobora gutuma inkiko zisuzugurwa zikanateshwa agaciro, ko rero ari ngombwa ko inkiko zigira ububasha bwo guhana ibyaha bikorewe mu iburanisha12. [40] Uwitwa David J. Bodine na we yasobanuye ko iyo abantu batangiye kwandagaza no gusuzugura urukiko mu buryo bweruye igihe cy’iburanisha, ari byo byitwa icyaha gikorewe mu iburanisha, baba batangiye gupfobya ishingiro ry’ubutabera, bikaba bishobora no gutuma abantu babutera icyizere mu gihe urukiko rwaba runaniwe guhana imyitwarire nk’iyo, ibyo bikaba byaba intangiriro yo gutesha agaciro ubutabera. Gutanga ibihano mu buryo bwihuse ku byaha bikorewe mu iburanisha akaba ari uburyo inkiko zikoresha mu rwego rwo kubahiriza icyubahiro n’agaciro bigomba guhabwa iburanisha13. [41] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, Urukiko rurasanga Umushingamategeko ashyiraho ingingo ya 81, igika cya mbere n’icya kabiri, y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru iteganya ko icyaha gikorewe mu

12 “Direct contempt of Courts means any act that interferes and obstructs in the process of administration of Justice or undermines or lowers the authority & dignity of the courts and bring them into disrespect and disrepute. It is therefore, necessary that courts are vested with the power to punish for committing the offence of contempt of court”. S., Jajati Keshari. "Contempt of Court as Defined in “Contempt of Courts Act 1971”. Journal of Advance Research in Social Science and Humanities (ISSN 2208-2387), 2017: 9-14. 13 “When individuals openly challenge or disrespect the authority of the court in hearing which is called, direct contempt of court, they threaten the legitimacy of the legal process itself. If courts fail to act against such behavior, it might signal a breakdown in the credibility of the justice system, to punish direct contempt is seen as a tool to maintain the dignity of legal proceedings”. David J. Bodine, The Nature and Function of Contempt in Modern Legal Systems, 2019, p.36.

## Page 74

34 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 34 iburanisha gihita gihanwa ikanasobanura uburyo gihanwa, icyo yari agamije kwari ukubahiriza umutekano mu gihe cy’iburanisha, no kugira ngo habeho kubaha no guha agaciro imirimo ikorwa n’urukiko. [42] Ku birebana no kuba ingingo iregerwa idaha uregwa icyaha gikorewe mu iburanisha uburenganzira bwo kumenyeshwa imiterere n’impamvu z’icyaha akurikiranyweho, kwiregura no kunganirwa, Urukiko rurasanga uhagarariye Leta yemeranya n’uwatanze ikirego ko kuba iyo ngingo iteganya ko umucamanza ategeka ushinzwe umutekano gusohora uwakoze icyaha, maze agahita yandika urubanza, uregwa adahawe ijambo kugira ngo agire icyo avuga ku cyaha cyakozwe, binyuranyije n’ihame ry’ubutabera buboneye, cyane cyane ku bijyanye no kumenyeshwa imiterere n’impamvu z’icyaha akurikiranyweho, kwiregura no kunganirwa biteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 29, igika cya mbere, agace ka (a), y’Itegeko Nshinga yavuzwe haruguru. [43] Mu gihugu cya Singapore, ingingo ya 25, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko ryerekeye kurinda imigendekere myiza y’ubutabera (Administration of justice (Protection) Act 201614,

14 “Where it appears to a court (other than a Small Claims Tribunal and an Employment Claims Tribunal), that a person has committed contempt in the face of the court, and that court is satisfied that it is necessary for immediate steps to be taken for the protection of the due administration of justice, that court may cause such person to be detained in custody, and must as soon as practicable (a) cause the person to be informed in writing of the contempt with which he or she is charged; (b) afford the person an opportunity to make his or her defense to the charge; (c) after taking such evidence as may be necessary or as may be offered by the person and after hearing the person, proceed, either immediately or after adjournment, to determine the matter of the charge; and

## Page 75

35 Re MIRONKO 35 iteganya ko iyo bigaragariye urukiko ko hari icyaha gikorewe mu iburanisha, urwo rukiko rugasanga ari ngombwa ko hagira igikorwa mu rwego rwo gusigasira imigendekere myiza y’iburanisha, rushobora gutegeka ko uwakoze icyaha ahita afatwa, maze bidatinze hagakurikiraho ibi bikurikira: a) Kumenyesha mu nyandiko uregwa icyaha aregwa; b) Guha uregwa amahirwe yo kwiregura ku byo aregwa; c) Nyuma yo kubona ibimenyetso, no kumva imyiregurire y’uregwa, urukiko rufata icyemezo ako kanya cyangwa rukabanza kwiherera; d) Gutanga igihano cyangwa kugira umwere uregwa. [44] Mu gihugu cy’Ubufaransa, ibyaha bikorewe mu iburanisha, biburanishwa urukiko rubyibwirije cyangwa se rubisabwe n’ubushinjacyaha. Bikorwa mu buryo bukurikira: iyo icyaha gikorewe mu iburanisha ari icyaha cyoroheje, urukiko rubikorera inyandiko- mvugo, rukumva ukekwaho icyaha, abatangabuhamya, ubushinjacyaha n’umwunganizi iyo ahari, hanyuma rugahita rutanga ibihano biteganywa n’amategeko15. [45] Mu gihugu cy’Ubuhinde, iyo icyaha gikorewe mu iburanisha mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga cyangwa mu Rukiko Rukuru,

(d) make such order for the punishment or discharge of the person as may be just”. 15Article 676 du Code pénal de la République française. “[….]. Les infractions commises à l'audience sont jugées, d'office ou sur les réquisitions du ministère public, suivant les dispositions ci-après: S'il se commet une contravention de police pendant la durée de l'audience, le tribunal ou la cour dresse procès- verbal du fait, entend le prévenu, les témoins, le ministère public, et, éventuellement, le défenseur, et applique sans désemparer les peines portées par la loi”.

## Page 76

36 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 36 Urukiko rushobora gutegeka ko uwagikoze aba afunzwe, mu gihe kitarambiranye, mbere y’uko urukiko rusoza iburanisha, (a) akamenyeshwa mu nyandiko icyaha aregwa, (b) agahabwa uburyo bwo kwiregura ku cyaha aregwa, (c) nyuma yo kwegeranya ibimenyetso bya ngombwa cyangwa ibyo uregwa yireguza no kumwumva, urukiko rushobora guhita ruburanisha cyangwa rukimura iburanisha, (d) guca urubanza runyuze mu mucyo rukamuhana cyangwa rukamurekura16. [46] ingero nkeya zimaze kugaragazwa haruguru zerekana uko iburanisha ry’icyaha gikorewe mu iburanisha rigenda mu bindi bihugu, zigaragaza ko uregwa icyaha gikorewe mu iburanisha amenyeshwa imiterere n’impamvu z’icyaha akurikiranyweho, agahabwa umwanya wo kwiregura, ndetse agahabwa n’uburenganzira bwo kunganirwa n’umunyamategeko. Ibi bikaba bitandukanye n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 81, igika cya mbere n’icya kabiri, y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryaruzwe haruguru, yemerera Urukiko rukorewemo icyaha mu gihe cy’iburanisha guhita rukatira igihano ukekwaho

16The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, 14 (1). “Procedure where contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court or a High Court. — (1) When it is alleged, or appears to the Supreme Court or the High Court upon its own view, that a person has been guilty of contempt committed in its presence or hearing, the Court may cause such person to be detained in custody, and, at any time before the rising of the Court, on the same day, or as early as possible thereafter, shall— (a) cause him to be informed in writing of the contempt with which he is charged; (b) afford him an opportunity to make his defense to the charge; (c) after taking such evidence as may be necessary or as may be offered by such person and after hearing him, proceed, either forthwith or after adjournment, to determine the matter of the charge; and (d) make such order for the punishment or discharge of such person as may be just”.

## Page 77

37 Re MIRONKO 37 icyo cyaha atabanje guhabwa umwanya wo kwiregura n’uburenganzira bwo kunganirwa. [47] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 81, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga ku birebana n’uburenganzira bwo kumenyeshwa imiterere n’impamvu z’icyaha akurikiranyweho, kwiregura no kunganirwa buteganywa n’ingingo ya 29, igika cya mbere, agace ka (a) y’Itegeko Nshinga. [48] Ku birebana no kuba ingingo iregerwa idaha uregwa uburenganzira bwo kuburanira imbere y’urukiko rubifitiye ububasha, iyo ngingo iteganya mu gika cyayo cya mbere ko iyo mu gihe cy’iburanisha hakozwe icyaha gihanishwa igihano kitarenga igifungo cy’imyaka itanu (5), urukiko rushobora guhera ko ruhana uwagikoze kabone n’ubwo rwaba rudasanganywe ububasha bwo kuburanisha mu rwego rwa mbere bene ibyo byaha. ibi bisobanuye ko iyo mu rukiko runaka hakorewe icyaha cyari mu bubasha bw’urundi rukiko, urukiko gikorewemo ruhita rugira ububasha bwo kukiburanisha, ibyo bikaba ari byo uwatanze ikirego anenga ingingo aregera ko ubwo umuntu aba ataburaniye imbere y’urukiko rufite ububasha. [49] Ingingo ya 153, igika cya 5, y’Itegeko Nshinga iteganya ko itegeko ari ryo rigena imitunganyirize, imikorere n’ububasha by’inkiko. Bisobanuye ko Itegeko Nshinga ryemereye umushingamategeko kugenera ububasha inkiko akoresheje itegeko. Akaba ari muri urwo rwego umushingamategeko, ashingiye ku bubasha ahabwa n’Itegeko Nshinga, yateganyije mu ngingo ya 81, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru ko, ku birebana n’icyaha gikorewe mu iburanisha, urukiko gikorewemo ari rwo ruhita rugira ububasha bwo kukiburanisha,

## Page 78

38 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO kabone n’ubwo rutaba rusanganywe ububasha bwo kukiburanisha mu rwego rwa mbere. [50] Kuba kandi Urukiko rukorewemo icyaha gikorewe mu iburanisha ari rwo ruhita rugira ububasha bwo kukiburanisha, bifite impamvu z’ingenzi zikurikira: iya mbere ni uko biba ari ngombwa kugarura ituze mu cyumba cy’iburanisha riba ryahungabanyijwe n’icyo cyaha, kugira ngo urubanza rwaburanishwaga rushobore gukomeza; icya kabiri akaba ari uko icyaha kiba cyabereye imbere y’umucamanza yakiboneye, akaba ari we uri mu mwanya mwiza wo gusobanura ibyo yiboneye ubundi akagihana ashingiye ku mategeko. [51] ibimaze kuvugwa byasobanuwe mu rubanza COOKE v. US, 267 U.S. 517 (1925) rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa America rugahanisha Clay Cooke na J. L. Walker buri wese igifungo cy’iminsi 30 ku cyaha cyo gusuzugura urukiko bakoreye mu iburanisha. Muri urwo rubanza, hasobanuwe ko urukiko rukorewemo icyaha rugomba guhita rugira icyo rukora ako kanya kugira ngo habe ituze mu cyumba cy’iburanisha kandi rugumane icyubahiro rukwiye. Rwakomeje ruvuga ko nta n’ibindi bimenyetso biba bikenewe kugira ngo uwakoze icyaha ashobore guhanwa kubera ko ibyabaye umucamanza aba yabyiboneye17.

17COOKE v. US, 267 U.S. 517 (1925), United States Supreme Court, No. 311, Argued: March 20, 1925. Decided: April 13, 1925. “[….] To preserve order in the courtroom for the proper conduct of business, the court must act instantly to suppress disturbance or violence or physical obstruction or disrespect to the court, when occurring in open court. There is no need of evidence or assistance of counsel before punishment, because the court has seen the offense. Such summary vindication of the court's dignity and authority is necessary”.

## Page 79

39 Re MIRONKO [52] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 81, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru, itanyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga ku birebana no kuba uregwa afite uburenganzira bwo kuburanira imbere y’urukiko rubifitiye ububasha, kubera ko ubwo bubasha buteganywa n’itegeko (statutory powers). [53] Ku bivugwa n’uwatanze ikirego ko ingingo iregerwa idaha uwahamwe n’icyaha gikorewe mu iburanisha uburenganzira bwo kujurira mu gihe atishimiye icyemezo yafatiwe, Urukiko rurasanga ibyo nta shingiro bifite kubera ko, nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, icyo iyo ngingo isobanura, ari uburyo icyo cyaha kiburanishwa; uko yanditse ikaba ntaho ivuga ko uwahamwe n’icyo cyaha adafite uburenganzira bwo kujurira. [54] ikibazo uwatanze ikirego afite, ni mu gihe icyaha cyakorewe mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, aho avuga ko uwo gihamye ntaho aba afite ho kujurira. Urukiko rurasanga ibyo bitareba uburyo ingingo aregera yanditse, ahubwo ari uko, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga nk’urukiko rusumba izindi, imanza ruciye nta handi zijuririrwa. Kuba kandi hari ibibazo bikemurwa mu rwego rwa mbere n’urwa nyuma n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, bityo bikaba ntaho bijuririrwa, ntibireba ibyaha bibereye mu iburanisha gusa18. [55] Kuba umuntu wakatiwe mu rwego rwa mbere n’urwa nyuma n’Urukiko rusumba izindi mu gihugu nta burenganzira bwo kujurira aba afite, biremewe no mu mategeko mpuzamahanga, aho ingingo ya 2 y’amasezerano y’inyongera ku Masezerano y’Ibihugu by’Uburayi ku Burenganzira bwa Muntu

18Ingingo ya 66 kugeza ku ya 80 z’Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko nk’uko ryahinduwe kugeza ubu.

## Page 80

40 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO n’ubwisanzure (Protocol No 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms), iteganya ko n’ubwo umuntu wese wahamwe n’icyaha afite uburenganzira bwo kujuririra urukiko rwisumbuyeho, ko ariko ubwo burenganzira bufite irengayobora ku birebana n’abantu bakatiwe mu rwego rwa mbere n’inkiko zisumba izindi mu gihugu19. [56] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 81, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru ntaho ibuza uwahamwe n’icyaha gikorewe mu iburanisha uburenganzira bwo kujurira, bityo ikaba itanyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. [57] Ku bivugwa n’uwatanze ikirego ko ingingo aregera inyuranye n’ihame ry’uko imanza zicibwa mu izina ry’abaturage kandi ntawe ushobora kwicira urubanza ubwe, aha arashaka kumvikanisha ko kuba urukiko rukorewemo icyaha ruhita ruburanisha uwakoze icyo cyaha ari ukwicira urubanza. [58] icyaha gikorewe mu iburanisha kiba cyakorewe Urukiko kikabangamira ituze mu cyumba cy’iburanisha, ntabwo ari icyaha kiba gikorewe umucamanza ku giti cye, ahubwo aba agikorewe nk’umuntu uri muri ako kazi k’ubucamanza. Kubera

19Protocol No 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 2 – “Right of appeal in criminal matters. 1 Everyone convicted of a criminal offence by a tribunal shall have the right to have his conviction or sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal. The exercise of this right, including the grounds on which it may be exercised, shall be governed by law. 2 This right may be subject to exceptions in regard to offences of a minor character, as prescribed by law, or in cases in which the person concerned was tried in the first instance by the highest tribunal or was convicted following an appeal against acquittal”.

## Page 81

41 Re MIRONKO iyo mpamvu kuba yakurikirana uwagikoze, yarangiza akamufatira icyemezo, ntibikwiye kwitiranywa no kuba umucamanza yakorerwa icyaha atari mu mirimo y’urukiko, dosiye yamugera imbere akayiburanisha. ibyo umushingamategeko yarabibujije mu ngingo ya 104 y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi nk’uko ryahinduwe kugeza ubu, iteganya ko iyo umucamanza asanze hari imwe cyangwa nyinshi mu mpamvu zavuzwe mu ngingo ya 10320 y’iri tegeko imureba, yivana mu rubanza abimenyesheje Perezida w’Urukiko mu nyandiko [….]. [59] Tugarutse ku kuba umucamanza yakorerwa icyaha mu iburanisha agahindukira agahana uwagikoze, kandi ntibyitwe kwicira urubanza bibujijwe mu itegeko Nshinga, byasobanuwe mu rubanza rwa European Asian Bank AG vs Wentworth ruvugwa mu nyandiko ya Natalie Adams, Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa New South Wales, na Belinda Baker, umunyamategeko akaba n’umushinjacyaha muri icyo gihugu, bise “Sentencing for Contempt of Court”21. Muri urwo rubanza Urukiko rwavuze ko mu kuburanisha ibyaha byakorewe mu

20 Umucamanza bashobora kumwihana iyo: 1° ubwe cyangwa uwo bashakanye n’abana babo, bafite inyungu bwite mu rubanza; 2° [….]. 21 “[W] hen a judge deals summarily with an alleged contempt he may at once be a victim of the contempt, a witness to it, the prosecutor who decides that action is required and the judge who determines matters in dispute and imposes punishment. The combination, in the judge, of four such inimical functions is not only unusual. It is so exceptional that, though it may sometimes be required to deal peremptorily with an emergency situation, those occasions will be rare indeed”. Cit. Justice Natalie Adams na Belinda Baker, sentencing for Contempt of Court, National judicial college of Australia and the australian national university sentencing, conference, 29 February, 2020, §. 80.

## Page 82

42 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 42 iburanisha, umucamanza ahinduka icyarimwe uwahohotewe, umutangabuhamya, akaba n’umushinjacyaha wemeza ko ikirego kigomba gukurikiranwa, hanyuma akaba n’umucamanza uca urubanza agatanga n’ibihano. Urukiko rwasobanuye ko uruhurirane rw’izo nshingano uko ari enye ubundi zitandukanye, rudasanzwe, bikaba bibaho gake cyane kandi mu bihe bidasanzwe. [60] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwo mu Buhinde na rwo rwavuze ko icyaha gikorewe mu iburanisha kiba kirenze kure kuba icyaha cyo kubahuka umucamanza, kuko aba ari n’icyaha kibangamiye cyane amahame agenga imiyoborere ishingiye ku mategeko. Rwavuze ko iyo umuburanyi atangiye gukorera ibyaha mu iburanisha, aba asuzuguye ubushobozi bwarwo bwo kubahiriza ihame ryo kugendera ku mategeko, kandi ko bene ibyo byaha biba bishobora gutuma abantu batakariza inkiko icyizere, cyangwa bakabona ko zidashobora gutanga ubutabera bunoze22. [61] ibisobanuro bitanzwe haruguru, byumvikanisha neza ko icyaha gikorewe mu iburanisha kiba atari icyaha gikorewe umucamanza ku giti cye ku buryo adashobora kukiburanisha atinya ko byafatwa nko kwicira urubanza bibujijwe. Ahubwo ni icyaha kiba gikorewe ubutabera bwose muri rusange, buhagarariwe n’umucamanza muri iryo buranisha.

22See, the Supreme Court of india, inherent jurisdiction Contempt Petition (CiviL) no. 196-197 of 2024 in special leave petition (CiviL), no 12081- 12082 of 2023. “[….] “Contempt of court goes beyond from mere defiance of a judge’s authority, but also denotes a profound challenge to the principles that underpin the rule of law. When a party engages in contempt, it does more than simply refusing to comply with a judge’s order, but also directly questions the Court’s ability to uphold the rule of law. It erodes the public confidence in the judicial system and its ability to deliver justice impartially and effectively”.

## Page 83

43 Re MIRONKO 43 [62] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro byatanzwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 81, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru itanyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga kubera ko ntaho ibangamira ihame ry’uko ntawe ushobora kwicira urubanza ubwe. [63] Uwatanze ikirego anenga ingingo aregera kuba inyuranye n’ihame ry’uko imanza ziburanishirizwa mu ruhame, uretse igihe urukiko rwemeje ko habaho umuhezo mu buryo buteganywa n’amategeko. Iburanisha ribereye mu ruhame, ni igihe icyumba cy’iburanisha kiba gifunguye aho buri wese aba ashobora kwinjira agakurikira uko iburanisha rigenda. ibi bikaba binyuranye n’igihe iburanisha ribera mu muhezo aho umucamanza ategeka ko abantu bari mu cyumba cy’iburanisha bose basohoka hagasigara ababuranyi bonyine n’ababunganira iyo bahari. [64] Hakurikijwe igisobanuro kimaze gutangwa, Urukiko rusanga uko ingingo iregerwa yanditse, nta hantu na hamwe iteganya ko ukurikiranyweho icyaha kibereye mu iburanisha aburana abari mu cyumba babanje gusohorwa. igikorwa ni uko ukurikiranyweho icyo cyaha ari we usohorwa, abari mu cyumba cy’iburanisha bakagumamo, urukiko rukiherera hanyuma uwari wasohowe akagarukamo, urukiko rukamumenyesha mu ruhame icyemezo cyamufatiwe. [65] Hashingiwe ku gisobanuro kimaze gutangwa, Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 81, igika cya kabiri, y’Itegeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru uwatanze ikirego anenga, ntaho inyuranya n’ihame ry’uko imanza ziburanishirizwa mu ruhame, bityo ikaba itanyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga ku birebana n’iryo hame.

## Page 84

44 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 44 [66] Uwatanze ikirego nanone anenga ingingo imaze kuvugwa, kuba itubahiriza uburenganzira bwo gufatwa nk’umwere kugeza igihe urukiko rubifitiye ububasha ruhamije icyaha ukiregwa. iyo ngingo iteganya ko umucamanza ahita yandika urubanza ashingiye ku byabaye n’amategeko yishwe, hanyuma agahamagaza uwo bari basohoye, akamusomera urubanza amuciriye mu ngingo zarwo zose, agasubukura iburanisha. [67] Kudafatwa nk’umwere, ubundi bisobanuye ko uregwa ahita ahanwa nta rubanza rubayeho ngo rumuhamye icyaha. Mu rubanza Allen c. Royaume-uni (Requête n° 25424/09) rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Iburayi rushinzwe kurengera uburenganzira bwa muntu (European Court of Human Rights), urwo rukiko rwasobanuye ko gufatwa nk’umwere mu rubanza rw’inshinjabyaha ari ukuba urega ari we ugomba gutanga ibimenyetso, kuba uregwa atagomba kwishinja, kuba umucamanza cyangwa undi mutegetsi atagomba kuvuga mu ruhame amagambo aganisha ku kuba uregwa yarakoze icyaha aregwa kandi nta rubanza ruraba23. [68] Nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, ingingo iregerwa ivuga ko umucamanza yandika urubanza ashingiye ku byabaye yiboneye, ubundi agasomera uregwa icyaha cyakorewe mu iburanisha urubanza amuciriye. Bisobanuye ko igihe cyose

23Case of Allen v. the United Kingdom (Application no. 25424/09) Judgment Strasbourg 12 July 2013. Article 6 § 2 safeguards the right to be “presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law”. Viewed as a procedural guarantee in the context of a criminal trial itself, the presumption of innocence imposes requirements in respect of, inter alia, the burden of proof; legal presumptions of fact and law; the privilege against self-incrimination; pre- trial publicity; and premature expressions, by the trial court or by other public officials, of a defendant’s guilt”.

## Page 85

45 Re MIRONKO 45 umucamanza ataramusomera, ukurikiranweho icyaha cyakorewe mu iburanisha aba agifatwa nk’umwere. [69] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, Urukiko rurasanga uburyo ingingo ya 81, igika cya mbere n’icya kabiri, y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru uwatanze ikirego aregera, nta na hamwe inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga ku birebana no kuba umuntu afite uburenganzira bwo gufatwa nk’umwere kugeza igihe urukiko rubifitiye ububasha rumuhamije icyaha. [70] Hashingiwe ku mategeko no ku masezerano mpuzamahanga u Rwanda rwasinye, hashingiwe kandi ku bisobanuro byose byatanzwe hifashishijwe by’umwihariko ibyemezo byafashwe n’inkiko n’amategeko yo mu bindi bihugu, Urukiko rurasanga ibiteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 81, igika cya mbere n’icya kabiri, y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi nk’uko ryahinduwe kugeza ubu, bitanyuranyije n’uburenganzira buteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 29, igika cya mbere, uduce twa (b) na (c), kimwe n’amahame ateganywa mu ngingo ya 152, igika cya mbere, agace ka (a) n’aka (c) z’Itegeko Nshinga. [71] Rurasanga ariko, hashingiwe ku mategeko no ku masezerano mpuzamahanga u Rwanda rwasinye, hashingiwe kandi ku bisobanuro byose byatanzwe hifashishijwe by’umwihariko ibyemezo byafashwe n’inkiko n’amategeko yo mu bindi bihugu, ibiteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 81, igika cya kabiri, y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi nk’uko ryahinduwe kugeza ubu, hari aho binyuranyije n’ihame ry’ubutabera buboneneye

## Page 86

46 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 46 buteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 29, igika cya mbere, agace ka (a) ku birebana no kumenyeshwa imiterere n’impamvu z’icyaha akurikiranyweho, kwiregura no kunganirwa, bityo icyo gika kikaba nta gaciro gifite hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 3 y’Itegeko Nshinga. [72] Mu kwirinda ko habaho icyuho mu mategeko mu gihe Urukiko rwemeje ko ingingo y’itegeko inyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga, mu rubanza RS/inconst/Pén.0001/08/CS, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, rushingiye ku manza zaciwe mu bindi bihugu, rwemeje ko rufite ububasha bwo kuba rwavanaho igice cy’ingingo y’itegeko inyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga, rukongera amagambo mu gice gisigaye. Rwasobanuye ko mu gukuraho agace k’itegeko no kongera amagambo mu itegeko bigomba gukorwa mu bushishozi n’ubwitonzi, urukiko rukirinda kwinjira mu bibazo bya politike, ahubwo rukagerageza kubahiriza icyerekezo n’icyari kigamijwe n’umushingamategeko mu gushyiraho itegeko rinengwa ku byerekeye imiterere y’iryo tegeko nyuma y’igikorwa cy’Urukiko24. [73] Hashingiwe ku bimaze kuvugwa, Urukiko rurasanga Umushingamategeko ashyiraho ingingo ya 81, igika cya kabiri, y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru, icyo yari agamije kwari ukugira ngo ukoreye icyaha mu iburanisha ahanwe, kandi n’uwatanze ikirego yemera ko ari ko bigomba kugenda, gusa akanenga uburyo bikorwamo. [74] Nyuma yo gusanga igika cya kabiri cy’ingingo imaze kuvugwa kinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, kugira ngo hatabaho icyuho mu mategeko, Urukiko

24Urubanza RS/inconst/Pén.0001/08/CS rwaciwe ku itariki ya 26/09/2008, harega Murorunkwere Spécisiose, igika cya 34 n’icya 35.

## Page 87

47 Re MIRONKO 47 rurasanga ingingo ya 81 y’Itegeko no 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru yakuzuzwamo igika cya kabiri cyanditse mu buryo bukurikira: muri icyo gihe, umucamanza ahagarika iburanisha, agasaba abari mu iburanisha kugira ituze. Umwanditsi akora inyandiko mvugo y’ibyabaye. Umucamanza amenyesha uregwa ibyaha yakoze ndetse agasaba umwanditsi gusomera uregwa inyandiko mvugo y’ibyabaye. Umucamanza abaza uregwa n’umwunganira iyo ahari cyangwa ashobora guhita aboneka ako kanya, kugira icyo avuga kuri ibyo byaha. iyo uregwa afite imyitwarire idatanga ituze, umucamanza ategeka abashinzwe umutekano kumusohora. Umucamanza ahita yandika urubanza, hanyuma agasoma icyemezo afashe, agasubukura iburanisha.

III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [75] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Mironko François xavier gisaba gukuraho ingingo ya 81, igika cya mbere n’icya kabiri, y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi nk’uko ryahinduwe kugeza ubu kuko inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda, gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe. [76] Rwemeje ko igika cya mbere cy’ingingo ya 81 y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi nk’uko ryahinduwe kugeza ubu kitanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 29 n’iya 152 z’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda.

## Page 88

48 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO [77] Rwemeje ko igika cya kabiri cy’ingingo ya 81 y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi nk’uko ryahinduwe kugeza ubu kinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 29, igika cya mbere, agace ka (a), y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda, bityo icyo gika kikaba nta gaciro gifite. [78] Rutegetse ko ingingo ya 81 y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru yujujwemo igika cya kabiri cyanditse mu buryo bukurikira: muri icyo gihe, umucamanza ahagarika iburanisha, agasaba abari mu iburanisha kugira ituze. Umwanditsi akora inyandiko mvugo y’ibyabaye. Umucamanza amenyesha uregwa ibyaha yakoze ndetse agasaba umwanditsi gusomera uregwa inyandiko mvugo y’ibyabaye. Umucamanza abaza uregwa n’umwunganira iyo ahari cyangwa ashobora guhita aboneka ako kanya, kugira icyo avuga kuri ibyo byaha. iyo uregwa afite imyitwarire idatanga ituze, umucamanza ategeka abashinzwe umutekano kumusohora. Umucamanza ahita yandika urubanza, hanyuma agasoma icyemezo afashe, agasubukura iburanisha. [79] Rutegetse ko uru rubanza rutangazwa mu igazeti ya Leta ya Repubulika y’u Rwanda.

## Page 89

49 Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA) Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA) [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/iNCONST/SPEC00004/2023/SC (Mukamulisa, J.P., Cyanzayire, Hitiyaremye, Kalihangabo na Kazungu, J.) 26 Mata 2024 Itegeko Nshinga – Uburenganzira bwo kudahungabanywa k’umuntu – Kugira ngo habeho guhutaza uburenganzira bwo kudahungabanywa k’umuntu, hagomba kuba habayeho ibikorwa ibyo ari byo byose bivogera umubiri w’umuntu bigamije kuwugirira nabi bikozwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko. Itegeko Nshinga – Ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko ingingo y’itegeko inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga – Kugira ngo uwatanze ikirego avuge ko ingingo runaka y’itegeko inyuranye n’Iteko Nshinga, agomba kubanza kugaragariza Urukiko aho iyo ngingo aregera ihurira n’Itegeko Nshinga. Itegeko Nshinga – Ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko ingingo y’itegeko inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga –Imigirire inyuranyije n’ibyo itegeko riteganya, ibaye iriho, ntikosorerwa mu kwemeza ko itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga mu gihe itegeko ubwaryo nta kibazo rifite. Incamake y’ikibazo: Feminist Action Development Ambition (FADA) yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga isaba kwemeza ko ingingo ya 143 y’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu, inyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda mu ngingo zaryo, iya 13 yerekeye 49

## Page 90

50 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO ubudahungabanywa bw’umuntu, iya 15 yerekeranye no kureshya imbere y’amategeko, n’iya 16 irinda ivangura iryo ariryo ryose. iyo ngingo iregerwa iteganya ko umuntu wese ukora ibiterasoni mu ruhame aba akoze icyaha. FADA ivuga ko impamvu yatanze iki kirego ari ukubera imbogamizi igenda ihura nazo ziri mu mategeko, aho bamwe mu bakobwa n’abagore mu Rwanda bajya bahura n’ikibazo cyo gukurikiranwaho icyaha cyo gukora ibiterasoni mu ruhame giteganyijwe muri iyo ngingo ya 143 y’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru, kubera ko ari ab’igitsina gore, mu gihe ibikorwa nk’ibyo iyo byakozwe n’ab’igitsina gabo bo batabikurikiranwaho nk’icyaha. ibi bikaba binyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga mu ngingo zaryo, iya 13, iya 15 n’iya 16. Mbere yo gusuzuma ikibazo cyayo, Urukiko rwabanje gusuzuma niba FADA ifite inyungu muri uru rubanza maze rwemeza ko iyifite nk’umuryango ufite ubuzimagatozi kandi ufite mu nshingano zawo kurwanya ihohoterwa iryo ari ryo ryose rishingiye ku gitsina n’ivangura. Ku kibazo cyabanje gusuzumwa muri uru rubanza, kijyanye no kuba ibikubiye mu ngingo ya 143 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru rinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 13 y’Itegeko Nshinga, FADA ivuga ko iyo uhuje ibiteganywa nizo ngingo zombi usanga guhanira umuntu gukora ibiterasoni mu ruhame bitewe n’uko yambaye bibangamira uburenganzira bw’igitsina gore, ndetse bikaba bihungabanya ubudahungabanywa bwe n’uburenganzira busesuye bwo kwisanzura ku mubiri we. FADA ikomeza ivuga ko uretse kuba iri tegeko rihutaza umuntu bitewe n’uko riteganya ko gukora ibiterasoni mu ruhame ari icyaha, ritigeze rinateganya ibisobanuro by’icyo ibiterasoni n’urukozasoni ari cyo kandi iryo jambo ridasobanutse neza.

## Page 91

51 Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA) ivuga kandi ko ibi bituma ibikorwa bimwe bifatwa nk’ibiterasoni kuri bamwe ariko ntibifatwe gutyo ku bandi, hakabaho gushidikanya mu ikurikirana ry’icyo cyaha no kutubahiriza uburenganzira bwo kutavogerwa k’umuntu. Leta y’u Rwanda muri uru rubanza, ivuga ko ibyo FADA ivuga nta shingiro bifite kubera ko Leta y’u Rwanda ari igihugu kiyemeje kugendera ku mategeko, gishingiye ku iyubahirizwa ry’uburenganzira bwa muntu, ku bwisanzure no ku ihame ry’uko Abanyarwanda bose bareshya imbere y’amategeko, n’iry’uburinganire hagati y’abagore n’abagabo nk’uko biteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga. ikomeza ivuga ko asanga guhana uwakoze icyaha cyo gukora ibiterasoni mu ruhame, bitavuze ko ubudahungabanywa bwe buba butubahirijwe mu gihe aba yakurikiranywe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko. Ku kibazo FADA ivuga ko itegeko ritasobanuye ijambo ibiterasoni icyo ari cyo, Leta y’u Rwanda ivuga ko icy’ingenzi ari uko ari ukuba ari igikorwa kibangamiye rubanda hashingiwe ku muco runaka w’igihugu kandi kikaba kinyuranyije n’umuco wacyo, ko nta munyarwanda wananirwa kumenya icyo ibiterasoni ari cyo. isoza ivuga ko uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure bwa muntu bugira aho butangirira n’aho bugarukira, ko butagomba kubangamira abandi cyangwa kunyuranya n’uburere n’umuco biranga abanyarwanda. Nta muntu n’umwe ufite uburenganzira bwo kwambara ubusa cyangwa kwambara imyambaro igaragaza ubwambure mu ruhame ku buryo bibangamira uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure bw’abandi. Ku kibazo kijyanye no kumenya niba ingingo ya 143 y’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu inyuranye n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga, Urega

## Page 92

52 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO avuga ko iyo barebye imikoreshereze y’iyo ngingo, basanga mu bantu bagiye bakurikiranwaho icyaha cyo gukora ibiterasoni mu ruhame, haragiye hakurikiranwa abakobwa hashingiwe uko bambaye mu ruhame kuruta uko byakorwaga ku bagabo cyangwa abahungu, bagasanga hakurikijwe ingingo iregerwa, abagore aribo barebwa cyane nyamara batagomba kuvangurwa n’abasaza babo bakoze ibintu bimeze kimwe. Yatanze urugero avuga ko umukobwa cyangwa umugore ugaragaye yakuye ishati atambaye ku gice cyo hejuru yahanwa, mu gihe umugabo wakoze nka byo atabihanirwa. Bityo, akaba asaba ko iyo ngingo ikurwaho kubera ko ihana gukora ibiterasoni mu ruhame muri ubu buryo, inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga kuko mu gihe cyo kuyishyira mu bikorwa, idafata abagabo n’abagore mu buryo bumwe, cyangwa ngo bareshye imbere y’amategeko iyo iri gushyirwa mu bikorwa. Leta y’u Rwanda ivuga ko Urega atenenga iyo ngingo iregerwa ya 143 mu myandikire yayo ahubwo icyo yibandaho ari ishyirwa mu bikorwa ryayo, aho bagaragaza ko hari abakurikiranywe hashingiwe kuri iyo ngingo, n’abatarakurikiranywe. ivuga kandi ko urebye uburyo ingingo ubwayo yanditse, abona ntaho yigeze isumbanya umugore n’umugabo, bityo agasanga idakwiye gukurwaho kuko ntaho inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga. ivuga ko u Rwanda ari igihugu kigendera ku mategeko kandi cyiyemeje kurwanya ivangura iryo ari ryo ryose nk’uko biteganyijwe mu itegeko Nshinga ryarwo bityo, rukaba rutashyiraho itegeko rivangura abagabo n’abagore, ko rero ingingo yaregewe ntaho inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 16 y’Itegeko Nshinga kuko nta vangura iryo ari ryo ryose riyigaragaramo. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Kugira ngo habeho guhutaza uburenganzira bwo kudahungabanywa k’umuntu, hagomba kuba habayeho ibikorwa ibyo ari byo byose bivogera umubiri

## Page 93

53 Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA) w’umuntu bigamije kuwugirira nabi bikozwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko. 2. Kugira ngo uwatanze ikirego avuge ko ingingo runaka y’itegeko inyuranye n’Iteko Nshinga, agomba kubanza kugaragariza Urukiko aho iyo ngingo aregera ihurira n’Itegeko Nshinga. Bityo, ikirego cya FADA nta shingiro gifite kuko itabashije kugaragariza Urukiko aho guhana icyaha cyo gukora ibiterasoni mu ruhame giteganywa n’ingingo aregera ya 143 y’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu, bihurira n’uburenganzira bw’ubudahungabanywa bw’umuntu buteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 13 y’Itegeko Nshinga. 3. imigirire (pratique) inyuranyije n’ibyo itegeko riteganya, ibaye iriho, ntikosorerwa mu kwemeza ko itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga mu gihe itegeko ubwaryo nta kibazo rifite. Ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko ingingo y’itegeko inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda; nta shingiro gifite. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu wa 2003 ryavuguruwe kugeza ubu, ingingo ya 13, 15 n’iya 16. Itangazo ry’Umuryango w’Abibumbye ku burenganzira bwa muntu (Universal Declaration of Human Rights), ryo mu mwaka wa 1948, ingingo ya 7. Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga ku burenganzira mbonezamubano n’ubwa Politiki (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966), aho ingingo yaryo ya 26 Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yerekeye guca burundu ivangura iryo ari ryo ryose rikorerwa abagore yo ku wa mbere

## Page 94

54 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Gicurasi 1980 yemejwe n’Iteka rya Perezida No 431/16 ryo ku wa 10/11/1981, ingingo ya 3. Amasezerano Nyafurika y’Uburenganzira bwa muntu n’ubw’Abaturage, ingingo ya 4, 91 n’iya 127. itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, ingingo ya 143. itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, ingingo ya 72. Imanza zifashishijwe: RS/iNCONST/SPEC 00001/2022/SC, Re Murangwa Edward, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku itariki ya 16/12/2022. Urubanza N° 13 of 2014 [2021] UGCC, Centre for Domestic Violence Prevention and Others n’Intumwa Nkuru ya Leta, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa Uganda ku wa 13 Kanama 2021. RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS, Akagera Business Group (ABG), rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku itariki ya 23/09/2016. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Ku itariki ya 04/07/2023, Feminist Action Development Ambition, FADA muri uru rubanza, yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga isaba kwemeza ko ingingo ya 143 y’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 13, iya 15 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda (Itegeko Nshinga muri uru rubanza).

## Page 95

55 Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA) [2] FADA isobanura ko, nk’umuryango utari uwa Leta, mu mirimo yayo ya buri munsi, igenda ihura n’imbogamizi ziri mu mategeko, aho bamwe mu bakobwa n’abagore mu Rwanda bajya bahura n’ikibazo cyo gukurikiranwaho icyaha cyo gukora ibiterasoni mu ruhame giteganywa n’ingingo ya 143 y’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi rikuzuzwa kugeza ubu kubera ko ari ab’igitsina gore, mu gihe ibikorwa nk’ibyo iyo byakozwe n’ab'igitsina gabo bo batabikurikiranwaho nk’icyaha. ivuga ko hari n’igihe bakurikiranwa habayeho gucishiriza bitewe n’amaso areba cyane cyane ibirebana n’imyambarire. [3] Yanzura ivuga ko ibi binyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga mu ngingo zaryo, iya 13 yerekeye ubudahungabanywa bw’umuntu, iya 15 yerekeranye no kureshya imbere y’amategeko, n’iya 16 irinda ivangura iryo ariryo ryose, ko iyo ariyo mpamvu yatumye itanga ikirego isaba kwemeza ko ingingo ya 143 y’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. [4] Urubanza rwaburanishirijwe mu ruhame ku itariki ya 11/03/2024, FADA ihagarariwe na Uwingabe Murenzi Assna yunganiwe na Me Karangwa Olivier afatanyije na Me Umwari Sylvie, naho Leta y’u Rwanda ihagarariwe na Me Batsinda Aline, habanza gusuzumwa ikibazo cyo kumenya niba FADA ifite inyungu muri uru rubanza.

1. Ku bijyanye no kumenya niba FADA ifite inyungu mu rubanza

## Page 96

56 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 56 [5] Nyuma yo kumva ibisobanuro by’uwatanze ikirego asobanura inyungu afite mu rubanza n’iby’Intumwa ya Leta ivuga ko nta nyungu uwatanze ikirego afite, Urukiko rwafatiye icyemezo mu ntebe mu buryo bukurikira: a. Ingingo ya 72, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu, iteganya ko umuntu ku giti cye, ikigo cyangwa umuryango ufite ubuzimagatozi bashobora kuregera Urukiko rw’Ikirenga basaba kwemeza ko itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga iyo babifitemo inyungu. b. Mu rubanza rubanziriza urundi RS/iNCONST/SPEC00001/2022/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku itariki ya 16/12/2022, haregamo Murangwa Edward, Urukiko rwasobanuye ko mu gusuzuma inyungu z’urega hagomba kurebwa ibintu bikurikira, kuba hariho kimwe muri byo bikaba byihagije kugira ngo Urukiko rwemeze ko urega afite inyungu: - Niba hari itegeko riregerwa ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rireba urega cyangwa icyiciro abarizwamo by’umwihariko ku buryo afite inyungu ku giti cye zo gutanga ikirego. Urugero ni nk’Itegeko rireba abanyamakuru, abaganga, abarimu, n’abandi; - Niba itegeko riregerwa ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rireba abaturage bose muri rusange ku buryo rishobora kugira ingaruka ku burenganzira bwabo, ibyo bikaba ari byo bihesha umuntu uwo ari we wese rishobora

## Page 97

57 Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA) 57 kuzagiraho ingaruka, inyungu zo kuriregera ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga; - Niba uwatanze ikirego ari umwavoka, uyu akaba mu nyungu z’ubutabera, yemerewe gutanga ikirego mu rwego rwo guteza imbere amategeko cyangwa uburenganzira bw’abarebwa n’iryo tegeko, kabone nubwo we ku giti cye nta nyungu yaba afite muri icyo kirego. c. Ku birebana n’uru rubanza, ingingo ya 4 y’Amategeko Shingiro ya FADA, iteganya ko kimwe mu byo igamije ari ukurwanya ihohoterwa iryo ari ryo ryose rishingiye ku gitsina n’ivangura. Mu nyandiko yayo itanga ikirego, FADA ivuga ko ingingo ya 143 y’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange ibangamira abantu b’igitsina gore, bityo ikaba iyiregera ko inyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga. d. Urukiko rwasanze, nk’umuryango ufite ubuzimagatozi kandi ufite mu nshingano zawo kurwanya ihohoterwa iryo ari ryo ryose rishingiye ku gitsina n’ivangura, FADA ifite inyungu muri uru rubanza kubera ko mu byo ishingiraho iregera ko ingingo ya 143 y’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 yavuzwe haruguru inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, harimo kuba ibangamira uburenganzira bw’abaturage iharanira, rutegeka ko iburanisha rikomeza. [6] Ku bijyanye n’urubanza mu mizi, Urukiko rwasuzumye ibibazo bikurikira: - Kumenya niba ingingo ya 143 y’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya

## Page 98

58 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 13 y’Itegeko Nshinga; - Kumenya niba ingingo ya 143 y’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO 2. Kumenya niba ingingo ya 143 y’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 13 y’Itegeko Nshinga [7] Uwingabe Murenzi Assna uhagarariye FADA, yunganiwe na Me Karangwa Olivier na Me Umwari Sylvie, bavuga ko iyo uhuje ibikubiye mu ngingo ya 143 y’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 13 y’Itegeko Nshinga, usanga guhanira umuntu gukora ibiterasoni mu ruhame bitewe n’uko yambaye bibangamira uburenganzira bw’igitsina gore. Urugero batanga ni uguhanira umuntu kwambara umwenda ubonerana, umwenda mugufi cyangwa se umuhambiriye. Bavuga ko ibyo bihungabanya ubudahungabanywa bwe n’uburenganzira busesuye bwo kwisanzura ku mubiri we, kandi iyo ngingo ya 13 y’Itegeko Nshinga yarateganyije ko Leta ifite inshingano zo kumwubaha, kumurinda no kumurengera.

## Page 99

59 Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA) [8] Bakomeza bavuga ko, uretse kuba iri tegeko rihutaza umuntu bitewe n’uko riteganya ko gukora ibiterasoni mu ruhame ari icyaha, ritigeze rinateganya ibisobanuro by’icyo ibiterasoni n’urukozasoni ari cyo kandi iryo jambo ridasobanutse neza. Bongeraho ko ibi bituma ibikorwa bimwe bifatwa nk’ibiterasoni kuri bamwe ariko ntibifatwe gutyo ku bandi, hakabaho gushidikanya mu ikurikirana ry’icyo cyaha no kutubahiriza uburenganzira bwo kutavogerwa k’umuntu. Bavuga ko ibyo biteye inkeke kubera ko, bitewe n’imyumvire y’ugena icyo ibiterasoni ari cyo, umuntu umwe ashobora gukurikiranwa undi ntakurikiranwe, bikaba byazamo amarangamutima. [9] Bavuga nanone ko uburenganzira bwo kudahungabanywa kw’ikiremwamuntu ari uburenganzira bw’ibanze bwa muntu burinzwe n’Itegeko Nshinga, akaba ari uburenganzira burinda abantu kugirirwa nabi ku mubiri cyangwa mu mutwe. Bagaragaza ko guhanira umuntu icyitwa gukora ibiterasoni mu ruhame, nabyo bitasobanuwe neza, bishobora guhonyora ubwo burenganzira mu buryo butandukanye. [10] Bavuga kandi ko amategeko ahana ibiterasoni akunze guhana ibyo abantu bashobora kwitiranya n’ubwambure, bitewe n’uburyo bambaye; nyamara umuntu afite uburenganzira ntayegayezwa bw’uburyo atwara cyangwa yambika umubiri we (Body Autonomy). Bakomeza bavuga ko gufata ibiterasoni nk’icyaha bigira ingaruka zikomeye mu gutuma umuntu ashobora gutinya kwigaragaza mu bwisanzure, kubera kugira ubwoba bwo gufatwa azira ko umwambaro we ubonerana ku bice runaka, cyangwa ugarukiye ahantu runaka mu burebure. ibi bikaba ari bimwe mu byatumye hari abantu bagezwa mu nkiko, kubera gukekwaho gukora icyaha cy’ibiterasoni.

## Page 100

60 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 60 [11] Barangiza basobanura ko ibivuzwe haruguru bihura neza n’ibyo Urukiko rw’Ikirenga muri Uganda rwafasheho umwanzuro ku itariki ya 13 Kanama 2021, mu rubanza N° 13 of 2014 [2021] UGCC 20 rwari hagati ya “Centre for Domestic Violence Prevention and Others” n’Intumwa Nkuru ya Leta, aho rwemeje ko kuba hari itegeko rihana gukora urukozasoni mu ruhame ariko rikaba ridasobanura icyo kwerekana urukozasoni / “indecent show” ari cyo, binyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. [12] Me Batsinda Aline uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda, avuga ko ibivugwa n’abarega ko ingingo ya 143 y’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 13 y’Itegeko Nshinga nta shingiro bifite. Asobanura ko u Rwanda ari igihugu cyiyemeje kubaka Leta igendera ku mategeko, ishingiye ku iyubahirizwa ry’uburenganzira bwa muntu, ku bwisanzure no ku ihame ry’uko Abanyarwanda bose bareshya imbere y’amategeko, n’iry’uburinganire hagati y’abagore n’abagabo nk’uko biteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga. Avuga kandi ko u Rwanda ari kimwe mu bihugu byashyize umukono ku itangazo Mpuzamahanga ryerekeye uburenganzira bwa muntu, runiyemeza kuryubahiriza, ko ndetse n’amategeko ashyirwaho agendera muri uyu murongo. Yongeraho ko ingingo ya 29 y’iryo Tangazo iteganya ko umuntu afite uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure, ariko ikanatanga inshingano kuri rubanda, ko rero uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure bwe bimusaba kubahiriza uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure bw’abandi hubahirizwa umuco, ituze rya rubanda mu gihugu gifite demokarasi1.

1 “L’article 29 rappelle que l'individu exerce des droits, jouit de libertés, mais a également des devoirs envers la communauté. Par ailleurs, ses droits et libertés peuvent être limités par la nécessité de garantir les droits et libertés d'autrui, ou pour satisfaire aux exigences de la morale, de l'ordre public et du bien-être général dans une société démocratique”.

## Page 101

61 Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA) 61 [13] Akomeza avuga ko asanga guhana uwakoze icyaha cyo gukora ibiterasoni mu ruhame, bitavuze ko ubudahungabanywa bwe buba butubahirijwe mu gihe aba yakurikiranywe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko. Ku bivugwa ko itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange ritasobanuye icyo ibiterasoni ari cyo, avuga ko icy’ingenzi ari ukuba ari igikorwa kibangamiye rubanda hashingiwe ku muco runaka w’igihugu kandi kikaba kinyuranyije n’umuco wacyo, ko nta munyarwanda wananirwa kumenya icyo ibiterasoni ari cyo. Avuga ko, uretse n’ibyo, umwanditsi R. Garraud (3e éd. T.v, Paris 1924) yasobanuye ko bitakoroha gusobanura ibigize icyo cyaha, ko ahubwo bigomba guharirwa ubushishozi bw’umucamanza, ko rero bitagendera ku marangamutima nk’uko uwatanze ikirego abivuga. [14] Arangiza asobanura ko uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure bwa muntu bugira aho butangirira n’aho bugarukira, ko butagomba kubangamira abandi cyangwa kunyuranya n’uburere n’umuco biranga abanyarwanda. Yongeraho ko nta muntu n’umwe ufite uburenganzira bwo kwambara ubusa cyangwa kwambara imyambaro igaragaza ubwambure mu ruhame ku buryo bibangamira uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure bw’abandi, ibintu byanakururira imyifatire mibi ureba iyo myambarire ishobora no kumugusha mu cyaha. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [15] Ingingo ya 143 y’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu, iteganya ko umuntu wese ukora ibiterasoni mu ruhame aba akoze icyaha. iyo abihamijwe n’urukiko ahanishwa igihano cy’igifungo kitari munsi y’amezi atandatu (6) ariko kitarenze imyaka ibiri (2).

## Page 102

62 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 62 [16] ingingo ya 13 y’Itegeko Nshinga iteganya ko umuntu ari umunyagitinyiro kandi ari indahungabanywa, ko kandi Leta ifite inshingano yo kumwubaha, kumurinda no kumurengera (The human person is sacred and inviolable. The State has the obligation to have respect for, protect and defend the human person). [17] Uwatanze ikirego anenga ingingo aregera ko inyuranyije n’ingingo y’Itegeko Nshinga imaze kuvugwa ibintu bibiri: a. Kuba itubahiriza ubudahungabanywa bw’umuntu; b. Kuba gukora ibiterasoni bitarasobanuwe n’itegeko, bikaba bishobora kuvutsa abakurikiranyweho icyo cyaha uburenganzira bwo kudahungabanywa. A. Ibyerekeranye n’ubudahungabanywa bw’umuntu [18] Ku birebana n’igisobanuro cy’ubudahungabanywa bw’umuntu, mu nkoranyamagambo y’amuga y’amategeko, abahanga mu mategeko Serge Guinchard na Thierry Debard2, basobanura ko ari ihame ryerekana ko kizira kugirira nabi umuntu ku mubiri, akaba ari yo mpamvu hariho amategeko ahana ateganya ibyaha ku wabikora n’ay’imbonezamubano ateganya indishyi ku wakorerwa ibyo byaha (L’inviolabilité du corps humain est un principe selon lequel il ne saurait être porté atteinte à la personne humaine en son corps. De ce principe, exprimant le caractère sacré du corps humain, découle en droit pénal, les infractions contre les personnes (homicide, coups et

2 Serge Guinchard, Thierry Debard, Lexique des termes juridiques, Dalloz, 2020.

## Page 103

63 Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA) 63 blessures, …) et en droit civil, l’obligation de réparer les dommages corporels) […]3. [19] Mu nyandiko yitwa “Inviolability and Privacy: The Castle, The Sanctuary, and The Body”, umuhanga mu mategeko witwa Linda C. McClain yanditse, yasobanuye ubudahungabanywa nk’uburyo bwo kudashobora guhutazwa, uburyo bwo gufatwa nk’umunyagitinyiro utagomba gutukwa, gukorerwa icyaha, cyangwa se guhohoterwa. ibyo bisobanuro birebewe hamwe, byumvikanisha ko umuntu ari umunyagitinyiro kandi agomba kurindirwa umutekano. (What is inviolability? Common definitions of the quality of being inviolable are not to be violated, to be kept sacredly free from profanation, infraction, or assault, and impregnable to assault or trespass. Such definitions suggest both an association with sacredness and an association with security against violation or other incursions)4. [20] ibisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, biragaragaza neza ko ari ikizira gukorera umuntu ibikorwa bimubabaza ku mubiri, ko bibujijwe kuvogera umubiri w’umuntu ugamije kumugirira nabi, Leta ikaba ifite inshingano zo kurinda ko byabaho. Mu rwego rwo kubahiriza iyo nshingano, za Leta harimo n’iy’u Rwanda, zifata ingamba zose zigamije kubikumira harimo no gushyiraho amategeko ahana, ateganya ibyaha byose bishobora gukorerwa umubiri w’umuntu n’ibihano byabyo ndetse n’indishyi

3 Serge Guinchard, Thierry Debard, Lexique des termes juridiques, Dalloz, 2020. 4 Linda C. McClain, inviolability and Privacy: The Castle, The Sanctuary, and The Body, in 7 Yale Journal of Law & The Humanities 195 (1995). Boston University School of Law Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law. Available at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/2889. Consulté ce 19/04/2024 à 15h50.

## Page 104

64 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO zagenerwa uwabikorerwa. Ni muri urwo rwego nko mu itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu, mu gice cya ii, interuro ya mbere, Umutwe wa mbere n’uwa II, hateganyijwemo ibyaha bya jenoside, ibyaha byibasiye inyokomuntu n’ibyaha by’intambara, ibyaha by’ubwicanyi, ibyo gukubita cyangwa gukomeretsa, kubabaza umubiri no gukuramo inda5. [21] Ingingo iteganya ubudahungabanywa bw’umuntu, tuyisanga kandi no mu ngingo ya 4 y’Amasezerano Nyafurika y’Uburenganzira bwa muntu n’ubw’Abaturage, iteganya ko ubuzima bw’umuntu ari indahungabanywa, ko buri muntu wese afite uburenganzira bw’uko ubuzima bwe bugomba kubahwa haba ku mubiri no mu mutwe, ubwo burenganzira akaba ntawe ushobora kubumuvutsa. (Human beings are inviolable. Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and the integrity of his person. No one may be arbitrarily deprived of this right). [22] Mu bikorwa bibangamira uburenganzira buvugwa mu ngingo ya 4 y’Amasezerano Nyafurika y’Uburenganzira bwa muntu n’ubw’abaturage, mu nyandiko yitwa “Major African Legal Instruments” yanditswe n’uwitwa Sheila B Keetharuth6, ashingiye ku byemezo binyuranye byafashwe na Komisiyo Nyafurika y’Uburenganzira bwa Muntu n’ubw’Abaturage, yerekanye ibi bikurikira :

5 Reba ingingo kuva ku ya 91 kugeza ku ya 127. 6 Sheila B Keetharuth, Major African legal instruments, P.175-176, https://addis.unfpa.org/en/resources/major- african-legal-instruments. Consulté ce 17/04/2024 à 15h50.

## Page 105

65 Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA) - Kuraswa bikozwe n’abapolisi (Shootings by police officers), - Kwicwa biturutse ku rubanza rufifitse (Executions based on the authority of a defective trial), - Kwimwa ibiribwa n’imiti, gutwika abaturage no kubakorera iyicarubozo (Denial of food and medicine attention, burning people in sand and subjecting them to torture), - Ubwicanyi, kurigisa abantu bikozwe n’abantu batazwi, ariko Leta ikaba itarashoboye kugerageza kubikumira no kubikoraho iperereza igihe byabaye (Killings, disappearances, assassination by unknown people, which the government did not attempt to prevent or investigate afterwards), - Gutsemba umubare munini w’abaturage byakozwe n’izahoze ari ingabo z’u Rwanda (ex FAR) n’ubundi bwicanyi bushingiye ku bwoko runaka bwakozwe nta rubanza rubaye (Massacre of a large number of Rwandan villagers by the Rwandan armed forces and the many reported extrajudicial executions for reasons of their membership of a particular ethnic group7).

7 27/89, 46/91, 99/93, Organisation Mondiale contre la Torture and Association internationale des Juristes Démocrates, Comité international des Juristes (CIJ), Union Interafricaine des Droits de l’Homme v Rwanda, 10th Annual Activity Report [in Compilation 1994–2001, iHRDA, Banjul 2002, pp. 320–324]. “These communications were filed before the 1994 genocide [against Tutsi], but were decided afterwards, in 1996–1997”, cité par Sheila B Keetharuth, Major African legal instruments, p. 176.

## Page 106

66 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 66 [23] Muri uru rubanza, kugira ngo uwatanze ikirego avuge ko ingingo ya 143 y’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru inyuranye n’ingingo ya 13 y’Itegeko Nshinga, agomba kugaragaza neza aho ingingo y’itegeko asaba ko yakurwaho ihurira bya nyabyo n’ubudahungabanywa bw’umuntu buteganywa mu ngingo y’Itegeko Nshinga imaze kuvugwa. Ibi ni nabyo byemejwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa Canada (Bedford c. Canada (P.G.), [2013] 3 R.C.S. 1101, paragraphe 76) aho rwasobanuye ko uwatanze ikirego agomba kwerekana aho itegeko aregera rihurira n’ibyo yangirijwe nta kugenekereza8. [24] ibisobanuro bimaze kugaragazwa birerekana ko kugira ngo habeho guhutaza uburenganzira bwo kudahungabanywa k’umuntu, hagomba kuba habayeho ibikorwa ibyo ari byo byose bivogera umubiri w’umuntu bigamije kuwugirira nabi bikozwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, uwatanze ikirego akaba yarasabwaga kugaragariza urukiko aho guhana icyaha cyo gukora ibiterasoni mu ruhame giteganywa n’ingingo aregera bihurira (lien de causalité) n’uburenganzira buvugwa mu ngingo ya 13 y’Itegeko Nshinga iteganya ubudahungabanywa bw’umuntu, ibyo akaba atarashoboye kubigaragaza. b. Ibyerekeranye no kudasobanuka kw’icyaha cyo gukora ibiterasoni

8 “La norme du lien de causalité suffisant n’exige pas que la mesure législative ou autre reprochée à l’État soit l’unique ou la principale cause du préjudice subi par le demandeur, et il y est satisfait par déduction raisonnable, suivant la prépondérance des probabilités (Canada (Premier ministre)” c. Khadr, 2010 CSC 3, [2010] 1 R.C.S. 44, par. 21). “L’exigence d’un lien de causalité suffisant tient compte du contexte et s’attache à l’existence d’un lien réel, et non hypothétique. […]”. https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc- csc/fr/item/13389/index.do. Consulté ce 25/05/2024 à 15h50.

## Page 107

67 Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA) 67 [25] FADA yatanze ikirego ivuga ko ingingo ya 143 y’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru itumvikana kuko icyaha cyo gukora ibiterasoni mu ruhame buri wese acyumva ukwe bigatuma bamwe bakurikiranwa kuri icyo cyaha abandi ntibagikurikiranweho, ibyo bikabangamira ingingo ya 13 y’Itegeko Nshinga. Harebwe igisobanuro cy’ubudahungabanywa bw’umuntu buteganywa muri iyo ngingo cyatanzwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga uwatanze ikirego atagaragaza uburyo kutumvikana kw’icyaha giteganywa mu ngingo aregera bituma umuntu agirirwa nabi ku mubiri cyangwa se akorerwa ibindi bikorwa bitandukanye bibangamira ubudahungabanywa bwe. [26] Ku birebana n’urubanza rwaciwe ku itariki ya 13/08/2021 n’Urukiko rushinzwe kurengera Itegeko Nshinga rwa Uganda, haburana Centre for Domestic violence Prevention and Others n’Intumwa Nkuru ya Leta9 FADA yatanze ishyigikira ikirego cyayo, Urukiko rurasanga urwo rubanza rudahura n’ibyo iregera ku mpamvu ikurikira. Muri urwo rubanza, uwari watanze ikirego yavugaga ko ingingo ya 210 n’iya 1311 z’Itegeko ribuza ibiterasoni (Anti- Pornography Act) zinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga rya

9 Constitutional petition n° 13 of 2014) [2021] UGCC 20. 10 “Pornography means any representation through publication, exhibition, cinematography, indecent show, information technology or by whatever means, of a person engaged in real or stimulated explicit sexual activities or any representation of the sexual parts of a person for primarily sexual excitement”. 11 “(1) A person shall not produce, traffic in, publish, broadcast, procure, import, export, sell or abet any form of pornography. (2) A person who produces or participates in the production of, or traffics in, publishes, broadcasts, procures, imports, exports or in any way abets pornography contrary to subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding five hundred currency points or imprisonment not exceeding ten years or both”.

## Page 108

68 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Uganda mu ngingo ya 28(12)1212 n’iya 44(c)13. Mu kwemeza ko ingingo zari zaregewe zinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga rya Uganda, Urukiko rwavuze ko mu gusobanura icyo ibiterasoni ari cyo, amagambo yakoreshejwe mu ngingo ya 2 y’Itegeko ribuza ibiterasoni adasobanutse neza mu kugaragaza ikitabujijwe n’ikibujijwe ku buryo umuntu yakirinda. Rwakomeje ruvuga ko amagambo adasobanura neza ikibujijwe atuma itegeko ridakoreshwa uko bikwiye cyangwa ngo atume hakumirwa icyari kigamijwe rishyirwaho (…the Act does not provide what amounts to ‘indecent show’ and the threshold over which an action can be measured to determine whether it falls within the ambit of ‘indicent show’. An imprecise statement of the prohibited conduct may lead to inconsistent enforcement of the law, uncertain application of the law or failure to preclude conduct that it was intended to prohibit)14. Nyuma y’ibyo bisobanuro, rwemeje ko izo ngingo zinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga rya Uganda mu ngingo zaryo, iya 28(12) iteganya ko kugira ngo icyaha kibeho n’igihano cyacyo, kigomba kuba giteganyijwe n’itegeko (principe de la légalité des infractions et des peines), n’iya 44(c) iteganya uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye. [27] Nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, ibimaze kuvugwa bitandukanye n’ibyo FADA iregera muri uru rubanza, kuo yo ivuga ko kuba icyaha giteganywa n’ingingo ya 143 y’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru kitumvikana,

12 “Except for contempt of court, no person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined and the penalty for it prescribed by law”. 13 “Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, there shall be no derogation from the enjoyment of the following rights and freedoms—…(c) the right to fair hearing”. 14 Constitutional petition N° 13 of 2014) [2021] UGCC 20, paragraph 53.

## Page 109

69 Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA) bibangamira ubudahungabanywa bw’umuntu buteganywa mu ngingo ya 13 y’Itegeko Nshinga. [28] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro byatanzwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga mu gihe uwatanze ikirego atashoboye kugaragariza Urukiko uburyo ingingo ya 143 y’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru inyuranye n’ingingo ya 13 y’Itegeko Nshinga, ikirego cye kuri iyi ngingo nta shingiro gifite. 3. Kumenya niba ingingo ya 143 y’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu inyuranye n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga. [29] Uwingabe Murenzi Assna uhagarariye FADA, yunganiwe na Me Karangwa Olivier na Me Umwari Sylvie, bavuga ko ingingo ya 143 y’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange ihana gukora ibiterasoni mu ruhame inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda, iteganya ko abantu bose bareshya imbere y’amategeko kandi itegeko ribarengera ku buryo bumwe; kubera ko mu gushyira mu bikorwa ingingo ya 143 imaze kuvugwa haruguru, usanga itegeko rihana cyane ab’igitsina gore kurusha ab’igitsina gabo. [30] Basobanura ko iyo barebye imikoreshereze y’iyo ngingo, basanga mu bantu bagiye bakurikiranwaho icyaha cyo gukora ibiterasoni mu ruhame, haragiye hakurikiranwa abakobwa hashingiwe ku ko bambaye mu ruhame kuruta uko byakorwaga ku bagabo cyangwa abahungu, bagasanga hakurikijwe ingingo iregerwa, abagore aribo barebwa cyane nyamara batagomba kuvangurwa na basaza babo bakoze ibintu bimeze kimwe. Bakavuga ko ibi ari ikibazo kuko iri tegeko ridafata abantu mu

## Page 110

70 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 70 buryo bumwe kandi nyamara bareshya imbere y’amategeko nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga. [31] Bavuga ko, hifashishijwe iyi ngingo y’itegeko, umukobwa cyangwa umugore ugaragaye yakuye ishati atambaye ku gice cyo hejuru yahanwa, mu gihe nyamara umugabo wakoze nka byo atabihanirwa. Batanga urugero rw’uwitwa Mugabekazi Liliane wagaragaye yambaye imyenda ibonerana mu gitaramo agafatwa agafungwa, ubu akaba akurikiranywe kuri iki cyaha cyo gukora ibiterasoni mu ruhame, bakavuga ko iri ari ivangura ryamukorewe kandi nyamara ribujijwe n’ingingo ya 16 y’Itegeko Nshinga n’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yerekeye guca burundu ivangura iryo ari ryo ryose rikorerwa abagore u Rwanda rwashyizeho umukono15. [32] Mu gushyigikira ibitekerezo byabo, bashingira ku rubanza rwa Effie Krokos yaburanaga n'Ubuyobozi bw’Umujyi wa Loveland muri Leta ya Colorado, bavuga ko yatsindiye indishyi zingana na 50.000USD nyuma yo gusohorwa muri stade by'amaherere kubera ko yakuyemo ishati yari yambaye amabere ye akagaragara. Bavuga ko Urukiko rwemeje ko ahabwa indishyi kuko uburenganzira bwe bwahutajwe ubwo yafatwaga agasohorwa muri stade kuko yakuyemo imyenda yo hejuru ari umukobwa, mu gihe nyamara abagabo bari bakuyemo amashati bo ntawabakozeho16.

15Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yerekeye guca burundu ivangura iryo ari ryo ryose rikorerwa abagore yo ku wa mbere Gicurasi 1980 yemejwe n’Iteka rya Perezida No 431/16 ryo ku wa 10/11/1981. 16https://www.scribd.com/document/434016630/Effie-Krokos-Settlement- Agreement

## Page 111

71 Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA) 71 [33] Bavuga kandi ko n’ubwo ikibazo cyari cyatangiye ari Effie Krokos ukurikiranyweho kutambara hejuru amabere ari hanze, iki kibazo cyatumye bigaragara neza ko hariho ukutareshyeshya abantu imbere y’amategeko kw’abagabo n’abagore iyo bigeze mu guhana ibyaha byerekeye urukozasoni. [34] Bavuga ko bashingiye kuri ibyo, ingingo y’itegeko ihana gukora ibiterasoni mu ruhame muri ubu buryo, inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga kubera ko mu gihe cyo kuyishyira mu bikorwa, idafata abagabo n’abagore mu buryo bumwe, cyangwa ngo bareshye imbere y’amategeko iyo iri gushyirwa mu bikorwa, bityo bakaba basaba ko yakurwaho kubera ko ihutaza uburenganzira bwa muntu ku birebana no kureshya imbere y’amategeko no kudakorerwa ivangura. [35] Me Batsinda Aline uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda avuga ko FADA itanenga ingingo ya 143 y’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange mu myandikire yayo ugereranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga, ko ahubwo icyo bibandaho ari ishyirwa mu bikorwa ryayo, aho bagaragaza ko hari abakurikiranywe hashingiwe kuri iyo ngingo, n’abatarakurikiranywe. Avuga ko urebye uburyo ingingo ubwayo yanditse, abona ntaho yigeze isumbanya umugore n’umugabo, bityo agasanga idakwiye gukurwaho kuko ntaho inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga. [36] Avuga kandi ko u Rwanda ari igihugu kigendera ku mategeko kandi cyiyemeje kurwanya ivangura iryo ari ryo ryose nk’uko biteganyijwe mu Itegeko Nshinga ryarwo, ko kandi u Rwanda ari kimwe mu bihugu byashyize umukono ku Masezerano Mpuzamahanga yerekeye uburenganzira bwa muntu na politiki (Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques), aya masezerano, mu ngingo yayo ya 2.1 n’iya 3,

## Page 112

72 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO akaba asobanura ko ibihugu birebwa na yo byiyemeje kubahiriza uburenganzira bwose buteganyijwe muri yo ku babituyemo bose nta vangura iryo ari ryo ryose, kandi byiyemeje kubahiriza uburinganire hagati y’Abagabo n’Abagore17, bityo rukaba rutashyiraho itegeko rivangura abagabo n’abagore, ko rero ingingo yaregewe ntaho inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 16 y’Itegeko Nshinga kuko nta vangura iryo ari ryo ryose riyigaragaramo. [37] Ku bijyanye n’urubanza rwagarutsweho rw’uwitwa Mugabekazi Liliane wagaragaye yambaye imyenda ibonerana mu gitaramo agafungwa ubu akaba akurikiranywe ku cyaha cyo gukora ibiterasoni mu ruhame, Me Batsinda Aline avuga ko imyambarire y’uwo mukobwa ubwayo yari iteye isoni, ari nayo mpamvu amafoto ye abantu bose bakomeje kuyagarukaho. [38] Arangiza avuga ko, ashingiye ku bisobanuro yatanze, asanga ingingo ya 143 y’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu ntaho inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda mu ngingo zaryo, iya 13, iya 15 n’iya 16 ku buryo yakurwaho. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA

17Article 2.1: “Les Etats parties au présent Pacte s'engagent à respecter et à garantir à tous les individus se trouvant sur leur territoire et relevant de leur compétence les droits reconnus dans le présent Pacte, sans distinction aucune, notamment de race, de couleur, de sexe, de langue, de religion, d'opinion politique ou de toute autre opinion, d'origine nationale ou sociale, de fortune, de naissance ou de toute autre situation.” Article 3: “Les Etats parties au présent Pacte s'engagent à assurer le droit égal des hommes et des femmes de jouir de tous les droits civils et politiques énoncés dans le présent Pacte.”

## Page 113

73 Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA) [39] Ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga iteganya ko abantu bose bareshya imbere y’amategeko, ko kandi amategeko abarengera ku buryo bumwe. Naho iya 16 igateganya ko abanyarwanda bose bavukana kandi bagakomeza kugira uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure bingana. Iyo ngingo iteganya kandi ko ivangura iryo ariryo ryose cyangwa kurikwirakwiza byaba bishingiye ku bwoko, ku muryango cyangwa ku gisekuru, ku nzu, ku ibara ry’umubiri, ku gitsina, ku karere, ku byiciro by’imibereho, ku idini cyangwa ukwemera, ku bitekerezo, ku mutungo, ku itandukaniro ry’umuco, ku rurimi, ku bukungu, ku bumuga bw’umubiri cyangwa ubwo mu mutwe no ku rindi vangura iryo ari ryo ryose, bibujijwe kandi bihanwa n’amategeko. [40] ingingo isabirwa gukurwaho uwatanze ikirego avuga ko inyuranye n’ingingo z’Itegeko Nshinga zimaze kuvugwa, ni iya 143 y’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu, iteganya ko umuntu wese ukora ibiterasoni mu ruhame aba akoze icyaha. Iyo abihamijwe n’urukiko ahanishwa igihano cy’igifungo kitari munsi y’amezi atandatu (6) ariko kitarenze imyaka ibiri (2). [41] Kugira ngo bimenyekane niba muri iyi ngingo hagaragamo kutareshya imbere y’amategeko n’ivangura rishingiye ku gitsina, bityo ikaba inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 kimwe n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga nk’uko uwatanze ikirego abivuga, ni ngombwa kubanza gusobanura uburyo izo ngingo zumvikana. Nk’uko byasobanuwe mu rubanza RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS rwaciwe n’uru Rukiko ku itariki ya 23/09/2016 haburana Akagera Business Group (ABG)18, ingingo ya 15 n’iya 16 z’itegeko Nshinga zifitanye isano ku buryo bigoye

18 Icyegeranyo cy’ibyemezo by’inkiko, V. 2, 2017, P.1.

## Page 114

74 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 74 gusobanura icyo zishatse kuvuga uzitandukanyije. Nk’uko byasobanuwe kandi muri urwo rubanza, ingingo ya 15 ivuga ko abantu bose bareshya imbere y’amategeko kandi bakarengerwa n’amategeko mu buryo bumwe. Ni ukuvuga ko hatagomba kubaho ivangura rituma abantu batarengerwa mu buryo bumwe cyangwa batagira uburenganzira aho bakabugize. Naho ingingo ya 16 ikomerezaho ivuga uburyo gutandukanya abantu bifatwa nk’ivangura kandi ko bitemewe n’Itegeko Nshinga. Izi ngingo zombi zafatwa nk’izikubiyemo ihame rimwe ryo kudasumbanya abantu mu byo bemerewe cyangwa babujijwe ugamije kugira abo uheza ku burenganzira bemererwa n’amategeko. [42] Ihame ryo kureshya imbere y’amategeko no kudakorerwa ivangura, turisanga mu Masezerano Mpuzamahanga u Rwanda rwashyizeho umukono, muri yo hakaba hari aya akurikira: i. Itangazo ry’Umuryango w’Abibumbye ku burenganzira bwa muntu (Universal Declaration of Human Rights), ryo mu mwaka wa 1948, aho ingingo yaryo ya 7 iteganya ko abantu bose bareshya imbere y’amategeko kandi ko barengerwa na yo nta vangura iryo ari ryo ryose. iyo ngingo ibivuga itya mu magambo y’icyongereza: “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination”. ii. Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga ku burenganzira Mbonezamubano n’ubwa Politiki (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966), aho ingingo yaryo ya 26 na yo iteganya ko abantu bose

## Page 115

75 Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA) 75 bareshya imbere y’amategeko, kandi ko barengerwa na yo mu buryo bungana nta vungura iryo ari ryo ryose. Ibivuga itya mu rurimi rw’icyongereza: “All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”. By’umwihariko ku birebana n’uburinganire hagati y’umugabo n’umugore, ingingo ya 3 iteganya ko ibihugu byemeye aya Masezerano byiyemeje kubahiriza uburenganzira bungana bw’umugabo n’umugore mu gukoresha uburenganzira bwose mbonezamubano n’ubwa politiki buvugwa (The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant). iii. Amasezerano mpuzamahanga agamije gukumira ivangura iryo ariryo ryose rikorerwa abagore (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women), mu ngingo yayo ya mbere avuga ko iryo vangura ari irishingiye ku gutandukanya umugore n’umugabo hagamijwe kuburizamo uburenganzira mu bya politike, ubukungu, umuco n’ibindi (For the purposes of the present Convention, the term discrimination against women shall mean any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the

## Page 116

76 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 76 recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field), ingingo ya 15.1. y’ayo masezerano igateganya ko ibihugu byayashyizeho umukono byiyemeje kureshyeshya abagore n’abagabo (States Parties shall accord to women equality with men before the law)19. iv. Amasezerano yitwa aya Maputo (Maputo Protocol), ateganya mu ngingo yayo ya 8 (f) ko abagore n’abagabo bareshya imbere y’amategeko kandi bagomba kurindwa ku buryo bungana, kandi amategeko akabarengera kimwe. ivuga ko ibihugu byemera aya masezerano bifite inshingano yo kuvugurura amategeko n’imigirire bisanzweho bigaragaramo ivangura mu rwego rwo guteza imbere no kurinda uburenganzira bw’umugore (Women and men are equal before the law and shall have the right to equal protection and benefit of the law. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure: … (f): reform of existing discriminatory laws and practices in order to promote and protect the rights of women)20. [43] Nk’uko bimaze kugaragazwa haruguru, ihame ry’uko abantu bareshya imbere y’amategeko rivuze ko abantu bafatwa

19 U Rwanda rwashyize umukono kuri aya masezerano ku itariki ya 02/03/1981. 20 U Rwanda rwashyize umukono kuri aya masezerano ku itariki ya 25/06/2004.

## Page 117

77 Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA) 77 kimwe imbere y’amategeko, nta busumbane cyangwa ivangura iryo ari ryo ryose, ndetse n’itegeko rigiyeho rigafata kimwe abo rireba. Harebwe ingingo ya 15 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga ndetse n’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yavuzwe haruguru, ubona ko u Rwanda rwiyemeje kugendera kuri iryo hame. [44] FADA yatanze ikirego, yo isanga ingingo ya 143 y’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru itubahiriza iryo hame, kuko ngo icyaha cyo gukora ibiterasoni mu ruhame gikurikiranwa ku bantu b’igitsigore gusa, cyakorwa n’ab’igitsina gabo ntibagikurikiranweho, bityo igasanga nta kurengerwa kimwe hagati y’abagabo n’abagore kugaragara muri iyi ngingo, ndetse ko iyo ngingo igaragaramo ivangura rikorerwa abagore, ari nayo mpamvu isaba ko yateshwa agaciro. [45] Ku birebana n’ibigenderwaho kugira ngo itegeko riteshwe agaciro, mu rubanza RS/iNCONST/SPEC00001/2022/SC, haburana Murangwa Edward hari n’Intumwa ya Leta, uru Rukiko rwasobanuye ko imigirire (pratique) inyuranyije n’ibyo itegeko riteganya itakosorerwa mu kwemeza ko itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga mu gihe itegeko ubwayo nta kibazo rifite21. [46] Iby’uko itegeko ridateshwa agaciro n’uburyo rikurikizwa, ko ahubwo harebwa ibyo riteganya, mu rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rw’Ubuhinde haburana “The Collector of Customs, Madras na Nathella Sampathu Chetty and another”, urwo Rukiko rwemeje ko kuba itegeko ubundi ridateye ikibazo ryakoreshwa nabi atari byo byatuma riteshwa agaciro, nk’uko itegeko ridafite agaciro ridashobora gukizwa n’uko

21RS/iNCONST/SPEC00001/2022/SC rwaciwe ku itariki ya 22/12/2023, igika cya 110.

## Page 118

78 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 78 ryakoreshejwe neza. (The possibility of abuse of a statute otherwise valid does not impart to it any element of invalidity. The converse must also follow that a statute which is otherwise, invalid as being unreasonable cannot be saved by its being administered in a reasonable manner)22. [47] Muri urwo rwego kandi, mu rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rwa Tanzania (The High Court of Tanzania), Rev. Christopher Mtikila aburana n’Intumwa Nkuru ya Leta, 1995 TLR 31, urwo Rukiko rwavuze ko kugira ngo hemezwe ko itegeko runaka ribangamiye uburenganzira bw’ibanze, harebwa ingingo y’itegeko hatareberwa uburyo iyo ngingo ishyirwa mu bikorwa (In order to determine whether a particular law is repugnant or inconsistent with the fundamental right, it is the provision of the Act that must be looked at and not the manner in which the power under the provision is actually exercised. Inconsistency or repugnancy does not depend upon the exercise of the power by virtue of the provisions in the Act but on the nature of the provisions themselves)23. [48] Ku birebana n’uru rubanza, icyo uwatanze ikirego anenga ingingo ya 143 y’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru, ni uko ngo mu kuyishyira mu bikorwa hagaragaramo ivangura hagati y’abantu b’igitsina gabo n’ab’igitsinagore, aho icyaha cyo gukora ibiterasoni mu ruhame gikurikiranwa ku bantu b’igitsina gore nyamara ab’igitsina gabo

22The Collector of Customs, Madras vs Nathella Sampathu Chetty and Others, on 25 September, 1961, p. 25. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1193965/, Consulté ce 18/04/2024 à 10h00. 23Rev. Christopher Mtikila vs Attorney General [1995] TLR 31. Cited in Raymond Paul Kanegene and Bob Chacha Wangwe vs The Attorney General, p. 20. https://tanzlii.org/akn/tz/judgment/tzhc/2020/4032/eng@2020-11- 26/source.pdf. Consulté ce 25/04/2024 à 13h00.

## Page 119

79 Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA) 79 ntibagikurikiranweho, akavuga ko nta kureshya guhari, ko ahubwo ari ivangura rikorerwa ab’igitsina gore. [49] Urukiko rurasanga uburyo iyo ngingo yanditse nta vangura iryo ari ryo ryose riyigaragaramo kuko iteganya ko umuntu wese ukora ibiterasoni mu ruhame aba akoze icyaha. ibi bikaba byumvikanisha ko icyo cyaha gishobora gukurikiranwa ku muntu w’igitsina gore nk’uko cyakurikiranwa no ku w’igitsina gabo. Kuba mu mikoreshereze yayo ari ho uwatanze ikirego abona ikibazo, ibyo sibyo byatuma asaba ko yateshwa agaciro avuga ko inyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga nk’uko byemejwe no mu manza zagagajwe haruguru; uretse ko nta n’ikimenyetso na kimwe yahaye urukiko cyerekana ko hari umuntu w’igitsina gabo wagaragayeho icyaha cyo gukora ibiterasoni mu ruhame ntagikurikiranweho kubera ko gusa ari uw’igitsina gabo. [50] Urugero rw’ingingo y’itegeko igaragaramo ivangura hagati y’umugaro n’umugore, ni nk’iya 354 y’Itegeko Teka N° 21/77 ryo ku wa 18/08/1977 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ibyaha ryakurikizwaga mu Rwanda yateganyaga ko umugore uzahamwa n’icyaha cy’ubusambanyi azahanishwa igifungo kuva ku kwezi kumwe kugeza ku mwaka umwe, mu gihe umugabo wahamwe n’icyo cyaha we azahanishwa igifungo kuva ku kwezi kumwe kugeza ku mezi atandatu n'ihazabu y'amafaranga igihumbi cyangwa kimwe gusa muri ibyo bihano. Muri iryo tegeko, biragaragara neza ko harimo ivangura ndetse no kutareshya hagati y’umugabo n’umugore, kubera ko iyo babaga bakoze icyaha kimwe, umugore yahabwaga igihano kiremereye, nyamara umugabo agahabwa icyoroheje. iyo ngingo

## Page 120

80 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO yaregewe Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwemeza ko inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga.24 [51] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 143 y’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu, uburyo yanditse kandi yumvikana ntaho inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 kimwe n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga, bityo no kuri iyi ngingo ikirego cyatanzwe na FADA kikaba nta shingiro gifite. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [52] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Feminist Action Development Ambition (FADA) isaba kwemeza ko ingingo ya 143 y’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda; nta shingiro gifite. [53] Rwemeje ko ingingo ya 143 y’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu, itanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 13, iya 15 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda.

24Reba urubanza n° RS/inconst/Pén.0001/08/CS rwaciwe ku itariki ya ku wa 26/09/2008 harega Murorunkwere Spéciose

## Page 121

81 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD 81 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD [Rwanda URUKiKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/iNCONST/SPEC 00003/2022/SC– (Ntezilyayo, J. P., Cyanzayire, Mukamulisa, Hitiyaremye na Kazungu, J.) 22 Ukuboza 2023] Itegeko Nshinga – Ihame ryo kureshya imbere y’amategeko n’iryo kutavangura – Kuba ibisabwa abikorera batanga serivise z’umutekano bitandukanye n’ibisabwa abakora ubundi bucuruzi bishingiye kuri kamere ya buri bucuruzi, ntibyafwa ko ari ivangura bakorerwa kuko abakora ubucuruzi butari mu cyiciro kimwe badashobora gufatwa kimwe, mu gihe n’amategeko abagenga aba atandukanye. Itegeko Nshinga – Uburenganzira ku ubutabera buboneye – Kuba itakamba ku iyamburwa ry’icyemezo cyo gutanga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera ritangwa kwa Minisitiri mbere yo kuregera urukiko, ntibyafatwa ko ari ukuvutswa uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye, ahubwo ni mu rwego rwo gukosora icyemezo cyafashwe ku rwego rwa mbere mu gihe cyaba cyarafashwe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko, ariko ntibibuza uwagifatiwe kuba yakwiyambaza inkiko. Itegeko Nshinga – Umutekano w’Igihugu n’umutekano rusange w’abaturage – Ubucuruzi bwa serivisi zo gucunga umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera ntibwafatwa kimwe nk’ubundi bucuruzi bwose, mu gihe kamere yabwo yihariye n’uburyo bukorwamo cyangwa bugenzurwamo bukaba bugomba kuba uburyo bwihariye kandi bigakorwa n’urwego rubifitiye ubumenyi n’ububasha. Itegeko Nshinga – Inzego zishinzwe gucunga umutekano – Polisi y’u Rwanda – Inshingano za Polisi y’u Rwanda – Ibigo

## Page 122

82 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 82 by’abikorera birinda umutekano w’abantu n’ibintu bisabwa guha Polisi y’u Rwanda raporo y’ibikorwa igaragaza uko umutekano wifashe, kuko biri mu nshingano zayo ndetse ni yo ifite inshingano y’ibanze yo gucunga umutekano w’abantu n’ibintu mu Gihugu hose. Incamake y’ikibazo: Excel Security Rwanda Ltd, nka kampani itanga serivise y’umutekano, yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga isaba kwemeza ko zimwe mu ngingo z’Itegeko rigenga serivise z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. Aha agaragaza ko ingingo ya 5, 6 agace ka 6°, 7°, 8° n’aka 9°, 13, 19, 30, 31, n’iya 37 y’ itegeko Nº 016 bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 rigenga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera zinyuranyije n’amahame ateganyijwe mu ngingo ya 15,16, 23, 29, 37, n’iya 159 z’Itegeko Nshinga, kuko imiterere yazo igaragaza ivangura rikomeye, naho izindi zikagaragaza kutubahiriza uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure ku bigo bicuruza serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera muri rusange no kuri yo by’umwihariko. Uwatanze ikirego avuga ko ingingo ya gatanu (5) y’iryo Tegeko ryavuzwe haruguru inyuranyije n’ibiteganywa mu ngingo y’159 y’Itegeko Nshinga, aho iha Polisi ububasha n’inshingano z’urwego ngenzuramikorere butandukanye n’inshingano ihabwa n’Itegeko Nshinga. Mu ngingo ya 6 agace ka 6°, 7°, 8° n’aka 9° y’iryo Tegeko ryavuzwe haruguru, iteganya ibisabwa uwikorera ujya gutangira gutanga serivise y’umutekano agomba kuba yujuje, birimo inyandiko igaragaza umutungo we ufite agaciro kagenwa n’Iteka rya Minisitiri, mu gihe ibindi bigo by’ubucuruzi bitayisabwa; ibi bikaba bigaragaza ko ari ivangura no gutsikamira ibigo byikorera bitanga serivise y’umutekano.

## Page 123

83 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD 83 Akomeza avuga ko ingingo ya 13 na yo igaragaza ivangura rikorerwa abikorera batanga serivise y’umutekano kubera ko basabwa kuba bafite ibikoresho by’ibanze (cameras, detectors, scaners) bigenwa mu masezerano hagati y’utanga serivisi n’umukiriya we cyangwa nyir’inyubako icungirwa umutekano, mu gihe nk’abakora serivisi z’isuku bo badasabwa kugaragaza ibikoresho by’ibanze by’isuku. Asoza avuga ko ingingo ya 37 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru na yo igaragaramo ivangura, aho uwikorera utanga serivisi z’umutekano ahabwa igihano cy’ihazabu yo mu rwego rw’ubutegetsi, iyo arinda umutekano bitaremejwe na Polisi, bikaba binyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga. Leta y’u Rwanda yahamagajwe muri uru rubanza ivuga ko izo ngingo Urega avuga zitagaragaramo ivangura na gato, kuko kuba harabayeho gutandukanya ibisabwa hashingiwe kuri serivisi abantu batanga, bidashobora kwitwa ivangura, cyangwa ngo bibangamire ihame ryo gufatwa kimwe imbere y’amategeko. Leta y’u Rwanda isobanura ko ingingo ya 159 n’iya 161 z’Itegeko Nshinga zigaragaza ko Polisi y’u Rwanda isanzwe ifite ububasha ngenzuramikorere kuko ariyo ishinzwe muri rusange kurinda umutekano w’abantu n’ibintu mu Gihugu hose nkuko buteganyijwe mu itegeko rigena amahame ngenderwaho, ububasha, inshingano, imitunganyirize n’imikorere bya Polisi y’u Rwanda. Ni ukuvuga ko Polisi y’u Rwanda ifite ububasha n’inshingano byo gukora nk’urwego ngenzuramikorere ku bikorera batanga serivisi zo kurinda umutekano w’abantu n’ibintu n’ubwo kubagira inama z’uburyo banozamo inshingano zabo. Abikorera bashaka gutanga iyo serivise babihererwa uburenganzira bwihariye na Polisi y’u Rwanda, ikaba ifite n’ububasha bwo kububambura mu gihe cyose batabukoresheje

## Page 124

84 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 84 uko bikwiye. isoza ivuga ko kutagira ubwo bubasha kwa Polisi y’u Rwanda ari byo ahubwo byaba bitubahirije itegeko Nshinga. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Kuba ibisabwa abikorera batanga serivise z’umutekano bitandukanye n’ibisabwa abakora ubundi bucuruzi bishingiye kuri kamere ya buri bucuruzi, ntibyafwa ko ari ivangura bakorerwa kuko abakora ubucuruzi butari mu cyiciro kimwe badashobora gufatwa kimwe, mu gihe n’amategeko abagenga abatandukanye. 2. Kuba itakamba ku iyamburwa ry’icyemezo cyo gutanga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera ritangwa kwa Minisitiri mbere yo kuregerwa urukiko ntibyafatwa ko ari ukuvutswa uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye, ahubwo ni mu rwego rwo gukosora icyemezo cyafashwe ku rwego rwa mbere mu gihe cyaba cyarafashwe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko, ariko ntibibuza uwagifatiwe kuba yakwiyambaza inkiko. 3. Ubucuruzi bwa serivisi zo gucunga umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera ntibwafatwa kimwe nk’ubundi bucuruzi bwose, mu gihe kamere yabwo yihariye n’uburyo bukorwamo cyangwa bugenzurwamo bukaba bugomba kuba uburyo bwihariye kandi bigakorwa n’urwego rubifitiye ubumenyi n’ububasha. 4. ibigo by’abikorera birinda umutekano w’abantu n’ibintu bisabwa guha Polisi y’u Rwanda raporo y’ibikorwa igaragaza uko umutekano wifashe, kuko biri mu nshingano zayo ndetse ni yo ifite inshingano y’ibanze yo gucunga umutekano w’abantu n’ibintu mu Gihugu hose. Ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko ingingo z’itegeko zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda, nta shingiro gifite.

## Page 125

85 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD 85 Amategeko yashingiweho: itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu mwaka wa 2003 ryavuguruwe mu wa 2015, mu ngingo zaryo za 15,16, 23, 37, 159. Amasezerano mpuzamahanga yerekeye uburenganzira mu by’imbonezamubano no mu bya politiki, ingingo ya 14, 17 n’iya 18. Amasezerano y’Ubumwe bw’Ibihugu by’Uburayi yerekeye Uburenganzira bwa Muntu nk’uko yahinduwe n’amasezerano yunganira No 11 na 14, ingingo ya 8. itegeko N° 026/2023 ryo ku wa 17/05/2023 rigenga Polisi y’u Rwanda, ingingo ya 9, 10 n’iya 34. itegeko Nº 016 bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 rigenga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera, ingingo ya 5, 6, 13, 19, 30, 31, n’iya 37. itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 75 n’iya 177. itegeko No 48/2017 ryo ku wa 23/09/2017 rigenga Banki Nkuru y’u Rwanda, ingingo ya 6. itegeko N° 09/2017 ryo ku wa 20/03/2017 rihindura kandi ryuzuza itegeko N° 46/2010 ryo ku wa 14/12/2010 rigena ububasha, inshingano, imitunganyirize n’imikorere bya Polisi y’u Rwanda, ingingo ya 8. itegeko N°46/2010 ryo kuwa 14/12/2010 rigena ububasha, inshingano, imitunganyirize n’imikorere bya Polisi y’u Rwanda yerekeye Imikoranire ya Polisi y’u Rwanda n’ibigo by’abikorera birinda umutekano w’abantu n’ibintu, ingingo ya 41.

## Page 126

86 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 86 Imanza zifashishijwe: RS/iNCONST/SPEC 00004/2021/SC, Ngendahayo Kabuye na Leta y’u Rwanda rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 10/02/2023. RS/iNCONST/SPEC 00004/2019/SC, Me Nzafashwanayo Dieudonné na Leta y’u Rwanda rwaciwe ku wa 24/07/2020. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] ExCEL SECURiTY Rwanda Ltd yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga irusaba kwemeza ko ingingo ya 5, iya 6 (agace ka 6°, aka 7°, aka 8°, aka 9° n’aka 10°), iya 13, 19, 30, 31, igika cya 2, n’iya 37 z’Itegeko Nº 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 rigenga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda (itegeko Nshinga muri uru rubanza), mu ngingo zaryo za 15, 16, 23, 37, 159, maze ikirego gihabwa RS/iNCONST/SPEC 00003/2022/SC. [2] ExCEL SECURiTY Rwanda Ltd ivuga ko nyuma y’uko hatangajwe itegeko Nº 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 ryavuzwe haruguru, zimwe mu ngingo zaryo yasanze zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga kuko imiterere yazo igaragaza ivangura rikomeye, naho izindi zikagaragaza kutubahiriza uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure ku bigo bicuruza serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera muri rusange, no kuri EXCEL SECURITY Rwanda Ltd by’umwihariko.

## Page 127

87 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD 87 [3] Me Cyubahiro Fiat uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda avuga ko ingingo z’amategeko EXCEL SECURITY Rwanda Ltd iregera zitagaragaramo ivangura na gato, kuko kuba harabayeho gutandukanya ibisabwa hashingiwe kuri serivisi abantu batanga, bidashobora kwitwa ivangura, cyangwa ngo bibangamire ihame ryo gufatwa kimwe imbere y’amategeko. [4] iburanisha ryabaye ku wa 24/07/2023, Urukiko rumenyesha ababuranyi ko isomwa ry’urubanza rishyizwe ku wa 29/09/2023. Ku itariki ya 14/08/2023, Nshuti Rugerinyange, umuyobozi wa ExCEL SECURiTY Rwanda Ltd yashyikirije Urukiko umwanzuro w’inyongera abinyujije muri IECMS, asaba ko wakwakirwa ugasuzumwa kubera ko atabashije kwitaba urukiko bitewe n’uko yagiye kwivuza muri Leta Zunze Ubumwe za Amerika uburwayi bw’umugongo, kandi nk’inzobere (expert) muri uyu mwuga hari ibisobanuro by’ingenzi afite ku bisubizo byatanzwe n’uwari ahagarariye iyo sosiyete ku bibazo yabajijwe n’Urukiko mw’iburanisha. Urukiko rurasanga uwo mwanzuro utasuzumwa kuko watanzwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 75 y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi.1

1 Ingingo ya 75 y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, iteganya ko muri rusange nta nyandiko, imyanzuro y’urubanza cyangwa inyandiko ikubiyemo ingingo ziburanishwa bishobora kohererezwa urukiko nyuma y’inama ntegurarubanza. Icyakora, igihe cyose urubanza rutaracibwa, iyo habonetse inyandiko cyangwa se ikindi kintu gishya cyafasha mu kugaragaza ukuri kivumbuwe n’umwe mu baburanyi, ashobora kugishyikiriza urukiko, rugasuzuma niba cyakwakirwa. iyo iburanisha ryari ryarapfundikiwe, umuburanyi asaba ko ripfundurwa. Urukiko ubwarwo ni rwo rusuzuma niba ari ngombwa gupfundura iburanisha, iyo rusanze ruzashingira kuri icyo kintu gishya mu guca urwo rubanza. Mbere yo gufata icyemezo kandi

## Page 128

88 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 88 [5] Mu gihe urubanza RS/iNCONST/SPEC 00003/2023/SC rwari rutaracibwa, ku itariki ya 04/08/2023, hasohotse itegeko Nshinga rivugurura itegeko Nshinga ryo mu mwaka wa 2003 ryavuguruwe mu wa 2015, kandi ariryo uwatanze ikirego yashingiyeho avuga ko ingingo z’amategeko zinyuranye naryo, Urukiko rusanga ari ngombwa kongera gupfundura iburanisha kugira ngo ExCEL SECURiTY Rwanda Ltd ihuze ikirego cyayo n’ingingo z’Itegeko Nshinga rishya. Iburanisha ryimuriwe ku wa 28/11/2023. [6] Uwo munsi ugeze ababuranyi bose bitabye Urukiko, Me Mfashingabo Aimable ahagarariye ExCEL SECURiTY Rwanda Ltd naho Leta y’u Rwanda ihagarariwe na Me Kabibi Spéciose. [7] Mu myanzuro y’inyongera yatanzwe ku kibazo cyo guhuza ingingo z’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryavuguruwe muri 2015 urega yashingiyeho ikirego cye, n’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryasohotse ku wa 04/08/2023, Me Mfashingabo Aimable na Me Kabibi Spéciose bemeranya ko ingingo ya 15, 16, 23, 29, 37 n’iya 48 z’Itegeko Nshinga ryavuguruwe muri 2015 zitahindutse mu itegeko Nshinga ryo muri 2023, ariko ko ingingo ya 158 yahindutse ingingo ya 159, naho ingingo ya 160 ikaba yarahindutse iya 161. [8] ibibazo bigomba gusuzumwa muri uru rubanza ni ibi bikurikira: a. Kumenya niba ingingo ya 5, ingingo ya 6, agace ka 6°, aka 7°, aka 8° n’aka 9°, ingingo ya 13 n’iya 37 z’Itegeko

rubyibwirije, urukiko rushobora gupfundura iburanisha mu gihe rusanga hari ibyo rukeneye gusobanukirwa kurushaho bitasobanutse mu iburanisha kugira ngo ukuri kugaragare. Iyo ipfundurwa ry’urubanza ritegetswe, urukiko rugena umunsi, ahantu n’isaha ababuranyi bazitabira kugira ngo baburane.

## Page 129

89 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD 89 N° 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 rigenga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera, zinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15, 16 n’iya 159 z’Itegeko Nshinga; b. Kumenya niba ingingo ya 19 y’Itegeko N° 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 rigenga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 29 (3°) y’Itegeko Nshinga; c. Kumenya niba ingingo ya 6, agace ka 10º y’Itegeko N° 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 rigenga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera, ibangamiye ihame ry’ubwisanzure mu bitekerezo riteganywa n’ingingo ya 37 y’Itegeko Nshinga; d. Kumenya niba ingingo ya 30 n’iya 31 y’Itegeko N° 016 Bis/ 2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 rigenga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera, ribangamiye ihame ryo kubaha imibereho bwite y’umuntu n’umuryango riteganywa n’ingingo ya 23 y’Itegeko Nshinga. II. ISESENGURA RY’IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA A. Kumenya niba ingingo ya 5, ingingo ya 6, agace ka 6°, 7°, 8° n’aka 9°, ingingo ya 13, n’iya 37 z’Itegeko N° 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 rigenga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera, zinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15, 16 n’iya 159 z’Itegeko Nshinga [9] Me Mfashingabo Aimable uhagarariye ExCEL SECURiTY Rwanda Ltd avuga ko ingingo ya 5 y’Itegeko Nº 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 ryavuzwe haruguru ibangamiye

## Page 130

90 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 159 y’Itegeko Nshinga2 kuko iha Polisi ububasha n’inshingano z’urwego ngenzuramikorere butandukanye n’inshingano ihabwa n’Itegeko Nshinga. [10] Me Mfashingabo Aimable avuga kandi ko ingingo ya 6, agace ka 6°, 7°, 8° n’aka 9°, ingingo ya 13, n’iya 37 z’Itegeko N° 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 ryavuzwe haruguru zinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga,3 abishingiye ku mpamvu zikurikira: a. ingingo ya 6, agace ka 6 y’Itegeko N° 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 ryavuzwe haruguru itegeka usaba icyemezo cyo kwiyandikisha mu gutanga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera, kubanza kwerekana inyandiko igaragaza umutungo ufite agaciro kagenwa n’Iteka rya Minisitiri. Akaba asanga ari ivangura no gutsikamira ibigo by’ubucuruzi bitanga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera kuko ibindi bigo

2 Leta ifite inzego zishinzwe kurinda Igihugu n’umutekano zikurikira: 1° Ingabo z'u Rwanda; 2° Polisi y’u Rwanda; 3° Urwego rw'Igihugu rushinzwe Iperereza n’Umutekano. Itegeko rishobora kugena izindi nzego zishinzwe umutekano. Inzego zishinzwe kurinda Igihugu n‟umutekano zirakorana zikanahuza ibikorwa mu kuzuza inshingano zazo. iteka rya Perezida rigena uburyo izo nzego zikorana zikanahuza ibikorwa. 3 Iyo ngingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga iteganya ko abantu bose barareshya imbere y’amategeko. Itegeko ribarengera ku buryo bumwe” Naho ingingo ya 16 y’Itegeko Nshinga igira iti: (1) Abanyarwanda bose bavukana kandi bagakomeza kugira uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure bingana. (2) Ivangura iryo ari ryo ryose cyangwa kurikwirakwiza byaba bishingiye ku bwoko, ku muryango cyangwa ku gisekuru, ku nzu, ku ibara ry’umubiri, ku gitsina, ku karere, ku byiciro by’imibereho, ku idini cyangwa ukwemera, ku bitekerezo, ku mutungo, ku itandukaniro ry’umuco, ku rurimi, ku bukungu, ku bumuga bw’umubiri cyangwa ubwo mu mutwe no ku rindi vangura iryo ari ryo ryose, birabujijwe kandi bihanwa n’amategeko.

## Page 131

91 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD by’ubucuruzi bitanga izindi serivisi bidasabwa mbere yo gutangira gukora, kugaragaza umutungo utari igishoro. b. Agace ka 7º k’ingingo ya 6 y’iryo Tegeko gasobanura ko ushaka gukora serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera, agomba kwerekana inyandiko igaragaza ko inyubako ikorerwamo nk’icyicaro gikuru cy’usaba icyemezo cyo gutanga iyo serivisi yujuje ibiteganywa n’amategeko y’imyubakire, binyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga, kubera ko izo serivisi zikorerwa hirya no hino mu nyubako no mu ngo z’abakiliya bakeneye abazamu babarindira umutekano nk’uko bikorwa n’abatanga serivisi z’isuku mu ngo, muri za biro za leta n’abikorera, mu ma restaurants, no mu bitaro, kandi bo ntibasabwa kugaragaza inyandiko yerekana ko inyubako izakorerwamo nk’icyicaro yujuje ibiteganywa n’amategeko y’imyubakire. Bityo, iryo rikaba ari ivangura rikorerwa abatanga izo serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera. c. Kuba agace ka 8º n’aka 9º tw’iyo ngingo ya 6 dusaba ushaka gukora iyo serivisi kwerekana inyandiko igaragaza ikigo cy’amahugurwa cyujuje ibisabwa bigenwa na Polisi y’u Rwanda cyangwa amasezerano afitanye n’ikigo cy’amahugurwa cyemewe na Polisi y’u Rwanda, ndetse n’igitabo gikubiyemo inyigisho z’abatozwa n’imyirondoro y’abarimu bazitanga byujuje ibisabwa bigenwa na Polisi y’u Rwanda nabyo bibangamiye ihame riteganywa n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga kuko abatanga izindi serivisi nk’iza Banki, Ubwishingizi cyangwa isuku batabisabwa, akaba ari impamvu izitira abatanga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera.

## Page 132

92 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 92 d. Ingingo ya 13 y’Itegeko N° 016Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 ryavuzwe haruguru, isaba ushaka gukora iyo serivisi kwerekana ibikoresho by’ibanze byo kurinda umutekano, nayo igaragaza ivangura no gutsikamira ibigo by’ubucuruzi bitanga serivisi z’umutekano kuko izo serivisi zikorerwa hirya no hino mu nyubako no mu ngo z’abakiliya bakeneye abazamu babarindira umutekano. Gusabwa kubanza kugaragaza ibikoresho by’ibanze nka camera, detectors, scanner bigenwa mu masezerano hagati y’utanga serivisi n’umukiriya we cyangwa nyir’inyubako icungirwa umutekano mu gihe abakora serivisi z’isuku bo badasabwa kugaragaza ibikoresho by’ibanze by’isuku, ni impamvu izitira izo serivisi. e. Ingingo ya 37 y’Itegeko N° 016Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 ryavuzwe haruguru igaragaramo ivangura rikorerwa abatanga serivisi z’umutekano, ikaba inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga kubera ko iteganyiriza utanga serivisi zo kurinda umutekano utaremejwe na Polisi, igihano cy’ihazabu yo mu rwego rw’ubutegetsi y’amafaranga y’u Rwanda atari munsi ya miliyoni ebyiri (2.000.000 Frw) ariko atarenze miliyoni eshatu (3.000.000 Frw). [11] Me Cyubahiro Fiat uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda avuga ko ibivugwa n’urega nta shingiro bifite kubera impamvu zikurikira: a. Ingingo ya 159 n’iya 161 z’Itegeko Nshinga zigaragaza ko Polisi y’u Rwanda isanzwe ifite ububasha ngenzuramikorere buvugwa na ExCEL SECURiTY Rwanda Ltd, ikaba itabukomora mu ngingo z’itegeko ziburanwa muri uru rubanza kuko ariyo ishinzwe muri

## Page 133

93 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD 93 rusange kurinda umutekano w’abantu n’ibintu mu Gihugu hose, kandi ko itegeko rigena amahame ngenderwaho, ububasha, inshingano, imitunganyirize n’imikorere bya Polisi y’u Rwanda, bityo ububasha bwa Polisi y’u Rwanda bukaba bukwiye kureberwa muri iri tegeko. b. Ingingo ya 41 y’Itegeko N° 46/2010 ryo kuwa 14/12/2010 rigena ububasha, inshingano, imitunganyirize n’imikorere bya Polisi y’u Rwanda yerekeye Imikoranire ya Polisi y’u Rwanda n’ibigo by’abikorera birinda umutekano w’abantu n’ibintu iteganya ko Polisi y’u Rwanda igenzura imikorere ya buri munsi y’ibigo by’abikorera birinda umutekano w’abantu n’ibintu ikanabigira inama yo kunoza imikorere yabyo. Polisi y’u Rwanda ikaba ifite ububasha n’inshingano byo gukora nk’urwego ngenzuramikorere ku bikorera batanga serivisi zo kurinda umutekano w’abantu n’ibintu n’ubwo kubagira inama z’uburyo banozamo inshingano zabo. c. Ingingo ya 5 y’Itegeko Nº 016Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 ryavuzwe haruguru ntinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 159 y’Itegeko Nshinga, ahubwo ihuza n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 8 n’Itegeko N° 09/2017 ryo ku wa 20/03/2017 rihindura kandi ryuzuza itegeko N° 46/2010 ryo ku wa 14/12/2010 rigena ububasha, inshingano, imitunganyirize n’imikorere bya Polisi y’u Rwanda iteganya ko mu kurangiza inshingano zayo, Polisi y’u Rwanda yibanda kuri ibi bikorwa bikurikira:… (12) gutanga icyemezo ku muntu wifuza kwandikisha ikigo cy’abikorera gitanga serivisi z’umutekano. d. Ububasha Polisi y'u Rwanda ifite bwo kugenzura imikorere ya buri munsi y’ibigo by’abikorera birinda

## Page 134

94 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO umutekano w’abantu n’ibintu no kubitangaho inama yo kunoza imikorere yabyo ibukomora mu ngingo ya 41 y’Itegeko N°46/2010 ryo ku wa 14/12/2010 ryavuzwe haruguru, aho kuba mu ngingo ya 5 y’Itegeko Nº 016 bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 naryo ryavuzwe haruguru. Abandi bose bashobora kubikora ari uko babiherewe ububasha bwihariye na Polisi y’u Rwanda. Bityo, abo Polisi y’u Rwanda yahaye ubwo bubasha ishobora no kubagenzura byaba ngombwa ikanabubambura mu gihe cyose batabukoresheje uko bikwiye. Kutagira ubwo bubasha kwa Polisi y’u Rwanda nibyo ahubwo byaba bitubahirije itegeko Nshinga. e. Kuba Urwego rwa Polisi rugenzura serivisi z’umutekano zikorwa n’abigenga si umwihariko w’u Rwanda gusa kuko no mu bindi bihugu ariko bikorwa. Urugero nko mu gihugu cya Uganda, UPS (Uganda Police Service)4, Tanzania, TPF (Tanzania Police Force)5, na Ethiopia: FPC (Federal Police Commission)6, Polisi zigenzura abacuruza serivisi z’umutekano, aribo babaha licence itangwa buri mwaka, ikagenzura, ikanasuzuma intwaro bakoresha n’ububiko bwazo. [12] Mu gutanga ibisobanuro birambuye kuri uru rubanza, uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda yashingiye ku bisobanuro byatanzwe n’abahanga mu mategeko ku mahame ateganywa n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga ariyo kureshya imbere y’amategeko (equality before law), kurengerwa

4 See Statutory instrument No.11 of 2013, online at https://www.upf.go.ug/police-tightens-control- private-security-companies. 5 Online at https://observatoire-securite-privee.org/en/content/tanzania. 6 Online at https://newbusinessethiopia.com/crime/ethiopia-bans-14-private- security-agencies.

## Page 135

95 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD n’amategeko mu buryo bungana (equal protection before law) no kurindwa ivangura (protection from discrimination), ayasobanura mu buryo bukurikira: a. “Equal treatment in equal circumstances” ni ihame rivuga ko abantu bagomba gufatwa kimwe iyo bari mu bihe bimwe, bikumvikana ko iyo batari mu bihe bimwe batafatwa kimwe. Ku bireba abatanga serivisi z’umutekano n’abatanga serivisi zindi nk’iz’isuku urega avuga, ntibari mu bihe bimwe, ntibakora bimwe, bityo ntibashobora gufatwa kimwe, ibyo bikaba binashingiye ku kuba mu bijyanye n’umutekano, hari byinshi abatanga iyi serivisi bakora bishobora kugira ingaruka ku buzima bw’abantu, ari nayo mpamvu banagengwa n’amategeko atandukanye. b. “Differentiation of treatment” bisobanura ko kuba abantu bangana imbere y’amategeko bitavuga ko byanze bikunze bafatwa kimwe mu bintu byose, ahubwo habaho gufata abantu mu buryo butandukanye bitewe n’icyiciro umuntu arimo. Abatanga serivisi z’umutekano batandukanye n’abatanga izindi serivisi nk’iz’isuku urega agenda agereranya, bityo bakaba bagomba gufatwa bitandukanye. Agaragaza ko icyangombwa ari uko abari mu cyiciro kimwe (abatanga serivisi zimwe kandi zisa nka serivisi z’umutekano) bose bafatwa kimwe kandi no mu buryo bumwe, naho abatari mu cyiciro kimwe bo bakaba atari ngombwa gufatwa kimwe. c. iryo tandukanya rishingiye ku byiciro mu gihe rigamije impamvu nziza kandi iteganyijwe n’amategeko ntiryitwa ivangura cyangwa kutareshya imbere y’amategeko nk’uko byemejwe n’Akanama k’Umuryango

## Page 136

96 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 96 w’Abibumbye Gashinzwe Uburenganzira bwa Muntu,7 bikanemezwa n’Urukiko rw’ikirenga mu rubanza RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS, aho rwemeje ko … kureshya imbere y’amategeko no kutavangura bitavuze ko gutandukanya abantu ubwabyo mu bihe byose ari ivangura. Gutandukanya abantu cyangwa ibyiciro by’abantu bishobora kuba ngombwa bitewe n’ikigambiriwe, hari impamvu zumvikana zishingiye ku ntego ifite ireme (legitimate or rational purpose) … d. “Specificity and special rules” ni ihame ryumvikana ko kuba abantu bangana imbere y’amategeko cyangwa barengerwa n’amategeko kimwe bitavuze ko amategeko agenderwaho yose agomba kuba ari rusange cyangwa asa 100%. Ahubwo, mu gihe hari ibyiciro bitandukanye by’abantu, byumvikana ko hagomba no kuba hari amategeko agomba kwita by’umwihariko ku miterere n’imigendekere y’icyo cyiciro cy’abantu, kandi afite n’impamvu zumvikana (justifiable) zatumye ajyaho. [13] Uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda kandi avuga ko kuba usaba icyemezo cyo kwiyandikisha mu gutanga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera, asabwa ibyangombwa byihariye bidasabwa abandi bakora imirimo y’ubucuruzi inyuranye, bidakwiye gufatwa nk’ivangura kubera ko buri bwoko bw’ubucuruzi busabwa ibyangombwa; nk’urugero, ibisabwa abashaka gutanga serivisi z’ubuvuzi n’abazikoramo sibyo bisabwa abatanga serivisi z’amahoteri; ibisabwa abashaka kwinjira mu gisirikare sibyo bisabwa abashaka kwinjira muri

7 “…Finally, the Committee observes that not every differentiation of treatment will constitute discrimination, if the criteria for such differentiation are reasonable and objective and if the aim is to achieve a purpose which is legitimate under the Covenant.”

