MUSHINZIMANA v. RUTARINDWA

MUSHINZIMANA v. RUTARINDWA

The value of the subject matter for appellate jurisdiction must be that stated in the original claim or determined by the trial judge; the mortgage registration value introduced at the Supreme Court level cannot be used to establish jurisdiction.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RCAA 0026/12/CS
Parties
Applicant: Mushinzimana Emmanuel; Respondent: Rutarindwa Isaïe
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
21 February 2014
Case Number
RCAA 0026/12/CS
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Preliminary Objection on Jurisdiction
Outcome
preliminary objection upheld; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Appellate Jurisdiction, Valuation of Subject Matter, Mortgage Registration
Source Language
rw
Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Appellate Jurisdiction Valuation of Subject Matter Mortgage Registration

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

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

Parties

Mushinzimana Emmanuel

Applicant

Rutarindwa Isaïe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Preliminary Objection on Jurisdiction

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction based on the value of the subject matter as determined by mortgage registration versus original pleadings

Ratio Decidendi

The value of the subject matter for appellate jurisdiction must be that stated in the original claim or determined by the trial judge; the mortgage registration value introduced at the Supreme Court level cannot be used to establish jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection upheld; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Orders

  • Mushinzimana Emmanuel to pay court fees of 44,600 Frw within eight days, failing which the amount will be forcibly recovered by the State