MUTABAZI v. THE GOVERNMENT OF RWANDA/MINADEF ET AL.

# MUTABAZI v. THE GOVERNMENT OF RWANDA/MINADEF ET AL.

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Decisions (Judgements) - Date: 2024-11-24 - Case/document no.: RCOMAA 00009/2024/CA - Collection: Court of Appeal

## Text

## Page 1

MUTABAZI v. THE GOVERNMENT OF RWANDA/MINADEF ET AL. [Rwanda THE COURT OF APPEAL – RCOMAA 00009/2024/CA (Nyirandabaruta, P.J., Mukamurenzi and Ngagi, J.) November 29, 2024] Jurisdiction of courts – Jurisdiction on Appeal – Damages – Where a judgment under appeal awards different damages to different parties, the appellate court's jurisdiction is determined only in respect of the damages awarded by the previous court to the appellant. Facts: Rwanda Agriculture and Animal Resources Development Board (RAB) entered into a contract with MINADEF/Reserve Force for the rehabilitation of valley dams in Kayonza District. The Reserve Force appointed Rtd. Capt. Mutabazi Steven and Rtd. 2Lt. Muzirankoni Stella as Site Managers, tasked with monitoring and supervising the execution of the works. However, these employees were dismissed from their roles before the completion of the project, and their duties were assigned to another individual. Consequently, Mutabazi filed a lawsuit before the Commercial Court against the Government of Rwanda/MINADEF, alleging that the termination of the contract was unlawful. He sought compensation amounting to FRW 119,780,544, representing the outstanding payments, in addition to various other damages.

## Page 2

The Commercial Court rendered a judgment declaring that Mutabazi's claim was unfounded, on the grounds that he had been hired in the capacity of a Site Manager, and his dismissal was carried out in accordance with the law. Subsequently, individuals including Habimana Fidèle, Nyandekwe Georges, Mwesigye Emmanuel, Mukimbiri Eric, Maridadi Fred, and Nsabimana Paul filed a separate claim before the Commercial Court against Mutabazi seeking an order compelling him to repay debts he owed them, along with various forms of interest. In that case, the Government of Rwanda/MINADEF was brought in as a third-party intervener. The Court ruled that MINADEF was ultimately liable for the entire amount of the debt claimed by each of the claimants. Both cases were appealed before the Commercial High Court. Mutabazi claimed that the Commercial Court had disregarded crucial evidence, while the Government of Rwanda, on the other hand, appealed on grounds that it had no contractual agreement with Mutabazi and Muzirankoni, and that no sufficient evidence had been presented to substantiate the amounts claimed. The Government further sought compensation for the losses incurred as a result of the litigation. The Commercial High Court joined both cases and rendered a judgment in which it held that the Government of Rwanda’s appeal was partially founded. The Court found that the contracts entered into between the Government of Rwanda/MINADEF and Mutabazi Steven and Muzirankoni Stella had been lawfully terminated. However, it held that the Government of Rwanda/MINADEF still owed an outstanding amount of

## Page 3

FRW 31,791,476 to Mutabazi Steven and Muzirankoni Stella, which it must pay. The Court also ruled that the Government of Rwanda/MINADEF was not indebted to Habimana Fidèle, Nyandekwe George, Mwesigye Emmanuel, Mukimbiri Eric, Maridadi Fred, or Nsabimana Paul. Mutabazi appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the Court should not have ordered him to be jointly liable with Muzirankoni for payment, especially considering that he himself had not yet been paid by the Government. While the Government of Rwanda had not yet submitted a substantive response to the grounds of appeal, it raised a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal. The Government’s objection was based on the ground that the monetary value of the judgment under appeal did not meet the threshold of seventy-five million Rwandan Francs (FRW 75,000,000) required to trigger the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal. Specifically, it argued that the amount of FRW 31,791,476 awarded to Mutabazi could not be added to the FRW 51,778,100 he was ordered to pay to Habimana and others in order to determine jurisdiction. In response to this objection, Mutabazi contended that both sets of claims the compensation due to him from the government and the amounts he was ordered to pay to others should be considered, irrespective of the damages awarded to each litigant. He emphasized that the total value of the damages awarded exceeded FRW 75,000,000. Furthermore, he argued that the total value of his work exceeded FRW 75,000,000 and that this should

