PROSECUTION v RENZAHO ET AL.

# PROSECUTION v RENZAHO ET AL.

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Decisions (Judgements) - Date: 2023-04-26 - Case/document no.: RPAA 00322-00323/2022/CA - Collection: Court of Appeal

## Text

## Page 1

PROSECUTION v RENZAHO ET AL. [Rwanda COURT OF APPEAL – RPAA 00322-00323/2022/CA (Gakwaya P.J.) April 26, 2023] Laws determining the jurisdiction of courts – Second appeal – Jurisdiction to hear cases on a second appeal based on a non-existent law – The phrase “a non-existing law” must be understood to refer to a repealed law, a law that has not yet come into effect, or a law that never existed. Laws determining the jurisdiction of courts – Second appeal – Non-compliance with legal provisions does not justify the admission and hearing on merits of a second appeal, nor does it constitute reliance on a non-existing law; rather, such errors can be addressed through other legal remedies provided by the law. Facts: At the first instance, the case was heard by the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge. The Prosecution charged the accused with multiple crimes, including forgery and use of forged documents, fraud, concealment of evidence, and selling or pledging as security the property of another person. These charges arose after a company, Haipu Resources Ltd, extended a loan of USD 600,000 to FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd, which in turn pledged its shares and equipment as collateral. The Prosecution alleged that FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd subsequently sought another loan from a bank, again pledging the same equipment previously pledged to Haipu Resources Ltd. Additionally, the Prosecution claimed that, in an attempt to divert funds from FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd to bankrupt Haipu Resources Ltd, the accused forged a contract falsely stating that FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd had purchased three mining excavators from Paragone Mining Industry Investment Co Ltd, though this transaction never occurred. Except for Mukamusoni, the remaining accused were found guilty and sentenced by the Intermediate Court. Renzaho and Paragone Mining Industry Investment Co Ltd appealed to the High Court, which ultimately acquitted them of all charges. The Prosecution and FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd were dissatisfied with the judgment and appealed to the Court of Appeal. Renzaho Alexis and Paragone Mining Industry Investment Co Ltd objected to the admissibility of the second appeal lodged by the Prosecution and FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd, arguing that, in criminal cases, the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal is determined solely by the term of the sentence imposed. They contended that the Court of Appeal only hears second-instance cases where a sentence of imprisonment of at least fifteen (15) years has been imposed. The Prosecution responded to the objections, arguing that its appeal is based on Article 52, paragraph 2, subparagraph 3 of Law No. 30/2018 of 2/6/2018. It contended that the High Court relied on a non-existent law when it quashed the judgment of the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge and declared not guilty individuals who had not been tried by the previous court. FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd also responded to the objections, stating that its appeal was based on Article 52, paragraph 2, subparagraph 3 of Law No. 30/2018 of 2/6/2018, which pertains to cases based on a non-existent law, and argued that the High Court exceeded the scope of the appeal. Held: 1. The phrase “a non-existent law” must be understood to refer to a repealed law, a law that has not yet come into effect, or a law that never existed.

## Page 2

2. Non-compliance with legal provisions does not justify the admission and hearing of a second appeal on its merits, nor does it constitute reliance on a non-existent law; rather, such errors can be addressed through other legal remedies provided by the law. The objection sustained Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law No. 027/2019 of 19/9/2019 relating to criminal procedure, Article 188, paragraph one; Law No. 30/2018 of 2/6/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, Article 52, paragraph two (2), subparagraph three (3°); Law No. 22/2018 of 29/4/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, Articles 10 and 155. Cases referred to: RPAA 0021/2016/CS-RPAA 0002/2016/CS, Muhirwa et al. v Nzeyimana, rendered by the the Supreme Court on 12/5/2017. RCOMAA 00109/2022/CA, UJM CONSULTANCY AND PARTNERS Ltd v KABIRIGI rendered by Court of Appeal on 23/3/2023 Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

