RUTAYISIRE v MUKANKURIKIYIMANA ET.AL (ADD)

# RUTAYISIRE v MUKANKURIKIYIMANA ET.AL (ADD)

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Decisions (Judgements) - Date: 2023-07-28 - Case/document no.: RC 00001/2023/SC - Collection: Supreme Court

## Text

## Page 1

RUTAYISIRE v MUKANKURIKIYIMANA ET.AL (ADD) [Rwanda SUPREME COURT - RC 00001/2023/SC (Ntezilyayo, P.J., Mukamulisa, Cyanzayire, Hitiyaremye, Karimunda, J.) 28 July 2023] Overruling precedent – Jurisdiction of the courts – The court having jurisdiction over conflicting judgments – It is the Supreme Court that has jurisdiction to resolve the issues related to the final conflicting judgments. This precedent overrules the one that was set in the case RC 0008/2017/SC, Umuhoza Annonciata v Ndayisenga Protais rendered on 28/09/2018, [Reported in RLR V.4- 2022] where such issues related to contradictions that arise among final court decisions were under the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal. Facts: Kahabaye was survived by his three children namely Rutayisire, Umubyeyi and Rutaganda but they were also later survived by Rutaysire. Umubyeyi was married to Kayigana and they had two children who were his heirs represented by his father Kayigana, and Rutanganda also gave birth to two children namely Twagirayezu and Mukankurikiyimana. The heirs of Umubyeyi, represented by Kayigana, filed a case before the Primary Court of Nyamirambo requesting inheritance. After it was confirmed that they were Rutaganda’s children, Twagirayezu and Mukankurikiyimana filed a

## Page 2

third party opposition, the Intermediate Court declared that they will also get a share in the inherited property. Rutayisire and his heirs appealed against the judgment before the High Court, which declared that the judgment rendered by the Intermediate Court was overturned because that judgment overruled another final judgment rendered by the Primary Court. Twagirayezu and Mukankurikiyimana appealed to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court found that the Intermediate Court had jurisdiction over the case and annulled the judgment rendered by the High Court, upholding the judgment rendered by the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge. Rutayisire filed a case before the Court of Appeal praying it to resolve the issue of the conflicting judgments N° RC 0140/07/TB/NYB rendered on 29/02/2008 and N° RC 0846/11/TGI/NYGE rendered on of 07/09/2012 as upheld by judgment N° RCAA 0010/14/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 17/03/2017, that case was declared inadmissible because among those judgments, there was one which was rendered by the Supreme Court, while the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to resolve the issues relating to conflicting judgments rendered by the lower courts or those it rendered itself. Rutaysire resorted to the Supreme Court requesting it to resolve the issue pertaining to the conflicting judgments, it declared it admissible and considered whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to resolve the issue based on the conflicting judgments. Mukankurikiyimana and Twagirayezu raised the objections of lack of jurisdiction alleging that the claimant wants the Supreme Court to re-examine the

## Page 3

judgment RCAA 0010/14/CS rendered previously, which is illegal because it rendered that decision after correctly reading the judgments RC 0140/07/TB/NYB overturned and rendered the decision. He went on to explain that instead the claimant should have applied for judicial review or review on grounds of injustice. Rutaysire contend that that this objection should not be validated because the law that determines the jurisdiction of the courts has not provided for a court that has jurisdiction to resolve the issue of conflicting judgments, but that in the judgment No RC 00008/2017/SC, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal the jurisdiction over claims related to conflicting judgments, so based on that judgment, he had submitted his claim to the Court of Appeal but it was declared inadmissible and found the Supreme Court is the one that has the jurisdiction because it is also the one that set judicial precedents which bind other courts. Held: The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to resolve the issue of final conflicting judgments. Thus, this precedent overrules the one that was set in the judgments previously rendered by this Court including judgment Nº RC 00008/2017/SC and judgment Nº RCOM 00002/2019/SC; therefore, the objection related to the lack of jurisdiction raised has no merit. Objection raised lacks merit. Statutes referred to:

## Page 4

Organic Law Nº 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organisation, functioning and competence of the Supreme Court, Article 29. Civil and Commercial Procedure Code of Tunisia, article 175 (5); Code of Civil Procedure of the Kingdom of Morocco. Article 390; Organic Law No. 2008-35 of August 7, 2008 establishing the Supreme Court of Senegal, Title 1, point 3; Law No. 2008-07 of February 28, 2011 on the code of civil, commercial, social, administrative and accounts procedure, article 690. Decree 79-941 1979-11-07 art. 2 JORF November 9, 1979 in force January 1, 1980, article 618.