## Page 4

also be considered when determining the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal. Held: Where a judgment under appeal awards different damages to different parties, the appellate court's jurisdiction is determined only in respect of the damages awarded by the previous court to the appellant. The objection IS sustained. No statutes and statutory instruments were referred to. Cases referred to: Gicumbi District v WOORD GROUP Ltd RCOMAA 00035/2022/CA; rendered by the Court of Appeal on 13/06/2022. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

On 08/01/2021, Rwanda Agriculture and Animal Resources Development Board (RAB) entered into a contract with the Ministry of Defence/Reserve Force (MINADEF/Reserve Force) for the rehabilitation of damaged valley dams located in Kayonza District. To oversee and execute these works, on 21/01/2021, MINADEF/Reserve Force appointed Site Managers (SMs), including Rtd. Capt. Mutabazi Steven and Rtd.

## Page 5

2Lt. Muzirankoni Stella, assigning them to Buhabwa I site.

On 06/08/2021, both Mutabazi Steven and Muzirankoni Stella were relieved of their duties through a formal handover process, even though the contracted works had not yet been completed, and their responsibilities were reassigned to another individual who proceeded with the execution of the project. Following their dismissal, they submitted a grievance to the Reserve Force Command, outlining challenges encountered during their assignment, including salary arrears for workers and outstanding payments owed to suppliers.

Mutabazi Steven subsequently filed a lawsuit under reference RCOM 00117/2021/TC before the Commercial Court, bringing a claim against the Government of Rwanda/MINADEF, alleging that the termination of the contractual relationship was unlawful and that the work he had initiated had been improperly transferred to another person. He requested the Court to order payment of FRW 119,780,544, representing the outstanding balance based on the revised Bill of Quantities (BoQ), and sought reimbursement for work executed but excluded due to an error in the preparation of the BoQ, including additional works not accounted for. He also sought various heads of damages.

The State Attorney of the Republic of Rwanda submitted that Mutabazi Steven and Muzirankoni Stella were dismissed on the grounds that they had caused financial loss to the project for the rehabilitation of valley dams. It was further argued that, beyond the nature of their

## Page 6

assignment, there was no formal procurement contract between them and the Reserve Force, and therefore the termination of their collaboration complied with internal regulations governing Site Managers (SMs). In the counterclaim, the State Attorney asked the Court to order Mutabazi Steven to refund the amount of FRW 43,760,000 withdrawn from the project account without proper authorization, and to award damages, including procedural and counsel fees.

In the judgment RCOM 00117/2021/TC rendered on 06/04/2022, the Commercial Court held that Mutabazi Steven’s claim was unfounded, affirming that his dismissal from the position of Site Manager, and the reassignment of his responsibilities to Major Munyangabe Innocent, had been carried out in accordance with the law. The Court rejected Mutabazi’s claim for payment of outstanding balances and damages against the Government of Rwanda/MINADEF. It also ruled that Mutabazi Steven was not required to reimburse funds to the project account, but ordered him to pay FRW 500,000 to the Government of Rwanda/MINADEF as counsel fees.

In a related case, Habimana Fidèle, Nyandekwe Georges, Mwesigye Emmanuel, Mukimbiri Eric, Maridadi Fred, and Nsabimana Paul filed case RCOM 01475/2021/TC before the Commercial Court, suing Mutabazi Steven and Muzirankoni Stella, seeking a ruling confirming the debt owed to them, along with interest and various heads of damages. The Government of Rwanda/MINADEF was also requested to intervene as a

## Page 7

third party upon the request of Mutabazi Steven, who argued that the Government had failed to pay for the work performed, which in turn prevented him and Muzirankoni from paying the claimants.