## Page 137

97 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD 97 Kaminuza; ndetse ibisabwa ibigo by’imari (amabanki n’ibigo by’ubwishingizi) sibyo bisabwa ibigo bikora ubucuruzi bw’ibikomoka ku buhinzi. Bityo rero kuri we, ibivugwa na ExCEL SECURiTY Rwanda Ltd ko ingingo ya 6 (agace ka 6°, aka 7°, aka 8°, aka 9°) n’ingingo ya 13 y’Itegeko Nº 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 ryavuzwe haruguru zinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga nta shingiro bifite. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [14] Urukiko rurasanga mu gusesengura iki kibazo, bitewe n’uko EXCEL SECURITY Rwanda Ltd yagiye ihuza ingingo iregera mu myanzuro yayo ndetse no mu iburanisha ry’uru rubanza, ari ngombwa kubanza kukigabanyamo ibibazo bibiri, bikurikira: A.1. Kumenya niba ingingo ya 5 y’Itegeko N° 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 rigenga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 159 y’Itegeko Nshinga; A.2. Kumenya niba ingingo ya 6 agace ka 6 º, aka 7º, aka 8º n’aka 9º, ingingo ya 13, n’iya 37 z’Itegeko N° 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 rigenga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera zinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga. A.1. Kumenya niba ingingo ya 5 y’Itegeko N° 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 rigenga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 159 y’Itegeko Nshinga [15] Ingingo ya 159 y’Itegeko Nshinga iteganya ibi bikurikira:

## Page 138

98 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO (1) Leta ifite inzego zishinzwe kurinda igihugu n’umutekano zikurikira: (a) Ingabo z’u Rwanda; (b) Polisi y’u Rwanda; (c) Urwego rw’Igihugu rushinzwe Iperereza n’Umutekano. (2) itegeko rishobora kugena izindi nzego zishinzwe umutekano. (3) Inzego zishinzwe kurinda Igihugu n’umutekano zirakorana zikanahuza ibikorwa mu kuzuza inshingano zazo. [16] ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko N° 026/2023 ryo ku wa 17/05/2023 rigenga Polisi y’u Rwanda, ivuga ko mu nshingano za Polisi y’u Rwanda harimo kugenzura ko amategeko yubahirizwa; kubungabunga umudendezo rusange imbere mu Gihugu; kurinda umutekano w’abantu n’ibintu; kugira uruhare mu bikorwa by’amahugurwa imbere mu Gihugu mu bijyanye no kurinda umutekano w’abantu n’ibintu; gushyira mu bikorwa amabwiriza yerekeranye no kurinda umutekano no kumenyesha abaturarwanda uko umutekano w’abantu n’ibintu wifashe. Naho ingingo ya 10, agace ka ‘f’ y’iryo Tegeko yo ivuga ko Polisi y’u Rwanda ikorana bya hafi n’ibigo by’abikorera bitanga serivisi z’umutekano; ndetse ingingo ya 34, agace ka ‘b’ y’iryo Tegeko, ikavuga ko Polisi y’u Rwanda itanga uruhushya rwo gutanga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera. [17] Naho ingingo ya 5 y’Itegeko N° 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 ryavuzwe haruguru, ikavuga ko Polisi y’u Rwanda ari rwo rwego rufite ububasha bwo gutanga icyemezo cyo gutanga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera. [18] izi ngingo zimaze kuvugwa haruguru, zirebewe hamwe, zigaragaza ko Polisi y’u Rwanda ifite inshingano ihabwa

## Page 139

99 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD n’Itegeko Nshinga ku bw’ibanze zo kurinda umutekano w’abantu n’ibintu mu Gihugu hose, uburyo izo nshingano zishyirwa mu bikorwa bikagenwa n’amategeko. Ni muri urwo rwego ibiteganyijwe mu itegeko N° 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 no mu itegeko N° 026/2023 ryo ku wa 17/05/2023 yombi yavuzwe haruguru, byumvikanisha ko ariyo ifite n’inshingano zo guhugura abantu mubyo kurinda umutekano, kumenyesha abaturarwanda uko umutekano w’abantu n’ibintu wifashe, ikanagira ububasha bwo kwemerera abikorera kugira uruhare mu bikorwa byo gutanga serivisi z’umutekano. Kugirango igere kuri izo nshingano, ni ngombwa ko imenya imiterere, intego, imyirondoro, imikorere y’inzego zindi zirimo n’ibigo by’abikorera bitanga serivisi z’umutekano mu gihugu, ndetse ikanabona raporo ku mikorere y’ibyo bigo. [19] ibi kandi ni nako bimeze mu bindi bihugu; urugero nko muri Uganda,8 Polisi y’icyo gihugu igenzura ibijyanye na sosiyete zitanga umutekano zigenga kuri ibi bikukurikira: uko zishaka abakozi, n’uko bacungwa mu kazi, uko bacunga ndetse n’uko bagura intwaro, no kumenya ibijyanye n’ireme

8 “The Police on its part is expected to monitor and maintain the standards of training and recruitment procedures that the PSOs are required to adhere to. *PSOs must pay the wages and allowances to their employees promptly. To this end, they must file their mothly salary accounts with the police to ensure they are complying with this requirement. *No director of a PSO can travel out of country without permission of IGP *Any staff of a PSO traveling outside the country must be authorised by their Managing Director, who in turn must report to IGP staff who have traveled out of the country. *PSO are required to file all particulars of their staff including fingerprints within two weeks of employment to IGP. * PSOs have to ensure that the training their personnel undergo is only conducted by in a certified institution by certified instructors. *Every PSOs must make a report to IGP of its operations every 3 months. Available at https://www.upf.go.ug/police-tightens-control-private-security- companies/

## Page 140

100 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 100 ry’imikorere. Izo sosiyete ziha Polisi imyirondoro y’abakozi bazo ndetse n’ibikumwe byabo, konti za banki ndetse n’ingano y’umushahara bahembwa. Abayobozi b’ibyo bigo ntibashobora kujya hanze y’igihugu, hatabaye gusaba uruhushya Umukuru wa Polisi, naho abandi bakozi basanzwe iyo bahawe uruhushya rwo kujya hanze umuyobozi wabo abimenyesha ubuyobozi bwa Polisi; izo sosiyete zimenyesha Polisi buri gikorwa zakoze buri mezi atatu, zikaba zigomba gutoreza abakozi babyo mu bigo byemewe byahawe uruhushya. [20] Naho muri Kenya,9 Urwego rw’Igihugu rushinzwe kugenzura imikorere y’abatanga serivisi z’umutekano bigenga, rugenzura abakozi, imyitozo bakoze, imyitwarire yabo, kureba niba baratorejwe mu kigo cyemewe, uko bitwaraga aho bakoze mbere, ibikumwe by’intoki zabo, kugenzura system

9 “The Private Security Regulation Act, No. 13 of 2016 from Kenya, states that: Article 23: (1) An individual private security services provider shall make an application for registration to the Authority in such form and manner as may be prescribed and the application shall be accompanied by the prescribed application fee. (2) An individual shall be eligible for registration as an individual private security provider if that person— (a) is a citizen of Kenya or a person who is ordinarily resident in Kenya; (b) is over eighteen years of age; (c) holds at least a primary school certificate; (d) has attended training in security matters in an institution accredited by the Authority; (e) submits a certificate of good conduct issued by the Directorate of Criminal Investigation; (f) where he or she previously served in any of the disciplined services, produces a certificate of discharge and a certificate of clearance from such service; (g) has no criminal record; […],Article 37: An application under this Act shall be accompanied by— (a) a clear and complete set of fingerprints taken in the prescribed manner […], Article 59 […] (c) use any computer system or equipment on the premises which is or appears to be utilised for the control or administration of the rendering of a private security service, or require reasonable assistance from any person on the premises to use that computer system;[…]

## Page 141

101 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD 101 z’ikoranabuhanga bakoresha, n’ibindi bikoresho, kugeza no kuba hagenzurwa uwo ibyo bigo bicungira umutekano. [21] Mu miburanire ya ExCEL SECURiTY Rwanda Ltd, ivuga ko ingingo ya 5 y’Itegeko Nº 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 ryavuzwe haruguru ibangamiye ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 159 y’Itegeko Nshinga kuko iha Polisi ububasha n’inshingano z’urwego ngenzuramikorere. [22] Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 5 y’Itegeko Nº 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 rigenga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera, ntaho inyuranyije n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 159, kuko nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, ahubwo ibyo iteganya bishyira mu bikorwa ibiteganywa mu itegeko Nshinga, by’umwihariko mu ngingo ya 161.10 A.2. Kumenya niba ingingo ya 6 agace ka 6º, 7º, 8º n’aka 9º, ingingo ya 13, n’iya 37 z’Itegeko N° 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 rigenga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera zinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga [23] Ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga, iteganya ko abantu bose bareshya imbere y’amategeko kandi ko amategeko abarengera ku buryo bumwe. Naho ingingo ya 16 yo igira iti: (1) Abanyarwanda bose bavukana kandi bagakomeza kugira uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure bingana. (2) ivangura iryo ari ryo ryose cyangwa kurikwirakwiza byaba bishingiye ku bwoko, ku muryango cyangwa ku gisekuru, ku nzu, ku ibara ry’umubiri, ku gitsina, ku

10 Ingingo ya 161 y’Itegeko Nshinga igira iti: (1) Polisi y’u Rwanda ishinzwe muri rusange kurinda umutekano w’abantu n’ibintu mu Gihugu hose. (2) itegeko rigena amahame ngenderwaho, ububasha, inshingano, imitunganyirize n’imikorere bya Polisi y’u Rwanda.

## Page 142

102 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO karere, ku byiciro by’imibereho, ku idini cyangwa ukwemera, ku bitekerezo, ku mutungo, ku itandukaniro ry’umuco, ku rurimi, ku bukungu, ku bumuga bw’umubiri cyangwa ubwo mu mutwe no ku rindi vangura iryo ari ryo ryose, birabujijwe kandi bihanwa n’amategeko. [24] Ingingo ya 6 agace ka 6 º, 7º, 8º n’aka 9º y’Itegeko N° 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 ryavuzwe haruguru iteganya ko usaba icyemezo cyo kwiyandikisha mu gutanga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera yandikira Umuyobozi Mukuru wa Polisi y’u Rwanda ibaruwa iherekejwe n’ibi bikurikira: 6º inyandiko igaragaza umutungo w’usaba icyemezo ufite agaciro kagenwa n’iteka rya Minisitiri; 7º inyandiko igaragaza ko inyubako ikorerwamo nk’icyicaro gikuru cy’usaba icyemezo cyo gutanga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera yujuje ibiteganywa; 8º inyandiko igaragaza ikigo cy’amahugurwa cy’usaba icyemezo cyo gutanga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera cyujuje ibisabwa bigenwa na Polisi y’u Rwanda cyangwa amasezerano afitanye n’ikigo cy’amahugurwa cyemewe na Polisi y’u Rwanda; 9º igitabo gikubiyemo inyigisho z’abatozwa n’imyirondoro y’abarimu bazitanga byujuje ibisabwa bigenwa na Polisi y’u Rwanda. [25] Ingingo ya 13 y’Itegeko N° 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 ryavuzwe haruguru igira iti: mbere yo gutangira gutanga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera, uwahawe icyemezo cyo gutanga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa

## Page 143

103 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD n’abikorera yerekana ibikoresho by’ibanze byo kurinda umutekano. iteka rya Minisitiri rivugwa mu gika cya 2 cy’ingingo ya 3 y’iri tegeko rigena kandi ibikoresho by’ibanze byo kurinda umutekano. [26] Naho ingingo ya 37 y’Itegeko N° 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 ryavuzwe haruguru igira iti: utanga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera ukoresha umukozi ushinzwe kurinda umutekano utaremejwe na Polisi y’u rwanda aba akose ikosa. Ahanishwa ihazabu yo mu rwego rw’ubutegetsi y’amafaranga y’u Rwanda atari munsi ya miliyoni ebyiri (2.000.000 Frw) ariko atarenze miliyoni eshatu (3.000.000 Frw). Umukozi ushinzwe kurinda umutekano utaremejwe ahita ahagarikwa. [27] Ihame ryo kureshya imbere y’amategeko n’iryo kutavangura ryasesenguwe n’uru Rukiko mu manza zitandukanye zaritanzeho umurongo, uruheruka rukaba ari Urubanza RS/iNCONST/SPEC 00004/2021/SC, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 10/02/2023, haburana Ngendahayo Kabuye na Leta y’u Rwanda, aho rwasobanuye ko iryo hame ryo kureshya imbere y’amategeko rijyana n’iryo kutavangura, kandi ayo mahame yombi afitanye isano, akaba agomba kureberwa hamwe kuko yombi ahuriza ku kintu cy’ingenzi cyo kudasumbanya abantu mu buryo butemewe cyangwa bubujijwe nta mpamvu, ugamije kugira abo uheza ku burenganzira bemererwa n’amategeko. Urukiko rukomeza rusobanura muri urwo rubanza ko kureshya imbere y’amategeko no kutavangura bitavuze ko gutandukanya abantu ubwabyo mu bihe byose ari ivangura. Gutandukanya abantu cyangwa ibyiciro by’abantu bishobora kuba ngombwa bitewe n’ikigambiriwe, hari impamvu

## Page 144

104 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 104 zumvikana zishingiye ku ntego ifite ireme (legitimate or rational purpose).11 [28] Muri urwo rubanza, uru Rukiko rwashimangiye ko abantu bari mu bihe cyangwa mu byiciro bimwe, bafatwa kimwe, ko iyo badafashwe kimwe nta mpamvu ifite ireme kandi yumvikana, byitwa ivangura. Rwashimangiye kandi ko Leta ishobora gutandukanya abantu cyangwa ibyiciro by’abantu ariko ntibyitwe kubangamira ihame ryo kureshya imbere y’amategeko cyangwa iryo kutavangura, ariko ko kugira ngo ibyo bishoboke, Leta igomba kuba ifite impamvu yumvikana, ifite ireme kandi ikurikije amategeko, kandi ikaba igamije inyungu rusange z’abaturage.12 [29] Naho mu rubanza RS/iNCONST/SPEC 00004/2019/SC, rwaciwe ku wa 24/07/2020, haburana Me Nzafashwanayo Dieudonné na Leta y’u Rwanda, mu gika cya 31, hasobanuwe ko ihame ryo kureshya imbere y’amategeko rivuga ko itegeko rifata nk’abareshya abantu bari mu cyiciro kimwe kandi rigashyirwa mu bikorwa kimwe. Mu yandi magambo, ibisa bifatwa kimwe. Ni ukuvuga ko nta vangura rigomba kubaho ku bantu bari mu bihe bisa no mu buryo busa. Bikumvikana ko abantu batari mu cyiciro kimwe badashobora gufatwa kimwe. [30] Mu miburanire yayo, ExCEL SECURiTY Rwanda Ltd ivuga ko ingingo ya 6 agace ka 6 º, 7º, 8º n’aka 9º, ingingo ya 13, n’iya 37 z’Itegeko N° 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 ryavuzwe haruguru zinyuranyije n’ibiteganywa n’amahame

11 Urubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 00004/2021/SC, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 10/02/2023, haburana Ngendahayo Kabuye na Leta y’u Rwanda, igika cya 36 na 39. 12 Idem, igika cya 57.

## Page 145

105 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD 105 amaze kugaragazwa kubera ko abatanga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera basabwa kubanza kwerekana inyandiko igaragaza umutungo ufite agaciro kagenwa n’Iteka rya Minisitiri, kugaragaza ko inyubako ikoreramo ikicaro gikuru yujuje ibisabwa, inyandiko igaragaza ikigo cy’amahugurwa cyujuje ibisabwa bigenwa na Polisi, gusaba utanga serivisi z’umutekano kwerekana ibikoresho by’ibanze bigenwa mu masezerano hagati ye n’umukiriya we no kuba utanga izo serivisi z’umutekano ahanwa igihe akoresheje umukozi ushinzwe kurinda umutekano utaremejwe na Polisi y’u Rwanda, mu gihe ibyo bidasabwa abandi bakora ubundi bucuruzi, nk’abatanga serivisi zo gukora isuku, amabanki, ubwishingizi, n’abandi. [31] Urukiko rurasanga, rugendeye ku mirongo yatanzwe mu manza zitandukanye yasobanuwe haruguru, ibyo ExCEL SECURITY Rwanda Ltd ivuga ko abatanga serivisi z’umutekano bakorerwa ivangura kuko hari ibintu basabwa, nyamara ntibisabwe abandi bakora ubundi bucuruzi, nta shingiro bifite kuko abatanga serivisi z’umutekano batari mu cyiciro kimwe n’abo bakora ubundi bucuruzi. Urukiko rusanga mu gihe ibyo basabwa bitandukanye kandi bigashingira kuri kamere ya buri bucuruzi, ntawavuga ko yavanguwe kuko abakora ubucuruzi butari mu cyiciro kimwe badashobora gufatwa kimwe mu gihe n’amategeko abagenga atandukanye. [32] Kubera izo mpamvu zose zavuzwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 6 agace ka 6 º, 7º, 8º n’aka 9º, ingingo ya 13, n’iya 37 z’Itegeko N° 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 ryavuzwe haruguru zitanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga.

## Page 146

106 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 106 B. Kumenya niba ingingo ya 19 y’Itegeko N° 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 rigenga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 29, igika cya 1 (3°) y’Itegeko Nshinga [33] Uhagarariye ExCEL SECURiTY Rwanda Ltd avuga ko ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 19 y’Itegeko N° 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 ryavuzwe haruguru binyuranyije n’ingingo ya 29, igika cya 1 (c) y’Itegeko Nshinga kubera ko ubujurire ku iyamburwa ry’icyemezo cyo gutanga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera butangwa kwa Minisitiri, akaba asanga ari ukuvutswa uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye. [34] Uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda avuga ko ibyo urega avuga bidafite ishingiro kubera ko kuba kwamburwa icyemezo cyo gutanga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera bishobora kujuririrwa kwa Minisitiri, atari ukuvutswa uburenganzira buteganywa n’ingingo ya 29, igika cya 1(c) y’Itegeko Nshinga; ko ahubwo ari ubujurire bwo mu rwego rw’ubutegetsi (recours administratif), bugamije kugira ngo Umuyobozi wisumbuye k’uwafashe icyemezo nawe asuzume ishingiro ryacyo, ndetse nasanga bikwiye abe yagikuraho, ariko bidakuraho ko utishimiye ibyo Minisitiri yamusubije, yaregera Urukiko rubifitiye ububasha. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [35] ingingo ya 19 y’Itegeko N° 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 rigenga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera iteganya ko iyo utanga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera atishimiye icyemezo cyafashwe na Polisi y’u Rwanda cyo kumwambura icyemezo cyo gutanga serivisi

## Page 147

107 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD 107 z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera, ashobora kujuririra Minisitiri, mu gihe kitarenze iminsi irindwi (7) y’akazi ibarwa uhereye umunsi yabimenyesherejwe mu nyandiko. Minisitiri asubiza mu nyandiko uwatanze ubujurire mu gihe kitarenze iminsi cumi n’itanu (15) y’akazi uhereye umunsi yakiriye ubujurire. [36] Ingingo ya 29, igika cya 1 (c) y’Itegeko Nshinga, iteganya ko buri muntu wese afite uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye, burimo uburenganzira bwo: kuburanira imbere y’urukiko rubifitiye ububasha. [37] Uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye bunateganywa mu masezeranompuzamahanga yerekeye uburenganzira mu by’imbonezamubano no mu bya politiki, aho basobanura ko buri wese afite uburenganzira bwo kuburanira, mu buryo no mu gihe gikwiye, mu rukiko rufite ububasha, rwigenga, kandi rutabogama, rwashyizweho n’itegeko mbere, ngo ruburanishe ibirego nshinjabyaha aregwa, cyangwa kwemeza uburenganzira bwe, ndetse n’inshingano mbonezamubano, z’umurimo, imisoro cyangwa zifite indi kamere iyo ariyo yose.13 [38] Ku byo ExCEL SECURiTY Rwanda Ltd ivuga mu mumiburanire yayo ko kuba ubujurire ku iyamburwa ry’icyemezo cyo gutanga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera butangwa kwa Minisitiri ari ukuvutswa uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye, Urukiko rurasanga harimo

13 Article 14, para 1, of International Covenant on Civil: “Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.”

## Page 148

108 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO kwitiranya ubujurire bwo mu rwego rw’ubutegetsi (gutakambira urwego rw’ubuyobozi rwisumbuyeho) no kuregera Urukiko, kuko itakamba kwa Minisitiri riteganywa mu ngingo ya 19 y’Itegeko N° 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 ryavuzwe haruguru, rigamije gukosora icyemezo cyafashwe ku rwego rwa mbere mu gihe cyaba cyarafashwe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko. ibyo ariko ntibibuza uwagifatiwe kwiyambaza inkiko nk’uko biteganywa mu ngingo ya 177 y’Itegeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru, bityo bikaba bitafatwa nko kuvutswa uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye buteganywa mu itegeko Nshinga. [39] Kubera impamvu zimaze gusobanurwa, Urukiko rusanga ingingo ya 19 y’Itegeko N° 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 rigenga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera, itanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 29, igika cya 1 (3°) y’Itegeko Nshinga. C. Kumenya niba ingingo ya 6, agace ka 10º y’Itegeko N° 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 rigenga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera, inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 37 y’Itegeko Nshinga [40] Uhagarariye ExCEL SECURiTY Rwanda Ltd avuga ko ingingo ya 6, agace ka 10 y’Itegeko N° 016 Bis/2020 ryavuzwe haruguru inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 37 y’Itegeko Nshinga kubera ko Polisi y’u Rwanda ihabwa ububasha bwo kugena amategeko ngengamikorere y’ibigo bitanga serivisi z’umutekano kandi ari amategeko yihariye ngengamikorere y’ikigo, akaba asanga ari ukuvutswa ubwisanzure mu bitekerezo. [41] Uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda avuga ko ibivugwa n’uhagarariye EXCEL SECURITY Rwanda Ltd nta shingiro bifite kubera ko ibireba ibigo bitanga serivisi z’umutekano

## Page 149

109 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD zitangwa n’abikorera byihariye, bihereye k’umwihariko umutekano ufite mu buzima bw’abantu muri rusange n’ubw’Igihugu by’umwihariko. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [42] Ingingo ya 37, igika cya 1 y’Itegeko Nshinga, igira iti: ubwisanzure mu bitekerezo, mu mutimanama, mu guhitamo idini, mu gusenga no kubigaragaza mu ruhame burengerwa na Leta mu buryo buteganywa n’amategeko. [43] Ingingo ya 6, agace ka 10 º y’Itegeko N° 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 rigenga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera iteganya ko usaba icyemezo cyo kwiyandikisha mu gutanga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera yandikira Umuyobozi Mukuru wa Polisi y’u Rwanda ibaruwa iherekejwe n’ibi bikurikira: (….)10º amategeko ngengamikorere yujuje ibisabwa bigenwa na Polisi y’u Rwanda. [44] ibyavuzwe haruguru mu itegeko Nshinga byerekeye ubwisanzure mu mitekerereze no mu myemerere, bihuye n’ibivugwa mu ngingo ya 18, igika cya 1 y’Amasezerano mpuzamahanga yerekeye uburenganzira mu by’imbonezamubano no mu bya politiki.14 Aya masezerano,

14 Article 18, 1, of international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, available at https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments- mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil- and-political-rights, states that “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.”

## Page 150

110 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 110 kimwe n’ayandi akubiyemo iyi ngingo,15 anavuga ibikubiye muri ubwo burenganzira, aho mu kubirondora bashyiramo uburenganzira bukurikira: uburenganzira bwo kugira cyangwa guhitamo idini, cyangwa imyizerere wihitiyemo, ndetse n’ubwisanzure ku giti cy’umuntu cyangwa mu kwihuza n’abandi ku karubanda cyangwa mu ibanga, bwo kwerekana idini cyangwa imyizerere mu kuramya, kubahiriza, imigirire n’inyigisho. [45] Mu rubanza Lautsi and Others v. Italy rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Uburayi rwashyiriweho kuburanisha imanza zijyanye n’uburenganzira bwa muntu (European Court of Human Rights), rwasobanuye ko ubwisanzure bwo kugira idini n'ubwisanzure bwo kutagira idini, bigizwe n'uburenganzira bwo kugaragaza mu bwisanzure idini iryo ariryo ryose umuntu yihitiyemo, uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure bwo guhindura idini, uburenganzira bwo kutemera idini iryo ariryo ryose, ndetse n'uburenganzira bwo kwerekana idini ry’umuntu mu buryo bw’imyizerere, gusenga, kwigisha no kubahiriza imigenzo yaryo.16 [46] Hashingiwe kubimaze gusobanurwa haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga ibyo ExCEL SECURiTY Rwanda Ltd ivuga ko

15 Article 9 of European Convention on Human Rights, available at https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_ENG. 16 Reba urubanza Lautsi and Others v. italy, 2011, igika cya 2.6, ku rupapuro rwa 40. it is stated that “Freedom of religion, and freedom from religion, in substance, consist in the rights to profess freely any religion of the individual's choice, the right to freely change one's religion, the right not to embrace any religion at all, and the right to manifest one's religion by means of belief, worship, teaching and observance. Here the Convention catalogue grinds to a halt, well short of the promotion of any State secularism.” Ruboneka kuri https://adfinternational.org/wp- content/uploads/2021/09/Lautsi-and-Others- v.-italy_Lautsi-Decision.pdf

## Page 151

111 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD 111 ingingo ya 6 agace ka 10º y’Itegeko N°016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020, ryavuzwe haruguru, ibangamiye ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 37 y’Itegeko Nshinga, nta shingiro bifite kuko iyo ngingo irebana n’ubwisanzure mu mitekerereze no mu myemerere mu by’idini, ntaho bihuriye no kuba Polisi y’u Rwanda ihabwa ububasha bwo kugena amategeko ngengamikorere y’ibigo bitanga serivisi z’umutekano cyangwa ngo byitwe kuvutswa ubwisanzure mu bitekerezo. D. Kumenya niba ingingo ya 30 n’iya 31 z’Itegeko N° 016 Bis/ 2020 ryo kuwa 07/09/2020 rigenga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera zibangamiye ihame ryo kubaha imibereho bwite y’umuntu n’umuryango riteganywa n’ingingo ya 23 y’Itegeko Nshinga [47] Uhagarariye ExCEL SECURiTY Rwanda Ltd avuga ko izo ngingo zibangamiye ihame ryo kubaha imibereho bwite y’umuntu n’umuryango kubera impamvu zikurikira: a. Ingingo ya 30 y’Itegeko N° 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 ryavuzwe haruguru isaba utanga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera kuba afite urusobe rwa porogaramu y’ikoranabuhanga rugenzurwa na Polisi y’u Rwanda, rumufasha gucunga abakozi, bityo akaba asanga inyuranye n’ibivugwa mu ngingo ya 23 y’Itegeko Nshinga, mu gika cya nyuma, aho iteganya ko ibanga ry’amabaruwa n’iry’itumanaho ridashobora kuzitirwa keretse mu bihe no mu buryo biteganywa n’amategeko. Asanga kuba Polisi yarahawe ububasha bwo kwinjira mu mibereho bwite y’ibyo bigo bibangamiye ubwisanzure mu mikorere yabyo. b. Ingingo ya 31, igika cya mbere y’Itegeko N° 016Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 ryavuzwe haruguru

## Page 152

112 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO iteganya ko utanga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera aha Polisi y’u Rwanda mu nyandiko raporo y’ibikorwa bye ya buri cyumweru n’iya buri kwezi, akanayimenyesha uko umutekano w’aho akorera wifashe buri munsi. Agasanga iyo ngingo ibangamiye umudendezo w’ubucuruzi, kandi umucuruzi akwiye gukora mu bwisanzure no mu mudendezo adasabwe raporo na Polisi ya buri munsi, buri cyumweru na buri kwezi. [48] Uhagarariye Leta avuga ko ibyo ExCEL SECURiTY Rwanda Ltd ivuga ko ingingo ya 30 y’Itegeko Nº 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 ryavuzwe haruguru inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 23 y’Itegeko Nshinga nta shingiro bifite kubera impamvu zikurikira: a. Urega ahindura nkana ibiteganyijwe n’iyi ngingo y’Itegeko Nshinga aho ivuga ibanga ry’amabaruwa n’iry’itumanaho, naho we akayigereranya n’urusobe rwa porogaramu z’ikoranabuhanga zifashishwa mu micungire y’abakozi. b. Ikindi, kuba Polisi y’u Rwanda nk’urwego rushinzwe kurinda umutekano w’abantu n’ibintu mu Gihugu hose, ihabwa n’amategeko ububasha bwo kugenzura imikorere ya buri munsi y’ibigo by’abikorera birinda umutekano w’abantu n’ibintu, ikanabigira inama yo kunoza imikorere yabyo, ihabwa uburenganzira n’ububasha bwo kugenzura urusobe rwa porogaramu y’ikoranabuhanga rufasha mu gucunga abakozi b’ibigo bitanga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera nka kimwe mu bikwiye gukorerwa igenzura. Urusobe rwa porogaramu y’ikoranabuhanga rufasha mu gucunga abakozi rukaba

## Page 153

113 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD rudakwiye gufatwa nk’amabaruwa. Bityo, ibyo EXCEL SECURiTY Ltd ivuga ko ingingo ya 30 y’Itegeko Nº 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 rigenga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 23 y’Itegeko Nshinga nta shingiro bifite. c. Kuba ibigo by’abikorera birinda umutekano w’abantu n’ibintu bisabwa guha Polisi y’u Rwanda raporo y’ibikorwa igaragaza uko umutekano wifashe, biri mu nshingano zayo kuko ari yo ifite inshingano y’ibanze yo gucunga umutekano w’abantu n’ibintu mu Gihugu hose nk’uko biri mu ngingo ya 161 y’Itegeko Nshinga. EXCEL SECURiTY Rwanda Ltd ikwiye gusobanukirwa neza ko umutekano w’Igihugu ari inkingi ya mwamba mu buzima bwose bw’Igihugu nk’uko bigaragara mu irangashingiro ry’Itegeko Nshinga. d. EXCEL SECURITY Rwanda Ltd isa nk’aho ishaka kwigereranya n’ibindi bigo by’ubucuruzi nyamara kandi buri bucuruzi bugira umwihariko wabwo, bukaba bugira ibyo busabwa ndetse hakanabaho urwego rushinzwe gusuzuma ko byujuje ibisabwa. Atanga urugero kuri Banki Nkuru y’u Rwanda aho, ishingiye ku ngingo ya 6 bis y’Itegeko No 48/2017 ryo ku wa 23/09/2017 rigenga Banki Nkuru y’u Rwanda yemeza abakozi bagiye guhabwa imyanya y’ubuyobozi mu mabanki yo mu Rwanda ndetse n’abacuruza ibijyanye n’ubwishingizi. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [49] Ingingo ya 23, igika cya 3 y’Itegeko Nshinga, iteganya ko ibanga ry’amabaruwa n’iry’itumanaho ridashobora kuzitirwa keretse mu bihe no mu buryo biteganywa n’amategeko.

## Page 154

114 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO [50] Ingingo ya 30 y’Itegeko Nº 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 ryavuzwe haruguru iteganya ko utanga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera agira urusobe rwa porogaramu y’ikoranabuhanga rumufasha gucunga abakozi. Urwo rusobe rwa progaramu Polisi y’u Rwanda igira uburenganzira bwo kurugenzura. [51] ibiteganywa mu ngingo ya 23 y’Itegeko Nshinga yavuzwe haruguru, binateganywa mu ngingo ya 17 y’Amasezerano mpuzamahanga yerekeye uburenganzira mu by’imbonezamubano no mu bya politiki,17 aho ivuga ko ntawugomba kuvogererwa mu buryo butemewe n’amategeko mu buzima bwe bwite, mu bw’umuryango we, mu nyandiko yandikirana n’abandi, cyangwa se kubangamira icyubahiro akwiye ndetse n’ikuzo rye. Umuntu wese akaba afite uburenganzira bwo kurindwa iryo vogerwa. [52] ibyo binateganywa kandi Amasezerano y’Ubumwe bw’Ibihugu by’Uburayi yerekeye Uburenganzira bwa Muntu nk’uko yahinduwe n’amasezerano yunganira No 11 na 14, mu ngingo yayo ya 8 aho iteganya ko buri muntu ahabwa uburenganzira mu mibereho bwite, iy’umuryango we, urugo rwe cyangwa ubutumwa yohererezanya n’abandi, kandi ko nta rwego rw’ubuyobozi rushobora kuvogera ubwo burenganzira keretse iyo biteganywa n’amategeko kandi ari ngombwa muri sosiyete igendera kuri demokarasi, ku bw’inyungu z’umutekano w’igihugu, ituze rusange, iterambere ry’igihugu, gukumira

17 Article 17 of international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, states that “1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

## Page 155

115 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD akavuyo cyangwa icyaha, no mu kurinda uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure by’abandi. Ibi bikaba bishimangirwa n’urubanza Klass and Others v. Germany rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Uburayi rwashyiriweho kuburanisha imanza zijyanye n’uburenganzira bwa muntu (European Court of Human Rights), rwasobanuye ko kuvogera uburenganzira n’imibereho bwite y’umuntu bishobora gukorwa hagendewe ku irengayobora rivugwa mu ngingo ya 8 y’amasezerano avugwa muri iki gika.18 [53] iyo uhuje ibivugwa mu ngingo zavuzwe haruguru n’imiburanire ya EXCEL SECURITY Rwanda Ltd ivuga ko Polisi yahawe ububasha bwo kwinjira mu mibereho bwite y’ibigo bitanga serivisi z’umutekano by’abikorera, bikaba bibangamiye ubwisanzure n’umudendezo mu mikorere yabyo kuko umucuruzi yakagombye gukora mu bwisanzure no mu mudendezo adasabwe raporo buri munsi, usanga ibyo Polisi ikora biri mu nshingano zayo zigenwa n’Itegeko Nshinga, ndetse ziteganijwe mu masezerano mpuzamahanga atandukanye arengera uburenganzira bw’ikiremwamuntu kuko byose bihuriza ku kuba umutekano w’igihugu, umudendezo rusange n’uburenganzira bw’abandi biri mu bituma haba irengayobora ku burenganzira bw’umuntu umwe cyangwa itsinda runaka. Kuri ibyo hiyongeraho inshingano ya Polisi yo gutangariza abaturarwanda uko umutekano uhagaze; bikaba byumvikana ko mu gihe yaba idahabwa raporo, cyangwa igakumirwa mu mikorere y’ibyo bigo, byayitera imbogamizi mu gusohoza inshingano zo kurinda umutekano nk’uko izihabwa n’Itegeko Nshinga. [54] Urukiko rusanga kandi hadakwiye kwirengagizwa kamere yihariye yagiye ikomozwaho mu mategeko

18 Reba urubanza Klass and Others v. Germany, 1978, igika cya 60, ku rupapuro rwa 23. Ruboneka kuri https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/f46bdd/pdf/

## Page 156

116 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO n’amasezerano mpuzamahanga ku mutekano w’igihugu n’umutekano rusange w’abaturage, kugirango ubucuruzi bwa serivisi zo gucunga umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera bufatwe nk’ubundi bucuruzi bwose, mu gihe kamere yabwo yihariye n’uburyo bukorwamo cyangwa bugenzurwamo bukaba bugomba kuba uburyo bwihariye kandi bigakorwa n’urwego rubifitiye ubumenyi n’ububasha bukomoka kw’Itegeko Nshinga n’andi mategeko nk’uko byasobanuwe mu bika bibanziriza iki. [55] Hashingiwe ku bimaze gusobanurwa haruguru, Urukiko rusanga ibivugwa mu ngingo ya 30, n’iya 31 igika cya mbere y’Itegeko N° 016Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 rigenga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera, bitabangamiye ibivugwa mu ngingo ya 23, igika cya 3 y’Itegeko Nshinga. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [56] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe na ExCEL SECURiTY Rwanda Ltd gisaba kwemeza ko ingingo ya 5, iya 6 (agace ka 6°, aka 7°, aka 8°, aka 9° n’aka 10°), iya 13, iya 19, iya 30, iya 31, igika cya 2 n’iya 37 z’Itegeko Nº 016 bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 rigenga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda, mu ngingo zaryo za 15,16, 23, 37, 159, nta shingiro gifite. [57] Rwemeje ko ingingo ya 5 y’Itegeko Nº 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 rigenga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera, itanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 159 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda. [58] Rwemeje ko ingingo ya 6 agace ka 6 º, 7º, 8º n’aka 9º, ingingo ya 13, n’iya 37 z’Itegeko N° 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa

## Page 157

117 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD 07/09/2020 rigenga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera, zitanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda. [59] Rwemeje ko ingingo ya 6 agace ka 10º y’Itegeko N°016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 rigenga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera, itanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 37 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda. [60] Rwemeje ko ingingo ya 19 y’Itegeko N° 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 rigenga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera, itanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 29, igika cya 1(c) y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda. [61] Rwemeje ko ingingo ya 30, n’iya 31 igika cya mbere z’Itegeko N° 016 Bis/2020 ryo ku wa 07/09/2020 rigenga serivisi z’umutekano zitangwa n’abikorera, zitanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 23, igika cya 3 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda.

## Page 158

118 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 159

119 AMAGAMBO MPINE IMANZA ZEREKERANYE N’IMIBURANISHIRIZE Y’IMANZA

## Page 160

120 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 161

121 UWAMURERA v UBUSHINJACYAHA 121 UWAMURERA v UBUSHINJACYAHA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’UBUJURIRE – RPAA/ECON 00002/2023/CA (Rutazana, P.J.) 28 Werurwe 2024] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza – Ubujurire – Kugoboka mu rubanza – Ubujurire bw’uwagobotse mu rubanza ku bushake – Kuba umuburanyi ugobokeshejwe mu rubanza ku gahato ku rwego rw’ubujurire yemerewe kujuririra urubanza yagobokeshejwemo inshuro imwe iyo hari ibyo yaciwe, kabone n’aho urubanza rwaba ruciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma, ni umwihariko Umushingamategeko yahaye umuburanyi wagobokeshejwe mu rubanza ku gahato kuko aba yashyizwe mu rubanza atabishaka, ibi ntibireba umuburanyi wagobotse mu rubanza ku bushake kuko we aba yaniyemeje gufatira urubanza yagobotsemo aho rugeze; bityo urwo rubanza rwaba rushobora kujuririrwa akaba nawe ubwo burenganzira abufite, rwaba rudashobora kujuririrwa akaba ntabwo afite. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, Ubushinjacyaha burega uwitwa Kaganzi bumukurikiranyeho icyaha cyo kunyereza umutungo; icyo guhindura inyandiko cyangwa gukoresha inyandiko mpimbano, icyo kwinjira mu makuru abitse muri mudasobwa cyangwa mu rusobe rwa mudasobwa; icyo kudasobanura inkomoko y’umutungo n’icyaha cy’iyezandonke’ ubushinjacyaha kandi bwareze uwitwa Kayitana bumukurikiranyeho icyaha cyo kunyereza umutungo, bunarega abitwa Mukagasana, Mukasafari na Ndamade bubakurikiranyeho kuba ibyitso mu cyaha cyo kunyereza umutungo. RDB yaregeye indishyi muri urwo rubanza ndetse

## Page 162

122 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO igobokesha ku gahato iREMBO; uwitwa Muhongayire nawe yagobotse mu rubanza avuga ko umwe mu mitungo yafatiriwe ari iye. Urwo Rujkiko rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko Kaganzi ahamwa n’icyaha cyo kunyereza umutungo, icyaha cy’iyezandonke, icyaha cyo gukora no gukoresha inyandiko mpimbano, icyaha cyo kwinjira mu makuru abitse muri mudasobwa n’icyaha cyo kudasobanura inkomoko y’umutungo, naho abandi baregwaga hamwe rusanga badahamwa n’ibyaha; Urwo Rukiko rwahanishije Kaganzi igifungo cy’imyaka icumi (10) n’ihazabu ingana na 2.390.430 USD, runategeka gusubiza RDB amafaranga yayo yanyereje angana na 478.086 USD, no kuyishyura indishyi zinyuranye; urukiko rwanemeje ko ukugoboka mu rubanza ku bushake kwakozwe na Muhongayire nta shingiro gufite, ndetse n’ukugobokeshwa mu rubanza ku iREMBO nta shingiro gufite. Urwo Rukiko kandi rwategetse ko imitungo inyuranye inyagwa ikagurishwa, amafaranga avuyemo agashyirwa mu isanduku ya Leta. Kaganzi na Muhongayire bajuririye urubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru, uwitwa Uwamurera nawe agoboka ku bushake kuri uru rwego, agamije kugaragaza ko hari imitungo itimukanwa urukiko rwategetse ko inyagwa kandi ari iye. Urwo Rukiko rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko ubujurire bwatanzwe bwose nta shingiro bufite, ko n’ikirego cyo kugoboka ku bushake cyatanzwe n’ Uwamurera nta shingiro gifite; rwemeza ko imikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe idahindutse. Kaganzi, Muhongayire n’Uwamurera bajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire, Ubwanditsi bw’urukiko bufata icyemezo cyo kutandika ubujurire bwa Kaganzi n’ubwa Muhongayire bushingiye ku mpamvu y’uko ari ubujurire bwa kabiri kandi bukaba butujuje ibisabwa n’amategeko, naho ku bireba ubujurire bwa Uwamurera, Ubwanditsi bw’Urukiko

## Page 163

123 UWAMURERA v UBUSHINJACYAHA bufata icyemezo cyo kubwandika ngo kuko ari ubwa mbere ajuriye. Ubujurire bwe bwari bugamije kugaragaza ko Urukiko Rukuru rwategetse ko hari imitungo itimukanwa inyagwa rwirengagije ibimeyetso yatanze bigaragaza ko ari iye. Ku bijyanye n’ubu bujurire, Ubushinjacyaha bwatanze inzitizi y’iburabubasha bw’urukiko, busobanura ko Uwamurera Phoebe yajuriye ashingiye ku ngingo ya 52 y’Itegeko No 30/2018 ryo kuwa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’Inkiko, ngo nyamara akaba atujuje ibisabwa n’iyo ngingo kuko mu rubanza yajuririye ataciwe indishyi zingana na 75.000.000 frw zivugwa muri iyo ngingo. Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rubyibwirije, rwazamuye ikibazo kijyanye no kumenya niba ubujurire bwa Uwamurera nk’uwagobotse mu rubanza ku bushake ku rwego rw’Urukiko Rukuru, bwaragombaga kwakirwa muri uru rukiko. Ku bijyanye niyo nzitizi, Uwamurera avuga ko Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rufite ububasha bwo gusuzuma ubujurire bwe bihuye n’ihame ry’uko umuntu afite uburenganzira bwo kujuririra icyemezo yafatiwe n’urukiko mu rukiko rwisumbuye ho (Principe de doubre degré de juridiction), kandi ko iri hame ari inkingi ya mwamba mu kugirango umuntu ahabwe ubutabera. Ubushinjacyaha bwo buvuga ko urubanza Uwamurera Phoebe yajuririye rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku rwego rw’ubujurire bwa mbere kandi rukaba ari urubanza nshinjabyaha kuko kuba yaragobotse ku bushake agamije kugaruza umutungo avuga ko ari uwe bidahindura kamere y’urubanza; ko hashingiwe ku biteganywa mu ngingo ya 52 y’Itegeko No 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’Inkiko, harebwe igihano cy’ibanze (peine principale) cyagenwe n’urukiko muri urwo rubanza, ubujurire bwe butari mu bubasha bw’urukiko rw’Ubujurire.

## Page 164

124 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Kuba umuburanyi ugobokeshejwe mu rubanza ku gahato ku rwego rw’ubujurire yemerewe kujuririra urubanza yagobokeshejwemo inshuro imwe iyo hari ibyo yaciwe, kabone n’aho urubanza rwaba ruciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma, ni umwihariko Umushingamategeko yahaye umuburanyi wagobokeshejwe mu rubanza ku gahato kuko aba yashyizwe mu rubanza atabishaka, ibi ntibireba umuburanyi wagobotse mu rubanza ku bushake kuko we aba yaniyemeje gufatira urubanza yagobotsemo aho rugeze; bityo urwo rubanza rwaba rushobora kujuririrwa akaba nawe ubwo burenganzira abufite, rwaba rudashobora kujuririrwa akaba ntabwo afite. Kuba mu manza nshinjabyaha igihano cy’igifungo cyagenwe aricyo cyonyine gishingirwaho mu kugena ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire mu rwego rw’ubujurire bwa kabiri, mu rubanza Uwamurera ajuririra igifungo cyagenwe kikaba ari imyaka 10, nta buryo na bumwe uru rubanza nshinjabyaha rwashoboraga kugera mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire. Ubujurire ntiburi mu bubasha bw’Urukiko. Amategeko yashingiweho: itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2028 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya mbere, n’iya 116. itegeko No 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’Inkiko, ingingo ya 52. Nta manza zifashishijwe.

## Page 165

125 UWAMURERA v UBUSHINJACYAHA Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Mu mwaka wa 2020 mu Kigo cya RDB (Rwanda Development Board) hakozwe ubugenzuzi bw’imbere (internal audit) hagenzurwa amafaranga yinjijwe hakoreshejwe ikoranabuhanga rya E-payment mu kugurisha abakerarugendo impushya zo gusura pariki ingagi mu mwaka w’ingengo y’imari wa 2018-2019 maze ubugenzuzi bugaragaza ko hari amafaranga yinjiye ariko atarageze kuri konti ya RDB kandi bigaragara ko impushya zo gusura ingagi zatanzwe; maze RDB isaba Urwego rw’Ubugenzacyaha kubikoraho iperereza. [2] Nyuma y’iperereza ry’Ubugenzacyaha bwashyikirije dosiye Ubushinjacyaha, nabwo busoje iperereza ryabwo buregera Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, burega uwitwa Kaganzi Nicholas bumukurikiranyeho icyaha cyo kunyereza umutungo; icyo guhindura inyandiko cyangwa gukoresha inyandiko mpimbano, icyo kwinjira mu makuru abitse muri mudasobwa cyangwa mu rusobe rwa mudasobwa; icyo kudasobanura inkomoko y’umutungo n’icyaha cy’iyezandonke’ ubushinjacyaha kandi bwareze Kayitana Pierre bumukurikiranyeho icyaha cyo kunyereza umutungo, bunarega Mukagasana Esther, Mukasafari Marry na Ndamade Joseph bubakurikiranyeho kuba ibyitso mu cyaha cyo kunyereza umutungo. RDB yaregeye indishyi muri urwo rubanza ndetse igobokesha ku gahato iREMBO ; uwitwa Muhongayire Patricie nawe yagobotse mu rubanza avuga ko umwe mu mitungo yafatiriwe ari iye.

## Page 166

126 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO [3] Kaganzi Nicholas n’abo baregwaga hamwe baburanye bahakana ibyaha bakurikiranyweho, ariko mu rubanza RP/ECON 00080/2019/TGi/NYGE, RP/ECON 00056/2020/TGi/NYGE na RP/ECON00116/2020/TGi/NYGE , rwaciwe ku wa 15/04/2021, Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwemeza Kaganzi Nicholas ahamwa n’icyaha cyo kunyereza umutungo, icyaha cy’iyezandonke, icyaha cyo gukora no gukoresha inyandiko mpimbano, icyaha cyo kwinjira mu makuru abitse muri mudasobwa n’icyaha cyo kudasobanura inkomoko y’umutungo, naho abandi baregwaga hamwe ari abere; ruhanisha KAGANZi Nicholas igifungo cy’imyaka icumi (10) n’ihazabu ingana na 2.390.430 USD, runategeka gusubiza RDB amafaranga yayo yanyereje angana na 478.086 USD, no kuyishyura 700.000 frw akubiyemo ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya avoka na 20.000 frw y’ingwate y’amagarama yatanze iregera indishyi; urukiko rwanemeje ko ukugobka mu rubanza ku bushake kwakozwe na Muhongayire Patricie nta shingiro gufite, ndetse n’ukugobokeshwa mu rubanza ku IREMBO nta shingiro gufite. [4] Urukiko kandi rwategetse ko imitungo ikurikira inyagwa ikagurishwa, amafaranga avuyemo agashyirwa mu isanduku ya Leta: inzu iri mu kibanza kibaruye kuri UPi 1/02/08/02/517, kiri mu Mudugudu w’Amahoro, Akagari ka Kimihurura, Umurenge wa Kimihurura, Akarere ka Gasabo; inzu 2 ziri mu kibanza kibaruye kuri UPi 01/02/08/02/190 kiri mu Kagari ka Kimihurura, Umurenge wa Kimihurura, Akarere ka Gasabo; ibibanza 3 bibaruye kuri UPi 01/02/14/06/55; 1/02/14/06/996; 1/02/14/06/168 biri mu Murenge wa Rusororo. Akarere ka Gasabo, imodoka yo mu bwoko bwa voiture Toyota Corolla ifite plaque RAB 905Q n’inzu iri mu kibanza UPI 1/02/08/02/192 iherereye mu Mudugudu w’Urwego, Umurenge wa Kimihurura mu Karere Ka Gasabo; runategeka Kaganzi Nicholas gushyira

## Page 167

127 UWAMURERA v UBUSHINJACYAHA mu isanduku ya Leta 38.059.548frw yishyuwe na EDCL inzu iri mu kibanza kibaruye kuri UPi 01/02/08/02/19 kiri mu Mudugudu w’Urwego, mu Kagari ka Kimihurura, mu Murenge wa Kimihurura, mu Karere ka Gasabo, akakirwa na Bitariho Jean Paul wari wahawe ububasha na Uwamurera Phoebe. [5] Urwo rubanza Kaganzi Nicholas na Muhongayire Patricie barujuririye mu Rukiko Rukuru, Uwamurera Phoebe nawe agoboka ku bushake kuri uru rwego, agamije kugaragaza ko imitungo itimukanwa ibaruye kuri UPi: 1/02/08/02/19, UPi: 1/02/08/02/517 na 1/02/08/02/190 urukiko rwategetse ko inyagwa ari iye. [6] Mu rubanza RPA/ECON 00084,86/2021/HC/KiG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko ubujurire bwatanzwe na Kaganzi Nicholas ndetse n’ubwa Muhongayire Patricie nta shingiro bufite, ko n’ikirego cyo kugoboka ku bushake cyatanzwe na Uwamurera Phoebe nta shingiro gifite; rwemeza ko imikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe idahindutse. [7] Kaganzi Nicholas, Muhongayire Patricie N’uwamurera Phoebe bajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire, Ubwanditsi bw’urukiko bufata icyemezo cyo kutandika ubujurire bwa Kaganzi Nicholas n’ubwa Muhongayire Patricie bushingiye ku mpamvu y’uko ari ubujurire bwa kabiri kandi bukaba butujuje ibisabwa n’amategeko, naho ku bireba ubujurire bwa Uwamurera Phoebe Ubwanditsi bw’Urukiko bufata icyemezo cyo kubwandika ngo kuko ari ubwa mbere ajuriye. [8] Ubujurire bwa Uwamurera Phoebe muri uru rukiko bugamije kugaragaza ko Urukiko Rukuru rwategetse ko imitungo itimukanwa ibaruye kuri UPi: 1/02/08/02/19, UPi:

## Page 168

128 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 128 1/02/08/02/517 na 1/02/08/02/190 inyagwa rwirengagije ibimeyetso yatanze bigaragaza ko ari iye. [9] Mbere yo kwiregura mu mizi y’urubanza, Ubushinjacyaha bwatanze inzitizi y’iburabubasha bw’urukiko, busobanura ko Uwamurera Phoebe yajuriye ashingiye ku ngingo ya 52 y’Itegeko No 30/2018 ryo kuwa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’Inkiko, ngo nyamara akaba atujuje ibisabwa n’iyo ngingo kuko mu rubanza yajuririye ataciwe indishyi zingana na 75.000.000 frw zivugwa muri iyo ngingo cyangwa ngo zibe zaragenwemo n’urukiko nyuma y’impaka hagati y’ababuranyi ku gaciro k’ikiburanwa; ikindi kandi akaba atajurira ashingiye kuri iyo ngingo iteganya ubujurire bwa kabiri mu gihe we yabaye umuburanyi bwa mbere mu Rukiko Rukuru; ndetse nk’uwagobotse ku bushake mu rubanza akaba adafite uburenganzira bwo kujuririra urubanza nshinjabyaha kuko atari mu bavugwa mu ngingo ya 180 y’Itegeko No 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, iteganya uburenganzira bwo kujurira bufitwe n’uwahamwe n’icyaha, utegetswe kuriha indishyi, uwaregeye indishyi cyangwa abahawe indishyi batasabye ku byerekeye indishyi gusa ndetse Ubushinjacyaha. [10] Me Komezusenge Déogratias uhagarariye Uwamurera Phoebe nawe yatanze inzitizi igamije gusaba urukiko kuba ruhagaritse kuburanisha uru rubanza, hagategerezwa ko urubanza ruri mu Rukiko Rukuru rukomoka ku kirego cyatanzwe na Kaganzi Nicholas mu Rukiko Rukuru asaba gusubirishamo ingingo nshya urubanza RPA/ECON 00084,86/2021/HC/KiG ruburanishwa, ibi binashyigikirwa na Kaganzi Nicholas. [11] iburanisha mu ruhame ryabaye ku wa 12/03/2024 no ku wa 22/03/2024 22/03/2023, Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na

## Page 169

129 UWAMURERA v UBUSHINJACYAHA 129 Ninahazwa Roselyne, Umushinjacyaha ku Rwego rw’Igihugu, Uwamurera Phoebe ahagarariwe na Me Komezusenge Déogratias, naho RDB ititabye ariko yaramenyeshejwe umunsi w’iburanisha mu buryo bukurikije amategeko kuko mu iburanisha ryabanje yari ihagarariwe kandi ikaba ihujwe n’urubanza muri IECMS. Urubanza kandi rwaburanishijwe hari Kaganzi Nicholas yunganiwe na Me Bisamaza Remezo, hari na Muhongayire Patricie ahagarariwe na Me Nkurunziza Jean Damascène, bombi bakaba bararuhamagajwemo nk’abarubayemo ababuranyi ku rwego rubanza n’ubwo ubujurire bwabo butakiriwe, kugira ngo mu gihe bibaye ngombwa urukiko rube rwagira ibisobanuro rubasabba cyangwa nabo babe bagira ibisobanuro batanga bagamije kurengera inyungu zabo. [12] Urukiko rwabanje gusuzuma ikibazo rwabajije ababuranyi rubyibwirije, kijyanye no kumenya niba ubujurire bwa Uwamurera Phoebe nk’uwagobotse mu rubanza ku bushake ku rwego rw’Urukiko Rukuru, bwaragombaga kwakirwa muri uru rukiko. II. ISESENGURA RY’IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA  Kumenya niba ubujurire bwa Uwamurera Phoebe nk’uwagobotse mu rubanza ku bushake ku rwego rw’Urukiko Rukuru, bwaragombaga kwakirwa muri uru rukiko. [13] Me Komezusenge Déogratias avuga ko Uwamurera Phoebe ahagarariye yagobotse mu rubanza rugeze mu Rukiko Rukuru, bityo ubujurire bwe bukaba buri mu bubasha bw’uru rukiko kuko ari ubwa mbere ajuriye kandi amategeko akaba

## Page 170

130 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO abimwemera. Asobanura ko kuvuga ko ubujurire bwa Uwamurera Phoebe butari mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire byaba binyuranyije n’amahame akomeye ateganywa n’Itegeko nshinga ndetse n’amategeko mpuzamahanga u Rwanda rwasinye, mu bijyanye no gutanga ubutabera buboneye, ndetse no kuba abantu bareshya imbere y’amategeko. [14] Me Komezusenge Déogratias avuga ko ingingo ya 52 y’Itegeko No 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’Inkiko iteganya ko Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha mu rwego rw’ubujurire bwa mbere, imanza zaciwe mu rwego rwa mbere n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi n’Urukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare; ko ikibazo cy’umutungo wa Uwamurera Phoebe wafatiriwe cyagiweho impaka bwa mbere mu Rukiko Rukuru kuko aribwo yari yinjiye mu rubanza arugobotsemo, bityo akaba afite uburenganzira bwo kujuririra icyemezo cyafashwe kugirango Urukiko rw’Uburire rukosore amakosa yakozwe n’Urukiko Rukuru. [15] Asobanura ko kuba Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rufite ububasha bwo gusuzuma ubujurire bwa Uwamurera Phoebe bihuye n’ihame ry’uko umuntu afite uburenganzira bwo kujuririra icyemezo yafatiwe n’urukiko mu rukiko rwisumbuye ho (Principe de doubre degré de juridiction), kandi ko iri hame ari inkingi ya mwamba mu kugirango umuntu ahabwe ubutabera buboneye nk’uko byemezwa n’abahanga mu mategeko (SOLUS (H) et PERROT (R), Doit judiciaire privé, introduction aux notions fondamentales, organisation judiciaire. Cité par ROETS, P174), aho bahamya ko iyo urubanza ruciwe, ari ngobwa ko habaho ko rwakongera gusuzumwa mu bujurire n’urukiko rwisumbuyeho kugirango niba ari amakosa yakozwe akosorwe,

## Page 171

131 UWAMURERA v UBUSHINJACYAHA cyangwa uwarenganyije ku rwego rwa mbere ahabwe amahirwe yo kurenganurwa. [16] Ashingira kandi ku ngingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga iteganya ko” Buri muntu wese afite uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye’’; ku rubanza n˚ RS/iNCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC1 rwasobanuye uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye; ku ngingo ya 14, igika cya 1 n’icya 5, y’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yerekeye uburenganzira mu by’imbonezamubano no mu bya politiki avuga ko igaragaza uburenganzira bwo kuburanira imbere y’urukiko rubifitiye ububasha n’uburenganzira bwo kujurira nka bimwe mu bigize uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye’ no ku rubanza N° RS/iNCONST/SPEC 00004/2020/SC rwashimangiye ko kujuririra icyemezo nibura incuro imwe ari uburenganzira ntavogerwa, umuburanyi adashobora kuvutswa. [17] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko urubanza Uwamurera Phoebe yajuririye rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku rwego rw’ubujurire bwa mbere kandi rukaba ari urubanza nshinjabyaha kuko kuba yaragobotse ku bushake agamije kugaruza umutungo avuga ko ari uwe bidahindura kamere y’urubanza; ko hashingiwe ku biteganywa mu ngingo ya 52 y’Itegeko No 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’Inkiko, harebwe igihano cy’ibanze (peine principale) cyagenwe n’urukiko muri urwo rubanza, ubujurire bwe butari mu bubasha bw’urukiko rw’Ubujurire.

1 RS/iNCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC haburana Me Kabasinga Florida rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 4/12/2019, ku rupapuro rwa 4 n’urwa 5.

## Page 172

132 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [18] impaka muri uru rubanza zishingiye ku kumenya niba ubujurire bwa Uwamurera Phoebe nk’uwagobotse ku bushake ku rwego rw’Urukiko Rukuru, bwaragombaga kwakirwa muri uru rukiko. [19] ingingo ya mbere y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2028 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi igira iti: “Iri tegeko rigenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi. Ni na ryo rigenga imiburanishirize y’izindi manza mu gihe nta yandi mategeko yihariye agenga iyo miburanishirize keretse mu gihe ibiteganywa n’iri tegeko bidashobora gukoreshwa mu zindi manza.” [20] Naho ingingo ya 116 nayo y’iryo tegeko, igateganya ko kabone n’aho urubanza rwaba ruciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma, umuburanyi ugobokeshejwe ku gahato ku rwego rw’ubujurire yemerewe kujuririra urubanza yagobokeshejwemo inshuro imwe iyo hari ibyo yaciwe. [21] Uru rubanza rukomoka ku bujurire bwatanzwe na Uwamurera Phoebe kuri uru rwego, ajuririra urubanza RPA/ECON 00084,86/2021/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, aho yari yagobotse ku bushake muri urwo rukiko, mu rubanza Ubushinjacyaha bwaregagamo Kaganzi Nicholas, akurikiranyweho ibyaha binyuranye byavuzwe haruguru, na Muhongerwa Patricie akaba yararugobotsemo ku bushake ku rwego rwa mbere avuga ko agamije kugaruza umutungo we wafatiriwe. Muri urwo rubanza Kaganzi Nicholas akaba

## Page 173

133 UWAMURERA v UBUSHINJACYAHA yarahamijwe icyaha cyo kunyereza umutungo, icyaha cy’iyezandonke, icyaha cyo gukora no gukoresha inyandiko mpimbano, icyaha cyo kwinjira mu makuru abitse muri mudasobwa n’icyaha cyo kudasobanura inkomoko y’umutungo, ahanishwa igifungo cy’imyaka icumi (10) n’ihazabu ingana na 2.390.430 USD. [22] Urukiko rurasanga ibyerekeye kugoboka ku bushake no kugobokeshwa ku gahato mu manza nshinjabyaha ntaho byateganyijwe mu Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha, bityo hashingiwe ku biteganywa mu ngingo ya mbere y’Itegeko No 22/2018 yavuzwe haruguru, mu gusuzuma iki kibazo hakaba hashingirwa ku biteganywa mu itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi. [23] Urukiko rurasanga ibiteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 116 yavuzwe haruguru, by’uko umuburanyi ugobokeshejwe mu rubanza ku gahato ku rwego rw’ubujurire yemerewe kujuririra urubanza yagobokeshejwemo inshuro imwe iyo hari ibyo yaciwe, kabone n’aho urubanza rwaba ruciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma, byumvikanisha ko uyu ari umwihariko Umushingamategeko yahaye umuburanyi wagobokeshejwe mu rubanza ku gahato kuko nk’uko byumvikana aba yashyizwe mu rubanza atabishaka, mu gihe rero agize ibyo acibwa akaba yemerewe kujurira inshuro imwe; uyu mwihariko ukanumvisha ko ibi bitareba umuburanyi wagobotse mu rubanza ku bushake kuko we aba yaniyemeje gufatira urubanza yagobotsemo aho rugeze; bityo urwo rubanza rwaba rushobora kujuririrwa akaba nawe ubwo burenganzira

## Page 174

134 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO abufite, rwaba rudashobora kujuririrwa nawe akaba ntabwo afite2. [24] Ku bireba Uwamurera Phoebe, Urukiko rurasanga urubanza yajuririye ari inshinjabyaha kuko kuba yararugobotsemo akurikiranye imitungo avuga ko ari iye bitarwambura kamere yarwo y’inshinjabyaha, kandi nk’uko byasobanuwe kuko yarugobotsemo ku bushake, no kubimureba rukaba rwaraciwe ku rwego rw’ubujurire bwa mbere nk’uko bimeze ku bandi baburanyi barurimo; bityo rero mu gusuzuma niba ubujurire bwe bwujuje ibisabwa hakaba hagomba gushingirwa ku ngingo ya 52 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru rigena ububasha bw’inkiko iteganya mu gace kayo ka 9 ko mu manza nshinjabyaha, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha mu rwego rw’ubujurire bwa kabiri imanza zaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi n’Urukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare, iyo izo manza zagenwemo igifungo kingana nibura n’imyaka cumi n’itanu (15); kandi ko mu manza nshinjabyaha igihano cy’igifungo cyagenwe ari cyo cyonyine gishingirwaho mu kugena ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire. [25] Uru rukiko rurasanga ku birebana n’uru rubanza, igifungo cyagenwemo kingana n’imyaka 10 bityo rero hakaba nta buryo na bumwe uru rubanza nshinjabyaha rwashoboraga kugera mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire.

2 Uyu kandi ni nawo murongo watanzwe mu Cyemezo No 004/PRES/CA/2024/CIV cya Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire cyo ku wa 12/03/2024 mu rubanza indamutsa Arsène yaburanaga na Kabano Patrick, Madamu Patricie na Ngenzi Jean Alain, ahasobanuwe ko ibiteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 116 al 2 CPCCSA ari umwihariko wahawe abagobokeshejwe ku gahato kuko baba bashyizwe mu rubanza batabishaka, naho ugobotse mu rubanza ku bushake akaba aniyemeje gufatira urubanza yagobotsemo aho rugeze.

## Page 175

135 UWAMURERA v UBUSHINJACYAHA [26] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro byose byatanzwe mu bika bibanziriza iki, ubujurire bwa Uwamurera Phoebe bukaba butari mu bubasha bw’uru rukiko, bityo bukaba butagomba kwakirwa. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [27] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Uwamurera Phoebe butari mu bubasha bw’uru rukiko bityo bukaba butagomba kwakirwa. [28] Rutegetse ko amagarama yatanzwe ahwanye n’ibyakozwe.

## Page 176

136 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 177

137 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRUMUKIZA 137 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRUMUKIZA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’UBUJURIRE – RPAA 00367/2020/CA (Rutazana, P.J.) 22 Ukuboza 2023] Imiburanishirize y’imanza – Imirongo mu manza – Itegeko ryavuyeho – Umurongo wari uriho ntushobora gukurikizwa mu gihe itegeko wari ushingiyeho ryavuyeho cyangwa ryahinduwe, icyo gihe hashingirwa ku ngingo y’itegeko ryayihinduye. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rwisumbuye rwa Huye, Ubushinjacyaha burega Twagirumukiza icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana nyuma yuko araranye iwe mu rugo n’umwana w’umukobwa ufite imyaka 17 y`amavuko witwa K.M. ndetse barasambana; hanyuma uwo mukobwa aza kumva atameze neza yipimye asanga aratwite. Muri urwo Rukiko uregwa yaburanye yemera ko yasambanye na K. M. ariko akavuga ko uwo mukobwa yari asanzwe ari indaya ngo kuko nawe basambanye akamuha amafaranga, yaburanye kandi ahakana ko yari umwana kandi ko atari we wamuteye inda. Urwo Rukiko rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko uregwa ahamwa n’icyaha cyo gusambanya uwo mwana w’imyaka 17 rumuhanisha igihano cy’igifungo cy’imyaka makumyabiri (20). Uregwa yajuriye mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza, akomeza kuvuga ko uwo mukobwa baryamanye ari mukuru kandi ko yari asanzwe akora uburaya ku buryo baryamanye yabanje kumuha amafaranga, ko hakurikijwe itariki n’ukwezi yavukiyeho hakarebwa n’itariki n’ukwezi icyaha kivugwa ko cyakoreweho yari yaramaze kugeza ku myaka 18. Urwo Rukiko

## Page 178

138 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO narwo rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko icyaha gikorwa K.M. yari atarageza ku myaka y’ubukure rushingiye ku itariki ye y’amavuko igaragara ku cyemezo cye cy’amavuko, rwemeza ko imikiririze y’urubanza rwajuririwe idahindutse. Uregwa yarongeye arajurira noneho mu Rukiko Rw’Ubujurire, avuga ko mu rubanza rujuririrwa atagabanyirijwe igihano nyamara yaremeye icyaha kuva agifatwa, kandi akaba yaramaze kucyicuza; agasaba kugabanyirizwa igihano, ko kugabanya igihano kigahuzwa n’uburemere bw’icyaha biri mu bubasha bw’urukiko. Ubushinjacyaha bwo bwaburanye buvuga ko ighano Twagiramukiza yahawe gikwiriye kuko kizamufasha kumva uburemera bw’icyaha yakoze. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Umurongo wari uriho ntushobora gukurikizwa mu gihe itegeko wari ushingiyeho ryavuyeho cyangwa ryahinduwe, icyo gihe hashingirwa ku ngingo y’itegeko ryayihinduye, bityo ingingo ya 2 y’itegeko Nº 059/2023 ryo ku wa 04/12/2023 rihindura itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange niyo ikwiye gushingirwaho mu kugena aho Urukiko rukwiriye kugeza mu kugabanya igihano aho gushingira ku mirongo yatanzwe mu rubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC n’urubanza RPAA 00032/2019/CA kimwe n’izindi manza zagendeye mu murongo wo kugabanya igihano kugeza munsi y’igihano gito giteganyijwe n’itegeko, kuko izi manza zaciwe hakurikijwe ingingo ya 60 y’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange. 2. Mu manza nshinjabyaha, iyo abaregwa nta kindi banenga urubanza rwajuririwe, uretse kuvuga gusa ko batagabanyirijwe igihano bihagije, buri mucamanza ku rwego urwo arirwo rwose,

## Page 179

139 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRUMUKIZA yemerewe gutanga igihano mu bushishozi bwe kijyanye n’uburemere bw’icyaha ndetse n’ingaruka zacyo ariko mu bujurire, umucamanza agomba kuzirikana ko yemerewe gusa guhindura igihano cyatanzwe n’Umucamanza wo mu rukiko rubanza, ari uko amaze kugaragaza ko urwo rukiko rwaba rwarakoresheje nabi itegeko cyangwa ubushishozi bwarwo mu gutanga icyo gihano. Bityo igihano uregwa yahanishijwe kikaba gikwiriye kugabanywa kugira ngo gihuzwe n’uburemere bw’icyaha. Urubanza ruhindutse gusa ku birebana n’igihano. Amategeko yashingiweho: itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/8/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange nk’uko ryahinduwe kugeza ubu, ingingo ya 133. itegeko Nº 059/2023 ryo ku wa 04/12/2023 rihindura itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, ingingo ya 2. Imanza zifashishijwe: Ubushinjacyaha vs. Bimenyimana, RPAA 00048/2020/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 26/05/2022. Ubushinjacyaha vs. Nsabimana alias Sankara Et.Al., RPA 00060/2021/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 04/04/2022. Ubushinjacyaha vs. Shirimpaka Jean Claude, RPAA 00145/2021/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 30/10/2023.

## Page 180

140 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Ku wa 21/11/2018, mu Mudugudu wa Rwabuye, Akagari ka Gatobotobo,Umurenge wa Mbazi mu Karere ka Huye, uwitwa Twagirumukiza innocent Réponse yararanye iwe mu rugo n’umwana w’umukobwa ufite imyaka 17 y`amavuko witwa K.M. ndetse barasambana; hanyuma uwo mukobwa aza gutaha ariko hashize iminsi ngo yumva atameze neza yipimye asanga aratwite, abwiye Twagirumukiza innocent Réponse ko yamuteye inda undi aramuhakanira; ibyo bikaba ari byo byatumye amakuru y’uko yasambanyijwe na Twagirumukiza innocent Réponse amenyekana hanyuma arafatwa ashyikirizwa Ubugenzacyaha akekwaho icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana, iperereza rirangiye dosiye Ubushinjacyaha buyiregera Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Huye. [2] Muri urwo rukiko Twagirumukiza innocent Réponse yaburanye yemera ko yasambanye na Kubwimana Marie bita Aline, ariko akavuga ko uwo mukobwa yari asanzwe ari indaya ngo kuko nawe basambanye akamuha amafaranga, ko atemera ko yari umwana kandi ko atari we wamuteye inda. [3] Mu rubanza RP 00411/2018/TGi/HYE rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Huye ku wa 18/01/2019 rwemeje ko Twagirumukiza Innocent Réponse ahamwa n’icyaha cyo gusambanya uwo mwana w’imyaka 17 witwa Kubwimana Marie bita Aline, rushingiye ku kuba yaremeye icyaha imbere y’inzego z’iperereza n’imbere y’Urukiko, bigashimangirwa n’imvugo z’uwo mwana wamushinje mu Bugenzacyaha n’icyemezo cye cy’amavuko cyatanzwe n’Umunyamabanga Nshingwabikorwa

## Page 181

141 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRUMUKIZA w’Umurenge wa Ruhashya ku wa 18/12/2018, kigaragaza ko yavukiye i Kaduha tariki 25/04/2001; rumuhanisha igifungo cy’imyaka makumyabiri (20) . [4] Urwo rubanza Twagirumukiza innocent Réponse yarujuririye mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza, akomeza kuvuga ko uwo mukobwa baryamanye ari mukuru kandi ko yari asanzwe akora uburaya ku buryo baryamanye yabanje kumuha amafaranga, umwunganira nawe ashimangira ko Kubwimana Marie bita Aline yari mukuru ngo kuko hakurikijwe itariki n’ukwezi yavukiyeho hakarebwa n’itariki n’ukwezi icyaha kivugwa ko cyakoreweho yari yaramaze kugeza ku myaka 18, ko rero abona nta cyaha cyabayeho. [5] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko iyo mpamvu y’ubujurire nta shingiro ifite kuko hashingiwe kw’itariki yanditse ku cyemezo cy’amavuko cya Kubwimana Marie bita Aline kigaragaza ko yasambanyijwe akiri umwana kuko yari afite imyaka 17, kandi ko iyi mpamvu y’ubujurre inyuranye n’imiburanire ya Twagirumukiza innocent Réponse ku rwego rwa mbere kuko yaburanye yemera icyaha akanasaba kugabanyirizwa igihano ; busoza busaba Urukiko kugumishaho igihano yahawe. [6] Mu rubanza RPA 00154/2019/HC/NYZ rwaciwe ku wa 30/12/2019, Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza rwasanze impamvu z’ubujurire zatanzwe na Twagirumukiza Innocent Réponse nta shingiro zifite kuko igihe icyaha cyakorwaga Kubwimana Marie bita Aline yari atarageza ku myaka y’ubukure rushingiye ku itariki ye y’amavuko igaragara ku cyemezo cye cy’amavuko, rwemeza ko imikiririze y’urubanza rwajuririwe idahindutse, ko hagumyeho igifungo cy’imyaka makumyabiri (20) Twagirumukiza innocent Réponse yahanishijwe.

## Page 182

142 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO [7] iki cyemezo nacyo Twagirumukiza innocent Réponse yakijuririye mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire, urubanza ruhabwa nº RPAA 00367/2020/CA, ruburanishwa mu ruhame ku itariki ya 07/12/2023, yunganiwe na Me Umugwaneza Diane naho Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na Ninahazwa Roselyne, Umushinjacyaha ku rwego rw’Igihugu. [8] Mu myanzuro y’ubujurire Twagirumukiza Innocent Réponse yashyikirije uru rukiko avuga ko mu rubanza rujuririrwa atagabanyirijwe igihano nyamara yaremeye icyaha kuva agifatwa, kandi akaba yaramaze kucyicuza ; agasaba kugabanyirizwa igihano ngo kuko ari ubwa mbere akurikiranyweho icyaha mu buryo buzwi, hagendewe ku murongo watanzwe mu rubanza rwaciwe n’uru rukiko. [9] Mu myanzuro y’Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko ubujurire bwa Twagirumukiza innocent Réponse budakwiye guhabwa ishingiro kuko atagararaza icyo anenga icyemezo cy’Urukiko Rukuru kuko ibyo avuga ko yemeye icyaha atari ukuri ; ko yaburanye avuga ko nta cyaha yakoze kuko umwana bavuga ko yasambanyije yari arengeje imyaka 18, agasaba kugirwa umwere. [10] Mu iburanisha Twagirumukiza innocent Réponse n’umwunganira babwiye urukiko ko basanze mu myanzuro ya Twagirumukiza innocent Réponse ntacyo anenga urubanza rwajuririwe, ko ahubwo icyo basaba urukiko ari uko rwamugabanyiriza igihano hashingiwe ku byemejwe mu rubanza RPAA 00039/2021/CA haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Shakabatenda Jean de Dieu, ngo kuko yamaze kumva rwose uburemera bw’icyaha yakoze. Ubushinjacyaha bwo buvuga ko igihano cy’igifungo cy’imyaka 20 Twagirumukiza Innocent Réponse yahawe gikwiriye kuko kizamufasha kumva uburemera bw’icyaha yakoze.

## Page 183

143 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRUMUKIZA [11] impaka muri uru rubanza zishingiye ku kumenya niba Twagirumukiza innocent Réponse akwiriye kugabanyirizwa igihano kuri uru rwego. II. ISESENGURA RY’IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA  Kumenya niba Twagirumukiza Innocent Réponse akwiriye kugabanyirizwa igihano kuri uru rwego [12] Twagirumukiza Innocent Réponse n’umwunganira bavuga ko basaba Urukiko rw’Ubujurire kumugabanyiriza ibihano hashingiwe ku kuba ari ubwa mbere akurikiranyweho icyaha mu buryo buzwi kandi akaba yaramaze kumva rwose uburemera bw’icyaha yakoze no kucyicuza ; bavuga ko kugabanya igihano kigahuzwa n’uburemere bw’icyaha biri mu bubasha bw’urukiko, bashingiye ku byemejwe mu rubanza RPAA00039/2021/CA haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Shakabatenda Jean de Dieu. [13] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko igihano cy’igifungo cy’imyaka 20 Twagirumukiza innocent Réponse yahawe gikwiriye kuko kizamufasha kumva uburemera bw’icyaha yakoze. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [14] Urukiko rusanga ibijyanye no gusaba kugabanyirizwa igihano Twagirumukiza innocent Réponse yarabisabye mu mwanzuro yashyikirije urukiko ajurira, we n’umwunganira banongera kubigarukaho mu gihe cy’iburanisha.

## Page 184

144 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO [15] Ikibazo gisa n’iki cyatanzweho umurongo mu rubanza n° RPA 00060/2021/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 04/04/2022 haburana Ubushinjacyaha, Nsabimana Callixte alias Sankara na bagenzi be. Muri urwo rubanza Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwasobanuye ko mu rwego rw’ibirego nshinjabyaha, iyo abaregwa nta kindi banenga urubanza rwajuririwe, uretse kuvuga gusa ko batagabanyirijwe igihano bihagije, buri mucamanza ku rwego urwo arirwo rwose, yemerewe gutanga igihano mu bushishozi bwe kijyanye n’uburemere bw’icyaha ndetse n’ingaruka zacyo hakurikijwe ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 49 y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/8/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, ariko ko mu bujurire, umucamanza agomba kuzirikana ko yemerewe gusa guhindura igihano cyatanzwe n’Umucamanza wo mu rukiko rubanza, ari uko amaze kugaragaza ko urwo rukiko rwaba rwarakoresheje nabi itegeko cyangwa ubushishozi bwarwo mu gutanga icyo gihano. Uyu murongo wanakurikijwe mu zindi manza zitandukanye zakurikiyeho zaciwe n’uru Rukiko, harimo n’urubanza n° RPAA 00145/2021/CA rwaciwe ku wa 30/10/2023, haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Shirimpaka Jean Claude. [16] icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana Twagirumukiza innocent Réponse yahamijwe gihanishwa igifungo kitari munsi y’imyaka 20 ariko kitarenze imyaka 25, hashingiwe ku biteganywa mu ngingo ya 133 y’Itegeko nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange nk’uko ryahinduwe kugeza ubu; we akaba yarahanishijwe igifungo cy’imyaka 20. [17] Mu gihe uru rubanza rwari rutarasomwa muri uru rukiko, hasohotse itegeko nº 059/2023 ryo ku wa 04/12/2023 rihindura itegeko nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018riteganya ibyaha

## Page 185

145 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRUMUKIZA n’ibihano muri rusange, ingingo yaryo ya kabiri iteganya ko : “Iyo umucamanza yemeje impamvu nyoroshyacyaha, ashobora kugabanya igihano ku buryo bukurikira : … (b) igifungo kimara igihe kizwi kiva ku mezi 6 kuzamura gishobora kugabanywa, ariko ntikijye munsi ya kimwe cya kabiri cy’igihano gito giteganyirijwe icyaha cyakozwe“. [18] Urukiko rurasanga iyi ngingo ari yo igomba gushingirwaho mu kugena aho rukwiriye kugeza mu kugabanya igihano mu gihe rwasanga hari impamvu nyoroshyacyaha, aho gushingira ku mirongo yatanzwe mu rubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC n’urubanza RPAA 00032/2019/CA kimwe n’izindi manza zagendeye muri uyu murongo wo kugabanya igihano kugeza munsi y’igihano gito giteganyijwe n’itegeko, kuko izi manza zaciwe hakurikijwe ingingo ya 60 y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, kandi iyi ngingo ikaba yarahinduwe n’ingingo ya 2 y’Itegeko n° 059/2023 ryavuzwe haruguru. [19] ibirebana no kugabanya ibihano hashingiwe ku mirongo yagiyeho mbere y’itegeko ririho byatanzweho umurongo n’uru Rukiko mu rubanza Nº RPAA 00048/2020/CA1 aho rwagaragaje ko umurongo wari uriho udashobora gukurikizwa mu gihe itegeko wari ushingiyeho ryavuyeho (cyangwa ryahinduwe), ibi bikaba bihuje n’uru rubanza kuko rudashobora gukurikiza imirongo yari ishingiye ku ngingo y’itegeko nyamara yaramaze guhindurwa.

1 Urubanza RPAA 00048/2020/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 26/05/2022 haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Bimenyimana, mu gika cya 26.

## Page 186

146 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 146 [20] Hashingiwe ku murongo2 ugaragara mu rubanza RPA 00060/2021/CA rwavuzwe haruguru mu gika cya 15, mu bika bikurikira hagiye gusuzumwa niba igihano cy’igifungo cy’imyaka makumyabiri (20) Twagirumukiza Innocent Réponse yahanishijwe ku cyaha cyo gusambanya umwana w’umukobwa w’imyaka cumi n’irindwi (17) y’amavuko gikwiye kugabanywa kuri uru rwego hagamijwe guhuza igihano n’uburemere bw’icyaha cyakozwe. [21] Mu manza zabanje, haba mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Huye haba no mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza, Twagirumukiza innocent Réponse yaburanye yemera ko yaryamanye na Kubwimana Marie bita Aline, ariko akavuga ko uwo mukobwa yari asanzwe ari indaya ngo kuko nawe yamuhaye amafaranga ngo baryamane, kandi ko atemera ko yari umwana ndetse ko inda avuga ko yari atwite atari we wayimuteye. [22] Urukiko rurasanga, n‘ubwo Twagirumukiza Innocent Réponse yakoze icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana w’imyaka 17 azi neza ingaruka zacyo ku bw’imyaka y’ubukure yari afite akora icyaha (imyaka 32), n‘ubwo kandi mu nkiko zibanza yaburanye ahakana icyaha kuko yavugaga ko atemera ko uwo baryamanye yari umwana, rurasanga igihano cy’igifungo cy’imyaka 20

2 Wemeje ko mu manza nshinjabyaha, iyo abaregwa nta kindi banenga urubanza rwajuririwe, uretse kuvuga gusa ko batagabanyirijwe igihano bihagije, buri mucamanza ku rwego urwo arirwo rwose, yemerewe gutanga igihano mu bushishozi bwe kijyanye n’uburemere bw’icyaha ndetse n’ingaruka zacyo hakurikijwe ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 49 y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/8/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, ariko ko mu bujurire, umucamanza agomba kuzirikana ko yemerewe gusa guhindura igihano cyatanzwe n’Umucamanza wo mu rukiko rubanza, ari uko amaze kugaragaza ko urwo rukiko rwaba rwarakoresheje nabi itegeko cyangwa ubushishozi bwarwo mu gutanga icyo gihano.

## Page 187

147 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRUMUKIZA 147 yahanishijwe kiremereye ugereranyije no kuba ibikubiye muri dosiye bigaragaza ko kuva yafatwa yemeraga ko yasambanye n’uwo mukobwa icyo atemeraga akaba ari imyaka ye, no kuba ari ubwa mbere akurikiranyweho icyaha mu buryo buzwi; iki gihano kikaba gikwiriye kugabanywa kugira ngo gihuzwe n’uburemere bw’icyaha. [23] Urukiko rurasanga impamvu zavuzwe mu gika kibanziriza iki zitaritaweho mu nkiko zibanza bituma Twagirumukiza innocent Réponse atagabanyirizwa igihano mu buryo buhagije; bityo hashingiwe kuri izo mpamvu no ku biteganywa mu ngingo ya 2 y’Itegeko n° 059/2023 ryavuzwe haruguru, ndetse no ku murongo3 watanzwe mu rubanza RPA 00060/2021/CA narwo rwavuzwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga Twagirumukiza innocent Réponse akwiriye kugabanyirizwa igihano, agahanishwa igifungo cy’imyaka cumi n’itatu ( 13) mu mwanya w’igifungo cy’imyaka 20 yahanishijwe mu rubanza rujuririrwa.

3 Aho, mu manza nshinjabyaha, iyo icyo abaregwa banenga urubanza rwajuririwe ari uko batagabanyirijwe igihano bihagije, buri mucamanza ku rwego urwo arirwo rwose, yemerewe gutanga igihano mu bushishozi bwe kijyanye n’uburemere bw’icyaha ndetse n’ingaruka zacyo hakurikijwe ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 49 y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/8/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, ariko mu bujurire, umucamanza agomba kuzirikana ko yemerewe gusa guhinduraigihano cyatanzwe n’Umucamanza wo mu rukiko rubanza, ari uko amaze kugaragaza ko urwo rukiko rwaba rwarakoresheje nabi itegeko cyangwa ubushishozi bwarwo mu gutanga icyo gihano.

## Page 188

148 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [24] Rwemeje ko imikirize y’urubanza n° RPA 00154/2019/HC/NYZ rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza, ku wa 30/12/2019 ihindutse ku birebana n’igihano. [25] Rutegetse ko Twagirumukiza innocent Réponse ahanishijwe igifungo cy’imyaka cumi n’itatu (13) ku cyaha cyo gusambanya umwana w’imyaka cumi n’irindwi (17) y’amavuko. [26] Ruvuze ko amagarama y’urubanza aherereye ku Isanduku ya Leta, kuko Twagirumukiza innocent Réponse yajuriye afunze, akaba asonewe kuyatanga.

## Page 189

149 AMAGAMBO MPINE IMANZA Z’IMBONEZAMUBANO

## Page 190

150 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 191

151 SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA 151 SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA - RS/iNJUST/RC 00005/2024/SC (Hitiyaremye, J.P, Cyanzayire, Muhumuza, Kazungu, Kalihangabo, J.) 28 Werurwe 2025] Ihinduka ry’umurongo – Indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka zikozwe n’ibinyabiziga – Kutishyura indishyi kubera ikosa ryakozwe nkana – Kugirango umwishingizi areke kwishyura ashingiye ku ngingo y’amategeko cyangwa y’amasezerano ibuza kwishingira ikosa ryakozwe nkana, agomba gutanga ibimenyetso bigaragaza ko uwishingiwe yakoze ikosa agambiriye kwangiza (faute intentionnelle). Ibi bikaba bihindura umurongo watanzwe mu rubanza No RS/INJUST/RC 00002/2021/SC, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 30/12/2021, Akarere ka Kirehe na SAHAM Assurance Rwanda Ltd yahindutse SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc n’abandi [ Rwatangazwe mu Icyegeranyo RLR V.4.2023]; uwo murongo ukaba waravugaga ko umwishingizi ataryozwa amakosa uwishingiwe yakoze abizi kandi abishaka. Amategeko agenga imanza z’imbonezamubano – Indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka zikozwe n’ibinyabiziga – Uburyozwe - Uburyozwe bubaho biturutse ku gikorwa cyakoranywe ubushake cyangwa kitakoranywe ubushake, bigatuma uwakoze ikosa agomba kwishyura iby’abandi byangijwe; ubwo buryozwe bukaba bwishingirwa. Amategeko agenga imanza z’imbonezamubano – Indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka zikozwe n’ibinyabiziga – Uburyozwe butishingirwa - Uburyozwe butishingirwa, ni ubuturutse ku ikosa rikozwe nkana (faute intentionnelle) ry’uwishingiwe, iryo kosa

## Page 192

152 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO rikaba rikorwa hagambiriwe kwangiza - Nubwo umuntu yaba yakoze ikosa abizi, rifatwa nk’iryakozwe nkana mu gihe gusa bigaragara ko uwarikoze yari afite umugambi wo kwangiza. Amategeko agenga imanza z’imbonezamubano – Indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka zikozwe n’ibinyabiziga – Ikosa ry’uwangirije rituma adahabwa indishyi - Ikosa rituma uwangirijwe adahabwa indishyi ni iryabaye intandaro y’impanuka ryonyine (ni ukuvuga ku kigero cya 100%), kimwe n’iryo uwangirijwe yakoze nkana agambiriye ibyago byamubayeho - Itegeko No 41/2001 ryo ku wa 19/09/2001 ryerekeye imyishyurire y’abangirijwe n’impanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga bigenzwa na moteri kandi bigenda ku butaka, ingingo ya 2. Incamake y’ikibazo: Bizimana yakomerekejwe n’imodoka yari ifite ubwishingizi muri SANLAM AG Plc, agira ubumuga buhoraho bungana na 48%. Yandikiye SANLAM AG Plc asaba indishyi, imusubiza ko itazimuha kuko ari we wabaye nyirabayazana w’impanuka yemera kugendera inyuma mu modoka ipakiye. ibyo byatumye Bizimana aregera Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rusizi asaba indishyi zinyuranye. Urukiko rwategetse SANLAM AG Plc kumuha indishyi zose hamwe zingana na 5.786.030 Frw. SANLAM AG Plc yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi, ivuga ko itagomba kuryozwa indishyi kuko Bizimana yabaye nyirabayazana w’impanuka, kandi n’umushoferi wari utwaye imodoka akaba yarakoze nkana ikosa ryo kumutwara mu gice cyahariwe gutwara imizigo, azi neza ko bibujijwe. Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko ubujurire bwayo nta shingiro bufite, rugumishaho indishyi zatanzwe mu rubanza rwajuririwe. SANLAM AG Plc yasabye ko urubanza rusubirwamo ku

## Page 193

153 SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA mpamvu z’akarengane, itanga impamvu nk’izo yari yatanze ijurira, ubusabe bwayo buremerwa, urubanza ruburanishwa n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, hasuzumwa ikibazo cyo kumenya niba SANLAM ikwiye kuryozwa indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka yakomerekeyemo Bizimana védaste. SANLAM AG Plc ivuga ko itaryozwa indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka yabaye ishingiye ku kuba uwari utwaye ikinyabiziga cyakoze impanuka yarakoze nkana ikosa ryo kwemera gutwara umuntu mu gice cy’inyuma cy’imodoka kandi azi neza ko bibujijwe no kuba Bizimana ariwe wabaye nyirabayazana w’impanuka yakomerekeyemo. Bizimana we asobanura ko akwiye guhabwa indishyi ashingiye ku kuba ubwishingire bugomba kwishingira uburyozwe bwa nyir’ikinyabiziga kigenzwa ku butaka, ubw’ugifite wese n’ubw’ugitwaye wese, kandi ko ubwishingire bugomba kwishingira ibyago biba ku bantu bahetswe mu kinyabiziga, ku mpamvu izo arizo zose. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Uburyozwe bubaho biturutse ku gikorwa cyakoranywe ubushake cyangwa kitakoranywe ubushake, bigatuma uwakoze ikosa agomba kwishyura iby’abandi byangijwe; ubwo buryozwe bukaba bwishingirwa. 2. Uburyozwe butishingirwa, ni ubuturutse ku ikosa rikozwe nkana (faute intentionnelle) ry’uwishingiwe, iryo kosa rikaba rikorwa hagambiriwe kwangiza - Nubwo umuntu yaba yakoze ikosa abizi, rifatwa nk’iryakozwe nkana mu gihe gusa bigaragara ko uwarikoze yari afite umugambi wo kwangiza. 3. Uburyozwe butishingirwa, ni ubuturutse ku ikosa rikozwe nkana (faute intentionnelle) ry’uwishingiwe, iryo kosa rikaba rikorwa hagambiriwe kwangiza - Nubwo umuntu yaba yakoze ikosa abizi, rifatwa nk’iryakozwe nkana mu gihe gusa bigaragara ko uwarikoze yari afite umugambi wo kwangiza.

## Page 194

154 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 4. ikosa rituma uwangirijwe adahabwa indishyi ni iryabaye intandaro y’impanuka ryonyine (ni ukuvuga ku kigero cya 100%), kimwe n’iryo uwangirijwe yakoze nkana agambiriye ibyago byamubayeho. Ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane, nta shingiro gifte. Amategeko yashingiweho: itegeko No 41/2001 ryo ku wa 19/09/2001 ryerekeye imyishyurire y’abangirijwe n’impanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga bigenzwa na moteri kandi bigenda ku butaka, ingingo ya 2 itegeko-Teka No 32/75 ryo ku wa 07/08/1975 ryerekeye ubwishingizi butegetswe ku buryozwe butewe n’ibigenzwa ku butaka bifite moteri, nk’uko ryahinduwe n’Itegeko No 02/2002 ryo ku wa 17/01/2002, ingingo ya 3; itegeko–Teka No 20/75 ryo ku wa 20/06/1975 ryerekeye ubwishingizi muri rusange, ingingo ya 11. Nta manza zifashishijwe Inyandiko z’abahanga zifashishijwe: Serge BRAUDO, Dictionnaire du Droit Privé, Définition de Responsabilité civile, p.1; Gerard CORNU, vocabulaire juridique, 11ème édition, Puf, 1987, p.452; Georges Brière de L’Isle, Cour de Cassation, Recueil annuel des études 2023, A. L’identité des fautes intentionnelle et dolosive, Étude, p.1;

## Page 195

155 SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA Cour de cassation (France), deuxième chambre civile, du 16 Septembre 2021, n° 19-25.678, para 11 et 12; Cour de cassation Belge, 23 FÉvRiER 2017, para 1 et 2; Cour de cassation Belge, 03 Novembre 2022, C.21.0407.F; CHRiSTOPHER C. FRENCH (Director of Trial Advocacy Program and Professor of Practice at Penn State Law; J.D., Harvard Law School; B.A., Columbia University), insuring intentional Torts, OHiO STATE LAW JOURNAL [vol. 83:6], p.1079-1080; Bernard DUBUiSSON, Professeur ordinaire à l'Université catholique de Louvain, Professeur aux Facultés universitaires Saint- Louis, LA FAUTE iNTENTiONNELLE EN DROiT DES ASSURANCES - L'ÉCLAiRAGE DU DROiT PÉNAL, Revue Générale des Assurances et des Responsabilités (2010), p.2, pt. 4; Yvonne LAMBERT-FAivRE et Laurent LEvENEUR, Droit des assurances, 14ème édit., Dalloz, 2017, P.318; Hubert GROUTEL, Code des Assurances, Annotations de jurisprudence et de bibliographie relative’s aux “Responsabilités professionnelles, 14ème édit., Dalloz, 2008, p.35; Justia Personal injury Law Center Proving Fault and Damages in Personal injury Lawsuits, Comparative & Contributory Negligence Laws: 50-State Survey; Steenson Mike, Minnesota Comparative Fault—Statutory Reform, Journal of law and practice, vol.9, art. 4, 2016, p.7; Alaska Statutes, § 09.17.060 (2023) - Effect of contributory fault US Codes and Statutes US Law Justia; Cutter Law P.C., What is California's Comparative Negligence Law?;

## Page 196

156 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Minnesota Statutes, & 604.02 (2024)- apportionment of damages, Official Publication of the State of Minnesota; Cour de Cassation, Civile, Chambre civile 2, 28 mars 2019, 18- 14.125 18-15.855. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Ku itariki 22/10/2020, mu Mudugudu wa Rususa, Akagari ka Ryamuhirwa, Umurenge wa Nkungu, mu Karere ka Rusizi, Intara y’Iburengerazuba, habereye impanuka y’imodoka yo mu bwoko bwa Mitsubishi FUSO ifite ibirango bya RAE 890 E, yari itwawe na Habimana Daniel, igonga Bizimana védaste bimuviramo gukomereka amaguru, agira ubumuga bungana na 48%. iyo modoka yari ifite ubwishingizi muri SANLAM AG Plc (SANLAM muri uru rubanza). [2] Bizimana védaste yandikiye SANLAM ayisaba indishyi, imusubiza ko ntazo yamuha kuko nta kosa umushoferi w’ikinyabiziga yishingiye yakoze, ko ahubwo ariwe wabaye nyirabayazana w’impanuka yemera kugendera inyuma mu modoka ipakiye, akayivamo irimo kugenda. Uko kutumvikana kwatumye Bizimana védaste aregera Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rusizi asaba indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu, indishyi z’akababaro, indishyi z’ubwiza yatakaje, indishyi zo gutakaza umurimo no gusubizwa amafaranga yakoresheje yivuza, ashaka ibyangombwa n’ay’igihembo cy’Avoka. [3] Mu rubanza N° RC 00127/2021/TGi/RSZ, rwaciwe ku wa 09/08/2022, Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rusizi rwategetse

## Page 197

157 SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA SANLAM guha Bizimana védaste indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu zingana na 4.317.600 Frw, indishyi z’akababaro zingana na 432.000 Frw, indishyi z’ibangamira ry’uburanga zingana na 216.000 Frw, 300.430 Frw yakoresheje yivuza, ashaka ibyangombwa n’ay’ingendo, 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cy’Avoka, na 20.000 Frw y’amagarama, yose hamwe akaba 5.786.030 Frw. [4] Urukiko rwasobanuye ko Bizimana védaste yakomerekejwe n’ikinyabiziga cyavuzwe haruguru cyari cyarishingiwe na SANLAM, ko yari akirimo kandi ko mu kuryozwa indishyi hatitabwa ku buryo umuntu yaba yarakigezemo cyangwa aho yari atwawe. Rwashingiye kandi ku burangare bw’umuyobozi w’ikinyabiziga, kuko yavuze ko atamenye igihe Bizimana védaste yagereye mu modoka, kandi buri modoka iba ifite indorerwamo zifasha kugenzura imodoka yose, ubwo burangare bukaba bwarashimangiwe n’Umugenzacyaha wageze aho impanuka yabereye. [5] SANLAM yajuriye mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi, ivuga ko nta buryozwe ifite muri iyi mpanuka kubera ko uregera indishyi yivugiye ko yemeye gutwarwa mu gice cy’inyuma cy’imodoka, kandi ko yururutse mu modoka irimo kugenda abizi, yabitekereje. SANLAM yavuze kandi ko n’iyo umushoferi yaba yaremeye gutwara Bizimana védaste mu gice cy’inyuma cy’imodoka cyahariwe gutwara imizigo, itabiryozwa kubera ko yaba ari amakosa yakozwe nkana n’umushoferi, bikaba biyivanaho uburyozwe nk’uko ingingo ya 66, igika cya 4, y’Iteka Nº 85/01 ryo ku wa 02/09/2002 rishyiraho amabwiriza

## Page 198

158 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 158 rusange agenga imihanda n’uburyo bwo kuyigendamo ibiteganya1. [6] Mu rubanza N° RCA 00050/2022/HC/RSZ, rwaciwe ku wa 26/07/2023, Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi, rwasanze SANLAM itagaragaza ikosa rijyanye no kwica inshingano zikubiye mu masezerano y’ubwishingizi ryaba ryarakozwe na nyir’ikinyabiziga RAE 890 E cyateje ibyago, rugumishaho indishyi zatanzwe mu rubanza rwajuririwe. [7] Urukiko Rukuru rwasobanuye ko impanuka yatewe n’ubuteganye buke bwa shoferi, ko n’Umugenzacyaha wageze ahabereye impanuka yabyemeje atyo, akaba ari yo mpamvu SANLAM yagombaga kuryozwa indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka yatewe n’ikinyabiziga yari yarishingiye. Rwasobanuye kandi ko urubanza Nº RS/iNJUST/RC00002/2021/SC, SANLAM yasabaga ko rwashingirwaho mu gufata umwanzuro, rudahuje kamere n’ikiburanwa kuko muri urwo rubanza hagaragajwe amakosa agambiriwe yakozwe na nyir’ikinyabiziga cyari cyarishingiwe, aho yemeye ko gitwara abantu inyuma (ahagenewe gutwarwa imizigo) barenze umubare wishingiwe ndetse kinatwarwa n’utabifitiye uruhushya rwabugenewe. Urukiko Rukuru rwasanze kandi nta makosa Bizimana védaste yakoze mu kwemera kwicara inyuma hejuru y’umuzigo, kuko uwari utwaye ikinyabiziga ari we ufite inshingano zo kumenya umubare w’abo ikinyabiziga cyemerewe gutwara n’aho bagomba kwicazwa.

1 icyo gika giteganya ko umuyobozi wa kimwe mu binyabiziga byavuzwe mu gika cya mbere abujijwe gutwara abantu mu bice by’inyuma bya karisoro y’icyo kinyabiziga cyangwa ya romoruki yacyo.

## Page 199

159 SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA 159 [8] Nyuma y’uko Urukiko Rukuru ruciye urwo rubanza, SANLAM yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire isaba ko urubanza N° RCA 00050/2022/HC/RSZ rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi, ku wa 26/07/2023, rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z'akarengane. Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire amaze gusuzuma ubwo busabe, yoherereje Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga raporo yarukozeho, maze nawe yemeza ko rwongera kuburanishwa n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, rwandikwa kuri Nº RS/iNJUST/RC 00005/2024/SC. [9] Mu myanzuro yayo, SANLAM ivuga ko yategetswe guha Bizimana védaste indishyi, kandi nyamara ariwe wabaye nyirabayazana w’impanuka yakomerekeyemo, ndetse n’uwari utwaye imodoka RAE 890 E akaba yarakoze ikosa ryo kwemera kumutwara mu gice cy’inyuma cyayo kandi azi neza ko bibujijwe. Bizimana védaste we avuga ko SANLAM ikwiye kumuha indishyi, hashingiwe ku kuba ari yo yatanze ubwishingizi ku modoka yamugonze, no ku kuba Umugenzacyaha wageze aho impanuka yabereye, yaremeje ko yatewe n’ubuteganye buke bw’uwari utwaye imodoka. [10] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku wa 11/11/2024, SANLAM ihagarariwe na Me Nkeza Sempundu Clément hamwe na Me Niyondora Nsengiyumva, naho Bizimana védaste ahagarariwe na Me Mukwende Milimo Olivier. Ababuranyi bagiye impaka ku bibazo byo kumenya niba SANLAM ikwiye kuryozwa indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka yakomerekeyemo Bizimana védaste, no kumenya niba hari indishyi zatangwa mu rubanza. Urubanza rwarapfundikiwe, bamenyeshwa ko ruzasomwa ku wa 20/12/2024. [11] Mu gihe Urukiko rwari rwiherereye kugirango ruce urubanza, rwasanze hari ibyo rukeneye kubaza ababuranyi,

## Page 200

160 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO rusanga ari ngombwa ko iburanisha ripfundurwa, rishyirwa ku wa 11/02/2025. Kuri iyo tariki, iburanisha ryabereye mu ruhame, SANLAM ihagarariwe na Me NiYONDORA Nsengiyumva, naho Bizimana védaste ahagarariwe na Me Mukwende MiLiMO Olivier; ababuranyi bamenyeshwa ko urubanza ruzasomwa ku wa 28/03/2025. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO 1) Kumenya niba SANLAM ikwiye kuryozwa indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka yakomerekeyemo Bizimana Védaste [12] SANLAM ivuga ko yategetswe kwishyura indishyi ku mpanuka yakomerekeyemo Bizimana védaste kandi ariwe wabaye nyirabayazana w’impanuka, yemera kugendera mu gice cy’inyuma cy’imodoka hejuru y’imizigo (amatafari), bikaba byaramushyiraga mu kaga ko kuba yahanuka agakomereka; akaba yaranakoze ikosa ryo kururuka imodoka irimo kugenda. [13] SANLAM ivuga kandi ko Nyirandayishimiye Béatrice watanze ikirego mu Bugenzacyaha, yavuze ko Bizimana védaste yageze aho aviramo akomangira shoferi kugirango ahagarare yururuke, ariko shoferi yanga guhagarara bimuviramo kugongwa ku kuguru. iyo mvugo ikaba ari gihamya ko yari azi neza ko kururuka imodoka igenda byagombaga gushyira ubuzima bwe mu kaga, ariko akanga akabirengaho. Yongeraho ko mu miburanire ye, Bizimana védaste nawe yemera ko yatwawe mu modoka hejuru y’amatafari, akanemera ko impanuka yatewe n’uko atategereje ko shoferi ahagarara ngo abone kururuka,

## Page 201

161 SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA byumvikanisha ko yemera ko impanuka yatewe n’uko yururutse imodoka igenda, kandi akaba yarabikoze yabigambiriye. [14] SANLAM isobanura ko ibyo ivuga bishingiye ku ngingo ya 2 y’Itegeko Nº 41/2001 ryo ku wa 19/09/2001 ryerekeye imyishyurire y’abangirijwe n’impanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga bigenzwa na moteri kandi bigendera ku butaka, iteganya ko “amakosa y’uwahohotewe n’impanuka avaniraho uburenganzira bwo guhabwa indishyi uwahohotewe nayo cyangwa abamufiteho uburenganzira”. SANLAM ivuga ko inashingira ku manza zaciwe n’uru Rukiko, zikemeza ko kugira ngo umwishingizi yishyurire uwo yishingiye, ari ngombwa ko habanza kugaragazwa ko uwishingiwe ariwe wateje ibyago; uwangirijwe akaba ariwe ufite inshingano zo kubigaragaza2. [15] SANLAM ikomeza ivuga ko kuba Bizimana védaste yaragiye hejuru y’imizigo, yaba yarabyemerewe cyangwa atarabyemerewe, biyivanaho uburyozwe bw’indishyi kuko binyuranyije n’ingingo ya 66, agace ka 4, y’Iteka rya Perezida Nº 85/01 ryo ku wa 02/09/2002 rishyiraho amabwiriza rusange agenga imihanda n’uburyo bwo kuyigenderamo, iteganya ko umuyobozi w’ikinyabiziga cyangwa uw’ikinyamitende itatu cyangwa uw’ikinyamitende ine bifite moteri abujijwe gutwara abantu mu bice by’inyuma bya karisoro y’icyo kinyabiziga cyangwa ya romoruki yacyo. SANLAM yongeraho ko n’umuyobozi w’ikinyabiziga abaye yarabigizemo uruhare, bitarengera uwishingiwe cyangwa abaregera indishyi.

2 Urubanza No RS/INJUST/RC00003/2023/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 24/02/2024, haburana SANLAM AG Plc na Nzamwitakuze Thérèse, rwibukije umurongo wafashwe mu rubanza Nº RS/INJUST/RC00019/2022/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’ikirenga ku wa 02/06/2023, haburana Musengamana Jean Marie vianney na SGF.

## Page 202

162 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 162 [16] SANLAM isobanura ko Urukiko Rukuru rutitaye ku isesengura Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwakoze ku ngingo ya 66, agace ka 4, y’Iteka rya Perezida Nº 85/01 ryo ku wa 02/09/2002 rimaze kuvugwa, mu rubanza No RS/iNJUST/RC 00002/2021/SC3, mu gihe Habimana Daniel yaba yaremeye gutwara Bizimana védaste mu gice cy’inyuma cy’imodoka itwaye amatafari, kandi azi neza ko bibujijwe. SANLAM ivuga ko muri urwo rubanza, Urukiko rwasobanuye ko kuba uwishingiwe yarakoze amakosa yo kutubahiriza inshingano yari afite mu masezerano y’ubwishingizi, abizi kandi abishaka, adashobora kurengerwa n’ayo masezerano, haba ku bimureba cyangwa ku bireba abangirijwe n’ikinyabiziga cyishingiwe. [17] Yongeraho ko ihame mu bwishingizi ari uko iyo uwishingiwe akoze ikosa, umwishingizi yirengera amakosa ye, ariko ko iryo hame rigira irengayobora riteganywa mu ngingo ya 11, igika cya 3, y’Itegeko Teka No 20/75 ryo ku wa 20/06/1975 ryerekeye ubwishingizi muri rusange, kuko umwishingizi atishingira amakosa yaba yarakozwe nkana n’uwishingiwe cyangwa se yashoboraga kwirindwa. Ku bijyanye n’uru rubanza, kuba uwishingiwe yaratwaye Bizimana védaste ahatagenewe gutwara abantu, ni amakosa atishingirwa kuko yayakoze ku bushake yabigambiriye, ari nabyo bihura n’urubanza rw’Akarere ka Kirehe, SAHAM n’abandi rwavuzwe haruguru. [18] SANLAM isaba Urukiko kwemeza ko nta ndishyi yagombaga kwishyura, bityo rugategeka Bizimana védaste kuyisubiza amafaranga yose yamwishyuye harangizwa urubanza

3 Urubanza No RS/iNJUST/RC 00002/2021/SC rwaciwe ku wa 30/12/2021, Akarere ka Kirehe kaburanye na SAHAM Assurance Rwanda Ltd yahindutse SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc, abazungura ba Gatashya Ezra n’abandi, igika cya 33.

## Page 203

163 SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA 163 rusabirwa gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, angana na 6.286.030 Frw nk’uko bigaragazwa n’inyandiko yemeza ubwishyu yo ku wa 19/09/2023. [19] Bizimana védaste avuga ko ibyagarutsweho na SANLAM nta gaciro bikwiye guhabwa kubera impamvu zikurikira: a) SANLAM ntigaragaza ikosa ryaba ryarakozwe na nyir’ikinyabiziga RAE 890 E cyateje ibyago. Ntivuga kandi ku nyandikomvugo y’Umugenzacyaha wageze aho impanuka yabereye, wemeje ko yatewe n’ubuteganye buke bw’uwari utwaye imodoka, kuko atubahirije amabwiriza rusange agenga imihanda n’uburyo bwo kuyigenderamo, amubuza gutwara abantu mu gice cy’inyuma kandi yari apakiye umuzigo. Mu kwemeza icyateye impanuka, Umugenzacyaha yashingiye no ku mvugo z’umushoferi Habimana Daniel, wahamije ko Bizimana védaste yahubutse mu modoka akagwa hasi; b) iyo SANLAM isanga amakosa yarakozwe n’umushoferi, yari kugobokesha nyir’ikinyabiziga kugira ngo aryozwe amakosa ye nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 115 y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi; c) SANLAM niyo ikwiye kuryozwa indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka, hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 3 y’Itegeko-Teka Nº 32/75 ryo ku wa 07 Kanama 1975, ryerekeye ubwishingizi butegetswe ku buryozwe butewe n’ibinyabiziga bigenzwa ku butaka bifite moteri, iteganya ko “ubwishingire bugomba

## Page 204

164 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO kwishingira uburyozwe bwa nyir’ikinyabiziga kigenzwa ku butaka, ubw’ugifite wese n’ubw’ugitwaye wese, kandi ko ubwishingire bugomba kwishingira ibyago biba ku bantu bahetswe mu kinyabiziga, ku mpamvu izo arizo zose”; d) SANLAM niyo ikwiye kuryozwa indishyi hanashingiwe ku ngingo ya 11 y’Itegeko-Teka rimaze kuvugwa iteganya ibi bikurikira: “nta mpamvu n’imwe yataye agaciro, igira icyo izigama cyangwa itagikurikizwa bitewe n’Itegeko cyangwa amasezerano, uwishingiye yakwitwaza ku wangirijwe. Uwishingiye ashobora kwiteganyiriza uburenganzira bwo gukurikirana uwakoze amasezerano y’ubwishingire cyangwa se, byaba bibaye ngombwa, uwishingiwe utari uwakoze amasezerano, mu gihe itegeko cyangwa amasezerano y’ubwishingire yaba amwemerera kwanga cyangwa kugabanya ibyo agomba gukora”; e) Mu gihe SANLAM isanga uwo yishingiye yarateje ibyago cyangwa yaragize imyitwarire inyuranye n’iyo bumvikanye mu masezerano bagiranye, ifite uburenganzira bwo kumurega (action récursoire), aho kuvuga ko nta ndishyi Bizimana védaste akwiye; f) Ingingo ya 66, igika cya 4, y’Iteka rya Perezida Nº 85/01 ryo ku wa 02/09/2002 rishyiraho amabwiriza rusange agenga imihanda n’uburyo bwo kuyigenderamo, iteganya ko “umuyobozi w’ikinyabiziga, uw’ikinyamitende itatu cyangwa ine bifite moteri abujijwe gutwara abantu mu bice by’inyuma bya karoseri y’icyo kinyabiziga cyangwa rumoroki yacyo”. Kuba byarakozwe, Bizimana védaste agatwarwa muri icyo gice

## Page 205

165 SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA kandi hejuru y’amatafari, binyuranyije n’itegeko, bityo SANLAM ikaba ikwiye kubyirengera nk’umwishingizi; g) ibyo Habimana Daniel avuga ko Bizimana védaste yagiye mu modoka atabizi, ni ibyo yahimbye ubwo yabazwaga mu Bugenzacyaha ku cyaha yari akurikiranyweho cyo kubabaza umubiri atabigambiriye, agamije kugaragaza ko nta ruhare yagize mu ikorwa ry’icyaha; h) Hari abatangabuhamya babajijwe, barimo Nsabimana Lambert na Nyirandayishimiye Béatrice, bahamije ko Bizimana Védaste yari hejuru y’imodoka ipakiye amatafari, ageze mu Murenge wa Nkungu akomangira umushoferi kugira ngo avemo kuko yari ageze aho aviramo, yanga guhagarara, bituma amugonga ukuguru; i) Habimana Daniel ntashobora kuvuga ko atazi uburyo Bizimana Védaste yageze hejuru y’imodoka, kandi buri modoka iba ifite indorerwamo zireba ibiri imbere mu modoka n’ibiri inyuma yayo. Kuba ataramubonye byaba ari amakosa yakozwe n’uwishingiwe, umwishingizi akaba agomba kuryozwa indishyi ziyakomokaho; j) Urubanza rw’Akarere ka Kirehe na SAHAM ntaho ruhuriye n’uru rubanza ku buryo rwashingirwaho, kuko muri urwo rubanza nta ruhushya umushoferi yari afite rwo gutwara ikinyabiziga. [20] Bizimana védaste asoza avuga ko kuba yaragonzwe n’imodoka RAE 890 E, ifite ubwishingizi muri SANLAM, kandi mu masezerano y’ubwishingizi yaremeye uburyozwe bw’ibyo yakwangiza byose, byumvikana ko yaba yaragiye ku modoka

## Page 206

166 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO umushoferi abizi cyangwa se atabizi, SANLAM igomba kuryozwa indishyi zose zikomoka kuri iyo mpanuka, ikaba yaragombaga no kuzishyura. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [21] Ababuranyi bemeranya ko Bizimana védaste yakomerekejwe bikomeye n’imodoka RAE 890 E yo mu bwoko bwa Mitsubishi Fuso, mu mpamuka yabaye ku wa 22/10/2020. Ntibemeranya ariko ku kuba SANLAM ari yo yakwishyura indishyi Bizimana védaste asaba zikomoka kuri iyo mpanuka. SANLAM igaragaza impamvu ebyiri ishingiraho ivuga ko atariyo ikwiye kuryozwa indishyi zisabwa: a) Kuba uwari utwaye imodoka RAE 890 E yarakoze ikosa ryo kwemera gutwara Bizimana védaste mu gice cy’inyuma cy’imodoka kandi azi neza ko bibujijwe; b) Kuba Bizimana védaste ariwe wabaye nyirabayazana w’impanuka yakomerekeyemo. 1. Ku bijyanye no kuba uwari utwaye imodoka RAE 890E yarakoze ikosa ryo kwemera gutwara Bizimana Védaste mu gice cy’inyuma cy’imodoka kandi azi neza ko bibujijwe [22] Ingingo ya 3 y’Itegeko-Teka No 32/75 ryo ku wa 07/08/1975 ryerekeye ubwishingizi butegetswe ku buryozwe butewe n’ibigenzwa ku butaka bifite moteri, nk’uko ryahinduwe n’Itegeko No 02/2002 ryo ku wa 17/01/2002, iteganya mu gika cyayo cya mbere ko ubwishingizi bugomba kwishingira uburyozwe (la responsabilité civile) bwa nyir’ikinyabiziga, ubw’ugifite n’ubw’ugitwaye wese, uretse igihe cyaba gifitwe n’uwakibye cyangwa uwacyambuye ku ngufu.