This case began at the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge, where the Prosecution charged Jiang Haifeng, Jiang Haisheng, Renzaho Alexis, Mukamusoni Berthe, and Paragone Mining Industry Investment Co Ltd, represented by Gao-Li, with the crimes of forgery and use of forged documents, fraud, concealment of evidence, and selling or pledging as security property belonging to another person. The Prosecution alleged that on 3/1/2019, while in China, Fuxin Mine Development Company Ltd and FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd, operating in Kayenzi in the Southern Province and represented by Jiang Haisheng, entered into a loan agreement with a Hong Kong-based company, Haipu Resources Ltd, owned by Chen Yanhong and represented by Wu Wujue. Under this agreement, Haipu provided FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd with a loan of USD 600,000. FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd pledged as security 80% of its shares and agreed to transfer all equipment ownership to Chen Yanhong. Additionally, Haipu Resources Ltd purchased the remaining 20% of FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd's shares for 116,000,000 Frw, making Chen Yanhong the sole owner of all shares, with the stipulation that management of FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd would remain with the previous management (collateral/pledge).

The Prosecution further alleges that, upon their arrival in Rwanda on 22/3/2019, FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd applied for a loan from Bank of Africa amounting to 220,000,000 Frw, again pledging the equipment that had already been pledged to Haipu Resources Ltd. Additionally, on 30/1/2019, Renzaho Alexis, the Operations Manager and Translator at FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd, along with Jiang Haisheng (Chairperson), Mukamusoni Berthe (Managing Director), and in collaboration with Jiang Haifeng, a representative of Paragone Mining

## Page 3

Industry Investment Co Ltd, allegedly forged a contract in Kinyarwanda. This contract, which involved Renzaho Alexis, falsely stated that FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd had purchased three mining excavators from Paragone Mining Industry Investment Co Ltd for two hundred forty- three thousand three hundred United States dollars (USD 243,300). However, these excavators did not exist, as Paragone Mining Industry Investment Co Ltd had already pledged them to the bank. This scheme, purportedly designed to help Jiang Haisheng extort money from Haipu Resources Ltd, aimed to drain FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd's funds to financially harm Haipu Resources Ltd and Chen Yanhong, a shareholder in FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd, under the pretense that the money would finance company operations.

The Prosecution further states that, on 2/7/2019, to better structure their plan, Jiang Haisheng and his brother Jiang Haifeng forged a cancellation of the contract for the purchase of the excavators, which they both signed. When this forgery was discovered and an investigation began, the two fled with the assistance of Renzaho Alexis. Renzaho allegedly helped them conceal the original forged contract dated 30/1/2019, as he only presented a photocopy of it after their departure. This copy was sent to the Rwanda Forensic Laboratory, which reported that it could not analyze the contract because it was a scanned copy and that it could only test original documents.

In this case, FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd, represented by Counsel Nzirabatinyi Fidèle, filed a civil claim for damages, requesting the Court to order to Jiang Haisheng, Jiang Haifeng, Renzaho Alexis, and Paragone Mining Industry Investment Co Ltd to return the sum of two hundred forty-three thousand three hundred U.S. dollars (243,300 USD), which they allegedly withdrew fraudulently for the purchase of vehicles. They also seek interest at 18% for a period of one year and nine months, amounting to 76,639 USD ; moral damages of 20,000,000 Frw; as well as counsel, procedural, and court fees totaling 5,000,000 Frw.

Renzaho Alexis pleaded not guilty to all charges, explaining that the contract dated 30/1/2019 was made between FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd and Paragone Mining Industry Investment Co Ltd and was submitted to him on 1/6/2019 for scanning and sending to Chen Xi, representing Chen Yanhong. He clarified that only the Chairperson, Managing Director, or an authorized representative could sign on behalf of the Company, emphasizing that he was not authorized to do so.

Mukamusoni Berthe pleaded not guilty to the charge of forgery, stating that the alleged contract in question was concluded while she was not at work. She explained that it is her colleague, Renzaho Alexis, who had informed her that their employer was planning to buy excavators, but she had no prior knowledge of this purchase and had no involvement with the company's finances.