The judgment was rendered on 14/04/2022, in which the Commercial Court held that the application to order the intervention of the Government of Rwanda/MINADEF/Reserve Force as a third party to the proceedings was well-founded, thus ruling that that the Government was liable for the debts claimed by each of the claimants, and ordered it to pay the following amounts: FRW 22,271,480 to Nyandekwe Georges, FRW 10,215,000 to Mwesigye Emmanuel, FRW 9,936,000 to Habimana Fidèle, FRW 3,560,000 to Mukimbiri Eric, FRW 4,661,620 to Maridadi Fred, and FRW 1,134,000 to Nsabimana Paul. Furthermore, the Court ordered MINADEF/Reserve Force to pay each of the claimants FRW 500,000 as moral damages, FRW 500,000 as counsel fees, and 100,000 FRW as procedural fees.

All aforementioned cases were appealed before the Commercial High Court. Mutabazi Steven appealed against the judgment RCOM 00117/2021/TC, rendered on 06/04/2022, arguing that the Commercial Court had disregarded the legal basis of his claim as well as the evidence he had submitted. The Government of Rwanda/MINADEF also appealed against the judgment RCOM 01475/2021/TC, rendered on 14/04/2022, requesting the Commercial High Court to determine whether it was justifiable to be ordered to pay and award damages to the aforementioned individuals despite the

## Page 8

absence of contractual relations or supporting evidence substantiating their claims. The Government concluded by seeking compensation for its expenses incurred as a result of the proceedings.

The Commercial High Court joined the two appeals under case numbers RCOMA 00320/2022/HCC&CMB RCOMA 00352/2022/HCC, and rendered judgment on 17/11/2023. After consideration, the Court found that both of Government of Rwanda/MINADEF appeal and that of Mutabazi Steven had merit in part. It held that the termination of the contractual relations between the Government of Rwanda/MINADEF and Mutabazi Steven and Muzirankoni Stella was lawful, but also found that the Government had failed to pay FRW 31,791,476 due to Mutabazi Steven and Muzirankoni Stella, and ordered the Government to settle that amount. The Court further held that the Government of Rwanda/MINADEF was not indebted to Habimana Fidèle, Nyandekwe Georges, Mwesigye Emmanuel, Mukimbiri Eric, Maridadi Fred, and Nsabimana Paul.

The Commercial High Court further ruled that the total debt of FRW 51,778,100 claimed by Habimana Fidèle, Nyandekwe George, Mwesigye Emmanuel, Mukimbiri Eric, Maridadi Fred, and Nsabimana Paul must be paid jointly by Mutabazi Steven and Muzirankoni Stella. The Court further determined that the sum of FRW 31,791,476, owed to Mutabazi Steven and Muzirankoni Stella by the Government of Rwanda, shall be used to pay part of the debt owed to the claimants, with the

## Page 9

distribution as follows: FRW 6,100,650 to Habimana Fidèle, 13,674,569 FRW to Nyandekwe George, FRW 6,271,955 to Mwesigye Emmanuel, FRW 2,185,821 to Mukimbiri Eric, FRW 2,862,210 to Maridadi Fred, FRW 696,270 to Nsabimana Paul.

The Court held that the remaining balance of the debt owed to each claimant shall be paid jointly by Mutabazi Steven and Muzirankoni Stella, as follows: FRW 3,835,350 to Habimana Fidèle, FRW 8,596,911 to Nyandekwe George, FRW 3,943,045 to Mwesigye Emmanuel, FRW 1,374,179 to Mukimbiri Eric, FRW 1,799,410 to Maridadi Fred, FRW 437,730 to Nsabimana Paul.

The Court also ordered Mutabazi Steven and Muzirankoni Stella to jointly pay the claimants — Habimana Fidèle, Nyandekwe George, Mwesigye Emmanuel, Mukimbiri Eric, Maridadi Fred, and Nsabimana Paul — an amount of FRW 1,500,000 as counsel fees, and FRW 600,000 as procedural fees, equivalent to FRW 100,000 for each claimant.