## Page 207

167 SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA [23] Ingingo ya 11 y’Itegeko–Teka No 20/75 ryo ku wa 20/06/1975 ryerekeye ubwishingizi muri rusange nk’uko ryahinduwe yo iteganya ibi bikurikira: “Uwishingira yishingira ibyaba ku wishingiwe byateganyijwe mu masezerano. Yishingira ibyaba (risques) bitewe n’impamvu zitunguranye (cas fortuits), n’ibyaba bitewe n’ikosa (faute) ry’uwishingiwe, keretse iyo byateganyijwe ukundi. N’ubwo nta ngingo yaba ibivuguruza, uwishingira ntashobora kwishingira ibyaba bitewe n’ikosa rikozwe nkana (faute intentionnelle) n’uwishingiwe ». [24] Mu bintu by’ingenzi bigaragara muri izi ngingo z’amategeko yombi, harimo ko: ubwishingizi bugomba kwishingira uburyozwe (responsabilité civile) bwa nyir’ikinyabiziga, ubw’ugifite n’ubw’ugitwaye wese (havuyemo uwakibye n’uwakihaye ku ngufu). Harimo kandi ko umwishingizi yishingira ibyaba (risques) biturutse ku ikosa ry’uwishingiwe, ariko ko atishingira ibyaba biturutse ku ikosa rikozwe nkana (faute intentionnelle) ry’uwishingiwe. [25] Mu bika bikurikira, Urukiko rurabanza kugaruka ku gisobanuro cy’uburyozwe (responsabilité civile/civil liability) bwishingirwa, no ku gisobanuro cy’ikosa rikozwe nkana (faute intentionnelle) ritishingirwa, hifashishijwe ibisobanuro by’abahanga. [26] Mu nkoranya y’amuga (dictionnaire) la Toupie, basobanura ko uburyozwe bureberwa mu kuba hari ibyangijwe biturutse ku gikorwa cyakoranywe ubushake cyangwa kitakoranywe ubushake, no mu kuba hari ibyangijwe biturutse ku kitakozwe giteganyijwe mu masezerano4.

4 La responsabilité civile est la responsabilité considérée du point de vue des dommages qu’une action volontaire ou non, ainsi qu’une absence d’action

## Page 208

168 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 168 [27] Umuhanga mu mategeko Serge Braudo, asobanura ko uburyozwe bubaho biturutse ku kutubahiriza ibyateganyijwe mu masezerano, cyangwa biturutse ku gikorwa cyakoranywe ubushake cyangwa kitakoranywe ubushake, bigatuma uwakoze ikosa agomba kwishyura iby’abandi byangijwe5. [28] Ku birebana n’ikosa rikozwe nkana (faute intentionnelle), mu nkoranya y’amuga y’amategeko, umuhanga Gérard CORNU asobanura ko ikosa rikozwe nkana ari irikozwe hagambiriwe kwangiriza undi, muri rusange hagambiriwe kwangiza6. [29] Urukiko Rusesa imanza rwo mu Bufaransa, rugaruka ku byanditswe n’umuhanga Georges Brière de L’Isle, rugasobanura ko ikosa, n’ubwo umuntu yaba yarikoze abizi, rifatwa nk’iryakozwe nkana mu gihe gusa bigaragara ko uwarikoze yari afite ubushake bwo kwangiza7. Rukomeza ruvuga ko ikiranga

prévue dans un contrat, ont pu causer); La Toupie, dictionnaire de politique, Responsabilité civile, consulté le 19/11/2024, https://www.toupie.org/Dictionnaire/Responsabilite_civile.htm#:~:text=D% C3%A9finition%20de%20responsabili%C3%A9%20civile,un%20contrat%2 C%20ont%20pu%20causer. 5 la responsabilité civile est engagée, soit en raison de l'inexécution d'un contrat, soit en raison d'un acte volontaire ou non, entraînant pour la personne qui est fautive ou qui est légalement présumée fautive, l'obligation de réparer le dommage qui a été subi par une ou plusieurs autres; Serge BRAUDO, Dictionnaire du Droit Privé, Définition de Responsabilité civile, p.1, consulté le 19/11/2024, https://www.dictionnaire- juridique.com/definition/responsabilite-civile.php. 6 “Faute intentionnelle: faute commise avec intention de nuire, plus généralement avec celle de causer le dommage»; Gerard CORNU, Vocabulaire juridique, 11ème édition, Puf, 1987, p.452. 7 “Georges Brière de L’Isle indique qu’« il est clair que la faute, même consciente, ne peut être qualifiée d’intentionnelle que si l’on relève chez son auteur la volonté de causer le dommage”; Cour de Cassation, Recueil annuel des études 2023, A. L’identité des fautes intentionnelle et dolosive, Étude, p.1,

## Page 209

169 SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA 169 ikosa rikozwe nkana ari ukugambirira kwangiza, kuko aribyo bivanaho ikintu kigwirira bitazwi neza igihe kizabera cyangwa niba kizanabaho, bigashingirwaho mu gutuma hatabaho ubwishingire8. [30] Mu rundi rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rusesa imanza rwo mu Bufaransa, rushingiye ku ngingo y’itegeko rigenga ubwishingizi (iyo ngingo ikaba isa n’ingingo ya 11 y’Itegeko- Teka No 20/75 ryo ku wa 20/06/1975 ryavuzwe haruguru)9, Urukiko rwasobanuye ko ikosa rikozwe nkana ribaho igihe hari ubushake bwo kwangiza mu buryo byabayemo, rikaba rivanaho ubwishingire ku byago byatejwe n’uwishingiwe aribyo agambiriye igihe yakoraga icyaha. Rwasobanuye kandi ko kugirango umwishingizi areke kwishyura ashingiye ku ngingo y’amasezerano ibuza kwishingira ikosa ryakowe nkana, agomba gutanga ibimenyetso bigaragaza ko ibyago byatejwe n’uwishingiwe abigambiriye10.

consulté le 14/11/2024, https://www.courdecassation.fr/publications/etude- annuelle/recueil-annuel-des-etudes-2023/lidentite-des-fautes intentionnelle- et-0. 8 “C’est la recherche du résultat dommageable qui caractérise aussi bien la faute intentionnelle que la faute dolosive car c’est elle qui, supprimant l’aléa, « justifie l’exclusion de la garantie de l’assureur”; Ibidem, p.2 9 Article L113-1 du Code des Assurances (en vigueur au 20/11/2024): “Les pertes et les dommages occasionnés par des cas fortuits ou causés par la faute de l'assuré sont à la charge de l'assureur, sauf exclusion formelle et limitée contenue dans la police. Toutefois, l'assureur ne répond pas des pertes et dommages provenant d'une faute intentionnelle ou dolosive de l'assuré”. 10 “Vu l'article 1134, devenu 1103, du code civil et l'article L. 113-1 du code des assurances: Selon le second de ces textes, la faute intentionnelle implique la volonté de créer le dommage tel qu'il est survenu et n'exclut de la garantie due par l'assureur à l'assuré, condamné pénalement, que le dommage que cet assuré a recherché en commettant l'infraction. Il en résulte que, pour exclure sa garantie en se fondant sur une clause d'exclusion visant les dommages

## Page 210

170 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 170 [31] Urukiko Rusesa Imanza rw’Ubwami bw’Ububiligi rwagaragaje ko, hashingiwe ku ngingo y’Itegeko ryerekeye amasezerano y’ubwishingizi11, umwishingizi atishingira ibyago byatejwe nkana. Urukiko rwongeraho ko ikosa rikozwe nkana risaba ko haba ubushake bwo kwangiza12. [32] Umuhanga CHRiSTOPHER C. FRENCH asobanura ko n’ubwo inkiko nkeya zisaba ko igikorwa cyatumye habaho kwangiza kiba cyakozwe ku bushake kugira ngo ubwishingizi bwoye kubaho, umubare munini w’inkiko zisaba ko uwishingiwe

causés ou provoqués intentionnellement par l'assuré, l'assureur doit prouver que l'assuré a eu la volonté de créer le dommage tel qu'il est survenu” ; COUR DE CASSATION (France), DEUXIÈME CHAMBRE CIVILE, DU 16 SEPTEMBRE 2021, n° 19-25.678, para 11 et 12, consulté le 20/11/2024, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000044105908?init=true& page=1&query=1925678&searchFieldALL&tab_selection=all. 11 Article 8: “Nonobstant toute convention contraire, l’assureur ne peut être tenu de fournir sa garantie à l’égard de quiconque a causé intentionnellement le sinistre. L’assureur répond des sinistres causés par la faute, même lourde, du preneur d’assurance, de l’assuré ou du bénéficiaire. Toutefois, l’assureur peut s’exonérer de ses obligations pour les cas de faute lourde déterminés expressément et limitativement dans le contrat. Le Roi peut établir une liste limitative des faits qui ne peuvent être qualifiés de faute lourde”. 12 “Selon l’article 8, alinéa 1er, de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d’assurance terrestre, applicable au litige, nonobstant toute convention contraire, l’assureur ne peut être tenu de fournir sa garantie à l’égard de quiconque a causé intentionnellement le sinistre. La faute intentionnelle suppose la volonté de causer un dommage résultant de la réalisation d’un risque couvert par le contrat d’assurance”; COUR DE CASSATION Belge, 23 FÉVRIER 2017, para 1 et 2, consulté le 27/11/2024, https://juricaf.org/arret/BELGIQUE-COURDECASSATION-20170223- C150243F; Voir aussi Cour de cassation Belge, 03 Novembre 2022, C.21.0407.F, première chamber, Commerciale, https://juricaf.org/arret/BELGIQUE-COURDECASSATION-20221103- C210407F.

## Page 211

171 SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA 171 aba yagize ubushake bwo kwangiza (cyangwa guteza ibyago), aho kuba gusa ubushake bwo gukora igikorwa cyangije. impamvu ni uko ibikorwa byinshi bituma habaho impanuka biba byakozwe ku bushake; ariko ibyo bikaba bitavuga ko uwabikoze yashakaga ko bitera impanuka cyangwa ibikomere no kwangiza. Urugero, iyo umushoferi ateje impanuka kubera ko yari arangaye mu kwandika ubutumwa bugufi, ibikorwa byo gutwara yandika ubutumwa bugufi aba yabikoze ku bushake. icyakora, impanuka yakurikiyeho no gukomeretsa ndetse no kwangiza byatewe n’iyo mpanuka ntibyari bigamijwe n’umushoferi, n’ubwo bishobora kuba ingaruka zateganywa z’imyitwarire irimo uburangare13. [33] Umuhanga Bernard DUBUiSSON asobanura ko ikosa rikozwe nkana mu mategeko yerekeye ubwishingizi, ari ikosa rituma uwafashe ubwishingizi n’uwishingiwe bateza ibyago (impanuka) nkana. Ibyago bikaba bisobanurwa nk’ikintu cyose kidateganywa gishobora kubaho kikangiriza umuntu,

13 “Although a minority of jurisdictions only require that the action leading to the injury be intentional for a forfeiture of coverage to occur, the vast majority of jurisdictions require that the insured must intend to cause an injury, not merely intend to do the act that causes the injury. The reason for this is because many actions that lead to accidents are intentional. That does not mean, however, that the actor intended to cause the accident or the resulting injuries and damage. For example, when a driver causes a car accident because the driver is distracted by texting, both the acts of driving and texting are intentional. The ensuing crash and resulting injuries and damage, however, are not intended by the driver even though they may be the foreseeable consequences of the negligent behavior; CHRISTOPHER C. FRENCH (Director of Trial Advocacy Program and Professor of Practice at Penn State Law; J.D., Harvard Law School; B.A., Columbia University), Insuring Intentional Torts, OHIO STATE LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 83:6], p.1079-1080, accessed on 21/11/2024, https://moritzlaw.osu.edu/sites/default/files/2023-03/French_V6_1069- 1111.pdf.

## Page 212

172 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 172 cyishingirwa. Kugirango ikosa rikozwe nkana ribeho, ni uko uwishingiwe aba yagize ubushake bwo kwangiza14. [34] Abahanga Yvonne LAMBERT-FAivRE na Laurent LEvENEUR nabo bavuga ko kuba nyiri ugukora igikorwa cyangije yagikoze abizi kandi abishaka (nko kurenza umuvuduko wemewe ku binyabiziga, kutubahiriza itara ritukura, ...) ntibihagije, agomba kuba yagize n’ubushake bwo kwangiza. Gukoresha amagambo kwangiza ku bushake nibyo byaba bisobanutse neza15. [35] Ibimaze kuvugwa ni nabyo bigarukwaho n’umuhanga Hubert GROUTEL, usobanura ko ikosa rikozwe nkana rituma hatabaho ubwishingire, ari irikozwe hagambiriwe kwangiza. Uwishingiwe ntagomba kuba yagize gusa ubushake bwo gukora

14 “La faute intentionnelle en droit des assurances est celle par laquelle le preneur d'assurance, l'assuré ou le bénéficiaire d'une prestation d'assurance a causé intentionnellement le sinistre.[…] Le sinistre se définissant comme la réalisation du risque couvert par le contrat, il faudrait donc, pour pouvoir parler de faute intentionnelle, que l'assuré ou le bénéficiaire ait voulu que le risque se réalise”; Bernard DUBUISSON, Professeur ordinaire à l'Université catholique de Louvain, Professeur aux Facultés universitaires Saint- Louis, LA FAUTE INTENTIONNELLE EN DROIT DES ASSURANCES - L'ÉCLAIRAGE DU DROIT PÉNAL, Revue Générale des Assurances et des Responsabilités (2010), p.2, pt. 4, consulté le 21/11/2024, https://dial.uclouvain.be/pr/boreal/object/boreal%3A76896/datastream/PDF _01/view. 15 “L‘intention ne s’applique pas à la faute (fait générateur) mais au dommage qui en est l’objet. L’auteur de l’acte ne se contente pas de commettre une faute volontaire et délibérée (ex. Excès de vitesse, non- respect d’un feu rouge…); l’intention vise la réalisation du dommage. L’expression “dommage volontaire” ou “dommage intentionnelle” serait plus exacte”; Yvonne LAMBERT-FAIVRE et Laurent LEVENEUR, Droit des assurances, 14ème édit., Dalloz, 2017, P.318.

## Page 213

173 SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA 173 cyangwa kudakora igikorwa cyabaye impamvu yo gutuma hagira ibyangirika, agomba no kuba yagize ubushake bwo kwangiza16. [36] Mu bisobanuro byose bimaze gutangwa, humvikanamo ibintu by’ingenzi bikurikira: a) Uburyozwe bubaho biturutse ku gikorwa cyakoranywe ubushake cyangwa kitakoranywe ubushake, bigatuma uwakoze ikosa agomba kwishyura iby’abandi byangijwe; ubwo buryozwe bukaba bwishingirwa; b) Uburyozwe butishingirwa, ni ubuturutse ku ikosa rikozwe nkana (faute intentionnelle) ry’uwishingiwe; c) ikosa rikozwe nkana ni irikozwe hagambiriwe kwangiza; d) Ikosa, n’ubwo umuntu yaba yarikoze abizi, rifatwa nk’iryakozwe nkana mu gihe gusa bigaragara ko uwarikoze yari afite umugambi wo kwangiza; e) ikiranga ikosa rikozwe nkana, ni ukugambirira kwangiza, aho kuba gusa ubushake bwo gukora igikorwa cyangije; f) Kugirango umwishingizi areke kwishyura ashingiye ku ngingo y’amategeko cyangwa y’amasezerano ibuza kwishingira ikosa ryakowe nkana,

16 “La faute intentionnelle qui exclut la garantie de l’assureur est celle qui suppose la volonté de causer le dommage et pas seulement d’en créer le risque. […] La faute intentionnelle au sens de l’art. L113-1, al.2,C. assur. suppose que l’assuré a voulu non seulement l’action ou l’omission génératrice du dommage mais encore le dommage lui-même; Hubert GROUTEL, Code des Assurances, Annotations de jurisprudence et de bibliographie relatives aux “Responsabilités professionnelles, 14ème édit., Dalloz, 2008, p.35.

## Page 214

174 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO agomba gutanga ibimenyetso bigaragaza ko uwishingiwe yakoze ikosa agambiriye kwangiza. [37] Ku bijyanye n’uru rubanza, SANLAM ivuga ko itaryozwa indishyi Bizimana védaste asaba, mu gihe Habimana Daniel wari utwaye ikinyabiziga cyishingiwe yaba yaremeye kumutwara mu gice cy’inyuma cy’imodoka itwaye amatafari, kuko yari azi neza ko bibujijwe n’ingingo ya 66, agace ka 4, y’Iteka rya Perezida Nº 85/01 ryo ku wa 02/09/2002 rishyiraho amabwiriza rusange agenga imihanda n’uburyo bwo kuyigenderamo17, akaba rero yarakoze amakosa abizi kandi abishaka. [38] Nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, kuba nyiri ugukora igikorwa cyangije yagikoze abizi kandi abishaka, ubwabyo ntibikuraho ubwishingire bw’uburyozwe. Uburyozwe butishingirwa, ni ubuturutse ku ikosa rikozwe nkana n’uwishingiwe, ni ukuvuga ikosa rikozwe hagambiriwe kwangiza, umwishingizi ubiburanisha akaba agomba kubitangira ibimenyetso. ibi bikaba bihindura umurongo watanzwe mu rubanza No RS/INJUST/RC 00002/2021/SC, rwaciwe n’uru Rukiko ku wa 30/12/2021, Akarere ka Kirehe karegagamo SAHAM Assurance Rwanda Ltd yahindutse SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc, abazungura ba GATASHYA Ezra n’abandi18; uwo murongo ukaba waravugaga ko umwishingizi ataryozwa amakosa uwishingiwe yakoze abizi kandi abishaka.

17 Iyo ngingo iteganya ko Umuyobozi w’ikinyabiziga cyangwa uw’ikinyamitende itatu cyangwa uw’ikinyamitende ine bifite moteri abujijwe gutwara abantu mu bice by’inyuma bya karisoro y’icyo kinyabiziga cyangwa ya romoruki yacyo. 18 Urubanza No RS/INJUST/RC 00002/2021/SC, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 30/12/2021, Akarere ka Kirehe karegagamo SAHAM

## Page 215

175 SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA [39] Urukiko rusanga SANLAM itagaragaza ibimenyetso by’uko Habimana Daniel yakoze ikosa ryo gutwara Bizimana Védaste mu gice cy’inyuma cy’imodoka, kibujijwe gutwaramo abantu, agambiriye kumukomeretsa; bikaba rero atari impamvu yayivanaho kwishingira uburyozwe bw’indishyi zisabwa. 2. Ku bijyanye no kuba Bizimana Védaste ariwe wabaye nyirabayazana w’impanuka yakomerekeyemo [40] Ingingo ya 2 y’Itegeko No 41/2001 ryo ku wa 19/09/2001 ryerekeye imyishyurire y’abangirijwe n’impanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga bigenzwa na moteri kandi bigenda ku butaka iteganya ibi bikurikira: “indishyi zivugwa kuva ku ngingo ya 4 kugeza ku ya 10 z’iri Tegeko zigabanywa hakurikijwe uruhare uwangirijwe yagize mu mpanuka yabaye. Ikosa ry’uwangirijwe ntirimwemerera uruhare ku ndishyi cyangwa abafite uburenganzira ku bintu bye”. [41] Ku bireba uwishingiwe, nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, itegeko risobanura ko ikosa ritishingirwa ari irikozwe nkana, ni ukuvuga irikozwe hagambiriwe kwangiza. Ku birebana n’uwangirijwe n’impanuka, itegeko rivuga gusa ko ikosa rye rituma atagira uruhare ku ndishyi. ikibazo kiri aha, ni ukumenya niba ikosa iryo ari ryo ryose rituma uwangirijwe atishyurwa, kuko bigenze bityo interuro ya mbere y’ingingo ya 2 y’Itegeko rimaze kuvugwa igaragaza ko indishyi zihabwa uwangirijwe zigabanywa hakurikijwe uruhare yagize mu mpanuka, nta gisobanuro yaba ifite (mu gihe iyi interuro igaragaza ko indishyi zigabanywa hakurikijwe uruhare rw’uwangirijwe; bivuze ko hari

Assurance Rwanda Ltd yahindutse SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc, abazungura ba GATASHYA Ezra n’abandi, igika cya 37.

## Page 216

176 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 176 amakosa atuma ahabwa indishyi ariko zigabanyije). Mu gusubiza iki kibazo, Urukiko rurasanga ari ngombwa kwifashisha ibyo amategeko y’ibindi bihugu avuga ku kibazo nk’iki, n’ibisobanuro biyatangwaho. [42] Muri Leta Zunze Ubumwe z’Amerika, amategeko atandukana bitewe na Leta zigize icyo Gihugu. Muri Leta zimwe, ikosa iryo ariryo ryose ry’uwangirijwe n’impanuka rituma atishyurwa indishyi (contributory negligence system). Mu zindi Leta, ikosa ry’uwangirijwe rituma indishyi ahabwa zigabanuka hakurikijwe uruhare rwe mu mpanuka19. Ubu buryo bwa nyuma nabwo burimo ibyiciro bibiri (2): aho uwangirijwe ahabwa indishyi hakurikijwe uruhare rwe uretse igihe rwaba rungana na 100% (pure comparative fault system), n’aho uwangirijwe ahabwa indishyi hakurikijwe uruhare rwe uretse igihe rwaba rungana cyangwa rurenze urw’uwamwangirije (modified comparative fault system) 20.

19 All but one of the states has chosen one of the following three approaches for victims who were partly at fault for their injuries: - Contributory negligence: the plaintiff cannot recover damages if they were at fault to any degree; - Pure comparative negligence: the plaintiff can recover damages reduced by their percentage of fault - Modified comparative negligence: the plaintiff can recover damages reduced by their percentage of fault if their fault is not 50 or 51 percent (varies by state) or greater; Justia Personal Injury Law Center Proving Fault and Damages in Personal Injury Lawsuits, Comparative & Contributory Negligence Laws: 50-State Survey, accessed on 16/12/2024, accessed on 16/12/2024, https://www.justia.com/injury/negligence-theory/comparative- contributory- negligence-laws-50-state-survey/. 20 In a pure comparative fault system, the plaintiff will not be barred from recovery unless the plaintiff is 100 percent at fault, but the plaintiff’s recovery will be reduced by her percentage of fault. In a modified comparative fault jurisdiction, the plaintiff may be barred from recovery if the plaintiff’s fault is

## Page 217

177 SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA 177 [43] Muri Leta ya Alaska, ikosa ry’uwangirijwe rituma indishyi agenerwa zigabanuka hakurikijwe uruhare rwe, ariko ntirituma atazihabwa21. ibi ni nako bimeze muri Leta ya California22. Muri Leta ya Minnesota naho ikosa ry’uwangirijwe rituma indishyi agenerwa zigabanuka hakurikijwe uruhare rwe, ariko igihe yagize uruhare rurenze 50% nta ndishyi ahabwa. Nta ndishyi ahabwa kandi igihe ikosa ryamwangirije yarikoze nkana aricyo agambiriye23. Muri Leta ya Arizona naho ni kimwe no

equal to or greater than the fault of the defendant, or in some jurisdictions, only where the plaintiff’s fault is greater than the defendant’s fault; Steenson Mike, Minnesota Comparative Fault—Statutory Reform, Journal of law and practice, vol.9, art. 4, 2016, p.7, http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/lawandpractice/vol9/iss1/4. 21 “In an action based on fault seeking to recover damages for injury or death to a person or harm to property, contributory fault chargeable to the claimant diminishes proportionately the amount awarded as compensatory damages for the injury attributable to the claimant's contributory fault, but does not bar recover”; Alaska Statutes, § 09.17.060 (2023) - Effect of contributory fault US Codes and Statutes US Law Justia, accessed on 16/12/2024, https://law.justia.com/codes/alaska/title-9/chapter-17/section-09-17-060/; https://law.justia.com/codes/alaska/title-9/chapter-17/section-09-17-060/. 22 California follows the pure comparative negligence rule. You can recover damages in cases even if you are partially at fault. If you and the defendant are found negligent, the jury assigns a percentage of fault to each party. The total compensation awarded to you is reduced by your percentage of fault. If you are 99% at fault, you can still receive 1% of the total-case value; Cutter Law P.C., What Is California's Comparative Negligence Law?, accessed on 16/12/2024, https://cutterlaw.com/california- laws/comparativenegligence/#:~:text=California%20follows%20the%20pur e%20comparative,by%20your%20percentage%20of%20fault. 23 “When two or more persons are severally liable, contributions to awards shall be in proportion to the percentage of fault attributable to each, except that the following persons are jointly and severally liable for the whole award: (1) a person whose fault is greater than 50 percent;

## Page 218

178 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 178 muri Leta ya Minnesota, uwangirijwe ntahabwa indishyi igihe yakoze nkana ikosa ryamwangirije24. [44] Mu Bufaransa, itegeko No 85-677 ryo ku wa 05/07/1985 rigamije kunoza imyishyurire y’abangirijwe n’impanuka zo mu muhanda, riteganya mu ngingo yaryo ya 3 (igika cya 1 n’icya 3) ko abangirijwe, uretse abatwaye ibinyabiziga bigendera ku butaka bigenzwa na moteri, bahabwa indishyi hatitawe ku ikosa baba bakoze uretse mu bihe bibiri: igihe bakoze ikosa ridakwiye kubabarirwa kandi rikaba ariryo ryonyine ryateje impanuka; n’igihe baba bashakishije nkana ibyago byababayeho25. Mu

(2) two or more persons who act in a common scheme or plan that results in injury; (3) a person who commits an intentional tort; […]”; Minnesota Statutes, & 604.02 (2024)- apportionment of damages, Official Publication of the State of Minnesota, accessed on 16/12/2024, https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/2024/2024-11- 01%2021:08:20+00:00/cite/604.02/pdf. 24 “There is no right to comparative negligence in favor of any claimant who has intentionally, wilfully or wantonly caused or contributed to the injury or wrongful death”; Arizona Revised Statutes, § 12-2505 (2023)-comparative negligence US Codes and Statutes US Law Justia, accessed on 16/12/2024, https://law.justia.com/codes/arizona/title-12/section-12-2505/. 25 Article 3 de la Loi No 85-677 du 05/07/1985: “Les victimes, hormis les conducteurs de véhicules terrestres à moteur, sont indemnisées des dommages résultant des atteintes à leur personne qu'elles ont subis, sans que puisse leur être opposée leur propre faute à l'exception de leur faute inexcusable si elle a été la cause exclusive de l'accident. Les victimes désignées à l'alinéa précédent, lorsqu'elles sont âgées de moins de seize ans ou de plus de soixante-dix ans, ou lorsque, quel que soit leur âge, elles sont titulaires, au moment de l'accident, d'un titre leur reconnaissant un taux d'incapacité permanente ou d'invalidité au moins égal à 80 p. 100, sont, dans tous les cas, indemnisées des dommages résultant des atteintes à leur personne qu'elles ont subis.

## Page 219

179 SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA 179 rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rusesa imanza muri icyo Gihugu ku wa 28/03/2019, Urukiko rwasobanuye ko ikosa ridakwiye kubabarirwa ari irikozwe ku bushake kandi rifite uburemere bwihariye, rishyira nta mpamvu urikoze mu kaga gakomeye yagombaga kuba yatekerejeho26. [45] Mu Bwami bw’Ububiligi, abangirijwe batari abatwaye ikinyabiziga bahabwa indishyi, uretse abantu barengeje imyaka 14 y’amavuko bashakishije nkana ibyago byababayeho27. [46] icyo ibisobanuro bimaze gutangwa bihurizaho, ni uko ikosa rituma uwangirijwe adahabwa indishyi, ari iryabaye intandaro y’impanuka ryonyine (ni ukuvuga ku kigero cya 100%), kimwe n’iryo uwangirijwe yakoze nkana agambiriye ibyago byamubayeho. Urukiko rusanga icyo gisobanuro ari cyo

Toutefois, dans les cas visés aux deux alinéas précédents, la victime n'est pas indemnisée par l'auteur de l'accident des dommages résultant des atteintes à sa personne lorsqu'elle a volontairement recherché le dommage qu'elle a subi”. 26 “Seule est inexcusable au sens de ce texte [L. n° 85-677, 5 juill. 1985, art. 3] la faute volontaire d’une exceptionnelle gravité exposant sans raison valable son auteur à un danger dont il aurait dû avoir conscience »; Cour de Cassation, Civile, Chambre civile 2, 28 mars 2019, 18-14.125 18-15.855, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURiTExT000038373269. 27 Article 29 bis de la La loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire des véhicules Automoteurs tel que modifiée à ce jour, para 1 et 6: “§ 1er. En cas d'accident de la circulation impliquant un ou plusieurs véhicules automoteurs, aux endroits visés à l'article 2, § 1er, alinéa1er, et à l'exception des dégâts matériels et des dommages subis par le conducteur de chaque véhicule automoteur impliqué, tous les dommages subis par les victimes et leurs ayants droit et résultant de lésions corporelles ou du décès, y compris les dégâts aux vêtements, sont réparés solidairement par les assureurs qui, conformément à la présente loi, couvrent la responsabilité du propriétaire, du conducteur ou du détenteur des véhicules automoteurs. & 6: Les victimes âgées de plus de 14 ans qui ont voulu l'accident et ses conséquences ne peuvent se prévaloir des dispositions visées à l'alinéa 1er”.

## Page 220

180 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO gikwiye guhabwa interuro ya kabiri y’ingingo ya 2 y’Itegeko No 41/2001 ryo ku wa 19/09/2001 ryerekeye imyishyurire y’abangirijwe n’impanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga bigenzwa na moteri kandi bigenda ku butaka. [47] Ku bijyanye n’uru rubanza, uwitwa Ndayishimiye Béatrice (muramu wa Bizimana védaste) wagiye gutanga ikirego kuri Polisi mu mwanya w’uwakoze impanuka, yabwiye Umugenzacyaha ko Bizimana védaste yasabye lifuti umushoferi w’imodoka RAE 890 E, yagera aho aviramo akamukomangira ariko ntiyumve, bigatuma ayivamo ikigenda ipine y’inyuma ikamukandagira akaguru kakavunika. Uwitwa Nsabimana Lambert wari aho impanuka yabereye, yabwiye Umugenzacyaha ko impanuka yatewe no kuba Bizimana védaste yarururutse imodoka ikigenda, ndetse no kuba umushoferi atarahagaze ngo avemo neza. [48] Mu nyandikomvugo y’impanuka yakozwe ku wa 24/01/2021, Umugenzacyaha yasobanuye ko ashingiye ku miterere y’umuhanda urambuye neza ku buryo umuyobozi w’ikinyabiziga abasha kureba imbere n’inyuma; agashingira ku kuba umushoferi atemerewe gutwara abantu mu gice cy’inyuma kandi apakiye imizigo; agashingira kandi ku kuba ikinyabiziga cyose kigenzwa na moteri kigomba kugira nibura akarebanyuma (rétroviseur) kamwe, gateye ku buryo umushoferi ashobora kugenzura ibibera mu muhanda inyuma n’ibumoso; asanga impanuka yaratewe n’ubuteganye buke bwa Habimana Daniel wari utwaye imodoka. [49] Urukiko ruhuje imvugo z’abatangabuhamya n’ibivugwa mu nyandikomvugo y’Umugenzacyaha, rusanga Bizimana védaste yaragize uruhare mu mpanuka yakomerekeyemo, mu gihe yakoze ikosa ryo kururuka imodoka igenda. Urukiko

## Page 221

181 SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA rusanga ariko iryo kosa atari ryo ryonyine ryabaye impamvu y’impanuka, ahubwo harimo n’uruhare rw’uwari utwaye imodoka. Urukiko rusanga nanone n’ubwo Bizimana védaste yagize iyo myitwarire, atari agambiriye nkana ibyago byamubayeho. [50] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, Urukiko rurasanga Bizimana védaste atarakoze ikosa rituma atagira indishyi agenerwa, rivugwa mu nteruro ya kabiri y’ingingo ya 2 y’Itegeko No 41/2001 ryo ku wa 19/09/2001 ryavuzwe haruguru. Umwanzuro: [51] Hashingiwe ku ngingo z’amategeko zagaragajwe no ku bisobanuro byose byatanzwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga SANLAM ikwiye kuryozwa indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka yakomerekeyemo Bizimana védaste. 3. Kumenya niba hari indishyi zatangwa mu rubanza [52] SANLAM ivuga ko kuba impanuka Bizimana védaste yakomerekeyemo yaratewe n’amakosa ye yo kuba yaremeye gutwarwa mu gice cy’imodoka cyagenewe gutwara imizigo, no kuba yarihaye kururuka imodoka igenda, byumvikana ko yayishoye mu manza zidafite ishingiro, akaba yategekwa kuyishyura 1.000.000 Frw y’indishyi zo gushorwa mu manza z’amaherere; 3.000.000 Frw akubiyemo ay’igihembo cy’Avoka n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza, ni ukuvuga 2.400.000 Frw y’igihembo cy’Avoka ku nzego eshatu (800.000 Frw mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye, 800.000 Frw mu Rukiko Rukuru, 800.000 Frw mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga), na 600.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza ku nzego eshatu (200.000 Frw mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye, 200.000 Frw mu Rukiko Rukuru, na 200.000 Frw mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga).

## Page 222

182 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO [53] Bizimana védaste avuga ko urubanza rusubirishwamo rwasobanuye neza uruhare rwa SANLAM nk’umwishingizi w’ikinyabiziga cyamugonze, kandi ko rwanasesenguye mu buryo bwimbitse imanza SANLAM yaburanishije, igaragarizwa ko zidahuje kamere n’uru rubanza, akaba nta ndishyi akwiye kwishyuzwa kuko atari we nyirabayazana w’urubanza. Asaba ko SANLAM ari yo yamwishyura 1.000.000 Frw y’indishyi z’akababaro, 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cy’Avoka, na 500.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [54] Urukiko rurasanga indishyi SANLAM isaba itazihabwa kuko itsinzwe urubanza. Rurasanga amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’ay’igihembo cy’Avoka Bizimana védaste asaba yayahabwa, kuko byabaye ngombwa ko akurikirana urubanza agashaka n’umwunganira, ariko kuko ayo asaba ari menshi, akaba agenewe mu bushishozi bwarwo 300.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza na 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cy’Avoka. Ku bijyanye n’indishyi z’akababaro Bizimana védaste asaba, Urukiko rurasanga zidakwiye gusuzumwa kuko atari we wasubirishijemo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [55] Rwemeje ko ikirego rwashyikirijwe na SANLAM AG Plc cyo gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane urubanza Nº RCA 00050/2022/HC/RSZ rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi ku wa 26/07/2023, nta shingiro gifite;

## Page 223

183 SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA [56] Rwemeje ko imikirize y’urubanza Nº RCA 00050/2022/HC/RSZ rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi ku wa 26/07/2023, idahindutse; [57] Rutegetse SANLAM AG Plc guha Bizimana védaste 300.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza na 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cy’Avoka.

## Page 224

184 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 225

185 MUKAKALISA ET.AL v SONARWA ET.AL (ADD) 185 185

MUKAKALISA N’ABANDI v SONARWA N’UNDI (ADD) [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA - RS/iNJUST/RC 00009/2024/SC (Hitiyaremye, P.J., Muhumuza, Kazungu, J.) 22 Ugushyingo 2024] Amategeko agenga imanza z’imboneza mubano – Amasezerano yo kwikiranura – Ukwikiranura ni amasezerano abayagiranye bakora barangiza ikibazo cyari hagati yabo, cyangwa se cyashoboraga kuvuka, buri wese agize ibyo yigomwa agakorwa hubahirizwa ibiteganywa n’amategeko rusange agenga ikorwa ry’amasezerano – Iyo bikozwe n’utabifitiye ububasha bwuzuye cyangwa se ibikorwa byakozwe n’intumwa birenze ububasha yahawe, bifatwa nkaho bitabayeho. Amategeko agenga imanza z’imbonezamubano – Ubutumwa – Ubutumwa bwo guhara ikintu - Ubutumwa bwo guhara ikintu, gutanga ingwate ku bintu bitimukanwa cyangwa ikindi gikorwa cyemerewe nyir’ibintu gusa, bugomba kubigaragaza mu buryo bweruye. Amategeko agenga imanza z’imbonezamubano – Ubutumwa – Ubutumwa bwa rusange - Utanze ubutumwa bwo gukora icyo azabona gikwiye, ikiri mu nyungu ze cyangwa bwo gukora ibikorwa byose na we ubwe yashoboraga kwikorera, aba atanze ubutumwa bwa rusange, bene ubwo butumwa bukaba bureba ibikorwa byo gucunga umutungo. Incamake y’ikibazo: iki kibazo gikomoka ku mpanuka yabaye ku wa 24 Mutarama 2024 ubwo Nshimyumuremyi yagongwaga n’imodoka yari ifite ubwishingizi muri SONARWA hanyuma

## Page 226

186 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 186

agahita apfa. Umubyeyi we witwa Mukakalisa n’abavandimwe be 4 bakurikiranye indishyi binyuze mu bubasha bahaye uwitwa Karonkano ngo abakurkirinire izo ndishyi muri SONARWA. Mukakalisa yaje kubona kuri konti ye indishyi zingana na FRW 357.000, abwirwa ko andi azashyirwaho nyuma kuko ayo yari make ariko arategereza araheba. Abasaba indishyi baje gutanga ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Karongi barega umwishingizi na Karonkana bavuga ko babariganije ntibabahe indishyi zikwiye ariko ikirego nticyakiriwe ngo kuko cyashaje kandi hakaba haranabayeho kwikiranura. Abarega bajuririye icyo cyemezo mu Rukiko Rukuru, rwemeza ko ikirego kitashaje, urubanza rusubizwa mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Karongi. Urwo Rukiko rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko habayeho kwikiranura hagati y’abasaba indishyi n’umwishingizi. Abarega ntibanyuzwe bajuririra icyo cyemezo mu Rukiko Rukuru narwo rwemeza ko habayeho kwikiranura. Mukakalisa n’abo bafatanyije ikirego bagiye mu nzira z’akarengane maze urubanza rwabo ruhabwa Urukiko rw’Ikirenga hasuzumwa ikibazo cyo kumenya niba harabayeho kwikiranura hagati ya Mukakalisa n’abana be na SONARWA General insurance Company Ltd. Abarega bavuga ko batigeze bahabwa indishyi zose mu buryo busobanutse nkuko ziteganywa n’amategeko kandi ko batigeze bemeza inyandiko yo kwikiranura ngo bemeranye ku ndishyi bagombaga guhabwa. Bakomeza bavuga ko Karonkano yakoze uburiganya bwo guhara zimwe mu ndishyi hanyuma bituma bahabwa indishyi nkeya bityo ibyo yakoze mu busha atahawe bikaba byateshwa agaciro. SONARWA yo ivuga ko habayeho ubwumvikane hanyuma ikishyura indishyi zumvikanyweho naho Karonkano we akavuga ko yahawe ububasha n’abarega bwo kubakurikiranira indishyi,

## Page 227

187 MUKAKALISA ET.AL v SONARWA ET.AL (ADD) 187

ageze muri SONARWA abwirwa ko indishyi zigomba gutangwa ari FRW 357.000 kandi ko zateguwe hashingiwe ku itegeko. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Ukwikiranura ni amasezerano abayagiranye bakora barangiza ikibazo cyari hagati yabo, cyangwa se cyashoboraga kuvuka, buri wese agize ibyo yigomwa agakorwa hubahirizwa ibiteganywa n’amategeko rusange agenga ikorwa ry’amasezerano. Iyo bikozwe n’utabifitiye ububasha bwuzuye cyangwa se ibikorwa byakozwe n’intumwa birenze ububasha yahawe, bifatwa nkaho bitabayeho. 2. Ubutumwa bwo guhara ikintu, gutanga ingwate ku bintu bitimukanwa cyangwa ikindi gikorwa cyemerewe nyir’ibintu gusa, bugomba kubigaragaza mu buryo bweruye. 3. Utanze ubutumwa bwo gukora icyo azabona gikwiye, ikiri mu nyungu ze cyangwa bwo gukora ibikorwa byose na we ubwe yashoboraga kwikorera, aba atanze ubutumwa bwa rusange, bene ubwo butumwa bukaba bureba ibikorwa byo gucunga umutungo. 4. Ukwikiranura bikozwe n’utabifitiye ububasha bwuzuye cyangwa se ibikorwa byakozwe n’intumwa bitari mu bubasha bwayo, birenze ububasha yahawe, bifatwa nkaho bitabayeho. Ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane gifite ishingiro; Nta kwiranura kwabayeho. Amategeko yashingiweho: iteka rya Perezida N° 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga, ingingo ya 11, 12, 23.

## Page 228

188 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 188

Nta manza zifashishijwe Inyandiko z’abahanga zifashishijwe: Loic CADiET « Dictionnaire de la Justice », Paris, 2004, verbo Transaction; Encyclopédie de droit civil belge, code civil, i, Tome vi, articles 1915 à 2281, p.103, N°4 al.3, par Gustave BELTJENS, Bruxelles, Etablissement Emile Bruylant, 1907; François LAURENT, Principes de droit civil, Bruxelles, Bruylant – Christophe et cie., 1877, p.486-487, N° 434. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Ku itariki ya 24/01/2010, imodoka GR 466 C ifite ubwishingizi muri SONARWA yagonze Nshimyumuremyi François arapfa. [2] Mukakalisa Alphonsine umubyeyi we n’abavandimwe be bane (4), Musabyimana vestine, Nyiraneza Rosine, Nyiranzabandora Aline, Nyiransabimana Dorothée, bifashishije Karonkano Etienne1 basabye SONARWA indishyi zikomoka kuri iyi mpanuka, ku wa 23/10/2010 yishyura 357.000 Frw yashyizwe kuri konti ya Mukakalisa Alphonsine muri Banki y’Abaturage. [3] Mukakalisa Alphonsine avuga ko amafaranga ageze kuri konti yabajije Karonkano Etienne impamvu indishyi zishyuwe ari

1 intumwa yabo muri SONARWA, se wabo wa Mukakalisa Alphonsine.

## Page 229

189 MUKAKALISA ET.AL v SONARWA ET.AL (ADD) 189

nkeya, amusubiza ko hari andi mafaranga SONARWA izohereza, ni uko arategereza. [4] Abonye ayo mafaranga yasigaye atayabonye kandi ayishyuwe ari makeya cyane, yashatse umunyamategeko maze ku itariki ya 09/11/2020 arega SONARWA na Karonkano Etienne mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Karongi, abarega uburiganya bakoze mu iyishyurwa ry’indishyi, asaba Urukiko gutegeka SONARWA kwishyura indishyi zikwiye zibazwe hashingiwe ku mategeko agenga iki kibazo; kuri Karonkano asaba ko ategekwa kumusubiza igihembo yamuhaye kingana na 180.000 Frw (ikirego gihabwa No RC 00071/2020/TGi/KNG). [5] Abaregwa bireguye bavuga ko ikirego kidakwiriye kwakirwa kuko habayeho kwikiranura kandi ko cyanashaje, kuko cyatanzwe nyuma y’imyaka itanu (5)2. [6] Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Karongi rwaciye urubanza ku wa 28/10/2020 ruvuga ko ikirego kitakiriwe kuko cyashaje ndetse ko impande zombi zikiranuye. [7] Mukakalisa n’abana be bajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi, bavuga ko nta kwikiranura nta n’ubusaze byabayeho, icyo kirego gihabwa No RCA 00054/2021/HC/RSZ. [8] Ku itariki ya 29/06/2022, Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi, rwaciye urubanza ruvuga ko ubujurire bwakiriwe,

2 Ingingo ya 4, y’Itegeko N° 01/2002 ryo ku wa 17/01/2002 rihindura kandi ryuzuza itegeko-teka N° 20/75 ryo ku wa 20 Kamena 1975 ryerekeye Ubwishingizi muri rusange, iteganya ko « Igihe cy’ubusaze cyo gukurikirana ikibazo n’ibirego ibyo ari byo byose bikomoka ku masezerano y’ubwishingizi kimara imyaka itanu ».

## Page 230

190 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 190

rutesha agaciro urubanza rwari rwajuririwe, rutegeka ko rusubira mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rukaburanishwa mu mizi. Urukiko rwasobanuye ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwirengagije ibimenyetsob yatanzwe n’abarega bigaragaza ko nta kwikiranura kwubahirije amategeko kwabayeho, bityo ko nta n’ubusaze bw’ikirego cyabo bwabayeho. [9] Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Karongi rwakiriye dosiye ruyandika kuri No RC 00047/2022/TGi/KNG, ruca urubanza ku wa 21/12/2022 rurongera ruvuga ko habayeho kwikiranura n’ubwo inyandiko yabyo itagaragara, rwanzura ko nta buranisha mu mizi rigomba gukorwa. [10] Uru rubanza Mukakalisa n’abo barusangiye barongeye barujuririra mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi, ruhabwa No RCA 00001/2023/HC/RSZ. Ku wa 16/10/2023, Urukiko rwaciye urubanza ruvuga noneho ko ababuranyi bikiranuye “nubwo amasezerano yo kwikiranura afite imyandikire yayo” ndetse no muri dosiye “akaba atagaragazwa”, rwemeza ko hagumyeho imikirize y’urubanza No RC00047/2022/TGi/KNG. [11] Mukakalisa Alphonsine n’abana be ntibishimiye iyo mikirize, maze bandikira Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire basaba ko urubanza No RCA 00001/2023/HC/RSZ rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi, ku wa 16/10/2023, rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire amaze gusuzuma ubwo busabe, yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, asaba ko urwo rubanza rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. [12] Nyuma yo gusuzuma raporo yarukorewe, Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga yemeje ko urubanza rwavuzwe rwongera

## Page 231

191 MUKAKALISA ET.AL v SONARWA ET.AL (ADD) 191

kuburanishwa n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, rwandikwa kuri No RS/iNJUST/RC 00009/2024/SC. [13] Mu myanzuro ya Mukakalisa Alphonsine n’abana be, bavuga ko akarengane bagiriwe gashingiye ku kwirengagiza amategeko ku buryo bugaragarira buri wese, kuko Urukiko rwanze kwifashisha ingingo za 11, 21, 22 na 23 z’Iteka rya Perezida N° 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/8/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga (muri uru rubanza turi bukoreshe amagambo “ Iteka rya Perezida”), nyamara iyo rubikora rwari kubona ko ibiteganywa n’ingingo zivuzwe haruguru bitubahirijwe, bityo ko nta kwikiranura kwabaye hagati y’abarega na SONARWA; bavuga ko n’intumwa yabo itujuje inshingano yahawe neza; bityo ko mu irihwa ry’indishyi habaye uburiganya bw’abaregwa. [14] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku wa 14/10/2024, Mukakalisa Alphonsine, Musabyimana valentine, Nyiraneza Rosine, Nyiranzabandora Aline na Nyiransabimana Dorothée bahagarariwe na Me Nsengiyumva Eugène; SONARWA General lnsurance Ltd ihagarariwe na Me Bagomora Charles; Karonkano Etienne yunganiwe na Me Ruganza Bin Seba, habanza gusuzumwa ikibazo kijyanye no kumenya niba harabayeho kwikiranura hagati ya SONARWA na Mukakalisa Alphonsine n’abana be.

## Page 232

192 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 192

II. IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYACYO • Kumenya niba harabayeho kwikiranura hagati ya Mukakalisa Alphonsine n’abana be na SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd [15] Me Nsengiyumva Eugène uhagarariye Mukakalisa Alphonsine n’abana be, igisubizo cye kuri iki kibazo agishingira ku ngingo ya 11 y’Iteka rya Perezida, iteganya ko “Iyo umwishingizi amaze kwakira inyandiko zavuzwe mu ngingo ibanza3 kandi zerekana ko isaba ry’indishyi rifite ishingiro, ashyikiriza uwahohotewe, mu gihe kitarenze iminsi mirongo itatu, uburyo bwo kwishyura busobanutse kandi butanga imibare ijyanye n’itangwa ry’indishyi”. [16] Akomeza asobanura ko uburyo bwo kwishyura buvugwa n’iyi ngingo ari inyandiko ikorwa hagati y’umwishingizi n’usaba indishyi, ubwumvikane bwagerwaho impande zombi zikayisinya. Avuga ko muri iyi dosiye ibintu bitangenze uko kuko abakiliya be batigeze babona cyangwa se bahabwe iyi nyandiko.

3 ingingo ya 10 : « iyo uwahohotewe apfuye, abafite uburenganzira ku bye bagomba kugeza ku Mwishingizi bidatinze, dosiye yuzuye y’indishyi igizwe n’ibi bikurikira : inyandiko-mvugo irebana n’impanuka yakozwe na polisi ; icyemezo cy’uko uwahohotewe yapfuye cyatanzwe n’umutegetsi ubifitiye ububasha ; ibyemezo by’amavuko by’uwahohotewe n’iby’abamufiteho uburenganzira ; icyemezo cy’umwirondoro wuzuye w’uwahohotewe n’uw’abamufiteho uburenganzira ; ibyemezo by’uko abamufiteho uburenganzira bariho ; icyemezo cy’ubushyingiranwe cy’uwo bashyingiranwe ukiriho ».

## Page 233

193 MUKAKALISA ET.AL v SONARWA ET.AL (ADD) 193

[17] Yakomeje asobanura ko no mu nkiko zibanza iyi nyandiko itigeze igaragara, cyane cyane mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi, igihe rwacaga urubanza rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, kuko rwivugiye ko “kuba SONARWA na Karonkano batarigeze bagaragaza inyandiko y’ubwumvikane ubwabyo bidahagije kwerekana ko habayeho uburiganya”4. [18] Yongeyeho ko kandi kuba iyi nyandiko ari ubwa mbere igaragaye mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, bigomba kumvikana ko Urukiko rwaciye urubanza rudafite ikimenyetso cy’uko ababuranyi bikiranuye, ko ndetse iki kimenyetso kidakwiye gusuzumwa kuri uru rwego kuko kitaburanyweho mu manza zose zabanje, ashimangira ko ingingo ya 11 y’Iteka rya Perezida yirengagijwe, ko nta kwikiranura kwabayeho. [19] Kuri Karonkano Etienne, Me Nsengiyumva Eugène yibukije ingingo ya 70 y’Itegeko Nº 45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano abakiliya be bashingiyeho bamurega, iteganya ko « Buri ruhande rufite inshingano yo kurangiza amasezerano nta buriganya kandi rukarangwa n’imikorere myiza yemerwa ku bagiranye amasezerano ». Akomeza asobanura ko urukiko rwavuze ko nta ruhare yagize mu buriganya aregwa kandi nyamara ataragaragaje ikimenyetso cy’uko yabahaye inyandiko y’ubwumvikane yakoranye na SONARWA; asoza avuga ko uburyo Karonkano yitwaye mu butumwa yahawe bitandukanye n’ibiteganywa n’iyi ngingo, bityo uru Urukiko rukaba rukwiye kwemeza ko yagize uruhare rukomeye mu buriganya bakorewe.

4 Reba urubanza RCA 00001/2023/HC/RSZ, p.6, igika cya 22.

## Page 234

194 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 194

[20] Me Bagomora Charles uhagarariye SONARWA avuga ko habaye ubwumvikane hagati yayo n’abarega ku wa 28/05/2010, bishyurwa amafaranga yumvikanyweho, ko rero asanga SONARWA yarubahirije ibiteganywa n’ingingo 9 (3) y’Iteka rya Perezida5, bityo inkiko zabanje zikaba nta kosa zakoze kuko zashingiye ku buhamya bwa Karonkano Etienne wari intumwa uvuga ko yashyikirije abamutumye inyandiko y’ubwumvikane. [21] Asobanura ko kubera ko dosiye yari yarumvikanyweho kera bitoroshye kuyibona, ariko kuko abarega bakomeje imanza kandi bemeza ko nta bwumvikane bwabayeho, SONARWA yashyizeho itsinda ry’abakozi barayishaka aho ibonekeye niho itangiye ikimenyetso cy’ubwumvikane, asoza asaba Urukiko kubona ko impamvu z’akarengane zashingiweho zitandukanye n’ibimenyetso byatanzwe nyuma, bityo bikaba bigomba gusuzumanwa ubushishozi. [22] Karonkano Etienne yunganiwe na Me Ruganza Bin Seba avuga ko yahawe ububasha bwo gukurikirana indishyi za Mukakalisa Alphonsine n’abana be muri SONARWA. Akomeza avuga ko hagati ye na SONARWA habaye ubwumvikane yemera kwishyura 357.000 Frw, ashyikirizwa beneyo bari bamutumye binyuze kuri konti bari bafunguje. [23] Avuga ko ajya kureba SONARWA nta mibare y’indishyi yateguye, ko ahubwo ariyo yayikoze imubwira ko ishingiye ku itegeko, indishyi igomba gutanga zihwanye na 357.000 Frw,

5 Ingingo ya 9, igika cya 3 y’Iteka rya Perezida No 31/01 ryo kuwa 25/08/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw'umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n'ibinyabiziga, iteganya ko « iyo abagiranye amasezerano bumvikanye ku buryo bwo kuriha amafaranga atangwa, bagomba gukurikiza ku buryo budasubirwaho iryo rihwa ry’ayo mafaranga »

## Page 235

195 MUKAKALISA ET.AL v SONARWA ET.AL (ADD) 195

atazemera akagana inkiko. Asoza avuga ko ibyari byumvikanyweho yabimenyesheje ba nyirubwite bakabyemera nyuma yo kubaha impapuro zakoreshejwe mu bwumvikane, ari na zo bifashishije babikuza amafaranga SONARWA yari yabageneye n’ubwo nta bimenyetso abifitiye kuko byakorwaga mu kivandimwe. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [24] Ingingo ya 12 y’Iteka rya Perezida N° 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga, iteganya ko “Mu gihe cy’iminsi mirongo itatu uhereye ku itariki y’iyakirwa ry’uburyo bwo kwishyura bwatanzwe n’Umwishingizi, abafite uburenganzira bahita batanga icyemezo cyabo kuri ubwo buryo bwatanzwe. iyo icyo gihe kirenze, nta cyemezo cyatanzwe, bifatwa nk’aho abafite uburenganzira babyemeye. iyo hatabayeho ubwumvikane ku buryo bwo kuriha amafaranga atangwa, uburyo bwatanzwe n’Umwishingizi ntibwemerwa. Iyo habayeho ubwumvikane ku buryo bwo kuriha, abagiranye amasezerano bagomba gukurikiza ku buryo budasubirwaho iryo rihwa ry’ayo mafaranga”. [25] Ingingo ya 11 y’Iteka rya Perezida rimaze kuvugwa, iteganya ko « iyo umwishingizi amaze kwakira inyandiko zavuzwe mu ngingo ibanza6 kandi zerekana ko isaba ry’indishyi rifite ishingiro, ashyikiriza uwahohotewe, mu gihe kitarenze iminsi mirongo itatu, uburyo bwo kwishyura busobanutse kandi butanga imibare ijyanye n’itangwa ry’indishyi ». Mu Gifaransa yanditse itya: « Dès que l’assureur a réceptionné tous les

6 voir supra note 3.

## Page 236

196 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 196

documents cités à l’article précédent et justifiant le bien fondé de sa demande d’indemnisation, il transmet à la victime, endéans trente jours, une propostion de règlement motivée et chiffrée relative à l’indemnisation. » [26] Ingingo ya 23 y’Iteka rya Perezida ivuga ko « Amafaranga atangirwa ku ibangamirwa ry’umubano igihe umuntu apfuye, agomba guhabwa gusa abantu bavugwa hepfo kandi hakurikijwe ibiteganywa n’iri Teka: uwo bashakanye: 1 x umushahara w’umwaka muto ntarengwa wemewe n’amategeko; ababyeyi n’abana b’isezerano cyangwa bemewe n’amategeko: 0,75 x umushahara w’umwaka muto ntarengwa wemewe n’amategeko; abavandimwe babo: 0,5 x umushahara w’umwaka muto ntarengwa wemewe n’amategeko ». [27] Urukiko rusanga mu mushinga wo kwikiranura uri muri dosiye (proposition de transaction) nta mushahara w’umwaka muto ntarengwa wemewe n’amategeko (SMIG) nta n’igipimo (TAUX) byabariweho indishyi byanditseho; kuri paji ya 2, y’uwo mushinga kandi, mu gice cyagenewe icyo abagiranye ibiganiro bongeraho « Autres observations7 » nta cyanditseho, haba ku ruhande rw’uregera indishyi (proposition de la victime), haba ku rw’umukozi w’Umwishingizi. Rusanga nanone kuri uyu mushinga wo kwikiranura handitse abavandimwe batatu gusa kandi ari bane nk’uko dosiye y’urubanza ibigaragaza; ibi byose bikaba bigaragaza ko umushinga wo kwikiranura uri muri dosiye utujuje ibiteganywa n’amategeko, ku buryo wahabwa agaciro.

7 Aha niho hari kugaragara indishyi Karonkano Etienne yaje asaba SONARWA, izo SONARWA yatanze n’ishingiro rya zo; impamvu zatumye indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu zitishyurwa n’ishingiro ry’icyo cyemezo, niba hari umurongo watanzwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga nawo ukibutswa, etc., mbese aha hari kwandikwa ibisobanuro byose byerekeye kwikiranura.

## Page 237

197 MUKAKALISA ET.AL v SONARWA ET.AL (ADD) 197

[28] Abahanga mu mategeko bavuga ko kwikiranura ari amasezerano abayagiranye bakora barangiza ikibazo cyari hagati yabo, cyangwa se cyashoboraga kuvuka, buri wese agize ibyo yigomwa. « La transaction est un contrat par lequel les parties terminent une contestation née, ou préviennent une contestation à naître, en s’accordant des concessions réciproques8 ». [29] Aba bahanga mu mategeko muri iki gitabo cyabo bakomeza basobanura ko: ikorwa ry’amasezerano yo kwikiranura ryubahiriza ibiteganywa n’amategeko rusange agenga ikorwa ry’amasezerano kugirango kwikiranura kugire agaciro. [30] Bakomeza basobanura ko amasezerano yo kwikiranura ashingiye ku kwemeranya (consensuel), ko mu kwikiranura bisaba ko hari ibyo wari ufiteho uburenganzira uhara, ibyo bikaba bisaba ko ukora amasezerano yo kwikiranura aba abifitiye ubushobozi (capacité) n’ububasha (le pouvoir de disposer des droits concernés). Ikindi bitewe n’imiterere ya bene ayo masezerano, uhawe ubutumwa bwa rusange ntashobora kuyakora mu izina ry’uwamutumye ngo agire agaciro. [31] Abo bahanga nanone bavuga ko, bitewe nuko kwikiranura ari amasezerano akomeye kuko harimo kugira ibyo uhara, bisaba gushishoza kugira ngo bigaragare neza ko koko abagiranye ayo masezerano hari ibyo bemeranyije. Banzura bavuga ko, kimwe no mu yandi masezerano, no mu kwikiranura impande zombi zigira ibyo zemeranyaho mu buryo bwemewe kandi busobanutse9.

8 Loic CADiET « Dictionnaire de la Justice », Paris, 2004, verbo Transaction. 9 « La transaction étant un contrat, elle est soumise au droit commun des contrats pour ce qui relève de sa validité […]. La transaction est donc en

## Page 238

198 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 198

[32] Ku birebana n’ubutumwa bwahawe Karonkano Etienne10, Urukiko rusanga bwanditse muri aya magambo: « Njyewe Mukakalisa Alphonsine, umubyeyi wa Nshyimyumuremyi François, mpaye Karonkano Etienne uburenganzira bwo gukurikirana impanuka yakorewe Nshimyumuremyi François ikamuviramo gupfa, ayikorewe na Bus ya ONATRACOM kugira ngo tubone indishyi zikomoka kuri iyo mpanuka ». [33] Urukiko rurasanga mu rwego rw’amategeko, ubutumwa buteye butya bureba gusa ibikorwa byo gucunga umutungo (actes d’administration), ni ukuvuga ko butarimo ibikorwa byo guhara (actes de dispostion). Ubutumwa bwo guhara ikintu, gutanga ingwate ku bintu bitimukanwa cyangwa ikindi gikorwa cyemerewe nyir’ibintu gusa bugomba kubigaragaza mu buryo bweruye11.

principe un contrat consensuel. il reste que le contrat de transaction est un acte de disposition puisqu’il consacre la renonciation à un droit. Par conséquent, celui qui renonce doit jouir de la capacité et du pouvoir de disposer des droits concernés […] De surcroît, son caractère d’acte de disposition empêche qu’un mandataire n’ayant reçu qu’un mandat général, puisse valablement contracter une transaction pour le compte de son mandant. Etant un acte de disposition, la transaction est un acte grave, et il faut s’assurer de la réalité du consentement de ceux qui la concluent. Comme toute convention, la transaction implique que les parties aient échangé un consentement valable et éclairé », op.cit. supra note 8. 10 inyandiko yahawe Karonkano Etienne yiswe GUTANGA UBURENGANZIRA, ariko mu rwego rw’amategeko ni UBUTUMWA, iri jambo urisanga mu ngingo ya 529 Code civ.iii. mu Kinyarwanda, mu gitabo Codes et lois usuelles du Rwanda, vol.ii, cyanditswe na Gakwaya Jean, Gasasira Ephrem, et alii. 11 Article 1988 Code civil Français, édition 2008, Dalloz: « Le mandat conçu en termes généraux n’embrasse que les actes d’administration. S’il s’agit d’aliéner ou hypothéquer, ou de quelque autre acte de propriété, le mandat doit être exprès ».

## Page 239

199 MUKAKALISA ET.AL v SONARWA ET.AL (ADD) 199

[34] Abahanga mu mategeko bavuga ko utanze ubutumwa bwo gukora icyo azabona gikwiye, ikiri mu nyungu ze cyangwa bwo gukora ibikorwa byose nawe ubwe yashoboraga kwikorera, aba atanze ubutumwa bwa rusange, bene ubwo butumwa bukaba bureba ibikorwa byo gucunga umutungo12. [35] Tugarutse ku myandikire y’ububasha bwahawe Karonkano Etienne amagambo y’ingenzi arimo ni: « gukurikirana impanuka […] kugira ngo tubone indishyi » : aya magambo yumvikanisha ko ububasha yahawe bwerekeye kwegera SONARWA akamenya ibisabwa (impapuro zo mu butegetsi), akamenya indishyi yemera kwishyura nta manza zibayeho etc., ibi byose akaba ari ibikorwa byo ku rwego rwo gucunga umutungo ; mu gihe kwikiranura bikenera ububasha bweruye nk’uko twabibonye (un mandant spécial). [36] Ku byerekeye amasezerano y’ubutumwa ajyanye no kwikiranura, abahanga mu mategeko bibaza agaciro ko kwikiranura gukozwe n’utabifitiye ububasha bwuzuye (buhagije) cyangwa se agaciro k’ibikorwa byakozwe n’intumwa bitari mu bubasha bwayo, birenze ububasha yahawe. Basobanura ko ibyo bikorwa bifatwa nkaho bitabayeho kuko nta kwemera k’uwatanze ubutumwa kwabayeho (inexistence pour défaut de consentement du mandant). Muri ayo masezerano uwahawe ubutumwa aba yahagaragaye mu izina ry’uwabumuhaye, ariko nta bubasha aba afite bwo kumuhagararira mu gihe yarenze ku

12 12 « Celui qui donne à son mandataire de faire tout ce qu’il jugera convenable pour ses intérêts, ou pouvoir de faire tous les actes qu’il pourrait faire lui-même, donne un mandat conçu en termes généraux; ce mandat ne comprendra que les actes d’admnistration » (Encyclopédie de droit civil belge, code civil, i, Tome vi, articles 1915 à 2281, p.103, n°4 al.3, par Gustave BELTJENS, Bruxelles, Etablissement Emile Bruylant, 1907).

## Page 240

200 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 200

bubasha yahawe. ibyo bigasobanura ko uwatanze ubutumwa aba adahagarariwe muri ayo masezerano, inkurikizi ikaba ko nta kwemera kuba kwabayeho ku ruhande rw’uwatanze ubutumwa, bisobanuye ko nta n’amasezerano aba yabayeho13. [37] Ku birebana n’uru rubanza, mu iburanisha, Karonkano Etienne yasobanuye ko nta mubare w’amafaranga y’indishyi yateguye asaba SONARWA, ko ahubwo ari yo yatanze umubare ivuga ko yashingiye ku itegeko; ibi bikaba byaranashimangiwe na Me BAGOMORA Charles uyiburanira wavuze ko abarega nta mibare bahaye intumwa yabo, ko kandi iyi ntumwa nta mibare yashoboraga gutanga kuko atari umunyamategeko; gusa akemera ko impande zombi zagiranye ibiganiro buri wese akagira icyo yigomwa. Urukiko rurasanga ariko nta kimenyetso kigaragaza ibyo biganiro n’ibyo buri ruhande rwigomwe, kandi nyamara kwigomwa kuri muri kamere yo kwikiranura nk’uko byasobanuwe n’abahanga mu mategeko bavuzwe haruguru.

13 13 « Quel serait l’effet d’une transaction faite sans pouvoir suffisant? La question doit être généralisée, et l’on doit se demander quel est l’effet de tout acte qu’un mandataire a fait en excédant ses pouvoirs. L’article 1998 dit que le mandant n’est pas tenu de ce que le mandataire a fait au-delà de son pouvoir, et l’article 1997 décide que le mandataire n’est tenu d’aucune garantie envers celui avec lequel il a traité s’il lui a donné connaissance suffisante de ses pouvoirs. […] l’acte fait par le mandataire sans pouvoir est-il nul à l’égard de toutes les parties, ou le mandant seul peut-il se prévaloir de la nullité? A nontre avis, il y a plus que nullité, l’acte est inexistant faute de consentement. En effet, le mandataire y a figuré au nom du mandan; or, il n’a aucune qualité pour le représenter en dehors des limites de son pouvoir ; donc, quand il dépasse ces limites, le mandant n’est plus représenté, il ne consent pas ; par suite il y a absence de consentement, ce qui entraîne l’inexistence du contrat même. » (François LAURENT, Principes de droit civil, Bruxelles, Bruylant – Christophe et cie., 1877, p.486-487, N° 434).

## Page 241

201 MUKAKALISA ET.AL v SONARWA ET.AL (ADD) 201

[38] Rushingiye ku bumenyi bukeya bwa Karonkano Etienne mu rwego rwa tekiniki cyangwa se rw’amategeko agenga irihwa ry’indishyi z’abakomerekeye mu mpanuka itewe n’ikinyabiziga kigendera ku butaka nk’uko n’uhagarariye SONARWA abyemeza, Urukiko rurasanga igihe cyo kwemeza burundu no gusinyira indishyi zagombaga kwishyurwa, SONARWA yari gusaba ko Mukakalisa Alphonsine asinya ubwe cyangwa se agatanga indi nyandiko yihariye yemezamo ko abonye umushinga wo kwikiranura kandi ko yemeye kwishyurwa indishyi zanditsemo zingana na 357.000 Frw, nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 12 y’Iteka rya Perezida yavuzwe haruguru. Kubigenza gutyo byari kugaragaza kwemeranya kwemewe kandi gusobanutse kwagarutsweho n’abahanga mu mategeko twabonye (consentement valide et éclairé des parties). [39] Urukiko ruributsa ko muri iyi dosiye, SONARWA yishyuye indishyi zingana na 357.000 Frw ku mpanuka yateje urupfu rw’umuntu ufite imyaka 21. Hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’Iteka rya Perezida mu ngingo zaryo twabonye n’ibi bisobanuro by’abahanga mu mategeko, izi ndishyi bigaragara ko ari nkeya cyane ku buryo zafatwa nk’aho ari ntazo kuko mu by’ukuri SONARWA ntacyo yigomwe. ibi bikaba bishimangirwa n’abahanga mu mategeko basonbanura ko nta kwikiranura kuba kwabayeho mu gihe hari uruhande rwemeye guhara uburenganzira bwarwo ruhawe ikiguzi kiri hasi cyane gisa nk’aho ari ntacyo14. [40] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro byose byatanzwe haruguru, Urukiko rusanga inyandiko yo ku wa 28/05/2010 yiswe iyo

14 « Réalité des concessions. Il n’y a pas transaction lorsqu’une partie abandonne ses droits pour une contrepartie si faible qu’elle est inexistante » (Note 2, sous art.2044 du Code civ. Paris, Dalloz, 107 édition, 2008, p. 2183).

## Page 242

202 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 202

kwikiranura yakozwe hagati ya SONARWA na Karonkano Etienne itahabwa agaciro nk’ak’amasezerano yo kwikiranura hagati ya SONARWA na Mukakalisa Alphonsine, Musabyimana valentine, Nyiraneza Rosine, Nyiranzabandora Aline na Nyiransabimana Dorothée, kuko kuri bo ayo masezerano ntayabayeho. [41] Iburanisha ry’uru rubanza mu mizi rizakomeza ku kirego kijyanye n’indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka yo mu muhanda Mukakalisa Alphonsine, Musabyimana valentine, Nyiraneza Rosine, Nyiranzabandora Aline na Nyiransabimana Dorothée basabaga mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Karongi, icyo gihe kandi akaba ari nabwo hazasuzumwa ikibazo cy’indishyi zasabwe muri uru rubanza. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [42] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Mukakalisa Alphonsine, Musabyimana valentine, Nyiraneza Rosine, Nyiranzabandora Aline na Nyiransabimana Dorothée gisaba gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane urubanza RCA 00001/2023/HC/RSZ rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi kuwa 16/10/2023, gifite ishingiro; [43] Rwemeje ko nta kwikiranura kwabayeho hagati ya Mukakalisa Alphonsine, Musabyimana valentine, Nyiraneza Rosine, Nyiranzabandora Aline na Nyiransabimana Dorothée na SONARWA General insurance Company Ltd; [44] Rwemeje ko iburanisha ry’urubanza rizakomeza hasuzumwa ibijyanye n’indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka zari zasabwe mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Karongi;

## Page 243

203 MUKAKALISA ET.AL v SONARWA ET.AL (ADD) 203

[45] Ruvuze ko urubanza ruzongera kuburanishwa ku itariki ya 07/01/2025 saa tatu (9h).

## Page 244

204 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 245

205 MUKAKALISA ET AL. v SONARWA ET .AL (Fond) 205 205 MUKAKALISA N’ABANDI v SONARWA N’UNDI (Fond) [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA - RS/iNJUST/RC 00009/2024/SC (Hitiyaremye, P.J., Muhumuza, Kazungu, J.) 07 Gashyantare 2025] Amategeko agenga imanza z’imbonezamubano – Indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka – Indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu – Umuntu ufite imyaka y’ubukuru – Indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu zikomoka ku rupfu rwatewe n’impanuka yo mu muhanda zigenerwa gusa uwari usanzwe atunzwe n’uwapfuye kandi akabitangira ibimenyetso ko yari amutunze koko – Mu gihe uzisaba afite imyaka y’ubukure, agomba kwerekana ko yari asanzwe atunzwe na nyakwigendera, akagaragaza impamvu idasanzwe yatumaga amwitaho, nk’inyandiko zo kwa muganga zerekana ko hari ubumuga afite, uburwayi cyangwa ikindi kibazo kidasanzwe cyatuma atibeshaho. Incamake y’ikibazo: iki kibazo gikomoka ku mpanuka yabaye ku wa 24 Mutarama 2024 ubwo Nshimyumuremyi yagongwaga n’imodoka yari ifite ubwishingizi muri SONARWA hanyuma agahita apfa. Umubyeyi we witwa Mukakalisa n’abavandimwe be 4 bakurikiranye indishyi binyuze mu bubasha bahaye uwitwa Karonkano ngo abakurkirinire izo ndishyi muri SONARWA. Mukakalisa yaje kubona kuri konti ye indishyi zingana na FRW 357.000, abwirwa ko andi azashyirwaho nyuma kuko ayo yari make ariko arategereza araheba. Abasaba indishyi baje gutanga ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Karongi barega umwishingizi na Karonkana bavuga ko babariganije ntibabahe

## Page 246

206 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO indishyi zikwiye ariko ikirego nticyakiriwe ngo kuko cyashaje kandi hakaba haranabayeho kwikiranura. Abarega bajuririye icyo cyemezo mu Rukiko Rukuru, rwemeza ko ikirego kitashaje, urubanza rusubizwa mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Karongi. Urwo Rukiko rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko habayeho kwikiranura hagati y’abasaba indishyi n’umwishingizi. Abarega ntibanyuzwe bajuririra icyo cyemezo mu Rukiko Rukuru narwo rwemeza ko habayeho kwikiranura. Mukakalisa n’abo bafatanyije ikirego bagiye mu nzira z’akarengane maze urubanza rwabo ruhabwa Urukiko rw’Ikirenga hasuzumwa ikibazo cyo kumenya niba harabayeho kwikiranura hagati ya Mukakalisa n’abana be na SONARWA General insurance Company Ltd. Urukiko rwasanze uko kwikiranura kutarabayeho kuko kwakozwe n’utabifitiye ububasha bwuzuye kandi ukwikiranura bikozwe n’utabifitiye ububasha bwuzuye cyangwa se ibikorwa byakozwe n’intumwa bitari mu bubasha bwayo, birenze ububasha yahawe, bifatwa nkaho bitabayeho. Urukiko rwasuzumye urubanza mu mizi hasuzumwa ibibazo byo kumenya niba harabayeho ubusaze bw’ikirego n’ishingiro ry’indishyi zasabwe zirimo iz’ibangamirabukingu, ibangamiramuco. SONARWA isobanura ko ikirego cyo kuregera indishyi gisaza mu myaka itanu bityo iki kirego kikaba cyarashaje kuko hashize imyaka icumi impanuka gikomokaho ibaye. Abaregera indishyi bo bavuga ko ubwo busaze butabayeho kuko basabye izo ndishyi mbere y’uko imyaka itanu ishira. Urukiko rwasanze iyi nzitizi nta shingiro ifite kuko abaregera indishyi batigeze bamenyeshwa umushinga w’indishyi bagombaga guhabwa ngo nabo bemere izo ndishyi.

## Page 247

207 MUKAKALISA ET AL. v SONARWA ET .AL (Fond) Mukakalisa asobanura ko yahabwa indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu kuko nyakwigendera ari we wari umutunze nk’umubyeyi we kandi w’umupfakazi ndetse na barumuna be bose akaba ari we wabahaga ibibatunga, kuko umwana agomba guha agaciro ababyeyi, kububaha no kubaha ibibatunga igihe babikeneye. SONARWA ivuga ko indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu abarega basaba batazihabwa kuko nta kimenyetso bagaragaje gihamya ko ari we wari ubatunze. Abarega kandi basaba ko bahabwa indishyi z’ibangamiramuco nkuko zigenwa n’amategeko. SONARWA yo ivuga koi zo ndishyi zitatangwa kuko habayeho ubusaze kandi ko nta kigaragaza ko abasaba izo ndishyi baba bakiriho kuko ibyangombwa bakoresha bimaze igihe bitanzwe. Urukiko rwasanze ibijyanye n’ubusaze SONARWA ivuga nta shingiro bifite naho ku bijyanye no kuba nta kigaragaza ko abaregera indishyi bakiriho, ko itagaragaza ibimenyetso by’uko batakiriho. Incamake y’icyemezo: indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu zikomoka ku rupfu rwatewe n’impanuka yo mu muhanda zigenerwa gusa uwari usanzwe atunzwe n’uwapfuye kandi akabitangira ibimenyetso ko yari amutunze koko. Mu gihe uzisaba afite imyaka y’ubukure, agomba kwerekana ko yari asanzwe atunzwe na nyakwigendera, akagaragaza impamvu idasanzwe yatumaga amwitaho, nk’inyandiko zo kwa muganga zerekana ko hari ubumuga afite, uburwayi cyangwa ikindi kibazo kidasanzwe cyatuma atibeshaho bityo indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu zikaba zidakwiye gutangwa kuko nta kimenyetso cy’uko abarega muri uru rubanza bari batuznwe na nyakwigendera ahubwo bakaba bakwiye guhabwa indishyi z’ibangamiramuco.

## Page 248

208 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko N⁰ 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, nk’uko ryahinduwe kugeza ubu, ingingo ya 111; itegeko–Teka No 32/1975 ryo ku wa 07/08/1975 ryerekeye ubwishingire butegetswe ku buryozwe butewe n’ibigenzwa ku butaka bifite moteri nk’uko ryahinduwe kugeza ubu, ingingo ya 10; iteka rya Perezida N° 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga, ingingo ya 12, 22, 23. Imanza zifashishijwe: RS/iNJUST/RC 00018/2022/SC, Niyonzima Léonidas n’abandi na SANLAM AG Plc rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 27/01/2023; RS/iNJUST/RS 00021/2022/SC, Mukagatare Régine n’abandi na SANLAM AG Plc rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 17/03/2023. I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Ku itariki ya 24/01/2010, imodoka GR 466 C ifite ubwishingizi muri SONARWA yagonze Nshimyumuremyi François arapfa.

## Page 249

209 MUKAKALISA ET AL. v SONARWA ET .AL (Fond) [2] Mukakalisa Alphonsine umubyeyi we n’abavandimwe be bane (4), ari bo Musabyimana vestine, Nyiraneza Rosine, Nyiranzabandora Aline, Nyiransabimana Dorothée, bifashishije Karonkano Etienne1, basabye SONARWA indishyi zikomoka kuri iyi mpanuka, ku wa 23/10/2010 yishyura 357.000 Frw yashyizwe kuri konti ya Mukakalisa Alphonsine muri Banki y’Abaturage. [3] Mukakalisa Alphonsine avuga ko amafaranga ageze kuri konti yabajije Karonkano Etienne impamvu indishyi zishyuwe ari nkeya, undi amusubiza ko hari andi mafaranga SONARWA izohereza, ni uko arategereza. [4] Abonye ayo mafaranga yasigaye atayabonye, yashatse umunyamategeko maze ku itariki ya 09/11/2020 arega SONARWA na Karonkano Etienne mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Karongi, abarega uburiganya bakoze mu iyishyurwa ry’indishyi, asaba Urukiko gutegeka SONARWA kwishyura indishyi zikwiye zibazwe hashingiwe ku mategeko agenga iki kibazo; kuri Karonkano asaba ko ategekwa kumusubiza igihembo yamuhaye kingana na 180.000 Frw, ikirego gihabwa No RC 00071/2020/TGi/KNG. [5] Abaregwa bireguye bavuga ko ikirego kidakwiriye kwakirwa kuko habayeho kwikiranura kandi ko cyanashaje, kuko cyatanzwe nyuma y’imyaka itanu (5)2.

1 Uyu ni se wabo wa Mukakalisa Alphonsine, ubutumwa yahawe bwanditswe ku itariki ya 14/02/2010. 2 Ingingo ya 4 y’Itegeko N° 01/2002 ryo ku wa 17/01/2002 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko- teka Teka N° 20/75 ryo ku wa 20 Kamena 1975 ryerekeye Ubwishingizi muri rusange nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu, iteganya ko « Igihe cy’ubusaze cyo gukurikirana ikibazo n’ibirego ibyo ari byo

## Page 250

210 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 210 [6] Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Karongi rwaciye urubanza ku wa 28/10/2020 ruvuga ko ikirego kitakiriwe kuko cyashaje ndetse ko impande zombi zikiranuye. [7] Mukakalisa n’abana be bajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi, bavuga ko nta kwikiranura nta n’ubusaze byabayeho, icyo kirego gihabwa No RCA 00054/2021/HC/RSZ. [8] Ku itariki ya 29/06/2022, Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi, rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko ubujurire bwakiriwe, rutesha agaciro urubanza rwari rwajuririwe, rutegeka ko rusubira mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rukaburanishwa mu mizi. Urukiko rwasobanuye ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwirengagije ibimenyetso byatanzwe n’abarega bigaragaza ko nta kwikiranura kubahirije amategeko kwabayeho, kandi ko nta n’ubusaze bw’ikirego bwabayeho. [9] Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Karongi rwakiriye dosiye ruyandika kuri No RC 00047/2022/TGi/KNG, ruca urubanza ku wa 21/12/2022 rurongera rwemeza ko habayeho kwikiranura n’ubwo inyandiko yabyo itagaragara, rwanzura ko nta buranisha mu mizi rigomba gukorwa. [10] Uru rubanza Mukakalisa n’abo barusangiye barongeye barujuririra mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi, ruhabwa No RCA 00001/2023/HC/RSZ. Ku wa 16/10/2023, Urukiko

byose bikomoka ku masezerano y’ubwishingizi kimara imyaka itanu ». Iki gihe cy’imyaka itanu (5) ni nacyo giteganywa n’ingingo ya 10, igika cya 1, y’Itegeko- Teka N° 32/75 ryo ku wa 07/08/1975 ryerekeye ubwishingire butegetswe ku buryozwe butewe n’ibigenzwa ku butaka bifite moteri, nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu.

## Page 251

211 MUKAKALISA ET AL. v SONARWA ET .AL (Fond) 211 rwaciye urubanza rwemeza noneho ko ababuranyi bikiranuye “nubwo amasezerano yo kwikiranura afite imyandikire yayo” ndetse no muri dosiye “akaba atagaragazwa”, rwemeza ko hagumyeho imikirize y’urubanza No RC 00047/2022/TGi/KNG. [11] Mukakalisa Alphonsine n’abana be ntibishimiye iyo mikirize, maze bandikira Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire basaba ko urubanza No RCA 00001/2023/HC/RSZ rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi, ku wa 16/10/2023, rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire amaze gusuzuma ubwo busabe, yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, asaba ko urwo rubanza rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. [12] Nyuma yo gusuzuma raporo yarukorewe, Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga yemeje ko urubanza rwavuzwe rwongera kuburanishwa n’Uru Rukiko, rwandikwa kuri No RS/iNJUST/RC 00009/2024/SC. [13] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku wa 14/10/2024, Mukakalisa Alphonsine, Musabyimana valentine, Nyiraneza Rosine, Nyiranzabandora Aline na Nyiransabimana Dorothée bahagarariwe na Me Nsengiyumva Eugène; SONARWA ihagarariwe na Me Bagomora Charles; Karonkano Etienne yunganiwe na Me Ruganza Bin Seba, habanza gusuzumwa ikibazo kijyanye no kumenya niba harabayeho kwikiranura hagati ya SONARWA na Mukakalisa Alphonsine n’abana be, Urukiko ruvuga ko icyemezo kizasomwa ku wa 22/11/2024. [14] Mu rubanza rubanziriza urundi rwaciwe ku wa 22/11/2024, Urukiko rwemeje ko nta masezerano yo kwikiranura yabayeho hagati ya Mukakalisa Alphonsine, Musabyimana

## Page 252

212 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO valentine, Nyiraneza Rosine, Nyiranzabandora Aline na Nyiransabimana Dorothée na SONARWA, rwemeza ko iburanisha rizakomeza ku wa 07/01/2025 hasuzumwa indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka yahitanye Nshimyumuremyi François zasabwaga mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Karongi (indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu, indishyi z’ibangamiramuco n’amafaranga y’ibyakoreshejwe mu gushyingura), hamwe n’indishyi zerekeranye n’ibyakoreshejwe muri uru rubanza zisabwa n’ababuranyi. [15] Ku wa 07/01/2025, iburanisha ryabereye mu ruhame, Mukakalisa Alphonsine, Musabyimana valentine, Nyiraneza Rosine, Nyiranzabandora Aline na Nyiransabimana Dorothée bahagarariwe na Me Nsengiyumva Eugène; SONARWA ihagarariwe na Me Bagomora Charles; Karonkano Etienne we iburanisha ryatangiye adahari, yageze mu Rukiko yakerewe afatira urubanza aho rwari rugeze, yunganiwe na Me Ruganza Bin Seba, hasuzumwa ibijyanye n’ubusaze bw’ikirego hamwe n’indishyi zasabwe n’abarega zavuzwe mu gika kibanziriza iki. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO 1. Kumenya niba harabayeho ubusaze bw’ikirego cy’indishyi [16] Me Bagomora Charles uhagarariye SONARWA avuga ko ikirego gisaba indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka gisaza nyuma y’imyaka itanu, kandi ko impanuka ikomokaho uru urubanza yabaye ku wa 24/01/2010, Karonkano Etienne intumwa y’abarega muri SONARWA ahabwa uburenganzira bwo gukurikirana indishyi ku wa 14/02/2010, noneho ikirego

## Page 253

213 MUKAKALISA ET AL. v SONARWA ET .AL (Fond) cy’indishyi gitangwa mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Karongi ku wa 28/10/2021. Bityo ko kuba abarega barareze nyuma y’imyaka icumi, uburenganzira bwabo babutakaje kubera ubusaze, ikirego kikaba kidakwiriye kwakirwa. [17] Me Nsengiyumva Eugène uhagarariye Mukakalisa n’abana be avuga ko ubwo busaze butabayeho kuko abarega basabye izo ndishyi mbere y’uko imyaka itanu ishira. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [18] Ingingo ya 10 y’Itegeko–Teka No 32/1975 ryo ku wa 07/08/1975 ryerekeye ubwishingire butegetswe ku buryozwe butewe n’ibigenzwa ku butaka bifite moteri nk’uko ryahinduwe kugeza ubu, iteganya ko «ikirego cyose cy’umuntu wangirijwe kiregwa uwishingiye gikomoka kuri iri Tegeko-Teka gisaza hashize imyaka itanu (5) uhereye igihe igikorwa cyateje ibyago cyabereyeho. ibihagarika ubusaze bw’ikirego uwangirijwe arega uwishingiwe bihagarika ubusaze bw’ikirego kiregwa uwishingiye. Ibihagarika ubusaze bw’ikirego uwangirijwe arega uwishingiye bihagarika ubusaze bw’ikirego cye arega abishingiwe. Ubusaze ku wishingiye buhagarikwa n’impamvu zose zishaka ubwumvikane hagati y’uwishingiye n’uwangirijwe. Igihe gishya cy’imyaka itanu gitangira uhereye igihe umwe muri bo amenyesheje undi ko ahagaritse ibiganiro byari bigamije ubwumvikane akoresheje inyandiko y’umuhesha w’inkiko (exploit d’huissier); iyo uko guhagarika gukozwe hakoreshejwe ibaruwa ishinganye (lettre recommandée) igihe gishya cy’ubusaze gitangira kubarwa ku munsi ukurikira uwo iyo baruwa yashyiriwe mu iposita».

## Page 254

214 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 214 [19] Ingingo ya 12 y’Iteka rya Perezida N° 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga, iteganya ko “Mu gihe cy’iminsi mirongo itatu uhereye ku itariki y’iyakirwa ry’uburyo bwo kwishyura bwatanzwe n’Umwishingizi, abafite uburenganzira bahita batanga icyemezo cyabo kuri ubwo buryo bwatanzwe. iyo icyo gihe kirenze nta cyemezo cyatanzwe, bifatwa nk’aho abafite uburenganzira babyemeye. iyo hatabayeho ubwumvikane ku buryo bwo kuriha amafaranga atangwa, uburyo bwatanzwe n’Umwishingizi ntibwemerwa. iyo habayeho ubwumvikane ku buryo bwo kuriha, abagiranye amasezerano bagomba gukurikiza ku buryo budasubirwaho iryo rihwa ry’ayo mafaranga”. [20] Urukiko rurasanga ibivugwa na SONARWA, ku ruhande rumwe, ko habayeho ubusaze bwo kuregera indishyi kuko Mukakalisa n’abana be batanze ikirego cyabo ku wa 28/10/2021 mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Karongi, hashize imyaka irenga 10 uhereye ku wa 28/05/2010 itariki Karonkano yasinyiye kuri “Proposition de Transaction”, nta shingiro bifite kuko itabamenyesheje umushinga w’indishyi ishaka kubaha kugirango nabo bemeze ko bawubonye kandi ko bemeye kwishyurwa indishyi zanditsemo zingana na 357.000 Frw, nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 12 y’Iteka rya Perezida. [21] Urukiko rusanga, ku rundi ruhande, ibiganiro bigamije kwemeza indishyi mu bwumvikane bitarigeze bihagarikwa mu buryo buteganyijwe n’ingingo ya 10 yibukijwe hejuru, kuko nta nyandiko y’Umuhesha w’Inkiko cyangwa inyandiko ishinganye mu iposita ibivuga yabayeho. [22] Hashingiwe ku ngingo z’amategeko zavuzwe hejuru n’ibisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, Urukiko rusanga nta busaze

## Page 255

215 MUKAKALISA ET AL. v SONARWA ET .AL (Fond) 215 bwabayeho bwo kuregera indishyi kuri Mukakalisa Alphonsine, Musabyimana valentine, Nyiraneza Rosine, Nyiranzabandora Aline na Nyiransabimana Dorothée. 2. Kumenya niba Mukakalisa Alphonsine, Musabyimana Valentine, Nyiraneza Rosine, Nyiranzabandora Aline na Nyiransabimana Dorothée bagenerwa indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu [23] Me Nsengiyumva Eugène uhagarariye Mukakalisa Alphonsine, Musabyimana valentine, Nyiraneza Rosine, Nyiranzabandora Aline na Nyiransabimana Dorothée, avuga ko SONARWA ikwiye kubariha indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu, kandi ko ubusabe bwabo bushingiye ku ngingo ya 255 y’Itegeko N° 32/2016 rigenga abantu n’umuryango ryo ku wa 28/08/2016, ryariho igihe ikirego cyatangwaga, igira iti : « Abana bose bakomoka ku mubyeyi cyangwa ku babyeyi bazwi bagira uburenganzira n’inshingano zimwe ku babyeyi babo, hatitawe ku buryo ubwo aribwo bwose bavutsemo. Umwana agomba guha agaciro ababyeyi, kububaha no kubaha ibibatunga igihe babikeneye ». [24] Asobanura ko indishyi zisabwa zishingiye ku kuba urupfu rwa nyakwigendera rwarabavukije ibibatunga bamukomoragaho, by’umwihariko asobanura ko Mukakalisa Alphonsine umubyeyi we kandi w’umupfakazi yabuze ubufasha yamuhaga mu kurera barumuna be bari bakiri bato. [25] Akomeza asobanura ko indishyi bazibaze bashingiye ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 22 y’Iteka rya Perezida N°31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga, no ku mushahara muto ungana na 3.000 Frw ku

## Page 256

216 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO munsi. izo ndishyi zibazwe zitya: 3.000 x 12 x 44 x 2/3: 1+ (5% x 44) = 9.900.000 Frw. [26] Me Bagomora Charles uhagarariye SONARWA avuga ko Urukiko rutategeka SONARWA gutanga indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu kuko abarega batatanze ikimenyetso cy’uko bari batunzwe na nyakwigendera, ibyo bakabishingira ku murongo watanzwe mu rubanza No RS/iNJUST/RC 00018/2022/SC, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 27/01/2023, haburana Niyonzima n’abandi na SANLAM AG Plc, ugira uti : « Hagati y’ababyeyi n’abana barengeje imyaka y’ubukure, inshingano yo guhana ibibatunga ibaho gusa iyo usaba ibimutunga abikeneye, byumvikanisha ko kugira ngo abihabwe agomba gutanga ibimenyetso by’uko akeneye ibimutunga, ndetse ko ubisabwa abifitiye ubushobozi, bityo agasaba ko abaregera indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu ntazo bagomba guhabwa kuko bujuje imyaka y’ubukure kandi bakaba batagaragaza ibimenyetso by’uko bari batunzwe na nyakwigendera » [27] Karonkano Etienne avuga ko ntacyo ahindura ku mwanzuro we yashyize muri système iECMS, ko ntacyo yavuga ku ndishyi z’ibangamirabukungu kuko ntazo asabwa, ariko nawe ashimangira ibivugwa na SONARWA ko habayeho ubusaze bwo kuziregera. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [28] Ingingo ya 22, igika cya mbere y’Iteka rya Perezida Nº 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga, iteganya ko « [….] Abafite uburenganzira ku

## Page 257

217 MUKAKALISA ET AL. v SONARWA ET .AL (Fond) buryo bwumvikana ko bari batunzwe n’uwahohotewe n’impanuka ari bo bonyine bashobora guhabwa indishyi ». [29] Mu rubanza rwaciwe n’uru Rukiko haburana Niyonzima Léonidas n’abandi na SANLAM AG Plc3, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwemeje ko indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu zikomoka ku rupfu rwatewe n’impanuka yo mu muhanda zigenerwa gusa uwari usanzwe atunzwe n’uwapfuye kandi akabitangira ibimenyetso ko yari amutunze koko, rwanemeje ko umuntu urengeje imyaka y’ubukure atavuga ko adashoboye kwitunga atagaragaje impamvu idasanzwe, kandi akabitangira ibimenyetso bifatika nk’inyandiko zo kwa muganga zerekana niba afite ubumuga, uburwayi cyangwa ikindi kibazo kidasanzwe cyatuma atibeshaho. [30] ibi ni nabyo byemejwe mu rubanza rwaburanwaga hagati ya MUKAGATARE Régine n’abandi na SANLAM AG Plc4, ko kugira ngo usaba indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 22 y’Iteka rya Perezida Nº 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 ryavuzwe haruguru azihabwe, agomba kwerekana ko yari asanzwe atunzwe na nyakwigendera, mu gihe afite imyaka y’ubukure, akagomba kugaragaza impamvu idasanzwe yatumaga amwitaho, nk’inyandiko zo kwa muganga zerekana ko hari ubumuga afite, uburwayi cyangwa ikindi kibazo kidasanzwe cyatuma atibeshaho. [31] Urukiko rurasanga abarega bo bumvikanisha ko nta kindi kimenyetso gikenewe cyagaragaza ko bari batunzwe na

3 Urubanza N° RS/INJUST/RC 00018/2022/SC rwaciwe ku itariki ya 27/01/2023, igika cya 21 na 22 4 Urubanza No RS/INJUST/RS 00021/2022/SC rwaciwe ku itariki ya 17/03/2023, igika cya 32 na 33

## Page 258

218 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO nyakwigendera, kirenze kuba Mukakalisa Alphonsine ari umupfakazi wari ukeneye ubufasha bwe; nyamara hashingiwe ku mirongo yibukijwe yatanzwe n’uru Rukiko, yagombaga kugaragaza ibimenyetso by’uko abarega bari batunzwe na nyakwigendera, kuko buri muburanyi agomba gutanga ikimenyetso cy’ibyo avuga, aburanisha, hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 12 y’Itegeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi nk’uko ryahinduwe kugeza ubu, igira iti « Urega agomba kugaragaza ibimenyetso by’ibyo aregera (…) », ibi bigahura n’ibivugwa mu ngingo ya 4, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko No 062/2024 ryo ku wa 20/06/2024 rigenga ibimenyetso iteganya ko «urega cyangwa utanze ikibazo agaragaza ikimenyetso cy’ibyo aregera cyangwa asaba (…) » [32] Hashingiwe ku ngingo z’amategeko zimaze kuvugwa ndetse no ku bisobanuro byatanzwe, Urukiko rusanga indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu zisabwa nta shingiro zifite. 3. Kumenya niba Mukakalisa Alphonsine, Musabyimana Valentine, Nyiraneza Rosine, Nyiranzabandora Aline na Nyiransabimana Dorothée bagenerwa indishyi z’ibangamiramuco [33] Me Nsengiyumva Eugène uhagarariye Mukakalisa Alphonsine n’abana be avuga ko Mukakalisa nk’umubyeyi wa nyakwigendera asaba indishyi z’ibangamiramuco zingana: 3000 x 30 x 12 x 0,75 = 810.000 Frw, naho abavandimwe ba nyakwigendera bagasaba izingana na: 3000 x 30 x12 x 0,5 x 4 = 2.160.000 Frw. Avuga kandi ko muri aya mafaranga havanwamo 357.000 Frw yishyuwe na SONARWA.

## Page 259

219 MUKAKALISA ET AL. v SONARWA ET .AL (Fond) [34] Me Bagomora Charles uhagarariye SONARWA avuga ko izi ndishyi zitagomba gutangwa kuko habayeho ubusaze no kwikiranura kw’ababuranyi ndetse ko nta kigaragaza ko abazisaba bakiriho kuko ibyemezo byabo byatanzwe ku wa 03/03/2010. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [35] Ingingo ya 23 y’Iteka rya Perezida Nº 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga, ivuga ko « amafaranga atangirwa ibangamira ry’umubano igihe umuntu apfuye, agomba guhabwa gusa abantu bavugwa hepfo kandi hakurikijwe ibiteganywa n’iri teka: • Uwo bashakanye ahabwa 1 x umushahara w’umwaka muto ntarengwa wemewe n’amategeko • Ababyeyi n’abana b’isezerano cyangwa bemewe n’amategeko bahabwa 0,75 x umushahara w’umwaka muto ntarengwa wemewe n’amategeko • Abavandimwe be bahabwa 0,5 x umushahara w’umwaka muto ntarengwa wemewe n’amategeko» [36] Muri uru rubanza SONARWA n’abaregera indishyi bemeranywa ko Nshimyumuremyi François yahitanywe n’impanuka yatewe n’ikinyabiziga cyishingiwe na SONARWA. Abarega kandi berekanye ibyemezo byatanzwe n’Umurenge wa Bwishyura mu kwezi kwa 10 kwa 2020 bigaragaza ko Mukakalisa Alphonsine ari umubyeyi wa nyakwigendera naho abandi ari abavandimwe be.

## Page 260

220 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO [37] Urukiko rusanga ubusaze bw’ikirego no kwikiranura rutabigarukaho kuko byafashweho icyemezo. Naho ingingo y’uko abarega baba batakiriho, SONARWA iyiburanisha ni yo igomba kubitangira ikimenyetso kandi ntacyo yatanze, bityo ikaba nta shingiro ifite. [38] Urukiko rusanga hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 23 y’Iteka rya Perezida n’ibisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, Mukakalisa Alphonsine n’abana be bagomba guhabwa buri wese indishyi basabye nk’uko ziteganywa n’Iteka rya Perezida zibazwe mu buryo bukurikira: i) Mukakalisa Alphonsine nk’umubyeyi wa nyakwigendera Nshimyumuremyi François: 3000 x 30 x 12 x 0,75 = 810.000 Frw; ii) Musabyimana valentine, Nyiraneza

Rosine, Nyiranzabandora Aline na Nyiransabimana Dorothée nk’abavandimwe na nyakwigendera buri wese agomba guhabwa: 3000 x 30 x12 x 0,5 = 540.000 Frw. [39] Urukiko rusanga ariko mu mafaranga 357.000 SONARWA yashyize kuri konti ya Mukakalisa Alphonsine, yitaga ko ari zo ndishyi zigomba kwishyurwa muri iyi dosiye, harimo ay’indishyi z’ibangamiramuco zingana na 99.000 Frw kuri Mukakalisa Alphonsine na 198.000 Frw ku bana be, nk’uko biri muri Proposition de Transaction yasinywe hagati ya SONARWA na Karonkano; aya mafaranga akaba agomba gukurwa mu ndishyi z’ibangamiramuco bagomba kugenerwa zimaze kuvugwa, bityo bagahabwa: i. Mukakalisa Alphonsine: 810.000 Frw–99.000 Frw = 711.000Frw

## Page 261

221 MUKAKALISA ET AL. v SONARWA ET .AL (Fond) ii. Musabyimana valentine, Nyiraneza Rosine, Nyiranzabandora Aline na Nyiransabimana Dorothée: 2.160.000 Frw – 198.000 Frw = 1.962.000 Frw, ni ukuvuga 490.500 Frw buri wese. 4. Kumenya niba Mukakalisa Alphonsine, Musabyimana Valentine, Nyiraneza Rosine, Nyiranzabandora Aline na Nyiransabimana Dorothée bagenerwa amafaranga y’ibyakoreshejwe mu gushyingura [40] Me Nsengiyumva Eugène uhagarariye Mukakalisa Alphonsine n’abana be avuga ko basaba Urukiko ko mu bushishozi bwarwo rwabagenera amafaranga angana na 1.080.000 Frw akubiyemo ayo gutwara umurambo no gushyingura, abazwe ku kigereranyo cy’inshuro imwe y’umushahara muto ntarengwa w’umwaka wemewe n’amategeko. Avuga ko impamvu asaba Urukiko gushingira ku bushishozi bwarwo ari uko ibimenyetso by’amafaranga yose akoreshwa igihe umuntu apfuye bitapfa kuboneka, ko ariko nk’uko bizwi, hari imihango ikorwa nko gushyingura, gukaraba n’ibindi, ibyo bikaba bisaba ikiguzi. [41] Me Bagomora Charles uhagarariye SONARWA, avuga ko izi ndishyi zidakwiriye gutangwa kuko nta tegeko abazisaba bashingiyeho, mu gihe ingingo ya 21 y’Iteka rya Perezida No 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2023 ivuga ko amafaranga yakoreshejwe yose mbere y’urupfu na nyuma y’urupfu, yishyurwa habanje gutangwa ibimenyetso, none abarega bakaba nta bimenyetso bagaragaje byerekana ibyakoreshejwe.

## Page 262

222 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 222 UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [42] Ingingo ya 21 y’Iteka rya Perezida Nº 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga, ivuga ko «Amafaranga atangwa ku wapfuye hamwe n’ayo gushyirwa mu bitaro yakoreshejwe mbere y’urupfu ndetse hamwe, igihe bibaye ngombwa n’amafaranga yo gutwara umurambo, yose azishyurwa habanje kwerekanwa ibimenyetso bihamye, hakurikijwe uko biteye mu buryo bwumvikana. Ayo mafaranga azishyurwa abazaba bayatanze mu rugero rutarenze inshuro icumi, umushahara muto ntarengwa wemewe n’amategeko». [43] SONARWA n’abaregera indishyi bemeranya ko Nshimyumuremyi François yapfuye azize impanuka y’ikinyabiziga cyishingiwe na SONARWA. [44] Nk’uko bisanzwe bizwi, hari ibikorwa bisaba amafaranga igihe umuntu apfuye nko kugura isanduku, utwenda cyangwa se amashuka, gutwara umurambo, gushyingura, indabo, gukaraba n’ibindi; n’ubwo nta kimenyetso cyabyo cyatanzwe, nta wahakana ko byabayeho; bityo mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko Mukakalisa n’abana be bakaba bagomba kugenerwa 1.080.000 Frw basabye. [45] Urukiko rusanga ariko muri aya mafaranga hagomba gukurwamo 60.000 Frw y’ibyakoreshejwe ari muri 357.000 Frw SONARWA yashyize kuri konti ya Mukakalisa Alphonsine, nk’uko biri muri Proposition de Transaction yasinywe hagati ya SONARWA na Karonkano, bityo bagahabwa 1.080.000 Frw – 60.000 Frw = 1.020.000 Frw.

## Page 263

223 MUKAKALISA ET AL. v SONARWA ET .AL (Fond) 223 5. Kumenya niba indishyi zijyanye n’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka zisabwa n’ababuranyi muri uru rubanza zatangwa [46] Me Nsengiyumva Eugène uhagarariye abarega asaba Urukiko gutegeka Umwishingizi kwishyura abarega amafaranga bakoresheje mu gukurikirana urubanza ateye atya: i) ingendo: 200.000 x 5 = 1.000.000 Frw; ii) igihembo cy’umwunganizi ku manza zabanje: 3.000.000 Frw na 1.000.000 Frw (mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga); iii) Amagarama yatanzwe: 100.000 Frw. Yose

akaba 5.100.000 Frw. [47] Me Bagomora Charles uhagarariye SONARWA avuga ko indishyi zisabwa n’abarega nta shingiro zifite kuko aribo bayishoye mu manza nyamara yo yari yiteguye kwishyura ku neza. Yasabye Urukiko ahubwo ko rwategeka abaregwa kwishyura SONARWA indishyi zigizwe n’igihembo cy’Avoka kuva imanza zatangira kugeza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga zingana na 5.000.000 Frw, hamwe na 3.000.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza. [48] Karonkano Etienne avuga ko ikirego cy’abarega nikidahabwa ishingiro, asaba Urukiko kuzamugenera indishyi zingana na 2.000.000 Frw kubera kumusiragiza mu nkiko nta mpamvu, asobanura ko aya mafaranga akubiyemo amatike y’ingendo.

## Page 264

224 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [49] Ingingo ya 111 y’Itegeko N⁰ 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, nk’uko ryahinduwe kugeza ubu, iteganya ko «ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza ari ikirego gishamikira ku kirego cy’iremezo kigamije kwishyuza ibyakoreshejwe mu rubanza». [50] Urukiko rusanga amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’ay’igihembo cya Avoka abarega basaba bwakiye kuyahabwa kuko aribo batsinda urubanza, ariko akagenwa mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko kuko ayo basabye ari menshi cyane kandi batagaragaza ko mu by’ukuri ari yo bakoresheje muri uru rubanza. Kubera iyo mpamvu Urukiko rubageneye 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 300.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza kuri uru rwego, hiyongeyeho Milioyoni eshatu (3.000.000 Frw) y’igihembo cy’Avoka ku nzego zabanje ni ukuvuga ishuro ebyiri (2) mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Karongi n’inshuro ebyiri (2) mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi, rusanga aya mafaranga agenwe ari mu kigero urebye imanza zabayeho zose mbere y’uko dosiye iregerwa mu karengane; abarega kandi bagomba gusubizwa amagarama bishyuye angana na 100.000 Frw; igiteranyo cy’indishyi abarega bahawe aha zingana na Miliyoni eshatu n’ibihumbi magana cyenda (3.900.000 Frw). [51] Ku birebana n’indishyi zisabwa na SONARWA, Urukiko rusanga ntazo ikwiye guhabwa kuko itsindwa n’urubanza, ndetse na Karonkano akaba ntazo akwiye guhabwa kuko ntacyo atsindiye muri uru rubanza.

## Page 265

225 MUKAKALISA ET AL. v SONARWA ET .AL (Fond) III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [52] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Mukakalisa Alphonsine, Musabyimana valentine, Nyiraneza Rosine, Nyiranzabandora Aline na Nyiransabimana Dorothée gisaba gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane urubanza No RCA 00001/2023/HC/RSZ rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi, kuwa 16/10/2023, gifite ishingiro; [53] Rwemeje ko urubanza No RCA 00001/2023/HC/RSZ rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi, kuwa 16/10/2023 ruhindutse mu ngingo zarwo zose. [54] Rutegetse SONARWA General insurance Company Ltd kwishyura abarega indishyi ziteye ku buryo bukurikira: i) Mukakalisa Alphonsine: 711.000 Frw

y’indishyi z’ibangamiramuco; ii) Musabyimana valentine: 490.500 Frw

y’indishyi z’ibangamiramuco; iii) Nyiraneza Rosine: 490.500 Frw y’indishyi z’ibangamiramuco; iv) Nyiranzabandora Aline: 490.500 Frw

y’indishyi z’ibangamiramuco; v) Nyiransabimana Dorothée: 490.500 Frw

y’indishyi z’ibangamiramuco. [55] Rutegetse SONARWA General insurance Company Ltd kwishyura abarega bose hamwe 1.020.000 Frw y’ibyakoreshejwe mu gushyingura;

## Page 266

226 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO [56] Rutegetse SONARWA General insurance Company Ltd kwishyura abarega bose hamwe 3.900.000 Frw akubiyemo ay’igihembo cya Avoka n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza n’amagarama bishyuye.

## Page 267

227 KWIZERA v RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD 227 227 KWIZERA v RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA - RS/iNJUST/RC 00014/2022/SC (Mukamulisa, P.J., Nyirinkwaya, Cyanzayire, J.) 18 Gicurasi 2023] Amategeko agenga imanza z’imbonezamubano – Imanza zikomoka ku mpanuka – Ibisabwa mu kwishyura indishyi – Indishyi ku bantu bakora umwuga bigengaho - Abafite umwuga wigenga cyangwa abantu bakora umwuga bigengaho (nk’abamotari) bagomba kwerekana ibikorwa bigaragara byerekana inyungu zabo ziciriritse z’amezi 12 abanziriza impanuka. Amategeko agenga imanza z’imbonezamubano – Imanza zikomoka ku mpanuka – Ibisabwa mu kwishyura indishyi – Indishyi ku bantu bakora umwuga bigengaho batabasha kubona inyandiko mpamo zemeza umushahara wabo - Iyo inyandiko mpamo zemeza umushahara zitabonetse, umwuga uwangirijwe akora ukaba uzwi neza, indishyi zigenwa hakoreshejwe kugereranya n’umushahara uvanze (brut) w’umuntu ukora umwuga bimeze kimwe cyangwa ujya kumera kimwe n’uwo akora. Amategeko agenga imanza z’imbonezamubano – Imanza zikomoka ku mpanuka – Uburyo bwo kubara indishyi – Umusaruro ugenderwaho mu kubara indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu - Indishyi ku bantu bakora umwuga bigengaho - Mu kubara indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu ku bantu bakora umwuga bigengaho, harebwa umusaruro w’umwaka umuntu atahana (net) aho kuba umusaruro mbumbe aho bafata

## Page 268

228 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO umusaruro mbumbe hagakurwamo umusoro uteganywa n’itegeko. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyagatare, Kwizera, wakomerekeye mu mpanuka ya Moto yishingiwe na Radiant insurance Company Ltd (Radiant), ayirega asaba ko itegekwa kumuha indishyi zikomoka kuri iyo mpanuka. Urwo Rukiko rwategetse Radiant kumuha indishyi zinyuranye. Radiant yajuririye mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana, urwo Rukiko rushingiye ku kuba Kwizera atarashoboye kugaragaza umusaruro yinjizaga ku munsi cyangwa ku kwezi ku buryo buhoraho, rusanga ataragombaga kubarirwa indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu hashingiwe ku 200.000 Frw yinjizaga ku kwezi ahubwo yaragombaga kuzibarirwa hashingiwe ku mushahara w’umwaka muto ntarengwa (SMIG) ungana na 3.000 Frw ku munsi bituma indishyi zihabwa Kwizera zigabanywa. Kwizera yasabye ko urwo rubanza rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, hemezwa ko ruburanishwa n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, mu iburanisha, ababuranyi bajya impaka ku kibazo cyo kumenya uburyo indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu zisabwa zigomba kubarwa. Urega avuga ko adakwiye kubarirwa mu bantu badafite umushahara uzwi, kugira ngo ibe impamvu ituma agenerwa indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu hagendewe kuri SMIG ya 3.000 Frw agashingira ku bimenyetso birimo ikarita yerekana ko yari umumotari, n’inyandiko ya RRA yatanze igaragaza ko abatwara moto binjiza 2.400.000 Frw ku mwaka.

## Page 269

229 KWIZERA v RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Radiant yo ivuga ko izo ndishyi zikwiye kubarwa hashingiwe ku mushahara w’umwaka muto ntarengwa wemewe n’amategeko (SMiG) kuko ariwo ushingirwaho igihe cyose usaba indishyi atabashije kugaragaza umusaruro yinjizaga ku munsi cyangwa ku kwezi ku buryo buhoraho nk’uko byemejwe n’Urukiko Rukuru. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Abafite umwuga wigenga cyangwa abantu bakora umwuga bigengaho (nk’abamotari) bagomba kwerekana ibikorwa bigaragara byerekana inyungu zabo ziciriritse z’amezi 12 abanziriza impanuka. 3. iyo inyandiko mpamo zemeza umushahara zitabonetse, umwuga uwangirijwe akora ukaba uzwi neza, indishyi zigenwa hakoreshejwe kugereranya n’umushahara uvanze (brut) w’umuntu ukora umwuga bimeze kimwe cyangwa ujya kumera kimwe n’uwo akora. 2. Mu kubara indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu ku bantu bakora umwuga bigengaho, harebwa umusaruro w’umwaka umuntu atahana aho bafata umusaruro mbumbe hagakurwamo umusoro uteganywa n’itegeko. Ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z'akarengane gifite ishingiro.

