RLR V. 3-2022

# RLR V. 3-2022

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Rwanda law reports - Date: 2022-07-22 - Collection: Supreme Court

## Text

## Page 1

REPUBLIC OF RWANDA SUPREME COURT P.o. Box. 2197 KIGALI www.judiciary.gov.rw ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Icyegeranyo V. 3 - 2022 Nyakanga, 2022 Law Reports V. 3 - 2022 July, 2022 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 3

Icyegeranyo V. 3 - 2022 Nyakanga, 2022 Law Reports V. 3 - 2022 July, 2022 REPUBLIC OF RWANDA SUPREME COURT Po. Box. 2197 KIGALI www.judiciary.gov.rw

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 5

i i ISHAKIRO

ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI ...................................iii I. ITSINDA RY’ABANYAMATEGEKO BATEGUYE IMANZA................................................................................iii II. KOMITE YEMEZA IMANZA .......................................... v IRIBURIRO ............................................................................... ix IBIKUBIYE MURI IKI CYEGERANYO................................. xi INYITO ...................................................................................... xi AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO ........................................xiii IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE .................................................. xvii AMAGAMBO MPINE ............................................................ xix Re URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA .............................................. 1 Re BYANSI (ADD) .................................................................. 29 Re BYANSI ( FOND ) .............................................................. 41 WHITEFIELD INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v. THOMAS ET PIRON GRANDS LACS .................................................... 69 VUNINGOMA N’UNDI v. BRD LTD N’UNDI ..................... 99 NICYABERA v MUKAGATARE ......................................... 117 KAKOZA v NYAGATARE ................................................... 145 UBUSHINJACYAHA v BEZA N’UNDI .............................. 167 i

## Page 6

ii

## Page 7

iii ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI

I. ITSINDA RY’ABANYAMATEGEKO BATEGUYE IMANZA

KAGABO U. Stephanie

KAVUTSE M. Claude

KUBWIMANA Jean Claude

MUJABI K. Naphtal

UWINKINDI Angelique

iii

## Page 8

iv

## Page 9

v II. KOMITE YEMEZA IMANZA

Prof. Dr. NGAGI M. Alphonse : Perezida wa Komite, Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire

Dr. MUHIRE G. Yves : Visi Perezida wa Komite, Umwarimu muri Kaminuza y’u Rwanda

NSENGIYUMVA Jean Claude : Umwanditsi wa Komite, Umugenzuzi w’Inkiko

RUKUNDAKUVUGA F. Regis : Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire

Dr. KARIMUNDA M. Aimé : Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga

NDAHAYO Xavier : Perezida w’Urukiko Rukuru

RUTAZANA Angeline : Umugenzuzi Mukuru w’Inkiko

KALIWABO Charles : Umucamanza w’ Urukiko rw’Ubujurire

Dr. KAYIHURA Didas :

BURAYOBERA UMUZAYIRE Bibiane : Umuyobozi wa ILPD

Visi Perezida wa Komisiyo y`u Rwanda ishinzwe Ivugururwa ry`Amategeko v

## Page 10

vi

BWIZA N. Blanche : Umugenzuzi w’Inkiko

KIBUKA Jean Luc : Umucamanza w’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi

HABARUREMA Jean Pierre : Umushinjacyaha ku Rwego rw’Igihugu

BUNYOYE Grace : Umushinjacyaha ku Rwego rw’Igihugu

KABIBI Specioza : Intumwa ya Leta

MUREREREHE Saouda : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru

Lt. col. MADUDU A. Charles :

Umucamanza mu Rukiko rwa Gisirikare

Dr. NSHIMIYIMANA Didace :

GIRANEZA Clémentine :

TASHOBYA Benon : Perezida w’Urukiko Rwisumbuye

Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye

Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 11

vii BAGABO Faustin :

GAPARAYI Idi :

Dr. SHEMA Pierre :

KARAKE Canisius :

HABIMANA Pie :

RWIGEMA Royck :

YANKURIJE Dorothée : Avoka mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka

Umwarimu muri University of Kigali

Umwarimu muri ULK

Umwarimu muri UNILAK

Avoka mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka

Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi

Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ibanze KOMITE YEMEZA IMANZA

## Page 12

viii

## Page 13

ix IRIBURIRO Basomyi bacu, Tunejejwe no kubagezaho Icyegeranyo cy’Ibyemezo by’Inkiko, Volime 3 [2022]. Nk’uko mubizi, tubahitiramo imanza zikubiyemo bimwe mu bisubizo by’ibibazo muhura nabyo kenshi, haba mu mirimo yanyu ndetse no mu buzima bwa buri munsi. Muri iyi nomero murasangamo imanza umunani (8) zikurikira: urubanza rumwe (1) rusaba guhindura umurongo watanzwe n’inkiko, imanza ebyiri (2) zerekeranye n’ibirego bisaba kwemeza ko Itegeko rinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga, urubanza rumwe (1) rw’imbonezamubano, urubanza rumwe (1) rw’ubucuruzi, urubanza rumwe (1) rw’inshinjabyaha n’imanza ebyiri (2) zerekeranye n’imiburanishirize y’imanza. Nk’uko mumaze kubimenyera imanza ziri muri iki cyegeranyo ziboneka no ku rubuga rwa murandasi rw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga: http://decisia.lexum.com/rlr/kn/nav.do. Dr NTEZILYAYO Faustin Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga akaba na Perezida w’Inama Nkuru y’Ubucamanza

ix

## Page 14

x

## Page 15

xi IBIKUBIYE MURI IKI CYEGERANYO Iki Cyegeranyo gikubiyemo imanza zaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi.

INYITO Imanza ziri muri iyi volime zikoreshwa muri ubu buryo: [2022] 3 RLR

xi

## Page 16

xii

## Page 17

xiii AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO

a. Amategeko akoreshwa ubu Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015; ingingo ya 95………………………………………………....5 ingingo ya 38…………...…………………………………..38 ingingo ya 23, 38, 41 n’iya 43……………………………..43 ingingo ya 151………………………………………………73 Itangazo ry’Umuryango w’Abibumbye ku burenganzira bwa muntu (Universal Declaration of Human Rights), ryo mu mwaka wa 1948, ingingo ya 19……………………………………………..43 Itegeko N° 058/2021 ryo ku wa 13/10/2021 ryerekeye kurinda amakuru bwite n’imibereho bwite by’umuntu, ingingo ya 3…………………………………………………………………….…43 Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano, ingingo ya 276……………………………………170 Itegeko N°30/2018 ryo kuwa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’Inkiko, ingingo ya 52, 65 n’iya 73…………………………………..5 ingingo ya 72………………………………………………..31 ingingo ya 52………………………………………………102 ingingo ya 63………………………………………………170 Itegeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 132………………………………………………5 ingingo ya 70 n’iya 71………………………………...…...31 ingingo ya 70 n’iya 71……………………………………..43 xiii

## Page 18

xiv ingingo ya 9, 20, 142, 149, 172, 161, 168, 178,179, 181, 184, 192 n’iya 243………………………………………….73 Itegeko N° 012/2018 ryo ku wa 04/04/2018 rigena imitunganyirize n’imikorere y’Ubutegetsi bw’Ubucamanza, ingingo ya 50………………………………………………….. ingingo ya 43………………………………………………..73 Itegeko Nº 02/2015 ryo ku wa 25/02/2015 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko N°37/2012 ryo ku wa 09/11/2012 rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro, ingingo ya 1………………………...5 Itegeko N° 02/2013 ryo ku wa 08/02/2013 rigenga itangazamakuru, ingingo ya 3, 4 n’iya 5………………………….31 Itegeko N° 59/2008 rikumira kandi rihana ihohoterwa iryo ari ryo ryose rishingiye ku gitsina, ingingo ya 39………………….120 Itegeko Nº 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 65……………………120 Amabwiriza N°001/2021 yo ku wa 15/03/2021 ya Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga agenga itangazwa ry’imanza mu cyegeranyo cy’Ibyemezo by’Inkiko, ingingo ya 9…………………5 b. Amategeko yakuweho ariko yakoreshwaga igihe ikibazo cyavukaga Itegeko Ngenga Nº 01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 614…………………..170 Itegeko N° 43/2013 ryo ku wa 16/06/2013 rigenga ubutaka mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 10…………………………………………....120 Itegeko N°37/2012 ryo ku wa 09/11/2012 rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro, ingingo ya 5……………………………………….5 Itegeko Nº 07/2009 ryerekeye amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi ryo ku wa 27/04/2009, ingingo ya 2, ya 31, 134 niya 140…………………147 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 19

xv Itegeko ryo ku wa 26/07/1881 ryerekeye ubwigenge bw’itangazamakuru, ingingo ya 38……………………………….43

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO

## Page 20

xvi

## Page 21

xvii IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE Access Bank Rwanda Ltd na SOTIRU Ltd, RS/INJUST/RCOM 00003/2019/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 26/06/2020………………………………………………………….....6 Affaire Pinto Coelho C. vs Portugal (No 2) rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’i Burayi rushinzwe uburenganzira bwa muntu………………44 Areva NP Vs Eskom Holdings Soc Limited and Another [2016] Zacc 51 rwaciwe n’ Urukiko rushinzwe kurinda iremezo ry’Itegeko Nshinga rwa Afurika y’Epfo…………………………..32 Re. Great Lakes Initiative for Human Rights and Development, RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2019/SC, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 04/12/2019………………………………………6 Re Mugisha Richard, RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2018/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 18/01/2019……………..32 Re Mugisha Richard, RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2018/SC, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 24/04/2019……………..44 Rwanda Revenue Authority na ENSafrica Rwanda Limited, COMA 00017/2021/HCC, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 29/12/2021…………………………………………………………….6 Swapnil Tripathi & others vs. Secretary General & Others, Supreme Court of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1232 Of 2017, p.8……………………………………………………………………44 The NDPP v Media 24 Limited & others and HC Van Breda v Media 24 Limited & others (425/2017) [2017] ZASCA 97 (21 June 2017) para.16…………………………………………………44 xvii

## Page 22

xviii Urubanza RCAA 0018/13/CS, Harerimana n’abandi v. Sebukayire rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 4/ 10/2014……………………………………………………………121 Urubanza RCOMAA 00046/2020/CA rwaciwe ku wa 05/03/2021, hagati ya FARAJA HOTEL Ltd iburana na COGEBANQUE Plc n’undi……………………………………………………………….102

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 23

xix

AMAGAMBO MPINE 1. Amategeko agenga imanza z’ubucuruzi – Sosiyete y’ubucuruzi – Umunyamigabane wa sosiyete – Umunyamigabane ntagirwa umunyamigabane wa sosiyete nuko yishyuye imigabane ye yose, abigirwa nuko yanditse mu gitabo cy’abanyamigabane – Kwishyura igice cy’imigabane ntibituma umunyamigabane yamburwa uburenganzira afite muri sosiyete ariko iyo atishyuye ababereyemo umwenda ushingiye ku migabane KAKOZA v NYAGATARE………………………….145 2. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubutegetsi – Ikirego gitanzwe mu buryo bw’inyandiko nsobanurakirego – Gutambamira urubanza – Ubujurire bw’urubanza rutambamira urundi – Urubanza rwatambamiwe rwari rutagishoboye kujuririrwa ku kirego cyatanzwe mu buryo bw’inyandiko nsobanurakirego itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe; bidakuraho uburenganzira bw’umuburanyi utanyuzwe n’umwanzuro wafashwe mu rubanza rwarutambamiye bwo kurujuririra. WHITEFIELD INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v. THOMAS ET PIRON GRANDS LACS……………...69 3. Amategeko agenga imitunganyirize n’imikorere y’ubutegetsi bw’ubucamanza – Inshingano z’urwego rw’ubucamanza – Inshingano za Perezida w’Urukiko – Icyemezo cyafashwe na Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi cyo gutesha agaciro inyandikompuruza, atari icyemezo cy’ubutegetsi kiregerwa hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 178 y’Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ahubwo ko umushingamategeko yashatse xix

## Page 24

xx

ko icyo cyemezo kijya mu rwego rw’ibyemezo by’ubuyobozi Perezida w’Urukiko ashobora gufata mu rwego rw’imitunganyirize n’imigendekere myiza y’akazi kajyanye n’imanza. WHITEFIELD INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v. THOMAS ET PIRON GRANDS LACS……………...69 4. Amategeko agenga ububasha bw’inkiko – Ububasha bw’urukiko rw’Ubujurire – Iyo ikiburanwa mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire kidashobora kugenerwa agaciro muri kamere yacyo mu buryo bw’amafaranga, nta bubasha ruba rufite – Itegeko N°30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw'inkiko, ingingo ya 52. VUNINGOMA N’UNDI v. BRD LTD N’UNDI………99 5. Amategeko agenga ubutaka – Iyandikishwa ry’ubutaka – Gutesha agaciro icyangombwa cy’ubutaka – Uwakwiyandikishaho ubutaka aterekanye ko yabubonye muri bumwe mu buryo buteganyijwe n’itegeko, aba abikoze mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, ibyangombwa yahabwa, ubwabyo akaba atari byo bituma abugiraho uburenganzira, kubera ko bishobora guteshwa agaciro hagize ugaragaza ko ubwo butaka ari we nyirabwo NICYABERA v MUKAGATARE…………………..117 6. Amategeko agenga umuryango – Ababana nk’umugabo n’umugore batarashyingiranywe byemewe n’amategeko – Uburenganzira ku mutungo – Iyo umugabo n’umugore babanye badasezeranye byemewe n’amategeko, imirimo umwe muri bo akora mu rwego rwo kongerera agaciro umutungo w’umuryango, ituma awugiraho uburenganzira. NICYABERA v MUKAGATARE…………………..117 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 25

xxi

7. Amategeko mpanabyaha – Icyaha cyo gukora no gukoresha inyandikompimbano – Ku cyaha cy’ inyandikompimbano, nta mugambi w’uburiganya (intention frauduleuse) wabaho mu gihe hatagaragara icyo ubwo buriganya bwamarira ubukora, ni ngombwa ko mu gukora inyandiko itavugisha ukuri bigomba kuba bigamije uburiganya UBUSHINJACYAHA v BEZA N’UNDI…………….167 Icyaha cyo kugurisha ikintu cy’undi – Ubutumwa bwo guhagararira undi(procuration) – Ku byerekeye icyaha cyo kugurisha ikintu cy’undi, iki cyaha ntigishoboka ku muntu wahawe ubutumwa busesuye bwo guhagarararira undi muri byose UBUSHINJACYAHA v BEZA N’UNDI…………….167 8. Imikorere y’inkiko – Ihame ry’ukubahiriza umurongo wafashwe (stare decisis), – Urukiko rw’Ikirenga – Imanza ziciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga nk’Urukiko rukuriye izindi nkiko zose zo mu gihugu zifatwa nk’imanza zitanga umurongo Re URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA……………………….1 Ihame ry’ukubahiriza umurongo wafashwe (stare decisis) – Urukiko rw’Ubujurire – Imanza ziciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire zitanga umurongo ugomba gukurikizwa n’inkiko zo hasi, mu gihe cyose uwo murongo utahinduwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga Re URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA…………………….....1 Ihame ry’ukubahiriza umurongo wafashwe (stare decisis), – Imanza zatangajwe mu Cyegeranyo cy’Ibyemezo by’Inkiko – Imanza zatoranyijwe zigatangazwa, mu Cyegeranyo cy’Ibyemezo by’Inkiko zifatwa nk’izitanga umurongo kuko zigira agaciro gasumba ak’imanza zaciwe AMAGAMBO MPINE

## Page 26

xxii

n’inkiko ziri ku rwego rumwe ku kibazo gisa, zikaba zishobora kwifashishwa n’ababuranyi cyangwa abacamanza – Amabwiriza N°001/2021 yo ku wa 15/03/2021 ya Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga agenga itangazwa ry’imanza mu cyegeranyo cy’Ibyemezo by’Inkiko, ingingo ya 9 Re URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA……………………….1 Ihame ry’ukubahiriza umurongo wafashwe (stare decisis) – Mu rwego rwo kubahiriza amahame ashingiye ku kubahiriza umurongo wafashwe (stare decisis), buri Rukiko rugomba kubahiriza umurongo rwafashe ku kibazo runaka cyangwa umurongo wafashwe kuri icyo kibazo n’urukiko rurukuriye. Re URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA……………………….1 9 Itegeko Nshinga – Ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko ingingo y’Itegeko inyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga – Inyungu zo gutanga ikirego – Inyungu igomba kumvikana ku buryo bwagutse, igashingira ku kwemeza ko itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga kuko ribangamiye uburenganzira bw’abasaba ko rivaho, cyangwa se rituma icyari kigamijwe n’Itegeko Nshinga kitagerwaho kandi kigomba kurengerwa. Re BYANSI (ADD)…………………………………….29 Ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko ingingo y’Itegeko inyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga – Inyungu y’uwatanze ikirego – Uwatanze ikirego agomba kwerekana inyungu bwite afite cyangwa yavutswa mu buryo butaziguye n’itegeko asaba ko ryakurwaho. Re BYANSI (ADD)…………………………………….29 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 27

xxiii

Ubwisanzure bw'Itangazamakuru – Uruhushya bwo gufata amajwi n'amafoto mu nkiko – Kurengera ubundi burenganzira bw'ababuranyi n'abatangabuhamya – Gusaba uruhushya bwo gufata amajwi n'amafoto mu nkiko ni ngombwa kandi birakwiye. Re BYANSI (FOND)…………………………………...41

AMAGAMBO MPINE

## Page 28

xxiv

## Page 29

xxv

IBIREGO BYIHARIYE

## Page 30

xxvi

## Page 31

xxvii

URUBANZA RUSABA GUHINDURA UMURONGO WATANZWE N’INKIKO

## Page 32

xxviii

## Page 33

1

Re URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/CLR/SPEC 00001/2021/SC – (Ntezilyayo, P.J., Nyilinkwaya, Cyanzayire, Muhumuza na Karimunda, J.) 18 Gashyantare 2022] Imikorere y’inkiko – Ihame ry’ukubahiriza umurongo wafashwe (stare decisis), – Urukiko rw’Ikirenga – Imanza ziciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga nk’Urukiko rukuriye izindi nkiko zose zo mu gihugu zifatwa nk’imanza zitanga umurongo. Imikorere y’inkiko – Ihame ry’ukubahiriza umurongo wafashwe (stare decisis) – Urukiko rw’Ubujurire – Imanza ziciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire zitanga umurongo ugomba gukurikizwa n’inkiko zo hasi, mu gihe cyose uwo murongo utahinduwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. Imikorere y’inkiko – Ihame ry’ukubahiriza umurongo wafashwe (stare decisis), – Imanza zatangajwe mu Cyegeranyo cy’Ibyemezo by’Inkiko – Imanza zatoranyijwe zigatangazwa, mu Cyegeranyo cy’Ibyemezo by’Inkiko zifatwa nk’izitanga umurongo kuko zigira agaciro gasumba ak’imanza zaciwe n’inkiko ziri ku rwego rumwe ku kibazo gisa, zikaba zishobora kwifashishwa n’ababuranyi cyangwa abacamanza – Amabwiriza N°001/2021 yo ku wa 15/03/2021 ya Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga agenga itangazwa ry’imanza mu cyegeranyo cy’Ibyemezo by’Inkiko, ingingo ya 9. Imikorere y’inkiko – Ihame ry’ukubahiriza umurongo wafashwe (stare decisis) – Mu rwego rwo kubahiriza amahame ashingiye ku kubahiriza umurongo wafashwe (stare decisis), buri Rukiko rugomba kubahiriza umurongo rwafashe ku kibazo runaka 1

## Page 34

2

cyangwa umurongo wafashwe kuri icyo kibazo n’urukiko rurukuriye. Incamake y’ikibazo: Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda ruvuga ko ENSafrica Rwanda Limited, ikigo cy’ubucuruzi gitanga serivisi mu by’amategeko (legal services), cyakorewe igenzura n’Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’imisoro n’amahôro, gicibwa umusoro ku nyongeragaciro(TVA) ndetse n’ibihano kuri serivisi cyahaye abantu ku giti cyabo n’ibigo by’ubucuruzi bibarizwa mu mahanga. ENSafrica Rwanda Limited yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi isaba Urukiko gutegeka ko uwo musoro n’ibihano yaciwe n’Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’imisoro n’amahôro bitakurikije amategeko, kuko imirimo yasoreshejwe ifatwa nk’imirimo yoherejwe mu mahanga, bityo ko yari ikwiye kwishyura TVA ya 0%. Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’imisoro n’ amahôro cyo kivuga ko izo servisi zitoherejwe mu mahanga, akaba ariyo mpamvu zigomba gusoreshwa ku gipimo gisanzwe cya 18%. Urukiko rwaciye urubanza, rwemeza ko ikirego cya ENSafrica Rwanda Limited nta shingiro gifite, ruyitegeka kwishyura umusoro ku nyongeragaciro (TVA) n’ibihano yaciwe n’Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’imisoro n’amahôro kuko imirimo na serivisi zatanzwe zagiriye akamaro mu Rwanda abazihawe n’ubwo bo ari abanyamahanga, zikaba zigomba gusoreshwa ku gipimo gisanzwe. ENSafrica Rwanda Limited yajuririye icyo cyemezo mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi narwo rwemeza ko ubwo bujurire nta shingiro bufite, ruhindura ingano y’umusoro ENSafrica igomba kwishyura rushingiye kuri fagitire. Nyuma y’ubusabe bwa ENSafrica Rwanda Limited, Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda rwatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga rusaba isobanurampamo ry’imirimo yoherejwe mu ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 35

3

mahanga (exported services) isoreshwa ku ijanisha rya zeru (0%) nk’uko biteganijwe mu ngingo ya 5, igika cya mbere 1° y’Itegeko rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro, kugirango haboneke umurongo usobanutse ku byerekeye iyoherezwa rya serivisi mu mahanga. Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko icyo kirego kitakiriwe ku mpamvu z’uko hari igisobanuro cyatanzwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi kuri iyo ngingo kitaravuguruzwa kugeza ubu. Ni muri urwo rwego, Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda rwatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, rusaba ko umurongo wafashwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi kuri icyo kibazo wakurwaho. Ruvuga ko mu mwaka wa 2015 hatowe itegeko rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro rikaba rigena ibintu na servisi bisoreshwa ku ijanisha rya zeru (0%), ariko ntirisobanure ibyerekeye servisi zoherezwa mu mahanga. Ruvuga ko kuba umushingamategeko atarasobanuye imirimo yoherezwa mu mahanga, hazakomeza kubaho imyumvire itandukanye hagati y’abasora n’Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’imisoro n’amahôro, bityo ko ari ngombwa ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rutanga umucyo kuri icyo kibazo, kuko igisobanuro cyatanzwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi kinyuranyije n’amategeko, by’umwihariko amasezerano mpuzamahanga u Rwanda rwashyizeho umukono, nyamara ayo masezerano agira agaciro kandi agakurikizwa mu gihugu, ndetse akaba anasumba amategeko asanzwe harimo n’itegeko rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro. Urugaga rw’Abavoka rushingiye ku manza zaciwe n’ibindi bihugu bitandukanye, rukomeza ruvuga ko umurongo watanzwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi byumvikana ko unyuranyije na principle of destination, kuko hagendewe kuri iryo hame, serivisi zoherejwe mu mahanga, zigomba gusoreshwa ku ijanisha rya zero (0%). Re URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA

## Page 36

4

Ishuri ry’Amategeko rya Kaminuza y’u Rwanda, nk’Inshuti y’Urukiko, ritanga ibisobanuro kubyerekeye ibyiciro bitandukanye bya serivisi zoherezwa mu mahanga n’uburyo amategeko atandukanye ndetse n’abahanga babisobanura. Rishingiye ku bisobanuro byatanzwe n’amategeko atandukanye, ndetse no ku ihame rikoreshwa mu gusoresha umusoro ku nyongera gaciro rivuga ko uwo musoro usoreshwa n’igihugu cy’umuguzi wa nyuma, risanga igisobanuro cyatanzwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi kuri serivisi zoherezwa mu mahanga kinyuranyije n’amategeko y’u Rwanda, bityo ko uwo murongo ukwiye guhindurwa n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuko ntacyo rwashingiyeho. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Imanza ziciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga nk’Urukiko rukuriye izindi nkiko zose zo mu gihugu zifatwa nk’imanza zitanga umurongo. 2. Imanza ziciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire zitanga umurongo ugomba gukurikizwa n’inkiko zo hasi, mu gihe cyose uwo murongo utahinduwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. 3. Imanza zatoranyijwe zigatangazwa, mu Cyegeranyo cy’Ibyemezo by’Inkiko zifatwa nk’izitanga umurongo kuko zigira agaciro gasumba ak’imanza zaciwe n’inkiko ziri ku rwego rumwe ku kibazo gisa, zikaba zishobora kwifashishwa n’ababuranyi cyangwa abacamanza, ibi ariko ntibivanaho, ku manza zitatangajwe, ihame ry’uko icyemezo cy’Urukiko kiba itegeko ndakuka muri urwo rukiko no mu nkiko ziri hasi yarwo, kikagomba gukurikizwa 4. Mu rwego rwo kubahiriza amahame ashingiye ku kubahiriza umurongo wafashwe (stare decisis), buri Rukiko rugomba kubahiriza umurongo rwafashe ku kibazo runaka cyangwa umurongo wafashwe kuri icyo kibazo n’urukiko rurukuriye ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 37

5

5. Icyemezo cyafashwe mu rubanza RCOMA 00350/2019/HCC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ntabwo cyafatwa nk’umurongo watanzwe n’urwo Rukiko kuri icyo kibazo kuko urega atabasha kugaragaza ko icyo cyemezo ariwo murongo rwagiye rufata mu zindi manza zitandukanye hasuzumwa ikibazo nk’iki cyangwa niba waragiye ushingirwaho n’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi ruri hasi yarwo, cyane cyane ko mu rundi rubanza rwabaye hagati ya Rwanda Revenue Authority na ENSafrica Rwanda Limited, hasuzumwa ikibazo nk’iki, rwaciwe nyuma y’icibwa ry’urubanza rusabirwa guhindurirwa umurongo, urwo Rukiko rwafashe icyemezo gitandukanye n’icyaregewe muri uru Rukiko,. Ikirego gisaba guhindura umurongo mu rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, nta mpamvu yacyo. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu mwaka wa 2003 nk’uko ryavuguruwe muri 2015, ingingo ya 95. Itegeko N°30/2018 ryo kuwa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’Inkiko, ingingo ya 52, 65 n’iya 73. Itegeko N° 012/2018 ryo ku wa 04/04/2018 rigena imitunganyirize n’imikorere y’Ubutegetsi bw’Ubucamanza, ingingo ya 50. Itegeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 132. Itegeko Nº 02/2015 ryo ku wa 25/02/2015 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko N°37/2012 ryo ku wa 09/11/2012 rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro, ingingo ya 1. Re URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA

## Page 38

6

Itegeko N°37/2012 ryo ku wa 09/11/2012 rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro, ingingo ya 5. Amabwiriza N°001/2021 yo ku wa 15/03/2021 ya Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga agenga itangazwa ry’imanza mu cyegeranyo cy’Ibyemezo by’Inkiko, ingingo ya 9. Imanza zifashishijwe: Access Bank Rwanda Ltd na SOTIRU Ltd, RS/INJUST/RCOM 00003/2019/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 26/06/2020. Re. Great Lakes Initiative for Human Rights and Development, RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2019/SC, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 04/12/2019. Rwanda Revenue Authority na ENSafrica Rwanda Limited, COMA 00017/2021/HCC, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 29/12/2021. Inyandiko z’Abahanga zifashishijwe: Berland, David. L., Stopping the pendulum: why stare decisis should constrain the Court from further modification of the search incident to arrest exception, University of Illinois Law Review (2011) (2), 695. [….]. Fricero, Natalie, Procédure Civile, 5 e ed., LGDJ, 2014, page 438. Guinchard, Serge, Procédure Civile, Droit interne et européen du procès civil, Ed. Dalloz, 34e édition, 2018, p. 63 43(1434). WTO, Council for Trade in Services, Guidelines for the Scheduling of Specific Commitments Under the General Agreement On Trade in Services (Gats), 23rd March 2001. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 39

7

WTO, United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services, Report of Panel, 10th November 2004. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda (RBA) rwatanze ikirego gisaba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga gukuraho umurongo wafashwe mu rubanza RCOMA 00350/2019/HCC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ku wa 04/12/2019 haburana ENSafrica Rwanda Limited n’Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’imisoro n’ amahôro (RRA). [2] Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda ruvuga ko ENSafrica Rwanda Limited, ikigo cy’ubucuruzi gitanga serivisi mu by’amategeko (legal services), cyakorewe igenzura n’Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’imisoro n’amahôro, gicibwa umusoro ku nyongeragaciro (TVA) ndetse n’ibihano kuri serivisi cyahaye abantu ku giti cyabo n’ibigo by’ubucuruzi babarizwa mu mahanga. [3] Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda rusobanura ko ibyo byatumye ENSafrica Rwanda Limited itanga ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi mu rubanza RCOM 01492/2018/TC, isaba Urukiko gutegeka ko uwo musoro n’ibihano yaciwe n’Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’imisoro n’amahôro bitakurikije amategeko, kuko imirimo yasoreshejwe ifatwa nk’imirimo yoherejwe mu mahanga, bityo ko yari ikwiye kwishyura TVA ya 0%. Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’imisoro n’ amahôro kivuga ko izo servisi Re URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA

## Page 40

8

zitoherejwe mu mahanga, akaba ariyo mpamvu zigomba gusoreshwa ku gipimo gisanzwe (standard rate) cya 18%. [4] Ku wa 20/03/2019, Urukiko rwaciye urubanza, rwemeza ko ikirego cya ENSafrica Rwanda Limited nta shingiro gifite, ruyitegeka kwishyura umusoro ku nyongeragaciro (TVA) n’ibihano bingana na 22,814,510 Frw yaciwe n’Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’imisoro n’amahôro. Urukiko rwafashe icyo cyemezo rushingiye ku kuba imirimo na serivisi zatanzwe zaragiriye akamaro mu Rwanda abazihawe n’ubwo bo ari abanyamahanga, bityo ko zigomba gusoreshwa ku gipimo gisanzwe. [5] ENSafrica Rwanda Limited yajuriye mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi mu rubanza RCOMA 00350/2019/HCC, ku wa 04/12/2019, Urukiko rwemeza ko ubwo bujurire nta shingiro bufite, ruhindura imikirize y’urubanza ku birebana na fagitire zigomba kwishyurirwa TVA, maze rutegeka ENSafrica Rwanda Limited kwishyura 29,261,826 Frw yaciwe n’Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’imisoro n’amahôro. [6] Nyuma y’ubusabe bwa ENSafrica Rwanda Limited, Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda rwatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza RS/INTL/SPEC 00001/2020/SC gisaba isobanurampamo ry’imirimo yoherejwe mu mahanga (exported services) isoreshwa ku ijanisha rya zeru (0%) nk’uko biteganijwe mu ngingo ya 5, igika cya mbere-1° y’Itegeko rishyiraho TVA ryavuzwe haruguru, kugira ngo haboneke umurongo usobanutse ku byerekeye iyoherezwa rya serivisi mu mahanga. [7] Muri urwo rubanza, Urugaga rw’Abavoka rwanengaga uburyo Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwasobanuye ingingo ya mbere y’Itegeko Nº 02/2015 ryo ku wa 25/02/2015 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko N°37/2012 ryo ku wa 09/11/2012 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 41

9

rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro, aho mu gika cya 25 cy’urubanza rwavuzwe haruguru, ruvuga ko «…ubusobanuro bw’imirimo yoherejwe mu mahanga itagomba gucibwa umusoro ku nyongeragaciro (TVA), butagomba gushingira ku kuba uwakorewe iyo mirimo ari mu mahanga gusa ahubwo hagomba kurebwa ko imirimo yakorewe uwo muntu yohererejwe ngo imugirire akamaro mu mahanga iyo ari, kuko icyo gihe aribwo iyo mirimo yafatwa nk'iyoherejwe mu mahanga ndetse ntinacibwe umusoro wa TVA. (…) mu gihe imirimo yakorewe mu Rwanda ikorerwa umunyamahanga utari no mu Rwanda ariko iyo mirimo igomba kumugirira akamaro mu Rwanda, ikaba itagomba gufatwa nk’imirimo yoherejwe mu mahanga. » [8] Ku wa 23/10/2020, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko icyo kirego kitakiriwe ku mpamvu z’uko hari igisobanuro cyatanzwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi kuri iyo ngingo, kandi kikaba kitaravuguruzwa kugeza ubu, ko iyo Urukiko rwaciye urubanza ku rwego rwa nyuma rwafashe umurongo ku kibazo runaka, ruba rumaze impaka kuri icyo kibazo ku buryo nta sobanurampamo riba rigikenewe, ko utishimiye umurongo wafashwe ku kibazo runaka yifuza ko wahinduka mu nyungu z’imanza zizakurikira, abiregera mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga. [9] Ni muri urwo rwego, Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda rwatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, rusaba ko umurongo wafashwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ku kibazo cyavuzwe mu bika bibanziriza iki wakurwaho. [10] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu mizi ku wa 13/12/2021, Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda rwitabye ruhagarariwe na Me Bizimana Emmanuel na Me Nzafashwanayo Dieudonné. Re URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA

## Page 42

10

[11] Urukiko rwabanje gusuzuma ubusabe bwa Kaminuza y’u Rwanda, Ishami ry’amategeko (UR/School of Law) bwo kuba Inshuti y’Urukiko muri uru rubanza. Nyuma yo kumva abahagarariye Urugaga rw’Abavoka, Urukiko rwasanze nta mpamvu yatuma Kaminuza y’u Rwanda, Ishami ry’amategeko itaba Inshuti y’Urukiko muri uru rubanza, rwemera ubusabe bwayo. Kaminuza y’u Rwanda, Ishami ry’amategeko yahagarariwe na Me Bagabo Faustin na Me Sebucensha Leonard. II. IKIBAZO KIGOMBA GUSUZUMWA MURI URU RUBANZA Kumenya niba umurongo watanzwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi mu rubanza RCOMA 00350/2019/HCC wakurwaho [12] Abahagarariye Urugaga rw’Abavoka basabye Urukiko ko rutagendera ku bikubiye mu ngingo ya mbere y’umwanzuro batanze yerekeye incompatibility, ko ahubwo rwakwita ku bisobanuro bari butange mu iburanisha. [13] Me Nzafashwanayo Dieudonné uhagarariye Urugaga rw’Abavoka avuga ko mu mwaka wa 2015 hatowe Itegeko nº 02/2015 ryo ku wa 25/02/2015 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko N°37/2012 ryo ku wa 09/11/2012 rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro, ingingo yaryo ya mbere yaje ihindura kandi yuzuza ingingo ya 5 y’Itegeko N°37/2012 ryo ku wa 09/11/2012. [14] Avuga ko ingingo ya 5 y’Itegeko N°37/2012 ryavuzwe harugugu yagenaga ndetse ikanasobanura mu buryo burambuye ibintu na servisi bisoreshwa ku ijanisha rya zeru (0%), bimwe ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 43

11

muri byo, akaba ari ibintu n’imirimo byoherejwe mu mahanga.1 Akomeza avuga ko ubwo iyo ngingo yavugururwaga mu mwaka wa 2015, ibintu n’imirimo byoherejwe mu mahanga byakomeje gushyirwa mu bintu na serivisi bisoreshwa kuri 0%, ariko itegeko ntiryasobanura ibyerekeye servisi zoherezwa mu mahanga (exported services). 2 [15] Avuga ko iyo ngingo itigeze inateganya ko imirimo yoherejwe mu mahanga ari iyakorewe mu mahanga gusa, nyamara ingingo ya 5, igika cya mbere 1o, y’Itegeko ryo mu mwaka wa 2012 (ryahinduye kandi ryujujwe n’iryo rya 2015) yateganyaga urutonde rw’ibintu n’imirimo bifatwa nk’ibyoherejwe mu mahanga, by’umwihariko ikavugamo imirimo ikorerwa mu mahanga (services rendered abroad).

1 Iyo ngingo yateganyaga ko ibintu na serivisi bikurikira bisoreshwa ku ijanisha rya zeru: 1º ibintu n’imirimo byoherejwe mu mahanga: a) ibintu byoherejwe mu mahanga bifitiwe ibimenyetso byemewe na Komiseri Mukuru; b) imirimo y‘ubwikorezi n‘indi mirimo ijyana nabwo ifitanye isano no kohereza ibintu mu mahanga bivugwa mu gace ka a) k'iyi ngingo; c) imirimo y'ubwikorezi bw'ibintu binyura mu Rwanda bigana mu mahanga harimo n'imirimo ijyana na bwo; d) lisansi y‘indege; e) imirimo ikorerwa mu mahanga; f) ibintu bikoreshwa mu ndege ziva mu Rwanda zijya mu Mahanga; 2º ibintu bigurishirizwa mu maduka adasoreshwa, nk'uko biteganywa n'itegeko rigenga za gasutamo. 2 Ingingo ya mbere y’iryo Tegeko iteganya ko ibintu na serivisi bikurikira bisoreshwa ku ijanisha rya zeru: 1. ibintu na serivisi byoherejwe mu mahanga; 2. amabuye y’agaciro yacurujwe ku isoko ry’imbere mu gihugu. Re URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA

## Page 44

12

[16] Me Nzafashwanayo Dieudonné avuga ko kuba umushingamategeko atarasobanuye imirimo yoherezwa mu mahanga, hazakomeza kubaho imyumvire itandukanye hagati y’abasora n’Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’imisoro n’ amahôro, bityo ko ari ngombwa ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rutanga umucyo kuri icyo kibazo, kuko igisobanuro cyatanzwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi kuri icyo kibazo kinyuranyije n’amategeko, by’umwihariko amasezerano mpuzamahanga u Rwanda rwashyizeho umukono. [17] Mu iburanisha, Me Nzafashwanayo Dieudonné yatanze ibisobanuro by’imirimo yoherezwa mu mahanga ashingiye ku nyandiko ya World Trade Organization (WTO), yiswe Amabwiriza yo gutegura ukwiyemerera kwihariye mu masezerano rusange ku bucuruzi muri serivisi (Guidelines for the Scheduling of Specific Commitments under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)).3 Avuga ko ayo mabwiriza asobanura ko mu bucuruzi bwa servisi (trade in services) hakubiyemo ubucuruzi bwambukiranya imipaka (cross- border supply), aho umuntu wo mu gihugu kimwe, atanga serivisi ku bandi akoresheje itumanaho (telecommunications) cyangwa email, atarinze kujya mu kindi gihugu. [18] Ibyo kandi bikaba ari nabyo byemejwe n’akanama ka World Trade Organisation kigaga ku ngamba zibangamiye

3 WTO, Council for Trade in Services, “Guidelines for the Scheduling of Specific Commitments Under The General Agreement On Trade In Services (Gats)”, 23rd March 2001, Cross-border supply is defined as International transport, the supply of a service through telecommunications or mail, and services embodied in exported goods (i.e. services supplied in or by a physical medium, such as a computer diskette or drawings) are all examples of cross-border supply, since the service supplier is not present within the territory of the Member where the service is delivered. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 45

13

ubucuruzi bwambukiranya umupaka bujyanye n’imikino y’amahirwe no gutega cyane cyane muri Leta z’Ubumwe z’Amerika (United States–Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services).4 Avuga kandi ko ibyo bisobanuro bitandukanye n’umurongo wafashwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ku gisobanuro cy’imirimo yoherejwe mu mahanga, kuko rwasobanuye ko kugira ngo imirimo yitwe ko yoherejwe mu mahanga ari uko iba yagiriye uwayikorewe umumaro mu mahanga. [19] Me Bizimana Emmanuel nawe uhagarariye Urugaga rw’Abavoka avuga ko uwo murongo wafashwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi unyuranyije n’amaserano mpuzamahanga u Rwanda rwashyizeho umukono, nyamara ayo masezerano agira agaciro kandi agakurikizwa mu gihugu, ndetse akaba anasumba amategeko asanzwe harimo n’itegeko rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro nk’uko biteganywa mu ngingo ya 168 n’iya 95 z’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu mwaka wa 2003 nk’uko ryavuguruwe muri 2015. [20] Akomeza avuga ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza RS/INTL/SPEC 00001/2020/SC rwavuzwe haruguru, rwemeje ko ayo masezerano akwiye kwifashishwa mu gushaka igisobanuro cy’imirimo yoherejwe mu mahanga, bityo ko guhindura uwo murongo biri mu nyungu z’itegeko.

4 WTO, “United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services”, Report of Panel, 10th November 2004, the panel concluded that “…market access commitment for mode 1 implies the right for other Members' suppliers to supply a service through all means of delivery, whether by mail, telephone, Internet etc., unless otherwise specified in a Member's Schedule...” Re URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA

## Page 46

14

[21] Me Bizimana Emmanuel avuga kandi ko uwo murongo wafashwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi unyuranyije na principle of destination yemejwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza RS/INCONSIST/SPEC 00004/2019 ku kirego cyatanzwe na Me Nzafashwanayo Dieudonné, aho rwemeje ko iryo hame ari ihame ry’ingenzi mu byerekeye umusoro ku nyongeragaciro (TVA) ku bucuruzi bw’ibintu na serivisi byambukiranya imipaka. [22] Avuga ko iryo hame rishyigikirwa n’Amabwiriza y’Umuryango w’Ubufatanye mu by’Ubukungu n’Iterambere (OECD International VAT/GST Guidelines, 2017), aho nyuma yo gusobanura ibyo gusoresha serivisi umucuruzi aha undi mucuruzi (Business–to-Business, B2B) na serivisi umucuruzi aha umuguzi usanzwe (Business-to-Consumer, B2C), ayo mabwiriza avuga ko serivisi zisoresherezwa aho zakoreshejwe (place of consumption) aho kuba aho zakorewe (place of performance). Ko ibyo binahuye n’ibiteganywa mu masezerano mpuzamahanga yavuzwe haruguru, kuko biganisha ku kuba serivisi zisoresherezwa mu gihugu zakoreshejwemo (place of consumption) kandi ahafatwa nk’aho serivisi yakoreshejwe (where the consummation of a service occurs) ari aho uwahawe serivisi abarizwa; ko ibyo byumvikanisha neza ko imirimo iba yoherejwe mu mahanga, ari iyakorewe umuntu ubarizwa mu kindi gihugu, bityo ikaba igomba gusoreshwa ku ijanisha rya zeru (0%). [23] Abahagarariye Urugaga rw’Abavoka basobanura kandi iryo hame bashingiye ku manza zaciwe n’ibihugu bitandukanye, harimo n’urubanza rwa Commissioner of Domestic Taxes na Total Touch Cargo Holland—Income Tax Appeal n°17 of 2013, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rwo muri Kenya, aho rwemeje ko aho ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 47

15

imirimo yakorewe atari ho hemeza ko yoherejwe cyangwa itoherejwe mu mahanga ko ahubwo icy’ingenzi ari aho uwakoresheje/uwahawe serivisi abarizwa kurusha aho imirimo yakorewe.5 [24] Batanze kandi urugero rw’urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire mu bijyanye n’imisoro rwo mu Buhinde mu rubanza Microsoft Corporation (I) (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi, narwo rwagarutse kuri iryo hame ruvuga ko ikitabwaho ari aho uhabwa serivisi aherereye kurusha aho uzitanga aherereye,6 maze rwemeza ko serivisi zo kwamamaza ibikorwa bya Microsoft Operation Singapore Pvt. Ltd mu Buhinde bikozwe na Micrsoft Corporation India Pvt Ltd, zigize serivisi zoherejwe mu mahanga n’ubwo iyo mirimo ubwayo yakorewe k’ubutaka bw’Ubuhinde.7 [25] Bavuga kandi ko Urukiko rw’Ubujurire bw’Imisoro rwo muri Kenya narwo rwagarutse kuri principle of destination, mu rubanza Tax Appeal no 5 of 2018 hagati ya Coca-Cola Central

5 See Judgement of High Court of Kenya, Commissioner of Domestic Taxes v Total Touch Cargo Holland— Income Tax Appeal no.17 of 2013, para.30. “The location where the service is provided does not determine the question of whether the service is exported or not. The test is the location (or place) of use or consumption of that service. Therefore, the relevant factor is the location of the consumer of the service and not the place where the service is performed.” http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/165957/. 6 “… the relevant factor “… is the ‘the location of the service recipient’ and not the ‘place of performance...”, See Judgment of Indian Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Microsoft Corporation (I) (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi [2014-TIOL-1964-CESTAT-DEL]. 7 Idem. Re URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA

## Page 48

16

East and West Africa Limited na The Commissioner of Domestic Taxes; aho rwemeje ko serivisi zo kwamamaza muri Kenya Coca-Cola Central East and West Africa Limited (sosiyete yo muri Kenya) yahaye Coca-Cola Corporation Export (ibarizwa muri Leta Zunze Ubumwe z’Amerika) zoherejwe mu mahanga, bityo ko zigomba gusoreshwa muri Kenya ku ijanisha rya zero (0%).8 [26] Abahagarariye Urugaga rw’Abavoka bashingiye ku manza zaciwe n’ibindi bihugu bitandukanye zagaragajwe haruguru, bavuga ko umurongo watanzwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi byumvikana ko unyuranyije na principle of destination, kuko hagendewe kuri iryo hame, serivisi zoherejwe mu mahanga, zigomba gusoreshwa ku ijanisha rya zero (0%) ni izahawe abantu babarizwa mu mahanga hatitawe aho zatangiwe/zakorewe (place of performance), ukuyemo serivisi bisaba ko zitangwa uzihabwa n’uzitanga bari kumwe (on-the- spot services) zo zisoresherezwa aho zakorewe. [27] Bavuga kandi ko umurongo basaba ko ukurwaho, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwawufashe rutagaragaje icyo rushingiyeho (absence d’une motivation en droit), bityo ko ibyo binyuranyije n'ingingo ya 132, igika cya 2, y’Itegeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi

8 See judgement of Tax Appeals Tribunal, Coca-Cola Central East and West Africa Limited v The Commissioner of Domestic Taxes [Tax Appeal No 5 of 2018], http://www.kenyalaw.org/tribunals/TaxAppealTribunal/2020/COCA%E2%8 0%93COLA-Central-East-and-West- Africa-LTD-v-Commissioner-of- Domestic-Taxes[2020]eKLR.pdf. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 49

17

iteganya ko ica ry'urubanza rigaragaza ingingo zishingiye ku byabaye n'amategeko ryashingiyeho mu gufata icyemezo. [28] Abahagarariye Urugaga rw’Abavoka, bashingiye ku bisobanuro byatanzwe haruguru, basanga uwo murongo ukwiye gukurwaho kuko uteje urujijo, ndetse ukaba wakomeza gukurura impaka hagati y’Ikigo cy’imisoro n’amahôro n’abasoreshwa kimwe n’inkiko zashyikirizwa ikibazo cyerekeye gusobanura imirimo yoherejwe mu mahanga isoreshwa ku ijanisha rya zeru, kuko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rutigeze rusobanura ahafatwa nk’aho serivisi runaka yagiriye umumaro (the place where the benefit from a service accrues), kandi ari ryo zingiro ry’igisobanuro rwatanze kuko utamenya niba serivisi runaka yaroherejwe mu mahanga (ugendeye ku murongo Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwatanze) utabanje kumenya aho yagize umumaro. [29] Abahagariye Ishuri ry’Amategeko rya Kaminuza y’u Rwanda, nk’Inshuti y’Urukiko, batanze ibisobanuro kubyerekeye ibyiciro bitandukanye bya serivisi zoherezwa mu mahanga n’uburyo amategeko atandukanye ndetse n’abahanga babisobanura. [30] Basobanura imirimo yoherezwa mu mahanga bashingiye ku bisobanuro bitangwa n’ingingo ya mbere y’ Amasezerano Rusange yerekeye ubucuruzi bwa serivise (General Agreement on Trade in Services [GATS] isobanura ko: serivisi zambukiranya imipaka/zoherejwe mu mahanga (internationally traded services) bivuze: - serivisi zitanzwe n’umuntu wo mu gihugu kimwe zigatangirwa mu kindi gihugu cyangwa; Re URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA

## Page 50

18

- serivisi zitangiwe mu gihugu kimwe zigahabwa umuntu uri mu kindi gihugu; - serivisi zatanzwe n’umucuruzi wafunguye ishami ry’ubucuruzi rishamikiye ku bucuruzi bwo mu gihugu cye (subsidiary/branch/agency) kugira ngo atange serivisi mu kindi gihugu; - serivisi zitanzwe n’umucuruzi wavuye mu gihugu kimwe, akajya kuzitangira mu kindi gihugu.9 [31] Bavuga ko ibyo bisobanuro ari nabyo bitangwa mu ngingo ya 16 y’Amasezeraho Mpuzamahanga Ashyiraho Isoko Rusange ry’Umuryango w’Afurika y’Uburasirazuba (Protocol on the Establishment of the Common Market of the East African Community). [32] Bakomeza bavuga ko Umuryango Mpuzamahanga w’Ubucuruzi (WTO) wasobanuye neza ubucuruzi bwa serivisi n’uburyo bw’itangwa ryabwo hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 1.2. ya GATS yagarutsweho haruguru. Icyiciro cya mbere ni ubucuruzi bwa serivisi bwambukiranyije umupaka (Cross-border trade in services), aho umuguzi wo mu gihugu ahabwa serivisi zikomotse mu mahanga hakoreshejwe itumanaho cyangwa serivisi z’iposita. Icyiciro cya kabiri ni serivisi umuguzi aherewe hanze (consumption abroad), nk’abamukerarugendo, abanyeshuri,

9 Art.1 of GATS states that “For the purposes of this Agreement, trade in services is defined as the supply of a service: (a) from the territory of one Member into the territory of any other Member; (b) in the territory of one Member to the service consumer of any other Member, (c) by a service supplier of one Member, through commercial presence in the territory of any other Member, (d) by a service supplier of one Member, through presence of natural persons of a Member in the territory of any other Member”. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 51

19

cyangwa abarwayi. Ku birebana n’icyiciro cya gatatu kijyanye no kuzana ubucuruzi mu gihugu (Commercial presence), cyo kireba serivisi zatanzwe n’umucuruzi wafunguye ishami ry’ubugure rishamikiye ku bucuruzi bwo mu gihugu cye (subsidiary/branch/agency) kugira ngo atange serivisi mu kindi gihugu (banki, hoteli, amasosiyete y’ubwubatsi, etc.). Icyiciro cya kane ni serivisi itangwa mu kindi gihugu (movement of natural persons), aho umucuruzi w’umunyamahanga atanga serivisi ku giti cye cyangwa umukozi ukorera umucuruzi (sosiyete zikora ubushakashatsi [consultancy firm], ibitaro, amasosiyete y’ubwubatsi). [33] Abahagarariye Inshuti y’Urukiko bashingiye ku bisobanuro byagarutsweho haruguru bitangwa n’amategeko atandukanye, ndetse no ku ihame rikoreshwa mu gusoresha umusoro ku nyongera gaciro rivuga ko uwo musoro usoreshwa n’igihugu cy’umuguzi wa nyuma (Principle of destination), basanga igisobanuro cyatanzwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi kuri serivisi zoherezwa mu mahanga kinyuranyije n’amategeko y’u Rwanda, bityo ko uwo murongo ukwiye guhindurwa n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [34] Ingingo ya 65 y’Itegeko N°30/2018 ryo kuwa 02.06.2018 rigena ububasha bw’Inkiko iteganya ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rufite ububasha bwo gusubiramo umurongo wafashwe n’inkiko ku manza zarangije inzira z’ubujurire hagamijwe kurengera itegeko no gutanga umurongo ngenderwaho rubisabwe n’Urugaga rw’Abavoka cyangwa Ubushinjacyaha Bukuru. Re URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA

## Page 52

20

[35] Mu gusesengura ingingo imaze kuvugwa haruguru, Urukiko rusanga ari ngombwa kubanza kumenya icyo umurongo wafashwe n’Inkiko bivuze. [36] Ubundi, imanza ziciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga nk’Urukiko rukuriye izindi nkiko zose zo mu Gihugu10 zifatwa nk’imanza zitanga umurongo. Ku bw’Itegeko, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ni rwo rufite inshingano yo kugenzura imicire y’imanza mu zindi nkiko, rugamije gukosora amakosa yaba yakozwe mu nshingano zazo zo kubahiriza amategeko no gutanga ubutabera, rukanatanga umurongo ku zindi nkiko mu gukemura ibibazo by’amategeko zihura nabyo nk’uko byemejwe mu rubanza RS/INJUST/RCOM 00003/2019/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga11 no mu rubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2019/SC12 aho Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwavuze ko icyo gitekerezo cyaje gushimangirwa mu ngingo ya 65 y’Itegeko rigena ububasha bw’inkiko ryavuzwe haruguru aho bigaragara ko kubahiriza umurongo usanzweho mu gukemura ikibazo runaka ari ihame ndakuka kuko, kugira ngo uwo murongo uhinduke bisaba kuwuregera Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu kirego kihariye; narwo kandi nk’uko bigaragara mu ngingo ya 73 y’iryo Tegeko mu gika cyaryo cya nyuma, rukawuhindura rubanje kugaragaza ikibazo kigaragara mu murongo wari usanzweho, mbere yo gutanga umurongo mushya ngenderwaho.

10 Ingingo ya 50 y’Itegeko N° 012/2018 ryo ku wa 04/04/2018 rigena imitunganyirize n’imikorere y’Ubutegetsi bw’Ubucamanza. 11 Urubanza RS/INJUST/RCOM 00003/2019/SC haburana Access Bank Rwanda Ltd na SOTIRU Ltd rwaciwe ku wa 26/06/2020, urupapuro rwa 6, igika cya 14. 12 Urubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2019/SC, Great Lakes Initiative for Human Rights and Development isaba gukurango ingingo kuko zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, rwaciwe ku wa 04/12/2019, ibika bya bya 32 na 33. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 53

21

[37] Hashingiwe kandi ku cyerekezo cyafashwe n’Umushingamategeko mu Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’Inkiko, ryahaye ububasha Urukiko rw’Ubujurire bwo kuburanisha mu rwego rw’ubujurire imanza zaburanishwaga n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga nk’uko bigaragara mu ngingo ya 52 y’iryo Tegeko, byumvikana ko imanza ruca muri urwo rwego zitanga umurongo ugomba gukurikizwa n’inkiko zo hasi, mu gihe cyose utahinduwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. [38] Ikindi kandi, hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’Amabwiriza N°001/2021 yo ku wa 15/03/2021 ya Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga agenga itangazwa ry’imanza mu cyegeranyo cy’Ibyemezo by’Inkiko, n’imanza zatoranyijwe zigatangazwa, nazo zifatwa nk’izitanga umurongo kuko zigira agaciro gasumba ak’imanza zaciwe n’inkiko ziri ku rwego rumwe ku kibazo gisa, zikaba zishobora kwifashishwa n’ababuranyi cyangwa abacamanza.13 Ibi ariko ntibivanaho, ku manza zitatangajwe, ihame ry’uko icyemezo cy’Urukiko kiba itegeko ndakuka muri urwo rukiko no mu nkiko ziri hasi yarwo, kikagomba gukurikizwa. [39] Ibimaze kuvugwa haruguru bishimangira ihame rya “stare decisis” naryo rivuga ko icyemezo cy’Urukiko cyafashwe mu rubanza runaka kiba itegeko ndakuka muri urwo rukiko no mu nkiko ziri hasi yarwo, kikagomba gukurikizwa. Iryo hame rikaba rifasha kubaka amahame ahamye adahindagurika ashingiye ku mategeko, bigatuma habaho kwizera Inkiko n’ibyemezo zifata.14 Kugirango umurongo wafashwe n’inkiko

13 Reba ingingo ya 9 y’Amabwiriza N° 001/2021 yavuzwe haruguru. 14 Berland, David. L., Stopping the pendulum: why stare decisis should constrain the Court from further modification of the search incident to arrest Re URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA

## Page 54

22

mu manza zabaye ndakuka uhinduke, ni uko biregerwa Urukiko rw’Ikirenga hakurikijwe ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 65 y’Itegeko N°30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru, hagamijwe kurengera itegeko no gutanga umurongo ngenderwaho. [40] Kuregera Urukiko rw’Ikirenga hasabwa guhindura umurongo wafashwe n’Inkiko mu nyungu z’itegeko si umwihariko w’u Rwanda gusa kuko binakorwa no mu bihugu bitandukanye. Nko mu Bufaransa, umuhanga mu mategeko witwa Natalie Fricero asobanura ko Umushinjacyaha Mukuru mu Rukiko Rusesa imanza ashobora kuregera urwo Rukiko arusaba guhindura umurongo wafashwe mu rubanza rwarangije inzira zose z’ubujurire cyangwa rwanarangijwe mu gihe umurongo rwafashe unyuranyije n’amategeko. Agaragaza ko iyi nzira ifite umwihariko kuko igamije kurengera inyungu rusange, kandi ikaba idahungabanya ibyemejwe n’Urukiko ku bireba ababuranyi, bisobanura ko umuburanyi adashobora gushingira ku murongo wahinduwe ngo agire ibyo asaba.15

exception, University of Illinois Law Review (2011) (2), 695. ‘’ [….] It promotes the consistent development of legal principles and it fosters reliance on judicial decisions and contributes to the actual and apparent reliability of the judicial process.’’ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264877323_Stopping_the_pendulu m_Why_stare_decisis_should_c onstrain_the_court_from_further_modification_of_the_search_incident_to_a rrest_exception 15 Fricero, Natalie, Procédure Civile, 5e ed., LGDJ, 2014, page 438; ‘’ Le pourvoi dans l’intérêt de la loi est réservé au Procureur Général près la Cour de Cassation, qui peut agir pour cesser une violation de la loipar un tribunal, alors que le jugement n’a pas été attaqué par les parties. ⦋…..⦌. Ce pourvoi est original, en ce qu’il est destiné à protéger l’intérêt général, et qu’il n’affecte pas la situation des parties. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 55

23

[41] Undi muhanga mu mategeko, Serge Guinchard nawe yavuze ko Umushinjacyaha Mukuru mu Rukiko Rusesa imanza, abyibwirije, ashobora gusaba gusubiramo umurongo udakurikije amategeko, n’ubwo ababuranyi baba banyuzwe nawo ntibawujuririre. Ibyo ashobora kubisaba ku cyemezo cyose kinyuranyije n’amategeko kabone n’iyo urubanza rwaba rwararangijwe. Icyo kirego agomba kugitanga mu gihe cy’imyaka itanu ibarwa uhereye igihe icyemezo aregera cyasomewe. Asobanura kandi ko muri bene ibyo birego, Umushinjacyaha Mukuru yitwara nk’umurinzi w’itegeko.16 [42] Nubwo ibimaze kuvugwa mu bika biri haruguru bigaragaza ko ufite ububasha bwo gutanga ibirego bisaba guhindura umurongo mu nyungu z’itegeko ari Umushinjacyaha Mukuru nk’uko binateganyijwe mu ngingo ya 65 y’Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga ibisobanuro bikubiyemo byanifashishwa mu gihe ikirego kinatanzwe n’Urugaga rw’Abavoka kuko narwo rwahawe ubwo bubasha muri iryo Tegeko. [43] Ku bijyanye n’urubanza RCOMA 00350/2019/HCC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ku wa 04/12/2019 rusabirwa guhindurirwa umurongo, Urukiko rurasanga icyemezo

16 Guinchard, Serge, Procédure Civile, Droit interne et européen du procès civil, Ed. Dalloz, 34e édition, 2018, page 643(1434); ‘’Seul le Procureur Général près la Cour de Cassation, de sa propre initiative, peut former un pourvoi tendant à une censure symbolique d’un jugement ayant bafoué la loi mais contre lequel les parties, satisfaites, n’ont pas voulu exercer de recours. Il peut procéder ainsi contre toute décision contraire aux lois, règlement ou aux formes de procéder, et ce meme si la décision a déjà été executée. ⦋…. ⦌ fixe un délai de cinq ans à compter du prononcé de la décision. Par le pourvoi, le Procureur Général se comporte en gardien de la légalité ⦋….⦌. Re URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA

## Page 56

24

cyafashwe muri urwo rubanza, aho rwemeje ko ENSAfrica Rwanda Limited igomba gusoreshwa ku gipimo gisanzwe cya 18% kuko iyo mirimo isoreshwa yagiriye akamaro uwayihawe mu Rwanda n’ubwo ari umunyamahanga, kitafatwa nk’umurongo watanzwe n’urwo Rukiko kuri icyo kibazo. Ibyo bishimangirwa no kuba abahagarariye Urugaga rw’Abavoka batarashoboye kugaragariza Urukiko ko icyo cyemezo ariwo murongo rwagiye rufata mu zindi manza zitandukanye hasuzumwa ikibazo nk’iki cyangwa niba waragiye ushingirwaho n’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi ruri hasi yarwo. [44] Ikindi kandi kigaragaza ko atari wo murongo wafashwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, ni uko mu rundi rubanza rwabaye hagati ya Rwanda Revenue Authority na ENSafrica Rwanda Limited, rusuzuma ikibazo nk’iki, rwaciwe ku wa 29/12/2021, nyuma y’icibwa ry’urubanza rusabirwa guhindurirwa umurongo, urwo Rukiko rwasubiye ku murongo rwari rwafashe mbere, rufata icyemezo gitandukanye n’icyaregewe muri uru Rukiko, aho Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwemeje ko serivisi zatanzwe na ENSafrica Rwanda Limited zifatwa nk’izoherejwe mu mahanga zikaba zigomba gusoreshwa ku ijanisha rya zeru.17 Uru rubanza ubu rukaba rwarajuririwe mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire na Rwanda Revenue Authority,18 ibyo byose bikaba bishimangira ko kugeza ubu nta murongo ntakuka uriho kuri iki kibazo ku buryo wasabirwa guhindurwa hagamije kurengera itegeko no gutanga undi murongo ngenderwaho nk’uko ingingo ya 65 y’Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru ibiteganya; bityo ikirego

17 Urubanza RCOMA 00017/2021/HCC, haburana Rwanda Revenue Authority na ENSafrica Rwanda Limited rwaciwe ku wa 29/12/2021, urupapuro rwa 19 kugeza ku rwa 21, ibika bya 30, 31 na 32. 18 Ikirego cyahawe RCOMAA 00022/2022/CA. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 57

25

cy’Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda kikaba ntacyo gishingiyeho. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [45] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe n’Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda gisaba guhindura umurongo mu rubanza RCOMA 00350/2019/HCC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ku wa 04/12/2019, nta mpamvu yacyo. Re URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA

## Page 58

26

## Page 59

27

IBIREGO BISABA KWEMEZA KO ITEGEKO RINYURANYE N’ITEGEKO NSHINGA

## Page 60

28

## Page 61

29

Re BYANSI (ADD) [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2021/SC– (Ntezilyayo, P.J., Nyirinkwaya, Cyanzayire, Hitiyaremye na Karimunda, J.) 10 Ukuboza 2021] Itegeko Nshinga – Ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko ingingo y’Itegeko inyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga – Inyungu zo gutanga ikirego – Inyungu igomba kumvikana ku buryo bwagutse, igashingira ku kwemeza ko itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga kuko ribangamiye uburenganzira bw’abasaba ko rivaho, cyangwa se rituma icyari kigamijwe n’Itegeko Nshinga kitagerwaho kandi kigomba kurengerwa. Itegeko Nshinga – Ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko ingingo y’Itegeko inyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga – Inyungu y’uwatanze ikirego – Uwatanze ikirego agomba kwerekana inyungu bwite afite cyangwa yavutswa mu buryo butaziguye n’itegeko asaba ko ryakurwaho. Incamake y’ikibazo: Byansi yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga asaba kwemeza ko ingingo ya 71, mu gika cyayo cya 5 y’ Itegeko N˚ 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirizey’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y'u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015. Asobanura ko iyi ngingo ibangamiye abanyamakuru kubera ko kubashyiriraho igihe bagomba kubahiriza mu gusaba kwemererwa gufata amajwi n’amashusho mu cyumba cy’iburanisha, ari uburyo bwo kubuza itangazamakuru kubona amakuru no kubangamira ubwisanzure bwaryo. Akomeza avuga ko bidakwiye ko basabwa uruhushya 29

## Page 62

30

rwo gutara amakuru mu nkiko, igihe berekana icyangombwa kibaranga. Asoza avuga kandi ko gushyirirwaho igihe cyo gusaba gufata amajwi n’amashusho mu cyumba cy’iburanisha, haba hirengagijwe ko igihe tugezemo hari itangazamakuru rikorwa mu buryo bwa mobile journalism. Uhagarariye Leta muri uru rubanza avuga ko Itegeko Nshinga ntaho riteganya ko itangazamakuru rigomba kubona amakuru mu buryo ubwo aribwo bwose akaba ariyo mpamvu iyo ngingo Urega agaragaza ntaho inyuranyije na ryo. Avuga kandi ko kuba itegeko riteganya ko itangazamakuru risaba uruhushya rwo gufata amajwi n’amashusho mu cyumba cy’iburanisha bidakuraho ihame ry’uko iburanisha ribera mu ruhame nk’uko bigaragara mu ngingo ya 71 y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru. Mbere y’iburanisha mu mizi, Uru Rukiko rwabanje gusuzuma niba Urega afite inyungu muri uru rubanza kubera ko yatanze ikirego nk’umunyamakuru ku wa 04/06/2021 kandi ikarita ye yari yararangiye ku wa 12/05/2021. Kuri iki kibazo Urega avuga ko atanga iki kirego ikarite ye y’akazi yari yararangiye, asaba yari yarasabye ko yongerwa mbere y’uko ita agaciro, biza gutinzwa n’uko serivisi nyinshi zagiye zihagarara kubera icyorezo cya COVID-19 ariko iyo karita ye yaje kongererwa igihe ku wa 20/09/2021 kizarangira ku wa 20/09/2022. Avuga ko ikirego cye cyakagombye kwakirwa nubwo yagitanze mu gihe ategerejemo ko ikarita ye yongererwa igihe, dore ko n’igihe cy’iburanisha kigeze yarahawe indi karita bityo, ibyo bikaba bitafatwa nk’aho nta nyungu yari afite yo kurega. Uhagarariye Leta avuga ko kuba Urega yaratanze ikirego mu gihe ikarita ye y’akazi k’Ubunyamakuru yararangiye nta nyungu yari ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 63

31

afite yo kurega nk’umunyamakuru, ahubwo icyo gihe yari gutanga ikirego nk’umuntu ku giti cye. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Inyungu yo gutanga ikirego igomba kumvikana ku buryo bwagutse, igashingira ku kwemeza ko itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga kuko ribangamiye uburenganzira bw’abasaba ko rivaho cyangwa se rituma icyari kigamijwe n’Itegeko Nshinga kitagerwaho kandi kigomba kurengerwa. 2. Uwatanze ikirego agomba kwerekana inyungu bwite afite cyangwa yavutswa mu buryo butaziguye n’itegeko asaba ko ryakurwaho. Urega afite inyungu yo kuregera ko itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. Iburanisha ry’urubanza rizakomeza. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015, ingingo ya 38. Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, ingingo ya 72. Itegeko Nº22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 70 n’iya 71. Itegeko N° 02/2013 ryo ku wa 08/02/2013 rigenga itangazamakuru, ingingo ya 3, 4 n’iya 5. Imanza zifashishijwe: Re BYANSI (ADD)

## Page 64

32

Re Mugisha Richard, RS/INCONST/SPEC 0002/2018/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 18/01/2019. Areva NP Vs Eskom Holdings Soc Limited and Another [2016] Zacc 51 rwaciwe n’ Urukiko rushinzwe kurinda iremezo ry’Itegeko Nshinga rwa Afurika y’Epfo. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Ku italiki ya 04/06/2021, Byansi Samuel Baker yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga arusaba kwemeza ko ingingo ya 71, mu gika cyayo cya 5 y’ Itegeko N˚ 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, giteganya ko uburenganzira bwo gufata amajwi n’amashusho mu cyumba cy’iburanisha busabwa mu nyandiko nibura mu masaha mirongo ine n’umunani (48) mbere y’uko iburanisha ritangira, inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y'u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015 mu gace kayo kavuga ko ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru bwemewe kandi bwubahirizwa na Leta. [2] Asobanura ko nk’umunyamakuru ufite ikarita y’akazi nimero 17/726-11 wibanda cyane mu gukora inkuru zicukumbuye (Investigative journalist) mu Rwanda ndetse no hanze yarwo, asanga ingingo ya 71 igika cya 5 ibangamira abanyamakuru

1 Iyi karita yatanzwe na Rwanda Media Commission ku wa 12/05/2020 igomba kurangira ku wa 12/05/2021, iza kongererwa igihe ku wa 20/09/2021, kizarangira ku wa 20/09/22. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 65

33

kubera ko kubashyiriraho igihe bagomba kubahiriza mu gusaba kwemererwa gufata amajwi n’amashusho mu cyumba cy’iburanisha, ari uburyo bwo kubuza itangazamakuru kubona amakuru no kubangamira ubwisanzure bwaryo, mu gihe ingingo ya 70 y’Itegeko N˚ 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko iburanisha ribera mu ruhame. Agaragaza ko kumenyesha abaturage ibibera mu nkiko biri mu murongo w’uburenganzira burebana n’ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru no guhabwa amakuru, bugomba kubahirizwa n’inkiko nk’Urwego rw’Ubuyobozi. [3] Yavuze ko bidakwiye ko abanyamakuru basabwa uruhushya rwo gutara amakuru mu nkiko, igihe berekana icyangombwa kibaranga nk’abanyamakuru. Asoza avuga kandi ko gushyirirwaho igihe cyo gusaba gufata amajwi n’amashusho mu cyumba cy’iburanisha, haba hirengagijwe ko igihe tugezemo hari itangazamakuru rikorwa mu buryo bwa mobile journalism. [4] Me Habamuremyi Prosper uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda mu rubanza avuga ko ingingo ya 71 igika cya 5 y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi itanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda. [5] Asobanura ko ntaho Itegeko Nshinga riteganya ko itangazamakuru rigomba kubona amakuru mu buryo ubwo aribwo bwose. Akaba ariyo mpamvu ryateganyije ubwo buryo mu ngingo ya 71, igika cya 5 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru, ahasobanurwa ko bisabirwa uburenganzira byibura mu masaha 48 mbere y’uko iburanisha ritangira. Asobanura nanone ko kuba itegeko riteganya ko itangazamakuru risaba uruhushya rwo Re BYANSI (ADD)

## Page 66

34

gufata amajwi n’amashusho mu cyumba cy’iburanisha bidakuraho ihame ry’uko iburanisha ribera mu ruhame nk’uko bigaragara mu ngingo ya 71 y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ibyo bikaba bigaragarira mu gika cya 6 cy’iyo ngingo.2 Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku wa 15/11/2021, Byansi Samuel Baker yunganiwe na Me Ruramira Bizimana Zébédée na Me Musore Gakunzi Valéry naho Leta y’u Rwanda ihagarariwe na Me Habumuremyi Prosper. Mbere yo kuburanisha urubanza mu mizi, Urukiko rwabanje gusuzuma niba uwareze ariwe Byansi Samuel Baker, afite inyungu muri uru rubanza nk’uko biteganyijwe n’ingingo ya 72, igika cya mbere y’Itegeko Nº 30/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko ryavuzwe haruguru, iki akaba ari nacyo kibazo cyabanje gusuzumwa muri uru rubanza. II. IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYACYO 1. Kumenya niba Byansi Samuel Baker afite inyungu muri uru rubanza [6] Urukiko rwabajije Byansi Samuel Baker niba yaratanze ikirego nk’umunyamakuru ku wa 04/06/2021 kandi ikarita ye yari yararangiye ku wa 12/05/2021, asubiza ko, nubwo ikarita y’ubunyamakuru yashingiyeho atanga ikirego ku wa 04/06/2021

2 Ingingo ya 71 igika cya 6 y’Itegeko Nº22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko Perezida w’urukiko afata icyemezo mu nyandiko cyemera cyangwa cyimana uburenganzira bwo gufata amajwi n’amashusho amaze gusuzuma ko nta ngaruka byagira ku nyungu z’ubutabera, umutekano w’Igihugu n’uw’ababuranyi n’umuco mbonezabupfura. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 67

35

yari yararangiye ku wa 12/05/2021, yari yarasabye ko yongererwa igihe mbere y’uko agaciro kayo karangira, ko kuba baratinze kumusubiza kugeza ubwo ikarita ye irangirije igihe byaba byaratewe n’uko serivisi nyinshi zagiye zihagarara kubera icyorezo cya COVID-19. Avuga ko iyo karita ye yaje kongererwa igihe ku wa 20/09/2021 kizarangira ku wa 20/09/2022. Bityo akaba asanga kuba yaratanze ikirego cye ikarita ye yararangiye ariko ategereje kubona indi kandi ubu akaba yarayibonye bitaba impamvu yo kutakira ikirego cye kuko akora umurimo w’ubunyamakuru kuva 2017, aho yakoreye ibinyamakuru bitandukanye birimo na Rwanda Broadcasting Agency (RBA) na TV 10. [7] Mu kumwunganira, Me Musore Gakunzi Valéry yashingiye ku ngingo ya 3 y’Itegeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi3 no ku ngingo ya 72 igika cya 1 y’Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko,4 avuga ko umuntu ku giti cye ashobora kuregera Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, kandi ko n’ubwo Byansi Samuel Baker yatanze ikirego ikarita imuranga nk’umunyamakuru yararangiye, ariko asanzwe amuzi nk’umuntu ukora umurimo w’ubunyamakuru, ikindi akaba ari uko igihe cy’iburanisha kigeze yarahawe indi karita. Akaba asanga ibyo bitafatwa nk’aho nta nyungu yari afite yo kurega, ngo bitume ikirego cye kitakirwa.