Cases referred to: RC 00008/2017/SC, Umuhoza Annonciata v Ndayisenga Protais, rendered by the Supreme Court on 28/09/2018 RCOM 00002/2019/SC, MININTCO Ltd, DRESOCECO Ltd v UNITEX RWANDA Ltd, rendered by the Supreme Court on 27/09/2019; RC 00002/2022/CA, FENG Zhigang, Ndayisaba Emmanuel v Mugiraneza Vincent, rendered by the Supreme Court on 20/03/2023. Legal writings referred to: Rigaux, F., & Dabin, J., The nature of the control of the Court of Cassation, Brussels, Etablissements Émile Bruylant, 1966, p.20;

## Page 5

Beim, D., & Rader, K. (2018). Legal Uniformity in American Courts. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, p 16); Hugh Evander Willis, Some Conflicting Decisions of the United States Supreme Court, Indiana University School of Law – Bloomington, p 21; Graeme Cowie, The UK Supreme Court, house of commons library, parliament, UK, 2022, P.12-13; Judgment BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Rutayisire Jean de Dieu, Umubyeyi Catherine (+) and Rutaganda Jean Népomuscène (+) were Kahabaye Joseph’s children. Two children called Kayigana Darlène Isaro and Umubyeyi Gabriella were survived by their mother Umubyeyi Catherine. Also, two children named Twagirayezu Béatha and Mukankurikiyimana Béatrice were survived by their father Rutaganda Jean Népomuscène.

The heirs of Umubyeyi Catherine, namely Kayigana Darlène Isaro and Umubyeyi Gabriella, represented by their father Kayigana Jean Baptiste, filed a case before the Primary Court of Nyamirambo, suing

## Page 6

Rutayisire Jean de Dieu, requesting for the distribution of the property left by Kahabaye Joseph1.

As per the judgment N° RC 0140/07/TB/NYB rendered on 29/02/2008, the Primary Court of Nyamirambo declared that Rutaysire Jean de Dieu share the property of the late Kahabaye Joseph with the heirs of Umubyeyi Batherine, ordering that: i. Rutayisire Jean de Dieu be granted a house with 3 shops at Kivuziza and the plot attached to them, the tree plantation below them, the land in the swamp at Giticyinyoni, the plot located in Nyamirambo at Gatare, the piece of land in Bugesera, the property grabbed by Rutaysire Jean de Dieu, which is worth 10,505,000 FRW. ii. The heirs of Umubyeyi Catherine namely Kayigana Isaro Darlène and Umubyeyi Gabriella, inherit the house of Umubyeyi Catherine’s mother named Mukankusi Antoniya, located at Kivugiza, the rented house located at Nyamirambo on the tarmac road, Kahabaye Joseph's homestead located in Kivugiza, the land located at Zivu and the piece of the land located in Bugesera, and ordered the heirs of Umubyeyi Catherine to sell the plot of late Kahabaye located at Kicukiro and build the homestead of the deceased.

1 The case file was registered under no RC 0559/05/TD/NYB/RC 38788/02, and later struck off, the heirs of Umubyeyi Catherine resumed it and was registered under case file no RC 0140/07/TB/NYB.

## Page 7

After the confirmation that they are the Rutaganda Jean Népomuscène’s children by the Primary Court of Nyamirambo as per the judgment No RC 0268/08/TB/NYB - RC 0269/08/TB/NYB rendered on 20/06/2008, Twagirayezu Béatha and Mukankurikiyimana Béatrice filed a third party opposition against the judgment N° RC 0140/07/TB/NYB before the Primary Court of Nyamirambo, requesting that they also get a share from the property of late Kahabaye Joseph. Their case file was registered under N° RC 0471/09/TB/NYB but it was declared inadmissible, they filed another case before the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge, requesting to get their father's share from the property of the late Kahabaye Joseph.

