RLR-V.1-2019

RLR-V.1-2019

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Rwanda law reports - Date: 2019-01-30 - Collection: Supreme Court

Text

Page 1

REPUBLIC OF RWANDA

SUPREME COURT P.o. Box. 2197 KIGALI www.judiciary.gov.rw

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Icyegeranyo V. 1 - 2019 Mutarama, 2019 Law Report, V. 1 - 2019 January, 2019

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 2

REPUBLIC OF RWANDA

SUPREME COURT Po. Box. 2197 KIGALI www.judiciary.gov.rw

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Icyegeranyo V. 1 - 2019 Mutarama, 2019 Law Report , V. 1 - 2019 January, 2019

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 4

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

IKINYARWANDA

Page 6

ISHAKIRO

ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI ...................................iii IRIBURIRO .............................................................................. vii IBIKUBIYE MURI IKI CYEGERANYO...............................viii INYITO ....................................................................................viii AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO .......................................... ix IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE ..................................................... xi AMAGAMBO MPINE ............................................................. xii MUREBWAYIRE v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHÔRO (RRA) .......................................................................................... 1 RUSHOMINTWALI v. MUNYANGANZO N’UNDI ............ 17 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MAYOBERE ................................... 30 CHEON KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd N’INDI v. LETA Y’URWANDA/MINAGRI........................................ 46 I&M BANK v. SEBULIKOKO ................................................ 64 GAHENDA v. RUTSINDURA (2) .......................................... 84 i

Page 8

ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI

ITSINDA RY’ABANYAMATEGEKO

BATEGUYE

IMANZA

KAGABO U. Stephanie

KAVUTSE M. Claude

KUBWIMANA Jean Claude

MUJABI K. Naphtal

MWIHOREZE Claudine

iii

Page 9

iv

KOMITE YEMEZA IMANZA

MUGENZI Louis Marie : Perezida wa Komite Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga

Dr. MUHIRE G. Yves : Visi Perezida wa Komite Umwalimu muri Kaminuza y’u Rwanda

Dr. KARIMUNDA M. Aimé : Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire

NDAHAYO Xavier : Perezida w’Urukiko Rukuru

RUTAZANA Angeline : Visi Perezida w’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi

NGENDAKURIYO Alice : Umwanditsi wa Komite Umugenzuzi w’Inkiko

BAGABO Faustin : Avoka mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka

BWIZA N. Blanche : Umugenzuzi w’Inkiko

GIRANEZA Clémentine : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye

HABARUREMA Jean Pierre : Umushinjacyaha ku Rwego rw’Igihugu

Page 10

KALIWABO Charles : Umucamanza w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire

Dr. KAYIHURA Didas : Umuyobozi wa ILPD

KIBUKA Jean Luc : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi

Lt. col. MADUDU A. Charles : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare

MUREREREHE Saouda : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru

Prof. Dr. NGAGI M. Alphonse : Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’ Ubujurire

KABIBI Specioza : Intumwa ya Leta

RUKUNDAKUVUGA F. Regis : Umugenzuzi Mukuru w’Inkiko v ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI

Page 11

UWANTEGE Yvette :

Perezida w’Urukiko Rwisumbuye

vi

Page 12

IRIBURIRO Basomyi bacu, Urwego rw’Ubucamanza runejejwe no gutangaza nomero ya mbere y’Icyegeranyo cy’Ibyemezo by’Inkiko mu mwaka wa 2019. Dukomeje kubashimira, basomyi bacu, ko mudahwema kutugezaho ibitekerezo byanyu, munatwereka aho mwifuzako hanozwa kurushaho. Ibi bizatuma turushaho kubagezaho Icyegeranyo gikozwe neza kandi gifitiye akamaro abantu b’ingeri zitandukanye bahura n’ibibazo by’amategeko mu mwuga wabo. Muri iyi nomero y’Icyegeranyo cy’Ibyemezo by’Inkiko murasangamo, imanza esheshatu (6) zirimo eshatu (3) zerekeranye n’imiburanishirize, mu gihe izindi eshatu (3) ari izi zikurikira: imanza ebyiri (2) z’ubucuruzi n’urubanza rumwe (1) rw’inshinjabyaha. Tuboneyeho kubibutsa ko imanza ziri muri iki cyegeranyo ziboneka no kurubuga rwa murandasi rw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ruborohereza kubona urubanza mukeneye mu buryo bwihuse, munyuze kuri http://decisia.lexum.com/rlr/kn/nav.do. Dukomeje gushishikariza abantu bose bifashisha amategeko mu kazi kabo kwitabira gukoresha iki cyegeranyo. Prof. RUGEGE Sam Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga Perezida w’Inama Nkuru y’Ubucamanza

vii

Page 13

viii

IBIKUBIYE MURI IKI CYEGERANYO Iki cyegeranyo gikubiyemo imanza zaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire n’Urukiko Rukuru zikoreshwa hakurikijwe inyito ivugwa hasi.

INYITO Imanza ziri muri iyi volime zikoreshwa muri ubu buryo: [2019] 1 RLR

Page 14

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO Itegeko Nº34/2013 ryo kuwa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye ubugwate ku mutungo wimukanwa, ingingo ya 2, 19º, iya 7, iya 8 n’iya 27…65 Itegeko Nº30/2013 ryo kuwa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 6 igika cya 3..................................................31 ingingo ya 175, igika cya kabiri......................................85 Itegeko No45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano ingingo ya 64………………………………………………………...48 Itegeko No0005/2008 ryo ku wa 14/02/2008 ryerekeye ubukemurampaka n’ubwunzi mu bibazo by’ubucuruzi ingingo ya 35……………………………………………………………………...48 Itegeko Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012, rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo 47........................................................................4 ingingo ya 28 ( 2º)..........................................................31 Itegeko Ngenga No51/2008 ryo kuwa 09/09/2008, rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’inkiko nkuko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu, ingingo ya 105................................................................31 ingingo 156....................................................................85 Itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 208………………………………………………..4 ingingo ya 28, 171,176 niya 330.....................................18 ingingo ya 69..................................................................48 ix

Page 15

Itegeko Nº15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 65, 119………………85 Itegeko Nº13/2004 ryo kuwa 17/05/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 164,1º. 85 Itegeko -Teka Nº21/77 ryo kuwa 18/07/1977 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ibyaha, ingingo ya 206……………………85

x ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 16

IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE Ntukamazina v Prime Insurance Ltd (Ex-COGEAR Ltd), RSOC00001/2016/CS, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 20/01/2017…………………………………………………………….4

xi

Page 17

AMAGAMBO MPINE Amategeko agenga amasezerano – Amasezerano y’ubukemurampaka – Iyo abagiranye amasezerano y’ubukemurampaka bateganyije ko bagomba kunyura mu nzira ya adjudication mbere yo kwiyambaza ubukemurampaka bigomba kubahirizwa, iyo bidakozwe inteko y’ubukemurampaka nta bubasha iba ifite bwo kwakira ikirego gikomoka kuri ayo masezerano CHEON KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd N’INDI v. LETA Y’URWANDA/MINAGRI...............45 Amategeko agenga amasezerano – Amasezerano y’ ubugwate – Kongera igihe cyo kwandikisha ingwate – Kutongera igihe cyo kwandikisha ingwate ntibiyitesha agaciro igihe cyose umwenda ishamikiyeho utarishyurwa. Icyakora uko kutongera kuyandikisha ntibyagira inkurikizi ku batari mu masezerano. I&M BANK v. SEBULIKOKO.....................................63 Amategeko agenga ibimenyetso – Itangwa ry’ibimenyetso – Ibimenyetso bishobora gutangwa aho urubanza rwaba rugeze hose, icyangombwa ni uko ushinjwa abyireguraho – Itegeko Nº15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 119 GAHENDA v. RUTSINDURA (2).................................83 Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha – Icyaha cy’imaragihe – Igihe cy’ubusaze bw’ikirego cy’ikurikiranacyaha ku cyaha cy’imaragihe, gitangira kubarwa ku munsi igikorwa cya nyuma kigize icyaha cyarangiriyeho – Itegeko No30/2013 ryo kuwa 24/05/2013 xii

Page 18

ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 6 igika cya 3 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MAYOBERE.....................29 Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubucuruzi – Inteko y’abakemurampaka ishobora kwanga kwakira imyanzuro y’ababuranyi hakurijwe ubukererwe bw’ibihindurwa cyangwa ibyongerwamo – Itegeko No005/2008 ryo ku wa 14/02/2008 ry’ubukemurampaka n’ubwunzi mu bibabazo by’ubucuruzi, ingingo ya 35 CHEON KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd N’INDI v. LETA Y’URWANDA/MINAGRI………...45 Amategeko agenga imiburanishirije y’imanza z’umurimo – Guhamagazwa mu rubanza – Iyo sosiyete yahamagajwe mu rubanza kugirango itange ibisobanuro ntiyafatwa nk’umuburanyi muri urwo rubanza ku buryo byabuza abanyamigabane bayo kurutambamira. RUSHOMINTWALI v. MUNYANGANZO N’UNDI.17 Irangiza ry’imanza – Impaka zishingiye ku irangiza ry’urubanza – Impaka zishingiye ku irangiza ry’urubanza ryaba riri gukorwa cyangwa ryararangiye zikemurwa n’urukiko rwaruciye bwa nyuma cyangwa urwemeje ko urubanza rwo mu mahanga rurangirizwa mu Rwanda

MUREBWAYIRE v.

IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHÔRO (RRA)…………………………………1 Kudahindura urubanza – Urubanza rugomba kurangizwa uko rwaciwe n’inzego zose bireba mu gihe nta nzira y’ubujurire yiyambajwe ngo ihindure ibyemejwe muri urwo rubanza

MUREBWAYIRE v.

IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHÔRO (RRA)…………………………………..1

xiii

AMAGAMBO MPINE

Page 19

xiv ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 20

IMANZA ZEREKERANYE N’IMIBURANISHIRIZE Y’IMANZA

Page 22

IMANZA ZEREKERANYE N’IMIBURANISHIRIZE Y’IMANZA Z’IMBONEZAMUBANO, IZ’UBUCURUZI, IZ’UMURIMO N’IZ’UBUTEGETSI

Page 24

MUREBWAYIRE v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHÔRO (RRA) [Rwanda URUKIKO RUKURU – RADA00004/2018/HC/KIG (Hitimana, P.J.) 27 Mata 2018] Irangiza ry’imanza – Impaka zishingiye ku irangiza ry’urubanza – Impaka zishingiye ku irangiza ry’urubanza ryaba riri gukorwa cyangwa ryararangiye zikemurwa n’urukiko rwaruciye bwa nyuma cyangwa urwemeje ko urubanza rwo mu mahanga rurangirizwa mu Rwanda. Irangiza ry’imanza – Kudahindura urubanza – Urubanza rugomba kurangizwa uko rwaciwe n’inzego zose bireba mu gihe nta nzira y’ubujurire yiyambajwe ngo ihindure ibyemejwe muri urwo rubanza . Incamake y’ikibazo: Murebwayire yareze Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’amahôro mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge nyuma yaho cyimwirukanye ku kazi. Urwo Rukiko rwategetse icyo kigo kumuha imishahara y’amezi atatu atigeze ahabwa, indishyi zo kwirukanwa binyuranije n’amategeko, insimburakiruhuko, indishyi z’akababaro, amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya avoka, no gusubizwa ingwate y’igarama yatanze. Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’amahôro cyajuriye mu Rukiko Rukuru, narwo rwemeza ko amafaranga y’insimburakiruhuko ntayo kigomba kumuha ahubwo rutegeka icyo kigo kumuha igihembo cya avoka ku rwego rw’ubujurire kandi rwemeza ko ku bindi nta gihindutse. Murebwayire yaregeye Urukiko Rukuru avuga ko impaka zavutse mu irangizwa ry’urubanza ubwo Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’amahôro cyavugaga ko amafaranga cyategetswe n’Urukiko 1

Page 25

hagomba kuvanamwo amafaranga y’umusoro, ay’ubwiteganyirize, n’ayo kwivuza kubera ko indishyi yahawe zabariwe ku mushahara mbumbe, Murebwayire, we akaba avuga ko agomba guhabwa amafaranga yose nk’uko Urukiko rwayategetse. Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’amahôro cyatanze inzitizi y’iburabubasha kivuga ko ikibazo kigomba gusuzumwa kijyanye no kumenya niba aya mafaranga yakurwaho umusoro kitari mu bubasha bwarwo ahubwo kiri mu bubasha bw’inkiko z’ubucuruzi, gitanga n’indi nzitizi ivuga ko ikirego kidakwiye kwakirwa kubera ko cyatanzwe impitagihe. Murebwayire we avuga ko itegeko rivuga ko impaka zivutse mu irangizwa ry’urubanza zikemurwa n’Urukiko rwaruciye bwa nyuma kandi ko nta gihe ntarengwa giteganywa n’itegeko ikirego kigomba kuba cyatanzwemo, bityo uru Rukiko nirwo rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha iki kirego, Urukiko narwo rwasanze izo nzitizi zombi zidafite ishingiro, bityo rutegeka ko urubanza rukomeza kuburanishwa mu mizi. Murebwayire avuga ko nyuma y’imanza yaburanye n’Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’amahôro, yasabye ko cyakwishyura ibyo yatsindiwe mu rubanza, ariko imisubiza ko igiye kwishyura 1.017.867Frw, na ay’amezi 3 atahembwe, kandi nyamara Urukiko rwarategetse ko ayo mafaranga ahwanye na 1.577.019Frw, indishyi z’amezi atandatu zatanzwe zihwanye na 4.731.060Frw Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’amahôro cyatanze 3.005.604Frw, indishyi z’akababaro zo zatanzwe uko zakabaye, kimwe n’amafaranga y’ikurikirana rubanza n’igihembo cya avoka, kimwe n’ingwate y’igarama. Ibi bivuze ko RRA yagombaga kwishyura 8.658.079Frw nyamara yishyuye 6.073.471Frw, bityo ashingiye kw’ Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda mu ngingo ya 151 agace ka 4 aho ivuga ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 2

Page 26

ko ibyemezo by’ubucamanza bigomba gukurikizwa n’abo bireba bose, zaba inzego z’ubutegetsi bwa Leta cyangwa abantu ku giti cyabo, ko bidashobora kuvuguruzwa cyeretse binyuze mu nzira no mu buryo buteganijwe n’amategeko, bityo asaba ko icyo kigo cyamwishyura 2.584.608Frw yasigaye ku yo yagenewe n’Urukiko. RRA ivuga ko indishyi z’amezi 6 yagenewe zabariwe ku mushahara mbumbe, rwemeza ko mu gihe cyo kumwishyura ushinzwe kwishyura agomba gukura muri uwo mushahara ibiteganywa n’amategeko Ibi ngo byatumye mu gushyira iki cyemezo cy’urukiko mu bikorwa, RRA yabaze indishyi n’imishahara zamugenewe habanje kuvanwamo ibyo amategeko ateganya bigizwe n’umusoro ku mishahara (TPR), CSR na RAMA. Incamace y’icyemezo: 1. Impaka zishingiye ku irangiza ry’urubanza ryaba riri gukorwa cyangwa ryararangiye zikemurwa n’urukiko rwaruciye bwa nyuma cyangwa urwemeje ko urubanza rwo mu mahanga rurangirizwa mu Rwanda.

2. Amafaranga 1.577.019 ahwanye na 2/3 y’imishahara urega atahawe niyo agomba guhabwa hakuwemo ibyo amategeko ateganya kuko ayo mafaranga yabariwe ku mushahara mbumbe. 3.Urubanza rugomba kurangizwa uko rwaciwe n’inzego zose bireba mu gihe nta nzira y’ubujurire yiyambajwe ngo ihindure ibyemejwe muri urwo rubanza. Bityo urega agomba guhabwa indishyi zose uko zagenwe n’urukiko.

4. Amafaranga y’igihembo cy’avoka agenwa mu bushishozi bw’urukiko iyo ayo umuburanyi asabye ari ikirenga. 3 MUREBWAYIRE v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHÔRO (RRA)

Page 27

Inzitizi y’iburabubasha n’iyo kutakira ikirego nta shingiro zifite. Amafaranga 1.577.019 ahwanye na 2/3 y’imishahara urega atahawe niyo agomba guhabwa hakuwemo ibyo amategeko ateganya, andi mafaranga yagenwe n’Urukiko agomba kuyahabwa yose. Amagarama aherereye kw’Isanduku ya Leta. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012, rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo 47. Itegeko No21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 208. Imanza zifashishijwe: Ntukamazina v Prime Insurance Ltd (Ex-COGEAR Ltd), RSOC00001/2016/CS, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 20/01/2017. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Murebwayire Justine yahoze ari umukozi wa Rwanda Revenue Authority aza kwirukanwa, arega RRA mu rubanza RAD00193/2016/TGI/NYGE ko yamwirukanye mu buryo bunyuranyijwe n’amategeko, urubanza rucibwa ku wa 08/11/2016, Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rutegeka ko ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 4

Page 28

RRA iha Murebwayire Justine ibi bikurikira - Imishahara y’amezi atatu atigeze ahabwa ihwanye na 1.577.019Frw, indishyi zo kwirukanwa binyuranije n’amategeko zihwanye na 788.510Frw (Umushahara we mbube) x 6 = 4.731.060Frw, insimburakiruhuko ya 2011, 2012, na 2013 zihwanye na 788.510Frw x 3 = 2.365.530Frw, n’indishyi z’akababaro zihwanye na 1.000.000Frw, amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya avocat bihwanye na 1.000.000Frw, no gusubizwa ingwate y’igarama ya 50.000Frw, yose hamwe akaba 10.673.609Frw + 50.000Frw. [2] RRA yajuririye iyo mikirize y’urubanza muri uru Rukiko, rwemeza ko amafaranga 2.365.530 RRA yari yategetswe guha Murebwayire Justine nk’insimburakiruhuko ya 2011, 2012 na 2013 ntayo igomba kumuha, rutegeka RRA guha Murebwayire Justine igihembo cya avocat ku rwego rw’ubujurire gihwanye na 300.000Frw, rwemeza ko ku bindi nta gihindutse. [3] Impaka zavutse mu irangizwa ry’urubanza ni amafaranga RRA ikata kuri aya mafaranga Urukiko rwayitegetse kwishyura Murebwayire Justine, we akaba avuga ko agomba guhabwa amafaranga yose nk’uko Urukiko rwayategetse, RRA yo ikavuga ko hagombaga kuvaho amafaranga y’umusoro, ay’ubwiteganyirize, n’aya RAMA, kubera ko indishyi Murebwayire Justine yabariwe, zabariwe ku mushahara mbumbe. [4] Uhagarariye RRA yatanze inzitizi avuga ko uru Rukiko nta bubasha rufite bwo gukemura iki kibazo, kuko ari ikibazo kijyanye no kumenya niba aya mafaranga yakurwaho umusoro, ibyo bikaba bitari mu bubasha bwarwo. Yatanze n’indi nzitizi ivuga ko ikirego kidakwiye kwakirwa kubera ko Murebwayire Justine yagitanze akererewe. 5 MUREBWAYIRE v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHÔRO (RRA)

Page 29

[5] Harasuzumwa niba uru Rukiko rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha ikirego cya Murebwayire Justine. Mu gihe rwaba rufite ububasha, harasuzumwa niba hari igihe ntarengwa cyashyizweho n’itegeko cyo kuregera impaka zavutse mu irangizwa ry’urubanza, no kumenya niba kitarubahirijwe ku buryo byatuma ikirego cya Murebwayire kitakirwa. Mu gihe ikirego cyaba cyakiriwe, harasuzumwa niba RRA yemerewe gukura amafaranga y’umusoro, ay’ubwiteganyirize bw’umukozi n’ayo ubwishingizi bwo kwivuza ku ndishyi urukiko rwayitegetse guha Murebwayire Justine. II. ISESENGURA RY’IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA. A. Kumenya niba hari urukiko rwaciye urubanza bwa nyuma arirwo rufite ububasha bwo gukemura impaka zavutswe mu irangizwa ry’urubanza, hatitawe ku kibazo izo mpaka zishingiyeho. [6] Uhagarariye Rwanda Revenue Authority avuga ko uru Rukiko nta bubasha rufite, kubera ko mu mafaranga yari yategetswe n’urukiko, yabariwe ku mushahara mbumbe, hakaba haragombaga kuvamo umusoro, amafaranga y’ubwiteganyirize bw’abakozi, n’amafaranga y’ubwishingizi bw’indwara muri RAMA, ikibazo cyo kumenya niba ayo mafaranga yavanwaho cyangwa atavanwamo kikaba kiri mu bubasha bw’inkiko z’ubucuruzi. [7] Uhagarariye Rwanda Revenue Authority avuga ko ukurikije uko ikirego cyiswe, “impaka zivutse mu irangizwa ry’imanza”, ikirego kiri mu bubasha bw’urukiko Rukuru rwaciye ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 6

Page 30

urubanza, ariko na none ngo ibibazo bigomba gusuzumwa (matière) ntibiri mu bubasha bw’urukiko. [8] Uhagarariye Murebwayire Justine avuga ko ingingo ya 208 y’itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ivuga ko impaka zivutse mu irangizwa ry’urubanza zikemurwa n’Urukiko rwaruciye bwa nyuma, bityo ngo ibyo uhagarariye Rwanda Revenue Authority avuga ko ikirego kiri mu bubasha bw’inkiko z’ubucuruzi nta shingiro gifite. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA. [9] Urukiko rurasanga ibyo uhagarariye Rwanda Revenue Authority avuga, ko uru Rukiko nta bubasha rufite, nta shingiro bifite, kuko ikirego rugomba gusuzuma, ni icyo gukemura impaka zavutse mu irangizwa ry’urubanza. Nk’uko uhagarariye Murebwayire Justine abivuga, ingingo ya 208 y’itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ivuga ko impaka zishingiye ku irangiza ry’urubanza ryaba riri gukorwa cyangwa ryararangiye zikemurwa n’urukiko rwaruciye bwa nyuma cyangwa urwemeje ko urubanza rwo mu mahanga rurangirizwa mu Rwanda. Ibyo uhagarariye Rwanda Revenue Authority avuga, ko ibyo Urukiko rugomba gufataho icyemezo, nko kumenya niba amafaranga yategetswe n’Urukiko yaragombaga gukurwaho umusoro, biri mu bubasha bw’inkiko z’ubucuruzi, nta shingiro bifite kuko icyo urukiko rwaregewe, kandi ari nacyo rugomba gukemura, ni ugukemura impaka zavutse mu irangizwa ry’urubanza, ibyo kandi biri mu bubasha bwarwo. 7 MUREBWAYIRE v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHÔRO (RRA)

Page 31

[10] Bityo iyi nzitizi nta shingiro ifite kuko urukiko rwaregewe arirwo rufite ububasha. B. Kumenya niba hari igihe ntarengwa giteganywa n’itegeko ikirego cya Murebwayire justine cyagombaga gutangwamo. [11] Uhagarariye Rwanda Revenue Authority avuga ko ikirego cya Murebwayire Justine kitagomba kwakirwa, kubera ko yagitanze akererewe, kuko ibirego nk’ibi bigomba gutangwa mu gihe kitarenze amezi abiri uhereye igihe irangizwa ry’urubanza rwakorewe, aya mezi abiri akaba ngo ateganywa n’ingingo ya 208 y’itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi.

[12] Uhagarariye Murebwayire Justine avuga ko iyi nzitizi nta shingiro ifite kubera ko ingingo ya 208 y’itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, nta gihe ntarengwa ivuga ikirego kigomba kuba cyatanzwemo.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [13] Urukiko rurasanga ibyo uhagarariye Rwanda Revenue Authority avuga ko ikirego cyatanzwe gikererewe nta shingiro bifite kuko ibyo avuga ko cyagombaga gutangwa mu gihe kitarenze amezi abiri urubanza rurangijwe atagaragaza aho abishingira mu mategeko, kuko ingingo ya 208 y’itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi avuga ko ariyo igena igihe, ntaho igena icyo gihe cy’amezi abiri ikirego kigomba kuba cyatanzwemo. Bityo inzitizi ya Rwanda Revenue Authority nta shingiro ifite. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 8

Page 32

C. Gukemura impaka zavutse mu irangizwa ry’urubanza. Kumenya niba RRA yemerewe gukura amafaranga y’umusoro, ay’ubwiteganyirize n’ay’ubwishingizi bwo kwivuza ku mafaranga y’imishahara Murebwayire Justine atahawe no ku ndishyi zo kwirukanwa mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko Urukiko rwategetse ko ahabwa. [14] Uhagarariye Murebwayire Justine avuga ko nyuma y’imanza yaburanye na Rwanda Revenue Authority, hakurikiyeho gusaba ko RRA yishyura ibyo yatsindiwe mu rubanza, nyamara mu ibaruwa yayo RRA yandikiye Murebwayire isubiza iyo yari yayandikiye, imumenyesha ko agiye kwishyurwa ibyo yatsindiye, RRA yanyuranije n’icyemezo cy’urukiko aho yikoreye ibyayo ikavuga ko igiye kwishyura 1.017.867Frw y’amezi 3 atahembwe, kandi nyamara Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwarategetse ko ayo mafaranga ahwanye na 1.577.019Frw, indishyi z’amezi atandatu zatanzwe zihwanye na 4.731.060Frw, RRA yo yatanze 3.005.604Frw, indishyi z’akababaro zo zatanzwe uko zakabaye, kimwe n’amafaranga y’ikurikirana rubanza n’igihembo cya avocat, kimwe n’ingwate y’igarama. Ibi bivuze ko RRA yagombaga kwishyura 8.658.079Frw nyamara yishyuye 6.073,.471Frw, bivuze ko Murebwayire ayisaba kumwishyura ikinyuranyo gihwanye na 2.584.608Frw. Hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 208 y’itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, uhagarariye Murebwayire Justine ngo asanga hari impaka zavutse mu irangizwa ry’imanza zavuzwe haruguru kandi zikaba zikwiye kuburanishwa n’urukiko Rukuru kubera ko ari rwo rwaburanishije uru rubanza ku rwego rwa nyuma nk’uko biteganijwe niyi ngingo. 9 MUREBWAYIRE v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHÔRO (RRA)

Page 33

[15] Uhagarariye Murebwayire Justine avuga kandi ko hashingiwe ku Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda mu ngingo ya 151 agace ka 4 aho ivuga ko ibyemezo by’ubucamanza bigomba gukurikizwa n’abo bireba bose, zaba inzego z’ubutegetsi bwa Leta cyangwa abantu ku giti cyabo, ko bidashobora kuvuguruzwa cyeretse binyuze mu nzira no mu buryo buteganijwe n’amategeko. Bityo ngo RRA ntiyubahirije iyi ngingo ahubwo ikaba yaravuguruje ibyemezo by’urukiko mu buryo budakurikije amategeko, ikifatira ibyayo bijyanye n’ibyifuzo byayo. [16] Uhagarariye Murebwayire Justine avuga ko ibyakozwe na RRA bitemewe n'amategeko nk’uko byagaragajwe mu rubanza RSOC00001/2016/CS mu gika cya 13 na 14, aho urukiko rwasanze nta bigomba gukatwa ku ndishyi zagenewe uwahoze ari umukozi ahubwo ibyemezo by'inkiko bigomba kurangizwa uko biri. [17] Uhagarariye Rwanda Revenue Authority avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru mu cyemezo cyarwo RADA00183/HC/2016/HC/KIG mu gika cya 23 ku rupapuro rwa 11 urukiko rwarasobanuye ko indishyi z’amezi 6 zingana na 4.731.060Frw Murebwayire Justine yagenewe n’Urukiko rwa mbere zabariwe ku mushahara mbumbe, rwemeza ko mu gihe cyo kumwishyura ushinzwe kwishyura agomba gukura muri uwo mushahara ibiteganywa n’amategeko atabyishimira akaregera inkiko zifite ububasha (Reba urubanza RADA00183/HC/2016/HC/KIG, p. 11). Avuga ko mu mafaranga Murebwayire yagenewe, hari n’umushahara w’amezi atatu ungana na 2/3 mu gihe yari yahagaritswe by’agateganyo mu kwezi kwa gicurasi, Kamena na Nyakanga, urukiko rwamugeneye warabariwe ku mushahara mbumbe. Ibi ngo ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 10

Page 34

byatumye mu gushyira iki cyemezo cy’urukiko mu bikorwa, RRA yabaze indishyi n’imishahara zagenewe Murebwayire Justine, habanje kuvanwamo ibyo amategeko ateganya bigizwe n’umusoro ku mishahara (TPR), CSR na RAMA, bibazwe mu buryo bukurikira : - Ku mishahara y’amezi atatu (3) Murebwayire Justine atigeze ahabwa ingana na 1.577.019Frw havanywemo angana na 425.106Frw ajyanye na TPR, angana na 42.054Frw ajyanye na RSSB n’angana na 91.992 Frw ya RAMA. Ayakuwemo yose angana na 559.152Frw, yishyurwa 1.017.867Frw (net). - Ku ndishyi zingana na 4.731.060Frw zijyanye n’amezi atandatu (6) zo kwirukanwa mu buryo budakurikije amategeko, havanywemo angana na 1.323.318Frw y’umusoro ku mishahara, angana na 126.162Frw ya RSSB n’angana na 275.976Frw ya RAMA. Ayakuweho yose angana na 1.725.456Frw, ahabwa angana na 3.005.604 Frw. Murebwayire kandi yishyuwe amafaranga 300.000Frw ajyanye n’igihembo cya avoka. [18] Uhagarariye Rwanda Revenue Authority avuga ko ku bijyanye n’amategeko yashingiweho na RRA, yashingiye ku ngingo ya 13 y’itegeko N°16/2005 ryo ku wa 18/08/2005 rigena imisoro itaziguye ku musaruro, mu gace ka 1o iteganya ko « Umusaruro ukomoka ku kazi ugizwe n’amafaranga yose yishyurwa umukozi hamwe n’agaciro k’ibintu bihabwa umukozi bijyanye n’akazi ke, ayo mafaranga akaba ari aya akurikira: 1° ibihembo, umushahara, amafaranga yishyurwa mu gihe cy’ikiruhuko, amafaranga yishyurwa mu gihe cy’uburwayi n’agenerwa kwivuza, amafaranga atangwa mu mwanya w’ikiruhuko, amafaranga y’insimburamubyizi, amafaranga, (....) 7° ibindi byishyurwa ku birebana n’akazi kariho n’akakabanjirije n’akazaza». Naho mu guca uwo musoro (TPR) ku ndishyi z’amezi atandatu zijyanye no kwirukanwa bidakurikije 11 MUREBWAYIRE v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHÔRO (RRA)

Page 35

amategeko, hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 13 y’itegeko N°16/2005 ryavuzwe ahabanza mu gaka ka 7° iteganya ko uwo musoro ucibwa no ku « ibindi byishyurwa ku birebana n’akazi kariho n’akakabanjirije n’akazaza». Naho ku bijyanye n’amafaranga y’ubwiteganyirize bwa pansiyo hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 7 y’itegeko No05/2015 ryo kuwa 30/03/2015 rigenga imitunganyirize y’ubwiteganyirize bwa pansiyo. [19] Uhagarariye Murebwayire Justine avuga ko amafaranga y’imishahara y’amezi atatu atari yahawe, urukiko rukaba rwarategetse ko ayihabwa, yabariwe ku mushahara utahanwa, bityo ngo nta yandi mafaranga RRA yagombaga gukataho.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [20] Urukiko rurasanga ku mafaranga y’imishahara y’amezi atatu Murebwayire Justine yagenewe, umuhagarariye ayasaba, nk’uko bigaragara mu gika cya 17 cy’urubanza RAD00193/2016/TGI/NYGE, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge ku wa 09/11/2016, yasabye guhabwa 2/3 by’amafaranga 788.510, ni ukuvuga amafaranga 525.673 ukubye 3, ariyo yabaye amafaranga 1.577.019. Uyu mushahara w’amafaranga 788.510, ababuranyi bemeranywa ko ariwo wari umushahara mbumbe wa Murebwayire Justine. [21] Urukiko rurasanga aya mafaranga yavuzwe mu gika kibanziriza iki, si amafaranga y’indishyi, ahubwo ni amafaranga y’umushahara, Murebwayire Justine yagombaga kuba yahembwe igihe yari akiri umukozi wa RRA, aho kuyahembwa, akaba yaragiye ahembwa 1/3, hagasigara 2/3. Aya mafaranga ahwanye na 2/3 niyo Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwategetse ko Murebwayire Justine ahabwa, kandi yabariwe ku mushahara ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 12

Page 36

mbumbe wa 788.510. Kubera ko aya mafaranga ari amafaranga y’umushahara Murebwayire Justine yagombaga kuba yarahembwe mu gihe yari akiri mu kazi, akiri umukozi wa RRA, birumvikana ko icyemezo gitegeka ko ayahabwa, kitahinduye uko imishahara ibarwa cyangwa ngo kigire ibisanzwe bikurwa mu mishahara kivuga ko byo bitazakurwamo. Bityo kuba RRA ikura umusoro, amafaranga y’ubwiteganyirize bw’abakozi n’amafaranga y’umusanzu w’ubwishingizi bw’indwara muri RAMA, mu mafaranga 1.577.019Frw ahwanye na 2/3 by’imishahara mbumbe y’ukwezi kwa Gicurasi, Kamena na Nyakanga 2015, bifite ishingiro, kandi si uguhindura icyemezo cy’urukiko, kuko icyemezo cy’urukiko nacyo ari uko cyumvikana, kuko na 1/3 Murebwayire Justine yahembwe, ayo mafaranga yagiye akurwamo, akaba agomba no gukurwa muri 2/3 yagiye asigara. [22] Urukiko rurasanga ku bijyanye n’andi mafaranga atari umushahara Murebwayire Justine yabariwe, arimo indishyi zo kwirukanwa mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, indishyi z’akababaro n’amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka, ikibazo cyo kumenya niba hakurwamo umusoro, amafaranga y’ubwiteganyirize bw’abakozi n’amafaranga y’ubwishingizi bw’indwara, nk’uko uhagarariye Murebwayire Justine abivuga, urubanza RSOC00001/2016/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 20/01/2017, rwatanze umurongo. [23] Urukiko rurasanga muri uru rubanza rwavuzwe mu gika kibanziriza iki, Ntukamazina Jean Baptiste yari yagenewe amafaranga y’indishyi zo kwirukanwa mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, zingana n’amafaranga 134.185.600Frw. Muri aya mafaranga, uhagarariye Prime Insurance yavugaga ko hagomba kuvamo umusoro, Ntukamazina Jean Baptiste ntabyemere, avuga 13 13 MUREBWAYIRE v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHÔRO (RRA)

Page 37

ko na RRA yari yatanze umucyo ivuga ko hagomba kuvamo umusoro. Ariko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwavuze ko “mu gihe nta nzira y’ubujurire (voie de recours) yiyambajwe ngo ibe yarahinduye ibyemejwe mu rubanza RSOCAA0001 & 0002/16/CS, Urukiko rurasanga urwo rubanza rugomba kurangizwa uko rwaciwe, …”. (igika cya 14 cy’urubanza). [24] Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 47, igika cya nyuma, y’Itegeko Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012, rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ivuga ko “Imanza n’ibyemezo by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga bigomba kubahirizwa n’izindi nkiko zose zo mu gihugu.” Kubera ko ikibazo cyo gukemura impaka zavutse mu irangizwa ry’urubanza ku ndishyi zatanzwe n’urukiko cyakemuwe n’urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza rwavuzwe mu gika kibanziriza iki, uwo murongo niwo ugomba kubahirizwa, amafaranga y’indishyi Murebwayire Justine yagenewe mu rubanza arimo kurangirisha, akayahabwa nk’uko yagenwe n’urwo rubanza, nta mafaranga RRA ikuyemo, ibi ariko nk’uko byasobanuwe, bikaba bitareba amafaranga 1.577.019Frw ahwanye na 2/3 by’imishahara mbumbe y’ukwezi kwa Gicurasi, Kamena na Nyakanga 2015, yo agomba gukurwamo ibikurwa mu mushahara w’umukozi. D. Amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya avoka. [25] Uhagarariye Murebwayire Justine asaba ko uwo ahagarariye yahabwa indishyi z'ikurikiranarubanza n'igihembo cya avocat bihwanye n’amafaranga 1.000.000, agasubizwa n’amafaranga 75.000 yatanzeho ingwate y’amagarama. [26] Uhagarariye Rwanda Revenue Authority avuga ko asanga Murebwayire atari akwiye kwemererwa igihembo cya avoka kuko ariwe wishoye mu manza zidafite ishingiro. Bityo aya ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 14

