NKAKA MAIZE MILLS Ltd v. UNGUKA BANK Plc N’ UNDI

NKAKA MAIZE MILLS Ltd v. UNGUKA BANK Plc N’ UNDI

The Court of Appeal found that both lower courts dismissed NKAKA MAIZE MILLS Ltd's claims on the same grounds—failure to provide evidence that the respondents took the machines or that the machines were present during the auction—thus, under Article 52 of Law No 30/2018, the second appeal was inadmissible. The court...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RCOMAA 00081/2022/CA
Parties
Applicant: NKAKA MAIZE MILLS Ltd; Respondent: UNGUKA BANK Plc; Respondent: Isabwe Alain Thierry Robert
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
20 January 2023
Case Number
RCOMAA 00081/2022/CA
Procedural Posture
Commercial Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed as inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction; costs awarded to respondent.
Legal Topics
Appeals, Burden of Proof, Judicial Jurisdiction, Execution of Judgments, Compensation of Legal Costs
Source Language
rw
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Appeals Burden of Proof Judicial Jurisdiction Execution of Judgments Compensation of Legal Costs

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NKAKA MAIZE MILLS Ltd

Applicant

UNGUKA BANK Plc

Respondent

Isabwe Alain Thierry Robert

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

  1. 1 Whether NKAKA MAIZE MILLS Ltd was defeated in both lower courts on the same grounds, thus barring a second appeal under Article 52 of Law No 30/2018;
  2. 2 Whether the claim for legal costs and attorney fees by the respondents is justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found that both lower courts dismissed NKAKA MAIZE MILLS Ltd's claims on the same grounds—failure to provide evidence that the respondents took the machines or that the machines were present during the auction—thus, under Article 52 of Law No 30/2018, the second appeal was inadmissible. The court also found that UNGUKA BANK Plc was entitled to partial legal costs and attorney fees, but not Isabwe Alain Thierry Robert, who did not participate in the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed as inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction; costs awarded to respondent.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection of lack of jurisdiction raised by UNGUKA BANK Plc is upheld.
  • The appeal by NKAKA MAIZE MILLS Ltd is dismissed as inadmissible.