As per the judgment No RC 0846/11/TGI/NYGE rendered on 07/09/2012, the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge confirmed that the claim of Rutaganda Jean Népomuscène’s heirs has merit, ordering that: i. Twagirayezu Béatha and Mukankurikiyimana Béatrice were granted a house with 3 shops located at Kivugiza, with the land and a tree farm attached to those shops, a rented house located at Nyamirambo and the land at Zivu. ii. Umubyeyi Catherine's heirs namely Kayigana Isaro Darlène and Umubyeyi Gabriella were granted to inherit the house of Umubyeyi Catherine's named Mukankusi located at Kivugiza, the land in Nyamirambo at Gatare, the land in Bugesera and the land in Kicukiro.

## Page 8

iii. Rutaysire Jean de Dieu was granted the homestead from the late Kahabaye Joseph at Kivuziza, the land in the Giticyinyoni marshland, and the property he grabbed worth 10,505,000 Frw.

Rutaysire Jean de Dieu and the heirs of Umubyeyi Catherine appealed against the case before the High Court, alleging that the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge did not have jurisdiction over the case, and that Rutaganda Jean Népomuscène’s heirs have no interest in requesting a share from the property that no longer exists since the judgment ordering distribution2 had become final.

According to the judgment N° RCA 00551/12/HC/KIG - RCA 0553/12/HC/KIG rendered on 30/12/2013, the High Court, based on the fact that the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge did not have the authority to change the decisions of the Primary Court of Nyamirambo in the n° RC 0140/07/TB/NYB, yet it was

2 Rutayisire Jean de Dieu contended that he had already sold to Sibomana Eugène at 10,000,000 FRW some of the assets he was granted as per the judgment n° RC 0140/07/TB/NYB rendered by the Primary Court of Nyamirambo on 29/02/2008, those assets are: one house comprising there (03), shops located at Kivugiza, as per the sale contract concluded before the land notary when they were carried out the transfer of property on 02/10/2014. (As per its letter dated 04/01/2019, the National Land Authrority wrote to Mukankurikiyimana who had requested information about UPI 1/01/08/01/356 located at Cyivugiza, informing her that the plot is registered under SIBOMANA Eugène’s names who had bought it from Rutayisire Jean de Dieu).

## Page 9

final, confirmed that the case N° RC 0846/11/TGI/NYGE is quashed.

Twagirayezu Béatha and Mukankurikiyimana Béatrice appealed to the Supreme Court alleging that they should have a share from the property left by the late Kahabaye Joseph.

As per the judgment N° RCAA 0010/14/CS rendered on 17/03/2017, the Supreme Court found that the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge had jurisdiction over the case brought before it, invalidating the judgment N° RCA 00551/12/HC/KIG - RCA 0553/12/HC/KIG, and confirmed the judgment N° RC 0846/11/TGI/NYGE.

Rutaysire Jean de Dieu filed a case before the Court of Appeal requesting it to resolve the issue of conflicting judgments,

judgment N° RC 0140/07/TB/NYB rendered on 29/02/2008 and judgment N° RC 0846/11/TGI/ NYGE rendered on 07/09/2012 as confirmed by the judgment N° RCAA 0010/14/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 17/03/2017, the Chief Registrar confirmed that the case is not admissible because among the conflicting judgments, there is one rendered by the Supreme Court, while the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to resolve conflicting judgments rendered by the courts below it or rendered it itself.

Rutaysire Jean de Dieu filed a case immediately before the the Supreme Court requesting it to resolve the issue of the conficting judgments n° RC 0140/07/TB/NYB and n° RC 0846/11/TGI/NYGE as confirmed by the judgment n° RCAA 0010/14/CS

## Page 10

rendered by the Supreme Court. He alleges that this is the only way to solve the problem of his rights and those of the defendants because they are in conflict over the same property based on 2 final judgments.

As per their submissions, Twagirayezu Béatha and Mukankurikiyimana Béatrice raised an objection, whereby they alleged that the case filed by the litigants is not admissible because the Supreme Court no longer has jurisdiction over it.