Page 38

mafaranga akaba akwiye kuvanwaho. Ikindi ni uko ari umurengera. [27] Uhagarariye Rwanda Revenue Authority avuga ko ahubwo hagendewe ku ngingo ya 258 y’Igitabo cya III cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano, RRA irasaba guhabwa n’urega amafaranga angana na 1.000.000Frw ajyanye n’igihembo cya avoka n’ibyatanzwe kuri uru rubanza guhera rutangiye kugeza uyu munsi kuko yayishoye mu manza zidafite ishingiro. RRA ifite abakozi b’aba « specialists » bashinzwe kuburana imanza zayo, kandi bakagira ibyo bagenerwa byihariye kubera ako kazi bakora; ibyo kandi ntabwo ari bishya, kuko n’abavoka baburanira ibigo byigenga bagenerwa imishahara ariko bakaka igihembo cya avoka inkiko zikakibagenera. Kuba kandi RRA yagenerwa igihembo cya avoka byanemejwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza RCOMAA0021/15/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 03/11/2017. Bityo ibyo RRA isaba ikaba ikwiye kubihabwa kuko bifite ishingiro.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [28] Urukiko rurasanga amafaranga 1.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka uhagarariye Rwanda Revenue Authority asaba, ntayo yahabwa kuko ikirego cya Murebwayire Justine gifite ishingiro, bityo nta kosa yakoze ryatuma acibwa indishyi hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 258 y’Igitabo cya III cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano. [29] Urukiko rurasanga amafaranga 1.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka uhagarariye Murebwayire Justine asaba, ntiyayahabwa yose kubera ko ari menshi, akaba agenewe mu 15 MUREBWAYIRE v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHÔRO (RRA)

Page 39

bushishozi bw’Urukiko amafaranga 500.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka wamuburaniye uru rubanza. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [30] Rwemeje ko inzitizi y’iburabubasha n’iyo kutakira ikirego, zatanzwe na Rwanda Revenue Authority nta shingiro zifite. [31] Rwemeje ko ikirego cya Murebwayire Justine gifite ishingiro. [32] Rwemeje ko mu mafaranga yagenewe n’urukiko, amafaranga agomba gukurwamo ibyo amategeko agena biva mu mushahara ari amafaranga 1.577.019Frw ahwanye na 2/3 by’imishahara mbumbe y’ukwezi kwa Gicurasi, Kamena na Nyakanga 2015, andi mafaranga Murebwayire Justine yagenewe n’Urukiko Rukuru akaba agomba kuyahabwa yose ntagikuwemo kubera impamvu zasobanuwe. [33] Rutegetse Rwanda Revenue Authority guha Murebwayire Justine amafaranga 500.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka wamuburaniye uru rubanza, ikamusubiza n’amafaranga 75.000Frw yatanzeho ingwate y’amagarama. [34] Rutegetse ko amafaranga yatanzweho ingwate y’amagarama ahera mu isanduku ya Leta nk’amagarama y’urubanza ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 16

Page 40

RUSHOMINTWALI v. MUNYANGANZO N’UNDI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RSOCAA0002/15/CS (Kanyange, P.J., Gatete na Munyangeri, J.) 09 Kamena 2017] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirije y’imanza z’umurimo – Guhamagazwa mu rubanza – Iyo sosiyete yahamagajwe mu rubanza kugirango itange ibisobanuro ntiyafatwa nk’umuburanyi muri urwo rubanza ku buryo byabuza abanyamigabane bayo kurutambamira. Incamake y’ikibazo: Munyangazo na Niyonzima baregeye Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Ngoma mu nyandiko y’ikirego itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe, basaba ko SOPEM itegekwa kubahiriza amasezerano y’akazi no gutanga indishyi zo gusezererwa ku kazi, urwo Rukiko rubagenera indishyi. Rushomintwali yatambamiye urwo rubanza naho Mugisha na Ngarambe barugobokamo, SOPEM sarl irugobokeshwamo. Urwo Urukiko rwemeza ko imikirize y’urubanza rwatambamiwe ihindutse. Munyanganzo na Niyonzima bajuririye Urukiko Rukuru bavuga ko Urukiko rutagombaga kwakira ikirego cya Rushomintwali, kuko nta bubasha yari afite bwo gutambamira urubanza SOPEM yaburanye, kandi ari umwe mu banyamuryango b’iyo sosiyete. Urwo Rukiko rwemeje ko Rushomintwali nta bubasha n’inyungu yari afite zo gutambamira urwo urubanza, kubera ko yari umunyamigabane wa SOPEM, kandi iyo sosiyete yararuhamagawemo. 17

Page 41

Rushomintwali yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko urukiko rwemeje ko SOPEM yabaye umuburanyi mu rubanza RSOC0002/14/TGI/NGOMA & RSOC0007/14/TGI/NGOMA kandi ibyo atari ukuri, kuko icyabaye aruko SOPEM yabajijwe muri urwo rubanza “à titre d’information”. Incamake y’icyemezo: Iyo sosiyete yahamagajwe mu rubanza kugirango itange ibisobanuro ntiyafatwa nk’umuburanyi muri urwo rubanza ku buryo byabuza abanyamigabane bayo kurutambamira. Ubujurire bufite ishingiro; Iburanisha ry’urubanza rizakomeza. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 28, 171,176 niya 330. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Munyangazo Patrick na Niyonzima Théogène baregeye Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Ngoma mu nyandiko y’ikirego itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe (requête unilatérale), basaba ko SOPEM itegekwa kubahiriza amasezerano y’akazi no gutanga ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 18

Page 42

indishyi zo gusezererwa ku kazi, maze ku wa 22/04/2014, mu rubanza RSOC0002/14/TGI/NGOMA rwakosowe n’urundi RSOC0007/014/TGI/NGOMA, Niyonzima agenerwa indishyi zingana na 37.400.000Frw, na 20.400.000Frw kuri Munyanganzo. [2] Rushomintwali Sylvestre yatambamiye urwo rubanza, Mugisha Juliet na Ngarambe Emmanuel barugobokamo, naho SOPEM sarl irugobokeshwamo, kuwa 17/10/2014 Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Ngoma rwemeza ko imikirize y’urubanza rwatambamiwe(RSOC0002/14/TGI/NGOMA&0007/014/TGI/ NGOMA) ivanyweho, rutegeka SOPEM guha Niyonzima indishyi zingana na 3.650.000Frw, naho Munyanganzo agahabwa 2.400.000Frw [3] Munyanganzo na Niyonzima bajuririye Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana (RSOCA0009/14/HC/RWG), mu mpamvu batanze hakaha hari iyo kuba Urukiko rutaragombaga kwakira ikirego cya Rushomintwali, kuko nta bubasha yari afite bwo gutambamira urubanza SOPEM yaburanye, kandi ari umwe mu banyamuryango b’iyo sosiyete. [4] Ku wa 26/11/2014, Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko Rushomintwali nta bubasha n’inyungu yari afite zo gutambamira urubanza RSOC0002/14/TGI/NGOMA & 0007/14/TGI/NGOMA, kubera ko yari umunyamigabane wa SOPEM, kandi iyo sosiyete yararuhamagawemo igahagararirwa na Me Rwakayija John, rusanga iryo tambama ryarakozwe mu buryo bunyuranije n’amategeko, rutegeka ko urubanza RSOC0011/014/TGI/NGOMA ruvanyweho hakagumaho urubanza RSOC0002/14/TGI/NGOMA - RSOC0007/14/TGI/NGOMA, runategeka Rushomintwali, 19 RUSHOMINTWALI v. MUNYANGANZO N’UNDI

Page 43

SOPEM, Mugisha na Ngarambe gufatanya guha abajuriye 150.000Frw batanze bajurira na 1.000.000Frw y’indishyi. [5] Rushomintwali yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko nta bubasha afite bwo gutambamira urubanza RSOC0002/14/TGI/NGOMA & RSOC0007/14/TGI/NGOMA kubera ko inyungu ze na SOPEM ari zimwe kandi ibyo atari ukuri, maze rwemeza ko SOPEM yahagarariwe muri urwo rubanza, ndetse runemeza ko yatambamiye urubanza mu gihe yari ahagarariwe na SOPEM bavuga ko yari iri mu rubanza kandi nyamara itarigeze irubamo umuburanyi. [6] Ku wa 27/01/2017, nyuma yo gufata icyemezo ku nzitizi zari zabyukijwe n’abaregwa ariko urukiko ntiruzihe ishingiro, urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu mizi ku wa 04/04/2017, Rushomintwali ahagarariwe na Me Murutasibe Joseph afatanyije na Me Gashagaza Philibert, Mugisha Juliet ahagarariwe na Gashagaza Philibert, Munyanganzo ahagarariwe na Me Gashirabake Aboubakar, Niyonzima ahagarariwe na Me Gashema Félicien, Ngarambe ahagarariwe na Me Mihigo Bienvenue, naho SOPEM ihagarariwe na Me Murenzi Chrysologue.

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 20

Page 44

II. ISESENGURA RY’IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA. Kumenya niba SOPEM yari umuburanyi mu rubanza RSOC0002/14/TGI/NGOMA&RSOC0007/14/TGI/NGO MA ku buryo Rushomintwari atashoboraga kurutambamira. [7] Ikibazo kigomba gusuzumwa muri ubu bujurire ari nacyo cyaciriweho urubanza rwajuririwe, ni ukumenya niba SOPEM yarabaye umuburanyi mu rubanza

RSOC 0002/14/TGI/NGOMA, bikaba byatuma Rushomintwali atarutambamira bitewe nuko yari ahagarariwe nk’umunyamigabane wa SOPEM, ibindi bibazo abajuriye bagaragaza bitarebana n’urubanza rwajuririwe bikaba bitasuzumwa ubu. [8] Me Murutasibe uhagarariye Rushomintwali avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko SOPEM yabaye umuburanyi mu rubanza RSOC0002/14/TGI/NGOMA & RSOC0007/14/TGI/NGOMA kandi ibyo atari ukuri, kuko icyabaye aruko SOPEM yabajijwe muri urwo rubanza “à titre d’information” kandi itahamagawe n’Umucamanza kuko ari umwanditsi w’Urukiko wayihamagaje. Avuga kandi ko urubanza rusobanura urundi (RSOC0007/14/TGI/NGOMA) rwemeje ko SOPEM itari ihagarariwe. [9] Akomeza avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko inyungu za Rushomintwali n’iza SOPEM ari zimwe, kandi nyamara iyo ziba zimwe, atari kuba yarareze SOPEM mu rubanza RCOM0153/12/HCC, kutagira inyungu zimwe kandi bikaba bishimangirwa na registre de commerce na statuts za SOPEM. 21 RUSHOMINTWALI v. MUNYANGANZO N’UNDI

Page 45

[10] Me Gashagaza Philbert nawe avuga ko, hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 224 y’Itegeko ryerekeye amasosiyete, basanga Rushomintwali yari afite uburenganzira bwo gutambamira urubanza rwavuzwe haruguru. [11] Avuga kandi ko impamvu z’igoboka rya Mugisha Juliet nawe ahagarariye, zidatandukanye n’iza Rushomintwali, agasobanura ko Me Rwakayija John uvugwa ko yari ahagarariye SOPEM mu rubanza rwerekeranye n’inyandiko y’ikibazo gitanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe (requête unilatérale) yavuze ko yasanze atari ngombwa kuburana urwo rubanza, Urukiko rukaba rukwiye no kureba niba ikirego cyari guhabwa ishingiro, kuko asanga ikirego cyari gutangwa mu buryo busanzwe kubera imiterere y’urubanza. [12] Me Gashirabake uhagarariye Munyanganzo avuga ko, kuba SOPEM yarabaye umuburanyi mu rubanza rwavuzwe, byumvikanisha ko na Rushomintwali yari ahagarariwe nk’umunyamigabane, akaba asanga, hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 176 y’Itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ivuga ko umuntu ushobora gutambamira urubanza ari utararubayemo umuburanyi cyangwa ngo aruhagararirwemo, Rushomintwali ataba mu rubanza hashingiwe nanone ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 2 y’iryo Tegeko kuko nta nyungu yaba afite. Naho ibyuko urubanza rwasobanuraga urundi rwari rugamije gusobanura ko SOPEM itari ihagarariwe akaba atari ukuri, kuko urwo rubanza rwemeza ko SOPEM itigeze igoboka. [13] Akomeza avuga ko SOPEM yahamagawe ikitaba mu rubanza RSOC0002/14/TGI/NGOMA, irubamo umuburanyi hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 327 y’Itegeko ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 22

Page 46

Nº21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru, Me Rwakayija John wari uyihagarariye mu iburanisha ry’urwo rubanza yemera ko Niyonzima na Munyanganzo bahabwa amafaranga yabo nta yandi mananiza. [14] Me Gashema Félicien uhagarariye Niyonzima avuga ko SOPEM yamenye urubanza iruhamagawemo, bivuze ko yashoboraga kurujuririra cyangwa kurutambamira, ko kandi iyo isosiyete imenye urubanza, n’abanyamigabane bayo baba barumenye, umunyamigabane ubonye inyungu ze zibangamiwe akaba adashobora gutambamira icyemezo cyafatiwe sosiyete. Asanga kandi, kimwe na Rushomintwali, Mugisha na Ngarambe nabo bari bahagarariwe na SOPEM ku buryo batashoboraga kugoboka. [15] Me Mihigo Bienvenue uhagarariye Ngarambe, avuga ko nawe yemera ko SOPEM itigeze iba umuburanyi, kuko Me Rwakayija wagiye mu rubanza yavuze ko ahari “à titre d’information”, akaba asanga haragombaga gukurikizwa iburanisha ry’imanza (procedure) risanzwe, aho kuba “requête unilatérale”. [16] Me Murenzi Chrysologue uhagarariye SOPEM, avuga ko itigeze iba umuburanyi mu rubanza ruvugwa; ko niba Me Rwakayija John yaraje mu rubanza, asanga ariwe wabyisobanurira, icyo yemera akaba aruko SOPEM yarujemo “à titre d’information”. Avuga kandi ko nta cyihutirwaga (urgence) ku buryo hagombaga gutangwa ikirego gitanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe, kuko mu ngingo ya 3 ya “repossession agreement”, ivuga ko inyungu z’abakozi ba SOPEM zigomba kuzitabwaho, akaba yibaza impamvu Munyanganzo na Niyonzima bahisemo gukoresha iriya nzira. Ku byerekeranye nuko Rushomintwali 23 RUSHOMINTWALI v. MUNYANGANZO N’UNDI

Page 47

yaba yari afite uburenganzira bwo gutambamira urubanza, asanga yari abufite kuko ari umunyamigabane muri SOPEM. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA. [17] Dosiye igaragaza ko mu rubanza (RSOC0002/14/TGI/NGOMA) rwaciwe ku kirego gitanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe, bigaragara ko nta muburanyi warezwe (d’office), ko ahubwo Umucamanza yasanze SOPEM igomba kumvwa ihagarariwe na Me Rwakayija John. Bigaragara kandi ko mu rubanza RSOC0007/14/TGI/NGOMA rukosora urumaze kuvugwa, aho Munyanganzo na Niyonzima basabaga ko hemezwa ko

SOPEM yagobotse mu rubanza RSOC0002/14/TGI/NGOMA, Umucamanza yarasobanuye ko SOPEM itigeze igoboka mu rubanza, ko Me Rwakayija yabajijwe à titre d’information, ko atabajijwe nk’umuburanyi. [18] Kuba Umucamanza yarasanze

SOPEM igomba kumvwa,Urukiko rurasanga bitafatwa ko yahamagawe nk’umuburanyi mu buryo buteganywa n’ingingo ya 28 n’izikurikira z’Itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryibukijwe, zirebana n’ihamagarwa ry’ababuranyi, cyane cyane ko n’abari batanze ikirego basabaga ko hemezwa ko SOPEM yagobotse, byumvikanisha ko bashakaga ko hasobanurwa uburyo yaje mu rubanza, kandi Umucamanza akaba yarasanze itaragobotse cyangwa ngo iregwe, bityo ibyo Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko SOPEM yatumijwe mu rubanza ikanahagararirwa bikaba bitahabwa ishingiro kubera ibimaze kugaragazwa. [19] Urukiko rurasanga rero, kuba SOPEM itarabaye umuburanyi mu rubanza RSOC0002/14/TGI/NGOMA, nta cyari kubuza Rushomintwali kurutambamira hashingiwe ku ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 24

Page 48

biteganywa n’ingingo ya 176 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe, akaba kandi afite inyungu kuko amafaranga munyanganzo na Niyonzima bari bagenewe n’urwo rubanza, yagombaga kuvanwa mu yo abanyamigabane bagombaga kugabana, Rushomintwali akaba umwe muri bo, kuko no mu kirego batanze basobanuye ko bahabwa ayo mafaranga mbere yuko abanyamigabane bagabana. Ibyerekeranye no gutambamira icyemezo cy’umucamanza kandi, by’umwihariko ku byerekeranye n’uru rubanza, binateganywa n’ingingo ya 330 y’iryo Tegeko. [20] Urukiko rurasanga rero, kuba icyemezo cy’Urukiko Rukuru kigomba guhinduka ku birebana n’itambama rya Rushomintwali, urubanza rugomba kuburanishwa ku bijyanye n’izindi mpamvu z’ubujurire zari zaratanzwe na Munyanganzo na Niyonzima muri urwo Rukiko, ariko zigasuzumwa n’uru Rukiko hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 171 y’Itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru, n’izindi ndishyi zasabwe n’ababuranyi kuri uru rwego akaba aribwo zizasuzumwa. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO. [21] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Rushomintwali Sylvestre bufite ishingiro;

[22] Rwemeje ko imikirize y’urubanza RSOCA0009/14/HC/RWG rwaciwe kuwa 26/11/2014 ihindutse; [23] Ruvuze ko iburanisha ry’urubanza rizakomeza kuwa 22/06/2017 kugira ngo hasuzumwe izindi mpamvu Munyanganzo na Niyonzima bari batanze mu Rukiko Rukuru, hanasuzumwe indishyi zasabwe n’ababuranyi kuri uru rwego; 25 RUSHOMINTWALI v. MUNYANGANZO N’UNDI

Page 49

[24] Rutegetse ko amagarama y’urubanza abaye asubitswe.

Page 51

URUBANZA RWEREKEYE

IMIBURANISHIRIZE

NSHINJABYAHA

Page 52

29

Page 53

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MAYOBERE [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RPAA0067/15/CS (Mukamulisa, P.J., Mukandamage na Muhumuza, J.) 18 Gicurasi 2018] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha – Icyaha cy’imaragihe – Igihe cy’ubusaze bw’ikirego cy’ikurikiranacyaha ku cyaha cy’imaragihe, gitangira kubarwa ku munsi igikorwa cya nyuma kigize icyaha cyarangiriyeho – Itegeko No30/2013 ryo kuwa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 6 igika cya 3. Incamake y’ikibazo: Ubushinjacyaha bwakuricyiranye Mayobere mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu, ku cyaha cyo gukora no gukoresha inyandiko mpimbano, buvuga ko nyuma y’uko ababyeyi be baguze umurima n’uwitwa Sinumvayabo n’umugore we Nyiramatama, bakamubitsa inyandiko y’ubugure. Aho se apfiriye, yaje kurigisa iyo nyandiko, ahubwo yiyandikira indi igaragaza ko ariwe waguze uwo murima ku wa 23/09/1975. Muri urwo rubanza umuvandimwe wa Mayobere witwa Samvura yaregeye indishyi. Urwo rukiko rwaciye urubanza, rwemeza ko Mayobere adahamwa n’icyaha cyo gukora no gukoresha inyandiko mpimbano. Ubushinjacyaha n’uwaregeye indishyi ntibishimiye imikirize y’urubanza maze bajuririra Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze. Urwo Rukiko rwemeje ko Mayobere ahamwa n’icyaha akurikiranyweho cyo gukora no gukoresha inyandiko mpimbano, rumuhanisha igifungo cy’imyaka itandatu (6) n’ihazabu ingana na 300.000Frw, rwemeza kandi ko imikirize y’urubanza rwaciwe ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 30

Page 54

n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu ihindutse kuri byose, runamutegeka guha Samvura indishyi zinyuranye. Uregwa yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru yashingiye ku itegeko ritariho igihe icyaha cyakorwaga kuberako hashingiwe ku itegeko Ngenga Nº 01/2012/OL rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ryo muri 2012 ritari ririho nyamara inyandiko yaregwaga ariyo kuwa 29/02/1975 akavugako hagombaga gukurikizwa igitabo cy’amategeko ahana cyo mu gihe cy’abakoloni (Iteka ryo kuwa 3 Mutarama 1940), cyakurikizwaga icyo gihe. Yongeraho ko icyaha yaregwaga cyashaje. Ubushinjacyaha bwo bwagaragazaga ko mbere yo gusuzuma impamvu z’ubujurire habanza gusuzumwa ibijyanye n’ ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuko ari ubujurire bwa kabiri, ko busanga butari mu bubasha bw’uru Rukiko harebwe igihano Mayobere yahawe. Ubushinjacyaha kandi bwanasubije ku mpamvu z’ubujurire bw’uregwa bukagaragaza ko nta kosa umucamanza yakoze kuberako inyandiko Mayobere yaregwaga yayikoresheje bwa nyuma mu rubanza RC0069/2013/2013 yaburanaga na Samvura rukaba rwaraciwe kuwa 19/07/2013 kandi icyo gihe kikaba ari icya nyuma y’ubukoroni ko ndetse itegeko rihana ibyaha ryakurikizwaga ariryo muri 2012. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Inyandiko Mayobere aregwa gukora no gukoresha yatangiye kuyikoresha muri 2011, anayikoresha nk’ikimenyetso mu rubanza RC0069/2013/TB/NYBA rwaciwe kuwa 19/07/2013 n’Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyakiliba bityo Urukiko Rukuru mu guca urubanza ntirwashingiye ku itegeko ritariho.

2. Igihe cy’ubusaze bw’ikirego cy’ikurikiranacyaha ku cyaha cy’imaragihe, gitangira kubarwa ku munsi igikorwa cya nyuma 31 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MAYOBERE

Page 55

kigize icyaha cyarangiriyeho. Bityo kuko icyaha uregwa yakoze ari icyaha cy’imaragihe, niyo mpamvu hashingiwe ku Itegeko Ngenga Nº01/2012 ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ryariho igihe igikorwa cya nyuma kigize icyaha cyakorewe.

3. Urukiko Rukuru, urugereko rwa Musanze rwaciye urubanza ruri mu bubasha bwarwo kuko rwaburanishije ubujurire bw’urubanza rwaciwe ku rwego rwa mbere n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu. Ubujurire ntiburi mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga; Amagarama y’urubanza aherereye k’uregwa. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Ngenga No03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012, rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 28 ( 2º). Itegeko Ngenga No51/2008 ryo kuwa 09/09/2008, rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’inkiko nkuko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu, ingingo ya 105. Itegeko No30/2013 ryo kuwa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 6 igika cya 3. Nta manza zifashishijwe.

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 32

Page 56

Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu, Ubushinjacyaha bukurikiranyeho Mayobere Jean Baptiste, icyaha cyo gukora no gukoresha inyandiko mpimbano, bukavuga ko yabikoze nyuma y’uko ababyeyi be baguze umurima n’uwitwa Sinumvayabo n’umugore we Nyiramatama, inyandiko bawuguriyeho bayibikije umwana wabo Mayobere Jean Baptiste. Buvuga ko aho Semahundo apfiriye, Mayobere yaje kurigisa ya nyandiko, ahubwo yiyandikira indi igaragaza ko ariwe waguze uriya murima ku wa 23/09/1975. Umuvandimwe wa Mayobere J. Baptiste witwa Samvura Joseph yaregeye indishyi muri urwo rubanza. Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu rwaciye urubanza, rwemeza ko Mayobere Jean Baptiste adahamwa n’icyaha cyo gukora no gukoresha inyandiko mpimbano, rumugira umwere. [2] Ubushinjacyaha na Samvura Joseph waregeye indishyi, ntibishimiye imikirize y’urubanza, bajuririra Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze. Urwo Rukiko rwaciye urubanza, rwemeza ko Mayobere Jean Baptiste ahamwa n’icyaha akurikiranyweho cyo gukora no gukoresha inyandiko mpimbano, rumuhanisha igifungo cy’imyaka itandatu (6) n’ihazabu ingana na 300.000Frw, rwemeza kandi ko imikirize y’urubanza RP0018/14/TGI/RBV rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu ihindutse kuri byose. Rwanategetse Mayobere J. Baptiste guha Samvura Joseph indishyi zingana na 500.000Frw, n’igihembo cya Avoka wamuburaniye kingana na 500.000Frw, akanamusubiza 125.000Frw y’amagarama yatanze. 33 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MAYOBERE

Page 57

[3] Mayobere Jean Baptiste yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, avuga ko mu guca urubanza umucamanza yashingiye ku Itegeko ritariho igihe icyaha cyakorwaga, ko ndetse urukiko Rukuru rwaciye urubanza rutari rufitiye ububasha. [4] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe ku wa 26/03/2018 Mayobere J. Baptiste yunganiwe na Me Mberabagabo B. Richard, Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na Ntawangundi Béatrice, Samvura Joseph yunganiwe na Me Tugirimana Vincent. Mbere yo gusuzuma impamvu z’ubujurire, Urukiko rwabanje gusuzuma inzitizi yatanzwe n’Ubushinjacyaha y’uko ubujurire butari mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. II.IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA BYABYO Kumenya niba ubujurire bwa kabiri buri mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga a. Ku bijyanye no kuba urubanza rwaraciwe hashingiwe ku itegeko ritariho [5] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko mbere yo gusuzuma impamvu z’ubujurire, Urukiko rwabanza gusuzuma ibijyanye n’ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, kuko ubu ari ubujurire bwa kabiri akaba asanga butari mu bubasha bw’uru Rukiko harebwe igihano Mayobere J. Batiste yahawe. [6] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha anasubiza ku bivugwa na Mayobere J. Baptiste n’umwunganira, ko Umucamanza waciye urubanza ajuririra, yashingiye ku itegeko ritariho igihe icyaha cyakorwaga, kubera ko inyandiko aregwa yakozwe ku wa 23/09/1975, ariko mu guca urubanza, uwo Mucamanza ashingira ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 34

Page 58

ku ngingo ya 609 y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº01/2012 ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’Amategeko ahana, nyamara hari hakwiye gukoreshwa ingingo ya 124 y’Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana cyo mu gihe cy’abakoloni yakoreshwaga icyo gihe inyandiko ikorwa. [7] Muri urwo rwego avuga ko hakurikijwe ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 6, igika cya 4, y’Itegeko Nº30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, bigaragara ko ibyo Mayobere J. Baptiste n’umwunganira bavuga bijyanye n’Itegeko ryagombaga gukurikizwa atari byo, kubera ko ubwa nyuma Mayobere J. Baptiste yakoresheje inyandiko aregwa, ari mu rubanza RC0069/2013/TB/NYAB yaburanye na Samvura Joseph, rukaba rwaraciwe ku wa 19/07/2013, kandi icyo gihe kikaba ari icya nyuma y’ubukoloni, ndetse itegeko rihana ibyaha ryakurikizwaga akaba ari iryo muri 2012, ko rero nta kosa Umucamanza yakoze. [8] Anongeraho ko iyo uhuje ibimaze kuvugwa haruguru n’ibiteganywa n’Ingingo ya 28, agace ka kabiri, y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº03/2012OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, usanga iyi ngingo idaha Mayobere J. Baptiste uburenganzira bwo kujurira kubera ko yahanishijwe igihano kiri munsi y’igiteganywa n’Itegeko Ngenga ryavuzwe, ndetse ko Ubushinjacyaha bwagaragaje ko icyaha akurikiranyweho kitigeze gisaza. [9] Me Tugirimana Vincent wunganira Samvura Joseph, avuga ko uyu yatanze inzitizi nawe yo kutakira ubujurire bwa kabiri bwa Mayobere J. Baptiste kuko bunyuranyije n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 28, igika cya 2, y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº03/2012OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rimaze kuvugwa haruguru, kubera ko ubujurire bwakirwa, iyo uregwa yakatiwe igifungo 35 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MAYOBERE

Page 59

cy’imyaka iri hejuru y’icumi, nyamara Mayobere J. Baptiste akaba yarakatiwe imyaka itandatu (6ans), akaba rero ataragombaga kujuririra Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. [10] Avuga kandi ko ibyo kuvuga ko ikirego cyashaje nta shingiro bifite kubera ko ingingo ya 6 y’Itegeko Nº30/2013 ryo kuwa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, iteganya ko ibyaha by’imaragihe ubusaze bitangira kubarwa guhera igihe igikorwa cya nyuma kigize icyaha cyakorewe, ni ukuvuga mu mwaka wa 2013, kuko Mayobere yatangiye gukoresha inyandiko aregwa muri 2011, ndetse arongera ayikoresha mu rubanza ku ifunga n’ifungurwa ry’agateganyo, bigaragara ko gukoresha iyo nyandiko bitahagaze, bityo n’icyaha kikaba kitarigeze gisaza. [11] Me Mberabagabo B. Richard wunganira Mayobere J. Baptiste avuga ko inyandiko Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko yakoreshejwe bwa nyuma ku wa 19/07/2013 mu rubanza RC0069/2013/TB/NYAB, nyamara atari byo, kuko Ubushinjacyaha budashobora kugaragaza ibyo buvuga, ko ahubwo we n’uwo yunganira babona inyandiko yakoreshejwe mu rubanza nk’ikimenyetso ari iyo ku wa 29/02/1975, ari nayo Mayobera aregwa n’ubwo we atemera ko hari inyandiko yahimbye cyane cyane ko atanayireguyeho. Anavuga ko inyandiko bemera ko ari iyo ku wa 23/09/1975 Mayobere yaguriyeho umurima. [12] Avuga kandi ko hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 28 y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº03/2012OL ryavuzwe haruguru, impamvu bashingiraho ubujurire ari iyo kuba Urukiko rwarashingiye ku Itegeko ritari ririho igihe icyaha aregwa cyakorwaga, agashimangira ko hagombaga gushingirwa ku ngingo ya 124 y’Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana cyo mu gihe ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 36

Page 60

cy’abakoloni (Décret du 3 Janvier 1940), cyakurikizwaga icyo gihe. Anavuga ko kuba Umucamanza yarashingiye ku ngingo ya 609 y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº01/2012 ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’Amategeko ahana ari byo bibatera kwemeza ko uwo Mucamanza yashingiye ku Itegeko ritariho, ndetse ko icyaha Mayobere J. Baptiste aregwa ubu cyashaje.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [13] Ingingo ya 28, agace ka kabiri, y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012, rigena imiterere, imikorere, n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga iteganya ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha mu rwego rw’ubujurire imanza zaciwe ku rwego rwa kabiri n’Urukiko Rukuru, iyo izo manza zashingiye ku Itegeko ritariho cyangwa ingingo z’amategeko zitariho cyangwa zaciwe n’Urukiko rutabifitiye ububasha. [14] Urukiko rusanga ibyo Mayobere J. Baptiste avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru, urugereko rwa Musanze, mu guca urubanza ajuririra, rwashingiye ku Itegeko ritariho, nta gaciro byahabwa mu gihe bigaragara ko inyandiko aregwa gukora no gukoresha yatangiye kuyikoresha muri 2011, ubwo yaburanaga na nyina Bashimiki, mu rwego rw’Abunzi, akaba adahakana ko yongeye no kuyikoresha nk’ikimenyetso mu rubanza ubwo yaburanaga na Samvura Joseph mu rubanza RC0069/2013/TB/NYBA rwaciwe kuwa 19/07/2013 n’Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyakiliba. [15] Urukiko rusanga kandi icyaha Mayobere J.Baptiste yakoze ari icyaha cy’imaragihe, giteganywa mu ngingo ya 6, igika cya 3, y’Itegeko Nº30/2013 ryo kuwa 24/5/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ivuga ko igihe 37 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MAYOBERE

Page 61

cy’ubusaze bw’ikirego cy’ikurikiranacyaha, gitangira kubarwa ku munsi igikorwa cya nyuma kigize icyaha cyarangiriyeho, ni ukuvuga muri 2013 nk’uko byibukijwe haruguru, icyo akaba ari cyo cyatumye Urukiko Rukuru, urugereko rwa Musanze, mu guca urubanza, rwarashingiye ku Itegeko Ngenga Nº01/2012 ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ryariho igihe igikorwa cya nyuma kigize icyaha cyakorewe, bikaba biboneka ko icyaha kitashaje. Uru Rukiko rusanga rero nta kosa Urukiko Rukuru, urugereko rwa Musanze rwakoze. b. Ku bijyanye no kumenya niba urubanza rwaraciwe n’Urukiko rutabifitiye ububasha [16] Me Mberabagabo B. Richard avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru, urugereko rwa Musanze rwaciye urubanza rudafitiye ububasha, kuko rwirengagije ingingo ya 60 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo kuwa 04 kamena 2003 nk’uko ryavuguruwe kugeza ubu, aho isobanura inzego eshatu z’ubutegetsi bwa Leta, ikanagaragaza ko zitandukanye kandi zuzuzanya. Anasanga ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 21, igika cya 2, y’Itegeko ryo kuwa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha aho igaragaza ko Ubugenzacyaha ari bwo bushinzwe gukora iperereza mu rwego rwa mbere, ko rero umucamanza atubahirije izo ngingo zose kandi arizo zigaragaza ububasha n’inshingano za buri rwego, dore ko Mayobere yahamijwe icyaha hashingiwe ku nyandiko atigeze yireguraho mu Bugenzacyaha. [17] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko n’ubwo Mayobere J. Baptiste yajuriye avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru, urugereko rwa Musanze rwaciye urubanza rudafitiye ububasha, ibyo avuga atari byo, kuko haba ububasha bushingiye ku ifasi ndetse n’ububasha bushingiye ku kiburanwa, Urukiko Rukuru, urugereko rwa ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 38

Page 62

Musanze, rwari rubufite kuko rwaburanishije ubujurire bwa mbere ku rubanza mu mizi rwari rwaraciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu, ibi bakabivuga bashingiye ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 105 ya y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº51/2008 ryo kuwa 09/09/2008 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Inkiko. [18] Me Tugirimana Vincent wunganira Samvura Joseph avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru, urugereko rwa Musanze rwaciye urubanza rwari rubifitiye ububasha kuko bwari ubujurire bw’urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu ku rwego rwa mbere.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [19] Ingingo ya 28, agace ka kabiri, y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 ryibukijwe haruguru, iteganya ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha mu rwego rw’ubujurire imanza zaciwe ku rwego rwa kabiri n’Urukiko Rukuru iyo izo manza (……) zaciwe n’Urukiko rutabifitiye ububasha. [20] Impamvu z’ingenzi zatumye Mayobere J. Baptiste ajuririra urubanza rwaciwe ku rwego rwa kabiri n’Urukiko Rukuru, urugereko rwa Musanze, ni uko avuga ko urubanza ajuririra rwaciwe hashingiwe ku itegeko ritariho, ko kandi Urukiko Rukuru, urugereko rwa Musanze, rwaciye urubanza rutari rufitiye ububasha. [21] Urukiko rusanga ibyo Mayobere J. Batiste avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru, urugereko rwa Musanze, rwaciye urubanza rudafitiye ububasha, atari ukuri, kubera ko urwo Rukiko 39 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MAYOBERE

Page 63

rwaburanishije ubujurire bw’urubanza rwaciwe ku rwego rwa mbere n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu, nk’uko binateganywa n’ingingo ya 105 y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº51/2008 ryo kuwa 09/09/2008 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Inkiko nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu, aho ivuga ko Urukiko Rukuru ruburanisha imanza z’inshinjabyaha zajuririwe zaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye ku rwego rwa mbere. [22] Urukiko rusanga rero Urukiko Rukuru, urugereko rwa Musanze rwaraciye urubanza ruri mu bubasha bwarwo, ingingo y’ubujurire ya Mayobere J. Baptiste ikaba nta shingiro ifite. [23] Nyuma y’ibisobanuro byatanzwe haruguru, Urukiko rusanga ubujurire bwa kabiri Mayobere J. Baptiste yatanze mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga butari mu bubasha bwarwo. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [24] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwatanzwe na Mayobere J. Baptiste butari mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga; [25] Rwemeje ko imikirize y’urubanza RPA0181/14/HC/MUS rwaciwe ku wa 27/02/2015 n’Urukiko Rukuru, urugereko rwa Musanze, idahindutse; [26] Rutegetse Mayobere Jean Baptiste gutanga amagarama y’uru rubanza.