Jiang Haisheng, Jiang Haifeng, and Paragone Mining Industry Co Ltd, represented by Gao- Li, did not enter a plea as they were tried in absentia. They were summoned during the investigation but failed to appear, and their case file was prepared without their interrogation, subsequently submitted to the Court as fugitives. They were also summoned via electronic mail (email) to their respective addresses but did not respond. Given that they are co-accused with others in this case, their fugitive status does not justify delaying the prosecution of their co-accused. Accordingly, a decision was made to proceed with the trial in accordance with Article 167 of Law No. 027/2019 of 19/9/2019 relating to criminal procedure, which reads that the prosecution of the

## Page 4

accused fugitive does not in any way whatsoever stay or delay the prosecution of his or her co- accused who are identified.

In judgment No. RP 01142/2020/TGI/NYGE, rendered by the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge on 30/3/2021, the Court ruled that Mukamusoni Berthe was not guilty of the crimes charged. However, Jiang Haisheng, Jiang Haifeng, Renzaho Alexis, and Paragone Mining Industry Investment Co Ltd were found guilty of forging, falsifying, or using forged documents. Additionally, Jiang Haisheng and Renzaho Alexis were found guilty of concealing evidence and selling or pledging as security property belonging to another person. The Court held that the crimes committed by Jiang Haisheng and Renzaho Alexis constituted an ideal concurrence. Consequently, Jiang Haisheng, Jiang Haifeng, and Renzaho Alexis were each sentenced to seven (7) years of imprisonment and fined five million francs (5,000,000 Frw).

The Court ordered that Renzaho Alexis should be arrested and detained immediately upon the pronouncement of the judgment and ordered to Paragone Mining Industry Investment Co Ltd to pay a fine of five million francs (5,000,000 Frw). It further ordered that the assets of Jiang Haisheng, Jiang Haifeng, and Paragone Mining Industry Investment Co Ltd should be seized for the payment of the ordered amount, should the judgment become final. Jiang Haisheng, Jiang Haifeng, Renzaho Alexis, and Paragone Mining Industry Investment Co Ltd were jointly (in solidum) ordered to refund FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd two hundred and forty-three thousand three hundred U.S. dollars (243,300 USD). Additionally, they were ordered to jointly pay to FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd twenty million francs (20,000,000 Frw) as moral damages. The Court also ordered to them to jointly refund FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd for counsel fee, procedural fee, and court fee totaling one million two hundred and twenty thousand francs (1,220,000 Frw).

Renzaho Alexis and Paragone Mining Industry Investment Co Ltd were not satisfied with the judgment and therefore appealed to the High Court. Renzaho Alexis argued that, as an ordinary employee, he could not be held responsible for the original contract because it was the owners of the companies concerned who asked him to scan it, and he did so, but there was no evidence that he kept the original copy. He further argued that no damages should be claimed because he did not commit any crime, and that the claim should not even have been admitted for consideration, as these damages had previously been claimed before the commercial courts. He contended that the 20,000,000 Frw in damages should not have been determined because there exists no moral damage for a legal entity, and that other damages were also determined without evidence. Renzaho Alexis and Paragone Mining Industry Investment Co Ltd, represented by Counsel Ndahimana Jean Bosco, claimed that they were found guilty of forgery without presentation of undoubtful evidence.

Counsel Ndahimana Jean Bosco, representing Paragone Mining Industry Investment Co Ltd, argues that the company did not commit the crime of forgery and use of forged documents because the alleged contract dated 30/1/2019 is not a forged document. He refers to the information obtained during the interrogations of Mukamusoni Berthe on 10/1/2020 and 26/6/2020, where she stated that the owner of shares in FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd called her, as the Managing Director, to inform her that the contract was about to be signed. She also confirmed that the excavators mentioned in the contract were present on the field, as stated in the interrogation of 10/1/2020, which was corroborated by a person named Karenzi Didier, although he denied her

## Page 5

signature in the interrogation of 10/3/2020. Additionally, there is an invoice documenting the payment for transporting the purchased excavators to Kayenzi.

In the judgment RPA 00516/2018/HC/KIG, rendered by the High Court on 13/5/2022, the Court ruled that the appeal by Renzaho Alexis and Paragone Mining Industry Investment Co Ltd was well-founded, thereby acquitting them. The Court also quashed the judgment RP 01142/2020/TGI/NYGE rendered by the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge on 30/3/2022, and determined that the damage claim filed by FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd should not have been admitted or examined on its merits, rendering the decisions in that case and regarding claimed damages null and void.