3 Ikirego cyakirwa mu rukiko iyo urega afite ububasha, inyungu n’ubushobozi byo kurega, keretse igihe itegeko ribiteganya ukundi. 4 Umuntu ku giti cye, ikigo cyangwa umuryango ufite ubuzimagatozi bashobora kuregera Urukiko rw’Ikirenga basaba kwemeza ko itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga iyo babifitemo inyungu. Re BYANSI (ADD)

## Page 68

36

[8] Me Ruramira Bizimana Zébédée nawe wunganira Byansi Samuel Baker, ashingiye ku ngingo ya 5 y’Itegeko N° 02/2013 ryo ku wa 08/02/2013 rigenga itangazamakuru, avuga ko mu gihe Urukiko rwasuzuma rugasanga Byansi Samuel Baker yari umunyamakuru n’ubwo yatanze ikirego ikarita ye yararangiye rwakwemeza ko yari afite inyungu zo kurega maze rukakira ikirego cye. [9] Me Habumuremyi Prosper uhagarariye Intumwa Nkuru ya Leta yasobanuye ko bigaragara ko Byansi Samuel Baker yahawe ikarita y’ubunyamakuru ku wa 12/05/2020 ikarangira ku wa 12/05/2021, arangije atanga ikirego nk’umunyamakuru ku wa 04/06/2021 ikarita ye yararangiye; asobanura ko atubahirije ibiteganywa n’itegeko kuko mu gihe nta karita imuranga nk’umunyamakuru yari afite, nta nyungu yari afite yo kurega nk’umunyamakuru, ahubwo icyo gihe yari gutanga ikirego nk’umuntu ku giti cye. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [10] Ingingo ya 72, igika cya mbere y’Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’Inkiko iteganya ko umuntu ku giti cye, ikigo cyangwa umuryango ufite ubuzimagatozi bashobora kuregera Urukiko rw’Ikirenga basaba kwemeza ko itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga iyo babifitemo inyungu …. [11] Ingingo ya 3 y’Itegeko N° 02/2013 ryo ku wa 08/02/2013 rigenga itangazamakuru ivuga ko umunyamakuru w’umunyarwanda, yaba ukora mu kigo cy’itangazamakuru cyemewe cyangwa uwigenga cyangwa uhagarariye igitangazamakuru cy’amahanga mu Rwanda, ahabwa ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 69

37

uburenganzira n’Urwego rw’Abanyamakuru Bigenzura. Naho ingingo ya 4 igika cyayo cya 1 y’iryo Tegeko igateganya ko imikorere y’itangazamakuru n’imyitwarire y’abanyamakuru umunsi ku wundi bigenzurwa n’Urwego rw’Abanyamakuru Bigenzura (…). [12] Ibirebana n’inyungu zo gutanga ikirego gisaba gukuraho ingingo y’Itegeko kuko inyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga, uru Rukiko rwabisuzumye mu rubanza5 rwaburanishijwemo ikirego Me Mugisha Richard yari yatanze asaba ko ingingo zimwe z’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange zivaho kuko zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. Mu gusobanura icyemezo cyarwo, Urukiko rwasesenguye amategeko asanzwe akurikizwa mu Rwanda arebana n’iki kibazo, runifashisha imanza zaciwe mu bindi bihugu aho ibirego nk’ibi bimaze igihe bitangwa. [13] Muri urwo rubanza, Urukiko rwasobanuye ibyerekeye inyungu muri rusange n’impamvu ari ngombwa kuzigaragaza kugirango ikirego cyakirwe,6 ruvuga ariko ko ku birego bijyanye n’Itegeko Nshinga, inyungu igomba kumvikana ku buryo bwagutse, cyane cyane mu Gihugu nk’u Rwanda kikiri mu nzira y’iterambere aho abaturage batarasobanukirwa uburenganzira bwabo bagenerwa n’Itegeko Nshinga, bakaba bakeneye gufashwa kubugeraho hifashishijwe inkiko. Urukiko rwasobanuye ko imiterere y’imanza zisaba kwemeza ko Itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, igaragaza ko inyungu muri bene izo manza ishingiye ku kwemeza ko Itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga kuko ribangamiye uburenganzira bw’abasaba

5 Reba urubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 0002/2018/SC rwaciwe ku wa 18/01/2019. 6 Reba igika cya 19 n’icya 20 cy’urubanza. Re BYANSI (ADD)

## Page 70

38

ko rivaho, cyangwa se rituma icyari kigamijwe n’Itegeko Nshinga kitagerwaho kandi kigomba kurengerwa.7 [14] Ibirebana no kuba uwatanze ikirego cyo kwemeza ko Itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga agomba kuba afite inyungu bwite, byanasuzumwe n’abahanga mu mategeko ndetse n’izindi nkiko. Nk’umuhanga Sylvie Schmitt avuga ko kugira ngo inyungu umuntu afite yo gutanga ikirego yemerwe, igomba kuba ifite ikintu cy’umwihariko gitandukanya nyirayo n’abandi, kiyigira iye bwite. Bitabaye ibyo, umuntu ubonetse wese ashobora kuregera Urukiko rushinzwe kurinda iremezo ry’Itegeko Nshinga kuko buri muturage cyangwa ikigo bashobora kwibwira ko bafite inyungu zo kurengera Itegeko Nshinga. Icyo gihe ikirego cyahinduka nk’ikirego cy’abaturage muri rusange, kandi ibyo bidakwiye. Iyo mikorere yatuma inkiko zuzuranamo ibirego, harimo n’ibirego bidakwiye.8 Muri uwo murongo, Urukiko rushinzwe kurinda iremezo ry’Itegeko Nshinga rwa Afurika y’Epfo, mu rubanza Areva NP Vs Eskom Holdings Soc Limited and Another [2016] ZACC 51 rwavuze ko iyo umuburanyi atanze ikirego wenyine mu nyungu ze bwite, ataba afite ububasha bwagutse bwo kuregera ibinyuranyije

7 Reba igika cya 21 cy’urubanza. 8 Pour que l’intérêt à agir d’une personne soit reconnu, il doit inclure un élément propre qui distingue son titulaire du reste de la société, qui l’individualise. A défaut d’un tel élément, n’importe quelle personne aurait la possibilité de saisir le juge constitutionnel puisque tout citoyen et tout organisme peuvent prétendre avoir un intérêt à défendre la Constitution. Le recours se transformerait en une action populaire, ce qui n’est pas envisageable. L’action populaire provoquerait une surabondance des recours avec des risques de demandes abusives. Sylvie Schmitt, La nature objective du contentieux constitutionnel des normes. Les exemples francais et italien, “ Revue francaise de droit constitutionnel, 2007/4, n°72, https://www.cairn.info/revue-francaise-de-droit-constitutionnel-2007-4-page- 719.htm ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 71

39

n’amategeko. Uwatanze ikirego agomba kwerekana inyungu bwite afite cyangwa yavutswa mu buryo butaziguye n’itegeko asaba ko ryakurwaho.9 [15] Ku birebana n’uru rubanza, Byansi Samuel Baker avuga ko kuba ingingo ya 72, igika cya mbere y’Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru itegeka ushaka gufata amajwi n’amashusho mu cyumba cy’iburanisha kubibonera uruhushya rutanzwe na Perezida w’urukiko ashaka kujyamo mbere y’amasaha 48 bibangamiye uburenganzira ahabwa n’Itegeko Nshinga nk’umunyamakuru, bityo ko afite inyungu z’uko Urukiko rubisuzuma rukemeza ko icyo gika cy’iyo ngingo kivaho. [16] Urukiko rurasanga, hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 3 y’Itegeko N° 02/2013 ryavuzwe haruguru, nta gushidikanya guhari ko mbere y’uko ikarita ye irangiza igihe ku wa 12/05/2021, Byansi Samuel Baker yari yemerewe gukora umurimo w’umunyamakuru kuko yari yujuje ibyangombwa bisabwa n’Urwego rw’Abanyamakuru Bigenzura. Nta gushidikanya kandi ko igihe cyo gutanga ikirego, ku wa 04/06/2021, atari yemerewe gukora umurimo w’umunyamakuru, ariko ko igihe cy’iburanisha, ku wa 15/11/2021, ubwo burenganzira yari abufite kuko ikarita ye y’ubunyamakuru yari yarongerewe igihe ku wa 20/09/2021, kizarangira ku wa 20/09/2022.

9 (…) where a litigant act solely in his or her own interest, there is no broad or unqualified capacity to litigate against illegalities. … The own interest litigant must therefore demonstrate that his or her interests or potential interests are directly affected by the unlawfulness sought to be impugned”. 9Areva NP Vs Eskom Holdings Soc Limited Limited and Another [2016] ZACC 51, at para 32, https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2016/51.pdf. Re BYANSI (ADD)

## Page 72

40

[17] Urukiko rusanga ingingo ya 71, igika 5 y’Itegeko N˚ 22/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru ireba uburenganzira bwo gufata amajwi n’amashusho mu iburanisha bureba n’abanyamakuru. Bikumvikanisha ko mu gihe Urukiko rwasanga koko iyo ngingo inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga nk’uko Byansi Samuel Baker abiburanisha, icyo cyemezo cyaba kimufitiye akamaro, bityo rukaba rusanga afite inyungu yo gutanga ikirego gisaba kuvanaho ingingo y’Itegeko avuga ko imwambura uburenganzira ahabwa n’Itegeko Nshinga. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [18] Rwemeje ko Byansi Samuel Baker afite inyungu yo kuregera kwemeza ko itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga muri uru rubanza. [19] Rwemeje ko iburanisha ry’uru rubanza rizakomeza ku itariki umuburanyi azamenyeshwa n’Ubwanditsi bw’Urukiko. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 73

41

Re BYANSI (FOND) [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2021/SC – (Ntezilyayo, P.J., Nyirinkwaya, Cyanzayire, Hitiyaremye na Karimunda, J.) 25 Werurwe 2022] Itegeko Nshinga – Ubwisanzure bw'Itangazamakuru – Uruhushya bwo gufata amajwi n'amafoto mu nkiko – Kurengera ubundi burenganzira bw'ababuranyi n'abatangabuhamya – Gusaba uruhushya bwo gufata amajwi n'amafoto mu nkiko ni ngombwa kandi birakwiye. Incamake y’ikibazo: Byansi yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga arusaba kwemeza ko ingingo ya 71, igika cya 5, y’Itegeko N˚ 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi irebana no gusaba uburenganzira bwo gufata amajwi n’amashusho mu cyumba cy’iburanisha inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y'u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015 iteganya ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru. Mbere y’uko urubanza ruburanishwa mu mizi, Urukiko rwabanje gusuzuma niba Uwatanze ikirego afite inyungu yo kuregera kwemeza ko itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga maze rwemeza ko afite iyo nyungu yo gutanga icyo kirego. Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu mizi hasuzumwa icyo kibazo cyo kumenya niba kubanza gusaba uburenganzira bwo gufata amajwi n’amafoto mu iburanisha biteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 71, igika cya 5, y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru inyuranyije n’ubwisanzure 41

## Page 74

42

bw’umunyamakuru buteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika. Uwatanze ikirego avuga ko nk’umunyamakuru wibanda cyane mu gukora inkuru zicukumbuye mu Rwanda ndetse no hanze yarwo, asanga iyo ngingo yavuzwe haruguru, ibangamira abanyamakuru kubera ko kubashyiriraho igihe bagomba kubahiriza mu gusaba kwemererwa gufata amajwi n’amashusho mu cyumba cy’iburanisha, ari uburyo bwo kubuza itangazamakuru kubona amakuru no kubangamira ubwisanzure bwaryo, mu gihe ingingo ya 70 y’iryo Tegeko iteganya ko iburanisha ribera mu ruhame. Agaragaza ko kumenyesha abaturage ibibera mu nkiko biri mu murongo w’uburenganzira burebana n’ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru no guhabwa amakuru, bugomba kubahirizwa n’inkiko nk’urwego rw’ubuyobozi. Yavuze ko bidakwiye ko abanyamakuru basabwa uruhushya rwo gutara amakuru mu nkiko, igihe berekana icyangombwa kibaranga nk’abanyamakuru. Leta y’u Rwanda ivuga ko iyo ngingo ya 71, igika cya 5, y’Itegeko N˚ 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 y’iryo tegeko itanyuranyije n’itegeko Nshinga kuko ntaho riteganya ko itangazamakuru rigomba kubona amakuru mu buryo ubwo aribwo bwose. Akaba ariyo mpamvu hateganyijwe ubwo buryo buvugwa muri iyo ngingo. Akomeza avuga ko kuba itegeko riteganya ko itangazamakuru risaba uruhushya rwo gufata amajwi n’amashusho mu cyumba cy’iburanisha bidakuraho ihame ry’uko iburanisha ribera mu ruhame. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Gusaba uruhushya bwo gufata amajwi n'amafoto mu nkiko ni ngombwa kandi birakwiye kuko biri mu nshingano z’Urwego rw’Ubucamanza guteganya uburyo butuma ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 75

43

iburanisha riba mu ituze kandi hubahirizwa uburenganzira bw’ababuranyi n’abandi barebwa n’imanza. Bityo ingingo ya 71, igika cya 5, y’Itegeko N˚ 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi itanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015 Ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko ingingo y’itegeko inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga nta shingiro gifite. Ingingo ya 71, igika cya 5, y’Itegeko N˚ 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi itanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y'u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015, ingingo ya 23, 38, 41 n’iya 43. Itangazo Mpuzamahanga ku Burenganzira bwa Muntu ryo muri 1948, ingingo ya 19. Itegeko N˚ 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 70 n’iya 71. Itegeko N° 058/2021 ryo ku wa 13/10/2021 ryerekeye kurinda amakuru bwite n’imibereho bwite by’umuntu, ingingo ya 3. Itegeko ryo ku wa 26/07/1881 ryerekeye ubwigenge bw’itangazamakuru, ingingo ya 38. Re BYANSI (FOND)

## Page 76

44

Imanza zifashishijwe: Re Mugisha Richard, RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2018/SC, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 24/04/2019. The NDPP v Media 24 Limited & others and HC Van Breda v Media 24 Limited & others (425/2017) [2017] ZASCA 97 (21 June 2017) para.16. Swapnil Tripathi & others vs. Secretary General & Others, Supreme Court of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1232 Of 2017, p.8. Affaire Pinto Coelho C. vs Portugal (No 2) rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’i Burayi rushinzwe uburenganzira bwa muntu. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Ku wa 04/06/2021, Byansi Samuel Baker yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga arusaba kwemeza ko ingingo ya 71, igika cya 5, y’ Itegeko N˚ 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko uburenganzira bwo gufata amajwi n’amashusho mu cyumba cy’iburanisha busabwa mu nyandiko nibura mu masaha mirongo ine n’umunani (48) mbere y’uko iburanisha ritangira, inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y'u Rwanda ryo mu mwaka wa 2003 ryavuguruwe mu mwaka wa 2015 iteganya ko ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru bwemewe kandi bwubahirizwa na Leta. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 77

45

[2] Asobanura ko nk’umunyamakuru ufite ikarita y’akazi nimero 17/726-11 wibanda cyane mu gukora inkuru zicukumbuye (Investigative journalist) mu Rwanda ndetse no hanze yarwo, asanga ingingo ya 71, igika cya 5, y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru, ibangamira abanyamakuru kubera ko kubashyiriraho igihe bagomba kubahiriza mu gusaba kwemererwa gufata amajwi n’amashusho mu cyumba cy’iburanisha, ari uburyo bwo kubuza itangazamakuru kubona amakuru no kubangamira ubwisanzure bwaryo, mu gihe ingingo ya 70 y’Itegeko N˚ 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko iburanisha ribera mu ruhame. [3] Agaragaza ko kumenyesha abaturage ibibera mu nkiko biri mu murongo w’uburenganzira burebana n’ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru no guhabwa amakuru, bugomba kubahirizwa n’inkiko nk’urwego rw’ubuyobozi. Yavuze ko bidakwiye ko abanyamakuru basabwa uruhushya rwo gutara amakuru mu nkiko, igihe berekana icyangombwa kibaranga nk’abanyamakuru. Asoza avuga kandi ko gushyirirwaho igihe cyo gusaba gufata amajwi n’amashusho mu cyumba cy’iburanisha, haba hirengagijwe ko igihe tugezemo hari itangazamakuru rikorwa mu buryo bwa mobile journalism. [4] Me Habamuremyi Prosper uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda mu rubanza avuga ko ingingo ya 71, igika cya 5, y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo

1 Iyi karita yatanzwe na Rwanda Media Commission ku wa 12/05/2020 igomba kurangira ku wa 12/05/2021, iza kongererwa igihe ku wa 20/09/2021, kizarangira ku wa 20/09/22. Re BYANSI (FOND)

## Page 78

46

n’iz’ubutegetsi itanyuranije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda. [5] Asobanura ko ntaho Itegeko Nshinga riteganya ko itangazamakuru rigomba kubona amakuru mu buryo ubwo aribwo bwose. Akaba ariyo mpamvu hateganyijwe ubwo buryo buvugwa mu ngingo ya 71, igika cya 5, y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru, ko kugirango ukore icyo gikorwa cyo gufata amafoto cyangwa amajwi mu Rukiko, ugomba gusaba uburenganzira byibura mu masaha 48 mbere y’uko iburanisha ritangira. [6] Akomeza avuga ko kuba itegeko riteganya ko itangazamakuru risaba uruhushya rwo gufata amajwi n’amashusho mu cyumba cy’iburanisha bidakuraho ihame ry’uko iburanisha ribera mu ruhame nk’uko bigaragara mu ngingo ya 71 y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru, ibyo bikaba bigaragarira mu gika cya 6 cy’iyo ngingo.2 [7] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku wa 15/11/2021, Byansi Samuel Baker yunganiwe na Me Ruramira Bizimana Zébédée na Me Musore Gakunzi Valéry, naho Leta y’u Rwanda ihagarariwe na Me Habumuremyi Prosper. [8] Mbere yo kuburanisha urubanza mu mizi, Urukiko rwabanje gusuzuma niba uwareze ariwe Byansi Samuel Baker, afite inyungu muri uru rubanza nk’uko biteganyijwe n’ingingo ya

2 Ingingo ya 71, igika cya 6, y’Itegeko Nº22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko Perezida w’urukiko afata icyemezo mu nyandiko cyemera cyangwa cyimana uburenganzira bwo gufata amajwi n’amashusho amaze gusuzuma ko nta ngaruka byagira ku nyungu z’ubutabera, umutekano w’Igihugu n’uw’ababuranyi n’umuco mbonezabupfura. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 79

47

72, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko. [9] Ku wa 10/12/2021, Urukiko rwafashe umwanzuro kuri icyo kibazo, rwemeza ko Byansi Samuel Baker afite inyungu yo kuregera kwemeza ko itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga muri uru rubanza. [10] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu mizi ku wa 15/02/2022, Byansi Samuel Baker yunganiwe nka mbere, naho Leta y’u Rwanda ihagarariwe na Me Kayitesi Petronille. Ababuranyi bagiye impaka ku kibazo kijyanye no kumenya niba ingingo ya 71, igika cya 5, y’ Itegeko N˚ 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y'u Rwanda, icyo kikaba ari nacyo kibazo gisuzumwa muri uru rubanza. II. IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYACYO Kumenya niba ingingo ya 71, igika cya 5, y’Itegeko N˚ 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015 [11] Byansi Samuel Baker avuga ko kumenyesha abaturage ibibera mu nkiko biri mu murongo w’uburenganzira burebana n’ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru ndetse n’uburenganzira bwo guhabwa amakuru kandi mu bantu bategetswe gutanga amakuru Re BYANSI (FOND)

## Page 80

48

harimo inzego z’ubuyobozi, muri izo nzego hakaba harimo n’inkiko. [12] Akomeza avuga ko gushyiriraho umunyamakuru igihe agomba kubahiriza mu gusaba kwemererwa gufata amajwi n’amashusho mu cyumba cy’iburanisha, ari uburyo bwo kubuza itangazamakuru kubona amakuru ndetse no kwandika ku rubanza rutaracibwa kandi ihame ari uko iburanisha ribera mu ruhame nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 70 y’Itegeko N˚22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi. [13] Avuga kandi ko mu gushyirirwaho igihe cyo gusaba gufata amajwi n’amashusho mu cyumba cy’iburanisha, haba hirengagijwe ko igihe tugezemo hari itangazamakuru rikorwa mu buryo bwa mobile journalism kandi ko ubutabera butangwa mu izina rya rubanda, bityo abaturage bakaba bagomba kumenya ibibakorerwa. Atanga urugero rwo mu Gihugu cy’Ubugande aho abanyamakuru badasabwa uruhushya rwo gutara amakuru mu nkiko zabo ahubwo berekana gusa icyangombwa kibaranga. [14] Asobanura ko kuba ingingo ya 71 y’Itegeko yavuzwe haruguru yarahaye umucamanza ububasha bwo gutanga uruhushya rwo gufata amashusho mu iburanisha, yamuhaye imbaraga z’umurengera kuko abanyamakuru bashobora gusaba urwo ruhushya ari benshi nyamara ugasanga Urukiko rwemereye bamwe, abandi rukarubima. [15] Avuga ko n’igihe gisabwa cyo kuba umunyamakuru yasabye uburenganzira (amasaha 48) kidakwiye, kuko uretse imanza nini ziba zizwi, umunyamakuru nta handi hantu ashobora kubona imanza zigomba kuzaburanishwa, uretse kuzibona aho ziba zimanitse ku byumba by’iburanisha mu gitondo ku munsi ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 81

49

w’iburanisha, ibyo bigatuma agongwa n’icyo gihe cyo gusaba urwo ruhushya. [16] Byansi Samuel Baker asoza asaba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kwemeza ko ingingo ya 71, igika cya 5, y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda. [17] Me Ruramira Bizimana Zébédée wunganira Byansi Samuel Baker avuga ko nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 6 y’Itegeko rigenga itangazamakuru, mu gufata amajwi n’amafoto, umunyamakuru aba agamije kumenyesha abaturage amakuru, gufata amajwi n’amafoto biba bigamije kumenyesha abaturage amakuru, ko kandi yemerewe gutangaza ibindi byose uretse ibanga ry’umucamanza. Naho ingingo ya 12 y’iryo tegeko nayo ikaba yemerera umunyamakuru gutara amakuru ahariho hose no kuyatangaza yubahiriza ibiteganywa n’amategeko, akaba rero yumva kubanza gusaba uruhushya ari imbogamizi ikomeye. Asaba Urukiko kuzasuzuma ibyavuzwe mu rubanza rwa Mugisha Richard rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, aho mu gika cyarwo cya 65, rwavuze ko ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru ari uburenganzira bugomba kubahirizwa na buri wese. [18] Me Musore Gakunzi Valéry nawe wunganira Byansi Samuel Baker, avuga ko ingingo ya 71 y’Itegeko N°22/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru iri mu cyiciro cya 2 kirebana n’iburanisha mu Rukiko. Asobanura ko gufata amajwi n’amafoto ari bimwe mu bigize itangazamakuru. Akaba asanga kugira ngo Urukiko rushobore gusuzuma niba iyo ngingo inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga ari ngombwa gusuzuma niba hari ubundi burenganzira Re BYANSI (FOND)

## Page 82

50

cyangwa ubwisanzure byabangamira mu gihe umunyamakuru afata amajwi n’amafoto mu iburanisha nta ruhushya yabiherewe. [19] Ashingiye ku ngingo ya 38, igika cya 2, y’Itegeko Nshinga, avuga ko icyo umunyamakuru ufata amajwi n’amafoto mu iburanisha agomba kwirinda, ari ukubangamira uburenganzira bw’umwenegihugu bw’uko ntawe ugomba kwivanga mu mibereho ye bwite, iryo akaba ari ihame riteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga mu ngingo yaryo ya 23. [20] Ku birebana n’igisobanuro cy’imibereho bwite y’abantu (privacy/vie privée), avuga ko haba mu Itegeko Nshinga cyangwa mu Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, nta na hamwe hatangwa icyo gisobanuro. Itegeko N° 058/2021 ryo ku wa 13/10/2021 ryerekeye kurinda amakuru bwite n’imibereho bwite by’umuntu, mu ngingo ya 3, 6°, niryo risobanura imibereho bwite y’umuntu nk’uburenganzira bw’ibanze bw’umuntu bwo kwemeza undi muntu ushobora kubona amakuru bwite ye, igihe n’ahantu yayabonera, impamvu yayabona, uburyo akoresha ayabona n’uburyo bwakoreshwa kugira ngo agerweho. [21] Atanga urugero rw’urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rugatanga umurongo ku bijyanye n’imibereho bwite, aho Gisa Frediane yasabye Urukiko gutegeka indishyi zikomoka ku kuba BRALIRWA yarakoresheje amashusho n’amafoto ye mu kwamamaza ikinyobwa cyo mu bwoko bwa Heineken atabiyihereye uburenganzira. Uburanira BRALIRWA Ltd, mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, yemeye ko koko ayo mashusho n’amafoto yakoreshejwe na BRALIRWA Ltd mu kwamamaza inzoga zayo kandi nta masezerano yagiranye na Gisa Frediane, avuga ko BRALIRWA Ltd yayahawe na sosiyete EXP RWANDA, ariko ntiyashobora kugaragaza amasezerano yagiranye n’iyo sosiyete. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 83

51

[22] Akomeza asobanura ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwaciye urubanza ku ngingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga3 ruvuga ko ubwisanzure bwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo bugizwe no gutanga ibitekerezo ntacyo umuntu yikanga, n’uburenganzira bwo gushaka, kubona no gukwirakwiza amakuru n’ibitekerezo aho ariho hose. Bikumvikana ko icyo aricyo cyose harimo n’itegeko cyangwa ingingo yaryo, cyabubangamira kiba kinyuranyije naryo. [23] Avuga ariko ko nk’uko n’amategeko y’u Rwanda nayo abiteganya, ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru bugira irengayobora (exceptions/restrictions) harimo kutabangamira imibereho bwite y’umuntu (privacy/vie privée). Yifashisha urubanza Affaire Pinto Coelho C. vs Portugal (nimero 2) rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’i Burayi rushinzwe uburenganzira bwa muntu mu gusobanura ibishingirwaho hemezwa ko ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru bubangamiye imibereho bwite y’umuntu. [24] Avuga ko ikibazo cyari muri urwo rubanza gikomoka ku kuba umunyamakuru yaratangaje inkuru kuri televiziyo ku rubanza rwari mu rukiko rwakatiye umuntu, asobanura ko uwakatiwe arengana ashingiye ku mvugo y’abatangabuhamya, ushinja n’abandi 2 banshinjura, anerekana amafoto y’icyumba cy’iburanisha n’amajwi yafashwe mu iburanisha harimo n’ay’abacamanza 3 bagize inteko, ariko amajwi yayahinduye. Perezida w’inteko iburanisha yaramureze avuga ko yanyujijeho amajwi anatangaza amafoto y’icyumba cy’iburanisha nta burenganzira yabiherewe. Urukiko rurinda Itegeko Nshinga (Tribunal constitutionnel) rw’Igihugu cya Portugal rumuhamya icyaha.

3 Mu rubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2018/SC haburana Mugisha Richard, rwaciwe ku wa 24/04/2019. Re BYANSI (FOND)

## Page 84

52

[25] Akomeza asobanura ko uyu munyamakuru nawe yaje kurega Portugal mu Rukiko rw’i Burayi rushinzwe uburenganzira bwa muntu, rwemeza ko kugira ngo hemezwe ko ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru bubangamiye ubundi burenganzira cyangwa ubwisanzure harimo n’uburenganzira ku mibereho bwite y’umuntu, hagomba kuba ibintu bitatu (3) byuzuzanya: i) niba iryo rengayobora cyangwa

imbogamizi iteganyijwe n’amategeko; ii) gusuzuma niba iryo rengayobora cyangwa imbogamizi igamije intego yumvikana (but légitime); iii) gusuzuma niba uko kwivanga mu bwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru ari ngombwa mu gihugu kigendera kuri demokarasi (si l'ingérence était nécessaire dans une société démocratique). [26] Avuga ko mu gusobanura izo ngingo eshatu, Urukiko rwashingiye ku mahame y’ingenzi yashingiweho mu manza rwaciye mbere harimo kuba amajwi n’amashusho yafashwe n’umunyamakuru mu gihe cy’iburanisha yarafashwe hagamijwe gutanga amakuru afitiye inyungu rubanda n’imyitwarire y’uregwa, ko amajwi n’amafoto byafatiwe mu iburanisha atabibonye mu buryo budakurikije amategeko. [27] Me Musore Gakunzi Valéry asoza avuga ko mu mategeko yo mu gihugu cyacu, umunyamakuru wafashe amafoto cyangwa amajwi akabitangaza nyirayo atabitangiye uruhushya acibwa ihazabu mbonezamubano, akaba yahabwa n’igihano cy’igifungo, ko rero ingingo ya 71 y’ Itegeko N°22/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru ibangamiye ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, kuko ibikubiyemo ari irengayobora rivanaho ishyirwa mu bikorwa ry’ihame riteganywa n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga. [28] Me Kayitesi Petronille uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda avuga ko ikirego cya Byansi Samuel Baker nta shingiro gikwiye ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 85

53

guhabwa kubera ko ingingo ya 71, igika cya 5, y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru itanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda. Asobanura ko ingingo ya 71, igika cya, 5 y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ishyiraho uko ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru n’iyubahirizwa ryabwo bikorwa mu iburanisha, ko atari ukubuza itangazamakuru kubona amakuru no kurishyiraho amananiza nk’uko bivugwa n’urega, ko ahubwo ari inzira yo gushyira mu bikorwa ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda. [29] Akomeza avuga ko ntaho Itegeko Nshinga riteganya ko itangazamakuru rigomba kubona amakuru mu buryo ubwo aribwo bwose. Akaba ariyo mpamvu ryateganyije ubwo buryo mu ngingo ya 71, igika cya 5, y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru, ahasobanurwa ko bisabirwa uburenganzira byibura mu masaha 48 mbere y’uko iburanisha ritangira. [30] Avuga kandi ko kuba itegeko riteganya ko umunyamakuru asaba uruhushya rwo gufata amajwi n’amashusho mu cyumba cy’iburanisha bidakuraho ihame ry’uko iburanisha ribera mu ruhame nk’uko bigaragara mu ngingo ya 71 y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru, ibyo bikaba bigaragarira mu gika cya 6 cy’iyo ngingo , aho isobanura ko uburenganzira butangwa cyangwa bukimanwa hashingiwe ku byavuye mu isuzuma ryakozwe na Perezida w’Urukiko, byumvikanisha ahubwo ko ibi byubahiriza ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda. [31] Uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda avuga ko ingingo ya 41 y’Itegeko Nshinga iteganya ko mu gukoresha uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure, buri wese azitirwa gusa n’itegeko rigamije kwemera no kubahiriza uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure bw’abandi ndetse n’imyitwarire iboneye, ituze rusange rya rubanda Re BYANSI (FOND)

## Page 86

54

n’imibereho myiza muri rusange biranga igihugu kigendera kuri demokarasi. Ko ibyo binareba uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, akaba ariyo mpamvu avuga ko ingingo ya 71 y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru igamije kubahiriza ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 38, igika cya 2, y’Itegeko Nshinga. [32] Ku bijyanye no kutamenyera igihe imanza zizaburanishwa kugira ngo basabe uruhushya, uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda avuga ko Urukiko rutashingira kuri iyo mpamvu ngo rwemeze ko inyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga, ko ahubwo hanozwa imikorere kugira ngo itangazamakuru rizajye rimenya imanza zizaburanishwa ku gihe maze bifashe no kubahiriza igihe cyo gusaba uruhushya rwo gufata amajwi n’amafoto. [33] Akomeza avuga ko kubera ko Ubutegetsi bw’Ubucamanza aribwo murinzi w’uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure bwa muntu nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 43 y’Itegeko Nshinga, inkiko zifite inshingano yo kugena uko itangazamakuru ritara amakuru mu cyumba cy’iburanisha mu rwego rwo kurinda uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure bw’ababuranyi by’umwihariko n’ubwa rubanda muri rusange. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [34] Ingingo ya 71, igika cya 5, y’Itegeko N˚ 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, iteganya ko uburenganzira bwo gufata amajwi n’amashusho mu cyumba cy’iburanisha busabwa mu nyandiko nibura mu masaha mirongo ine n’umunani (48) mbere y’uko iburanisha ritangira. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 87

55

[35] Ingingo ya 38, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y'u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015 iteganya ko ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru bwemewe kandi bwubahirizwa na Leta. Ubwisanzure bwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru ntibugomba kubangamira ituze rusange rya rubanda n’imyifatire mbonezabupfura, ukurengera urubyiruko n’abana, n’uburenganzira bw’umwenegihugu bwo kugira icyubahiro n’agaciro, ubwo kutagira uwivanga mu mibereho ye bwite n’iy’umuryango we. Uko ubwo bwisanzure bukoreshwa n’iyubahirizwa ryabwo biteganywa n’amategeko. [36] Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga iteganya ko ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru bugizwe n’uburenganzira bwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo no guhabwa amakuru. Ubwo burenganzira kandi bunateganywa n’ingingo ya 19 y’Itangazo Mpuzamahanga ku Burenganzira bwa Muntu ryo muri 1948 aho ivuga ko buri wese afite uburenganzira bwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo bye ntacyo yikanga n’ubwo gushaka, kubona no gukwirakwiza amakuru akoresheje uburyo ubwo aribwo bwose.4 Byumvikana rero ko ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru ari uburenganzira buteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga butagomba kuvogerwa. Uko kandi ni nako byemejwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza rwa Mugisha Richard aho rwavuze ko icyo aricyo cyose harimo n’itegeko cyangwa ingingo

4 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”. Re BYANSI (FOND)

## Page 88

56

yaryo cyahungabanya ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru cyaba kinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga.5 [37] Urukiko rurasanga ariko mu ngingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga, Umushingamategeko yaratanze irengayobora ry’ubundi burenganzira ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru butagomba kubangamira. Mu isuzuma ry’ikibazo Byansi Samuel Baker yashyikirije Urukiko, rukaba rugiye gusuzuma mu bika bikurikira niba gusaba umunyamakuru kubona uburenganzira bwo gufata amajwi n’amafoto igihe cy’iburanisha byaba bihungabanya uburenganzira agenerwa n’Itegeko Nshinga, bityo bikaba binyuranyije naryo. [38] Muri rusange, kwemerera itangazamakuru gufata amajwi n’amafoto mu nkiko igihe cy’iburanisha, bifatwa nk’uburyo bwo kwegereza abaturage ubutabera no gutuma inkiko zirushaho gukorera mu mucyo. Ikibazo gikunda kuvuka muri urwo rwego kikaba icyo kureba uko ubwo burenganzira bw’itangazamakuru butabangamira uburenganzira n’amahame yandi nk’ uburenganzira k’ubutabera buboneye, uburenganzira bureba ubuzima bwite bw’ababuranyi n’uburenganzira bw’abakorewe icyaha.6

5 Urubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2018/SC haburana Mugisha Richard, rwaciwe kuwa 24/04/2019, urupapuro rwa 28. 6 […]” there is no real doubt that by allowing audio-visual coverage, courts will become more accessible to the public, and thus will potentially expose larger portions of society to the legal process, making it more transparent. The tough questions that still remain are first, whether audio-visual coverage should be recognized as a constitutional extension of the public trial or freedom of the press, and second, how one balances any potential effects of such coverage on rights and principles such as fair trial, privacy of parties to the legal process, and rights of victims.” See Itay Ravid, Tweeting #Justice: Audio-visual Coverage of Court Proceedings in a World ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 89

57

[39] Gufata amafoto cyangwa amajwi mu iburanisha ry’urubanza, ni igikorwa cyatangiye mu myaka ya vuba ukurikije iterambere ry’ikoranabuhanga. Ni muri urwo rwego ari ngombwa kureba mu mategeko cyangwa imanza zabaye kuri iyo ngingo mu bihugu byateye imbere cyane mu ikoranabuhanga ndetse byanatangiye icyo gikorwa mbere y’Inkiko z’u Rwanda. [40] Mu rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rw’Ubujurire rwo muri Afurika y’Epfo haburana The NDPP na Media 24 Limited & others, HC Van Breda na Media 24 Limited & others, urwo Rukiko rwagaragaje ko uburenganzira bw’itangazamakuru (freedom of the press) n’ihame ryo kuburanisha mu ruhame (principle of open justice) biteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga ryo muri icyo gihugu, byuzuzanya kandi bidashobora gutandukanywa kuko kimwe gikenera ikindi, kuko iyo itangazamakuru ritanze amakuru mu buryo bwa kinyamwuga ku migendekere y’urubanza n’uburyo imanza zicibwa, bituma icyizere rubanda bafitiye Urwego rw’Ubucamanza kiyongera.7 [41] Urwo Rukiko rwavuze ko n’ubwo ubwo burenganzira n’iryo hame byuzuzanya, ariko Urukiko rufite ububasha bwo kugena no gushyiraho imirongo ngenderwaho mu gutangaza ibibera mu iburanisha mu rwego rwo kurengera no kwita ku

of Shifting Technology, 2016, p. 51, https://law.stanford.edu/wp- content/uploads/2017/02/Tweeting_Justice-Ravid.pdf. 7 Urubanza, The NDPP v Media 24 Limited & others and HC Van Breda v Media 24 Limited & others (425/2017) [2017] ZASCA 97 (21 June 2017) para.16, “Freedom of the press and the principle of open justice are closely interrelated. The media, reporting accurately and fairly on legal proceedings and judgments, make an invaluable contribution to public confidence in the judiciary….” ;https://media.lawlibrary.org.za/files/judgments/zasca/2017/97/2017-zasca- 97.pdf. Re BYANSI (FOND)

## Page 90

58

migendekere myiza y’iburanisha. Ibyo kandi bifasha Urwego rw’Ubucamanza mu kurinda no gusigasira amahame yo kutabogama n’ubwigenge bw’abacamanza mu nyungu z’ubutabera.8 [42] Urukiko rwagaragaje ko umucamanza agomba gusuzuma ubusabe bw’ibitangazamakuru kuri buri rubanza, bishaka gufata amashusho cyangwa amajwi, ashingiye ku bintu bikurikira: - Kureba niba icyo gikorwa kidashobora kubangamira uburenganzira bw’ababuranyi ku butabera buboneye; - Gusuzuma niba icyo gikorwa kitabangamira imigendekere y’iburanisha cyangwa ngo kigabanye agaciro n’icyubahiro by’Urukiko.9

8 ” ….. Where there is a debate about whether given court proceedings should be broadcast, a court is vested with the power to limit the nature and scope of the broadcast where necessary to ensure the fairness of the proceedings before it. The power of the court to do so is an inherent one flowing from arts 173 of the Constitution 166 and must be exercised in the interests of justice is a key tool for courts to ensure their own independence and impartiality. It recognises that courts have the inherent power to regulate and protect their own process. A primary purpose for the exercise of that power must be to ensure that proceedings before courts are fair. It is therefore fitting that the only qualification on the exercise of that power contained in s 173 is that courts in exercising this power must take into account the interests of justice.” Ibid., para. 59 9 It remains the duty of the trial court to examine with care each application. That court should exercise a proper discretion in such cases by balancing the degree of risk involved in allowing the cameras into the court room against the degree of risk that a fair trial might not ensue. … In making that decision, the judge may consider whether there is a reasonable likelihood that such coverage would: (i) interfere with the rights of the parties to a fair trial; or (ii) unduly detract from the solemnity, decorum and dignity of the court.” Idem. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 91

59

[43] Mu gihugu cy’Ubuhinde, ikibazo kijyanye no gufata amajwi n’amafoto mu iburanisha naho cyagiye gisuzumwa n’Inkiko nko mu rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rw’icyo gihugu haburana Swapnil Tripathi & others na Secretary General & Others, aho rwasobanuye akamaro ko gufata amajwi n’amafoto mu iburanisha ku burenganzira bwo kugera ku butabera (right of acces to justice) n’ihame ry’uko urubanza rubera mu ruhame (principle of public hearing ), ruvuga ko gutangaza iburanisha igihe ririmo gukorwa (live streaming) bifasha Urwego rw’Ubucamanza gushyira mu bikorwa ubwo burenganzira n’iryo hame, kuko icyo gikorwa gituma rubanda nyamwinshi babona mu buryo bworoshye ibibera mu cyumba cy’iburanisha, ndetse bakabona n’amakuru ajyanye n’urubanza, kuko ukwitabira urubanza mu cyumba cy’iburanisha nyir’izina usanga bigoranye ku bantu benshi bitewe n’impamvu z’amikoro adahagije, ibyumba by’iburanisha bidafite ubunini buhagije ku buryo byakwakira umubare munini w’abantu nk’uko byakurikiranwa ku ikoranabuhanga, n’izindi.10 [44] Urwo Rukiko rwavuze kandi ko gutangaza iburanisha igihe ririmo kuba bwaba ari ubundi buryo bwo gushimangira uburenganzira bw’abaturage n’ababuranyi by’umwihariko.

10 […] “Indubitably, live streaming of Court proceedings has the potential of throwing up an option to the public to witness live court proceedings which they otherwise could not have due to logistical issues and infrastructural restrictions of Courts; and would also provide them with a more direct sense of what has transpired. Thus, technological solutions can be a tool to facilitate actualization of the right of access to justice bestowed on all and the litigants in particular, to provide them virtual”; See Judgements of Swapnil Tripathi & others vs. Secretary General & Others, Supreme Court of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1232 Of 2017, p.8, https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/40426/40426_2017_Judgement_ 26-Sep-2018.pdf. Re BYANSI (FOND)

## Page 92

60

Urwo Rukiko rwavuze ariko ko n’ubwo icyo gikorwa gifasha Urwego rw’Ubucamanza kandi kikaba gishingiye ku burenganzira buteganywa, kigomba gukorwa mu buryo butabangamiye agaciro n’icyubahiro by’Urukiko, uburenganzira ku mibereho bwite y’ababuranyi cyangwa abatangabuhamya (privacy rights) bari muri urwo rubanza, no kwirinda ikindi cyose cyabangamira imitangire y’ubutabera buboneye. Akaba ariyo mpamvu ari ngombwa ko Urukiko ruba rugomba gushyiraho imirongo ngenderwaho mu gukora icyo gikorwa kugira ngo hirindwe kugongana k’uburenganzira buteganywa no mu rwego rwo kugira ngo ukubahiriza uburenganzira ku ruhande rumwe bidahungabanya ubundi burenganzira runaka ku rundi ruhande.11 [45] Urukiko Rusesa Imanza rwo mu Bufaransa narwo rwafashe umurongo ku kibazo cyo gufata amajwi n’amafoto mu iburanisha, ruvuga ko n’ubwo buri wese afite uburenganzira bwo gutanga ibitekerezo kandi na rubanda ikaba ifite inyungu zo kumenya ibikorerwa mu nkiko, uburenganzira bwo kumenya amakuru bugomba kureberwa hamwe n’ubundi burenganzira burimo kuba iburanisha rigomba kubera mu ituze,

11 […] “live streaming of court proceedings in the prescribed digital format would be an affirmation of the constitutional rights bestowed upon the public and the litigants in particular. While doing so, regard must be had to the fact that just as the dignity and majesty of the Court is inviolable, the issues regarding privacy rights of the litigants or witnesses whose cases are set down for hearing, as also other exceptional category of cases of which live streaming of proceedings may not be desirable as it may affect the cause of administration of justice itself, are matters which need to be identified and a proper regulatory framework must be provided in that regard by formulating rules …………. It must be kept in mind that in case of conflict between competing Constitutional rights, a sincere effort must be made to harmonise such conflict in order to give maximum expression to each right while minimizing the encroachment on the other rights.” Ibid., para.13. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 93

61

by’umwihariko gutuma abaregwa n’abatangabuhamya bavuga batagira icyo bishisha kandi bagashobora kuvugisha ukuri badafite impungenge ko imyitwarire yabo n’ibyo bavugiye mu cyumba cy’iburanisha bizashyirwa mu itangazamakuru bikaba byagira ingaruka ku buzima bwite bwabo.12 Kubuza gufata amajwi n’amafoto mu gihe cy’iburanisha ni uburyo buboneye bwo gutuma ivuguruzanya hagati y’ababuranyi riba mu ituze no mu mucyo kuko bituma urukiko rugera ku kuri hasigasirwa n’ihame ryo kutabogama ry’Urwego rw’Ubucamanza.13 [46] Mu gihe uru rubanza rwari rurimo gusuzumwa n’Urukiko Rusesa Imanza, hanatanzwe ikirego mu Rukiko Rurinda Iremezo ry’Itegeko Nshinga rw’Ubufaransa aho rwasabwagwa kwemeza ko gusaba uruhushya kugirango hafatwe amajwi n’amafoto mu

12 ⦋…..⦌”Même si le public a un intérêt légitime à recevoir des informations relatives aux procédures en matière pénale », particulièrement s’agissant d’une affaire de terrorisme, « la liberté d’information doit être mise en balance avec les autres intérêts en présence » à savoir, la sérénité des débats et particulièrement, la spontanéité et la sincérité des dépositions ainsi que les attitudes des accusés et des témoins, tous dépendant notamment « de la certitude qu’aucune publication de prises de vue n’interviendra », et également « le droit à l’image des parties concernées qui doit être préservé dans l’enceinte judiciaire;” Voir Clara Le Stum, Prise d’images et de sons pendant les audiences: une interdiction nécessaire pour la Cour de Cassation, 21 Avril 2020, https:/www.actualitesdudroit.fr/browse/penal/procedure- penale/27029/prise-d-images-et-de-sons-pendant-les audiences - une- interdiction-necessaire-pour-la-cour-de-cassation. 13 ……………. “l’interdiction de tout enregistrement, fixation ou transmission de la parole ou de l’image après l’ouverture de l’audience des juridictions administratives ou judiciaires, et de leur cession ou de leur publication, constitue une mesure nécessaire, dans une société démocratique, à garantir la sérénité et la sincérité des débats judiciaires, qui conditionnent la manifestation de la vérité et contribuent ainsi à l’autorité et à l’impartialité du pouvoir judiciaire”. Idem. Re BYANSI (FOND)

## Page 94

62

iburanisha binyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 ter y’Itegeko ryo ku wa 26/07/1881 ryerekeye ubwigenge bw’itangazamakuru. Urukiko rwanzuye ko ingingo z’amategeko zishobora kugaragara ko zibangamiye uburenganzira bw’itangazamakuru n’itumanaho ari ngombwa kandi zikwiye ukurikije ibyatumye zishyirwaho.14 [47] Hakurikijwe ibisobanuro byatanzwe n’inkiko z’ibindi bihugu, Urukiko rurasanga ihame ry’ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru rigaragarira mu burenganzira bwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru, ari ihame rigomba kubahirizwa na buri wese harimo n’inkiko kuko rituma rubanda bamenya ibikorerwa mu nkiko bitabaye ngombwa kuhaza, ariko iryo hame rikaba ritagomba kubangamira ubundi burenganzira burimo uburenganzira bw’ababuranyi ku butabera buboneye no ku migendekere myiza y’iburanisha, n’uburenganzira ku mibereho bwite y’ababuranyi cyangwa abatangabuhamya. [48] Urukiko rusanga muri rusange, ihame ry’ubwisanzure bw’itangazamukuru rinubahirizwa n’inkiko z’u Rwanda kuko iburanisha ry’imanza ribera mu ruhame15 mu rwego rwo kugira ngo uwo ariwe wese ubyifuza arikurikire, uretse ko

14 […] “l’atteinte à l’exercice de la liberté d’expression et de communication qui résulte des dispositions contestées est nécessaire, adaptée et proportionnée aux objectifs poursuivis, à savoir la bonne administration de la justice, le droit au respect de la vie privée des parties et des personnes participant aux débats, à la sécurité des acteurs ou également aux respect de la présomption d’innocence;” Conseil Constitutionnel, Décision n° 2019-817 QPC du 6 décembre 2019, https://www.conseil- constitutionnel.fr/decision/2019/2019817QPC.htm. 15 Ingingo ya 70 y’Itegeko N° 22/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru iteganya ko iburanisha ry’urubanza ribera mu ruhame. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 95

63

Umushingamategeko yagennye uburyo ifatwa ry’amajwi n’amafoto rikorwa mu cyumba cy’iburanishwa. [49] Uburenganzira bwo gutanga ibitekerezo no kubona amakuru ni bimwe mu bishingirwaho hemezwa ko igihugu kirimo demokarasi n’iyubahirizwa ry’ubundi burenganzira. Ku bw’ibyo, kuba umuntu yabuzwa gukoresha ubwo burenganzira bigomba kuba ari ngombwa kandi bikwiriye ugereranyije n’ikigenderewe. Muri urwo rwego, Urukiko rusanga mu ngingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga mu gika cyayo cya 2, Umushingamategeko yarateganyije imbibi ihame ry’ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru mu nkiko ritagomba kurenga mu rwego rwo kutabangamira ubundi burenganzira harimo ubw’umwenegihugu bwo kugira icyubahiro n’agaciro, ubwo kutagira uwivanga mu mibereho ye bwite n’iy’umuryango we, ituze rusange rya rubanda n’imyifatire mbonezabupfura, ukurengera urubyiruko n’abana. [50] Urukiko rurasanga rero kuba ingingo ya 71, igika cya 5, y’Itegeko N˚ 22/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru yaragennye uburyo ubwo bwisanzure bugomba gushyirwa mu bikorwa, igategeka abashaka gufata amajwi n’amafoto mu manza zigomba kuburanishwa kubisabira uruhushya mu gihe cy’amasaha 48 ari ngombwa kandi bikwiye kuko biri mu nshingano z’Urwego rw’Ubucamanza guteganya uburyo butuma iburanisha riba mu ituze kandi hubahirizwa uburenganzira bw’ababuranyi n’abandi barebwa n’imanza. [51] Ku bindi urega avuga ko kubona igihe cyo kwaka uruhushya rwo gufata amajwi n’amafoto mu nkiko bidakunda kubera ko kubona gahunda y’iburanisha ry’imanza bigora kuko inkiko ziyitanga mbere gato y’uko imanza ziburanishwa, Re BYANSI (FOND)

## Page 96

64

Urukiko rurasanga iki kibazo cyakemurirwa mu zindi nzira zitari ukuvuga ko ingingo y’itegeko inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. [52] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro byatanzwe, Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 71, igika cya 5, y’Itegeko N˚ 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi itanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [53] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Byansi Samuel Baker gisaba kwemeza ko ingingo ya 71, igika cya 5, y’ Itegeko N˚ 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y'u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015 nta shingiro gifite. [54] Rwemeje ko ingingo ya 71, igika cya 5, y’Itegeko N˚ 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi itanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga.