Page 65

IMANZA ZACIWE MU MIZI

Page 67

IMANZA Z’UBUCURUZI

Page 68

45

Page 69

CHEON KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd N’INDI v. LETA Y’URWANDA/MINAGRI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RCOMA0004/16/CS – RCOMA0003/2016 (Kanyange P.J., Ngagi na Mukandamage, J.) 30 Kamena 2017] Amategeko agenga amasezerano – Amasezerano y’ubukemurampaka – Iyo abagiranye amasezerano y’ubukemurampaka bateganyije ko bagomba kunyura mu nzira ya ‟adjudication” mbere yo kwiyambaza ubukemurampaka bigomba kubahirizwa, iyo bidakozwe inteko y’ubukemurampaka nta bubasha iba ifite bwo kwakira ikirego gikomoka kuri ayo masezerano. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubucuruzi – Inteko y’abakemurampaka ishobora kwanga kwakira imyanzuro y’ababuranyi hakurijwe ubukererwe bw’ibihindurwa cyangwa ibyongerwamo – Itegeko No005/2008 ryo ku wa 14/02/2008 ry’ubukemurampaka n’ubwunzi mu by’ubucuruzi, ingingo ya 35. Incamake y’ikibazo: Sosiyete

CHEON

KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd na EXERT ENGINEERING GROUP Ltd zishyize hamwe zigirana amasezerano na Leta y’u Rwanda (MINAGRI) yo kubaka ibidamu no kuhira imyaka mu misozi, impande zombi zikaba zarateganyije mu masezerano zagiranye, ko ziramutse zigiranye ibibazo, bizakemurwa n’Ubukemurampaka ariko zibanje kwiyambaza adjudicator. Nyuma yaho izo sosiyete zitangiriye imirimo, ntizabashije kubahiriza igihe imirimo igomba kurangirira zisaba Leta y’u ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 46

Page 70

Rwanda ko yazongerera igihe cyo kurangiza imirimo, nyuma yo kubisuzuma Leta yanga kongera icyo gihe ahubwo ifata umwanzuro wo gusesa amasezerano. Izi sosiyete ntizishimiye iki cyemezo ziregera abakemurampaka. Impande zombi zatanze imyanzuro, maze Inteko y’Abakemurampaka itegeka ko iburanisha mu mizi y’urubanza izakomeza aruko impande zombi zishyize umukono ku nyandiko yateguwe n’inteko yabakemurampaka, ariko Leta y’u Rwanda/MINAGRI yavuze ko adashyira umukono kuri iyo nyandiko kuko yatanze inzitizi, mu mwanzuro wayo, ivuga ko nta bukemurampaka bwaba igihe ari nta cyemezo cya “adjudicator” gihari, byatumye Inteko itegeka ko impande zombi zitegura imyanzuro kuri iyo nzitizi kugirango hazabe iburanisha kuriyo, kandi itanga itariki ntarengwa yo kuba impande zombi zayishyikirije iyo myanzuro. Mu myanzuro, abarega bagaragaje ko Leta y’u Rwanda/MINAGRI yanze inzira ya “adjudication”, bityo akaba nta kundi bari kubigenza uretse kwiyambaza ubukemurampaka nk’uko amasezerano yabiteganyaga, kandi ngo ntabwo byari itegeko ko bagombaga kubanza gushyikiriza ikirego “adjudicator”. Ku bijyanye n’imyanzuro y’inyongera inteko y’abakemurampaka yanze kuyakira kuko yatanzwe ikererewe inteko yamaze gufata icyemezo uretse kandi ko ntacyo yari kumarira inteko. Hanyuma Inteko ifata icyemezo cy’uko nta bubasha ifite kuko nta cyemezo cya “adjudicator” gihari. Abarega ntibishimiye icyo cyemezo, baregera Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, barusaba ko rwakwemeza ko Inteko y’Abakemurampaka yari ifite ububasha, bavuze kandi ko batishimiye uburyo Inteko yafashe icyemezo mbere y’uko ababuranyi baburana, kandi ko inteko yirengagije ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 35 (2) y’Itegeko No005/2008 ryo ku wa 14/02/2008, 47 CHEON KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd N’INDI v. LETA Y’URWANDA/MINAGRI

Page 71

ndetse yirengagiza icyo amasezerano ateganya. Uru rukiko rwemeje ko nta gihindutse ku cyemezo cy’Inteko y’Abakemurampaka. Abarega ntibishimiye imikirize y’urwo rubanza bajurira mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga bavuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwashingiye ku Itegeko ry’imiburanishirize riri rusange kandi hari itegeko ryihariye ry’ubukemurampaka bituma rwemeza ko inteko y’abakemurampaka yari ifite uburenganzira bwo kwanga kwakira imyanzuro y’inyongera yatanzwe n’abarega ku nzitizi. Kandi ko urwo rukiko rutasobanuye icyo ingingo y’amasezerano irebana n’icyemezo cyagombaga kujya mu bukemurampaka kuko iyi ngingo idafata “adjudication” nk’itegeko kugirango ikirego cyakirwe n’abakemurampaka ndetse ko ubukemurampaka butagombaga gukorwa hashingiwe ku cyemezo cya “adjudicator” ahubwo ko iyo ngingo ivuga ku mpaka zose zivutse mu masezerano. Leta y’u Rwanda ivuga ko nta kuvuguruzanya kuri hagati y’ngingo ya 69 y’Itegeko No21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, n’iya 35 y’Itegeko ry’Ubukemurampaka. Kandi ko uburyo bwo gukemura impaka bwateganyijwe mu masezerano bubanzirizwa na adjudication byananirana hakiyambazwa ubukemurampaka. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Iyo abagiranye amasezerano y’ubukemurampaka bateganyije ko bagomba kunyura mu nzira ya adjudication mbere yo kwiyambaza ubukemurampaka bigomba kubahirizwa, iyo bidakozwe inteko y’ubukemurampaka nta bubasha iba ifite bwo kwakira ikirego gikomoka kuri ayo masezerano. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 48

Page 72

2. Inteko y’abacyemurampaka ishobora kwanga kwakira imyanzuro y’ababuranyi hakurijwe ubukererwe bw’ibihindurwa cyangwa ibyongerwamo. Ubujurire nta shingiro bufite. Urubanza rujuririrwa ntiruhindutse. Amategeko yifashishijwe: Itegeko No21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ingingo ya 69. Itegeko No45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano ingingo ya 64. Itegeko No0005/2008 ryo ku wa 14/02/2008 ryerekeye ubukemurampaka n’ubwunzi mu bibazo by’ubucuruzi ingingo ya 35. Nta manza zifashishijwe. I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi

CHEON

KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd na EXERT ENGINEERING GROUP Ltd yishyize hamwe (joint venture), hanyuma agirana amasezerano na Leta y’u Rwanda (MINAGRI), binyuze mu mushinga wo kubaka ibidamu no kuhira imyaka mu misozi mu Karere ka Rwamagana (Construction works of a 14 meters high earth-fill dam and 267 ha Hillside Irrigation System), impande zombi zikaba zarateganyije, mu masezerano zagiranye, ko ziramutse zigiranye ibibazo, bizakemurwa n’Ubukemurampaka. 49 CHEON KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd N’INDI v. LETA Y’URWANDA/MINAGRI

Page 73

[2] Nk’uko amasezerano abiteganya, impande zombi zashyizeho abakemurampaka babiri (2), nabo bahitamo undi uzaba Perezida w’Inteko, hanyuma Inteko itumiza ababuranyi i Nairobi muri Kenya, mu iburanisha ry’ibanze, impande zombi zumvikana ko amategeko azakoreshwa ari ay’u Rwanda. Muri iryo buranisha, Leta y’u Rwanda/MINAGRI yagaragaje ko Umukemurampaka washyizweho n’amasosiyete yareze ari umujyanama wayo, bityo akaba adakwiriye kuba Umukemurampaka, hanyuma Inteko ifata icyemezo cyo kutabiha agaciro. [3] Impande zombi zatanze imyanzuro, maze Inteko y’Abakemurampaka itegeka ko iburanisha mu mizi y’urubanza rizakorwa ku wa 16/06/2016 no ku wa 17/06/2016. Ku wa 16/06/2016 iyo Nteko yazanye inyandiko, isaba ko ababuranyi bayisinya, iyo nyandiko ikaba yari ikubiyemo ibi bikurikira: “Notwithstanding the provision of clause 24 of the contract which obliged the parties in the first instance to refer their disputes and differences to an adjudicator and only refer the matter to arbitration after the adjudicator’s written decision thereon, the parties agree to refer the disputes and differences between them arising out of the contract to arbitration by a tribunal of three arbitrators two of whom shall be the parties appointees and the third one who shall be the presiding arbitrator shall be appointed by the two party arbitrators”. [4] Nyuma yo gutanga inyandiko imaze kuvugwa haruguru, uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda/MINAGRI yavuze ko adashyira umukono kuri iyo nyandiko kuko yatanze inzitizi, mu mwanzuro we, avuga ko nta bukemurampaka bwaba igihe ari nta cyemezo cya “adjudicator” gihari. Ibyo byatumye Inteko itegeka ko impande zombi zitegura imyanzuro kuri iyo nzitizi, igatangwa ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 50

Page 74

bitarenze saa sita z’ijoro ryo ku wa 16/06/2016 kugira ngo ku munsi ukurikiyeho (ku wa 17/06/2016) hazabe iburanisha kuri iyo nzitizi. [5] Mu iburanisha ryo ku wa 17/06/2016 no mu myanzuro, abarega (joint venture) bagaragaje ko Leta y’u Rwanda/MINAGRI yanze inzira ya “adjudication” kuko yandikiwe kugira ngo hajyeho “adjudicator”, isubiza mu buryo bw’amananiza, bityo akaba nta kundi bari kubigenza uretse kwiyambaza ubukemurampaka nk’uko amasezerano yabiteganyaga, kabone n’ubwo bitari itegeko ko bagombaga kubanza gushyikiriza ikirego “adjudicator”. [6] Ku wa 29/06/2016, abarega batanze umwanzuro w’inyongera wo kwiregura ku nzitizi, bashingiye ku ngingo ya 35 (2) y’Itegeko No005/2008 ryo ku wa 14/02/2008 ryerekeye ubukemurampaka n’ubwunzi mu bibazo by’ubucuruzi, hanyuma ku wa 25/07/2016, Inteko ifata icyemezo cy’uko nta bubasha ifite kuko nta cyemezo cya “adjudicator” gihari. [7] Amasosiyete CHEON KWANG

DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd na EXERT ENGINEERING GROUP Ltd ntiyishimiye icyo cyemezo cy’Inteko y’ubukemurampaka, aregera Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, arusaba ko rwakwemeza ko inteko y’abakemurampaka yari ifite ububasha bwo gukemura izo mpaka bagiranye. Ayo masosiyete yavuze kandi ko ikindi atishimiye ari uko Inteko y’Abakemurampaka yafashe icyemezo mbere y’uko ababuranyi baburana, no kuba yarirengagije nkana ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 35 (2) y’Itegeko No005/2008 ryo ku wa 14/02/2008 ryerekeye ubukemurampaka n’ubwunzi mu bibazo by’ubucuruzi, ndetse no kuba yarirengagije icyo amasezerano ateganya. 51 CHEON KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd N’INDI v. LETA Y’URWANDA/MINAGRI

Page 75

[8] Mu rubanza RCOMA00476/2016/CHC/HCC rwaciwe ku wa 28/10/2016, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwemeje ko nta gihindutse ku cyemezo cy’Inteko y‘Abakemurampaka. Mu gufata icyo cyemezo, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwasanze kuvuga ko Inteko y‘Abakemurampaka yafashe icyemezo ku rubanza, rutabanje kumva impande zombi, bitahabwa ishingiro kuko, kuba impande zombi zarumvikanye ko mw’iburanisha hazakoreshwa amategeko y’u Rwanda, ingingo ya 78, igika cya 2, n’iya 142 z’Itegeko No21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi zemerera umucamanza, abyibwirije, kubyutsa inzitizi y’iburabubasha aho urubanza rwaba rugeze hose, hanyuma iyo Nteko y’Abakemurampaka iza kubyutsa iyo nzitizi y’iburabubasha, nyuma yo kumva ababuranyi, rukayifataho icyemezo, ibyo byerekana ko rutanyuranyije n’amategeko y’u Rwanda impande zombi zemeranyije ko ariyo azakurikizwa. [9] CHEON KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd na EXERT ENGINEERING GROUP Ltd ntizishimiye imikirize y’urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, zijuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga kubera impamvu zikurikira: 1. Kuba Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwarashingiye ku ngingo ya 69 y’Itegeko No21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, rwemeza ko urukiko rufite ububasha bwo kuba rwakwemera umwanzuro w’inyongera cyangwa indi nyandiko itanzwe nyuma yo gupfundikira iburanisha, ariko ko rwirengagije ko Itegeko No21/2012 rimaze kuvugwa ari “general procedure law/droit commun” rikoreshwa gusa iyo itegeko ryihariye ari ntacyo ryavuze ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 52

Page 76

ku kibazo; ko Itegeko ry’ubukemurampaka ari “specific” ku kibazo cy’ubukemurampaka ari naryo ryagombaga gukoreshwa kuko ingingo yaryo ya 35 igaragaza igihe umwanzuro w’inyongera ushobora kwakirwa cyangwa ntiwakirwe.

2. Kuba Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rutarigeze rushaka gusobanura icyo ingingo ya 24 y’amasezerano yavugaga ku bijyanye n’icyemezo cyagombaga kujya mu bukemurampaka; ko iyo ngingo idateganya ko ubukemurampaka bugomba gukorwa hashingiwe ku cyemezo cyafashwe na “adjudicator”, ahubwo ko ivuga impaka zose zijyanye n’amasezerano, ndetse ko idafata “adjudication procedure” nk’itegeko kugira ngo ikirego cyakirwe n’Inteko y’Abakemurampaka, ahubwo ko iyo “procédure” iteganyijwe mu yindi nyandiko yiswe “General conditions of contract” mu ngingo ya 24.1-3 ku byemezo byafashwe na “Project manager” gusa. [10] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku wa 14/02/2017, CHEON KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd na EXERT ENGINEERING GROUP Ltd zihagarariwe na Me Butare Emmanuel, naho Leta y’u Rwanda ihagarariwe na Me Rubango Epimaque, Intumwa ya Leta, uyu akaba yaratanze inzitizi y’iburabubasha ry’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ariko uru Rukiko rusanga iyo nzitizi nta shingiro ifite, urubanza ruburanishwa mu ruhame ku wa 23/05/2017, impande zombi zihagarariwe nk’uko byari bimeze mu iburanisha ryo ku wa 14/02/2017.

53 CHEON KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd N’INDI v. LETA Y’URWANDA/MINAGRI

Page 77

II.IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO 1. Kumenya niba kuba Inteko y’Abakemurampaka yaranze kwakira umwanzuro w’inyongera w’abarega, binyuranyije n’amategeko [11] Me Butare Emmanuel avuga ko, mu kutakira imyanzuro y’inyongera yiregura ku nzitizi y’iburabubasha yari yatanzwe na Leta y’u Rwanda, Urukiko Nkemurampaka rwanyuranyije n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 35, igika cya kabiri, y’Itegeko No005/2008 ryo ku wa 14/02/2008 ryerekeye ubukemurampaka n’ubwunzi mu bibazo by’ubucuruzi. Asobanura ko, kugira ngo imyanzuro ntiyakirwe, ari uko iba yaratanzwe ikererewe; ko igihe baburanaga mu bukemurampaka, babwiwe ko bazasomerwa ‟on notice”, maze kuwa 29/06/2016, batanga imyanzuro y’inyongera, bigeze ku wa 08/07/2016 babona ‟e- mail” ibamenyesha ko iyo myanzuro itakiriwe, ariko ko bigaragara ko, mu gutanga iyo myanzuro y’inyongera, nta bukererwe bwabayeho, bityo ko basaba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kwemeza ko iyo myanzuro yagombaga kwakirwa. Akomeza avuga ko ikindi ari uko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, ku bijyanye no gutanga imyanzuro y’inyongera, rwashingiye ku ngingo ya 69 y’Itegeko No21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ariko rwirengagiza ko iri tegeko ari ‟droit commun”, ko ahubwo rwagombaga gushingira ku ngingo ya 35 y’Itegeko ryerekeye ubukemurampaka n’ubwunzi mu bibazo by‘ubucuruzi. [12] Me Rubango Epimaque, uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda, avuga ko, ku bijyanye no kuba umucamanza yakwanga cyangwa akemera imyanzuro y’inyongera, asanga nta kuvuguruzanya kuri ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 54

Page 78

hagati y’ingingo ya 69 y’Itegeko No21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, n’iya 35 y’Itegeko ry’Ubukemurampaka.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [13] Ingingo ya 35, igika cya kabiri, y’Itegeko No0005/2008 ryo ku wa 14/02/2008 ryerekeye ubukemurampaka n’ubwunzi mu bibazo by’ubucuruzi, iteganya ko: ‟Uretse igihe abiyambaje ubukemurampaka babyemeranyijweho ukundi, uwiyambaje ubukemurampaka wese ashobora guhindura cyangwa kugira ibyo yongera mu mwanzuro wo gutanga ikirego cye cyangwa mu mwanzuro wo kwiregura, mu gihe cy’isuzumwa ry’ikirego, keretse Inteko y’Abakemurampaka isanze atari byiza kwemera uko guhindura hakurijwe ubukererwe bw’ibihindurwa cyangwa ibyongerwamo”. [14] Muri uru rubanza, dosiye igaragaza ko, nyuma y’uko ikibazo impande zombi zifitanye kigejejwe ku Nteko y’Abakemurampaka i Nairobi muri Kenya, mu iburanisha ryo ku wa 16/06/2016, Leta y’u Rwanda yatanze inzitizi y’iburabubasha y’Inteko y’Ubukemurampaka, hanyuma iyo Nteko ifata icyemezo cyo kwimurira iburanisha ku wa 17/06/2016 kugira ngo impande zombi zikore imyanzuro kuri iyo nzitizi, kuri iyo tariki urubanza ruraburanishwa, rurapfundikirwa, bigeze ku wa 29/06/2016 uburanira abarega yongera kohereza imyanzuro y’inyongera kuri iyo nzitizi, hanyuma ku wa 08/07/2016, Perezida w’Inteko Nkemurampaka amusubiza ko iyo myanzuro itakiriwe kuko, uretse kuba ntacyo yamarira Inteko mu ifatwa 55 CHEON KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd N’INDI v. LETA Y’URWANDA/MINAGRI

Page 79

ry’icyemezo, n’ubundi yakiriwe Inteko yaramaze kwemeranya ku mwanzuro wabo ku bubasha bw’Inteko y‘Abakemurampaka1. [15] Urukiko rurasanga, nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 35, igika cya kabiri, y’Itegeko No005/2008 ryavuzwe haruguru, uwiyambaje ubukemurampaka wese afite uburenganzira bwo kutanga imyanzuro y’inyongera mu gihe cy’isuzuma ry’ikirego, ariko iyi ngingo inateganya ko iyo Nteko nayo ifite ububasha bwo kwanga kwakira iyo myanzuro hakurikijwe ubukererwe bw’ibihinduka cyangwa ibyongerwamo. Niba rero, nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, iyo Nteko yarasobanuye ko impamvu yanze kwakira iyo myanzuro y’abarega yiregura ku nzitizi yari yatanzwe na Leta y’u Rwanda/MINAGRI, ari uko ntacyo yabamarira, byongeye kandi ikaba yaratanzwe abagize Inteko bararangije kwemeranya ku mwanzuro wabo (deliberation), ibyo byerekana ko iyo Nteko nta tegeko yishe. [16] Ku bijyanye no kuba, mu gukemura ikibazo cy’iyakirwa ry’imyanzuro y’inyongera mu rubanza rwari mu bukemurampaka, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwarakoresheje ingingo ya 69 y’Itegeko No21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, Urukiko rurasanga, hakurikijwe ihame mu mategeko (adage latin) ‟Specalia generalibus derogant”2, rishatse kuvuga, mu kinyarwanda, ko itegeko ry’umwihariko risimbura itegeko rusange, Urukiko

1 Letter of July 8, 2016: “They are additional submissions made by party after the close of proceedings, and while an Award is pending, without any direction to that effect by the Tribunal. […] even though it is not material to our above decision, the said submissions were received after the deliberations by the Tribunal on the substance of the award on jurisdiction. […]”. 2 La loi spéciale déroge à la loi générale. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 56

Page 80

Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rutaragombaga gukoresha ingingo ya 69 y’Itegeko No21/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru, ahubwo ko rwagombaga gushingira ku ngingo ya 35, igika cya kabiri, y’Itegeko No005/2008 ryavuzwe haruguru ari yo yakemuraga, mu buryo bw’umwihariko, ikibazo cyerekeranye no kwakira cyangwa kutakira imyanzuro y’inyongera yatanzwe n’uwiyambaje ubukemurampaka. Urukiko rurasanga, ariko, nubwo Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwakoresheje ingingo ya 69 yavuzwe haruguru, n’ubundi isesengura ry’ingingo ya 35 nayo yavuzwe haruguru, nk’uko rigaragara mu gika kibanziriza iki, ryerekana ko Inteko y’Abakemurampaka yari ifite ububasha bwo kwanga kwakira imyanzuro y’abarega yiregura ku nzitizi yari yatanzwe na Leta y’u Rwanda/MINAGRI kuko yatanzwe abagize iyo Nteko bararangije kwemeranya ku mwanzuro wabo, bityo, kuri iyi ngingo, ibyo abajuriye baburanisha bikaba ntacyo byabamarira.

2. Kumenya niba harirengagijwe icyo amasezerano ateganya ku bijyanye n’ikurikizwa ry’inzira ya “adjudication”. [17] Me Butare Emmanuel, uhagarariye CHEON KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd na EXERT ENGINEERING GROUP Ltd avuga ko Inteko y’Abakemurampaka yirengagije icyo amasezerano ateganya. Asobanura ko mu ngingo ya 2.3 ya ‟General conditions of contract”, humvikanywe uburyo inyandiko zitandukanye zifitanye isano n’amasezerano (contract agreement) zikurikirana mu kugira agaciro (hiérarchie des normes), ko ‟Particular conditions of contract” ziza mbere ya ‟General conditions of contract”. Akomeza avuga ko ingingo ya 24.4 ya ‟Particular conditions of contract” iteganya ko impaka zose zizavuka zishingiye ku masezerano, haba izijyanye n’iseswa ry’amasezerano cyangwa indi mpamvu yose, hazitabazwa ubukemurampaka; ko iyo ngingo idateganya ko 57 CHEON KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd N’INDI v. LETA Y’URWANDA/MINAGRI

Page 81

ubukemurampaka bugomba gukorwa hashingiwe ku cyemezo cyafashwe na “adjudicator”, ko ahubwo ivuga impaka zose zijyanye n’amasezerano, ndetse ko idafata “Adjudication procedure” nk’itegeko kugira ngo ikirego cyakirwe n’Inteko Nkemurampaka, ahubwo ko iyo “procédure” iteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 24.1-3 ya “General conditions of contract” ku byemezo byafashwe na “Project Manager” gusa. Avuga ko mu kirego cyatanzwe harimo ibyemezo byafashwe na “Project Manager”, ariko ko icyo kirego cyari gishingiye ku gusesa amasezerano. [18] Me Rubango Epimaque, uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda/MINAGRI, avuga ko ibijyanye n’ubusumbane bw’inyandiko z’amasezerano (hiérarchie des normes) buvugwa n’abajuriye bifashishije ingingo ya 2 y’amasezerano ntaho bigaragara, keretse babigaragaje; ko ingingo ya 24 ya “General conditions of contract”, ifite umutwe ugira uti: ‘’Procedure for Disputes’’, isobanura uburyo impaka zavuka zijyanye n’amasezerano n’ishyirwa mu bikorwa ryayo zakemurwamo, ko iyo ngingo inateganya uburyo impaka zigezwa mu Bukemurampaka, bityo ko mu gihe abajuriye badashobora kugaragaza ko hari indi nzira y’ikemurwa ry’impaka yateganyijwe itandukanye n’iteganyijwe muri iyo ngingo, ibyo bituma imvugo y’abajuriye y’uko Urukiko rwanyuranyije n’ibiteganyijwe mu masezerano nta shingiro igira. Akomeza asobanura ko uburyo bwo gukemura impaka bwateganyijwe mu masezerano bubanzirizwa, ku rwego rwa mbere, na ‟Adjudication”, byananirana, bikajya mu Bukemurampaka ku rwego rwa kabiri

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 58

Page 82

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [19] Ingingo ya 64 y’Itegeko No45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, iteganya ko: ‟Amasezerano akozwe ku buryo bukurikije amategeko aba itegeko ku bayagiranye. Ashobora guseswa ari uko babyumvikanyeho cyangwa ku mpamvu zemewe n’amategeko. Agomba kubahirizwa nta buryarya”. [20] Dosiye y’uru rubanza igaragaza ko ikibazo kiri hagati y’ababuranyi gishingiye ku iseswa ry’amasezerano bari bafitanye yiswe ‟Construction works of a 14 meters high earth-fill dam (lot 1) and 267 ha Hillside Irrigation System (lot 2) for Rwamagana- 34 site in Gahengeri Sector, Rwamagana District, Eastern Province”, ryatewe nuko imirimo yakererewe gukorwa. Muri ayo masezerano hashyizweho ‟Project manager” ushinzwe kugenzura ikorwa ry’imirimo n’iyubahirizwa ry’amasezerano, ku wa 15/06/2015 akaba yaragejejweho icyifuzo na CHEON KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd na EXERT

ENGINEERING

GROUP Ltd (joint venture) cy’uko bakongererwa igihe cyo gukora imirimo yavuzwe haruguru, ariko ku wa 03/07/2015, (Project Manager) afata icyemezo cyo kutabibemerera, ari nabwo, nyuma y’aho, Leta y’u Rwanda (MINAGRI) yaje gufata icyemezo cyo gusesa amasezerano (termination of contract). [21] Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 1.1. (c) ya ‟General Conditions of Contract” (GCC) yarasobanuye ko ‟adjudicator” ari umuntu ushyirwaho n’impande zombi zigiranye amasezerano mu buryo buteganywa n’ingingo ya 23 ya GCC, kugira ngo 59 59 CHEON KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd N’INDI v. LETA Y’URWANDA/MINAGRI

Page 83

akemure impaka ku rwego rwa mbere3. Na none, ingingo ya 244 ya GCC isobanura ko icyemezo cyafashwe na ‟Project manager” ariko kitari mu nshingano ze, cyangwa se cyafashwe mu buryo butari bwo, gishyikirizwa ‟Adjudicator” mu minsi 14 uhereye igihe icyo cyemezo cyamenyesherejwe uwo kireba, ko kandi ‟adjudicator” agomba kuba yatanze umwanzuro wanditse kuri icyo kibazo bitarenze iminsi 28 uhereye igihe yagishyikirijwe, naho buri ruhande rukaba rufite iminsi 28 kugira ngo rushyikirize ikibazo umukemurampaka (arbitrator), ko kandi ubukemurampaka bugomba gukorerwa ahantu hagenwe muri ‟Particular Conditions of Contract”, ndetse hakanakurikizwa inzira y’ubukemurampaka yashyizweho n’Urwego narwo rwavuzwe muri ‟Particular Conditions of Contract”.

[22] Urukiko rurasanga, muri rusange, imyandikire ya ‟Particular Conditions of Contract” (PCC) iri mu mbonerahamwe (tableau) igaragaza ko ibiyikubiyemo biza byuzuza kandi bigasobanura zimwe mu ngingo zigize “General Conditions of Contract ” (GCC). By’umwihariko, ingingo ya 24.4 ya ‟General

3 1.1(c): The Adjudicator is the person appointed jointly by the Employer and the Contractor to resolve disputes in the first instance, as provided for in GCC 23. 4 24.1: If the contractor believes that a decision taken by the Project Manager was either outside the authority given to the Project Manager by the Contract or that the decision was wrongly taken, the decision shall be referred to the Adjudicator within 14 days of the notification of the Project Manager’s decision.24.2: The Adjudicator shall give a decision in writing within 28 days of receipt of a notification of dispute. 24.3: […]. Either party may refer a decision of the Adjudicator to an Arbitration within 28 days of the Adjudicator’s written decision. If neither party refers the dispute to arbitration within the above 28 days, the Adjudicator’s decision shall be final and binding. 24.4: The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the arbitration procedures published by the institution named and in the place specified in the PCC (Particular Conditions of Contract) ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 60

Page 84

Conditions of Contract” (GCC) yuzuzwa n’ibisobanuro biri muri ‟Particular Conditions of Contract” ku rupapuro rwa 28, aho igaragaza ko impande zombi zemeranyijwe ko amategeko y’urwego rwa UNCITRAL (United Nations Commision on International Trade Law) ari yo azakurikizwa ndetse ubukemurampaka bukazabera i Nairobi/Kenya5. [23] Urukiko rurasanga rero ibiteganywa mu ngingo ya 24 (1,2,3,4) ya GCC bitavuguruzanya n’ibiteganywa muri ‟Particular Conditions of Contract” kuri GCC 24.4, ko ahubwo byuzuzanya, kuko agace ka 3 k’ingingo ya 24 ya GCC gateganya uko ikibazo gishyikirizwa Umukemurampaka (arbitrator) kivuye kuri ‟adjudicator”, naho agace ka 4 k’iyo ngingo kagateganya ko ubukemurampaka bugomba gukorerwa ahantu no mu buryo bwateganyijwe n’urwego (institution), byagenwe muri ‟Particular Conditions of Contract” (PCC). Rurasanga rero imyumvire ya Me BUTARE Emmanuel ko ‟Particular conditions of contract” (kuri GCC 24.4) idateganya ko ubukemurampaka bugomba gukorwa hashingiwe ku cyemezo cyafashwe na “adjudicator”, atari yo kuko, nk’uko byamaze kuvugwa haruguru, ibyasobanuwe muri icyo gice cy’amasezerano byuzuza ingingo ya 24.4 ya GCC iri mu gice cyiswe “Procedures for Disputes” giteganya uburyo ibibazo bibanza byashyikirizwa “adjudicator” mbere yo gushyikirizwa “arbitrator”, cyane cyane ko nawe (Me BUTARE Emmanuel), mu iburanisha yivugiye ko mu kirego cyatanzwe harimo ibyemezo byafashwe na “Project

5 Institution whose arbitration procedures shall be used: ‟Unites Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Arbitration Rules: Any dispute, controversy, or claim arising out of or relating to this Contract, or breach, termination, or invalidity thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules as at present in force.” The place of arbitration shall be: Nairobi, Kenya. 61 CHEON KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd N’INDI v. LETA Y’URWANDA/MINAGRI

Page 85

manager”, byongeye kandi hakaba nta yindi ngingo iri mu masezerano iteganya ko ibibazo bijyanye n’iseswa ry’amasezerano bishyikirizwa Ubukemurampaka bitabanje kugezwa kwa “adjudicator”. [24] Urukiko rurasanga niba ‟Project manager” yarafashe icyemezo cyo kutemera iyongerwa ry’igihe imirimo iri mu masezerano yagombaga gukorwamo, iki cyemezo kikaba kitarashyikirijwe ‟adjudicator” ku rwego rwa mbere, mbere y’uko kigezwa ku mukemurampaka (arbitrator) nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 1.1. (c) n’iya 24(1.2.3.4) za GCC zavuzwe haruguru, ibyo byerekena ko Inteko Nkemurampaka itagombaga kwakira ikirego kuko cyatanzwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’ibiteganywa n’amasezerano. [25] Urukiko rurasanga, hakurikijwe ibimaze gusobanurwa haruguru, hanashingiwe ku ngingo ya 64 y’Itegeko No 45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 ryavuzwe haruguru, hatarirengagijwe icyo amasezerano ateganya ku bijyanye n’ikurikizwa ry’inzira ya “adjudication”.

3. Kumenya niba Leta y’uRwanda/MINAGRI yagenerwa amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza [26] Me Rubango Epimaque avuga ko kuba abajuriye barakomeje urubanza kandi bitari ngombwa, Leta y’u Rwanda/MINAGRI ikwiye guhabwa 1.000.000Frw yakoresheje ikurikirana urubanza. [27] Me Butare Emmanuel avuga ko ayo mafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza nta gaciro yahabwa kuko MINAGRI ari yo yasheshe amasezerano, bityo guca ayo mafaranga abo ahagarariye bikaba ari ukubasonga. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 62

Page 86

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [28] Urukiko rurasanga kuba amasosiyete CHEON KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd na EXERT ENGINEERING GROUP Ltd yarajuriye, ubujurire bwayo bukaba budafite ishingiro, byumvikana ko hari icyo byangirije Leta y’u Rwanda/MINAGRI yatakaje umwanya ikurikirana urubanza, bityo ayo masosiyete akaba agomba kwishyura Leta y’u Rwanda/MINAGRI amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza angana na 300.000Frw, izi ndishyi zikaba zigenwe mu bushishozi bwarwo kuko izifujwe ari ikirenga ndetse zikaba zitaratangiwe ibimenyetso. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [29] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa

CHEON

KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd na EXERT ENGINEERING GROUP Ltd (Joint venture) nta shingiro bufite; [30] Rwemeje ko urubanza RCOMA00476/2016/CHC/HCC rwaciwe kuwa 28/10/2016 n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rudahindutse, uretse ku mafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza agenewe Leta y’u Rwanda/MINAGRI kuri uru rwego; [31] Rutegetse

CHEON

KWANG

DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd na EXERT ENGINEERING GROUP Ltd guha Leta y’uRwanda/MINAGRI 300.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza; [32] Rutegetse ko ingwate y’amagarama yatanzwe na CHEON KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd na EXERT ENGINEERING GROUP Ltd ihwanye n’ibyakozwe mu rubanza. 63

Page 87

I&M BANK v. SEBULIKOKO [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RCOMAA00052/2016/SC- RCOMAA0057/16/CS (Kayitesi R, P.J., Ngagi na Hitiyaremye, J.) 09 Kamena 2017] Amategeko agenga amasezerano – Amasezerano y’ubugwate – Kongera igihe cyo kwandikisha ingwate – Kutongera igihe cyo kwandikisha ingwate ntibiyitesha agaciro igihe cyose umwenda ishamikiyeho utarishyurwa. Icyakora uko kutongera kuyandikisha ntibyagira inkurikizi ku batari mu masezerano. Incamake y’ ikibazo: I&M BANK yahaye Sebulikoko (uhagarariye ECSNE), inguzanyo ingana na 2.434.879.505Frw mu rwego rwo kugura imashini zifashishwa mu kubaka imihanda, bakorana amasezerano y’ingwate ku mutungo wimukanwa kuwa 07/11/2013. Iyo nguzanyo yishingirwa na Rwasibo Mutesi Beatrice, ikaba yaragombaga kurangira kwishyurwa kuwa 25/04/2015. Nyuma yaho iyo nguzanyo ntiyishyuwe, I&M BANK ifatira izo ngwate maze izigurisha mu cyamunara ibyemerewe n’umwanditsi mukuru mu kigo cy’igihugu gishinzwe iterambere (RDB), ariko ntizabasha kwishyura umwenda wose bituma ibarega mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge isaba kwishyurwa amafaranga yari asigaye. Sebulikoko n’umwishingizi we nabo batanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge basaba urukiko gutesha agaciro iryo gurisha ry’ingwate kuko ritubahirije amategeko, banasaba kandi ko hakorwa irindi genagaciro (contre expertise) kuko ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 64

Page 88

imitungo yabo yagurishijwe ifite agaciro karuta umwenda bahawe na banki. Banatanze ikirego cyuririye ku kindi basaba urukiko yuko habaho ihwanywa ry’imyenda (compensation) maze amafaranga asigaye agasubizwa Sebulikoko kuko agaciro k’imitungo yagurishijwe kari hejuru y’amafaranga bishyuzwa. Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge rwemeza ko ikirego cya Seburikoko n’umwishingizi we nta shingiro gifite naho icya I&M BANK kikaba gifite ishingiro, rutegeka ko uwahawe inguzanyo hamwe n’umwishingizi bafatanya kwishyura amafaranga bishyuzwa na banki. Seburikoko n’umwishingizi we ntibanyuzwe n’icyemezo cy’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge bajurira mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi bavuga ko I&MBANK yagurishije umutungo wabo utakiri ingwate yanditse ya I&M BANK kuko zitongeye kwandikishwa muri RDB kubera ko igihe cyo kuyandikisha cyari cyararenze. Uru rukiko rwemeje ko ubujurire bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe, rwemeza ko ingwate zagurishijwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko kuko zari zitakiri iza banki yazigurishije mu cyamunara. I&M BANK ntiyishimiye icyemezo cy’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi kivuga ko umutungo wagurishijwe utakiri ingwate yayo kuko igiye cyayo cy’ubugwate cyari cyararangiye ntizongera kwandikishwa, banki ijurira mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga ivuga ko mu kwemeza ko umutungo wagurishijwe utari ukiri ingwate Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwirengagije impamvu zari zaratanzwe ko ari umwenda Seburikoko n’umwishingizi we batari bagashoboye kwishyura. Sebulikoko n’umwishingizi we batanze ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi, bavuga ko banki igomba kwirengera ingaruka n’igihombo 65 I&M BANK v. SEBULIKOKO

Page 89

batejwe n’igurishwa ry’ingwate itari yanditse ndetse basaba urukiko ko habaho ihwanya ry’imyenda. Banki yiregura ivuga ko Sebulikoko yari yiyemeje kwishyura, anakorerwa ivugururwa ry’amasezerano(restructuration) na banki rishingiye kubusabe bwe ariko ntiyabyubahiriza. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Kwandikisha ingwate biba bigamije kumenyesha abatari mu masezerano ko iyo ngwate ihari, ariko ko n’iyo igihe cy’iyandikisha ryayo kirangiye itarandikwa, ariko nticyongerwe, ibyo bitayitesha agaciro, icyakora nta nkurikizi igira ku bantu batari mu masezerano.