Mutabazi Steven appealed this ruling to the Court of Appeal, and the appeal was registered under RCOMAA 00009/2024/CA, alleging that the Commercial High Court rendered an unfair decision by ordering him to jointly pay Nyandekwe Georges and others together with Muzirankoni Stella, despite the fact that he himself had not yet been paid by the Government of Rwanda (MINADEF) which had assigned him the work. He contended that the work performed was based on a revised Bill of Quantities (BoQ) which had increased to FRW

## Page 10

248,164,544, and that the Court erred in approving a deduction of 20% from that value. He argued that the Court should not have concluded that he caused losses to the project based on an inaccurate valuation of the works, and that it failed to consider that additional works not listed in the BoQ had been duly communicated to MINADEF/Reserve Force. He further challenged the Court's reliance on an internal regulations document as evidence, asserting that it did not reflect the factual context of the case, and faulted the Court for not awarding him moral damages of 10,000,000 FRW he had claimed. He concluded by seeking compensation of FRW 2,500,000 for the costs incurred due to the case.

The case was heard in public on 20/11/2024 with Mutabazi Steven being represented by Counsel Mugabo Sharif Yusuf; the Government of Rwanda/MINADEF represented by Counsel Kayitesi Pétronille and Counsel Ntwari Emile; Muzirankoni Stella represented by Counsel Pascasie Madamu; Habimana Fidèle, Mukimbiri Eric, Maridadi Fred, and Nsabimana Paul represented by Counsel SADI Jashi, who also represented Mwesigye Emmanuel and Kanyandekwe Georges.

Prior to submitting to Mutabazi Steven’s grounds of appeal, the Government of Rwanda/MINADEF raised a preliminary objection challenging the admissibility of the appeal on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, arguing that the compensation awarded in the judgment under appeal did not reach the threshold of FRW 75,000,000, as required under Article 52, paragraph 2, subparagraph 8º of Law Nº 30/2018 of

## Page 11

02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, and the Court decided that this provision must be considered prior to examining the merits of the case.

II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES IN THIS CASE 1. Whether the appeal lodged by Mutabazi Steven does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal

The State Attorneys of the Republic of Rwanda raised a jurisdictional objection, arguing that Mutabazi Steven’s appeal should be declared inadmissible on the ground that it falls outside the jurisdiction of this Court, since the compensation awarded in the judgment under appeal does not reach seventy-five million Rwandan francs (FRW 75,000,000), and Mutabazi Steven himself had indicated as much in the appeal form he submitted. They explain that the Commercial High Court ruled that the amount the Government of Rwanda/MINADEF still owed to Mutabazi Steven and Muzirankoni Stella is FRW 31,791,476, which is the basis of Mutabazi Steven’s appeal. They further argue that the compensation Mutabazi Steven was ordered to pay Habimana Fidèle, Nyandekwe Georges, Mwesigye Emmanuel, Mukimbiri Eric, Maridadi Fred and Nsabimana Paul, amounting to FRW 51,778,100, should not be added for purposes of determining this Court’s jurisdiction, because he did not appeal against that portion of the decision. Moreover, they

## Page 12

note that even if one were to combine the total compensation awarded to Mutabazi Steven and Muzirankoni Stella with the amount they were ordered to pay, the sum would still be FRW 51,778,100, comprised of FRW 31,791,476 due from the Government of Rwanda/MINADEF to Mutabazi Steven and Muzirankoni Stella, and FRW 19,986,624 allocated to the aforementioned suppliers, as explained in paragraph 123 of the appealed judgment.

They concluded by arguing that, based on Article 52, paragraph 2, subparagraph 8 of Law no30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts1, and in reference to judgment RCOMA 00035/2022/CA rendered on 13/06/2022, Gicumbi District v WOORD GROUP Ltd, particularly in its paragraph 15, where it was ruled that only the compensation awarded in the judgment should be considered in determining the jurisdiction of the appellate Court. Therefore, they argue that Mutabazi Steven’s appeal should be declared inadmissible, as it does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Court.