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 97

65

IMANZA ZEREKERANYE N’IMIBURANISHIRIZE Y’IMANZA

## Page 98

66

## Page 99

67

URUBANZA RWEREKERANYE N’IMIBURANISHIRIZE Y’IMANZA ZASABIWE GUSUBIRISHWAMO KU MPAMVU Z’AKARENGANE

## Page 100

68

## Page 101

69

WHITEFIELD INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v. THOMAS ET PIRON GRANDS LACS [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA– RS/INJUST/RAD 00001/2020/SC (Nyirinkwaya, Cyanzayire, Rukundakuvuga, Hitiyaremye, Muhumuza, P.J.) 16 Ukwakira 2020] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubutegetsi – Ikirego gitanzwe mu buryo bw’inyandiko nsobanurakirego – Gutambamira urubanza – Ubujurire bw’urubanza rutambamira urundi – Urubanza rwatambamiwe rwari rutagishoboye kujuririrwa ku kirego cyatanzwe mu buryo bw’inyandiko nsobanurakirego itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe; bidakuraho uburenganzira bw’umuburanyi utanyuzwe n’umwanzuro wafashwe mu rubanza rwarutambamiye bwo kurujuririra. Amategeko agenga imitunganyirize n’imikorere y’ubutegetsi bw’ubucamanza – Inshingano z’urwego rw’ubucamanza – Inshingano za Perezida w’Urukiko – Icyemezo cyafashwe na Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi cyo gutesha agaciro inyandikompuruza, atari icyemezo cy’ubutegetsi kiregerwa hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 178 y’Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ahubwo ko umushingamategeko yashatse ko icyo cyemezo kijya mu rwego rw’ibyemezo by’ubuyobozi Perezida w’Urukiko ashobora gufata mu rwego rw’imitunganyirize n’imigendekere myiza y’akazi kajyanye n’imanza.. 69

## Page 102

70

Incamake y’ikibazo: Whitefield Investment Company Ltd yareze Thomas et Piron Grands Lacs mu bukemurampaka ko itubahirije amasezerano bagiranye yo kubaka warehouses muri Free Trade Zone, Whitefield Investment Company LTD iratsinda, Ubwanditsi bw’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi butera inyandikompuruza ku mwanzuro w’ubukemurampaka no ku cyemezo cye cyiswe recoverable costs, urubanza rutangiye kurangizwa Thomas et Piron Grands Lacs yandikira Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi isaba ko iyo nyandikompuruza yateshwa agaciro. Nyuma yo kumva impande zombi zirebwa n’iki kibazo, Perezida w’urwo rukiko yafashe icyemezo kiyitesha agaciro, bituma Urega atakambira Perezida w’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi kugira ngo akureho icyemezo cyafashwe na Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi, ariko ntiyasubiza kuri uko gutakamba, atanga ikirego cy’ubutegetsi mu buryo bw’inyandiko nsobanurakirego itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge isaba ko inyandikompuruza isubizwa agaciro kayo. Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwemeje ko ikirego cy’Urega kitakiriwe ngo gisuzumwe kuko kitagombaga gutangwa nk’inyandiko nsobanurakirego itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe. Urega yajuririye, Urukiko Rukuru rwemeza ko ubujurire bw’Urega bufite ishingiro, rutegeka ko asubizwa uburenganzira bwayo, inyandikompuruza yari yateshejwe agaciro na Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi igasubizwa agaciro kayo. Uregwa yatambamiye icyo cyemezo igaragaza ko icyemezo cya Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi gitesha agaciro inyandikompuruza atari icyemezo cy’ubutegetsi nk’ibindi byemezo by’ubutegetsi. Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko ikirego cy’Uregwa gifite ishingiro, ko urwo rubanza ruteshejwe agaciro. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 103

71

Urega yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ubujurire, maze ruca urubanza rwemeza kutakira ubujurire bwayo kuko butari mu bubasha bwarwo. Urega yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga imusaba ko yategeka ko urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’ubujurire rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane karugaragaramo, Perezida w’Urukiko yemeza ko uru rubanza rwongera kuburanishwa. Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame hasuzumwa niba ubujurire bw’Urega bwaragombaga kwakirwa mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire, aho avuga ko urwo Rukiko rutakiriye ubujurire bwayo rwirengagije ko mw’itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko hatambamirwa urubanza rwafashweho icyemezo mu mizi kandi rutagishoboye kujuririrwa ndetse ko imanza zaciwe habaye itambama zishobora kongera kujuririrwa inshuro imwe gusa. Ibi bitandukanye n’umurongo wari warafashwe mbere n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga aho rwasobanuyemo ko urubanza rutambamira urundi rujuririrwa ari uko urwatambamiwe narwo rwashoboraga kujuririrwa. Uregwa avuga ko urubanza ruciwe n’Urukiko habaye itambamira rubanza rushobora kujuririrwa inshuro imwe bitewe na kamere yarwo ariko ko atari ihame. Bivuze ko nyuma y’ubujurire mu Rukiko Rukuru nta bundi bujurire bwashobokaga ariko bishobora gusubirwaho bisabwe umucamanza wafashe icyo cyemezo kugira ngo agire ibyo ahindura cyangwa akura ku byo yari yemeje mbere, ariko bitabangamira uburenganzira bw’abandi ku byo bahawe n’icyo cyemezo. Ku ngingo ijyanye no kumenya niba icyemezo cyafashwe na Perezida w’Urukiko cyo kuvanaho inyandikompuruza ari icyemezo cy’ubutegetsi kiregerwa hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 178 iteganywa n’itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza WHITEFIELD INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v. THOMAS ET PIRON GRANDS LACS

## Page 104

72

z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi rikoreshwa uyu munsi. Urega avuga ko hari ibyemezo Perezida w’urukiko afata nk’umucamanza kibanza kunyura mu nzira zisanzwe ibindi birego binyuramo mu gihe bikenewe guhindurwa n’ibyemezo afata nk’umuyobozi bisubirwamo hakurikijwe inzego z’imitegerekere z’urwego rw’ubucamanza. Akomeza bavuga ko icyemezo cyo gutesha agaciro inyandikompuruza ari icyemezo cy’ubuyobozi, utacyishimiye anyura mu nzira zo gutakambira Perezida w’urukiko rwisumbuye ku rwagifashe. Ibi bikaba bitandukanye n’ibyemejwe n’Urukiko Rukuru aho rwemeje ko icyemezo cyafashwe na Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi cyo kuvanaho inyandikompuruza atari icyemezo cy’ubutegetsi ngo kubera ko gifatwa hashingiwe ku mpamvu z’ababuranyi cyangwa ku mpamvu z’abo inyandikompuruza ireba. Uregwa avuga ko icyemezo cyo gutesha agaciro inyandikompuruza ari icyemezo cy’ubutegetsi ariko ko atari icyemezo cy’ubutegetsi nk’ibindi kuko Perezida w’Urukiko agifata mu rwego rw’ubuyobozi ntawe abajije kandi kikaba kitarebana n’ishyirwa mu bikorwa ry’ibyemezo byafashwe n’inkiko. Akomeza avuga ko Umushingamategeko yateganyije ko iki cyemezo gikuraho inyandikompuruza nta nzira yo gutakamba yateganyije, ibi nabyo bikaba byumvikanisha ko atari icyemezo cy’ubutegetsi (caractère administratif), ahubwo ari icyemezo cy’ubucamanza (caractère judiciaire), kuba perezida w’urukiko agifata mu biro bikaba bitavanaho iyo kamere. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Urubanza rwatambamiwe rwari rutagishoboye kujuririrwa ku kirego cyatanzwe mu buryo bw’inyandiko nsobanurakirego itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe; bidakuraho uburenganzira bw’umuburanyi utanyuzwe ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 105

73

n’umwanzuro wafashwe mu rubanza rwarutambamiye bwo kurujuririra. Bityo, ubujurire bwa Whitefield Investment Company Ltd bwagombaga kwakirwa mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire. 2. Icyemezo cyafashwe na Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi cyo gutesha agaciro inyandikompuruza, atari icyemezo cy’ubutegetsi kiregerwa hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 178 y’Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ahubwo ko umushingamategeko yashatse ko icyo cyemezo kijya mu rwego rw’ibyemezo by’ubuyobozi Perezida w’Urukiko ashobora gufata mu rwego rw’imitunganyirize n’imigendekere myiza y’akazi kajyanye n’imanza. Bityo, icyemezo cya Perezida w’Urukiko rw’ubucuruzi gikuraho inyandikompuruza ntabwo ari icyemezo cy’ubutegetsi kiregerwa mu buryo buteganywa n’ingingo ya 178 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru. Ubujurire bwagombaga kwakirwa mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire. Urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ruvanyweho. Urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ntiruhindutse. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo muri 2003 ryavuguruwe muri 2015, ingingo ya 151. Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 9, 20, 142, 149, 172, 161, 168, 178,179, 181, 184, 192 n’iya 243. WHITEFIELD INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v. THOMAS ET PIRON GRANDS LACS

## Page 106

74

Itegeko Nᵒ 012/2018 ryo ku wa 04/04/2018 rigena imitunganyirize n’imikorere y’ubutegetsi bw’ubucamanza, ingingo ya 43. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Whitefield Investment Company Ltd yareze Thomas et Piron Grands Lacs mu bukemurampaka ko itubahirije amasezerano bagiranye yo kubaka warehouses muri Free Trade Zone, Whitefield Investment Company LTD iratsinda, Ubwanditsi bw’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi butera inyandikompuruza ku mwanzuro w’ubukemurampaka no ku cyemezo cyiswe recoverable costs, urubanza rutangiye kurangizwa Thomas et Piron Grands Lacs yandikira Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi isaba ko iyo nyandikompuruza yateshwa agaciro. [2] Nyuma yo kumva impande zombi zirebwa n’iki kibazo, perezida w’urwo rukiko yafashe icyemezo kiyitesha agaciro ashingiye ku mpamvu y‘uko umukemurampaka Emmanuel Ochola Odhiambo wo muri Kenya yafashe umwanzuro mu buryo bunyuranye n‘amategeko ndemyagihugu ya Repubulika y’u Rwanda kuko yakomeje kuburanisha urubanza azi neza ko yihanwe, ndetse ko hashyizweho undi mukemurampaka, ko rero kurekera inyandikompuruza ku mwanzuro yafashe byaba ari ukwirengagiza uburenganzira bwa Thomas et Piron Grands Lacs bwo kuburanishwa n’urukiko rubifitiye ububasha. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 107

75

[3] Inyandikompuruza imaze guteshwa agaciro, Whitefield Investment Company Ltd, ishingiye ku ngingo ya 243 igika cya 4 y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ivuga ko icyemezo cya Perezida w’urukiko ku bijyanye no gutesha agaciro inyandikompuruza ari icyemezo cy’ubuyobozi, iya 178 y’iryo tegeko iteganya iby’iyakirwa n’itangwa ry‘ikirego gisaba gukuraho icyemezo cy’umuyobozi, ndetse n’iya 179 y’iryo tegeko irebana n’ingaruka za bene ibyo birego, yatakambiye Perezida w’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi kugira ngo akureho icyemezo cyafashwe na Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi, ariko ntiyasubiza kuri uko gutakamba, Whitefield Investment Company Ltd itanga ikirego cy’ubutegetsi mu buryo bw’inyandiko nsobanurakirego itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge isaba ko inyandikompuruza isubizwa agaciro kayo. [4] Urwo rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, Urugereko ruburanisha imanza z’ubutegetsi, rukomeza kujuririrwa kugeza mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire, urubanza rwaciwe n’urwo rukiko akaba ari narwo rwaje mu karengane. [5] Mu rubanza RAD 00116/2019/TGI/NYGE rwaciwe ku wa 24/06/2019, Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwemeje ko ikirego cya Whitefield Investment Company Ltd kitakiriwe ngo gisuzumwe ngo kuko kitagombaga gutangwa nk’inyandiko nsobanurakirego itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe. Iki cyemezo cy’urukiko cyashingiye ku mpamvu y’uko nta bwihutirwe Whitefield Investment Company Ltd yigeze igaragaza bwatuma icyemezo cyafashwe cyo gutesha agaciro inyandikompuruza gikurwaho no kuba bigaragara ko ibyo isaba birimo impaka, WHITEFIELD INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v. THOMAS ET PIRON GRANDS LACS

## Page 108

76

bikaba byari ngombwa kubanza kumenyesha abarebwa n’ikibazo bose mbere y’uko Urukiko rubifataho icyemezo. [6] Whitefield Investment Company Ltd yarajuriye. Mu rubanza RADA 00091/2019/HC/KIG rwo ku wa 26/07/2019, Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Whitefield Investment Company Ltd bufite ishingiro, rutegeka ko isubizwa uburenganzira bwayo, inyandikompuruza yari yateshejwe agaciro na Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi igasubizwa agaciro kayo. Mu gufata iki cyemezo Urukiko rwashingiye ku ngingo ya 178 igika cya 3 y’Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ryavuzwe ivuga ko umuyobozi ufite ububasha bwisumbuye k’uwafashe icyemezo kinengwa watakambiwe agomba gusubiza ubwo butakambe mu gihe cy’ukwezi kumwe, yaba adasubije muri icyo gihe, ubutakambe bugafatwa nk’aho bufite ishingiro. [7] Thomas et Piron Grands Lacs yatambamiye icyo cyemezo igaragaza ko icyemezo cya Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi gitesha agaciro inyandikompuruza atari icyemezo cy’ubutegetsi nk’ibindi byemezo by’ubuyobozi, ndetse ko mu rubanza rutambamirwa hakozwe amakosa yo gusuzuma ikirego mu mizi kandi mu rubanza rwajuririwe urukiko rwari rwemeje ko ikirego kitakiriwe, bivuze ko urubanza rwagombaga gusubizwa mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye akaba arirwo ruca urubanza mu mizi, ko irindi kosa riri mu rubanza itambamira ari uko ingingo ya 178 y’Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ryavuzwe yakoreshejwe nabi kuko uburenganzira bwatakambiwe butari ubwa Whitefield Investment Company Ltd kuko atariyo yari yasabye ko inyandikompuruza iteshwa agaciro. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 109

77

[8] Mu rubanza RADA 00109/2019/HC/KIG rwo ku wa 17/09/2019, Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko ikirego cya Thomas & Piron Grands Lacs Ltd gitambamira urubanza RADA 00091/2012/HC/KIG gifite ishingiro, ko urwo rubanza ruteshejwe agaciro. [9] Mu gufata icyo cyemezo, rwasobanuye ko hashingiwe ku nzira zikoreshwa kugira ngo inyandikompuruza iterwe ku nyandikompesha n’uburyo ikurwaho, bigaragaza ko atari igikorwa bwite cya Perezida w’Urukiko kuko kibanzirizwa no kuba iyo nyandikompuruza yashyizweho n’Umwanditsi w’Urukiko, ubifitemo inyungu akandikira perezida w’urukiko asaba ko ivanwaho, bikamenyeshwa abo bireba bose, nabo bakagira icyo babivugaho, perezida w’urukiko akabona gufata icyemezo. Bivuze ko icyo cyemezo kiba kitamuturutseho ahubwo ko kiba gishingiye ku mpamvu z’ababuranyi cyangwa abo inyandikompuruza ireba, ariyo mpamvu kiba kitagomba kuregerwa mu buryo buteganywa n’ingingo ya 178 yavuzwe haruguru, nyamara akaba ariyo Whitefield Investment Company Ltd yashingiyeho itanga ikirego cy’ubutegetsi, bikaba byumvikana ko icyo kirego yagitanze mu buryo budakurikije amategeko. [10] Whitefield Investment Company Ltd yarongeye irajurira. Mu iburanisha ry’urwo rubanza Thomas et Piron Grands Lacs Ltd yatanze inzitizi yo kutakira ubujurire bwa Whitefield Investment Company Ltd hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 192 y’Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ryavuzwe iteganya ko icyemezo cyafashwe ku kibazo nsobanurakirego gitanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe kijuririrwa inshuro imwe gusa, iyo nshuro ikaba yararenze. WHITEFIELD INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v. THOMAS ET PIRON GRANDS LACS

## Page 110

78

[11] Whitefield Investment Company Ltd yireguye ivuga ko ubujurire bwayo bushingiye ku ngingo ya 168 y’iryo tegeko iteganya ko urubanza ruciwe n’urukiko habayeho itambamirarubanza rushobora kujuririrwa hakoreshejwe inzira zimwe nk’izikoreshwa mu kujuririra izindi manza, ko kandi urubanza rutambamira urundi rushobora kujuririrwa rimwe gusa, ikavuga ko itegeko ryayemereraga kujurira indi nshuro imwe. [12] Mu rubanza RADAA 00006/2019/CA rwo kuwa 06/12/2019, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwemeje ko inzitizi yatanzwe na Thomas et Piron Grands Lacs yo kutakira ubujurire bwa Whitefield Investment Company Ltd ifite ishingiro, ko rero ubujurire bwayo butakiriwe. Mu gufata icyo cyemezo rwashingiye ku kuba ikirego cyayo cyaratanzwe mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye gitanzwe mu buryo bw’inyandiko nsobanurakirego itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe, rujuririrwa mu Rukiko Rukuru ariyo kamere rufite, rutambamirwa mu Rukiko Rukuru n’ubundi rugifite iyo kamere, bityo ko bitari gushoboka ko rujuririrwa mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire kuko bene icyo kirego kijuririrwa rimwe gusa, uyu akaba ari umurongo wafashwe mu manza zaciwe n’urwo rukiko, ndetse n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. [13] Whitefield Investment Company Ltd yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga imusaba ko yategeka ko urubanza RADAA 00006/2019/CA rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane karugaragaramo, maze ku wa 18/05/2020 mu cyemezo nimero 259/CJ/2020 Perezida w’Urukiko yemeza ko uru rubanza rwongera kuburanishwa ategeka ko ubwanditsi bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuruha numero kugirango ruburanishwe. Rumaze kwandikwa rwahawe RS/INJUST/RAD 00001/2020/SC. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 111

79

[14] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku wa 15/09/2020, Whitefield Investment Company Ltd ihagarariwe na Me Munyandamutsa Jean Pierre hamwe na Me Butare Emmanuel, Thomas et Piron Grands Lacs ihagarariwe na Me Ngirinshuti Jean Bosco hamwe na Me Nzirabatinyi Fidèle. [15] Urukiko rwabanje kwemeranya na bo ku ngingo zigize urubanza hashingiwe ku myanzuro impande zose zatanze, ari nabyo bibazo byasuzumwe muri uru rubanza. Izo ngingo ni izi zikurikira: - Kumenya niba ubujurire bwa Whitefield Investment Company Ltd bwaragombaga kwakirwa mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire. - Kumenya niba icyemezo cyafashwe na Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi cyo kuvanaho inyandikompuruza ari icyemezo cy’ubutegetsi kiregerwa hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 178 y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi; - Kumenya niba Thomas et Piron Grand Lacs yahabwa indishyi isaba.

WHITEFIELD INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v. THOMAS ET PIRON GRANDS LACS

## Page 112

80

II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO A) Kumenya niba ubujurire bwa Whitefield Investment Company Ltd bwaragombaga kwakirwa mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire [16] Me Munyandamutsa Jean Pierre na Me Butare Emmanuel bahagarariye Whitefield Investment Company Ltd bavuga ko Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwemeje ko ubujurire bwayo butakiriwe rwirengagije ingingo ya 161 igika cya gatatu y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko hatambamirwa urubanza rwafashweho icyemezo mu mizi kandi rutagishoboye kujuririrwa n’iya 168 igika cya kabiri y’iryo tegeko iteganya ko imanza zaciwe habaye itambama zishobora kongera kujuririrwa inshuro imwe gusa. [17] Bavuga kandi ko urubanza RCAA 0050/11/CS, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwasobanuyemo ko urubanza rutambamira urundi rujuririrwa ari uko urwatambamiwe narwo rwashoboraga kujuririrwa, rutari rukwiye gushingirwaho nka jurisprudence n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire kuko rwaciwe hashingiwe ku itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ryo muri 2004 kandi ikirego cya Whitefield Investment Company Ltd cyaratanzwe hakurikijwe itegeko ryo muri 2018. [18] Me Ngilinshuti Jean Bosco na Me Nzirabatinyi Fidèle bahagarariye Thomas et Piron Grand Lacs bavuga ko ingingo ya 168 igika cya 2 y’itegeko ryavuzwe itagomba gusomwa yonyine, ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 113

81

ahubwo igomba gusomerwa hamwe n’igika cya mbere cy’iyo ngingo iteganya ko urubanza ruciwe n’Urukiko habaye itambamira rubanza rushobora kujuririrwa hakoreshejwe inzira zimwe nk’izikoreshwa mu kujuririra izindi manza, ibivuzwe muri iki gika bikaba byumvikanisha ko urubanza ruciwe n’Urukiko habaye itambamira rubanza rushobora kujuririrwa inshuro imwe bitewe na kamere yarwo ariko ko atari ihame. [19] Bakomeza bavuga ko icyemezo gifashwe ku nyandiko nsobanurakirego itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe kijuririrwa inshuro imwe gusa nk’uko bisobanurwa mu ngingo ya 192 y’itegeko ryavuzwe, bivuze ko nyuma y’ubujurire mu Rukiko Rukuru nta bundi bujurire bwashobokaga. [20] Bavuga ko n’ubwo bene ibyo birego bitajuririrwa kabiri, ariko bishobora gusubirwaho (réformation et rétractation) kuko ingingo ya 194 y’itegeko ryavuzwe iteganya ko uwatanze inyandiko nsobanurakirego cyangwa uwayigobotsemo ashobora, mu gihe hari ibyahindutse, gutanga ikirego gisaba umucamanza wafashe icyo cyemezo kugira ibyo ahindura cyangwa akura ku byo yari yemeje mbere, ariko bitabangamira uburenganzira bw’abandi ku byo bahawe n’icyo cyemezo. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [21] Ikirego cya Whitefield Investment Company Ltd gisaba ko inyandikompuruza isubizwa agaciro yateshejwe, yagitanze mu buryo bw’inyandiko nsobanurakirego itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe ishingiye ku ngingo ya 178 y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya mu gika cyayo cya nyuma ko iyo nta gisubizo yahawe WHITEFIELD INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v. THOMAS ET PIRON GRANDS LACS

## Page 114

82

kandi atasubijwe uburenganzira bwe, (uwatakambiye umuyobozi ufite ububasha bwisumbuye k‘uwafashe icyemezo kinengwa) ashobora gusaba urukiko ruburanisha imanza z’ubutegetsi gutegeka ko uburenganzira bwe bwubahirizwa. Icyo kirego gitangwa mu gihe kitarenze ukwezi kumwe (1) mu buryo bw’inyandiko nsobanurakirego itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe. [22] Uburyo ibi birego bijuririrwa bisobanuwe mu ngingo ya 192 y’iryo tegeko, iteganya ko icyemezo cy’umucamanza ku kirego cyatanzwe mu buryo bw’inyandiko nsobanurakirego itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe kijuririrwa inshuro rimwe gusa. Iyi ngingo niyo Whitefield Investment Company Ltd yashingiyeho ijuririra mu Rukiko Rukuru icyemezo cyari cyafashwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye. Yumvikanisha ko nyuma y’uko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rufashe icyemezo, kikajuririrwa mu Rukiko Rukuru, nta bundi bujurire bwashobokaga kuko inzira z’ubujurire zisanzwe zari zarangiriye muri urwo rukiko. [23] Ikibazo cyibazwaho muri uru rubanza ni icyo kumenya uko bigenda igihe icyemezo cyafashwe ku kirego cyatanzwe mu buryo bw’inyandiko nsobanurakirego itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe cyarangije inzira zisanzwe z’ubujurire ariko kikaza gutambamirwa nk’uko Thomas et Piron Grand Lacs yabikoze, maze Urukiko Rukuru, mu rubanza rutambamira urundi rugahindura icyemezo rwari rwafashe mu rubanza rwatambamiwe. Ese ubujurire bw’urwo rubanza rwaciwe habaye itambamirarubanza bwashoboraga kwakirwa mu gihe urubanza rwatambamiwe rwo rwari rutagishoboye kujuririrwa hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 192 y’itegeko ryavuzwe. [24] Ku birebana n’inzira yo gutambamira urubanza, ingingo ya 161 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 115

83

mu gika cyayo cya gatatu, ivuga ko hatambamirwa (gusa) urubanza rwafashwemo icyemezo mu mizi kandi rutagishoboye kujuririrwa, naho ingingo ya 168 y’iryo tegeko, mu gika cyayo cya nyuma, igateganya ko urubanza rutambamira urundi rushobora kujuririrwa rimwe gusa. Ibiteganyijwe muri izi ngingo zombi bikaba byumvikanisha ko urubanza rushobora gutambamirwa ari urwarangije inzira z’ubujurire zisanzwe, hanyuma urubanza ruciwe kuri iryo tambama rukaba rushobora kujuririrwa inshuro imwe. [25] Urukiko rurasanga rero kuba urubanza rwatambamiwe rwari rutagishoboye kujuririrwa hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 192 y’iryo tegeko kuko rwaciwe ku bujurire bw’icyemezo cyafashwe ku kirego cyatanzwe mu buryo bw’inyandiko nsobanurakirego itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe, hakaba nta bundi bujurire bwashobokaga, bidakuraho uburenganzira bw’umuburanyi utanyuzwe n’umwanzuro wafashwe mu rubanza rwarutambamiye bwo kurujuririra hakurikijwe ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 161 n’iya 168 igika cya kabiri z’iryo tegeko. [26] Ibimaze kuvugwa byumvikanisha ko umurongo watanzwe mu rubanza RCAA 0050/11/CS utagombaga gukurikizwa muri uru rubanza rusubirishwamo kuko wari ushingiye ku Itegeko N° 18/2004 ryo ku wa 20/06/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, iryo tegeko kimwe n‘Itegeko N˚21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ryarisimbuye zikaba ntaho zateganyaga ko hatambamirwa gusa imanza zitagishoboye kujuririrwa, ndetse ko urubanza rutambamira urundi rushobora kujuririrwa rimwe nk’uko biteganywa mu itegeko ry’ubu. WHITEFIELD INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v. THOMAS ET PIRON GRANDS LACS

## Page 116

84

[27] Izi mpinduka zazanywe n’iri tegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi zumvikanisha ko urukiko rwajuririwe urubanza rwaciwe habaye itambamirarubanza rutabanza gusuzuma niba urubanza rwatambamiwe narwo rwarashoboraga kujuririrwa kugira ngo rubone gufata icyemezo ku iyakirwa ry’ubwo bujurire kuko urubanza rutambamirwa aba nyine ari urubanza rutagishoboye kujuririrwa. Bityo kujurira inshuro rimwe akaba ari uburenganzira bwahawe umuburanyi utaranyuzwe n’umwanzuro wafashwe mu rubanza rwatambamiwe. [28] Naho ibyo abahagarariye Thomas et Piron Grand Lacs bavuga ko igika cya kabiri cy’ingingo ya 168 y’itegeko ryavuzwe kitagomba gusomwa cyonyine, ahubwo kigomba gusomerwa hamwe n’igika cya mbere cyayo giteganya ko urubanza ruciwe n’Urukiko habaye itambamira rubanza rushobora kujuririrwa hakoreshejwe inzira zimwe nk’izikoreshwa mu kujuririra izindi manza, bagashaka kumvikanisha ko ibivuzwe muri iki gika bisobanuye ko urubanza ruciwe n’Urukiko habaye itambamira rubanza rushobora kujuririrwa inshuro imwe bitewe na kamere yarwo ariko ko atari ihame, uru rukiko rusanga atari byo kuko icyo igika cya mbere cy’ingingo ya 168 gisobanura ari uburyo cyangwa inzira ibyo birego bitangwamo, kikerekana ko bitangwa mu nzira zimwe cyangwa zisa n’izo ibindi birego by’ubujurire bitangwamo. [29] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusanga, nk’uko yabikoze no ku bireba izindi nzira z’ubujurire, Umushingamategeko atarashatse gusobanura mu buryo burambuye uburyo ibirego bitangwa ahubwo agakoresha imvugo yohereza ku zindi ngingo, kuko muri rusange uburyo ibirego ku rwego urwo arirwo rwose bitangwa ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 117

85

budatandukanye n‘inzira zisanzwe zireba itangwa ry’ikirego ku rwego rwa mbere nk’uko biteganywa mu ngingo ya 20 y’itegeko ryavuzwe ivuga ko urukiko ruregerwa hakoreshejwe imyanzuro iregera urukiko hifashishijwe uburyo bw’ikoranabuhanga bwabigenewe bikozwe n’urega ubwe, umwunganira cyangwa umuhagarariye. Ni muri urwo rwego, yavuze ko gusubirishamo urubanza (opposition) bikorwa mu buryo bumwe n’ubwo gutanga ikirego (reba igika cya kabiri cy’ingingo ya 142 y’iryo tegeko), ko ubujurire busanzwe bukorwa mu buryo bumwe n’ubwo gutanga ikirego (reba ingingo ya 149 y’iryo tegeko), ko ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya gitangwa mu nzira zimwe nk’izubahirizwa mu gutanga ibindi birego (reba igika cya kabiri cy’ingingo ya172 y’iryo tegeko). [30] Ni no muri urwo rwego rero, ku bijyanye no kujuririra urubanza rutambamira urundi, Umushingamategeko yahisemo kuvuga gusa mu gika cya mbere cy’ingingo ya 168 yavuzwe ko urubanza ruciwe n’urukiko habaye itambamirarubanza rushobora kujuririrwa hakoreshejwe inzira zimwe nk’izikoreshwa mu kujuririra izindi manza, aho kongera kurondora uburyo ikirego gitangwamo kuko byose bikorwa mu nzira zimwe nk’uko bisobanuye mu ngingo ya 20 yavuzwe haruguru. [31] Hashingiye rero ku bimaze gusobanurwa, Urukiko rurasanga ubujurire bwa Whitefield Investment Company Ltd bwaragombaga kwakirwa mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire.

WHITEFIELD INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v. THOMAS ET PIRON GRANDS LACS

## Page 118

86

B) Kumenya niba icyemezo cyafashwe na Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi cyo kuvanaho inyandikompuruza ari icyemezo cy’ubutegetsi kiregerwa hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 178 y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi [32] Me Munyandamutsa Jean Pierre na Me Butare Emmanuel bahagarariye Whitefield Investment Company Ltd bavuga ko hari ibyemezo perezida w’urukiko afata nk’umucamanza (décision judiciaire) n’ibyemezo afata nk’umuyobozi (décision administrative). Iyo afashe icyemezo nk’umucamanza kinyura mu bwanditsi bw’urukiko, kigahabwa nomero, kikaburanishwa, utishimiye icyemezo gifashwe akaba yakijuririra. Iyo afashe icyemezo nk’umuyobozi w’urukiko, ntikinyura muri izo nzira, ntigihabwa numero y’urubanza, ntigifatwa habaye iburanisha ngo hacibwe urubanza rujuririrwa. [33] Bakomeza bavuga ko ingingo ya 243 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe iteganya ko icyemezo cya perezida w’urukiko ku bijyanye no gutesha agaciro inyandikompuruza ari icyemezo cy’ubuyobozi, bivuze ko utacyishimiye anyura mu nzira zo gutakambira perezida w’urukiko rwisumbuye ku rwafashe icyo cyemezo nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 178 y’iryo tegeko kuko icyo cyemezo agifata amaze kureba ibisabwa kugirango haterwe kashimpuruza. [34] Bavuga kandi ko Urukiko Rukuru rwarenze ku bivugwa muri iyo ngingo maze rwemeza ko icyemezo cyafashwe na Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi cyo kuvanaho inyandikompuruza atari icyemezo cy’ubutegetsi ngo kubera ko gifatwa hashingiwe ku mpamvu z’ababuranyi cyangwa ku mpamvu z‘abo inyandikompuruza ireba kandi ataribyo ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 119

87

byakibuza kuba icyemezo cy’ubutegetsi, ntiyanasobanura ubwoko bwacyo cyangwa ingingo y’itegeko yashingiweho, ibi bikaba binyuranyije n’ingingo ya 151 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’ u Rwanda ryo muri 2003 ryavuguruwe muri 2015 iteganya, mu gace kayo ka gatatu, ko urubanza rwose ruciwe rugomba kugaragaza impamvu rushingiraho kandi rukandikwa mu ngingo zarwo zose, rugomba gusomerwa mu ruhame n’impamvu zose rwashingiyeho uko zakabaye n’icyemezo cyafashwe, ndetse n’ingingo ya 9, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ryavuzwe, iteganya ko umucamanza aca urubanza ashingiye ku ngingo z’amategeko zirebana n’ikirego, iyo nta tegeko rijyanye n’ikiburanwa ashingira ku mategeko asanga yashyiraho mu gihe yaba ashinzwe kuyashyiraho (. ). [35] Me Ngilinshuti Jean Bosco uhagarariye Thomas et Piron Grand Lacs avuga ko nubwo ingingo ya 243 y’itegeko ryavuzwe iteganya ko icyemezo cyo gutesha agaciro inyandikompuruza ari icyemezo cy’ubutegetsi, ari inyito gusa kubera ko gifatwa na perezida w’urukiko, ariko ko atari icyemezo cy’ubutegetsi nk’ibindi. [36] Me Nzirabatinyi Fidèle nawe uhagarariye Thomas et Piron Grand Lacs avuga ko icyemezo cya Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi gikuraho inyandikompuruza kiba kigamije gushyira mu bikorwa ibyemejwe n’inkiko kandi ko iyo usomye ingingo ya 243, igika cya 2, usanga umushingamategeko yarateganyije ukuvuguruzanya kw’abarebwa n’icyemezo (débat contradictoire) kuko agifata abanje kumenyesha ikibazo abarebwa nacyo bose, nabo bakagira iminsi 5 yo kugira icyo bakivugaho. Ibi byumvikanisha ko icyo cyemezo gitandukanye WHITEFIELD INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v. THOMAS ET PIRON GRANDS LACS

## Page 120

88

n’ibindi byemezo afata mu rwego rw’ubuyobozi (purement administrative) ntawe abajije kandi bitarebana n’ishyirwa mu bikorwa ry’ibyemezo byafashwe n’inkiko. [37] Akomeza avuga ko mu bindi byemezo by’ubutegetsi, nk’icyemezo gica ihazabu ababuranyi batinza urubanza cyangwa icyemezo cy’umwanditsi cyo gusiba urubanza, Umushingamategeko yateganyije ko bitakambirwa Perezida w’Urukiko, ariko ko atari ko biri ku birebana n’icyemezo gikuraho inyandikompuruza kuko nta nzira yo gutakamba yateganyije, ibi nabyo bikaba byumvikanisha ko atari icyemezo cy’ubutegetsi (caractère administratif), ahubwo ari icyemezo cy‘ubucamanza (caractère judiciaire), kuba perezida w’urukiko agifata mu biro bikaba bitavanaho iyo kamere. [38] Ku birebana no kuba umucamanza ataravuze ubwoko bw’icyemezo cyafashwe na Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi cyo kuvanaho inyandikompuruza, Me Ngilinshuti Jean Bosco avuga ko atari ashinzwe kuvuga inyito yacyo kuko atari cyo cyari cyaregewe, kandi ko kuba atarasobanuye ubwoko bw’icyo cyemezo ubwabyo atari impamvu y’akarengane, ko ahubwo bashoboraga kujya gusobanuza urubanza umucamanza akababwira ubwoko bwacyo niba babifitemo inyungu. [39] Naho ku birebana no kuba umucamanza nta ngingo y’amategeko yashingiyeho afata icyemezo, avuga ko atari ko biri kuko yasesenguye ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 178 n’iya 243 z’itegeko ryavuzwe, kandi ko umucamanza adategetswe igihe cyose gushingira ku itegeko kuko n’iyo ridahari ategetswe guca urubanza hakurikijwe ingingo ya 9 y’iryo tegeko, iteganya, mu gika cyayo cya 2, ko umucamanza adashobora kwanga guca urubanza yitwaje impamvu iyo ariyo yose, kabone n’iyo ntacyo ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 121

89

itegeko ryaba riteganya, ridasobanutse mu buryo bwumvikana cyangwa ridahagije. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [40] Ibirebana no gutesha agaciro inyandikompuruza yashyizwe ku nyandikompesha, biteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 243 y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi igaragaza ko bisabwa perezida w’urukiko rwayishyizeho, ikanagaragaza uburyo ikibazo yashyikirijwe gisuzumwa n’igihe bigomba kuba byakorewemo. Iyo ngingo igira iti: Iyo inyandikompesha ishyizweho inyandikompuruza bitari bikwiye, umuburanyi wese ubifitemo inyungu ashobora gusaba mu nyandiko perezida w’urukiko rwashyizeho inyandikompuruza kuyitesha agaciro. Inyandiko isaba gutesha agaciro inyandikompuruza, igomba kumenyeshwa abarebwa n’ikibazo bose. Abarebwa n’ikibazo bose bafite iminsi itanu (5) yo kuba bagira icyo bavuga ku nyandiko isaba gutesha agaciro inyandikompuruza. Mu masaha mirongo ine n’umunani (48) nyuma y’igihe kivugwa mu gika cya 2 cy’iyi ngingo, perezida w’urukiko cyangwa uwo yabihereye ububasha, ashingiye ku nyandiko yashyikirijwe, afata icyemezo gisobanuye impamvu gishingiyeho. Icyemezo cya perezida ku bijyanye no gutesha agaciro inyandikompuruza ni icyemezo cy’ubuyobozi (décision administrative). WHITEFIELD INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v. THOMAS ET PIRON GRANDS LACS

## Page 122

90

[41] Iyo ngingo igaragaza ko icyemezo cyo kuvanaho inyandikompuruza ku nyandikompesha kibanzirizwa n’ivuguruzanya ry’abarebwa n’icyemezo (débat contradictoire) kuko perezida w’urukiko agifata abanje kubamenyesha ikibazo yashyikirijwe bakagira icyo bakivugaho. Igaragaza kandi ubwihutire Umushingamategeko yahaye isuzumwa ry’icyo ikibazo kuko abarebwa nacyo bafite iminsi 5 yo kuba bagira icyo bakivugaho, perezida nawe akagira amasaha 48 nyuma y’iyo minsi 5 kugira ngo afate icyemezo gisobanuye impamvu gishingiyeho. [42] Naho ibirebana no kuvanaho ibyemezo by’ubutegetsi, biteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 178 y’iryo tegeko iri mu nteruro ya V yerekeye imiburanishirize yihariye, umutwe wa mbere werekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubutegetsi, icyiciro cya mbere cyerekeye ikirego gisaba gukuraho ibyemezo by’ubutegetsi. Iyo ngingo, iteganya mu gika cyayo cya mbere ko ikirego gisaba gukuraho icyemezo cy’umuyobozi cyakirwa iyo cyerekeye icyemezo cy’umuyobozi cyaba cyeruye cyangwa kiteruye (icyemezo cy’umuyobozi kivugwa gisobanuwe nka administrative authority mu rurimi rw’icyongereza, nka autorité administrative mu ririmi rw’ugifaransa). [43] Mu gusuzuma niba icyemezo cya Perezida w’Urukiko rwashyizeho inyandikompuruza cyo kuyitesha agaciro ari icyemezo cy’ubutegetsi kiregerwa hashingiye ku biteganywa n’iyi ngingo ya 178 imaze kuvugwa, habanza gusobanuka niba kiba cyafashwe n’umuyobozi (administrative authority/ autorité administrative) uvugwa muri iyo ngingo. [44] Ubutegetsi bw’ubucamanza bufite inzego z’imitegekere nk’ubundi butegetsi bwa Leta zijyanye n’inshingano urwo rwego rwahawe zo guca imanza. Izo nzego ziteganyijwe mu Itegeko Nᵒ ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 123

91

012/2018 ryo ku wa 04/04/2018 rigena imitunganyirize n’imikorere y’ubutegetsi bw’ubucamanza. Havugwamo Inama Nkuru y’Ubucamanza, Biro y’Urwego rw’Ubucamanza, Ubugenzuzi Bukuru bw’inkiko, Ubunyamabanga Bukuru bw’Inkiko, Inkiko zisanzwe n’inkiko zihariye. Izo nzego zigizwe n’abacamanza, abanditsi b’inkiko n’abandi bakozi bagengwa na sitati y’abacamanza n’abakozi b’inkiko ndetse n’abakozi bo mu Bunyamabanga Bukuru bw’inkiko bagengwa na Sitati rusange igenga abakozi ba Leta n’inzego z’imirimo ya Leta. [45] Kubera imiterere y’ubutegetsi bw’ubucamanza n’inshingano bwahawe, inkiko zose ziyoborwa n’abacamanza. Inshingano za perezida w’urukiko ziteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 43 y’itegeko ryavuzwe rigena imitunganyirize n’imikorere y’Ubutegetsi bw’Ubucamanza1.

1 Iyo ngingo igira iti: Buri Perezida w’Urukiko ashinzwe ubuyobozi bwarwo. Ashinzwe muri rusange ibijyanye n’ica ry’imanza, ubutegetsi, imitunganyirize n’imigendekere myiza y’akazi n’imyifatire y’abakozi b’urukiko ayobora. Muri urwo rwego 1° ayobora iburanisha ry’imanza z’inteko arimo; 2° agena amatariki y’iburanisha ry’imanza; 3° agena inteko iburanisha akanasaranganya imanza abacamanza baziburanisha; 4° afata ingamba za ngombwa zigamije kunoza akazi k’urukiko no kugira ngo imanza zicibwe vuba; 5° agenzura imikorere ya buri mukozi wese w’urukiko ayobora, akanamufatira ibihano ku rwego rwe, mu gihe yateshutse ku nshingano ze, akurikije amategeko agenga uwo mukozi mu kazi ke kandi akabimenyesha Perezida w’urukiko rumukuriye n’Ubugenzuzi Bukuru bw’Inkiko; 6° atumiza, akanayobora inama y’abacamanza bose b’urukiko n’abandi bakozi buri kwezi n’igihe cyose bibaye ngombwa igamije kureba imikorere y’urukiko muri rusange, ibyerekeye ubudakemwa bw’imanza n’ubwihute bwazo; 7° akurikirana, akanagenzura imikorere y’inkiko ziri munsi y’urwo ayobora. WHITEFIELD INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v. THOMAS ET PIRON GRANDS LACS

## Page 124

92

[46] Iyo usesenguye ibivugwa muri iyo ngingo, usanga abacamanza bayobora inkiko bashobora gufata ibyemezo by’ubutegetsi (décisions administratives) n’ibyemezo by’ubucamanza (décisions judiciaires) nk’uko n’ababuranyi ubwabo babyemeranywaho. Ibyemezo by’ubucamanza, nk’undi mucamanza wese, abifata mu rwego rwo gukemura ibibazo aba yashyikirijwe n’abagana inkiko, biri mu bubasha bw’urukiko ayobora cyangwa bwa perezida w’urukiko, naho ibyemezo by’ubutegetsi abifata mu rwego rw’imirimo y’ubuyobozi ashinzwe. [47] Iyo na none usesenguye ibyemezo by’ubutegetsi abayobozi b’inkiko bashobora gufata bivugwa muri iyo ngingo, usanga birimo ibyemezo by’ubwoko bubiri butandukanye, ibyemezo bijyanye n’imitunganyirize n’imigendekere myiza y’akazi kajyanye n’imanza (actes relatifs au fonctionnement de la justice): aha havugwa nko kugena amatariki y’iburanisha ry’imanza, kugena inteko iburanisha n‘abacamanza baziburanisha, kwemeza cyangwa guhakana iyandikwa ry’ibirego igihe umuburanyi atemeranya n’umwanditsi ku kutakira iyandikwa ry’ikirego, kwemeza ko habayeho ubwumvikane mu nama ntegurarubanza. Hari kandi n’ibyemezo bijyanye n’imitunganyirize y’akazi, imikorere n’imyitwarire y’abakozi b’urukiko ayobora (actes relatifs à l’organisation du service public de la justice): aha havugwa nko kugenzura imikorere ya buri mukozi wese w’urukiko ayobora, kumufatira ibihano, gufata ingamba za ngombwa zigamije kunoza akazi k’urukiko no kugira ngo imanza zicibwe vuba kandi neza, gukurikirana no kugenzura imikorere y’inkiko ziri munsi y’urwo ayobora.). ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 125

93

[48] Urukiko rurasanga n‘ubwo abacamanza bayobora inkiko bashobora gufata ibyemezo by’ubutegetsi, haba mu rwego rw’imitunganyirize n’imigendekere myiza y’akazi kajyanye n’imanza (administration de la justice), haba mu bijyanye n’imitunganyirize y’akazi, imikorere n’imyitwarire y’abakozi b’urukiko ayobora (organisation du service public de la justice), ibyemezo bafata bitaregerwa hashingiye ku ngingo ya 178 y’itegeko ryavuzwe kuko uburyo ibyemezo bafata bisubirwamo cyangwa bivuguruzwa biteganyijwe mu itegeko rigenga imitunganyirize n’imikorere y’ubutegetsi bw’ubucamanza, binyuze mu nzego z’imitegekere z’urwego rw’ubucamanza uko zigenda zirutana, aho buri muyobozi w’urukiko aba ashinzwe gukurikirana no kugenzura imikorere y’inkiko ziri munsi y’urwo ayobora (kuva kuri Perezida w‘Urukiko Rwisumbuye kugeza kuri Perezida w‘Urukiko rw’Ikirenga uyobora Urwego rw’Ubucamanza, ndetse n’Inama Nkuru y’Ubucamanza nk’urwego rukuriye Ubutegetsi bw’Ubucamanza). [49] Urukiko rurasanga kandi iyo usomeye hamwe ingingo ya 178 y’itegeko ryavuzwe n’ingingo zikurikira, cyane cyane ingingo ya 181 iha urukiko ububasha bwo gutegeka ubuyobozi gukora icyo rwemeje cyangwa kudakora icyo rubujije kandi rugateganya igihano gihatira kurangiza urubanza, ndetse n’ingingo ya 184 igaragaza ko, bisabwe n’umuburanyi ubifitemo inyungu, umuyobozi wanze kubahiriza ibyategetswe mu rubanza ashobora guhamagarwa mu rukiko rwafashe icyemezo kugira ngo yisobanure ku mpamvu zamubujije, umuyobozi uvugwa muri izo ngingo atari umucamanza uyobora urukiko kuko bitakumvikana ko inkiko ziburanisha imanza z’ubutegetsi zahabwa ububasha bwo kugenzura imiyoborere cyangwa imitegekere y’izindi nzego z’ubucamanza, kuko ariho byaganisha ziramutse zemerewe gusuzuma ibyemezo bifashwe WHITEFIELD INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v. THOMAS ET PIRON GRANDS LACS

## Page 126

94

n’ubuyobozi bw‘izo nzego zindi, bikaba byateza akajagari mu miyoborere y’Urwego rw’Ubucamanza. [50] Ku birebana by’umwihariko n’icyemezo cyo gutesha agaciro inyandikompuruza, Urukiko rurasanga, usibye n’ibimaze kuvugwa ku bijyanye n’uko ibyemezo bifashwe n’abacamanza bayobora inkiko atari ibyemezo biregerwa hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 178 y’itegeko ryavuzwe, Umushingamategeko yarashatse ko iki cyemezo kijya mu rwego rw’ibyemezo by’ubuyobozi Perezida w’Urukiko ashobora gufata mu rwego rw’imitunganyirize n’imigendekere myiza y’akazi kajyanye n’imanza (administration de la justice) nk’uko asanzwe afata n’ibindi birimo nko gusuzuma ubujurire ku ihazabu yo gutinza urubanza, iyandikwa ry’ikirego umwanditsi yanze kwandika, kwemeza ko habaye ubwumvikane Ibyo byose bikaba bigamije kugira ngo ibyemezo bimwe bifite aho bihuriye n’imanza bishobore gufatwa ku buryo bwihuse, kandi bworohereza ababuranyi guharanira uburenganzira bwabo, bitabaye ngombwa ko banyura mu nzira zisanzwe z’ibirego (kwandika ikirego mu bwanditsi bw’urukiko, guhabwa nomero, kugena inteko iburanisha, kuburanisha) n’inzira z’ubujurire zijyanye nabyo kugira ngo ibyemezo byazifashwemo bibashe guhinduka. [51] Umwihariko w’ibyo byemezo byiswe iby’ubutegetsi ubigereranyije n’imanza, ni uko igihe cyose umuyobozi agifashe, ntikinyure umuburanyi, aba ashobora kumusaba kugihindura, yaba atagihinduye kandi umuburanyi yumva arengana, akaba yabimenyesha umuyobozi ufite ububasha bwisumbuye k’uwafashe icyemezo kinengwa nk’uko bwasobanuwe haruguru cyangwa ubugenzuzi bukuru bw’inkiko kugira ngo bumufashe kubona igisubizo gikwiye ndetse byaba ngombwa, uwo ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 127

95

muyobozi wagaragayeho amakosa akaba yafatirwa ibihano mu rwego rw’imyitwarire (discipline). [52] Hashingiye ku bisobanuro byatanzwe bigaragaza ko icyemezo cya Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi gikuraho inyandikompuruza atari icyemezo cy’ubutegetsi kiregerwa mu buryo buteganywa n’ingingo ya 178 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, Urukiko rurasanga nta karengane kabaye mu rubanza RADA 00109/2019/HC/KIG, bityo rukaba rugomba kugumana agaciro karwo. C) Kumenya niba Thomas et Piron Grand Lacs yahabwa indishyi isaba [53] Me Ngilinshuti Jean Bosco asaba ko Thomas et Piron Grand Lacs yahabwa 10.000.000 Frw y’indishyi zo gusiragizwa mu manza z'amaherere, 5.000.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 2.000.000 Frw y'ikurikiranarubanza. [54] Me Munyandamutsa Jean Pierre uhagarariye Whitefield Investment Company Ltd avuga ko indishyi Thomas et Piron Grand Lacs isaba nta gaciro zikwiye guhabwa kuko nta bimenyetso izitangira. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [55] Urukiko rurasanga nta ndishyi zo gusiragizwa mu manza Thomas et Piron Grand Lacs yahabwa kuko itayatangira ibisobanuro. [56] Ku birebana n’amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ikurikiranarubanza, Urukiko rurasanga nubwo ikirego cya WHITEFIELD INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v. THOMAS ET PIRON GRANDS LACS

## Page 128

96

Whitefield Investment Company Ltd cyagombaga kwakirwa mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire, ntabwo ibyo iregera byahawe ishingiro, ikaba rero igomba kwishyura Thomas et Piron Grand Lacs amafaranga yatakaje ikurikirana urubanza kuri uru rwego, ikaba igenewe 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 300.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza agenwe mu bushishozi bw’urukiko kuko ayo isaba nta bisobanuro iyatangira. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [57] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Whitefield Investment Company Ltd bwagombaga kwakirwa mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire. [58] Rwemeje ko urubanza RADAA 00006/2019/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 06/12/2019 ruvanyweho. [59] Rwemeje ko icyemezo cya Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi gikuraho inyandikompuruza atari icyemezo cy’ubuyobozi kiregerwa mu buryo buteganywa n’ingingo ya 178 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi. [60] Rwemeje ko nta gihindutse ku rubanza RADA 00109/2019/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 17/09/2019. [61] Rutegetse Whitefield Investment Company Ltd guha Thomas et Piron Grand Lacs 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 300.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza, yose hamwe akaba 800.000 Frw. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 129

97

URUBANZA RWEREKERANYE N’IMIBURANISHIRIZE Y’IMANZA Z’IMBONEZAMBONEZAMUBANO, IZ’UBUCURUZI, IZ’UMURIMO N’IZ’UBUTEGETSI

## Page 130

98

## Page 131

99

VUNINGOMA N’UNDI v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF RWANDA LTD (BRD) N’UNDI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’UBUJURIRE – RCOMAA 00088/2020/CA (Ngagi, P.J.,) ku wa 09/04/2021] Amategeko agenga ububasha bw’inkiko – Ububasha bw’urukiko rw’Ubujurire – Iyo ikiburanwa mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire kidashobora kugenerwa agaciro muri kamere yacyo mu buryo bw’amafaranga, nta bubasha ruba rufite – Itegeko N°30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw'inkiko, ingingo ya 52. Incamake y’ikibazo: BRD Ltd yahaye Hotel SPLENDID KARISIMBI Ltd inguzanyo yo kubaka hoteli mu Kiyovu, nayo itanga ingwate y’iyo hoteli, iyitijwe na Vuningoma Alexis na Murekatete Rose, maze ntiyishyura neza iyo nguzanyo nk’uko byari biteganyijwe, maze banki imurega mu Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge, uru rukiko rwemeza ko ishyirwa mu izahura ry’igihombo, no kuyisesa (liquidation) kandi rushyiraho n’ushinzwe iyegeranya n’igabagabanya ry’umutungo wayo (liquidator). Vuningoma na Murekatete baregeye Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi, barusaba kwemeza ugomba kugurisha ingwate hagati ya liquidator wemejwe n’Urukiko na receiver, kuko batumvaga impamvu ingwate batanze yagurishwa mu rwego rwa receivership kandi Urukiko rwari rumaze kwemeza ko imitungo yose ya SPLENDID KARISIMBI Ltd kimwe n’iyo yari yatijwe yose yari mu maboko ya liquidator. 99

## Page 132

100

Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rushingiye ko umutungo watanzweho ingwate ari uwa Vuningoma Alexis na Murekatete Rose, rwasanze utagomba gushyirwa mu mutungo wa SPLENDID KARISIMBI Ltd kugira ngo uzishyure imyenda rusange, rusanga ahubwo kuba barawutanzeho ingwate muri BRD bishimangira ko iyo ngwate ari umwihariko wa BRD, kuko ari yo yawuhawe, uwo mutungo ukaba udashobora kugurishwa ngo hishyurwe indi myenda ya SPLENDID KARISIMBI Ltd, ahubwo wagurishwa gusa ari uko umwenda uriho wananiwe kwishyurwa, kandi ko umutungo watijwe nk’ingwate, ugomba kugurishwa na receiver kuko ari we ubifitiye ububasha, maze rwemeza ko ikirego cyayo nta shingiro gifite. Vuningoma na Murekatete ntibishimiye imikirize y’urubanza maze bajurira mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi bavuga ko hasuzumwa niba umutungo watijweho ingwate sosiyeti iri mu gihombo utari mu maboko ya liquidator ugomba kugurishwa mu buryo bwihariye na receiver, gusuzuma niba liquidator agomba kugobokeshwa muri urwo rubanza basoza basaba gusubizwa amafaranga y'igarama, ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka. Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwasuzumye niba liquidator agomba kugobokeshwa muri urwo rubanza, rusuzuma niba umutungo watijweho ingwate sosiyeti igashyirwa mu gihombo ugomba kugurishwa na liquidator cyangwa receiver, runasuzuma niba indishyi zisabwe zifite ishingiro. Ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba liquidator agomba kugobokeshwa muri uru rubanza, Urukiko rwasanze abajuriye batagaragaza inyungu za liquidator zibangamiwe muri urwo rubanza ku buryo yazatambamira imikirize yarwo, rusanga umutungo uburanwa muri urwo rubanza utari mu mutungo bwite wa sosiyete abereye ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 133

101

liquidator, bityo ko ntaho ahuriye n’uwo mutungo ku buryo icyemezo cyawufatwaho cyamugiraho ingaruka, rusanga kandi inzira y’amategeko kuri iyo ngingo itarubahirijwe, kuko atigeze amenyeshwa n’abasaba ko agobokeshwa. Ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba umutungo watijweho ingwate sosiyeti igashyirwa mu gihombo ugomba kugurishwa na liquidator cyangwa receiver, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwasanze ibivugwa n’abajuriye ko umutungo watijweho ingwate sosiyeti iri mu gihombo ugomba kugurishwa na liquidator aho kugurishwa mu buryo bwihariye na receiver bitahabwa ishingiro, kuko mu bujurire batabasha kugaragaza icyo banenga icyemezo cy’Urukiko ku rwego rwa mbere, rusanga uwo mutungo utanditswe k’umutungo rusange wa sosiyete yashyizwe mu gihombo, bityo ukaba utagomba kugurishwa na liquidator. Vuningoma na Murekatete nanone ntibishimiye imikirize y’urubanza, bongera kurujuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire, BRD nayo itanga inzitizi y’iburabubasha bw’uru Rukiko hashingiwe ku gaciro k’ikiburanwa, ivuga ko ubujurire bwa kabiri butagomba kwakirwa ngo buburanishwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire mu bujurire bwa kabiri kubera ko haba mu rwego rwa mbere no mu bujurire, ikiburanwa cyari ukwemeza ugomba kugurisha ingwate hagati ya liquidator na receiver, ko atari agaciro k’ingwate kaburanwa, ivuga kandi ko kubera ko atari agaciro k’ingwate kaburanwa kandi no mu manza zibanza nta wigeze akaregera, basanga kwemeza ugomba kugurisha ingwate bidashobora guhabwa agaciro mu mafaranga kugira ngo bihe Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ububasha ku rwego rw’ubujurire bwa kabiri. Vuningoma na Murekatete bavuga ko Urukiko rw'Ubujurire rufite ububasha hashingiwe kuko ingwate igibwaho impaka ifite VUNINGOMA N’UNDI v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF RWANDA LTD (BRD) N’UNDI

## Page 134

102

agaciro ka 190.228.298Frw ikaba irengeje agaciro ka 75.000.000 Frw kandi ko uwayigurishije yahereye ku gaciro kayo. Incamake y’icyemezo: Iyo ikiburanwa mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire kidashobora kugenerwa agaciro muri kamere yacyo mu buryo bw’amafaranga, nta bubasha ruba rufite. Inzitizi ifite ishingiro. Amagarama ahwanye n’ibyakozwe mu rubanza. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko N°30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw'inkiko, ingingo ya 52 Imanza zifashishijwe: Urubanza RCOMAA 00046/2020/CA rwaciwe ku wa 05/03/2021, hagati ya FARAJA HOTEL Ltd iburana na COGEBANQUE Plc n’undi. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Urubanza rukomoka ku nguzanyo ya 1.050.000.000 Frw, BRD yahaye SPLENDID KARISIMBI Ltd yo kubaka hoteli mu Kiyovu. Kugira ngo inguzanyo itangwe hatanzwe ingwate y’iyo hoteli, SPLENDID KARISIMBI Ltd yongeraho indi nzu ifite UPI: 1/02/09/02/2412 iherereye mu Mudugudu wa Rindiro, Akagari ka Kibagabaga, Umurenge wa Kimironko, Akarere ka Gasabo, Umujyi wa Kigali, iyitijwe na Vuningoma Alexis na ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 135

103

Murekatete Rose. SPLENDID KARISIMBI Ltd ntiyishyuye iyo nguzanyo nk’uko byari biteganyijwe, maze mu rubanza RCOM 00985/2016/TC/NYGE rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge ku wa 09/09/2016, ishyirwa mu izahura ry’igihombo, bigeze ku wa 13/11/2017, Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge rufata icyemezo cyo kuyisesa (liquidation) kandi rushyiraho n’ushinzwe iyegeranya n’igabagabanya ry’umutungo wayo (liquidator). [2] Vuningoma Alexis na Murekatete Rose baregeye Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi, barusaba kwemeza ugomba kugurisha ingwate ibaruwe kuri UPI :1/02/09/02/2412 hagati ya liquidator wemejwe n’Urukiko na receiver, kuko batumvaga impamvu ingwate batanze yagurishwa mu rwego rwa receivership kandi Urukiko rwari rumaze kwemeza mu rubanza RCOM 0435/2019/TC ko imitungo yose ya SPLENDID KARISIMBI Ltd kimwe n’iyo yari yatijwe yose yari mu maboko ya liquidator. [3] Ku wa 28/06/2019, mu rubanza RCOM 00779/2019/TC, Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi, rushingiye ko umutungo ubaruye kuri UPI: 1/02/09/02/2412 ari uwa Vuningoma Alexis na Murekatete Rose, rwasanze utagomba gushyirwa mu mutungo wa SPLENDID KARISIMBI Ltd kugira ngo uzishyure imyenda rusange, rusanga ahubwo kuba barawutanzeho ingwate muri BRD bishimangira ko iyo ngwate ari umwihariko wa BRD, kuko ari yo yawuhawe, uwo mutungo ukaba udashobora kugurishwa ngo hishyurwe indi myenda ya SPLENDID KARISIMBI Ltd, ahubwo wagurishwa gusa ari uko umwenda uriho wananiwe kwishyurwa. Urukiko rwasanze kandi umutungo watijwe nk’ingwate, ugomba kugurishwa na receiver kuko ari we ubifitiye ububasha hakurikijwe Amabwiriza y’Umwanditsi Mukuru, maze rwemeza ko ikirego cyayo nta shingiro gifite, VUNINGOMA N’UNDI v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF RWANDA LTD (BRD) N’UNDI

## Page 136

104

rutegeka Vuningoma Alexis na Murekatete Rose kwishyura BRD 600.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 40.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza. [4] Vuningoma Alexis na Murekatete Rose ntibishimiye imikirize y’urubanza maze bajurira mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi bavuga ko hasuzumwa niba umutungo watijweho ingwate sosiyeti iri mu gihombo utari mu maboko ya liquidator ugomba kugurishwa mu buryo bwihariye na receiver, gusuzuma niba liquidator agomba kugobokeshwa muri urwo rubanza basoza basaba gusubizwa amafaranga y'igarama, ikurikiranarubanza n'igihembo cya Avoka. [5] Mu rubanza RCOMA 00662/2019/HCC rwaciwe ku wa 04/09/2020, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwasuzumye niba liquidator agomba kugobokeshwa muri urwo rubanza, rusuzuma niba umutungo watijweho ingwate sosiyeti igashyirwa mu gihombo ugomba kugurishwa na liquidator cyangwa receiver, runasuzuma niba indishyi zisabwe zifite ishingiro. [6] Ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba liquidator agomba kugobokeshwa muri uru rubanza, Urukiko rwasanze abajuriye batagaragaza inyungu za liquidator ari we Milimo Mukwende Olivier zibangamiwe muri urwo rubanza ku buryo yazatambamira imikirize yarwo, rusanga umutungo uburanwa muri urwo rubanza utari mu mutungo bwite wa sosiyete abereye liquidator, bityo ko ntaho ahuriye n’uwo mutungo ku buryo icyemezo cyawufatwaho cyamugiraho ingaruka, rusanga kandi inzira y’amategeko kuri iyo ngingo itarubahirijwe, kuko Milimo Mukwende Olivier atigeze amenyeshwa n’abasaba ko agobokeshwa. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 137

105

[7] Ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba umutungo watijweho ingwate sosiyeti igashyirwa mu gihombo ugomba kugurishwa na liquidator cyangwa receiver, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwasanze ibivugwa n’abajuriye ko umutungo watijweho ingwate sosiyeti iri mu gihombo ugomba kugurishwa na liquidator aho kugurishwa mu buryo bwihariye na receiver bitahabwa ishingiro, kuko mu bujurire batabasha kugaragaza icyo banenga icyemezo cy’Urukiko ku rwego rwa mbere, rusanga uwo mutungo utanditswe k’umutungo rusange wa sosiyete yashyizwe mu gihombo, bityo ukaba utagomba kugurishwa na liquidator, kuko inshingano afite ari zo gukusanya imitungo yiyo sosiyete aho iherereye yose, hagamijwe kugira ngo azayigurishe noneho ubwishyu abusaranganye abo ibereyemo imyenda, rusanga kandi kuba uwo mutungo barawutanzeho ingwate ku mwenda utarishyuwe, ugomba kugurishwa hashingiwe ku byemeranyijweho n’impande zombi mu masezerano y’iguriza bagiranye, receiver washyizweho n’umwanditsi Mukuru akaba ari we ugomba kugurisha ingwate yavuzwe haruguru, maze rwemeza ko ubujurire bwa Vuningoma Alexis na Murekatete Rose nta shingiro bufite, ko nta gihindutse ku rubanza rujuririrwa, ko bagomba guha BRD 800.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka. [8] Vuningoma Alexis na Murekatete Rose na none ntibishimiye imikirize y’urubanza, bongera kurujuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire. [9] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku wa 08/03/2021, Vuningoma Alexis na Murekatete Rose bahagarariwe na Me Murutasibe Joseph naho BRD ihagarariwe na Me Mbera Martine na Me Ntazika Néhémie, haburanishwa inzitizi y’iburabubasha bw’Urukiko ishingiye ku gaciro VUNINGOMA N’UNDI v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF RWANDA LTD (BRD) N’UNDI

## Page 138

106

k’ikiburanwa n’ishingiye ku kuba abajuriye baratsinzwe mu nkiko zombi zabanje hashingiwe ku mpamvu zimwe zatanzwe na BRD. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO 1. Kumenya niba ubujurire bwa kabiri bwa Vuningoma Alexis na Murekatete Rose butari mu bubasha bw’uru Rukiko [10] Mu rwego rwo gusuzuma inzitizi z’iburabubasha bw’uru Rukiko zatanzwe na BRD, harabanza gusuzumwa ikibazo cy’ububasha bw’Urukiko bushingiye ku gaciro k’ikiburanwa, rubone gusuzuma niba ari ngombwa ko rusuzuma icyo kumenya niba abajuriye baratsinzwe mu nkiko zombi hashingiwe ku mpamvu zimwe. [11] Ku byerekeranye n’agaciro k’ikiburanwa, ababuranira BRD bavuga ko bashingiye ku ngingo ya 52, igika cya 4, y’Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, basanga ubu ubujurire bwa kabiri butagomba kwakirwa ngo buburanishwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire mu bujurire bwa kabiri kubera ko haba mu rwego rwa mbere no mu bujurire, ikiburanwa cyari ukwemeza ugomba kugurisha ingwate hagati ya liquidator na receiver, ko atari agaciro k’ingwate kaburanwa. Bavuga ko kubera ko atari agaciro k’ingwate kaburanwa kandi no mu manza zibanza nta wigeze akaregera, basanga kwemeza ugombo kugurisha ingwate bidashobora guhabwa agaciro mu mafaranga kugira ngo bihe Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ububasha ku rwego rw’ubujurire bwa kabiri. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 139

107

[12] Basobanura ko Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 ryibukijwe haruguru ryateganyije ibirego bishobora kwakirwa mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire, hakaba hari ibirego bijuririrwa inshuro imwe, harimo n’iki baburana, bavuga ko Vuningoma Alexis na Murekatete Rose bashoboraga kujya mu karengane aho kujurira. [13] Vuningoma Alexis na Murekatete Rose bavuga ko Urukiko rw'Ubujurire rufite ububasha hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 52, igika cya 4, y'Itegeko N°30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw'inkiko, kuko ingwate igibwaho impaka ifite agaciro ka 190.228.298 Frw ikaba irengeje agaciro ka 75.000.000 Frw kandi uwayigurishije yahereye ku gaciro kayo. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [14] Ingingo ya 52, igika cya 4, y’Itegeko N°30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena Ububasha bw’Inkiko, iteganya ibikurikira: “Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rufite kandi ububasha bwo kuburanisha mu rwego rw’ubujurire bwa kabiri imanza zaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi n’Urukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare, iyo izo manza icyaburanwe kitagenewe agaciro mu mafaranga mu manza zabanje, kigomba kuba gifite agaciro nibura kangana na 75.000.000 Frw kagenwe n’umuhanga iyo bibaye ngombwa”. [15] Dosiye igaragaza ko mu rubanza RCOM 00779/2019/TC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi ku wa 28/06/2019, Vuningoma Alexis na Murekatete Rose baregeye urwo Rukiko barusaba kwemeza ugomba kugurisha ingwate ibaruwe kuri UPI:1/02/09/02/2412 hagati ya liquidator wemejwe n’urukiko na receiver, kuko abarega batumva impamvu ingwate batanze yagurishwa mu rwego rwa receivership. Urwo Rukiko rwasanze VUNINGOMA N’UNDI v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF RWANDA LTD (BRD) N’UNDI

## Page 140

108

iyo ngwate igomba kugurishwa na receiver kuko ari we ubifitiye ububasha hakurikijwe Amabwiriza y’Umwanditsi Mukuru maze rwemeza ko icyo kirego nta shingiro gifite, ahubwo rutegeka Vuningoma Alexis na Murekatete Rose kwishyura BRD amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza. [16] Dosiye igaragaza kandi ko mu rubanza RCOMA 00662/2019/HCC rwaciwe n’ Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ku wa 04/09/2020, naho Vuningoma Alexis na Murekatete Rose bajuriye basaba ko hasuzumwa niba umutungo watijweho ingwate sosiyeti iri mu gihombo utari mu maboko ya liquidator ugomba kugurishwa mu buryo bwihariye na receiver, gusuzuma niba liquidator agomba kugobokeshwa muri urwo rubanza, banasaba gusubizwa amafaranga y'igarama, ikurikiranarubanza n'igihembo cya Avoka, maze Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwemeza ko ubujurire bwa Vuningoma Alexis na Murekatete Rose nta shingiro bufite, ko nta gihindutse ku rubanza rujuririrwa. [17] Nk’uko bigaragajwe haruguru, inkiko zombi zabanje zaregewe kandi zisuzuma ibirebana n’uwagombaga kugurisha ingwate ibaruwe kuri UPI:1/02/09/02/2412 hagati ya liquidator na receiver, akaba rero nta na hamwe ikibazo cy’agaciro k’iyo ngwate cyigeze kuburanwa, ndetse no kuri uru rwego sicyo kiburanwa, ahubwo ikiburanwa ni ukumenya niba iyo ngwate yari kugurishwa na liquidator cyangwa se niba ari receiver wari kuyigurisha, maze inkiko zabanje zihuriza ku kuba iyo ngwate yaragombaga kugurishwa na receiver, kuko umutungo ubaruye kuri UPI: 1/02/09/02/2412 ari uwa Vuningoma Alexis na Murekatete Rose, ukaba utagomba gushyirwa mu mutungo wa SPLENDID KARISIMBI Ltd. Uru Rukiko narwo rurasanga ikiburanwa nk’uko cyaregewe na Vuningoma Alexis na ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 141

109

Murekatete Rose guhera mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi kidashobora kugenerwa agaciro mu buryo bw’amafaranga, kuko kidakwiye kwitiranwa n’ingwate ku mutungo ubaruye kuri UPI: 1/02/09/02/241, abajuriye bavuga ko irengeje agaciro ka 75.000.000 Frw. [18] Ku birebana n’ibivugwa n’uburanira Vuningoma Alexis na Murekatete Rose, ko uru Rukiko rufite ububasha hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 52, igika cya 4, y' Itegeko N°30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw'inkiko, kuko ingwate igibwaho impaka ifite agaciro karengeje 75.000.000 Frw ndetse ko uwayigurishije yahereye ku gaciro kayo, Urukiko rurasanga nta shingiro byahabwa, kuko impaka zabaye mu nkiko zo hasi zose zari zishingiye ku kumenya uwagombaga kugurisha ingwate hagati ya liquidator na receiver, kandi ibyo bikaba bidashobora kugenerwa agaciro mu mafaranga ku buryo byafatwa nk’ibiri mu bubasha bw’uru Rukiko hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 52 y'Itegeko rivugwa muri iki gika. Ni nako byemejwe n’uru Rukiko ku kibazo kigiye gusa n’iki mu rubanza RCOMAA 00046/2020/CA rwaciwe ku wa 05/03/2021, FARAJA HOTEL Ltd iburana na COGEBANQUE Plc n’undi, aho Urukiko rwemeje ko ikiburanwa nk’uko cyaregewe na FARAJA Hotel Ltd guhera mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi kidashobora kugenerwa agaciro mu buryo bw’amafaranga. [19] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro no ku ngingo z’amategeko bimaze kuvugwa haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga inzitizi y’iburabubasha bushingiye ku gaciro k’ikiburanwa yatanzwe na BRD ifite ishingiro, bityo ubujurire bwa kabiri bwatanzwe na Vuningoma Alexis na Murekatete Rose bukaba butagomba kwakirwa, kuko butari mu bubasha bw’Urukiko bw’Ubujurire. Urukiko rurasanga kandi nta mpamvu yo gusuzuma inzitizi VUNINGOMA N’UNDI v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF RWANDA LTD (BRD) N’UNDI

## Page 142

110

ijyanye no kuba abajuriye baratsinzwe mu nkiko zombi zabanje hashingiwe ku mpamvu zimwe. 2. Kumenya niba hari amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ay’ikurikiranarubanzayagenwa muri uru rubanza [20] BRD isaba ko Vuningoma Alexis na Murekatete Rose bayishyura 2.000.000 Frw y'indishyi zo gushorwa mu manza n’igihembo cya Avoka. [21] Vuningoma Alexis na Murekatete Rose bavuga ko kujurira babyemerewe n’amategeko, ndetse ko ababuranira RDB badasobanura ibyo basaba ahubwo bavuga ko RDB yategekwa guha Vuningoma Alexis na Murekatete Rose 300.000Frw y'ikurikiranarubanza, amagarama yo ku nzego zose n'igihembo cya Avoka. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [22] Ingingo ya 111, y’Itegeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 28/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza mbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ibikurikira: “Ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza ni ikirego gishamikira ku kirego cy’iremezo kigamije kwishyuza ibyakoreshejwe mu rubanza. Ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza kiburanishirizwa rimwe n’ikirego cy’iremezo. Gishobora kandi kwakirwa kikanaburanishwa n’iyo ikirego cy’iremezo cyaba kitakiriwe”. [23] Urukiko rurasanga amafaranga y’ibyakoreshejwe mu rubanza yasabwe na BRD afite ishingiro, kuko byabaye ngombwa ko yiyambaza umunyamategeko wo kuyiburanira, mu ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 143

111

bushishozi bwarwo rutegetse Vuningoma Alexis na Murekatete Rose kwishyura BRD 700.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ikurikiranarubanza, kuri uru rwego; naho ayo Vuningoma Alexis na Murekatete Rose basaba akaba atagomba gusuzumwa, kuko urubanza rugarukiye ku nzitizi. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [24] Rwemeje ko inzitizi y’iburabubasha bw’uru Rukiko ishingiye ku gaciro k‘ikiburanwa yatanzwe na DEVELOPMENT BANK OF RWANDA (BRD) ifite ishingiro; [25] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Vuningoma Alexis na Murekatete Rose butakiriwe, kuko butari mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire; [26] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwatanzwe na DEVELOPMENT BANK OF RWANDA (BRD) bufite ishingiro; [27] Rutegetse Vuningoma Alexis na Murekatete Rose gufatanya kwishyura DEVELOPMENT BANK OF RWANDA (BRD) 700.000 Frw akubiyemo ay‘igihembo cya Avoka n’ikurikiranarubanza, kuri uru rwego; [28] Ruvuze ko amagarama yatanzwe ahwanye n’ibyakozwe mu rubanza.

