FINA BANK v. KAYIRANGWA

FINA BANK v. KAYIRANGWA

KAYIRANGWA was notified of the judgment by public notice published in a newspaper. She became aware of the judgment at least by 04/09/2011, as evidenced by her counsel's letter, but filed her opposition on 02/10/2011, after the 15-day legal period had expired. Therefore, her application for opposition was inadmissible and her appeal was baseless.

Citation
RCOMA 0067/12/SC
Parties
Appellant/respondent: FINA BANK (now Guaranty Trust Bank Ltd); Respondent/appellant: KAYIRANGWA Colette; Interveners: Children of KAYIRANGWA Colette; Defendant (commercial High Court Proceedings): NKURUNZIZA Daniel
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
11 April 2014
Case Number
RCOMA 0067/12/SC
Procedural Posture
Commercial Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Opposition to Judgment, Notification of Judgment, Time Limits for Opposition, Default Judgment, Appeal Procedure
Source Language
en, rw
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Opposition to Judgment Notification of Judgment Time Limits for Opposition Default Judgment Appeal Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FINA BANK (now Guaranty Trust Bank Ltd)

Appellant/respondent

KAYIRANGWA Colette

Respondent/appellant

Children of KAYIRANGWA Colette

Interveners

NKURUNZIZA Daniel

Defendant (commercial High Court Proceedings)

Procedural Posture

Commercial Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether KAYIRANGWA Colette's application for opposition of the judgment was lodged within the legal period under article 158 of Law no 18/2004
  2. 2 Whether the date of purchase of the judgment copy constitutes notification for purposes of opposition period
  3. 3 Whether the cross appeal by Guaranty Trust Bank Ltd for advocate's fees is merited

Ratio Decidendi

KAYIRANGWA was notified of the judgment by public notice published in a newspaper. She became aware of the judgment at least by 04/09/2011, as evidenced by her counsel's letter, but filed her opposition on 02/10/2011, after the 15-day legal period had expired. Therefore, her application for opposition was inadmissible and her appeal was baseless.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross appeal allowed.

Orders

  • KAYIRANGWA Colette's appeal is dismissed as baseless.
  • Cross appeal by Guaranty Trust Bank Ltd is allowed.