2. Ingwate itangwa igamije kwishingira umwenda, ku buryo igihe cyose umwenda utarishyurwa ingwate nayo igumaho. Kuba ingwate itarongeye kwandikwa mu Biro by’Umwanditsi Mukuru mu kigo gishinzwe iterambere (RDB) ntibyayitesha agaciro, bivuze rero ko kuba umwenda ukiriho, akaba ari nawo ingwate ishingiyeho, ingwate nayo igumana agaciro kayo, nubwo iyandikwa ryayo ryaba ritarongerewe agaciro. Ubujurire bufite ishingiro. Ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi nta shingiro bufite. Amagarama aherereye kuri Seburikoko n’umwishingizi we. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nº34/2013 ryo kuwa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye ubugwate ku mutungo wimukanwa, ingingo ya 2, 19º, iya 7, iya 8 n’iya 27. Nta manza zifashishijwe. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 66

Page 90

Ibitekerezo by’Abahanga: L. Aynes P.& Crocq, Droit des sûretés, 9e édition, Paris, L.G.D.J., 2015. Urubanza I.IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge, I&M Bank Ltd irega Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel (uhagarariye ECSNE) na Rwasibo Mutesi Beatrice (nk’umwishingizi), umwenda ungana na 2.434.879.505Frw, yamuhaye kugira ngo agure imashini zifashishwa mu kubaka imihanda. I&M Bank Ltd yavugaga ko yabonye itishyuwe, itangira gushaka ubwishyu mu ngwate yari yarahawe na Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel (uhagarariye ECSNE), ariko ntizashobora kwishyura umwenda wose. [2] Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel na Rwasibo Mutesi Béatrice nabo batanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge bavuga ko ‟dénonciation du crédit” yakozwe na I&M Bank Ltd yateshwa agaciro kuko itubahirije amategeko, ndetse banasaba ko hemezwa ko umwenda wishyuzwa ari umurengera, ko ugomba kongera kubarwa hakoreshejwe ‟contre- expertise”. Batanze n’ikirego cyuririye kukindi, basaba ko habaho ihwanya ry’imyenda (compensation) bashingiye ku gaciro kagaragajwe na ‟expertise” y’imitungo yagurishijwe kangana na 3.646.457.285Frw, hagakurwamo umwenda ungana na 2.434.879.505Frw, hanyuma amafaranga asigaye (1.221.577.700Frw) agasubizwa Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel. 67 I&M BANK v. SEBULIKOKO

Page 91

[3] Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge, mu rubanza RCOM0957/15/TC/NYGE & RCOM1673/15/TC/NYGE, rwemeje ko ikirego cya Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel na Rwasibo Mutesi Béatrice nta shingiro gifite, ko ikirego cya I&M Bank Ltd gifite ishingiro; rutegeka Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel (uhagarariye ECSNE) afatanyije na Rwasibo Mutesi Béatrice (umwishingizi) kwishyura I&M Bank Ltd 2.439.879.505Frw. [4] Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel na Rwasibo Mutesi Béatrice bajuririye Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, bavuga ko hirengagijwe ko I&M Bank Ltd yarengereye, igafatira umutungo wabo wimukanwa ndetse iwugurisha mu cyamunara, kandi byaragaragaye ko uwo mutungo utakiri ingwate yanditse ya I&M Bank Ltd; Sebulikoko yitiriwe imvugo zitari ize kuko atigeze asaba ko igurisha ry’ingwate ryateshwa agaciro kuko ridakurikije amategeko, ko atari kuregera ibyo yahawe mu rubanza RCOMA0459/15/HCC, habayeho kwitiranya ibintu (dénaturation de la plaidoirie), aho Urukiko rwavuze ko ‟expertise” yakozwe ari igaragaza agaciro k’umutungo wagurishijwe kandi atari byo, ahubwo ko Sebulikoko yerekanye igihombo cy’ubucuruzi yatewe n’igurisha ry’umutungo we, akaba yarifashishije umuhanga mu ibaruramari, bityo abiheraho asaba ihwanya ry’imyenda. [5] Mu rubanza RCOMA00100/2016/CHC/HCC rwaciwe kuwa 15/07/2016, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel na Rwasibo Mutesi Béatrice bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe, rwemeza ko imodoka n’imashini za Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel uhagarariye ECSNE zagurishijwe mu cyamunara zitakiri ingwate ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 68

Page 92

ya I&M Bank Ltd, ko zisubizwa abajuriye kuko zagurishijwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko. [6] I&M Bank Ltd ntiyishimiye iki cyemezo, ikijuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga ivuga ko mu kwemeza ko imodoka n’imashini byagurishijwe bitakiri ingwate za I&M Bank Ltd, hirengagijwe ko impamvu yatumye ingwate zitangwa ari umwenda Sebulikoko n’umwishingizi we batari bagashoboye kwishyura, bityo hakaba haragombaga guhabwa agaciro ingingo ya 7 ya ‟acte de nantissement” yo kuwa 07/11/2013, kuba kugeza ubu Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel/ECSNE na Rwasibo Mutesi Béatrice baranze kwishyura umwenda bayibereyemo, ahubwo bakayishora mu manza, ari ukwica amasezerano nkana, bakaba bagomba no kubitangira indishyi zingana na 10.000.000Frw, igihembo cy’Avoka kingana na 5.000.000Frw, n’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza angana na 3.000.000Frw. [7] Sebulikoko n’umwishingizi we, nabo batanze ubujurire bwuruririye ku bundi, Sebulikoko avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwavuze ko atagaragaje ko imashini zari zifite akazi cyangwa zari ziteguye kugakora, ariko ko rwirengagije ko yari afite imirimo myinshi yiteguraga gukora, ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwakwifashisha umuhanga mu kugena igihombo kuko umuburanyi atagishoboye kucyisobanurira, naho Rwasibo Béatrice avuga ko I&M BANK Ltd igomba kwirengera ingaruka n’igihombo batejwe n’igurishwa ry’ingwate itari yanditse, akaba asaba ko habaho ihanywa ry’imyenda, I&M Bank Ltd ikabaha 1.214.577.780Frw. [8] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku wa 09/05/2017, I&M Bank Ltd ihagarariwe na Me Rubasha Hubert, Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel na Rwasibo Mutesi 69 I&M BANK v. SEBULIKOKO

Page 93

Béatrice bahagarariwe na Me Nzirabatinyi Fidèle, Me Rwagatare Janvier na Me Kavutse Ephrem. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO A. UBUJURIRE BWA I&M BANK Ltd 1. Kumenya niba I&M Bank Ltd yaragurishije ingwate zari zarataye agaciro [9] Me Rubasha Hubert avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwirengagije impamvu nyamukuru yatumye Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel n’umwishingizi we batanga ingwate, ko rwavuze ko I&M Bank Ltd yagurishije ingwate zari zarataye agaciro, nyamara ko Urukiko rutakuyeho umwenda abo baburana bayibereyemo cyane cyane ubwabo bakaba barawiyemereye mu rubanza RCOM0957- 1673/15/TC/NYGE, ko rero ingwate zari mu maboko ya I&M Bank Ltd ubwo zagurishwaga. Akomeza avuga ko ingingo ya 27 y’Itegeko Nº34/2013 ryo kuwa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye ubugwate ku mutungo wimukanwa iteganya ko uwatanze umwenda igihe cyose atarishyurwa agumana ingwate. Asoza avuga ko ingingo ya 194 y’Itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko umutungo wimukanwa n’utimukanwa by’urimo umwenda ari ingwate rusange y’uwo abereyemo umwenda, bityo ko I&M Bank Ltd yari ifite uburenganzira bwo kugurisha ingwate yahawe na Sebulikoko. [10] Me Rubasha Hurbert akomeza avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwihaye ububasha bwo kuvuguruza ibindi byemezo byafashwe n’urwo Rukiko mu zindi manza ebyiri ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 70

Page 94

zabanje, rutegeka ko imashini n’imodoka za Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel zagurishijwe mu cyamunara azisubizwa ngo kuko zagurishijwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko kubera ko zitari zikiri ingwate ya I&M Bank Bank Ltd, rwirengangije ko urubanza rwa mbere ( RCOMA0320/15/HCC) rwemeje ko icyemezo cyatanzwe n’Umwanditsi Mukuru cyo kurindisha I&M Bank Ltd umutungo wimukanwa yahaweho ingwate na ECSNE gihamaho mu ngingo zacyo zose, runategeka ko I&M Bank Ltd ihamana uburenganzira bwo kurinda umutungo wimukanwa yahaweho ingwate, naho urubanza rwa kabiri (RCOMA 0391/15/HCC) rwemeza ko igurishwa ry’umutungo wagwatirijwe na Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel ryakozwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko. Avuga ko rero, kuri we, I&M Bank Ltd yari ifite ububasha n’uburenganzira bwo kugurisha ingwate kuko yabuhawe n’inkiko. Asoza avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rutashishoje neza rutegeka ko ingwate zose zagurishijwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko ngo kuko zagombaga kurangira kuwa 25/04/2015 nyamara zimwe muri zo zaragombaga kurangira mu 2018, kandi ko mu gihe I&M Bank Ltd yahoraga yandikira Sebulikoko imusaba kwishyura umwenda ayibereyemo, bitari bikiri ngombwa ko yongera kwandikisha ingwate. [11] Me Kavutse Ephrem, uhagarariye abaregwa, avuga ko Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel n’umwishingizi we badahakana umwenda, ko ikosa I&M Bank Ltd yakoze ari uko yagurishije ingwate yari yaramaze guta agaciro, kuko itongeye kuyandikisha mu biro by’ Umwanditsi Mukuru (muri RDB). [12] Me Rwagatare Janvier, nawe uhagarariye abaregwa, avuga ko mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ikibazo cyaburanywe 71 I&M BANK v. SEBULIKOKO

Page 95

atari icy’umwenda kuko Sebulikoko atawuhakana, ko icyaburanywe kwari kumenya niba ingwate igihe yagurishwaga yari yanditse mu buryo bwemewe n’amategeko. Avuga ko iyo ngwate yagombaga kurangira kuwa 25/04/2015, banki iyifatira ku wa 08/05/2015, ikaba rero yaranyuranyije n’ingingo ya 27 y’Itegeko Nº34/2013 ryo ku wa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye ubugwate ku mutungo wimukanwa, kuko Banki yagombaga kwandikisha ingwate bitarenze kuwa 25/04/2015, bityo kuba itarabikoze bivuze ko yiyambuye ububasha kuri iyo ngwate. Akomeza avuga ko ibyemezo byafashwe mu manza RCOMA0320/15/HCC na RCOMA0391/15/HCC byari ibyemezo ku birego byihutirwa, icya mbere kirebana no gucunga umutungo, naho icya kabiri cyarebanaga na cyamunara, ariko ko ibyo byemezo byombi bitigeze biha I&M Bank Ltd uburenganzira bwo kugurisha izo ngwate. Ku bijyanye n’uko zimwe muri‟garanties” zagombaga kurangira mu 2018, avuga ko I&M Bank Ltd ari yo igomba kubitangira ibimenyetso kuko ariyo irega, naho ku bijyanye n’inyandiko za ‟mise en demeure” zandikiwe Sebulikoko avuga ko zidakuraho itegeko. [13] Me Nzirabatinyi Fidèle, nawe uhagarariye abaregwa, avuga ko kuvuga ko igihe cyose umwenda ukiriho n’ingwate iba iriho, ari ukwirengagiza ibyo amategeko ateganya, asaba ko Urukiko rwasuzuma ingingo ya 7, iya 8 n’iya 27 z’Itegeko Nº34/2013 ryo ku wa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye ubugwate ku mutungo wimukanwa. Akomeza avuga ko ingingo ya 194 y’Itegeko Nº 21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012, yavuzwe n’uburanira I&M Bank Ltd, irebana na “gage général”, ko ndetse n’iyo yashingirwaho, uburyo banki yanyuzemo ifatira umutungo, atari yo nzira yari gukurikizwa; bityo ko iyi ngingo ntacyo yabamarira. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 72

Page 96

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [14] Ingingo ya 27 y’Itegeko Nº34/2013 ryo ku wa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye ubugwate ku mutungo wimukanwa iteganya ko iyandikisha ry’ubugwate riba rifite agaciro uhereye ku munsi ryandikiweho: 1° Kugeza igihe cyashyizwe mu masezerano; 2° Iyo igihe cy’inshingano gikomeza nyuma y’ikiri mu iyandikisha, kugeza igihe cy’inyongera kivugwa mu iyongera ry’igihe ryanditswe mbere y’uko igihe cya mbere kirangira; cyangwa 3° Mu gihe inshingano irangiye mbere y’igihe kivugwa mu iyandikisha, kugeza ku itariki agaciro k’iyandikisha karangiriraho. [15] Ingingo ya 2, 19º y’Itegeko Nº34/2013 ryo kuwa 24/05/2013 rimaze kuvugwa haruguru, isobanura ubugwate nk’uburenganzira ku mutungo bwite wimukanwa w’umuntu bwemeza ko hazabaho ubwishyu cyangwa irangiza ry’inshingano. [16] Mu gushaka kumenya niba koko I&M Bank Ltd yaragurishije ingwate zari zarataye agaciro, Urukiko rurasanga ari ngombwa kubanza kumenya impamvu ingwate itangwa, icyo imariye uwayihawe, akamaro ko kuyandikisha, ako kongera igihe cyo kuyandikisha n’ingaruka zo kutongera icyo gihe k’uwahawe ingwate. [17] Nk’uko abahanga mu mategeko babisobanura, ingwate zigamije kwishingira ko umwenda uzishyurwa, ntabwo zatandukanywa n’inshingano yo kwishyura umwenda 73 I&M BANK v. SEBULIKOKO

Page 97

w’amafaranga ngenagihe (obligations de somme d’argent à terme), zituma uberewemo umwenda yirinda igihombo ashobora guterwa no kutishyurwa umwenda yatanze. Bakomeza gusobanura ko ingwate zijyana n’umwenda1. [18] Ku byerekeranye no kwandikisha ingwate abo bahanga basobanura, na none, ko kwandikisha ingwate ku mutungo utimukwanwa2 biba bigamije kumenyesha abatari mu masezerano ko iyo ngwate ihari, ariko ko n’iyo igihe cy’iyandikisha ryayo kirangiye itarandikwa, ariko nticyongerwe, ibyo bitayitesha agaciro, icyakora nta nkurikizi igira ku bantu batari mu masezerano (non opposable aux tiers)3. [19] Dosiye y’uru rubanza igaragaza ko Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel4 yagiranye amasezerano y’ingwate ku mutungo wimukanwa na I&M Bank Ltd kuwa 07/11/2013, Rwasibo Mutesi Béatrice yishingira umwenda wagombaga kurangira kwishyurwa kuwa 25/04/2015. Nyuma yaho, Sebulikoko yatangiye kugira ibibazo byo kutishyura neza inguzanyo yahawe na I&M Bank Ltd, bituma Banki, ibyemerewe n’Umwanditsi Mukuru muri RDB, igurisha ingwate, ariko

1 Les sûretés garantissent l’exécution future d’une obligation; elles sont indissociables de l’obligation de somme d’argent à terme. Elles permettent au créancier de se prémunir contre la défaillance du débiteur, (… sans sûreté, pas de crédit…). L. AYNES, P. CROCQ, Droit des sûretés, 9e édition, Paris, L.G.D.J., 2015, p.13. 2 Aba bahanga bavuga ko iyandikwa ry’ingwate yimukanwa ariko umutungo ukagumana nyirawo (débiteur) rikorwa kimwe n’iry’umutungo utimukanwa (L. AYNES, P. CROCQ, op.cit., p. 279). 3 En cas de pérémption de l’inscription, l’hypothèque n’est pas éteinte, mais perd son opposabilité (L .AYNES, P. CROCQ, op.cit., p. 365). 4 Mu masezerano handitse Niyomwungeri Emmanuel. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 74

Page 98

ntizashobora kwishyura umwenda wose Sebulikoko abereyemo Banki. [20] Ku byerekeranye no kumenya niba koko I&M Bank Ltd yaragurishije ingwate zamaze guta agaciro kubera ko zitongeye kwandikwa, Urukiko rurasanga nk’uko byavuzwe haruguru, ingwate itangwa igamije kwishingira umwenda, ku buryo igihe cyose umwenda utarishyurwa ingwate nayo igumaho. Urukiko rurasanga imvugo y’ababuranira Sebulikoko ko kuba ingwate itarongeye kwandikwa mu Biro by’Umwanditsi Mukuru muri RDB biyitesha agaciro, nta shingiro byahabwa, kuko n’ingingo ya 7 y’amasezerano arebana n’ingwate (acte de nantissement) yo kuwa 07/11/2013 impande zombi zumvikanyeho, iteganya ko igihe cyose amasezerano y’umwenda azaba agifite agaciro n’andi yose ayashamikiyeho azakomeza kugira agaciro, bivuze rero ko kubera ko Sebulikoko ubwe yiyemerera umwenda, kandi uwo mwenda ukaba ukiriho, akaba ari nawo ingwate ishingiyeho, bivuze ko ingwate nayo igumana agaciro kayo, nubwo iyandikwa ryayo ryaba ritarongerewe agaciro. [21] Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 7, iya 8 n’iya 27, z’Itegeko Nº34/2013 ryo ku wa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye ubugwate ku mutungo wimukanwa abahagarariye Sebulikoko n’umwishingizi we baburanisha bashaka kwerekana ko ingwate zagurishijwe zarataye agaciro, ntacyo zabamarira kuko, n’ubwo ingingo ya 7 y’iryo tegeko iteganya ko ubugwate bugira agaciro iyo bumaze kwandikwa n’Umwanditsi Mukuru, iyi ngingo yarubahirijwe kuko ubugwate bwanditswe n’Umwanditsi Mukuru,buhabwa igihe bwagombaga kumara, ndetse impande zombi zumvikana ko buzagumana agaciro kabwo igihe cyose amasezerano y’umwenda remezo azaba agifite agaciro. Urukiko rurasanga, na none, ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 8 y’Itegeko rimaze kuvugwa 75 I&M BANK v. SEBULIKOKO

Page 99

haruguru nta kibazo biteye, kuko byo bireba abandi bantu batari mu masezerano y’ubugwate (tiers), kandi abo bantu bakaba ntaho bagaragara muri aya masezerano. Naho ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 27 agace ka 1º y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru, ko iyandikisha ry’ubugwate riba rifite agaciro uhereye ku munsi ryandikiweho kugeza igihe cyashyizwe mu masezerano, Urukiko rurasanga n’ubwo amasezerano yateganyaga ko ingwate izarangira ku wa 25/04/2015, ariko ingingo ya 7 y’ayo masezerano ikaba iteganya ko ingwate ikomeza kugira agaciro kayo igihe cyose amasezerano y’umwenda remezo azaba agifite agaciro, ibyo bivuze ko igihe cyose amasezerano-remezo agifite agaciro, ingwate nayo igumana agaciro kayo.Urukiko rurasanga na none ibiteganywa mu gace ka 2º k’ingingo ya 27 imaze kuvugwa, byakurikizwa igihe habaye kongera igihe cy’iyandikwa ry’ingwate, akaba rero Sebulikoko n’umwishingizi we batakuririra ku kuba iki gihe kitarongerewe bashaka kugaragaza ko igihe uyu muhango wo kongera igihe utakozwe, ingwate iba itaye agaciro kayo, birengangiza ibiteganywa n’ingingo 7 y’amasezerano y’ingwate yavuzwe haruguru. [22] Urukiko rurasanga na none, hashingiwe ku rubanza RCOMA0320/15/HCC rwemeje ko I&M Bank Ltd igumana uburenganzira bwo kurinda umutungo wimukanwa yahaweho ingwate, n’urubanza RCOMA0391/15/HCC rwemeje ko cyamunara ikomeza, I&M Bank Ltd yari ifite uburenganzira bwo gufatira no kugurisha ingwate yari yahawe na Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel,bityo bikaba bitari ngombwa gusuzuma ikibazo kijyanye nuko hari ingwate zagombaga gukomeza kugeza mu 2018 ndetse n’icyo kumenya niba ingwate zaragombaga kongera kwandikwa kuko cyashubijwe mu bika bibanza. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 76

Page 100

[23] Kuba Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi (mu gika cya 13) rwarasobanuye ko umucamanza w’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi yasuzumye icyo ataregewe, aho yavuze ku bijyanye no gutesha agaciro igurisha ry’ingwate kandi bitararegewe, Urukiko rurasanga iyo myumvire atari yo kuko, hakurikijwe uko urwo rubanza rw’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge rwaciwe (ibika bya 24-31), umucamanza yatangaga ibisobanuro ku kirego cyuririye ku kindi cyari cyatanzwe n’uburanira Sebulikoko,cyerekeranye no guhwanya imyenda, aho yavugaga ko kugurisha ingwate bitakurikije amategeko kuko byakozwe igihe cyazo cyararangiye, ndetse na cyamunara ikaba yarateshejwe agaciro n’urubanza RCOMA0459/15/HCC, bityo akabyuririraho asaba ko I&M Bank Ltd igomba kwishyura ikinyuranyo kiri hagati y’agaciro kagaragajwe na ‟Expertise” y’ingwate zagurishijwe n’umwenda ugomba kwishyurwa. Kuba rero, mu gusubiza icyo kibazo, uwo mucamanza yarakoze isesengura ry’urubanza RCOMA0459/15/HCC, hamwe n’imanza RCOMA0320/15/HCC na RCOMA0391/15/HCC, akanzura ko ibyemejwe mu manza RCOMA0320/15/HCC na RCOMA0391/15/HCC ari byo bigomba gukurikizwa kubera ko urubanza RCOMA0459/15/HCC rutigeze ruvanaho izo manza, ibyo byerekana ko nta kosa yakoze, kuko mu gihe Urukiko rwari rwarafashe icyemezo cy’uko cyamunara y’umutungo wimukanwa wa Sebulikoko ikomeza, rutagombaga kwivuguruza ruvuga ko iyo cyamunara iteshejwe agaciro. [24] Hashingiwe ku ngingo z’amategeko no ku bisobanuro byatanzwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga I&M Bank Ltd yaragurishije imodoka n’imashini zatanzwe nk’ingwate na Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel uhagarariye ECSNE, izo ngwate zigifite agaciro, bityo ubujurire bwa I&M Bank Ltd, kuri iyi ngingo, bukaba bufite ishingiro. 77 I&M BANK v. SEBULIKOKO

Page 101

Kumenya niba indishyi I&M Bank Ltd isaba yazihabwa [25] Me Rubasha Hubert avuga ko kuba kugeza ubu Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel/ECSNE na Rwasibo Mutesi Béatrice baranze kwishyura umwenda babereyemo I&M Bank Ltd, ahubwo bakayishora mu manza, ari ukwica amasezerano nkana, bakaba bagomba kubitangira indishyi zingana na 10.000.000Frw, igihembo cy’Avoka kingana na 5.000.000Frw, n’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza angana na 3.000.000Frw. [26] Abahagarariye Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel bavuga ko indishyi I&M Bank Ltd isaba nta shingiro zifite kubera ko ari we wambuwe imitungo ye mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko nk’uko n’imanza zabigaragaje, ko ahubwo ari we wakagombye kuzihabwa. Uhagarariye Rwasibo Mutesi Béatrice, nawe, avuga ko izo ndishyi nta shingiro zahabwa kuko we na Sebulikoko uhagarariye ECSNE bagaragaje ko I&M Bank Ltd ari yo yakoze amakosa yo kugurisha ingwate zataye agaciro yirengagije ibivugwa mu ngingo ya 27 y’Itegeko Nº34/2013 ryavuzwe haruguru.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [27] Ku bijyanye n’indishyi 10.000.000Frw zisabwa na I&M Bank Ltd, Urukiko rurasanga zidakwiye gutangwa kuko, mu kuzisaba, ishingira ku kuba Sebulikoko yarishe amasezerano no gushorwa mu manza, mu gihe nyamara ingingo zitahindutse mu rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi zigaragaza ko I&M Bank Ltd yagenewe inyungu z’umwenda remezo zijyanye no kuba itarishyuriwe ku gihe umwenda yatanze, bityo ikaba itakongera kugenerwa izindi ndishyi ziyongera kuri izo ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 78

Page 102

nyungu;naho ku bijyanye no gushorwa mu manza, (I&M Bank Ltd) ikaba izisaba nk’aho ari Sebulikoko wayishoye muri uru rubanza kandi bigaragara ko ari yo yajuriye, bityo ikaba itakuririra ku burenganzira bwo kujurira ihabwa n’ingingo ya 162, y’Itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ngo ibisabire indishyi zo gushorwa mu manza. [28] Ku bijyanye n’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’ay’igihembo cy’Avoka, Urukiko rurasanga kuba ubujurire bwa I&M Bank Ltd bufite ishingiro, byumvikana ko hari amafaranga yatakaje ikurikirana urubanza no kwishyura Avoka, bityo Sebulikoko n’umwishingizi we bakaba bagomba kuyiha 300.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza na 500.000Frw y’igihembo cy’Avoka, aya mafaranga akaba agenwe mu bushishozi bwarwo kuko ayifujwe ari ikirenga ndetse akaba ataratangiwe ibimenyetso. B. Ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwa Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel [29] Abahagarariye Sebulikoko bavuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwavuze ko atagaragaje ko imashini zari zifite akazi cyangwa zari ziteguye kugakora, ariko ko rwirengagije ko yari afite imirimo myinshi yiteguraga gukora; ko kubera ko habaye impinduka nyinshi, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwakwifashisha umuhanga mu kugena igihombo kuko umuburanyi atagishoboye kucyisobanurira, nk’uko rwabikoze mu rubanza RADA0001/05/CS rwaciwe kuwa 02/09/2009, rukagena ihwanya ry’imyenda (compensation); bavuga ko mu kubara igihombo hashingirwa ku mafaranga Sebulikoko yagaragaje imodoka zari kwinjiza ku munsi, akanahabwa indishyi zo 79 I&M BANK v. SEBULIKOKO

Page 103

gushorwa mu manza zingana na 10.000.000Frw, indishyi z’akababaro zingana na 30.000.000Frw n’igihembo cy’Avoka kingana na 15.000.000Frw. [30] I&M Bank Ltd ivuga ko ibivugwa na Sebulikoko nta shingiro byahabwa kubera ko ubwe yiyemereye ko akazi yari afite yakatswe, uhereye kw’iseswa ry’amasezerano yari yaragiranye na DRC, Burundi ndetse n’u Rwanda; ko yari yiyemeje kwishyura Banki ibivuye muri ayo masoko, ariko ntiyabyubahiriza; ko yagiye akorerwa ivugurura ry’amasezerano (restructuration) na Banki rishingiye ku busabe bwe yitwaje ko ECSNE ifite amasoko atandukanye ariko ntibashobore kwishyura.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [31] Urukiko rurasanga, rutiriwe rusesengura imvugo z’ababuranyi kuri ubu bujurire bwuririye ku bundi, kuba I&M Bank Ltd yaragurishije ingwate yahawe na Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru (mu gika cya 21), ibyo bivuze ko nta mpamvu yo gusuzuma ibijyanye n’igihombo Sebulikoko avuga ko yatewe n’iryo gurisha ry’ingwate, bityo ubujurire bwe bwuririye ku bundi bukaba nta shingiro bufite.

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 80

Page 104

III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [32] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwatanzwe na I&M Bank Ltd bufite ishingiro; [33] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwatanzwe na Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel nta shingiro bufite; [34] Rwemeje ko ingwate zatanzwe na Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel uhagarariye ECSNE, zagurishijwe na I&M Bank Ltd zigifite agaciro; [35] Rwemeje ko imikirize y’urubanza RCOMA00100/2016/CHC/HCC rwaciwe ku wa 15/07/2016 n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, ihindutse gusa ku birebana n’ingwate; [36] Rutegetse Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel uhagarariye ECSNE gufatanya na Rwasibo Mutesi Béatrice guha I&M Bank Ltd 300.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza na 500.000Frw y’igihembo cy’Avoka; [37] Rutegetse Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel uhagarariye ECSNE na Rwasibo Mutesi Béatrice gufatanya kwishyura I&M Bank Ltd 100.000Frw y’ingwate y’amagarama yatanze ijurira.

Page 105

URUBANZA NSHINJACYAHA

Page 106

83

Page 107

GAHENDA v. RUTSINDURA (2) [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/INJUST/RP 00005/2017/CS (Mukandamage, P.J., Muhumuza na Gakwaya, J.) 09 Werurwe 2018] Amategeko agenga ibimenyetso – Itangwa ry’ibimenyetso – Ibimenyetso bishobora gutangwa aho urubanza rwaba rugeze hose, icyangombwa ni uko ushinjwa abyireguraho – Itegeko Nº15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 119. Incamake y’ikibazo: Bigirimana Cédric yakurikiranywe n’ubushinjacyaha mu rukiko rw’ibanze rwa Nyarugunga ku cyaha cy’inyandiko mpimbano, buvuga ko yiyitirira kuba umuhungu wa Rutsindura Alphonse wazize jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi mu mwaka wa 1994 maze yiyita Rutsindura Alexis, ibi byose akaba yarabikoze agamije kwegukana umutungo wa nyakwigendera, abeshya ko yari se. Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyarugunga rwamuhamije icyaha rumuhanisha igifungo cy’imyaka ibiri runamutegeka guha indishyi Gahenda waziregerega. Uregwa ntiyishimiye imikirize yurwo rubanza maze arujuririra mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge avugako urukiko rubanza rwanze gukoresha ikizamini cya ADN hagati ye nabiswe ababyeyi be bo mu Burundi ndetse ko n’ubuhamya rwashingiyeho buvuguruzanya, maze urwo rukiko rumugira umwere rushingiye ku kuba rwarasanze imvugo z’abatangabuhamya zashingiweho ku rwego rwa mbere zidahagije kugirango uregwa ahamwe n’icyaha, rwanashingiye ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 84

Page 108

kandi no ku kuba ibindi bimenyetso byatanzwe birimo amafoto, indangamanota, attestations de frequentation, raporo yakozwe n’umushinjacyaha wa Repubulika y’i Burundi, Parquet ya Muramvya n’imvugo zabiswe ababyeyi ba Bigirimana bifite inenge, urwo Rukiko rwasanze kandi ikizami cya ADN nacyo cyakozwe nta gaciro cyahabwa kuko cyakozwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko. Nyuma y’icibwa ry’urwo rubanza, Gahenda yaje kwiyambaza urwego rw’umuvunyi avugako rwabayemo akarengane maze urwo rwego rwandikira perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusaba ko rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane kuberako mu icibwa ryarwo hirengagijwe ibimenyetso bigaragarira buri wese,birimo raporo y’umushinjacyaha w’u Burundi n’ikimenyetso cya ADN, nyuma yaho kandi bitegetswe n’ Urukiko rw’ikirenga mu rubanza mbonezamubano hagati ya Gahenda na Bigirimana Cédric wiyitaga Rutsindura Alexis hakaba haraboneste ikimenyetso simusiga nacyo cya ADN gishimangira ko Bigirimana ari mwene Nahishakiye. Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga yafashe icyemezo cy’uko urwo rubanza rwasabirwaga gusubirwamwo ku mpamvu z’akarengane rwandikwa kugirango ruzongere ruburanishwe. Urubanza rwaburanishijwe ubushinjacyaha bwitabye naho Bigirimana we atitabye ariko yarahamagawe ahatazwi mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, Gahenda yagaragazaga ko hari ingingo z’amategeko zirengagijwe ku buryo ubujurire bwa Bigirimana butagombaga kwakirwa n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye, yavugaga kandi ko urubanza rwaciwe n’inteko y’abacamanza bataruburanishije ndetse hirengagizwa n’ibimenyetso. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Gahenda ntakwiye kuvuga ko yarenganyijwe n’ icyemezo gihuza imanza kandi ataracyijuririye. 85 85 GAHENDA v. RUTSINDURA (2)

Page 109

2. Ibimenyetso bishobora gutangwa aho urubanza rwaba rugeze hose, icyangombwa ni uko ushinjwa abyireguraho, bityo ubushinjacyaha bwari bwemerewe gutanga raporo ya muganga kuri “Test ADN”.

3. Imvugo z’abatangabuhamya, raporo y’iperereza i Burundi n’ikizamini cya ADN cyakorewe mu Budage incuro ebyiri, ni ibimenyetso bidashidikanywaho bititaweho n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge.