VUNINGOMA N’UNDI v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF RWANDA LTD (BRD) N’UNDI

## Page 144

112

## Page 145

113

IMANZA ZACIWE MU MIZI

## Page 146

114

## Page 147

115

URUBANZA RW’IMBONEZAMUBANO

## Page 148

116

## Page 149

117

NICYABERA v MUKAGATARE [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/INJUST/RC00004/2018/SC (Ntezilyayo, P.; Nyirinkwaya, J; Cyanzayire, Rukundakuvuga, na Hitiyaremye, J.) 21 Mutarama 2020] Amategeko agenga umuryango – Ababana nk’umugabo n’umugore batarashyingiranywe byemewe n’amategeko – Uburenganzira ku mutungo – Iyo umugabo n’umugore babanye badasezeranye byemewe n’amategeko, imirimo umwe muri bo akora mu rwego rwo kongerera agaciro umutungo w’umuryango, ituma awugiraho uburenganzira. Amategeko agenga ubutaka – Iyandikishwa ry’ubutaka – Gutesha agaciro icyangombwa cy’ubutaka – Uwakwiyandikishaho ubutaka aterekanye ko yabubonye muri bumwe mu buryo buteganyijwe n’itegeko, aba abikoze mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, ibyangombwa yahabwa, ubwabyo akaba atari byo bituma abugiraho uburenganzira, kubera ko bishobora guteshwa agaciro hagize ugaragaza ko ubwo butaka ari we nyirabwo. Incamake y’ikibazo: Urubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Kibungo Nicyabera arega Mukagatare isambu ya se ngo yigaruriye kandi batarigeze basezerana imbere y’amategeko ndetse nta numwana baribafitanye. Urukiko rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko isambu Nicyabera aregera, Mukagatare ayifiteho uburenganzira, rwasobanuye ko Mukagatare yari yarasezeranye n’umugabo we Gashabure kubera ko yagaragaje icyangombwa cyatanzwe n’inzego zibifitiye ububasha, ko agomba gusigarana umutungo wose wa Gashabure 117

## Page 150

118

akubahiriza inshingano yo kurera abana no gufasha ababyeyi ba nyakwigendera niba babikeneye. Nicyabera amaze kumenya ko habayeho urubanza rwemeje ko Gashabure yashakanye na Mukagatare mu buryo bwemewe n’amategeko, yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyamata arutambamira. Rukiko rwaciye urubanza, rwemeza ko ikirego cya Nicyabera nta shingiro gifite, kubera ko atashoboye gutanga ibimenyetso bivuguruza ibyashingiweho, rwemeza ko urubanza yatambamiye rutagomba guhinduka. Nicyabera yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo avuga ko ibimenyetso yatanze byirengagijwe, Urukiko rw’Isumbuye rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko ubujurire bwa Nicyabera bufite ishingiro, ko mu guca urubanza, Urukiko rwemeje ko Mukagatare yasezeranye na Gashabure rushingiye ku bimenyetso bitari ukuri, maze rutegeka ko urubanza ruhindutse mu ngingo zarwo zose, runategeka ko ruteshejwe agaciro, rwemeza ko Mukagatare atasezeranye na Gashabure. Nyuma y’icibwa ry’urwo rubanza, Nicyabera Espérance yasubirishijemo ingingo nshya urubanza rwategetse ko isambu ya Gashabure ihabwa Mukagatare, avuga ko Urukiko rwaruciye rushingiye ku kimenyetso cy'uko Mukagatare yasezeranye na Gashabure, none hakaba haraciwe urubanza rwemeje ko ibyo ntabyabaye. Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Kibungo rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko ikirego cya Nicyabera nta shingiro gifite, kubera ko Mukagatare yiyandikishijeho igice cy’isambu iburanwa Nicyabera ntabitambamire, iyo nyandikomvaho y’iyandikwa ry’ubutaka akaba ntawigeze ayiregera ngo iteshwe agaciro, ko rero urubanza rudahindutse. Nicyabera yashyikirije ikibazo Urwego rw’Umuvunyi asaba ko urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Kibungo rwasubirwamo kuko rugaragaramo akarengane. Nyuma yo ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 151

119

kubigenzura no kubisesengura, Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rwasanze urubanza RC 0488/011/TB/KGO rwasabiwe gusubirishamo atari rwo rugaragaramo akarengane, ko ahubwo kagaragara mu rubanza RC 0016/14/TB/KGO rwaciwe ku itariki rwaburanwagamo ikirego cyo gusubirishamo ingingo nshya urubanza RC 0488/011/TB/KGO, maze urwo Rwego rwandikira Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusaba ko urubanza RC 0016/14/TB/KGO rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga yafashe icyemezo ko urwo rubanza rwoherezwa mu Bwanditsi bw’Urukiko kugira ngo ruzongere ruburanishwe. Nicyabera, avuga ko icyo anenga urubanza asaba ko rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, ari uko rwemeje ko kuba hari igice cy’isambu Mukagatare yiyandikishijeho bimuhesha uburenganzira kuri ubwo butaka. Avuga ko kuba Mukagatare yariyandikishijeho ubutaka ubwabyo bidahagije kugira ngo agire uburenganzira ku isambu iburanwa, kubera ko adashobora kugaragaza aho akomora ubwo butaka. Avuga ko yagombye kwerekana niba atunze ubwo butaka ku bw’umuco, kuba yarabuguze, yarabuhaweho impano, umunani, ingurane, yarabuzunguye cyangwa se yarabubonye mu isaranganya. Arangiza avuga ko Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Kibungo rwakoze amakosa rwemeza ko isambu ari iya Mukagatare ngo kuko afite icyangombwa cy’ubukode burambye, nyamara icyo cyangombwa atari ikimenyetso cyemeza nta shiti ko ugifite ari we nyir’ubutaka. Mukagatare avuga ko ubutaka yibarujeho ari igice cy’isambu yahawe n’ubuyobozi bumaze kuyigabanyamo gatatu, ibindi bice bibiri bigahabwa Nicyabera na musaza we Ruduha. Avuga ko icyo gice yibarujeho nta burenganzira Nicyabera agifiteho kuko afite aho yahawe. Yongeraho ko kuba yaribaruje kuri uwo NICYABERA v MUKAGATARE

## Page 152

120

mutungo ntihagire ubitambamira, bisobanuye ko ari we uwufiteho uburenganzira, ari nayo mpamvu yagiye agurishaho akikenura. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Iyo umugabo n’umugore babanye badasezeranye byemewe n’amategeko, imirimo umwe muri bo akora mu rwego rwo kongerera agaciro umutungo w’umuryango, ituma awugiraho uburenganzira bityo Mugatare yari afite uburenganzira ku mutungo yabanyemo na Gashabuke ariyo mpamvu ajya kugenda yamuhaye uruhare rwe kuri uwo mutungo ariko akaba atakongera kugaruka ashaka kandi uruhare kuri uwo mutungo kuko yaruhawe, isambu iburanwa ikaba igomba kugumana abazungura ba Gashabuke. 2. Uwakwiyandikishaho ubutaka aterekanye ko yabubonye muri bumwe mu buryo buteganyijwe n’itegeko, aba abikoze mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, ibyangombwa yahabwa, ubwabyo akaba atari byo bituma abugiraho uburenganzira, kubera ko bishobora guteshwa agaciro hagize ugaragaza ko ubwo butaka ari we nyirabwo, bityo icyangombwa Mukagatare yiyandikishijeho isambu iburanwa kikaba kigomba guteshwa agaciro Gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane bifite ishingiro; Imikirize y’urubanza rwasubirishijwemo irahindutse. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko N° 43/2013 ryo ku wa 16/06/2013 rigenga ubutaka mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 10 Itegeko N° 59/2008 rikumira kandi rihana ihohoterwa iryo ari ryo ryose rishingiye ku gitsina, ingingo ya 39 Itegeko Nº 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 65 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 153

121

Imanza zifashishijwe: Urubanza RCAA 0018/13/CS, Harerimana n’abandi v. Sebukayire rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 4/ 10/2014 Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Nicyabera Espérance yareze mukase Mukagatare Mariane mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Kibungo asaba gusubizwa isambu ya Se yigaruriye kuko batigeze basezerana imbere y’amategeko akaba nta n’umwana babyaranye. [2] Ku itariki ya 28/06/2012, urwo Rukiko rwaciye urubanza RC 0488/011/TB/KGO rwemeza ko isambu Nicyabera Espérance aregera Mukagatare Mariane ayifiteho uburenganzira. Mu gufata icyo cyemezo, Urukiko rwasobanuye ko Mukagatare Mariane yari yarasezeranye n’umugabo we GASHABURE Michel kubera ko yagaragaje icyangombwa cyatanzwe n’inzego zibifitiye ububasha, ko rero hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 70, igika cya mbere, iteganya ko iyo umwe mu bashyingiranywe bafitanye amasezerano y’ivangamutungo apfuye, usigaye asigarana umutungo wose akubahiriza inshingano yo kurera abana no gufasha ababyeyi ba nyakwigendera iyo babikeneye (…)1, Mukagatare Mariane agomba gusigarana umutungo wose wa

1 Aha Urukiko rwashakaga kuvuga ingingo ya 70 y’Itegeko N° 22/99 ryo ku wa 12/11/1999 ryuzuza igitabo cya mbere cy'urwunge rw'amategeko mbonezamubano kandi rishyiraho igice cya gatanu cyerekeye imicungire y'umutungo w'abashyingiranywe, impano n' izungura NICYABERA v MUKAGATARE

## Page 154

122

Gashabure Michel akubahiriza inshingano yo kurera abana no gufasha ababyeyi ba nyakwigendera niba babikeneye.

[3] Nicyabera Espérance amaze kumenya ko habayeho urubanza RC 0015/012/TB/NMTA rwemeje ko GASHABURE Michel yashakanye na Mukagatare Mariane mu buryo bwemewe n’amategeko, yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyamata arutambamira. Ku itariki ya 02/07/2013, urwo Rukiko rwaciye urubanza RC 0390/012/TB/NMTA, rwemeza ko ikirego cya Nicyabera Espérance nta shingiro gifite, kubera ko atashoboye gutanga ibimenyetso bivuguruza ibyashingiweho mu rubanza RC 0015/012/TB/NMTA, rwemeza ko urubanza yatambamiye rutagomba guhinduka. [4] Nicyabera Espérance yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo avuga ko ibimenyetso yatanze byirengagijwe, ku itariki ya 29/11/2013, urwo Rukiko ruca urubanza RCA 0307/13/TGI/GSBO rwemeza ko ubujurire bwa Nicyabera Espérance bufite ishingiro, ko mu guca urubanza RC 0015/012/TB/NMTA, Urukiko rwemeje ko Mukagatare Mariane yasezeranye na Gashabure Michel rushingiye ku bimenyetso bitari ukuri, maze rutegeka ko urubanza RC 0390/012/TB/NMTA ruhindutse mu ngingo zarwo zose, runategeka ko urubanza RC 0015/012/TB/NMTA ruteshejwe agaciro, rwemeza ko Mukagatare Mariane atasezeranye na Gashabure Michel. [5] Nyuma y’icibwa ry’urwo rubanza, Nicyabera Espérance yasubirishijemo ingingo nshya urubanza RC 0488/11/TB/KGO rwategetse ko isambu ya Gashabure Michel ihabwa Mukagatare Mariane, avuga ko Urukiko rwaruciye rushingiye ku kimenyetso cy'uko Mukagatare Mariane yasezeranye na Gashabure Michel, ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 155

123

none hakaba haraciwe urubanza RCA 0307/13/TGI/GSBO rwemeje ko ibyo ntabyabaye. [6] Ku itariki ya 27/10/2014, Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Kibungo rwaciye urubanza RC 0016/14/TB/KGO rwemeza ko ikirego cya Nicyabera Espérance nta shingiro gifite, kubera ko Mukagatare Mariane yiyandikishijeho igice cy’isambu iburanwa Nicyabera Espérance ntabitambamire, iyo nyandikomvaho y’iyandikwa ry’ubutaka akaba ntawigeze ayiregera ngo iteshwe agaciro, ko rero urubanza RC 0488/011/TB/KGO rudahindutse. [7] Ku itariki ya 20/01/2015, Nicyabera Espérance yashyikirije ikibazo Urwego rw’Umuvunyi asaba ko urubanza RC 0488/011/TB/KGO rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Kibungo rwasubirwamo kuko rugaragaramo akarengane. [8] Nyuma yo kubigenzura no kubisesengura, Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rwasanze urubanza RC 0488/011/TB/KGO atari rwo rugaragaramo akarengane, ko ahubwo kagaragara mu rubanza RC 0016/14/TB/KGO rwaciwe ku itariki ya 27/10/2014 rwaburanwagamo ikirego cyo gusubirishamo ingingo nshya urubanza RC 0488/011/TB/KGO, maze urwo Rwego rwandikira Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusaba ko urubanza RC 0016/14/TB/KGO rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. [9] Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ashingiye kuri raporo y’Ubugenzuzi Bukuru bw’Inkiko, ku itariki ya 12/02/2018, yafashe icyemezo ko urwo rubanza rwoherezwa mu Bwanditsi bw’Urukiko kugira ngo ruzongere ruburanishwe, ruhabwa nomero RS/INJUST/RC 00004/2018/SC. [10] Mu myanzuro ye, Nicyabera Espérance avuga ko kuba Mukagatare Mariane yarahawe ibyemezo by’ubutaka bidahagije NICYABERA v MUKAGATARE

## Page 156

124

kugira ngo agire uburenganzira ku isambu iburanwa, kubera ko atagaragaje aho akomora ubwo butaka kuko atasezeranye na Se imbere y’amategeko. Mukagatare Mariane we ariko avuga ko afite uburenganzira kuri iyo sambu kubera ko bayihawe na Leta bari hamwe n’umugabo we mu mwaka wa 1970. [11] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku itariki ya 11/11/2019, Nicyabera Espérance yunganiwe na Me Munyankindi Monique, Mukagatare Mariane yunganiwe na Me Rwimo Clotilde, ababuranyi babanza kujya impaka ku nzitizi zabyukijwe n’uburanira Mukagatare Mariane. [12] Inzitizi ya mbere yabyukijwe na Me Rwimo Clotilde, yarebanaga n’iyakirwa ry’ikirego kuko yavugaga ko Nicyabera Espérance nta nyungu n’ububasha afite mu kuburana umutungo wa Gashabure Michel ngo kuko nta kigaragaza ko ariwe wamubyaye. Kuri iyo nzitizi Me Munyankindi Monique uburanira Nicyabera Espérance yavuze ko ari umwana wa Gashabure Michel kubera ko yamwandikishije mu ndangamuntu ye, ndetse no mu nyandiko y’amavuko ya Nicyabera Espérance bigaragara ko ari mwene Gashabure Michel. [13] Urukiko rwafatiye icyemezo mu ntebe rwemeza ko iyo nzitizi nta shingiro ifite, kubera ko uru Rukiko rwemeje ko mu manza z’akarengane ibibazo birebana n’inyungu ndetse n’ububasha biba bitakirubanwa, uretse mu gihe akarengane kaba ari aho gashingiye. [14] Inzitizi ya kabiri yatanzwe na Me Rwimo Clotilde, yarebanaga no kuba Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rwaravuze ko akarengane kari mu rubanza RC 0016/14/TB/KGO kandi nyamara atarirwo rwari rwasabwe gusuzuma. Kuri iyo nzitizi Me Munyankindi Monique yavuze ko iyo nta nzitizi irimo, ko kuba ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 157

125

Umuvunyi yarashyikirijwe ikibazo cy’akarengane akagasanga mu rundi rubanza rutari urwo yashyikirijwe ibyo atari ikibazo, ko icyangombwa ari uko ikiburanwa ari kimwe muri izo manza zombi. [15] Iyo nzitizi nayo Urukiko rwayifatiyeho icyemezo mu ntebe rwemeza ko nta shingiro ifite, ko ntacyo bitwaye kuba Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rwashyikirizwa urubanza umuburanyi avuga ko rurimo akarengane ariko rwo rukagasanga mu rundi, ko icyangombwa ari uko izo manza ziba zaraciwe ku kibazo kimwe. [16] Urukiko rwategetse ko iburanisha rikomeza mu mizi, ariko ruza gusanga ari ngombwa kuzagera aho ikiburanwa kiri mbere yo gupfundikira iburanisha. Ku itariki ya 16/01/2020, Urukiko rwageze aho ikiburanwa kiri mu Mudugudu wa Rugaju, Akagari ka Ntaga, Umurenge wa Mugesera, Akarere ka Ngoma, mu Ntara y’Iburasirazuba, rubaza abaturage barutangariza icyo bazi ku isambu iburanwa n’ababuranyi bahari. Ku itariki ya 05/02/2020, ababuranyi bongeye kwitaba Urukiko bagira icyo bavuga kubyavuye mu iperereza ryakozwe n’Urukiko. [17] Hakurikijwe imiterere y’uru rubanza, ibibazo byasuzumwe ni ukumenya niba kuba Mukagatare Mariana yarahawe icyemezo cy’ubutaka bihagije kugira ngo agire uburenganzira ku isambu iburanwa nk’uko byemejwe mu rubanza rwasabiwe gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, no kumenya niba kuba Mukagatare Mariana atarasezeranye na nyakwigendera Gashabure Michel bimwambura uburenganzira ku mutungo bari bafitanye nk’uko uruhande rwa Nicyabera Espérance rubiburanisha. Hasuzumwe kandi n’ikibazo cy’indishyi zasabwe muri uru rubanza. NICYABERA v MUKAGATARE

## Page 158

126

II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO. Kumenya niba kuba Mukagatare Mariane afite icyangombwa cy’ubutaka bihagije kugira ngo agire uburenganzira ku isambu iburanwa. [18] Nicyabera Espérance na Me Munyankindi Monique umwunganira, bavuga ko icyo banenga urubanza basaba ko rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, ari uko rwemeje ko kuba hari igice cy’isambu Mukagatare Mariane yiyandikishijeho bimuhesha uburenganzira kuri ubwo butaka. Bavuga ko kuba Mukagatare Mariane yariyandikishijeho ubutaka ubwabyo bidahagije kugira ngo agire uburenganzira ku isambu iburanwa, kubera ko adashobora kugaragaza aho akomora ubwo butaka hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 10 y’Itegeko N° 03/2013/OL ryo ku wa 16/06/2013 rigenga ubutaka mu Rwanda. Bavuga ko hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’iyo ngingo, yagombye kwerekana niba atunze ubwo butaka ku bw’umuco, kuba yarabuguze, yarabuhaweho impano, umunani, ingurane, yarabuzunguye cyangwa se yarabubonye mu isaranganya. [19] Barangiza bavuga ko Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Kibungo rwakoze amakosa rwemeza ko isambu ari iya Mukagatare Mariane ngo kuko afite icyangombwa cy’ubukode burambye, nyamara icyo cyangombwa atari ikimenyetso cyemeza nta shiti ko ugifite ari we nyir’ubutaka nk’uko byemejwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza RCAA 0018/13/CS rwaciwe ku itariki ya 24/12/2014. [20] Mukagatare Mariane na Me Rwimo Clotilde umwunganira, bavuga ko ubutaka yibarujeho ari igice cy’isambu yahawe n’ubuyobozi bumaze kuyigabanyamo gatatu, ibindi bice ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 159

127

bibiri bigahabwa Nicyabera Espérance na musaza we Ruduha Muzerwa. Bavuga ko icyo gice yibarujeho nta burenganzira Nicyabera Espérance agifiteho kuko afite aho yahawe. Bongeraho ko kuba Mukagatare Mariane yaribaruje kuri uwo mutungo ntihagire ubitambamira, bisobanuye ko ari we uwufiteho uburenganzira, ari nayo mpamvu yagiye agurishaho akikenura. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [21] Ingingo ya 10 y’Itegeko N° 43/2013 ryo ku wa 16/06/2013 rigenga ubutaka mu Rwanda, iteganya ko ubutaka bw’umuntu ku giti cye bugizwe n’ubutaka atunze ku buryo bw’umuco cyangwa ubw’amategeko yanditse. Iyo ngingo iteganya kandi ko ubwo butaka ubutunze agomba kuba yarabuhawe n’ubuyobozi bubifitiye ububasha, yarabuguze, yarabuhaweho impano, umurage, izungura, umunani, ingurane cyangwa yarabubonye mu isaranganya. [22] Ingingo imaze kuvugwa, yumvikanisha ko kugira ngo umuntu ashobore kubona icyemezo cy’iyandikisha ry’ubutaka, agomba kugaragariza urwego rubifitiye ububasha ko yabubonye biciye muri imwe mu nzira ivugwa muri iyo ngingo. Mu yandi magambo, uwakwiyandikishaho ubutaka aterekanye ko yabubonye muri bumwe mu buryo buteganyijwe muri iyo ngingo, yaba abikoze mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, bityo ibyangombwa yahabwa, ubwabyo akaba atari byo bituma abugiraho uburenganzira, kubera ko bishobora guteshwa agaciro hagize ugaragaza ko ubwo butaka ari we nyirabwo. Ibi ni nabyo byemejwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza RCAA NICYABERA v MUKAGATARE

## Page 160

128

0018/13/CS2. Ni kimwe n’uwakwiyandikishaho ubutaka hashingiwe ku byangombwa byaje guteshwa agaciro nyuma, uwo nawe yahita atakaza uburenganzira yakeshaga icyemezo cy’ubukode burambye yabonye muri ubwo buryo. [23] Ku birebana n’uru rubanza, inyandiko zigize dosiye zigaragaza ko Nicyabera Espérance yashyikirije Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Kibungo ikirego asaba gusubirishamo ingingo nshya urubanza RC 0488/011/TB/KGO rwari rwaremeje ko isambu iburanwa ari iya Mukagatare Mariane kubera ko yasizwe n’umugabo we Gashabure Michel baseranye byemewe n’amategeko, ikimenyetso gishya yari yatanze akaba ari urubanza rwabaye itegeko rwemeje ko Mukagatare Mariane na Gashabure Michel batigeze basezerana. Urwo Rukiko rwemeje ko ikirego cye nta shingiro gifite ruvuga ko hari igice cy’iyo sambu Mukagatare Mariane yibarujeho, ko kubera iyo mpamvu, urubanza RC 0488/011/TB/KGO Rugumanye agaciro karwo. [24] Hashingiwe ku mategeko no ku bisobanuro byatanzwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga, kuba hari igice cy’isambu Mukagatare Mariane yibarujeho, ubwabyo bitayimuhaho uburenganzira, keretse agaragaje aho akomora ubwo butaka.

2 Muri urwo rubanza, Urukiko rwasanze Sebukayire Tharcisse yarahawe icyemezo cy’iyandikisha ry’ubutaka atagaragarije abagitanga aho yakomoye ubwo butaka yita ubwe yahawe na Leta […]; ibi bikaba bigaragaza ko Sebukayire wabonye icyemezo cy’iyandikisha ry’ubutaka bitanyuze muri imwe mu nzira ziteganywa n’itegeko yakibonye mu buryo bw’uburyarya.Para. 22. Ingaruka z’ibyo ni uko Urukiko rwatesheje agaciro icyo cyemezo cy’ubutaka. Para.23 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 161

129

Kumenya niba kuba Mukagatare Mariane atarasezeranye na Gashabure Michel bimwambura uburenganzira ku mutungo bari bafitanye mbere y’uko batandukana. [25] Nicyabera Espérance avuga ko Mukagatare Mariane yigaruriye isambu ya Se Gashabure Michel amaze gupfa mu mwaka wa 1994 kandi bari baratandukanye mu mwaka wa 1986, bivuze ko hari hashize imyaka icyenda (9) yose batakibana nk’umugabo n’umugore. Avuga ko yabikoze yitwaje ko bigeze kubana gusa, ariko bakaba batarigeze basezerana imbere y’amategeko, ndetse nta n’umwana bigeze babyarana. [26] Avuga ko Mukagatare Mariane yatangiye kubana na Se (wa Nicyabera) mu mwaka wa 1973 asimbuye abandi bagore babiri (2) aribo nyina umubyara na nyina wa Ruduha Muzerwa (undi mwana wa Gashabure Michel). Avuga ko nyuma nawe batandukanye aragenda, Se ashaka undi mugore witwa Sezariya, nyuma y’imyaka ibiri (2) Mukagatare Mariane aragaruka ateza amahane ku buryo Sezariya yahise yigendera nawe nta mwana ahabyaye. Avuga ko mu mwaka wa 1981, Mukagatare Mariane yongeye kugenda, Se ashaka undi mugore witwa Nyirabashumba Agnès nawe babana nk’imyaka itatu (3) agenda mu mwaka wa 1984, Se amara igihe kinini aba wenyine, ko ariko hagati aho Mukagatare Mariane yajyaga agaruka ngo arashaka imperekeza, aribwo mu mwaka wa 1986, Se yagurishije igice kimwe cy’isambu amuha imperekeza aragenda, nyuma ashaka undi mugore. [27] Nicyabera Espérance akomeza avuga ko Mukagatare Mariane yagarutse mu mwaka wa 1995 amaze kumenya ko Gashabure Michel yapfuye ngo aje kugaruza isambu y’umugabo we ayibirukanamo. Avuga ko mu gukemura ikibazo mu buryo bw’agateganyo, abayobozi b’inzego z’ibanze bafashe isambu NICYABERA v MUKAGATARE

## Page 162

130

bayigabanyamo ibice bine (4), igice kimwe gihabwa Nicyabera Espérance, ikindi gihabwa Mukagatare Mariane, icya gatatu gihabwa Ruduha Muzerwa (musaza wa Nicyabera) kuko bavugaga ko abana ba Gashabure Michel batagomba kubura aho baba, icya kane gihabwa nyirasenge, ariko nyuma Mukagatare akaba yaraje kukimwaka. Avuga ko nyuma we hamwe na musaza we baje kugenda kubera ihohoterwa bakorerwaga, Mukagatare Mariane isambu yose akayigarurira. Arangiza asaba gusubirana isambu ya Se Gashabure Michel wapfuye igahabwa abazungura be. [28] Me Munyankindi Monique wunganira Nicyabera Espérance, avuga ko nyakwigendera Gashabure Michel na Mukagatare Mariane batigeze basezerana imbere y’amategeko, ko kubera iyo mpamvu isambu iburanwa yavanwa mu maboko ye igahabwa abazungura ba Gashabure Michel bemewe n’amategeko. Avuga ko ariko mu gihe Urukiko rwasanga barabanye nk’umugabo n’umugore, nawe hakaba hari uruhare agomba kugira kuri iyo sambu, yaherezwa ku ruhande yagurishije. [29] Mukagatare Mariane avuga ko yashakanye na Gashabure Michel mu mwaka wa 1962 babana i Kabuga, nyuma bimukira mu Gisaka mu mwaka wa 1970, ubuyobozi bubakebera isambu batangira kuyihinga. Avuga ko yakomeje kubana n’umugabo we kugeza mu mwaka wa 1993, ubwo yavaga mu rugo arwaye agiye i Rutongo kwivuza, jenoside ikamusangayo, akaba yaragarutse mu rugo rwe mu mwaka wa 1995 agasanga umugabo we yarapfuye. [30] Me Rwimo Clotilde wunganira Mukagatare Mariane, avuga ko isambu iburanwa uwo yunganira yayishakanye na Gashabure Michel kuko Leta iyibaha bari kumwe. Avuga ko ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 163

131

ubwo havukaga amakimbirane kuri iyo sambu hagati ya Mukagatare Mariane n’abana b’umugabo we amaze gupfa, Ubuyobozi bw’inzego z’ibanze bwayigabanyijemo ibice bitatu (3), igice kimwe gihabwa Mukagatare Mariane, ibindi bice bibiri (2) bitwarwa n’abana ba Gashabure Michel, aribo Nicyabera Espérance na Muzerwa Ruduha. Avuga ko ibisabwa na Nicyabera Espérance ko umutungo wose wakurwa mu maboko ya Mukagatare Mariane bitahabwa agaciro, ko ahubwo ibyakozwe n’ubuyobozi bw’inzego z’ibanze bugabanya isambu iburanwa mo ibice bitatu (3) aribyo byagumana agaciro kuko na Mukagatare Mariane afite uburenganzira ku mutungo wasizwe n’umugabo we. [31] Ubwo Urukiko rwageraga aho ikiburanwa kiri mu rwego rwo kumenya igihe Gashabure Michel na Mukagatare Mariane batangiye kubana, igihe batandukaniye n’uburyo batandukanyemo, rwabajije abatangabuhamya barutangariza ibi bikurikira : - Hitiyise Straton wavutse mu mwaka wa 1953, yabajijwe igihe Mukagatare Mariane n’umugabo we Gashabure Michel batangiye kubana n’igihe batandukaniye, avuga ko bageze mu Gisaka mu myaka ya za 70 batema ishyamba batangira guhinga, bigeze mu mwaka wa 1977 Leta irabakatira. Avuga ko babanye kugeza mu mwaka wa 1993 ubwo umugore yajyaga kwivuza, ko mbere y’aho atigeze ava mu rugo. Abajijwe niba hagati aho nta bandi bagore Gashabure Michel yigeze ashaka, avuga ko bahari, ko ariko bari abitambukiraga gusa, ko batigeze babana nk’umugabo n’umugore. NICYABERA v MUKAGATARE

## Page 164

132

- Twahirwa Jean Bosco wavutse mu mwaka wa 1961, yavuze ko Gashabure Michel abona isambu iburanwa yari wenyine, arayitunganya, arubaka, nyuma nko mu mwaka wa 1973 azana Mukagatare Mariane. Yasobanuye ko babanye muri iyo sambu hagera igihe barananiranwa, Mukagatare Mariane arahukana ajya iwabo. Ubwo Gashabure Michel yagiye ashaka abandi bagore bagera kuri batatu (3), Mukagatare Mariane yabimenya akagaruka agatera amahane bakagenda. Avuga ko mu mwaka wa 1986, Mukagatare Mariane yananiranwe burundu na Gashabure Michel, uyu agurisha isambu amuha imperekeza aragenda, ashaka undi mugore, ariko nawe baje kunaniranwa ku buryo yapfuye nta mugore n’umwe afite. - Nyirabashumba Agnès wavutse mu mwaka wa 1961, uyu akaba ari n’umwe mu bagore bigeze kubana na Gashabure Michel, yabwiye Urukiko ko bashakanye mu mwaka wa 1983 asimbuye uwitwa Sezariya, nawe agasimburwa na Ntamazimwe mu mwaka wa 1985. Yabwiye Urukiko ko icyo gihe cyose Mukagatare Mariane ntawari uhari kuko batigeze baharikanwa. Yasobanuriye Urukiko ko Mukagatare Mariane yari yaragiye, nyuma ashatse kugaruka aburana n’umugabo, uyu agurisha isambu amuha imperekeza aragenda. - Mukamfizi Siperansiya wavutse mu mwaka wa 1954, yabwiye Urukiko ko Gashabure Michel agera mu Gisaka yari wenyine, ko yamubwiye ko yari afite abagore babiri (2) babyaranye abana babiri (2) ariko bakaba baramunaniye, ariyo mpamvu ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 165

133

yashatse Mukagatare Mariane. Yavuze ko ubwo babanye akajya arwara umugabo akumuvuza, ko nyuma yaje kwahukana agarutse umugabo aramwanga. Yavuze ko Mukagatare Mariane yatanze ikirego mu buyobozi, bubwira Gashabure Michel ko atakwirukana umugore gutyo gusa, bituma agurisha isambu amuha imperekeza aragenda. Yarangije ubuhamya bwe avuga ko Jenoside yabaye baratandukanye kera, Gashabure Michel aba mu nzu wenyine. - Mujyambere Jean Chrysostome wavutse mu mwaka wa 1973, yabwiye Urukiko ko Mukagatare Mariane yavuye mu rugo rwe arwaye agenda agiye kwivuza mu mwaka wa 1992, jenoside imusangayo. Yavuze ko hagati aho ariko Mukagatare Mariane yagendaga yahukana Gashabure Michel agashaka abandi bagore kuko yari umuntu udashobora kubaho atari kumwe n’umugore, Mukagatare Mariane yamenya ko umugabo we yashohoje, agahita agaruka, ubwo umugore akagenda. Yavuze ko nyuma y’ibyo byose ariko Gashabure Michel yapfuye nta mugore n’umwe bari kumwe. - Muzerwa Alexis avuga ko yari Konseye mu mwaka wa 1992 ngo akaba yarahaye Mukagatare Mariane icyangombwa agiye kwivuza ari kumwe na Gashabure Michel, ko ibijyanye n’imperekeza yahawe Mukagatare Mariane ntabyo azi. - Mukangabitsinze Emeriyana wavutse mu mwaka wa 1962, akaba ariwe utunze isambu Gashabure Michel yagurishije, yabwiye Urukiko ko bagura Mukagatare Mariane na Gashabure Michel bari NICYABERA v MUKAGATARE

## Page 166

134

kumwe, ko ibyo bavuga ko Mukagatare Mariane mu mwaka wa 1986 yari yaragiye ataribyo kuko kugeza mu mwaka wa 1993 bari bakiri kumwe. - Habimana Jean Baptiste wavutse mu mwaka wa 1953, yavuze ko Gashabure Michel na Mukagatare Mariane babanye kugeza nko muri za 90, ko Mukagatare yarwaye Gashabure akamuvuza, nyuma akaza kumwirukana. Yakomeje avuga ko Mukagatare yaje kugaruka Gashabure yanga kubana nawe, ahubwo amushakira imperekeza aragenda. - Ntambineza Jean Baptiste wavutse mu mwaka wa 1968, yabwiye Urukiko ko iby’imperekeza bavuga ntabyabayeho, ko Mukagatare Mariane yavuye mu rugo mu mwaka wa 1993 agiye kwivuza Jenoside imusangayo. Yavuze ko ibyo bavuga ko Gashabure Michel yashatse abandi bagore, ari uko Mukagatare Mariane yari yarahukanye, ko ariko nyuma agarutse atongeye kugenda kugeza agiye kwivuza. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [32] Impande zombi zemeranya ko Mukagatare Mariane na nyakwigendera Gashabure Michel babanye nk’umugabo n’umugore, ibyo kuba barasezeranye imbere y’amategeko byo hari urubanza no RCA 0307/13/TGI/GSBO rwabaye itegeko rwemeje ko ntabyabayeho. Icyo ababuranyi batemeranywaho akaba ari igihe batandukaniye n’ingaruka bifite ku birebana n’umutungo bari bafitanye. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 167

135

[33] N’ubwo mu mwaka wa 2008 aribwo mu Rwanda hashyizweho Itegeko N° 59/2008 rikumira kandi rihana ihohoterwa iryo ari ryo ryose rishingiye ku gitsina rigateganya uko bigenda ku mutungo w’ababanaga nk’umugabo n’umugore batarasezeranye iyo batandukanye3, Mukagatare Mariane na nyakwigendera Gashabure Michel babana hari hasanzweho ihame ry’uko abantu bose bareshya imbere y’amategeko. Iryo hame ryari mu Itegeko Nshinga ryo ku itariki ya 20 ukuboza 19784. Ku itariki ya 02/03/1981 kandi, u Rwanda rwari rwarasinye Amasezerano mpuzamahanga agamije kurandura ivangura iryo ari ryo ryose rikorerwa abagore (Convention sur l’élimination de toutes les formes de discrimination à l’égard des femmes). Ibihugu byasinye kuri aya masezerano bikaba byariyemeje gufata ingamba zose za ngombwa kugira ngo bihindure cyangwa bikureho amategeko ayo ariyo yose, ibyemezo by’ubutegetsi, umuco cyangwa indi migirire igize ivangura rikorerwa abagore5.

3 Ingingo ya 39, igika cya mbere n’icya kabiri, y’iryo tegeko, iteganya ko ababanaga nk’umugore n’umugabo batashyingiranywe mu buryo buteganywa n’amategeko, bashyingirwa hakurikije ihame ry’ubushyingiranywe bw’umugabo umwe n’umugore umwe, ko mu gihe umwe mu barebwa n’ibimaze kuvugwa, yabanaga n’abagore cyangwa n’abagabo benshi, abanza kugabana ku buryo bungana na buri wese mu bo babanaga, umutungo bari bafitanye cyangwa bahahanye mbere y’uko ashyingirwa (Ahangaha, mu rubanza n° RS/Inconst/Pén.0003/10/CS, Gatera Johnson, Kabalisa Teddy vs-, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwemeje ari ku mpamvu yose yatuma batandukana atari ngombwa ko umwe yaba agamije gushaka). 4 Article 16 stipule: «Tous les citoyens sont égaux devant la loi, sans discrimination aucune, notamment de race, de couleur, d'origine, d'ethnie, de clan, de sexe, d'opinion, de religion ou de position sociale 5Les Etats parties […] s’engagent à prendre toutes les mesures appropriées, y compris des dispositions législatives, pour modifier ou abroger toute loi, disposition réglementaire, coutume ou pratique qui constitue une discrimination à l’égard des NICYABERA v MUKAGATARE

## Page 168

136

[34] Mu gukemura iki kibazo kiri hagati ya Nicyabera Espérance uvuga ko nta burenganzira Mukagatare Mariane afite ku isambu yasizwe na Se (wa Nicyabera) ngo kuko batari barasezeranye, Urukiko rukaba rugomba kwifashisha umuco n’imigenzo byariho icyo gihe mu gihe itanyuranye n’ihame ry’uburinganire hagati y’umugabo n’umugore ryari mu Itegeko nshinga ryavuzwe haruguru6. [35] Umuco wariho icyo gihe wateganyaga uburyo bwo kuzirikana uruhare umugore yabaga yaragize ku mutungo w’umuryango, ariyo mpamvu iyo umugore yabaga atagishoboye gukomeza kubana n’umugabo we bagatandukana yagiraga icyo ahabwa. Ibyo bigakorwa hazirikanwa ko mu gihe umugore yabaga mu rugo, hari imirimo yakoraga yazamuraga agaciro k’umutungo w’umuryango. [36] Ku birebana n’agaciro gahabwa umurimo w’umwe mu bashakanye mu rwego rwo kongerera agaciro umutungo w’umuryango, Urukiko Rusesa imanza rwo mu Bufaransa narwo rwemeje ko umwe mu bashyingiranywe ureka akazi yakoraga kugira ngo ashobore kwita ku rugo no ku burere bw’abana, nawe aba afite uruhare mu kuzamura ubukungu bw’urugo7. Ibi bihuje

femmes. 6Article 93, al. 2, stipule: «Les coutumes ne demeurent applicables que pour autant qu'elles n'aient pas été remplacées par une loi et qu'elles n'aient rien de contraire à la Constitution, aux lois, aux règlements, à l'ordre public ou aux bonnes mœurs ». 7 […] La Cour de Cassation a même admis que l’activité d’un époux « dans la gestion d’un ménage et la direction du foyer » pouvait, suivant son importance, avoir excédé sa contribution aux charges du mariage et avoir été pour son conjoint une source d’économies. Il en était spécialement ainsi si l’épouse, pour se consacrer exclusivement aux soins du ménage et des enfants, avait renoncé à sa propre activité professionnelle et, par là-même, à toute source de ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 169

137

n’ibyateganywaga n’umuco mu Rwanda, ko imirimo umugore yakoraga mu rwego rwo kongerera agaciro umutungo w’umuryango, yatumaga awugiraho uburenganzira. Kubera iyo mpamvu, iyo umugabo n’umugore babaga batagishoboye kubana bagatandukana, umugore yagombaga kugira icyo agenerwa nk’uruhare yagize mu gutuma umutungo w’umuryango wiyongera. [37] Ku birebana n’uru rubanza, ikibazo cya mbere cyibazwa, ni ukumenya igihe Mukagatare Mariane na Gashabure Michel batandukaniye n’uburyo batandukanyemo. Kuri icyo kibazo, ubwo Urukiko rwageraga aho ikiburanwa kiri rukabaza abatangabuhamya igihe Mukagatare Mariane na Gashabure Michel batandukaniye n’uburyo batandukanyemo, nk’uko byagarajwe haruguru, hari abavuga ko Mukagatare Mariane atigeze atandukana n’umugabo we Gashabure Michel, ko ahubwo yavuye mu rugo rwe agiye kwivuza mu mwaka wa 1993 jenoside ikamusanga aho yari yaragiye kwivuza, yagaruka mu rugo rwe mu mwaka wa 1995 agasanga umugabo we yarapfuye. Ku rundi ruhande ariko, hakaba abandi bavuga ko Mukagatare Mariane yari yaratandukanye n’umugabo we kera, ko ndetse yanahawe imperekeza ajya kugenda. [38] Urukiko rurasanga mu batangabuhamya bavuga ko Mukagatare Mariane na Gashabure Michel bari bakibana ubwo uyu yapfaga, harimo abahinga imirima bahawe na Mukagatare Mariane. Aha twavuga nka Hitiyise Straton utunze umugore uhinga muri iyo sambu, ibi nawe akaba atarabihakanye ubwo abaturage bakemangaga imvugo ze, ubuhamya bwabo rero bukaba butakwizerwa.

revenus …François Terré et Philippe Silmer, Droit civil, Les régimes matrimoniaux, 4ème édition Dalloz 2005, p. 661. NICYABERA v MUKAGATARE

## Page 170

138

[39] Mu batangabuhamya bavuga ko Mukagatare Mariane na Gashabure Michel bari baratandukanye kera, ko ndetse mbere y’uko Mukagatare Mariane agenda yahawe imperekeza, harimo umukecuru Mukamfizi Siperansiya wavuze ko yari aturanye n’uwo muryango, na Nyirabashumba Agnès, umwe mu bagore babanye na Gashabure Michel, Mukagatare Mariane amaze kugenda. Ibyagaragariye Urukiko, ni uko aba bavuga ibyo bazi kandi nta kubogama guhari kuko nta nyungu zagaragajwe ko bafite muri iki kibazo. [40] Hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 65 y’Itegeko Nº 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, iteganya ko Urukiko ari rwo rwonyine rupima ko imikirize y’abatangabuhamya ihuye n’ikiburanwa, ifite ingingo zikiranuye kandi ikaba ikwiye kwemerwa cyangwa guhakanwa, ko rutitsitsa ku mubare w’abatangabuhamya ahubwo rwita cyane cyane ku bumenyi bwabo bw’ibyabaye, no ku buryo babivuga uko byagenze ntacyo bihimbira, rukanashingira ku byo rwiboneye ubwo rwari aho ikiburanwa kiri, mu bushishozi bwarwo, Urukiko rurasanga ubwo Gashabure Michel yapfaga yari yaratandukanye na Mukagatare Mariane kandi mbere yo kugenda akaba yarabonye imperekeza. [41] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro byose byatanzwe haruguru, kuba Mukagatare Mariane yarabanye na Gashabure Michel nk’umugabo n’umugore bagafatanya gutunganya isambu bari bafitanye mu rwego rwo kuyongerera agaciro, Urukiko rurasanga ibikorwa byose yayikozeho biyimuheshaho uburenganzira, ari nayo mpamvu ajya kugenda Gashabure Michel yagurishije igice cy’iyo sambu akamuha imperekeza. [42] Urukiko rurasanga uruhare rwa Mukagatare Mariane ruhwanye n’iyo mperekeza kuko atigeze aregera ko imperekeza ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 171

139

yahawe idahwanye n’uruhare rwe, bityo isambu yasizwe na Gashabure Michel ubwo yapfaga, ikaba igomba kuba iy’abazungura be. [43] Mu gusoza, hashingiwe ku bisobanuro no ku mategeko byatanzwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga kuba hari igice cy’isambu iburanwa Mukagatare Mariane yiyandikishijeho ubwabyo ataribyo biyimuheshabo uburenganzira, ubwo yari ayifiteho bukaba buhwanye n’imperekeza yahawe ubwo yatandukanaga n’umugabo we nk’uko byasobanuwe, bityo ikirego cyatanzwe na Nicyabera Espérance asaba gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane urubanza RC 0016/14/TB/KGO rwaciwe n'Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Kibungo ku itariki ya 27/10/2014, kikaba gifite ishingiro. Ibijyanye n’indishyi zisabwa muri uru rubanza [44] Nicyabera Espérance asaba Urukiko kumugenera amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka angana na miliyoni imwe (1.000.000 Frw), indishyi z’akababaro nazo zingana na miliyoni imwe (1.000.000 Frw) kubera ko yakorewe akarengane akavutswa uburenganzira ku mutungo wa Se mu gihe cy’imyaka makumyabiri n’ibiri (22). [45] Mukagatare Mariane avuga ko indishyi Nicyabera Espérance asaba nta shingiro zahabwa kubera ko ariwe wahisemo kumushora mu manza zitari ngombwa, ko ahubwo ariwe ukwiye kumuha indishyi z’akababaro zingana na miliyoni ebyiri (2.000.000 Frw).

NICYABERA v MUKAGATARE

## Page 172

140

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [46] Urukiko rurasanga indishyi z’akababaro Nicyabera Espérance asaba zifite ishingiro kubera ko yavukijwe uburenganzira ku mutungo yasigiwe na Se, ariko miliyoni imwe (1.000.000 Frw) asaba akaba atayihabwa kuko atashoboye gusobanura uburyo yayibaze, bityo mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko akaba agenewe ibihumbi magana atanu (500.000 Frw). Ku birebana n’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka, Urukiko rurasanga nayo afite ishingiro kubera ko bigaragara ko yashatse Avoka umuburanira, ariko kubera ko ayo asaba ari menshi kandi nayo akaba atabasha kuyatangira ibisobanuro, mu bushishozi bwarwo, Urukiko rumugeneye ibihumbi magana atanu (500.000 Frw) y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ibihumbi magana atatu (300.000 Frw) y’ikurikiranarubanza. [47] Ku birebana n’indishyi zisabwa na Mukagatare Mariane, Urukiko rurasanga ntazo agomba guhabwa kubera ko ntacyo atsindiye muri uru rubanza. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [48] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Nicyabera Espérance gisaba gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane urubanza RC 0016/14/TB/KGO rwaciwe n'Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Kibungo ku itariki ya 27/10/2014 gifite ishingiro; [49] Rwemeje ko isambu iburanwa iri mu Mudugudu wa Rugaju, Akagari ka Ntaga, Umurenge wa Mugesera mu Ntara y’Iburasirazuba ari iy’abazungura ba Gashabure Michel; ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 173

141

[50] Rwemeje ko amasezerano y’ubukode burambye afite N° UPI:5/06/06/03/3860 yahawe Mukagatare Mariane ateshejwe agaciro; [51] Rutegetse Mukagatare Mariane guha Nicyabera Espérance indishyi z’akababaro zihwanye n’ibihumbi magana atanu (500.000 Frw) n’amafaranga ibihumbi magana inani (800.000 Frw) akubiyemo igihembo cya Avoka n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza. NICYABERA v MUKAGATARE

## Page 174

142

## Page 175

143

URUBANZA RW’UBUCURUZI

## Page 176

144

## Page 177

145

KAKOZA v NYAGATARE [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RCOMAA 00056/14/CS (Mukanyundo, P.J., Ngagi na Rugabirwa, J.) 23 Kamena 2017] Amategeko agenga imanza zubucuruzi – Sosiyete y’ubucuruzi – Umunyamigabane wa sosiyete – Umunyamigabane ntagirwa umunyamigabane wa sosiyete nuko yishyuye imigabane ye yose, abigirwa nuko yanditse mu gitabo cy’abanyamigabane – Kwishyura igice cy’imigabane ntibituma umunyamigabane yamburwa uburenganzira afite muri sosiyete ariko iyo atishyuye ababereyemo umwenda ushingiye ku migabane. Incamake y’ikibazo: Kakoza Nkuriza Charles yashinze sosiyete y’ubucuruzi y’umunyamigabane umwe yitwa Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd, ifite imari shingiro ya 70.000.000Frw. Nyuma yaho, aza kugirana amasezerano na Nyagatare Jean Luc bemeranya uyu abaye umunyamigabane wa Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd, bumvikana ko buri wese agira 50% y’imigabane ingana na 35.000.000Frw. Nyuma yaho, Kakoza Nkuriza Charles yandikiye Nyagatare Jean Luc, amubwira ko atakiri umunyamigabane wa Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd kuko atarangije kwishyura imigabane ye yose, amusaba gutanga nimero ya konti ye kugira ngo ishyirweho 9.000.000Frw yari amaze gutanga. Nyagatare yahise atanga ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge avuga ko icyemezo Kakoza yafashe cyo kumwirukana nk’umunyamigabane kidakurikije amategeko, asaba gukomeza kuba umunyamigabane, asaba kandi ko hakorwa igenzura muri Radio 1 Rwanda maze Kakoza agakurwa 145

## Page 178

146

k’ubuyobozi bw’iyo radiyo ndetse na buri munyamigabane agategekwa kugaragaza aho yishyuriye imigabane ye, anasaba indishyi zitandukanye. Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Nyagatare nta shingiro gifite, ruvuga ko nta burenganzira afite kuri sosiyete kuko atishyuye imigabane ye yose, ko yasezerewe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, ndetse anategekwa gutanga indishyi z’akababaro. Nyagatare ntiyishimiye icyo cyemezo, akijuririra mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi avuga ko Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge rwaciye urubanza rwirengagije amategeko n’imiburanire ye, avuga ko yamwirukanye mu buryo budakurikije amategeko, kandi ko hatanzwe indishyi zidafite aho zishingiye. Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwemeje ko icyemezo cyafashwe na Kakoza cyo kwirukana Nyagatare nk’umunyamigabane kidakurikije amategeko, rwemeza ko gikuweho, rumutegeka guha Nyagatare indishyi. Kakoza ntiyishimiye icyo cyemezo, ajuririra Urukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwirengagije amasezerano agaragaza ko yagurishije Nyagatare imigabane, ko rwategetse ko Nyagatare akomeza kuba umunyamigabane w’iyo Radiyo, rwirengagije ko atubahirije inshingano zo kwishyura imigabane. Nyagatare avuga ko Urukiko rutirengagije ko yari atararangiza kwishyura imigabane yose, ko ahubwo rwavuze ko kuba atararangiza kuyishyura, bitamukuraho uburenganzira bwo kuba umunyamigabane wa Radio 1Rwanda Ltd, kuko kuba umunyamigabane bidasaba kuba wamaze kwishyura imigabane ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 179

147

yose, ahubwo ko kuba wanditse muri ‟Company” nk’umunyamigabane aricyo gituma ufatwa gutyo. Kakoza avuga kandi ko abona yari afite uburenganzira bwo kwirukana Nyagatare nk’umunyamigabane wa Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd kubera ko atubahirije amasezerano bagiranye bashinga sosiyete. Nyagatare yiregura avuga nta munyamigabane ufite uburenganzira bwo kwirukana undi munyamigabane mugenzi we. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Umunyamigabane ntagirwa umunyamigabane wa sosiyete nuko yishyuye imigabane ye yose, abigirwa nuko yanditse mu gitabo cy’abanyamigabane. 2. Kwishyura igice cy’imigabane ntibituma umunyamigabane yamburwa uburenganzira afite muri sosiyete ariko iyo atishyuye ababereyemo umwenda ushingiye ku migabane. Ubujurire nta shingiro; Amagarama y’urubanza ahwanye nibyarukozwemo. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nº 07/2009 ryerekeye amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi ryo ku wa 27/04/2009, ingingo ya 2, ya 31, 134 niya 140. Nta manza zifashishijwe.

KAKOZA v NYAGATARE

## Page 180

148

Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Kakoza Nkuriza Charles yashinze sosiyete y’ubucuruzi y’umunyamigabane umwe yitwa Radio 1 Rwanda11 Ltd, ifite imari shingiro ya 70.000.000 Frw. Nyuma yaho, aza kugirana amasezerano na Nyagatare Jean Luc bemeranya ko Nyagatare Jean Luc abaye umunyamigabane wa Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd, nk’uko bigaragazwa na “Memorandum and Articles of Association” yo ku wa 29/05/2011, bumvikana ko buri wese agira 50% y’imigabane ingana na 35.000.000Frw. Ku wa 02/08/2012, Kakoza Nkuriza Charles yandikiye Nyagatare Jean Luc, amubwira ko atakiri umunyamigabane wa Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd kuko atarangije kwishyura imigabane ye yose, amusaba gutanga nimero ya konti ye kugira ngo ishyirweho 9.000.000Frw yari amaze gutanga. [2] Nyagatare Jean Luc yahise atanga ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge avuga ko icyemezo Kakoza Nkuriza Charles yafashe cyo kumwirukana nk’umunyamigabane wa Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd kidakurikije amategeko, asaba gukomeza kuba umunyamigabane, hagakorwa igenzura muri Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd rigamije kumenya uko umutungo ukoreshwa, maze Kakoza Nkuriza Charles agakurwa k’ubuyobozi bw’iyo radiyo ndetse na buri munyamigabane agategekwa kugaragaza aho yishyuriye imigabane ye. Yanasabaga indishyi zitandukanye nk’uko zigaragara mu kiburanwa.

1Mu rubanza handitswe “RWANDA”, ariko muri “Memorandum and Articles of Association” handitse“FM”. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 181

149

[3] Mu rubanza RCOM 0779/12/TC/NYGE rwaciwe ku wa 31/01/2013, Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Nyagatare Jean Luc nta shingiro gifite, ruvuga ko nta burenganzira afite kuri sosiyete kuko atishyuye imigabane ye yose, ko yasezerewe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, ndetse anategekwa gutanga indishyi z’akababaro zingana na 1.000.000Frw n’igihembo cya Avoka kingana na 300.000 Frw. Urwo Rukiko rwafashe icyo cyemezo rushingiye ku ngingo ya 2, agace ka 32, y’Itegeko No 07/2009 ryo ku wa 27/04/2009 ryerekeye amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi ryakurikizwaga icyo igihe22, itanga igisobanuro cy’ufatwa ko ari umunyamigabane33, no ku ngingo ya 6 ya “Memorandum and Articles of Association”, ivuga ko buri wese agomba gushyira muri sosiyete 50 % y‘ imigabane ihwanye na 35.000.000 Frw4. [4] Nyagatare Jean Luc ntiyishimiye icyo cyemezo, akijuririra mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi avuga ko Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge rwaciye urubanza rwirengagije amategeko n’imiburanire ye, ndetse rurivuguruza, ko ingingo zimwe z’ikirego ntacyo rwazivuzeho, ntihitabwa no ku byo Kakoza Nkuriza Charles yemeye mu iburanisha avuga ko

2 Iri Tegeko ryahinduwe n’Itegeko N°27/2017 ryo ku w a 31/05/2017 rigenga Amasosiyete y’Ubucuruzi. 3 Ako gace k’iyo ngingo gateganya ko umunyamigabane ari: a) umuntu ufite izina ryanditse mu gitabocy’imigabane nk’ufite muri icyo gihe umugabane umwe cyangwa myinshi mu isosiyete; b) umuntu uvugwa mu nyandiko isaba kwandikwa kw’isosiyete mu gihe cy’ishingwa ryayo kandi agafatwa nk’umunyamigabane kugeza aho izina rye ryandikiwe mu gitabo cy’imigabane; c) umuntu ugomba kwandikwa mu gitabo cy’imigabane biturutse ku mushinga wo kwibumbira hamwe kw’amasosiyete, afatwa nk’umunyamigabane w’isosiyete yibumbiye hamwe n’indi kugeza igihe izina rye rizandikirwa mu gitabo cy’imigabane cy’isosiyete nshya ibumbiyemo izindi.

KAKOZA v NYAGATARE

## Page 182

150

yamwirukanye mu buryo budakurikije amategeko, kandi ko hatanzwe indishyi zidafite aho zishingiye. [5] Mu rubanza RCOMA 0071/13/HCC rwaciwe ku wa 05/12/2014, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwemeje ko icyemezo cyafashwe na Kakoza Nkuriza Charles cyo kwirukana Nyagatare Jean Luc nk’umunyamigabane wa Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd kidakurikije amategeko, rwemeza ko gikuweho. Rwategetse Kakoza Nkuriza Charles guha Nyagatare Jean Luc indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka zingana na 1.500.000 Frw, akanishyura 2.000.000 Frw yasigaye ku gihembocy’Umuhanga wakoze igenzura rya Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd ari we “ABC Consultants Ltd”, kandi agasubiza Nyagatare Jean Luc 1.000.000 Frw yatanze kuri avansi y’icyo gihembo cy’Umuhanga. [6] Kakoza Nkuriza Charles ntiyishimiye icyo cyemezo, ajuririra Urukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko:  Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwirengagije amasezerano yo ku wa 06/06/2011agaragaza ko yagurishije Nyagatare Jean Luc imigabane ingana na 50% ya Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd ifite agaciro ka 35.000.000 Frw, ko rwategetse ko Nyagatare Jean Luc akomeza kuba umunyamigabane w’iyo Radiyo, rwirengagije ko atubahirije inshingano zo kwishyura imigabane;  Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwirengagije uruhare rwe muri Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd, aho rwavuze ko atagaragaza niba hari igikorwa cyangwa andi mafaranga yari asanzwe kuri konti ya sosiyete mbere y’uko Nyagatare Jean Luc ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 183

151

ayinjiramo, kandi yara garagaje “invoices” zigaragaza ibikorwa yakoze.  Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, mu rubanza rubanziriza urundi rwasomwe ku wa 30/09/2013, rwemeje ko “invoice” imwe ivugwa ko yatanzwe na FESTIMO ku wa 02/08/2011, ifite agaciro ka 7.800.000 Frw ikuwe mu rubanza kuko ari impimbano, nyamara mu rubanza nshinjabyaha byaragaragaye ko iyo “invoice” atari impimbano;  Yategetswe gutanga indishyi z‘ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka zingana na 1.500.000 Frw kandi uzisaba ntazo akwiye kuko ari we uzi neza ko bitari ngombwa kurega, kuko iyo yubahiriza ibyo basezeranye nta manza ziba zarabayeho. [7] banza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku wa 15/03/2016, Kakoza Nkuriza Charles yunganiwe na Me Shema Gakuba Charles, Me Sadi Jashi na Me Mubangizi Frank, naho Nyagatare Jean Luc yunganiwe na Me Kizito Safari, uyu akaba yaratanze inzitizi yo kutakira ubujurire bwa Kakoza Nkuriza Charles kuko butari mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ariko uru Rukiko ruza gusanga iyo nzitizi nta shingiro ifite kubera ko agaciro k’ikiburanwa karengeje 50.000.000 Frw, urubanza ruburanishwa mu ruhame mu mizi ku wa 21/06/2016, 25/10/2016 no ku wa 11/01/2017, kuri iyi tariki Kakoza na Nyagatare biyemeje kujya mu bwumvikane, ariko baza kunaniranwa bituma bagaruka mu Rukiko ku wa 16/05/2017, Kakoza Nkuriza Charles yunganiwe na Me Shema Gakuba Charles na Me Mubangizi Frank, naho Nyagatare Jean Luc yunganiwe na Me Kizito Safari. KAKOZA v NYAGATARE

## Page 184

152

II. IBIBAZO BIRI MU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO 1. Kumenya niba kuba Nyagatare atarishyuye imigabane ye yose bimwambura uburenganzira bwo kuba umunyamigabane wa Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd [8] Kakoza Nkuriza Charles avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwirengagije amasezerano yo ku wa 06/06/2011, agaragaza ko yagurishije Nyagatare JeanLuc imigabane ingana na 50% ya Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd ifite agaciro ka 35.000.000Frw, ko rwategetse ko Nyagatare Jean Luc akomeza kuba umunyamigabane w’iyo Radiyo rwirengagije ko atubahirije inshingano zo kwishyura imigabane ari nacyo Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwari rwashingiyeho ruvuga ko kugira ngo akomeze kuba umunyamigabane wa Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd, ari uko yabanza kwishyura imigabane isigaye ihwanye na 26.000.000Frw. [9] Nyagatare Jean Luc n’umwunganira bavuga ko Urukiko rutirengagije ko yari atararangiza kwishyura imigabane yose, ko ahubwo rwavuze ko kuba atararangiza kuyishyura, bitamukuraho uburenganzira bwo kuba umunyamigabane wa Radio 1Rwanda Ltd, kuko kuba umunyamigabane bidasaba kuba wamaze kwishyura imigabane yose, ahubwo ko kuba wanditse muri ‟Company” nk’umunyamigabane aricyo gituma ufatwa gutyo.

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 185

153

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [10] Ingingo ya 2, agace ka 32 (b), y’Itegeko Nº 07/2009 ryerekeye amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi ryo ku wa 27/04/2009 ryakurikizwaga sosiyete ishingwa, iteganya ko umunyamigabane ari “umuntu uvugwa mu nyandiko isaba kwandikwa kw’isosiyete mu gihe cy’ishingwa ryayo kandi agafatwa nk’umunyamigabane kugeza aho izina rye ryandikiwe mu gitabo cy’imigabane “. Na none, ingingo ya 2, agace ka 32º, y’Itegeko N° 27/2017 ryo ku wa 31/05/2017 rigenga amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi iteganya ko “umunyamigabane ari umuntu ufite izina ryanditse mu gitabo cy’imigabane nk’ufite muri icyo gihe umugabane umwe cyangwa myinshi mu isosiyete”. [11] Abahanga basobanura mu buryo bworoshye umunyamigabane nk’umuntu ushora imari muri sosiyete akagira uruhare muri iyo sosiyete n’uburenganzira bwo kumenya uburyo ikora, ubwo gufata icyemezo ndetse no ku nyungu. Bakomeza bavuga ko ijambo umunyamigabane risobanura umuntu wese ufite imigabane muri sosiyete4 S.N. Maheshwari na S.K. Maheshwari nabo bavuga ko umunyamigabane ari umuntu ufite izina rye ryanditse mu gitabo cy’abanyamigabane5.