Amategeko yashingiweho: itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 111;

## Page 270

230 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO itegeko No 41/2001 ryo ku wa 19/09/2001 ryerekeye imyishyurire y’abangirijwe n’impanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga bigenzwa na moteri kandi bigenda ku butaka, ingingo ya 4; itegeko No 75/2018 ryo ku wa 07/09/2018 rigena inkomoko y’imari n’umutungo by’inzego z’imitegekere y’Igihugu zegerejwe abaturage, ingingo ya 5; itegeko Nº 027/2022 ryo ku wa 20/10/2022 rishyiraho imisoro ku musaruro, ingingo ya 14; iteka rya Perezida No 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga, ingingo ya 14; 18. Imanza zifashishijwe:

RCAA 0049/14/CS, SORAS AG Ltd C/ Umuhoza Pacifique n’abandi, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 25/11/2016; RS/iNJUST/RC 00010/2021/SC, Prime insurance Company Ltd na Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 02/12/2022. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Ku wa 25/08/2018, i Kiziguro mu Karere ka Gatsibo, Intara y’Iburasirazuba habereye impanuka ya moto ifite plaque RD 42v, yari itwawe na Nshimiyimana Gilbert agonga indi moto victor TvS ifite plaque RD 950Q yari itwawe na Kwizera Eric, ayikomerekeramo, agira ubumuga buhoraho bwa 90%. iyo moto

## Page 271

231 KWIZERA v RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD yamugonze yari ifite ubwishingizi muri Radiant insurance Company Ltd, iza kwitwa Radiant muri uru rubanza. [2] Nyuma yo kugerageza inzira y’ubwumvikane bikananirana, Kwizera Eric yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyagatare arega Radiant, asaba indishyi zikomoka kuri iyo mpanuka zibazwe mu buryo bukurikira: - Indishyi z’ibangamira ry’uburanga: 240.000 Frw x 12 x 150%= 4.320.000 Frw; - indishyi z'akababaro: 240.000 Frw x 12= 2.880.000 Frw; - Indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu: (240.000Frw X 12 x 35 x 90) /1+ (35 x 8%) = 90.720.000/3.8 = 23.873.684, 2 Frw; - Amafaranga yakoreshejwe kubera impanuka harimo ayakoreshejwe mu kwivuza, amafaranga y’ingendo, amafaranga yaguze dosiye y’impanuka n’amafaranga yaguze ibyemezo by’inzego z’ibanze.1 [3] Mu rubanza Nº RC 00048/2020/TGi/NYG rwaciwe ku wa 09/06/2021, Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyagatare rwemeje

1 Mu myanzuro ye, Kwizera Eric ntabwo yigeze agaragaza ingano y’aya mafaranga asaba, ariko mu iburanisha ryo ku wa 12/05/2021, Me Shema Déo umuburanira yamenyesheje Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyagatare ko basaba indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu zihwanye na 19.018.867 Frw, indishyi z’akababaro zingana na 1.620.000, indishyi z’ibangamira ry’uburanga zingana na 1.200.000 Frw, amafaranga yakoreshejwe kubera impanuka harimo ay’ingendo angana na 500.000 Frw, ayo kwivuza 396.232 Frw, igihembo cy’Avoka 1.000.000 Frw n’amafaranga y’igarama ya 20.000 Frw yose hamwe akaba 23.755.099 Frw.

## Page 272

232 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 232 ko ikirego cya Kwizera Eric gifite ishingiro, rutegeka Radiant kumuha indishyi zingana na 23.700.867 Frw arimo n’igihembo cy’Avoka cya 600.000 Frw. [4] Mu gufata icyo cyemezo, urwo Rukiko rwasanze Kwizera Eric yaramugajwe n’impanuka yatejwe n’ikinyabiziga cyishingiwe na Radiant, rusanga akwiye guhabwa indishyi zikurikira: Ǧ Indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu: (200.000 Frw × 12 × 36 × 90%) 1+ (8%-taux de placement actuel × 36) = 20.041.237 Frw. Ǧ Indishyi z’ibangamiramuco/akababaro (pretium doloris): (3000 Frw × 30 × 12) × 150% = 1.620.000 Frw. Ǧ Indishyi z’ibangamira ry’uburanga: (3000 Frw × 30 × 12) × 150% = 1.620.000 Frw. Yose hamwe akaba 20.041.237 Frw + 3.240.000 Frw = 23.281.237 Frw (Urukiko rwongeyeho ko igiteranyo cy’izo urega yasabye ari 22.000.867 Frw). Kuri izi ndishyi Urukiko rwavuze ko hiyongeraho 1.700.000 Frw atanzwe mu bushishozi bwarwo, akubiyemo amafaranga y’ingendo, ay’ikurikiranarubanza harimo no gushaka ibyangombwa bitandukanye, ayo kwivuza, igihembo cy’Avoka n’igarama. Bityo indishyi zose hamwe zikaba 22.000.867 Frw + 1.700.000 Frw = 23.700.867 Frw2.

2 Biraboneka ko imibare yo mu rubanza rwaciwe na TGi irimo amakosa kubera ko mu myanzuro y’urega, mu nama ntegurarubanza ndetse no mu iburanisha nta na hamwe bigaragara ko indishyi zasabwe na Kwizera Eric zose hamwe zingana na 22.000.867 Frw.

## Page 273

233 KWIZERA v RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD 233 [5] Radiant yajuririye mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana, isaba gusuzuma ibirebana n’indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu kuko hatanzwe iz'umurengera kandi zidakurikije amategeko, hakaba n’andi mafaranga Urukiko rwatanze adasobanutse kuko yatanzwe nta bimenyetso ashingiyeho. [6] Mu rubanza Nº RCA 00051/2021/HC/RWG rwaciwe ku wa 11/01/2022, Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Radiant bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe, ko urubanza Nº RC 00048/2020/TGi/NYG rwaciwe ku wa 09/06/2021, ruhindutse gusa ku bijyanye n’indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu, rutegeka Radiant kwishyura Kwizera Eric indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu zingana na 9.208.421 Frw na 1.700.000 Frw yagenwe mu rubanza rujuririrwa ku byakoreshejwe mu rubanza harimo n’igihembo cy’Avoka. [7] Mu gufata iki cyemezo, urwo Rukiko rwasanze indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu Kwizera Eric yagenewe zidakurikije amategeko kubera ko atashoboye kugaragaza umusaruro yinjizaga ku munsi cyangwa ku kwezi ku buryo buhoraho, rwemeza ko agomba kubarirwa indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu hashingiwe ku mushahara w’umwaka muto ntarengwa (SMIG) ungana na 3.000 Frw nk’uko yemejwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza Nº RCAA 0049/14/CS rwaciwe ku wa 25/11/2016, zikabarwa mu buryo bukurikira : 3.000 Frw x 30 x 12 x 36 x 90% : 1 + ( 7.992% x 36) = 9.208.421 Frw. [8] Ku wa 06/02/2022, Kwizera Eric yandikiye Perezida w'Urukiko rw'Ubujurire asaba ko urubanza Nº RCA 00051/2021/HC/RWG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana ku wa 11/01/2022 rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z'akarengane. Amaze gusuzuma ubusabe bwe, Perezida

## Page 274

234 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 234 w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire yandikiye Perezida w'Urukiko rw'ikirenga asaba ko urubanza rwavuzwe haruguru rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z'akarengane. Perezida w'Urukiko rw'ikirenga, amaze gusuzuma raporo yakozwe kuri urwo rubanza, ku wa 22/08/2022, yafashe icyemezo Nº 130/CJ/2022 cy’uko urubanza Nº RCA 00051/2021/HC/RWG rusubirwamo n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku mpamvu z'akarengane, ruhabwa Nº RS/iNJUST/RC 00014/2022/SC. [9] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku wa 27/03/2023, Kwizera Eric ahagarariwe na Me Shema Deo naho Radiant ihagarariwe na Me Uwamariya Agnès, ababuranyi bajya impaka ku bibazo byo kumenya uburyo indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu Kwizera Eric yasabye zagombaga kubarwa no kumenya niba hari izindi ndishyi zatangwa muri uru rubanza. iburanisha risojwe, ababuranyi bamenyeshejwe ko urubanza ruzasomwa ku wa 21/04/2023, ariko ntirwasomwa uwo munsi kuko hari ibyari bigisuzumwa, isomwa ryarwo rishyirwa ku wa 18/05/2023 saa yine. II. IBIBAZO BIRI MU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO 1. Kumenya uburyo indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu Kwizera Eric asaba zigomba kubarwa. [10] Me Shema Deo avuga ko ku rwego rwa mbere, Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyagatare rwemeje ko Kwizera Eric akorera 200.000 Frw ku kwezi rushingiye ku bimenyetso binyuranye birimo icyemezo cya RRA, historique de compte ya Remera Sacco Giribakwe yerekana ko yishyura umusoro wa 18.000 Frw ku gihembwe ndetse n’inyandiko za RRA z’imenyekanisha

## Page 275

235 KWIZERA v RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD 235 musoro mu mwaka wa 2018, hakaba kandi ikimenyetso cya plan de remboursement yatanzwe kigaragaza uburyo Kwizera Eric yishyura umwenda w’iyo moto yakoreshaga kuko yari inguzanyo ya Remera Sacco Giribakwe. [11] Akomeza asobanura ko ayo mafaranga yose bavuze muri ibyo bimenyetso yavaga ku musaruro wa moto Kwizera Eric yakoreshaga mu kazi k’ubumotari. Asobanura kandi ko hari inyandiko yo ku wa 18/08/2020 ya Remera Sacco Giribakwe ihamya ko moto Kwizera Eric yakoreshaga nk’umumotari ari inguzanyo yafashe kandi ko yagendaga yishyura ariko moto ikaba yari itaramwandikwaho kuko yari atararangiza kwishyura. Yongeraho ko iyo ufashe ibyo bimenyetso byose byagaragajwe, ukabihuza n’inyandiko ya RRA yo ku wa 27/02/2017 yemeza ko abantu bose bakora akazi k’ubumotari binjiza 2.400.000 Frw ku mwaka, byerekana nta shiti ko yinjizaga 2.400.000 Frw ku mwaka. [12] Asoza asaba ko iyo nyandiko ya RRA nk’ikimenyetso cy’inyandikomvaho ariyo yashingirwaho mu kugena indishyi Kwizera Eric azahabwa kuko bitumvikana ukuntu yabarirwa mu cyiciro cya ba nyakabyizi kandi ari umumotari wishyura umusoro. [13] Me Uwamariya Agnès uburanira Radiant avuga ko nta karengane kabayeho mu rubanza nº RCA 00051/2021/HC/RWG kubera ko nta kimenyetso na kimwe Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana rwigeze rushyikirizwa ngo kibe kitaritaweho, bikumvikana ko kuba Kwizera Eric atemeranya n’icyemezo cy’urwo Rukiko bitaba impamvu ituma urubanza yatsinzwe rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane.

## Page 276

236 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO [14] Akomeza avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana rwasobanuye ko ibimenyetso Kwizera Eric yatanze birimo ikarita y’akazi, icyemezo cyo ku wa 08/05/2017 yahawe na Koperative COTAMNDAGA kigaragaza ko yinjizaga 200.000 Frw ku kwezi hamwe n’inyandiko ya RRA yo ku wa 27/02/2017 yerekanaga ko yinjiza 2.400.000 Frw ku mwaka, bidahagije ngo hemezwe ko yinjizaga koko 200.000 Frw ku kwezi. Asanga rero rutaramurenganyije kubera ko uretse no kuba inyandiko ya RRA yarandikiwe uwitwa Hanyurwimfura vincent, ikaba itari igenewe Kwizera Eric, nta n’ubwo yigeze agaragaza amasezerano y'akazi kuko ariyo yonyine yari kwerekana umushahara ahembwa. [15] Asoza avuga ko Kwizera Eric atagaragaza ko koko yakoreraga 200.000 Frw ku kwezi, ari nayo mpamvu Radiant ikomeje gusaba ko indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu zabarirwa kuri SMiG, kuko ariyo ishingirwaho igihe cyose usaba indishyi atabashije kugaragaza umusaruro uturuka ku mirimo akora. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [16] Ingingo ya 5 y’Itegeko No 41/2001 ryo ku wa 19/09/2001 ryerekeye imyishyurire y’abangirijwe n’impanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga bigenzwa na moteri kandi bigenda ku butaka, igira iti: “iyo impanuka yateye ubumuga uwangirijwe bumubuza gukora akazi burundu, agomba guhabwa amafaranga y’indishyi kubera ubusembwa ku mubiri, guhungabana mu bwenge bwe cyangwa kubera ingaruka bifite ku nyungu yavanaga ku mwuga we atagishoboye gukora kubera ubumuga. indishyi zigenwa hakurikijwe Iteka rya Perezida wa Repubulika”.

## Page 277

237 KWIZERA v RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD [17] ingingo ya 18 y’Iteka rya Perezida No 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga iteganya ibikurikira: “Iyo ubumuga buhoraho burengeje 30%, indishyi y’ibangamirabukungu ikorwa hakurikijwe amategeko akurikira: iyo uwahohotewe akora umurimo ahemberwa, ahabwa amafaranga abarwa hakurikijwe igihembo umuntu atahana, urwego rw'ubumuga n'imyaka ye. iyo uwahohotewe ahembwa umushahara amaze igihe kitarenze amezi atandatu adakora, ahabwa amafaranga abarwa hakurikijwe igihembo cye cya nyuma atahana, urwego rw'ubumuga n'imyaka ye; iyo uwahohotewe akora umurimo adahemberwa, cyangwa iyo yakoraga gusa imirimo yo mu rugo, cyangwa se iyo abamufiteho uburenganzira badashobora kwerekana umusaruro we nyakuri ukomoka ku murimo, kandi niba yari afite imyaka irenze 16 igihe cy'impanuka, amafaranga agomba guhabwa azabarwa bahereye ku ifatizo ry'inshuro imwe y'umushahara w'umwaka muto ntarengwa wemewe n'amategeko. indishyi izakorwa mu buryo bukurikira: Umusaruro w'umwaka umuntu atahana x umubare w'imyaka ashigaje kubaho akora x ijanisha ry'ubumuga kugabanya 1 + (igipimo cy'ibitsa x umubare w'imyaka ashigaje kubaho akora). ibyo ari byo byose, iyo ndishyi ntigomba kurenga, yose hamwe, inshuro mirongo inani umushahara w'umwaka muto ntarengwa wemewe n'amategeko”. [18] Urukiko rurasanga ababuranyi bemeranya ko Kwizera Eric yakoze impanuka ku wa 25/08/2018 akora akazi k’ubumotari, akaba yari afite imyaka 30, agira ubumuga buhoraho bungana na 90%. Urukiko rusanga kandi, moto Kwizera Eric yatwaraga yari iye kuko nk’uko bigaragara muri dosiye y’urubanza, ku wa 23/02/2018 yahawe inguzanyo na Remera Sacco Giribakwe ingana na 900.000 Frw yagombaga

## Page 278

238 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO kwishyura mu gihe cy’amezi 18, ku nyungu ya 24% ku mwaka, akishyura 60.000 Frw ku kwezi, inguzanyo yose ikishyurwa bitarenze ku wa 23/08/2019. ibi bikaba bivuze ko yakoraga umwuga yigengaho wo gutwara abantu kuri moto. [19] Ababuranyi banemeranya kandi ko kubera impanuka yagize, Kwizera Eric akwiye indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu, icyo batemeranyaho, ari nacyo kigize impaka muri uru rubanza, ni ukuba umuhagarariye avuga ko yagombaga kubarirwa indishyi hashingiwe ku kuba abakoresha moto binjiza 2.400.000 Frw ku mwaka, nk’uko byemejwe na Komiseri Wungirije Ushinzwe Abasora Bato n’Abaciriritse, mu gihe uhagarariye Radiant avuga ko indishyi zikwiye kubarwa hashingiwe ku mushahara muto w’umwaka ntarengwa wemewe n’amategeko (SMIG) kuko adashobora kwerekana umusaruro we nyakuri yinjizaga. [20] Urukiko rurasanga nk’uko byasobanuwe mu ngingo ya 18 y’Iteka rya Perezida no 31/01 ryibukijwe haruguru, uwakomeretse wagize ubumuga buhoraho burengeje 30%, akaba afite umurimo ahemberwa, ahabwa amafaranga abarwa hakurikijwe igihembo atahana, urwego rw'ubumuga n'imyaka ye. Ni mu gihe uwakomeretse akora umurimo adahemberwa, cyangwa se iyo abamufiteho uburenganzira badashobora kwerekana umusaruro we nyakuri ukomoka ku murimo, ahabwa indishyi zibarwa bahereye ku ifatizo ry'inshuro imwe y'umushahara w'umwaka muto ntarengwa wemewe n'amategeko (SMiG) ingana na 3.000 Frw ku munsi3.

3 Nk’uko wemejwe mu manza zitandukanye zaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, nko mu rubanza Nº RCAA 0049/14/CS rwaciwe ku wa 25/11/2016, haburana SORAS AG Ltd C/ UMUHOZA Pacifique n’abandi, igika cya 28.

## Page 279

239 KWIZERA v RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD [21] Urukiko rurasanga ariko mu bahohotewe bavugwa mu ngingo ya 18 yavuzwe haruguru, hatagaragaramo abantu bakora umwuga bigengaho nk’abamotari, akaba ariyo mpamvu mu kugena umusaruro fatizo waherwaho mu kubabarira indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu, hakwifashishwa ingingo ya 14, igika cya 3, y’Iteka rya Perezida N° 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 ryavuzwe haruguru iteganya ko abafite umwuga wigenga cyangwa abantu bakora umwuga bigengaho bagomba kwerekana ibikorwa bigaragara byerekana inyungu zabo ziciriritse z’amezi 12 abanziriza impanuka. ingingo ya 4, igika cya 5, y’Itegeko No 41/2001 ryo ku wa 19/09/2001 yongeraho ko inyandiko mpamo zitabonetse, umwuga uwangirijwe akora ukaba uzwi neza, indishyi zigenwa hakoreshejwe kugereranya n’umushahara uvanze (brut) w’umuntu ukora umwuga bimeze kimwe cyangwa ujya kumera kimwe n’uwo akora. [22] Urukiko rurasanga nk’uko byasobanuwe, Kwizera Eric yarakoraga umwuga yigengaho w’ubumotari, bityo rero mu kumubarira indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu hakaba hashingirwa ku musaruro abandi bakora umurimo nk’uwe binjiza ku mwaka aho kubarirwa izo ndishyi hashingiwe ku mushahara muto ntarengwa wemewe n’amategeko (SMIG) nk’uko byakozwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana. Icyakora, kubera ko hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 18 y’Iteka rya Perezida N° 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003, mu kubara indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu harebwa umusaruro w’umwaka umuntu atahana (net) hatarebwa umusaruro mbumbe, ni ngombwa kubanza kureba umusaruro ukora akazi ko gutwara abantu kuri moto atahana, hamaze kuvanwaho umusoro. [23] ingingo ya 14, igika cya 3, y’Itegeko Nº 027/2022 ryo ku wa 20/10/2022 rishyiraho imisoro ku musaruro, iteganya ko

## Page 280

240 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO umusoro ucishirije, ungana n’atatu ku ijana (3%) y’ibyacurujwe mu mwaka, utangwa na nyir’igikorwa cy’ubucuruzi giciriritse. Mu gika cyayo cya nyuma, iteganya ko bitabangamiye uburenganzira bwo gusora ku nyungu nyakuri, ibikorwa byo gutwara abantu n’ibintu mu nzira y’ubutaka bicibwa umusoro ukomatanyije ubarwa mu buryo bugaragara ku mugereka w’iri tegeko. Uwo mugereka ugaragaza ibipimo by’umusoro ku musaruro w’ibinyabiziga bitwara abantu n’ibintu. Ku bijyanye na moto nini, bigaragara ko umusoro ku mwaka ari 72.000 Frw. [24] ingingo ya 5, 2o y’Itegeko No 75/2018 ryo ku wa 07/09/2018 rigena inkomoko y’imari n’umutungo by’inzego z’imitegekere y’Igihugu zegerejwe abaturage, iteganya umusoro w’ipatanti mu misoro yishyurwa inzego z’imitegekere y’Igihugu zegerejwe abaturage. Ingingo ya 32 y’iryo Tegeko, iteganya ko umusoro w’ipatanti utangwa n’umuntu wese buri hantu atangije igikorwa cy’ubucuruzi mu Karere, naho ingingo ya 34 igateganya ko umusoro w’ipatanti ubarwa hashingiwe ku mbonerahamwe ziri ku mugereka w’Itegeko, aho imbonerahamwe ya II, b igaragaza ko abatwara ibintu n’abantu ku mapikipiki bishyura umusoro w’ipatanti ungana na 8.000 Frw (ku mwaka). [25] Nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, Kwizera Eric nk’uwari utunze moto afatwa nk’umusoreshwa uri mu cyiciro cy’abinjiza 2.400.000 Frw ku mwaka, kuko nk’uko byibukijwe, umusoro wa 72.000 Frw wagenwe n’Itegeko ko ugomba kwishyurwa buri mwaka n’amapikipiki, ni umusoro ucishirije ungana na 3% y’umusaruro yinjije mu mwaka, utangwa na nyir’igikorwa cy’ubucuruzi giciriritse nk’uko byasobanuwe mu gika cya 2 cy’ingingo ya 14 y’Itegeko Nº 027/2022 ryavuzwe haruguru. Mu yandi magambo, 72.000 Frw y’umusoro ku mwaka ahwanye na

## Page 281

241 KWIZERA v RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD 3% y’umusaruro wa 2.400.000 Frw ku mwaka aribyo (72.000 Fw×100): 3 = 2.400.000 Frw. [26] Urukiko rusanga kandi, Kwizera Eric nk’ukora umwuga wo gutwara abantu kuri moto, agomba kwishyura umusoro w’ipatanti hashingiwe ku mbonerahamwe ya II, b iri ku mugereka w’Itegeko no 75/2018 ryo ku wa 07/09/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru. [27] Urukiko rusanga rero amafaranga atahanwa ku mwaka n’umuntu utunze moto, hamaze kuvanwaho umusoro ku musaruro n’umusoro w’ipatanti, angana na 2.400.000 Frw - 72.000 Frw - 8.000 Frw = 2.320.000. Ni ukuvuga ko ku kwezi atahana 2.320.000 Frw: 12 = 193.333 Frw; naho ku munsi agatahana 193.333 Frw: 30 = 6.444 Frw. [28] Nk’uko Urukiko rw’ikirenga rwabyemeje mu rubanza No RS/iNJUST/RC 00010/2021/SC rwaciwe ku wa 02/12/2022, igipimo cy’ibitsa gishingirwaho habarwa indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu ni igishyirwaho na Banki Nkuru y’u Rwanda (Central Bank rate), kigaragara ku rubuga (Website) rwayo ku munsi w’isomwa ry’urubanza4. Urukiko rurasanga kandi iminsi y’akazi ikwiye kwifashishwa mu kubara izi ndishyi ari iminsi 30 n’igipimo cy’ibitsa cya BNR kigomba gukoreshwa kikaba gihwanye na 7%5. Bityo indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu zikaba zikwiye kubarwa mu buryo bukurikira: 6.444 Frw × 30 × 12 × 35 × 90% = 21.181.147 Frw . 1+ (7% × 35)

4 Reba urubanza No RS/iNJUST/RC 00010/2021/SC rwaciwe ku wa 02/12/2022 haburana Prime insurance Company Ltd na Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude. 5 https://www.bnr.rw/home/ (urubuga rwasuwe ku wa 08/05/2023)

## Page 282

242 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 2. Ku byerekeye izindi ndishyi zisabwa muri uru rubanza [29] Me Shema Deo uburanira Kwizera Eric avuga ko mu gihe akarengane Kwizera Eric yakorewe mu rubanza RCA 00051/2021/HC/RWG kaba kemejwe, asaba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kumugenera igihembo cy’Avoka kingana na 1.000.000 Frw ndetse n’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza angana na 500.000 Frw. [30] Me Uwamariya Agnès uburanira Radiant avuga ko Kwizera Eric adakwiye kugenerwa igihembo cy’Avoka n’ikurikiranarubanza kuko ariwe wakomeje gushoza imanza nta mpamvu. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [31] Ingingo ya 111 y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi nk’uko ryahinduwe kugeza ubu, iteganya ibikurikira: “Ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza ni ikirego gishamikiye ku kirego cy’iremezo kigamije kwishyuza ibyakoreshejwe mu rubanza...”. [32] Urukiko rushingiye ku ngingo imaze kuvugwa haruguru, rurasanga n’ubwo ikirego cya Kwizera Eric cyahawe agaciro, ariko muri dosiye y’urubanza nta bimenyetso birimo bigaragaza ko yakoresheje 500.000 Frw akurikirana uru rubanza ndetse akaba yaratanze 1.000.000 Frw y’igihembo cy’Avoka, Urukiko rukaba ntaho rwahera rutegeka ko ayo mafaranga ariyo akwiye gusubizwa nk’uko abisaba.

## Page 283

243 KWIZERA v RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD [33] Urukiko rurasanga ahubwo yayagenerwa mu bushishozi bwarwo, bityo akaba agenewe 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cy’Avoka hamwe na 300.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza, yose hamwe akaba 800.000 Frw. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [34] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Kwizera Eric cyo gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z'akarengane urubanza Nº RCA 00051/2021/HC/RWG rwaciwe n'Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana ku wa 11/01/2022, gifite ishingiro; [35] Rutegetse ko imikirize y’urubanza Nº RCA 00051/2021/HC/RWG rwaciwe n'Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana ku wa 11/01/2022, ihindutse gusa ku bijyanye n’indishi z’ibangamirabukungu; [36] Rutegetse Radiant insurance Company Ltd kwishyura Kwizera Eric indishyi z'ibangamirabukungu zingana na 21.181.147 Frw yemejwe kuri uru rwego; [37] Rutegetse Radiant insurance Company Ltd kwishyura Kwizera Eric 1.620.000 Frw y’indishyi z’akababaro (pretium doloris) hamwe na 1.620.000 Frw y’indishyi z’ibangamira ry’uburanga yategetswe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyagatare, hakiyongerayo 1.700.000 Frw y’ibyakoreshejwe mu rubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka, na 40.000 Frw y’ingwate y’igarama

yategetswe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana; [38] Rutegetse Radiant insurance Company Ltd guha Kwizera Eric 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cy’Avoka hamwe na 300.000 Frw

## Page 284

244 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO y’ikurikiranarubanza kuri uru rwego, yose hamwe akaba angana na 800.000 Frw.

## Page 285

245 AMAGAMBO MPINE

IMANZA Z’UBUCURUZI

## Page 286

246 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 287

247 CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD ET.AL 247 247 CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD N’UNDI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/iNJUST/RCOM 00001/2024/SC (Mukamulisa, P.J., Kalihangabo na Hitiyaremye, J.) 15 Ugushyingo 2024] Amategeko agenga imanza z’ubucuruzi – Kwishyura umwenda – Sheki – Gutanga sheki hagamijwe kwishyura umwenda – Gutanga sheki k’uwo igenewe ubwabyo ntibihagije ngo uwasinye yumve ko yamaze kwishyura, ahubwo uwo wayisinye afite n’inshingano zo kwizeza uwayishyikirijwe ko kuri konti ye afiteho amafaranga ahagije ku itariki sheki igomba kwishyurirwaho kugeza igihe isaziye, kandi ko atazatambamira iyishyurwa ryayo. Amategeko agenga imanza z’ubucuruzi – Kutubahiriza amasezerano – Inyungu – Inyungu zibarirwa ku kigereranyo cy’inyungu ku nguzanyo (taux moyen de prêt/average lending rate) gitangazwa na Banki Nkuru y’u Rwanda. Incamake y’ikibazo: CiMERWA Ltd yagiranye amasezerano na Kigali Ceramica Furniture Ltd bumvikana ko CiMERWA izagemurira sima KCF Ltd ku ideni nayo ikazayishyura ikoresheje cheques. KCF Ltd ntiyubahirije ayo masezerano, CiMERWA iyandikira iyishyuza, nayo ntiyabikora bituma CIMERWA iyirega mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi isaba kwishyurwa umwenda iberewemo ungana na 90.350.000 Frw ndetse na 16.263.000 Frw y’inyungu mbonezamusaruro ndetse n’izindi ndishyi zitandukanye.

## Page 288

248 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 248 Urukiko rw’ubucuruzi rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko ikirego nta shingiro gifite, rutegeka ko CiMERWA Ltd igomba gusubiza KCF Ltd 11.650.000 Frw arenga ku mafaranga yagombaga kwishyurwa. CIMERWA yajuririye mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ivuga ko Urukiko rw’ubucuruzi rwirengagije ibimenyetso ndetse ko cheques yahawe zitishyuye umwenda kuko igihe cyo kuzibikuza yasanze zitazigamiwe. Urukiko Rukuru rw’ubucuruzi rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko ubujurire bwa CiMERWA nta shingiro bufite, rwemeza ko nta gihindutse ku mikirize y’urubanza rwaciwe n’urukiko rw’ubucuruzi. CiMERWA Ltd yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire isaba ko urwo rubanza rwasubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, nawe amaze gusuzuma ako karengane, yandikira Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, yemeza ko urwo rubanza rusubirishwamo, ruburanishwa n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. Mu miburanire ya CiMERWA Ltd mu rubanza rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane ivuga ko Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwirengagije ibimenyetso birimo delivery notes kandi zaragaragazaga ingano ya sima yagemuriye KCF Ltd, ikavuga ko yahawe cheques 2 z’ubwishyu, ariko igiye kuzibikuza isanga zitazigamiwe, ikavuga kandi ko kutishyurwa byayiteye igihombo ikaba ibisabira inyungu zingana na 18% ku mwaka zikabarwa mu gihe cy’imyaka ine n’amezi atandatu kuko iyo yishyurwa ayo mafaranga aba yarabyajwe izindi nyungu. isoza ivuga ko itanze kubikuza izo cheques ahubwo ari KCF Ltd yayibujije kuzibikuza kuko zitazigamiwe, igasaba Urukiko kudaha agaciro ibyuko KCF Ltd nta mwenda iyibereyemo kuko ubwayo ibyemera ndetse

## Page 289

249 CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD ET.AL 249 bibaye uko bikaba byakwitwa ukwikungahaza mu buryo budakwiriye (enrichissement sans cause). Kigali Ceramica and Furniture Ltd ivuga ko nta mwenda ibereyemo CiMERWA Ltd kuko yayiwishyuye ikoresheje cheques bityo kuba yo itarabikuje izo cheques ikaba itabibazwa ndetse ikwiye ngo kwiyerengera igihombo byayiteye. ikavugako itabazwa iby’inyungu mbonezamusaruro kuko ntacyo zishingiyeho. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Gutanga sheki k’uwo igenewe ubwabyo ntibihagije ngo uwasinye yumve ko yamaze kwishyura, ahubwo uwo wayisinye afite n’inshingano zo kwizeza uwayishyikirijwe ko kuri konti ye afiteho amafaranga ahagije ku itariki sheki igomba kwishyurirwaho kugeza igihe isaziye, kandi ko atazatambamira iyishyurwa ryayo. 2. Inyungu zibarirwa ku kigereranyo cy’inyungu ku nguzanyo (taux moyen de prêt/average lending rate) gitangazwa na Banki Nkuru y’u Rwanda. Ikirego gisaba gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane gifite ishingiro. Amategeko yashingiweho: itegeko N° 32/2009 ryo ku wa 18/11/2009 ryerekeye inyandiko zishobora gucuruzwa Amabwiriza No 006/2015 yo ku wa 16/09/2015 ya Banki Nkuru y’u Rwanda yerekeye sheki zitazigamiwe, ingingo ya 5 Imanza zifashishijwe:

## Page 290

250 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 250 Nova (Jersey) Knit Ltd v Kammgarn Spinnerei GmbH [1977] 1 WLR 713 (CA). RS/iNJUST/RCOMOOOO3/2022/SC; Murwanashyaka Jean Damascène vs BAMU TRADE COMPANY Ltd rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 31/03/2023. RS/iNJUST/RCOM00014/2022/SC; Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine vs Bank of Kigali Plc rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 31/03/2023. Inyandiko z’abahanga: Thierry Bonneau, Droit bancaire, 14e éd., LGDJ, Paris, 2021, p.482. Jérôme Lasserre Capdeville et les autres, Droit bancaire, 3e éd, Dalloz, Paris, 2021, P.600. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi, CiMERWA Ltd irega KiGALi CERAMiCA FURNiTURE Ltd, yitwa KCF Ltd muri uru rubanza, ko itubahirije amasezerano bagiranye ku wa 12/04/2017. Ayo masezerano yiswe “Cement Supply Contract on 30 Days Credit Facility”, yagombaga kumara umwaka umwe ushobora kongerwa, bumvikana ko CiMERWA Ltd izaha KCF Ltd sima ku ideni, maze nayo ikazayishyura ikoresheje uburyo bwa sheki (cheque). [2] KCF Ltd ntiyishyuye uko bumvikanye maze ku itariki ya 11/09/2020 n’iya 05/10/2020, CIMERWA Ltd iyandikira iyisaba kwishyura umwenda iyo sosiyete yari iyibereyemo, ariko

## Page 291

251 CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD ET.AL 251 ntiyabikora bituma ku wa 16/02/2021, itanga ikirego isaba Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi ko rwategeka KCF Ltd kuyishyura 90.350.000 Frw y’umwenda iyibereyemo, 16.263.000 Frw y’inyungu mbonezamusaruro ndetse n’izindi ndishyi zitandukanye. [3] KCF Ltd yireguye ivuga ko umwenda wose ukomoka ku masezerano yo ku wa 12/04/2017 wishyuwe kuko mbere y’uko ahabwa indi mifuka ya sima, yagombaga kuba yarangije kwishyura sima yabaga yahawe mbere; agasanga rero kuba ayo masezerano yaragombaga kurangira ku wa 12/04/2018, bisobanuye ko nta n’umwenda CIMERWA Ltd yagombye kuba yishyuza ; ko n’iyo yaba iwishyuza waba ushingiye ku yandi masezerano atandukanye n’aburanwa muri uru rubanza. [4] Mu rubanza RCOM 00155/2021/TC rwaciwe ku wa 02/07/2021, Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwasanze: i. Nta mwenda KCF Ltd ibereyemo CiMERWA Ltd kuko yawishyuye hakoreshejwe sheki (cheque) zifite agaciro ka 102.000.000 Frw1 kandi n’amasezerano yo ku wa 12/04/2017 yarangiye ku wa 12/04/2018; ii. CiMERWA Ltd igomba gusubiza KCF Ltd 11.650.000 Frw2, hashingiwe ku ihame ry’amategeko rivuga ko uwakiriye icyo atagombwaga ku bushake cyangwa habayeho kwibeshya, afite inshingano zo kugisubiza uwakimuhaye (restitution de l’indu) kugira ngo

1 Sheki ya mbere yatanzwe ku wa 30/11/2018 ifite agaciro ka 51.000.000 Frw ndetse, iya kabiri itangwa ku wa ku wa 03/12/2018 nayo ifite agaciro ka 51.000.000 Frw. 2 102.000.000 Frw yahawe - 90.350.000 Frw y’umwenda yishyuzaga = 11.650.000 Frw

## Page 292

252 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO hatabaho kwikungahaza mu buryo bunyuranije n’amategeko (Enrichissement illicite); kuko ubwishyu yahawe burenze kure umwenda yaregeraga; iii. Indishyi mbonezamusaruro n’iz’akababaro zisabwa na CiMERWA Ltd nta shingiro zifite kuko zari zishamikiye ku kirego cy’iremezo, kandi Urukiko rukaba rwarasanze nta shingiro gifite. [5] Urukiko rwanzuye ko ikirego cya CiMERWA Ltd nta shingiro gifite, rutegeka ko CiMERWA Ltd igomba gusubiza KCF Ltd 11.650.000 Frw arenga ku mafaranga yagombaga kwishyurwa. [6] CiMERWA Ltd yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ivuga ko amasezerano yo ku wa 12/04/2017 atigeze ahagarara kuko imikoranire yari ifitanye na KCF Ltd yakomeje uko byari bisanzwe. [7] Yanenze Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi ko rutahaye agaciro ibimenyetso yarushyikirije harimo delivery notes zigaragaza amatariki, ingano ndetse n’igiciro cya sima CIMERWA Ltd yagemuriraga KCF Ltd, kandi ko rutari kuvuga ko sheki ebyiri (2) zatanzwe na KCF Ltd ari zo zishyuye umwenda CiMERWA Ltd yari iberewemo, kuko igihe cyo kuzibikuza yasanze zitazigamiwe, isoza isaba ko Urukiko rwayigenera indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka. [8] KCF Ltd na Karangwa Raymond bireguye bavuga ko impamvu z’ubujurire zatanzwe na CIMERWA Ltd nta shingiro zifite kuko umwenda bari bayibereyemo warangije kwishyurwa, kandi ikaba itanagaragaza ibimenyetso ishingiraho ivuga ko

## Page 293

253 CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD ET.AL ikiberewemo umwenda. Basoje basaba indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka. [9] Mu rubanza RCOMA 00555/2021/HCC rwaciwe ku wa 20/09/2022, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwasanze: - Kuba CiMERWA Ltd yarakomeje gukorana na KCF Ltd bidasobanuye ko ibyo bikorwa byakomeje kugengwa n’amasezerano yo ku wa 12/04/2017 kuko yari yararangiye; ii. Urukiko rwabanje nta kosa rwakoze ubwo rwemezaga ko amasezerano yarangiye kuko impande zombi zitakurikije ibyateganywaga n’ingingo ya 7 y’ayo masezerano, ngo ziyongerere igihe cyangwa ngo zibe zarateganyije ko ayo masezerano ashobora gukomeza nta yindi nyandiko ibayeho (tacite reconduction). - Kuba CiMERWA Ltd na KCF Ltd zarakomeje gukorana, bitafatwa nk’ikimenyetso simusiga cyemeza ko amasezerano yakomeje kugira agaciro kuko mu mikorere y’ubucuruzi (usages commerciaux) bitabujijwe ko impande zombi zagirana ubucuruzi nta masezerano yanditse zifitanye ; - CiMERWA Ltd ntihakana ko yakiriye sheki ebyiri zifite agaciro ka 102.000.000 Frw kandi ntivuga ko hari undi mwenda yishyurwaga mbere y’ukwezi kwa 09/2018. Nta bimenyetso bidashidikanywaho igaragaza byemeza ko hari undi mwenda yishyuza, ari yo mpamvu itsindwa nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 12 y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye

## Page 294

254 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ; - Nta nyungu zikomoka ku mwenda KCF Ltd igomba kuryozwa kuko nta mwenda ibereyemo CiMERWA Ltd ; - CiMERWA Ltd ntikwiye guhabwa indishyi zisabwa kuko ubujurire zari zishingiyeho nta shingiro bufite. [10] Urukiko rwanzuye ko ubujurire bwa CiMERWA Ltd nta shingiro bufite, rwemeza ko nta gihindutse ku mikirize y’urubanza RCOM 00155/2021/TC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi ku wa 02/07/2021, rutegeka ko CIMERWA Ltd isubiza KCF Ltd : 11.650.000 Frw arenga kuyo yagombaga kwishyurwa, 1.000.000 Frs y’indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka mu bujurire, runavuga ko 40.000 Frw y’ingwate y’amagarama y’urubanza CIMERWA Ltd yishyuye ijurira aherera mu isanduku ya Leta. [11] Ku wa 28/10/2022, CiMERWA Ltd yandikiye Perezida w'Urukiko rw'Ubujurire isaba ko urubanza RCOMA 00555/2021/HCC rwaciwe n'Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ku wa 20/09/2022, rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z'akarengane. Perezida w'Urukiko rw'Ubujurire amaze gusuzuma ubwo busabe, yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga asaba ko urwo rubanza rusubirwamo, maze mu cyemezo No 012/CJ/2024 cyo ku wa 07/02/2024, yemeza ko rwoherezwa mu Bwanditsi bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kugira ngo ruzongere ruburanishwe. [12] Urubanza rwahamagajwe ku wa 06/06/2024, maze Urukiko rusanga ababuranyi bitabye, CiMERWA Ltd ihagarariwe na Me Ndahimana Jean Bosco, naho KCF Ltd na

## Page 295

255 CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD ET.AL Karangwa Raymond bahagarariwe na Me Gahamanyi Justin, maze impaka zigibwa ku bibazo bikurikira: a. Kumenya niba hari umwenda KCF Ltd ibereyemo CIMERWA Ltd n’inyungu zawo ; b. Kumenya niba Karangwa Raymond yategekwa gufatanya na KCF Ltd kwishyura umwenda uregerwa mu gihe waba uhari ; c. Kumenya niba KCF Ltd yategekwa gusubiza CiMERWA Ltd 11.650.000Frw yishyuwe harangizwa urubanza RCOMA 00555/2022/HCC ; d. Kumenya niba indishyi zasabwe zifite ishingiro. [13] Muri iryo buranisha kandi Urukiko rwategetse umuyobozi wa KCF Ltd ko bitarenze ku itariki ya 13/06/2024, azaba yarushyikirije amakuru ku bikorwa byakozwe kuri konte ya sosiyete abereye umuyobozi (bank statement) kuva ku wa 25/11/2018 kugeza ku wa 06/09/2019. [14] Nyuma yo kumva ibisobanuro bya buri ruhande ku bibazo byagiweho impaka, iburanisha ryarapfundikiwe, Urukiko rumenyesha ababuranyi ko urubanza ruzasomwa ku wa 19/07/2024. Ubwo Urukiko rwari rwiherereye ngo ruce urubanza, rwasanze umuyobozi wa KCF Ltd atararushyikirije amakuru yari yasabwe ku bikorwa byakozwe kuri konti (bank statement). Bitewe n’uko icyo kimenyetso cyari gutanga umucyo ku kiburanwa muri uru rubanza, rwasanze mbere yo gufata icyemezo ari ngombwa ko icyo kimenyetso gisabwa BPR Bank Plc kuko sheki zatanzwe zari izayo. Ku itariki ya 24/07/2024, Banki yatanze bank statement nk’uko yabisabwe, urubanza rwongera guhamagazwa.

## Page 296

256 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO [15] iburanisha mu ruhame ryabaye ku wa 09/10/2024, CiMERWA Ltd ihagarariwe na Me Abayo Jean Claude naho KCF Ltd na Karangwa Raymond bahagarariwe nka mbere; maze ababuranyi bajya impaka kuri bank statement yari yatanzwe na BPR Bank Plc. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO II.1. Kumenya niba hari umwenda KCF Ltd ibereyemo CIMERWA Ltd n’inyungu zawo [16] Ku bijyanye n’umwenda KCF Ltd ibereyemo CiMERWA Ltd, Me Ndahimana Jean Bosco uhagarariye CiMERWA Ltd, avuga ko impamvu ashingiraho asaba ko urubanza RCOMA 00555/2021/HCC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ku wa 20/09/2022 rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, ari uko urwo Rukiko rutasesenguye mu buryo bwimbitse ibimenyetso rwashyikirijwe kuko iyo rubikora rwari kubona ko nta bwishyu bwabayeho, ko sheki ebyiri zifite agaciro ka 102.000.000 Frw CiMERWA Ltd yahawe zitari zizigamiwe, kandi ko Umuyobozi wa KCF Ltd atari kwandika asaba kongererwa igihe cyo kwishyura akarenzaho no gutanga izindi sheki zisimbura iza mbere azi neza ko yamaze kwishyura. Avuga kandi ko Urukiko rutasesenguye ibimenyetso bigizwe na delivery notes kandi zaragaragazaga ingano nyakuri y’umwenda utarishyurwa ungana na 99.350.000 Frw rukaba rwarirengagije ibiteganywa mu ngingo ya 1043 ndetse n’iya 108, agace ka

3 Iyo ngingo iteganya ko: “Ibimenyetso bicukumbuwe ni ingingo amategeko cyangwa urukiko bisesengura bishingiye ku kintu kizwi kugira ngo hagaragazwe ikitazwi.”

## Page 297

257 CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD ET.AL mbere,4 z’Itegeko No 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo. [17] Mu iburanisha ryo ku wa 06/06/2024, Me Ndahimana Jean Bosco yongeyeho ko icyo basaba cyasesengurwa ari ukumenya niba KCF Ltd yarishyuye, hakamenyekana niba kuba hari izo sheki bihagije kumenya ko habayeho kwishyura, asaba ko KCF Ltd yatanga historique bancaire igaragaza ko izo sheki zabikujwe. [18] Asobanura ko iyo Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rusesengura ibimenyetso bimaze kuvugwa rukabiha n’agaciro, rwari kubona ko nta bwishyu bwabayeho, agasanga rero kuba Urukiko rutarabisesenguye rwirengagije ibiteganywa mu ngingo ya 104 ndetse n’iya 108, agace ka mbere, z’Itegeko No 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo. [19] Ku bijyanye n’inyungu zikomoka kuri uwo mwenda, Me Ndahimana Jean Bosco avuga ko zishingiye ku kuba CiMERWA Ltd ari sosiyete y’ubucuruzi ikoresha amafaranga aba yavuye mu nguzanyo, bityo kutishyurwa bikaba byarayiteye igihombo, akaba ari nayo mpamvu isaba ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwayigenera inyungu za 18% ku mwaka, zikabarwa mu gihe cy’imyaka ine n’amezi atandatu kuko iyo yishyurwa ayo mafaranga aba yarabyajwe izindi nyungu. Avuga ko izo nyungu zabarwa mu buryo bukurikira: (90.350.000Frw x 18%) x imyaka

4 iyo ngingo iteganya ko: “Ibimenyetso bicukumbuwe no gusesengura urubanza ni ibimenyetso bitacukumbuwe n’amategeko, bicukumburwa n’ubwenge n’ubushishozi bw’abacamanza. Abacamanza bagomba kwemera gusa ibyo bimenyetso iyo bikomeye, bisobanuye kandi bihuje.”

## Page 298

258 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 4 +1/2 cy’umwaka = 65.052.000Frw + 8.131.500Frw = 73.183.500 Frw. [20] Mu iburanisha ryo ku wa 09/10/2024, CiMERWA Ltd ihagarariwe na Me Abayo Jean Claude, yavuze ko bank statement yatanzwe igaragaza neza ko nta mafaranga KCF Ltd yari ifite kuri konti igihe yatangaga sheki ziburanwa ari zo iyo ku wa 30/11/2018 no ku wa 03/12/2018, kandi bikaba bishimangira ko yari yarasabwe na KCF Ltd kutajyana izo sheki kuri banki, kuko nta mafaranga yari kuri konti yayo. CiMERWA Ltd ivuga ko nta handi yari kubikura uretse kubibwirwa na nyiri konti. [21] Me Ndahimana Jean Bosco uhagarariye CiMERWA Ltd asoza avuga ko ibyo KCF Ltd ivuga by’uko CIMERWA Ltd ikwiye kwirengera ingaruka zo kudatanga sheki ngo zishyurwe nta gaciro byahabwa kubera ko (i) ari yo yasabye CiMERWA Ltd kutajyana sheki kuri banki ngo zishyurwe kuko nta mafaranga yariho, (ii) ko icyo ingingo ya 112 y’itegeko ryerekeye inyandiko zishobora gucuruzwa ryakoreshwaga icyo gihe ivuga ari uko uwatanze sheki iterekanywe ngo yishyurwe adashobora kuryozwa indishyi, ikaba itavuga ko uwatanze iyo sheki akuweho inshingano yo kwishyura. Avuga kandi ko (iii) ibivugwa na KCF Ltd bihawe agaciro haba habayeho kwikungahaza mu buryo budakwiye (enrichissement sans cause), kuko KCF Ltd yemera ko yahawe sima. [22] Me Gahamanyi Justin uburanira KCF Ltd na Karangwa Raymond avuga ko ibivugwa n’uburanira CIMERWA Ltd atari ukuri kuko imifuka ya sima yatanzwe mu kwezi kwa 09, ukwa 10 ndetse no mu kwa 11 mu mwaka wa 2018 nk’uko bigaragazwa na delivery notes, yose yishyuwe hakoreshejwe sheki yatanzwe ku wa 30/11/2018 n’iyo ku wa 03/12/2018. Yongeraho ko kuba CiMERWA Ltd ivuga ko hari umwenda itishyuwe, ikongera

## Page 299

259 CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD ET.AL ikavuga ko sheki zatanzwe zari zimaze iminsi irenga 240 zarataye agaciro nyamara sheki igira agaciro mu minsi 60, asanga izo mvugo zivuguruzanya ndetse zikaba zitavugisha ukuri. Avuga kandi ko ibaruwa yo ku wa 31/07/2019 ntaho igaragaza ko sheki zatanzwe zasimburaga izabanje ndetse ko n’iyo byaba ari ko bimeze, ntacyo CiMERWA Ltd yaba iregera kuko yemera ko yazihawe kandi ikaba itagaragaza undi mwenda uhwanye n’agaciro k’izo sheki wishyurwaga. [23] Asoza kuri iyi ngingo avuga ko haba sheki yo ku wa 30/11/2018 n’iyo ku wa 03/12/2018, ubwazo zari ubwishyu, bityo ko kuba CiMERWA Ltd ivuga ko itishyuwe ari yo igomba gusobanura impamvu itagiye kuzibikuza, kandi itegeko N° 32/2009 ryo ku wa 18/11/2009 ryerekeye inyandiko zishobora gucuruzwa ryakoreshwaga icyo gihe ndetse n’Itegeko No 060/2021 ryo ku wa 14/10/2021 rigenga inyandiko zishobora gucuruzwa rikoreshwa ubu, ribisobanura neza. [24] Mu iburanisha ryo ku wa 06/06/2024, Me Gahamanyi Justin yongeyeho ko kuba CiMERWA Ltd yarahawe sheki zihwanye n’umwenda yari iberewemo bihagije ngo ibe yarishyuwe, ko kuba yagira uburangare bitabazwa KCF Ltd, anavuga ko uwahawe sheki ntazibikuze biba igihombo kuri we nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 112 y’itegeko rigenga impapuro zishobora gucuruzwa. Abajijwe niba izo sheki zarishyuwe, yasubije ko atabimenya, maze Urukiko rutegeka KCF Ltd kuzarushyikiriza bitarenze ku wa 13/06/2024, historique bancaire ya konti zayo ihera ku itariki ya 25/11/2018 kugeza ku itariki ya 06/09/2019. [25] Ku bijyanye n’inyungu CIMERWA Ltd isaba, Me Gahamanyi Justin avuga ko kuba CiMERWA Ltd yarishyuwe umwenda yari iberewemo, asanga inyungu mbonezamusaruro

## Page 300

260 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO iyo sosiyete isaba zitahabwa ishingiro kuko ntacyo zaba zishingiyeho. [26] Mu iburanisha ryo ku wa 09/10/2024, Me Gahamanyi Justin yasobanuye ko ibivugwa na CIMERWA Ltd by’uko igihe yahabwaga sheki nta mafaranga yari kuri konte bitahabwa agaciro, kuko bank Statement ubwayo yerekana ko kuva ku wa 25/11/2018 kugera ku wa 06/09/2019 kuri konte yayo hanyuzeho 654.331.953 Frw. Yongeraho kandi ko n’ubwo nta mafaranga yari kuba ari kuri konte nta kibazo byari kuyigiraho kuko bari bafitanye imikoranire myiza na BPR Bank Plc ku buryo iyo hari sheki yazaga nta mafaranga ari kuri konti ya KCF Ltd, bank yayishyuraga mu rwego rw’uko yamwemeraga overdraft / dépassement. [27] Akomeza avuga ko CiMERWA Ltd itagaragaza niba yarigeze ijya kuri banki kubikuza sheki yari yahawe, ko kandi izo sheki zari barrés, ku buryo iyo CiMERWA Ltd izitanga nta mafaranga ari kuri konti ya KFC Ltd, banki yari kuziteraho kashe kandi igahamagara KCF Ltd iyibwira ko yatanze sheki zitazigamiwe. [28] Asoza avuga ko CiMERWA Ltd itakwitwaza ayo makosa ngo ivuge ko yahawe sheki zitazigamiwe, kandi ari yo itarazitwaye kuri banki ku gihe ngo zishyurwe, bityo ikaba igomba kwirengera ayo makosa. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [29] Muri uru rubanza, ababuranyi bombi bemeranya ko CiMERWA Ltd yagemuriye KCF Ltd sima, kandi ko hari umwenda wagombaga kwishyurwa. icyo batemeranyaho ni

## Page 301

261 CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD ET.AL ukumenya niba uwo mwenda warishyuwe cyangwa utarishyuwe, ndetse n’inyungu zaba zishingiye kuri uwo mwenda igihe waba utarishyuwe. a. Kumenya niba hari umwenda KCF Ltd ibereyemo CIMERWA Ltd [30] Muri uru rubanza ababuranyi bombi baremeranywa ko hari umwenda wa sima KCF Ltd yari ibereyemo CiMERWA Ltd ungana na 90, 350,000 Frw, icyo batumvikanaho akaba ari uko KCF Ltd ivuga ko yishyuye uwo mwenda ikoresheje sheki ebyiri, iyo ku wa 30/11/2018 n’iyo ku wa 03/12/2018, ikavuga ko kuba CiMERWA Ltd itaragiye kubikuza izo sheki itabibazwa, mu gihe CiMERWA Ltd yo ivuga ko izo sheki zitari zizigamiwe, umwenda ukaba utarishyuwe. ikibazo kigomba gusuzumwa rero ni ukumenya niba kuba sheki zaratanzwe na KCF Ltd ariko CiMERWA Ltd ntizitange muri banki ngo zishyurwe bikuraho umwenda cyangwa niba bitawukuraho. Mu rwego rwo gusubiza icyo kibazo, Urukiko rwasuzumye ibijyanye na sheki nk’ubwishyu bukoresheje inyandiko zishobora gucuruzwa ndetse n’agaciro kazo, nk’uko biteganywa n’Itegeko N° 32/2009 ryo ku wa 18/11/2009 ryerekeye inyandiko zishobora gucuruzwa ryakoreshwaga igihe sheki zivugwa mu rubanza zatangwaga5, runasuzuma niba sheki zatanzwe zari zujuje ibisabwa ngo zibe ubwishyu. Hanasuzumwe kandi niba kuzitanga ubwabyo byarakuyeho umwenda KCF Ltd yari ifitiye CiMERWA Ltd.

5 Ingingo ya 110 iteganya ko: “Sheki ni inyandiko itavuguruzwa itanzwe n’uwayishyizeho umukono igenewe banki imwe cyangwa ikigo cy’imari kimwe, isaba kwishyura mu gihe bisabwe, umubare w’amafaranaga usobanuye kuri sheki. Iyo sheki igomba kwishyurwa nyir’ubwite, umuntu wateganyijwe cyangwa uyitwaje. Izina rya banki cyangwa ikigo cy’imari bigomba kwishyura rigomba kuba ryanditse mu buryo busobanutse”.

## Page 302

262 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO [31] Ku bijyanye n’agaciro ka sheki, amategeko avuga ko sheki igira agaciro mu bihe bikurikira nk’uko byateganywaga n’itegeko rimaze kuvugwa ndetse n’amabwiriza No 006/2015 yo ku wa 16/09/2015 ya Banki Nkuru y’u Rwanda yerekeye sheki zitazigamiwe : Ǧ Uwatanze inyandiko yishyurwa : 1° asezeranya ko, mu gihe izerekanwa mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, izakirwa kandi ikishyurwa ku gaciro kayo ; 2° yishingira kandi mu gihe yanzwe, kwishyura uyifite cyangwa uwategetse wese ko yishyurwa ; 3° yemeza kandi ko adashobora gutambamira uyitwaje ku buryo bukurikije amategeko (ingingo ya 76 y’Itegeko rivugwa) ; Ǧ Sheki igira agaciro mu minsi mirongo itandatu (60) uhereye ku itariki yatangiweho (ingingo ya 113 y’ itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru) ; Ǧ Utanze sheki afite inshingano zirimo no kuba afite amafaranga ahagije kuri konti ye ku itariki sheki igomba kwishyurirwaho kugeza itaye agaciro (ingingo ya 5 y’amabwiriza yavuzwe haruguru mu gika cya mbere). [32] Urukiko rurasanga, hashingiwe ku bimaze kuvugwa, Umushingamategeko yaragaragaje ko gushyikiriza sheki umuntu igenewe ubwabyo bidahagije ngo uwasinye sheki yumve ko yamaze kwishyura, ahubwo yamushyizeho n’inshingano zo kwizeza uwayishyikirijwe ko kuri konti ye afiteho amafaranga ahagije ku itariki sheki igomba kwishyurirwaho kugeza igihe isaziye, kandi ko atazatambamira iyishyurwa ryayo. Biragaragaza ko sheki itujuje ibi iba idafite agaciro kandi ko uwayitanze yemera kuzishyura uwo yayihaye igihe iyo sheki yanzwe.

## Page 303

263 CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD ET.AL [33] Ibimaze kuvugwa bishimangirwa n’umuhanga Thierry Bonneau, mu gitabo cyitwa Droit bancaire nawe uvuga ko sheki ari inyandiko itegeka ikigo cy’imari kwishyura uyizanye umubare w’amafaranga uyiriho6. Uyu muhanga asobanura kandi ko sheki igizwe n’ibintu bibiri, icya mbere kikaba ari abarebwa na sheki bagizwe n’utanga sheki (le tireur), uyihabwa (le bénéficiaire) ndetse na banki (le tiré) ; icya kabiri kikaba ari ukuba hari amafaranga ahererekanywa (la provision). Umuhanga Jérôme Lasserre Capdeville n’abandi7, bo bagaragaza ko sheki ishobora kubaho iyo ibyo byombi bihari “les conditions de fond à la création du chèque”. Muri uru rubanza, hasuzumwe gusa ibijyanye no kuba hari amafaranga kuri konti, kuko ari ho hari impaka. Ku bijyanye n’amafaranga ashobora guhererekanywa (la provision), aba bahanga bagaragaje ingingo enye z’ingenzi zikurikira zigomba kuba zuzuye kugira ngo sheki ifatwe nk’inyandiko ishobora gucuruzwa : Kuba hari amafaranga kuri konti y’uwatanze sheki (caractère préalable) igihe yayandikaga kandi akayishyikiriza uwo igenewe. Ni ukuvuga ko kuyandika no kuyitanga byonyine bidahagije, kuko sheki ari inyandiko ihesha nyir’ukuyihabwa umubare w’amafaranga yanditseho; Kuba amafaranga ariho ahagije (Caractère suffisant) : ni ukuvuga ko utanga sheki agomba kuba afite kuri konti ye amafaranga angana nibura n’umubare w’amafaranga ari kuri sheki yatanze ;

6 “Le chèque est un document écrit comportant des mentions obligatoires et “par lequel une personne appelée tireur donne l'ordre à un établissement de crédit, appelé tiré, de payer à vue une certaine somme à une troisième personne, appelée bénéficiaire, ou à son ordre” Thierry Bonneau, Droit bancaire, 14e éd., LGDJ, Paris, 2021, p.482. 7 Jérôme Lasserre Capdeville et les autres, Droit bancaire, 3e éd, Dalloz, Paris, 2021, P.600.

## Page 304

264 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Kuba ayo mafaranga ashobora gutangwa (Caractère disponible) : ni ukuvuga ko amafaranga agomba kuba ashobora guhita aboneka ; Kuba sheki idashobora gusubirwaho/guteshwa agaciro (Caractère irrévocable): ni ukuvuga ko uwayitanze adashobora kuyisubirana cyangwa kubuza banki kuyishyura (uretse mu bihe biteganywa n’amategeko), ikaba igomba kugumanwa n’uwayihawe kugeza igihe yishyuriwe cyangwa isaziye (Expiration du délai de prescription du chèque) [34] Ku bijyanye na sheki zatanzwe na KCF Ltd, nk’uko byibukijwe haruguru, KCF Ltd na Karangwa Raymond bashingira ku ngingo ya 112 y’Itegeko ryerekeye inyandiko zishobora gucuruzwa ryavuzwe haruguru ivuga ko “uwatanze sheki cyangwa uwayihererekanyije hakoreshejwe gushyira umukono inyuma ntacyo abazwa iyo uwahawe sheki atayerekanye kugira ngo yishyurwe mu buryo bwemewe n’amategeko”. Bavuga ko umwenda wose ukomoka ku masezerano yo ku wa 12/04/2017 wishyuwe kuko batanze sheki z’ubwishyu, bakavuga ko ibyo bihagije ngo CIMERWA Ltd ibe yarishyuwe, bityo ko kuba yagira uburangare bwo kutajya kuzibikuza bitabazwa KCF Ltd. [35] Nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, kugira ngo sheki ihinduke ubwishyu, ni uko iba yujuje ibisabwa byagaragajwe, nyamara nk’uko nanone byasobanuwe, sheki zombi zatanzwe na KCF Ltd ntizari zibyujuje. KCF Ltd na Karangwa Raymond bavuga ko kuba baratanze sheki ingingo ya 112 yavuzwe ibakuraho kuryozwa kuba itarishyuwe. Aha Urukiko rukaba rwarasuzumye icyo iyi ngingo ivuga mu by’ukuri, niba ivuga ko

## Page 305

265 CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD ET.AL kudatanga sheki ngo zishyurwe bikuraho umwenda zishingiyeho nk’uko KCF Ltd na Karangwa babiburanisha. [36] Urukiko rurasanga iyi ngingo ndetse n’itegeko ryerekeye inyandiko zishobora gucuruzwa bigamije kugena ibijyanye n’ihererekanya ry’inyandiko zishobora gucuruzwa, nk’uko bigaragara mu ngingo yaryo ya mbere, rikanateganya mu ngingo ya 6 ko urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano, harimo amategeko agenga ibikorwa by’ubucuruzi n’amasezerano bitanyuranyije naryo bikoreshwa kuri izo nyandiko. Urukiko rurasanga rero ibijyanye n’umwenda byo birebwa n’ayo mategeko avugwa, mu gihe iri ryo rireba gusa uburyo bwo kwishyurana, ku buryo igihe sheki yatanzwe itaye agaciro bitakuraho umwenda iyo sheki yari ishingiyeho. [37] Uku ni ko inkiko zitandukanye zabibonye, maze zemeza ko umwenda uba ukiriho, uberewemo umwenda akaba afite uburenganzira bwo kuwukurikirana mu buryo bwose buteganywa n’amategeko. Twatanga urugero rw’urubanza Nova (Jersey) Knit Ltd v Kammgarn Spinnerei GmbH_ [1977] 1 WLR 713 (CA)7, aho Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwo mu gihugu cy’u Bwongereza rwemeje ko gutanga inyandiko icuruzwa (muri uru rubanza yari inyandiko ntegekabwishyu/bill of exchange) bidakuraho umwenda igihe cyose itishyuwe, rwemeza ko iyo iyo nyandiko itishyuwe, umwenda w’iremezo uba ukiriho. Ku bijyanye na sheki, The Law Society Gazette yanditse ko iyo sheki itanzwe haba hariho amasezerano abiri, ayo kugemura ibicuruzwa cyangwa gutanga serivisi n’andi yo kwishyura8.

7 Ruboneka kuri https://vlex.co.uk/vid/nova-jersey-knit-ltd-792986765 8 “When a cheque is tendered in payment for goods or services, there are two distinct contracts. The contract for the supply of the goods or services is separate from the contract represented by the cheque. That second

## Page 306

266 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Birumvikana rero ko igihe amasezerano akubiye muri sheki adafite cyangwa yataye agaciro bitagira ingaruka ku masezerano ishingiyeho. [38] Hakurikijwe ibimaze gusobanurwa, Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 112 y’Itegeko N° 32/2009 ryo ku wa 18/11/2009 ryerekeye inyandiko zishobora gucuruzwa ryakoreshwaga igihe sheki zivugwa mu rubanza zatangwaga, kimwe n’ingingo ya 108 y’Itegeko N° 060/2021 ryo ku wa 14/10/2021 rigenga inyandiko zishobora gucuruzwa ririho ubu, zikwiye kumvikana mu buryo bukurikira : Ǧ Sheki igira agaciro gusa iyo izigamiwe kuva igihe itangiwe (itariki igaragara kuri sheki) kugeza igihe itaye agaciro (isaziye). Ǧ Gutanga sheki ubwabyo ntibihagije kugira ngo uwayisinye agire umutekano w’uko yishyuye, ahubwo bimuha n’inshingano zo kwizeza ugomba kuyibikuza, ko kuri konti ye afiteho amafaranga ahagije ku itariki sheki igomba kwishyurirwaho kugeza itaye agaciro. Ǧ Amasezerano akubiye muri sheki atandukanye n’ayo ubwishyu bushingiyeho. Ni ukuvuga ko igihe sheki idashobora kwishyurwa ku mpamvu izo ari zo zose, ntibikuraho umwenda w’ibanze. Igihe sheki itagifite agaciro, uberewemo umwenda asigarana uburenganzira bwo

contract is an unconditional promise to pay the recipient”. In The Law Society Gazette, https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/benchmarks-customers-face-cheque- mate-the-difficult-battle-to-justify-astopped-cheque-/21854.article

## Page 307

267 CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD ET.AL gukurikirana ubwishyu mu bundi buryo bwose buteganywa n’amategeko. Ǧ itegeko rigenga inyandiko zishobora gucuruzwa rireba gusa amasezerano azikubiyemo n’uburyo bwo kwishyurana, ariko ntirireba ibyo umwenda wishyurwa ushingiyeho. [39] Ku bijyanye n’uru rubanza, Urukiko rurasanga sheki uburanira KCF Ltd avuga ko ari zo zari ubwishyu bw’umwenda yari ibereyemo CiMERWA Ltd, ari sheki yo ku wa 30/11/2018 yari ifite agaciro kugeza ku wa 29/01/2019 n’iyo ku wa 03/12/2018 yari ifite agaciro kugeza ku wa 02/02/2019, zombi za 51.000.000 Frw buri yose. Bank statement yasabwe n’urukiko iragaragaza ko kuva ku itariki ya 30/11/2018 kugeza ku ya 01/03/2019, nta mafaranga ahagije KCF Ltd yari ifite kuri konti kuko kugeza kuri iyo tariki yari ifiteho umwenda wa 1,507 Frw, kandi sheki ya nyuma yari yarataye agaciro ku wa 02/02/2019. ibi biragaragaza ko izi sheki zitari zizigamiwe ku matariki zatanzweho kugeza igihe zatereye agaciro, bikaba binyuranyije n’ibiteganywa n’amategeko n’amabwiriza byavuzwe haruguru9. [40] Urukiko rurasanga izi sheki zatanzwe na KCF Ltd nta gaciro zari zifite kuko zatanzwe zitazigamiwe. Kubera iyo mpamvu rero ntizashoboraga kuba ubwishyu. Urukiko rurasanga kuba nta bwishyu CiMERWA Ltd yigeze ibona, umwenda KCF Ltd yari iyibereyemo ugihari wose uko ungana na 90.350.000 Frw, ukaba utagibwaho impaka kuko na KCF Ltd yivugira ko ari

9 Ingingo ya 76 n’iya 113 z’Itegeko n° 32/2009 ryo ku wa 18/11/2009 ryerekeye inyandiko zishobora gucuruzwa ryakoreshwaga igihe sheki zivugwa mu rubanza zatangwaga n’ingingo ya 5 y’amabwiriza no 006/2015 yo ku wa 16/09/2015 ya banki nkuru y’u Rwanda yerekeye sheki zitazigamiwe.

## Page 308

268 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 268 wo sheki ziburanwa zari zigamije kwishyura, bityo KCF Ltd ikaba igomba kuwishyura. [41] Urukiko rurasanga kandi ibivugwa na KCF Ltd ko sheki ubwazo ari ubwishyu atari byo, kuko igihe cyose sheki itabikujwe ngo amafaranga ave kuri konti, nta ubwishyu buba bwabayeho. Urukiko rurasanga kandi uyu mwenda KCF Ltd itawuhakana, ndetse binagaragara mu ibaruwa yayo yo ku wa 30/09/2020 yandikiye CIMERWA Ltd. Umutwe w’iyo baruwa ugira uti : “outstanding balance Rwf 99,350,000”. Kubera iyo mpamvu, Urukiko rukaba rusanga KCF Ltd igumanye aya mafaranga kandi yarahawe ibicuruzwa, byaba ari ukwikungahaza mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko. [42] Ku bivugwa na KCF Ltd ko sheki zari ziciyeho umurongo (chèques barrés) zagombaga gushyirwa kuri konti gusa kandi ko kubera imikoranire yari ifitanye na banki iyo CiMERWA Ltd Izijyana banki yari kuzishyura mu rwego rw’uko yamwemeraga overdraft / dépassement, Urukiko rurasanga ibyo bitahabwa agaciro, kubera ko KCF Ltd itigeze ibimenyesha CiMERWA Ltd. Dosiye igaragaza ahubwo ko KCF Ltd yandikiye CiMERWA Ltd iyisaba kwihanganira ko ubwishyu butaraboneka, ndetse itanga n’izindi sheki zisimbura iza mbere, n’ubwo nazo zitabikujwe. Iyo rero KCF Ltd iza kuba ifite iyo mikoranire na banki, ni byo yari kuba yaramenyesheje CIMERWA Ltd. Uretse n’ibyo ariko, ntibikuraho ko umwenda utishyuwe, kuko nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, nta mafaranga yavuye kuri konti za KCF Ltd ajya kuri CiMERWA Ltd.

## Page 309

269 CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD ET.AL 269 b. Kumenya niba CIMERWA Ltd yahabwa inyungu zikomoka ku mwenda [43] ingingo ya 144 y’Itegeko N° 45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano iteganya ko “Iyo kwica amasezerano birebana no kutishyura amafaranga cyangwa kudakora igisabwa gishobora kubarwa mu mafaranga azwi cyangwa ashobora kumenyekana, inyungu zibarwa uhereye igihe igisabwa cyagombaga gukorwa hakuwemo ibyo uruhande rwishe amasezerano rufiteho uburenganzira.” [44] Nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, KCF Ltd yananiwe kwishyura CiMERWA Ltd umwenda yari iyibereyemo, kandi CIMERWA Ltd ni ikigo cy’ubucuruzi cyateganyaga kubona inyungu muri ubwo bucuruzi. izo nyungu ntiyashoboye kuzibona mu gihe cyose yari itarishyurwa na KCF Ltd. Hashingiwe ku biteganywa mu ngingo imaze kuvugwa, CiMERWA Ltd ikwiye guhabwa inyungu zikomoka ku mwenda wa 90.350.000 Frw kuva igihe wagombaga kwishyurirwa, kugeza igihe urubanza rusomewe. [45] Ku bijyanye n’igihe izo nyungu zigomba gutangira kubarwa, Urukiko rurasanga itariki ikwiye gushingirwaho ari iyo CiMERWA Ltd yamenyeyeho ko itagishoboye kubona ubwishyu. Dosiye iragaragaza ko nyuma y’aho sheki ziburanwa zidashoboye kwishyurwa, KCF Ltd yandikiye CiMERWA Ltd ku wa 31/07/2019 yemera umwenda kandi itanga izindi sheki zagombaga kubikuzwa ku wa 03/09/2019 no ku wa 05/09/2019. CiMERWA Ltd iremera ko izo sheki zishyuraga uwo mwenda, ikanemera ko ari bwo umwenda wagombaga kuba wishyuwe nk’uko babigaragaza mu myanzuro yabo. Ni yo mpamvu itariki yo kubariraho inyungu igomba guhera ku wa 05/09/2019, itariki

## Page 310

270 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 270 yatangiweho sheki ya nyuma10 kugeza ku itariki ya 15/11/2024 umunsi urubanza rwasomeweho, bikaba bihwanye n’iminsi 1870. [46] Ku bijyanye na 18% CiMERWA Ltd isaba ko ari yo yashingirwaho habarwa inyungu, Urukiko rurasanga hari umurongo watanzwe mu manza zitandukanye ugaragaza igipimo kigomba kubarirwaho inyungu. Twavuga nk’urubanza Murwanashyaka Jean Damascène yaburanaga na BAMU TRADE COMPANY Ltd11 narwo rwashingiye ku murongo watanzwe mu rubanza Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine yaburanaga na Bank of Kigali Plc12, maze Urukiko rukemeza ko inyungu zibarirwa ku kigereranyo cy’inyungu ku nguzanyo (taux moyen de prêt/average lending rate) gitangazwa na Banki Nkuru y’u Rwanda. [47] Urukiko rurasanga inyungu CiMERWA Ltd igomba guhabwa zibazwe mu buryo bukurikira, hakurikijwe ikigereranyo cy’inyungu ku nguzanyo cya 15,41% kigezweho cyatangajwe na Banki Nkuru y’u Rwanda mu kwezi kwa Nzeli 202413, zikabarwa mu minsi 1870 KCF Ltd yamaze itarishyura umwenda kugeza ku munsi urubanza ruciriweho:

10 izi sheki zo kuwa 03/09/2019 no ku wa 05/09/2019 ntiziburanwaho muri uru rubanza. Ziragarukwaho gusa mu rwego rwo kumenya umunsi inyungu zigomba kubarirwaho. 11 Urubanza RS/INJUST/RCOMOOOO3/2022/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 24/05/2024, igika cya 27 12 Urubanza RS/INJUST/RCOM00014/2022/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 31/03/2023, ibika bya 53-55 13 Ni cyo gipimo kigezweho kugeza ku wa 15/11/2024 saa tatu ubwo urubanza rwasomwaga. Byasomwe kuri https://www.bnr.rw/yieldcurve.

## Page 311

271 CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD ET.AL 271 90,350,000 Frw x 15.41 x iminsi 1870 = 72,321,912 Frw 360x100 II.2. Kumenya niba Karangwa Raymond yategekwa gufatanya na KCF Ltd kwishyura umwenda uregerwa [48] Me Ndahimana Jean Bosco uburanira CiMERWA Ltd avuga ko sima yahabwaga KCF Ltd yari iyo kubaka isoko, ariko nyuma yo kuyihabwa Umuyobozi Mukuru wayo ariwe Karangwa Raymond yanze kuyishyura, agasanga ubwo bwishyu ari we waburyozwa afatanyije na sosiyete abereye Umuyobozi kuko ari we wagize uruhare muri uko kutishyurwa, akaba asanga sosiyete ayoboye yarayikoresheje mu buriganya. [49] Avuga ko mu kwemeza ko Karangwa Raymond yafatanya kwishyura na sosiyete ayoboye, Urukiko rwashingira ku ngingo ya 92, igika cya 4, y’Itegeko No 007/2021 ryo ku wa 05/02/2021 rigenga amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi14 ndetse no ku mirongo itandukanye yatangiwe mu manza zaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga harimo urwo LETSHEGO RWANDA Ltd yaburanagamo na Umubyeyi Marie Claire1516, urwo Twagiramungu Vénuste yaburanagamo n’Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro17, muri izo manza Urukiko rukaba rwaremeje ko

14 Iyo ngingo ivuga ko: “Urukiko rushobora kurenga uburyozwe bushingiye ku migabane kugira ngo umunyamugabane aryozwe inshingano za sosiyete, iyo rusanze uwo munyamugabane yarakoresheje nabi icyiciro cya sosiyete agamije uburiganya cyangwa kwica amategeko cyangwa yarafashe nabi umutungo wa sosiyete nk’aho ari umutungo w’abantu ku giti cyabo”. 15 Reba urubanza no RS/iNJUST/RCOM 00009/2021/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 29/04/2021 17 Reba urubanza no RCOMAA 0056/2016/SC-RCOMAA 0061/16/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 16 /07/2017

## Page 312

272 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 272 uburyozwe bw’abayobozi cyangwa abanyamigabane ba sosiyete ari byo byitwa “piercing the corporate veil” cyangwa “lifting the veil of the corporation” ari umwihariko (exception) wemezwa gusa n’Urukiko, rukirengagiza itandukaniro riri hagati y’ubuzimagatozi bwa sosiyete n’ubwa ba nyirayo rushingiye ku ngingo ivuzwe hejuru. [50] Me Gahamanyi Justin uburanira KCF Ltd na Karangwa Raymond avuga ko Sosiyete y’ubucuruzi yafunguwe mu buryo bwemewe n’amategeko igira ubuzimagatozi butandukanye n’ubw’abayobozi ndetse n’ubw’abanyamigabane bayo, ko n’ubwo KCF Ltd ntacyo ikwiriye kuryozwa muri uru rubanza, atabona aho CiMERWA Ltd ishingira ivuga ko Karangwa Raymond agomba kuryozwa ibikorwa bitari ibye kuko itanagaragaje nibura niba hari umutungo wa sosiyete ayobora yaba yaragize uwe cyangwa ngo awangize. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [51] ingingo ya 95, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko N°17/2018 ryo ku wa 13/04/2018 rigenga amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi iteganya ko “uretse iyo ari isosiyete ifite uburyozwe butagarukira ku migabane, umunyamigabane ntaryozwa inshingano ya sosiyete kuko ari umunyamigabane gusa (…).” igika cya 5 cy’iyo ngingo giteganya ariko ko : “Urukiko rushobora kurenga uburyozwe bushingiye ku migabane kugira ngo umunyamugabane aryozwe inshingano za sosiyete, iyo rusanze uwo munyamugabane yarakoresheje nabi imiterere ya sosiyete agamije uburiganya cyangwa kwica amategeko cyangwa yarafashe nabi umutungo wa sosiyete nk’aho ari umutungo w’abantu ku giti cyabo”.

## Page 313

273 CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD ET.AL 273 [52] Urukiko rurasanga ingingo imaze kuvugwa igaragaza ibihe bitatu Urukiko rushobora kurenga uburyozwe bushingiye ku migabane (piercing the corporate veil/ percer le voile corporatif) kugira ngo umunyamigabane aryozwe inshingano za sosiyete, ari byo (1) igihe umunyamigabane yakoresheje nabi imiterere ya sosiyete agamije uburiganya ; (2) kwica amategeko no (3) gufata nabi umutungo wa sosiyete nk’aho ari umutungo w’abantu ku giti cyabo. [53] Iby’ikoreshwa ry’iri hame kandi byasobanuwe ku buryo burambuye mu rubanza Munyampundu Antoine n’undi baburanaga n’Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro17, aho narwo rwagendeye ku murongo watanzwe mu rubanza Twagiramungu vénuste yaburanaga n’Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro18. Uru Rukiko rwibukije muri izo manza zombi ko “uburyozwe bw’abayobozi cyangwa abanyamigabane ba sosiyete ari byo byitwa “piercing the corporate veil” cyangwa “lifting the veil of the corporation” ari umwihariko (exception) wemezwa gusa n’Urukiko, kandi ko hagomba gushingirwa ku mpamvu zisobanutse (circumstances in which the corporate veil may be lifted are greatly circumscribed) zigaragaza impamvu abayobozi cyangwa abanyamigabane bagomba kuryozwa ibyakaryojwe sosiyete. [54] Mu rubanza Murwanashyaka Jean Damascène yaburanaga na BAMU TRADE COMPANY Ltd19, Urukiko

17 Reba urubanza n° RCOMAA 00040/2016/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 22/12/2017, igika cya 25. 18 Reba urubanza RCOMAA 0056/2016/SC-RCOMAA 0061/16/CS, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 14/07/2017, igika cya 22. 19 Urubanza RS/iNJUST/RCOMOOO13/2022/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 24/05/2024, igika cya 27

## Page 314

274 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO rushingiye ku manza zimaze kuvugwa no ku byanditswe n’abahanga mu mategeko, rwasobanuye mu buryo burambuye, amahame atanu akurikira atuma habaho uburyozwe bw’abayobozi cyangwa abanyamigabane ba sosiyete: a. Kugirango umunyamigabane aryozwe ibikorwa bya sosiyete, hashingirwa ku bintu bikurikira, kandi buri cyose kikaba cyihagije: (i) kuba umunyamugabane yarakoresheje nabi imiterere ya sosiyete agamije uburiganya cyangwa kwica amategeko no (ii) Kuba umunyamugabane yarafashe nabi umutungo wa sosiyete nk’aho ari umutungo w’abantu ku giti cyabo. b. Uburyozwe bw’abayobozi cyangwa abanyamigabane ba sosiyete, ni umwihariko (exception) wemezwa gusa n’Urukiko; c. Mu kwemeza ubwo buryozwe, Urukiko rugomba gushingira ku mpamvu zisobanutse, zigaragaza neza igituma umunyamigabane agomba kuryozwa ibyagombaga ubundi kuryozwa sosiyete ; d. Ku byerekeye gukoresha nabi imiterere ya sosiyete hagamijwe uburiganya cyangwa kwica amategeko, ni ngombwa ko hagaragazwa ubushake bw’umunyamigabane bwo kubangamira abandi, kandi yumva ko atazabiryozwa ku giti cye; e. Ibikorwa by’uwo munyamigabane bigomba kuba bigamije inyungu ze bwite, atari inyungu za sosiyete. [55] Ku bijyanye n’uru rubanza, Urukiko rurasanga kugira ngo harengwe uburyozwe bwa sosiyete kugirango Karangwa Raymond nawe agire ibyo aryozwa, CiMERWA Ltd yaragombaga kugaragaza niba Karangwa Raymond yaba (i)

## Page 315

275 CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD ET.AL yarakoresheje nabi imiterere ya sosiyete agamije uburiganya ; (ii) cyangwa yarishe amategeko (iii) cyangwa ngo abe yarafashe nabi umutungo wa sosiyete nk’aho ari umutungo we ku giti cye ku buryo byaba byaratumye habura ubwishyu. Urukiko rurasanga nta na kimwe muri ibyo CiMERWA Ltd yashoboye kugaragaza. Ntigaragaza uburiganya Karangwa Raymond yaba yarakoze cyangwa amategeko yishe, cyangwa umugambi wo kubangamira abandi cyangwa inyungu bwite yaba yari agamije. [56] Hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 95 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru no ku bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, Urukiko rurasanga Karangwa Raymond atagomba gutegekwa gufatanya na KCF Ltd kwishyura umwenda uregerwa. II.3. Kumenya niba KCF Ltd yategekwa gusubiza CIMERWA Ltd 11.650.000Frw yishyuwe harangizwa urubanza RCOMA 00555/2022/HCC [57] Me Ndahimana Jean Bosco uburanira CiMERWA Ltd avuga ko mu gihe Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwasanga urubanza RCOMA 00555/2022/HCC rusabirwa gusubirwamo rwarayirenganyije, maze rukabona ko CiMERWA Ltd yagombaga kwishyurwa umwenda iregera, rwategeka KCF Ltd kuyisubiza 11.650.000 Frw Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwayitegetse kwishyura ruyita ko yarengaga ku bwishyu yahawe. [58] Me Gahamanyi Justin uburanira KCF Ltd avuga ko kuba CiMERWA Ltd yarategetswe kwishyura sosiyete aburanira 11.650.000 Frw ari uko yahawe ubwishyu burenze umwenda yishyuzaga, ko kuba CiMERWA Ltd itabasha kubivuguruza, nta n’icyo yanenga imikirize y’urwo rubanza.

## Page 316

276 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 276

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [59] Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwategetse CIMERWA Ltd kwishyura KCF Ltd amafaranga rwavugaga ko yarenze ku yo yagombaga kwishyurwa ahwanye na 11,650,000, rushingiye ku kuba CIMERWA Ltd yarahawe sheki ebyiri z’ubwishyu zingana na 102,000,000 Frw kandi yarishyuzaga umwenda wa 90,350,000 Frw. Nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, KCF Ltd ntiyigeze yishyura umwenda yari ifitiye CiMERWA Ltd, kuko sheki yahawe zitigeze zibikuzwa. KCF Ltd ntiyagombaga gusaba gusubizwa amafaranga itatanze, kuko ibi byaba ari ukwikungahaza mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko. Ni yo mpamvu KCF Ltd igomba gusubiza CiMERWA Ltd ayo mafaranga angana na 11.650.000 Frw nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 136, 3° y’itegeko N°45/2011 ryo kuwa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, iteganya ko Urukiko rushobora gutegeka gusubiza ikintu runaka kugira ngo hatabaho ukwikungahaza mu buryo budakwiye. II.4. Kumenya niba indishyi zasabwe zifite ishingiro. [60] Me Ndahimana Jean Bosco uburanira CiMERWA Ltd avuga ko sosiyete aburanira yahabwa 7.500.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza ndetse n’igihembo cya Avoka kuko yashowe mu manza mu buryo bw’amaherere, bituma igira ibyo itakaza harimo gukurikirana izo manza ndetse no gushaka umunyamategeko uyiburanira. [61] Gahamanyi Justin uburanira KCF Ltd avuga ko indishyi CiMERWA Ltd isaba basanga nta shingiro zifite kuko ari yo yashoye abo aburanira mu manza zidafite ishingiro, ahubwo ko

## Page 317

277 CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD ET.AL 277 asanga ari yo ikwiriye kwishyura 7.500.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [62] Ingingo ya 111 y’Itegeko N⁰ 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi nk’uko ryahinduwe kugeza ubu, iteganya ko ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza ari ikirego gishamikira ku kirego cy’iremezo kigamije kwishyuza ibyakoreshejwe mu rubanza. Urukiko rurasanga amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka n'ay’ikurikiranarubanza angana na 7.500.000 KCF Ltd isaba itayahabwa kuko itsinzwe urubanza. [63] Ku birebana n’amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza asabwa na CIMERWA Ltd, Urukiko rurasanga ikwiye kuyahabwa kubera ko ari yo itsinze urubanza. Rurasanga ariko 7.500.000 Frw isaba ari menshi kandi itayatangira ibimenyetso, mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko ikaba igenewe 300,000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza na 500,000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [64] Rwemeje ko ikirego cya CiMERWA Ltd gisaba gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane urubanza RCOMA 00555/2021/HCC rwaciwe n'Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ku wa 20/09/2022 gifite ishingiro ;

## Page 318

278 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO [65] Rwemeje ko urubanza RCOMA 00555/2021/HCC rwaciwe n'Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ku wa 20/09/2022 ruhindutse mu ngingo zarwo zose ; [66] Rwemeje ko Karangwa Raymond atagomba gufatanya na KiGALi CERAMiCA FURNiTURE Ltd kwishyura umwenda uregerwa ; [67] Rutegetse KiGALi CERAMiCA FURNiTURE Ltd kwishyura CiMERWA Ltd 90,350,000 Frw y’umwenda iyibereyemo ; [68] Rutegetse KiGALi CERAMiCA FURNiTURE Ltd kwishyura CiMERWA Ltd 72,321,912 Frw y’inyungu ; [69] Rutegetse KiGALi CERAMiCA FURNiTURE Ltd gusubiza CiMERWA Ltd 11,650,000 Frw nk’uko yasobanuwe haruguru ; [70] Rutegetse KiGALi CERAMiCA FURNiTURE Ltd guha CiMERWA Ltd 800,000 Frw akubiyemo igihembo cya Avoka n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza.

## Page 319

279 NIYIGENA v. ECOBANK RWANDA PLC N’UNDI 279 NIYIGENA v. ECOBANK RWANDA PLC N’UNDI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/iNJUST/RCOM 00005/2023/SC (Mukamulisa, P.J., Hitiyaremye na Kazungu, J.) 28 Kamena 2024] Amategeko mbonezamubano – Amasezerano – Amasezerano y’ubwishingire – Itangwa ry’ingwate – Ingwate itangwa hishingirwa umwenda uriho, ishobora no kwishingira umwenda cyangwa imyenda izafatwa nyuma, ariko mu masezerano y’ubugwate bikwandikwamo neza ko iyo ngwate izishingira n’umwenda cyangwa imyenda runaka, hakagaragazwa ingano yayo, icyo izaba igamije, n’ibindi. Incamake y’ikibazo: Kantarama Felicie yareze Niyigena Eraste mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi ku kuba yaranze kwishyura umwenda yahawe na Ecobank Rwanda Plc akamwishingira ariko bikaza kurangira ingwate yamutije igurishijwe mu cyamunara. Ecobank igobokeshwa muri urwo rubanza. Urwo Rukiko rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko ikirego cya Kantarama gifite ishingiro, rutegeka Niyigena kumwishyura 261.173.067 Frw y’agaciro k’umutungo we ufite UPI: 5/04/03/01/2936 yari yaramutije, runamutegeka kumwishyura indishyi. Niyigena atishimiye icyo cyemezo yajuririye mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi avuga ko umwenda yahawe wishyuwe bityo atarakwiye gutegekwa kwishyura Kantarama Félicie 261.173.067 Frw y’ingwate yagurishijwe na Ecobank ndetse n’indishyi.

## Page 320

280 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko imikirize y’urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’ubucuruzi idahindutse. Niyigena yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire asaba ko urwo rubanza rwasubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, nawe amaze gusuma impamvu z’ubwo busabe agasanga zifite ishingiro, yandikira Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga asaba ko rwasubirwamo, yemeza ko rusubirwamo ruburanishwa n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. Mu miburanire ye mu rubanza rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, Niyigena avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwafashe ibintu uko bitari rwemeza ko amasezerano hagati ye na Kantarama yo gutiza ingwate atubahirijwe kuko umutungo yamutije wagurishijwe mu cyamunara RDB imaze kubitangira icyemezo. Akavuga ko icyo uwo mutungo wagurishirijwe bitari ukutubahiriza amasezerano y’umwenda yahawe na Ecobank wiswe avance de démarrage, wishingiwe na Kantarama kuko wishyuwe kandi uburenganzira kuri iyo ngwate bukaba bwari burangiriye aho, ahubwo ari uburangare bwa Ecobank bwo kuba nyuma yo kumuha indi myenda itandikishije ingwate aho byasabaga ko Kantarama abanza kwemera ko ingwate ye ikomereza no ku zindi nguzanyo, hakabaho kongera kwandikisha ingwate, ko kuba ibyo bitarabaye, uburenganzira bwa Ecobank ku ngwate Niyigena Eraste yari yaratijwe na Kantarama Félicie bwagarukiraga gusa ku mwenda wa 284.747.744 Frw. Ecobank Rwanda Plc yiregura ivuga ko ibivugwa na Niyigena ko Kantarama Félicie yishingiye gusa umwenda wa advance payment guarantee nta shingiro bifite, ndetse Kantarama akaba yeremereye Ecobank ko iyo ngwate yakomeza kwishingira imyenda yose Niyigena azahabwa niyo Banki. ikavugako kuba

## Page 321

281 NIYIGENA v. ECOBANK RWANDA PLC N’UNDI yarananiwe kwishyura imyenda yahawe aribyo byabaye intandaro yo kugurisha iyo ngwate mu cyamunara. Kantarama ku ruhande rwe avuga ko kuba Ecobank yiyemerera ko umwenda yishingiye wamaze kwishyurwa ariko ikabirengaho ikamugurishiriza ingwate, ikwiye kwirengera izo ngaruka, agahakana ko atemereye Ecobank ko ingwate ye izishingira iyindi myenda Niyigena azafata ndetse kuba yarandikishijwe inshuro imwe, nta wundi mwenda yagombaga kwishingira, ndetse nta kigaragaza ko hari undi mwenda yandikishijweho. Agasaba ko Ecobank yirengera amakosa yose yakoze. Incamake y’icyemezo: ingwate itangwa hishingirwa umwenda uriho, ishobora no kwishingira umwenda cyangwa imyenda izafatwa nyuma, ariko mu masezerano y’ubugwate bikwandikwamo neza ko iyo ngwate izishingira n’umwenda cyangwa imyenda runaka, hakagaragazwa ingano yayo, icyo izaba igamije, n’ibindi. Ikirego gifite ishingiro. Amategeko yashingiweho: itegeko ryo ku wa 30/07/1888 ry’urwuge rw’amategeko y’imbonezamubano, ingingo ya 555; itegeko N° 10/2009 ryo ku wa 14/05/2009 ryerekeye ubugwate ku mutungo utimukanwa, ingingo ya 4 n’iya 11. Imanza zifashishijwe: RS/iNJUST/RCOM 00011/2022/SC; BUGiNGO Jean Claude, Ecobank vs KADOGi Jean Paul rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 08/03/2024.

## Page 322

282 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO RCOMA 0138/12/CS; GAJU Cyinthia vs Access Bank Ltd rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 16/05/2014. Inyandiko z’abahanga zifashishijwe: Patrick Tafforeau, Droit des sûretés, sûretés personnelles et réelles, Edition Bruylant, Bruxelles, 2020. Manuella BOURASSiN na vincent BREMOND, Droit des sûretés, 7ème Edition Dalloz, 2019. Philippe MALAURiE, Laurent AYNES, Droit des Sûretés, 15 éditions, 2021. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi Kantarama Félicie arega Niyigena Eraste kuba yaranze kwishyura umwenda yari afitiye Ecobank bigatuma ingwate yari yaramutije ngo yishingire uwo mwenda igurishwa mu cyamunara, hamwe n’indishyi zinyuranye zikomoka ku kwica amasezerano, Ecobank igobokeshwa mu rubanza. [2] Ku itariki ya 08/02/2022, Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwaciye urubanza RCOM 01291/2021/TC, rwemeza ko ikirego cya Kantarama Félicie gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe, ruvuga ko Ecobank itari ikwiye kugobokeshwa ku gahato mu rubanza, rutegeka Niyigena Eraste kwishyura Kantarama Félicie 261.173.067 Frw y’agaciro k’umutungo we ufite UPI: 5/04/03/01/2936 yari yaramutije, runamutegeka kumwishyura 600.000 Frw akubiyemo indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza

## Page 323

283 NIYIGENA v. ECOBANK RWANDA PLC N’UNDI n’igihembo cya Avoka hamwe n’igarama, rumutegeka kandi kwishyura Ecobank 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka. [3] Niyigena Eraste yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi avuga ko atagobokesheje Ecobank mu rwego rwa mbere, ko ahubwo yifuzaga ko izanwa mu rubanza kugira ngo iryozwe amakosa yakoze igurisha ingwate yahawe ubwo yatangaga ubwishingizi ku mafaranga Niyigena Eraste yahawe na WDA akishyurwa nta ruhare ibigizemo. Yavugaga kandi ko umwenda ungana na 284.747.744 Frw utatanzwe na Ecobank, ko kandi uwo mwenda wishyuwe, ko rero atari akwiye gutegekwa kwishyura Kantarama Félicie 261.173.067 Frw y’ingwate yagurishijwe na Ecobank ndetse n’indishyi. [4] Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwasuzumye ibibazo bitatu bikurikira : i. Kumenya niba Niyigena Eraste ataragobokesheje Ecobank mu rwego rwa mbere ; ii. Kumenya niba umwenda uburanwa utaratanzwe na Ecobank, kandi ko wishyuwe ; iii. Kumenya niba urega ataragombaga gutegekwa kwishyura Kantarama Félicie 261.173.067 Frw. [5] Ku itariki ya 25/11/2022, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwaciye urubanza RCOMA 00190/2022/HCC rwemeza ko imikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe idahindutse, ko ubujurire bwa Niyigena Eraste bufite ishingiro gusa ku bijyanye nuko mu rwego rwa mbere atagobokesheje Ecobank, ko ahubwo yasabye ko ihamagarwa nk’umwishingizi waryozwa ibyo yaregwaga, rumutegeka kwishyura Ecobank na Kantarama Félicie, buri wese indishyi zingana na 300.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka mu bujurire.

## Page 324

284 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO [6] Mu gufata iki cyemezo, Urukiko rwashingiye ku mpamvu zikurikira : - Kuba mu rwego rwa mbere Niyigena Eraste ataragobokesheje Ecobank, ko ahubwo yasabye ko ihamagarwa nk’umwishingizi waryozwa ibyo yaregwaga, akaba atarasabye ko yagaragara mu rubanza mu buryo busanzwe bwo kugobokesha ku gahato umuburanyi ; - Kuba Niyigena Eraste atarabashije kugaragariza Urukiko ibyemeza ko umwenda ungana na 284.747.744 Frw utatanzwe na Ecobank, ko kandi wishyuwe. [7] Niyigena Eraste yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire asaba ko urubanza RCOMA 00190/2022/HCC rwaciwe n'Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ku itariki ya 25/11/2022 rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire amaze gusuzuma ubwo busabe, yoherereje Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga raporo yarukozeho asaba ko rwasubirwamo, na we yemeza ko rwongera kuburanishwa ruhabwa RS/iNJUST/RCOM 00005/2023/SC. [8] Mu nama ntegurarubanza, ababuranyi bemeranyijwe ko icyo Ecobank yishingiye ari avance de démarrage yatanzwe na WDA, ko kandi yishyuwe nta ruhare Ecobank ibigizemo, bityo ko itari mu myenda Niyigena Eraste ayifitiye. ikibazo cyabaye icy’uko Niyigena Eraste yafatiye indi myenda muri Ecobank ku ngwate yari yaratijwe na Kantarama Félicie ubwo Ecobank yishingiraga avance de démarrage imaze kuvugwa. Hakaba hibazwa niba Ecobank yarashoboraga kwimurira iyo ngwate ku yindi myenda Kantarama Félicie atabimenyeshejwe ngo abyemere nk’uko byagenze kuri avance de démarrage.

## Page 325

285 NIYIGENA v. ECOBANK RWANDA PLC N’UNDI [9] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku itariki 15/05/2024, Niyigena Eraste yunganiwe na Me Bayingana Janvier, Ecobank ihagarariwe na Me Bimenyimana Eric, naho Kantarama Félicie ahagarariwe na Me Ngendakuriyo Célestin. Muri uru rubanza hasuzumwe ikibazo cyo kumenya niba Ecobank yari ifite uburenganzira bwo kwimurira ku yindi myenda ingwate Kantarama Félicie yatije Niyigena Eraste hishingirwa avance de démarrage itabimumenyesheje, n’ikibazo kijyanye no kumenya ingano y’indishyi zigomba kwishyurwa Kantarama Félicie, hamwe n’ikibazo kijyanye n’izindi ndishyi zisabwa muri uru rubanza. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO i. Kumenya niba Ecobank yari ifite uburenganzira bwo kwimurira ku yindi myenda ingwate Kantarama Félicie yatije Niyigena Eraste hishingirwa avance de démarrage itabimumenyesheje. [10] Me Bayingana Janvier wunganira Niyigena Eraste avuga ko akarengane kabaye mu rubanza basabye ko rwasubirwamo, ari uko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwafashe ibintu uko bitari bigatuma rwibeshya rugafata icyemezo ku kibazo kitariho, kuko rwafashe ko umwenda wari wishingiwe n’ingwate ya Kantarama Félicie utishyuwe bigatuma rwemeza ko amasezerano yo gutiza ingwate yagiranye na Niyigena Eraste yishwe. Avuga ko Ecobank yitwikiriye imyenda yindi Niyigena Eraste yari ayibereyemo, ariko itandukanye cyane n’umwenda Kantarama Félicie yari yaratangiye ingwate ye, bituma isaba RDB kugurisha ingwate ya Kantarama Félicie ku mwenda nyamara itari yarandikishirije ingwate. Avuga ko hanarebwe uburenganzira

## Page 326

286 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO bwo kugurisha bwatanzwe na RDB (permit to sale), usanga umwenda watangiwe ingwate yagurishijwe ari avance de démarrage yonyine. [11] Akomeza asobanura ko ingwate imaze kuvugwa ijya gutangwa, ku itariki ya 13/01/2014, hagati ya ECOTRAP/Niyigena Eraste, Kantarama Félicie na Ecobank, habaye amasezerano arebana n’umwenda ungana na 284.747.744 Frw, nyuma iyo ngwate irandikishwa. Avuga ko mu gihe iyo nguzanyo yari imaze kwishyurwa, inshingano za Kantarama Félicie zari zirangiye, ko ku yindi myenda itarishyuwe Ecobank ivuga yahaye Niyigena Eraste ku ngwate ya Kantarama Félicie, byari ngombwa ko abanza kwemera ko ingwate ye ikomereza no ku zindi nguzanyo, hakabaho kongera kwandikisha ingwate, ko kuba ibyo bitarabaye, uburenganzira bwa Ecobank ku ngwate Niyigena Eraste yari yaratijwe na Kantarama Félicie bwagarukiraga gusa ku mwenda wa 284.747.744 Frw. [12] Ku bijyanye n’ibivugwa na Ecobank ko mu masezerano y’itizwa ry’ingwate (procuration) yo ku itariki ya 07/01/2014, Kantarama Félicie yemereye Niyigena Eraste gukomeza gukoresha ingwate ye mu gihe cy’imyaka icumi, Me Bayingana Janvier asobanura ko iyo myumvire atari yo kuko iyo procuration yarebanaga n’amasezerano yandi Niyigena Eraste yashoboraga kuzakorana n’ibindi bigo byose by’imari, ko atari spécifique ku myenda ya Ecobank. [13] Arangiza avuga ko Urukiko rwaciye urubanza rwasabiwe gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane rwahaniye Niyigena Eraste amakosa yakozwe na Ecobank, bityo agasaba uru Rukiko kubikosora, Ecobank akaba ari yo yirengera ingaruka z’amakosa yayo, rugategeka ko amafaranga yaciwe muri urwo rubanza yacibwa Ecobank kuko ari yo yakoze amakosa yo kugurisha

## Page 327

287 NIYIGENA v. ECOBANK RWANDA PLC N’UNDI ingwate ya Kantarama Félicie kandi umwenda yari yishingiye warishyuwe. [14] Me Bimenyimana Eric uhagarariye Ecobank avuga ko ibivugwa na Niyigena Eraste ko Kantarama Félicie yishingiye gusa umwenda wa advance payment guarantee nta shingiro bifite, kubera ko mu masezerano yo ku itariki ya 13/01/2014, Kantarama Félicie yashyizeho umukono, mu ngingo yayo ya 3, igika cya 3, ubwe yemereye Ecobank ko ingwate ye ishobora no kuba yakomeza gukoreshwa no ku yindi myenda (yemeye guhindura mode d’utilisation), ko ari muri urwo rwego umutungo we wakomeje gufatwa nk’ingwate ku myenda yose yahabwaga Niyigena Eraste. Avuga ko uretse n’ibyo, amasezerano yo ku itariki ya 07/01/2014 yakorewe imbere ya Noteri w’ubutaka mu Karere ka Kayonza aho umutungo watijwe uherereye, yari ayo guha Niyigena Eraste uburenganzira bwo gutangaho ingwate umutungo wa Kantarama Félicie mu gihe cy’imyaka icumi (10), akaba atarigeze amukumira ku myenda azafata. [15] Akomeza asobanura ko, ashingiye ku bimaze kuvugwa, ari muri urwo rwego guhera ku itariki ya 14/01/2015, Niyigena Eraste yagiye afata imyenda itandukanye yumvikana na Banki ko umutungo yatijwe na Kantarama Félicie uzaba ingwate, mu byo yategetswe hakaba harimo kuwufatira ubwishingizi bw’inkongi y’umuriro, kandi akaba yaragiye abikora igihe cyose uwo mutungo wari ukiri mu bugwate. Avuga ko umwenda yahawe ku itariki ya 20/05/2015 ungana na 250.000.000 Frw yananiwe kuwishyura, habaho kuvugurura amasezerano yawo (restructuration), umwenda urazamuka ugera kuri 308.909.333 Frw, ari byo byaje kuba intandaro yo kugurisha mu cyamunara ingwate yari yaratanze.

## Page 328

288 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO [16] Me Bimenyimana Eric yabajijwe icyatumye habaho kugurisha ingwate ya Kantarama Félicie mu gihe yemera ko umwenda ungana na 284.747.744 Frw wishyuwe, nta n’indi permit to sale ku yindi myenda avuga yatanzwe, asubiza ko ingwate igurishwa hashingiwe kuri invoice discouting yo ku itariki ya 28/07/2016, yahinduraga umwenda wishingiwe. Asobanura ko mbere y’uko Banki ijya kugurisha ingwate hari imihango (procedures) ibanza irimo nko kwibutsa uyibereyemo umwenda inshingano zo kwishyura, no kuri Niyigena Eraste akaba ari ko byagenze. [17] Ku kibazo cyo kumenya umwenda uvugwa niba ari umwe ku baburanyi bose kuko basa nk’abavuga imyenda itandukanye, asobanura ko hari imyenda itandukanye Ecobank yahaye Niyigena Eraste, bakumvikana ko mu bigomba kwishingira iyo myenda harimo n’inzu ya Kantarama Félicie, ko kandi yari isanzwe yanditse, ari yo mpamvu batongeye kongera kuyandikisha. Yongeraho ko ibimaze kuvugwa bihura n’ibyo Kantarama Félicie yumvikanyeho na Ecobank na Niyigena Eraste mu ngingo ya 3 y’amasezerano bagiranye, aho bemereye Banki kuba yakwimurira iyandikisha ry’ingwate ku wundi mwenda, ibyo akaba aribyo Ecobank yashingiyeho iteza cyamunara ingwate yahawe nyuma yo kubona ko hari umwenda wishingiwe n’iyo ngwate Niyigena Eraste atishyuye. [18] Me Ngendakuriyo Célestin uhagarariye Kantarama Félicie avuga ko kuba umwenda ungana na 284.747.744 Frw Kantarama Félicie yari yaratangiye ingwate Ecobank yiyemerera ko wishyuwe wose, ariko ikaba yarabirenzeho ikamugurishiriza ingwate, ariyo ikwiriye kwirengera ingaruka zabyo. Avuga ko ibyo uhagarariye Ecobank avuga ko Kantarama Félicie yari yaremeye kwishingira imyenda yose Niyigena Eraste yari

## Page 329

289 NIYIGENA v. ECOBANK RWANDA PLC N’UNDI kuzahabwa atari ukuri, kuko ingingo ya 2, igika cya 2, y’amasezerano y’ubugwate impande zose zagiranye ku itariki ya 13/01/2014, igaragaza uburyo ingwate ye yagombaga gukoreshwa. Kuba rero Kantarama Félicie atarigeze yishingira izindi nguzanyo zahawe Niyigena Eraste, asanga Ecobank ikwiriye kwirengera ingaruka zose zatewe no kugurishirizwa ingwate. [19] Me Ngendakuriyo Célestin akomeza asobanura ko hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 4 y’Itegeko ryerekeye ubugwate ku mutungo utimukanwa, ingwate yandikwa inshuro imwe gusa ku mwenda umwe, ko kuba rero ingwate ya Kantarama Félicie yari yaratangiwe umwenda umwe wa 284.747.744 Frw ikanandikishwa inshuro imwe kuri uwo mwenda, nta wundi mwenda yagombaga kwishingira, cyane cyane ko nta kigaragaza ko hari undi mwenda yandikishijweho. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [20] Ingingo ya 555 y’Itegeko ryo ku wa 30/07/1888 ry’urwuge rw’amategeko y’imbonezamubano ryakurikizwaga ubwo amasezerano avugwa muri uru rubanza yasinywaga, yateganyaga ko ubwishingire budakekwa, ko bugomba kwemerwa ku buryo bweruye, ko kandi budashobora kwagurwa ngo burenge inshingano uwishingiye undi yiyemeje. ingingo ya 576 y’iryo Tegeko yo igateganya ko uwishingiye undi ntacyo ashobora kwishyuzwa, iyo uburenganzira bwe bwo gusimbura ugomba kwishyurwa mu burenganzira bwe, mu ngwate ze z'ibintu bitimukanwa no mu bwizimbe bwe, atagishoboye kubukoresha kubera ikosa ry'ugomba kwishyurwa.

## Page 330

290 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 290 [21] Ingingo ya 4 y’Itegeko N° 10/2009 ryo ku wa 14/05/2009 ryerekeye ubugwate ku mutungo utimukanwa nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujuwe kugeza ubu, iteganya ko byitwa ko ubugwate bufite agaciro iyo bwanditswe mu gitabo cyandikwamo ingwate ku mutungo utimukanwa mu biro by’Umwanditsi Mukuru. [22] ingingo ya 11 y’Itegeko rimaze kuvugwa, iteganya ko uwatanze ingwate afite uburenganzira bwo gusubizwa ingwate ye igihe cyose amaze kwishyura umwenda we wose hakurikijwe ibyumvikanyweho mu masezerano y’ubugwate. [23] Ibiteganywa n’ingingo imaze kuvugwa, byasobanuwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza rwaciye ku itariki ya 19/06/2020 haburana Kayombya Robert, i&M Bank Rwanda Plc na iMEx Sarl, aho rwifashishije ibisobanuro bitangwa n’abahanga mu mategeko, rwasobanuye ko ingwate ari uburenganzira bushingiye ku bundi, ni ukuvuga ku mwenda wishingiwe; imwe mu ngaruka z’ibyo ikaba ari uko ingwate izimana n’umwenda wari wishingiwe, ko mu gihe umwenda wari wishingiwe urangije kwishyurwa wose, ingwate yawishingiraga ihita irekurwa, uretse mu gihe byaba byarateganyijwe ukundi mu masezerano.1 [24] Ababuranyi muri uru rubanza bemeranya ku kuba umwenda wari wishingiwe n’umutungo wa Kantarama Félicie ufite UPI : 5/04/03/01/2936 mu masezerano y’ubugwate yo ku itariki ya 13/01/2014 (convention d’ouverture de crédit avec constitution d’hypothèque) warishyuwe kandi nta ruhare Ecobank ibigizemo. Bemeranya kandi ko nyuma y’aho uwo

1 Urubanza n° RCOMAA0026/2016/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku itariki ya 19/06/2020, igika cya 39 n’icya 40.

## Page 331

291 NIYIGENA v. ECOBANK RWANDA PLC N’UNDI 291 mwenda wishyuriwe, Niyigena Eraste wari waratijwe ingwate yayifatiyeho indi myenda, umwe muri yo ntiwishyurwa, bituma ingwate igurishwa mu cyamunara. icyo batemeranyaho nuko Niyigena Eraste na Kantarama Félicie bavuga ko iyo ngwate itagombaga kugurishwa kuko umwenda yishingiye wishyuwe, Ecobank yo ariko ikavuga ko kuba Niyigena Eraste yarakomeje gufatira kuri iyo ngwate indi myenda, umwe muri yo ntiwishyurwe, ntacyari gutuma ingwate itagurishwa. [25] Inyandiko zigize dosiye y’urubanza zigaragaza ko ku itariki ya 23/12/2013, Ecobank na ECOTRAP ihagarariwe na Niyigena Eraste bagiranye amasezerano y’umwenda wa 284.747.744 Frw ugamije kwishingira avansi y’itangira ry’imirimo (avance de démarrage) ECOTRAP yari yahawe nyuma yo gutsindira isoko muri WDA2. izo nyandiko zigaragaza ko ku itariki ya 13/01/2014, hagati ya Ecobank, Niyigena Eraste na Kantarama Félicie, hasinywe amasezerano y’ubugwate ku mwenda Niyigena Eraste yari yemerewe na Ecobank. Muri ayo masezerano uwatanze ingwate yo kwishingira uwo mwenda akaba ari Kantarama Félicie. [26] Hashingiwe kuri ayo masezerano yombi amaze kuvugwa, no ku ngingo ya 4, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko N° 10/2009 ryo ku wa 14/05/2009 ryavuzwe haruguru, ku itariki ya 13/01/2014, Ecobank yandikishije mu Biro by’Umwanditsi Mukuru ingwate yatanzwe na Kantarama Félicie igizwe n’umutungo ubaruye kuri UPI : 5/04/03/01/2936 uherereye mu Ntara y’Iburasirazuba, Akarere ka Kayonza, Umurenge wa Kabarondo, ifite agaciro ka 261.173.067 Frw, ku mwenda wa 284.747.744 Frw wavuzwe haruguru.

2 284.747.744 Rfw to secure the tender won with WDA for the ward of the contract to construct and rehabilitate ESTB Busogo.

## Page 332

292 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO [27] inyandiko zigize dosiye nanone zerekana ko Ecobank na ECOTRAP ihagarariwe na Niyigena Eraste bagiranye andi masezerano y’inguzanyo, mu byishingiye izo nguzanyo bashyiramo n’umutungo wa Kantarama Félicie ubaruye kuri UPi : 5/04/03/01/2936. Ayo masezerano ni aya akurikira : i. Amasezerano y’inguzanyo yiswe invoice discounting ya 109.000.000 Frw yasinywe ku itariki ya 16/04/2014 ; ii. Amasezerano y’inguzanyo yiswe invoice discounting ya 125.000.000 Frw yasinywe ku itariki ya 26/08/2014 ; iii. Amasezerano y’inguzanyo yiswe invoice discounting ya 250.000.000 Frw yasinywe ku itariki ya 14/01/2015 ; iv. Amasezerano y’inguzanyo yiswe invoice discounting ya 250.000.000 Frw yasinywe ku itariki ya 20/05/2015 ; v. Amasezerano y’inguzanyo yiswe extension of invoice discounting ya 276.302.945 Frw yasinywe ku itariki ya 28/07/2016. [28] Urukiko rurasanga ariko, nubwo muri ayo masezerano amaze kuvugwa handitswemo ko mu byishingiye imyenda iyavugwamo harimo n’umutungo wa Kantarama Félicie ubaruye kuri UPi : 5/04/03/01/2936, nta kigaragaza ko Banki yongeye kuwandikisha nk’ingwate mu Biro by’Umwanditsi Mukuru nk’uko yari yabigenje ku mwenda wa mbere wa 284.747.744 Frw. Kandi uwo muhango ni ngombwa kugira ngo ingwate igire agaciro ku mwenda runaka nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 4, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko N° 10/2009 ryavuzwe haruguru. [29] Mu miburanire ya Ecobank, uyihagarariye yabwiye Urukiko ko ubwo hasinywaga amasezerano y’ubugwate, mu ngingo yayo ya 3, igika cya 3, Kantarama Félicie yemereye Ecobank ko ingwate ye ishobora no kuba yakomeza gukoreshwa

## Page 333

293 NIYIGENA v. ECOBANK RWANDA PLC N’UNDI no ku yindi myenda (yemeye guhindura mode d’utilisation) Niyigena Eraste yari kuzafata, ko ari muri urwo rwego umutungo we wakomeje gufatwa nk’ingwate ku myenda yose yahabwaga. Urukiko rurasanga muri iyo ngingo Kantarama Félicie ntabyo yemera, ahubwo icyumvikana muri iyo ngingo ni uko Banki yisigiye uburenganzira bwo kuba yahindura icyo umwenda yatanze wagombaga gukoreshwa (La Banque se réseve cependant le droit au terme d’un mode d’utilisation du crédit de le remplacer par un autre mode d’utilisation). [30] ibirebana no kuba Kantarama Félicie yaremeye kwishingira n’imyenda izabaho mu gihe kizaza, bivugwa mu ngingo ya 5 y’amasezerano y’ubugwate yavuzwe haruguru, ahateganyijwe ko utanze ingwate yemeye kwishingira imyenda afitiye Banki haba muri iki gihe, haba no mu gihe kizaza. Babyanditse mu magambo akurikira mu rurimi rw’Igifaransa : A la sûreté et garantie du remboursement de toutes sommes en principal, intérêts, commissions, débours et frais dont il se trouve actuellement ou à l’avenir débiteur envers la Banque, par suite de l’utilisation de l’ouverture de crédit qui lui est consentie aux termes du chapitre I des présentes, le Constituant déclare expressément affecter et hypothéquer pour le compte du Client au profit de la Banque qui accepte les immeubles suivant avec les constructions y érigées ou qui y seront érigées ultérieurement et les biens qui y sont ou y seront attachés par destination ou incorporation. [31] Ku birebana no kuba ingwate yakwishingira imyenda izabaho nyuma, abahanga mu mategeko babitangaho ibisobanuro bikurikira : i. Patrick Tafforeau, mu gitabo cye yise « Droit des sûretés, sûretés personnelles et réelles »,

## Page 334

294 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 294 asobanura ko bishoboka ko ingwate yakwishingira imyenda umuntu afite ubu ndetse n’iyo azagira mu gihe kizaza. Avuga ko ariko kuri iyo ya nyuma, igomba kuba ari imyenda ishobora kumenyekana, ko kubera iyo mpamvu, mu masezerano y’ubugwate hagomba gushyirwamo ingingo isobanura neza ubwoko bw’umwenda wishingiwe. ([…] l’hypothèque peut désormais garantir une ou plusieurs dettes actuelles mais aussi futures ; pour ces dernières, à condition cependant que qu’elles soient déterminables. Il faut donc rédiger une clause déterminant avec le plus de précision possible le type de créances ainsi couvertes par la sûreté)3 […]. ii. Manuella BOURASSiN na vincent BREMOND, mu gitabo cyabo « Droit des sûretés », bavuga ko kugira ngo imyenda yo mu gihe kizaza yishingirwe, igomba kuba ishobora kumenyekana. Ni ukuvuga kuba umuntu ashobora kumenya mu buryo bworoshye ubwoko bwayo, impamvu yayo n’ingano yayo. (Les créances futures doivent être « déterminables », c’est-à-dire qu’il doit être possible relativement aisément d’en déterminer la nature, la cause et le montant)4. iii. Philippe MALAURiE na Laurent AYNES, bavuga ko amategeko yemera ko ingwate ishobora gutangwa kugira ngo yishingire umwenda cyangwa imyenda iriho cyangwa izabaho mu gihe kizaza. Ku birebana n’imyenda y’igihe kizaza, bavuga

3 Patrick Tafforeau, Droit des sûretés, sûretés personnelles et réelles, Edition Bruylant, 2020, Bruxelles, § 915. 4 Manuella BOURASSiN na vincent BREMOND, Droit des sûretés, 7ème Edition Dalloz, 2019, § 2030.

