UBUSHINJACYAHA vs RWAKUNDA N’ABANDI

UBUSHINJACYAHA vs RWAKUNDA N’ABANDI

The Court found that the laws applied by the High Court were in force at the relevant times, and no penalties were imposed without legal basis. Therefore, the second appeal did not meet the jurisdictional requirements of Article 52 of Law No 30/2018, and the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RPAA/ECON 00001/2022/CA - CMB RPAA /ECON 00002/2022/CA - CMB RPAA /ECON 00004/2022/CA
Parties
Prosecution: Ubushinjacyaha; Appellant: Rwakunda Christian; Appellant: Rwamuganza Caleb; Appellant: Serubibi Eric; Appellant: Kabera Godfrey; Appellant: Rusizana Aloys; Appellant: A&P Ltd; Respondent: Munyabugingo Bonaventure
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
5 May 2023
Case Number
RPAA/ECON 00001/2022/CA - CMB RPAA /ECON 00002/2022/CA - CMB RPAA /ECON 00004/2022/CA
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Second appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Retroactivity of Laws, Jurisdiction of Appellate Courts, Public Procurement Offences, Misuse of Public Property, Conspiracy in Public Tenders
Source Language
rw
Criminal Law Public Procurement Law Appellate Procedure Retroactivity of Laws Jurisdiction of Appellate Courts Public Procurement Offences Misuse of Public Property Conspiracy in Public Tenders

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ubushinjacyaha

Prosecution

Rwakunda Christian

Appellant

Rwamuganza Caleb

Appellant

Serubibi Eric

Appellant

Kabera Godfrey

Appellant

Rusizana Aloys

Appellant

A&P Ltd

Appellant

Munyabugingo Bonaventure

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal (court of Appeal)

  1. 1 Whether the appealed judgment was based on a non-existent law or imposed penalties not provided by law
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to entertain the second appeal under Article 52 of Law No 30/2018

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the laws applied by the High Court were in force at the relevant times, and no penalties were imposed without legal basis. Therefore, the second appeal did not meet the jurisdictional requirements of Article 52 of Law No 30/2018, and the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

Court Disposition

Second appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Second appeal by Rwakunda Christian, Serubibi Eric, Rusizana Aloys, and A&P Ltd is not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal and is dismissed.
  • Court fees paid by Rwakunda Christian, Rusizana Aloys, and A&P Ltd are retained; Serubibi Eric is exempted from costs due to being in custody.