5 Un actionnaire est une personne physique ou morale qui, en investissant du capital dans une entreprise, en détient une part, acquiert un droit de regard et parfois de décision, et peut recevoir des dividendes. Ce terme désigne toute personne physique ou morale détenant des actions dans une société, X, « Les termes comptables expliqués de manière simple », in Lexique, https://debitoor.fr/termes-comptables/actionnaire, consulté le 15/06/2017. 6 A shareholder is a person who has his/her name entered in the register of members (S.N. Maheshwari and S.K. Maheshwari, “Membership of Company“, A Manual of Business Laws, Mumbai, Himalaya Publishing House,2011, 5.101). KAKOZA v NYAGATARE

## Page 186

154

[12] Muri uru rubanza, dosiye igaragaza ko Kakoza Nkuriza Charles yashinze sosiyete yitwa Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd, ayandikisha mu Kigo cy’Igihugu GishinzweIterambere (RDB) ku wa 09/05/2011 kuri “code“ 102319058, iyo sosiyete ikaba yari ifite imigabane 100 ihwanye na 70.000.000 Frw, hanyuma ku wa 29/05/2011 agirana amasezerano na Nyagatare Jean Luc yiswe “Memorandum and Articles ofAssociation”, aho bombi bumvikanye ko bashinze Radio 1 FM6 Ltd (R1FM Ltd),buri wese akaba ayifitemo imigabane 50 ihwanye na 35.000.000Frw, ndetse ku wa 06/06/2011, Kakoza Nkuriza Charles yandikira RDB, ayimenyesha ko yagurishije Nyagatare Jean Luc imigabane ingana na 50% ya Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd, bityo ayisaba ko uwo munyamigabane mushya yakwandikwa ku cyangombwa cya sosiyete. [13] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza, na none, ko ku wa 02/08/2012, Kakoza Nkuriza Charles, nk’Umuyobozi wa Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd yandikiye Nyagatare Jean Luc,amubwira ko atakiri umunyamigabane wa Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd kuko atarangije kwishyura imigabane ye yose nk’uko “Memorandum and Articles of Association”ibiteganya, bityo amusaba gutanga nimero ya konti ye kugira ngo ishyirweho 9.000.000 Frw yari amaze gutanga, ibi bikaba ari byo byatumye Nyagatare Jean Luc aregera Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge asaba ko icyo cyemezo cyo kumwirukana cyavanwaho kubera ko cyafashwe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko, gutegeka ko Nyagatare Jean Luc akomeza kuba umunyamigabane wa Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd, anasaba ko Kakoza Nkuriza Charles yavanwa ku buyobozi bw’iyo Radiyo, ndetse nawe akagaragaza aho yishyuriye imigabane ye, kandi hagakorwa igenzura (audit) ryerekana uko umutungo wakoreshejwe.

7 Aha biragaragara ko banditse “FM” kandi bari kwandika “Rwanda”. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 187

155

[14] Isesengura ry’ingingo z’amategeko n’inyandiko z’abahanga byavuzwe haruguru ryerekana ko nta na hamwe hagaragara ko umuntu aba umunyamigabane ari uko amaze kwishyura imigabane ye yose muri sosiyete, ko ahubwo icy’ingenzi ari aba yanditse mu gitabo cy’imigabane cya sosiyete. Urukiko rurasanga ibi bishimangirwa na none n‘ingingo ya 31, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko ryo ku wa 27/04/2009 ryavuzwe haruguru, iteganya ko imari shingiro y’isosiyete ari imigabane abanyamigabane bemeye yaba yarishyuwe cyangwa itarishyuwe, kuko igaragaza ko kwishyura imigane atari cyo kigira umuntu kuba umunyamigabane, ko ahubwo icya ngombwa ari ukwemera gufata imigabane runaka muri iyo sosiyete. Kuba rero Nyagatare atarashoboye kwishyura imigabane yose yari yemeye gufata muri Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd, ibyo bitamwambura uburenganzira bwo kuba umunyamigabane. [15] Urukiko rurasanga, na none, imvugo ya Kakoza ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwirengangije amasezerano yo ku wa 06/06/2011yabaye hagati y‘ababuranyi bombi,nta shingiro byahabwa, kuko uretse no kuba ayo masezerano adateganya igihe ntarengwa abanyamigabane bari kuba barangije kwishyura imigabane bemeye gushora muri sosiyete, ngo Nyagatare abe yarakirengeje, nta n’aho ateganya ko umunyamigabane utazishyurira imigabane ye ku gihe azatakaza uburenganzira bwe nk’umunyamigabane wa sosiyete. Urukiko rurasanga haba mu ngingo z‘amategeko cyangwa mu masezerano ntaho biteganyijwe ko mu gihe umunyamigabane atishyuye imigabane yose yemeye, ahita atakaza uburenganzira bwo kuba umunyamigabane, rukaba rero ntaho rwahera rwemeza ko kuba Nyagatare atarishyuye imigabane yose yemeye bimubuza gukomeza ku ba umunyamigabane muri iyi sosiyete, cyane cyane ko ibimenyetso Kakoza yashyikirije uru Rukiko ku wa KAKOZA v NYAGATARE

## Page 188

156

16/09/2016 bikubiye mu gitabo yise “imbonerahamwe igaragaza inyemezabuguzi n’ibimenyetso by’ibyakozwe na kakoza nkuriza charles mu gutangiza radio 1“, bitagaragaza ko nawe yishyuye imigabane ye yose yari yemeye, ngo abe yapfa kubyuririraho avuga ko ariwe ufite uburenganzira bwo kuguma muri sosiyete, usibye ko, nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, n’iyo azakuba yarishyuye imigabane ye yose, bitari kubuza Nyagatare kuguma kuba umunyabigabane muri Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd. [16] Urukiko rurasanga, na none, impande zombi zaragiye zikora amakosa mu ishingwa ry’iyi sosiyete nk’aho ubwabo, mu ngingo ya 6 ya ‟Memorandum and Articles of Association” yo ku wa 29/05/2011, Kakoza na Nyagatare basinyiye ko imigabane yose yishyuwe, buri wese ngo akaba yishyuye 35 000 000 Frw, kandi atari ko byagenze, Kakoza rero akaba atakwirengagiza uko ibintu byagenze igihe yagiranaga amasezerano yo gufatanya na Nyagatare nk’abanyamigabane ba Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd, ngo abe yasubira inyuma avuga ko Nyagatare atakiri umunyamigabane. [17] Hashingiwe ku ngingo z’amategeko, inyandiko z’abahanga byavuzwe haruguru ndetse no ku bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, Urukiko rurasanga Nyagatare Jean Luc ari umunyamigabane wa Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd, bityo ibyo Kakoza Nkuriza Charles avuga ko Nyagatare atakiri umunyamigabane wa Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd akaba nta shingiro bifite. 2. Kumenya niba icyemezo cyo kwirukana Nyagatare muri Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd cyarafashwe na Kakoza mu buryo bukurikije amategeko [18] Kakoza Nkuriza Charles avuga ko abona yari afite uburenganzira bwo kwirukana Nyagatare Jean Luc ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 189

157

nk’umunyamigabane wa Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd kubera ko atubahirije amasezerano bagiranye bashinga sosiyete. [19] Me Mubangizi Frank na Me Gakuba Shema, bunganira Kakoza Nkuriza Charles, bavuga ko kuba Kakoza yarafashe icyemezo cyo kwirukana Nyagatare Jean Luc muri Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd nta mategeko yishe kuko ntabundi buryo babona yari gukoresha. [20] Me Safari Kizito, wunganira Nyagatare Jean Luc, avuga ko hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 134 y’Itegeko nº 07/2009 ryo ku wa 27/04/2009 ryerekeye amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi, nta munyamigabane ufite uburenganzira bwo kwirukana undi munyamigabane. Avuga kandi ko ingingo ya 31 ya ‟Memorandum and Articles of Association” iteganya uburyo hakemurwa ikibazo kivutse, akaba abona ibyo Kakoza yakoze ari amakosa, kuko nta burenganzira yari afite bwo kwirukana umunyamigabane mugenzi we. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [21] Ingingo ya 134 y’Itegeko ryo ku wa 27/04/2009 ryerekeye amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi7 ryakurikizwaga ubwo Kakoza yafataga icyemezo cyo kwirukana Nyagatare iteganya ko: ‟Isosiyete ishobora gufata uyifitemo imigabane nk‘aho ari we muntu wenyine ufite ububasha bwo: 1° gukoresha uburenganz ira bwo gutora bushingiye kuri uwo mugabane; 2° kwakira amabaruwa n’izindi ny andiko; 3° kugira uruhare muigabana

8 Uburenganzira rusange bw’ibanze bujyanye n’imigabane buteganyijwe na none mu ngingo ya 88 y’Itegeko N°27/2017 ryo ku wa 31/05/2017 rigenga am asosiyete y’ubucuruzi. KAKOZA v NYAGATARE

## Page 190

158

riturutse ku mugabane; 4° kugira ubundi bur enganzira n’ububasha bituruka ku mugabane”. [22] Ingingo ya 140 y’Itegeko nº 07/2009 ryo ku wa 27/04/2009 rimaze kuvugwa haruguru8 iteganya ko: ‟Ububasha abanyamigabane bagenerwa bukoreshwa: 1° mu nama y’abanyamigabane b’isosiyete; 2° hakoreshejwe umwanzuro nsimburanama wafashwe n’abanyamigabane; 3° ku cyemezo cyumvikanw eho na bose; 4° ku masezerano rusange y’abanyamigabane”. [23] Abahanga S.N. Maheshwari na S.K. Maheshwari bavuga ko umunyamigabane afite uburenganzira bwo guhabwa icyemezo cy’imigabane, kwandikwa mu gitabo cy’abanyamigabane, guhererekanya imigabane, kumenyeshwa amakuru arebana na sosiyete no kwitabira inama, gutora no kugenzura ibitabo, guhabwa n’imigabane ikwiye (...), gusezerera ku mirimo abayobozi (directors), (...)9. [24] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza ko ku wa 02/08/2012, Kakoza Nkuriza Charles, nk’Umuyobozi wa Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd yandikiye Nyagatare Jean Luc, amumenyesha ko atakiri

9 Ibiteganyijwe muri Iyi ingingo bigaragara mu ngingo ya 100 y’ Itegeko N°27/2017 ryo ku wa 31/05/2017 rigenga amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi. 10 Members of a company have a right to obtain certificate of shares, to get the name entered in the Register of Members, to transfer shares, to receive notices and to attend meeting, to vote and inspect registers, to get right shares, to elect directors and appoint auditors, to declare dividends, to receive statutory report, annual accounts, notice for special resolutions, to demand for investigation, to remove directors, to approach court for the prevention of oppression and mismanagement, to apply for winding up and to share in surplus assets, etc (S.N. MAHESHWARI na S.K. MAHESHWARI, op.cit., p. 5.106 ). ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 191

159

umunyamigabane wa Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd kuko atarangije kwishyura imigabane ye yose nk’uko “Memorandum and Articles of Association” ibiteganya, bityo amusaba gutanga nimero ya konti ye kugira ngo ishyirweho 9.000.000Frw yari amaze gutanga, ibi bikaba ari byo byatumye Nyagatare Jean Luc arega asaba ko icyo cyemezo cyo kumwirukana cyavanwaho kubera ko cyafashwe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko, anasaba ko Kakoza Nkuriza Charles yavanwa ku buyobozi bw’iyo radiyo, ndetse nawe akagaragaza aho yishyuriye imigabane ye, kandi hagakorwa igenzura (audit) ryerekana uko umutungo wakoreshejwe. [25] Ingingo ya 31 ya ‟Memorandum and Articles of Association” yo ku wa 29/05/2011 yavuzwe haruguru iteganya ko impaka zose zirebana na sosiyete zibanza gusuzumwa n’inama rusange y’abanyamigabane, zaba zidakemutse zigashyikirizwa umukemurampaka impande zombi zumvikanyeho, byananirana zigashyikirizwa inkiko zo mu Rwanda zibifitiye ububasha1110. [26] Ku byerekeranye no kumenya niba Kakoza Nkuriza Charles,nk’umunyamigabane, yari afite uburenganzira bwo kwirukana Nyagatare Jean Luc nawe w’umunyamigabane ku mpamvu zavuzwe haruguru, hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 140 y’Itegeko nº 07/2009 ryo ku wa 27/04/2009 ryavuzwe haruguru,Urukiko rurasanga, nta na bumwe mu buryo

11 All disputes involving the company shall first be brought to the attention of the General Meeting. When the General Meeting fails to resolve the dispute, it shall be referred to an arbitrator agreed upon by both parties. When the dispute remains unresolved it shall be taken to the Rwandan competent court of law.

KAKOZA v NYAGATARE

## Page 192

160

buteganywa n’iyi ngingo y’Itegeko bwaba bwarakoreshejwe na Kakoza mu kwirukana Nyagatare muri Radio 1Rwanda Ltd. Rurasanga, na none, nta hantu na hamwe ingingo ya 134 y’Itegeko rimaze kuvugwa iha umunyamigabane uburenganzira bwo kwirukana umunyamigabane mugenzi we, ko ahubwo ubwo bubasha bufitwe n’Inteko Rusange y’abanyamigabane. Rurasanga ibyo Kakoza avuga ko nta bundi buryo bwari busigaye kuko inteko rusange itashoboraga guterana bitahabwa agaciro kuko ingingo 31 ya ‟Memorandum and Articles of Association” yo ku wa 29/05/2011 iteganya ko iyo bidashobotse ko ikibazo gikemurwa n‘Inteko Rusange y’abanyamigabane, icyo kibazo gishyikirizwa ubukemurampaka, bitashoboka hakiyambazwa inkiko zo mu Rwanda zibifitiye ububasha. [27] Hashingiwe ku ngingo z’itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru, ku masezerano impande zombi zagiranye no ku bitekerezo by’abahanga, Urukiko rurasanga icyemezo cya Kakoza cyo kwirukana Nyagatare muri Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd cyarafashwe mu buryo butubahirije amategeko, bityo Nyagatare akaba agomba kugumana uburenganzira bwe bwo kuba umunyamigabane muri Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd. 3. Kumenya niba hari indishyi zatangwa muri uru rubanza [28] Kakoza Nkuriza Charles n’abamwunganira bavuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwategetse Kakoza guha Nyagatare indishyi zo gukurikirana urubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka zingana na 1.500. 000Frw kandi ntazo akwiye kuko nawe azi neza ko bitari ngombwa ko arega kuko iyo aza kubahiriza ibyo basezeranye agura imigabane nta manza ziba zarabayeho. Bakomeza bavuga ko bashingiye ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 258 y’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano, Nyagatare Jean Luc akwiye guha Kakoza ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 193

161

indishyi zingana na 4.000.000 Frw kubera gukomeza kumushora mu manza bitari ngombwa. Basoza basaba Nyagatare kumuha 1.500.000Frw y’igihembo kuri buri Avoka wamuburaniye, kuri bombi akaba 3.000.000Frw. [29] Nyagatare Jean Luc n’umwunganira, bavuga ko indishyi zingana na 1.500. 000Frw zo gukurikirana urubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka Kakoza yategetswe gutanga zifite ishingiro kuko Nyagatare ariwe watsinze urubanza kandi ko hari amafaranga yakoresheje akurikirana urubanza anakubiyemo ay’igihembo cya Avoka. Basaba Urukiko gutegeka Kakoza gutanga 4.000.000 Frw y ‘igihembo cya Avoka kuri uru rwego yiyongera ku yo Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwategetse na 15.000.000 Frw kubera akababaro Nyagatare yatejwe no kwamburwa uburenganzira bwo kuba umunyamigabane muri Radio One Rwanda Ltd. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [30] Ku byerekeranye n’amafaranga y’indishyi zo gushorwa mu manza zingana na 4.000.000 Frw, ndetse na 3.000.000 Frw y’ibihembo by’aba Avoka, asabwa na Kakoza, Urukiko rurasanga nta shingiro ryayo kuko Nyagatare Jean Luc yaje muri uru rubanza kubera amakosa ya Kakoza Nkuriza Charles, uyu akaba anatsinzwe n’uru rubanza. [31] Ku byerekeranye n’indishyi zingana na 1.500.000Frw zo gukurikirana urubanza n’igihembo cy’Avoka Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwategetse Kakoza guha Nyagatare, Urukiko rurasanga zifite ishingiro kuko Nyagatare ariwe watsinze urubanza kandi ko hari amafaranga yakoresheje akurikirana urubanza anakubiyemo ayo guhemba Avoka muri urwo rwego, KAKOZA v NYAGATARE

## Page 194

162

uru Rukiko rukaba rusanga izo ndishyi yagenewe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ziri mu kigero gikwiye, bityo zikaba zigomba kugumaho. [32] Ku bijyanye n’amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka, Urukiko rurasanga kuba ubujurire bwa Kakoza Nkuriza Charles nta shingiro bufite, bikaba bigaragara ko Nyagatare Jean Luc warezwe yagombye gukomeza kwiyambaza umuburanira kuri uru rwego, byumvikana ko hari amafaranga yatakaje yishyura uwamuburaniye;ariko kubera ko 4.000.000 Frw asaba ari ikirenga kandi akaba nta bimenyetso ayatangira, mu bushishozi barwo, rurasanga akwiye guhabwa 1.000.000 Frw yiyongera kuri 1.500.000 Frw yagenewe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, bityo ku nzego zombi akaba 2.500.000 Frw. [33] Ku byerekeranye na 15.000.000 Frw Nyagatare Jean Luc asaba kubera akababaro yatejwe no kwamburwa uburenganzira bugenerwa umunyamigabanemuri Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd, Urukiko rurasanga, nk’uko urubanza rujuririrwa rubigaragaza (mu gika cya 30), izo ndishyi yari yarazisabye, ariko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ntirwazimugenera kubera ko atigeze azisobanura ngo anagaragaze aho zishingiye. Kuba rero, no muri ubu bujurire adasobanura ako kababaro yagize, uretse kuvuga gusa ko yagatejwe no kwamburwa uburenganzira bugenerwa umunyamigabane, ibyo byumvikana ko uru Rukiko narwo ntaho rwahera rusuzuma niba izo ndishyi yasabye zifite ishingiro. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [34] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Kakoza Nkuriza Charles nta shingiro bufite; ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 195

163

[35] Rwemeje ko imikirize y’urubanza RCOMA 0071/13/HCC rwaciwe n’UrukikoRukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ku wa 05/12/2014 idahindutse, uretse ku mafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka Nyagatare Jean Luc agenewe kuri uru rwego; [36] Rutegetse Kakoza Nkuriza Charles guha Nyagatare Jean Luc 1.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka kuri uru rwego yiyongera kuri 1.500.000 yari yagenewe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, yose hamwe akaba 2.500.000 Frw. [37] Rutegetse ko ingwate y’amagarama yatanzwe na Kakoza Nkuriza Charles ihwanye n’ibyakozwe mu rubanza.

KAKOZA v NYAGATARE

## Page 196

164

## Page 197

165

URUBANZA RW’INSHINJABYAHA

## Page 198

166

## Page 199

167

UBUSHINJACYAHA v BEZA N’UNDI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/INJUST/RP 00008/2018/SC (Ntezilyayo, P.J., Mukamulisa, Hitiyaremye, Nyirinkwaya na Rukundakuvuga, J.) 28 Gashyantare 2020] Amategeko mpanabyaha – Icyaha cyo gukora no gukoresha inyandikompimbano – Ku cyaha cy’ inyandikompimbano, nta mugambi w’uburiganya (intention frauduleuse) wabaho mu gihe hatagaragara icyo ubwo buriganya bwamarira ubukora, ni ngombwa ko mu gukora inyandiko itavugisha ukuri bigomba kuba bigamije uburiganya. Amategeko mpanabyaha – Icyaha cyo kugurisha ikintu cy’undi – Ubutumwa bwo guhagararira undi(procuration) – Ku byerekeye icyaha cyo kugurisha ikintu cy’undi, iki cyaha ntigishoboka ku muntu wahawe ubutumwa busesuye bwo guhagarararira undi muri byose. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge Ubushinjacyaha burega abitwa Uwamahoro, Niyitegeka na Beza ibyaha byo gukora no gukoresha inyandiko mpimbano no kugurisha ikintu cy’undi, uru rubanza rukaba rwarabayeho nyuma yuko uwitwa Mukarugwiza yahaye Uwamahoro ububasha busesuye bwo gukurikirana imitungo ye yose no kumuhagararira muri byose igihe adahari nk’uko bigaragazwa n’inyandiko (procuration) yo ku wa 05/02/2008. Yifashishije ubwo bubasha, Uwamahoro yagurishije Beza na Niyitegeka imodoka za Mukarugwiza, bagirana amasezerano y’ubugure ariko mu kuyandika, hamwe (ku bireba amasezerano yagiranye na Beza) akagaragara nk’aho ari Mukarugwiza ariko akamusinyira, ku yandi (ku bireba 167

## Page 200

168

amasezerano yagiranye na Niyitegeka) akayagaragaraho nk’aho ari we nyir’imodoka. Kubera iyo myandikire y’amasezerano, Ubushinjacyaha bwabareze bose gukora no gukoresha inyandikompimbano (inyandiko itavugisha ukuri), ariko Uwamahoro we anaregwa icyaha cyo kugurisha ikintu cy’undi, Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko badahamwa n’icyaha. Ubushinjacyaha bwajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru, maze urwo Rukiko rwemeza ko amasezerano avugwa mu rubanza ubwayo agize inyandiko mpimbano, ruhamya Niyitegeka, Beza na Uwamahoro ubufatanyacyaha mu gukora no gukoresha inyandiko mpimbano ndetse ruhamya Uwamahoro ikindi cyaha cyo kugurisha ikintu cy’undi ruhanisha Niyitegeka na Beza buri wese igifungo cy’imyaka ibiri (2), naho Uwamahoro Alphonsine ahanishwa igifungo cy’imyaka itandatu (6). Beza na Niyitegeka basabye ko urwo rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, maze ruburanishwa n’Urukiko Rw’Ikirenga, Uru rukiko rwasuzumye iby’ako karengane rubifataho icyemezo ariko runasuzuma n’ibyo Uwamahoro aregwa n’ubwo nta kirego yari yatanze kandi akaba atarabonetse mu iburanisha, hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 63 y’itegeko rigena ububasha bw’inkiko. Ku byerekeye icyaha cy’inyandikompimbano, impaka zashingiye ku kumenya niba hari umugambi wo gukora icyaha abaregwa bagize. Mu rubanza mu Rukiko Rw’ikirenga Abaregwa (Beza na Niyitegeka) n’ubwo badahakana ko basinye ku masezerano y’ubugure n’uwiyita nyir’ibintu (Uwamahoro) kandi babona neza ko atariwe, bashimangira ko uwo baguze yari afite ububasha busesuye kandi bakagaragaza ko ubwishyu batanze bwageze kuri nyir’ubwite (Mukarugwiza) ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 201

169

Ubushinjacyaha bwo bwemeza ko umugambi wo gukora icyaha wabo ugaragarira ku kuba barasinye inyandiko itavugisha ukuri babibona kandi babishaka. Buvuga kandi ko icyaha cyo gukora no gukoresha inyandiko mpimbano ari icyaha formelle, bityo akaba atari ngombwa kwita ku ngaruka (préjudice) cyateje n’ubwo zihari, kuko ibigize icyaha kuri bo ari ugusinya ku masezerano y’ubugure atavugisha ukuri, babizi kandi babishaka Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Ku cyaha cy’ inyandikompimbano, nta mugambi w’uburiganya (intention frauduleuse) wabaho mu gihe hatagaragara icyo ubwo buriganya bwamarira ubukora, ni ngombwa ko mu gukora inyandiko itavugisha ukuri bigomba kuba bigamije uburiganya, bityo abaregwa ntibahamwa n’icyo cyaha. 2. Ku muntu wahawe ubutumwa busesuye bwo guhagararira undi, ashobora kugaragara imbere y’abo bagirana amasezerano nk’aho ahagarariye uwamutumye (représentation parfaite) cyangwa akabagaragarira nk’aho ari we nyir’ubwite (représentation imparfaite), bityo ntabuzaga Uwamahoro kwandika amasezerano mu buryo yanditswemo kuko na byo byemewe. 3. Ku byerekeye icyaha cyo kugurisha ikintu cy’undi, iki cyaha ntigishoboka ku muntu wahawe ubutumwa busesuye bwo guhagarararira undi muri byose, bityo icyo cyaha ntigihama Uwamahoro. Ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane gifite ishingiro; Urubanza RPA00764/2016/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ruhindutse mu ngingo zarwo zose; Abaregwa ni abere. UBUSHINJACYAHA v BEZA N’UNDI

## Page 202

170

Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nº68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, ingingo ya 276. Itegeko N°30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, ingingo ya 63. Itegeko Ngenga N° 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 614. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Inyandiko z’abahanga: Bull.crim. 11 dec.1974, 366 cités par Michelle Laure Rassat, Droit Pénal Spécial, 7 ème éd. 2014, p. 1181, N°1087. Jean Pradel & Michel Danti-Juan, Droit Pénal Spécial, Droit Commun des affaires, CUJAS, 4ème éd. 2007/2008, P.750, N° 1223. UNODC Sherloc, des crimes et délits contre la foi publique, https://sherloc.unodc.org/res/cld/document/lux/2014/cri minal_code_of_luxembourg_html/cp_L2T03.pdf Nicolas Dissaux, La représentation: notion, in Dalloz, blog dédié à la réforme du Droit des obligations, accessible à http://reforme-obligations.dalloz.fr/2015/04/29/la- representation-notion/ Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Beza Kevin yaguze imodoka yo mu bwoko bwa Toyota Carina E ifite plaque RAB 187 K, Chassi SB 153 BK00E034920, ayigura ku mafaranga miliyoni eshanu n’ibihumbi magana atanu ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 203

171

(5.500.000 frw) nk’uko bigaragara mu masezerano y’ubugure yo ku wa 31/12/2009, yishyuye iyo modoka anyujije amafaranga kuri konti nº 409-1017206-11 yo muri Banki y’Abaturage y’u Rwanda yanditse ku mazina ya Mukarugwiza Janvière ari nawe nyir’iyo modoka. Ku wa 21/12/2009, Niyitegeka Emmanuel nawe yaguze imodoka yo mu bwoko bwa Toyota Carina E ifite plaque RAB 174 S, ayigura ku mafaranga miliyoni enye n’ibihumbi magana atandatu (4.600.000 frw). Izo modoka bombi bazigurishijwe na Uwamahoro Alphonsine wari ufite inyandiko imuhesha ububasha busesuye bwo gukurikirana imitungo ya Mukarugwiza Janvière yose no kumuhagararira muri byose igihe adahari nk’uko bigaragazwa n’inyandiko (procuration) yo ku wa 05/02/2008. [2] Mu mwaka wa 2016, mu rubanza RP00272/2016/TGI/NYGE Ubushinjacyaha bwareze Uwamahoro Alphonsine, Niyitegeka Emmanuel na Beza Kevin ibyaha byo gukora no gukoresha inyandiko mpimbano no kugurisha ikintu cy’undi mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge bushingiye ku masezerano y’ubugure bw’imodoka zavuzwe mu gika kibanziriza iki yitiriwe Mukarugwiza Janvière kandi yarasinywe na Uwamahoro Alphonsine; uyu akabikora nk’aho ari Mukarugwiza Janvière ubwe uyasinyeho kandi adahari. [3] Niyitegeka Emmanuel na Beza Kevin baburanye bahakana icyaha, maze ku wa 20/09/2016, Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, nyuma yo gusesengura ibimenyetso by’Ubushinjacyaha n’imyiregurire yabo, rwemeza ko ari abere ku icyaha cyo gukora no gukoresha inyandiko mpimbano ndetse no ku cyaha cyo kugurisha icy’undi barezwe, kuko rwemeje ko procuration Mukarugwiza Janvière yasigiye Uwamahoro UBUSHINJACYAHA v BEZA N’UNDI

## Page 204

172

Alphonsine mu gihe yamusigaga mu bucuruzi bwe, nta kigaragaza ko ari impimbano, ndetse biba uko no kuri Uwamahoro Alphonsine wari waburanishijwe adahari. [4] Ubushinjacyaha ntibwishimiye iyo mikirize, bujuririra urwo rubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru, ikirego cyandikwa kuri RPA00764/2016/HC/KIG. Ubushinjacyaha, mu myanzuro yabwo ndetse no mu miburanire, bugaragaza ko bunenga uburyo abaregwa bagizwe abere hashingiwe ku kuba nta kigaragaza ko procuration Mukarugwiza Janvière yasigiye Uwamahoro Alphonsine ari impimbano, kandi mu by’ukuri inyandiko mpimbano baregwa ari amasezerano yakozwe hagati ya Niyitegeka Emmanuel na Uwamahoro Alphonsine, n’ayakozwe hagati ya Beza Kevin na Uwamahoro Alphonsine; busaba ko ibyo byakosorwa. [5] Mu Rukiko Rukuru, Niyitegeka Emmanuel na Beza Kevin baburanye bemera ko ayo masezerano yabayeho koko. Niyitegeka Emmanuel anemera ko mu masezerano yagiranye na Uwamahoro Alphonsine bagura imodoka, Uwamahoro Alphonsine yiyanditse nka nyir’imodoka, aranabisinyira, avuga ko yari azi ndetse ko iyo modoka atari iya Uwamahoro Alphonsine, ko ahubwo yari iya Mukarugwiza; ko ariko ashingiye kuri procuration (Uwamahoro Alphonsine) yari afite, yemeye kugura nawe. Beza Kevin nawe yemera ko yaguze imodoka na Uwamahoro Alphonsine abizi neza ko ari iya Mukarugwiza Janvière, ariko ko yemeye kuyigura kubera ko yari yamubonanye procuration imwemerera kumuhagararira mu bikorwa bye. Yemera kandi ko yamenye ko Uwamahoro Alphonsine yashyize umukono we mu mwanya wa Mukarugwiza Janvière nk’ugurisha, ariko ko kugira ngo banki yemere kumuha inguzanyo yo kugura iyo modoka, ayo masezerano yari ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 205

173

ngombwa. Uwamahoro Alphonsine we yaburanishijwe adahari nyuma yo kubura aho yabarizwaga no guhamagazwa ahatazwi nk’uko amategeko abiteganya. [6] Ku wa 13/07/2017, Urukiko Rukuru, mu rubanza nº RPA 00764/2016/HC/KIG, rushingiye ku kuba:  harabayeho gushyira umukono utari wo ku nyandiko ndetse no guhimba amasezerano muri rusange;  harabayeho gukoresha ayo masezerano bagamije kubona uburenganzira ku nguzanyo muri banki, kandi ibyo bikaba byaravukije Mukarugwiza Janvière uburenganzira bwe ku mutungo; Rwemeje ko ayo masezerano ubwayo agize inyandiko mpimbano. Niyitegeka Emmanuel, Beza Kevin na Uwamahoro Alphonsine bahamwe n’ubufatanyacyaha mu gukora no gukoresha inyandiko mpimbano ndetse Uwamahoro Alphonsine akaba ahamwa n’ikindi cyaha cyo kugurisha ikintu cy’undi ; maze : ruhanisha Niyitegeka Emmanuel na Beza Kevin buri wese igifungo cy’imyaka ibiri (2), naho Uwamahoro Alphonsine ahanishwa igifungo cy’imyaka itandatu (6); rutegeka ko imodoka Toyota Carina E ifite plaque RAB 174 S na Toyota Carina E ifite plaque RAB 187 K bisubizwa nyira byo Mukarugwiza Janvière. [7] Beza Kevin na Niyitegeka Emmanuel ntibishimiye iyo mikirize y'urubanza, bandikira Urwego rw’Umuvunyi basaba ko urwo rubanza rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z'akarengane. [8] Nyuma yo kubigenzura, Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rwandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusaba ko urubanza RPA 00764/2016/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa UBUSHINJACYAHA v BEZA N’UNDI

## Page 206

174

13/07/2017 rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, maze Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ashingiye kuri raporo y’Ubugenzuzi Bukuru bw’Inkiko yemeza ko urwo rubanza rusubirwamo; rwandikwa kuri Nº RS/INJUST/RP 00008/2018/SC. [9] Ku wa 06/02/2020 urubanza rwarahamagawe, Niyitegeka Emmanuel na Beza Kevin bitaba bunganiwe na Me Gashagaza Philbert, Uwamahoro Alphonsine ntiyitaba kandi yarahamagajwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, naho Ubushinjacyaha Bukuru bwitaba buhagarariwe na Niyonzima Vincent, urubanza ruraburanishwa. [10] Nk’uko babisobanuye mu myanzuro no mu miburanire yabo, Niyitegeka Emmanuel na Beza Kevin bavuga ko akarengane kabo gashingiye ku ngingo zikurikira:  kuba mu guca urubanza Urukiko rwarashingiye ku myandikire y’amasezerano gusa rukirengagiza ko Uwamahoro Alphonsine yari afite iheshabubasha (procuration) yari yaratanzwe na nyir’imodoka imwemerera uburenganzira busesuye harimo no kugurisha imodoka baguze  kuba Mukarugwiza Janvière yarakiriye amafaranga y’ikiguzi cy’imodoka zari zicunzwe na Uwamahoro Alphonsine, bivuze ko yari azi ibyakozwe kandi yemeye ubugure bwazo. [11] Me Gashagaza Philbert avuga ko abo yunganira, Niyitegeka Emmanuel na Beza Kevin, nta mugambi wo gukora icyaha cyo gukora no gukoresha inyandiko mpimbano bari bafite (élément intentionnel) kandi ko iyo umuntu atagambiriye gukora nabi bidafatwa nko gukora icyaha. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 207

175

[12] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko ikibazo kitari ku iheshabubasha (procuration) ko ahubwo kiri ku miterere y’amasezerano y’ubugure basinye nk’aho akozwe na nyirayo bazi ko atari ukuri, ntawe ubibahatiye, bafite ubwenge bwose; bivuze neza ko bari bazi neza ibyo bakora n’icyo bigamije kandi ko igikorwa ubwacyo cyo gukorana amasezerano n’utari nyir’ubwite ku buryo kuri yo hagaragara amazina ye n’umukono we (sa signature) kandi atari ahari akorwa, byihagije kugira ngo habeho icyaha. [13] Urukiko rurasanga ikibazo gikwiye gusuzumwa muri uru rubanza ari ukumenya niba hari umugambi wo gukora icyaha cyo gukora no gukoresha inyandiko mpimbano mu ikorwa ry’amasezerano hagati ya Beza Kevin, Niyitegeka Emmanuel na Uwamahoro Alphonsine. II. ISESENGURA RY’IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA Kumenya niba hari umugambi wo gukora icyaha cyo « gukora no gukoresha inyandikompimbano » mu ikorwa ry’amasezerano hagati ya Beza Kevin, Niyitegeka Emmanuel na Uwamahoro Alphonsine. [14] Me Gashagaza Philbert avuga ko, mu kwemeza ko Beza Kevin na Niyitegeka Emmanuel bahamwa n’icyaha cyo gukora no gukoresha inyandiko mpimbano kuko bari bazi ko imodoka bagiye kugura ari iza Mukarugwiza Janvière n’ubwo yanditswe akanasinywaho na Uwamahoro Alphonsine nk’aho ari we Mukarugwiza Janvière, kandi n’abo yunganira bakayashyiraho umukono, Urukiko Rukuru rutasesenguye neza uko ibintu byagenze. Avuga ko kuba Uwamahoro Alphonsine yaritwaye UBUSHINJACYAHA v BEZA N’UNDI

## Page 208

176

atyo aho kwandika ko ahagarariye Mukarugwiza Janvière, ibyo ari we byagomba kubazwa; bikaba bidakwiye kuryozwa Beza Kevin na Niyitegeka Emmanuel kuko baguze bamaze kugaragarizwa na Uwamahoro Alphonsine iheshabubasha (procuration) yo ku wa 05/02/2008 ndetse n’amasezerano y’akazi ko gucururiza Mukarugwiza Janvière ibicuruzwa bindi binyuranye nk’uko bikubiye mu masezerano yo ku wa 10/01/2007. [15] Me Gashagaza Philbert avuga ko Beza Kevin kimwe na Niyitegeka Emmanuel nta mugambi wo gukora icyaha cy’inyandiko mpimbano bigeze bagira, ibyo bikaba binashimangirwa no kuba mu kwishyura amafaranga y’ikiguzi cy’imodoka hashingiwe kuri ayo masezerano Beza Kevin yayashyize kuri konti nomero 409-1017206-11 iri muri Banki y’Abaturange y’u Rwanda ifunguye mu mazina ya Mukarugwiza Janvière; naho Niyitegeka Emmanuel akaba yarayishyuye kashi (mu ntoki) kandi Mukarugwiza Janvière akaba atarahakanye ko ayo mafaranga yayabonye. [16] Me Gashagaza Philbert avuga ko kuba abaguze bari bazi neza ko amafaranga batanze agera kuri nyir’umutungo byarabongereye icyizere ko ibyo bakora bitanyuranyije n’amategeko, anongeraho ko nta ngaruka mbi ayo masezerano yagize k’uwo ari we wese kuko baguze imodoka kandi ikiguzi cyayo kikishyurwa nyirayo, ari we Mukarugwiza Janvière. [17] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko Beza Kevin na Niyitegeka Emmanuel bari afite umugambi wo gukora no gukoresha inyandiko mpimbano kuko nk’uko imiterere y’amasezerano y’ubugure basinye ibigaragaza, ayo masezerano yanditse nk’aho akozwe na nyirayo, bityo Ubushinjacyaha bukaba busanga ayo masezerano ari inyandiko itavugisha ukuri nyamara Beza Kevin ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 209

177

kimwe na Niyitegeka Emmanuel bakaba yarayisinyeho kandi bazi neza ko ibiyivugwamo atari ukuri. [18] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko ibimenyetso bireguza ntacyo bikemura ku kibazo cyo kuba barasinye ku nyandiko itavugisha ukuri kandi babizi neza:  Kuba Beza Kevin yarashyize amafaranga kuri konti ya Mukarugwiza Janvière byabaye nyuma, icyaha cyo gukora inyandiko itavugisha ukuri cyamaze kuba;  Kuba Uwamahoro Alphonsine yari afite procuration n’amasezerano y’akazi hagati ye na Mukarugwiza Janvière si cyo kibazo kuko ubwabyo bidasobanura impamvu Beza Kevin na Niyitegeka Emmanuel basinye ku nyandiko itavugisha ukuri kandi babibona;  Kuba Mukarugwiza yarajyaga aza kenshi mu gihugu ariko akaba ataratanze ikirego ngo akaba yaragitanze ari uko Uwamahoro Alphonsine agiye, uretse ko atari ukuri kuko yatangiye gukurikirana ikibazo kuva muri 2012, ariko nabyo ubwabyo ntacyo byabarengeraho kuko bidahinyuza ibyo kuba barasinye ku masezerano atavugisha ukuri kandi babizi. [19] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko icyaha cyo gukora no gukoresha inyandiko mpimbano ari icyaha formelle, bityo akaba atari ngombwa kwita ku ngaruka (préjudice) cyateje n’ubwo zihari, kuko ibigize icyaha kuri bo ari ugusinya ku masezerano y’ubugure atavugisha ukuri, babizi kandi babishaka. UBUSHINJACYAHA v BEZA N’UNDI

## Page 210

178

[20] Ubushinjacyaha busoza buvuga ko icyaha cyo gukoresha inyandiko itavugisha ukuri (usage de faux intellectuel) nacyo cyagezweho kuko ayo masezerano yashingiweho Beza Kevin agasaba inguzanyo muri Banki ndetse bombi bagakorerwa mutation, imodoka ikava ku mazina ya nyirayo Mukarugwiza Janvière ikandikwa ku mazina yabo. [21] Urukiko rurasanga ipfundo ry’ikibazo ari uko abaregwa n’ubunganira, Me Gashagaza Philbert, bumva ko kugira ngo umugambi wo gukora icyaha cy’inyandiko itavugisha ukuri (faux intellectuel) ube wuzuye ku buryo urema icyaha ari uko ikigenderewe mu gukora iyo nyandiko kiba ari ikintu kibujijwe n’amategeko (intention frauduleuse) mu gihe Ubushinjacyaha bwo bwumva umugambi wo gukora icyaha uba wuzuye igihe umuntu asinye ku nyandiko itavugisha ukuri abizi kandi abishaka. [22] Icyaha cy’inyandiko itavugisha ukuri ntigisobanurwa mu buryo bwihariye n’amategeko ateganya ibyaha n’ibihano mu Rwanda. Gishakishirizwa ahubwo mu bisobanuro bihabwa icyaha cyo gukora no gukoresha inyandiko mpimbano muri rusange. Itegeko-Teka rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana mu Rwanda ryakoreshwaga ubwo iki cyaha cyakorwaga mu mwaka wa 2009, mu ngingo yaryo ya 202, ryahanaga umuntu uhimba amasezerano cyangwa imiterere ya zimwe mu ngingo zayo, ushyiramo cyangwa ukuramo zimwe mu nshingano ziyagize; mu gihe ubu, ibyo bihanwa n’Itegeko nº68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, mu ngingo yaryo ya 276 aho rigira riti « Umuntu wese, ku bw’uburiganya, wandika, wandikisha ibintu bidahuye n’ukuri cyangwa ukora imenyekanisha ritari ryo afatwa nk’uwakoze icyaha cyo gukora ibihimbano ». Iyi ngingo isimbura iya 614 y’Itegeko Ngenga n° ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 211

179

01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, yahanaga Umuntu wese: 1° wandika abizi inyandiko ivuga ibintu uko bitari ; 2° uhindura ku buryo ubwo ari bwo bwose inyandiko yavugaga ukuri ; 3° ukoresha abizi, inyandiko itavugisha ukuri cyangwa yahinduwe. [23] Nk’uko biboneka, ku byerekeye umugambi wo gukora icyaha cy’inyandikompimbano, iyi ngingo ya 276 y’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange yateganyije ko uhanirwa icyaha cyo guhimba no gukoresha inyandiko itavugisha ukuri ari umuntu wese wabikoranye uburiganya1 mu gihe ibyo bitagaragaraga neza mu mategeko yaribanjirije. N’ubwo iri Tegeko atari ryo ryakoreshwaga ubwo abaregwa bakurikiranwaga nk’uko byasobanuwe, Urukiko rusanga iyi ngingo igomba kumvikana nk’isobanura ibitari byarasobanuwe mu ngingo ya 202 y’Itegeko-Teka ryavuzwe haruguru kuko icyaha nyirizina itagihinduye. [24] Ni byo koko hari abahanga mu mategeko bahamya ko umugambi wo gukora icyaha cy’inyandiko itavugisha ukuri uba wuzuye, igihe cyose ukora cyangwa uwagize uruhare ku nyandiko itavugisha ukuri aba yabikoze azi ko ibyanditswe mu nyandiko binyuranye n’ukuri hatitawe ku kumenya niba iyo nyandiko hari uwo igamije kugirira nabi cyangwa hari uwo yangirije.2 Abashyigikiye uyu murongo bavuga ko babishingira

1 Reba aho igira iti « umuntu wese ku bw’uburiganya… ». “Any person who, with fraudulent intention, produces a false written document, causes to write false statements or produces a conflicting declaration, is considered to commit the offence of forgery. 2 «…il est certain qu’une intention de nuire n’est plus requise pour justifier l’infraction que son absence serait de nature à justifier ». Bull.crim. 11 dec.1974, 366 cités par Michelle Laure Rassat, Droit Pénal Spécial, 7 ème éd. 2014, p. 1181, No1087. UBUSHINJACYAHA v BEZA N’UNDI

## Page 212

180

ku kuba inyandikompimbano ari icyaha gikorerwa rubanda kurusha uko kiba icyaha cyagira uwo cyangiriza ku giti cye, kandi kigahanwa kubera impamvu z’inyungu rusange kabone n’aho cyaba cyakozwe mu masezereno y’abantu ku giti cyabo3. Uyu murongo ni nawo Ubushinjacyaha bushyigikiye mu kwemeza ko inyandikompimbano ari infraction formelle, byumvikanisha ko kuba inyandiko itavugisha ukuri bigaragarira mu biyikubiyemo binyuranye n’ukuri, hatitawe ku kindi icyo aricyo cyose. [25] Urukiko rusanga ariko uyu murongo utemeranywaho na bose. Nk’urugero, Urukiko rusesa imanza rw’Ubufaransa rwemeje ko umuntu wiganye umukono (signature) w’undi yabyemeranyijeho na nyirawo nta cyaha yakoze4. Abashyigikiye uyu murongo bo bashingira ku kuba nta mugambi w’uburiganya (intention frauduleuse) wabaho mu gihe hatagaragara icyo ubwo buriganya bwamarira ubukora5. N’ubwo uyu murongo hari

3 « Même s’il est commis dans le document purement privé, le faux n’est pas une infraction commise entre particuliers dans le cadre de laquelle il serait logique d’exiger que le faussaire cause un préjudice à celui auquel le document pourrait être opposé, c’est une infraction contre la foi publique par laquelle on veut que la collectivité assure la sécurité juridique de ses membres ». voir Jean Pradel & Michel Danti-Juan, Droit Pénal Spécial, Droit Commun des affaires, CUJAS, 4ème éd. 2007/2008, P.750, No1223 4 Voir Crim.6nov.1989, Dr. Pénal 1990, No 85 cité par Michelle Laure Rassat, op.cit., p 1181, No1087 5 « L'intention frauduleuse se définit comme étant le dessein ou l'intention de se procurer ou de procurer à autrui un avantage illicite quelconque. … L'intention frauduleuse se restreint à la seule volonté d'introduire dans les relations juridiques un document que l'on sait inauthentique ou mensonger pour obtenir un avantage, même légitime en soi, que l'on n'aurait pas pu obtenir ou que l'on n'aurait obtenu que malaisément en respectant la vérité ou l'intégralité de l'écrit». Voir UNODC Sherloc, des crimes et délits contre la foi publique, ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 213

181

abawunenze6, uru rukiko rwemeranya na wo kuko narwo rusanga ari ngombwa ko mu gukora inyandiko itavugisha ukuri bigomba kuba bigamije uburiganya nk’uko byaje gusobanuka mu ngingo ya 276 y’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange rikurikizwa ubu. Urukiko rusanga kandi uburiganya mu gukora inyandiko itavugisha ukuri bugaragarira mu gukora inyandiko igamije guhesha umuntu inyungu/uburenganzira atashoboraga kubona mu buryo busanzwe; akaba yabibona gusa ari uko ahimbye iyo nyandiko. Mu yandi magambo, nta mugambi w’uburiganya uba uriho, mu gihe ibyanditswe ku nyandiko yitwa impimbano ntacyo byongerera cyangwa bigabanyiriza nyiri ukuyikora ugereranyije n’uko ubundi iyo nyandiko igomba kwandikwa kugira ngo igire agaciro. [26] Muri uru rubanza, Uwamahoro Alphonsine yahawe ubutumwa busesuye bwo guhagararira Mukarugwiza Janvière muri byose kandi ibyo ntibigibwaho impaka. Ni no muri urwo rwego yagurishije imodoka ze kandi amafaranga yageze kuri nyirayo. Beza Kevin yagaragaje ko amafaranga yayashyize kuri konti ya Mukarugwiza Janvière mu gihe Niyitegeka Emmanuel n’ubwo yishyuye kashi (mu ntoki) ntawe uhakana ko yageze kuri nyirayo. Mu masezerano yo kugura imodoka basinye na Uwamahoro Alphonsine, nibyo koko bigaragara nk’aho Uwamahoro Alphonsine ari we nyiri imodoka (ku bireba Niyitegeka Emmanuel) ahandi akagaragara nk’aho ari Mukarugwiza Janvière (ku bireba Beza Kevin). Ariko, n’iyo Uwamahoro Alphonsine abyandika uko ubusanzwe ubutumwa bwandikwa, ati « Njyewe Uwamahoro Alphonsine, uhagarariye Mukarugwiza Janvière… » ntacyo byari guhindura ku

https://sherloc.unodc.org/res/cld/document/lux/2014/criminal_code_of_luxe mbourg_html/cp_L2T03.pdf 6 Michelle Laure Rassat, op.cit. p.1181, No1087 UBUSHINJACYAHA v BEZA N’UNDI

## Page 214

182

masezerano y’ubugure yabaye kuko mu buryo bumwe cyangwa ubundi (kwandika amasezerano uko bayanditse cyangwa kuyandika uko ubusanzwe yandikwa), icyari kigamijwe kugerwaho (amasezerano y’ubugure bw’imodoka no kugeza ikiguzi cyayo kuri Mukarugwiza Janvière) cyashoboraga kugerwaho ku kigero kimwe. Urukiko rukaba rusanga rero nta buriganya ubwo aribwo bwose bwihishe inyuma yo kwandika ariya masezerano mu buryo bayanditse, haba kuri Beza Kevin, cyangwa kuri Niyitegeka Emmanuel, bityo bakaba badahamwa n’icyaha cyo gukora no gukoresha inyandikompimbano. [27] Ku bireba Uwamahoro Alphonsine, Urukiko rurasanga hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 63 y’Itegeko N°30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, n’ubwo iburanisha ryabaye adahari ngo yisobanure, rugomba gusuzuma ibyo aregwa, hagafatwa umwanzuro kuko na we ari umuburanyi.7 Mu masezerano aregwa nk’inyandikompimbano yagiranye na Beza Kevin, kimwe n’ayo yagiranye na Niyitegeka Emmanuel, urukiko rusanga nawe nta buriganya (intention frauduleuse) yayakoranye, kuko nk’uko byasobanuwe ku bandi, no kuri we, gusinya ariya masezerano mu buryo yayasinye nta nyungu/ uburenganzira bw’inyongera byari kumugirira ugereranyije n’ubwo yari kubona iyo ayandika agaragaza neza ko ahagarariye Mukarugwiza Janvière. Nk’uko bigaragara, icyari kigamijwe ni uko nyuma yo kugurisha izo modoka, ayo mafaranga ayageza kuri nyirayo, kandi ntawe uhakana ko yamugezeho ndetse ku

7 Iyo ngingo igira iti « Iyo Urukiko rw’Ikirenga cyangwa urundi rukiko Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga agena rushyikirijwe urubanza rusabirwa gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, rurusuzuma mu mizi bundi bushya abarubayemo ababuranyi bose bahamagajwe » ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 215

183

bireba Beza Kevin, bikaba binagaragaragara ko yagiye ayakoresha nk’uko historique ya compte ye ibigaragaza.8 [28] By’umwihariko ku bireba amasezerano Uwamahoro yasinyanye na Niyitegeka Emmanuel, Uwamahoro Alphonsine aregwa kuba ayagaragaraho nk’aho ariwe nyiri imodoka, akanasinyaho atyo. Urukiko rusanga ku muntu wahawe ubutumwa busesuye bwo guhagararira undi nk’ubwo Uwamahoro Alphonsine yari afite, ntacyamubuzaga kwandika amasezerano muri buriya buryo kuko na byo byemewe. Koko rero umuntu ufite ubutumwa bw’undi ashobora kugaragara imbere y’abo bagirana amasezerano nk’aho ahagarariye uwamutumye (représentation parfaite) cyangwa akabagaragarira nk’aho ari we nyir’ubwite (représentation imparfaite)9. Urukiko rukaba rusanga, uretse no kuba nta mugambi yagize wo gukora inyandiko itavugisha ukuri kuko nta buriganya bubyihishe inyuma nk’uko byasobanuwe mu gika kibanziriza iki, nta n’ubwo amasezerano yagiranye na Niyitegeka Emmanuel yakwitwa inyandiko mpimbano, kuko uburyo yanditse bitabujijwe nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru. [29] Urukiko rurasanga kandi ibyerekeye icyaha cyo kugurisha ikintu cy’undi na cyo kitamuhama kuko, nk’uko

8 Urugero ni amafaranga Mukarugwiza Janvière yakuye kuri iyo konti ku itariki enye z’ukwa mbere 2010 9 « Lorsque le représentant déclare agir pour le compte d’autrui mais contracte en son propre nom, il est personnellement engagé à l’égard du tiers contractant ». Où l’on en induit qu’un représentant, s’il agit toujours pour le compte d’autrui, le fait tantôt au nom d’autrui, tantôt en son nom propre. La doctrine évoque souvent cette distinction en opposant la représentation parfaite à la représentation imparfaite ». Voir Nicolas Dissaux, La représentation: notion, in Dalloz, blog dédié à la réforme du Droit des obligations, accessible à http://reforme-obligations.dalloz.fr/2015/04/29/la-representation-notion/ UBUSHINJACYAHA v BEZA N’UNDI

## Page 216

184

ubushinjacyaha bwabisobanuye, nta kibazo kiri kuri mandat général Uwamahoro yari yahawe na Mukarugwiza Janvière. Ni ukuvuga ko yari afite uburenganzira bwo kugurisha ikintu icyo aricyo cyose cya Mukarugwiza Janvière mu gihe atarengereye ubutumwa yahawe. Muri uru rubanza kandi, kurengera ububasha yahawe ntibyakumvikana kuko yari yahawe ubutumwa busesuye, butagira imbibi. Gukoresha nabi ubwo butumwa nabyo ntabyabaye kuko nk’uko byasobanuwe, amafaranga y’ikiguzi cy’imodoka yageze kuri nyirazo ndetse aranayakoresha. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [30] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyo gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane urubanza RPA 00764/2016/HC/KIG cyatanzwe na Beza Kévin na Niyitegeka Emmanuel gifite ishingiro; [31] Rwemeje ko imikirize y’urubanza RPA00764/2016/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru kuwa 13/07/2017 ihindutse mu ngingo zayo zose; [32] Rwemeje ko Beza Kevin, Niyitegeka Emmanuel na Uwamahoro Alphonsine badahamwa n’icyaha cyo gukora no gukoresha inyandikompimbano; [33] Rwemeje ko Uwamahoro Alphonsine adahamwa n’icyaha cyo kugurisha ikintu cy’undi.

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 217

RWANDA LAW REPORTS ENGLISH VERSION RWANDA LAW REPORTS ENGLISH VERSION

## Page 219

i TABLE OF CONTENTS

TEAM OF EDITORS ................................................................ iii I. LAW REPORTING TEAM ............................................. iii II. MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE ..................... v PREFACE ................................................................................. ix SCOPE OF THE REPORTS ..................................................... xi CITATION ................................................................................ xi LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ xiii LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED ............................................ xv SUBJECT INDEX .................................................................. xvii Re RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION ........................................ 1 Re BYANSI (ADD) ................................................................. 25 Re BYANSI (FOND) ............................................................... 37 WHITEFIELD INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v THOMAS ET PIRON GRANDS LACS ................................................... 63 VUNINGOMA ET AL. v RWANDA DEVOLPMENT BANK LTD (BRD) ET AL. ................................................................. 89 NICYABERA v. MUKAGATARE ....................................... 107 KAKOZA v NYAGATARE .................................................. 133 PROSECUTION v. BEZA ET AL. ........................................ 151 i

## Page 220

ii

## Page 221

iii TEAM OF EDITORS

I. LAW REPORTING TEAM

KAGABO U. Stephanie

KAVUTSE M. Claude

KUBWIMANA Jean Claude

MUJABI K. Naphtal

UWINKINDI Angelique

iii

## Page 222

iv

## Page 223

v II. MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE

Prof. Dr. NGAGI M. Alphonse : President of the Committee, Judge of the Court of Appeal

Dr. MUHIRE G. Yves : Vice President of the Committee, Lecturer in the School of Law/UR

NSENGIYUMVA Jean Claude : Secretary of the Committee, Inspector of Courts

RUKUNDAKUVUGA F. Regis : President of Court of Appeal

Dr. KARIMUNDA M. Aimé : Judge at Supreme Court

NDAHAYO Xavier : President of High Court

RUTAZANA Angeline : Inspector General of Courts

KALIWABO Charles : Judge of the Court of Appeal

Dr. KAYIHURA Didas :

BURAYOBERA UMUZAYIRE : Bibiane

Rector of ILPD

Vice-Chairman of Rwanda Law Reform Commission BWIZA N. Blanche : Inspector of Courts

KIBUKA Jean Luc : Judge at Commercial High Court v

## Page 224

vi

HABARUREMA Jean Pierre : Prosecutor at National Level

BUNYOYE Grace : Prosecutor at National Level

KABIBI Specioza : State Attorney

MUREREREHE Saouda : Judge at High Court

Lt. Col. MADUDU A. Charles : Judge at Military Court

Dr. NSHIMIYIMANA Didace : Peresident of Intermediate Court GIRANEZA Clémentine :

TASHOBYA Benon :

Judge of the Intermediate Court

Judge of the Intermediate Court BAGABO Faustin :

GAPARAYI Idi :

Dr. SHEMA Pierre :

KARAKE Canisius :

HABIMANA Pie : Advocate at Rwanda Bar Association Lecturer at the University of Kigali Lecturer at ULK

Lecturer at UNILAK

Advocate at Rwanda RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 225

vii

RWIGEMA Royck :

YANKURIJE Dorothée : Bar Association Judge of Commercial Court

Judge of Primary Court

MULTI-INSTITUTION COMMITEE

## Page 226

viii

## Page 227

ix PREFACE Dear Readers, We are pleased to present to you the Law Reports Volume 3 [2022]. As usual, we select cases that solve some of the legal issues you encounter, either in your career or in your daily life. This volume contains eight (8) cases, which includes; one petitions (1) relating to the change of direction taken by courts, two (2) cases relating to the petition seeking to declare the law unconstitutional, one (1) civil case, one (1) commercial case, one (1) criminal case and two (2) procedural cases. These cases can be accessed on the website of the judiciary: http://decisia.lexum.com/rlr/en/nav.do. Dr NTEZILYAYO Faustin President of the Supreme Court and President of the High Council of Judiciary

ix

## Page 228

x

## Page 229

xi SCOPE OF THE REPORTS These reports cover cases decided by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal.

