RUSHOMINTWALI v. MUNYANGANZO ET AL_en

RUSHOMINTWALI v. MUNYANGANZO ET AL_en

SOPEM was not a party to the original case but was summoned only to provide information; therefore, Rushomintwali, as a shareholder, was not represented and had legal standing to file a third party opposition.

Citation
RLR V.1-2019
Parties
Appellant: Rushomintwali Sylvestre; Respondent: Munyanganzo Patrick; Respondent: Niyonzima Théogène; Intervenor: SOPEM Sarl; Intervenor: Mugisha Juliet; Intervenor: Ngarambe Emmanuel
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
9 June 2017
Case Number
RSOCAA0002/15/CS
Procedural Posture
Labour Procedure / Appeal to Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment reversed; case remitted for further hearing on remaining grounds.
Legal Topics
Third Party Opposition, Legal Standing of Shareholders, Summoning of Companies, Representation in Court
Source Language
en, rw
Labour Law Civil Procedure Company Law Third Party Opposition Legal Standing of Shareholders Summoning of Companies Representation in Court

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rushomintwali Sylvestre

Appellant

Munyanganzo Patrick

Respondent

Niyonzima Théogène

Respondent

SOPEM Sarl

Intervenor

Mugisha Juliet

Intervenor

Ngarambe Emmanuel

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Labour Procedure / Appeal to Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether SOPEM was a party to the original case such that its shareholders could not file a third party opposition
  2. 2 Whether Rushomintwali had legal standing to file a third party opposition as a shareholder

Ratio Decidendi

SOPEM was not a party to the original case but was summoned only to provide information; therefore, Rushomintwali, as a shareholder, was not represented and had legal standing to file a third party opposition.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment reversed; case remitted for further hearing on remaining grounds.

Orders

  • The appeal of Rushomintwali Sylvestre has merit.
  • The judgment RSOCA0009/14/HC/RWG rendered on 26/11/2014 is reversed.