## Page 335

295 NIYIGENA v. ECOBANK RWANDA PLC N’UNDI 295 ko igomba kuba ishobora kumenyekana, atari ingano yayo gusa kuko ingano y’umwenda iba igomba gushyirwa mu masezerano, ko ahubwo ibyo byiyongera no ku mpamvu y’uwo mwenda na yo igomba gushyirwa mu masezerano. Bavuga ko ibyo ari ngombwa kugira ngo igihe uwatanze umwenda azaba agiye gukoresha uburenganzira bwe ku birebana n’ingwate, hatazabaho gushidikanya mu kumenya niba umwenda uyu n’uyu wari wishingiwe. ([…] D’une part, les créances futures doivent être « déterminables » : non seulement leur montant, puisque l’acte doit indiquer un montant déterminé en capital indépendamment du montant de la créance. De plus les éléments de détermination requis s’ajoutent à la cause de la créance, qui doit, créance présente ou créance future, être déterminée dans l’acte. Bien que la loi ne précise pas quels sont les éléments permettant la détermination, on peut penser qu’il s’agit de la désignation du créancier, de celle du débiteur, de la nature de l’opération d’où naitra la créance… L’objectif est d’éviter que, le moment venu (spécialement lorsque le créancier prétendra exercer son droit hypothécaire), il puisse y avoir un doute sur le point de savoir si telle créance est garantie)4. […] [32] Urukiko rurasanga ibivugwa n’abahanga mu mategeko byerekana ko nubwo ingwate itangwa hishingirwa umwenda uriho, ishobora no kwishingira umwenda cyangwa imyenda izafatwa nyuma, ko ariko mu masezerano y’ubugwate bigomba kwandikwamo neza ko ingwate itanzwe izishingira n’umwenda cyangwa imyenda runaka, hakagaragazwa ingano yayo, icyo izaba igamije, n’ibindi. Bikaba byumvikana ko umuntu atatanga ingwate yo kuzishingira umwenda cyangwa imyenda atazi,

4 Philippe MALAURiE, Laurent AYNES, Droit des Sûretés, 15 éditions, 2021, LGDJ, § 405.

## Page 336

296 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO adashobora no kumenya kugira ngo yumve neza uburemere bw’inshingano afashe. Ibi binahura n’ibyasobanuwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza rwaburanwagamo na Bugingo Jean Claude, Ecobank na Kadogi Jean Paul, aho rwavuze ko ubwishingire bugomba kugaragaza mu buryo bweruye ingano y‘umwenda uwishingiye yemeye kwishingira, bitaba ibyo ubwishingire bugafatwa nk’ubutigeze bubaho.5 [33] Ku birebana n’uru rubanza, Urukiko rurasanga igihe Kantarama Félicie yashyiraga umukono ku masezerano y’ubugwate yo ku itariki ya 13/01/2014, inguzanyo yari yishingiye mu buryo bweruye yari iya 284.747.744 Frw kuko ari yo yagaragaraga muri ayo masezerano, kandi ni no kuri iyo nguzanyo yemereye Ecobank kwandikisha ingwate ye nk’uko bikubiye mu ngingo ya 5 y’ayo masezerano6. iyo nguzanyo ikaba yarishyuwe nk’uko n’ababuranyi bose babyemeranyaho. Nubwo abashyize umukono ku masezerano y’ubugwate amaze kuvugwa bemeranyije ko uwatanze ingwate yishingiye imyenda afitiye Banki haba muri iki gihe, haba no mu gihe kizaza, ku birebana n’imyenda yo mu gihe kizaza, Urukiko rurasanga muri ayo masezerano haragombaga kugaragazwa iyo myenda mu buryo busobanutse kugira ngo Kantarama Félicie abe azi neza imyenda yishingiwe n’ingwate ye iyo ariyo. Kuba rero ibyo bitarabaye, bikaba bituma asonerwa uburyozwe bw’ubwishingire ku

5 Urubanza n° RS/iNJUST/RCOM 00011/2022/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku itariki ya 08/03/2024, haburana BUGINGO Jean Claude, Ecobank na KADOGi Jean Paul, igika cya 41. 6 …La Banque est autorisée par le Client et les propriétaires constituants à obtenir auprès du Registraire Général une inscription hypothécaire sur les biens immeubles ci-dussus énumérés et à concurrence de : 1° En principal deux cent quatre vingt quatre millions sept cent quarante sept mille sept cent quarante quatre francs rwandais (284.747.744 Frw)…

## Page 337

297 NIYIGENA v. ECOBANK RWANDA PLC N’UNDI nguzanyo Ecobank ivuga yahaye Niyigena Eraste ariko Kantarama Félicie ntabimenyeshwe. [34] Urukiko rurasanga kandi, usibye no kuba inguzanyo zindi Ecobank ivuga yahaye Niyigena Eraste nyuma na zo zikishingirwa n’ingwate yatijwe na Kantarama Félicie zaragombaga kugaragara mu masezerano y’ubugwate nk’uko bimaze gusobanurwa, banki yari ifite n’inshingano yo kujya imuha amakuru yose y’imyenda yahaye Niyigena Eraste yishingiwe n’umutungo we, cyane cyane mu gihe iyo myenda itishyuwe uko bikwiye no mu gihe ingwate ye yendaga kugurishwa, kugira ngo ashobore gufata ingamba zikwiriye bibaye ngombwa. Ibi byatanzweho umurongo n’uru Rukiko mu rubanza rwaciye ku itariki ya 16/05/2014, haburana GAJU Cyinthia na Access Bank Ltd7, no mu rubanza rwaciwe ku itariki ya 08/03/2024, haburana Bugingo Jean Claude, Ecobank na Kadogi Jean Paul8. [35] Ku bivugwa na Ecobank mu miburanire yayo ko amasezerano yo ku itariki ya 07/01/2014 Kantarama Félicie yakoreye imbere ya Noteri w’ubutaka yahaga Niyigena Eraste uburenganzira bwo gutangaho ingwate umutungo we mu gihe cy’imyaka icumi (10), akaba atarigeze amukumira ku myenda azafata, Urukiko rurasanga ibyo nta shingiro bifite kuko ibisobanuro byatanzwe haruguru bigaragaza ko ayo masezerano adakuraho inshingano za banki zo guha umwishingizi amakuru ahagije ajyanye n’inguzanyo yahaye uwo yishingiye, ayo makuru

7 Urubanza n° RCOMA 0138/12/CS rwaciwe ku itariki ya16/05/2014, haburana GAJU Cyinthia na Access Bank Ltd, igika cya 16. 8 Urubanza n° RS/INJUST/RCOM 00011/2022/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku itariki ya 08/03/2024, haburana BUGINGO Jean Claude, Ecobank na KADOGi Jean Paul, igika cya 35.

## Page 338

298 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO akaba ari nayo umwishingizi yaheraho asesa amasezerano bibaye ngombwa. Uretse n’ibyo kandi, nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, kuba izo nguzanyo Ecobank ivuga yahaye Niyigena Eraste nyuma zitagaragara mu masezerano y’ubugwate Kantarama Félicie yashyizeho umukono, zikaba zitarebwa n’ingwate yatije Niyigena Eraste, cyane cyane ko itongeye kwandikishwa no kuri iyo myenda nk’uko biteganywa n’amategeko kugira ngo ingwate ku mwenda runaka igire agaciro. [36] Hashingiwe ku ngingo z’amategeko no ku bisobanuro byose byatanzwe haruguru, mu gihe Ecobank nta kimenyetso igaragaza cy’uko hari aho yamenyesheje Kantarama Félicie iby’umwenda wa 250.000.000 Frw yahaye Niyigena Eraste waje guhinduka 308.909.333 Frw kubera kutishyurwa, Urukiko rurasanga ntaho rwahera rwemeza ko n’uwo mwenda yawishingiye ku buryo ingwate ye yagombaga kugurishwa bitewe n’uko utishyuwe. [37] Hashingiwe kandi ku ngingo ya 11 y’Itegeko N° 10/2009 ryo ku wa 14/05/2009 ryavuzwe haruguru, mu gihe Ecobank yarenze ku nshingano zayo zo gusubiza ingwate nyirayo kubera ko umwenda wari wishingiwe wishyuwe nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, ahubwo ikayigurisha kubera undi mwenda yatanze nyuma utarishyuwe, nyir’ingwate akaba atarigeze amenyeshwa ibijyanye na wo, ni yo igomba kubitangira indishyi, aho kugira ngo zitangwe na Niyigena Eraste nk’uko byari byategetswe n’inkiko zabanje kuko zo zari zafashe ko umwenda wa 284.747.744 Frw wishingiwe n’ingwate Kantarama Félicie yari yamutije utishyuwe.

## Page 339

299 NIYIGENA v. ECOBANK RWANDA PLC N’UNDI ii. Kumenya ingano y’indishyi Ecobank Rwanda Plc igomba guha Kantarama Félicie. [38] Me Bayingana Janvier wunganira Niyigena Eraste, avuga ko Kantarama Félicie aregera Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi yarusabaga gutegeka Niyigena Eraste kumwishyura indishyi zo kwica amasezerano yo gutiza ingwate, iz’imbonezamubano, n’iz’ikurikiranarubanza. Avuga ko mu guca urubanza RCOM 01291/2021/TC, Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwategetse Niyigena Eraste kwishyura Kantarama Félicie 261.173.067 Frw y’agaciro k’umutungo we ufite UPI : 5/04/03/01/2936 yari yaramutije n’indishyi zitandukanye. Avuga ko mu kugena ibi, Urukiko rwirengagije ko Niyigena Eraste atigeze yica amasezerano kuko yishyuye WDA ku neza 284.747.744 Frw ahwanye na 20 % by’agaciro k’isoko ryose yari yarahawe na WDA nta ruhare Ecobank ibigizemo. [39] Ku kibazo kijyanye no kuba Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwarategetse ko Kantarama Félicie ahabwa 261.173.067 Frw ahwanye n’agaciro k’ingwate ye mu gihe Ecobank yo yavugaga ko ayo mafaranga ari menshi cyane ugereranyije n’agaciro k’ingwate igihe yandikishwaga, Me Bayingana Janvier avuga ko iyo umuntu ajya gusaba umwenda banki ifite inshingano zo kugenzura ko agaciro k’ingwate yatanzwe gahuye neza koko n’agaciro kagaragajwe mu igenagaciro. Akomeza avuga ko uhereye igihe ingwate yatangiwe n’igihe yagurishirijwe, agaciro k’ingwate kaba karahindutse, ko hagombye gukorwa irindi genagaciro rigaragaza neza agaciro k’ingwate, kubera ko bitangaje kubona muri uru rubanza amazu yari afite agaciro ka 261.173.067 Frw igihe yatangwagaho ingwate, nyuma y’imyaka 10 kaba karagabanutse nk’uko Ecobank ishaka kubyumvikanisha.

## Page 340

300 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO [40] Kuri icyo kibazo, Me Bimenyimana Eric uhagarariye Ecobank avuga ko agaciro k’umutungo mu gihe hatangwaga umwenda kimwe n’akagaragajwe mu gihe cy’igurisha byose byakozwe n’abahanga. Avuga ko mu gihe cy’igurisha, umutungo wa Kantarama Félicie wakorewe igenagaciro basanga ufite agaciro gahwanye na 76.070.000 Frw, uwatanze igiciro kinini atanga 42.100.000 Frw, bivuze ko aka ari ko gaciro kawo ari na ko kagomba guhabwa Kantarama Félicie bibaye ngombwa. [41] Ku birebana n’agaciro kagaragajwe igihe umutungo uvugwa muri uru rubanza watangwagaho ingwate, Me Bimenyimana Eric avuga ko ubusanzwe mu gihe cyo kwaka inguzanyo, akenshi habaho gushaka kuzamura agaciro k’ingwate kubera ko ari yo ishingirwaho mu itangwa ry’inguzanyo. [42] Me Ngendakuriyo innocent avuga ko Kantarama Félicie yakurikiranye Niyigena Eraste kubera ko yumvaga ari we utarubahirije inshingano ze zirebana na avance de démarrage Ecobank yari ibereye umwishingizi. Avuga ko mu gihe byagaragaye ko nta kosa Niyigena Eraste yakoze, ayo makosa yaryozwa Ecobank yagurishije ingwate y’umwishingizi kandi umwenda yishingiye warishyuwe neza. [43] Ku birebana n’agaciro k’ingwate kagaragara mu igenagaciro ryakozwe mu gihe cy’igurisha, Me Ngendakuriyo Innocent avuga ko ryakozwe n’umugenagaciro wa Ecobank agamije gutubya umutungo, naho ubundi agaciro kawo kari 261.173.067 Frw nk’uko kagaragajwe n’umugenagaciro igihe cyo kwishingira umwenda. Avuga ko kuba Ecobank yaratesheje agaciro nkana ingwate, ayo makosa yaryozwa uwayakoze wirengagije agaciro nyakuri k’umutungo, Kantarama Félicie akaba yaragombaga guhabwa agaciro kajyanye n’ingwate ye hashingiwe ku gaciro yari igezeho igihe cya cyamunara.

## Page 341

301 NIYIGENA v. ECOBANK RWANDA PLC N’UNDI UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [44] Ingingo ya 10 y’amasezerano y’ubugwate yasinywe hagati ya Ecobank, Niyigena Eraste na Kantarama Félicie, yateganyaga ko mu gihe umwenda wose wahawe umukiriya uzaba utakiriho Banki yiyemeje kurekura ingwate yawishingiye iyandukuza (Lors de l’extinction des obligations en principal, intérêts et frais, contractées par le client, la Banque s’engage à renoncer à la première demande du client à la garantie constituée en sa faveur en faisant procéder à la radition de l’hypothèque). Ibi bigahura n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 11 y’Itegeko N° 10/2009 ryo ku wa 14/05/2009 ryerekeye ubugwate ku mutungo utimukanwa ryavuzwe haruguru. [45] Kantarama Félicie atanga ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi, yaregaga Niyigena Eraste asaba indishyi zo kuba atarubahirije amasezerano bagiranye yanga kwishyura umwenda wishingiwe n’ingwate yamutije bigatuma igurishwa. Urwo Rukiko rwamutegetse kwishyura Kantarama Félicie 261.173067 Frw ahwanye n’agaciro ingwate yari ifite yandikishwa, ruvuga ko ingwate yagurishijwe kugira ngo hishyurwe umwenda Niyigena Eraste yari ayibereyemo. icyo cyemezo ni na cyo cyagumyeho mu rubanza rwasubirishijwemo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Mu gufata icyo cyemezo, inkiko zabanje zaribeshye zifata ko umwenda wa 284.747.744 Frw wishingiwe n’ingwate ya Kantarama Félicie wahawe Niyigena Eraste atawishyuye. [46] isesengura ryakozwe mu ngingo ya mbere yasuzumwe muri uru rubanza, ryagaragaje ko umwenda wari wishingiwe n’ingwate ya Kantarama Félicie wishyuwe, bityo ko hakurikijwe ibisobanuro byatanzwe haruguru n’ibikubiye mu ngingo ya 10

## Page 342

302 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 302 y’amasezerano y’ubugwate yo ku itariki ya 13/01/2014 yasinywe hagati ya Ecobank, Niyigena Eraste na Kantarama Félicie, ingwate ya Kantarama Félicie yagombaga guhita ayisubirana umwenda ukimara kwishyurwa nk’uko bari babyumvikanyeho, kuko indi myenda Ecobank yahaye Niyigena Eraste nyuma ivuga ko yishingiwe n’iyo ngwate, Urukiko rwasanze atari byo kubera ko iyo myenda ntayigaragara mu masezerano Kantarama Félicie yashyizeho umukono. [47] Urukiko rurasanga kuba Ecobank yaragurishije ingwate yari yahawe ivuga ko hari undi mwenda yahaye Niyigena Eraste wishingiwe n’iyo ngwate utarishyuwe, ariko nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, amasezerano y’uwo mwenda ntareba nyir’ingwate ari we Kantarama Félicie kuko atayamenyeshejwe ngo agire icyo ayavugaho bibaye ngombwa. [48] Nk’uko byagarutsweho mu ngingo yasuzumwe haruguru, inkiko zabanje zemeje ko ari Niyigena Eraste utarubahirije amasezerano bituma zimutegeka kwishyura Kantarama Félicie 261.173.067 Frw ahwanye n’agaciro k’ingwate yari yaramutije. Nk’uko byemejwe haruguru, Ecobank yakoze amakosa yo kugurisha ingwate Niyigena Eraste yari yaratijwe na Kantarama Félicie kandi umwenda yari yishingiye warishyuwe. Kubera iyo mpamvu, Urukiko rurasanga indishyi zihwanye na 261.173.067 Frw Niyigena Eraste yategetswe kwishyura ari yo igomba kuzitanga. [49] Ku bivugwa na Ecobank ko agaciro ingwate ya Kantarama Félicie yari ifite ari 42.100.000 Frw kubera ko ari yo yagurishijwe, Urukiko rurasanga ikibazo kirebana n’agaciro k’ingwate kitarigeze kiburanwaho mu manza zabanje, bityo kikaba kitasuzumwa bwa mbere kuri uru rwego binyuze mu nzira yo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane kuko

## Page 343

303 NIYIGENA v. ECOBANK RWANDA PLC N’UNDI 303 byaba binyuranyije n’amategeko. Ibi byatanzweho umurongo n’uru Rukiko mu manza zinyuranye rwaciye.9 iii. Ku bijyanye no kumenya niba indishyi zasabwe muri uru rubanza zatangwa. [50] Niyigena Eraste n’umwunganira bavuga ko Kantarama Félicie yamushoye mu manza yibwira ko atigeze yishyura WDA 284.747.744 Frw yatangiye ingwate. Bavuga ko ingwate ya Kantarama Félicie yagurishijwe kandi icyo yari yayitangiye cyari cyararangiye, Ecobank ikaba yaragombaga gusubiza Kantarama Félicie ingwate ye, ko kuba Ecobank yarayigurishije yirengagije ko umwenda ingwate yatangiwe warangije kwishyurwa, asaba Ecobank kumuha indishyi z’akababaro zingana na 5.000.000 Frw kubera ko yamuteranyije na Kantarama Félicie bigatuma umubano wabo uzamo agatotsi bitari ngombwa, 5.000.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka yatanze kuva urubanza rutangira kugeza kuri uru rwego, ndetse na 40.000 Frw yatanze ajurira. [51] Me Bimenyimana Eric uhagarariye Ecobank avuga ko indishyi zisabwa na Niyigena Eraste nta shingiro ryazo kuko n’ibyo aregera nta shingiro bifite, ahubwo ko Ecobank imusaba

9 Reba Urubanza Nº RS/iNJUST/RC 00024/2018/CS rwaciwe ku wa 21/02/2020, haburana Ngizweninshuti Albert na Muhima Giovanni, igika cya 21 ; Urubanza Nº RS/iNJUST/RC 00007/2018/SC rwaciwe ku wa 13/03/2020, haburana Nditiribambe Samuel, Gatera Jason na Nyamaswa Faustin, igika cya 66 ; Urubanza Nº RS/ iNJUST/RC 00004/2019/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 28/07/2020 haburana MUKAMANA Mamique n’abandi na CANDALI Vérène, igika cya 23.C; Urubanza Nº RS/iNJUST/RC 00009/2022/SC haburana SANLAM AG Plc na UWiHANGANYE Jean, igika cya 35.

## Page 344

304 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 1.000.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 200.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza. [52] Me NGendakuriyo innocent uhagarariye Kantarama Félicie na we yasabye indishyi avuga ko mu gufata icyemezo mu rubanza rusabirwa gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, Urukiko rwavuze ko adakwiye guhabwa indishyi z’ubukode bw’inzu ye yagurishijwe muri cyamunara ngo kubera ko nta kimenyetso kigaragaza ko umutungo ufite UPi : 5/04/03/01/2936 ari wo wakodeshwaga ku buryo yabishingiraho asaba indishyi mbonezamusaruro zikomoka ku bukode bwavaga muri uwo mutungo. [53] Avuga ko muri urwo rubanza yari yagaragaje ikimenyetso cy’amasezerano anyuranye y’ubukode ariko Urukiko rurayirengagiza. Asaba ko muri uru rubanza icyo kimenyetso cyakwitabwaho agahabwa indishyi mbonezamusaruro zingana na 35.000.000 Frw kubera igihe amaze yaravukijwe uburenganzira ku mutungo we, izo ndishyi zikiyongera ku zategetswe mu rubanza RCOM 01291/2021/TC. Asaba kandi ko kuri uru rwego uwatsindwa yamusubiza 3.000.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka wamuburaniye. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [54] Urukiko rurasanga amafaranga ajyanye n’urubanza Niyigena Eraste asaba Ecobank agomba kuyahabwa kubera ko atsinze urubanza. Ariko kubera ko 5.000.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka asaba kuva urubanza rugitangira akabije kuba menshi kandi atagaragaza ko ari yo yakoresheje koko, mu bushishozi bwarwo, rumugeneye 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 300.000 Frw

## Page 345

305 NIYIGENA v. ECOBANK RWANDA PLC N’UNDI y’ikurikiranarubanza kuri buri rwego muri eshatu yaburaniyemo, ni ukuvuga 2.400.000 Frw, hakiyongeraho na 40.000 Frw yatanze ajurira. [55] Ku birebana n’indishyi z’akababaro Niyigena Eraste asaba, kugira ngo bene izo ndishyi zitangwe, uzisaba agomba kugaragaza ikosa yakorewe n’uwo azisaba, akababaro katewe n’iryo kosa (préjudice moral), n’isano itaziguye iri hagati y’iryo kosa n’akababaro avuga yagize. Hashingiwe kuri ibyo bisobanuro, Urukiko rurasanga indishyi z’akababaro Niyigena Eraste asaba ntazo agomba guhabwa, kubera ko atagaragaza ikosa Ecobank azisaba yamukoreye, kuko uwo Urukiko rwasanze yarakorewe ikosa ari Kantarama Félicie kubera ko yagurishirijwe ingwate kandi umwenda yari yishingiye warishyuwe. [56] Ku birebana n’indishyi zisabwa na Ecobank, Urukiko rurasanga ntazo igomba guhabwa kubera ko ari yo itsinzwe muri uru rubanza. [57] Ku birebana na Kantarama Félicie, Urukiko rurasanga amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka asaba kuri uru rwego agomba kuyahabwa kuko atsinze urubanza, ariko kubera ko na we 3.000.000 Frw asaba akabije kuba menshi, mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko agenewe 500.000 Frw yiyongera kuri 600.000 Frw yahawe mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi, na 300.000 Frwa yahawe mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, yose hamwe akaba 1.400.000 Frw. Ayo mafaranga agomba kuyahabwa na Ecobank kubera ko ari yo itsinzwe urubanza. [58] Ku birebana n’indishyi mbonezamusaruro Kantarama Félicie asaba, Urukiko rurasanga ntazo agomba guhabwa kubera ko adashobora kuririra ku kirego cyatanzwe n’uwasubirishijemo urubanza ngo na we abe yagira ibyo asaba ko bisuzumwa

## Page 346

306 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO bitamushimishije muri urwo rubanza kuko byaba binyuranyije n’amategeko. Uyu akaba ari umurongo watanzwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu manza zinyuranye rwaciye10. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [59] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza RCOMA 00190/2022/HCC rwaciwe n'Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ku itariki ya 25/11/2022 cyatanzwe na Niyigena Eraste gifite ishingiro; [60] Rwemeje ko urubanza RCOMA 00190/2022/HCC rwaciwe n'Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ku itariki ya 25/11/2022 ruhindutse mu ngingo zarwo zose; [61] Rutegetse Ecobank Rwanda Plc kwishyura Kantarama Félicie 261.173.067 Frw ; [62] Rutegetse Ecobank Rwanda Plc kwishyura Kantarama Félicie 1.400.000 Frw akubiyemo ay’igihembo cya Avoka kuri uru rwego n’andi yagenewe mu nkiko zabanje ; [63] Rutegetse Ecobank Rwanda Plc kwishyura Niyigena Eraste 2.440.000 Frw akubiyemo ay’igihembo cya Avoka, ay’ikurikiranarubanza n’ay’igarama.

10 Urubanza RS/iNJUST/RSOC 00001/2018/SC rwaciwe ku wa 02/07/2021, haburana Banki y’Abaturage y’u Rwanda na Ukwibishaka; urubanza Nº RS/iNJUST/RC 00002/2018/SC rwaciwe ku wa 21/02/2020, haburana Uwimana Marine na Kagitare Dancille; urubanza N° RS/iNJUST/RC 00004/2018/SC rwaciwe ku wa 21/02/2020, haburana Nicyabera Espérance na Mukagatare Mariane.

## Page 347

307 FARAJA HOTEL LTD v COGEBANQUE PLC ET AL. 307

FARAJA HOTEL LTD v COGEBANQUE PLC N’UNDI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’UBUJURIRE – RCOMAA 00046/2020/CA (Ngagi, P.J., Umugwaneza na Kamere, J.) 05 Werurwe 2021] Amategeko agenga ububasha bw’inkiko – Ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire – Kwakira ubujurire bwa kabiri – Izahura rya sosiyete – Ubujurire bwa kabiri ntibwakirwa iyo ikiburanwa kidashobora kugenerwa agaciro mu mafaranga. Incamake y’ikibazo: Sosiyete FARAJA Hotel Ltd ivuga ko yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi, isaba kwemeza gutangiza izahura ry’ubucuruzi bwayo no gushyiraho umucungamutungo w’izahura ryayo. COGEBANQUE Plc, nk’umwe mu baberewemo umwenda na FARAJA Hotel Ltd, yagobotse ku bushake muri urwo rubanza rw’inyandiko nsobanurakirego itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe, ivuga ko isanga nta cyizere FARAJA Hotel Ltd itanga cyo kuzahuka, bityo isaba Urukiko kwemeza ko ishyirwa mu iyegeranya n’igabana ry’umutungo wayo (liquidation). Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwaciye urubanza maze, rwemeza ko ikirego gisaba izahurwa rya FARAJA Hotel Ltd gifite ishingiro, rwemeza Mubumbyi William Joseph nk’umucungamutungo w’agateganyo. COGEBANQUE Plc ntiyishimiye imikirize y’urubanza maze irujuririra mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, narwo rwemeza ko ubujurire bufite ishingiro, bityo ko urubanza rwajuririwe ruteshejwe agaciro.

## Page 348

308 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

FARAJA Hotel Ltd ntiyishimiye imikirize y’urubanza, irujuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire, ivuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rutitaye ku bimenyetso yatanze, bityo ikaba isaba Urukiko ko rwashyiraho umucungamutungo. COGEBANQUE PLC yatanze inzitizi y’iburabubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ashingiye ku kuba agaciro k’ikiburanwa mu rubanza katageze ku gaciro gateganywa n’Itegeko kugira ngo ubujurire bwa kabiri bube buri mu bubasha bw’uru Rukiko, bityo ko ubujurire butakwakirwa. COGEBANQUE PLC ivuga kandi ko n’ubwo umwenda FARAJA Hotel Ltd iyibereyemo ugera kuri 983.024.542Frw ariko atari wo uburanwa muri uru rubanza, ahubwo ko haburanwa ibijyanye n’igihombo n’izahurwa rya sosiyete, agaciro kayo kadashingiye ku gaciro k’amafaranga, ahubwo gashingiye ku bikorwa bya FARAJA Hotel Ltd bitagenda neza, ivuga kandi ko mu nkiko zibanza nta mpaka zigeze zibaho ku gaciro k’uwo mwenda, ko ahubwo impaka zashingiye zafatwa kugirango sosiyete yazahurwa kugira ngo ishobore kurangiza ibibazo by’igihombo ifite. FARAJA Hotel Ltd nayo yireguye ivuga ko iyo nzitizi yatanzwe na banki nta shingiro ifite, bityo ko uru Rukiko rufite ububasha kuko ishingiro ry’ikirego ari igihombo n’umwenda, kandi ko uwo mwenda ifitiye banki urenze agaciro ka 75.000.000Frw gateganywa n’itegeko. Incamake y’icyemezo: Ubujurire bwa kabiri ntibwakirwa iyo ikiburanwa kidashobora kugenerwa agaciro mu mafaranga. Inzitizi y’iburabubasha ifite ishingiro.

## Page 349

309 FARAJA HOTEL LTD v COGEBANQUE PLC ET AL.

Amategeko yashingiweho: itegeko Nº 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’Inkiko, ingingo ya 52. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi, FARAJA Hotel Ltd itanga ikirego isaba kwemeza gutangiza izahura ry’ubucuruzi bwayo no gushyiraho umucungamutungo w’izahura ryayo. COGEBANQUE Plc, nk’umwe mu baberewemo umwenda na FARAJA Hotel Ltd, yagobotse ku bushake muri urwo rubanza rw’inyandiko nsobanurakirego itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe, ivuga ko isanga nta cyizere FARAJA Hotel Ltd itanga cyo kuzahuka, bityo isaba Urukiko kwemeza ko ishyirwa mu iyegeranya n’igabana ry’umutungo wayo (liquidation). [2] Ku wa 01/03/2019, Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwaciye urubanza RCOM 02171/2018/TC, rwemeza ko ikirego gisaba izahurwa rya FARAJA Hotel Ltd gifite ishingiro, rutegeka ko izahura ry’ubucuruzi bwayo ritangira uhereye ku wa 01/03/2019 kugeza ku wa 31/07/2019, rwemeza Mubumbyi William Joseph nk’umucungamutungo w’agateganyo wayo mu gihe cy’izahurwa ryayo kandi ahabwa n’inshingano zo: gutegura gahunda y’izahura ry’ubucuruzi bwa FARAJA Hotel Ltd igasuzumwa kandi ikemezwa n’ababerewemo imyenda mu gihe cy’iminsi 45 uhereye igihe icyemezo cy’Urukiko gisomewe, raporo akayishyikiriza Urukiko; kugenzura ubucuruzi bwa FARAJA

## Page 350

310 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

310 Hotel Ltd no gufata ingamba zikwiye zo kuzahura ubucuruzi bwayo mu nyungu z’ababerewemo imyenda n’iz’abanyamigabane; kurinda umutungo no kugenzura ubucuruzi bwa FARAJA Hotel Ltd akabika amafaranga yayo; gutegura no gutanga raporo ku isuzuma rya gahunda y’izahurwa rya FARAJA Hotel Ltd n’ishyirwa mu bikorwa ryaryo, akayishyikiriza Urukiko n’abanyamigabane n’ababerewemo imyenda buri nyuma y’amezi abiri (2) ahereye igihe icyemezo cy’Urukiko cyasomewe, no gukora ibindi byose yasabwa n’Urukiko. [3] Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwemeje kandi ko FARAJA Hotel Ltd izajya ihemba Mubumbyi William Joseph 500.000 Frw buri kwezi, hiyongereyeho kumufasha mu ngendo (transport) azajya akora ari mu nshingano ze, kumuha amakuru yose ya ngombwa, gukorana nawe ihererekanyabubasha ry’ibitabo by’ibaruramari no kumufasha gushyira mu bikorwa inshingano ze. Rwemeje kandi ko imyenda yose ya FARAJA Hotel Ltd harimo imyenda ifite ingwate n’uburenganzira ku ifatira byose biba bisubitswe mu gihe cy’amezi atanu (5) uhereye igihe icyemezo cy’Urukiko cyafatiweho; ko abo FARAJA Hotel Ltd ibereyemo imyenda bose basabwe kwandikisha imyenda ibabereyemo k’Umucungamutungo wayo w’agateganyo ikazemezwa n’inama y’ababerewemo imyenda; kandi ko icyemezo cy’Urukiko kimenyeshwa abandi bashobora kuba baberewemo imyenda na FARAJA Hotel Ltd, hakoreshejwe uburyo bw’imenyesha rigenewe rubanda, ritangazwa mu kinyamakuru gisomwa cyane imbere mu gihugu. [4] COGEBANQUE Plc ntiyishimiye imikirize y’urubanza RCOM 02171/2018/TC, irujuririra mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, maze mu rubanza RCOMA 00295/2019/HCC

## Page 351

311 FARAJA HOTEL LTD v COGEBANQUE PLC ET AL.

311 rwaciwe ku wa 20/12/2019 urwo Rukiko rwemeza ko ubujurire bwa COGEBANQUE PLC bufite ishingiro, ko urubanza rwajuririwe ruteshejwe agaciro, ko FARAJA Hotel Ltd igomba gusubiza COGEBANQUE Plc amafaranga 40.000 Frw yatanzeho ingwate y’igarama. [5] FARAJA Hotel Ltd ntiyishimiye imikirize y’urubanza, irujuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire, ivuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rutitaye ku bimenyetso yatanze, ahubwo ngo rugendera kuri raporo yakozwe na Mubumbyi William Joseph kandi atarigeze agera kuri FARAJA Hotel Ltd ndetse n'iyo raporo ikaba itayifite. ikomeza isobanura ko ibikorwa by’ubucuruzi byagenze nabi, ko COGEBANQUE Plc yatanze inguzanyo urusorongo, ariko ko yashatse abandi bashoramari bakaba biteguye gusubiza ibintu mu buryo, bityo ikaba isaba Urukiko ko rwashyiraho umucungamutungo. [6] Iburanisha ry’urubanza ryabaye ku wa 08/02/2021, FARAJA Hotel Ltd ihagarariwe na Me Zitoni Pierre Claver, COGEBANQUE PLC ihagarariwe na Me Sangano Yvès, Mubumbyi William Joseph atitabye kandi nta n’impamvu yatumye atitaba yamenyesheje, Urukiko rufata icyemezo cyo kuburanisha urubanza adahari. [7] Mu iburanisha, Me Sangano Yvès uhagarariye COGEBANQUE PLC yatanze inzitizi y’iburabubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ashingiye ku kuba agaciro k’ikiburanwa mu rubanza katageze ku gaciro ka 75.000.000Frw gateganywa n’Itegeko kugira ngo ubujurire bwa kabiri bube buri mu bubasha bw’uru Rukiko, asaba ko ubujurire bwa FARAJA Hotel Ltd butakwakirwa. Me Zitoni Pierre Claver, uhagarariye FARAJA Hotel Ltd, yireguye avuga ko iyo nzitizi nta shingiro ifite. Urukiko rukaba rwarapfundikiye iburanisha kuri iyo nzitizi,

## Page 352

312 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

isomwa ry’urubanza rishyirwa ku wa 05/03/2021, ari nawo munsi rusomeweho. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO a. Kumenya niba ubujurire bwa kabiri bwa FARAJA Hotel Ltd butari mu bubasha bw’uru Rukiko [8] Me Sangano Yvès, uhagarariye COGEBANQUE Plc avuga ko Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rudafite ububasha bwo kwakira ikirego cy’ubujurire bwa kabiri bwatanzwe na FARAJA Hotel Ltd, akabishingira ku ngingo ya 52, igika cya 2, agace ka 8 y’Itegeko Nº 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’Inkiko1. Avuga ko n’ubwo umwenda FARAJA Hotel Ltd ibereyemo COGEBANQUE Plc ugera kuri 983.024.542Frw ariko atari wo uburanwa muri uru rubanza, ahubwo ko haburanwa ibijyanye n’igihombo n’izahurwa rya sosiyeti byasabwe na FARAJA Hotel Ltd. Akomeza avuga ko mu iburanisha ry’urubanza ku rwego rwa mbere n’urwa kabiri nta mpaka zigeze zibaho ku gaciro k’uwo mwenda, ko ahubwo impaka zashingiye ku kumenya niba FARAJA Hotel Ltd ifite ingamba zo kuba yazahurwa kugira ngo ishobore kurangiza ibibazo by’igihombo ifite. Avuga kandi ko agaciro k’ikiburanwa (igihombo) kadashingiye ku gaciro k’amafaranga, ko ahubwo gashingiye ku

1 Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rufite kandi ububasha bwo kuburanisha mu rwego rw’ubujurire bwa kabiri imanza zaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi n’Urukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare, iyo izo manza: (8) zagenwemo n’urukiko indishyi zingana nibura na 75.000.000Frw cyangwa zifite agaciro kagenwe n’umucamanza mu gihe habaye impaka kangana na 75.000.000Frw.

## Page 353

313 FARAJA HOTEL LTD v COGEBANQUE PLC ET AL.

bikorwa bya FARAJA Hotel Ltd bitagenda neza, ko sosiyete iri mu gihombo biba byumvikana ko “bilan” yayo mu mafaranga iba ari “negatif”. [9] Me Zitoni Pierre Claver, uhagarariye FARAJA Hotel Ltd, yireguye avuga ko iyo nzitizi nta shingiro ifite, ko kwakira ikirego biri mu nshingano z’Umwanditsi Mukuru w’Urukiko kandi ko iyo hari umuburanyi utishimiye icyemezo cyafashwe atakambira Perezida w’Urukiko mu gihe cy’iminsi 5, bityo ko iyo nzitizi idakwiye gusuzumirwa mu nteko iburanisha urubanza kuko ari umwihariko w’Umwanditsi Mukuru na Perezida w’Urukiko. Akomeza avuga ko Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rufite ububasha kuko ishingiro ry’ikirego ari igihombo n’umwenda FARAJA Hotel Ltd ifitiye COGEBANQUE PLC kandi ko uwo mwenda urenze agaciro ka 75.000.000Frw. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [10] Ku birebana n’ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire bujyanye n’ubujurire bwa kabiri, ingingo ya 52 igika cya 2 agace ka 8 y’Itegeko Nº 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru iteganya na none ibikurikira: “Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha mu rwegorw’ubujurire bwa kabiri imanza zaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi n’Urukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare, iyo izo manza: 8º zagenwemo n’urukiko indishyi zingana nibura na 75.000.000 Frw cyangwa zifite agaciro kagenwe n’umucamanza mu gihe habaye impaka kangana na 75.000.000 Frw”. [11] Naho ku birebana n’impaka ku iyandikwa n’iyakirwa ry’ibirego ku rwego rw’ubwanditsi bw’inkiko, ingingo ya 22 y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye

## Page 354

314 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ibikurikira: “Umuburanyi utishimiye icyemezo cy’umwanditsi w’urukiko atakamba kwa Perezida w’Urukiko mu nyandiko isobanura uburyo yarenganyijwe mu gihe kitarengeje iminsi itanu (5) uhereye igihe yamenyeye icyo cyemezo”. [12] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragagaramo Icyemezo Nº 146/2020/COM/GCA cy’Umwanditsi Mukuru w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire cyo ku wa 21/09/2020 ku iyakira ry’ubujurire bwatanzwe na FARAJA Hotel Ltd. Muri icyo cyemezo, FARAJA Hotel Ltd ivuga ko Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha uru rubanza, kubera ko mu rubanza RCOMA 00295/2019/HCC rujuririrwa haburanwemo itangizwa ry’izahura ry’ubucuruzi bwa FARAJA Hotel Ltd, kandi ikaba ifitiye COGEBANQUE umwenda urengeje 900.000.000 Frw, ngo bivuze ko igihombo kiburanwa hamwe n’umwenda birengeje agaciro ka 75.000.000 Frw. FARAJA Hotel Ltd ishingira ku ngingo ya 52, igika cya 2, 8º y’Itegeko nº 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’Inkiko. Naho mu kwanzura muri icyo cyemezo, Umwanditsi Mukuru w’Urukiko akavuga ko n’ubwo nta gaciro mu mafaranga kagaragara mu kiburanwa kagera kuri 75.000.000Frw, akaba nta ndishyi zagenwe mu rubanza zigera kuri 75.000.000Frw cyangwa raporo y’umugenagaciro yakozwe, asanga agaciro k’ikiburanwa gakwiye kureberwa ku mpamvu y’umwenda n’ibihombo byatumye FARAJA Hotel Ltd ifata icyemezo cyo gusaba izahura ry’ubucuruzi bwayo, ako gaciro kakaba karengeje 75.000.000Frw; bityo ko ubujurire bwa kabiri bwatanzwe na FARAJA Hotel Ltd buri mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire.

## Page 355

315 FARAJA HOTEL LTD v COGEBANQUE PLC ET AL.

[13] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza ko FARAJA Hotel Ltd ari yo yatangije urubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi mu buryo bw’inyandiko nsobanurakirego itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe, ikaba nta we yaregaga igira icyo isaba ko yategekwa, kandi ko mu kugoboka muri urwo rubanza kwa COGEBANQUE Plc itari igamije gusaba ko hari umwenda uwo ari wo wose Urukiko rwategeka FARAJA Hotel Ltd kuyishyura, ko ahubwo yari igamije gusaba ko FARAJA Hotel Ltd idakwiye guhabwa ibyo yaregeraga bijyanye no gusaba gutangiza izahura ry’ubucuruzi bwayo no gushyiraho umucungamutungo w’izahura ryayo. [14] Mu rubanza RCOMA 00295/2019/HCC rujuririrwa, mu gika cyarwo cya 26, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwasuzumye niba amasezerano atandukanye FARAJA Hotel Ltd n’abakiliya cyangwa se abafatanyabikorwa bayo yafatwa nk’impamvu zumvikana zerekana ko hari icyizere cy’uko ubucuruzi bwa FARAJA bwazahuka harebwe ibigomba kwitabwaho biteganywa n’ingingo ya 80 igika cya 2 cy’Itegeko N° 23/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye igihombo cy’isosiyete n’icy’umuntu ku giti cye. Urukiko rukaba ntaho rwigeze rufata ikiburanwa nk’aho ari umwenda FARAJA Hotel Ltd ibereyemo COGEBANQUE Plc. Mu gusuzuma ikiburanwa kigizwe n’igihombo n’izahura ry’ubucuruzi bwa FARAJA Hotel Ltd, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rukaba rwaragereranyije ibyagaragajwe na FARAJA Hotel Ltd n’ibisabwa mu ngingo ya 80 y’Itegeko Nº 23/2018 yavuzwe haruguru, maze rukanzura ko rusanga nta gahunda zihari zigamije kwerekana uburyo FARAJA Hotel Ltd izabasha kuzahura ubucuruzi bwayo ikishyura abo ibereyemo imyenda bose (barimo na COGEBANQUE PLC). [15] Ku bivugwa na Me Zitoni Pierre Claver ko kwakira ikirego biri mu nshingano z’Umwanditsi Mukuru w’Urukiko

## Page 356

316 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kandi ko iyo hari umuburanyi utishimiye icyemezo cyafashwe atakambira Perezida w’Urukiko mu gihe cy’iminsi 5, bityo ko bitemewe kubisumira ku rwego rw’inteko iburanisha urubanza ngo kuko ari umwihariko w’Umwanditsi Mukuru na Perezida w’Urukiko, uru Rukiko rurasanga ibi nta shingiro bifite, nk’uko bitenganywa n’ingingo ya 22 y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 yibukijwe haruguru, icyemezo cy’umwanditsi Mukuru w’Urukiko kerekeye iyakira ry’ikirego gishobora gutakambirwa kwa Perezida w’Urukiko ni icyo kutakira ikirego kandi ufite ububasha bwo kugitakambira ni uwari watanze icyo kirego nticyakirwe n’Umwanditsi Mukuru; bikaba byumvikana rero ko mu gihe COGEBANQUE Plc atari yo yajuriye yemerewe gushyikiriza inteko iburanisha ikibazo cyayo nk’inzitizi isanzwe yo kutakira ikirego, kandi ko inteko iburanisha ifite ububasha bwo kuyisuzuma nk’izindi nzitizi zose zirebana n’urubanza yahawe kuburanisha. [16] Ku birebana n’ishingiro ry’inzitizi y’iburabubasha bushingiye ku gaciro k’ikiburanwa yatanzwe na COGEBANQUE Plc, mu gihe FARAJA Hotel Ltd isobanura ko ubujurire bwayo bwa kabiri yabutanze ishingiye ku kuba ikiburanwa gifite agaciro karengeje 75.000.000 Frw, uru Rukiko rwo rurasanga ikiburanwa nk’uko cyaregewe na FARAJA Hotel Ltd guhera mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi kitashobora kugenerwa agaciro mu buryo bw’amafaranga kuko kidakwiye kwitiranwa n’umwenda urengeje 900.000.000Frw FARAJA Hotel Ltd yemera ko ibereyemo COGEBANQUE Ltd kuko ntabwo COGEBANQUE Ltd yagobotse ku bushake muri uru rubanza ari wo ije kuregera kwishyuza, uwo mwenda ukaba nta mpaka wigeze uteza hagati y’ababuranyi mu rubanza ku nzego zabanjirije uru, ndetse hakaba nta n’urukiko rwabanjirije uru rwigeze ruca urubanza kuri uyu mwenda. Bityo uru Rukiko

## Page 357

317 FARAJA HOTEL LTD v COGEBANQUE PLC ET AL.

rukaba rusanga inzitizi y’iburabubasha bushingiye ku gaciro k’ikiburanwa yatanzwe na COGEBANQUE PLC ifite ishingiro, ubujurire bwa kabiri bwatanzwe na FARAJA Hotel Ltd bukaba butagomba kwakirwa, kandi Urukiko rukaba nta kindi kibazo rwemerewe gusuzuma mu byari bigize uru rubanza uretse gusa ikirebana no kwishyuza ibyakoreshejwe mu rubanza. b. Ikibazo kijyanye n’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya avoka asabwa mu rubanza [17] FARAJA Hotel Ltd isaba ko COGEBANQUE PLC icibwa 700.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza na 1.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka no gusubizwa igarama yatanze itanga ubujurire. [18] COGEBANQUE Plc yiregura ivuga ko FARAJA Hotel Ltd yatanze ikirego nka requête unilatérale (inyandiko nsobanurakirego itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe) ku nyungu zayo bwite, ko itareze hari uburenganzira bwayo COGEBANQUE PLC yayambuye cyane cyane ko atariyo ibereyemo umwenda yonyine ku buryo byatuma COGEBANQUE PLC isabwa kwishyura igihembo cya Avoka ku mpamvu z’uko yasabye kwinjira mu rubanza ishingiye ku ngingo ya 80 y’Itegeko N° 23/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye igihombo cy’Isosiyete n’icy’umuntu ku giti cye iteganya ko “Umuntu uwo ariwe wese wagirwaho ingaruka n’ikirego gisaba kuzahura ubucuruzi amenyeshwa ko hatanzwe icyo kirego”. Uyiburanira akomeza asaba ko COGEBANQUE PLC ariyo ahubwo ihabwa na FARAJA Hotel Ltd amafaranga 1.000.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 500.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza kuko byabaye ngombwa ko yitaba inkiko kugira ngo itange ibisobanuro ku gihombo cya FARAJA Hotel Ltd.

## Page 358

318 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[19] Me Zitoni Pierre Claver uhagarariye FARAJA Hotel Ltd yiregura avuga ko mu gihe rwasanga hari bene aya mafaranga COGEBANQUE Plc ikwiye rwazayagena mu bushishozi bwarwo. [20] Me Kamali Didier witabye mu nama ntegurarubanza yok u wa 04/11/2020 ahagarariye Mubumbyi William Joseph yasabye ko uwo aburanira ahabwa na FARAJA Hotel Ltd 2.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ikurikiranarubanza, naho Me Cyubahiro David wari uhagarariye FARAJA Hotel Ltd avuga ko ibyo asaba nta shingiro bifite kuko nta bimenyetso abigaragariza. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [21] Ingingo ya 111 y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, iteganya ibikurikira: “Ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza ni ikirego gishamikira ku kirego cy’iremezo kigamije kwishyuza ibyakoreshejwe mu rubanza. Ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza kiburanishwa rimwe n’ikirego cy’iremezo. Gishobora kandi kwakirwa kikaburanishwa n’iyo ikirego cy’iremezo cyaba kitakiriwe“. [22] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza ko FARAJA Hotel Ltd yatanze ikirego ibyibwirije, nta muburanyi irega, isaba urukiko gutangiza izahura ry’ubucuruzi no gushyiraho umucungamutungo w’izahura ryayo ndetse COGEBANQUE PLC ikaba yaraje mu rubanza kuva rugitangira mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi igamije kugira ngo icyemezo kizafatwa kitazahungabanya inyungu zayo.

## Page 359

319 FARAJA HOTEL LTD v COGEBANQUE PLC ET AL.

[23] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza ko Mubumbyi Joseph William atigeze aba umuburanyi mu buryo ubwo ari bwo bwose mu rubanza ku rwego rwa mbere mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi, ko ahubwo yagaragaye bwa mbere mu rubanza mu cyemezo cy’urwo Rukiko cyamuhaye inshingano yo kuba umucungamutungo w’agateganyo wa FARAJA Hotel Ltd. Dosiye igaragaza kandi ko urubanza rugeze mu bujurire mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, Mubumbyi Joseph William agaragazwa na system ya iECMS mu gace kagaragaramo aburanyi atitwa uwajuriye cyangwa se uregwa mu bujurire, ahubwo yitwa “Third party“, akaba nta na hamwe agaragagara kuri urwo rwego ko yaba yaratanze umwanzuro we cyangwa se ngo yitabe ubwe cyangwa se ahagararirwe mu iburanisha, ariko muri copie y’urubanza akagaragaramo nk’umuburanyi uregwa ariko mu cyemezo cy’Urukiko ntagire icyo atsindira cyangwa se atsindirwa. Urukiko rukaba rudashobora kubona muri dosiye uburyo Mubumbyi William Joseph yinjiriye mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi nk’umuburanyi mu gihe nta na kimwe kigaragaza ko yarugobotsemo ku bushake cyngwa se ngo abe yararugobokeshejwemo ku ngufu. Uru rujijo rukaba rukomeje no kubaho no kuri uru rwego rw’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire aho system ya IECMS imugaragagaza nk’ureganwa mu bujurire na COGEBANQUE Ltd, maze nawe agakora imyanzuro irimo n’ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi akanasaba amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka ariko akaba atarigeze yitabira iburanisha ngo agire ibyo asobanurira Urukiko mu magambo. [24] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza kandi ko mu rubanza rujuririrwa rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi nta muburanyi wigeze agenerwa amafaranga y’ibyagenze ku rubanza kuri urwo rwego.

## Page 360

320 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[25] Urukiko rurasanga kuba FARAJA Hotel Ltd ariyo yatangije ikirego, ikabikora ku mpamvu zayo bwite idafite uwo igaragaza wayirenganyije, byongeye kandi ubu bujurire bwayo bukaba butahawe ishingiro, ikwiye kwirengera ingaruka zose z’ibyo yatakaje, amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka isaba akaba nta shingiro afite. [26] Ku birebana n’amafaranga asabwa na COGEBANQUE Plc, Urukiko rurasanga iyo FARAJA Hotel Ltd idatanga iki kirego cy’ubujurire bwa kabiri butakiriwe nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, COGEBANQUE Plc ntabwo iba yarashyizeho umu Avoka uyiburanira kandi unabihemberwa ngo inakurikirane uru rubanza; bityo amafaranga isabira ibihembo bya Avoka n’ikurikiranarubanza ikaba ikwiye kuyahabwa kandi agatangwa na FARAJA Hotel Ltd yayiteje icyo gihombo, ariko kuko ayo isaba akabije kuba menshi, Urukiko mu bushishozi bwarwo rukaba ruyigeneye 500.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 200.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza kuri uru rwego. [27] Ku birebana n’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka yasabwe na Me Kamali Didier avuga ko ahagarariye mu rubanza Mubumbyi Joseph William, Urukiko rurasanga ntayo akwiye kuko ntakirugaragariza uburyo yabaye umuburanyi muri uru rubanza nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, ndetse akaba atarigeze agaragara mu iburanisha ku giti cye cyangwa se ahagarariwe ngo abashe gusobanura uko yaje mu rubanza ndetse n’ibyo yasabye kugenerwa.

## Page 361

321 FARAJA HOTEL LTD v COGEBANQUE PLC ET AL.

III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [28] Rwemeje ko inzitizi y’iburabubasha bw’Urukiko yatanzwe na COGEBANQUE PLC ifite ishingiro; [29] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa kabiri bwa FARAJA Hotel Ltd butakiriwe kuko butari mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire; [30] Rutegetse FARAJA Hotel Ltd kwishyura COGEBANQUE Plc amafaranga 700.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka kuri uru rwego. [31] Ruvuze ko amagarama yatanzwe ahwanye n’ibyakozwe mu rubanza.

## Page 362

322 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 363

323 FARAJA HOTEL LTD v COGEBANQUE PLC ET AL. i SUBJECT INDEX

RWANDA LAW REPORTS ENGLISH VERSION

## Page 364

324 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO i SUBJECT INDEX

RWANDA LAW REPORTS ENGLISH VERSION i SUBJECT INDEX

## Page 365

i Re MIRONKO TABLE OF CONTENTS TEAM OF EDITORS ................................................................ iii I. LAW REPORTING TEAM ............................................. iii II. MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE .......................... v PREFACE ................................................................................. ix SCOPE OF THE REPORTS ..................................................... xi CITATION ................................................................................ xi LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ xiii LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED .......................................... xvii SUBJECT INDEX ................................................................... xix Re MIRONKO ........................................................................... 1 Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA) .................................................................................... 47 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD ............................... 77 PROSECUTION v UWAMURERA ...................................... 115 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRUMUKIZA .............................. 129 SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA .......................................... 143 MUKAKALISA ET.AL v SONARWA ET.AL (ADD) ........ 175 MUKAKALISA ET AL. v SONARWA ET .AL (Fond) ....... 195 KWIZERA v RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD .. 217 CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD ET.AL ..................................................................................... 235 NIYIGENA v ECOBANK RWANDA PLC ET. AL. ............ 265 TABLE OF CONTENTS iii iii iv vii ix ix xi xix xv

## Page 366

ii RWANDA LAW REPORTS FARAJA HOTEL LTD v COGEBANQUE PLC ET AL. ..... 293

## Page 367

iii Re MIRONKO TEAM OF EDITORS

I. LAW REPORTING TEAM

KAGABO U. Stephanie

KAVUTSE M. Claude

KUBWIMANA Jean Claude

MUJABI K. Naphtal

NZAYISENGA Daniel

UWINKINDI Angelique

UWIMANA Jean Marie Vianney

TEAM OF EDITORS

## Page 368

iv RWANDA LAW REPORTS II. MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE

Prof. Dr. NGAGI M. Alphonse : President of the Committee, Judge of the Court of Appeal

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

BWIZA N. Blanche : Secretary of the Committee, Inspector of Courts

RUKUNDAKUVUGA F. Regis : President of Court of Appeal

Dr. KARIMUNDA M. Aimé : Rector of ILPD

HABARUREMA Jean Pierre :

KALIHANGABO Isabelle : President of High Court

Judge of the Supreme Court

KALIWABO Charles : Judge of the Court of Appeal

NKURUNZIZA Valens :

BURAYOBERA UMUZAYIRE : Bibiane

Inspector General of Courts

Vice-Chairman of Rwanda Law Reform Commission

NSENGIYUMVA Jean Claude : Inspector of Courts

KIBUKA Jean Luc : Judge at Commercial High Cou

## Page 369

v Re MIRONKO MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE i

NINAHAZWA Roselyne :

Dr. BIDERI Diogène :

Prosecutor at National level

Prosecutor at National level

KABIBI Specioza :

Lt Col KALIBU Phanuel :

State Attorney

Judge of the Military High Court MUREREREHE Saouda : Judge at High Court

Dr. NSHIMIYIMANA Didace : Judge of High Court

GIRANEZA Clémentine :

Dr MBONIGABA Callixte :

Judge of the Intermediate Court Lecturer at INES- Ruhengeri BAGABO Faustin :

Dr ZIKAMWABAHARI Jean de Dieu :

KARAKE Canisius :

HABIMANA Pie :

UMUTESI Vestine : MUKAMANA Valentine : Advocate at Rwanda Bar Association

Lecturer at the University of Kigali Lecturer at UNILAK

Advocate at Rwanda Bar Association Judge of Commercial Court Judge of Primary Court

## Page 370

vi RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 371

vii Re MIRONKO i PREFACE Dear Readers, We are pleased to present to you the Law Reports Volume 2 [2025]. As usual, we select cases that solve some of the legal issues you encounter, either in your career or in your daily life. This volume contains ten (10) cases, which includes; three (3) petitions seeking to declare the law unconstitutional, three (3) civil cases, two (2) commercial casesband two (2) procedural cases.

MUKANTAGANZWA Domitilla President of the Supreme Court and President of the High Council of Judiciary

XI PREFACE

## Page 372

viii RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 373

ix Re MIRONKO SCOPE OF THE REPORTS These reports cover cases decided by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal.

CITATION The Reports in this volume are cited as: [2025] 2 RLR

SCOPE OF THE REPORTS

## Page 374

x RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 375

xi Re MIRONKO LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED

a. Current laws The Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in. 2015; article 3, 29, 152 and 153 10 article 13, 15 and 16 51 article 15,16, 23, 37 and 159 81 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. article 14 10 article 26 51. article 14, 17 and 18 81 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, article 7 10 article 4, 91 and 127 51 Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. Article 3 51 Law n° 026/2023 of 17/05/2023 governing Rwanda National Police; article 9, 10 and 34 81 Law Nº 027/2022 of 20/10/2022 establishing taxes on income; article 14 219 Law Nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to the Criminal Procedure; article 137 10 Law Nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general; article 143 51 Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the Civil, Commercial, Labour and Administrative procedure;

## Page 376

xii RWANDA LAW REPORTS article 81, 82, 103 and 104 10 article 75 and 177 81 Law Nº012/2018 of 04/04/2018 determining the organization and functioning of the Judiciary; article 50 10 Law n° 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts; article 52 118 article 66 to 80 10 Law N° 16Bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 governing private security services; article 5, 6, 13, 19, 30, 31, and 37 81 Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948; article 10 and 11 10 Law n° 75/2018 of 07/09/2018 determining the sources of revenue and propert 219 Law No 48/2017 of 23/09/2017 governing the National Bank of Rwanda; article 6 81 Law N° 41/2001 of 19/09/2001relating to the compensation of victims of physical Accidents caused by Motor vehicles; article 2 146 article 4 219 Law N° 10/2009 of 14/05/2009 on mortgages article 4 and 11 267 Law-Decree No. 32/75 of 07/08/1975 relating to compulsory insurance against liability arising from motorized land vehicles, as amended by Law No. 02/2002 of 17/01/2002; article 3 146 Law n° 20/75 of 20/06/1975 relating to insurance; article 11 146

## Page 377

xiii Re MIRONKO LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED Presidential order N° 31/01 of 25/08/2003 establishing the indemnity for road-related accident article 11, 12, and 23 178 article 14 and 18 219 European Convention on Human Rights (Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14 article 8 81 Protocol no 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; article 2 10 Repealed laws Law Modifying and Complementing Law n° 46/2010 of 14/12/2010 Determining the Powers, Responsibilities, Organization and Functioning of the Rwanda National Police; article 8 81 Law of 30/07/1888 instituting the preliminary title of Civil Code Book III; article 555 267

## Page 378

xiv RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 379

xv Re MIRONKO LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED

RS/INCOST/SPEC 0001/2022/SC, Re Murangwa Edward rendered by the Supreme Court on 16/12/2022. RS/INCONST/SPEC00004/2020/SC, Re Asiimwe Frank rendered by the Supreme Court on 26/03/2021. RS/INCONST/SPEC00003/2019/SC, Re Kabasinga rendered by the Supreme Court on 04/12/2019. RS/INCONST/PEN0001/08/CS rwa Murorunkwere rendered by the Supreme Court on 26/09/2008. RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2022/SC, Re Murangwa rendered by the Supreme Court on 16/12/2022. RS/INCONST/SPEC 00004/2021/SC, Re Ngendahayo Kabuye rendered by the Supreme Court on 10/02/2023. RS/INCONST/SPEC 00004/2019/SC, Re Nzafashwanayo Dieudonné rendered by the Supreme Court on 24/07/2020. RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS, Re Akagera Business Group (ABG) rendered by the Supreme Court on 23/09/2016. RS/INJUST/RC 00018/2022/SC, Niyonzima Léonidas n’abandi v SANLAM AG Plc Edward rendered by the Supreme Court on 27/01/2023; RS/INJUST/RS 00021/2022/SC, Mukagatare Régine et al. v SANLAM AG Plc Edward rendered by the Supreme Court on 17/03/2023. RCAA 0049/14/CS, SORAS AG Ltd v Umuhoza Pacifique et al rendered by the Supreme Court on 25/11/2016;

## Page 380

xvi RWANDA LAW REPORTS RS/INJUST/RC 00010/2021/SC, Prime Insurance Company Ltd v Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude, rendered by the Supreme Court on 02/12/2022. RS/INJUST/RCOMOOOO3/2022/SC; Murwanashyaka Jean Damascène v BAMU TRADE COMPANY Ltd rendered by the Supreme Court on 31/03/2023. RS/INJUST/RCOM00014/2022/SC; Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine vs Bank of Kigali rendered by the Supreme Court on 31/03/2023. RS/INJUST/RCOM 00011/2022/SC; BUGINGO Jean Claude, Ecobank vs KADOGI Jean Paul rendered by the Supreme Court on 08/03/2024. RCOMA 0138/12/CS; GAJU Cyinthia vs Access Bank Ltd rendered by the Supreme Court on 16/05/2014. RPAA 00048/2020/CA, Prosecution v. Bimenyimana, rendered by the Court of Appeal on 26/05/2022. RPA 00060/2021/CA, Prosecution v Nsabimana alias Sankara Et.Al., rendered by the Court of Appeal on 04/04/2022. RPAA 00145/2021/CA, Prosecution v Shirimpaka Jean Claude, rendered by the Court of Appeal on 30/10/2023. Centre for Domestic Violence Prevention and Others v Attorney General of Uganda (Constitutional Petition No. 13 of 2014) [2021] UGCC 20 (13 August 2021)

## Page 381

xvii Re MIRONKO LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED

## Page 382

xviii RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 383

xix SUBJECT INDEX xix SUBJECT INDEX

1. Constitution – Principles of judicial system – Nobody may be a judge in his or her own cause – Contempt of court – When a judge is subjected to an offense of contempt of court and subsequently imposes a sanction on the offender, this is not considered a prohibited act of self-judgment, as contempt of court is not an offense against the judge personally, but rather an offense against the administration of justice as a whole, which is represented by the judge in that proceeding. Re MIRONKO 1 Principles of judicial system – Principle of conducting court proceedings in public – Contempt of court – Constitution – Principles of judicial system – Principle of conducting court proceedings in public – Contempt of court – Taking out a person charged with contempt of court, while the other persons present remain in the courtroom and the court deliberates, cannot be considered a violation of the principle of conducting court proceedings in public, as the expelled person reappears in the courtroom and the court publicly announces the decision rendered against that person. Re MIRONKO 1 Due process of law – Right to presumption of innocence – Contempt of court – By enacting Article 81, paragraph 2 of Law no 22/2018 of April 29, 2018, relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, the legislator intended to ensure that any individual committing contempt of court is held accountable. However, this provision contradicts the principle of due

## Page 384

xx RWANDA LAW REPORTS process of law enshrined in Article 29, paragraph 1(a) of the Constitution, particularly regarding the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the charge, to present the defence, and to legal representation – To prevent a legal vacuum resulting from the absence of a statutory provision sanctioning offenses of contempt of court, Article 81 of Law no 22/2018 of April 29, 2018, may be supplemented with a second paragraph as follows: "In such a case, the judge suspends the hearing and calls the public in the hearing to order. The court registrar takes minutes of what has happened. The judge informs the accused of the offence committed and instructs the registrar to read aloud the recorded minutes to the accused. The judge then asks the accused and his/her counsel, if present or immediately available, to retort to the charges. If the accused behaves in a manner that disturbs order, the judge orders the security officers to take him/her out of the courtroom. The judge then immediately writes the judgment, reads the decision taken, and resumes the hearing." This supplement would ensure that such article is not inconsistent with the Constitution. Re MIRONKO 1 The petition seeking to declare a legal provision unconstitutional – In order for a petitioner to claim that a certain legal provision of the law is unconstitutional, he/she must first demonstrate before the court how he/she relates the contentious provision to the Constitution. Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA) 47

## Page 385

xxi SUBJECT INDEX The principle of equality before the law and of non- discrimination – The fact that the requirements for private security service providers differ from those for other types of businesses, based on the nature of each business, cannot be considered discrimination against them on ground that businesses that do not belong to the same category cannot be treated alike, especially when they are governed by different laws. Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD 77 The petition seeking to declare a legal provision unconstitutional –The illegal practices of the law and its provisions, if any, are not rectified by declaring the law unconstitutional when the law itself is not contentious Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA) 47 The Constitution allows the legislator to confer jurisdiction on the courts through legislation – By enacting Article 81, paragraphs one and two, of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, the legislator intended to ensure security during court proceedings and uphold respect and reverence for judicial services. Re MIRONKO 1 Right to physical and mental integrity- In order for the violation of the right to physical and mental integrity to be characterized, there must have been any act that invades the human body with the intention of harming it and it is illegally done Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA) 47

## Page 386

xxii RWANDA LAW REPORTS The Right to due process of law – The requirement that an appeal against the revocation of a private security service license must first be submitted to the Minister before taking the matter to court cannot be considered as a denial of the right to due process of law. Instead, it serves as a mechanism to rectify a decision made at the initial level in case it was unlawfully issued. However, this does not prevent the aggrieved party from seeking judicial recourse. Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD 77 Due process of law – Contempt of court –The accused has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the charges, the right to defence and legal representation – It cannot be assured that the principle of due process of law is observed when a judge orders to a security officer to take out a person accused of committing an offence of contempt of court and immediately imposes a sentence without first giving that person the opportunity to present his/her defence and to be represented by counsel.. Re MIRONKO 1 Security organs – Rwanda National Police – Responsibilities of Rwanda National Police – Private security companies responsible for ensuring the safety and security of persons and property are required to submit operational reports to Rwanda National Police on the security situation which aligns with the Police's mandate, as it holds the primary responsibility for ensuring the security of people and property countrywide. Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD 77 National security and public safety – Private security service businesses cannot be treated in the same way as other types of businesses, given that their unique nature, their operation

## Page 387

xxiii SUBJECT INDEX and regulation must be a specific framework and be orverseen by a competent authority with the necessary expertise and mandate Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD 77 2. Civil law – Amicable settlement - An amicable settlement is an agreement by which involved parties agree on ending an existing or potential dispute whereby each party makes some concessions, and it is made in accordance with the law governing contracts. When it is entered into by the unentitled person or by a mandated person acting beyond the scope of his/her mandate, the act is deemed non-existent. MUKAKALISA N’ABANDI v SONARWA ET.AL (ADD) 175 Damages resulting from motor vehicle accidents – Liability – Liability arises from a deliberate or unintentional act, which obliges the wrongdoer to pay for the damage caused to others; and such a liability is insured. SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA 143 Damages resulting from motor vehicle accidents – Strict liability – Strict liability arises from the intentional fault of the insured, which is committed with the intent to cause harm (faute intentionnelle) – Even if a person knowingly committed a fault, it is considered intentional only if it is clearly established that the person who committed it had a deliberate intent to cause harm. SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA 143 Damages resulting from motor vehicle accident – Fault committed by the injured party which results into not being awarded damages – A fault that excludes the injured party from damages is the one that was the actual cause of the

## Page 388

xxiv RWANDA LAW REPORTS i accident (i.e. 100%), as well as the one that the injured party committed intentionally with the intention of causing the accident – Law n0 41/2001 of 19/09/2001 determining compensation calculation modalities for people injured or whose property has been damaged by automobiles, article 2. SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA 143 Mandate – Mandate for renunciation- The mandate for renunciation, mortgaging an immovable property, or for carrying out any other act that is exclusively reserved to the rightful owner of the property, must be explicit. MUKAKALISA N’ABANDI v SONARWA ET.AL (ADD) 175 Mandate- General mandate- The mandator who generally assigns to the mandatary the duty to carry out the transaction that he/she will deem appropriate, or who simply assigns the mandatary the duty to carry out the transaction that he/she would have been able to perform personally, gives a general mandate; and such a mandate is solely limited to managerial duties. MUKAKALISA N’ABANDI v SONARWA ET.AL (ADD) 175 Accident compensation – Financial loss compensation – A person at the age of majority – Financial loss compensation arising from death caused by a road traffic accident are awarded solely to the person who was financially dependent on the deceased, provided that such dependency is substantiated with evidence. Where the claimant is an adult, he/she must demonstrate that they were indeed financially supported by the deceased and justify the exceptional circumstances that necessitated such support, for example, by producing medical documentation proving a disability,

## Page 389

xxv SUBJECT INDEX chronic illness, or any other special condition that rendered him or her unable to be self-sufficient MUKAKALISA N’ABANDI v SONARWA ET.AL (Fond) 195 Claims relating to accident – Requirements for payment of damages – Damages for self-employed individuals – Self- employed individuals (like motorcyclists) must provide evidence of their minimum average income for the 12 months preceding the accident. KWIZERA v RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD 217 Claims relating to accident – Requirements for payment of damages – Damages for self-employed individuals who cannot obtain authentic deeds to prove their income – If authentic deeds to prove their income are unavailable and the injured party’s profession is known, damages are determined by comparing it with the gross salary of a person engaged in the same or a similar profession as the injured party KWIZERA v RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD 217 Claims relating to accident – Procedure for determination of damages - Income used to determine economic damages – Damages for self-employed individuals - In determination of economic damages for self-employed individuals, the annual net income is considered instead of the gross income from which the tax provided for by law is deducted. KWIZERA v RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD 217 3. Commercial law – Suretyship Contracts – Provision of Security – A security may be provided to guarantee an existing debt; it

## Page 390

xxvi RWANDA LAW REPORTS i may also be used to secure a debt or future debts. However, in the security agreement, it must be clearly stated that the security is intended to guarantee a specific debt or any debts, specifying their amount, purpose, and other relevant details. NIYIGENA v. ECOBANK RWANDA PLC ET AL 265 Breach of contract – Interests – Interests are calculated based on the average lending rate publicized by the National Bank of Rwanda CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD ET. AL 235 Reimbursement of the loan –Cheque – Issuing a cheque for the purpose of debt payment – The mere issuance of a cheque to a payee is not enough for the drawer to consider the debt as settled. Rather, the drawer bears the legal obligation to assure the payee that there are sufficient funds in his or her account on the date the cheque is due for payment until its expiration, and that he or she will not obstruct its payment. CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD ET.AL 235 4. Procedural laws – Contempt of court – This is any act committed by persons present in the courtroom which interferes with the proper conduct of the proceedings, and is intended to belittle and disrespect the court and may result in a disturbance of order within the courtroom. Re MIRONKO 1 Precedents – An existing precedent cannot be followed if the law on which it was based was repealed or amended; in such a case, reference is made to the provision of the law that amended it. PROSECUTION v TWAGIRUMUKIZA 129

## Page 391

xxvii SUBJECT INDEX ii Overruling precedent – Damages resulting from motor vehicle accident – Exemption from damages for intentional fault – For the insurer to be exempted from paying damages based on a statutory or contractual provision prohibiting insuring the intentional fault, he/she must provide evidence that the insured committed the fault with the intent to cause harm (faute intentionnelle). This new rule replaces the old rule was set by the Supreme Court in the Case of Kirehe District v SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd, currently known as SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc et Al, RS/INJUST/RC 00002/2021/SC, decided by the Supreme Court on 30/12/2021 [ Reported in RLR V.4.2023] which stated that the insurer is not liable for the faults of the insured knowingly and intentionally committed. SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA 143 Jurisdiction of courts –The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal – Admissibility of the second appeal–The company reorganisation–In cases where the monetary value of the subject-matter cannot be determined, the second appeal is not admitted. FARAJA HOTEL LTD v COGEBANQUE PLC N’UNDI 293 Appeal – Intervention in a court case – Appeal filed by a party who voluntarily intervened in a case – The fact that a party who is summoned in a case of forced intervention at the appeal level, is entitled to lodge appeal only once, especially when he/she was charged with some dues, even if a case is decided at the last instance, is a particularity granted by the legislator to a party who was forced to intervene in a case because he/she involuntarily intervened in a case; this does not apply to a party who voluntarily intervened in a case

## Page 392

xxviii RWANDA LAW REPORTS as he/she decided to intervene in a case at any stage of the proceedings; therefore, when such case is subject to appeal, he/she has the right to appeal, when a case is not subject to appeal, he/she does not have such right. PROSECUTION v UWAMURERA 115 Contempt of court – The court in which the contempt is committed has jurisdiction to decide the matter in order to restore order and ensure the continuation of the proceedings - The judge in front of whom the offence is committed has the power to expound what he/she personally witnessed and to impose sanctions on the offender in accordance with the law. Re MIRONKO 1

## Page 393

xxix Re MIRONKO

SPECIAL CLAIMS

## Page 394

xxx RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 395

xxxi Re MIRONKO

PETITION SEEKING TO DECLARE A LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL

## Page 396

xxxii RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 397

1 Re MIRONKO 1 Re MIRONKO [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/INCONST/SPEC00005/2023/SC (Hitiyaremye, P.J., Cyanzayire, Muhumuza, Kalihangabo and Kazungu, J.) March 07, 2025] Constitution – Due process of law – Contempt of court –The accused has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the charges, the right to defence and legal representation – It cannot be assured that the principle of due process of law is observed when a judge orders to a security officer to take out a person accused of committing an offence of contempt of court and immediately imposes a sentence without first giving that person the opportunity to present his/her defence and to be represented by counsel. Constitution – Functioning and jurisdiction of courts – The Constitution allows the legislator to confer jurisdiction on the courts through legislation – By enacting Article 81, paragraphs one and two, of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, the legislator intended to ensure security during court proceedings and uphold respect and reverence for judicial services. Law on court procedures – Contempt of court – This is any act committed by persons present in the courtroom which interferes with the proper conduct of the proceedings, and is intended to belittle and disrespect the court and may result in a disturbance of order within the courtroom. Law on court procedures – Contempt of court – The court in which the contempt is committed has jurisdiction to decide the

## Page 398

2 RWANDA LAW REPORTS matter in order to restore order and ensure the continuation of the proceedings - The judge in front of whom the offence is committed has the power to expound what he/she personally witnessed and to impose sanctions on the offender in accordance with the law. The Constitution – Principles of judicial system – Nobody may be a judge in his or her own cause – Contempt of court – When a judge is subjected to an offense of contempt of court and subsequently imposes a sanction on the offender, this is not considered a prohibited act of self-judgment, as contempt of court is not an offense against the judge personally, but rather an offense against the administration of justice as a whole, which is represented by the judge in that proceeding. Constitution – Principles of judicial system – Principle of conducting court proceedings in public – Contempt of court – Taking out a person charged with contempt of court, while the other persons present remain in the courtroom and the court deliberates, cannot be considered a violation of the principle of conducting court proceedings in public, as the expelled person reappears in the courtroom and the court publicly announces the decision rendered against that person. Constitution – Due process of law – Right to presumption of innocence – Contempt of court – By enacting Article 81, paragraph 2 of Law no 22/2018 of April 29, 2018, relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, the legislator intended to ensure that any individual committing contempt of court is held accountable. However, this provision contradicts the principle of due process of law enshrined in Article 29, paragraph 1(a) of the Constitution, particularly regarding the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the charge, to present the defence, and to legal representation – To

## Page 399

3 Re MIRONKO prevent a legal vacuum resulting from the absence of a statutory provision sanctioning offenses of contempt of court, Article 81 of Law no 22/2018 of April 29, 2018, may be supplemented with a second paragraph as follows: "In such a case, the judge suspends the hearing and calls the public in the hearing to order. The court registrar takes minutes of what has happened. The judge informs the accused of the offence committed and instructs the registrar to read aloud the recorded minutes to the accused. The judge then asks the accused and his/her counsel, if present or immediately available, to retort to the charges. If the accused behaves in a manner that disturbs order, the judge orders the security officers to take him/her out of the courtroom. The judge then immediately writes the judgment, reads the decision taken, and resumes the hearing." This supplement would ensure that such article is not inconsistent with the Constitution. Facts: Mironko filed a petition before the Supreme Court, seeking to declare that Article 81, paragraphs 1 and 2, of Law no 22/2018 of April 29, 2018, relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, as amended to date, is inconsistent with Article 29, paragraph 1(a), (b), and (c), and Article 152, paragraph 1(a) and (c) of the Constitution. Before examining the case on the merits, the Court first examined whether the Applicant had a legitimate interest in filing the petition. The Court ruled that he indeed had such an interest, as the impugned legislative provision applies to all Rwandan citizens, including the petitioner. The hearing proceeded with the merits of the case, the petitioner explained the grounds for his claim. He stated that on February 22, 2023, during the hearing of the case RS/INJUST/RCOM00001/2019/SC, the Supreme Court, relying

## Page 400

4 RWANDA LAW REPORTS on the impugned article, suspended the proceedings and subsequently rendered the judgment RP00001/2023/SC, imposing a penalty on him for the offense of contempt of court. He asserted that his punishment was based on Article 81 of the aforementioned Law, which provides that a person who, during the hearing, commits an offence punishable by a maximum sentence of imprisonment for five (5) years, the court may immediately sentence the perpetrator even if in practice the court has no jurisdiction to hear such an offence in the first instance. In such a case, the judge adjourns the hearing and orders security personnel to take the perpetrator out of the courtroom and calls the public in the hearing to order. The court registrar takes minutes of what has happened. The judge immediately writes a judgement basing on the facts and violated legal provisions, then gets the person having been expelled back to courtroom and reads to him/her the judgement rendered against him/her in all its provisions, and re-opens the hearing. No other formalities take place and the parties are not allowed to take the floor with regard to the offence committed. The petitioner argues that this provision violates a litigant’s right to due process of law and therefore requests this Court to declare this article unconstitutional, in order to ensure that the injustice he experienced in that case does not recur either against him or against any other individual. The petitioner claims that his right to a fair trial, as enshrined in Article 29 of the Constitution, has been violated, in particular his right to be informed of the acts constituting the offence for which he has been punished, in order to be able to defend himself, and his right to be tried by a competent court. He argues that, since he was tried before the Supreme Court, which is the highest court, he was deprived of his right to appeal against the decision taken against him. This means that Article 81 of the aforementioned

## Page 401

5 Re MIRONKO Law effectively denied him the right to appeal against the judgement in case RP00001/2023/SC. The petitioner further argues that Article 81, paragraph one, of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018, as referred to above, is also inconsistent with Article 29, paragraph one, of the Constitution, as it provides for the immediate punishment of an accused person without affording him/her the opportunity to be informed of the charges against him/her and to present the defence. He asserts that this article provides for the punishment without granting the accused the right to legal representation, as guaranteed by the Constitution. He submits that another reason for which he requests that this article should be repealed is that it creates a legal vacuum, as it does not specify what should happen when the last court imposes a sanction on a person without informing him/her of the offense, without pleading, and without the possibility of appeal, while the appeal procedure for offense of contempt of court had been provided under the law. The petitioner further argues that this article should be repealed because it violates the principle of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty by a final court decision. This means that it confers jurisdiction on the court which it does not have to take up a case on its own initiative, this implies that such a court cannot administer fair justice because it decides to take up a case after convicting a person without first verifying whether the elements of the offence are fully established. He also submits that the fact that the accused is punished immediately and definitively when the offence is committed before the Supreme Court deprives him of the right to appeal, whereas if the same offence was committed before other courts, the offender would have the right to appeal. The petitioner concludes that the Supreme Court thereby deprives

## Page 402

6 RWANDA LAW REPORTS the accused of certain rights and that this defect must be remedied. The petitioner further asserts that Article 81, which he challenges, is inconsistent with the principle enshrined in Article 152, paragraph 1, subparagraph (a) of the Constitution, which stipulates that justice is rendered in the name of the people and nobody may be a judge in his or her own cause. Additionally, he argues that it also contravenes the principle that court proceedings are conducted in public, as provided for in article 152, subparagraph (b) of the Constitution. The petitioner concludes by stating that it is unreasonable for a judge who has been the victim of an offense to then preside over the trial of that offense, as this constitutes a serious flaw equivalent to acting as a judge in his or her own cause. The State Attorney in this case argues that the article 81, paragraph one of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018, as referred to above, establishes a mechanism for a court to initiate proceedings on its own motion, provides for an expedited procedure for the sanctioning of offenses, and grants jurisdiction to other specialized courts to adjudicate offenses committed during judicial proceedings; the second paragraph of this article clarifies the procedural framework governing the adjudication of such offenses. The State Attorney submits that, for the offences of contempt of court, the court in which the offense occurs automatically acquires jurisdiction, either by virtue of legal provisions or by necessity, to ensure order and decorum in the proceedings. He contends that Article 81 does not contradict the Constitution, as the latter does not expressly designate a specific court with jurisdiction over such offenses; rather, Rwandan law provides that the court where the offense is committed has the jurisdiction

## Page 403

7 Re MIRONKO to adjudicate it. The State Attorney explains that the statement of the claimant about the offences of contempt of court, that the judge takes up and adjudicates a case on its own motion, while such procedure contravenes the Constitution, is untrue, as the offense committed in court is not considered an offense against the judge personally but rather against the public. She further explains that such offenses disrupt public order, necessitating immediate judicial intervention to impose swift sanctions and ensure the security of court proceedings. Thus, she maintains that the procedure set forth in Article 81 does not violate articles 29 and 152 of the Constitution. With regard to the Petitioner’s argument that article 81 deprived him of his right to appeal, the State Attorney asserts that this claim is unfounded. She avers that the Supreme Court, as the highest court in the country, has the jurisdiction to adjudicate certain offenses at both the first and final instances, depending on the specific nature of the accused individuals. Therefore, she contends that this is not an exceptional circumstance concerning the offense for which the Petitioner was convicted. Furthermore, the State Attorney acknowledges that an accused person generally has the right to appeal but clarifies that this right is not absolute, particularly concerning the decisions rendered by the superior courts, as the right to appeal has legal limitations. Regarding the Petitioner’s statement that he was denied the right to be informed of the charges against him and to present his defence, the State Attorney concurs with him, because the fact that the judge orders to the security officer to take the accused out of the courtroom, immediately writes a judgment basing on the facts and violated legal provisions, then gets the person having been expelled back to courtroom and reads to him/her the judgement rendered against him/ her in all its provisions, without

## Page 404

8 RWANDA LAW REPORTS affording the accused an opportunity to plead about the charges, is inconsistent with the principle of due process of law, specifically, concerning the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the charges and the right to defence and legal representation, as provided for in Article 29, paragraph one, subparagraph (a) of the Constitution. Basing on the foregoing elucidations, the State Attorney concludes by requesting that as regards the impugned article 81 of Law no 22/2018 of April 29, 2018, the words that are inconsistent with the Constitution should be suppressed and replaced so that the unconstitutionality issue is settled without maintaining the legal vacuum. Held: 1. The accused has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the charges with which he is charged, the right to defence and legal representation. It cannot be assured that the principle of due process of law is observed when a judge orders to a security officer to take out a person accused of committing an offence of contempt of court and immediately imposes a sentence without first giving that person the opportunity to present his/her defence and to be represented by counsel. 2. By enacting Article 81, paragraphs one and two of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour, and administrative procedure, the legislator intended to ensure security during court proceedings and to uphold respect and reverence for judicial services. 3. Offence of contempt of court consist of any act committed by persons present in the courtroom which interferes with the proper conduct of the proceedings, and is intended to belittle and disrespect the court and may result in a disturbance of order within the courtroom.

## Page 405

9 Re MIRONKO 4. The court in which the contempt is committed has jurisdiction to decide the matter in order to restore order and ensure the continuation of the proceedings. The judge in front of whom the offence is committed has the power to expound what he/she personally witnessed and to impose sanctions on the offender in accordance with the law. 5. When a judge is subjected to an offense during a hearing and subsequently imposes a sanction on the offender, this is not considered a prohibited act of self-judgment, as contempt of court is not an offense against the judge personally, but rather an offense against the administration of justice as a whole, which is represented by the judge in that proceeding. 6. The removal of a person charged with contempt of court, while the other persons present remain in the courtroom and the court deliberates in chambers, cannot be regarded as a violation of the principle of conducting court proceedings in public, provided that the removed person is reinstated in the courtroom and the court publicly announces the decision rendered against that person. 7. The fact that a judge writes a judgment basing on the facts to which he/she personally witnessed during the hearing and subsequently pronounces a ruling convicting the accused for contempt of court cannot be considered a violation of the right to presumption of innocence until a competent court has lawfully found him/her guilty, since the accused remains presumed innocent at all times until the judge has issued the judgement on the alleged offence. The petition seeking to declare that the legal provision is unconstitutional has merit in part.

## Page 406

10 RWANDA LAW REPORTS Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, articles 3, 29, 152 and 153. Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, articles 10 and 11. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 14. Protocol no 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, article 2. The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, article 7. Law N° 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, articles from 66 to 80. Law Nᵒ 012/2018 of 04/04/2018 governing organisation and functioning of the Judiciary, article 50. Law No 27/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure, article 137. Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles 81, 82, 103 and 104. Cases referred to: RS/INCOST/SPEC 0001/2022/SC, Re Murangwa Edward rendered by the Supreme Court on 16/12/2022. RS/INCONST/SPEC00004/2020/SC, Asiimwe Frank v. the Government of Rwanda, rendered by the Supreme Court on 26/03/2021. RS/INCONST/SPEC00003/2019/SC, Re Kabasinga rendered by the Supreme Court on 04/12/2019. RS/INCONST/PEN0001/08/CS, Murorunkwere Spéciose, rendered by the Supreme Court on 26/09/2008. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, 14 (1).

## Page 407

11 Re MIRONKO Cooke v. US, 267 U.S. 517 (1925), United States Supreme Court, No. 311, Argued: March 20, 1925. Decided: April 13, 1925. Supreme Court of India, inherent jurisdiction Contempt Petition (CIVIL) no. 196-197 of 2024 in special leave petition (CIVIL), no 12081-12082 of 2023. Case of Allen v. The United Kingdom (Application no. 25424/09) Judgment Strasbourg 12 July 2013. Article 6 § 2. Authors quoted: Charles Chauncey, Contempt of Court, Texas Municipal Courts Education Center, 2023, p.1. S., Jajati Keshari, Contempt of Court as Defined in Contempt of Courts Act 1971. Journal of Advance Research in Social Science and Humanities (ISSN 2208-2387), 2017: 9-14. David J. Bodine, The Nature and Function of Contempt in Modern Legal Systems, 2019, p.36. Justice Natalie Adams and Belinda Baker, sentencing for Contempt of Court, National judicial college of Australia and the Australian national university sentencing, conference, 29 February, 2020, §. 80. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

On 13/09/2023, Mironko François Xavier filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking declaration that Article 81, paragraphs one and two, of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labor, and administrative procedure

## Page 408

12 RWANDA LAW REPORTS as amended to date, as well as Article 137, paragraph one, of Law no 27/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure, are inconsistent with Article 29, paragraph one, subparagraphs (a), (b), and (c) and Article 152, paragraph one, subparagraphs (a) and (c) of the Constitution.

Mironko François Xavier states that the reason for filing this petition is that on 22/02/2023, during the trial of case RS/INJUST/RCOM00001/2019/SC, the Supreme Court based its decision on the provision he is challenging, suspending the trial and then issuing judgment RP 00001/2023/SC, which imposed on him a penalty for an offense claimed to have occurred during the hearing.

The Government Representative states that these provisions are not inconsistent with the Constitution in any way, however, if the Court finds that there are areas where they may be misunderstood, it can provide a broader explanation to ensure they are interpreted in a manner consistent with the Constitution.

The case was heard in public on 05/11/2024, with MIRONKO François Xavier represented by Counsel Ngezahayo Bernard and the Republic of Rwanda represented by Counsel Kabibi Spéciose. The first issue addressed was the question of the interest that Mironko François Xavier holds in this case. With regard to whether Mironko François Xavier has a legal interest in this case

After examining the statements made by Mironko François Xavier in his submissions regarding his interest in the case, the Court made a decision on the bench based on the precedent in the case RS/INCOST/SPEC00001/2022/SC, which

## Page 409

13 Re MIRONKO was decided by the Supreme Court on 16/12/2022 involving Murangwa Edward. The Court explained that in assessing the petitioner's interest, the following factors must be considered, and the presence of at least one of them is sufficient for the Court to affirm that the petitioner has a legitimate interest: a. Whether the law alleged to be unconstitutional is specifically relevant to the petitioner or the category to which they belong, giving them a personal interest in filing the case. An example is a law affecting journalists, doctors, teachers, and others; b. Whether the law alleged to be unconstitutional affects the general public in such a way that it may impact their rights, which provides anyone who may be affected with the interest to challenge it for its constitutional compatibility; c. Whether the person filing the case is an advocate, who, as part of their professional interest in justice, is authorized to file a case to promote the law or the rights of those affected by the law, even if they have no personal interest in the case.

Regarding this case, the Court found that Article 81 of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labor, and administrative procedure, as amended up to date, and Article 137 of Law no 27/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure, as amended up to date, which Mironko François Xavier seeks repeal on the grounds that they are inconsistent with the Constitution, as they apply to all citizens, including himself. For this reason, he has an interest in this case.

With regard to the merits of the case, Counsel Ngezahayo Bernard, representing Mironko François Xavier, after hearing

## Page 410

14 RWANDA LAW REPORTS various opinions on the impugned article, informed the Court that the second issue he had raised for consideration was withdrawn because he found that Article 137 of Law no 27/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure, as amended up to date, is not inconsistent with the Constitution. The issue analysed in this case is whether Article 81, paragraphs one and two, of no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labor, and administrative procedure, as amended up to date, is inconsistent with Article 29, paragraph one, subparagraphs (a), (b), and (c), and Article 152, paragraph one, subparagraphs (a) and (b) of the Constitution.

At the end of the hearing, the parties were notified that the judgment would be pronounced on 29/11/2024. However, on that date, it was not pronounced because certain issues were still under review, and the pronouncement was postponed to 20/12/2024. Prior to that date, it became necessary for one of the judges in the jury to withdraw, which led to the reopening of the case, and the hearing was rescheduled for 13/01/2025 to allow for the jury's adjustment. After the hearing, the parties were informed that the judgment would be pronounced on 13/02/2025, but on that day, it was also not pronounced as the case had not been concluded, and the judgment pronouncement was further postponed to 07/03/2025.

## Page 411

15 Re MIRONKO II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUE IN THIS CASE Whether Article 81, paragraphs one and two, of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labor, and administrative procedure as amended to date, as well as Article 137, paragraph one, of Law no 27/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure, are inconsistent with Article 29, paragraph one, subparagraphs (a), (b), and (c) and Article 152, paragraph one, subparagraphs (a) and (c) of the Constitution

Counsel Ngezahayo Bernard, representing Mironko François Xavier, states that the petition filed requests the Supreme Court to repeal Article 81, paragraphs one and two, of no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labor, and administrative procedure, as it is inconsistent with the Constitution. The article in question provides that a person who, during the hearing, commits an offence punishable by a maximum sentence of imprisonment for five (5) years, the court may immediately sentence the perpetrator even if in practice the court has no jurisdiction to hear such an offence in the first instance. In such a case, the judge adjourns the hearing and orders security personnel to take the perpetrator out of the courtroom and calls the public in the hearing to order. The court registrar takes minutes of what has happened. The judge immediately writes a judgement basing on the facts and violated legal provisions, then gets the person having been expelled back to courtroom and reads to him/her the judgement rendered against him/ her in all its provisions, and re-opens the hearing. No other formalities take

## Page 412

16 RWANDA LAW REPORTS place and the parties are not allowed to take the floor with regard to the offence committed.

He states that the reason for challenging the aforementioned article is that he was sentenced in judgment RP00001/2023/SC and was imposed a penalty under that article, without the due respect for the right to due process of law. He requests that the article be repealed in order to prevent the injustice he experienced in that case from recurring, or to prevent it from affecting any other individual. He bases this request on Article 3, paragraph two, of the Constitution, which stipulates that any law, decision or act contrary to the Constitution is without effect.

He states that article 29, paragraph one, subparagraphs (a) and (c), of the Constitution provides that everyone has the right to due process of law, which includes the right to be informed of the nature and cause of charges and the right to defence and legal representation and the right to appear before a competent Court; whereas article 152, paragraph one, subparagraphs (a) and (b), of the Constitution provides that Court proceedings are conducted in public unless the Court determines that proceedings be held in camera in circumstances provided for by law.

He states that the violation of the right to due process of law includes the right to be informed of the charges he was penalized for in order to defend himself, as stipulated in Article 29, paragraph one, subparagraph (a) of the Constitution. It also includes the right to be appear before a competent court, as he was tried before the Supreme Court, which is superior to other courts, thus depriving him of the right to appeal the decision made. He also mentions that this is in contradiction with the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, which Rwanda

## Page 413

17 Re MIRONKO has ratified, specifically in Articles 7, 10 (A), and (C), which provide the right of every individual to access competent courts when their fundamental human rights, as defined by laws, international agreements, and similar legal frameworks, are violated. It includes the right to defend oneself against criminal charges and to be represented in court.

Regarding the definition of due process of law, Counsel Ngezahayo Bernard states that in the case RS/INCONST/SPEC00003/2019/SC decided by the Supreme Court on 04/12/2019, in paragraph 13, the Court defined it in the following terms: Due process of law is explained in various ways. There is due process of law based on the procedural aspects, meaning that due process of law is a series of principles that must be respected in the conduct of a trial based on legal provisions. There is also due process of law based on legal provisions that prohibit the enactment of laws or other measures that are unreasonable and violate the rights of citizens.

With regard to the right to due process of law, he also mentions the right to appeal, stating that the Supreme Court explained this in the case RS/INCONST/SPEC00004/2020/SC decided by the Supreme Court on 26/03/2021, in the case of Asiimwe Frank vs. the Government of Rwanda, in paragraph 18, where it was stated that Article 14, paragraphs 1 and 5, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights outlines the right to be tried before a competent court and the right to appeal as part of the right to due process of law.

He further states that legal scholars relied upon by the Supreme Court explained that the right to appeal is the right of any party dissatisfied with the court's decision to request a higher court to review or correct that decision. In paragraph 19 of the

## Page 414

18 RWANDA LAW REPORTS judgment, the Supreme Court stated that the principle of appeal is based on the right of both the defendant and the prosecutor to have the opportunity to appeal a first-instance judgment to correct any errors that may have been made by the court. This right affirms the parties’ entitlement to the principle of dual-level litigation. He argues that the provisions of Article 81, paragraphs 1 and 2, of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018, as mentioned above, deny the defendant the right to appeal the decision made against them, contrary to Article 29 of the Constitution regarding the right to due process of law.

He also submits that Article 81, paragraph 1, of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018, as mentioned above, is also inconsistent with Article 29, paragraph 1, of the Constitution because it provides that a suspect is immediately punished without being notified of the charges against them to allow them to defend themselves, and they are punished without the right to legal representation as guaranteed by the Constitution. For this reason, since such provisions are detrimental to the citizens by depriving them of the right to due process of law, this paragraph should be repealed. He further argues that another reason for requesting the repeal of this provision is that it creates a gap as it does not specify what should happen when a final court decision is made to convict a person without informing them of the crime, without a trial, and without the right to appeal, even though an appeal process is provided for crimes of contempt of court.

He further states that the aforementioned provision grants the court jurisdiction it does not possess to adjudicate a case it has taken up sua sponte, implying that such a court cannot dispense justice since it reaches a verdict of guilt without first assessing whether all elements of the offense are satisfied. He

## Page 415

19 Re MIRONKO argues that this contradicts the principle that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of last instance, as emphasized in the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly in its Article 5, paragraph 3, which guarantees the right of an individual to be promptly informed of the nature of the offense, to have adequate time to prepare a defense against the charges, and to present such defense or be represented before a court1.

He also argues that the fact that an accused person is immediately punished, both at first and last instances, when the offense is committed before the Supreme Court deprives them of the right to appeal, whereas if the offense had been committed before other courts, the offender would have the right to appeal. He thus finds that a right is being denied before the Supreme Court, and that this defect must be corrected. He further adds that the absence of the right to appeal violates the principles enshrined in international instruments to which Rwanda is a party, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, particularly Articles 102 and 113 thereof.

1 Toute personne arrêtée ou détenue, dans les conditions prévues au paragraphe 1.c du présent article, doit être aussitôt traduite devant un juge ou un autre magistrat habilité par la loi à exercer des fonctions judiciaires et a le droit d’être jugé dans un délai raisonnable, libérée pendant la procédure. La mise en liberté peut être subordonnée à une garantie assurant la comparution de l’intéressé à l’audience. 2 Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. 3 Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which [they have] had all the guarantees necessary for [their] defence.

## Page 416

20 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Counsel Ngezahayo Bernard states that in the aforementioned case on which MIRONKO François Xavier based his petition, there was also a violation of the principle that justice must be rendered in the name of the people, and that no one may be a judge in their own cause, as provided under Article 152, paragraph one, subparagraph (a), of the Constitution, as well as the principle that all trials must be held in public as set out in subparagraph (b) of the same provision, because the accused was removed from the courtroom and later summoned only to be read the judgment pronounced by the judge without having been tried publicly, thereby depriving him of a fair trial.

Referring back to the principles he previously mentioned, he concludes by stating that it is incomprehensible how a judge who is the victim of an offense could then preside over the trial concerning that same offense, arguing that this constitutes a serious irregularity because it resembles a situation where one acts as both party and judge in their own case. He asserts that the offense is not committed against the Court itself, as the Government's representative attempted to imply, because it is well understood that the Court is represented by judges, and thus it is the judges who are the actual victims of the offense.

Counsel Kabibi Spéciose, representing the Government of Rwanda, argues that the first paragraph of Article 81 of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018, as previously mentioned, sets out the procedure for a court to seize itself of a matter on its own initiative ("saisine d’office"); it establishes a framework for summary sentencing; and grants special jurisdiction to other courts to prosecute offenses committed during a hearing. She further explains that the second paragraph of this article details how the trial of such offenses should be conducted.

## Page 417

21 Re MIRONKO

Regarding the claims made by Mironko François Xavier that Article 81 mentioned above deprived him of the right to be tried before a competent and impartial court, Counsel Kabibi Spéciose argues that for offenses of contempt of court, the court where the offense occurs automatically acquires jurisdiction derived from statutory inherent powers or from its duty to maintain order during proceedings (auxiliary inherent powers). She states that, specifically in Rwanda, the law provides that the court where such offenses are committed has the authority to adjudicate them (statutory inherent jurisdiction), and that the Constitution itself does not specify which court has jurisdiction over such offenses, so that this Article cannot be said to be inconsistent with the Constitution.

With regard to claims by Mironko François Xavier that the Article he is challenging provides for the court to have the power to adjudicate offenses of contempt of court, amounting to self-adjudication and self-sentencing, which he argues violates the Constitution, Counsel Kabibi Spéciose states that this is not correct, arguing that an offense of contempt of court is not considered as being committed against the judge personally, but rather against the public, which is different from a situation where the offender would intentionally commit acts aimed at harming the judge in their personal capacity.

He elucidates that offenses of contempt of court are offenses that disrupt public order, thus the Court must take swift action to address them in order to ensure a prompt mechanism for sanctioning acts that threaten the security of the hearing, and that such a procedure does not in any way contradict Articles 29 and 152 of the Constitution.

## Page 418

22 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Regarding the claims by Mironko François Xavier that the article he is challenging deprived him of the right to appeal simply because the matter occurred before the Supreme Court, Counsel Kabibi Spéciose states that such claims are unfounded because the Supreme Court is the highest judicial authority in the country, and its decisions are not subject to appeal or review, except for matters concerning presidential pardon or the Court's own initiative to review its decision in the interest of the law4. She adds that the fact that the Supreme Court tries cases at both the first and last instance is not unique to the offense for which Mironko François Xavier was punished, as the Court normally has jurisdiction to adjudicate certain offenses at the first and last instance due to the privileged status of those accused (privilege of jurisdiction)5. She further explains that although Article 82 of the aforementioned Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 provides that appeals against offenses of contempt of court should be submitted to the court hierarchically superior to the one that rendered the decision, this does not apply to offenses of contempt of court committed before the Supreme Court because it is the superior court in the country. However, she acknowledges that a party has the right to appeal except when it concerns decisions made by courts that have no higher judicial authority, since the right to appeal has its limits.

She further reminds that, similar to Article 29 of the Constitution, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights, upon which the defendant has

4 Article 50, 1 of the Law no 012/2018 of 04/04/2018 governing organization and the functioning of the Judiciary. 5 An example is given by article 66 of the Law no 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts.

## Page 419

23 Re MIRONKO based his arguments, none of these instruments specify the right to appeal as an indicator of due process of law. Instead, Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms indicates that the right to appeal has limits, especially in cases decided by a court of last resort. For these reasons, she argues that Article 81, paragraph 1, of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 is not, in any way, inconsistent with the Constitution.

With regard to statements made by Mironko François Xavier about the provisions in paragraph 2 of Article 81 of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018, which he argues deprived him of the right to be informed of the charges against him and to defend himself, Counsel Kabibi Spéciose agrees, noting that when a judge orders the security officer to remove the offender from the courtroom, and then proceeds to issue a judgment based on the acts and the laws violated, before calling back the removed person to read the verdict in its entirety, without allowing the accused an opportunity to address the charges, this contradicts the principle of due process of law. This is especially true with regard to the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the charges, to defend oneself, and to be legally represented, as stipulated in Article 29, paragraph 1, subparagraph (a) of the Constitution.

In concluding on this issue, Counsel Kabibi Spéciose states that, based on the foregoing, the provision should not be entirely repealed but instead the wording that contradicts the Constitution should be removed and replaced, ensuring consistency with the Constitution without leaving any gaps in the law. On behalf of the Government of Rwanda, she suggests that the paragraph should be written as follows: “at that time, the judge suspends the hearing and asks those present to maintain

## Page 420

24 RWANDA LAW REPORTS order. The court clerk prepares a written record of what has transpired. The judge informs the accused of the charges against him/her and instructs the Registrar to read the minutes of the hearing to the accused. The judge then asks the accused and their counsel if they have anything to say regarding the charges. The judge proceeds to write the judgment based on the facts and the laws violated, then reads the judgment to the accused in all its details, and then resumes the hearing”. He continues by noting that this is not a new approach, as this method was used in the case RS/INCONST/PEN0001/08/CS of Murorunkwere Spéciose, which was decided by the Supreme Court on 26/09/2008. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Mironko François Xavier argues that the first and second paragraphs of Article 81 of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labor, and administrative procedure, as amended up to date, should be repealed on grounds that they are inconsistent with the Constitution, specifically Articles 29 and 152. He criticizes them for failing to respect the following rights: a. Not granting the accused the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the charges against them, to defend themselves, and to have legal assistance; b. Not granting the accused the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a competent court; c. Not granting the accused the right to appear before a competent court; d. Not granting those convicted the right to appeal.

## Page 421

25 Re MIRONKO He further criticizes the impugned article for failing to uphold the following principles : a. Justice is rendered in the name of the people and nobody may be a judge in his or her own cause; b. Court proceedings are conducted in public unless the Court determines that proceedings be held in camera in circumstances provided for by law.

The provision being challenged stipulates the following: a person who, during the hearing, commits an offence punishable by a maximum sentence of imprisonment for five (5) years, the court may immediately sentence the perpetrator even if in practice the court has no jurisdiction to hear such an offence in the first instance. In such a case, the judge adjourns the hearing and orders security personnel to take the perpetrator out of the courtroom and calls the public in the hearing to order. The court registrar takes minutes of what has happened. The judge immediately writes a judgement basing on the facts and violated legal provisions, then gets the person having been expelled back to courtroom and reads to him/her the judgement rendered against him/ her in all its provisions, and re-opens the hearing. No other formalities take place and the parties are not allowed to take the floor with regard to the offence committed.

The provision discussed implies the following: a. The court where the crime was committed immediately acquires the authority to adjudicate the case;

## Page 422

26 RWANDA LAW REPORTS b. The offender is immediately removed from the courtroom by security personnel under the order of the judge; c. The court registrar prepares a minutes of what happened; d. The judge writes the judgment based on the facts and applicable laws; e. The offender is summoned and re-enters the courtroom to be read the judgment in its entirety; f. The parties are not given an opportunity to speak regarding the crime committed.

Article 29, paragraph 1, sections (a), (b), and (c) of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda, which Mironko François Xavier, the petitioner, claims has not been adhered to, provides the following: Everyone has the right to due process of law, which includes the right: a. to be informed of the nature and cause of charges and the right to defence and legal representation; b. to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent Court; c. to appear before a competent Court; d. […..]

And Article 152, paragraph 1, subparagraphs (a) and (b) of the Constitution, which the petitioner also claims has not been respected, stipulates that the judiciary shall be governed by the following principles:

## Page 423

27 Re MIRONKO a. Justice is rendered in the name of the people and nobody may be a judge in his or her own cause; b. Court proceedings are conducted in public unless the Court determines that proceedings be held in camera in circumstances provided for by law. c. […..] The provisions of these articles are also stipulated in the international covenants to which Rwanda is a signatory, including the following: a. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in Article 106, provides that everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. In Article 11, paragraph 17, it states that everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. b. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in Article 148, paragraphs 2, 3(a), (b), and (d), and paragraph 5, provides the following:

6 “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him”. 7 “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence”. 8 “Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law”.

## Page 424

28 RWANDA LAW REPORTS i. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law (paragraph 2); ii. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality: a. To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him; b. To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defense and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing; c. [….]; d. to be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case

“In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality: (a) To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him; (b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defense and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing; (d) to be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it.

## Page 425

29 Re MIRONKO if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it. iii. Any person who has been convicted of a crime by a court has the right to appeal to a higher court to review whether the crime was substantiated and to examine the sentence imposed, as provided by law (paragraph 5). c. The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, in Article 7, paragraph 1, subparagraphs (b) and (c), provides the following: i. Every individual has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a competent court or tribunal9; ii. Every individual has the right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his/her choice.10

The Court finds that, both under the Constitution and the International Treaties Rwanda has signed, for a litigant to receive a fair trial, at least the following conditions must be respected in their case: a. The person charged with a crime must be informed of the charges against them and given the opportunity to defend themselves;

9 Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: […] T he right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent court or tribunal”. 10 Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: […] The right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice”.

## Page 426

30 RWANDA LAW REPORTS b. They must be allowed to appear personally in court and either defend themselves or be represented by a legal counsel of their choice. If they do not have a counsel, they must be informed of their right to legal assistance; c. The person charged must be presumed innocent until proven guilty; d. Every person has the right to be tried by a court established by law, which is independent and impartial, in accordance with the principle that no one can judge their own case; e. Court proceedings are conducted in public unless the Court determines that proceedings be held in camera in circumstances provided for by law, the reasons for this must be explained.

Before analysing the criticisms raised by the petitioner regarding Article 81, paragraphs one and two, of Law no 22/2018 as mentioned above, based on the legal provisions outlined, the Court finds it necessary to first explain the concept of crimes of direct contempt of Court as referred to in that article.

Crimes direct contempt of Court, as referred to in the aforementioned article, are all actions taken by those present in the courtroom that disrupt the proper conduct of the trial, with the aim of undermining or disrespecting the court, which can lead to a loss of order in the courtroom. In such cases, judges have the authority to take immediate measures to restore order, ensuring that the court's proceedings can continue properly without hindrance.

## Page 427

31 Re MIRONKO

Charles Chauncey, a legal scholar, defines direct contempt of court as an act which occurs in the judge's presence and under circumstances that require the judge to act immediately to quell the disruption, violence, disrespect, or physical abuse and maintain order. In many instances, direct contempt is punished summarily by the offended court at the time the act occurs11.

Jajati Keshari, who is also a legal scholar, says that direct contempt of Courts means any act that interferes and obstructs in the process of administration of Justice or undermines or lowers the authority and dignity of the courts and bring them into disrespect and disrepute. It is therefore, necessary that courts are vested with the power to punish for committing the offence of contempt of court12.

Another legal scholar named David J. Bodine, also explained that when individuals openly challenge or disrespect the authority of the court in hearing which is called, direct contempt of court, they threaten the legitimacy of the legal process itself. If courts fail to act against such behaviour, it might signal a breakdown in the credibility of the justice system, to punish direct contempt is seen as a tool to maintain the dignity of legal proceedings13.

Based on the foregoing elucidations, the Court finds that by enacting Article 81, paragraphs one and two, of Law no

11 Charles Chauncey, Contempt of Court, Texas Municipal Courts Education Center, 2023, P.1. 12 S., Jajati Keshari. "Contempt of Court as Defined in “Contempt of Courts Act 1971”. Journal of Advance Research in Social Science and Humanities (ISSN 2208-2387), 2017: 9-14. 13 David J. Bodine, The Nature and Function of Contempt in Modern Legal Systems, 2019, p.36.

## Page 428

32 RWANDA LAW REPORTS 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 mentioned above, the Legislator intended to provide that an offence of direct contempt of court is to be immediately punished and also set out the procedure for such punishment, with the aim of maintaining order during hearings and ensuring respect for and the dignity of the functions performed by the court.

Regarding the claim that the contested provision does not grant the accused in a case of an offence of direct contempt of court the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the charge against them, to present a defense, and to be legally represented, the Court finds that the Government Representative concurs with the petitioner that the provision in question, which allows the judge to order the removal of the offender by security personnel and immediately proceed to draft the judgment without granting the accused an opportunity to respond to the alleged offence, is contrary to the principle of due process of law, particularly with respect to the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to defend oneself, and to be legally represented, as provided under Article 29, paragraph one, subparagraph (a) of the Constitution referenced above.

In Singapore, article 25, paragraph one, of the Administration of justice (Protection) Act 201614, stipulates that

14 “Where it appears to a court (other than a Small Claims Tribunal and an Employment Claims Tribunal), that a person has committed contempt in the face of the court, and that court is satisfied that it is necessary for immediate steps to be taken for the protection of the due administration of justice, that court may cause such person to be detained in custody, and must as soon as practicable (a) cause the person to be informed in writing of the contempt with which he or she is charged; (b) afford the person an opportunity to make his or her defense to the charge;

## Page 429

33 Re MIRONKO Where it appears to a court (other than a Small Claims Tribunal and an Employment Claims Tribunal), that a person has committed contempt in the face of the court, and that court is satisfied that it is necessary for immediate steps to be taken for the protection of the due administration of justice, that court may cause such person to be detained in custody, and must as soon as practicable a. cause the person to be informed in writing of the contempt with which he or she is charged; b. afford the person an opportunity to make his or her defense to the charge; c. after taking such evidence as may be necessary or as may be offered by the person and after hearing the person, proceed, either immediately or after adjournment, to determine the matter of the charge; and d. make such order for the punishment or discharge of the person as may be just.

In France, direct contempt of court Offences of contempt of court are judged, ex officio or at the request of the public prosecutor, in accordance with the following provisions: If a police offence is committed during the hearing, the tribunal or court shall draw up a report of the offence, hear the accused, the witnesses, the public prosecutor and, where applicable, the

(c) after taking such evidence as may be necessary or as may be offered by the person and after hearing the person, proceed, either immediately or after adjournment, to determine the matter of the charge; and (d) make such order for the punishment or discharge of the person as may be just”.

## Page 430

34 RWANDA LAW REPORTS defence counsel, and shall immediately apply the penalties prescribed by law15.

In India, procedure where contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court or a High Court. — (1) When it is alleged, or appears to the Supreme Court or the High Court upon its own view, that a person has been guilty of contempt committed in its presence or hearing, the Court may cause such person to be detained in custody, and, at any time before the rising of the Court, on the same day, or as early as possible thereafter, shall— a. cause him to be informed in writing of the contempt with which he is charged; b. afford him an opportunity to make his defense to the charge; c. after taking such evidence as may be necessary or as may be offered by such person and after hearing him, proceed, either forthwith or after adjournment, to determine the matter of the charge; and d. make such order for the punishment or discharge of such person as may be just16.

The few examples previously presented illustrate how the prosecution of offences of contempt of court is conducted in other countries, showing that the accused is informed of the nature and cause of the offence they are charged with, given an opportunity to present a defense, and granted the right to legal representation. This contrasts with the provisions of Article 81, paragraphs one

15 Article 676 du Code pénal de la République française. 16 The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, 14 (1).

## Page 431

35 Re MIRONKO and two, of Law no 22/2018 referenced above, which allow the court where the offence of contempt of court to immediately impose a sentence on the alleged offender without first affording them the opportunity to defend themselves or the right to legal representation.