The Prosecution and FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd were dissatisfied with the judgment and appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Prosecution lodged its appeal on 10/6/2022, while FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd lodged its appeal on 6/6/2022.

The case was heard on 12/4/2023, with the Prosecution represented by Habarurema Jean- Pierre, National Prosecutor, and FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd represented by Counsel Rubasha Herbert. Renzaho Alexis was assisted by Counsel Werabe Safi Chantal, and Paragone Mining Industry Investment Co Ltd was represented by Counsel Ndahimana Jean Bosco.

During the hearing, the Court considered the objection raised by Renzaho Alexis and Paragone Mining Industry Investment Co Ltd to dismiss the second appeal lodged by the Prosecution and FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd. II. ANALYSIS OF A LEGAL ISSUE OF THE CASE  Whether the second appeal filed by the Prosecution and FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd before this Court can be admitted

Counsel Ndahimana Jean Bosco, representing Paragone Mining Industry Investment Co Ltd, argues that the appeal filed by the Prosecution and FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd should not be admitted. He contends that, according to Article 52, paragraph two (2), subparagraph nine (9°) of Law No. 30/2018 of 2/6/2018, which determines the jurisdiction of courts, only the sentence of imprisonment is used to determine the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal in criminal cases. He further argues that the Court of Appeal hears cases at the second instance only when an imprisonment sentence of at least fifteen (15) years has been imposed. Additionally, he maintains that the provisions of Article 52, paragraph two (2), from subparagraph (1°) to (8°), apply solely to civil cases.

Counsel Ndahimana Jean Bosco asserts that, in this case, at first instance, the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge sentenced Jiang Haisheng, Jiang Haifeng, and Renzaho Alexis to seven (7) years of imprisonment and a fine of five million Rwandan francs (5,000,000 Frw) each. However, the High Court subsequently quashed the judgment rendered at first instance.

Counsel Ndahimana Jean Bosco further argues that the issue of exceeding the scope of the appeal arose in the High Court, which acquitted individuals who neither appealed against the judgment nor pleaded in court, and this should not be interpreted as basing its decision on a non-

## Page 6

existent law. He references Decision No. 0019/Pres/CA/2021/Pen of 17/5/2021 issued by the President of the Court of Appeal, which admitted the Prosecution’s appeal based on Article 52, paragraphs 2 and 3, of Law No. 30/2018 of 2/6/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, on grounds that the High Court based its ruling on a hearing procedure not provided for by law. He contends that this decision is inapplicable in the present case, as exceeding the scope of the appeal does not equate to using an unauthorized procedure, thus bearing no relation to the content of Decision No. 0019/Pres/CA/2021/Pen. He concludes by requesting that this Court should dismiss the appeal lodged by the Prosecution and FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd.

Counsel Werabe Safi Chantal, representing Renzaho Alexis, argues that the Prosecution’s appeal should not be admitted regarding Renzaho Alexis. She cites Article 183 of Law No. 027/2019 of 19/9/2019 relating to criminal procedure, stating that the Prosecution failed to indicate any flaws in Judgment No. RPA 00156/2018/HC/KIG concerning Renzaho Alexis and Paragone Mining Industry Investment Co Ltd individually, nor how such flaws should be corrected. Thus, there is no basis for this Court to continue hearing the case, as no grounds of appeal specifically concerning them have been presented by the Prosecution. She further asserts that the Prosecution’s critique of the appealed judgment is that the High Court exceeded the scope of the appeal and the subject matter of the case, as it acquitted Jiang Haisheng and Jiang Haifeng, who neither appealed nor pleaded before the court.

Counsel Werabe Safi Chantal further states that, as indicated in the form filled out by the applicant for the second appeal to the Court of Appeal, FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd has appealed, asserting that its appeal falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal based on Article 52, paragraph three (3) of Law No. 30/2018 of 2/6/2018, because the judgment under appeal was based on laws or legal provisions that do not exist or have lapsed. This, she argues, means that the court exceeded the scope of the appeal and the trial by acquitting Jiang Haisheng and Jiang Haifeng, who were not tried and were found not guilty of the crimes they were convicted for at first instance. She adds that they were even exempted from paying damages, and that there is no legal basis for this, nor could there be any law that justifies it.

