MUKADISI N’ABANDI v NZARORISHYEREZO

MUKADISI N’ABANDI v NZARORISHYEREZO

Applicants failed to prove that the disputed property was left by Makuba and Rushigajiki and appropriated by respondents; credible witness testimony established that property was inherited along maternal lines and that respondents' property derived from Nyirabazungu, not Rushigajiki. Therefore, respondents lawfully retain the property.

Citation
RS/INJUST/RC 00014/2018/SC
Parties
Applicant: Mukadisi Didacienne; Applicant: Mukandekezi Euphrasie; Applicant: Mukakarihira Alivera; Applicant: Gatera Juvenal; Applicant: Vuningoma Anastase; Applicant: Rusagara Sylvere; Respondent: Nzarorishyerezo Célestin; Respondent: Mukandamage; Respondent: Mukandane; Intervener: Rugerinyange; Intervener: Munyabarenzi; Intervener: Mukeshimana
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
9 April 2021
Case Number
RS/INJUST/RC 00014/2018/SC
Procedural Posture
Civil (succession/land) / Supreme Court Review (revision for Injustice)
Outcome
Application for revision dismissed; prior judgment upheld.
Legal Topics
Burden of Proof, Succession Rights, Land Ownership, Evidence in Civil Cases
Source Language
rw
Civil Law Succession Law Land Law Burden of Proof Succession Rights Land Ownership Evidence in Civil Cases

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

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

Parties

Mukadisi Didacienne

Applicant

Mukandekezi Euphrasie

Applicant

Mukakarihira Alivera

Applicant

Gatera Juvenal

Applicant

Vuningoma Anastase

Applicant

Rusagara Sylvere

Applicant

Nzarorishyerezo Célestin

Respondent

Mukandamage

Respondent

Mukandane

Respondent

Rugerinyange

Intervener

Munyabarenzi

Intervener

Mukeshimana

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil (succession/land) / Supreme Court Review (revision for Injustice)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is property left by Makuba and Rushigajiki appropriated by Nzarorishyerezo and others from Nyirabazungu's side
  2. 2 Whether applicants are entitled to damages

Ratio Decidendi

Applicants failed to prove that the disputed property was left by Makuba and Rushigajiki and appropriated by respondents; credible witness testimony established that property was inherited along maternal lines and that respondents' property derived from Nyirabazungu, not Rushigajiki. Therefore, respondents lawfully retain the property.

Court Disposition

Application for revision dismissed; prior judgment upheld.

Orders

  • Applicants to pay respondents a total of 500,000 Frw as attorney fees and 100,000 Frw as costs, shared equally among applicants.
  • No damages awarded to either side beyond costs and attorney fees.