Based on the explanations provided above, the Court finds that Article 81, paragraph one, of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 referred to above is inconsistent with the Constitution, particularly regarding the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the offence being charged, the right to a defence, and the right to legal representation, as provided under Article 29, paragraph one, subparagraph (a) of the Constitution.

Regarding the claim that the challenged provision denies the accused the right to appear before a competent court, the said provision, in its first paragraph, provides that a person who, during the hearing, commits an offence punishable by a maximum sentence of imprisonment for five (5) years, the court may immediately sentence the perpetrator even if in practice the court has no jurisdiction to hear such an offence in the first instance. This means that when an offence is committed in a given court but falls under the jurisdiction of another court, the court where the offence occurred acquires jurisdiction to try it. This is what the petitioner challenges, arguing that the accused does not get tried before a competent court.

Article 153, paragraph 5, of the Constitution provides that it is the law that determines the organization, functioning, and jurisdiction of the courts. This implies that the Constitution empowers the legislator to confer jurisdiction upon the courts through legislation. It is within this framework that the legislator, based on the authority granted by the Constitution, provided in

## Page 432

36 RWANDA LAW REPORTS Article 81, paragraph one, of the aforementioned law that, in relation to an offence of direct contempt of court, the court in which the offence is committed immediately acquires jurisdiction to try the matter, even if it would not ordinarily have jurisdiction to do so at first instance.

Moreover, the fact that the court in which the offence of direct contempt of court is committed immediately acquires jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter is justified by the following key reasons: First, it is necessary to restore order in the courtroom disrupted by the offence, in order for the ongoing trial to proceed without interruption; second, the offence occurs in the presence of the presiding judge who directly witnessed the conduct in question, placing the judge in the best position to assess the situation and impose a sanction in accordance with the law.

The foregoing was explained in the case of COOKE v. United States, 267 U.S. 517 (1925), decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which Clay Cooke and J. L. Walker were each sentenced to 30 days’ imprisonment for contempt of court committed during a court proceeding. In that case, it was explained that to preserve order in the courtroom for the proper conduct of business, the court must act instantly to suppress disturbance or violence or physical obstruction or disrespect to the court, when occurring in open court. There is no need of evidence or assistance of counsel before punishment, because the court has seen the offense.17

Based on the foregoing elucidations, the Court finds that Article 81, paragraph one, of Law No. 22/2018 of April 29, 2018,

17 COOKE v. US, 267 U.S. 517 (1925), United States Supreme Court, No. 311, Argued: March 20, 1925. Decided: April 13, 1925.

## Page 433

37 Re MIRONKO as mentioned above, does not contradict the Constitution with regard to whether the accused has the right to appear before a competent court, because such jurisdiction is stipulated by law (statutory powers).

With regard to the claim by the petitioner that the contested provision does not grant the person convicted of an offence of direct contempt of court the right to appeal if they disagree with the decision made, the Court finds that this claim is unfounded because, as explained above, what this provision addresses is the manner in which such a crime is tried; as written, it does not state that a person convicted of that crime lacks the right to appeal.

The issue raised by the petitioner is in cases where the crime was committed in the Supreme Court, where it is claimed that once convicted, the person has no right to appeal. The Court finds that this does not concern the manner in which the contested provision is written, but rather that, since the Supreme Court is the superior court, its decisions are not subject to appeal. Additionally, since there are issues resolved at both the first and last instances by the Supreme Court, making them non- appealable, this does not only concern offences of direct contempt of court18.

The fact that a person convicted at both the first and final levels by the highest court in the country does not have the right to appeal is also permitted under international law, where Article 2 of the Protocol no 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms provides

18 Articles 66 to 80 of Law No. 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, as amended to date.

## Page 434

38 RWANDA LAW REPORTS that although every person convicted of a crime has the right to appeal to a higher court, this right is limited for those convicted by the highest courts in the country19.

In light of the foregoing explanations, the Court finds that Article 81, paragraph one, of Law no 22/2018 of April 29, 2018, does not deny the person convicted of a crime committed in the courtroom the right to appeal, and therefore, it is not inconsistent with the Constitution.

Regarding the claim made by the petitioner that the provision he challenges violates the principle that justice is rendered in the name of the people and nobody may be a judge in his or her own cause, he intends to convey that the fact that the court where the crime occurred immediately tries the perpetrator amounts to self-judgment.

Direct contempt of court is not considered an offence against the judge personally, but rather an offence against the judge as part of their judicial duties. For this reason, if the judge follows up on the person who committed the act and takes a decision, it should not be equated to a situation where the judge is the victim of a crime outside of their judicial duties, and where the case is brought before them for adjudication. The legislator

19 Protocol No 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 2 – “Right of appeal in criminal matters. 1 Everyone convicted of a criminal offence by a tribunal shall have the right to have his conviction or sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal. The exercise of this right, including the grounds on which it may be exercised, shall be governed by law. 2 This right may be subject to exceptions in regard to offences of a minor character, as prescribed by law, or in cases in which the person concerned was tried in the first instance by the highest tribunal or was convicted following an appeal against acquittal”.

## Page 435

39 Re MIRONKO has prohibited this in Article 104 of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labor, and administrative procedure, as amended to date, which stipulates that in case a judge finds him/her concerned with one or several of circumstances provided for under Article 10320 of this Law, he /she withdraws from the case by informing the President of the court in writing [...].

With regard to the possibility of a judge being the victim of a direct contempt of court and then turning around to impose a sentence on the perpetrator, which is not considered as “self- judging” prohibited by the Constitution, this was explained in the case European Asian Bank AG vs Wentworth, discussed in an article by Natalie Adams, a Judge in the High Court of New South Wales, and Belinda Baker, a lawyer and prosecutor in that country, titled "Sentencing for Contempt of Court21." In this case, the court explained that When a judge deals summarily with an alleged contempt he may at once be a victim of the contempt, a witness to it, the prosecutor who decides that action is required and the judge who determines matters in dispute and imposes punishment. The combination, in the judge, of four such inimical functions is not only unusual. It is so exceptional that, though it may sometimes be required to deal peremptorily with an emergency situation, those occasions will be rare indeed.

The Supreme Court of India also stated that contempt of court goes beyond from mere defiance of a judge’s authority, but

20 Any judge may be disqualified if: 1° the judge, his/her spouse and their children have a personal interest in the case; 2° […]. 21 Cit. Justice Natalie Adams and Belinda Baker, sentencing for Contempt of Court, National judicial college of Australia and the Australian national university sentencing, conference, 29 February, 2020, §. 80.

## Page 436

40 RWANDA LAW REPORTS also denotes a profound challenge to the principles that underpin the rule of law. When a party engages in contempt, it does more than simply refusing to comply with a judge’s order, but also directly questions the Court’s ability to uphold the rule of law. It erodes the public confidence in the judicial system and its ability to deliver justice impartially and effectively22.

The explanations provided above clearly demonstrate that an offence of contempt of court is not an offence against the judge personally in such a way that would prevent him or her from adjudicating the matter for fear that it may be considered as self- judging, which is prohibited. Rather, it is an offence committed against the judicial system as a whole, which is represented by the judge presiding over that hearing.

Based on the foregoing elucidations, the Court finds that Article 81, paragraph one, of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 mentioned above is not inconsistent with the Constitution, as it does not in any way violate the principle that no one shall be a judge in their own cause.

The petitioner challenges the article in question, alleging that it contravenes the principle that court proceedings are conducted in public unless the Court determines that proceedings be held in camera in circumstances provided for by law. A public hearing refers to a situation where the courtroom is open and anyone can enter and follow the proceedings. This differs from a hearing in camera, where the judge orders all persons present in

22 See, the Supreme Court of India, inherent jurisdiction Contempt Petition (CIVIL) no. 196-197 of 2024 in special leave petition (CIVIL), no 12081- 12082 of 2023.

## Page 437

41 Re MIRONKO the courtroom to leave, leaving only the parties to the case and their legal representatives, if any.

In light of the foregoing elucidation, the Court finds that, as per its wording, the article being challenged does not in any way provide that a person prosecuted for an offence of contempt of court is tried only after the courtroom has been cleared. Rather, the procedure is that the person accused of the offence is the one removed from the courtroom, while those present remain; the court then deliberates in private, after which the removed individual is brought back in and the court publicly announces the decision taken against them.

Based on the explanation provided above, the Court finds that Article 81, paragraph two, of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018, which is the subject of the applicant’s criticism, does not contradict the principle that court proceedings are held in public, and therefore, it is not inconsistent with the Constitution with regard to that principle.

The petitioner further criticizes the aforementioned provision for allegedly violating the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a competent court. The said provision stipulates that the judge shall immediately draft the judgment based on the facts and the law that was violated, then summon the person who had been removed, read to them the full judgment rendered, and thereafter resume the hearing.

The presumption of innocence, in principle, means that an accused person is not punished without a trial establishing their guilt. In the case of Allen v. The United Kingdom (Application no 25424/09) decided by the European Court of Human Rights, the Court explained that, viewed as a procedural guarantee in the

## Page 438

42 RWANDA LAW REPORTS context of a criminal trial itself, the presumption of innocence imposes requirements in respect of, inter alia, the burden of proof; legal presumptions of fact and law; the privilege against self- incrimination; pre-trial publicity; and premature expressions, by the trial court or by other public officials, of a defendant’s guilt23.

As previously explained, the impugned article states that the judge writes the judgment based on what they personally witnessed, and then reads the rendered decision to the accused who committed the offence during the hearing. This means that, until the judge reads the verdict to the person being prosecuted for an offence of contempt of court, that person is still presumed innocent.

Based on the explanations provided above, the Court finds that the manner in which Article 81, paragraphs one and two, of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018, which is the subject of the petition, is drafted does not, in any way, contravene the Constitution with respect to an individual's right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a competent court.

In light of the laws and international treaties ratified by Rwanda, and considering all the explanations provided— particularly those drawn from court decisions and laws of other countries—the Court finds that the provisions of Article 81, paragraphs one and two, of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labor, and administrative procedure, as amended to date, are not inconsistent with the rights set forth under Article 29, paragraph one, subparagraphs (b) and (c), as

23 Case of Allen v. the United Kingdom (Application no. 25424/09) Judgment Strasbourg 12 July 2013. Article 6 § 2 safeguards the right to be “presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law”.

## Page 439

43 Re MIRONKO well as the principles enshrined in Article 152, paragraph one, subparagraphs (a) and (c) of the Constitution.

However, the Court finds that, based on the laws and international treaties ratified by Rwanda, and considering all the explanations provided—particularly those based on decisions by courts and legislation from other countries—the provisions of Article 81, paragraph two, of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labor, and administrative procedure, as amended to date, are in some respects inconsistent with the principle of due process of law as guaranteed under Article 29, paragraph one, subparagraph (a) of the Constitution, with respect to the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, the right to defense, and the right to legal representation. Therefore, this paragraph is deemed to have no legal effect pursuant to Article 3 of the Constitution.

In order to avoid a legal vacuum in case the Court declares that a statutory provision is inconsistent with the Constitution, in case RS/Inconst/Pén.0001/08/CS, the Supreme Court, relying on precedents from other jurisdictions, held that it has the authority to repeal the portion of a legal provision that is inconsistent with the Constitution, and to add wording to the remaining part. It explained that the removal of a portion of the law and the addition of words must be exercised with caution and restraint, with the Court refraining from interfering in political matters, and instead striving to respect the intent and purpose of the legislator in enacting the contested provision with regard to the structure of the law following the Court’s intervention24.

24 Judgment RS/Inconst/Pén.0001/08/CS rendered on 26/09/2008, Murorunkwere Spéciose, paragraphs 34 and 35.

## Page 440

44 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that in enacting Article 81, paragraph two, of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 referenced above, the legislator’s intention was to ensure that a person who commits an offence of contempt of court is held accountable, and even the petitioner agrees that such conduct must be punished, though they object to the manner in which it is implemented.

After finding that the second paragraph of the aforementioned article is inconsistent with the Constitution, as explained above, and in order to avoid a legal vacuum, the Court finds that Article 81 of Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 referenced above shall be supplemented with a second paragraph drafted as follows: “In such a case, the judge adjourns the hearing and orders security personnel to take the perpetrator out of the courtroom and calls the public in the hearing to order. The court registrar takes minutes of what has happened. The judge informs the accused of the offence committed and instructs the registrar to read aloud the recorded minutes to the accused. The judge then asks the accused and his/her counsel, if present or immediately available, to respond to the charges. If the accused behaves in a manner that disturbs order, the judge orders the security officers to remove him/her from the courtroom. The judge then immediately writes the judgment, reads the decision taken, and resumes the hearing”. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the petition filed by Mironko François Xavier, seeking declaration that Article 81, paragraphs one and two, of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour, and administrative procedure, as amended to date, on the

## Page 441

45 Re MIRONKO grounds that it is inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda, has merit in part;

Declares that paragraph one of article 81 of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour, and administrative procedure, as amended to date, is not inconsistent with articles 29 and 152 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda;

Declares that paragraph two of article 81 of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour, and administrative procedure, as amended to date, is inconsistent with articles 29, paragraph one, subparagraph (a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda, and that paragraph is thus without effect.

Orders that of article 81 of the aforementioned Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 be supplemented with a second paragraph written as follows: “In such a case, the judge adjourns the hearing and orders security personnel to take the perpetrator out of the courtroom and calls the public in the hearing to order. The court registrar takes minutes of what has happened. The judge informs the accused of the offence committed and instructs the registrar to read aloud the recorded minutes to the accused. The judge then asks the accused and his/her counsel, if present or immediately available, to respond to the charges. If the accused behaves in a manner that disturbs order, the judge orders the security officers to remove him/her from the courtroom. The judge then immediately writes the judgment, reads the decision taken, and resumes the hearing”;

Orders that this judgment be published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda.

## Page 442

46 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 443

47 Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA) Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA) [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/INCONST/SPEC00004/2023/SC (Mukamulisa, P.J, Cyanzayire, Hitiyaremye, Kalihangabo and Kazungu, J.) 26 April 2024 Constitution - Right to physical and mental integrity- In order for the violation of the right to physical and mental integrity to be characterized, there must have been any act that invades the human body with the intention of harming it and it is illegally done. Constitution – The petition seeking to declare a legal provision unconstitutional – In order for a petitioner to claim that a certain legal provision of the law is unconstitutional, he/she must first demonstrate before the court how he/she relates the contentious provision to the Constitution. Constitution – The petition seeking to declare a legal provision unconstitutional – The illegal practices of the law and its provisions, if any, are not rectified by declaring the law unconstitutional when the law itself is not contentious. Facts: Feminist Action Development Ambition (FADA) filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking to declare Article 143 of Law Nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general as modified and completed to date, contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda in its articles: Article 13 relating to inviolability of a human being, Article 15 relating to the equality before the law, and Article 16 which 47

## Page 444

48 RWANDA LAW REPORTS protects a person against any discrimination. That impugned article provides that anyone who commits public indecency is guilty of an offence. FADA alleges that it filed this petition because of the challenges it has been encountering in the law, whereby some girls and women in Rwanda face the problem of being prosecuted for the public indecency provided for in Article 143 of Law Nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018 mentioned above, because they are female, while when such actions are committed by males, the latter are not prosecuted. This is contrary to the Constitution in its articles, 13, 15 and 16. Before considering its petition, the Court first examined whether FADA has an interest in the case and confirmed that it has an organization endowed with legal personality and has a duty to fight any kind of gender-based violence and discrimination. Regarding the issue that was first examined in this case, regarding the fact that the provisions of article 143 of the aforementioned Law are contrary to article 13 of the Constitution, FADA alleges that, when the provisions of those two articles are combined, it is worth realizing that punishing a person for committing public indecency due to the way she is dressed, infringes upon woman's rights, and it also violates her inviolability and the absolute right to physical freedom. FADA continues alleging that apart from the fact that this law is offensive due to the fact that it provides that committing public indecency is an offence, it did not define indecency scandal yet term is not clear. It also alleges that this makes certain actions to be considered offensive to some but not to others, causing uncertainty in the prosecution of the offence and violating the right to privacy.

## Page 445

49 Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA) The Government of Rwanda in this case, contends that the claims of FADA are baseless because the Government of Rwanda is a country committed to the rule of law, based on the respect for human rights, freedom and the principle that all Rwandans are equal before the law, and equality between women and men as provided for in the Constitution. It further states that punishing the perpetrator of public indecency, does not mean that his/her inviolability is not respected when he/she is prosecuted in accordance with the law. Concerning FADA's statement that the law does not define what the term "indecency" is, the Government of Rwanda alleges that the most important element is that it is an act that threatens the public based on a certain culture of the country and is contrary to it, that no Rwandan would fail to know what " indecency" is. It concludes by stating that rights and freedoms have their beginning and end, that they should not harm others or go against the education and culture that characterizes Rwandans. No one has the right to go naked or to wear clothing that reveals nakedness in public in a way that interferes with the rights and freedoms of others. In respect of whether Article 143 of Law Nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general as modified and completed to date, is contrary to Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution, the petitioner avers that when they consider the enforcement of that article, they find that among the people who have been prosecuted for the offence of public indecency, there are girls who were prosecuted based on how they are dressed in public more than men or boys, and it is found that, according to the article, women are the most targeted but should not be discriminated against by their brothers who have done the same thing. She gave an example alleging that a girl or a woman

## Page 446

50 RWANDA LAW REPORTS who removed her shirt from the upper part is punished, while a man who does the same is not punished. Therefore, she requests that such article should be repealed, as it punishes public indecency in this way, it is against the Constitution because, with reference to its enforcement, it does not equally treat men and women, nor safeguard their equality before the law. The Government of Rwanda sustains that the petitioner does not criticize Article 143 in its wording, but focuses on its enforcement, where they indicate that there are those who have been prosecuted based on that article, and those who have not been prosecuted. It also alleges that, in consideration of its wording, it finds that there is no discrimination between women and men, so it should not be repealed because it is not contrary to Article 15 of the Constitution. It provides that Rwanda is a country that abides by the law and is determined to fight any kind of discrimination as provided in its Constitution; therefore, it does not enact a law that discriminates between men and women, and the impugned article is not contrary to Article 16 of the Constitution because it does not imply any discrimination. Held: 1. In order for the violation of the right to physical and mental integrity to be characterized, there must have been any act that invades the human body with the intention of harming it and it is illegally done. 2. In order for a petitioner to claim that a certain legal provision of the law is unconstitutional, he/she must first demonstrate before the court how he/she relates the contentious provision to the Constitution. Therefore, FADA's petition lacks merit because it failed to prove before the Court how punishment for the crime of public indecency provided for in Article 143 of Law Nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in

## Page 447

51 Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA) general as modified and completed to date, is related to the right to physical and mental integrity provided for in Article 13 of the Constitution. 3. The legal practice contrary to the provisions of the law, if any, is not corrected by declaring the law unconstitutional when the law itself is not contended. Constitutional petition lacks merit. Statutory and legal instruments referred to: The Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 amended to date, articles 13, 15 and 16. The United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights of 1948, Article 7. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), Article 26 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Articles 2 and 3. The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 01 May 1980, ratified by Presidential Order No 431/16 of 10/11/1981, article 3. African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Articles 4, 91 and 127. Law Nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018 relating to offences and penalties in general, as modified and completed to date, article 143. Law No 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, article 72. Cases referred to: RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2022/SC, Re Murangwa Edward, rendered by the Supreme Court on 16/12/2022.

## Page 448

52 RWANDA LAW REPORTS Case N° 13 of 2014 [2021] UGCC, Center for Domestic Violence Prevention and Others and the Attorney General of Uganda, rendered by the Supreme Court of Uganda on August 13, 2021. RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS, Re Akagera Business Group (ABG), rendered by the Supreme Court on 23/09/2016. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

On 04/07/2023, Feminist Action Development Ambition, FADA in this case, filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking to declare that Article 143 of Law Nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018 Law determining offences and penalties in general as modified and completed to date is contrary to Articles 13, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda (the Constitution in this case).

FADA explains that, as a non-governmental organization, in its daily work, it is faced with legal challenges, whereby some girls and women in Rwanda encounter the problem of being prosecuted for public indecency, provided for by Article 143 of Law Nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018 Law determining offences and penalties in general as modified and completed to date because they are female, while such acts when committed by males are not prosecuted as an offence. It is alleged that sometimes they are prosecuted for no reason due to the fact that the people keep an eye on clothing style.

## Page 449

53 Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA)

It concludes by alleging that this is contrary to the Constitution in its article 13 concerning the inviolability of a human being, the article 15 concerning equality before the law, and article 16 protecting against any discrimination, that is the reason why it filed a petition seeking to declare unconstitutional article 143 of Law No 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 abovementioned.

The case was heard in public on 11/03/2024, FADA was represented by Uwingabe Murenzi Assna assisted by Counsel Karangwa Olivier together with Counsel Umwari Sylvie, and the Government of Rwanda was represented by Counsel Batsinda Aline, and the Court first examined the issue of whether FADA has an interest in this case. Determine whether FADA has interest in the case

After hearing the explanations of the petitioner explaining the interest it has in the case and those of the State Attorney stating that the petitioner has no interest, the Court made a decision on the bench as follows : a. Article 72, paragraph one, of Law n°30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts as modified and complemented to date, provides that the Supreme Court is petitioned by any person or company and associations with legal personality over petitions seeking to declare unconstitutional a law if they have any interest. b. In the provisional decision RS/INCONST/SPEC00001/2022/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 16/12/2022, involving Murangwa Edward, the Court explained that in assessing the interest of the petitioner, the following conditions must be

## Page 450

54 RWANDA LAW REPORTS considered, the presence of one of which is sufficient for the Court to confirm that the petitioner has an interest : - -If there is an impugned unconstitutional law relating to a petitioner or the category to which he/she belongs in such a way that he/she has a personal interest in filing a petition. An example is the Law regarding journalists, doctors, teachers, and others ; - -If the law challenged to be unconstitutional concerns the entire population in such a way that it may affect their rights, which gives to any person who may be affected by it, the benefit of challenging it as unconstitutional ; - If the petitioner is an advocate, in the interest of justice, he/she is allowed to file a petition for the law development or the rights of those affected by the law, even if he/she personally has no interest in the application. c. Regarding this case, Article 4 of the Statutes of FADA, provides that one of its objectives is to fight any gender- based violence and discrimination. In its written submissions, FADA states that Article 143 of Law Nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general, which provides for offences and sanctions in general, infringes upon women, and therefore it challenges it to be unconstitutional. d. The Court found that, as an organization endowed with legal personality and which is responsible for fighting any kind of gender-based violence and discrimination,

## Page 451

55 Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA) FADA has an interest in this case because among other reasons it relies on to allege that Article 143 of Law Nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 mentioned above is unconstitutional, there is the fact that it jeopardizes the rights of the people it fights for, ordering that the hearing proceeds.

Regarding the case on the merits, the Court considered the following issues: - Determine whether Article 143 of Law Nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 Law determining offences and penalties in general as modified and complemented to date, is contrary to Articles 13 of the Constitution; - Determine whether Article 143 of the Law Nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 Law determining offences and penalties in general as modified and complemented to date is contrary to Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES OF THE CASE 2. Determine whether Article 143 of Law Nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 Law determining offences and penalties in general as modified and complemented to date, is contrary to Article 13 of the Constitution

Uwingabe Murenzi Assna representing FADA, assisted by Counsel Karangwa Olivier and Counsel Umwari Sylvie, allege that if one relates the contents of article 143 of Law Nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 Law determining offences and penalties

## Page 452

56 RWANDA LAW REPORTS in general as modified and complemented to date, and the provisions of article 13 of the Constitution, they realize that punishing a person for public indecency due to the clothing style violates the rights of the women. An example they give is to sentence someone to a penalty for wearing a transparent dress, for being short-dressed or tight-dressed. They allege that this violates their inviolability and the absolute right to physical freedom, and that Article 13 of the Constitution provides that the State has the duty to respect, protect and defend them.

They further state that, apart from the fact that this law brutalizes a person due to the fact that it criminalizes public indecency, it never provided a definition of what is meant by public indecency, the term is not clear. They add that this makes certain acts considered public indecency to some but not to others, causing uncertainty in the prosecution of the offence and violating the right to physical and mental integrity. They argue that this is questionable because, depending on the definition of what constitutes public indecency, one person can be prosecuted while another is not, which can be emotionally driven.

They also allege that the right to the inviolability of the human being is a basic human right protected by the Constitution, which is a right that protects people from physical or mental harm. They point out that punishing someone for what is called public indecency, even if it is not well defined, can violate this right in different ways.

They also allege that laws punishing public indecency often criminalizes what people confuse with nakedness, due to the way they are dressed; yet a person has an inalienable right to the way they treat or dress one’s body (Body Autonomy). They proceed to allege that criminalizing public indecency has a

## Page 453

57 Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA) major impact on making a person be afraid of expressing themselves freely, because of the fear of being arrested because their clothes are too transparent for certain part of the body or are long to a certain extent. This is one of the reasons why some people are brought to court, as they are alleged to have committed public indecency.

They conclude by explaining that what is mentioned above is in line with what the Supreme Court of Uganda decided on August 13, 2021, in case No. 13 of 2014 [2021] UGCC 20 involving “Centre for Domestic Violence Prevention and Others” v State Attorney, where it held that the fact that there is a law punishing public indecency but does not define what indecent show means, is unconstitutional.

State Attorney Batsinda Aline, representing the Government of Rwanda, contends that the claim of the petitioner that Article 143 of Law Nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 mentioned above is contrary to Article 13 of the Constitution, is irrelevant. She explains that Rwanda is a country committed to building a State governed by the rule of law, based on respect for human rights, freedom and the principle that all Rwandans are subject to the law, and equality between women and men as provided for in the Constitution. She also alleges that Rwanda is one of the signatories of Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and is committed to complying with it, and that even the laws that are enacted are in this line. She adds that Article 29 of that Declaration provides that a person has rights and freedoms, but also places responsibility upon the public, that her rights and freedoms require her to respect the rights and freedoms of others

## Page 454

58 RWANDA LAW REPORTS while respecting the culture and public order in a democratic country1.

She further submits that she finds that punishing the perpetrator of the offence of public indecency, does not mean that their integrity is not respected when they are prosecuted in accordance with the law. Regarding the allegations that the law determining offences and penalties in general does not define public indecency, she contends that the most important element is that it is an act that infringes upon the public based on a certaine culture of the country and is contrary to it, that no Rwandan would fail to detect what is public indecency. She alleges that, apart from that, the legal writer R. Garraud (3e éd. T.V, Paris 1924) explained that it is not easy to define the elements of the offence, that it must be left to the discretion of the judge, that it is not based on emotions as alleged by the petitioner.

She concludes by explaining that human rights and freedoms have their beginnings and ends, that they should not inconvenience others or go against education and culture that characterize Rwandans. She adds that no one has the right to be naked or to wear clothes that show nakedness in public in a way that threatens the rights and freedom of others, such fact could attract bad behavior to someone who is exposed to that clothing style, which is even likely to drag him/her into an offence.

1 Article 29 reminds that an individual exercises rights, enjoys freedoms, also has the duties to the community. Furthermore, those rights and freedoms are subject to such limitations for securing the rights and freedoms of others, or meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

## Page 455

59 Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA) DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 143 of Nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 Law determining offences and penalties in general as modified and complemented to date provides that any person who performs an indecent act in public, commits an offence. Upon conviction, he/she is liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than six (6) months and not more than two (2) years.

Article 13 of the Constitution provides that the human being is sacred and inviolable. The State has an obligation to respect, protect and defend the human being.

The petitioner criticizes the article which it challenges to be unconstitutional for two reasons : a. The fact that it violates the inviolability of the human being ; b. The fact that indecency is not defined by the law, which may deprive the accused of the right to inviolability. A. Regarding the inviolability of a human being

Regarding the definition of the inviolability of a human being, in the dictionary of legal terminology, legal scholars Serge Guinchard and Thierry Debard2, explain that the inviolability of the human being is a principle according to which the human person cannot be harmed in his or her body. From this principle, expressing the sacred nature of the human being, arise in criminal

2 Serge Guinchard, Thierry Debard, Lexique des termes juridiques, Dalloz, 2020.

## Page 456

60 RWANDA LAW REPORTS law, offenses against persons (homicide, assault and battery, etc.) and in civil law, the obligation to repair bodily harm[…]3.

In the document titled “Inviolability and Privacy: The Castle, The Sanctuary, and The Body,” that the legal scholar Linda C. McClain wrote, she defined inviolability as a form of integrity, a form of being treated as sacred person that should not be insulted, victimized, or even abused. Taken together, these definitions imply that a person is sacred and needs to be protected. Common definitions of the quality of being inviolable are not to be violated, to be kept sacredly free from profanation, infraction, or assault, and impregnable to assault or trespass. Such definitions suggest both an association with sacredness and an association with security against violation or other incursions 4.

The elucidations that have just been mentioned above clearly show that it is an abomination to do something that hurts a person physically, that it is prohibited to invade a person’s body with the intention of harming him/her, and the Government has the responsibility to protect it from happening. In order to comply with this responsibility, the governments, including that of Rwanda, take all measures to prevent it, including the enactment of criminal laws, which provide for all crimes that can be committed against the body of a person and their penalties as well as compensation for prospective victims. It is in this context, that

3 Serge Guinchard, Thierry Debard, Lexique des termes juridiques, Dalloz, 2020. 4 Linda C. McClain, Inviolability and Privacy: The Castle, The Sanctuary, and The Body, in 7 Yale Journal of Law & The Humanities 195 (1995). Boston University School of Law Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law. Available at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/2889. Accessed on 19/04/2024 at 03:50.

## Page 457

61 Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA) Law Nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general as modified and complemented to date, in Part II, Section 1, Chapters I and II, provides for crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, murder, assault and battery, torture and abortion5.

The provision related to the inviolability of the human being, is also found in article 4 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which provides that human beings are inviolable. Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and the integrity of his person. No one may be arbitrarily deprived of this right.

Among the acts that violate the rights referred to in Article 4 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, in the document titled "Major African Legal Instruments” written by Sheila B Keetharuth6, based on various decisions taken by the African Commission on Human and People's Rights, highlighted the following: - Shootings by police officers, - Executions based on the authority of a defective trial, - Denial of food and medicine attention, burning people in sand and subjecting them to torture, - Killings, disappearances, assassination by unknown people, which the government did not attempt to prevent or investigate afterwards,

5 See articles 91-127. 6 Sheila B Keetharuth, Major African legal instruments, P.175-176, https://addis.unfpa.org/en/resources/major- african-legal-instruments. Accessed on 17/04/2024 at 03 :50.

## Page 458

62 RWANDA LAW REPORTS - Massacre of a large number of Rwandan villagers by the former Rwandan armed forces (Ex FAR) and the many reported extrajudicial executions for reasons of their membership of a particular ethnic group 7.

In this case, in order for the petitioner to allege that Article 143 of Law Nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 mentioned above is contrary to Article 13 of the Constitution, it must clearly show how the article he is requesting to be repealed is in direct relation with the inviolability of the human being provided for in the aforementioned Article of the Constitution. This was also established by the Supreme Court of Canada (Bedford v. Canada (P.G.), [2013] 3 R.C.S. 1101, paragraph 76) whereby it elucidated that the petitioner must show clearly how the impugned article is related to the loss suffered8.

The aforementioned elucidations indicate that there is violation of the right of inviolability of the human being, there

7 27/89, 46/91, 99/93, Organisation Mondiale contre la Torture and Association Internationale des Juristes Démocrates, Comité International des Juristes (CIJ), Union Interafricaine des Droits de l’Homme v Rwanda, 10th Annual Activity Report [in Compilation 1994–2001, IHRDA, Banjul 2002, pp. 320–324]. “These communications were filed before the 1994 genocide [against Tutsi], but were decided afterwards, in 1996–1997”, cité par Sheila B Keetharuth, Major African legal instruments, p. 176. 8 “ The rule of the sufficient causal link does not require that the legislative or other measure alleged against the State be the sole or principal cause of the harm suffered by the petitioner, and if it is addressed by reasonable inference, on the balance of probabilities (Canada Prime Minister). “The requirement for a sufficient causal link takes context into account and focuses on the existence of a real, not hypothetical link […]”.https://decisions.scc- csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/13389/index.do. visited on 25/05/2024 at 3:50.

## Page 459

63 Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA) must have been any act that invaded a person's body in a bid to harm it and illegally done, and the petitioner was required to prove to the Court how penalizing public indecency provided for by the contended articles (causal link) is in relation with the right mentioned in Article 13 of the Constitution providing for the inviolability of a person, it failed to prove it. b. Regarding the vagueness of public indecency

[25] FADA filed a petition stating that Article 143 of Law Nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 mentioned above is vague because the offence of public indecency is differently understood by everyone, causing some people to be prosecuted for that crime while others are not, which violates Article 13 of the Constitution. Given the definition of the inviolability of the human being provided for in that article mentioned above, the Court finds that the petitioner does not demonstrate how the vagueness of the offence provided for in the contended article causes a person to be physically harmed or subjected to various other acts that threaten his/her inviolability.

[26] Regarding the judgment rendered on 13/08/2021 by the Constitutional Court of Uganda in Center for Domestic Violence Prevention and Others v Attorney General9 that FADA provided in support of its petition, the Court finds that the judgment is irrelevant to the present petition for the following reason. In that case, the petitioner argued that Articles 210 and

9 Constitutional petition n° 13 of 2014) [2021] UGCC 20. 10 “Pornography means any representation through publication, exhibition, cinematography, indecent show, information technology or by whatever means, of a person engaged in real or stimulated explicit sexual activities or any representation of the sexual parts of a person for primarily sexual excitement”.

## Page 460

64 RWANDA LAW REPORTS 1311of the Anti-Pornography Act is contrary to the Constitution of Uganda in article 28(12)12 12 and article 44(c) 13. In ruling that the contentious provisions were contrary to the Constitution of Uganda, the Court held that “The Act does not provide what amounts to ‘indecent show’ and the threshold over which an action can be measured to determine whether it falls within the ambit of ‘indecent show’. An imprecise statement of the prohibited conduct may lead to inconsistent enforcement of the law, uncertain application of the law or failure to preclude conduct that it was intended to prohibit”14. With reference to those elucidations, it held that these provisions are contrary to the Constitution of Uganda in its article 28(12) which provides that for an offence to exist and its penalty, it must be provided for by law (the principle of legality of offences and penalties), and article 44(c) which provides for the right to a fair trial.

As elucidated above, what has just been mentioned is different from what FADA is petitioning in this case, as it argues that the fact that the offence provided for by Article 143 of Law Nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 mentioned above is vague, it threatens

11 “(1) A person shall not produce, traffic in, publish, broadcast, procure, import, export, sell or abet any form of pornography. (2) A person who produces or participates in the production of, or traffics in, publishes, broadcasts, procures, imports, exports or in any way abets pornography contrary to subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding five hundred currency points or imprisonment not exceeding ten years or both”. 12 “Except for contempt of court, no person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined and the penalty for it prescribed by law”. 13 “Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, there shall be no derogation from the enjoyment of the following rights and freedoms—…(c) the right to fair hearing”. 14 Constitutional petition N° 13 of 2014) [2021] UGCC 20, paragraph 53.

## Page 461

65 Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA) the inviolability of a human being provided for in Article 13 of the Constitution.

Basing on the abovementioned elucidations, the Court finds that, in case the petitioner is unable to demonstrate to the Court how Article 143 of Law Nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 mentioned above is contrary to Article 13 of the Constitution, his petition on this issue lacks merit. 1. Determine whether article 143 of Law Nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general as modified and complemented to date is contrary to articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution

Uwingabe Murenzi Assna representing FADA, assisted by Counsel Karangwa Olivier and Counsel Umwari Sylvie, argue that article 143 of Law Nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general punishes public indecency in violation of article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda, which provides that all human beings are equal before the law and enjoy equal protection of the law; because in the enforcement of article 143 mentioned above, the law punishes women more than men.

They explain that when they look at the application of that article, they realize that among the people who have been prosecuted for public indecency, girls were prosecuted based on their clothing style in public more than that was done to men or boys. They allege that this is a problem because this law does not treat people in the same way and yet they are equal before the law as provided for in Article 15 of the Constitution.

## Page 462

66 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

They argue that, based on this article of the law, a girl or a woman who is seen with her shirt off from the upper part of her body is punished, while a man who does the same is not punished. They give the example of Mugabekazi Liliane, who was seen wearing transparent clothes at a concert and was arrested and detained, and is now being prosecuted for this offence of public indecency, and they aver that this is discrimination against her and yet it is prohibited by Article 16 of the Constitution and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women that Rwanda has ratified15.

In support of their arguments, they rely on the case of Effie Krokos v. the City of Loveland, Colorado State, who won $50,000 in damages after being ejected from a stadium for removing her shirt and her breasts were exposed. They argue that the Court held that she should be compensated because her rights were violated when she was arrested and kicked out of the stadium because she took off her top as a girl, while the men took off their shirts and were left alone16.

They also submit that even though the issue started with Effie Krokos prosecuted for keeping her breasts naked and exposed, this issue made it clear that there is a lack of equality before the law for men and women when it comes to punishing crimes related to public indecency.

15Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women of 01 May 1980 ratified by Presidential Order No 431/16 of 10/11/1981. 16https://www.scribd.com/document/434016630/Effie-Krokos-Settlement- Agreement

## Page 463

67 Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA)

They sustain that, based on that statement, the provision of the law that punishes public indecency in this way, is contrary to the Constitution because during its enforcement, it does not treat men and women in the same way, or they are not equal before the law when it is being enforced, so they request that it should be abolished because it violates human rights in terms of equality before the law and non-discrimination.

State Attorney Batsinda Aline, representing the Government of Rwanda, alleges that FADA does not criticize article 143 of Law Nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general in its phrasing compared to article 15 of the Constitution, that instead what they focus on is its enforcement, where they indicate that there are those who were prosecuted based on that article, and those who were not. She states that, in consideration of the article phrasing, she realizes that there is no inequality between women and men, so she finds that it should not be repealed because it is not contrary to Article 15 of the Constitution.

She also maintains that Rwanda is a State governed by the rule of law and which is committed to fighting any kind of discrimination as provided for in its Constitution, and that Rwanda is one of the countries that ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, this Covenant, in its articles 2.1 and 3, explains that the State parties are committed to respecting all the rights provided under it for all its people without any discrimination, and are committed to respecting the equality between men and women17; therefore, it cannot enact a

17Article 2.1: “ Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without

## Page 464

68 RWANDA LAW REPORTS law that differently treats men and women, so the contended provision does not violate Article 16 of the Constitution because it does not imply any discrimination.

Regarding the case of Mugabekazi Liliane, who was spotted wearing transparent clothes at a concert and who was arrested and detained and is currently being prosecuted for public indecency, State Attorney Batsinda Aline alleges that girl's clothing style itself was shameful, that is why all people kept commenting on her photos.

She concludes by sustaining that, based on the elucidations she provided, she realizes that Article 143 of Law Nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general as modified and complemented to date, is not contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda in its articles, 13, 15 and 16 so that it should be repealed. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 15 of the Constitution provides that all human beings are equal before the law and enjoy equal protection of the law. And Article 16 provides that all Rwandans are born and remain equal in rights and freedoms. That article also provides that any form of or propaganda for discrimination, including on the basis of ethnicity, family or descent, clan, skin, colour, sex, region, social status, religion or belief, opinion, wealth, cultural

distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”Article 3 provides: “The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant”.

## Page 465

69 Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA) differences, language, economic status, physical or mental disability or any other form of discrimination are prohibited and punishable by law.

The article to be repealed as sought by the petitioner sustaining that it is contrary to the aforementioned articles of the Constitution, is Article 143 of the Law Nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general as modified and complemented to date, which provides that any person who performs an indecent act in public, commits an offence. Upon conviction, he/she is liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than six (6) months and not more than two (2) years.

In order to find out whether this article contains inequality before the law and discrimination based on gender, thus conflicting with articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution according to the petitioner, it is important to first explain how these articles are construed. As elucidated

in the judgment RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS rendered by this Court on 23/09/2016 involving Akagera Business Group (ABG) 18, Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution are so interrelated that it is difficult to explain what they mean when read separately. As explained in that case, Article 15 states that all people are equal before the law and enjoy the same protection of the law. This means that there should not be any discrimination that prevents people from being protected in the same way or deprive them of the rights in case they are entitled to them. Article 16 provides that dividing is considered discriminatory and is not allowed by the Constitution. Both articles would be considered to contain the same principle of non- discrimination between people in what they are entitled to or

18 Rwanda Law Reports, V. 2, 2017, P.1.

## Page 466

70 RWANDA LAW REPORTS prohibited to do in order to keep some of them away from what they are legally entitled to.

The principle of equality before the law and non- discrimination can be found in the International Treaties that Rwanda ratified, including the following: i. Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, its Article 7 provides that “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination”. ii. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, its article 26 provides that “All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status". Particularly with regard to equality between men and women, Article 3 stipulates that “The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant”. iii. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, in its article 1, it

## Page 467

71 Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA) provides that “for the purposes of the present Convention, the term discrimination against women shall mean any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field”, Article 15.1. of that convention provides that “States Parties shall accord to women equality with men before the law”19. iv. Maputo Protocol provides in its article 8 (f) that “women and men are equal before the law and shall have the right to equal protection and benefit of the law. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure: … (f): reform of existing discriminatory laws and practices in order to promote and protect the rights of women” 20.

As mentioned above, the principle of equality before the law means that people are equally treated before the law, without any inequality or discrimination, and that the law in force equally treats those within its scope. Given the articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution and the aforementioned International Conventions, it is obvious that Rwanda is determined to abide by that principle.

FADA which filed a petition, states that article 143 of the abovementioned Law Nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 does not comply

19 Rwanda adopted this Convention on 02/03/1981. 20 Rwanda adopted this Convention on 25/06/2004.

## Page 468

72 RWANDA LAW REPORTS with that principle, because the offence of public indecency is prosecuted against women only, whereas it is not prosecuted when committed by males, therefore it realizes that there is no equal protection between men and women in this article, and that the article incorporates discrimination against women, that is why it requests that it should be repealed.

Regarding the criteria for repealing the law, in the case RS/INCONST/SPEC00001/2022/SC, Murangwa Edward v State Attorney, this Court explained that the practice which is inconsistent with the provisions of the law and is not corrected by declaring the law unconstitutional when the law itself is not contended21.

Regarding the fact that the law is not repealed based on the way it is enforced, that rather its provisions are considered, in the case decided by the Supreme Court of India in "The Collector of Customs, Madras v Nathella Sampathu Chetty and another”, the Court held that “The possibility of abuse of a statute otherwise valid does not impart to it any element of invalidity. The converse must also follow that a statute which is otherwise, invalid as being unreasonable cannot be saved by its being administered in a reasonable manner” 22.

In this regard, in the case decided by the High Court of Tanzania, Rev. Christopher Mtikila v. Attorney General, 1995 TLR 31, the Court held that “In order to determine whether a

21RS/INCONST/SPEC00001/2022/SC rendered on 22/12/2023, paragraph 110. 22The Collector of Customs, Madras vs Nathella Sampathu Chetty and Others, on 25 September, 1961, p. 25. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1193965/, accessed on 18/04/2024 à 10h00.

## Page 469

73 Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA) particular law is repugnant or inconsistent with the fundamental right, it is the provision of the Act that must be looked at and not the manner in which the power under the provision is actually exercised. Inconsistency or repugnancy does not depend upon the exercise of the power by virtue of the provisions in the Act but on the nature of the provisions themselves” 23.

In respect of this case, what the petitioner criticizes about article 143 of the abovementioned Law No. 68/2018 of 30/08/2018, is that in its enforcement there is discrimination between men and women, where the offence of public indecency is prosecuted for women but men are not prosecuted, and it states that there is no equality, that instead it is discrimination against women.

The Court finds that the wording of that article does not imply any discrimination because it provides that anyone who commits public indecency commits an offence. This means that the offence can be prosecuted for a woman as it would be prosecuted for a man. The fact that it is in its enforcement that the petitioner finds a problem, that does not make it to request that it should be repealed alleging that it is contrary to the Constitution as established in the aforementioned cases; apart from the fact that it did not produce any evidence to the Court proving that there is any male person alleged to have committed public indecency who was not prosecuted simply because he is male.

23Rev. Christopher Mtikila vs Attorney General [1995] TLR 31. Cited in Raymond Paul Kanegene and Bob Chacha Wangwe vs The Attorney General, p. 20. https://tanzlii.org/akn/tz/judgment/tzhc/2020/4032/eng@2020-11- 26/source.pdf. Accessed on 25/04/2024 at 2:00.

## Page 470

74 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

An example of a law that discriminates between men and women is Article 354 of Law N° 21/77 of 18/08/1977, which established the penal code that was in force in Rwanda, which provided that a woman convicted of adultery will incur a range of sentence from one month to one year in prison, while a man convicted of the same crime will incur a range of sentence from one month in prison to six months and a fine of one thousand francs or only one of these penalties. In that law, it is clear that there is discrimination and discrimination between men and women, because if they committed the same crime, the woman was given a heavy punishment, but the man was given a lenient one. A petition against that article was filed to the Supreme Court which found it unconstitutional. 24

Basing on the aforementioned elucidations, the Court finds that neither the letter nor the spirit of Article 143 of Law Nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general as modified and complemented to date, is not contrary to Article 15 and Article 16 of the Constitution, and as a result, the petition filed by FADA is unfounded. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the petition filed by Feminist Action Development Ambition (FADA) seeking to declare that Article 143 of Law Nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general as modified and complemented to date is contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda; is unfounded.

24See judgment n° RS/Inconst/Pén.0001/08/CS rendered on 26/09/2008, Re Murorunkwere Spéciose

## Page 471

75 Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA)

Holds that Article 143 of Law Nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general as modified and complemented to date, is not contrary to Articles 13, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda.

## Page 472

76 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 473

77 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD 77 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2022/SC– (Ntezilyayo, P. J., Cyanzayire, Mukamulisa, Hitiyaremye and Kazungu, J.) December 22, 2023] Constitution – The principle of equality before the law and of non-discrimination – The fact that the requirements for private security service providers differ from those for other types of businesses, based on the nature of each business, cannot be considered discrimination against them on ground that businesses that do not belong to the same category cannot be treated alike, especially when they are governed by different laws. Constitution – The Right to due process of law – The requirement that an appeal against the revocation of a private security service license must first be submitted to the Minister before taking the matter to court cannot be considered as a denial of the right to due process of law. Instead, it serves as a mechanism to rectify a decision made at the initial level in case it was unlawfully issued. However, this does not prevent the aggrieved party from seeking judicial recourse. Constitution – National security and public safety – Private security service businesses cannot be treated in the same way as other types of businesses, given that their unique nature, their operation and regulation must be a specific framework and be orverseen by a competent authority with the necessary expertise and mandate. Constitution – Security organs – Rwanda National Police – Responsibilities of Rwanda National Police – Private security

## Page 474

78 RWANDA LAW REPORTS companies responsible for ensuring the safety and security of persons and property are required to submit operational reports to Rwanda National Police on the security situation which aligns with the Police's mandate, as it holds the primary responsibility for ensuring the security of people and property countrywide. Facts: Excel Security Rwanda Ltd, as a private security service company, filed a petition before the Supreme Court, seeking to declare some articles of the law governing private security services unconstitutional. Specifically, the Company argues that article 5, article 6 subparagraphs 6°, 7°, 8°, and 9°, articles 13, 19, 30, 31, and 37 of Law n° 16bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 governing private security services, contradict with the principles enshrined in articles 15, 16, 23, 29, 37, and 159 of the Constitution, as their nature constitute serious discrimination, while others demonstrate the violation of the rights and freedoms of private security service providers in general and of it in particular. The Petitioner claims that article five (5) of the aforementioned Law is inconsistent with the provisions of article 159 of the Constitution, which entitles to the Police the powers and responsibilities of a regulatory body that are different from the responsibilities assigned to it by the Constitution. Artile 6, subparagraphs 6°, 7°, 8° and 9° of the aforementioned Law sets out the requirements that a private company intending to provide security services must meet, including a document indicating its assets with a value determined by a Ministerial Order, while other commercial entities are not subject to this requirement; this clearly constitutes discrimination and oppression against private companies that provide security services. The Petitioner further states that article 13 also implies discrimination against private security service providers because

## Page 475

79 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD they are required to have basic equipments (cameras, detectors, scanners) specified in the contract between the service provider and the client or the owner of the building, while cleaning service providers are not required to provide basic cleaning equipments. The Petitioner concludes by submitting that article 37 of the aforementioned Law also appears discriminatory, whereby a private security service provider is subject to an administrative fine if s/he provides security service without the approval of the Police, which is inconsistent with article 15 of the Constitution. The Government of Rwanda was summoned in this instant case and stated that the impugned articles do not constitute any discrimination, because the fact that there was a difference in requirements based on the provide services cannot be considered as discrimination, nor does it violate the principle of equal treatment before the law. The Government of Rwanda explains that articles 159 and 161 of the Constitution indicate that Rwanda National Police already has regulatory powers because it is responsible for ensuring the safety and security of persons and property in general throughout the country as provided for in the Law determining the governing principles, powers, responsibilities, organisation and functioning of Rwanda National Police. This means that Rwanda National Police has the powers and responsibilities to act as a regulatory body for private sectors ensuring the safety and security of persons and property and to advise them on how to discharge their responsibilities. Private companies wishing to provide such a service are granted special authorisation by Rwanda National Police, which also has the power to revoke it at any time if they fail to comply with the required standards. The Government concludes by submitting that not entitling such powers to Rwanda National Police would be, rather, inconstitutional.

## Page 476

80 RWANDA LAW REPORTS Held: 1. The fact that the requirements for private security service providers differ from those for other businesses based on the nature of each type of business cannot be considered discrimination, as businesses in different categories cannot be treated alike, especially when the laws governing them are also different. 2. The fact that the appeal to the revocation of a private security service license must first be submitted to to the Minister before taking the matter to court cannot be considered as a denial of the right to due process of law, rather, it serves as a mechanism to rectify any decision made at the first level in case it was unlawfully taken; however, this does not prevent the aggrieved party from seeking judicial recourse. 3. Private security service businesses cannot be treated in the same way as other types of businesses, given that their unique nature, their operation and regulation must be a specific framework and be orverseen by a competent authority with the necessary expertise and mandate. 4. Private security companies responsible for ensuring the safety and security of persons and property are required to submit operational reports to Rwanda National Police on the security situation which aligns with the Police's mandate, as it holds the primary responsibility for ensuring the security of people and property countrywide. Petition seeking to declare that the provisons of law are inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda lacks merit.

## Page 477

81 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD Statutory and statutes referred to: Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 04/08/2023, article 29, 159 and 161; Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, in its articles 15,16, 23, 37, 159; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 14, 17 and 18; European Convention on Human rights as amended by Protocol no 11 and 14, article 8; Law n° 026/2023 of 17/05/2023 governing Rwanda National Police, article 9, 10 and 34; Law nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 governing private security services, article 5, 6, 13, 19, 30, 31, and 37; Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 75 and 177; Law no 48/2017 of 23/09/2017 governing the National Bank of Rwanda, article 6; Law n° 09/2017 of 20/03/2017 modifying and complementing Law n° 46/2010 of 14/12/2010 determining the powers, responsibilities, organization and functioning of Rwanda National Police, article 8; Law n°46/2010 of 14/12/2010 determining the powers, responsibilities, organization and functioning of Rwanda National Police, article 41. Case laws referred to: RS/INCONST/SPEC 00004/2021/SC, Ngendahayo Kabuye v. Government of Rwanda rendered by the Supreme Court on 10/02/2023; RS/INCONST/SPEC 00004/2019/SC, Counsel Nzafashwanayo Dieudonné v. Government of Rwanda rendered on 24/07/2020.

## Page 478

82 RWANDA LAW REPORTS Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

EXCEL SECURITY Rwanda Ltd filed a claim before the Supreme Court, requesting it to declare that article 5, article 6 subparagraphs 6°, 7°, 8°, 9°, and 10°, article 13, article 19, article 30, article 31 paragraph 2, and article 37 of Law nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 governing private security services, are inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution"), specifically its articles 15, 16, 23, 37, and 159. The case was registered under RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2022/SC.

EXCEL SECURITY Rwanda Ltd states that, after the publication of Law nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 above mentioned, it found that some of its articles are inconsistent with the Constitution because their nature reflects significant discrimination, while others imply the violation of the rights and freedoms of private security service providers in general, and of EXCEL SECURITY Rwanda Ltd in particular.

Counsel Cyubahiro Fiat, representing the Government of Rwanda, states that the provisions of law challenged by EXCEL SECURITY Rwanda Ltd do not constitute any form of discrimination because the fact that there has been distinction of the requirements based on the type of services provided by people, this cannot be considered discrimination nor does it violate the principle of equality before the law.

The hearing was conducted on 24/07/2023, and the Court notified the parties that the judgment will be pronounced on

## Page 479

83 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD 29/09/2023. On 14/08/2023, Nshuti Rugerinyange, the Managing Director of EXCEL SECURITY Rwanda Ltd, submitted an additional defense submission to the Court through IECMS, requesting it to be received and examined because he was unable to attend the hearing as he had traveled to the United States for medical treatment of backache. He further stated that, as an expert in this profession, he had essential clarifications regarding the responses provided by the Company’s representative to the questions posed by the Court during the hearing. The Court found that this submission could not be considered as it was made in violation of article 75 of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure.1

While the case RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2023/SC was still pending for pronouncement, on 04/08/2023, a revised Constitution was enacted, amending the 2003 Constitution revised in 2015. The claimant had based the claim on the previous Constitution, arguing that certain legal provisions were inconsistent with it. The Court found it necessary to reopen the hearing to allow EXCEL SECURITY Rwanda Ltd to align its

1 Article 75 of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, provides that in general, no documents, submission, brief or pleading notes may be deposited with the court after the pretrial conference. However, any time before the hearing, if there is a new and relevant document or fact which can help to demonstrate the truth that is discovered by one of the parties, the concerned party may present it to the court for it to decide on its admission. If the hearing is closed, the party applies for the re-opening thereof. The court determines at its sole discretion whether it is necessary to re-open the hearing when it finds that it will rely on the new fact to decide the case. Before taking the decision and upon its own motion, the court may re-open the hearing if it finds that it needs further clarifications on some facts which remained unclarified in the hearing for the establishment of the truth. If the reopening of the hearing is ordered, the court determines the date, place and time of appearance of parties for the hearing.

## Page 480

84 RWANDA LAW REPORTS claim with the provisions of the new Constitution. The hearing was rescheduled for 28/11/2023.

On that day, all parties appeared before the Court, with Counsel Mfashingabo Aimable representing EXCEL SECURITY Rwanda Ltd and the Government of Rwanda was represented by Counsel Kabibi Spéciose.

In the additional submissions made regarding the alignment of the provisions of the 2015 revised Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda, on which the claimant had based the claim, with the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda promulgated on 04/08/2023, Counsel Mfashingabo Aimable and Counsel Kabibi Spéciose agreed that articles 15, 16, 23, 29, 37, and 48 of the 2015 revised Constitution remained unchanged in the 2023 Constitution. However, article 158 became article 159, and article 160 became article 161.

Legal issues to be analysed in this instant case: a. Whether article 5, article 6, subparagraphs 6°, 7°, 8°, and 9 , article 13, and article 37 of Law nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 governing private security services are inconsistent with articles 15, 16, and 159 of the Constitution; b. Whether article 19 of Law nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 governing private security services is inconsistent with article 29 (3°) of the Constitution ; c. Whether article 6, subparagraph 10º of Law nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 governing private security services violates the principle of freedom of opinion as provided for in article 37 of the Constitution ;

## Page 481

85 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD d. Whether articles 30 and 31 of Law nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 governing private security services violate the principle of respect for privacy of a person and of family as provided for in article 23 of the Constitution. I. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES A. Whether article 5, article 6, subparagraphs 6°, 7°, 8°, and 9, article 13, and article 37 of Law nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 governing private security services are inconsistent with articles 15, 16, and 159 of the Constitution

Counsel Mfashingabo Aimable, representing EXCEL SECURITY Rwanda Ltd, states that article 5 of Law nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020, above mentioned, is inconsistent with the provisions of article 159 of the Constitution2 because it entitles to the Police powers and responsibilities of a regulatory body, which differ from the mandate assigned to it by the Constitution.

Counsel Mfashingabo Aimable further submits that the article 6, subparagraph 6°, 7°, 8°, and 9° as well as articles 13 and 37 of Law nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 above mentioned, are

2 The State has the following defence and security organs: 1° Rwanda Defence Force; 2° Rwanda National Police; 3° National Intelligence and Security Service. A law may determine other security organs. National defence and security organs collaborate and coordinate their activities in fulfilment of their respective responsibilities. A presidential order determines the manner in which these organs collaborate and coordinate their activities.

## Page 482

86 RWANDA LAW REPORTS inconsistent with articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution3, based on the following reasons: a. Article 6, subparagraph 6 of Law nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020, above mentioned, requires to an applicant seeking a license to provide private security services to first present a document indicating the assets of the licence applicant whose value is determined by an Order of the Minister. He considers this to be discriminatory and restrictive towards private security service providers, as other businesses providing different services are not required to present ownership of assets other than the capital before commencing operations. b. Article 6, subparagraph 7° of the mentioned Law provides that that anyone seeking to provide private security services must present a document indicating that the building housing the head office of the applicant for a licence to provide private security services meets the requirements of the building code. This requirement contradicts with article 15 of the Constitution because such security services are provided in various locations, including clients’ homes and buildings where security guards are needed, similar to how cleaning services are offered

3 Article 15 of the Constitution provides that all human beings are equal before the law. They enjoy equal protection of the law.” while article 16 of the Constitution provides: (1) All Rwandans are born and remain equal in rights and freedoms. (2) Any form of or propaganda for discrimination, including on the basis of ethnicity, family or descent, clan, skin, colour, sex, region, social status, religion or belief, opinion, wealth, cultural differences, language, economic status, physical or mental disability or any other form of discrimination are prohibited and punishable by law.

## Page 483

87 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD in homes, government offices and private companies, restaurants and hospitals while providers of such cleaning services are not required to present a document proving that their headquarters comply with construction code. Therefore, this requirement constitutes discrimination against private security service providers. c. The fact that article 6, subparagraphs 8° and 9° require to applicants seeking to provide private security services to present a document proving that they have a training centre that fulfils requirements determined by Rwanda National Police or an agreement the applicant has with a training centre recognised by Rwanda National Police, as well as a training syllabus and trainers’curriculum vitae satisfying standards determined by Rwanda National Police, also violates the principle provided for in articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution on grounds that providers of other services like banking, insurance, or cleaning are not subject to similar requirements, which is a restrictive measure for private security service providers. d. Article 13 of Law nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 above mentioned, requires to applicants seeking to provide private security services to present basic security equipment, which also constitutes discrimination and imposes restrictions on private security service companies, despite the fact that these services are provided in various locations, including clients’ homes and buildings where security guards are needed. Requiring them to first present basic

## Page 484

88 RWANDA LAW REPORTS equipment such as cameras, detectors, and scanners are usually determined through agreements between the service provider and the client or the owner of the building seeking for security service while cleaning service providers are not required to present basic cleaning equipment, this also constitutes a restrictive measure for such services. e. Article 37 of Law No 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020, above referred to, discriminates against private security service providers and is contrary to Article 15 of the Constitution, in that it provides that any private security service provider who has not been authorised by the Rwandan National Police shall be liable to an administrative fine of not less than two million Rwandan francs (Frw 2,000,000) and not more than three million Rwandan francs (Frw 3,000,000).

Counsel Cyubahiro Fiat, representing the Government of Rwanda, states that the claims made by the petitioner are unfounded based on the following reasons: a. Articles 159 and 161 of the Constitution stipulate that Rwanda National Police has the regulatory power alleged by EXCEL SECURITY Rwanda Ltd, and this power does not stem from the legal provisions challenged in this instant case, as it is generally responsible for ensuring the security of people and property nationwide. Furthermore, the law establishes the guiding principles, powers, responsibilities, organization, and functioning of Rwanda National Police. Therefore, the powers of

## Page 485

89 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD the Rwanda National Police should be assessed within this law. b. Article 41 of Law N°46/2010 of 14/12/2010 determining the powers, responsibilities, organization and functioning of Rwanda National Police relating to collaboration between Rwanda National Police with private security companies provides that the Rwanda National Police oversees the daily performance of private security companies and provide them with advice on the improvement of their performance. Rwanda National Police has the powers and responsibilities to act as a regulatory body for private security services providers ensuring the security of people and property, including offering them advice on how to enhance the fulfillment of their duties. c. Article 5 of Law Nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 above mentioned, is not inconsistent with article 159 of the Constitution. Instead, it aligns with the provisions of article 8 of Law Nº 09/2017 of 20/03/2017 which amends and supplements Law N°46/2010 of 14/12/2010 determining the powers, responsibilities, organization and functioning of the Rwanda National Police. This law stipulates that in the accomplishment of its mission, Rwanda National Police prioritizes the following activities: … (12) to issue operating licences to any person who intends to register a private security company. d. The powers of the Rwanda National Police to oversee the daily performance of private security companies and provide them with advice on the

## Page 486

90 RWANDA LAW REPORTS improvement of their performance is derived from article 41 of Law N°46/2010 of 14/12/2010 as above mentioned, instead of being from article 5 of Law nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 also above mentioned. Others can only perform such service if granted specific licence by the Rwanda National Police. Therefore, those to whom the Rwanda National Police has granted this power remain subject to its supervision and may have it revoked at any time if they fail to properly exercise it. Not entitling such power to the Rwanda National Police would constitute a violation of the Constitution. e. The fact that the Police oversees private security service companies is not unique to Rwanda because it is also applied in other countries. For example, in Uganda, UPS (Uganda Police Service)4, in Tanzania, TPF (Tanzania Police Force)5, and in Ethiopia, FPC (Federal Police Commission)6, Police oversee private security service providers, it annually grants to them the licenses, it oversees, inspects the weapons used, and their arsenal.

By providing detailed explanations to this present case, the representative of the Government of Rwanda relied on the interpretations given by legal experts regarding the principles set forth in articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution, namely equality before the law, equal protection before the law, and protection

4 See Statutory Instrument No.11 of 2013, online at https://www.upf.go.ug/police-tightens-control- private-security-companies. 5 Online at https://observatoire-securite-privee.org/en/content/tanzania. 6 Online at https://newbusinessethiopia.com/crime/ethiopia-bans-14-private- security-agencies.

## Page 487

91 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD from discrimination, and he explains those principles as follows : a. “Equal treatment in equal circumstances” is a principle which means that people should be treated alike when they are in the same circumstances, which means that in case they are in different circumstances, they should not be treated alike. Regarding security service providers and other service providers such as cleaning as mentioned by the petitioner, they are not in the same circumstances, nor do they perform the same duties; therefore, they should not be treated alike. This is also based on the fact that, in matters concerning security, there are many tasks performed by security service providers that can have an impact on people's lives, the reason why they are also governed by different laws. b. “Differentiation of treatment” means that equality before the law does not necessarily imply that all individuals must be treated alike in every aspect, but instead, people are treated differently based on the category to which they belong. Security service providers are different from other service providers, such as cleaning service providers whom the petitioner claimed ; therefore, they must be differently treated. He adds that what matters is that those within the same category (those providing the same or similar services, such as security services) are equally treated and in the same way, while those who do not belong to the same category, do not necessarily have to be equally treated.

## Page 488

92 RWANDA LAW REPORTS c. Such differentiation based on categorisation aimed at positive purpose and provided for by law, does not constitute discrimination or inequality before the law, as it has been upheld by the United Nations Human Rights Committee7 and upheld by the Supreme Court in judgment RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS where this Court declared that… the equality before the law and non-discrimination do not imply that differentiation between individuals itself is discriminatory in all circumstances. Differentiating individuals or categories of people may be necessary depending on the purpose, provided that there are reasonable justifications based on a legitimate or rational purpose. d. “Specificity and special rule” is a principle meaning that the fact that equality before the law or equal protection before the law does not imply that all laws must be general or totally identic. Instead, in case there are different categories of people, it is clear that there should be laws that specifically address the nature and circumstances of each category of people, and these laws must have justified reasons for their enactment.

The representative of the Government of Rwanda further states that the fact that the applicant for a registration certificate to provide private security services, requires specific documents which are not the case for others engaged in various types of

7 “…Finally, the Committee observes that not every differentiation of treatment will constitute discrimination, if the criteria for such differentiation are reasonable and objective and if the aim is to achieve a purpose which is legitimate under the Covenant.”

## Page 489

93 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD businesses, should not be considered discrimination because each type of business requires its own specific documents; for example, the requirements for those wishing to provide medical services and those working in this field are not the same as those for hotel service providers; the requirements for those wishing to join the military are different from those seeking admission to university; and the documents required for financial institutions (banks and insurance companies) are not the same as that for businesses involved in agricultural products. Therefore, according to him, the allegations made by EXCEL SECURITY Rwanda Ltd that article 6, subparagraphs 6°, 7°, 8°, 9° and article 13 of Law nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 as above mentioned, are inconsistent with articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution, are unfounded. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

In analysing this point, the Court finds that, since EXCEL SECURITY Rwanda Ltd has combined the litigation issues in its submissions and during the hearing of the case, it is necessary first to divide this point into two separate issues, as follows : A.1. Whether article 5 of Law nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 governing private security services is inconsistent with article 159 of the Constitution ; A.2. Whether article 6, subparagraph 6º, 7º, 8º, and 9º, article 13, and article 37 of Law nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 governing private security services is inconsistent with articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution.

## Page 490

94 RWANDA LAW REPORTS A.1. Whether article 5 of Law nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 governing private security services is inconsistent with article 159 of the Constitution

Article 159 of the Constitution provides that : 1. The State has the following defence and security organs: (a) Rwanda Defence Force; (b) Rwanda National Police; (c) National Intelligence and Security Service. 2. A law may determine other security organs. 3. National defence and security organs collaborate and coordinate their activities in fulfilment of their respective responsibilities.

Article 9 of Law n° 026/2023 of 17/05/2023 governing Rwanda National Police states that the responsibilities of Rwanda National Police include monitoring compliance with laws; to maintain public order inside the country; to ensure the safety and security of persons and property; to play a role in training operations inside the country in matters pertaining to the maintenance of security of persons and property; to update Rwandan residents on the security of persons and property. Article 10, subparagraph (f) of the same law states that Rwanda National Police works closely with private security service providers. Additionally, article 34, subparagraph (b) of that law states that Rwanda National Police issues licenses for private security services providers.

Article 5 of Law nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 above mentioned, states that Rwanda National Police is the sole organ

## Page 491

95 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD with the authority to issue a licence to provide private security services.

The aforementioned provisions, when considered together, indicate that Rwanda National Police has a constitutional mandate as a primary responsibility for ensuring the security of people and property throughout the country, and the procedure for the implementation of this mandate is determined by law. In this regard, the provisions of Law nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 and Law n° 026/2023 of 17/05/2023 as above mentioned, demonstrate that Rwanda National Police is also responsible for training individuals in security matters, to update Rwandan residents on the security of persons and property, and authorizing private entities to participate in the provision of security services. To fulfill these responsibilities, it is necessary for Rwanda National Police to have knowledge of the structure, objectives, identifications, and operations of other security-related entities, including private security service providers operating in the country, as well as to receive reports on their activities.

This is also the case in other countries; for example, in Uganda,8 the National Police oversees private security

8 “The Police on its part is expected to monitor and maintain the standards of training and recruitment procedures that the PSOs are required to adhere to. *PSOs must pay the wages and allowances to their employees promptly. To this end, they must file their mothly salary accounts with the police to ensure they are complying with this requirement. *No director of a PSO can travel out of country without permission of IGP *Any staff of a PSO traveling outside the country must be authorised by their Managing Director, who in turn must report to IGP staff who have traveled out of the country. *PSO are required to file all particulars of their staff including fingerprints within two weeks of employment to IGP. * PSOs have to ensure that the training their personnel

## Page 492

96 RWANDA LAW REPORTS companies in the following aspects: recruitement and management of the staff, management and purchase of weapons, and the quality of their operations. Those companies provide the Police with their employees' identifications together with their fingerprints, bank accounts and their salaries. Managers of those companies cannot travel abroad without obtaining permission from the Inspector General of Police, while other regular employees, when granted permission to travel abroad, their supervisor must inform the Police administration. These companies must report every activity they have undertaken every three months and are required to train their employees in accredited institutions that have been granted authorization.

In Kenya,9 the National Police responsible for regulating the operations of private security service providers oversees the

undergo is only conducted by in a certified institution by certified instructors. *Every PSOs must make a report to IGP of its operations every 3 months. Available at https://www.upf.go.ug/police-tightens-control-private-security- companies/ 9 “The Private Security Regulation Act, No. 13 of 2016 from Kenya, states that: Article 23: (1) An individual private security services provider shall make an application for registration to the Authority in such form and manner as may be prescribed and the application shall be accompanied by the prescribed application fee. (2) An individual shall be eligible for registration as an individual private security provider if that person— (a) is a citizen of Kenya or a person who is ordinarily resident in Kenya; (b) is over eighteen years of age; (c) holds at least a primary school certificate; (d) has attended training in security matters in an institution accredited by the Authority; (e) submits a certificate of good conduct issued by the Directorate of Criminal Investigation; (f) where he or she previously served in any of the disciplined services, produces a certificate of discharge and a certificate of clearance from such service; (g) has no criminal record; […],Article 37: An application under this Act shall be accompanied by— (a) a clear and complete set of fingerprints taken in the prescribed manner […], Article 59 […] (c) use any computer system or equipment on the premises which is or appears to be

## Page 493

97 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD employees, the training they have received, their conduct, whether they were trained in an accredited institution, their previous working background, their fingerprints, the technology systems they use, and other equipment, including the supervision of the individuals these companies are protecting.

In its pleadings, EXCEL SECURITY Rwanda Ltd argues that article 5 of Law Nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 above mentioned violates the provisions of article 159 of the Constitution because it grants to the Police the powers and responsibilities of the regulatory body.

The Court finds that article 5 of Law nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 governing private security services, is not inconsistent with the provisions of article 159, because, as above explained, its provisions actually enforce the provisions stipulated in the Constitution, especially in article 161.10 A.2. Whether article 6, subparagraphs 6º, 7º, 8º, and 9º, article 13, and article 37 of Law Nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 governing private security services is inconsistent with articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution

Article 15 of the Constitution provides that all human beings are equal before the law and they enjoy equal protection of the law. Article 16 states that: (1) All Rwandans are born and

utilised for the control or administration of the rendering of a private security service, or require reasonable assistance from any person on the premises to use that computer system;[…] 10 Article 161 of the Constitution states: (1) Rwanda National Police is generally responsible for ensuring security of persons and property throughout the country. (2) A law determines the governing principles, powers, responsibilities, organisation and functioning of the Rwanda National Police.

## Page 494

98 RWANDA LAW REPORTS remain equal in rights and freedoms. Any form of or propaganda for discrimination, including on the basis of ethnicity, family or descent, clan, skin colour, sex, region, social status, religion or belief, opinion, wealth, cultural differences, language, economic status, physical or mental disability or any other form of discrimination are prohibited and punishable by law.

Article 6, subparagraphs 6º, 7º, 8º, and 9º of Law Nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 above mentioned states that an applicant for a certificate to provide private security services submits an application to the Inspector General of Rwanda National Police that is accompanied by the following: 6º a document indicating the assets of the licence applicant whose value is determined by an Order of the Minister; 7° a document indicating that the building housing the head office of the applicant for a licence to provide private security services meets the requirements of the building code; 8º a document indicating a training centre of the applicant for a licence to provide private security services that fulfils requirements determined by Rwanda National Police or an agreement the applicant has with a training centre recognised by Rwanda National Police; 9° a training syllabus and trainers’curriculum vitae satisfying standards determined by Rwanda National Police.

Article 13 of Law Nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 governing private security services above mentioned states that the holder of a licence to provide private security services

## Page 495

99 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD presents basic security equipment prior to starting providing private security services. An Order of the Minister referred to in paragraph 2 of article 3 of this Law also determines the basic security equipment.

Article 37 of Law Nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 states that a private security provider who employs a security guard that is not vetted by Rwanda National Police commits a fault. It is liable to an administrative fine of not less than two million Rwandan francs (Frw 2,000,000) but not more than three million Rwandan francs (Frw 3,000,000). A non-vetted security officer is suspended with immediate effect.

Various cases decided by this instant Court set position on the principle of equality before the law and of non- discrimination, the most recent being the Case RS/INCONST/SPEC 00004/2021/SC, decided by the Supreme Court on 10/02/2023, Ngendahayo Kabuye v. Government of Rwanda. In this case, the Court stated that the principle of equality before the law is closely linked to the principle of non- discrimination and that the two principles must be considered together, since they share the fundamental objective of preventing unlawful or prohibited irrational inequalities between persons which, for no justifiable reason, seek to deprive certain persons of the rights conferred on them by law. The Court further clarifies in this case that equality before the law and non- discrimination do not imply that differentiation between individuals itself is discriminatory in all circumstances. Differentiating individuals or categories of people may be necessary depending on the purpose, provided that there are

## Page 496

100 RWANDA LAW REPORTS reasonable justifications based on a legitimate or rational purpose.11

In that case, the Court emphasized that individuals in similar situations or categories must be equally treated and that failing to do so without a rational and legitimate purpose constitutes discrimination. The Court also upheld that the government may differenciate individuals or categories of people without violating the principle of equality before the law or of non-discrimination. However, for such distinctions to be possible, the government must have a reasonable, rational and legitimate reason, and which is aimed at serving the public interest.12

Paragraph 31 of the judgment RS/INCONST/SPEC 00004/2019/SC, rendered on 24/07/2020, Counsel Nzafashwanayo Dieudonné v. the Government of Rwanda, explains that the principle of equality before the law means that the law equally treats those who are in the same category and is similarly enforced. In other words, similar situations must be treated alike. This means that there should be no discrimination against individuals who are in similar circumstances and conditions. It is clear that individuals who are not in the same category cannot be treated alike.

In its submission, EXCEL SECURITY Rwanda Ltd sates that article 6, subparagraphs 6º, 7º, 8º, and 9º of Law nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 above mentioned contradicts with the

11 Judgment RS/INCONST/SPEC 00004/2021/SC, decided by the Supreme Court on10/02/2023, involving Ngendahayo Kabuye v. Government of Rwanda, Paragraph 36 and 39. 12 Idem, paragraph 57.

## Page 497

101 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD provisons of the aforementioned principles because private security service providers are required to present a document indicating the assets of the licence applicant whose value is determined by an Order of the Minister, demonstrate that the headquarters meet the required standards, provide a document indicating a training centre of the applicant for a licence to provide private security services that fulfils requirements determined by Rwanda National Police, and to request the applicant to present basic security equipment prior to start providing private security service provided in agreements between him/her and his/her client. Additionally, security service provider is fined in case s/he employs a security guard who has not been vetted by Rwanda National Police while, such requirements do not apply to other businesses, such as cleaning service providers, banks, insurance companies among others.

The Court finds that, based on the positions set in various aforementioned judgments, the statements of EXCEL SECURITY Rwanda Ltd that security service providers are subjected to discrimination because they are required to meet certain requirements that do not apply to other businesses, are unfounded since security service providers do not belong to the same category as those engaged in other types of businesses. The Court notes that, as long as the requirements differ based on the nature of each business, there can be no claim of discrimination, since the businesses that are not in the same category cannot be treated alike, especially when the laws governing them are different.

Based on the foregoing elucidations, the Court finds that article 6, subparagraphs 6º, 7º, 8º, and 9º, article 13, and article

## Page 498

102 RWANDA LAW REPORTS 37 of the aforementioned Law nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 are not inconsistent with articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution. B. Whether article 19 of Law Nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 governing private security services is inconsistent with article 29, paragraph 1 (3°) of the Constitution

The representative of EXCEL SECURITY Rwanda Ltd submits that the provisions of article 19 of Law Nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 above mentioned are inconsistent with the article 29, paragraph 1(c) of the Constitution on ground that the appeal against the revocation of the license to provide private security services is submitted to the Minister, arguing that this amounts to the violation of the right to due process of law.

The representative of the Government of Rwanda argues that the petitioner’s allegations are unfounded because the fact that the revocation of a license to provide private security services can be appealed to the Minister, does not constitute a violation of the right enshrined in the article 29, paragraph 1(c) of the Constitution; instead, it is an administrative appeal intended to allow a superior authority to review the validity of the decision made by a lower authority and, if deemed necessary, to overturn it. However, this does not preclude the appellant from taking the matter to a competent court if he/she is not satisfied with the Minister’s response. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 19 of Law nº 016 Bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 governing private security services provides that when the holder of a licence to provide private security services is not satisfied with the decision by Rwanda National Police to revoke his or her

## Page 499

103 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD licence to provide private security services, he or she may appeal to the Minister within seven (7) working days from the date of his or her being notified thereof in writing. The Minister responds in writing to the person so appealing within fifteen (15) working days from the date of receipt of the appeal.

Paragraph 1 (c) of article 29 of the Constitution provides that everyone has the right to due process of law, which includes the right to appear before a competent Court.

The right to due process of law is also provided for in International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, where it states that “Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.”13

Regarding EXCEL SECURITY Rwanda Ltd’s allegation that the fact that the appeal for the revocation of a private security service license is appealed to the Minister constitutes a denial of the right to due process of law, the Court finds that there is a misinterpretation of the distinction between an administrative appeal (seeking for a review to a superior administrative authority) and filing a case before a court, because appealing to the Minister provided for in article 19 of Law nº 016 Bis/2020 of 07/09/2020, is intended to rectify a decision made at the first level in case it was unlawfully taken. However, this does not prevent the aggrieved party from seeking redress in court as provided in article 177 of Law nº 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 above mentioned;

13 Article 14, para 1, of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

## Page 500

104 RWANDA LAW REPORTS therefore, such cannot be considered a denial of the right to due process of law as provided for in the Constitution.

Based on the foregoing elucidations, the Court finds that article 19 of Law nº 016 Bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 governing private security services is not inconsistent with article 29, paragraph 1(3°) of the Constitution. C. Whether article 6, subparagraph 10º of the Law nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 governing private security services is inconsistent with article 37 of the Constitution

The representative of EXCEL SECURITY Rwanda Ltd states that the article 6, subparagraph 10 of Law nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 above mentioned, is inconsistent with article 37 of the Constitution on ground that it grants to Rwanda National Police the power to establish internal regulations for private security service providers, and therefore, this constitutes a violation of freedom of expression.

The representative of the Government of Rwanda states that the allegations made by the representative of EXCEL SECURITY Rwanda Ltd are unfounded because matters concerning private security service providers are specific, given that security impacts on people’s life in general and on national security in particular. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 37, paragraph 1 of the Constitution reads that: Freedom of thought, conscience, religion, worship and public manifestation thereof is guaranteed by the State in accordance with the law.

## Page 501

105 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD

Article 6, subparagraph 10 º of Law nº 016 Bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 governing private security services stipulates that an applicant for a certificate to provide private security services submits an application to the Inspector General of Rwanda National Police that is accompanied by the following: (….) 10º internal rules and regulations meeting standards determined by Rwanda National Police.

The aforementioned provisions of the Constitution regarding freedom of conscience and religion align with the provisions of article 18, paragraph 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights14. This Covenant, like other treaties containing this provision15, also outline the rights contained therein, while identifying the following rights: the right to have or choose a religion or belief of one’s choice, as well as the freedom, either individually or in community with others, in public or in private, to manifest one's religion or belief through worship, observance, practice, and teachings.

In the case Lautsi and Others v. Italy, decided by the European Court of Human Rights, it was explained that freedom of religion and freedom of not having religion include the right to manifest any religion of one's choice, the right and freedom to

14 Article 18, 1, of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, available at https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments- mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil- and-political-rights, states that “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.” 15 Article 9 of European Convention on Human Rights, available at https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_ENG.

## Page 502

106 RWANDA LAW REPORTS change religion, the right of not accept any religion, and the right to express one’s religion through belief, worship, teaching, and observance of its rituals.16

Based on the foregoing, it is in the finding of the Court that the statement of EXCEL SECURITY Rwanda Ltd, that article 6, subparagraph 10º of Law n0 016 Bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 above mentioned, is inconsistent with article 37 of the Constitution, is unfounded because this article relates to freedom of thought and religious belief, which is not related to the fact that Rwanda National Police is granted the power to establish internal rules for private security service providers or to any alleged violation of freedom of thought. D. Whether articles 30 and 31 of Law nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 governing private security services violate the principle of respect for privacy of a person and of family as provided for in article 23 of the Constitution

The representative of EXCEL SECURITY Rwanda Ltd asserts that those provisions violate the principle of respect for privacy of a person and of family for the following reasons: a. Article 30 of Law nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 above mentioned requires private security service providers

16 See Judgment Lautsi and Others v. Italy, 2011, paragraph 2.6, page 40. It is stated that “Freedom of religion, and freedom from religion, in substance, consist in the rights to profess freely any religion of the individual's choice, the right to freely change one's religion, the right not to embrace any religion at all, and the right to manifest one's religion by means of belief, worship, teaching and observance. Here the Convention catalogue grinds to a halt, well short of the promotion of any State secularism.” Available at https://adfinternational.org/wp- content/uploads/2021/09/Lautsi-and-Others- v.-Italy_Lautsi-Decision.pdf

## Page 503

107 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD to have a software program monitored by Rwanda National Police, which helps manage their employees, and he therefore finds this provision to be inconsistent with article 23 of the Constitution, in its last paragraph, stipulating that the confidentiality of correspondence and communications cannot be infringed upon except in circumstances and procedures provided by law. He considers that granting to the Police the power to interfere in the private affairs of these companies violates their independence in performance. b. Article 31, paragraph 1 of Law nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 above mentioned provides that a private security service provider submits in writing to Rwanda National Police its weekly and monthly activity report, and also informs Rwanda National Police of the daily security situation in its area of operation. He finds this provision to be in violation of the freedom of business, arguing that a businessperson should be working independently and freely without being required to submit daily, weekly, and monthly reports to the Police.

The Government representative argues that EXCEL SECURITY Rwanda Ltd's assertion that article 30 of Law nº 016 Bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 above mentioned is inconsistent with article 23 of the Constitution is unfounded for the following reasons: a. The petitioner deliberately alters the provisions of this article of the Constitution with regard to the confidentiality of correspondence and communication mentioned in that provision, by comparing it to a

## Page 504

108 RWANDA LAW REPORTS software program that helps it to manage its human resource. b. Furthermore, since Rwanda National Police is the institution responsible for ensuring the security of persons and property nationwide, the law grants to this organ the powers to oversee the daily operations of private security service providers and also provide them advice on how to improve their operations. Additionally, the Police is granted the right and powers to monitor a software program that helps manage human resources of private security service providers as one of the aspects that require monitoring. A software program that helps the company to manage its human resources should not be compared to letter correspondence. Therefore, EXCEL SECURITY Ltd's allegation that article 30 of Law nº 016 Bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 governing private security services, is inconsistent with article 23 of the Constitution is unfounded. c. The requirement for private security companies to provide to Rwanda National Police with activity reports detailing the security situation falls within the Police’s mandate, as it is the primary institution responsible for ensuring the security of persons and property across the country, as stated in article 161 of the Constitution. EXCEL SECURITY Rwanda Ltd should clearly understand that national security is the cornerstone of all aspects of the country's well-being, as mentioned in the preamble of the Constitution. d. EXCEL SECURITY Rwanda Ltd appears to compare itself to other business companies, yet each type of

## Page 505

109 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD business has its own specific nature, their requirements and has the regulatory body responsible for ensuring compliance. He mentions the example of the National Bank of Rwanda whereby, based on article 6 bis of Law nº 48/2017 of 23/09/2017 governing the National Bank of Rwanda, it approves individuals appointed to leadership positions in banks operating in Rwanda as well as those engaged in the insurance sector. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 23, paragraph 3 of the Constitution provides that confidentiality of correspondence and communication shall not be breached except in circumstances and in accordance with procedures determined by the law.

Article 30 of Law nº 016 Bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 mentioned above provides that a private security service provider acquires a software program that helps to manage its human resources. Rwanda National Police reserves the right to monitor such a software program.

The provisions of article 23 of the aforementioned Constitution is also provided in article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights17, which states that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks”.

17 Article 17 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

## Page 506

110 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

This is also provided for in the European Convention on Human Rights, as amended by Protocols n0 11 and 14, in its article 8, which stipulates that everyone has the right to respect for their private and family life, their home, and their correspondence. It further states that no public authority may interfere with the exercise of this right except as provided by law and necessary in a democratic society for the interests of national security, public safety, the development of the country, the prevention of disorder or crime, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This is upheld by the case Klass and Others v. Germany, decided by the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled that interference with an individual's rights and privacy may be carried out based on the exception outlined in article 8 of the aforementioned Convention.18

While analyzing the provisions of the aforementioned articles in relation to the submissions of EXCEL SECURITY Rwanda Ltd which argues that the Police have been granted power to interfere with the private operations of private security service providers, thereby restricting their freedom and liberty in their operation since a businessperson should operate in freedom and liberty without being required to submit daily reports, it appears that the actions of Rwanda National Police fall within their constitutional mandate and are also provided for in various international human rights treaties, as they all recognize that national security, public order, and the rights of others justify certain limitations on individual or group’s rights. Additionally, Rwanda National Police has a duty to update Rwandan residents on the security of persons and property. It is therefore clear that in case the Police is not provided with reports or prevented from

18 See Judgment Klass and Others v. Germany, 1978, paragraph 60, page 23. Available at: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/f46bdd/pdf/

## Page 507

111 Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD overseeing these private security companies, it could hinder their ability to fulfill their constitutional mandate of ensuring public safety.

The Court also finds that the specifc nature of national security and public safety, as repeatedly emphasized in laws and international conventions, should not be ignored, in order for the private security service providers to be considered as other businesses given its specific nature and the way it operates or monitored, which requires to be a specialized mechanism and be conducted by an authority with the necessary expertise and competence derived from the Constitution and other laws, as explained in the previous paragraphs.

Based on the explanations provided above, the Court finds that the provisions of article 30 and article 31, paragraph one of Law nº 016 Bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 governing private security services are not inconsistent with the provisions of article 23, paragraph 3 of the Constitution. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the petition lodged by EXCEL SECURITY Rwanda Ltd seeking to declare that articles 5, article 6, subparagraphs 6°, 7°, 8°, 9°, and 10°, articles 13, 19, 30, 31, paragraph 2, and 37 of Law nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 governing private security services are unconstitutional in relation to articles 15, 16, 23, 37, and 159 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda, is unfounded.

## Page 508

112 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Holds that article 5 of Law nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 governing private security services is not inconsistent with article 159 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda.

Holds that article 6, subparagraphs 6°, 7°, 8°, and 9°, article 13, and article 37 of Law nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 governing private security services are not inconsistent with articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda.

Holds that article 6, subparagraph 10° of Law nº 016Bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 governing private security services is not inconsistent with article 37 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda.

Holds that article 19 of Law nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 governing private security services is not inconsistent with article 29, paragraph 1(c) of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda.

Holds that article 30 and article 31, paragraph one of Law nº 016 bis/2020 of 07/09/2020 governing private security services are not inconsistent with article 23, paragraph 3 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda.

## Page 509

113 SUBJECT INDEX

PROCEDURAL CASES

## Page 510

114 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 511

115 PROSECUTION v UWAMURERA 115 PROSECUTION v UWAMURERA [ Rwanda Court of Appeal-RPAA/ECON 00002/2023/CA (Rutazana, P.J.) 28 March 2024 Criminal Procedure – Appeal – Intervention in a court case – Appeal filed by a party who voluntarily intervened in a case – The fact that a party who is summoned in a case of forced intervention at the appeal level, is entitled to lodge appeal only once, especially when he/she was charged with some dues, even if a case is decided at the last instance, is a particularity granted by the legislator to a party who was forced to intervene in a case because he/she involuntarily intervened in a case; this does not apply to a party who voluntarily intervened in a case as he/she decided to intervene in a case at any stage of the proceedings; therefore, when such case is subject to appeal, he/she has the right to appeal, when a case is not subject to appeal, he/she does not have such right. Facts: This case started from the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge, the Prosecution arraigned Kaganzi for embezzlement, forgery and use of forged documents, access to computer or computer system data, illicit enrichment and money laundering. The Prosecution has also indicted Kayitana for embezzlement; it also indicted Mukagasana, Mukasafari and Ndamade for complicity in embezzlement. RDB filed a claim seeking damages in this case, it requested for IREMBO’s forced intervention; Muhongayire also intervened in the case, claiming the ownership on some confiscated assets. The Court heard the case and held that Kaganzi is convicted of embezzlement, forgery and use of forged documents, access to computer and computer

## Page 512

116 RWANDA LAW REPORTS system data, illicit enrichment, while the co-accused were not held guilty of offences. The Court sentenced Kaganzi to a penalty of 10-years of imprisonment and a fine of 2,390, 430 USD, and ordered to him to refund 478,086 USD to RDB, and pay to it various damages. The Court held that Muhongayire’s voluntary intervention and IREMBO’s forced intervention have no relevant justifications. The Court has also ordered the seizure and the sale of various assets and the proceeds should be deposited in the Public Treasury. Kaganzi and Muhongayire lodged appeal against that judgment in the High Court, and Uwamurera voluntarily intervened in the case at this instance, claiming the ownership on some of the confiscated immovable assets. The Court heard the case and held that the appeal filed by all parties is unfounded, and the claim for voluntary intervention filed by Uwamurera is baseless, and the Court ruled that the appealed judgment is sustained. Kaganzi, Muhongayire and Uwamurera lodged appeal against that judgment before the Court of Appeal, the Court’s Registry decided not to register the appeal of Kaganzi and Muhongayire due to the fact that it was the second appeal which does not meet the conditions provided under the law. Regarding Uwamurera’s appeal, the Court’s Registry decided to docket her appeal since it was her first appeal for this case. Her appeal intended to prove to the appellate court that the High Court has held the seizure on some immovable assets regardless the elements of evidence that she presented to prove her ownership. For her appeal, the Prosecution raised an objection over the court’s jurisdiction and argued that Uwamurera Phoebe grounded her appeal into article 52 of the Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts yet she does not qualify for the appeal since

## Page 513

117 PROSECUTION v UWAMURERA the charged damages are not up to 75,000,000 Frw as per the provision of the above article. The Court of Appeal, on its own motion, raised an issue of whether the appeal on Uwamurera’s voluntary intervention at the High Court is admissible before the Court of Appeal. Regarding that objection, Uwamurera argues that the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction over her appeal and hence in accordance with the principle of a right to judgement review by the superior court, and such principle is fundamental for fair justice. The Prosecution submits that Uwamurera Phoebe filed appeal against the judgment rendered by the High Court at the first appeal and it is a criminal case, because her voluntary intervention in the case for recovering the assets allegedly belonging to her, does not change the nature of the case; basing on the article 52 of the Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, in consideration of the maximum penalty fixed by the Court in that judgment, her appeal does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal. Held: The fact that a party who is summoned in a case of forced intervention at the appeal level, is entitled to lodge appeal only once, especially when he/she was charged with some dues, even if a case is decided at the last instance, is a particularity granted by the legislator to a party who was forced to intervene in a case because he/she involuntarily intervened in a case; this does not apply to a party who voluntarily intervened in a case as he/she decided to intervene in a case at any stage of the proceedings; therefore, when such case is subject to appeal, he/she has the right to appeal, when a case is not subject to appeal, he/she does not have such right. In criminal matters, it is the fixed imprisonment sentence which is solely taken into account in determining the

## Page 514

118 RWANDA LAW REPORTS jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal at the second appeal level, in the judgment against which Uwamurera lodged appeal, the penalty is 10-years of imprisonment, therefore, this criminal case should not be filed to the Court of Appeal. The appeal does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal. Statutes referred to: Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article one, and article 116; Law No 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, article 52. No cases were referred to. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

In 2020, an internal audit was conducted in Rwanda Development Board (RDB) on the revenues collected using e- payment for selling to tourists the tickets for visiting the gorillas for the fiscal year 2018-2019, the audit pointed out that there are revenues collected but not deposited on RDB’s bank accounts, but the tickets for visiting the gorillas have been issued; and, RDB requested Rwanda Investigation Bureau (RIB) to conduct related investigations.

## Page 515

119 PROSECUTION v UWAMURERA

Following the RIB’s findings, the case file got handed over to the Prosecution, following its investigations, it submitted the case file to the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge, indicting Kaganzi Nicholas for embezzlement, forgery and use of forged documents, access to computer and computer system data, illicit enrichment and money laundering. The Prosecution has a well indicted Kayitana Pierre for embezzlement, and it has also accused Mukagasana Esther, Nyirasafari Marry and Ndamade Joseph for complicity in embezzlement. RDB filed a claim seeking the damages, and requested for forced intervention of IREMBO in the case, while Muhongayire Patricie voluntarily intervened in the case stating that some of the confiscated assets belonged to her.

Kaganzi Nicholas and his co-accused did not plead guilty, but in the judgment RP/ECON 00080/2019/TGI/NYGE, RP/ECON/00056/2020/TGI/NYGE and RP/ECON 00116/2020/TGI/NYGE rendered on 15/04/2021, the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge held that Kaganzi Nicholas is convicted of embezzlement, forgery and use of forged documents, access to computer and to computer system data, and illicit enrichment whereas all his co-accused were acquitted. Kaganzi Nicholas got sentenced to a penalty of ten (10) years of imprisonment and a fine of 2,390, 430 USD Kaganzi Nicholas, and ordered to him to return the 478,086 USD embezzled from RDB and give to RDB 700,000 Frw for procedural and counsel fees and the Court ordered to him to repay to RDB 20,000 Frw deposited for filing the claim. The Court has also held that the forced intervention of IREMBO and the voluntary intervention of Muhongayire in the case are unfounded.

## Page 516

120 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

The Court ordered that the following assets should be confiscated and sold, the proceeds should be deposited in the Public Treasury: a house registered under UPI: 1/02/08/517 located in Amahoro Village, Kimihurura Cell, Kimihurura Sector in Gasabo District; 2 houses developed in a plot under UPI: 01/02/08/02/190 located in Kimihurura Cell, Kimihurura Sector, Gasabo District; 3 plots registered under UPI: 01/02/14/06/55; 1/02/14/06/996 and 1/02/14/06/168, located in Rusororo Sector, Gasabo District, a vehicle Toyota Corolla with plate number RAB 905Q, and a house registered under UPI 1/02/08/02/192 located in Urwego Village, Kimihurura Sector in Gasabo District. The Court has as well ordered to Kaganzi Nicholas to deposit 38,058,548 Frw in the Public Treasury that EDCL paid for a house registered under UPI 01/02/08/02/19 located in Urwego Village, Kimihurura Cell, Kimihurura Sector in Gasabo District, the money was received by Bitariho Jean Paul, upon power of attorney issued by Uwamurera Phoebe.

Kaganzi Nicholas and Muhongayire Patricie lodged appeal against such judgment before the High Court, Uwamurera Phoebe voluntarily intervened in the case at this instance, intending to indicate that the immovable property under UPI: 1/02/08/02/19, UPI: 1/02/08/02/517, and UPI: 1/02/08/02/190 that should be confiscated as ordered by the Court, belong to her.

In the judgment RPA/ECON 00084, 86/ 2021/HC/KIG, the High Court held that the appeal filed by Kaganzi Nicholas and Muhongayire Patricie has no justification; the Court has also held that the voluntary intervention of Uwamurera Phoebe is unfounded, and the Court ruled that the appealed judgment is sustained.

## Page 517

121 PROSECUTION v UWAMURERA

Kaganzi Nicholas, Muhongayire Patricie and Uwamurera Phoebe filed appeal against the High Court’s ruling before the Court of Appeal, the Court’s Registry decided not to register the appeal of Kaganzi Nicholas and Muhongayire Patricie due to the fact that it was the second appeal which does not meet the conditions provided under the law. Regarding Uwamurera’s appeal, the Court’s Registry decided to docket her appeal since it was her first appeal.

Uwamurera Phoebe’s appeal before this Court seeks to prove that the High Court ordered the confiscation of her immovable property under UPI: 1/02/08/02/19, UPI: 1/02/08/02/517, and UPI: 1/02/08/02/190, by disregarding the elements of evidence she produced and which indicate that such assets belong to her.

Before pleading on the merits of the case, the Prosecution raised an objection related to the court’s lack of jurisdiction for the matter, it explains that Uwamurera Phoebe filed her appeal with reference to article 52 of the Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, yet she does not fulfil the requirements of the above provision since she has never been charged for the 75,000,000 Frw provided under that law or decided by the Court on basis of the parties’ debate on the value of subject-matter; also she does not lodge appeal on basis of that article which provides for the second appeal in case she had been a party to the case for the first time before the High Court; as the party who voluntarily intervened in the case, she has no right to appeal against a criminal judgment since she is not among parties that are mentioned under article 180 of the Law n0 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure which provides that the right to appeal is exercised by a convicted person, a person liable

## Page 518

122 RWANDA LAW REPORTS for damages, a civil party or persons who were automatically awarded damages solely for their civil interests and the Public Prosecution.

Counsel Komezusenge Déogratias who represented Uwamurera Phoebe has as well raised an objection and requested the Court to suspend the current hearing, and wait for the High Court’s ruling on a claim filed by Kaganzi Nicholas pending before the High Court for review of the case RPA/ECON/00084,86/2021/HC/KIG, and even Kaganzi Nicholas seconded the Counsel’s objection.

The hearing was conducted in public on 12/03/2024 and on 22/03/2024, the Prosecution was represented by Ninahazwa Roselyne, National Prosecutor, while Uwamurera Phoebe was represented by Counsel Komezusenge Deogratias whereas RDB never appeared while it was legally notified of the hearing date as it was represented for the previous hearing and it was electronically linked to the case file via IECMS. During the hearing, Kaganzi Nicholas was assisted by Counsel Bisamaza Remezo while Muhongayire Patricie was assisted by Counsel Nkurunziza Jean Damascène, both were summoned as litigants in the previous instance, though their appeal was not admitted, for allowing to the Court to request to them explanations, if deemed necessary, or allowing them to provide explanations for the sake of the protection of their own interests.

The Court first analysed the question asked to the parties, at its own motion, and which is to determine whether the appeal of Uwamurera Phoebe who voluntarily intervened in the case at the High Court level, should be admitted by this Court.

## Page 519

123 PROSECUTION v UWAMURERA II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUE OF THE CASE Determine whether the appeal lodged by Uwamurera Phoebe who voluntarily intervened in the case at the High Court level, should be admitted by this Court

Counsel Komezusenge Déogratias states that Uwamurera Phoebe, his client, voluntarily intervened in the case at the High Court level; he argues that her appeal is therefore admissible before this Court since it is her first appeal and the law allows her to do so. He submits that holding that Uwamurera Phoebe’s appeal is not appealable before the Court of Appeal contradicts the fundamental constitutional principles and international conventions ratified by Rwanda which enshrine fair trial and equality before the law.

Counsel Komezusenge Deogratias avers that article 52 of the Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts provides that the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear at the first level of appeal cases tried at the first instance by the High Court, the Commercial High Court and the Military High Court. He argues that Uwamurera’s claim over her seized property was for the very first time litigated from the High Court, whereby she was party to the case by a voluntary intervention. She therefore has a right to appeal against the ruling so that the Court of Appeal can rectify the errors committed by the High Court.

He explains that the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction over Uwamurera Phoebe’s appeal corroborates the principle of the party’s right to a remedial judgement review by the superior court

## Page 520

124 RWANDA LAW REPORTS arguing that such is a fundamental principle for the due process of law as written by the legal scholars SOLUS (H) and PERROT (R) in their book “Droit judiciaire privé. Introduction aux notions fondamentales, organisation judiciaire, cited par ROETS, p.174), they assert that when a judgment is rendered, it can be reviewed at the appeal level by a superior court for rectification of any errors which have been committed or rendering proper justice to any party whose rights might have been violated at the first instance.

He relies on the article 29 of the Constitution which provides that “ everyone has a right to due process of law”, on the judgment RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC1 that elaborates on the right to due process of law, on the article 14, paragraphs one and 5 of International Convention on Civil and Political Rights that provide about the party’s right to be heard by a competent court and the right to appeal as some of the fundamental pillars of due process of law and on the judgment RS/INCONST/SPEC 00004/2020/SC which highlights that the appeal against the ruling at least once is inalienable right of which a party cannot be deprived.

The Prosecutor submits that Uwamurera Phoebe filed appeal against the judgment rendered by the High Court at the first appeal and it is a criminal case, as the fact that she voluntarily intervened in the case for recovering the property allegedly belonging to her , does not change the nature of the case; basing on the article 52 of the Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, considering the maximum

1 Case RS/INCONST/SPEC 0003/2019/SC whereby Counsel Kabasinga Florida was a party, rendered by the Supreme Court on 4/12/2019, see pages 4 and 5.

## Page 521

125 PROSECUTION v UWAMURERA sentence handed by the High Court for this case, her appeal is not under the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal . DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The debates along this case revolve around whether the appeal filed by Uwamurera Phoebe who voluntarily intervened in the case at the High Court level, is admissible before this very Court.

Article one of the Law n0 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure reads that “this law governs civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure. It also governs the procedures applicable to other cases in the event such a procedure is not governed by any other specific law expect where the provision of this law cannot apply to such other cases”.

Article 116 of the very Law provides that “Even if the case is decided at the last instance, a party is authorized to appeal against a case he/she was summoned to intervene only once”.

This case originates from an appeal filed to the Court of Appeal by Uwamurera Phoebe against the ruling of the case RPA/ECON 00084,86/2021/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court whereby she voluntarily intervened in the criminal case with the Prosecution v. Kaganzi Nicholas for the above mentioned offences. This is the very case into which Muhongerwa Patricie has as well voluntarily intervened seeking the restitution of her seized property. For this case, Kaganzi Nicholas got convicted of the offences of embezzlement, forgery and use of forged documents, access to computer and computer system data and

## Page 522

126 RWANDA LAW REPORTS illicit enrichment, and he got sentenced to ten (10) years of imprisonment and to a fine of 2, 390, 430 USD.

The Court finds that voluntary and forced interventions into criminal cases is not provided under the law relating to the criminal procedure; therefore, basing on the article one of the above mentioned Law n0 22/2018, for the analysis of this issue, the Court shall refer to the provisions of the Law relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure.

The Court finds that the provision of the above mentioned article 116 which provides that even if the case is decided at the last instance, a party is authorized to appeal against a case he/she was summoned to intervene only once, this is a privilege granted by the Legislator to a party who was forced to intervene in the case, because, as denoted, he was forced to be a party to the case, in the event of any undergone charges, such a forced party deserves a right to at least one appeal. This denotes that such a privilege does not extend to litigants who voluntarily intervene in a case since for a voluntary intervention, the party makes a choice and decides to intervene at any stage of the proceedings; therefore, when the case is subject to appeal, the party has the right to appeal, and when it is not subject to appeal, the party has not such right2.

2 This is the position set in the decision n0 004/PRES/CA/2024/CIV by the President of the Court of Appeal on 12/03/2024 in the case Indamutsa Arsène v. Kabano Patrick, Mrs Patricie and Ngenzi Jean Alain whereby it was made clear that the legal provision under the paragraph 2 of article 116 of the Law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, constitutes a privilege for litigants who might be forced to intervene in a case against their will, whereas a party who voluntarily intervenes in a case, decides to be a party to the case at any stage of the proceedings.

## Page 523

127 PROSECUTION v UWAMURERA

With regard to Uwamurera Phoebe, the Court finds that she appealed against a criminal case, and a mere fact that she intervened into the case for the sake of protecting her property ownership rights cannot change the criminal nature of the case; and besides, just as it has been above explained, she voluntarily intervened in the case; as regards to her, the case was rendered at the appeal instance for the first time as it is the case for other litigants involved; therefore, for examining whether her appeal meets the requirements, it is necessary to refer to the provision of sub-paragraph 9 of article 52 of the above mentioned Law determining the jurisdiction of courts, which provides that for criminal matters, the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear at the second level of appeal cases tried at the first instance by the High Court, the Commercial High Court and the Military High Court, if such cases involve a sentence to a term of at least fifteen (15) years of imprisonment, and in criminal matters, it is only the imprisonment sentence that can determine the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.

With regard to this case, the Court finds that the handed sentence is the imprisonment to a term of ten (10) years; therefore, such a criminal case should not be submitted to the Court of Appeal.

Considering all the explanations as provided in the preceding paragraphs, the appeal filed by Uwamurera Phoebe is not under the jurisdiction of this Court; and it is therefore not admissible.

## Page 524

128 RWANDA LAW REPORTS III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the appeal filed by Uwamurera Phoebe is not under the jurisdiction of this Court, and it is therefore not admitted.

Rules that the deposited court fee covers the expenses of the proceedings.

## Page 525

129 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRUMUKIZA 129 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRUMUKIZA [Rwanda COURT OF APPEAL – RPAA 00367/2020/CA (Rutazana, P.J.) 22 December 2023] Laws relating to the criminal procedure – Precedents – An existing precedent cannot be followed if the law on which it was based was repealed or amended; in such a case, reference is made to the provision of the law that amended it. Facts: This case started in the Intermediate Court of Huye, where the Prosecution indicted Twagirumukiza of child defilement after the accused had spent the night at his home with a 17-year-old girl named K.M. and had sexual intercourse with her; the girl then felt unwell and self-tested positive for the pregnancy. Before that Court, the accused admitted that he had sexual intercourse with K. M. but added that the girl was already a sex worker because he had sexual intercourse with her and paid her money, he also denied that she was a child and that he did not impregnate her. The Court held that the defendant was guilty of defiling the 17- year-old girl and sentenced him to imprisonment for a term of twenty (20) years. The accused appealed to the High Court, Chamber of Nyanza and kept on arguing that the girl with whom he had sexual intercourse, was an adult and that she was already a sex worker, claiming that he had paid her before having sexual intercourse, that based on date and month of her birth and the date and month when the alleged offense occurred, she had already turned 18 years old. The Court ruled that when the offence was committed, K.M. had not yet reached the majority age, based on her date of birth as

## Page 526

130 RWANDA LAW REPORTS indicated on her birth certificate and confirmed the appealed judgment. The accused appealed again to the Court of Appeal, alleging that as per the appealed judgment, his sentence was not reduced, despite his confession since his arrest and his sincere remorse and he requested for a reduced sentence, that the sentence reduction to align it with the gravity of the crime falls within the jurisdiction of the Court. The Prosecution alleged that that the sentence imposed on Twagirumukiza was appropriate, as it would help him understand the gravity of the offence he committed. Held: 1. An existing precedent cannot be followed if the law on which it was based was repealed or amended; in such a case, reference is made to the provision of the law that amended it, therefore article 2 of Law nº 059/2023 of 04/12/2023 amending Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general should be the basis for determining the appropriate sentence including the reduction of the sentence rather than relying solely on the position set in the cases RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC and RPAA 00032/2019/CA, as well as other cases that followed the position of reducing the sentence up to below the minimum penalty provided for by the law because these cases were decided based on article 60 of Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offenses and penalties in general. 2. In criminal cases, when the defendants have no other objection to the appealed judgment, other than claiming that they have not been given a sufficiently reduced sentence, every judge at any stage of the proceedings is permitted to impose a sentence at his/her discretion taking into account the gravity of the offence

## Page 527

131 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRUMUKIZA and its consequences; however at the appellate level, the judge must bear in mind that he/she is only permitted to modify the sentence imposed by the lower court, only after indicating that the court abused the law or its discretion in imposing the sentence. Therefore, the sentence imposed on the defendant should be reduced to match the gravity of the offence. The judgment is reversed only with regard to the sentence. Statutes and statutory referred to: Law N° 68/2018 of 30/8/2018 determining offences and penalties in general as amended to date, article 133. Law Nº 059/2023 of 04/12/2023 amending Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offenses and penalties in general, article 2. Cases referred to: Prosecution vs. Bimenyimana, RPAA 00048/2020/CA decided by the Court of Appeal on 26/05/2022. Prosecution vs. Nsabimana alias Sankara et.Al., RPA 00060/2021/CA decided by the Court of Appeal on 04/04/2022. Prosecution vs. Shirimpaka Jean Claude, RPAA 00145/2021/CA decided by the Court of Appeal on 30/10/2023.

## Page 528

132 RWANDA LAW REPORTS Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

On 21/11/2018, in Rwabuye Village, Gatobotobo Cell, Mbazi Sector, Huye District, a person named Twagirumukiza Innocent Réponse spent the night at his home with a 17-year-old girl named K.M. and they had sexual intercourse; then the girl went back home but a few days later she felt unwell and she self- tested positive for pregnancy, when she told to Twagirumukiza Innocent Réponse that she had impregnated her, the latter denied it; this led to the disclosure of news that she had been defiled by Twagirumukiza Innocent Réponse and the latter was arrested and handed over to the Investigation Bureau, for alleged child defilement; after the completion of the investigation, the Prosecution filed the case before the Intermediate Court of Huye.

Before that Court, Twagirumukiza Innocent Réponse admitted that he had sexual intercourse with Kubwimana Marie, alias Aline, however added that the girl was already a sex worker because he had sexual intercourse with her and gave her money, and that he does not believe that she was a minor and that he never impregnated her.

In the judgment RP 00411/2018/TGI/HYE, rendered by the Intermediate Court of Huye on 18/01/2019, it declared that Twagirumukiza Innocent Réponse was found guilty of child defilement against a 17-year-old girl named Kubwimana Marie alias Aline, based on his confession before the Investigation Bureau and before the Court, which was highlighted by the statements of the minor who accused him before the Investigation Bureau and her birth certificate issued by the Executive Secretary

## Page 529

133 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRUMUKIZA of Ruhashya Sector on 18/12/2018, which indicates that she was born in Kaduha on 25/04/2001; and was sentenced to the imprisonment for a term of twenty (20) years.

Twagirumukiza Innocent Réponse appealed against the judgment to the High Court, Chamber of Nyanza, alleging that the girl with whom he had sexual intercourse was adult and sex worker, so he first paid her before having sexual intercourse and his legal counsel also emphasized that Kubwimana Marie, alias Aline, was adult because, based on her date and month of birth and the date and month of the commission of the alleged crime, she had already turned 18 years old, so he notes that no crime had been committed.

The Prosecution submits that this ground of appeal is unfounded because, based on the date indicated on the birth certificate of Kubwimana Marie, alias Aline, which indicates that she was defiled when she was still a minor because she was 17 years old, and that this ground of appeal is contrary to the arguments of Twagirumukiza Innocent Réponse at first instance as he pleaded guilty and requested for a reduced sentence; it concludes by praying the Court to confirm the sentence imposed on him.

In the judgment RPA 00154/2019/HC/NYZ rendered on 30/12/2019, the High Court, Chamber of Nyanza, found that the grounds of appeal submitted by Twagirumukiza Innocent Réponse were unfounded as when the offence was committed, Kubwimana Marie, also known as Aline, had not yet attained the majority age, based on her date of birth indicated on her birth certificate, confirmed the appealed judgment, upheld the imprisonment for a term of twenty (20) years imposed on Twagirumukiza Innocent Réponse.

## Page 530

134 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Twagirumukiza Innocent Réponse also appealed against this decision before the Court of Appeal, the case was registered under nº RPAA 00367/2020/CA, and its hearing was held in public on 07/12/2023, the accused represented by Counsel Umugwaneza Diane, while the Prosecution was represented by Ninahazwa Roselyne, National Prosecutor.

In the appeal submissions that Twagirumukiza Innocent Réponse submitted to the Court, he alleged that in the appealed case, his sentence was not reduced even though he admitted that he had committed the offence since his arrest and had already expressed remorse. He requested for a reduction of the sentence, claiming that he was a first-time offender, based on the precedent set in the case decided by this Court.

In its submissions, the Prosecution argued that Twagirumukiza Innocent Réponse's appeal should not be upheld because he does not indicate what he criticizes about the judgment of the High Court as his claim that he pleaded guilty is not true; that he pleaded not guilty because the child he is alleged to have defiled was over 18 years old, and requested an acquittal.

During the hearing, Twagirumukiza Innocent Réponse and his lawyer told to the Court that, upon review, the appeal submissions did not challenge any aspect of the appealed judgment. Rather, they were merely requesting the Court to reduce his sentence, based on the position set in the case RPAA 00039/2021/CA in the Prosecution vs. Shakabatenda Jean de Dieu as he now fully understands the gravity of the crime he committed. The Prosecution, on its part, maintained that the sentence of imprisonment for a term of 20 years imposed on Twagirumukiza Innocent Réponse was appropriate, as it would help him understand the gravity of the offense he committed.

## Page 531

135 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRUMUKIZA

The disputed issue in this case is to determine whether Twagirumukiza Innocent Réponse deserves a reduced sentence at this instance

II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUE  Determine whether Twagirumukiza Innocent Réponse deserves a reduced sentence at this instance

Twagirumukiza Innocent Réponse and his lawyer allege that they pray the Court of Appeal to reduce his sentence on the grounds that he is a first-time offender, in addition to that he has already fully understood the gravity of the crime he committed and expressed remorse; they allege that reducing the sentence to match the gravity of the offence is within the court's jurisdiction, based on the decisions taken in the case RPAA00039/2021/CA involving the Prosecution v. Shakabatenda Jean de Dieu.

The Prosecution avers that the sentence of imprisonment for a term of 20 years imposed on Twagirumukiza Innocent Réponse is appropriate as it will help him understand the gravity of the offence he committed. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The Court finds that the request for a reduced sentence was made by Twagirumukiza Innocent Réponse in his submissions to the Court when filing the appeal, and himself and his lawyer reiterated it during the hearing.

## Page 532

136 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

A similar issue was resolved in the case n0 RPA 00060/2021/CA decided by the Court of Appeal on 04/04/2022, in the Prosecution vs. Nsabimana Callixte alias Sankara and others. In that case, the Court of Appeal explained that, in criminal matters, when the appellants do not raise any other ground of appeal apart from claiming that the sentence was not sufficiently reduced, any judge, at any level, is permitted to impose a sentence at his/her discretion, in accordance with the gravity of the offence and its consequences, as provided under article 49 of Law n0 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general; however, during the appeal, a judge is only permitted to modify the sentence imposed by the judge of the lower court after demonstrating that the lower court either abused the law or discretion in sentencing. This position has been applied in various subsequent decisions of the same Court, including the case n0 RPAA 00145/2021/CA decided on 30/10/2023, wherein the parties were the Prosecution vs. Shirimpaka Jean Claude.