The Prosecution submits that its appeal is based on Article 52, paragraph two (2), subparagraph three (3°), of Law n° 30/2018 of 2/6/2018, as mentioned above. The Prosecution asserts that the High Court relied on a non-existent law when it quashed the judgment n° RP 01142/2020/TGI/NYGE rendered by the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge and acquitted individuals (Jiang Haifeng and Jiang Haisheng) whom it did not try and who did not lodge an appeal. The Prosecution argues that no law permits a judge to acquit someone who was not tried, did not make any request to the Court, or did not even appear before it, disregarding the provisions of Articles 183 and 188 of Law n° 027/2019 of 19/9/2019 relating to criminal procedure. The Prosecution requests this Court to refer to paragraph 14 of Decision n° 0019/Pres/CA/2021/Pen of 17/5/2021, issued by the President of the Court of Appeal, where it was decided that the Prosecution’s appeal should be admitted based on Article 52, paragraphs two and three, because the High Court had rendered the appealed decision based on a hearing procedure not provided for by law.

Counsel Herbert Rubasha, representing FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd, states that their appeal is based on Article 52, paragraph two (2), subparagraph three (3°) of Law n° 30/2018 of 2/6/2018, which pertains to judgments rendered on the basis of a non-existent law, repealed

## Page 7

legal provisions, or judgments issued by a court lacking jurisdiction over such cases. He submits that the appeal is grounded in the argument that the High Court exceeded the scope of the appeal because, in paragraph seventy-two (72) of the judgment under appeal, it overturned judgment No. RP 01142/2020/TGI/NYGE, which was rendered at the first instance by the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge. He further states that, in paragraph seventy-three (73) of the judgment, the same Court declared null and void the claim for damages and the first instance decisions.

Counsel Herbert Rubasha argues that in all these decisions, the High Court disregarded the provisions of Article 183, subparagraphs five (5°) and six (6°), as well as Article 188 of Law No. 027/2019 of 19/9/2019 relating to criminal procedure, on the grounds that the court exceeded the scope of the appeal lodged by Renzaho Alexis and Paragone Mining Industry Investment Co Ltd. He contends that the High Court acquitted Jiang Haifeng and Jiang Haisheng of the crimes, despite not having tried them, nor did they appeal to that Court. Therefore, he argues that the High Court acted without any legal basis and did not rely on any existing law.

In his conclusion, Counsel Herbert Rubasha states that, as ruled in paragraph fourteen (14) of Decision No. 0019/Pres/CA/2021/Pen of 17/5/2021, issued by the President of the Court of Appeal, acquitting those who did not appeal or plead in the case under appeal constitutes using a procedure not provided by law. Therefore, he argues that the appeal of FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd must be admitted on the basis of Article 52, paragraph two (2), subparagraph three (3°), of the aforementioned Law No. 30/2018 of 2/6/2018. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 52, paragraph two (2), subparagraph three (3°), of Law n° 30/2018 of 2/6/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts provides that “The Court of Appeal has also jurisdiction to try at the second level of appeal cases tried by the High Court, the Commercial High Court and Military High Court, if such cases are decided based on a non-existing law, refer to repealed legal provisions or are tried by a court lacking jurisdiction”. Subparagraph 9 of the same paragraph same article of the said law reads that: “The Court of Appeal has also jurisdiction to try at the second level of appeal cases tried by the High Court, the Commercial High Court and Military High Court, if such cases involve a term of imprisonment of at least fifteen (15) years. In criminal cases, reference is only made to the imprisonment sentence given to determine the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal”.

Article 188, paragraph one, of the Law n° 027/2019 of 19/9/2019 relating to criminal procedure reads that: “(…).The court seized on appeal hears the case only within the limits of the point on appeal”1.