4. Gahenda akwiye guhabwa indishyi z’akababaro za 100Frw y’umugenzo (symbolique) asaba kuko bigaragara ko Bigirimana (wiyita Rutsindura Alexis) yamuteje akarengane. Ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane gifite ishingiro; Urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ibanze rugumanye agaciro karwo; Amagarama y’urubanza aherereye ku isanduku ya Leta. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Ngenga Nº51/2008 ryo kuwa 09/09/2008 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’inkiko, ingingo 156. Itegeko Nº13/2004 ryo kuwa 17/05/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 164, 1º . Itegeko Nº30/2013 ryo kuwa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 175, igika cya kabiri. Itegeko Nº15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 65, 119 Itegeko -Teka Nº21/77 ryo kuwa 18/07/1977 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ibyaha, ingingo ya 206. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 86

Page 110

Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko rw’ Ibanze rwa Nyarugunga, Ubushinjacyaha bukurikiranyeho Rutsindura Alexis alias Bigirimana Cédric icyaha cy’inyandiko mpimbano, buvuga ko yagikoze mu bihe bitandukanye guhera mu mwaka wa 2008, aho yiyitirira umuntu witwa Rutsindura Alphonse wazize jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi mu mwaka wa 1994, kandi we yitwa Bigirimana Cédric, ibi byose akaba yarabikoze agamije kwegukana umutungo wa nyakwigendera Rutsindura Alphonse nawe wazize jenoside, abeshya ko yari Se. [2] Mu rubanza RP0075/10/TB/NYRGA rwo ku wa 06/05/2011, Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyarugunga, rwemeje ko Bigirimana Cédric (wiyita Rutsindura Alexis) ahamwa n’icyaha akurikiranyweho, kubera ko mu Bushinjacyaha yemeye ko yavuye i Burundi yitwa Bigirimana Cédric, kandi hari n’ubuhamya bwa Kalisa Célestin wemeje ko yibaruje mu Mudugudu wa Kanogo - Rwimbogo - Nyarugunga - Kicukiro amubwira ko yitwa Bigirimana Cédric, n’ubuhamya bwa Uwingabire Angélique, Munezero Raïssa n’abandi bemeje ko atari Rutsindura Alexis mwene Rutsindura Alphonse, maze rumuhanisha igifungo cy’imyaka ibiri (2), rumutegeka guha Gahenda Bienvenu, umuvandimwe wa Rutsindura Alphonse waregeye indishyi, izingana na 500.000Frw no gutanga amagarama y’urubanza. 87 GAHENDA v. RUTSINDURA (2)

Page 111

[3] Rutsindura Alexis alias Bigirimana Cédric, yajuririye Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge avuga ko Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyarugunga rwanze gukoresha ikizamini cya ADN hagati ye n‘abiswe ababyeyi be bo mu Burundi, ko kandi n’ubuhamya rwashingiyeho buvuguruzanya, maze urwo rukiko, mu rubanza RPA0138/11/TGI/NYGE - RPA0260/11/TGI/NYGE rwaciwe ku wa 14/11/2013, rwemeza ko Rutsindura Alexis adahamwa n’icyaha cy’inyandiko mpimbano, ko ari umwere, kuko rwasanze imvugo z’abatangabuhamya babajijwe n’Ubushinjacyaha zashingiweho mu icibwa ry’urubanza ku rwego rwa mbere zidahagije kugira ngo hemezwe ko Rutsindura Alexis yakoze icyaha cy’inyandiko mpimbano. Urukiko rwasanze kandi n’ibindi bimenyetso byatanzwe birimo amafoto, indangamanota na “attestations de fréquentationˮ na raporo yakozwe na “Procureur de la République du Burundi, Parquet de Muramvya” kimwe n’imvugo z’abiswe ababyeyi ba Bigirimana n’izindi bifite inenge. Ku byerekeye ikizamini cya ADN cyakozwe ku wa 11/01/2012, Urukiko rwasanze nta gaciro nacyo cyahabwa kuko cyakozwe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko. [4] Nyuma y’icibwa ry’urwo rubanza Gahenda Bienvenu yiyambaje Urwego rw’Umuvunyi avuga ko rwabayemo akarengane, maze ku wa 09/07/2015 urwo Rwego rwandikira Perezida w‘Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusaba ko urubanza RPA0138/11/TGI/NYGE-RPA0260/11/TGI/NYGE rwasubirwamo kuko rugaragaramo akarengane, kubera ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwirengagije ibimenyetso bigaragarira buri wese, nko kuba rutarahaye agaciro raporo ya Procureur w’u Burundi n’ikimenyetso cy’ikizamini cya ADN, ko kandi nyuma y’imanza habonetse ikimenyetso simusiga cy’ikizamini cya ADN bitegetswe n’Urukiko ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 88

Page 112

rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza RCAA0020/14/CS rwaburanwaga hagati ya Rutsindura Alexis alias Bigirimana Cédric na Gahenda Bienvenu, nacyo gishimangira ko Bigirimana Cédric ari mwene Nahishakiye Jean Berchmas. [5] Ku wa 19/07/2017 Perezida w‘Urukiko rw’Ikirenga yafashe icyemezo Nº038/2017 cy’uko urubanza RPA0138/11/TGI/NYGE - RPA0260/11/TGI/NYGE rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge ku wa 14/11/2013 rwandikwa n’Ubwanditsi bw’Urukiko kugira ngo ruzongere ruburanishwe, maze ruburanishwa mu ruhame ku wa 08/01/2018, Rutsindura Alexis alias Bigirimana Cédric atitabye ariko yarahamagawe ahatazwi mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, Gahenda Bienvenu yunganiwe na Me Mutembe Protais, naho Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na Bunyoye Grâce, Umushinjacyaha ku rwego rw’Igihugu. Mu rubanza rubanziriza urundi rwaciwe ku wa 09/02/2018, Urukiko rwasanze ari ngombwa ko mbere yo gufata icyemezo cya burundu, Ubwanditsi bw’Urukiko bwatumiza dosiye y’urubanza RPA0138/11/TGI/NYGE - RPA0260/11/TGI/NYGE, kuko muri “dossier scanéˮ rufite hari inyandiko zitabonekamo, n’izindi zidafotoye neza, isomwa ry’urubanza ryimurirwa ku wa 23/02/2018 no ku wa 09/03/2018, ariko dosiye ntiyabasha kuboneka mu bubiko b’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge.

89 GAHENDA v. RUTSINDURA (2)

Page 113

II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO a. Kumenya niba ubujurire bwa Rutsindura Alexis alias Bigirimana Cédric n’ikirego cye gisubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya bitaragombaga kwakirwa n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge. [6] Me Mutembe Protais, wunganira Gahenda Bienvenu, avuga ko ikirego cye gishingiye ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 81, igika cya 1, agace ka 2º, y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga iteganya ko urubanza rwaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma rushobora gusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, ... iyo mu icibwa ryarwo hirengagijwe amategeko cyangwa ibimenyetso bigaragarira buri wese. [7] Akomeza avuga ko urubanza RPA0138/11/TGI/NYGE - RPA0260/11/TGI/NYGE rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwasabiwe gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane rwaburanishijwe muri urwo rukiko ku rwego rw’ubujurire nk’urubanza rusubirishamo urundi ingingo nshya (recours en révision), nk’uko bigaragara ku rupapuro rwa mbere rw’urubanza ahanditse ngo “icyaha ashinjwaˮ no ku rupapuro rwa kabiri, igika cya kabiri, bituma rutajuririrwa, ibyo bikaba byaratewe n’uko Rutsindura Alexis alias Bigirimana Cédric, amaze guhamwa n’icyaha mu rubanza RP0075/10/TB/NYRGA, yajuriye akimara gusomerwa, ubujurire bwe bwandikwa kuri RPA0152/11/TGI/NYGE ariko ntibwakirwa kubera ko nta garama yari yatanze nk’uko byemejwe ku wa 08/09/2011 n’Urukiko rwajuririwe, asubirishamo urwo rubanza ingingo nshya, ikirego gihabwa RPA0260/11/TGI/NYGE kandi gisabirwa guhuzwa n’ikindi kirego cy’ubujurire bwatanzwe na ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 90

Page 114

Avoka we ku itariki ya 03/06/2011 atanga n’igarama, cyanditswe kuri RPA0138/11/TGI/NYGE, nyamara nacyo kitaragombaga kwakirwa kuko nta “procuration ˮ yari yahawe n’uwo yunganira nk’uko byateganywaga n’ingingo ya 164, 1º y’Itegeko Nº13/2004 ryo ku wa 17/05/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha ryakurikizwaga icyo gihe. [8] Me Mutembe Protais avuga na none ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwirengagije ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 180 y’Itegeko Nº13/2004 ryo ku wa 17/05/2004 ryavuzwe haruguru, kubera ko ikirego cye cyahawe RPA0260/11/TGI/NYGE nta na kimwe mu bintu 4 biteganywa n’iyo ngingo Rutsindura Alexis alias Bigirimana Cédric yarugaragarije, ko rero nta ngingo nshya yatumye icyo kirego cyakirwa, ahubwo rwapfuye kwemeza gusa ko gihuzwa n’ubujurire RPA0138/11/TGI/NYGE bwatanzwe na Avoka we. [9] Asanga rero kuba izo ngingo z’amategeko zarirengagijwe, byaratumye habaho akarengane, kubera ko ubujurire bwose bwakozwe na Rutsindura Alexis alias Bigirimana Cédric butagombaga kwakirwa, ahubwo hagombaga kugumaho imikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe, maze imitungo y’umuryango wa Rutsindura Alphonse yari yarigaruriye igasubizwa mu maboko y’umuvandimwe we Gahenda Bienvenu wamuzunguye.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [10] Ingingo ya 164,1º y’Itegeko Nº13/2004 ryo kuwa 17/05/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha ryakurikizwaga igihe Rutsindura Alexis alias Bigirimana Cédric yajuriraga iteganya ko ububasha bwo kujurira bufitwe 91 GAHENDA v. RUTSINDURA (2)

Page 115

n’ushinjwa, ariko ibi ntibibuza ko n’umwunganizi we (Avoka) ashobora kubikora mu mwanya we. Ibyo binashimangirwa n’uko mu Itegeko Nº30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha ryasimbuye iryo rya mbere, mu ngingo yaryo ya 175, igika cya kabiri riteganya ko ubujurire bw’uwahamwe n’icyaha bushobora gutangwa n’umwunganira. [11] Inyandiko ziri muri dosiye zigaragaza ko ubujurire bwa Rutsindura Alexis alias Bigirimana Cédric bwahawe nimero ebyiri (2) arizo RPA0152/11/TGI/NYGE na RPA0138/11/TGI/NYGE, maze ku wa 08/09/2011 hacibwa urubanza ubwo bujurire bwa mbere ntibwakirwa urukiko ruvuga ko nta garama yatanze, asubirishamo ingingo nshya urwo rubanza ku wa 14/10/2011 ruhabwa RPA0260/11/TGI/NYGE, ruza guhuzwa n’urwanditswe kuri RPA0138/11/TGI/NYGE bisabwe n’umwunganizi we mu ibaruwa ye yo kuwa 17/02/2012 aho yavugaga ko ubujurire bwa Rutsindura Alexis alias Bigirimana Cédric bwahawe nomero ebyiri. [12] Bigaragara kandi ko mu iburanisha ryo kuwa 23/02/2012 Rutsindura Alexis alias Bigirimana Cédric yabajijwe impamvu yatumye asubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya, umwunganizi we asubiza ko yari yatanze igarama ajurira mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyarugunga, bazanye icyemezo cy’igarama umwanditsi w’Urukiko afungura indi dosiye, ko rero imyanzuro batanze yashyizwe muri dosiye RPA0138/11/TGI/NYGE itariyo, asaba ko ubujurire bwanditswe kuri RPA0152/11/TGI/NYGE butakiriwe kuko butatangiwe igarama byahinduka, maze urukiko rukemeza ko ryatanzwe rikagera mu rukiko. Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha yavuze ko izo mpamvu zifite ishingiro, ko abona imanza zakwakirwa zigahuzwa zikaburanishwa, ndetse na ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 92

Page 116

Gahenda yabajijwe icyo abivugaho, ariko n’ubwo igisubizo yatanze kitagaragara, ntiyigeze ajuririra icyo cyemezo cyo guhuza imanza nk’uko yabyemererwaga n’ingingo 156 y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº51/2008 ryo ku wa 09/09/2008 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’inkiko iteganya ko imanza n’ibyemezo by’urukiko bitegeka cyangwa byanga kwimurira imanza mu zindi nkiko, kimwe n’ibitegeka ko zifatanywa cyangwa zitandukanywa, bishobora kujuririrwa. [13] Hashingiwe ku bimaze kuvugwa haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga, kuba Gahenda Bienvenu atarajuririye icyemezo gihuza imanza atabyitwaza muri uru rubanza ngo avuge ko yarenganye. b. Kumenya niba urubanza RPA0138/11/TGI/NYGE- RPA0260/11/TGI/NYGE rwaraciwe n’inteko y’abacamanza bataruburanishije. [14] Me Mutembe Protais na Gahenda Bienvenu yunganira bavuga ko indi nenge ikomeye ku rubanza RPA0138/11/TGI/NYGE - RPA0260/11/TGI/NYGE ari uko rwaciwe n’inteko y’abacamanza itararuburanishije, kuko rwaburanishijwe n’umucamnza witwa Mukagasana Marciana, ariko rusomwa n’abacamanza batatu. [15] Nk’uko bigaragara mu cyemezo cyarwo cyo ku wa 09/02/2018, uru Rukiko rwari rwasabye Ubwanditsi bw’Urukiko ko bwatumiza dosiye y’urubanza RPA0138/11/TGI/NYGE - RPA0260/11/TGI/NYGE mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, ariko dosiye rwifuzaga ntiyabonetse kugira ngo rubashe gusesengura neza iki kibazo, bityo rero ntaho rwahera rwemeza koko ko urwo rubanza rwaciwe n’inteko y’abacamanza 93 GAHENDA v. RUTSINDURA (2)

Page 117

Perezida w’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge atabahaye ububasha bwo kuruburanisha. c. Kumenya niba Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwarirengagije ibimenyetso byatanzwe n’Ubushinjacyaha. [16] Me Mutembe Protais, wunganira Gahenda Bienvenu, avuga ko n’ubwo Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwashingiye ku ngingo ya 65 y’Itegeko Nº15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, nk’uko bigaragara mu gika cya 10 cy’urubanza rusabirwa gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, rwirengagije ibiteganywa n’igice cyayo cya nyuma kivuga ngo Urukiko ntirwitsitsa ku mubare w’abatangabuhamya. Rwita cyane cyane ku bumenyi bwabo bw’ibyabaye, no ku buryo babivuga uko byagenze ntacyo bihimbira, maze ruvuga ko abatangabuhamya babajijwe n’Ubushinjacyaha bose batavuze ko Rutsindura Alexis atari umwana wa Rutsindura Alphonse kandi mu gihe Urukiko rwakoze iperereza, ababajijwe bose bemeje ko Rutsindura Alexis ari umwana wa Rutsindura Alphonse. Asanga rero Urukiko rwararebye mbere na mbere umubare w’abatangabuhamya aho kureba ubumenyi bafite ku byo babazwa, n’umutima utaryarya wo kuvugisha ukuri ku byo babajijwe. [17] Akomeza avuga ko ingingo ya 65 y’Itegeko Nº15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/06/2004 ryavuzwe haruguru idateganya ko abatangabuhamya bemerwa ari abahurije bose ku buhamya bumwe, kuko bose bashobora no guhuriza ku buhamya bw’ibinyoma, ko kandi ababajijwe n’Urukiko batemeje bose ko Rutsindura Alexis ari umwana wa Rutsindura Alphonse, ahubwo bavuze ko bafite ibyo asaho n’umwana we witwaga Rutsindura Alexis, ko na none kuvuga ko ababajijwe n’Ubushinjacyaha bose batavuze ko Bigirimana Cédric atari umwana wa Rutsindura ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 94

Page 118

Alphonse, bitaba ikimenyetso cy’uko ari umwana we, ahubwo byaba intandaro yo gushidikanya ko uwo muhungu yaba ari we Rutsindura Alexis mwene Rutsindura Alphonse. [18] Me Mutembe Protais avuga na none ko iyo Urukiko rwita ku ngingo y’itegeko yavuzwe haruguru, rwari guha agaciro ubuhamya bw’abantu bazi neza umwana Rutsindura Alexis wa Rutsindura Alphonse aribo Françoise Mukashyaka wabaga iwe mu rugo, Mukamazimpaka Ciphrose wajyaga atwara abana be n’aba Rutsindura Alphonse mu modoka bajya ku ishuri na Uwingabire Angélique nyina wabo wa Rutsindura Alexis, ko rero abo batangabuhamya batanze ibimenyetso bibiri bidasibangana byajyaga kwemeza Urukiko nta shiti ko Rutsindura Alexis muhimbano atari we w’ukuri, ni ukuvuga ikibibi ku itama no ku kibero, n’amatwi abanguye cyane, ibyo yita ibimenyetso “scientifiquesˮ, aho gushingira ku kimenyetso cy’agasatsi kaje imbere. [19] Me Mutembe Protais avuga na none ko Urukiko rwirengagije ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 45 y’Itegeko Nº13/2004 ryo ku wa 17/05/2004 ryavuzwe haruguru, maze rwemeza ko “test ADNˮ yakorewe mu Budage nta gaciro yahabwa ngo kubera ko 1º Ubushinjacyaha n’Ubugenzacyaha bwayikoresheje dosiye yararangije kugezwa mu Rukiko kandi idasabwe n’Urukiko, 2º “commission rogatoireˮ yakozwe mu buryo butubahirije ingingo ya 77 y’itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha ryakurikizwaga icyo gihe, 3º nta “requisition à expertˮ yabayeho mu gupimisha ADN, nyamara iyo “test ADNˮ yarakozwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko. [20] Avuga ko itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha ryakurikizwaga igihe urubanza rusabirwa gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane rwaburanishwaga, 95 GAHENDA v. RUTSINDURA (2)

Page 119

ritabuzaga Ubushinjacyaha gushaka ibimenyetso bishobora gukorerwa inyandikomvugo z’inyongera (PV subséquents), cyane cyane iyo dosiye itaraburanishwa, ko kandi mu ngingo ya 41 yaryo ryahariye Ubushinjacyaha gukurikirana ibyaha imbere y’inkiko, naho mu ya 44 riteganya ko ari bwo bugomba gutanga ibimenyetso by’icyaha, ko rero aho dosiye yaba igeze hose bushobora gutanga ibimenyetso by’inyongera, ko icyangombwa ari uko bigibwaho impaka mu ruhame nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 45 y’iryo tegeko yakurikizwaga. [21] Me Mutembe Protais avuga ko hari n’ibindi bimenyetso bititaweho n’Urukiko birimo amafoto ya Rutsindura Alexis n’aya Bigirimana Cédric (cyangwa Emmanuel, Jean Claude) n’iya Bigirimana, indangamanota na “fiche individuelleˮ za Bigirimana Cédric, agasaba ko uru Rukiko rwakwemeza ko Gahenda Bienvenu yagiriwe akarengane, maze urubanza yaregeye rugahinduka mu ngingo zarwo zose, hakagumaho urubanza RP0075/10/TB/NYRGA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyarugunga. [22] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko Rutsindura Alexis alias Bigirimana Cédric yakurikiranyweho icyaha cyo gukoresha ibyangombwa by’ibihimbano aho yasabaga kuzungura imitungo yasizwe na nyakwigendera Rutsindura Alphonse wishwe muri jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi mu mwaka wa 1994, avuga ko ari umwana we, ko ibimenyetso bwatanze byateshejwe agaciro n’Urukiko, hakaba nta yindi nzira y’ubujurire yari ihari. [23] Akomeza avuga ko Rutsindura Alexis alias Bigirimana Cédric yatanze ikirego cy’imbonezamubano asaba kuzungura ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 96

Page 120

imitungo yasizwe n’uwo yitaga Se, urubanza rugeze mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga ruhabwa RCAA0020/14/CS, hakorwa indi “test ADN”, ibisubizo bigaragaza ko ari mwene Nahishakiye Jean Berchmas na Ndayisaba Rose, maze aratsindwa, akaba ariyo mpamvu yatumye Gahenda Bienvenu asaba ko urubanza rwavuzwe haruguru rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, ko n’Ubushinjacyaha busanga harabayeho akarengane, bukaba bwifuza ko urubanza RP0075/10/NYRGA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyarugunga ku wa 05/05/2011 rwemeje ko ikirego cy’Ubushinjacyaha gifite ishingiro rwasubirana agaciro, n’ibyarutegetswemo bikubahirizwa.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [24] Ingingo ya 65 y’Itegeko Nº15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo iteganya ko Urukiko ni rwo rwonyine rupima ko imikirize y’abatangabuhamya ihuye n’ikiburanwa, ifite ingingo zikiranuye kandi ikaba ikwiye kwemerwa cyangwa guhakanwa. Urukiko ntirwitsitsa ku mubare w’abatangabuhamya. Rwita cyane cyane ku bumenyi bwabo bw’ibyabaye, no ku buryo babivuga uko byagenze ntacyo bihimbira. [25] Naho ingingo ya 119 y’iryo tegeko igateganya ko “mu manza nshinjabyaha, ibimenyetso bishingira ku mpamvu zose z’ibyabaye, n’ibyemejwe n’amategeko, ababuranyi bapfa kuba barahawe uburyo bwo kuhaba ngo banyomozanye. Urukiko ruhamya ku buryo butavuguruzwa ko ibimenyetso byose birega cyangwa biregura ari byo kandi ko bishobora kwemerwa. Ku byerekeye icyaha cy’inyandiko mpimpano, ingingo ya 206 97 GAHENDA v. RUTSINDURA (2)

Page 121

y’Itegeko - Teka Nº21/77 ryo kuwa 18/08/1977 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ibyaha ryakurikizwaga igihe icyaha cyakorwaga iteganya ko : Azahanishwa igifungo kuva ku mezi atatu kugeza ku myaka ibiri n'ihazabu y'amafaranga atarenga ibihumbi cumi cyangwa kimwe gusa muri ibyo bihano, uzaba yihesheje atabikwiye (…) izindi nzandiko zitangwa n'abategetsi b'ibihugu kugirango zigaragaze uburenganzira, irangamuntu cyangwa (…), aruko yavuze ibinyoma, aruko yiyise irindi zina cyangwa yihaye agaciro adafite, cyangwa abeshya, atanga za seritifika cyangwa inyandiko-nyemezo zinyuranije n’ukuli (…). [26] Mu buhamya bwe, Mukashyaka Françoise yavuze ko mu kwezi kwa Werurwe 2008 umukobwa witwa Munezero Raïsa yamuzaniye umwana w’umuhungu amubaza niba amuzi, amwitegereje asanga atamuzi amubwira ko ari Dede, nawe amusubiza ko uwo yari azi yitwaga Rutsindura Alexis akaba mwene Rutsindura Alphonse na Dusabe Emma Marie, ko ashingiye ku bimenyetso yari amuziho yari imibiri yombi, afite ikibibi ku itama n’amatwi maremare ku buryo bugaragara, amukuramo inkweto n’amasogisi ngo arebe ibirenge bye abona atari we yari azi. [27] Naho Mukamazimpaka Ciphrose mu Bushinjacyaha yarabajijwe avuga ko yari azi umuryango wa Rutsindura Alphonse na Dusabe Emma Marie kuko yakoraga hafi y’aho bari batuye n’abana babo bigaga hamwe mu kigo cya Elena Guerra, mushiki we Musika yigana n’umwana we wa gatanu witwa Christian, ko yabatwaraga bajya kwiga, ko Rutsindura Alexis yari umwana ubyibushye no mu maso, w’imibiri yombi, afite ikibibi kigaragara ku itama n’indegeya, izuru rinini n’amaso manini, ko ariko atahamya ko uwo mwana yapfuye kuko we yari yarahungiye i Burundi, ko bajya bavuga ko nyina yapfuye ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 98

Page 122

n’abana be bose. Yavuze ko umwana Bigirimana Cédric bamweretse yasanze atari Rutsindura Alexis, ko n’ibyo yamuganirije yabonye atabizi. [28] Bigaragara muri raporo y’iperereza ya “Parquet” ya Muramvya y’i Burundi yo kuwa 23/11/2010 ko Umushinjacyaha Mukuru yageze mu Murenge wa Gahweza, Komini Kiganda kwa Nahishakiye Jean Berchmans akamwereka amafoto ya Bigirimana Cédric agahita amumenya, akamubwira ko ari umwana we wa kane, akamubaza niba akiriho kuko yavuye mu gihugu mu mwaka wa 2006 agiye mu Rwanda mu irushanwa mu mikino ngororamubiri akaba ataragaruka, amumenyesha ko ubundi avuka yamwise Nahishakiye Cédric, aza guhindura izina, ndetse amuha n’andi mafoto ye akiga muri ETS y’i Kamenge, amubwira n’amazina y’abandi bavandimwe be batanu, ko na nyina Ndayisaba Rose yamumenye amubwira ko yari yariyise Bigirimana Cédric. [29] Iyo raporo igaragaza ko ibyo Umushinjacyaha yabwiwe n’ababyeyi ari nabyo yabonye byanditse mu irangamimerere aho yabonye ko izina rya Bigirimana Cédric ryanditse munsi y’irya Nahishakiye Jean Claude wavutse ku wa 12/01/1985 i Gahweza, Komini Kiganda, naho kuri Paroisse aho yabatirijwe ku wa 06/04/1996 akaba yitwa Nahishakiye Cédric. [30] Umushinjacyaha yanzuye avuga ko Bigirimana Cédric ari mwene Nahishakiye Jean Berchmans na Ndayisaba Rose Marie bafite ubwenegihugu bw’Uburundi. [31] Ku byererekeye raporo ya muganga kuri “Test ADN”, nayo yagaragaje ko Bigirimana Cédric ari mwene Nahishakiye Jean Berchmans, ariko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rusanga rutayishingiraho mu guca urubanza kuko yabonetse mu 99 GAHENDA v. RUTSINDURA (2)

Page 123

buryo budakurikije amategeko, ariko nk’uko bigaragara mu rubanza ni ikimenyetso cyatanzwe n’Ubushinjacyaha kandi ntibubujijwe gutanga ibimenyetso aho urubanza rwaba rugeze hose, icyangombwa ni uko ushinjwa abyireguraho. Iby’iyo raporo yagaragaje byaje gushimangirwa n’indi “Test ADN” yasabwe n’Urukiko rw’ikirenga mu rubanza RCAA0020/14/CS rwaburanwaga hagati ya Rutsindura Alexis alias Bigirimana Cédric na Gahenda Bienvenu, rusanga yerekana nta shiti ko uwiyita Rutsindura Alexis atari mwene Rutsindura Alphonse, ko ahubwo ari mwene Nahishakiye Jean Berchmans, ko kandi ifite ikizere kurusha ibindi bimenyetso bishingiye ku mvugo z’abatangabuhamya, maze rwemeza ko adafite uburenganzira bwo kumuzungura. [32] Urukiko rurasanga rero ibyo abatangabuhamya bavuze, raporo y’iperereza I Burundi n’ikizamini cya ADN cyakorewe mu Budage incuro ebyiri, ari ibimenyetso bidashidikanywaho bititaweho n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, kandi bigaragaza nta gushidikanya ko Rutsindura Alexis alias Bigirimana Cédric yahinduye amazina ye, agamije guhabwa inyandiko z’ubutegetsi zirimo icyemezo cyo kuvuka, icyemezo gisimbura irangamuntu n’indangamuntu Nº1185800190916087 byose bigaragaza ko yitwa Rutsindura Alexis mwene Rutsindura Alphonse na Dusabe Emma Marie, agamije kugirango abone uko azungura imitungo yabo kuko bapfuye muri jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi mu mwaka wa 1994. [33] Urukiko rurasanga rero ubujurire bwa Bigirimana Cédric (wiyita Rutsindura Alexis) yatanze mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge butaragombaga guhabwa ishingiro, maze hakagumaho imikirize y’urubanza RP0075/10/TB/NYRGA rwo ku wa 06/05/2011 rwaciwe n‘Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 100

Page 124

Nyarugunga, rwemeje ko Bigirimana Cédric (wiyita Rutsindura Alexis) ahamwa n’icyaha cy’inyandiko mpimbano, rukamuhanisha igifungo cy’imyaka ibiri (2). d. Indishyi zisabwa na Gahenda Bienvenu [34] Me Mutembe Protais na Gahenda Bienvenu yunganira bavuga ko kuri uru rwego nta ndishyi mu by’ukuri bifuza gusaba Bigirimana Cédric (wiyita Rutsindura Alexis), cyane cyane ko ataboneka, ko urukiko rwazamuca 100Frw y’umugenzo (symbolique) y’indishyi z’akababaro yamuteje. [35] Urukiko rurasanga indishyi z’akababaro za 100Frw Gahenda Bienvenu asaba kuri uru rwego akwiye kuzihabwa kuko bigaragara ko Bigirimana Cédric (wiyita Rutsindura Alexis) yamuteje akarengane. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [36] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Gahenda Bienvenu cyo gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane urubanza RPA0138/11/TGI/NYGE - RPA0260/11/TGI/NYGE rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge ku wa 14/11/2013 gifite ishingiro; [37] Rwemeje ko rubanza RPA0138/11/TGI/NYGE - RPA0260/11/TGI/NYGE rwaciwe kuwa 14/11/2013 n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge ruhindutse kuri byose kuko hari ibimenyetso byirengagijwe bigaragaza ko Bigirimana Cédric (wiyita Rutsindura Alexis) ahamwa n’icyaha cy’inyandiko mpimbano; 101 GAHENDA v. RUTSINDURA (2)

Page 125

[38] Ruvuze ko rubanza RP0075/10/TB/NYRGA rwo kuwa 06/05/2011 rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyarugunga Bigirimana Cédric (wiyita Rutsindura Alexis) yari yajuririye rugumanye agaciro karwo; [39] Rutegetse Bigirimana Cédric (wiyita Rutsindura Alexis) kwishyura Gahenda Bienvenu 100 Frw y’indishyi z’akababaro kuri uru rwego; [40] Rutegetse ko amagarama y’urubanza aherera ku Isanduku ya Leta. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 102

Page 126

KANYARUKIKO v. WORLD VISION

RWANDA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA– RS/REV/SOC 0001/16/CS – RSOCAA 00002/2016/SC (Mutashya, P.J., Karimunda na Ngagi, J.) 09 Werurwe 2018] Amategeko agenga imiburanshirize y’imanza z’umurimo – Inzitizi – Ihamagazwa ry’amashyirahamwe adafite ubuzima gatozi – Ishyirahamwe ridafite ubuzima gatozi iyo ryabaye umuburanyi mu rubanza nyuma rigahagarika imirimo yaryo,rishobora kwongera kuhamagazwa mu rubanza rihagarariwe n’uwari umuyoboi waryo kuko ibikorwa iryo shyirahamwe ryitirirwa ari ibikorwa by’abanyamuryango akaba ari nabo baba bari mubufatanye – Itegeko N°21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi.ingingo ya 3. Incamake y’ikibazo: Kanyarukiko yareze World Vision Rwanda mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo ayirega kutamuha ibyo amategeko amugenera harimo n’agenga abakozi bakorera World Vision Rwanda, avuga ko atahawe umushahara n’ibindi agenerwa n’amategeko ku mwanya mushya wa “SD Operator” yari yatangiye gukoraho, kwanga nkana gushyira mu nyandiko amasezerano y’akazi bagiranye, kwirukanwa binyuranyije n’amategeko. Akaba abisabira indishyi; urwo rukiko rwategetse WVR guha Kanyarukiko indishyi. 1

RWANDA LAW

REPORTS

ENGLISH VERSION

Page 128

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TEAM OF EDITORS ................................................................ iii MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE .............................. iv PREFACE ................................................................................. vi SCOPE OF THE REPORTS .................................................... vii CITATION ............................................................................... vii

LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ viii LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED .............................................. x SUBJECT INDEX ..................................................................... xi MUREBWAYIRE v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA) ......................................................................................... 1 RUSHOMINTWALI v. MUNYANGANZO ET AL ............... 15 PROSECUTION v. MAYOBERE ........................................... 27 CHEON KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd ET AL v. GOVERNMENT OF RWANDA/MINAGRI .......................... 43 I&M BANK v. SEBULIKOKO ............................................... 61 GAHENDA v. RUTSINDURA ............................................... 81

i

Page 130

TEAM OF EDITORS

LAW REPORTING TEAM

KAGABO U. Stephanie

KAVUTSE M. Claude

KUBWIMANA Jean Claude

MUJABI K. Naphtal

MWIHOREZE Claudine

iii

Page 131

MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE

MUGENZI Louis Marie : President of the Committee Supreme Court Judge

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

Dr.KARIMUNDA M. Aimé : President of Court of Appeal

NDAHAYO Xavier : President of High Court

RUTAZANA Angeline : Vice President of Commercial High Court

NGENDAKURIYO Alice : Secretary of the Committee Inspector of Courts

Me BAGABO Faustin : Advocate at Rwanda Bar Association

BWIZA N. Blanche : Inspector of Courts GIRANEZA Clémentine : Judge of the Intermediate Court

HABARUREMA Jean Pierre : Prosecutor at National Level

KALIWABO Charles : Judge of the Court of Appeal iv

Page 132

Dr. KAYIHURA Didas : Rector of ILPD

KIBUKA Jean Luc : Judge at Commercial High Court

Lt. col. MADUDU A. Charles : Judge at Military High Court

MUREREREHE Saouda : Judge at High Court

Prof. Dr. NGAGI M. Alphonse : Judge of the Court of Appeal KABIBI Specioza : State Attorney RUKUNDAKUVUGA F. Regis : Inspector General of Courts

UWANTEGE Yvette : President of the Intermediate Court

v

Page 133

vi

PREFACE Esteemed readers, The Rwandan Judiciary is pleased to publish the first volume of Rwanda Law Reports for the year 2019. We reiterate our thanks to you, dear readers, for regularly providing us with your feedback and showing us the areas of improvement. This helps us to publish a more enhanced Law Report, useful to those who handle legal problems in their profession. This volume of Rwanda Law Reports, contains six (6) cases, containing three (3) cases in merit: two (2) commercial cases and one (1) criminal case while the remaining three (3) are procedural one. We are also pleased to remind you that published cases can also be accessed on the website of the judiciary http://decisia.lexum.com/rlr/kn/nav.do which facilitates the users to find cases easily and quickly. We encourage all legal practitioners and others who regularly deal with the law in their work to use these Law Reports. Prof. Sam RUGEGE President of the Supreme Court

Page 134

vii

SCOPE OF THE REPORTS These reports cover cases decided by the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the High Court cited under the heading below:

CITATION The Reports in this volume are cited thus: [2019] 1 RLR

Page 135

LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

CONSIDERED Law Nº34/2013 of 24/05/2013 on security interests in movable property, article 2,19,7, 8 and 27…………………………………63 Law Nº30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure, article 6, paragraph 3……………………………………...29 article 175, paragraph 2.................................................83 Law No45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contract, article 64……………………………………………………………………...46 Law No005/2008 of 14/02/2008 relating to arbitration and conciliation in commercial matters, article 35…………………..46 Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012, determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 47..........................................................................4 article 28( 2º)..................................................................29 Organic Law N°51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of Courts as modified and complemented to date, article 105......................................................................29 article 156......................................................................83 Law No21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 208........................................................................4 article 28, 171,176 and 330............................................16 article 69........................................................................46 Law N°15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 65 and 119……………………………………83 viii

Page 136

Law N°13/2004 of 17/5/2004 relating to the code of criminal procedure, article 164, litera 1……………………………………83 Decree-Law Nº 21/77 of 18 /08/1977 instituting the penal code, article 206……………………………………………………………83

ix

LIST OF STATUTES

Page 137

LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED Ntukamazina v Prime Insurance Ltd (EX-COGEAR LTD), RSOC00001/2016/CS, rendered by the Supreme Court on 20/01/2017…………………………………………………………….4

x

Page 138

SUBJECT INDEX Administrative procedure – Summoning – A company which was summoned for the purpose of giving information to the court cannot be considered as a party to that case to the extent that its shareholders cannot file a third party opposition against the rendered judgment. RUSHOMINTWALI v. MUNYANGANZO ET AL…17 Criminal procedure – Continuous offence – The prescriptive period of a criminal action runs from the date of the cessation of the last act of the offence – Law Nº30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure, article 6 paragraph 3. PROSECUTION v. MAYOBERE……………………29 Evidence law – Production of evidence – Evidence can be submitted at any stage of the proceeding, what is important is that the accused defends himself against it – Law N°15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 119. GAHENDA v. RUTSINDURA………………………83 Execution of the judgment – Entirety of the judgment – The court decisions must be executed as they were rendered unless they were reversed in the appeal process – Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, article 151.

MUREBWAYIRE v.

RWANDA

REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)…………………………………...1 Disputes regarding the execution of judgment – Disputes regarding the execution of judgement are heard by the court xi

Page 139

that rendered the final judgment or that made a foreign judgment enforceable in Rwanda.

MUREBWAYIRE v.

RWANDA

REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)…………………………………...1 Law governing commercial procedure – The arbitration tribunal has power to reject the additional submissions of parties in accordance with the delay of the modifications or completion to be added in – Law No005/2008 of 14/02/2008 relating to arbitration and conciliation in commercial matters article 35. CHEON KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd

ET AL v.

GOVERNMENT OF RWANDA/MINAGRI………………………………...45 Law governing contract – Arbitration agreement – If parties to the arbitration agreement provided for adjudication before they go for arbitration, this must be respected, failure to do so, the arbitration tribunal has no competence to admit the claim arising from that contract. CHEON KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd

ET AL v.