The representative of Mutabazi Steven argues that, based on Article 62 of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018

1 This article reads that: “…if such cases have ordered the award of damages of at least seventy-five million Rwandan francs (FRW 75,000,000) or in case of disagreement between the parties, the same amount is ordered by the judge; 2 This article stipulates that: “The subject-matter of the claim is determined by parties’ respective arguments. Arguments are laid down in the document instituting proceedings and in the defence submissions and are definitely confirmed during the pretrial conference, where applicable. No party may modify the subject-

## Page 13

relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, which provides for the handling of cases involving multiple parties where each has distinct claims or is subject to different claims, the arguments presented by the Government of Rwanda should not be upheld. He stated that the Commercial High Court ruled that the Government of Rwanda/MINADEF must pay FRW 31,791,476 to Mutabazi Steven, and on the other hand, also ruled that Mutabazi Steven must pay FRW 51,778,100 to Habimana Fidèle, Nyandekwe Georges, Mwesigye Emmanuel, Mukimbiri Eric, Maridadi Fred and Nsabimana Paul, which means that the total value of the compensation, without considering the individual allocation per party, exceeds FRW 75,000,000. He further argues that Mutabazi Steven demonstrated that the work performed has a value of FRW 248,164,544, and that the Commercial High Court, in paragraphs 45 and 48 of the appealed judgment, acknowledged the value of the work performed to be FRW 168,751,890. He maintains that this value, as determined by the Court, should be used to assess the jurisdiction of this Court, in line with the direction established in case RCOMA 00035/2022/CA, which the Government of Rwanda/MINADEF relies upon, where paragraph 15 clarifies that the value determined by the Court, not the one submitted by the party, is the relevant figure for jurisdictional purposes.

matter in the course of the proceedings unless such modification is agreed upon by all parties to the case. The subject-matter cannot be changed before the appellate court. However, the subject matter may be changed by incidental claims if these are sufficiently linked to the original arguments of parties.

## Page 14

The representative of Muzirankoni Stella submits that, in determining the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, it must be considered the aggregate total of all compensation awarded in the appealed judgment, without considering the compensation allocated to each individual separately, as provided under Article 6 of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure. She stated that the total compensation exceeds FRW 75,000,000.

The representative of Habimana Fidèle, Nyandekwe Georges, Mwesigye Emmanuel, Mukimbiri Eric, Maridadi Fred and Nsabimana Paul submits that only the disputed compensation that prompted Mutabazi Steven to appeal should be considered, and then apply the provision of Article 52 of Law no 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The dispute in this matter centers on determining the appropriate basis for assessing the admissibility of a second-level appeal—specifically, whether it should be based on the amount of damages awarded by the court or on the value of the underlying contractual agreement used to calculate those damages. Additionally, it concerns whether, in cases where the appealed judgment grants multiple types of damages, the assessment should consider the total sum of all damages awarded or only a portion thereof.

## Page 15

The issue of determining the basis for establishing the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal at the second level of appeal was addressed in judgment no RCOMAA 00035/2022/CA, rendered by this Court on 13/06/2022, Gicumbi District v WOORD GROUP Ltd. Although the case specifically examined whether to rely on the damages awarded by the court or those claimed by the claimants, in paragraph 15 of this judgment, the Court clarified that Article 52, paragraph 2, subparagraph 8, of Law no 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, provides that when damages are awarded by the court, it is those damages that should be used as the basis for determining jurisdiction. In cases where it is necessary to refer to the value of the claim, that value must be the one determined by the court following arguments presented by both parties. If no value has been determined by the court, then the valuation provided by an expert may be used when necessary. In other words, for the purposes of admissibility of a second-level appeal, the Legislator did not intend for jurisdiction to be based on a value unilaterally claimed by a party; instead, it must be based on the damages actually awarded by the court. This principle has also been consistently reaffirmed in various judgments rendered by this Court3.

In the same judgment, under paragraph 16, the Court affirmed that when damages have been awarded in the judgment under appeal, it is those awarded damages that must serve as the basis for assessing the jurisdiction

3 Judgment NºRCOMAA 00075/2022/CA rendered on 28/06/2024, BANK OF KIGALI Plc v MUTARA ENTERPRISES Ltd paragraph 16, among other various judgments rendered by the Court of Appeal.