The case was heard in public on 26/06/2023 Rutayisire Jean de Dieu represented by Counsel Niyondora Nsengiyumva and Counsel Nkeza Sempundu Clément, Mukankurikiyinka Béatrice assisted by Counsel Seburikoko Jérémie and also represented by Twagirayezu Béatha, while Umubyeyi Gabriella and Kayigana Darlène were represented by Counsel Habineza Gasore Gilbert, the parties debated the issue of whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the case. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUE  Determining whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to resolve the disputes based on conflicting judgments

Counsel Seburikoko Jérémie representing Twagirayezu Béatha and assisting Mukankurikiyimana Béatrice raised the objection related to the lack of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court alleging that Rutaysire

## Page 11

Jean de Dieu seems to be requesting the Supreme Court to re-examine the case n° RCAA 0010/14/CS that it previously decided, yet it is illegal.

He also alleges that the Supreme Court that rendered the judgment first read enough the judgment n° RC 0140/07/TB/NYB before making a decision, that it is impossible to re-examine the case as long as Rutaysire Jean de Dieu did not apply for judicial review or review on grounds of injustice. He also finds that if the problem in this case is related to the resolution of the dispute on the conflicting judgments, this Court would be the one to resolve it, but he asserts that the dispute does not exist.

He goes on to allege that if the court bailiff who intended to execute the judgment on behalf of Rutayisire Jean de Dieu had realized that it was impossible because of the conflicting judgments, he would have made a report so that Rutayisire Jean de Dieu could take it and request that the judgment be reviewed on the grounds of injustice.

Counsel Niyondora Nsengiyumva representing Rutaysire Jean de Dieu alleges that this objection should not be validated because the law that determines the jurisdiction of courts does not specify clearly the court which has jurisdiction to resolve the issue of conflicting judgments, but that in the case No RC 00008/2017/SC, involving Umuhoza Annonciata and Ndayisenga Protais, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal has the jurisdiction to hear claims related to conflicting cases.

He explains that based on that decision, Rutaysire Jean de Dieu first filed his case before the Court of

## Page 12

Appeal, but the Chief Registrar confirmed that his case was not admissible based on the reason that one of the conflicting judgments was decided by the Supreme Court. He says that he agrees with that decision, because the Supreme Court is the one that sets preceden to other courts, that therefore the Court of Appeal should hear only the conflicting judgments rendered by the lower courts.

Counsel Nkeza Sempundu Clément also representing Rutaysire Jean de Dieu, adds that the fact that Mr. Seburikoko Jérémie says that the Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to hear this case, yet does not indicate another court that has it, invalidates the objection he made.

He goes on to allege that since the Supreme Court is the one that sets the precent which binds other courts, it is the one that should examine this case, but it is done in accordance with the procedure for examining the review on grounds of injustice, then the President of the Supreme Court, when he or she finds that there are conflicting judgments, determines the court that will hear the case.

Counsel Habineza Gasore Gilbert representing Kayigana Isaro Darlène and Umubyeyi Gabriella alleges that Counsel Seburikoko Jérémie ignores the fact that there are 2 judgments on the same subject matter and all of them have become final, that usually the law determines the procedure followed to review a final judgment to annul the decision rendered, but it is not what was done by Twagirayezu Béatha and Mukankurikiyimana Béatrice because instead of following all the procedures as provided for by the law of

## Page 13

those, they resorted to filing a new case in a court different from the one that had decided the case before.

He goes on to allege that there are two (2) conflicting judgments that have become final because there are properties granted to Rutayisire Jean de Dieu in the judgment N° RC 0140/07/TB/NYBO and in the judgment N° RC 0846/11/TGI/NYGE which were decided on 07/09/2012 which was confirmed in the judgment No. RCAA 0010/14/CS that the same property was again given to Twagirayezu Béatha and Mukankurikiyimana Béatrice, yet they were confirmed as the heirs of Kahabaye Joseph after the judgment N° RC 0140/07/TB/NYB, the Supreme Court is the very court that can resolve the issue of the conflicting judgments rendered by the courts, allowing each of them to know the property he or she must win. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Regarding the issue of conflicting judgments, article 29 of the Organic Law nº 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organisation, functioning and competence of the Supreme Court, which provided that this Court is the one that has jurisdiction to resolve it. After the revision of the law related to the Judiciary in 2018, including Law No. 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, which is currently in force, concerning the jurisdiction to resolve the issue of conflicting judgments, it was not provided for in that law, which means that no court was given that jurisdiction.