CITATION The Reports in this volume are cited as: [2022] 3 RLR

xi

## Page 230

xii

## Page 231

xiii LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED

a. Current laws The Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, article 95……………………………………………………...4 article 38…………………………………………………….27 articles 23, 38, 41 and 43………………………………….39 article 151…………………………………………………...67 International Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, article 19……………………………………………………………………...39 Law n° 058/2021 of 13/10/2021 relating to the protection of personal data and privacy, article 3………………………………39 Law nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general, article 276……………………………………………..153 Law no 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, articles 52, 65 and 73………………………………………..5 article 72…………………………………………………….27 article 52…………………………………………………………….92 article 63…………………………………………………...153 Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 132…………………………………………………….5 articles 70 and 71…………………………………………..27 articles 70 and 71…………………………………………..39 articles 9, 20, 142, 149, 172, 161, 168, 178,179, 181, 184, 192 and 243…………………………………………………67 xiii

## Page 232

xiv Law n°012/2018 of 04/04/2018 determining the organization and functioning of the Judiciary, article 50……………………………………………………...5 article 43…………………………………………………….67 Law nº 02/2015 of 25/02/2015 modifying and complementing Law n° 37/2012 of 09/11/2012 establishing the value added tax, article 1………………………………………………………………..5 Law n° 02/2013 of 08/02/2013 regulating media, article 3, 4 and 5……………………………………………………………………….27 Law n° 59/2008 Prevention and Punishment of Gender- Based Violence, article 39………………………………………………..110 Law nº 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 65……………………………………………..110 Instructions of The President of the Supreme Court n°001/2021 of 15/03/2021 governing the publication of Law Reports, article 9………………………………………………………………………...5 b. Repealed laws Organic Law n° 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article 614…………………………………………………...153 Law n° 43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing Land in Rwanda, article 10…………………………………………………………………….110 Law n° 37/2012 of 09/11/2012 establishing the value added tax, article 5........................................................................................5 Law n°07/2009 of 27/04/2009 relating to companies, articles 2, 31, 134 and 140........................................................................135 Law of 26/07/1881 relating to freedom of the press, article 38...............................................................................................39 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 233

xv LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED Access Bank Rwanda Ltd v SOTIRU Ltd, RS/INJUST/RCOM 00003/2019/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 26/06/2020…………………………………………………………….5 Affaire Pinto Coelho C. vs Portugal (No 2) rendered by European Court of Human Rights……………………………………………..39 Areva NP Vs Eskom Holdings Soc Limited and Another [2016] Zacc 51 rendered by the Constitutional Court in South Africa…………………………………………………………………27 Judgment RCAA 0018/13/CS, Harerimana et al v. Sebukayire rendered by the Supreme Court on 4/10/2014………………….110 Judgment RCOMAA 00046/2020 / CA; FARAJA HOTEL Ltd v. COGEBANQUE Plc ET.Al. rendered on 05/03/2021, by the Court of Appeal……………………………………………………...92 Re. Great Lakes Initiative for Human Rights and Development, RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2019/SC, rendered by the Supreme Court on 04/12/2019…………………………………………………5 Re Mugisha Richard, RS/INCONST/SPEC 0002/2018/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 18/01/2019………………….27 Re Mugisha Richard, RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2018/SC, rendered by the Supreme Court on 24/04/2019………………….39 Rwanda Revenue Authority v ENSafrica Rwanda Limited, COMA 00017/2021/HCC, rendered by the Supreme Court on on 29/12/2021…………………………………………………………….5 Swapnil Tripathi & others vs. Secretary General & Others, Supreme Court of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1232 Of 2017, p.8……………………………………………………………………..39 xv

## Page 234

xvi The NDPP v Media 24 Limited & others and HC Van Breda v Media 24 Limited & others (425/2017) [2017] ZASCA 97 (21 June 2017) paragraph 16…………………………………………..39

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 235

xvii SUBJECT INDEX 1. Administrative procedure law – Ex parte application – Third party opposition – Appeal against a judgment rendered on third party opposition – The judgment over ex parte application against which the third party opposition was initiated but of which the appeal was no longer admissible does not deprive the right to appeal to a party who was not satisfied with the ruling over the third party opposition. WHITEFIELD INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v THOMAS ET PIRON GRANDS LACS……………...63 2. Company law – commercial company – Company Shareholder – A shareholder is not made a shareholder of the company by payment of all his/her shares’ value, he/she is made it by being registered in the shareholders’ register – Partial payment of shares does not result in the deprivation of the rights that a shareholder owns in the company, but non-payment results in becoming a debtor in relation to shares. KAKOZA v NYAGATARE…………………………133 3. Constitution – Petition seeking to declare unconstitutionality of a law – Interest to initiate a petition for unconstitutionality – Interest must be broadly understood, and based on the conviction that the law is unconstitutional on grounds that it violates the rights of the petitioners, or that the purpose of the Constitution is not achieved, and that such purpose must be protected. Re BYANSI (ADD)…………………………………….25 Petition seeking to declare unconstitutionality of a law – Interest of the petitioner – The petitioner must prove the possession of his/her personal interest or direct interests xvii

## Page 236

xviii he/she can be deprived of by the law of which he/she requesting to repeal. Re BYANSI (ADD)…………………………………….25 Freedom of press – It is a principle that is expressed via the freedom of expression and of access to information to ensure that the public is aware of court proceedings without necessarily requiring their personal presence at courts. Such principle has to be respected by all including the judiciary, so that no other right, to wit the right to fair justice, to fair administration of justice as well as the privacy of litigants or witnesses, is violated – Deprivation of such right must be based on a legitimate and rational purpose. Re BYANSI (FOND)…………………………………..37 4. Criminal law – Offence of forgery and use of forged documents – On the offence of forged documents, no fraudulent intention possible in the absence of the gain that can benefit the perpetrator, it is important that in making a forged document there must be fraudulent objectives PROSECUTION v. BEZA ET AL……………………… Offence of selling a property of another person – The power of attorney –The offence of selling a property of another person, this offence is not possible for a person who has been given the full power of attorney. PROSECUTION v. BEZA ET AL…………………..151 5. Family Law – Unlawful cohabitation – Right to property – When a man and a woman cohabit without being legally married, the activities of one of them to increase the value of the family property allow him/her to have right to it. NICYABERA v. MUKAGATARE………………….107 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 237

xix 6. Functioning of the Courts – Stare decisis principle – Supreme Court – Cases decided by the Supreme Court, as the highest court in the country, are binding to other courts. Re RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION…………………1 Stare decisis principle – Court of Appeal – Decisions of the Court of Appeal are binding to lower courts, as long as the set legal position was not challenged by the Supreme Court. Re RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION…………………1 Stare decisis principle – Judgments published in Law Report – Selected judgments that are published in Law Report are binding to courts since they are superior to unpublished cases decided by the courts at the same level on a similar issue, and they can be used by the parties or judges. Instructions of the President of the Supreme Court n°001/2021 of 15/03/2021 governing the publication of Law Reports, article 9 Re RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION…………………1 Stare decisis principle – In order to adhere to the principle of stare decisis, each Court must adhere to its own legal position taken on a particular issue or the position set on that matter by the higher court Re RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION…………………1 7. Land Law – Land Registration – Nullity of land registration certificate – The one who registers the land in his/her name without presentation of any of the requirements provided for by law is in violation of the law. The certificates obtained do not entitle him/her to the right as they can be invalidated if anyone proves to be its owner. NICYABERA v. MUKAGATARE………………….107 SUBJECT INDEX

## Page 238

xx 8. Law determining the jurisdiction of Courts – Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal – When the monetary value of the subject matter before the Court of Appeal cannot in its nature be determined, it has no jurisdiction – Law n ° 30/2018 of 02 / 06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of the courts, article 52. VUNINGOMA ET AL. v RWANDA DEVOLPMENT BANK LTD (BRD) ET AL…………………………….89 9. Law on the judiciary – Responsibilities of the Judiciary – Responsibilities of the President of the Court – A decision taken by the President of the Commercial Court to invalidate the enforcement formula is not an administrative decision subject to annulment action of an administrative decision under article 178 of the Law relating to Civil, Commercial, Labour and Administrative Procedure, rather the legislator intended to include such decision within the scope of the administrative decisions which the President of the Court can take in the context of the organization of judicial proceedings. WHITEFIELD INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v THOMAS ET PIRON GRANDS LACS……………...63

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 239

xxi

SPECIAL CLAIMS

## Page 240

xxii

## Page 241

xxiii

PETITIONS RELATING TO THE CHANGE OF DIRECTION TAKEN BY COURTS

## Page 242

xxiv

## Page 243

1 Re RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/CLR/SPEC 00001/2021/SC – (Ntezilyayo, P.J., Nyirinkwaya, Cyanzayire, Muhumuza and Karimunda, J.) February 18, 2022] Functioning of the Courts – Stare decisis principle – Supreme Court – Cases decided by the Supreme Court, as the highest court in the country, are binding to other courts. Functioning of the Courts – Stare decisis principle – Court of Appeal – Decisions of the Court of Appeal are binding to lower courts, as long as the set legal position was not challenged by the Supreme Court. Functioning of the Courts – Stare decisis principle – Judgments published in Law Report - Selected judgments that are published in Law Report are binding to courts since they are superior to unpublished cases decided by the courts at the same level on a similar issue, and they can be used by the parties or judges. Instructions of the President of the Supreme Court n°001/2021 of 15/03/2021 governing the publication of Law Reports, Article 9. Functioning of the Courts – Stare decisis principle – In order to adhere to the principle of stare decisis, each Court must adhere to its own legal position taken on a particular issue or the position set on that matter by the higher court. Facts: Rwanda Bar Association states that ENSafrica Rwanda Limited, a legal services firm, has been audited by the Rwanda Revenue Authority, and such firm was ordered to pay the Value Added Tax (VAT) and penalties for services provided to individuals and companies located abroad. 1

## Page 244

2 ENSafrica Rwanda Limited has filed a complaint in the Commercial Court requesting it to decide that the tax and penalties imposed by Rwanda Revenue Authority are inconsistent with the law, as the impugned services were taxed as exported services, which should therefore be taxed to 0% of VAT. For Rwanda Revenue Authority, such services were not exported, which is why they should be taxed at the standard rate of 18%. The Court held that ENSafrica Rwanda Limited's claim was unfounded, and ordered the latter to pay Value Added Tax (VAT) and penalties imposed by Rwanda Revenue Authority because the work and services delivered benefited to those living in Rwanda though they are foreigners, and consequently, they have to be taxed at the normal rate. ENSafrica Rwanda Limited appealed the decision to the Commercial High Court, which also ruled that the appeal is without merit, and changed the amount of tax imposed to ENSafrica based on invoices. Following the request of ENSafrica Rwanda Limited, Rwanda Bar Association petitioned the Supreme Court seeking an authentic interpretation of exported services that are subject to zero % tax rate as provided for in article 5, paragraph one, subparagraph 1 ° of the Law on Value Added Tax, for a clear understanding on matters related to exportation of services. The Supreme Court ruled that the complaint is not admissible based on the grounds that there was already an interpretation issued by the Commercial High Court on that matter which has not yet been overlured . In this regard, Rwanda Bar Association petitioned the Supreme Court, requesting for the reversal of the position taken by the Commercial High Court on the aforementioned issue. The Bar states that in 2015, a value added tax law regulating goods and RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 245

3 services taxed at zero percent (0%) was passed, but that law does not specify services for export. The same Bar argues that the fact that the legislator has not provided the definition of exported services, there will continue to be differing opinion between taxpayers and Rwanda Revenue Authority, so it is necessary for the Supreme Court to issue a direction on the matter, as the interpretation issued by the Commercial High Court is inconsistent wit the law, especially in the case of international treaties ratified by Rwanda, yet such treaties are valid and applicable in the country, and are superior to ordinary legislations, including the Law on Value Added Tax. The Bar Association, basing on various foreign judgments, maintains that the position set by the Commercial High Court is inconsistent with the principle of destination, because based on that principle, exported services should be zero-rated percent (0%). The School of Law of the University of Rwanda, as Amicus Curiae, provides explanations on different categories of exported services and how different laws and experts interpret them. Based on various legal definitions, as well as on the principle of destination, that School of Law finds that the interpretation issued by the Commercial High Court on exported services is inconsistent with the Rwandan legislations, consequently, such that direction should be reversed by the Supreme Court because it is baseless. Held: 1. Cases decided by the Supreme Court, as the highest court in the country, are binding to other courts. 2. Decisions of the Court of Appeal are binding to lower courts, as long as the set legal position was not challenged by the Supreme Court. Re RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

## Page 246

4 3. Selected judgments that are published in Law Report are binding to courts since they are superior to unpublished cases decided by the courts at the same level on a similar issue, and they can be used by the parties or judges. This, however, does not preclude the respect of the principle that the decision of the Court becomes binding on that court and its lower courts in unpublished cases. 4. In order to comply with the principle of stare decisis, each Court must adhere to the position it has set on a particular issue or the one set by the higher court on similar matter. 5. The decision in the judgment RCOMA 00350/2019/HCC rendered by the Commercial High Court cannot be considered as a position set by that Court on the disputed issue as the claimant failed to prove that the same position was adopted in other various decided cases for similar issues or if the Commercial Court, which is lower in hierarchy, has been relying on that position, especially instead since in another case between Rwanda Revenue Authority and ENSafrica Rwanda Limited, with a similar issue, which was delivered after the decision on the judgment for which the position is challenged, the same Court has taken a decision that is different from the challenged decision before the instant Court. Application for reversing the position set in the previous case decided by the Commercial High Court lacks merits. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, article 95; RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 247

5 Law no 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, articles 52, 65 and 73; Law n°012/2018 of 04/04/2018 determining the organization and functioning of the Judiciary, article 50; Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 132; Law nº 02/2015 of 25/02/2015 modifying and complementing Law n° 37/2012 of 09/11/2012 establishing the value added tax, article 1; Law n° 37/2012 of 09/11/2012 establishing the value added tax, article 5; Instructions of The President of the Supreme Court n°001/2021 of 15/03/2021 governing the publication of Law Reports, article 9. Cases referred to: Access Bank Rwanda Ltd v SOTIRU Ltd, RS/INJUST/RCOM 00003/2019/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 26/06/2020; Re. Great Lakes Initiative for Human Rights and Development, RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2019/SC, rendered by the Supreme Court on 04/12/2019. Rwanda Revenue Authority v ENSafrica Rwanda Limited, COMA 00017/2021/HCC, rendered by the Supreme Court on on 29/12/2021. Authors cited: Berland, David. L., Stopping the pendulum: why stare decisis should constrain the Court from further modification of the search incident to arrest exception, University of Illinois Law Review (2011) (2), 695. [….]. Re RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

## Page 248

6 Fricero, Natalie, Procédure Civile, 5 e ed., LGDJ, 2014, page 438. Guinchard, Serge, Procédure Civile, Droit interne et européen du procès civil, Ed. Dalloz, 34e édition, 2018, p. 63 43(1434). WTO, Council for Trade in Services, Guidelines for the Scheduling of Specific Commitments Under the General Agreement On Trade in Services (GATS), 23rd March 2001. WTO, United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services, Report of Panel, 10th November 2004. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The Rwanda Bar Association (RBA) petitioned the Supreme Court seeking to reverse the position taken in the judgment RCOMA 00350/2019/HCC rendered by the Commercial High Court on 04/12/2019 about the case ENSafrica Rwanda Limited v. Rwanda Revenue Authority (RRA).

Rwanda Bar Association states that ENSafrica Rwanda Limited, a legal services firm, has been audited by the Rwanda Revenue Authority, and was ordered to pay the Value Added Tax (VAT) and penalties for services provided to individuals and companies located abroad.

According to Rwanda Bar Association, such decision pushed ENSafrica Rwanda Limited to file a complaint in the RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 249

7 Commercial Court requesting it to decide that the tax and penalties imposed by Rwanda Revenue Authority are contrary to the law, as the impugned services were taxed as exports, which should therefore be taxed to 0% of VAT. For Rwanda Revenue Authority, such services were not exported, which is why they should be taxed at the standard rate of 18%.

On 20/03/2019, the Court ruled that ENSafrica Rwanda Limited's claim was unfounded, and accordingly ordered it to pay the value added tax (VAT) and a fine amounting to 22,814,510 Frw imposed by the Rwanda Revenue Authority. The Court relied its ruling on the fact that the work and services provided benefited persons residing in Rwanda despite being foreigners, and consequently, they have to be taxed at the normal rate.

On 04/12/2019, ENSafrica Rwanda Limited appealed the decision to the Commercial High Court in the case RCOMA 00350/2019/HCC, which also ruled that the appeal lacks merits, reversed the ruling on matters relating to invoices subject to VAT, and ordered ENSafrica Rwanda Limited to pay 29,261,826 Frw imposed by Rwanda Revenue Authority.

Following the request of ENSafrica Rwanda Limited, Rwanda Bar Association petitioned the Supreme Court in the case RS/INTL/SPEC 00001/2020/SC seeking an authentic interpretation of exported services that are subject to zero % tax rate as provided for in article 5, paragraph one, subparagraph 1° of the Law on Value Added Tax, for a clear understanding on matters related to exportation of services.

In the instant case, the Bar Association criticized the way the Commercial High Court interpreted Article one of the Law nº 02/2015 of 25/02/2015 modifying and complementing the Law Re RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

## Page 250

8 n° 37/2012 of 09/11/2012 establishing the value added tax, where in paragraph 25 of the above case, such Court stated that “…the definition of exported services that should not be subject to value added tax (VAT) should not be based solely on the fact that the beneficiary of such services is abroad but it should be taken into account that the service provided to that person was meant to be consumed abroad where that beneficiary lives, because that is when such services can be deemed to have been exported and exempted from VAT. (...) while services delivered in Rwanda to a foreigner who is not even living in Rwanda but which has to be enjoyed in Rwanda, should not be considered as exported services.”

On 23/10/2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the complaint is not admissible on the grounds that there exists an interpretation issued by the Commercial High Court on the matter which has not yet been challenged, that in the event that the Court at the last instance has taken a position on a particular matter, such position is exhaustive in such a way that no further authentic interpretation is required, and the party feeling dissatisfied with such position and wishing it to be changed in the interests of future cases, files a claim to the Supreme Court.

In this regard, Rwanda Bar Association petitioned the Supreme Court, requesting for the reversal of the position taken by the Commercial High Court on the issue stated in the previous paragraphs.

The case was heard on the merits on 13/12/2021, and the Rwanda Bar Association appeared being represented by Counsel Bizimana Emmanuel and Counsel Nzafashwanayo Dieudonné. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 251

9

The Court first examined the request of University of Rwanda (UR/School of Law) to appear as Amicus Curiae in this case. After listening from the representatives of the Bar Association, the Court found that there was no reason to prevent the University of Rwanda, School of Law, to appear as Amicus Curiae in this case, therefore, its request was accepted. The University of Rwanda, School of Law was represented by Counsel Bagabo Faustin and Counsel Sebucensha Leonard. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUE 1. Whether the position taken by the Commercial High Court in the Case RCOMA 00350/2019/HCC should be reversed

Legal Counsel for the Bar Association requested the Court not to rely on the contents of the first ground of their submissions on incompatibility, rather to take into account the information to be provided in the course of the hearing.

Counsel Nzafashwanayo Dieudonné, representing the Bar Association, states that in 2015, the Law nº 02/2015 of 25/02/2015 modifying and complementing Law n° 37/2012 of 09/11/2012 establishing the value added tax was passed, wherein its Article one modified and complemented Article 5 of Law n° 37/2012 of 09/11/2012.

He states that Article 5 of the aforementioned Law n° 37/2012 provided and defined in detail the goods and services subject to zero percent (0%) tax rate, some of which being goods Re RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

## Page 252

10 and services exported.1 He added that when the article was amended in 2015, exported goods and services continued to be zero-rated, but the law did not specify exported services.2

He alleges that the same article did not provide that exported services are those rendered abroad only, yet Article 5, paragraph one, subparagraph 1, of the Law of 2012 (modified and complemented by that of 2015) provided for a list of goods and services that are considered to be exported, especially services rendered abroad.

Counsel Nzafashwanayo Dieudonné argues that the lack of of definition of exported services by the legislator will perpertrate differing opinions between the taxpayers and Rwanda Revenue Authority, so it is necessary for the Supreme Court to shed light on the matter, as the interpretation issued by the

1 Such article reads that the following goods and services shall be zero- rated: 1º exported goods and services: exported recognised goods bearing stamps by the Commissioner General; transportation services and other related services with regard to export goods referred to in item a) of this Article; transportation services of goods in transit in Rwanda to other countries including related services; aircraft benzene; services rendered abroad; goods used in aircrafts from Rwanda to abroad; 2º goods sold in shops that are exempted from tax as provided for by the law governing customs; 2 Article one of the said law reads that the following goods and services shall be zero- rated: 1° exported goods and services; 2° minerals that are sold on the domestic market; RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 253

11 Commercial High Court is inconsistent with the law, especially international treaties ratified by Rwanda.

In the course of the hearing, Counsel Nzafashwanayo Dieudonné provided the definition of exported services based on the World Trade Organization (WTO) document entitled Guidelines for the Scheduling of Specific Commitments under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).3 He argues that such guidelines mean that trade in services includes cross- border supply, where a person from one country provides services to others through telecommunications or email without having to travel to another country.

This concurs with the decisions of World Trade Organisation on United States–Measures Affecting the Cross- Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services.4 He further added that such explanations are inconsistent with the Commercial High Court’s view on the meaning of exported

3 WTO, Council for Trade in Services, “Guidelines for the Scheduling of Specific Commitments Under The General Agreement On Trade In Services (Gats)”, 23rd March 2001, Cross-border supply is defined as International transport, the supply of a service through telecommunications or mail, and services embodied in exported goods (i.e. services supplied in or by a physical medium, such as a computer diskette or drawings) are all examples of cross-border supply, since the service supplier is not present within the territory of the Member where the service is delivered. 4 WTO, “United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services”, Report of Panel, 10th November 2004, the panel concluded that “…market access commitment for mode 1 implies the right for other Members' suppliers to supply a service through all means of delivery, whether by mail, telephone, Internet etc., unless otherwise specified in a Member's Schedule...” Re RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

## Page 254

12 services, as the said Court explained that in order for a service to be considered as exported, it must be consumed abroad.

Counsel Emmanuel Bizimana, representing the Bar Association, states that the position set by the Commercial High Court contradicts international conventions that Rwanda had signed, yet such conventions are valid and applicable in the country, and are superior in hierarchy to ordinary legislations including the Law on Value Added Tax as provided for in Articles 168 and 95 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015.

He further adds that the Supreme Court in the aforementioned case RS/INTL/SPEC 00001/2020/SC, ruled that such conventions should be referred to for finding out the definition of exported services, thus, the reversal of the challenged position is in the interest of the law.

Counsel Emmanuel Bizimana also alleges that the position taken by the Commercial High Court is in violation of the principle of destination approved by the Supreme Court in the case RS/INCONSIST/SPEC 00004/2019 on the petition initiated by Counsel Nzafashwanayo Dieudonné, where it held that such principle is the basic principle on matters related to value added tax (VAT) for the trans-border trade of goods and services.

He argues that the principle is supported by the OECD International VAT/GST Guidelines, 2017, where after explaining the taxation of business-to-business (B2B) and Business-to- Consumer (B2C), the same guidelines state that services are taxed on the basis of place of their consumption instead of the place of their performance. He added that this concurs with the provisions of the aforementioned international conventions, as it leads to the RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 255

13 fact that the services taxed on basis of place of consumption and the place where the consumption of a service occurs is where the beneficiary of the service is located; that this makes it clear that the services are being exported, which are delivered to a foreign resident, and therefore should be zero-rated (0%).

Legal Counsel for the Bar Association also explain the principle based on judgments from various countries, including the case of the Commissioner of Domestic Taxes vs Total Touch Cargo Holland — Income Tax Appeal n°17 of 2013, which was decided by the Kenyan High Court, where it held that the place of performance is not the one that determines that a service is exported or not, but that the test is the place of consumption and not the place of performance.5

They also cited the case of the Indian Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Microsoft Corporation (I) (P) Ltd vs Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi, Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi, which also reiterated on the same principle by stating that what matters is the location of the consumer and not the location of a service provider, 6 and ruled that marketing services offered by Microsoft

5 See Judgement of High Court of Kenya, Commissioner of Domestic Taxes vs Total Touch Cargo Holland— Income Tax Appeal no.17 of 2013, para.30. “The location where the service is provided does not determine the question of whether the service is exported or not. The test is the location (or place) of use or consumption of that service. Therefore, the relevant factor is the location of the consumer of the service and not the place where the service is performed.”http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/165957/. 6 “… the relevant factor “… is the ‘the location of the service recipient’ and not the ‘place of performance...”, See Judgment of Indian Central Excise and Re RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

## Page 256

14 Operation Singapore Pvt Ltd in India are part of exported services even though the impugned services were performed on Indian soil.7

They also alleged that the Kenyan Tax Court of Appeal also reiterated on the principle of destination, in the Tax Appeal case no 5 of 2018 of Coca-Cola Central East and West Africa Limited vs The Commissioner of Domestic Taxes; where it held that advertising services offered in Kenya by Coca-Cola Central East and West Africa Limited (a Kenyan company) to Coca-Cola Corporation Export (based in the United States) are exported services, and therefore, they should be zero-rated (0%).8

Legal Counsel for the Bar Association, based on the aforementioned foreign cases from various countries, argue that the position set by the Commercial High Court is clearly in violation of the principle of destination, because under that principle, exported services that should be zero-rated (0%) are those delivered to foreign residents regardless of place of performance, excluding on-the-spot services which are taxed based on the place of performance.

They also allege that the challenged position was set by the Commercial High Court without providing motivation, which

Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Microsoft Corporation (I) (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi [2014-TIOL-1964-CESTAT-DEL]. 7 Idem. 8 See judgement of Tax Appeals Tribunal, Coca-Cola Central East and West Africa Limited v The Commissioner of Domestic Taxes [Tax Appeal No 5 of 2018], http://www.kenyalaw.org/tribunals/TaxAppealTribunal/2020/COCA%E2%8 0%93COLA-Central-East-and-West- Africa-LTD-v-Commissioner-of- Domestic-Taxes[2020]eKLR.pdf. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 257

15 is contrary to Article 132, paragraph 2, of Law n° 22/2018 of of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labor and administrative procedure reading that reasons are given for the judgment, covering both the facts and legal cinsiderations.

Legal Counsel for the Bar Association, based on the foregoing, find that such position should be reversed since it is confusing, and could continue to lead to disputes between Rwanda Revenue Authority and taxpayers as well as the courts that would address the issue of defining exported services that are zero-rated, as the Commercial High Court has never defined a place where the benefit from a service accrues, while it is the basis of its explanation, since you cannot determine if a particular service was exported (based on a position taken by the Commerce High Court) without first determining the place of consumption.

Representatives of the University of Rwanda, the School of Law, as Amicus Curiae, provided explanations on different categories of exported services and how different legislations and legal experts interpret them.

They define exported services based on the definition provided by article one of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) which explains that: internationally traded services mean: - the supply of a service from the territory of one Member into the territory of any other Member; - the supply of a service in the territory of one Member to the service consumer of any other Member; Re RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

## Page 258

16 - the supply of a service by a service supplier of one Member, through commercial presence in the territory of any other Member; - the supply of a service by a service supplier of one Member, through presence of natural persons of a Member in the territory of any other Member.9

They state that such definition concurs with the one provided for under Article 16 of the Protocol on the Establishment of the Common Market of the East African Community.

They further argue that the World Trade Organization (WTO) has clearly defined the trade in services and the manner in which they are delivered basing on the aforementioned Article 1, paragraph 2 of GATS. The first category consists of cross- border trade in services, where the domestic buyer is provided with services from abroad through telecommunications or postal services. The second category consists of services consumed abroad (consumption abroad), such as tourists, students, or patients. With regard to the third category of commercial presence, it refers to the services provided by a trader who has opened a subsidiary/branch/agency to deliver services in another country (banks, hotels, construction companies, etc.). The fourth

9 Art.1 of GATS states that “For the purposes of this Agreement, trade in services is defined as the supply of a service: (a) from the territory of one Member into the territory of any other Member; (b) in the territory of one Member to the service consumer of any other Member, (c) by a service supplier of one Member, through commercial presence in the territory of any other Member, (d) by a service supplier of one Member, through presence of natural persons of a Member in the territory of any other Member”. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 259

17 category is about the service provided in another country (movement of natural persons), where a foreign trader provides a service to an individual or a private trader (consultancy firm, hospital, construction company).

Representatives of Amicus Curiae, referring to the the foregoing explanations provided by various legislations, and on the principle on value added taxation that states that the tax is payable by the country of the end user (Principle of destination), find that the position taken by the Commercial High Court for exported services contradicts with Rwandan legislations, consequently, such position should be reviewed by the Supreme Court. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 65 of the Law n°30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of Courts reads that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review the direction of the final judgements taken by the courts to protect the law and give direction on request by the Rwanda Bar Association or the National Public Prosecution Authority.

In analyzing the foregoing, the Court finds it necessary to first determine the meaning of the direction given by the Courts.

Normally, cases decided by the Supreme Court as the highest court in the country10 are binding to other courts. By law, the Supreme Court is responsible for overseeing the conduct of cases in other courts, with the aim of correcting any errors in its

10 Article 50 of the Law n° 012/2018 of 04/04/2018 determining the organization and functioning of the Judiciary. Re RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

## Page 260

18 jurisdiction and administration of justice, and to provide a legal position to other courts in resolving similar legal disputes as decided in the case of RS/INJUST/RCOM 00003/2019/SC decided by the Supreme Court11 and in the case RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2019/SC12 where the Supreme Court stated that the opinion was later upheld in Article 65 of the above-mentioned law determining the jurisdiction of courts where it appears that adherence to the existing direction in resolving a particular issue is an irrebuttable principle because, for that direction to be reviewed, it requires initiation of a petition to the Supreme Court, and as set out in the last Paragraph, Article 73 of the same Law, the decision of the court highlights the challenges of the direction in force and gives a new direction.

Pursuant to the direction provided by the Legislator in Law n° 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of Courts, it empowered the Court of Appeal with the jurisdiction to hear at the first level of appeal cases that were used to be heard by the Supreme Court, as provided in Article 52 of the said law, meaning that judgments rendered in this regard are binding to lower courts, as long as they are not reviewed by the Supreme Court.

In addition, according to the provisions of Instructions of the President of the Supreme Court n° 001/2021 of 15/03/2021 governing the publication of judgments in the Law Report, even

11 Judgment RS/INJUST/RCOM 00003/2019/SC about Access Bank Rwanda Ltd v SOTIRU Ltd rendered on 26/06/2020, page 6, paragraph 14. 12 Judgment RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2019/SC, Great Lakes Initiative for Human Rights and Development seeking to repeal of the provisions as they are unconstitutional, rendered on 04/12/2019, paragraphs 32 and 33. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 261

19 selected judgments which are published in a law report are also binding to courts since they are superior to cases decided by the courts at the same level on a similar issue, and they can be used by the parties or judges.13 This, however, does not preclude the respect of the principle that the decision of the Court becomes binding to that court and lower courts in unpublished cases.

The foregoing affirms the principle of stare decisis which also states that the decision of the Court in a particular case is binding on the very court and lower courts, and must be respected. This principle helps to build up consistent principles based on the law, which leads to the trust of the Courts and the decisions they make.14 In order for the court direction to be reviewed, a petition to the Supreme Court must be initiated, as per the provisions of article 65 of the aforementioned Law n° 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 , for the protection the law and giving direction.

Petitioning the Supreme Court for the review of the precedent set by courts in the interests of the law is not a particularity to Rwanda since it is also done in different countries. As in France, legal scholar Natalie Fricero explains that the

13 See Article 9 of the aforementioned Instructions n°001/2021. 14 Berland, David. L., Stopping the pendulum: why stare decisis should constrain the Court from further modification of the search incident to arrest exception, University of Illinois Law Review (2011) (2), 695. ‘’ [….] It promotes the consistent development of legal principles and it fosters reliance on judicial decisions and contributes to the actual and apparent reliability of the judicial process.’’ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264877323_Stopping_the_pendulu m_Why_stare_decisis_should_c onstrain_the_court_from_further_modification_of_the_search_incident_to_a rrest_exception Re RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

## Page 262

20 appeal in the interest of the law is reserved for the Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation, who can act to stop a violation of the law by a court, when the judgment has not been challenged by the parties. This appeal is original in that it is intended to protect the general interest and does not affect the position of the parties, meaning that parties are not allowed to base on the reviewed direction and request anything.15

Another legal scholar Serge Guinchard also stated that only the Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation, on his own initiative, can lodge an appeal for a symbolic censure of a judgment that has flouted the law but against which the parties are satisfied with and did not wish to appeal. He/she may proceed in this way against any decision that is contrary to the laws, regulations or forms of procedure, even if the decision has already been executed. He/she must lodge such an appeal within five years from the delivery of the decision. Through that appeal, the Public Prosecutor acts as guardian of legality.16

15 Fricero, Natalie, Procédure Civile, 5e ed., LGDJ, 2014, page 438; ‘’ Le pourvoi dans l’intérêt de la loi est réservé au Procureur Général près la Cour de Cassation, qui peut agir pour cesser une violation de la loi par un tribunal, alors que le jugement n’a pas été attaqué par les parties. ⦋…..⦌. Ce pourvoi est original, en ce qu’il est destiné à protéger l’intérêt général, et qu’il n’affecte pas la situation des parties. 16 Guinchard, Serge, Procédure Civile, Droit interne et européen du procès civil, Ed. Dalloz, 34e édition, 2018, page 643(1434); ‘’Seul le Procureur Général près la Cour de Cassation, de sa propre initiative, peut former un pourvoi tendant à une censure symbolique d’un jugement ayant bafoué la loi mais contre lequel les parties, satisfaites, n’ont pas voulu exercer de recours. Il peut procéder ainsi contre toute décision contraire aux lois, règlement ou aux formes de procéder, et ce meme si la décision a déjà été executée. ⦋…. ⦌ fixe un délai de cinq ans à compter du prononcé de la décision. Par le pourvoi, le Procureur Général se comporte en gardien de la légalité ⦋….⦌. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 263

21

Although the previous paragraphs state that the power to file a complaint requesting for the reversal of the court’s position in the interests of the law belongs to the Prosecutor General as provided for in Article 65 of the aforementioned Law n° 30/2018, the Court finds that the explanation contained therein should also apply to complaint filed by the Bar Association as it has also been entitled to that jurisdiction by the same law.

With regard to the impugned case RCOMA 00350/2019/HCC decided by the Commercial High Court on 04/12/2019 of which a reversal of the position is requested, the Court finds that the decision in that case, wherein the court ruled that ENSAfrica Rwanda Limited should be taxed at the normal rate of 18% because the taxable services were consumed in Rwanda, even though the beneficiary is a foreigner, should not be considered as the position taken by such a Court in this regard. This is supported by the fact that the Legal Counsel for the Bar Association failed to prove to the Court that the same position was adopted in other various decided cases with similar issues or if the Commercial Court, which is lower in hierarchy, has been relying on that position.

Another evidence that such is not the position taken by the Commercial High Court, is that in a different case between the Rwanda Revenue Authority and ENSafrica Rwanda Limited decided on 29/12/2021 on a similar issue, after the ruling that set the disputed position, the said Court reviewed its previous position, and made a different decision from the subject matter in the instant Court, where the Commercial High Court ruled that the services delivered by ENSafrica Rwanda Limited should be Re RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

## Page 264

22 regarded as exports that have to be zero-rated;17 a judgment against which Rwanda Revenue Authority lodged an appeal before the Court of Appeal.18 All this confirms that there is no so far final position on this issue to the extent of being subject to a claim for its reversal in the interest of the law and to provide another direction in accordance with the provisions of Article 65 of the aforementioned Law n° 30/2018. Accordingly, the application filed by the Rwanda Bar Association is baseless. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the application filed by Rwanda Bar Association seeking the reversal of the position taken in the judgment RCOMA 00350/2019/HCC rendered by the Commercial High Court on 04/12/2019, lacks merits.

17 Judgment RCOMA 00017/2021/HCC about Rwanda Revenue Authority v ENSafrica Rwanda Limited rendered on 29/12/2021, from page 19 to 21, paragraphs 30, 31 and 32. 18 The case was registered to RCOMAA 00022/2022/CA. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 265

23

PETITION SEEKINK TO DECLARE A LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL

## Page 266

24

## Page 267

25 Re BYANSI (ADD) [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2021/SC– (Ntezilyayo, P.J., Nyirinkwaya, Cyanzayire, Hitiyaremye and Karimunda, J.) December 10, 2021] Constitution – Petition seeking to declare unconstitutionality of a law – Interest to initiate a petition for unconstitutionality – Such an interest must be broadly understood, and based on the conviction that the law is unconstitutional on grounds that it violates the rights of the petitioners, or that the purpose of the Constitution is not achieved, and that such purpose must be protected. Constitution – Petition seeking to declare unconstitutionality of a law – Interest of the petitioner – The petitioner must prove his/her personal interest or direct interests he/she can be deprived of by the law of which he/she requesting for the repeal. Facts: Byansi petitioned the Supreme Court praying it to declare that Article 71, paragraph 5, of Law n˚ 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labor and Administrative procedure, is inconsistent with Article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015. He urgues that the impugned provision is detrimental to journalists since it sets a deadline for them to apply for authorization to make audio and video recordings in the courtroom, which is a mechanism to deny access to information for the press, hence depriving the press of its freedom. He further adds that it is not appropriate for journalists to be required to apply for an authorization to do their job, while they present their press cards. He concludes by adding that setting the deadline for the application for the authorization 25

## Page 268

26 to make audio and video recording in the courtroom can be construed as a disregard to nowadays’ mobile journalism. The State Attorney in the instant case elucidates that the Constitution does in no way provide that the press must have access to any kind of information, the reason why the impugned article is in no way inconsistent with the Constitution as alleged by the Petitioner. He further states that the fact that the law requires the press to apply for making audio and video recordings in the courtroom does not violate the principle that the hearing is conducted in public as provided for under Article 71 of the aforementioned Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018. Prior to the hearing of the case in merit, the Court analyzed whether the Petitioner had an interest to initiate the instant petition since he did it in the quality of journalist on 04/06/2021 while his service card had expired on 12/05/2021. On this issue, the petitioner states that his service card had expired by the time he initiated a petition, and that he had applied for its renewal before it expired, an application which was delayed by the fact that many services were suspended due to the COVID-19 outbreak, but later, his card has been extended from 20/09/2021 to 20/09/2022. He states his petition should have been admitted even if he had initiated it while he was waiting for his card (lcence) to be renewed, given that even at the time of the trial he had been given a new card and thus, he should not be considered as lacking interest to initiate a petition. The State Attorney urgues that the fact that the Petitioner initiated a petition at the time when his service card as a Journalist had expired, he should have not done it in the quality of a journalist, rather as an individual. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 269

27 Held: 1. The interest to initiate a petition must be broadly understood, and based on the conviction that the law is unconstitutional because it violates the rights of the petitioners, or that the purpose of the Constitution is not achieved, and that such purpose must be protected. 2. The petitioner must prove his/her personal interest or direct interests he/she can be deprived of by the law of which he/she requesting for the repeal. The Petitioner has interest to initiate a petition seeking to declare unconstitutionality of a law. The hearing will resume. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, article 38; The Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general; The Law n° 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining jurisdiction of the courts, article 72; Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles 70 and 71; Law n° 02/2013 of 08/02/2013 regulating media, article 3, 4 and 5. Cases referred to: Re Mugisha Richard, RS/INCONST/SPEC 0002/2018/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 18/01/2019; Areva NP Vs Eskom Holdings Soc Limited and Another [2016] Zacc 51 rendered by the Constitutional Court in South Africa. Re BYANSI (ADD)

## Page 270

28 Judgment BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

On 04/06/2021, Byansi Samuel Baker petitioned the Supreme Court seeking declaration that Article 71, paragraph 5, of Law n˚ 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labor and administrative procedure providing that authorization to make audio and video recordings in the courtroom is applied for in writing at least forty-eight (48) hours before the hearing, is inconsistent with Article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, which provides that freedom of press, of expression and of access to information are recognized and guaranteed by the State.

He argues that, as a journalist with service card number 17/726-11 and who mainly focuses on investigative journalism in Rwanda and abroad, he finds that Paragraph 5, article 71, of the aforementioned Law is detrimental to journalists since it sets a deadline for them to apply for authorization to make audio and video recordings in the courtroom, which is a mechanism to deny access to information for the press, hence depriving it of its freedom, while Article 70 of the Law n˚ 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to Civil, commercial, labor and administrative procedure provides that a hearing is conducted in public. He elucidates that informing the public of what is going on in courts is within the scope of the right to freedom of the press and of access to

1 This card was issued by the Rwanda Media Commission on 12/05/2020 and it was due to expire on 12/05/2021, and it was later renewed on 20/09/2021 to expire on 20/09/22. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 271

29 information, which must be complied with by the courts as an administrative body.

He urgues that it is not appropriate for journalists to be required to apply for an authorization to do their job, while they present their service cards as journalists. He concludes by adding that setting the deadline for the application for the authorization to make audio and video recording in the courtroom can be construed as a disregard to nowadays’ mobile journalism.

Counsel Habumuremyi Prosper, State Attorney in the instant case, urgues that Article 71, paragraph 5, of Law nº 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to Civil, Commercial, Labor and Administrative procedure is not inconsistent with Article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda.

He elucidates that the Constitution does in no way provide that the press must have access to any kind of information. It is in that framework that such procedure has been provided for under paragraph 5, Article 71, of the aforementioned Law, wherein explanations for applying for such authorization is done within at least 48 hours before the hearing. He further added that the fact that the law requires the press to apply for making audio and video recordings in the courtroom does not violate the principle that the hearing is conducted in public as provided for under paragraph 6, Article 71 of the Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure.2 The case was heard in public on

2 Paragraph 6, Article 71 of the Law nº22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure reads that the president of the court decides in writing to grant or reject the application for making audio and video recordings after examining whether the granting of such application Re BYANSI (ADD)

## Page 272

30 15/11/2021, with Byansi Samuel Baker assisted by Counsel Ruramira Bizimana Zébédée and Counsel Musore Gakunzi Valéry, while the Government of Rwanda was represented by State Attorney Habumuremyi Prosper. Prior to the hearing of the case in merit, the Court analyzed the issue related to whether the Petitioner, Byansi Samuel Baker, had an interest in initiating a petition for unconstitutionality in accordance with paragraph one, Article 72, of the aforementioned Law nº 22/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining jurisdictions of courts. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUE 1. Whether Byansi Samuel Baker has an interest in the instant case

The court asked Byansi Samuel Baker if he initiated a petition as a journalist on 04/06/2021 while his service card had expired on 12/05/2021, and replied that though his service card had expired by the time he initiated a petition, he had applied for its renewal before it expired, that the fact that they delayed to answer him until his card expired, was due to the fact that many services were suspended due to the COVID-19 outbreak. He states that the said card was later extended from 20/09/2021 to 20/09/2022. He finds therefore that the fact that he initiated a petition by the time his service card was expired but still waiting to get a new one, which is in his possession now, it should not be a reason for the inadmissibility of his petition because he has been working as a journalist since 2017, where he has worked for

cannot adversely affect the interests of the administration of justice, national security, safety of parties and morals. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 273

31 various media houses including Rwanda Broadcasting Agency (RBA) and TV 10.

To defend him, Counsel Musakore Gakunzi Valéry based on Article 3 of Law n° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating civil, commercial, labor and administrative procedure3 and Article 72, paragraph 1 of Law n° 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of the courts4, states that an individual may initiate a petition to the Supreme Court, and that even though Byansi Samuel Baker initiated a petition while his card as a journalist had expired, but he is already known as a journalist, in addition, by the time of the trial, he had got a new card. He therefore finds that this cannot be regarded as a reason for lacking interest in initiating a petition leading to inadmissibility of such petition.

Counsel Ruramira Bizimana Zébédée, also representing Byansi Samuel Baker, based on Article 5 of Law n° 02/2013 of 08/02/2013 regulating Media, states that once the Court found that Byansi Samuel Baker was a journalist though he initiated a petition by the time his card was expired, it would rule that he had an interest to sue and thus admit his petition.

Counsel Habumuremyi Prosper, representing the Attorney General, elucidated that it appears that Byansi Samuel Baker was given a press card on 12/05/2020 and expired on 12/05/2021, and he later initiated a petition as a journalist on 04/06/2021 after his card was expired; he expounds that he failed

3 Unless otherwise provided by law, a claim is admissible in court only if the claimant has standing, interest and capacity to sue. 4 The Supreme Court is petitioned by any person or company and associations with legal personality over petitions seeking to declare unconstitutional a law if they have any interest. Re BYANSI (ADD)

## Page 274

32 to comply with the provisions of the law because while he did not have a press card, he had no interest in suing as a journalist, but at that time he would have initiated a petition as an individual. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Paragraph one, Article 72 of the Law n° 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining jurisdiction of the courts reads that the Supreme Court is petitioned by any person or company and associations with legal personality over petitions seeking to declare unconstitutional a law if they have any interest…

Article 3 of the Law n° 02/2013 of 08/02/2013 regulating media reads that a Rwandan journalist, whether exercising the profession of journalism in a registered media company or a freelance, or a representative of a foreign media organ in Rwanda, shall be given accreditation by the Media Self-Regulatory Body. While paragraph 1, article 4 of the said Law reads that the daily functioning of media and the conduct of journalists shall be regulated by the Media Self-Regulatory Body (…)

With regard to interests over petitions seeking to repeal a law for being unconstitutional, the instant Court analyzed the same issue in the petition5 of Counsel Mugisha Richard that he had initiated seeking to declare unconstitutional certain provisions of Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offenses and penalties in general. In interpreting its decision, the Court analyzed the current legislations in Rwanda in this regard, and referred to cases decided in foreign countries where such petitions have been initiated for a long time.

5 See judgment RS/INCONST/SPEC 0002/2018/SC rendered on 18/01/2019. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 275

33

In the instant case, the Court explained matters related to general interests and the reasons why it is important to present them for the petition to be admitted, 6 but the same court stated that in the case of constitutional claims, such interests should be broadly understood, especially in a developing country like Rwanda where citizens do not yet understand the rights granted to them by the Constitution, and they need help to achieve this through the courts. The Court expounded that the nature of the cases seeking to declare unconstitutional a law, indicates that the interest in such cases is based on the conviction that that the law is unconstitutional because it violates the rights of the petitioners, or that the purpose of the Constitution is not achieved, and that such a purpose must be protected.7

With regard to the fact that the petitioner seeking to declare unconstitutional a law must have personal interest, such issue has also been analyzed by legal experts and other courts. For instance, an expert named Sylvie Schmitt states that for a person's interest to sue to be recognized, it must include a specific element that distinguishes the holder from the rest of society, that individualizes him. In the absence of such an element, any person would be able to bring a case before the Constitutional Court, since any citizen and any Organisation can claim to have an interest in defending the Constitution. In that situation, the petition would become a popular action, which is not possible. Such an action would lead to an overabundance of claims in courts, with the risk of abusive claims.8 Within that direction, the

6 See paragraphs 19 and 20 of the judgment. 7 See paragraph 21 of the judgment. 8 Pour que l’intérêt à agir d’une personne soit reconnu, il doit inclure un élément propre qui distingue son titulaire du reste de la société, qui l’individualise. A défaut d’un tel élément, n’importe quelle personne aurait la Re BYANSI (ADD)

## Page 276

34 Constitutional Court of South Africa, in the case of Areva NP v Eskom Holdings Soc Limited and Another [2016] ZACC 51, held that if a litigant acts solely in his or her own interest, there is no broad or unqualified capacity to litigate against illegalities. The own interest litigant must therefore demonstrate that his or her interests or potential interests are directly affected by the unlawfulness sought to be impugned.9

With regard to the instant petition, Byansi Samuel Baker alleges that the fact that Paragraph 5, Article 71, of the Law nº 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to Civil, Commercial, Labor and administrative procedure requires a journalist to apply for the authorization within 48 hours prior to the hearing is detrimental to his rights granted to him by the Constitution as a journalist, therefore it in his interest if the Court considers this and accordingly repeals the impugned paragraph of the disputed article.

possibilité de saisir le juge constitutionnel puisque tout citoyen et tout organisme peuvent prétendre avoir un intérêt à défendre la Constitution. Le recours se transformerait en une action populaire, ce qui n’est pas envisageable. L’action populaire provoquerait une surabondance des recours avec des risques de demandes abusives. Sylvie Schmitt, La nature objective du contentieux constitutionnel des normes. Les exemples francais et italien, “ Revue francaise de droit constitutionnel, 2007/4, n°72, https://www.cairn.info/revue-francaise-de-droit-constitutionnel-2007-4-page- 719.htm 9 (…) where a litigant act solely in his or her own interest, there is no broad or unqualified capacity to litigate against illegalities. … The own interest litigant must therefore demonstrate that his or her interests or potential interests are directly affected by the unlawfulness sought to be impugned”. 9Areva NP Vs Eskom Holdings Soc Limited Limited and Another [2016] ZACC 51, at para 32, https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2016/51.pdf. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 277

35

The Court finds that, pursuant to the provisions of Article 3 of the aforementioned Law n° 02/2013, there is no doubt that prior to the expiration of his card on 12/05/2021, Byansi Samuel Baker was authorized to perform the duties of a journalist because he met the requirements of Rwanda Media Commission. There is also no doubt that the time of initiating the petition, on 04/06/2021, he was not allowed to perform the duties of a journalist, but that at the time of the hearing, on 15/11/2021, he had such a right because his press card had been extended from 20/09/2021 to 20/09/2022.

The Court finds that paragraph 5, Article 71 of the aforementioned Law n˚ 22/2018 concerns the authorization to record audio and video in a courtroom by the press. This means that in the event that the Court finds that the provision is inconsistent with Article 38 of the Constitution, as stated by Byansi Samuel Baker, the decision would be of interest to him, and the Court therefore finds that he has an interest to initiate a petition seeking to repeal a legal provision he alleges to be detrimental to the rights granted to him by the Constitution. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that Byansi Samuel Baker has an interest to initiate a petition seeking to declare unconstitutionality of law in the instant case;

Holds that the hearing of the present case will resume on the date that will be communicated to the petitioner by the Court Registry. Re BYANSI (ADD)

## Page 278

36

## Page 279

37 Re BYANSI (FOND) [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2021/SC – (Ntezilyayo, P.J., Nyirinkwaya, Cyanzayire, Hitiyaremye and Karimunda, J.) 25 March 2022] Constitution – Freedom of press – It is a principle that is expressed via the freedom of expression and of access to information to ensure that the public is aware of court proceedings without necessarily requiring their personal presence at courts. Such principle has to be respected by all including the judiciary, so that no other right, to wit the right to fair justice, to fair administration of justice as well as the privacy of litigants or witnesses, is violated – Deprivation of such right must be based on a legitimate and rational purpose. Facts: Byansi petitioned the Supreme Court praying it to declare that Article 71, paragraph 5, of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure on matters related to application for the authorization to make audio and video recordings in the courtroom, is inconsistent with paragraph one, Article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015 providing for freedom of press. Prior to the hearing of the case in merit, the Court analysed whether the Petitioner had an interest in initiating a petition for unconstitutionality and held that he is eligible to do so. The case was heard in merit and the issue was to analyse whether prior application for the authorization to make audio and video recordings at the hearing provided under Article 71, paragraph 5, of the aforementioned Law violates the freedom of press 37

## Page 280

38 provided under Article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda. The petitioner argues that, as a journalist with a strong focus on investigative journalism in Rwanda and abroad, he finds that the impugned provision is an obstruction to journalists since it sets a deadline for them to apply for authorization to make audio and video recordings in the courtroom, which is a mechanism to deny access to information for the press, hence depriving the press of its freedom, while Article 70 of the impugned law provides for a hearing to be conducted in public. He elucidates that informing the public about courts’ activities falls within the scope of the right to freedom of press and of access to information, which must be complied with by the Judiciary as a state institution. He urgues that it is not appropriate for journalists to be required to apply for an authorization to do their job as long as they present their service cards as journalists. The Government of Rwanda retorts that paragraph 5 of Article 71 of the impugned Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 is not inconsistent with the Constitution because it does not in no way provide that the press must have access to information in any way. It is in that framework that such procedure mentioned in the impugned article was provided. The Government further elucidates that the fact that the law requires the press to apply for making audio and video recordings in the courtroom does not violate the principle of conducting hearings in public. Held: 1. It is a principle that is expressed via the freedom of expression and of access to information, to ensure that the public is aware of court proceedings without necessarily requiring their personal presence at courts. Such principle has to be respected by all including the judiciary, so that no other right to wit the right RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 281

39 to fair justice, to fair administration of justice as well as the privacy of litigants or witnesses, is violated. 2. Deprivation of the right to freedom of expression and access to information must be based on a legitimate and rational purpose. The petition seeking to declare a provision of Law inconsistent with the Constitution lacks merit. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: The Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, articles 23, 38, 41 and 43; International Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, Article 19; Law nº 22/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining jurisdiction of Court, article 72; Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles 70 and 71; Law n° 058/2021 of 13/10/2021 relating to the protection of personal data and privacy, article 3; Law of 26/07/1881 relating to freedom of the press, article 38. Cases referred to: Mugisha Richard, RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2018/SC, rendered by the Supreme Court on 24/04/2019; The NDPP v Media 24 Limited & others and HC Van Breda v Media 24 Limited & others (425/2017) [2017] ZASCA 97 (21 June 2017) paragraph 16. Swapnil Tripathi & others vs. Secretary General & Others, Supreme Court of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1232 Of 2017, p.8. Affaire Pinto Coelho C. vs Portugal (No 2) rendered by European Court of Human Rights. Re BYANSI (FOND)

## Page 282

40 Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

On 4 June 2021, Byansi Samuel Baker petitioned the Supreme Court seeking to declare Article 71, paragraph 5 of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labor and administrative procedure providing that authorization to make audio and video recordings in the courtroom is applied for in writing at least forty-eight (48) hours before the hearing, inconsistent with Article 38, paragraph one of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, which provides that freedom of press, of expression and of access to information are recognised and guaranteed by the State.

He argues that, as a journalist with service card number 17/726-11 and who mainly focuses on investigative journalism in Rwanda and abroad, he finds that Paragraph 5 of article 71 of the aforementioned Law is an obstruction to journalists since setting a deadline for them to apply for authorization to make audio and video recordings in the courtroom, is a mechanism to deny access to information for the press, hence depriving it of its freedom whereasArticle 70 of the Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labor and administrative procedure provides that a hearing is conducted in public.

He elucidates that informing the public about courts activities falls within the scope of the freedom of the press and of access to information, which must be complied with by the courts

1 This card has been issued by Rwanda Media Commission on 12/05/2020 to expire on 12/05/2021, and it was latter extended from 20/09/2021 to 20/09/22. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 283

41 as a public institution. He argues that it is not appropriate for journalists to be required to apply for an authorization to do their job, while they present their service cards as journalists. He concludes by adding that setting the deadline for the application for the authorization to make audio and video recordings in the courtroom can be construed as a disregard to nowadays’ mobile journalism.

State Attorney Habumuremyi Prosper, urgues that paragraph 5 of Article 71 of Law nº 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to Civil, Commercial, Labor and Administrative Procedure is not inconsistent with Article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda.

He elucidates that the Constitution does not in no way provide that the press is allowed to seek information by all means. It is in that framework that such procedure has been provided under paragraph 5 of Article 71 of the aforementioned Law in order for the person wishing to make audio or video recordings in the Court to apply for an authorization at least 48 hours before the hearing.

He further adds that the fact that the law requires the press to apply for making audio and video recordings in the courtroom does not violate the principle of publicity of hearings as provided under paragraph 6 of Article 71 of the aforementioned Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018.2

2 Paragraph 6, Article 71 of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labor and administrative procedure provides that the president of the court decides in writing to grant or reject the application for making audio and video recordings after examining whether the granting of such application cannot adversely affect the interests of the administration of justice, national security, safety of parties and morals. Re BYANSI (FOND)

## Page 284

42

The case was heard in public on 15/11/2021, whereby Byansi Samuel Baker was assisted by Counsel Ruramira Bizimana Zébédée and Counsel Musore Gakunzi Valéry while the Government of Rwanda was represented by State Attorney Habumuremyi Prosper.

Prior to the hearing of the case in merit, the Court determined whether the Petitioner, Byansi Samuel Baker, had an interest to initiate a petition for unconstitutionality in accordance with paragraph one of Article 72 of the Law nº 22/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining jurisdictions of courts.

On october 12,2021, the Court ruled that Byansi Samuel Baker has an interest to petition for unconstitutionality of a provision of law in the instant case.

The case was heard in merit on February 15, 2022, Byansi Samuel Baker assisted as before and the Government of Rwanda represented by Counsel Kayitesi Petronille. The parties debated on whether paragraph 5 of article 71 of the aforementioned Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 is inconsistent with Article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda, and consists of the issue to be analysed in the instant case.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 285

43 II. LEGAL ISSUE AND ITS ANALYSIS Whether paragraph 5 of Article 71 of the Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to Civil, Commercial, Labor and Administartive Procedure is inconsistent with Article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015

Byansi Samuel Baker argues that informing about courts activities falls within the scope of the freedom of press and of access to information, and among those required to respect this right include public institutions to which the judiciary belongs.

He further argues that setting the deadline for a journalist wishing to apply for making audio and video recordings in the courtroom, is a mechanism of denying access to information towards the press as well as preventing them from publishing information about pending cases while the principle is that the hearing is conducted in public as provided under Article 70 of the Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labor and administrative procedure.

He further submits that setting the deadline for the application for the authorization to make audio and video recordings in the courtroom can be construed as a disregard to nowadays’ mobile journalism, and that justice is served on behalf of the people, therefore, people should have informed about public activities. He cites the example of Uganda where journalists are not required to apply for collection of information from the judiciary, rather, they only present their service cards.

He elucidates that the fact that Article 71 of the aforementioned Law entrusted the judge with the power to grant Re BYANSI (FOND)

## Page 286

44 authorization to make video recordings in the courtroom which is is excessive on ground that there may be many appliacants and yet the Court may grant it to some while denying it to others.

He alleges that the deadline required for the journalist to apply for the authorization (48 hours) is not reasonable, because apart from famous cases, the journalist has nowhere else to find the list of cases to be heard, except on the noticeboard at the courtrooms in the morning of the hearing date, and for this reason, he/she is challenged by such application deadline.

Byansi Samuel Baker concludes by praying the Supreme Court to declare Paragraph 5 of Article 71 of the Law nº 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to Civil, Commercial, Labor and Administrative Procedure, inconsistent with Article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda.

Ruramira Bizimana Zébédée, counsel for Byansi Samuel Baker, states that in accordance with Article 6 of the Law regulating Media, a journalist intends to provide information to the public by making audio and video recordings, and that he/she is also allowed to disclose anything other than judicial confidentiality. Article 12 of that law also allows journalists to gather information wherever and publish it in accordance with the law, and he therefore finds that applying for an authorization as a serious impediment. He prays the Court to consider the case of Mugisha Richard decided by the Supreme Court, where in its paragraph 65, the same court ruled that the freedom of press is a right that must be respected by all.

Counsel Gakunzi Valéry, assisting Byansi Samuel Baker, states that Article 71 of the aforementioned Law n° 22/2018 is part of the second section relating to conduct of hearing. He RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 287

45 motivates that making audio and video recordings is part of media. He finds that in order for the Court to determine whether such a provision is unconstitutional, it is necessary to analyse whether there are other rights or freedoms that would be violated by the fact that a journalist makes audio and video recordings in the courtroom without authorization.

He states that based on article 38, paragraph 2 of the Constitution, what a journalist making audio and video recordings at a hearing should avoid is the violation of the citizen's right to privacy, a principle provided for under Article 23 of the Constitution.

With regard to the definition of privacy, he argues that such definition is neither provided in the Constitution nor in the Law determining offences and penalties in general. It is only Article 3, subparagraph 6° of the Law n° 058/2021 of 13/10/2021 relating to the protection of personal data and privacy which defines privacy as a fundamental right of a person to decide who can access his or her personal data, when, where, why and how they can be accessed.

He cites an example of the case decided by the Supreme Court that sets the precedent on privacy, in which Gisa Frediane prayed the Court to award damages against BRALIRWA for having used her photos in the promotion of its product Heineken without her consent. BRALIRWA Ltd's Counsel admitted before the Commercial High Court that such photographs and videos were indeed used by BRALIRWA Ltd to advertise its beer whitout having a contract with Gisa Frediane. He claims that such photographs and videos were provided to BRALIRWA Ltd by EXP RWANDA Company but failed to produce the contract they had with the said company. Re BYANSI (FOND)

## Page 288

46

He further adds that the Supreme Court adjudicated on Article 38 of the Constitution3 whereby it held that the right to freedom of expression includes the right to freedom of holding one's opinions with no interference, of access to and publication of information. It is evident that anything including the law or its provisions that can violate such right, is inconsistent with the Constitution.

He however argues that, as equally provided under Rwandan legislation, the freedom of press includes exceptions/ restrictions, including non-violation of privacy. He refers to the case of Pinto Coelho C. vs Portugal (number 2) decided by the European Court of Human Rights to explain the basis in determining whether the freedom of press is a threat to one's privacy.

He states that the issue in that case arose from the fact that a journalist published on television information about a pending case in the court that had sentenced a person, where he explained that the latter was wrongly convicted based on one inculpatory and two disculpatory witness declarations, and by showing photos of the courtroom and the audio recordings of the hearing including those of 3 judges, of which he had manipulated. The president of the bench accused him of broadcasting audio and video recordings of the courtroom without authorization. The Constitutional Court of Portugal convicted such journalist.

He further elucidates that the convicted journalist later filed a lawsuit against Portugal in the European Court of Human Rights and the latter ruled that in order to establish that freedom

3 Judgment RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2018/SC about Mugisha Richard, rendered on 24/04/2019. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 289

47 of press violates other rights or freedoms, including the right to privacy, there must exist three (3) complementary elements: i) whether such exception or restriction is provided by the law; ii) to determine whether such exception or restriction is for a rational purpose; iii) whether such interference in the freedom of press is necessary in a democratic country.

He states that in explaining the three elements, the Court relied on the basic principles adopted in previous judgments of the same court including the fact that audio and video recordings taken by the journalist during the hearing were taken in order to provide information in the public interest and the conduct of the accused; thus, such audio and video recordings of the hearing were not obtained illegally.

Counsel Gakunzi Valéry concludes that according to Rwandan legislation, a journalist who takes photos or makes audio recordings and publish them without authorization is liable to civil fine and he/she may even be sentenced to an imprisonment, therefore, Article 71 of the aforementioned Law n° 22/2018 violates the freedom of press, as its content is an exception that impedes the exercise of the freedom provided under Article 38 of the Constitution.

State Attorney Kayitesi Petronille argues that Byansi Samuel Baker’s petition is unfounded on ground that paragraph 5, Article 71 of the aforementioned Law no 22/2018 is not inconsistent with Article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda. She argues that paragraph 5, Article 71, of Law nº 22/2018 sets out how the freedom of press and its enforcement are exercised at the hearing, therefore it is not a denial of access to information towards the press as alleged by the petitioner, Re BYANSI (FOND)

## Page 290

48 rather, it is a way of enforcing the provisions of Article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda.

She further elucidates that the Constitution does not in no way provide that the press is allowed to seek information by all means. That is why it has established such a procedure in Article 71, paragraph 5, of the aforementioned Law nº 22/2018, which states that it is required to apply for an authorization at least 48 hours before the hearing.

She further adds that the fact that the law requires a journalist to apply for making audio and video recordings in a courtroom does not violate the principle of publicity of hearing provided under paragraph 6 of Article 71 of the aforementioned Law no 22/2018, which means that authorization is granted or denied depending on the determination of the President of the Court, which means that such procedure complies with the provisions of Article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda.

The State Attorney submits that Article 41 of the Constitution provides that in exercising rights and freedoms, everyone is subject only to limitations provided under the law aimed at ensuring recognition and respect of other people’s rights and freedoms, as well as public morals, public order and social welfare which generally characterise a democratic society. In addition, such applies to the freedom of press, which is why she argues that Article 71 of the aforementioned Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 intends to enforce the provisions of Article 38, paragraph 2 of the Constitution.

Regarding the lack of information about the cause list in order to apply for authorization, the State Attorney argues that RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 291

49 the Court should not rely on this ground to declare such provision unconstitutional, but instead, the practice should be improved so that the media could access to the cause list on time, which will help them to meet the deadline for applying for an authorization to make audio and video recordings.

She further elucidates that because the Judiciary is the guardian of human rights and freedoms as provided under Article 43 of the Constitution, Courts are responsible for determining modalities of accessing information in the courtroom by the media in order to protect the rights and freedoms of litigants in particular and of the public in general. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Paragraph 5 of Article 71, of the Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labor and administrative procedure provides that authorization to make audio and video recordings in the courtroom is applied for in writing at least forty-eight (48) hours before the hearing.

Paragraph one of Article 38, of the Constitutional of 2003 revised in 2015 provides that freedom of press, of expression and of access to information are recognised and guaranteed by the State. Freedom of expression and freedom of access to information shall not prejudice public order, good morals, the protection of the youth and children, the right of every citizen to honour and dignity and protection of personal and family privacy. Conditions for exercising and respect for these freedoms are determined by law. Re BYANSI (FOND)

## Page 292

50

It is in the finding of the Court that Article 38 of the Constitution providing that freedom of press includes the right to hold opinions without interference and access to information. This right is also enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, which states that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and of expression; this right includes freedom to hold one’s opinions without interference, and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.4 It is thus evident that freedom of the press is a constitutional right that should not be violated. This also concurs with the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Mugisha Richard where it ruled that anything including a law or its provision that violates the freedom of press would be unconstitutional.5

The Court finds, however, that in Article 38 of the Constitution, the Legislator has provided for exception on other rights that the freedom of press should not violate. In the following paragraphs, the Court is going to examine the submission of Byansi Samuel Baker and analyse whether the application by a journalist for the authorization to make audio and video recordings in the courtroom violates his/her constitutional rights, and thus being inconsistent with the Constitution.

In general, allowing the press to make audio and video recordings in the courtroom is regarded as a way to bring justice

4 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”. 5 Judgment RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2018/SC about Mugisha Richard, rendered on 24/04/2019, page 28. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 293

51 closer to the people and to make the courts more transparent. The issue often arises as to how these rights of the press should not interfere with other rights and principles such as the right to fair justice, the right to privacy of the parties and the rights of the victims.6

Covering audio-visual recordings in a courtroom is a practice that has occured in recent years considering technological development. It is in this context that it is important to refer to legal instruments or precedents in relation to such subject matter from the most technologically developed countries and which even initiated such procedure earlier than Rwandan Courts.

In the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa about The NDPP vs Media 24 Limited & others, HC Van Breda vs Media 24 Limited & others, the same Court declared that the freedom of the press and the principle of open justice provided for under the Constitution of the said country, are closely interrelated since they are used interchangeably for the media, reporting accurately and fairly on legal proceedings

6 […]” there is no real doubt that by allowing audio-visual coverage, courts will become more accessible to the public, and thus will potentially expose larger portions of society to the legal process, making it more transparent. The tough questions that still remain are first, whether audio-visual coverage should be recognized as a constitutional extension of the public trial or freedom of the press, and second, how one balances any potential effects of such coverage on rights and principles such as fair trial, privacy of parties to the legal process, and rights of victims.” See Itay Ravid, Tweeting #Justice: Audio-visual Coverage of Court Proceedings in a World of Shifting Technology, 2016, p. 51, https://law.stanford.edu/wp- content/uploads/2017/02/Tweeting_Justice-Ravid.pdf. Re BYANSI (FOND)

## Page 294

52 and judgments, to make a remarkable contribution to public confidence in the judiciary.7

The Court held that while these rights and principles are complementary, the Court is vested with the power to limit the nature and scope of the broadcast where necessary to ensure the fairness of the proceedings before it. It also helps the Judiciary in safeguarding and upholding the principles of impartiality and the independence of the judiciary in the interests of justice.8

The Court ruled that the judge should base on the following factors in considering the media's application for audio-visual coverage for each case:

7 Judgment, The NDPP v Media 24 Limited & others and HC Van Breda v Media 24 Limited & others (425/2017) [2017] ZASCA 97 (21 June 2017) para.16, “Freedom of the press and the principle of open justice are closely interrelated. The media, reporting accurately and fairly on legal proceedings and judgments, make an invaluable contribution to public confidence in the judiciary….”; https://media.lawlibrary.org.za/files/judgments/zasca/2017/97/2017-zasca- 97.pdf. 8 ” ….. Where there is a debate about whether given court proceedings should be broadcast, a court is vested with the power to limit the nature and scope of the broadcast where necessary to ensure the fairness of the proceedings before it. The power of the court to do so is an inherent one flowing from arts 173 of the Constitution 166 and must be exercised in the interests of justice is a key tool for courts to ensure their own independence and impartiality It recognises that courts have the inherent power to regulate and protect their own process. A primary purpose for the exercise of that power must be to ensure that proceedings before courts are fair. It is therefore fitting that the only qualification on the exercise of that power contained in s 173 is that courts in exercising this power must take into account the interests of justice.” Ibid., para. 59 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 295

53 - Whether such coverage does not interfere with the rights of the parties to a fair trial; - Whether coverage applied for does not unduly detract from the solemnity, decorum and dignity of the court.9

In India, the issue of audio and video recordings was addressed by the courts as per the case of Swapnil Tripathi & others vs Secretary General & Others rendered by the Supreme Court of the said country, where the same court explained the importance of audio - visual coverage in the hearing as regard to the right of access to justice and the principle of public hearing, whereby the same court stated that live streaming of the court proceedings facilitates the judiciary to enforce that right and principle, because such action makes it easier for the general public to follow court proceedings, as well as accessing information about the case, since it is not easy for many people to attend hearings due to limited financial resources, the capacity of courtrooms that are not large enough to accommodate a large number of people comparing to live streaming, and so on.10

9 It remains the duty of the trial court to examine with care each application. That court should exercise a proper discretion in such cases by balancing the degree of risk involved in allowing the cameras into the court room against the degree of risk that a fair trial might not ensue. … In making that decision, the judge may consider whether there is a reasonable likelihood that such coverage would: (i) interfere with the rights of the parties to a fair trial; or (ii) unduly detract from the solemnity, decorum and dignity of the court.” Idem. 10 […] “Indubitably, live streaming of Court proceedings has the potential of throwing up an option to the public to witness live court proceedings which they otherwise could not have due to logistical issues and infrastructural restrictions of Courts; and would also provide them with a more direct sense of what has transpired. Thus, technological solutions can be a tool to facilitate actualization of the right of access to justice bestowed Re BYANSI (FOND)

## Page 296

54

The court also elucidated that live streaming a hearing would be another way to uphold the rights of the public and of the parties in particular. The Court, however, held that while such an act assists the Judiciary and is based on the statutory rights, it must be done in a manner that does not prejudice the solemnity, decorum and dignity of the court, the privacy of the parties or the witnesses in that case, and avoiding anything else that would hinder the administration of fair justice. For this reason, it is important for the Court to establish guidelines for the conduct of such coverage in order to avoid violations of the rights provided for and to ensure that the observance of the rights on the one hand does not infringe on the rights of the other.11

The Court of Cassation in France also set the position on the issue relating to audio-visual coverage of the court

on all and the litigants in particular, to provide them virtual”; See Judgements of Swapnil Tripathi & others vs. Secretary General & Others, Supreme Court of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1232 Of 2017, p.8, https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/40426/40426_2017_Judgement_ 26-Sep-2018.pdf. 11 […] “live streaming of court proceedings in the prescribed digital format would be an affirmation of the constitutional rights bestowed upon the public and the litigants in particular. While doing so, regard must be had to the fact that just as the dignity and majesty of the Court is inviolable, the issues regarding privacy rights of the litigants or witnesses whose cases are set down for hearing, as also other exceptional category of cases of which live streaming of proceedings may not be desirable as it may affect the cause of administration of justice itself, are matters which need to be identified and a proper regulatory framework must be provided in that regard by formulating rules …………. It must be kept in mind that in case of conflict between competing Constitutional rights, a sincere effort must be made to harmonise such conflict in order to give maximum expression to each right while minimizing the encroachment on the other rights.” Ibid., paragraph 13. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 297

55 proceedings by holding that even if the public has a right to freedom of expression and interest in receiving information about court proceedings, the freedom of information must be balanced against other interests at stake, namely, the serenity of the proceedings and, in particular, the spontaneity and sincerity of the testimony as well as the attitudes of the defendants and witnesses, all of which depend, inter alia, on the certainty that there will be no publication of their statements in the courtroom, and thus affecting their privacy.12 The prohibition of any audio or video recording in the courtroom constitutes a necessary measure to guarantee the serenity and sincerity of judicial debates, which are a prerequisite for the manifestation of the truth and thus contribute to the impartiality of the judicial power.13

12 ⦋…..⦌”Même si le public a un intérêt légitime à recevoir des informations relatives aux procédures en matière pénale », particulièrement s’agissant d’une affaire de terrorisme, « la liberté d’information doit être mise en balance avec les autres intérêts en présence » à savoir, la sérénité des débats et particulièrement, la spontanéité et la sincérité des dépositions ainsi que les attitudes des accusés et des témoins, tous dépendant notamment « de la certitude qu’aucune publication de prises de vue n’interviendra », et également « le droit à l’image des parties concernées qui doit être préservé dans l’enceinte judiciaire;” Voir Clara Le Stum, Prise d’images et de sons pendant les audiences: une interdiction nécessaire pour la Cour de Cassation, 21 Avril 2020, https:/www.actualitesdudroit.fr/browse/penal/procedure- penale/27029/prise-d-images-et-de-sons-pendant-les audiences - une- interdiction-necessaire-pour-la-cour-de-cassation. 13 ……………. “l’interdiction de tout enregistrement, fixation ou transmission de la parole ou de l’image après l’ouverture de l’audience des juridictions administratives ou judiciaires, et de leur cession ou de leur publication, constitue une mesure nécessaire, dans une société démocratique, à garantir la sérénité et la sincérité des débats judiciaires, qui conditionnent la manifestation de la vérité et contribuent ainsi à l’autorité et à l’impartialité du pouvoir judiciaire”. Idem. Re BYANSI (FOND)

## Page 298

56

In the course of trial by the Court of Cassation, a lawsuit was also filed in the Constitutional Court of France where it was requested to confirm that the application for authorization to record audio and video in the courtroom was in violation of Article 38 ter of the Law of 26/07/1881 on the freedom of the press. The court ruled that the provisions of the law which may appear to be prejudicial to the freedom of press and communications, are reasonable and legitimate in the light of the purpose for their enactment.14

Based on the motivations provided by foreign courts, the instant Court finds that the principle of freedom of the press which is reflected in the freedom of expression and of access to information, is a principle that must be respected by all, including the courts, because it allows the public to get information about court proceedings without necessarily requiring their personal presence, but that principle should not prejudice other rights including the rights of the parties to fair justice and fair admistration of justice, as well as the right to privacy of the parties or witnesses.