## Page 16

of the Court of Appeal at the second level of appeal. The Court further indicated that this is the consistent position adopted by the Court of Appeal and cited various other cases in which this position has been applied4.

In the present judgment under appeal, from paragraph 45 to 48, the Commercial High Court found that the total revised contract value was FRW168,750,890. In its ruling, the court confirmed that the Government of Rwanda/MINADEF owed Mutabazi Steven and Muzirankoni Stella the amount of FRW31,791,476 and ordered the Government to pay that amount. It also ordered Mutabazi Steven jointly with Muzirankoni Stella to pay Habimana Fidèle, Nyandekwe George, Mwesigye Emmanuel, Mukimbiri Eric, Maridadi Fred, and Nsabimana Paul a debt amounting to FRW51,778,100.

This Court finds that, following the arguments presented by the parties, the Commercial High Court determined that the Government of Rwanda/MINADEF must pay Mutabazi Steven and Muzirankoni Stella the sum of FRW31,791,476, and it is this amount that must be used to assess whether the appeal falls within the

4 Judgment no RCOMAA 00013/2021/CA, HABYARIMANA Charles v MTN RWANDACELL Ltd et al in its paragraph 39 ; judgment nº RSOCAA 0004/2018/CA rendered on 09/11/2018, Georges NIHAL BOPEARATCHY v KARONGI TEA FACTORY Ltd, and judgment RCOMAA 00004/2020/CA rendered on 11/12/2020, MABUYE Joseph, NZIZERA Alexandre, PAJ REAL ESTATE Ltd and WAREHOUSE v SHANE Martin Dale and MUGIRANEZA Pascal.

## Page 17

jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, in accordance with Article 52, paragraph 2, subparagraph 8 of Law no 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 referred to above.

Based on the position reiterated above—namely that when damages are awarded in the judgment under appeal, those awarded damages serve as the basis for determining the jurisdiction of the appellate court—this Court finds that the assessment of its jurisdiction to hear the appeal filed by Mutabazi Steven must be based on the damages awarded in the judgment being appealed. Consequently, the claim by Mutabazi Steven and his Counsel that the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal should be assessed based on the entire contract value confirmed by the Commercial High Court, which amounts to FRW 168,751,890, is without merit, since when damages are awarded in the judgment under appeal, it is those specific damages—not the total contract value—that must be considered when determining the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.

The Court further finds that the argument presented by Mutabazi Steven and Muzirankoni Stella— that jurisdiction should be based on the sum of the amount the Government was ordered to pay to Mutabazi Steven and the amount he was ordered to pay to his creditors (suppliers), i.e. (FRW 31,791,476 + FRW 51,778,100) = FRW 83,569,576 —also lacks legal basis on grounds that the damages relevant for assessing the jurisdiction of this Court are only those appealed, meaning those which the appellant contests. It follows that not all damages awarded in the judgment under appeal are relevant, but only those

## Page 18

that are challenged by the appellant. Therefore, in this case, the applicable amount for assessing jurisdiction is the FRW 31,791,476 that the Government of Rwanda/MINADEF was ordered to pay to Mutabazi Steven and Muzirankoni Stella—since these are the damages contested by Mutabazi Steven in his appeal. As it stands, those damages do not reach the statutory threshold of seventy-five million (FRW 75,000,000) required by law.

The Court finds that the argument advanced by Mutabazi Steven and his Counsel, as well as by the Counsel representing Muzirankoni Stella—namely that the Court's jurisdiction should be determined based on the total of the damages awarded to them and the amount they were ordered to pay to the suppliers of project materials, relying on Article 6 of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure—cannot be upheld. Not only has it already been established that it is the awarded damages which form the basis for determining the jurisdiction of the Court, but also the aforementioned article cannot apply in this case, given that only the damages awarded to Mutabazi Steven and Muzirankoni Stella were appealed, while the damages they were ordered to pay were not subject to appeal.