The child defilement that Twagirumukiza Innocent Réponse was convicted of is punishable with a term of imprisonment for a term of not less than 20 years and not more than 25 years, based on the provisions of article 133 of Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general as amended to date; while he was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 20 years.

While this case was still pending for pronouncement before this Court, the Law nº 059/2023 of 04/12/2023 amending the Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 2018 determining offences and penalties in general was promulgated, its second article provides that: “If the judge approves mitigating circumstances, he or she

## Page 533

137 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRUMUKIZA may reduce penalties as follows: … (b) a fixed-term imprisonment from 6 months and above may be reduced but it cannot be less than a half of the minimum sentence provided for the offence committed”.

The Court finds that this provision should be based on in determining the extent to which is appropriate to reduce the sentence in case it approves mitigating circumstances, rather than relying on the position set in the case RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC and the case RPAA 00032/2019/CA as well as other cases that followed this position of reducing the sentence up to below the minimum sentence provided for by law, because these cases were decided in accordance with article 60 of Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general, and this article was amended by article 2 of Law n° 059/2023 above mentioned.

Regarding the reduction of the sentence based on the position set before the law in force was elucidated by this Court in the case Nº RPAA 00048/2020/CA1 whereby it established that the existing precedent cannot be followed since the law on which it was based was repealed (or amended), which is consistent with this case as it cannot follow the position which was based on the provision of the law that was already amended.

Based on the position2 set in the case RPA 00060/2021/CA above mentioned in paragraph 15, the following

1 Judgment RPAA 00048/2020/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 26/05/2022, in the Prosecution v. Bimenyimana, paragraph 26. 2 It established that in criminal cases, when the defendants have no objection to the appealed judgment, other than claiming that they were not given a sufficiently reduced sentence, every judge at any stage of the proceedings is allowed to impose a sentence at his/her discretion taking into account the

## Page 534

138 RWANDA LAW REPORTS paragraphs shall examine whether the sentence of imprisonment for a term of twenty (20) years imposed on Twagirumukiza Innocent Réponse for the offence of defilement of a seventeen (17) years old girl should be reduced to this extent to match the gravity of the offence committed.

In previous cases, both before the Intermediate Court of Huye and before the High Court, Chamber of Nyanza, Twagirumukiza Innocent Réponse admitted that he had sexual intercourse with Kubwimana Marie, alias Aline, but he alleged that the girl was already a sex worker because he had paid her to have sexual intercourse with her, and that he does not believe that she was a minor and that he did not impregnate as she alleged it.

The Court finds that, although Twagirumukiza Innocent Réponse committed the child defilement against a 17-year-old girl, being fully aware of the consequences of the crime due to his age during the commission of the crime (32 years), and although he pleaded not guilty in the previous courts as he claimed that he did not believe that the girl with whom he had sexual intercourse was a minor, the sentence of imprisonment for a term of 20-years imposed on him is excessive compared to the fact that the contents of the case file indicate that since his arrest he had admitted that he had had sexual intercourse with the girl, the only thing he did not admit was her age, and that he was a

gravity of the offence and its consequences, in accordance with the provisions of article 49 of Law n0 68/2018 of 30/8/2018 determining offenses and penalties in general, but that in an appeal, the judge must bear in mind that s/he is only allowed to modify the sentence imposed by the judge of the previous court, only after demonstrating that that court abused the law or its discretion in imposing that sentence..

## Page 535

139 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRUMUKIZA first-time offender; this sentence should be reduced to match the gravity of the crime.

The Court finds that the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph were not taken into account in the previous courts, which prevented Twagirumukiza Innocent Réponse from receiving an appropriate reduced sentence; therefore, based on these reasons and on the provisions of article 2 of Law n0 059/2023 above mentioned, as well as on the position set3 in the case RPA 00060/2021/CA also mentioned above, the Court finds that Twagirumukiza Innocent Réponse deserves a reduced sentence, and he shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of thirteen (13) years instead of the imprisonment for a term of 20 years imposed on him in the appealed case. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the judgment n° RPA 00154/2019/HC/NYZ decided by the High Court, Chamber of Nyanza, on 30/12/2019, is reversed with regard to the sentence.

Orders that Twagirumukiza Innocent Réponse shall be sentenced to the imprisonment for a term of thirteen (13) years for child defilement against a seventeen (17) year old girl.

3 Whereby, in criminal matters, the defendants' criticism of the appealed judgment is that they were not sentenced to a sufficiently reduced sentence, each judge at any stage is allowed to impose a sentence at his/her discretion to match the gravity of the crime and its consequences, in accordance with the provisions of article 49 of Law n0 68/2018 of 30/8/2018 determining offenses and penalties in general, but that in an appeal, the judge must bear in mind that s/he is only allowed to modify the sentence imposed by the judge of the previous court, only after demonstrating that that court abused the law or its discretion in imposing that sentence.

## Page 536

140 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Declares that the court fees are borne by the Public Treasury, as Twagirumukiza Innocent Réponse appealed when he was in prison and is therefore exempted from paying them.

## Page 537

141 SUBJECT INDEX CASES ON MERIT

## Page 538

142 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 539

143 SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT - RS/INJUST/RC 00005/2024/SC (Hitiyaremye, J.P, Cyanzayire, Muhumuza, Kazungu, Kalihangabo, J.) March 28, 2025] Overruling precedent – Damages resulting from motor vehicle accident – Exemption from damages for intentional fault – For the insurer to be exempted from paying damages based on a statutory or contractual provision prohibiting insuring the intentional fault, he/she must provide evidence that the insured committed the fault with the intent to cause harm (faute intentionnelle). This new rule replaces the old rule was set by the Supreme Court in the Case of Kirehe District v SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd, currently known as SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc et Al, RS/INJUST/RC 00002/2021/SC, decided by the Supreme Court on 30/12/2021 [Reported in RLR V.4.2023] which stated that the insurer is not liable for the faults of the insured knowingly and intentionally committed. Civil Procedure – Damages resulting from motor vehicle accidents – Liability – Liability arises from a deliberate or unintentional act, which obliges the wrongdoer to pay for the damage caused to others; and such a liability is insured. Civil Procedure – Damages resulting from motor vehicle accidents – Strict liability – Strict liability arises from the intentional fault of the insured, which is committed with the intent to cause harm (faute intentionnelle) – Even if a person knowingly committed a fault, it is considered intentional only if it is clearly established that the person who committed it had a deliberate intent to cause harm. Civil Procedure – Damages resulting from motor vehicle accident – Fault committed by the injured party which results into not being awarded damages – A fault that 143

## Page 540

144 RWANDA LAW REPORTS excludes the injured party from damages is the one that was the actual cause of the accident (i.e. 100%), as well as the one that the injured party committed intentionally with the intention of causing the accident – Law n0 41/2001 of 19/09/2001 determining compensation calculation modalities for people injured or whose property has been damaged by automobiles, article 2. Facts: Bizimana was injured by a motor vehicle insured by SANLAM AG Plc, resulting in a permanent disability of 48%. He wrote to SANLAM AG Plc requesting for damages, but the company refused to pay him as he was the cause of the accident as he admitted to be transported in the loaded rear box of a vehicle. This prompted Bizimana to file a lawsuit with the Intermediate Court of Rusizi seeking for various damages. The court ordered SANLAM AG Plc to pay him a total of 5,786,030 Frw of damages. SANLAM AG Plc appealed to the High Court, Rusizi Chamber, arguing that they should not be liable for damages because Bizimana was the actual cause of the accident, and the driver of the vehicle had deliberately made the mistake of transporting him in a place designated for the carriage of goods, knowing that this was prohibited. The High Court declared their appeal unfounded, upholding the damages awarded in the appealed case. SANLAM AG Plc requested a review of the case on grounds of injustice, raising the same grounds as it had presented during their appeal, their application was granted, and the case was heard by the Supreme Court, which examined the issue of whether SANLAM should be liable for damages arising from the accident in which Bizimana Védaste was injured. SANLAM AG Plc argues that it is not liable for damages arising from the accident on the grounds that the driver of the vehicle that caused the accident made a deliberate mistake by allowing a person to transport him in the loaded

## Page 541

145 SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA rear box of a vehicle knowing that it was prohibited and the fact that Bizimana was the actual cause of the accident in which he was injured. Bizimana argues that he should be compensated on grounds that the insurance coverage extends to the liability of the motor vehicle owner and driver, and that insurance should cover accidents involving individuals transported in the vehicle, regardless of the circumstances. Held: 1. Liability arises from an act committed either intentionally or unintentionally, which obliges the wrongdoer to pay for the damage caused to others; such liability is covered. 2. Strict liability arises from an intentional fault of the insured, which is committed with the intention of causing harm - Even if a person knowingly committed a fault, it is considered intentional only if it is clearly established that the person who committed it had a deliberate intent to cause harm. 3. Strict liability arises from an intentional fault of the insured, which is committed with the intent to cause harm - Even if a person knowingly committed a fault, it is considered intentional only if it is clear that the person who committed it had the intent to cause harm. 4. A fault that excludes the injured party from damages is the one that was the actual cause of the accident (i.e. 100%), as well as the one that the injured party committed deliberately with the intent to cause the harm. Application for review of the judgment on grounds of being vitiated by injustice is unfounded. Statutory and statutes referred to:

## Page 542

146 RWANDA LAW REPORTS Law no 41/2001 of 19/09/2001 determining compensation calculation modalities for people injured or whose property has been damaged by automobiles, article 2 Decree-Law n° 32/75 of 07 August 1975 on compulsory civil liability for motor vehicles, as amended by the Law n0 02/2002 of 17/01/2002, article 3; Decree-Law n° 20/75 of 20/06/1975 relating to insurance in general, article 11. No case laws referred to. Authors quoted: Serge BRAUDO, Dictionnaire du Droit Privé, Définition de Responsabilité civile, p.1; Gerard CORNU, Vocabulaire juridique, 11ème édition, Puf, 1987, p.452; Georges Brière de L’Isle, Cour de Cassation, Recueil annuel des études 2023, A. L’identité des fautes intentionnelle et dolosive, Étude, p.1; Cour de cassation (France), deuxième chambre civile, du 16 Septembre 2021, n° 19-25.678, para 11et 12 ; Cour de cassation Belge, 23 FÉVRIER 2017, para 1 et 2; Cour de cassation Belge, 03 Novembre 2022, C.21.0407.F; CHRISTOPHER C. FRENCH (Director of Trial Advocacy Program and Professor of Practice at Penn State Law; J.D., Harvard Law School; B.A., Columbia University), Insuring Intentional Torts, OHIO STATE LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 83:6], p.1079-1080; Bernard DUBUISSON, Professeur ordinaire à l'Université catholique de Louvain, Professeur aux Facultés universitaires Saint- Louis, LA FAUTE INTENTIONNELLE EN DROIT DES ASSURANCES -L'ÉCLAIRAGE DU DROIT PÉNAL, Revue Générale des Assurances et des Responsabilités (2010), p.2, pt. 4;

## Page 543

147 SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA Yvonne LAMBERT-FAIVRE et Laurent LEVENEUR, Droit des assurances, 14ème édit., Dalloz, 2017, P.318; Hubert GROUTEL, Code des Assurances, Annotations de jurisprudence et de bibliographie relatives aux “Responsabilités professionnelles, 14ème édit., Dalloz, 2008, p.35; Justia Personal Injury Law Center Proving Fault and Damages in Personal Injury Lawsuits, Comparative & Contributory Negligence Laws: 50-State Survey; Steenson Mike, Minnesota Comparative Fault—Statutory Reform, Journal of law and practice, vol.9, art. 4, 2016, p.7; Alaska Statutes, § 09.17.060 (2023) - Effect of contributory fault US Codes and Statutes US Law Justia; Cutter Law P.C., What Is California's Comparative Negligence Law; Minnesota Statutes, & 604.02 (2024)- apportionment of damages, Official Publication of the State of Minnesota; Cour de Cassation, Civile, Chambre civile 2, 28 mars 2019, 18-14.125 18-15.855. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

On 22/10/2020, in Rususa Village, Ryamuhirwa Cell, Nkungu Sector, Rusizi District, Western Province, a road accident occurred involving a Mitsubishi FUSO vehicle with plate number RAE 890 E, driven by Habimana Daniel. The vehicle hit Bizimana Védaste, resulting in injuries to his legs and causing a permanent incapacity assessed at 48%. The vehicle was insured by SANLAM AG Plc (referred to as SANLAM in this case).

## Page 544

148 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Bizimana Védaste wrote to SANLAM requesting damages, but the company responded that it would not pay any, arguing that the driver of the insured vehicle was not at fault. Instead, SANILAM claimed that Bizimana himself was the actual cause of the accident by admitting to be transported in the rear box of a loaded vehicle and jumping off while it was in motion. This disagreement led Bizimana Védaste to file a claim before the Intermediate Court of Rusizi, seeking for economic damages, moral damages, aesthetic damages, loss of employment damages, reimbursement of medical expenses, costs incurred in obtaining documents and counsel’s fee.

In the judgment n0 RC 00127/2021/TGI/RSZ rendered on 09/08/2022, the Intermediate Court of Rusizi ordered SANLAM to pay Bizimana Védaste economic damages amounting to 4,317,600 Frw, moral damages amounting to 432,000 Frw, aesthetic damages amounting to 216,000 Frw, 300,430 Frw for medical expenses, expenses for obtaining documents as well as transport, 500,000 Frw for counsel’s fees and 20,000 Frw of court fees, all totaling to 5,786,030 Frw.

The Court explained that Bizimana Védaste was injured by the aforementioned vehicle, which was insured by SANLAM, that he was still inside the vehicle at the time of the incident, adding that liability does not depend on how the person entered the vehicle or where he/she was being transported. The Court also based its decision on the negligence of the driver, who admitted that he did not know when Bizimana Védaste got into the vehicle, despite the fact that every vehicle is equipped with mirrors to monitor its surroundings. This negligence was further confirmed by the Police Investigator who visited the scene of the accident.

SANLAM appealed to the High Court, Rusizi Chamber, arguing that they are not subject to liability in this

## Page 545

149 SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA accident because the claimant had himself admitted that he chose to be transported in the rear box of the vehicle, and that he consciously jutransport Bizimana Védaste in the rear box of the vehicle, which is designated for cargo, the company should not be held liable, as such conduct would constitute intentional fault of the driver, thereby exempting SANLAM from liability in accordance with paragraph 4 of article 66 of Presidential Decree n° 85/01 of 02/09/2002 regulating general traffic police and road traffic 1.

In the judgment n0 RCA 00050/2022/HC/RSZ rendered on 26/07/2023, the High Court, Rusizi Chamber, found that SANLAM failed to prove any breach of insurance contractual obligations committed by the owner of the vehicle RAE 890 E which caused the accident. The Court therefore upheld the damages awarded in the appealed case.

The High Court explained that the accident was caused by the driver’s recklessness, a fact that was also confirmed by the police investigator who visited the scene of the accident. For that reason, SANLAM was held liable for the damages arising from the accident caused by the vehicle it had insured. The Court further clarified that judgment n0 RS/INJUST/RC00002/2021/SC, which SANLAM had cited as a basis for its argument, was not similar in nature to the present case. In that case, intentional fault had been established on the part of the vehicle owner, who admitted to transporting people in the rear box designated for cargo, exceeding the insured passenger limit, and allowing the vehicle to be driven by someone without a valid driving license. The High Court also found that Bizimana Védaste did not commit any fault by agreeing to sit on top of the cargo in the rear box, as it is the

1 That paragraph provides that the driver of one of the vehicles mentioned in the first paragraph is prohibited from carrying passengers in the rear box of that vehicle or its trailer.

## Page 546

150 RWANDA LAW REPORTS responsibility of the driver to be aware of the number of passengers the vehicle is authorized to carry and where they are supposed to sit.

After the High Court issued its decision, SANLAM wrote to the President of the Court of Appeal requesting that judgment n0 RCA 00050/2022/HC/RSZ rendered by the High Court, Rusizi Chamber, on 26/07/2023, be reviewed on grounds of injustice. After reviewing the request, the President of the Court of Appeal forwarded the report to the President of the Supreme Court, who confirmed that the case would be re-tried in the Supreme Court and registered under case n0 RS/INJUST/RC 00005/2024/SC.

In its submissions, SANLAM states that it was ordered to compensate Bizimana Védaste, even though he was the one who caused the accident in which he was injured. Moreover, the driver of the vehicle RAE 890 E committed the fault of agreeing to transport him in the rear box of the vehicle, fully aware that this was prohibited. Bizimana Védaste, on the other hand, argues that SANLAM should compensate him, based on the fact that it provided insurance for the vehicle that hit him, and that the Police Investigator who visited the scene of the accident confirmed that the accident was caused by the driver’ recklessness.

The case was heard in public on 11/11/2024, with SANLAM represented by Counsel Nkeza Sempundu Clément and Counsel Niyondora Nsengiyumva, while Bizimana Védaste was represented by Counsel Mukwende Milimo Olivier. The parties argued over the issues of whether SANLAM should be held liable for damages arising from the accident in which Bizimana Védaste was injured, and whether any damages should be awarded in the case. The case was closed, and the parties were notified that the judgment would be pronounced on 20/12/2024.

## Page 547

151 SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA

While the Court was in deliberation to render its judgment, it found that there were still additional isues that this court needed to ask the parties. It therefore deemed it necessary to reopen the case, and the hearing was scheduled on 11/02/2025. On that date, the hearing was held in public, with SANLAM represented by Counsel Niyondora Nsengiyumva, while Bizimana Védaste was represented by Counsel Mukwende Milimo Olivier. The parties were notified that the judgment would be pronounced on 28/03/2025. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES 1) Whether SANLAM should be liable for the damages arising from the accident in which Bizimana Védaste was injured

SANLAM claims that it was ordered to pay damages for an accident in which Bizimana Védaste was injured, disregarding that the latter was the actual cause of the accident by admitting to be transported in the rear box of the vehicle on top of the cargo (bricks), which exposed him to the risk of falling and getting injured, additionally he committed a mistake of getting out from the moving vehicle.

SANLAM further states that Nyirandayishimiye Béatrice, who filed a complaint with the Investigation Bureau, reported that Bizimana Védaste reached his destination and knocked on the driver's door to request a stop and disembark, but the driver refused to stop, resulting in Védaste being struck on the leg. This statement serves as evidence that he was aware of the danger posed by exiting a moving vehicle but chose to do so regardless. Furthermore, in his defense, Bizimana Védaste admitted that he was being transported atop a load of bricks and acknowledged that the accident occurred because he exited the vehicle without

## Page 548

152 RWANDA LAW REPORTS waiting for it to stop. This admission indicates that the accident resulted from his own decision to disembark from a moving vehicle, and that he did so knowingly and intentionally.

SANLAM explains that its argument is based on article 2 of Law no 41/2001 of 19/09/2001 determining compensation calculation modalities for people injured or whose property has been damaged by automobiles, which provides that “the fault of the victim of the accident excludes the right to compensation for the victim or his/her beneficiaries”. SANLAM further refers to the judgments previously rendered by this present Court, in which it was ruled that that in order for an insurer to compensate its insured, it is necessary to first prove that the insured person was the actual cause of the accident; and the injured party bears the burden of proof2.

SANLAM further argues that the fact that Bizimana Védaste was transported on top of the cargo, whether authorized or not, exempts this insurance company from liability for damages because it contradicts sub-paragraph 4 of article 66 of Presidential Order n0 85/01 of 02/09/2002 establishing general regulations governing roads and their use, which provides that the driver of a motor vehicle or a motor tricycle or quadricycle is prohibited from transporting persons in the rear box of the vehicle or its trailer. SANLAM adds that even if the driver of the vehicle was involved, this does not protect the insured or the claimants.

2 Case no RS/INJUST/RC00003/2023/SC decided by the Supreme Court on 24/02/2024, involving SANLAM AG Plc v. Nzamwitakuze Thérèse, mentioned the position set in the case nº RS/INJUST/RC00019/2022/SC decided by the Supreme Court on 02/06/2023, involving Musengamana Jean Marie Vianney v. SGF.

## Page 549

153 SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA

SANLAM explains that the High Court ignored the analysis made by the Supreme Court on sub-paragraph 4 of article 66 of Presidential Order n0 85/01 of 02/09/2002 mentioned above, in the Case n0 RS/INJUST/RC 00002/2021/SC3, where Habimana Daniel had agreed to carry Bizimana Védaste in the rear box of a vehicle carrying bricks, fully aware that this was prohibited. SANLAM argues that in that case, the Court explained that the fact that the insured committed a breach of his obligations under the insurance contract, knowingly and intentionally, cannot be covered by that contract, either in his case or in the case of those injured by the insured vehicle.

He adds that the principle of insurance is that when the insured commits a fault, the insurer is liable for his faults, but that this principle has an exception provided for in paragraph 3 of article 11 of Decree Law n0 20/75 of 20/06/1975 relating to insurance in general, because the insurer does not cover faults that were intentionally committed by the insured or that could have been avoided. Regarding this case, the fact that the insured carried Bizimana Védaste to a place that was not designated for the transportation of people is an unrecoverable fault because it was arbitrarily committed, which is also consistent with the case of Kirehe District, SAHAM and others mentioned above.

SANLAM requests the Court to declare that no damages would be paid, and to order Bizimana Védaste to refund all the money paid, while enforcing the judgement under review on grounds of injustice, amounting to

3 Case no RS/INJUST/RC 00002/2021/SC decided on 30/12/2021. Involving Kirehe District v. SAHAM Assurance Rwanda Ltd, now known as SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc, along with the heirs of Gatashya Ezra others, paragraph 33.

## Page 550

154 RWANDA LAW REPORTS 6,286,030 Frw as indicated by the payment receipt of 19/09/2023.

Bizimana Védaste argues that SANLAM's submissions should not be considered for the following reasons : a) SANLAM does not indicate the fault of the owner of the RAE 890 E vehicle that caused the accident. It also does not refer to the statement of the Judicial Police Officer who arrived at the scene of the accident, who confirmed that it was caused by the driver's recklessness, because he did not respect the general rules governing the roads and their use, prohibiting him from carrying people in the rear box even though he was loaded with luggage. In establishing the cause of the accident, the Judicial Police Officer also relied on the statements of the driver, Habimana Daniel, who testified that Bizimana Védaste jumped out of the vehicle and fell to the ground ; b) If SANLAM found that the driver was at fault, it would force intervene the owner of the vehicle to be held accountable for his/her actions as provided for in article 115 of Law n0 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to Civil, Commercial, Labour and aministrative Procedure ; c) SANLAM is liable for damages resulting from accident in accordance with the provisions of article 3 of Decree-Law nº 32/75 of 07/08/1975 on compulsory civil liability for motor vehicles, which provides that "insurance must cover the liability of the owner of a motor vehicle, a possessor of it and of its driver, and that insurance must cover accidents occurring to persons carried in the vehicle in whatever circumnstance”;

## Page 551

155 SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA d) SANLAM is the one liable for damages also based on article 11 of the aforementioned Decree- Law which provides as follows : “no cause of action which has become null and void, is of no effect or is no longer applicable by reason of the Law or the contract, may be relied upon by the insurer against the injured party. The insurer may reserve the right to pursue the party who made the contract of insurance or, if necessary, the insured who is not the party to the contract, if the Law or the contract of insurance allows him to refuse or limit his obligations”; e) If SANLAM finds that the insured has caused harm or behaved contrary to what was agreed upon in the contract, it has the right to recourse action instead of claiming that Bizimana Védaste is not entitled to damages ; f) Paragraph 4 of article 66 of Presidential Order nº 85/01 of 02/09/2002 establishing general regulations governing roads and their use, stipulates that “the driver of a motor vehicle or a motor tricycle or quadricycle is prohibited from transporting persons in the rear box of the vehicle or its trailer”. The fact that Bizimana Védaste was transported in that part and on top of the bricks is against the law, and SANLAM should therefore be held liable as the insurer ; g) Habimana Daniel's claim that Bizimana Védaste got into the car without his knowledge is a fabrication made during interrogation before Investigation Bureau on the charge of involuntary bodily harm, in order to prove that he had no role in the commission of the crime ;

## Page 552

156 RWANDA LAW REPORTS h) Witnesses interviewed included Nsabimana Lambert and Nyirandayishimiye Béatrice, testified that Bizimana Védaste was on top of a vehicle loaded with bricks when he arrived in Nkungu Sector and knocked the driver’s door to get out because he had reached his destination and that the driver refused to stop, causing him to hit his leg ; i) Habimana Daniel cannot justify his lack of knowledge as to how Bizimana Védaste got onto the car, especially since every vehicle is equipped with mirrors that provide visibility inside and behind the car. The fact that he did not see him would be a mistake made by the insured, and the insurer should be held liable for the resulting damages; j) The case of Kirehe District v. SAHAM has no relation with the case at hand, because in that such a case the driver did not have a valid driving license.

Bizimana Védaste concludes that since he was hit by a RAE 890 E vehicle, which is insured by SANLAM, which, inthe insurance contract, agreed on liability for all damages it might cause, it is clear that whether he got into the car with or without the driver’s knowledge, SANLAM is liable for all damages resulting from the accident and should have paid for them. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The parties agree that Bizimana Védaste was seriously injured by a Mitsubishi Fuso RAE 890 E in an accident that occurred on 22/10/2020. However, they disagree on whether SANLAM should pay the damages claimed by Bizimana Védaste arising from that accident. SANLAM demonstrates two reasons on which it argues that it should not be liable for the damages claimed:

## Page 553

157 SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA a) The fact that the driver of the vehicle RAE 890 E made the mistake of allowing Bizimana Védaste to be transported in the rear box of the vehicle, fully aware that that it was prohibited ; b) The fact that Bizimana Védaste was the cause of the accident in which he was injured. 1. Regarding the fact that the driver of the RAE 890 E made the mistake of allowing Bizimana Védaste to be transported in the rear box of the vehicle fully knowing that it was prohibited

Article 3 of Decree Law n0 32/75 of 07/08/1975 relating to compulsory insurance against liability arising from moto vehicles, as amended by Law n0 02/2002 of 17/01/2002, provides in its first paragraph that insurance must cover the liability (civil liability) of the owner of the vehicle, its holder and any person driving it, except when it is in the possession of the person who stole it or took it by force.

Article 11 of Decree Law n0 20/75 of 20/06/1975 relating to insurance in general, as amended, provides as follows: “The insurer covers the insured against the risks provided for in the contract. He/she insures against risks arising from unforeseen circumstances (cas fortuits), and against risks arising from the fault of the insured, unless provided otherwise. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, the insurer cannot cover risks arising from intentional fault of the insured”.

Among the main points that emerge from these articles of both laws are that: insurance must cover the civil liability of the owner of the vehicle, its holder and anyone who drives it (excluding the person who stole it and the person who took it by force). It also includes that the insurer covers risks resulting from the fault of the insured, but does

## Page 554

158 RWANDA LAW REPORTS not cover those resulting from the intentional fault of the insured.

In the following paragraphs, the Court first analyses the definition of civil liability that is covered by insurance, and to the definition of intentional fault that is not covered by the insurance referring to experts’interpretations.

In the dictionary of terms, La Toupie, they explain that liability is determined by the fact that there is damage resulting from an act done intentionally or unintentionally, and by the fact that there is damage resulting from an omission provided for in the contract4.

Legal scholar Serge Braudo explains that liability arises from the failure to comply with the provisions of the contract, or from an act committed intentionally or unintentionally, which requires the wrongdoer to compensate for the damage caused to others5.

Regarding intentional fault, in the dictionary of legal terms, the expert Gérard CORNU explains that an

4 La responsabilité civile est la responsabilité considérée du point de vue des dommages qu’une action volontaire ou non, ainsi qu’une absence d’action prévue dans un contrat, ont pu causer); La Toupie, dictionnaire de politique, Responsabilité civile, consulté le 19/11/2024, https://www.toupie.org/Dictionnaire/Responsabilite_civile.htm#:~:text =D%C3%A9finition%20de%20responsabili%C3%A9%20civile,un%2 0contrat%2C%20ont%20pu%20causer. 5 la responsabilité civile est engagée, soit en raison de l'inexécution d'un contrat, soit en raison d'un acte volontaire ou non, entraînant pour la personne qui est fautive ou qui est légalement présumée fautive, l'obligation de réparer le dommage qui a été subi par une ou plusieurs autres; Serge BRAUDO, Dictionnaire du Droit Privé, Définition de Responsabilité civile, p.1, consulté le 19/11/2024, https://www.dictionnaire-juridique.com/definition/responsabilite- civile.php.

## Page 555

159 SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA intentional fault is one committed with the intent of harming another, generally with the intent to cause harm6.

The French Court of Cassation, referring to the writings of scholar Georges Brière de L’Isle, explains that a fault, even if committed knowingly, is considered intentional only if it is evident that the person who committed it intended to cause harm7. It further states that the defining characteristic of an intentional fault is the intention to cause harm, which rules out the possibility of an unforeseen event whose timing is uncertain or even happen as a basis for excluding liability8.

In another case decided by the French Court of Cassation, based on an article of the law governing insurance (such article is similar to article 11 of Decree Law n0 20/75 of 20/06/1975 mentioned above)9, The court explained that intentional fault occurs when there is an intent to cause harm in the manner in which it occurred, and it

6 “Faute intentionnelle : faute commise avec intention de nuire, plus généralement avec celle de causer le dommage»; Gerard CORNU, Vocabulaire juridique, 11ème édition, Puf, 1987, p.452. 7 “Georges Brière de L’Isle indique qu’« il est clair que la faute, même consciente, ne peut être qualifiée d’intentionnelle que si l’on relève chez son auteur la volonté de causer le dommage”; Cour de Cassation, Recueil annuel des études 2023, A. L’identité des fautes intentionnelle et dolosive, Étude, p.1, consulté le 14/11/2024, https://www.courdecassation.fr/publications/etude-annuelle/recueil- annuel-des-etudes-2023/lidentite-des-fautes intentionnelle-et-0. 8 “C’est la recherche du résultat dommageable qui caractérise aussi bien la faute intentionnelle que la faute dolosive car c’est elle qui, supprimant l’aléa, « justifie l’exclusion de la garantie de l’assureur”; Ibidem, p.2 9 Article L113-1 du Code des Assurances (en vigueur au 20/11/2024): “Les pertes et les dommages occasionnés par des cas fortuits ou causés par la faute de l'assuré sont à la charge de l'assureur, sauf exclusion formelle et limitée contenue dans la police. Toutefois, l'assureur ne répond pas des pertes et dommages provenant d'une faute intentionnelle ou dolosive de l'assuré”.

## Page 556

160 RWANDA LAW REPORTS excludes liability for harm caused by the insured as a result of his or her intent when committing the offense. It also explained that in order for an insurer to refrain from paying based on a clause in a contract that prohibits liability for intentional fault, must provide evidence that the insured intentionally caused the harm10.

The Belgium Court of Cassation has held that, pursuant to the provisions of the Law on Insurance Contracts11, The insurer does not cover accidents caused intentionally. The court adds that an intentionl fault requires an intentto cause harm 12.

10 “Vu l'article 1134, devenu 1103, du code civil et l'article L. 113-1 du code des assurances : Selon le second de ces textes, la faute intentionnelle implique la volonté de créer le dommage tel qu'il est survenu et n'exclut de la garantie due par l'assureur à l'assuré, condamné pénalement, que le dommage que cet assuré a recherché en commettant l'infraction. Il en résulte que, pour exclure sa garantie en se fondant sur une clause d'exclusion visant les dommages causés ou provoqués intentionnellement par l'assuré, l'assureur doit prouver que l'assuré a eu la volonté de créer le dommage tel qu'il est survenu” ; COUR DE CASSATION (France), DEUXIÈME CHAMBRE CIVILE, DU 16 SEPTEMBRE 2021, n° 19-25.678, para 11 et 12, consulté le 20/11/2024, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000044105908?init=t rue&page=1&query=1925678&searchFieldALL&tab_selection=all. 11 Article 8: “Nonobstant toute convention contraire, l’assureur ne peut être tenu de fournir sa garantie à l’égard de quiconque a causé intentionnellement le sinistre. L’assureur répond des sinistres causés par la faute, même lourde, du preneur d’assurance, de l’assuré ou du bénéficiaire. Toutefois, l’assureur peut s’exonérer de ses obligations pour les cas de faute lourde déterminés expressément et limitativement dans le contrat. Le Roi peut établir une liste limitative des faits qui ne peuvent être qualifiés de faute lourde”. 12 “Selon l’article 8, alinéa 1er, de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d’assurance terrestre, applicable au litige, nonobstant toute convention contraire, l’assureur ne peut être tenu de fournir sa garantie à l’égard de quiconque a causé intentionnellement le sinistre. La faute intentionnelle suppose la volonté de causer un dommage résultant de la réalisation d’un risque couvert par le contrat d’assurance”; COUR DE

## Page 557

161 SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA

Scholar CHRISTOPHER C. FRENCH explains that however few courts require that the act giving rise to the damage be intentional in order for liabilities be exempted, the majority of courts require that the insured has the intent to cause the harm, rather than merely the intent to commit the tortious act. The reason is that many acts that lead to accidents are intentional ; but that does not mean that the perpetrator intended to cause the accident or the injuries and damage. For example, if a driver causes an accident because he was distracted by texting, the acts of driving while texting would be intentional. However, the subsequent accident and the injuries and damage that resulted from that accident were not intended by the driver, even though they may be foreseeable consequences of the negligent behavior13.

CASSATION Belge, 23 FÉVRIER 2017, para 1 et 2, consulté le 27/11/2024, https://juricaf.org/arret/BELGIQUE- COURDECASSATION-20170223-C150243F; Voir aussi Cour de cassation Belge, 03 Novembre 2022, C.21.0407.F, première chamber, Commerciale, https://juricaf.org/arret/BELGIQUE- COURDECASSATION-20221103-C210407F. 13 “Although a minority of jurisdictions only require that the action leading to the injury be intentional for a forfeiture of coverage to occur, the vast majority of jurisdictions require that the insured must intend to cause an injury, not merely intend to do the act that causes the injury. The reason for this is because many actions that lead to accidents are intentional. That does not mean, however, that the actor intended to cause the accident or the resulting injuries and damage. For example, when a driver causes a car accident because the driver is distracted by texting, both the acts of driving and texting are intentional. The ensuing crash and resulting injuries and damage, however, are not intended by the driver even though they may be the foreseeable consequences of the negligent behavior; CHRISTOPHER C. FRENCH (Director of Trial Advocacy Program and Professor of Practice at Penn State Law; J.D., Harvard Law School; B.A., Columbia University), Insuring Intentional Torts, OHIO STATE LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 83:6], p.1079-1080, accessed on 21/11/2024, https://moritzlaw.osu.edu/sites/default/files/2023-03/French_V6_1069- 1111.pdf.

## Page 558

162 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

The scholar Bernard DUBUISSON explains that intentional fault in insurance law is a fault that causes the insured and the insurer to intentionally cause a risk. Risk is defined as any unforeseen event that may occur and threaten the person is insured. For intentional fault to exist, the insured must have had the intent to cause harm14.

Scholars Yvonne LAMBERT-FAIVRE and Laurent LEVENEUR also argue that it is not enough for the perpetrator to have committed the act knowingly and intentionally (such as exceeding the speed limit, failing to stop at a red light, etc.); he must also have had the intent to cause the harm. Using the term "intentional damage" would be more precise15.

The foregoing elucidations are also upheld by the scholar Hubert GROUTEL, who explains that intentional fault, which excludes liability, is one committed with the intent to cause harm. The insured must not only have

14 “La faute intentionnelle en droit des assurances est celle par laquelle le preneur d'assurance, l'assuré ou le bénéficiaire d'une prestation d'assurance a causé intentionnellement le sinistre.[…] Le sinistre se définissant comme la réalisation du risque couvert par le contrat, il faudrait donc, pour pouvoir parler de faute intentionnelle, que l'assuré ou le bénéficiaire ait voulu que le risque se réalise”; Bernard DUBUISSON, Professeur ordinaire à l'Université catholique de Louvain, Professeur aux Facultés universitaires Saint- Louis, LA FAUTE INTENTIONNELLE EN DROIT DES ASSURANCES - L'ÉCLAIRAGE DU DROIT PÉNAL, Revue Générale des Assurances et des Responsabilités (2010), p.2, pt. 4, consulté le 21/11/2024, https://dial.uclouvain.be/pr/boreal/object/boreal%3A76896/datastream/ PDF_01/view. 15 “L‘intention ne s’applique pas à la faute (fait générateur) mais au dommage qui en est l’objet. L’auteur de l’acte ne se contente pas de commettre une faute volontaire et délibérée (ex. Excès de vitesse, non- respect d’un feu rouge…); l’intention vise la réalisation du dommage. L’expression “dommage volontaire” ou “dommage intentionnelle” serait plus exacte”; Yvonne LAMBERT-FAIVRE et Laurent LEVENEUR, Droit des assurances, 14ème édit., Dalloz, 2017, P.318.

## Page 559

163 SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA intended to do or not do the act that caused the damage, but must also have intended to cause the damage16.

From all the explanations provided, the following important points are understood : a) Liability arises from an act committed intentionally or unintentionally, which obliges the wrongdoer to pay for the damage caused to others ; and such liability is insured ; b) Strict liability is that which arises from the intentional fault of the insured ; c) An intentional fault is the one committed with the intent of causing harm ; d) A fault, even if committed knowingly, is considered intentional only if it is clear that the perpetrator had the intent to cause harm ; e) The characteristic of an intentional fault, is the intent to harm, rather than merely the intent to commit the harmful act ; f) For an insurer to refuse to pay based on a statutory or contractual provision prohibiting liability for intentional fault, he/she must provide evidence that the insured committed the fault with the intent to cause harm.

16 “La faute intentionnelle qui exclut la garantie de l’assureur est celle qui suppose la volonté de causer le dommage et pas seulement d’en créer le risque. […] La faute intentionnelle au sens de l’art. L113-1, al.2,C. assur. suppose que l’assuré a voulu non seulement l’action ou l’omission génératrice du dommage mais encore le dommage lui-même; Hubert GROUTEL, Code des Assurances, Annotations de jurisprudence et de bibliographie relatives aux “Responsabilités professionnelles, 14ème édit., Dalloz, 2008, p.35.

## Page 560

164 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Regarding this case, SANLAM argues that it should not be liable for the damages claimed by Bizimana Védaste, since Habimana Daniel, the driver of the insured vehicle, agreed to transport him in the rear box of a vehicle carrying bricks, despite being fully aware that this was prohibited under sub-paragraph 4 of article 66 of Presidential Order n0 85/01 of 02/09/2002 establishing general regulations governing roads and their use17, and therefore he knowingly and intentionally committed faults.

As explained above, the fact that the perpetrator knowingly and intentionally committed the act that caused the harm does not in itself exclude the liability. Strictl liability arises from intentional fault committed by the insured, that is, a fault committed with the intent to cause harm, and the insurer must provide evidence during the proceedings. This changes the position set in Case n0 RS/INJUST/RC 00002/2021/SC, decided by this instant Court on 30/12/2021, Kirehe District v. SAHAM Assurance Rwanda Ltd which became SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc, the heirs of GATASHYA Ezra et al.18; such position stated that the insurer is not liable for faults knowingly and intentionally committed by the insured.

The Court finds that SANLAM failed to present evidence proving that Habimana Daniel committed the fault of transporting Bizimana Védaste in the rear box of the vehicle, where passengers are not allowed, with the intent of causing harm ; therefore, this cannot serve as a valid ground

17 That articleprovides that the driver of a motor vehicle, or of a three- wheeled or four-wheeled motorized vehicle, is prohibited from carrying passengers in the rear box of that vehicle or its trailer. 18 Case n0 RS/INJUST/RC 00002/2021/SC, adjudicated by the Supreme Court on 30 December 2021, involved Kirehe District as the plaintiff against SAHAM Assurance Rwanda Ltd, now known as SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc, the heirs of GATASHYA Ezra, and others, paragraph 37.

## Page 561

165 SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA to exclude SANLAM from liability for the damages claimed. 2. Regarding the fact that Bizimana Védaste was the actual cause of the accident in which he was injured

Article 2 of Law n0 41/2001 of 19/09/2001 relating to compensation for persons injured in motor vehicle accidents provides as follows : "The damages referred to in articles 4 to 10 of this Law shall be reduced in proportion to the degree of fault of the injured party in the accident. The injured party’s fault, excludes his/her rights to damages or those with rightful to his/her properties”.

Regarding the insured, as previously explained, the law stipulates that the type of fault not covered by insurance is one committed intentionally, that is, a fault committed with the intent to cause harm. In contrast, with respect to the injured party, the law provides that their own fault may prevent them from receiving compensation. The key issue, therefore, is whether any form of fault committed by the injured party should result in a total denial of compensation. If that were the case, the first sentence of Article 2 of the aforementioned law, which states that compensation awarded to the injured party is to be reduced in proportion to their contribution to the accident, would be rendered meaningless. This sentence clearly implies that certain faults committed by the injured party may still entitle them to partial compensation, depending on the degree of their contribution to the accident. To resolve this question, the Court finds it necessary to examine comparative legal frameworks and jurisprudence from other countries that address similar issues, as well as the legal interpretations applied to such provisions.

## Page 562

166 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

In the United States of America, the applicable laws vary from one state to another. In some states, any fault of injured party of the accident bars them from receiving compensation (contributory negligence system). In other states, the injured party’s fault leads to a reduction of compensation in proportion of his/her contribution to the accident19. This latter approach is further divided into two (2) categories: one where the injured party receives compensation proportionate to their share of fault, except when their fault amounts to 100% (pure comparative fault system); and another where compensation is awarded proportionally, except when the injured party’s fault is equal to or greater than that of the party who caused the harm (modified comparative fault system) 20.

19 All but one of the states has chosen one of the following three approaches for victims who were partly at fault for their injuries: - Contributory negligence: the plaintiff cannot recover damages if they were at fault to any degree; - Pure comparative negligence: the plaintiff can recover damages reduced by their percentage of fault - Modified comparative negligence: the plaintiff can recover damages reduced by their percentage of fault if their fault is not 50 or 51 percent (varies by state) or greater; Justia Personal Injury Law Center Proving Fault and Damages in Personal Injury Lawsuits, Comparative & Contributory Negligence Laws: 50-State Survey, accessed on 16/12/2024, accessed on 16/12/2024, https://www.justia.com/injury/negligence-theory/comparative- contributory- negligence-laws-50-state-survey/. 20 In a pure comparative fault system, the plaintiff will not be barred from recovery unless the plaintiff is 100 percent at fault, but the plaintiff’s recovery will be reduced by her percentage of fault. In a modified comparative fault jurisdiction, the plaintiff may be barred from recovery if the plaintiff’s fault is equal to or greater than the fault of the defendant, or in some jurisdictions, only where the plaintiff’s fault is greater than the defendant’s fault; Steenson Mike, Minnesota Comparative Fault—Statutory Reform, Journal of law and practice, vol.9, art. 4, 2016, p.7, http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/lawandpractice/vol9/iss1/4.

## Page 563

167 SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA

In the State of Alaska, the injured party’s fault leads to a reduction in the compensation awarded in proportion to his/her contribution, but it does not bar him/her from receiving compensation21. The same applies in the State of California22. In the State of Minnesota, the injured party’s fault also results in a reduction of compensation in proportion to his/her degree of fault; however, if their degree of fault exceeds 50%, they are not entitled to any compensation. Additionally, no compensation is awarded if the injured party intentionally caused the harm23. The same

21 “In an action based on fault seeking to recover damages for injury or death to a person or harm to property, contributory fault chargeable to the claimant diminishes proportionately the amount awarded as compensatory damages for the injury attributable to the claimant's contributory fault, but does not bar recover”; Alaska Statutes, § 09.17.060 (2023) - Effect of contributory fault US Codes and Statutes US Law

Justia, accessed on 16/12/2024, https://law.justia.com/codes/alaska/title-9/chapter-17/section-09-17- 060/; https://law.justia.com/codes/alaska/title-9/chapter-17/section-09- 17-060/. 22 California follows the pure comparative negligence rule. You can recover damages in cases even if you are partially at fault. If you and the defendant are found negligent, the jury assigns a percentage of fault to each party. The total compensation awarded to you is reduced by your percentage of fault. If you are 99% at fault, you can still receive 1% of the total-case value; Cutter Law P.C., What Is California's Comparative Negligence Law?, accessed on 16/12/2024, https://cutterlaw.com/california- laws/comparativenegligence/#:~:text=California%20follows%20the%2 0pure%20comparative,by%20your%20percentage%20of%20fault. 23 “When two or more persons are severally liable, contributions to awards shall be in proportion to the percentage of fault attributable to each, except that the following persons are jointly and severally liable for the whole award: (1) a person whose fault is greater than 50 percent; (2) two or more persons who act in a common scheme or plan that results in injury; (3) a person who commits an intentional tort;

## Page 564

168 RWANDA LAW REPORTS rule applies in the State of Arizona nad Minesota, no compensation is awarded in case the injured party intentionally caused the damage24.

In France, Act no 85-677 aiming at the improvement of the position of the victims of traffic accidents and the acceleration of compensation procedures, p article 3 (paragraphs 1 and 3), stipulates that victims excluding drivers of motor vehicles are entitled to compensation regardless of any fault they may have committed, except in two circumstances: when they have committed an inexcusable fault that is the sole cause of the accident; and when they deliberately sought for the risk that caused them harm25. In a judgment decided by the Court of Cassation of

[…]”; Minnesota Statutes, & 604.02 (2024)- apportionment of damages, Official Publication of the State of Minnesota, accessed on 16/12/2024, https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/2024/2024-11- 01%2021:08:20+00:00/cite/604.02/pdf. 24 “There is no right to comparative negligence in favor of any claimant who has intentionally, wilfully or wantonly caused or contributed to the injury or wrongful death”; Arizona Revised Statutes, § 12-2505 (2023)- comparative negligence US Codes and Statutes US Law Justia, accessed on 16/12/2024, https://law.justia.com/codes/arizona/title- 12/section-12-2505/. 25 Article 3 de la Loi No 85-677 du 05/07/1985: “Les victimes, hormis les conducteurs de véhicules terrestres à moteur, sont indemnisées des dommages résultant des atteintes à leur personne qu'elles ont subis, sans que puisse leur être opposée leur propre faute à l'exception de leur faute inexcusable si elle a été la cause exclusive de l'accident. Les victimes désignées à l'alinéa précédent, lorsqu'elles sont âgées de moins de seize ans ou de plus de soixante-dix ans, ou lorsque, quel que soit leur âge, elles sont titulaires, au moment de l'accident, d'un titre leur reconnaissant un taux d'incapacité permanente ou d'invalidité au moins égal à 80 p. 100, sont, dans tous les cas, indemnisées des dommages résultant des atteintes à leur personne qu'elles ont subis. Toutefois, dans les cas visés aux deux alinéas précédents, la victime n'est pas indemnisée par l'auteur de l'accident des dommages résultant des atteintes à sa personne lorsqu'elle a volontairement recherché le dommage qu'elle a subi”.

## Page 565

169 SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA that country on 28/03/2019, the Court explained that an inexcusable fault is the one that is committed intentionally and having particular gravity, and exposes the person who committed it to serious danger which they should have foreseen.26.

In the Kingdom of Belgium, victims who were not drivers are entitled to compensation, except for individuals over the age of 14 who deliberately sought for the risk that caused them harm.27.

What the above interpretations have in common is that the fault which prevents a victim from receiving damages is either one that was the sole cause of the accident (i.e., contributing 100% to the occurrence of the accident), or a fault committed deliberately by the victim with the intent of causing self-harm. The Court finds that this is the appropriate interpretation to be given to the second sentence of article 2 of Law n0 41/2001 of 19/09/2001 relating to

26 “Seule est inexcusable au sens de ce texte [L. n° 85-677, 5 juill. 1985, art. 3] la faute volontaire d’une exceptionnelle gravité exposant sans raison valable son auteur à un danger dont il aurait dû avoir conscience »; Cour de Cassation, Civile, Chambre civile 2, 28 mars 2019, 18-14.125 18-15.855, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000038373269. 27 Article 29 bis de la La loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire des véhicules Automoteurs tel que modifiée à ce jour, para 1 et 6: “§ 1er. En cas d'accident de la circulation impliquant un ou plusieurs véhicules automoteurs, aux endroits visés à l'article 2, § 1er, alinéa1er, et à l'exception des dégâts matériels et des dommages subis par le conducteur de chaque véhicule automoteur impliqué, tous les dommages subis par les victimes et leurs ayants droit et résultant de lésions corporelles ou du décès, y compris les dégâts aux vêtements, sont réparés solidairement par les assureurs qui, conformément à la présente loi, couvrent la responsabilité du propriétaire, du conducteur ou du détenteur des véhicules automoteurs. & 6: Les victimes âgées de plus de 14 ans qui ont voulu l'accident et ses conséquences ne peuvent se prévaloir des dispositions visées à l'alinéa 1er”.

## Page 566

170 RWANDA LAW REPORTS compensation for persons injured in motor vehicles accidents.

With regard to the case at hand, the person called Ndayishimiye Béatrice (the sister-in-law of Bizimana Védaste), who reported the claim to the Police on behalf of the person who had the accident, told the Investigator that Bizimana Védaste requested the driver of vehicle RAE 890 E for a lift, and when he reached his destination, he knocked to signal the driver to stop, but the driver did not hear him. As a result, he got out while the vehicle was still moving, and one of the rear wheels ran over his leg, causing a fracture. Nsabimana Lambert, who was present at the scene of the accident, told the Investigator that the accident was caused by the fact that Bizimana Védaste got out of the moving vehicle, as well as the driver’s failure to stop so that he could get out safely.

In the accident report dated 24/01/2021, the Investigator concluded that the accident was caused by the recklessness of the driver, Habimana Daniel. This conclusion was based on the fact that the road layout was clear and provided the driver with sufficient visibility both ahead and behind; the driver was prohibited from transporting passengers in the rear compartment of a vehicle loaded with goods; and every motor vehicle is required to be equipped with at least one rear-view mirror designed to enable the driver to monitor activity behind and to the left side of the road.

The Court, after comparing the witnesses’ testimonies with the contents of the Investigator’s report, finds that Bizimana Védaste contributed to the accident in which he was injured, as he committed the fault of getting out of a moving vehicle. However, the Court finds that this fault was not the sole cause of the accident, as the driver of the vehicle also bore some responsibility. The Court also

## Page 567

171 SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA finds that, although Bizimana Védaste behaved in that manner, he did not deliberately intend the harm he suffered.

Based on the above explanations, the Court finds that Bizimana Védaste did not commit a fault that would exclude him from receiving damages, as provided for in the second sentence of article 2 of Law n0 41/2001 of 19/09/2001 mentioned above. Conclusion :

Based on the legal provisions mentioned and all the above explanations, the Court finds that SANLAM should be held liable for the damages resulting from the accident in which Bizimana Védaste was injured. 3. Whether any damages should be awarded in this case

SANLAM argues that since the accident in which Bizimana Védaste was injured was caused by his own faults namely, agreeing to be transported in the rear box of the vehicle designated for the cargo and jumping off while it was still moving, it is evident that he dragged this insurance company into unnecessary lawsuits. Therefore, SANLAM requests that he should be ordered to pay 1,000,000 Frw as damages for being dragged into unnecessary lawsuits; and 3,000,000 Frw for counsel and procedural fees, consisting of 2,400,000 Frw as counsel’s fees for representation before three court levels (800,000 RWF for the Intermediate Court, 800,000 Frw for the High Court, and 800,000 RWF for the Supreme Court), and 600,000 Frw for procedural fees across the three court levels (200,000 RWF for the Intermediate Court, 200,000 RWF for the High Court and 200,000 RWF for the Supreme Court).

Bizimana Védaste argues that the case under review clearly establishes SANLAM’s role as the insurer of the

## Page 568

172 RWANDA LAW REPORTS vehicle that struck him, and that the court thoroughly examined the precedents cited by SANLAM, demonstrating that they differ in nature from the present case. Therefore, he contends that he should not be held liable for any damages, as he was not the cause of the incident. He requests that SANLAM be ordered to pay him 1,000,000 Frw in moral damages, 500,000 Frw in counsel’s fees, and 500,000 Frw in procedural costs. DETERMINATION OF COURT

The Court finds that the damages requested by SANLAM should not be granted because it lost the case. This very court further finds that the procedural and counsel’s fees requested by Bizimana Védaste should be awarded, because it was necessary for him to pursue the case and hire a lawyer, however the amount requested is excessive, and upon the court’s discretion, he is entitled to 300,000 Frw for the procedural fees and 500,000 Frw for counsel's fees. Regarding moral damages requested by Bizimana Védaste, the Court finds that they should not be considered as he is not the one who applied for the review of the case on grounds of injustice. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Declares the application filed by SANLAM AG Plc for a review on grounds of injustice of judgment n0 RCA 00050/2022/HC/RSZ rendered by the High Court, Rusizi Chamber on 26/07/2023, unfounded ;

Holds that the judgment n0 RCA 00050/2022/HC/RSZ rendered by the High Court, Rusizi Chamber on 26/07/2023, is sustained ;

## Page 569

173 SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA

Orders SANLAM AG Plc to pay Bizimana Védaste 300,000 Frw for the procedural fees and 500,000 Frw for counsel's fees.

## Page 570

174 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 571

175 MUKAKALISA ET.AL v SONARWA ET.AL (ADD)

MUKAKALISA ET.AL v SONARWA ET.AL (ADD) [Rwanda SUPREME COURT-RS/INJUST/RC 00009/2024/SC (Hitiyaremye, P.J., Muhumuza, Kazungu, J.) 22 November 2024] Laws governing the civil procedure- Insurance coverage for accidents –Road accidents- Amicable settlement - An amicable settlement is an agreement by which involved parties agree on ending an existing or potential dispute whereby each party makes some concessions, and it is made in accordance with the law governing contracts. When it is entered into by the unentitled person or by a mandated person acting beyond the scope of his/her mandate, the act is deemed non-existent. Laws governing the civil procedure- Mandate – Mandate for renunciation- The mandate for renunciation, mortgaging an immovable property, or for carrying out any other act that is exclusively reserved to the rightful owner of the property, must be explicit. Laws governing the civil procedure –Mandate- General mandate- The mandator who generally assigns to the mandatary the duty to carry out the transaction that he/she will deem appropriate, or who simply assigns the mandatary the duty to carry out the transaction that he/she would have been able to perform personally, gives a general mandate; and such a mandate is solely limited to managerial duties. Facts : This case originates from the road accident that occurred on 24 January 2024 when Nshimyumuremyi was hit by the car insured by SONARWA General Insurance and died on the spot. Mukakalisa, the victim’s mother, together with 4 victim’s siblings gave Karonkano a mandate to 175

## Page 572

176 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

follow up their claim for compensation before SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd. Mukakalisa received 375,000 FRW for damages on her Bank account and she was told that the remaining amount will soon be deposited but she waited in vain. The claimants filed a compensation case before the Intermediate Court of Karongi suing the insurer alongside with Karonkano alleging that the duo cheated them by not alloting them appropriate compensation but the claim was declared inadmissible due to prescription coupled with a prior amicable settlement. The claimants appealed against the judgment before the High Court, and the latter held that the case be sent back to the Intermediate Court of Karongi. That court held that there had been an amicable settlement agreement between the claimants and the insurer. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the claimants appealed against it before the High Court which also held that there had been an amicable settlement agreement. Mukakalisa and her co-claimants applied for review of the judgment on grounds of injustice and the case was sent to the Supreme Court which examined whether there had been an amicable settlement agreement between Mukakalisa and her children and SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd. The claimants alleged that they never received all the damages as provided for by the law and ther never endorsed the amicable settlement agreement and never agreed on the damages to be allocated to them. They went on and alleged that Karonkano, their mandatary, acted fraudulently, and renounced some damages which made them end up getting less damages, and they insisted that all what he did beyond the scope of his mandate be invalidated. SONARWA General Insurance alleges that there was an amicable settlement agreement and they paid out the

## Page 573

177 MUKAKALISA ET.AL v SONARWA ET.AL (ADD)

damages agreed upon whereas Karonkano alleges that he was given the mandate mandated by the claimants to follow up compensation, and upon his arrival at the premises of SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd., he was told that the damages to be paid amount to 357,000 FRW and that they had been computed in accordance with the law. Held: 1. An amicable settlement is an agreement by which involved parties agree on ending an existing or potential dispute whereby each party makes some concessions, and it is made in accordance with the law governing contracts. When it is entered into by the unentitled person or by a mandated person acting beyond the scope of his/her mandate, the act is deemed null and void. 2. The mandate for renunciation, mortgaging an immovable property, or any other act that is exclusively reserved to the rightful owner of the property, must be explicit. 3. The mandator who generally assigns to the mandatary the duty to carry out an act that he/she will deem appropriate, or who simply assigns the mandatary the duty to carry out an act that he/she would have been able to perform personally, gives a general mandate; and such a mandate is solely limited to managerial duties. 4. An amicable settlement agreement entered into by a person who is not fully entitled or when acts were carried out by an untitled person, acting beyond the scope of the mandate, is deemed non-existent. The application for review on grounds of injustice has merit; There was no amicable settlement agreement. Statutes referred to:

## Page 574

178 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Presidential Order N0 31/01 of 28/08/2003 on compensation for body injuries due to accidents caused by motor vehicles, articles 11, 12, and 23 No cases were referred to Legal writings referred to: Loic CADIET « Dictionnaire de la Justice », Paris, 2004, verbo Transaction. Encyclopédie de droit civil belge, code civil, I, Tome VI, articles 1915 à 2281, p.103, N°4 al.3, par Gustave BELTJENS, Bruxelles, Etablissement Emile Bruylant, 1907; François LAURENT, Principes de droit civil, Bruxelles, Bruylant – Christophe et cie., 1877, p.486-487, N° 434. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

On 24/01/2010, a car with plate number GR 466 C insured by SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd. hit Nshimyumuremyi François to death

Mukakalisa Alphonsine, the victim’s mother, together with 4 victim’s siblings namely Musabyimana Vestine, Nyiraneza Rosine, Nyiranzabandora Aline, and Nyiransabimana Dorothée, all assisted by Karonkano Etienne1, requested SONARWA General Insurance

1 The claimants’ mandatary before SONARWA, Mukakalisa Alphonsine’s uncle.

## Page 575

179 MUKAKALISA ET.AL v SONARWA ET.AL (ADD)

Company Ltd. for the accident-related damages, on 23/10/2010, SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd. deposited 357,000 FRW on Mukakalisa Alphonsine’s bank account in BPR Bank.

Mukakalisa Alphonsine alleges that when the above amount got deposited on her bank account, she asked Karankono Etienne why SONARWA General Insurance allotted them a small amount of damages, and the latter replied that more money was yet to be deposited, and she kept waiting.

Having realized that she did not receive the remaining money and that the amount paid out was very little, on the 09/11/ 2020 she hired a lawyer and she sued SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd. together with Karonkano Etienne before the Intermidate Court of Karongi, and she accused them of fraud in compensation related payment, and she prayed the court to order SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd. to allot the damages computed in conformity with the law governing this issue; while with regard to Karonkano Etienne, she requested the court to order him to refund 180,000 Rwf for advocate fee (and the case was registered under No RC 0071/2020/TGI/KNG).

The defendants contended thatthe claim should not be admitted because there had been an amicable settlement agreement coupled with the prescription, since it was filed five (5) years later the accident2.

2 Article 4 of the Law n0 01/2002 of 17/01/2002 modifying and completing the Law n0 20/75 of 20 June 1975 governing General Insurance provides that “the prescriptive period for filing all insurance- related claims is five (5) years”

## Page 576

180 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

On 28/10/2020, the Intermediate Court of Karongi rendered the judgment holding that the case is not admitted due to prescription and the fact that both parties settled their dispute through amicable settlement.

Mukakalisa and her children appealed against the judgment before the High Court, Detached Chamber of Rusizi, and alleged that there was no amicable settlement and the case was registered under RCA 00054/2021/HC/RSZ.

On 29/06/2022, the High Court, Detached Chamber of Rusizi rendered a judgment and held that the appeal is admitted and overturned the appealed judgment, and ordered that the case be sent back to the Intermediate Court of Karongi for the hearing on the merits. The court explained that the Intermediate Court disregarded the evidence adduced by the claimants proving that that there was no legally accepted amicable settlement agreement, and that therefore there was no prescription of their claim.

The Intermediate Court of Karongi received back the case file, and registered it under RC 00047/2022/TGI/KNG, and rendered the judgment on 21/12/2022, and held again that there was an amicable settlement of the dispute despite lack of supporting document and concluded that the hearing on the merits was not appropriate.

Again, Mukakalisa and her co-claimants appealed against the judgment before the High Court, Detached Chamber of Rusizi and the case was registered under RCA 00001/2023/HC/RSZ. On 16/10/2023, the court held that the parties settled their dispute through amicable settlement, “even though the amicable settlement agreement has a peculiar format and it is not included in the case file”, and confirmed the judgment of the case RC 00047/2022/TGI/KNG.

## Page 577

181 MUKAKALISA ET.AL v SONARWA ET.AL (ADD)

Mukakalisa and her children were not satisfied with that judgment and they wrote to the President of the Court of Appeal requesting that the judgment No RCA 00001/2023/HC/RSZ rendered by the High Court, Detached Chamber of Rusizi on 16/10/2023 be reviewed on grounds of injustice. After examining the application, the President of the Court of Appeal wrote to the President of the Supreme Court requesting that the judgment be reviewed on grouds of injustice.

After analysis of the report ad hoc, the President of the Supreme Court ordered that the case be heard by the Supreme Court, and the case was registered under RS/INJUST/RC 0009/2024/SC.

In their submissions, Mukakalisa and her children allege that the injustice they were subjected to resides into a blatant violation of the law whereby the court declined to rely on articles 11, 21, 22, and 23 of the Presidential Order of 25/08/2003 on compensation for body injury due to accidents caused by motor vehicles ( in this case, we will be using the term “Presidential Order”), yet, had the court considered the above mentioned articles, it would have found that the requirements for an amicable settlement agreement were not observed, therefore, there had been no amicable settlement of the dispute between the claimants and SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd., and allege that their mandatary did not fulfill his mandate, thus, in the course of the payment of the damages, the defendants acted fraudulently.

The case was heard in public on 14/10/2024, Mukakalisa Alphonsine, Musabyimana Valentine, Nyiraneza Rosine, Nyiranzabandora Aline and Nyiransabimana Dorothée being represented by Counsel Nsengiyumva Eugène, while SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd was represented by Counsel

## Page 578

182 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Bagomora Charles whereas Karonkano Etienne was assisted by Counsel Ruganza Bin Seba, and the court first examined whether there had been an amicable settlement of the dispute between SONARWA General Insurance and Mukakalisa and her children. II. LEGAL ISSUE AND ANALYSIS THEREOF Whether there had been an amicable settlemet agreement between Mukakalisa and her children and SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd.

To answer this question, Counsel Nsengiyumva Eugène representing Mukakalisa and her children refers to article 11 of the above mentioned Presidential Order which provides that “when the insurer has received all the documents mentioned in the previous article3 justifying the legitimacy of the request for compensation, they shall, within a period of thirty days, submit to the victim a written proposal for comprehensive payment modalities which also indicates the figures related to the compensation”

He goes on and alleges that the payment modalities mentioned as per this provision, is a written document made between the insurer and the claimant, and signed by both parties in case they reach an agreement. He alleges that in

3 Article 10: “In case of death of the victim, the legal claimants must as soon as possible bring to the Insurer, the complete compensation file that includes notably: the official police report of the accident, a death certificate issued by a registered doctor or a death certificate issued by a relevant authority, birth certificates of the victim and of his legal claimants, a full proof of identity of the victim and of his legal claimants, life certificates of the legal claimants, a marriage certificate of the surviving spouse.

## Page 579

183 MUKAKALISA ET.AL v SONARWA ET.AL (ADD)

this case file, such a procedure was not observed since his clients neither saw nor were given this document.

He went ahead and argued that even before the previous courts, the document was not showed, especially before the High Court, Detached Chamber of Rusizi, when it rendered the judgment on review on grounds of injustice because it really stated that “ a mere fact that SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd. never showed the agreement deed is not enough to prove the existence of fraud”4;

He also added that the fact it is the first time that the document is showed before the Supreme Court, it denotes that the previous court decided the case with no single evidence proving that parties entered into an amicble settlement agreement, that this evidence should not be examined at this level because it was not debated before any of the previous courts. He stressed that article 11 of the Presidential Order was infringed, and it is therefore clear that no amicable sttelemnt was entered into.

In respect of Karonkano Etienne, Counsel Nsengiyumva Eugène recalled article 70 of the Law n0 45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts on which his clients relied on to sue him, the article provides that “each party has an obligation of performing the contract in good faith and fair dealing between the parties”. He went on and explained that the court held that Karonkano did not play any part in the fraud he is accused of, yet he presented no evidence proving that he had given them the amicable settlement document. He concludes by adding that Karonkano’s conduct on his contractual mandate contradicts the provisions of the above mentioned article, therefore, it s

4 See case RCA 000/2023/HC/RSZ, page 6, paragraph 22.

## Page 580

184 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

appropriate for the court to holf that Karonkano played a big role in the scam they were subjected to.

Counsel Bagomora Charles representing SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd. alleges that parties reached an amicable settlement on 28/05/2010, and the claimants received the the amount agreed upon, that he realizes that SONARWA General Insurance complied with the requirements of article 9 (3) of the Presidential Order5, thus, the previous courts did not err since they based their decisions on the testimony by Karonkano Etienne, the claimants’ mandatary, who testified to have handed in the document of the amicable settlement agreement to the claimants.

He explains that it is not easy to find out the case file because it was closed by an agreement ; but since the claimants kept elongating lawsuits, and denying the existence of amicable settlement agreement, SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd. set up an ad hoc taskforce to search for it and, when it got found it was submitted as an evidence for the amicable settlement agreement. He concluded by requesting the court to find that the grounds for the alleged injustice are now different from the currently submitted evidence.

Karonkano Etienne, assisted by Counsel Ruganza Bin Seba, alleges that he was given mandate to follow up compensation for Mukakalisa Alphonsine and her children

5 Paragraph 3 of article 9 of the Presidential Order n0 31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for body injuries due to accidents caused by motor vehicles provides that “in case of parties’ agreement to settle the compensation, the involved parties shall irrevocably be bound by the settlement agreement”

## Page 581

185 MUKAKALISA ET.AL v SONARWA ET.AL (ADD)

before SONARWA General Insurance Company. He went on and alleged that he had entered into an amicable settlement with SONARWA, and the latter accepted to pay 357,000 Rwf, the amount was deposited on the mandators’ bank account.

He alleges that by the time he went to SONARWA’s office, he did not prepare any calculations, rather, it is SONARWA which made them and told him that the calculations were effected in conformity with the law, that it must pay out the damages amounting to 357,000 Rwf, and would resort to court system in case of disagreement. He added that he had informed the mandators of the agreement and they hand endorsed it after receiving the documents that were used during the negotiations, and it is the very documents they used for withdrawing the money that SONARWA had allotted them even though he has no evidence since the whole mandate was fulfilled within the family confidentiality. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 12 of the Presidential Order n0 31/01/ of 25/08/2003 on compensation for body injuries due to accidents caused by motor vehicles provides that “within a period of thirty days from the receipt of the proposal for payment made by the insurer, the legal claimants shall state clearly their position. Where the position of the legal claimants is not made known by this period, their approval of the proposal shall be presumed. In case of disagreement on the proposal for payment, the insurer’s proposal shall not be considered. In case of the parties’ agreement on compensation payment, the involved parties shall be irrevocably bound by the payment of that money”

## Page 582

186 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Article 11 of the above mentioned Presidential Order which provides that “when the Insurer has received all the documents referred to in the previous article6 justifying the legitimacy of the request for compensation, they shall, within a period of thirty days, submit to the victim a written proposal for claim settlement, and the proposal must be substantiated and must include all calculations related to the compensation”. The French language version goes as follows : “Dès que l’assureur a réceptionné tous les documents cités à l’article précédent et justifiant le bien fondé de sa demande d’indemnisation, il transmet à la victime, endéans trente jours, une propostion de règlement motivée et chiffrée relative à l’indemnisation. »

Article 23 of the Presidential Order provides that “in case of death of the victim, the compensation for loss of affection shall only be allotted to persons listed below and within the limits provided for by this Order: the victim’s spouse: 1 x the guaranteed annual minimum wage; the victim’s parents and legitimate or recognized children: 0.75x the guaranteed annual minimum wage; the victim’s siblings: 0.5x the guaranteed annual minimum wage”

The court finds that as per the proposal for amicable settlement (proprosition de transaction), there is no average annual minimum wage, neither did it contain any referential rate for computing the compensation amount, and the second page of the proposal, especially the section reserved for parties ” any other observations”7, contained no

6 See the above mentioned note 3. 7 This is the section that would have clarified about Karonkono Etienne’s compensation request before SONARWA General Insurance Company, the SONARWA’s accepted amount and accompanying justifications, reasons for not honoring income loss compensations and related clarifications, and this section could have served for adding some related

## Page 583

187 MUKAKALISA ET.AL v SONARWA ET.AL (ADD)

commentary neither from the side of the plaintiffs, nor from the insurance officer. The court also finds that the proposal for amicable settlement featured three victim’s siblings instead of four as they appear in the case file; all the above listed flaws indicate that the proposal for amicable settlement was not legally conceived for due validity.

Legal scholars argue that an amicable settlement is an agreement by which the involved parties agree on ending an existing or potential dispute whereby each party makes some concessions. “La transaction est un contrat par lequel les parties terminent une contestation née, ou préviennent une contestation à naître, en s’accordant des concessions réciproques8 »

In their book, legal scholars went on to explain that an amicable settlement must comply with general rules governing contracts for the amicable settlement to be valid.

They went on and explained that an amicable settlement agreement is naturally consensual, that it requires making concessions, that the parties must be in position to make concessions, which denotes that the parties must have the required capacity (the right to dispose the concerned rights). Besides, due to the nature of such an agreement, a mandatary who was given a general mandate cannot validly enter into it on the behalf of the his/her mandator.

Furthermore, those scholars add that due to the fact that an amicable settlement is a crtitical agreement owing to the involved concessions, it is worth being careful to make

Supreme Court precedents, if any, etc. Actually, anything to do with more details on the transacted agreement needed elaboration under this section. 8 Loic CADIET « Dictionnaire de la Justice », Paris, 2004, verbo Transaction

## Page 584

188 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

sure that what the contracting parties agreed upon is clear. They conclude by alleging that, just like in any other contracts, in amicable settlement agreement, the parties must make an agreement that is valid and clear9.

With regard to the mandate given to Karonkano Etienne10, the court found that it was written in the following terms: “ I, Mukakalisa Alphonsine, Nshyimyumuremyi François’ mother, do hereby give the mandate Karonkano Etienne to follow up our compensation resulting from the car accident in which the ONATRACOM bus claimed the life of Nshimyumuremyi François”

The court finds that, from a legal perspective, this type of mandate concerns managerial duties (administration duties), and it does not encompass disposal rights (renunciation). The mandate consisting of renunciation, mortgaging an immovable property, or any

9 « La transaction étant un contrat, elle est soumise au droit commun des contrats pour ce qui relève de sa validité […]. La transaction est donc en principe un contrat consensuel. Il reste que le contrat de transaction est un acte de disposition puisqu’il consacre la renonciation à un droit. Par conséquent, celui qui renonce doit jouir de la capacité et du pouvoir de disposer des droits concernés […] De surcroît, son caractère d’acte de disposition empêche qu’un mandataire n’ayant reçu qu’un mandat général, puisse valablement contracter une transaction pour le compte de son mandant. Etant un acte de disposition, la transaction est un acte grave, et il faut s’assurer de la réalité du consentement de ceux qui la concluent. Comme toute convention, la transaction implique que les parties aient échangé un consentement valable et éclairé », op.cit. supra note 8. 10 A certain document that was handed to Karonkano Etienne with the title “POWER OF ATTORNEY”, but in legal language, it is normally refered to as “MANDATE”. This is a terminology that is found under article 529 of civil Code book III Kinyarwanda version, extractable from book “Codes et lois usuelles du Rwanda. Vol. II, authored by Gakwaya Jean, Gasasira Ephrem et alii.

## Page 585

189 MUKAKALISA ET.AL v SONARWA ET.AL (ADD)

other act that is exclusively reserved for the rightful owner of the property must be explicit11.

Legal scholars argue that the mandator who generally assigns to the mandatary the duty to carry out what he/she deems appropriate, or who simply assigns him/her the duty to fulfil what is in his/her interest, or to perfom the duties that the mandatory would have been able to fulfil, gives a general mandate; and such a mandate is solely limited to managerial duties12.

Looking at the wording of the mandate given to hat Karonkano Etienne, it contains two major terms, and those are “ following up the accident […] to get compensation” This denotes that he was given the mandate to contact SONARWA General Insurance Company and learn about the compensation-related requirements (administrative documents), to get information about the damages he would accept without resorting to court proceedings, etc…, all these duties fall under managerial acts, while an amicable settlement requires explicit mandate as it has been explained above ( special mandate).

With regard to the mandate related to amicable settlement, legal scholars question the validity of an agreement made by an unentitled person (with sufficient

11 Article 1988 Code civil Français, édition 2008, Dalloz: « Le mandat conçu en termes généraux n’embrasse que les actes d’administration. S’il s’agit d’aliéner ou hypothéquer, ou de quelque autre acte de propriété, le mandat doit être exprès ». 12 « Celui qui donne à son mandataire de faire tout ce qu’il jugera convenable pour ses intérêts, ou pouvoir de faire tous les actes qu’il pourrait faire lui-même, donne un mandat conçu en termes généraux; ce mandat ne comprendra que les actes d’admnistration » (Encyclopédie de droit civil belge, code civil, I, Tome VI, articles 1915 à 2281, p.103, n°4 al.3, par Gustave BELTJENS, Bruxelles, Etablissement Emile Bruylant, 1907).

## Page 586

190 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

authority) or the validity of the acts accomplished by the mandatary beyond the scope of his/her rights. They argue that such acts are considered non-existent because there is no mandator’s consent (non-existence due to the lack of the mandator’s consent). For such an agreement, the mandatary acts in the name of the mandator, but the mandatory is not entitled to represent the mandator as long as he/she (tha mandatary) acts beyond the scope of the mandate. This means that the mandatory is not represented; which entails that there is no mandator’s consent, hence the agreement is non-existent 13.

With regard to this case, during the hearing, Karonkano Etienne explained that he did not take any amount proposal to SONARWA ; that it was rather SONARWA that presented the amount of money alleging that it was a legally computed amount. This is corroborated by Counsel BAGOMORA Charles, SONARWA’s advocate, who submitted that the claimants did not make any amount proposal through their mandatary, and that the mandatary could not make any amount proposal because he is not a lawyer ; however, Counsel Bagomora Charles

13 « Quel serait l’effet d’une transaction faite sans pouvoir suffisant ? La question doit être généralisée, et l’on doit se demander quel est l’effet de tout acte qu’un mandataire a fait en excédant ses pouvoirs. L’article 1998 dit que le mandant n’est pas tenu de ce que le mandataire a fait au-delà de son pouvoir, et l’article 1997 décide que le mandataire n’est tenu d’aucune garantie envers celui avec lequel il a traité s’il lui a donné connaissance suffisante de ses pouvoirs. […] l’acte fait par le mandataire sans pouvoir est-il nul à l’égard de toutes les parties, ou le mandant seul peut-il se prévaloir de la nullité ? A nontre avis, il y a plus que nullité, l’acte est inexistant faute de consentement. En effet, le mandataire y a figuré au nom du mandant ; or, il n’a aucune qualité pour le représenter en dehors des limites de son pouvoir ; donc, quand il dépasse ces limites, le mandant n’est plus représenté, il ne consent pas ; par suite il y a absence de consentement, ce qui entraîne l’inexistence du contrat même. » (François LAURENT, Principes de droit civil, Bruxelles, Bruylant – Christophe et cie., 1877, p.486-487, N° 434).

## Page 587

191 MUKAKALISA ET.AL v SONARWA ET.AL (ADD)

admits that the involved parties held talks whereby each made some concessions. Nevertheless, the court finds that there is no evidence substantiating those talks and the concessions of each party, yet such concessions are part of the essence of amicable settlement as explained above by the legals scholars.

Looking at Karonkano Etienne’s little technical and legal knowledge in matters pertaining to compensation for body injuries resulting from the accidents caused by motor vehicles just as SONARWA’s attorney himself asserted it, the court finds that by the time of approving and signing the final amount proposal, SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd. should have invited Mukakalisa Alphonsine to come around and sign in person or else produce a special document certifying that she saw the amicable settlement proposal and that she agrees to receive the proposed amount of 357,000 Rwf as provided for by article 12 of the aforementioned Presidential Order. Such a procedure would have been enough to prove valid and clear consent mentioned above by aforementioned legal scholars (valid and clear consent of the parties).

The court reminds that in this case file, SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd paid out the damages amounting to 357,000 FRW for an accident that claimed the life a 21-year-old person. Based onPresidential Order in its aforementioned provisions together with the explanations from the legal scholars, it is clear that this amount of damages is too little, almost non-existent ; and indeed, SONARWA made no concessions at all. Such an observation is corroborated by legal scholars who argued that there is no amicable settlement as long as there is a party which accepts to renounce its rights in exchange of a derisory, or seemingly non-existent cost.

## Page 588

192 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Based on all the above provided explanations, the court finds that the amicable settlement agreement of 28/05/2010 between SONARWA General Insurance Company and Karonkano Etienne cannot be upheld as an amicable settlement agreement between SONARWA and Mukakalisa Alphonsine, Musabyimana Valentine, Nyiraneza Rosine, Nyiranzabandora Aline and Nyaransabimana Dorothée, as for them, such an agreement never existed.

The hearing of this case will proceed with a claim on compensation resulting from the road accident which Mukakalisa Alphonsine, Musabyimana Valentine, Nyiraneza Rosine, Nyiranzabandora Aline and Nyiransabimana Dorothée requested for before the Intermediate Court of Karongi, and that is when the issue of the damages requested for in this case, shall be examined. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the case filed by Mukakalisa Alphonsine, Musabyimana Valentine, Nyiraneza Rosine, Nyiranzabandora Aline and Nyiransabimana Dorothée applying for review on grounds of injustice of the judgment RCA 00001/2023/HC/RSZ rendered by the High Court, Detached Chamber of Rusizi on 16/10/2023 has merit ;

Holds that there was no amicable settlement agreement between the claimants, Mukakalisa Alphonsine, Musabyimana Valentine, Nyiraneza Rosine, Nyiranzabandora Aline and Nyiransabimana Dorothée and SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd;

Holds that the hearing of the case shall proceed with examining the issue of damages resulting from the road

## Page 589

193 MUKAKALISA ET.AL v SONARWA ET.AL (ADD)

accident that were requested for before the Intermediate Court of Karongi; Rules that the hearing shall resume on 07/01/ 2025 at 9:00 AM

## Page 590

194 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 591

195 MUKAKALISA ET AL. v SONARWA ET .AL (Fond)

MUKAKALISA ET AL. v SONARWA ET .AL (Fond) [Rwanda SUPREME COURT- RS/INJUST/RC 00009/2024/SC (Hitiyaremye, P.J., Muhumuza, Kazungu, J.) 07 February 2025] Civil procedure – Accident compensation – Financial loss compensation – A person at the age of majority – Financial loss compensation arising from death caused by a road traffic accident are awarded solely to the person who was financially dependent on the deceased, provided that such dependency is substantiated with evidence. Where the claimant is an adult, he/she must demonstrate that they were indeed financially supported by the deceased and justify the exceptional circumstances that necessitated such support, for example, by producing medical documentation proving a disability, chronic illness, or any other special condition that rendered him or her unable to be self-sufficient. Facts: This case originates from a certain road accident involving SONARWA-insured car that occurred on the 24th January 2024 and claimed the life of Nshimyumuremyi. Mukakalisa, the victim’s mother together with 4 victim’s siblings mandated Karonkano to make a follow-up on the accident-related damage compensations before SONARWA. Later on, Mukakalisa got some 357,000 Frw on her bank account as compensation, and she was assured that some more money will soon be deposited on her bank account, as the deposited amount was not enough, but she waited in vain. Those seeking compensation lodged a claim before the Intermediate Court of Karongi suing the insurer together with Karonkano for defrauding them and giving them little compensatory damages. However, their complaint was not admitted due to claim prescription 195

## Page 592

196 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

coupled with an existence of a certain transactional agreement. The claimants appealed the above ruling before the High Court, and the latter held that the claim knew no prescription and the case was put in a procedendo to the Intermediate Court of Karongi for retrial. The Intermediate Court reheard the case and held for the existence of a certain transactional agreement between the claimants and the Insurance company. The appellants being not satisfied by the decision, they re-appealed the judgement before the High Court, and the latter stayed the appealed ruling. Mukakalisa together with her co-claimants applied for a review of the judgment on grounds of injustice and the case was sent to the Supreme Court whereby the court examined whether the claimants had or not concluded a private transactional agreement with SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd. The Court found that parties concluded no private transactionalagreement, since the said agreement was transacted by an unentitled person, yet a transactional agreement that is concluded by the unauthorised person, or by which the mandatary goes beyond his mandate is considered non-existent. The Court examined the merit of the case and analysed about the claim’s prescription together with the rationale of requests made for financial and affection loss compensations. SONARWA argued that the claim for damages is time- barred under the five-year statutory prescription period, given that ten years have elapsed since the occurrence of the accident on which the claim is based. However, the claimants contend that the prescription period does not apply in this case because they submitted their compensation request before the expiration of the five-year period. The Court found this objection to be unfounded, holding that the claimants were never informed of the

## Page 593

197 MUKAKALISA ET AL. v SONARWA ET .AL (Fond)

proposed compensation settlement to which they were entitled, and thus were not in a position to accept or reject the offer. Mukakalisa argued that she deserves financial loss compensation, since as a widow, together with all her remained children, they all depended on the deceased since a child always has an obligation of obedience and alimony for supporting his/her needy parents. SONARWA argued that claimants deserve no financial loss compensation since they cannot prove that they were financially depending on the deceased. The claimants have as well claimed for the legally provided affection loss compensations. SONARWA argued that claimants cannot be awarded such compensations due to the claim’s prescription, adding that nothing can prove on the claimants’ actual aliveness since their life certificates have overstayed. With regard to the SONARWA’s alleged claim prescription, the court found it void while for the issue of the claimants’ lack of life certificates, the court moved that even SONARWA never proved on their death either. Held: Financial loss compensation arising from death caused by a road traffic accident are awarded solely to the person who was financially dependent on the deceased, provided that such dependency is substantiated with evidence. Where the claimant is an adult, he/she must demonstrate that they were indeed financially supported by the deceased and justify the exceptional circumstances that necessitated such support, for example, by producing medical documentation proving a disability, chronic illness, or any other special condition that rendered him or her unable to be self-sufficient, consequently, no financial loss compensation should be awarded due to lack of any evidence proving that the claimants were financially

## Page 594

198 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

depending on the deceased, rather, they deserve affection loss compensations. The application for review of the judgment on grounds of being vitiated by injustice has merit in parts.. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law N0 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure as modified and completed to date, article 111; Decree-law n0 32/1975 of 07/08/1975 relating to compulsory insurance for motorised vehicles as modified and completed to date, article 10; Presidential Order no 31/01/ of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injuries caused by motor vehicles, articles 12, 22, and 23. Cases referred to: RS/INJUST/RC 00018/2022/SC with Niyonzima Léonidas et al. v SANLAM AG Plc rendered by the Supreme Court on the 27/01/2023; RS/INJUST/RS 00021/2022/SC with Mukagatare Régine et al. v SANLAM AG Plc rendered by the Supreme Court on the 17/03/2023. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

On 24/01/2010 a car with plate number GR 466 under SONARWA insurance coverage got involved into an accident and claimed the life of Nshimyumuremyi François.

## Page 595

199 MUKAKALISA ET AL. v SONARWA ET .AL (Fond)

Mukakalisa Alphonsine, the victim’s mother together with four (4) victim’s siblings namely Musabyimana Vestine, Nyiraneza Rosine, Nyiranzabandora Aline and Nyiranabimana Dorothée approached Karonkano Etienne1 and mandated him with an assignment of making a follow-up on the accident related compensations before SONARWA; and on the 23/10/2010, some 357,000 Frw got deposited on Mukakalisa Alphonsine’s bank account within BPR Bank Rwanda .

Mukakalisa Alphonsine argues that when she received the above amount on her bank account, she questioned Karonkano Etienne why the paid compensation was not enough, but the latter replied that SONARWA will send her more money, and she waited for that additional deposit.

When she received no more deposits, she hired a lawyer and on the 09/11/2020, she sued both SONARWA and Karonkano Etienne for cheating her on her son’s accident related compensations, and prayed the court to order SONARWA to pay her the legally computed damage- compensations. And with regard to Karonkano Etienne, she requested the court to order him refund a pay of 180,000 Frw he received, and the claim was docketed as RC 00071/2020/TGI/KNG.

The respondents argued that the claim should not be admitted due to the existence of a certain transactional agreement coupled with the very claim’s prescription since the claim was filed five (5) years2 later the accident.

1 This is Mukakalisa Aphonsine’s uncle, and his assigned mandate was dated 14/02/2010. 2 Article 4 of the Law n0 01/2002 of 17/01/2002 modifying Decree-law n0 20/75 of 20 June 1975 relating to insurances in general as modified and completed to date, provides that “ the prescription period for claims and any judicial cases rising from insurance contract is five

## Page 596

200 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

The Intermediate Court of Karongi heard the case on the 28/10/2020 and held that the claim is not admissible due to the existence of a certain transactional agreement between the parties coupled with the claim’s prescription status.

Mukakalisa and her children appealed the above ruling before the High Court, Rusizi Chamber, and refuted the existence of a certain private transactional agreement, and rebutted the argument on their claim prescription, and the appeal was then registered under RCA 00054/2021/HC/RSZ.

On 29/06/2022, the High Court, Rusizi Chamber heard the case and declared the appeal admissible, quashed the appealed judgment and ordered that the case be sent back to the Intermediate Court of Karongi for being reheard on the merit. The High Court explained that the Intermediate Court disregarded the claimants’ evidence on the inexistence of a lawful transactional agreement ; and it held that the claim knew no prescription.

The Intermediate Court of Karongi received back the casefile and registered it under RC 00047/2022/TGI/KNG; the case was heard on the 21/12/2022, and the court rendered a decision reiterating that a transactional agreement had occurred, despite the absence of written evidence thereof. The Court concluded that no hearing on the merits was necessary, , and it therefore saw no need of a hearing on the merit.

Makakalisa and her co-claimants re-appealed the above ruling before the High Court, Rusizi Chamber, and

years”. This period of five years, is the very period that is provided under paragraph one of article 10 of the Decree-law n0 32/75 of 07/08/1975 on compulsory civil liability insurance with regard to automotive vehicles, as amended to date.

## Page 597

201 MUKAKALISA ET AL. v SONARWA ET .AL (Fond)

the appeal was registered under RCA 00001/2023/HC/RSZ. On 16/10/2023, the High Court, Rusizi Chamber heard the case and for this time, the court held that “regardless peculiarity in the drafting of a transactional agreement and its absence in the case file” facts are that parties have concluded a private transactional agreement, and held that the ruling on case RC 00047/2022/TGI/KNG stays.

Mukakalisa and her children were not satisfied with the ruling and they petitioned the President of the Court of Appeal seeking the review of the judgment RCA 0001/2023/HC/RSZ rendered by the High Court, Rusizi Chamber on 16/10/2023 on grounds of injustice The President of the Court of Appeal examined their application, and subsequently wrote to the President of the Supreme Court requesting for the review of the appealed judgment for injustice- related grounds.

Following the analysis of the case’s report, the President of the Supreme Court ordered that the appealed judgment be reheard by the Supreme Court, and the case was now docketed as RS/INJUST/RC 0009/2024/SC.

The case was heard in public on 14/10/2024, with Mukakalisa Alphonsine, Musabyimana Valentine, Nyiraneza Rosine, Nyiranzabandora Aline and Nyiransabimana Dorothée represented by Counsel Nsengiyumva Eugène, while SONARWA was represented by Counsel Bagomora Charles whereas Karonkano Etienne was assisted by Counsel Ruganza Bin Seba, and the court first examined whether Mukakalisa and her children did or did not conclude a private transactional agreement with SONARWA; and the court slated the pronouncement on 22/11/2024.

In the pre-trial conference of 22/11/2024 the court held that no private transactional agreement has ever existed

## Page 598

202 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

between the claimants, namely Mukakalisa Alphonsine, Musabyimana Valentine, Nyiraneza Rosine, Nyiranzabandora Aline and Nyiransabimana Dorothée, and SONARWA; and announced that the hearing shall proceed on 07/01/2025 with the accident related compensations claim as presented before the Intermediate Court of Karongi (for financial loss and affection loss compensation plus funeral expenses). The court was also to examine the parties’ requests on the expenses incurred along this case.

The hearing was conducted in public on 07/01/2025 with Mukakalisa Alphonsine and her children, namely Musabyimana Valentine, Nyiraneza Rosine, Nyiranzabandora Aline and Nyaransabimana Dorothée, represented by Counsel Nsengiyumva Eugène while SONARWA was represented by Counsel Bagomora Charles ; whereas Karankono Etienne came in a little bit late, and he was assisted by Counsel Ruganza Bin Seba. The court examined the issue of the claim prescription together with theclaimants’ compensation requests. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES IN THIS CASE Whether the claim for damages is prescribed

Counsel Bagomora Charles representing SONARWA argues that the prescription period for accident related compensation claims is five years. He further argues that the concerned accident occurred on 24/01/2010 whereby Karonkano Etienne, was mandated to make a follow on the compensation arrangement on 14/02/2010; while the Intermediate Court of Karongi received the compensation claim on 28/10/2021. He therefore argues that a fact that claimants sued for compensation ten years later made them lose their compensation rights due to claim

## Page 599

203 MUKAKALISA ET AL. v SONARWA ET .AL (Fond)

prescription, and their claim should not therefore be admissible.

Counsel Nsengiyumva Eugene representing Mukakalisa Alphonsine and her children argues that his clients’ claim knew no prescription, since the claim was initiated before the five-year time period elapsed. DETERMIANTION OF THE COURT

Article 10 of the Decree-Law n0 32/1975 of 07/08/1975 on compulsory civil liability insurance with regard to automotive vehicles, as amended to date provides that “"Any claim for damages filed by an injured party against an insurer, arising under this Decree-Law, is time- barred after five (5) years from the date on which the harmful event occurred. Any action brought by the injured party against the insured shall suspend the prescription period applicable to the claim against the insurer. Likewise, any suspension of the prescription period for the claim against the insurer suspends the limitation period for the claim against the insured. The limitation period for actions against the insurer shall also be suspended by any attempt to reach an amicable settlement between the insurer and the injured party. A new five-year prescription period shall commence from the date on which either party formally notifies the other, by way of a judicial officer’s act, of the termination of settlement negotiations. If such termination is effected by registered mail, the new limitation period begins to run on the day following the date the letter was posted."”

[19] Article 12 of the Presidential Order n0 31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury due to accidents caused by motor vehicles reads that: “Within a period of thirty days from the receipt of the proposal for settlement made by the insurer, the legal claimants of the

## Page 600

204 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

victim shall state clearly their position. Where position of the legal claimants is not known after this period, their approval to the proposal shall be assumed. In case of dispute, the insurer’s proposal shall not be considered. In case of agreement by the parties to settle compensation, these parties shall be irrevocably bound by the aforementioned settlement”.

On one hand, the court finds SONARWA’s allegation of claim prescription due to a fact that Mukakalisa and her children filed their claim to the Intermediate Court of Karongi on 28/10/2021, ten (10) years after the accident occurred, as counted from 28/05/2010, a date by which Karonkano signed the so-termed “transactional proposal”, baseless since SONARWA failed to notify claimants of its transactional proposal featuring a compensation of 357,000 Frw for the claimants’ approval, just as it is provided under article 12 of the Presidential Order.

On the other hand, the court finds nothing to prove that the stoppage of the compensation negotiations were stopped in the sense of the above mentioned article 10, since no Court bailiff act was served, neither was there any registered mail deposit.

Considering all the above mentioned legal provisions together with all the provided explanations, it is in the finding of the court that the joint compensation claim by Mukakalisa Alphonsine, Musabyimana Valentine, Nyaraneza Rosine, Nyiranzabandora Aline and Nyiransabimana Dorothée, knew no prescription.

## Page 601

205 MUKAKALISA ET AL. v SONARWA ET .AL (Fond)

2. Whether Mukakalisa Alphonsine, Musabyimana Valentine, Nyiraneza Rosine, Nyiranzabandora Aline, and Nyiransabimana Dorothée deserve a compensation for financial loss

Counsel Nsengiyumva Eugène representing Mukakalisa Alphonsine, Musabyimana Valentine, Nyiraneza Rosine, Nyiranzabandora Aline and Nyiransabimana Dorothée argues that SONARWA must compensate his clients on the undergone financial loss; he made reference to article 255 of the Law n0 32/2026 of 28/08/2016 on persons and family that was in force by the claim filing time, which provides that “ children whose filiation is established have equal rights vis-à-vis their parents irrespective of the circumstances of their birth. The child must honour his/her parents and owes them respect, and must cater for them if they are in need”.

He argues that the requested compensations are justified by a fact that the death of the claimants’ relative made them lose his financial support, especially Mukakalisa Alphonsine, his mother and a widow who needed his support in providing for the younger siblings.

He further argues that the requested financial loss compensation was computed with reference to article 22 of the Presidential Order n0 31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury due to accidents caused motor vehicles coupled with a daily minimum wage of 3000 Frw. And the compensation was computed as follows: “3,000 x 12x44x2/3: 1+(5%x44) = 9,900,000 Frw.

Counsel Bagomora Charles representing SONARWA submits that the claimants deserve no financial loss compensation more so that they have no evidence to prove their financial dependence on the deceased, based on the direction established in the judgment from case

## Page 602

206 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

RS/INJUST/RC 00018/2022/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 27/01/2023 with Niyonzima et al. v. SANLAM AG Plc, which held that Between parents and children who have reached the age of majority, the obligation to provide alimony exists only where the claimant demonstrates a need for such support. This implies that, in order to be entitled to alimony, the claimant must provide evidence of need, and the person from whom support is sought must have the financial capacity to provide it. He therefore argues that claimants deserve no financial loss compensation since they are all at the age of majority and they have no evidence to prove their financial dependence on the deceased person.

For Karonkano Etienne, he argues that he has nothing to add on his IECMS submissions, more so that the requested financial loss compensations are none of his business; and he however adds that he concurs with SONARWA’s take on the prescription of the compensation claim. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Paragraph one of article 22 of the Presidential Order n0 31/01/ of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury due to accidents caused by motor vehicles provides that “[…] Only legal claimants able to prove that they were dependents of the victim shall be compensated”.

In the case of Niyonzima Léonidas et al. v. SANLAM AG Plc3, decided by this court, the Supreme Court held that financial loss compensations arising granted to the victim’s real dependants upon presentation of evidence for such a dependence. The court has as well held

3 See judgment RS/INJUST/RC 00018/2022/SC rendered on the 27/01/2023, paragraphs 21 and 22.

## Page 603

207 MUKAKALISA ET AL. v SONARWA ET .AL (Fond)

that a person at the age of majority cannot thereby allege a dependence on the victim unless he/she proves such a dependence by tangible evidence such as medical certificates testifying on some infirmity, sickness and any other ground that can justify the claimant’s incapacity.

The above is the same stance that was taken for a certain case between Mukagatare Regine et al v. SANLAM AG Plc4, whereby the court held that a person who claims for financial loss compensations in the sense of article 22 of the above mentioned Presidential Order n0 31/01/of 25/08/2003 must prove that his/her life depended on the deceased. And, in case the claimant is at the age of majority, he/she must prove a special reason of such a dependence such as medical certificates testifying on some infirmity, sickness and any other ground that can justify the claimant’s incapacity

The Court finds that the claimants argue that no additional proof was necessary to prove that they were dependent on the deceased, other than the fact that Mukakalisa Alphonsine was a widow in need of the victim's support. However, based on the legal directions previously recalled by this Court, the claimants were required to provide evidence that they were indeed financially dependent on the deceased, as each party has the burden to prove the claims they advance. This position is grounded in Article 12 of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labor and administrative procedure, as amended to date which provides that “ the claimant must prove of his/her claim” (…) “ and this corroborates the provision of paragraph one of article 4 of the Law n0 062/2024 of 20/06/2024 on Evidence which states that

4 See judgment RS/INJUST/RS 00021/2022/SC rendered on the 17/03/2023, paragraphs 32 and 33.

## Page 604

208 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

“Each party has the burden of proving the facts it alleges (…)”

Considering the above mentioned provisions together with the provided elucidations, the court finds that the claimants request for financial loss compensation has no justification. 3. Whether Mukakalisa Alphonsine, Musabyimana Valentine, Nyiraneza Rosine, Nyiranzabandora Aline and Nyiransabimana Dorothée deserve affection loss compensations

Counsel Nsengiyumva Eugène, representing Mukakalisa Alphonsine and her children, submits that Mukakalisa, as the mother of the deceased, claims affection loss damages in the amount of: 3,000 × 30 × 12 × 0.75 = 810,000 Frw; whereas the siblings of the deceased claim maffection loss damages amounting to: 3,000 × 30 × 12 × 0.5 × 4 = 2,160,000 Frw. He further states that from these amounts, 357,000 Frw, which was paid by SONARWA, must be deducted..

Counsel Bagomora Charles representing SONARWA submits that the requested damages should not be awarded due to the existence of a certain private transactional agreement between the parties coupled with the claim prescription. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 23 of the Presidential Order n0 31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury due to accidents caused by motor vehicles provides that “Compensation for loss of affection in case of death shall

## Page 605

209 MUKAKALISA ET AL. v SONARWA ET .AL (Fond)

only be allocated to the restricted persons listed below and within the limits provided for by this Order:  The spouse gets 1 x the guaranteed annual minimum wage;  Parents and legitimate or recognised children get 0.75 x the guaranteed annual minimum wage;  Siblings get 0.75 x the guaranteed annual minimum wage”

For this case, SONARWA and the claimants concur on a fact that Nshimyumuremyi Francois lost his life in an accident involving a car under SONARWA insurance coverage. The claimants have also presented certificates issued by Bwishyura Sector Authorities proving that Mukakalisa Alphonsine is the victim’s mother while the co- claimants are the victim’s siblings.

The Court finds that it will not revisit the issues of the claim’s prescription or the alleged transactional agreement, as these have already been adjudicated. As for the argument that the claimants may be deceased, it is SONARWA, which is challenging their existence, that bears the burden of proof ; however, it has submitted no evidence in support of this assertion, rendering the objection unfounded.

Considering the provisions of article 23 of the above highlighted Presidential Order and the accompanying explanations, the court finds that Mukakalisa Alphonsine and her children deserve each the requested compensations as provided under the Presidential Order and computed as follows: i. Mukakalisa Alphonsine, the victim’s parent deserves: 3000 X 30 X12 X0,75 = 810,000 Frw;

## Page 606

210 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

ii. Musbyimana Valentine, Nyiraneza Rosine, Nyiranzabandora Aline, and Nyiransabimana Dorothee, the victim’s siblings, deserve each: 3000 X 30 X 12 X 0,5 =540,000 Frw.

The Court, however, finds that of the 357,000 Frw deposited by SONARWA into the account of Mukakalisa Alphonsine, purportedly as compensation payable under the present case, an amount corresponding to affection loss damages is included, specifically 99,000 Frw for Mukakalisa Alphonsine and 198,000 Frw for her children, as stipulated in the transactional proposal signed between SONARWA and Karonkano. These amounts shall therefore be deducted from the total affection loss damages awarded to them as previously determined ; and claimants will therefore be compensated as follows: i. Mukakalisa Alphonsine : 810,000 Frw -99,000 Frw =711,000 Frw ii. Musabyimana Valentine, Nyiraneza Rosine, Nyiranzabandora Aline and Nyiransabimana Dorothée shall get 2,160,000 Frw - 198,000 Frw = 1,962,000 Frw, and that is 490,500 Fr for each. 4. Whether Mukakalisa Alphonsine, Musabyimana Valentine, Nyiraneza Rosine, Nyiranzabandora Aline and Nyiransabimana Dorothée should be entitled to refund for the victim’s funeral expenses

Counsel Nsengiyumva Eugène, representing Mukakalisa Alphonsine and her children, submits that they request the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, to award them an amount of 1,080,000 RFrw to cover the costs related to the transportation and burial of the deceased. This amount is based on an estimate equivalent to one time the legally established annual minimum wage. He argues that the reason for relying on the Court's discretion is that it is often

## Page 607

211 MUKAKALISA ET AL. v SONARWA ET .AL (Fond)

difficult to provide concrete evidence for all expenses incurred upon someone's death; however, as commonly known, certain funeral rites such as burial, ritual cleansing, and related customs involve costs.

Counsel Bagomora Charles representing SONARWA argues that claimants deserve no refund for funeral expenses due to lack of related legal reference; yet article 21 of the Presidential Order no 31/01 of 25/08/2003 makes it clear that that all prior and post mortem expenses are reimbursed upon presentation of supporting evidence; and the claimants attached no proof. DETERMIANTION OF THE COURT

Article 21 of the Presidential Order n0 31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury due to accidents caused by motor vehicles provides that “as long as they are reasonable, funeral expenses and hospitalisation fees presented before death, and if need be, transport of the body expenses shall be reimbursed upon presentation of a documentary evidence. The expenses to be reimbursed shall not exceed ten (10) times of the guaranteed minimum wage”.

SONARWA and the claimants concur on a fact that Nshimyumuremyi Francois lost his life in an accident involving a certain vehicle under SONARWA insurance coverage.

However, as per the normal practices, funerals entail expenses such as costs for coffins, some clothes and coffin cloth, expenses for body transportation, body committal, wreath and ritual cleansing, among others, and despite lack of any supporting evidence, none can contest the existence of such expenses. Therefore, in the court’s own discretion,

## Page 608

212 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Mukakalisa and her children’s request of 1,080,000 Frw should be granted.

Nonetheless, the court finds that from the aforementioned amount, a sum of 60,000 Frw for funeral expenses that was included in the 357,000 Frw deposited on Mukakalisa Alphonsine’s bank account by SONARWA, as per the terms of the transaction proposal between SONARWA and Karonkano. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to 1,080,000 Frw- 60,000 Frw = 1, 020,000 Frw. 5. Whether the parties’ requests for procedural and counsel fees should be awarded

Counsel Nsengiyumva Eugène representing the claimants submits that the Court should order the insurer to refund claimants for the incurred case-related expenses as follows: i. Travel fees: 200,000 Frw x 5 = 1,000,000 Frw ii. 3,000,000 Frw for counsel fees for the previous instances, and 1,000,000 Frw at the level of the Supreme Court. iii. 100,000 Frw for court fees. And the requested total expenses amounted to 5,100,000 Frw.

Counsel Bagomora Charles representing SONARWA argue the claimants refund requests are unjustified, since it is the claimants who initiated all the lawsuits yet SONARWA was ready for a peaceful dispute settlement. He therefore requests the court to order the claimants to instead refund SONARWA with 5,000, 000 Frw for counsel’s fees incurred from the initiation of proceedings up to the Supreme Court, and 3,000,000 Frw for procedural fees.

## Page 609

213 MUKAKALISA ET AL. v SONARWA ET .AL (Fond)

Karonkano Etienne argues that should the claimants’ claim be considered unfounded ; the court would consider awarding him a compensation of 2,000,000 Frw for dragging him into unnecessary lawsuits. He argue that the requested amount includes the refund for the incurred transport costs. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 111 of the Law n0 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure as modified and completed to date provides that “the claim for representation fees is an incidental claim to the principal claim aiming to repaying expenses incurred during judicial proceedings”.

The Court notes that claimants deserve refund for procedural and counsel fees for they won the case; but since the requested amount is excessive and there is no supporting evidence proving that it is the actual amount used in this case, , their refund shall be determined by the court’s own discretion. Therefore, the court awarded them 500,000 Frw for counsel fee and 300,000 Frw for procedural fees at this instance, adding to three million (3,000,000) Frw for the previous instances, and those are the two rounds before the Intermediate Court of Karongi and two rounds before High Court, Rusizi Chamber. The Court finds that the awarded amount is proportionate, taking into account the entirety of the proceedings that took place prior to the case being brought under the review on grounds of injustice. Furthermore, the claimants are entitled to a refund of court fees paid, amounting to 100,000 Frw. The total compensation awarded to the claimants in this instance amounts to three million nine hundred thousand Rwandan Francs (3,900,000 Frw).

## Page 610

214 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

With regard to SONARWA’s requests for compensation, the court finds them unworthy because they lost the case, the same applies to Karonkano Etienne who, as well, won nothing from this case. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the joint application by Mukakalisa Alphonsine, Musabyimana Valentine, Nyiraneza Rosine, Nyiranzabandora Aline and Nyiransabimana Dorothée for the review of the judgment RCA 00001/2023/HC/RSZ rendered by High Court, Rusizi Chamber on 16/10/2023, has justification ;

Holds that the judgment RCA 00001/2023/HC/RSZ rendered by the High Court, Rusizi Chamber, on 16/10/2023 is quashed ;

Orders SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd to compensate the claimants as follows : i. Mukakalisa Alphonsine: 711,000 Frw for affection loss compensation; ii. Musabyimana Valentine: 490,500 Frw for affection loss compensation; iii. Nyiraneza Rosine: 490,500 Frw for affection loss compensation; iv. Nyiranzabandora Aline: 490,500 Frw for affection loss compensation; v. Nyiransabimana Dorothée: 490,500 Frw for affection loss compensation.

Orders SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd to pay all the claimants 1,020,000 Frw for the incurred funeral expenses;

## Page 611

215 MUKAKALISA ET AL. v SONARWA ET .AL (Fond)

Orders SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd to pay all the claimants 3,900,000 Frw that include counsel and procedural fees as well as deposited court fees.

## Page 612

216 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 613

217 KWIZERA v RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

KWIZERA v RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD [Rwanda SUPREME COURT - RS/INJUST/RC 00014/2022/SC (Mukamulisa, P.J., Nyirinkwaya, Cyanzayire, J.) May 18, 2023] Civil Procedure – Claims relating to accident – Requirements for payment of damages – Damages for self- employed individuals – Self-employed individuals (like motorcyclists) must provide evidence of their minimum average income for the 12 months preceding the accident. Civil Procedure – Claims relating to accident – Requirements for payment of damages – Damages for self- employed individuals who cannot obtain authentic deeds to prove their income – If authentic deeds to prove their income are unavailable and the injured party’s profession is known, damages are determined by comparing it with the gross salary of a person engaged in the same or a similar profession as the injured party. Civil Procedure – Claims relating to accident – Procedure for determination of damages - Income used to determine economic damages – Damages for self-employed individuals - In determination of economic damages for self- employed individuals, the annual net income is considered instead of the gross income from which the tax provided for by law is deducted. Facts: The case started from the Intermediate Court of Nyagatare. Kwizera, who was injured in an accident by a motorcycle insured by Radiant Insurance Company Ltd (Radiant), sued the insurance company, requesting that it should be ordered to pay to him damages resulting from the 217

## Page 614

218 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

accident. The Court ordered to Radiant to pay to him various damages. Radiant appealed to the High Court, Rwamagana Chamber, which, based on the fact that Kwizera was unable to demonstrate his daily or monthly income, found that he should not have been awarded economic damages based on his monthly income of 200,000 Frw, instead, it would be based on the guaranteed minimum interprofessional wage (SMIG) equivalent to 3,000 Frw per day, resulting in a reduction of the damages awarded to Kwizera. Kwizera applied for the review of the judgment on grounds of being vitiated by injustice, and it was decided that the judgment should be heard by the Supreme Court. During the hearing, the parties argued over the issue of the calculation modalties for the economic damages claimed. The claimant submits that he should not be included among persons without a known salary in order to be entitled to economic damages based on the SMIG of 3,000 Frw. He relies on evidence including a card stating that he is a motorcyclist, and a document issued by RRA stating that a motorcyclist earns 2,400,000 Frw per year. Radiant contends that these damages should be calculated on the basis of the guaranteed minimum interprofessional wage (SMIG), as this is the basis when the claimant is unable to prove his/her daily or monthly income, as upheld by the High Court. Held: 1. Self-employed individuals (like motorcyclists) must provide evidence of their minimum average income for the 12 months preceding the accident. 3. When the authentic deeds indicating the salary are not produced and the injured party's profession is known, the damages are determined by comparing it with the gross

## Page 615

219 KWIZERA v RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

salary of a person who works in the same or similar profession as the injured party. 2. In determination of economic damages for self-employed individuals, the annual net income should be considered by taking the gross income and deducting the taxes provided by law. An application for the review a judgment on the grounds of injustice has merit. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law n°22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 111; Law n° 41/2001 of 19/09/2001 determining compensation calculation modalities for people injured or whose property has been damaged by automobiles, article 4; Law n° 75/2018 of 07/09/2018 determining the sources of revenue and property of decentralized entities, article 5; Law nº 027/2022 of 20/10/2022 establishing taxes on income, article 14; Presidential Order n0 31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury resulting from accidents caused by motor vehicles, article 14; 18. Case laws referred to: RCAA 0049/14/CS, SORAS AG Ltd v. Umuhoza Pacifique and others, rendered by the Supreme Court on 25/11/2016; RS/INJUST/RC 00010/2021/SC, Prime Insurance Company Ltd v. Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude, rendered by the Supreme Court on 02/12/2022.

## Page 616

220 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

On 25/08/2018, at Kiziguro, in Gatsibo District, Eastern Province, a motorcycle accident occurred in which a motorcycle with plate number RD 42V, ridden by Nshimiyimana Gilbert, hit another Victor TVS motorcycle with plate number RD 950Q, ridden by Kwizera Eric, injuring him and causingto him 90% permanent disability. The motorcycle that hit him was insured by Radiant Insurance Company Ltd, hereinafter referred to as Radiant.

After unsuccessful attempts to amicable settlement, Kwizera Eric filed a claim in the Intermediate Court of Nyagatare against Radiant, seeking damages resulting from the accident calculated as follows: ● Aesthetic damages: 240,000 Frw X 12 X 150%= 4,320,000 Frw; ● Moral damages: 240,000 Frw X 12= 2,880,000 Frw; ● Economic damages: (240,000Frw X 12 X 35 X 90) /1+ (35 X 8%) = 90,720,000/3.8 = 23,873,684, 2 Frw; ● Expenses incurred due to accident including medical expenses, travel expenses, money paid for accident case file and amounts paid for obtaining documents from local administration.1

1 In his submissions, Kwizera Eric did not specify this amount of money he is requesting. However, during the hearing of 12/05/2021, his counsel, Shema Déo, informed the Intermediate Court of Nyagatare that they were requesting economic damages amounting to 19,018,867 Frw, moral damages of 1,620,000 Frw, aesthetic damages of 1,200,000 Frw, expenses incurred due to the accident, including transport costs of 500,000 Frw, medical expenses of 396,232 Frw, counsel’s fee of

## Page 617

221 KWIZERA v RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

In the judgment n0 RC 00048/2020/TGI/NYG rendered on 09/06/2021, the Intermediate Court of Nyagatare ruled that Kwizera Eric's claim was well-founded and ordered to Radiant to pay to him damages amounting to 23,700,867 Frw, including counsel's fee of 600,000 Frw.

In making that decision, the Court found that Kwizera Eric had been incapacitated as a result of the accident caused by a motorcycle insured by Radiant, and ruled that he deserved to be awarded the following damages: ● Economic damages: (200,000 Frw × 12 × 36 × 90%) 1+ (8%- current savings rate × 36) = 20,041,237 Frw ; ● Moral damages (pretium doloris): (3000 Frw × 30 × 12) × 150% = 1,620,000 Frw; ● Aesthetic damages: (3000 Frw × 30 × 12) × 150% = 1,620,000 Frw. All amounting to 20,041,237 Frw + 3,240,000 Frw = 23,281,237 Frw (The Court added that the total amount requested by the claimant is 22,000,867 Frw). To these damages, the Court stated that it would be added 1,700,000 Frw awarded at its discretion, covering the travel expenses, procedural fees including looking for various documents, medical expenses, counsel's fees and court fee. Thus, the total damages are 22,000,867 Frw + 1,700,000 Frw = 23,700,867 Frw 2.

1,000,000 Frw, and court fees of 20,000 Frw, totalling to 23,755,099 Frw. 2 It is clear that the figures in the judgment rendered by the Intermediate Court contain errors because, in the claimant’s court submissions, during the pre-trial conference, and during the hearing, there is nowhere it appears that the damages requested by Kwizera Eric amounts to a total of 22,000,867 Frw.

## Page 618

222 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Radiant appealed to the High Court, Rwamagana Chamber, requesting for the analysis of the economic damages arguing that the awarded amounts were excessive and unlawful, same for other amounts awarded by the Court, which are unclear due to a lack of supporting elements of evidence.

In the judgment n0 RCA 00051/2021/HC/RWG, rendered on 11/01/2022, the High Court, Rwamagana Chamber, declared Radiant's appeal founded in part, the decision of the judgment n0 RC 00048/2020/TGI/NYG rendered on 09/06/2021, modified only issues relating to economic damages. The Court ordered to Radiant to pay to Kwizera Eric economic damages amounting to 9,208,421 RWF, as well as 1,700,000 RWF awarded in the appealed case for case-related expenses, including counsel's fees.

In making this decision, the Court noted that the economic damages awarded to Kwizera Eric were unlawful as he failed to demonstrate his daily or monthly income, and ruled that he should be awarded economic damages based on the guarantted minimum interprofessional wage (SMIG) of 3,000 Frw as upheld by the Supreme Court in the judgment n0 RCAA 0049/14/CS, rendered on 25/11/2016, they were calculated as follows: 3,000 Frw x 30 x 12 x 36 x 90%: 1 + (7,992% x 36) = 9,208,421 Frw.