## Page 14

As per the judgment nº RC 00008/2017/SC rendered on 28/09/2018 anvolving Umuhoza Annonciata and Ndayisenga Protais, the Supreme Court found that the fact that the jurisdiction to examine claims related to the conflicting judgments is not provided for in Law Nº 30/2018 of on 02/06/2018, is not due to the fact that the legislator wanted those claims to remain unresolved, but were rather forgotten.

It set the precedent that these cases should be heard by the Court of Appeal, based on the fact that that Court was given almost all the jurisdictional powers that were held by the Supreme Court, and now has kept only special jurisdiction. This precedent was reaffirmed by this Court in the judgment nº RCOM 00002/2019/SC rendered on 27/09/2019 involving MININTCO Ltd, DRESOCECO Ltd and UNITEX RWANDA Ltd.

As seen in various cases, the Court of Appeal relied upon this precedent and began to declare admissible and consider the cases related to conflicting judgments3 including cases decided by the Supreme Court, such as case No RC 00001/2021/CA whereby the Court of Appeal considered the conflict between the judgment Nº RCOMAA 0043/15/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 24/06/2016 and the judgment Nº RCOMA 00412/2018 /HCC rendered by the High Commercial Court on

3 For instance, judgment n° RCOM 00001/2019/CA involving MININTCO Ltd, DRESOCECO Ltd v UNITEX RWANDA Ltd rendered on 03/07/2020, judgment nº RC 00002/2022/CA rendered on 20/03/2023, involving FENG Zhigang, Ndayisaba Emmanuel v Mugiraneza Vincent and so many others.

## Page 15

20/09/2018, involving SAILER ENERGY UG- PARTNERSHIP Ltd and ECOBANK RWANDA Plc.

As mentioned above, based on the precedent set by the Supreme Court that has already been elucidated, Rutayisire Jean de Dieu filed the case before the Court of Appeal, concerning conflicting judgments because the properties that he was granted by the final judgment N° RC 0140/07 /TB/NYBO, the same properties were granted to Twagirayezu Béatha and Mukankurikiyimana Béatrice in the judgment N° RC 0846/11/TGI/NYGE and confirmed by judgment N° RCAA 0010/14/CS. The Chief Registrar of the Court of Appeal replied that his case was not admissible because among the judgments alleged to be conflicting, there was one judgment rendered by the Supreme Court, and that the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to resolve the issues of the conflicting judgments provided that they were renderd by lower courts or by the Court of Appeal itself.

After Rutaysire Jean de Dieu filed a case before this Court, him and his representative claim that no other court can hear the case related to the conflicting judgments as long as when the contentious judgments include the one rendered by the Supreme Court.

As elucidated above, the aforementioned Organic Law No. 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 vested the Supreme Court with the power to resolve the conflict arising from final judgments, but in the new Law Nthe 30/2018 dated 02/06/2018 also mentioned above, no court has such jurisdiction.

## Page 16

The Court finds that although it had set the precedent that the Court of Appeal is the one that should try these cases, there is still a question as to whether that Court is really the one that should have this power as it is now.

In order to resolve this issue, it is worth looking at the practice in other countries. In France4 and in Belgium5,, the case related to the conflicting judments is referred to the Court of Cassation, the highest in those countries. In countries like the United States of America6 and United Kingdom7, the Supreme Court as the highest Court, is the one to resolve the issue.

4 Article 618 of Decree 79-941 1979-11-07 art. 2 JORF November 9, 1979 in force January 1, 1980: conflicting judgments may also, by way of derogation from the provisions of article 605, be invoked when two decisions... are irreconcilable and none of them is subject to an ordinary appeal; the cassation case is then admissible, even if one of the decisions had already been subject to a cassation and this had been rejected... 5 Rigaux, F., & Dabin, J., The nature of the control of the Court of Cassation, Brussels, Etablissements Émile Bruylant, 1966, p.20 (the conflict of judgments is one of the causes for file a case for cassation). 6 In United States federal courts, a circuit split arises when two or more different circuit courts of appeals provide conflicting rulings on the same legal issue…. the Supreme Court grants review of a case to resolve a circuit split (Beim, D., & Rader, K. (2018). Legal Uniformity in American Courts. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, p 16). See also Hugh Evander Willis, Some Conflicting Decisions of the United States Supreme Court, Indiana University School of Law – Bloomington, p 21. 7 Graeme Cowie, The UK Supreme Court, house of commons library, parliament, UK, 2022, P.12-13

## Page 17

In some African countries like Tunisia8, Morocco9 in case there are conflicting judgments, they are referred to the Court of Cassation. While in Senegal10 of Benin11, the Supreme Court has that jurisdiction.