GOVERNMENT OF RWANDA/MINAGRI...................................................45 Contract of Security interests – Re- registration of security interests – The fact that security interests are not re- regestered, this does not invalidate them, as long as the debt exists however it is not opposable to third parties I&M

BANK v. SEBULIKOKO………………………………………..63

xii

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 140

PROCEDURAL CASES

Page 142

CASE RELATING TO CIVIL, COMMERCIAL, LABOUR AND

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

Page 144

MUREBWAYIRE v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA) [Rwanda HIGH COURT – RADA00004/2018/HC/KIG (Hitimana, P.J.) 27 April 2018] Execution of the judgment – Disputes regarding the execution of judgment – Disputes regarding the execution of judgement are heard by the court that rendered the final judgment or that made a foreign judgment enforceable in Rwanda. Execution of the judgment – Entirety of the judgment – The court decisions must be executed as they were rendered unless they were reversed in the appeal. Facts: After being dismissed from work, Murebwayire sued Rwanda Revenue Authority in the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge. The Court ordered RRA to pay her salary arrears, damages for unfair dismissal, leave compensation, moral damages, procedural and counsel fees and also to be reimbursed the court fees deposit. RRA appealed to the High Court, which held that it should not pay her leave allocation instead it ordered RRA to pay counsel fees on the appellate level. Disputes arose during the execution of the judgment when that institution wanted to deduct pay as you earn tax, pension and health insurance scheme contribution from the costs awarded by the Court, it alleged that the damages she was awarded was computed on the gross salary whereas Murebwayire was demanding to be paid the whole amount as ordered by the Court. 1

Page 145

RRA raised an objection of lack of jurisdiction arguing that the issue to be examined is to determine whether the money ordered by the Court is taxable, which is not under its jurisdiction but in the jurisdiction of the commercial courts, it also raised another relating to inadmissibility on the ground that it was lodged beyond the statute of limitation. Murebwayire argues that the law provides for the disputes regarding the execution of judgment to be brought before the court that rendered the final judgment and it did not provide for the time limit for lodging the claim. The court overruled both objections and the case was heard on merits. Murebwayire argues that after the lawsuits with Rwanda Revenue Authority, she began to demand RRA to pay what the court ordered in the judgment and RRA replied that that it was going to pay 1,017,867Frw and the salary arrears of three months while the Court had ordered to be paid 1,577,019Frw, damages equivalent to 4,731,060Frw but RRA paid 3,005,604Frw, damages awarded by the court, court fees deposit, procedural and counsel fees were paid as ordered by the Court. This means that RRA had to pay 8,658,079Frw instead it paid 6,0731,471Frw, for that Murebwayire is demanding a balance of 2,584,608Frw. Pursuant to article 151 al. 4 providing that court rulings are binding on all parties concerned, be they public authorities or individuals, she

requests to be paid the balance of 2,584,608Frw. Rwanda Revenue Authority argues that the damages equivalent to 6 months which she was awarded was computed on the gross salary and the Court held that during the payment the deductions provided by the law should be deducted. This led RRA during the execution to make the provided deductions which includes income tax (TPR) CSR and RAMA and thus on the salary arrears of three months the deductions were TPR, RSSB and RAMA. For

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 2

Page 146

damages for unfair dismissal equivalent to 6 months salary the deductions were income tax, RSSB and RAMA and she was also paid the counsel fees Held: 1. Disputes regarding the execution of judgement are heard by the court that rendered the final judgment or that made a foreign judgement enforceable in Rwanda.

2. The money awarded to the plaintiff equivalent to three months’ salary is not for damages but instead its her salary arrears which she was not paid when she was still an employee because she was paid 1/3 and remained 2/3 and it was calculated on the gross salary. Since it’s a salary all deductions which have to be deducted from an employee’s salary have to be taken from it, therefore that deduction cannot be construed as changing the decision of the court.

3. Regarding the damages awarded by the court, the decision of the court must be executed by all concerned institutions in case there was no remedy of appeal exercised to reverse its rulings.

4. Court fees is awarded in the court’s discretion in case what the party is asking for is excessive. Overrules the objection of lack of jurisdiction and that of inadmissibility; The money for salary arrears is the one to be deducted on the deductions provided by the law, for other costs awarded by the Court have to be paid as ordered by the Court; Court fees on the government treasury.

3 MUREBWAYIRE v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)

Page 147

Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012, determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 47. Law No21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 208. Cases referred to: Ntukamazina v Prime Insurance Ltd (EX-COGEAR LTD), RSOC00001/2016/CS, rendered by the Supreme Court on 20/01/2017. I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] Murebwayire Justine an employee at Rwanda Revenue Authority was dismissed and subsequently she sued RRA in the case RAD00193/2016/TGI/NYGE,claiming that she was unfairly dismissed, the judgment was rendered on 08/11/2016, the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge ordered RRA to pay Murebwayire Justine – salary arrears of three months equivalent to 1,577,019Frw, damages for unfair dismissal of 788,510Frw (Gross salary) x 6 = 4,731,060 Frw, leave compensative indemnity of the year 2011, 2012, and 2013 amounting to 788,510Frw x 3 = 2,365,530Frw, moral damages of 1,000,000Frw, procedural and counsel fees equivalent to 1,000,000Frw and to reimburse the court fees of 50,000Frw, all equivalent to 10,673,609Frw + 50,000Frw. [2] RRA appealed against the rulings of the case in this Court, which ordered that 2,365,530Frw which was ordered to be paid to Murebwayire Justine for leave compensative indemnity for the year 2011, 2012 and 2013 should not be paid it, ordered RRA to

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 4

Page 148

pay her 300,000Frw for counsel fees on the appellate level and the rest of the judgment were sustained. [3] Disputes which arose in the execution of the judgment concerns the deductions which RRA made from the money which the Court awarded to Murebwayire Justine, which she argues that it should be given to her in its entirety while RRA argues that income tax, pension contribution and the contribution for RAMA have to be deducted because the damages she was awarded were computed on the gross salary [4] The counsel for RRA raised an objection of lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the issue at hand is determining whether that money is taxable, which is not in the jurisdiction of this court. He also raised another objection regarding the statute of limitation. [5] The issue to be analysed is whether this Court has the jurisdiction to hear the case lodged by Murebwayire Justine. If it has that jurisdiction, it will further examine whether there is a statute of limitation for filing a claim relating to the disputes which arise in the execution of the judgment and determine whether it was respected, so that her claim is inadmissible. In case it is admitted, the court will analyse whether RRA has the right to deduct income tax, pension contribution and that of health insurance from the damages the Court awarded to Murebwayire Justine.

5 MUREBWAYIRE v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)

Page 149

II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUES A. Whether the Court which adjudicated the case at the last instance is the competent court to hear claims relating to the disputes which arose in the execution of the judgment, regardless of the issue on which those disputes originated. [6] The counsel for Rwanda Revenue Authority argues that this Court lacks jurisdiction because the money which RRA was ordered to pay was computed on the gross salary, on which income tax, pension contribution and contribution for health insurance (RAMA) had to be deducted, thus the issue of determining whether they should be deducted or not is in the jurisdiction of commercial courts. [7] The counsel for Rwanda Revenue Authority argues that depending on how the claim was formulated, disputes arose in the execution of the judgment, the claim is in the jurisdiction of the High Court which adjudicated the case but the material element is not in its jurisdiction. [8] The counsel for Murebwayire Justine states that article 208 of the law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that disputes regarding the execution of judgment shall be brought before the court that rendered the final judgment, therefore the arguments of the counsel for Rwanda Revenue Authority that the Commercial courts are the ones with jurisdiction lack merit.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 6

Page 150

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [9] The Court finds with no merit the statements of the counsel for Rwanda Revenue Authority that this court has no jurisdiction because the claim submitted to this court is that of the disputes regarding the execution of judgement. As submitted by the counsel for Murebwayire Justine, article 208 of the law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that disputes regarding the execution of judgement shall be brought before the court that rendered the final judgment or that made a foreign judgement enforceable in Rwanda. The arguments of the Rwanda Revenue Authority’s counsel that the issue to be examined by the court of determining whether income tax should be deducted from the costs ordered by the court falls in the jurisdiction of the commercial courts, is with no merit because the claim to the court which it has to settle are disputes which arose in the execution of the judgment, which is in its jurisdiction. [10] Therefore, the objection is overruled because the seized court has jurisdiction. B. Whether there is statute of limitation in which Murebwayire’s claim had to be lodged. [11] The counsel for Rwanda Revenue Authority argues that the claim of Murebwayire Justine should not be admitted because the statute of limitation was not respected, because such claims have to be lodged within two months from the time the judgment was executed, that period of two months is provided by article 208 of the Law relating to civil, commercial and administrative procedure. 7 MUREBWAYIRE v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)

Page 151

[12] The counsel for Murebwayire Justine argues that the objection raised is groundless because article 208 of the Law relating to civil, commercial and administrative procedure does not provide for a limitation in which the claim has to be filed.

VIEW OF THE COURT [13] The Court finds the arguments of the counsel for Rwanda Revenue Authority that the statute of limitation was not respected in filing the claim with no merit because he does not demonstrate the legal basis of his assertation, that it had to be lodged within two months beginning from the date on which the judgment was executed, because article 208 of the Law relating to civil, commercial and administrative procedure does not provide for a limitation of two months within which the claim should be filed. Therefore, the objection raised by the Rwanda Revenue Authority is overruled. C. Resolving the disputes which arose in the execution of the judgment. Whether RRA is allowed to deduct income tax, pension and health insurance contribution from the money which the court ordered to be given to Murebwayire for her salary errears and damages for unfair dismissal. [14] The counsel for Murebwayire argues that after the lawsuits with Rwanda Revenue Authority, she requested RRA to execute the court’s decision, however in reply to her letter, RRA contradicted the decision of the court, whereby it stated that it was going to pay her 1,017,867Frw for the salary arrears of three months, while the Intermediate Court had ordered a total of 1,577,019Frw, damages for unfair dismissal equivalent to

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 8

Page 152

4,731,060Frw but RRA paid 3,005,604Frw however moral damages, court fees , procedural and counsel fees were paid as ordered by the Court. This means that RRA had to pay 8,658,079Frw instead it paid 6,0731,471Frw, therefore Murebwayire is demanding a balance of 2,584,608Frw. Pursuant to article 208 of the relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, the counsel for Murebwayire finds that there are disputes regarding the execution of the judgment mentioned above which should be heard by the High Court because it’s the one which heard this case on the last instance as provided by that article. [15] The Counsel for Murebwayire Justine further argues that pursuant to article 151 litera 4 of the constitution of Republic of Rwanda which provides that court rulings are binding to all parties concerned, be they public authorities or individuals. They cannot be challenged except through procedures determined by law, he finds that RRA violated that article and contradicted the courts’ rulings illegally. [16] The Counsel for Murebwayire further argues that this was malfeasance on the party of RRA as it was also emphasized in the judgment RSOC00001/2016/CS paragraph 13 and 14 whereby the Court found that no deductions should be made on the damages awarded to a former employee, instead the decisions of the court should be executed as they are. [17] The counsel for Rwanda Revenue Authority argues that in the judgment RADA 00183/HC/2016/HC/KIG paragraph 23 on page 11, the High Court held that the damages of 6 months equivalent to 4,731,060Frw which was awarded to Murebwayire Rwanga Justine was computed on the gross salary and held that during the payment the deductions provided by the law should be 9 MUREBWAYIRE v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)

Page 153

made, in case she is not contented she can file the case to a competent court (see Judgment RADA00183/HC/2016/HC/KIG, p. 11). He adds that Murebwayire was awarded 2/3 of three months salary of May, June and July of which she was not paid when she was temporary suspended which was computed on the gloss salary. This led RRA to make deductions provided by the law i.e. pay as you earn (TPR) and RAMA when executing the judgment as follows: on the salary arrears of three months equivalent to 1,577,019Frw, the deductions were; 425,106Frw for TPR, 42,054Frw for RSSB, 91,992Frw for RAMA. All deductions total to 559,152Frw and was paid 1,017,867 Frw (net). For the 4,731,060Frw damages for unfair dismissal equivalent to 6 months salary the deductions were 1,323,318Frw for pay as you earn, 126,162Frw for RSSB and 275,976Frw for RAMA. All deductions equal to 1,725,456Frw and she was paid 3,005,604 Frw. Murebwayire was also paid 300,000Frw for counsel fees. [18] The counsel for Rwanda Revenue Authority argues that regarding the laws based on by the RRA, article 13 litera 1 of the Law N°16/2005 of 18/08/2005 on direct taxes on income providing that employment income includes all payments paid to an employee in cash or in kind such as: 1º wages, salary, leave pay, sick pay and medical allowance, payment in lieu of leave, fees, commissions, bonuses including gratuity and incentives (......) 7°

other payments made in respect of current, previous or future employment. And for the deduction of pay as you earn on the damages for unfair dismissal equivalent to six months it based on the Law N°16/2005 of 18/08/2005 mentioned above in its article 13 litera 7, which provides that tax also applies to other payments made in respect of current, previous or future employment. Regarding the deductions for pension, it relied on

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 10

Page 154

article 7 of the Law N°05/2015 of 30/03/2015 governing the organization of pension schemes. [19] The Counsel for Murebwayire Justine argues that the three months’ salary arrears were computed on the net salary, therefore RRA should not have made any further deductions.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [20] The Court finds that the salary of three months awarded to Murebwayire her counsel requested them as demonstrated in paragraph 17 of the judgment RAD00193/2016/TGI/NYGE rendered by the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge on 09/11/2016 he claimed for 2/3 of 788,510, which is 525,673 times 3 which totals to 1,577,019. Both parties agree that Murebwayire Justine’s gross salary was 788,510. [21] The Court finds that the amount cited in the previous paragraph is not for damages but it’s for the salary which Murebwayire Justine should have been paid when she was still an employee of RRA, whereby she was paid 1/3 and remained a balance of 2/3 the amount ordered by the Intermediate Court to be paid to Murebwayire Justine. which was computed on the gross salary of 788,510Frw. Therefore, since it was for the salary which Murebwayire had to be paid when she was still an employee of RRA, it is obvious that the decision of the Court did not alter how salaries are computed or to order not to make the necessary deduction from the salary. Therefore, it was right for the RRA to deduct pay as you earn, pension and contribution for health insurance from 1,577,09Frw which is equivalent to 2/3 of her salary of May, June and July 2015 and it cannot be construed as altering the court’s decision, because that is also the spirit of 11 MUREBWAYIRE v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)

Page 155

the decision, because even the 1/3 of the salary which she was paid those deductions were made, thus they should also be deducted on the remaining 2/3. [22] Regarding other costs awarded to Murebwayire which are not salary which include damages for unfair dismissal and counsel fees. The Court finds that the issue of determining whether pay as you earn, pension and health insurance contribution are deducted as contested by the counsel for Murebwayire Justine, this issue was settled by the Supreme Court in the Judgment RSOC00001/2016/CS rendered on 20/01/2017. [23] The Court finds that in the case cited in the previous paragraph, Ntukamazina Jean Baptiste was awarded damages for unfair dismissal equivalent to 134,185,600Frw. The counsel for Prime Insurance argued that those damages have to be taxed and that even RRA gave guidance on that issue while Ntukamazina contested it. The Supreme Court held that in the circumstance there was no remedy of appeal exercised to reverse the ruling of judgment RSOCAA0001&0002/16/CS, this Court finds that this judgment has to be enforced as it was rendered. [24] The Court finds that article 47 of the Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012, determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court provides that the judgments and decisions of the Supreme Court shall be binding on all other courts of the country. Since this issue was settled by the Supreme Court in the judgment cited in the previous paragraph, it’s the same position which should be taken by this court, so that Murebwayire Justine is given all damages she was awarded in the judgment which she seeks to be executed without any deductions made by RRA, however as explained above this does not apply to 1,577,019Frw equivalent to 2/3 of

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 12

Page 156

the salary for May, June and July of 2015 on which deductions have to be made. D. Procedural and counsel fees [25] The counsel for Murebwayire argues that his client should be awarded 1,000,000Frw for procedural and counsel fees and refunded 75,000Frw of the court fees she deposited. [26] The counsel for RRA argues that Murebwayire should not be awarded the counsel fees because she is the one who intiated unnecessary lawsuits. Therefore, it should be set aside and in addition to that it’s excessive. [27] The counsel for RRA further argues that pursuant to article 258 of civil book III, RRA requests for procedural and counsel fees of 1,000,000Frw because she dragged it in unnecessary lawsuits. RRA has specialist who represent it in the court who are allocated special benefits for them to carry out that job; which is normal because even the advocates who represents some institutions are salary earners but they are awarded counsel fees. For RRA to be awarded counsel fees was held by the Supreme Court in the Judgment RCOMAA0021/15/CS rendered on 03/11/2017. Therefore, the requests of RRA should be awarded because they have merit.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [28] The Court finds that the 1,000,000Frw for the counsel fees requested by the counsel for RRA should not be awarded because the claim of Murebwayire has merit, thus she has no fault to be charged with damages basing on article 258 of Civil Book III. 13 MUREBWAYIRE v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)

Page 157

[29] The court finds that the counsel fees of 1,000,000Frw requested by the counsel for Murebwayire should not be awarded in their entirety because it is excessive, in the courts discretion is awarded 500,000Frw. III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [30] Overrules the objection of lack of jurisdiction and that of inadmissibility raised by Rwanda Revenue Authority. [31] Holds that the claim lodged by Murebwayire Justine has merit. [32] Holds that the deductions provided by the law should be taken from the 1,577,015Frw equivalent to 2/3 of the gross salary of May, June and July of 2015 only other costs awarded to Murebwayire by the High Court must be paid to her in whole without any deductions made as motivated above. [33] Orders Rwanda Revenue Authority to pay Murebwayire Justine 500,000Frw for counsel fees and to reimburse 75,000 of the court fees deposit. [34] Orders that the court fees deposit remains in the government treasury as court fees.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 14

Page 158

RUSHOMINTWALI v.

MUNYANGANZO ET AL [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RSOCAA0002/15/CS (Kanyange, P.J., Gatete and Munyangeri, J.) 09 June 2017] Labour procedure – Summoning – A company which was summoned for the purpose of giving information to the court cannot be considered as a party to that case to the extent that its shareholders cannot file a third party opposition against the rendered judgment. Facts: Munyangazo and Niyonzima filed exparte application before the Intermediate Court of Ngoma, requesting that SOPEM be compelled to honour the employment contract and to pay damages for dismissal, that court awarded them those damages. Rushomintwali filed a third party opposition, Mugisha and Ngarambe intervened in the case, SOPEM sarl was forced to intervene. That Court reversed the rulings of the judgment opposed. Munyanganzo and Niyonzima appealed to the High Court arguing that the court should not have admitted the claim of Rushomintwali, because he had no legal standing to file a third party opposition against the case in which SOPEM was party, because he is one of the shareholders of that company. The High Court held that Rushomintwali lacked the legal standing and interest to file a third party opposition against that judgment because he was a shareholder of SOPEM and that company was summoned. 15

Page 159

Rushomintwali appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that the previous court held that SOPEM was a party in the case RSOC0002/14/TGI/NGOMA & RSOC0007/14/TGI/NGOMA which is not the case, because SOPEM was questioned purposely for the Court to get the necessary information. Held: A company which was summoned for the purpose of giving information to the court cannot be considered as a party to that case to the extent that its shareholders cannot file a third party opposition against the rendered judgment Appeal has merit; The hearing of the case will resume. Statutes and cases referred to: Law No21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 28, 171,176 and 330. No cases referred to. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] Munyango Patrick and Niyonima Théogène lodged a unilateral petition to the Intermediate Court of Ngoma, requesting that SOPEM be compelled to honour the employment contract and to pay damages for unfair dismissal, and in the judgment RSOC0002/14/TGI/NGOMA rendered on 22/04/2014 and

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 16

Page 160

rectified by the judgment RSOC0007/014/TGI/NGOMA, Niyonzima was awarded 37,400,000Frw in damages while 20,400,000Frw was awarded to Munyango. [2] Rushomintwali Sylestre lodged a third party opposition (RSOC0011/14/TGI/NGOMA), Mugisha Juliet and Ngarambe Emmanuel intervened while SOPEM Sarl was forced to intervenue in the case, the judgment rendered on 17/10/2014 by the Intermediate court set aside the rulings of the opposed judgment (RSOC0002/14/TGI/NGOMA & 0007/014/TGI/NGOMA) and ordered SOPEM to pay Niyonzima and Munyanganzo damages of 3,650,000Frw and 2,400,000Frw respectively [3] Munyangazo and Niyonzima appealed to the High Court chamber of Rwamagana (RSOCA0009/14/HC/RWG) among the grounds of their appeal was the inadmissibility of Rushomintwari’s claim because he did not have the legal standing to lodge a third party opposition against a case in which SOPEM was a party, because he is among its shareholders. [4] On 26/11/2014, the High Court held that Rushomintwali had no legal standing to oppose judgment RSOC0002/14/TGI/NGOMA & 0007/14/TGI/NGOMA because he was a share holder of SOPEM and it was summoned and represented by Counsel Rwakayija John, the Court found that the third party opposition was illegally lodged, therefore it overturned the judgment RSOC0011/014/TGI/NGOMA and sustained the judgment RSOC0002/14/TGI/NGOMA - RSOC0007/14/TGI/NGOMA and ordered Rushomintwali, SOPEM, MUGISHA and NGARAMBE to jointly give the appellants 150,000Frw they deposited while appealing and 1,000,000Frw for damages. 17 RUSHOMINTWALI v. MUNYANGANZO ET AL

Page 161

[5] Rushomintwali appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that the High Court erred in holding that he had no legal standing to lodge a third party opposition against the Judgment RSOC0002/14/TGI/NGOMA & RSOC0007/14/TGI/NGOMA because he shares the same interests with SOPEM and again it holds that SOPEM was represented in that case and that he lodged a third party opposition against a case in which he was represented by SOPEM which was not a party to that case. [6] On 27/01/2017, after deliberating on the raised objections which were overruled by the court, the case was heard on merit, Rushomintwali represented by Counsel Murutasibe Joseph and Gashagaza Philibert, Mugisha Juliet represented by Gashagaza Philibert, Munyanganzo represented by Counsel Mihigo Bienvenue while SOPEM was represented by Murenzi Chrysologue. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUE. Whether

SOPEM was a party to the case RSOC0002/14/TGI/NGOMA & RSOC0007/14/TGI/NGOMA so that Rushomintwari could not lodge a third party opposition against it. [7] The issue to be examined in this appeal and which was the subject matter in the appealed case, is whether SOPEM was a party to the case RSOC0002/14/TGI/NGOMA for Rushomintwali not to have the legal standing to lodge a third party opposition against it because he was represented in that case by SOPEM, other issues which are not related to the appealed case are not to be examined at this stage.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 18

Page 162

[8] Counsel Murutasibe representing Rushomintwali argues that the High Court held that SOPEM was a party to the case RSOC0002/14/TGI/NGOMA & RSOC0007/14/TGI/NGOMA which is not true, because SOPEM was summoned in that case for information purpose and it was not summoned by the Judge rather by the Court registrar, he further added that the interpretative judgment (RSOC0007/14/TGI/NGOMA) held that SOPEM was not represented. [9] He further argues that the High Court held that Rushomintwali and SOPEM’s interest are the same which is also not true because if it was the case, then he would not have sued SOPEM in the case RCOM0153/12/HCC, not having the same interest is emphasized by the certificate of trade and Memorandum of association of SOPEM. [10] Counsel Gashagaza Philbert also argues that pursuant to article 224 of the company law, they find that Rushomintwali have the legal standing to lodge a third party opposition against the above mentioned case. [11] He further adds that the grounds for third party opposition filed by Mugisha Julliet who he also represents are not different from those of Rushomintwali, he explains that Counsel Rwakayija John who represented SOPEM in the case of exparte application, he stated that he found it not necessary to plead that case. The Court should also examine whether the claim would have been found with merit, because he finds that the claim should have been filed through the ordinary procedure due to its nature. [12] Counsel Gashirabake representing Munyanganzo states that since SOPEM was a party to the aforementioned case, it 19 RUSHOMINTWALI v. MUNYANGANZO ET AL

Page 163

implies that Rushomintwali as shareholder was represented, he finds that pursuant to article 176 of the Law No21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure which provides that a person who is allowed to make a third party opposition is the one who was neither a party to a case nor represented at the trial and again Rushomintwali should not be a party to the case pursuant to article 2 of that Law because he has no interest in the case. For the issue that the interpretative judgment was aiming to explain that SOPEM was not represented, this is misleading because that judgment held that SOPEM never intervene in the case [13] He continues to argue that SOPEM was summoned and appeared in the case RSOC0002/14/TGI/NGOMA and was a party, pursuant to article 327 of the Law Nº21/2012 of 14/06/2012 mentioned above, Counsel Rwakayija John who represented it in the hearing of that case admits that Niyonzima and Munyanganzo be paid without any other hindrance. [14] Counsel Gashema Félicien representing Niyonzima argues that SOPEM knew about the case when it was summoned that means that it could appeal or oppose it, and when the company is aware of the case that means that awareness applies to its shareholders as well, the shareholder whose interests are at stake cannot apply for the third party opposition against the decision taken agaist the

company. He finds Rushomintwali, Mugisha and Ngarambe were also represented by SOPEM to the extent that they couldn’t make a third party opposition against it. [15] Counsel Mihigo Bienvenue representing Ngarambe, also admits that SOPEM was not a party because Counsel Rwakayija who appeared in the hearing, stated that he was there to provide the information “à titre d’information”, therefore he finds that

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 20

Page 164

the ordinary procedure should have been applied instead of exparte application [16] Counsel Murenzi Chrysologue representing SOPEM, argues that it had never been a party in the mentioned case; if Counsel Rwakayija John appeared in the hearing of the case he is the one to explain it but what he knows is that SOPEM was in the hearing of the case to provide the information (“à titre d’information”). He further states that there was no urgency so that exparte application be field because article 3 of the repossession agreement, stipulates that the interests of the SOPEM employees have to be taken into account, he wonders why Munyanganzo and Niyonzima chose that procedure. Regarding whether Rushomintwali had the legal standing to file a third party opposition, he finds that he had that legal standing because he is a shareholder of SOPEM THE VIEW OF THE COURT. [17] The case file contains the judgment rendered on the exparte application which demonstrates that there was no defendant (d’office) instead the judge decided that SOPEM had to appear and give explanations, it was represented by Rwakayija John. It is also demonstrated in the Judgment RSOC0007/14/TGI/NGOMA rectifying the aforementioned judgment, whereby Munyanganzo and Niyonzima were requesting the court to decide that SOPEM intervened in the case RSOC0002/14/TGI/NGOMA, the Judge explained that SOPEM did not intervene, that Counsel Rwakayija was questioned as a person with information but not as a party. 21 RUSHOMINTWALI v. MUNYANGANZO ET AL

Page 165

[18] The fact that the Judge found it necessary to get information from SOPEM, the Court finds that it should not be considered as being summoned as a party to the case which is provided by article 28 and other following articles of the Law 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 mentioned in the previous paragraphs relating to the summoning of the parties, especially that even the applicants were requesting to hold that SOPEM intervened, it implies that they wanted also the court to explain how it came to be involved in the case and the Judge found that it did neither intervene nor being sued, therefore the rulings of the High Court that SOPEM was summoned and represented in the case lack merit because of the motivations given above [19] The Court therefore finds that since, SOPEM was not a party in the case RSOC0002/14/TGI/NGOMA, Rushomintwali could lodge a third party opposition in accordance to the provisions of article 176 of the above mentioned law and has the interest since the money awarded to Munyanganzo and Niyonzima in that judgment had to be deducted from the dividends to be shared by the shareholders while Rushomintwali is one of them, because even in their petition they requested to be paid before the sharing of dividends among shareholders . Regarding the third party opposition against the decision of the Judge specifically in this case they are provided by article 330 of that Law. [20] The Court finds that since the decision of the High Court is reversed with regard to the third party opposition of Rushomintwali, the hearing should resume with regard to other grounds of appeal which were submitted by Munyanganzo and Niyonzima in that court, but they should be examined in accordance with article 171 of the Law Nº21/2012 of 14/06/2012

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 22

Page 166

mentioned above and other damages requested by the parties on this level will be examined III. DECISION OF THE COURT. [21] Decides that the appeal of Rushomintwali Sylvestre has merit;

[22] Decides that the rulings of the judgment RSOCA0009/14/HC/RWG rendered on 26/11/2014 is reversed; [23] Declares that the hearing will continue on 22/06/2017 for other grounds of appeal submitted by Munyanganzo and Niyonzima before the High Court and examine at the same time the damages requested at this instance; [24] Orders that the court fees are suspended. 23 RUSHOMINTWALI v. MUNYANGANZO ET AL

Page 168

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Page 170

PROSECUTION v. MAYOBERE [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RPAA0067/15/CS (Mukamulisa, P.J., Mukandamage and Muhumuza, J.) May 18, 2018] Criminal procedure – Continuous offence – The prescriptive period of a criminal action runs from the date of the cessation of the last act of the offence – Law Nº30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure, article 6 paragraph 3. Facts: Mayobere was prosecuted for the offence of counterfeit and use of counterfeit document before the Intermediate Court of Rubavu, the Prosecution stated that the offence was committed when his parents bought a piece of land from Sinumvayabo and his wife Nyiramatama and the parents entrusted Mayobere with custody of the sale agreement. The prosecution states that after Semahundo’s death, Mayobere concealed that agreement, instead he wrotte another indicating that he is the one who bought that piece of land on 23/09/1975. Mayobere Jean Baptiste’s brother, Samvura Joseph sued for damages in the case. That Court found Mayobere not guilty of counterfeit and use of counterfeit document. The Prosecution and the claimant for damages were not satisfied with the rulings of the judgment, consequently, they lodged appeal to the High Court, chamber of Musanze. That Court found Mayobere guilty of counterfeit and use of counterfeit document and sentenced him to six (6) years of imprisonment and a fine of 300,000Frw, it also held that the ruling of the judgment rendered by the Intermediate Court of Rubavu is overturned and ordered Mayobere to give Samvura various damages. 27

Page 171

The accused appealed to the Supreme Court stating that in the High Court, the judge based on non existing law at the time of commission of the offence because the judge applied the Organic Law N°01/2012/OL instituting the penal code of 2012 which was not in existence because the document he was accused of, is dated 29/02/1975, he argues that the law which should have been applied is the penal code instituted in the colonial period (Decree of 3 January 1940) which was in force at that time. He adds that there was prescription of the offence he was accused. The prosecution, argues that before examining the grounds of appeal, the Court should first examine the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court because this is the second appeal and the Prosecution finds that it does not fall in the jurisdiction of this Court considering the sentence of Mayobere J. Baptiste. The Prosecution also responded to the gounds of the appeal of the accused, the Prosecution is of the view that the judge did not err, because the last time Mayobere used that document was in the case RC0069/2013/TB/NYAB between him and Samvura Joseph which was rendered on 19/07/2013 and that was post colonial period, and the penal law which was in force is that of 2012. Held: 1. Mayobere began to use the document he is accused of having counterfeited, in 2011and also produced it as an element of evidence in the case RC0069/2013/TB/NYBA adjudicated by the Primary Court of Nyakiliba on 19 July 2013, therefore, the Hight Court did not base on non existing law.

2. For the continuous offence, the prescriptive period of a criminal action runs from the date of the cessation of the last act of the offence. Therefore, the fact that the accused is charged with continuous offence, this is the reason, there was application of organic law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 28

Page 172

code which was in force when the last act of the offence was committed.

3. The High Court, chamber of Musanze ruled on the case within its jurisdiction because it tried the appeal of the judgment rendered on first instance by the Intermediate Court of Rubavu. Appeal is not in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court; Sustains the appealed judgment; Court fees charged to the accused. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 28(2) Organic Law N°51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of Courts as modified and complemented to date, article 105. Law Nº30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure, article 6 paragraph 3. No case law referred to. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE

CASE [1] This case started at the Intermediate Court of Rubavu, where Mayobere Jean Baptiste was prosecuted for the counterfeit and use of counterfeited document, the Prosecution stated that the 29 PROSECUTION v. MAYOBERE

Page 173

offence was committed when his parents bought a piece of land from Sinumvayabo and his wife Nyiramatama and they entrusted Mayobere with custody of the sale contract. The prosecution states that after Semahundo’s death, Mayobere concealed that contract, instead, he drafted another one which demonstrates that he is the one who bought that piece of land on 23/09/1975. Mayobere Jean Baptiste’s brother, Samvura Joseph filed for damages in that case. The Intermediate Court of Rubavu rendered the judgment and held that Mayobere Jean Baptiste is not guilty of counterfeit and use of counterfeited document, hence the Court acquitted him. [2] The Prosecution and Samvura Joseph, the claimant for damages were not satisfied with the ruling of the case, they appealed to the High Court, chamber of Musanze.That Court found Mayobere Jean Baptiste guilty of the offence of counterfeit and use of counterfeited document he is accused for, it sentenced him to six years of imprisonment and a fine of 300,000Frw, it also held that the ruling of the judgment RP0018/14/TGI/RBV rendered by the Intermediate Court of Rubavu is overturned. It also ordered Mayobere J. Baptiste to pay Samvura Joseph, damages equivalent to 500,000Frw, counsel’s fees of 500,000Frw and to refund him 125,000Frw that he paid as court fees. [3] Mayobere Jean Baptiste appealed to the Supreme Court stating that in the ruling of the case, the Judge based on non- existing law at the time of the commission of the offence and that the High Court tried the case on which it has no jurisdiction. [4] The case was heard on 26/03/2018, Mayobere J. Baptiste assisted by Counsel Mberabagabo B. Richard, the Prosecution represented by Ntawangundi Beatrice, while Samvura Joseph

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 30

Page 174

was assisted by Counsel Tugirimana Vincent. Before examining the grounds of the appeal, the Court examined the objection of lack of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court raised by the Prosecution. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES Whether the second appeal falls under the Supreme Court jurisdiction. Regarding the issue of rendering the judgment basing on non- existing law [5] The prosecution argues that before examining the grounds of appeal, the Court should first examine the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court because this is the second appeal and the Prosecution finds that it does not fall in the jurisdiction of this Court considering the sentence of Mayobere J. Baptiste. [6] The Prosecution also responded to the statements of Mayobere J.Baptiste and his advocate that in the appealed judgment, the judge based on the non-existing law at the time of the commission of the offence because a document he is accused, was drafted on 23/09/1975, but in rendering the judgment, the judge based on article 609 of the Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, whereas the judge should have applied article 124 of the penal code of the colonial period which was in force when that document was written. [7] For those reasons, the Prosecution states that basing on the provisions of article 6 paragraph 4 of the law Nº 30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure, the Prosecution is of the view that Mayobere J. Baptiste and his 31 PROSECUTION v. MAYOBERE

Page 175

advocate’s arguments are false, because the last time Mayobere J.Baptiste used that document was in the case RC 0069/2013/TB/NYAB between him and Samvura Joseph which was rendered on 19/07/2013 and that was post colonial period, and the penal law which was in force is that of 2012, thus the judge did not err. [8] The Prosecution further adds that considering the facts given above and the provisions of article 28 litera two of the Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, this article precludes Mayobere J.Baptiste from appealing to this Court because he was sentenced to the lesser penalty than the one provided by the organic law mentioned above and the Prosecution proved that the period for prosecution of the offence did not lapse. [9] Counsel Tugirimana Vincent assisting Samvura Joseph, states that his client also raised an objection of inadmissibility of Mayobere J. Baptiste’s second appeal because it does not comply with the provision of article 28 paragraph 2 of Organic Law N° 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 mentioned above, bacause the second appeal is lodged when the penalty sentenced to the accused exceeds 10 years of imprisonment whereas Mayobere J. Baptiste was sentenced to six years of imprisonment( 6years), therefore he should not have appealed to the Supreme Court. [10] He adds that the arguments concerning the prescription of the criminal action is groundless bacause article 6 of the law Nº30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure provides that as to continuous offences, the prescriptive period of a criminal action shall run from the date of the cessation of the last act of the offence which is 2013, because

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 32

Page 176

Mayobere started using the document he is accused of in 2011, he again used it during pre trial detention, it is obvious that there was continuous use of that document, hence, there is no prescription of offence. [11] Counsel Mberabagabo B.Richard assisting Mayobere J.Baptiste states that the document which the Prosecution alleges that it was last used on 19/07/2013 in the case RC0069/2013/TB/NYAB is not true because the Prosecution cannot prove it, rather, he and his client find that the document produced during the case proceeding as an element of evidence is the one dated 29/02/1975 and it is the same document that Mayobere is accused for even though he does not agree that he forged any document especially that he did not respond to that allegation. He also argues that the document they admit is that of 23/09/1975, when Mayobere bought a piece of land. [12] He further states that basing on the provisions of article 28 of the organic law N°03/2012/OL mentioned above, the ground of their appeal is that the Court relied on the non-existing law at the time of the commission of the alleged offence, he emphasizes that article 124 of the penal code of the time of the colonization (Decree of 3 January 1940) which was in force at that time should have been applied. He adds that as the judge relied on article 609 of the Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code supports their claim that he based on non-existing law and the offence which Mayobere is accused of, expired due to the prescriptive period.