On 06/02/2022, Kwizera Eric wrote to the President of the Court of Appeal requesting the review of judgment n0 RCA 00051/2021/HC/RWG rendered by the High Court, Rwamagana Chamber on 11/01/2022 on grounds of being vitiated by injustice. After considering his request, the President of the Court of Appeal wrote to the President of the Supreme Court requesting that the above-mentioned judgment should be reviewed on grounds of injustice. The President of the Supreme Court, after examining the report made on the case, on 22/08/2022, issued Decision n0

## Page 619

223 KWIZERA v RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

130/CJ/2022 ordering the review of the judgment n0 RCA 00051/2021/HC/RWG by the Supreme Court on grounds of being vitiated by injustice, and the case was registered under n0 RS/INJUST/RC 00014/2022/SC.

The case was heard in public on 27/03/2023, Kwizera Eric represented by Counsel Shema Deo and Radiant represented by Counsel Uwamariya Agnès, the parties argued on the issues of determining the modalties of calculating the economic damages requested by Kwizera Eric and whether there were other damages that should be awarded in this instant case. After the closure of the hearing, the parties were notified that the judgment would be pronounced on 21/04/2023, but it was not pronounced as there were pending matters under consideration, its pronouncement was adjourned to 18/05/2023 at 10:00 a.m. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES 1. Determine the procedure in which the economic damages claimed by Kwizera Eric should be calculated

Counsel Shema Deo states that, at the first instance, the Intermediate Court of Nyagatare ruled that Kwizera Eric earned 200,000 Frw per month based on various elements of evidence including RRA certificate, bank statement from Remera Sacco Giribakwe indicating that he paid a quarterly tax of 18,000 Frw, and RRA tax declaration documents for the year 2018. Additionally, there is an evidence of a repayment plan indicating how Kwizera Eric was repaying the loan for the motorcycle he was using, which he had acquired through a loan from Remera Sacco Giribakwe.

He further explains that all the money mentioned in the evidence came from the income generated by the motorcycle that Kwizera Eric used for his work as a

## Page 620

224 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

motorcyclist. He also states that a document of 18/08/2020 from Remera Sacco Giribakwe attests that the motorcycle Kwizera Eric was using was acquired through a loan, which he was still repaying. However, the motorcycle had not yet been registered in his name because he had not completed the payments. He adds that when all the presented elements of evidence are considered together with the RRA document of 27/02/2017, which establishes that all motorcyclists earn 2,400,000 Frw per year, it clearly demonstrates that Kwizera Eric also was earning 2,400,000 Frw per year.

He concludes by requesting that the RRA document, as an authentic deed, should be the basis for determining the damages that Kwizera Eric should be paid because it is unclear how he could be classified among casual workers while being a motorcyclist who pays tax.

Counsel Uwamariya Agnès, representing Radiant, argues that the judgment nº RCA 00051/2021/HC/RWG is not vitiated by injustice since no evidence was ever submitted to the High Court, Rwamagana Chamber, and was ignored, which means that the fact that Kwizera Eric is not satisfied with the decision of that Court cannot be a reason for the case he lost to be reviewed on grounds of injustice.

He further states that the High Court, Rwamagana Chamber, explained that the evidence provided by Kwizera Eric, including a service card, a certificate of 08/05/2017 issued by the Cooperative COTAMNDAGA showing that he was earning 200,000 Frw per month, and an RRA document of 27/02/2017 showing that he was earning 2,400,000 Frw per year, were insufficient to declare that he was actually earning 200,000 Frw per month. He therefore finds that he has not been wronged because, apart from the fact that the RRA document was written to someone named Hanyurwimfura Vincent, and was not intended for Kwizera Eric, and he did not even present the employment contract

## Page 621

225 KWIZERA v RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

because it was the only one that would indicate the salary he was paid.

He concludes by stating that Kwizera Eric does not prove that he actually was earning 200,000 Frw per month, the reason why Radiant continues requesting that the economic damages should be calculated based on the SMIG, as it serves as the standard for claimants who fail to demonstrate the income generated from their work. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 5 of the Law n° 41/2001 of 19/09/2001 relating to the compensation of victims of physical accidents caused by motor vehicles, states that when the injury has resulted in a permanent incapacity, the victim is entitled to an indemnity meant to compensate the physical and psychological reduction that he/she suffered and the unfavourable consequences of the incapacity on him/her professional earnings. The compensatory indemnity is determined in accordance with the Presidential Order”.

Article 18 of the Presidential Order n0 31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury resulting from accidents caused by motor vehicles provides the following: “where permanent incapacity exceeds 30%, economic damages shall be granted in accordance with the following rules: where a victim has a paid work, a calculated capital shall be granted according to net income, degree of incapacity and age. Where a victim earns salary but is out of work for less than six months, a capital shall be granted according to his/her latest net salary, degree of incapacity and age. Where the victim does not have a paid work or he/she only does domestic chores, or the legal claimants cannot determine the victim’s real professional income and the victim was above 16 years old at the time of accident,

## Page 622

226 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

the capital granted shall be calculated on the basis of the guaranteed minimum interprofessionak wage for a year only. Compensation shall be granted according to the following formula: Net annual income x number of years of lucrative survival x percentage of incapacity 1 + (compensation rate for loss of earnings x number of years of lucrative survival). In all cases, this compensation shall not exceed eighty times the guaranteed minimum interprofessional wage”.

The Court finds that the parties agree that Kwizera Eric had an accident on 25/08/2018 while working as a motorcyclist, and that he was 30 years old and suffered a permanent incapacity of 90%. The Court also finds that the motorcycle that Kwizera Eric was riding belonged to him because, as indicated in the case file, on 23/02/2018 he received a loan from Remera Sacco Giribakwe in the amount of 900,000 Frw which he would have to repay over 18 months, at an interest rate of 24% per annum, paying 60,000 Frw per month, and the entire loan would be repaid not later than 23/08/2019. This means that he was working as a motorcyclist.

The parties also agree that, due to the accident he suffered, Kwizera Eric is entitled to economic damages. What they disagree about, which is also a matter of dispute in this present case, is that his legal counsel claims that the damages should be calculated based on the fact that motorcyclists earn 2,400,000 Frw per year, as confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner for Small and Medium Taxpayers, while the legal counsel of Radiant claims that the damages should be calculated based on the guaranteed minimum interprofessinal wage (SMIG) because he cannot demonstrate his actual income.

The Court finds that, as explained in article 18 of Presidential Order n0 31/01, mentioned above, a victim who

## Page 623

227 KWIZERA v RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

has suffered a permanent incapacity exceeding 30% and has a paid work, is entitled to an amount calculated according to his/her net income, the degree of incapacity and his/her age. While where the victim has no paid work, or where his/her beneficiaries cannot prove his/her actual income from work, he/she is entitled to damages calculated on the basis of the guaranteed minimum interprofessional wage (SMIG) of 3,000 Rwf per day3.

The Court finds, however, that among the victims referred to in article 18 above, there are no self-employed individuals like motorcyclists; the reason why, in determining the standard income that can be used to calculate the economic damages, should apply paragraph 3 of article 14 of Presidential Order n0 31/01 of 25/08/2003 mentioned above, which provides that self-employed individuals must demonstrate tangible activities that indicate their minimum average income for the 12 months preceding the accident. Paragraph 5 of article 4 of Law n0 41/2001 of 19/09/2001 adds that if authentic deeds are unavailable and the profession of the victim is well known, damages shall be determined by comparing it with the gross salary of a person working in a same or similar profession as that of the victim.

The Court finds that, as explained, Kwizera Eric was a self-employed motorcyclist, and therefore, in calculating his economic damages, it is appropriate to base it on the annual income of others working in the similar profession, instead of calculating the damages based on the guaranteed minimum interprofessional wage (SMIG) as ruled by the High Court, Rwamagana Chamber. However, since, in accordance with the provisions of article 18 of Presidential

3 As upheld in various cases decided by the Supreme Court, such as case n0 RCAA 0049/14/CS decided on 25/11/2016, SORAS AG Ltd v UMUHOZA Pacifique et al, paragraph 28.

## Page 624

228 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Order n0 31/01 of 25/08/2003, in determining economic damages, the annual net income is taken into account, instead of the gross income, it is necessary to first determine the net income of the person working as a motorcyclist after deducting tax.

Paragraph 3 of article 14 of Law n0 027/2022 of 20/10/2022 establishing taxes on income, provides that a person who operates a small enterprise pays a lumpsum tax of three percent (3%) of his or her annual turnover. In its final paragraph, it provides that without prejudice to the right to be governed by the real profit tax regime, the activities of road transport of persons and goods are imposed a flat amount of tax determined as indicated in the annex to this Law. That annex sets out the rates of the tax on production of vehicles used for the transport of persons and goods. In the case of big motorcycles, the annual tax is set at 72,000 Frw.

Point 2o of article 5 of Law no 75/2018 of 07/09/2018 determining the sources of revenue and property of decentralized entities provides for the trading licence tax paid to decentralized entities. Article 32 of the above Law provides that the trading licence tax is paid by any person for each place in which he/she opens a business activity within a district, while article 34 provides that the trading licence tax is calculated on the basis of tables annexed to this Law, where by the table II, b shows that Transporters of people and goods on motorcycle pay the trading licence tax of 8.000 Frw (per year).

As explained above, Kwizera Eric, as the owner of a motorcycle, is considered as a taxpayer in the category of those earning 2,400,000 Frw per year, because as recalled, the tax of 72,000 Frw determined by the Law to be paid annually by motorcycles, is lumpsum tax equal to 3% of the annual income, paid by the owner of a small enterprise as

## Page 625

229 KWIZERA v RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

explained in paragraph 2 of article 14 of Law Nº 027/2022 mentioned above. In other words, 72,000 Frw of tax per year is equivalent to 3% of the annual income of 2,400,000 Frw, which is (72,000 Fw×100): 3 = 2,400,000 Frw.

The Court also finds that Kwizera Eric, as a transporter of people and goods on motorcycle, must pay the trading license tax based on Table II, b in the annex to Law n0 75/2018 of 07/09/2018 mentioned above.

The Court therefore finds that the annual net income of a person owning a motorcycle after deducting the income tax and the trading license tax, is 2,400,000 Frw - 72,000 Frw - 8,000 Frw = 2,320,000. This means that per month he/she earns 2,320,000 Frw: 12 = 193,333 Frw; and per day he/she earns 193,333 Frw: 30 = 6,444 Frw.

As the Supreme Court ruled in the judgment n0 RS/INJUST/RC 00010/2021/SC, rendered on 02/12/2022, the deposit rate used to calculate the economic damages is set by the National Bank of Rwanda (Central Bank rate), which is published on its website on the judgment pronouncement date4. The Court also finds that the working days for the basis of calculating this damages are 30 days and the BNR deposit rate to be used is 7%5. Therefore, the economic damages should be calculated as follows: 6,444 Frw × 30 × 12 × 35 × 90% = 21,181,147 Frw 1+ (7% × 35)

4 See judgment no RS/INJUST/RC 00010/2021/SC rendered on 02/12/2022, Prime Insurance Company Ltd v Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude 5 https://www.bnr.rw/home / (website visited on 08/05/2023)

## Page 626

230 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

2. With regard to other damages claimed in this case

Counsel Shema Deo, reperesenting Kwizera Eric, states that if the injustice suffered by Kwizera Eric in the judgment RCA 00051/2021/HC/RWG is confirmed, he requests the Supreme Court to award to him the counsel's fee of 1,000,000 Frw and procedural fee of 500,000 Frw.

Counsel Agnès Uwamariya, representing Radiant, submits that Kwizera Eric should not be awarded the counsel's and the procedural fees because he is the one who continued to engage in unnecessary lawsuits. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 111 of Law nº 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure as amended to date, provides as follows: “The claim for representation fees is an incidental claim to the principal claim aiming to repay expenses incurred during judicial proceedings...”.

Based on the above-mentioned issue, the Court finds that, even if Kwizera Eric's claim was taken into consideration, there is no evidence in the case file to prove that he spent 500,000 Frw in pursuing this case and that he paid 1,000,000 Frw of counsel's fee. The Court has no where to base in deciding that this money should be reimbursed as requested.

The Court finds that, at its discretion, he should be awarded 500,000 Frw for counsel's fee and 300,000 Frw for procedural fee, the total is 800,000 Frw.

## Page 627

231 KWIZERA v RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Declares that the application filed by Kwizera Eric seeking the review of the judgment nº RCA 00051/2021/HC/RWG rendered by the High Court, Rwamagana Chamber on 11/01/2022, on grounds of being vitiated by injustice, is well founded;

Orders that the ruling in the judgment nº RCA 00051/2021/HC/RWG rendered by the High Court, Rwamagana Chamber on 11/01/2022, is only reversed with regard to the economic damages;

Orders to Radiant Insurance Company Ltd to pay to Kwizera Eric the economic damages equal to 21,181,147 Frw upheld to this level;

Orders to Radiant Insurance Company Ltd to pay to Kwizera Eric 1,620,000 Frw of moral damages (pretium doloris) and 1,620,000 Frw of aesthetic damages decided by the Intermediate Court of Nyagatare, in addition to 1,700,000 Frw of legal cost including counsel’s fee, and 40,000 Frw of the court fees ordered by the High Court, Rwamagana Chamber ;

Orders to Radiant Insurance Company Ltd to pay to Kwizera Eric 500,000 Frw of counsel’s fee and 300,000 Frw of procedural fee at this level, the total is 800,000 Frw.

## Page 628

232 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 629

233 SUBJECT INDEX COMMECIAL CASES

## Page 630

234 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 631

235 CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD ET.AL 235 CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD ET.AL [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/INJUST/RCOM 00001/2024/SC (Mukamulisa, P.J., Kalihangabo and Hitiyaremye, J.) November 15, 2024] Law governing the commercial procedure – Cheque – Issuing a cheque for the purpose of debt payment – The mere issuance of a cheque to a payee is not enough for the drawer to consider the debt as settled. Rather, the drawer bears the legal obligation to assure the payee that there are sufficient funds in his or her account on the date the cheque is due for payment until its expiration, and that he or she will not obstruct its payment. Law governing the commercial procedure – Breach of contract – Interests – Interests are calculated based on the average lending rate publicized by the National Bank of Rwanda Facts: CIMERWA Ltd entered into a contract with Kigali Ceramica Furniture Ltd, whereby they agreed that CIMERWA would supply KCF Ltd with cement on credit, and KCF Ltd would pay the debt by cheque. However, KCF Ltd did not perform the contract, CIMERWA sent KCF Ltd a payment request, yet KCF Ltd did not make any payment, which made CIMERWA file a case before the Commercial Court, requesting payment of an outstanding debt amounting to 90,350,000 Frw, as well as 16,263,000 Frw in compensation for pecuniary loss along with other various damages. The Commercial Court rendered a judgment holding that the case of CIMERWA Ltd lacks merit and t ordered

## Page 632

236 RWANDA LAW REPORTS CIMERWA Ltd to refund an amount of 11,650,000 Frw, the surplus of the debt due. CIMERWA appealed to the Commercial High Court, alleging that the Commercial Court had disregarded the evidence, and that the cheques issued by KCF Ltd did not settle the debt, as they were dishonored due to insufficient funds. The Commercial High Court rendered the judgment holding that the appeal lodged by CIMERWA was unfounded and confirmed the judgment of the Commercial court. CIMERWA Ltd wrote to the President of the Court of Appeal requesting the review of the judgment on grounds of injustice. After review, the President of the Court of Appeal wrote to the President of the Supreme Court, who approved the review of the case, and it was heard by the Supreme Court. In its submissions during the review of the judgment on grounds of injustice, CIMERWA Ltd alleged that the Commercial Court had disregarded the evidence, including delivery notes, which indicated the quantity of cement it had supplied to KCF Ltd. CIMERWA stated that it was given two cheques as payment, but upon presentation for encashment, they were dishonored due to insufficient funds. CIMERWA further submitted that the non-payment resulted in financial loss, and therefore, it sought interest at the rate of 18% per annum, to be calculated for a period of four years and six months, alleging that had the payment been made on time, the funds would have been reinvested to generate returns. CIMERWA concluded by asserting that it was not its decision to delay the encashment of the cheques, but rather KCF Ltd effectively obstructed their payment by issuing bouncing cheques. It requested the Supreme Court to detract the case of KCF Ltd of not being indebted, as the company itself had acknowledged the debt, CIMERWA

## Page 633

237 CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD ET.AL further argued that if it is so accepted, it would amount to unlawful enrichment. Kigali Ceramica and Furniture Ltd contends that it does not owe CIMERWA Ltd any debt, as it paid it out by cheque, thus, the fact that CIMERWA did not proceed with encashment is not attributable to KCF Ltd, and therefore, CIMERWA must bear any financial loss resulting from its own inaction. KCF Ltd further states that it should not be held liable for the damages for pecuniary loss because they are baseless. Held: 1. The mere issuance of a cheque to a payee is not enough for the drawer to consider the debt as settled, rather, the drawer bears the responsibility to assure the payee that there are sufficient funds in his or her account on the date the cheque is due until its expiration, and that he or she will not obstruct its payment. 2. Interests are calculated based on the average lending rate publicized by the National Bank of Rwanda. The application for the review of the judgment on grounds of injustice has merit Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law nº 32/2009 of 18/11/2009 governing negotiable instruments Regulation n° 006/2015 of 16/09/2015 of the National Bank of Rwanda relating to bouncing cheques Cases referred to: Nova (Jersey) Knit Ltd v Kammgarn Spinnerei GmbH [1977] 1 WLR 713 (CA).

## Page 634

238 RWANDA LAW REPORTS RS/INJUST/RCOMOOOO3/2022/SC; Murwanashyaka Jean Damascène v. BAMU TRADE COMPANY Ltd rendered by the Supreme Court on 31/03/2023. RS/INJUST/RCOM00014/2022/SC; Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine v. Bank of Kigali Plc rendered by the Supreme Court on 31/03/2023. Scholarly writings referred to: Thierry Bonneau, Droit bancaire, 14e éd., LGDJ, Paris, 2021, p.482. Jérôme Lasserre Capdeville et les autres, Droit bancaire, 3e éd, Dalloz, Paris, 2021, P.600. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

This case started in the Commercial Court, where CIMERWA Ltd sued KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE Ltd, hereinafter referred to as KCF Ltd, for breach of contract entered into on 12 April 2017. The contract, titled "Cement Supply Contract on 30 Days Credit Facility", was to last for one renewable year. As per the agreement, CIMERWA Ltd committed to supplying FCF Ltd with cement on credit, and KCF Ltd undertook to repay using cheques as the agreed mode of payment.

KCF Ltd did not pay as agreed upon, on September 11, 2020 and October 5, 2020, CIMERWA Ltd wrote a payment request for the outstanding debt. KCF Ltd did not pay out the debt, which made CIMERWA Ltd file a case before the Commercial Court on February 16, 2021, requesting the Commercial Court to order KCF Ltd to pay 90,350,000 Frw as the outstanding debt ; 16,263,000 Frw as

## Page 635

239 CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD ET.AL damages for pecuniary loss as well as various other various damages.

KCF Ltd contended that the entire debt arising from the contract dated 12/04/2017 had been fully settled, as it was a contractual requirement that each new delivery of cement was contingent upon the full payment for the previous supply. It contended that, since the contract was set to expire on 12 April 2018, it means that CIMERWA Ltd should not be requesting the payment of any debt, and if it requests for the payment of any debt this would rather be based on a contract other than the one in question in this case

In the judgment RCOM 00155/2021/TC rendered on 02 July 2021, the Commercial Court found that: i. KCF Ltd did not owe CIMERWA Ltd. any outstanding debt, asit paid it out by cheques amounting to 102,000,000 Frw1, and the contract dated 12 April 2017, expired on 12 April 2018; ii. CIMERWA Ltd has to refund KCF Ltd the amount of 11,650,000 Frw2, based on the legal principle of refund of undue payments, which holds that a person who receives something not legally owed to them—whether knowingly or by mistake has a duty to return it, in order to prevent unlawful enrichment, since the payment received significantly exceeds the debt being claimed; iii. The pecuniary and moral damages requested by CIMERWA Ltd are unfounded, as they were

1 The first cheque, bearing the amount of 51,000,000 Frw, was issued on 30/11/2018, and the second cheque, also bearing the amount of 51,000,000 Frw, was issued on 03/12/2018. 2 102,000,000 Frw received - 90.350.000 Frw for the claimed debt = 11,650,000 Frw

## Page 636

240 RWANDA LAW REPORTS dependent on the principal claim, which the Court found baseless.

The Court ruled that the case of CIMERWA Ltd lacks merit and ordered CIMERWA Ltd to refund KCF Ltd the amount of 11,650,000 Frw, the surplus of the due debt.

CIMERWA Ltd appealed to the Commercial High Court, alleging that the contract dated 12/04/2017 was never suspended, as its business relationship with KCF Ltd continued as usual.

CIMERWA Ltd also criticized the Commercial Court for disregarding the evidence it had submitted, including delivery notes indicating the dates, quantities, and prices of cement it had supplied to KCF Ltd, that the court should not have held that the debt was paid out by two cheques issued by KCF Ltd, as by the time of their encashment, there were not sufficient funds, it concluded by requesting the court to award it the cost of the proceedings and the advocate fee.

KCF Ltd and Karangwa Raymond contended that the grounds for appeal submitted by CIMERWA Ltd were unfounded, because the debt they owed it had already been fully paid and its does not produce any evidence substantiating its allegations that it is still a creditor of KCF. They concluded by requesting the cost of proceedings and the advocate fee.

In the judgment RCOMA 00555/2021/HCC rendered on 20/09/2022, the Commercial High Court held that: - The fact that CIMERWA Ltd continued doing business with KCF Ltd does not means that

## Page 637

241 CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD ET.AL those deals were still governed by the contract dated 12/04/2017, which had expired; - The lower court committed no error in ruling that the contract had terminated, as both parties failed to comply with Article 7 of that contract, which required either a formal extension or an express agreement that the contract would be tacitly renewed; - The continuation of business relations between CIMERWA Ltd and KCF Ltd could not be taken as conclusive evidence that the contract remained in force, because in commercial practice, parties may engage in transactions without a written agreement ; - KCF Ltd is not liable to pay any interest on the debt since it owes no debt to CIMERWA Ltd ; - CIMERWA Ltd is not entitled to the claimed damages because the appeal on which such claims were based was found to be without merit.

The Court concluded that the appeal lodged by CIMERWA Ltd lacks merit and confirmed the judgment rendered in case RCOM 00155/2021/TC by the Commercial Court on 02/07/2021, it ordered d CIMERWA Ltd to refund KCF Ltd an amount of 11,650,000 Frw as the surplus of the due debtd, pay 1,000,000 Frw in damages for and the cost of proceedings and the advocate fee at the appellate stage. The Court further held that the amount of 40,000 Frw deposited by CIMERWA Ltd as court fee in the appeal shall be transferred to the Public Treasury.

On 28/10/2022, CIMERWA Ltd wrote to the President of the Court of Appeal, applying for review of the judgment RCOMA 00555/2021/HCC rendered by the

## Page 638

242 RWANDA LAW REPORTS Commercial High Court on 20/09/2022, on grounds of injustice. After examining the request, the President of the Court of Appeal wrote to the President of the Supreme Court, requesting that the judgment be reviewed, by decision No. 012/CJ/2024 dated 07/02/2024, the President of the Supreme Court ordered that the case be transmitted to the Registry of the Supreme Court for review.

The case hearing was scheduled on 06/06/2024, and the Court found that the parties appeared, CIMERWA Ltd being represented by Counsel Ndahimana Jean Bosco, while KCF Ltd and Karangwa Raymond were represented by Counsel Gahamanyi Justin, and the following legal issues were debated : a. Whether KCF Ltd owes any debt to CIMERWA Ltd and, if so, whether interests on this debt are due ; b. Whether Karangwa Raymond should be held jointly liable with KCF Ltd for payment of the alleged debt, if established ; c. Whether KCF Ltd should be ordered to reimburse CIMERWA Ltd the amount of 11,650,000 Frw, previously paid in execution of judgment RCOMA 00555/2022/HCC ; d. Whether the damages requested are legally founded.

During the hearing, the Court further ordered the Managing Director of KCF Ltd to submit, no later than 13/06/2024, the information regarding the transactions carried out on the company’s account under his management (bank statement) covering the period from 25/11/2018 to 06/09/2019.

## Page 639

243 CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD ET.AL

After hearing the submissions of both parties on the issues in dispute, the hearing was closed, and the Court informed the parties that judgment would be delivered on 19/07/2024.During its deliberations, the Court found that the Managing Director of KCF Ltd had failed to provide the requested information on transactions carried out on the company’s account (bank statement). Given the fact that this piece of evidence would have clarified the subject matter in this case, the Court deems it necessary, prior to rendering its judgment, to obtain the piece of evidence from BPR Bank Plc, as the cheques issued originated from that bank. On 24/07/2024, the bank provided the bank statement, and the case was consequently rescheduled for a new hearing.

The public hearing was held on 09/10/2024, CIMERWA Ltd was represented by Counsel Abayo Jean Claude, while KCF Ltd and Karangwa Raymond were represented as before. The parties proceeded with debating the bank statement provided by BPR Bank Plc. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES II.1. Whether KCF Ltd owes CIMERWA Ltd any debt to and, if so, whether interests on this debt are due

Regarding the alleged debt owed by KCF Ltd to CIMERWA Ltd, Counsel Ndahimana Jean Bosco, representing CIMERWA Ltd, argues that the basis for seeking the review of the judgment RCOMA 00555/2021/HCC rendered by the Commercial High Court on 20/09/2022, on grounds of injustice, lies in the Court’s failure to thoroughly assess the evidence submitted. He contends that had the Court properly examined the evidence, it would have found that no payment had been made, that the two cheques amounting to 102,000,000 Frw issued to

## Page 640

244 RWANDA LAW REPORTS CIMERWA Ltd were not backed by sufficient funds, and that the Managing Director of KCF Ltd would not have requested an extension of time for payment and issued substitute cheques if he had already settled the debt. He further argued that the Court failed to consider delivery notes that clearly reflected the actual outstanding debt of 99,350,000 Frw, and thus overlooked the provisions of Articles 1043 and 108, paragraph one4, of Law no 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production in courts.

During the hearing of 06/06/2024, Counsel Ndahimana Jean Bosco further submits that they request that the issue as to whether KCF Ltd had really paid out its debt be examined, whether the mere existence of the cheques is enough to ascertain that payment had occurred, and therefore requested that KCF Ltd be ordered to provide the full bank statement demonstrating whether the said cheques were actually cashed out.

He argue that, had the Commercial High Court properly assessed and validated the aforementioned pieces of evidence, it would have concluded that no payment had been effected, that that the failure of the the Court to carry out such an assessment amounted to disregarding the provisions of Article 104 and Article 108, paragraph one, of Law No. 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production in courts.

Regarding the interest arising from the alleged debt, Counsel Ndahimana Jean Bosco submits that the claim is

3 This article reads that: “Presumptions are inferences that the law or a court makes from a known fact to discern an unknown fact”. 4 This article stipulates that: “Presumptions that have not been established by the law are left to the discretion and wisdom of the court. The court shall admit only those presumptions if they are important, precise and consistent”.

## Page 641

245 CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD ET.AL based on the fact that CIMERWA Ltd is a commercial company operating with borrowed funds, and that the non- payment caused pecuniary loss to the company. He therefore requests the Supreme Court to award interest at a rate of 18% per annum, calculated over a period of four years and six months, on the grounds that, had the funds been paid, they would have generated additional revenue. He indicates that the interest should be calculated as follows: (90,350,000 Frw x 18%) x 4 years + 1/2 year = 65,052,000 Frw + 8,131,500 Frw = 73,183,500 Frw.

During the hearing held on 09/10/2024, CIMERWA Ltd, represented by Counsel Abayo Jean Claude, submitted that the bank statement presented clearly showed that KCF Ltd had no funds in its account at the time the disputed cheques dated 30/11/2018 and 03/12/2018 were issued. This, he argued, supports the assertion that KCF Ltd had requested CIMERWA Ltd not to present the cheques to the bank due to insufficient funds. CIMERWA Ltd alleges that it could only have known this information through disclosure by the account holder.

Counsel Ndahimana Jean Bosco, representing CIMERWA Ltd, concluded by alleging that the assertions made by KCF Ltd namely, that CIMERWA Ltd should bear the consequences of not presenting the cheques for payment are legally unfounded for the following reasons: (i) It was KCF Ltd itself that requested CIMERWA Ltd not to present the cheques to the bank, citing lack of funds in the account at the time; (ii) Article 112 of the law governing negotiable instruments applicable at the time only provides that the drawer of a cheque which was not presented for payment cannot be held liable for damages; it does not exempt the drawer from the underlying obligation to pay; (iii) Accepting KCF Ltd’s argument would amount to unlawful

## Page 642

246 RWANDA LAW REPORTS enrichment, since KCF Ltd acknowledges that it received cement from CIMERWA Ltd.

Counsel Gahamanyi Justin, counsel for KCF Ltd and Karangwa Raymond, allege that the submissions made by counsel for CIMERWA Ltd are not true because the cement bags delivered in September, October, and November 2018, as evidenced by the delivery notes, were fully paid for by cheques dated 30/11/2018 and 03/12/2018. He further submits that the allegations of CIMERWA Ltd that it received no payment, while simultaneously it states that the cheques in question had expired after more than 240 days, yet the legal validity of a cheque is limited to 60 days, arecontradictory and untruthful. He also notes that the letter dated 31/07/2019 does not indicate that the cheques issued were meant to replace earlier ones, even if that were the case, CIMERWA Ltd would have no valid claim, as it acknowledges receipt of the cheques and fails to demonstrate the existence of any other outstanding debt corresponding to their value.

He concludes on this issue by stating that both the cheque dated 30/11/2018 and the one dated 03/12/2018 constituted payment. Therefore, if CIMERWA Ltd now claims that it received no payment, it bears the burden of explaining why it failed to present the cheques for encashment, yet Law no 32/2009 of 18/11/2009 relating to negotiable instruments, which was in force at the time, as well as under the current Law no 060/2021 of 14/10/2021 governing negotiable instruments, clearly explains it.

During the hearing held on 06/06/2024, Counsel Gahamanyi Justin added that the mere fact that CIMERWA Ltd was given the cheques equivalent to the debt owed sufficed to constitute payment, and that any negligence in presenting the cheques for encashment could not be attributed to KCF Ltd. He added that, in accordance with

## Page 643

247 CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD ET.AL Article 112 of the law governing negotiable instruments, the loss resulting from failure to cash out a cheque falls upon the bearer. When asked whether the cheques were actually honoured, he responded that he could not confirm. Consequently, the Court ordered KCF Ltd to submit, no later than 13/06/2024, the banking statement of its accounts covering the period from 25/11/2018 to 06/09/2019.

With respect to the interests claimed by CIMERWA Ltd, Counsel Gahamanyi Justin submits that, since the debt allegedly owed to CIMERWA Ltd was already paid out, the compensatory interests claimed by the company cannot be upheld, as there would be no basis to support such a claim.

During the hearing held on 09/10/2024, Counsel Gahamanyi Justin explained that the assertion by CIMERWA Ltd—that there were no funds in the account at the time the cheques were issued—should be disregarded, as the bank statement clearly indicates that a total of 654,331,953 Frw transited through KCF Ltd’s account between 25/11/2018 and 06/09/2019. He further submitted that, even if there had been no funds in the account, this would not have posed any problem, as KCF Ltd had a good working relationship with BPR Bank Plc, under which the bank would honour cheques despite insufficient funds, by allowing overdrafts due to the trust it had in the company.

He further states that CIMERWA Ltd failed to demonstrate whether it had ever presented the issued cheques to the bank for encashment. He emphasized that the cheques in question were crossed cheques, such that that if CIMERWA Ltd had submitted them while there were insufficient funds on KCF Ltd’s account, the bank would have stamped them accordingly and notified KCF Ltd that it had issued bouncing cheques.

## Page 644

248 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

He concludes by stating that CIMERWA Ltd cannot rely on its own inaction to claim that it was given bouncing cheques, while it failed to present them to the bank within the prescribed time for encashment, and therefore must bear full responsibility for its own inaction. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT [29] In this case, both parties agree that CIMERWA Ltd supplied cement to KCF Ltd and that there was an outstanding debt to be paid out. The point of contention lies in whether that debt was effectively paid out or remained unpaid, as well as whether there are any interests accrued on the debt in case the debt was not paid out. a. Determining whether KCF Ltd owes CIMERWA Ltd money [30] In this case, both parties agree that there was an outstanding cement debt of 90,350,000 Rwandan Francs owed by KCF Ltd to CIMERWA Ltd. The disagreement, however, lies in the fact that KCF Ltd states that it settled this debt by two cheques dated 30/11/2018 and 03/12/2018, and that CIMERWA Ltd should bear the consequences of failing to present them for encashment. Conversely, CIMERWA Ltd contends that the cheques were bouncing and, as such, the debt remained unpaid. The issue to be determined is whether the issuance of the cheques by KCF Ltd, despite the failure of CIMERWA Ltd to present them to the bank, discharges the debt, or whether it does not. In order to resolve this issue, the Court examined the legal regime governing cheques as a form of payment under negotiable instruments, including their legal value, as provided for by Law no 32/2009 of 18/11/2009 governing negotiable instruments, which was applicable at the time the

## Page 645

249 CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD ET.AL disputed cheques were issued5. The Court further considered whether the cheques issued fulfilled the conditions required to constitute valid payment and whether their mere issuance extinguished the debt owed by KCF Ltd to CIMERWA Ltd. [31] With regard to the validity of a cheque, the law provides that a cheque is valid under specific conditions, as provided for by the aforementioned Law no 32/2009 of 18/11/2009 governing negotiable instruments, as well as the Regulation no 006/2015 of 16/09/2015 of the National Bank of Rwanda relating to bouncing cheques : - The drawer of a negotiable instrument: 1° promises that, when legally presented, it shall be accepted and cashed out according to its value; 2° guarantees, if it is dishonoured, to compensate the holder or any endorser who ordered its payment; 3° certifies also that he/she cannot oppose its encashment for the legitimate bearer (article 76 of the said Law); - A cheque shall remain valid for sixty (60) days as from the date of its issuance (article 76 of the aforementioned Law); - The drawer has the following obligations including to keep sufficient funds in the account on the due date until the expiration of validity of the issued cheque (article 5 of the above- mentioned regulations).

5 Article 110 states that: “A cheque is an unconditional order in writing that is addressed by its signatory to one bank or one financial institution, and requires to pay on demand a sum certain in money to the drawer or to a specified person or to the bearer. The name of the bank or the financial institution on which the cheque is drawn shall be clearly indicated”.

## Page 646

250 RWANDA LAW REPORTS [32] The Court finds that, based on the foregoing, the legislator demonstrated that the mere issuance of a cheque to its intended payee is not enough for the drawer to feel that he/she paid out the debt . Rather, it imposes on the drawer the obligation to ensure that sufficient funds are available in their account on the date the cheque is due for payment until its expiration, and that they shall not oppose its payment. This shows that a cheque which does not meet these requirements is not valid, and the drawer remains liable to pay the payee in case the cheque is dishonored. [33] The foregoing is supported by the legal scholar Thierry Bonneau, who in his book Droit bancaire states that a cheque is a written order directing a financial institution to pay the bearer the amount indicated thereon6. The expert further explains that a cheque comprises two elements: first, the parties involved namely, the drawer, the payee (le bénéficiaire), and the bank (the payer); and second, the availability of funds (la provision). Jérôme Lasserre Capdeville and others also indicate that a cheque can only exist if both conditions known as the conditions de fond à la création du chèque (substantial conditions for the creation of the cheque), are met. In this case, the debate focused only on the availability of funds, as that is the issue in dispute. Regarding the funds that can be transacted (available funds), the legal scholars identified four essential conditions that must be fulfilled for a cheque to be considered a negotiable instrument:

6 “Le chèque est un document écrit comportant des mentions obligatoires et “par lequel une personne appelée tireur donne l'ordre à un établissement de crédit, appelé tiré, de payer à vue une certaine somme à une troisième personne, appelée bénéficiaire, ou à son ordre” Thierry Bonneau, Droit bancaire, 14e éd., LGDJ, Paris, 2021, p.482. 7 Jérôme Lasserre Capdeville et les autres, Droit bancaire, 3e éd, Dalloz, Paris, 2021, P.600.

## Page 647

251 CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD ET.AL - The presence of funds in the drawer’s account (caractère préalable/ prior nature of a cheque) at the time of issuing and handing in the cheque. This means that mere writing and handing in the cheque is not enough ; the cheque must confer on the holder the right to the amount stated ; - The availability of sufficient funds (caractère suffisant/ sufficiency nature of a cheque) : the drawer must have at least the amount indicated on the cheque in their account; - The funds must be available (caractère disponible/availability character): meaning the funds should be immediately accessible for payment; - The cheque must be irrevocable (caractère irrevocable/ irrevocable nature): the drawer cannot revoke it or prevent the bank from paying it (except as otherwise provided by law), and the cheque must remain with the payee until payment or expiry of the cheque’s prescription period (Expiration du délai de prescription du chèque). [34] Regarding the cheques issued by KCF Ltd, as previously noted, KCF Ltd and Karangwa Raymond base their argument on Article 112 of the aforementioned Law on negotiable instruments, which provides that " the drawer or endorser of a cheque shall not be liable in case the bearer or endorsee did not presented it for payment in accordance with the law." They allege that the entire debt arising from the agreement of 12/04/2017 was paid out by cheques as payment instruments, and that this alone is sufficient to assert that CIMERWA Ltd was paid. Consequently, KCF Ltd is not liable for the negligence of CIMERWA which failed to present the cheques for encashment.

## Page 648

252 RWANDA LAW REPORTS [35] As explained above, for a cheque to constitute valid payment, it must fulfill the required legal conditions outlined above. However, as also elucidated, both cheques issued by KCF Ltd did not meet those conditions. KCF Ltd and Karangwa Raymond allege that by mereissuance of the cheques, article 112 absolves them from liability for non- payment. The Court, therefore, examined the true intent and interpretation of this provision to determine whether failure to present cheques for encashment extinguishes the underlying debt, as claimed vc by KCF Ltd and Karangwa Raymond in their submissions. [36] The Court finds that this article, along with the law governing negotiable instruments, primarily aims to regulate the transaction related to negotiable instruments, as stated in its Article 1 and provides that, in article 6 the rules of the civil code including the Law governing commerce and contracts, that are not inconsistent with this Law, shall apply to negotiable instruments. The Court finds that the matters related to the debt fall under the scope of those the rules mentioned, while this law regulates only the modes of payment in such a way that the cheque issued as payment becomes invalid or expires, this does not extinguish the underlying debt on which the cheque was based. [37] that the underlying debt remains enforceable and that the creditor retains the right to pursue recovery through all legal avenues. For example, the in the case of Nova (Jersey) Knit Ltd v Kammgarn Spinnerei GmbH [1977] 1 WLR 713 (CA)7, the English Court of Appeal held that the issuance of a negotiable instrument—in that case, a bill of exchange— does not extinguish the debt if the instrument remains unpaid; rather, the principal obligation survives. Concerning cheques, The Law Society Gazette noted that the issuance of a cheque gives rise to two separate agreements: one for the

7 Accessible at https://vlex.co.uk/vid/nova-jersey-knit-ltd-792986765

## Page 649

253 CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD ET.AL supply of goods or services and the other for payment8. It follows that if the agreement embodied in the cheque is invalid or fails, this does not affect the validity or enforceability of the underlying contract upon which the cheque is based. [38] Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court finds that Article 112 of Law Nº 32/2009 of 18/11/2009 on negotiable instruments, which was in force at the time the cheques in question were issued, and Article 108 of Law nº 060/2021 of 14/10/2021 currently governing negotiable instruments, should be interpreted as follows: - A cheque is valid only if it is backed with funds from the date of issuance (the date indicated on the cheque) until its expiration (when it is no longer valid); - The mere issuance of a cheque is not enough for the drawer to be sure that he/she paid out his:her debt; rather, it also imposes an obligation on the drawer to assure the payee that there are sufficient funds in the account on the date the cheque is due for payment and until it expires; - The contract enshrined in the cheque is distinct from the one on which the payment is based. This means that if the cheque cannot be cashed out for any reason, this does not extinguish the principal debt. Once a cheque becomes invalid, the creditor

8 “When a cheque is tendered in payment for goods or services, there are two distinct contracts. The contract for the supply of the goods or services is separate from the contract represented by the cheque. That second contract is an unconditional promise to pay the recipient”. In The Law Society Gazette, https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/benchmarks-customers-face- cheque-mate-the-difficult-battle-to-justify-astopped-cheque- /21854.article

## Page 650

254 RWANDA LAW REPORTS retains the right to pursue payment of the debt through any other legally recognized means; - The law governing negotiable instruments applies solely to the agreements contained within such instruments and the mechanism of payment, but does not govern the basis of the debt to be paid. [39] With regard to the case at hand, the Court finds that the cheques referred to by KCF Ltd’s legal counsel as constituting payment of the debt owed to CIMERWA Ltd are the cheque dated 30/11/2018, valid until 29/01/2019, and the cheque dated 03/12/2018, valid until 02/02/2019, each in the amount of 51,000,000 Frw. The bank statement submitted at the Court’s request indicates that between 30/11/2018 and 01/03/2019, KCF Ltd did not have sufficient funds in its account, as of that date, it had a debt of 1,507 Frw, yet the last cheque had expired on 02/02/2019. This demonstrates that the cheques were not backed with sufficient funds from the date of issuance until their expiration, in violation of the applicable legal provisions and regulations previously mentioned9. [40] The Court finds that the cheques issued by KCF Ltd were invalid as they were not backed by sufficient funds at the time of issuance. Consequently, they could not constitute valid payment. Given that CIMERWA Ltd never received payment, the Court finds that the debt owed by KCF Ltd amounting to 90,350,000 Frw remains outstanding in its entirety. This amount is undisputed, as KCF Ltd itself acknowledges that the disputed cheques were intended to

9 Articles 76 and 113 of Law n° 32/2009 of 18/11/2009 relating to negotiable instruments, which was in force at the time the disputed cheques were issued, together with Article 5 of Regulation No 006/2015 of 16/09/2015 of the National Bank of Rwanda governing bouncing cheques.

## Page 651

255 CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD ET.AL settle this specific debt. Accordingly, KCF Ltd is under the obligation to repay it. [41] The Court further finds that KCF Ltd's assertion that the issuance of cheques alone constitutes payment is not true, as long as a cheque is not cashed out and this does not result in the transfer of funds from the account, no payment is effected. The Court also notes that KCF Ltd does not dispute the debt, a fact substantiated by its letter dated 30/09/2020 addressed to CIMERWA Ltd, titled: “Outstanding Balance Rwf 99,350,000.” Consequently, the Court finds that KCF Ltd retained the funds despite having received goods, which amounts to unlawful enrichment. [42] Regarding KCF Ltd’s claim that the cheques were crossed (chèques barrés) and thus intended solely for deposit into a bank account, and that due to its relationship with the bank, the latter would have honoured the cheques by allowing an overdraft (dépassement) had CIMERWA Ltd presented them, the Court finds this argument is unfounded because KCF Ltd never communicated such information to CIMERWA Ltd. On the contrary, the case file shows that KCF Ltd wrote to CIMERWA Ltd requesting patience due to delayed payment and even issued replacement cheques, which similarly were not cleared. If KCF Ltd had indeed had such an arrangement with its bank, it would have informed CIMERWA Ltd accordingly. Moreover, this argument does not negate the existence of the debt, as, as previously explained, no funds were transferred from KCF Ltd’s accounts to CIMERWA Ltd. b. Whether CIMERWA Ltd should be awarded the interest arising from the outstanding debt [43] Article 144 of the Law n° 45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts states that “If the breach of the contract consists of a failure to pay a sum of money or to render a

## Page 652

256 RWANDA LAW REPORTS performance with fixed or ascertainable monetary value, interests are calculated from the time for performance was due less all deductions to which the party in breach is entitled”. [44] As previously explained, KCF Ltd failed to repay the debt it owed to CIMERWA Ltd, a commercial company that anticipated earning profits from the said transaction. CIMERWA Ltd was unable to realize those profits for the entire period it remained unpaid by KCF Ltd. Based on the applicable legal provisions referred to above, CIMERWA Ltd is entitled to interest on the principal amount of 90,350,000 Frw, calculated from the date the debt was due until the date of the judgment. [45] Regarding the date from which interest should begin to accrue, the Court finds that the appropriate date is when CIMERWA Ltd became aware that it would no longer receive payment. The case file shows that after the dishonor of the cheques in dispute, KCF Ltd wrote to CIMERWA Ltd on 31/07/2019 acknowledging the debt and issuing new cheques that were to be cashed out on 03/09/2019 and 05/09/2019. CIMERWA Ltd confirms that these cheques were intended to pay out the outstanding debt and accepted that the debt was to be paid on those dates, as indicated in their submissions. Therefore, the Court determines that interest should be calculated from 05/09/2019—the date the last cheque was issued10—until 15/11/2024, the date of the judgment, amounting to a total of 1,870 days. [46] With regard to the 18% interest rate requested by CIMERWA Ltd, the Court finds that there is a precedent set

10 These cheques dated 03/09/2019 and 05/09/2019 are not the subject of litigation in the present case. They are only referred to for the sole purpose of determining the date from which interest on the outstanding debt should begin to accrue.

## Page 653

257 CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD ET.AL in various cases indicating the applicable rate for calculating interest. For instance, in the case of Murwanashyaka Jean Damascène v. BAMU TRADE COMPANY Ltd11, which relied on the precedent set in Mugwaneza Carine Sandrine v. Bank of Kigali Plc12, the Court held that interest should be calculated based on the average lending rate (taux moyen de prêt publicized by the National Bank of Rwanda. [47] The Court finds that the interest to be awarded to CIMERWA Ltd shall be calculated based on the applicable average lending rate of 15.41% as published publicized by the National Bank of Rwanda in September 202413. The interest shall be computed over the 1,870-day period during which KCF Ltd failed to pay out the debt, up to the date of the judgment. The calculation is as follows: 90,350,000 Frw × 15.41 × 1870 days ÷ (360 × 100) = 72,321,912 Frw. II.2. Whether Karangwa Raymond can be held jointly liable with KCF Ltd for payment of the alleged debt [48] Counsel Ndahimana Jean Bosco, representing CIMERWA Ltd, alleges that the cement supplied to KCF Ltd was intended for the construction of a market place. However, after receiving the cement, the company’s Managing Director, Karangwa Raymond, refused to effect payment. Counsel argues that Karangwa Raymond should be held jointly liable with the company for the unpaid debt, as he personally played a role in the non-payment. He

11 Judgment RS/INJUST/RCOMOOOO3/2022/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 24/05/2024, Paragraph 27 12 Judgment RS/INJUST/RCOM00014/2022/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 31/03/2023, paragraphs 53-55 13 This was the applicable average lending rate on 15/11/2024 at 9 am when the judgment was pronounced. Retrieved from https://www.bnr.rw/yieldcurve.

## Page 654

258 RWANDA LAW REPORTS contends that Karangwa Raymond used the company as an instrument of fraud. [49] He alleges that in establishing joint liability of Karangwa Raymond with the company he manages, the Court should rely on Article 92, paragraph 4, of Law no 007/2021 of 05/02/2021 governing companies14, as well as on various precedents set by the Supreme Court, including cases such as LETSHEGO RWANDA Ltd v. Umubyeyi Marie Claire15and Twagiramungu Vénuste v. Rwanda Revenue Authority16. In these cases, the Court established that the responsibility of directors or shareholders is what is referred to “piercing the corporate veil” or “lifting the veil of the corporation” is an exceptional remedy established exclusively by the Court, which disregards the distinction between the separate legal personality of the company and that of its owners or shareholders based on the aforementioned provision. [50] Counsel Gahamanyi Justin, representing KCF Ltd and Karangwa Raymond, argues that a commercial company duly incorporated under the law possesses legal personality distinct from that of its directors and shareholders. He contends that even though KCF Ltd should not be held liable in this case, he does not figure out any legal basis upon which CIMERWA Ltd claims that Karangwa Raymond should be held personally liable for actions that were not his own. He further asserts that CIMERWA Ltd has not demonstrated, even minimally, that

14 This article states that: “A court may pierce the corporate veil to hold a shareholder liable for obligations of the company if the court finds that the shareholder has abused the company status form for fraudulent or illegal purposes or abused the company’s assets as if they were personal assets”. 15 See Judgment RS/INJUST/RCOM 00009/2021/SC rendered by the Supreme Court 29/04/2021

## Page 655

259 CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD ET.AL Karangwa Raymond misappropriated or damaged company assets. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT [51] Article 95, paragraph one, of the Law n°17/2018 of 13/04/2018 governing companies stipulates that “with the exception of an unlimited liability company, a shareholder is not liable for the obligations of a company only because of being a shareholder (…)”. Paragraph 5 of the same article reads that: “A court may pierce the corporate veil to hold a shareholder liable for obligations of the company if the court finds that the shareholder has abused the company form for fraudulent or illegal purposes or abused the company’s assets as if they were personal assets”. [52] The Court finds that the aforementioned provision outlines three circumstances under which it may pierce the corporate veil to hold a shareholder personally liable for the obligations of the company. These are: (1) when the shareholder has abused the corporate form for fraudulent purposes; (2) when there has been a violation of the law; and (3) when company assets have been misused as personal property. [53] The use of this principle was also thoroughly elaborated in the case of Munyampundu Antoine and another v.Rwanda Revenue Authority17, which leveraged in the precedent set in Twagiramungu Vénuste v. Rwanda Revenue Authority18. In both cases, the Court reiterated that holding directors or shareholders personally liablereferred to as “piercing the corporate veil” or “lifting the veil of the

17 See Judgment n° RCOMAA 00040/2016/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 22/12/2017, paragraph 25. 18 See Judgment RCOMAA 0056/2016/SC-RCOMAA 0061/16/CS, rendered by the Supreme Court on 14/07/2017, paragraph 22.

## Page 656

260 RWANDA LAW REPORTS corporation”—is an exceptional remedy that can only be established by the Court. It emphasized that such liability must be based on clearly established grounds, as the circumstances under which the corporate veil may be lifted are strictly limited and must demonstrate why the directors or shareholders should be held accountable for obligations otherwise attributable to the company. [54] In Murwanashyaka Jean Damascène v. BAMU TRADE COMPANY Ltd19, the Court, relying upon the precedents and legal writings previously cited, clearly elucidated five following principles triggering the liability of directors and shareholders a company: a. For a shareholder to be held liable for acts of the company, the following two conditions must be met each independently sufficient: (i) the shareholder must have abused the corporate form for purposes of fraud or in violation of the law; and (ii) the shareholder must have misused the company’s assets as though they were private assets; b. The personal liability of directors or shareholders is a legal exception, and can only be established by the Court; c. In establishing such liability, the Court must base its decision on clearly established and justified grounds, specifying the reason the shareholder must bear personal responsibility for what would normally be attributed to the legal entity; d. Regarding the misuse of the corporate form for fraudulent or unlawful ends, it must be shown that the shareholder acted with intent to prejudice

19 Judgment RS/INJUST/RCOMOOO13/2022/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 24/05/2024, paragraph 27

## Page 657

261 CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD ET.AL others, believing that they would not be held personally accountable ; e. The shareholder’s acts must have been aimed at securing personal benefit, rather than the interests of the company. [55] With regard to this case, the Court finds that for it to pierce the corporate veil and hold Karangwa Raymond personally liable, CIMERWA Ltd would have proved that: (i) Karangwa Raymond abused the corporate form with intent to commit fraud; Or that (ii) he violated the law; Or that (iii) he misused company assets as though they were his personal property, in such a way as to cause non-payment of the debt. The Court finds that CIMERWA Ltd failed to demonstrate any of the above. The company did not adduce evidence of fraud allegedly committed by Karangwa Raymond, nor of any legal violation or intent to prejudice others, or that he was acting for personal gain. Accordingly, the conditions required to lift the corporate veil and impose personal liability are not met in this case. [56] Based on the provisions of Article 95 of the above- mentioned Law no 007/2021 of 05/02/2021 governing companies and the elucidation previously provided, the Court finds that Karangwa Raymond should not be ordered to share liability with KCF Ltd in the repayment of the claimed debt. II.3. Determining whether KCF Ltd should be ordered to reimburse CIMERWA Ltd the amount of 11,650,000 Frw, previously paid in execution of judgment RCOMA 00555/2022/HCC [57] Counsel Ndahimana Jean Bosco, representing CIMERWA Ltd, submits that in case the Supreme Court finds that judgment RCOMA 00555/2022/HCC, for which a review is applied for, is vitiated by injustice, and determines

## Page 658

262 RWANDA LAW REPORTS that CIMERWA Ltd was indeed entitled to the payment of the debt it claims, the Court should order KCF Ltd to reimburse the amount of 11,650,000 Frw, which the Commercial High Court had previously ordered CIMERWA Ltd to refund, calling it the surplus of the payment received. [58] Counsel Gahamanyi Justin, representing KCF Ltd, argues that the order requiring CIMERWA Ltd to pay 11,650,000 Frw to the company he represents was based on the finding that CIMERWA Ltd had received an amount exceeding the payment it was claiming. He further contends that since CIMERWA Ltd has failed to refute this determination, it has no valid grounds to challenge the that judgment. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT [59] The Commercial High Court ordered CIMERWA Ltd to reimburse KCF Ltd the surplus amounting to 11,650,000 Frw of the payment that CIMERWA Ltd was entitled to recover, based on the fact that CIMERWA Ltd had received two cheques totaling 102,000,000 Frw, while the debt it claimed was 90,350,000 Frw. As previously explained, KCF Ltd never actually paid the debt owed to CIMERWA Ltd, as the cheques it was given were never cashed out. KCF Ltd could not lawfully demand the return of funds it never paid out, as this would amount to unlawful enrichment. Therefore, KCF Ltd must return the 11,650,000 Frw to CIMERWA Ltd in accordance with Article 136, 3° of Law No. 45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, which empowers the court to order restitution to prevent unlawful enrichment.

## Page 659

263 CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD ET.AL II.4. Determining whether the damages requested for are legally founded [60] Counsel Ndahimana Jean Bosco, representing CIMERWA Ltd, requests that the company he represents be awarded 7,500,000 Frw as the cost of the proceedings and advocate fee, on the grounds that it was dragged into court, which caused it to incur losses in terms of resources spent in following up the proceedings and hiring legal counsel. [61] Counsel Gahamanyi Justin, representing KCF Ltd, alleges that the damages claimed by CIMERWA Ltd is unfounded, asserting instead that it was CIMERWA Ltd which dragged KCF Ltd. into court. He maintains that it is therefore CIMERWA Ltd that should be ordered to pay 7,500,000 Frw as the cost of proceedings and advocate fee. [62] Article 111 of Law No. 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labor, and administrative procedure, as amended to date, provides that the claim for representation fees is an incidental claim to the principal claim aiming to repay expenses incurred during judicial proceedings. The Court finds that the claim by KCF Ltd for representation and the cost of proceedings amounting to 7,500,000 Frw is unfounded, as the party has lost the case and is therefore not entitled to such reimbursement. [63] With regard to the representation fees and the cost of proceedings claimed by CIMERWA Ltd, the Court finds that the company is entitled to be awarded such fees as it is the successful party in the case. However, the Court finds that the amount of 7,500,000 Frw claimed to be excessive, especially given the absence of supporting evidence. In its discretion, the Court therefore awards 300,000 Frw for the cost of proceedings and 500,000 Frw as advocate fee.

## Page 660

264 RWANDA LAW REPORTS III. DECISION OF THE COURT [64] Holds that the application by CIMERWA Ltd for review on grounds of injustice of the judgment rendered in case RCOMA 00555/2021/HCC by the Commercial High Court on 20/09/2022 has merit; [65] Holds that the judgment RCOMA 00555/2021/HCC rendered by the Commercial High Court on 20/09/2022 is overturned; [66] Holds that Karangwa Raymond is not jointly liable with Kigali Ceramica Furniture Ltd for the payment of the debt in question; [67] Orders Kigali Ceramica Furniture Ltd to pay CIMERWA Ltd the amount of 90,350,000 Frw as the debt owed; [68] Orders Kigali Ceramica Furniture Ltd to pay CIMERWA Ltd the amount of 72,321,912 Frw as interests; [69] Orders Kigali Ceramica Furniture Ltd to reimburse CIMERWA Ltd 11,650,000 Frw as explained above; [70] Orders Kigali Ceramica Furniture Ltd to pay CIMERWA Ltd 800,000 Frw for advocate fee and the cost of the proceedings.

## Page 661

265 NIYIGENA v. ECOBANK RWANDA PLC N’UNDI NIYIGENA v ECOBANK RWANDA PLC ET. AL. [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/INJUST/RCOM 00005/2023/SC (Mukamulisa, P.J., Hitiyaremye and Kazungu, J.) June 28, 2024] Civil Procedure – Contracts – Suretyship Contracts – Provision of Security – A security may be provided to guarantee an existing debt; it may also be used to secure a debt or future debts. However, in the security agreement, it must be clearly stated that the security is intended to guarantee a specific debt or any debts, specifying their amount, purpose, and other relevant details. Facts: Kantarama Felicie sued Niyigena Eraste before the Commercial Court for his refusal to repay a loan he had borrowed from Ecobank Rwanda Plc, for which she had acted as a guarantor. As a result, the collateral she had mortgaged was eventually sold through a public auction. Ecobank was forced intervened in the case. The Court rendered a judgment declaring that Kantarama’s claim was justified and ordered Niyigena to pay her 261,173,067 Frw, equivalent to the value of the property she had lent her, identified by UPI: 5/04/03/01/2936. The Court also ordered him to pay her damages. Niyigena was not satisfied with the decision, appealed to the Commercial High Court, arguing that the loan he borrowed had been repaid and, therefore, he should not be ordered to pay Kantarama Félicie the amount of 261,173,067 Frw for the collateral that was sold by Ecobank, nor the damages. The Commercial High Court rendered a judgment by upholding the decision of the Commercial Court.

## Page 662

266 RWANDA LAW REPORTS Niyigena wrote to the President of the Court of Appeal requesting a review of the case on grou nds of injustice. After examining the grounds for the request and finding them justified, the President of the Court of Appeal wrote to the President of the Supreme Court requesting that the case should be reviewed who approved the review and ordered it to be retried by the Supreme Court. In his submissions in the case under review on grounds of injustice, Niyigena argues that the Commercial High Court misinterpreted the facts by ruling that the agreement between him and Kantarama regarding the lending of the collateral was not respected, simply because the property he had lent him was sold through a public auction after the issuance of the certificate of RDB. He argues that the sale of the property was not due to a breach of the loan agreement related to the initial advance (avance de démarrage), which had been guaranteed by Kantarama and was already repaid meaning Ecobank’s rights over that collateral should have ended there. Rather, he attributes it to Ecobank’s negligence in granting subsequent loans without registering the collateral again. This would have required Kantarama’s prior consent for her collateral to cover the new loans, along with a new registration. Since this was not done, Ecobank’s rights over the collateral provided by Kantarama Félicie to Niyigena Eraste applied only to the loan of 284,747,744 Frw. Ecobank Rwanda Plc, in its defense, argues that Niyigena’s claim that Kantarama Félicie only guaranteed the advance payment guarantee loan is unfounded. The Bank states that Kantarama had agreed that the collateral would continue to secure all future loans granted to Niyigena by the Bank. It further adds that the sale of the collateral through public auction was a result of Niyigena’s failure to repay the loans he had been granted.

## Page 663

267 NIYIGENA v. ECOBANK RWANDA PLC N’UNDI Kantarama, on her part, argues that since Ecobank admits that the loan she guaranteed had already been repaid, and sold his collateral, it should bear the consequences and she denies ever authorizing Ecobank to use her collateral to guarantee any other future loans that Niyigena might take. She further states that the collateral was registered only once and was not meant to secure any additional loan, and that there is no evidence proving that it was registered as security for any other loan. She therefore requests that Ecobank should be held accountable for all the errors it committed. Held: A security is provided to guarantee an existing debt; it may also guarantee a future debt or debts. However, the security agreement must clearly state that the security is intended to cover a specific future debt or debts, specifying their amount, purpose, and other relevant details. A claim is justified. Statutes and statutory referred to: Law of 30/07/1888 of the civil code, article 555; Law n° 10/2009 of 14/05/2009 on mortgages, article 4 and 11. Case laws referred to: RS/INJUST/RCOM 00011/2022/SC; Bugingo Jean Claude, Ecobank vs KADOGI Jean Paul decided by the Supreme Court on 08/03/2024. RCOMA 0138/12/CS; GAJU Cyinthia vs Access Bank Ltd decided by the Supreme Court on 16/05/2014. Doctirines referred to : Patrick Tafforeau, Droit des sûretés, sûretés personnelles et réelles, Edition Bruylant, Bruxelles, 2020.

## Page 664

268 RWANDA LAW REPORTS Manuella BOURASSIN na Vincent BREMOND, Droit des sûretés, 7ème Edition Dalloz, 2019. Philippe MALAURIE, Laurent AYNES, Droit des Sûretés, 15 éditions, 2021. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

This case started in the Commercial Court, where Kantarama Félicie sued Niyigena Eraste for refusing to repay a loan he owed to Ecobank, which led to the collateral she had mortgaged to secure that loan being sold at auction, along with various damages arising from the breach of contract. Ecobank was forced intervened in the case.

On 08/02/2022, the Commercial Court rendered the judgment in case RCOM 01291/2021/TC, ruling that the claim filed by Kantarama Félicie was founded in parts. The Court held that Ecobank would not have been forced intervened in the case, and ordered Niyigena Eraste to pay Kantarama Félicie 261,173,067 Frw as the equivalent of her property with UPI: 5/04/03/01/2936, which she had lent him. He was also ordered to pay her 600,000 Frw made of procedural and counsel's fees, along with deposit court fees. Additionally, he was ordered to pay Ecobank 500,000 Frw of counsel's fees.

Niyigena Eraste appealed the judgment to the Commercial High Court, arguing that he had not requested for forced intervention of Ecobank in the first instance, but rather intended for the bank to be brought into the case to be held accountable for its errors committed in selling the collateral that had been provided as security for the money Niyigena Eraste received from WDA, a loan which was

## Page 665

269 NIYIGENA v. ECOBANK RWANDA PLC N’UNDI repaid without Ecobank’s involvement. He further argued that the loan amounting to 284,747,744 Frw was not granted by Ecobank, and that such loan had already been repaid. Therefore, he contended that he should not be ordered to pay Kantarama Félicie the amount of 261,173,067 Frw for the mortgage that was sold by Ecobank and damages.

The Commercial High Court examined the following three issues: i. Whether Niyigena Eraste had not requested the forced intervention of Ecobank in the first instance; ii. Whether the loan in dispute was not granted by Ecobank and whether it had been repaid; iii. Whether the appellant would not have been ordered to pay Kantarama Félicie 261,173,067 Frw.

On 25/11/2022, the Commercial High Court rendered judgment in case RCOMA 00190/2022/HCC, uphold the decision of the appealed case. However, it found that Niyigena Eraste’s appeal was only valid with regard to the fact that he had not requested the forced intervention of Ecobank in the first instance, but had instead requested that the bank should be summoned as a guarantor to be held liable for the claims made against it. The Court ordered him to pay both Ecobank and Kantarama Félicie damages of 300,000 Frw for each, as counsel’s fees at the appeal level.

In reaching this decision, the Court based on the following reasons: a. The fact that in the first instance, Niyigena Eraste did not request the forced intervention of Ecobank, but rather requested that it should be summoned as a guarantor to be held liable for the claims made against it, and that he did

## Page 666

270 RWANDA LAW REPORTS not request it to appear in the hearing through the ordinary procedure of forced intervention; b. The fact that Niyigena Eraste failed to provide the Court with evidence proving that the loan amounting to 284,747,744 Frw was not granted by Ecobank and that it had been repaid.

Niyigena Eraste wrote to the President of the Court of Appeal requesting a review the case RCOMA 00190/2022/HCC on grounds of injustice, which had been decided by the Commercial High Court on 25/11/2022. After examining the request, the President of the Court of Appeal forwarded a report to the President of the Supreme Court recommending that the case should be reviewed who also approved the request, and the case was registered under RS/INJUST/RCOM 00005/2023/SC.

During the pre-trial conference, the parties agreed that the guarantee provided by Ecobank covered only the initial advance (avance de démarrage) granted by WDA, and that this advance had been repaid without Ecobank's involvement, thus it did not constitute a debt owed by Niyigena Eraste to Ecobank. The issue arose from the fact that Niyigena Eraste took additional loans from Ecobank using the same collateral that had been lent to him by Kantarama Félicie when Ecobank initially guaranteed the aforementioned initial advance (avance de démarrage). The question was whether Ecobank could transfer that collateral to guarantee new loans without informing Kantarama Félicie and obtaining her consent, as had been applied for the case of the initial advance (avance de démarrage).

The case was heard in public on 15/05/2024. Niyigena Eraste assisted by Counsel Bayingana Janvier, Ecobank was represented by Counsel Bimenyimana Eric,

## Page 667

271 NIYIGENA v. ECOBANK RWANDA PLC N’UNDI while Kantarama Félicie was represented by Counsel Ngendakuriyo Célestin. The issues to be analysed in the present case include whether Ecobank had the right to transfer the collateral lent by Kantarama Félicie to Niyigena Eraste initially provided to guarantee the initial advance (avance de démarrage) to guarantee other loans without informing her, and the determination of the amount of damages to be paid to Kantarama Félicie, and other claims for damages raised in the case. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES i. Whether Ecobank had the right to transfer the collateral lent by Kantarama Félicie to Niyigena Eraste initially provided to guarantee the initial advance (avance de démarrage) to guarantee other loans without informing her.

Counsel Bayingana Janvier, counsel for Niyigena Eraste, argued that the injustice which led to the request for review of the case stemmed from the fact that the Commercial High Court misinterpreted the facts, resulting in a wrongful decision on a non-existent issue as the Court wrongly assumed that the loan guaranteed by Kantarama Félicie's collateral had not been repaid, which led it to conclude that the mortgage agreement between Kantarama Félicie and Niyigena Eraste had been breached. He further stated that Ecobank took other debts owed to it by Niyigena Eraste which were entirely unrelated to the loan for which Kantarama Félicie had provided her collateral and used that as a basis to request RDB to authorize the sale of her collateral, despite the fact that the collateral had not been properly registered. He added that, in case reviewing the permit to sale issued by RDB, it is evident that the only loan for which the collateral had been mortgaged was the initial advance.

## Page 668

272 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

He further explains that when the collateral mentioned above before being mortgaged, on 13/01/2014, between ECOTRAP/Niyigena Eraste, Kantarama Félicie, and Ecobank, there has been an agrement concerning a loan amounting to 284,747,744 Frw, after which the collateral was registered. He argued that once this loan had been repaid, Kantarama Félicie’s obligations came to an end. Therefore, for any additional loans that Ecobank claims to have granted to Niyigena Eraste using Kantarama Félicie’s collateral, it was necessary for her to first consent to the continued use of her collateral for those other loans, and a new registration of the collateral should have taken place. Since this was not done, Ecobank’s rights over the collateral lent to Niyigena Eraste by Kantarama Félicie were exclusively limited to the loan of 284,747,744 Frw.

Regarding Ecobank’s claim that, in the collateral loan agreement of 07/01/2014, Kantarama Félicie authorized Niyigena Eraste to continue using her collateral for a period of ten years, Counsel Bayingana Janvier argued that this interpretation was incorrect. He explained that the collateral loan agreement in question referred to any future agreements that Niyigena Eraste might enter into with any financial institutions, and was not specifically limited to loans from Ecobank.

He concluded by stating that the court, in the judgment that was requested to be reviewed on grounds of injustice, unfairly punished Niyigena Eraste for mistakes committed by Ecobank. He therefore requests this present Court to correct the error and hold Ecobank itself liable for the consequences of its own acts, and to order that the amounts imposed in that judgment be charged to Ecobank, since it was the one that wrongly sold Kantarama Félicie’s collateral despite the loan it had guaranteed having already been repaid.

## Page 669

273 NIYIGENA v. ECOBANK RWANDA PLC N’UNDI

Counsel Bimenyimana Eric, Counsel for Ecobank, argues that Niyigena Eraste's claim that Kantarama Félicie only guaranteed the advance payment guarantee loan is unfounded because in the agreement of 13/01/2014 on which Kantarama Félicie signed, under its article 3, paragraph 3 explicitly states that she authorized Ecobank to allow her collateral to be used for other loans by agreeing a change in the mode of utilization. It is on that basis that her property continued to serve as collateral for all loans granted to Niyigena Eraste. He added that, in addition to this, the agreement of 07/01/2014 concluded before a land notary in Kayonza District, where the mortgaged property is located, it was for granting Niyigena Eraste the right to use Kantarama Félicie’s property as collateral for a period of ten (10) years, without restricting him from using it to guarantee future loans.

He further explained that, based on the aforementioned, it is in that context from 14/01/2015, Niyigena Eraste took out various loans assuring the Bank that the property he was lent by Kantarama Félicie would serve as collateral. Among the requirements imposed was to subscribe for fire insurance for the property, which he consistently fulfilled as long as the property remained under mortgage. He stated that the loan granted on 20/05/2015, amounting to 250,000,000 Frw, failed to repay, leading to a restructuring of the loan agreement, and the debt increased to 308,909,333 Frw which ultimately led to the auction sale of the collateral.

When asked why the collateral belonging to Kantarama Félicie was sold, despite acknowledging that a debt of 284,747,744 Frw had been repaid and no other permit to sale had been issued for the remaining debt he mentioned, Counsel Bimenyimana Eric responded that the collateral was sold based on the invoice discounting of

## Page 670

274 RWANDA LAW REPORTS 28/07/2016, which changed the nature of the guaranteed loan. He explains that before the Bank proceeds with the sale of collateral, some procedures must first be followed, including reminding the debtor of their repayment obligations, and the same to Niyigena Eraste was followed.

Regarding the issue of whether the disputed debt was the same for all parties, since they seem as they mention various debts, he explains that Ecobank had granted various loans to Niyigena Eraste. They had agreed that among the properties to serve as collateral for those loans was the house belonging to Kantarama Félicie, which was already registered as such, and that is why it was not registered again. He added that the aforementioned are consistent with the agreement concluded between Kantarama Félicie, Ecobank, and Niyigena Eraste under article 3 of their contract, where they authorized the Bank to transfer the registration of the collateral to secure another loan which is the basis where Ecobank proceeded with the auction of the mortgaged property after determining that Niyigena Eraste had defaulted on the loan secured by that collateral.

Counsel Ngendakuriyo Célestin, Counsel for Kantarama Félicie, stated that since Ecobank acknowledges that the loan amounting to 284,747,744 Frw which Kantarama Félicie had secured with her property was fully repaid, yet it proceeded to sell her collateral, the Bank should bear the consequences of that act. He argued that the claim by Ecobank’s Counsel that Kantarama Félicie had agreed to secure all future loans granted to Niyigena Eraste is false, as article 2, paragraph 2 of the mortgage agreement concluded by both parties on 13/01/2014 clearly specifies the way her collateral would be used. Since Kantarama Félicie never guaranteed the other loans granted to Niyigena Eraste, therefore, that Ecobank should be held liable for all consequences resulting from the sale of the collateral.

## Page 671

275 NIYIGENA v. ECOBANK RWANDA PLC N’UNDI

Counsel Ngendakuriyo Célestin further explained that, based on article 4 of the Law on Mortgages, a mortgage is registered only once for a single debt. Therefore, since the mortgage granted by Kantarama Félicie was for a single loan of 284,747,744 Frw and was registered only once for that loan, it could not be used to secure another debt especially given that there is no evidence indicating that it was registered for any other loan. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 555 of the Civil Code of 30/07/1888, which was in force at the time the contract referred to in this present case was signed, provided that suretyship cannot be presumed, and must be expressly accepted and it cannot be extended beyond the obligations that the guarantor has undertaken. Article 576 of the same law provided that a guarantor cannot be compelled to pay if they can no longer exercise their right of subrogation namely, the right to recover from the principal debtor through the debtor’s rights, mortgaged property, or other securities due to the creditor’s fault.

Article 4 of Law n0 10/2009 of 14/05/2009 on Mortgages as amended and supplemented to date, provides that a mortgage is considered to be valid when recorded in the mortgage register in the office of the Registrar General.

Article 11 of the aforementioned law provides that a mortgagor shall be entitled to restitution of his/her security whenever he/she has fully refunded the loan in accordance with the terms agreed on in the mortgage contract.

The provisions of the aforementioned article were clarified by the Supreme Court in the case decided on 19/06/2020 between Kayombya Robert, I&M Bank Rwanda

## Page 672

276 RWANDA LAW REPORTS Plc v. IMEX Sarl where it referred to explanations provided by legal scholars, the Court explained that a mortgage is an accessory right, meaning on the secured debt, of one of the implications of this is that the mortgage is extinguished along with the debt it guarantees. Therefore, once the debt has been fully repaid, the mortgage securing it is automatically released unless otherwise stipulated in the mortgage contract.1

The parties to this case agree that the loan secured by the property of Kantarama Félicie, with UPI: 5/04/03/01/2936, under the mortgage agreement of 13/01/2014 was fully repaid without the intervention of Ecobank. They also agree that after the payment of the loan, Niyigena Eraste, who had been lent the mortgage, used it to secure additional loans, one of which was not repaid, leading to the sale of the mortgage at auction. They disagree on the issue of that Niyigena Eraste and Kantarama Félicie argue that the mortgage would not have been sold since the loan it initially secured had been repaid, while Ecobank maintains that since Niyigena Eraste continued using the mortgage to secure other loans, one of which defaulted, nothing would prevent the mortgage from being sold.

The documents in the case file indicate that on 23/12/2013, Ecobank and ECOTRAP, represented by Niyigena Eraste, entered into a loan agreement for 284,747,744 Frw intended to secure an advance payment granted to ECOTRAP after winning a tender in WDA2. Those documents indicate that on 13/01/2014, a mortgage agreement was signed between Ecobank, Niyigena Eraste and Kantarama Félicie to secure the loan Niyigena Eraste

1 Case n° RCOMAA0026/2016/SC decided by the Supreme Court on 19/06/2020, Paragraph 39 and 40. 2 284.747.744 Rfw to secure the tender won with WDA for the ward of the contract to construct and rehabilitate ESTB Busogo.

## Page 673

277 NIYIGENA v. ECOBANK RWANDA PLC N’UNDI had been granted by Ecobank. Under that agreement, the person who provided the mortgage as collateral for the loan was Kantarama Félicie.

Based on the two aforementioned agreements and article 4, paragraph one of Law n0 10/2009 of 14/05/2009 mentioned above, on 13/01/2014, Ecobank registered the mortgage provided by Kantarama Félicie at the Office of the Registrar General which consists of property registered under UPI: 5/04/03/01/2936, located in the Eastern Province, Kayonza District, Kabarondo Sector, and valued at 261,173,067 Frw, as security for the loan of 284,747,744 Frw mentioned above.

The documents in the case file also indicate that Ecobank and ECOTRAP, represented by Niyigena Eraste, entered into additional loan agreements, in which the property of Kantarama Félicie, registered under UPI: 5/04/03/01/2936, was included as among collateral for those loans. The agreements are as follow : i. A loan agreement referred to as invoice discounting for 109,000,000 Frw, concluded on 16/04/2014; ii. A loan agreement referred to as invoice discounting for 125,000,000 Frw, concluded on 26/08/2014; iii. A loan agreement referred to as invoice discounting for 250,000,000 Frw, concluded on 14/01/2015; iii. A loan agreement referred to as invoice discounting for 250,000,000 Frw, concluded on 20/05/2015; iv. . A loan agreement referred to as extension of invoice discounting for 276,302,945 Frw, concluded on 28/07/2016.

## Page 674

278 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

However, the Court finds that although the aforementioned loan agreements indicate that the property of Kantarama Félicie, registered under UPI: 5/04/03/01/2936, was listed among the collateral for the mentioned loans, there is no evidence that the Bank re- registered the property as a mortgage with the Office of the Registrar General, as it had done for the initial loan of 284,747,744 Frw. Yet, such registration is required for the mortgage to be valid for a specific loan, as provided under article 4, paragraph one, of Law n0 10/2009 mentioned above.

In its submissions, the Counsel for Ecobank told the Court that when the mortgage agreement was signed, under article 3, paragraph 3, Kantarama Félicie authorized Ecobank that her collateral should continue being used for other loans (she agreed to a change in the mode of use) that Niyigena Eraste might take in the future, and that it was on this basis that her property continued to serve as collateral for all the loans granted. However, the Court finds that Kantarama Félicie did not give such consent in that clause. What is actually stated in that clause is that the Bank reserved the right to change the intended use of the loan (translated as: "La Banque se réserve cependant le droit au terme d’un mode d’utilisation du crédit de le remplacer par un autre mode d’utilisation").

Regarding whether Kantarama Félicie agreed to guarantee future loans stated under article 5 of the above- mentioned mortgage agreement, where it is stated that the mortgagor agreed to guarantee loans owed to the Bank both at present and in the future. This was written in French as follows: "A la sûreté et garantie du remboursement de toutes sommes en principal, intérêts, commissions, débours et frais dont il se trouve actuellement ou à l’avenir débiteur envers la Banque, par suite de l’utilisation de l’ouverture de crédit

## Page 675

279 NIYIGENA v. ECOBANK RWANDA PLC N’UNDI qui lui est consentie aux termes du chapitre I des présentes, le Constituant déclare expressément affecter et hypothéquer pour le compte du Client au profit de la Banque qui accepte les immeubles suivant avec les constructions y érigées ou qui y seront érigées ultérieurement et les biens qui y sont ou y seront attachés par destination ou incorporation."

Regarding whether a security can guarantee future debts, legal scholars provide the following explanations: i. Patrick Tafforeau, in his Book called « Droit des sûretés, sûretés personnelles et réelles », explains that it is possible for a security to guarantee both present and future loans. However, with regard to the future Loans, the debts must be certain. For that reason, the mortgage agreement must include a clause clearly specifying the type of debt being secured. ([…] l’hypothèque peut désormais garantir une ou plusieurs dettes actuelles mais aussi futures ; pour ces dernières, à condition cependant que qu’elles soient déterminables. Il faut donc rédiger une clause déterminant avec le plus de précision possible le type de créances ainsi couvertes par la sûreté)3 […]. ii. Manuella BOURASSIN na Vincent BREMOND, in their Book « Droit des sûretés », They state that, in order for future debts to be secured, such debts must be certain. This means that one must be able to easily determine their nature, its cause as well as the amount. (Les créances futures doivent être « déterminables », c’est-à-dire qu’il doit être possible

3 Patrick Tafforeau, Droit des sûretés, sûretés personnelles et réelles, Edition Bruylant, 2020, Bruxelles, § 915. 4 Manuella BOURASSIN na Vincent BREMOND, Droit des sûretés, 7ème Edition Dalloz, 2019, § 2030.

## Page 676

280 RWANDA LAW REPORTS relativement aisément d’en déterminer la nature, la cause et le montant)4. iii. Philippe MALAURIE and Laurent AYNES state that the law allows a security to be provided to guarantee a debt or debts that currently exist or that will arise in the future. Regarding future debts, they explain that such debts must be certain, not only in terms of their amount, but also specified in the agreement, in addition the cause of the debt must also be included in the agreement. They emphasize that this is necessary to ensure that, when the creditor seeks to exercise their rights in relation to the security, there will no ambiguity in determining whether a particular debt was secured. ([…] D’une part, les créances futures doivent être « déterminables » : non seulement leur montant, puisque l’acte doit indiquer un montant déterminé en capital indépendamment du montant de la créance. De plus les éléments de détermination requis s’ajoutent à la cause de la créance, qui doit, créance présente ou créance future, être déterminée dans l’acte. Bien que la loi ne précise pas quels sont les éléments permettant la détermination, on peut penser qu’il s’agit de la désignation du créancier, de celle du débiteur, de la nature de l’opération d’où naitra la créance… L’objectif est d’éviter que, le moment venu (spécialement lorsque le créancier prétendra exercer son droit hypothécaire), il puisse y avoir un doute sur le point de savoir si telle créance est garantie)4. […]

The Court finds the opinions of legal scholars indicate that, although a security is generally provided to

4 Philippe MALAURIE, Laurent AYNES, Droit des Sûretés, 15 éditions, 2021, LGDJ, § 405.

## Page 677

281 NIYIGENA v. ECOBANK RWANDA PLC N’UNDI guarantee an existing debt, it may also secure a future debt or debts. However, the security agreement must clearly states that the security is intended to cover a specific future debt or debts, specifying their amount, purpose, and other relevant details. It is thus clear that one cannot provide a security for an unknown or uncertain debt to fully understand the extent of the obligation taken. This aligns with the interpretation given by the Supreme Court in the case involving Bugingo Jean Claude, Ecobank v. Kadogi Jean Paul, where the Court held that a security must explicitly indicate the amount of the debt the guarantor agrees to secure; otherwise, the security shall be deemed to have never existed.5

Regarding this case, the Court finds that by the time Kantarama Félicie signed the mortgage agreement of 13/01/2014, the loan she explicitly guaranteed amounted to 284,747,744 Frw, as that was the amount appeared in the agreement and it was the specific loan that she authorized Ecobank to register her property as its collateral, as provided under article 5 of the mentioned agreement6. That loan was fully repaid as all parties to the case agreed. Although the signatories to the mortgage agreement agreed that the guarantor secured debts owed to the Bank both at present and in the future, with regard to future debts, the Court finds that such debts needed to be clearly specified in the agreement so that Kantarama Félicie would have full knowledge of the obligations secured by her property. Since

5 Case n° RS/INJUST/RCOM 00011/2022/SC decided by the Supreme Court on 08/03/2024, BUGINGO Jean Claude, Ecobank v. KADOGI Jean Paul, paragraph 41. 6 …La Banque est autorisée par le Client et les propriétaires constituants à obtenir auprès du Registraire Général une inscription hypothécaire sur les biens immeubles ci-dussus énumérés et à concurrence de : 1° En principal deux cent quatre vingt quatre millions sept cent quarante sept mille sept cent quarante quatre francs rwandais (284.747.744 Frw)…

## Page 678

282 RWANDA LAW REPORTS this was not done, she cannot be held liable for the loan that Ecobank claims to have granted to Niyigena Eraste of which Kantarama Félicie was not informed.

The Court also finds that, in addition to the requirement that other loans Ecobank claims to have granted to Niyigena Eraste after the initial loan if secured by the collateral provided by Kantarama Félicie would have been clearly specified in the mortgage agreement, the bank also had a duty to provide her with full information regarding all debts granted to Niyigena Eraste that were secured by her property especially in situations whereby the debts were not being repaid as agreed or when the collateral was at risk of being sold, so that she could take appropriate measures if necessary. This was upheld by this present Court in its judgment of 16/05/2014 in the case between Gaju Cynthie v. Access Bank Ltd7, as well as in the judgment of 08/03/2024 in the case between Bugingo Jean Claude, Ecobank v. Kadogi Jean Paul8.

Regarding Ecobank’s submissions that the agreement signed by Kantarama Félicie on 07/01/2014 before the land notary granted Niyigena Eraste the right to use her property as collateral for a period of ten (10) years, and that she never restricted him from taking additional loans, the Court finds this argument unfounde as the explanations provided above, mentione that such agreement does not relieve the bank of its obligation to provide the guarantor with sufficient information concerning the loans granted to the person s/he guaranteed, such information is essential for the guarantor to assess the situation and, if

7 Case n° RCOMA 0138/12/CS decided on 16/05/2014, GAJU Cyinthia v. Access Bank Ltd, paragraph 16. 8 Case n° RS/INJUST/RCOM 00011/2022/SC decided by the Supreme Court on 08/03/2024, BUGINGO Jean Claude, Ecobank v. KADOGI Jean Paul, paragraph 35.

## Page 679

283 NIYIGENA v. ECOBANK RWANDA PLC N’UNDI necessary, terminates the agreement. Moreover, as explained above, the fact that, such loans that Ecobank claims to have granted to Niyigena Eraste after the initial one are not mentioned in the mortgage agreement signed by Kantarama Félicie and therefore should not be secured by collateral she granted to him especially since it was not re- registered in relation to those subsequent loans, as required by law for a mortgage to be valid in respect of a specific debt.

Based on the legal provisions and all the explanations provided above, since Ecobank failed to produce any evidence proving that Kantarama Félicie was informed about the loan of 250,000,000 Frw granted to Niyigena Eraste which later increased to 308,909,333 Frw due to non-repayment, the Court finds no basis to declare that she guaranteed that loan, such that her property could be subject to sale due to its non-repayment.

Furthermore, based on article 11 of Law n0 10/2009 of 14/05/2009 mentioned above, since Ecobank failed in its obligation to handle the collateral to its owner after the repayment of the loan it was intended to secure as previously explained and instead sold it due to the loan granted later, the owner of the collateral had not been informed about the loan, the Ecobank that must pay damages instead of Niyigena Eraste as was decided by the previous Courts because they assumed that the loan of 284,747,744 Frw, had been guaranteed by Kantarama Félicie’s collateral, had not been repaid. ii. To determine the amount of damages that Ecobank Rwanda Plc should pay Kantarama Félicie.

Counsel Bayingana Janvier assisting Niyigena Eraste, states that Kantarama Félicie filed a claim before the Commercial Court, requesting the court to order Niyigena

## Page 680

284 RWANDA LAW REPORTS Eraste to pay her damages for breach of a collateral loan agreement, civil damages and procedural fees. He avers that in ruling on case RCOM 01291/2021/TC, the Commercial Court ordered Niyigena Eraste to pay Kantarama Félicie a total of 261,173,067 Frw equivalent to the value of her property with UPI : 5/04/03/01/2936 which she had lent him as collateral, along with various damages. He argues that in making this decision, the Court ignored that Niyigena Eraste did not breach the agreement as he had voluntarily paid WDA 284,747,744 Frw equivalent to 20% of the total value of the tender awarded to him by WDA without Ecobank’s involvement.

Regarding the fact that the Commercial High Court ordered that Kantarama Félicie should be awarded 261,173,067 Frw, equivalent to the value of her collateral, while Ecobank claimed that this amount was excessively high compared to the value of the collateral at the time it was registered, Counsel Bayingana Janvier argues that when someone applies for a loan, the bank has the duty to verify whether the value of the collateral provided corresponds to the value indicated in the valuation report. He further states that from the time the collateral was provided until the time it was sold, its value might have been changed, and therefore, a new valuation should be conducted to accurately reflect its current value as it is surprising that in this case, the houses were valued at 261,173,067 Frw when they were offered as collateral, yet after 10 years, Ecobank claims that their value have decreased.

On this issue, Counsel Bimenyimana Eric, Counsel for Ecobank, states that the valuation of the property at the time the loan was being granted as well as the valuation conducted at the time of the sale, were both conducted by experts. He explains that during the sale process, the property belonging to Kantarama Félicie was valued at

## Page 681

285 NIYIGENA v. ECOBANK RWANDA PLC N’UNDI 76,070,000 Frw, but the highest bidder offered 42,100,000 Frw. This means that this is the actual value of the property and the amount that should be awarded to Kantarama Félicie, if necessary.

Regarding the value indicated at the time the disputed property was offered as collateral, Counsel Bimenyimana Eric states that, actually, when applying for a loan, there is often a tendency to increase the value of the collateral since it serves as the basis for granting the loan.

Counsel Ngendakuriyo Innocent states that Kantarama Félicie pursued Niyigena Eraste because she believed he had failed to fulfill his obligations related to the initital advance (avance de démarrage) for which Ecobank was the guarantor. He adds that once it is established that Niyigena Eraste did not fail to fulfill his obligations, Ecobank shall be held liable as it sold the guarantor’s collateral while the loan that had been guaranteed was properly repaid.

Regarding the value of the collateral indicated in the valuation conducted at the time of the sale, Counsel Ngendakuriyo Innocent argues that it was conducted by Ecobank’s valuer with the intention of decreasing the value of the property. He maintains that the actual value was 261,173,067 Frw, as previously determined by a property valuer at the time the loan was guaranteed. He asserts that, the fact that Ecobank deliberately decreased the value of the collateral, such mistakes should be held accountable by the person who disregarded the actual value of the property, therefore Kantarama Félicie should have been awarded compensation based on the current actual value of her collateral at the time of the auction. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

## Page 682

286 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Article 10 of the mortgage agreement signed between Ecobank, Niyigena Eraste and Kantarama Félicie stipulated that once the entire loan granted to the client had been repaid, the Bank committed to release the collateral by de-registering the mortgage (Lors de l’extinction des obligations en principal, intérêts et frais, contractées par le client, la Banque s’engage à renoncer à la première demande du client à la garantie constituée en sa faveur en faisant procéder à la radition de l’hypothèque). This aligns with the provisions of article 11 of Law n0 10/2009 of 14/05/2009 on mortgages as mentioned above.

Kantarama Félicie filed a lawsuit in the Commercial Court, suing Niyigena Eraste for damages for breach of contract and refusal to pay a debt secured by a mortgage that she had lent him which led to its sale. The Court ordered him to pay Kantarama Félicie 261,173,067 Frw, equivalent to the mortgage at the time of its registration, stating that the mortgage was sold to pay the debt that Niyigena Eraste owed to the Bank. That decision was also upheld in the case that was reviewed on grounds of injustice. In making that decision, the previous courts erred in holding that the debt of 284,747,744 Frw secured by Kantarama Félicie's mortgage which was granted to Niyigena Eraste was unpaid.

The analysis made in the first article examined in this present case indicated that the debt secured by Kantarama Félicie's mortgage had been repaid, therefore, based on the explanations provided above and the provision of article 10 of the mortgage agreement of 13/01/2014 concluded between Ecobank, Niyigena Eraste and Kantarama Félicie, Kantarama Félicie's mortagage should have been immediately returned as soon as the debt was repaid as agreed, because other debts that Ecobank granted to Niyigena Eraste later claimed to be secured by that

## Page 683

287 NIYIGENA v. ECOBANK RWANDA PLC N’UNDI mortgage, the Court finds untrue because those debts did not appear in the agreement signed by Kantarama Félicie.

The court finds the fact that Ecobank sold the collateral which has been given stating that there was another debt it had granted to Niyigena Eraste secured by that collateral that had not been repaid, but as explained above, the agreement of that debt does nothing with mortgage owner who is Kantarama Félicie, because she was not informed about it for reaction if necessary.

As explained in the above-mentioned paragraph, the previous courts held that it was Niyigena Eraste who breached the contract and ordered him to pay Kantarama Félicie 261,173,067 Frw, equivalent to the value of the collateral he had lent her. As confirmed above, Ecobank erred in selling the collateral Niyigena Eraste had lent Kantarama Félicie and the debt she had secured had been repaid. For this reason, the Court finds that the compensations amounting to 261,173,067 Frw that Niyigena Eraste was ordered to pay must be paid by the Bank instead.

Regarding Ecobank's claim that the value of Kantarama Félicie's collateral was 42,100,000 Frw because it was sold, the Court finds that the issue relating to the value of the collateral has not been raised in previous cases, and therefore should not be examined for the first time at this instant through the process of review the case on grounds of injustice because it would be unlawful. The same, court legal positions have been established in various cases decided by this instant Court.9

9 See case nº RS/INJUST/RC 00024/2018/CS decided on 21/02/2020, Ngizweninshuti Albert v. Muhima Giovanni, paragraph 21 ; Case nº RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2018/SC decided on 13/03/2020, Nditiribambe Samuel, Gatera Jason v. Nyamaswa Faustin, paragraph 66 ; Case nº RS/

## Page 684

288 RWANDA LAW REPORTS iii. Regarding whether the damages claimed in this case should be awarded.

Niyigena Eraste and his counsel argue that Kantarama Félicie dragged him into the lawsuits beleiving that he had not paid WDA 284,747,744 Frw that she provided for the mortgage. They claim that Kantarama Félicie's mortgage was sold and the amount she had mortgaged had been repaid, and that Ecobank should have taken back Kantarama Félicie's mortgage, that Ecobank sold it without realizing that the loan had been repaid, and he requests that Ecobank should pay him 5,000,000 Frw of damages for putting him and Kantarama Félicie in conflicts which unnecessary made their relationship doubtful, 5,000,000 Frw for the procedural and counsel’s fees he had paid since the beginning of the case up to this level, and 40,000 Frw paid for the appeal.

Counsel Bimenyimana Eric, Counsel for Ecobank, states that the damages claimed by Niyigena Eraste are unfounded because his claims are also unfounded, but instead Ecobank is asking for 1,000,000 Frw of counsel's fees and 200,000 Frw for procedural fees.

Counsel Ngendakuriyo Innocent, Counsel for Kantarama Félicie, also requested damages, arguing that in making its decision in the case under review on grounds of injustice, the Court stated that she should not be granted damages for the rent of her house that was sold through auction, on the basis that there was no evidence proving that the property with UPI : 5/04/03/01/2936 was the one being

INJUST/RC 00004/2019/SC decided by the Supreme Court on 28/07/2020 MUKAMANA Mamique, others v. CANDALI Vérène, paragraph 23.C; case nº RS/INJUST/RC 00009/2022/SC, SANLAM AG Plc v. UWIHANGANYE Jean, paragraph 35.

## Page 685

289 NIYIGENA v. ECOBANK RWANDA PLC N’UNDI rented to justify a claim for economic damages resulting from the rental income of that property.

He adds that in that case, he had presented evidence made of various lease contracts, but the Court disregarded. He now requests that, in the present case, that evidence should be taken into consideration and that be awarded economic damages amounting to 35,000,000 Frw for the period during which she was deprived of the rights to her property. He also requests that these damages should be added to those awarded in case RCOM 01291/2021/TC. Additionally, he asks that, at this level, the losing party should be ordered to reimburse her 3,000,000 frw as the counsel’s fees paid to her counsel. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The Court finds that the money related to the case claimed by Niyigena Eraste to Ecobank should be awarded to him because he wins the case. However, regarding the 5,000,000 Frw of procedural and counsel’s fees from the beginning of the case, the Court finds to be excessive and does not provide evidence to justify that he actually incurred such expenses using its discretion, the Court awards him 500,000 Frw for counsel’s fees and 300,000 Frw for procedural fees at each of the three levels at which the case was tried, totaling 2,400,000 Frw, in addition to 40,000 Frw deposited when filing the appeal.

Regarding moral damages claimed by Niyigena Eraste, in order for such damages to be awarded, the claimant must demonstrate a wrongful act committed by the party from whom the damages are sought, the emotional damage (préjudice moral), resulting from that wrongful act, and a direct causal link between the wrongful act and the alleged damage. Based on those explanations, the Court

## Page 686

290 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 687

291 FARAJA HOTEL LTD v COGEBANQUE PLC ET AL.

FARAJA HOTEL LTD v COGEBANQUE PLC ET AL. [Rwanda COURT OF APPEAL – RCOMAA 00046/2020/CA (Ngagi, P.J., Umugwaneza and Kamere, J.) 05 March 2021] Jurisdiction of courts–The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal – Admissibility of the second appeal–The company reorganisation–In cases where the monetary value of the subject-matter cannot be determined, the second appeal is not admitted. Facts: FARAJA Hotel Ltd states that it lodged an application before the Commercial Court seeking an order for commencing the company reorganisation, and for the appointment of the insolvency administrator. COGEBANQUE Plc, one of FARAJA Hotel’s creditors, voluntarily intervened into the unilateral application, and argued that FARAJA Hotel Ltd has no assurance of its reorganisation; therefore, the Bank requested for the Hotel’s liquidation. The Court heard the case and held that the application for FARAJA Hotel Ltd reorganisation was founded and accordingly, the Court appointed Mubumbyi William Joseph as the Hotel’s provisional administrator. COGEBANQUE Plc was not satisfied with the above judgement and appealed against the ruling before the Commercial High Court. The latter found that the Bank’s appeal was founded and appealed ruling was quashed. 291

## Page 688

292 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

FARAJA Hotel Ltd was also dissatisfied with the decision of the Commercial High Court and appealed against the ruling to the Court of Appeal. The appellant argued that the Commercial High Court failed to properly consider the elements of evidence it produced and it requested to appoint an administrator. COGEBANQUE PLC raised an objection of lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, based on the ground that the value of the subject matter in the case does not meet the threshold prescribed by the law for a second appeal to fall within the jurisdiction of this Court, and therefore, the appeal should not be admitted. COGEBANQUE Plc further argued that, even if the debt owed to it amounts to 983,024,542 Frw, but such issue does not constitute the subject-matter of the instant case, but the subject- matter of the case is the insolvency and the company reorganisation, its value is not based on the monetary quantification, rather it is based on unprofitable business of FARAJA Hotel Ltd, it also submits that in the lower courts, the value of the debt was not debated, rather, the debates were based on the measures to be taken for the Company reorganisation in order to settle the issues related to its insolvency. FARAJA Hotel Ltd thereby pleaded by stating that COGEBANQUE’s objection is unfounded; therefore, the instant Court has the jurisdiction for this issue, since the matter at hand concerns the Company’s debt and insolvency and the debt owed to the Bank exceeds the value of 75,000,000 Frw provided under the law. Held: The second appeal is not admitted when the monetary value of the subject-matter cannot be determined.

## Page 689

293 FARAJA HOTEL LTD v COGEBANQUE PLC ET AL.

The objection of lack of jurisdiction sustained. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, article 52. No cases were referred to. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

This case started from the Commercial Court, FARAJA Hotel Ltd filed an application seeking the court’s order for commencing the company reorganisation and the appointment of the insolvency administrator. COGEBANQUE Plc, one of the Hotel’s creditors, voluntarily intervened into the unilateral application, and argued that the Hotel has no assurance of its reorganisation and therefore, the Bank requested for the Hotel’s liquidation.

On 01/03/2019, the Commercial Court heard the case RCOM 02171/2018/TC and held that FARAJA Hotel’s application has justification and ordered for the Hotel’s reorganisation starting from 01/03/2019 up to 31/07/2019, and the Court appointed Mubumbyi William Joseph as insolvency administrator for the Hotel’s reorganisation and gave him the following assignments:

preparing FARAJA Hotel’s reorganisation plan to be considered and approved by the Hotel’s creditors, and that must be done within 45 days starting from the ruling pronouncement date and a related report must

## Page 690

294 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

thereby be submitted to the Court; monitoring the Hotel’s business and taking the necessary measures in the interest of FARAJA Hotel’s creditors and shareholders; safeguarding the assets and supervising the Hotel’s business and keeping the Hotel’s finances; drafting and submitting the reports on the consideration and implementation of FARAJA Hotel’s reorganisation, the reports must be presented to the Court, the shareholders and creditors for every two months starting from the court’s ruling pronouncement; and performing any other tasks as the Court might assign to him.

The Commercial Court has well held that FARAJA Hotel Ltd would pay to Mubumbyi William Joseph 500,000 Frw per month, in addition to the support for his travels for performing his tasks, provide to him all necessary information, and hand over to him all the business related books of accounts and help him to achieve his duties. The Court has also held that FARAJA Hotel’s debts, including the debts with mortgage and seizure rights, should be suspended for a period of five (5) months starting from the ruling pronouncement date; the Court requested all FARAJA Hotel’s creditors to have all their owed debts registered with the Hotel’s insolvency administrator for approval by the creditors’ general assembly. The Court has as well moved that all any other Hotel’s existing creditors must be notified of the very ruling through a public notice within the most read local newspaper.

COGEBANQUE Plc was not satisfied with the ruling of the judgment RCOM 02171/2018/TC, and appealed against it before the Commercial High Court and, in the judgment RCOMA 00295/2019/HCC rendered on 20/12/2019, the Commercial High Court held that COGEBANQUE’s appeal is

## Page 691

295 FARAJA HOTEL LTD v COGEBANQUE PLC ET AL.

founded, and the Court reversed the appealed ruling and ordered to FARAJA Hotel Ltd to refund to GOGEBANQUE Plc 40,000 Frw deposited as court fee for claim filing.

FARAJA Hotel Ltd dissatisfied with the above judgement, appealed against the ruling before the Court of Appeal and argued that the Commercial High Court never bothered considering the elements of evidence it produced, arguing that the Court has simply based its ruling on a certain report made by Mubumbyi William Joseph, yet the latter has never visited the Hotel, and even his report has never been shared to FARAJA Hotel Ltd for information. FARAJA Hotel Ltd further stated that the Hotel’s business was unprofitable, COGEBANQUE granted the loan in instalments, but it sought for other partners and it is ready to revamp the Hotel’s business, and it requests to the Court to appoint the insolvency administrator.

The case was heard on 08/02/2021, FARAJA Hotel Ltd was represented by Counsel Zitoni Pierre Claver while COGEBANQUE Plc was represented by Counsel Sangano Yves; Mubumbyi William Joseph did not appear before the Court, and he did not even bother to inform the Court of the reasons for his absence and the Court moved to hear the case in his absence.

During the hearing, Counsel Sangano Yves, representing COGEBANQUE Plc, raised an objection over the Court of Appeal’ s lack of jurisdiction on ground that the monetary value of the subject-matter is less than the legally appealable amount of 75,000,000 Frw for the second appeal admissibility into the Court of Appeal; he requested to the Court not to admit FARAJA Hotel’ appeal. Counsel Zitoni

## Page 692

296 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Pierre Claver, representing FARAJA Hotel Ltd, argued that COGEBANQUE’s objection is baseless. The Court closed the hearing on the raised objection, and the pronouncement was scheduled on 05/03/2021, on which the judgment was pronounced. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES a. Determine whether the second appeal of FARAJA HOTEL Ltd does not fall within the jurisdiction of the instant Court

Counsel Sangano Yvès, representing COGEBANQUE Plc, submits that the Court of Appeal lacks the jurisdiction to hear the second level of appeal filed by FARAJA Hotel Ltd, basing his argument on Article 52, paragraph 2, subparagraph 8 of Law no 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts1. He states that, although the debt owed by FARAJA Hotel Ltd to COGEBANQUE Plc amounts to 983,024,542 Rwandan Francs, this debt is not the subject matter of the present case. Instead, the case concerns the insolvency and the request for the company reorganisation, as submitted by FARAJA Hotel Ltd. He further argues that, in both the first and second instance proceedings, there was no debate regarding the value of the debt, but rather, the debate focused on whether FARAJA Hotel Ltd had reorganisation plan in place that would enable it to address its insolvency. He also maintains that the

1 The Court of Appeal has also jurisdiction to try at the second level of appeal cases tried by the High Court, the Commercial High Court and Military High Court if such cases have ordered the award of damages of at least seventy-five million Rwandan francs (FRW 75,000,000) or in case of disagreement between the parties, the same amount is ordered by the judge

## Page 693

297 FARAJA HOTEL LTD v COGEBANQUE PLC ET AL.

value of the subject matter in dispute (insolvency) is not based on a monetary value, rather on the poor performance of FARAJA Hotel Ltd’s business activities, adding that when a company is in financial distress, it is evident that its balance sheet is negative.

Counsel Zitoni Pierre Claver, representing FARAJA Hotel Ltd, states that COGEBANQUE’s raised objection is unfounded on ground that the claim admissibility is under the discretion of the court’s chief registrar, and in case of any discord in relation to claim admissibility, the dissatisfied party presents his/her grievances to the President of the Court within a period of five (5) days. He therefore argues that COGEBANQUE’s objection cannot be brought before the bench, since such a claim is an exclusive responsibility of the chief registrar and the president of the court. He submits that the Court of Appeal has the jurisdiction to hear this case since the root cause of the issue is a certain debt that FARAJA Hotel Ltd owes to GOGEBANQUE Plc and the concerned debt is even above 75,000,000 Frw. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

With regard to the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal for the second appeal, the article 52, paragraph 2, subparagraph 8 of the above mentioned Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 provides the following: “The Court of Appeal has also jurisdiction to try at the second level of appeal cases tried by the High Court, the Commercial High Court and Military High Court if such cases have ordered the award of damages of at least seventy-five million Rwandan francs (FRW 75,000,000)

## Page 694

298 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

or in case of disagreement between the parties, the same amount is ordered by the judge”.

With regard to the claim admissibility by court registry, the article 22 of the Law n0 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labor and administrative procedure provides the following: “A party that is dissatisfied with the decision of a court registrar appeals in writing to the president of the court, indicating the reasons for his/her dissatisfaction, within five (5) days of his/her being notified of the decision”.

The case file contains the decision n0 146/2020/COM/GCA issued by the Court of Appeal’s Chief Registrar on 21/09/2020 on the admissibility of the appeal filed by FARAJA Hotel Ltd. In that decision, FARAJA Hotel Ltd argues that the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear its appeal since the appealed ruling of the judgment RCOMA 00295/2019/HCC is about the request for initiating the reorganisation of FARAJA Hotel Ltd since the Hotel owes to COGEBANQUE a debt of more than 900,000,000 Frw, which means that the highlighted Hotel’s insolvency together with the GOGEBANQUE’s debt amount to more than the legally appealable sum of 75,000,000 Frw. FARAJA Hotel Ltd relies on the article 52, paragraph2, subparagraph 8 of the Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts. As conclusion, the Chief Registrar held that, though the subject-matter does not indicate the monetary value amounting to 75,000,000 Frw, nor the case has ordered damages amounting to 75,000,000 Frw, nor there is no report drafted by a valuer, he found that the litigation monetary value can be reflected in the debts and insolvency that FARAJA Hotel Ltd to request for reorganisation of its business, and such claim

## Page 695

299 FARAJA HOTEL LTD v COGEBANQUE PLC ET AL.

value is more than the 75,000,000 Frw; therefore, the second appeal filed by FARAJA Hotel Ltd falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.

The case file indicates that it is FARAJA Hotel Ltd which initiated the proceedings before the Commercial Court through a unilateral application, without naming any respondent or requesting that any party should be ordered to perform an obligation. It further indicates that COGEBANQUE Plc intervened in the case not for the purpose of seeking a court order requiring FARAJA Hotel Ltd to pay any specific debt, but rather to oppose the reorganization sought by FARAJA Hotel Ltd, specifically the request to initiate reorganization proceedings and the appointment of an insolvency administrator.

Under paragraph 26 of the appealed judgment RCOMA 00295/2019/HCC, the Commercial High Court examined whether a certain set of agreements that FARAJA Hotel Ltd concluded with its clients and its partners are convincing enough to ensure the Hotel’s reorganization as per the terms of the article 80, paragraph 2 of the Law n0 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 on insolvency and bankruptcy. The Court has in no way considered the debt FARAJA Hotel Ltd owes to COGEBANQUE Plc as the subject matter in this case. While examining application of FARAJA Hotel Ltd for its reorganization, the Commercial High Court has confronted the Hotel’s request to the provisions of article 80 of the above mentioned Law n0 23/2018, and found that FARAJA Hotel Ltd has no firm measures for its reorganization for paying all its creditors (and COGEBANQUE Plc included).

## Page 696

300 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Regarding the assertion by Counsel Zitoni Pierre Claver that the admissibility of a claim falls within the responsibilities of the Court Chief Registrar, and that any party dissatisfied with the decision made may appeal to the President of the Court within five (5) days, therefore arguing that such matters should not be submitted to the hearing bench as they fall under the exclusivity of the Chief Registrar and the President of the Court, this Court finds that this statement is unfounded, as provided under Article 22 of the abovementioned Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018, the decision taken by the Court Chief Registrar regarding the admissibility of a claim may only be appealed to the President of Court in cases where the Registrar rejects the claim, and only by the party that submitted the claim. It is thus clear that since COGEBANQUE Plc was not the appellant, it was entitled to submit its concern to the hearing bench in the form of a preliminary objection to the admissibility of the claim. Furthermore, the hearing bench examines such objections like any other preliminary issues related to the case before it.

With regard to the objection of COGEBANQUE about the court’s lack of jurisdiction in relation to the value of subject-matter, while FARAJA Hotel Ltd states that it filed the second appeal on basis of the fact that the value of the subject- matter is more than 75,000,000 Frw, the Court finds that the subject-matter as it has been filed by FARAJA Hotel Ltd from the Commercial Court, had no monetary value and it cannot be monetarily quantifiable, as it cannot be confused with the debt of more than 900,000,000 Frw that FARAJA Hotel Ltd owes to COGEBANQUE Ltd, since COGEBANQUE Ltd did not intervene into this case with a purpose of forcing repayment of the above debt, such debt was not subject of debate between

## Page 697

301 FARAJA HOTEL LTD v COGEBANQUE PLC ET AL.

parties before the lower courts and no lower court rendered a judgment about such debt. Therefore, this Court finds that the COGEBANQUE’s objection related to the lack of jurisdiction in consideration of the subject-matter value is founded, the second appeal lodged by FARAJA Hotel Ltd should not be admitted and the Court cannot examine any other issue among the issues of this case, except only the issue related to the refund of the expenses of proceedings. b. With regard to the procedural and counsel fees claimed in this case

FARAJA Hotel Ltd requested that COGEBANQUE Plc refunds 700,000 Frw for the procedural fee and 1,000,000 Frw for counsel fee as well as the deposited court fee.

COGEBANQUE Plc, in its defense, argues that FARAJA Hotel Ltd filed its claim as a unilateral application solely for its own benefit, it did not sue because it was deprived of its right by COGEBANQUE Plc, since COGEBANQUE Plc is not the sole creditor in a way that would justify being ordered to pay counsels’ fee simply for having requested to intervene into the case. The Bank bases its position on Article 80 of Law no 23/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to insolvency and bankruptcy, which provides that “Any person who is likely to be affected by the application for reorganization, must be notified of such application”. Its counsel avers that it is actually FARAJA Hotel Ltd that must give to COGEBANQUE Plc 1,000,000 Frw for the counsel fee and 500,000 Frw for the procedural fee as it was necessary for it to appear before the Courts for providing explanations about the insolvency of FARAJA Hotel Ltd.

## Page 698

302 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Counsel Zitoni Pierre Claver, representing FARAJA Hotel Ltd, pleads by stating that in case the Court finds that COGEBANQUE Plc deserves such fees, they should be determined in its own discretion.

Counsel Kamali Didier who participated in the pre-trial conference of 04/11/2020 representing Mubumbyi William Joseph, requested that his client should be given by FARAJA Hotel Ltd 2,000,000 Frw for the procedural and counsel fees while Counsel Cyubahiro David representing FARAJA Hotel Ltd argues that its request is baseless due to lack of supporting evidence. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 111 of the Law n0 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labor and administrative procedure provides that “the claim for representation fees is an incidental claim to the principal claim aiming to repay expenses incurred during judicial proceedings. The claim for legal costs is adjudicated at the same time with the principal claim. It can also be admitted and adjudicated even if the principal claim has not been admitted”.

The case file indicates that FARAJA Hotel Ltd filed a claim on its own motion without suing a party, it claimed for commencing the business reorganization and appointment of the insolvency administrator and COGEBANQUE Plc intervened into the proceedings from the first instance in the Commercial Court with purpose of preventing any prejudice that would be caused by the decision to be taken.

## Page 699

303 FARAJA HOTEL LTD v COGEBANQUE PLC ET AL.

The case file also indicates that Mubumbyi Joseph William has never in any way been a party to this case from its first instance in the Commercial Court, he only appeared for the very first time when the Court appointed him as the insolvency administrator of FARAJA Hotel Ltd. The case file also indicates that when the ruling got appealed before the Commercial High Court, Mubumbyi Joseph William featured into the case through IECMS, and he appeared neither as an appellant nor a defendant, he was simply referred to as “a third party”. It is therefore clear, that he never handed any case- related submission to the court, neither did he personally appear before the court for a trial and he never had any representative. However, the judgement copy features him as a defendant though in the court’s ruling, he neither won nor lost for anything in this case. The case file contains any document that explains how Mubumbyi Joseph William joined this case at the Commercial High Court level, since there is no document that indicates that he was forced to intervene or voluntarily intervened in the case. This confusion around his status still complicates the matter even before the Court of Appeal, since the IECMS still features him as wronged by COGEBANQUE at the appeal instance, then he uploaded his submissions and filed a cross-appeal by which he requested for refund over the procedural and counsel fees, yet he never appeared before the Court to provide the needed clarifications.

The case file also indicates that in the appealed judgement as rendered by the Commercial High Court, no single party has ever been awarded the fee covering the expenses of proceedings at that instance.

## Page 700

304 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

This Court finds therefore that since it is FARAJA Hotel Ltd that unilaterally initiated the case on its own motion, and for its own interests, and without any opponent party, FARAJA Hotel Ltd should bear the loss from its initiative, and its request for the procedural and counsel fees has no justification.

With regard to the request of COGEBANQUE Plc, this Court finds that, in case that FARAJA Hotel Ltd had not filed this second appeal which was not admitted as above explained, COGEBANQUE Plc would not have hired a lawyer for representation in the court, and it would not have incurred expenses for case follow-up; therefore, it deserves the claimed procedural and counsel fees and they must be paid by FARAJA Hotel Ltd which caused the incurred loss; but, as it has requested for an excessive amount, the Court of Appeal has discretionally awarded to it 500,000 Frw for counsel fee, and 200,000 Frw for procedural fee.

With regard to the request of Counsel Kamali Didier for the procedural and counsel fees over representing Mubumbyi Joseph William, the Court holds that his request is not granted since nothing clarifies how his client became a party to this case, more so that during the case hearing, he never appeared before the court, neither was he represented to clarify about his requests. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the objection raised by COGEBANQUE Plc over the court’s lack of jurisdiction has merit;

## Page 701

305 FARAJA HOTEL LTD v COGEBANQUE PLC ET AL.

Holds that the second appeal lodged by FARAJA Hotel Ltd is not admitted due to the Court of Appeal’s lack of jurisdiction;

Orders to FARAJA Hotel Ltd to pay to COGEBANQUE Plc 700,000 Frw for the procedural and counsel fees at this instance;

Rules that the deposited court fees cover the expenses of proceedings.

## Page 702

306 RWANDA LAW REPORTS