NDAYISABA v RUTAGENGWA N’UNDI

NDAYISABA v RUTAGENGWA N’UNDI

The sale agreement was not opposable to Rutagengwa Matter Elisabeth because the power of attorney was not invoked or signed on her behalf in the sale contract. Therefore, transfer of ownership could not be ordered. However, since both respondents benefited from the funds paid by the applicant, they are jointly...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RCAA 00033/2020/CA
Parties
Applicant: Ndayisaba Jean Damascène; Respondent: Rutagengwa Georges; Respondent: Rutagengwa Matter Elisabeth
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
14 January 2022
Case Number
RCAA 00033/2020/CA
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
appeal partially allowed
Legal Topics
Land Ownership, Family Property Regime, Power of Attorney, Contract Validity, Restitution, Interest on Sums Paid
Source Language
rw
Property Law Family Law Civil Procedure Land Ownership Family Property Regime Power of Attorney Contract Validity Restitution +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ndayisaba Jean Damascène

Applicant

Rutagengwa Georges

Respondent

Rutagengwa Matter Elisabeth

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to transfer of ownership of the disputed house based on the sale agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to restitution of the purchase price and interest after denial of transfer.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents are jointly liable for the sums received.

Ratio Decidendi

The sale agreement was not opposable to Rutagengwa Matter Elisabeth because the power of attorney was not invoked or signed on her behalf in the sale contract. Therefore, transfer of ownership could not be ordered. However, since both respondents benefited from the funds paid by the applicant, they are jointly liable to refund the purchase price with interest at 18%, as restitution for unjust enrichment.

Court Disposition

appeal partially allowed

Orders

  • Applicant denied transfer of ownership of the disputed house.
  • Respondents jointly ordered to refund applicant 36,500,000 Frw plus interest of 19,710,000 Frw (18% over 1095 days).