33 PROSECUTION v. MAYOBERE

Page 177

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [13] Article 28 litera 2 of the Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court provides that the Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction over cases heard and decided in the second instance by the High Court if such cases are based on non-existing law, repealed legal provisions or decided by a court that does not have jurisdiction. [14] The Court finds Mayobere J. Baptiste’s statement that High Court, chamber of Musanze based on non existing law in rendering the judgment without merit because the document he is accused for having counterfeited and used it, he used it since 2011 when he was litigating before Abunzi with his mother Bashimiki, he does not also deny having used it as an evidence in the case RC0069/2013/TB/NYBA rendered by the Primary of Nyakiriba on 19/07/2013, in the case between him and Samvura Joseph. [15] The Court also finds that the offence that Mayobere J.Baptiste is accused of, is a continuous offence provided by article 6 paragraph 3 of the Law Nº30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure which states that the prescriptive period of a criminal action shall run from the date of the cessation of the last act of the offence which is 2013 as reminded above, this is the ground by which the High Court, chamber of Musanze based on Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code which was in force when the last act of the offence was committed, it is obvious that the period of the prosecuting the offence did not lapse. Therefore this Court finds that the High Court, chamber of Musanze did not err.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 34

Page 178

Whether the judgment was rendered by the Court without jurisdiction [16] Counsel Mberabagabo B. Richard states that the High Court, chamber of Musanze rendered the judgment without jurisdiction because it disregarded article 60 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 04 June 2003 as revised up to date where it provides for the branches of Government and indicates that they are separate and complementary. He further finds that the provisions of article 21 paragraph 2 of the Law Nº30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure whereby it indicates that Judicial Police Officers have the primary responsibility to conduct preliminary investigation, it is obvious that the judge did not consider all these articles whereas these provisions demonstrate powers and duties of each branch, especially that Mayobere was convicted basing on the document by which he did not defend himself against , before Judicial Police. [17] The Prosecution argues that Mayobere J.Baptiste’s ground of appeal that the High Court, chamber of Musanze rendered the judgment without jurisdiction lacks merit, because the High Court, chamber of Musanze had territorial and material jurisdiction as it tried the first appeal against the judgment of the case tried in merit by the intermediate Court of Rubavu, they state this, relying on the provisions of the article 105 of Organic Law N°51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of Courts. [18] Counsel Tugirimana Vincent who assists Samvura Joseph states that the High Court, chamber of Musanze was competent to hear the case because it was the appeal of the judgment rendered on first instance by the intermediate Court of Rubavu. 35 PROSECUTION v. MAYOBERE

Page 179

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [19] Article 28 litera two of the Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 provides that the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over cases heard and decided in the second instance by the High Court, if such cases (……) were decided by a court that does not have jurisdiction. [20] The main grounds of Mayobere J. Baptiste’s appeal of the case decided on the second instance by the High Court, chamber of Musanze are that; the appealed case was decided basing on non existing law and that the High Court, chamber of Musanze rendered the judgment while it had no jurisdiction. [21] The Court finds that the claim of Mayobere J.Baptiste that High Court, chamber of Musanze rendered the judgment while it had no jurisdiction, is with no merit because that Court heard an appeal of the case which was decided on first instance by the Intermediate Court of Rubavu, as it is provided by article 105 of the Organic Law N°51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of Courts as modified and complemented to date whereby it provides that the High Court hears appeal of criminal cases tried on first instance by the Intermediate Court. [22] The Court finds that the High Court, chamber of Musanze rendered the judgment of the case which is in its jurisdiction, therefore, the ground of Mayobere J. Baptiste’s appeal is without merit. [23] Upon the motivations given above, the Court finds Mayobere J. Baptiste’s second appeal lodged before the Supreme Court is not in its jurisdiction.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 36

Page 180

III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [24] Decides that the appeal lodged by Mayobere J. Baptiste is not in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court; [25] Sustains the rulings of the judgment RPA0181/14/HC/MUS rendered on 27 July 2015 by High Court, chamber of Musanze; [26] Orders Mayobere J.Baptiste to pay the court fees. 37 PROSECUTION v. MAYOBERE

Page 182

CASES IN MERITS

Page 184

COMMERCIAL CASES

Page 186

CHEON KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd ET AL v.

GOVERNMENT OF RWANDA/MINAGRI [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCOMA0004/16/CS - RCOMA0003/2016 (Kanyange P.J., Ngagi and Mukandamage, J.) 30 June 2017] Law governing contract – Arbitration agreement – If parties to the arbitration agreement provided for adjudication before they go for arbitration, this must be respected, failure to do so, the arbitration tribunal has no competence to admit the claim arising from that contract. Law governing commercial procedure – The arbitration tribunal has power to reject the additional submissions of parties in accordance with the delay of the modifications or completion to be added in – Law No005/2008 of 14/02/2008 relating to arbitration and conciliation in commercial matters article 35. Facts: There was a joint venture between CHEON KWANG

DEVELOPMENT

COMPANY Ltd and

EXERT ENGINEERING GROUP Ltd and concluded a contract with the Government of Rwanda (MINAGRI) for the Construction works of high earth-fill dam and Hillside Irrigation System, both parties provided in their contract that in case of any dispute, it will be resolved by arbitration tribunal after being referred to adjudicator. 43

Page 187

Those companies were not able to comply with the duration of works and requested the Government of Rwanda for an extension for completion of works, after examination, the Government of Rwanda refused to extend it, instead decided to terminate the contract. These companies were not contented with that decision and filed a claim to arbitration tribunal. Both parties submitted their submissions, then the arbitration tribunal ordered that the hearing in merit will proceed after both parties have signed the document prepared by the arbitration tribunal, but the government of Rwanda/MINAGRI refused to sign that document on the ground that in its submissions it raised an objection, stating that arbitration is not possible as long as there is no decision of adjudicator, consequently, the arbitration tribunal ordered both parties to prepare submissions on that objection so that they can debate upon it, and it also gave a deadline to both parties to submit them. In the submissions of the claimants, they indicated that the Government of Rwanda/MINAGRI refused the procedure of adjudication, thus they had no other choice than resorting to arbitration as provided by the contract, and it was not a prerequisite to submit their claim to the adjudicator. As regards to the additional submissions, the arbitration tribunal did not admit them because they were late filed and were of no use to

the arbitration tribunal as it had already taken decision. The tribunal decided that it has no jurisdiction because there is no decision of the adjudicator. The claimants were not contented with that decision and filed a claim to the Commercial High Court, requesting the Court to decide that the arbitration tribunal was competent, they again stated that, they were unsatisfactory with how the Court took decision before the pleadings of the parties and also, the tribunal

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 44

Page 188

disregarded the provisions of article 35 (2) of the Law No005/2008 of 14/02/2008, relating to arbitration and conciliation in commercial matters, and also the provisions of the contract.The Court sustained the decision of the arbitration tribunal. The claimants unsatisfied with that ruling, appealed before the Supreme Court stating that, the Commercial High Court based on the common procedural law while there is a specific law on arbitration and decided that the arbitration tribunal was competent to reject additional submissions filed by the claimants regarding the objection. Also, that court failed to interpret the provision of the contract related to the decision that should be taken to arbitration because this article does not consider adjudication as prerequisite to the admissibility of the claim by the arbitrators, also, the arbitration was not supposed to base on the decision of the adjudicator rather, it provides for any dispute arising from the contract. The Government of Rwanda argued that there is no contradiction between article 69 of the Law No 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure and article 35 of the Law relating to arbitration. Also the procedure of disputes resolution provided in the contract begins with the adjudication and if it fails, that is when they resort to arbitration. Held: 1. If parties to the arbitration agreement provided for adjudication before they go for arbitration, this must be respected, failure to do so, the arbitration tribunal has no competence to admit the claim arising from that contract.

2. There is no contradiction between General conditions of contract and Particular Conditions of Contract, rather, they shoul be read in complementarity. 45 CHEON KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd ET AL v. GOVERNMENT OF RWANDA/MINAGRI

Page 189

3. The arbitration tribunal has power to reject the additional submissions of parties in accordance with the delay of the modifications or completion to be added in. Appeal has no merit. The appealed judgment sustained Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law No 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure article 69. Law No45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contract article 64. Law No005/2008 of 14/02/2008 relating to arbitration and conciliation in commercial matters article 35. No case referred to. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] There was a joint venture between CHEON KWANG

DEVELOPMENT

COMPANY Ltd and

EXERT ENGINEERING GROUP Ltd and concluded a contract with the Goverment of Rwanda (MINAGRI), for the construction works of a 14 meters high earth-fill dam and 267 ha Hillside Irrigation System in Rwamagana district, both parties provided in contract that in case disputes arise, they will be resolved trough arbitration.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 46

Page 190

[2] As provided by the contract, both parties appointed two (2) arbitrators, who chose another one to chair the pannel, then the parties were summoned to Nairobi in Kenya, in preliminary hearing, both parties agreed that the Rwandan laws will apply. During that hearing, the Government of Rwanda/MINAGRI raised an objection that the arbitrator appointed by the claimant companies is its advisor, thus, he can not be an arbitrator, but the pannel overruled that objection. [3] Both parties filed their submissions, the pannel of arbitrators ordered that the hearing in merit will take place on 16/06/2016 and 17/06/2016.On 16/06/2016 that pannel drafted a document and requested the parties to sign it. The content of that document was as follows: Notwithstanding the provision of clause 24 of the contract which obliged the parties in the first instance to refer their disputes and differences to an adjudicator and only refer the matter to arbitration after the adjudicator’s written decision thereon, the parties agree to refer the disputes and differences between them arising out of the contract to arbitration by a tribunal of three arbitrators two of whom shall be the parties appointees and the third one who shall be the presiding arbitrator shall be appointed by the two party arbitrators. [4] After issuing the forementioned document, the representative of the Government of Rwanda /MINAGRI

stated that he can not sign that document because he raised an objection in his submissions, alleging that the arbitration is not possible as long as there is no decision of the adjudicator. This led the pannel to order both parties to prepare submissions on that objection, which had to be submitted not later than midnight of 16/06/2016 so that the hearing on that objection takes place the next day (on 17/06/2016). 47 CHEON KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd ET AL v. GOVERNMENT OF RWANDA/MINAGRI

Page 191

[5] During the hearing of 17/06/2016 and in their submissions, the claimants (joint venture) stated that the Government of Rwanda/MINAGRI refused the adjudication procedure as they requested it through a letter to appoint an adjudicator but it replied in non cooperative way, thus, they had no other alternative but resort to arbitration, as provided for by the contract, even though, it was not compulsory to prior submit the claim to the adjudicator. [6] On 29/06/2016, the claimants filed additional submissions as a rebuttal on the objection, based on article 35 (2) of the Law No 005/2008 of 14/02/2008 relating to arbitration and conciliation in commercial matters, then on 25/07/2016, the pannel decided that it is not competent on the ground that the decision of the adjudicator is not available. [7] CHEON KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd and EXERT ENGINEERING GROUP Ltd were not contented with the decision of arbitrators, and lodged a claim before the Commercial High Court requesting the Court to decide that the arbitration tribunal was competent to hear and decide on their disputes, those companies further stated that, they were also not satisfied with the fact that the pannel of arbitrators took decision before the parties were heard, and delibarately ignored both the provisions of article 35 (2) of the Law No 005/2008 of 14/02/2008 relating to arbitration and conciliation in commercial matters and those of the contract. [8] In judgment RCOMA00476/2016/CHC/HCC rendered on 28/10/2016, the Commercial High Court sustained the decision of the arbitration tribunal. In rendering that judgment, the Commercial High Court, found with no merit, the ground that the arbitration tribunal decided on the case without hearing of

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 48

Page 192

both parties, because if both parties agreed that the Rwandan Law will be applicable in the hearing of their case, thus, article 78, paragraph 2, and article 142 of the Law No 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure allows the judge on his own motion to raise the objection of lack of jurisdiction any time before the pronouncement, in this case the arbitration tribunal raised that objection after hearing both parties, and took a decision about it, that indicates that it did not contradict with Rwandan Law agreed upon by both parties. [9] CHEON KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd and EXERT ENGINEERING GROUP Ltd were not contented by the decision of the Commercial High Court and appealed to Supreme Court on the following grounds: The High commercial Court based on article 69 of the Law No21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure to decide that the Court has jurisdiction to admit additional submissions or other document submitted after the closure of the hearing, but it ignored that the Law No 21/2012 forementioned is a general procedural Law which applies only when the specific law is silent about a given issue, thus, the arbitration Law which is specific to arbitration issues should have been applied because its article 35 indicates when additional submissions are admissible or inadmissible. The commercial High Court did not interprete article 24 of the contract which provided for the type of a decision to be submitted to the arbitration, that article does not provide for arbitration to be conducted based on the decision of the adjudicator, instead it provides that all 49 CHEON KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd ET AL v. GOVERNMENT OF RWANDA/MINAGRI

Page 193

disputes relating to the contract and it does not consider adjudication procedure as prerequisite for the claim to be admissible before arbitration , however that procedure is provided in other document titled General conditions of contract in article 24.1-3 relating to decisions taken by the project manager only. [10] The case was heard in public on 14 /02/2017, CHEON KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd and EXERT ENGINEERING GROUP Ltd represented by Counsel Butare Emmanuel, while the Government of Rwanda was represented by Counsel Rubango Epimaque, the State attorney, who raised the objection of lack of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but the Court overruled that objection, the hearing of the case was held in public on 23/05/2017, both parties were represented as it was in hearing of 14/02/2017. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES 1. Whether the arbitration tribunal’s rejection of additional submissions is illegal. [11] Counsel Butare Emmanuel states that, by rejecting the additional submissions of rebuttal to the objection of lack of jurisdiction raised by the Governement of Rwanda, the arbitration tribunal contradicted the provisions of article 35, paragraph two of the Law No 005/2008 of 14/02/2008 relating to arbitration and conciliation in commercial matters. He explains that, for the submissions to be inadmissible, they have to be late filed.When they were pleading in arbitration tribunal, they were notified that the pronouncement will be on notice, then on 29/06/2016, they submitted additional submissions, then on 08/07/2016 they

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 50

Page 194

received an e-mail notifying them that those submissions are inadmissible, but it is clear that those submissions were submitted on time, thus, they pray the Supreme Court to hold that, those additional submissions should have been admitted. He further states that regarding filing the additional submissions, the Commercial High Court based on article 69 of the Law No 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure and disregarded the fact that it is a general law, instead, it should have based on article 35 of the Law relating to arbitration and conciliation in commercial matters. [12] Counsel Rubango Epimaque, representing the Governement of Rwanda, argues that, with regards to the fact that the judge can admit or reject additional submissions, he finds that there is no contradiction between article 69 of the Law No21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure and article 35 of the Law relating to arbitration.

VIEW OF THE COURT [13] Article 35, paragraph two, of the Law No005/2008 of 14/02/2008 relating to arbitration and conciliation in commercial matters provides that, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, any party may amend or supplement his claim or defence during the course of the arbitral proceedings, unless the arbitral tribunal considers it inappropriate to allow such amendment having regard to the delay in making it. [14] The case file indicates that, after submitting the dispute to arbitration tribunal of Nairobi in Kenya, during the hearing of 16/06/2016, the Governement of Rwanda raised an objection 51 CHEON KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd ET AL v. GOVERNMENT OF RWANDA/MINAGRI

Page 195

related to lack of competence of the Arbitration tribunal , then that tribunal decided to postpone the hearing to 17/06/2016, so that both parties can prepare submissions relating to that objection, on that date, the hearing took place and was closed, then on 29/06/2016 the counsel for claimants submitted other additional submissions regarding that objection, then on 08/07/2016 the president of the pannel of arbitrators replied that, those submissions are not admitted because, apart from being for no use to the pannel in reaching a decision , they were also received after the pannel has decided on the competence of the arbitration tribunal1. [15] The Court finds that as provided by article 35, paragraph two, of the Law No005/2008 mentioned above, any claimant in arbitration tribunal has the right to submit additional submissions in the course of examination of the claim, however this article provides also that the arbitration tribunal also has the power to reject those submissions in accordance with the delay of the modifications or completion to be added in. Thus, as motivated above, if that tribunal explained that, it rejected the additional submissions of the claimants for the objection raised by the Governement of Rwanda/MINAGRI because they were not useful and also they were submitted after the arbitrators had already deliberated, this shows that, the tribunal did not contradict with the Law.

1 Letter of July 8, 2016: “They are additional submissions made by party after the close of proceedings, and while an Award is pending, without any direction to that effect by the Tribunal. […] even though it is not material to our above decision, the said submissions were received after the deliberations by the Tribunal on the substance of the award on jurisdiction. […]”.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 52

Page 196

[16] Concerning the fact that, in solving the issue of admissibility of additional submissions for the claim before the arbitration tribunal, the Commercial high Court applied article 69 of the law No21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, the Court finds that, based on principle of law that ‟Specialia generalibus derogant”2 which means that, specific law derogates to general law, the Commercial High Court should have not applied article 69 of the Law No21/2012 mentioned above instead it should have based on article 35, paragraph two, of the Law No005/2008 mentioned above which resolves specificaly the issue related to the admissibility or inadmissibility of additional submisions filed by the party to the arbitration. The Court finds that, though, the Commercial High Court applied article 69 aforementioned, the interpretation of article 35 also aforementioned, as it is clear in previous paragraph, indicates that the arbitration tribunal had jurisdiction to reject the submissions of the claimants rebutting on objection raised by the Governement of Rwanda/MINAGRI because they were submitted after the arbitrators have already deliberated, thus, on this issue, the grounds of the appellants lack merit.

2. Whether the adjudication clause of the contract was ignored [17] Counsel Butare Emmanuel, representing CHEON KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd and EXERT ENGINEERING GROUP Ltd states that the arbitration tribunal disregarded the provisions of the contract. He explains that, in article 2.3 of General conditions of contract, the hierarchy of

2 La loi spéciale déroge à la loi générale. 53 CHEON KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd ET AL v. GOVERNMENT OF RWANDA/MINAGRI

Page 197

different documents related to contract agreement was agreed upon, thus, Particular conditions of contract precede the General conditions of contract. He continues stating that article 24.4 of Particular conditions provides that all disputes that my arise related to contract, whether related to termination of the contract or any other dispute, they should go for arbitration; and this article, does not provide that arbitration should be conducted based on the decision taken by the adjudicator, instead , it provides for all disputes related to contract, and it does not consider adjudication procedure as prerequisite for the admissibility of the claim by the arbitration tribunal, instead that procedure is provided in article 24.1-3 of General conditions of contract as regards to decisions taken by project manager only. He states that, the gounds of that claim contains also the decisions taken by the project manager, but that claim was based on termination of the contract. [18] Counsel Rubango Epimaque, representing the Governement of Rwanda/MINAGRI, argues that regarding the hierarchy of different documents of the contract, raised by the appellants basing on article 2 of the contact, it is not true unless they prove it, that article 24 of General conditions of contract titled Procedure for Disputes, explains how disputes that may arise relating to contract or to its application

can be resolved, also that article, provides for the procedure to follow in order to file a claim to the arbitration tribunal, thus, if the appellants can not indicate other alternative to resolve disputes other than that provided in that article, consequently the statement of the appellants that the Court disregarded the provisions of the contract has no merit. He continues explaining that the procedure to resolve disputes provided in contract begins at first level by

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 54

Page 198

adjudication, if the agreement is not reached, they go for arbitration at the second level.

VIEW OF THE COURT [19] Article 64 of the law No45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contract, provides that contracts made in accordance with the law shall be binding between parties. They may only be revoked at the consent of the parties or for reasons based on law. They shall be performed in good faith. [20] The case file indicates that the disputes between two parties is based on termination of contract titled « Construction works of a 14 meters high earth-fill dam (lot 1) and 267 ha Hillside Irrigation System (lot 2) for Rwamagana-34 site in Gahengeri Sector, Rwamagana District, Eastern Province » and was a result of delay in its execution. The contract provides for the project manager in charge of supervising the works and the compliance of the terms of the contract, on 15/06/2015 he received a request from CHEON KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd and EXERT ENGINEERING GROUP Ltd (joint venture) to extend the duration to complete the works aforementioned, but on 03/07/2015, project manager rejected their request, then the Governement of Rwanda/ MINAGRI decided to terminate the contract.

[21] The Court finds that article 1.1(c) of General Conditions of Contract (GCC) explains that the adjudicator is a person appointed by both parties to the contract through the procedure of article 23 of GCC, so that he can resolve the disputes at first 55 CHEON KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd ET AL v. GOVERNMENT OF RWANDA/MINAGRI

Page 199

level3. Also article 24.4 of GCC explains that the decision of project manager which is not in his authority or wrongly taken , has to be submitted to the adjudicator within 14 days starting when that decision was notified to the concerned party, and also the adjudicator has do deliver a written decision not later than 28 days , ,and each party has 28 days to submit the claim to the arbitrator and the arbitration has to be conducted at the place indicated in particular conditions of the contract and follow the procedure provided for by the institution also indicated in particular conditions of the contract. [22] The Court finds that, in general, the table format of « particular conditions of contract » (PCC) shows that its content is complementary and explanatory to some articles of general conditions of contract (GCC). In particular, article 24.4 of General Conditions of Contract (GCC) is complemented by explanations available in particular conditions of contract on page 28, where it indicates that both parties have agreed to apply

3 1.1(c): The Adjudicator is the person appointed jointly by the Employer and the Contractor to resolve disputes in the first instance, as provided for in GCC 23. 4 24.1: If the contractor believes that a decision taken by the Project Manager was either outside the authority given to the Project Manager by the Contract or that the decision was wrongly taken, the decision shall be referred to the Adjudicator within 14 days of the notification of the Project Manager’s decision.24.2: The Adjudicator shall give a decision in writing within 28 days of receipt of a notification of dispute. 24.3: […]. Either party may refer a decision of the Adjudicator to an Arbitration within 28 days of the Adjudicator’s written decision. If neither party refers the dispute to arbitration within the above 28 days, the Adjudicator’s decision shall be final and binding. 24.4: The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the arbitration procedures published by the institution named and in the place specified in the PCC (Particular Conditions of Contract)

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 56

Page 200

the Law governing United Nations Commission on International Trade and the arbitration will be held at Nairobi/Kenya.5 [23] The Court finds that the provision of article 24 (1,2,3,4) of GCC does not contradict with the provision of Particular Conditions of Contract on GCC 24.4, rather they complement each other, because the point 3 of article 24 of GCC provides for the procedure to submit the claim to the arbitrator from the adjudicator, while point 4 of that article provides that, the arbitration has to be conducted at the place and in accordance with the procedure provided by the institution , indicated in Particular Conditions of Contract (PCC). It finds then that the pleadings of Counsel Butare Emmanuel that Particular Conditions of Contract (on GCC 24.4) does not provide for arbitration to be conducted basing on the decision taken by the adjudicator, is groundless because, as aforementioned, what was explained in that part of the contract complement article 24.4 of GCC which is in the part titled «Procedures for Disputes» which provides for new claims to be submitted to the adjudicator before submitting them to the arbitrator, especially even him (Counsel Butare Emmanuel), during the hearing, stated that the claim submitted contains the decisions taken by the Project manager, furthermore, there is no other provision in the contract providing that the issues related to termination of contract are to be

5 Institution whose arbitration procedures shall be used: ‟Unites Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Arbitration Rules: Any dispute, controversy, or claim arising out of or relating to this Contract, or breach, termination, or invalidity thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules as at present in force.” The place of arbitration shall be: Nairobi, Kenya. 57 57 CHEON KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd ET AL v. GOVERNMENT OF RWANDA/MINAGRI

Page 201

submitted to the arbitration without prior examination of the adjudicator. [24] The Court finds that if the project manager decided not to extend the period for completion of works provided in contract, and this decision was not submitted to adjudicator at first instance level, before submitting it to arbitrator as provided for in article 1.1. (c) and 24 (1.2.3.4) of GCC aforementioned, this proves that the arbiration tribunal could not admit the claim because it was submitted through the procedure contrary to the provisions of the contract. [25] The court finds that, based on motivations above and on article 64 of the Law No45/2011 of 25/11/2011 afore mentioned, the adjudication clause of the contract was not ignored.

3. Whether the Government of Rwanda/MINAGRI can be awarded procedural fees. [26] Counsel Rubango Epimaque states that, as the appellants appealed the case while it was not necessary, the Government of Rwanda/MINAGRI has to be paid 1,000,000Frw used for procedural fees. [27] Counsel Butare Emmanuel argues that, MINAGRI is the one which terminated the contract, thus, it can not be awarded the procedural fees. Therefore, to charge his clients that money would be an excessive burden.

VIEW OF THE COURT [28] The Court finds that as companies CHEON KWANG

DEVELOPMENT

COMPANY Ltd and

EXERT

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 58

Page 202

ENGINEERING GROUP Ltd appealed for this case, and their appeal found without merit, it is obvious that the governement of Rwanda/MINAGRI got damages and lost time to follow up the case, thus, these companies have to pay the governement of Rwanda/MINAGRI procedural fees equal to 300,000Frw, these damages are awarded in Court’s discretion, because the requested ones are excessive and were not evidenced. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [29] Decides that the appeal of CHEON KWANG

DEVELOPMENT

COMPANY Ltd and

EXERT ENGINEERING GROUP Ltd (Joint venture) has no merit; [30] Decides that the judgment RCOMA00476/2016/CHC/HCC rendered on 28/10/2016 by Commercial High Court is sustained except the procedural fees awarded to the Government of Rwanda/MINAGRI at this level; [31] Orders

CHEON

KWANG

DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd and EXERT ENGINEERING GROUP Ltd to pay the Government of Rwanda/MINAGRI 300,000Frw for procedural fees; [32] Orders that, the Court fees deposited by CHEON KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd and EXERT ENGINEERING GROUP Ltd equal to the work done in this case. 59 CHEON KWANG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Ltd ET AL v. GOVERNMENT OF RWANDA/MINAGRI

Page 204

I&M BANK v. SEBULIKOKO [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCOMAA00052/2016/SC- RCOMAA 0057/16/CS (Kayitesi R, P.J., Ngagi and Hitiyaremye, J.) 09 June 2017] Contract law – Contract of Security interests – Re- registration of security interests – The fact that security interests are not re- regestered, this does not invalidate them, as long as the debt exists however it is not opposable to third parties. Facts: I&M Bank gave a loan of 2,434,879,505Frw to Sebulikoko (representing ECSNE), for purchasing road construction machines, on 07/11/2013, they concluded a guarantee contract on movable properties. The loan was also guaranted by Rwasibo Mutesi Beatrice and it had to be paid off by 25/04/2015. The loan was not paid, then I&M Bank seized and auctioned the securities with the authorisation of the Registrar General of Rwanda Development Board (RDB), but the proceeds did not cover the loan and the bank sued Sebulikoko and his guarantor before the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge requesting to be paid the balance. Sebulikoko and his guarantor also filed a claim before Commercial Court of Nyarugenge requesting for the cancellation of the auction of the securities because it was done illegally and they also requested for counter expertise because their assets auctioned had higher value than the loan of the bank. They filed also a counter claim requesting for the set off, so that the balance be given to Sebulikoko because the value of the assets 61

Page 205

sold is higher than the loan they have. The Commercial High Court of Nyarugenge found the claim of Sebulikoko and his guarantor without merit and that of I&M with merit and ordered the debtor and his guarantor to jointly pay the bank. Seburikoko and his guarantor were not contented with the rulings of the Commercial High Court of Nyarugenge and appealed to the Commercial High Court claiming that I&M Bank auctioned their assets which are no longer registered as their securities because the period of its registration elapsed. The Court found the appeal with merit in part and decided that the securities were illegally auctioned because they ceased to belong to the bank. I&M Bank was not contented with the decision of the Commercial High Court which held that the assets sold were no longer its securities because the period of its validity had expired and it did not re-register it, it appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that in deciding that the assets sold were no longer its securities the Commercial High Court ignored the reason they were furnished was the loan that Seburikoko and his guarantor failed to pay. Sebulikoko and his guarantor lodged a cross appeal claiming that the bank should be liable for the loss they incurred due to the auction of securities which were not registered, they also requested the court to order the set off. The bank stated that Sebulikoko had agreed to pay and that on his request there was also restructuring of his contract but he did not comply with it. Held: 1. The registration of the loan securities is meant to notify its existance to the third party, but when its registration period expires and if is not re-registered it does not invalidate them, however it is not opposable to third parties.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 62

Page 206

2. The purpose of the loan securities is to secure the payment of the laon, so that, as long as the loan is not reimbursed, the loan securities also remain. The fact that the loan securities were not re-registered in the office of the Registrar General of Rwanda Development Board (RDB) does not invalidate them because the loan for which they were furnished has not been paid Appeal has merit. Cross appeal has no merit. Court fees are bone by Seburikoko and his guarantor. Statutes and statutory instrument referred to: Law Nº34/2013 of 24/05/2013 on security interests in movable property, article 2,7, 8, 19,27. No cases referred to. Doctrine: L. Aynes P.& Crocq, Droit des sûretés, 9e édition, Paris, L.G.D.J., 2015. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE

CASE [1] This case started at the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge whereby I&M Bank Ltd filed a claim against Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel (representing ECSNE) and Rwasibo Mutesi Beatrice his guarantor, requesting them to repay the debt 63 I&M BANK v. SEBULIKOKO

Page 207

of 2,434,879,505Frw that it gave him to buy road construction machines. I&M Bank Ltd argued that after realizing that it was not going to be paid, it decided to get the payment from the mortgage it was given by Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel (representing ECSNE) but they were not sufficient to cover the whole debt. [2] Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel and Rwasibo Mutesi Béatrice also filed a claim to the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge stating that the calling of the loan made by I&M Bank Ltd should be cancelled because it was unlawful, and they also claimed that the loan which is demanded to be repaid is excessive, they request that it should be computed again through counter expertise. They also filed a cross claim requesting for a set off basing on the value indicated by expertise of the auctioned properties of 3,646,457,285Frw, and then loan of 2.434.879.505Frw and the remaining balance of 1,221,577,700Frw be refunded to Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel. [3] In the judgment RCOM0957/15/TC/NYGE – RCOM1673/15/TC/NYGE, the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge, found the claim of Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel and Rwasibo Mutesi Béatrice without merit while that of I&M Bank Ltd was found merit; hence it ordered Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel (representing ECSNE) and Rwasibo Mutesi Béatrice (his guarantor) to jointly pay I&M Bank Ltd 2,439,879,505Frw. [4] Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel and Rwasibo Mutesi Béatrice appealed to the Commercial High Court stating that the previous court disregarded the fact that I&M Bank Ltd acted beyond its right when it seized their movable property and

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 64

Page 208

auctioned it when it was obvious that those properties were no longer a registered mortgage of I&M Bank Ltd;Sebulikoko was misquoted because he did not request to annul the auction of the securities because it was unlawfull, because he could not claim for what he had been already granted by the judgment RCOMA0459/15/HCC, there was confusion of the facts, whereby the Court declared that the conducted expertise is the one which demonstrates the value of the auctioned property, which is not true, rather with assistance of an accountant Sebulikoko demonstrated the commercial loss he was caused by auctioning his property, therefore he prays for a set off . [5] In the judgment RCOMA00100/2016/CHC/HCC rendered on 15/07/2016, the Commercial High Court found with merit in part the appeal of Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel and Rwasibo Mutesi Béatrice and decided that the vehicles and machines of Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel who represents ECSNE were auctioned when they were no longer mortgage of I&M Bank Ltd, therefore, they should be given back to the appellants because they were unlawfully auctioned. [6] I&M Bank Ltd not satisfied with this decision, appealed to the Supreme Court stating that by deciding that the vehicles and machines were auctioned when they had ceased to be mortgage of I&M Bank Ltd, the previous court ignored the purpuse of that mortgage which was to secure the

loan which Sebulikoko and his guarantor defaulted to reimburse, therefore, clause 7 of mortgage contract of 07/11/2013 should have been applied; the fact that Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel/ECSNE and Rwasibo Mutesi Béatrice defaulted to reimburse the loan they owe it till now, rather they dragged it into lawsuits, it is intentional breach of contract, thus, they should pay 65 I&M BANK v. SEBULIKOKO

Page 209

damages worth 10,000,000Frw, 5,000,000Frw of counsel fees and 3,000,000Frw of procedure fees. [7] Sebulikoko and his guarantor also filed a cross appeal whereby Sebulikoko argued that the Commercial High Court held that he did not demonstrate that the machines were at work or were ready for work, but it disregarded that he had a lot of works he was preparing to begin; he prays that the Supreme Court disgnate an expert to determine the loss incurred because he is no longer able to demonstrate it, whereas for Rwasibo Béatrice, she argues that I&M Bank Ltd should bear the consequences and the loss caused by the auction of the mortgage which was not registered, thus she requests for a set off, so that I&M Bank Ltd gives them 1,214,577,780Frw. [8] The case was heard in public on 09/05/2017, I&M Bank Ltd represented by Counsel Rubasha Hubert whereas Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel and Rwasibo Mutesi Béatrice were represented by Counsel Nzirabatinyi Fidèle, Rwagatare Janvier and Kavutse Ephrem. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUES A. appeal of I&M BANK Ltd 1.Whether the property auctioned by I&M Bank Ltd was no longer its mortgage. [9] Counsel Rubasha Hubert argues that the Commercial High Court disregarded the main reason that led Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel and his guarantor to furnish the mortgage, that it declared that I&M Bank Ltd auctioned the property which was no longer its mortgage, however the court did

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 66

Page 210

not nullify the debt they owe it especially that in the case RCOM0957-1673/15/TC/NYGE they acknowledged that loan, thus at the time of the auction, those mortgages were in custody of I&M BANK Ltd. He further states that article 27 of the Law Nº34/2013 of 24/05/2013 on security interests in movable property provides that the creditor remains with the mortgage as long as he/she is not paid. He concludes that article 194 of the Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that the movable and immovable assets of a debtor shall constitute a common and general security of his/her creditors, therefore I&M Bank Ltd had the right to auction the mortgage it was given by Sebulikoko. [10] Counsel Rubasha Hurbert continues arguing that the Commercial High Court contradicted the other decisions made by that court in previous two cases, it ordered that Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel be gaven back the machines and vehicles which were auctioned because it was unlawfully auctioned since they were no longer its mortgages ,disregarding that the first judgment (RCOMA0320/HC/HCC) sustained the decision of Registrar General which gave I&M Bank Ltd the right to keep the movable property it was furnished as a mortgage by ECSNE, whereas the second judgment (RCOMA0391/15/HCC) held that the auction of the properties mortgaged by

Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel was lawfully conducted. Therefore, in his opinion I&M Bank Ltd had the right and capacity to carry out the auction since it was granted to it by the court. He concludes by stating that the Commercial High Court erred in holding that all mortgages were unlawfully auctioned because they expired on 25/04/2015 whilst some of them were expiring in 2018, in addition to that as long as I&M Bank Ltd was constantly writting 67 I&M BANK v. SEBULIKOKO

Page 211

to Sebulikoko requesting for the payment of the loan he owes it, it was no longer necessary to re-register the mortgage. [11] Counsel Kavutse Ephrem who represents the defendants argues that Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel and his guarantor do not deny the loan, but the mistake of I&M Bank Ltd was to sell the property which was no longer its mortgage, because it did not re-register in the office of Regestrar General in RDB. [12] Counsel Rwagatare Janvier also respresenting the defendants argues that the issue in the Commercial High Court was not the loan because Suburikoko does not deny it, that the issue was whether the mortgage was legally registered at the time of its auction. He states that the registration of the mortgage expired on 25/04/2015, and the bank seized it on 08/05/2015, therefore, it contravened article 27 of Law Nº34/2013 of 24/05/2013 on security interests in movable property, because the bank had to register it not later than 25/04/2015, the fact that it did not do it, means that it lost the right on that mortgage. He continues stating that the decisions of the judgments RCOMA0320/HC/HCC and RCOMA0391/15/HCC were summary procedure, the first was about the management of the property whereas the second was about the auction but none of them give I&M Bank Ltd the right to sell those mortgages. Regarding the issue that some of those securities had to expire in 2018, he states that I&M Bank Ltd should prove it since it is the claimant, whereas concerning the notices served to Seburikoko, he states that they do not replace the Law. [13] Counsel Nzirabatinyi Fidèle who also represents the defendants argues that to affirm that as long as the loan exists the mortgage also exists, is to disregard the provisions of the law, he

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 68

Page 212

requests the court that it interprets article 7,8 and 27 of Law Nº34/2013 of 24/05/2013 on security interests in movable property. He continues arguing that even if article 194 of the Law Nº21/2012 of 14/06/2012 cited by the counsel for I&M Bank Ltd which relates to general security is applied, the procedure used by the bank to seize the property is unlawful, therefore that article is of no use.

