Re MUHOZA_109707_kn

Re MUHOZA_109707_kn

Article 176(2) of Law No. 21/2012 does not violate Article 29 of the Constitution because, in cases involving family property, one spouse litigating is deemed to represent the other, and allowing subsequent intervention would defeat the purpose of finality in litigation.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
S/INCONST/CIV 0001/13/CS
Parties
Applicant: Muhoza Consolée; Respondent: Ministry of Justice (Minisiteri y’Ubutabera)
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
25 October 2013
Case Number
S/INCONST/CIV 0001/13/CS
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment
Outcome
petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Constitutionality of Statutes, Property Rights of Spouses, Standing to Intervene in Proceedings
Constitutional Law Family Law Civil Procedure Constitutionality of Statutes Property Rights of Spouses Standing to Intervene in Proceedings

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhoza Consolée

Applicant

Ministry of Justice (Minisiteri y’Ubutabera)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether Article 176(2) of Law No. 21/2012 violates Article 29 of the Constitution regarding property rights of spouses

Ratio Decidendi

Article 176(2) of Law No. 21/2012 does not violate Article 29 of the Constitution because, in cases involving family property, one spouse litigating is deemed to represent the other, and allowing subsequent intervention would defeat the purpose of finality in litigation.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • Petition of Muhoza Consolée is dismissed for lack of merit.
  • Muhoza Consolée is ordered to pay court costs of 9,600 Rwandan Francs within eight days, failing which the amount will be forcibly recovered.