The court finds that, in general, the principle of freedom of the press is respected by Rwandan courts because the hearing

14 […] “l’atteinte à l’exercice de la liberté d’expression et de communication qui résulte des dispositions contestées est nécessaire, adaptée et proportionnée aux objectifs poursuivis, à savoir la bonne administration de la justice, le droit au respect de la vie privée des parties et des personnes participant aux débats, à la sécurité des acteurs ou également aux respect de la présomption d’innocence;” Conseil Constitutionnel, Décision n° 2019-817 QPC du 6 décembre 2019, https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/2019/2019817QPC.htm. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 299

57 is conducted in public15 in order to facilitate anyone wishing to follow it, except that the Legislator determined the procedure for the making of audio and video recordings in the courtroom.

The freedom of expression and of access to information is one of the fundamental tenets of a democracy and the protection of other rights. Accordingly, prohibition from exercising that right should be based on a rational and legitimate purpose. In this regard, the Court finds that the Legislator has provided in the second paragraph of Article 38 of the Constitution, the limitations to the principle of freedom of the press in the courts in order not to prejudice public order, good morals, the protection of the youth and children, the right of every citizen to honour and dignity and protection of personal and family privacy.

The Court therefore finds that the fact that Article 71, paragraph 5 of the aforementioned Law no 22/2018 has provided the modalities of exercise of such freedom where it obliged those who want to make audio and video recordings in courtroom to apply for authorization within 48 hours, such is rational and legitimate because it is the duty of the Judiciary to ensure a peaceful and in respect of the rights of litigants and of other parties concerned by the case.

With regard to additional allegations by the petitioner about difficulties in finding time to apply for authorisation for making audio and video recordings in the courtroom on ground that it is impossible to get information about the cause list because the courts provide it shortly before the hearing, the

15 Article 70 of the aforementioned Law n° 22/2018 which provides for a hearing to be conducted in public. Re BYANSI (FOND)

## Page 300

58 instant Court finds that there are other remedies to such issue rather than declaring the impugned provision of the law unconstitutional.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that paragraph 5 of Article 71, of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labor and administrative procedure is not inconsistent with Article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Decides that the petition initiated by Byansi Samuel Baker seeking to declare paragraph 5 of Article 71 of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labor and administrative procedure inconsistent with Article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, lacks merit;

Holds that paragraph 5 of Article 71 of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labor and administrative procedure is not inconsistent with Article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 301

59

PROCEDURAL CASES

## Page 302

60

## Page 303

61

CASE RELATING TO CIVIL, COMMERCIAL, LABOUR AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

## Page 304

62

## Page 305

63 WHITEFIELD INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v THOMAS ET PIRON GRANDS LACS [Rwanda SUPREME COURT– RS/INJUST/RAD 00001/2020/SC (Nyirinkwaya, Cyanzayire, Hitiyaremye, Rukundakuvuga and Muhumuza, P.J.) October 16, 2020] Administrative procedure – Ex parte application – Third party opposition – Appeal against a judgment rendered on third party opposition – The judgment over ex parte application against which the third party opposition was initiated but of which the appeal was no longer admissible does not deprive the right to appeal to a party who was not satisfied with the ruling over the third party opposition. The law on the judiciary – Responsibilities of the Judiciary – Responsibilities of the President of the Court – A decision taken by the President of the Commercial Court to invalidate the enforcement formula is not an administrative decision subject to annulment action of an administrative decision under article 178 of the Law relating to Civil, Commercial, Labour and Administrative Procedure, rather the legislator intended to include such decision within the scope of the administrative decisions which the President of the Court can take in the context of the organization of judicial proceedings. Facts: Whitefield Investment Company Ltd filed a claim against Thomas et Piron Grands Lacs in arbitration to breach the contract for the construction of warehouses in the Free Trade Zone. Whitefield Investment Company LTD won the arbitration award 63

## Page 306

64 and the Registry of Commercial Court affixed an enforcement formula to the arbitral award and on its decision called recoverable costs. At the beginning of judgment execution, Thomas et Piron Grands Lacs wrote to the President of the Commercial Court requesting for the invalidation of the enforcement formula. After hearing from both sides, the President of the Court decided to invalidate that enforcement formula, this triggered the claimant to appeal to the President of the Commercial High Court to overturn the decision of the President of the Commercial Court, but he did not respond to that appeal, and for that, the claimant filed an administrative claim in the form of ex parte application to the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge requesting for the reestablishment of the enforcement formula. The Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge decided not to admit the claim and adjudicate it because it should not have been initiated as an ex parte application. The claimant appealed to the High Court which held that the appeal is well-founded, and ordered the reestablishment of the enforcement formula which was invalidated by the President of the Commercial Court. The defendant initiated a third party opposition against it alleging that the decision of the President of the Commercial Court which invalidated the enforcement formula was not an administrative decision like others. The High Court held that the defendant’s claim is founded, and that the related judgment is repealed. The claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal, then it adjudicated by deciding not to admit the appeal because it does not fall within its jurisdiction. The claimant submitted a request in writting to the President of the Supreme Court applying for review of the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeal on the grounds of RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 307

65 being vitiated by injustice, the President of the Court approved the request. The case hearing was conducted in public and it was determined whether the claimant’s appeal would have been admitted in the Court of Appeal, where he states that the Court did not admit its appeal disregarding that according to the provisions of the law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, a third party opposition concerns the court judgement on its merits and no longer subject to appeal and the judgment rendered under third party opposition is appealable only once. Which is contrary to the direction adopted by the Supreme Court where it was held that a third party opposition judgment is subject to appeal in case the one under third party opposition was also subject to appeal. The defendant argues that the judgment rendered by the Court in the event of a third party opposition may be appealed only once depending on its nature but that it is not a principle. This means that after an appeal to the High Court no other appeal was permissible but it could occur at the request of the judge who took the decision to make changes on the previous decision, but without prejudice to the rights that others were granted by that decision. On the issue of whether the decision of the President of the Court to invalidate the enforcement formula is an administrative decision that is subject to annulment under the provisions of article 178 of the Law relating to Civil, Commercial, Labour and Administrative Procedure which is into force, the claimant alleged that there are decisions which the President of the Court takes as a judge which follow ordinary remedies for their modification and the decisions taken by the President in his/her capacity as an authority which are reviewed through WHITEFIELD INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v THOMAS ET PIRON GRANDS LACS

## Page 308

66 administrative organs of the judiciary. It is further asserted that the decision to invalidate the enforcement formula is an administrative decision, and any person who is not satisfied with it may resort to appeal before the President of the higher Court. This contradicts the High Court’s ruling where it ruled that the decision of the President of the Commercial Court to invalidate the enforcement formula was not an administrative decision because it was taken on the basis of the grounds of parties or grounds of other concerned persons. The defendant argues that the decision to invalidate the enforcement formula is an administrative decision but which is different from others because the President of the Court takes it without consultation and it does not relate to the execution of courts’ decisions. It is further added that the legislator did not provide the appeal remedy for the decision to invalidate the enforcement formula, which means that such decision is not administrative, rather a judicial decision; therefore, the fact that the president of the court takes it without trial does not abolish its nature. Held: 1. The judgment over ex parte application against which the third party opposition was formed but of which the appeal was no longer admissible does not deprive of the right to appeal to a party who was not satisfied with the ruling over the third party opposition. Thus, the appeal of Whitefield Investment Company Ltd should have been admitted by the Court of Appeal. 2. A decision taken by the President of the Commercial Court to invalidate an enforcement formula, is not an administrative decision to be annulled under article 178 of the Law relating to Civil, Commercial, Labour and Administrative Procedure, rather the legislator intended to include such decision within the scope RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 309

67 of the administrative decisions which the President of the Court can take in the context of the organization and well functioning of case related issues. Thus, the decision of the President of the Commercial Court to invalidate the enforcement formula is not an administrative decision to issue an action for annulment in accordance with the provisions of article 178 of the Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to Civil, Commercial, Labour and Administrative Procedure. The appeal should have been admitted to the Court of Appeal. The judgment ruled by the Court of Appeal is quashed. The judgment rendered by the High Court is upheld. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: The Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, article 151. Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to Civil, Commercial, Labour and Administrative Procedure, articles 9, 20, 142, 149, 172, 161, 168, 178,179, 181, 184, 192 and 243. Law nº012/2018 of 04/04/2018 determining the organization and functioning of the Judiciary, article 43. No case law referred to.

WHITEFIELD INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v THOMAS ET PIRON GRANDS LACS

## Page 310

68 Judgment I… BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Whitefield Investment Company Ltd brought Thomas et Piron Grands Lacs in arbitration for breach of contract for construction of warehouses in the Free Trade Zone, Whitefield Investment Company Ltd won the case, the Registrar of the Commercial Court affixed an enforcement formula on the arbitral award and on a decision called recoverable costs. By the time the case was being executed, Thomas et Piron Grands Lacs wrote to the President of the Commercial Court requesting for the invalidation of the enforcement formula.

After hearing both sides on the issue, the President of the Court took a decision to invalidate the enforcement formula basing on the fact that a Kenyan Arbitrator Emmanuel Ochola Odhiambo decided in violation of the public order because he continued hearing the case knowing that he had been disqualified, and that another arbitrator had been appointed, therefore, maintaining the enforcement formula of his decision would be a violation of the right of Thomas et Piron Grands Lacs to be heard by a competent court.

After the invalidation of the enforcement formula, Whitefield Investment Company Ltd, basing on article 243 paragraph 4 of Law nº 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure stating that the decision of the President of Court on invalidation of an enforcement formula is an administrative decision, article 178 of that law providing for the acceptance and filing of a claim seeking the revocation of the decision of the Administration, and article RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 311

69 179 of that Law providing the effects of such complaints, appealed to the President of the Commercial High Court to overturn the decision of the President of the Commercial Court, who did not respond to the appeal, Whitefield Investment Company Ltd filed an administrative complaint in the form of ex parte application in the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge requesting for the revalidation of the enforcement formula.

The judgment initiated to the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge, the Chamber for administrative cases, and was subject to many appeals until to the Court of Appeal, the judgment rendered by that Court has been subject to review due to injustice.

In the judgment RAD 00116/2019/TGI/NYGE delivered on 24/06/2019, the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge ruled that the claim filed by Whitefield Investment Company Ltd was not admissible for consideration as it was not to be submitted in form of ex parte application. The Court's decision was based on the fact that Whitefield Investment Company Ltd had not indicated any urgency in overturning the decision to invalidate the enforcement formula and it is evident that the request is disputable and that it was necessary to notify all parties to the dispute before the Court decided.

Whitefield Investment Company Ltd appealed and in the judgment RADA 00091/2019 / HC / KIG of 26/07/2019, the High Court held that the appeal of Whitefield Investment Company Ltd was founded, and ordered the reinstatement of its rights, and revalidation of the enforcement formula which had been invalidated by the President of the Commercial Court. The Court based its decision on paragraph 3 of article 178 of the law relating to Civil, Commercial, Labour and Administrative Procedure WHITEFIELD INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v THOMAS ET PIRON GRANDS LACS

## Page 312

70 which states that the authority is required to respond in a period of one (1) month which runs from the date he/she received the informal appeal. If he/she does not respond, the request is considered as founded.

Thomas et Piron Grands Lacs initiated the third party opposition against the decision, arguing that the decision of the President of the Commercial Court invalidating the enforcement formula was not a normal administrative decision, and that in the judgment against which the third party opposition was initiated, the Court erred in examining the case on the merits while in the judgment under appeal, the Court had ruled that the claim was not admissible, which meant that the case had to be retransferred to the Intermediate Court to be heard on the merits. Another error in the judgment against which it initiated third party opposition is that article 178 of the law relating to Civil, Commercial, Labour and Administrative Procedure aforementioned was alleged to have been misinterpreted because the rights claimed were not entitled to Whitefield Investment Company Ltd since they are not the persons who requested the invalidation of that enforcement formula.

In the judgment RADA 00109/2019/HC/KIG of 17/09/2019, the High Court held that the third party opposition claim of Thomas & Piron Grands Lacs Ltd against the judgment RADA00091/2012/HC/KIG was founded, and that such judgment is quashed.

The Court explained that it relied its decision on the procedures used to affix and invalidate the enforcement formula on the enforcement order, indicating that it is not the personal decision of the President of the Court as it was preceded by the fact that the enforcement formula is affixed by the Court RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 313

71 Registrar, where the interested party writes to the President of the Court requesting its invalidation. The process is notified to all concerned parties, who shall also provide their opinion, and then the President of the Court shall decide. This means that the president is not the author of such decision, rather it is based on the grounds of the parties or the parties concerned by the enforcement formula, which is why it should not be attacked in accordance with the provisions of article 178 mentioned above, yet it is the one on which Whitefield Investment Company Ltd relied to file a lawsuit, implying that the claim was not filed in accordance with the law.

Whitefield Investment Company Ltd lodged a second appeal and in the hearing, Thomas et Piron Grands Lacs Ltd raised an objection to dismiss the appeal of Whitefield Investment Company Ltd based on the provisions of article 192 of the law relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure mentioned above providing that the decision taken on the claim of ex parte applicate can be appealed only once, such procedure was not respected.

Whitefield Investment Company Ltd contends that its appeal is based on article 168 of the aforementioned law, which provides that a judgment rendered by a court in result of third party opposition may be appealed in the same way as in other proceedings, and that a judgment in result of third party opposition may be appealed only once, thus, they state that the law allowed them to lodge one more appeal.

In the judgment RADAA 00006/2019/CA of 06/12/2019, the Court of Appeal held that the objection of inadmissibility of the appeal of Whitefield Investment Company Ltd raised by Thomas et Piron Grands Lacs was founded, and therefore its WHITEFIELD INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v THOMAS ET PIRON GRANDS LACS

## Page 314

72 appeal was dismissed. The Court based its decision on the fact that its claim was filed to the Intermediate Court in the nature of ex parte application, such claim was appealed to the High Court in that nature, and the third party opposition against it was initiated in the High Court still in the same form, and it was therefore not possible to be the subject of appeal before the Court of Appeal because such a claim is appealed only once, which is the position adopted in the cases decided by that Court, as well as the Supreme Court.

Whitefield Investment Company Ltd wrote to the President of the Supreme Court requesting him to order the review of the judgment RADAA 00006/2019/CA due to injustice, and on 18/05/2020 in the order 259/CJ/2020 the President of the Supreme Court approved the request and ordered the Registry of the Supreme Court to record the case and it was registered to RS/INJUST/RAD00001/2020/SC.

The case was heard in public on 15/09/2020, Whitefield Investment Company Ltd represented by Counsel Munyandamutsa Jean Pierre and Counsel Butare Emmanuel while Thomas et Piron Grands Lacs was represented by Counsel Ngirinshuti Jean Bosco and Counsel Nzirabatinyi Fidèle.

The Court first agreed with them on the issues for determination in the instant case based on the submissions of both parties, which are the following. : - Whether the appeal of Whitefield Investment Company Ltd would have been admitted to the Court of Appeal ; - Whether the decision of the President of the Commercial Court to invalidate the enforcement formula is an administrative decision to be attacked pursuant to Article RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 315

73 178 of Law nº 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 on civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure ; - Whether Thomas et Piron Grands Lacs should be awarded damages. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES A) Whether the appeal of Whitefield Investment Company Ltd would have been admitted to the Court of Appeal

Counsel Munyandamutsa Jean Pierre and Counsel Butare Emmanuel for Whitefield Investment Company Ltd contend that the Court of Appeal held that its appeal was dismissed in violation of paragraph 3 of article 161 of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure which provides that a third party opposition concerns the court judgement on its merits and no longer subject to appeal and article 168 paragraph 2 of that law which provides that a third party opposition judgement is subject to appeal only once.

They also argue that the judgment RCAA 0050/11/CS in which the Supreme Court held that a third party opposition judgement is subject to appeal once the judgment under third party opposition could be subject to appeal, should not have been relied upon as a precedent by the Court of Appeal as it was decided on the basis of the law relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure of 2004 whereas a lawsuit was filed by Whitefield Investment Company Ltd in accordance with the Law of 2018. WHITEFIELD INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v THOMAS ET PIRON GRANDS LACS

## Page 316

74

Counsel Ngilinshuti Jean Bosco and Counsel Nzirabatinyi Fidèle for Thomas et Piron Grands Lacs argue that article 168 paragraph 2 of the aforementioned law should not be read alone, rather it should be read together with the paragraph 1 of the same article reading that a judgment rendered following a third party opposition may be subject to the same procedures of appeal applicable to other judgments, the provisions of this paragraph imply that the judgment rendered by the Court in the event of a third party opposition may be appealed once depending on its nature but this is not the rule.

They further contend that the decision taken on the claim filed as an ex parte application is appealed only once as defined in article 192 of the aforementioned law, which means that after an appeal to the High Court no other appeal was possible.

They argued that although such claims are not subject to double appeal, they may be subject to appeal remedies because article 194 of the above-mentioned law provides that the applicant of or intervening party in an ex parte application may, if circumstances have changed, file an application for modification or revocation of the order to the judge who issued it, provided that the third party`s rights are secured. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The claim of Whitefield Investment Company Ltd requesting the Court to revalidate the enforcement formula was filed in the form of an ex parte application pursuant to article 178 of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 on law on civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure which provides in its last paragraph that in case the applicant does not get response and not RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 317

75 recover his/her rights, he/she can request an administrative court to order the applicant to be reinstated in his/her rights. The claim is filed within one (1) month by way of unilateral request.

The procedure of appeal in relation to such claims is specified in article 192 of that law providing that an appeal against the judge’s order taken on an ex parte petition is exercised for only once. This is the basis of Whitefield Investment Company Ltd appeal to the High Court against the decision of the Intermediate Court. This implies that after the Intermediate Court's decision, which was appealed to the High Court, no other appeal was possible because the ordinary remedies of appeal in that Court had already been exercised.

The issue in this case is to determine what happens when there is a decision taken on a claim filed in form of an ex parte application that exhausted all ordinary remedies of appeal but against which the third party opposition was initiated as Thomas et Piron Grands Lacs did, and the High Court, in third party opposition judgment reversed the decision that was taken in the judgment under third party opposition. Should the appeal against that judgment rendered over third party opposition be admitted while the judgment under third party opposition was no longer subject to appeal under article 192 of the aforementioned law ?

With regard to the third party opposition procedure, article 161 of the aforementioned Law relating to Civil, Commercial, Labour and Administrative Procedure, in its paragraph 3, states that the third party opposition is only exercised against the judgment decided on its merits and that could no longer be subject to appeal, while article 168 of that law in its last paragraph, reads that a third party opposition judgment may be appealed only once. The provisions of both articles imply WHITEFIELD INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v THOMAS ET PIRON GRANDS LACS

## Page 318

76 that the judgment that may be subject to third party opposition is the one that exhausted ordinary remedies of appeal, and the judgment therein may be appealed only once.

Therefore, the Court finds that since the judgment under third party opposition was no longer subject to appeal under article 192 of that law because it consists of the decision on the appeal against an order in relation to the ex parte application, and that no other appeal was possible; this does not deprive a party dissatisfied with the decision of the third party opposition judgment of the right to appeal in accordance with the provisions of articles 161 and 168, paragraph 2 of that law.

The foregoing implies that the position adopted in the judgment RCAA 0050/11/CS should not have been referred to in this reviewed judgment because it was based on the Law n°18/2004 of 20/06/2004 on civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, and the Law no21/2012 of 14/06/2012 on civil, commercial, labor and administrative procedure which replaced it did not provide anywhere that the third party opposition is only exercised against final judgment, and that a third party opposition judgment can be appealed once as provided for in the current law.

These changes brought by this Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to Civil, Commercial, Labor and Administrative Procedure, imply that the appellate court of the third party opposition judgment does not initially examine whether the judgment against which the third party opposition was initiated, could have been subject to appeal in order to decide on the admissibility of the appeal because such judgment is in fact final. Thus, a one-time appeal is a right granted to a party RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 319

77 who is dissatisfied with the decision of the judgment rendered under third party opposition.

The arguments of the legal counsel for Thomas et Piron Grands Lacs that the paragraph 2 of article 168 of the aforementioned law should not have been read in isolation, rather, it should be read in conjunction with its paragraph 1 which provides that a judgment rendered following a third party opposition may be subject to the same procedures of appeal applicable to other judgments to insinuate that the provisions of this paragraph imply that the judgment rendered by the Court in the event of a third party opposition may be appealed once due to its nature but that this is not always the case, this Court finds it incorrect because the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 168 defines only the modalities of filing of such claims, where it indicates that they are filed in the same or similar procedures applicable to other judgements.

The Supreme Court finds that, as in the case of other remedies of appeal, the Legislator did not intend to elaborate on the modalities of case filing, rather, he/she provided reference to other provisions, as in general the modalities of filing at any instance do not differ from the ordinary modalities of filing of a complaint at the first instance as provided for in article 20 of the aforementioned law which states that a claimant him/herself, his/her counsel or representative files a claim by submitting submissions in a court through an approved electronic means. It is in this context that they provided that opposition is formulated in the same way as filing any other claim (see paragraph 2 of article 142 of the law), that the ordinary appeal is conducted in the same way as filing a case (see article 149 of the law), that an WHITEFIELD INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v THOMAS ET PIRON GRANDS LACS

## Page 320

78 application for review is instituted through the same procedure as filing ordinary claims (see paragraph 2 of article 172 of the law).

Thus, it is also in that context that concerning an appeal against a third party opposition judgment, the Legislator, instead of repeating the claim file modalities, he/she opted to only state in paragraph 1 of article 168 that a judgement rendered following a third party opposition may be subject to the same procedures of appeal applicable to other judgements as described in article 20 above mentioned.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the appeal of Whitefield Investment Company Ltd would have been admitted by the Court of Appeal. B) Whether the decision of the President of the Commercial Court to invalidate the enforcement formula is an administrative decision to be attacked pursuant to Article 178 of Law nº 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 on Civil, commercial, labour and administrative Procedure

Counsel Munyandamutsa Jean Pierre and Counsel Butare Emmanuel, representing Whitefield Investment Company Ltd, argue that there are decisions made by the President of the Court as a judge (judicial decisions) and decisions he/she takes as an administrative authority (administrative decisions). When he or she takes a decision as a judge, such a claim goes through the registry of the court where it is recorded and tried. The party who is not satisfied with the decision may appeal. If he or she decides to act as the president of the court, it will not go through such procedures, not recorded, not considered for a trial to the extent of being subject to appeal. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 321

79

They further argue that Article 243 of the aforementioned law provides that the decision of the president of court on invalidation of an enforcement formula is an administrative decision, which means that the aggrieved party who is against the administrative decision is required to first lodge an informal appeal with the immediate superior authority to the one who took the challenged decision as specified by article 178 of that law because the decision is taken after considering the requirements for affixing enforcement formula.

They also allege that the High Court violated the provisions of that article and held that the decision of the President of the Commercial Court to dismiss the enforcement formula was not an administrative decision because it is taken on the basis of the submissions of parties or on the grounds of persons concerned by the enforcement formula and this is not likely to disqualify it from being an administrative decision, nor did the court specify its nature or the provision of the law referred to, which is contrary to article 151 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, in its subparagraph 3, stating that every judgment must indicate its basis, be written in its entirety, and delivered in public together with the grounds and the decision taken, and article 9, paragraph 1 of the Law relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure providing that a judge adjudicates a case on the basis of relevant rules of law. In the absence of such rules, the judge adjudicates according to the rules that he/she would establish if he/she had to act as legislator (…).

Counsel Ngilinshuti Jean Bosco for Thomas et Piron Grands Lacs argues that although article 243 of the aforementioned law provides that the decision to invalidate WHITEFIELD INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v THOMAS ET PIRON GRANDS LACS

## Page 322

80 enforcement formula is an administrative decision, it is just an appellation because it is taken by the President of the Court, but it is not an administrative decision as such.

Counsel Nzirabatinyi Fidèle, also representing Thomas et Piron Grands Lacs, argues that the decision of the President of the Commercial Court to invalidate the enforcement formula intends to enforce the courts’ rulings and that considering the reading of article 243, paragraph 2, indicates that the legislator has provided for adversarial debate because he or she still takes such decision after notifying all the involved parties to the dispute, who also have 5 days to react. This implies that such decision is different from other administrative decisions he or she may take (purely administrative) without consulting anyone and which are not related to the execution of the courts’ rulings.

He further alleges that concerning other administrative decisions, such as the decision to impose a civil fine for case delaying tactics or the decision of the registrar to remove the case from the list, the Legislator provided that such decisions are appealed to the President of the Court, which is not the case about the decision of invalidation of enforcement formula because he/she did not provide for such an appeal, which also implies that it is not an administrative decision , rather, a judicial decision. Thus, the fact that the president of the court still takes it in his/her capacity as an authority does not alter that nature.

With regard to the fact that the judge did not specify the nature of the decision taken by the President of the Commercial Court to invalidate the enforcement formula, Counsel Ngilinshuti Jean Bosco stated that the judge was not responsible to classify it because it was not the subject matter, and the fact that he had not explained the nature of that decision does not amount to injustice, RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 323

81 as they would instead apply for an interpretation of the judgment in order to be get explained about its nature by the judge if they were interested.

As for the fact that the judge lacked legal basis for the decision, he states that this is not true because the judge analyzed the provisions of articles 178 and 243 of the said law, and that the judge is not always required to rely on the provisions of law because even in its absence he is obliged to adjudicate in accordance with article 9 of that law, providing in its paragraph 2 that a judge cannot refuse to decide a case on any pretext of silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the law. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The matter of invalidation of the enforcement formula affixed on the enforcement order is provided in article 243 of the Law nº 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 on civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure indicating that it is requested from the President of the Court that affixed it, and the procedure of its examination as well as the time limit thereto. Such article reads that: When an enforcement formula is unlawfully affixed on an enforcement order, any interested person may address a written request to the president of the court that affixed it for invalidation. An application for the invalidation of an enforcement formula must be notified to all parties to the dispute. The parties to the dispute react to the application on invalidation of the enforcement formula within five (5) days. WHITEFIELD INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v THOMAS ET PIRON GRANDS LACS

## Page 324

82 Within forty-eight (48) hours following the period mentioned in Paragraph 2 of this Article, the president of the court or his/her delegate, based on the submitted application, takes a decision and provides the grounds for his/her decision. The decision of the president of court on invalidation of an enforcement formula is an administrative decision.

The same article indicates that the decision to invalidate the enforcement formula from the enforcement order is preceded by adversarial debate between the parties to the disputes because the president of the court takes it after notifying them of the application for them to react. It also indicates the urgency that the Legislator accorded its consideration since the parties have five (5) days to react on it, and the President also has 48 hours following those 5 days to take a motivated decision.

With regard to the annulment of administrative decisions, it is provided in article 178 of the law in title V relating to Special Proceedings, the chapter one relating to procedures in administrative matters and Section One relating to application for annulment of administrative decisions. Paragraph one of that article reads that the action for annulment of an administrative decision is admissible only if it relates to an explicit or implicit decision of an administrative authority

In determining whether the decision of invalidation by the President of the Court that affixed the enforcement formula is an administrative decision under appeal basing on the provisions of the aforementioned article 178, it is first necessary to determine whether it has been taken by the administrative authority referred to in that article. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 325

83

The judicial power has administrative organs like other powers of the state corresponding to the responsibilities of adjudication entrusted to that organ. Such organs are provided for in Law no 012/2018 of 04/04/2018 determining the organization and functioning of the judiciary. These include the High Council of the Judiciary, the Bureau of the Judiciary, the Inspectorate General of Courts, the General Secretariat of Courts, the Ordinary Courts and the Specialized Courts. These administrative organs are composed of judges, court registrars and other staff members governed by the Law governing the statutes of judges and judicial personnel and by the staff of the General Secretariat of the Courts governed by Law establishing the general statutes for public service.

Due to the nature of the judiciary and its responsibilities, all courts are governed by judges. The responsibilities of the President of the Court are set forth in article 43 of the mentioned Law determining the organization and functioning of the Judiciary1.

1Every president of a court is responsible for the administration of the court. In general, he/she is responsible for the matters related to the cases adjudication, administration, organization and smooth running of activities and the conduct of the staff of the court he/she heads. In that regard: 1 º he/she presides over the hearings in which he/she is taking part; 2 º he/she sets dates for hearings; 3 º he/she determines the judges on a bench and distributes cases among judges who adjudicate them; 4 º he/she adopts appropriate strategies to improve the court functioning and to expedite trial of cases; 5 º he/she supervises each staff member of the court under his/her responsibility and, depending on the staff member’s level and in accordance with the disciplinary procedure provided under the legal provisions governing the staff member, exercises disciplinary authority over him/her and informs WHITEFIELD INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v THOMAS ET PIRON GRANDS LACS

## Page 326

84

By analysis of the provisions of that article, it is clear that the presidents of the courts can take administrative decisions and judicial decisions as the parties concur themselves. Concerning judicial decisions, any judge decides in response to the issues referred to by litigants, which are within the jurisdiction of the court he or she presides over or the president of the court, and administrative decisions are taken within the scope of his or her duties.

In addition, the analysis of the administrative decisions that the authorities of the courts can take as stated in that article, they consist of decisions of two different types. The decisions relating to the organization and conduct of judicial work such as setting the hearing schedule, determining the hearing bench and trial judges, approval or rejection of complaints’ registration in case the party disagrees with the registrar on the admissibility of the complaint, confirmation of the existence of conciliation in the course of pretrial conference. There are also decisions relating to the service organization, functioning and conduct of the staff of the court under his/her attributions such as the supervision of the performance of each employee of the court he or she presides, imposes disciplinary regime, establishes necessary measures to improve the work of the court and to ensure that cases are decided quickly and efficiently, to monitor and oversee the functioning of the lower courts to the court he/she presides.

the president of the immediate higher court and the General Inspectorate of Courts; 6º he/she convenes and chairs the meetings of all court judges and other staff on a monthly basis and whenever necessary in order to examine the functioning of the court in general, the effectiveness and promptness of cases adjudication; 7º he/she monitors and supervises the functioning of lower courts. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 327

85

The Court finds that although the presidents of courts can take administrative decisions, either in the context of the organization and the smooth running of the administration of justice, or in terms of the organization of the service, functioning and conduct of the staff of the court he/she presides , the decisions they take are not subject to appeal under the provisions of article 178 of the aforementioned law because the way in which their decisions are reviewed or amended is provided for in the law governing the organization and functioning of the judiciary, through the organs of the administration of the judiciary according to their hierarchy, where the president of each court is responsible for the supervision of the functioning of the lower courts to the court he/she presides (from the President of the Intermediate Court up to the President of the Supreme Court and president of the High Council of the Judiciary as the superior organ of the Judiciary).

The Court also finds that when the article 178 of the law referred to is read together with the subsequent articles, especially article 181 empowering the court to order the administration to do or an injunction restraining the administrative authority from doing an act and prescribe a penalty for forcing execution, as well as article 184 indicating that, at the request of an interested party, the authority who refuses to comply with the court’s rulings may be summoned to the court which has decided to explain the reasons for his failure, the authority referred to in such articles is not the president of the court as it is inconceivable that the courts that are competent to hear administrative cases be given the power to supervise the functioning or administration of other judicial organs, as it would lead to such assumption should they be allowed to review the decisions of other judicial organs, which would result in disarray in the administration of the Judiciary. WHITEFIELD INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v THOMAS ET PIRON GRANDS LACS

## Page 328

86

Regarding the decision to invalidate the enforcement formula in particular, the Court finds that, in addition to the foregoing concerning the fact that the decisions taken by the presidents of the courts are not decisions attacked under article 178 of the aforementioned law, the Legislator intended to include such decision among administrative decisions likely to be taken by the President of the Court in the context of the organization and smooth running of the administration of justice as he or she normally does with other matters such as examining an appeal for a fine for delaying a case, registration of the claim that the registrar rejected , approving that a conciliation has been reached in pretrial conference. The foregoing intends to make certain decisions relating to the case more expeditious, and to facilitate the parties to defend their rights, without necessarily resorting to ordinary process of filing a complaint (filing a complaint with the court registry, case number allocation, setting up a bench, conducting hearing) and related remedies of appeal so that the decisions taken can be changed.

The peculiarity of such administrative decisions in comparison to litigation, is that whenever the authority takes it, and where the litigant is not satisfied, the latter challenges it to be changed, and if that decision remains unchanged to the detriment of the party, he or she may appeal to the superior authority as described above or to the Inspectorate General of Courts to get the fair justice and if necessary, the authority who wronged him/her may be subject to disciplinary sanctions.

Basing on the explanations provided which indicate that the decision of the President of the Commercial Court for annulment of the enforcement formula is not an administrative decision under the provisions of article 178 of the law relating to RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 329

87 civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, the Court finds that there was no injustice in the judgment RADA 00109/2019/HC/KIG, and therefore it is sustained. C) Whether Thomas et Piron Grands Lacs should be awarded damages

Counsel Ngilinshuti Jean Bosco requests that Thomas et Piron Grands Lacs be awarded 10,000,000 Frw of damages for being dragged in unnecessary lawsuits, 5,000,000 Frw for counsel fees and 2,000,000 Frw for procedural fees.

Counsel Munyandamutsa Jean Pierre, representing Whitefield Investment Company Ltd, argues that the damages claimed by Thomas et Piron Grands Lacs should not be awarded because they do not produce substantiating evidence. DETERMINATION OF COURT

The Court deems that damages for being dragged in unnecessary lawsuits should not be awarded to Thomas et Piron Grands Lacs for lack of substantiating evidence.

Regarding the counsel and judicial fees, the Court deems that although the claim of Whitefield Investment Company Ltd should have been admitted by the Court of Appeal, its claim was not well-founded, and therefore, it must pay Thomas et Piron Grands Lacs the expenses incurred at the instant court, where it is awarded 500,000 Frw for the counsel fee and 300,000 Frw of procedural fees which are determined upon the discretion of the Court as it failed to provide explanations for the claimed amount. WHITEFIELD INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v THOMAS ET PIRON GRANDS LACS

## Page 330

88 III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the appeal of Whitefield Investment Company Ltd should have been admitted by the Court of Appeal.

Quashes the judgment of RADAA00006/2019 / CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 06/12/2019.

Holds that the decision of the President of the Commercial Court to invalidate the enforcement formula is not an administrative decision likely to be attacked in accordance with the remedies provided for by article 178 of the aforementioned law relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure.

Upholds the judgment RADA 00109/2019/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court on 17/09/2019.

Orders Whitefield Investment Company Ltd to pay to Thomas et Piron Grands Lacs 500,000 Frw for counsel fees and 300,000 Frw for procedural damages, totaling 800,000Frw.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 331

89 VUNINGOMA ET AL. v RWANDA DEVOLPMENT BANK LTD (BRD) ET AL. [Rwanda COURT OF APPEAL – RCOMAA 00088/2020/CA (Ngagi, P.J.,) April 9, 2021] Law determining the jurisdiction of Courts - Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal - When the monetary value of the subject matter before the Court of Appeal cannot in its nature be determined, it has no jurisdiction over that case – Law n ° 30/2018 of 02 / 06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of the courts, article 52. Facts: BRD Ltd offered credit to Hotel SPLENDID KARISIMBI Ltd to build a hotel in Kiyovu, which in return mortgaged that hotel, from Vuningoma Alexis and Murekatete Rose, and it failed to pay off the loan as provided, and the Bank sued it in the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge, the Court ruled in favor of liquidation, and appointed a liquidator. Vuningoma and Murekatete filed a claim to the Commercial Court, requesting to confirm the one who could sell the mortgage between the liquidator decided by the Court and the receiver, as they did not understand why the mortgage they had secured to the Bank could be sold in the context of receivership whereas the Court had already ruled that all the assets of SPLENDID KARISIMBI Ltd and those which were secured by it were vested under the control of the liquidator. Basing on the fact that the mortgaged property belongs to Vuningoma Alexis and Murekatete Rose, the Commercial Court has found that the property could not be incorporated within the 89

## Page 332

90 assets of SPLENDID KARISIMBI Ltd in order to pay the general loan, instead it has found that the fact that they have mortgaged it to BRD emphasises that it is the particular security of BRD, because it was given to it, that same property could not be sold for repaying other debts of SPLENDID KARISIMBI Ltd, rather it should be sold in case of failing to pay the existing loan, and the property secured as a mortgage must be sold by the receiver because he is the one entrusted with competence, and it held that its claim is unfounded. Vuningoma and Murekatete were not satisfied with the ruling of that judgment and appealed to the Commercial High Court requesting to determine whether the property secured as mortgage to an insolvent company is not under control of a liquidator, must be sold particularly by the receiver, to determine whether the liquidator must intervene in the trial and they concluded by requesting the reimbursement of spent trial follow up expenses, the court fees and fees for lawyer. The Commercial High Court examined whether the liquidator should be forced to intervene during trial, whether the property secured as mortgage to an insolvent company should be sold by a liquidator or a receiver and whether the claimed damages are due. Regarding the issue of determining whether the liquidator must be forced to intervene, the Court has found that the appellants did not justify any interest of the liquidator that is jeopardized in the case so that he could apply for third party opposition against its rulings, it has found that the property under litigation is not the own asset of the company for which he is the liquidator, and therefore he is not linked with that property so that the decision taken therein could affect him, and it has found that the legal RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 333

91 procedure on that issue was not respected, as he was not notified by those who requested for his intervention. Regarding the issue that the property secured as mortgage to an insolvent company must be sold by a liquidator or a receiver, the Commercial High Court has found that the appellants' statements that the property secured as mortgage to an insolvent company must be sold by a liquidator not particularly by a receiver cannot be considered as founded, because at the appeal level they are unable to indicate what they criticise against the decision of the Court of the first instance, it has found that such property is not registered in the general asset of the insolvent company, therefore it must not be sold by the liquidator. Vuningoma and Murekatete were also dissatisfied with the ruling of the judgment, and they appealed to the Court of Appeal, also BRD raised an objection relating to lack of jurisdiction of the Court based on the value of the subject matter, it sustained that the second appeal should not be admitted for trial by the Court of Appeal on the second appeal because, both at the first instance and in the appeal, the subject matter was to uphold the one who must sell the mortgage between the liquidator and the receiver, it was not the value of the mortgage which was the subject matter, and it argued that because it was not the value of the mortgage which was the subject matter, and in the previous judgments, there is no party who filed a claim against it, they have found that for deciding on the one who must sell the mortgage, it cannot be given a monetary value to enable the competence of the Court of Appeal at the second appeal level. Vuningoma and Murekatete respond that the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction because the value of mortgage in dispute is 190,228,298 Frw which exceeds the amount of 75,000,000 Frw and the one who sold it had based on its value. VUNINGOMA ET AL. v RWANDA DEVOLPMENT BANK LTD (BRD) ET AL.

## Page 334

92 Held: When the subject matter before the Court of Appeal cannot in its nature be evaluated in monetary value, it has no competence. Objection sustained; Court fees deposited cover expenses incurred. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law n°30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, article 52 Case refereed to: RCOMAA 00046/2020 / CA; FARAJA HOTEL Ltd v. COGEBANQUE Plc ET.Al. rendered on 05/03/2021, by the Court of Appeal. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The case derivered from a loan of 1,050,000,000 Frw, BRD granted to SPLENDID KARISIMBI Ltd for the construction of a hotel in Kiyovu. In order to grant the loan, that hotel was mortgaged, SPLENDID KARISIMBI Ltd added another house with UPI: 1/02/09/02/2412 located in Rindiro Village, Kibagabaga Cell, Kimironko Sector, Gasabo District, Kigali City, secured by Vuningoma Alexis and Murekatete Rose. SPLENDID KARISIMBI Ltd did not repay the loan as planned, and by the judgment RCOM 00985/2016/TC/NYGE rendered by the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge on 09/09/2016, it was RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 335

93 placed under insolvency reorganization, until 13/11/2017, the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge took a decision for its liquidation and appointed a liquidator.

Vuningoma Alexis and Murekatete Rose filed a claim before the Commercial Court, requesting the appointment of the person between the liquidator decided by the Court and the receiver who should sell the mortgage registered to UPI: 1/02/09/02/2412, as they did not understand why the mortgage they secured could be sold in the context of receivership while the Court had already upheld in judgment RCOM 0435/2019 / TC that all the assets of SPLENDID KARISIMBI Ltd as well as all that had been secured to it were vested in the liquidator.

On 28/06/2019, in the judgment RCOM 00779/2019 / TC, basing on the fact that the property registered on UPI: 1/02/09/02/2412 belongs to Vuningoma Alexis and Murekatete Rose, the Commercial Court found that it could not be amalgamated with the assets of SPLENDID KARISIMBI Ltd for payment of general loan, rather, it found that the fact that they have mortgaged it in BRD highlights that the mortgage is the property of BRD as it was given it, so that that property cannot be sold for repayment of other debts of SPLENDID KARISIMBI Ltd, rather it could only be sold if the existing loan remains unpaid. The Court also found that the property secured as mortgage must be sold by the receiver because he is competent in accordance with the Registrar General's Regulations, and it held that its claim was unfounded, it ordered to Vuningoma Alexis and Murekatete Rose to pay to BRD 600,000 Frw as counsel's fees and 40,000 Frw as procedural fee.

Vuningoma Alexis and Murekatete Rose were not satisfied with the decision of judgment and appealed before the VUNINGOMA ET AL. v RWANDA DEVOLPMENT BANK LTD (BRD) ET AL.

## Page 336

94 Commercial High Court, requesting to determine whether the property secured as mortgage to an insolvent company is not vested in a liquidator should be sold particularly by the receiver, to determine whether the liquidator should be forced to intervene in the case and they concluded by requesting to be repaid the procedural fees, the court fees and the counsel’s fees.

In the judgment RCOMA 00662/2019/HCC rendered on 04/09/2020, the Commercial High Court examined whether the liquidator should be forced to intervene in the case, whether the property secured as mortgage to an inslovent company should be sold by the liquidator or receiver, it also examined whether the claimed damages are grounded.

Whether the liquidator should be forced to intervene in the case, the Court found that the appellants failed to justify interests of the liquidator who is Milimo Mukwende Olivier in such a case that would be jeopardized so that he should apply for third party opposition, it found that the property under litigation was not the own asset of the company for which he is the liquidator and therefore he is not linked with that property so that the decision taken therein could jeopardize him, and it found that the legal procedure on that issue was not respected as Milimo Mukwende Olivier was not notified by those who requested for his intervention.

Regarding the fact that the property secured as mortgage to an insolvent company should be sold by a liquidator or a receiver, the Commercial High Court found that the appellants' statements that the property secured as mortgage to an insolvent company should be sold by a liquidator not particularly by a receiver cannot be considered as founded, because at the appeal instance they were unable to indicate their criticism against the RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 337

95 decision of the Court of the first instance, it found that such property is not registered in the general property of the insolvent company, therefore it should not be sold by the liquidator as his responsibility is to collect the company's assets wherever they are located, for the purpose of selling them to repay proportionally its debtors, it finds that due to the fact that property was mortgaged on the outstanding loan, such property must be sold on the basis of the agreement of both parties in the loan agreement they concluded, the receiver appointed by the Registrar General must sell the mortgage aforementioned, and it held that the appeal of Vuningoma Alexis and Murekatete Rose was unfounded, the appealed judgment was sustained, it ordered them to pay to BRD 800,000Frw for procedural and counsel fees.

Vuningoma Alexis and Murekatete Rose were also not satisfied with the ruling of the judgment and appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The judgment was heard in public on 08/03/2021, Vuningoma Alexis and Murekatete Rose were represented by Counsel Murutasibe Joseph and BRD by Counsel Mbera Martine and Counsel Ntazika Néhémie, the hearing was held on the objection related to the lack of the jurisdiction of the Court based on the value of the subject matter and the fact that the appellants lost in both previous courts on the basis of the same grounds submitted by the BRD.

VUNINGOMA ET AL. v RWANDA DEVOLPMENT BANK LTD (BRD) ET AL.

## Page 338

96 II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUES 1. Whether the second appeal of Vuningoma Alexis and Murekatete Rose is not within the jurisdiction of this Court

In the framework of examining the objection relating to the lack of the jurisdiction of this Court raised by the BRD, it is necessary first to consider the matter of the jurisdiction of the Court based on the value of the subject matter, before analyzing whether it is necessary to determine whether the appellants have lost the cases in both courts on the same grounds.

As to the value of the subject matter, the legal counsel for BRD submit that they based on article 52, paragraph 4, of Law n ° 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, they noted that this second appeal cannot be admitted for trial by the Court of Appeal at the second appeal because both in the first instance and on the appeal level, the subject matter was to determine the person who could sell the mortgage between the liquidator and the receiver, not the value of the mortgage. They aver that because it is not the value of the mortgage which is in dispute, and no party filed a claim against it in previous cases, they find that the appointment of a person who could sell the mortgage cannot be valued in terms of money for vesting in the Court of Appeal the jurisdiction at the level of the second appeal.

They explain that the aforementioned Law n ° 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 provides for the claims that can be admitted in the Court of Appeal, there are claims that are only appealed once, including this instant one, they submit that Vuningoma Alexis and Murekatete Rose should have applied for review due to injustice instead of lodging appeal. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 339

97

Vuningoma Alexis and Murekatete Rose sustain that the Court of Appeal has the jurisdiction on basis of Article 52, paragraph 4, of Law n ° 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, as the mortgage in dispute has a value of 190,228,298 Frw which exceeds 75,000,000 Frw and the seller had based on its value. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 52, paragraph 4, of Law n ° 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of the 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 the Military High Court, when the monetary value of the dispute was not determined in the earlier cases, it must have a value of at least seventy-five million Rwandan francs (FRW 75,000,000) determined by an expert if necessary”.

The case file indicates that in the judgment RCOM 00779/2019/TC rendered by the Commercial Court on 28/06/2019, Vuningoma Alexis and Murekatete Rose filed the claim before the Court requesting the appointment of the person who should sell the mortgage registered on UPI: 1/02/09/02/2412 between the liquidator decided by the court and the receiver, as the claimants do not understand why the mortgage they secured could be sold in the context of receivership. The Court found that the mortgage was to be sold by the receiver because he was competent according to the Registrar General's Regulations and it held that the claim was unfounded, but it ordered to Vuningoma Alexis and Murekatete Rose to pay to BRD the counsel and procedural fees. VUNINGOMA ET AL. v RWANDA DEVOLPMENT BANK LTD (BRD) ET AL.

## Page 340

98

The case file also indicates that in the judgment RCOMA 00662/2019/HCC rendered by the Commercial High Court on 04/09/2020, Vuningoma Alexis and Murekatete Rose appealed requesting to determine whether the property secured as mortgage to an insolvent company is not vested in a liquidator should be sold particularly by the receiver, to determine whether the liquidator should be forced to intervene in the case and they concluded by requesting to be repaid the procedural fees, the court fees and the counsel’s fees and the Commercial High Court held that the appeal of Vuningoma Alexis and Murekatete Rose was unfounded and maintained the appealed judgment.

In the premises, the two previous courts were seized and examined the issue of the person who could sell the mortgage registered on UPI: 1/02/09/02/2412 between the liquidator and the receiver, any party raised the issue of the value of the mortgage under litigation, it is not the subject matter at this instance, rather the issue is to determine whether the mortgage was to be sold by the liquidator or the receiver, and both previous courts found that the mortgage had to be sold by the receiver, because the property registered on UPI: 1/02/09/02/2412 belongs to Vuningoma Alexis and Murekatete Rose, it should not be amalgamated with the assets of SPLENDID KARISIMBI Ltd. This Court also finds that the subject matter as filed by Vuningoma Alexis and Murekatete Rose from the Commercial Court cannot be valued in terms of money, because it should not be amalgamated with the mortgaged property registered on UPI: 1/02/09/02 / 241 having the value which exceeds 75,000,000 Frw as alleged by the claimants.

As to the statements of the legal counsel for Vuningoma Alexis and Murekatete Rose that this Court has jurisdiction under RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 341

99 article 52, paragraph 4, of Law n ° 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of the courts, because the mortgage in dispute is valued at more than 75,000,000 Frw and the seller based on its value, the Court finds them unfounded, as the debates in all the lower courts were based on determining who should sell the mortgage between the liquidator and the receiver, and this cannot be valued in money so that it may be considered as being within the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to article 52 of the Law referred to in this paragraph. Such was the same position of this Court in the judgment RCOMAA 00046/2020/CA rendered on 05/03/2021, FARAJA HOTEL Ltd v. COGEBANQUE Plc et al. in which the Court held that the subject matter as filed by FARAJA Hotel Ltd from the Commercial Court cannot be valued in terms of money.

Basing on the aforementioned explanations and legal provisions, the Court finds that the objection concerning the lack of jursdiction relating to the value of the subject matter raised by BRD is grounded, therefore the second appeal filed by Vuningoma Alexis and Murekatete Rose is inadmissible, given that it is not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal. The Court also finds that it is not necessary to analyze the objection relating to the fact that the appellants lost in both previous courts on basis of the same grounds. 2. Whether the counsel and procedural fees claimed in this case should be awarded

BRD claims that Vuningoma Alexis and Murekatete Rose should pay to it the damages of 2,000,000 Frw for being dragged in lawsuits and counsel's fees. VUNINGOMA ET AL. v RWANDA DEVOLPMENT BANK LTD (BRD) ET AL.

## Page 342

100

Vuningoma Alexis and Murekatete Rose submit that their appeal is legally supported, and the lawyers of BRD do not explain their request, rather they sustain that BRD should be ordered to pay to Vuningoma Alexis and Murekatete Rose 300,000Frw as the procedural fee, the court fees for all levels and counsel's fees. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 111, of Law n ° 22/2018 of 28/04/2018 on Civil, Commercial, Labor and Administrative Procedure provides that “The claim for representation fees is an incidental claim to the principal claim aiming to repay expenses incurred during judicial proceedings. The claim for legal costs is adjudicated at the same time with the principal claim. It can also be admitted and adjudicated even if the principal claim has not been admitted.”

The Court finds that the expenses incurred during the judicial proceedings claimed by BRD are well-founded, as it was necessary to hire a lawyer to represent it before the court, in its sole discretion, it orders to Vuningoma Alexis and Murekatete Rose to pay to BRD 700,000 Frw as counsel and procedural fees at this level ; whereas the damages claimed by Vuningoma Alexis and Murekatete Rose should not be examined, as the case is limited to the objection. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the objection relating to the lack of the jurisdiction of this Court raised by DEVELOPMENT BANK OF RWANDA (BRD) is founded; RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 343

101

Holds that the appeal of Vuningoma Alexis and Murekatete Rose is inadmissible, given that it is not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal;

Holds that the incidental appeal filed by DEVELOPMENT BANK OF RWANDA (BRD) is founded;

Orders to Vuningoma Alexis and Murekatete Rose to jointly pay to DEVELOPMENT BANK OF RWANDA (BRD) 700,000 Frw including counsel and procedural fees, at this level;

Holds that the court fees deposited cover the expenses incurred during the judicial proceedings.

VUNINGOMA ET AL. v RWANDA DEVOLPMENT BANK LTD (BRD) ET AL.

## Page 344

102

## Page 345

103

CASE IN MERITS

## Page 346

104

## Page 347

105

CIVIL CASE

## Page 348

106

## Page 349

107 NICYABERA v. MUKAGATARE [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – R S / I N J U S T / R C 0 0 0 0 4 / 2 0 1 8 / S C (Nteziryayo, P.; Nyirinkwaya, J; Cyanzayire, J; Rukundakuvuga, J and Hitiyaremye, J.) January 21, 2020] Family Law – Unlawful cohabitation – Right to property – When a man and a woman cohabit without being legally married, the activities of one of them to increase the value of the family property allow him/her to have right to it. Land Law – Land Registration – Nullity of land registration certificate – The person who obtains the land title without proving its legitimate acquisition, provided for by the law is in violation of the law, a certificate of land registration that would be obtained in that process do not grant to him/her the rights over the land because they can be invalidated if anyone proves the ownership. Facts: The judgment was initiated in the Primary Court of Kibungo where Nicyabera sued Mukagatare of occupying her father's land while they have never been legally married and they did not get a child. The Court rendered the jugdment and declared that Mukagatare has right to the land claimed by Nicyabera. The Court motivated that Mukagatare was married to her husband Gashabure because she had presented a certificate issued by competent authorities and she should ensure the administration of the entire patrimony of Gashabure and discharge the responsibility of children custody and help the deceased's parents if needed. After being informed that there was a court decision according to which Gashabure was legally married to Mukagatare, she filed a 107

## Page 350

108 claim before the Primary Court of Nyamata for third party opposition. The Court rendered the judgment by declaring that Nicyabera's claim lacks merits as she failed to produce the evidence contradictory to the one relied on; and it declared that the judgment subjected to her application for third party opposition shall be sustained. Nicyabera lodged appeal to the Intermediate Court of Gasabo against this judgment stating that the elements of evidence she produced have been disregarded, the Intermediate Court decided that Nicyabera's appeal has merits and in ruling, the Court held that Mukagatare was legally married to Gashabure by relying on false evidence and it decided that the judgment is reversed in whole and quashed; and it held that Mukagatare was never married to Gashabure. After the ruling of this judgment, Nicyabera Espérance applied for review of the case which ordered the registration of Gashabure's land to Mukagatare where she stated that the Court ruled the case on basis of evidence that Mukagatare was married to Gashabure while there is another judgment which decided the marriage did not happen. The Primary Court of Kibungo held that Nicyabera's claim lacks merits because the plot of land under litigation was registered to Mukagatare but Nicyabera did not make opposition. No one did not file a claim against that authentic deed for its invalidation, therefore the judgment was sustained. Nicyabera submitted the case to the Office of the Ombudsman seeking the review of the judgment rendered by the Primary Court of Kibungo as it was vitiated by injustice. After review and analysis, the Office of the Ombudsman found that the judgment RC 0488/011/TB/KGO subjected to application for review was not the one vitiated by injustice, but the judgment vitiated by injustice is RC 0016/14/TB/KGO rendered on the date of the RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 351

109 hearing of the case RC 0488/011/TB/KGO subjected to review; and the Office informed the President of the Supreme Court requesting the review of the judgment RC 0016/14/TB/KGO on grounds of being vitiated by injustice. The President of the Supreme Court decided that the case should be referred to the Court Registry for review. Nicyabera states that her criticism against the case subjected to review due to injustice is that there is a plot of land registered to Mukagatare, which gives her the right to the land. She states that the fact that Mukagatare registered the land in her name is not enough to have rights to the land under litigation as she failed to certify the land ownership. Nicyabera states that Mukagatare should have indicated whether she acquired the land through custom, purchase, donation, ascending sharing, exchange, and succession or through land sharing. She concludes by stating that the Primary Court of Kibungo erred by declaring that the land belonged to Mukagatare because she has the certificate of emphyteutic lease, whereas keeping the certificate is not an evidence beyond doubt of land ownership. Mukagatare submits that the land registerd to her is plot of land which has been definitely granted by competent authorities after being divided into three parts. The other two parts of land were given to Nicyabera and her brother Ruduha. She avers that Nicyabera does not have any right to the plot of land registered to her as she has aquired her own part. She further states that the fact that the property is registered to her without any opposition means that she has right to it, the reason why she sold plots of it for personal needs. Held: 1. When a man and a woman cohabit without being legally married, the activities of one of them to increase the value of the NICYABERA v. MUKAGATARE

## Page 352

110 family property allow him/her to have rights on it. Therefore, Mukagatare had the right to the property commonly owned with Gashabure. This is the reason why Gashabure gave her a part of her portion before her departure; and she has no right to seek again for another portion of the property because she had already acquired her portion, the land under litigation shall be owned by Gashabure's heirs. 2. The person who obtains the land title without proving its legitimate acquisition, provided for by the law is in violation of the law, a certificate of land registration that would be obtained in that process do not grant to him/her the rights over the land because they can be invalidated if anyone proves the ownership, therefore, the certificates of land under litigation registered to Mukagatare shall be invalidated. Application to review the judgment on grounds of being vitiated by injustice has merits; The ruling of the reviewed case is reversed. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law n° 43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing Land in Rwanda, article 10; Law n° 59/2008 Prevention and Punishment of Gender- Based Violence, article 39; Law nº 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to Evidence and its Production, article 65. Cases referred to: The judgment RCAA 0018/13/CS, Harerimana et al v. Sebukayire rendered by the Supreme Court on 4/10/2014 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 353

111 Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Nicyabera Espérance filed a claim against her mother-in- law, Mukagatare Mariane before the Primary Court of Kibungo, requesting restitution of her father's land she acquired as they had neither been legally married nor got any child.

On 28/06/2012, the Court adjudicated the Case RC 0488/011/TB/KGO and ruled that Mukagatare Mariane has right to the land claimed by Nicyabera Espérance. In making that decision, the Court motivated that Mukagatare Mariane was married to her husband GASHABURE Michel because she had submitted a certificate issued by the competent authorities. Therefore, according to the Article 70, paragraph one, providing that in case of death of one of the spouses, the surviving spouse shall ensure the administration of the entire patrimony while assuming the duties of raising the children and assistance to the needy parents of the de cujus (…), Mukagatare Mariane shall ensure the administration of the entire patrimony of Gashabure Michel and assume the duties of raising the children and assistance to the needy parents of the de cujus. 1

After being informed that there had been the judgment RC 0015/012/TB/NMTA which held that GASHABURE Michel was legally married to Mukagatare Mariane, Nicyabera Espérance filed a claim to the Primary Court of Nyamata for third party

1 The Court was referring to Article 70 of Law N° 22/99 of 12/11/1999 to supplement Book One of the Civil Code and to institute part five regarding matrimonial regimes, liberalities and successions NICYABERA v. MUKAGATARE

## Page 354

112 opposition. On 02/07/2013, the Court rendered the judgment RC 0390/012/TB/NMTA by ruling that Nicyabera Espérance's claim lacks merits as she failed to produce evidence contradictory to the evidence on which the judgment RC 0015/012/TB/NMTA was based and it held that the case subjected to opposition shall not be reversed.

Nicyabera Espérance filed appeal against the judgment before the Intermediate Court of Gasabo stating that the elements of evidence she produced were disregarded. On 29/11/2013, the Court adjudicated the judgment RCA 0307/13/TGI/GSBO and ruled that Nicyabera Espérance's appeal has merits and in adjudicating the judgment RC 0015/012/TB/NMTA the Court held that Mukagatare Mariane was married to Gashabure Michel basing on false evidence. Therefore, it ordered that the judgment RC 0390/012/TB/NMTA was reversed in whole and ordered that the judgment RC 0015/012/TB/NMTA was quashed by declaring that Mukagatare Mariane was never married to Gashabure Michel.

After the ruling of the case, Nicyabera Espérance applied for review of the case RC 0488/11/TB/KGO which decided the registration of Gashabure Michel's land to Mukagatare Mariane, stating that the Court had ruled it according to evidence that Mukagatare Mariane was married to Gashabure Michel and there is the case RCA 0307/13/TGI/GSBO which held that such marriage did not happen.

On 27/10/2014, the Primary Court of Kibungo adjudicated the case RC 0016/14/TB/KGO and ruled that the claim filed by Nicyabera Espérance lacks merits as the plot of the land under litigation was registered to Mukagatare Mariane, but Nicyabera Espérance did not make opposition. No one did not RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 355

113 file a claim against that authentic deed for its invalidation, therefore the judgment RC 0488/011/TB/KGO is sustained.

On 20/01/2015, Nicyabera Espérance submitted the case to the Office of the Ombudsman requesting the review of the judgment RC 0488/011/TB/KGO rendered by the Primary Court of Kibungo as it was vitiated by injustice.

After review and analysis, the Office of the Ombudsman found that the judgment RC 0488/011/TB/KGO was not the one vitiated by injustice, but the case vitiated by injustice is RC 0016/14/TB/KGO rendered on the date of the hearing of the case RC 0488/011/TB/KGO subjected to review; and the Office informs the President of the Supreme Court requesting review of the judgment RC 0016/14/TB/KGO on grounds of being vitiated by injustice.

Basing on the report of the Inspectorate General of Courts, on 12/02/2018, the President of the Supreme Court decided that the case should be referred to the Court Registry for review and it was recorded under RS/INJUST/RC 00004/2018/SC.

In her submissions, Nicyabera Espérance sustains that the fact that Mukagatare Mariane was granted land titles is not enough to secure the right to the land under litigation because she did not indicate the acquisition origin, given that she was not legally married to her father. However, Mukagatare Mariane claims that she has right to the land because it was given to them by the local authorities who were together with her husband in 1970. NICYABERA v. MUKAGATARE

## Page 356

114

The case was heard in public audience on 11/11/2019, Nicyabera Espérance was assisted by Counsel Munyankindi Monique, Mukagatare Mariane by Counsel Rwimo Clotilde. First of all, the parties debated on objections raised by the legal counsel for Mukagatare Mariane.

The first objection raised by Counsel Rwimo Clotilde was related to admissibility of the claim because she stated that Nicyabera Espérance had no interest nor capacity in claiming Gashabure Michel's property because there was no evidence that she is his child. On the other hand, Counsel Munyankindi Monique, Counsel for Nicyabera Espérance, stated that she is Gashabure Michel's daugther because he had registered her on his identity card, and according to the birth certificate of Nicyabera Espérance, it is clear that she is the daugther of Gashabure Michel.

The Court made decision on the bench and decided that the objection lacks merits because the Court declared that concerning the claims related to the cases vitiated by injustice, the issues related to interest and capacity cannot be heard, except when the injustice is based on those issues.

The second objection raised by Counsel Rwimo Clotilde was related to the fact that the Office of the Ombudsman had stated that the injustice was in the judgment RC 0016/14/TB/KGO whereas it was not the one which was requested to review the case. Regarding that objection, Counsel Munyankindi Monique sustained that such does not constitute an objection, the fact that a case vitiated by injustice was submitted to the Office of the Ombudsman and the latter found it in another case different from the submitted one, such does not constitute an RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 357

115 issue, the important is that the subject matter is the same for both cases.

That objection was also decided by the Court on the bench and it declared that it lacks merits, and it is not an issue if the Office of the Ombudsman would receive a judgment alleged by a party to be vitiated by injustice, but finds it in another judgment, the important is that the cases were adjudicated on the same subject matter.

The Court ordered the continuation of the case hearing on the merits, but it found that it was necessary to visit the place where the subject matter is located before the hearing closure. On 16/01/2020, the Court visited the place where the subject matter is located in Rugaju Village, Ntaga Cell, Mugesera Sector, Ngoma District, Eastern Province and it asked the citizens about what they know about the land under litigation, in the presence of parties to the case. On 05/02/2020, the parties appeared again before the Court to comment on the findings of the Court's investigation.

According to the nature of this case, the legal issues are to determine whether the fact that Mukagatare Mariane was issued a land title was enough to grant her the right to the land under litigation as it was declared in the case subjected to application for review due to injustice, and whether the fact that Mukagatare Mariane is not married to the deceased Gashabure Michel deprives her of the rights on the property they commonly owned as pleaded by the side of Nicyabera Espérance. The issue related to the claimed damages was also examined.