VIEW OF THE COURT [14] Article 27 of the Law Nº34/2013 of 24/05/2013 on security interests in movable property provides that the registration of a security interest shall be effective as of the date of registration : 1° until the expiration of the term specified in the contract; 2° if the term of the obligation continues beyond the term specified in the registration, until the end of the extended term stated in a notice of the continuation that is registered before the original term expires; or 3° if the obligation is terminated before the end of the term specified in the notice, until the date of registration of the effectiveness of the notice. [15] Article 2 (19) of the Law Nº34/2013 of 24/05/2013 mentioned above, explains the mortgage as a right in personal property that secures payment or performance of an obligation. [16] To determine whether I&M Bank Ltd sold the mortgages which were expired, the Court finds it necessary to first establish the purpose of the mortgage, it is value to the mortgagee, its 69 I&M BANK v. SEBULIKOKO

Page 213

registration and re- registration and consequence for not re- registration to the mortgagee. [17] As it is explained by law scholars, the purpose of the mortgage is to provide the security that the loan will be paid, it should not be separated from the obligation of reimbursing the due loan, its aim is that, the mortgage protects the creditor to not suffer the loss that should be resulted from the default of payment the loan he provided. They continue explaining that the mortgage can not be separated from the loan1.. [18] Concerning the registration of the mortagage, those law scholars also explain that the registration of the mortagage on immovable property2 aims to inform third parties to the contract that the mortgaged was registered, but even if the period of registration expires without being renewed, this should not invalidate the mortgage, however it is not opposable to the third parties3. [19] The case file demonstrates that on 07/11/2013, Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel4 concluded with I&M

1 Les sûretés garantissent l’exécution future d’une obligation ; elles sont indissociables de l’obligation de somme d’argent à terme. Elles permettent au créancier de se prémunir contre la défaillance du débiteur, (… sans sûreté, pas de crédit…). L. AYNES, P. CROCQ, Droit des sûretés, 9e édition, Paris, L.G.D.J., 2015, p.13. 2 the Law scholars state that the registration of the movble property is done the same way as for the immovable but it remains with its owner (débiteur) rikorwa kimwe n’iry’umutungo utimukanwa (L. AYNES, P. CROCQ, op.cit., p. 279) 3 En cas de pérémption de l’inscription, l’hypothèque n’est pas éteinte, mais perd son opposabilité (L. AYNES, P. CROCQ, op.cit., p. 365). 4 In the contrct it is Niyomwungeri Emmanuel

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 70

Page 214

Bank Ltd a contract of mortgage on immovable property, Rwasibo Mutesi Béatrice was personal guarrantee of that loan which has to be reimbursed not later than 25/04/2015. After that, Sebulikoko failed to pay properly the loan he was granted by I&M Bank Ltd, upon authorisation of the Registrar General, that bank sold the mortgages but they did not cover the debt which Sebulikoko owes bank. [20] Determining whether I&M Bank Ltd sold the mortgages which are invalid due to not being re-registered, as it was montioned above the Court finds the mortgage is provided with the purpose of securing the debt, so that as long as the debt is not paid, also the mortgage is still valid. The court finds that the arguments of Seburikoko’s counsel that as the mortgage was not re-registered to the office of the Registrar General in RDB invalidated it, this should not be considered because the clause 7 of the contract relating to the security interest of 07/11/2013 which both parties agreed on, provides that as long the loan contract is valid, all auxiliary contracts will also be valid, therefore, because Sebulikoko admits the loan which still exists, and it is the one which mortgage is based on, it implies that the mortgage remains valid even if it was not re-registered. [21] The court finds that article 7, 8 and 27 of the Law Nº 34/2013 of 24/05/2013 on security interests in movable property which

Sebulikoko’s counsel and his personal guarrantee applied in their pleadings to prove that the mortgages were invalid, can not help them because, though the article 7 of that Law provides that a security interest shall be effective upon its registration by the Registrar General, this article was applied because the security interest was registered by the Registrar General and was given a valid period, and also both parties agreed that it will 71 I&M BANK v. SEBULIKOKO

Page 215

remain effective as long as the contract of the main debt is valid. The Court finds futher that, the provisions of article 8 of the law mentioned above is not an issue because it concerns the third party and there is no third party in this contract. Whereas the provision of article 27 litera 1 of the law mentioned above, that the registration of the security interest is effective the day of its registration to the period mentioned in the contract, the court finds that, even if the contract provided for the security interest to be ended on 25/04/2015, the clause 7 of that contract stipulates that the security interest remains valid as long as the main debt contract is still valid. The Court also finds that the provisions of article 27 litera 2 mentioned above which had to be applied in case of extending the period of registration of the security interest. Therefore, Seburikoko and his personal guarrantee should not rely on not extending this period with the intention of proving that if this formality of extending period was not done, the security interest looses its validity, they disregarded the provision of clause 7 of the contract of security interest mentioned above. [22] The Court further finds that basing on the judgment RCOMA0391/15/HCC in which a court held that I&M Bank continues to have the custody of the movable property for which it was given as securities, in the judgment RCOMA0391/15/HCC the Court also decided that the auction proceeds, I&M Bank had the right to seize and sell the securities furnished by Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel, therefore it is not necessary to examine whether there was securities which should have been valid until 2018 and whether the securities should have been re- registered because it was handled in the previous paragraphs.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 72

Page 216

[23] For the Commercial High Court to motivate that ( in paragraph 13) that the judge of the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge ruled ultra petita, whereby he examined the issue related to invalidating the auction of the securities while it was not requested in the claim filed, considering the judgment of the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge (paragraphs 24-31), the Court finds that the judge did not rule ultra petita because he was motivating the counter claim raised by Sebulikoko’counsel which concerns a set off, where he argued that the sale of the securities was illegaly conducted because it was done after the expiration of its valid period, he also added that the auction was nullified by the judgment RCOMA0459/15/HCC, for these reasons he requests that I&M Bank pays the balance between the value established by the expertise carried out on the auctioned securities and the loan. Therefore, the fact that in examining that issue the judge analysed the judgment RCOMA0459/15/HCC, together with the Judgments RCOMA0320/15/HCC and RCOMA0391/15/HCC and held that the rulings of the judgment RCOMA0320/15/HCC and RCOMA0391/15/HCC are the ones to be sustained because they were not reversed by judgment RCOMA 0459/15/HCC, that implies that he did not err, because since that court decided that the auction of Sebulikoko’s assets be proceeded, it could not contradict itself holding that the auction is annulled. [24] Basing on the motivations and the provisions given above, the Court finds that I&M Bank sold the vehicles and machines which were furnished as securities by Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel who represents ECSNE when those securities were still valid, therefore that ground of I&M Bank’s appeal has merit. 73 I&M BANK v. SEBULIKOKO

Page 217

2.Whether I&M Bank Ltd should be awarded the damages requested [25] Counsel Rubasha Hubert states that Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel/ECSNE and Rwasibo Mutesi Béatrice failed to pay I&M Bank Ltd up to now instead they dragged it into lawsuits, that is a breach of contract, thus they should be ordered to pay damages of 10,000,000FRw, counsel fees of 5,000,000Frw and the procedural fees of 3,000,000Frw. [26] Counsel for Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel argues that the damages requested by I&M Bank are groundless because he is the one who was illegaly deprived of his property as also it was also indicated in the court cases rather is the one who should be awarded damages.Counsel for Rwasibo Mutesi Béatrice that those damages are groundless because Rwasibo and Sebulikoko who represents ECSNE demonstrated that it is I&M Bank which faulted by selling the securities which are no longer valid disregarding the provisions of article 27 of the Law Nº34/2013 aforementioned.

VIEW OF THE COURT [27] Regarding damages of 10,000,000Frw requested by I&M Bank Ltd, the court finds that they should not be awarded because it requests them basing on the fact that Sebulikoko breached the contract and being dragged in lawsuits because the grounds of the judgment rendered by the Commercial Court which demonstrated that I&MBank was awarded interests on the principal loan for delay were not reversed, therefore it should not be awarded additional damages to those interests with regards to the issue of being dragged into law suits, it requests them as if Sebulikoko

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 74

Page 218

was the one who dragged it into law suits , therefore it should not base on its right to appeal endowed by article 162 of the Law No21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure to request damages for being dragged into lawsuits. [28] Regarding the counsel and procedural fees, the Court finds that since I&M bank’s appeal has merit, it is obvious that it incurred procedural and counsel expenses, therefore Sebulikoko together with his guarantee have to pay 300,000Frw and 500,000Frw for procedural and counsel fees respectively awarded in the court’s discretion because what it requests for is excessive and did not prove for it. B. The cross appeal of Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel [29] Counsel for Sebulikoko argues that the fact that Commercial High Court held that he did not demonstrate that those machines were at work or were ready to be used but the court disregarded that he had a lot of work which he was about to start ,however since there was a lot of changes, the Supreme Court order an expert to determine the loss incurred because Sebulikoko can no longer demonstrate it, as it was ordered in the case RADA0001/05/CS rendered on 02/09/2009, they further request the court to orderfor set off the debts, in calculating the loss incurred they argue that the daily income which had to be generated by the machines demonstrated by Sebulikoko should be the one to be based on, and be awarded damages for being brought into lawsuits equivalent to 10,000,000FRw, moral damages of 30,000,000Frw and counsel fees of 15,000,000Frw. [30] I&M Bank argues that the claims of Sebulikoko are groundless because he admitted that the work he had with DRC, 75 I&M BANK v. SEBULIKOKO

Page 219

Burundi and Rwanda was cancelled as the contract he had with those countries were terminated, and he promised to pay the bank from the income he would get from those tenders, but he failed, at his request there was restructuring of the contract with the bank arguing that ECSNE has various tenders but it failed to pay.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [31] The Court finds that without examining the statements of both parties on the cross appeal, since I&M Bank legally auctioned the securities it was furnished by Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel as explained above (Par. 21) this implies that there is no need to examine the loss incurred by Sebulikoko which he says that it was caused by auctioning the securities, therefore the cross appeal has no merit. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [32] Decides that the appeal of I&M Bank Ltd has merit ; [33] Finds the cross appeal of Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel without merit; [34] Holds that the securities furnished by Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel who represents ECSNE, were sold by I&M Bank Ltd when they were still valid; [35] Decides that the rulings of the judgment RCOMA 00100/2016/CHC/HCC rendered on 15/07/2016 by the Commercial High Court is only reversed with regard to the securities;

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 76

Page 220

[36] Orders Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel who represents ECSNE together with Rwasibo Mutesi Béatrice to give I&M Bank Ltd 300,000Frw of the procedural fees and 500,000Frw for the counsel fees; [37] Orders Sebulikoko Niyomwungeri Emmanuel who represents ECSNE and Rwasibo Mutesi Béatrice to jointly reimburse I&M Bank Ltd 100,000Frw for the court fees

77 I&M BANK v. SEBULIKOKO

Page 222

CRIMINAL CASE

Page 224

GAHENDA v. RUTSINDURA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/INJUST/RP00005/2017/CS (Mukandamage, P.J., Muhumuza and Gakwaya, J.) March 09, 2018] Evidence law – Production of evidence – Evidence can be submitted at any stage of the proceeding, what is important is that the accused defends himself against it – Law N°15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 119. Facts: Bigirimana Cédric was pursued before the Primary Court of Nyarugunga for the offence of counterfeit, as he pretends to be the son of Rutsindura Alphonse who was killed in 1994 Genocide perpetrated against Tutsis and he names himself Rutsindura Alexis, he changed his names with intention to get fraudlently the documents issued by public authorities and to appropriate the properties of the de cujus. The Primary Court of Nyarugunga found him guilty and sentenced him to two (2) years of imprisonment and it orders him to pay Gahenda damages he claimed for. The accused was not satisfied with the rulings, hence, he appealed to the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge stating that the previous Court refused to order for the DNA test between him and those considered as his parents from Burundi and that there was contradiction in the testimony which the Court relied on , thus that Intermediate Court acquitted him basing on the fact that it found the statements of the witnesses relied on at the first instance to be not sufficient to convict the accused, it also based on the fact that other produced evidence which include photos, school reports, attendance certificates (attestations de frequentation) and 81

Page 225

a report issued by the Prosecutor of the Republic of Burundi, Parquet de Muramvya as well as the statements of those considered as Bigirimana’s parents were defective. With regard to DNA Test carried out, the Court found that it cannot be considered because it was carried out through unlawful procedure. Subsequently, Gahenda Bienvenu resorted to the Office of Ombudsman claiming that the judgment was vitiated by injustice, consequently, that organ wrote to the President of the Supreme Court requesting that the judgment be reviewed on the ground of being vitiated by injustice because the Court disregarded noticeable elements of evidence such as the report of the Prosecutor of Burundi and DNA Test and that there is irrefutable evidence of DNA test ordered by the Supreme Court in the case between Bigirimana Cédric who calls himself Rutsindura Alexis and Gahenda Bienvenu, and that element of evidence also proved that Bigirimana Cédric is the son of Nahishakiye Jean Berchmas. The President of the Supreme Court ordered that the contested judgment be recorded in order to be reviewed. During the hearing, the Prosecution appeared whereas Bigirimana did not, though he was lawfully summoned in unknown address, Gahenda argued that there are provisions of laws which were ignored, that Bigirimana’s appeal should not have been admitted before the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge, he also added that the judgment was rendered by a bench of judges who did not hear the case and there are some elements of evidence which were ignored. Held: 1. The fact that Gahenda didn’t appeal against the order of joining cases, he should not argue that it prejudiced him.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 82

Page 226

2. Evidence can be submitted at any stage of the proceeding, what is important is that the accused defends himself against it, therefore, the Prosecution had the right to submit the medical report on the DNA test.

3. The testimonies, the investigation report from Burundi and DNA test carried out twice in Germany are irrevocable evidence which were ignored by the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge.

4. Gahenda Bienvenu is awarded moral damages of 100Frw (nominal damages) he claims for, because Bigirimana Cédric (who calls himself Rutsindura Alexis) prejudiced him. Application for review due to injustice has merit; The contested judgment is reversed; Sustains the judgment rendered by the Primary Court; Court fees to the public treasury. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Organic Law N°51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of Courts as modified and complemented to date, article 156. Law N°13/2004 of 17/5/2004 relating to the code of criminal procedure, article 164, litera 1. Law Nº30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure, article 175, par.

2. Law N°15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 65,119. Decree-Law Nº 21/77 of 18 /08/1977 instituting the penal code, article 206. No case law referred to. 83 GAHENDA v. RUTSINDURA

Page 227

Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE

CASE [1] This case started at the Primary Court of Nyarugunga, where the Prosecution accused Rutsindura Alexis also known as Bigirimana Cédric, the offence of counterfeit stating that he committed that offence in various occasions since 2008, whereby he pretended to be the son of Rutsindura Alphonse, a victim of Genocide perpetrated against Tutsi in 1994 whereas he is called Bigirimana Cedric, he did all these with intention of appropriating the estate of the late Rustindura Alphonse, the victim of Genocide. [2] In the judgment RP0075/10/TB/NYRGA rendered on 06 May 2011, the Primary Court of Nyarugunga found Bigirimana Cedric(who named himself Rutsindura Alexis) guilty of the offence he is accused, because before the Prosecution, he confessed that he came from Burundi in the names of Bigirimana Cedric and there is also testimony of Kalisa Célestin who witnessed that he registered himself in Kanogo village- Rwimbogo-Nyarugunga-Kicukiro stating that he is called Bigirimana Cédric, in addition, others witnesses, Uwingabire Angélique, Munezero Raïssa and others, testified that he is not Rutsindura Alexis the son of Rutsindura Alphonse, the Court sentenced him to two(2) years of imprisonment and ordered him to give the claimant of damages Gahenda Beinvenu, brother to Rutsindura Alphonse, damages worth 500,000Frw and to pay court fees.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 84

Page 228

[3] Rutsindura Alexis also known as Bigirimana Cédric appealed to the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge stating that the Primary Court of Nyarugunga refused to order for DNA Test between him and his so-called parents living in Burundi and that there is contradiction in the testimony on which the Court based on, in the judgment RPA0138/11/TGI/NYGE- RPA0260/11/TGI/NYGE rendered on 14 November 2013, the Intermediate Court found Rutsindura Alexis not guilty of counterfeit on the ground that the statements of the witnesses interrogated by the Prosecution which were based on by the previous Court to convict Rutsindura Alexis were insufficient. The Court also found that other elements of evidence produced which include; photos, school reports, attendance certificates (attestations de frequentation) and a report issued by the Prosecutor of the Republic of Burundi, Parquet de Muramvya as well as the statements of those considered as Bigirimana’s parents were defective. With regard to DNA Test carried out on 11 January 2012, the Court found that it cannot be considered because it was carried out through unlawful procedure. [4] After rendering that judgment,Gahenda Bienvenu resorted to the office of Ombudsman stating that the judgment was vitiated by injustice, on 09 July 2015, that organ wrote to the President of the Supreme Court requesting that the

judgment RP0138/11/TGI/NYGE-RPA0260/11/TGI/NYGE be reviewed on the ground of being vitiated by injustice because the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge disregarded noticeable elements of evidence such as the report of the Prosecutor of Burundi and DNA Test and that after those judgments, there is irrefutable evidence of DNA Test ordered by the Supreme Court in the case RCAA0020/14/CS between Rutsindura Alexis also known as Bigirimana Cédric and Gahenda Bienvenu, that 85 GAHENDA v. RUTSINDURA

Page 229

element of evidence also proved that Bigirimana Cédric is the son of Nahishakiye Jean Berchmas. [5] The order No038/2017 of 19 July 2017, the President of the Supreme Court decided, that the judgment RP0138/11/TGI/NYGE-RPA0260/11/TGI/NYGE rendered by the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge be recorded by the registry in order to be reviewed, the hearing was held on 08 January 2018, Rutsindura Alexis alias Bigirimana Cédric did not appear although he was lawfully summoned with unknown address, Gahenda Bienvenu assisted by Counsel Mutembe Protais and the Prosecution presented by Bunyoye Grace, the National Prosecutor. On 09 February 2018, the Court found it necessary that before taking final decision, the registry of the Court sends for the case file of the judgment RP0138/11/TGI/NYGE- RPA0260/11/TGI/NYGE because in the scanned file before the Court, some documents are missing, and others are not clear, the pronouncement of the judgment was postponed to 23 February 2018 and 09 March 2018, unfortunately, the case file was missing in the archives of the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES a. Whether appeal and application for the case review of Rutsindura Alexis alias Bigirimana Cédric’s should not have been admitted before the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge. [6] Counsel Mutembe Protais assisting Gahenda Bienvenu states that his application is based on the provisions of article 81, paragraph 1, litera 2 of the Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court which provides that the review

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 86

Page 230

of a final decision due to injustice shall be applied when there are provisions and irrefutable evidence that the judge ignored in rendering the judgment. [7] He continues stating that the judgment RP0138/11/TGI/NYGE-RPA0260/11/TGI/NYGE rendered by the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge against which the application for review due to injustice was filed, it was heard on appellate level by that Court as the case review as it is demonstrated on first page where it is written the offence he is accused and second page, paragraph two of the judgment, consequently, the case was not appealed, this is due to the fact that after Rutsindura Alexis alias Bigirimana Cédric was convicted in the judgment RP0075/10/TB/NYRGA, he immediately appealed after the pronouncement and his appeal was recorded on RPA0152/11/TGI/NYGE, but it was not admitted because he didn’t pay court fees as it was decided on 08 September 2011by the Court seized on appeal. He applied for the case review, the case was recorded under RPA0260/11/TGI/NYGE and it was requested that the case be tried jointly with another appeal filed by his advocate on 03 June 2011, he paid court fees and the claim was recorded on RPA0138/11/TGI/NYGE, nevertheless, that claim should not have been admitted because the advocate had no power of attorney from his client as provided by article 164 litera 1 of the Law N°13/2004 of 17/5/2004 relating to the code of criminal procedure which was in force at that time. [8] Counsel Mutembe Protais also states that the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge disregarded article 180 of the law N°13/2004 of 17/5/2004 mentioned above because his claim was recorded on RPA0260/11/TGI/NYGE without Rutsindura Alexis 87 GAHENDA v. RUTSINDURA

Page 231

alias Bigirimana Cédric demonstrating any of the 4 grounds provided by that article, hence, there is no new element to serve as basis of admissibility, rather the Court deliberatly ordered to join that claim with the appeal RPA0138/11/TGI/NYGE filed by his advocate. [9] He finds that since those provisions were overlooked, this caused injustice because all appeals lodged by Rutsindura Alexis alias Bigirimana Cédric should not have been admitted, instead, the rulings of the appealed judgment should have been sustained, thus the property of Rutsindura Alphonse’s family which Rutsindura Alexis alias Bigirimana Cédric appropriated, be handed back to his sibling Gahenda Bienvenu who succeeded Rutsindura Alphonse.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [10] Article 164, litera 1 of the law N°13/2004 of 17/5/2004 relating to the code of criminal procedure which was in force when Rutsindura Alexis alias Bigirimana Cédric appealed provides that those who are allowed to lodge appeal is the accused, but this does not prevent that his/her advocate may appeal on his/her behalf. This is emphasized by the fact that in the Law Nº 30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure which repealed the previous one, in its article 175, paragraph two provides that the appeal of the convicted may be lodged by his/her advocate. [11] The documents in case file demonstrate that Rutsindura Alexis alias Bigirimana Cédric’s appeal was recorded on two case file numbers RPA0152/11/TGI/NYGE and RPA0138/11/TGI/NYGE, on 08 september 2011, the judgment

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 88

Page 232

was rendered and the first appeal was rejected basing on the failure to pay the court fees, he applied for the case review on 14 October 2011 and the claim was recorded on RPA0260/11/TGI/NYGE and it was joined to the case RPA0138/11/TGI/NYGE on the request of his advocate in the letter dated 17 February 2012, whereby he stated that Rutsindura Alexis alias Bigirimana Cédric’s appeal was recorded on two case file numbers. [12] It is further noted that in the hearing of 23 February 2012 Rutsindura Alexis alias Bigirimana Cédric was asked to demonstrate the grounds of his case review, his advocate replied that when he lodged appeal in Primary Court of Nyarugunga, he paid the court fees, and when they brought payment proof, the Court registrar opened other file, that their Court pleadings were put in the wrong file RPA0138/11/TGI/NYGE, he requests to change the decision rejecting the appeal recorded on RPA0152/11/TGI/NYGE because of failure to pay court fees, so that the Court decides that the court fee was paid and received by the Court. The Prosecution states that those grounds are relevant, that it finds that the claims should be admitted and joined, in addition, Gahenda was asked his view though his argument is not clear, but he didn’t appeal against the order of joining cases as provided by article 156 of Organic Law N°51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organisation,

functioning and jurisdiction of Courts which provides that judgments and written Court orders concerning transfers or refusal to transfer cases, joining or disjoining cases in other Courts may be appealed against. [13] Basing on the motivations above, the Court finds, the fact that Gahenda did not appeal against that order of joining cases, he cannot use it as a pretext to allege that he was prejudiced. 89 GAHENDA v. RUTSINDURA

Page 233

b. Whether the judgment RP0138/11/TGI/NYGE- RPA0260/11/TGI/NYGE was rendered by a bench of judges who did not hear the case. [14] Counsel Mutembe Protais and Gahenda Bienvenu state that other serious irregularity in the judgment RP0138/11/TGI/NYGE-RPA0260/11/TGI/NYGE is that it was rendered by a bench of judges who did not hear the case because it was heard by a judge called Mukagasana Marciana but it was pronounced by three judges. [15] As demonstrated in the Court decision of 09 February 2018, this Court requested the registry of the Court to send for the case file RP0138/11/TGI/NYGE-RPA0260/11/TGI/NYGE in the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge, unfortunately, the case file was not found for the Court to thoroughly analyse it, therefore, the court cannot find the basis of deciding that the judgment was rendered by the bench of the judges not authorized by the President of the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge. c. Whether the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge disregarded elements of evidence produced by the Prosecution. [16] Counsel Mutembe Protais assisting Gahenda Bienvenu states that, although the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge relied on the article 65 of the Law N°15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production as indicated in paragraph 10 of the contested judgment due to injustice, the Court disregarded its last part which states that it shall not be influenced by the number of witnesses. It shall mainly consider their knowledge of facts and the objectivity and sincerity of their testimonies. Consequently, it concluded that not all witnesses interrogated by the Prosecution

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 90

Page 234

testified that Rutsindura Alexis is not son of Rutsindura Alphonse…whilst during Court investigation, all those interrogated, testified that Rutsindura Alexis is son of Rutsindura Alphonse. For that, he finds that the Court considered the number of witnesses instead of considering their knowledge of facts, the objectivity and sincerity of their testimonies. [17] He continues stating that article 65 of the Law N°15/2004 of 12/06/2004 mentioned above does not provide that the testimonies of the witnesses are admissible when they have similar testimony bacause they can all give false testimonies, and those interrogated by the Court, did not testify that Rutsindura Alexis is the son of Rutsindura Alphonse, instead they said that he looks in part like his son who was called Rutsindura Alexis, he adds that the fact of pretending that not all those interrogated by the Prosecution testified that Bigirimana Cédric is not the son of Rutsindura Alphonse, this cannot serve as evidence proving that he is the son of Rutsindura Alphonse, rather, it would be reason of having doubt that he may be Rutsindura Alexis the son of Rutsindura Alphonse. [18] Counsel Mutembe Protais furthermore states that if the Court considered the article of the law mentioned above, it would have admitted testimonies of those who know Rutsindura Alexis as son of Rutsindura Alphonse, who are Françoise Mukashyaka who

lived at Rutsindura’s home, Mukamazimpaka Ciphrose who used to drop at school his children and ones of Rutsindura Alphonse in the car and Uwingabire Angélique maternal aunt of Rutsindura Alexis, those witnesses produced two elements of evidence which would have convinced the Court without doubt that the person pretended to be Rutsindura Alexis is not the real one, those elements of evidence include birthmark on the cheek 91 GAHENDA v. RUTSINDURA

Page 235

and on the thigh and forward slanting ears, what he calls scintific evidence instead of relying on hair placed next to forehead. [19] Counsel Mutembe Protais avers that the Court disregarded the provisions of article 45 of the law N°13/2004 of 17/5/2004 mentioned above, and decided that DNA Test carried out in Germany is inadmissible because of the fact that the Prosecution and Judicial police sought it after filing a claim in Court without the order of the Court, 2º the assistance investigation was conducted contrary to article 77 of the law relating to the code of criminal procedure which was in force at that time, 3º there is no request of expertise for DNA test while it was lawfully carried out. [20] He argues that the law relating to the code of criminal procedure which was in force at the moment of the hearing of the contested judgment, does not prohibit the Prosecution to seek for the elements of evidence which can be put in additional statements especially when the case is yet to be heard and that in article 41 of that law provides that the power to prosecute before a court rests with the Public Prosecution, while its article 44 states that the burden of proof shall be on the Public Prosecution, for this reason, the Prosecution may submit the additional evidence at any stage of the instance, what is important is to be debatable in public as provided by article 45 of the

law of that time. [21] Counsel Mutembe Protais states that there are also other elements of evidence that the Court disregarded which include photos of Rutsindura Alexis and those of Bigirimana Cédric (or Emmanuel, Jean Claude), school reports and student file “ fiche induviduelleˮ for Bigirimana Cédric, thus, he prays the Court to hold that Gahenda Bienvenu suffered injustice and consequently the contested judgment be reversed in whole and sustains the

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 92

Page 236

judgment RP0075/10/TB/NYRGA rendered by the Primary Court of Nyarugunga. [22] The Prosecution states that Rutsindura Alexis known as Bigirimana Cédric was pursued for the offence of the use of counterfeited document whereby he sought to inherit the properties left by the late Rutsindura Alphonse killed during genocide perpetrated against Tutsis in 1994 pretending to be his child, the Court disregarded the evidence produced by the Prosecution while there was no other means of appeal. [23] It continues stating that Rutsindura Alexis known as Bigirimana Cédric filed a civil claim requesting to inherit the properties left by his so called father, the case before the Supreme Court was recorded under RCAA0020/14/CS, another DNA test was ordered and the results indicated that Rutsindura Alexis is a child of Nahishakiye Jean Berchmas and Ndayisaba Rose, consequently he lost the case, due to these facts, Gahenda Beinvenu requests that the judgment mentioned above be reviewed due to injustice and the Prosecution as well agrees that there is injustice and therefore wishes the judgement RP0075/10/NYGA rendered by the Primary Court of Nyarugunga on 05 May 2011 which held with merit the claim of the Prosecution, be sustained and enforced.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [24] Article 65 of the Law N°15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production provides that only the court can assess the relevance, pertinence and admissibility or rejection of testimonial evidence. It shall not be influenced by the number of 93 GAHENDA v. RUTSINDURA

Page 237

witnesses. It shall mainly consider their knowledge of facts and the objectivity and sincerity of their testimonies. [25] While article 119 of that Law provides that in criminal cases, evidence is based on all grounds, factual or legal provided that parties have been given a chance to be present for cross- examination. The courts rule on the validity of the prosecution or defence evidence. With regard to the offence of counterfeit, article 206 of the Decree-Law Nº21/77 of 18/08/1977 instituting the penal code that was into force at the time the offence was committed states that he/she shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of three(3) months to two (2) years and a fine of ten thousand francs at maximum or one of these penalties only, any person who fraudlently gets other documents issued by public authorities for the purpose of establishing a right, identity or (...) by making false declarations, by taking a false name or false quality, or by providing false information, certificates or attestations(…). [26] In her testimony, Mukashyaka Francoise stated that in March 2008, a girl named Munezero Raïsa brought to her a male child asking whether she can identify him, she replied that she can not recognise him, Munezero Raïsa told her that he is Dede, Mukashyaka Francoise replied that the one she knew was called Rutsindura Alexis, son of Rutsindura Alphonse and Dusabe Emma Marie basing on his physical appearance, he was dark brown skin colour, and that he had birthmark on the cheek and on the thigh and forward slanting ears, she removed his shoes and socks to check on his feets and found that he is not the one she knew. [27] While Mukamazimpaka Ciphrose, during her interrogation by the Prosecution, she testified that she knew

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 94

Page 238

Rutsindura Alphonse and Dusabe Emma Marie’s family as she worked around their residence and their children use to go to same school at Elena Guerra, the sister of Rutsindura Alexis named Musika was studing with her fifth child called Christian, that she used to transport them at school, that Rutsindura Alexis was a fat child up to his face, dark brown skin colour, birthmark on the cheek, extra fingers(Polydactyly), big nose and eyes, however, she cannot ensure that, that child died because she had been exiled to Burundi, that she hear say that their mother died together with all children. She added that the child Bigirimana Cédric, she found that he was not Rutsindura Alexis, and he was not aware of some facts she talked to him. [28] It is obvious that in report made by Burundian Prosecutor of Muramvya made on 23 November 2010, the Prosecutor General reached Gahweza Village, Kiganda Commune, at Nahishakiye Jean Berchmans, and showed him a photo of Bigirimana Cédric recognise him and responded that he is his fourth child, Nahishakiye even asked him if his child is still alive because he left the country to Rwanda in 2006 in Athletics competition and he never returned home, the father informed the Prosecutor that at his birth, he named him Nahishakiye Cédric but he changed himself his names later, Nahishakiye Jean Berchmans showed him other photos when he was still studying at

ETS Kamenge and told him other names of his five brothers, even his mother knew him and told the Prosecutor that he was named himself Bigirimana Cédric. [29] That report shows that the informations gathered by the Prosecutor from the parents arethe same as what are recorded in civil status registers whereby the Prosecutor noticed that the name Bigirimana Cédric is recorded under the name Nahishakiye 95 GAHENDA v. RUTSINDURA

Page 239

Jean Claude born on 12 January 1985 at Gahweza, Kiganda Commune whereas at the parish where he was baptized on 06 April 1996, his name is Nahishakiye Cédric. [30] The Prosecutor concluded stating that Bigirimana Cédric is child of Nahishakiye Jean Berchmans and Ndayisaba Rose Marie of Burundian nationality. [31] With regard to the medical report on DNA test, it indicated also that Bigirimana Cédric is a child of Nahishakiye Jean Berchmans, but the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge found not appropriate to reffer on it in rendering the judgment because it was conducted through unlawful procedure, however as it is clear in the judgment, it is the element of evidence produced by the Prosecution and it is not prohibited to produce evidence at any stage of the proceeding what matters is that the accused defends himself against it, the content of that report was sustained by another DNA test ordered by the Supreme Court in the case RCAA0020/14/CS of Rutsindura Alexis know as Bigirimana Cédric against Gahenda Bienvenu, the Court found that those results of DNA test are irrevocable evidence that Rutsindura Alexis is not the child of Rutsindura Alphonse, rather the child of Nahishakiye Jean Berchmas and that DNA test is trustful than other elements of evidence based on the statements of the witnesses, hence, the Court held that he has no right to inherit Rutsindura Alphonse. [32] The Court finds that the statements of the witnesses, the investigation report from Burundi and DNA test carried out twice in Germany are irrevocable evidence which were ignored by the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge whereas it is clear that Rutsindura Alexis know as Bigirimana Cédric changed his names with intention to get fraudlently the documents issued by public

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 96

Page 240

authorities that include birth certificate, the certificate in lieu of identity card and identity card Nº1185800190916087, all these documents demonstrate that he is named Rutsindura Alexis,whose parents are Rutsindura Alphonse and Dusabe Emma Marie, he was aiming to inherit their properties because they were killed during genocide perpetrated against Tustis in 1994. [33] The Court finds that the appeal of Bigirimana Cédric (who names himself Rutsindura Alexis) lodged in the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge could not have been found with merit, instead, the rulings of the judgment RP0075/10/TB/NYRGA of 06 May 2011 rendered by the Primary Court of Nyarugunga could have been sustained, which found Bigirimana Cédric (who names himself Rutsindura Alexis) guilty of the offence of counterfeit and sentenced him to two (2) years of imprisonment. d. Damages claimed by Gahenda Bienvenu [34] Counsel Mutembe Protais and his client Gahenda Bienvenu state that they don’t intend to claim damages from Bigirimana Cédric (who calls himself Rutsindura Alexis) at this instance, especially that he does not appear, the Court would impose him to give a symbolic sum of 100Frw for moral damages he caused. [35] The Court finds that Gahenda Bienvenu deserves moral damages of 100Frw he claims on this instance because Bigirimana Cédric (who calls himself Rutsindura Alexis) prejudiced him.

97 GAHENDA v. RUTSINDURA

Page 241

III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [36] Decides that the claim initiated by Gahenda Bienvenu for reviewing due to injustice the case RP0138/11/TGI/NYGE- RPA0260/11/TGI/NYGE rendered by the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge has merit. [37] Decides that the judgment RP0138/11/TGI/NYGE- RPA0260/11/TGI/NYGE rendered by the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge on 14/11/2013 is reversed in whole because some elements of evidence proving that Bigirimana Cédric (who calls himself Rutsindura Alexis) is guilty of the offence of counterfeit were disregarded. [38] Rules that the judgment RP0075/10/TB/NYRGA rendered on 06 May 2011 by the Primary Court of Nyarugunga, by which Bigirimana Cédric (who calls himself Rutsindura Alexis) appealed against it, is sustained. [39] Orders Bigirimana Cédric (who calls himself Rutsindura Alexis) to pay moral damages worth 100Frw at this instance. [40] Oders the court fees to be charged to the public treasury.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 98

Page 242

Printed by PROGRAPH LTD P.o. Box 1882 Kigali - Rwanda Tel : (+250) 788303889 E-mail:hakizae2007@yahoo.fr