MUKAKALISA ET AL. v SONARWA ET. AL (Fond)

MUKAKALISA ET AL. v SONARWA ET. AL (Fond)

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Decisions (Judgements) - Date: 2025-02-07 - Case/document no.: RS/INJUST/RC 00009/2024/SC - Collection: Supreme Court

Text

Page 1

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

Page 2

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 3

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 depending on the deceased, rather, they deserve affection loss compensations.

Page 4

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.

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

Page 5

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 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 6

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 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

Page 7

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 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

Page 8

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 prescription, and their claim should not therefore be admissible.

Counsel Nsengiyumva Eugene representing Mukakalisa Alphonsine and her children argues that his

Page 9

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 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

Page 10

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.

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,

Page 11

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 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

Page 12

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 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

3 See judgment RS/INJUST/RC 00018/2022/SC rendered on the 27/01/2023, paragraphs 21 and 22.

Page 13

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 “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.

4 See judgment RS/INJUST/RS 00021/2022/SC rendered on the 17/03/2023, paragraphs 32 and 33.

Page 14

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 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”

Page 15

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; 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,

Page 16

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 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.

Page 17

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, 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

Page 18

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.

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

Page 19

“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).

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 ;

Page 20

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;

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.