Based on the above analysis, the Court of Appeal finds that the appeal lodged by Mutabazi Steven is inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction of this Court. This is because the damages awarded to him and challenged in the appeal do not reach the statutory threshold of seventy-

## Page 19

five million Rwandan Francs (FRW 75,000,000) as required under Article 52, paragraph 2, subparagraph 8 of Law no 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts. 2. Whether procedural and counsel fees requested in this case should be awarded

The legal representative of Habimana Fidèle, Nyandekwe George, Mwesigye Emmanuel, Mukimbiri Eric, and Maridadi Fred argues that his clients were unnecessarily dragged into these lawsuits, as they would not have needed to hire a legal counsel had the judgments ordering their compensation been properly executed by the losing party. He therefore requests the Court of Appeal to order Mutabazi Steven to pay each of them FRW 1,000,000 as counsel fees and FRW 300,000 as procedural fees at the appellate level.

The legal representative of Muzirankoni Stella requests the Court to order Mutabazi Steven to pay her FRW 1,500,000 in damages and FRW 3,000,000 as counsel fees.

The representative of Mutabazi Steven requests that the Government of Rwanda/MINADEF be ordered to pay him FRW 2,500,000 as compensation for expenses incurred during the litigation. He argues that the case- related costs claimed by the suppliers should be borne by the defendant in this case, and that the claim made by Muzirankoni Stella is unfounded, as she herself admitted that she had been ill and did not perform her

## Page 20

responsibilities. Therefore, she should seek such damages from the defendant who involved her in this lawsuit.

The State Attorneys of the Republic of Rwanda argue that the claims brought by Mutabazi Steven are baseless and that he should not be entitled to any compensation from the Government of Rwanda/MINADEF, as it did not cause him any harm. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 111 of Law n° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure stipulates as follows: “The claim for representation fees is an incidental claim to the principal claim aiming to repay expenses incurred during judicial proceedings. The claim for legal costs is adjudicated at the same time with the principal claim. It can also be admitted and adjudicated even if the principal claim has not been admitted”.

The Court finds that, since Muzirankoni Stella, Habimana Fidèle, Nyandekwe George, Mwesigye Emmanuel, Mukimbiri Eric, and Maridadi Fred actively participated in the proceedings and hired legal counsel to represent them, the amounts they are claiming are justified. However, considering that the case was dismissed on the basis of this Court’s lack of jurisdiction, the Court, in its discretion, awards Muzirankoni Stella five hundred thousand Rwandan Francs (FRW 500,000) as counsel fees and two hundred thousand Rwandan

## Page 21

Francs (FRW 200,000) as procedural fees at this level. Habimana Fidèle, Nyandekwe George, Mwesigye Emmanuel, Mukimbiri Eric, and Maridadi Fred are jointly awarded five hundred thousand Rwandan Francs (FRW 500,000) as counsel fees and two hundred thousand Rwandan Francs (200,000 Frw) as procedural costs, all to be paid by Mutabazi Steven. The Court further finds that the FRW 2,500,000 claimed by Mutabazi Steven from the Government of Rwanda/MINADEF as expenses incurred in the litigation are not to be granted, given that his appeal was not admitted. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the objection of lack of jurisdiction raised by the Government of Rwanda/MINADEF is well- founded;

Holds that the appeal filed by Mutabazi Steven is inadmissible as it falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal;

Orders Mutabazi Steven to pay Muzirankoni Stella five hundred thousand Rwandan Francs (FRW 500,000) as counsel fees and two hundred thousand Rwandan Francs (200,000 Frw) as procedural costs at this instance;

Orders Mutabazi Steven to pay Habimana Fidèle, Nyandekwe George, Mwesigye Emmanuel, Mukimbiri Eric, and Maridadi Fred jointly the sum of five hundred thousand Rwandan Francs (FRW 500,000) as attorney’s

## Page 22

fees and two hundred thousand Rwandan Francs (FRW 200,000) as procedural costs at this instance;

Declares that the deposited court fees cover expenses incurred in this case.