NICYABERA v. MUKAGATARE

## Page 358

116 II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES Whether the fact that Mukagatare Mariane was issued a land title was enough to grant her the right to the land under litigation

Nicyabera Espérance and her Counsel Munyankindi Monique state that their criticism for the case subjected to review on ground of being vitiated by injustice is that the Court declared that there is plot of the land registered to Mukagatare Mariane, which gives her the right to the land. They sustain that the fact that the land was registered to Mukagatare Mariane is not enough to secure the right to the land under litigation as she failed to prove its acquisition mode in accordance with the provisions of Article 10 of Law N ° 43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda. They submit that according to the provisions of this Article, she should prove that she acquired the land through custom, by purchase, donation, ascending sharing, exchange, succession or through land sharing.

They conclude by stating that the Primary Court of Kibungo erred by ruling that the land belonged to Mukagatare Mariane because she had a certificate of emphyteutic lease, but that the certificate is not an evidence beyond doubt that its holder is the land owner as upheld by the Supreme Court in the judgment RCAA 0018/13/CS rendered on 24/12/2014.

Mukagatare Mariane and her Counsel Rwimo Clotilde argue that the land registered to her is plot of the land granted to her by competent authorities after its division into three parts. The other two parts were given to Nicyabera Espérance and her brother Ruduha Muzerwa. They state that Nicyabera Espérance RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 359

117 has no right to the part registered to her as she acquired her plot of land. They add that the fact that the land was registered to Mukagatare Mariane without any opposition means that she is the rightful owner, the reason why she sold plots of it for personal needs. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 10 of the Law N ° 43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda, provides that “private individual land shall comprise land acquired through custom or written law”. The Article also provides that “the land has been granted definitely by competent authorities or acquired by purchase, donation, inheritance, succession, ascending sharing, and exchange or through sharing”.

The aforementioned Article provides that in order to obtain a certificate of land registration, a person must prove to the competent authority that he/she acquired it through one of the means referred to in that Article. In other words, anyone who may register the land under his/her name without indicating the means of acquisition provided for in that Article he/she would have done so illegally, therefore, the certificates issued to him/her do not grant to him/her the right to it because they may be invalidated if someone proves to be its owner. This was the position of the Supreme Court in the judgment RCAA 0018/13/CS2. It is the

2In this case, the Court found that Sebukayire Tharcisse was issued the certificate of land registration without indicating to the issuers the origin of the land he claimed to be his own granted by competent authorities […]; this indicates that Sebukayire fraudulently received the certificate of land registration without complying with one of the formalities provided for by law. Para. 22. The result is that the Court invalidated that land title. Para.23 NICYABERA v. MUKAGATARE

## Page 360

118 same with someone who may register ther land under his/her names based on the certificates later invalidated, that person may immediately lose the right based on the certificate of emphyteutic lease obtained in the same way.

With regard to this case, the documents of the case file indicate that Nicyabera Espérance filed a claim to the Primary Court of Kibungo requesting review of the judgment RC 0488/011/TB/KGO which upheld that the land under litigation belonged to Mukagatare Mariane because it was owned by her husband Gashabure Michel to whom she was legally married, the new evidence she produced was a final judgment which upheld that Mukagatare Mariane and Gashabure Michel had never been legally married. That Court ruled that her claim lacks merits, it decided that there is a plot of the land registered under Mukagatare Mariane’s names, thus, the judgment RC 0488/011/TB/KGO is sustained.

Basing the legal provisions and explanations above mentioned, the Court finds that the fact that there is plot of land registered under Mukagatare Mariane does not grant her the right to the land, unless she indicates the origin of its acquisition. Whether the fact that Mukagatare Mariane was not married to Gashabure Michel deprives her of the rights on the property they commonly owned before their separation

Nicyabera Espérance avers that Mukagatare Mariane took over her father's land, Gashabure Michel after his death in 1994 while they had been separated since 1986, this means that for the past nine (9) years, they did not live together as spouses. She states that she invoked their past cohabitation but they had never been legally married and they did not get a child. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 361

119

She submits that Mukagatare Mariane began living with the father (of Nicyabera) in 1973, replacing two (2) other women, including her mother and the mother of Ruduha Muzerwa (another child of Gashabure Michel). She sustains that they were later separated and she left home, her father married another woman called Sezariya, after two (2) years Mukagatare Mariane came back, she disturbed them and Sezariya left home without giving birth to a child. She avers that in 1981 Mukagatare Mariane again left home, her father [Nicyabera’s father] married another woman named Nyirabashumba Agnès and they lived together for almost three (3) years and she left home in 1984. Her father spent a long time alone, but in the meantime Mukagatare Mariane used to return to seek for compensation. Therefore, later in 1986, his father sold plot of the land to grant her a compensation and she left, he later married another woman.

Nicyabera Espérance further states that Mukagatare Mariane returned in 1995 after being informed about the death of Gashabure Michel to recover her husband's land and she expelled them from it. She maintains that, for temporary dispute resolution, the local authorities divided the land into four (4) plots, the first was given to Nicyabera Espérance, the second to Mukagatare Mariane, the third to Ruduha Muzerwa (Nicyabera's brother) because they thought that the children of Gashabure Michel should not be deprived of their place of residence; and the fourth was granted to their aunt, but later Mukagatare took it from her. She submits that later her and her brother left because of threats against them, Mukagatare Mariane appropriated herself the whole plot of land. She concludes by requesting the restitution of the land of her father, the deceased Gashabure Michel, and it should be allocated to his heirs. NICYABERA v. MUKAGATARE

## Page 362

120

Counsel Munyankindi Monique assisting Nicyabera Espérance avers that the deceased Gashabure Michel and Mukagatare Mariane have never legally been married; and for this reason, the disputed land should be dispossessed from her and allocated to the legal heirs of Gashabure Michel. However, she states that if the Court finds that they cohabited as spouses, she has to be granted part of the land which should be merged with the plot she sold.

Mukagatare Mariane sustains that she got married to Gashabure Michel in 1962 and they lived in Kabuga; and later they relocated in Gisaka in 1970 where the local authorities gave them a land which they developped. She states that she continued to live with her husband until 1993 when she left home, due to illness, to Rutongo for medical treatment, where she was during the genocide; and she returned to her home in 1995 and found that her husband was dead.

Counsel Rwimo Clotilde assisting Mukagatare Mariane submits that her client acquired the land under litigation while living together with Gashabure Michel, because the local authorities granted it to them. She states that when arose the dispute over the land between Mukagatare Mariane and the children of her husband after his death, the local authorities divided the land into three (3) plots, one was given to Mukagatare Mariane and the other two (2) plots to Gashabure Michel's children, namely Nicyabera Espérance and Muzerwa Ruduha. She submits that the request of Nicyabera Espérance for dispossessing all property from Mukagatare Mariane may not be considered, but the fact that the local authorities decided to divide the land into three (3) parts should be taken into account because RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 363

121 even Mukagatare Mariane has the right to the property left by her husband.

When the Court visited the place where the subject matter is located to find out when Gashabure Michel and Mukagatare Mariane began to cohabit, when and how they were separated, it interrogated the witnesses and they stated the following: - Hitiyise Straton, born in 1953, was asked when Mukagatare Mariane and her husband Gashabure Michel began to cohabit and when they separated. He stated that they arrived in Gisaka in the 1970s and they cleared the forest and started farming and by 1977 they were granted land by the local authorities. He submits that they lived together until 1993 when the wife left for medical treatment and she had never left home before. When he was asked if in the meantime there were other women married to Gashabure Michel, he replied that there were other women, but they were just temporary and they had never lived together as husband and wife. - Twahirwa Jean Bosco, born in 1961, states that when Gashabure Michel was living alone by the time he acquired the plot of land, he developed it and built a house; later on in 1973, he married Mukagatare Mariane. He explained that they had been living together in the plot of land until when their relations were worsened, and Mukagatare Mariane deserted home for returning to her parents’home. Gashabure Michel had been cohabiting with three (3) other women, when Mukagatare Mariane got information about it she came back to disturb them and they left. He avers that in 1986 Mukagatare Mariane definitely separated with Gashabure Michel and the latter NICYABERA v. MUKAGATARE

## Page 364

122 sold the plot of land to give her a compensation and she left. He was later married to another woman, but they also separated, and until his death, he has never had any other wife. - Nyirabashumba Agnès, born in 1961, one of Gashabure Michel's former wives, stated before the Court that they were married in 1983 replacing Sezariya, who was also replaced by Ntamazimwe in 1985. She indicated to the the Court that Mukagatare Mariane was not present by that time because she had not been her co-wife. She explained to the Court that Mukagatare Mariane had left, and later she returned to claim the land from her husband. The latter sold the plot of land, he gave her a compensation and she left. - Mukamfizi Siperansiya, born in 1954, stated before the Court that Gashabure Michel arrived alone in Gisaka, he told her that he had been married to two (2) wives who gave birth to two (2) children but later their relations became worsened, the reason why he married Mukagatare Mariane. She stated that when they were living together, she got sick and he paid for her medical treatment, she deserted home and when she came back, he rejected her. She stated that Mukagatare Mariane lodged a complain to the local authorities and Gashabure Michel was required not to repudiate his wife empty handed so that he sold the plot of land, he gave her compensation and she left. She concluded her testimony by stating that by the time of Genocide they were separated a long time ago, Gashabure Michel was living alone. - Mujyambere Jean Chrysostome, born in 1973, stated before the Court that Mukagatare Mariane had left her RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 365

123 home being ill for medical treatment in 1992; and the Genocide took place before her return. He stated that in the meantime, Mukagatare Mariane used to desert home and Gashabure Michel married other women because he was a man who could not live without a wife. When Mukagatare Mariane was informed that her husband married another woman, she immediately returned and the other woman left. After all, he said that Gashabure Michel died without living with a wife. - Muzerwa Alexis stated that he was the counselor in 1992 and that he gave a document to Mukagatare Mariane when she planned to seek for medical treatment while she was cohabiting with Gashabure Michel; and that he does not have any information about the compensation given to Mukagatare Mariane. - Mukangabitsinze Emeriyana born in 1962, who is the owner of the plot of land sold by Gashabure Michel, stated before the Court that when she was buying the land, Mukagatare Mariane and Gashabure Michel were together, and the statement that in 1986 Mukagatare Mariane left home is not true because they were still together until 1993. - Habimana Jean Baptiste born in 1953 stated that Gashabure Michel and Mukagatare Mariane lived together until the 1990s; and when Mukagatare was sick, Gashabure paid for her medical treatment and later he repudiated her. He further states that Mukagatare returned to home but Gashabure refused to live with her; he gave her a compensation instead and she left. NICYABERA v. MUKAGATARE

## Page 366

124 - Jean Baptiste Ntambineza born in 1968 avers that the statement about compensation is not true, and Mukagatare Mariane left home in 1993 for medical treatment and by the time of Genocide she was still there. He sustains that Gashabure Michel was married to other women because Mukagatare Mariane had deserted home; but after returning she did not leave until she went to seek medical treatment. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Both parties concur that Mukagatare Mariane and the deceased Gashabure Michel lived together as husband and wife. Concerning the fact that they were legally married, there is a final judgment RCA 0307/13/TGI/GSBO which upheld that such marriage did not happen. The parties diverge on the time of their separation and its effects on their property commonly owned.

Even though the Republic of Rwanda enacted the Law N° 59/2008 on prevention and punishment of gender-based violence in 2008 which provides for the effets on the property of the persons who entertained unlawful marriage as husband and wife when they separate3; by the time of the cohabitation of

3 Article 39, paragraphs one and 2 of the law, provides that “those people entertaining unlawful marriages shall be married in accordance with the monogamous principle. If a person concerned with the provision of previous paragraph of this Article was living with many husbands/wives, he shall first of all share the commonly owned belongings with those husbands/wives equally”. (For the case n° RS/Inconst/Pén.0003/10/CS, Gatera Johnson, Kabalisa Teddy vs-, The Supreme Court ruled that they may separate for any other ground; it is not necessary for the purpose of the marriage of another spouse). RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 367

125 Mukagatare Mariane and the deceased Gashabure Michel, there was a principle which stipulates that all persons are equal before the law. This principle was enshrined in the Constitution of December 20, 19784. In addtion, on 02/03/1981 the Republic of Rwanda had ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. The States Parties ratifying the Convention decide to take all necessary measures to amend or repeal any domestic legislation, administrative measures, culture or any other discrimination practices against women5.

For settlement of the dispute between Nicyabera Espérance who states that Mukagatare Mariane has no right to the plot of land left by her late father (Nicyabera's father) because they have not legally been married, the Court must resort to the culture and practices prevailing by that time if they are not contrary to the principle of women and men equality stipulated under the above-mentioned Constitution6.

The prevailing culture by that time established the procedure for consideration of the role of the wife in the family property, thus, when a woman was no longer able to continue to cohabit with her husband and they separated, she was entitled to

4 Article 16 provides that: “All citizens shall be equal before the law, without any discrimination, especially in respect to race, color, origin, ethnic background, clan, sex, opinion, religion, or social status”. 5 "States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws, regulations, customs and practices which constitute discrimination against women.” 6Article 93, al. 2, provides that: "Custom shall remain applicable in as much as it was not replaced by laws or is not contrary to the Constitution, laws, regulations, public order or morals". NICYABERA v. MUKAGATARE

## Page 368

126 a given object. This was done by considering that when the wife was living at home, some of the activities she had performed increased the value of the family property.

With regard to the value of the activities performed by one of the spouses in order to increase the value of the family property, the French Court of Cassation also ruled that one of the spouses who abandons his/her job in order to take care of his/her household and cater for the eductation of the children, he/she is also involved in the increase of the home economy7. This is in line with the culture in Rwanda because the activities performed by a woman to increase the value of family property allow her to have right to it. Therefore, when a husband and a wife were no longer able to live together and separated, the wife had to be rewarded for her role in the increase of family property.

With respect to this case, the first issue to be analysed is how and when Mukagatare Mariane and Gashabure Michel separated. Regarding this issue, when the Court visited the place where the subject matter is located and interrogated the witnesses about when and how Mukagatare Mariane and Gashabure Michel separated as stated above, some replied that Mukagatare Mariane did not separate with her husband Gashabure Michel, but she left her home instead, for medical treatment in 1993 and by the time of Genocide she was still under treatment. When she returned to

7 […] La Cour de Cassation a même admis que l’activité d’un époux « dans la gestion d’un ménage et la direction du foyer » pouvait, suivant son importance, avoir excédé sa contribution aux charges du mariage et avoir été pour son conjoint une source d’économies. Il en était spécialement ainsi si l’épouse, pour se consacrer exclusivement aux soins du ménage et des enfants, avait renoncé à sa propre activité professionnelle et, par là-même, à toute source de revenus …François Terré et Philippe Silmer, Droit civil, Les régimes matrimoniaux, 4ème édition Dalloz 2005, p. 661. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 369

127 her home in 1995, she found that her husband was dead. However, there are others who stated that Mukagatare Mariane separated with her husband a long time ago, and she has been even given compensation before she left.

The Court finds that among the witnesses who state that Mukagatare Mariane and Gashabure Michel were still living together at the time of his death, there are those who exploit the fields given by Mukagatare Mariane, including Hitiyise Straton whose the wife exploits a plot of land in that farm. He did not deny that fact when the neighbours challenged his statements. Consequently, their testimony cannot be reliable.

Among the witnesses who stated that Mukagatare Mariane and Gashabure Michel had been separated a long time ago and even before Mukagatare Mariane left, she has been granted a compensation, there are old woman Mukamfizi Siperansiya who stated that she was a very close neighbor to this family and Nyirabashumba Agnès, one of the women who lived together with Gashabure Michel after Mukagatare Mariane departure. It is clear to the Court that they relate what they know without bias because they do not have apparent interests in this issue.

Article 65 of Law Nº 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production provides that the court assesses with discretion the relevance, pertinence and admissibility or rejection of testimonial evidence. It is not bound by the number of witnesses. It shall mainly consider their knowledge of facts and the objectivity and sincerity of their declarations and basing on its own findings during the field visit, in its discretion, the Court finds that by the time of Gashabure Michel's death, he had been NICYABERA v. MUKAGATARE

## Page 370

128 separated from Mukagatare Mariane and before she left, he gave her a compensation.

Basing on all explanations above mentioned, due to the fact that Mukagatare Mariane lived together with Gashabure Michel as husband and wife and they jointly exploited the land they commonly owned to improve its value, the Court finds that all the activities she performed gave her the right to it. This is why Gashabure Michel sold a part of it to give her a compensation before she left.

The Court finds that Mukagatare Mariane's part equals to that compensation because she did not file a claim against the value of the compensation stating that it is inconsistent with her role. Therefore, the plot of land left by deceased Gashabure Michel must belong to his heirs.

In concluding, on basis of the aforementioned explanations and legal provisions, the Court finds that the fact that there is a plot of land under litigation registered on Mukagatare Mariane does not allow her to have the right on it, the right she has on it is equivalent to the compensation given to her when she separated from her husband as above expounded, therefore, the claim filed by Nicyabera Espérance requesting the review of the case RC 0016/14/TB/KGO rendered by the Primary Court of Kibungo on 27/10/2014 has merits. Regarding the damages claimed in this case

Nicyabera Espérance requests the Court to award her procedural and counsel fees amounting to one million Rwandan francs (1,000,000 Frw), moral damages equivalent to one million Rwandan francs (1,000,000 Frw) for being victim of injustice as RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 371

129 she was deprived of the right to her father's property for twenty two years (22).

Mukagatare Mariane states that the damages claimed by Nicyabera Espérance are unfounded as she was the one who dragged her into unnecessary lawsuits, rather Nicyabera Espérance should award her the moral damages equivalent to two million Rwandan francs (2,000,000 Frw). DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The Court finds that the moral damages claimed by Nicyabera Espérance are grounded as she was deprived of the right to the property left to her by her father, but one million Rwandan francs (1,000,000 Frw) claimed shall not be awarded because she failed to prove how it was calculated, therefore, according to the discretion of the Court, she is awarded five hundred thousand Rwandan francs (500,000 Frw). With regard to procedural expenses and counsel fees, the Court also finds them founded because it is clear that she hired a legal counsel, but because the amount claimed is excessive and she failed to prove it, in its discretion, the Court awards her five hundred thousand Rwandan francs (500,000 Frw) for the counsel's fees and three hundred thousand Rwandan francs (300,000 Frw) for procedural expenses.

With respect to the damages claimed by Mukagatare Mariane, the Court finds that they shall not be awarded to her because she wins nothing in this case.

NICYABERA v. MUKAGATARE

## Page 372

130 III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the claim filed by Nicyabera Espérance requesting the review of the judgment RC 0016/14/TB/KGO rendered by the Primary Court of Kibungo on 27/10/2014 on grounds of being vitiated by injustice, has merits;

Holds that the plot of land under litigation located in Rugaju Village, Ntaga Cell, Mugesera Sector in the Eastern Province belongs to the heirs of Gashabure Michel;

Holds that the certificate of emphyteutic lease with N°UPI: 5/06/06/03/3860 given to Mukagatare Mariane is invalidated;

Orders to Mukagatare Mariane to pay to Nicyabera Espérance the moral damages amounting to five hundred thousand Rwandan francs (500,000 Frw) and eight hundred thousand Rwandan francs (800,000 Frw) for procedural and counsel fees. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 373

131 COMMECIAL CASE

## Page 374

132

## Page 375

133 KAKOZA v NYAGATARE [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCOMAA 00056/14/CS (Mukanyundo, P.J., Ngagi and Rugabirwa, J.) June 23, 2017] Company law – Company Shareholder – A shareholder is not a shareholder of the company because of payment of his/her all shares, he/she is a shareholder because he/she is registered in the shareholders’ register – Payment of a portion of a share does not result in the deprivation of the shareholder’s rights in the company, unless she does not pay the creditors in relation to shares. Facts: Kakoza Nkuriza Charles formed a one-person company called Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd, with a share capital of 70,000,000 Frw. Later, he entered into an agreement with Nyagatare Jean Luc who agreed to become a shareholder of Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd, they agreed that each one of them has 50% of shares equivalent to 35,000,000 Frw. Later, Kakoza Nkuriza Charles wrote to Nyagatare Jean Luc, informing him that he was no longer a shareholder of Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd because he had not yet paid all his shares, and asked him to provide his account number for refunding him 9,000,000Frw he had already paid. Nyagatare immediately lodged a claim to the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge alleging that Kakoza's decision to dismiss him as a shareholder was an illegal decision, he requested to remain a shareholder, and conduct audit in Radio 1 Rwanda and to remove Kakoza from the management of the Radio and each shareholder be required to provide the proof of the payment of his shares, and he claimed for various damages. The Commercial Court of Nyarugenge ruled that Nyagatare's claim is unfounded, it decided that he has no 133

## Page 376

134 right to the company because he has not paid all of his shares, he has been legally dismissed, and he was ordered to pay moral damages. Nyagatare was not satisfied with the decision and appealed to the Commercial High Court alleging that the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge has rendered the judgment disregarding the law and his pleading, he submitted that he had been illegally dismissed, and he was ordered to pay unreasonable damages. The Commercial High Court ruled that Kakoza's decision to dismiss Nyagatare as a shareholder was illegal, it upheld that it is quashed, and it ordered him to pay damages to Nyagatare. Kakoza was not satisfied with the decision of the Commercial High Court and appealed to the Supreme Court, alleging that the Commercial High Court disregarded the memorandum of association indicating that he had sold shares to Nyagatare, it ordered that Nyagatare should remain a shareholder of the Radio, disregarding that Nyagatare did not perform his obligations of paying shares. Nyagatare alleges that the Court did not disregard the fact that he had not yet paid all the shares, instead it decided that the fact that he had not yet paid the shares did not deprive him of the rights of being a shareholder of Radio 1Rwanda Ltd, as being a shareholder does not require to have paid all the shares, rather being registered in the company is the reason of being so considered. Kakoza also states that he finds that he was entitled to dismiss Nyagatare as a shareholder of Radio one Rwanda Ltd for breach of memorandum of association. Nyagatare defends himself saying that no shareholder has the right to dismiss another shareholder. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 377

135 Held:1. A shareholder is not a shareholder of the company because he/she pays all of his/her shares, he/she is a shareholder because he/she is registered in the shareholders’ register. 2. Payment of a portion of a share does not result in the deprivation of the shareholder’s rights in the company, unless he/she does not pay the creditors in relation to shares. Appeal lacks merit; Court fees deposited cover expenses incurred in this case. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law n°07/2009 of 27/04/2009 relating to companies, articles 2, 31, 134 and 140. No Cases referred to Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Kakoza Nkuriza Charles formed a one-person company called Radio 1 Rwanda151 Ltd, with a share capital of 70,000,000 Frw. Later, he entered into an agreement with Nyagatare Jean Luc agreeing that Nyagatare Jean Luc became a shareholder of Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd, according to the Memorandum and Articles of Association dated 29/05/2011, they agreed that each one has 50% of shares

51 In a judgment, it is written “RWANDA”, but in “Memorandum and Articles of Association” it is written “FM”.

KAKOZA v NYAGATARE

## Page 378

136 equivalent to 35,000,000 Frw. On 02/08/2012, Kakoza Nkuriza Charles wrote to Jean Luc Nyagatare, informing him that he was no longer a shareholder of Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd because he had not yet paid all his shares, and asked him to give his account number for refunding him 9,000,000Frw he had already paid.

Nyagatare Jean Luc immediately lodged a case to the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge alleging that Kakoza's decision to dismiss him as a shareholder was illegal, he requested the Court to remain a shareholder, and conduct audit in Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd and Kakoza be removed from the management of the Radio and each shareholder be required to provide the proof of the payment of shares, and he claimed various damages.

In the judgment RCOM 0779/12 / TC / NYGE rendered on 31/01/2013, the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge ruled that the claim filed by Nyagatare Jean Luc was unfounded, stating that he had no right to the company because he had not paid all of his shares, he was legally dismissed, and he was ordered to pay damages of 1,000,000 Frw and counsel's fee of 300,000 Frw. The Court ruled in accordance with article 2, paragraph 32, of the Law no 07/2009 of 27/04/2009 relating to companies which was in force at that time52, which provides the definition of a shareholder53, and in article 6 of the Memorandum and

52 This law was revised by the law n°27/2017 of 31/05/2017 relating to companies 53 Paragraph of that article provides that a shareholder is: a) person whose name appears is entered in the share register as the holder for the time being of one or more shares in the company; b) person whose name appears in a request for company registration at the time of its incorporation and who is regarded as a shareholder until his/her name is entered in the share register; c) person whose name is to be entered in the share register under an amalgamation proposal is regarded as a shareholder in an amalgamated company until his/her name is entered in the share register; RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 379

137 Articles of Association which stipulates that each shareholder must invest in the company 50% of the shares equal to 35,000,000 Frw.

Nyagatare Jean Luc was not satisfied with the decision, he lodged appeal to the Commercial High Court arguing that the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge had disregarded the law and his pleading, and it contradicted in itself and argued that some of the allegations in the claim were not examined and it did not consider what Kakoza Nkuriza Charles admitted at the trial that he had been illegally dismissed, and the damages awarded had no basis.

In judgment RCOMA 0071/13/HCC rendered on 05/12/2014, the Commercial High Court upheld that the decision of Kakoza Nkuriza Charles of illegally dismissing Nyagatare Jean Luc as a shareholder of Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd is quashed. It ordered Kakoza Nkuriza Charles to pay to Nyagatare Jean Luc the procedural fees and counsel's fees amounting to 1,500,000 Frw, and to pay the remaining 2,000,000 Frw for the remuneration of the expert of ABC Consultants Ltd who conducted the audit of Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd, and to repay to Nyagatare Jean Luc 1,000,000 Frw which were given in advance of the expert's fees.

Kakoza Nkuriza Charles was not satisfied with the decision, and he appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that the Commercial High Court disregarder the memorandum of association dated 06/06/2011 mentioning that he had sold to Nyagatare Jean Luc 50% of shares in Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd amounting to 35,000,000 Frw, he ordered to Nyagatare Jean Luc to remain a shareholder of that Radio, disregarding his obligations to pay the shares. The Commercial High Court disregarded his role in Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd, where it stated that he did not disclose whether there was any activity or other money that was already in the company's account KAKOZA v NYAGATARE

## Page 380

138 before Nyagatare Jean Luc joined it whereas he presented invoices mentioning his activities. The Commercial High Court, in an interlocutory judgment dated 30/09/2013, ruled that one invoice allegedly issued by FESTIMO on 02/08/2011, worth 7,800,000 Frw was rejected as it is forged, yet in a criminal case it was found that the invoice was not forged; He was ordered to pay procedural fees and counsel’s fee amounting to 1,500,000 Frw and the claimant was not entitled to it because he was the one who knew that it was not necessary to sue, because if he fulfilled his promise there would be no litigation.

The judgment was heard in public on 15/03/2016, Kakoza Nkuriza Charles assisted by Counsel Shema Gakuba Charles, Counsel Sadi Jashi and Counsel Mubangizi Frank, and Nyagatare Jean Luc assisted by Counsel Kizito Safari, who raised the objection of inadmissibility of the appeal of Kakoza Nkuriza Charles because it was not within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but this Court found that the objection was unfounded because the value of the case exceeded 50,000,000 Frw, the case was heard in public on the merits on 21/06/2016 , 25/10/2016 and 11/01/2017, on this date Kakoza and Nyagatare decided to go to mediation, but they failed and they returned to Court on 16/05/2017, Kakoza Nkuriza Charles assisted by Counsel Shema Gakuba Charles and Counsel Mubangizi Frank, and Nyagatare Jean Luc assisted by Counsel Kizito Safari. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 381

139 II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES Whether the fact that Nyagatare has not paid all of his shares deprives him of the right to be a shareholder of Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd

Kakoza Nkuriza Charles submits that the Commercial High Court disregarded the memorandum of association of 06/06/2011 which indicates that he had sold to Nyagatare Jean Luc 50% of shares in Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd worth 35,000,000 Frw, it ordered that Nyagatare Jean Luc should remain a shareholder of that Radio, disregarding that he did not comply with his obligations to pay shares, on which the Commercial Court based by deciding that in order to remain a shareholder of Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd, he would first have to pay the remaining shares amounting to 26,000,000Frw.

Nyagatare Jean Luc and his Counsel argue that the Court did not disregard the fact that he had not yet paid all of his shares, instead it ruled that the fact that he had not yet paid all of his shares did not deprive him of the right to be a shareholder of Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd, given that being a shareholder does not require to have paid all the shares, rather being registered in the company is the reason of being so considered. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 2, paragraph 32 (b), of the Law no 07/2009 of 27/04/2009 relating to companies applicable by the time of the company formation stipulates that the shareholder is “person whose name appears in a request for company registration at the time of its incorporation and who is regarded as a shareholder until his/her name is entered in the share register”. Also, article 2, paragraph 32º of the Law n° 27/2017 of 31/05/2017 governing companies stipulates that “shareholder : a person whose name is entered on the share KAKOZA v NYAGATARE

## Page 382

140 register as the holder for the time being of one or more shares in the company”.

Legal scholars simply define a shareholder as a person who invests in a company and participates in that company and has the right to know how it operates, to make a decision and to profit. They furthermore explain that the term a shareholder means anyone who owns shares in the company 54 S.N. Maheshwari and S.K. Maheshwari also state that a shareholder is a person whose name is written in the shareholder's register55.

In this judgment, the case file indicates that Kakoza Nkuriza Charles founded Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd, registered it in Rwanda Development Board (RDB) on 09/05/2011 under “code” 102319058, which had 100 shares equivalent to 70,000,000 Frw, and on 29/05/2011 concluded a contract with Nyagatare Jean Luc called the “Memorandum and Articles of Association”, in which the two agreed to establish Radio 1 FM56 Ltd (R1FM Ltd), each one has 50 shares worth 35,000.000Frw, and on 06/06/2011, Kakoza Nkuriza Charles wrote to RDB, informing that he had sold to Nyagatare Jean Luc 50% of shares of Radio 1 Rwanda

54 Un actionnaire est une personne physique ou morale qui, en investissant du capital dans une entreprise, en détient une part, acquiert un droit de regard et parfois de décision, et peut recevoir des dividendes. Ce terme désigne toute personne physique ou morale détenant des actions dans une société, X, « Les termes comptables expliqués de manière simple », in Lexique, https://debitoor.fr/termes-comptables/actionnaire, consulté le 15/06/2017. 55 A shareholder is a person who has his/her name entered in the register of members (S.N. Maheshwari and S.K. Maheshwari, “Membership of Company “, A Manual of Business Laws, Mumbai, Himalaya Publishing House,2011, 5.101). 56 Here it is seen as if written “FM” whereas it should be “Rwanda”. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 383

141 Ltd, and therefore he requested that the new shareholder be registered on the company's certificate.

The case file also indicates that on 02/08/2012, Kakoza Nkuriza Charles, as the Manager of Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd wrote to Nyagatare Jean Luc, informing him that he was no longer a shareholder of Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd because he had not yet paid all his shares as per the Memorandum and Articles of Association and he asked him to provide his account number for refunding 9,000,000 Frw he had already paid, the reason why Nyagatare Jean Luc lodged the claim before the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge requesting that the decision of his dismissal would be revoked because it was illegally taken, to order that Nyagatare Jean Luc should remain a shareholder of Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd, and he requested that Kakoza Nkuriza Charles should be removed from the management of the Radio, and that he also has to provide the proof of the payment of his shares, and the audit of the financial management should be conducted.

The analysis of the aforementioned legal provisions and doctrines demonstrates that there is no indication that a person becomes a shareholder because he has paid all his shares in the company, but the essential is to be registered in the register of shares of the company. The Court also finds that this is upheld by article 31, paragraph 1, of the aforementioned Law of 27/04/2009, which stipulates that the company's share capital is shares that the shareholders have agreed whether paid or not yet paid, because it indicates that the payment of shares is not the requirement for being a shareholder, rather the essential is the willingness to take acquire shares in that company. The fact that Nyagatare was not able to pay all the shares he had agreed to acquire in Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd does not deprive him of his right to be a shareholder. KAKOZA v NYAGATARE

## Page 384

142

The Court also finds that Kakoza's statements that the Commercial High Court disregarded the agreement of 06/06/2011 between the two parties, is unfounded, as apart from the fact that the agreement does not stipulate a time limit for the shareholders to pay the shares they agreed to invest in the company so that Nyagatare would have not respected it, it does not stipulate that the shareholder who will not pay his shares in time will lose his/her rights as a shareholder of the company. The Court finds that neither the law nor the contract provides that if a shareholder does not pay all the shares he/she has agreed to, he/she immediately loses the right to be a shareholder, and therefore there is no basis for concluding that Nyagatare's failure to pay all shares agreed precludes him from continuing to be a shareholder, especially that the elements of the evidence produced by Kakoza before this Court on 16/09/2016 are contained in a document entitled "Table indicating the invoices and evidence of Kakoza Nkuriza Charles' activities in launching Radio 1", it does not indicate that he also paid all of the shares he had agreed to invest, so that he would pretend to have the right to remain in the company, except that, as explained above, even if he had paid all his shares, that fact would not preclude Nyagatare from remaining a shareholder in Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd.

The Court also finds that both parties have erred in the establishment of the company as such, in article 6 of “the Memorandum and Articles of Association” of 29/05/2011, Kakoza and Nyagatare agreed that all the shares were paid off, each one paid 35,000,000 Frw, and that was not the case, so Kakoza cannot disregard the situation when he signed the memorandum of association with Nyagatare as a shareholder of Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd, and still, state that Nyagatare is no longer a shareholder.

Basing on the legal provisions, the doctrines above- mentioned and the explanations provided, the Court finds RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 385

143 that Nyagatare Jean Luc is a shareholder of Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd, so Kakoza Nkuriza Charles statements that Nyagatare is no longer a shareholder of Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd are unfounded. Whether the decision of dismissing Nyagatare from Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd was made by Kakoza in accordance with the law.

Kakoza Nkuriza Charles alleges that he felt that he had the right to dismiss Nyagatare Jean Luc as a shareholder of Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd for breach of memorandum of association by the time of the formation of the company.

Counsel Mubangizi Frank and Counsel Gakuba Shema, assisting Kakoza Nkuriza Charles, argue that the fact that Kakoza decided to dismiss Nyagatare Jean Luc from Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd did not violate any legal provision because there was no other procedure he could use.

Counsel Safari Kizito, assisting Nyagatare Jean Luc, argues that pursuant to article 134 of Law nº 07/2009 of 27/04/2009 relating to companies, no shareholder has the right to dismiss another shareholder. He also states that Article 31 of the Memorandum and Articles of Association provides for the settlement of dispute in case it arises, and he considers Kakoza's acts are error, as he had no right to dismiss his fellow shareholder.

KAKOZA v NYAGATARE

## Page 386

144

Article 134 of the Law of 27/04/2009 relating to companies57 which was into force when Kakoza decided to dismiss Nyagatare provides that: “ A company may treat a shareholder as the only person entitled to : 1° exercise the right to vote attaching to the share; 2° receive notices; 3° receive a distribution in respect of the share; 4° exercise the other rights and powers attaching to the share ”.

Article 140 of the Law nº 07/2009 of 27/04/2009 aforementioned58 provides that: ‟ the powers conferred to the shareholders of a company shall be exercised: 1° at a meeting of shareholders; 2° by a resolution of shareholders in lieu of a meeting; 3° by a unanimous resolution; 4° by a unanimous shareholder agreement”.

Legal scholars S.N. Maheshwari and S.K. Maheshwari state that the shareholder has the right to be given a certificate of share, to be registered in the register of shareholders, to transfer the shares, to be informed about the company and to attend the meeting, to vote and review the registers, to be given the appropriate shares (...), to resign on directors, (...)59.

57 Fundamental rights relating to shares are also provided for in the article 88 of the law n°27/2017 of 31/05/2017 relating to companies 58 Provisions of this article also appear in article 100 law n°27/2017 of 31/05/2017 relating to companies 59 Members of a company have a right to obtain certificate of shares, to get the name entered in the Register of Members, to transfer shares, to receive notices and to attend meeting, to vote and inspect directors, to approach court for the prevention of oppression and mismanagement, to apply for winding up and to share in surplus assets, etc (S.N. Maheshwari na S.K. Maheshwari, op.cit., p. 5.106 ). registers, to get right shares, to elect directors and appoint auditors, to declare dividends, to receive statutory report, annual accounts, notice for special resolutions, to demand for investigation, to remove DETERMINATION OF THE COURT RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 387

145

The case file indicates that on 02/08/2012, Kakoza Nkuriza Charles, as the Managing Director of Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd wrote to Nyagatare Jean Luc, informing him that he was no longer a shareholder of Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd as he had not yet paid off all his shares as per the Memorandum and Articles of Association, he requested him to provide his account number for refunding 9,000,000Frw he had already paid, this led to Nyagatare Jean Luc to file a claim requesting the removal of the decision of dismissing him because it had been illegally taken, and requesting that Kakoza Nkuriza Charles be removed from the management of the Radio, be required to provide the proof of the payment of shares, and the audit of the financial management should be conducted.

The aforementioned article 31 of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of 29/05/2011 provides that “All disputes involving the company shall first be brought to the attention of the General Meeting. When the General Meeting fails to resolve the dispute, it shall be referred to an arbitrator agreed upon by both parties. When the dispute remains unresolved it shall be taken to the Rwandan competent court of law”.60. As to whether Kakoza Nkuriza Charles, as a shareholder, had the right to dismiss Nyagatare Jean Luc who was also the shareholder for the above reasons, pursuant to article 140 of Law nº 07/2009 of 27/04/2009 mentioned above, the Court finds that no procedure provided under this Law was used by Kakoza to dismiss Nyagatare from Radio 1Rwanda Ltd. It also finds that article 134 of the aforementioned Law does not confer to a shareholder the right to dismiss a fellow shareholder, that instead that power is vested in the General Assembly of the shareholders. It finds that Kakoza's arguments that there was no other procedure remaining because the General

60 Article 31 of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of 29/05/2011 KAKOZA v NYAGATARE

## Page 388

146 Assembly could not convene, was invalid because article 31 of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of 29/05/2011 stipulates that in case the dispute is not resolved by the General Assembly of the Shareholders, when the dispute remains unresolved it shall be taken to the Rwandan competent court of law.

Basing on the provisions of the aforementioned law, in the memorandum and articles of assosciation between the two parties and the opinions of legal scholars, the Court finds that Kakoza's decision to dismiss Nyagatare from Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd was illegal, so Nyagatare must retain his rights to be a shareholder in Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd. Whether there are damages which could be awarded [27] Kakoza Nkuriza Charles and his counsels allege that the Commercial High Court ordered to Kakoza to pay to Nyagatare procedural fees and counsel's fee of 1,500,000Frw whereas he did not deserve them because he well knew that it was not necessary for him to sue because if he has fulfilled his obligations while buying shares there would not be lawsuits. They furthermore argue that based on the provisions of article 258 of the Civil Code, Book Three, Nyagatare Jean Luc should pay to Kakoza damages of 4,000,000 Frw for having dragged him in unnecessary lawsuits. They concluded by requesting Nyagatare to pay him 1,500,000 Frw of damages for each of his counsels, meaning 3,000,000 Frw for both counsels. [28] Nyagatare Jean Luc and his counsel submit that procedural fees and counsel's fee of 1,500,000Frw that Kakoza was ordered to pay are justified because Nyagatare was the one who won the case and that there are some of the money he spent in pursuing his case including the counsel's fee. They request the Court to order to Kakoza to pay 4,000,000 Frw of counsel’s fees at this instance in addition to those ordered by the Commercial High Court and moral RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 389

147 damages of 15,000,000 Frw for the prejudice incurred for being deprived of the right to be a shareholder in Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Regarding the amount of procedural fees amounting to 4,000,000 Frw, as well as 3,000,000 Frw of counsels' fees, claimed by Kakoza, the Court finds it unfounded because Nyagatare Jean Luc involved in this case because of the mistakes of Kakoza Nkuriza Charles, and the latter loses this case.

Regarding the amount of procedural fees amounting to 1,500,000 Frw and the counsel's fee ordered by the Commercial High Court to be paid by Kakoza to Nyagatare, the Court finds it justified because Nyagatare was the one who won the case and that there was the money that he spent in pursuing his case including counsel’s fee at that instance, this Court finds that the damages ordered by the Commercial High Court are proportional, and they should therefore be sustained.

Regarding the amount of counsel's fees, the Court finds that the fact that the appeal of Kakoza Nkuriza Charles is unfounded indicates that Nyagatare Jean Luc, as the defendant, should continue to hire his counsel at this level, this means that there is the money spent by paying his counsel; but because the sum of 4,000,000 Frw he claims is excessive and there is no evidence he produced, in its discretion, the Court finds that he should be awarded 1,000,000 Frw in addition to the 1,500,000 Frw ordered by the Commercial High Court, and that means the amount of 2,500,000 Frw at both instances.

Regarding the 15,000,000 Frw claimed by Nyagatare Jean Luc for the prejudice he suffered due to KAKOZA v NYAGATARE

## Page 390

148 deprivation of his rights to the shareholder in Radio 1 Rwanda Ltd, the Court finds that, as shown in the appealed judgment (under paragraph 30), those damages had been claimed for, but the Commercial High Court did not award them to him because he did not provide evidence to substantiate them. Therefore, even in this appeal he does not explain his suffered prejudice, except to state that it was caused by being deprived of the rights entitled to the shareholder, this means that this Court does not have a basis for examining whether the damages claimed are justified. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that Kakoza Nkuriza Charles' appeal was unfounded ;

Holds that the judgment RCOMA 0071/13/HCC rendered by the Commercial High Court on 05/12/2014 remains unchanged, except for the procedural fee and counsel’s fee awarded to Nyagatare Jean Luc at this level;

Orders Kakoza Nkuriza Charles to pay to Nyagatare Jean Luc 1,000,000Frw for the counsel's fee in this case in addition to 1,500,000 Frw that had been awarded by the Commercial High Court, the total is amounting to 2,500,000 Frw.

Declares that the court fees deposited by Kakoza Nkuriza Charles cover the expenses incurred in this case.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 391

149

CRIMINAL CASE

## Page 392

150

## Page 393

151 PROSECUTION v. BEZA ET AL. [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/INJUST/RP 00008/2018/SC (Ntezilyayo, P.J., Mukamulisa, Hitiyaremye, Nyirinkwaya and Rukundakuvuga, J.) February 28, 2020] Criminal law – Offence of forgery and use of forged documents – On the offence of forged documents, no fraudulent intention possible in the absence of the gain that can benefit the perpetrator, it is important that in making a forged document there must be fraudulent objectives. Criminal law – Offence of selling a property of another person – The power of attorney – Regarding the offence of selling a property of another person, this offence is not possible for a person who has been given the full power of attorney. Facts: This case was initiated in the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge, the Prosecution indicted Uwamahoro, Niyitegeka and Beza for the offences of forgery and use of forged documents and selling a property of another person, this case happened after Mukarugwiza gave the full power of attorney to Uwamahoro as evidenced by the power of attorney of 05/02/2008. On basis of that power of attorney, Uwamahoro sold to Beza and Niyitegeka the cars of Mukarugwiza, they entered into sale contracts but in their drafting, on one contract (concerning the contract with Beza), Uwamahoro appears as Mukarugwiza and she signs on her behalf, on the other one (concerning the contract with Niyitegeka) she appears as the owner of the car. As a result of such drafting of contract, the Prosecution charged all of them with the offence of forgery and use of forged documents, but Uwamahoro was also charged with the 151

## Page 394

152 offence of selling a property of another person, and the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge ruled that they were acquitted. The Prosecution appealed against the case before the High Court which ruled that the contract referred to in the case constituted itself a forged document, it found Niyitegeka, Beza and Uwamahoro guilty of complicity in forging and use of forged documents and it found Uwamahoro guilty of selling a property of another person and it sentenced Niyitegeka and Beza to the imprisonment for a term of two (2) years for each one, while Uwamahoro Alphonsine was sentenced to the imprisonment for a term of six (6) years. Beza and Niyitegeka applied for review of the case rendered by the High Court due to injustice, and it was heard by the Supreme Court. The latter examined the injustice and decided about it, but it also examined the charges against Uwamahoro even though she did not file a claim and she was not present in the hearing, pursuant to article 63 of the Law determining the jurisdiction of the courts. With regard to the offence of forged documents, the debate was based on determining whether there was conspiracy to commit such offence for the accused. In the case before the Supreme Court, although the defendants (Beza and Niyitegeka) do not deny that they signed on the sale contracts with the so-called property owner (Uwamahoro) knowing that she was not, they insisted that the buyer had full power of attorney and proved that the payment reached to the owner (Mukarugwiza). The Prosecution sustains that their intent to commit the offence is based on the fact that they willingly and knowingly signed the forged documents. It also states that forgery and use forged documents is a formal offence, so it is not necessary to take into account the prejudice caused even if it exists, because, as it states, the constitutive element RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 395

153 of the offence is to knowingly and intentionally sign on a forged sale contract. Held: 1. On the offence of forged documents, no fraudulent intention possible in the absence of the gain that can benefit the perpetrator, it is important that in making a forged document there must be fraudulent objectives, thus the defendants are not guilty of that offence. 2. For a person who has been given the full power of attorney, he/she may act before the parties who are making the contract as the one who he/she represents him/herself (représentation parfaite) or he/she may act as if he/she is the self representing (représentation imparfaite), thus nothing precluded Uwamahoro from drafting contract in such a way it was drafted because it is also allowed. 3. Regarding the offence of selling a property of another person, this offence is not possible for a person who has been given the full power of attorney, thus, Uwamahoro is not guilty of that offence. Application for review due to injustice has merits; Judgment number RPA00764/2016/HC/KIG overruled; Defendants are acquitted. Statues and statutory instruments referred to: Law nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general, article 276. Law n°30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, article 63. Organic Law n° 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article 614. No case referred to. PROSECUTION v. BEZA ET AL.

## Page 396

154 Authors cited Bull.crim. 11 dec.1974, 366 cited by Michelle Laure Rassat, Droit Pénal Spécial, 7th ed. 2014, p. 1181, N°1087. Jean Pradel & Michel Danti-Juan, Droit Pénal Spécial, Droit Commun des affaires, CUJAS, 4th ed. 2007/2008, P.750, N° 1223. UNODC Sherloc, des crimes et délits contre la foi publique, https://sherloc.unodc.org/res/cld/document/lux/201 4/criminal_code_of_luxembourg_html/cp_L2T03.p df Nicolas Dissaux, La représentation: notion, in Dalloz, blog dédié à la réforme du Droit des obligations, accessible à http://reforme- obligations.dalloz.fr/2015/04/29/la-representation- notion/ Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Beza Kevin bought a car type Toyota Carina E with plate number RAB 187 K, Chassis SB 153 BK00E034920, for five million five hundred thousand Rwandan francs (5,500,000 Frw) as per the sale contract of 31/12/2009, he paid the price of that car through bank account no. 409- 1017206-11 in the Banque Populaire du Rwanda in the name of Mukarugwiza Janvière who is also the owner of the car. On 21/12/2009, Niyitegeka Emmanuel also bought a car type Toyota Carina E with plate number RAB 174 S for four million and six hundred thousand Rwandan francs (4,600,000 Frw). Both vehicles were sold by Uwamahoro Alphonsine who had the full power of attorney to the property of Mukarugwiza Janvière and to represent her in RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 397

155 her absence, according to the power of attorney of 05/02/2008.

In 2016, in the case RP00272/2016/TGI/NYGE, the Prosecution indicted Uwamahoro Alphonsine, Niyitegeka Emmanuel and Beza Kevin for the offence of forgery and use of forged documents and selling of a property of another person in the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge basing on the sale contract of the cars referred to in the preceding paragraph drafted in the names of Mukarugwiza Janvière but signed by Uwamahoro Alphonsine; the latter acted as if she was Mukarugwiza Janvière who signed on it while she was not present.

Niyitegeka Emmanuel and Beza Kevin pleaded not guilty, and on 20/09/2016, the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge, after analyzing the Prosecution's elements of evidence and their defense, acquitted them on the offence of forgery and use of forged documents and selling of a property of another person, it upheld that no evidence proves that the power of attorney given by Mukarugwiza Janvière to Uwamahoro Alphonsine for running her business is a forged document, it was the same to Uwamahoro Alphonsine who was tried in absentia.

The Prosecution was dissatisfied with the decision, and appealed to the High Court, the application was registered under number RPA00764/2016/HC/KIG. The Prosecution, in its submissions and pleadings, argues that it challenges the procedure in which the defendants were acquitted on the ground that there is no evidence that the power of attorney given by Mukarugwiza Janvière to Uwamahoro Alphonsine was a forged document, while in fact the forged documents for which they are accused are the contract between Niyitegeka Emmanuel and Uwamahoro Alphonsine, and the contract between Beza Kevin and PROSECUTION v. BEZA ET AL.

## Page 398

156 Uwamahoro Alphonsine; it requests for the correction of that fact.

In the High Court, Niyitegeka Emmanuel and Beza Kevin pleaded admitting that the agreement was really concluded. Niyitegeka Emmanuel also admits that in his contract of the car sale signed with Uwamahoro Alphonsine, the latter affixed her names as the owner of the car and she signed, he states that he knew that the car did not belong to Uwamahoro Alphonsine, but that it belonged to Mukarugwiza ; however, basing on the power of attorney in possession of Uwamahoro Alphonsine, he accepted to conclude the sale contract with her. Beza Kevin also admits that he bought the car from Uwamahoro Alphonsine knowing well that it belonged to Mukarugwiza Janvière, but that he accepted to buy it because he realized that she had the power of attorney. He also admits that he knew that Uwamahoro Alphonsine signed on behalf of Mukarugwiza Janvière as a seller, but for the bank to grant him a loan to buy a car, the contract was necessary. Uwamahoro Alphonsine was tried in absentia after being summoned with unknown residence in accordance with the law.

On 13/07/2017, the High Court, in case no RPA 00764/2016 / HC / KIG, basing on the fact that: - there has been a forged signature on a document and forgery of contract in general; - there has been use of that contract for the purpose of securing the right on a loan from the bank, and this deprived Mukarugwiza Janvière from her rights on the property; It held that the contract itself constitutes a forged document. It found Niyitegeka Emmanuel, Beza Kevin and Uwamahoro Alphonsine guilty of complicity in forgery and use of forged documents and it found Uwamahoro RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 399

157 Alphonsine was convicted of selling a property of another person and it sentenced Niyitegeka Emmanuel and Beza Kevin to the imprisonment for a term of two (2) years for each one, while Uwamahoro Alphonsine was sentenced to the imprisonment for a term of six (6) years; it ordered that the cars Toyota Carina E with plate number RAB 174 S and Toyota Carina E with plate number RAB 187 K should be returned to their owner Mukarugwiza Janvière.

Beza Kevin and Niyitegeka Emmanuel were dissatisfied with that court ruling, and they wrote to the Office of the Ombudsman requesting that the case should be reviewed due to injustice.

After examining the issue, the Office of the Ombudsman wrote to the President of the Supreme Court requesting that the case RPA 00764/2016/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court on 13/07/2017 be reviewed due to injustice, and The President of the Supreme Court based on the report of the Inspectorate General of Courts decided that the case should be reviewed and it was registered under nº RS / INJUST / RP 00008/2018 / SC.

On 06/02/2020 the case was called, Niyitegeka Emmanuel and Beza Kevin appeared both represented by Counsel Gashagaza Philbert, Uwamahoro Alphonsine did not appear while she was summoned in accordance with the law, while the Prosecution was represented by Niyonzima Vincent, and the hearing was conducted.

As explained in their submissions and pleadings, Niyitegeka Emmanuel and Beza Kevin argue that the injustice for them is based on the following points : - The fact that in ruling, the Court only relied on the drafting of the contract disregarding the fact that Uwamahoro Alphonsine had the full power of attorney which had been issued PROSECUTION v. BEZA ET AL.

## Page 400

158 by the car owner granting to her full rights including the sale of the cars they bought - The fact that Mukarugwiza Janvière received the price of the cars which were managed by Uwamahoro Alphonsine, which means that she knew what had been done and consented to their purchase.

Counsel Gashagaza Philibert argues that his clients, Niyitegeka Emmanuel and Beza Kevin, had no intention of committing the offence of forgery and use of forged documents and that in case a person does not intentionally act illegally this is not considered as offence commission.

The Prosecution submits that the issue was not about the power of attorney, rather it was about the nature of the sale contract they signed as concluded by the owner knowing that it was not true, without threat, mentally fit; it is clear that they were aware of what they were doing and their intent and that the act itself of contracting with the wrong owner so that his names and signature appear on the contract while she was present in the place where it was concluded, is sufficient to constitute an offence.

The Court finds that the issue to be examined in this case is to determine whether there was an intent to commit forgery and use of forged documents in the formation of a contract between Beza Kevin, Niyitegeka Emmanuel and Uwamahoro Alphonsine.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 401

159

II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUE Whether there was an intent to commit forgery and use of forged documents in the formation of a contract between Beza Kevin, Niyitegeka Emmanuel and Uwamahoro Alphonsine.

Counsel Gashagaza Philbert states that, in convicting Beza Kevin and Niyitegeka Emmanuel with the offence of forging and using forged documents because they knew that the car they were going to buy belonged to Mukarugwiza Janvière even though it was written and signed by Uwamahoro Alphonsine as she is Mukarugwiza Janvière, and his clients signed them, the High Court did not properly analyse the situation. He argue that due to the fact that Uwamahoro Alphonsine behaved this way instead of writing that she represented Mukarugwiza Janvière, she should be held responsible instead of Beza Kevin and Niyitegeka Emmanuel because they bought after being shown the power of attorney given to Uwamahoro Alphonsine on 05/02/2008 and the contract of 10/01/2007 for running the business of Mukarugwiza Janvière.

Counsel Gashagaza Philbert states that Beza Kevin and Niyitegeka Emmanuel had no intention of committing the offence of forgery, this is reinforced by the fact that in paying the price of the cars based on that contract Beza Kevin deposited it on the account number 409-1017206-11 in the Banque Populaire du Rwanda in the names of Mukarugwiza Janvière; while Niyitegeka Emmanuel paid for it in cash and Mukarugwiza Janvière did not deny that she received the money.

Counsel Gashagaza Philbert submits that the fact that the buyers were well aware that the money reached to the owner had increased their confidence that what they were doing was not illegal, he adds that the contract did not have a negative effect on anyone because they bought the PROSECUTION v. BEZA ET AL.

## Page 402

160 cars and the price was paid to the owner, who is Mukarugwiza Janvière.

The Prosecution sustains that Beza Kevin and Niyitegeka Emmanuel had an intention of forging and use of forged documents because according to the nature of the sale contract they signed, the contract is drafted if it was made by the owner, therefore the Prosecution finds that the contract is a forged document signed by Beza Kevin and Niyitegeka Emmanuel knowing that it is false.

The Prosecution argues that the exculpatory elements of evidence do not address the issue of having signed on a false document well knowing that it is forged : - The fact that Beza Kevin deposited the money on the account of Mukarugwiza Janvière happened later, the offence of forgery wa already committed ; - The fact that Uwamahoro Alphonsine had a power of attorney and employment contract given by Mukarugwiza Janvière is not the issue under litigation because it does not itself explain why Beza Kevin and Niyitegeka Emmanuel knowingly signed on a forged document ; - The fact that Mukarugwiza used to come back in the country but did not file a claim and she lodged it after Uwamahoro Alphonsine departure, except that it is not true because she filed complaint since 2012, also that fact does not constitute a defence because it does not contradict the fact that they knowingly signed on a forged contract.

The Prosecution submits that the offence of forgery and use of forged documents is a formal offence, so it is not RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 403

161 necessary to take into account the prejudice incurred even if it exists, because the constitutive element of the offence is to knowingly and intentionally sign on a forged sale contract.

The Prosecution concludes that the offence of use of forged document was also committed because the contract served as basis for application for bank loan by Beza Kevin and the transfer was done, the cars were transferred from its owner Mukarugwiza Janvière and registered to their names.

The Court finds that the main isssue is that the defendants and their counsel Gashagaza Philbert, think that the fraudulent intent for forgery is complete so as to constitute an offence when the purpose in forging such document is an illegal document while the Prosecution understands that the fraudulent intent is complete when a person willingly and knowingly signs on a forged document.

The offence of forgery is not specifically defined by the law determining offences and penalties in Rwanda. Rather, it is inserted in the definitions of the crime of forgery and use of forged documents in general. The Decree-Law establishing the Rwanda Penal Code which was into force when the offence was committed in 2009, in its article 202, punishes a person who forges a contract or the structure of some of its articles, including or removing some of its responsibilities; whereas this is currently punishable by Law nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general, in its article 276 where it provides that ̋Any person who, with fraudulent intention, produces a false written document, causes to write false statements or produces a conflicting declaration, is considered to commit the offence of forgery”. This article replaces the article 614 of the Organic Law n ° 01/2012 / OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code which punished any person who:1° knowingly issues a document containing materially PROSECUTION v. BEZA ET AL.

## Page 404

162 incorrect facts; 2° falsifies or modifies, in any way, an original document; 3° knowingly uses an inaccurate or falsified document.

Regarding the intention to commit the offence of forging a document, this article 276 of the law determining offences and penalties in general provides that the person sentenced for forgery and use of a forged document is any person who acts with fraudulent intention61 whereas such was not clearly stated in the previous laws. Although this law was not into force at the time the defendants were being prosecuted as expounded, the Court finds that this provision should be construed as interpreting what have not been interpreted in the provision of article 202 of the aforementioned Law because it did not change the same offence.

There are legal scholars who assert that the intent to commit the offence of forgery is complete as long as the one who forges or plays a role in forging a false document does it knowing that its content is false without considering that it is intended to jeopardize or harm someone62. Proponents of this position argue that they rely on the fact that the forged document is an offence committed against the public rather than being an offence that harm a person and it is punished for the purpose of public interest even if it has been committed as regards the individual contract 63. This

61 See where it tates «Any person who, with fraudulent intention, produces a false written document, causes to write false statements or produces a conflicting declaration, is considered to commit the offence of forgery » 62 « …il est certain qu’une intention de nuire n’est plus requise pour justifier l’infraction que son absence serait de nature à justifier ». Bull.crim. 11 dec.1974, 366 cités par Michelle Laure Rassat, Droit Pénal Spécial, 7 ème éd. 2014, p. 1181, No1087. 63 « Même s’il est commis dans le document purement privé, le faux n’est pas une infraction commise entre particuliers dans le cadre de laquelle il serait logique d’exiger que le faussaire cause un préjudice à celui RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 405

163 position is also supported by the Prosecution to uphold that a forged document is a formal offence, this means that the fact that the document is false is reflected in its content regardless of any other consideration.

The Court finds, however, that this position is not commonly supported. For example, the French Court of Cassation has ruled that a person who forged a signature of another by mutual agreement does not commit a crime64. Proponents of this position rely on the fact that there is no fraudulent intent in case there is no benefit for the perpetrator65. Although there are opponents of this position66, this Court concurs with it because it also finds that it is necessary that forgery must be fraudulent as defined in Article 276 of the law determining offences and penalties in general into force. The Court also finds that the fraudulent intent in forgery is manifested in forging a document for the purpose of undue interest/right which he/she can only gain by forging such document. In other words, there is no fraudulent intent in case the content of the so-called forged document does not profit nor disadvantage

auquel le document pourrait être opposé, c’est une infraction contre la foi publique par laquelle on veut que la collectivité assure la sécurité juridique de ses membres ». voir Jean Pradel & Michel Danti-Juan, Droit Pénal Spécial, Droit Commun des affaires, CUJAS, 4ème éd. 2007/2008, P.750, No1223 64 Voir Crim.6nov.1989, Dr. Pénal 1990, No 85 cité par Michelle Laure Rassat, op.cit., p 1181, No1087 65 « L'intention frauduleuse se définit comme étant le dessein ou l'intention de se procurer ou de procurer à autrui un avantage illicite quelconque. … L'intention frauduleuse se restreint à la seule volonté d'introduire dans les relations juridiques un document que l'on sait inauthentique ou mensonger pour obtenir un avantage, même légitime en soi, que l'on n'aurait pas pu obtenir ou que l'on n'aurait obtenu que malaisément en respectant la vérité ou l'intégralité de l'écrit». Voir UNODC Sherloc, des crimes et délits contre la foi publique, https://sherloc.unodc.org/res/cld/document/lux/2014/criminal_code_of _luxembourg_html/cp_L2T03.pdf 66 Michelle Laure Rassat, op.cit. p.1181, No1087 PROSECUTION v. BEZA ET AL.

## Page 406

164 the perpatrator in comparison to the normal drafting of the document to secure its value.

In this case, Uwamahoro Alphonsine was given the full power of attorney by Mukarugwiza Janvière and it is not questionable. It is in this context that she sold her cars and the money had reached to the owner. Beza Kevin indicated that she deposited the money on the account of Mukarugwiza Janvière while Niyitegeka Emmanuel, even though he paid in cash, no one denies that the money reached to the owner. In the sale contracts of cars concluded with Uwamahoro Alphonsine, the latter appears as the owner of the car (for the case of Niyitegeka Emmanuel) and on the other hand she appears as Mukarugwiza Janvière (for the case of Beza Kevin). However, even if Uwamahoro Alphonsine could have drafted the contract as usual, stating this "I, Uwamahoro Alphonsine, representing Mukarugwiza Janvière ..." such would not change anything on the sale contract because in one way or another (drafting the contract as they did or drafting it as usual), the purpose (sale contract of the car and deliver its cost to Mukarugwiza Janvière) could be attained to some extent. The Court finds that there was no fraud in the formation of the contract, either in the case of Beza Kevin, or in the case of Niyitegeka Emmanuel, and therefore, they are not convicted of forgery and use of forged documents.

Concerning Uwamahoro Alphonsine, the Court finds that, pursuant to article 63 of Law n°30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, although the hearing was held in absentia, it must consider the charges against her and take a decision because she is also a party67. Regarding the contract alleged to be forgery and concluded

67 That article state that: « When the Supreme Court or any other court designated by the President of the Supreme Court receives an application for review of a judgement on grounds of being vitiated by injustice, it examines the merits of the case anew and in the presence of all parties.» RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 407

165 with Beza Kevin, as well as that of Niyitegeka Emmanuel, the Court finds that she had not committed any fraudulent intent during their formation, because, as explained to others, and to her, in consideration of the signing of that contract in the manner she did there was no interest nor additional right she would gain in comparison to the rights she would gain in case she had drafted it indicating that she represented Mukarugwiza Janvière. The purpose was clearly that after selling the cars, she had to send the money to the owner, and no one denied the payment and for Beza Kevin, it is clear that she spent the money according to the bank statements68.

In particular, regarding the contract between Uwamahoro and Niyitegeka Emmanuel, Uwamahoro Alphonsine is accused of appearing to be the owner of the car, and she signed on it as such. The Court finds that for the person who was given the full power of attorney, like the one given to Uwamahoro Alphonsine, nothing could preclude her from drafting it as she did because it is also allowed. Indeed, a person with power of attorney can appear before the contracting parties as perfect or imperfect representation69. The Court finds that, apart from the fact that she had no intention of forging a false document because there was no fraud behind it as described in the preceding paragraph, the contract concluded with Niyitegeka Emmanuel could not be taken as a forged

68 An example is the money that Mukarugwiza Janvière debited on that account on January 4, 2010 69 « Lorsque le représentant déclare agir pour le compte d’autrui mais contracte en son propre nom, il est personnellement engagé à l’égard du tiers contractant ». Où l’on en induit qu’un représentant, s’il agit toujours pour le compte d’autrui, le fait tantôt au nom d’autrui, tantôt en son nom propre. La doctrine évoque souvent cette distinction en opposant la représentation parfaite à la représentation imparfaite ». Voir Nicolas Dissaux, La représentation: notion, in Dalloz, blog dédié à la réforme du Droit des obligations, accessible à http://reforme- obligations.dalloz.fr/2015/04/29/la-representation-notion/ PROSECUTION v. BEZA ET AL.

## Page 408

166 document, because its drafting is not prohibited as explained above.

The Court also finds that she is not convicted of the offence of selling of a property of another person because, as expounded by the Prosecution, there is no problem on the power of attorney that Mukarugwiza Janvière had given to Uwamahoro Alphonsine. It means that she had the right to sell anything of Mukarugwiza Janvière as long as she did not go beyond her mandate. In this judgment also, usurpation of the mandate she was given cannot be understandable because she was given the full power of attorney. The abuse of the power of attorney also did not happen because, as explained, the cost of cars was given to the owner and she spent it. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the application for review due to injustice of the case no RPA 00764/2016/HC/ KIG filed by Beza Kévin and Niyitegeka Emmanuel is well-founded ;

Holds that the ruling of the judgment no RPA00764/2016/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court on 13/07/2017 is overruled in all its parts ;

Holds that Beza Kevin, Niyitegeka Emmanuel and Uwamahoro Alphonsine are not guilty of the offence of forgery and use of forged document ;

Holds that Uwamahoro Alphonsine is not convicted by the offence of selling of a property of another person. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 410

Printed by Image Designing Center Tel : (+250) 788 887 218 / 789 332 730 E-mail:imagedesigningcenter@gmail.com RLR