MUKESHIMANA N’ABANDI v. RWANDA SOCIAL BOARD (RSSB)

MUKESHIMANA N’ABANDI v. RWANDA SOCIAL BOARD (RSSB)

The Supreme Court held that the applicants' claim was not for annulment of an administrative decision but for correction and inclusion of omitted property in the expropriation process, and therefore did not require prior administrative appeal under Article 339. The lower court erred in dismissing the claim on this ground. The appeal was allowed, the lower court decision reversed, and the case remitted for hearing on the merits.

Citation
RADA 0040/12/CS
Parties
Applicant: Mukeshimana Alphonse; Applicant: Uwayezu Vénantie; Respondent: Rwanda Social Security Board (RSSB)
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
16 September 2014
Case Number
RADA 0040/12/CS
Procedural Posture
Administrative Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; lower court decision reversed; case remitted for hearing on merits.
Legal Topics
Requirement of Prior Administrative Appeal, Expropriation Procedure, Correction of Expropriation Valuation, Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions
Source Language
rw
Administrative Law Expropriation Requirement of Prior Administrative Appeal Expropriation Procedure Correction of Expropriation Valuation Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

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

Parties

Mukeshimana Alphonse

Applicant

Uwayezu Vénantie

Applicant

Rwanda Social Security Board (RSSB)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Administrative Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a claim to correct or add to expropriated property valuation requires prior administrative appeal under Article 339 of Law nº 18/2004
  2. 2 Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the claim for lack of prior administrative appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the applicants' claim was not for annulment of an administrative decision but for correction and inclusion of omitted property in the expropriation process, and therefore did not require prior administrative appeal under Article 339. The lower court erred in dismissing the claim on this ground. The appeal was allowed, the lower court decision reversed, and the case remitted for hearing on the merits.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; lower court decision reversed; case remitted for hearing on merits.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The judgment of the High Court in case RAD 0172/10/HC/KIG of 29/06/2012 is reversed in all its parts.