MUREMANYUNDO v NYIRIMIHIGO

MUREMANYUNDO v NYIRIMIHIGO

The Supreme Court held that both Law No. 22/99 (1999) and Organic Law No. 8/2005 (2005) applied. However, under Article 22 of Law No. 22/99, the right to challenge a sale of matrimonial property lapses after 5 years. Since Muremanyundo Jeanne filed her claim more than 14 years after the 2006 sale, her right to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RS/INJUST/RC 00031/2024/SC
Parties
Applicant: Muremanyundo Jeanne; Respondent: Nyirimihigo Jean Marie Vianney; Respondent: Karera Nyirimihigo Yvonne; Interested Party: Gatabazi Turikunkiko Célestin; Interested Party: Mukagasana Consolée
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
29 March 2026
Case Number
RS/INJUST/RC 00031/2024/SC
Procedural Posture
Civil (family/property) / Supreme Court Review (revision for Injustice)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; prior judgments affirmed; sale agreement upheld.
Legal Topics
Matrimonial Property, Land Sale, Limitation Period, Good Faith Purchaser, Revision for Injustice
Source Language
rw
Family Law Property Law Matrimonial Property Land Sale Limitation Period Good Faith Purchaser Revision for Injustice

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muremanyundo Jeanne

Applicant

Nyirimihigo Jean Marie Vianney

Respondent

Karera Nyirimihigo Yvonne

Respondent

Gatabazi Turikunkiko Célestin

Interested Party

Mukagasana Consolée

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Civil (family/property) / Supreme Court Review (revision for Injustice)

  1. 1 Whether the 2006 sale agreement of matrimonial land is valid without spousal consent
  2. 2 Whether the claim was filed within the statutory limitation period

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that both Law No. 22/99 (1999) and Organic Law No. 8/2005 (2005) applied. However, under Article 22 of Law No. 22/99, the right to challenge a sale of matrimonial property lapses after 5 years. Since Muremanyundo Jeanne filed her claim more than 14 years after the 2006 sale, her right to contest had expired, making the sale agreement irrevocable and valid.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; prior judgments affirmed; sale agreement upheld.

Orders

  • The application for revision for injustice is dismissed as unfounded.
  • The Supreme Court affirms the High Court judgment of 31/10/2022 in full.