The examples that have been given above have in common the fact that the issues related to the conflict of cases are resolved by the highest court in the country. The Court finds that the above-mentioned Organic Law No. 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 had vested the Supreme Court with the jurisdiction to resolve the disputes related to conflicting judgment, which was in line with what is currently in force in other countries. And as this Court elucidated it in the previously mentioned cases, the fact that Law No. 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 already mentioned, did not give any court the authority to examine the cases

8 Article 175 (5) of the Civil and Commercial Procedure Code of Tunisia: “The cassation is only open against judgments rendered as a last resort only in the following cases If there is conflict between judgments rendered as a last resort arises between the same parties, on the same object and for the same cause”. 9 Article 390 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Kingdom of Morocco: "In case of conflict between judgments or rulings that have become irrevocable emanating from different courts or courts of appeal, the Court of Cassation...may annul without referral one of the two decisions before it”. 10 See Title 1, point 3 of Organic Law No. 2008-35 of August 7, 2008 establishing the Supreme Court of Senegal, available at http://v1.ahjucaf.org/Loi-organique-no-2008-35- du-7-aout.html, visited on 07/14/2023 (The Supreme Court, the highest instance of the judiciary in Senegal, has other powers: it adjudicates .., the conflicts of judgments). 11 See article 690 of law No. 2008-07 of February 28, 2011 on the code of civil procedure. Commercial, social, administrative and accounts.

## Page 18

related to conflicting judgments, is that it was simply forgotten.

The court also finds that in case the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court are in conflict with each other or in conflict with the final judgments rendered by the lower courts as is in this case, the Supreme Court should consider the issue, especially since it is the one that sets the precedents tha binds other courts12.

Based on the explanations mentioned above, the Supreme Court finds that it has jurisdiction to resolve the issue of the conflicting judgments which had become final. Thus, this precedent overrules the one that was set in cases previously decided by this Court, including judgment no RC 00008/2017/SC rendered on 28/09/2018 involving Umuhoza Annonciata v Ndayisenga Protais and judgment no RCOM 00002/2019/SC rendered on 27/09/2019 involving MININTCO Ltd, DRESOCECO Ltd v UNITEX RWANDA Ltd.

12 Regarding the fact that the Supreme Court is the highest court and sets a precedent that binds other courts, it was explained in the judgment no RS/INJUST/RC 00026/2022/SC, where this Court relied on the existing precedent in the judgment no Case No. RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2019/SC, which showed that in the functioning of the courts, they respect the principles based on compliance with the precedent set (stare decisis), every court must respect the precedent set on a certain issue or the precedent set by the superior court on that issue... and the Supreme Court as the highest court, which is also the main source of the precedents which bind other courts, is also the reason for its special nature, which allows it to have jurisdiction over all types of cases filed before the courts in order to be able to provide them with a precedent that guides other courts in deciding cases.

## Page 19

After the explanations that have just been provided, the Court finds that the objection related to the lack of the court’s jurisdiction raised by Mukankurikiyimana Béatrice and Twagirayezu Béata is irrelevant, therefore, the Supreme Court is the one that has jurisdiction to examine the issue of conflicting judgments N° RC 0140/ 07/TB/NYB rendered on 29/02/2008 and n° RC 0846/11/TGI/NYGE which was rendered on 07/09/2012 as confirmed by the judgment N° RCAA 0010/14/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 17/03/2017. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Declares that the objection raised related to the Supreme Court’s lack of jurisdiction is irrelevant;

Declares that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to resolve contradictions that arise among judgement rendered at the last instance ;

Declares that the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to examine the issue of conflict arising among judgements n° RC 0140/07/TB/NYB rendered on 29/02/2008 and n° RC 0846/11/TGI/NYGE rendered on of 07/09/2012 as confirmed by the judgment N° RCAA 0010/14/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 17/03/2017.

Declares that the hearing of the case on the merits will be held on 20/11/2023.