As decided in Supreme Court Judgment No. RPAA 0096/15/CS of 18/5/2018, in which the Court examined the provisions of Article 28, paragraph two (2), subparagraph (2°), of Organic

1 Article 10 of Law n° 22/2018 of 29/4/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labor and administrative procedure provides that: “A judge may not decide more than he/she has been asked to”. Article 155 of the very Law stipulates that: “An appeal that is admitted has the effect of returning a case to the situation as it was before the judgement, but only as to issues that are the subject-matter of appeal”. And article 156 of the same Law reads that: “The subject-matter to be decided by the appeal court is limited to what is in the appeal. The court only decides on the issues brought forth by the appellant and respondent at the appeal level.

## Page 8

Law No. 03/2012/OL of 13/6/2012 on the organization, functioning, and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court—provisions that are very similar to those of Article 52, paragraph two (2), subparagraph (3°), of Law No. 30/2018 of 2/6/2018 cited above—the term "non-existing law" should be understood to mean a law that is no longer in force (repealed law), a law that has not yet entered into force, or a law that has never existed. Consequently, the Court's jurisdiction must be assessed in terms of whether a repealed law, a law not yet in force, or a non-existing law is being applied in the case of appeal.

The Supreme Court's rulings make it clear that, for a second appeal to be admissible, the appellant must identify the law applied in the case under appeal that does not exist2.

The Court of Appeal first noted that the criticisms made by the appellants in the present case, as reflected in the decision of the High Court (decision on the ruling under appeal), were not reflected in the Court's reasoning, which in fact did not rule about Jiang Haisheng and Jiang Haifeng.

The Court of Appeal finds that, as indicated above, in the second appeal, with regard to the provisions of the third subparagraph (3°) of paragraph two (2) of Article 52 of Law No. 30/2018 of 2/6/2018, the appellant bears the burden of proving the application of a non-existing law in the case under appeal. However, in this instance, the Prosecution and FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd argue that issuing a decision on matters that were neither heard nor appealed (ultra petita) constitutes the use of a procedure not provided for by law, which should be regarded as relying on a non-existing law.

The Court of Appeal also finds that, as stated in Article 188, paragraph 1, of Law n° 027/2019 of 19/9/2019, the law provides that the Court of Appeal shall hear only within the limits of the matter appealed. Therefore, if the Court has rendered decisions beyond the limits of the matter appealed, this must be considered a breach of the law, rather than the use of a procedure not provided for by law or reliance on a non-existent law.

The Court of Appeal finds that, pursuant to Article 52 of Law No. 30/2018 of 2/6/2018, non-compliance with the provisions of the law is not among the grounds for the admissibility and hearing on the merits of a second appeal, and is not considered as reliance on a non-existent law. It further finds that non-compliance with the law is an error that can be corrected through other procedures provided by law, and is not corrected within the context of a second appeal unless the claimant demonstrates one of the grounds stipulated by the law that could allow the second appeal to be admissible for hearing on the merits.

Furthermore, the Court of Appeal finds that, as established in judgment n° RPAA 0021/2016/CS-RPAA 0002/2016/CS rendered on 12/5/2017 by the Supreme Court, in criminal cases, only the sentence serves as the basis for determining the jurisdiction of the court in a second appeal, regardless of the damages or the value of the property in dispute3.

2 This aligns with the Court of Appeal's decision of 23/3/2002 in judgment no. RCOMAA 00109/2022/CA, where the Court ruled in paragraph nineteen (19) that if no non-existent law is cited in the copy of the judgment under appeal, the Court cannot, in any way, conclude that the judgment is based on a non-existent law. 3 See paragraph twenty-two (22) of that judgment.

## Page 9

The Court of Appeal therefore finds that, since the Prosecution and FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd have failed to identify the non-existent law on which the High Court relied in reaching the judgment under appeal, and as no sentence of at least fifteen (15) years' imprisonment was imposed in this case, their second appeal is inadmissible for hearing on its merits.

For all these reasons, the Court of Appeal finds it unnecessary to consider the other arguments put forward by the accused individuals in support of their claim that the appeal should not be admitted. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the objection raised by Renzaho Alexis and Paragone Mining Industry Investment Co Ltd to the admission of the appeal lodged by the Prosecution and FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd has merit ;

Holds that the appeal lodged by the Prosecution and FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd is inadmissible ;

Orders that the court fees in this case are borne to the Public Treasury.