MUREKATETE v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHÔRO ( RRA)

MUREKATETE v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHÔRO ( RRA)

The Supreme Court held that directors and shareholders cannot be held personally liable for company tax debts, nor can their personal property be provisionally attached, unless a competent court has first established their liability. The attachment of Murekatete’s property was unlawful as no such finding existed....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RLR V.2-2019
Parties
Applicant: Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde; Respondent: Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro (RRA)
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
12 January 2018
Case Number
RCOMAA0038/2016/CS - RCOMAA0043/16/CS
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial/tax) Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal by Murekatete allowed; cross-appeal by RRA dismissed; lower court decision reversed.
Legal Topics
Director and Shareholder Liability, Lifting the Corporate Veil, Tax Recovery, Provisional Measures, Procedural Admissibility
Source Language
rw
Company Law Tax Law Civil Procedure Director and Shareholder Liability Lifting the Corporate Veil Tax Recovery Provisional Measures Procedural Admissibility

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Murekatete Clémentine Vervelde

Applicant

Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro (RRA)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial/tax) Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether directors or shareholders can be held personally liable for company tax debts without a court decision
  2. 2 Whether provisional attachment of shareholder property for company tax debts is lawful absent a court finding of liability
  3. 3 Whether the counterclaim by RRA for tax recovery against the shareholder is admissible

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that directors and shareholders cannot be held personally liable for company tax debts, nor can their personal property be provisionally attached, unless a competent court has first established their liability. The attachment of Murekatete’s property was unlawful as no such finding existed. The RRA’s counterclaim for tax recovery against her was inadmissible as it was a separate substantive claim, not a procedural defense or related counterclaim under the law.

Court Disposition

Appeal by Murekatete allowed; cross-appeal by RRA dismissed; lower court decision reversed.

Orders

  • Provisional attachment of Murekatete’s property is lifted.
  • RRA’s counterclaim against Murekatete for company tax debt is inadmissible and not to be heard.